[cut: only the first 33554432 bytes of this file were read]
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<posthistory>
  <row Id="1" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="3e6e54e3-862a-4cc0-8e6b-886913d8459f" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:13:46.960" UserDisplayName="user11" Text="I was taught that one can use the '-que' suffix to string together multiple words, in a similar way to putting 'et' between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these two equivalent? Did one have a connotation in classic (Caesar-era) Latin that the other didn't?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="3e6e54e3-862a-4cc0-8e6b-886913d8459f" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:13:46.960" UserDisplayName="user11" Text="Are &quot;-que&quot; and &quot;et&quot; equivalent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="3e6e54e3-862a-4cc0-8e6b-886913d8459f" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:13:46.960" UserDisplayName="user11" Text="|wording|meaning|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="4ad3e911-5301-4ef0-a775-dc9f20e301c2" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:16:00.220" UserId="12" Text="I learned early on that Latin has no articles.  So why is it, then, that *Winnie the Pooh* and *The Hobbit* are translated *Winnie ille Pu* and *Hobbitus Ille*?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wouldn't it be more correct to not translate the article?  What is the justification for including *ille* in these book titles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="4ad3e911-5301-4ef0-a775-dc9f20e301c2" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:16:00.220" UserId="12" Text="Why is &quot;ille&quot; used in Winnie ille Pu and Hobbitus Ille?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="4ad3e911-5301-4ef0-a775-dc9f20e301c2" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:16:00.220" UserId="12" Text="|articles|translation|pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3" RevisionGUID="ee9bbebb-7952-479d-ab9d-0219166d3720" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:16:00.220" UserId="12" Text="It's true that in Classical Latin, *ille* is a demonstrative pronoun (corresponding to *that*), not an article; indeed, articles as we know them in English do not exist in Classical Latin.  However, that's not the entire story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#*Ille* in Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of *ille* in Classical Latin is not so narrow as to exclude its use in these book titles.  Allen and Greenough describe the &quot;honorific&quot; *ille* as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is sometimes used [...] (usually following its noun) of what is *famous* or *well-known*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, Gildersleeves includes the following usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That which is well known, notorious (often put after the substantive): **tēstula illa**, *that* (notorious) *potsherd* [...] **illud Solōnis**, *that* (famous saying) *of Solon's*.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we can see that even in classical Latin, using *ille* in these book titles can indicate the notoriety of the Pooh and the Hobbit in question.  This is similar to the sense in English of saying &quot;Not just any hobbit, but *that* hobbit&quot; to identify a well-known one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#*Ille* in Late Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following the Classical period, *ille* quickly began to be used more distinctly as a definite article, more like *the* in English.  One of the earliest examples of this appears in the [*Peregrinatio*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egeria_(pilgrim)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But already in the fourth century, the author of the *Pilgrimage to Holy Places* had begun to employ *ille* as a definite article: *toti illi montes*, she wrote, meaning &quot;all the mountains,&quot; not, as would have been the case with a writer of Classical Latin, &quot;all those mountains.&quot;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the 6th century, this usage was apparently common: [Gregory of Tours](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of_Tours) used *ille* as a definite article &quot;almost as freely&quot; as the articles in modern Romance languages are used.&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;  An 8th-century example of this is [Hygeburg's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygeburg) *Vita sancti Willibaldi*.&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#*Pooh* and *Hobbit*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of *ille* in these book titles can be defended in Classical Latin as emphasizing how well-known the protagonists are.  And if that justification is for whatever reason unsatisfactory,&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; we can appeal to the usage of *ille* as a definite article in Late Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;**References and notes:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *New Latin Grammar*, [page 178, §297](https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA178)&#xD;&#xA;2. *Latin Grammar*, [page 193, §307](https://books.google.com/books?id=UU0BIAbE0SIC&amp;pg=PA193)&#xD;&#xA;3. Joseph Solodow, *Latin Alive*, [page 239](https://books.google.com/books?id=2OfV9NZxH68C&amp;pg=PA239).  See also the following citation for more on this work.&#xD;&#xA;4. Edward Bechtel, &quot;Sanctae Silviae Peregrinatio&quot; in *Studies in Classical Philology*, Volume 4, [page 144](https://books.google.com/books?id=5-rfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA144)&#xD;&#xA;5. James Clackson, [*A Companion to the Latin Language*](https://books.google.com/books?id=skiGGCK_JAIC&amp;pg=RA2-PT286)&#xD;&#xA;6. I've seen it argued that the *ille* in *Hobbitus Ille* unduly emphasizes the importance of Bilbo, given Tolkien's pains to portray him as a typical hobbit.  I'm not convinced (surely Bilbo turns out to be a very *atypical* hobbit), but even admitting this argument, the author of *Hobbitus Ille*, [to put it generously](http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/03/24/70159-reviewed-hobbitus-ille/), does not appear to have attempted to translate into high Classical Latin.  Instead he adopts a more accessible style that borrows some aspects of Late Latin, and on that basis *ille* in the title could be defended." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4" RevisionGUID="770243d2-29b4-43ad-8ee7-c0e5a057d542" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:18:34.973" UserId="12" Text="I'd like the translate the following sentence into Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pompeii, Rome, and Herculaneum are visited by the boys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since these three cities have different genders, I'm struggling to choose the right ending to put in the blank:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pompeii et Herculaneum et Roma visitat___ sunt a pueris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know I could recast the sentence to avoid the problem, but is there a convention in Classical Latin for handling this situation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4" RevisionGUID="770243d2-29b4-43ad-8ee7-c0e5a057d542" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:18:34.973" UserId="12" Text="What gender should a predicate adjective be to agree with a series of things with different genders?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4" RevisionGUID="770243d2-29b4-43ad-8ee7-c0e5a057d542" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:18:34.973" UserId="12" Text="|agreement|predicate|gender|adjective|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="dca07471-4f0f-4b2c-8846-177a0e03b654" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:23:08.357" UserId="7" Text="Latin makes use of macrons (small lines above letters) to indicate a different pronunciation for that letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Exactly what should the macron indicate about the pronunciation of the letter?&#xD;&#xA;- Does the macron affect the sound of the containing word in any place other than the letter concerned?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm particularly interested in the latter - while I have a general idea of the impact a macron has on a letter, I'm unsure whether it has any wider impacts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="dca07471-4f0f-4b2c-8846-177a0e03b654" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:23:08.357" UserId="7" Text="What effect should a macron have on the sound of a letter and its word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="dca07471-4f0f-4b2c-8846-177a0e03b654" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:23:08.357" UserId="7" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4" RevisionGUID="4d457f2c-3823-460f-b812-8b1537cceb13" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:24:47.080" UserId="12" Comment="tag for era" Text="|agreement|predicate|gender|adjective|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6" RevisionGUID="72954b90-68df-44c7-8e29-17b63f0c82ca" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:28:44.047" UserId="20" Text="The way I was taught was that, as a general rule, -que is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. When this list of things contains two items&#xD;&#xA;2. When the two are logically linked as being two of something (parent and child, master and apprentice, and so on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, consider the example of an opening line from [Catullus][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lugete, o Veneres Cupidinesque&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Venus and Cupid have a parent-child relationship, and so the _-que_ makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare this to the opening paragraph of [De Bellico Gallico][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gallos ab Aquitanis Garumna flumen, a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Marne and the Seine are just two out of many rivers, so `et` is more appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gillianspraggs.com/translations/catullus1.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Caes.%20Gal.%201.1&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0002" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7" RevisionGUID="10d487fd-5a5a-434f-a659-7b1f96d4e113" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:29:17.470" UserId="26" Text="Does 'ad' in 'ad infinitum' originate from the Hebrew 'ad' (to/towards) or a similar semitic origin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sources usually say that this particle is derived from PIE `*ád` ‎(&quot;near, at&quot;). However, they don't refer any Semitic origins." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7" RevisionGUID="10d487fd-5a5a-434f-a659-7b1f96d4e113" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:29:17.470" UserId="26" Text="Does &quot;ad&quot; have its origin in Hebrew/Semitic languages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7" RevisionGUID="10d487fd-5a5a-434f-a659-7b1f96d4e113" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:29:17.470" UserId="26" Text="|particle|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="79240e40-57f9-4917-8954-c25b0e8ab073" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:29:20.860" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|articles|translation|pronouns|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8" RevisionGUID="0c75f5d9-8b42-4725-969c-3793ac46961c" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:32:46.380" UserId="30" Text="If the adjective is plural and it refers to words of several genders, I seem to recall the masculine is used by default. But I believe a Roman author would indeed recast a sentence like this, especially because it also refers to a neuter word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the adjective is singular, it should agree with the last noun mentioned. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9" RevisionGUID="0f79f9d2-ce14-442c-b0cd-ac3ae29a67a9" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:37:35.237" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="97a5b6b7-2c40-4b18-a9f3-c93539a27cf8" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:37:35.237" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11" RevisionGUID="4e3bcfe5-abb5-4551-acbd-64d524ff8ad0" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:37:39.307" UserId="30" Text="What kind of other effects did you have in mind?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, a macron merely indicates an increase in the length of the vowel, and nothing else. So the vowel should change in quantity only, not quality. Consonants around it should not be affected, nor any other syllables." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12" RevisionGUID="35ae5ed7-efb3-44f6-a810-9d630683e06a" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:40:14.873" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[spine (n.)](http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=spine) c. 1400, &quot;backbone,&quot; later &quot;thornlike part&quot; (early 15c.),      &#xD;&#xA;from Old French espine &quot;thorn, prickle; backbone, spine&quot; (12c., Modern French épine),      &#xD;&#xA;from Latin *spina* **[2.]** &quot;backbone,&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;**[1.]** originally &quot;thorn, prickle&quot; (figuratively, in plural, &quot;difficulties, perplexities&quot;),      &#xD;&#xA;from PIE _*spe-ina-_, from root _*spei-_  &quot;sharp point&quot; (see [spike](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=spike&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.1)).     &#xD;&#xA;Meaning &quot;the back of a book&quot; is first attested 1922.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did 'spina' shift semantically from 1 to 2? &#xD;&#xA;I do not comprehend the underlying semantic notion; the human spine does not resemble or feel like a 'thorn, prickle'. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12" RevisionGUID="35ae5ed7-efb3-44f6-a810-9d630683e06a" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:40:14.873" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How did 'spina' shift semantically from 'thorn, prickle' to 'backbone'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12" RevisionGUID="35ae5ed7-efb3-44f6-a810-9d630683e06a" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:40:14.873" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14" RevisionGUID="af49f449-2f5a-4f26-8dfe-3db6fefae5d2" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:42:00.767" UserId="31" Text="For whatever daft reason, the current trend in modern Latin orthography is to write consonantal 'i' (IPA /j/) as 'i' rather than as 'j'.  How can we then tell whether a given 'i' is a vowel or a /j/, especially considering that many dictionaries don't indicate this either?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recognize that any set of rules for this will have exceptions (e.g., &quot;*māius*&quot; (greater) and &quot;*Māius*&quot; (of May) pronounce their I's differently), but there should still be some general usable way to determine this using little more than the spelling of the word in front of you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14" RevisionGUID="af49f449-2f5a-4f26-8dfe-3db6fefae5d2" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:42:00.767" UserId="31" Text="When is an I not an I?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14" RevisionGUID="af49f449-2f5a-4f26-8dfe-3db6fefae5d2" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:42:00.767" UserId="31" Text="|pronunciation|orthography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15" RevisionGUID="eb4ecaea-3e5b-4885-8ef8-697f8c263f56" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:44:56.030" UserId="46" Text="This movement from Mozart's Requiem is known as either &quot;Lacrimosa&quot; or &quot;Lacrymosa&quot; (see for instance the [Wikipedia article][1], which uses both spellings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is there two different spellings and which one is considered correct (if any)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requiem_%28Mozart%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15" RevisionGUID="eb4ecaea-3e5b-4885-8ef8-697f8c263f56" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:44:56.030" UserId="46" Text="Difference between &quot;Lacrimosa&quot; and &quot;Lacrymosa&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15" RevisionGUID="eb4ecaea-3e5b-4885-8ef8-697f8c263f56" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:44:56.030" UserId="46" Text="|vocabulary|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="594def23-bff7-4b7e-8853-8ef8244a0727" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:45:14.873" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[pontifex (n.)](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=pontifex&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)   &#xD;&#xA;    member of the supreme college of priests in ancient Rome, 1570s, from Latin pontifex &quot;high priest, chief of the priests,&quot; probably from pont-, stem of pons &quot;bridge&quot; (see [pons](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=pons&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + -fex, -ficis, root of facere &quot;make&quot; (see [factitious](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=factitious&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)). If so, the word originally meant &quot;bridge-maker,&quot; or &quot;path-maker.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Weekley points out that, **[1.]** &quot;bridge-building has always been regarded as a pious work of divine inspiration.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;**[2.]** Or the term may be metaphoric of bridging the earthly world and the realm of the gods. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please correct me if I erred, but [1.] and [2.] appear two separate hypotheses for the etymology. If so, then understanding 2, I ask only about 1:    &#xD;&#xA;why was bridge-building `regarded as a pious work of divine inspiration`? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="594def23-bff7-4b7e-8853-8ef8244a0727" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:45:14.873" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How does 'pontifex' connect to the significance of bridge building as pious work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="594def23-bff7-4b7e-8853-8ef8244a0727" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:45:14.873" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17" RevisionGUID="28721ed0-6f84-4a82-be9f-d7612681d210" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:49:27.343" UserId="9" Text="In general, the whole purpose of using macrons is to clearly indicate pronunciation, so it's pretty straightforward. (Macrons were not used classically, although there were some older devices used for indicating vowel length such as the [apex][1] and tall I.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macrons primarily indicate that the modified vowel is long. Literally, that is: it's held for a more extended period of time than a regular, short vowel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that at one point, this may have  been the only difference between long and short vowels. In the International Phonetic Alphabet, we transcribe vowel length with a triangular colon ː after the vowel; so we could say that the early Classical Latin pronunciation of the vowels we spell a ā e ē i ī o ō u ū would be /a aː e eː i iː o oː u uː/. We don't know for sure the precise phonetic quality of these vowels. Andrea Calabrese has proposed that they were [ɑ ɑː ɛ ɛː i iː ɔ ɔː u uː] ([*On the Evolution of the Short High Vowels of Latin into Romance*][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is known is that at some point between Classical and Vulgar Latin, these vowels also gained quality distinctions. (Calabrese mentions Allen and Sturtevant as linguists who reconstruct these quality distinctions back to the Classical Latin stage.) The non-low vowels (all but ɑ ɑː) clearly show distinct qualities for short vs. long in some of the Romance languages descended from Vulgar Latin, which causes us to  reconstruct something like [ɑ ɑː ɛ eː ɪ iː ɔ oː ʊ uː]. I believe I've read some accounts that also reconstruct a difference in quality for short a and long a along the lines of [ɐ aː], but I don't know what evidence this is based on.  Vulgar Latin also had long [ɛː ɔː] as the realizations of *ae* and *au* respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The macron doesn't affect the pronunciation of any other sound directly. Knowing that a vowel is long may help you apply the regular Latin stress rule, whereby a word is stressed on the second-to-last syllable if it is heavy (contains a long vowel or diphthong or ends in a consonant) and on the third-to-last if the the second-to-last is light (contains a short vowel and doesn't end with a consonant).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_(diacritic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=o9wpGIF0JWcC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA63&amp;dq=%22Latin%22%20vowel%20quality%20e%20o%20advanced%20tongue%20root&amp;ots=ND1tWjhtE5&amp;sig=SwcVUHalU_QmM6ZMBER2nw7Fzxg#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="014c61b3-f876-4477-be44-4ec8fa6453f0" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:49:32.867" UserId="49" Text="The first mnemonic for Latin case ending I learnt was that for neutral words, the accusative form is always identical to the nominative form. This applies even to exotic word endings like *animal* or *id,* and so far I am not aware of any counterexample to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This always striked me to be an odd rule. Thus, I am curious:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Do we have any idea why this is the case?&#xD;&#xA;* And relatedly: How strong is this rule? Are there any known exceptions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="014c61b3-f876-4477-be44-4ec8fa6453f0" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:49:32.867" UserId="49" Text="Accusative equals nominative for neutral words – how universal is this and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="014c61b3-f876-4477-be44-4ec8fa6453f0" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:49:32.867" UserId="49" Text="|cases|accusative|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="b575413f-99d5-43e5-95ac-7067f3ca2a82" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:53:44.650" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[[vault (v.1) :](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=vault&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)]    [...] from Vulgar Latin _*volvitare_ &quot;to turn, leap,&quot;    &#xD;&#xA;  frequentative of Latin _volvere_ &quot;to turn, turn around, roll&quot; (see [volvox](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=volvox&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)). [...] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask not about the meanings 'turn' or 'turn around' which both verbs share, but only about the meaning of 'leap' that appears new to Vulgar Latin and (superficially) unconnected to the notion of to 'turn, roll'.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="b575413f-99d5-43e5-95ac-7067f3ca2a82" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:53:44.650" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What underlying notion connects 'roll (in 'volvere') to 'leap' (in '*volvitare')?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="b575413f-99d5-43e5-95ac-7067f3ca2a82" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:53:44.650" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|vulgar-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20" RevisionGUID="57d6c73b-a134-45a7-90c1-698150ab94f7" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:54:34.783" UserId="45" Text="Bennett's New Latin Grammar ([this link](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect234) will take you to appropriate section) offers several helpful rules of thumb for the agreement of an adjective with multiple nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I recommend reading the above entry, which is fairly short, the basic principles are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Attributive adjectives** agree with the nearest noun, e.g. &quot;Filius *meus* et soror&quot; vs. &quot;Filius et soror *mea*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Predicative adjectives** are made **plural** and:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **agree with the nouns** if they are the same gender, e.g. &quot;Filia et mater mea sunt pulchrae&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 2. are **masculine** if the nouns are persons, e.g. &quot;Soror et frater inepti sunt.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 3. are **neuter** if the nouns are things, e.g. &quot;urbes et moenia foeda sunt&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the nouns are mixed, things get more arbitrary and there do not seem to be hard and fast rules, beyond what a Latin ear tells you is right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case you mention, the above rules would indicate the **neuter plural** (visitata). Here too, though, I do not think there is a wrong or right answer, and my own inexperienced ear would feel more comfortable with the feminine plural because of the juxtaposition with Roma." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="85ef08dc-d55a-4b43-be47-597f54131fc4" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:55:03.253" UserId="12" Comment="add noun tag and change to &quot;neuter&quot; instead of neutral" Text="The first mnemonic for Latin case ending I learnt was that for neuter words, the accusative form is always identical to the nominative form. This applies even to exotic word endings like *animal* or *id,* and so far I am not aware of any counterexample to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This always struck me to be an odd rule. Thus, I am curious:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Do we have any idea why this is the case?&#xD;&#xA;* And related: How strong is this rule? Are there any known exceptions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="85ef08dc-d55a-4b43-be47-597f54131fc4" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:55:03.253" UserId="12" Comment="add noun tag and change to &quot;neuter&quot; instead of neutral" Text="Accusative equals nominative for neuter words – how universal is this and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="85ef08dc-d55a-4b43-be47-597f54131fc4" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:55:03.253" UserId="12" Comment="add noun tag and change to &quot;neuter&quot; instead of neutral" Text="|cases|accusative|history|nouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="85ef08dc-d55a-4b43-be47-597f54131fc4" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:55:03.253" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 49 edit id of 3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17" RevisionGUID="28810d5b-1ad7-4f80-84df-29be9f986deb" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:55:04.950" UserId="9" Comment="added 686 characters in body" Text="In general, the whole purpose of using macrons is to clearly indicate pronunciation, so it's pretty straightforward. (Macrons were not used classically, although there were some older devices used for indicating vowel length such as the [apex][1] and tall I.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macrons primarily indicate that the modified vowel is long. Literally, that is: it's held for a more extended period of time than a regular, short vowel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that at one point, this may have  been the only difference between long and short vowels. In the International Phonetic Alphabet, we transcribe vowel length with a triangular colon ː after the vowel; so we could say that the early Classical Latin pronunciation of the vowels we spell a ā e ē i ī o ō u ū would be /a aː e eː i iː o oː u uː/. We don't know for sure the precise phonetic quality of these vowels. Andrea Calabrese has proposed that they were [ɑ ɑː ɛ ɛː i iː ɔ ɔː u uː] ([*On the Evolution of the Short High Vowels of Latin into Romance*][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is known is that at some point between Classical and Vulgar Latin, these vowels also gained quality distinctions. (Calabrese mentions Allen and Sturtevant as linguists who reconstruct these quality distinctions back to the Classical Latin stage.) The non-low vowels (all but ɑ ɑː) clearly show distinct qualities for short vs. long in some of the Romance languages descended from Vulgar Latin, which causes us to  reconstruct something like [ɑ ɑː ɛ eː ɪ iː ɔ oː ʊ uː]. I believe I've read some accounts that also reconstruct a difference in quality for short a and long a along the lines of [ɐ aː], but I don't know what evidence this is based on.  Vulgar Latin also had long [ɛː ɔː] as the realizations of *ae* and *au* respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The macron doesn't affect the pronunciation of any other sound directly. Knowing that a vowel is long may help you apply the regular Latin stress rule, whereby a word is stressed on the second-to-last syllable if it is heavy (contains a long vowel or diphthong or ends in a consonant) and on the third-to-last if the the second-to-last is light (contains a short vowel and doesn't end with a consonant).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that sometimes when dealing with poetry or old dictionaries, you might see macrons used just to mark heavy syllables, which might have had a short vowel but were heavy because they ended with a consonant. This is called &quot;[hidden quantity][3],&quot; so be careful in situations like this and try to check several sources that distinguish between short and long in closed syllables to see if they agree on the length of the vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_(diacritic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=o9wpGIF0JWcC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA63&amp;dq=%22Latin%22%20vowel%20quality%20e%20o%20advanced%20tongue%20root&amp;ots=ND1tWjhtE5&amp;sig=SwcVUHalU_QmM6ZMBER2nw7Fzxg#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zJEQAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA34&amp;lpg=PA34&amp;dq=hidden%20quantity&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GOCpxL3sp7&amp;sig=GOCXZHN762CFUSUgqlIJYRkw7hY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi-nrOlx47LAhVCkYMKHekGDTIQ6AEIMDAD#v=onepage&amp;q=hidden%20quantity&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="54" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21" RevisionGUID="b828ed63-20a1-4dc2-ae13-e79041c9f44a" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:57:16.867" UserId="40" Text="No, the similarity is almost certainly accidental. This kind of coincidental similarity is pretty common, especially in short words like *ad*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin *ad* &quot;to, near, at&quot; has cognates in several other branches of IE, including Celtic (Old Irish *ad-*), Phrygian (αδ-), and Germanic -- English *at* is among the latter. It appears to go back to a Proto-Indo-European form such as *h₂ed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hebrew *ʕad* &quot;toward&quot; appears to have originally had a temporal meaning, &quot;until&quot;; it's homonymous with a noun meaning &quot;perpetuity&quot;. It's very unlikely that this word would have been borrowed as a preposition into Proto-Indo-European, both because languages rarely borrow prepositions and because there is not much evidence for contact between these two language families in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="55" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22" RevisionGUID="ea4d8616-d19b-40e0-b887-cafd6c1484d9" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:57:50.057" UserId="47" Text="Concerning ecclesiastical pronunciation, Collins' Primer (pg. 4) says that vowel quantity determines the placement of the accent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Accent in Latin is determined by the quantity of the next to last&#xD;&#xA;&gt; syllable( called the penult); if the penult is long, it bears the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accent [...].  If the penult is short, the then the third syllable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from the end (called the antepenult) gets the accent [...]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="56" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="e28b5a65-e90f-4bfe-9857-304711ace72a" CreationDate="2016-02-23T18:59:51.650" UserId="40" Text="To answer your second question, this rule is completely exceptionless, not only in Latin but in all Indo-European languages (that is, those that have a neuter gender at all)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="58" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="24" RevisionGUID="4f4ca8fe-1934-461c-a86a-3913b41c3a49" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:00:28.813" UserId="17" Text="It’s not really right to say that “Latin” makes use of macrons – most Latin texts are written without macrons. Rather, some specific types of text (dictionaries, grammars, textbooks for beginners, etc.) use the macron to indicate that a vowel is long; i.e. the sound is held for a longer time than in a short vowel. Similar texts for other languages often use similar auxiliary symbols; they may, e.g., indicate the stressed syllable by underlining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most languages that have a vowel length distinction, corresponding short and long vowels are not exactly identical; e.g., in most forms of English, the long [iː] (as in _beat_) is more open than the short [ɪ] (as in _bit_). It is likely that a similar difference existed in ancient Latin, and it most certainly exists in Latin as pronounced today by native speakers of such other languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="59" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="25" RevisionGUID="6cea97db-0e1b-4ef6-bee6-2c7fea6e3b37" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:03:07.327" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[[exact (adj.)](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=exact&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)]   *exigere* &quot;demand, require, enforce,&quot; literally &quot;to drive or force out,&quot; also &quot;finish, measure,&quot; from *ex-* &quot;out&quot; (see [ex-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ex-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + *agere* &quot;drive, lead, act&quot; (see [act](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=act&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[[Wiktionary:](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exigo#Verb)]     &#xD;&#xA;&gt;1.	I drive out; expel.   &#xD;&#xA;2.	I demand, require; enforce, exact (pay).   &#xD;&#xA;3.	I execute, complete a task.   &#xD;&#xA;4.	I measure against a standard; weigh.   &#xD;&#xA;5.	I determine, find out, ascertain.  &#xD;&#xA;6.	I examine, consider, test.   &#xD;&#xA;7.	I endure, undergo.  &#xD;&#xA;8.	(*of time*) I spend, pass.  &#xD;&#xA;9.	I bring to an end, conclude, finish, complete.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, meanings 4, 6, 7, and 8 appear more abstracted from the etymology, and appear to have shifted semantically. So what underlying semantic notions captures and explain all the meanings above, as well as representing the Semantic Field for this verb? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="60" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="25" RevisionGUID="6cea97db-0e1b-4ef6-bee6-2c7fea6e3b37" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:03:07.327" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What is the semantic field of 'exigō' ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="61" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="25" RevisionGUID="6cea97db-0e1b-4ef6-bee6-2c7fea6e3b37" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:03:07.327" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="62" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="26" RevisionGUID="835d3b84-4bb2-4c92-8235-8a4c4933d823" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:03:34.780" UserId="25" Text="In Ecclesiastical Latin use of the &quot;-que&quot; would be used in order to avoid to much repletion of the use of &quot;et&quot; and for drawing similarities to the original first noun in a statement, as is sometimes found various Litaniae Sanctorum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sancti Petri et Pauli, atque Andrea, ora pro nobis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this phrase we can see a similarity between Peter and Paul (Apostles of Rome) and yet at the same time another similarity between Peter and Andrew (brothers)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="63" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17" RevisionGUID="798038a4-ceb2-4a32-aa4d-a6fe09662c6d" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:05:13.900" UserId="9" Comment="added 686 characters in body" Text="In general, the whole purpose of using macrons is to clearly indicate pronunciation, so it's pretty straightforward. (Macrons were not used classically, although there were some older devices used for indicating vowel length such as the [apex][1] and &quot;i longa&quot; a taller I.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macrons primarily indicate that the modified vowel is long. Literally, that is: it's held for a more extended period of time than a regular, short vowel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that at one point, this may have  been the only difference between long and short vowels. In the International Phonetic Alphabet, we transcribe vowel length with a triangular colon ː after the vowel; so we could say that the early Classical Latin pronunciation of the vowels we spell a ā e ē i ī o ō u ū would be /a aː e eː i iː o oː u uː/. We don't know for sure the precise phonetic quality of these vowels. Andrea Calabrese has proposed that they were [ɑ ɑː ɛ ɛː i iː ɔ ɔː u uː] ([*On the Evolution of the Short High Vowels of Latin into Romance*][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is known is that at some point between Classical and Vulgar Latin, these vowels also gained quality distinctions. (Calabrese mentions Allen and Sturtevant as linguists who reconstruct these quality distinctions back to the Classical Latin stage.) The non-low vowels (all but ɑ ɑː) clearly show distinct qualities for short vs. long in some of the Romance languages descended from Vulgar Latin, which causes us to  reconstruct something like [ɑ ɑː ɛ eː ɪ iː ɔ oː ʊ uː]. I believe I've read some accounts that also reconstruct a difference in quality for short a and long a along the lines of [ɐ aː], but I don't know what evidence this is based on.  Vulgar Latin is also believed to have had long [ɛː ɔː] as the realizations of *ae* and *au* respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The macron doesn't affect the pronunciation of any other sound directly. Knowing that a vowel is long may help you apply the regular Latin stress rule, whereby a word is stressed on the second-to-last syllable if it is heavy (contains a long vowel or diphthong or ends in a consonant) and on the third-to-last if the the second-to-last is light (contains a short vowel and doesn't end with a consonant).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that sometimes when dealing with poetry or old dictionaries, you might see macrons used (or misused) just to mark heavy syllables, which might have had a short vowel but were heavy because they ended with a consonant. This is called &quot;[hidden quantity][3],&quot; so be careful in situations like this and try to check several sources that distinguish between short and long in closed syllables to see if they agree on the length of the vowel. We cannot reconstruct vowel length here based on metrical evidence, but we sometimes can based on inscriptions that use the apex or based on the descended words in Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another related point of pronunciation: macrons are generally always used on vowels that occur in the combination Vnf and Vns (where &quot;V&quot; stands for any vowel). Although this means there is no contrast here between short and long, it does appear that these vowels were phonetically long (*[The Latin Language: A Historical Outline of Its Sounds, Inflections, and Syntax][4],* by Charles Edwin Bennett). In languages descended from Latin, the consonantal /n/ sound was actually regularly dropped from these clusters. I don't remember if there is any consensus on if it was phonetically present in Latin. In any case, it is believed that these vowels were nasalized, so sequences like *īnf* would still have contrasted with sequences like *īf* in Classical Latin even if the consonant /n/ was already elided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_(diacritic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=o9wpGIF0JWcC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA63&amp;dq=%22Latin%22%20vowel%20quality%20e%20o%20advanced%20tongue%20root&amp;ots=ND1tWjhtE5&amp;sig=SwcVUHalU_QmM6ZMBER2nw7Fzxg#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zJEQAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA34&amp;lpg=PA34&amp;dq=hidden%20quantity&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GOCpxL3sp7&amp;sig=GOCXZHN762CFUSUgqlIJYRkw7hY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi-nrOlx47LAhVCkYMKHekGDTIQ6AEIMDAD#v=onepage&amp;q=hidden%20quantity&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=N1RfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA40&amp;lpg=PA40&amp;dq=Latin%20quantity%20before%20ns&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zJYCJcYXCm&amp;sig=_2DOx92MQseKIE_fkhkVLjmDltY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjTudCVyI7LAhWrtIMKHc4pDzYQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20quantity%20before%20ns&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="65" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17" RevisionGUID="8ad42d9c-0ab3-4da8-a09a-6cd3fa9e624c" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:10:43.847" UserId="9" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="In general, the whole purpose of using macrons is to clearly indicate pronunciation, so it's pretty straightforward. (Macrons were not used classically, although there were some older devices used for indicating vowel length such as the [apex][1] and &quot;i longa&quot; a taller I.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macrons primarily indicate that the modified vowel is long. Literally, that is: it's held for a more extended period of time than a regular, short vowel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that at one point, this may have  been the only difference between long and short vowels. In the International Phonetic Alphabet, we transcribe vowel length with a triangular colon ː after the vowel; so we could say that the early Classical Latin pronunciation of the vowels we spell a ā e ē i ī o ō u ū would be /a aː e eː i iː o oː u uː/. We don't know for sure the precise phonetic quality of these vowels. Andrea Calabrese has proposed that they were [ɑ ɑː ɛ ɛː i iː ɔ ɔː u uː] ([*On the Evolution of the Short High Vowels of Latin into Romance*][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is known is that at some point between Classical and Vulgar Latin, these vowels also gained quality distinctions. (Calabrese mentions Allen and Sturtevant as linguists who reconstruct these quality distinctions back to the Classical Latin stage.) The non-low vowels (all but ɑ ɑː) clearly show distinct qualities for short vs. long in some of the Romance languages descended from Vulgar Latin, which causes us to  reconstruct something like [ɑ ɑː ɛ eː ɪ iː ɔ oː ʊ uː]. I believe I've read some accounts that also reconstruct a difference in quality for short a and long a along the lines of [ɐ aː], but I don't know what evidence this is based on.  Vulgar Latin is also believed to have had long [ɛː ɔː] as the realizations of *ae* and *au* respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The macron doesn't affect the pronunciation of any other sound directly. Knowing that a vowel is long may help you apply the regular Latin stress rule, whereby a word is stressed on the second-to-last syllable if it is heavy (contains a long vowel or diphthong or ends in a consonant) and on the third-to-last if the the second-to-last is light (contains a short vowel and doesn't end with a consonant).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that sometimes when dealing with poetry or old dictionaries, you might see macrons used (or misused) just to mark heavy syllables, which might have had a short vowel but were heavy because they ended with a consonant. This is called &quot;[hidden quantity][3],&quot; so be careful in situations like this and try to check several sources that distinguish between short and long in closed syllables to see if they agree on the length of the vowel. We cannot reconstruct vowel length here based on metrical evidence, but we sometimes can based on inscriptions that use the apex, vowel quality in descended Romance words, or descriptions of ancient grammarians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another related point of pronunciation: macrons are generally always used on vowels that occur in the combination Vnf and Vns (where &quot;V&quot; stands for any vowel). Although this means there is no contrast here between short and long, it does appear that these vowels were phonetically long (*[The Latin Language: A Historical Outline of Its Sounds, Inflections, and Syntax][4],* by Charles Edwin Bennett). In languages descended from Latin, the consonantal /n/ sound was actually regularly dropped from these clusters. I don't remember if there is any consensus on if it was phonetically present in Latin. In any case, it is believed that these vowels were nasalized, so sequences like *īnf* would still have contrasted with sequences like *īf* in Classical Latin even if the consonant /n/ was already elided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_(diacritic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=o9wpGIF0JWcC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA63&amp;dq=%22Latin%22%20vowel%20quality%20e%20o%20advanced%20tongue%20root&amp;ots=ND1tWjhtE5&amp;sig=SwcVUHalU_QmM6ZMBER2nw7Fzxg#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zJEQAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA34&amp;lpg=PA34&amp;dq=hidden%20quantity&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GOCpxL3sp7&amp;sig=GOCXZHN762CFUSUgqlIJYRkw7hY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi-nrOlx47LAhVCkYMKHekGDTIQ6AEIMDAD#v=onepage&amp;q=hidden%20quantity&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=N1RfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA40&amp;lpg=PA40&amp;dq=Latin%20quantity%20before%20ns&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zJYCJcYXCm&amp;sig=_2DOx92MQseKIE_fkhkVLjmDltY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjTudCVyI7LAhWrtIMKHc4pDzYQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20quantity%20before%20ns&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="66" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="f73f492e-0ab8-4a4c-a101-9816ec515ae0" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:10:54.393" UserId="30" Text="I believe there are no exceptions to this rule. That's what I have always read, and I have never encountered any, neither in Greek nor in Latin, nor even in German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an hypothesis about the cause of this phenomenon. Neuter words were historically limited to inanimate objects or things that cannot act. In a basic sentence, it was rarely or never the neuter thing that acted, and therefore you didn't need case to distinguish between agent and patient/theme (between &quot;acting&quot; and &quot;being acted upon&quot;). So, if you just have a transitive verb and a neuter word, there is only one possibility: the neuter thing is acted upon. With an intransitive verb, there is no object, so it is even less necessary. So semantics make case redundant for neuter words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This hypothesis is inspired by our knowledge of [Ergative–absolutive languages][1], in which the subject of an intransitive verb and the object of a transitive verb take the same case (the absolutive case). This contrasts with nominative–accusative languages, such as the main European languages, in which the subject of an intransitive verb takes the nominative, but the object of a transitive verb takes the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course this is an hypothesis, so take it with a grain of salt. But it's the only one I've ever heard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergative%E2%80%93absolutive_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="67" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="64c954e6-4f5a-469a-956a-e12896ce4653" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:15:47.043" UserId="49" Comment="edited tags" Text="|cases|accusative|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="68" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="28" RevisionGUID="bf89a914-42b7-4867-aab8-b0b6b2f720bc" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:17:10.913" UserId="65" Text="According to a *consensus* of latin scholars the letter v in ancient latin was pronounced as [w]. This seems to make sense, because there was no distinguishing between v and u, so the letter w could mark either vowel [u] or its semivocalic counterpart [w] (much like with letter i).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, are there any other proofs for this pronounciation? I saw some people challenging this view, so I would like to hear about some more evidence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="69" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="28" RevisionGUID="bf89a914-42b7-4867-aab8-b0b6b2f720bc" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:17:10.913" UserId="65" Text="What are other than typographical proofs of v being pronounced as [w]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="70" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="28" RevisionGUID="bf89a914-42b7-4867-aab8-b0b6b2f720bc" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:17:10.913" UserId="65" Text="|classical-latin|phonetics|alphabet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="71" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="29" RevisionGUID="d7e48611-b16e-4c4c-b2ab-e6facd10286c" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:17:58.663" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[[precipitation (n.)](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=precipitation&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) :]  [...]  Latin *praecipitationem* (nominative praecipitatio)    &#xD;&#xA;&quot;act or fact of falling headlong, haste,&quot; noun of action      &#xD;&#xA;from past participle stem of *praecipitare* &quot;fall, be hasty,&quot; from *praeceps* &quot;steep&quot; (see [precipice](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=precipice&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)).  [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[[precipice (n.)](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=precipitation&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) :]  &quot;steep face of rock,&quot; 1630s, from Middle French précipice   &#xD;&#xA;[3.] from Latin *praecipitium* &quot;a steep place,&quot; literally **&quot;a fall or leap,&quot;**     &#xD;&#xA;[2.] from *praeceps* (genitive praecipitis) &quot;steep, headlong, headfirst  &#xD;&#xA;[1.] from *prae* &quot;before, forth&quot; (see [pre-](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=pre-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + *caput* &quot;head&quot; (see [head](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=head&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.)). [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please correct me if my conjecture are incorrect: I conjecture the meaning of 'steep' to originate from the physical properties of the human head: imagine that you are a tick running atop someone's head from the back to the forehead. Then the tick may fly off the human head like a diver running to the end of the diving board before diving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **&quot;a fall or leap&quot;**: whence did it originate? How does it connect to 1?     &#xD;&#xA;1-3 suggest a conjecture that the Romans liked to fall or leap off precipices? Is this true?    &#xD;&#xA;(If so, I hope    for diving and fun, and not death.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="72" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="29" RevisionGUID="d7e48611-b16e-4c4c-b2ab-e6facd10286c" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:17:58.663" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What underlying notion connects &quot;a fall or leap&quot; to 'prae' + 'caput'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="73" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="29" RevisionGUID="d7e48611-b16e-4c4c-b2ab-e6facd10286c" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:17:58.663" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="74" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7" RevisionGUID="7df82622-be34-43cf-8363-26d3af1d784d" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:18:24.293" UserId="26" Comment="added a reference" Text="Does 'ad' in 'ad infinitum' originate from the Hebrew 'ad' (to/towards) or a similar semitic origin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sources usually say that this particle is derived from PIE `*ád` ‎(&quot;near, at&quot;). However, they don't refer any Semitic origins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an excerpt from Philip Baldi's [Semitic Influence in the History of Latin Syntax](http://www.academia.edu/879382/Semitic_Influence_in_the_History_of_Latin_Syntax_in_New_Perspectives_on_Historical_Latin_Syntax_1_2009_):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *However, the Latin preposition **ad** here may correspond to the Semitic preposition **l**, which would constitute merely anisolated calque, rather than a true example of syntactic interference*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="75" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="30" RevisionGUID="06031f8c-a296-4b39-904d-6add3c81c7ea" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:22:01.750" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[[Etymonline]](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=torrent) [...] from Latin *torrentem* (nominative *torrens*) &quot;rushing, roaring&quot; (of streams), also &quot;a rushing stream,&quot; originally as an adjective &quot;roaring, boiling, burning, parching, hot, inflamed,&quot; present participle of *torrere* &quot;to parch&quot; (see [terrain](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=terrain&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google revealed only [one conjecture](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KDuAaVDUxb8J:mittani.blogspot.com/2009/06/notes-on-etymology-of-torrent.html+&amp;cd=4&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So, what could be the connection between a rushing stream and something which is dried out, thirsting for some water?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Supposedly, the contrasting meanings are linked by the image of a mountain creek or river which may be a raging current in spring, but dries out in summer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot diagnose why, but the above feels unconvincing, probably because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. most raging streams do not dry;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. it is deceptive to describe a dried raging stream as a 'raging stream', because a stream is dried, if and only if, it is NOT raging. To wit, 'dry' and 'rushing, roaring' are polarly opposite adjectives if water is the underlying semantic notion.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that etymology is subjective and speculative, but are there any other conjectures of more conviction and common sense? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="76" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="30" RevisionGUID="06031f8c-a296-4b39-904d-6add3c81c7ea" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:22:01.750" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How else might the Latin 'torrere' have shifted semantically to mean 'rushing, roaring (of streams)'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="77" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="30" RevisionGUID="06031f8c-a296-4b39-904d-6add3c81c7ea" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:22:01.750" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="78" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="31" RevisionGUID="98dc869c-82ec-4a35-bf26-724030ba671d" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:24:52.297" UserId="52" Text="&quot;Eundem&quot; is the correct acusative of &quot;idem&quot;. However, I saw &quot;eumdem&quot; in various texts of medieval and/or Church Latin. So I wonder:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - when &quot;eumdem&quot; started to be used, perhaps by non-native Latin users?&#xD;&#xA; - when did it become a regularly accepted alternative to &quot;eundem&quot; (this might not be distinguishable from previous subquestion though)?&#xD;&#xA; - did &quot;eumdem&quot; ever completely replaced &quot;eundem&quot; in some time and region (not counting times/regions with very few written record)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="79" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="31" RevisionGUID="98dc869c-82ec-4a35-bf26-724030ba671d" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:24:52.297" UserId="52" Text="&quot;Eundem&quot;/&quot;eumdem&quot; in medieval Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="80" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="31" RevisionGUID="98dc869c-82ec-4a35-bf26-724030ba671d" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:24:52.297" UserId="52" Text="|medieval-latin|idem|language-change|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="81" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6" RevisionGUID="e053058a-65a1-46df-bc44-966b881a86a9" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:26:07.847" UserId="20" Comment="added 421 characters in body" Text="The way I was taught was that, as a general rule, -que is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. When this list of things contains two items&#xD;&#xA;2. When the two are logically linked as being two of something (parent and child, master and apprentice, and so on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, consider the example of an opening line from [Catullus][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lugete, o Veneres Cupidinesque&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Venus and Cupid have a parent-child relationship, and so the _-que_ makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare this to the opening paragraph of [De Bellico Gallico][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gallos ab Aquitanis Garumna flumen, a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Marne and the Seine are just two out of many rivers, so `et` is more appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, this is not a hard and fast rule. You have for example in the opening chapters of Augustine's [Confessions][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et quomodo invocabo deum meum, deum et dominum meum (1.2.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deus es dominusque omnium quae creasti (1.6.9)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the same author, using the same words just paragraphs apart, uses both _et_ and _-que_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gillianspraggs.com/translations/catullus1.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Caes.%20Gal.%201.1&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0002&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/augustine/conf1.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="82" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="32" RevisionGUID="15070433-85a4-47ff-ab6f-4c14f226f643" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:27:41.303" UserId="30" Text="I believe *lacryma* is generally considered a hypercorrect misspelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The archaic Latin spelling was *lacruma*, still sometimes used in classical Latin. The standard spelling was *lacrima*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek, it is spelled *dakru* or *dakruon*, which would be properly translitterated into Latin is *dacry(on)*. But the only spelling with a *d-* found in archaic Latin seems to be *[dacrima][1]*. I believe the letter *y* came to be pronounced like *i* in many places at some point (probably after the classical age), as in modern French and Spanish. At that time, a common spelling error was to spell words originally written with a *y* as *i*, based on pronunciation. If writers thought that *lacrima/dacrima* was originally from Greek, they might have been afraid of making this mistake and hypercorrectly spelled *lacryma*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The spelling *lachryma* is also observed, which may also be based on the hypercorrect assumption of a Greek spelling *lachru-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=lacrima&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="83" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="33" RevisionGUID="59774208-b6d1-4d77-b8ab-57f903c21e15" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:27:54.140" UserId="66" Text="Many Classical Latin textbooks typeset their texts with (small and capital letters and) a broad selection of punctuation, like period `.`, comma `,`, colon `:`, semicolon `;`, exclamation mark `!`, question mark `?` and possibly more (e.g. en dash `–`, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which (if any) of these were actually used in Classical Latin, and what, if not punctuation, was used instead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="84" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="33" RevisionGUID="59774208-b6d1-4d77-b8ab-57f903c21e15" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:27:54.140" UserId="66" Text="What punctuation was used in Classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="85" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="33" RevisionGUID="59774208-b6d1-4d77-b8ab-57f903c21e15" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:27:54.140" UserId="66" Text="|classical-latin|punctuation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="86" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="34" RevisionGUID="5fc7d9be-ac05-4585-a860-3c89387bcfc2" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:28:40.317" UserId="61" Text="I have always been told that all Latin words with a Z are ancient Greek loanwords.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why doesn't Latin have any native words with a Z? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="87" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="34" RevisionGUID="5fc7d9be-ac05-4585-a860-3c89387bcfc2" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:28:40.317" UserId="61" Text="Why are there no native Latin words with a Z?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="88" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="34" RevisionGUID="5fc7d9be-ac05-4585-a860-3c89387bcfc2" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:28:40.317" UserId="61" Text="|alphabet|origin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="89" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="35" RevisionGUID="2681c92d-6472-42c7-b78b-005369f78678" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:29:00.190" UserId="17" Text="Dictionaries often explicitly mark long and short vowels, with a macron and breve accent, respectively. In such a dictionary, you will recognize a consonantic _i_ from not having either accent: _māiŭs_. The same applies to consonantic _u_ (if the dictionary doesn’t use _v_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the spelling alone is not enough to determine whether _i_ or _u_, in a particular word, stands for the consonant or the vowel. This is a shortcoming of Latin orthography, comparable in English to the different spoken forms [riːd], [red] associated with the spelling _read_. For a Latin example, _uoluit_ can be both _uōlŭĭt_ (‘he wanted’) and _uŏluĭt_ (‘he rolled’)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="90" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="36" RevisionGUID="62bb5774-ae3d-41d8-a9a9-085d1baea8a7" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:30:41.053" UserId="45" Text="The word lacrima comes from the Greek word for tear `δάκρυον` which in turn comes from Proto-Indo-european `dáḱru-` (see [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lacrima#Latin) and [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=lacrima&amp;la=la#lexicon)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek upsilon (`υ`) can be rendered either with an i or y: and, in fact, the &quot;y&quot; was [referred to](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet) as an &quot;i Graeca&quot;, as it still is in French. The two are both valid spellings, though a quick frequency check seems to indicate that the &quot;i&quot; spelling is much more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above L&amp;S entry, for instance, only has one instance (quoted from Virgil) of the y spelling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="91" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="cea2efef-6c40-40b3-935c-77a5708096cf" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:31:44.830" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in#Preposition_11) :]     &#xD;&#xA;&gt;1.	(governs the ablative) in, at, on (space)  [quotations ▼]   &#xD;&#xA;2.	(governs the dative) within (time)  &#xD;&#xA;3.	(governs the accusative) into, to  [quotations ▼]   &#xD;&#xA;4.	(governs the accusative) about   &#xD;&#xA;5.	(governs the accusative) according to  &#xD;&#xA;6.	(governs the accusative) against   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Though prepositions are Functional Morphemes, the semantics of prepositions have been scrutinised, studied, and successfully explained (in English and French, at least).&lt;/sub&gt; This question focuses on 6 above:   &#xD;&#xA;what underlying semantic notions connect 'against' to 'in'? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To wit,  'against' (with its notion of conflict and opposition) superficially appears to contradict 'in' (with its notions of coherence and inclusion). So what  (in the semantic field of 'in')  would conciliate, mediate, and unite this superficial contradiction? Or what have I neglected (in the semantic field of 'in') that causes me to judge 6 as a contradiction? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="92" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="cea2efef-6c40-40b3-935c-77a5708096cf" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:31:44.830" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What underlying semantic notions explain the meaning of 'against' for the preposition 'in'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="93" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="cea2efef-6c40-40b3-935c-77a5708096cf" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:31:44.830" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|semantics|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="97" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="39" RevisionGUID="30e1a13b-866c-40c0-a899-f117621d3415" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:33:54.823" UserId="20" Text="I know to some degree it's a matter of taste, but are the arguments for one pronunciation being used over another? Is it simply a matter of taste, or are there claims that one is &quot;correct&quot; and another is not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a personal note, this always trips me up around Christmas time, when the hymn _Gloria in excelsis deo_ is sung in church or on the radio, but I studied latin at a secular school using the Classical pronunciation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="98" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="39" RevisionGUID="30e1a13b-866c-40c0-a899-f117621d3415" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:33:54.823" UserId="20" Text="What are the arguments for &quot;Classical&quot; pronunciations vs. &quot;Ecclesial&quot; pronunciation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="99" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="39" RevisionGUID="30e1a13b-866c-40c0-a899-f117621d3415" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:33:54.823" UserId="20" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="35" RevisionGUID="6f9236e8-80e2-4bb7-a2b5-21f5b9d0b0a3" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:34:06.737" UserId="17" Comment="Added note about the vowel length in “maius”" Text="Dictionaries often explicitly mark long and short vowels, with a macron and breve accent, respectively. In such a dictionary, you will recognize a consonantic _i_ from not having either accent: _māiŭs_¹. The same applies to consonantic _u_ (if the dictionary doesn’t use _v_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the spelling alone is not enough to determine whether _i_ or _u_, in a particular word, stands for the consonant or the vowel. This is a shortcoming of Latin orthography, comparable in English to the different spoken forms [riːd], [red] associated with the spelling _read_. For a Latin example, _uoluit_ can be both _uōlŭĭt_ (‘he wanted’) and _uŏluĭt_ (‘he rolled’).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¹ It‘s actually uncertain whether the _a_ really was long, but usually it is given like that in dictionaries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="40" RevisionGUID="2fbea00d-1353-49a0-8660-3dc3fb3c84e3" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:35:17.297" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="&lt;sup&gt;Related to [this question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1/are-que-and-et-equivalent)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I see &quot;vel&quot;, &quot;aut&quot;, and &quot;-ve&quot; being used (mostly) interchangeably in the Latin I read&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. Is there any idiomatic difference, or can they be used interchangeably?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, can I use &quot;-ve&quot; for either/or, like I would with &quot;aut&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet tibi habere **aut** virem **aut** laetitia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet tibi habere virem**ve** laetitia**ve**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And does using &quot;vel&quot; instead of &quot;aut&quot; change the meaning in any way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet tibi habere **vel** virem **vel** laetitia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="40" RevisionGUID="2fbea00d-1353-49a0-8660-3dc3fb3c84e3" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:35:17.297" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="What's the difference between vel, aut, -ve, et cetera?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="40" RevisionGUID="2fbea00d-1353-49a0-8660-3dc3fb3c84e3" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:35:17.297" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|vocabulary|classical-latin|meaning|grammar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="296aa5d1-f6db-4b88-bf0e-d7f1486f3963" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:35:22.330" UserId="78" Text="Z is not originally a Latin letter! In fact, the letter we call Z wasn't Greek either, but rather had either an &quot;sd&quot; or &quot;dz&quot; sound (the jury is still out on which is correct, and there may have been regional variations).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But with Latin, it's not just that no words started with Z, but that the letter itself is Greek. They borrowed the letter to represent the Z sound in Greek words. The same is true for X and Y, which is why they are at the end of the alphabet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Incidentally, Latin didn't have J, U, or W, which are medieval additions.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The standard reference for pronouncing Latin and its alphabet is W. Sydney Allen's *Vox Latin* (2nd ed, Cambridge 1989)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="d89b1b41-aa78-4a3d-ac9d-1f34b4bda307" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:36:04.120" UserId="66" Text="On Latin Wikipedia, there are a number of chemical elements with two Latin names, e.g. boron being _borium_ and _boracium_ or nitrogen being _nitrogenium_ or _azotum_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is their etymology and in what context should I use which?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="106" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="d89b1b41-aa78-4a3d-ac9d-1f34b4bda307" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:36:04.120" UserId="66" Text="Names of chemical elements" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="107" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="d89b1b41-aa78-4a3d-ac9d-1f34b4bda307" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:36:04.120" UserId="66" Text="|etymology|science|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="32" RevisionGUID="4692d2f8-dd3a-4f79-8876-8f360f277a72" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:36:30.180" UserId="30" Comment="added 365 characters in body" Text="I believe *lacryma* is generally considered a hypercorrect misspelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The archaic Latin spelling was *lacruma*, still sometimes used in classical Latin, or an even older *dacrima/dacruma*. The standard spelling was *lacrima*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek, it is spelled *dakru* or *dakruon*, which would be 'properly' translitterated into Latin as *dacry(on)*. But the only spellings with a *d-* found in archaic Latin seem to be *[dacrima/dacruma][1]*, while Greek had no form on *-ma*¹. This means that it was not originally translitterated from Greek, and the letter *y* is only used in Latin words translitterated from Greek. The word may or may not have been borrowed from Greek in prehistoric times (there is no consensus¹), but that probably did not involve a *y*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the letter *y* came to be pronounced like *i* in many places at some point (probably after the classical age), as in modern French and Spanish. At that time, a common spelling error was to spell words originally written with a *y* as *i*, based on pronunciation. If writers thought that *lacrima/dacrima* was originally from Greek, they might have been afraid of making this mistake and hypercorrectly spelled *lacryma*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The spelling *lachryma* is also observed, which may also be based on the hypercorrect assumption of a Greek spelling *lachru-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;¹) Michiel de Vaan, *Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages* (Leiden 2008), s.v.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=lacrima&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="90ae9110-3b94-4138-83d4-eee50b3c2f69" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:37:02.040" UserId="26" Text="Are there any solid evidences proving or denying the hypothesis that in Classical Latin the syllable-final vowel `-m` (especially at the end of the word) was only an orthographic convention, but in spoken language it was used to make preceding syllable nasalized?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some researchers suggest this was true, due to indirect evidences. For example, [here](https://www.quora.com/Is-it-known-for-sure-that-nasal-vowels-were-used-in-classical-Latin) someone bases their suggestion on measurement metrical properties of the words in poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is especially interesting for me because there are similar effects in Sanskrit (like Dative case ending).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, this sounds like a nice start, but still, are there **solid, documented evidences** proving or denying the idea of nasalization in this case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="110" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="90ae9110-3b94-4138-83d4-eee50b3c2f69" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:37:02.040" UserId="26" Text="Was the final &quot;-m&quot; a &quot;full-featured&quot; consonant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="111" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="90ae9110-3b94-4138-83d4-eee50b3c2f69" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:37:02.040" UserId="26" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="44" RevisionGUID="037c46f3-717d-4831-94d2-620d49b31064" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:37:59.063" UserId="52" Text="In Classical Latin, &quot;c&quot; was always pronounced as &quot;k&quot;. Since Renaissance Latin grammar reform, the correct pronunciation of &quot;c&quot; before &quot;e&quot; or &quot;i&quot; was codified to [ts]. So in Renaissance the true Classical pronunciation must have been forgotten. My question is: when did the pronunciation of &quot;c&quot; before &quot;e&quot; and &quot;i&quot; start to change, and when was this change complete? Did this happen in late or medieval Latin? And in which centuries did these changes take place?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="113" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="44" RevisionGUID="037c46f3-717d-4831-94d2-620d49b31064" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:37:59.063" UserId="52" Text="When did “c” before “e” or “i” start to be pronounced as [ts] (in contrast to classical [k])?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="114" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="44" RevisionGUID="037c46f3-717d-4831-94d2-620d49b31064" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:37:59.063" UserId="52" Text="|pronunciation|medieval-latin|language-change|late-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="45" RevisionGUID="e0e38c53-4ada-4d9e-8529-68f7750c28e9" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:41:08.520" UserId="33" Text="I'm not sure about the particular history of Lacrymosa/Lacrimosa and its derivation from *dáḱru-* (as @brianpck points out), but *Vox Latina* (by W. Sidney Allen) explains that words with i/y alternative spellings can reflect later changes in Greek pronunciation where upsilon and iota get confused (pg. 53):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the popular Greek speech of some areas from the second or third century A.D. onwards υ had become confused with ι; consequently some borrowings into late Latin are taken over with *i* rather than *y*, and the spelling of earlier loans with *i* becomes common. This development is censured by the grammarians (e.g. Probus, '*gyrus* non *girus*'), but is normal for such words in Romance (Italian *girare*, French *girer*, etc.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="68d17ba8-a19d-49b1-b6a7-871c6f8b6181" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:41:25.693" UserId="66" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="On Latin Wikipedia, there are a number of chemical elements with two Latin names, e.g. boron being _borium_ and _boracium_. (Another example being nitrogen: _nitrogenium_ or _azotum_.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the etymology of _borium_ and _boracium_ and in what context should I use which?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="fa0b8ee9-9074-422f-af5e-218fdaa0d0ce" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:43:12.757" UserId="30" Comment="edited body" Text="I believe there are no exceptions to this rule. That's what I have always read, and I have never encountered any, neither in Greek nor in Latin, nor even in German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an hypothesis about the cause of this phenomenon. Neuter words were historically limited to inanimate objects or things that cannot act. In a basic sentence, it was rarely or never the neuter thing that acted, and therefore you didn't need case to distinguish between agent and patient/theme (between &quot;acting&quot; and &quot;being acted upon&quot;). So, if you just have a transitive verb and a neuter word, there is only one possibility: the neuter thing is acted upon. With an intransitive verb, there is no object, so it is even less necessary. So semantics make case redundant for neuter words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This hypothesis is inspired by our knowledge of [ergative–absolutive languages][1], in which the subject of an intransitive verb and the object of a transitive verb take the same case (the absolutive case). This contrasts with nominative–accusative languages, such as the main European languages, in which the subject of an intransitive verb takes the nominative, but the object of a transitive verb takes the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course this is an hypothesis, so take it with a grain of salt. But it's the only one I've ever heard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergative%E2%80%93absolutive_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="46" RevisionGUID="27056fcd-8aa2-4007-a897-3e0763c24754" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:44:26.720" UserDisplayName="user11" Text="Z, allegedly, has a strange story. It *was* a Latin letter, then it became obsolete and was removed. It was then added back to accommodate words derived from Greek&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to a few sources, one of them [Dictionary.com](http://blog.dictionary.com/z/), `Z` was actually included in the original Latin alphabet, which itself was a  derivation of the [Etruscan alphabet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Italic_script#Etruscan_alphabet):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `A B G D E V` **`Z`** `H Θ I K L M`&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `N Ξ O P Ś Q R S T Y X Φ Ψ`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the following years, `z` gradually [rhotacized](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhotacism) until /z/ made the same sound as /r/. A Roman counsel, Appius Claudius Caecus, allegedly [removed it from the Latin alphabet](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/miscellanea/zed.html). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the Roman conquest of Greece, the letter was added back in (along with `y`) to work with the words being added to the language derived from Greek." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="47" RevisionGUID="4db15274-99f7-43ac-bc9d-27b077be8663" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:47:52.327" UserId="80" Text="The main punctuation used in inscriptions (on monuments, sculptures, etc.) was a central point (by opposition to the low point we currently use) to separate words, and a double point to separate sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most texts we have are manuscript copies of the middle ages. Each generation, country and abbaye used its own abbreviations and conventions, so we do not have a clear idea of the non-letter notations of the roman authors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We know Romans used several forms of stenography to take notes during speeches, but we have little testimony of how it was written (wax tablets for instance were constantly reused, and do not age well).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="32" RevisionGUID="7ade65fb-e86a-4abb-9c42-6f1a92e82b18" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:49:07.553" UserId="30" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="I believe *lacryma* is generally considered a hypercorrect misspelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The archaic Latin spelling was *lacruma*, still sometimes used in classical Latin, or an even older *dacrima/dacruma*. The standard spelling was *lacrima*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek, it is spelled *dakru* or *dakruon*, which would be 'properly' translitterated into Latin as *dacry(on)*. But the only spellings with a *d-* found in archaic Latin seem to be *[dacrima/dacruma][1]*, while Greek had no form on *-ma*¹. This means that it was not originally translitterated from Greek, and the letter *y* is only used in Latin words translitterated from Greek. The word may or may not have been borrowed from Greek in prehistoric times (there is no consensus¹), but that probably did not involve a *y*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the letter *y* came to be pronounced like *i* in many places at some point (probably after the classical age), as in modern French and Spanish. At that time, a common spelling error was to spell words originally written with a *y* as *i*, based on pronunciation. If writers thought that *lacrima/dacrima* was originally from Greek, they might have been afraid of making this mistake and hypercorrectly spelled *lacryma*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The spelling *lachryma* is also observed, which may also be based on the hypercorrect assumption of a Greek spelling *lachru-*, for *-ch-* in Latin is normally limited to translitteration from Greek chi. At least I can't think of any other reason, even though though Greek has no letter chi in its forms of *dakru(on)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;¹) Michiel de Vaan, *Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages* (Leiden 2008), s.v.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=lacrima&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="48" RevisionGUID="26d893a0-6756-4e22-85b1-770faac88e86" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:51:23.053" UserId="79" Text="Just like in English, there are many ways to pronounce Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Would you say that British pronunciation is correct and American is wrong?&#xD;&#xA;Any valid pronunciation will do, but the best choice depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are singing a song from 18th century Germany, it is most appropriate to sing with with the corresponding pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;If you are reading Catullus out loud, it is good style to use pronunciation of his time and place.&#xD;&#xA;There is no single ecclesiastic Latin pronunciation &amp;mdash; pronunciation depends on time and location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Choice of pronunciation may also depend on audience.&#xD;&#xA;If you speak Latin to a Finn, you will probably be better off with a classical pronunciation since that is what is taught in Finland.&#xD;&#xA;(And if you want to impress your Latin-speaking friends, note that a slightly older version of pronunciation is used in Turku than in the rest of Finland.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be difficult to adjust pronunciation to different situations, and sometimes I think it's better not to try to adjust.&#xD;&#xA;If the contextually most appropriate pronunciation is too difficult for you or you cannot follow it consistently, do as you do best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The song you mention has medieval origin and I find it appropriate to sing it as its writer would have sung it.&#xD;&#xA;If I were to sing it myself, I would nevertheless do it classically, just because that feels most natural to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="49" RevisionGUID="eb332024-dde3-4b1a-a8d5-f2f87eb24b32" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:52:07.817" UserId="78" Text="We should first recognize that there was not one system of punctuation in use during Classical times. However, all of modern punctuation, including commas, periods, colons, semicolons, etc. are more recent, not just for Latin, but for European languages as a whole (and in fact worldwide, as e.g. Chinese borrowed the question mark).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only that, but word spacing too is relatively recent. Many early manuscripts lack any punctuation and word division.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the earliest inscriptions, too, you can see a lack of word division or punctuation. Take a look at the Duenos Inscription:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Hermes_16_illustration1.png&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However common this was, there were some variations. In a dedication to Castor and Pollux about 100 years after the above inscription, in between &quot;to Castor&quot; (CASTOREI) and &quot;to Pollux&quot; (PODLOUQUEI) there is word division indicated by an interpunct `·`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8434/7726943478_5566035b04_b.jpg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interpunct was most often used for word division in inscriptions. Sometimes, there may be two dots, even three as evident from the Forum Inscription:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Textlapis.jpg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may also note in that inscription that a slash `\` is used for sentence division. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, because the letter I in Latin was used for both a vowel (long and short) and a consonant (having the IPA value of `j`), it was not infrequently drawn particularly elongated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bodel, John 2012. &quot;Paragrams, Punctuation, and System in Ancient Roman Script,&quot; in *The Shape of Script* ed. Stephen D. Houston, Santa Fe, pp. 65–92.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sacks, David 2007. *Letter Perfect: The Marvelous History of Our Alphabet From A to Z*. Random." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="b85a9537-2974-44b0-8485-0a1872035c80" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:53:16.447" UserId="17" Comment="Corrected spelling of the name and book title (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Sidney_Allen); other changes to get over the 6-character edit limit" Text="Z is not originally a Latin letter! In fact, the letter we call Z wasn't Greek either, but rather had either an &quot;sd&quot; or &quot;dz&quot; sound (the jury is still out on which is correct, and there may have been regional variations).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But with Latin, it's not just that no words started with Z, but that the letter itself is Greek. They borrowed the letter to represent the Z sound in Greek words. The same is true for X and Y, which is why they are at the end of the alphabet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Incidentally, Latin didn't have J, U, or W, which are medieval additions.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The standard reference for pronouncing Latin and its alphabet is W. Sidney Allen's *Vox Latina* (2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; ed., Cambridge 1989)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="127" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="b85a9537-2974-44b0-8485-0a1872035c80" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:53:16.447" Comment="Proposed by 17 approved by 78 edit id of 6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="50" RevisionGUID="1a3ff82f-5765-4a0e-8f61-09a39615f140" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:54:51.717" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[[Wiktionnary in French for '*pravus*' (adj.) :](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/pravus)] De l’indo-européen commun _*pra_&lt;sup&gt;[[1]](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/pravus)&lt;/sup&gt; (« penché ») qui n’existe qu’en latin et dans les langues celtiques. Pokorny rattache à ce radical _pratum_ (« prairie, pré »), selon une métaphore qui est sans doute la même que dans _clivus_ (« colline, pente ») : par rapport à la plaine, facilement cultivable, les pentes des collines sont réservées aux pâturages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary's English entry is void on etymology; so I posted the French above. I will happily translate the above into English as soon as one comment requests so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link intended by the superscript appears to fail, but the University of Texas's IE lexicon does feature [_*pra_](http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/X/P1553.html), and asserts its 'Semantic Field: to Bend'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what underlying semantic notions conciliate and connect,  those of the PIE root (ie: to bend) and *pratum* (ie: meadow) and *clivus* (ie: a slope, hill), to those of *pravus*? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="129" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="50" RevisionGUID="1a3ff82f-5765-4a0e-8f61-09a39615f140" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:54:51.717" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What underlying semantic notions explain the etymology of 'pravus'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="130" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="50" RevisionGUID="1a3ff82f-5765-4a0e-8f61-09a39615f140" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:54:51.717" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="51" RevisionGUID="bab956a5-ca85-49ef-8bec-c24b61ca0846" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:58:34.737" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="I've been reading poetry lately and sometimes, the meter just doesn't make sense. Now, I know that elision is a thing, but I don't know the rules. When can I [elide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elision) letters? Are there any hard-and-fast rules for when elision is required, or is it all subjective and dependent on the specific poem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="132" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="51" RevisionGUID="bab956a5-ca85-49ef-8bec-c24b61ca0846" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:58:34.737" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="When can I elide letters?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="133" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="51" RevisionGUID="bab956a5-ca85-49ef-8bec-c24b61ca0846" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:58:34.737" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|classical-latin|grammar|poetry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="e4d202d4-0a0b-433f-b9a1-1920ce57d129" CreationDate="2016-02-23T19:58:34.737" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="Elision of a vowel (or vowel + *m*) occurs when it's at the end of the word, and the next word starts with either a vowel or *h* + vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the discretion of the poet, the last vowel of a word can be kept even if the next starts with one; in this case, it's considered to be in [hiatus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiatus_(linguistics)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Source: [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_%28Latin%29#Elision), and also my learning, but it's entirely possible I missed something so feel free to edit.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="53" RevisionGUID="0a624745-9573-478f-8618-10c8ab243cf5" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:02:05.313" UserId="30" Text="In addition to Chirlu's excellent answer, although there is no hard rule, a rule of thumb does exist. If a syllable starts with an i and then a vowel other than i, the initial i is normally pronounced /j/; otherwise, it is pronounced /i/. When in doubt, the pronunciation can be inferred from the metre in verse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="80b95ad4-fda9-47f4-9277-3fb2f2677708" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:02:53.957" UserId="78" Text="The best way we know how consonantal V being pronounce as /w/ is in transcriptions into other languages. For example, the Roman name Valerius is transcribed as Ουαλεριος (Ooalerios) in Greek inscriptions. Greeks did not have a /w/ sound, but if you pronounce ου (ou) quickly enough, you get an approximate to it. You do not, though, get close to /v/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, we also know when the sound shifted, as later transcriptions have Βαλεριος, where the Greek beta had turned into a /v/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The standard reference for how we know how to pronounce Greek is W. Sidney Allen's *Vox Graeca* (3rd ed. Cambridge, 1987)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="f54e9303-0fd6-4797-a8ab-8a1cf1f1a5b7" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:03:29.457" UserId="52" Text="There are some regional differences in contemporary Ecclesiastical Latin, mostly in pronuntiation (for example, &quot;c&quot; before e/i can be pronounced as [ʧ] or [ts]). Also, I know that as non-natives, medieval Latin speakers sometimes introduced words from their native languages. On the other hand, various dialects were at least barely mutually understandable. My layman guess is that they differed about as much as various dialects of contemporary English, or little more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, let's pick 13th century and Latin dialects spoken in Italy, British Isles, Sweden and Bohemia - if people from these regions men, how difficult would be for them to understand each other, and what would be the main differences?  &#xD;&#xA;No need to describe these particular dialects in detail though, it's just an example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="138" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="f54e9303-0fd6-4797-a8ab-8a1cf1f1a5b7" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:03:29.457" UserId="52" Text="How much different were high medieval latin dialects from different parts of Europe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="139" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="f54e9303-0fd6-4797-a8ab-8a1cf1f1a5b7" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:03:29.457" UserId="52" Text="|medieval-latin|dialects|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="56" RevisionGUID="334a1c20-45da-43f4-810f-fc2f661bc157" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:05:19.420" UserId="68" Text="What you've neglected (an easy thing to neglect) is the *case* that &quot;in&quot; governs with each meaning. &quot;In&quot; plus the *ablative* connotes coherence and inclusion, and it's roughly equivalent to English &quot;in.&quot; &quot;In&quot; plus the *accusative*, however, means something far closer to English &quot;toward,&quot; which, if you think militarily (as the Romans often did), is fairly easy to convert into &quot;against.&quot; So when Cicero was orating *in Catilinam*, he was rushing toward Catiline in the process of making an attack on him." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="57" RevisionGUID="2e889e27-3e7b-459e-9d8a-60e50a592aed" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:06:42.253" UserId="66" Text="What is the process for translating modern words into Latin? For example, Latin Wikipedia has entries for tablet &quot;computatrum tabulare&quot; and smartphone &quot;sophophonum&quot;. Is there any particular process for coming up with these names, or do users of contemporary Latin come up with individual translations and use it until one of these &quot;catches on&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="143" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="57" RevisionGUID="2e889e27-3e7b-459e-9d8a-60e50a592aed" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:06:42.253" UserId="66" Text="What is the process for translating modern words like &quot;tablet&quot; or &quot;smartphone&quot; into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="144" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="57" RevisionGUID="2e889e27-3e7b-459e-9d8a-60e50a592aed" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:06:42.253" UserId="66" Text="|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="58" RevisionGUID="980ee88d-13c5-4113-b6b3-1485483892e2" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:09:17.693" UserId="61" Text="When presented with the Greek alphabet, it is like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ Ν Ξ Ο Π Ρ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the Etruscan alphabet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A B G D E V Z H Θ I K L M N Ξ O P Ś Q R S T Y X Φ Ψ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if we are presented with the Latin alphabet, it looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from letters changing there are some notable differences: The position of the G and Z sound for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why and when did this all shift? Is it something from a later period or did the Romans also use the order, we use now?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="146" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="58" RevisionGUID="980ee88d-13c5-4113-b6b3-1485483892e2" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:09:17.693" UserId="61" Text="Why did the letters in the alphabet shift position?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="147" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="58" RevisionGUID="980ee88d-13c5-4113-b6b3-1485483892e2" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:09:17.693" UserId="61" Text="|alphabet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="39ba52db-1718-45ed-b6de-fb0868fc797a" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:10:58.780" UserId="92" Comment="Improve grammar, etc" Text="There are some regional differences in contemporary Ecclesiastical Latin, mostly in pronuntiation (for example, &quot;c&quot; before e/i can be pronounced as [ʧ] or [ts]). Also, I know that as non-natives, medieval Latin speakers sometimes introduced words from their native languages. On the other hand, various dialects were at least barely mutually understandable. My layman guess is that they differed about as much as various dialects of contemporary English, or little more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, let's pick 13th century and Latin dialects spoken in Italy, British Isles, Sweden and Bohemia - if people from these regions met, how difficult would it be for them to understand each other, and what would be the main differences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No need to describe these particular dialects in detail though, it's just an example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="149" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="39ba52db-1718-45ed-b6de-fb0868fc797a" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:10:58.780" UserId="92" Comment="Improve grammar, etc" Text="How different were high medieval Latin dialects from different parts of Europe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="150" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="39ba52db-1718-45ed-b6de-fb0868fc797a" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:10:58.780" Comment="Proposed by 92 approved by 52 edit id of 8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="59" RevisionGUID="73e32965-2a5d-41e6-9d74-69236b6cb13d" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:13:51.550" UserId="92" Text="Wiktionary shows that both [premō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/premo#Latin) and [imprimō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imprimo#Latin) can mean (among other things) &quot;I press.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the formation of the latter word, the prefix [*im-*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in-#Latin), can negate the root word. How this applies to this particular word (even in the sense of &quot;imprint&quot;) isn't clear to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference in meaning or nuance between these words in the sense of &quot;I press&quot;?  Example sentences would be a great addition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="152" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="59" RevisionGUID="73e32965-2a5d-41e6-9d74-69236b6cb13d" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:13:51.550" UserId="92" Text="What is the difference in meaning or nuance between 'premō' and 'imprimō' in the sense of 'I press'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="153" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="59" RevisionGUID="73e32965-2a5d-41e6-9d74-69236b6cb13d" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:13:51.550" UserId="92" Text="|verbs|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="61" RevisionGUID="d78e8708-ae9c-409e-ada7-647ff2bbdfaa" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:17:13.250" UserId="89" Text="Latin has quite a complex grammar and many mnemonics have been used in the past as a memory aid. A famous example is the rhytmic &quot;rosa rosa rosam&quot; which is used to teach the first declension. It was immortalised in [a Jacques Brel song][1] in 1962 and is still used today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A cursory search reveals lists of mnemonics reproduced in textbooks as early as in [Alexandre de Villedieu][2]'s [Doctrinale puerorum][3] (1199), but I can't find any mention of their use back when Latin was still a first language in much of the known world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there any record of mnemonics being used to teach Classical Latin when it was still a living language?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is, have any survived into contemporary usage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6rLLE48RL0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_of_Villedieu&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.olympiabookfair.com/antiquarian-books/d/alexandre-de-villedieu-doctrinale-puerorum-%5Bsouth-of-france%3F%5D-anno-domini-millesimo-ccc-lxxiiii-%5Bin-the-year-of-god-1374%5D/110508" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="157" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="61" RevisionGUID="d78e8708-ae9c-409e-ada7-647ff2bbdfaa" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:17:13.250" UserId="89" Text="Were mnemonics used to teach Classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="158" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="61" RevisionGUID="d78e8708-ae9c-409e-ada7-647ff2bbdfaa" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:17:13.250" UserId="89" Text="|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="62" RevisionGUID="347c7c6e-d2e1-4174-b808-5dc9b734264a" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:18:40.623" UserId="79" Text="Imperative forms and deponent verbs are quite common ancient Latin literature, and imperative forms of deponent verbs also occur.&#xD;&#xA;But are there examples of passive imperative forms of non-deponent verbs in ancient literature?&#xD;&#xA;If there are no ancient examples, are there later examples, either?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is easy to make the conjugation by analogy to deponent imperative.&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;amare!&quot; would mean &quot;be loved!&quot; and &quot;edere!&quot; would mean &quot;be eaten!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I do not recall having ever encountered such conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;Coincidentally, in second person singular the forms coincide with the present active infinitive and under some circumstances the passive imperative might be easily misinterpreted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="160" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="62" RevisionGUID="347c7c6e-d2e1-4174-b808-5dc9b734264a" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:18:40.623" UserId="79" Text="Are there examples of passive imperative forms of non-deponent verbs in ancient literature?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="161" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="62" RevisionGUID="347c7c6e-d2e1-4174-b808-5dc9b734264a" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:18:40.623" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|grammar|conjugation|deponent-verbs|example-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="63" RevisionGUID="09d8caf6-bbee-4342-b6a1-4d3f683d6cba" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:19:20.040" UserId="52" Text="The natural way of listing verbs in dictionaries is by infinitive, but this is not the case in many Latin dictionaries. Why? Were there some of the first Latin dictionaries using first person singular as the verb's base form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="163" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="63" RevisionGUID="09d8caf6-bbee-4342-b6a1-4d3f683d6cba" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:19:20.040" UserId="52" Text="Why are verbs often listed under their first person singular form and not under infinitive as in many other languages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="164" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="63" RevisionGUID="09d8caf6-bbee-4342-b6a1-4d3f683d6cba" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:19:20.040" UserId="52" Text="|dictionary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="64" RevisionGUID="d4238684-e4b6-4d4f-8775-d3b275b4a9c0" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:19:42.797" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="65" RevisionGUID="6ca781fd-28c3-4023-accc-f5195ef2b847" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:19:42.797" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="66" RevisionGUID="78fc6305-34d8-462e-8a45-9c2b8c4c04f2" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:20:08.983" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="A [quick Google Search][1] says plenty of things about Roman Latin pronunciation, and since it's an edu domain I'm inclined to believe it. However, the closest to citing a source it gets is saying &quot;we know from grammarians&quot;; it doesn't say what those grammarians wrote, who they were, or really anything. &#xA;&#xA;Who wrote about Roman pronunciation? What did they say? Are their writings available still?&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/LatinBackground/Pronunciation.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="168" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="66" RevisionGUID="78fc6305-34d8-462e-8a45-9c2b8c4c04f2" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:20:08.983" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="How do we know how the Romans spoke Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="169" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="66" RevisionGUID="78fc6305-34d8-462e-8a45-9c2b8c4c04f2" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:20:08.983" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="67" RevisionGUID="5771abd7-02d8-41fa-b313-a90702b262e3" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:21:32.800" UserId="30" Text="Indeed, this conexion between a dried-out creek and a torrent of water seems unlikely. The Proto-Indo-European root supposedly meant &quot;make/be dry&quot;. De Vaan simply says that there may have been a stative present verb *\*trs-eh1-* &quot;to be dried out&quot; in Proto-Indo-European, from which a participle *torrens* &quot;dry&quot; logically followed.¹&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only etymological path that makes any sense to me would be dry → hot → flaming → raging with flames → raging → torrential. But that is quite the semantic distance to cross, and we need intermediate evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;¹) Michiel de Vaan, *Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages* (Leiden 2008), s.v." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="171" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="31" RevisionGUID="7fc9f9eb-4601-47d7-8beb-532d475e8785" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:23:46.457" UserId="52" Comment="edited tags" Text="|medieval-latin|declension|spelling|language-evolution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="172" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="44" RevisionGUID="71760a65-9894-4d93-a348-81c88ae3caf4" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:24:37.557" UserId="52" Comment="edited tags" Text="|pronunciation|medieval-latin|late-latin|language-evolution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="68" RevisionGUID="4f861d17-d959-404d-a31d-936a9a87230d" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:27:37.610" UserId="78" Text="First, not all dictionaries follow that convention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importantly, though, the infinitive cannot distinguish between 3rd and 3rd-IO verbs, which of the four principal parts, is only distinguishable in the first person present (cf. ago, agere, egi, actus v. facio, facere, feci, factus). Not having that there would lead students to miss that crucial information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="69" RevisionGUID="8a6f408d-f5a7-467e-8d3f-1522590056a6" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:29:27.537" UserId="52" Text="I've heard that deponent verb &quot;miror&quot; also had a non-deponent form. As far as I know it was in medieval Latin. So is it true? When exactly was the verb &quot;mirare&quot; used? Was it used everywhere, or was it a regionalism? And how did the meaning differ from the deponent form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="175" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="69" RevisionGUID="8a6f408d-f5a7-467e-8d3f-1522590056a6" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:29:27.537" UserId="52" Text="When and where was the non-deponent form of verb &quot;miror&quot; used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="176" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="69" RevisionGUID="8a6f408d-f5a7-467e-8d3f-1522590056a6" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:29:27.537" UserId="52" Text="|language-evolution|deponent-verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="70" RevisionGUID="71bd9be4-c8e1-4cc8-9a7f-f28aee2b6125" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:31:02.710" UserId="92" Text="The two words both translate to English &quot;winter&quot;.&lt;sup&gt;[1](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hiems#Latin),[2](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hibernum#Latin)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although information on wikipedia is sparse, I gather that *hiems* is most commonly used as a noun, while *hibernum* is the noun form of the more common adjective *[hībernī](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hiberni#Latin)* (wintry). But both forms are shown to be nouns. How do they differ in usage? Or are they essentially interchangeable synonyms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="178" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="70" RevisionGUID="71bd9be4-c8e1-4cc8-9a7f-f28aee2b6125" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:31:02.710" UserId="92" Text="Difference between &quot;hiems&quot; and &quot;hībernum&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="179" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="70" RevisionGUID="71bd9be4-c8e1-4cc8-9a7f-f28aee2b6125" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:31:02.710" UserId="92" Text="|vocabulary|definitions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="71" RevisionGUID="412adb1e-2127-41e6-ab65-d302381d0d33" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:32:37.870" UserId="12" Text="A standard work in this area is [*Vox Latina*](https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC), by W. Sidney Allen.  The author answers your question in his foreword, identifying 6 types of evidence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. specific statements of Latin grammarians and other authors&#xD;&#xA;regarding the pronunciation of the language; &#xD;&#xA;2. puns, plays on words, ancient etymologies, and imitations of natural sounds;&#xD;&#xA;3. the representation of Latin words in other languages;&#xD;&#xA;4. developments in the Romance languages; &#xD;&#xA;5. the spelling conventions of Latin, and particularly scribal or epigraphic&#xD;&#xA;variations; and &#xD;&#xA;6. the internal structure of the Latin languageitself, including its metrical patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The evidence for some sounds, of course, will be stronger than for others:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The degree of accuracy, with which we can reconstruct the ancient pronunciation varies from sound to sound, but for the most part can be determined within quite narrow limits.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="72" RevisionGUID="9728d658-f5c5-4093-9827-853d5328aba7" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:32:48.793" UserId="30" Text="I believe your conjecture is mistaken: the shape of your head has nothing to do with it. As I have always understood it, *prae* means &quot;forward, first&quot;, so *praeceps* means &quot;head-first&quot;. If you enter into a situation head first, such as a fall or a cooking-pot or an enemy, you're being hurried or reckless or desperate, because your head is vulnerable: your would normally stick out your hand or foot first, since you're human, not canine like me. If you jump off a cliff head first, you're hasty indeed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="73" RevisionGUID="55167c86-9557-45c9-b367-8e8fd6b669c4" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:34:47.183" UserId="78" Text="Simply, vel is inclusive and aut is exclusive. As Lewis and Short puts it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In general *aut* puts in the place of a previous assertion another, objectively and absolutely antithetical to it, while vel indicates that the contrast rests upon subjective opinion or choice; i. e. aut is objective, vel subjective, or aut excludes one term, vel makes the two indifferent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Vel] As disjunctive conjunction, to introduce an alternative as a matter of choice or preference, or as not affecting the principal assertion (while *aut* introduces an absolute or essential opposition...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going off your examples (and corrected, as I assume you mean virum not virem):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet tibi habere aut virum aut laetitia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means, &quot;You are allowed to have either a man or happiness **but not both**.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet tibi habere vel virum vel laetitia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;You are allowed to have a man, or perhaps happiness, *or both*, should you wish.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="74" RevisionGUID="477a1cb8-3483-4940-a317-f575b58f7bb5" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:35:49.920" UserId="79" Text="An important source of information is comparison to other languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Cicero was spelled as Κικερω&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; in Greek.&#xD;&#xA;If we believe that the Greek kappa was pronounced as /k/ rather than /s/ or /ts/ or anything else, we can be confident that c was pronounced as /k/ in Latin as well &amp;mdash; at least in this name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, the name Caesar gave rise to the present German word Kaiser.&#xD;&#xA;The loan was, as far as I know, made in the ancient times.&#xD;&#xA;If we know something about how the pronunciation of German(ic languages) evolved, we know something more about how Caesar pronounced his name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;At the time Greek would be written with uppercase letters only and without accents.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I have left accents out, but I find it more convenient to only capitalize the first letter.&#xD;&#xA;If someone knows how to accent this name in Greek, go ahead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="68" RevisionGUID="ca638ff8-37f5-4729-afc8-b99ee2ae69d5" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:35:56.237" UserId="78" Comment="edited body" Text="First, not all dictionaries follow that convention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importantly, though, the infinitive cannot distinguish between 3rd and 3rd-IO verbs, which of the four principle parts, is only distinguishable in the first person present (cf. ago, agere, egi, actus v. facio, facere, feci, factus). Not having that there would lead students to miss that crucial information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="75" RevisionGUID="305785f1-b1ec-4518-bd64-204ea2bf2c1a" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:40:13.470" UserId="30" Text="[Lewis &amp; Short][1] say it came to refer to various things shaped like a thorn or prickle in its transferred senses, under which they group &quot;backbone&quot;. Our backbone is a long, thin object, after all. Perhaps their sense number 2 elucidates the etymological path for you: a **fish-bone**. Those are pointed and can prick into your flesh, and they resemble backbones in that they are bones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=spina&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="76" RevisionGUID="4e4e858e-8932-4700-9264-074b9d54503b" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:41:17.137" UserId="78" Text="As you noted (almost correctly), *hibernum* comes from *hibernus, -a, -um* which does mean 'wintry'. Any neuter adjective can be made into a noun by simple use. It's a feature of the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, *hibernum* is rare and not often used. 99% of the time when an author wants to say 'winter', they say *hiems*, if not perhaps some poetical euphemism. *Hibernum*'s importance comes not from meaning winter, but rather from its meaning in the plural as 'winter-quarters for troops&quot;. See [Lewis and Short II.B](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=hibernum&amp;la=la#lexicon)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="71" RevisionGUID="52fad02e-c179-45e7-b9f7-695d0f38e32d" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:42:45.760" UserId="12" Comment="names of grammarians" Text="A standard work in this area is [*Vox Latina*](https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC), by W. Sidney Allen.  The author answers your question in his foreword, identifying 6 types of evidence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. specific statements of Latin grammarians and other authors&#xD;&#xA;regarding the pronunciation of the language; &#xD;&#xA;2. puns, plays on words, ancient etymologies, and imitations of natural sounds;&#xD;&#xA;3. the representation of Latin words in other languages;&#xD;&#xA;4. developments in the Romance languages; &#xD;&#xA;5. the spelling conventions of Latin, and particularly scribal or epigraphic&#xD;&#xA;variations; and &#xD;&#xA;6. the internal structure of the Latin language itself, including its metrical patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The evidence for some sounds, of course, will be stronger than for others:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The degree of accuracy, with which we can reconstruct the ancient pronunciation varies from sound to sound, but for the most part can be determined within quite narrow limits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your question about *which* grammarians, in an appendix he includes dozens of quotes from a variety of prominent names, like [Quintilian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintilian), [Priscian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscian), [Gellius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aulus_Gellius), and [Cicero](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero), among others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="40" RevisionGUID="e3e36df8-cb98-4bf2-8355-e8d0b115025d" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:44:38.213" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Fixed typo. thanks to @C.M.Weimer for the help." Text="&lt;sup&gt;Related to [this question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1/are-que-and-et-equivalent)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I see &quot;vel&quot;, &quot;aut&quot;, and &quot;-ve&quot; being used (mostly) interchangeably in the Latin I read&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. Is there any idiomatic difference, or can they be used interchangeably?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, can I use &quot;-ve&quot; for either/or, like I would with &quot;aut&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet tibi habere **aut** vim **aut** laetitia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet tibi habere vim**ve** laetitia**ve**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And does using &quot;vel&quot; instead of &quot;aut&quot; change the meaning in any way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet tibi habere **vel** vim **vel** laetitia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="73" RevisionGUID="be9e71c3-1791-4cc9-840d-5cb249e3674d" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:45:16.457" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 58 characters in body" Text="Simply, vel is inclusive and aut is exclusive. As Lewis and Short puts it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In general *aut* puts in the place of a previous assertion another, objectively and absolutely antithetical to it, while vel indicates that the contrast rests upon subjective opinion or choice; i. e. aut is objective, vel subjective, or aut excludes one term, vel makes the two indifferent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Vel] As disjunctive conjunction, to introduce an alternative as a matter of choice or preference, or as not affecting the principal assertion (while *aut* introduces an absolute or essential opposition...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going off your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet tibi habere aut vim aut laetitia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means, &quot;You are allowed to have either power or happiness **but not both**.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet tibi habere vel vim vel laetitia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;You are allowed to have power, or perhaps happiness, *or both*, should you wish.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="77" RevisionGUID="d50ea4e0-7bae-47e0-b76c-b6c0d742064e" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:46:08.450" UserId="100" Text="At which point in history was the language spoken not anymore called Latin but any of the succeeding languages like Italian, French or Spanish? What are the characteristics which made them different languages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="193" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="77" RevisionGUID="d50ea4e0-7bae-47e0-b76c-b6c0d742064e" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:46:08.450" UserId="100" Text="When and why did Latin mutate into Italian, French and Spanish?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="194" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="77" RevisionGUID="d50ea4e0-7bae-47e0-b76c-b6c0d742064e" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:46:08.450" UserId="100" Text="|history|late-latin|french|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="73" RevisionGUID="8dac2738-d675-428d-be02-a8be57b9297c" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:52:04.043" UserId="78" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="Simply, vel is inclusive and aut is exclusive. As [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.04.0059) put it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In general *aut* puts in the place of a previous assertion another, objectively and absolutely antithetical to it, while vel indicates that the contrast rests upon subjective opinion or choice; i. e. aut is objective, vel subjective, or aut excludes one term, vel makes the two indifferent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Vel] As disjunctive conjunction, to introduce an alternative as a matter of choice or preference, or as not affecting the principal assertion (while *aut* introduces an absolute or essential opposition...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going off your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet tibi habere aut vim aut laetitia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means, &quot;You are allowed to have either power or happiness **but not both**.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet tibi habere vel vim vel laetitia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;You are allowed to have power, or perhaps happiness, *or both*, should you wish.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="e8f484c7-52af-4560-9f4c-a24fc129ce0d" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:53:01.590" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added a note about hiatii" Text="Elision of a vowel (or vowel + *m*) occurs when it's at the end of the word, and the next word starts with either a vowel or *h* + vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the discretion of the poet, the last vowel of a word can be kept even if the next starts with one; in this case, it's considered to be in [hiatus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiatus_(linguistics)). However, this is very, very rare. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Source: [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_%28Latin%29#Elision), and also my learning, but it's entirely possible I missed something so feel free to edit.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="1ab7dd20-2533-460a-ac01-f41e0c576e93" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:56:50.397" UserId="30" Text="There are two entirely unrelated prefixes *in-*: one is the negation; the other is simply like the preposition *in* meaning &quot;in, on, into, onto, to&quot;. In this case, it looks like *onto*, since you're pressing *on* a surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, they often seem to be used interchangeably, but I'm sure there are some subtle differences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="80" RevisionGUID="a1861e4a-8406-4a6e-a591-3d6d2469ea79" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:57:11.783" UserId="79" Text="The argument raised in the document you cite is good one.&#xD;&#xA;In classical Latin poetry [elision](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elision#Latin) is used frequently.&#xD;&#xA;As a rule, when a word ends in a vowel and the next word begins with a vowel, the vowel in the first word is not pronounced.&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this main rule, there are two additional things to note: Word-initial h and word-final m are ignored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exceptions to these rules are rare.&#xD;&#xA;The poetic meters used in ancient poetry were quite strict, so the elision rules are easy to verify by reading poetry (out loud if you will).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the purposes of scansion, ending a word in -um (or with any other vowel) behaves exactly as ending a word in a long vowel.&#xD;&#xA;This is a good reason to believe that at least word-final -um was pronounced more like a long vowel than a vowel and a consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Poetic considerations give no insight as to whether the long vowel was nasalized or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="5d931280-1e26-49e8-b255-bbc2f9aebb17" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:02:46.263" UserId="66" Text="The letter Γ was sometimes written  and was taken into the Latin alphabet as C, so the position did not change. The letter G was only added later (3rd century BC) to the Latin alphabet, to disambiguate the sound /g/ from /k/ (i.e. soft C from hard C) and took the spot of Z (at that time /r/), which was dropped, only to be reintroduced two centuries later (then /dz/) for Greek loanwords, but this time at the end of the alphabet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has good info about this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z#Latin&#xD;&#xA;- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Latin_alphabet#Old_Latin_period&#xD;&#xA;- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Italic_script" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="47794d1f-9ceb-4042-b949-79feae838775" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:04:13.327" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added 276 characters in body" Text="Elision of a vowel (or vowel + *m*) occurs when it's at the end of the word, and the next word starts with either a vowel or *h* + vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the discretion of the poet, the last vowel of a word can be kept even if the next starts with one; in this case, it's considered to be in [hiatus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiatus_(linguistics)). However, this is very, very rare. &#xA;&#xA;Thanks to @Cerberus for [pointing out][1]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; However, if the second word is a form of sum, its first letter is normally elided, instead of the last letter of the preceding word.&#xA;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Source: [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_%28Latin%29#Elision), and also my learning, but it's entirely possible I missed something so feel free to edit.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/51/when-can-i-elide-letters/52#comment85_52" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="83" RevisionGUID="4925c7a1-92f2-44bd-aba8-ab34a338c405" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:05:19.370" UserId="30" Text="Whether or not it is correct, the French etymology is clear enough? Flat land was used for farming; the slopes of a hill are less amenable to farming, so people used those as pastures instead (to feed herds). Hence &quot;inclined [land]&quot; came to mean &quot;pasture&quot;. What is it you find incomprehensible about that theory?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="cc8dda61-b19c-48eb-b979-69644b54f25d" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:08:22.397" UserId="52" Text="Some of the reasons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - after fall of Western Roman Empire, contact between various region slowed down and lost a lot of its importance; thus the strongest reason to maintain the unity of the language ceased to work&#xD;&#xA; - also, at the same time Roman bureacracy ceased to require correct Latin&#xD;&#xA; - when there are no strong reasons to keep the lanuage united, regional dialects diverge with time, this is natural, but would probably take slightly longer to make those dialects full-fledged new lanuages&#xD;&#xA; - various Germanic tribes with their own lanuages/ dialects of Germanic language (or something in between, I'm not sure how different they were) ruled various part of former Roman Empire, influencing Latin spoken there in slightly different manner&#xD;&#xA; - the Iberic or Celtic languages spoken there before arrival of Latin were not official, but somewhere they survived in the countryside (definitely in Bretagne) - this probably wasn't as big influence as we might expect in age of &quot;celtomania&quot;, but it was an influence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm just an archaeologist, not linguist, so I'll leave the second part of your question (what made them different) to some linguist,but it happenned in EarlyMiddle Ages, in few centuries after the fall of Western Roman Empire." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="213" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="71810d2f-be09-4a4c-9d72-08088a7195ea" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:16:00.173" UserId="93" Comment="tagging..." Text="|vocabulary|meaning|wording|conjunction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="214" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="71810d2f-be09-4a4c-9d72-08088a7195ea" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:16:00.173" Comment="Proposed by 93 approved by 11 edit id of 11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="85" RevisionGUID="1158fccb-3907-4664-af6c-e3177d924c85" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:17:24.963" UserId="73" Text="Today, there are many different abbreviations for the phrase &quot;et cetera&quot;, including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - etc.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;c.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;ct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, the phrase was used in the classical period - in other words, it's not simply a modern-day expression. How would the Romans have abbreviated it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="216" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="85" RevisionGUID="1158fccb-3907-4664-af6c-e3177d924c85" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:17:24.963" UserId="73" Text="How would the Romans have abbreviated &quot;et cetera&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="217" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="85" RevisionGUID="1158fccb-3907-4664-af6c-e3177d924c85" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:17:24.963" UserId="73" Text="|classical-latin|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="86" RevisionGUID="1142f458-147a-45ae-bb6a-2bdaad398471" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:21:03.463" UserId="79" Text="If you want to say &quot;and&quot; in Latin, both et and -que are often possible.&#xD;&#xA;The use of -que is more limited (as indicated in James Kingsbery's answer), so using et is always a safe choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix -que only means &quot;and&quot;, but et can also be used as an adverb (&quot;also&quot;, &quot;in addition&quot;) &amp;mdash; in some situations et and etiam are both equally valid.&#xD;&#xA;As a good rule of thumb, you can use et whenever you want to add something.&#xD;&#xA;Don't take this as a rigid rule, though; sometimes etiam or quoque is more appropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="220" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="77" RevisionGUID="24e463d1-92d7-4b11-8887-dd96758982f8" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:24:36.233" UserId="-1" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:66,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Earthliŋ&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:12,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nathaniel&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:89,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Lilienthal&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:73,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;HDE 226868&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21" RevisionGUID="861bb94a-0d7b-4a78-a15a-7b5abfdc7dbe" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:26:21.557" UserId="40" Comment="IE -&gt; Indo-European" Text="No, the similarity is almost certainly accidental. This kind of coincidental similarity is pretty common, especially in short words like *ad*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin *ad* &quot;to, near, at&quot; has cognates in several other branches of Indo-European, including Celtic (Old Irish *ad-*), Phrygian (αδ-), and Germanic -- English *at* is among the latter. It appears to go back to a Proto-Indo-European form such as *h₂ed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hebrew *ʕad* &quot;toward&quot; appears to have originally had a temporal meaning, &quot;until&quot;; it's homonymous with a noun meaning &quot;perpetuity&quot;. It's very unlikely that this word would have been borrowed as a preposition into Proto-Indo-European, both because languages rarely borrow prepositions and because there is not much evidence for contact between these two language families in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="85" RevisionGUID="222c63cc-7e93-48cb-823b-8dc82f1a507f" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:27:56.987" UserId="73" Comment="added 19 characters in body; edited title" Text="Today, there are many different abbreviations for the phrase &quot;et cetera&quot;, including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - etc.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;c.&#xD;&#xA; - &amp;ct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, the phrase was used in the classical period - in other words, it's not simply a modern-day expression. Are there any records of how Romans abbreviated &quot;et cetera&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="223" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="85" RevisionGUID="222c63cc-7e93-48cb-823b-8dc82f1a507f" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:27:56.987" UserId="73" Comment="added 19 characters in body; edited title" Text="Are there any recorded classical Roman abbreviations of &quot;et cetera&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="87" RevisionGUID="4cf538e1-b0ce-428d-ad56-32d7e3b63537" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:33:27.153" UserId="45" Text="The [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmiro) entry for `miro` indicates that it is an &quot;ante-classical form of miror.&quot; Combining the examples in this entry with those found in [An Etymological Analysis of Latin Verbs](https://books.google.com/books?id=NxVgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=%22aut+ambos+mira%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qFYPLB0fdr&amp;sig=ZPKRjlnW3AWqSlimHVPjtOT3vHg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjJvY2E6Y7LAhVG8j4KHfPcDhIQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22aut%20ambos%20mira%22&amp;f=false), I have found the following authors who use the active form instead of the deponent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Varro (d. 27 BC)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hospes, quid miras nummo curare Serapim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aut ambos mira aut noli mirare de eodem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Pomponius (d. AD 138)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si studium mirabis diu...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry in [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/miro#Latin), however, informs us that it is &quot;especially used in late or vulgar Latin.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been able to locate examples of this usage in medieval Latin, however." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="88" RevisionGUID="fb500951-db24-4f61-aece-dee3be1a1ca6" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:34:01.467" UserId="66" Text="[Apparently](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_abbreviations), in Classical Latin _et cetera_ were abbreviated ZC (_**z**etera et **c**etera_) or ZE (_**ze**tera_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As @JoonasIlmavirta points out, the history of the ampersand (deriving from a ligature of a cursive _et_) is too short to be relevant to Classical Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="87" RevisionGUID="52a5d790-ba49-4c86-996a-a69a01d14c4d" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:40:45.863" UserId="45" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmiro) entry for `miro` indicates that it is an &quot;ante-classical form of miror.&quot; Combining the examples in this entry with those found in [An Etymological Analysis of Latin Verbs](https://books.google.com/books?id=NxVgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=%22aut+ambos+mira%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qFYPLB0fdr&amp;sig=ZPKRjlnW3AWqSlimHVPjtOT3vHg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjJvY2E6Y7LAhVG8j4KHfPcDhIQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22aut%20ambos%20mira%22&amp;f=false), I have found the following authors who use the active form instead of the deponent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Varro (d. 27 BC)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hospes, quid miras nummo curare Serapim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aut ambos mira aut noli mirare de eodem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Pomponius (d. AD 138)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si studium mirabis diu...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry in [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/miro#Latin), however, informs us that it is &quot;especially used in late or vulgar Latin.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been unable to locate examples of this usage in medieval Latin, however." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="89" RevisionGUID="0d52020e-141c-4906-b9ef-63979e8af6ca" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:54:33.477" UserId="107" Text="I'm wondering what's memento mori actually means?. From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_mori), I see the meaning is &quot;you must die&quot; but doesn't it sounds like a threat? Legend said that one of the war prisoner use the word for mocking the Cesar. Is there any better translation or deep meaning for it? Many christian priests use it for Sunday service speech opening, remind us that we're only mortals. So in my comprehension it means [remember that] &quot;you/everyone will die someday&quot;. Does it correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="229" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="89" RevisionGUID="0d52020e-141c-4906-b9ef-63979e8af6ca" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:54:33.477" UserId="107" Text="What is memento mori actually means?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="230" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="89" RevisionGUID="0d52020e-141c-4906-b9ef-63979e8af6ca" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:54:33.477" UserId="107" Text="|memento|mori|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="90" RevisionGUID="ad32fe7c-f39e-4566-99a8-633a47724738" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:58:02.743" UserId="52" Text="&quot;Memento&quot; means &quot;remember&quot;. Literally it's &quot;remember the death&quot;, which means: &quot;Remember you must die.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="90" RevisionGUID="4e62c381-6075-46d5-abbf-05a227ccc2db" CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:21:43.573" UserId="52" Comment="added 174 characters in body" Text="&quot;Memento&quot; means &quot;remember&quot;. Literally it's &quot;remember to die&quot;, which means: &quot;Remember you must die.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Christian meaning is not just &quot;remember you aremere mortal&quot;, but especially &quot;remember you will face Lord in the day of judgment&quot;. That's why this was Cistercians' motto." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="907ae9e0-ac99-45b2-88e4-d5a012c6506c" CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:22:11.057" UserId="9" Text="Obviously, you can check a dictionary. If you can't or don't feel like it, here are a few &quot;rules of thumb&quot; I use. I can't guarantee these will work in all cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you're an English speaker, look at a related English word from Latin. If it's spelled with &quot;j,&quot; it was probably consonantal &quot;j&quot; in Latin as well. For example, we can compare Latin MAIVS to English &quot;major,&quot; Latin OBIECTUM to English &quot;object,&quot; and so on. &quot;May&quot; is not written with a &quot;j&quot; in English, which might help you remember that the related adjective MAIVS is not pronounced with &quot;j&quot; in Latin either.&#xD;&#xA;2. Generally, derivatives of IACIO are pronounced with /j/. There's a lot of them, so this is somewhat useful to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note: unlike most long consonants, phonetically long /jj/ was normally not written double in Latin. In addition, it seems that written I may have corresponded to /ji/ in some cases in words like [*TRAICIO*][1]  &quot;throw over&quot; (composed of TRANS + IACIO). This means that you actually have to choose between four options for written *i*: /j/, /jj/ /ji/ and /i/. (Five if the source doesn't use macrons.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/traicio#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="14889402-a17c-4169-b2fe-70a2047e4000" CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:23:06.597" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Z is not originally a Latin letter! In fact, the letter we call Z wasn't Greek either, but rather had either an &quot;sd&quot; or &quot;dz&quot; sound (the jury is still out on which is correct, and there may have been regional variations).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But with Latin, it's not just that no words started with Z, but that the letter itself is Greek. They borrowed the letter to represent the Z sound in Greek words. The same is true for Y, which is why it is at the end of the alphabet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Incidentally, Latin didn't have J, U, or W, which are medieval additions.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The standard reference for pronouncing Latin and its alphabet is W. Sidney Allen's *Vox Latina* (2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; ed., Cambridge 1989)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="fd4b551a-06b5-4f3a-8b51-a94811818f76" CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:29:20.043" UserId="9" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Obviously, you can check a dictionary. If you can't or don't feel like it, here are a few &quot;rules of thumb&quot; I use. I can't guarantee these will work in all cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you're an English speaker, look at a related English word from Latin. If it's spelled with &quot;j,&quot; it was probably consonantal &quot;j&quot; in Latin as well. For example, we can compare Latin MAIVS to English &quot;major,&quot; Latin OBIECTUM to English &quot;object,&quot; and so on. &quot;May&quot; is not written with a &quot;j&quot; in English, which might help you remember that the related adjective MAIVS is not pronounced with &quot;j&quot; in Latin either.&#xD;&#xA;2. Generally, derivatives of IACIO (&quot;throw&quot;) are pronounced with /j/. There's a lot of them, so this is somewhat useful to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note: unlike most long consonants, phonetically long /jj/ was normally not written double in Latin. In addition, it seems that written I may have corresponded to /ji/ in some cases in words like [*TRAICIO*][1]  &quot;throw over&quot; (composed of TRANS + IACIO). This means that you actually have to choose between four options for written *i*: /j/, /jj/ /ji/ and /i/. (Five if the source doesn't use macrons.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/traicio#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="93" RevisionGUID="4e0ac688-4f16-4930-a7ef-378a30770a3e" CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:36:28.507" UserId="68" Text="Officially, &quot;imprimo&quot; means &quot;I mark/stamp&quot; (hence English &quot;impression&quot;), where &quot;premo&quot; just means &quot;I press.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nuances of Latin prefixes have long fascinated me, and it took me forever to realize that they're basically equivalent to English verbs that contain prepositions. So here it's a case of &quot;press&quot; vs. &quot;press in.&quot; &quot;Rideo&quot; = &quot;I laugh&quot;; &quot;inrideo&quot; = &quot;I laugh at.&quot; &quot;Lumino&quot; = &quot;I shine&quot;; &quot;Illumino&quot; = &quot;I shine onto [something].&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gets a little more complicated when there aren't English equivalents. &quot;Lacrimo&quot; = &quot;I cry&quot;; &quot;illacrimo&quot; = &quot;I burst into tears.&quot; &quot;Amplexor&quot; = &quot;I hug [someone]&quot;; &quot;complexor&quot; = &quot;I give [someone] a hug.&quot; But you can usually figure it out with some thought. Nevertheless, it seems very strange to me that this principle isn't taught as part of standard Latin instruction. When you think about it this way it's not difficult, but I've never seen it explained anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wait, actually, that's not true. In fact, [Alfonso Traina][1], Professor Emeritus at the University of Bologna, has written about this, but unfortunately 1) he writes in Italian and 2) I only have photocopies of a few sections of his work, and they don't contain the title of the books they're from, so I'm unable to point you to specific references. :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_Traina" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="ccd6f368-407b-49af-a541-479a788457bb" CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:45:49.297" UserId="9" Comment="added 921 characters in body" Text="Obviously, you can check a dictionary. If you can't or don't feel like it, here are a few &quot;rules of thumb&quot; I use. I can't guarantee these will work in all cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you're an English speaker, look at a related English word from Latin. If it's spelled with &quot;j,&quot; it was probably consonantal &quot;j&quot; in Latin as well. For example, we can compare Latin MAIVS to English &quot;major,&quot; Latin OBIECTUM to English &quot;object,&quot; and so on. &quot;May&quot; is not written with a &quot;j&quot; in English, which might help you remember that the related adjective MAIVS is not pronounced with &quot;j&quot; in Latin either.&#xD;&#xA;2. Generally, derivatives of IACIO (&quot;throw&quot;) are pronounced with /j/. There's a lot of them, so this is somewhat useful to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note: unlike most long consonants, phonetically long /jj/ was normally not written double in Latin. In addition, it seems that written I may have corresponded to /ji/ or /jji/ in some cases in words like [*TRAICIO*][1]  &quot;throw over&quot; (composed of TRANS + IACIO). This means that you actually have to choose between five options for written *i*: /i/ /j/, /jj/ /ji/ and /jji/. (Five if the source doesn't use macrons.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is what W. Sidney Allen wrote about consonantal I in *Vox Latina*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One important peculiarity of the latin *i*-consonant is to be noted.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the interior of a word, this sound rarely occurred singly between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vowels. Where once it had been present, it was lost prehistorically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (thus Latin *trēs* beside Sanskrit *trayas*). With a few exceptions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; noted below, whenever a single, intervocalic *i*-consonant is written,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it stands for a *double* consonant, i.e. [yy]. Thus *aio, maior,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; peior, Troia* stand for *aiio, maiior,* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 39][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it appears sources that use a macron in &quot;māius&quot; (greater) are assigning false quantity to the vowel; according to Allen, the actual pronunciation would have been /majjus/ with a short &quot;a&quot; and a long &quot;j.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/traicio#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ganino.com/files/Latin%20Copyright%20Books/29%20Vox%20Latina%20The%20Pronunciation%20of%20Classical%20Latin.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="90" RevisionGUID="4a3d0ecd-f3ad-4641-bc75-75206239a55a" CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:46:21.923" UserId="115" Comment="minor corrections" Text="&quot;Memento&quot; means &quot;remember&quot;. Literally it's &quot;remember to die&quot;, which means: &quot;Remember you must die.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Christian meaning is not just &quot;remember you are a mere mortal&quot;, but especially &quot;remember you will face Lord in the day of judgment&quot;. That's why this was the Cistercians' motto." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="245" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="90" RevisionGUID="4a3d0ecd-f3ad-4641-bc75-75206239a55a" CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:46:21.923" Comment="Proposed by 115 approved by 52 edit id of 13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="94" RevisionGUID="f88bce97-f0cf-4bf9-85e8-66e90b18aa50" CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:50:45.787" UserId="68" Text="Basically, your second option is correct. There is the Vatican's *Lexicon Recentis Latínitátis*, referred to in the comment, but its approach to Latin is very idiosyncratic; debates over neologisms often get incredibly acrimonious, if you can believe it, but there are (VERY roughly) two schools: the &quot;Ciceronian,&quot; in which making up words for concepts that didn't exist in ancient Rome is to be avoided whenever possible, and the &quot;Erasmian,&quot; in which new concepts call for new ideas. (&quot;Ciceronian&quot; and &quot;Erasmian&quot; are my names for them, though they're not entirely accurate; Cicero made up words all the time, and Erasmus has a whole screed about how people who think you can't use any Latin Cicero didn't use are idiots.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vatican is of the more &quot;Ciceronian&quot; school, which gives you, unfortunately, things like &quot;immódica medicamenti stupefactīvi iniéctio&quot; as the official term for &quot;overdose.&quot; Other than the Vatican, actually, I'm not aware of anybody who takes this approach to neologisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Actually, now that I think of it, even the Vatican doesn't take this approach, or not always: *The Diary of a Wimpy Kid* was translated into Latin by a priest from the Vatican (Daniel Gallagher), and it *definitely* doesn't use the *Lexicon Recentis Latínitátis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically, somebody comes up with a word and it catches on. &quot;World-wide web,&quot; for example, is widely known as &quot;Téla Totíus Terrae,&quot; and I have to imagine that somebody came up with that and couldn't stop giggling, and it's so great (ttt) that there's no reason to come up with anything else. &quot;Computátrum&quot; is the generally used word for &quot;computer&quot; (though the Vatican prefers &quot;ínstrúmentum computátrálium&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TL;DR: People come up with stuff and whatever sticks, sticks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="8760f423-0819-48e6-beb3-22a462fea998" CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:51:19.767" UserId="9" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Obviously, you can check a dictionary. If you can't or don't feel like it, here are a few &quot;rules of thumb&quot; I use. I can't guarantee these will work in all cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you're an English speaker, look at a related English word from Latin. If it's spelled with &quot;j,&quot; it was probably consonantal &quot;j&quot; in Latin as well. For example, we can compare Latin MAIVS to English &quot;major,&quot; Latin OBIECTUM to English &quot;object,&quot; and so on. &quot;May&quot; is not written with a &quot;j&quot; in English, which might help you remember that the related adjective MAIVS is not pronounced with &quot;j&quot; in Latin either.&#xD;&#xA;2. Generally, derivatives of IACIO (&quot;throw&quot;) are pronounced with /j/. There's a lot of them, so this is somewhat useful to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note: unlike most long consonants, phonetically long /jj/ was normally not written double in Latin. In addition, it seems that written I may have corresponded to /ji/ or /jji/ in some cases in words like [*TRAICIO*][1]  &quot;throw over&quot; (composed of TRANS + IACIO). This means that you actually have to choose between five options for written *i*: /i/ /j/, /jj/ /ji/ and /jji/. (Or at least six if the source doesn't use macrons!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is what W. Sidney Allen wrote about consonantal I in *Vox Latina*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One important peculiarity of the latin *i*-consonant is to be noted.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the interior of a word, this sound rarely occurred singly between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vowels. Where once it had been present, it was lost prehistorically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (thus Latin *trēs* beside Sanskrit *trayas*). With a few exceptions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; noted below, whenever a single, intervocalic *i*-consonant is written,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it stands for a *double* consonant, i.e. [yy]. Thus *aio, maior,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; peior, Troia* stand for *aiio, maiior,* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 39][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it appears sources that use a macron in &quot;māius&quot; (greater) are assigning false quantity to the vowel; according to Allen, the actual pronunciation would have been /majjus/ with a short &quot;a&quot; and a long &quot;j.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/traicio#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ganino.com/files/Latin%20Copyright%20Books/29%20Vox%20Latina%20The%20Pronunciation%20of%20Classical%20Latin.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="88" RevisionGUID="4073187a-8965-4580-90ee-ce0992cb7d8e" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:01:14.590" UserId="66" Comment="added 463 characters in body" Text="First of all, the history of the ampersand (deriving from a ligature of a cursive _et_) is too short to be relevant to Classical Latin as @JoonasIlmavirta points out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_abbreviations) lists ZC (_**z**etera et **c**etera_) or ZE (_**ze**tera_) as abbreviations of _et cetera_ for classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as @Marc points out, the _American Society of Greek and Latin Epigraphy_ doesn't list it in their common Latin abbreviations. (Apparently, their list is based on inscriptions that were published in the French publication [L'Année épigraphique](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Ann%C3%A9e_%C3%A9pigraphique) between 1888 and 1993. The inscriptions are [available on Wikimedia](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ann%C3%A9e_%C3%89pigraphique).)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="95" RevisionGUID="01dd8b0a-9998-4baf-97e4-b52c0befde47" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:04:00.783" UserId="118" Text="_Linguā Latīnā Per Sē Illūstrāta_ Ioānnis Ørbergī paginā 207 scrīptum est:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ignis sōlis propinquī ceram, quā pennae iūnctae et fīxae erant, mollīvit et pennās ussit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cur nōn &quot;propinquus&quot; dīcit?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="250" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="95" RevisionGUID="01dd8b0a-9998-4baf-97e4-b52c0befde47" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:04:00.783" UserId="118" Text="&quot;Ignis solis propinqui&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="251" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="95" RevisionGUID="01dd8b0a-9998-4baf-97e4-b52c0befde47" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:04:00.783" UserId="118" Text="|grammar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="250e83bd-958e-471b-a24d-b64f79511b96" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:07:19.260" UserId="9" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Obviously, you can check a dictionary. If you can't or don't feel like it, here are a few &quot;rules of thumb&quot; I use. I can't guarantee these will work in all cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you're an English speaker, look at a related English word from Latin. If it's spelled with &quot;j,&quot; it was probably consonantal &quot;j&quot; in Latin as well. For example, we can compare Latin MAIVS to English &quot;major,&quot; Latin OBIECTUM to English &quot;object,&quot; and so on. &quot;May&quot; is not written with a &quot;j&quot; in English, which might help you remember that the related adjective MAIVS is not pronounced with &quot;j&quot; in Latin either.&#xD;&#xA;2. Generally, derivatives of IACIO (&quot;throw&quot;) are pronounced with /j/. There's a lot of them, so this is somewhat useful to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note: unlike most long consonants, phonetically long /jj/ was normally not written double in Latin. In addition, it seems that written I may have corresponded to /ji/ or /jji/ in some cases in words like [*TRAICIO*][1]  &quot;throw over&quot; (composed of TRANS + IACIO). This means that you actually have to choose between five options for written *i*: /i/ /j/, /jj/ /ji/ and /jji/. (Or at least six if the source doesn't use macrons!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some of what W. Sidney Allen wrote about consonantal I in *Vox Latina*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One important peculiarity of the latin *i*-consonant is to be noted.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the interior of a word, this sound rarely occurred singly between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vowels. Where once it had been present, it was lost prehistorically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (thus Latin *trēs* beside Sanskrit *trayas*). With a few exceptions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; noted below, whenever a single, intervocalic *i*-consonant is written,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it stands for a *double* consonant, i.e. [yy]. Thus *aio, maior,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; peior, Troia* stand for *aiio, maiior,* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 39][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it appears sources that use a macron in &quot;māius&quot; (greater) are assigning false quantity to the vowel; according to Allen, the actual pronunciation would have been /majjus/ with a short &quot;a&quot; and a long &quot;j.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/traicio#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ganino.com/files/Latin%20Copyright%20Books/29%20Vox%20Latina%20The%20Pronunciation%20of%20Classical%20Latin.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="88" RevisionGUID="fa6aeda1-637a-46a4-95d8-1bf1946fb310" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:12:21.390" UserId="66" Comment="added 202 characters in body" Text="First of all, the history of the ampersand (deriving from a ligature of a cursive _et_) is too short to be relevant to Classical Latin as @JoonasIlmavirta points out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_abbreviations) lists ZC (_**z**etera et **c**etera_) or ZE (_**ze**tera_) as abbreviations of _et cetera_ for classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as @Marc points out, the _American Society of Greek and Latin Epigraphy_ doesn't list it in their common Latin abbreviations. (Apparently, their list is based on inscriptions that were published in the French publication [L'Année épigraphique](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Ann%C3%A9e_%C3%A9pigraphique) between 1888 and 1993. The inscriptions are [available on Wikimedia](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ann%C3%A9e_%C3%89pigraphique).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been able to find a number of coins from the 16th century with ZC as an inscription, but of course that is not Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ZC][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/95AJ7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="96" RevisionGUID="9623017b-552e-4bdd-a798-da2e5d30544b" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:15:11.970" UserId="40" Text="Sturtevant, *The Pronunciation of Greek and Latin*, says of the change in pronunciation of C before front vowels (p. 167): &quot;The epigraphical evidence of this change is not abundant enough to inspire confidence before the sixth century&quot;. He doesn't discuss the evidence any further, unfortunately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the change is a little more complicated than just &quot;C became [ts]&quot;. The outcomes of Latin C before front vowels in the Romance languages are varied: e.g. French and Portuguese have [s], Italian and Romanian [tʃ] (the sound in &quot;church&quot;), Peninsular Spanish has [θ] (the sound in &quot;thin&quot;), while Sardinian retains [k]. It seems plausible that [ts] was an intermediate stage on the way to the French and Iberian outcomes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something similar happened to G before the same vowels: it first became [j], with later specific developments in the daughter languages. Sturtevant thinks the change to [j] occurred by AD 500, so it seems likely that the C change would have taken place at about the same time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="97" RevisionGUID="975ee66a-e250-4fbf-a9d1-daeb8264410e" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:17:12.830" UserId="40" Text="It's agreeing with *sōlis*, gen. sg. m." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="98" RevisionGUID="5ec0c574-4e9a-429f-a6db-9b4a4707eed4" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:19:10.330" UserId="118" Text="Genese 1:5 Hieronymus traduxit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Appellavitque lucem Diem, et tenebras Noctem: factumque est vespere et mane, dies **unus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cur &quot;unus&quot;, non &quot;primus&quot;? Nonne numerum ordinalem significat? Nonne &quot;unus&quot; est cardinalis?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="257" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="98" RevisionGUID="5ec0c574-4e9a-429f-a6db-9b4a4707eed4" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:19:10.330" UserId="118" Text="&quot;Dies unus&quot;—non primus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="258" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="98" RevisionGUID="5ec0c574-4e9a-429f-a6db-9b4a4707eed4" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:19:10.330" UserId="118" Text="|grammar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="ae36a33d-1813-48c9-90e3-9c2cdcdd474a" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:22:38.523" UserId="30" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="There are two entirely unrelated prefixes *in-*: one is the negation; the other is simply like the preposition *in* meaning &quot;in, on, into, onto, to&quot;. In this case, it looks like *onto*, since you're pressing *on* a surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, *premo* and *imprimo* often seem to be used interchangeably, but I'm sure there are some subtle differences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="99" RevisionGUID="2fd01035-2a56-4932-a997-c7b304387606" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:23:00.527" UserId="40" Text="This is a literal translation of the Hebrew original, which has *yom ehad* &quot;one day&quot;, not *yom rishon* &quot;first day&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="2a7c5795-3362-45fb-97db-5b93f8864198" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:25:36.833" UserId="25" Text="The word &quot;Pontifex&quot; may be taken as you pointed out to be used metaphorically as the Roman high priest as a mediator between man and the gods. He would be the bridge, as it were, between this world and the next. The Pope, even to this day carries the title of the Roman Pontiff of the Latin Church, as a vestige of the ancient Roman title Pontifex.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, bridge building has been considered to be a pious work of charity down the ages. Many Catholic authors have written  on the subject of indulgence which included the building of bridges. Pope Urban II, Pope Leo X and St Thomas Aquinas have all written about the pious work of bridge building in light of indulgences. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;For a long time it had been customary for the popes to grant indulgences for buildings of public utility (e.g. bridges)&quot; - A History of Indulgences. http://www.awakentoprayer.org/indulgence.hist.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Church seems to have included bridge building a form pious work, just like that of building of a cathedral. Not only was this endeavor dangerous, but it was also seen as a necessity in order connect the vast network of pilgrim routes throughout Europe. Pilgrimages have always considered a pious work! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="262" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="95" RevisionGUID="50eee760-6903-4594-90e4-3d96963f47cf" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:26:24.697" UserId="12" Comment="+llpsi tag" Text="|grammar|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="263" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="95" RevisionGUID="50eee760-6903-4594-90e4-3d96963f47cf" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:26:24.697" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 118 edit id of 14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="101" RevisionGUID="18cf79a2-3ff0-4465-83e0-5cc39276842a" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:28:21.003" UserDisplayName="user11" Text="It's a cardinal number, not an ordinal number, in the original Hebrew. Look at [the other uses of the same Hebrew phrase](http://biblehub.com/hebrew/echad_259.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Genesis 1:9](http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/1-9.htm) ([NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:9)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to **one** place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Genesis 2:24](http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/2-24.htm) ([NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2%3A24&amp;version=NIV)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become **one** flesh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so on. The vast majority are clearly 'one'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [NAS translates Gen 1:5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A5&amp;version=NASB) literally as &quot;one day&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, **one day**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="269" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="98" RevisionGUID="476aacfc-01c4-4943-a41a-c09a0fc8861d" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:36:31.163" UserId="12" Comment="add relevant tags" Text="|grammar|vulgata|numerals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="270" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="98" RevisionGUID="476aacfc-01c4-4943-a41a-c09a0fc8861d" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:36:31.163" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 118 edit id of 15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="cc4dc901-9066-401b-a47b-7e79dd2d4bb2" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:00:13.033" UserId="12" Text="The English abbreviation [*Ph.D.*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy) comes from the Latin for *Doctor of Philosophy*, which I understand would be either *Philosophiae Doctor* or *Doctor Philosophiae*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know word order is flexible in Latin, but I thought that the general rule was &quot;noun + modifier.&quot;  If so, *Doctor Philosophiae* would be the preferred form.  And yet the widespread usage of *Ph.D.* suggests that the opposite order, *Philosophiae Doctor*, prevailed.  Is there a grammatical reason that the latter option became the source of the *Ph.D.* abbreviation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Related question on ELU.SE: [Why PhD, and not DPh](http://english.stackexchange.com/q/278027/53711)&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="272" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="cc4dc901-9066-401b-a47b-7e79dd2d4bb2" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:00:13.033" UserId="12" Text="Why might &quot;Philosophiae Doctor&quot; (the source of &quot;Ph.D.&quot;) have been preferred over &quot;Doctor Philosophiae&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="273" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="cc4dc901-9066-401b-a47b-7e79dd2d4bb2" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:00:13.033" UserId="12" Text="|etymology|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="104" RevisionGUID="708fdab9-a24c-484a-b81e-e84b96d56e71" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:01:57.857" UserId="12" Text="I understand from *Lingua Latina per se Illustrata* (chap. 6) that the prepositions *ā* and *ab* are equivalent, except that *ā* is used only before words beginning with consonants, while *ab* can be used before any word, regardless of its initial letter.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stylistically, in Classical Latin, would it be considered odd or incorrect to exclusively use *ab*?  Or, put another way, are there any Classical authors that completely neglect the use of *ā*?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="275" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="104" RevisionGUID="708fdab9-a24c-484a-b81e-e84b96d56e71" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:01:57.857" UserId="12" Text="Would it be good Classical Latin style to always use the preposition &quot;ab&quot; and never &quot;ā&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="276" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="104" RevisionGUID="708fdab9-a24c-484a-b81e-e84b96d56e71" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:01:57.857" UserId="12" Text="|classical-latin|preposition|style|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="105" RevisionGUID="d41a6a8a-c1bd-4aa7-a7c2-70fd3c0d0504" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:12:14.653" UserId="30" Text="Yes, I believe that would be considered very odd. Before certain words, *ab* is almost never used. Consider for example [*\*ab te*][1], which is found 0 times in the Hewlett-Packard repository. If you replace that with [*a te*][2], that's 831 results, and 275 for [*abs te*][3]. Similarly, [*?ab me*][4] gives you only 1 result; it happens to be from Cicero, but I suspect it to be an error in transcription.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is possible that no other *never* uses it; but it is still extremely rare in almost all authors, and it would be considered very odd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ab%20te%23&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23a%20te%23&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23abs%20te%23&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ab%20me%23" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="89" RevisionGUID="b0950242-6b4c-45ea-8758-07b93bf09bac" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:12:53.027" UserId="12" Comment="cleanup text and better tags" Text="I'm wondering what *memento mori* actually means. From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_mori), I see the meaning is &quot;you must die&quot; but that makes it sound like a threat. Legend said that one of the war prisoner use the word for mocking the Caesar. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any better translation or meaning for it? Many Christian priests use it for Sunday service speech opening, to remind us that we're only mortals. So in my comprehension it means [remember that] &quot;you/everyone will die someday&quot;. Is that correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="282" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="89" RevisionGUID="b0950242-6b4c-45ea-8758-07b93bf09bac" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:12:53.027" UserId="12" Comment="cleanup text and better tags" Text="What does memento mori actually mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="283" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="89" RevisionGUID="b0950242-6b4c-45ea-8758-07b93bf09bac" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:12:53.027" UserId="12" Comment="cleanup text and better tags" Text="|meaning|definitions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="284" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="89" RevisionGUID="b0950242-6b4c-45ea-8758-07b93bf09bac" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:12:53.027" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 3 edit id of 12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="65" RevisionGUID="c0c7347c-72c5-49cb-8a39-b0e9493026fd" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:13:57.963" UserId="79" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="For questions that ask for an example of usage of a particular word or construction, either artificial or from literature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="286" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="65" RevisionGUID="c0c7347c-72c5-49cb-8a39-b0e9493026fd" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:13:57.963" Comment="Proposed by 79 approved by 3 edit id of 9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="105" RevisionGUID="36eb8113-ac6c-4d80-a114-180d0e8c4cc8" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:17:34.823" UserId="30" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="I believe that would be considered very odd. Before certain words, *ab* is almost never used. Consider for example [*\*ab te*][1], which is found 0 times in the Hewlett-Packard repository. If you replace that with [*a te*][2], that's 831 results, and 275 for [*abs te*][3]. Similarly, [*?ab me*][4] gives you only 1 result; it happens to be from Cicero, but I suspect it to be an error in transcription.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is possible that no author *never* uses it; but it is still extremely rare in almost all authors, and it would be considered very odd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few more queries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ab+bon&#xD;&#xA;- http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ab+bello&#xD;&#xA;- http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ab+ven&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ab%20te%23&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23a%20te%23&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23abs%20te%23&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ab%20me%23" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="105" RevisionGUID="042ca88f-b25d-43fa-8b4c-80f9d5c2fe10" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:23:17.540" UserId="30" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="I believe that would be considered very odd. Before certain words, *ab* is almost never used. Consider for example [*\*ab te*][1], which is found 0 times in the Hewlett-Packard repository. If you replace that with [*a te*][2], that's 831 results, and 275 for [*abs te*][3]. Similarly, [*?ab me*][4] gives you only 1 result; it happens to be from Cicero, but I suspect it to be an error in transcription.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is possible that no author *never* uses *\*ab te* or *?ab me*; but in certain common combinations *ab* is still extremely rare in almost all authors, and so it would be considered very odd to always use *ab*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few more queries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ab+bon&#xD;&#xA;- http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ab+bello&#xD;&#xA;- http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ab+ven&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ab%20te%23&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23a%20te%23&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23abs%20te%23&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ab%20me%23" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="105" RevisionGUID="ac9ec063-2b1a-450e-b215-ea559cd14c64" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:30:25.277" UserId="30" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="I believe that would be considered very odd. Before certain words, *ab* is almost never used by any author. Consider for example [*\*ab te*][1], which is found 0 times in the Hewlett-Packard repository. If you replace that with [*a te*][2], that's 831 results, and 275 for [*abs te*][3]. Similarly, [*?ab me*][4] gives you only 1 result; it happens to be from Cicero, but I suspect it to be an error in transcription.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is possible that no author *never* uses *\*ab te* or *?ab me*; but in certain common combinations *ab* is still extremely rare in almost all authors, and so it would be considered very odd to always use *ab*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few more queries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ab+bon&#xD;&#xA;- http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ab+bello&#xD;&#xA;- http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ab+ven&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ab%20te%23&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23a%20te%23&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23abs%20te%23&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ab%20me%23" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="83586982-ee28-47e3-a758-c416dab19021" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:41:02.307" UserId="9" Comment="added 803 characters in body" Text="Obviously, you can check a dictionary. If you can't or don't feel like it, here are a few &quot;rules of thumb&quot; I use. I can't guarantee these will work in all cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you're an English speaker, look at a related English word from Latin. If it's spelled with &quot;j,&quot; it was probably consonantal &quot;j&quot; in Latin as well. For example, we can compare Latin MAIVS to English &quot;major,&quot; Latin OBIECTUM to English &quot;object,&quot; and so on.&#xD;&#xA;2. Generally, derivatives of IACIO (&quot;throw&quot;) are pronounced with /j/. There's a lot of them, so this is somewhat useful to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note: unlike most long consonants, phonetically long /jj/ was normally not written double in Latin. In addition, it seems that written I may have corresponded to /ji/ or /jji/ in some cases in words like [*TRAICIO*][1]  &quot;throw over&quot; (composed of TRANS + IACIO). This means that you actually have to choose between five options for written *i*: /i/ /j/, /jj/ /ji/ and /jji/. (Or at least six if the source doesn't use macrons!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some of what W. Sidney Allen wrote about consonantal I in *Vox Latina,* a book I would say is a must-read for anyone interested in Classical Latin pronunciation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One important peculiarity of the latin *i*-consonant is to be noted.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the interior of a word, this sound rarely occurred singly between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vowels. Where once it had been present, it was lost prehistorically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (thus Latin *trēs* beside Sanskrit *trayas*). With a few exceptions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; noted below, whenever a single, intervocalic *i*-consonant is written,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it stands for a *double* consonant, i.e. [yy]. Thus *aio, maior,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; peior, Troia* stand for *aiio, maiior,* etc. This is quite clear from various types of evidence. It is specifically mentioned by Quintilian and other grammarians, who also tell us that Cicero and Caesar used in fact to spell such words with *ii* (†Qu. i, 4, 11; †Priscian, K. ii, 14) and it is supported by frequent inscriptional spellings (e.g. *PompeIius, cuiIus, eiius, maiIorem). In Italian a double consonant has been maintained in, for example, *peggio* from *peius.* Moreover, the consonant must be double in order to account for the fact that the preceding syllable is always metrically heavy; for the actual vowel is *short*—this is specifically mentioned by Ter. Maurus (†K. vi, 343), and is further evident from other considerations: e.g. *maior* is connected with *măgis,* being derived from *măg-iōs.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([p. 39][2]; it's page 51 in the linked PDF)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it appears sources that use a macron in &quot;māius&quot; (greater) are assigning false quantity to the vowel; according to Allen, the actual pronunciation would have been /majjus/ with a short &quot;a&quot; and a long &quot;j.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/traicio#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ganino.com/files/Latin%20Copyright%20Books/29%20Vox%20Latina%20The%20Pronunciation%20of%20Classical%20Latin.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="106" RevisionGUID="f600fbcb-e30b-4893-950e-53eae45b87ac" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:47:37.303" UserId="25" Text="Seeing so many similarities in grammatical structure between Sanskrit and Latin, why is it that Latin does not have an instrumental case, as does Sanskrit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="294" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="106" RevisionGUID="f600fbcb-e30b-4893-950e-53eae45b87ac" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:47:37.303" UserId="25" Text="Why does Latin not have an instrumental case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="295" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="106" RevisionGUID="f600fbcb-e30b-4893-950e-53eae45b87ac" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:47:37.303" UserId="25" Text="|grammar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="c4300def-eb21-4871-a999-1dd956fceb7a" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:48:02.247" UserId="9" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Obviously, you can check a dictionary. If you can't or don't feel like it, here are a few &quot;rules of thumb&quot; I use. I can't guarantee these will work in all cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you're an English speaker, look at a related English word from Latin. If it's spelled with &quot;j,&quot; it was probably consonantal &quot;j&quot; in Latin as well. For example, we can compare Latin MAIVS to English &quot;major,&quot; Latin OBIECTUM to English &quot;object,&quot; and so on.&#xD;&#xA;2. Generally, derivatives of IACIO (&quot;throw&quot;) are pronounced with /j/. There's a lot of them, so this is somewhat useful to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note: unlike most long consonants, phonetically long /jj/ was normally not written double in Latin. In addition, it seems that written I may have corresponded to /ji/ or /jji/ in some cases in words like [*TRAICIO*][1]  &quot;throw over&quot; (composed of TRANS + IACIO). This means that you actually have to choose between five options for written *i*: /i/ /j/, /jj/ /ji/ and /jji/. (Or at least six if the source doesn't use macrons!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some of what W. Sidney Allen wrote about consonantal I in *Vox Latina,* a book I would say is a must-read for anyone interested in Classical Latin pronunciation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One important peculiarity of the latin *i*-consonant is to be noted.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the interior of a word, this sound rarely occurred singly between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vowels. Where once it had been present, it was lost prehistorically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (thus Latin *trēs* beside Sanskrit *trayas*). With a few exceptions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; noted below, whenever a single, intervocalic *i*-consonant is written,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it stands for a *double* consonant, i.e. [yy]. Thus *aio, maior,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; peior, Troia* stand for *aiio, maiior,* etc. This is quite clear from various types of evidence. It is specifically mentioned by Quintilian and other grammarians, who also tell us that Cicero and Caesar used in fact to spell such words with *ii* (†Qu. i, 4, 11; †Priscian, K. ii, 14) and it is supported by frequent inscriptional spellings (e.g. `PompeIius, cuiIus, eiius, maiIorem`). In Italian a double consonant has been maintained in, for example, *peggio* from *peius.* Moreover, the consonant must be double in order to account for the fact that the preceding syllable is always metrically heavy; for the actual vowel is *short*—this is specifically mentioned by Ter. Maurus (†K. vi, 343), and is further evident from other considerations: e.g. *maior* is connected with *măgis,* being derived from *măg-iōs.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([p. 39][2]; it's page 51 in the linked PDF)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it appears sources that use a macron in &quot;māius&quot; (greater) are assigning false quantity to the vowel; according to Allen, the actual pronunciation would have been /majjus/ with a short &quot;a&quot; and a long &quot;j.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/traicio#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ganino.com/files/Latin%20Copyright%20Books/29%20Vox%20Latina%20The%20Pronunciation%20of%20Classical%20Latin.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17" RevisionGUID="cbfc5dc1-d2f1-4a29-a67e-d934af43c7d8" CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:00:50.797" UserId="9" Comment="added sections, some more info" Text="In general, the whole purpose of using macrons is to clearly indicate pronunciation, so they're usually pretty straightforward. (Macrons were not used classically, although there were some older devices used for indicating vowel length such as the [apex][1] and &quot;i longa&quot; a taller I.) However, it's true that they can indicate several aspects of pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowel Quantity (i.e. Length)&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macrons primarily indicate that the modified vowel is long. Literally, that is: it's held for a more extended period of time than a regular, short vowel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that at one point, this may have  been the only difference between long and short vowels. In the International Phonetic Alphabet, we transcribe vowel length with a triangular colon ː after the vowel; so we could say that the early Classical Latin pronunciation of the vowels we spell a ā e ē i ī o ō u ū would be /a aː e eː i iː o oː u uː/. We don't know for sure the precise phonetic quality of these vowels. Andrea Calabrese has proposed that they were [ɑ ɑː ɛ ɛː i iː ɔ ɔː u uː] ([*On the Evolution of the Short High Vowels of Latin into Romance*][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowel Quality&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is known is that at some point between Classical and Vulgar Latin, the corresponding long and short vowels also became distinguished in quality. (Calabrese mentions Allen and Sturtevant as linguists who reconstruct these quality distinctions back to the Classical Latin stage.) The non-low vowels (all but a aː) clearly show distinct qualities for short vs. long in some of the Romance languages descended from Vulgar Latin, which causes us to  reconstruct something like [a aː ɛ eː ɪ iː ɔ oː ʊ uː]. I believe I've read some accounts that also reconstruct a difference in quality for short a and long a along the lines of [ɐ aː], but I don't know what evidence this is based on. It's also not clear if short unstressed i between a consonant and a vowel (which in Romance normally developed to some kind of glide, or palatalized the preceding consonant and was lost entirely) was ever pronounced as [ɪ]; it may have been something like [i] or [ij] all the way up until it lost its syllabicity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Vulgar Latin is also believed to have had long [ɛː ɔː] as the realizations of *ae* and *au* respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;False Quantity&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that sometimes when dealing with poetry or old dictionaries, you might see macrons used (or misused) just to mark heavy syllables, which might have had a short vowel but were heavy because they ended with a consonant. This is called &quot;[hidden quantity][4],&quot; so be careful in situations like this and try to check several sources that distinguish between short and long in closed syllables to see if they agree on the length of the vowel. We cannot reconstruct vowel length here based on metrical evidence, but we sometimes can based on inscriptions that use the apex, vowel quality in descended Romance words, or descriptions of ancient grammarians. I actually just found an apparent example of this in a recent question (http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14/when-is-an-i-not-an-i): apparently the word most dictionaries write as *māiŏr* was, according to the linguist W. Sidney Allen, actually pronounced as /majjor/ with *short* &quot;a,&quot; but a long /jj/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Automatic (but real) Quantity&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another related point of pronunciation: macrons are generally always used on vowels that occur in the combination Vnf and Vns (where &quot;V&quot; stands for any vowel). Although this means there is no contrast here between short and long, it does appear that these vowels were phonetically long (*[The Latin Language: A Historical Outline of Its Sounds, Inflections, and Syntax][5],* by Charles Edwin Bennett). In languages descended from Latin, the consonantal /n/ sound was actually regularly dropped from these clusters. I don't remember if there is any consensus on if it was phonetically present in Latin. In any case, it is believed that these vowels were nasalized, so sequences like *īnf* would still have contrasted with sequences like *īf* in Classical Latin even if the consonant /n/ was already elided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect evidence for other pronunciation features&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, a macron doesn't affect the pronunciation of any other sound directly. But knowing that a vowel is long may help you apply the regular Latin stress rule, whereby a word is stressed on the second-to-last syllable if it is heavy (contains a long vowel or diphthong or ends in a consonant) and on the third-to-last if the the second-to-last is light (contains a short vowel and doesn't end with a consonant). In addition, as jwodder pointed out in a [comment][3], a macron on either vowel in a sequence like *ae, oe, au, eu* tells you that the two vowels are pronounced separately rather than as a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_(diacritic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=o9wpGIF0JWcC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA63&amp;dq=%22Latin%22%20vowel%20quality%20e%20o%20advanced%20tongue%20root&amp;ots=ND1tWjhtE5&amp;sig=SwcVUHalU_QmM6ZMBER2nw7Fzxg#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5/what-effect-should-a-macron-have-on-the-sound-of-a-letter-and-its-word#comment15_5&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zJEQAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA34&amp;lpg=PA34&amp;dq=hidden%20quantity&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GOCpxL3sp7&amp;sig=GOCXZHN762CFUSUgqlIJYRkw7hY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi-nrOlx47LAhVCkYMKHekGDTIQ6AEIMDAD#v=onepage&amp;q=hidden%20quantity&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?id=N1RfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA40&amp;lpg=PA40&amp;dq=Latin%20quantity%20before%20ns&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zJYCJcYXCm&amp;sig=_2DOx92MQseKIE_fkhkVLjmDltY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjTudCVyI7LAhWrtIMKHc4pDzYQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20quantity%20before%20ns&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="106" RevisionGUID="5dc98861-a180-4da1-a577-742dadd8abb9" CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:02:17.837" UserId="31" Comment="Added link" Text="Seeing so many similarities in grammatical structure between Sanskrit and Latin, why is it that Latin does not have an [instrumental case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_case) as Sanskrit does?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="299" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="106" RevisionGUID="5dc98861-a180-4da1-a577-742dadd8abb9" CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:02:17.837" UserId="31" Comment="Added link" Text="|grammar|cases|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="300" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="106" RevisionGUID="5dc98861-a180-4da1-a577-742dadd8abb9" CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:02:17.837" Comment="Proposed by 31 approved by 25 edit id of 17" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="107" RevisionGUID="3b4715db-cb1e-458f-8b31-e598d0351dba" CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:05:40.813" UserDisplayName="user11" Text="During my Latin education (using classical pronunciation), I was taught that 'r' should be 'rolled', making a sort of growling sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the r's (more the second than the first set) in [errāre](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/errare#Latin) would be rolled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the historical significance of this? What evidence is there that Romans pronounced the letter this way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="302" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="107" RevisionGUID="3b4715db-cb1e-458f-8b31-e598d0351dba" CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:05:40.813" UserDisplayName="user11" Text="Why is 'r' often rolled in modern classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="303" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="107" RevisionGUID="3b4715db-cb1e-458f-8b31-e598d0351dba" CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:05:40.813" UserDisplayName="user11" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17" RevisionGUID="c7bacde5-4ba1-47b1-921c-9ea9b376ce7a" CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:05:52.330" UserId="9" Comment="added sections, some more info" Text="In general, the whole purpose of using macrons is to clearly indicate pronunciation, so they're usually pretty straightforward. (Macrons were not used classically, although there were some older devices used for indicating vowel length such as the [apex][1] and &quot;i longa&quot; a taller I.) However, it's true that they can indicate several aspects of pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contrastive Vowel Quantity (i.e. Length)&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macrons primarily indicate that the modified vowel is long. Literally, that is: it's held for a more extended period of time than a regular, short vowel. Vowel length was what is called phonemic in Classical Latin, which means that there were pairs of words for which the only difference in pronunciation was the length of some vowel: for example, *liber* &quot;book&quot; vs. *līber* &quot;free.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that at one point, duration may have been the only difference between long and short vowels. In the International Phonetic Alphabet, we transcribe vowel length with a triangular colon ː after the vowel; so we could say that the early Classical Latin pronunciation of the vowels we spell *a ā e ē i ī o ō u ū* would be /a aː e eː i iː o oː u uː/. We don't know for sure the precise phonetic quality of these vowels. Andrea Calabrese has proposed that they were [ɑ ɑː ɛ ɛː i iː ɔ ɔː u uː] ([*On the Evolution of the Short High Vowels of Latin into Romance*][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowel Quality&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is known is that at some point between Classical and Vulgar Latin, the corresponding long and short vowels also became distinguished in quality. (Calabrese mentions Allen and Sturtevant as linguists who reconstruct these quality distinctions back to the Classical Latin stage.) The non-low vowels (all but a aː) clearly show distinct qualities for short vs. long in some of the Romance languages descended from Vulgar Latin, which causes us to  reconstruct something like [a aː ɛ eː ɪ iː ɔ oː ʊ uː]. I believe I've read some accounts that also reconstruct a difference in quality for short a and long a along the lines of [ɐ aː], but I don't know what evidence this is based on. It's also not clear if short unstressed i between a consonant and a vowel (which in Romance normally developed to some kind of glide, or palatalized the preceding consonant and was lost entirely) was ever pronounced as [ɪ]; it may have been something like [i] or [ij] all the way up until it lost its syllabicity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Vulgar Latin is also believed to have had long [ɛː ɔː] as the realizations of *ae* and *au* respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;False Quantity&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that sometimes when dealing with poetry or old dictionaries, you might see macrons used (or misused) just to mark heavy syllables, which might have had a short vowel but were heavy because they ended with a consonant. This is called &quot;[hidden quantity][4],&quot; so be careful in situations like this and try to check several sources that distinguish between short and long in closed syllables to see if they agree on the length of the vowel. We cannot reconstruct vowel length here based on metrical evidence, but we sometimes can based on inscriptions that use the apex, vowel quality in descended Romance words, or descriptions of ancient grammarians. I actually just found an apparent example of this in a recent question (http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14/when-is-an-i-not-an-i): apparently the word most dictionaries write as *māiŏr* was, according to the linguist W. Sidney Allen, actually pronounced as /majjor/ with *short* &quot;a,&quot; but a long /jj/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Automatic (but real) Quantity&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another related point of pronunciation: macrons are generally always used on vowels that occur in the combination Vnf and Vns (where &quot;V&quot; stands for any vowel). Although this means there is no contrast here between short and long, it does appear that these vowels were phonetically long (*[The Latin Language: A Historical Outline of Its Sounds, Inflections, and Syntax][5],* by Charles Edwin Bennett). In languages descended from Latin, the consonantal /n/ sound was actually regularly dropped from these clusters. I don't remember if there is any consensus on if it was phonetically present in Latin. In any case, it is believed that these vowels were nasalized, so sequences like *īnf* would still have contrasted with sequences like *īf* in Classical Latin even if the consonant /n/ was already elided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect evidence for other pronunciation features&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, a macron doesn't affect the pronunciation of any other sound directly. But knowing that a vowel is long may help you apply the regular Latin stress rule, whereby a word is stressed on the second-to-last syllable if it is heavy (contains a long vowel or diphthong or ends in a consonant) and on the third-to-last if the the second-to-last is light (contains a short vowel and doesn't end with a consonant). In addition, as jwodder pointed out in a [comment][3], a macron on either vowel in a sequence like *ae, oe, au, eu* tells you that the two vowels are pronounced separately rather than as a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_(diacritic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=o9wpGIF0JWcC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA63&amp;dq=%22Latin%22%20vowel%20quality%20e%20o%20advanced%20tongue%20root&amp;ots=ND1tWjhtE5&amp;sig=SwcVUHalU_QmM6ZMBER2nw7Fzxg#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5/what-effect-should-a-macron-have-on-the-sound-of-a-letter-and-its-word#comment15_5&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zJEQAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA34&amp;lpg=PA34&amp;dq=hidden%20quantity&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GOCpxL3sp7&amp;sig=GOCXZHN762CFUSUgqlIJYRkw7hY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi-nrOlx47LAhVCkYMKHekGDTIQ6AEIMDAD#v=onepage&amp;q=hidden%20quantity&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?id=N1RfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA40&amp;lpg=PA40&amp;dq=Latin%20quantity%20before%20ns&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zJYCJcYXCm&amp;sig=_2DOx92MQseKIE_fkhkVLjmDltY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjTudCVyI7LAhWrtIMKHc4pDzYQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20quantity%20before%20ns&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="108" RevisionGUID="91ad018c-83f6-45ad-98b7-87bc215add02" CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:29:18.557" UserId="30" Text="Confer exempla haec:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vinctus pedes senator fugere not potuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Augustus multos annos regnans rem publicam sibi subiecit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusativus Graecus a Graecis esse dicitur. Discentes linguam Graecam accusativum similem quidem invenimus, cui nomen accusativus respectus. Nonne conexio ea iusta est?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusativus temporis quoque dici potest notare quendam **respectum** alicuius adiectivi aut participii, scilicet respectum temporis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Estne hic accusativus ullo modo conexus illi Graeco? An habet utraque constructio omnino discretam historiam linguisticam?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interesse nostra potest Germanos quoque quodam accusativo temporis uti:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jeden Tag declarierte Cato im Senatsgebäude, &quot;ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delandam&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="306" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="108" RevisionGUID="91ad018c-83f6-45ad-98b7-87bc215add02" CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:29:18.557" UserId="30" Text="Accusativus 'Graecus' pertinetne ullo modo ad accusativum temporis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="307" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="108" RevisionGUID="91ad018c-83f6-45ad-98b7-87bc215add02" CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:29:18.557" UserId="30" Text="|accusative|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17" RevisionGUID="c3ee7619-9f80-4455-89ee-16feb020e5e0" CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:32:23.103" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="In general, the whole purpose of using macrons is to clearly indicate pronunciation, so they're usually pretty straightforward. (Macrons were not used classically, although there were some older devices used for indicating vowel length such as the [apex][1] and &quot;i longa&quot; a taller I.) However, it's true that they can indicate several aspects of pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contrastive Vowel Quantity (i.e. Length)&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macrons primarily indicate that the modified vowel is long. Literally, that is: it's held for a more extended period of time than a regular, short vowel. Vowel length was what is called phonemic in Classical Latin, which means that there were pairs of words for which the only difference in pronunciation was the length of some vowel: for example, *liber* &quot;book&quot; vs. *līber* &quot;free.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that at one point, duration may have been the only difference between long and short vowels. In the International Phonetic Alphabet, we transcribe vowel length with a triangular colon ː after the vowel; so we could say that the early Classical Latin pronunciation of the vowels we spell *a ā e ē i ī o ō u ū* would be /a aː e eː i iː o oː u uː/. We don't know for sure the precise phonetic quality of these vowels. Andrea Calabrese has proposed that they were [ɑ ɑː ɛ ɛː i iː ɔ ɔː u uː] ([*On the Evolution of the Short High Vowels of Latin into Romance*][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowel Quality&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is known is that at some point between Classical and Vulgar Latin, the corresponding long and short vowels also became distinguished in quality. (Calabrese mentions Allen and Sturtevant as linguists who reconstruct these quality distinctions back to the Classical Latin stage.) The non-low vowels (all but a aː) clearly show distinct qualities for short vs. long in some of the Romance languages descended from Vulgar Latin, which causes us to  reconstruct something like [a aː ɛ eː ɪ iː ɔ oː ʊ uː]. I believe I've read some accounts that also reconstruct a difference in quality for short a and long a along the lines of [ɐ aː], but I don't know what evidence this is based on. It's also not clear if short unstressed i between a consonant and a vowel (which in Romance normally developed to some kind of glide, or palatalized the preceding consonant and was lost entirely) was ever pronounced as [ɪ]; it may have been something like [i] or [ij] all the way up until it lost its syllabicity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Vulgar Latin is also believed to have had long [ɛː], but as the realization of *ae* rather than of *ē.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;False Quantity&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that sometimes when dealing with poetry or old dictionaries, you might see macrons used (or misused) just to mark heavy syllables, which might have had a short vowel but were heavy because they ended with a consonant. This is called &quot;[hidden quantity][4],&quot; so be careful in situations like this and try to check several sources that distinguish between short and long in closed syllables to see if they agree on the length of the vowel. We cannot reconstruct vowel length here based on metrical evidence, but we sometimes can based on inscriptions that use the apex, vowel quality in descended Romance words, or descriptions of ancient grammarians. I actually just found an apparent example of this in a recent question (http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14/when-is-an-i-not-an-i): apparently the word most dictionaries write as *māiŏr* was, according to the linguist W. Sidney Allen, actually pronounced as /majjor/ with *short* &quot;a,&quot; but a long /jj/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Automatic (but real) Quantity&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another related point of pronunciation: macrons are generally always used on vowels that occur in the combination Vnf and Vns (where &quot;V&quot; stands for any vowel). Although this means there is no contrast here between short and long, it does appear that these vowels were phonetically long (*[The Latin Language: A Historical Outline of Its Sounds, Inflections, and Syntax][5],* by Charles Edwin Bennett). In languages descended from Latin, the consonantal /n/ sound was actually regularly dropped from these clusters. I don't remember if there is any consensus on if it was phonetically present in Latin. In any case, it is believed that these vowels were nasalized, so sequences like *īnf* would still have contrasted with sequences like *īf* in Classical Latin even if the consonant /n/ was already elided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect evidence for other pronunciation features&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, a macron doesn't affect the pronunciation of any other sound directly. But knowing that a vowel is long may help you apply the regular Latin stress rule, whereby a word is stressed on the second-to-last syllable if it is heavy (contains a long vowel or diphthong or ends in a consonant) and on the third-to-last if the the second-to-last is light (contains a short vowel and doesn't end with a consonant). In addition, as jwodder pointed out in a [comment][3], a macron on either vowel in a sequence like *ae, oe, au, eu* tells you that the two vowels are pronounced separately rather than as a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_(diacritic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=o9wpGIF0JWcC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA63&amp;dq=%22Latin%22%20vowel%20quality%20e%20o%20advanced%20tongue%20root&amp;ots=ND1tWjhtE5&amp;sig=SwcVUHalU_QmM6ZMBER2nw7Fzxg#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5/what-effect-should-a-macron-have-on-the-sound-of-a-letter-and-its-word#comment15_5&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zJEQAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA34&amp;lpg=PA34&amp;dq=hidden%20quantity&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GOCpxL3sp7&amp;sig=GOCXZHN762CFUSUgqlIJYRkw7hY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi-nrOlx47LAhVCkYMKHekGDTIQ6AEIMDAD#v=onepage&amp;q=hidden%20quantity&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?id=N1RfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA40&amp;lpg=PA40&amp;dq=Latin%20quantity%20before%20ns&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zJYCJcYXCm&amp;sig=_2DOx92MQseKIE_fkhkVLjmDltY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjTudCVyI7LAhWrtIMKHc4pDzYQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20quantity%20before%20ns&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="f20cdba4-32dd-45b5-8e5d-f22a104606d4" CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:35:24.137" UserId="30" Text="I'm not sure there is more of a &quot;why&quot; to it than the fact that the ablative mostly absorbed the Proto-Indo-European instrumental's functions as the latter disappeared, just as the Greek dative did (which also happened to absorb some functions of the Proto-Indo-European ablative as it disappeared in Greek). Some other functions of the ablative were absorbed by the genitive in Greek. The Latin also absorbed functions of the Proto-Indo-European optative, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="110" RevisionGUID="724e1097-3b0d-44cc-9e1f-fa43e9d4b6de" CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:39:03.783" UserId="91" Text="An ablative absolute consists of a noun in the ablative and a participle modifying it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Except that that's not really the case.  We frequently find the participle replaced with just an adjective (or even dropped altogether), with the result that in practice, any phrase in the ablative can be constructed as an ablative absolute.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine that this construction has its roots in one in which a participial form of esse would be used, and I'm told that Greek does use such forms.  However it seems that in Latin, this is more of a historical note than a feature of the language.  There are other constructions in which it seems to me like we might expect to find participles of sum if they were to exist.  For example, I would construct &quot;armentum tibi fauet&quot; ultra-literally as &quot;he favours the herd being in your possession&quot;.  (Though I'm no linguist; this may be way off.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there something special about the ablative absolute (as it exists in Latin) that requires the participle? Should it feel participle-y when we read an ablative absolute without a participle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="311" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="110" RevisionGUID="724e1097-3b0d-44cc-9e1f-fa43e9d4b6de" CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:39:03.783" UserId="91" Text="Why do we say that an ablative absolute has a participle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="312" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="110" RevisionGUID="724e1097-3b0d-44cc-9e1f-fa43e9d4b6de" CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:39:03.783" UserId="91" Text="|language-evolution|ablative-absolute|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="8bf6c584-f122-46d2-99b0-05be65e518eb" CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:46:26.740" UserId="9" Text="The Etruscan alphabet you presented in your question is actually a transliteration. The actual Etruscan inscriptions are in one of the &quot;[Old Italic][1]&quot; alphabets derived from the Greek one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unicode now has separate code points for these (although it unifies various related alphabets like Etruscan, Oscan, and Old Latin) and if you [download the right fonts][2], you'll be able to see them (although of course, a single font cannot represent the diversity of forms that used to be used). Here is the Etruscan alphabet encoded in &quot;Old Italic&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  	            	 	 	   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(taken from this Wikipedia article: [Old Italic script][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see (or maybe you can't) that the Etruscan letter transliterated as &quot;G&quot; actually has the form of C. This also applies to Etruscan &quot;V,&quot; which actually had the form of F. Etruscan did not have a /g/ sound distinct from /k/ (or any distinct voiced plosive [consonants][3] in general), so when it adapted this letter from Greek *gamma,* it repurposed it for the sound /k/. This carried over into Latin; in Old Latin the letter C was used for both /k/ and /g/. The modern Latin letter G was created to distinguish the sound /g/ from the sound /k/, which came to be represented mostly by C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, the letter Z became obsolete in Latin since the sound /z/ developed into /r/. So Z was replaced with G.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Italic_script&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wazu.jp/gallery/Fonts_OldItalic.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language#Consonants" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="85b911e8-595d-4027-93ee-4926fd089a89" CreationDate="2016-02-24T01:51:32.843" UserId="9" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="The Etruscan alphabet you presented in your question is actually a transliteration. The actual Etruscan inscriptions are in one of the &quot;[Old Italic][1]&quot; alphabets derived from the Greek one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unicode now has separate code points for these (although it unifies various related alphabets like Etruscan, Oscan, and Old Latin) and if you [download the right fonts][2], you'll be able to see them (although of course, a single font cannot represent the diversity of forms that used to be used). Here is the Etruscan alphabet encoded in &quot;Old Italic&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  	            	 	 	   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(taken from this Wikipedia article: [Old Italic script][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see (or maybe you can't) that the Etruscan letter transliterated as &quot;G&quot; actually has the form of C. This also applies to the Etruscan letter transliterated as &quot;V,&quot; which actually had the form of F. Etruscan did not have a /g/ sound distinct from /k/ (or any distinct voiced plosive [consonants][3] in general), so when it adapted this letter from Greek *gamma,* it repurposed it for the sound /k/. This carried over into Latin; in Old Latin the letter C was used for both /k/ and /g/. The modern Latin letter G was created to distinguish the sound /g/ from the sound /k/, which came to be represented mostly by C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, the letter Z became obsolete in Latin since the sound /z/ developed into /r/. So Z was replaced with G.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Italic_script&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wazu.jp/gallery/Fonts_OldItalic.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language#Consonants" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="112" RevisionGUID="5da8d1ce-05d2-43bc-8065-22782571bc77" CreationDate="2016-02-24T02:02:01.583" UserId="73" Text="[This paper](http://www.eruditio-antiqua.mom.fr/vol5/EA5c.Pultrova.pdf) talks about several primary sources (i.e. Roman texts) that describe rolling 'r's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Terentianus Maurus writes in *De litterus* that&#xD;&#xA; &gt; vibrat tremulis ictibus aridum sonorem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; or &#xD;&#xA; &gt; the R vibrates with a dry sound from trembling blows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Martianus Capella writes&#xD;&#xA; &gt; R spiritum lingua crispante corraditur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; or&#xD;&#xA; &gt; is pronounced with difficulty (?), with the tongue vibrating the air&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Capella's writing contradicts itself on this count in another place, leaving this testimony in doubt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Lucilius writes, more colorfully,&#xD;&#xA; &gt; r: irritata canis quam homo quam planius dictat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; or&#xD;&#xA; &gt; which (i.e. the sound r) an irritated bitch pronounces more clearly than a man&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is supposed to imply a growling similar to the modern instruction or 'r'-rolling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken as a group, these sources would seem to indicate that the Romans did roll some of their 'r's. However, other authors, including Varro, Charisius, Marius VIctorinus, and Martianus Capella (the contradictory account), describe more fluid pronunciations. What this implies above all else is that pronunciations may have differed among different groups and in different time periods, hence the different accounts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="113" RevisionGUID="45b715b5-aa67-4ceb-9cd7-fc846d085415" CreationDate="2016-02-24T02:21:41.523" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="114" RevisionGUID="928cb2ae-4e84-4134-8d68-c6260b4e15c4" CreationDate="2016-02-24T02:21:41.523" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="116" RevisionGUID="632554ae-154e-425f-8129-395bbe99801e" CreationDate="2016-02-24T02:29:37.090" UserId="30" Text="The ablative absolute does not require a participle. It can be a noun and an adjective, as you say, or two nouns (*Caesare duce urbem cepimus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is a &quot;verb-like&quot; aspect to the construction that makes you want to add &quot;being&quot; if there is no participle. The reason for this probably lies in the fact that the ablative absolute is a so-called **dominant construction**, where semantics and syntax are slightly out of tune: semantically, there is a kind of 'oblique predicate', a 'subject' and its 'predicate', even though syntactically there are just two nomina in the ablative. And for there to be a predicate, you need a kind of verb. It is called dominant because the participle in a dominant construction is normally translated more prominently than a mere (attributive) participle: it is translated as a finite verb (or a noun). Otherwise our translation would fail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Legione dispersa victi sumus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you translated this as &quot;with the dispersed legion, we were defeated&quot;, that would sound wrong, because the participle is translated attributively. English has a trick where you can make an adjective or participle predicate-like by placing it after its 'subject': &quot;with the legion dispersed, we were defeated&quot;. That works, because the participle is translated predicatively. The standard translation would be &quot;after the legion was dispersed, we were defeated&quot;. That's a full predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesare duce urbem cepimus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With our leader Caesar, we captured the city&quot;. That is grammatical, but it is not what the Latin intended, if only because *with* is usually render as *cum* when followed by a person. It should be &quot;with Caesar as our leader, we captured the city&quot;, or even &quot;because Caesar was our leader, we captured the city&quot; (optional causal link). The word *as* also (rightfully) introduces a predicate-like aspect to our translation: one of the things we want to say is that Caesar was our leader. That is a fact that the Latin is stating separately by means of the ablative absolute, supporting the 'main clause' *urbem cepimus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples of dominant constructions are the **gerundive construction**, the so-called **dominant participle** (of which you could say the ablative absolute with a participle  is a sub-species), the **dominant substantive apposition** (of which the ablative absolute without a participle is a sub-species), and even the ordinary **copula with subject complement**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Floribus carpendis Eurydice mordetur a serpente.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;During/with the flowers to pick, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent.&quot; That's not right. It should be translated dominantly, where the adjectival/attributive gerundive is translated as a substantive noun or even as a finite verb: &quot;during the picking of flowers, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent&quot;, or &quot;when she was picking flowers, Eurydice was bitten by a serpent&quot;. A Latin alternative is the gerund construction, which is normal, not dominant, because a gerund is a kind of noun: as such it is not translated as more dominant than a noun already is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Flores carpendo Eurydice mordetur a serpente.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;During the flowers-picking, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar occisus senatores placuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The dead Caear pleased the senators.&quot; This kind of works, because this particular kind of dominant construction also happens to be possible in English. But what we're really saying is this: &quot;Caesar's death pleased the senators&quot;. A substantive noun is stronger than a mere attributive participle. Or, even more dominantly: &quot;the fact that Caesar died pleased the senators&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar primus Romam advenit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The first Caesar arrived in Rome.&quot; It seems clear that this is not what was intended. &quot;Caesar arrived in Rome first.&quot; This predicative translation is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar victor Romam advenit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The victor Caesar arrived in Rome.&quot; This is perhaps acceptable, but what the author probably intended was the predicative translation &quot;Caesar arrived in Rome as victor&quot;. The word *as* clarifies that it is to be understood predicatively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar fortis est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a plain copula with a subject complement. An attributive translation would be absurd: &quot;the brave Caesar is&quot;. This is the simplest kind of predicative construction, equally common in other Indo-European languages, and we must translate it predicately, so as a copula with subject complement: &quot;Caesar is brave&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="112" RevisionGUID="beb9203f-cfe0-45ff-bb85-df8a9cb081a1" CreationDate="2016-02-24T02:30:30.177" UserId="73" Comment="edited body" Text="[This paper](http://www.eruditio-antiqua.mom.fr/vol5/EA5c.Pultrova.pdf) talks about several primary sources (i.e. Roman texts) that describe rolling 'r's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Terentianus Maurus writes in *De litterus* that&#xD;&#xA; &gt; vibrat tremulis ictibus aridum sonorem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; or &#xD;&#xA; &gt; the R vibrates with a dry sound from trembling blows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Martianus Capella writes&#xD;&#xA; &gt; R spiritum lingua crispante corraditur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; or&#xD;&#xA; &gt; is pronounced with difficulty (?), with the tongue vibrating the air&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Capella's writing contradicts itself on this count in another place, leaving this testimony in doubt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Lucilius writes, more colorfully,&#xD;&#xA; &gt; r: irritata canis quam homo quam planius dictat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; or&#xD;&#xA; &gt; which (i.e. the sound r) an irritated bitch pronounces more clearly than a man&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is supposed to imply a growling similar to the modern instruction or 'r'-rolling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken as a group, these sources would seem to indicate that the Romans did roll some of their 'r's. However, other authors, including Varro, Charisius, Marius Victorinus, and Martianus Capella (the contradictory account), describe more fluid pronunciations. What this implies above all else is that pronunciations may have differed among different groups and in different time periods, hence the different accounts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="116" RevisionGUID="e4d5d014-e28c-4f24-8d7a-ac650b214d26" CreationDate="2016-02-24T02:41:21.490" UserId="30" Comment="added 282 characters in body" Text="The ablative absolute does not require a participle. It can be a noun and an adjective, as you say, or two nouns (*Caesare duce urbem cepimus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is a &quot;verb-like&quot; aspect to the construction that makes you want to add &quot;being&quot; if there is no participle. The reason for this probably lies in the fact that the ablative absolute is a so-called **dominant construction**, where semantics and syntax are slightly out of tune: semantically, there is a kind of 'oblique predicate', a 'subject' and its 'predicate', even though syntactically there are just two nomina in the ablative. And for there to be a predicate, you need a kind of verb. It is called dominant because the participle in a dominant construction is normally translated more prominently than a mere (attributive) participle: it is translated as a finite verb (or a noun). Otherwise our translation would fail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Legione dispersa victi sumus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you translated this as &quot;with the dispersed legion, we were defeated&quot;, that would sound wrong, because the participle is translated attributively. English has a trick where you can make an adjective or participle predicate-like by placing it after its 'subject': &quot;with the legion dispersed, we were defeated&quot;. That works, because the participle is translated predicatively. The standard translation would be &quot;after the legion was dispersed, we were defeated&quot;. That's a full predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesare duce urbem cepimus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With our leader Caesar, we captured the city&quot;. That is grammatical, but it is not what the Latin intended, if only because *with* is usually rendered as *cum* when followed by a person. It should be &quot;with Caesar as our leader, we captured the city&quot;. The word *as* (rightfully) introduces a predicate-like aspect to our translation: one of the things we want to say is that Caesar was our leader. That is a fact that the Latin is stating separately by means of the ablative absolute, supporting the 'main clause' *urbem cepimus*. You could also translate it as &quot;because Caesar was our leader, we captured the city&quot; (optional causal link), with a full predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples of dominant constructions are the **gerundive construction**, the so-called **dominant participle** (of which you could say the ablative absolute with a participle  is a sub-species), the **dominant substantive apposition** (of which the ablative absolute without a participle is a sub-species), and even the ordinary **copula with subject complement**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Floribus carpendis Eurydice mordetur a serpente.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;During/with the flowers to pick, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent.&quot; That's not right. It should be translated dominantly, where the adjectival/attributive gerundive is translated as a substantive noun or even as a finite verb: &quot;during the picking of flowers, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent&quot;, or &quot;when she was picking flowers, Eurydice was bitten by a serpent&quot;. A Latin alternative is the gerund construction, which is normal, not 'dominant', because a gerund is a kind of noun, which is already fairly dominant: as such it is not translated as more dominant than a noun normally is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Flores carpendo Eurydice mordetur a serpente.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;During the flowers-picking, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar occisus senatores placuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The dead Caesar pleased the senators.&quot; That kind of works, because this particular kind of dominant construction also happens to be possible in English. But what we're really saying is this: &quot;Caesar's death pleased the senators&quot;. A substantive noun is stronger than a mere attributive participle. Or, even more dominantly: &quot;the fact that Caesar died pleased the senators&quot;. What we're really not trying to say is &quot;Caesar (who had died) pleased the senators&quot;. The brackets express low degree of dominance, since the words are thereby separated from the main sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar primus Romam advenit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The first Caesar arrived in Rome&quot;: it seems clear that this is not what was intended. &quot;Caesar arrived in Rome first&quot;: this predicative translation is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar victor Romam advenit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The victor Caesar arrived in Rome.&quot; This is perhaps acceptable, but what the author probably intended was the predicative translation &quot;Caesar arrived in Rome as (the) victor&quot;. The word *as* clarifies that it is to be understood predicatively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar fortis est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a plain copula with a subject complement. An attributive translation would be absurd: &quot;the brave Caesar is&quot;. This is the simplest kind of predicative construction, equally common in other Indo-European languages, and we must translate it predicatively, so as a copula with subject complement: &quot;Caesar is brave&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="116" RevisionGUID="7d3fe160-ef4b-41d8-815d-0b5c1e6ed774" CreationDate="2016-02-24T02:54:34.837" UserId="30" Comment="added 282 characters in body" Text="The ablative absolute does not require a participle. It can be a noun and an adjective, as you say, or two nouns (*Caesare duce urbem cepimus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is a &quot;verb-like&quot; aspect to the construction that makes you want to add &quot;being&quot; if there is no participle. The reason for this probably lies in the fact that the ablative absolute is a so-called **dominant construction**, where semantics and syntax are slightly out of tune: semantically, there is a kind of '**oblique predicate**' (with a 'subject' and its 'predicate'), even though syntactically there are just two nominals in the ablative. And for there to be a predicate, you need a kind of verb in your translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is called dominant because the participle in a dominant construction is normally translated more prominently than a mere (attributive) participle: it is translated as a finite verb (or a noun). Otherwise our translation would fail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Legione dispersa victi sumus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you translated this as &quot;with the dispersed legion, we were defeated&quot;, that would sound wrong, because the participle is translated attributively. English has a trick where you can make an adjective or participle predicate-like by placing it after its 'subject': &quot;with the legion dispersed, we were defeated&quot;. That works, because the participle is translated predicatively. The standard translation would be &quot;after the legion was dispersed, we were defeated&quot;. That's a full predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesare duce urbem cepimus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With our leader Caesar, we captured the city&quot;. That is grammatical, but it is not what the Latin intended, if only because *with* is usually rendered as *cum* when followed by a person. It should be &quot;with Caesar as our leader, we captured the city&quot;. The word *as* (rightfully) introduces a predicate-like aspect to our translation: one of the things we want to say is that Caesar was our leader. That is a fact that the Latin is stating separately by means of the ablative absolute, supporting the 'main clause' *urbem cepimus*. You could also translate it as &quot;because Caesar was our leader, we captured the city&quot; (optional causal link), with a full predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Other examples of dominant constructions are the **gerundive construction**, the so-called **dominant participle** (of which you could say the ablative absolute with a participle  is a sub-species), the **dominant substantive apposition** (of which the ablative absolute without a participle is a sub-species), and even the ordinary **copula with subject complement**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Floribus carpendis Eurydice mordetur a serpente.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;During/with the flowers to pick, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent.&quot; That's not right. The **gerundive construction** should be translated dominantly, where the adjectival/attributive gerundive is translated as a substantive noun or even as a finite verb: &quot;during the picking of flowers, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent&quot;, or &quot;when she was picking flowers, Eurydice was bitten by a serpent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Latin alternative is the **gerund construction**, which is normal, not 'dominant', because a gerund is a kind of noun, which is already fairly dominant: as such it is not translated as more dominant than a noun normally is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Flores carpendo Eurydice mordetur a serpente.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;During the flowers-picking, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar occisus senatores placuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The dead Caesar pleased the senators.&quot; That kind of works, because a **dominant participle construction** also happens to be possible in English in certain cases. But what we're really saying is this: &quot;Caesar's death pleased the senators&quot;. A substantive noun is stronger than a mere attributive participle. Or, even more dominantly: &quot;the fact that Caesar died pleased the senators&quot;. What we're really not trying to say is &quot;Caesar (who had died) pleased the senators&quot;. The brackets express low degree of dominance, since the words are thereby separated from the main sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar primus Romam advenit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The first Caesar arrived in Rome&quot;: it seems clear that this is not what was intended. &quot;Caesar arrived in Rome first&quot;: this predicative translation is correct, where the **predicative adjective** is translated almost like a subject complement or an adverb of manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar victor Romam advenit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The victor Caesar arrived in Rome.&quot; This is perhaps acceptable, but what the author probably intended was the predicative translation &quot;Caesar arrived in Rome as (the) victor&quot;. The word *as* clarifies that it is to be understood predicatively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar fortis est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a **plain copula with a subject complement**. An attributive translation would be absurd: &quot;the brave Caesar is&quot;. This is the simplest kind of predicative construction, equally common in other Indo-European languages, and we must translate it predicatively, so as a copula with subject complement: &quot;Caesar is brave&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;N.B. There is one kind of ablative absolute that interests me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Audito Agrippinam a filio suo necatam esse tota in urbe populus luxerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;When it had been heard that Agrippina has been murdered by her son, the people mourned throughout the city.&quot; The participle in the ablative is *audito*; the 'noun' belonging to the ablative absolute is the entire accusativus with infinitive, *Agrippinam a filio suo necatam esse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is possible in Latin, and I believe it is used when you need an accusative with infinitive but the verb of saying or hearing or thinking etc. cannot be made to agree with an existing word in the sentence. This may happen when the hearing happened before the main clause, because then you need a past participle, and past participles cannot be made to agree with an agent (because they're passive). The person who hears cannot be made to agree in number, case and gender with the past participle *auditus*, so it has to be used absolutely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="108" RevisionGUID="eb5054e2-f4d3-4356-baaa-106ffc8e66f4" CreationDate="2016-02-24T02:55:04.887" UserId="17" Comment="Fixed the German sentence (and a Latin typo)" Text="Confer exempla haec:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vinctus pedes senator fugere not potuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Augustus multos annos regnans rem publicam sibi subiecit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusativus Graecus a Graecis esse dicitur. Discentes linguam Graecam accusativum similem quidem invenimus, cui nomen accusativus respectus. Nonne conexio ea iusta est?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusativus temporis quoque dici potest notare quendam **respectum** alicuius adiectivi aut participii, scilicet respectum temporis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Estne hic accusativus ullo modo conexus illi Graeco? An habet utraque constructio omnino discretam historiam linguisticam?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interesse nostra potest Germanos quoque quodam accusativo temporis uti:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jeden Tag erklärte Cato im Senatsgebäude: „Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.“" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="327" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="108" RevisionGUID="eb5054e2-f4d3-4356-baaa-106ffc8e66f4" CreationDate="2016-02-24T02:55:04.887" Comment="Proposed by 17 approved by 30 edit id of 18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="112" RevisionGUID="9abb31d0-c111-4fa2-a707-0288eba57679" CreationDate="2016-02-24T02:58:38.987" UserId="73" Comment="Typo." Text="[This paper](http://www.eruditio-antiqua.mom.fr/vol5/EA5c.Pultrova.pdf) talks about several primary sources (i.e. Roman texts) that describe rolling 'r's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Terentianus Maurus writes in *De litteris* that&#xD;&#xA; &gt; vibrat tremulis ictibus aridum sonorem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; or &#xD;&#xA; &gt; the R vibrates with a dry sound from trembling blows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Martianus Capella writes&#xD;&#xA; &gt; R spiritum lingua crispante corraditur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; or&#xD;&#xA; &gt; is pronounced with difficulty (?), with the tongue vibrating the air&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Capella's writing contradicts itself on this count in another place, leaving this testimony in doubt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Lucilius writes, more colorfully,&#xD;&#xA; &gt; r: irritata canis quam homo quam planius dictat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; or&#xD;&#xA; &gt; which (i.e. the sound r) an irritated bitch pronounces more clearly than a man&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is supposed to imply a growling similar to the modern instruction or 'r'-rolling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken as a group, these sources would seem to indicate that the Romans did roll some of their 'r's. However, other authors, including Varro, Charisius, Marius Victorinus, and Martianus Capella (the contradictory account), describe more fluid pronunciations. What this implies above all else is that pronunciations may have differed among different groups and in different time periods, hence the different accounts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="c42596a2-7413-4ac9-8960-baf495650e1a" CreationDate="2016-02-24T03:06:25.443" UserId="30" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure there is more of a &quot;why&quot; to it than the fact that, in Latin, the ablative mostly absorbed the Proto-Indo-European instrumental's functions as the latter disappeared, just as the Greek dative did (which also happened to absorb some functions of the Proto-Indo-European ablative as it disappeared in Greek). Some other functions of the ablative were absorbed by the genitive in Greek. The Latin subjunctive also absorbed functions of the Proto-Indo-European optative, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="d1911062-6dd9-46a4-999a-f1d5126c7dfb" CreationDate="2016-02-24T03:07:16.900" UserId="12" Text="This pronunciation change was underway by the fifth century, but perhaps not finalized until the sixth or seventh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paul M. Lloyd, in *From Latin to Spanish*, writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is no inscriptional evidence of [the palatalization of /k/ and /g/ before the front vowels] until the fifth century, although it may have begun long before, and it continued to be an active process after the Visigoths reached Hispania. ([page 137](https://books.google.com/books?id=_QkNAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA137))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Vox Latina*, page 14, W. Sidney Allen indicates evidence for the use of both the [k] and [ts] sounds in the fifth century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The hard c] was preserved in words borrowed from Latin by Celtic and Germanic between the first and fifth centuries A. D. [...] It is true that in the course of time a 'softening' took place before *e* and *i* [...] but there is no evidence for this before the fifth century A.D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Spanish Phonology*, [page 104](https://books.google.com/books?id=9VrpAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA104), MacPherson writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before the front vowels E and I the tongue position for k was also palatal. [...] By the sixth or seventh century the pronunciation **ts**, already established in other words, had become standard in this position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus we can suggest a transition period in and around the fifth century, with standardization following in the sixth or seventh." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="118" RevisionGUID="5abc9a17-1476-474e-b04d-f3de4c2a28b7" CreationDate="2016-02-24T03:21:04.910" UserId="118" Text="Cur **cochlear** a **cochlea** est ortum? Quomodo connectuntur?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Anglicum liberaliter traductum: What do spoons have to do with snails?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="333" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="118" RevisionGUID="5abc9a17-1476-474e-b04d-f3de4c2a28b7" CreationDate="2016-02-24T03:21:04.910" UserId="118" Text="Quomodo &quot;cochlear&quot; a &quot;cochlea&quot; est ortum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="334" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="118" RevisionGUID="5abc9a17-1476-474e-b04d-f3de4c2a28b7" CreationDate="2016-02-24T03:21:04.910" UserId="118" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="66" RevisionGUID="ef1dcdd9-ecb8-4e30-91c7-ee309f63af9b" CreationDate="2016-02-24T03:21:15.587" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Clarified the second, implied part of my question (pretending that I wrote it like that in the beginning)" Text="A [quick Google Search][1] says plenty of things about Roman Latin pronunciation, and since it's an edu domain I'm inclined to believe it. However, the closest to citing a source it gets is saying &quot;we know from grammarians&quot;; it doesn't say what those grammarians wrote, who they were, or really anything. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who wrote about Roman pronunciation? What did they say? Are their writings available still?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What other sources are available? I'm assuming that we don't only rely on what people wrote, since that tends to be inherently inaccurate, but what else is there? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/LatinBackground/Pronunciation.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="336" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="66" RevisionGUID="ef1dcdd9-ecb8-4e30-91c7-ee309f63af9b" CreationDate="2016-02-24T03:21:15.587" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Clarified the second, implied part of my question (pretending that I wrote it like that in the beginning)" Text="How do we know how the Romans pronounced Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="d11e3d17-563c-43eb-a6a2-dce1d8450db9" CreationDate="2016-02-24T03:27:06.227" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="William Whitaker's Words provides a hint in [their definition](http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?keyword=cochlear):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spoon; **(originally for extracting snails)**; spoonful;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm gonna do a little more research to see if I can find sources and more information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="93" RevisionGUID="0e31d439-cd5b-4503-8beb-552d696ad403" CreationDate="2016-02-24T03:32:08.327" UserId="68" Comment="added 622 characters in body" Text="Officially, &quot;imprimo&quot; means &quot;I mark/stamp&quot; (hence English &quot;impression&quot;), where &quot;premo&quot; just means &quot;I press.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nuances of Latin prefixes have long fascinated me, and it took me forever to realize that they're basically equivalent to English verbs that contain prepositions. So here it's a case of &quot;press&quot; vs. &quot;press in.&quot; &quot;Rideo&quot; = &quot;I laugh&quot;; &quot;inrideo&quot; = &quot;I laugh at.&quot; &quot;Lumino&quot; = &quot;I shine&quot;; &quot;Illumino&quot; = &quot;I shine onto [something].&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gets a little more complicated when there aren't English equivalents. &quot;Lacrimo&quot; = &quot;I cry&quot;; &quot;illacrimo&quot; = &quot;I burst into tears.&quot; &quot;Amplexor&quot; = &quot;I hug [someone]&quot;; &quot;complexor&quot; = &quot;I give [someone] a hug.&quot; But you can usually figure it out with some thought. Nevertheless, it seems very strange to me that this principle isn't taught as part of standard Latin instruction. When you think about it this way it's not difficult, but I've never seen it explained anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wait, actually, that's not true. In fact, [Alfonso Traina][1], Professor Emeritus at the University of Bologna, has written about this, but unfortunately 1) he writes in Italian and 2) I only have photocopies of a few sections of his work, and they don't contain the title of the books they're from, so I'm unable to point you to specific references. :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** I somehow missed your request for example sentences. So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nam et vipera et caecilia saepe cum in pascuo bos improvide supercubuit, lacessita onere morsum imprimit. (Columella, *Res Rustica*, 6.17.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;For the cow when in the field often lies down on the viper and the lizard; provoked by its weight, [the viper or the lizard] impresses its bite [on the cow].&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simulque alteram fasciam minister attollit, alteram premit medicus. (Celsus, *De Medicina*, 8.10.2b)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;And at the same time the assistant lifts one loop up while the doctor presses on the other.&quot; (In a discussion about setting broken bones.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_Traina" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="292766e9-8401-41f0-8adf-ffd9f19f641f" CreationDate="2016-02-24T03:39:12.510" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Added more research, conclusion." Text="William Whitaker's Words provides a hint in [their definition](http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?keyword=cochlear):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spoon; **(originally for extracting snails)**; spoonful;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm gonna do a little more research to see if I can find sources and more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia [supports this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlearium), but says it less definitely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The word cochlea has a literal meaning of spiral or snail shell, leading many to conclude that the **design of the spoon was so that the handle could be used to get snails** or cockles **out of the shell**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continued Googling gives very, very few nonmedical results (everything is talking about cochlear implants or infections), and filtering just leaves barely any results. As far as I can tell, this is a question we don't have a definite answer to, but the leading hypothesis is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***The cochlear was used to extract snails from their shells originally.***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="120" RevisionGUID="b5d14b44-41ae-4739-b8ac-b2ce814a21e1" CreationDate="2016-02-24T03:50:45.603" UserId="78" Text="There is no significance to the word order, and both are perfectly acceptable in Latin. In fact, it is only in English translation that there is a difference felt. The genitive in Latin is perfectly at home come before or after the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Lucretius wrote *De Rerum Natura* while Cicero wrote *De Natura Deorum*. I'm afraid that's simply all there is to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="ae0225c9-38b5-422f-b864-8e99fb43b690" CreationDate="2016-02-24T03:51:19.220" UserId="9" Comment="edited for consistency" Text="Obviously, you can check a dictionary. If you can't or don't feel like it, here are a few &quot;rules of thumb&quot; I use. I can't guarantee these will work in all cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you're an English speaker, look at a related English word from Latin. If it's spelled with &quot;j,&quot; it was probably consonantal &quot;j&quot; in Latin as well. For example, we can compare Latin MAIVS to English &quot;major,&quot; Latin OBIECTVM to English &quot;object,&quot; and so on.&#xD;&#xA;2. Generally, derivatives of IACIO (&quot;throw&quot;) are pronounced with /j/. There's a lot of them, so this is somewhat useful to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note: unlike most long consonants, phonetically long /jj/ was normally not written double in Latin. In addition, it seems that written I may have corresponded to /ji/ or /jji/ in some cases in words like [*TRAICIO*][1]  &quot;throw over&quot; (composed of TRANS + IACIO). This means that you actually have to choose between five options for written *i*: /i/ /j/, /jj/ /ji/ and /jji/. (Or at least six if the source doesn't use macrons!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some of what W. Sidney Allen wrote about consonantal I in *Vox Latina,* a book I would say is a must-read for anyone interested in Classical Latin pronunciation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One important peculiarity of the latin *i*-consonant is to be noted.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the interior of a word, this sound rarely occurred singly between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vowels. Where once it had been present, it was lost prehistorically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (thus Latin *trēs* beside Sanskrit *trayas*). With a few exceptions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; noted below, whenever a single, intervocalic *i*-consonant is written,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it stands for a *double* consonant, i.e. [yy]. Thus *aio, maior,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; peior, Troia* stand for *aiio, maiior,* etc. This is quite clear from various types of evidence. It is specifically mentioned by Quintilian and other grammarians, who also tell us that Cicero and Caesar used in fact to spell such words with *ii* (†Qu. i, 4, 11; †Priscian, K. ii, 14) and it is supported by frequent inscriptional spellings (e.g. `PompeIius, cuiIus, eiius, maiIorem`). In Italian a double consonant has been maintained in, for example, *peggio* from *peius.* Moreover, the consonant must be double in order to account for the fact that the preceding syllable is always metrically heavy; for the actual vowel is *short*—this is specifically mentioned by Ter. Maurus (†K. vi, 343), and is further evident from other considerations: e.g. *maior* is connected with *măgis,* being derived from *măg-iōs.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([p. 39][2]; it's page 51 in the linked PDF)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it appears sources that use a macron in &quot;māius&quot; (greater) are assigning false quantity to the vowel; according to Allen, the actual pronunciation would have been /majjus/ with a short &quot;a&quot; and a long &quot;j.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/traicio#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ganino.com/files/Latin%20Copyright%20Books/29%20Vox%20Latina%20The%20Pronunciation%20of%20Classical%20Latin.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="112" RevisionGUID="875d9590-526e-4cff-a44e-8bf66a095909" CreationDate="2016-02-24T03:52:55.973" UserId="73" Comment="added 281 characters in body" Text="[This paper](http://www.eruditio-antiqua.mom.fr/vol5/EA5c.Pultrova.pdf) talks about several primary sources (i.e. Roman texts) that describe rolling 'r's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Terentianus Maurus writes in *De litteris* that&#xD;&#xA; &gt; vibrat tremulis ictibus aridum sonorem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; or &#xD;&#xA; &gt; the R vibrates with a dry sound from trembling blows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Martianus Capella writes&#xD;&#xA; &gt; R spiritum lingua crispante corraditur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; or&#xD;&#xA; &gt; [R] is pronounced with difficulty (?), with the tongue vibrating the air&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Capella's writing contradicts itself on this count in another place, leaving this testimony in doubt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Lucilius writes, more colorfully,&#xD;&#xA; &gt; r: irritata canis quam homo quam planius dictat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; or&#xD;&#xA; &gt; which (i.e. the sound r) an irritated bitch pronounces more clearly than a man&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is supposed to imply a growling similar to the modern instruction or 'r'-rolling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken as a group, these sources would seem to indicate that the Romans did roll some of their 'r's. However, other authors, including Varro, Charisius, Marius Victorinus, and Martianus Capella (referring to his contradictory account), describe more fluid pronunciations. What this implies above all else is that pronunciations may have differed among different groups and in different time periods, hence the different accounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect evidence for 'r'-rolling comes from the Romance languages, where this is quite common. In Spanish, for example, 'rr' indicates this rolling (rather than simply 'r'). The presence of rolling in these languages suggests a common origin, likely in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="e6b08c17-f9c5-4ee8-a24b-a1821301a0d4" CreationDate="2016-02-24T03:54:07.737" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="I'm currently reading Horace 1.5, and on lines 10-11 there's an odd construction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Miseri, quibus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; intemptata nites...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as far as I can tell, this literally means &quot;Wretched people, to whom you shine untried.&quot; That doesn't make sense -- &quot;shine untried&quot; is a thing that just doesn't work in English, or if it does, I'm too tired to tell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's a good colloquial translation of that phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="348" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="e6b08c17-f9c5-4ee8-a24b-a1821301a0d4" CreationDate="2016-02-24T03:54:07.737" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="What does &quot;quibus intemptata nites&quot; (Horace 1.5.10-11) mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="349" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="e6b08c17-f9c5-4ee8-a24b-a1821301a0d4" CreationDate="2016-02-24T03:54:07.737" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|classical-latin|poetry|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="3f664cfa-573b-4529-9308-f46120024273" CreationDate="2016-02-24T04:44:33.963" UserId="121" Text="The Online Etymology dictionary gives this description for the etymology of boron:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Originally called boracium by Humphrey Davy because it was drawn from boracic acid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=boron&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that form was originally used by the discoverer of boron. I think it is fair to assume that borium is just a simple Latinization for boron.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Azote was the original name coined for the element nitrogen, so its use is similar to boracium for boron, though additionally it is used as the term for the element in some other languages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen#History_and_etymology). Nitrogenium is also presumably just a Latinization of the English name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, at least for these two, it seems to be a preference for an older name for the element (though not a classical Latin one) versus Latinization of the modern English name." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="123" RevisionGUID="7567c8e0-5290-495f-82ab-7b0d22c4f6e9" CreationDate="2016-02-24T04:53:36.720" UserId="145" Text="&quot;Et tu, Brute?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Julius Caesar's*** last words; according to ***William Shakespeare's*** play of the same name. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be a difference of opinion regarding the exact translation and thus, too, perhaps; the true meaning of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the sake of veracity; my question is as follows:  &#xD;&#xA;What is the exact, literal translation of the aforementioned phrase?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to ***also*** include your own interpretation, if you wish to do so.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="354" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="123" RevisionGUID="7567c8e0-5290-495f-82ab-7b0d22c4f6e9" CreationDate="2016-02-24T04:53:36.720" UserId="145" Text="&quot;Et tu, Brute?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="355" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="123" RevisionGUID="7567c8e0-5290-495f-82ab-7b0d22c4f6e9" CreationDate="2016-02-24T04:53:36.720" UserId="145" Text="|translation|poetry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="12504273-52f2-48e0-be32-cd3eb6b26769" CreationDate="2016-02-24T05:10:06.000" UserId="33" Text="Horace's poem here is about a pretty young girl, Pyrrha, and I understand the phrase to describe how unfortunate (*miseri*) the men are who have not been able to touch (*tempto*/*tento*) her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might translate it as follows: &quot;Poor guys, for whom you [Pyrrha] shine, you who are untouched [by them]&quot; -- I've expanded the participle into a relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*tempto* (the same verb as *tento*, see Lewis and Short) can have the meaning &quot;to try&quot; or &quot;to test,&quot; and such a meaning might even work here, but it can also just mean &quot;to handle, touch, feel a thing&quot; (L&amp;S, I). As for the shining, Pyrrha does have light hair (*flavam...comam*, 4), or perhaps she's just a radiant young lady...." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="125" RevisionGUID="66bd55cf-84b4-426d-a20b-4301ce0b9610" CreationDate="2016-02-24T05:18:15.930" UserId="124" Text="Well, without too much knowledge of any deeper, ulterior meanings to the phrase, I can certainly provide and analyze the literal translation for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Most Literal Translation: &quot;And you, Brutus?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word By Word Analysis: &quot;Et&quot; --&gt; a simple conjunction. &quot;Tu&quot; --&gt; nominative, singular case of the second-person pronoun. &quot;Brute&quot; --&gt; vocative, singular case of the proper noun Brutus (2nd declension).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternative, Fairly Literal Translations: &quot;Even you, Brutus?&quot;, &quot;You too, Brutus?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="126" RevisionGUID="e9626595-b97a-4e7a-8117-1fc1eb6d6eef" CreationDate="2016-02-24T05:48:08.690" UserId="49" Text="I am interested in the origin of the words *discipulus* and *disciplina,* which have found their way into many modern languages, e.g., in the English words *disciple* and *discipline.* Unfortunately, there seem to be two conflicting etymologies, which I detail below. I am asking for some authorative information that goes beyond what is described below, in particular any arguments for and against these etymologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Etymology 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Online Etymology Dictionary][1] gives as one alternative for the origin of the English *disciple:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Old English *discipul* […], Biblical borrowing from Latin *discipulus* &quot;pupil, student, follower,&quot; said to be from *discere* &quot;to learn&quot; [OED, Watkins], […]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar derivation is claimed by [the Wiktionary](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/discipulus#Latin) and some other sources (which may however all be copying each other).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Etymology 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The German etymological dictionary Kluge (23&lt;sup&gt;rd&lt;/sup&gt; edition, 1999) gives the following chain of origin (for the German *Disziplin*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Disziplin* comes from *disciplina.*&#xD;&#xA;* *disciplina* comes from *discipulus.*&#xD;&#xA;* *discipulus* comes from *discipere,* where the latter is marked as a deduced form (“erschlossen”) and shall mean *to grap* (“[erfassen](http://www.dict.cc/?s=erfassen)”).&#xD;&#xA;* *discipere* is formed from *dis* and capere.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As sources it cites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* H. Schulz, *Deutsches Fremdwörterbuch* (1913), 151.&#xD;&#xA;* O. Mauck – *Der lateinische Begriff ‘disciplina’* (Diss. Freiburg/Schweiz 1941) [*Diss.* means *Dissertation* and refers to a PhD thesis or similar.]&#xD;&#xA;* Joachim Ritter – Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie 2 (1972), 256–261&#xD;&#xA;* Lexikon des Mittelalters (1986), 1130&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have access to neither of those and suspect that only the second item will provide further insights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Online Etymology Dictionary][1] gives a similar account as an alternative to Etymology 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But according to Barnhart and Klein, from a lost compound _*discipere_ &quot;to grasp intellectually, analyze thoroughly,&quot; from *dis-* &quot;apart&quot; […] + *capere* &quot;to take, take hold of&quot; […]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Background&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason why I am so interested in this is the spelling of the German word *Disziplin* in orthographies that feature a [long s](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s) (ſ):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If the letter *s* in that word would originate from an *s* at the end of a (non-inflectionary) morpheme, as in Etymology 2, the word would be spelt ***Disziplin**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If the letter *s* was originating from an *s* in the beginning or middle of a morpheme, as in Etymology 1, the word would be spelt ***Diſziplin**.* This is the spelling given by old German dictionaries, but this may be just a reflection of the etymological knowledge of that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [1]: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=disciple&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="359" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="126" RevisionGUID="e9626595-b97a-4e7a-8117-1fc1eb6d6eef" CreationDate="2016-02-24T05:48:08.690" UserId="49" Text="On the etymology of “discipulus” and “disciplina”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="360" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="126" RevisionGUID="e9626595-b97a-4e7a-8117-1fc1eb6d6eef" CreationDate="2016-02-24T05:48:08.690" UserId="49" Text="|etymology|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="47" RevisionGUID="12fe84f8-376f-4964-baf7-9221d90e2764" CreationDate="2016-02-24T06:03:57.860" UserId="80" Comment="more careful and incorporated comments." Text="It is probable that most written text were not punctuated at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main punctuation used in inscriptions (on monuments, sculptures, etc.) was a central point &amp;middot; or interpunct (thanks C.M. Weiner), by opposition to the low point we currently use) to separate words, or to separate initial letters of abbreviations (eg S.P.Q.R.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Large inscriptions you can see in Rome have been restored, sometimes several times, or put on old monuments many years after their construction so one must be  careful when drawing conclusions from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most texts we have are manuscript copies of the middle ages. Each generation, country and abbaye used its own abbreviations and conventions, so we do not have a clear idea of the non-letter notations of the roman authors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We know Romans used several forms of stenography to take notes during speeches, but we have little testimony of how it was written (wax tablets for instance were constantly reused, and do not age well).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="127" RevisionGUID="9986899b-97fc-4db1-bb41-7f183fb613a1" CreationDate="2016-02-24T06:37:57.037" UserId="39" Text="(The following is a summary of the relevant section in [Wallace 2011][1], *The Latin alphabet and orthography*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wallace observes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; **&quot;Most Latin documents, regardless of type, had very little in the way of punctuation&quot;** (p. 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Archaic Latin: written mostly in [scriptio continua][2] (i.e. often no word breaks or punctuation between words); sometimes, [interpuncts][3] were used between words (including two or three vertical interpuncts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Classical Latin: interpuncts separated words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Late Latin: interpuncts for separating words became less common and were used to mark phrases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scriptio_continua&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpunct" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="28" RevisionGUID="7101876a-8841-4168-a2f9-0f7ad5368c00" CreationDate="2016-02-24T06:49:21.757" UserId="31" Comment="Orthography etc." Text="According to a consensus of Latin scholars, the letter V in ancient Latin was pronounced as [w]. This seems to make sense, because there was no distinguishing between V and U, so the letter V could mark either the vowel [u] or its semivocalic counterpart [w] (much like with the letter I).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any other evidence for this pronunciation? I saw some people challenging this view, so I would like to hear about some more evidence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="364" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="28" RevisionGUID="7101876a-8841-4168-a2f9-0f7ad5368c00" CreationDate="2016-02-24T06:49:21.757" UserId="31" Comment="Orthography etc." Text="Non-typographical evidence of V being pronounced as [w]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="365" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="28" RevisionGUID="7101876a-8841-4168-a2f9-0f7ad5368c00" CreationDate="2016-02-24T06:49:21.757" Comment="Proposed by 31 approved by 65 edit id of 4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="128" RevisionGUID="a39175b5-1e93-4e75-9b19-6d70dde9ae55" CreationDate="2016-02-24T07:45:47.323" UserId="79" Text="Tibi Anglige respondeo, quo facilior responsus meus sit lectu ceteris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin has an ablativus respectus construction.&#xD;&#xA;An example is given my Latin sentence above: there 'lectu' means &quot;from the point of view of reading&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek has essentially the same construction, but it uses accusative instead (there is no ablative in Greek).&#xD;&#xA;This construction often goes by the name accusativus respectus in Greek grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This structure was occasionally borrowed from Greek to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Grammatically a more descriptive name would be &quot;accusativus respectus&quot; since it does the exact same thing as the original Latin construction with ablative.&#xD;&#xA;The name &quot;accusativus Graecus&quot; refers to the fact that the construction is &quot;Greek style&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The freedom to choose accusative or ablative can be convenient in poetry, but more importantly the Greek accusative makes a reference to Greek language and culture.&#xD;&#xA;In some cases this might be desirable to make the expression sound more noble than everyday Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see no connection between the Greek accusative and the temporal accusative.&#xD;&#xA;The Greek one was borrowed from Greek as explained above but the temporal accusative is originally Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is how I learned these constructions, but unfortunately I cannot give a reference.&#xD;&#xA;(And if I could, it would probably be a book in Finnish.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="129" RevisionGUID="337c21fb-3785-4d69-a68a-165aae087143" CreationDate="2016-02-24T08:04:00.000" UserId="79" Text="If I have a transitive verb with one object, passivizing an active sentence is straightforward.&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;te amo&quot; becomes &quot;(a me) amaris&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how to passivize a verb that has two objects?&#xD;&#xA;For example, can &quot;te rem doceo&quot; be passivized into &quot;tu rem doceris&quot; or &quot;te res docetur&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;If only one of the objects can be turned into the subject of a passive clause, which one is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that if either passivization is correct, a verb could have a subject, an object and an agent at the same time (&quot;tu rem doceris a me&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;I am under the impression that if I only have one object for a verb that could take two, I can passivize normally: &quot;te doceo&quot; becomes &quot;doceris&quot; and &quot;rem doceo&quot; becomes &quot;res docetur&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't recall this issue being ever discussed in my Latin grammars." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="372" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="129" RevisionGUID="337c21fb-3785-4d69-a68a-165aae087143" CreationDate="2016-02-24T08:04:00.000" UserId="79" Text="Can I passivize a verb with two objects with respect to either one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="373" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="129" RevisionGUID="337c21fb-3785-4d69-a68a-165aae087143" CreationDate="2016-02-24T08:04:00.000" UserId="79" Text="|grammar|passive-voice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="88" RevisionGUID="bd555205-a6d4-4394-a446-fa25117f44f2" CreationDate="2016-02-24T10:08:57.060" UserId="66" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="First of all, the history of the ampersand (deriving from a ligature of a cursive _et_) is too short to be relevant to Classical Latin as @JoonasIlmavirta points out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_abbreviations) lists ZC (_**z**etera et **c**etera_) or ZE (_**ze**tera_) as abbreviations of _et cetera_ for classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as @Marc points out, the _American Society of Greek and Latin Epigraphy_ doesn't list it in their common Latin abbreviations. (Apparently, their list is based on inscriptions that were published in the French publication [L'Année épigraphique](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Ann%C3%A9e_%C3%A9pigraphique) between 1888 and 1993. The inscriptions are [available on Wikimedia](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ann%C3%A9e_%C3%89pigraphique).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been able to find a number of coins from the 16th century with ZC (_et cetera_) as an inscription, but of course that is not Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ZC][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/95AJ7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="130" RevisionGUID="785bf085-ad44-40c7-88eb-1f1e45f48d79" CreationDate="2016-02-24T11:00:17.640" UserId="41" Text="In Plinius I encountered: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Confitentes iterum ac tertio&#xD;&#xA;interrogavi **supplicium minatus**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is *supplicium* some sort of accusativus belonging to *minatus* wich comes from deponens *minor*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a form is passive then I would expect that the &quot;accused&quot; has taken his place as subject allready. But then suddenly another &quot;accused&quot; shows up. Somehow that bothers me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="376" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="130" RevisionGUID="785bf085-ad44-40c7-88eb-1f1e45f48d79" CreationDate="2016-02-24T11:00:17.640" UserId="41" Text="Can a verbum deponens go along with an accusativus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="377" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="130" RevisionGUID="785bf085-ad44-40c7-88eb-1f1e45f48d79" CreationDate="2016-02-24T11:00:17.640" UserId="41" Text="|accusative|passive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="127" RevisionGUID="b7f912aa-d97c-4cfe-9dd9-42f8bbba0924" CreationDate="2016-02-24T11:13:47.863" UserId="66" Comment="improved formatting" Text="(The following is a summary of the relevant section in [Wallace 2011][1], *The Latin alphabet and orthography*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wallace observes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **&quot;Most Latin documents, regardless of type, had very little in the way of punctuation&quot;** (p. 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Archaic Latin**. Written mostly in [scriptio continua][2] (i.e. often no word breaks or punctuation between words); sometimes, [interpuncts][3] were used between words (including two or three vertical interpuncts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Classical Latin**. Interpuncts separated words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Late Latin.** Interpuncts for separating words became less common and were used to mark phrases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scriptio_continua&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpunct" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="379" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="127" RevisionGUID="b7f912aa-d97c-4cfe-9dd9-42f8bbba0924" CreationDate="2016-02-24T11:13:47.863" Comment="Proposed by 66 approved by -1 edit id of 24" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="127" RevisionGUID="953f76b6-a272-45ec-b504-7f56286f061d" CreationDate="2016-02-24T11:13:47.863" UserId="12" Comment="improved formatting" Text="(The following is a summary of the relevant section in [Wallace 2011][1], *The Latin alphabet and orthography*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wallace observes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Most Latin documents, regardless of type, had very little in the way of punctuation** (p. 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Archaic Latin**. Written mostly in [scriptio continua][2] (i.e. often no word breaks or punctuation between words); sometimes, [interpuncts][3] were used between words (including two or three vertical interpuncts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Classical Latin**. Interpuncts separated words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Late Latin.** Interpuncts for separating words became less common and were used to mark phrases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scriptio_continua&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpunct" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="e6e85821-4382-4579-9bc0-a2c41f83d1ac" CreationDate="2016-02-24T11:15:55.117" UserId="79" Text="If I threaten someone with something in Latin, then *alicui aliquid minor*.&#xD;&#xA;The person (or other entity) being threatened is in dative, but the threat (death, punishment, fine, ...) is in accusative.&#xD;&#xA;Since *minari* is a deponent verb, the seemingly passive form can be used as if it were active.&#xD;&#xA;In my experience the non-deponent version *minare* is less common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *interrogavi supplicium minatus* means &quot;I interrogated and threatened with punishment&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The most natural translation of *supplicium* depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, *supplicium* is also the plural genitive of *supplex*, but this interpretation makes little sense in this context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="112" RevisionGUID="7abc1d92-bc91-45eb-a393-b84e8fb5362b" CreationDate="2016-02-24T11:18:23.490" UserId="66" Comment="improved formatting" Text="[This paper](http://www.eruditio-antiqua.mom.fr/vol5/EA5c.Pultrova.pdf) talks about several primary sources (i.e. Roman texts) that describe rolling Rs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Terentianus Maurus writes in *De litteris* that&#xD;&#xA; &gt; vibrat tremulis ictibus aridum sonorem  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; *the R vibrates with a dry sound from trembling blows*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Martianus Capella writes&#xD;&#xA; &gt; R spiritum lingua crispante corraditur  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; *[R] is pronounced with difficulty (?), with the tongue vibrating the air*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Capella's writing contradicts itself on this count in another place, leaving this testimony in doubt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Lucilius writes, more colorfully,&#xD;&#xA; &gt; r: irritata canis quam homo quam planius dictat  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; *which (i.e. the sound r) an irritated bitch pronounces more clearly than a man*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is supposed to imply a growling similar to the modern instruction or R-rolling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken as a group, these sources would seem to indicate that the Romans did roll some of their Rs. However, other authors, including Varro, Charisius, Marius Victorinus, and Martianus Capella (referring to his contradictory account), describe more fluid pronunciations. What this implies above all else is that pronunciations may have differed among different groups and in different time periods, hence the different accounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect evidence for R-rolling comes from the Romance languages, where this is quite common. In Spanish, for example, *rr* indicates this rolling (rather than simply *r*). The presence of rolling in these languages suggests a common origin, likely in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="383" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="112" RevisionGUID="7abc1d92-bc91-45eb-a393-b84e8fb5362b" CreationDate="2016-02-24T11:18:23.490" Comment="Proposed by 66 approved by 12, 73 edit id of 25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="384" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="107" RevisionGUID="ee8ede4a-1e12-4af1-8a0c-e8b8049f89fb" CreationDate="2016-02-24T11:33:04.770" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="132" RevisionGUID="b2e94f8b-9ca1-454b-a5bc-6c5fe163404e" CreationDate="2016-02-24T12:56:44.897" UserId="36" Text="I am tutoring a friend who is preparing for a graduate school translation exam, of the &quot;unseen passage, dictionary allowed, time limit imposed, be accurate&quot; variety. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We came across &quot;nacti&quot; in paragraph 22 [here][1]. I found 'nanciscor' pretty quickly, and she didn't. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I tried to explain how I knew to check that spelling, I was at a loss. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my real question: Is there any sort of good procedure I could give a student that would allow them to make a list of probable first principal part spellings, given later principal parts? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/la/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="387" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="132" RevisionGUID="b2e94f8b-9ca1-454b-a5bc-6c5fe163404e" CreationDate="2016-02-24T12:56:44.897" UserId="36" Text="Technique to find first principal parts when later parts change spelling? e.g. find 'nanciscor' from 'nactus'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="388" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="132" RevisionGUID="b2e94f8b-9ca1-454b-a5bc-6c5fe163404e" CreationDate="2016-02-24T12:56:44.897" UserId="36" Text="|grammar|dictionary|orthography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="26" RevisionGUID="d2162d85-002f-42b5-8833-e3c251527f67" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:02:29.163" UserId="66" Comment="improved formatting" Text="In Ecclesiastical Latin &quot;-que&quot; would be used in order to avoid to much repletion of the use of &quot;et&quot; and for drawing similarities to the original first noun in a statement, as is sometimes found various Litaniae Sanctorum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sancti Petri et Pauli, atque Andrea, ora pro nobis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this phrase we can see a similarity between Peter and Paul (Apostles of Rome) and yet at the same time another similarity between Peter and Andrew (brothers)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="390" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="26" RevisionGUID="d2162d85-002f-42b5-8833-e3c251527f67" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:02:29.163" Comment="Proposed by 66 approved by 12, 25 edit id of 21" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="06e9c1d3-b0aa-4ce3-bf06-d6c72cde1607" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:09:18.933" UserId="118" Text="Are the terms **a fortiori**, **a priori**, and **a posteriori** bad Latin? If so, how and when did they become established?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the dative case never takes a preposition in Latin—a most welcome clue in a language where the dative and ablative have opposite meanings but often identical form. But _fortiori_ appears to be unambiguously dative, yet introduced by a preposition. The meaning appears to be ablative: &quot;with stronger reason&quot; (&quot;all the more so&quot; more colloquially in English). The stronger reason is the source of the conclusion being justified. And how would you fill in the elided noun: _a fortiori rationi_ or _a fortiore ratione_? I don't see how the dative could even make sense here. Nothing is being given _to_ the stronger reason and there’s no suggestion that the stronger reason has anything at stake in the matter. Weight is coming _from_ the stronger reason, as suggested by the preposition _a_ (short for _ab_ as in ablative!).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="392" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="06e9c1d3-b0aa-4ce3-bf06-d6c72cde1607" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:09:18.933" UserId="118" Text="Nonne &quot;a fortiori, a priori, a posteriori&quot; solecismi sunt?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="393" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="06e9c1d3-b0aa-4ce3-bf06-d6c72cde1607" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:09:18.933" UserId="118" Text="|grammar|medieval-latin|legal-latin|philosophy-terms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="47" RevisionGUID="1a16673b-accb-4e3b-a9d8-a444a32d7232" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:22:09.493" UserId="78" Comment="no need to name me, especially with that typo" Text="It is probable that most written text were not punctuated at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main punctuation used in inscriptions (on monuments, sculptures, etc.) was a central point &amp;middot; or interpunct, by opposition to the low point we currently use) to separate words, or to separate initial letters of abbreviations (eg S.P.Q.R.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Large inscriptions you can see in Rome have been restored, sometimes several times, or put on old monuments many years after their construction so one must be  careful when drawing conclusions from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most texts we have are manuscript copies of the middle ages. Each generation, country and abbaye used its own abbreviations and conventions, so we do not have a clear idea of the non-letter notations of the roman authors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We know Romans used several forms of stenography to take notes during speeches, but we have little testimony of how it was written (wax tablets for instance were constantly reused, and do not age well).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="395" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="d74bae34-e672-4608-9c26-81c2125a780e" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:23:41.347" UserId="21" Comment="Edit title for consistency with revised question" Text="What are the origins of the two Latin names for boron, borium and boracium?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="396" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="d74bae34-e672-4608-9c26-81c2125a780e" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:23:41.347" Comment="Proposed by 21 approved by 12, 78 edit id of 26" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="684ef350-0249-44bd-b680-0086ab16c7d2" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:24:03.927" UserId="66" Comment="improved formatting" Text="The [Online Etymology Dictionary](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=boron) gives this description for the etymology of boron:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Originally called boracium by Humphrey Davy because it was drawn from boracic acid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that form was originally used by the discoverer of boron. I think it is fair to assume that *borium* is just a simple Latinization for boron.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Azote* was the original name coined for the element nitrogen, so its use is similar to *boracium* for boron, though additionally it is used as the term for the element in some other languages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen#History_and_etymology). *Nitrogenium* is also presumably just a Latinization of the English name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, at least for these two, it seems to be a preference for an older name for the element (though not a classical Latin one) versus Latinization of the modern English name." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="398" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="684ef350-0249-44bd-b680-0086ab16c7d2" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:24:03.927" Comment="Proposed by 66 approved by 12, 78 edit id of 22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12" RevisionGUID="ab059954-0bbc-4f20-a7b6-d4d0b1d7fd7f" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:24:30.427" UserId="49" Comment="Formatting of quote. Switching to boldfacing the important parts as inserting numbers is more confusing." Text="From the online etymology dictionary (boldface mine):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[spine (n.)](http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=spine)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; c. 1400, &quot;backbone,&quot; later &quot;thornlike part&quot; (early 15c.),      &#xD;&#xA;from Old French *espine* &quot;thorn, prickle; backbone, spine&quot; (12c., Modern French *épine*), from Latin *spina* &quot;**backbone**,&quot; originally &quot;**thorn, prickle**&quot; (figuratively, in plural, &quot;difficulties, perplexities&quot;), from PIE _*spe-ina-_, from root _*spei-_  &quot;sharp point&quot; (see [*spike*](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=spike&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.1)).     &#xD;&#xA;Meaning &quot;the back of a book&quot; is first attested 1922.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did 'spina' shift semantically from *backbone* to *thorn, prickle?* &#xD;&#xA; I do not comprehend the underlying semantic notion; the human spine does not resemble or feel like a “thorn, prickle”. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="400" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12" RevisionGUID="ab059954-0bbc-4f20-a7b6-d4d0b1d7fd7f" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:24:30.427" Comment="Proposed by 49 approved by 12, 78 edit id of 5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="70" RevisionGUID="67e4855d-8a96-4ac9-a7ab-d0cac026598a" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:24:49.147" UserDisplayName="user11" Comment="Improve grammar" Text="The two words both translate to &quot;winter&quot; in English.&lt;sup&gt;[1](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hiems#Latin),[2](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hibernum#Latin)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although information on Wikipedia is sparse, I gather that *hiems* is most commonly used as a noun, while *hibernum* is the noun form of the more common adjective *[hībernī](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hiberni#Latin)* (wintry). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both forms, however, are shown as nouns. How do they differ in usage? Are they essentially interchangeable synonyms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="402" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="70" RevisionGUID="67e4855d-8a96-4ac9-a7ab-d0cac026598a" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:24:49.147" Comment="Proposed by 11 approved by 12, 78 edit id of 16" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="125" RevisionGUID="733371d9-b627-46ea-882f-96324ce8e26e" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:25:02.257" UserId="66" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Well, without too much knowledge of any deeper, ulterior meanings to the phrase, I can certainly provide and analyze the literal translation for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And you, Brutus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *et* → a simple conjunction&#xD;&#xA;- *tu* → nominative, singular case of the second-person pronoun&#xD;&#xA;- *Brute* → vocative, singular case of the proper noun *Brutus* (2nd declension).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternative, fairly literal translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Even you, Brutus?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You too, Brutus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="404" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="125" RevisionGUID="733371d9-b627-46ea-882f-96324ce8e26e" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:25:02.257" Comment="Proposed by 66 approved by 12, 78 edit id of 23" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="0e5ae289-4d3d-4b23-9887-603210625031" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:25:13.867" UserId="49" Comment="Adapting formatting from quote; further formatting" Text="From the Online Etymology Dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[pontifex (n.)](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=pontifex&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; member of the supreme college of priests in ancient Rome, 1570s, from Latin *pontifex* &quot;high priest, chief of the priests,&quot; probably from *pont-*, stem of *pons* &quot;bridge&quot; (see [*pons*](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=pons&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + *-fex, -ficis,* root of *facere* &quot;make&quot; (see [*factitious*](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=factitious&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)). If so, the word originally meant &quot;bridge-maker,&quot; or &quot;path-maker.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Weekley points out that, **[1.]** &quot;bridge-building has always been regarded as a pious work of divine inspiration.&quot; **[2.]** Or the term may be metaphoric of bridging the earthly world and the realm of the gods. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please correct me if I erred, but [1.] and [2.] appear two separate hypotheses for the etymology. If so, then understanding 2, I ask only about 1: Why was bridge-building “regarded as a pious work of divine inspiration”? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="406" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="0e5ae289-4d3d-4b23-9887-603210625031" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:25:13.867" UserId="49" Comment="Adapting formatting from quote; further formatting" Text="How does ‘pontifex’ connect to the significance of bridge building as pious work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="407" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="0e5ae289-4d3d-4b23-9887-603210625031" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:25:13.867" Comment="Proposed by 49 approved by 12, 78 edit id of 7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="134" RevisionGUID="a446abe0-a569-401a-8e56-1582f8ba81f6" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:30:46.963" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="135" RevisionGUID="6ede8214-2775-4ec1-b0fb-4d9df093e526" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:30:46.963" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="136" RevisionGUID="894efb55-6c9b-4fdb-960a-c824ac3a3b9f" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:31:30.337" UserId="164" Text="I know Ancient Latin was subjected to a phenomenon called &quot;rhotacism&quot;, which changed some s in r. However, I can't help but ask myself why it happend. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why did rhotacism happen? Has it influenced all the words or not? If not, which ones?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="411" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="136" RevisionGUID="894efb55-6c9b-4fdb-960a-c824ac3a3b9f" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:31:30.337" UserId="164" Text="Rotacism: what?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="412" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="136" RevisionGUID="894efb55-6c9b-4fdb-960a-c824ac3a3b9f" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:31:30.337" UserId="164" Text="|language-evolution|old-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="40" RevisionGUID="0d7de686-6908-42a1-95cf-f8407dae3cd6" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:35:54.070" UserId="93" Comment="there's no target for that &quot;1&quot;" Text="&lt;sup&gt;Related to [this question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1/are-que-and-et-equivalent)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I see &quot;vel&quot;, &quot;aut&quot;, and &quot;-ve&quot; being used (mostly) interchangeably in the Latin I read. Is there any idiomatic difference, or can they be used interchangeably?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, can I use &quot;-ve&quot; for either/or, like I would with &quot;aut&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet tibi habere **aut** vim **aut** laetitia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet tibi habere vim**ve** laetitia**ve**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And does using &quot;vel&quot; instead of &quot;aut&quot; change the meaning in any way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet tibi habere **vel** vim **vel** laetitia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="414" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="40" RevisionGUID="0d7de686-6908-42a1-95cf-f8407dae3cd6" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:35:54.070" UserId="93" Comment="there's no target for that &quot;1&quot;" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|grammar|meaning|conjunction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="415" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="40" RevisionGUID="0d7de686-6908-42a1-95cf-f8407dae3cd6" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:35:54.070" Comment="Proposed by 93 approved by 12, 71 edit id of 10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="918ca1a8-4d2d-4795-a4da-5ccfa3a06c99" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:36:30.953" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="138" RevisionGUID="aedfd74c-79ce-4ba9-9ad5-d8d2f4d78c30" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:36:30.953" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="139" RevisionGUID="89183c88-9da9-4796-9e18-1cda22d5d754" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:36:50.237" UserId="79" Text="My impression is that *fortiori*, *priori* and *posteriori* are ablative forms, but they have been declined badly &amp;mdash; from the classical point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making this mistake is quite easy.&#xD;&#xA;Both -e and -ī appear as singular ablative endings in the third declensions.&#xD;&#xA;For adjectives, -ī is always used in positive (ie. neither comparative nor superlative) and -e always in comparative.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore it is no surprise if by (false) analogy the ablative ending -ī makes it to the comparative as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you explain in your question, ablative makes semantically much more sense than dative.&#xD;&#xA;And of course it fits better with the preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a classical point of view the expressions you mention are bad Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that such declensions may have been canonical in some form of medieval Latin, but I am not an expert in such medieval developments.&#xD;&#xA;It seems most natural that this misdeclension is a part of a more wide-spread slip from classical standards, not a stand-alone mistake." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="419" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="136" RevisionGUID="958821b6-a0fb-4d15-b88e-80ef23b96a08" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:37:30.347" UserId="118" Comment="Corrected spelling, changed &quot;what&quot; to &quot;why&quot; to agree with the body of the question" Text="Rhotacism: why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="420" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="136" RevisionGUID="958821b6-a0fb-4d15-b88e-80ef23b96a08" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:37:30.347" UserId="118" Comment="Corrected spelling, changed &quot;what&quot; to &quot;why&quot; to agree with the body of the question" Text="|language-evolution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="421" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="136" RevisionGUID="958821b6-a0fb-4d15-b88e-80ef23b96a08" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:37:30.347" Comment="Proposed by 118 approved by -1 edit id of 29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="422" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="136" RevisionGUID="3aefcfba-2fa5-49ad-b577-8238f346c8cf" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:37:30.347" UserId="164" Comment="Corrected spelling, changed &quot;what&quot; to &quot;why&quot; to agree with the body of the question" Text="|language-evolution|old-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="136" RevisionGUID="9b76e13e-878b-45cd-9f2f-c7584f0600be" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:38:08.537" UserId="12" Comment="Corrected spelling, changed &quot;what&quot; to &quot;why&quot; to agree with the body of the question" Text="I know Ancient Latin was subjected to a phenomenon called &quot;rhotacism&quot;, which changed some *s* into *r*. However, I can't help but ask myself why it happened. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why did rhotacism happen? Did it influence all words containing *s*, or not? If not, which types of words were affected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="425" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="136" RevisionGUID="9b76e13e-878b-45cd-9f2f-c7584f0600be" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:38:08.537" UserId="12" Comment="Corrected spelling, changed &quot;what&quot; to &quot;why&quot; to agree with the body of the question" Text="Rhotacism: why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="140" RevisionGUID="00f399ed-07ce-4dff-85d2-261caff3eee1" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:56:07.013" UserId="79" Text="To be able to generate a list of candidates, one should know some common ways to produce different principal parts from a given stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To produce the present stem (the first principal part as you call it) one might add a nasal before the last consonant.&#xD;&#xA;To produce the perfect stem one might reduplicate the first syllable, with possibility for vowel gradation.&#xD;&#xA;To produce the perfect participle stem one might add a t, with possibility for assimilation in the preceding consonant.&#xD;&#xA;Using these rules to the stem *tag-*, one obtains the stems *tang-*, *tetig-* and *tact-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find more possible ways to play with the stems in many Latin grammars, and I will not attempt to list them here.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, let me try to detail the process I would take to find *nancisci* from *nacti*.&#xD;&#xA;First, the perfect participle stem seems to be *nact-*.&#xD;&#xA;There is no sign of reduplication (we couldn't remove a syllable anyway since there is only one), so the present stem might be *nac-*.&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that the t has caused some assimilation, so it could be *nag-* instead.&#xD;&#xA;There could also be a nasal in the present stem, so also *nanc-* and *nang-* might be possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short:&#xD;&#xA;To see the first principal form, know the rules to generate later principal forms and try to guess which ones may have been used.&#xD;&#xA;And know your irregular verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="3cf2fa2f-b49d-4181-85a5-fbf2956cf868" CreationDate="2016-02-24T14:17:36.203" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="deleted 123 characters in body" Text="Elision of a vowel (or vowel + *m*) occurs when it's at the end of the word, and the next word starts with either a vowel or *h* + vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the discretion of the poet, the last vowel of a word can be kept even if the next starts with one; in this case, it's considered to be in [hiatus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiatus_(linguistics)). However, this is very, very rare. &#xA;&#xA;However, if the second word is a form of sum, its first letter is normally elided, instead of the last letter of the preceding word. This is called prodelision. &#xA;&#xA;Thanks to @Cerberus and @Nick for pointing out and naming another possibility. &#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/51/when-can-i-elide-letters/52#comment85_52" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="429" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="123" RevisionGUID="86d19326-013f-41c0-8d6e-3afcdc5ca00d" CreationDate="2016-02-24T14:28:48.243" UserId="-1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;QPaysTaxes&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:12,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nathaniel&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:66,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Earthliŋ&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Lucky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="49" RevisionGUID="b18fe5e9-3008-4451-836e-87f3c234aa0e" CreationDate="2016-02-24T14:29:34.043" UserId="78" Comment="added 305 characters in body" Text="We should first recognize that there was not one system of punctuation in use during Classical times. However, all of modern punctuation, including commas, periods, colons, semicolons, etc. are more recent, not just for Latin, but for European languages as a whole (and in fact worldwide, as e.g. Chinese borrowed the question mark).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only that, but word spacing too is relatively recent. Many early manuscripts lack any punctuation and word division.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the earliest inscriptions, too, you can see a lack of word division or punctuation. Take a look at the Duenos Inscription ([ca. 580–570 BCE](https://books.google.com/books?id=gWY7-DBWPW4C&amp;pg=PA197#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Hermes_16_illustration1.png&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However common this was, there were some variations. In a dedication to Castor and Pollux ([ca. 550–525 BCE](https://books.google.com/books?id=gWY7-DBWPW4C&amp;pg=PA196#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)) in between &quot;to Castor&quot; (CASTOREI) and &quot;to Pollux&quot; (PODLOUQUEI) there is word division indicated by an interpunct `·`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8434/7726943478_5566035b04_b.jpg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interpunct was most often used for word division in inscriptions. Sometimes, there may be two dots, even three as evident from the Forum Inscription ([6th century](https://books.google.com/books?id=gWY7-DBWPW4C&amp;pg=PA202#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Textlapis.jpg&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may also note in that inscription that a slash `\` is used for sentence division. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, because the letter I in Latin was used for both a vowel (long and short) and a consonant (having the IPA value of `j`), it was not infrequently drawn particularly elongated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baldi, Philip 1999. *The Foundations of Latin.* de Gruyter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bodel, John 2012. &quot;Paragrams, Punctuation, and System in Ancient Roman Script,&quot; in *The Shape of Script* ed. Stephen D. Houston, Santa Fe, pp. 65–92.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sacks, David 2007. *Letter Perfect: The Marvelous History of Our Alphabet From A to Z*. Random." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="bc99bce1-4246-4bcd-94d4-30b3767fb401" CreationDate="2016-02-24T14:33:42.333" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="removed note about more research" Text="William Whitaker's Words provides a hint in [their definition](http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?keyword=cochlear):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spoon; **(originally for extracting snails)**; spoonful;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia [supports this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlearium), but says it less definitely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The word cochlea has a literal meaning of spiral or snail shell, leading many to conclude that the **design of the spoon was so that the handle could be used to get snails** or cockles **out of the shell**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continued Googling gives very, very few nonmedical results (everything is talking about cochlear implants or infections), and filtering just leaves barely any results. As far as I can tell, this is a question we don't have a definite answer to, but the current hypothesis is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***The cochlear was used to extract snails from their shells originally.***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="93" RevisionGUID="c40cf349-312c-43e5-a67c-17b4d477f7b9" CreationDate="2016-02-24T15:27:03.227" UserId="92" Comment="Improve formatting" Text="Officially, &quot;imprimo&quot; means &quot;I mark/stamp&quot; (hence English &quot;impression&quot;), where &quot;premo&quot; just means &quot;I press.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nuances of Latin prefixes have long fascinated me, and it took me forever to realize that they're basically equivalent to English verbs that contain prepositions. So here it's a case of &quot;press&quot; vs. &quot;press in.&quot; &quot;Rideo&quot; = &quot;I laugh&quot;; &quot;inrideo&quot; = &quot;I laugh at.&quot; &quot;Lumino&quot; = &quot;I shine&quot;; &quot;Illumino&quot; = &quot;I shine onto [something].&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gets a little more complicated when there aren't English equivalents. &quot;Lacrimo&quot; = &quot;I cry&quot;; &quot;illacrimo&quot; = &quot;I burst into tears.&quot; &quot;Amplexor&quot; = &quot;I hug [someone]&quot;; &quot;complexor&quot; = &quot;I give [someone] a hug.&quot; But you can usually figure it out with some thought. Nevertheless, it seems very strange to me that this principle isn't taught as part of standard Latin instruction. When you think about it this way it's not difficult, but I've never seen it explained anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wait, actually, that's not true. In fact, [Alfonso Traina][1], Professor Emeritus at the University of Bologna, has written about this, but unfortunately 1) he writes in Italian and 2) I only have photocopies of a few sections of his work, and they don't contain the title of the books they're from, so I'm unable to point you to specific references. :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some example sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &gt; Nam et vipera et caecilia saepe cum in pascuo bos improvide supercubuit, lacessita onere morsum imprimit. (Columella, *Res Rustica*, 6.17.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *For the cow when in the field often lies down on the viper and the lizard; provoked by its weight, [the viper or the lizard] impresses its bite [on the cow].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &gt; Simulque alteram fasciam minister attollit, alteram premit medicus. (Celsus, *De Medicina*, 8.10.2b)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *And at the same time the assistant lifts one loop up while the doctor presses on the other.* (In a discussion about setting broken bones.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_Traina" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="434" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="93" RevisionGUID="c40cf349-312c-43e5-a67c-17b4d477f7b9" CreationDate="2016-02-24T15:27:03.227" Comment="Proposed by 92 approved by 78, 12 edit id of 31" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="143" RevisionGUID="0a9e743c-30b7-4e07-a167-eb1242298711" CreationDate="2016-02-24T15:44:10.767" UserId="79" Text="This is a partial answer.&#xD;&#xA;I can only tell which words are affected, not why this phenomenon happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that s turned into an r between two vowels: *amase* &gt; *amare*, *honose* &gt; *honore*, *corposis* &gt; *corporis* and so on.&#xD;&#xA;It has also changed in some word-final positions by analogy to declined forms: *honos* &gt; *honor* but *corpus* did not become *corpor*.&#xD;&#xA;Notice that this only applies to a single s between to vowels (and occasional word-final s's), not to an initial or double s.&#xD;&#xA;In classical Latin we still say *sum*, *amavisti* and *amavisse*, not *rum*, *amavirti* and *amavirre*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="144" RevisionGUID="b58f38c5-b398-4789-8680-5f32349714a5" CreationDate="2016-02-24T15:58:34.820" UserId="45" Text="According to [Bennett's New Latin Grammar, #178](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect178), the recommended approach when making these constructions passive is to make the person the (nominative) subject and to retain the thing in the accusative. (See also [this blog post](https://latinforaddicts.wordpress.com/tag/double-accusative/))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, in your example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; te rem doceo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;becomes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rem a me doceris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Me sententiam rogavit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;becomes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sententiam rogatus sum ab eo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same section, though, it notes that not all double accusative verbs permit this kind of passive construction. I advise looking for usage examples on an *ad hoc* basis if you are curious about a particular word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several inaccuracies in the proposed answers so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You're confusing the direct and the indirect object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually,  no: as mentioned in the comments, words of teaching, inquiring, or even concealing (such as `doceo`, `posco`, `celo`, or `rogo`) can take two direct objects: a so-called *double accusative*. There is no indirect object (dative) in the OP's original question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning @C. M. Weimer's answer, I agree that &quot;tu rem doceris&quot; is correct, but I disagree with his translation of &quot;te res docetur&quot;: in my opinion, this is an awkward and incorrect way of using the passive, but it certainly does not mean &quot;You were taught to a thing.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="145" RevisionGUID="c48cf245-9b6a-4bc8-8f08-1cf05fe60b19" CreationDate="2016-02-24T16:15:38.330" UserId="30" Text="In classical Latin, the ablative of comparatives could end on *-i*, although *-e* is probably more common. Here are a few quotations that I think must be conceded to contain ablatives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cornelius Nepos, *Vitae Ca.* 2.2.2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... ibi cum diutius moraretur, P. Scipio Africanus consul iterum, cuius **in priori consulatu** quaestor fuerat, uoluit eum de prouincia depellere ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; L. Iunius Moderatus Columella, *De Re Rustica* 2.1.7.6:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... de cuius cultu dicturos nos **priori uolumine** polliciti iam nunc disseremus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Titus Livius, *Ab Urbe Condita* 24.12.8.3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... et ceteri in suas quisque prouincias profecti, et quibus prorogatum imperium erat easdem quas **priori anno** regiones obtinuerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Titus Livius, *Periochae Librorum A. U. C.* 56.15:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... delatus est ultro Scipioni Africano a senatu populoque R. consulatus; quem cum illi capere ob lege, quae vetabat quemquam iterum consulem fieri, non liceret, sicut **priori consulatu** legibus solutus est. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Publius Ovidius Naso, *Metamorphoses* 8.443:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Toxea, quid faciat, dubium pariterque volentem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ulcisc fratrem fraternaque fata timentem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; haud patitur dubitare diu calidumque **priori**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **caede** recalfecit consorti sanguine telum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Still warm from its prior carnage&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="144" RevisionGUID="741ba4fd-e6cb-4341-bd83-488a421ad2b3" CreationDate="2016-02-24T16:19:48.523" UserId="45" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="According to [Bennett's New Latin Grammar, #178](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect178), the recommended approach when making these constructions passive is to make the person the (nominative) subject and to retain the thing in the accusative. (See also [this blog post](https://latinforaddicts.wordpress.com/tag/double-accusative/))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, in your example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; te rem doceo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;becomes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rem a me doceris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Me sententiam rogavit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;becomes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sententiam rogatus sum ab eo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same section, though, it notes that not all double accusative verbs permit this kind of passive construction. I advise looking for usage examples on an *ad hoc* basis if you are curious about a particular word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some notes about previous answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You're confusing the direct and the indirect object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually,  no: as mentioned in the comments, words of teaching, inquiring, or even concealing (such as `doceo`, `posco`, `celo`, or `rogo`) can take two direct objects: a so-called *double accusative*. There is no indirect object (dative) in the OP's original question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning @C. M. Weimer's answer, I agree that &quot;tu rem doceris&quot; is correct, but I want to emphasize that &quot;te res docetur&quot; is an awkward and incorrect way of using the passive, since (according to the grammar link I posted above) it requires us to think of `res` as the person taught and `te` as the thing taught.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="e6f8bba4-30ab-40e6-80d5-fbfd881dfb06" CreationDate="2016-02-24T16:29:54.383" UserId="9" Text="The first step towards rhotacism is believed to have been voicing of single &quot;s&quot; to the sound [z] in between vowels.  This kind of voicing change is common historically; for example, it also occured between Classical Latin and many Romance languages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some related languages, such as Oscan, /z/ remained as such between vowels and did not undergo rhotacism. We know this because we have Oscan inscriptions written in the Latin alphabet that use the letter Z for this sound (Buck 1904). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next step of rhotacism (z &gt; r) is a little less common across languages, but we do have some other examples. The process also applied historically in Germanic; one place where you can see the result in English is *forlo**r**n,* which is historically related to the verb *lo**s**e*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result of these changes, original intervocalic &quot;S&quot; ultimately became &quot;r&quot; in Classical Latin. In the ancestor of Latin, &quot;S&quot; was also voiced to [z] after the voiced consonant /r/, so another related sound change is original &quot;RS&quot; to Classical &quot;RR.&quot; One word that shows this change is [*terra*][1] &quot;earth,&quot; from Proto-Indo-European *\*ters*- ‎(“dry”). The cluster *rs* that occurs in Classical Latin is a simplification of earlier *rtt* or *rts*; this is why most words with *rs* also have *rt* in some forms or in related words (such as [*ars*][2] &quot;art,&quot; genitive *artis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from these two environments (between vowels and after *r*) I can't think of any other cases where Latin &quot;r&quot; came from earlier &quot;s.&quot; Once the sound &quot;r&quot; became established in certain words, their derivatives might come to have it in other environments. For example, as Joonas Ilmavirta mentions, some words such as *honor* developed final *r* instead of *s* after a vowel; it's believed this is due to the presence of *r* in other related forms (like *honoris*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bibliography:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Buck, Carl Darling. 1904. [*A grammar of Oscan and Umbrian : with a collection of inscriptions and a glossary*][3]&#xD;&#xA;- Gorman, Kyle. &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real][4]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terra#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ars#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/stream/grammarofoscanum00buckuoft#page/74/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="9f7dc940-9bf1-48c4-a156-ddb43b333760" CreationDate="2016-02-24T16:35:15.813" UserId="9" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="The first step towards rhotacism is believed to have been voicing of single &quot;s&quot; to the sound [z] in between vowels.  This kind of voicing change is common historically; for example, it also occured between Classical Latin and many Romance languages. Double *ss* remained unvoiced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some related languages, such as Oscan, /z/ remained as such between vowels and did not undergo rhotacism. We know this because we have Oscan inscriptions written in the Latin alphabet that use the letter Z for this sound (Buck 1904). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next step of rhotacism (z &gt; r) is a little less common across languages, but we do have some other examples. The process also applied historically in Germanic; one place where you can see the result in English is *forlo**r**n,* which is historically related to the verb *lo**s**e*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result of these changes, original intervocalic *\*s* ultimately became *r* in Classical Latin. In the ancestor of Latin, *\*s* seems to have also been voiced to [z] after the voiced consonant /r/, so another related sound change is original *\*rs* to Classical Latin *rr.* One word that shows this change is [*terra*][1] &quot;earth,&quot; from Proto-Indo-European *\*ters*- ‎(“dry”). The cluster *rs* that occurs in Classical Latin is a simplification of earlier *\*rtt* or *\*rts*; this is why most words with *rs* also have *rt* in some forms or in related words (such as [*ars*][2] &quot;art,&quot; genitive *artis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from these two environments (between vowels and after *r*) I can't think of any other cases where Latin *r* came from earlier *\*s.* Once the sound *r* became established in certain words, their derivatives might come to have it in other environments. For example, as Joonas Ilmavirta mentions, some words such as *honor* developed final *r* instead of *s* after a vowel; it's believed this is due to the presence of *r* in other related forms (like *honoris*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bibliography:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Buck, Carl Darling. 1904. [*A grammar of Oscan and Umbrian : with a collection of inscriptions and a glossary*][3]&#xD;&#xA;- Gorman, Kyle. &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real][4]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terra#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ars#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/stream/grammarofoscanum00buckuoft#page/74/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="147" RevisionGUID="43733400-7e52-4fbc-a384-d96fe943940c" CreationDate="2016-02-24T16:50:09.163" UserId="30" Text="De Vaan (2008) says that the etymology is uncertain and that both of the theories you mentioned have problems. He bases this on the two most commonly consulted etymological dictionaries of Latin, Walde–Hoffmann and Ernout–Meillet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proto-Italic *\*kapelo-* 'who takes'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Walde–Hoffmann derive *discipulus* from *\*dis-capiō* 'to assume mentally, interpret' (cf. *disceptāre* 'to negotiate, decide' Cic.+), which is semantically not compelling. Ernout–Meillet are very hesitant about it. On the other hand, *-pulus* is difficult to explain on the basis of *discō*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bibliography: Walde–Hoffmann I: 355; Ernout–Meillet 176. → *capiō*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="40" RevisionGUID="78515ae9-b3c7-43d3-befe-8ba09ce95238" CreationDate="2016-02-24T17:05:14.743" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Clarified the second paragraph, removed an actually not very relevant link" Text="So I see &quot;vel&quot;, &quot;aut&quot;, and &quot;-ve&quot; being used (mostly) interchangeably in the Latin I read. Is there any idiomatic difference, or can they be used interchangeably?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, is it valid Latin (and does it have the right meaning) if I use &quot;-ve&quot; for either/or, like I would with &quot;aut&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet tibi habere **aut** vim **aut** laetitia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet tibi habere vim**ve** laetitia**ve**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And does using &quot;vel&quot; instead of &quot;aut&quot; change the meaning in any way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet tibi habere **vel** vim **vel** laetitia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="148" RevisionGUID="f07a6dbd-fb51-490a-b596-e81bdd0ee9c3" CreationDate="2016-02-24T17:21:34.627" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="In a fear clause, we'd write something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Timeo ne angue necer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I fear I will be killed by a dragon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;As usual, my Latin writing is bad, and I only barely remember passive subjunctive. Please correct as needed.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that makes little sense. In other uses, &quot;ne&quot; is negative, not positive. How did it come to mean the opposite in fear clauses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="445" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="148" RevisionGUID="f07a6dbd-fb51-490a-b596-e81bdd0ee9c3" CreationDate="2016-02-24T17:21:34.627" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="Why do fear clauses invert the meaning of ut/ne?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="446" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="148" RevisionGUID="f07a6dbd-fb51-490a-b596-e81bdd0ee9c3" CreationDate="2016-02-24T17:21:34.627" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|classical-latin|grammar|language-evolution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="149" RevisionGUID="cd671d0b-8d2c-4a2c-bc31-7dc394dcc056" CreationDate="2016-02-24T18:00:03.617" UserId="170" Text="As you know, Latin language has several terms for what we call &quot;shield&quot;, namely _clipeus_, _scutum_, _parma_, _pelta_ etc. I'm just wondering which among them is the most &quot;neutral&quot; or &quot;common&quot; word that referring &quot;shields&quot;, or is there perhaps a blanket term for them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="448" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="149" RevisionGUID="cd671d0b-8d2c-4a2c-bc31-7dc394dcc056" CreationDate="2016-02-24T18:00:03.617" UserId="170" Text="What is the most neutral word for &quot;shield&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="449" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="149" RevisionGUID="cd671d0b-8d2c-4a2c-bc31-7dc394dcc056" CreationDate="2016-02-24T18:00:03.617" UserId="170" Text="|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="130" RevisionGUID="7d36136f-8006-4e84-b174-bdb094cfa322" CreationDate="2016-02-24T18:27:46.500" UserId="31" Comment="Tag &amp; spelling" Text="In Plinius I encountered: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Confitentes iterum ac tertio&#xD;&#xA;interrogavi **supplicium minatus**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is *supplicium* some sort of accusativus belonging to *minatus*, which comes from deponens *minor*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a form is passive then I would expect that the &quot;accused&quot; has taken his place as the subject already. But then suddenly another &quot;accused&quot; shows up. Somehow that bothers me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="451" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="130" RevisionGUID="7d36136f-8006-4e84-b174-bdb094cfa322" CreationDate="2016-02-24T18:27:46.500" UserId="31" Comment="Tag &amp; spelling" Text="|accusative|deponent-verbs|passive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="452" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="130" RevisionGUID="7d36136f-8006-4e84-b174-bdb094cfa322" CreationDate="2016-02-24T18:27:46.500" Comment="Proposed by 31 approved by 12, 79 edit id of 32" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="d616f444-b300-4965-8c2b-6da1462ee162" CreationDate="2016-02-24T18:30:48.370" UserId="79" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="Yes, a deponent verb can have an accusative object just like non-deponent verbs do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I threaten someone with something in Latin, then *alicui aliquid minor*.&#xD;&#xA;The person (or other entity) being threatened is in dative, but the threat (death, punishment, fine, ...) is in accusative.&#xD;&#xA;Since *minari* is a deponent verb, the seemingly passive form can be used as if it were active.&#xD;&#xA;In my experience the non-deponent version *minare* is less common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *interrogavi supplicium minatus* means &quot;I interrogated and threatened with punishment&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The most natural translation of *supplicium* depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, *supplicium* is also the plural genitive of *supplex*, but this interpretation makes little sense in this context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="149" RevisionGUID="683a4bdf-f9bd-4700-bccb-f006a1b7e9b6" CreationDate="2016-02-24T18:51:18.330" UserId="170" Comment="added 427 characters in body" Text="As you know, Latin language has several terms for what we call &quot;shield&quot;, namely _clipeus_, _scutum_, _parma_, _pelta_ etc. I'm just wondering which among them is the most &quot;neutral&quot; or &quot;common&quot; word that referring &quot;shields&quot;, or is there perhaps a blanket term for them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clarification: My intention was to ask for a Classical word for &quot;a hand-carry armor designed for battle&quot;, or metaphoric usage of it that translates English &quot;shield&quot; such as in [&quot;Religious Liberty Is a Shield and Not a Sword&quot;][1], but I'm also interested if you know something about New Latin vocabulary, because I have little knowledge about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-knox/post_9703_b_7702140.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="149" RevisionGUID="13ac973f-07da-4401-9594-5989ab4e3756" CreationDate="2016-02-24T18:56:47.053" UserId="170" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="As you know, Latin language has several terms for what we call &quot;shield&quot;, namely _clipeus_, _scutum_, _parma_, _pelta_ etc. I'm just wondering which among them is the most &quot;neutral&quot; or &quot;common&quot; word that referring &quot;shields&quot;, or is there perhaps a blanket term for them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clarification: My intention was to ask for a Classical word (if any) for &quot;a hand-carry armor designed for battle&quot;, or metaphoric usage of it that translates English &quot;shield&quot; such as in [&quot;Religious Liberty Is a Shield and Not a Sword&quot;][1], but I'm also interested if you know something about New Latin vocabulary, because I have little knowledge about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-knox/post_9703_b_7702140.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="149" RevisionGUID="f9e620ce-51da-49fb-91c4-e3ad00334126" CreationDate="2016-02-24T19:00:55.867" UserId="12" Comment="wording per comment and tag" Text="As you know, Latin language has several terms for what we call &quot;shield&quot;, namely _clipeus_, _scutum_, _parma_, _pelta_ etc. I'm just wondering which among them is the most &quot;neutral&quot; or &quot;common&quot; word that referring &quot;shields&quot;, or is there perhaps a blanket term for them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clarification: My intention was to ask for a Classical word (if any) for &quot;a hand-carry armor designed for battle&quot;, or metaphoric usage of it that translates English &quot;shield&quot; such as in [&quot;Religious Liberty Is a Shield and Not a Sword&quot;][1], but I'm also interested in knowing if Latin since the Classical period would use the same word or a different one, because I have little knowledge about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-knox/post_9703_b_7702140.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="458" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="149" RevisionGUID="f9e620ce-51da-49fb-91c4-e3ad00334126" CreationDate="2016-02-24T19:00:55.867" UserId="12" Comment="wording per comment and tag" Text="|classical-latin|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="180a3bfa-a9a1-47a8-b5c7-da483fbfe25c" CreationDate="2016-02-24T19:02:29.983" UserId="66" Comment="added picture" Text="The Etruscan alphabet you presented in your question is actually a transliteration. The actual Etruscan inscriptions are in one of the &quot;[Old Italic][1]&quot; alphabets derived from the Greek one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unicode now has separate code points for these (although it unifies various related alphabets like Etruscan, Oscan, and Old Latin) and if you [download the right fonts][2], you'll be able to see them (although of course, a single font cannot represent the diversity of forms that used to be used). Here is the Etruscan alphabet encoded in &quot;Old Italic&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;                            &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;([picture in case the characters don't display correctly][3])&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(taken from this Wikipedia article: [Old Italic script][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see (or maybe you can't) that the Etruscan letter transliterated as &quot;G&quot; actually has the form of C. This also applies to the Etruscan letter transliterated as &quot;V,&quot; which actually had the form of F. Etruscan did not have a /g/ sound distinct from /k/ (or any distinct voiced plosive [consonants][4] in general), so when it adapted this letter from Greek *gamma,* it repurposed it for the sound /k/. This carried over into Latin; in Old Latin the letter C was used for both /k/ and /g/. The modern Latin letter G was created to distinguish the sound /g/ from the sound /k/, which came to be represented mostly by C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, the letter Z became obsolete in Latin since the sound /z/ developed into /r/. So Z was replaced with G.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Italic_script&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wazu.jp/gallery/Fonts_OldItalic.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZHw7V.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language#Consonants" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="460" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="180a3bfa-a9a1-47a8-b5c7-da483fbfe25c" CreationDate="2016-02-24T19:02:29.983" Comment="Proposed by 66 approved by 12, 9 edit id of 33" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="042d6508-602d-4430-b6bc-90149fd85906" CreationDate="2016-02-24T19:07:14.630" UserId="9" Comment="added 936 characters in body" Text="The first step towards rhotacism is believed to have been voicing of single &quot;s&quot; to the sound [z] in between vowels (and also after a vowel and before the semivowel *v* [w]; thanks to TKR for pointing this out in a [comment][1]).  This kind of voicing change is common historically; for example, it also occured between Classical Latin and many Romance languages. Double *ss* remained unvoiced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some related languages, such as Oscan, /z/ remained as such between vowels and did not undergo rhotacism. We know this because we have Oscan inscriptions written in the Latin alphabet that use the letter Z for this sound (Buck 1904). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next step of rhotacism (z &gt; r) is a little less common across languages, but we do have some other examples. The process also applied historically in Germanic; one place where you can see the result in English is *forlo**r**n,* which is historically related to the verb *lo**s**e*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result of these changes, original intervocalic *\*s* ultimately became *r* in Classical Latin. In the ancestor of Latin, *\*s* seems to have also been voiced to [z] after the voiced consonant /r/, so another related sound change is original *\*rs* to Classical Latin *rr.* One word that shows this change is [*terra*][2] &quot;earth,&quot; from Proto-Indo-European *\*ters*- ‎(“dry”). The cluster *rs* that occurs in Classical Latin is a simplification of earlier *\*rtt* or *\*rts*; this is why most words with *rs* also have *rt* in some forms or in related words (such as [*ars*][3] &quot;art,&quot; genitive *artis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from these three environments (between vowels, between a vowel and *v,* and after *r*) I can't think of any other cases where Latin *r* came from earlier *\*s.* Once the sound *r* became established in certain words, their derivatives might come to have it in other environments. For example, as Joonas Ilmavirta mentions, some words such as *honor* developed final *r* instead of *s* after a vowel; it's believed this is due to the presence of *r* in other related forms (like *honoris*). There also seem to be some words with *r* before another consonant where the *r* was originally intervocalic *\*s*, but the following vowel was lost (as in [*veternus*][4]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also words in Classical Latin that had intervocalic single *s,* which we believe was pronounced [s]. Many of these correspond to etymological *\*ss* which seems to have become shortened in some words. In other cases, intervocalic *s* has been explained as originating in borrowings from other Italic languages that did not undergo rhotacism. Whatever the reason, their presence indicates that rhotacism was not active as an automatic sound change in the Classical era (Gorman).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bibliography:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Buck, Carl Darling. 1904. [*A grammar of Oscan and Umbrian : with a collection of inscriptions and a glossary*][5]&#xD;&#xA;- Gorman, Kyle. &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real][6]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/136/rhotacism-why#comment237_146&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terra#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ars#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/veternus&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://archive.org/stream/grammarofoscanum00buckuoft#page/74/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="150" RevisionGUID="b80d9bb2-c9eb-4a07-8ec3-f287127c17d2" CreationDate="2016-02-24T19:16:28.433" UserId="79" Text="It is most natural (to me at least) to see ut/ne clauses corresponding to wishes as independent.&#xD;&#xA;A couple of examples should make this idea clear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Timeo, ne veniat. &gt; Timeo. Ne veniat! &gt; I fear. May he not come! &gt; I fear that he comes.&#xD;&#xA;- Spero, ut veniat. &gt; Spero. Ut veniat! &gt; I hope. May he come! &gt; I hope that he comes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen this explanation in Latin grammars and it makes sense, but I don't know if there is historical evidence for these clauses developing from independent clauses.&#xD;&#xA;If nothing else, it is a good rule for deciding which one of ut and ne to pick." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="90e3ad53-fd76-4e5a-9c07-f2a6afd5d038" CreationDate="2016-02-24T19:20:52.537" UserId="9" Comment="added 306 characters in body" Text="The first step towards rhotacism is believed to have been voicing of single &quot;s&quot; to the sound [z] in between vowels (and also after a vowel and before the semivowel *v* [w]; thanks to TKR for pointing this out in a [comment][1]).  This kind of voicing change is common historically; for example, it also occured between Classical Latin and many Romance languages. Double *ss* remained unvoiced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some related languages, such as Oscan, /z/ remained as such between vowels and did not undergo rhotacism. We know this because we have Oscan inscriptions written in the Latin alphabet that use the letter Z for this sound (Buck 1904). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next step of rhotacism (z &gt; r) is a little less common across languages, but we do have some other examples. The process also applied historically in Germanic; one place where you can see the result in English is *forlo**r**n,* which is historically related to the verb *lo**s**e*. Rhotacism is thought to have occured in Old Latin, and to have been complete by the 4th century BCE. In 312 BC, the letter Z was discarded  from the Latin by censor Appius Caecus Claudius (Gorman). (also see: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/34/why-are-there-no-native-latin-words-with-a-z?lq=1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result of these changes, original intervocalic *\*s* ultimately became *r* in Classical Latin. In the ancestor of Latin, *\*s* seems to have also been voiced to [z] after the voiced consonant /r/, so another related sound change is original *\*rs* to Classical Latin *rr.* One word that shows this change is [*terra*][2] &quot;earth,&quot; from Proto-Indo-European *\*ters*- ‎(“dry”). The cluster *rs* that occurs in Classical Latin is a simplification of earlier *\*rtt* or *\*rts*; this is why most words with *rs* also have *rt* in some forms or in related words (such as [*ars*][3] &quot;art,&quot; genitive *artis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from these three environments (between vowels, between a vowel and *v,* and after *r*) I can't think of any other cases where Latin *r* came from earlier *\*s.* Once the sound *r* became established in certain words, their derivatives might come to have it in other environments. For example, as Joonas Ilmavirta mentions, some words such as *honor* developed final *r* instead of *s* after a vowel; it's believed this is due to the presence of *r* in other related forms (like *honoris*). There also seem to be some words with *r* before another consonant where the *r* was originally intervocalic *\*s*, but the following vowel was lost (as in [*veternus*][4]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Single intervocalic *s* did exist in Classical Latin; we believe it was pronounced [s]. In many words, it corresponds to etymological *\*ss* which seems to have become shortened in some environments. Other words with intervocalic *s* have been explained as borrowings from other languages, such as Italic languages that did not undergo rhotacism. Whatever the reason, their presence indicates that rhotacism was not active as an automatic sound change in the Classical era (Gorman).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bibliography:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Buck, Carl Darling. 1904. [*A grammar of Oscan and Umbrian : with a collection of inscriptions and a glossary*][5]&#xD;&#xA;- Gorman, Kyle. &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real][6]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/136/rhotacism-why#comment237_146&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terra#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ars#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/veternus&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://archive.org/stream/grammarofoscanum00buckuoft#page/74/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="1e55b5c3-855d-43f3-943c-a08317cf1e6b" CreationDate="2016-02-24T19:28:11.057" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The first step towards rhotacism is believed to have been voicing of single &quot;s&quot; to the sound [z] in between vowels (and also after a vowel and before the semivowel *v* [w]; thanks to TKR for pointing this out in a [comment][1]).  This kind of voicing change is common historically; for example, it also occured between Classical Latin and many Romance languages. Double *ss* remained unvoiced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some related languages, such as Oscan, /z/ remained as such between vowels and did not undergo rhotacism. We know this because we have Oscan inscriptions written in the Latin alphabet that use the letter Z for this sound (Buck 1904). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next step of rhotacism (z &gt; r) is a little less common across languages, but we do have some other examples. The process also applied historically in Germanic; one place where you can see the result in English is *forlo**r**n,* which is historically related to the verb *lo**s**e*. Rhotacism is thought to have occured in Old Latin, and to have been complete by the 4th century BCE. In 312 BC, the letter Z was discarded  from the Latin by censor Appius Caecus Claudius (Gorman). (also see: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/34/why-are-there-no-native-latin-words-with-a-z?lq=1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result of these changes, original intervocalic *\*s* ultimately became *r* in Classical Latin. In the ancestor of Latin, *\*s* seems to have also been voiced to [z] after the voiced consonant /r/, so another related sound change is original *\*rs* to Classical Latin *rr.* One word that shows this change is [*terra*][2] &quot;earth,&quot; from Proto-Indo-European *\*ters*- ‎(“dry”). The cluster *rs* that occurs in Classical Latin is a simplification of earlier *\*rtt* or *\*rts*; this is why most words with *rs* also have *rt* in some forms or in related words (such as [*ars*][3] &quot;art,&quot; genitive *artis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from these three environments (between vowels, between a vowel and *v,* and after *r*) I can't think of any other cases where Latin *r* came from earlier *\*s.* Once the sound *r* became established in certain words, their derivatives might come to have it in other environments. For example, as Joonas Ilmavirta mentions, some words such as *honor* developed final *r* instead of *s* after a vowel; it's believed this is due to the presence of *r* in other related forms (like *honoris*). There also seem to be some words with *r* before another consonant where the *r* was originally intervocalic *\*s*, but the following vowel was lost (as in [*veternus*][4]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Single intervocalic *s* did exist in Classical Latin; we believe it was pronounced [s]. In many words, it corresponds to etymological *\*ss* which seems to have become shortened in some environments. Other words with intervocalic *s* have been explained as borrowings from other languages, such as Italic languages that did not undergo rhotacism. Whatever the reason, their presence indicates that rhotacism was not active as an automatic sound change in the Classical era (Gorman).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Buck, Carl Darling. 1904. [*A grammar of Oscan and Umbrian : with a collection of inscriptions and a glossary*][5]&#xD;&#xA;- Gorman, Kyle. &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real][6]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/136/rhotacism-why#comment237_146&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terra#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ars#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/veternus&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://archive.org/stream/grammarofoscanum00buckuoft#page/74/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="ee9da5b0-8bbe-4121-b632-5f6d4e8e3923" CreationDate="2016-02-24T19:39:34.407" UserId="9" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="Rhotacism in Latin happened because of a series of sound changes. It only affected inherited *\*s* in specific environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first step towards rhotacism is believed to have been voicing of single &quot;s&quot; to the sound [z] in between vowels (and also after a vowel and before the semivowel *v* [w]; thanks to TKR for pointing this out in a [comment][1]).  This kind of voicing change is common historically; for example, it also occured between Classical Latin and many Romance languages. Double *ss* remained unvoiced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some related languages, such as Oscan, /z/ remained as such between vowels and did not undergo rhotacism. We know this because we have Oscan inscriptions written in the Latin alphabet that use the letter Z for this sound (Buck 1904). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next step of rhotacism (z &gt; r) is a little less common across languages, but we do have some other examples. The process also applied historically in Germanic; one place where you can see the result in English is *forlo**r**n,* which is historically related to the verb *lo**s**e*. Rhotacism is thought to have occured in Old Latin, and to have been complete by the 4th century BCE. In 312 BC, the letter Z was discarded  from the Latin by censor Appius Caecus Claudius (Gorman). (also see: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/34/why-are-there-no-native-latin-words-with-a-z?lq=1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result of these changes, original intervocalic *\*s* ultimately became *r* in Classical Latin. In the ancestor of Latin, *\*s* seems to have also been voiced to [z] after the voiced consonant /r/, so another related sound change is original *\*rs* to Classical Latin *rr.* One word that shows this change is [*terra*][2] &quot;earth,&quot; from Proto-Indo-European *\*ters*- ‎(“dry”). The cluster *rs* that occurs in Classical Latin is a simplification of earlier *\*rtt* or *\*rts*; this is why most words with *rs* also have *rt* in some forms or in related words (such as [*ars*][3] &quot;art,&quot; genitive *artis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from these three environments (between vowels, between a vowel and *v,* and after *r*) I can't think of any other cases where Latin *r* came from earlier *\*s.* Once the sound *r* became established in certain words, their derivatives might come to have it in other environments. For example, as Joonas Ilmavirta mentions, some words such as *honor* developed final *r* instead of *s* after a vowel; it's believed this is due to the presence of *r* in other related forms (like *honoris*). There also seem to be some words with *r* before another consonant where the *r* was originally intervocalic *\*s*, but the following vowel was lost (as in [*veternus*][4]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Single intervocalic *s* did exist in Classical Latin; we believe it was pronounced [s]. In many words, it corresponds to inherited *\*ss* which seems to have become shortened in some environments. Other words with intervocalic *s* have been explained as borrowings from other languages, such as Greek or Italic languages such as Oscan that did not undergo rhotacism. Whatever the reason, their presence indicates that rhotacism was not active as an automatic sound change in the Classical era (Gorman).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Buck, Carl Darling. 1904. [*A grammar of Oscan and Umbrian : with a collection of inscriptions and a glossary*][5]&#xD;&#xA;- Gorman, Kyle. &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real][6]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/136/rhotacism-why#comment237_146&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terra#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ars#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/veternus&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://archive.org/stream/grammarofoscanum00buckuoft#page/74/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="66" RevisionGUID="c87dc9c1-6d8d-498e-9714-e463702ef2b6" CreationDate="2016-02-24T19:43:42.277" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Condensed the question" Text="A [quick Google Search][1] says plenty of things about Roman Latin pronunciation, and since it's an edu domain I'm inclined to believe it. However, the closest to citing a source it gets is saying &quot;we know from grammarians&quot;; it doesn't say anything specific. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do we know how Romans pronounced Latin? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/LatinBackground/Pronunciation.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="97706138-b6a1-4cc7-b856-8545b5d20d31" CreationDate="2016-02-24T19:53:42.357" UserId="9" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="Rhotacism in Latin happened because of a series of sound changes. It only affected inherited *\*s* in specific environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first step towards rhotacism is believed to have been voicing of single &quot;s&quot; to the sound [z] in between vowels (and also after a vowel and before the semivowel *v* [w]; thanks to TKR for pointing this out in a [comment][1]).  This kind of voicing change is common historically; for example, it also occured between Classical Latin and many Romance languages. Double *ss* remained unvoiced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some related languages, such as Oscan, /z/ remained as such between vowels and did not undergo rhotacism. We know this because we have Oscan inscriptions written in the Latin alphabet that use the letter Z for this sound (Buck 1904). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next step of rhotacism (z &gt; r) is a little less common across languages, but we do have some other examples. The process also applied historically in Germanic; one place where you can see the result in English is *forlo**r**n,* which is historically related to the verb *lo**s**e*. Rhotacism is thought to have occured in Old Latin, and to have been complete by the 4th century BCE. In 312 BC, the letter Z was discarded  from the Latin by censor Appius Caecus Claudius (Gorman). (also see: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/34/why-are-there-no-native-latin-words-with-a-z?lq=1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result of these changes, original intervocalic *\*s* ultimately became *r* in Classical Latin. In the ancestor of Latin, *\*s* seems to have also been voiced to [z] after the voiced consonant /r/, so another related sound change is original *\*rs* to Classical Latin *rr.* One word that shows this change is [*terra*][2] &quot;earth,&quot; from Proto-Indo-European *\*ters*- ‎(“dry”). The cluster *rs* that occurs in Classical Latin is a simplification of earlier *\*rtt* or *\*rts*; this is why most words with *rs* also have *rt* in some forms or in related words (such as [*ars*][3] &quot;art,&quot; genitive *artis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from these three environments (between vowels, between a vowel and *v,* and after *r*) I can't think of any other cases where Latin *r* regularly came from earlier *\*s.* Once the sound *r* became established in certain words, their derivatives might come to have it in other environments. For example, as Joonas Ilmavirta mentions, some words such as *honor* developed final *r* instead of *s* after a vowel; it's believed this is due to the presence of *r* in other related forms (like *honoris*). There also seem to be some words with *r* before another consonant where the *r* was originally intervocalic *\*s*, but the following vowel was lost (as in [*veternus*][4]). Another strange word is *carmen,* which Lewis and Short say used to be *casmen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Single intervocalic *s* did exist in Classical Latin; we believe it was pronounced [s]. In many words, it corresponds to inherited *\*ss* which seems to have become shortened in some environments. Other words with intervocalic *s* have been explained as borrowings from other languages, such as Greek or Italic languages such as Oscan that did not undergo rhotacism. Whatever the reason, their presence indicates that rhotacism was not active as an automatic sound change in the Classical era (Gorman).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Buck, Carl Darling. 1904. [*A grammar of Oscan and Umbrian : with a collection of inscriptions and a glossary*][5]&#xD;&#xA;- Gorman, Kyle. &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real][6]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/136/rhotacism-why#comment237_146&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terra#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ars#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/veternus&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://archive.org/stream/grammarofoscanum00buckuoft#page/74/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="4031ef2e-26b7-407c-96c4-d0592d9069d2" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:02:15.213" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="Or, possibly, how did it go from setting off ut clauses to meaning &quot;as&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We all know that an ut clause (i.e. ut with a subjunctive) is translated as &quot;in order to&quot; (purpose), &quot;to&quot; (indirect command), and, with some words, &quot;that&quot; (result/fear). However, &quot;ut&quot;  on its own (i.e. with an indicative) means &quot;as&quot;. I can't figure out how subjunctive/indicative makes that transformation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, why does &quot;ut&quot; mean such different things when all that changes is the mood of the verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="470" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="4031ef2e-26b7-407c-96c4-d0592d9069d2" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:02:15.213" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="How did &quot;ut&quot; come to set off ut clauses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="471" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="4031ef2e-26b7-407c-96c4-d0592d9069d2" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:02:15.213" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|classical-latin|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="145" RevisionGUID="11d64080-5d55-4fdd-84a4-f742944bbf92" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:10:10.493" UserId="17" Comment="Added missing letter; formatting (use line breaks instead of separate paragraphs for verses); changed ellipses to get over 6-character minimum" Text="In classical Latin, the ablative of comparatives could end on *-i*, although *-e* is probably more common. Here are a few quotations that I think must be conceded to contain ablatives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cornelius Nepos, *Vitae Ca.* 2.2.2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; … ibi cum diutius moraretur, P. Scipio Africanus consul iterum, cuius **in priori consulatu** quaestor fuerat, uoluit eum de prouincia depellere …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L. Iunius Moderatus Columella, *De Re Rustica* 2.1.7.6:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; … de cuius cultu dicturos nos **priori uolumine** polliciti iam nunc disseremus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Titus Livius, *Ab Urbe Condita* 24.12.8.3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; … et ceteri in suas quisque prouincias profecti, et quibus prorogatum imperium erat easdem quas **priori anno** regiones obtinuerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Titus Livius, *Periochae Librorum A. U. C.* 56.15:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; … delatus est ultro Scipioni Africano a senatu populoque R. consulatus; quem cum illi capere ob lege, quae vetabat quemquam iterum consulem fieri, non liceret, sicut **priori consulatu** legibus solutus est. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publius Ovidius Naso, *Metamorphoses* 8.443:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Toxea, quid faciat, dubium pariterque volentem  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ulcisci fratrem fraternaque fata timentem  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; haud patitur dubitare diu calidumque **priori**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **caede** recalfecit consorti sanguine telum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Still warm from its prior carnage&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="473" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="145" RevisionGUID="11d64080-5d55-4fdd-84a4-f742944bbf92" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:10:10.493" Comment="Proposed by 17 approved by 12, 79 edit id of 34" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="152" RevisionGUID="20e7a3c1-2fd2-4263-a4f5-258ac329c4b3" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:17:10.097" UserId="66" Text="As far as I am aware, the classical pronunciation of _-gn-_ (as in _magnus_) is not [magnus] but [maŋnus]. How do we know that this is in fact how _-gn-_ was pronounced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="475" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="152" RevisionGUID="20e7a3c1-2fd2-4263-a4f5-258ac329c4b3" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:17:10.097" UserId="66" Text="How do we know how gn was pronounced in Classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="476" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="152" RevisionGUID="20e7a3c1-2fd2-4263-a4f5-258ac329c4b3" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:17:10.097" UserId="66" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="87" RevisionGUID="49ebb6e3-4a38-4239-a408-52417e1c5374" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:18:34.360" UserId="49" Comment="List formatting and further minor formatting." Text="The [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmiro) entry for *miro* indicates that it is an “ante-classical form of miror”. Combining the examples in this entry with those found in [An Etymological Analysis of Latin Verbs](https://books.google.com/books?id=NxVgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=%22aut+ambos+mira%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qFYPLB0fdr&amp;sig=ZPKRjlnW3AWqSlimHVPjtOT3vHg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjJvY2E6Y7LAhVG8j4KHfPcDhIQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22aut%20ambos%20mira%22&amp;f=false), I have found the following authors who use the active form instead of the deponent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Varro (d. 27 BC)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Hospes, quid miras nummo curare Serapim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Aut ambos mira aut noli mirare de eodem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Pomponius (d. AD 138)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Si studium mirabis diu...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry in [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/miro#Latin), however, informs us that it is “especially used in late or vulgar Latin”. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been unable to locate examples of this usage in medieval Latin, however." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="478" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="87" RevisionGUID="49ebb6e3-4a38-4239-a408-52417e1c5374" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:18:34.360" Comment="Proposed by 49 approved by 45 edit id of 35" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="144" RevisionGUID="bce4bc3c-97dd-4155-ae9b-fdcfeb706fee" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:19:08.610" UserId="49" Comment="Using italis instead of backtics (monospace), which should not be used for anything but code." Text="According to [Bennett's New Latin Grammar, #178](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect178), the recommended approach when making these constructions passive is to make the person the (nominative) subject and to retain the thing in the accusative. (See also [this blog post](https://latinforaddicts.wordpress.com/tag/double-accusative/))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, in your example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; te rem doceo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;becomes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rem a me doceris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Me sententiam rogavit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;becomes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sententiam rogatus sum ab eo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same section, though, it notes that not all double accusative verbs permit this kind of passive construction. I advise looking for usage examples on an *ad hoc* basis if you are curious about a particular word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some notes about previous answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You're confusing the direct and the indirect object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually,  no: as mentioned in the comments, words of teaching, inquiring, or even concealing (such as *doceo, posco, celo, or rogo*) can take two direct objects: a so-called *double accusative*. There is no indirect object (dative) in the OP's original question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning @C. M. Weimer's answer, I agree that &quot;tu rem doceris&quot; is correct, but I want to emphasize that &quot;te res docetur&quot; is an awkward and incorrect way of using the passive, since (according to the grammar link I posted above) it requires us to think of *res* as the person taught and *te* as the thing taught.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="480" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="144" RevisionGUID="bce4bc3c-97dd-4155-ae9b-fdcfeb706fee" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:19:08.610" Comment="Proposed by 49 approved by 45 edit id of 36" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="152" RevisionGUID="73618e6c-5e99-4d09-bb62-8f98741f9089" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:22:29.187" UserId="66" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="As far as I am aware, the classical pronunciation of _-gn-_ (as in _magnus_) is not [maːgnʊs] but [maː**ŋ**nʊs]. How do we know that this is in fact how _-gn-_ was pronounced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="36" RevisionGUID="46bf9d1d-ff5f-4ab0-bb72-416088f79531" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:23:25.413" UserId="49" Comment="Using italics instead quotation marks (which are obstrusive if used for short words) and backticks (which are intended for code)" Text="The word lacrima comes from the Greek word for tear, *δάκρυον,* which in turn comes from Proto-Indo-european *dáḱru-* (see [Wiktionary](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lacrima#Latin) and [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=lacrima&amp;la=la#lexicon)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek upsilon (υ) can be rendered either with an *i* or *y:* and, in fact, the *y* was [referred to](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet) as an “i Graeca”, as it still is in French. The two are both valid spellings, though a quick frequency check seems to indicate that the *i* spelling is much more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above L&amp;S entry, for instance, only has one instance (quoted from Virgil) of the *y* spelling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="483" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="36" RevisionGUID="46bf9d1d-ff5f-4ab0-bb72-416088f79531" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:23:25.413" Comment="Proposed by 49 approved by 45 edit id of 37" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="153" RevisionGUID="c80cf3d4-0540-46e5-9574-ba177de28a08" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:31:31.057" UserId="39" Text="(*this is a partial answer so far*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why questions in linguistics are the hardest because we can only speculate. That being said, there is plenty of evidence to make an educated guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For different reasons, there was no phoneme /z/ in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inervocalic s (a letter, not a sound!) is found “only on the very earliest inscriptions” (Weiss 2009/2011),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;e.g. IOVE**S**AT, VALE**S**IO**S**IO, E**S**ED (all circa 500 BCE); NUMA**S**IOI (700 BCE?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't know for sure how intervocalic s was pronounced in Old Latin but there is good reason to believe it was a voiced fricative, [z]. Not everyone agrees on whether it happened in Proto-Italic or just affected the Latino-Faliscan branch only. Weiss 2009/2011 argues it was &quot;an areal feature that affected Latin, Faliscan, and Umbrian&quot; (Umbrian belongs to the Sabellic branch).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, ancient grammarians were aware of this change too - Varro is the most cited example. e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In multis verbis in quo antiqui dicebant S, postea dicunt R ut in Carmine Saliorum sunt haec [...] (L.7.27).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for dating, most evidence comes from texts. For example, Cicero talks about princeps L. Papirius Mugillanus &quot;qui censor cum L. Sempronio Atratino fuit&quot; and we learn about him that he &quot;*primum Papisius est vocari desitus*.&quot; That is why we assume that rhotacism must have happened before the middle of the forth century BC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, we reconstruct the change as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*s &gt; *z &gt; r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first part (voicing) is pretty common and understandable (between two vowels). As for the last stage, *z &gt; r, the only explanation I've seen so far is the one given in [Clackson and Horrocks (2007/2011)][1]. They argue it happened because of the &quot;addition of trilled articulation which eventually predominated at the expense of frication&quot; (p. 96).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, rhotacism didn't happen simultaneously in all contexts - that is why there are numerous exceptions - Leumann 1977 (p. 179) mentions three groups of exceptions: z+short vowel+r (miser), loanwords (e.g. basis, cisium, asinus, casa etc.), compounds (e.g. nisi, desilio etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pretty common view to rhotacism is to treat it a **multi-stage, diachronic process** (starting with Touratier 1975; also see Baldi 1994). The best description of rhotacism I'm aware of is [Roberts 2012][2]. His model has five stages, starting with stage 0 - he calls his a *phonetic tendency* - when &quot;co-articulatory pressures cause intervocalic voiceless consonants to tend to be realised as voiced&quot; and concluding with stage L, when rhotacism became &quot;a systematic property of the lexicon, subject to extension by analogy&quot; and when rhotacism was &quot;no longer productive over new VsV sequences, such as in&#xD;&#xA;loans or those created by the degemination of ss.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405162090.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2012.01285.x/full" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="7d76610d-35a3-4e3a-90c5-8a10526bf075" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:48:02.533" UserId="9" Text="As usual, a good place to start for questions about Classical Latin pronunciation is W. Sidney Allen's *[Vox Latina][1]* (see page 23).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He describes several types of evidence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- comparison with other clusters in Latin and their history; historical *\*pn* became *mn* in Latin words such as *somnus*&#xD;&#xA;- morphological spelling evidence: words like *cognatus* and *ignobilis* have the prefixes *con-* and *in-,* which end in nasal sounds. Normally, the nasal is assimilated to a following plosive (as in *compugno, impossibilis*). If &quot;gn&quot; was just pronounced as [gn], it would mean that the nasal in the prefixes was dropped entirely in these words, which seems unlikely. If &quot;gn&quot; was pronounced as [ŋn], then we can instead interpret these words as exhibiting the usual assimilation with a simple shortening of long /ŋŋ/ to [ŋ] before /n/.&#xD;&#xA;- a vowel change of short e to short i that is commonly seen before the clusters &quot;ng,&quot; &quot;nc,&quot; and &quot;gn&quot;; we can unify these environments as &quot;before [ŋ]&quot; if we assume &quot;gn&quot; represented [ŋn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Sidney also says that some Romance reflexes, such as French *lein* from Latin *lignum,* seem to suggest the pronunciation [gn] was used after Classical times, likely due to influence from the spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ganino.com/files/Latin%20Copyright%20Books/29%20Vox%20Latina%20The%20Pronunciation%20of%20Classical%20Latin.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="93" RevisionGUID="162d2cff-e3e6-4868-9a2a-001b53fd4090" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:48:56.240" UserId="49" Comment="Using italics and list formatting for the examples to avoid littering with quotation marks and make it easier to grasp the structure. Some minor details." Text="Officially, *imprimo* means *I mark/stamp* (hence English *impression*), where *premo* just means *I press.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nuances of Latin prefixes have long fascinated me, and it took me forever to realize that they’re basically equivalent to English verbs that contain prepositions. So here it‘s a case of *to press* vs. *to press in.* Other examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *rideo = I laugh; inrideo = I laugh at.*&#xD;&#xA;*  *lumino = I shine; illumino = I shine onto [something].* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gets a little more complicated when there aren‘t English equivalents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *lacrimo = I cry; illacrimo = I burst into tears.*&#xD;&#xA;* *amplexor = I hug [someone]; complexor = I give [someone] a hug.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can usually figure it out with some thought. Nevertheless, it seems very strange to me that this principle isn’t taught as part of standard Latin instruction. When you think about it this way, it’s not difficult, but I’ve never seen it explained anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wait, actually, that’s not true. In fact, [Alfonso Traina][1], Professor Emeritus at the University of Bologna, has written about this, but unfortunately 1) he writes in Italian and 2) I only have photocopies of a few sections of his work, and they don’t contain the title of the books they’re from, so I’m unable to point you to specific references. :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some example sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &gt; Nam et vipera et caecilia saepe cum in pascuo bos improvide supercubuit, lacessita onere morsum imprimit. (Columella, *Res Rustica*, 6.17.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *For the cow when in the field often lies down on the viper and the lizard; provoked by its weight, [the viper or the lizard] impresses its bite [on the cow].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &gt; Simulque alteram fasciam minister attollit, alteram premit medicus. (Celsus, *De Medicina*, 8.10.2b)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *And at the same time the assistant lifts one loop up while the doctor presses on the other.* (In a discussion about setting broken bones.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_Traina" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="487" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="93" RevisionGUID="162d2cff-e3e6-4868-9a2a-001b53fd4090" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:48:56.240" Comment="Proposed by 49 approved by 79, 12 edit id of 38" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="025d8a75-8014-4910-b29b-98f951ab21ac" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:52:55.837" UserId="49" Comment="More consistent italics; link formatting" Text="The [Online Etymology Dictionary](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=boron) gives this description for the etymology of *boron:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Originally called boracium by Humphrey Davy because it was drawn from boracic acid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that form was originally used by the discoverer of boron. I think it is fair to assume that *borium* is just a simple Latinization of *boron.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Azote* was the original name coined for the element nitrogen, so its use is similar to *boracium* for boron, though additionally it is used as the term for the element in some other languages (see [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen#History_and_etymology)). *Nitrogenium* is also presumably just a Latinization of the English name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, at least for these two, it seems to be a preference for an older name for the element (though not a classical Latin one) versus Latinization of the modern English name." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="489" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="025d8a75-8014-4910-b29b-98f951ab21ac" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:52:55.837" Comment="Proposed by 49 approved by 12, 78 edit id of 39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="208622e9-387e-4eb2-a668-b1d995e061ad" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:54:48.677" UserId="9" Comment="added 450 characters in body" Text="As usual, a good place to start for questions about Classical Latin pronunciation is W. Sidney Allen's *[Vox Latina][1]* (see page 23).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He describes several types of evidence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- comparison with other clusters in Latin and their history; historical *\*pn* became *mn* in Latin words such as *somnus.* I would add that there is also evidence in other languages of nasal assimilation like this; in [Korean][2], plosives like p t k were nasalized to m n ng before nasal consonants.&#xD;&#xA;- morphological spelling evidence: words like *cognatus* and *ignobilis* have the prefixes *con-* and *in-,* which end in nasal sounds. Normally, the nasal is assimilated to a following plosive (as in *compugno, impossibilis*). If &quot;gn&quot; was just pronounced as [gn], it would mean that the nasal in the prefixes was dropped entirely in these words, which seems unlikely. If &quot;gn&quot; was pronounced as [ŋn], then we can instead interpret these words as exhibiting the usual assimilation with a simple shortening of long /ŋŋ/ to [ŋ] before /n/.&#xD;&#xA;- a vowel change of short e to short i that is commonly seen before the clusters &quot;ng,&quot; &quot;nc,&quot; and &quot;gn&quot;; we can unify these environments as &quot;before [ŋ]&quot; if we assume &quot;gn&quot; represented [ŋn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Sidney also says that some Romance reflexes, such as French *lein* from Latin *lignum,* seem to suggest the pronunciation [gn] was used after Classical times, likely due to influence from the spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ganino.com/files/Latin%20Copyright%20Books/29%20Vox%20Latina%20The%20Pronunciation%20of%20Classical%20Latin.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NN-yIdLOkCoC&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qK_8eXcCnu&amp;sig=u4MEiVBbuxhdzAg_rkkNX3D6RbY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiuvsbyo5HLAhXJsIMKHfWIA8UQ6AEIUzAH#v=onepage&amp;q=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="155" RevisionGUID="6ae76984-5619-45f6-9299-c86494a139c6" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:00:59.910" UserId="30" Text="***[Clipeus][1]*** was originally a round, metal shield. It is [fairly common][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***[Scutum][3]*** was originally a long, oval wooden shield with iron fittings and covered with leather, used by soldiers. It is also used for a shield in general. It is [about as common][4] as *clipeus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both words were also used metaphorically for a defence or protection in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=clipeus&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=clipeo&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=scutum&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://%20http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=scuto" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="a92aa779-0320-4980-9e5a-3b38f26cc1b1" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:02:48.820" UserId="9" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="As usual, a good place to start for questions about Classical Latin pronunciation is W. Sidney Allen's *[Vox Latina][1]* (see page 23).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He describes several types of evidence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- comparison with other clusters in Latin and their history; historical *\*pn* became *mn* in Latin words such as *somnus.* I would add that there is also evidence in other languages of nasal assimilation like this; in [Korean][2], plosives like p t k were nasalized to m n ng before nasal consonants.&#xD;&#xA;- morphological spelling evidence: words like *cognatus* and *ignobilis* have the prefixes *con-* and *in-,* which end in nasal sounds. Normally, the nasal is assimilated to a following plosive (as in *compugno, impossibilis*). If &quot;gn&quot; was just pronounced as [gn], it would mean that the nasal in the prefixes was dropped entirely in these words, which seems unlikely. If &quot;gn&quot; was pronounced as [ŋn], then we can instead interpret these words as exhibiting the usual assimilation with a simple shortening of long /ŋŋ/ to [ŋ] before /n/.&#xD;&#xA;- a vowel change of short e to short i that is commonly seen before the clusters &quot;ng,&quot; &quot;nc,&quot; and &quot;gn&quot;; we can unify these environments as &quot;before [ŋ]&quot; if we assume &quot;gn&quot; represented [ŋn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Sidney also says that some Romance words, such as French *lein* from Latin *lignum,* show the same development for &quot;g&quot; in &quot;gn&quot; as for &quot;g&quot; in other environments, which suggests the pronunciation [gn] may have been used after Classical times, likely due to influence from the spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ganino.com/files/Latin%20Copyright%20Books/29%20Vox%20Latina%20The%20Pronunciation%20of%20Classical%20Latin.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NN-yIdLOkCoC&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qK_8eXcCnu&amp;sig=u4MEiVBbuxhdzAg_rkkNX3D6RbY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiuvsbyo5HLAhXJsIMKHfWIA8UQ6AEIUzAH#v=onepage&amp;q=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="156" RevisionGUID="b9b63f25-644e-40dd-b883-affb0af09bbf" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:03:25.540" UserId="52" Text="I at least partially understand all the invocations in [Litaniae in omni tribulatione][1], but on stays mysterious: &quot;Angelórum planta ágmini&quot; It's quite Google-proof, a quoted search for it returned only references to the litannies. Btw. the oldest surviving record of the litannies if from cca 1400, but they are older, perhaps even composed in the first generations of Dominican friars in 13th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Analysing the text, I understand the first word for sure (plural genitive of &quot;angelus&quot;), second word could be either singular vocative of noun &quot;planta&quot; or singular imperative of verb &quot;planto, plantare&quot; (the verb seems to fit the context better, but I'm not sure), and I have no idea with the third word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://op.cz/download/liturgie/litanie-in-omni-tribulatione.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="494" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="156" RevisionGUID="b9b63f25-644e-40dd-b883-affb0af09bbf" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:03:25.540" UserId="52" Text="What does &quot;angelorum planta agmini&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="495" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="156" RevisionGUID="b9b63f25-644e-40dd-b883-affb0af09bbf" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:03:25.540" UserId="52" Text="|translation|medieval-latin|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="157" RevisionGUID="ee4a0772-9808-46f0-8a10-0827f20ae6f7" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:07:21.100" UserId="66" Text="After the great answers here, I would like to share the contents of a paper I found on this topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hodgman, A.W., &quot;Latin equivalents of punctuation marks&quot;, *The Classical Journal*, **19** (7), 403–417, 1924.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author argues that although there was no systematic use of punctuation in Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin sentence structure has very clear equivalents for some of our punctuation marks, but not for all of them; and it has its own methods for&#xD;&#xA;expressing certain things for which we have developed other typographical aids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The paper mentions among others, the following equivalents of modern punctuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The comma**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *-que* (or *neque* or *atque*) is often an equivalent of a comma in front of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The colon**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *ita*, *sic*, or a form of *hic* are often equivalents of a colon&#xD;&#xA; &gt; His Caesar *ita* respondit(:) eo sibi minus dubitationis dari&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *illud* or *illa* often introduce direct quotations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The question mark**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- marked by question words such as *quis*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The exclamation mark**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *quam*, *quantus*, *qualis*, etc.; also *qui* used in a different sense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *quanta* studia decertantium sunt(!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="156" RevisionGUID="7a2c0dcc-4c78-4d8b-91dc-3ebf6101cf63" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:07:39.587" UserDisplayName="user11" Comment="Improve English grammar slightly" Text="I at least partially understand all the invocations in [Litaniae in omni tribulatione][1], but one stays mysterious: &quot;Angelórum planta ágmini&quot; It's quite Google-proof, a quoted search for it returned only references to the litanies. The oldest surviving record of the litanies is from circa 1400 AD, but they are older, perhaps even composed in the first generations of Dominican friars in 13th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Analyzing the text, I understand the first word for certain (plural genitive of &quot;angelus&quot;). The second word could be either singular vocative of noun &quot;planta&quot; or singular imperative of verb &quot;planto, plantare&quot; (the verb seems to fit the context better, but I'm not sure), and I have no idea with the third word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://op.cz/download/liturgie/litanie-in-omni-tribulatione.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="498" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="156" RevisionGUID="7a2c0dcc-4c78-4d8b-91dc-3ebf6101cf63" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:07:39.587" Comment="Proposed by 11 approved by 52 edit id of 40" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="158" RevisionGUID="a9bbbbad-340b-4470-80b4-bf6d7ba6882f" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:18:52.537" UserId="30" Text="The only way I can interpret this is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Maria, you are] an offshoot to the train of angels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *planta* is like the tendril of a larger thing, or like a foot planted down somewhere as a first 'base of operations'. Maria came to earth 'representing' or foreshadowing the angels that will probably come down from Heaven on the Day of Judgement, or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dative *agmini* is somewhat odd. And I don't know how common this metaphor of feet or sprouts of the multitude of angels is. But it's the only thing I can think of. And it isn't classical Latin, so new or uncommon constructions or senses are not unexpected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="74" RevisionGUID="b7d3b37a-7ee6-4f3d-aa30-43cc4a6ca649" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:24:09.577" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 81 characters in body" Text="An important source of information is comparison to other languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Cicero was spelled as Κικέρων&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; in Greek.&#xD;&#xA;If we believe that the Greek kappa was pronounced as /k/ rather than /s/ or /ts/ or anything else, we can be confident that c was pronounced as /k/ in Latin as well &amp;mdash; at least in this name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, the name Caesar gave rise to the present German word Kaiser.&#xD;&#xA;The loan was, as far as I know, made in the ancient times.&#xD;&#xA;If we know something about how the pronunciation of German(ic languages) evolved, we know something more about how Caesar pronounced his name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to chirlu (see comments) for the correct Greek accent and the final nu.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if the final nu was used in all occasions, but that is besides the point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="158" RevisionGUID="7b759b10-2785-4c71-97eb-9d2ead556280" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:26:31.527" UserId="30" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="The only way I can interpret this is as follows, although I am not certain:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Maria, you are] an offshoot to the train of angels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *planta* is like the tendril of a larger thing, or like a foot planted down somewhere as a first 'base of operations'. Maria came to earth 'representing' or foreshadowing the angels that will probably come down from Heaven on the Day of Judgement, or something like that. *Agmen* means &quot;multitude, train&quot;, as in a moving army.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dative *agmini* is somewhat odd. And I don't know how common this metaphor of feet or sprouts of the multitude of angels is. But it's the only thing I can think of. And it isn't classical Latin, so new or uncommon constructions or senses are not unexpected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="152" RevisionGUID="ff775432-460f-43f6-baef-a4c6329295b4" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:28:28.507" UserId="66" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="As far as I am aware, the classical pronunciation of _-gn-_ (as in _magnus_) is not [maːgnʊs] but [maːŋnʊs]. How do we know that this is in fact how _-gn-_ was pronounced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="159" RevisionGUID="52857a8a-a1e3-420a-9326-e6877a578360" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:31:44.207" UserDisplayName="user11" Text="As a sort of followup to http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1/11, I'd like to know if this would be considered a valid construction (in [tag:classical-latin]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arma navem virumque cano.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(modified version of [Virgil's Aeneid, I.1](https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Aeneis/Liber_I#0))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any examples of classical Latin authors 'stringing together' more than two objects with a single `-que` suffix? If so, is this the correct way to form it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="506" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="159" RevisionGUID="52857a8a-a1e3-420a-9326-e6877a578360" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:31:44.207" UserDisplayName="user11" Text="Can I put multiple words in a list, with &quot;-que&quot; on the last one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="507" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="159" RevisionGUID="52857a8a-a1e3-420a-9326-e6877a578360" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:31:44.207" UserDisplayName="user11" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="160" RevisionGUID="dc9652af-5a58-47e5-83ea-185e621019f5" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:34:50.373" UserId="66" Text="To me the &quot;[processes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_%28anatomy%29)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![vertebra](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Gray93.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;look like thorns&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![spine](http://www.bartleby.com/107/Images/large/image111.gif)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="159" RevisionGUID="32632250-d48d-4bfe-9979-95db0158947c" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:35:38.040" UserDisplayName="user11" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="As a sort of followup to http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1/11, I'd like to know if this would be considered a valid construction (in [tag:classical-latin]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arma virum navesque cano&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(modified version of [Virgil's Aeneid, I.1](https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Aeneis/Liber_I#0))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any examples of classical Latin authors 'stringing together' more than two objects with a single `-que` suffix? If so, is this the correct way to form it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="510" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="51" RevisionGUID="80d76ff1-921a-490f-9795-e55515ef3008" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:39:29.300" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Used the more common term in the title for SEO" Text="When can I perform an elision?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="161" RevisionGUID="af68d800-7543-4e17-b7af-2da46d2442f3" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:43:02.710" UserId="73" Text="In the preface to [*The elements of abbreviation in medieval Latin paleography*](https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/1821/47cappelli.pdf?sequence=3), Adriano Cappelli writes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Take a foreign language, write it in an unfamiliar script, abbreviating every third word, and you have the compound puzzle that is the medieval Latin manuscript.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would assume that this is just a joke, but after some reading of the wide use of [scribal abbreviations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribal_abbreviation) (*sigla*, including truncations and contractions) elsewhere, I've had second thoughts. While it would clearly be impossible to pin down an exact percentage, is Cappelli's joke close enough? Were a substantial amount of words in medieval Latin abbreviated, or only a relatively small amount?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand from [*Scrittura e Civilta*](http://www.mgh-bibliothek.de/dokumente/a/a070223.pdf) that the use and type of scribal abbreviations varied throughout the Middle Ages to such an extent that they can be used to approximately date manuscripts, but I do not think that this should impact the question too much." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="512" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="161" RevisionGUID="af68d800-7543-4e17-b7af-2da46d2442f3" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:43:02.710" UserId="73" Text="How often were medieval scribal abbreviations used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="513" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="161" RevisionGUID="af68d800-7543-4e17-b7af-2da46d2442f3" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:43:02.710" UserId="73" Text="|medieval-latin|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="112" RevisionGUID="40a1b8b0-a2a3-4777-9067-b9b3e9a04fe6" CreationDate="2016-02-24T22:00:03.380" UserId="73" Comment="added 386 characters in body" Text="[This paper](http://www.eruditio-antiqua.mom.fr/vol5/EA5c.Pultrova.pdf) talks about several primary sources (i.e. Roman texts) that describe rolling Rs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Terentianus Maurus writes in *De litteris* that&#xD;&#xA; &gt; vibrat tremulis ictibus aridum sonorem  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; *the R vibrates with a dry sound from trembling blows*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Martianus Capella writes&#xD;&#xA; &gt; R spiritum lingua crispante corraditur  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; *[R] is pronounced with difficulty (?), with the tongue vibrating the air*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Capella's writing contradicts itself on this count in another place, leaving this testimony in doubt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Lucilius writes, more colorfully,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; r: irritata canis quam homo quam planius dictat  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; *which (i.e. the sound r) an irritated bitch pronounces more clearly than a man*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is supposed to imply a growling similar to the modern instruction or R-rolling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken as a group, these sources would seem to indicate that the Romans did roll some of their Rs. However, other authors, including Varro, Charisius, Marius Victorinus, and Martianus Capella (referring to his contradictory account), describe more fluid pronunciations. What this implies above all else is that pronunciations may have differed among different groups and in different time periods, hence the different accounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect evidence for R-rolling comes from the Romance languages, where this is quite common. In Spanish, for example, *rr* indicates this rolling (rather than simply *r*). The presence of rolling in these languages suggests a common origin, likely in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 The above translations are given by the author of the paper, and are not necessarily word-for-word. For example, [brianpck suggested translating Lucilius differently](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/107/why-is-r-often-rolled-in-modern-classical-latin/112#comment196_112), as &quot;An irritated bitch which a man pronounces as clearly as possible.&quot;&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="162" RevisionGUID="7f448e0c-a814-42da-865b-aabcf26038f4" CreationDate="2016-02-24T22:04:30.073" UserId="52" Text="This was intended as a comment to [Joonas' answer][1], but it was too long and somewhat different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll explain it using my native Czech, which has both variants, similar to Latin and English fear sentence structure. These are synonyms: &quot;Bojím se, že přijde.&quot; (lit. &quot;I fear that he comes/will come.&quot;) = &quot;Bojím se, aby nepřišel.&quot; (lit. &quot;I fear **so that** he won't come.&quot;, or &quot;I fear, so I wish he won't come.&quot;). They can't be used both as synonyms in a sentence expressing positive emotion, but both structures are used for different, similar verbs. In the &quot;English&quot; structure: &quot;Doufám, že přijde.&quot; (&quot;I hope he will come.&quot;) or in the &quot;Latin&quot; one: &quot;Chci, aby přišel.&quot; (lit. &quot;I want that he comes/will come&quot;, or &quot;I want him to come&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Czech &quot;aby&quot; corresponds to Latin &quot;ut&quot; and English &quot;so that&quot; and &quot;aby ne&quot; (the negation &quot;ne&quot; is usually used as a verb's prefix in Czech: &quot;**ne**přišel&quot;) to Latin &quot;ne&quot; and English &quot;so that&quot; + negation. So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Czech &quot;Bojím se, aby nepřišel.&quot; = Latin &quot;Timeo, ne veniat.&quot; = literal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; English &quot;I fear so that he won't come.&quot; = natural English &quot;I fear he&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comes.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Czech &quot;Chci, aby nepřišel.&quot; = Latin &quot;Spero, ut veniat.&quot; = English &quot;I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hope he comes.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes I feel sorry about you poor native English speakers. So many things in other lanuages are easy and logical, but your language complicates it all by devolving too much from Latin where other European languages keep stay closer to the Latin original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/150/52" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="116" RevisionGUID="4acfa837-138b-4aab-b3fd-75f589978cb5" CreationDate="2016-02-24T22:17:23.513" UserId="30" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="The ablative absolute does not require a participle. It can be a noun and an adjective, as you say, or two nouns (*Caesare duce urbem cepimus*), or even an adjective and an accusative plus infinitive (most probably, see the end of this post).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is a &quot;verb-like&quot; aspect to the construction that makes you want to add &quot;being&quot; if there is no participle. The reason for this probably lies in the fact that the ablative absolute is a so-called **dominant construction**, where semantics and syntax are slightly out of tune: semantically, there is a kind of '**oblique predicate**' (with a 'subject' and its 'predicate'), even though syntactically there are just two nominals in the ablative. And for there to be a predicate, you need a kind of verb in your translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is called dominant because the participle in a dominant construction is normally translated more prominently than a mere (attributive) participle: it is translated as a finite verb (or a noun). Otherwise our translation would fail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Legione dispersa victi sumus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you translated this as &quot;with the dispersed legion, we were defeated&quot;, that would sound wrong, because the participle is translated attributively. English has a trick where you can make an adjective or participle predicate-like by placing it after its 'subject': &quot;with the legion dispersed, we were defeated&quot;. That works, because the participle is translated predicatively. The standard translation would be &quot;after the legion was dispersed, we were defeated&quot;. That's a full predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesare duce urbem cepimus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With our leader Caesar, we captured the city&quot;. That is grammatical, but it is not what the Latin intended, if only because *with* is usually rendered as *cum* when followed by a person. It should be &quot;with Caesar as our leader, we captured the city&quot;. The word *as* (rightfully) introduces a predicate-like aspect to our translation: one of the things we want to say is that Caesar was our leader. That is a fact that the Latin is stating separately by means of the ablative absolute, supporting the 'main clause' *urbem cepimus*. You could also translate it as &quot;because Caesar was our leader, we captured the city&quot; (optional causal link), with a full predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Other examples of dominant constructions are the **gerundive construction**, the so-called **dominant participle** (of which you could say the ablative absolute with a participle  is a sub-species), the **dominant substantive apposition** (of which the ablative absolute without a participle is a sub-species), and even the ordinary **copula with subject complement**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Floribus carpendis Eurydice mordetur a serpente.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;During/with the flowers to pick, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent.&quot; That's not right. The **gerundive construction** should be translated dominantly, where the adjectival/attributive gerundive is translated as a substantive noun or even as a finite verb: &quot;during the picking of flowers, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent&quot;, or &quot;when she was picking flowers, Eurydice was bitten by a serpent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Latin alternative is the **gerund construction**, which is normal, not 'dominant', because a gerund is a kind of noun, which is already fairly dominant: as such it is not translated as more dominant than a noun normally is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Flores carpendo Eurydice mordetur a serpente.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;During the flowers-picking, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar occisus senatores placuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The dead Caesar pleased the senators.&quot; That kind of works, because a **dominant participle construction** also happens to be possible in English in certain cases. But what we're really saying is this: &quot;Caesar's death pleased the senators&quot;. A substantive noun is stronger than a mere attributive participle. Or, even more dominantly: &quot;the fact that Caesar died pleased the senators&quot;. What we're really not trying to say is &quot;Caesar (who had died) pleased the senators&quot;. The brackets express low degree of dominance, since the words are thereby separated from the main sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar primus Romam advenit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The first Caesar arrived in Rome&quot;: it seems clear that this is not what was intended. &quot;Caesar arrived in Rome first&quot;: this predicative translation is correct, where the **predicative adjective** is translated almost like a subject complement or an adverb of manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar victor Romam advenit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The victor Caesar arrived in Rome.&quot; This is perhaps acceptable, but what the author probably intended was the predicative translation &quot;Caesar arrived in Rome as (the) victor&quot;. The word *as* clarifies that it is to be understood predicatively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar fortis est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a **plain copula with a subject complement**. An attributive translation would be absurd: &quot;the brave Caesar is&quot;. This is the simplest kind of predicative construction, equally common in other Indo-European languages, and we must translate it predicatively, so as a copula with subject complement: &quot;Caesar is brave&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;N.B. There is one kind of ablative absolute that interests me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Audito Agrippinam a filio suo necatam esse tota in urbe populus luxerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;When it had been heard that Agrippina has been murdered by her son, the people mourned throughout the city.&quot; The participle in the ablative is *audito*; the 'noun' belonging to the ablative absolute is the entire accusativus with infinitive, *Agrippinam a filio suo necatam esse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is possible in Latin, and I believe it is used when you need an accusative with infinitive but the verb of saying or hearing or thinking etc. cannot be made to agree with an existing word in the sentence. This may happen when the hearing happened before the main clause, because then you need a past participle, and past participles cannot be made to agree with an agent (because they're passive). The person who hears cannot be made to agree in number, case and gender with the past participle *auditus*, so it has to be used absolutely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="3a6f4ba7-e81b-43ea-900f-ca0349d8396a" CreationDate="2016-02-24T22:58:11.377" UserId="30" Text="Yes, Cappelli is basically right (which is perhaps not surprising, he being an authoritative figure in the field of palaeography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every third word is probably above average, but one seldom finds a sentence without any abbreviations in most documents. Parchment was not cheap, nor was scribal labour. The same applies to manuscripts in any European language, probably. Some genres are more likely to contain fewer abbreviations than others, such as literary works written in book script; but even an illustrated bible will but usually full of them. A few arbitrary examples, with abbreviations in square brackets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.sothebys.com/content/dam/stb/lots/L12/L12242/009L12242_6CB6T.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Regnante d**omi**no n**ost**ro ih**s**u xp**ist**o com post passionem sua**m** resurrectione**m** et ascenione**m** eius co**n**uersis  ad d**omi**n**u**m cunctis finib**us** terre nec in angulo occeani aliquis se a colore fidei absconderet in co**n**veniendo p**o**p**u**lo**s** in unu**m** et reges ut servirent d**omi**no fuit in britanni(a)e partib**us** rex quidam d**e**o notus tam uita qua**m** nomine qui religiosus...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="164" RevisionGUID="29e14642-b312-4d05-8a2d-89740239d965" CreationDate="2016-02-24T22:58:52.050" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="165" RevisionGUID="db3e0e28-fbcb-450f-a2c5-484bc5283536" CreationDate="2016-02-24T22:58:52.050" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="166" RevisionGUID="8c806a32-5c34-4e60-a9c5-b20ac0c34d9d" CreationDate="2016-02-24T23:00:25.167" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="167" RevisionGUID="f61095ba-577d-4cb5-997d-560fbc99c336" CreationDate="2016-02-24T23:00:25.167" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="511ed736-0cab-45e3-b768-5625077924ac" CreationDate="2016-02-24T23:10:33.603" UserId="30" Comment="added 526 characters in body" Text="Yes, Cappelli is basically right (which is perhaps not surprising, he being an authoritative figure in the field of palaeography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every third word is probably above average, but one seldom finds a sentence without any abbreviations in most documents. Parchment was not cheap, nor was scribal labour. The same applies to manuscripts in any European language, probably. Some genres are more likely to contain fewer abbreviations than others, such as literary works written in book script; but even an illustrated bible will but usually full of them. A few arbitrary examples, with abbreviations in square brackets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.sothebys.com/content/dam/stb/lots/L12/L12242/009L12242_6CB6T.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Regnante d**omi**no n**ost**ro ih**s**u xp**ist**o com post passionem sua**m** resurrectione**m** et ascenione**m** eius co**n**uersis  ad d**omi**n**u**m cunctis finib**us** terre nec in angulo occeani aliquis se a colore fidei absconderet in co**n**veniendo p**o**p**u**lo**s** in unu**m** et reges ut servirent d**omi**no fuit in britanni(a)e partib**us** rex quidam d**e**o notus tam uita qua**m** nomine qui religiosus...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.villa.culture.fr/mediatheque/communs/images/grandFormat/0/21_2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pars **est** p**ri**ma prudencie: ip**s**am cui p**rae**ceptur**us** sis estimare p**er**sonam . Neq**ue** enim formator ag**ri**cole deb**et** artib**us** **et** eloquencia rethores emulari q**uo**d a plerisq**ue** factum **est** q**ui** dum diserte loqunt**ur** rusticis. assecuti sunt, ut eorum doct**ri**na n**on** a dis?tissimis possit intelligi. S**ed** nos recidam**us** p**rae**fationis moram: ne quos rep**re**hendim**us** imitemur. ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="f3ca78bc-1de4-44d4-b880-a4dc3a4880eb" CreationDate="2016-02-24T23:16:26.863" UserId="30" Comment="added 526 characters in body" Text="Yes, Cappelli is basically right (which is perhaps not surprising, he being an authoritative figure in the field of palaeography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every third word is probably above average, but one seldom finds a sentence without any abbreviations in most documents. Parchment was not cheap, nor was scribal labour. The same applies to manuscripts in any European language, at least in my experience (mostly Dutch). Some genres are more likely to contain fewer abbreviations than others, such as literary works written in book script; but even an illustrated Bible will usually be full of them. A few arbitrary examples, with abbreviations in square brackets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.sothebys.com/content/dam/stb/lots/L12/L12242/009L12242_6CB6T.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Regnante d**omi**no n**ost**ro ih**s**u xp**ist**o cum post passionem sua**m** resurrectione**m** et ascensione**m** eius co**n**uersis  ad d**omi**n**u**m cunctis finib**us** terre nec in angulo occeani aliquis se a colore fidei absconderet in co**n**veniendo p**o**p**u**lo**s** in unu**m** et reges ut servirent d**omi**no. fuit in britanni(a)e partib**us** rex quidam d**e**o notus tam uita qua**m** nomine qui religiosus...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.villa.culture.fr/mediatheque/communs/images/grandFormat/0/21_2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pars **est** p**ri**ma prudencie: ip**s**am cui p**re**ceptur**us** sis estimare p**er**sonam. Neq**ue** enim formator ag**ri**cole deb**et** artib**us** **et** eloquencia rethores emulari q**uo**d a plerisq**ue** factum **est** q**ui** dum diserte loqunt**ur** rusticis. assecuti sunt, ut eorum doct**ri**na n**on** a dis?tissimis possit intelligi. S**ed** nos recidam**us** p**re**fationis moram: ne quos rep**re**hendim**us** imitemur. ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="038a39b6-7c23-4d67-968a-2d6c1e4030a8" CreationDate="2016-02-24T23:22:46.067" UserId="30" Comment="added 526 characters in body" Text="Yes, Cappelli is basically right (which is perhaps not surprising, he being an authoritative figure in the field of palaeography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every third word is probably above average, but one seldom finds a sentence without any abbreviations in most documents. Parchment was not cheap, nor was scribal labour. The same applies to manuscripts in any European language, at least in my experience (mostly Dutch). Some genres are more likely to contain fewer abbreviations than others, such as literary works written in book script; but even an illustrated Bible will usually be full of them. A few arbitrary examples, with abbreviations in square brackets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.sothebys.com/content/dam/stb/lots/L12/L12242/009L12242_6CB6T.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Regnante d**omi**no n**ost**ro ih**s**u xp**ist**o cum post passionem sua**m** resurrectione**m** et ascensione**m** eius co**n**uersis  ad d**omi**n**u**m cunctis finib**us** terre nec in angulo occeani aliquis se a colore fidei absconderet in co**n**veniendo p**o**p**u**lo**s** in unu**m** et reges ut servirent d**omi**no. fuit in britanni(a)e partib**us** rex quidam d**e**o notus tam uita qua**m** nomine qui religiosus...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.villa.culture.fr/mediatheque/communs/images/grandFormat/0/21_2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pars **est** p**ri**ma prudencie: ip**s**am cui p**re**ceptur**us** sis estimare p**er**sonam. Neq**ue** enim formator ag**ri**cole deb**et** artib**us** **et** eloquencia rethores emulari q**uo**d a plerisq**ue** factum **est** q**ui** dum diserte loqunt**ur** rusticis assecuti sunt, ut eorum doct**ri**na n**on** a dis?tissimis possit intelligi. S**ed** nos recidam**us** p**re**fationis moram: ne quos rep**re**hendim**us** imitemur. ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="71f2db4b-1628-4161-8653-3ad6a8a35fc7" CreationDate="2016-02-24T23:28:28.430" UserDisplayName="user11" Comment="Minor grammar changes, 'proving' -&gt; 'supporting'" Text="Is there any solid evidence supporting or denying the hypothesis that in Classical Latin the syllable-final vowel `-m` (especially at the end of the word) was only an orthographic convention, but in spoken language it was used to make preceding syllable nasalized?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some researchers suggest this was true, due to indirect evidence. For example, [here](https://www.quora.com/Is-it-known-for-sure-that-nasal-vowels-were-used-in-classical-Latin) someone bases their suggestion on measuring metrical properties of the words in poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is especially interesting for me because there are similar effects in Sanskrit (like the Dative case ending).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, this sounds like a nice start, but still, is there **solid, documented evidence** supporting or denying the idea of nasalization in this case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="528" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="71f2db4b-1628-4161-8653-3ad6a8a35fc7" CreationDate="2016-02-24T23:28:28.430" Comment="Proposed by 11 approved by 12, 26 edit id of 41" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="168" RevisionGUID="5b3e4568-57e5-4d48-aac7-eda86595d6a4" CreationDate="2016-02-25T00:03:02.710" UserId="12" Text="Do scholars have any idea what &quot;words&quot; were used as filler words in Classical Latin, similar to *uh* and *um* in English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely Cicero and other great orators instructed their pupils to *never, ever* say `&lt;filler word here&gt;` when speaking?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="531" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="168" RevisionGUID="5b3e4568-57e5-4d48-aac7-eda86595d6a4" CreationDate="2016-02-25T00:03:02.710" UserId="12" Text="What were used as &quot;filler&quot; words in Classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="532" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="168" RevisionGUID="5b3e4568-57e5-4d48-aac7-eda86595d6a4" CreationDate="2016-02-25T00:03:02.710" UserId="12" Text="|classical-latin|spoken-language|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="169" RevisionGUID="98843217-8da5-43d7-8755-c1454aa23883" CreationDate="2016-02-25T00:10:54.180" UserId="12" Text="In the 1559 edition of Calvin's *Institutes*, he writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quare dum illam recipit, ac **suffragio** suo obsignat, non ex dubia aut alioqui controversa authenticam reddit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ford L. Battles renders it this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, while the church receives and gives its seal of approval to the Scriptures, it does not thereby render authentic what is otherwise doubtful or controversial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English word [*suffrage*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=suffrage) appears to come from this word, *suffragio*, so I wonder why Battles does not incorporate an idea of voting into his translation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible or likely, contra Battles, that Calvin means or implies that a &quot;consensus&quot; or &quot;vote&quot; within the church is associated with approval of the Scriptures?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is it safe to say that he means the church, as a single entity, simple approves them, with no implication of voting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="535" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="169" RevisionGUID="98843217-8da5-43d7-8755-c1454aa23883" CreationDate="2016-02-25T00:10:54.180" UserId="12" Text="What is the meaning of &quot;suffragio&quot; at the time of Calvin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="536" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="169" RevisionGUID="98843217-8da5-43d7-8755-c1454aa23883" CreationDate="2016-02-25T00:10:54.180" UserId="12" Text="|vocabulary|definitions|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="170" RevisionGUID="55a806ac-b577-478f-ac46-b2a9f9397a67" CreationDate="2016-02-25T00:14:41.903" UserId="17" Text="The proportion of abbreviated words in a medieval manuscript depends on the time when it was written and also the individual scribe, but could generally be quite high. I believe that the estimate by Cappelli cited in the question is rather conservative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, consider the following excerpt from an 11th century manuscript, containing verses 137 to 143 from the first book of Ovid’s _Metamorphoses_. (It is the top of the first undamaged column; I didn’t compare the number of abbreviations to other parts before choosing this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![excerpt from the page 1 verso of Pal. lat. 1699][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([Pal. lat. 1699, page 1 verso](http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/bav_pal_lat_1669/0006), top of the right column; courtesy of Heidelberg university library)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my transcription, with those words that contain abbreviations in italics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nec *tantum* segetes *alimenta*-*que* debita diues  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *poscebatur* *humus* *sed* *itum* *est* in uiscera *terrae*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; quas-*que* recondiderat stigiis-*que* admouerat unbris  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *effodiuntur* opes irritamenta malorum  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; iam-*que* nocens *ferrum* ferro-*que* nocencius *aurum*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *prodierat* *prodit* *bellum* *quod* pugnat *utroque*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; sanguinea-*que* manu crepitantia *concutit* arma&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you count each enclitic *-que* (except as part of _uterque_) as a separate word, there are 46 words in this section, with 23 of them (50%) having been abbreviated. If you consider *alimentaque* etc. as a single word, there are 40 words, of which 22 (55%) contain an abbreviation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my (limited) experience, this is not abnormally high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wPa01.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="171" RevisionGUID="252e281d-86ff-47ef-bd4a-55b351346eab" CreationDate="2016-02-25T00:23:55.250" UserId="12" Text="Yes, this is acceptable practice.  Allen and Greenough cite three examples from Cicero in [§323](https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA199):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; voce voltu motuque (Brut. 110), *by voice, expression, and gesture.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; curam consilium vigilantiamque (Phil. vii. 20), *care, wisdom, and vigilance.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quorum auctoritatem dignitatem voluntatemque defenderas (Fam. i. 7. 2), *whose dignity, honor, and wishes you had defended.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's Cicero's *Brutus de Claris Oratoribus* and *Philippicae*, and his *ad Familiares*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="f3999400-8e6f-4c9d-88a9-05d6239d48a4" CreationDate="2016-02-25T00:25:49.653" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Added Latin and notes" Text="William Whitaker's Words provides a hint in [their definition](http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?keyword=cochlear):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spoon; **(originally for extracting snails)**; spoonful;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(emphasis mine)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia [supports this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlearium), but says it less definitely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The word cochlea has a literal meaning of spiral or snail shell, leading many to conclude that the **design of the spoon was so that the handle could be used to get snails** or cockles **out of the shell**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(emphasis mine)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continued Googling gives very, very few nonmedical results (everything is talking about cochlear implants or infections), and filtering just leaves barely any results. As far as I can tell, this is a question we don't have a definite answer to, but the current hypothesis is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***The cochlear was used to extract snails from their shells originally.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, in Latin: ***Cochlear usus primitus erat vellere cochleis crustas***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;I think. My Latin is, as I keep saying, not perfect.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="171" RevisionGUID="7d5b1b9d-66ee-483c-a41d-c8f113274c1e" CreationDate="2016-02-25T00:29:20.300" UserId="12" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="Yes, this is acceptable practice.  Allen and Greenough cite three examples from Cicero in [§323](https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA199):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; voce voltu motuque (Brut. 110), *by voice, expression, and gesture.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; curam consilium vigilantiamque (Phil. vii. 20), *care, wisdom, and vigilance.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quorum auctoritatem dignitatem voluntatemque defenderas (Fam. i. 7. 2), *whose dignity, honor, and wishes you had defended.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's Cicero's *Brutus de Claris Oratoribus*, *Philippicae*, and *ad Familiares*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="153" RevisionGUID="c34300ea-05bb-40b7-9c37-3a862d9f6a4d" CreationDate="2016-02-25T01:06:54.017" UserId="39" Comment="added 446 characters in body" Text="(*this is a partial answer so far*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why questions in linguistics are the hardest because we can only speculate. That being said, there is plenty of evidence to make an educated guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For different reasons, there was no phoneme /z/ in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inervocalic s (a letter, not a sound!) is found “only on the very earliest inscriptions” (Weiss 2009/2011),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;e.g. IOVE**S**AT, VALE**S**IO**S**IO, E**S**ED (all circa 500 BCE); NUMA**S**IOI (700 BCE?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't know for sure how intervocalic s was pronounced in Old Latin but there is good reason to believe it was a voiced fricative, [z]. Not everyone agrees on whether it happened in Proto-Italic or just affected the Latino-Faliscan branch only. Weiss 2009/2011 argues it was &quot;an areal feature that affected Latin, Faliscan, and Umbrian&quot; (Umbrian belongs to the Sabellic branch).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, ancient grammarians were aware of this change too - Varro is the most cited example. e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In multis verbis in quo antiqui dicebant S, postea dicunt R ut in Carmine Saliorum sunt haec [...] (L.7.27).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for dating, most evidence comes from texts. For example, Cicero talks about princeps L. Papirius Mugillanus &quot;qui censor cum L. Sempronio Atratino fuit&quot; and we learn about him that he &quot;*primum Papisius est vocari desitus*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example: in 312 BC &quot;*Idem Appius Claudius... R litteram invenit, ut pro Valesiis Valerii essent, et pro Fusiis Furii*.&quot; [Weiss 2010][1] interprets this passage the following way, &quot;in redacting the senatorial roll in his capacity as censor in 312 BCE Claudius rewrote these nomina, formerly spelled with s, with the letter r.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking such evidence into consideration, we assume that rhotacism must have happened before the middle of the forth century BC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, we reconstruct the change as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*s &gt; *z &gt; r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first part (voicing) is pretty common and understandable (between two vowels). As for the last stage, *z &gt; r, the only explanation I've seen so far is the one given in [Clackson and Horrocks (2007/2011)][2]. They argue it happened because of the &quot;addition of trilled articulation which eventually predominated at the expense of frication&quot; (p. 96).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, rhotacism didn't happen simultaneously in all contexts - that is why there are numerous exceptions - Leumann 1977 (p. 179) mentions three groups of exceptions: z+short vowel+r (miser), loanwords (e.g. basis, cisium, asinus, casa etc.), compounds (e.g. nisi, desilio etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pretty common view to rhotacism is to treat it a **multi-stage, diachronic process** (starting with Touratier 1975; also see Baldi 1994). The best description of rhotacism I'm aware of is [Roberts 2012][3]. His model has five stages, starting with stage 0 - he calls his a *phonetic tendency* - when &quot;co-articulatory pressures cause intervocalic voiceless consonants to tend to be realised as voiced&quot; and concluding with stage L, when rhotacism became &quot;a systematic property of the lexicon, subject to extension by analogy&quot; and when rhotacism was &quot;no longer productive over new VsV sequences, such as in&#xD;&#xA;loans or those created by the degemination of ss.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ohcgl.blogspot.com/2010/01/papirius-and-appius-claudius.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405162090.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2012.01285.x/full" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="173" RevisionGUID="452fab78-f59e-4e2a-b83c-2eabe679e484" CreationDate="2016-02-25T01:12:42.627" UserId="73" Text="&gt; Surely Cicero and other great orators instructed their pupils to never, ever say `&lt;filler word here&gt;` when speaking?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strangely enough, they *didn't*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Michael Erard's [Um. . .: Slips, Stumbles, and Verbal Blunders, and What They Mean](https://books.google.com/books?id=smRYSk9C2BMC&amp;pg=PA113&amp;lpg=PA113&amp;dq=latin+roman+filler+words+uh+um&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=L848K6dej8&amp;sig=cnyfn3RwfR9uliDml8ODdiBiSSw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiL2eLv15HLAhUIPj4KHbLMAGEQ6AEIRTAH#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20roman%20filler%20words%20uh%20um&amp;f=false), warnings of filler verbs are not present in the books on rhetoric of Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian, or other Latin writers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some things *are* recommended that would avoid the need for these filler words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Aristotle recommends choosing words carefully, using rhythm and grammar together.&#xD;&#xA; - Crassus, a character on Cicero's *De Oratore*, notes that may speakers are&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &quot;so hesitating in their speech, so inharmonious in their tone of voice&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This seems, interestingly enough, to reference orators following Aristotle's advice!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Another character in *De Oratore* makes the same criticisms:&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &quot;What timidity was there! What distrust! What a degree of hesitation and slowness of speech!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The evidence of Cicero is a reflection on speakers of the day, doing as Aristotle recommended. True, in day-to-day conversation, filler words might have been used. But the omission of advice against such usage suggests a system of rhetoric centered around choosing words carefully, and pausing when needed, thus eliminating the awkward equivalents of &quot;uh&quot; and &quot;um&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="116" RevisionGUID="c009a292-d261-4784-8836-7169f859f17f" CreationDate="2016-02-25T01:21:58.663" UserId="30" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="The ablative absolute does not require a participle. It can be a noun and an adjective, as you say, or two nouns (*Caesare duce urbem cepimus*), or even an adjective and an accusative with infinitive (most probably, see the end of this post).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is a &quot;verb-like&quot; aspect to the construction that makes you want to add &quot;being&quot; if there is no participle. The reason for this probably lies in the fact that the ablative absolute is a so-called **dominant construction**, where semantics and syntax are slightly out of tune: semantically, there is a kind of '**oblique predicate**' (with a 'subject' and its 'predicate'), even though syntactically there are just two nominals in the ablative. And for there to be a predicate, you need a kind of verb in your translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is called dominant because the participle in a dominant construction is normally translated more prominently than a mere (attributive) participle: it is translated as a finite verb (or a noun). Otherwise our translation would fail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Legione dispersa victi sumus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you translated this as &quot;with the dispersed legion, we were defeated&quot;, that would sound wrong, because the participle is translated attributively. English has a trick where you can make an adjective or participle predicate-like by placing it after its 'subject': &quot;with the legion dispersed, we were defeated&quot;. That works, because the participle is translated predicatively. The standard translation would be &quot;after the legion was dispersed, we were defeated&quot;. That's a full predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesare duce urbem cepimus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With our leader Caesar, we captured the city&quot;. That is grammatical, but it is not what the Latin intended, if only because *with* is usually rendered as *cum* when followed by a person. It should be &quot;with Caesar as our leader, we captured the city&quot;. The word *as* (rightfully) introduces a predicate-like aspect to our translation: one of the things we want to say is that Caesar was our leader. That is a fact that the Latin is stating separately by means of the ablative absolute, supporting the 'main clause' *urbem cepimus*. You could also translate it as &quot;because Caesar was our leader, we captured the city&quot; (optional causal link), with a full predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Other examples of dominant constructions are the **gerundive construction**, the so-called **dominant participle** (of which you could say the ablative absolute with a participle  is a sub-species), the **dominant substantive apposition** (of which the ablative absolute without a participle is a sub-species), and even the ordinary **copula with subject complement**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Floribus carpendis Eurydice mordetur a serpente.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;During/with the flowers to pick, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent.&quot; That's not right. The **gerundive construction** should be translated dominantly, where the adjectival/attributive gerundive is translated as a substantive noun or even as a finite verb: &quot;during the picking of flowers, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent&quot;, or &quot;when she was picking flowers, Eurydice was bitten by a serpent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Latin alternative is the **gerund construction**, which is normal, not 'dominant', because a gerund is a kind of noun, which is already fairly dominant: as such it is not translated as more dominant than a noun normally is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Flores carpendo Eurydice mordetur a serpente.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;During the flowers-picking, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar occisus senatores placuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The dead Caesar pleased the senators.&quot; That kind of works, because a **dominant participle construction** also happens to be possible in English in certain cases. But what we're really saying is this: &quot;Caesar's death pleased the senators&quot;. A substantive noun is stronger than a mere attributive participle. Or, even more dominantly: &quot;the fact that Caesar died pleased the senators&quot;. What we're really not trying to say is &quot;Caesar (who had died) pleased the senators&quot;. The brackets express low degree of dominance, since the words are thereby separated from the main sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar primus Romam advenit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The first Caesar arrived in Rome&quot;: it seems clear that this is not what was intended. &quot;Caesar arrived in Rome first&quot;: this predicative translation is correct, where the **predicative adjective** is translated almost like a subject complement or an adverb of manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar victor Romam advenit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The victor Caesar arrived in Rome.&quot; This is perhaps acceptable, but what the author probably intended was the predicative translation &quot;Caesar arrived in Rome as (the) victor&quot;. The word *as* clarifies that it is to be understood predicatively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar fortis est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a **plain copula with a subject complement**. An attributive translation would be absurd: &quot;the brave Caesar is&quot;. This is the simplest kind of predicative construction, equally common in other Indo-European languages, and we must translate it predicatively, so as a copula with subject complement: &quot;Caesar is brave&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;N.B. There is one kind of ablative absolute that interests me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Audito Agrippinam a filio suo necatam esse tota in urbe populus luxerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;When it had been heard that Agrippina has been murdered by her son, the people mourned throughout the city.&quot; The participle in the ablative is the neuter *audito*; the 'noun' belonging to the ablative absolute is the entire accusative with infinitive, *Agrippinam a filio suo necatam esse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is possible in Latin, and I believe it is used when you need an accusative with infinitive but the verb of saying or hearing or thinking etc. cannot be made to agree with an existing word in the sentence. This may happen when the hearing happened before the main clause, because then you need a past participle, and past participles cannot be made to agree with an agent (because they're passive). The person who hears cannot be made to agree in number, case and gender with the past participle *auditus*, so it has to be used absolutely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="153" RevisionGUID="b9e5c2f9-99ea-46c7-926b-99fc018dab5c" CreationDate="2016-02-25T01:23:48.120" UserId="39" Comment="added 610 characters in body" Text="(*this is a partial answer so far*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why questions in linguistics are the hardest because we can only speculate. That being said, there is plenty of evidence to make an educated guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For different reasons, there was no phoneme /z/ in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inervocalic s (a letter, not a sound!) is found “only on the very earliest inscriptions” (Weiss 2009/2011),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;e.g. IOVE**S**AT, VALE**S**IO**S**IO, E**S**ED (all circa 500 BCE); NUMA**S**IOI (700 BCE?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't know for sure how intervocalic s was pronounced in Old Latin but there is good reason to believe it was a voiced fricative, [z]. Not everyone agrees on whether it happened in Proto-Italic or just affected the Latino-Faliscan branch only. Weiss 2009/2011 argues it was &quot;an areal feature that affected Latin, Faliscan, and Umbrian&quot; (Umbrian belongs to the Sabellic branch).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, ancient grammarians were aware of this change too - Varro is the most cited example. e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In multis verbis in quo antiqui dicebant S, postea dicunt R ut in Carmine Saliorum sunt haec [...] (L.7.27).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for dating, most evidence comes from texts. For example, Cicero talks about princeps L. Papirius Mugillanus &quot;qui censor cum L. Sempronio Atratino fuit&quot; and we learn about him that he &quot;*primum Papisius est vocari desitus*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example: in 312 BC &quot;*Idem Appius Claudius... R litteram invenit, ut pro Valesiis Valerii essent, et pro Fusiis Furii*.&quot; [Weiss 2010][1] interprets this passage the following way, &quot;in redacting the senatorial roll in his capacity as censor in 312 BCE Claudius rewrote these nomina, formerly spelled with s, with the letter r.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking such evidence into consideration, we assume that rhotacism must have happened before the middle of the forth century BC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, we reconstruct the change as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*s &gt; *z &gt; r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first part (voicing) is pretty common and understandable (between two vowels). As for the last stage, *z &gt; r, the only explanation I've seen so far is the one given in [Clackson and Horrocks (2007/2011)][2]. They argue it happened because of the &quot;addition of trilled articulation which eventually predominated at the expense of frication&quot; (p. 96).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, rhotacism didn't happen simultaneously in all contexts - that is why there are numerous exceptions - Leumann 1977 (p. 179) mentions three groups of exceptions: z+short vowel+r (miser), loanwords (e.g. basis, cisium, asinus, casa etc.), compounds (e.g. nisi, desilio etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pretty common view to rhotacism is to treat it a **multi-stage, diachronic process** (starting with Touratier 1975; also see Baldi 1994). The best description of rhotacism I'm aware of is [Roberts 2012][3]. His model has five stages, starting with stage 0 - he calls his a *phonetic tendency* - when &quot;co-articulatory pressures cause intervocalic voiceless consonants to tend to be realised as voiced&quot; and concluding with stage L, when rhotacism became &quot;a systematic property of the lexicon, subject to extension by analogy&quot; and when rhotacism was &quot;no longer productive over new VsV sequences, such as in&#xD;&#xA;loans or those created by the degemination of ss.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baldi, Philip. 1994. Some Thoughts on Latin Rhotacism. *General Linguistics* 34: 209-216.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson, James, and Geoffrey C. Horrocks. 2011. *The Blackwell history of the Latin language*. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann, Manu. 1977. *Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre*. München: C.H. Bech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roberts, Philip J. 2012. Latin Rhotacism: A Case Study in the Life cycle of Phonological Processes. *Transactions of the Philological Society*, 110(1): 80–93.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Touratier, C. 1975.][4] Rhotacisme synchronique dulatin classique et rhotacisme diachronique. *Glotta* 53.246-281. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss, Michael L. 2009/2011. *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin*. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ohcgl.blogspot.com/2010/01/papirius-and-appius-claudius.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405162090.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2012.01285.x/full&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40266333" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="153" RevisionGUID="ce259af4-d430-46aa-8f35-ee258ebfb4a0" CreationDate="2016-02-25T01:29:37.667" UserId="39" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="(*this is a partial answer so far*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why questions in linguistics are the hardest because we can only speculate. That being said, there is plenty of evidence to make an educated guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For different reasons, there was no phoneme /z/ in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inervocalic s (a letter, not a sound!) is found “only on the very earliest inscriptions” (Weiss 2009/2011),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;e.g. IOVE**S**AT, VALE**S**IO**S**IO, E**S**ED (all circa 500 BCE); NUMA**S**IOI (700 BCE?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't know for sure how intervocalic s was pronounced in Old Latin but there is good reason to believe it was a voiced fricative, [z]. Not everyone agrees on whether it happened in Proto-Italic or just affected the Latino-Faliscan branch only. Weiss 2009/2011 argues it was &quot;an areal feature that affected Latin, Faliscan, and Umbrian&quot; (Umbrian belongs to the Sabellic branch).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, ancient grammarians were aware of this change too - Varro is the most cited example. e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In multis verbis in quo antiqui dicebant S, postea dicunt R ut in Carmine Saliorum sunt haec [...] (L.7.27).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for dating, most evidence comes from texts. For example, Cicero talks about princeps L. Papirius Mugillanus &quot;qui censor cum L. Sempronio Atratino fuit&quot; and we learn about him that he &quot;*primum Papisius est vocari desitus*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example: in 312 BC &quot;*Idem Appius Claudius... R litteram invenit, ut pro Valesiis Valerii essent, et pro Fusiis Furii*.&quot; [Weiss 2010][1] interprets this passage the following way, &quot;in redacting the senatorial roll in his capacity as censor in 312 BCE Claudius rewrote these nomina, formerly spelled with s, with the letter r.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking such evidence into consideration, we assume that rhotacism must have happened before the middle of the forth century BC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, we reconstruct the change as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*s &gt; *z &gt; r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first part (voicing) is pretty common and understandable (between two vowels). As for the last stage, *z &gt; r, the only explanation I've seen so far is the one given in [Clackson and Horrocks (2007/2011)][2]. They argue it happened because of the &quot;addition of trilled articulation which eventually predominated at the expense of frication&quot; (p. 96).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, rhotacism didn't happen simultaneously in all contexts - that is why there are numerous exceptions - Leumann 1977 (p. 179) mentions three groups of exceptions: z+short vowel+r (miser), loanwords (e.g. basis, cisium, asinus, casa etc.), compounds (e.g. nisi, desilio etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pretty common view to rhotacism is to treat it a **multi-stage, diachronic process** (starting with Touratier 1975; also see Baldi 1994). The best description of rhotacism I'm aware of is [Roberts 2012][3]. His model has five stages, starting with stage 0 - he calls his a *phonetic tendency* - when &quot;co-articulatory pressures cause intervocalic voiceless consonants to tend to be realised as voiced&quot; and concluding with stage L, when rhotacism became &quot;a systematic property of the lexicon, subject to extension by analogy&quot; and when rhotacism was &quot;no longer productive over new VsV sequences, such as in&#xD;&#xA;loans or those created by the degemination of ss.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baldi, Philip. 1994. Some Thoughts on Latin Rhotacism. *General Linguistics* 34: 209-216.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson, James, and Geoffrey C. Horrocks. 2011. *The Blackwell history of the Latin language*. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann, Manu. 1977. *Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre*. München: C.H. Bech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Roberts, Philip J. 2012.][3] Latin Rhotacism: A Case Study in the Life cycle of Phonological Processes. *Transactions of the Philological Society*, 110(1): 80–93.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Touratier, C. 1975.][4] Rhotacisme synchronique dulatin classique et rhotacisme diachronique. *Glotta* 53.246-281. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss, Michael L. 2009/2011. *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin*. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ohcgl.blogspot.com/2010/01/papirius-and-appius-claudius.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405162090.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2012.01285.x/full&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40266333" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="173" RevisionGUID="b2df44b5-3461-4326-a66e-e7286fe70506" CreationDate="2016-02-25T01:35:42.827" UserId="73" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="&gt; Surely Cicero and other great orators instructed their pupils to never, ever say `&lt;filler word here&gt;` when speaking?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strangely enough, they *didn't*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Michael Erard's [Um. . .: Slips, Stumbles, and Verbal Blunders, and What They Mean](https://books.google.com/books?id=smRYSk9C2BMC&amp;pg=PA113&amp;lpg=PA113&amp;dq=latin+roman+filler+words+uh+um&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=L848K6dej8&amp;sig=cnyfn3RwfR9uliDml8ODdiBiSSw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiL2eLv15HLAhUIPj4KHbLMAGEQ6AEIRTAH#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20roman%20filler%20words%20uh%20um&amp;f=false), warnings of filler verbs are not present in the books on rhetoric of Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian, or other Latin writers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some things *are* recommended that would avoid the need for these filler words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Aristotle recommends choosing words carefully, using rhythm and grammar together. Quintilian, interestingly enough, criticizes this and does not speak of the advantages of beauty and melody.&#xD;&#xA; - Crassus, a character on Cicero's *De Oratore*, notes that may speakers are&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &quot;so hesitating in their speech, so inharmonious in their tone of voice&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This seems, interestingly enough, to reference orators following Aristotle's advice!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Another character in *De Oratore* makes the same criticisms:&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &quot;What timidity was there! What distrust! What a degree of hesitation and slowness of speech!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The evidence of Cicero is a reflection on speakers of the day, doing as Aristotle recommended, and as Cicero tried to correct. True, in day-to-day conversation, filler words might have been used. But the omission of advice against such usage suggests a system of rhetoric centered around choosing words carefully, and pausing when needed, thus eliminating the awkward equivalents of &quot;uh&quot; and &quot;um&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="73" RevisionGUID="3e60ff63-a12e-4fb3-b590-34bf1a18a255" CreationDate="2016-02-25T01:54:26.407" UserId="78" Comment="added 356 characters in body" Text="Simply, vel is inclusive and aut is exclusive. As [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.04.0059) put it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In general *aut* puts in the place of a previous assertion another, objectively and absolutely antithetical to it, while vel indicates that the contrast rests upon subjective opinion or choice; i. e. aut is objective, vel subjective, or aut excludes one term, vel makes the two indifferent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Vel] As disjunctive conjunction, to introduce an alternative as a matter of choice or preference, or as not affecting the principal assertion (while *aut* introduces an absolute or essential opposition...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going off your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet tibi habere aut vim aut laetitia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means, &quot;You are allowed to have either power or happiness **but not both**.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet tibi habere vel vim vel laetitia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;You are allowed to have power, or perhaps happiness, *or both*, should you wish.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The enclitic *-ve* is the same as *vel*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett's [example](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect341) I think is more illustrative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **quī aethēr vel caelum nōminātur**, *which is called aether or heaven*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, both *aether* and *caelum* as the name for the sky is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in your example, *aut* is the best word to use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="159" RevisionGUID="37d4135e-31dd-420a-82ca-3d513fd2bfb0" CreationDate="2016-02-25T01:54:37.633" UserId="12" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="As a sort of followup to http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1/11, I'd like to know if this would be considered a valid construction (in [tag:classical-latin]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arma virum navesque cano&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(modified version of [Virgil's *Aeneid*, I.1](https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Aeneis/Liber_I#0))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any examples of classical Latin authors 'stringing together' more than two objects with a single `-que` suffix? If so, is this the correct way to form it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="553" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="159" RevisionGUID="37d4135e-31dd-420a-82ca-3d513fd2bfb0" CreationDate="2016-02-25T01:54:37.633" UserId="12" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|enclitic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="3b46cba5-3f0b-4495-b4b9-0bbcaa460092" CreationDate="2016-02-25T02:05:20.690" UserId="12" Comment="tag suggestion" Text="I was taught that one can use the '-que' suffix to string together multiple words, in a similar way to putting 'et' between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these two equivalent? Did one have a connotation in classical (Caesar-era) Latin that the other didn't?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="556" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="3b46cba5-3f0b-4495-b4b9-0bbcaa460092" CreationDate="2016-02-25T02:05:20.690" UserId="12" Comment="tag suggestion" Text="|classical-latin|meaning|vocabulary|conjunction|enclitic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="174" RevisionGUID="1b93976d-c68e-42c6-9c53-46229a94a177" CreationDate="2016-02-25T02:27:09.093" UserId="144" Text="According to Wikipedia, cēvēre loosely means the actions of a female during intercourse, whereas crīsāre is the same but with anal sex. It later states however that cēvēre refers only to the actions of a passive homosexual man in intercourse. This is somewhat contradictory, so what is the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="558" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="174" RevisionGUID="1b93976d-c68e-42c6-9c53-46229a94a177" CreationDate="2016-02-25T02:27:09.093" UserId="144" Text="What is the difference between cēvēre and crīsāre?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="559" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="174" RevisionGUID="1b93976d-c68e-42c6-9c53-46229a94a177" CreationDate="2016-02-25T02:27:09.093" UserId="144" Text="|classical-latin|profanity|synonyms|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="96dabfe2-2f4f-4c0b-823b-0d74002caa71" CreationDate="2016-02-25T02:37:41.547" UserId="30" Comment="added 944 characters in body" Text="Yes, Cappelli is basically right (which is perhaps not surprising, he being an authoritative figure in the field of palaeography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every third word is probably above average, but one seldom finds a sentence without any abbreviations in most documents. Parchment was not cheap, nor was scribal labour. The same applies to manuscripts in any European language, at least in my experience (mostly Dutch). Some genres are more likely to contain fewer abbreviations than others, such as literary works written in book script; but even an illustrated Bible will usually be full of them. A few arbitrary examples, with abbreviations in square brackets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.sothebys.com/content/dam/stb/lots/L12/L12242/009L12242_6CB6T.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Regnante d**omi**no n**ost**ro ih**s**u xp**ist**o cum post passionem sua**m** resurrectione**m** et ascensione**m** eius co**n**uersis  ad d**omi**n**u**m cunctis finib**us** terre nec in angulo occeani aliquis se a colore fidei absconderet in co**n**veniendo p**o**p**u**lo**s** in unu**m** et reges ut servirent d**omi**no. fuit in britanni(a)e partib**us** rex quidam d**e**o notus tam uita qua**m** nomine qui religiosus...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.villa.culture.fr/mediatheque/communs/images/grandFormat/0/21_2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pars **est** p**ri**ma prudencie: ip**s**am cui p**re**ceptur**us** sis estimare p**er**sonam. Neq**ue** enim formator ag**ri**cole deb**et** artib**us** **et** eloquencia rethores emulari q**uo**d a plerisq**ue** factum **est** q**ui** dum diserte loqunt**ur** rusticis assecuti sunt, ut eorum doct**ri**na n**on** a dis?tissimis possit intelligi. S**ed** nos recidam**us** p**re**fationis moram: ne quos rep**re**hendim**us** imitemur. ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there are also manuscripts that use few abbreviations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.europeanaregia.eu/sites/www.europeanaregia.eu/files/manuscripts/regiacarol_lat_5763.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gallia est omnis diuiva in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt belgae, aliam aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua celtae. N**ost**ra galli appelantur. Hi omnes lingua institutis legibus inter se differunt. Gallos ab aquitanis garunna flumen a belgis matrona **et** sequana dividit. Horum omnium fortissimi sunt belgae propter ea q**uo**d acultu atq**ue** humanitate provinciae longissime absunt minimeque ad eos mercatores saepe com**m**eant atq**ue** ea quae as effeminandos animos pertinent inpostant proximique s**un**t germanis qui trans renu**m** incolunt quib**us**cum continenter bellum gerunt ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ratio is difficult to establish (and perhaps less necessary), but you can get a fair impression by looking at a couple of documents in Google Images." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="ce9bc196-bf7a-44c3-ad23-48418425f7dd" CreationDate="2016-02-25T02:44:45.470" UserId="30" Comment="added 944 characters in body" Text="Yes, Cappelli is basically right (which is perhaps not surprising, he being an authoritative figure in the field of palaeography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every third word is probably above average, but in most documents one seldom finds a sentence without any abbreviations. Parchment was not cheap, nor was scribal labour. The same applies to manuscripts in any European language, at least in my experience (mostly Dutch). Some genres are more likely to contain fewer abbreviations than others, such as literary works written in book script; but even an illustrated Bible will usually be full of them. A few arbitrary examples, with abbreviations in square brackets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.sothebys.com/content/dam/stb/lots/L12/L12242/009L12242_6CB6T.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Regnante d**omi**no n**ost**ro ih**s**u xp**ist**o cum post passionem sua**m** resurrectione**m** et ascensione**m** eius co**n**uersis  ad d**omi**n**u**m cunctis finib**us** terre nec in angulo occeani aliquis se a colore fidei absconderet in co**n**veniendo p**o**p**u**lo**s** in unu**m** et reges ut servirent d**omi**no. fuit in britanni(a)e partib**us** rex quidam d**e**o notus tam uita qua**m** nomine qui religiosus...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's 32% of words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.villa.culture.fr/mediatheque/communs/images/grandFormat/0/21_2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pars **est** p**ri**ma prudencie: ip**s**am cui p**re**ceptur**us** sis estimare p**er**sonam. Neq**ue** enim formator ag**ri**cole deb**et** artib**us** **et** eloquencia rethores emulari q**uo**d a plerisq**ue** factum **est** q**ui** dum diserte loqunt**ur** rusticis assecuti sunt, ut eorum doct**ri**na n**on** a dis?tissimis possit intelligi. S**ed** nos recidam**us** p**re**fationis moram: ne quos rep**re**hendim**us** imitemur. ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That makes 43%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there are also manuscripts that use few abbreviations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.europeanaregia.eu/sites/www.europeanaregia.eu/files/manuscripts/regiacarol_lat_5763.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gallia est omnis diuiva in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt belgae, aliam aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua celtae. N**ost**ra galli appelantur. Hi omnes lingua institutis legibus inter se differunt. Gallos ab aquitanis garunna flumen a belgis matrona **et** sequana dividit. Horum omnium fortissimi sunt belgae propter ea q**uo**d acultu atq**ue** humanitate provinciae longissime absunt minimeque ad eos mercatores saepe com**m**eant atq**ue** ea quae as effeminandos animos pertinent inpostant proximique s**un**t germanis qui trans renu**m** incolunt quib**us**cum continenter bellum gerunt ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's 11%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overall ratio is difficult to establish (and perhaps less necessary), but you can get a fair impression by looking at a couple of documents in Google Images." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="97bd897d-7e3d-4b3b-81e9-ce1e884cdd39" CreationDate="2016-02-25T02:56:58.190" UserId="30" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Yes, Cappelli is basically right (which is perhaps not surprising, he being an authoritative figure in the field of palaeography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every third word is probably above average, but in most documents one seldom finds a sentence without any abbreviations. Parchment was not cheap, nor was scribal labour. The same applies to manuscripts in any European language, at least in my experience (mostly Dutch). Some genres are more likely to contain fewer abbreviations than others, such as literary works written in book script; but even an illustrated Bible will usually be full of them. A few arbitrary examples, with abbreviations in square brackets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.sothebys.com/content/dam/stb/lots/L12/L12242/009L12242_6CB6T.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Regnante d**omi**no n**ost**ro ih**s**u xp**ist**o cum post passionem sua**m** resurrectione**m** et ascensione**m** eius co**n**uersis  ad d**omi**n**u**m cunctis finib**us** terre nec in angulo occeani aliquis se a colore fidei absconderet in co**n**veniendo p**o**p**u**lo**s** in unu**m** et reges ut servirent d**omi**no. fuit in britanni(a)e partib**us** rex quidam d**e**o notus tam uita qua**m** nomine qui religiosus...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's 32% of words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.villa.culture.fr/mediatheque/communs/images/grandFormat/0/21_2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pars **est** p**ri**ma prudencie: ip**s**am cui p**re**ceptur**us** sis estimare p**er**sonam. Neq**ue** enim formator ag**ri**cole deb**et** artib**us** **et** eloquencia rethores emulari q**uo**d a plerisq**ue** factum **est** q**ui** dum diserte loqunt**ur** rusticis assecuti sunt, ut eorum doct**ri**na n**on** a dis?tissimis possit intelligi. S**ed** nos recidam**us** p**re**fationis moram: ne quos rep**re**hendim**us** imitemur. ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That makes 43%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there are also manuscripts that use few abbreviations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.europeanaregia.eu/sites/www.europeanaregia.eu/files/manuscripts/regiacarol_lat_5763.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gallia est omnis diuisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt belgae, aliam aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua celtae, N**ost**ra galli appellantur. Hi omnes lingua institutis legibus inter se differunt. Gallos ab aquitanis garunna flumen a belgis matrona **et** sequana diuidit. Horum omnium fortissimi sunt belgae propter ea q**uo**d a cultu atq**ue** humanitate provinciae longissime absunt minimeque ad eos mercatores saepe com**m**eant atq**ue** ea quae ad effeminandos animos pertinent inportant proximique s**un**t germanis qui trans renu**m** incolunt quib**us**cum continenter bellum gerunt ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's 11%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overall ratio is difficult to establish (and perhaps less necessary), but you can get a fair impression by looking at a couple of documents in Google Images." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="9330ab67-0445-43ab-8633-c2abdce730f1" CreationDate="2016-02-25T03:28:07.707" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited title" Text="We all know that ut + subjunctive is translated as &quot;in order to&quot; (purpose), &quot;to&quot; (indirect command), and, with some words, &quot;that&quot; (result/fear). However, &quot;ut&quot;  with an indicative means &quot;as&quot;. I can't figure out how subjunctive/indicative makes that transformation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, why does &quot;ut&quot; mean such different things when all that changes is the mood of the verb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I can understand why adding some words changes the meaning. I'm confused about why the mood has such a drastic effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="564" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="9330ab67-0445-43ab-8633-c2abdce730f1" CreationDate="2016-02-25T03:28:07.707" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why does &quot;ut&quot; mean such different things when it has a subjunctive verb vs. an indicative one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="892ee32b-a70e-4fe1-956e-4a0d2e628dd5" CreationDate="2016-02-25T04:06:32.930" UserId="78" Text="Dictionaries are notoriously bad at describing sex acts. Thankfully, J. N. Adams rectified that with his *The Latin Sexual Vocabulary* (Baltimore, 1982). I can add little to what he says of the two words (p. 136–137):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (vii) *Criso* and *ceueo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin possessed two technical terms for types of sexual motion (in both cases that of the passive partner), *criso* and ceueo*. *Criso* indicated the motions of the female in intercourse: note ps.-Acron Hor. *Serm*. 2.7.50 'idest dum ego iaceo supinus et ipsa supra me crisat'...The passage in ps.-Acron should not be taken as implying that *criso* was appropriate only to the schema with the woman astride.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ceueo* was used of the corresponding movements of the male pathic (cf. *ceuulus = 'pathic', *CGL* IL.357.20)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, he goes on to say that these are not very offensive words compared to something like *futuo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the best way to reconcile the definitions is to think of the *cēvēre* to mean passive actions, rather than specifically female. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="176" RevisionGUID="ad891b49-2c94-44d1-85b5-3b0f0a9a4136" CreationDate="2016-02-25T04:55:05.833" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="I'm translating this sentence into Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You said that I could do anything, so I went to the brothel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(it's for a late Valentine's card for my girlfriend)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, I have the first and second half:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dixerat ego aliquid facere potesse, ergo ivi stabulo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But using &quot;ergo&quot; feels wrong. Is that the right word, or does another fit the meaning better?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="567" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="176" RevisionGUID="ad891b49-2c94-44d1-85b5-3b0f0a9a4136" CreationDate="2016-02-25T04:55:05.833" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="Is &quot;ergo&quot; an appropriate word for this context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="568" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="176" RevisionGUID="ad891b49-2c94-44d1-85b5-3b0f0a9a4136" CreationDate="2016-02-25T04:55:05.833" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|meaning|translation|conjunction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="177" RevisionGUID="5e523c1d-ab55-440c-a23d-c773958ca1d5" CreationDate="2016-02-25T05:24:44.107" UserId="78" Text="Yes, it's possible, but that's not the typical construction. 'Therefore' is the best translation in this spot, starting a whole new clause that isn't immediately dependent (in a meaningful sense, rather than in a grammatical sense) on the previous clause. In that respect, it's closer to *igitur*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I checked Smith's English-Latin dictionary for the comparative examples, and I think *ita* or *itaque* are your best bets. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ita** *I say that the young man in question was ill several days, and so died*, dico illum adolescentem aliquot dies aegrostasse et ita esse mortuum, [Cic. *Pro Cluentio* 60.168](http://thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/cluentio.shtml).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This follows under section C. under *ita* in [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ita&amp;la=la#lexicon)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="177" RevisionGUID="176c26de-269b-4922-83da-d6b0b9169f45" CreationDate="2016-02-25T05:30:16.510" UserId="78" Comment="added 292 characters in body" Text="Yes, it's possible, but that's not the typical construction. 'Therefore' is the best translation in this spot, starting a whole new clause that isn't immediately dependent (in a meaningful sense, rather than in a grammatical sense) on the previous clause. In that respect, it's closer to *igitur*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I checked Smith's English-Latin dictionary for the comparative examples, and I think *ita* or *itaque* are your best bets. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ita** *I say that the young man in question was ill several days, and so died*, dico illum adolescentem aliquot dies aegrostasse et ita esse mortuum, [Cic. *Pro Cluentio* 60.168](http://thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/cluentio.shtml).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This follows under section C. under *ita* in [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ita&amp;la=la#lexicon).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Need to correct some other things about your &quot;Valentine&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You said that I could do anything, so I went to the brothel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your first attempts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dixerat ego aliquid facere potesse, ergo ivi stabulo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dixisti me aliquid facere posse, itaque ad lustra ivi." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="176" RevisionGUID="dc7608c4-0b6d-4389-88a8-257a73cabdb6" CreationDate="2016-02-25T05:41:50.593" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Fixed some things" Text="I'm translating this sentence into Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You said that I could do anything, so I went to the strip club.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(it's for a late Valentine's card for my girlfriend)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, I have the first and second half:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dixerat ego aliquid facere potesse, ergo ivi ad stabulo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But using &quot;ergo&quot; feels wrong. Is that the right word, or does another fit the meaning better?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="177" RevisionGUID="35947da0-b7cb-4f22-8d13-9ba50ac24ecf" CreationDate="2016-02-25T05:49:20.353" UserId="78" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Yes, it's possible, but that's not the typical construction. 'Therefore' is the best translation in this spot, starting a whole new clause that isn't immediately dependent (in a meaningful sense, rather than in a grammatical sense) on the previous clause. In that respect, it's closer to *igitur*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I checked Smith's English-Latin dictionary for the comparative examples, and I think *ita* or *itaque* are your best bets. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ita** *I say that the young man in question was ill several days, and so died*, dico illum adolescentem aliquot dies aegrostasse et ita esse mortuum, [Cic. *Pro Cluentio* 60.168](http://thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/cluentio.shtml).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This follows under section C. under *ita* in [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ita&amp;la=la#lexicon).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Need to correct some other things about your &quot;Valentine&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You said that I could do anything, so I went to the brothel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your first attempts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dixerat ego aliquid facere potesse, ergo ivi stabulo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dixisti me aliquid facere posse, itaque ad lupanar ivi." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="ed51e9ff-b149-4bd1-b573-8173fcbb14f1" CreationDate="2016-02-25T05:50:16.977" UserId="9" Comment="updated " Text="Rhotacism in Latin happened because of a series of sound changes. It only affected inherited *\*s* in specific environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first step towards rhotacism is believed to have been voicing of single &quot;s&quot; to the sound [z] in certain contexts: generally, between vowels. Phonologically, this change can be seen as an assimilation of the consonant to the surrounding voiced segments. This kind of voicing assimilation is common historically; for example, it also occured between Classical Latin and many Romance languages. Double *ss* remained unvoiced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some related languages, such as Oscan, /z/ remained as such between vowels and did not undergo rhotacism. We know this because we have Oscan inscriptions written in the Latin alphabet that use the letter Z for this sound (Buck 1904). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next step of rhotacism (z &gt; r) is a little less common across languages, but we do have some other examples. The process also applied historically in Germanic; one place where you can see the result in English is *forlo**r**n,* which is historically related to the verb *lo**s**e*. Rhotacism is thought to have occured in Old Latin, and to have been complete by the 4th century BCE. In 312 BC, the letter Z was discarded  from the Latin by censor Appius Caecus Claudius (Gorman). (also see: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/34/why-are-there-no-native-latin-words-with-a-z?lq=1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result of these changes, original intervocalic *\*s* ultimately became *r* in Classical Latin. In the ancestor of Latin, *\*s* seems to have also been voiced to [z] after the voiced consonant /r/, so another related sound change is original *\*rs* to Classical Latin *rr.* One word that shows this change is [*terra*][2] &quot;earth,&quot; from Proto-Indo-European *\*ters*- ‎(“dry”). The cluster *rs* that occurs in Classical Latin is a simplification of earlier *\*rtt* or *\*rts*; this is why most words with *rs* also have *rt* in some forms or in related words (such as [*ars*][3] &quot;art,&quot; genitive *artis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two environments (between vowels and after *r*) are the main cases where Latin *r* regularly came from earlier *\*s.* There are also some words with r followed by a consonant where the *r* was originally intervocalic *\*s*, but the following vowel was lost (as in [*veternus*][6]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there also seem to be some words where *\*s* developed into *z* and then *r* directly before a voiced consonant; in fact, the voicing in these words seems to have occurred earlier than the intervocalic voicing. For example, Proto-Indo-European *-*sg*- seems to be the ancestor of *rg* in *[mergo][4]* &quot;to immerse, engulf&quot; and probably in *[virga][5]* &quot;twig, switch, rod&quot; (de Melo). This also applied before the semivowel *v* [w]; thanks to TKR for pointing this out in a [comment][1]. A strange example that does seem to have undergone rhotacization between Old and Classical Latin is the word *carmen,* which Lewis and Short say used to be *casmen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the sound *r* became established in certain words, their derivatives might come to have it in other environments. For example, as Joonas Ilmavirta mentions, some words such as *honor* developed final *r* instead of *s* after a vowel; it's believed this is due to the presence of *r* in other related forms (like *honoris*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Single intervocalic *s* did exist in Classical Latin; we believe it was pronounced [s]. In many words, it corresponds to inherited *\*ss* which seems to have become shortened in some environments. Other words with intervocalic *s* have been explained as borrowings from other languages, such as Greek or Italic languages such as Oscan that did not undergo rhotacism. Whatever the reason, their presence indicates that rhotacism was not active as an automatic sound change in the Classical era (Gorman).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Buck, Carl Darling. 1904. [*A grammar of Oscan and Umbrian : with a collection of inscriptions and a glossary*][7]&#xD;&#xA;- de Melo, W. D. C. &quot;[Faliscan: Phonology Part 2][8]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Gorman, Kyle. &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real][9]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/136/rhotacism-why#comment237_146&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terra#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ars#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mergo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/virga#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/veternus&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://archive.org/stream/grammarofoscanum00buckuoft#page/74/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://wolfgang.demelo.de/faliscan/5_phonology.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="178" RevisionGUID="d36de247-c145-4bea-a242-c49ab4f55ca6" CreationDate="2016-02-25T07:17:29.920" UserId="79" Text="From many verbs one can derive an agent noun for each gender:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *computare* &gt; *computator* (m), *computatrix* (f), *computatrum* (n)&#xD;&#xA;- *scribere* &gt; *scriptor*, *scriptrix*, *scriptrum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these derivatives are rarely found, but it is easy enough to derive productively when needed &amp;mdash; when the perfect participle stem ends in a t.&#xD;&#xA;It is easy to speak about male and female lectureres, for example (*lector* and *lectrix*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How to derive feminine an neuter agents from a verb whose perfect participle stem ends in an s?**&#xD;&#xA;The masculine derivative is common and easy (eg. *profiteri* &gt; *professor*), but how to form the feminine and neuter versions?&#xD;&#xA;I would like this to be analogous with the derivatives for *computare* and *scribere* above, so using the present participle (eg. *profitens*) is unsatisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can give a way to derive feminine and neuter agents, please give actual use examples.&#xD;&#xA;Examples should preferably be classical.&#xD;&#xA;If there are no classical examples, are there later ones and did ancient grammarians notice that such words are missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a feeble attempt to derive in feminine and neuter:&#xD;&#xA;The stem of *profiteri* is *profit-* and when we add a t for perfect participle, we get *profitt-* which has turned into *profett-* and then *profess-*.&#xD;&#xA;It seems easier to derive before making the subsitution tt &gt; ss.&#xD;&#xA;The companions of *profettor* would then be *profettrix* and *profettrum*.&#xD;&#xA;Intervocalic tt should become ss, but it feels more natural to take ttr &gt; tr.&#xD;&#xA;This leaves me with *professor*, *profetrix* and *profetrum*.&#xD;&#xA;This is my best guess, but I have no idea if this is consistent with classical (or any other) use of Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="178" RevisionGUID="d36de247-c145-4bea-a242-c49ab4f55ca6" CreationDate="2016-02-25T07:17:29.920" UserId="79" Text="Are there feminine and neuter versions of &quot;professor&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="178" RevisionGUID="d36de247-c145-4bea-a242-c49ab4f55ca6" CreationDate="2016-02-25T07:17:29.920" UserId="79" Text="|example-request|derivation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="179" RevisionGUID="b5cdbb41-869a-469f-ae37-3cd18c9c2de8" CreationDate="2016-02-25T07:38:56.573" UserId="49" Text="&#xD;&#xA;There is  a series of Latin and pseudo-Latin phrases used in a scientific context (mostly in the life sciences) describing how and where a study was carried out (sorted by [frequency][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*in vitro*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro) – in a glass,&#xD;&#xA;* *[in vivo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vivo)/[ex vivo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_vivo)* – in a living organism / not in a living organism,&#xD;&#xA;* [*in situ*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_situ) – on site,&#xD;&#xA;* [*in natura*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_natura) – in nature,&#xD;&#xA;* [*in silico/silicio*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_silico) – in a computer (model),&#xD;&#xA;* [*in simulacra/simulacris*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_simulacra) – in a model,&#xD;&#xA;* [*in papyro*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_papyro) – on paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am now looking for a concise analogous phrase to describe that a study was carried out **with a mathematical model**. I considered and was not happy with the following options so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *In simulacris* – may as well apply to animal models, in vitro models, or other experimental models.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *In mente* – implies that the entire study was carried out without the help of a computer or even paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *In silicio* – excludes studies or parts of studies that were carried out in the mind or on paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *In theoria* – is more narrow than *in simulacra,* but still contains qualitative scientific theories or models, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *In mathematica* – Does not capture the modelling aspect very well; I might as well be engaging in pure mathematics. Moreover, it sounds as if I forgot to capitalise [Mathematica](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematica).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *In simulacris mathematicis* – Fits, but lacks elegance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=in+vivo%2Cin+vitro%2Cin+situ%2C((in+natura)*100)%2C(in+silico+%2B+in+silicio)*100%2C((in+simulacra+%2B+in+simulacris)*1000)%2C((in+papyro)*1000)&amp;year_start=1900&amp;year_end=2008&amp;corpus=15&amp;smoothing=5&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2Cin%20vivo%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cin%20vitro%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cin%20situ%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%28%28in%20natura%29%20%2A%20100%29%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%28%28in%20silico%20%2B%20in%20silicio%29%20%2A%20100%29%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%28%28in%20simulacra%20%2B%20in%20simulacris%29%20%2A%201000%29%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%28%28in%20papyro%29%20%2A%201000%29%3B%2Cc0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="581" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="179" RevisionGUID="b5cdbb41-869a-469f-ae37-3cd18c9c2de8" CreationDate="2016-02-25T07:38:56.573" UserId="49" Text="In vitro, in vivo, in situ, in simulacris mathematicis? Any good alternatives to the latter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="582" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="179" RevisionGUID="b5cdbb41-869a-469f-ae37-3cd18c9c2de8" CreationDate="2016-02-25T07:38:56.573" UserId="49" Text="|science|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="180" RevisionGUID="f13f9744-4d44-429a-9302-44a00fd9d5f7" CreationDate="2016-02-25T08:11:55.830" UserId="79" Text="As C. M. Weimer points out in his comment to another answer, the word *pontifex* was already used for certain priests in ancient Rome.&#xD;&#xA;The pontifex priests and [their collegium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_of_Pontiffs) were the highest-ranking priests in Rome.&#xD;&#xA;The head of the collegium, the [greatest pontifex (*pontifex maximus*)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_Maximus) can be regarded as the highest priest in ancient Roman religion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is therefore no surprise that this same name was chosen for the Christian high priest in Rome.&#xD;&#xA;This word *pontifex* was used by analogy; it was a good Latin word for an important priest.&#xD;&#xA;Relation to bridge building may have influenced introducing the term in Christianity, but it was certainly not a new word created for Christian purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *pontifex* seems to mean a bridge builder, but we are not sure.&#xD;&#xA;Some ancient Romans thought that the word came from *posse* (instead of *pons*) and *facere*, implying ability to do things.&#xD;&#xA;These ancient speculations imply that the origin of the word *pontifex* was not clear to all Romans, and it seems that the exact reason for using this word was forgotten long before 1570.&#xD;&#xA;Bridge building is the best theory we have, I think, but it is just a theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Varro stating the theory of Quintus Scaevola (*posse*) and his own (*pons*) in [De origine linguae Latinae](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/varro.ll5.html):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pontufices, ut Scaevola Quintus pontufex maximus dicebat, a posse et facere, ut potentifices. Ego a ponte arbitror: nam ab his Sublicius est factus primum ut restitutus saepe, cum ideo sacra et uls et cis Tiberim non mediocri ritu fiant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="95" RevisionGUID="9672b29b-8543-42f0-b487-0423c4ce399e" CreationDate="2016-02-25T08:47:56.593" UserId="118" Comment="Macra carita in &quot;pāginā&quot;, &quot;cēram&quot; restaurata" Text="_Linguā Latīnā Per Sē Illūstrāta_ Ioānnis Ørbergī pāginā 207 scrīptum est:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ignis sōlis propinquī cēram, quā pennae iūnctae et fīxae erant, mollīvit et pennās ussit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cur nōn &quot;propinquus&quot; dīcit?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="181" RevisionGUID="4203d662-c09e-4cee-9c20-05c64efc49df" CreationDate="2016-02-25T08:53:47.097" UserId="152" Text="In one of his 1844 manuscripts, C. G. Ehrenberg described the radiolarian species *Lithobotrys*? *denticulata* (now known as [*Antarctissa denticulata*](http://www.radiolaria.org/species.htm?sp_id=499&amp;division=)) and, as it was customary at the time, did so in Latin. Although in general his descriptions are relatively straightforward, I'm struggling with the last sentence of this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lorica ovata ampla late porosa (poris in 1/100''' 2—3.) subtriloba,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; utrinque rotundata nec truncata, denticulis undique bispida, apertura&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obsoleta.  Longit. 1/22''' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Habitus *Lithocampae*, sed nulli articuli.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Structuram internam spiralem esse suspicor. **Quae pars anterior quae&#xD;&#xA;&gt; posterior jure habeatur in toto genere non liquet.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some [pictures and drawings](http://www.radiolaria.org/image.htm?sp_id=499&amp;division=) of the species, if that helps giving context. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="586" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="181" RevisionGUID="4203d662-c09e-4cee-9c20-05c64efc49df" CreationDate="2016-02-25T08:53:47.097" UserId="152" Text="'Quae pars anterior quae posterior jure habeatur in toto genere non liquet': taxonomical description of Antarctissa denticulata (Ehrenberg 1844)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="587" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="181" RevisionGUID="4203d662-c09e-4cee-9c20-05c64efc49df" CreationDate="2016-02-25T08:53:47.097" UserId="152" Text="|new-latin|biology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="182" RevisionGUID="e4ce0242-989b-4c48-9002-64d6246f1494" CreationDate="2016-02-25T09:18:07.057" UserId="79" Text="I would translate the boldfaced sentence as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is not clear which part would be rightfully considered the front and which part the rear in the whole genus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For creatures of that appearance, that description makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;If you want more details or explanation, do ask." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="ae4b28d5-ed5e-48e0-b769-377bea35bfee" CreationDate="2016-02-25T10:08:52.143" UserId="52" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="There are some regional differences in contemporary Ecclesiastical Latin, mostly in pronuntiation (for example, &quot;c&quot; before e/i can be pronounced as [ʧ] or [ts]). Also, I know that as non-natives, medieval Latin speakers sometimes introduced words from their native languages. On the other hand, various dialects were at least somewhat mutually understandable. My layman guess is that they differed about as much as various dialects of contemporary English, or little more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, let's pick 13th century and Latin dialects spoken in Italy, British Isles, Sweden and Bohemia - if people from these regions met, how difficult would it be for them to understand each other, and what would be the main differences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No need to describe these particular dialects in detail though, it's just an example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="590" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="ae4b28d5-ed5e-48e0-b769-377bea35bfee" CreationDate="2016-02-25T10:08:52.143" UserId="52" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="183" RevisionGUID="b3ea4854-a99b-4050-971b-5f6f9e9a7324" CreationDate="2016-02-25T10:47:22.300" UserId="17" Text="There are indeed a few examples of such words from ancient texts, but they are very rare. They are still formed from the supine stem, meaning that the original dental consonant (*d* or *t*) is replaced with *s*, to which *-trix* or *-trum* is then appended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Perseus Project](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/) provides a search tool for its dictionaries (in particular, Lewis &amp; Short) which allows searching for lemmas by their last few letters. The search results for [*-strix*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=strix&amp;lang=la) and [*-strum*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=strum&amp;lang=la) list all candidate words; beware, though, that each result also contains a number of unrelated entries (i.e. words derived in other ways).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the feminine, the least uncommon word (according to Perseus) is *tonstrix*, which appears three times in Plautus (preclassical), once in Martial (postclassical), and also in one inscription. (Furthermore, there is the variant *tonsrix* mentioned once by the grammarian Charisius.) According to the grammarian Priscian, Cicero once used _defenstrix_. Hence, there is relatively good evidence for this derivation having been used over a long period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of specific interest regarding *profiteri*, which has a double *-ss-* in its supine, are _assestrix_ (compare _assessor_) and _possestrix_ (compare _possessor_), demonstrating that *-ss-* is simplified to *-s-*. Both words were used by the poet Afranius (early first century BC), according to grammarian Nonius Marcellus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can therefore conclude that the female equivalent to _professor_ would likely have been **_profestrix_**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among the words ending in *-strum* found in the search, I can only identify two examples that actually match the pattern and are derived from a supine stem ending in *-s*: _claustrum_ (from _claudere_) and _rostrum_ (from _rodere_). On the plus side, both are quite common, at least in plural. There are no examples for verbs with *-ss* in the supine. Still, it seems plausible to me that the corresponding word derived from _profiteri_ would have been **_profestrum_**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="173" RevisionGUID="161436e0-6232-48ba-8cd0-c1ce4f390363" CreationDate="2016-02-25T11:44:19.213" UserId="73" Comment="deleted 89 characters in body" Text="&gt; Surely Cicero and other great orators instructed their pupils to never, ever say `&lt;filler word here&gt;` when speaking?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strangely enough, they *didn't*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Michael Erard's [Um. . .: Slips, Stumbles, and Verbal Blunders, and What They Mean](https://books.google.com/books?id=smRYSk9C2BMC&amp;pg=PA113&amp;lpg=PA113&amp;dq=latin+roman+filler+words+uh+um&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=L848K6dej8&amp;sig=cnyfn3RwfR9uliDml8ODdiBiSSw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiL2eLv15HLAhUIPj4KHbLMAGEQ6AEIRTAH#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20roman%20filler%20words%20uh%20um&amp;f=false), warnings of filler verbs are not present in the books on rhetoric of Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian, or other Latin writers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some things *are* recommended that would avoid the need for these filler words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Aristotle recommends choosing words carefully, using rhythm and grammar together. Quintilian, interestingly enough, criticizes this and does not speak of the advantages of beauty and melody.&#xD;&#xA; - Crassus, a character on Cicero's *De Oratore*, notes that may speakers are&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &quot;so hesitating in their speech, so inharmonious in their tone of voice&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Another character in *De Oratore* makes the same criticisms:&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &quot;What timidity was there! What distrust! What a degree of hesitation and slowness of speech!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The evidence of Cicero is a reflection on speakers of the day, doing as Aristotle recommended, and as Cicero tried to correct. True, in day-to-day conversation, filler words might have been used. But the omission of advice against such usage suggests a system of rhetoric centered around choosing words carefully, and pausing when needed, thus eliminating the awkward equivalents of &quot;uh&quot; and &quot;um&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7" RevisionGUID="9e81c262-1ded-4f60-8181-8579ca841e77" CreationDate="2016-02-25T13:51:36.357" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Expanded an acronym, added a tag, clarified the question, clarified the citation (added the specific part it's from), matched citation formatting to source, corrected typo in cited bit" Text="The sources I've read usually say that this particle is derived from Proto-Indo-European `*ád` ‎(&quot;near, at&quot;). However, they don't refer any Semitic origins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an excerpt from Philip Baldi's [Semitic Influence in the History of Latin Syntax](http://www.academia.edu/879382/Semitic_Influence_in_the_History_of_Latin_Syntax_in_New_Perspectives_on_Historical_Latin_Syntax_1_2009_), however, which seems to disagree:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, the Latin preposition *ad* here may correspond to the Semitic preposition *l*, which would constitute merely an isolated calque, rather than a true example of syntactic interference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;(Semitic Influence in the History of Latin Syntax, 1.1, footnote 3)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here's my question: Does 'ad' (i.e. in 'ad infinitum') originate from the Hebrew 'ad' (to/towards) or a similar Semitic origin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="596" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7" RevisionGUID="9e81c262-1ded-4f60-8181-8579ca841e77" CreationDate="2016-02-25T13:51:36.357" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by -1 edit id of 45" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7" RevisionGUID="b50cfb1d-e870-4bd2-9a3b-4da7d2d93afd" CreationDate="2016-02-25T13:51:36.357" UserId="12" Comment="Expanded an acronym, added a tag, clarified the question, clarified the citation (added the specific part it's from), matched citation formatting to source, corrected typo in cited bit" Text="The sources I've read usually say that 'ad' (i.e., in 'ad infinitum') is derived from Proto-Indo-European `*ád` ‎(&quot;near, at&quot;). However, they don't refer any Semitic origins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But here's an excerpt from Philip Baldi's [Semitic Influence in the History of Latin Syntax](http://www.academia.edu/879382/Semitic_Influence_in_the_History_of_Latin_Syntax_in_New_Perspectives_on_Historical_Latin_Syntax_1_2009_):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, the Latin preposition *ad* here may correspond to the Semitic preposition *l*, which would constitute merely an isolated calque, rather than a true example of syntactic interference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;(Semitic Influence in the History of Latin Syntax, 1.1, footnote 3)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here's my question: Does 'ad' originate from the Hebrew 'ad' (to/towards) or a similar Semitic origin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="184" RevisionGUID="79da9f1e-564e-4636-8fd2-3fdfbdc5b43e" CreationDate="2016-02-25T14:23:21.730" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="As anyone who's written a proper letter knows, one begins with a salutation and ends with a close. What did the Romans use to end their letters?&#xA;&#xA;That is, where we'd write &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Love,&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Boy&#xA;&#xA;What would the Romans write?&#xA;&#xA;NB: I'm looking specifically for closers to use with a significant other, but other closers will be useful as well. &#xA;&#xA;Sincerely,  &#xA;QPaysTaxes&#xA;&lt;!--Do not remove this salutation. It's a joke, and relevant to the topic at hand.--&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="600" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="184" RevisionGUID="79da9f1e-564e-4636-8fd2-3fdfbdc5b43e" CreationDate="2016-02-25T14:23:21.730" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="What did the Romans use to close their letters?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="601" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="184" RevisionGUID="79da9f1e-564e-4636-8fd2-3fdfbdc5b43e" CreationDate="2016-02-25T14:23:21.730" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="185" RevisionGUID="68bef691-0898-4b09-b08d-1870a21a440e" CreationDate="2016-02-25T14:46:47.650" UserId="78" Text="If you have a look at Cicero's letters, many of them do not have any valediction at all. In a pair of letters exchanged between Q. Metellus and Cicero (Cic. *Fam.* 5.1-5.2), the two men simply stop and end the letter without any closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there were common ways of providing a common valediction. One of the most common you can see at the end of Cicero's fifth letter to his friend Atticus: *cura ut valeas*, &quot;take care that you are well.&quot; This was a standard valediction not limited to Cicero. It also can be expanded, as you see he goes on to urge Atticus' continued friendship with Cicero and his cousin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other times, a simpler *vale* (good-bye) is used instead. In a letter to Gaius Memmius (*Fam*. 13.1), he ends the letter simply with *vale*, but in a letter to his wife and daughter (*Fam*. 14.2), Cicero signs off with *valete, mea desideria, valete*, &quot;good-bye, my loves, good-bye.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's further interesting to note that Cicero actually ended that letter with the date and place in which it was written. Sometimes you see this at the top, other times at the bottom, though much of the time it's absent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another interesting variation on *vale* is *etiam atque etiam vale*, where *etiam atque etiam* &quot;denotes that an action is done uninterruptedly, incessantly; whence it also conveys the idea of intensity.&quot; ([Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=etiam&amp;la=la#lexicon))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among the common people and later than Cicero, &quot;I hope that you are well&quot; became a common valediction, represented by either *valere te opto* or *valere te cupio*; sometimes *bene* was included for strengthening the wish. There is some disagreement, though, about the origin of the phrase, whether its native Latin or borrowed from the Greek, though J. N. Adams in his *Bilingualism and the Latin Language* [(p. 79-80) claims](https://books.google.com/books?id=AMc1WQAnRTkC&amp;pg=PA79) the Vindolanda tablets should indicate Latin priority." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="186" RevisionGUID="bd021eb8-16dc-42e1-816a-b50ae6982126" CreationDate="2016-02-25T15:06:48.837" UserId="118" Text="Here's another approach:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dīxistī mihi quīlibet in mundō licitum esse,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ad saltātrīcēs prōtinus adspiciō!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In what I've read—mostly elementary materials—you can just skip the conjunction or adverb, and go straight to the follow-up sentence or clause. In the above, I've also switched from past tense to present tense, the present tense in Latin having pretty broad application. Hopefully someone more experienced can comment on whether the change of tense can suggest consequence or follow-up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the main trick in the above is that it's an elegiac couplet! The rhythm creates a strong feeling that the second line is a &quot;zinger&quot; that follows from but undermines the first line. The poetic meter also provides plenty of poetic license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get the full effect, you have to say it correctly—that is, with correct vowel lengths—so I've included the macrons. Also, you have to do the elision, which results in this pronunciation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dīxistī mihi quīlibet in mundō licit’ esse,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ad saltātrīcēs prōtinus adspiciō!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning is something like: &quot;You told me that I could do anything in the world that I please—right away I checked out the dancing girls!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say it with the right rhythm, it sounds like it ends with a rimshot as in old-time stand-up comedy, with a somewhat absurd emphasis on the dancing girls.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="186" RevisionGUID="debb1f49-cc10-494c-81ee-10384563fded" CreationDate="2016-02-25T15:24:26.100" UserId="118" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="Here's another approach:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dīxistī mihi quīlibet in mundō licitum esse,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ad saltātrīcēs prōtinus adspiciō!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In what I've read—mostly elementary materials—you can just skip the conjunction or adverb, and go straight to the follow-up sentence or clause. In the above, I've also switched from past tense to present tense, the present tense in Latin having pretty broad application. Hopefully someone more experienced can comment on whether the change of tense can suggest consequence or follow-up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the main trick in the above is that it's an elegiac couplet! The rhythm creates a strong feeling that the second line is a &quot;zinger&quot; that follows from but undermines the first line—the effect that you sensed _ergo_ didn't deliver. The poetic meter also provides plenty of poetic license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get the full effect, you have to say it correctly—that is, with correct vowel lengths—so I've included the macrons. Also, you have to do the elision, which results in this pronunciation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dīxistī mihi quīlibet in mundō licit’ esse,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ad saltātrīcēs prōtinus adspiciō!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning is something like: &quot;You told me that I could do anything in the world that I please—right away I checked out the dancing girls!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say it with the right rhythm, it sounds like it ends with a rimshot as in old-time stand-up comedy, with a somewhat absurd emphasis on the dancing girls.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="187" RevisionGUID="328867d4-7cb5-4058-91dc-90d96867f5b1" CreationDate="2016-02-25T15:46:22.763" UserDisplayName="user11" Text="I'm interested in the proper Classical pronunciation of the word 'ait'. I've been pronouncing it as 'ate'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it instead be pronounced as 'ay-it' or even 'ah-it'? What evidence is there suggesting how classical Romans would have pronounced it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="607" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="187" RevisionGUID="328867d4-7cb5-4058-91dc-90d96867f5b1" CreationDate="2016-02-25T15:46:22.763" UserDisplayName="user11" Text="How should I pronounce 'ait'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="608" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="187" RevisionGUID="328867d4-7cb5-4058-91dc-90d96867f5b1" CreationDate="2016-02-25T15:46:22.763" UserDisplayName="user11" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="188" RevisionGUID="85e4b30d-14ff-415b-84be-70b95827094e" CreationDate="2016-02-25T16:01:27.617" UserId="79" Text="Both vowels are short and belong to two different syllables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider Vergilius's [Aeneis I.595](http://thelatinlibrary.com/vergil/aen1.shtml):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; improvisus ait: 'Coram, quem quaeritis, adsum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be able to read this as a hexameter verse, *ait* must be pronounced as two syllables, the first of which is short.&#xD;&#xA;This is not an isolated example, but I only chose to give one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the ending -it is pronounced with a short 'i' (see eg. verse 45 in the cited source), we have a good reason to believe that also the i is short.&#xD;&#xA;And since we already know that there are two syllables, the verse 142 shows that the i must be short in *ait*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rhythmic considerations alone will not tell about the exact phonetic values of the vowels.&#xD;&#xA;[This question on ancient pronunciation](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/66/79) might be a good starting point with such finer details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="184" RevisionGUID="e9f0aa6d-fa42-4727-9690-e77257a80505" CreationDate="2016-02-25T16:04:48.760" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added 23 characters in body; deleted 21 characters in body; deleted 1 character in body" Text="As anyone who's written a proper letter knows, one begins with a salutation and ends with a close. What did the Romans use to end their letters?&#xA;&#xA;That is, where we'd write &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Love,&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Boy&#xA;&#xA;What would the Romans write?&#xA;&#xA;Sincerely,  &#xA;QPaysTaxes&#xA;&lt;!--Do not remove this salutation. It's a joke, and relevant to the topic at hand.--&gt;&#xA;&#xA;P.S. I'm looking specifically for closers to use with a significant other, but other closers will be useful as well. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="189" RevisionGUID="d969691b-efe3-4796-9278-f7a272d45433" CreationDate="2016-02-25T16:08:21.513" UserId="12" Text="Allen &amp; Greenough address the pronunciation of this verb, [§206](https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA117):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The vowels **a** and **i** are pronounced separately (**a-is, a-it**) except sometimes in old or colloquial Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the correct classical pronunciation would be two syllables, with a short *a* (as in *ago*) and short *i* (as in *hit*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="190" RevisionGUID="27a46870-e534-4268-a402-b0fe61c9c065" CreationDate="2016-02-25T16:41:16.373" UserId="20" Text="I don't know about that late a period, but the two dictionaries available on Perseus project give this as one definition for [suffragium][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B. In gen., a decision, judgment, opinion: “rhetor suffragio tuo et compotorum tuorum,” Cic. Phil. 2, 17, 42: “(apes) concorde suffragio deterrimos (reges) necant,” Plin. 11, 16, 16, § 51.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. In partic., a favorable decision, assent, approbation, applause (post-Aug.): “ventosae plebis suffragia,” Hor. Ep. 1, 19, 37; 2, 2, 103: “voto et suffragio prosequor,” Plin. Ep. 10, 18, 1; Dig. 24, 1, 24 al.: “Dentatus vel numerosissima suffragia habet,” i.e. very many authors who award to him the palm of bravery, Plin. 7, 28, 29, § 101.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the sense of suffragio here is &quot;by it's favorable judgement,&quot; which is made more idiomatic into English as seal of approval.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=suffragio&amp;la=la&amp;can=suffragio0&amp;prior=pares#Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=suffragium-contents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="191" RevisionGUID="4284c511-0ea1-4d3c-897c-2741aa1d8418" CreationDate="2016-02-25T16:44:16.893" UserId="118" Text="It ain't &quot;ate&quot;, that's for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some evidence that it's two syllables, /ˈa.it/, comes from poetry, where two syllables are needed to fit the meter. For example, this is from book VI of the Aeneid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ventum ad līmen erat, cum virgō &quot;poscere fāta&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tempus&quot; **ait**; &quot;deus, ecce deus!&quot; Cui tālia fanti&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ante forēs subitō nōn vultus, nōn color ūnus…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;They had come to the threshold when the virgin said 'It's time to summon fate. A god, behold, a god!' Suddenly, neither the face nor one color … of the one speaking this way in front of the doors …&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These lines are hexameter, the pattern of which requires that _ait_, in that sentence, be a two-syllable word with the first syllable &quot;light&quot; (a syllable ending in a short vowel, in this case _ă_). Rather than explaining hexameter in full, I'll just mark the breaks between feet with a slash:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vent’‿ad / līmen‿e/rat, cum / virgō / &quot;poscere / fāta&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tempus&quot;‿**a/it**; &quot;deus,‿/ecce de/us!&quot; Cui / tālia / fanti&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ante fo/rēs subi/tō nōn / vultus, / nōn color‿/ūnus…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each foot in hexameter must start with a heavy syllable (a syllable with either a long vowel or the ends in a consonant that doesn't begin the next syllable). There's one elided vowel, which I marked with an apostrophe, and I marked &quot;conjoined syllables&quot; with a tie. You should see that each foot starts with a heavy syllable, and one of those is the second syllable of _ait_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for how sloppily people actually said _ait_ in everyday speech, though, I have no idea. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about colloquial classical Latin can provide some information about that.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="192" RevisionGUID="6363208c-c9ba-41c2-9b8d-c5a610959d33" CreationDate="2016-02-25T16:45:10.800" UserId="73" Text="I'm continuing reading Cappelli's [*The elements of abbreviation in medieval Latin paleography*](https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/1821/47cappelli.pdf?sequence=3), and early on he discusses medieval truncation signs. There are three types used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An [interpunct](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpunct) (first sign), which was not used much in medieval Latin.&#xD;&#xA; - Strokes through the last letter of a word (second to fourth signs).&#xD;&#xA; - Ligatures added to the final letter of a word (final three signs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/UCys1.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The differences in use between the three classes is clear, but I'm not sure about the different connotations between signs of the same class. For example, what is the difference between the second, third, and fourth truncation signs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="616" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="192" RevisionGUID="6363208c-c9ba-41c2-9b8d-c5a610959d33" CreationDate="2016-02-25T16:45:10.800" UserId="73" Text="Do different truncation signs have different connotations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="617" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="192" RevisionGUID="6363208c-c9ba-41c2-9b8d-c5a610959d33" CreationDate="2016-02-25T16:45:10.800" UserId="73" Text="|medieval-latin|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="189" RevisionGUID="567217e9-6c02-41d4-89d5-b8703997a62a" CreationDate="2016-02-25T16:45:36.000" UserId="12" Comment="+evidence" Text="Allen &amp; Greenough address the pronunciation of this verb, [§206](https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA117):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The vowels **a** and **i** are pronounced separately (**a-is, a-it**) except sometimes in old or colloquial Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the correct classical pronunciation would be two syllables, with a short *a* (as in *ago*) and short *i* (as in *hit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for evidence: In *Vox Latina*, page 39, W. Sydney Allen cites this word in his discussion on the dissimilation associated with the *i*-consonant, which is attested by &quot;Quintilian and other grammarians&quot; and inscriptions.  The short version is that spelling was simplified: *ait* stands for *aiiit*, with a double *i*-consonant resulting in a heavy first syllable.  Similarly, *reicit*, standing for *reiiicit*, is a three-syllable word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="191" RevisionGUID="eee78fd0-5ac4-4047-83e8-4f19a2f75790" CreationDate="2016-02-25T16:50:24.537" UserId="118" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="It ain't &quot;ate&quot;, that's for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some evidence that it's two syllables, /ˈa.it/, comes from poetry, when _ait_ appears in places where two syllables are needed to fit the meter. For example, this is from book VI of the Aeneid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ventum ad līmen erat, cum virgō &quot;poscere fāta&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tempus&quot; **ait**; &quot;deus, ecce deus!&quot; Cui tālia fanti&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ante forēs subitō nōn vultus, nōn color ūnus…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;They had come to the threshold when the virgin said 'It's time to summon fate. A god, behold, a god!' Suddenly, neither the face nor one color … of the one speaking this way in front of the doors …&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These lines are hexameter, the pattern of which requires that _ait_, in that sentence, be a two-syllable word with the first syllable &quot;light&quot; (a syllable ending in a short vowel, in this case _ă_). Rather than explaining hexameter in full, I'll just mark the breaks between feet with a slash:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vent’‿ad / līmen‿e/rat, cum / virgō / &quot;poscere / fāta&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tempus&quot;‿**a/it**; &quot;deus,‿/ecce de/us!&quot; Cui / tālia / fantī&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ante fo/rēs subi/tō nōn / vultus, / nōn color‿/ūnus…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each foot in hexameter must start with a heavy syllable (a syllable with either a long vowel or the ends in a consonant that doesn't begin the next syllable). There's one elided vowel, which I marked with an apostrophe, and I marked &quot;conjoined syllables&quot; with a tie. You should see that each foot starts with a heavy syllable, and one of those is the second syllable of _ait_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for how sloppily people actually said _ait_ in everyday speech, though, I have no idea. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about colloquial classical Latin can provide some information about that.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="187" RevisionGUID="ec906cda-54ef-4da8-b05a-5652d5a5c131" CreationDate="2016-02-25T17:12:02.053" UserDisplayName="user11" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I'm interested in the proper Classical pronunciation of the word 'ait'. I've been pronouncing it as 'ate', /eɪt/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it instead be pronounced as /a.it/ or even /aj.jit/? What evidence is there suggesting how classical Romans would have pronounced it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="191" RevisionGUID="997690b4-f0ef-44b4-b12a-bcad9c198faa" CreationDate="2016-02-25T17:14:45.517" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="It ain't &quot;ate&quot;, that's for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some evidence that it's two syllables, /ˈa.it/, comes from poetry, when _ait_ appears in places where two syllables are needed to fit the meter. For example, this is from book VI of the Aeneid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ventum ad līmen erat, cum virgō &quot;poscere fāta&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tempus&quot; **ait**; &quot;deus, ecce deus!&quot; Cui tālia fantī&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ante forēs subitō nōn vultus, nōn color ūnus…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;They had come to the threshold when the virgin said 'It's time to summon fate. A god, behold, a god!' Suddenly, neither the face nor one color … of the one speaking this way in front of the doors …&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These lines are hexameter, the pattern of which requires that _ait_, in that sentence, be a two-syllable word with the first syllable &quot;light&quot; (a syllable ending in a short vowel, in this case _ă_). Rather than explaining hexameter in full, I'll just mark the breaks between feet with a slash:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vent’‿ad / līmen‿e/rat, cum / virgō / &quot;poscere / fāta&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tempus&quot;‿**a/it**; &quot;deus,‿/ecce de/us!&quot; Cui / tālia / fantī&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ante fo/rēs subi/tō nōn / vultus, / nōn color‿/ūnus…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each foot in hexameter must start with a heavy syllable (a syllable with either a long vowel or the ends in a consonant that doesn't begin the next syllable). There's one elided vowel, which I marked with an apostrophe, and I marked &quot;conjoined syllables&quot; with a tie. You should see that each foot starts with a heavy syllable, and one of those is the second syllable of _ait_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for how sloppily people actually said _ait_ in everyday speech, though, I have no idea. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about colloquial classical Latin can provide some information about that.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="184" RevisionGUID="dc88d3ee-c905-4e51-8504-36404eb57799" CreationDate="2016-02-25T17:37:19.373" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Rephrased a little." Text="As anyone who's written a proper letter knows, one begins with a salutation and ends with a valediction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, where we'd write &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Love,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Boy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would the Romans write at the end of their letters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sincerely,  &#xD;&#xA;QPaysTaxes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--Please, do not remove this salutation. It's a joke, and relevant to the topic at hand. --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I'm looking specifically for valedictions to use with a significant other, but other closers will be useful as well. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="720560f9-51ae-41db-ba8c-c423c2a3bdc0" CreationDate="2016-02-25T17:55:51.683" UserId="39" Text="Rex Wallace argues that the letter z “remained part of the alphabetic series until the third century BCE even though it seems to have been used sparingly – if at all – in Very Old and Old Latin inscriptions” (Wallace 2011: 15). He also cites Colonna 1980, who reportedly mentions a late 7th century BCE graffito ZKA on a fragment of a ceramic. Interestingly, in his table 2.4. “Comparison of archaic Etrsucan and Latin letterforms,” Wallace says “not attested” for zeta:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Comparison of archaic Etruscan and Latin letterforms][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wallace also includes a reproduction of Latin abecedarium that was incised on a ceramic plate (3rd century BCE), where the letter Z “appears in its proper position following F” (p. 15):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually, the letter Z was replaced by G and we can’t find it in the Latin alphabet of the late republican period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009/2011 writes that the first epigraphical attestation of Z is on a Roman denarius of 81 BCE. He also mentions evidence coming from ancient grammarians (Velius Longus, Varro, Martianus Capella) but there is no epigraphical attestation to confirm this. Weiss also hypothesizes that Z was probably pronounced as [ts] first&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a more scholarly discussion we’d have to consult Wachter 1987 (chapter 2; caveat: it’s in German) but I don’t have a copy at hand now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mlAxa.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YNS6s.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="194" RevisionGUID="86b5c6c0-ef67-4efa-b64e-9c3f374ea9a8" CreationDate="2016-02-25T17:59:12.497" UserId="94" Text="Note, in your Etymonline citation, that the word originally came into English with the meaning of &quot;intercessory plea or prayer&quot;, rather than &quot;vote&quot;; that meaning wasn't established in English until the early 16th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Catholic prayer known as the *Memorare* contains *suffragium* as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Memorare, O piisima Virgo Maria,  &#xD;&#xA;non esse auditum a saeculo, quemquam...  &#xD;&#xA;tua petentem suffragia, esse derelictum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The traditional English translation of this is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary,  &#xD;&#xA;that never was it known that anyone  &#xD;&#xA;who ... sought thy intercession was left unaided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[It appears][1] that this prayer, popularized in the 16th century, was drawn from a longer one dating back to the 15th; and thus that &quot;intercession&quot; or &quot;support&quot; was an accepted meaning at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, I might translate the beginning of the passage as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Therefore, while the Church receives it, and seals it with its support ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see any necessary connection of the **Medieval** Latin *suffragium* with &quot;voting&quot;, although the classical/postclassical Latin word certainly seems to have had that implication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/BVM/Memorare.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="9727cdb1-10d0-433d-8487-939652d08117" CreationDate="2016-02-25T18:00:09.630" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Clarified why I'm confused." Text="We all know that ut + subjunctive is translated as &quot;in order to&quot; (purpose), &quot;to&quot; (indirect command), and, with some words, &quot;that&quot; (result/fear). However, &quot;ut&quot;  with an indicative means &quot;as&quot;. I can't figure out how subjunctive/indicative makes that transformation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After all, subjunctive just adds a sense of &quot;maybe&quot;, right? How does that change &quot;just as&quot; into any number of things? What underlying concept ties them all together?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, why does &quot;ut&quot; mean such different things when all that changes is the mood of the verb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I can understand why adding some words changes the meaning. I'm confused about why the mood has such a drastic effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="629" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="9727cdb1-10d0-433d-8487-939652d08117" CreationDate="2016-02-25T18:00:09.630" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Clarified why I'm confused." Text="|classical-latin|meaning|conjunction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="194" RevisionGUID="a43a62fc-8bfb-4aa4-89bf-1469cbfaf245" CreationDate="2016-02-25T18:15:27.190" UserId="94" Comment="dangit, left out an S" Text="Note, in your Etymonline citation, that the word originally came into English with the meaning of &quot;intercessory plea or prayer&quot;, rather than &quot;vote&quot;; that meaning wasn't established in English until the early 16th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Catholic prayer known as the *Memorare* contains *suffragium* as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Memorare, O piissima Virgo Maria,  &#xD;&#xA;non esse auditum a saeculo, quemquam...  &#xD;&#xA;tua petentem suffragia, esse derelictum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The traditional English translation of this is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary,  &#xD;&#xA;that never was it known that anyone  &#xD;&#xA;who ... sought thy intercession was left unaided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[It appears][1] that this prayer, popularized in the 16th century, was drawn from a longer one dating back to the 15th; and thus that &quot;intercession&quot; or &quot;support&quot; was an accepted meaning at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, I might translate the beginning of the passage as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Therefore, while the Church receives it, and seals it with its support ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see any necessary connection of the **Medieval** Latin *suffragium* with &quot;voting&quot;, although the classical/postclassical Latin word certainly seems to have had that implication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/BVM/Memorare.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="20cd82b3-5987-41f9-8fa1-d3775f4d051e" CreationDate="2016-02-25T18:19:30.010" UserId="39" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="Rex Wallace argues that the letter z “remained part of the alphabetic series until the third century BCE even though it seems to have been used sparingly – if at all – in Very Old and Old Latin inscriptions” ([Wallace 2011][1]: 15). He also cites Colonna 1980, who reportedly mentions a late 7th century BCE graffito ZKA on a fragment of a ceramic. Interestingly, in his table 2.4. “Comparison of archaic Etrsucan and Latin letterforms,” Wallace says “not attested” for zeta:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Comparison of archaic Etruscan and Latin letterforms][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wallace also includes a reproduction of Latin abecedarium that was incised on a ceramic plate (3rd century BCE), where the letter Z “appears in its proper position following F” (p. 15):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually, the letter Z was replaced by G and we can’t find it in the Latin alphabet of the late republican period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009/2011 writes that the first epigraphical attestation of Z is on a Roman denarius of 81 BCE. He also mentions evidence coming from ancient grammarians (Velius Longus, Varro, Martianus Capella) but there is no epigraphical attestation to confirm this. Weiss also hypothesizes that Z was probably pronounced as [ts] first&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a more scholarly discussion we’d have to consult Wachter 1987 (chapter 2; caveat: it’s in German) but I don’t have a copy at hand now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mlAxa.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YNS6s.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="195" RevisionGUID="4e43611c-cdaf-4a2e-9c9c-5a5840be3fbf" CreationDate="2016-02-25T18:27:39.100" UserId="118" Text="Genesim 1:8 Hieronymus traducit ita:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vocavitque Deus firmamentum, Cælum: et fact**um** est vespere et mane, dies secundus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cur “factum”, non “facta”? Nonne plurale est subiectum &quot;vespere et mane&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="636" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="195" RevisionGUID="4e43611c-cdaf-4a2e-9c9c-5a5840be3fbf" CreationDate="2016-02-25T18:27:39.100" UserId="118" Text="“FactUM est vespere et mane”: Cur singularis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="637" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="195" RevisionGUID="4e43611c-cdaf-4a2e-9c9c-5a5840be3fbf" CreationDate="2016-02-25T18:27:39.100" UserId="118" Text="|agreement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="196" RevisionGUID="0e66d8fe-d8ed-4523-891f-3a117a0fa85a" CreationDate="2016-02-25T18:27:52.520" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="As part of a(nother) assignment for my Latin class, we have to write a description of how we spend our free time. I'm trying to translate this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; After my homework is done, I like to program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, I have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; opo perfecto, fruor [to program]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I can't find a good Latin substitute for this very, very modern concept. The Vatican doesn't have one, and the only thing I find when I search is synonyms for program in the sense of a list of things that will be happening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I translate &quot;to program&quot; or &quot;to code&quot; into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="639" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="196" RevisionGUID="0e66d8fe-d8ed-4523-891f-3a117a0fa85a" CreationDate="2016-02-25T18:27:52.520" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="Latin word for &quot;code&quot; or &quot;program&quot; (the verb)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="640" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="196" RevisionGUID="0e66d8fe-d8ed-4523-891f-3a117a0fa85a" CreationDate="2016-02-25T18:27:52.520" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|word-request|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="195" RevisionGUID="75f26809-d20f-4c9b-9e2f-853a83a92ed3" CreationDate="2016-02-25T18:35:03.033" UserId="118" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Genesim 1:8 Hieronymus traducit ita:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vocavitque Deus firmamentum, Cælum: et fact**um** est vespere et mane, dies secundus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cur “factum”, non “facta”? Nonne subiectum est &quot;vespere et mane&quot;, et nonne illud est plurale?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="1566d43b-7f0e-4530-a180-5fd9ccfa8267" CreationDate="2016-02-25T18:41:32.057" UserId="79" Text="My dictionary translates 'to program' as *programmare* or *programma conficere*.&#xD;&#xA;If you find a good noun for 'code', you can also combine it with *conficere*.&#xD;&#xA;One possibility is *nota*, but I'm not entirely happy with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your sentence:&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use *opus* for homework, remember that it third declension, not second.&#xD;&#xA;To express enjoyment, remember that *frui* requires ablative, so 'I enjoy doing a thing' would be *re facienda fruor*.&#xD;&#xA;Other verbs can be used in other ways, like *res facienda mihi delectat* or *rem facere mihi delectat*.&#xD;&#xA;Since it is a homework assignment, I will not propose any full translation, but leave the work to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="196" RevisionGUID="021c9f4f-6fce-46f9-a0d7-2b7cda3f0171" CreationDate="2016-02-25T18:56:37.523" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="corrections" Text="As part of a(nother) assignment for my Latin class, we have to write a description of how we spend our free time. I'm trying to translate this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; After my homework is done, I like to program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, I have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ope facto, fruor [programming]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I can't find a good Latin substitute for this very, very modern concept. The Vatican doesn't have one, and the only thing I find when I search is synonyms for program in the sense of a list of things that will be happening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I translate &quot;to program&quot; or &quot;to code&quot; into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="198" RevisionGUID="8439b02e-9927-4066-bd4d-deca0732a216" CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:08:14.373" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&lt;sub&gt;Preface: [Etymonline](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=com-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) does not answer this question.  I (but please tell me if I should not) quote the definitions for the English verbs ([Loan words](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loanword#Linguistic_classification)  from Latin then Old French) because they  did not shift semantically and so equal the Latin definitions.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[[Etymology from OED](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/39844?rskey=ITr3He&amp;result=2&amp;isAdvanced=false#eid8392974) :]  [...]   ***con-*** intensive + *statuĕre* to set up, place  [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6\. To make (a person or thing) something; to establish or set up as. (With obj. and compl.) Cf. [2](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/39844?rskey=ITr3He&amp;result=2&amp;isAdvanced=false#eid8392974).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8\. To make up, form, compose; to be the elements or material of which the thing spoken of consists. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[[Etymology from OED](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/37781?rskey=UYWvpy&amp;result=2&amp;isAdvanced=false#eid) :]   [...]  ***com-*** together + *poser* to place, put down  [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I. To put together, make up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abbreviate 'Inanimate Subject(s)' to IS, and any 'direct object' as DO. Consider this syntax:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1\.&#xD;&#xA;IS `composes \\ constitutes` DO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Replace the verbs in question by the definitions of the English verb: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2\. IS `puts [down] + together / places \\ sets up ` DO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since IS (assumed inanimate) cannot act or effect anything itself, 2 makes no sense literally, and only makes sense only if 2's verbs are interpreted causatively, as in 3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3\. IS CAUSES TO BE `put [down] + together / placed  \\ set up` DO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 3 appears to justify *com*- as a causative prefix; but is any of the above correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="645" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="198" RevisionGUID="8439b02e-9927-4066-bd4d-deca0732a216" CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:08:14.373" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Could 'com-' function as a causative prefix?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="646" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="198" RevisionGUID="8439b02e-9927-4066-bd4d-deca0732a216" CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:08:14.373" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|affixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="196" RevisionGUID="c6d4df4f-e328-4f7f-806b-3ac6419b5884" CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:14:25.507" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="I give up on this keyboard, I'm going back to QWERTY" Text="As part of a(nother) assignment for my Latin class, we have to write a description of how we spend our free time. I'm trying to translate this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; After my homework is done, I like to program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, I have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; opere facto, fruor [programming]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I can't find a good Latin substitute for this very, very modern concept. The Vatican doesn't have one, and the only thing I find when I search is synonyms for program in the sense of a list of things that will be happening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I translate &quot;to program&quot; or &quot;to code&quot; into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="199" RevisionGUID="90e9ff66-1dbc-4432-8f54-c6f9448901e9" CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:31:00.613" UserId="33" Text="Nisi fallor, vespere in casu ablativo et in omnibus casibus mane simpliciter 'mane' scribitur. Qua de causa forsitan Hieronymus scripsisset duobus casibus ablativis hac in sententia: Die secundo in duobus partibus (id est, vespere et mane) [omne?] factum est." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="200" RevisionGUID="a4318602-6a47-4412-906a-c6383a3d45f7" CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:38:45.493" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="I'm fairly sure that &quot;vespere et mane&quot; isn't the subject (i.e. nominative), but the agent (i.e. ablative). Also, &quot;-e&quot; isn't the right ending for third declension nominative, which these would be, but it is for third declension ablative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;secundus dies&quot; is nominative singular, which matches the verb, so it's more likely that that's the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd propose this as an English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And god called the firmament Heaven, and the second day was made by the evening and the morning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;My first hint was the KJV, which has Genesis 1:8 as &quot;And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.&quot;&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="200" RevisionGUID="cc502f1a-cf2a-4ec5-8dc6-44435ec0bf27" CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:44:40.133" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="deleted 45 characters in body" Text="I'm fairly sure that &quot;vespere et mane&quot; isn't the subject (i.e. nominative), but the agent (i.e. ablative), because &quot;-e&quot; isn't the right ending for third declension nominative, but it is for third declension ablative (and [the version I know](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A8&amp;version=KJV) has &quot;the second day&quot; as the subject)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;secundus dies&quot; is nominative singular, which matches the verb, so it's more likely that that's the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd propose this as an English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And god called the firmament Heaven, and the second day was made by the evening and the morning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="200" RevisionGUID="06167ab8-1b2e-4fd0-a9c0-74deb5bb6b46" CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:50:07.673" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="moved one citation, since it's not that important, and fixed an error" Text="I'm fairly sure that &quot;vespere et mane&quot; isn't the subject (i.e. nominative), but the means (i.e. ablative), because &quot;-e&quot; isn't the right ending for third declension nominative, but it is for third declension ablative (and [the version I know](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A8&amp;version=KJV) has &quot;the second day&quot; as the subject)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;secundus dies&quot; is nominative singular, which matches the verb, so it's more likely that that's the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd propose this as an English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And God called the firmament Heaven, and the second day was made with the evening and the morning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="a3b3a3d4-ab2f-4514-aa5e-26696f837e00" CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:51:06.443" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="specified" Text="Elision of a vowel (or vowel + *m*) occurs when it's at the end of the word, and the next word starts with either a vowel or *h* + vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the discretion of the poet, the last vowel of a word can be kept even if the next starts with one; in this case, it's considered to be in [hiatus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiatus_(linguistics)). However, this is very, very rare. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the second word is a form of sum, its first letter is normally elided, instead of the last letter of the preceding word. This is called prodelision. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to @Cerberus and @Nick for pointing out and naming prodelision. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/51/when-can-i-elide-letters/52#comment85_52" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="b40967c8-f167-483e-bdd9-6586f7622831" CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:56:43.800" UserId="39" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Rex Wallace argues that the letter z “remained part of the alphabetic series until the third century BCE even though it seems to have been used sparingly – if at all – in Very Old and Old Latin inscriptions” ([Wallace 2011][1]: 15). He also cites Colonna 1980, who reportedly mentions a late 7th century BCE graffito ZKA on a fragment of a ceramic. Interestingly, in his table 2.4. “Comparison of archaic Etrsucan and Latin letterforms,” Wallace says “not attested” for zeta:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Comparison of archaic Etruscan and Latin letterforms][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wallace also includes a reproduction of Latin abecedarium that was incised on a ceramic plate (3rd century BCE), where the letter Z “appears in its proper position following F” (p. 15):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually, the letter Z was replaced by G and we can’t find it in the Latin alphabet of the late republican period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Weiss 2009/2011][4] writes that the first epigraphical attestation of Z is on a Roman denarius of 81 BCE. He also mentions evidence coming from ancient grammarians (Velius Longus, Varro, Martianus Capella) but there is no epigraphical evidence to confirm this. Weiss also hypothesizes that originally Z was probably pronounced as [ts].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a more scholarly discussion we’d have to consult [Wachter 1987][5] (chapter 2; caveat: it’s in German) but I don’t have a copy at hand now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mlAxa.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YNS6s.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.beechstave.com/weiss.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.peterlang.com/index.cfm?event=cmp.ccc.seitenstruktur.detailseiten&amp;seitentyp=produkt&amp;pk=6766&amp;concordeid=03722" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="7d50cbba-272b-4af1-be06-2ccec5c02aee" CreationDate="2016-02-25T20:01:29.107" UserId="78" Text="For almost twenty years, the de facto standard for Latin technology vocabulary has been the [Vocabula computatralia](http://www.obta.uw.edu.pl/~draco/docs/voccomp.html). You can and should use and peruse it for all types of programming-related vocabulary, but I'll reproduce the definitions you are looking for below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For program, we can just take the word from which the English is derived:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **program** **1.** subst. programma,atis n.; ~ **listing** textus programmatis **2.** vt. programmare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, there's no definition for &quot;code&quot;, but considering the word comes from *codex* and Vicipaedia uses *codex* for code in general, I think it's as good as we'd get. It also has a nice, metaphorical ring to it, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="9e51d33d-4a6e-47cc-bc7c-926f4bddd969" CreationDate="2016-02-25T20:05:14.047" UserId="78" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="For almost twenty years, the de facto standard for Latin technology vocabulary has been the [Vocabula computatralia](http://www.obta.uw.edu.pl/~draco/docs/voccomp.html). You can and should use and peruse it for all types of programming-related vocabulary, but I'll reproduce the definitions you are looking for below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For program, we can just take the word from which the English is derived:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **program** **1.** subst. programma,atis n.; ~ **listing** textus programmatis **2.** vt. programmare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, there's no definition for &quot;code&quot;, but considering the word comes from *codex* and Vicipaedia uses *codex* for Semiotic [code](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_(semiotica)), I think it's as good as we'd get. It also has a nice, metaphorical ring to it, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="202" RevisionGUID="02467146-c9f9-4618-8e93-51cb29f58f62" CreationDate="2016-02-25T20:15:32.100" UserId="78" Text="Sometimes, especially with neuter nouns, when there are two subjects, an adjective or verb will agree with the closest subject and not the whole subject. This is listed under Allen and Greenough § 286.a:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With two or more nouns the adjective is regularly plural, but often agrees with the nearest (especially when attributive):—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Caesaris **omni** et gratia et opibus fruor (Fam. i. 9. 21), *I enjoy all Caesar's favor and resources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="202" RevisionGUID="0fda9248-4d3e-4d18-8e9d-faef56fd5464" CreationDate="2016-02-25T20:26:58.857" UserId="78" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Sometimes, especially with neuter nouns, when there are two subjects, an adjective or verb will agree with the closest subject and not the whole subject. This is listed under Allen and Greenough § 286.a:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With two or more nouns the adjective is regularly plural, but often agrees with the nearest (especially when attributive):—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Caesaris **omni** et gratia et opibus fruor (Fam. i. 9. 21), *I enjoy all Caesar's favor and resources.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="203" RevisionGUID="167652a5-965a-49f8-8dcd-079e8e59f4ab" CreationDate="2016-02-25T21:12:44.323" UserId="189" Text="I have seen this sentence translated as both &quot;Only the Goddess knows fate&quot; and &quot;Only the Goddess knows their fate&quot;. That aside, I remember someone telling me that this was not correct Latin, and it has been bugging me ever since. What I have been able to piece together so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;sola dea&quot; I am not sure about. I know that &quot;dea&quot; is a first-declension feminine noun in the nominative case. However, since &quot;dea&quot; is the active known in the sentence, the one doing the &quot;knowing&quot;, I am not sure that it should be in the nominative case. However, none of the other cases seem like they fit, except for possibly the accusitive case, making it &quot;solam deam&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;fatum&quot; is a second-declension neuter noun in the nominative case, which I believe is correct, but I can't explain why. Something to do with it being the object acted upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the verb, &quot;novit&quot;, infinitive form &quot;noscere&quot;? Or is it &quot;nosco&quot;? From [this chart][1] it looks like novit is in the perfect tense, which doesn't make any sense; would that not translate as &quot;Only the Goddess has known fate&quot;? This is the one I've been having the most trouble with and have been unable to figure out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/go.php?D1=9&amp;H1=109&amp;T1=nosco &quot;this chart&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="660" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="203" RevisionGUID="167652a5-965a-49f8-8dcd-079e8e59f4ab" CreationDate="2016-02-25T21:12:44.323" UserId="189" Text="Is the Phrase &quot;Sola Dea Fatum Novit&quot; Proper Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="661" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="203" RevisionGUID="167652a5-965a-49f8-8dcd-079e8e59f4ab" CreationDate="2016-02-25T21:12:44.323" UserId="189" Text="|grammar|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="204" RevisionGUID="5c5b80f2-f32f-4b62-98a4-0165874ef182" CreationDate="2016-02-25T21:26:08.497" UserId="78" Text="*Sola dea* is the subject, and the subject must be nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Fatum* is in the accusative, and not the nominative, and must be, since *sola dea* is in the nominative. It's the direct object, and the accusative is the case for direct objects. I think you just had your terminology mixed up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *novit* is perfect, not infinitive, of *noscere*, which is the infinitive of *nosco*, whose form is just the first person singular active indicative (*nosco* &quot;I recognize&quot;, *noscere* &quot;to recognize&quot;, perf. *novi* &quot;I know&quot;). Personally I would have chosen *scire* instead of *noscere*, but the latter works, too. In short, it's grammatical. That said, I would have switched the order of *sola* and *dea*—it's not *technically* incorrect, but it's not very proper." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="205" RevisionGUID="c6f16f29-d757-4962-9da8-a6e73ccf95ec" CreationDate="2016-02-25T21:28:32.097" UserId="94" Text="The sentence, absent any context (could you provide some?), would ordinarily be translated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Goddess alone knows [their, or his, or her, etc.] fate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's break it down word by word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sola**: Nominative singular, first declension, feminine; agreeing with *dea*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**dea**: Nominative singular; it's the subject (in this case, the actor) of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**fatum**: Accusative singular of the second-declension neuter *fatum*, &quot;fate&quot;. Here it's accusative because it's the direct object; the accusative case of neuter second-declension nouns is the same form as their nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**novit**: And here we come to the interesting part. *Nosco* can mean &quot;know&quot; (in the sense of &quot;get acquainted with&quot;), but it can also mean &quot;to come to know&quot; or &quot;to learn&quot;; so that *novit* might be strictly translated &quot;has learned&quot;&amp;mdash;i.e. &quot;Only the goddess has learned their fate.&quot; However, generally speaking it's the case that what one has learned, one knows; so that *novit*, though a perfect tense, can also mean &quot;know&quot; in the present." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="192" RevisionGUID="459b6516-cd80-4c0c-a661-fa33ab71b00a" CreationDate="2016-02-25T21:32:44.230" UserId="73" Comment="Slight clarification." Text="I'm continuing reading Cappelli's [*The elements of abbreviation in medieval Latin paleography*](https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/1821/47cappelli.pdf?sequence=3), and early on he discusses medieval truncation signs. There are three types used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An [interpunct](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpunct) (first sign), which was not used much in medieval Latin.&#xD;&#xA; - Strokes through the last letter of a word (second to fourth signs).&#xD;&#xA; - Ligatures added to the final letter of a word (final three signs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/UCys1.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The differences in use between the three classes is clear, but I'm not sure about the different connotations between signs of the same class. For example, what is the difference between the second, third, and fourth truncation signs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By &quot;connotations&quot;, I'm referring to anything about the declension/conjugation of the word, its pronunciation (unlikely), the precise meaning, or some other related difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="184" RevisionGUID="b5b7cf7a-97e0-428b-9db9-07ae09547321" CreationDate="2016-02-25T21:33:26.153" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Corrected some English, updated tags to fit the question's purpose" Text="As anyone who's written a proper letter knows, one begins with a salutation and ends with a valediction (or, in normal English, opens with &quot;hello&quot; and ends with &quot;goodbye&quot;). Right now, I'm interested in the last half -- the closing. What did Romans write?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, where we'd write &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Love,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Boy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would the Romans write at the end of their letters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sincerely,  &#xD;&#xA;QPaysTaxes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--Please, do not remove this salutation. It's a joke, and relevant to the topic at hand. --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I'm looking specifically for valedictions to use with a significant other, but other closers will be useful as well. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="666" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="184" RevisionGUID="b5b7cf7a-97e0-428b-9db9-07ae09547321" CreationDate="2016-02-25T21:33:26.153" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Corrected some English, updated tags to fit the question's purpose" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|word-request|phrase-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="203" RevisionGUID="5c52d45b-1d48-4b00-b7ac-a79a7f99e199" CreationDate="2016-02-25T21:33:36.627" UserId="189" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="I have seen this sentence translated as both &quot;Only the Goddess knows fate&quot; and &quot;Only the Goddess knows their fate&quot;. That aside, I remember someone telling me that this was not correct Latin, and it has been bugging me ever since. What I have been able to piece together so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;sola dea&quot; I am not sure about. I know that &quot;dea&quot; is a first-declension feminine noun in the nominative case. However, since &quot;dea&quot; is the active known in the sentence, the one doing the &quot;knowing&quot;, I am not sure that it should be in the nominative case. None of the other cases seem like they fit, except for possibly the accusative case, making it &quot;solam deam&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;fatum&quot; is a second-declension neuter noun in the accusative case, which I believe is correct, but I can't explain why. Something to do with it being the object acted upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the verb, &quot;novit&quot;, infinitive form &quot;noscere&quot;? Or is it &quot;nosco&quot;? From [this chart][1] it looks like novit is in the perfect tense, which doesn't make any sense; would that not translate as &quot;Only the Goddess has known fate&quot;? This is the one I've been having the most trouble with and have been unable to figure out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/go.php?D1=9&amp;H1=109&amp;T1=nosco &quot;this chart&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="206" RevisionGUID="b79683ed-0a5e-4393-a0a3-42d12a92fee0" CreationDate="2016-02-25T21:54:40.053" UserId="68" Text="I've seen *sed*, *véró*, and *vérum* described as &quot;but, butter, buttest,&quot; but the descriptions in e.g. Gildersleeve, Bennett--even Zumpt--leave me scratching my head." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="671" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="206" RevisionGUID="b79683ed-0a5e-4393-a0a3-42d12a92fee0" CreationDate="2016-02-25T21:54:40.053" UserId="68" Text="What nuances distinguish séd/véró/vérum as words for &quot;but&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="672" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="206" RevisionGUID="b79683ed-0a5e-4393-a0a3-42d12a92fee0" CreationDate="2016-02-25T21:54:40.053" UserId="68" Text="|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="207" RevisionGUID="a62c27ac-f5a7-4f1b-b309-3019194e2aa0" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:01:00.123" UserId="94" Text="In a 1957 encyclical titled *Invicti Athletae*, Pope Pius XII wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... non solum profuso sanguine fidei nostrae testimonium Deo praebetur ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which the official translation renders&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... not only by shedding of blood is the witness of our faith given to God ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This refers to shedding of one's own blood: the &quot;unconquered athlete&quot; in question is the martyr St. Andrew Bobola.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, Pope St. John Paul II's 1995 encyclical *Redemptoris Missio* contains the passage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... est etiam inscripta in historia humani generis sanguine effuso ob ideologias et a rebus publicis ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which again translators render&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...  it is also written in the history of humanity with the blood shed in the name of ideologies ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where here the &quot;blood shed&quot; is clearly that of another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Granted that it's not clear that either of these were originally written in Latin, is the distinction between *profusus* and *effusus* simply an authorial or editorial preference, or does ecclesiastical Latin routinely make a distinction of this sort?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="674" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="207" RevisionGUID="a62c27ac-f5a7-4f1b-b309-3019194e2aa0" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:01:00.123" UserId="94" Text="&quot;To shed blood&quot; - profundere or effundere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="675" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="207" RevisionGUID="a62c27ac-f5a7-4f1b-b309-3019194e2aa0" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:01:00.123" UserId="94" Text="|translation|ecclesiastical-latin|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="23836fc8-e7e9-417d-968c-3b11a12eb56d" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:07:44.240" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="In Horace 1.8, Horace criticizes his ex's new boyfriend by saying, among other things, that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...olivum sanguine viperino cautius vitat...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which, roughly, means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He avoids the blood [venom] of a serpent more cautiously than olive oil&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming it's a metaphor, but I don't know what for. Why would avoiding olive oil be seen as a negative quality in a boyfriend?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: The rest of the poem is dedicated to saying what an awful boyfriend this new guy is and that Lydia should take back Horace. I'm assuming that the same is true of this line. If that's incorrect, please tell me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="678" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="23836fc8-e7e9-417d-968c-3b11a12eb56d" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:07:44.240" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="Why would avoiding olive oil be a negative thing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="679" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="23836fc8-e7e9-417d-968c-3b11a12eb56d" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:07:44.240" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|classical-latin|roman-culture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="6bee8b35-6237-4145-ab31-3a719f9fea25" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:09:02.313" UserId="12" Comment="deleted 217 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In Horace 1.8, Horace criticizes his ex's new boyfriend by saying, among other things, that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...olivum sanguine viperino cautius vitat...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which, roughly, means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He avoids the blood [venom] of a serpent more cautiously than olive oil&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming it's a metaphor, but I don't know what for. Why would avoiding olive oil be seen as a negative quality in a boyfriend?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="681" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="6bee8b35-6237-4145-ab31-3a719f9fea25" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:09:02.313" UserId="12" Comment="deleted 217 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|roman-culture|horatius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="682" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="773e4b0f-1e06-4f9a-91b9-6ddf1fa2211d" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:09:17.487" UserId="12" Comment="Rollback to [23836fc8-e7e9-417d-968c-3b11a12eb56d]" Text="In Horace 1.8, Horace criticizes his ex's new boyfriend by saying, among other things, that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...olivum sanguine viperino cautius vitat...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which, roughly, means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He avoids the blood [venom] of a serpent more cautiously than olive oil&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming it's a metaphor, but I don't know what for. Why would avoiding olive oil be seen as a negative quality in a boyfriend?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: The rest of the poem is dedicated to saying what an awful boyfriend this new guy is and that Lydia should take back Horace. I'm assuming that the same is true of this line. If that's incorrect, please tell me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="683" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="773e4b0f-1e06-4f9a-91b9-6ddf1fa2211d" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:09:17.487" UserId="12" Comment="Rollback to [23836fc8-e7e9-417d-968c-3b11a12eb56d]" Text="|classical-latin|roman-culture|" />
  <row Id="684" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="72f2c632-a082-4264-9f02-492579b80408" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:09:29.363" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|roman-culture|horatius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="685" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="61" RevisionGUID="de2799a1-4e3d-4db5-80a7-def7a956c53a" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:19:57.213" UserId="73" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="2512b519-2a79-4d5d-982c-1237af6854bb" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:23:03.757" UserId="9" Comment="added 732 characters in body" Text="Rhotacism in Latin happened because of a series of sound changes. It only affected inherited *\*s* in specific environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first step towards rhotacism is believed to have been voicing of single &quot;s&quot; to the sound [z] in certain contexts: generally, between vowels. Phonologically, this change can be seen as an assimilation of the consonant to the surrounding voiced segments. This kind of voicing assimilation is common historically; for example, it also occured between Classical Latin and many Romance languages. Double *ss* remained unvoiced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some related languages, such as Oscan, /z/ remained as such between vowels and did not undergo rhotacism. We know this because we have Oscan inscriptions written in the Latin alphabet that use the letter Z for this sound (Buck 1904). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next step of rhotacism (z &gt; r) is a little less common across languages, but we do have some other examples. The process also applied historically in Germanic; one place where you can see the result in English is *forlo**r**n,* which is historically related to the verb *lo**s**e*. Rhotacism is thought to have occured in Old Latin, and to have been complete by the 4th century BCE. In 312 BC, the letter Z was discarded  from the Latin by censor Appius Caecus Claudius (Gorman). (also see: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/34/why-are-there-no-native-latin-words-with-a-z?lq=1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result of these changes, original intervocalic *\*s* ultimately became *r* in Classical Latin. In the ancestor of Latin, *\*s* seems to have also been voiced to [z] after the voiced consonant /r/, so another related sound change is original *\*rs* to Classical Latin *rr.* One word that shows this change is [*terra*][1] &quot;earth,&quot; from Proto-Indo-European *\*ters*- ‎(“dry”). The cluster *rs* that occurs in Classical Latin is a simplification of earlier *\*rtt* or *\*rts*; this is why most words with *rs* also have *rt* in some forms or in related words (such as [*ars*][2] &quot;art,&quot; genitive *artis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two environments (between vowels and after *r*) are the main cases where Latin *r* regularly came from earlier *\*s.* There are also some words with r followed by a consonant where the *r* was originally intervocalic *\*s*, but the following vowel was lost (as in [*veternus*][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there also seem to be some words where *\*s* developed into *z* and then *r* directly before a voiced consonant; in fact, the voicing in these words seems to have occurred earlier than the intervocalic voicing. For example, Proto-Indo-European *-*sg*- seems to be the ancestor of *rg* in *[mergo][4]* &quot;to immerse, engulf&quot; and probably in *[virga][5]* &quot;twig, switch, rod&quot; (de Melo). This also applied before the semivowel *v* [w]; thanks to TKR for pointing this out in a [comment][6]. A strange example that does seem to have undergone rhotacization between Old and Classical Latin is the word *carmen,* which Lewis and Short say used to be *casmen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the sound *r* became established in certain words, their derivatives might come to have it in other environments. For example, as Joonas Ilmavirta mentions, some words such as *honor* developed final *r* instead of *s* after a vowel; it's believed this is due to the presence of *r* in other related forms (like *honoris*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Single intervocalic *s* did exist in Classical Latin; we believe it was pronounced [s]. In many words, it corresponds to inherited *\*ss* which seems to have become shortened in some environments. Other words with intervocalic *s* have been explained as borrowings from other languages, such as Greek or Italic languages such as Oscan that did not undergo rhotacism. Whatever the reason, their presence indicates that rhotacism was not active as an automatic sound change in the Classical era (Gorman).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peck summarizes the change as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Latin rhotacism is a regular law, for though there are many&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparent exceptions to it, examination shows that in most of these&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cases the s was not originally intervocalic or else that the word is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of (a) foreign or (b) late origin. [...] &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The unvoiced s first passes into the voiced s (z) and thence to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lingual r, for the position of the vocal organs in pronouncing z is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substantially the same as that required for r.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Buck, Carl Darling. 1904. [*A grammar of Oscan and Umbrian : with a collection of inscriptions and a glossary*][7]&#xD;&#xA;- de Melo, W. D. C. &quot;[Faliscan: Phonology Part 2][8]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Gorman, Kyle. &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real][9]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Peck, Harry Thurston. 1898. [*Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities*][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terra#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ars#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/veternus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mergo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/virga#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/136/rhotacism-why#comment237_146&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://archive.org/stream/grammarofoscanum00buckuoft#page/74/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://wolfgang.demelo.de/faliscan/5_phonology.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0062%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DR%3Aentry%20group%3D4%3Aentry%3Drhotacism-harpers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="687" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="d5c36643-5526-4a4e-bdfb-5f2b666a2069" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:25:40.907" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="If we're tagging for authors now" Text="|classical-latin|translation|poetry|horatius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="209" RevisionGUID="8519f247-1bb0-4889-a93f-07c8c17d596e" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:27:26.813" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="I think the two words have different connotations, though I can't find a source to back my up aside from general knowledge of the prefixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Effundere&quot;, with the prefix &quot;ex-&quot; (corrupted into &quot;ef&quot;) means just plain shedding blood. It's just blood going out of the body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Profundere&quot;, on the other hand, means something more like &quot;shed blood for someone&quot; or &quot;...on behalf of someone&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't figure out why the second would use the first, though, if that's the case, so I'm going to answer your final question by saying that it was editorial preference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="02ecd7a1-dfb8-4593-95ca-7976c214c7d6" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:34:11.393" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Clarified confusion, fixed error" Text="In Horace 1.8, Horace criticizes his ex's new boyfriend by saying, among other things, that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...olivum sanguine viperino cautius vitat...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which, roughly, means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He avoids olive oil more cautiously than the blood [venom] of a serpent &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming it's a metaphor, but I don't know what for. Why would avoiding olive oil be seen as a negative quality in a boyfriend?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: The rest of the poem is dedicated to saying what an awful boyfriend this new guy is, saying things like &quot;he's weak and pasty&quot;, &quot;he's a coward&quot;, and &quot;he's an abusive boyfriend&quot;. I don't see how tending to avoid olive oil is on par with those things, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="210" RevisionGUID="a7d1d56d-f7f4-46aa-806d-16f69b06d25a" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:36:33.680" UserId="73" Text="In the classical period, olive oil was considered a must-have piece of equipment for an athlete. The exact details of its use aren't known perfectly, but it appears that it was coated on an athlete's body and then covered with fine sand, in preparation for competition (especially wrestling). This would protect the body, especially from heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Athletes (yes, the *original* Olympians) were especially common users of the mixture, in a variety of events. Thus, if a person shied away from olive oil like this, it implied that they were cowardly, and not ready for competition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the competition, special instruments were used to clean off the mixture (one being a sponge). Olive oil use has even made its way into art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[The Olympic Games in Antiquity](http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/en_report_658.pdf)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another important detail is that other translations of that verse exist. [One version](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hor.+Od.+1.8&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0025) instead goes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Like poison loathes the oil&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, looking at the passage as a whole, we see many context clues that point out the central idea of sport. Looks like the boyfriend isn't too manly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="bbc787d7-d686-494c-9aac-0a0ddf460203" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:53:22.347" UserId="17" Comment="Clarified the citation (Horace wrote multiple works)" Text="In _Odes_ 1.8, Horace criticizes his ex's new boyfriend by saying, among other things, that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...olivum sanguine viperino cautius vitat...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which, roughly, means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He avoids olive oil more cautiously than the blood [venom] of a serpent &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming it's a metaphor, but I don't know what for. Why would avoiding olive oil be seen as a negative quality in a boyfriend?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: The rest of the poem is dedicated to saying what an awful boyfriend this new guy is, saying things like &quot;he's weak and pasty&quot;, &quot;he's a coward&quot;, and &quot;he's an abusive boyfriend&quot;. I don't see how tending to avoid olive oil is on par with those things, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="692" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="bbc787d7-d686-494c-9aac-0a0ddf460203" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:53:22.347" Comment="Proposed by 17 approved by 73, -1 edit id of 46" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="f08368e6-a25a-44b4-ab6b-6542019fc7f8" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:53:22.347" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Clarified the citation (Horace wrote multiple works)" Text="In Horace's _Odes_ 1.8, Horace criticizes his ex's new boyfriend by saying, among other things, that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...olivum sanguine viperino cautius vitat...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which, roughly, means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He avoids olive oil more cautiously than the blood [venom] of a serpent &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming it's a metaphor, but I don't know what for. Why would avoiding olive oil be seen as a negative quality in a boyfriend?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: The rest of the poem is dedicated to saying what an awful boyfriend this new guy is, saying things like &quot;he's weak and pasty&quot;, &quot;he's a coward&quot;, and &quot;he's an abusive boyfriend&quot;. I don't see how tending to avoid olive oil is on par with those things, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="f3cd982e-2ed8-4d9e-abe7-5a3dd188c5bf" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:53:48.020" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="clarified citation" Text="I'm currently reading Horace's _Odes_ 1.5, and on lines 10-11 there's an odd construction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Miseri, quibus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; intemptata nites...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as far as I can tell, this literally means &quot;Wretched people, to whom you shine untried.&quot; That doesn't make sense -- &quot;shine untried&quot; is a thing that just doesn't work in English, or if it does, I'm too tired to tell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's a good colloquial translation of that phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="695" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="f3cd982e-2ed8-4d9e-abe7-5a3dd188c5bf" CreationDate="2016-02-25T22:53:48.020" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="clarified citation" Text="What does &quot;quibus intemptata nites&quot; (Odes 1.5.10-11) mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="696" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="5e15bd83-dcae-4e75-a265-78a554e498d3" CreationDate="2016-02-25T23:17:56.273" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Added a relevant tag" Text="What does &quot;quibus intemptata nites&quot; (Odes 1.5.10-11) mean idiomatically?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="697" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="5e15bd83-dcae-4e75-a265-78a554e498d3" CreationDate="2016-02-25T23:17:56.273" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Added a relevant tag" Text="|classical-latin|translation|poetry|horatius|idiomatic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="698" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="ce5491d4-617d-47cf-84a5-5fb029bfbdad" CreationDate="2016-02-25T23:20:23.320" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Rollback to [f3cd982e-2ed8-4d9e-abe7-5a3dd188c5bf]" Text="What does &quot;quibus intemptata nites&quot; (Odes 1.5.10-11) mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="699" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="ce5491d4-617d-47cf-84a5-5fb029bfbdad" CreationDate="2016-02-25T23:20:23.320" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Rollback to [f3cd982e-2ed8-4d9e-abe7-5a3dd188c5bf]" Text="|classical-latin|translation|poetry|horatius|" />
  <row Id="700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="211" RevisionGUID="9ad8f71c-e5ba-4489-953e-aab44b0c7525" CreationDate="2016-02-25T23:44:54.077" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="Given that [this](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulatio_computatralis) is the Vicipaedia article on mathematical simulations, I'd suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In simulatio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't quite fit -- it's longer than any other word -- but it means &quot;simulation&quot; or &quot;model&quot; and therefore means the right thing. It's the best word I could find." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="212" RevisionGUID="96cba6e2-31a1-497f-b2fe-ccdf9ded0774" CreationDate="2016-02-25T23:48:28.250" UserId="91" Text="There's not too much of a distinction between *uero* and *uerum*, but &#xD;&#xA;these two are rather stronger than *sed*.  When we have *sed*, it just means that what we're about to say is different from what we were just talking about in some way.  But when we use *uero* or *uerum*, we tie the second sentence more closely to the first.  The two situations that come to mind are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) The second sentence contradicts something in the first. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;aquam frigidam dixit. uero calida erat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) The second sentences strengthens the first. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;aquam tepidam dixit. uero calida erat.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, *uerum* might be better in (1), because it has a stronger sense of contradiction, but I think the two are mostly interchangeable " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="702" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="211" RevisionGUID="f1e9e16e-ab39-453a-af9d-6a494b470f97" CreationDate="2016-02-25T23:51:02.153" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;QPaysTaxes&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="211" RevisionGUID="4f178f11-0367-404b-bc39-4a16d4623111" CreationDate="2016-02-25T23:54:02.907" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Clarified why it's an answer." Text="Given that [this](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulatio_computatralis) is the Vicipaedia article on computer models, I'd suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In simulatio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't quite fit -- like you pointed out -- but it's the best word I can find. It means &quot;model&quot;, _seems_ to have a connotation of &quot;computer&quot; or &quot;mathematical&quot;, and is short enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="704" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="211" RevisionGUID="d7173327-edc3-4a84-af27-515c968a8700" CreationDate="2016-02-25T23:54:05.733" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;QPaysTaxes&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="213" RevisionGUID="0ac070fd-a91a-410c-8631-80b6edc0ed08" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:01:41.743" UserId="12" Text="In *Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata*, chapter 6, exercise 5.8, I see the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dominus verberat servōs ____ nōn pārent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since *servōs* is accusative, I put *quōs* in the blank.  But the answer key says *quī* is the correct answer.  Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="706" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="213" RevisionGUID="0ac070fd-a91a-410c-8631-80b6edc0ed08" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:01:41.743" UserId="12" Text="Why is &quot;quī&quot; used immediately following a plural accusative noun?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="707" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="213" RevisionGUID="0ac070fd-a91a-410c-8631-80b6edc0ed08" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:01:41.743" UserId="12" Text="|pronouns|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="214" RevisionGUID="b17497d9-cf2d-4b18-8dcd-b10e87cd5af4" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:07:45.970" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="quis/quis/quid doesn't agree with its antecedent -- it agrees with its position in the subordinate clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because the pronoun stands in for &quot;servi&quot; -- i.e. &quot;servi non parent&quot; -- it has to be nominative plural, or &quot;qui&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="709" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="195" RevisionGUID="ec2e9f01-f455-4279-8245-9abe60c98a2d" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:09:02.337" UserId="118" Comment="edited title" Text="“FactUM est vespere et mane”: Cur singulare?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="214" RevisionGUID="c0338e3d-7231-40c8-944c-d38bc93b6d74" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:11:03.720" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="Relative pronouns (like quis/quis/quid) don't agree with their antecedents for case; instead, it gets that from its position in the subordinate clause. Note that they still agree in gender and number, since it's supposed to be a stand-in for the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because the pronoun stands in for a nominative use, the subject of the clause -- i.e. &quot;**servi** non parent&quot; -- it has to be nominative, which means it's &quot;qui&quot;. Because &quot;servos&quot; is plural and masculine, the pronoun does as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find out more about relative pronouns [here](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/RelativePronouns.pdf)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="215" RevisionGUID="a0050052-be87-4eea-8b46-0b69df5caf26" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:12:47.830" UserId="91" Text="Although it is a bit oblique, I'll put up&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;in harena&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;because it provides a natural way to work things out by hand, but involves the use of a tool, and so might easily extend to the use of computers more easily than would *in mente*.  If I recall correctly, it is conjectured that geometers would have worked out diagrams in tamped sand.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="210" RevisionGUID="96b245df-da0b-4868-9b14-909d16f695e9" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:17:26.007" UserId="73" Comment="Added more information and noted the use by Romans." Text="In the classical period, olive oil was considered a must-have piece of equipment for an athlete. The exact details of its use aren't known perfectly, but it appears that it was coated on an athlete's body and then covered with fine sand, in preparation for competition (especially wrestling). This would protect the body, especially from heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Athletes in Greece (yes, the *original* Olympians) were especially common users of the mixture, in a variety of events. Thus, if a person shied away from olive oil like this, it implied that they were cowardly, and not ready for competition. This practice presumably carried over the Latin-speaking Romans - or else Horace was alluding to the Greek practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the competition, special instruments were used to clean off the mixture (one being a [strigil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strigil), and another being a common sponge). Olive oil use has even made its way into art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[Source: The Olympic Games in Antiquity](http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/en_report_658.pdf)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another important detail is that other translations of that verse exist. [One version](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hor.+Od.+1.8&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0025) instead goes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Like poison loathes the oil&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, looking at the passage as a whole, we see many context clues that point out the central idea of sport - all, interestingly enough, references to Greece. Looks like the boyfriend isn't too manly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="165" RevisionGUID="31fbdbc5-71a3-4851-b0c3-1dfbbd761f24" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:21:21.010" UserDisplayName="user11" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="Questions based in the classical era of Latin, from approximately 70 BC to 300 AD." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="714" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="165" RevisionGUID="31fbdbc5-71a3-4851-b0c3-1dfbbd761f24" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:21:21.010" Comment="Proposed by 11 approved by 78, 3 edit id of 42" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="113" RevisionGUID="7e0abd1b-f360-4e74-8901-ee90f5bfa808" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:22:08.357" UserId="118" Comment="added 1109 characters in body" Text="_Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata_ (LLPSI), &quot;The Latin Language Illustrated By Itself&quot;, by Hans Henning Ørberg, is a set of two books that teach Latin through the contextual or &quot;natural&quot; method, entirely in Latin without using the student's native language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first book, _Familia Romana,_ consists mainly of stories about a fictitious family in the Roman Empire around A.D. 150. The stories exploit common clichés to make it easy to infer the meaning of new words from context. At the end of each chapter there are brief explanations of Latin grammar, written in Latin, along with exercises. The final two chapters are a dinner party in which the guests recite famous Roman poetry, serving as introduction to poetic meters, and excerpts from the Donatus's 3rd-century book on grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second book, _Roma Aeterna,_ consists mainly of excerpts from classical authors such as Livy, Vergil, and Cicero, sometimes slightly rewritten to use simpler grammar or less-sophisticated vocabulary, or converted from verse to prose. By the end of the book, the student is reading full, unedited classical Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="716" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="113" RevisionGUID="7e0abd1b-f360-4e74-8901-ee90f5bfa808" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:22:08.357" Comment="Proposed by 118 approved by 3 edit id of 19" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9" RevisionGUID="72ac1667-f05f-4516-a0f5-2801d24560e0" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:22:20.810" UserId="12" Comment="added 482 characters in body" Text="Latin eras are as follows; all dates approximate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Old](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin) (before 75 BC)&#xD;&#xA;- [Classical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Latin) (75 BC to AD 300)&#xD;&#xA;- [Late](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin) (300–500)&#xD;&#xA;- [Medieval](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Latin) (500–1400)&#xD;&#xA;- [New/Modern](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Latin) (1400–1900) &#xD;&#xA;- [Contemporary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_Latin) (1900–present)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="718" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9" RevisionGUID="72ac1667-f05f-4516-a0f5-2801d24560e0" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:22:20.810" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 3 edit id of 1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="114" RevisionGUID="c001e41b-794e-4d04-978a-b13f5f8d2376" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:22:40.720" UserId="118" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="For questions about _Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata_ (LLPSI) by Hans Henning Ørberg. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="720" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="114" RevisionGUID="c001e41b-794e-4d04-978a-b13f5f8d2376" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:22:40.720" Comment="Proposed by 118 approved by -1 edit id of 20" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="114" RevisionGUID="1af52728-cadf-4874-857b-d28ef972ba1e" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:22:40.720" UserId="3" Comment="Markdown does not render in excerpts." Text="For questions about Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata (LLPSI) by Hans Henning Ørberg. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="134" RevisionGUID="2a31932b-f156-461a-84ae-e1b7b8654693" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:22:59.033" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added 641 characters in body" Text="On this site, [tag:translation] is intended for questions specifically about translating things from Latin to another language, or another to Latin. For example, you could ask&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How a word fits into a sentence&#xD;&#xA;* For a colloquial translation when your literal one makes no sense&#xD;&#xA;* What case to use in a specific usage&#xD;&#xA;* How to translate a verb that's subjunctive for some reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As this is Stack Exchange, and not DoMyWork Exchange, some effort must be made for the question to be on-topic. Simply posting a passage and asking for a translation is not allowed; posting a sentence, an attempt at a translation, and asking for help is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="723" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="134" RevisionGUID="2a31932b-f156-461a-84ae-e1b7b8654693" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:22:59.033" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 3 edit id of 27" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="167" RevisionGUID="0048c6aa-8e8c-42b2-a382-ae61ed4e6bb3" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:23:02.470" UserDisplayName="user11" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="Questions regarding the pronunciation of Latin words or syllables, or the history of Latin pronunciation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="725" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="167" RevisionGUID="0048c6aa-8e8c-42b2-a382-ae61ed4e6bb3" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:23:02.470" Comment="Proposed by 11 approved by 78, 3 edit id of 43" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="135" RevisionGUID="e69cacfa-5a71-4f42-b0a8-7265ba58b1b9" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:23:10.877" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="For questions regarding translating, either from or to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;N.B. Questions must show some effort!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="727" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="135" RevisionGUID="e69cacfa-5a71-4f42-b0a8-7265ba58b1b9" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:23:10.877" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 3 edit id of 28" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="138" RevisionGUID="3e7c2f6a-94cf-46d8-966e-c75774ccb7fe" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:23:15.300" UserId="164" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="The &quot;old-latin&quot; tag is for question about the oldest forms of Latin, the ones who came before the classical Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="729" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="138" RevisionGUID="3e7c2f6a-94cf-46d8-966e-c75774ccb7fe" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:23:15.300" Comment="Proposed by 164 approved by 78, 3 edit id of 30" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="210" RevisionGUID="574f599f-c623-408e-b09e-216629203c3f" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:26:18.977" UserId="73" Comment="Added reference to Roman uses." Text="In the classical period, olive oil was considered a must-have piece of equipment for an athlete. The exact details of its use aren't known perfectly, but it appears that it was coated on an athlete's body and then covered with fine sand, in preparation for competition (especially wrestling). This would protect the body, especially from heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Athletes in Greece (yes, the *original* Olympians) were especially common users of the mixture, in a variety of events. Thus, if a person shied away from olive oil like this, it implied that they were cowardly, and not ready for competition. This practice was carried over the Latin-speaking Romans ([this history of garlic and olive oil](https://books.google.com/books?id=ji0tFmBd4d0C&amp;pg=PA90&amp;lpg=PA90&amp;dq=roman+olive+oil+athletes&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PegoXnvGc1&amp;sig=IiS_lq-1Ir2z-dSV-axP8O5MntA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj8ovX8lJTLAhVL7RQKHfsxDCUQ6AEIQDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=roman%20olive%20oil%20athletes&amp;f=false) mentions to Roman use) - but Horace may still have been alluding to the Greek practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the competition, special instruments were used to clean off the mixture (one being a [strigil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strigil), and another being a common sponge). Olive oil use has even made its way into art, as [*A Companion to Sport and Spectacle in Greek and Roman Antiquity*](https://books.google.com/books?id=PQILAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT492&amp;lpg=PT492&amp;dq=roman+olive+oil+athletes&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=g6M0-SpayF&amp;sig=7yJj-cz5ydLv9vKnDPrc_Y5N7gQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwivg-DQlZTLAhUDPxQKHc2-Dlo4FBDoAQgaMAA#v=onepage&amp;q=roman%20olive%20oil%20athletes&amp;f=false) notes (see also the points of general use by Eutruscan athletes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[Source: The Olympic Games in Antiquity](http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/en_report_658.pdf)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another important detail is that other translations of that verse exist. [One version](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hor.+Od.+1.8&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0025) instead goes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Like poison loathes the oil&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, looking at the passage as a whole, we see many context clues that point out the central idea of sport - most, interestingly enough, references to Greece. Looks like the boyfriend isn't too manly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="216" RevisionGUID="b73e2ded-e8e8-4a56-8aca-fb2fecf6b703" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:31:40.617" UserId="78" Text="Ignore the prefixes here. Semantically here they're exactly the same. They both mean &quot;to pour out&quot;, and although *[profundere](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=profundo&amp;la=la#lexicon)* is more likely than *[effundere](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=effundo&amp;la=la#lexicon)* to mean &quot;to cause to pour out&quot;, as a passive participle that distinction is not felt. Moreover, any distinction is all but lost in post-Classical Latin. By 1957, they were completely synonymous, and word choice is up to whatever a particular author wants to use for that passage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="212" RevisionGUID="dc93ca90-06fd-4daf-95c4-7f4a82c9f6f8" CreationDate="2016-02-26T00:52:14.987" UserId="91" Comment="added 202 characters in body" Text="Both *uero* and *uerum* can often be translated as 'in truth' rather than 'but' in some cases, yielding something stronger than *sed*.  When we have *sed*, it just means that what we're about to say is different from what we were just talking about in some way.  But when we use *uero* or *uerum* as in truth, we tie the second sentence more closely to the first.  The two situations that come to mind are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) The second sentence contradicts something in the first. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;aquam frigidam dixit. uero calida erat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) The second sentences strengthens the first. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;aquam tepidam dixit. uero calida erat.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, *uerum* might be better in (1), because it has a stronger sense of contradiction, but I think the two are mostly interchangeable &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as pointed out by @cmweimer, these are both commonly used in the same weakened sense as a simple 'sed' or 'at', especially in late classical vulgar latin.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="217" RevisionGUID="dc57c32f-852f-4f6c-b5f4-adf7de189953" CreationDate="2016-02-26T01:12:07.060" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="218" RevisionGUID="6858edff-f928-4683-8172-2e4cf5635f06" CreationDate="2016-02-26T01:12:07.060" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="1a113208-96d1-4f9f-9e9e-b738fb61504b" CreationDate="2016-02-26T01:13:16.937" UserId="78" Text="Just to tack on to Mar Johnson's post and our subsequent discussion, the Oxford Classical Dictionary does not support the notion that *verum* or *vero* is in itself a stronger contrasting conjunctive than *sed*. However, the phrase *verumvero* or *verum enim* is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **uero**, *adv.*, *particle*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2** In fact, really, truly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **3** (emphasizing the truth of an assertion) For a certainty, unquestionably, without doubt. **b** (w. iron force).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **uerum**, *conj* [development of ellipt. use of *uerum (est)* in replies...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1** (assenting to what has been said, but adding a qualification). But at the same time. **b** (strengthened by *uero*, *enim*, or *enimuero*, ~ *uero* being also written as one word; see also VERVMTAMEN). **c** (connecting single words or phrs.). **d** (in retorts) yes, but. **e** (with limiting force) but only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2** (introducing a contrasting fact, idea, etc.) But (on the other hand), however. **b** (in contrasting an actual with a hypothetical situation, etc.) but in fact, but as matters stand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **3** (after a neg., introducing a contradictory or incompatible fact, argument, etc.) But (on the contrary).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So no, the schema of *but*, *butter*, *buttest* is not actually correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="220" RevisionGUID="ff893bd4-6492-4b93-811e-fb18866b85e4" CreationDate="2016-02-26T01:26:55.837" UserId="118" Text="The case of a relative pronoun indicates its role inside the subordinate clause, not the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the **servōs** in the main clause are the subject of **parent** in the subordinate clause, a nominative relative pronoun is needed: **quī**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that seems strange, here are three considerations that can help make it seem normal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;​1. It works the same way in [English](http://ell.stackexchange.com/q/57138/6700), although our last pronoun that works this way is fading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The cat killed the rat **who** ate the corn.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The cat killed the rat **whom** fate had chosen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;​2. Making the relative pronoun match the case in the main clause would lose information and really wouldn't make sense in practice. The relative pronoun tells you that the same noun plays a role in _two_ clauses: the main one and the subordinate one. You already know the noun's role in the main clause, because that's indicated by its case in the main clause. The only word available to indicate the noun's role in the subordinate clause is the relative pronoun, so it wouldn't make sense to make the relative pronoun duplicate the antecedent's case in the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;​3. Ultimately, only exposure and practice can really convince your brain that this is normal. So, here are some of the sentences from the chapter that illustrate the principle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Servī **quī** lectīcam portant fessī sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Saccī **quī** ā Syrō et Lēandrō portāntur magnī sunt, sed saccus **quem** Syrus portat non tam magnus est quam saccus **quī** ā Lēandrō portātur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is **quī** viā Latīnā venit per portam Capēnam Rōmam intrat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's Ørberg's terse explanation in the margin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; saccī **quī** ā Syrō et Lēandrō port&lt;i&gt;antur&lt;/i&gt; = saccī **quōs** Syrus et Lēander port&lt;i&gt;ant&lt;/i&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="220" RevisionGUID="79d25cd8-f573-41c2-b9b0-1a85043dc3d2" CreationDate="2016-02-26T01:34:56.863" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="The case of a relative pronoun indicates its role inside the subordinate clause, not the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the **servōs** in the main clause are the subject of **pārent** in the subordinate clause, a nominative relative pronoun is needed: **quī**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that seems strange, here are three considerations that can help make it seem normal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;​1. It works the same way in [English](http://ell.stackexchange.com/q/57138/6700), although our last pronoun that works this way is fading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The cat killed the rat **who** ate the corn.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The cat killed the rat **whom** fate had chosen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;​2. Making the relative pronoun match the case in the main clause would lose information and really wouldn't make sense in practice. The relative pronoun tells you that the same noun plays a role in _two_ clauses: the main one and the subordinate one. You already know the noun's role in the main clause, because that's indicated by its case in the main clause. The only word available to indicate the noun's role in the subordinate clause is the relative pronoun, so it wouldn't make sense to make the relative pronoun duplicate the antecedent's case in the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;​3. Ultimately, only exposure and practice can really convince your brain that this is normal. So, here are some of the sentences from the chapter that illustrate the principle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Servī **quī** lectīcam portant fessī sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Saccī **quī** ā Syrō et Lēandrō portāntur magnī sunt, sed saccus **quem** Syrus portat non tam magnus est quam saccus **quī** ā Lēandrō portātur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is **quī** viā Latīnā venit per portam Capēnam Rōmam intrat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's Ørberg's terse explanation in the margin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; saccī **quī** ā Syrō et Lēandrō port&lt;i&gt;antur&lt;/i&gt; = saccī **quōs** Syrus et Lēander port&lt;i&gt;ant&lt;/i&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="95" RevisionGUID="bbaa7e1d-49f7-46b3-a62e-de0fd9473154" CreationDate="2016-02-26T01:44:34.223" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="_Linguā Latīnā Per Sē Illūstrātā_ Ioānnis Ørbergī pāginā 207 scrīptum est:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ignis sōlis propinquī cēram, quā pennae iūnctae et fīxae erant, mollīvit et pennās ussit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cur nōn &quot;propinquus&quot; dīcit?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="186" RevisionGUID="1f818257-032f-490a-8d78-5add5a128b79" CreationDate="2016-02-26T02:01:40.553" UserId="118" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Here's another approach:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dīxistī mihi quodlibet in mundō licitum esse,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ad saltātrīcēs prōtinus adspiciō!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In what I've read—mostly elementary materials—you can just skip the conjunction or adverb, and go straight to the follow-up sentence or clause. In the above, I've also switched from past tense to present tense, the present tense in Latin having pretty broad application. Hopefully someone more experienced can comment on whether the change of tense can suggest consequence or follow-up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the main trick in the above is that it's an elegiac couplet! The rhythm creates a strong feeling that the second line is a &quot;zinger&quot; that follows from but undermines the first line—the effect that you sensed _ergo_ didn't deliver. The poetic meter also provides plenty of poetic license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get the full effect, you have to say it correctly—that is, with correct vowel lengths—so I've included the macrons. Also, you have to do the elision, which results in this pronunciation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dīxistī mihi quodlibet in mundō licit’ esse,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ad saltātrīcēs prōtinus adspiciō!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning is something like: &quot;You told me that I could do anything in the world that I please—right away I checked out the dancing girls!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say it with the right rhythm, it sounds like it ends with a rimshot as in old-time stand-up comedy, with a somewhat absurd emphasis on the dancing girls.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="f42e263a-bc3e-4667-8489-a19cc2cc1464" CreationDate="2016-02-26T02:12:30.000" UserId="124" Text="Throughout my time studying Latin in school, one grammatical construction in particular has always intrigued me to an extent — the future passive infinitive (eg. amatum iri). Whenever it came up (often in performing verb synopses), the teacher would always say something to the effect that it's the kind of form whose occurrences you can count on one hand. My questions is, is it indeed that rare of a form, and, if so, are there any primary examples of it in Latin literature?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="741" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="f42e263a-bc3e-4667-8489-a19cc2cc1464" CreationDate="2016-02-26T02:12:30.000" UserId="124" Text="Instances of the future passive infinitive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="742" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="f42e263a-bc3e-4667-8489-a19cc2cc1464" CreationDate="2016-02-26T02:12:30.000" UserId="124" Text="|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="222" RevisionGUID="af32634c-6307-46d4-9b98-18cb746d6a08" CreationDate="2016-02-26T02:18:53.687" UserId="12" Text="From [this overview of punctuation in Classical Latin](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/33/12), I understand that word spacing as we know it didn't really exist at that time: either an [interpunct](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpunct#Latin) was used to separate words,  [or there was no word break at all](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scriptio_continua).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do we know about the origins of word spacing (with an actual space) in Latin?   When did it become standard practice?  Did it do so on a particular medium first, or in a particular geographical area, perhaps?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="744" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="222" RevisionGUID="af32634c-6307-46d4-9b98-18cb746d6a08" CreationDate="2016-02-26T02:18:53.687" UserId="12" Text="When did scriptio continua and interpuncts give way to spaces between words in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="745" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="222" RevisionGUID="af32634c-6307-46d4-9b98-18cb746d6a08" CreationDate="2016-02-26T02:18:53.687" UserId="12" Text="|language-evolution|punctuation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="177" RevisionGUID="d30dc826-3726-4bf0-8e77-eaf5c266d4cb" CreationDate="2016-02-26T02:27:54.043" UserId="78" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Yes, it's possible, but that's not the typical construction. 'Therefore' is the best translation in this spot, starting a whole new clause that isn't immediately dependent (in a meaningful sense, rather than in a grammatical sense) on the previous clause. In that respect, it's closer to *igitur*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I checked Smith's English-Latin dictionary for the comparative examples, and I think *ita* or *itaque* are your best bets. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ita** *I say that the young man in question was ill several days, and so died*, dico illum adolescentem aliquot dies aegrostasse et ita esse mortuum, [Cic. *Pro Cluentio* 60.168](http://thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/cluentio.shtml).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This follows under section C. under *ita* in [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ita&amp;la=la#lexicon).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Need to correct some other things about your &quot;Valentine&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You said that I could do anything, so I went to the brothel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your first attempts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dixerat ego aliquid facere potesse, ergo ivi stabulo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dixisti me quidquid facere posse, itaque ad lupanar ivi." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="186" RevisionGUID="809c9e39-9022-447b-9c6d-8ab229b231a0" CreationDate="2016-02-26T02:32:53.273" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="Here's another approach:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dīxistī mihi quidlibet in mundō licitum esse,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ad saltātrīcēs prōtinus adspiciō!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In what I've read—mostly elementary materials—you can just skip the conjunction or adverb, and go straight to the follow-up sentence or clause. In the above, I've also switched from past tense to present tense, the present tense in Latin having pretty broad application. Hopefully someone more experienced can comment on whether the change of tense can suggest consequence or follow-up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the main trick in the above is that it's an elegiac couplet! The rhythm creates a strong feeling that the second line is a &quot;zinger&quot; that follows from but undermines the first line—the effect that you sensed _ergo_ didn't deliver. The poetic meter also provides plenty of poetic license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get the full effect, you have to say it correctly—that is, with correct vowel lengths—so I've included the macrons. Also, you have to do the elision, which results in this pronunciation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dīxistī mihi quidlibet in mundō licit’ esse,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ad saltātrīcēs prōtinus adspiciō!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning is something like: &quot;You told me that I could do anything in the world that I please—right away I checked out the dancing girls!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say it with the right rhythm, it sounds like it ends with a rimshot as in old-time stand-up comedy, with a somewhat absurd emphasis on the dancing girls.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="218" RevisionGUID="b98dd041-9225-498d-8a88-f1af66da6fa7" CreationDate="2016-02-26T02:43:02.313" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="For questions regarding how Latin has changed over time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="749" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="218" RevisionGUID="b98dd041-9225-498d-8a88-f1af66da6fa7" CreationDate="2016-02-26T02:43:02.313" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 78, 12 edit id of 49" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="750" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="192" RevisionGUID="b5688efd-0a31-4817-a908-500c0109ac30" CreationDate="2016-02-26T02:48:24.330" UserId="73" Comment="edited tags" Text="|medieval-latin|abbreviations|punctuation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="217" RevisionGUID="a424b5d4-ef47-493d-abf6-82b9083a0ae3" CreationDate="2016-02-26T02:48:33.027" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added 993 characters in body" Text="Questions tagged [tag:language-evolution] are about how Latin has changed over time. They can be largely broken down into two categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Asking when a certain change occurred&#xD;&#xA;2. Asking how a certain change occurred&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions should be about specific changes, not broad things. For example, these are good questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [When did “c” before “e” or “i” start to be pronounced as \[ts\] (in contrast to classical \[k\])?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Why do fear clauses invert the meaning of ut/ne?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When did deponent verbs come into existence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why did some words change spelling from classical to medieval Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that while asking &quot;why&quot; is acceptable, it has to be &quot;why&quot; in the sense of &quot;what caused it&quot;, not &quot;for what reason/purpose&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/44/when-did-c-before-e-or-i-start-to-be-pronounced-as-ts-in-contrast-to-cl&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/148/why-do-fear-clauses-invert-the-meaning-of-ut-ne" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="752" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="217" RevisionGUID="a424b5d4-ef47-493d-abf6-82b9083a0ae3" CreationDate="2016-02-26T02:48:33.027" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 78, 12 edit id of 48" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="223" RevisionGUID="921ba95c-a39b-4e55-bc56-01ce03dda2f1" CreationDate="2016-02-26T02:56:31.327" UserId="78" Text="The first one I encountered was in Metellus' letter to Cicero (*Fam*. 5.1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Existimaram pro mutuo inter nos animo et pro reconciliata gratia nec absentem umquam me abs te ludibrio laesum iri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had thought, on account of our mutual desire and reconciliation, that I while absent was not ever to be attacked with ridicule by you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's certainly rare. If we need more than four hands to count the instances in Cicero, it's because Cicero's corpus is so incredibly massive. That said, it's not completely unheard of, and this is a formal written style from one senator to another." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="224" RevisionGUID="a5cf8448-3bf8-4023-87d2-bac42a335f08" CreationDate="2016-02-26T03:03:09.147" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="225" RevisionGUID="4ebb7e88-a699-4dbe-b818-7d24988928af" CreationDate="2016-02-26T03:03:09.147" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="226" RevisionGUID="2f95bee1-99e5-422f-9fc2-9af8f6b31c8c" CreationDate="2016-02-26T03:07:09.243" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="227" RevisionGUID="5df9cb4e-0b78-4d62-905f-f9fbac9d136e" CreationDate="2016-02-26T03:07:09.243" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="46" RevisionGUID="4de0df48-e74a-475f-9f69-11220f34a678" CreationDate="2016-02-26T03:07:20.700" UserDisplayName="user11" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Z, allegedly, has a strange story. It *was* a Latin letter, then it became obsolete and was removed. It was then added back to accommodate words derived from Greek&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to a few sources, one of them [Dictionary.com](http://blog.dictionary.com/z/), `Z` was actually included in the original Latin alphabet, which itself was a  derivation of the [Etruscan alphabet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Italic_script#Etruscan_alphabet):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `A B G D E V` **`Z`** `H Θ I K L M`&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `N Ξ O P Ś Q R S T Y X Φ Ψ`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the following years, `z` gradually [rhotacized](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhotacism) until /z/ made the same sound as /r/. A Roman consul, Appius Claudius Caecus, allegedly [removed it from the Latin alphabet](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/miscellanea/zed.html). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the Roman conquest of Greece, the letter was added back in (along with `y`) to work with the words being added to the language derived from Greek." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="220" RevisionGUID="08964240-a5a7-4d17-8dc8-8c3b205e6390" CreationDate="2016-02-26T03:10:44.573" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="The case of a relative pronoun indicates its role inside the subordinate clause, not the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the **servōs** in the main clause are the subject of **pārent** in the subordinate clause, a nominative relative pronoun is needed: **quī**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that seems strange, here are three considerations that can help make it seem normal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;​1. It works the same way in [English](http://ell.stackexchange.com/q/57138/6700), although our last pronoun that works this way is fading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The cat killed the rat **who** ate the corn.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The cat killed the rat **whom** fate had chosen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;​2. Making the relative pronoun match the case in the main clause would lose information and really wouldn't make sense in practice. The relative pronoun tells you that the same noun plays a role in _two_ clauses: the main one and the subordinate one. You already know the noun's role in the main clause, because that's indicated by its case in the main clause. The only word available to indicate the noun's role in the subordinate clause is the relative pronoun, so it wouldn't make sense to make the relative pronoun duplicate the antecedent's case in the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;​3. Ultimately, only exposure and practice can really convince your brain that this is normal. So, here are some of the sentences from the chapter that illustrate the principle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Servī **quī** lectīcam portant fessī sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Saccī **quī** ā Syrō et Lēandrō portāntur magnī sunt, sed saccus **quem** Syrus portat nōn tam magnus est quam saccus **quī** ā Lēandrō portātur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is **quī** viā Latīnā venit per portam Capēnam Rōmam intrat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's Ørberg's terse explanation in the margin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; saccī **quī** ā Syrō et Lēandrō port&lt;i&gt;antur&lt;/i&gt; = saccī **quōs** Syrus et Lēander port&lt;i&gt;ant&lt;/i&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="228" RevisionGUID="e5a4db30-011a-4d40-896c-9d940e6a9dad" CreationDate="2016-02-26T03:11:10.747" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="229" RevisionGUID="75ddecc2-1ac7-4ecc-8e9c-18e1d0a277d6" CreationDate="2016-02-26T03:11:10.747" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="230" RevisionGUID="8a8304e7-0107-43f8-b495-b055182dce12" CreationDate="2016-02-26T03:17:13.870" UserId="30" Text="A causative affix is transformative: it changes a (usually intransitive) verb's predicate frame such that the thematic role once performed by the subject is now performed by the object, and the new subject is an agent or cause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Statuere* is already 'causative' by itself: the subject can be an agent, it is transtitive, and the object can be a theme or patient. (It may actually contain a causative affix and be based on *stare*—I'm not sure.) The same applies to *ponere* already means something similar to *statuere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I don't see any added 'causativeness' coming from *con-*. It can indicate completion, though. I this has come up before, in some other question on English.SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="231" RevisionGUID="58e1283a-573a-44c0-a7d4-773065bf2d2a" CreationDate="2016-02-26T04:19:43.713" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="In addition to their (usual) meanings  as prepositions, many common prefixes *ad-, com-, de-, ex-, re-*, etc... serve as intensive prefixes; but for a given verb, what governed or  influenced or selected the prefix used? Was a prefix chosen randomly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Please answer this question without loss of generallity, but I exemplify: why is *ab-* (and not some other prefix) is the intensive prefix in *absurdus*?&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="767" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="231" RevisionGUID="58e1283a-573a-44c0-a7d4-773065bf2d2a" CreationDate="2016-02-26T04:19:43.713" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What governed or influenced or selected which prefix is used to intensify a verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="768" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="231" RevisionGUID="58e1283a-573a-44c0-a7d4-773065bf2d2a" CreationDate="2016-02-26T04:19:43.713" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|affixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="232" RevisionGUID="2deebed3-a559-4219-9158-b1370d975550" CreationDate="2016-02-26T04:32:01.317" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="233" RevisionGUID="37e73f93-36aa-4b46-aa58-1483b69cd7eb" CreationDate="2016-02-26T04:32:01.317" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="234" RevisionGUID="ecd5ea8a-94b0-4473-8dc2-07869bb6e9b6" CreationDate="2016-02-26T04:59:13.087" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[1. [appellere](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=appeal&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) :] from *ad-* &quot;to&quot; (see ad-) + *pellere* &quot;to beat, drive&quot; (see [pulse](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pulse&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[2. [resolvere](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=resolve) :] &quot;to loosen, loose, unyoke, undo; explain; relax; set free; make void, dispel,&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;from *re-*, perhaps intensive, or &quot;back&quot; (see re-), + *solvere* &quot;loosen&quot; (see [solve](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=solve&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In verbs like the above, the prefixes appear  meaningful. In 1, one does not just beat or drive, but one must beat sounds TO capture someone's attention or drive (ie: push or force) oneself TO someone for attention. In 2, loosening causes a compound to loosen BACK into its constituents.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per contra, I ask the entitled question for verbs like the following, but please answer without loss of generality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[3. [instruere](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=instruct&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) :] &quot;arrange, prepare, set in order; inform, teach,&quot; literally &quot;to build, erect,&quot; from *in-* &quot;on&quot; (see [in-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=in-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (2)) + *struere* &quot;to pile, build&quot; (see [structure](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=structure&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;The prefix *in-* appears redundant, because piling or building something must occur ON something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[4. [delimitare](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=delimit&amp;searchmode=none) :] &quot;to mark out as a boundary,&quot; from *de-* (see [de-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=de-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0))    &#xD;&#xA;+ *limitare*, from *limitem, limes* &quot;boundary, limit&quot; (see [limit](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=limit&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;The prefix *de-* appears redundant, because to limit something presumes to 'mark out as a boundary' something? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[5. [*defallere](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=default&amp;searchmode=none) :] from Latin *de-* &quot;away&quot; (see [de-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=de-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + fallere &quot;to deceive, to cheat; to put wrong, to lead astray, cause to be mistaken; to escape notice of, be concealed from&quot; (see [fail (v.)](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fail&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;The meaning of *de-* is unclear; the semantic notion of 'away' does not appear in the attested verb _*defallere_? &lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="772" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="234" RevisionGUID="ecd5ea8a-94b0-4473-8dc2-07869bb6e9b6" CreationDate="2016-02-26T04:59:13.087" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Prefixes in verbs that appear redundant or meaningless: do they really mean anything?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="773" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="234" RevisionGUID="ecd5ea8a-94b0-4473-8dc2-07869bb6e9b6" CreationDate="2016-02-26T04:59:13.087" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|affixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="235" RevisionGUID="969845cc-80ea-48af-a230-9bcbc4123542" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:04:41.737" UserId="78" Text="Despite the apparent naturalness for deriving *pontifex* from *pons*, *pontis*, we're not so sure that's the right etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the years some have made the case for this derivation, including Judy Hallet back in 1970. As early as the first century BCE, though, this derivation has been contended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll skip over the ancient evidence since Joonas Ilmavirta covers Varro and Scaevola's theory. In more modern times, and with better knowledge of Italic languages, other theories have arisen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roland Kent included a few post-Classical suggestions, including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *pons* meaning &quot;path&quot; (cognate with Greek *πάτος* (patos) and Sanskrit *panthan-*), where the *pontifex* would &quot;lead the way in processions&quot; (Isidore included this in his *Etymologicum Magnum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Kuhn's suggestion that *pons* meant path, but religiously speaking, so a &quot;Pfadbereiter, der zum Pfade der Goetter leitet&quot; (pathmaker, who directs the paths of the gods).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *ponti-* to the root *pū* 'purify': hence *pontifex* 'maker of purifications, of expiatory sacrifices.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pfund's suggestion *ponti-* = Oscan *pomtis* 'five times': hence *pontifex* 'the one making the fifth,' that is, 'maker of calculations' for calendar purposes, or 'the Five Actors' in some ceremonial performance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kent dismisses these almost out of hand, especially anything to do with 'five' for its irrelevance to Roman religion and the *pū* and *pote-* suggestions for their phonetic difficulties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He concludes by presenting Sanskrit and Avestan evidence for &quot;paths to the gods&quot; and decides on that etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judy Hallet in her 1970 paper on the topic brings up a good point in that many titles held by special offices once connoted something different than their current status would indicate. For example, she mentions the *teichopoioi* (Greek for &quot;wall-builders&quot;) who &quot;were concerned with financial matters&quot; in later periods. Even the Roman office of *quaestor* was originally the *quaestor paricidii* and was tasked, originally, with looking for murderers. Therefore, it is not impossible that indeed the original meaning of *pontifex* is bridge-builder, and their original task was to build and look after bridges (in particular the Pons Sublicius). She also points to Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1.38.3 where he states that the *pontifices* still (first century CE) make sacrifices at bridges. The clearest meaning should be upheld.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This revival is impeded, however, by Bourdellès, who shows that the second root in *pontifex* cannot be ancient, that it uses a much more recent suffix. Bourdellès therefore goes back to the &quot;five&quot; root, but finds support in Hittite and Tocharian evidence that &quot;five&quot; can signify *all*, and further that this was an ancient designation in Umbrian that the Romans then borrowed. Honestly, I don't buy it and not many scholars have either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bernard Kavanagh also rebutted Hallett's points, and pointed out that the ancient evidence could have entirely been made up post-Scaevola. There is no good ancient evidence connecting them to bridges outside of a story probably concocted to fit the apparent etymology. He points out that Cicero said that the original number of *pontifices* at the foundation of Rome was five:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Idemque Pompilius et auspiciis maioribus inventis ad pristinum numerum duo augures et sacris e principum numero pontifices quinque praefect...* (Cic. *Rep.* II, 26).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He then derives *pontifex* from the Sabellic *punt-*, which in my opinion actually makes more sense than Umbrian. The *-fex* part of their name is connected to *facere sacra* (to do the sacred rites), which would give them the ultimate meaning of &quot;a member of a board of five who performed (the sacred rites).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Le Bourdellès, H. 1976. &quot;Nature profonde du pontificat romain Tentative d'une étymologie.&quot; *Revue de l'histoire des religions* 189.1: 53–65.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hallet, Judith P. 1970. &quot; &quot;Over Troubled Waters&quot;: The Meaning of the Title Pontifex.&quot; *Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association* 101: 219–227.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kavanagh, Bernard J. 2000. &quot;Pontifices, Bridge-Making and Ribezzo Revisited.&quot; *Glotta* 76.1: 59-65&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kent, Roland G. 1913. &quot;The Vedic Path of the Gods and the Roman Pontifex.&quot; *Classical Philology* 8.3: 317–326.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Mentioned in Kent 1913)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kuhn, 1855. *KZ* 4: 75–77.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pfund, *Altital. Rechtsaltertuemer*, pp. 212ff." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="233" RevisionGUID="edef33de-5071-4864-921e-63c8cd2b9f77" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:05:33.170" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="For questions about the history of words in Latin or the change in meaning as the words are loaned into another language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="776" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="233" RevisionGUID="edef33de-5071-4864-921e-63c8cd2b9f77" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:05:33.170" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 12, 78 edit id of 62" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="234" RevisionGUID="194a69a1-b8a0-4973-81af-96d5de7abc07" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:06:37.423" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="added 289 characters in body" Text="&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[1. [appellere](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=appeal&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) :] from *ad-* &quot;to&quot; (see ad-)  +  *pellere* &quot;to beat, drive&quot; (see [pulse](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pulse&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[2. [resolvere](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=resolve) :] &quot;to loosen, loose, unyoke, undo; explain; relax; set free; make void, dispel,&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;from *re-*, perhaps intensive, or &quot;back&quot; (see re-),  +  *solvere* &quot;loosen&quot; (see [solve](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=solve&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In verbs like the above, the prefixes appear  meaningful. In 1, one does not just beat or drive, but one must beat sounds TO capture someone's attention or drive (ie: push or force) oneself TO someone for attention. In 2, loosening causes a compound to loosen BACK into its constituents.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I ask the entitled question for verbs like the following, but please answer without loss of generality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[3. [instruere](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=instruct&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) :] &quot;arrange, prepare, set in order; inform, teach,&quot; literally &quot;to build, erect,&quot; from *in-* &quot;on&quot; (see [in-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=in-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (2))    &#xD;&#xA;+ *struere* &quot;to pile, build&quot; (see [structure](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=structure&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;The prefix *in-* appears redundant, because piling or building something must occur ON something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[4. [delimitare](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=delimit&amp;searchmode=none) :] &quot;to mark out as a boundary,&quot; from *de-* (see [de-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=de-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0))    &#xD;&#xA;+ *limitare*, from *limitem, limes* &quot;boundary, limit&quot; (see [limit](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=limit&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;*de-* feels redundant, because to limit something presumes to 'mark out as a boundary' something? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sub&gt;5. [operīre](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/operio#Latin):  from the prefix *op-*  &lt;[itself](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/operio#Etymology) from PIE root [_*h₁epi_ ‎(“at, near”)](http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/X/P0492.html)&gt;   +   PIE root [_*u̯er-_](http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/X/P2166.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;The meaning of *op-* is unclear, because it adds nothing to *operīre*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[6. [*defallere](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=default&amp;searchmode=none) :] from Latin *de-* &quot;away&quot; (see [de-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=de-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0))  +  *fallere* &quot;to deceive, to cheat; to put wrong, to lead astray, cause to be mistaken; to escape notice of, be concealed from&quot; (see [fail (v.)](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fail&amp;allowed_in_frame=0).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;The meaning of *de-* is unclear; the semantic notion of 'away' does not appear in the attested verb _*defallere_? &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="234" RevisionGUID="bea6a24f-5024-4674-87c5-96b67af2cfbf" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:13:16.927" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[1. [appellere](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=appeal&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) :] from *ad-* &quot;to&quot; (see ad-)  +  *pellere* &quot;to beat, drive&quot; (see [pulse](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pulse&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[2. [resolvere](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=resolve) :] &quot;to loosen, loose, unyoke, undo; explain; relax; set free; make void, dispel,&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;from *re-*, perhaps intensive, or &quot;back&quot; (see re-),  +  *solvere* &quot;loosen&quot; (see [solve](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=solve&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In verbs like the above, the prefixes appear  meaningful. In 1, one does not just beat or drive, but one must beat sounds TO capture someone's attention or drive (ie: push or force) oneself TO someone for attention. In 2, loosening causes a compound to loosen BACK into its constituents.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I ask the entitled question for verbs like the following, but please answer without loss of generality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[3. [instruere](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=instruct&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) :] &quot;arrange, prepare, set in order; inform, teach,&quot; literally &quot;to build, erect,&quot; from *in-* &quot;on&quot; (see [in-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=in-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (2))    &#xD;&#xA;+ *struere* &quot;to pile, build&quot; (see [structure](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=structure&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;The prefix *in-* appears redundant, because piling or building something must occur ON something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[4. [delimitare](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=delimit&amp;searchmode=none) :] &quot;to mark out as a boundary,&quot; from *de-* (see [de-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=de-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0))    &#xD;&#xA;+ *limitare*, from *limitem, limes* &quot;boundary, limit&quot; (see [limit](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=limit&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;*de-* feels redundant, because to limit something presumes to 'mark out as a boundary' something? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sub&gt;5. [operīre](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/operio#Latin):  from the prefix *op-*  &lt;[itself](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/operio#Etymology) from PIE root [_*h₁epi_ ‎(“at, near”)](http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/X/P0492.html)&gt;   +   PIE root [_*u̯er-_](http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/X/P2166.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;The meaning of *op-* is unclear, because it adds nothing to *operīre*, whose meaning is NOT limited to 'cover near/nearby'? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[6. [*defallere](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=default&amp;searchmode=none) :] from Latin *de-* &quot;away&quot; (see [de-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=de-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0))  +  *fallere* &quot;to deceive, to cheat; to put wrong, to lead astray, cause to be mistaken; to escape notice of, be concealed from&quot; (see [fail (v.)](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fail&amp;allowed_in_frame=0).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;The meaning of *de-* is unclear; the semantic notion of 'away' does not appear in the attested verb _*defallere_? &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="236" RevisionGUID="0b41d60f-7f50-4d72-8b73-7bd9c1f36d62" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:16:53.913" UserId="33" Text="This list will have some false positives, but the Packard Humanities Institute Latin Texts website generates this collection of all instances of &quot;iri&quot; in its corpus (179 total instances):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23iri%23" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="237" RevisionGUID="79b1b469-3edc-4758-b3a1-a7747dc1e141" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:39:54.817" UserId="68" Text="The easiest way to think about this--and I don't understand why it isn't in any Latin textbook I've ever seen (with the exception of [Alfonso Traina][1]'s work, but alas I only have photocopies of sections so I can't refer to specific books)--is to think of Latin verbs with prefixes in the same way as English verbs that contain prepositions. (Despite the Gallic quality of your username your English is fluent, so I'm assuming that this will work for you.) The prefixes/prepositions don't always bring their literal meaning to the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take, for example, *mónstró* and *démónstró*. The difference between these seems baffling until you think about them as meaning, respectively, &quot;show&quot; and &quot;point out.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or take, as in [this question][2], *prémó* and *imprímó*. Again, pressing already contains the idea of &quot;against&quot; or &quot;in,&quot; so what gives? The answer becomes clearer when you think about them as &quot;press&quot; and &quot;press into (so as to stamp or leave a mark on),&quot; or perhaps more clearly &quot;press&quot; and &quot;impress on.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can get trickier when there's no verb + preposition equivalent in English, but it's not impossible: *lacrimó* is &quot;I cry,&quot; whereas *illacrimó* is &quot;I burst into tears, and *amplexor* is &quot;I hug,&quot; whereas *complexor* is &quot;I give (someone) a hug.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, taking your examples of *límitó* and *délímitó,* we have &quot;enclose (within boundaries)&quot; and &quot;mark out (boundaries so as to make them visible).&quot; The sense of *dé* isn't literally there, but neither is the sense of &quot;out&quot; in English &quot;mark out.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only came to this understanding of prefixes recently, so I'm not yet able to go through all your examples--I'm still trying to grok, for example, the nuances between *struó*, *ínstruó*, and *cónstruó*, not having read widely enough to get a strong sense of them--but as a general principle, if you think of the prefixes as slightly abstracted from their literal meanings, you can usually figure out a rough English equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_Traina&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/59/what-is-the-difference-in-meaning-or-nuance-between-prem%C5%8D-and-imprim%C5%8D-in-the/93#93" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="225" RevisionGUID="8abb55b1-dc90-4bb7-af2b-593364b823c3" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:57:57.837" UserId="12" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="Questions regarding the Latin immediately following Classical Latin (approximately AD 300–500)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="783" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="225" RevisionGUID="8abb55b1-dc90-4bb7-af2b-593364b823c3" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:57:57.837" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 78, 30 edit id of 54" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="d745bfe4-8cce-439e-94f8-6eba7d8c93bb" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:58:11.603" UserId="12" Comment="added 607 characters in body" Text="The primary eras of Latin are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Old](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin) (before 75 BC) [tag:old-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Classical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Latin) (75 BC to AD 300) [tag:classical-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Late](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin) (300–500) [tag:late-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Medieval](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Latin) (500–1400) [tag:medieval-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [New/Modern](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Latin) (1400–1900) [tag:new-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Contemporary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_Latin) (1900–present) [tag:contemporary-latin]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Dates are approximate)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="785" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="d745bfe4-8cce-439e-94f8-6eba7d8c93bb" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:58:11.603" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 78, 30 edit id of 50" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="138" RevisionGUID="a99e5c14-2d90-444a-aed3-2ec162e2865b" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:58:20.570" UserId="12" Comment="deleted 27 characters in body" Text="Questions regarding the oldest forms of Latin, preceding Classical Latin (before 75 BC)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="787" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="138" RevisionGUID="a99e5c14-2d90-444a-aed3-2ec162e2865b" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:58:20.570" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 78, 30 edit id of 51" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="229" RevisionGUID="63340273-412c-4702-839c-f95393b88d01" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:58:27.853" UserId="12" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="Questions regarding Latin in the modern era, approximately 1400–1900" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="789" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="229" RevisionGUID="63340273-412c-4702-839c-f95393b88d01" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:58:27.853" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 78, 30 edit id of 60" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="228" RevisionGUID="5af00868-1535-413c-bc37-45bf1bea9a3e" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:58:41.540" UserId="12" Comment="added 607 characters in body" Text="The primary eras of Latin are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Old](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin) (before 75 BC) [tag:old-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Classical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Latin) (75 BC to AD 300) [tag:classical-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Late](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin) (300–500) [tag:late-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Medieval](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Latin) (500–1400) [tag:medieval-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [New/Modern](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Latin) (1400–1900) [tag:new-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Contemporary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_Latin) (1900–present) [tag:contemporary-latin]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Dates are approximate)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="791" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="228" RevisionGUID="5af00868-1535-413c-bc37-45bf1bea9a3e" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:58:41.540" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 78, 30 edit id of 59" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="164" RevisionGUID="2c2f0162-662c-45cb-87d7-ca45fb8ab9fa" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:58:50.293" UserId="12" Comment="Use dates in meta: http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/14/12" Text="The primary eras of Latin are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Old](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin) (before 75 BC) [tag:old-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Classical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Latin) (75 BC to AD 300) [tag:classical-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Late](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin) (300–500) [tag:late-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Medieval](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Latin) (500–1400) [tag:medieval-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [New/Modern](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Latin) (1400–1900) [tag:new-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Contemporary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_Latin) (1900–present) [tag:contemporary-latin]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Dates are approximate)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="793" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="164" RevisionGUID="2c2f0162-662c-45cb-87d7-ca45fb8ab9fa" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:58:50.293" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 78, 30 edit id of 57" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9" RevisionGUID="c99effd8-e373-47b1-928a-b1b5314e99d7" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:58:59.263" UserId="12" Comment="consistency and matching meta" Text="The primary eras of Latin are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Old](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin) (before 75 BC) [tag:old-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Classical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Latin) (75 BC to AD 300) [tag:classical-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Late](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin) (300–500) [tag:late-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Medieval](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Latin) (500–1400) [tag:medieval-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [New/Modern](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Latin) (1400–1900) [tag:new-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Contemporary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_Latin) (1900–present) [tag:contemporary-latin]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Dates are approximate)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="795" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9" RevisionGUID="c99effd8-e373-47b1-928a-b1b5314e99d7" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:58:59.263" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 78, 30 edit id of 61" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="226" RevisionGUID="8ad3620b-94d3-4023-a2e0-6acb36f672b6" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:59:03.903" UserId="12" Comment="added 607 characters in body" Text="The primary eras of Latin are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Old](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin) (before 75 BC) [tag:old-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Classical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Latin) (75 BC to AD 300) [tag:classical-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Late](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin) (300–500) [tag:late-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Medieval](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Latin) (500–1400) [tag:medieval-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [New/Modern](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Latin) (1400–1900) [tag:new-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Contemporary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_Latin) (1900–present) [tag:contemporary-latin]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Dates are approximate)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="797" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="226" RevisionGUID="8ad3620b-94d3-4023-a2e0-6acb36f672b6" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:59:03.903" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 78, 30 edit id of 55" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="227" RevisionGUID="6e413272-a59c-415d-8cff-ddff91779c5b" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:59:07.700" UserId="12" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="Questions regarding the Latin of the Medieval period, approximately 500–1400" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="799" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="227" RevisionGUID="6e413272-a59c-415d-8cff-ddff91779c5b" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:59:07.700" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 78, 30 edit id of 56" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="217" RevisionGUID="f95ac4a6-7db9-4aee-bb28-5a995fc58699" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:59:50.813" UserId="12" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Questions tagged [tag:language-evolution] are about how Latin has changed over time. They can be largely broken down into two categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Asking when a certain change occurred&#xD;&#xA;2. Asking how a certain change occurred&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions should be about specific changes, not broad things. For example, these are good questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [When did “c” before “e” or “i” start to be pronounced as \[ts\] (in contrast to classical \[k\])?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Why do fear clauses invert the meaning of ut/ne?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When did verbs come into existence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why did some words change spelling from classical to medieval Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that while asking &quot;why&quot; is acceptable, it has to be &quot;why&quot; in the sense of &quot;what caused it&quot;, not &quot;for what reason/purpose&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/44/when-did-c-before-e-or-i-start-to-be-pronounced-as-ts-in-contrast-to-cl&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/148/why-do-fear-clauses-invert-the-meaning-of-ut-ne" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="801" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="217" RevisionGUID="f95ac4a6-7db9-4aee-bb28-5a995fc58699" CreationDate="2016-02-26T05:59:50.813" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 78, 30 edit id of 52" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="165" RevisionGUID="1fc2f1e3-f7bc-4776-89f8-f06824bba893" CreationDate="2016-02-26T06:00:02.767" UserId="12" Comment="Use dates in meta: http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/14/12" Text="Questions regarding Latin of the classical era, approximately 75 BC to AD 300" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="803" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="165" RevisionGUID="1fc2f1e3-f7bc-4776-89f8-f06824bba893" CreationDate="2016-02-26T06:00:02.767" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 78, 30 edit id of 58" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="224" RevisionGUID="ee2e7116-79db-4fd9-a4a6-a56d683cd469" CreationDate="2016-02-26T06:00:07.270" UserId="12" Comment="added 607 characters in body" Text="The primary eras of Latin are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Old](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin) (before 75 BC) [tag:old-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Classical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Latin) (75 BC to AD 300) [tag:classical-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Late](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin) (300–500) [tag:late-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Medieval](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Latin) (500–1400) [tag:medieval-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [New/Modern](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Latin) (1400–1900) [tag:new-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Contemporary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_Latin) (1900–present) [tag:contemporary-latin]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Dates are approximate)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="805" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="224" RevisionGUID="ee2e7116-79db-4fd9-a4a6-a56d683cd469" CreationDate="2016-02-26T06:00:07.270" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 78, 30 edit id of 53" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="155" RevisionGUID="05e1fb5f-fdf6-4e60-a0dd-8c78cd848810" CreationDate="2016-02-26T06:01:27.743" UserId="30" Comment="edited body" Text="***[Clipeus][1]*** was originally a round, metal shield. It is [fairly common][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***[Scutum][3]*** was originally a long, oval wooden shield with iron fittings and covered with leather, used by soldiers. It is also used for a shield in general. It is [about as common][4] as *clipeus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both words were also used metaphorically for a defence or protection in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=clipeus&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=clipeo&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=scutum&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://%20http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=scuto" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="807" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="9671a9a4-a859-4677-827d-8e575d789770" CreationDate="2016-02-26T06:42:56.573" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags." Text="|verbs|example-request|passive-voice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="238" RevisionGUID="9c7dae31-94a2-467a-9e13-e024195e4bd6" CreationDate="2016-02-26T06:47:53.020" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[[Etymonline:](http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=recreant)] Old French *recreant* &quot;defeated, vanquished, yielding, giving; weak, exhausted; cowardly,&quot; present participle adjective from *recroire* &quot;to yield in a trial by combat, surrender allegiance,&quot;    &#xD;&#xA;literally **&quot;believe again;&quot;** perhaps on notion of &quot;take back one's pledge, yield one's cause,&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;from *re-* &quot;again, back&quot; (see [re-](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=re-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + *croire* &quot;entrust, believe,&quot; from Latin *credere* (see [credo](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=credo&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)). [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both [OED for the obsolete verb 'recray'](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/159941#eid26659691) and [Wiktionnaire for the Old French 'recroire'](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/recroire#.C3.89tymologie_2) specify the semantic shift to have emerged in Late Latin, but neither specifies the  meaning of *re-*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask the entitled question, because I do not understand how 'believe again' semantically connects to 'surrender  one's pledge or cause'. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="810" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="238" RevisionGUID="9c7dae31-94a2-467a-9e13-e024195e4bd6" CreationDate="2016-02-26T06:47:53.020" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How does the prefix 're-' connect with the semantic shift of 'recredere'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="811" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="238" RevisionGUID="9c7dae31-94a2-467a-9e13-e024195e4bd6" CreationDate="2016-02-26T06:47:53.020" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="239" RevisionGUID="a36d3a41-acd9-4fe2-bf28-fb37bb9659d9" CreationDate="2016-02-26T06:57:28.113" UserId="78" Text="Believe again is actually not very well translated. *re-* also has the meaning of &quot;back&quot; (cf. *retro*), so &quot;take back one's pledge&quot; does indeed seem accurate. The &quot;again&quot; here is just sloppiness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me draw your attention to the Oxford Latin Dictionary's definition of *re-*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **re-,** *prefix.*...Vbl. prefix denoting movement back or in reverse (*redeo*, *reuerto*, *reuoco*), withdrawal (*recondo*, *religo*, *reticeo*), reversal of a previous process (*refrigero*, *resoluo*, *retego*), restoration (*renouo*, *reualesco*), response or opposition (*rebello*, *redarguo*, *respondeo*), separation (*remoueo*), repeated action (*repeto*, *repleo*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="240" RevisionGUID="5483b18e-4c47-483e-9a50-a9a811cc7454" CreationDate="2016-02-26T06:58:00.400" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/strenuus#Etymology) :] From Proto-Indo-European _*ster-_ ‎(“stiff”). [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Etymonline's entry for 'strenuous' (adj.)](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=strenuous) references [Etymonline's entry for 'stern' (adj.)](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=stern&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) which states the same PIE root as above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why was 'strēnuus' assigned to the PIE root [_*ster-_ ](http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/X/P1894.html) ‎(“stiff”)? Univ. Texas states its  Semantic Field as 'Strong, Mighty, Powerful; Hard', but this still does not explain the Latin adjective's definitions of 'brisk, nimble, quick, prompt, active'. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="814" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="240" RevisionGUID="5483b18e-4c47-483e-9a50-a9a811cc7454" CreationDate="2016-02-26T06:58:00.400" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What underlying semantic notions connect 'strēnuus' to stiffness and rigidity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="815" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="240" RevisionGUID="5483b18e-4c47-483e-9a50-a9a811cc7454" CreationDate="2016-02-26T06:58:00.400" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|proto-indo-european|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="241" RevisionGUID="bbb8eb4e-197c-414a-9cef-70e9721aaf91" CreationDate="2016-02-26T07:19:19.190" UserId="79" Text="My intuition says that &quot;every fourth year&quot; would translate to Latin as &quot;quarto quoque anno&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I read the comic *Asterix Olympius* in Latin, and on page 11 the druid describes the Olympic games like this:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Certamina sacra, praesidio Iovis tecta, quae quinto quoque anno apparantur Olympiae Graeciae inter Hellenes mense quodam, quem illi Hecatombaeon dicunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ancient Olympic games were held once in every four years.&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware that the Roman way of counting can produce an offset of one (&quot;quintus dies post nuptias&quot; means the fourth day after the wedding), but I find such an offset somewhat unnatural when one describes frequency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how would the Romans have said &quot;every fourth year&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Have the numbers used in such an expression varied over time?&#xD;&#xA;Are there ancient sources with such an expression where we know the length of time intervals?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching for 'quoque anno' in [a source](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23quoque+anno%23) or [another](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=en&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AGreco-Roman&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3APDILL&amp;all_words=&amp;phrase=quoque+anno&amp;any_words=&amp;exclude_words=&amp;search=Search) produces several results, but its hard to say which time period was really meant in the examples.&#xD;&#xA;This example is interesting, since it suggests that there was disagreement among Romans as to what *quarto quoque anno* meant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It was the intention of Caesar that the bisextum should be inserted peracto quadriennii circuitu, as Censorinus says, or quinto quoque incipiente anno, to use the words of Macrobius. The phrase, however, which Caesar used seems to have been quarto quoque anno, which was interpreted by the priests to mean every third year. The consequence was, that in the year 8 B.C. the Emperor Augustus, finding that three more intercalations had been made than was the intention of the law, gave directions that for the next twelve years there should be no bissextile (Plin. Nat. 18.211). ([A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities: Calendarium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0063:entry=calendarium-cn&amp;highlight=quoque+anno%2C))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If &quot;quarto quoque anno&quot; is indeed ambiguous, is there a non-ambiguous way to say &quot;every fourth year&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="817" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="241" RevisionGUID="bbb8eb4e-197c-414a-9cef-70e9721aaf91" CreationDate="2016-02-26T07:19:19.190" UserId="79" Text="How to say &quot;every fourth year&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="818" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="241" RevisionGUID="bbb8eb4e-197c-414a-9cef-70e9721aaf91" CreationDate="2016-02-26T07:19:19.190" UserId="79" Text="|numerals|time|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="819" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="235" RevisionGUID="a2a0735d-4777-4cea-98c9-b23301689313" CreationDate="2016-02-26T07:22:21.440" UserId="78" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="9ccb0c31-42a0-4125-917b-1ac550ae30f9" CreationDate="2016-02-26T07:28:18.737" UserId="12" Comment="consistency and matching meta" Text="Questions regarding Latin since the year 1900" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="821" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="9ccb0c31-42a0-4125-917b-1ac550ae30f9" CreationDate="2016-02-26T07:28:18.737" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 78, 79 edit id of 2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="242" RevisionGUID="0dd4e3d4-3281-4a1d-ba59-305c46107d8c" CreationDate="2016-02-26T08:04:49.477" UserId="152" Text="Apicius' *de re coquinaria* (roman recipe book believed to have been compiled in the 4th/5th century CE) contains, in the book 3 &quot;*cepuros*&quot; on vegetables, a paragraph ([XX, recipes 115 to 121](https://archive.org/stream/ita-bnc-in2-00001189-001#page/n30/mode/2up)) entitled &quot;*sphondyli vel fonduli*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book having been copied again and again during all middle-age, alternative spellings/titles exist such as [*funduli sive sfondili*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/apicius/apicius3.shtml), [*spondyli vel fonduli, sphondyli vel funduli, spondili vel fonduli*, ...](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm#bkiii_chxx).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because these recipes are in the vegetable section, *sphondyli* is believed to refer to cow-parsnip, or parsnip according to some authors. However early in the book a recipe of scallops uses the same word to designate the scallops ([*isicia ex spondylis*](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm#r46)). Finally, according to various dictionaries, *sp*[h]*ondylus* means alternatively &quot;a kind of mushroom&quot;, &quot;a vertebra&quot;, &quot;the muscle of an oyster or another bivalve&quot; or &quot;a kind of muscle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Needless to say, I'm confused and a few questions arise from this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* are we sure (cow-)parsnips are the *sp*[h]*ondyli* meant in that [serie of recipes](https://archive.org/stream/ita-bnc-in2-00001189-001#page/n30/mode/2up)? &#xD;&#xA;* What is the etymology of this word for it to have such different meanings? &#xD;&#xA;* And what does *fonduli*/*funduli* means (as none of the translations of *de re coquinaria* I read have tried to translate it)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="823" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="242" RevisionGUID="0dd4e3d4-3281-4a1d-ba59-305c46107d8c" CreationDate="2016-02-26T08:04:49.477" UserId="152" Text="Apicius' &quot;sp[h]ondyli vel fonduli&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="824" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="242" RevisionGUID="0dd4e3d4-3281-4a1d-ba59-305c46107d8c" CreationDate="2016-02-26T08:04:49.477" UserId="152" Text="|etymology|medieval-latin|translation|late-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="825" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="181" RevisionGUID="1866ee72-58ac-4dd8-8218-141966db91c1" CreationDate="2016-02-26T08:09:20.757" UserId="152" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|new-latin|biology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="242" RevisionGUID="70bce5a3-151f-42ce-8f78-b444bf574d9c" CreationDate="2016-02-26T08:54:22.800" UserId="66" Comment="corrected typos" Text="Apicius's *de re coquinaria* (Roman recipe book believed to have been compiled in the 4th/5th century CE) contains, in the book 3 &quot;*cepuros*&quot; on vegetables, a paragraph ([XX, recipes 115 to 121](https://archive.org/stream/ita-bnc-in2-00001189-001#page/n30/mode/2up)) entitled &quot;*sphondyli vel fonduli*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book having been copied again and again during all middle-age, alternative spellings/titles exist such as [*funduli sive sfondili*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/apicius/apicius3.shtml), [*spondyli vel fonduli, sphondyli vel funduli, spondili vel fonduli*, ...](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm#bkiii_chxx).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because these recipes are in the vegetable section, *sphondyli* is believed to refer to cow-parsnip, or parsnip according to some authors. However early in the book a recipe of scallops uses the same word to designate the scallops ([*isicia ex spondylis*](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm#r46)). Finally, according to various dictionaries, *sp*[h]*ondylus* means alternatively &quot;a kind of mushroom&quot;, &quot;a vertebra&quot;, &quot;the muscle of an oyster or another bivalve&quot; or &quot;a kind of muscle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Needless to say, I'm confused and a few questions arise from this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Are we sure (cow-)parsnips are the *sp*[h]*ondyli* meant in that [series of recipes](https://archive.org/stream/ita-bnc-in2-00001189-001#page/n30/mode/2up)? &#xD;&#xA;* What is the etymology of this word for it to have such different meanings? &#xD;&#xA;* And what does *fonduli*/*funduli* mean? (None of the translations of *de re coquinaria* I read have tried to translate it.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="827" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="242" RevisionGUID="70bce5a3-151f-42ce-8f78-b444bf574d9c" CreationDate="2016-02-26T08:54:22.800" UserId="66" Comment="corrected typos" Text="Apicius's &quot;sp[h]ondyli vel fonduli&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="828" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="242" RevisionGUID="70bce5a3-151f-42ce-8f78-b444bf574d9c" CreationDate="2016-02-26T08:54:22.800" Comment="Proposed by 66 approved by 152 edit id of 63" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="157" RevisionGUID="b978c6f8-dcf8-4987-a1f9-1c2a7a702d8d" CreationDate="2016-02-26T08:59:25.983" UserId="66" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="After the great answers here, I would like to share the contents of a paper I found on this topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hodgman, A.W., &quot;Latin equivalents of punctuation marks&quot;, *The Classical Journal*, **19** (7), 403–417, 1924.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author argues that although there was **no systematic use of punctuation in Classical Latin**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Latin** sentence structure **has very clear equivalents for some of our punctuation marks**, but not for all of them; and it has its own methods for&#xD;&#xA;expressing certain things for which we have developed other typographical aids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The paper mentions among others, the following equivalents of modern punctuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The comma**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *-que* (or *neque* or *atque*) is often an equivalent of a comma in front of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The colon**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *ita*, *sic*, or a form of *hic* are often equivalents of a colon&#xD;&#xA; &gt; His Caesar *ita* respondit(:) eo sibi minus dubitationis dari&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *illud* or *illa* often introduce direct quotations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The question mark**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- marked by question words such as *quis*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;- *-ne*, *nonne*, *num*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The exclamation mark**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *quam*, *quantus*, *qualis*, etc.; also *qui* used in a different sense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *quanta* studia decertantium sunt(!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="237" RevisionGUID="6657627c-7fe8-40d1-997f-c3d70712e879" CreationDate="2016-02-26T11:04:11.750" UserId="68" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="The easiest way to think about this--and I don't understand why it isn't in any Latin textbook I've ever seen (with the exception of [Alfonso Traina][1]'s work, almost unknown in America except to linguists, but alas I only have photocopies of sections so I can't refer to specific books)--is to think of Latin verbs with prefixes in the same way as English verbs that contain prepositions. (Despite the Gallic quality of your username your English is fluent, so I'm assuming that this will work for you.) The prefixes/prepositions don't always bring their literal meaning to the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take, for example, *mónstró* and *démónstró*. The difference between these seems baffling until you think about them as meaning, respectively, &quot;show&quot; and &quot;point out.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or take, as in [this question][2], *prémó* and *imprímó*. Again, pressing already contains the idea of &quot;against&quot; or &quot;in,&quot; so what gives? The answer becomes clearer when you think about them as &quot;press&quot; and &quot;press into (so as to stamp or leave a mark on),&quot; or perhaps more clearly &quot;press&quot; and &quot;impress on.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can get trickier when there's no verb + preposition equivalent in English, but it's not impossible: *lacrimó* is &quot;I cry,&quot; whereas *illacrimó* is &quot;I burst into tears, and *amplexor* is &quot;I hug,&quot; whereas *complexor* is &quot;I give (someone) a hug.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, taking your examples of *límitó* and *délímitó,* we have &quot;enclose (within boundaries)&quot; and &quot;mark out (boundaries so as to make them visible).&quot; The sense of *dé* isn't literally there, but neither is the sense of &quot;out&quot; in English &quot;mark out.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only came to this understanding of prefixes recently, so I'm not yet able to go through all your examples--I'm still trying to grok, for example, the nuances between *struó*, *ínstruó*, and *cónstruó*, not having read widely enough to get a strong sense of them--but as a general principle, if you think of the prefixes as slightly abstracted from their literal meanings, you can usually figure out a rough English equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_Traina&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/59/what-is-the-difference-in-meaning-or-nuance-between-prem%C5%8D-and-imprim%C5%8D-in-the/93#93" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="234" RevisionGUID="4d576297-ab9b-48cf-89d1-fe1da5ee2029" CreationDate="2016-02-26T14:28:08.713" UserId="66" Comment="improved formatting" Text="1. &gt; [appellere](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=appeal&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; from [*ad-*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ad-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) &quot;to&quot; + *pellere* &quot;to beat, drive&quot; (see [pulse](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pulse&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.1))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &gt; [resolvere](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=resolve)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;to loosen, loose, unyoke, undo; explain; relax; set free; make void, dispel,&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;from [*re-*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=re-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0), perhaps intensive, or &quot;back&quot; + *solvere* &quot;loosen&quot; (see [solve](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=solve&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In verbs like the above, the prefixes appear  meaningful. In (1), one does not just beat or drive, but one must beat sounds **to** capture someone's attention or drive (i.e. push or force) oneself **to** someone for attention. In (2), loosening causes a compound to loosen **back** into its constituents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I ask the entitled question for verbs like the following, but please answer without loss of generality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &gt; [instruere](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=instruct&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;arrange, prepare, set in order; inform, teach,&quot; literally &quot;to build, erect,&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; from [*in-*²](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=in-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) &quot;on&quot; + *struere* &quot;to pile, build&quot; (see [structure](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=structure&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The prefix *in-* appears redundant, because piling or building something must occur **on** something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. &gt; [delimitare](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=delimit&amp;searchmode=none)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;to mark out as a boundary,&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; from [*de-*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=de-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) + *limitare*, from *limitem, limes* &quot;boundary, limit&quot; (see [limit](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=limit&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *de-* feels redundant, because to limit something presumes to &quot;mark out as a boundary&quot; something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. &gt; [operīre](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/operio#Latin)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; from the prefix *op-* 〈[itself](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/operio#Etymology) from PIE root [_*h₁epi_ ‎(“at, near”)](http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/X/P0492.html)〉 + PIE root [_*u̯er-_](http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/X/P2166.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The meaning of *op-* is unclear, because it adds nothing to *operīre*, whose meaning is *not* limited to &quot;cover near/nearby&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. &gt; [*defallere](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=default&amp;searchmode=none)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; from Latin [*de-*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=de-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) &quot;away&quot; + *fallere* &quot;to deceive, to cheat; to put wrong, to lead astray, cause to be mistaken; to escape notice of, be concealed from&quot; (see [fail (v.)](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fail&amp;allowed_in_frame=0))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The meaning of *de-* is unclear; the semantic notion of &quot;away&quot; does not appear in the attested verb _*defallere_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="835" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="234" RevisionGUID="4d576297-ab9b-48cf-89d1-fe1da5ee2029" CreationDate="2016-02-26T14:28:08.713" Comment="Proposed by 66 approved by 79, 12 edit id of 64" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="239" RevisionGUID="1b775ecf-5ba2-4922-95fc-a224b681c35d" CreationDate="2016-02-26T15:07:34.320" UserId="78" Comment="added 165 characters in body" Text="&quot;Believe again&quot; is actually not very well translated. *re-* chiefly has the meaning of &quot;back&quot; (cf. *retro*), so &quot;take back one's pledge&quot; does indeed seem accurate. The &quot;again&quot; here is sloppiness on the editors part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me draw your attention to the Oxford Latin Dictionary's definition of *re-*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **re-,** *prefix.*...Vbl. prefix denoting movement back or in reverse (*redeo*, *reuerto*, *reuoco*), withdrawal (*recondo*, *religo*, *reticeo*), reversal of a previous process (*refrigero*, *resoluo*, *retego*), restoration (*renouo*, *reualesco*), response or opposition (*rebello*, *redarguo*, *respondeo*), separation (*remoueo*), repeated action (*repeto*, *repleo*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the examples given, movement indicating 'back' in some way encompass the first three types of us, while &quot;again&quot; isn't anywhere to be seen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="3dd92c37-2ca6-4d80-93ce-5833b1de5515" CreationDate="2016-02-26T16:25:53.767" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 140 characters in body" Text="Dictionaries are notoriously bad at describing sex acts. Thankfully, J. N. Adams rectified that with his *The Latin Sexual Vocabulary* (Baltimore, 1982). I can add little to what he says of the two words (p. 136–137):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (vii) *Criso* and *ceueo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin possessed two technical terms for types of sexual motion (in both cases that of the passive partner), *criso* and ceueo*. *Criso* indicated the motions of the female in intercourse: note ps.-Acron Hor. *Serm*. 2.7.50 'idest dum ego iaceo supinus et ipsa supra me crisat'...The passage in ps.-Acron should not be taken as implying that *criso* was appropriate only to the schema with the woman astride.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ceueo* was used of the corresponding movements of the male pathic (cf. *ceuulus = 'pathic', *CGL* IL.357.20)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, he goes on to say that these are not very offensive words compared to something like *futuo*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="244" RevisionGUID="00f55d50-8ff9-4d85-845c-5ecc72ef7d5c" CreationDate="2016-02-26T16:38:34.407" UserId="118" Text="Genesim 1:13 Hieronymus sic traduxit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et factum est vesper**e** et mane, dies tertius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cur “vespere”, non “vesper”? Puto id in casu nominativo esse, sed nonne “vespere” in casu ablativo est? Si non nominativo, subiectum sententiæ quid est?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="844" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="244" RevisionGUID="00f55d50-8ff9-4d85-845c-5ecc72ef7d5c" CreationDate="2016-02-26T16:38:34.407" UserId="118" Text="&quot;Factum est vesperE et mane&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="845" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="244" RevisionGUID="00f55d50-8ff9-4d85-845c-5ecc72ef7d5c" CreationDate="2016-02-26T16:38:34.407" UserId="118" Text="|cases|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="245" RevisionGUID="9e8c7542-892e-4144-b133-5b4591022196" CreationDate="2016-02-26T16:41:03.723" UserId="12" Text="I understand that in Classical Latin, when someone asks a question, the *-ne* causes stress patterns for some words to be modified, so that both the *-ne* and the new stress pattern indicates that the sentence is a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, are those the only commonly used indicators of a question?  Do scholars know if a final rise in intonation was also used to indicate a question, as is the case in many modern languages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="847" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="245" RevisionGUID="9e8c7542-892e-4144-b133-5b4591022196" CreationDate="2016-02-26T16:41:03.723" UserId="12" Text="Did ancient Romans raise the intonation of their voices when asking questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="848" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="245" RevisionGUID="9e8c7542-892e-4144-b133-5b4591022196" CreationDate="2016-02-26T16:41:03.723" UserId="12" Text="|classical-latin|spoken-language|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="246" RevisionGUID="377c925c-5462-4daa-904e-b77b6752f508" CreationDate="2016-02-26T16:51:38.407" UserId="68" Text="Both *nam* and *enim* are generally defined as meaning &quot;for,&quot; the only difference between them being that *nam* comes first in a clause and that *enim* is postpositive (i.e., it comes second). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a semantic difference between them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="851" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="246" RevisionGUID="377c925c-5462-4daa-904e-b77b6752f508" CreationDate="2016-02-26T16:51:38.407" UserId="68" Text="What's the difference between *nam* and *enim*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="852" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="246" RevisionGUID="377c925c-5462-4daa-904e-b77b6752f508" CreationDate="2016-02-26T16:51:38.407" UserId="68" Text="|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="853" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="246" RevisionGUID="6bb4658b-6c9a-4689-97da-51028c54b341" CreationDate="2016-02-26T16:59:09.923" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|conjunction|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="6ea8eb09-96ea-4f3d-a13d-3853f325f9c3" CreationDate="2016-02-26T17:01:39.393" UserId="68" Text="I posted this question here because it was something I struggled with for a long, long time, right up until I read [Caroline Kroon][1]'s article &quot;Latin Particles and the Grammar of Discourse&quot; in *[A Companion to the Latin Language][2]*, ed. James Clackson.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between the two isn't so much semantic as it is . . . dí immortálés, I'm terrible with terms . . . about discourse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, *nam* has a narrative function, where *enim* has a dialogical one. With *nam*, the speaker is simply informing the listener of what he believes to be a causal relationship between two facts. With *enim*, the speaker is indicating that he thinks the speaker is on the same page as he is. I've found the easiest translations of *enim*, then, to be &quot;y'know,&quot; or &quot;right?&quot; (in questions), or even &quot;after all.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Dídó sibi mortem cónscívit, nam ab Ænéiá relicta erat.*&#xD;&#xA;Dido killed herself, for she had been left by Aeneas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There I'm simply telling you the facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Dídó sibi mortem cónscívit, ab enim Ænéiá relicta erat.*&#xD;&#xA;Dido killed herself; she had been left by Aeneas, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of *enim* as being accompanied by a knowing shrug or a nod of the head that invites the listener to agree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uva.nl/en/news-events/news/uva-news/content/professor-appointments/2013/08/caroline-kroon-professor-of-latin-language-and-literature.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1405186054?keywords=companion%20to%20the%20latin%20language&amp;qid=1456505596&amp;ref_=sr_1_1&amp;sr=8-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="244" RevisionGUID="e3205f51-e21b-4e5b-b8a0-c2b31948a965" CreationDate="2016-02-26T17:05:58.383" UserId="118" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Genesim 1:13 Hieronymus sic traduxit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et factum est vesper**e** et mane, dies tertius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cur “vespere”, non “vesper”? Puto id in casu nominativo esse debere, sed nonne “vespere” in casu ablativo est? Si non nominativo, subiectum sententiæ quid est?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="008c4fa4-ba36-4eea-b59d-1f60ec5531f9" CreationDate="2016-02-26T17:06:52.153" UserId="66" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="I posted this question here because it was something I struggled with for a long, long time, right up until I read [Caroline Kroon][1]'s article &quot;Latin Particles and the Grammar of Discourse&quot; in *[A Companion to the Latin Language][2]*, ed. James Clackson.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between the two isn't so much semantic as it is . . . dí immortálés, I'm terrible with terms . . . about discourse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, *nam* has a narrative function, where *enim* has a dialogical one. With *nam*, the speaker is simply informing the listener of what he believes to be a causal relationship between two facts. With *enim*, the speaker is indicating that he thinks the speaker is on the same page as he is. I've found the easiest translations of *enim*, then, to be &quot;y'know,&quot; or &quot;right?&quot; (in questions), or even &quot;after all.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dídó sibi mortem cónscívit, nam ab Ænéiá relicta erat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dido killed herself, for she had been left by Aeneas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There I'm simply telling you the facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dídó sibi mortem cónscívit, ab enim Ænéiá relicta erat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dido killed herself; she had been left by Aeneas, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of *enim* as being accompanied by a knowing shrug or a nod of the head that invites the listener to agree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uva.nl/en/news-events/news/uva-news/content/professor-appointments/2013/08/caroline-kroon-professor-of-latin-language-and-literature.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1405186054?keywords=companion%20to%20the%20latin%20language&amp;qid=1456505596&amp;ref_=sr_1_1&amp;sr=8-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="220" RevisionGUID="8cd3ff9e-5aea-4934-8dff-f03f7923c80b" CreationDate="2016-02-26T17:15:23.493" UserId="118" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="The case of a relative pronoun indicates its role inside the subordinate clause, not the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the **servōs** in the main clause are the subject of **pārent** in the subordinate clause, a nominative relative pronoun is needed: **quī**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;If that seems strange, here are three considerations that can help make it seem normal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;​1. It works the same way in [English](http://ell.stackexchange.com/q/57138/6700), although our last pronoun that works this way is fading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The cat killed the rat **who** ate the corn.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The cat killed the rat **whom** fate had chosen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;​2. Making the relative pronoun match the case in the main clause would lose information and really wouldn't make sense in practice. The relative pronoun tells you that the same noun plays a role in _two_ clauses: the main one and the subordinate one. You already know the noun's role in the main clause, because that's indicated by its case in the main clause. The only word available to indicate the noun's role in the subordinate clause is the relative pronoun, so it wouldn't make sense to make the relative pronoun duplicate the antecedent's case in the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;​3. Ultimately, only exposure and practice can really convince your brain that this is normal. So, here are some of the sentences from the chapter that illustrate the principle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Servī **quī** lectīcam portant fessī sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Saccī **quī** ā Syrō et Lēandrō portāntur magnī sunt, sed saccus **quem** Syrus portat nōn tam magnus est quam saccus **quī** ā Lēandrō portātur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is **quī** viā Latīnā venit per portam Capēnam Rōmam intrat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's Ørberg's terse explanation in the margin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; saccī **quī** ā Syrō et Lēandrō port&lt;i&gt;antur&lt;/i&gt; = saccī **quōs** Syrus et Lēander port&lt;i&gt;ant&lt;/i&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="84b6b31b-0d39-404d-a9b8-037dc0b39562" CreationDate="2016-02-26T17:17:25.533" UserId="68" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="I posted this question here because it was something I struggled with for a long, long time, right up until I read [Caroline Kroon][1]'s article &quot;Latin Particles and the Grammar of Discourse&quot; in *[A Companion to the Latin Language][2]*, ed. James Clackson.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between the two isn't so much semantic as it is . . . dí immortálés, I'm terrible with terms . . . about discourse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, *nam* has a narrative function, where *enim* has a dialogical one. With *nam*, the speaker is simply informing the listener of what he believes to be a causal relationship between two facts. With *enim*, the speaker is indicating that he thinks the speaker is on the same page as he is. I've found the easiest translations of *enim*, then, to be &quot;y'know,&quot; or &quot;right?&quot; (in questions), or even &quot;after all.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dídó sibi mortem cónscívit, nam ab Ænéiá relicta erat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dido killed herself, for she had been left by Aeneas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There I'm simply telling you the facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dídó sibi mortem cónscívit, ab enim Ænéiá relicta erat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dido killed herself; she had been left by Aeneas, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There I'm showing you an assumption I'm making that you believe as I do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of *enim* as being accompanied by a knowing shrug or a nod of the head that invites the listener to agree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uva.nl/en/news-events/news/uva-news/content/professor-appointments/2013/08/caroline-kroon-professor-of-latin-language-and-literature.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1405186054?keywords=companion%20to%20the%20latin%20language&amp;qid=1456505596&amp;ref_=sr_1_1&amp;sr=8-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="248" RevisionGUID="5ac4a555-7303-406e-8bd3-6662ef46adbd" CreationDate="2016-02-26T17:26:05.153" UserId="68" Text="In VII.346-7 of the *Æneid*, when Juno sics Allecto on Amata, we have &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hic dea cæruleís únum dé crínibus anguem  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Conjicit inque sinum præcordia ad intima subdit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allecto's . . . blue hair? Hunh? Are they blue snakes? Or can *cæruleus* refer not just to lighter blue but also to midnight-blue-black?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What gives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="860" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="248" RevisionGUID="5ac4a555-7303-406e-8bd3-6662ef46adbd" CreationDate="2016-02-26T17:26:05.153" UserId="68" Text="Allecto's hair dye" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="861" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="248" RevisionGUID="5ac4a555-7303-406e-8bd3-6662ef46adbd" CreationDate="2016-02-26T17:26:05.153" UserId="68" Text="|translation|poetry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="206" RevisionGUID="149675d3-06ff-4818-9ed1-2297649f6a63" CreationDate="2016-02-26T17:33:43.637" UserId="12" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I've seen *sed*, *véró*, and *vérum* described as &quot;but, butter, buttest,&quot; but the descriptions in e.g. Gildersleeve, Bennett—even Zumpt—leave me scratching my head." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="863" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="206" RevisionGUID="149675d3-06ff-4818-9ed1-2297649f6a63" CreationDate="2016-02-26T17:33:43.637" UserId="12" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|conjunction|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="864" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="248" RevisionGUID="18cbc91b-94c5-4ea0-9b08-a53260ccd50a" CreationDate="2016-02-26T17:37:09.830" UserId="68" Comment="edited title" Text="Allecto's hairdo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="865" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="248" RevisionGUID="8783eeb8-82f7-4d83-8b5d-f11ed69974be" CreationDate="2016-02-26T17:39:02.383" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|poetry|aeneis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="963e0d9c-2c18-4e0f-836a-8a4c9e830cd7" CreationDate="2016-02-26T18:49:08.257" UserId="68" Text="In *Róma Æterna* (second volume of *Lingua Latína per sé illustráta*), p. 209, in a discussion of Hannibal adapted from Livy book XXI, contains the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Odiís etiam prope májóribus certávérunt quam víribus, Rómánís indignantibus quod victóribus victí ultró ínferrent arma, Pœnís quod superbé aváréque créderent imperitátum victís esse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused both by *victís* and by *imperitátum* (though more by the latter than the former).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impulse would be to make the infinitive *victós esse*, with an implied *sé* somewhere in there, so that it would agree with the accusative + infinitive construction. I can easily imagine, though, that *victís* has been attracted by *Pœnís* into the ablative. If that's not what's going on, though, does anybody have any ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More confusing to me (or at least less productive of possible explanations) is *imperitátum*. The only neuter noun in the sentence is *arma*, which doesn't match in number (and also *arma imperitáta* doesn't make any sense), so if it's a participle I don't see what it could be referring to. But there aren't any verbs of motion, so it can't be a supine either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="868" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="963e0d9c-2c18-4e0f-836a-8a4c9e830cd7" CreationDate="2016-02-26T18:49:08.257" UserId="68" Text="a confusing sentence in LLpsi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="869" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="963e0d9c-2c18-4e0f-836a-8a4c9e830cd7" CreationDate="2016-02-26T18:49:08.257" UserId="68" Text="|grammar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="8500ed05-8c92-4f9b-a2fb-4deaabf168e2" CreationDate="2016-02-26T18:57:56.047" UserId="68" Text="So Dido's almost finished her long, drawn-out suicide scene, and we get the lines&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Díxit, et ós impressa toró, &quot;Moriémur inultae,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed moriámur,&quot; ait.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like *impressa* is being used here as an active past participle (&quot;and, having imprinted the bed with her lips&quot;), which doesn't make any sense, since *imprímere* isn't deponent and since *imprímere* takes the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shouldn't it be &quot;óribus impressís&quot; (or &quot;óre impressó&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's going on here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="871" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="8500ed05-8c92-4f9b-a2fb-4deaabf168e2" CreationDate="2016-02-26T18:57:56.047" UserId="68" Text="Æneid IV.659-60" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="872" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="8500ed05-8c92-4f9b-a2fb-4deaabf168e2" CreationDate="2016-02-26T18:57:56.047" UserId="68" Text="|grammar|poetry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="873" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="a8938b80-fa62-4602-8764-2033d5c6d03e" CreationDate="2016-02-26T19:04:06.967" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="How do I understand *victís* and *imperitátum* in this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="874" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="a8938b80-fa62-4602-8764-2033d5c6d03e" CreationDate="2016-02-26T19:04:06.967" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|grammar|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="875" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="bc62e685-1ab6-4156-8b2c-09b0bd5657a9" CreationDate="2016-02-26T19:06:32.137" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Why &quot;impressa&quot; in Æneid IV.659-60?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="876" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="bc62e685-1ab6-4156-8b2c-09b0bd5657a9" CreationDate="2016-02-26T19:06:32.137" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|grammar|poetry|aeneis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="877" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="c90356ea-9a47-4730-93bd-e69b1495b0f0" CreationDate="2016-02-26T19:13:47.303" UserId="68" Comment="edited title" Text="How do I understand *victís* and *imperitátum* in this sentence from Livy XXI?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="878" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="248" RevisionGUID="9741d2f6-1ceb-45e7-8ca1-780b0de6cab7" CreationDate="2016-02-26T19:14:56.560" UserId="68" Comment="edited title" Text="Allecto's cerulean hair in *Æneid* VII.346-7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="251" RevisionGUID="46b6803c-9482-4116-8f0e-eb1675dfda23" CreationDate="2016-02-26T19:28:06.810" UserId="40" Text="Virgil is imitating a Greek construction here, or rather two Greek constructions: the middle voice and the accusative of respect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek had a &quot;middle&quot; voice, which in most tenses was formally identical with the passive, but did not have passive meaning; rather, it expressed actions in which the doer was also somehow affected by the action. It's hard to define the function of the middle voice precisely because it had a very wide range of meanings, but it could have been used in the context of this line, and Virgil is imitating that usage by using the passive, which is the closest thing Latin has to a middle. It's not too far from an English reflexive, &quot;having pressed herself...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek also had a particular usage of the accusative called the &quot;accusative of respect&quot;. This can be translated as &quot;with respect to...&quot;, and it's often used with words for body parts: for example, in Homer Achilles is often called &quot;swift of foot&quot;, but the word for &quot;foot&quot; is actually in the accusative, &quot;swift (with respect to) his feet&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So putting the two together you might very literally translate, &quot;having pressed herself with respect to her face...&quot;. Virgil uses this construction (or combination of constructions) a lot: cf. e.g. 1.229 *oculos suffusa nitentis*, and many other examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="252" RevisionGUID="d42739a8-09a5-4558-a43e-b14db4acd3a0" CreationDate="2016-02-26T19:33:49.457" UserId="40" Text="The one piece of the puzzle you're missing is that *impero* takes a dative for the person being commanded: this explains *victis*, as agreeing with an implied &quot;them&quot; (*sibi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Imperitatum* is an impersonal passive: literally, &quot;they believed it to have been commanded to them&quot;, i.e. &quot;they believed they had been commanded&quot;. The syntactic issue here is that since *impero* takes a dative object, it can't be passivized normally, so this impersonal construction has to be used instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="881" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="247017f0-d6ec-45b4-856d-d51b68673667" CreationDate="2016-02-26T19:47:48.037" UserId="68" Comment="edited title" Text="How do I understand &quot;victís&quot; and &quot;imperitátum&quot; in this sentence from Livy XXI?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="882" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="25e56dd9-61cf-45f4-a58c-49a87440ff15" CreationDate="2016-02-26T19:48:15.133" UserId="68" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar|poetry|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|aeneis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="253" RevisionGUID="c0a002a0-a9c7-460c-a1d2-8be41c060f43" CreationDate="2016-02-26T20:35:01.397" UserId="30" Text="Allecto, one of the Furies, is commonly associated with dark colours and snakes (see *Pauly–Wissowa* on the Furies). Furies often have snake hair too, and snakes are often blue; they don't look like ordinary women. So Allecto took a snake from her dark-blue snake hair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Caerulus* can mean &quot;dark&quot; as an epithet to words like *death* and *rain*, but Lewis &amp; Short connect with snakes and the Furies only under the sub-sense &quot;of other darkblue objects&quot;, in a quotation from Virgil's *Georgics*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quin ipsae stupuere domus atque intima Leti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tartara **caeruleosque implexae crinibus angues**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eumenides, tenuitque inhians tria Cerberus ora&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Virgil, *Georgics* 4.481–483.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even the Eumenids (a common euphemism for the Furies) themselves are stupefied as Orpheus enters the underworld. They are entwined with *caeruleae* snakes in their hair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ennius mentions a *caerulea anguis* in his lost play about Alcmaeon. Cicero quotes Ennius's play when discussing madness, in which Alcmaeon is attacked or oppressed by the Furies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Fer mi auxilium, pestem abige a me, flammiferam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hanc vim, quae me excruciat!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Caerulea incinctae angui** incedunt, circumstant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum ardentibus taedis.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Ennius, *Alcmeo* (lost), in: Cicero, *Academicae Quaestiones* 2.28.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Furies are coming towards him, surrounded with a *caerulea* snake. So this is an old collocation. Presumably snakes surround the Furies' heads, and even their entire bodies. I, too, am often seen with snakes all over my body, and they and I are all associated with Tartarus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you will see a few pictures of the Erinyes and me from Greek vases (6th to 3rd centuries BC):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Orestes at Delphi flanked by Athena and Pylades among the Erinyes and priestesses of the oracle, perhaps including Pythia behind the tripod - Paestan red-figured bell-krater, c. 330 BC][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Erinyes, Apulian red figure krater C4th B.C., Badishes Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Collection: TBA (Taranto?), Laconian Black Figure, Kylix, C6th BC: Kerberos, the three-headed guard dog of Haides, is depicted draped in a mane of snakes. The bird flying above him probably represents a flittering soul. Herakles enters the scene on the right with only his club and foot showing.][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fc1ML.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JUEfd.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tTmdS.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="253" RevisionGUID="9f75dde5-889d-46c0-969f-92256d13a9ea" CreationDate="2016-02-26T20:45:11.283" UserId="30" Comment="added 450 characters in body" Text="Allecto, one of the Furies, is commonly associated with dark colours and snakes (see *Pauly–Wissowa* on the Furies). Furies often have snake hair too, and snakes are often blue; they don't look like ordinary women. So Allecto took a snake from her dark-blue snake hair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Caerulus* can mean &quot;dark&quot; as an epithet to words like *death* and *rain*, but Lewis &amp; Short connect with snakes and the Furies only under the sub-sense &quot;of other darkblue objects&quot;, in a quotation from Virgil's *Georgics*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quin ipsae stupuere domus atque intima Leti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tartara **caeruleosque implexae crinibus angues**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eumenides, tenuitque inhians tria Cerberus ora&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Virgil, *Georgics* 4.481–483.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even the Eumenids (a common euphemism for the Furies) themselves are stupefied as Orpheus enters the underworld. They are entwined with *caeruleae* snakes in their hair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ennius mentions a *caerulea anguis* in his lost play about Alcmaeon. Cicero quotes Ennius's play when discussing madness, in which Alcmaeon is attacked or oppressed by the Furies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Fer mi auxilium, pestem abige a me, flammiferam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hanc vim, quae me excruciat!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Caerulea incinctae angui** incedunt, circumstant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum ardentibus taedis.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Ennius, *Alcmeo* (lost), in: Cicero, *Academicae Quaestiones* 2.28.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Furies are coming towards him, surrounded with a *caerulea* snake. So this is an old collocation. Presumably snakes surround the Furies' heads, and even their entire bodies. I, too, am often seen with snakes all over my body, and they and I are all associated with Tartarus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid, too, describes the hair of the Furies as containing or consisting of serpents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obstitit infelix aditumque obsedit Erinys,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nexaque vipereis distendens bracchia nodis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **caesariem** excussit. Motae sonuere **colubrae**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parsque iacent umeris, pars circum pectora lapsae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sibila dant saniemque vomunt linguisque coruscant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Inde **duos mediis abrumpit crinibus angues**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pestiferaque manu raptos inmisit. At illi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Ovid, *Metamorphoses* 4.490–496.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you will see a few pictures of the Erinyes and me from Greek vases (6th to 3rd centuries BC):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Orestes at Delphi flanked by Athena and Pylades among the Erinyes and priestesses of the oracle, perhaps including Pythia behind the tripod - Paestan red-figured bell-krater, c. 330 BC][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Erinyes, Apulian red figure krater C4th B.C., Badishes Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Collection: TBA (Taranto?), Laconian Black Figure, Kylix, C6th BC: Kerberos, the three-headed guard dog of Haides, is depicted draped in a mane of snakes. The bird flying above him probably represents a flittering soul. Herakles enters the scene on the right with only his club and foot showing.][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fc1ML.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JUEfd.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tTmdS.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="253" RevisionGUID="e421b0a0-95f5-4605-bb8f-ee07be1c772c" CreationDate="2016-02-26T21:58:19.717" UserId="30" Comment="added 593 characters in body" Text="Allecto, one of the Furies, is commonly associated with dark colours and snakes (see *Pauly–Wissowa* on the Furies). Furies often have snake hair too, and snakes are often blue; they don't look like ordinary women. So Allecto took a snake from her dark-blue snake hair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Caerulus* can mean &quot;dark&quot; as an epithet to words like *death* and *rain*, but Lewis &amp; Short connect it with snakes and the Furies under the sub-sense &quot;of other darkblue objects&quot;, in a quotation from Virgil's *Georgics*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quin ipsae stupuere domus atque intima Leti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tartara **caeruleosque implexae crinibus angues**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eumenides, tenuitque inhians tria Cerberus ora&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Virgil, *Georgics* 4.481–483.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even the Eumenids (a common euphemism for the Furies) themselves are stupefied as Orpheus enters the underworld. They are entwined with *caeruleae* snakes in their hair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ennius mentions a *caerulea anguis* in his lost play about Alcmaeon. Cicero quotes Ennius's play when discussing madness, in which Alcmaeon is attacked or oppressed by the Furies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Fer mi auxilium, pestem abige a me, flammiferam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hanc vim, quae me excruciat!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Caerulea incinctae angui** incedunt, circumstant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum ardentibus taedis.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Ennius, *Alcmeo* (lost), in: Cicero, *Academicae Quaestiones* 2.28.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Furies are coming towards him, surrounded with a *caerulea* snake. So this is an old collocation. Presumably snakes surround the Furies' heads, and even their entire bodies. I, too, am often seen with snakes all over my body, and they and I are all associated with Tartarus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid, too, describes the hair of the Furies as containing or consisting of serpents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obstitit infelix aditumque obsedit Erinys,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nexaque vipereis distendens bracchia nodis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **caesariem** excussit. Motae sonuere **colubrae**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parsque iacent umeris, pars circum pectora lapsae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sibila dant saniemque vomunt linguisque coruscant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Inde **duos mediis abrumpit crinibus angues**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pestiferaque manu raptos inmisit. At illi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Ovid, *Metamorphoses* 4.490–496.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you will see a few pictures of the Erinyes and me from Greek vases (6th to 3rd centuries BC):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Orestes at Delphi flanked by Athena and Pylades among the Erinyes and priestesses of the oracle, perhaps including Pythia behind the tripod - Paestan red-figured bell-krater, c. 330 BC.][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*— Orestes at Delphi flanked by Athena and Pylades among the Erinyes and priestesses of the oracle, perhaps including Pythia behind the tripod - Paestan red-figured bell-krater, c. 330 BC.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;[![Erinyes, Apulian red figure krater C4th B.C., Badishes Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe.][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*— Erinyes, Apulian red figure krater C4th B.C., Badishes Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;[![Collection: TBA (Taranto?), Laconian Black Figure, Kylix, C6th BC: Kerberos, the three-headed guard dog of Haides, is depicted draped in a mane of snakes. The bird flying above him probably represents a flittering soul. Herakles enters the scene on the right with only his club and foot showing.][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*— Collection: TBA (Taranto?), Laconian Black Figure, Kylix, C6th BC: Kerberos, the three-headed guard dog of Haides, is depicted draped in a mane of snakes. The bird flying above him probably represents a flittering soul. Herakles enters the scene on the right with only his club and foot showing.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fc1ML.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JUEfd.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tTmdS.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="254" RevisionGUID="71d35b0f-b404-4d0e-8e9f-5629eda76c7a" CreationDate="2016-02-26T21:58:48.997" UserId="79" Text="My understanding is that *strenuus* means 'stiff' or 'rigid' in the sense of 'willing to stay by ones duty' or even 'stubborn in doing what one does'.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of stiffness implies willingness and ability to do (hard) work.&#xD;&#xA;From this point of view swiftness is a part of being *strenuus*, but 'quick' and such meanings seem secondary while the primary meaning is closer to 'devoted (to work)'.&#xD;&#xA;While I have nothing to back this up with, this is how I have always taught about *strenuus* and it makes perfect sense with the proposed PIE root." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="255" RevisionGUID="073acfb8-b9e1-4e76-9070-3bcbbff7160d" CreationDate="2016-02-26T23:09:36.597" UserId="68" Text="The prefix of *ínstó* seems to suggest pressure or movement in a way that *mínor* doesn't, so perhaps but is that suggestion borne out in their actual use? Quí mínátur quasí fíxus est, quí ínstat in aliquem movit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="890" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="255" RevisionGUID="073acfb8-b9e1-4e76-9070-3bcbbff7160d" CreationDate="2016-02-26T23:09:36.597" UserId="68" Text="What nuances that distinguish &quot;mínor&quot; and &quot;ínstó&quot; when they mean &quot;threaten&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="891" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="255" RevisionGUID="073acfb8-b9e1-4e76-9070-3bcbbff7160d" CreationDate="2016-02-26T23:09:36.597" UserId="68" Text="|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="d87104f5-b9cc-4817-9c33-94d074bd13af" CreationDate="2016-02-26T23:30:16.570" UserId="17" Comment="Changed length marks into macrons; removed from “imprimere”, as all vowels in that word are short" Text="So Dido's almost finished her long, drawn-out suicide scene, and we get the lines&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dīxit, et ōs impressa torō, &quot;Moriēmur inultae,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed moriāmur,&quot; ait.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like *impressa* is being used here as an active past participle (&quot;and, having imprinted the bed with her lips&quot;), which doesn't make any sense, since *imprimere* isn't deponent and since *imprimere* takes the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shouldn't it be &quot;ōribus impressīs&quot; (or &quot;ōre impressō&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's going on here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="893" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="d87104f5-b9cc-4817-9c33-94d074bd13af" CreationDate="2016-02-26T23:30:16.570" Comment="Proposed by 17 approved by 12, 66 edit id of 65" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="894" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="255" RevisionGUID="ffde16ab-fc02-42a5-bd06-5d902126f7cb" CreationDate="2016-02-26T23:39:11.567" UserId="68" Comment="edited title" Text="What nuances distinguish &quot;mínor&quot; and &quot;ínstó&quot; when they mean &quot;threaten&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="206" RevisionGUID="96fe6c99-31c5-4e49-b526-dd87cfd211a4" CreationDate="2016-02-26T23:57:12.513" UserId="17" Comment="Changed length marks into macrons; removed from “sed”, as the vowel in that word is short" Text="I've seen *sed*, *vērō*, and *vērum* described as &quot;but, butter, buttest,&quot; but the descriptions in e.g. Gildersleeve, Bennett—even Zumpt—leave me scratching my head." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="896" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="206" RevisionGUID="96fe6c99-31c5-4e49-b526-dd87cfd211a4" CreationDate="2016-02-26T23:57:12.513" UserId="17" Comment="Changed length marks into macrons; removed from “sed”, as the vowel in that word is short" Text="What nuances distinguish sed/vērō/vērum as words for &quot;but&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="897" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="206" RevisionGUID="96fe6c99-31c5-4e49-b526-dd87cfd211a4" CreationDate="2016-02-26T23:57:12.513" Comment="Proposed by 17 approved by 66, 71 edit id of 66" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="256" RevisionGUID="7babc9d3-5e77-4f3e-b635-d98005844593" CreationDate="2016-02-26T23:57:33.173" UserId="78" Text="Vespere, like mane, is adverbial (originally from the ablative), 'in the evening.' Also like mane, in late vulgar Latin it became an indeclinable substantive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That mane, as an ablative, can turn into an adverb and then be used as a noun allows vespere to be done on analogy. Indeed, even Lewis and Short points out their common origin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; māne , indecl. (archaic abl. mani, like luci, vesperi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Vergil (*Georg*. 3.325) can say *mane novum* 'new morning', Cicero (*Att*. 5.4.1) joked with Atticus about sleeping *mane totum* 'the whole morning', and of course Martial (1.49.36) can simply say, *mane erat* 'it was morning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While we don't quite see this development with *vesper* in Classical Latin, fifth-century vulgar Latin was no stranger to strange developments, and *mane* furnishes a perfect parallel (both grammatically and conceptually) to allow Jerome to use it as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There *is* an alternative way to look at it, which would be to read *factum est* as an impersonal and *vespere et mane* adverbially/as ablatives of time. I don't like that reading, and I think it's being too charitable to vulgar Latin, but there you have it anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="235" RevisionGUID="13c49844-1096-4271-98fb-8e169091128f" CreationDate="2016-02-26T23:57:44.953" UserId="78" Comment="added 237 characters in body" Text="Despite the apparent naturalness for deriving *pontifex* from *pons*, *pontis*, we're not so sure that's the right etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the years some have made the case for this derivation, including Judy Hallet back in 1970. As early as the first century BCE, though, this derivation has been contended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll skip over the ancient evidence since Joonas Ilmavirta covers Varro and Scaevola's theory. In more modern times, and with better knowledge of Italic languages, other theories have arisen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roland Kent included a few post-Classical suggestions, including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *pons* meaning &quot;path&quot; (cognate with Greek *πάτος* (patos) and Sanskrit *panthan-*), where the *pontifex* would &quot;lead the way in processions&quot; (Isidore included this in his *Etymologicum Magnum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Kuhn's suggestion that *pons* meant path, but religiously speaking, so a &quot;Pfadbereiter, der zum Pfade der Goetter leitet&quot; (pathmaker, who directs the paths of the gods).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *ponti-* to the root *pū* 'purify': hence *pontifex* 'maker of purifications, of expiatory sacrifices.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pfund's suggestion *ponti-* = Oscan *pomtis* 'five times': hence *pontifex* 'the one making the fifth,' that is, 'maker of calculations' for calendar purposes, or 'the Five Actors' in some ceremonial performance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kent dismisses these almost out of hand, especially anything to do with 'five' for its irrelevance to Roman religion and the *pū* and *pote-* suggestions for their phonetic difficulties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He concludes by presenting Sanskrit and Avestan evidence for &quot;paths to the gods&quot; and decides on that etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judy Hallet in her 1970 paper on the topic brings up a good point in that many titles held by special offices once connoted something different than their current status would indicate. For example, she mentions the *teichopoioi* (Greek for &quot;wall-builders&quot;) who &quot;were concerned with financial matters&quot; in later periods. Even the Roman office of *quaestor* was originally the *quaestor paricidii* and was tasked, originally, with looking for murderers. Therefore, it is not impossible that indeed the original meaning of *pontifex* is bridge-builder, and their original task was to build and look after bridges (in particular the Pons Sublicius). She also points to Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1.38.3 where he states that the *pontifices* still (first century CE) make sacrifices at bridges. The clearest meaning should be upheld.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This revival is impeded, however, by Bourdellès, who shows that the second root in *pontifex* cannot be ancient, that it uses a much more recent suffix. Bourdellès therefore goes back to the &quot;five&quot; root, but finds support in Hittite and Tocharian evidence that &quot;five&quot; can signify *all*, and further that this was an ancient designation in Umbrian that the Romans then borrowed. Honestly, I don't buy it and not many scholars have either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bernard Kavanagh also rebutted Hallett's points, and pointed out that the ancient evidence could have entirely been made up post-Scaevola. There is no good ancient evidence connecting them to bridges outside of a story probably concocted to fit the apparent etymology. He points out that Cicero said that the original number of *pontifices* at the foundation of Rome was five:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Idemque Pompilius et auspiciis maioribus inventis ad pristinum numerum duo augures et sacris e principum numero pontifices quinque praefect...* (Cic. *Rep.* II, 26).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He then derives *pontifex* from the Sabellic *punt-* (n.b.: Sabellic is the Italic group that encompasses both Oscan and Umbrian as well as Sabine, Volscian, and Samnite, but *not* Latin). The *-fex* part of their name is connected to *facere sacra* (to do the sacred rites), which would give them the ultimate meaning of &quot;a member of a board of five who performed (the sacred rites).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bourdellès, H. Le 1976. &quot;Nature profonde du pontificat romain Tentative d'une étymologie.&quot; *Revue de l'histoire des religions* 189.1: 53–65.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hallet, Judith P. 1970. &quot; &quot;Over Troubled Waters&quot;: The Meaning of the Title Pontifex.&quot; *Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association* 101: 219–227.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kavanagh, Bernard J. 2000. &quot;Pontifices, Bridge-Making and Ribezzo Revisited.&quot; *Glotta* 76.1: 59-65&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kent, Roland G. 1913. &quot;The Vedic Path of the Gods and the Roman Pontifex.&quot; *Classical Philology* 8.3: 317–326.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kuhn, A. 1855. &quot;Pfad, πάτος, πόντος, pons, pontifex.&quot; *Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete des Deutschen, Griechischen und Lateinischen* 4: 73–77.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pfund, Th. G. 1847. *Altitalische Rechtsaltertuemer in der römischen Sage*, Weimar. (pp. 212ff.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="900" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="235" RevisionGUID="9e4328c9-339e-4ccc-b802-0f797204b01d" CreationDate="2016-02-26T23:57:48.593" UserId="78" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="239" RevisionGUID="52d813de-8c34-4b8e-a0db-846af9a0db1a" CreationDate="2016-02-27T00:01:11.783" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="&quot;Believe again&quot; is actually not very well translated. *re-* chiefly has the meaning of &quot;back&quot; (cf. *retro*), so &quot;take back one's pledge&quot; does indeed seem accurate. The &quot;again&quot; here is sloppiness on the editors part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me draw your attention to the Oxford Latin Dictionary's definition of *re-*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **re-,** *prefix.*...Vbl. prefix denoting movement back or in reverse (*redeo*, *reuerto*, *reuoco*), withdrawal (*recondo*, *religo*, *reticeo*), reversal of a previous process (*refrigero*, *resoluo*, *retego*), restoration (*renouo*, *reualesco*), response or opposition (*rebello*, *redarguo*, *respondeo*), separation (*remoueo*), repeated action (*repeto*, *repleo*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the examples given, movement indicating 'back' in some way encompass the first three types of us, while &quot;again&quot; is rather limited." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="153" RevisionGUID="8289125c-9067-4a40-b44d-a5bb01d1f518" CreationDate="2016-02-27T00:32:24.083" UserId="39" Comment="added 1834 characters in body" Text="Why questions in linguistics are the hardest because we can only speculate. That being said, there is plenty of evidence to make an educated guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lundquist 2016 defines rhotacism as “the replacement of a non [r] sound with [r].”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inervocalic s (a letter, not a sound!) is found “only on the very earliest inscriptions” (Weiss 2009/2011),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;e.g. IOVE**S**AT, VALE**S**IO**S**IO, E**S**ED (all circa 500 BCE); NUMA**S**IOI (700 BCE?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't know for sure how intervocalic s was pronounced in Old Latin but there is good reason to believe it was a voiced fricative, [z], cf. Sihler 1995, who writes that rhotacism in Latin was “doubtless through the medium of [z].”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, we reconstruct the change as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*s &gt; *z &gt; r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Dating**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not everyone agrees on whether it happened in Proto-Italic or just affected the Latino-Faliscan branch only. Weiss 2009/2011 argues it was &quot;an areal feature that affected Latin, Faliscan, and Umbrian&quot; (Umbrian belongs to the Sabellic branch).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, ancient grammarians were aware of this change too - Varro is the most cited example. e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In multis verbis in quo antiqui dicebant S, postea dicunt R (L.7.27).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for dating, most evidence comes from texts. For example, Cicero talks about princeps L. Papirius Mugillanus &quot;qui censor cum L. Sempronio Atratino fuit&quot; and we learn about him that he &quot;*primum Papisius est vocari desitus*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example: in 312 BC &quot;*Idem Appius Claudius... R litteram invenit, ut pro Valesiis Valerii essent, et pro Fusiis Furii*.&quot; [Weiss 2010][1] interprets this passage the following way, &quot;in redacting the senatorial roll in his capacity as censor in 312 BCE Claudius rewrote these nomina, formerly spelled with s, with the letter r.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking such evidence into consideration, we assume that rhotacism must have happened before the middle of the forth century BC,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. **Niederman 1906** “Or, si nous considérons que, de tous les mots d’une langue, ce sont les noms propres qui se transforment le plus lentement […], nous ne risquerons guère de nous tromper en affirmant que, dans les noms communs, **le rhotacisme était un fait accompli des l’année av. J.-C. environ**” (p. 71). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Phonetic explanation:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, scholars have always wanted to explain rhotacism phonetically (why does it happen?). As **Garrett and Johnson 2011** astutely observe that historical linguistics textbook classify sound changes rather superficially, arguing that “an explanatory classification of surface patterns should reflect a typology of causes” (i.e it should be articulatory or acoustically oriented). They **explain rhotacism with the help of aerodynamic constraints** (a bias against voiced fricatives); in other words, voiced fricatives tend to become glides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. Solé 1992, who argues that z &gt; r is due to “hardware constraints which are built into the physical system used for speech” or Painter 2012, who concludes that “rhotacism is the result of the listener reanalyzing phonetic realizations of a target /z/ in the speech signal as belonging to /r/.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Environment**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, rhotacism didn't happen simultaneously in all contexts - that is why there are numerous exceptions - below is my summary of exceptions, based on Baldi 1994: 285-290; Leumann 1977 and Sihler 1995, §172-173.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Exceptions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Leveling, e.g. arbor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Borrowings (they were borrowed either later or from non-rhotacizing donor languages), e.g. basis, casa, Musa, rosa etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Words that originally had ss: causa, formosa, quaeso, visus, usus etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Next syllable begins with r, e.g. Caesar, miser (but: soror, aurora) etc;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Derivationally transparent compounds: e.g. desino, nisi etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why are there so many exceptions?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pretty common view to rhotacism is to treat it a **multi-stage, diachronic process** (starting with Touratier 1975; also see Baldi 1994). The best description of rhotacism I'm aware of is [Roberts 2012][2]. His model has five stages, starting with stage 0 - he calls his a *phonetic tendency* - when &quot;co-articulatory pressures cause intervocalic voiceless consonants to tend to be realised as voiced&quot; and concluding with stage L, when rhotacism became &quot;a systematic property of the lexicon, subject to extension by analogy&quot; and when rhotacism was &quot;no longer productive over new VsV sequences, such as in&#xD;&#xA;loans or those created by the degemination of ss.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baldi, Philip. 1994. Some Thoughts on Latin Rhotacism. *General Linguistics* 34: 209-216.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Baldi, Philip. 2002.][3] The Foundations of Latin. Berlin: De Gruyter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson, James, and Geoffrey C. Horrocks. 2011. *The Blackwell history of the Latin language*. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Garrett, Andrew, and Keith Johnson. 2011.][4] *Phonetic bias in sound change*. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann, Manu. 1977. *Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre*. München: C.H. Bech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Roberts, Philip J. 2012.][2] Latin Rhotacism: A Case Study in the Life cycle of Phonological Processes. *Transactions of the Philological Society*, 110(1): 80–93.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Touratier, C. 1975.][5] Rhotacisme synchronique du latin classique et rhotacisme diachronique. *Glotta* 53.246-281. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss, Michael L. 2009/2011. *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin*. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ohcgl.blogspot.com/2010/01/papirius-and-appius-claudius.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2012.01285.x/full&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.degruyter.com/viewbooktoc/product/47839&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=10&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiki6al2JbLAhVSz2MKHfh5CCkQFghTMAk&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Flinguistics.berkeley.edu%2Fphonlab%2Fannual_report%2Fdocuments%2F2011%2FGarrett_Johnson_2011.pdf&amp;usg=AFQjCNGmbcquKALZAFg9LhikTNV6aBnGOg&amp;sig2=Ygbc6qibn4cPJlNPeFiREQ&amp;bvm=bv.115339255,d.cGc&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40266333" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="153" RevisionGUID="53fe00db-e481-4801-b848-8368d4c5d48b" CreationDate="2016-02-27T00:37:01.167" UserId="78" Comment="typo &amp; added Sihler you mentioned cited but didn't include in your references" Text="Why questions in linguistics are the hardest because we can only speculate. That being said, there is plenty of evidence to make an educated guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lundquist 2016 defines rhotacism as “the replacement of a non [r] sound with [r].”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inervocalic s (a letter, not a sound!) is found “only on the very earliest inscriptions” (Weiss 2009/2011),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;e.g. IOVE**S**AT, VALE**S**IO**S**IO, E**S**ED (all circa 500 BCE); NUMA**S**IOI (700 BCE?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't know for sure how intervocalic s was pronounced in Old Latin but there is good reason to believe it was a voiced fricative, [z], cf. Sihler 1995, who writes that rhotacism in Latin was “doubtless through the medium of [z].”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, we reconstruct the change as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*s &gt; *z &gt; r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Dating**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not everyone agrees on whether it happened in Proto-Italic or just affected the Latino-Faliscan branch only. Weiss 2009/2011 argues it was &quot;an areal feature that affected Latin, Faliscan, and Umbrian&quot; (Umbrian belongs to the Sabellic branch).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, ancient grammarians were aware of this change too - Varro is the most cited example. e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In multis verbis in quo antiqui dicebant S, postea dicunt R (L.7.27).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for dating, most evidence comes from texts. For example, Cicero talks about princeps L. Papirius Mugillanus &quot;qui censor cum L. Sempronio Atratino fuit&quot; and we learn about him that he &quot;*primum Papisius est vocari desitus*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example: in 312 BC &quot;*Idem Appius Claudius... R litteram invenit, ut pro Valesiis Valerii essent, et pro Fusiis Furii*.&quot; [Weiss 2010][1] interprets this passage the following way, &quot;in redacting the senatorial roll in his capacity as censor in 312 BCE Claudius rewrote these nomina, formerly spelled with s, with the letter r.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking such evidence into consideration, we assume that rhotacism must have happened before the middle of the fourth century BC,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. **Niederman 1906** “Or, si nous considérons que, de tous les mots d’une langue, ce sont les noms propres qui se transforment le plus lentement […], nous ne risquerons guère de nous tromper en affirmant que, dans les noms communs, **le rhotacisme était un fait accompli des l’année av. J.-C. environ**” (p. 71). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Phonetic explanation:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, scholars have always wanted to explain rhotacism phonetically (why does it happen?). As **Garrett and Johnson 2011** astutely observe that historical linguistics textbook classify sound changes rather superficially, arguing that “an explanatory classification of surface patterns should reflect a typology of causes” (i.e it should be articulatory or acoustically oriented). They **explain rhotacism with the help of aerodynamic constraints** (a bias against voiced fricatives); in other words, voiced fricatives tend to become glides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. Solé 1992, who argues that z &gt; r is due to “hardware constraints which are built into the physical system used for speech” or Painter 2012, who concludes that “rhotacism is the result of the listener reanalyzing phonetic realizations of a target /z/ in the speech signal as belonging to /r/.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Environment**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, rhotacism didn't happen simultaneously in all contexts - that is why there are numerous exceptions - below is my summary of exceptions, based on Baldi 1994: 285-290; Leumann 1977 and Sihler 1995, §172-173.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Exceptions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Leveling, e.g. arbor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Borrowings (they were borrowed either later or from non-rhotacizing donor languages), e.g. basis, casa, Musa, rosa etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Words that originally had ss: causa, formosa, quaeso, visus, usus etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Next syllable begins with r, e.g. Caesar, miser (but: soror, aurora) etc;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Derivationally transparent compounds: e.g. desino, nisi etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why are there so many exceptions?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pretty common view to rhotacism is to treat it a **multi-stage, diachronic process** (starting with Touratier 1975; also see Baldi 1994). The best description of rhotacism I'm aware of is [Roberts 2012][2]. His model has five stages, starting with stage 0 - he calls his a *phonetic tendency* - when &quot;co-articulatory pressures cause intervocalic voiceless consonants to tend to be realised as voiced&quot; and concluding with stage L, when rhotacism became &quot;a systematic property of the lexicon, subject to extension by analogy&quot; and when rhotacism was &quot;no longer productive over new VsV sequences, such as in&#xD;&#xA;loans or those created by the degemination of ss.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baldi, Philip. 1994. Some Thoughts on Latin Rhotacism. *General Linguistics* 34: 209-216.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Baldi, Philip. 2002.][3] The Foundations of Latin. Berlin: De Gruyter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson, James, and Geoffrey C. Horrocks. 2011. *The Blackwell history of the Latin language*. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Garrett, Andrew, and Keith Johnson. 2011.][4] *Phonetic bias in sound change*. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann, Manu. 1977. *Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre*. München: C.H. Bech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Roberts, Philip J. 2012.][2] Latin Rhotacism: A Case Study in the Life cycle of Phonological Processes. *Transactions of the Philological Society*, 110(1): 80–93.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. *New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin*. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Touratier, C. 1975.][5] Rhotacisme synchronique du latin classique et rhotacisme diachronique. *Glotta* 53.246-281. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss, Michael L. 2009/2011. *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin*. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ohcgl.blogspot.com/2010/01/papirius-and-appius-claudius.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2012.01285.x/full&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.degruyter.com/viewbooktoc/product/47839&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=10&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiki6al2JbLAhVSz2MKHfh5CCkQFghTMAk&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Flinguistics.berkeley.edu%2Fphonlab%2Fannual_report%2Fdocuments%2F2011%2FGarrett_Johnson_2011.pdf&amp;usg=AFQjCNGmbcquKALZAFg9LhikTNV6aBnGOg&amp;sig2=Ygbc6qibn4cPJlNPeFiREQ&amp;bvm=bv.115339255,d.cGc&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40266333" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="153" RevisionGUID="379bac5b-bff5-4448-a05c-478834077b5b" CreationDate="2016-02-27T00:37:30.060" UserId="39" Comment="added 1834 characters in body" Text="Why questions in linguistics are the hardest because we can only speculate. That being said, there is plenty of evidence to make an educated guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lundquist 2016 defines rhotacism as “the replacement of a non [r] sound with [r].”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inervocalic s (a letter, not a sound!) is found “only on the very earliest inscriptions” (Weiss 2009/2011),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;e.g. IOVE**S**AT, VALE**S**IO**S**IO, E**S**ED (all circa 500 BCE); NUMA**S**IOI (700 BCE?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't know for sure how intervocalic s was pronounced in Old Latin but there is good reason to believe it was a voiced fricative, [z], cf. Sihler 1995, who writes that rhotacism in Latin was “doubtless through the medium of [z].”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, we reconstruct the change as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*s &gt; *z &gt; r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Dating**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not everyone agrees on whether it happened in Proto-Italic or just affected the Latino-Faliscan branch only. Weiss 2009/2011 argues it was &quot;an areal feature that affected Latin, Faliscan, and Umbrian&quot; (Umbrian belongs to the Sabellic branch).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, ancient grammarians were aware of this change too - Varro is the most cited example. e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In multis verbis in quo antiqui dicebant S, postea dicunt R (L.7.27).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for dating, most evidence comes from texts. For example, Cicero talks about princeps L. Papirius Mugillanus &quot;qui censor cum L. Sempronio Atratino fuit&quot; and we learn about him that he &quot;*primum Papisius est vocari desitus*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example: in 312 BC &quot;*Idem Appius Claudius... R litteram invenit, ut pro Valesiis Valerii essent, et pro Fusiis Furii*.&quot; [Weiss 2010][1] interprets this passage the following way, &quot;in redacting the senatorial roll in his capacity as censor in 312 BCE Claudius rewrote these nomina, formerly spelled with s, with the letter r.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking such evidence into consideration, we assume that rhotacism must have happened before the middle of the forth century BC,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. **Niederman 1906** “Or, si nous considérons que, de tous les mots d’une langue, ce sont les noms propres qui se transforment le plus lentement […], nous ne risquerons guère de nous tromper en affirmant que, dans les noms communs, **le rhotacisme était un fait accompli des l’année av. J.-C. environ**” (p. 71). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Phonetic explanation:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, scholars have always wanted to explain rhotacism phonetically (why does it happen?). As **Garrett and Johnson 2011** astutely observe that historical linguistics textbook classify sound changes rather superficially, arguing that “an explanatory classification of surface patterns should reflect a typology of causes” (i.e it should be articulatory or acoustically oriented). They **explain rhotacism with the help of aerodynamic constraints** (a bias against voiced fricatives); in other words, voiced fricatives tend to become glides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. Solé 1992, who argues that z &gt; r is due to “hardware constraints which are built into the physical system used for speech” or Painter 2012, who concludes that “rhotacism is the result of the listener reanalyzing phonetic realizations of a target /z/ in the speech signal as belonging to /r/.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Environment**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, rhotacism didn't happen simultaneously in all contexts - that is why there are numerous exceptions - below is my summary of exceptions, based on Baldi 2002: 285-290; Leumann 1977 and Sihler 1995, §172-173.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Exceptions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Leveling, e.g. arbor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Borrowings (they were borrowed either later or from non-rhotacizing donor languages), e.g. basis, casa, Musa, rosa etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Words that originally had ss: causa, formosa, quaeso, visus, usus etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Next syllable begins with r, e.g. Caesar, miser (but: soror, aurora) etc;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Derivationally transparent compounds: e.g. desino, nisi etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why are there so many exceptions?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pretty common view to rhotacism is to treat it a **multi-stage, diachronic process** (starting with Touratier 1975; also see Baldi 1994). The best description of rhotacism I'm aware of is [Roberts 2012][2]. His model has five stages, starting with stage 0 - he calls his a *phonetic tendency* - when &quot;co-articulatory pressures cause intervocalic voiceless consonants to tend to be realised as voiced&quot; and concluding with stage L, when rhotacism became &quot;a systematic property of the lexicon, subject to extension by analogy&quot; and when rhotacism was &quot;no longer productive over new VsV sequences, such as in&#xD;&#xA;loans or those created by the degemination of ss.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baldi, Philip. 1994. Some Thoughts on Latin Rhotacism. *General Linguistics* 34: 209-216.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Baldi, Philip. 2002.][3] The Foundations of Latin. Berlin: De Gruyter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson, James, and Geoffrey C. Horrocks. 2011. *The Blackwell history of the Latin language*. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Garrett, Andrew, and Keith Johnson. 2011.][4] *Phonetic bias in sound change*. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lundquist, Jesse. 2016. &quot;Rhotacism.&quot; [Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics.][5] Brill Online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann, Manu. 1977. *Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre*. München: C.H. Bech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Roberts, Philip J. 2012.][2] Latin Rhotacism: A Case Study in the Life cycle of Phonological Processes. *Transactions of the Philological Society*, 110(1): 80–93.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Touratier, C. 1975.][6] Rhotacisme synchronique du latin classique et rhotacisme diachronique. *Glotta* 53.246-281. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss, Michael L. 2009/2011. *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin*. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ohcgl.blogspot.com/2010/01/papirius-and-appius-claudius.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2012.01285.x/full&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.degruyter.com/viewbooktoc/product/47839&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=10&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiki6al2JbLAhVSz2MKHfh5CCkQFghTMAk&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Flinguistics.berkeley.edu%2Fphonlab%2Fannual_report%2Fdocuments%2F2011%2FGarrett_Johnson_2011.pdf&amp;usg=AFQjCNGmbcquKALZAFg9LhikTNV6aBnGOg&amp;sig2=Ygbc6qibn4cPJlNPeFiREQ&amp;bvm=bv.115339255,d.cGc&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40266333" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="153" RevisionGUID="97642553-af26-46d2-b60f-9863bf51e5f7" CreationDate="2016-02-27T00:44:54.190" UserId="39" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Why questions in linguistics are the hardest because we can only speculate. That being said, there is plenty of evidence to make an educated guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lundquist 2016 defines rhotacism as “the replacement of a non [r] sound with [r].”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inervocalic s (a letter, not a sound!) is found “only on the very earliest inscriptions” (Weiss 2009/2011),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;e.g. IOVE**S**AT, VALE**S**IO**S**IO, E**S**ED (all circa 500 BCE); NUMA**S**IOI (700 BCE?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't know for sure how intervocalic s was pronounced in Old Latin but there is good reason to believe it was a voiced fricative, [z], cf. Sihler 1995, who writes that rhotacism in Latin was “doubtless through the medium of [z].”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, we reconstruct the change as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*s &gt; *z &gt; r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Dating**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not everyone agrees on whether it happened in Proto-Italic or just affected the Latino-Faliscan branch only. Weiss 2009/2011 argues it was &quot;an areal feature that affected Latin, Faliscan, and Umbrian&quot; (Umbrian belongs to the Sabellic branch).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, ancient grammarians were aware of this change too - Varro is the most cited example. e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In multis verbis in quo antiqui dicebant S, postea dicunt R (L.7.27).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for dating, most evidence comes from texts. For example, Cicero talks about princeps L. Papirius Mugillanus &quot;qui censor cum L. Sempronio Atratino fuit&quot; and we learn about him that he &quot;*primum Papisius est vocari desitus*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example: in 312 BC &quot;*Idem Appius Claudius... R litteram invenit, ut pro Valesiis Valerii essent, et pro Fusiis Furii*.&quot; [Weiss 2010][1] interprets this passage the following way, &quot;in redacting the senatorial roll in his capacity as censor in 312 BCE Claudius rewrote these nomina, formerly spelled with s, with the letter r.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking such evidence into consideration, we assume that rhotacism must have happened before the middle of the fourth century BC,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. **Niederman 1906** “Or, si nous considérons que, de tous les mots d’une langue, ce sont les noms propres qui se transforment le plus lentement […], nous ne risquerons guère de nous tromper en affirmant que, dans les noms communs, **le rhotacisme était un fait accompli des l’année av. J.-C. environ**” (p. 71). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Phonetic explanation:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, scholars have always wanted to explain rhotacism phonetically (why does it happen?). As **Garrett and Johnson 2011** astutely observe that historical linguistics textbook classify sound changes rather superficially, arguing that “an explanatory classification of surface patterns should reflect a typology of causes” (i.e it should be articulatory or acoustically oriented). They **explain rhotacism with the help of aerodynamic constraints** (a bias against voiced fricatives); in other words, voiced fricatives tend to become glides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. Solé 1992, who argues that z &gt; r is due to “hardware constraints which are built into the physical system used for speech” or Painter 2012, who concludes that “rhotacism is the result of the listener reanalyzing phonetic realizations of a target /z/ in the speech signal as belonging to /r/.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Environment**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, rhotacism didn't happen simultaneously in all contexts - that is why there are numerous exceptions - below is my summary of exceptions, based on Baldi 2002: 285-290; Leumann 1977 and Sihler 1995, §172-173.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Exceptions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Leveling, e.g. arbor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Borrowings (they were borrowed either later or from non-rhotacizing donor languages), e.g. basis, casa, Musa, rosa etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Words that originally had ss: causa, formosa, quaeso, visus, usus etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Next syllable begins with r, e.g. Caesar, miser (but: soror, aurora) etc;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Derivationally transparent compounds: e.g. desino, nisi etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why are there so many exceptions?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pretty common view to rhotacism is to treat it a **multi-stage, diachronic process** (starting with Touratier 1975; also see Baldi 1994). The best description of rhotacism I'm aware of is [Roberts 2012][2]. His model has five stages, starting with stage 0 - he calls his a *phonetic tendency* - when &quot;co-articulatory pressures cause intervocalic voiceless consonants to tend to be realised as voiced&quot; and concluding with stage L, when rhotacism became &quot;a systematic property of the lexicon, subject to extension by analogy&quot; and when rhotacism was &quot;no longer productive over new VsV sequences, such as in&#xD;&#xA;loans or those created by the degemination of ss.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baldi, Philip. 1994. Some Thoughts on Latin Rhotacism. *General Linguistics* 34: 209-216.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Baldi, Philip. 2002.][3] *The Foundations of Lat*in. Berlin: De Gruyter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Garrett, Andrew, and Keith Johnson. 2011.][4] *Phonetic bias in sound change*. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lundquist, Jesse. 2016. &quot;Rhotacism.&quot; [Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics.][5] Brill Online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann, Manu. 1977. *Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre*. München: C.H. Bech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Roberts, Philip J. 2012.][2] Latin Rhotacism: A Case Study in the Life cycle of Phonological Processes. *Transactions of the Philological Society*, 110(1): 80–93.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. *New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin*. Oxford: Oxford University Press. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Touratier, C. 1975.][6] Rhotacisme synchronique du latin classique et rhotacisme diachronique. *Glotta* 53.246-281. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss, Michael L. 2009/2011. *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin*. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ohcgl.blogspot.com/2010/01/papirius-and-appius-claudius.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2012.01285.x/full&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.degruyter.com/viewbooktoc/product/47839&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=10&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiki6al2JbLAhVSz2MKHfh5CCkQFghTMAk&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Flinguistics.berkeley.edu%2Fphonlab%2Fannual_report%2Fdocuments%2F2011%2FGarrett_Johnson_2011.pdf&amp;usg=AFQjCNGmbcquKALZAFg9LhikTNV6aBnGOg&amp;sig2=Ygbc6qibn4cPJlNPeFiREQ&amp;bvm=bv.115339255,d.cGc&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40266333" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="255" RevisionGUID="4466cee3-bd16-482f-80f1-17339bb82340" CreationDate="2016-02-27T00:45:15.227" UserId="17" Comment="Corrected length marks and a form of “moveo”" Text="The prefix of *ínstó* seems to suggest pressure or movement in a way that *minor* doesn't, so perhaps but is that suggestion borne out in their actual use? Quí minátur quasi fíxus est, quí ínstat in aliquem movet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="909" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="255" RevisionGUID="4466cee3-bd16-482f-80f1-17339bb82340" CreationDate="2016-02-27T00:45:15.227" UserId="17" Comment="Corrected length marks and a form of “moveo”" Text="What nuances distinguish &quot;minor&quot; and &quot;ínstó&quot; when they mean &quot;threaten&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="910" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="255" RevisionGUID="4466cee3-bd16-482f-80f1-17339bb82340" CreationDate="2016-02-27T00:45:15.227" Comment="Proposed by 17 approved by 71, 68 edit id of 67" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="255" RevisionGUID="ddc5acb2-3b7f-4abe-a4cc-7bc4e142dbdb" CreationDate="2016-02-27T00:46:29.390" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="The prefix of *ínstó* seems to suggest pressure or movement in a way that *minor* doesn't, but is that suggestion borne out in their actual use? Quí minátur quasi fíxus est, quí ínstat in aliquem movet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="3452105d-9027-4c3a-995c-78667e097481" CreationDate="2016-02-27T00:49:49.800" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I posted this question here because it was something I struggled with for a long, long time, right up until I read [Caroline Kroon][1]'s article &quot;Latin Particles and the Grammar of Discourse&quot; in *[A Companion to the Latin Language][2]*, ed. James Clackson.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between the two isn't so much semantic as it is . . . dí immortálés, I'm terrible with terms . . . about discourse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, *nam* has a narrative function, where *enim* has a dialogical one. With *nam*, the speaker is simply informing the listener of what he believes to be a causal relationship between two facts. With *enim*, the speaker is indicating that he thinks the speaker is on the same page as he is. I've found the easiest translations of *enim*, then, to be &quot;y'know,&quot; or &quot;right?&quot; (in questions), or even &quot;after all.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dídó sibi mortem cónscívit, nam ab Ænéá relicta erat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dido killed herself, for she had been left by Aeneas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There I'm simply telling you the facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dídó sibi mortem cónscívit, ab enim Ænéá relicta erat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dido killed herself; she had been left by Aeneas, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There I'm showing you an assumption I'm making that you believe as I do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of *enim* as being accompanied by a knowing shrug or a nod of the head that invites the listener to agree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uva.nl/en/news-events/news/uva-news/content/professor-appointments/2013/08/caroline-kroon-professor-of-latin-language-and-literature.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1405186054?keywords=companion%20to%20the%20latin%20language&amp;qid=1456505596&amp;ref_=sr_1_1&amp;sr=8-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="153" RevisionGUID="61aa809c-25f7-432e-8cd0-abe7e91b95b2" CreationDate="2016-02-27T00:50:11.277" UserId="39" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Why questions in linguistics are the hardest because we can only speculate. That being said, there is plenty of evidence to make an educated guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lundquist 2016 defines rhotacism as “the replacement of a non [r] sound with [r].”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inervocalic s (a letter, not a sound!) is found “only on the very earliest inscriptions” (Weiss 2009/2011),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;e.g. IOVE**S**AT, VALE**S**IO**S**IO, E**S**ED (all circa 500 BCE); NUMA**S**IOI (700 BCE?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't know for sure how intervocalic s was pronounced in Old Latin but there is good reason to believe it was a voiced fricative, [z], cf. Sihler 1995, who writes that rhotacism in Latin was “doubtless through the medium of [z].”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, we reconstruct the change as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*s &gt; *z &gt; r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Dating**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not everyone agrees on whether it happened in Proto-Italic or just affected the Latino-Faliscan branch only. Weiss 2009/2011 argues it was &quot;an areal feature that affected Latin, Faliscan, and Umbrian&quot; (Umbrian belongs to the Sabellic branch).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, ancient grammarians were aware of this change too - Varro is the most cited example. e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In multis verbis in quo antiqui dicebant S, postea dicunt R (L.7.27).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for dating, most evidence comes from texts. For example, Cicero talks about princeps L. Papirius Mugillanus &quot;qui censor cum L. Sempronio Atratino fuit&quot; and we learn about him that he &quot;*primum Papisius est vocari desitus*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example: in 312 BC &quot;*Idem Appius Claudius... R litteram invenit, ut pro Valesiis Valerii essent, et pro Fusiis Furii*.&quot; [Weiss 2010][1] interprets this passage the following way, &quot;in redacting the senatorial roll in his capacity as censor in 312 BCE Claudius rewrote these nomina, formerly spelled with s, with the letter r.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking such evidence into consideration, we assume that rhotacism must have happened before the middle of the fourth century BC,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. **Niederman 1906** “Or, si nous considérons que, de tous les mots d’une langue, ce sont les noms propres qui se transforment le plus lentement […], nous ne risquerons guère de nous tromper en affirmant que, dans les noms communs, **le rhotacisme était un fait accompli des l’année av. J.-C. environ**” (p. 71). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Phonetic explanation:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, scholars have always wanted to explain rhotacism phonetically (why does it happen?). As **Garrett and Johnson 2011** astutely observe that historical linguistics textbook classify sound changes rather superficially, arguing that “an explanatory classification of surface patterns should reflect a typology of causes” (i.e it should be articulatory or acoustically oriented). They **explain rhotacism with the help of aerodynamic constraints** (a bias against voiced fricatives); in other words, voiced fricatives tend to become glides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. Solé 1992, who argues that z &gt; r is due to “hardware constraints which are built into the physical system used for speech” or Painter 2012, who concludes that “rhotacism is the result of the listener reanalyzing phonetic realizations of a target /z/ in the speech signal as belonging to /r/.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Environment**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, rhotacism didn't happen simultaneously in all contexts - that is why there are numerous exceptions - below is my summary of exceptions, based on Baldi 2002: 285-290; Leumann 1977 and Sihler 1995, §172-173.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Exceptions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Leveling, e.g. arbor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Borrowings (they were borrowed either later or from non-rhotacizing donor languages), e.g. basis, casa, Musa, rosa etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Words that originally had ss: causa, formosa, quaeso, visus, usus etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Next syllable begins with r, e.g. Caesar, miser (but: soror, aurora) etc;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Derivationally transparent compounds: e.g. desino, nisi etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why are there so many exceptions?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pretty common view to rhotacism is to treat it a **multi-stage, diachronic process** (starting with Touratier 1975; also see Baldi 1994). The best description of rhotacism I'm aware of is [Roberts 2012][2]. His model has five stages, starting with stage 0 - he calls his a *phonetic tendency* - when &quot;co-articulatory pressures cause intervocalic voiceless consonants to tend to be realised as voiced&quot; and concluding with stage L, when rhotacism became &quot;a systematic property of the lexicon, subject to extension by analogy&quot; and when rhotacism was &quot;no longer productive over new VsV sequences, such as in&#xD;&#xA;loans or those created by the degemination of ss.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rhotacism crosslinguistically**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sihler 1995 observes that rhotacism may seem “extreme” phonetically but it is attested in many languages: in West Germanic languages and in Old Norse (Ringer and Taylor 2014, pp. 82-88), in some Greek dialects (Elean, Euboean, Eretrian etc.; Lundquist 2016).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baldi, Philip. 1994. Some Thoughts on Latin Rhotacism. *General Linguistics* 34: 209-216.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Baldi, Philip. 2002.][3] *The Foundations of Lat*in. Berlin: De Gruyter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Garrett, Andrew, and Keith Johnson. 2011.][4] *Phonetic bias in sound change*. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lundquist, Jesse. 2016. &quot;Rhotacism.&quot; [Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics.][5] Brill Online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann, Manu. 1977. *Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre*. München: C.H. Bech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Roberts, Philip J. 2012.][2] Latin Rhotacism: A Case Study in the Life cycle of Phonological Processes. *Transactions of the Philological Society*, 110(1): 80–93.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. *New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin*. Oxford: Oxford University Press. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Touratier, C. 1975.][6] Rhotacisme synchronique du latin classique et rhotacisme diachronique. *Glotta* 53.246-281. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss, Michael L. 2009/2011. *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin*. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ohcgl.blogspot.com/2010/01/papirius-and-appius-claudius.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2012.01285.x/full&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.degruyter.com/viewbooktoc/product/47839&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=10&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiki6al2JbLAhVSz2MKHfh5CCkQFghTMAk&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Flinguistics.berkeley.edu%2Fphonlab%2Fannual_report%2Fdocuments%2F2011%2FGarrett_Johnson_2011.pdf&amp;usg=AFQjCNGmbcquKALZAFg9LhikTNV6aBnGOg&amp;sig2=Ygbc6qibn4cPJlNPeFiREQ&amp;bvm=bv.115339255,d.cGc&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40266333" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="153" RevisionGUID="9cbdc2db-f3fd-4925-b46c-1b6664c3d9ba" CreationDate="2016-02-27T00:52:15.957" UserId="39" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="Why questions in linguistics are the hardest because we can only speculate. That being said, there is plenty of evidence to make an educated guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lundquist 2016 defines rhotacism as “the replacement of a non [r] sound with [r].”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inervocalic s (a letter, not a sound!) is found “only on the very earliest inscriptions” (Weiss 2009/2011),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;e.g. IOVE**S**AT, VALE**S**IO**S**IO, E**S**ED (all circa 500 BCE); NUMA**S**IOI (700 BCE?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't know for sure how intervocalic s was pronounced in Old Latin but there is good reason to believe it was a voiced fricative, [z], cf. Sihler 1995, who writes that rhotacism in Latin was “doubtless through the medium of [z].”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, we reconstruct the change as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*s &gt; *z &gt; r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Dating**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not everyone agrees on whether it happened in Proto-Italic or just affected the Latino-Faliscan branch only. Weiss 2009/2011 argues it was &quot;an areal feature that affected Latin, Faliscan, and Umbrian&quot; (Umbrian belongs to the Sabellic branch).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, ancient grammarians were aware of this change too - Varro is the most cited example. e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In multis verbis in quo antiqui dicebant S, postea dicunt R (L.7.27).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for dating, most evidence comes from texts. For example, Cicero talks about princeps L. Papirius Mugillanus &quot;qui censor cum L. Sempronio Atratino fuit&quot; and we learn about him that he &quot;*primum Papisius est vocari desitus*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example: in 312 BC &quot;*Idem Appius Claudius... R litteram invenit, ut pro Valesiis Valerii essent, et pro Fusiis Furii*.&quot; [Weiss 2010][1] interprets this passage the following way, &quot;in redacting the senatorial roll in his capacity as censor in 312 BCE Claudius rewrote these nomina, formerly spelled with s, with the letter r.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking such evidence into consideration, we assume that rhotacism must have happened before the middle of the fourth century BC,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. **Niederman 1906** “Or, si nous considérons que, de tous les mots d’une langue, ce sont les noms propres qui se transforment le plus lentement […], nous ne risquerons guère de nous tromper en affirmant que, dans les noms communs, **le rhotacisme était un fait accompli des l’année av. J.-C. environ**” (p. 71). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Phonetic explanation:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, scholars have always wanted to explain rhotacism phonetically (why does it happen?). As **Garrett and Johnson 2011** astutely observe that historical linguistics textbook classify sound changes rather superficially, arguing that “an explanatory classification of surface patterns should reflect a typology of causes” (i.e it should be articulatory or acoustically oriented). They **explain rhotacism with the help of aerodynamic constraints** (a bias against voiced fricatives); in other words, voiced fricatives tend to become glides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. Solé 1992, who argues that z &gt; r is due to “hardware constraints which are built into the physical system used for speech” or Painter 2012, who concludes that “rhotacism is the result of the listener reanalyzing phonetic realizations of a target /z/ in the speech signal as belonging to /r/.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Environment**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, rhotacism didn't happen simultaneously in all contexts - that is why there are numerous exceptions - below is my summary of exceptions, based on Baldi 2002: 285-290; Leumann 1977 and Sihler 1995, §172-173.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Exceptions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Leveling, e.g. arbor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Borrowings (they were borrowed either later or from non-rhotacizing donor languages), e.g. basis, casa, Musa, rosa etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Words that originally had ss: causa, formosa, quaeso, visus, usus etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Next syllable begins with r, e.g. Caesar, miser (but: soror, aurora) etc;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Derivationally transparent compounds: e.g. desino, nisi etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why are there so many exceptions?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pretty common view to rhotacism is to treat it a **multi-stage, diachronic process** (starting with Touratier 1975; also see Baldi 1994). The best description of rhotacism I'm aware of is [Roberts 2012][2]. His model has five stages, starting with stage 0 - he calls his a *phonetic tendency* - when &quot;co-articulatory pressures cause intervocalic voiceless consonants to tend to be realised as voiced&quot; and concluding with stage L, when rhotacism became &quot;a systematic property of the lexicon, subject to extension by analogy&quot; and when rhotacism was &quot;no longer productive over new VsV sequences, such as in&#xD;&#xA;loans or those created by the degemination of ss.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rhotacism crosslinguistically**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sihler 1995 observes that rhotacism may seem “extreme” phonetically but it is attested in many languages: in West Germanic languages and in Old Norse (Ringer and Taylor 2014, pp. 82-88), in some Greek dialects (Elean, Euboean, Eretrian etc.; Lundquist 2016).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baldi, Philip. 1994. Some Thoughts on Latin Rhotacism. *General Linguistics* 34: 209-216.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Baldi, Philip. 2002.][3] *The Foundations of Lat*in. Berlin: De Gruyter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Garrett, Andrew, and Keith Johnson. 2011.][4] *Phonetic bias in sound change*. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lundquist, Jesse. 2016. &quot;Rhotacism.&quot; [Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics.][5] Brill Online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann, Manu. 1977. *Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre*. München: C.H. Bech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Niedermann, Max. 1906.][6] *Précis de phonétique historique du lati*n. Paris: C. Klincksieck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ringe, Donald A., and Ann Taylor. 2014. *The development of Old English*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Roberts, Philip J. 2012.][2] Latin Rhotacism: A Case Study in the Life cycle of Phonological Processes. *Transactions of the Philological Society*, 110(1): 80–93.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. *New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin*. Oxford: Oxford University Press. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Touratier, C. 1975.][7] Rhotacisme synchronique du latin classique et rhotacisme diachronique. *Glotta* 53.246-281. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss, Michael L. 2009/2011. *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin*. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ohcgl.blogspot.com/2010/01/papirius-and-appius-claudius.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2012.01285.x/full&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.degruyter.com/viewbooktoc/product/47839&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=10&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiki6al2JbLAhVSz2MKHfh5CCkQFghTMAk&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Flinguistics.berkeley.edu%2Fphonlab%2Fannual_report%2Fdocuments%2F2011%2FGarrett_Johnson_2011.pdf&amp;usg=AFQjCNGmbcquKALZAFg9LhikTNV6aBnGOg&amp;sig2=Ygbc6qibn4cPJlNPeFiREQ&amp;bvm=bv.115339255,d.cGc&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Fg1LAAAAIAAJ&amp;dq=Phon%C3%A9tique%20historique%20du%20latin&amp;pg=PP7#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40266333" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="199" RevisionGUID="7d05f78e-a17a-44bf-8a1b-1fd899d611bb" CreationDate="2016-02-27T00:56:59.793" UserId="78" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Nisi fallor, vespere in casu ablativo et in omnibus casibus mane simpliciter 'mane' scribitur. Qua de causa forsitan Hieronymus scripsisset duobus casibus ablativis hac in sententia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Die secundo in duobus partibus (id est, vespere et mane) [omne?] factum est." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="153" RevisionGUID="d6689aa7-506f-4721-8da0-7e24230119b5" CreationDate="2016-02-27T01:02:47.040" UserId="39" Comment="added 472 characters in body" Text="Why questions in linguistics are the hardest because we can only speculate. That being said, there is plenty of evidence to make an educated guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lundquist 2016 defines rhotacism as “the replacement of a non [r] sound with [r].”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inervocalic s (a letter, not a sound!) is found “only on the very earliest inscriptions” (Weiss 2009/2011),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;e.g. IOVE**S**AT, VALE**S**IO**S**IO, E**S**ED (all circa 500 BCE); NUMA**S**IOI (700 BCE?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't know for sure how intervocalic s was pronounced in Old Latin but there is good reason to believe it was a voiced fricative, [z], cf. Sihler 1995, who writes that rhotacism in Latin was “doubtless through the medium of [z].”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, we reconstruct the change as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*s &gt; *z &gt; r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Dating**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not everyone agrees on whether it happened in Proto-Italic or just affected the Latino-Faliscan branch only. Weiss 2009/2011 argues it was &quot;an areal feature that affected Latin, Faliscan, and Umbrian&quot; (Umbrian belongs to the Sabellic branch).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, ancient grammarians were aware of this change too - Varro is the most cited example. e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In multis verbis in quo antiqui dicebant S, postea dicunt R (L.7.27).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for dating, most evidence comes from texts. For example, Cicero talks about princeps L. Papirius Mugillanus &quot;qui censor cum L. Sempronio Atratino fuit&quot; and we learn about him that he &quot;*primum Papisius est vocari desitus*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example: in 312 BC &quot;*Idem Appius Claudius... R litteram invenit, ut pro Valesiis Valerii essent, et pro Fusiis Furii*.&quot; [Weiss 2010][1] interprets this passage the following way, &quot;in redacting the senatorial roll in his capacity as censor in 312 BCE Claudius rewrote these nomina, formerly spelled with s, with the letter r.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking such evidence into consideration, we assume that rhotacism must have happened before the middle of the fourth century BC,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. **Niederman 1906** “Or, si nous considérons que, de tous les mots d’une langue, ce sont les noms propres qui se transforment le plus lentement […], nous ne risquerons guère de nous tromper en affirmant que, dans les noms communs, **le rhotacisme était un fait accompli des l’année av. J.-C. environ**” (p. 71). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Phonetic explanation:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, scholars have always wanted to explain rhotacism phonetically (why does it happen?). As **Garrett and Johnson 2011** astutely observe that historical linguistics textbook classify sound changes rather superficially, arguing that “an explanatory classification of surface patterns should reflect a typology of causes” (i.e it should be articulatory or acoustically oriented). They **explain rhotacism with the help of aerodynamic constraints** (a bias against voiced fricatives); in other words, voiced fricatives tend to become glides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. Solé 1992, who argues that z &gt; r is due to “hardware constraints which are built into the physical system used for speech” or Painter 2012, who concludes that “rhotacism is the result of the listener reanalyzing phonetic realizations of a target /z/ in the speech signal as belonging to /r/.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Environment**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, rhotacism didn't happen simultaneously in all contexts - that is why there are numerous exceptions - below is my summary of exceptions, based on Baldi 2002: 285-290; Leumann 1977 and Sihler 1995, §172-173.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Exceptions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Leveling, e.g. arbor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Borrowings (they were borrowed either later or from non-rhotacizing donor languages), e.g. basis, casa, Musa, rosa etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Words that originally had ss: causa, formosa, quaeso, visus, usus etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Next syllable begins with r, e.g. Caesar, miser (but: soror, aurora) etc;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Derivationally transparent compounds: e.g. desino, nisi etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why are there so many exceptions?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pretty common view to rhotacism is to treat it a **multi-stage, diachronic process** (starting with Touratier 1975; also see Baldi 1994). The best description of rhotacism I'm aware of is [Roberts 2012][2]. His model has five stages, starting with stage 0 - he calls his a *phonetic tendency* - when &quot;co-articulatory pressures cause intervocalic voiceless consonants to tend to be realised as voiced&quot; and concluding with stage L, when rhotacism became &quot;a systematic property of the lexicon, subject to extension by analogy&quot; and when rhotacism was &quot;no longer productive over new VsV sequences, such as in&#xD;&#xA;loans or those created by the degemination of ss.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rhotacism crosslinguistically**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sihler 1995 observes that rhotacism may seem “extreme” phonetically but it is attested in many languages: in West Germanic languages and in Old Norse (Ringer and Taylor 2014, pp. 82-88), in some Greek dialects (Elean, Euboean, Eretrian etc.; Lundquist 2016) or in some Spanish dialects (Solé 1992).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baldi, Philip. 1994. Some Thoughts on Latin Rhotacism. *General Linguistics* 34: 209-216.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Baldi, Philip. 2002.][3] *The Foundations of Lat*in. Berlin: De Gruyter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Garrett, Andrew, and Keith Johnson. 2011.][4] *Phonetic bias in sound change*. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lundquist, Jesse. 2016. &quot;Rhotacism.&quot; [Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics.][5] Brill Online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann, Manu. 1977. *Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre*. München: C.H. Bech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Niedermann, Max. 1906.][6] *Précis de phonétique historique du lati*n. Paris: C. Klincksieck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Painter, Robert Kenneth. 2012.][7] *Acoustic and perceptual explanations for rhotacism in Latin and Germanic*. Doctoral dissertation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ringe, Donald A., and Ann Taylor. 2014. *The development of Old English*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Roberts, Philip J. 2012.][2] Latin Rhotacism: A Case Study in the Life cycle of Phonological Processes. *Transactions of the Philological Society*, 110(1): 80–93.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. *New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin*. Oxford: Oxford University Press. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solé, M.J. 1992. Experimental Phonology: the case of rhotacism. In W. U. Dressler, H.C. Luschützky, O. E. Pfeiffer &amp; J. R. Rennison (eds.), *Phonologica 1988*, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 259-271.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Touratier, C. 1975.][8] Rhotacisme synchronique du latin classique et rhotacisme diachronique. *Glotta* 53.246-281. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss, Michael L. 2009/2011. *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin*. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ohcgl.blogspot.com/2010/01/papirius-and-appius-claudius.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2012.01285.x/full&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.degruyter.com/viewbooktoc/product/47839&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=10&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiki6al2JbLAhVSz2MKHfh5CCkQFghTMAk&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Flinguistics.berkeley.edu%2Fphonlab%2Fannual_report%2Fdocuments%2F2011%2FGarrett_Johnson_2011.pdf&amp;usg=AFQjCNGmbcquKALZAFg9LhikTNV6aBnGOg&amp;sig2=Ygbc6qibn4cPJlNPeFiREQ&amp;bvm=bv.115339255,d.cGc&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Fg1LAAAAIAAJ&amp;dq=Phon%C3%A9tique%20historique%20du%20latin&amp;pg=PP7#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/925793250.html?FMT=ABS&amp;pubnum=3495217&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40266333" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="153" RevisionGUID="09b6cac1-335d-4f2e-a7bf-5661aa17ec96" CreationDate="2016-02-27T01:17:53.190" UserId="39" Comment="fixed the year, page in Niederman quote" Text="Why questions in linguistics are the hardest because we can only speculate. That being said, there is plenty of evidence to make an educated guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lundquist 2016 defines rhotacism as “the replacement of a non [r] sound with [r].”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inervocalic s (a letter, not a sound!) is found “only on the very earliest inscriptions” (Weiss 2009/2011),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;e.g. IOVE**S**AT, VALE**S**IO**S**IO, E**S**ED (all circa 500 BCE); NUMA**S**IOI (700 BCE?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't know for sure how intervocalic s was pronounced in Old Latin but there is good reason to believe it was a voiced fricative, [z], cf. Sihler 1995, who writes that rhotacism in Latin was “doubtless through the medium of [z].”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, we reconstruct the change as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*s &gt; *z &gt; r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Dating**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not everyone agrees on whether it happened in Proto-Italic or just affected the Latino-Faliscan branch only. Weiss 2009/2011 argues it was &quot;an areal feature that affected Latin, Faliscan, and Umbrian&quot; (Umbrian belongs to the Sabellic branch).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, ancient grammarians were aware of this change too - Varro is the most cited example. e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In multis verbis in quo antiqui dicebant S, postea dicunt R (L.7.27).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for dating, most evidence comes from texts. For example, Cicero talks about princeps L. Papirius Mugillanus &quot;qui censor cum L. Sempronio Atratino fuit&quot; and we learn about him that he &quot;*primum Papisius est vocari desitus*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example: in 312 BC &quot;*Idem Appius Claudius... R litteram invenit, ut pro Valesiis Valerii essent, et pro Fusiis Furii*.&quot; [Weiss 2010][1] interprets this passage the following way, &quot;in redacting the senatorial roll in his capacity as censor in 312 BCE Claudius rewrote these nomina, formerly spelled with s, with the letter r.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking such evidence into consideration, we assume that rhotacism must have happened before the middle of the fourth century BC,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. **Niederman 1906** “Or, si nous considérons que, de tous les mots d’une langue, ce sont les noms propres qui se transforment le plus lentement […], nous ne risquerons guère de nous tromper en affirmant que, dans les noms communs, **le rhotacisme était un fait accompli des l’année 350 av. J.-C. environ**” (p. 74). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Phonetic explanation:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, scholars have always wanted to explain rhotacism phonetically (why does it happen?). As **Garrett and Johnson 2011** astutely observe that historical linguistics textbook classify sound changes rather superficially, arguing that “an explanatory classification of surface patterns should reflect a typology of causes” (i.e it should be articulatory or acoustically oriented). They **explain rhotacism with the help of aerodynamic constraints** (a bias against voiced fricatives); in other words, voiced fricatives tend to become glides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. Solé 1992, who argues that z &gt; r is due to “hardware constraints which are built into the physical system used for speech” or Painter 2012, who concludes that “rhotacism is the result of the listener reanalyzing phonetic realizations of a target /z/ in the speech signal as belonging to /r/.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Environment**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, rhotacism didn't happen simultaneously in all contexts - that is why there are numerous exceptions - below is my summary of exceptions, based on Baldi 2002: 285-290; Leumann 1977 and Sihler 1995, §172-173.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Exceptions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Leveling, e.g. arbor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Borrowings (they were borrowed either later or from non-rhotacizing donor languages), e.g. basis, casa, Musa, rosa etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Words that originally had ss: causa, formosa, quaeso, visus, usus etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Next syllable begins with r, e.g. Caesar, miser (but: soror, aurora) etc;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Derivationally transparent compounds: e.g. desino, nisi etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why are there so many exceptions?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pretty common view to rhotacism is to treat it a **multi-stage, diachronic process** (starting with Touratier 1975; also see Baldi 1994). The best description of rhotacism I'm aware of is [Roberts 2012][2]. His model has five stages, starting with stage 0 - he calls his a *phonetic tendency* - when &quot;co-articulatory pressures cause intervocalic voiceless consonants to tend to be realised as voiced&quot; and concluding with stage L, when rhotacism became &quot;a systematic property of the lexicon, subject to extension by analogy&quot; and when rhotacism was &quot;no longer productive over new VsV sequences, such as in&#xD;&#xA;loans or those created by the degemination of ss.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rhotacism crosslinguistically**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sihler 1995 observes that rhotacism may seem “extreme” phonetically but it is attested in many languages: in West Germanic languages and in Old Norse (Ringer and Taylor 2014, pp. 82-88), in some Greek dialects (Elean, Euboean, Eretrian etc.; Lundquist 2016) or in some Spanish dialects (Solé 1992).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baldi, Philip. 1994. Some Thoughts on Latin Rhotacism. *General Linguistics* 34: 209-216.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Baldi, Philip. 2002.][3] *The Foundations of Lat*in. Berlin: De Gruyter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Garrett, Andrew, and Keith Johnson. 2011.][4] *Phonetic bias in sound change*. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lundquist, Jesse. 2016. &quot;Rhotacism.&quot; [Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics.][5] Brill Online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann, Manu. 1977. *Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre*. München: C.H. Bech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Niedermann, Max. 1906.][6] *Précis de phonétique historique du lati*n. Paris: C. Klincksieck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Painter, Robert Kenneth. 2012.][7] *Acoustic and perceptual explanations for rhotacism in Latin and Germanic*. Doctoral dissertation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ringe, Donald A., and Ann Taylor. 2014. *The development of Old English*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Roberts, Philip J. 2012.][2] Latin Rhotacism: A Case Study in the Life cycle of Phonological Processes. *Transactions of the Philological Society*, 110(1): 80–93.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. *New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin*. Oxford: Oxford University Press. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solé, M.J. 1992. Experimental Phonology: the case of rhotacism. In W. U. Dressler, H.C. Luschützky, O. E. Pfeiffer &amp; J. R. Rennison (eds.), *Phonologica 1988*, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 259-271.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Touratier, C. 1975.][8] Rhotacisme synchronique du latin classique et rhotacisme diachronique. *Glotta* 53.246-281. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss, Michael L. 2009/2011. *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin*. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ohcgl.blogspot.com/2010/01/papirius-and-appius-claudius.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2012.01285.x/full&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.degruyter.com/viewbooktoc/product/47839&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=10&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiki6al2JbLAhVSz2MKHfh5CCkQFghTMAk&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Flinguistics.berkeley.edu%2Fphonlab%2Fannual_report%2Fdocuments%2F2011%2FGarrett_Johnson_2011.pdf&amp;usg=AFQjCNGmbcquKALZAFg9LhikTNV6aBnGOg&amp;sig2=Ygbc6qibn4cPJlNPeFiREQ&amp;bvm=bv.115339255,d.cGc&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Fg1LAAAAIAAJ&amp;dq=Phon%C3%A9tique%20historique%20du%20latin&amp;pg=PP7#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/925793250.html?FMT=ABS&amp;pubnum=3495217&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40266333" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="257" RevisionGUID="e40f99db-e761-4885-b101-18acadc8c7a7" CreationDate="2016-02-27T01:24:29.577" UserId="73" Text="Part of [*Documents of Medieval Latin*](https://books.google.com/books?id=pRLMdAdJKAwC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=isbn:0472085670&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjTn7qy3pbLAhUHfxoKHXs6AQsQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) (page 14) states several differences between Classical Latin and Medieval Latin. One is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an increased use of prepositions where Classical Latin used a simple case of the noun, in particular the use of ad and the accusative instead of a simple dative, and in  with the ablative in expressions of time instead of the simple ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried writing in this way, and it seems weird. Using a preposition with a  direct object instead of just sticking with a lone indirect object doesn't make much sense to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, while Classical Latin writers might have used&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Puerô pecûniam dat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Medival Latin writers might have used&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ad puerum pecûniam dat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation is roughly the same:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; S/he is giving money to the boy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the use of a preposition seems totally unnecessary, and a bit unintuitive. So why did this convention arise during the medieval period? My completely naïve hypothesis is that there was some influence from Vulgar Latin around this time (which there was) that may have messed things up, but I'm not familiar with either that or this convention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="919" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="257" RevisionGUID="e40f99db-e761-4885-b101-18acadc8c7a7" CreationDate="2016-02-27T01:24:29.577" UserId="73" Text="Why did Medieval Latin use &quot;ad&quot; with the accusative instead of just using the dative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="920" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="257" RevisionGUID="e40f99db-e761-4885-b101-18acadc8c7a7" CreationDate="2016-02-27T01:24:29.577" UserId="73" Text="|medieval-latin|accusative|preposition|dative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="258" RevisionGUID="b0b3a6fc-9592-4aa0-8b5b-6da44e31373c" CreationDate="2016-02-27T01:26:42.070" UserId="19" Text="While transcribing entries in a 16th century Latin probate act book, I have come across a symbol that commonly appears at the end of entries, and sometimes within entries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Probate Act Book example, 1596][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does it represent? Is it a word, symbol, or form of punctuation? How is it best transcribed using a standard keyboard?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CpJEx.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="922" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="258" RevisionGUID="b0b3a6fc-9592-4aa0-8b5b-6da44e31373c" CreationDate="2016-02-27T01:26:42.070" UserId="19" Text="Interpreting symbol at the end of entries in Latin probate act book?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="923" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="258" RevisionGUID="b0b3a6fc-9592-4aa0-8b5b-6da44e31373c" CreationDate="2016-02-27T01:26:42.070" UserId="19" Text="|legal-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="924" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="258" RevisionGUID="9dd167a0-3218-4605-b23f-8099cf0675ea" CreationDate="2016-02-27T01:29:14.550" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|legal-latin|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="925" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="40" RevisionGUID="d02e1559-6a7f-475b-b2f6-906629397a1f" CreationDate="2016-02-27T01:29:20.970" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Yeah, that's a bad tag." Text="|classical-latin|conjunction|vocabulary|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="926" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="192" RevisionGUID="c4b018a5-34fb-4534-81b8-8ff3c9712de8" CreationDate="2016-02-27T01:30:11.307" UserId="73" Comment="edited tags" Text="|medieval-latin|punctuation|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="148" RevisionGUID="3b243ad3-94b7-44ee-abbe-26bffa0f3061" CreationDate="2016-02-27T01:31:31.410" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Clarified question after the fact, changed title, removed bad tag" Text="In a fear clause, we'd write something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Timeo ne angue necer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I fear I will be killed by a dragon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;As usual, my Latin writing is bad, and I only barely remember passive subjunctive. Please correct as needed.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that doesn't make sense. In other uses, &quot;ne&quot; is negative, not positive. How did it change to be the other way around in fear clauses, and why isn't it opposite anywhere else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="928" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="148" RevisionGUID="3b243ad3-94b7-44ee-abbe-26bffa0f3061" CreationDate="2016-02-27T01:31:31.410" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Clarified question after the fact, changed title, removed bad tag" Text="Why do fear clauses invert the meaning of ut and ne?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="929" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="148" RevisionGUID="3b243ad3-94b7-44ee-abbe-26bffa0f3061" CreationDate="2016-02-27T01:31:31.410" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Clarified question after the fact, changed title, removed bad tag" Text="|classical-latin|language-evolution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="259" RevisionGUID="1545636b-1caf-4260-a47c-d11b26ba6459" CreationDate="2016-02-27T01:59:45.237" UserId="30" Text="I'm not sure there is a &quot;why&quot;, but it probably happened under the influence of contemporary vernacular languages and/or Vulgar Latin, since French, Italian, and Spanish also use more prepositions than Latin. This is probably also what steered Latin towards using *quod* instead of the accusative with infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Around the same time, I believe cases began to disappear, as can also be seen in the Romance languages. It makes sense for case endings and prepositions to compete with each other: if you don't have cases any more, you need prepositions to express e.g. the indirect object. Or the other way around: if you use more prepositions, you don't need cases as much any more. I don't know which influenced which, or whether it was a complex reciprocal development." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="931" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="255" RevisionGUID="5473879b-1467-454a-add6-79a283b299ac" CreationDate="2016-02-27T02:03:21.250" UserId="68" Comment="edited tags" Text="|nuance|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="260" RevisionGUID="4ae8bf6b-f38d-4790-8aab-6c912249f41f" CreationDate="2016-02-27T02:27:14.733" UserId="30" Text="Could it be *et cetera*? That is often abbreviated, and it...doesn't not fit the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="260" RevisionGUID="3c1b55a3-c928-45da-b762-e56f08f7bcc6" CreationDate="2016-02-27T02:53:40.657" UserId="30" Comment="added 259 characters in body" Text="Could it be et cetera? That is often abbreviated as *e(t)c* in manuscripts: although I've not seen this exact form before, and Cappelli does not seem to have it (consulted at the University of Cologne), it looks like it could be *ec*. I've read most of the text, and *et cetera* would fit the context (although *et cetera* easily fits any context)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="261" RevisionGUID="efc10b2a-c2b8-4a6f-962e-ba743c39beae" CreationDate="2016-02-27T03:06:18.310" UserId="30" Text="Synizesis is when two vowels that normally do not form a diphthong are nevertheless pronounced as such, and hence count as a single syllable in the metre. Under which circumstances does this happen in Latin? Or is it unpredictable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="936" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="261" RevisionGUID="efc10b2a-c2b8-4a6f-962e-ba743c39beae" CreationDate="2016-02-27T03:06:18.310" UserId="30" Text="How do I know when there is synizesis in a verse?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="937" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="261" RevisionGUID="efc10b2a-c2b8-4a6f-962e-ba743c39beae" CreationDate="2016-02-27T03:06:18.310" UserId="30" Text="|metre|synizesis|diphthong|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="262" RevisionGUID="378f1c1d-3744-48ba-80df-1d0c3e5d23ba" CreationDate="2016-02-27T03:18:31.797" UserId="30" Text="Wikipaedia says this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In dactylic hexameter, a caesura occurs any time the ending of a word does not coincide with the beginning or the end of a metrical foot; in modern prosody, however, it is only called one when the ending also coincides with an audible pause in the line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds complicated. The first sentence seems odd, speaking of &quot;the beginning or the end&quot;. The second sentence mentions an &quot;audible pause&quot;: when is there an audible pause?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="939" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="262" RevisionGUID="378f1c1d-3744-48ba-80df-1d0c3e5d23ba" CreationDate="2016-02-27T03:18:31.797" UserId="30" Text="When does caesura occur in a dactylic hexameter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="940" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="262" RevisionGUID="378f1c1d-3744-48ba-80df-1d0c3e5d23ba" CreationDate="2016-02-27T03:18:31.797" UserId="30" Text="|metre|caesura|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="263" RevisionGUID="c4e15485-db1c-418d-b9bc-cbb5ce4e3a38" CreationDate="2016-02-27T03:32:00.960" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="264" RevisionGUID="8da2073e-2c4d-41a9-91b6-0ba1ca57a1f0" CreationDate="2016-02-27T03:32:00.960" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="265" RevisionGUID="12dfc16e-0638-4631-b615-a8bd641a9b4e" CreationDate="2016-02-27T04:12:30.323" UserId="78" Text="While unrelated to *monere* (which is instead related to *memini*), it seems to me that *minari* overlaps with it partially in the sense that the threats are warnings. This makes sense since the word comes from *[minae](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=minae&amp;la=la#lexicon)*. It seems to me that the type of threats involved with *minari* seem to warn away someone (or something) from their present course of action lest there be a harmful consequences. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus Lysimachus' threat in Cic. *Tusc.* 1.43.102 implies that a warning to Theodore of Cyrene:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cyrenaeum Theodorum, philosophum non ignobilem, nonne miramur? cui cum Lysimachus rex crucem minaretur, &quot;istis, quaeso&quot; inquit &quot;ista horribilia minitare purpuratis tuis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Surely we marvel at Theodore of Cyrene, a very noble philosopher? When Lysimachus the king threatened him with crucifixion, he said, &quot;Make those horrible threats to *those* courtiers of yours.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, *instare* also can mean &quot;menace&quot;, &quot;harrass&quot;, or even &quot;to approach menacingly&quot;. This probably comes from its original meaning of &quot;to stand over&quot; or &quot;to loom&quot;, with the sense of someone looming menacingly. Cf. Cicero's Cat. 2.5:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ego confido impedendere fatum aliquod, et poenas...aut instare iam plane, aut certe iam appropinquare...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am confident that some fate looms over them, and that punishments either now plainly *instare* or at any rate now approaches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no sense of warning here. The threat comes from its immediacy, and that it's in the middle of *impendere* 'to hang over' and *appropinquare* 'to approach' indicates that it should be grouped with them accordingly. Their fate is sealed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contrast that with the fate of Theodore of Cyrene, who could have turned from his present course to escape crucifixion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(As a side note, I'm sure that you'll be able to find exceptions. That's expected with playing loose with vocabulary, though.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="266" RevisionGUID="eb950702-2111-4ddb-aeee-711be28d1082" CreationDate="2016-02-27T04:15:11.620" UserId="56" Text="One of my favorite Latin words is [Tollere][1] because it means both &quot;to raise&quot; as in to lift off the ground, as well as (more poetically) &quot;to raze&quot; or destroy/take away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any commentaries on how this word came to have seemingly disparate meanings?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tollo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="945" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="266" RevisionGUID="eb950702-2111-4ddb-aeee-711be28d1082" CreationDate="2016-02-27T04:15:11.620" UserId="56" Text="Evolution of the meaning of Tollere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="946" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="266" RevisionGUID="eb950702-2111-4ddb-aeee-711be28d1082" CreationDate="2016-02-27T04:15:11.620" UserId="56" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="267" RevisionGUID="4c7da173-52ba-4796-8aa5-5cfe88c87fd0" CreationDate="2016-02-27T04:25:12.120" UserId="78" Text="It's actually amazingly simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To raise &gt; to raise up from its place &gt; to remove &gt; to destroy by removing &gt; to destroy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The visual metaphor here is astounding: imagine you want to topple a temple. What better way to do so than by uprooting from its foundations the columns upon which the temple depends? If you remove the columns, the temple is destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Auferre* works on the same principle, though that shouldn't be surprising since the perfect principle parts of *ferre* is the old perfect principle parts of *tollere* (and why *tollere* has the *sus-* instead)!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="893535a7-680e-41d7-87ac-5c7fdb9cbd21" CreationDate="2016-02-27T04:30:10.530" UserId="68" Text="The first sentence of Hygin's Prometheus is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hominés anteá ab immortálibus ignem petébant neque in perpetuum serváre sciébant; quod posteá Prometheus in ferulé détulit in terrás, hominibusque mónstrávit quómodó cinere obrutum servárent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before, people sought fire from the immortals and didn't know how to keep it continuously [lit]; *quod* afterward, Prometheus brought it down to earth on [the end of] a fennel stalk and showed people how to keep it buried in ashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is *quod* doing here? It doesn't seem to be a relative, it doesn't seem to be &quot;since,&quot; it doesn't seem to be functioning adverbially. I realize Hygin is hardly the stylist's stylist, but it's still bugging me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="949" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="893535a7-680e-41d7-87ac-5c7fdb9cbd21" CreationDate="2016-02-27T04:30:10.530" UserId="68" Text="How is &quot;quod&quot; operating in this story of Hygin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="950" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="893535a7-680e-41d7-87ac-5c7fdb9cbd21" CreationDate="2016-02-27T04:30:10.530" UserId="68" Text="|grammar|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="81348998-730a-46d1-b1c8-96aff769dd5f" CreationDate="2016-02-27T04:37:04.523" UserId="78" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="The first sentence of Hyginus' Prometheus is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hominés anteá ab immortálibus ignem petébant neque in perpetuum serváre sciébant; quod posteá Prometheus in ferulé détulit in terrás, hominibusque mónstrávit quómodó cinere obrutum servárent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before, people sought fire from the immortals and didn't know how to keep it continuously [lit]; *quod* afterward, Prometheus brought it down to earth on [the end of] a fennel stalk and showed people how to keep it buried in ashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is *quod* doing here? It doesn't seem to be a relative, it doesn't seem to be &quot;since,&quot; it doesn't seem to be functioning adverbially. I realize Hygiusn is hardly the stylist's stylist, but it's still bugging me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="952" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="81348998-730a-46d1-b1c8-96aff769dd5f" CreationDate="2016-02-27T04:37:04.523" UserId="78" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="How is &quot;quod&quot; operating in this story of Hyginus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="977015a6-9ed2-40f9-bd82-87219d57ed9c" CreationDate="2016-02-27T04:53:51.120" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="The first sentence of Hyginus' Prometheus is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hominés anteá ab immortálibus ignem petébant neque in perpetuum serváre sciébant; quod posteá Prometheus in ferulé détulit in terrás, hominibusque mónstrávit quómodó cinere obrutum servárent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before, people sought fire from the immortals and didn't know how to keep it continuously [lit]; *quod* afterward, Prometheus brought it down to earth on [the end of] a fennel stalk and showed people how to keep it buried in ashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is *quod* doing here? It doesn't seem to be a relative, it doesn't seem to be &quot;since,&quot; it doesn't seem to be functioning adverbially. I realize Hyginus is hardly the stylist's stylist, but it's still bugging me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="5b38858c-2913-4815-9755-3293b454e7aa" CreationDate="2016-02-27T05:55:51.320" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="The first sentence of Hyginus' Prometheus is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hominés anteá ab immortálibus ignem petébant neque in perpetuum serváre sciébant; quod posteá Prometheus in ferulá détulit in terrás, hominibusque mónstrávit quómodó cinere obrutum servárent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before, people sought fire from the immortals and didn't know how to keep it continuously [lit]; *quod* afterward, Prometheus brought it down to earth on [the end of] a fennel stalk and showed people how to keep it buried in ashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is *quod* doing here? It doesn't seem to be a relative, it doesn't seem to be &quot;since,&quot; it doesn't seem to be functioning adverbially. I realize Hyginus is hardly the stylist's stylist, but it's still bugging me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="269" RevisionGUID="541f19da-d664-4e7f-9f98-95bab9998a25" CreationDate="2016-02-27T06:07:41.167" UserId="209" Text="I'm aware of some of the differences in pronunciation between the two, and it would be great if they were enumerated here, but are there also any other differences? I'm thinking of intrinsic, linguistic considerations, and not extrinsic factors such as historical origins, etc, unless they shed a light on the former." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="956" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="269" RevisionGUID="541f19da-d664-4e7f-9f98-95bab9998a25" CreationDate="2016-02-27T06:07:41.167" UserId="209" Text="What are the differences between Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="957" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="269" RevisionGUID="541f19da-d664-4e7f-9f98-95bab9998a25" CreationDate="2016-02-27T06:07:41.167" UserId="209" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="270" RevisionGUID="ae438767-788d-4be9-af02-2707bfa29d24" CreationDate="2016-02-27T06:42:33.150" UserId="39" Text="There is no clear evidence - we simply don't know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Harm Pinkster (Pinkster 2015) writes that even though there may have been something comparable to the falling or rising tone known from many languages, including English,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; we are not able to recover much information about Latin intonation (p. 15).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster mentions (in a footnote) that ancient grammarians and rhetoricians were interested in intonation (vox) but, as Hannah Rosen observes, &quot;it it scarcely possible to describe them lucidly&quot; (Rosen 2009: 337). Here are some examples she cites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Vocis mutationes totidem sunt quot animorum&quot; (Cicero, Orator, 55)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Quare, **et quia nemo de ea re diligenter scripsit**—nam omnes vix posse putarunt de voce et vultu et gestu dilucide scribi, cum eae res ad sensus nostros pertinerent—et quia magnopere ea pars a nobis ad dicendum conparanda est, non neglegenter videtur tota res consideranda.&quot; (Rhetorica ad Herennium, 3,19)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a very revealing passage (Rhetorica ad Herennium, 4,54) illustrating their attitude towards serious study of intonation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster, Harm. 2015. *The Oxford Latin syntax. Volume 1: The simple clause*. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (**highly recommend** - the best Latin grammar!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosen, Hannah. 2009. *Coherence, sentence modification, and sentence-part modification - the contribution of particles*. In Baldi, Philip, and Pierluigi Cuzzolin, eds., New perspectives on historical Latin syntax. Volume 1. Syntax of the sentence, pp. 317-442. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LNWyq.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="264" RevisionGUID="0609f1b0-e024-48dd-8195-bd719eed2e12" CreationDate="2016-02-27T10:37:35.550" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="For questions regarding the meaning or connotation of a word or phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="960" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="264" RevisionGUID="0609f1b0-e024-48dd-8195-bd719eed2e12" CreationDate="2016-02-27T10:37:35.550" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 12, 79 edit id of 68" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="254" RevisionGUID="7095a5f7-85e4-41fe-b74e-77e124ddb6cb" CreationDate="2016-02-27T10:39:25.670" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="My understanding is that *strenuus* means 'stiff' or 'rigid' in the sense of 'willing to stay by ones duty' or even 'stubborn in doing what one does'.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of stiffness implies willingness and ability to do (hard) work.&#xD;&#xA;From this point of view swiftness is a part of being *strenuus*, but 'quick' and such meanings seem secondary while the primary meaning is closer to 'devoted (to work)'.&#xD;&#xA;While I have nothing to back this up with, this is how I have always thought about *strenuus* and it makes perfect sense with the proposed PIE root." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="271" RevisionGUID="21d492b8-5a7d-4816-98b7-a9f97660f71a" CreationDate="2016-02-27T11:16:08.603" UserId="183" Text="Emperor Claudius introduced three additional letters to the Latin alphabet: Ⅎ, Ↄ, and Ⱶ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In what words were those letters used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="964" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="271" RevisionGUID="21d492b8-5a7d-4816-98b7-a9f97660f71a" CreationDate="2016-02-27T11:16:08.603" UserId="183" Text="Claudian letters (Ⅎ, Ↄ, Ⱶ): Examples of their use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="965" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="271" RevisionGUID="21d492b8-5a7d-4816-98b7-a9f97660f71a" CreationDate="2016-02-27T11:16:08.603" UserId="183" Text="|classical-latin|alphabet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="966" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="271" RevisionGUID="173556e5-accb-44e0-a5a2-981a56c20566" CreationDate="2016-02-27T11:18:21.177" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|classical-latin|alphabet|example-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="272" RevisionGUID="2b86dfcd-b1f3-43a4-a848-4410d0486335" CreationDate="2016-02-27T11:24:14.017" UserId="79" Text="The word *quod* probably means 'therefore' (or ['in respect of which'](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1013718)).&#xD;&#xA;(My dictionary mentions this meaning but gives no examples.)&#xD;&#xA;This would imply that Prometheus was dissatisfied with the situation described before the semicolon and therefore took action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility is that *quod* is a relative pronoun referring to *ignis*.&#xD;&#xA;That would make *quod* the object of *detulit*.&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that *ignis* is masculine, so it should be *quem* instead.&#xD;&#xA;I can offer three explanations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It is a later copy error. It was originally *quem* but it was &quot;corrected&quot; to *quod* which more often begins a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;- Neuter was chosen because *ignis* is inanimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would explain the form if *quod* refers to the whole preceding sentence or something other than *ignis*, but that doesn't make much sense as the object." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="273" RevisionGUID="7d024f78-1808-4f80-be15-39877d507ada" CreationDate="2016-02-27T11:24:19.633" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="274" RevisionGUID="8405e2e1-d0f4-4b6d-abfe-af290d67b588" CreationDate="2016-02-27T11:24:19.633" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="275" RevisionGUID="fd4ecf58-5879-4d44-9f33-8c769bf7d922" CreationDate="2016-02-27T12:53:05.840" UserId="79" Text="There are many different words for colours in Latin, but it's not easy to tell what kind of colour was exactly meant by each word.&#xD;&#xA;Do we know what different colour words meant?&#xD;&#xA;In particular, is there a source that lists Latin colour words and describes their use in detail?&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer an online source, but a printed one is fine if it is available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dictionary entries for colours give a good idea of the colours implied by a given word, but I would like more in-depth information.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I don't only want a list of possible translations of *caeruleus* (I can readily find it my dictionary), but a list of things Romans considered *caeruleus*, to get a better idea of what the word meant.&#xD;&#xA;(Please don't explain what the word *caeruleus* means; what I am looking for is a general source.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="971" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="275" RevisionGUID="fd4ecf58-5879-4d44-9f33-8c769bf7d922" CreationDate="2016-02-27T12:53:05.840" UserId="79" Text="What colours did different colour words mean, exactly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="972" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="275" RevisionGUID="fd4ecf58-5879-4d44-9f33-8c769bf7d922" CreationDate="2016-02-27T12:53:05.840" UserId="79" Text="|meaning|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="276" RevisionGUID="225b7c79-4961-4e84-a744-3577d2e12f00" CreationDate="2016-02-27T13:43:49.370" UserId="68" Text="I think you're privileging an *upright* fall or leap. But when the Romans pitched criminals off the Tarpeian Rock, for example, or when Curtius dove into the lake, they were probably pitching themselves head-first, and, therefore, upside-down. Hence &quot;præ&quot; (&quot;first&quot;) and &quot;caput&quot; (&quot;head&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="277" RevisionGUID="78219ed2-864d-481b-8d3f-f4af336b779e" CreationDate="2016-02-27T14:01:41.697" UserId="68" Text="One common argument for classical pronunciation is that it's &quot;the way Romans spoke Latin.&quot; While I appreciate (and usually try to make) historically informed choices, this argument only tells part of the story. Yes, it's the way Romans spoke Latin—until the 2nd or 3rd century A.D. At that point Latin started to turn into [Late Latin][1], and what we think of now as ecclesiastical pronunciation started to enter the language. (There's a good summary of the shift on [Unam Sanctam Catholicam][2], a website run by a lay apostolate about history and tradition in the Church.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, while classical pronunciation is indeed the way Romans spoke Latin, ecclesiastical pronunciation is *also* the way Romans spoke Latin. It's just that Cicero was dead by then, so people are less interested in the literature. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/157-classical-vs-ecclesiastical-latin-part-2.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="278" RevisionGUID="24612b67-1198-448f-bd5d-326dfa004433" CreationDate="2016-02-27T14:12:52.817" UserId="68" Text="I'll just add that there's another word for &quot;or,&quot; *sive* (or *seu*). It's used to mean &quot;also known as&quot; or to indicate that the speaker is indifferent as to which option is chosen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si media nox est sive est prima vespera . . .  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tamen est eundum quo imperant.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whether it's the middle of the night or early evening . . .  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Still, you have to go where they order you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plautus *Curculio* 1.1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always feel kind of bad for *sive*, as if it were the redheaded stepchild of disjunctions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="108" RevisionGUID="5dac5518-a2e0-4cba-8e2f-31a6a7fc5b8e" CreationDate="2016-02-27T14:17:10.697" UserId="68" Comment="typo correction (&quot;not&quot; —&gt; &quot;non&quot;)" Text="Confer exempla haec:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vinctus pedes senator fugere non potuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Augustus multos annos regnans rem publicam sibi subiecit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusativus Graecus a Graecis esse dicitur. Discentes linguam Graecam accusativum similem quidem invenimus, cui nomen accusativus respectus. Nonne conexio ea iusta est?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusativus temporis quoque dici potest notare quendam **respectum** alicuius adiectivi aut participii, scilicet respectum temporis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Estne hic accusativus ullo modo conexus illi Graeco? An habet utraque constructio omnino discretam historiam linguisticam?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interesse nostra potest Germanos quoque quodam accusativo temporis uti:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jeden Tag erklärte Cato im Senatsgebäude: „Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.“" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="279" RevisionGUID="120e2f03-ef06-4a3c-9800-eacc7c9532c4" CreationDate="2016-02-27T14:22:45.777" UserId="68" Text="It would be impossible for me to give as exhaustive an answer as the one @Cerberus gave, so I'll just say that I always see ablative absolutes as containing implied participles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Legione dispersa victi sumus.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The legion *having been scattered*, we were conquered.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesare duce urbem cepimus. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; With Caesar *being the general*, we took the city.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, too, that this has the (dubious) advantage of being a literal translation of the ablative absolute, which I find can be a helpful way for English speakers to understand the construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="978" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="b63a0767-3701-46a4-b7ad-4b7e88a67275" CreationDate="2016-02-27T14:28:49.087" UserId="68" Comment="edited title" Text="How is &quot;quod&quot; operating in this sentence of Hyginus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="280" RevisionGUID="d2f45124-c76c-41b2-a367-c53f87a8c45f" CreationDate="2016-02-27T14:41:32.017" UserId="210" Text="In Latin we have the *ablative case*. We often use it as *ablativus instrumentalis* or *ablativus loci*. But in Slavonic languages we have two corresponding cases: instrumental and locative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What was first: did the instrumental and locative merge into one case in Latin, or did the Slavonic language invent the separate cases?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="980" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="280" RevisionGUID="d2f45124-c76c-41b2-a367-c53f87a8c45f" CreationDate="2016-02-27T14:41:32.017" UserId="210" Text="Ablative case and its counterparts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="981" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="280" RevisionGUID="d2f45124-c76c-41b2-a367-c53f87a8c45f" CreationDate="2016-02-27T14:41:32.017" UserId="210" Text="|history|ablative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="e0636b9d-6476-461a-916d-a9e2de864e71" CreationDate="2016-02-27T14:52:39.067" UserId="210" Text="There are many words, which are translated as quick. My initial search showed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - celer: *swift , quick, rapid; in a bad sense, hasty, rash*&#xD;&#xA; - celox: *swift , quick; f. as subst. a swift vessel, yacht*&#xD;&#xA; - citus: *quick, speedy*&#xD;&#xA; - velox: *quick, rapid, swift*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;according the the Notre Dame English-Latin dictionary. Did I miss any important word for *quick*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They all seem pretty the same. Is there any difference between those words? Or can they be used fully interchangeably?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="983" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="e0636b9d-6476-461a-916d-a9e2de864e71" CreationDate="2016-02-27T14:52:39.067" UserId="210" Text="The word *quick* in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="984" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="e0636b9d-6476-461a-916d-a9e2de864e71" CreationDate="2016-02-27T14:52:39.067" UserId="210" Text="|vocabulary|synonyms|differences|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="280" RevisionGUID="322471a4-5dcb-46f5-a011-d701d7c740c0" CreationDate="2016-02-27T14:56:45.853" UserId="210" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="In Latin we have the *ablative case*. We often use it as *ablativus loci*. But in Slavonic languages we have a separate case: the locative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What was first: did the instrumental and locative merge into one case in Latin, or did the Slavonic language invent the separate cases? Why don't we have a locative in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="986" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="269" RevisionGUID="c16a1199-7b26-4fe8-a56d-1175af8e7d70" CreationDate="2016-02-27T15:02:08.687" UserId="-1" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:17,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;chirlu&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:66,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Earthliŋ&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:198,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LJD200&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:19,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Harry Vervet&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="282" RevisionGUID="315340f8-b6f8-401a-8f81-cfaa397622a0" CreationDate="2016-02-27T15:04:30.540" UserId="210" Text="It's sometimes difficult to convey some meaning in such an old language as Latin. I have trouble with the word *interesting*. I've heard someone say *iucundus* in this meaning, but it's not an accurate translation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither is *attractivus* - being attractive is something else that being interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the word seems very Latin - how should we translate it? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="988" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="282" RevisionGUID="315340f8-b6f8-401a-8f81-cfaa397622a0" CreationDate="2016-02-27T15:04:30.540" UserId="210" Text="The best way to say *interesting* in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="989" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="282" RevisionGUID="315340f8-b6f8-401a-8f81-cfaa397622a0" CreationDate="2016-02-27T15:04:30.540" UserId="210" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="273" RevisionGUID="10fe656d-1d64-44c3-abd2-c9af05d9eba9" CreationDate="2016-02-27T15:19:30.360" UserId="183" Comment="added 213 characters in body" Text="The tag alphabet can be used for questions regarding&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The evolution of the latin alphabet&#xD;&#xA; - The pronounciation of letters of the latin alphabet&#xD;&#xA; - Specific question on the letterforms of the latin alphabet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="991" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="273" RevisionGUID="10fe656d-1d64-44c3-abd2-c9af05d9eba9" CreationDate="2016-02-27T15:19:30.360" Comment="Proposed by 183 approved by 79, 12 edit id of 69" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="274" RevisionGUID="1d140f16-0cd2-4f9a-9d0d-6714118a94c0" CreationDate="2016-02-27T15:19:35.687" UserId="183" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="The alphabet used to write Latin (and many other languages later on)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="993" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="274" RevisionGUID="1d140f16-0cd2-4f9a-9d0d-6714118a94c0" CreationDate="2016-02-27T15:19:35.687" Comment="Proposed by 183 approved by 79, 12 edit id of 70" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="12a2b244-825c-4968-8a57-980276f03c35" CreationDate="2016-02-27T15:21:10.200" UserId="68" Text="Ah, the joys of scansion! My understanding of the subject is solid but very basic, so I'll give you what I know, in the hope that somebody else can elaborate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Caesura in Ancient Poetry**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic unit of Latin poetry is the foot: iamb, trochee, dactyl, anapest, spondee, amphibrach. A line of dactylic hexameter is obviously made up of six dactyls (a long syllable followed by two short syllables, marked —˘˘), some of which can be replaced with spondees (two long syllables, marked — —). Take the first line of the *Æneid*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —    ˘   ˘ —       ˘      ˘  —      —— / —     —  ˘    ˘    ——     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arma virumque cano, Troiæ qui primus ab oris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you separate each foot, you come up with this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —    ˘   ˘ /—      ˘      ˘ /—    —/—   — /—  ˘     ˘  /——    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arma virumque cano, Troiæ qui primus ab oris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, as Wikipedia suggests, a caesura occurs when a word ending comes during a foot rather than at the end of one, then there are caesuras (marked ||) in every foot of this line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —    ˘ || ˘ /—     ˘ || ˘  /—|| —/—||—/  —   ˘  ||˘ / ——    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arma virumque cano, Troiæ qui primus ab oris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, usually in Latin poetry when people talk about the caesura, they mean what's called the **principal caesura*, which comes either in the third or fourth foot. In this verse it comes in the third foot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —    ˘   ˘ /—      ˘     ˘ /—|| —/—   —  /  —   ˘   ˘ /  ——    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arma virumque cano, Troiæ qui primus ab oris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are various rules (some of them slippery, some of them disputed) for whether the principal caesura usually goes in the third or fourth foot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing to know about caesuras is that they're called *strong* when they follow a long syllable and *weak* when they follow a short syllable. So in the line above, the caesura is strong. In the following line, the caesura is in the third foot and is weak:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     —  —  / —   ˘  ˘ /—   ˘ ||  ˘ /—˘  ˘ /—     ˘     ˘ /——    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Spargens humida mella soporiferumque papaver  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Virgil, *Æneid*, book 4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Caesura in Modern Poetry**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern English poetry, the caesura is much, much easier to understand. It's just when you pause while reciting a verse, often (though not always) for punctuation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is for you we speak, || not for ourselves:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (Shakespeare, *The Winter's Tale*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically that's what that sentence from Wikipedia means. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="284" RevisionGUID="efeb6d24-92cd-4c10-9485-0004bf01da0a" CreationDate="2016-02-27T15:33:52.880" UserId="194" Text="Both Latin and Slavic languages descend from parent Proto-Indo-European language spoken around 3500 BC north of the Caspian Sea. PIE language, as it is reconstructed, had the following cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Nominative&#xD;&#xA;- Genetive&#xD;&#xA;- Dative&#xD;&#xA;- Allative? (not certain)&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative &#xD;&#xA;- Instrumental&#xD;&#xA;- Locative&#xD;&#xA;- Ablative&#xD;&#xA;- Vocative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin, through its development, merged instrumental, ablative and locative in one case that is traditionally called ablative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand Slavic languages preserved them better, losing only ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might wanto to look into the following publications for more information on that topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Indoeuropean Language and Culture,* Benjamin Fortson" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="285" RevisionGUID="2157e185-348c-4c47-bdd5-3b8e5c4c0af6" CreationDate="2016-02-27T15:38:02.437" UserId="66" Text="There is a locative case in Proto-Indo-European, but in many later languages it merged into other cases, Slavonic languages being an exception. (So Slavonic didn't invent the locative case.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old Latin had a functioning locative case, but for a number of reasons (like shift in pronunciation), the locative case merged into the ablative in Classical Latin. However, there are a few fossilized instances of the locative case in Classical Latin, like *domī*, *rūrī*, *humī*. You probably learn these as exceptions in a basic (Classical) Latin textbook.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; visam, si domi est  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I will see, if he is home*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;from Heauton Timorumenos&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="279" RevisionGUID="fd3b939f-a9bc-4593-a12e-cea5cc3ece76" CreationDate="2016-02-27T15:46:19.110" UserId="68" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="It would be impossible for me to give as exhaustive an answer as the one @Cerberus gave, so I'll just say that I always see ablative absolutes as containing implied participles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Legione dispersa victi sumus.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; With the legion *having been scattered*, we were conquered.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesare duce urbem cepimus. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; With Caesar *being the general*, we took the city.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, too, that this has the (dubious) advantage of being a literal translation of the ablative absolute, which I find can be a helpful way for English speakers to understand the construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="a0a3be64-55e9-4d7c-b381-e8958decfb89" CreationDate="2016-02-27T15:52:02.420" UserId="12" Text="I'd like to say &quot;Happy Birthday [to you]!&quot; in Latin.  I see two possibilities in Traupman's *Conversational Latin*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fēlīx nātālis tibi!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fēlīcem nātālem [tibi exoptō]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is used in Traupman's rendition of the song, &quot;Happy Birthday,&quot; so I wonder if he sacrificed anything to make it fit the music.  The second uses the *accusative of exclamation*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another version of the song, by Keith Massey ([youtube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxIynr8Ulrw)), squeezes &quot;dies&quot; in there, adding doubt to Traupman's version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Felix dies natalis tibi!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that I'm only concerned about the best way to *say* the phrase, not *sing* it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Are all three of these grammatical ways to say, &quot;Happy birthday [to you]&quot;?&#xD;&#xA; - Does using the accusative of exclamation change the meaning or tone of the sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="999" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="a0a3be64-55e9-4d7c-b381-e8958decfb89" CreationDate="2016-02-27T15:52:02.420" UserId="12" Text="Happy Birthday and the accusative of exclamation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1000" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="a0a3be64-55e9-4d7c-b381-e8958decfb89" CreationDate="2016-02-27T15:52:02.420" UserId="12" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|accusative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="287" RevisionGUID="af17bfd3-5dfc-4233-989f-933585e6822d" CreationDate="2016-02-27T15:55:22.847" UserId="68" Text="Well, *interesting* is actually quite Latin, given that it comes (I believe) from *interest*, which means (among other things), &quot;it matters&quot; or &quot;it is of concern.&quot; So one way to do it would be to say *mihi interest* (&quot;it matters to me, it makes a difference to me&quot;), but that doesn't have the positive connotations that &quot;interesting&quot; has.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way to say it—and the one I usually use (and have heard other Latin speakers use), given that it *does* have that positive connotation—is *studium excitat*, &quot;it arouses eagerness/zeal/study.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alas, if you're looking for an actual adjective, you may be SOL." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1002" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="c63c93e9-cbf3-4ffe-9893-09bbb91b6573" CreationDate="2016-02-27T15:55:57.867" UserId="68" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|nuance|synonyms|differences|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="288" RevisionGUID="14db9b9f-d66e-4368-957b-9930ee5185c9" CreationDate="2016-02-27T15:57:17.397" UserId="213" Text="To add to Joel Derfner's suggestion of *studium excitat*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting aside more specific descriptions such as *mirus*, *insolitus*, *visu/lectu/etc. dignus*, and as you say *iucundus,* a general expression is *[aliquid] studium meum excitat*, &quot;it excites/stirs my interest.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid *Ex Ponto* IV.3.35 *Excitat auditor studium,* &quot;An audience stirs interest&quot; ([translation source][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [on the title][2] of the Lutheran journal *Studium Excitare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/OvidExPontoBkFour.htm#anchor_Toc34218018&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studium_Excitare#Title" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1004" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="288" RevisionGUID="b5c72e1d-05e2-4af3-9eb1-011302d176ae" CreationDate="2016-02-27T15:57:39.100" UserId="213" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:213,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;fvogel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1005" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="288" RevisionGUID="f5c9760b-2596-45ae-aee7-4ebb93c6c912" CreationDate="2016-02-27T16:00:54.977" UserId="213" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:213,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;fvogel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="187" RevisionGUID="8837fdab-c867-42a3-8c5a-751b4038edd8" CreationDate="2016-02-27T16:02:47.977" UserId="12" Comment="this IPA is closer to original suggestion" Text="I'm interested in the proper Classical pronunciation of the word 'ait'. I've been pronouncing it as 'ate', /eɪt/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it instead be pronounced as /a.it/ or even /aɪ.it/? What evidence is there suggesting how classical Romans would have pronounced it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="288" RevisionGUID="010500b7-4c26-4ce1-a053-8daec49701d0" CreationDate="2016-02-27T16:03:29.070" UserId="213" Comment="deleted 82 characters in body" Text="To add to Joel Derfner's suggestion of *studium excitat*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid *Ex Ponto* IV.3.35 *Excitat auditor studium,* &quot;An audience stirs interest&quot; ([translation source][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [on the title][2] of the Lutheran journal *Studium Excitare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is putting aside more specific descriptions such as *mirus*, *insolitus*, *visu/lectu/etc. dignus*, and as you say *iucundus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/OvidExPontoBkFour.htm#anchor_Toc34218018&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studium_Excitare#Title" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="289" RevisionGUID="d1384305-3e71-4eaf-a4a0-80ee3f76e845" CreationDate="2016-02-27T16:06:53.073" UserId="213" Text="*Döderlein's Hand-book of Latin Synonymes* has [an entry][1] including three of those adjectives, explaining some of their differences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/33197/33197-h/33197-h.htm#word_Citus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="290" RevisionGUID="1ad490bf-d507-420d-a4ee-0e8f65d61450" CreationDate="2016-02-27T16:07:46.943" UserId="68" Text="Traupman drives me crazy, because some of the stuff in that book is well attested, and some of it I believe he just made up, and he doesn't tell you which is which. ARGH. (That said, he also presents a lot of very valuable stuff.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Nātālis,&quot; with an understood &quot;diēs,&quot; is the Latin way to say &quot;birthday.&quot; Since &quot;your&quot; is also often understood when you're talking to somebody, I'd say something like &quot;Nātālis fēlīx sit!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="291" RevisionGUID="2c57578e-d223-43cb-949f-58f32ee126ba" CreationDate="2016-02-27T16:17:31.990" UserId="79" Text="I think the accusative of exclamation is the best choice here.&#xD;&#xA;Its use can often be viewed as an elliptic sentence.&#xD;&#xA;When I write a birthday card in Latin, I often write *iucundum diem natalem tibi exopto* or *&amp;hellip; tibi exoptat Ionas*.&#xD;&#xA;I could abbreviate that to *iucundum diem natalem* (or *felicem*) but I prefer whole sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Joel Derfner suggests, also *dies natalis tibi felix sit* is reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;That sounds a bit impersonal to me (***I*** am wishing you a happy birthday) so I would choose *exoptare* instead of *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether you should choose nominative or accusative in an exclamation depends on which case more naturally fits the completed sentence.&#xD;&#xA;This &quot;elliptic&quot; approach may be nothing more but a personal preference, but it works well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of your sentences are grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;Difference in nuance, if any, comes more from (explicit or implicit) other words than *dies natalis* itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1011" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="39" RevisionGUID="6d6abb69-585b-42b5-8456-44a6ff93f1be" CreationDate="2016-02-27T16:32:29.000" UserId="78" Comment="edited title" Text="What are the arguments for Classical pronunciations vs. Ecclesiastical pronunciation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="291" RevisionGUID="748a7a3c-a087-463b-a2be-d9fbbed2da7e" CreationDate="2016-02-27T16:42:14.627" UserId="79" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="I think the accusative of exclamation is the best choice here.&#xD;&#xA;Its use can often be viewed as an elliptic sentence.&#xD;&#xA;When I write a birthday card in Latin, I often write *iucundum diem natalem tibi exopto* or *&amp;hellip; tibi exoptat Ionas*.&#xD;&#xA;I could abbreviate that to *iucundum diem natalem* (or *felicem*) but I prefer whole sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Joel Derfner suggests, also *dies natalis tibi felix sit* is reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;That sounds a bit impersonal to me (***I*** am wishing you a happy birthday) so I would choose *exoptare* instead of *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether you should choose nominative or accusative in an exclamation depends on which case more naturally fits the completed sentence.&#xD;&#xA;This &quot;elliptic&quot; approach may be nothing more but a personal preference, but it works well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of your sentences are grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;Difference in nuance, if any, comes more from (explicit or implicit) other words than *dies natalis* itself.&#xD;&#xA;I might read the nominative version as *nunc est felix dies natalis* instead of *felix dies natalis sti/esto*.&#xD;&#xA;Accusative makes the exclamation more active in a way and I recommend using it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="235" RevisionGUID="9f75ee7f-d599-466f-a9b2-7736e46844b5" CreationDate="2016-02-27T17:09:06.473" UserId="78" Comment="added 503 characters in body" Text="Despite the apparent naturalness for deriving *pontifex* from *pons*, *pontis*, we're not so sure that's the right etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the years some have made the case for this derivation, including Judy Hallet back in 1970. As early as the first century BCE, though, this derivation has been contended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll skip over the ancient evidence since Joonas Ilmavirta covers Varro and Scaevola's theory. In more modern times, and with better knowledge of Italic languages, other theories have arisen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Older Theories Summarized&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roland Kent included a few post-Classical suggestions, including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *pons* meaning &quot;path&quot; (cognate with Greek *πάτος* (patos) and Sanskrit *panthan-*), where the *pontifex* would &quot;lead the way in processions&quot; (Isidore included this in his *Etymologicum Magnum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Kuhn's suggestion that *pons* meant path, but religiously speaking, so a &quot;Pfadbereiter, der zum Pfade der Goetter leitet&quot; (pathmaker, who directs the paths of the gods).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *ponti-* to the root *pū* 'purify': hence *pontifex* 'maker of purifications, of expiatory sacrifices.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pfund's suggestion *ponti-* = Oscan *pomtis* 'five times': hence *pontifex* 'the one making the fifth,' that is, 'maker of calculations' for calendar purposes, or 'the Five Actors' in some ceremonial performance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kent dismisses these almost out of hand, especially anything to do with 'five' for its irrelevance to Roman religion and the *pū* and *pote-* suggestions for their phonetic difficulties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He concludes by presenting Sanskrit and Avestan evidence for &quot;paths to the gods&quot; and decides on that etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Defense of Tradition&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judy Hallet in her 1970 paper on the topic brings up a good point in that many titles held by special offices once connoted something different than their current status would indicate. For example, she mentions the *teichopoioi* (Greek for &quot;wall-builders&quot;) who &quot;were concerned with financial matters&quot; in later periods. Even the Roman office of *quaestor* was originally the *quaestor paricidii* and was tasked, originally, with looking for murderers. Therefore, it is not impossible that indeed the original meaning of *pontifex* is bridge-builder, and their original task was to build and look after bridges (in particular the Pons Sublicius). She also points to Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1.38.3 where he states that the *pontifices* still (first century CE) make sacrifices at bridges. The clearest meaning should be upheld.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More Modern Theories&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This revival is impeded, however, by Bourdellès, who shows that the second root in *pontifex* cannot be ancient, that it uses a much more recent suffix. Bourdellès therefore goes back to the &quot;five&quot; root, but finds support in Hittite and Tocharian evidence that &quot;five&quot; can signify *all*, and further that this was an ancient designation in Umbrian that the Romans then borrowed. Honestly, I don't buy it and not many scholars have either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bernard Kavanagh also rebutted Hallett's points, and pointed out that the ancient evidence could have entirely been made up post-Scaevola. There is no good ancient evidence connecting them to bridges outside of a story probably concocted to fit the apparent etymology. He points out that Cicero said that the original number of *pontifices* at the foundation of Rome was five:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Idemque Pompilius et auspiciis maioribus inventis ad pristinum numerum duo augures et sacris e principum numero pontifices quinque praefect...* (Cic. *Rep.* II, 26).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He then derives *pontifex* from the Sabellic *punt-* (n.b.: Sabellic is the Italic group that encompasses both Oscan and Umbrian as well as Sabine, Volscian, and Samnite, but *not* Latin). The *-fex* part of their name is connected to *facere sacra* (to do the sacred rites), which would give them the ultimate meaning of &quot;a member of a board of five who performed (the sacred rites).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One problem with all theories is that we just don't know what the reality of the early years was. Whether the *pontifices* were concerned with bridges or metaphorical paths to god or whether they were originally just a group of five, the ancients were known for making up history based on folk etymologies. That said, personally, I think derivation from Sabellic *pomti-* is the best candidate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bourdellès, H. Le 1976. &quot;Nature profonde du pontificat romain Tentative d'une étymologie.&quot; *Revue de l'histoire des religions* 189.1: 53–65.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hallet, Judith P. 1970. &quot; &quot;Over Troubled Waters&quot;: The Meaning of the Title Pontifex.&quot; *Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association* 101: 219–227.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kavanagh, Bernard J. 2000. &quot;Pontifices, Bridge-Making and Ribezzo Revisited.&quot; *Glotta* 76.1: 59-65&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kent, Roland G. 1913. &quot;The Vedic Path of the Gods and the Roman Pontifex.&quot; *Classical Philology* 8.3: 317–326.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kuhn, A. 1855. &quot;Pfad, πάτος, πόντος, pons, pontifex.&quot; *Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete des Deutschen, Griechischen und Lateinischen* 4: 73–77.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pfund, Th. G. 1847. *Altitalische Rechtsaltertuemer in der römischen Sage*, Weimar. (pp. 212ff.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="289" RevisionGUID="27f83798-dcec-4d04-b1d7-f21661c591a4" CreationDate="2016-02-27T17:09:54.830" UserId="213" Comment="quoted from source" Text="From [an entry][1] (which includes references here omitted) in *Döderlein's Hand-book of Latin Synonymes*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Citus; Celer; Velox; Pernix; Properus; Festinus. 1. Citus and celer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; denote swiftness, merely as quick motion, in opp. to tardus, ... velox&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and pernix, nimbleness, as bodily strength and activity, in opp. to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lentus; properus and festinus, haste, as the will to reach a certain&#xD;&#xA;&gt; point in the shortest time, in opp. to segnis ... 2. Citus denotes a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; swift and lively motion, approaching to vegetus; celer, an eager and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; impetuous motion, approaching to rapidus. 3. Pernicitas is, in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; general, dexterity and activity in all bodily movements, in hopping,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; climbing, and vaulting; but velocitas, especially in running, flying,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and swimming, and so forth. ... 4. Properus, properare, denote the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; haste which, from energy, sets out rapidly to reach a certain point,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in opp. to cessare; whereas festinus, festinare, denote the haste&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which springs from impatience, and borders upon precipitation. ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/33197/33197-h/33197-h.htm#word_Citus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="290" RevisionGUID="9e14621d-9b3e-45a9-ba4c-50a87beddaa2" CreationDate="2016-02-27T17:14:33.020" UserId="68" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="Traupman drives me crazy, because some of the stuff in that book is well attested, and some of it I believe he just made up, and he doesn't tell you which is which. ARGH. (That said, he also presents a lot of very valuable stuff.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Nātālis,&quot; with an understood &quot;diēs,&quot; is the Latin way to say &quot;birthday.&quot; Since &quot;your&quot; is also often understood when you're talking to somebody, I'd say something like &quot;Nātālis fēlīx sit!&quot; or just &quot;Nātālis fēlīx!&quot; (or same thing with the word order changed, obviously), which would probably be more idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the answer is basically that all three are probably absolutely right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="290" RevisionGUID="b15f46f5-7205-44d5-a4dd-64372e1e3592" CreationDate="2016-02-27T17:19:57.423" UserId="68" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="Traupman drives me crazy, because some of the stuff in that book is well attested, and some of it I believe he just made up, and he doesn't tell you which is which. ARGH. (That said, he also presents a lot of very valuable stuff.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Nātālis,&quot; with an understood &quot;diēs,&quot; is the Latin way to say &quot;birthday.&quot; Since &quot;your&quot; is also often understood when you're talking to somebody, I'd say something like &quot;Nātālis fēlīx sit!&quot; or just &quot;Nātālis fēlīx!&quot; (or same thing with the word order changed, obviously), which would probably be more idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nātālem fēlīcem would definitely work, though, as it implies *tibi optō*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the answer is basically that all three are probably absolutely right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, I wouldn't call the accusative use an accusative of exclamation—the accusative of exclamation would be something more like, &quot;How happy your birthday is!&quot; This is just a plain accusative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="269" RevisionGUID="08b9d998-be36-4df9-9c6a-200187529655" CreationDate="2016-02-27T17:31:00.970" UserId="12" Comment="attempt to make this more answerable in this format" Text="I'm aware of some of the differences in pronunciation between the two, and it would be great if they were summarized here, but are there also any other differences? I'm thinking of intrinsic, linguistic considerations, and not extrinsic factors such as historical origins, etc., unless they shed a light on the former." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1018" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="269" RevisionGUID="08b9d998-be36-4df9-9c6a-200187529655" CreationDate="2016-02-27T17:31:00.970" UserId="12" Comment="attempt to make this more answerable in this format" Text="What is an overview of the differences between Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="292" RevisionGUID="a5f335d0-437d-405e-a099-42ed5f823ae1" CreationDate="2016-02-27T17:43:50.467" UserId="118" Text="Quid suffixum **-amen** significat, ut **foramen**, **putamen**, **calceamen**, **regimen**, **æquamen**, **vocamen**, etc.?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**-amen** suffixo in dictionariis interretialibus non invenio, neque perspicuam significationem communem in verbis eo factis. **Foramen** est _id quod est factum_ **forando**, tamen **æquamen** est _instrumentum_ ad **æquandum** (ut dicit Forcellini [hic](http://linguax.com/lexica/forc.php?searchedLG=foramen) et [hic](http://linguax.com/lexica/forc.php?searchedLG=aequamen)). Intellego **-amen** nomen a verbo temporis facere, sed quomodo ab **-atio**, **-mentum**, etc. differt? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1022" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="292" RevisionGUID="a5f335d0-437d-405e-a099-42ed5f823ae1" CreationDate="2016-02-27T17:43:50.467" UserId="118" Text="Quid significat &quot;-amen&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1023" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="292" RevisionGUID="a5f335d0-437d-405e-a099-42ed5f823ae1" CreationDate="2016-02-27T17:43:50.467" UserId="118" Text="|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="293" RevisionGUID="c6183e6f-22b9-43ce-83b7-0fa56ff5d2d2" CreationDate="2016-02-27T17:49:19.467" UserId="40" Text="I'd take this as *quod* &quot;but, though&quot;, sense VII in Lewis and Short." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="288" RevisionGUID="d3ec27ce-b5f6-4e79-b299-8e1bb75c4634" CreationDate="2016-02-27T17:56:40.847" UserId="213" Comment="quoted from a source" Text="To add to Joel Derfner's suggestion of *studium excitat*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid *Ex Ponto* IV.3.35 *Excitat auditor studium,* &quot;An audience stirs interest&quot; ([translation source][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also on the title of the Lutheran journal *Studium Excitare* ([source][2]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Studium Excitare&quot; is a Latin phrase that means &quot;to arouse zeal.&quot; The phrase is often used in historic Lutheran writings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is putting aside more specific descriptions such as *mirus*, *insolitus*, *visu/lectu/etc. dignus*, and as you say *iucundus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/OvidExPontoBkFour.htm#anchor_Toc34218018&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studium_Excitare#Title" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="294" RevisionGUID="e6c84d6d-3ab5-4a59-b22a-1bc0125b3876" CreationDate="2016-02-27T18:14:27.890" UserId="73" Text="Referring to progressively more distance ancestors, I would list my&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Pater (father)&#xD;&#xA; - Avus (grandfather)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After this point, it gets a bit shaky. [This](https://books.google.com/books?id=vJfzPId7PnEC&amp;pg=PA50&amp;lpg=PA50&amp;dq=latin+great-grandfather+using+magnus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=UAbDtGXhPP&amp;sig=x93AG7SRVeJBrslznpdSGYmn1Ck&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjotI63xJjLAhUMdj4KHbcaCdAQ6AEIJTAC#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20great-grandfather%20using%20magnus&amp;f=false), for example, gives past ancestors as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Proavus (great-grandfather)&#xD;&#xA; - Abavus (great-great-grandfather)&#xD;&#xA; - Atavus (great-great-great-grandfather)&#xD;&#xA; - Tritavus (great-great-great-great-grandfather)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;See also [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=blhFAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA83&amp;lpg=PA83&amp;dq=latin+great-grandfather&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=hE7ZQS81Fh&amp;sig=hiGNx9TRiDAUQy2LMoBA-8SwK-0&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi056DNw5jLAhXCbj4KHbxpCtc4FBDoAQghMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20great-grandfather&amp;f=false).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how far back this system went on - I have yet to find anything further - although it seems somewhat absurd that someone should need to refer to someone this distantly related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I were to literally translate &quot;grand&quot; in this usage, I would end up with some form of &quot;magnus&quot;, which could then be applied as successive prefixes. However, I doubt that this has actually been used; it seems like a misrepresentation. The book I cited also gave &quot;pro&quot; as meaning&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'add one generation away from *ego*.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might then mean that my abavus could also be called my pro-pro-proavus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What system was most commonly used in Classical Latin - the specific naming system, applicable to at least six generations back in time, or the &quot;pro&quot; system, which could apparently be used for an arbitrary number of generations (which I'm slightly more interested in here)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1027" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="294" RevisionGUID="e6c84d6d-3ab5-4a59-b22a-1bc0125b3876" CreationDate="2016-02-27T18:14:27.890" UserId="73" Text="How would a Roman refer to a great-great-great- . . . -great-grandparent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1028" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="294" RevisionGUID="e6c84d6d-3ab5-4a59-b22a-1bc0125b3876" CreationDate="2016-02-27T18:14:27.890" UserId="73" Text="|classical-latin|prefixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="294" RevisionGUID="45c71ef3-fcab-4788-af38-22ee3849be26" CreationDate="2016-02-27T18:25:42.103" UserId="73" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="Referring to progressively more distance ancestors, I would list my&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Pater (father)&#xD;&#xA; - Avus (grandfather)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After this point, it gets a bit shaky. [This](https://books.google.com/books?id=vJfzPId7PnEC&amp;pg=PA50&amp;lpg=PA50&amp;dq=latin+great-grandfather+using+magnus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=UAbDtGXhPP&amp;sig=x93AG7SRVeJBrslznpdSGYmn1Ck&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjotI63xJjLAhUMdj4KHbcaCdAQ6AEIJTAC#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20great-grandfather%20using%20magnus&amp;f=false), for example, gives past ancestors as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Proavus (great-grandfather)&#xD;&#xA; - Abavus (great-great-grandfather)&#xD;&#xA; - Atavus (great-great-great-grandfather)&#xD;&#xA; - Tritavus (great-great-great-great-grandfather)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;See also [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=blhFAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA83&amp;lpg=PA83&amp;dq=latin+great-grandfather&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=hE7ZQS81Fh&amp;sig=hiGNx9TRiDAUQy2LMoBA-8SwK-0&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi056DNw5jLAhXCbj4KHbxpCtc4FBDoAQghMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20great-grandfather&amp;f=false).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how far back this system went on - I have yet to find anything further - although it seems somewhat absurd that someone should need to refer to someone this distantly related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I were to literally translate &quot;grand&quot; in this usage, I would end up with some form of &quot;magnus&quot;, which could then be applied as successive prefixes. However, I doubt that this has actually been used; it seems like a misrepresentation. The book I cited also gave &quot;pro&quot; as meaning&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'add one generation away from *ego*.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might then mean that my abavus could also be called my pro-pro-proavus. However, &quot;pro&quot; can also be used to indicate steps in future generations - and may in fact have been used more commonly in this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What system was most commonly used in Classical Latin - the specific naming system, applicable to at least six generations back in time, or the &quot;pro&quot; system, which could apparently be used for an arbitrary number of generations (which I'm slightly more interested in here)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="294" RevisionGUID="196d2280-344e-41f8-9de4-3fab97af081e" CreationDate="2016-02-27T18:30:46.983" UserId="73" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="Referring to progressively more distance ancestors, I would list my&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Pater (father)&#xD;&#xA; - Avus (grandfather)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After this point, it gets a bit shaky. [This](https://books.google.com/books?id=vJfzPId7PnEC&amp;pg=PA50&amp;lpg=PA50&amp;dq=latin+great-grandfather+using+magnus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=UAbDtGXhPP&amp;sig=x93AG7SRVeJBrslznpdSGYmn1Ck&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjotI63xJjLAhUMdj4KHbcaCdAQ6AEIJTAC#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20great-grandfather%20using%20magnus&amp;f=false), for example, gives past ancestors as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Proavus (great-grandfather)&#xD;&#xA; - Abavus (great-great-grandfather)&#xD;&#xA; - Atavus (great-great-great-grandfather)&#xD;&#xA; - Tritavus (great-great-great-great-grandfather)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;See also [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=blhFAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA83&amp;lpg=PA83&amp;dq=latin+great-grandfather&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=hE7ZQS81Fh&amp;sig=hiGNx9TRiDAUQy2LMoBA-8SwK-0&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi056DNw5jLAhXCbj4KHbxpCtc4FBDoAQghMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20great-grandfather&amp;f=false).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how far back this system went on - I have yet to find anything further - although it seems somewhat absurd that someone should need to refer to someone this distantly related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I were to literally translate &quot;grand&quot; in this usage, I would end up with some form of &quot;magnus&quot;, which could then be applied as successive prefixes. However, I doubt that this has actually been used; it seems like a misrepresentation. The book I cited also gave &quot;pro&quot; as meaning&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'add one generation away from *ego*.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might then mean that my abavus could also be called my pro-pro-proavus. However, &quot;pro&quot; can also be used to indicate steps in future generations - and may in fact have been used more commonly in this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What system was most commonly used in Classical Latin - the specific naming system, applicable to at least six generations back in time, the &quot;pro&quot; system, which could apparently be used for an arbitrary number of generations (which I'm slightly more interested in here), or something completely different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1031" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="292" RevisionGUID="b0d48fc9-af83-4ff9-b3d9-5b2fbdb0d546" CreationDate="2016-02-27T18:47:26.967" UserId="73" Comment="Edited tags." Text="|affixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1032" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="294" RevisionGUID="c8bb94bb-b61c-48b0-bbc7-32d5c9f7deab" CreationDate="2016-02-27T18:49:03.867" UserId="73" Comment="Edited tags. I didn't know there was a tag for affixes." Text="|classical-latin|affixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="295" RevisionGUID="9ccac907-b683-4caa-89d7-01fe4881a303" CreationDate="2016-02-27T18:59:36.300" UserId="118" Text="Quando vocabulum **a fortiori** (sive _[a fortiore](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/133/118)_) ut nomen artis legis logicæve ortum est? In quo opere scripto primum apparuit?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Volo intellegere eius rationem originis verificareque verbum elisum &quot;**ratione**&quot; esse. Notionem in auctoribus antiquis apparere scio, ut _[Rhetorica ad Herennium](https://archive.org/stream/adcherenniumdera00capluoft#page/292/mode/2up)_ IV.18 et _[Topica](https://archive.org/stream/oratorbrutustopi00cice#page/382/mode/2up)_ Ciceronis 4.23, sed illa locutiones differentes utuntur, e.g. &quot;Quod in re maiore valet, valeat in minore.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1034" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="295" RevisionGUID="9ccac907-b683-4caa-89d7-01fe4881a303" CreationDate="2016-02-27T18:59:36.300" UserId="118" Text="Quando et quo &quot;a fortiori&quot; ortum est?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1035" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="295" RevisionGUID="9ccac907-b683-4caa-89d7-01fe4881a303" CreationDate="2016-02-27T18:59:36.300" UserId="118" Text="|history|logic|legal-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="191" RevisionGUID="087af015-9745-43bb-80f6-4dae8c72a435" CreationDate="2016-02-27T19:03:17.523" UserId="118" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It ain't &quot;ate&quot;, that's for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some evidence that it's two syllables, /ˈa.it/, comes from poetry, when _ait_ appears in places where two syllables are needed to fit the meter. For example, this is from book VI of the Aeneid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ventum ad līmen erat, cum virgō &quot;poscere fāta&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tempus&quot; **ait**; &quot;deus, ecce deus!&quot; Cui tālia fantī&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ante forēs subitō nōn vultus, nōn color ūnus…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;They had come to the threshold when the virgin said 'It's time to summon fate. A god, behold, a god!' Suddenly, neither the face nor one color … of the one speaking this way in front of the doors …&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These lines are hexameter, the pattern of which requires that _ait_, in that sentence, be a two-syllable word with the first syllable &quot;light&quot; (a syllable ending in a short vowel, in this case _ă_). Rather than explaining hexameter in full, I'll just mark the breaks between feet with a slash:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vent’‿ad / līmen‿e/rat, cum / virgō / &quot;poscere / fāta&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tempus&quot;‿**a/it**; &quot;deus,‿/ecce de/us!&quot; Cui / tālia / fantī&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ante fo/rēs subi/tō nōn / vultus, / nōn color‿/ūnus…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each foot in hexameter must start with a heavy syllable (a syllable with either a long vowel or that ends in a consonant that doesn't begin the next syllable). There's one elided vowel, which I marked with an apostrophe, and I marked &quot;conjoined syllables&quot; with a tie. You should see that each foot starts with a heavy syllable, and one of those is the second syllable of _ait_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for how sloppily people actually said _ait_ in everyday speech, though, I have no idea. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about colloquial classical Latin can provide some information about that.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="291" RevisionGUID="53c31ceb-6099-4064-8ef7-df68e94aa68c" CreationDate="2016-02-27T19:05:07.170" UserId="79" Comment="added 195 characters in body" Text="I think the accusative of exclamation is the best choice here.&#xD;&#xA;Its use can often be viewed as an elliptic sentence.&#xD;&#xA;When I write a birthday card in Latin, I often write *iucundum diem natalem tibi exopto* or *iucundum diem natalem tibi exoptat Ionas*.&#xD;&#xA;I could abbreviate that to *iucundum diem natalem* (or *felicem*) but I prefer whole sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Joel Derfner suggests, also *dies natalis tibi felix sit* is reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;That sounds a bit impersonal to me (***I*** am wishing you a happy birthday) so I would choose *exoptare* instead of *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether you should choose nominative or accusative in an exclamation depends on which case more naturally fits the completed sentence.&#xD;&#xA;This &quot;elliptic&quot; approach may be nothing more but a personal preference, but it works well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of your sentences are grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;Difference in nuance, if any, comes more from (explicit or implicit) other words than *dies natalis* itself.&#xD;&#xA;I might read the nominative version as *nunc est felix dies natalis* instead of *felix dies natalis sti/esto*.&#xD;&#xA;Accusative makes the exclamation more active in a way and I recommend using it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe I should add that I often close my Latin emails with *Te bene valere iubet Ionas* instead of *Vale! Ionas*.&#xD;&#xA;Others may not share my preference for whole sentences, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="295" RevisionGUID="b3c26f74-e2a6-4fb7-a925-bba08f324d7d" CreationDate="2016-02-27T19:05:42.287" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="Quando vocabulum **a fortiori** (sive _[a fortiore](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/133/118)_) ortum est ut nomen artis legis logicæve? In quo opere scripto primum apparuit?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Volo intellegere eius rationem originis verificareque verbum elisum &quot;**ratione**&quot; esse. Notionem in duobus auctoribus antiquis inveni, _[Rhetorica ad Herennium](https://archive.org/stream/adcherenniumdera00capluoft#page/292/mode/2up)_ IV.18 et _[Topica](https://archive.org/stream/oratorbrutustopi00cice#page/382/mode/2up)_ Ciceronis 4.23, sed illa locutiones differentes utuntur, e.g. &quot;Quod in re maiore valet, valeat in minore.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="294" RevisionGUID="07474250-551e-455b-b3a6-fa4559bd9723" CreationDate="2016-02-27T19:09:12.460" UserId="73" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Referring to progressively more distance ancestors, I would list my&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Pater (father)&#xD;&#xA; - Avus (grandfather)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After this point, it gets a bit shaky. [This](https://books.google.com/books?id=vJfzPId7PnEC&amp;pg=PA50&amp;lpg=PA50&amp;dq=latin+great-grandfather+using+magnus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=UAbDtGXhPP&amp;sig=x93AG7SRVeJBrslznpdSGYmn1Ck&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjotI63xJjLAhUMdj4KHbcaCdAQ6AEIJTAC#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20great-grandfather%20using%20magnus&amp;f=false), for example, gives past ancestors as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Proavus (great-grandfather)&#xD;&#xA; - Abavus (great-great-grandfather)&#xD;&#xA; - Atavus (great-great-great-grandfather)&#xD;&#xA; - Tritavus (great-great-great-great-grandfather)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;See also [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=blhFAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA83&amp;lpg=PA83&amp;dq=latin+great-grandfather&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=hE7ZQS81Fh&amp;sig=hiGNx9TRiDAUQy2LMoBA-8SwK-0&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi056DNw5jLAhXCbj4KHbxpCtc4FBDoAQghMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20great-grandfather&amp;f=false).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how far back this system went on - I have yet to find anything further - although it seems somewhat absurd that someone should need to refer to someone this distantly related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I were to literally translate &quot;grand&quot; in this usage, I would end up with some form of &quot;magnus&quot;, which could then be applied as successive prefixes. However, I doubt that this has actually been used; it seems like a misrepresentation. The book I cited also gave &quot;pro&quot; as meaning&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'add one generation away from *ego*.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might then mean that my atavus could also be called my pro-pro-proavus. However, &quot;pro&quot; can also be used to indicate steps in future generations - and may in fact have been used more commonly in this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What system was most commonly used in Classical Latin - the specific naming system, applicable to at least six generations back in time, the &quot;pro&quot; system, which could apparently be used for an arbitrary number of generations (which I'm slightly more interested in here), or something completely different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="269" RevisionGUID="1bc4ff82-eb58-4cda-85ec-a6be173e95aa" CreationDate="2016-02-27T19:59:48.663" UserId="209" Comment="Qualified &quot;differences&quot; to &quot;key areas&quot; with examples, in order to narrow down scope. " Text="I'm aware of some of the differences in pronunciation between the two, and perhaps this can be covered in greater detail elsewhere, but are there also any other key areas of differences (with perhaps a couple of examples in each)? I'm thinking of intrinsic, linguistic considerations, and not extrinsic factors such as historical origins, etc., unless they shed a light on the former." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1043" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="269" RevisionGUID="4885c12b-3104-49f3-9d66-391c8fbc2cc5" CreationDate="2016-02-27T20:29:00.397" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:118,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ben Kovitz&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:12,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nathaniel&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:19,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Harry Vervet&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:66,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Earthliŋ&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="296" RevisionGUID="4a9756b8-6458-4158-bbff-959616cd684c" CreationDate="2016-02-27T20:56:47.030" UserId="79" Text="Suffixum *-men* instrumentum significat.&#xD;&#xA;Si verbum coniugationis primae est, adest *-a-*, sed pars est verbi, non suffixi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Calceamen* est aliquid, quo calceare possumus.&#xD;&#xA;*Nomen* est aliqued, quo noscere possumus.&#xD;&#xA;Similiter *velamine* velamus, *regimine* regimus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suffixum *-mentum* idem significat ac *-men* &amp;mdash; sic saltem narrat ars grammatica mea.&#xD;&#xA;*Ornamento* ornamus, *documento* docemus et sic porro.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suffixum *-tio/-sio* (aut *-io*, sed semper cum stemmate participii perfecti adhibetur) dissimile est.&#xD;&#xA;Hoc, ut ita dicam, phaenomenon significat: *scriptio* est phaenomenon in quo aliquid scribitur, in *possessione* aliquid possidetur, in *dictatione* aliquid dictatur et sic porro.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suffixum *-men/-mentum* instrumentum tangibile dat, *-io* phaenomenon abstractum.&#xD;&#xA;Certe *velamen(tum)* in *velatione* usui est!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**English summary:**&#xD;&#xA;The suffix *-men* means an instrument, just like *-mentum*.&#xD;&#xA;The suffix *-tio/-sio*, on the other hand, means a phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;The instrument is a concrete thing but the phenomenon is more abstract." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="210" RevisionGUID="405e6513-1cbe-44ab-87ad-12f32244ff84" CreationDate="2016-02-27T21:55:48.597" UserId="73" Comment="added 204 characters in body" Text="In the classical period, olive oil was considered a must-have piece of equipment for an athlete. The exact details of its use aren't known perfectly, but it appears that it was coated on an athlete's body and then covered with fine sand, in preparation for competition (especially wrestling). This would protect the body, especially from heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Athletes in Greece (yes, the *original* Olympians) were especially common users of the mixture, in a variety of events. Thus, if a person shied away from olive oil like this, it implied that they were cowardly, and not ready for competition. This practice was carried over the Latin-speaking Romans ([this history of garlic and olive oil](https://books.google.com/books?id=ji0tFmBd4d0C&amp;pg=PA90&amp;lpg=PA90&amp;dq=roman+olive+oil+athletes&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PegoXnvGc1&amp;sig=IiS_lq-1Ir2z-dSV-axP8O5MntA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj8ovX8lJTLAhVL7RQKHfsxDCUQ6AEIQDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=roman%20olive%20oil%20athletes&amp;f=false) mentions to Roman use) - but Horace may still have been alluding to the Greek practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the competition, special instruments were used to clean off the mixture (one being a [strigil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strigil), and another being a common sponge). Olive oil use has even made its way into art, as [*A Companion to Sport and Spectacle in Greek and Roman Antiquity*](https://books.google.com/books?id=PQILAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT492&amp;lpg=PT492&amp;dq=roman+olive+oil+athletes&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=g6M0-SpayF&amp;sig=7yJj-cz5ydLv9vKnDPrc_Y5N7gQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwivg-DQlZTLAhUDPxQKHc2-Dlo4FBDoAQgaMAA#v=onepage&amp;q=roman%20olive%20oil%20athletes&amp;f=false) notes (see also the points of general use by Eutruscan athletes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[Source: The Olympic Games in Antiquity](http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/en_report_658.pdf)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another important detail is that other translations of that verse exist. [One version](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hor.+Od.+1.8&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0025) instead goes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Like poison loathes the oil&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, looking at the passage as a whole, we see many context clues that point out the central idea of sport - some, interestingly enough, references to Greece:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; What change has made him shun  &#xD;&#xA;The playing-ground, who once so well could bear the dust and sun&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; He who erewhile was known  &#xD;&#xA; For quoit or javelin oft and oft beyond the limit thrown?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Looks like the boyfriend isn't too manly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="297" RevisionGUID="0adf476a-09f6-49fb-8d0f-6081229a8a37" CreationDate="2016-02-27T22:06:48.873" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="298" RevisionGUID="b3026a57-a9b6-42c1-967e-2feee58e008e" CreationDate="2016-02-27T22:06:48.873" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="299" RevisionGUID="abaf7cec-38fc-439f-8c66-f6ac51676da6" CreationDate="2016-02-27T22:08:09.177" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="300" RevisionGUID="5cc98d30-02bb-4937-8940-df3116ac7ce3" CreationDate="2016-02-27T22:08:09.177" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="b32dd6b1-9eba-4c6c-99c3-5cd0a00719cf" CreationDate="2016-02-27T22:28:37.190" UserId="30" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Yes, Cappelli is basically right (which is perhaps not surprising, he being an authoritative figure in the field of palaeography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every third word is probably above average, but in most documents one seldom finds a sentence without any abbreviations. Parchment was not cheap, nor was scribal labour. The same applies to manuscripts in any European language, at least in my experience (mostly Latin and Dutch). Some genres are more likely to contain fewer abbreviations than others, such as literary works written in book script; but even an illustrated Bible will usually be full of them. A few arbitrary examples, with abbreviations in square brackets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.sothebys.com/content/dam/stb/lots/L12/L12242/009L12242_6CB6T.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Regnante d**omi**no n**ost**ro ih**s**u xp**ist**o cum post passionem sua**m** resurrectione**m** et ascensione**m** eius co**n**uersis  ad d**omi**n**u**m cunctis finib**us** terre nec in angulo occeani aliquis se a colore fidei absconderet in co**n**veniendo p**o**p**u**lo**s** in unu**m** et reges ut servirent d**omi**no. fuit in britanni(a)e partib**us** rex quidam d**e**o notus tam uita qua**m** nomine qui religiosus...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's 32% of words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.villa.culture.fr/mediatheque/communs/images/grandFormat/0/21_2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pars **est** p**ri**ma prudencie: ip**s**am cui p**re**ceptur**us** sis estimare p**er**sonam. Neq**ue** enim formator ag**ri**cole deb**et** artib**us** **et** eloquencia rethores emulari q**uo**d a plerisq**ue** factum **est** q**ui** dum diserte loqunt**ur** rusticis assecuti sunt, ut eorum doct**ri**na n**on** a dis?tissimis possit intelligi. S**ed** nos recidam**us** p**re**fationis moram: ne quos rep**re**hendim**us** imitemur. ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That makes 43%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there are also manuscripts that use few abbreviations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.europeanaregia.eu/sites/www.europeanaregia.eu/files/manuscripts/regiacarol_lat_5763.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gallia est omnis diuisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt belgae, aliam aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua celtae, N**ost**ra galli appellantur. Hi omnes lingua institutis legibus inter se differunt. Gallos ab aquitanis garunna flumen a belgis matrona **et** sequana diuidit. Horum omnium fortissimi sunt belgae propter ea q**uo**d a cultu atq**ue** humanitate provinciae longissime absunt minimeque ad eos mercatores saepe com**m**eant atq**ue** ea quae ad effeminandos animos pertinent inportant proximique s**un**t germanis qui trans renu**m** incolunt quib**us**cum continenter bellum gerunt ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's 11%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overall ratio is difficult to establish (and perhaps less necessary), but you can get a fair impression by looking at a couple of documents in Google Images." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="b024090f-e78d-41f6-bc5e-82c24322b5d9" CreationDate="2016-02-27T22:43:56.520" UserId="68" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Ah, the joys of scansion! My understanding of the subject is solid but very basic, so I'll give you what I know, in the hope that somebody else can elaborate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Caesura in Ancient Poetry**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic unit of Latin poetry is the foot: iamb, trochee, dactyl, anapest, spondee, amphibrach. A line of dactylic hexameter is obviously made up of six dactyls (a long syllable followed by two short syllables, marked —˘ ˘ ), some of which can be replaced with spondees (two long syllables, marked ——). Take the first line of the *Æneid*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —    ˘   ˘ —       ˘      ˘  —      —— / —     —  ˘    ˘    ——     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arma virumque cano, Troiæ qui primus ab oris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you separate each foot, you come up with this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —    ˘   ˘ /—      ˘      ˘ /—    —/—   — /—  ˘     ˘  /——    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arma virumque cano, Troiæ qui primus ab oris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, as Wikipedia suggests, a caesura occurs when a word ending comes during a foot rather than at the end of one, then there are caesuras (marked ||) in every foot of this line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —    ˘ || ˘ /—     ˘ || ˘  /—|| —/—||—/  —   ˘  ||˘ / ——    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arma virumque cano, Troiæ qui primus ab oris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, usually in Latin poetry when people talk about the caesura, they mean what's called the **principal caesura*, which comes either in the third or fourth foot. In this verse it comes in the third foot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —    ˘   ˘ /—      ˘     ˘ /—|| —/—   —  /  —   ˘   ˘ /  ——    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arma virumque cano, Troiæ qui primus ab oris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are various rules (some of them slippery, some of them disputed) for whether the principal caesura usually goes in the third or fourth foot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing to know about caesuras is that they're called *strong* when they follow a long syllable and *weak* when they follow a short syllable. So in the line above, the caesura is strong. In the following line, the caesura is in the third foot and is weak:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     —  —  / —   ˘  ˘ /—   ˘ ||  ˘ /—˘  ˘ /—     ˘     ˘ /——    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Spargens humida mella soporiferumque papaver  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Virgil, *Æneid*, book 4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Caesura in Modern Poetry**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern English poetry, the caesura is much, much easier to understand. It's just when you pause while reciting a verse, often (though not always) for punctuation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is for you we speak, || not for ourselves:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (Shakespeare, *The Winter's Tale*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically that's what that sentence from Wikipedia means. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="80282cd1-c795-4f83-9114-0c8b35e2b56e" CreationDate="2016-02-27T22:53:18.520" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Ah, the joys of scansion! My understanding of the subject is solid but very basic, so I'll give you what I know, in the hope that somebody else can elaborate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Caesura in Ancient Poetry**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic unit of Latin poetry is the foot: iamb, trochee, dactyl, anapest, spondee, amphibrach. A line of dactylic hexameter is obviously made up of six dactyls (a long syllable followed by two short syllables, marked —˘ ˘ ), some of which can be replaced with spondees (two long syllables, marked ——). Take the first line of the *Æneid*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —    ˘   ˘ —       ˘      ˘  —      —— / —     —  ˘    ˘    ——     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arma virumque cano, Troiæ qui primus ab oris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you separate each foot, you come up with this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —    ˘   ˘ /—      ˘      ˘ /—    —/—   — /—  ˘     ˘  /——    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arma virumque cano, Troiæ qui primus ab oris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, as Wikipedia suggests, a caesura occurs when a word ending comes during a foot rather than at the end of one, then there are caesuras (marked ||) in every foot of this line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —    ˘ || ˘ /—     ˘ || ˘  /—|| —/—||—/  —   ˘  ||˘ / ——    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arma virumque cano, Troiæ qui primus ab oris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, usually in Latin poetry when people talk about the caesura, they mean what's called the *principal caesura*, which comes either in the third or fourth foot. In this verse it comes in the third foot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —    ˘   ˘ /—      ˘     ˘ /—|| —/—   —  /  —   ˘   ˘ /  ——    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arma virumque cano, Troiæ qui primus ab oris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are various rules (some of them slippery, some of them disputed) for whether the principal caesura usually goes in the third or fourth foot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing to know about caesuras is that they're called *strong* when they follow a long syllable and *weak* when they follow a short syllable. So in the line above, the caesura is strong. In the following line, the caesura is in the third foot and is weak:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     —  —  / —   ˘  ˘ /—   ˘ ||  ˘ /—˘  ˘ /—     ˘     ˘ /——    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Spargens humida mella soporiferumque papaver  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Virgil, *Æneid*, book 4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Caesura in Modern Poetry**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern English poetry, the caesura is much, much easier to understand. It's just when you pause while reciting a verse, often (though not always) for punctuation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is for you we speak, || not for ourselves:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (Shakespeare, *The Winter's Tale*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically that's what that sentence from Wikipedia means. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="301" RevisionGUID="a261be63-81da-499f-9898-a4ed6d12af25" CreationDate="2016-02-27T23:21:23.953" UserId="116" Text="It is easy to forget how different cultural assumptions can be. Nowadays, a bath is for hygienic purposes, and private. For the Romans, though, a visit to the baths was social and cultural; the actual ablutions consisted of rubbing olive oil on the skin and then scraping it off (together with the accumulated dirt and sweat) using a strigil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So this may be the equivalent of &quot;He's not very fond of soap.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="298" RevisionGUID="2ddf89a7-b3c7-4b82-97c1-fcb048243129" CreationDate="2016-02-27T23:35:31.337" UserId="79" Comment="added 139 characters in body" Text="For questions regarding caesura, a certain kind of pause in ancient poetry. Consider using also broader tags about poetry or poetic meters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1055" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="298" RevisionGUID="2ddf89a7-b3c7-4b82-97c1-fcb048243129" CreationDate="2016-02-27T23:35:31.337" Comment="Proposed by 79 approved by 12, 71 edit id of 71" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="300" RevisionGUID="465bd1d6-c94e-457a-bc8a-bff745054e8e" CreationDate="2016-02-27T23:35:40.243" UserId="79" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="For questions about poetic metres, like the dactylic hexameter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1057" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="300" RevisionGUID="465bd1d6-c94e-457a-bc8a-bff745054e8e" CreationDate="2016-02-27T23:35:40.243" Comment="Proposed by 79 approved by 12, 71 edit id of 72" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="302" RevisionGUID="09bb24de-4a23-46d4-bd7b-86b226f02c84" CreationDate="2016-02-27T23:39:54.137" UserId="68" Text="An interesting question to which I don't actually know the answer, but I'll try to shed what light I can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I glanced at the source you link and couldn't find *tritavus*, but it seems an obvious possibility that the prefix &quot;tri&quot; could refer to the number 3, in which case one could imagine going back further with *quartavus, quintavus, septavus*, and so on. Since the Romans used *sescenta* in the way we use &quot;thousand/thousands/umpteen&quot; (&quot;There were like a thousand people there&quot; = *Sescenta aderant*), one could even imagine *sescentavus* as &quot;umpteenth-great-grandfather,&quot; though of course that's not attested, as far as I know. (However, further investigation proves that the first vowel of *tritavus* is short, which could imply that my derivation from 3 is incorrect.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With relatives closer than five generations away, though, Latin actually has a lot more words distinguishing blood relatives than most languages. Maternal blood uncle and aunt are *avunculus* and *mátertera*. Paternal blood uncle and aunt are *patruus* and *amita*. (There were no specific words relating to in-laws, so your maternal aunt by marriage was just *avunculí uxor*.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When cousins come in it starts getting complicated. Your paternal uncle's child is your *fráter/soror patruélis*. Your paternal aunt's children AND your maternal uncle's children are your *frátres/sorórés amitíní/æ*. Your maternal aunt's child is your *fráter/soror cónsobrínus/a*. Your plain old brothers and sisters are *frátrés/sorórés germání/æ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I have these from lecture notes, so I can't source them, but even if I could, I get so exhausted keeping them straight that I might just give up anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="303" RevisionGUID="abc7beb9-f600-4299-b20f-7448c2fd4db8" CreationDate="2016-02-27T23:41:25.697" UserDisplayName="user11" Text="The question of how to express my username, Undo, in Latin recently came up [in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/27882791#27882791). As Ben Kovitz notes, Latin seems to lack the word 'defacio' or similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I say my name in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1060" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="303" RevisionGUID="abc7beb9-f600-4299-b20f-7448c2fd4db8" CreationDate="2016-02-27T23:41:25.697" UserDisplayName="user11" Text="How can I say &quot;undo&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1061" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="303" RevisionGUID="abc7beb9-f600-4299-b20f-7448c2fd4db8" CreationDate="2016-02-27T23:41:25.697" UserDisplayName="user11" Text="|translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="302" RevisionGUID="0bf7bcbb-ebc7-4825-b151-577783d73e72" CreationDate="2016-02-28T00:17:19.973" UserId="68" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="An interesting question to which I don't actually know a definitive answer, but I'll try to shed what light I can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I glanced at the source you link and couldn't find *tritavus*, but it seems an obvious possibility that the prefix &quot;tri&quot; could refer to the number 3, in which case one could imagine going back further with *quartavus, quintavus, septavus*, and so on. Since the Romans used *sescenta* in the way we use &quot;thousand/thousands/umpteen&quot; (&quot;There were like a thousand people there&quot; = *Sescenta aderant*), one could even imagine *sescentavus* as &quot;umpteenth-great-grandfather,&quot; though of course that's not attested, as far as I know. (However, further investigation proves that the first vowel of *tritavus* is short, which could imply that my derivation from 3 is incorrect.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With relatives closer than five generations away, though, Latin actually has a lot more words distinguishing blood relatives than most languages. Maternal blood uncle and aunt are *avunculus* and *mátertera*. Paternal blood uncle and aunt are *patruus* and *amita*. (There were no specific words relating to in-laws, so your maternal aunt by marriage was just *avunculí uxor*.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When cousins come in it starts getting complicated. Your paternal uncle's child is your *fráter/soror patruélis*. Your paternal aunt's children AND your maternal uncle's children are your *frátres/sorórés amitíní/æ*. Your maternal aunt's child is your *fráter/soror cónsobrínus/a*. Your plain old brothers and sisters are *frátrés/sorórés germání/æ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I have these from lecture notes, so I can't source them, but even if I could, I get so exhausted keeping them straight that I might just give up anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="305" RevisionGUID="61d32ee9-d5f5-4969-ae20-d1edb5df23bb" CreationDate="2016-02-28T00:42:53.173" UserId="30" Text="You could use **[retexo][1]**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B. Trop., *to break up, cancel, annul, reverse* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=retexo&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends a little bit on the context, though, what the best translation would be. Other candidates are *restituo, resolvo, rescindo, induco, evacuo, exinanio, eludo, libero...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adjectives with a similar meaning include *infectus, irritus*..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="306" RevisionGUID="44ad0539-e4af-41fc-a859-9302caed84aa" CreationDate="2016-02-28T00:47:42.880" UserId="19" Text="In my genealogical research in England I have come across many different spellings of the name William in Latin documents: Gulielmus, Guglielmus, Wilhelmus, Willelmus, to name just a few.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that spelling was not standardised in most languages until the 19th century, but why do so many forms of this name exist? There seems to be many more variations of William than most other Latin names I have come across. Are all the spellings equivalent, or should they be considered different names? Are they all considered &quot;correct&quot; spellings for the modern period?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1067" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="306" RevisionGUID="44ad0539-e4af-41fc-a859-9302caed84aa" CreationDate="2016-02-28T00:47:42.880" UserId="19" Text="The many forms of William?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1068" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="306" RevisionGUID="44ad0539-e4af-41fc-a859-9302caed84aa" CreationDate="2016-02-28T00:47:42.880" UserId="19" Text="|new-latin|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="293" RevisionGUID="6bc273db-ac26-43fd-bcb5-2086a18d19d1" CreationDate="2016-02-28T00:58:27.467" UserId="40" Comment="reinserted link to L&amp;S" Text="I'd take this as *quod* &quot;but, though&quot;, sense VII in [Lewis and Short][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquod1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="108" RevisionGUID="0d3868b4-fbec-49c9-a42d-4296661bab2c" CreationDate="2016-02-28T01:08:50.787" UserId="30" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="Confer exempla haec:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vinctus pedes senator fugere non potuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Augustus multos annos regnans rem publicam sibi subiecit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusativus Graecus a Graecis esse dicitur. Discentes linguam Graecam accusativum similem quidem invenimus, cui nomen accusativus respectus. Nonne conexio ea iusta est?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusativus temporis quoque dici potest notare quendam **respectum** alicuius adiectivi aut participii, scilicet respectum temporis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Estne hic accusativus ullo modo conexus illi Graeco? An habet utraque constructio omnino discretam historiam linguisticam?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interesse nostra potest Germanos quoque quodam accusativo temporis uti:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jeden Tag erklärte Cato im Senatsgebäude: „Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.“&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;English summary: is the *accusativus graecus* in any way related to the temporal accusative? It could be argued that both express an aspect of something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="305" RevisionGUID="77dc6fb6-6a24-4095-b4af-14a01f590125" CreationDate="2016-02-28T01:10:25.247" UserId="30" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="You could use **[retexo][1]**, literally &quot;unweave, unravel&quot;, but also used to mean the below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B. Trop., *to break up, cancel, annul, reverse* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=retexo&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends a little bit on the context, though, what the best translation would be. Other candidates are *restituo, resolvo, abrogo, rescindo, induco, evacuo, exinanio, eludo, libero...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adjectives with a similar meaning include *infectus, irritus*..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="284" RevisionGUID="3ba86bb0-a421-49d5-8e94-c63113c7437e" CreationDate="2016-02-28T01:30:30.820" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Both Latin and Slavic languages descend from parent Proto-Indo-European language spoken around 3500 BC north of the Caspian Sea. PIE language, as it is reconstructed, had the following cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Nominative&#xD;&#xA;- Genetive&#xD;&#xA;- Dative&#xD;&#xA;- Allative? (not certain)&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative &#xD;&#xA;- Instrumental&#xD;&#xA;- Locative&#xD;&#xA;- Ablative&#xD;&#xA;- Vocative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin, through its development, merged instrumental, ablative and locative in one case that is traditionally called ablative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand Slavic languages preserved them better, losing only ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might wanto to look into the following publication for more information on that topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Indoeuropean Language and Culture,* Benjamin Fortson" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="287" RevisionGUID="7c3cad63-4387-4ee7-bb9b-b479e1484d00" CreationDate="2016-02-28T04:38:51.800" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Well, *interesting* is actually quite Latin, given that it comes (I believe) from *interest*, which means (among other things), &quot;it matters&quot; or &quot;it is of concern.&quot; So one way to do it would be to say *meá interest* (&quot;it matters to me, it makes a difference to me&quot;), but that doesn't have the positive connotations that &quot;interesting&quot; has.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way to say it—and the one I usually use (and have heard other Latin speakers use), given that it *does* have that positive connotation—is *studium excitat*, &quot;it arouses eagerness/zeal/study.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alas, if you're looking for an actual adjective, you may be SOL." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="307" RevisionGUID="b3443a03-259a-4be9-a0a3-2a97cf7bc4aa" CreationDate="2016-02-28T07:43:08.753" UserId="68" Text="I've seen both, so obviously both were used, but are there circumstances that determine which option to use? Or is it something that changed over time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1076" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="307" RevisionGUID="b3443a03-259a-4be9-a0a3-2a97cf7bc4aa" CreationDate="2016-02-28T07:43:08.753" UserId="68" Text="Is *vesper* second or third declension?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1077" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="307" RevisionGUID="b3443a03-259a-4be9-a0a3-2a97cf7bc4aa" CreationDate="2016-02-28T07:43:08.753" UserId="68" Text="|vocabulary|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1078" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="307" RevisionGUID="a328618f-b711-4ea5-90c9-f2010317479a" CreationDate="2016-02-28T07:51:41.857" UserId="68" Comment="edited title" Text="When is/was *vesper* second declension, and when third?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1079" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="307" RevisionGUID="c3109493-3735-4bf6-b105-586bbcaa1391" CreationDate="2016-02-28T09:48:51.183" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|vocabulary|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="308" RevisionGUID="0ebf79a9-4e57-4bff-9b85-aa5bb0de2a55" CreationDate="2016-02-28T10:26:46.633" UserId="79" Text="The present infinitive is sometimes used as a predicate in a past tense sentence.&#xD;&#xA;The use context is similar to *praesens historicum*.&#xD;&#xA;My grammar gives two examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Nihil Galli respondere, sed in eadem tristitia permanere.* (The Gauls did not respond but remained as unhappy as before.)&#xD;&#xA;- *Verres hominem in carcerem conici iubet. Ille clamare se nihil fecisse.* (Verres ordered the man to be thrown in jail. He cried that he hadn't done anything.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, some perfect stem forms of the first conjugation can be contracted: *amavisti* &gt; *amasti*, *amaverim* &gt; *amarim*, *amavisset* &gt; *amasset*, *amaverunt* &gt; *amarunt*.&#xD;&#xA;Such contraction is not possible for all verbs, but at least all regular first conjugation verbs are included.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the third hand, the third person plural has an alternative ending in perfect active indicative: *amaverunt* is the same as *amavere*.&#xD;&#xA;This alternative ending can be used with any verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if I use the alternative ending and contract, I get *amare* (contracted from *amavere*, means the same as *amaverunt*).&#xD;&#xA;This looks exactly like the active present infinitive, including all vowel lengths!&#xD;&#xA;The same happens with any regular first conjugation verb.&#xD;&#xA;So, if I write *Galli aliquid clamare* (the Gauls yelled something), the word *clamare* could be interpreted as a historical infinitive or a contracted form of the active perfect indicative.&#xD;&#xA;The two interpretations lead to the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this similarity coincidental, or is there a connection between contracted perfect and historical infinitive?&#xD;&#xA;It would be a somewhat unlikely coincidence since both form and meaning coincide for the two constructions &amp;mdash; in some contexts at least.&#xD;&#xA;Have ancient or modern writers studied or even commented on the matter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems possible to me that the historical infinitive was born this way.&#xD;&#xA;People would have used the contracted version with the shorter ending, and it would be then identified with the infinitive because it looks the same.&#xD;&#xA;Then the practice would have been extended by analogy to other verbs and persons.&#xD;&#xA;First conjugation verbs in third person plural are common, so it does not sound completely unreasonable that all would have started there.&#xD;&#xA;Has this theory been studied?&#xD;&#xA;If it has been refuted or accepted, why so?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1081" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="308" RevisionGUID="0ebf79a9-4e57-4bff-9b85-aa5bb0de2a55" CreationDate="2016-02-28T10:26:46.633" UserId="79" Text="Contracted perfect and historical infinitive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1082" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="308" RevisionGUID="0ebf79a9-4e57-4bff-9b85-aa5bb0de2a55" CreationDate="2016-02-28T10:26:46.633" UserId="79" Text="|verbs|conjugation|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="296" RevisionGUID="a7d586a2-32ae-41ec-8b7e-51bf2ffbfcc1" CreationDate="2016-02-28T10:41:37.250" UserId="79" Comment="added 510 characters in body" Text="Suffixum *-men* instrumentum significat.&#xD;&#xA;Si verbum coniugationis primae est, adest *-a-*, sed pars est verbi, non suffixi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Calceamen* est aliquid, quo calceare possumus.&#xD;&#xA;*Nomen* est aliqued, quo noscere possumus.&#xD;&#xA;Similiter *velamine* velamus et *regimine* regimus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suffixum *-mentum* idem significat ac *-men* &amp;mdash; sic saltem narrat ars grammatica mea.&#xD;&#xA;*Ornamento* ornamus, *documento* docemus et sic porro.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suffixum *-tio/-sio* (aut *-io*, sed semper cum stemmate participii perfecti adhibetur) dissimile est.&#xD;&#xA;Hoc, ut ita dicam, phaenomenon significat: *scriptio* est phaenomenon in quo aliquid scribitur, in *possessione* aliquid possidetur, in *dictatione* aliquid dictatur et sic porro.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suffixum *-men/-mentum* instrumentum tangibile dat, *-io* phaenomenon abstractum.&#xD;&#xA;Certe *velamen(tum)* in *velatione* usui est!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De vocabulis *foramen*, *putamen* et *regimen* (de commentariis):&#xD;&#xA;Usus abstractus vocabuli *regimen* sensum extensum habet, sed nihilo minus instrumentum alicuius generis significat.&#xD;&#xA;*Foramen* venit e vocabulo *foras* (foramine foras ire possumus), non ex ullo verbo.&#xD;&#xA;Crediderim vocabulum *putamen* sensum multo extensum habere, sed nescio qualis sit historia etymologica eius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**English summary:**&#xD;&#xA;The suffix *-men* means an instrument, just like *-mentum*.&#xD;&#xA;The suffix *-tio/-sio*, on the other hand, means a phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;The instrument is a concrete thing but the phenomenon is more abstract.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the meaning of derived words has been extended quite a bit, but often one can still see these underlying rules." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="49ae365a-bfe0-4117-a189-a047daf40052" CreationDate="2016-02-28T12:14:29.407" UserId="215" Text="&quot;rem&quot; seems to mean all sorts of things depending on the context - sometimes it means &quot;the thing&quot;, sometimes &quot;it&quot;, and sometimes &quot;rem&quot; can be entirely emitted from the English translation. What is the rule for determining exactly what it means?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1085" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="49ae365a-bfe0-4117-a189-a047daf40052" CreationDate="2016-02-28T12:14:29.407" UserId="215" Text="What is the definitive definition of rem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1086" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="49ae365a-bfe0-4117-a189-a047daf40052" CreationDate="2016-02-28T12:14:29.407" UserId="215" Text="|classical-latin|translation|rem|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="310" RevisionGUID="a689610f-f422-46ba-99b4-d6661cdcfa82" CreationDate="2016-02-28T13:28:33.567" UserId="79" Text="There is no simple (or even complicated) rule you could follow.&#xD;&#xA;In some cases the word *res* is ambiguous and you cannot narrow the options down to one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word can mean [so many things](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1013846) that instead of learning all the possible translations I encourage trying to get a feeling to what **kinds of** things it can mean.&#xD;&#xA;If you encounter it in a Latin text, try to figure out what the text means and then express that meaning in English.&#xD;&#xA;There may be an English word or expression corresponding to *res*, but is not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;This is different from simple-mindedly translating the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no definitive definition for *res*, and there is no way around that.&#xD;&#xA;'Thing' is a good general translation, but sometimes it doesn't work at all.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes choosing a different translation from a dictionary dramatically changes the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;To translate well, you really need to figure out from the context what the writer is trying to express.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will probably get a better feeling of the word by working with examples.&#xD;&#xA;If some use contexts feel confusing to you, post another question and ask how *res* and the sentence containing it should be translated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1088" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="6b2db1ff-a94b-49ee-b2f6-8fc264390c1c" CreationDate="2016-02-28T13:28:37.360" UserId="215" Comment="Removed classical-latin tag and added grammar tag to more acccurately reflect question's nature" Text="|translation|grammar|rem|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="582013e2-eeb7-4a1c-9497-bb3cd4a62174" CreationDate="2016-02-28T13:29:43.603" UserId="79" Comment="Slightly polished the question." Text="The word &quot;rem&quot; seems to mean all sorts of things depending on the context &amp;mdash; sometimes it means &quot;the thing&quot;, sometimes &quot;it&quot;, and sometimes &quot;rem&quot; can be entirely omitted from the English translation. What is the rule for determining exactly what it means?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1090" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="582013e2-eeb7-4a1c-9497-bb3cd4a62174" CreationDate="2016-02-28T13:29:43.603" UserId="79" Comment="Slightly polished the question." Text="What is the definitive definition of rem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1091" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="582013e2-eeb7-4a1c-9497-bb3cd4a62174" CreationDate="2016-02-28T13:29:43.603" UserId="79" Comment="Slightly polished the question." Text="|translation|grammar|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="311" RevisionGUID="5a65301c-5b85-42fc-b70f-67d75e22c712" CreationDate="2016-02-28T14:53:35.970" UserId="215" Text="Latin has, depending on who you ask, 6 or 7 cases. The 7th case is the locative - the Cambridge Latin Course (which I study) does not have it, rather it just lists words like 'domi' as 'at home' - not 'domus' as 'little house'. So my question is when, and how did Latin lose the locative case?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1093" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="311" RevisionGUID="5a65301c-5b85-42fc-b70f-67d75e22c712" CreationDate="2016-02-28T14:53:35.970" UserId="215" Text="When did Latin lose the locative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1094" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="311" RevisionGUID="5a65301c-5b85-42fc-b70f-67d75e22c712" CreationDate="2016-02-28T14:53:35.970" UserId="215" Text="|grammar|language-evolution|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="312" RevisionGUID="8c8bbb52-67f6-4a43-b1d3-2bf9e47bfac6" CreationDate="2016-02-28T15:36:52.480" UserId="13" Text="Starting from a Bart Simpson prank call, I looked for &quot;urinator&quot; in Wiktionary, and suddenly found myself faced with [the Latin meaning of the word](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/urinator#Latin), that is, _ūrīnātor_ meaning &quot;diver&quot;. And I was like no, I can't believe that. And things got even more unbelievable when I clicked the link to _ūrīnōr_, and found it means &quot;to dive&quot; and comes from _ūrīna_, urine. What? No seriously, how exactly did this kind of pretty drastic meaning change come to be? Is _ūrīnōr_ really from _ūrīna_? Did _ūrīna_ mean &quot;urine&quot;? Can we go further back in the etymology of _ūrīnor_ / _ūrīna_? Did _ūrīnor_ ever mean &quot;to urinate&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1096" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="312" RevisionGUID="8c8bbb52-67f6-4a43-b1d3-2bf9e47bfac6" CreationDate="2016-02-28T15:36:52.480" UserId="13" Text="Etymology of &quot;urinor&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1097" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="312" RevisionGUID="8c8bbb52-67f6-4a43-b1d3-2bf9e47bfac6" CreationDate="2016-02-28T15:36:52.480" UserId="13" Text="|etymology|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="312" RevisionGUID="91a35d32-b313-49e1-be21-d6e3d3f71b89" CreationDate="2016-02-28T15:53:22.893" UserId="13" Comment="added latin translation" Text="Starting from a Bart Simpson prank call, I looked for &quot;urinator&quot; in Wiktionary, and suddenly found myself faced with [the Latin meaning of the word](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/urinator#Latin), that is, _ūrīnātor_ meaning &quot;diver&quot;. And I was like no, I can't believe that. And things got even more unbelievable when I clicked the link to _ūrīnōr_, and found it means &quot;to dive&quot; and comes from _ūrīna_, urine. What? No seriously, how exactly did this kind of pretty drastic meaning change come to be? Is _ūrīnōr_ really from _ūrīna_? Did _ūrīna_ mean &quot;urine&quot;? Can we go further back in the etymology of _ūrīnor_ / _ūrīna_? Did _ūrīnor_ ever mean &quot;to urinate&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Latine repetam pro iis, qui Anglicam linguam non optime comprehendunt)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incipiens a Bartolomæi Simpson ludo telephonico quodam, in Wiktionarium quæsivi &quot;urinator&quot; (verbum Anglicum), et subito inveni [significationem Latinam huius verbi](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/urinator#Latin), id est, _ūrīnātor_, quod aliquem qui in aquam insilit significat (Anglice _diver_). Reactio mea fuit &quot;Minime, hoc credere nequeo!&quot;. Et situatio etiam incredibilior facta est cum ligamen clickavi ad _ūrīnor_, et inveni id _in aquam insilire_ (Anglice _dive_) significare, et ab _ūrīna_ (liquidum quod mingentes expellimus) originem trahere. Quit? Serie, exacte quomodo potuit tam drasticum mutamentum significationis fieri? Verene _ūrīnor_ ab _ūrīna_ venit? Significatio verbi _ūrīna_ quam supra scripsi verane est? Possumusne magis retro ire in etymologiam verborum _ūrīnor_ et _ūrīna_? Verbumne _ūrīnor_ umquam _mingere_ significavit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="313" RevisionGUID="59de39f2-8d09-4411-8028-a71bb06f4ce6" CreationDate="2016-02-28T15:55:04.667" UserId="73" Text="I was reading [this encyclopedia entry](http://www.chlt.org/sandbox/perseus/harper/page.7496.a.php) on Roman naming, and it discusses the naming of Roman slaves. Originally, slave's name was the name of his master + &quot;puer&quot;. During the age of the Roman Republic, the slave's name was his own name - sort of like a *praenomen* - followed by his master's *praenomen* and *cognomen*, in the genitive, with &quot;servus&quot; added on to indicate servitude. This later transition to using the full name of the master and then &quot;servus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not all slaves were privately owned. A [*servus publicus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome#Servus_publicus) did public jobs, and apparently was owned by the state. [*The Roman Law of Slavery*](https://books.google.com/books?id=vlZoAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA323&amp;lpg=PA323&amp;dq=servus+publicus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=VFUJEYqOi7&amp;sig=8HqUJTwgVf7hU04KB2DXAFn9Mbg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjN0omt5prLAhXHVz4KHXB4B1AQ6AEILjAC#v=onepage&amp;q=servus%20publicus&amp;f=false) mentions them in conjunction with slaves of the emperor, but doesn't go into great detail about how to name a *servus publicus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would Romans name a public slave during the imperial era? Would it simply be the nominative form of the emperor's name, followed by &quot;servus&quot; (which would seem confusing when working with large numbers of slaves) or would it be more like naming private slaves in the era of the republic, using the genitive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1100" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="313" RevisionGUID="59de39f2-8d09-4411-8028-a71bb06f4ce6" CreationDate="2016-02-28T15:55:04.667" UserId="73" Text="How would a servus publicus be named - using the nominative or the genitive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1101" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="313" RevisionGUID="59de39f2-8d09-4411-8028-a71bb06f4ce6" CreationDate="2016-02-28T15:55:04.667" UserId="73" Text="|roman-culture|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="314" RevisionGUID="5721a2b2-db6f-4b1f-b378-79810dae97df" CreationDate="2016-02-28T15:58:06.257" UserId="78" Text="*Urina* is actually a euphemism, although how old is that euphemism is up for debate. The root of *urina* is a variant of the Proto-Indo-European *we-r-*, which [Etymonline](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=urine&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) summarizes nicely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \**ur-* variant of root *we-r- &quot;water, liquid, milk&quot; (cognates: Sanskrit var &quot;water,&quot; Avestan var &quot;rain,&quot; Lithuanian jures &quot;sea,&quot; Old English wær, Old Norse ver &quot;sea,&quot; Old Norse ur &quot;drizzling rain&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the original root had &quot;wet&quot; or &quot;watery&quot; connotations. *urinor* then would mean something akin to &quot;to become wet&quot;, which is an apt description of diving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, the Greek *οὐρέω* and *οὖρον* show the same euphemism, but lacks any meaning of &quot;diving&quot; in any of its forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="313" RevisionGUID="11f2369c-4bc6-4789-ba13-2dd9ecfd5693" CreationDate="2016-02-28T16:03:14.523" UserId="73" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="I was reading [this encyclopedia entry](http://www.chlt.org/sandbox/perseus/harper/page.7496.a.php) on Roman naming, and it discusses the naming of Roman slaves. Originally, slave's name was the name of his master + &quot;puer&quot;. During the age of the Roman Republic, the slave's name was his own name - sort of like a *praenomen* - followed by his master's *praenomen* and *cognomen*, in the genitive, with &quot;servus&quot; added on to indicate servitude. This later transition to using the full name of the master and then &quot;servus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not all slaves were privately owned. A [*servus publicus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome#Servus_publicus) did public jobs, and apparently was owned by the state. [*The Roman Law of Slavery*](https://books.google.com/books?id=vlZoAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA323&amp;lpg=PA323&amp;dq=servus+publicus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=VFUJEYqOi7&amp;sig=8HqUJTwgVf7hU04KB2DXAFn9Mbg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjN0omt5prLAhXHVz4KHXB4B1AQ6AEILjAC#v=onepage&amp;q=servus%20publicus&amp;f=false) mentions them in conjunction with slaves of the emperor, but doesn't go into great detail about how to name a *servus publicus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would Romans name a public slave during the imperial era? Would it simply be the nominative form of the emperor's name, followed by &quot;servus&quot; (which would seem confusing when working with large numbers of slaves) or would it be more like naming private slaves in the era of the republic, using the genitive? Could it be based on something else entirely?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1104" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="312" RevisionGUID="2be59f50-2ada-4be6-8c34-4b582643c3e4" CreationDate="2016-02-28T16:10:02.903" UserId="13" Comment="edited title as per a comment" Text="Meaning and etymology of ūrīnor and ūrīna: &quot;to dive&quot; comes from &quot;pee&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1105" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="295" RevisionGUID="f0d2af13-68fc-446b-8358-208fd301688c" CreationDate="2016-02-28T16:26:15.847" UserId="118" Comment="edited title" Text="Quando &quot;a fortiori&quot; ortum est?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="314" RevisionGUID="7d3bf4c4-8402-4bd5-a07c-39bfe962a1df" CreationDate="2016-02-28T16:28:12.093" UserId="78" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="*Urina* is actually a euphemism, although how old is that euphemism is up for debate. The root of *urina* is a variant of the Proto-Indo-European *we-r-*, which [Etymonline](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=urine&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) summarizes nicely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \**ur-* variant of root *we-r- &quot;water, liquid, milk&quot; (cognates: Sanskrit var &quot;water,&quot; Avestan var &quot;rain,&quot; Lithuanian jures &quot;sea,&quot; Old English wær, Old Norse ver &quot;sea,&quot; Old Norse ur &quot;drizzling rain&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the original root had &quot;wet&quot; or &quot;watery&quot; connotations. *urinor* then would mean something akin to &quot;to become wet&quot;, which is an apt description of diving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, the Greek *οὐρέω* (oureo) and *οὖρον* (ouron) show the same euphemism, but lacks any meaning of &quot;diving&quot; in any of its forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="285" RevisionGUID="75ee6b4a-bf06-4250-a6f5-8bfa6470e464" CreationDate="2016-02-28T16:30:25.867" UserId="66" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="There is a locative case in Proto-Indo-European, but in many later languages it merged into other cases, Slavonic languages being an exception. (So Slavonic didn't invent the locative case.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old Latin had a functioning locative case, but for a number of reasons (like shift in pronunciation), the locative case merged for the most part into the ablative in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in Classical Latin the locative is only fully functioning for small islands and towns or cities (e.g. Roma -&gt; Romae, Athenae -&gt; Athenis). In addition, there are a few *fossilised* instances of the locative case, like *domī*, *rūrī*, *humī*. You probably learn these as exceptions in a basic (Classical) Latin textbook.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; visam, si domi est  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I will see, if he is home*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;from Heauton Timorumenos&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="316" RevisionGUID="8a0e19be-1e81-4f5c-95a9-136ddb7b283d" CreationDate="2016-02-28T16:41:07.480" UserId="68" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta gave an excellent answer. I'll just add that one thing that can help is understanding that the Romans tended to talk about concrete things rather than abstract things, and when an abstraction comes up (&quot;matter,&quot; &quot;difficulty,&quot; etc., etc.), *rēs* is often the word they ended up choosing. This is a gross generalization, of course, but it's one way to understand why it can mean so very many different things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="317" RevisionGUID="036adec6-15e7-4202-94c6-ed0219ebf150" CreationDate="2016-02-28T16:48:16.407" UserId="68" Text="Latinlexicon.org gives the following definitions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. [expressing emphasis or assurance] assuredly, certainly, in fact, indeed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. [in answers] certainly, of course&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. [in antithesis] but, however, yet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. [introducing an example] for instance, for example&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. restrictive, at least, certainly, in truth&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. [in the phrase ne.. quidem] not even&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's such a plethora of things that are different but seem somehow related but don't feel the same, and all those things in English can take on so many different meanings/connotations depending on how and where you use them...it's utterly baffling. Can anybody unbaffle me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1111" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="317" RevisionGUID="036adec6-15e7-4202-94c6-ed0219ebf150" CreationDate="2016-02-28T16:48:16.407" UserId="68" Text="How is *quidem* used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1112" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="317" RevisionGUID="036adec6-15e7-4202-94c6-ed0219ebf150" CreationDate="2016-02-28T16:48:16.407" UserId="68" Text="|vocabulary|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="285" RevisionGUID="a3df2d1f-07e4-476c-9da1-9b925ea275f1" CreationDate="2016-02-28T16:51:04.643" UserId="66" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="There is a locative case in Proto-Indo-European, but in many later languages it merged into other cases, Slavonic languages being an exception. (So Slavonic didn't invent the locative case.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old Latin had a functioning locative case, but for a number of reasons (like shift in pronunciation), the locative case merged for the most part into the ablative in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in Classical Latin the locative is only fully functioning for small islands and towns or cities (e.g. Roma → Romae, Athenae → Athenis). In addition, there are a few *fossilised* instances of the locative case, like *domī*, *rūrī*, *humī*. You probably learn these as exceptions in a basic (Classical) Latin textbook.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; visam, si domi est  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I will see, if he is home*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;from Heauton Timorumenos&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="317" RevisionGUID="e4a9ceec-0ec8-4ac3-b0fa-49180fc89805" CreationDate="2016-02-28T17:02:07.993" UserId="66" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="The Lewis Elementary Latin Dictionary (via [latinlexicon.org](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1013668)) gives the following definitions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **quidem**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. [expressing emphasis or assurance] assuredly, certainly, in fact, indeed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. [in answers] certainly, of course&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. [in antithesis] but, however, yet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. [introducing an example] for instance, for example&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. restrictive, at least, certainly, in truth&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. [in the phrase *ne... quidem*] not even&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's such a plethora of things that are different but seem somehow related but don't feel the same, and all those things in English can take on so many different meanings/connotations depending on how and where you use them...it's utterly baffling. Can anybody unbaffle me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="318" RevisionGUID="8b9aadae-36e4-4ba0-afc5-c4737fb82a6b" CreationDate="2016-02-28T17:05:06.703" UserId="68" Text="*Quidem* took me forever to figure out, and none of the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century texts and grammars I went to gave me any help at all, because they all said things like, &quot;it means forsooth!&quot; and I was like, yeah, great, thanks, dude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be three main contexts in which *quidem* is encountered. The most frequent one sets up an implication of contrast:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mārcō quidem magistrī verberātus valde placébat.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus* really liked the teacher's beating. (With the implication that other kids didn't.)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Meā quidem sententiā est Mārcus īnsānus.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In *my* opinion, Marcus is insane. (With the implication that other people may or may not be smart enough to be of the same mind.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second context in which you see *quidem* is in reassuring answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tibi epistulam mīsī Latīnē tam pravē ut verisimiliter nōn Latīnē scrīpsīsse nequeat.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Epistulam lepidam accēpī, quæ Latīnē quidem scrīpta est.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I sent you a letter in such bad Latin that it probably can't be said to have been written in Latin.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I received your charming letter, which *was* written in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third context for *quidem* is the last one given by latinlexicon.org, which is pretty straightforward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tam gustōsa erat cēna ut nē Mārcus quidem Aurēlius abstinere posset.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The dinner was so delicious that not even Marcus Aurelius could abstain [from it].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure there are other meanings of and contexts for quidem, and perhaps others can add them in answers, but those seem to be the ones I run into most often." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1116" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="317" RevisionGUID="07aaabc9-124a-4020-a133-f2efbd99e847" CreationDate="2016-02-28T18:12:04.880" UserId="68" Comment="edited title" Text="How is &quot;quidem&quot; used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="318" RevisionGUID="009d00ee-3e4c-4826-8328-21bf2bcd7390" CreationDate="2016-02-28T18:13:59.470" UserId="68" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="*Quidem* took me forever to figure out, and none of the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century texts and grammars I went to gave me any help at all, because they all said things like, &quot;it means forsooth!&quot; and I was like, yeah, great, thanks, dude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be three main contexts in which *quidem* is encountered. The most frequent one sets up an implication of contrast:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mārcō quidem magistrī verberātus valde placébat.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus* really liked the teacher's beating. (With the implication that other kids didn't.)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Meā quidem sententiā est Mārcus īnsānus.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In *my* opinion, Marcus is insane. (With the implication that other people may or may not be smart enough to be of the same mind.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second context in which you see *quidem* is in reassuring answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tibi epistulam mīsī Latīnē tam pravē ut verisimiliter nōn scripta Latīnē esse dīcī nequeat.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Epistulam lepidam accēpī, quæ Latīnē quidem scrīpta est.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I sent you a letter in such bad Latin that it probably can't be said to have been written in Latin.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I received your charming letter, which *was* written in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third context for *quidem* is the last one given by latinlexicon.org, which is pretty straightforward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tam gustōsa erat cēna ut nē Mārcus quidem Aurēlius abstinere posset.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The dinner was so delicious that not even Marcus Aurelius could abstain [from it].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure there are other meanings of and contexts for quidem, and perhaps others can add them in answers, but those seem to be the ones I run into most often." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="314" RevisionGUID="a6884b48-cfc3-4ff2-9436-ffa26724406f" CreationDate="2016-02-28T18:28:30.953" UserId="13" Comment="made Greek romanization more accurate" Text="*Urina* is actually a euphemism, although how old is that euphemism is up for debate. The root of *urina* is a variant of the Proto-Indo-European *we-r-*, which [Etymonline](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=urine&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) summarizes nicely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \**ur-* variant of root *we-r- &quot;water, liquid, milk&quot; (cognates: Sanskrit var &quot;water,&quot; Avestan var &quot;rain,&quot; Lithuanian jures &quot;sea,&quot; Old English wær, Old Norse ver &quot;sea,&quot; Old Norse ur &quot;drizzling rain&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the original root had &quot;wet&quot; or &quot;watery&quot; connotations. *urinor* then would mean something akin to &quot;to become wet&quot;, which is an apt description of diving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, the Greek *οὐρέω* (ŏurĕ́ō) and *οὖρον* (ŏũrŏn) show the same euphemism, but lacks any meaning of &quot;diving&quot; in any of its forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1119" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="314" RevisionGUID="a6884b48-cfc3-4ff2-9436-ffa26724406f" CreationDate="2016-02-28T18:28:30.953" Comment="Proposed by 13 approved by 68, 79 edit id of 73" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="314" RevisionGUID="104ca594-33bf-4508-b206-535c79a75658" CreationDate="2016-02-28T20:00:45.107" UserId="78" Comment="The o in ou in Greek is not short, but rather it's a diphthong, where they are pronounced together." Text="*Urina* is actually a euphemism, although how old is that euphemism is up for debate. The root of *urina* is a variant of the Proto-Indo-European *we-r-*, which [Etymonline](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=urine&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) summarizes nicely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \**ur-* variant of root *we-r- &quot;water, liquid, milk&quot; (cognates: Sanskrit var &quot;water,&quot; Avestan var &quot;rain,&quot; Lithuanian jures &quot;sea,&quot; Old English wær, Old Norse ver &quot;sea,&quot; Old Norse ur &quot;drizzling rain&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the original root had &quot;wet&quot; or &quot;watery&quot; connotations. *urinor* then would mean something akin to &quot;to become wet&quot;, which is an apt description of diving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, the Greek *οὐρέω* (ourĕ́ō) and *οὖρον* (oũrŏn) show the same euphemism, but lacks any meaning of &quot;diving&quot; in any of its forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1122" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="280" RevisionGUID="378baa94-9f30-43e5-aa24-c6ba91e8f92c" CreationDate="2016-02-28T20:15:12.523" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|history|ablative|locative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="311" RevisionGUID="1a7a86c0-8c0d-432d-9f41-142bc781a0e9" CreationDate="2016-02-28T20:16:03.467" UserId="12" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="Latin has, depending on who you ask, 6 or 7 cases. The 7th case is the locative – the Cambridge Latin Course (which I study) does not have it, rather it just lists words like 'domi' as 'at home' – not 'domus' as 'little house'. So my question is when, and how did Latin lose the locative case?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1124" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="311" RevisionGUID="1a7a86c0-8c0d-432d-9f41-142bc781a0e9" CreationDate="2016-02-28T20:16:03.467" UserId="12" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|grammar|language-evolution|declension|locative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="319" RevisionGUID="24282c51-d2af-4f25-aa6c-70df68e04545" CreationDate="2016-02-28T21:15:06.880" UserId="12" Text="W. Sydney Allen, in *Vox Latina*, page 41, gives several examples that support the [w] pronunciation of the consonantal *u* in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first example appears in the writings of [Nigidius Figulus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigidius_Figulus) (Gellius, x, 4, 4), in which he apparently equates the lip position of the consonant and vowel sounds:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a discussion of the origins of language, he points out that in the words *tu* and *uos* the lips are protruded in the direction of the person addressed, whereas this is not the case in *ego* and *nos*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second example comes from Cicero (*Div*, ii, 84), where he equates the sounds of *Cauneas* and *Caue ne eas*, which would only make sense if the *u* of *caue* was similar to that of *Cauneas*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="316" RevisionGUID="a8612ffe-ee6a-452e-ac4d-bd87b104c415" CreationDate="2016-02-28T21:29:45.010" UserId="68" Comment="added 545 characters in body" Text="@JoonasIlmavirta gave an excellent answer. I'll just add that one thing that can help is understanding that the Romans tended to talk about concrete things rather than abstract things, and when an abstraction comes up (&quot;matter,&quot; &quot;difficulty,&quot; etc., etc.), *rēs* is often the word they ended up choosing. This is a gross generalization, of course, but it's one way to understand why it can mean so very many different things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the preface of Robert Millington's 1882 *Introduction to Latin Prose Composition*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;These modern times, exhibiting as they do such a varied profusion of general and philosophical knowledge and abstract thought, materially increase the difficulty of Latin writing. The difficulty is further added to by . . . the comparative absence of [Latin] abstract ideas and terms. . . . Hence, too, arose the very extensive use of such words as *res* and *ratio* in a variety of meanings depending greatly on the general sense of the passage.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="320" RevisionGUID="7afafaf3-561a-49fa-9b0b-a3e9798237f5" CreationDate="2016-02-28T22:13:30.033" UserId="220" Text="I'm working on a short elocution piece that will involve quoting Luther's 86th thesis in the original Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Cur Papa, cuius opes hodie sunt opulentissimis Crassis crassiores, non de suis pecuniis magis quam pauperum fidelium struit unam tantummodo Basilicam sancti Petri'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if someone here would be kind enough to help me with the pronunciation of this sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for your help!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheers,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sebastian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1130" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="320" RevisionGUID="7afafaf3-561a-49fa-9b0b-a3e9798237f5" CreationDate="2016-02-28T22:13:30.033" UserId="220" Text="Accurate pronunciation of Luther's 86th thesis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1131" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="320" RevisionGUID="7afafaf3-561a-49fa-9b0b-a3e9798237f5" CreationDate="2016-02-28T22:13:30.033" UserId="220" Text="|pronunciation|luther|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="320" RevisionGUID="cfa624dc-8306-43bd-b359-368174daae4d" CreationDate="2016-02-28T22:16:45.870" UserId="12" Comment="formatting and tag" Text="I'm working on a short elocution piece that will involve quoting Luther's 86th thesis in the original Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cur Papa, cuius opes hodie sunt opulentissimis Crassis crassiores, non de suis pecuniis magis quam pauperum fidelium struit unam tantummodo Basilicam sancti Petri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the pronunciation of this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1133" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="320" RevisionGUID="cfa624dc-8306-43bd-b359-368174daae4d" CreationDate="2016-02-28T22:16:45.870" UserId="12" Comment="formatting and tag" Text="Accurate pronunciation of Luther's 86th thesis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1134" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="320" RevisionGUID="cfa624dc-8306-43bd-b359-368174daae4d" CreationDate="2016-02-28T22:16:45.870" UserId="12" Comment="formatting and tag" Text="|pronunciation|new-latin|luther|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="2fe2595c-d8ff-4c87-aa21-951582ca64ef" CreationDate="2016-02-28T22:54:47.047" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="I emended grammar, orthography, and syntax." Text="The word &quot;Pontifex&quot; may be taken as you pointed out to be used metaphorically as the Roman high priest as a mediator between man and the gods. He would be the bridge, as it were, between this world and the next. The Pope, even to this day carries the title of the Roman Pontiff of the Latin Church, as a vestige of the ancient Roman title Pontifex.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, bridge building has been considered to be a pious work of charity down the ages. Many Catholic authors have written  on the subject of indulgence which included the building of bridges. Pope Urban II, Pope Leo X and St Thomas Aquinas have all written about the pious work of bridge building in light of indulgences. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;For a long time it had been customary for the popes to grant indulgences for buildings of public utility (e.g. bridges)&quot; - A History of Indulgences. http://www.awakentoprayer.org/indulgence.hist.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Church seems to have included bridge building as a form of pious work, just like that of building a cathedral. Not only was this endeavor dangerous, but it was also seen as a necessity in order connect the vast network of pilgrim routes throughout Europe. Pilgrimages have always considered a pious work! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1136" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="2fe2595c-d8ff-4c87-aa21-951582ca64ef" CreationDate="2016-02-28T22:54:47.047" Comment="Proposed by 37 approved by 25 edit id of 75" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="312" RevisionGUID="f1c7fe7e-4b75-4f44-ad98-c3edf26961ff" CreationDate="2016-02-28T23:02:27.707" UserId="13" Comment="added latin title to body" Text="Starting from a Bart Simpson prank call, I looked for &quot;urinator&quot; in Wiktionary, and suddenly found myself faced with [the Latin meaning of the word](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/urinator#Latin), that is, _ūrīnātor_ meaning &quot;diver&quot;. And I was like no, I can't believe that. And things got even more unbelievable when I clicked the link to _ūrīnōr_, and found it means &quot;to dive&quot; and comes from _ūrīna_, urine. What? No seriously, how exactly did this kind of pretty drastic meaning change come to be? Is _ūrīnōr_ really from _ūrīna_? Did _ūrīna_ mean &quot;urine&quot;? Can we go further back in the etymology of _ūrīnor_ / _ūrīna_? Did _ūrīnor_ ever mean &quot;to urinate&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Latine repetam pro iis, qui Anglicam linguam non optime comprehendunt)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###De significatione ac etymologia verborum &quot;ūrīna&quot; et &quot;ūrīnor&quot;: &quot;in aquam insilire&quot; a verbo &quot;mingere&quot; venit?###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incipiens a Bartolomæi Simpson ludo telephonico quodam, in Wiktionarium quæsivi &quot;urinator&quot; (verbum Anglicum), et subito inveni [significationem Latinam huius verbi](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/urinator#Latin), id est, _ūrīnātor_, quod aliquem qui in aquam insilit significat (Anglice _diver_). Reactio mea fuit &quot;Minime, hoc credere nequeo!&quot;. Et situatio etiam incredibilior facta est cum ligamen clickavi ad _ūrīnor_, et inveni id _in aquam insilire_ (Anglice _dive_) significare, et ab _ūrīna_ (liquidum quod mingentes expellimus) originem trahere. Quit? Serie, exacte quomodo potuit tam drasticum mutamentum significationis fieri? Verene _ūrīnor_ ab _ūrīna_ venit? Significatio verbi _ūrīna_ quam supra scripsi verane est? Possumusne magis retro ire in etymologiam verborum _ūrīnor_ et _ūrīna_? Verbumne _ūrīnor_ umquam _mingere_ significavit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="239" RevisionGUID="79f6fdd1-9d82-4bd5-8d0e-1defd6b833eb" CreationDate="2016-02-28T23:05:41.587" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="I emended grammar, orthography, and syntax." Text="&quot;Believe again&quot; is actually not very well translated. *re-* chiefly has the meaning of &quot;back&quot; (cf. *retro*), so &quot;take back one's pledge&quot; does indeed seem accurate. The &quot;again&quot; here is sloppiness on the editor's part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me draw your attention to the Oxford Latin Dictionary's definition of *re-*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **re-,** *prefix.*...Vbl. prefix denoting movement back or in reverse (*redeo*, *reuerto*, *reuoco*), withdrawal (*recondo*, *religo*, *reticeo*), reversal of a previous process (*refrigero*, *resoluo*, *retego*), restoration (*renouo*, *reualesco*), response or opposition (*rebello*, *redarguo*, *respondeo*), separation (*remoueo*), repeated action (*repeto*, *repleo*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the examples given, movement indicating 'back' in some way encompass the first three types of use, while &quot;again&quot; is rather limited.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1139" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="239" RevisionGUID="79f6fdd1-9d82-4bd5-8d0e-1defd6b833eb" CreationDate="2016-02-28T23:05:41.587" Comment="Proposed by 37 approved by 78 edit id of 77" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="72" RevisionGUID="ca4ddc54-b8f8-4813-8173-a56e428cabad" CreationDate="2016-02-28T23:14:33.063" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="I emended grammar, orthography, and syntax." Text="I believe your conjecture is mistaken: the shape of your head has nothing to do with it. As I have always understood it, *prae* means &quot;forward, first&quot;, so *praeceps* means &quot;head-first&quot;. If you enter into a situation head first, such as a fall or a cooking pot or an enemy, you're being hurried or reckless or desperate, because your head is vulnerable: you would normally stick out your hand or foot first, since you're human, not canine like me. If you jump off a cliff head first, you're hasty indeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;               &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1141" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="72" RevisionGUID="ca4ddc54-b8f8-4813-8173-a56e428cabad" CreationDate="2016-02-28T23:14:33.063" Comment="Proposed by 37 approved by 78, 12 edit id of 74" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="254" RevisionGUID="8c86ba07-bd8f-422a-a95e-99ecf934669f" CreationDate="2016-02-28T23:26:06.040" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="I emended grammar, orthography, and syntax." Text="My understanding is that *strenuus* means 'stiff' or 'rigid' in the sense of 'willing to stay by one's duty' or even 'stubborn in doing what one does'.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of stiffness implies willingness and ability to do (hard) work.&#xD;&#xA;From this point of view swiftness is a part of being *strenuus*, but 'quick' and such meanings seem secondary while the primary meaning is closer to 'devoted (to work)'.&#xD;&#xA;While I have nothing to back this up with, this is how I have always thought about *strenuus* and it makes perfect sense with the proposed PIE root.       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;           &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1143" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="254" RevisionGUID="8c86ba07-bd8f-422a-a95e-99ecf934669f" CreationDate="2016-02-28T23:26:06.040" Comment="Proposed by 37 approved by 78, 11 edit id of 76" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="198" RevisionGUID="473494ed-f52d-40e5-85f3-b1fda312cca2" CreationDate="2016-02-28T23:38:19.093" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 53 characters in body" Text="&lt;sub&gt;Preface: [Etymonline](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=com-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) does not answer this question.  I (but please tell me if I should not) quote the definitions for the English verbs ([Loan words](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loanword#Linguistic_classification)  from Latin then Old French) because they  did not shift semantically and so equal the Latin definitions.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[5. ['compōnō ' on Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/compono#Etymology) :]  [...]   From [com-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/com-#Latin) + [pōnō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pono#Latin) ‎(“put”).  [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. I arrange, compile, compose, make up.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. I construct, build.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. I organize, order.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. I settle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[6. ['cōnstituō' on Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/constituo#Latin) :]  [...]   From [con-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/con-#Latin) ‎(“with”) + [statuō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/statuo#Latin) ‎(“set up; establish”).  [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. I set up, establish, confirm&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. (*with infinitive*) I decide, resolve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abbreviate 'Inanimate Subject(s)' to IS, and any 'direct object' as DO. Consider this syntax:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1\.&#xD;&#xA;IS `composes \\ constitutes` DO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Replace the verbs in question by definitions 5.1 and 6.1 above: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2\. IS `makes up / constructs \\ sets up ` DO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since IS (assumed inanimate) cannot act or effect anything itself, 2 makes no sense literally, and only makes sense only if 2's verbs are interpreted causatively, as in 3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3\. IS CAUSES TO BE `made up / constructed \\ set up` DO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 3 appears to justify *com*- as a causative prefix; but is any of the above correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="198" RevisionGUID="26b403d8-0168-410f-a459-20b204b76b5b" CreationDate="2016-02-28T23:46:25.650" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 53 characters in body" Text="&lt;sub&gt;Preface: [Etymonline](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=com-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) does not answer this question.  I (but please tell me if I should not) quote the definitions for the English verbs ([Loan words](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loanword#Linguistic_classification)  from Latin then Old French) because they  did not shift semantically and so equal the Latin definitions.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[5. ['compōnō ' on Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/compono#Etymology) :]  [...]   From [com-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/com-#Latin) + [pōnō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pono#Latin) ‎(“put”).  [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. I arrange, compile, compose, make up.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. I construct, build.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. I organize, order.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. I settle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[6. ['cōnstituō' on Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/constituo#Latin) :]  [...]   From [con-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/con-#Latin) ‎(“with”) + [statuō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/statuo#Latin) ‎(“set up; establish”).  [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. I set up, establish, confirm&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. (*with infinitive*) I decide, resolve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abbreviate 'Inanimate Subject(s)' to IS, and any 'direct object' as DO. Consider this syntax:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1\.&#xD;&#xA;IS `composes \\ constitutes` DO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Replace the verbs in question by definitions 5.1 and 6.1 above: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2\. IS `makes up / constructs \\ sets up ` DO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 makes no sense; IS itself (assumed inanimate) cannot cause directly, but IS can cause indirectly through chance and randomness (ie: the Big Bang effect). So if 2's verbs are interpreted causatively as in 3 below, then &#xD;&#xA;3 appears to justify *com*- as a causative prefix;   &#xD;&#xA;but is any of the above correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3\. IS CAUSES TO BE `made up / constructed \\ set up` DO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="321" RevisionGUID="8c052adb-a84e-495d-840a-220396cfa7c3" CreationDate="2016-02-28T23:57:32.157" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&lt;sub&gt; [This](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/234/37) inspired this question; I should verify whether the prefix really means something.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [operīre](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/operio#Latin)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; from the prefix *op-* 〈[itself](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/operio#Etymology) from PIE root [_*h₁epi_ ‎(“at, near”)](http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/X/P0492.html)〉 + PIE root [_*u̯er-_](http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/X/P2166.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that the root *perīre* itself was not a real word; but  *op-* appears to add nothing to *perīre*, because *operīre*'s meaning is *not* limited to &quot;cover near/nearby&quot; as suggested by the prefix *op-*? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1147" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="321" RevisionGUID="8c052adb-a84e-495d-840a-220396cfa7c3" CreationDate="2016-02-28T23:57:32.157" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What (if anything) does the prefix 'op-' mean in 'operīre'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1148" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="321" RevisionGUID="8c052adb-a84e-495d-840a-220396cfa7c3" CreationDate="2016-02-28T23:57:32.157" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|affixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="322" RevisionGUID="c8505c69-0fbb-4396-a486-b36f3c266e63" CreationDate="2016-02-29T00:08:32.057" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&lt;sub&gt; [This](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/234/37) inspired this question; I should verify whether the prefix really means something.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[*defallere](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=default&amp;searchmode=none)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; from Latin [*de-*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=de-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) &quot;away&quot; + *fallere* &quot;to deceive, to cheat; to put wrong, to lead astray, cause to be mistaken; to escape notice of, be concealed from&quot; (see [fail (v.)](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fail&amp;allowed_in_frame=0))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The meaning of *de-* is unclear to me, because the semantic notion of &quot;away&quot; does not appear in the attested verb _*defallere_ and because Latin already had [*fallere*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fallo#Etymology_2)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1150" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="322" RevisionGUID="c8505c69-0fbb-4396-a486-b36f3c266e63" CreationDate="2016-02-29T00:08:32.057" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What (if anything) does the prefix 'de-' mean in *defallere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1151" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="322" RevisionGUID="c8505c69-0fbb-4396-a486-b36f3c266e63" CreationDate="2016-02-29T00:08:32.057" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|affixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="323" RevisionGUID="bb626168-6a6c-4f8c-a7d3-ba67c1b7916a" CreationDate="2016-02-29T00:11:33.553" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&lt;sub&gt; [This](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/234/37) inspired this question; I should verify whether the prefix really means something.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [instruere](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=instruct&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;arrange, prepare, set in order; inform, teach,&quot; literally &quot;to build, erect,&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; from [*in-*²](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=in-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) &quot;on&quot; + *struere* &quot;to pile, build&quot; (see [structure](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=structure&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*in-* appears superfluous to me, because piling or building something must occur **on** something. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1153" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="323" RevisionGUID="bb626168-6a6c-4f8c-a7d3-ba67c1b7916a" CreationDate="2016-02-29T00:11:33.553" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Is the prefix 'in-' appears redundant in 'instruere'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1154" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="323" RevisionGUID="bb626168-6a6c-4f8c-a7d3-ba67c1b7916a" CreationDate="2016-02-29T00:11:33.553" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|classical-latin|affixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="234" RevisionGUID="515c211d-565c-4e84-8474-0cd4e59c0249" CreationDate="2016-02-29T00:13:08.343" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 1905 characters in body" Text="1. &gt; [appellere](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=appeal&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; from [*ad-*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ad-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) &quot;to&quot; + *pellere* &quot;to beat, drive&quot; (see [pulse](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pulse&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.1))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &gt; [resolvere](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=resolve)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;to loosen, loose, unyoke, undo; explain; relax; set free; make void, dispel,&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;from [*re-*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=re-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0), perhaps intensive, or &quot;back&quot; + *solvere* &quot;loosen&quot; (see [solve](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=solve&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In verbs like the above, the prefixes appear  meaningful. In (1), one does not just beat or drive, but one must beat sounds **to** capture someone's attention or drive (i.e. push or force) oneself **to** someone for attention. In (2), loosening causes a compound to loosen **back** into its constituents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask the entitled question for verbs like the those in the 'Linked Questions' (on the right hand panel), but please answer without loss of generality. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="324" RevisionGUID="307b6a7f-964a-4e8d-9383-21d8fc9cf73f" CreationDate="2016-02-29T00:14:42.070" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&lt;sub&gt; [This](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/234/37) inspired this question; I should verify whether the prefix really means something.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[delimitare](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=delimit&amp;searchmode=none)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;to mark out as a boundary,&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; from [*de-*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=de-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) + *limitare*, from *limitem, limes* &quot;boundary, limit&quot; (see [limit](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=limit&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *de-* feels redundant, because it does not appear to distinguish 'delimitare' from  [limitare](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/limito#Latin) and because to limit something presumes to &quot;mark out as a boundary&quot; something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1157" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="324" RevisionGUID="307b6a7f-964a-4e8d-9383-21d8fc9cf73f" CreationDate="2016-02-29T00:14:42.070" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Is the prefix 'de-' appears redundant in 'limitare'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1158" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="324" RevisionGUID="307b6a7f-964a-4e8d-9383-21d8fc9cf73f" CreationDate="2016-02-29T00:14:42.070" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|affixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="325" RevisionGUID="c7da5cca-84ea-4f65-b47e-1225c6de4950" CreationDate="2016-02-29T01:30:02.347" UserId="12" Text="It's well established that [the consonantal *u* (or *v*) was pronounced as [w] in Classical Latin](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/28/12) (i.e., *w* as in *wine*).  Of course, Romance languages developed voiced fricatives out of this *u*-consonant, like the bilabial [β] (Spanish) or the labiodental [v] (Portuguese and French; *v* as in English *vine*).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did this shift begin in Latin?  If so, when?  Allen and Greenough seem to suggest that it may have existed even in the era of Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ordinary English sounds of j and v did not exist in classical Latin, but consonant u perhaps approached English v in the pronunciation of some persons. [[§5](https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA3)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is correct, who were these &quot;some persons&quot; who began pronouncing the *u*-consonant as a fricative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1160" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="325" RevisionGUID="c7da5cca-84ea-4f65-b47e-1225c6de4950" CreationDate="2016-02-29T01:30:02.347" UserId="12" Text="When did the consonant U (i.e., V) begin to be pronounced as the fricative [v] instead of [w]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1161" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="325" RevisionGUID="c7da5cca-84ea-4f65-b47e-1225c6de4950" CreationDate="2016-02-29T01:30:02.347" UserId="12" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|language-evolution|vulgar-latin|phonetics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="326" RevisionGUID="ac2967cd-4bdb-4fae-a916-9a9244f86ef2" CreationDate="2016-02-29T01:30:02.347" UserId="12" Text="There is indeed evidence for the *u*-consonant being pronounced as a voiced fricative during the Classical period, even as early as the middle of the 1st century.  A wax tablet dated to AD 39 records a transaction by merchant Gaius Nouius Eunus, about which Clackson and Horrocks write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eunus’s text provides us with one of the earliest examples of the confusion of *b* and the consonantal *u* attested in Latin, in his writing *Iobe*&#xD;&#xA;for *Iouem* and *dibi* for *diui*, where the written *b* probably represents a bilabial fricative [β]. [*The Blackwell History of the Latin Language*, page 242]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why, then, is there such a strong consensus that the *u*-consonant was pronounced as [w] in Classical Latin?  It is because this shift toward a voiced fricative was largely limited to the Vulgar Latin of the lower classes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The confusion between *b* and consonantal *u* is a feature of many sub-elite documents after this date&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spelling mistakes of this kind were common in the first several centuries AD:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spelling confusion between *b* and *u* (usually writing *b* instead of *u*, rather than the other way round) was common in word-initial position and after a consonant as well. [Herman, *Vulgar Latin*, [45–46](https://books.google.com/books?id=RJco4ioXigYC&amp;pg=PA45)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;W. Sydney Allen cites a 2nd century description of this shift, in the writings of [Velius Longus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velius_Longus), in which &quot;the sound is specifically referred to in terms of friction&quot; (K. vii, 58: 'cum aliqua adspiratione'; *Vox Latina*, 41).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The transition continued over subsequent centuries, and though the [w] pronunciation was apparently not completely wiped out by the 5th century (cf. Consentius, K. v, 395):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the fricative pronunciation was so general that Priscian has to give rules about when to write *u* and when *b* (K. iii, 465) [Allen, 41]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the earliest evidence we have for this shift in the pronunciation of the consonantal *u* toward a voiced fricative more similar to the English [v] appears in the 1st century, making inroads first in the lower classes and becoming widespread by the 5th century." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="327" RevisionGUID="e18501a9-af01-4b45-8565-caf394442b8b" CreationDate="2016-02-29T02:42:46.763" UserId="78" Text="Luther would have pronounced it in German regional pronunciation (a variation of Ecclesiastical Latin), the details of which you can find on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_regional_pronunciation) (look under the German column).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For accent, I capitalized the stressed syllable and used a macron over long vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;nōn dē SUīs peCŪniīs MAgis quam PAUperum fiDĒlium STRUit Ūnam tanTUMmodo BaSIlicam SANCti PEtri." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1164" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="324" RevisionGUID="b036f9e6-144e-4803-a3b1-a0c574e7ecce" CreationDate="2016-02-29T02:46:43.483" UserId="68" Comment="edited title" Text="Is the prefix 'de-' redundant in 'delimitare'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1165" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="323" RevisionGUID="dc738928-c924-468c-a367-fb5c3629105f" CreationDate="2016-02-29T02:48:06.863" UserId="68" Comment="edited title" Text="Is the prefix 'in-' redundant in 'instruere'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1166" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="317" RevisionGUID="21c0c149-2373-4b42-90ae-6b58b5970ab9" CreationDate="2016-02-29T02:49:02.337" UserId="68" Comment="edited title" Text="What does &quot;quidem&quot; REALLY mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="327" RevisionGUID="3ee3fc00-404a-4d4d-b1fb-9fbea4dfa766" CreationDate="2016-02-29T02:50:48.053" UserId="78" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="Luther would have pronounced it in German regional pronunciation (a variation of Ecclesiastical Latin), the details of which you can find on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_regional_pronunciation) (look under the German column).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For accent, I capitalized the stressed syllable and used a macron over long vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...CŪius (the 'i' here is pronounced as a consonant) Opēs HOdiē sunt opulenTISsimīs...nōn dē SUīs peCŪniīs MAgis quam PAUperum fiDĒlium STRUit Ūnam tanTUMmodo BaSIlicam SANCti PEtri." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1168" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="320" RevisionGUID="6c8eb8f7-38f4-4308-9f09-1b733f2d92f7" CreationDate="2016-02-29T02:53:13.927" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|pronunciation|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="239" RevisionGUID="29621d07-987c-4383-81c7-2fb2a1aa00d7" CreationDate="2016-02-29T02:59:27.023" UserId="78" Comment="added 744 characters in body" Text="&quot;Believe again&quot; is actually not very well translated. *re-* chiefly has the meaning of &quot;back&quot; (cf. *retro*), so &quot;take back one's pledge&quot; does indeed seem accurate. The &quot;again&quot; here is sloppiness on the editor's part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me draw your attention to the Oxford Latin Dictionary's definition of *re-*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **re-,** *prefix.*...Vbl. prefix denoting movement back or in reverse (*redeo*, *reuerto*, *reuoco*), withdrawal (*recondo*, *religo*, *reticeo*), reversal of a previous process (*refrigero*, *resoluo*, *retego*), restoration (*renouo*, *reualesco*), response or opposition (*rebello*, *redarguo*, *respondeo*), separation (*remoueo*), repeated action (*repeto*, *repleo*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the examples given, movement indicating 'back' in some way encompass the first three types of use, while &quot;again&quot; is rather limited.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also helps to remember that *credere* takes a dative, and therefore has a sense of *giving* implicit in it. *Credere* in fact was originally tied to giving credit, and trust naturally stems from there. Likewise, the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew words for &quot;belief&quot; all refer to 'trust' and 'loyalty (*fides* is the other Latin word for belief in god, and the English derivative *fidelity* still maintain the sense of 'loyalty').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as *recroire*, if we imagine the opposite to mean not just belief, but &quot;believing in oneself&quot;, then to add the prefix to it would give us the meaning of &quot;taking back belief in oneself&quot; or &quot;no longer believing in oneself&quot;. If you no longer trust yourself in battle, the option is to retreat or, if you're honorable, surrender." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="328" RevisionGUID="e2ca5153-0705-49a5-bce9-2def3cda39ff" CreationDate="2016-02-29T04:20:02.760" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="There are a lot of different things in a lot of different languages that mean basically the same thing: Sleep well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* English: Sleep tight, don't let the bedbugs bite&#xD;&#xA;* Italiano: Buona notte, sogni d'oro&#xD;&#xA;* Español: Suena con los angelitos&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;et cetera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the equivalent in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: To be clear, I'm looking for the &quot;poetic&quot; version -- for example, the Italian one means &quot;dream of gold&quot;, and the Spanish &quot;sleep with the angels&quot;. I can translate &quot;Good night&quot; on my own, probably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers for either vulgar or formal classical Latin are acceptable. Vulgar is preferred; I'd like to know what the people said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Thanks to the folks in chat for helping me with other languages' versions! [Help starts here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/27901416#27901416)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1171" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="328" RevisionGUID="e2ca5153-0705-49a5-bce9-2def3cda39ff" CreationDate="2016-02-29T04:20:02.760" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="How did the Romans say &quot;good night&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1172" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="328" RevisionGUID="e2ca5153-0705-49a5-bce9-2def3cda39ff" CreationDate="2016-02-29T04:20:02.760" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|classical-latin|word-request|vulgar-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="328" RevisionGUID="c45f525f-9f1a-4026-946a-2d91b6d9f7eb" CreationDate="2016-02-29T04:25:12.967" UserId="12" Comment="ñ in Spanish" Text="There are a lot of different things in a lot of different languages that mean basically the same thing: Sleep well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* English: Sleep tight, don't let the bedbugs bite&#xD;&#xA;* Italiano: Buona notte, sogni d'oro&#xD;&#xA;* Español: Sueña con los angelitos&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;et cetera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the equivalent in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: To be clear, I'm looking for the &quot;poetic&quot; version -- for example, the Italian one means &quot;dream of gold&quot;, and the Spanish &quot;sleep with the angels&quot;. I can translate &quot;Good night&quot; on my own, probably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers for either vulgar or formal classical Latin are acceptable. Vulgar is preferred; I'd like to know what the people said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Thanks to the folks in chat for helping me with other languages' versions! [Help starts here](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/27901416#27901416)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="329" RevisionGUID="deda5fb0-fdfc-4710-b6c9-1a2633f7f53c" CreationDate="2016-02-29T07:00:50.100" UserId="78" Text="What exactly you're asking in your question seems a bit confused, but if you're wanting to know what the title of your question is asking, here's what I found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For all things English to Latin, the best place to go is *Smith's Copious and Critical English - Latin Dictionary*. To get the phrase, you'd have to look under **night**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *to have a good night*, bene quiescere, Plin. Ep. 3, 16, 4 : as an exclamation, *good night!* bene valeas et quiescas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tibullus *Elegiae* 2.4.49 includes *placide* with it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et 'bene' discedens dicet 'placideque quiescas.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And leaving he will say, 'May you rest well and peacefully.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That must have been somewhat common, because Fronto has it, but it cannot quite mean 'good night' in the English sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed post diem natalem	tuum, si me amas, nox quae sequitur fac iam placide quiescas sine ullius instantis officii cogitatione. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Loeb translates it thus: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But if you love me, pass the coming night in peace and quiet without &#xD;&#xA;attending to any business however pressing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oddly, the Loeb skips out *post...tuum*, which means 'after your birthday.' The *placide quiescas* doesn't quite mean 'have a good night', but perhaps 'may you sleep soundly' isn't so far off, and the meaning of it could be altered slightly with *fac* thrown in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For wishing someone off to sleep as they depart from you, *vale* simply suffices." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="330" RevisionGUID="b568108f-1990-4ce0-a5d9-50d5e3151c09" CreationDate="2016-02-29T07:48:49.107" UserId="12" Text="Allen and Greenough ([§50](https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA23)) refer to *vesper* as a second declension noun, except that it takes the ablative *vespere* and the locative *vesperī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gildersleeve and Lodge provides more detailed guidance, citing the 2nd, 3rd, and 1st declensions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Vesper**, *evening*, has Acc. **vesperum**; Dat. Abl. **vesperō**; Pl. Nom. **vespera** of the Second Declension; Acc. **vesperam**; Abl. **vesperā** of the First; Gen. **vesperis**; Abl **vespere**; Loc. **vespere**, **vesperī** of the Third. ([§68](https://books.google.com/books?id=jo1iAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA34))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theophilus Hall keeps it simple:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vesper (also vespera), *the evening* has, according to the Second Declension, the *acc.* vesperum, but the *Abl.* usually according to the Third Declension, vespere, verperī. ([§53](https://books.google.com/books?id=TtRMAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA25))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leonhard Schmitz is the only source I've found that suggests a different declension depending on meaning.  In  [§81](https://books.google.com/books?id=PMQDAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA57) he suggests that the meaning *evening* uses the second declension except for the ablative's third declension, while the meaning *evening star* always uses the second declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, the general guidance is that the second declension is preferred except in the ablative, where the third declension is normally employed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1176" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="320" RevisionGUID="202045b5-cb8d-4e66-9e86-78b886a18b85" CreationDate="2016-02-29T07:49:49.380" UserId="-1" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:12,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nathaniel&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:30,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Cerberus&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;QPaysTaxes&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:49,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Wrzlprmft&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="331" RevisionGUID="b40c0550-2039-4c33-9c1d-d70a8eaca924" CreationDate="2016-02-29T08:54:44.667" UserId="79" Text="In medieval Latin active perfect forms started to use the auxiliary verb *habere* with perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;Thus *amavi* would be replaced with *amatum habeo*.&#xD;&#xA;These two constructions must have coexisted for some time.&#xD;&#xA;Was there any semantic difference between the two or were they always completely interchangeable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least Italian seems to have inherited both versions.&#xD;&#xA;In *passato prossimo* we have *ho amato* and in *passato remoto* we have *amai*.&#xD;&#xA;Is the possible semantic difference between the two perfect tenses in medieval Latin similar to the one in Italian or other Romance languages?&#xD;&#xA;I am much more familiar with Latin than Italian, so &quot;The difference is the same in both languages&quot; does not fully explain the difference to me, but I am also interested in comparing these two languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1180" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="331" RevisionGUID="b40c0550-2039-4c33-9c1d-d70a8eaca924" CreationDate="2016-02-29T08:54:44.667" UserId="79" Text="Is there a semantic difference between the two perfect tenses in medieval Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1181" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="331" RevisionGUID="b40c0550-2039-4c33-9c1d-d70a8eaca924" CreationDate="2016-02-29T08:54:44.667" UserId="79" Text="|medieval-latin|meaning|new-latin|semantics|perfect-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="332" RevisionGUID="abd5eb34-ca2c-45d9-942d-029c6c27c018" CreationDate="2016-02-29T09:27:25.377" UserId="183" Text="The simultaneous use of uppercase and lowercase letters is a feature of the Latin alphabet used today. The uppercase and lowercase letterforms evolve from different styles of writing. Originally, the difference was a only a difference of style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When did the characteristic mixture of capitals and minuscles develop that makes the Latin alphabet bicameral?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Decorative initials were probably a preliminary step in this direction, but I don't count this as bicamerality yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1183" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="332" RevisionGUID="abd5eb34-ca2c-45d9-942d-029c6c27c018" CreationDate="2016-02-29T09:27:25.377" UserId="183" Text="When did the latin alphabet become bicameral?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1184" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="332" RevisionGUID="abd5eb34-ca2c-45d9-942d-029c6c27c018" CreationDate="2016-02-29T09:27:25.377" UserId="183" Text="|language-evolution|alphabet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="333" RevisionGUID="4289c7f0-faf5-410e-95a1-292e20e21f21" CreationDate="2016-02-29T12:37:30.090" UserId="128" Text="[Wiktionary][1] goes into it a bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Diēs* is an exceptional case of a fifth declension noun since it is both used in the masculine form and in the feminine form, instead of just feminine like the rest of the fifth declension nouns. The masculine use is more common, and almost invariably used for the plural. The feminine use is found in the singular when the day is being personified as a goddess, when it refers to a specific day (e.g., the date of a letter, or an appointed day for business), when it refers to the passing of time, and occasionally in other contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why, etymologically, is this the case? Why these different categories? Do we have evidence that these uses change over time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dies#Inflection" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1187" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="333" RevisionGUID="4289c7f0-faf5-410e-95a1-292e20e21f21" CreationDate="2016-02-29T12:37:30.090" UserId="128" Text="When is &quot;diēs&quot; masculine, when is it feminine, and why can this word take different genders?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1188" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="333" RevisionGUID="4289c7f0-faf5-410e-95a1-292e20e21f21" CreationDate="2016-02-29T12:37:30.090" UserId="128" Text="|etymology|declension|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="334" RevisionGUID="c15ece15-7aff-472b-91e7-a2b5b66b648c" CreationDate="2016-02-29T13:19:17.413" UserId="19" Text="I came across the term *mendicus* in a 16th century English parish register.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Lewis &amp; Short][1] it means: &quot;beggarly, needy, in want, indigent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the word derives from *menda* meaning fault, blemish, or physical defect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the Poor Law system there came to be various [classifications of poor][2]: the impotent poor (physically unable), able-bodied poor (unable to find work), idle poor (unwilling to work), and vagrants or beggars (potentially criminal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the use of the word *mendicus* imply any one of these types of poverty? From the derivation it appears its meaning is most consistent with impotent poor (i.e. someone unable to work rather than unwilling). However I am unsure if this subtlety of meaning would have persisted through to the modern era.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmendicus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classifications_of_poor_used_in_the_Poor_Law_system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1190" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="334" RevisionGUID="c15ece15-7aff-472b-91e7-a2b5b66b648c" CreationDate="2016-02-29T13:19:17.413" UserId="19" Text="Was &quot;mendicus&quot; a term for the impotent or idle poor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1191" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="334" RevisionGUID="c15ece15-7aff-472b-91e7-a2b5b66b648c" CreationDate="2016-02-29T13:19:17.413" UserId="19" Text="|meaning|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="335" RevisionGUID="74246b71-5630-476e-9a8e-c315604590e4" CreationDate="2016-02-29T16:23:47.937" UserId="213" Text="I can only partially answer your question. In medieval documents *dies* is sometimes feminine where based on classical usage we would expect it to be masculine. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Liber Pontificalis*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; (~10th century) 371, in reference to Charlemagne's arrival in Rome (but note that this text contains frequent grammatical irregularities):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et **alia die**, secundum olitanam consuetudinem, natale beati Andreae&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apostoli celebrantes, Roma introeunte cum mole gaudio et laetitia in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patriarchio Lateranense introivit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Ekkhart (12th century) uses *dies* in the feminine in all of its three occurrences in the excerpts in Sidwell.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; (But it could be that these are feminine because they refer to the *dies dicta* of the meeting between Henry IV and the Pope.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;quam  ingenti  periculo,  quam  varia disceptatione  **tota  dies illa**  consumpta  sit&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;quod et impigre fecit et usque ad **inclinatam iam diem**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Sic denique **ea die** *gloria in excelsis Deo et in terra pax hominibus &#xD;&#xA;bonae voluntatis*, ut ita dicam, est recuperata&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Roger Bacon (13th century), in the *Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources*&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; (but from which Bacon text I don't know): &quot;dicitur ... dies alia longior esse&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### References&#xD;&#xA;1. *Le Liber Pontiﬁcalis: Texte, Introduction et Commentaire*, vol. II. 1892. Ed. L’Abbé L. Duchesne.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Sidwell, Keith. 1995. *Reading Medieval Latin*. At 12.3.ii-iii, pp. 202-203.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. [ad loc. via Logeion][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#dies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="335" RevisionGUID="8c5bcc91-dbda-4ebd-8d80-e46d18c45763" CreationDate="2016-02-29T16:37:02.267" UserId="213" Comment="added 4th example" Text="I can only partially answer your question. In medieval documents *dies* is sometimes feminine where based on classical usage we would expect it to be masculine. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Liber Pontificalis*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; (~10th century) 371, in reference to Charlemagne's arrival in Rome (but note that this text contains frequent grammatical irregularities):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et **alia die**, secundum olitanam consuetudinem, natale beati Andreae&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apostoli celebrantes, Roma introeunte cum mole gaudio et laetitia in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patriarchio Lateranense introivit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Ekkhart (12th century) uses *dies* in the feminine in all of its three occurrences in the excerpts in Sidwell.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; (But it could be that these are feminine because they refer to the *dies dicta* of the meeting between Henry IV and the Pope.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;quam  ingenti  periculo,  quam  varia disceptatione  **tota  dies illa**  consumpta  sit&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;quod et impigre fecit et usque ad **inclinatam iam diem**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Sic denique **ea die** *gloria in excelsis Deo et in terra pax hominibus &#xD;&#xA;bonae voluntatis*, ut ita dicam, est recuperata&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Roger Bacon (13th century), in the DMLBS&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; (but from which Bacon text I don't know): &quot;dicitur ... dies alia longior esse&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. See elsewhere in the DMLBS entry, where *dies* is used in either gender, e.g. *dies festus/festivus* vs. *dies festiva*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### References&#xD;&#xA;1. *Le Liber Pontiﬁcalis: Texte, Introduction et Commentaire*, vol. II. 1892. Ed. L’Abbé L. Duchesne.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Sidwell, Keith. 1995. *Reading Medieval Latin*. At 12.3.ii-iii, pp. 202-203.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. *Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources* [ad loc. via Logeion][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#dies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="230" RevisionGUID="75df62fa-7022-40da-8e02-892845a3e97a" CreationDate="2016-02-29T16:37:15.730" UserId="30" Comment="added 914 characters in body" Text="A causative affix is transformative: it changes a (usually intransitive) verb's predicate frame such that the thematic role once performed by the subject is now performed by the object, and the new subject is an agent or cause. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Caesar fugit:* &quot;Caesar flees&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thematic role &quot;person who flees&quot; is performed by the subject *Caesar*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pompeiius Caesarem fugat:* &quot;Pompeiius causes Caesar to flee&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The presumed causative suffix *-a-* turns *fugĕre* &quot;flee&quot; into *fugare* &#xD;&#xA; &quot;cause to flee&quot;; the thematic role &quot;person who flees&quot; is now performed by the object *Caesarem*, and the new subject, *Pompeiius*, is a new agent, causing the process of fleeing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Miles stat pro porta:* &quot;the soldier stands before the gate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thematic role &quot;thing that stands&quot; is performed by the subject, *miles*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Caesar militem pro porta statuit:* &quot;Caear places the soldier before the gate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *statuo* is derived from the supine stem of *sto* (*status*); sometimes the suffix that forms the supine stem can be used to make derived verbs causative. *Stare* &quot;stand&quot; is turned into *sta-tu-êre* &quot;cause to stand, place&quot;. The thematic role &quot;thing that stands&quot; is now performed by the object, *militem*, and a new agent is introduced to cause the standing, *Caesar*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *statuĕre* is already causative by itself. The same applies, in a way, to *ponĕre*, which already means something similar to *statuĕre*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I don't see any added 'causativeness' coming from *con-*. It can indicate completion, though. I think this has come up before, in some other question on English.SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="261" RevisionGUID="d8762027-3db9-4354-970d-39ac83fa4578" CreationDate="2016-02-29T16:48:28.800" UserId="30" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="Synizesis is the rare phenomenon where two vowels within a word that normally do not form a diphthong are nevertheless pronounced as such, and hence count as a single syllable in the metre. Under which circumstances does this happen in Latin? Or is it unpredictable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="336" RevisionGUID="3aa6a35f-544b-48b2-93fd-171512c064f6" CreationDate="2016-02-29T17:10:09.120" UserId="118" Text="In [a letter](https://books.google.com/books?id=aYhCAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA336#v=onepage) dated May 30, 1342, Petrarch invites his friend Cardinal Johannes Columna to visit him in his mountain retreat of Vaucluse. In several places, I've come across English translations of one passage, like this one by Morris Bishop, which are in the first person:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I flee men’s traces, follow the birds, love the shadows, enjoy the mossy caves and the greening fields, curse the cares of the Curia, avoid the city’s tumult, refuse to cross the thresholds of the mighty, mock the concerns of the mob.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the full, original sentence in Latin, which is in the future tense and the second person:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Videbis a mane ad vesperam solivagum, herbivagum, montivagum, fontivagum, silvicolam, ruricolam, hominum vestigia fugientem, avia sectantem, amantem umbras, gaudantem antris roscidis pratisque virentibus, execrantem curas curiæ, tumultus urbium vitantem, abstinentem liminibus superborum; vulgi studia ridentem, a lætitia mœstitiaque pari spatio distantem; totis diebus ac noctibus ociosum, gloriantem musarum consortio, cantibus volucrum et lympharum murmure, paucis servis sed multis comitatum libris; et nunc domi esse, nunc ire, nunc subsistere, nunc querula in ripa, nunc tenero in gramine lassatum caput et fessa membra proiicere; et (quae non ultima solatii pars est) neminem accedere nisi perraro, qui vel millesimam vaticinari possit suarum particulam curarum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and my attempt at a literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You'll see from morning 'til evening a solitary wanderer, a grass-wanderer, a mountain-wanderer, a spring-wanderer, a woodsman, a rustic—fleeing the footprints of humans, attending to daisies, loving the shadows, delighting in dewy caves and greening meadows, cursing the cares of the curia, shunning the bustle of the cities, keeping off the thresholds of the haughty, laughing at the preoccupations of the crowd, keeping an equal distance from joy and sorrow, idle all the days and nights, glorying in communion with the Muses, in the songs of birds and the murmur of waters—accompanied by few servants but many books—now at home, now going, now pausing, now on the bank of the warbling river, now laying his wearied head and tired limbs on the soft grass; and (which is not the least part of the relief) approaching no one except rarely—who could foretell even a thousandth part of his troubles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if Petrarch is actually describing not himself but Columna. That is, is Petrarch saying, &quot;If you come to Vaucluse, you'll find yourself doing all these nice, restorative things&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few other facts that suggest this interpretation to me are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Columna complains to Petrarch of gout, poverty, and the troubles of old age. Petrarch's future-tense description promises an escape from troubles. See especially the rhetorical question at the end, and _non ultima solatii pars,_ which I'm taking as &quot;not the least part of the relief&quot;. Since Petrarch lives there and doesn't suffer from Columna's troubles, presumably he's not in need of _solatio._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Among the delights to be experienced is _execrantem curas curiæ._ I assume that the Curia referred to is the one in Avignon, which is not far from Vaucluse. At this time, the Pope held court in Avignon rather than Rome. I don't think Petrarch was involved in Church politics, so this seems like a strange self-description to make in the future tense—and a playfully naughty one to suggest to a Cardinal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The previous sentence is &quot;Videbis quem desideras optime valentem, nullius egentem rei, nil magnopere de fortunæ manibus expectantem&quot;. (My attempted translation: &quot;You'll see what/whom you desire: being in the best health, lacking for nothing, awaiting no great gifts from the hands of fortune.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm not familiar enough with Latin idiom or Petrarch's style to say for sure if writing in second-person future tense about a person whom &quot;you'll see&quot; is analogous to the English idiom &quot;you'll find yourself ⎯⎯⎯⎯ing&quot;. Is _videbis_ or something similar used elsewhere with this meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it could also just be a playful rhetorical device of Petrarch's, used one time only." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1200" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="336" RevisionGUID="3aa6a35f-544b-48b2-93fd-171512c064f6" CreationDate="2016-02-29T17:10:09.120" UserId="118" Text="Who is Petrarch describing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1201" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="336" RevisionGUID="3aa6a35f-544b-48b2-93fd-171512c064f6" CreationDate="2016-02-29T17:10:09.120" UserId="118" Text="|pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="322" RevisionGUID="b758ee35-4a12-4703-a440-c4ae7811804f" CreationDate="2016-02-29T17:32:26.843" UserId="12" Comment="clarify question a bit" Text="&lt;sub&gt; [This](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/234/37) inspired this question; I should verify whether the prefix really means something.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[*defallere](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=default&amp;searchmode=none)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; from Latin [*de-*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=de-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) &quot;away&quot; + *fallere* &quot;to deceive, to cheat; to put wrong, to lead astray, cause to be mistaken; to escape notice of, be concealed from&quot; (see [fail (v.)](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fail&amp;allowed_in_frame=0))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of *de-* here is unclear to me, because the semantic notion of &quot;away&quot; does not appear in the verb _*defallere_ and because Latin already had [*fallere*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fallo#Etymology_2).  So why might this prefix have been added to this word prior to entering Old French?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="337" RevisionGUID="d763b0de-27ce-44e6-987c-f650c13584e9" CreationDate="2016-02-29T17:38:08.670" UserId="215" Text="As Latin aged and developed, from Old Latin to Classical Latin, combined with a change in sounds of Latin lead to the dropping of the locative. However, examples of it do still remain, such as &quot;domi&quot; - &quot;at home&quot;, and &quot;Romae&quot; - &quot;At Rome&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="338" RevisionGUID="b7c9fd37-e053-4513-8f6e-1761220e019b" CreationDate="2016-02-29T17:42:55.427" UserId="223" Text="The English `interesting` etymologically comes from Latin impersonal verb `meā/tuā/nostrā interest`, but in Latin it is a neutral way of saying `it is of interest/concern/importance` (for example, `tuā et meā maxime interest, te valere` Cic. Fam. 16, 4) and the expression does not have the vaguely positive connotations of English `interesting` (which can be applied to almost everything!). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of `interesting` may be subdivided into this (rough and by no means exhaustive) list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Something that is pleasant to behold, to converse with, to read, etc. In this case `iucundus` is a good equivalent.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Something wonderful, strange, remarkable. `Mirus/mirandus` will do for this.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Something that moves and inspires, excites interest – in this case, `excitat studium [legendi/audiendi/scribendi ... ]` (for example, `Quamquam enim libri nostri complures non modo ad legendi, sed etiam ad scribendi studium excitaverunt` Cic. Off. 2.2.2.), `studium excitans`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="228" RevisionGUID="e02a2369-bca1-4ccf-9b88-58d3ed33ee5b" CreationDate="2016-02-29T17:43:46.160" UserId="12" Comment="add related tags" Text="The primary eras of Latin, with approximate dates, are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Old](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin) (before 75 BC) [tag:old-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Classical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Latin) (75 BC to AD 300) [tag:classical-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Late](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin) (300–500) [tag:late-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Medieval](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Latin) (500–1400) [tag:medieval-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [New/Modern](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Latin) (1400–1900) [tag:new-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Contemporary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_Latin) (1900–present) [tag:contemporary-latin]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the spoken Latin of the common people until the 6th century, use [tag:vulgar-latin].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For changes in Latin within and especially across eras, use [tag:language-evolution]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1206" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="228" RevisionGUID="e02a2369-bca1-4ccf-9b88-58d3ed33ee5b" CreationDate="2016-02-29T17:43:46.160" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 68, 71 edit id of 78" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1207" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="336" RevisionGUID="d4b54b52-661b-442e-ba1b-3ae2a5b56d89" CreationDate="2016-02-29T17:51:17.713" UserId="118" Comment="edited title" Text="Quem describit Petrarca?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="336" RevisionGUID="951d64a0-2b9b-4c44-b27c-63eec695bac0" CreationDate="2016-02-29T17:58:49.953" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="In [a letter](https://books.google.com/books?id=aYhCAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA336#v=onepage) dated May 30, 1342, Petrarch invites his friend Cardinal Johannes Columna to visit him in his mountain retreat of Vaucluse. In several places, I've come across English translations of one passage, like this by Morris Bishop, which are in the first person:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I flee men’s traces, follow the birds, love the shadows, enjoy the mossy caves and the greening fields, curse the cares of the Curia, avoid the city’s tumult, refuse to cross the thresholds of the mighty, mock the concerns of the mob.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the full, original sentence in Latin, which is in the future tense and the second person:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Videbis a mane ad vesperam solivagum, herbivagum, montivagum, fontivagum, silvicolam, ruricolam, hominum vestigia fugientem, avia sectantem, amantem umbras, gaudantem antris roscidis pratisque virentibus, execrantem curas curiæ, tumultus urbium vitantem, abstinentem liminibus superborum; vulgi studia ridentem, a lætitia mœstitiaque pari spatio distantem; totis diebus ac noctibus ociosum, gloriantem musarum consortio, cantibus volucrum et lympharum murmure, paucis servis sed multis comitatum libris; et nunc domi esse, nunc ire, nunc subsistere, nunc querula in ripa, nunc tenero in gramine lassatum caput et fessa membra proiicere; et (quae non ultima solatii pars est) neminem accedere nisi perraro, qui vel millesimam vaticinari possit suarum particulam curarum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and my attempt at a literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You'll see from morning 'til evening a solitary wanderer, a grass-wanderer, a mountain-wanderer, a spring-wanderer, a woodsman, a rustic—fleeing the footprints of humans, attending to daisies, loving the shadows, delighting in dewy caves and greening meadows, cursing the cares of the curia, shunning the bustle of the cities, keeping off the thresholds of the haughty, laughing at the preoccupations of the crowd, keeping an equal distance from joy and sorrow, idle all the days and nights, glorying in communion with the Muses, in the songs of birds and the murmur of waters—accompanied by few servants but many books—now at home, now going, now pausing, now on the bank of the warbling river, now laying his wearied head and tired limbs on the soft grass; and (which is not the least part of the relief) approaching no one except rarely—who could foretell even a thousandth part of his troubles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if Petrarch is actually describing not himself but Columna. That is, is Petrarch saying, &quot;If you come to Vaucluse, you'll find yourself doing all these nice, restorative things&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few other facts that suggest this interpretation to me are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Columna complains to Petrarch of gout, poverty, and the troubles of old age. Petrarch's future-tense description promises an escape from troubles. See especially the rhetorical question at the end, and _non ultima solatii pars,_ which I'm taking as &quot;not the least part of the relief&quot;. Since Petrarch lives there and doesn't suffer from Columna's troubles, presumably he's not in need of _solatio._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Among the delights to be experienced is _execrantem curas curiæ._ I assume that the Curia referred to is the one in Avignon, which is not far from Vaucluse. At this time, the Pope held court in Avignon rather than Rome. I don't think Petrarch was involved in Church politics, so this seems like a strange self-description to make in the future tense—and a playfully naughty one to suggest to a Cardinal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The previous sentence is &quot;Videbis quem desideras optime valentem, nullius egentem rei, nil magnopere de fortunæ manibus expectantem&quot;. (My attempted translation: &quot;You'll see what/whom you desire in the best health, lacking for nothing, awaiting no great gifts from the hands of fortune.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm not familiar enough with Latin idiom or Petrarch's style to say for sure if writing in second-person future tense about a person whom &quot;you'll see&quot; is analogous to the English idiom &quot;you'll find yourself ⎯⎯⎯⎯ing&quot;. Is _videbis_ or something similar used elsewhere with this meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it could also just be a playful rhetorical device of Petrarch's, used one time only." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="339" RevisionGUID="e36fbe6e-a2a0-41dd-aa9c-d91a36034ab1" CreationDate="2016-02-29T19:32:55.813" UserId="45" Text="After reading the quoted passage in context (no, I did not read the whole letter), I think you are missing a key sentence that introduces this whole &quot;videbis&quot; trope: It occurs towards the end of the previous page. After describing a peaceful place outside the city, Petrarch says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; . . .Illic tandem in terra depositus ad dexteram me videbis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *There at last, seated on the ground, you shall see me to your right.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*caveat lector*: this and below are my quick translations: please correct in the comments)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subsequent &quot;videbis&quot; repetition all seem to understand &quot;me&quot; as the object. Thus, in the next sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Videbis autem [me] modicis, sed umbrosis hortulis, angustoque contentum hospitio sed quod tanti hospitis adventu factum putes angustius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *You shall see [me] contented with moderate but shady little gardens and a narrow dwelling--one which you may think even narrower at the coming of such an important guest.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Me&quot; (Petrarch) is indisputably understood along with &quot;contentum.&quot; The rest of the passage, which transitions directly into what you quoted earlier, makes perfect sense as it paints Petrarch in this blissful pastoral scene.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;quem desideras&quot; seems to refer to himself. Ignoring the larger context of this correspondence, I can only surmise, but such language is fairly typical of effusive friendly correspondences of this nature: something like &quot;you shall see me, whom so much desire to be with, etc.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, Petrarch is vicariously tempting his friend by this portrait of how content he himself is. I think your reasons for supposing that what is meant is &quot;You will find yourself X'ing&quot; are not terribly cogent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I see no reason why &quot;solace&quot; should not refer to Petrarch himself, who uses this as his retreat.&#xD;&#xA;2. The *curia* is certainly not a phenomenon confined to Avignon and I am sure even Petrarch had his own interest in avoiding his.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a scattered answer, in outline: feel free to comment so I can make it point more specifically to your questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="336" RevisionGUID="34c31b9e-eb50-409f-8aa6-9490e2b84dad" CreationDate="2016-02-29T19:50:27.677" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 44 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In [a letter](https://books.google.com/books?id=aYhCAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA336#v=onepage) dated May 30, 1342, Petrarch invites his friend Cardinal Johannes Columna to visit him in his mountain retreat of Vaucluse. In several places, I've come across English translations of one passage, like this by Morris Bishop, which are in the first person:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I flee men’s traces, follow the birds, love the shadows, enjoy the mossy caves and the greening fields, curse the cares of the Curia, avoid the city’s tumult, refuse to cross the thresholds of the mighty, mock the concerns of the mob.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the full, original sentence in Latin, which is in the future tense and the second person:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Videbis a mane ad vesperam solivagum, herbivagum, montivagum, fontivagum, silvicolam, ruricolam, hominum vestigia fugientem, avia sectantem, amantem umbras, gaudantem antris roscidis pratisque virentibus, execrantem curas curiæ, tumultus urbium vitantem, abstinentem liminibus superborum; vulgi studia ridentem, a lætitia mœstitiaque pari spatio distantem; totis diebus ac noctibus ociosum, gloriantem musarum consortio, cantibus volucrum et lympharum murmure, paucis servis sed multis comitatum libris; et nunc domi esse, nunc ire, nunc subsistere, nunc querula in ripa, nunc tenero in gramine lassatum caput et fessa membra proiicere; et (quae non ultima solatii pars est) neminem accedere nisi perraro, qui vel millesimam vaticinari possit suarum particulam curarum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and my attempt at a literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You'll see from morning 'til evening a solitary wanderer, a grass-wanderer, a mountain-wanderer, a spring-wanderer, a woodsman, a rustic—fleeing the footprints of humans, attending to daisies, loving the shadows, delighting in dewy caves and greening meadows, cursing the cares of the curia, shunning the bustle of the cities, keeping off the thresholds of the haughty, laughing at the preoccupations of the crowd, keeping an equal distance from joy and sorrow, idle all the days and nights, glorying in communion with the Muses, in the songs of birds and the murmur of waters—accompanied by few servants but many books—now at home, now going, now pausing, now on the bank of the warbling river, now laying his wearied head and tired limbs on the soft grass; and (which is not the least part of the relief) approaching no one except rarely—who could foretell even a thousandth part of his troubles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if Petrarch is actually describing not himself but Columna. That is, is Petrarch saying, &quot;If you come to Vaucluse, this will be you!&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few other facts that suggest this interpretation to me are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Columna complains to Petrarch of gout, poverty, and the troubles of old age. Petrarch's future-tense description promises an escape from troubles. See especially the rhetorical question at the end, and _non ultima solatii pars,_ which I'm taking as &quot;not the least part of the relief&quot;. Since Petrarch lives there and doesn't suffer from Columna's troubles, presumably he's not in need of _solatio._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Among the delights to be experienced is _execrantem curas curiæ._ I assume that the Curia referred to is the one in Avignon, which is not far from Vaucluse. At this time, the Pope held court in Avignon rather than Rome. I don't think Petrarch was involved in Church politics, so this seems like a strange self-description to make in the future tense—and a playfully naughty one to suggest to a Cardinal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The previous sentence is &quot;Videbis quem desideras optime valentem, nullius egentem rei, nil magnopere de fortunæ manibus expectantem&quot;. (My attempted translation: &quot;You'll see what/whom you desire in the best health, lacking for nothing, awaiting no great gifts from the hands of fortune.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm not familiar enough with Latin idiom or Petrarch's style to say for sure if writing in second-person future tense about a person whom &quot;you'll see&quot; is analogous to the English idiom &quot;you'll find yourself ⎯⎯⎯⎯ing&quot;. Is _videbis_ or something similar used elsewhere with this meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it could also just be a playful rhetorical device of Petrarch's, used one time only." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1211" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="336" RevisionGUID="34c31b9e-eb50-409f-8aa6-9490e2b84dad" CreationDate="2016-02-29T19:50:27.677" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 44 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="340" RevisionGUID="af673489-50ee-4821-9abe-0552adac3418" CreationDate="2016-02-29T20:19:14.167" UserId="223" Text="I believe there's no straightforward answer as to „why different usage contexts correlate to different grammatical gender“, but the etymological origin gives some insights to the gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Diēs* comes from Proto-Indo-European *d(i)jéus „daytime sky, Sky-god“ and is cognate to *Iūp-piter* (≈ *Diespiter*, „dies pater“), so originally it should have been masculine, as it is the name of a god (= Vedic dyauḥ [pitā] or Greek Ζεῦς [πατήρ]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latin forms Diespiter, Dispiter, U. di, dei together with the word diēs ‘day’ point to the generalization of a stem *dijē-, whereas Iūpiter, Iovis reflect PIt. *djow-. These can be derived from a single PIE paradigm for ‘(god of the) sky, day-light’, which phonetically split in two in PIt. and yielded two new stems with semantic specialization. Syllabic *dij- in the nom.acc.sg. can stem from the oblique cases (gen.sg. *diwos, etc.), in which syllabic *di- occurred. The acc.sg. *dijēm led to the creation of a new nom.sg. *dijēs and a separate paradigm meaning ‘day’ &lt;..&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Michiel de Vaan, *Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages*, Brill, 2008)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for feminine, I would guess that it might be a paradigm-leveling – fifth declension is regularly feminine, so even *diēs* might feel this influence. However, I am not sure if this is exactly the factor, I couldn't find a source for this – please provide one or disprove my guess." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="339" RevisionGUID="6ec4df54-b96c-4b54-b183-c9f2a42193c6" CreationDate="2016-02-29T20:21:57.787" UserId="45" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="After reading the quoted passage in context (no, I did not read the whole letter), I think you are missing a key sentence that introduces this whole &quot;videbis&quot; trope: It occurs towards the end of the previous page. After describing a peaceful place outside the city, Petrarch says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; . . .Illic tandem in terra depositus ad dexteram me videbis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *There at last, seated on the ground, you shall see me to your right.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*caveat lector*: this and below are my quick translations: please correct in the comments)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subsequent &quot;videbis&quot; repetition all seem to understand &quot;me&quot; as the object. Thus, in the next sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Videbis autem [me] modicis, sed umbrosis hortulis, angustoque contentum hospitio sed quod tanti hospitis adventu factum putes angustius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *You shall see [me] contented with moderate but shady little gardens and a narrow dwelling--one which you may think even narrower at the coming of such an important guest.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Me&quot; (Petrarch) is indisputably understood along with &quot;contentum.&quot; The rest of the passage, which transitions directly into what you quoted earlier, makes perfect sense as it paints Petrarch in this blissful pastoral scene.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;quem desideras&quot; seems to refer to himself. Ignoring the larger context of this correspondence, I can only surmise, but such language is fairly typical of effusive friendly correspondences of this nature: something like &quot;you shall see me, whom you so much desire to be with, etc.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, Petrarch is vicariously tempting his friend by this portrait of how content he himself is. I think your reasons for supposing that what is meant is &quot;You will find yourself X'ing&quot; are not terribly cogent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I see no reason why &quot;solace&quot; should not refer to Petrarch himself, who uses this as his retreat.&#xD;&#xA;2. The *curia* is certainly not a phenomenon confined to Avignon and I am sure even Petrarch had his own interest in avoiding his.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a scattered answer, in outline: feel free to comment so I can make it point more specifically to your questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="341" RevisionGUID="faa99a58-a554-4caa-9b0d-0830c1f9a288" CreationDate="2016-02-29T21:53:24.537" UserId="73" Text="According to Michel Mollat's [*The Poor in the Middle Ages: An Essay in Social History*](https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Poor_in_the_Middle_Ages.html?id=_wmy4VOvMIoC), this was one of a number of general terms used to refer to the poor:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; words referring to impecuniosity and destitution in general (egens, egenus, indigens, inops, insufficiens, mendicus, miser)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many more specific words that could fit any of the categories under the Poor Law system:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **The impotent poor:** *Infirmus* could be used as a general term for poor health leading to an inability to work, while things like *caecus* (blindness) and *claudus* (lameness) referred to more specific physical defects.&#xD;&#xA; - **The able-bodied poor:** This is one of the toughest categories. *Penuria* refers to simply lacking something, so it could be argued that some uses would refer to the lack of skills needed to work. But it's a stretch.&#xD;&#xA; - **The idle poor:** Terms for these were not originally common, but by the 1300s, some terms originally used generally for begging took on a negative context and were used here. *Mendicus* could have had these connotations.&#xD;&#xA; - **Vagrants or beggars:** See the idle poor with regards to begging. The two categories are fairly closely intertwined, it seems; not much distinction is evident. The poor not deserving of relief were looked upon badly by many; whether or not they were actually criminals was often insignificant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mollat found that there are more specific words used to describe how someone came into poverty. Monks who begged voluntarily were referred to using *paupertus spontanea* (literally, &quot;voluntary poverty&quot;). Women forced into poor living conditions due to childbirth were referred to by *mulier ante et post partum*. Poverty through slavery or captivity was *captivus*, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;I originally found Mollat through a mention in [*The Development Dictionary*](http://shifter-magazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/wolfgang-sachs-the-development-dictionary-n-a-guide-to-knowledge-as-power-2nd-ed-2010-1.pdf) (page 191, footnote 3).&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="342" RevisionGUID="9f97c818-8ef0-406c-b119-916daef99d0e" CreationDate="2016-02-29T22:19:26.720" UserId="68" Text="I'm asking mostly in the context of living Latin and trying to figure out how to say things like &quot;I decided,&quot; &quot;I started a blog,&quot; &quot;I set up an organization,&quot; &quot;I instituted a policy,&quot; and so on, for all of which some version of *statuó* seems appropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1216" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="342" RevisionGUID="9f97c818-8ef0-406c-b119-916daef99d0e" CreationDate="2016-02-29T22:19:26.720" UserId="68" Text="What nuances distinguish statuó, cónstituó, and ínstituó?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1217" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="342" RevisionGUID="9f97c818-8ef0-406c-b119-916daef99d0e" CreationDate="2016-02-29T22:19:26.720" UserId="68" Text="|vocabulary|nuance|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="343" RevisionGUID="b7b4e318-b8d8-498a-bdc0-a711072b12dd" CreationDate="2016-02-29T23:21:36.717" UserId="213" Text="Excerpted from [*Döderlein's Handbook of Latin Synonymes*][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Instituere; Instaurare; Restituere; Restaurare.** *Instituere* means to establish a profane, *instaurare*, a sacred, or honorable, or generally important institution, such as sacrifices, sacred games, wars and battles. Hence is *instituere* itself a usual, *instaurare*, a solemn, select expression. In the same manner *restituere* is distinguished from *restaurare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Destinare; Obstinare; Decernere; Statuere; Constituere.** 1. *Destinare* and *obstinare* denote forming a resolution as a psychological, whereas *decernere* and *statuere* as a political, act. 2. *Destinare* means to form a decided resolution, by which a thing is set at rest; *obstinare*, to form an unalterable resolution, whereby a man perseveres with obstinacy and doggedness. 3. *Decernere* denotes the final result of a formal consultation, or, at least, of a deliberation approaching the nature and seriousness of a collegial discussion; *statuere*, to settle the termination of an uncertain state, and *constituere* is the word employed, if the subject or object of the transaction is a multitude. Cic. Fr. Tull. Hoc judicium sic expectatur, ut non unæ rei *statui*, sed omnibus *constitui* putetur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also heard *condere* in reference to organizations and websites, e.g. *Nuperrime situm/sedem ad linguam Latinam pertinentem aliquot homines in rete universali condiderunt.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/33197/33197-h/33197-h.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="344" RevisionGUID="1bb89725-54eb-4411-a542-24f00c3cfacc" CreationDate="2016-02-29T23:57:45.687" UserId="78" Text="This might not be the best question to ask for this format chiefly because there are so many color words in Latin, and their meanings are not always as simple and exact as English would have you believe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one, &quot;basic colors&quot; is a modern categorization, though it does have its roots in [ancient Aristotelian thought](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Aristotle/de_Coloribus*.html). See [this paper](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/col.20296/abstract) if you have access to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, a fun little study was conducted by an undergradate at UNC Greensboro—Emily Gering, who published the study as &quot;Diachronic Trends in Latin's Basic Color Vocabulary,&quot; published in the student journal *Explorations* ([link](http://uncw.edu/csurf/Explorations/volume9.html)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fuller study can be found in Rachael Goldman's 2011 dissertation *Tinturae Romanorum: Social and Cultural Constructions of Color-Terms in Roman Literature*. If you have a good library or access to ILL, do make sure to grab this one. She is a historian, so there is plenty of social context of color (which is inseparable from understanding the color's precise hue). She also provides an exhaustive appendix for your own perusal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you may be interested in Alexander Borg's 1999 monograph *The Language of Color in the Mediterranean: an anthology of ethnographic aspects of color terms*, Stockholm." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="341" RevisionGUID="77fca86b-0849-4efb-84d5-ecbd192338ef" CreationDate="2016-03-01T00:17:47.323" UserId="73" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="According to Michel Mollat's [*The Poor in the Middle Ages: An Essay in Social History*](https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Poor_in_the_Middle_Ages.html?id=_wmy4VOvMIoC), this was one of a number of general terms used to refer to the poor:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; words referring to impecuniosity and destitution in general (egens, egenus, indigens, inops, insufficiens, mendicus, miser)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many more specific words that could fit in the categories under the Poor Law system:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **The impotent poor:** *Infirmus* could be used as a general term for poor health leading to an inability to work, while things like *caecus* (blindness) and *claudus* (lameness) referred to more specific physical defects.&#xD;&#xA; - **The able-bodied poor:** This is one of the toughest categories. *Penuria* refers to simply lacking something, so it could be argued that some uses would refer to the lack of skills needed to work. But it's a stretch.&#xD;&#xA; - **The idle poor:** Terms for these were not originally common, but by the 1300s, some terms originally used generally for begging took on a negative context and were used here. *Mendicus* could have had these connotations.&#xD;&#xA; - **Vagrants or beggars:** See the idle poor with regards to begging. The two categories are fairly closely intertwined, it seems; not much distinction is evident. The poor not deserving of relief were looked upon badly by many. Whether or not they were actually criminals was often insignificant, especially as some started to treat those poor not given relief as criminals regardless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mollat found that there are more specific words used to describe how someone came into poverty. Monks who begged voluntarily were referred to using *paupertus spontanea* (literally, &quot;voluntary poverty&quot;). Women forced into poor living conditions due to childbirth were referred to by *mulier ante et post partum*. Poverty through slavery or captivity was *captivus*, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;I originally found Mollat through a mention in [*The Development Dictionary*](http://shifter-magazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/wolfgang-sachs-the-development-dictionary-n-a-guide-to-knowledge-as-power-2nd-ed-2010-1.pdf) (page 191, footnote 3).&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="345" RevisionGUID="10295562-8ab6-4c80-8a2e-095309c24e6e" CreationDate="2016-03-01T01:03:23.240" UserId="40" Text="What is the most idiomatic way of expressing in Latin a sentence containing an indirect statement, which itself contains an indefinite relative clause?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start with the direct version: consider a sentence like &quot;We will receive whoever comes to us.&quot; Here is a possible Latin version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quisquis ad nos venerit, eum accepiemus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is this *quisquis* ... *eum* construction the most idiomatic way of saying this?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is the future perfect *venerit* the most likely choice of mood and tense, or might one prefer *veniet* or *veniat*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an indirect statement, e.g. &quot;He thinks that we will receive whoever comes to us&quot;, it seems to me that this would  become:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Putat nos, quisquis ad nos venisset, eum accipituros esse.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct and idiomatic Latin? Should *venisset* be in a different form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1224" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="345" RevisionGUID="10295562-8ab6-4c80-8a2e-095309c24e6e" CreationDate="2016-03-01T01:03:23.240" UserId="40" Text="Indefinite relative clauses in indirect discourse" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1225" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="345" RevisionGUID="10295562-8ab6-4c80-8a2e-095309c24e6e" CreationDate="2016-03-01T01:03:23.240" UserId="40" Text="|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1226" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="311" RevisionGUID="e2dc78f8-fc04-491e-a46a-6dc915e31fe3" CreationDate="2016-03-01T01:31:24.350" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[280],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:66,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Earthliŋ&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:73,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;HDE 226868&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:12,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nathaniel&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="346" RevisionGUID="9cd2364a-374e-4ee8-963a-1affd50a13dc" CreationDate="2016-03-01T03:15:31.140" UserId="33" Text="The _OLD_ writes that _dies_ is &quot;fem. frequently or usually in senses 1b, 5, 7, 10, occasionally elsewhere,&quot; with the following definitions listed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1b: [the period from sunrise to sunset] as a diety&#xD;&#xA;* 5: A specific day, the date of a letter&#xD;&#xA;* 7: A day appointed for business&#xD;&#xA;* 10: The lapse or passing of time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might want to scope out the _OLD_ for more about those definitions -- lots of good, broad examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, I have always used the first part of Ovid _Met_ 10.270 (from the Pygmalion episode) to help me remember that specific days/festival days are generally feminine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Festa dies Veneris...._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="345" RevisionGUID="1b9faaad-1288-4f12-a379-3db619fa3169" CreationDate="2016-03-01T04:17:29.157" UserId="40" Comment="edited body" Text="What is the most idiomatic way of expressing in Latin a sentence containing an indirect statement, which itself contains an indefinite relative clause?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start with the direct version: consider a sentence like &quot;We will receive whoever comes to us.&quot; Here is a possible Latin version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quisquis ad nos venerit, eum accipiemus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is this *quisquis* ... *eum* construction the most idiomatic way of saying this?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is the future perfect *venerit* the most likely choice of mood and tense, or might one prefer *veniet* or *veniat*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an indirect statement, e.g. &quot;He thinks that we will receive whoever comes to us&quot;, it seems to me that this would  become:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Putat nos, quisquis ad nos venisset, eum accepturos esse.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct and idiomatic Latin? Should *venisset* be in a different form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="347" RevisionGUID="0a17686c-6f10-41f6-ab5f-59de207dfef5" CreationDate="2016-03-01T04:23:34.543" UserId="118" Text="These words are inscribed over the entrance to the University of Pavia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid **hic**? Intueri naturam. Quo **munere**? Curiosum esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're translated [here](http://www.seiinvalle.it/cinema/152-lo-sguardo-di-alice) into Italian, which I'll translate into English as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What do you do here? Study nature. What for? Pure curiosity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin was written by Linnaeus in the [introduction](https://books.google.com/books?id=PBJ-n5-wqgoC&amp;pg=PA8) to the _Systema Naturæ_. While struggling to read the whole introduction, I've come to wonder if the Italian translation has it wrong. At my elementary level of Latin, the question seems to turn largely on whether the vowel in _hic_ is long or short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's Linnaeus's original opening:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homo mundi intraturus theatrum quæritur Quis fit: _Unde ortus?_ e stemmate Creationis; _Quo tendat?_ ad vita beatam; _Quid **hic**?_ intueri naturam; _Quo **munere**?_ Curiosum esse similemque quidem reliquis animantibus (quæ vorant, ludunt, pruriunt, generate, multiplicantur, dormiunt, commoda stabula quærunt, proximis sui generis inserviunt, utpote qui curiosus observat quæ sensibus patent, indeque sapientibus ratiocinando rite concludit, adeoque miratur pulchrum sapientis opus Artificis. O quam contemta res est Homo, nisi supra humana se erexerit! Quid enim erat cur in numero viventium se positum gauderet? an ut Cibos &amp; Potiones percolaret? ut hoc corpus casurum periturumque farciret? quae tanta necessitas in fundum telluris intimæ hominem mersit, ut oblitus dierum, oblitus fortunæ melioris, ab hoc se averteret? puto certe multos ad sapientiam perventuros, nisi superbia magnæ fortunæ inflati, putassent se pervenisse. Sapiens utique est, qui fines respicit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finis Creationis Telluris est gloria DEI, ex opere Naturæ, per Hominem solum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my very uncertain translation. Unlike with the Italian, I had to go to the dictionary many times, which is a sure sign that I'm misunderstanding something important. In particular, I was stumped by the various definitions of **munus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For Man, about to enter into the theater of the world, the question arises, Who is being made: _From where did I arise?_ from the crown of Creation; _What should I strive for?_ the happy, blessed life; _What's **that**?_ contemplating nature; _By what **duty/power?**_ the duty/power of diligent inquiry—which is like the powers of the other living things (who eat, play, itch, reproduce, are multiplied, sleep, seek comfortable places to rest, attend to others of their kind nearby, maintain their life, feel, perceive) but nobler, since one who observes more diligently what is clear to the senses, and from there proceeds by wise deduction, solemnly discovers how truly marvelous is nature—the beautiful work of the wise Maker. O what a contemptible thing is Man, unless he raises himself above the human! For why should he rejoice to count himself among the living? to pour food and drink through himself? to stuff this body, soon to fall and perish? what necessity is so great as to immerse man in the most profound depths of the Earth—to forget his days, forget greater fortune, turn himself away from it? I reckon that surely many about to attain wisdom, if not by puffed up by the pride of great fortune, had supposed themselves to have already attained it. Undoubtedly, wise is one who considers the ends of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The end of the Earth's Creation is the glory of GOD, out of the work of Nature, through Man alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm uncertain of much of this translation, but **hĭc** vs. **hīc** and the appropriate sense of **munus** are my biggest sources of confusion. If it's actually **hĭc**, then the passage is not about what happens &quot;here&quot;, but a sermon about man's place in the universe. Lacking a macron, I'm inferring the vowel quantity from the rest of the paragraph!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you'd like to correct any of my other errors, I'd be grateful. I must be wrong about what _inflati_ modifies: my interpretation would make it _inflatos;_ and my reading of _putassent_ mixes the subjunctive with the accusative-and-infinitive. I've looked into other English translations of the introduction, and they've been abbreviated and/or lacked the poetry and passion of Linnaeus's writing—or at least, from I've been able to discern so far, it sure appears that Linnaeus intended no dry summary, but to stir the soul with the spirit of science.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1231" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="347" RevisionGUID="0a17686c-6f10-41f6-ab5f-59de207dfef5" CreationDate="2016-03-01T04:23:34.543" UserId="118" Text="Quid a &quot;hic&quot;, &quot;munere&quot; significat Linnæus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1232" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="347" RevisionGUID="0a17686c-6f10-41f6-ab5f-59de207dfef5" CreationDate="2016-03-01T04:23:34.543" UserId="118" Text="|meaning|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="169" RevisionGUID="d30a6dd1-81e8-4447-9437-5184caa507ec" CreationDate="2016-03-01T05:27:10.583" UserId="118" Comment="Added a link to the sentence in a book." Text="In the 1559 edition of Calvin's *[Institutes](https://books.google.com/books?id=keQ_AAAAcAAJ&amp;dq=%22Quare%20dum%20illam%20recipit%2C%20ac%20suffragio%20suo%20obsignat%2C%20non%20ex%20dubia%20aut%20alioqui%20controversa%20authenticam%20reddit%22&amp;pg=PA58#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Quare%20dum%20illam%20recipit,%20ac%20suffragio%20suo%20obsignat,%20non%20ex%20dubia%20aut%20alioqui%20controversa%20authenticam%20reddit%22&amp;f=false)*, he writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quare dum illam recipit, ac **suffragio** suo obsignat, non ex dubia aut alioqui controversa authenticam reddit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ford L. Battles renders it this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, while the church receives and gives its seal of approval to the Scriptures, it does not thereby render authentic what is otherwise doubtful or controversial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English word [*suffrage*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=suffrage) appears to come from this word, *suffragio*, so I wonder why Battles does not incorporate an idea of voting into his translation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible or likely, contra Battles, that Calvin means or implies that a &quot;consensus&quot; or &quot;vote&quot; within the church is associated with approval of the Scriptures?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is it safe to say that he means the church, as a single entity, simple approves them, with no implication of voting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="347" RevisionGUID="6089048d-4f07-4e5c-97c8-7c34caf3ae70" CreationDate="2016-03-01T05:56:21.277" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="These words are inscribed over the entrance to the University of Pavia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid **hic**? Intueri naturam. Quo **munere**? Curiosum esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're translated [here](http://www.seiinvalle.it/cinema/152-lo-sguardo-di-alice) into Italian, which I'll translate into English as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What do you do here? Study nature. What for? Pure curiosity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin was written by Linnaeus in the [introduction](https://books.google.com/books?id=PBJ-n5-wqgoC&amp;pg=PA8) to the _Systema Naturæ_. While struggling to read the whole introduction, I've come to wonder if the Italian translation has it wrong. At my elementary level of Latin, the question seems to turn largely on whether the vowel in _hic_ is long or short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's Linnaeus's original opening:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homo mundi intraturus theatrum quæritur Quis fit: _Unde ortus?_ e stemmate Creationis; _Quo tendat?_ ad vitam beatam; _Quid **hic**?_ intueri naturam; _Quo **munere**?_ Curiosum esse similemque quidem reliquis animantibus (quæ vorant, ludunt, pruriunt, generate, multiplicantur, dormiunt, commoda stabula quærunt, proximis sui generis inserviunt, utpote qui curiosus observat quæ sensibus patent, indeque sapientibus ratiocinando rite concludit, adeoque miratur pulchrum sapientis opus Artificis. O quam contemta res est Homo, nisi supra humana se erexerit! Quid enim erat cur in numero viventium se positum gauderet? an ut Cibos &amp; Potiones percolaret? ut hoc corpus casurum periturumque farciret? quae tanta necessitas in fundum telluris intimæ hominem mersit, ut oblitus dierum, oblitus fortunæ melioris, ab hoc se averteret? puto certe multos ad sapientiam perventuros, nisi superbia magnæ fortunæ inflati, putassent se pervenisse. Sapiens utique est, qui fines respicit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finis Creationis Telluris est gloria DEI, ex opere Naturæ, per Hominem solum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my very uncertain translation. Unlike with the Italian, I had to go to the dictionary many times, which is a sure sign that I'm misunderstanding something important. In particular, I was stumped by the various definitions of **munus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For Man, about to enter into the theater of the world, the question arises, Who is being made: _From where did I arise?_ from the crown of Creation; _What should I strive for?_ the happy, blessed life; _What's **that**?_ contemplating nature; _By what **duty/power?**_ the duty/power of diligent inquiry—which is like the powers of the other living things (who eat, play, itch, reproduce, are multiplied, sleep, seek comfortable places to rest, attend to others of their kind nearby, maintain their life, feel, perceive) but nobler, since one who observes more diligently what is clear to the senses, and from there proceeds by wise deduction, solemnly discovers how truly marvelous is nature—the beautiful work of the wise Maker. O what a contemptible thing is Man, unless he raises himself above the human! For why should he rejoice to count himself among the living? to pour food and drink through himself? to stuff this body, soon to fall and perish? what necessity is so great as to immerse man in the most profound depths of the Earth—to forget days, forget greater fortune, turn himself away from it? I reckon that surely many about to attain wisdom, if not by puffed up by the pride of great fortune, had supposed themselves to have already attained it. Undoubtedly, wise is one who considers the ends of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The end of the Earth's Creation is the glory of GOD, out of the work of Nature, through Man alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm uncertain of much of this translation, but **hĭc** vs. **hīc** and the appropriate sense of **munus** are my biggest sources of confusion. If it's actually **hĭc**, then the passage is not about what happens &quot;here&quot;, but a sermon about man's place in the universe. Lacking a macron, I'm inferring the vowel quantity from the rest of the paragraph!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you'd like to correct any of my other errors, I'd be grateful. I must be wrong about what _inflati_ modifies: my interpretation would make it _inflatos;_ and my reading of _putassent_ mixes the subjunctive with the accusative-and-infinitive. I've looked into other English translations of the introduction, and they've been abbreviated and/or lacked the poetry and passion of Linnaeus's writing—or at least, from what I've been able to discern so far, it sure appears that Linnaeus intended no dry summary, but to stir the soul with the spirit of science.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="347" RevisionGUID="fabf1053-7f93-425f-b40a-afd4d34218fe" CreationDate="2016-03-01T06:01:46.710" UserId="118" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="These words are inscribed over the entrance to the University of Pavia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid **hic**? Intueri naturam. Quo **munere**? Curiosum esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're translated [here](http://www.seiinvalle.it/cinema/152-lo-sguardo-di-alice) into Italian, which I'll translate into English as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What do you do here? Study nature. What for? Pure curiosity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin was written by Linnaeus in the [introduction](https://books.google.com/books?id=PBJ-n5-wqgoC&amp;pg=PA8) to the _Systema Naturæ_. While struggling to read the whole introduction, I've come to wonder if the Italian translation has it wrong. At my elementary level of Latin, the question seems to turn largely on whether the vowel in _hic_ is long or short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's Linnaeus's original opening:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homo mundi intraturus theatrum quæritur Quis fit: _Unde ortus?_ e stemmate Creationis; _Quo tendat?_ ad vitam beatam; _Quid **hic**?_ intueri naturam; _Quo **munere**?_ Curiosum esse similemque quidem reliquis animantibus (quæ vorant, ludunt, pruriunt, generate, multiplicantur, dormiunt, commoda stabula quærunt, proximis sui generis inserviunt, utpote qui curiosus observat quæ sensibus patent, indeque sapientibus ratiocinando rite concludit, adeoque miratur pulchrum sapientis opus Artificis. O quam contemta res est Homo, nisi supra humana se erexerit! Quid enim erat cur in numero viventium se positum gauderet? an ut Cibos &amp; Potiones percolaret? ut hoc corpus casurum periturumque farciret? quae tanta necessitas in fundum telluris intimæ hominem mersit, ut oblitus dierum, oblitus fortunæ melioris, ab hoc se averteret? puto certe multos ad sapientiam perventuros, nisi superbia magnæ fortunæ inflati, putassent se pervenisse. Sapiens utique est, qui fines respicit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finis Creationis Telluris est gloria DEI, ex opere Naturæ, per Hominem solum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my very uncertain translation. Unlike with the Italian, I had to go to the dictionary many times, which is a sure sign that I'm misunderstanding something important. In particular, I was stumped by the various definitions of **munus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For Man, about to enter into the theater of the world, the question arises, Who is being made: _From where did I arise?_ from the crown of Creation; _What should I strive for?_ the happy, blessed life; _What's **that**?_ contemplating nature; _By what **duty/power?**_ the duty/power of diligent inquiry—which is like the powers of the other living things (who eat, play, itch, reproduce, are multiplied, sleep, seek comfortable places to rest, attend to others of their kind nearby, maintain their life, feel, perceive) but nobler, since one who observes more diligently what is clear to the senses, and from there proceeds by wise deduction, solemnly discovers how truly marvelous is nature—the beautiful work of the wise Maker. O what a contemptible thing is Man, unless he raises himself above the human! For why should he rejoice to count himself among the living? to filter food and drink through himself? to stuff this body, soon to fall and perish? what necessity is so great as to immerse man in the most profound depths of the Earth—to forget days, forget greater fortune, turn himself away from it? I reckon that surely many about to attain wisdom, if not by puffed up by the pride of great fortune, had supposed themselves to have already attained it. Undoubtedly, wise is one who considers the ends of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The end of the Earth's Creation is the glory of GOD, out of the work of Nature, through Man alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm uncertain of much of this translation, but **hĭc** vs. **hīc** and the appropriate sense of **munus** are my biggest sources of confusion. If it's actually **hĭc**, then the passage is not about what happens &quot;here&quot;, but a sermon about man's place in the universe. Lacking a macron, I'm inferring the vowel quantity from the rest of the paragraph!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you'd like to correct any of my other errors, I'd be grateful. I must be wrong about what _inflati_ modifies: my interpretation would make it _inflatos;_ and my reading of _putassent_ mixes the subjunctive with the accusative-and-infinitive. I've looked into other English translations of the introduction, and they've been abbreviated and/or lacked the poetry and passion of Linnaeus's writing—or at least, from what I've been able to discern so far, it sure appears that Linnaeus intended no dry summary, but to stir the soul with the spirit of science.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="347" RevisionGUID="921a4602-0315-4729-81d0-01c3059417bc" CreationDate="2016-03-01T07:04:24.650" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="These words are inscribed over the entrance to the University of Pavia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid **hic**? Intueri naturam. Quo **munere**? Curiosum esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're translated [here](http://www.seiinvalle.it/cinema/152-lo-sguardo-di-alice) into Italian, which I'll translate into English as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What do you do here? Study nature. What for? Pure curiosity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin was written by Linnaeus in the [introduction](https://books.google.com/books?id=PBJ-n5-wqgoC&amp;pg=PA8) to the _Systema Naturæ_. While struggling to read the whole introduction, I've come to wonder if the Italian translation has it wrong. At my elementary level of Latin, the question seems to turn largely on whether the vowel in _hic_ is long or short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's Linnaeus's original opening:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homo mundi intraturus theatrum quæritur Quis fit: _Unde ortus?_ e stemmate Creationis; _Quo tendat?_ ad vitam beatam; _Quid **hic**?_ intueri naturam; _Quo **munere**?_ Curiosum esse similemque quidem reliquis animantibus (quæ vorant, ludunt, pruriunt, generate, multiplicantur, dormiunt, commoda stabula quærunt, proximis sui generis inserviunt, utpote qui curiosus observat quæ sensibus patent, indeque sapientibus ratiocinando rite concludit, adeoque miratur pulchrum sapientis opus Artificis. O quam contemta res est Homo, nisi supra humana se erexerit! Quid enim erat cur in numero viventium se positum gauderet? an ut Cibos &amp; Potiones percolaret? ut hoc corpus casurum periturumque farciret? quae tanta necessitas in fundum telluris intimæ hominem mersit, ut oblitus dierum, oblitus fortunæ melioris, ab hoc se averteret? puto certe multos ad sapientiam perventuros, nisi superbia magnæ fortunæ inflati, putassent se pervenisse. Sapiens utique est, qui fines respicit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finis Creationis Telluris est gloria DEI, ex opere Naturæ, per Hominem solum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my very uncertain translation. Unlike with the Italian, I had to go to the dictionary many times, which is a sure sign that I'm misunderstanding something important. In particular, I was stumped by the various definitions of **munus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For Man, about to enter into the theater of the world, the question arises, Who is being made: _From where did I arise?_ from the crown of Creation; _What should I strive for?_ the happy, blessed life; _What's **that**?_ contemplating nature; _By what **duty/power?**_ the duty/power of diligent inquiry—which is like the powers of the other living things (who eat, play, itch, reproduce, are multiplied, sleep, seek comfortable places to rest, attend to others of their kind nearby, maintain their life, feel, perceive) but nobler, since one who observes more diligently what is clear to the senses, and from there proceeds by wise deduction, solemnly discovers how truly marvelous is nature—the beautiful work of the wise Maker. O what a contemptible thing is Man, unless he raises himself above the human! For why should he rejoice to count himself among the living? to filter food and drink through himself? to stuff this body, soon to fall and perish? what necessity is so great as to immerse man in the most profound depths of the Earth—to forget days, forget a better fortune, turn himself away from it? Surely, I reckon, many about to attain wisdom, if not puffed up by the pride of great fortune, had supposed themselves to have already attained it. Undoubtedly, wise is one who considers the ends of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The end of the Earth's Creation is the glory of GOD, out of the work of Nature, through Man alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm uncertain of much of this translation, but **hĭc** vs. **hīc** and the appropriate sense of **munus** are my biggest sources of confusion. If it's actually **hĭc**, then the passage is not about what happens &quot;here&quot;, but a sermon about man's place in the universe. Lacking a macron, I'm inferring the vowel quantity from the rest of the paragraph!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you'd like to correct any of my other errors, I'd be grateful. I must be wrong about what _inflati_ modifies: my interpretation would make it _inflatos;_ and my reading of _putassent_ mixes the subjunctive with the accusative-and-infinitive. I've looked into other English translations of the introduction, and they've been abbreviated and/or lacked the poetry and passion of Linnaeus's writing—or at least, from what I've been able to discern so far, it sure appears that Linnaeus intended no dry summary, but to stir the soul with the spirit of science.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="347" RevisionGUID="a6c86c27-9f40-4f52-bd59-cb523057b478" CreationDate="2016-03-01T07:09:52.850" UserId="118" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="These words are inscribed over the entrance to the University of Pavia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid **hic**? Intueri naturam. Quo **munere**? Curiosum esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're translated [here](http://www.seiinvalle.it/cinema/152-lo-sguardo-di-alice) into Italian, which I'll translate into English as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What do you do here? Study nature. What for? Pure curiosity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin was written by Linnaeus in the [introduction](https://books.google.com/books?id=PBJ-n5-wqgoC&amp;pg=PA8) to the _Systema Naturæ_. While struggling to read the whole introduction, I've come to wonder if the Italian translation has it wrong. At my elementary level of Latin, the question seems to turn largely on whether the vowel in _hic_ is long or short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's Linnaeus's original opening:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homo mundi intraturus theatrum quæritur Quis fit: _Unde ortus?_ e stemmate Creationis; _Quo tendat?_ ad vitam beatam; _Quid **hic**?_ intueri naturam; _Quo **munere**?_ Curiosum esse similemque quidem reliquis animantibus (quæ vorant, ludunt, pruriunt, generate, multiplicantur, dormiunt, commoda stabula quærunt, proximis sui generis inserviunt, utpote qui curiosus observat quæ sensibus patent, indeque sapientibus ratiocinando rite concludit, adeoque miratur pulchrum sapientis opus Artificis. O quam contemta res est Homo, nisi supra humana se erexerit! Quid enim erat cur in numero viventium se positum gauderet? an ut Cibos &amp; Potiones percolaret? ut hoc corpus casurum periturumque farciret? quae tanta necessitas in fundum telluris intimæ hominem mersit, ut oblitus dierum, oblitus fortunæ melioris, ab hoc se averteret? puto certe multos ad sapientiam perventuros, nisi superbia magnæ fortunæ inflati, putassent se pervenisse. Sapiens utique est, qui fines respicit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finis Creationis Telluris est gloria DEI, ex opere Naturæ, per Hominem solum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my very uncertain translation. Unlike with the Italian, I had to go to the dictionary many times, which is a sure sign that I'm misunderstanding something important. In particular, I was stumped by the various definitions of **munus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For Man, about to enter into the theater of the world, the question arises, Who is being made: _From where did I arise?_ from the crown of Creation; _What should I strive for?_ the happy, blessed life; _What's **that**?_ contemplating nature; _By what **duty/power?**_ the duty/power of diligent inquiry—which is like the powers of the other living things (who eat, play, itch, reproduce, are multiplied, sleep, seek comfortable places to rest, attend to others of their kind nearby, maintain their life, feel, perceive) but nobler, since one who observes more diligently what is clear to the senses, and from there proceeds by wise deduction, solemnly discovers how truly marvelous is nature—the beautiful work of the wise Maker. O what a despicable thing is Man, unless he raises himself above the human! For why should he rejoice to count himself among the living? to filter food and drink through himself? to stuff this body, soon to fall and perish? what necessity is so great as to immerse a man in the most profound depths of the Earth—to forget days, forget a better fortune, turn himself away from it? Surely, I reckon, many about to attain wisdom, if not puffed up by the pride of great fortune, had supposed themselves to have already attained it. Undoubtedly, wise is one who considers the ends of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The end of the Earth's Creation is the glory of GOD, out of the work of Nature, through Man alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm uncertain of much of this translation, but **hĭc** vs. **hīc** and the appropriate sense of **munus** are my biggest sources of confusion. If it's actually **hĭc**, then the passage is not about what happens &quot;here&quot;, but a sermon about man's place in the universe. Lacking a macron, I'm inferring the vowel quantity from the rest of the paragraph!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you'd like to correct any of my other errors, I'd be grateful. I must be wrong about what _inflati_ modifies: my interpretation would make it _inflatos;_ and my reading of _putassent_ mixes the subjunctive with the accusative-and-infinitive. I've looked into other English translations of the introduction, and they've been abbreviated and/or lacked the poetry and passion of Linnaeus's writing—or at least, from what I've been able to discern so far, it sure appears that Linnaeus intended no dry summary, but to stir the soul with the spirit of science.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="347" RevisionGUID="fbc79611-b291-40fc-a45f-f7fa9d837911" CreationDate="2016-03-01T07:23:17.297" UserId="118" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="These words are inscribed over the entrance to the University of Pavia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid **hic**? Intueri naturam. Quo **munere**? Curiosum esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're translated [here](http://www.seiinvalle.it/cinema/152-lo-sguardo-di-alice) into Italian, which I'll translate into English as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What do you do here? Study nature. What for? Pure curiosity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin was written by Linnaeus in the [introduction](https://books.google.com/books?id=PBJ-n5-wqgoC&amp;pg=PA8) to the _Systema Naturæ_. While struggling to read the whole introduction, I've come to wonder if the Italian translation has it wrong. At my elementary level of Latin, the question seems to turn largely on whether the vowel in _hic_ is long or short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's Linnaeus's original opening:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homo mundi intraturus theatrum quæritur Quis fit: _Unde ortus?_ e stemmate Creationis; _Quo tendat?_ ad vitam beatam; _Quid **hic**?_ intueri naturam; _Quo **munere**?_ Curiosum esse similemque quidem reliquis animantibus (quæ vorant, ludunt, pruriunt, generate, multiplicantur, dormiunt, commoda stabula quærunt, proximis sui generis inserviunt, utpote qui curiosus observat quæ sensibus patent, indeque sapientibus ratiocinando rite concludit, adeoque miratur pulchrum sapientis opus Artificis. O quam contemta res est Homo, nisi supra humana se erexerit! Quid enim erat cur in numero viventium se positum gauderet? an ut Cibos &amp; Potiones percolaret? ut hoc corpus casurum periturumque farciret? quae tanta necessitas in fundum telluris intimæ hominem mersit, ut oblitus dierum, oblitus fortunæ melioris, ab hoc se averteret? puto certe multos ad sapientiam perventuros, nisi superbia magnæ fortunæ inflati, putassent se pervenisse. Sapiens utique est, qui fines respicit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finis Creationis Telluris est gloria DEI, ex opere Naturæ, per Hominem solum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my very uncertain translation. Unlike with the Italian, I had to go to the dictionary many times, which is a sure sign that I'm misunderstanding something important. In particular, I was stumped by the various definitions of **munus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For Man, about to enter into the theater of the world, the question arises, Who is being made: _From where did I arise?_ from the crown of Creation; _What should I strive for?_ the happy, blessed life; _What's **that**?_ contemplating nature; _By what **duty/power?**_ the duty/power of diligent inquiry—which is like the powers of the other living things (who eat, play, itch, reproduce, are multiplied, sleep, seek comfortable places to rest, attend to others of their kind nearby, maintain their life, feel, perceive) but nobler, since one who observes more diligently what is clear to the senses, and from there proceeds by wise deduction, solemnly discovers how truly marvelous is nature—the beautiful work of the wise Maker. O what a despicable thing is Man, unless he raises himself above the human! For why should he rejoice to count himself among the living? to filter food and drink through himself? to stuff this body, soon to fall and perish? what necessity is so great as to immerse a man in the most profound depths of the Earth—to forget days, forget greater prosperity, turn himself away from it? Surely, I reckon, many about to attain wisdom, if not puffed up by the pride of great fortune, had supposed themselves to have already attained it. Undoubtedly, wise is one who considers the ends of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The end of the Earth's Creation is the glory of GOD, out of the work of Nature, through Man alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm uncertain of much of this translation, but **hĭc** vs. **hīc** and the appropriate sense of **munus** are my biggest sources of confusion. If it's actually **hĭc**, then the passage is not about what happens &quot;here&quot;, but a sermon about man's place in the universe. Lacking a macron, I'm inferring the vowel quantity from the rest of the paragraph!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you'd like to correct any of my other errors, I'd be grateful. I must be wrong about what _inflati_ modifies: my interpretation would make it _inflatos;_ and my reading of _putassent_ mixes the subjunctive with the accusative-and-infinitive. I've looked into other English translations of the introduction, and they've been abbreviated and/or lacked the poetry and passion of Linnaeus's writing—or at least, from what I've been able to discern so far, it sure appears that Linnaeus intended no dry summary, but to stir the soul with the spirit of science.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="340" RevisionGUID="1c440d7c-a54c-4c35-a305-ba6b8e2ca281" CreationDate="2016-03-01T07:44:30.667" UserId="223" Comment="Some clarification in thought expression" Text="I believe there's no straightforward answer as to „why different usage contexts correlate to different grammatical gender“, but the etymological origin gives some insights to the gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Diēs* comes from Proto-Indo-European *d(i)jéus „daytime sky, Sky-god“ and is cognate to *Iūp-piter* (≈ *Diespiter*, „dies pater“), so originally it should have been masculine, as it is the name of a father god (= Vedic *dyauḥ [pitā]* or Greek Ζεῦς [πατήρ]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latin forms Diespiter, Dispiter, U. di, dei together with the word diēs ‘day’ point to the generalization of a stem *dijē-, whereas Iūpiter, Iovis reflect PIt. *djow-. These can be derived from a single PIE paradigm for ‘(god of the) sky, day-light’, which phonetically split in two in PIt. and yielded two new stems with semantic specialization. Syllabic *dij- in the nom.acc.sg. can stem from the oblique cases (gen.sg. *diwos, etc.), in which syllabic *di- occurred. The acc.sg. *dijēm led to the creation of a new nom.sg. *dijēs and a separate paradigm meaning ‘day’ &lt;..&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Michiel de Vaan, *Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages*, Brill, 2008)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for feminine *diēs*, I guess that it might be a paradigm-leveling – fifth declension is regularly feminine, *diēs* is the only masculine exception, so by analogy it would be inclined to become feminine too. However, I am not sure if this is exactly the factor, I couldn't find a source – please suggest one or disprove this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="0bc4761e-aac4-423f-834d-dab01b5fc17a" CreationDate="2016-03-01T08:00:54.217" UserId="65" Text="What is the rule for choosing coniunctivus or imperativus when expressing commands? I know, that imperativus has only second person forms, so one is forced to use coniunctivus for other persons. Are there other rules however that make sentences with these modes different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1244" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="0bc4761e-aac4-423f-834d-dab01b5fc17a" CreationDate="2016-03-01T08:00:54.217" UserId="65" Text="The difference between coninuctivus and imperativus when expressing commands" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1245" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="0bc4761e-aac4-423f-834d-dab01b5fc17a" CreationDate="2016-03-01T08:00:54.217" UserId="65" Text="|conjunctive|imperative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="350" RevisionGUID="8a386b4b-b3e3-4099-8160-67b2406744b5" CreationDate="2016-03-01T08:10:12.167" UserId="79" Text="If you really want to give a command, use imperative.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to request someone to do something, use conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;The difference between *curre* and *curras* is similar to the difference between &quot;run&quot; and &quot;please run&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="351" RevisionGUID="119b8b59-2266-4f05-afd0-cd0310712dbc" CreationDate="2016-03-01T08:18:46.897" UserId="79" Text="The tense for a conjunctive predicate in a subordinate clause can be chosen following the *consecutio temporum* rule.&#xD;&#xA;The tense depends on the tense of the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;But how to choose the tense when the clause is subordinate to an *accusativus com infinitivo* structure?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, should &quot;I think you knew what my name is&quot; be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Puto te scivisse quid sit nomen meum* (where *sit* follows the tense of *puto*) or&#xD;&#xA;- *Puto te scivisse quid esset nomen meum* (where *esset* follows the tense of *scivisse*)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1248" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="351" RevisionGUID="119b8b59-2266-4f05-afd0-cd0310712dbc" CreationDate="2016-03-01T08:18:46.897" UserId="79" Text="How to choose tense of conjunctive in a clause subordinate to an acc. cum inf. structure?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1249" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="351" RevisionGUID="119b8b59-2266-4f05-afd0-cd0310712dbc" CreationDate="2016-03-01T08:18:46.897" UserId="79" Text="|consecutio-temporum|subordinate-clause|accusativus-cum-infinitivo|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="352" RevisionGUID="444d02c5-82a0-4658-a333-8e6263d8fc9c" CreationDate="2016-03-01T08:18:46.897" UserId="79" Text="When a clause is subordinate to a nominal form of a verb (anything that does not have a grammatical person), the conjunctive predicate of the subordinate clause follows the predicate verb of its main clause, not the nominal form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: *Me adiit mirans, cur Graeci sic loquerent.* (Here *loqui* follows *adire*, not *mirare*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, however, an exception:&#xD;&#xA;If the clause is subordinate to a perfect infinitive, then the main clause is considered to be past tense from the point of view of *consecutio temporum* &amp;mdash; no matter what the predicate verb of the main clause does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example in the question falls in this exceptional category, the correct choice is the second one: *Puto te scivisse quid esset nomen meum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exception only concerns the perfect infinitive, so this would also be grammatical (although it expresses a different thing): *Putabam te scire quid esset nomen meum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1251" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="351" RevisionGUID="75daf589-a7a2-4368-8b66-42f92b511820" CreationDate="2016-03-01T08:25:07.767" UserId="79" Comment="edited title" Text="How to choose tense of conjunctive in a clause subordinate to an accusativus cum infinitivo structure?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="353" RevisionGUID="50a32ae9-4e8b-47f3-b3b0-543ad44f814d" CreationDate="2016-03-01T08:40:18.670" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="354" RevisionGUID="f7401522-a1a8-4906-aa30-d29578a4bf10" CreationDate="2016-03-01T08:40:18.670" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="355" RevisionGUID="c336f483-9058-4d97-9a8e-ef69783dd728" CreationDate="2016-03-01T08:41:22.990" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="356" RevisionGUID="b4e033fc-3a16-4f40-abaa-4b043c23db29" CreationDate="2016-03-01T08:41:22.990" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="357" RevisionGUID="9657e86c-8acb-432e-9573-6c70254a160a" CreationDate="2016-03-01T08:43:14.950" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="358" RevisionGUID="34a34690-0ee1-4646-a813-1cdb3beae8bc" CreationDate="2016-03-01T08:43:14.950" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="347" RevisionGUID="395525dd-dc28-43b2-8b9e-07d042441c74" CreationDate="2016-03-01T08:53:34.393" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="These words are inscribed over the entrance to the University of Pavia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid **hic**? Intueri naturam. Quo **munere**? Curiosum esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're translated [here](http://www.seiinvalle.it/cinema/152-lo-sguardo-di-alice) into Italian, which I'll translate into English as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What do you do here? Study nature. What for? Pure curiosity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin was written by Linnaeus in the [introduction](https://books.google.com/books?id=PBJ-n5-wqgoC&amp;pg=PA8) to the _Systema Naturæ_. While struggling to read the whole introduction, I've come to wonder if the Italian translation has it wrong. At my elementary level of Latin, the question seems to turn largely on whether the vowel in _hic_ is long or short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's Linnaeus's original opening:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homo mundi intraturus theatrum quæritur Quis fit: _Unde ortus?_ e stemmate Creationis; _Quo tendat?_ ad vitam beatam; _Quid **hic**?_ intueri naturam; _Quo **munere**?_ Curiosum esse similemque quidem reliquis animantibus (quæ vorant, ludunt, pruriunt, generate, multiplicantur, dormiunt, commoda stabula quærunt, proximis sui generis inserviunt, utpote qui curiosus observat quæ sensibus patent, indeque sapientibus ratiocinando rite concludit, adeoque miratur pulchrum sapientis opus Artificis. O quam contemta res est Homo, nisi supra humana se erexerit! Quid enim erat cur in numero viventium se positum gauderet? an ut Cibos &amp; Potiones percolaret? ut hoc corpus casurum periturumque farciret? quae tanta necessitas in fundum telluris intimæ hominem mersit, ut oblitus dierum, oblitus fortunæ melioris, ab hoc se averteret? puto certe multos ad sapientiam perventuros, nisi superbia magnæ fortunæ inflati, putassent se pervenisse. Sapiens utique est, qui fines respicit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finis Creationis Telluris est gloria DEI, ex opere Naturæ, per Hominem solum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my very uncertain translation. Unlike with the Italian, I had to go to the dictionary many times, which is a sure sign that I'm misunderstanding something important. In particular, I was stumped by the various definitions of **munus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For Man, about to enter into the theater of the world, the question arises, Who is being made: _Whence did I arise?_ out of the crown of Creation; _What should I strive for?_ the happy, blessed life; _What's **that**?_ contemplating nature; _By what **duty/power?**_ the duty/power of diligent inquiry—which is like the powers of the other living things (who eat, play, itch, reproduce, are multiplied, sleep, seek comfortable places to rest, attend to others of their kind nearby, maintain their life, feel, perceive) but nobler, since one who observes more diligently what is clear to the senses, and from there proceeds by wise deduction, solemnly discovers how truly marvelous is nature—the beautiful work of the wise Maker. O what a despicable thing is Man, unless he raises himself above the human! For why should he rejoice to count himself among the living? to filter food and drink through himself? to stuff this body, soon to fall and perish? what necessity is so great as to immerse a man in the most profound depths of the Earth—to forget days, forget greater prosperity, turn himself away from it? Surely, I reckon, many about to attain wisdom, if not puffed up by the pride of great fortune, had supposed themselves to have already attained it. Undoubtedly, wise is one who considers the ends of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The end of the Earth's Creation is the glory of GOD, out of the work of Nature, through Man alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm uncertain of much of this translation, but **hĭc** vs. **hīc** and the appropriate sense of **munus** are my biggest sources of confusion. If it's actually **hĭc**, then the passage is not about what happens &quot;here&quot;, but a sermon about man's place in the universe. Lacking a macron, I'm inferring the vowel quantity from the rest of the paragraph!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you'd like to correct any of my other errors, I'd be grateful. I must be wrong about what _inflati_ modifies: my interpretation would make it _inflatos;_ and my reading of _putassent_ mixes the subjunctive with the accusative-and-infinitive. I've looked into other English translations of the introduction, and they've been abbreviated and/or lacked the poetry and passion of Linnaeus's writing—or at least, from what I've been able to discern so far, it sure appears that Linnaeus intended no dry summary, but to stir the soul with the spirit of science.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="347" RevisionGUID="9da5ebf4-f639-43e7-a31e-648b3c705c42" CreationDate="2016-03-01T09:42:28.083" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="These words are inscribed over the entrance to the University of Pavia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid **hic**? Intueri naturam. Quo **munere**? Curiosum esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're translated [here](http://www.seiinvalle.it/cinema/152-lo-sguardo-di-alice) into Italian, which I'll translate into English as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What do you do here? Study nature. What for? Pure curiosity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin was written by Linnaeus in the [introduction](https://books.google.com/books?id=PBJ-n5-wqgoC&amp;pg=PA8) to the _Systema Naturæ_. While struggling to read the whole introduction, I've come to wonder if the Italian translation has it wrong. At my elementary level of Latin, the question seems to turn largely on whether the vowel in _hic_ is long or short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's Linnaeus's original opening:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homo mundi intraturus theatrum quæritur Quis fit: _Unde ortus?_ e stemmate Creationis; _Quo tendat?_ ad vitam beatam; _Quid **hic**?_ intueri naturam; _Quo **munere**?_ Curiosum esse similemque quidem reliquis animantibus (quæ vorant, ludunt, pruriunt, generate, multiplicantur, dormiunt, commoda stabula quærunt, proximis sui generis inserviunt, utpote qui curiosus observat quæ sensibus patent, indeque sapientibus ratiocinando rite concludit, adeoque miratur pulchrum sapientis opus Artificis. O quam contemta res est Homo, nisi supra humana se erexerit! Quid enim erat cur in numero viventium se positum gauderet? an ut Cibos &amp; Potiones percolaret? ut hoc corpus casurum periturumque farciret? quae tanta necessitas in fundum telluris intimæ hominem mersit, ut oblitus dierum, oblitus fortunæ melioris, ab hoc se averteret? puto certe multos ad sapientiam perventuros, nisi superbia magnæ fortunæ inflati, putassent se pervenisse. Sapiens utique est, qui fines respicit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finis Creationis Telluris est gloria DEI, ex opere Naturæ, per Hominem solum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my very uncertain translation. Unlike with the Italian, I had to go to the dictionary many times, which is a sure sign that I'm misunderstanding something important. In particular, I was stumped by the various definitions of **munus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For Man, about to enter into the theater of the world, the question arises, Who is being made: _Whence did I arise?_ out of the crown of Creation; _What should I strive for?_ the happy, blessed life; _What's **that**?_ contemplating nature; _By what **duty/power?**_ the duty/power of diligent inquiry—which is like the powers of the other living things (who eat, play, itch, reproduce, are multiplied, sleep, seek comfortable places to rest, attend to others of their kind nearby, maintain their life, feel, perceive) but nobler, since one who observes more diligently what is open to the senses, and from there proceeds by wise deduction, solemnly discovers how truly marvelous is nature—the beautiful work of the wise Maker. O what a despicable thing is Man, unless he raises himself above the human! For why should he rejoice to count himself among the living? to filter food and drink through himself? to stuff this body, soon to fall and perish? what necessity is so great as to immerse a man in the most profound depths of the Earth—to forget days, forget greater prosperity, turn himself away from it? Surely, I reckon, many about to attain wisdom, if not puffed up by the pride of great fortune, had supposed themselves to have already attained it. Undoubtedly, wise is one who considers the ends of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The end of the Earth's Creation is the glory of GOD, out of the work of Nature, through Man alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm uncertain of much of this translation, but **hĭc** vs. **hīc** and the appropriate sense of **munus** are my biggest sources of confusion. If it's actually **hĭc**, then the passage is not about what happens &quot;here&quot;, but a sermon about man's place in the universe. Lacking a macron, I'm inferring the vowel quantity from the rest of the paragraph!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you'd like to correct any of my other errors, I'd be grateful. I must be wrong about what _inflati_ modifies: my interpretation would make it _inflatos;_ and my reading of _putassent_ mixes the subjunctive with the accusative-and-infinitive. I've looked into other English translations of the introduction, and they've been abbreviated and/or lacked the poetry and passion of Linnaeus's writing—or at least, from what I've been able to discern so far, it sure appears that Linnaeus intended no dry summary, but to stir the soul with the spirit of science.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="347" RevisionGUID="d334ad38-754b-458f-be51-d55250251adc" CreationDate="2016-03-01T09:59:36.450" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="These words are inscribed over the entrance to the University of Pavia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid **hic**? Intueri naturam. Quo **munere**? Curiosum esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're translated [here](http://www.seiinvalle.it/cinema/152-lo-sguardo-di-alice) into Italian, which I'll translate into English as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What do you do here? Study nature. What for? Pure curiosity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin was written by Linnaeus in the [introduction](https://books.google.com/books?id=PBJ-n5-wqgoC&amp;pg=PA8) to the _Systema Naturæ_. While struggling to read the whole introduction, I've come to wonder if the Italian translation has it wrong. At my elementary level of Latin, the question seems to turn largely on whether the vowel in _hic_ is long or short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's Linnaeus's original opening:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homo mundi intraturus theatrum quæritur Quis fit: _Unde ortus?_ e stemmate Creationis; _Quo tendat?_ ad vitam beatam; _Quid **hic**?_ intueri naturam; _Quo **munere**?_ Curiosum esse similemque quidem reliquis animantibus (quæ vorant, ludunt, pruriunt, generant, multiplicantur, dormiunt, commoda stabula quærunt, proximis sui generis inserviunt, utpote qui curiosus observat quæ sensibus patent, indeque sapientibus ratiocinando rite concludit, adeoque miratur pulchrum sapientis opus Artificis. O quam contemta res est Homo, nisi supra humana se erexerit! Quid enim erat cur in numero viventium se positum gauderet? an ut Cibos &amp; Potiones percolaret? ut hoc corpus casurum periturumque farciret? quae tanta necessitas in fundum telluris intimæ hominem mersit, ut oblitus dierum, oblitus fortunæ melioris, ab hoc se averteret? puto certe multos ad sapientiam perventuros, nisi superbia magnæ fortunæ inflati, putassent se pervenisse. Sapiens utique est, qui fines respicit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finis Creationis Telluris est gloria DEI, ex opere Naturæ, per Hominem solum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my very uncertain translation. Unlike with the Italian, I had to go to the dictionary many times, which is a sure sign that I'm misunderstanding something important. In particular, I was stumped by the various definitions of **munus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For Man, about to enter into the theater of the world, the question arises, Who is being made: _Whence did I arise?_ out of the crown of Creation; _What should I strive for?_ the happy, blessed life; _What's **that**?_ contemplating nature; _By what **duty/power?**_ the duty/power of diligent inquiry—which is like the powers of the other living things (who eat, play, itch, reproduce, are multiplied, sleep, seek comfortable places to rest, attend to others of their kind nearby, maintain their life, feel, perceive) but nobler, since one who observes more diligently what is open to the senses, and from there proceeds by wise deduction, solemnly discovers how truly marvelous is nature—the beautiful work of the wise Maker. O what a despicable thing is Man, unless he raises himself above the human! For why should he rejoice to count himself among the living? to filter food and drink through himself? to stuff this body, soon to fall and perish? what necessity is so great as to immerse a man in the most profound depths of the Earth—to forget days, forget greater prosperity, turn himself away from it? Surely, I reckon, many about to attain wisdom, if not puffed up by the pride of great fortune, had supposed themselves to have already attained it. Undoubtedly, wise is one who considers the ends of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The end of the Earth's Creation is the glory of GOD, out of the work of Nature, through Man alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm uncertain of much of this translation, but **hĭc** vs. **hīc** and the appropriate sense of **munus** are my biggest sources of confusion. If it's actually **hĭc**, then the passage is not about what happens &quot;here&quot;, but a sermon about man's place in the universe. Lacking a macron, I'm inferring the vowel quantity from the rest of the paragraph!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you'd like to correct any of my other errors, I'd be grateful. I must be wrong about what _inflati_ modifies: my interpretation would make it _inflatos;_ and my reading of _putassent_ mixes the subjunctive with the accusative-and-infinitive. I've looked into other English translations of the introduction, and they've been abbreviated and/or lacked the poetry and passion of Linnaeus's writing—or at least, from what I've been able to discern so far, it sure appears that Linnaeus intended no dry summary, but to stir the soul with the spirit of science.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="359" RevisionGUID="106e1a35-4965-49e5-8520-d8d35437c484" CreationDate="2016-03-01T10:50:02.570" UserId="223" Text="The first sentence becomes much clearer when ſ is transcribed correctly as s, not f:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Homo mundi intraturus theatrum quaeritur Quis sit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Man, who is about to enter the theatre of the world, is being asked „who he is“:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The succeeding questions are in indirect discourse (so „quo tendat“ rather than „quo tendis/tendas?“). This dialogue, made out of formulaic questions, is similar to a questioning at customs – which makes sense, since we are here on threshold of entering the Theatre of the World:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; „Unde ortus?“ „E stemmate creationis.“&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; „Where are you from?“ „I descend from the line of creation“&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; „Quo tendat?“ „Ad vitam beatam.“&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; „Where are you hurrying to?“ „To a happy life“&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that the&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; „Quid hic?“ „Intueri naturam“&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;assumes an omitted „facturus“, which correlates nicely with „ortus“ as an indirect question. „Quid hic [in mundo homo sit facturus]?“ Then the answer makes sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; „What [are you going to do] here?“ „Observe nature“&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; „Quo munere?“ „Curiosum esse similemque quidem reliquis animantibus (quae ...), sed nobiliorem, utpote qui curiosius observat quae sensibus patent, indeque sapient**ius** ratiocinando rite concludit, adeoque miratur pulchrum sapientis opus Artificis“&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the last customs-like question. I believe that „Quo munere?“ supposes an omitted „fungatur“ in sense of „to perform an office“. „Of what office?“. The modernised sense of the question would be „Your profession?“.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is „[Me] esse curiosum“ → „Curiosus sum similisque quidem reliquis animantibus, sed nobilior, utpote qui curiosius observo quae sensibus patent“.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; „I am curious and similar to the other animals, but nobler as one who observes more curiously/carefully things that are open to the senses, who wisely reasoning properly concludes, who admires the beautiful work of the wise Artist/Creator.“&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following sentence is a verbatim quote from Seneca (Nat. Quaest. lib. I, 5):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; O quam contempta res est homo, nisi supra humana surrexerit!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;„perventuros [fuisse]“:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Puto certe multos ad sapientiam perventuros [fuisse], nisi[,] superbia magnae fortunae inflati, [illi] putassent se [iam] pervenisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; I think that many would have attained wisdom, &lt;..&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: I am not a native English speaker, so the translations may appear stilted. Also, all of the preceding are *primo obtutu* interpretations without any scholarship references.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="347" RevisionGUID="1467fe09-20a5-4e87-b02f-c4248551a799" CreationDate="2016-03-01T11:48:33.513" UserId="118" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="These words are inscribed over the entrance to the University of Pavia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid **hic**? Intueri naturam. Quo **munere**? Curiosum esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're translated [here](http://www.seiinvalle.it/cinema/152-lo-sguardo-di-alice) into Italian, which I'll translate into English as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What do you do here? Study nature. What for? Pure curiosity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin was written by Linnaeus in the [introduction](https://books.google.com/books?id=PBJ-n5-wqgoC&amp;pg=PA8) to the _Systema Naturæ_. While struggling to read the whole introduction, I've come to wonder if the Italian translation has it wrong. At my elementary level of Latin, the question seems to turn largely on whether the vowel in _hic_ is long or short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's Linnaeus's original opening:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homo mundi intraturus theatrum quæritur Quis fit: _Unde ortus?_ e stemmate Creationis; _Quo tendat?_ ad vitam beatam; _Quid **hic**?_ intueri naturam; _Quo **munere**?_ Curiosum esse similemque quidem reliquis animantibus (quæ vorant, ludunt, pruriunt, generant, multiplicantur, dormiunt, commoda stabula quærunt, proximis sui generis inserviunt, vitam tuentur, sentiunt, percipiunt) sed nobiliorem, utpote qui curiosius observat quæ sensibus patent, indeque sapientibus ratiocinando rite concludit, adeoque miratur pulchrum sapientis opus Artificis. O quam contemta res est Homo, nisi supra humana se erexerit! Quid enim erat cur in numero viventium se positum gauderet? an ut Cibos &amp; Potiones percolaret? ut hoc corpus casurum periturumque farciret? quae tanta necessitas in fundum telluris intimæ hominem mersit, ut oblitus dierum, oblitus fortunæ melioris, ab hoc se averteret? puto certe multos ad sapientiam perventuros, nisi superbia magnæ fortunæ inflati, putassent se pervenisse. Sapiens utique est, qui fines respicit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finis Creationis Telluris est gloria DEI, ex opere Naturæ, per Hominem solum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my very uncertain translation. Unlike with the Italian, I had to go to the dictionary many times, which is a sure sign that I'm misunderstanding something important. In particular, I was stumped by the various definitions of **munus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For Man, about to enter into the theater of the world, the question arises, Who is being made: _Whence did I arise?_ out of the crown of Creation; _What should I strive for?_ the happy, blessed life; _What's **that**?_ contemplating nature; _By what **duty/power?**_ the duty/power of diligent inquiry—which is like the powers of the other living things (who eat, play, itch, reproduce, are multiplied, sleep, seek comfortable places to rest, attend to others of their kind nearby, maintain their life, feel, perceive) but nobler, since one who observes more diligently what is open to the senses, and from there proceeds by wise deduction, solemnly discovers how truly marvelous is nature—the beautiful work of the wise Maker. O what a despicable thing is Man, unless he raises himself above the human! For why should he rejoice to count himself among the living? to filter food and drink through himself? to stuff this body, soon to fall and perish? what necessity is so great as to immerse a man in the most profound depths of the Earth—to forget days, forget greater prosperity, turn himself away from it? Surely, I reckon, many about to attain wisdom, if not puffed up by the pride of great fortune, had supposed themselves to have already attained it. Undoubtedly, wise is one who considers the ends of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The end of the Earth's Creation is the glory of GOD, out of the work of Nature, through Man alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm uncertain of much of this translation, but **hĭc** vs. **hīc** and the appropriate sense of **munus** are my biggest sources of confusion. If it's actually **hĭc**, then the passage is not about what happens &quot;here&quot;, but a sermon about man's place in the universe. Lacking a macron, I'm inferring the vowel quantity from the rest of the paragraph!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you'd like to correct any of my other errors, I'd be grateful. I must be wrong about what _inflati_ modifies: my interpretation would make it _inflatos;_ and my reading of _putassent_ mixes the subjunctive with the accusative-and-infinitive. I've looked into other English translations of the introduction, and they've been abbreviated and/or lacked the poetry and passion of Linnaeus's writing—or at least, from what I've been able to discern so far, it sure appears that Linnaeus intended no dry summary, but to stir the soul with the spirit of science.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="f4044cce-b67b-46e2-aede-6f83b0192cfe" CreationDate="2016-03-01T12:58:44.520" UserId="152" Text="The following quote by Tacitus (extract from [*Agricola*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/tacitus/tac.agri.shtml#30) ) is very famous, particularly for its catchy second part, but here I'm interested in the first part:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium atque ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appelant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has been translated either by:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Oxford Revised Translation&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Loeb Classical Library edition&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the latter translation, what is the justification for attributing *falsis nominibus* to *empirium* rather than to *rapere*? Shouldn't the pluralization and the case used preclude it from being an attibute of *empirium*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1265" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="f4044cce-b67b-46e2-aede-6f83b0192cfe" CreationDate="2016-03-01T12:58:44.520" UserId="152" Text="'auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium [...] appelant': justification for translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1266" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="f4044cce-b67b-46e2-aede-6f83b0192cfe" CreationDate="2016-03-01T12:58:44.520" UserId="152" Text="|classical-latin|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="356" RevisionGUID="8e809dab-15c6-4011-9789-eea5679621c1" CreationDate="2016-03-01T13:06:10.150" UserId="79" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="For questions about consecutio temporum, the dependence of the tense of a conjunctive subordinate clause on the main clause." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1268" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="356" RevisionGUID="8e809dab-15c6-4011-9789-eea5679621c1" CreationDate="2016-03-01T13:06:10.150" Comment="Proposed by 79 approved by 68, 78 edit id of 80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="a7171d5f-155e-444a-9bed-910d906b85b6" CreationDate="2016-03-01T13:06:26.660" UserId="152" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The following quote by Tacitus (extract from [*Agricola*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/tacitus/tac.agri.shtml#30) ) is very famous, particularly for its catchy second part, but here I'm interested in the first part:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium atque ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appelant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has been translated either by:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Oxford Revised Translation&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Loeb Classical Library edition&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the latter translation, what is the justification for attributing *falsis nominibus* to *empirium* rather than to *rapere*? Shouldn't the pluralization and the case used preclude it from being an attribute of *empirium*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="358" RevisionGUID="73c507c9-d250-497f-8cc0-07f3cb82f9fa" CreationDate="2016-03-01T13:19:10.257" UserId="79" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="Subordinate clauses are clauses controlled by another clause in the same sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1271" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="358" RevisionGUID="73c507c9-d250-497f-8cc0-07f3cb82f9fa" CreationDate="2016-03-01T13:19:10.257" Comment="Proposed by 79 approved by 78, 12 edit id of 81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="361" RevisionGUID="041b3064-a705-424e-bfc6-4599e901a089" CreationDate="2016-03-01T13:25:08.680" UserId="78" Text="Grammatically, it is possible that Tacitus' condensed style can be punctuated and expanded to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Auferre [et] trucidare [et] rapere—falsis nominibus imperium [haec facta sunt] atque ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To destroy, to slaughter, to pillage—under false names [=pretenses] they call [these things] empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the tricolon is imbalanced if *falsis nominibus* is added to *rapere*, which, although is done frequently enough by Classical writers, is also *not* done, and so the translator may be thinking in that direction. There is in fact power to a concise tricolon, even if history fully endorses both ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *rapere* doesn't really mean usurp—that's a metaphorical definition from its primary meaning of &quot;to snatch&quot;—so I'd wager the translator thought that &quot;to snatch under false names&quot; just doesn't make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, even in English we have the phrase, &quot;to rape, pillage, and plunder/burn&quot; (although nowadays I often just see &quot;to rape and pillage&quot; instead)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="11625550-dc17-4226-89e3-ccfcfc8c1830" CreationDate="2016-03-01T13:25:43.980" UserId="78" Comment="fixed spelling errors" Text="The following quote by Tacitus (extract from [*Agricola*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/tacitus/tac.agri.shtml#30) ) is very famous, particularly for its catchy second part, but here I'm interested in the first part:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium atque ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has been translated either by:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Oxford Revised Translation&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Loeb Classical Library edition&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the latter translation, what is the justification for attributing *falsis nominibus* to *imperium* rather than to *rapere*? Shouldn't the pluralization and the case used preclude it from being an attribute of *imperium*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="352" RevisionGUID="bfb9cf44-047c-495b-be16-193652b91b53" CreationDate="2016-03-01T14:23:42.143" UserId="79" Comment="added 244 characters in body" Text="When a clause is subordinate to a nominal form of a verb (anything that does not have a grammatical person), the conjunctive predicate of the subordinate clause follows the predicate verb of its main clause, not the nominal form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: *Me adiit mirans, cur Graeci sic loquerent.* (Here *loqui* follows *adire*, not *mirare*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, however, an exception:&#xD;&#xA;If the clause is subordinate to a perfect infinitive, then the main clause is considered to be past tense from the point of view of *consecutio temporum* &amp;mdash; no matter what the predicate verb of the main clause does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example in the question falls in this exceptional category, the correct choice is the second one: *Puto te scivisse quid esset nomen meum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exception only concerns the perfect infinitive, so this would also be grammatical (although it expresses a different thing): *Putabam te scire quid esset nomen meum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer is based on [Ars Grammatica](http://www.gaudeamuskirja.fi/tuomo-pekkanen-ars-grammatica/) by Tuomo Pekkanen (in Finnish).&#xD;&#xA;If anyone can find other sources that are easier to find and read for the majority of users, let me know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="362" RevisionGUID="8e977eaf-53a2-45ed-925c-ce9d0db64fba" CreationDate="2016-03-01T16:32:42.093" UserId="12" Text="I was thrown off by a [recent question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/349/12) that talked about the &quot;conjunctive&quot; mood, which I had never heard of.  A few searches of [William Whitaker's Words](http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?english=subjunctive) reveals that both *coniunctivus* (or *conjunctivus*) and *subiunctivus* (or *subjunctivus*) are Latin translations for the English &quot;subjunctive.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference between these two Latin words?  I'd like to understand if there is a basis for preference for one or the other.  So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is there a difference in meaning?  Is one more specific than the other, perhaps more often used to identify a particular subset of usages of the subjunctive?&#xD;&#xA;- Are both attested in Classical Latin?  If so, which is more commonly used?  If not, which is older?&#xD;&#xA;- Did the terms originally refer to two different things that ultimately merged into the now unified subjunctive mood?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1277" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="362" RevisionGUID="8e977eaf-53a2-45ed-925c-ce9d0db64fba" CreationDate="2016-03-01T16:32:42.093" UserId="12" Text="What's the difference between coniunctivus and subiunctivus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1278" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="362" RevisionGUID="8e977eaf-53a2-45ed-925c-ce9d0db64fba" CreationDate="2016-03-01T16:32:42.093" UserId="12" Text="|nuance|conjunctive|terminology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="354" RevisionGUID="3e1db8e3-0459-47b8-aac5-6cac87be0448" CreationDate="2016-03-01T17:31:27.113" UserId="79" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="For questions about the accusativus cum infinitivo structure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1280" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="354" RevisionGUID="3e1db8e3-0459-47b8-aac5-6cac87be0448" CreationDate="2016-03-01T17:31:27.113" Comment="Proposed by 79 approved by 12, 68 edit id of 79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="363" RevisionGUID="10f8d873-c511-499f-8ab9-2576f82ab15b" CreationDate="2016-03-01T17:44:03.910" UserId="68" Text="Hmm. My understanding is that the bare subjunctive as a positive request/command is actually rather rare in classical Latin. Woodcock's *New Latin Syntax*, p. 97, after a discussion of *noli, nolite* + infinitive as *more* polite than *ne* + perfect subjunctive, tells us:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Besides *noli, nolite* with the infinitive, the following periphrases also are frequently employed for the sake of politeness: (i) For positive commands, *fac, facite*, with a quasi-subordinate subjunctive: *Fac mihi scribas; facite mihi scribatis,* &quot;See that you write to me.&quot; The subordinating conjunction *ut* is usually omitted. Similarly *vide*, &quot;see that . . .&quot;, and *velim*, &quot;I should like . . .&quot; are used with the subjunctive: Plaut *Asin* 755 *scribas vide plane et probe*, &quot;see that you write clearly and properly&quot;; Cic. *Fam*. 9, 12, 2 *tu velim animo forti sis*, &quot;I should like you to be of brave heart.&quot; (ii) For negative commands *fac ne . . ., facite ne . . .*, and *vide ne . . .* are used. Rather more frequent are *cave* (sometimes *caveto*) and *cavete* with, or more often without, *ne*: Plaut. *Most.* 324 *cave ne cadas*, &quot;mind you don't fall&quot;; Cic. *Att.* 3, 17, 3 *cave vereare*, &quot;mind you don't fear.&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="352" RevisionGUID="89e4c08e-4bbe-4b0f-bd5c-274194d7769b" CreationDate="2016-03-01T18:49:05.850" UserId="79" Comment="added 1284 characters in body" Text="When a clause is subordinate to a nominal form of a verb (anything that does not have a grammatical person), the conjunctive predicate of the subordinate clause follows the predicate verb of its main clause, not the nominal form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: *Me adiit mirans, cur Graeci sic loquerent.* (Here *loqui* follows *adire*, not *mirari*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, however, an exception:&#xD;&#xA;If the clause is subordinate to a perfect infinitive, then the main clause is considered to be past tense from the point of view of *consecutio temporum* &amp;mdash; no matter what the predicate verb of the main clause does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example in the question falls in this exceptional category, the correct choice is the second one: *Puto te scivisse quid esset nomen meum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exception only concerns the perfect infinitive, so this would also be grammatical (although it expresses a different thing): *Putabam te scire quid esset nomen meum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule covers all clauses subordinate to a nominal form, be it ACI or something else.&#xD;&#xA;I understand this to include participles as well, as long as they are not part of a passive personal expression.&#xD;&#xA;(That is, this would be wrong because the participle forms a personal form with *esse*: *Miratus sum, cur ita sit*. Although *sum* is present tense, the whole verb is really *miratus sum* and has past tense. Therefore we should have *esset*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would say, for example: *Caesare mirato, ubi sint milites, narrabimus ei de bello*.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;After Caesar has wondered where the soldiers are, we will tell him about the war.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Since the nominal form is not a perfect infinitive and the predicate of the main clause is in the future tense, the subordinate predicate is *sint*, not *essent*.&#xD;&#xA;This example is artificial, and I would like to see a classical example to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer is based on [Ars Grammatica](http://www.gaudeamuskirja.fi/tuomo-pekkanen-ars-grammatica/) by Tuomo Pekkanen (in Finnish).&#xD;&#xA;If anyone can find other sources that are easier to find and read for the majority of users, let me know.&#xD;&#xA;The book gives these examples which turn out to be from Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Cato] mirari se aiebat, quod non rideret haruspex, haruspicem cum vidisset. ([De divinatione II.51](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/divinatione2.shtml#51))&#xD;&#xA;- Satis mihi multa verba fecisse videor, qua re esset hoc bellum (&amp;hellip;) necessarium. ([De imperio Cn. Pompei](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/imp.shtml#27))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="364" RevisionGUID="6d91eb59-32c0-475f-a36a-185d6aa1d55d" CreationDate="2016-03-01T18:52:23.697" UserId="40" Text="*Quisquis* and *quicumque* are both described as indefinite (or generic) relative pronouns, and are both defined in dictionaries as &quot;whoever, everyone who...&quot;. Is there any difference at all between the two pronouns -- functionally, or in terms of idiom or period?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1285" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="364" RevisionGUID="6d91eb59-32c0-475f-a36a-185d6aa1d55d" CreationDate="2016-03-01T18:52:23.697" UserId="40" Text="What's the difference between *quisquis* and *quicumque*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1286" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="364" RevisionGUID="6d91eb59-32c0-475f-a36a-185d6aa1d55d" CreationDate="2016-03-01T18:52:23.697" UserId="40" Text="|pronouns|idiom|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="365" RevisionGUID="b200e220-e7d6-4f0f-a242-2c5e649bbe28" CreationDate="2016-03-01T18:56:13.573" UserId="223" Text="There's no „classical Latin“ when it comes to grammar, as Latin grammarians flourished during Late antiquity. The most famous of them all (and synonymous with „grammar“ through the Middle Ages), Aelius Donatus, wrote his Ars Maior and Ars Minor during 4th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Donati Ars minor, de verbo][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; modi qui sunt? indicatiuus, | ut lego; imperatiuus, ut lege; optatiuus, ut utinam legerem; **coniunctiuus**, ut cum legam; | infinitiuus, ut legere; inpersonalis, ut legitur.&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt;..&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; optatiuo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito inperfecto utinam legerem legeres | legeret, et pluraliter utinam legeremus legeretis legerent&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt;..&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; coniunctiuo modo tempore praesenti cum legam legas legat, et pluraliter cum legamus legatis legant; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Prisciani Institutiones, liber VIII de verbo][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; de modis |modi sunt diuersae inclinationes animi, uarios eius affectus |demonstrantes. sunt autem quinque: indicatiuus siue definitiuus, imperatiuus, |optatiuus, **subiunctiuus**, infinitus. &#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt;..&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; subiunctiuus uero, quem quidam dubitatiuum |appellauerunt, manifestam habet indicatiui cognitionem. ipsa enim dubitatio |ante se esse indicatiuum confitetur; nam si tollas dubitationem, non opus |est subiunctiuo in re certa, sed indicatiuo. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can see that Prisciani subiunctivus *prima specie* is the same as Donati coniunctivus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Martianus Capella, §310][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Verborum autem modi sunt quinque; sed alii sex, alii septem, alii octo, alii novem, pauci decem esse dixerunt. Qui vero quinque dicunt, hos ajunt: indicativum, imperativum, optativum, **conjunctivum**, infinitivum, quem et perpetuum dicimus. Qui sex memorant, addunt promissivum; qui septem, impersonalem; qui octo, percunctativum; **qui novem, subjectivum** *(= subjunctivum? Diomedes suggerit, vide scholium)***, et a conjunctivo eum separant**; qui decem, hortativum adscribunt; sed hos superflue adjectos ratio non admittit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Diomedis Ars][4] has a parallel passage and settles with subjunctive, which  gets a section of its own:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; nam qui sex |uoluerunt, uario iudicio alii promissiuum, quidam inpersonalem coniungunt; qui |septem, utrumque prioribus adiciunt; qui amplius, percontatiuum |adsumunt; **qui nouem, subiunctiuum a coniunctiuo separant**; qui decem, etiam |adhortatiuum adscribunt. &lt;..&gt; aut enim finitiuus est modus aut imperatiuus aut optatiuus aut |**subiunctiuus** aut infinitiuus.&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **de subiunctiuo modo** |subiunctiuus siue adiunctiuus ideo dictus, quod per se non exprimat |sensum, nisi insuper alius addatur sermo quo superior patefiat. subiungit |enim sibi uel subiungitur necessario alii sermoni hoc modo, cum dixero |audies, cum fecero aspicies, et similia; quod in declinatione finitiua non |desideratur: et nihil differt ab optatiua nisi tempore tantum futuro.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, modus coniunctivus also makes an appearance, even though it is not defined:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; modo coniunctiuo tempore praesenti **cum |amem** ames amet, pluraliter cum amemus ametis ament: eodem modo |tempore praeterito inperfecto specie inchoatiua cum amarem amares |amaret, pluraliter cum amaremus amaretis amarent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the forms seem to be identical for subjunctive and conjunctive (compared to above) and subiunctivus/coniunctivus are used for in successive sentences as complete synonyms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; omnium uerborum quae o littera terminantur coniugatio etiam ab |**optatiuo modo et coniunctiuo** tempore praesenti dumtaxat colligitur. nam |si prima est coniugatio, optatiuum et subiunctiuum in em syllabam |terminatum debet habere, sicut est **utinam amem uel cum amem**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think that a grammarian chooses his preferred term and only in borderline cases separates subjunctive from conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*modus subiunctivus* comes from Greek ὑποτακτικὴ ἔγκλισις. Maybe the term *coniunctivus* is a Roman variation?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://kaali.linguist.jussieu.fr/CGL/text.jsp?topic=de%20uerbo&amp;ref=591,5-595,23%20H&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://kaali.linguist.jussieu.fr/CGL/text.jsp?topic=de%20uerbo&amp;ref=2,369,1-547,14&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/stream/denuptiisphilolo00martuoft#page/312/mode/1up&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://kaali.linguist.jussieu.fr/CGL/text.jsp?topic=de%20uerbo&amp;ref=1,334,1-388,9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="352" RevisionGUID="979ff6c4-1a48-41a3-bbc5-cfa085d2fded" CreationDate="2016-03-01T19:00:51.347" UserId="79" Comment="added 279 characters in body" Text="When a clause is subordinate to a nominal form of a verb (anything that does not have a grammatical person), the conjunctive predicate of the subordinate clause follows the predicate verb of its main clause, not the nominal form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: *Me adiit mirans, cur Graeci sic loquerent.* (Here *loqui* follows *adire*, not *mirari*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, however, an exception:&#xD;&#xA;If the clause is subordinate to a perfect infinitive, then the main clause is considered to be past tense from the point of view of *consecutio temporum* &amp;mdash; no matter what the predicate verb of the main clause does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example in the question falls in this exceptional category, the correct choice is the second one: *Puto te scivisse quid esset nomen meum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exception only concerns the perfect infinitive, so this would also be grammatical (although it expresses a different thing): *Putabam te scire quid esset nomen meum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule covers all clauses subordinate to a nominal form, be it ACI or something else.&#xD;&#xA;I understand this to include participles as well, as long as they are not part of a passive personal expression.&#xD;&#xA;(That is, this would be wrong because the participle forms a personal form with *esse*: *Miratus sum, cur ita sit*. Although *sum* is present tense, the whole verb is really *miratus sum* and has past tense. Therefore we should have *esset*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would say, for example: *Caesare mirato, ubi sint milites, narrabimus ei de bello*.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;After Caesar has wondered where the soldiers are, we will tell him about the war.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Since the nominal form is not a perfect infinitive and the predicate of the main clause is in the future tense, the subordinate predicate is *sint*, not *essent*.&#xD;&#xA;This example is artificial, and I would like to see a classical example to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer is based on [Ars Grammatica](http://www.gaudeamuskirja.fi/tuomo-pekkanen-ars-grammatica/) by Tuomo Pekkanen (in Finnish).&#xD;&#xA;If anyone can find other sources that are easier to find and read for the majority of users, let me know.&#xD;&#xA;The book gives these examples which turn out to be from Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Cato] mirari se aiebat, quod non rideret haruspex, haruspicem cum vidisset. ([De divinatione II.51](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/divinatione2.shtml#51))&#xD;&#xA;- Satis mihi multa verba fecisse videor, qua re esset hoc bellum (&amp;hellip;) necessarium. ([De imperio Cn. Pompei](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/imp.shtml#27))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and it should go without mention that this rule is subject to the usual exceptions to *consecutio temporum*.&#xD;&#xA;In particular, if a perfect tense is semantically present tense (*novisse* or *oblitus*, for example), then it may be regarded as present tense in a main clause." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="365" RevisionGUID="458eaec0-7ee5-4094-a014-f7d7de5936a5" CreationDate="2016-03-01T19:05:46.713" UserId="223" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="There's no „classical Latin“ when it comes to grammar, as Latin grammarians flourished during Late antiquity. The most famous of them all (and synonymous with „grammar“ through the Middle Ages), Aelius Donatus, wrote his Ars Maior and Ars Minor during 4th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Donati Ars minor, de verbo][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; modi qui sunt? indicatiuus, | ut lego; imperatiuus, ut lege; optatiuus, ut utinam legerem; **coniunctiuus**, ut cum legam; | infinitiuus, ut legere; inpersonalis, ut legitur.&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt;..&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; optatiuo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito inperfecto utinam legerem legeres | legeret, et pluraliter utinam legeremus legeretis legerent&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt;..&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; coniunctiuo modo tempore praesenti cum legam legas legat, et pluraliter cum legamus legatis legant; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Prisciani Institutiones, liber VIII de verbo][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; de modis |modi sunt diuersae inclinationes animi, uarios eius affectus |demonstrantes. sunt autem quinque: indicatiuus siue definitiuus, imperatiuus, |optatiuus, **subiunctiuus**, infinitus. &#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt;..&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; subiunctiuus uero, quem quidam dubitatiuum |appellauerunt, manifestam habet indicatiui cognitionem. ipsa enim dubitatio |ante se esse indicatiuum confitetur; nam si tollas dubitationem, non opus |est subiunctiuo in re certa, sed indicatiuo. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can see that Prisciani subiunctivus *prima specie* is the same as Donati coniunctivus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Martianus Capella, §310][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Verborum autem modi sunt quinque; sed alii sex, alii septem, alii octo, alii novem, pauci decem esse dixerunt. Qui vero quinque dicunt, hos ajunt: indicativum, imperativum, optativum, **conjunctivum**, infinitivum, quem et perpetuum dicimus. Qui sex memorant, addunt promissivum; qui septem, impersonalem; qui octo, percunctativum; **qui novem, subjectivum** *(= subjunctivum? Diomedes suggerit, vide scholium)***, et a conjunctivo eum separant**; qui decem, hortativum adscribunt; sed hos superflue adjectos ratio non admittit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Diomedis Ars][4] has a parallel passage and settles with subjunctive, which  gets a section of its own:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; nam qui sex |uoluerunt, uario iudicio alii promissiuum, quidam inpersonalem coniungunt; qui |septem, utrumque prioribus adiciunt; qui amplius, percontatiuum |adsumunt; **qui nouem, subiunctiuum a coniunctiuo separant**; qui decem, etiam |adhortatiuum adscribunt. &lt;..&gt; aut enim finitiuus est modus aut imperatiuus aut optatiuus aut |**subiunctiuus** aut infinitiuus.&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **de subiunctiuo modo** |subiunctiuus siue adiunctiuus ideo dictus, quod per se non exprimat |sensum, nisi insuper alius addatur sermo quo superior patefiat. subiungit |enim sibi uel subiungitur necessario alii sermoni hoc modo, cum dixero |audies, cum fecero aspicies, et similia; quod in declinatione finitiua non |desideratur: et nihil differt ab optatiua nisi tempore tantum futuro.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, modus coniunctivus also makes an appearance, even though it is not defined:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; modo coniunctiuo tempore praesenti **cum |amem** ames amet, pluraliter cum amemus ametis ament: eodem modo |tempore praeterito inperfecto specie inchoatiua cum amarem amares |amaret, pluraliter cum amaremus amaretis amarent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the forms seem to be identical for subjunctive and conjunctive (compared to above) and subiunctivus/coniunctivus are used for in successive sentences as complete synonyms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; omnium uerborum quae o littera terminantur coniugatio etiam ab |**optatiuo modo et coniunctiuo** tempore praesenti dumtaxat colligitur. nam |si prima est coniugatio, optatiuum et subiunctiuum in em syllabam |terminatum debet habere, sicut est **utinam amem uel cum amem**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think that a Roman grammarian chooses his preferred term from the two and only a negligible minority makes a point of separating subjunctive from conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*modus subiunctivus* comes from Greek ὑποτακτικὴ ἔγκλισις. Maybe the term *coniunctivus* is a Roman variation?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://kaali.linguist.jussieu.fr/CGL/text.jsp?topic=de%20uerbo&amp;ref=591,5-595,23%20H&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://kaali.linguist.jussieu.fr/CGL/text.jsp?topic=de%20uerbo&amp;ref=2,369,1-547,14&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/stream/denuptiisphilolo00martuoft#page/312/mode/1up&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://kaali.linguist.jussieu.fr/CGL/text.jsp?topic=de%20uerbo&amp;ref=1,334,1-388,9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="341" RevisionGUID="831ee65a-c2fa-4441-98eb-fc8ed76c75d6" CreationDate="2016-03-01T21:18:39.567" UserId="73" Comment="added 139 characters in body" Text="*Mendicus* was originally just a general term to refer to the poor, but it later took on a more specific meaning, referring to beggars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Michel Mollat's [*The Poor in the Middle Ages: An Essay in Social History*](https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Poor_in_the_Middle_Ages.html?id=_wmy4VOvMIoC), this was one of a number of general terms used to refer to the poor:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; words referring to impecuniosity and destitution in general (egens, egenus, indigens, inops, insufficiens, mendicus, miser)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many more specific words that could fit in the categories under the Poor Law system:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **The impotent poor:** *Infirmus* could be used as a general term for poor health leading to an inability to work, while things like *caecus* (blindness) and *claudus* (lameness) referred to more specific physical defects.&#xD;&#xA; - **The able-bodied poor:** This is one of the toughest categories. *Penuria* refers to simply lacking something, so it could be argued that some uses would refer to the lack of skills needed to work. But it's a stretch.&#xD;&#xA; - **The idle poor:** Terms for these were not originally common, but by the 1300s, some terms originally used generally for begging took on a negative context and were used here. *Mendicus* could have had these connotations.&#xD;&#xA; - **Vagrants or beggars:** See the idle poor with regards to begging. The two categories are fairly closely intertwined, it seems; not much distinction is evident. The poor not deserving of relief were looked upon badly by many. Whether or not they were actually criminals was often insignificant, especially as some started to treat those poor not given relief as criminals regardless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mollat found that there are more specific words used to describe how someone came into poverty. Monks who begged voluntarily were referred to using *paupertus spontanea* (literally, &quot;voluntary poverty&quot;). Women forced into poor living conditions due to childbirth were referred to by *mulier ante et post partum*. Poverty through slavery or captivity was *captivus*, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;I originally found Mollat through a mention in [*The Development Dictionary*](http://shifter-magazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/wolfgang-sachs-the-development-dictionary-n-a-guide-to-knowledge-as-power-2nd-ed-2010-1.pdf) (page 191, footnote 3).&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="345" RevisionGUID="c90c25a4-b807-4b1a-b878-f251acce7cd0" CreationDate="2016-03-01T21:42:53.417" UserId="40" Comment="fixed tense error *venisset* in original form of question; added Q about *quicumque*" Text="What is the most idiomatic way of expressing in Latin a sentence containing an indirect statement, which itself contains an indefinite relative clause?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start with the direct version: consider a sentence like &quot;We will receive whoever comes to us.&quot; Here is a possible Latin version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quisquis ad nos venerit, eum accipiemus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is this *quisquis* ... *eum* construction the most idiomatic way of saying this?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is the future perfect *venerit* the most likely choice of mood and tense, or might one prefer *veniet* or *veniat*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an indirect statement, e.g. &quot;He thinks that we will receive whoever comes to us&quot;, it seems to me that this would  become:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Putat nos, quisquis ad nos venerit, eum accepturos esse.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...where *venerit* is now perfect subjunctive rather than future perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct and idiomatic Latin? Would some other construction be better, e.g. with *quicumque*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="280" RevisionGUID="f2d42b85-83f5-45b0-9338-eb60cea95b7a" CreationDate="2016-03-01T22:40:46.410" UserId="12" Comment="clean up and a more distinctive title" Text="In Latin we have the *ablative* case. Its common uses can be described as *instrumental* and *locative* (*ablativus loci*). But in Slavonic languages we have a distinct locative case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did the instrumental and locative merge into one case in Latin, or did the Slavonic language invent the separate cases? When did this happen? Why don't we have a distinct locative case in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1295" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="280" RevisionGUID="f2d42b85-83f5-45b0-9338-eb60cea95b7a" CreationDate="2016-03-01T22:40:46.410" UserId="12" Comment="clean up and a more distinctive title" Text="Why does the ablative case also include the locative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1296" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="280" RevisionGUID="f2d42b85-83f5-45b0-9338-eb60cea95b7a" CreationDate="2016-03-01T22:40:46.410" UserId="12" Comment="clean up and a more distinctive title" Text="|language-evolution|locative|ablative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="113" RevisionGUID="257abbb9-c813-4566-b025-f8a9d551739b" CreationDate="2016-03-02T01:02:28.173" UserId="118" Comment="Fixed typo, Donatus's century" Text="_Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata_ (LLPSI), &quot;The Latin Language Illustrated By Itself&quot;, by Hans Henning Ørberg, is a set of two books that teach Latin through the contextual or &quot;natural&quot; method, entirely in Latin without using the student's native language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first book, _Familia Romana,_ consists mainly of stories about a fictitious family in the Roman Empire around A.D. 150. The stories exploit common clichés to make it easy to infer the meaning of new words from context. At the end of each chapter there are brief explanations of Latin grammar, written in Latin, along with exercises. The final two chapters are a dinner party in which the guests recite famous Roman poetry, serving as introduction to poetic meters, and excerpts from Donatus's 4th-century book on grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second book, _Roma Aeterna,_ consists mainly of excerpts from classical authors such as Livy, Vergil, and Cicero, sometimes slightly rewritten to use simpler grammar or less-sophisticated vocabulary, or converted from verse to prose. By the end of the book, the student is reading full, unedited classical Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1298" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="113" RevisionGUID="257abbb9-c813-4566-b025-f8a9d551739b" CreationDate="2016-03-02T01:02:28.173" Comment="Proposed by 118 approved by 68, 71 edit id of 82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="366" RevisionGUID="7ed9a721-23f7-4d0b-a298-16a5fa1d5831" CreationDate="2016-03-02T02:48:46.890" UserId="78" Text="First things first, the *eum* in your sentence is unnecessary. In fact, using it places emphasis on the person you would be receiving:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever comes to us, *him* we will receive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The feeling that this gives off is that there is a question about whom you will receive, and so the answer is &quot;whoever comes to us.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, grammatically your sentence is a future more vivid, except that it uses the future perfect, which emphasizes the protasis. How exactly the Latin sentence would be constructed depends on why you're saying it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisquis ad nos veniat accipiamus. // Whoever should come, we would accept them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I.e. It is our policy that we receive anyone who comes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisquis ad nos veniet accipiemus. // Whoever comes to us, we will accept them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I.e. Someone is definitely coming, and whoever it is, we will accept them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisquis ad nos venierit accipiemus. // Whoever comes to us, we will accept them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I.e. I swear someone is coming, and when they do, we will accept them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the emphasis in that last one, just compare Mercury's line in Plautus' *Amphitryo* l. 307:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (original Latin) Quisquis homo huc profecto venerit, pugnos edet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (H. T. Riley's translation) Beyond a doubt, whatever person comes this way, he shall eat my fists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, there is no &quot;beyond a doubt&quot; in the Latin; yet it's accurate because that's the force of the future perfect here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In indirect discourse with a primary verb, Woodcock in his *A New Latin Syntax* lays out the changes nicely. I'll rewrite the sentences to fit yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisquis ad nos veniat accipiamus. → Dicit quisquis ad nos veniat accepturos esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisquis ad nos veniet accipiemus. → Dicit quisquis ad nos veniat accepturos esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the distinction between the two completely disappear in indirect discourse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your original example, Woodcock summarizes it nicely: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The future-perfect indicative is represented by the perfect or by the pluperfect subjunctive, according to the sequence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore we get: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisquis ad nos venierit accipiemus. → Dicit nos quisquis ad nos advenerit accepturos esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N.B. I replaced your *putare* with *dicere* because the choice of verb depends on what exactly you mean by &quot;think&quot;, for which the Romans had many different words that were nigh synonymous, but not exactly so. In this case, *putare*, *censere*, *opinari*, and *credere* are close, but change the meaning ever so slightly. *Dicere* though keeps it fairly neutral." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="367" RevisionGUID="e3bdf462-fcb7-4757-84ec-5a3c21476d9a" CreationDate="2016-03-02T03:05:18.083" UserId="68" Text="I won't be able to top @kmlyvens ' excellent answer, but I'll just point out that there's something standing in the way of your translation from the beginning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quo tendat? ad vitam beatam; Quid hic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can't be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What should I strive for? the happy, blessed life; What's that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;because *vita beata* is feminine, and *hic* is either masculine or an adverb. If he had meant, &quot;what's that?&quot; Linnaeus would have written *quid hæc*, no?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="368" RevisionGUID="39317568-9353-4ca5-aa7e-be1179d8d586" CreationDate="2016-03-02T03:08:48.870" UserId="68" Text="Well, according to Gildersleeve, p. 59, *quisquis* is a noun and *quicumque* is an adjective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quisquis* is occasionally used as an adjective, but not in classical Latin. Occasionally, also, but rarely in Cicero, it is used for *quisque, quidque*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that he says this (while saying nothing in the same vein about *quicumque*) suggests to me that the reverse is *not* true—that, in fact, *quicumque* is used as both an adjective and a noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="366" RevisionGUID="55f946c7-598c-4046-9713-0345e65a6a4c" CreationDate="2016-03-02T03:09:51.563" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="First things first, the *eum* in your sentence is unnecessary. In fact, using it places emphasis on the person you would be receiving:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever comes to us, *him* we will receive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The feeling that this gives off is that there is a question about whom you will receive, and so the answer is &quot;whoever comes to us.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, grammatically your sentence is a future more vivid, except that it uses the future perfect, which emphasizes the protasis. How exactly the Latin sentence would be constructed depends on why you're saying it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisquis ad nos veniat accipiamus. // Whoever should come, we would accept them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I.e. It is our policy that we receive anyone who comes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisquis ad nos veniet accipiemus. // Whoever comes to us, we will accept them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I.e. Someone is definitely coming, and whoever it is, we will accept them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisquis ad nos venerit accipiemus. // Whoever comes to us, we will accept them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I.e. I swear someone is coming, and when they do, we will accept them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the emphasis in that last one, just compare Mercury's line in Plautus' *Amphitryo* l. 307:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (original Latin) Quisquis homo huc profecto venerit, pugnos edet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (H. T. Riley's translation) Beyond a doubt, whatever person comes this way, he shall eat my fists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, there is no &quot;beyond a doubt&quot; in the Latin; yet it's accurate because that's the force of the future perfect here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In indirect discourse with a primary verb, Woodcock in his *A New Latin Syntax* lays out the changes nicely. I'll rewrite the sentences to fit yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisquis ad nos veniat accipiamus. → Dicit quisquis ad nos veniat accepturos esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisquis ad nos veniet accipiemus. → Dicit quisquis ad nos veniat accepturos esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the distinction between the two completely disappear in indirect discourse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your original example, Woodcock summarizes it nicely: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The future-perfect indicative is represented by the perfect or by the pluperfect subjunctive, according to the sequence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore we get: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisquis ad nos venerit accipiemus. → Dicit nos quisquis ad nos advenerit accepturos esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N.B. I replaced your *putare* with *dicere* because the choice of verb depends on what exactly you mean by &quot;think&quot;, for which the Romans had many different words that were nigh synonymous, but not exactly so. In this case, *putare*, *censere*, *opinari*, and *credere* are close, but change the meaning ever so slightly. *Dicere* though keeps it fairly neutral." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="369" RevisionGUID="4d69dfbe-71d3-493a-beec-c42150d50bfc" CreationDate="2016-03-02T03:15:07.030" UserId="68" Text="Lewis Elementary gives the definition of *limito* as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. to enclose within boundaries or limits, to bound  &#xD;&#xA;2. to fix, settle, determine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the definition of *delimito* as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. to mark out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest therefore that *limito* has the sense of establishing the existence and placement of a boundary (&quot;You stay on your side of the back seat of the car and I'll stay on mine, and neither one of us will cross into the other's territory&quot;), whereas *delimito* has the sense of creating a physical representation of that boundary (&quot;Here, I'll put a piece of tape right down the middle of the seat so we can be sure not to cross the boundary&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say therefore that no, *de* in *delimito* is not actually redundant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="366" RevisionGUID="b86fd925-cfe2-4411-b9ef-bd276ec6c688" CreationDate="2016-03-02T03:27:07.533" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 142 characters in body" Text="First things first, the *eum* in your sentence is unnecessary. In fact, using it places emphasis on the person you would be receiving:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever comes to us, *him* we will receive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The feeling that this gives off is that there is a question about whom you will receive, and so the answer is &quot;whoever comes to us.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, grammatically your sentence is a future more vivid, except that it uses the future perfect, which emphasizes the protasis. How exactly the Latin sentence would be constructed depends on why you're saying it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisquis ad nos veniat accipiamus. // Whoever should come, we would accept them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I.e. It is our policy that we receive anyone who comes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisquis ad nos veniet accipiemus. // Whoever comes to us, we will accept them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I.e. Someone is definitely coming, and whoever it is, we will accept them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisquis ad nos venerit accipiemus. // Whoever comes to us, we will accept them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I.e. I swear someone is coming, and when they do, we will accept them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreland and Fleischer (p. 38) explain the use of the future perfect here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; NOTE: Occasionally, when the speaker wishes the implications of the condition to be exceptionally emphatic, the future perfect is used in the protasis instead of the simple future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In indirect discourse with a primary verb, Woodcock in his *A New Latin Syntax* lays out the changes nicely. I'll rewrite the sentences to fit yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisquis ad nos veniat accipiamus. → Dicit quisquis ad nos veniat accepturos esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisquis ad nos veniet accipiemus. → Dicit quisquis ad nos veniat accepturos esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the distinction between the two completely disappear in indirect discourse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your original example, Woodcock summarizes it nicely: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The future-perfect indicative is represented by the perfect or by the pluperfect subjunctive, according to the sequence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore we get: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisquis ad nos venerit accipiemus. → Dicit nos quisquis ad nos advenerit accepturos esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N.B. I replaced your *putare* with *dicere* because the choice of verb depends on what exactly you mean by &quot;think&quot;, for which the Romans had many different words that were nigh synonymous, but not exactly so. In this case, *putare*, *censere*, *opinari*, and *credere* are close, but change the meaning ever so slightly. *Dicere* though keeps it fairly neutral." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="370" RevisionGUID="50f6242c-dc51-48b6-8a9b-47d53e7c6d51" CreationDate="2016-03-02T05:56:32.143" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[ [Etymonline on 'etui (n.)'](http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=etui) : ] 1610s, also *ettuy, etwee* from French *étui*, Old French *estui* (12c.) &quot;case, box, container,&quot; back-formation from      &#xD;&#xA;*estuier* &quot;put in put aside, spare; to keep, shut up, imprison,&quot; which is of uncertain origin.     &#xD;&#xA;Perhaps from Latin *studere* &quot;to be diligent.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%A9tui#Etymology_2) : ] From Old French *estui*, from *estuier* ‎(“keep, hold”), itself possibly    &#xD;&#xA;from Vulgar Latin _*studiāre_, from Latin *studium*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both etymologies hedge with adverbs to communicate their uncertainty about the semantic shift from Latin to Old French, but what might explain the semantic shift? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1306" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="370" RevisionGUID="50f6242c-dc51-48b6-8a9b-47d53e7c6d51" CreationDate="2016-03-02T05:56:32.143" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What underlying semantic notions connect 'studere' to 'to put in, put aside, spare, keep'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1307" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="370" RevisionGUID="50f6242c-dc51-48b6-8a9b-47d53e7c6d51" CreationDate="2016-03-02T05:56:32.143" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|vulgar-latin|french|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="230" RevisionGUID="f538f467-b1d9-4d25-ae4b-963f729d7b9e" CreationDate="2016-03-02T06:04:45.800" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="A causative affix is transformative: it changes a (usually intransitive) verb's predicate frame such that the thematic role once performed by the subject is now performed by the object, and the new subject is an agent or cause. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Caesar fugit:* &quot;Caesar flees&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thematic role &quot;person who flees&quot; is performed by the subject *Caesar*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pompeius Caesarem fugat:* &quot;Pompey causes Caesar to flee&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The presumed causative suffix *-a-* turns *fugĕre* &quot;flee&quot; into *fugare* &#xD;&#xA; &quot;cause to flee&quot;; the thematic role &quot;person who flees&quot; is now performed by the object *Caesarem*, and the new subject, *Pompeius*, is a new agent, causing the process of fleeing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Miles stat pro porta:* &quot;the soldier stands before the gate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thematic role &quot;thing that stands&quot; is performed by the subject, *miles*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Caesar militem pro porta statuit:* &quot;Caear places the soldier before the gate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *statuo* is derived from the supine stem of *sto* (*status*); sometimes the suffix that forms the supine stem can be used to make derived verbs causative. *Stare* &quot;stand&quot; is turned into *sta-tu-êre* &quot;cause to stand, place&quot;. The thematic role &quot;thing that stands&quot; is now performed by the object, *militem*, and a new agent is introduced to cause the standing, *Caesar*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *statuĕre* is already causative by itself. The same applies, in a way, to *ponĕre*, which already means something similar to *statuĕre*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I don't see any added 'causativeness' coming from *con-*. It can indicate completion, though. I think this has come up before, in some other question on English.SE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="371" RevisionGUID="1cdcbda4-bc4f-447e-bf80-d60220830f82" CreationDate="2016-03-02T08:04:43.640" UserId="79" Text="Biologists have given scientific names to many species, and these names are in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;A fraction of all named species was also known in ancient Rome (and medieval Europe), and they had a Latin name as well.&#xD;&#xA;By a Latin name I mean a word that would be used to refer to the species in everyday Latin usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If scientific names of species come up in a conversation, I often remark that these should not be referred to as &quot;Latin names&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;They are Latin, yes, but they are not the names for those species in the (non-scientific) Latin language of any era.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic difference is that Latin names have generally one word, whereas the scientific name has two words, one for the genus and one for the species.&#xD;&#xA;A dog in Latin is *canis*, not *Canis lupus*.&#xD;&#xA;The expression *Canis lupus* is silly in Latin (Dog wolf), and so is *Allium porrum* (Garlic leek, the scientific name of leek).&#xD;&#xA;However, in both examples the scientific name contains a proper Latin name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can you give me some examples of species that have a Latin name (was preferably known to ancient Romans) but none of its Latin names (if several) matches neither the genus nor the species name in the scientific name?**&#xD;&#xA;If there are no such species (I would be surprised), which examples would best illustrate the difference between the two kinds of names?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not looking for an exhaustive list but examples, preferably from all possible kingdoms (plants, animals and fungi)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1310" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="371" RevisionGUID="1cdcbda4-bc4f-447e-bf80-d60220830f82" CreationDate="2016-03-02T08:04:43.640" UserId="79" Text="Examples of species whose Latin and scientific names are different" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1311" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="371" RevisionGUID="1cdcbda4-bc4f-447e-bf80-d60220830f82" CreationDate="2016-03-02T08:04:43.640" UserId="79" Text="|example-request|biology|scientific-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="372" RevisionGUID="b775fc42-2f80-4fcf-a556-b067474aeeef" CreationDate="2016-03-02T08:22:01.300" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="373" RevisionGUID="2e1bce9f-0054-4ee6-b231-14dc0469c7db" CreationDate="2016-03-02T08:22:01.300" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="376" RevisionGUID="28e8ba4f-1317-442a-b7a0-e2ae737ae8c8" CreationDate="2016-03-02T12:05:12.727" UserId="68" Text="I'll just add one possible exception to @C. M. Weimer's excellent answer. From &quot;A Note on Subordinate Clauses in Oratio Obliqua,&quot; *The Classical Review*, 1931, E.T. Salmon suggests that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the rule . . . that the future perfect indicative in the protasis of a conditional sentence becomes the perfect subjunctive when transferred to Oratio Obliqua in primary sequence . . . [ought] to be modified. . . . When the principal verb is in either the first or the second person Latin usually prefers to use the indicative mood in the clauses dependent on the Oratio Obliqua.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He then cites a number of examples from Cicero, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nolite arbitrari, o mihi carissimi filii, me, cum a vobis discessero, nusquam aut nullum fore.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; —*De Senectute* XXII, 79&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Spero, si absolutus erit, coniunctiorem illum nobis fore in ratione petitionis.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; —*Pro Marcllo*, II, 5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on. S/he goes on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Very instructive in this respect is *Ad Fam. XI, 28*. . . . On seven occasions he uses the indicative mood in clauses dependent on Oratio Obliqua constructions; on all seven occasions the principal verb is in either the first or the second person. In the same letter, whenever the Oratio Obliqua is introduced by a verb in the third person, the verb in the dependent clause is in the subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, this does nothing to change your example. If Salmon is correct, however—*non arbitrari audeo*—then if your example were&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quandocumque ad illam venero me accipiet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then Oratio Obliqua with the first or second person would be not&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dicis illam quandocumque ad illam venerim me accepturam esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dicis illam quandocumque ad illam venero me accepturam esse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="377" RevisionGUID="6090b6c4-71b0-4ff5-a8b7-166ce76db0c3" CreationDate="2016-03-02T15:53:51.850" UserId="213" Text="Is there any rule explaining why certain second-declension nouns and adjectives with a nominative *-er* ending drop the *e* when declined (e.g. *ager*, *liber*, *pulcher*), and why others keep it (e.g. *puer*, *socer*, *līber*)? ([A fuller list of these nouns][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That it has to do with a phonetic pattern seems to be contradicted by phonetically similar words falling in either category, e.g. *adulter, adulterī* vs. *culter, cultrī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/Declension2.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1318" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="377" RevisionGUID="6090b6c4-71b0-4ff5-a8b7-166ce76db0c3" CreationDate="2016-03-02T15:53:51.850" UserId="213" Text="Why do some &quot;-er&quot; adjectives and nouns drop the &quot;e&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1319" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="377" RevisionGUID="6090b6c4-71b0-4ff5-a8b7-166ce76db0c3" CreationDate="2016-03-02T15:53:51.850" UserId="213" Text="|declension|phonetics|adjective|morphology|nouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1320" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="377" RevisionGUID="642e6dbd-334a-4fe2-addd-5e29f7f945d5" CreationDate="2016-03-02T16:23:56.487" UserId="78" Comment="edited title" Text="Why do some 2nd decl. &quot;-er&quot; adjectives and nouns drop the &quot;e&quot; in the stem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="378" RevisionGUID="2fd8e3aa-3b98-4778-b136-7863cae78123" CreationDate="2016-03-02T16:42:06.517" UserId="12" Text="The prefix *de-* does not necessarily mean &quot;away.&quot;  [Etymology online](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=de-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; usually meaning &quot;down, off, away, from among, down from,&quot; **but also &quot;down to the bottom, totally&quot; hence &quot;completely&quot; (intensive or completive)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note in particular the second portion of this.  Thus, a possible explanation is that the *de-* was added to the Latin *fallere* as an intensifier, indicating *complete* deceit or failure.  This doesn't explain why EO glosses *de-* as &quot;away&quot; in its explanation, but it's one way to explain the issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="379" RevisionGUID="e6ca50d5-1ae7-49b9-8d5f-66d59f677bca" CreationDate="2016-03-02T17:18:15.857" UserId="213" Text="Certain nouns, including *agricola*, *athleta*, *pirata*, [and others][1], are classified in textbooks as masculine. But are these always masculine, even when referring to a female, as in &quot;Haec femina est athleta robustus&quot;? Or should it be *athleta perita*, even if we don't have any documented uses of the noun as feminine?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar nouns in modern Romance languages (e.g. *turista*) are used in either gender. Is this true also in Latin, only not as common because of the rarity of female farmers, pirates, and so forth in the ancient Latin world?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_masculine_Latin_nouns_of_the_1st_declension" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1324" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="379" RevisionGUID="e6ca50d5-1ae7-49b9-8d5f-66d59f677bca" CreationDate="2016-03-02T17:18:15.857" UserId="213" Text="Can masculine 1st-decl. nouns be feminine? (e.g. &quot;Nauta perita&quot;?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1325" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="379" RevisionGUID="e6ca50d5-1ae7-49b9-8d5f-66d59f677bca" CreationDate="2016-03-02T17:18:15.857" UserId="213" Text="|gender|declension|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="380" RevisionGUID="e4fc91df-1d6a-43fc-a81b-cbb3683ea98b" CreationDate="2016-03-02T17:18:15.857" UserId="213" Text="According to the conclusion of [one discussion][1], constructions in which these nouns are modified by feminine adjectives, when referring to females, are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not so much avoided as simply not needed ... There is no grammatical reason not to treat these as common gender or epicene nouns. There are adjectives in the same declension class, like *ruricola* and *indigena*, that can modify nouns referring to females. And many nouns like *transfuga*, *conviva*, *auriga*, *athleta* ... are listed as common gender.\*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* (Common gender is indicated by &quot;com.&quot;, &quot;comm.&quot;, or &quot;m. and f.&quot; in Lewis &amp; Short.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forcellini categorizes *ruricola* and *indigena* as &quot;adject. comm. gen.&quot; or &quot;omn. gen.&quot;, but of *advena* [he notes][2],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inde ab origine est gen. masc., deinde saepius tamquam Adjectivum usurpatum fuit fem. gen., immo neutr. ... Hinc est gen. comm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I.e. it was originally a noun like *nauta*, but came to be used more frequently as an adjective of common gender, just as *ruricola* and *indigena*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only documented usage of such a noun modified by a feminine adjective that I could find is &quot;postquam conveni omnes *convivas meas*&quot;, by Sextus Pomponius (2nd century) quoted by the grammarian Charisius (Lewis &amp; Short s.v. *conviva*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other insights are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/female-poet-sailor-farmer.2485910/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lexica.linguax.com/forc.php?searchedLG=advena" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1327" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="377" RevisionGUID="8e95c45c-9ccc-4142-b1b2-683d2bca2589" CreationDate="2016-03-02T17:24:02.937" UserId="213" Comment="some Latin tags" Text="|phonetics|declension|noun|adjective|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="379" RevisionGUID="59eaebeb-4445-4848-9554-c203289062be" CreationDate="2016-03-02T17:32:51.733" UserId="213" Comment="fixed example" Text="Certain nouns, including *agricola*, *athleta*, *pirata*, [and others][1], are classified in textbooks as masculine. But are these always masculine, even when referring to a female, as in &quot;Haec femina est athleta robustus&quot;? Or should it be *athleta robusta*, even if we don't have any documented uses of the noun as feminine?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar nouns in modern Romance languages (e.g. *turista*) are used in either gender. Is this true also in Latin, only not as common because of the rarity of female farmers, pirates, and so forth in the ancient Latin world?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_masculine_Latin_nouns_of_the_1st_declension" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1330" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="38a31474-f301-4b12-9b59-a58fb3c41649" CreationDate="2016-03-02T18:14:19.053" UserId="213" Comment="1" />
  <row Id="1331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="381" RevisionGUID="591a111f-f733-4fe6-930c-5055c6363945" CreationDate="2016-03-02T18:34:24.797" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Preface: [Wiktionnaire](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/si#Fran.C3.A7ais)'s etymology supports U Texas's below, but [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/si#Etymology_8)'s assigns *sī* to a different PIE root: _*só_. I am conjecturing that Wiktionary is incorrect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[[70% down the page](http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/X/P1657.html)] *sī* conj if     &#xD;&#xA;LRC [Linguistics Research Center, University of Texas, Austin]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was reading this page on the PIE root _*se-_ when I noticed the above; why was the 'sī' assigned to the PIE root _*se_ (to Own, Possess)? I cannot see any semantic notions underlying the two.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1332" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="381" RevisionGUID="591a111f-f733-4fe6-930c-5055c6363945" CreationDate="2016-03-02T18:34:24.797" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What underlying semantic notions connect 'sī' to the PIE root *se (to Own, Possess)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1333" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="381" RevisionGUID="591a111f-f733-4fe6-930c-5055c6363945" CreationDate="2016-03-02T18:34:24.797" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|proto-indo-european|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="382" RevisionGUID="13119fa7-01e1-4ef0-afe0-a00c5c9d5d0c" CreationDate="2016-03-02T18:47:44.990" UserId="39" Text="**Type A.** No change, the vowel was present in all forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. sg. pu**e**ros &gt; *pu**e**rs &gt; pu**e**r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gen. sg. pu**e**ri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Type B.** Originally, there was no e in Nom. sg. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. sg. agros &gt; *agrs &gt; ag**e**r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gen. sg. agri" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="379" RevisionGUID="0ae1dc0d-05b2-47f6-a12d-757fcfe3f1a0" CreationDate="2016-03-02T19:09:41.940" UserId="213" Comment="changed example (old one was of common gender)" Text="Certain nouns, including *agricola*, *nauta*, *athleta*, *pirata*, [and others][1], are classified in textbooks as masculine. But are these always masculine, even when referring to a female, as in &quot;Haec femina est nauta peritus&quot;? Or should it be *nauta perita*, even if we don't have any documented uses of the noun as feminine?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar nouns in modern Romance languages (e.g. *turista*) are used in either gender. Is this true also in Latin, only not as common because of the rarity of female farmers, pirates, and so forth in the ancient Latin world?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_masculine_Latin_nouns_of_the_1st_declension" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="383" RevisionGUID="02aab09f-01c8-4306-8cce-4b2a991fff10" CreationDate="2016-03-02T19:10:18.817" UserId="30" Text="The Proto-Indo-European root *\*se-* is generally taken to have been a reflexive pronominal root meaning &quot;self&quot;, i.e. indicating that a word refers to the same thing as some other word (De Vaan 2008, [Philippa e.a. 2003-2009][1]). The root *\*so-* is a different pronominal/demonstrative root that was so far as I know not reflexive. So I would not trust Wiktionary here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin reflexive pronoun *se* is from Proto-Indo-European *\*se-* (De Vaan). I wouldn't trust that page from the University of Texas too much: their &quot;own, possess&quot; seems speculative. Perhaps it was based on Pokorny, but I wouldn't depend on it either way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to De Vaan, Latin *si* and *sic* are from Proto-Indo-European *\*so-*, as expected. I don't think there is any doubt about this. It is related to English *so* and many other reflexes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/zelf1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="384" RevisionGUID="91ab6cc3-4a5d-4837-9692-dbe7638fbef4" CreationDate="2016-03-02T19:11:16.277" UserId="40" Text="Erasmus's letter 1756 (readable in its entirety [here][1]) describes an explosion of gunpowder in a castle at Basel. I'm having trouble understanding a five-word phrase in the letter. This is the passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Vidisses immania fragmenta turris, avium ritu, volitare per aera; quaedam ad ducentos passus deferri, qua dabatur liberum aeris spatium; alia civium domos longo tractu demoliri.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation: &quot;You would have seen huge fragments of the tower, like birds, flying through the air; some of which were carried up to two hundred paces away, *qua dabatur liberum aeris spatium*; others destroyed the houses of citizens over a wide area.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is meant by *qua dabatur liberum aeris spatium*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost16/Erasmus/era_ep21.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1338" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="384" RevisionGUID="91ab6cc3-4a5d-4837-9692-dbe7638fbef4" CreationDate="2016-03-02T19:11:16.277" UserId="40" Text="&quot;qua dabatur liberum aeris spatium&quot; in a letter of Erasmus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1339" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="384" RevisionGUID="91ab6cc3-4a5d-4837-9692-dbe7638fbef4" CreationDate="2016-03-02T19:11:16.277" UserId="40" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="382" RevisionGUID="d8e9003f-3a9e-4f2d-b642-7c4db0e17b2f" CreationDate="2016-03-02T19:14:44.573" UserId="39" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="Genetivus singularis helps us reconstruct the original nom.sg. form (synchronically).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Type A.** No change, the vowel was present in all forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. sg. pu**e**ros &gt; *pu**e**rs &gt; pu**e**r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gen. sg. pu**e**ri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Type B.** Originally, there was no e in Nom. sg. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. sg. agros &gt; *agrs &gt; ag**e**r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gen. sg. agri" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="385" RevisionGUID="89769647-8037-4596-82ed-1e2e7a3bd8dc" CreationDate="2016-03-02T19:21:08.620" UserId="30" Text="I'd translate that literally as &quot;where a free space of air was given&quot;, i.e. where the path of the flying debris was unobstructed (such as by buildings or trees). Where the path of the debris was obstructed, it was not carried so far. *Qua* is an ablative of manner or path, &quot;where(by)&quot;. Liberally translated: &quot;where their trajectory through the air was unobstructed&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="382" RevisionGUID="a0806928-e56d-4d85-b1b5-bce0f9c0819a" CreationDate="2016-03-02T19:23:47.913" UserId="39" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="This is well-known and virtually all good grammars discuss this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Genetivus singularis** helps us reconstruct the original nom.sg. form (*synchronically*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Type A.** No change, the vowel was present in all forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. sg. pu**e**ros &gt; *pu**e**rs &gt; pu**e**r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gen. sg. pu**e**ri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Type B.** Originally, there was no e in Nom. sg. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. sg. agros &gt; *agrs &gt; ag**e**r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gen. sg. agri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Environment:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. consonant + *-ros, e.g. sakros &gt; sacer (cf. ferus);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. vowel + *-ros (in trisyllabic words, short penult), e.g. *vesperos &gt; vesper (cf. sincerus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc. (see Weiss 2009/2011, Chapter 23)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="373" RevisionGUID="ea18a9c1-69c5-4c89-8bca-90e4482081d2" CreationDate="2016-03-02T19:44:28.400" UserId="79" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="For questions related to scientific names of species and other taxonomic uses of Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1344" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="373" RevisionGUID="ea18a9c1-69c5-4c89-8bca-90e4482081d2" CreationDate="2016-03-02T19:44:28.400" Comment="Proposed by 79 approved by 12, 71 edit id of 83" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="386" RevisionGUID="5154ed42-9406-45b4-866d-3da8c78a010e" CreationDate="2016-03-02T20:15:14.617" UserId="49" Text="According to my (German) Latin dictionary ([Stowasser](http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_kleine_Stowasser)), *comperendinō* means *to summon for the third-next day of court (für den drittnächsten Gerichtstag vorladen).* It always struck me as bizarre that a word should have such a specific meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other sources I can find online offer the same or similar meanings involving three or more days of adjournment or similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious about the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is that actually correct?&#xD;&#xA;* If yes, how do we know this?&#xD;&#xA;* If yes, do we have any idea why Latin developed a word for such a specific meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1346" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="386" RevisionGUID="5154ed42-9406-45b4-866d-3da8c78a010e" CreationDate="2016-03-02T20:15:14.617" UserId="49" Text="Does “comperendinare” really mean “to adjourn for three days” (or similar) and if yes, how do we know this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1347" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="386" RevisionGUID="5154ed42-9406-45b4-866d-3da8c78a010e" CreationDate="2016-03-02T20:15:14.617" UserId="49" Text="|etymology|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="387" RevisionGUID="a75d7caa-5f2c-4746-80eb-93877f443f6b" CreationDate="2016-03-02T20:28:03.910" UserId="79" Text="The word *comperendinare* is related to the adverb *perendie* (on the day after tomorrow) and means &quot;to postpone until *perendie*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Starting from a specific word for this day, it does not sound all that weird to have a related verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, the word *cras* (tomorrow) and the related adjective *crastinus* give rise to the verb *procrastinare* (to postpone until tomorrow, to procrastinate).&#xD;&#xA;The question arises, of course, why these verbs were derived in this particular manner, but the analogy is clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Comperendinare* or *comperendinatio* is mainly a legal term.&#xD;&#xA;I cannot explain why adjournment for two days was such an important thing.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps someone else could shed light on the legal side." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="378" RevisionGUID="b17a60e0-ca87-4966-a054-e4cd3ecfd717" CreationDate="2016-03-02T20:47:20.670" UserId="12" Comment="+examples" Text="The prefix *de-* does not necessarily mean &quot;away.&quot;  [Etymology online](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=de-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; usually meaning &quot;down, off, away, from among, down from,&quot; **but also &quot;down to the bottom, totally&quot; hence &quot;completely&quot; (intensive or completive)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note in particular the second portion of this.  Thus, a possible explanation is that the *de-* was added to the Latin *fallere* as an intensifier, indicating *complete* deceit or failure.  This doesn't explain why EO glosses *de-* as &quot;away&quot; in its explanation, but it's one way to explain the etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OED, in its discussion of the *de-* prefix in English, mentions several Latin words that had the prefix *de-* as an intensifier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *deplorare*, to weep as lost&#xD;&#xA; - *despoliare*, to spoil utterly&#xD;&#xA; - *declarare*, to make quite clear" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="382" RevisionGUID="09d1d927-106b-44d5-936b-5ec90577e48b" CreationDate="2016-03-03T00:49:45.710" UserId="39" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="This is well-known and virtually all good grammars discuss this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Genetivus singularis** helps us reconstruct the original nom.sg. form (*synchronically*), that's why we learn nouns in Latin in two forms, nominativus singularis and genetivus singularis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Type A.** No change, the vowel was present in all forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. sg. pu**e**ros &gt; *pu**e**rs &gt; pu**e**r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gen. sg. pu**e**ri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Type B.** Originally, there was no e in Nom. sg. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. sg. agros &gt; *agrs &gt; ag**e**r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gen. sg. agri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Environment:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. consonant + *-ros, e.g. sakros &gt; sacer (cf. ferus);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. vowel + *-ros (in trisyllabic words, short penult), e.g. *vesperos &gt; vesper (cf. sincerus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc. (see Weiss 2009/2011, Chapter 23)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="0c738305-2a8e-448f-aa74-a5f4991c41d8" CreationDate="2016-03-03T01:00:56.910" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="So I'm trying to write a short thing about a jade statuette that my family has had for roughly forever, but when I looked up &quot;jade&quot;, I found... nothing. Well, I found plenty of results, but they were all about a kind of horse, not the mineral, which is what I'm looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So... how do you translate &quot;jade&quot; (as in the rock) into Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for the most concise term there is in an &quot;official&quot; source, or at least common usage. Ideally classical, but if that doesn't exist, any source will do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1355" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="0c738305-2a8e-448f-aa74-a5f4991c41d8" CreationDate="2016-03-03T01:00:56.910" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="What's the translation of &quot;jade&quot; into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1356" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="0c738305-2a8e-448f-aa74-a5f4991c41d8" CreationDate="2016-03-03T01:00:56.910" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|translation|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="661190c1-ef20-464b-932a-14154ede8cf5" CreationDate="2016-03-03T01:10:38.067" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Clarified grammar" Text="So I'm trying to write a short thing about a jade statuette that my family has had for roughly forever, but when I looked up &quot;jade&quot;, I found... nothing. Well, I found plenty of results, but there was nothing about the mineral, which is what I'm looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So... what's the Latin word for &quot;jade&quot; (as in the rock)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I'd prefer an answer from ancient Latin, classical or vulgar, but if that isn't available, I'll take the most concise word there is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1358" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="661190c1-ef20-464b-932a-14154ede8cf5" CreationDate="2016-03-03T01:10:38.067" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Clarified grammar" Text="What's the Latin word for &quot;jade&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="390" RevisionGUID="cf600b97-ea40-4dea-b249-d4627dc1f5b0" CreationDate="2016-03-03T01:21:05.410" UserId="68" Text="Lewis &amp; Short don't have jade but they do have malachite, which nisi fallor is another green semi-precious stone. That's *malachita*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="bfaf8269-e24e-4f49-87e3-d26c93993195" CreationDate="2016-03-03T01:50:03.770" UserId="12" Text="In the study notes for chapter 6 of *Lingua Latina per se Illustrata*, I read about the ablative of agent and the ablative of instrument or means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the passive, as we have seen, the personal agent is expressed by *ab/ā* and the ablative.  When no person is involved, the ablative is used with *ab/ā*, e.g. *Cornēlius equō vehitur; Lȳdia verbīs Mēdē dēlectātur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to indicate that the act of a person (i.e., human) would always take the preposition, while that of a non-person (i.e., non-human) would never take the preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a firm rule?  Or can a non-human be personified, or a human objectified, by switching the construction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1361" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="bfaf8269-e24e-4f49-87e3-d26c93993195" CreationDate="2016-03-03T01:50:03.770" UserId="12" Text="Can the ablative take a non-human agent or a human instrument?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1362" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="bfaf8269-e24e-4f49-87e3-d26c93993195" CreationDate="2016-03-03T01:50:03.770" UserId="12" Text="|classical-latin|ablative|ablativus-instrumenti|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="392" RevisionGUID="e22a665c-9d93-4154-9cbd-89e3c71b8aef" CreationDate="2016-03-03T01:50:03.770" UserId="12" Text="Yes, this is attested in Classical Latin, particularly in the case of the non-human serving as an agent (taking the preposition).  Allen and Greenough, [§405](https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA253):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ablative of the agent is commonest with nouns denoting *persons*, but it occurs also with names of things or qualities when these are conceived as performing an action and so are partly or wholly *personified*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, they provide: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nē virtū ab audāciā vincerētur (Sest. 92), *that valor might not be overborne by audacity.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, Bennet ([§216](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15665/15665-h/15665-h.htm#sect216)) offers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hostēs ā fortūnā dēserēbantur, *the enemy were deserted by Fortune*&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ā canibus laniātus est, *he was torn to pieces by dogs.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gildersleeve, [§401](https://books.google.com/books?id=UU0BIAbE0SIC&amp;pg=PA258), asserts that the substitution is permissible in both directions, that is, that a human can be objectified as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When the Instrument is personified and regarded as an Agent, or the Agent is regarded as an Instrument, the constructions are reversed. [...] So **iacent suīs tēstibus**, C., *Mil.,* 18, 47; *they are cast by their own witnesses;* or, *they are cast, their own men being witnesses.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These grammars provide numerous examples of the personification of a non-human  as the agent in the ablative of agent, in which the preposition *ab/ā* is applied.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples for the objectification of a human person via the ablative of instrument, with no preposition, are apparently less frequent, but the construction is still permissible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="393" RevisionGUID="e2b70225-684b-456e-8a8f-90a2adc0c966" CreationDate="2016-03-03T02:53:17.547" UserId="144" Text="Why is there no future perfect subjunctive verb form in classical latin? I can't think of a time it would be used, but I can think of an English translation: &quot;if *subject* were to have *verb*ed, then *clause*&quot;. I've tried looking it up and I can't seem to find it, so I assume it is non-existent. Why is this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1365" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="393" RevisionGUID="e2b70225-684b-456e-8a8f-90a2adc0c966" CreationDate="2016-03-03T02:53:17.547" UserId="144" Text="Future perfect subjunctive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1366" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="393" RevisionGUID="e2b70225-684b-456e-8a8f-90a2adc0c966" CreationDate="2016-03-03T02:53:17.547" UserId="144" Text="|classical-latin|grammar|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="394" RevisionGUID="cfc40f41-61e0-487c-baaf-abeab69c05bc" CreationDate="2016-03-03T03:19:08.887" UserId="213" Text="*Smaragdus* refers to emeralds or more generally to green stones, and according to Lewis &amp; Short overlaps with Joel Derfner's suggestion of *malachita*. Pliny used many words for green precious stones, including *iaspis*, *topazus*, and others that can be found via an [English-Latin Lewis &amp; Short search][1] for &quot;jasper&quot;, but it seems that all are borrowed from Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latinlexicon.org/search_english.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="395" RevisionGUID="0c29c970-c42c-42a9-8898-7da8a686e6be" CreationDate="2016-03-03T03:41:48.527" UserId="213" Text="Regarding the specific legal proceedings, Ramsay ([p. 145][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Comperandinatio.*—After the passing of the *Lex Servilia* (about B.C. 104), the process in trials *De Repetundis* was altogether peculiar, for at that period *Comperendinatio* was introduced. By this arrangement, all trials *De Repetundis* were divided into two distinct parts, *Actio Prima* and *Actio Secunda*. In the *Actio Prima*, the accuser gave an outline of the case; the defender then replied; and the witnesses were examined The proceedings were now suspended until the next day but one (*tertio die—perendie*, and hence the word *Comperendinatio*), when the *Actio Secunda* took place. When this second hearing was concluded, the Jury gave it verdict of condemnation or acquittal, no option left of saying *Non Liquet*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crimes *de repetundis* are defined thus by Harpers ([s.v. *repetundae*][2]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Repetundae pecuniae* in its widest sense was the term used to designate such sums of money as the socii of the Roman state or individuals claimed to recover from magistratus, judices, or public curatores, which they had improperly taken or received in the *Provinciae* or in the *Urbs Roma*, either in the discharge of their jurisdictio, or in their capacity of judices, or in respect of any other public function. Hence the word *repetundae* came to be used to express the illegal act of officials in extorting or taking money from those subject to them, as in the phrase *repetundarum insimulari*, *damnari*;and *pecuniae* meant not only money, but anything that had value. ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### References&#xD;&#xA;1. William Ramsay. 1859. *An Elementary Manual of Roman Antiquities.*&#xD;&#xA;2. Harry Thurston Peck. 1898. *Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=f8spAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA145&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#repetundae" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="396" RevisionGUID="889507d3-5220-4ff8-988d-5e1f722e567e" CreationDate="2016-03-03T04:10:37.857" UserId="124" Text="As TKR said, there's also no future active subjunctive. Although I don't know of any particular historical reasons for it (probably just another language quirk), I suppose the *future more vivid* construction somewhat accomplishes what a future subjunctive might.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, with the phrase *Sī Marcus Iūliam amāverit, ea eum amābit*, translating to *If Marcus loves Julia, she will love him*, the future more vivid uses a future perfect verb in the protasis and a future verb in the apodosis to express something to the effect of &quot;If Marcus should love Julia (sometime in the future), she would love him,&quot; which has somewhat of a subjunctive-like feel to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="382" RevisionGUID="90fa3fa5-1113-4287-b9f0-326ac80bb21a" CreationDate="2016-03-03T04:12:21.177" UserId="39" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="This is well-known and virtually all good grammars discuss this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Genetivus singularis** helps us reconstruct the original nom.sg. form (*synchronically*), that's why we learn nouns in Latin in two forms, nominativus singularis and genetivus singularis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Type A.** No change, the vowel was present in all forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. sg. pu**e**ros &gt; *pu**e**rs &gt; pu**e**r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gen. sg. pu**e**ri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Type B.** Originally, there was no e in Nom. sg. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. sg. agros &gt; *agrs &gt; ag**e**r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gen. sg. agri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Environment:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. consonant + *-ros, e.g. sakros &gt; sacer (cf. ferus);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. vowel + *-ros (in trisyllabic words, short penult), e.g. *vesperos &gt; vesper (cf. sincerus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc. (see Weiss 2009/2011, Chapter 23; Baldi 2002: 313; Sihler §74.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="382" RevisionGUID="57d0357b-7e54-4716-8a92-e50916a18c98" CreationDate="2016-03-03T04:18:56.357" UserId="39" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="This is well-known and virtually all good grammars discuss this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Genetivus singularis** helps us reconstruct the original nom.sg. form (*synchronically*), that's why we learn nouns in Latin in two forms, nominativus singularis and genetivus singularis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Type A.** No change, the vowel was present in all forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. sg. pu**e**ros &gt; *pu**e**rs &gt; pu**e**r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gen. sg. pu**e**ri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Type B.** Originally, there was no e in Nom. sg. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. sg. agros &gt; *agrs &gt; ag**e**r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gen. sg. agri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Environment:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. consonant + *-ros, e.g. sakros &gt; sacer (cf. ferus);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. vowel + *-ros (in trisyllabic words, short penult), e.g. *vesperos &gt; vesper (cf. sincerus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc. (see Weiss 2009/2011, Chapter 23; Baldi 2002: 313; Meiser 1998, §55.1; Sihler §74.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="392" RevisionGUID="b7ae47ab-56c3-446a-898d-0d0b1ba16e5a" CreationDate="2016-03-03T04:33:58.943" UserId="30" Comment="typo" Text="Yes, this is attested in Classical Latin, particularly in the case of the non-human serving as an agent (taking the preposition).  Allen and Greenough, [§405](https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA253):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ablative of the agent is commonest with nouns denoting *persons*, but it occurs also with names of things or qualities when these are conceived as performing an action and so are partly or wholly *personified*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, they provide: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nē virtūs ab audāciā vincerētur (Sest. 92), *that valor might not be overborne by audacity.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, Bennet ([§216](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15665/15665-h/15665-h.htm#sect216)) offers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hostēs ā fortūnā dēserēbantur, *the enemy were deserted by Fortune*&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ā canibus laniātus est, *he was torn to pieces by dogs.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gildersleeve, [§401](https://books.google.com/books?id=UU0BIAbE0SIC&amp;pg=PA258), asserts that the substitution is permissible in both directions, that is, that a human can be objectified as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When the Instrument is personified and regarded as an Agent, or the Agent is regarded as an Instrument, the constructions are reversed. [...] So **iacent suīs tēstibus**, C., *Mil.,* 18, 47; *they are cast by their own witnesses;* or, *they are cast, their own men being witnesses.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These grammars provide numerous examples of the personification of a non-human  as the agent in the ablative of agent, in which the preposition *ab/ā* is applied.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples for the objectification of a human person via the ablative of instrument, with no preposition, are apparently less frequent, but the construction is still permissible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="382" RevisionGUID="1ffb1bf8-6a98-4049-b458-5dab69ea3f86" CreationDate="2016-03-03T04:36:16.523" UserId="39" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="This is well-known and virtually all good grammars discuss this (as vowel syncope). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Genetivus singularis** helps us reconstruct the original nom.sg. form (*synchronically*), that's why we learn nouns in Latin in two forms, nominativus singularis and genetivus singularis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Type A.** No change, the vowel was present in all forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. sg. pu**e**ros &gt; *pu**e**rs &gt; pu**e**r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gen. sg. pu**e**ri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Type B.** Originally, there was no e in Nom. sg. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. sg. agros &gt; *agrs &gt; ag**e**r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gen. sg. agri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Environment:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. consonant + *-ros, e.g. sakros &gt; sacer (cf. ferus);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. vowel + *-ros (in trisyllabic words, short penult), e.g. *vesperos &gt; vesper (cf. sincerus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc. (see Weiss 2009/2011, Chapter 23; Baldi 2002: 313; Meiser 1998, §55.1; Sihler §74.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="392" RevisionGUID="d0e9b688-9510-4133-bdf4-5d260df905a0" CreationDate="2016-03-03T04:44:33.700" UserId="30" Comment="corrected reference" Text="Yes, this is attested in Classical Latin, particularly in the case of the non-human serving as an agent (taking the preposition).  Allen and Greenough, [§405](https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA253):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ablative of the agent is commonest with nouns denoting *persons*, but it occurs also with names of things or qualities when these are conceived as performing an action and so are partly or wholly *personified*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, they provide: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nē virtūs ab audāciā vincerētur (Sest. 92), *that valor might not be overborne by audacity.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, Bennet ([§216](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15665/15665-h/15665-h.htm#sect216)) offers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hostēs ā fortūnā dēserēbantur, *the enemy were deserted by Fortune*&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ā canibus laniātus est, *he was torn to pieces by dogs.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gildersleeve, [§401](https://books.google.com/books?id=UU0BIAbE0SIC&amp;pg=PA258), asserts that the substitution is permissible in both directions, that is, that a human can be objectified as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When the Instrument is personified and regarded as an Agent, or the Agent is regarded as an Instrument, the constructions are reversed. [...] So **iacent suīs tēstibus**, Cicero, *Pro Milone,* 47; *they are cast by their own witnesses;* or, *they are cast, their own men being witnesses.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These grammars provide numerous examples of the personification of a non-human  as the agent in the ablative of agent, in which the preposition *ab/ā* is applied.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples for the objectification of a human person via the ablative of instrument, with no preposition, are apparently less frequent, but the construction is still permissible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="397" RevisionGUID="e4c4c935-a2d7-4f40-9a78-5273af9a3d6d" CreationDate="2016-03-03T04:48:30.183" UserId="68" Text="It's not just Latin. As far as I'm aware, the only language that has a future subjunctive is Spanish, and it's disappearing there as well. (I don't speak Spanish, so I can't say from personal experience.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;William Harris, in *[Orbis Latinus][1]*, writes that the subjunctive calls forth &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; all the associations that go with unreality, possibility, potentiality, in the English words &quot;may&quot; and &quot;might&quot; and &quot;could be&quot; and &quot; if it were...&quot;. These are in a different world from the world of fact, where things &quot;are&quot;, where &quot;is&quot; can be counted upon to &quot;be&quot;, where facts are facts when you get down to brass tacks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subjunctive mood deals with things that may not actually happen or have happened; since there's no way of knowing whether something will or won't happen in the future, the idea of subjunctivity—of *possibility* rather than certainty—is already inherent in the future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/Alternative_Grammars/Harris_Grammar/Latin-Harris_13.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="398" RevisionGUID="c9451a27-c8ac-4381-a89e-819ffc97897c" CreationDate="2016-03-03T05:26:24.997" UserId="78" Text="Alongside Joel's and Nick's answers, I'd like to call into question your English presumptions. To my ears, there's no different between &quot;were to have&quot; and &quot;had&quot;, i.e. the pluperfect. Consider the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If Marcus were to have been king, he would have killed them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If Marcus had been king, he would have killed them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't see a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future perfect needs actions in the future before other actions in the future. I don't think &quot;were to have been&quot; accomplishes that at all, because *were* is past tense completely. Your sentence is thus a past contrary to fact condition. For completion's sake, for a past contrary to fact condition, you use the pluperfect in both the apodosis and protasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si Marcus regnavisset, illos interfecisset." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1377" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="398" RevisionGUID="3f412f8d-55e4-49b1-a14a-cac1bc0f5532" CreationDate="2016-03-03T05:27:57.253" UserId="78" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1378" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="398" RevisionGUID="94fbd671-cf58-4ddc-a326-ac7a26a617f1" CreationDate="2016-03-03T05:28:30.990" UserId="78" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="43f74277-eb82-440e-b0b7-43fa57e90127" CreationDate="2016-03-03T06:06:05.953" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added note" Text="So I'm trying to write a short thing about a jade statuette that my family has had for roughly forever, but when I looked up &quot;jade&quot;, I found... nothing. Well, I found plenty of results, but there was nothing about the mineral, which is what I'm looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So... what's the Latin word for &quot;jade&quot; (as in the rock)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I'd prefer an answer from ancient Latin, classical or vulgar, but if that isn't available, I'll take the most concise word there is. It also doesn't have to be &quot;pure&quot; Latin – loan words from other languages work just as week, as long as they were used by Romans at some point. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="399" RevisionGUID="69cf633d-5f9d-465f-b7cc-0b6a1168a303" CreationDate="2016-03-03T07:14:12.473" UserId="79" Text="Latin does have something that resembles future and future perfect conjunctive (subjunctive): the periphrastic conjugation in conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;The periphrastic present forms are formed from the present tense forms of *esse* and the future participle (with the gerundive playing the role of a passive future participle).&#xD;&#xA;For the verb *canere*, in indicative we have *canturus/canendus sum/es/est* and in conjunctive *canturus/canendus sim/sis/sit* (and similarly in plural).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The periphrastic present indicative is semantically close to the future indicative, but not quite the same.&#xD;&#xA;In active voice periphrastic forms imply that someone is about to or is planning to do something and in passive it implies that something should be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest thing to future conjunctive is the present tense conjunctive of the periphrastic conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;The future perfect conjunctive is realized via the imperfect conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;These are used in subordinate clauses as required by *consecutio temporum*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Scio, quid canas nunc.* I know what you sing now.&#xD;&#xA;- *Scio, quid cecineris heri.* I know what you sang yesterday.&#xD;&#xA;- *Scio, quid canturus sis cras.* I know what you will sing tomorrow.&#xD;&#xA;- *Sciebam, quid caneres.* I knew what you sang (while I was there).&#xD;&#xA;- *Sciebam, quid cecinisses.* I knew what you had sang.&#xD;&#xA;- *Sciebam, quid canturus esses.* I knew what you were planning to sing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passive periphrastic form cannot be used this way, though.&#xD;&#xA;In a passive subordinate clause future and current events (from the point of view of the main clause) are both indicated as current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Scio, quid canatur nunc.* I know what is being sung now.&#xD;&#xA;- *Scio, quid cantum sit heri.* I know what was sung yesterday.&#xD;&#xA;- *Scio, quid canatur cras.* I know what will be sung tomorrow.&#xD;&#xA;- *Sciebam, quid caneretur.* I knew what was being sung.&#xD;&#xA;- *Sciebam, quid cantum esset.* I knew what had been sung.&#xD;&#xA;- *Sciebam, quid caneretur.* I knew what was going to be sung. (Future should be indicated by adverbs to make it clear.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="400" RevisionGUID="052388eb-cad6-45c8-8566-87baabc4477e" CreationDate="2016-03-03T07:36:51.193" UserId="79" Text="I am a professional mathematician and an avid Latinist, and I would like to be able to read and write mathematics in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I prefer classical style, so I would like to read some ancient mathematical texts in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Writing modern mathematics does require some adjustments, of course, but I would like to have some classical style examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone suggest some ancient mathematical texts?&#xD;&#xA;I was unsuccessful at finding any.&#xD;&#xA;If there are many options, I would prefer something that is considered good style (like Caesar or Cicero in prose).&#xD;&#xA;Ancient translations from Greek or any other language to Latin are fine.&#xD;&#xA;I assume at least some parts of Euclid's [Elements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_Elements) were translated in antiquity, but I could not find Latin translations made before 16th century.&#xD;&#xA;The text need not be an entire book on mathematics, as long as there is a part dedicated to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1382" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="400" RevisionGUID="052388eb-cad6-45c8-8566-87baabc4477e" CreationDate="2016-03-03T07:36:51.193" UserId="79" Text="Where to find ancient mathematics in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1383" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="400" RevisionGUID="052388eb-cad6-45c8-8566-87baabc4477e" CreationDate="2016-03-03T07:36:51.193" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="401" RevisionGUID="642e9e4a-d4ea-42f4-bcc3-00085b1e103d" CreationDate="2016-03-03T08:04:45.587" UserId="152" Text="The french national library has been scanning a lot of material throughout the years, available on their website [Gallica](http://gallica.bnf.fr). Using their advanced search tool we can narrow down to works in latin about Mathematics: [here is a direct link to that query result](http://gallica.bnf.fr/services/engine/search/sru?operation=searchRetrieve&amp;version=1.2&amp;startRecord=0&amp;maximumRecords=50&amp;page=1&amp;exactSearch=false&amp;query=%28dc.language%20all%20%22lat%22%29%20and%20%28dewey%20all%20%225%22%29&amp;filter=sdewey%20all%20%2251%22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly on [archive.org](http://archive.org), by finding the collection on Mathematics and narrowing down to those written in latin one can find the [following material](https://archive.org/details/texts?and[]=subject%3A%22Mathematics%22&amp;sort=-downloads&amp;and[]=languageSorter%3A%22Latin%22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both case however it should be noted that all material is from 1400 to 1900, I didn't see anything older than this unfortunately, so no antic mathematician there. Euler, Descartes, Huygens etc. however all wrote in latin, so one can find their work at both those links. A couple of antic greek mathematician are translated in latin there but the translations are all from the 18th/19th century." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="401" RevisionGUID="3a9e412e-5748-465f-a72e-1f85443940f1" CreationDate="2016-03-03T08:17:48.967" UserId="152" Comment="added 234 characters in body" Text="The french national library has been scanning a lot of material throughout the years, available on their website [Gallica](http://gallica.bnf.fr). Using their advanced search tool we can narrow down to works in latin about Mathematics: [here is a direct link to that query result](http://gallica.bnf.fr/services/engine/search/sru?operation=searchRetrieve&amp;version=1.2&amp;startRecord=0&amp;maximumRecords=50&amp;page=1&amp;exactSearch=false&amp;query=%28dc.language%20all%20%22lat%22%29%20and%20%28dewey%20all%20%225%22%29&amp;filter=sdewey%20all%20%2251%22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly on [archive.org](http://archive.org), by finding the collection on Mathematics and narrowing down to those written in latin one can find the [following material](https://archive.org/details/texts?and[]=subject%3A%22Mathematics%22&amp;sort=-downloads&amp;and[]=languageSorter%3A%22Latin%22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both case however it should be noted that all material is from 1400 to 1900, I didn't see anything older than this unfortunately, so no antic mathematician there. Euler, Descartes, Huygens etc. however all wrote in latin, so one can find their work at both those links. A couple of antic greek mathematician are translated in latin there but the translations are all from the 18th/19th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I also found [this website](http://www.wilbourhall.org/) that contains a lot of antic mathematician works, some of them translated in latin, but, again, those translations (as far as I can see) are all post-15th century." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="402" RevisionGUID="e554e29e-2d72-4e06-b314-1b26515fe363" CreationDate="2016-03-03T09:40:57.323" UserId="118" Text="From my googling so far, it appears that jade did not reach Ancient Rome, and classical Latin has no word for it. Possibly Pliny mentioned it in the _Naturalis Historia,_ but he mentioned a number of green stones and it's not clear that any of them are jade. So, you're going to have to settle for Latin from a later time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally a good first place to look for an established Latin word for something unnamed in Ancient Rome is Vicipædia, but Vicipædia has no article on jade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Isidorus of Seville mentioned it in the 7th-century _Etymologiæ,_ it would be in book XVI, _de lapidibus et metallis._ I haven't checked thoroughly, but Isidorus does not appear to have mentioned jade, though **iaspis** might be a term for a broad category of green stone possibly subsuming jade. However, _iaspis_ is almost certainly better translated &quot;[jasper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasper#Etymology_and_history)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, Marbode's 12th-century _[De Lapidibus](https://books.google.com/books?id=l_JPY4hbg5AC)_ doesn't mention jade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You sure picked a hard stone! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly one of the earliest people to write about jade in Latin was Friar Odoric of Pordenone, who encountered jade on a visit to China in the early 1300s. From [his travels](https://books.google.com/books?id=QRlUd8t0F50C&amp;pg=PA72&amp;dq=odoric+merdacas):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in medio autem palacii est pigna quedam magna &amp; alta passibus prulibus* quam duobus que tota est de quodam lapide preciosso nomine **merdacas**. &amp; est tota auro ligata. &amp; in quolibet ipsius angulo est serpens de auro, qui verberat eos fortissime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempted translation, aided by Berthold Laufer's _[Jade: A Study in Chinese Archaeology and Religion](https://books.google.com/books?id=vqoaAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA318&amp;lpg=PA318&amp;dq=odoric+pordenone+jade&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=IByVG7CJOK&amp;sig=zPqEPqf8z3K0fcw9kfBJhyxwkkw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwifu9_F_6PLAhWHkYMKHWnXBQoQ6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&amp;q=odoric%20pordenone%20jade&amp;f=false)_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the middle of the palace is a big jar two paces high, made entirely of a certain precious stone called &quot;jade&quot;. It's entirely lined with gold. Inside every corner of the jar, there is a dragon of gold, which attacks [them?] most powerfully.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Laufer believes that _merdacas_ is a corruption of the Mongolian _erdeni kash,_ meaning &quot;precious jade&quot;. I didn't find any other uses of _merdacas_ except to tell the story of Odoric's journey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might consider the etymology of _jade._ It comes from the Spanish _piedra de hijada,_ &quot;[stone of the flank](https://books.google.com/books?id=rjQMAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA383&amp;lpg=PA383)&quot;, so named because native Americans told the Spaniards that jade is useful for curing diseases related to the kidneys. Rewinding this back to Latin, you get **petra iliata**, though _iliata_ is unattested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The _[Latinitas Recens](http://latinlexicon.org/latinitas_recens_latine.php)_ offers **petra nephritica**, using the Greek word for kidney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt;I can't tell what _prulibus_ means. It might be a misspelling of _prolibus_ or _pluribus._&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="403" RevisionGUID="a6356d77-6b1a-4f7c-acf8-a8aa5a0037be" CreationDate="2016-03-03T10:17:20.640" UserId="118" Text="The [first sentence](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/347/118) of the introduction to the _Systema Naturæ_ by Linnaeus is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homo **mundi** intraturus theatrum quæritur Quis fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you tell what noun goes with **mundi**? Grammatically, two interpretations come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A man of the world about to enter a theater is asked who he is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Man about to enter the theater of the world is asked who he is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In context, the second interpretation seems clearly superior. Must you rely on sense to determine the &quot;object&quot; of a genitive, or are there grammatical clues?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put that another way, would you write the Latin any differently if you wanted the first interpretation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1389" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="403" RevisionGUID="a6356d77-6b1a-4f7c-acf8-a8aa5a0037be" CreationDate="2016-03-03T10:17:20.640" UserId="118" Text="Ambiguitas casus genetivi?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1390" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="403" RevisionGUID="a6356d77-6b1a-4f7c-acf8-a8aa5a0037be" CreationDate="2016-03-03T10:17:20.640" UserId="118" Text="|syntax|ambiguity|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="404" RevisionGUID="3e0efb0e-b2b5-4b9b-bc3f-69eb74f70aab" CreationDate="2016-03-03T10:33:24.787" UserId="79" Text="The second translation is indeed superior.&#xD;&#xA;This is mostly based on context: *theatrum mundi* makes more sense than *homo mundi*.&#xD;&#xA;Judging by word order alone suggests that *mundi* modifies *homo*, so word order is not enough to convey the difference between your two interpretations.&#xD;&#xA;Grammar allows both interpretations, and grammar alone is not enough to decide which one is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make *mundus* clearly refer to *homo*, it would be safest to use an adjective instead: *homo mundanus*.&#xD;&#xA;This may change the nuance a bit but the reference to *homo* becomes clear from gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you could introduce a relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;The difference between &quot;*homo mundi, qui theatrum intrat, quaeritur*&quot; and &quot;*homo, qui theatrum mundi intrat, quaeritur*&quot; is clear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="051c1791-7b49-4c9c-866b-7bc2968a0a3b" CreationDate="2016-03-03T11:26:25.910" UserId="118" Text="I found the following inscription above a sundial outside the York Minster:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LVCEM DEMONSTRAT VMBRA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems extraordinarily poetic to me, for many reasons. One reason is the reversal of prosaic word order, aligning with the reversal of light's ordinary role as what shows us things, into the thing being shown. Another reason is more of a guess on my part: does **de-** suggest a perspective of looking downward upon something—even in the word **demonstro**? If so, then the sentence reverses light in another way, since normally sunlight is above and shadow is below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been thinking that the primary sense of _de_ is a perspective of &quot;from higher to lower&quot;, as in **de cælo demissus**, **descendo**, etc., and the other senses, such as &quot;about&quot;, &quot;all the way&quot;, and &quot;to destruction&quot;, are extensions of the primary sense—and as often happens, the primary sense usually lingers on in secondary senses. &quot;About&quot;, as in the topic of a book, fits the perspective of looking down from above, where you can &quot;see&quot; the whole of the topic. **Destruere** is to send what has been built back down to the ground; **devolvere** is to roll downhill or delegate authority &quot;downward&quot;; and countless more examples. **Deesse** is to be away from where you're expected, suggesting that **de** takes a steady, upright perspective from which other things are perceived as falling down or straying. Even much later neologisms seem to retain this meaning, like &quot;decadent&quot;, which seems to emphasize falling away from a higher state of culture. I've inferred this somewhat subconsciously from learning words and reading, not from any explicit description, though I just checked [Forcellini](http://linguax.com/lexica/forc.php?searchedLG=de) and he seems to agree that the spatial sense is the primary one. If I'm wrong about this, please let me know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that the spatial sense is primary, then, is it a completely dead metaphor in **demonstro** or does that word still convey some sense of a perspective of looking down from a higher perspective, somehow &quot;coming down&quot;? Are there other pithy or poetic Latin sentences whose punch **de**rives from activating the downward spatial sense of &quot;de&quot; even in a word that seems to have forgotten it? Or to put this yet another way, what does **demonstro** have that **monstro** lacks?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1393" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="051c1791-7b49-4c9c-866b-7bc2968a0a3b" CreationDate="2016-03-03T11:26:25.910" UserId="118" Text="In &quot;demonstro&quot; metaphora &quot;de&quot; tamen vivitne?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1394" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="051c1791-7b49-4c9c-866b-7bc2968a0a3b" CreationDate="2016-03-03T11:26:25.910" UserId="118" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="e8323091-b3de-4d77-9123-ce58530e8b74" CreationDate="2016-03-03T11:37:14.900" UserId="118" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I found the following inscription above a sundial outside the York Minster:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LVCEM DEMONSTRAT VMBRA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems extraordinarily poetic to me, for many reasons. One reason is the reversal of prosaic word order, aligning with the reversal of light's ordinary role as what shows us things, into the thing being shown. Another reason is more of a guess on my part: does **de-** suggest a perspective of looking downward upon something—even in the word **demonstro**? If so, then the sentence reverses light in another way, since normally sunlight is above and shadow is below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been thinking that the primary sense of _de_ is a perspective of &quot;from higher to lower&quot;, as in **de cælo demissus**, **descendo**, etc., and the other senses, such as &quot;about&quot;, &quot;all the way&quot;, and &quot;to destruction&quot;, are extensions of the primary sense—and as often happens, the primary sense tends to linger on in the secondary senses. &quot;About&quot;, as in the topic of a book, fits the perspective of looking down from above, where you can &quot;see&quot; the whole of the topic. **Destruere** is to send what has been built back down to the ground; **devolvere** is to roll downhill or delegate authority &quot;downward&quot;; and countless more examples. **Deesse** is to be away from where you're expected, suggesting that **de** takes a steady, upright perspective from which other things are perceived as falling down or straying. Even much later neologisms seem to retain this meaning, like &quot;decadent&quot;, which seems to emphasize falling away from a higher state of culture. I've inferred this somewhat subconsciously from learning words and reading, not from any explicit description, though I just checked [Forcellini](http://linguax.com/lexica/forc.php?searchedLG=de) and he seems to agree that the spatial sense is the primary one. If I'm wrong about this, please let me know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that the spatial sense is primary, then, is it a completely dead metaphor in **demonstro** or does that word still convey some sense of a perspective of looking down from a higher perspective, somehow &quot;coming down&quot;? Are there other pithy or poetic Latin sentences whose punch **de**rives from activating the downward spatial sense of &quot;de&quot; even in a word that seems to have forgotten it? Or to put this yet another way, what does **demonstro** have that **monstro** lacks?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="406" RevisionGUID="2a927ef2-ff7b-4d25-81b9-0b63cb675047" CreationDate="2016-03-03T12:31:49.337" UserId="68" Text="This is a tricky question: given the paucity of Latin speakers and the all but nonexistence of native Latin speakers today, how does one interpret the present tense in *vivit*? Or, put another way, Augustine might have answered this question &quot;no&quot; where Plautus answered it &quot;yes&quot;—obviously language changes over time, not just in its forms (xxx) but also in its meanings (&quot;disinterested,&quot; for example, used to mean &quot;uninterested&quot; but now means &quot;neutral&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I can add, in line with [Alfonso Traina][1] (unfortunately I have only untitled photocopies of sections of his work, so I can't cite it; the ideas in this answer aren't discussed in what I've seen of his, but they pretty much directly follow from it) that the easiest way to understand Latin verbal prefixes, as I discussed in [this answer][2], is to think of them as analogous to English verbs that contain pronouns (&quot;sit out,&quot; &quot;shut down&quot;) or to German verbs with inseparable prepositional prefixes (oddly, the only one that's occurring to me in the moment is *auferstehen,* &quot;to be resurrected,&quot; but that's what comes of too much Bach).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our case, I'd say that the difference between &quot;monstro&quot; and &quot;demonstro&quot; is roughly analogous to the difference between &quot;show&quot; and &quot;point out.&quot; So one way of thinking about the answer is to ask whether &quot;out&quot; is dead metaphor in &quot;point out&quot;; for me it is, which would suggest that *de* in *demonstro* is as well. However, another way of looking at the question is to say that, at *some* point in the history of English, &quot;out&quot; in &quot;point out&quot; was *not* dead metaphor, which would suggest that at some point in the history of Latin or *PIE *de* in *demonstro* was not dead metaphor either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is that, since it appeals to you as a living metaphor, you think of it as one. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/234/prefixes-in-verbs-that-appear-redundant-or-meaningless-do-they-really-mean-anyt/237#237&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_Traina&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/234/prefixes-in-verbs-that-appear-redundant-or-meaningless-do-they-really-mean-anyt/237#237" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="392" RevisionGUID="899e4d44-c696-41a0-b4e6-422fa817bf16" CreationDate="2016-03-03T13:13:23.077" UserId="12" Comment="clarify that this isn't a direct quote anymore" Text="Yes, this is attested in Classical Latin, particularly in the case of the non-human serving as an agent (taking the preposition).  Allen and Greenough, [§405](https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA253):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ablative of the agent is commonest with nouns denoting *persons*, but it occurs also with names of things or qualities when these are conceived as performing an action and so are partly or wholly *personified*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, they provide: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nē virtūs ab audāciā vincerētur (Sest. 92), *that valor might not be overborne by audacity.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, Bennet ([§216](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15665/15665-h/15665-h.htm#sect216)) offers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hostēs ā fortūnā dēserēbantur, *the enemy were deserted by Fortune*&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ā canibus laniātus est, *he was torn to pieces by dogs.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gildersleeve, [§401](https://books.google.com/books?id=UU0BIAbE0SIC&amp;pg=PA258), asserts that the substitution is permissible in both directions, that is, that a human can be objectified as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When the Instrument is personified and regarded as an Agent, or the Agent is regarded as an Instrument, the constructions are reversed. [...] So **iacent suīs tēstibus**, [Cicero, *Pro Milone,* 47] *they are cast by their own witnesses;* or, *they are cast, their own men being witnesses.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These grammars provide numerous examples of the personification of a non-human  as the agent in the ablative of agent, in which the preposition *ab/ā* is applied.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples for the objectification of a human person via the ablative of instrument, with no preposition, are apparently less frequent, but the construction is still permissible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="8fd17d19-2238-409d-b02f-5a27a92974c5" CreationDate="2016-03-03T13:19:50.373" UserId="12" Comment="typo and clarify rules" Text="In the study notes for chapter 6 of *Lingua Latina per se Illustrata*, I read about the ablative of agent and the ablative of instrument or means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the passive, as we have seen, the personal agent is expressed by *ab/ā* and the ablative.  When no person is involved, the ablative is used with *ab/ā*, e.g. *Cornēlius equō vehitur; Lȳdia verbīs Mēdī dēlectātur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to indicate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The act of a person (i.e., human) → ablative of agent → include preposition&#xD;&#xA; - The act of a non-person (non-human) → ablative of instrument or means → no preposition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these firm rules?  Or can a non-human be personified by including the preposition, or a human objectified by excluding it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="407" RevisionGUID="63c3bc07-476f-43bf-b0ab-3d3196fd8b60" CreationDate="2016-03-03T13:40:54.257" UserId="12" Text="For what it's worth, [Etymology online](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=demonstration&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) glosses the *de-* here as &quot;entirely,&quot; and the OED agrees.  Both, however, make the connection between the spatial sense and the &quot;entirely&quot; sense. Quoting the OED:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I.3 Down to the bottom, completely; hence thoroughly on and on, away; also methodically, formally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the connotation understood by any particular speaker of Latin is much more difficult to prove, but the etymology at least suggests that the spatial sense of *de-* in *demonstro* might have been understood at one time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="408" RevisionGUID="e4e2f173-85d7-431e-81eb-7a6cb72c8dc6" CreationDate="2016-03-03T13:49:15.887" UserId="20" Text="I can't speak to the particulars of any of those dialects, but it seems that historical evidence would indicate that in your hypothetical meeting, everyone would understand each other quite well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It was common for [teachers in medieval universities to move around][1]. Famously, around the time period you ask, [Aquinas][2] taught in Paris even though he was from Italy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You can look at collections of [letters from the Medieval age][3], to get a sense of how people communicated: communication from [England to Germany][4], communication between [the pope and the queen of France][5], and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. We have examples of a number of large gatherings around this time period: the [Medieval councils of the Catholic Church][6]. The participants were from across Western Europe (the latin-speaking world), and I'm not aware of any reference that language was an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_university#Characteristics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://epistolae.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/letters&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://epistolae.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/letter/23742.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://epistolae.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/letter/250.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Ecumenical_Councils#Papal_Councils_during_the_Middle_Ages" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="382" RevisionGUID="21104271-2d19-48eb-9a4a-8177f4cc2df5" CreationDate="2016-03-03T17:10:28.183" UserId="39" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="This is well-known and virtually all good grammars discuss this (as vowel syncope). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Genetivus singularis** helps us reconstruct the original nom.sg. form (*synchronically*), that's why we learn nouns in Latin in two forms, nominativus singularis and genetivus singularis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Type A.** No change, the vowel was present in all forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. sg. pu**e**ros &gt; *pu**e**rs &gt; pu**e**r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gen. sg. pu**e**ri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Type B.** Originally, there was no e in Nom. sg. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. sg. agros &gt; *agrs &gt; ag**e**r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gen. sg. agri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Environment:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. consonant + *-ros, e.g. sakros &gt; sacer (cf. ferus);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. vowel + *-ros (in trisyllabic words, short penult), e.g. *vesperos &gt; vesper (cf. sincerus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details see Weiss 2009/2011, Chapter 23; Baldi 2002: 313; Meiser 1998, §55.1, and Sihler §74.4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="27d2717a-ba69-4b7b-94b2-f7e03053bd46" CreationDate="2016-03-03T17:44:56.833" UserId="12" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="In the study notes for chapter 6 of *Lingua Latina per se Illustrata*, I read about the ablative of agent and the ablative of instrument or means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the passive, as we have seen, the personal agent is expressed by *ab/ā* and the ablative.  When no person is involved, the ablative is used without *ab/ā*, e.g. *Cornēlius equō vehitur; Lȳdia verbīs Mēdī dēlectātur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to indicate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The act of a person (i.e., human) → ablative of agent → include preposition&#xD;&#xA; - The act of a non-person (non-human) → ablative of instrument or means → no preposition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these firm rules?  Or can a non-human be personified by including the preposition, or a human objectified by excluding it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="164" RevisionGUID="ec55ce87-26b9-4451-a60c-e405fc72579c" CreationDate="2016-03-03T19:37:43.210" UserId="12" Comment="+guidance for related tags" Text="The primary eras of Latin, with approximate dates, are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Old](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin) (before 75 BC) [tag:old-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Classical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Latin) (75 BC to AD 300) [tag:classical-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Late](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin) (300–500) [tag:late-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Medieval](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Latin) (500–1400) [tag:medieval-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [New/Modern](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Latin) (1400–1900) [tag:new-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Contemporary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_Latin) (1900–present) [tag:contemporary-latin]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the spoken Latin of the common people until the 6th century, use [tag:vulgar-latin].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For changes in Latin within and especially across eras, use [tag:language-evolution]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1411" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="164" RevisionGUID="ec55ce87-26b9-4451-a60c-e405fc72579c" CreationDate="2016-03-03T19:37:43.210" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 78, 71 edit id of 85" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9" RevisionGUID="df105fd5-fdc2-45ab-aa1a-1c9ad307fdb3" CreationDate="2016-03-03T19:37:47.617" UserId="12" Comment="+guidance for related tags" Text="The primary eras of Latin, with approximate dates, are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Old](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin) (before 75 BC) [tag:old-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Classical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Latin) (75 BC to AD 300) [tag:classical-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Late](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin) (300–500) [tag:late-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Medieval](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Latin) (500–1400) [tag:medieval-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [New/Modern](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Latin) (1400–1900) [tag:new-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Contemporary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_Latin) (1900–present) [tag:contemporary-latin]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the spoken Latin of the common people until the 6th century, use [tag:vulgar-latin].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For changes in Latin within and especially across eras, use [tag:language-evolution]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1413" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9" RevisionGUID="df105fd5-fdc2-45ab-aa1a-1c9ad307fdb3" CreationDate="2016-03-03T19:37:47.617" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 78, 71 edit id of 88" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="226" RevisionGUID="bbb0bde8-11ce-46ff-afe5-43918152d053" CreationDate="2016-03-03T19:37:51.463" UserId="12" Comment="+guidance for related tags" Text="The primary eras of Latin, with approximate dates, are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Old](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin) (before 75 BC) [tag:old-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Classical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Latin) (75 BC to AD 300) [tag:classical-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Late](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin) (300–500) [tag:late-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Medieval](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Latin) (500–1400) [tag:medieval-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [New/Modern](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Latin) (1400–1900) [tag:new-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Contemporary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_Latin) (1900–present) [tag:contemporary-latin]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the spoken Latin of the common people until the 6th century, use [tag:vulgar-latin].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For changes in Latin within and especially across eras, use [tag:language-evolution]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1415" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="226" RevisionGUID="bbb0bde8-11ce-46ff-afe5-43918152d053" CreationDate="2016-03-03T19:37:51.463" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 78, 71 edit id of 87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="d1227e4b-c0f0-46a6-b6a9-92ce0956b007" CreationDate="2016-03-03T19:37:53.947" UserId="12" Comment="+guidance for related tags" Text="The primary eras of Latin, with approximate dates, are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Old](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin) (before 75 BC) [tag:old-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Classical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Latin) (75 BC to AD 300) [tag:classical-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Late](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin) (300–500) [tag:late-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Medieval](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Latin) (500–1400) [tag:medieval-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [New/Modern](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Latin) (1400–1900) [tag:new-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Contemporary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_Latin) (1900–present) [tag:contemporary-latin]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the spoken Latin of the common people until the 6th century, use [tag:vulgar-latin].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For changes in Latin within and especially across eras, use [tag:language-evolution]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1417" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="d1227e4b-c0f0-46a6-b6a9-92ce0956b007" CreationDate="2016-03-03T19:37:53.947" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 78, 71 edit id of 84" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1418" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="224" RevisionGUID="99ccb33e-ff55-4338-b011-b56c64584f6a" CreationDate="2016-03-03T19:37:59.010" UserId="12" Comment="+guidance for related tags" Text="The primary eras of Latin, with approximate dates, are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Old](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin) (before 75 BC) [tag:old-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Classical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Latin) (75 BC to AD 300) [tag:classical-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Late](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin) (300–500) [tag:late-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Medieval](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Latin) (500–1400) [tag:medieval-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [New/Modern](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Latin) (1400–1900) [tag:new-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Contemporary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_Latin) (1900–present) [tag:contemporary-latin]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the spoken Latin of the common people until the 6th century, use [tag:vulgar-latin].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For changes in Latin within and especially across eras, use [tag:language-evolution]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1419" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="224" RevisionGUID="99ccb33e-ff55-4338-b011-b56c64584f6a" CreationDate="2016-03-03T19:37:59.010" Comment="Proposed by 12 approved by 78, 71 edit id of 86" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="409" RevisionGUID="4d052bc6-7847-4c2d-b9cb-9169d8dee84c" CreationDate="2016-03-03T19:51:57.443" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="I'm reading Ovid's Metamorphoses, and there's this sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Delius hunc nuper, **victa serpente superbus**,  &#xD;&#xA;viderat adducto flectentem cornua nervo  &#xD;&#xA;“quid” que “tibi, lascive puer, cum fortibus armis?”  &#xD;&#xA;dixerat: ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;emphasis mine&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase looks to me like an ablative absolute -- noun and participle, both in the ablative, set off from the rest of the sentence -- but the teacher translated it as &quot;arrogant thanks to the victory over the serpent&quot;, which doesn't sound like one. Is this just a colloquial translation, or is it not an ablative absolute?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1422" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="409" RevisionGUID="4d052bc6-7847-4c2d-b9cb-9169d8dee84c" CreationDate="2016-03-03T19:51:57.443" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="Is &quot;victa serpente&quot; an ablative absolute?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1423" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="409" RevisionGUID="4d052bc6-7847-4c2d-b9cb-9169d8dee84c" CreationDate="2016-03-03T19:51:57.443" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|classical-latin|meaning|ablative-absolute|metamorphoses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="406" RevisionGUID="2eeb7f44-b0cc-4bfa-965f-9d26a3680226" CreationDate="2016-03-03T19:55:47.187" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 117 characters in body" Text="This is a tricky question: given the paucity of Latin speakers and the all but nonexistence of native Latin speakers today, how does one interpret the present tense in *vivit*? Or, put another way, Augustine might have answered this question &quot;no&quot; where Plautus answered it &quot;yes&quot;—obviously language changes over time, not just in its forms (3rd person singular English &quot;hath&quot; became &quot;has&quot;) but also in its meanings (&quot;disinterested,&quot; for example, used to mean &quot;uninterested&quot; but now means &quot;neutral&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I can add, in line with [Alfonso Traina][1] (unfortunately I have only untitled photocopies of sections of his work, so I can't cite it; the ideas in this answer aren't discussed in what I've seen of his, but they pretty much directly follow from it) that the easiest way to understand Latin verbal prefixes, as I discussed in http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/234/prefixes-in-verbs-that-appear-redundant-or-meaningless-do-they-really-mean-anyt/237#237, is to think of them as analogous to English verbs that contain pronouns (&quot;sit out,&quot; &quot;shut down&quot;) or to German verbs with inseparable prepositional prefixes (oddly, the only one that's occurring to me in the moment is *auferstehen,* &quot;to be resurrected,&quot; but that's what comes of too much Bach).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our case, I'd say that the difference between &quot;monstro&quot; and &quot;demonstro&quot; is roughly analogous to the difference between &quot;show&quot; and &quot;point out.&quot; So one way of thinking about the answer is to ask whether &quot;out&quot; is dead metaphor in &quot;point out&quot;; for me it is, which would suggest that *de* in *demonstro* is as well. However, another way of looking at the question is to say that, at *some* point in the history of English, &quot;out&quot; in &quot;point out&quot; was *not* dead metaphor, which would suggest that at some point in the history of Latin or *PIE *de* in *demonstro* was not dead metaphor either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is that, since it appeals to you as a living metaphor, you think of it as one. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_Traina" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="410" RevisionGUID="10f792c6-cd99-48dd-81f0-30d537bd36fa" CreationDate="2016-03-03T20:13:12.297" UserId="79" Text="It seems most natural to me to translate that as a causal ablative.&#xD;&#xA;The Delian is arrogant due to the victory over the serpent.&#xD;&#xA;Compare this for example with *dono laetus*, &quot;happy due to the gift&quot;, and notice that *serpens victa* does not only mean &quot;the won serpent&quot; but also &quot;victory over the serpent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Absolute ablative is also possible, but then *victa serpente* modifies the whole clause, not just *superbus*.&#xD;&#xA;It would be more like &quot;After the serpent was slain, he arrogantly&amp;hellip;&quot; which also makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a choice to make in the translation, and possibly there are more options than these two.&#xD;&#xA;I would go with *ablativus causae*, as that is the simplest and most obvious interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;Your teacher's translation also does this; if it was an absolute ablative, I would translate with a different tone than &quot;arrogant thanks to the victory over the serpent&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="410" RevisionGUID="d0f9274b-ad9b-4235-ae4c-c7985ede0938" CreationDate="2016-03-03T20:14:43.760" UserId="79" Comment="added 149 characters in body" Text="It seems most natural to me to translate that as a causal ablative.&#xD;&#xA;The Delian is arrogant due to the victory over the serpent.&#xD;&#xA;Compare this for example with *dono laetus*, &quot;happy due to the gift&quot;, and notice that *serpens victa* does not only mean &quot;the defeated serpent&quot; but also &quot;victory over the serpent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Absolute ablative is also possible, but then *victa serpente* modifies the whole clause, not just *superbus*.&#xD;&#xA;It would be more like &quot;After the serpent was slain, he arrogantly&amp;hellip;&quot; which also makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a choice to make in the translation, and possibly there are more options than these two.&#xD;&#xA;I would go with *ablativus causae*, as that is the simplest and most obvious interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;Your teacher's translation also does this; if it was an absolute ablative, I would translate with a different tone than &quot;arrogant thanks to the victory over the serpent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The absolute ablative is often best translated as a separate (temporal or causal) clause, not an attribute.&#xD;&#xA;The causal ablative is an attribute." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="411" RevisionGUID="acd61d43-ff78-4af6-b062-4f3119f4a850" CreationDate="2016-03-03T20:21:50.293" UserId="39" Text="The following is **my summary** of [Silvia Luraghi 2010][1] article, in the tabular format (obviously, here I summarized those parts that are relevant to your question only). All the examples are hers, including the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She observes that the most frequent function of the [plain] ablative in Latin is an&#xD;&#xA;adverbial used to denote Instrument, Cause, and Area (Quality), which typically occurs with inanimate nouns whereas &quot;[t]he occurrences of prepositional ablative constitute a recessive group, which can be viewed as a subgroup of prepositional phrases.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110215458/9783110215458.19/9783110215458.19.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kr9ni.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="412" RevisionGUID="d210a9ef-16cd-4a3c-9118-b0ca11f5985a" CreationDate="2016-03-03T20:22:56.780" UserId="78" Text="It's possible, but unlikely. First, the closeness of the words suggests a connection between them, and the commas by the editors agreed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More importantly, though, *superbus* governs an ablative. See e.g. Vergil's *Aeneid* 5.268, where the ones who received a gift were &quot;opibus superbi&quot;, or later in 5.478 where Entellus is &quot;tauro superbus&quot;, or in prose with Cicero &quot;superbiorem te pecunia facit&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When used as such, it actually typically has the meaning of &quot;exultant or glorifying (in)&quot; (as noted in the *Oxford Latin Dictionary* under § 1.d). So the above examples would be translated not as &quot;proud&quot; but rather:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; opibus superbi = glorifying in their [new] riches&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tauro superbus = glorifying in his [new] bull&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; superbiorem te pecunia facit = makes you exultant in your wealth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *OLD* furnishes a couple other examples, like Cic. *Agr*. 2.95, &quot;Campani semper superbi bonitate agrorum&quot; (the Campanians always glorify in the goodness of their fields / the Campanians are extremely proud of their good fields).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here, the proper translation is &quot;glorifying in the defeat of the snake&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="411" RevisionGUID="6d8f7000-3e59-420a-a15f-4f9855371d01" CreationDate="2016-03-03T20:32:20.077" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The following is **my summary** of [Silvia Luraghi 2010][1] paper, in the tabular format (obviously, here I summarized those parts that are relevant to your question only). All the examples are hers, including the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She observes that the most frequent function of the [plain] ablative in Latin is an&#xD;&#xA;adverbial used to denote Instrument, Cause, and Area (Quality), which typically occurs with inanimate nouns whereas &quot;[t]he occurrences of prepositional ablative constitute a recessive group, which can be viewed as a subgroup of prepositional phrases.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110215458/9783110215458.19/9783110215458.19.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kr9ni.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="314" RevisionGUID="462c3ba2-2fe4-456e-93c6-47b8588d48b5" CreationDate="2016-03-03T21:08:16.350" UserId="78" Comment="removing the breve marks as unnecessary, though keeping the macron to distinguish the omega" Text="*Urina* is actually a euphemism, although how old is that euphemism is up for debate. The root of *urina* is a variant of the Proto-Indo-European *we-r-*, which [Etymonline](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=urine&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) summarizes nicely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \**ur-* variant of root *we-r- &quot;water, liquid, milk&quot; (cognates: Sanskrit var &quot;water,&quot; Avestan var &quot;rain,&quot; Lithuanian jures &quot;sea,&quot; Old English wær, Old Norse ver &quot;sea,&quot; Old Norse ur &quot;drizzling rain&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the original root had &quot;wet&quot; or &quot;watery&quot; connotations. *urinor* then would mean something akin to &quot;to become wet&quot;, which is an apt description of diving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, the Greek *οὐρέω* (ouréō) and *οὖρον* (oũron) show the same euphemism, but lacks any meaning of &quot;diving&quot; in any of its forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="412" RevisionGUID="08e8a048-7c62-4674-b029-93149c61612a" CreationDate="2016-03-03T22:02:04.337" UserId="78" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="It's possible, but unlikely. First, the closeness of the words suggests a connection between them, and the commas mean the editors agreed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More importantly, though, *superbus* governs an ablative. See e.g. Vergil's *Aeneid* 5.268, where the ones who received a gift were &quot;opibus superbi&quot;, or later in 5.478 where Entellus is &quot;tauro superbus&quot;, or in prose with Cicero &quot;superbiorem te pecunia facit&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When used as such, it actually typically has the meaning of &quot;exultant or glorifying (in)&quot; (as noted in the *Oxford Latin Dictionary* under § 1.d). So the above examples would be translated not as &quot;proud&quot; but rather:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; opibus superbi = glorifying in their [new] riches&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tauro superbus = glorifying in his [new] bull&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; superbiorem te pecunia facit = makes you exultant in your wealth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *OLD* furnishes a couple other examples, like Cic. *Agr*. 2.95, &quot;Campani semper superbi bonitate agrorum&quot; (the Campanians always glorify in the goodness of their fields / the Campanians are extremely proud of their good fields).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here, the proper translation is &quot;glorifying in the defeat of the snake&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="413" RevisionGUID="628093a5-aae3-4c51-96ac-94caa0405c1f" CreationDate="2016-03-03T22:51:10.687" UserId="73" Text="[*Documents in Medieval Latin*](https://books.google.com/books?id=pRLMdAdJKAwC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=isbn:0472085670&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjTn7qy3pbLAhUHfxoKHXs6AQsQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) states that (page 18)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Large numbers of maps, from small areas such as the English counties to world maps, were published from the early 16th century onwards. Many contain descriptions of considerable length in Latin, often in good literary style (they were, of course, published documents, aimed at the educated and wealthy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that Medieval Latin and New Latin were in use during the early part of this period, especially for scholarly applications, but it seems odd that maps would be annotated in Latin. If made for practical use, surely they would be made in the common native tongue of the user(s), so those not fluent in Latin could understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why were many maps annotated in Latin - or am I making a false assumption somewhere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1436" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="413" RevisionGUID="628093a5-aae3-4c51-96ac-94caa0405c1f" CreationDate="2016-03-03T22:51:10.687" UserId="73" Text="Why were some medieval maps made in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1437" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="413" RevisionGUID="628093a5-aae3-4c51-96ac-94caa0405c1f" CreationDate="2016-03-03T22:51:10.687" UserId="73" Text="|medieval-latin|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="412" RevisionGUID="a1de3dfb-8696-4764-80dc-352da8cae013" CreationDate="2016-03-03T22:53:33.180" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="It's possible, but unlikely. First, the closeness of the words suggests a connection between them, and the commas mean the editors agreed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More importantly, though, *superbus* governs an ablative. See e.g. Vergil's *Aeneid* 5.268, where the ones who received a gift were &quot;opibus superbi&quot;, or later in 5.478 where Entellus is &quot;tauro superbus&quot;, or in prose with Cicero &quot;superbiorem te pecunia facit&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When used as such, it actually typically has the meaning of &quot;exultant or glorying (in)&quot; (as noted in the *Oxford Latin Dictionary* under § 1.d). So the above examples would be translated not as &quot;proud&quot; but rather:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; opibus superbi = glorying in their [new] riches&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tauro superbus = glorying in his [new] bull&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; superbiorem te pecunia facit = makes you exultant in your wealth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *OLD* furnishes a couple other examples, like Cic. *Agr*. 2.95, &quot;Campani semper superbi bonitate agrorum&quot; (the Campanians always glorying in the goodness of their fields / the Campanians are extremely proud of their good fields).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here, the proper translation is &quot;glorying in the defeat of the snake&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="414" RevisionGUID="78b91ad1-7317-47e4-883d-abfe11c659d5" CreationDate="2016-03-03T23:04:13.657" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="Let me use an example to clarify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Puer librum legendam habet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very, very literally, this would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The boy has a book going to be read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has the sense of happening in the future and passivity, and acts as a participle (as far as I can tell), but for some reason this isn't the translation. Instead, future passive participles carry a sense of necessity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The boy has a book having to be read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where did that come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1440" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="414" RevisionGUID="78b91ad1-7317-47e4-883d-abfe11c659d5" CreationDate="2016-03-03T23:04:13.657" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="Why does a future passive participle have a sense of necessity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1441" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="414" RevisionGUID="78b91ad1-7317-47e4-883d-abfe11c659d5" CreationDate="2016-03-03T23:04:13.657" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|meaning|language-evolution|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="415" RevisionGUID="512ee72b-b1a0-44f9-b6b3-6fcd83776100" CreationDate="2016-03-03T23:46:24.577" UserId="124" Text="I'm not entirely sure, but it could be that the future passive participle simply originated as a shorthand/alternate translation for the passive periphrastic, which is defined to have a sense of necessity. In your example, *Puer librum legendam habet*, you could just as easily have extended it to *Puer librum quam legendam est habet*, meaning &quot;The boy has a book which has to be read,&quot; and changing it to the passive periphrastic. The future passive participle seems to follow naturally as a shortening of this form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="416" RevisionGUID="11583a6b-2da8-48e3-a71b-1e01f11da1c3" CreationDate="2016-03-04T00:26:35.027" UserId="30" Text="I see now that some people call this a &quot;future passibe participle&quot;, but it is conventionally called a gerundive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be a typo in your example: *legendum* should agree with *librum*. Its most literal translation is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Puer librum legendum habet. — &quot;The boy has a book to read.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, *to* + infinitive can express that something will happen or should happen. Although this English construction and the gerundive have are not related, they both happen to reflect this double modality: probability (*will happen*) and desirability (*should happen*). Necessity can be a kind of desirability (&quot;this room needs to be cleaned&quot;) or a kind of probability (&quot;random DNA mutations are necessary for cancer to develop&quot;). I beg your forgiveness for quoting myself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is a complicated issue, and one that is still not fully understood by linguists, or so I believe. In short: there is a tendency in many languages for words to shift in meaning between *probability* and *desirability*. This tendency is apparently strongest in certain verbs that are used without specifying who the judge is, which includes passive verb forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — [Why do we say “was supposed to” for “should have”?](http://english.stackexchange.com/a/21852/3036)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive always has this double, shifting connotation. In some contexts one kind of modality prevails, in other contexts the other. And with dominant gerundives, such as in gerundive constructions, neither seems to prevail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Floribus capiendis* Eurydice mordetur serpente." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="416" RevisionGUID="0bea4056-7cae-45db-af5c-4b9ffa25c8c9" CreationDate="2016-03-04T00:33:03.653" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="I see now that some people call this a &quot;future passibe participle&quot;, but it is conventionally called a gerundive. So I wouldn't think of &quot;going to be read&quot; at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most literal translation is, as you say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Puer librum legendum habet. — &quot;The boy has a book to read.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, *to* + infinitive can express that something will happen or should happen. Although this English construction and the gerundive have are not related, they both happen to reflect this double modality: probability (*will happen*) and desirability (*should happen*). Necessity can be a kind of desirability (&quot;this room needs to be cleaned&quot;) or a kind of probability (&quot;random DNA mutations are necessary for cancer to develop&quot;). I beg your forgiveness for quoting myself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is a complicated issue, and one that is still not fully understood by linguists, or so I believe. In short: there is a tendency in many languages for words to shift in meaning between *probability* and *desirability*. This tendency is apparently strongest in certain verbs that are used without specifying who the judge is, which includes passive verb forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — [Why do we say “was supposed to” for “should have”?](http://english.stackexchange.com/a/21852/3036)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive always has this double, shifting connotation. In some contexts one kind of modality prevails, in other contexts the other. And with dominant gerundives, such as in gerundive constructions, neither seems to prevail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Floribus capiendis* Eurydice mordetur serpente." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="417" RevisionGUID="51797aff-47b2-413a-b59e-64dedcc035af" CreationDate="2016-03-04T00:33:42.680" UserId="78" Text="Properly it should be the first—*homo* and *intraturus* enclose *mundi*, and therefore the genitive belongs to them. This is a very common way of showing relationships between dependent words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if it is true that Linnaeus meant the latter, then I'd offer that this isn't the best Latin. The ancients would not have placed *mundi*...*theatrum* together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sort of distance is possible in gentive hyperbaton, but from the examples that Devine adduces in his *Latin Word Order* (Oxford, 2006), this one does not seem to fit in. The parallel in English he gives for genitive hyperbaton is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A critique hit the newstands of the Prime Minister's foreign policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Readers easily understand that these are not newstands of foreign policy, but rather that genitive goes with 'critique'. Indeed, in most of his examples, the genitive is separated from what it modifies by a verb (&quot;*contionem* advocat *militum*&quot;, BC 2.32; &quot;*nemo* inclamavit *patronorum*&quot;, De Orat. 1.230). He explains (with the example *sensibus carebit oculorum*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [In genitive hyperbaton] the cofocus is a single pragmatically uniform syntactic constituent. The syntax is massaged to provide for a simple and direct translation into a pragmatically structured meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't always the case, though. Take these four examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tantum* civitati Haeduae *dignitatis* tribuebat (BG 5.7)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; neque...*pacis* umquam apud vos *mentionem* feci (Livy 21.13.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is still no ambiguity here, and despite the hyperbaton, there isn't alternation between elements that go together. The structure is more chiastic here. I'd wager we only see the odd alternation in poetry, or if we see it at all in prose, it's very rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, all in all, the first translation is the more natural way of saying things, the second is the odd one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If* you wanted to force the odd one, simply put *mundi* after *theatrum*. If you wanted to make the first less ambiguous, Joonas' suggestions of an adjective instead of a genitive (which is excellent Latin) or a relative clause are both correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="417" RevisionGUID="6202346e-167d-4f6c-b10f-2e50006c00f6" CreationDate="2016-03-04T00:48:41.380" UserId="78" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Properly it should be the first—*homo* and *intraturus* enclose *mundi*, and therefore the genitive belongs to them. This is a very common way of showing relationships between dependent words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if it is true that Linnaeus meant the latter, then I'd offer that this isn't the best Latin. The ancients would not have placed *mundi*...*theatrum* together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sort of distance is possible in gentive hyperbaton, but from the examples that Devine adduces in his *Latin Word Order* (Oxford, 2006), this one does not seem to fit in. The parallel in English he gives for genitive hyperbaton is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A critique hit the newstands of the Prime Minister's foreign policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Readers easily understand that these are not newstands of foreign policy, but rather that genitive goes with 'critique'. Indeed, in most of his examples, the genitive is separated from what it modifies by a verb (&quot;*contionem* advocat *militum*&quot;, BC 2.32; &quot;*nemo* inclamavit *patronorum*&quot;, De Orat. 1.230). He explains (with the example *sensibus carebit oculorum*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [In genitive hyperbaton] the cofocus is a single pragmatically uniform syntactic constituent. The syntax is massaged to provide for a simple and direct translation into a pragmatically structured meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't always the case, though. Take these four examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tantum* civitati Haeduae *dignitatis* tribuebat (BG 5.7)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; neque...*pacis* umquam apud vos *mentionem* feci (Livy 21.13.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is still no ambiguity here, and despite the hyperbaton, there isn't alternation between elements that go together. The structure is more chiastic here. I'd wager we only see the odd alternation in poetry, or if we see it at all in prose, it's very rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, all in all, the first translation is the more natural way of saying things, the second is the odd one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If* you wanted to force the odd one, simply put *mundi* after *theatrum*. If you wanted to make the first less ambiguous, Joonas' suggestions of an adjective instead of a genitive (which is excellent Latin) or a relative clause are both correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="414" RevisionGUID="4366f49c-e634-47ae-a9a5-7a68b5cbe395" CreationDate="2016-03-04T00:53:22.193" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="typo'd a u as a a" Text="Let me use an example to clarify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Puer librum legendum habet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very, very literally, this would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The boy has a book going to be read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has the sense of happening in the future and passivity, and acts as a participle (as far as I can tell), but for some reason this isn't the translation. Instead, future passive participles carry a sense of necessity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The boy has a book having to be read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where did that come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="417" RevisionGUID="9f52ed0e-993e-4877-9e6e-08d35b61a4e4" CreationDate="2016-03-04T00:53:51.230" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Properly it should be the first—*homo* and *intraturus* enclose *mundi*, and therefore the genitive belongs to them. This is a very common way of showing relationships between dependent words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if it is true that Linnaeus meant the latter, then I'd offer that this isn't the best Latin. The A1B2A2B1 structure doesn't feel like proper Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sort of distance is possible with gentive hyperbaton, but from the examples that Devine adduces in his *Latin Word Order* (Oxford, 2006), this one does not seem to fit in. The parallel in English he gives for genitive hyperbaton is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A critique hit the newstands of the Prime Minister's foreign policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Readers easily understand that these are not newstands of foreign policy, but rather that genitive goes with 'critique'. Indeed, in most of his examples, the genitive is separated from what it modifies by a verb (&quot;*contionem* advocat *militum*&quot;, BC 2.32; &quot;*nemo* inclamavit *patronorum*&quot;, De Orat. 1.230). He explains (with the example *sensibus carebit oculorum*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [In genitive hyperbaton] the cofocus is a single pragmatically uniform syntactic constituent. The syntax is massaged to provide for a simple and direct translation into a pragmatically structured meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't always the case, though. Take these four examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tantum* civitati Haeduae *dignitatis* tribuebat (BG 5.7)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; neque...*pacis* umquam apud vos *mentionem* feci (Livy 21.13.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is still no ambiguity here, and despite the hyperbaton, there isn't alternation between elements that go together. The structure is more chiastic here. I'd wager we only see the odd alternation in poetry, or if we see it at all in prose, it's very rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, all in all, the first translation is the more natural way of saying things, the second is the odd one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If* you wanted to force the odd one, simply put *mundi* after *theatrum*. If you wanted to make the first less ambiguous, Joonas' suggestions of an adjective instead of a genitive (which is excellent Latin) or a relative clause are both correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="416" RevisionGUID="dbe4f1bd-db57-439d-b5ce-56bc3db5253f" CreationDate="2016-03-04T00:58:59.040" UserId="78" Comment="edited body" Text="I see now that some people call this a &quot;future passive participle&quot;, but it is conventionally called a gerundive. So I wouldn't think of &quot;going to be read&quot; at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most literal translation is, as you say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Puer librum legendum habet. — &quot;The boy has a book to read.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, *to* + infinitive can express that something will happen or should happen. Although this English construction and the gerundive have are not related, they both happen to reflect this double modality: probability (*will happen*) and desirability (*should happen*). Necessity can be a kind of desirability (&quot;this room needs to be cleaned&quot;) or a kind of probability (&quot;random DNA mutations are necessary for cancer to develop&quot;). I beg your forgiveness for quoting myself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is a complicated issue, and one that is still not fully understood by linguists, or so I believe. In short: there is a tendency in many languages for words to shift in meaning between *probability* and *desirability*. This tendency is apparently strongest in certain verbs that are used without specifying who the judge is, which includes passive verb forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — [Why do we say “was supposed to” for “should have”?](http://english.stackexchange.com/a/21852/3036)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive always has this double, shifting connotation. In some contexts one kind of modality prevails, in other contexts the other. And with dominant gerundives, such as in gerundive constructions, neither seems to prevail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Floribus capiendis* Eurydice mordetur serpente." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="416" RevisionGUID="d2af3074-cbe1-4f75-a5f1-bdae90a4156e" CreationDate="2016-03-04T01:56:06.753" UserId="30" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="I see now that some people call this a &quot;future passive participle&quot;, but it is conventionally called a gerundive. So I wouldn't think of &quot;going to be read&quot; at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most literal translation is as follows—by most literal I mean the one that works in most situations, especially neutral context, and is the least dependent on context in general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Puer librum legendum habet. — &quot;The boy has a book to read.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, *to* + infinitive can express that something will happen or should happen. Although this English construction and the gerundive have are not related, they both happen to reflect this double modality: probability (*will happen*) and desirability (*should happen*). Necessity can be a kind of desirability (&quot;this room needs to be cleaned&quot;) or a kind of probability (&quot;random DNA mutations are necessary for cancer to develop&quot;). I beg your forgiveness for quoting myself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is a complicated issue, and one that is still not fully understood by linguists, or so I believe. In short: there is a tendency in many languages for words to shift in meaning between *probability* and *desirability*. This tendency is apparently strongest in certain verbs that are used without specifying who the judge is, which includes passive verb forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — [Why do we say “was supposed to” for “should have”?](http://english.stackexchange.com/a/21852/3036)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive always has this double, shifting connotation. In some contexts one kind of modality prevails, in other contexts the other. And with dominant gerundives, such as in gerundive constructions, neither seems to prevail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Floribus capiendis* Eurydice mordetur serpente." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1453" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="403" RevisionGUID="541bafc9-65b3-4a5b-8e47-ab6cad64aae0" CreationDate="2016-03-04T04:32:06.177" UserId="118" Comment="edited title" Text="Ambiguitas casus genitivi?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="418" RevisionGUID="607ea56b-7f84-43da-8cdb-3258b09d7afe" CreationDate="2016-03-04T04:32:06.883" UserId="12" Text="The interrogative pronouns *quis* and *quī* have me rather confused.  I understand that *quis* is generally substantive, while *quī* is generally adjective.  But Allen and Greenough (§148) indicate that quis is &quot;very common as an adjective, especially with words denoting a person,&quot; and then they provide two examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quis diēs fuit? *what day was it?*&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quis homō? *what man?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can tell, only one of those two examples has anything to do with their &quot;especially with words denoting a person&quot; category, which leads me to believe that additional guidance might be available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Broadly speaking, what are the categories in which *quis* is frequently used as an adjective interrogative pronoun?  In such categories, is a distinction in meaning made between *quis* and *quī*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1455" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="418" RevisionGUID="607ea56b-7f84-43da-8cdb-3258b09d7afe" CreationDate="2016-03-04T04:32:06.883" UserId="12" Text="When can *quis* be used as an adjective interrogative pronoun?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1456" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="418" RevisionGUID="607ea56b-7f84-43da-8cdb-3258b09d7afe" CreationDate="2016-03-04T04:32:06.883" UserId="12" Text="|pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="419" RevisionGUID="6c596e24-366b-4512-9a87-722c2346fcc9" CreationDate="2016-03-04T05:51:46.660" UserId="68" Text="In the preface to *Noctes Atticæ*, Gellius writes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nos vero, ut captus noster est, incuriose et inmeditate ac prope etiam subrustice ex ipso loco ac tempore hibernarum vigiliarum Atticas Noctes inscripsimus, tantum ceteris omnibus in ipsius quoque inscriptionis laude cedentes, quantum cessimus in cura et elegantia scriptionis. Sed **ne consilium quidem** in excerpendis notandisque rebus idem mihi, quod plerisque illis, fuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this passage, *né cónsilium quidem* seems not to have the standard *né [noun] quidem* meaning of &quot;not even [noun].&quot; What does this construction mean here? Was this use a) limited to Gellius, b) limited to post-Augustan Latin in general, or c) encountered in classical Latin as well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1458" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="419" RevisionGUID="6c596e24-366b-4512-9a87-722c2346fcc9" CreationDate="2016-03-04T05:51:46.660" UserId="68" Text="&quot;Ne cónsilium quidem&quot; in Noctes Atticæ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1459" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="419" RevisionGUID="6c596e24-366b-4512-9a87-722c2346fcc9" CreationDate="2016-03-04T05:51:46.660" UserId="68" Text="|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1460" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="5aef4a23-9616-4be6-8b56-688c5ec549dc" CreationDate="2016-03-04T05:53:49.493" UserId="78" Comment="edited title" Text="'auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium [...] appellant': justification for translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="419" RevisionGUID="e77ab985-d627-485a-a1d8-444ecb74eb07" CreationDate="2016-03-04T07:56:07.707" UserId="68" Comment="added 189 characters in body; edited title" Text="In the preface to *Noctes Atticæ*, Gellius writes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nos vero, ut captus noster est, incuriose et inmeditate ac prope etiam subrustice ex ipso loco ac tempore hibernarum vigiliarum Atticas Noctes inscripsimus, tantum ceteris omnibus in ipsius quoque inscriptionis laude cedentes, quantum cessimus in cura et elegantia scriptionis. Sed **ne consilium quidem** in excerpendis notandisque rebus idem mihi, quod plerisque illis, fuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this passage, I don't think *né [cónsilium] quidem* is used to mean &quot;not only [consilium]&quot; as it usually is. In context, &quot;but not even my aim in [or perhaps &quot;my reason for&quot;] excerpting and annotating them was the same as most of [those writers']&quot; aim/reason&quot; simply doesn't make any sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does *né . . . quidem* mean in this passage? Was this use a) limited to Gellius, b) limited to post-Augustan Latin in general, or c) encountered in classical Latin as well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1462" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="419" RevisionGUID="e77ab985-d627-485a-a1d8-444ecb74eb07" CreationDate="2016-03-04T07:56:07.707" UserId="68" Comment="added 189 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;Ne . . . quidem&quot; in Noctes Atticæ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="3a27f8ff-cb9f-4cff-a539-c3853444b929" CreationDate="2016-03-04T09:17:59.240" UserId="79" Text="The first verse of the first ode in [the first book of odes by Horatius](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/horace/carm1.shtml) is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Maecenas atavis edite regibus*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You Maecenas, who descend from great-great-great-grandfathers that were kings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who are these *atavi* (lit. great-great-great-grandfathers) Horatius mentions?&#xD;&#xA;Does it mean some specific people or ancestry in general?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Maecenas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Maecenas), the Horatius' patron, came from a wealthy equestrian family, but describing such background as kings (*reges*) sounds tasteless to me &amp;mdash; but it may be that I'm missing a connotation of the word *rex*.&#xD;&#xA;I was unable to track his ancestry to great-great-great-grandparents, and I'm not sure Horatius could either.&#xD;&#xA;Especially since the expression is in plural (*atavis regibus* rather than *atavo rege*), I believe it refers to several ancestors in several generations.&#xD;&#xA;But it is still possible that Horatius has some specific ancestors in mind instead of his family in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know (or have good guesses) what Horatius meant by *atavi reges*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was partially inspired by [this earlier question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/294/79) about generations of grandparents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1464" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="3a27f8ff-cb9f-4cff-a539-c3853444b929" CreationDate="2016-03-04T09:17:59.240" UserId="79" Text="Who are Maecenas' atavi?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1465" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="3a27f8ff-cb9f-4cff-a539-c3853444b929" CreationDate="2016-03-04T09:17:59.240" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|poetry|horatius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="421" RevisionGUID="335aa76d-fb75-4cdd-bc32-e170fd7c5ff6" CreationDate="2016-03-04T09:18:49.200" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="422" RevisionGUID="26ca134b-6295-4d7e-b715-ac1785f8d82b" CreationDate="2016-03-04T09:18:49.200" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="419" RevisionGUID="fc6adaf0-efde-4202-9766-5eaccb884ae8" CreationDate="2016-03-04T11:39:47.073" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="In the preface to *Noctes Atticæ*, Gellius writes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nos vero, ut captus noster est, incuriose et inmeditate ac prope etiam subrustice ex ipso loco ac tempore hibernarum vigiliarum Atticas Noctes inscripsimus, tantum ceteris omnibus in ipsius quoque inscriptionis laude cedentes, quantum cessimus in cura et elegantia scriptionis. Sed **ne consilium quidem** in excerpendis notandisque rebus idem mihi, quod plerisque illis, fuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this passage, I don't think *né [cónsilium] quidem* is used to mean &quot;not even [consilium]&quot; as it usually is. In context, &quot;but not even my aim in [or perhaps &quot;my reason for&quot;] excerpting and annotating them was the same as most of [those writers'] aim/reason&quot; simply doesn't make any sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does *né . . . quidem* mean in this passage? Was this use a) limited to Gellius, b) limited to post-Augustan Latin in general, or c) encountered in classical Latin as well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="0065938f-bf87-40be-8322-5e532503d916" CreationDate="2016-03-04T13:05:27.460" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I found the following inscription above a sundial outside the York Minster:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LVCEM DEMONSTRAT VMBRA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems extraordinarily poetic to me, for many reasons. One reason is the reversal of prosaic word order, aligning with the reversal of light's ordinary role from what shows us things to the thing being shown. Another reason is more of a guess on my part: does **de-** suggest a perspective of looking downward upon something—even in the word **demonstro**? If so, then the sentence reverses light in another way, since normally sunlight is above and shadow is below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been thinking that the primary sense of _de_ is a perspective of &quot;from higher to lower&quot;, as in **de cælo demissus**, **descendo**, etc., and the other senses, such as &quot;about&quot;, &quot;all the way&quot;, and &quot;to destruction&quot;, are extensions of the primary sense—and as often happens, the primary sense tends to linger on in the secondary senses. &quot;About&quot;, as in the topic of a book, fits the perspective of looking down from above, where you can &quot;see&quot; the whole of the topic. **Destruere** is to send what has been built back down to the ground; **devolvere** is to roll downhill or delegate authority &quot;downward&quot;; and countless more examples. **Deesse** is to be away from where you're expected, suggesting that **de** takes a steady, upright perspective from which other things are perceived as falling down or straying. Even much later neologisms seem to retain this meaning, like &quot;decadent&quot;, which seems to emphasize falling away from a higher state of culture. I've inferred this somewhat subconsciously from learning words and reading, not from any explicit description, though I just checked [Forcellini](http://linguax.com/lexica/forc.php?searchedLG=de) and he seems to agree that the spatial sense is the primary one. If I'm wrong about this, please let me know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that the spatial sense is primary, then, is it a completely dead metaphor in **demonstro** or does that word still convey some sense of a perspective of looking down from a higher perspective, somehow &quot;coming down&quot;? Are there other pithy or poetic Latin sentences whose punch **de**rives from activating the downward spatial sense of &quot;de&quot; even in a word that seems to have forgotten it? Or to put this yet another way, what does **demonstro** have that **monstro** lacks?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="423" RevisionGUID="574577a9-2374-40a9-b3be-65dddc9c3e9f" CreationDate="2016-03-04T14:25:11.267" UserId="78" Text="They're Etruscans. The Vergilian Elegy for Maecenas 1.13 makes that even clearer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regis eras Etrusce, genus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MAcrobius too, in his &quot;letter to Maecenas&quot;, writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vale, mi ebenum Medulliae, ebur ex Etruria, lasar Arretinum...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Farewell, my ebony tree of Medullia, you ivory from Etruria, lasar of Arretium...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact Maecenas claimed ancestry from the Cilnii, a noble Etruscan clan from Arretium, itself a prominent Etruscan city (Tac. *Ann* 6.11; Livy 10.3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *regibus* comes into play not only to highlight his nobility, but also as an allusion to the early kings of Rome. Tarquinius Priscus and Superbus were both Etruscan kings, and since Superbus was the last of the Roman kings, there was a deeply-felt sense in Roman society of the royalty of the Etruscans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, this is connected to the early history of Rome. J. F. Hall writes in his *Etruscan Histry* (Bloomington, 1996):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The role of Maecenas as right-hand man to Augustus was connected, not coincidentally, to his Etruscan heritage, for he was numbered among the group of Octavian's earliest supporters which shared ties through Etruscan ancestry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="423" RevisionGUID="99ff09f3-f973-46f7-88e4-6aa17de9568b" CreationDate="2016-03-04T14:33:51.510" UserId="78" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="They are Etruscans. The Vergilian Elegy for Maecenas 1.13 makes that even clearer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regis eras Etrusce, genus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macrobius too, in his &quot;letter to Maecenas&quot;, writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vale, mi ebenum Medulliae, ebur ex Etruria, lasar Arretinum...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Farewell, my ebony tree of Medullia, you ivory from Etruria, lasar of Arretium...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact Maecenas claimed ancestry from the Cilnii, a noble Etruscan clan from Arretium, itself a prominent Etruscan city (Tac. *Ann* 6.11; Livy 10.3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *regibus* comes into play not only to highlight his nobility, but also as an allusion to the early kings of Rome. Tarquinius Priscus and Superbus were both Etruscan kings, and since Superbus was the last of the Roman kings, there was a deeply-felt sense in Roman society of the royalty of the Etruscans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, this is connected to the early history of Rome. J. F. Hall writes in his *Etruscan Histry* (Bloomington, 1996):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The role of Maecenas as right-hand man to Augustus was connected, not coincidentally, to his Etruscan heritage, for he was numbered among the group of Octavian's earliest supporters which shared ties through Etruscan ancestry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="422" RevisionGUID="831cc68a-2e6b-4b52-8e3c-cbc505d8b39b" CreationDate="2016-03-04T14:48:01.303" UserId="79" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="For questions about Quintus Horatius Flaccus and his work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1474" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="422" RevisionGUID="831cc68a-2e6b-4b52-8e3c-cbc505d8b39b" CreationDate="2016-03-04T14:48:01.303" Comment="Proposed by 79 approved by 118, 12 edit id of 89" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="423" RevisionGUID="ccc9d258-3f63-4553-802d-7be8dfd14619" CreationDate="2016-03-04T14:48:15.820" UserId="78" Comment="added 620 characters in body" Text="They are Etruscans.  Horace makes the connection explicit later (*Odes* 3.29.1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tyrrhena regum progenies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tyrrhenian progeny of kings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Note: Tyrrhenus, from Tyrrheni, and is the Greek designation for the Etruscans; also, that the adjective goes with *progenies* is an example of transferred epithet.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Propertius, whose patron, along with Horance's, was Maecenas, includes the claim as well (3.9.1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maecenas, eques Etrusco de saguine regum...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maecenas, *eques* from the Etruscan blood of kings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Transferred epithet again!&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even the Vergilian Elegy for Maecenas 1.13 has it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regis eras Etrusce, genus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maecenas' connection to the Etruscans lasted well beyond the Augustan Age, for Macrobius too, in his &quot;letter to Maecenas&quot;, writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vale, mi ebenum Medulliae, ebur ex Etruria, lasar Arretinum...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Farewell, my ebony tree of Medullia, you ivory from Etruria, lasar of Arretium...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact Maecenas claimed ancestry from the Cilnii, a noble Etruscan clan from Arretium, itself a prominent Etruscan city (Tac. *Ann* 6.11; Livy 10.3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *regibus* comes into play not only to highlight his nobility, but also as an allusion to the early kings of Rome. Tarquinius Priscus and Superbus were both Etruscan kings, and since Superbus was the last of the Roman kings, there was a deeply-felt sense in Roman society of the royalty of the Etruscans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, this is connected to the early history of Rome. J. F. Hall writes in his *Etruscan Histry* (Bloomington, 1996):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The role of Maecenas as right-hand man to Augustus was connected, not coincidentally, to his Etruscan heritage, for he was numbered among the group of Octavian's earliest supporters which shared ties through Etruscan ancestry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For moer on that last point, see Gurval's *Actium and Augustus: The Politics and Emotions of Civil War* (Ann Arbor, 1998)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="423" RevisionGUID="bb1d342e-bdd4-4651-9c25-0b09c1b1f94c" CreationDate="2016-03-04T14:54:00.943" UserId="78" Comment="added 620 characters in body" Text="They are Etruscans. *Atavi* here does not mean any specific ancestor (i.e. pater abavi), but in general &quot;ancestors.&quot; Horace makes the connection explicit later (*Odes* 3.29.1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tyrrhena regum progenies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tyrrhenian progeny of kings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Note: Tyrrhenus, from Tyrrheni, and is the Greek designation for the Etruscans; also, that the adjective goes with *progenies* is an example of transferred epithet.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Propertius, whose patron, along with Horance's, was Maecenas, includes the claim as well (3.9.1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maecenas, eques Etrusco de saguine regum...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maecenas, *eques* from the Etruscan blood of kings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Transferred epithet again!&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even the Vergilian Elegy for Maecenas 1.13 has it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regis eras Etrusce, genus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maecenas' connection to the Etruscans lasted well beyond the Augustan Age, for Macrobius too, in his &quot;letter to Maecenas&quot;, writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vale, mi ebenum Medulliae, ebur ex Etruria, lasar Arretinum...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Farewell, my ebony tree of Medullia, you ivory from Etruria, lasar of Arretium...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact Maecenas claimed ancestry from the Cilnii, a noble Etruscan clan from Arretium, itself a prominent Etruscan city (Tac. *Ann* 6.11; Livy 10.3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *regibus* comes into play not only to highlight his nobility, but also as an allusion to the early kings of Rome. Tarquinius Priscus and Superbus were both Etruscan kings, and since Superbus was the last of the Roman kings, there was a deeply-felt sense in Roman society of the royalty of the Etruscans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, this is connected to the early history of Rome. J. F. Hall writes in his *Etruscan Histry* (Bloomington, 1996):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The role of Maecenas as right-hand man to Augustus was connected, not coincidentally, to his Etruscan heritage, for he was numbered among the group of Octavian's earliest supporters which shared ties through Etruscan ancestry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For moer on that last point, see Gurval's *Actium and Augustus: The Politics and Emotions of Civil War* (Ann Arbor, 1998)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="424" RevisionGUID="7c612725-34bf-4243-bfc8-bf66d6f568be" CreationDate="2016-03-04T15:19:24.317" UserId="45" Text="Although *de* has a spatial meaning, it also has a plethora of other uses that have nothing to do with a relationship of above and below. The [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dde2) entry lists possible meanings of the *de-* prefix in II, including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a. **Separation, departure, removal, taking away; off, away, down, out:** decedo, demigro, demeto, depromo, descendo, devolvo, derivo, deflecto, etc.; and trop. dedico, denuntio; and **in a downward direction**, decido, decumbo, deprimo, demergo, delabor, defluo, demitto, desido, desideo, declivis, deculco, degredior, deicio, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b. **Cessation, removal of the fundamental idea ( = un-, de-, dis-):** dearmo, deartuo, decresco, dedisco, dedecoro, dedignor, dedoceo, denascor, denormo, desum, etc.; and hence **direct negation**, as in dedecet, deformis, demens, etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c. **With reference to the terminus of the action:** defero, defigo, demitto, etc.; hence also trop., **with reference to the extent of the action, to the uttermost, to exhaustion, through. out:** debacchor, debello, dedolo, delino, delibuo, etc.: defatigo, delaboro, delasso, etc.; hence freq. a **mere strengthening of the fundamental idea**, = valde, thoroughly, much: demiror, demitigo, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; d. **Giving a bad sense to the verb:** decipio, delinquo, deludo, derideo, detestor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; e. Rarely, **contraction from a broad into a narrow space, together:** deligo, devincio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the &quot;downward&quot; direction sense is only one way of construing the *de-* prefix: think, for instance, of *dearmo*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The spatial sense applies very poorly to *demonstro*, which has other connotations, like *point*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Demonstra mihi digito ubi habitet.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Point out (lit. show with your finger) to me where he lives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above sentence could be written without any violence to idiomatic speech to say: &quot;Montem demonstravit mihi&quot;, which actually has an *upward* sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common nuance I have come across, especially in Philosophical texts, is that *demonstrare* means *prove*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Magnum periculum summae reipublicae demonstrabat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He proved (demonstrated) the great danger posed to our great republic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sense, I believe the force of *de-* comes from sense (c) (&quot;To the uttermost&quot; or &quot;strengthening of the fundamental idea&quot;), just as &quot;prove&quot; means more in English than &quot;show.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we can speak of how all of these senses derive, in some &quot;fundamental&quot; way, from the spatial sense, but that is an etymological question. Although etymology can elucidate the meaning of a word, it is dangerous to force nuance into a word based on that basis alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more usages of *demonstrare* (none of which have a downward sense), see the [Lewis &amp; Short entry for *demonstrare*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddemonstro)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="425" RevisionGUID="8e404bb7-681c-4c25-bdf2-0fd3e6d0eb14" CreationDate="2016-03-04T15:59:37.033" UserId="30" Text="Why do you say it doesn't make sense? His title and his style are different, so he says, but that is not all: not even his intention was the same as [that] of the aforementioned authors. I don't think this *ne...quidem* is that much different from other cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He says his style is different because it is uncontrived and inelegant (a Roman cliché, of course). His professed aim was different in that he sought not to present a great number of passages, like other authors, but rather a few select ones, for to him great quantity does not bring great quality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="416" RevisionGUID="bd24bf48-b507-48fd-a2ad-f83f3221716d" CreationDate="2016-03-04T16:22:49.750" UserId="30" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="I see now that some people call this a &quot;future passive participle&quot;, but it is conventionally called a gerundive. So I wouldn't think of &quot;going to be read&quot; at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A sense of prediction or obligation is inherent in any the gerundive. The most literal translation is as follows—by most literal I mean the one that works in most situations, especially in a neutral context, and is the least dependent on context in general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Puer librum legendum habet. — &quot;The boy has a book to read.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, *to* + infinitive can express that something will happen or should happen. Although this English construction and the gerundive have are not related, they both happen to reflect this double modality: probability (*will happen*) and desirability (*should happen*). Necessity can be a kind of desirability (&quot;this room needs to be cleaned&quot;) or a kind of probability (&quot;random DNA mutations are necessary for cancer to develop&quot;). I beg your forgiveness for quoting myself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is a complicated issue, and one that is still not fully understood by linguists, or so I believe. In short: there is a tendency in many languages for words to shift in meaning between *probability* and *desirability*. This tendency is apparently strongest in certain verbs that are used without specifying who the judge is, which includes passive verb forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — [Why do we say “was supposed to” for “should have”?](http://english.stackexchange.com/a/21852/3036)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive always has this double, shifting connotation. In some contexts one kind of modality prevails, in other contexts the other. And with dominant gerundives, such as in gerundive constructions, neither seems to prevail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Floribus capiendis* Eurydice mordetur serpente." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="426" RevisionGUID="51770c31-3ae7-474e-8fd0-ed064db9a920" CreationDate="2016-03-04T19:35:42.297" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="In Latin today, we ran across the word &quot;*esto*&quot;, which our teacher told us is the future singular imperative of &quot;sum, esse&quot;. When I half-jokingly asked what the plural was, he thought for a few seconds and stated that, while it probably exists, he'd never seen it, but if he had to guess, he'd say &quot;estote&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After an admittedly brief search, seeing as I don't really know where to look, I can't find &quot;estote&quot; anywhere. However, [Victionarium](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/estote#Latin), and [William Whitaker's Words](http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?keyword=estote) confirm it exists. Where does it appear? Or do we just add -te to create the plural like any other infinitive and assume that it's correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1481" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="426" RevisionGUID="51770c31-3ae7-474e-8fd0-ed064db9a920" CreationDate="2016-03-04T19:35:42.297" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="Was the plural future imperative ever used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1482" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="426" RevisionGUID="51770c31-3ae7-474e-8fd0-ed064db9a920" CreationDate="2016-03-04T19:35:42.297" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|vocabulary|usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1483" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="426" RevisionGUID="86a02b42-41f3-4504-be74-ecb61674d5bf" CreationDate="2016-03-04T19:52:32.973" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|verbs|conjugation|usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="239" RevisionGUID="c5af96e6-a93a-4a46-8129-5578b5de843a" CreationDate="2016-03-04T21:02:27.260" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="I disambiguated possible confusion." Text="&quot;Believe again&quot; is actually not very well translated. *re-* chiefly has the meaning of &quot;back&quot; (cf. *retro*), so &quot;take back one's pledge&quot; does indeed seem accurate. The &quot;again&quot; here is sloppiness on the editor's part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me draw your attention to the Oxford Latin Dictionary's definition of *re-*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **re-,** *prefix.*...Vbl. prefix denoting movement back or in reverse (*redeo*, *reuerto*, *reuoco*), withdrawal (*recondo*, *religo*, *reticeo*), reversal of a previous process (*refrigero*, *resoluo*, *retego*), restoration (*renouo*, *reualesco*), response or opposition (*rebello*, *redarguo*, *respondeo*), separation (*remoueo*), repeated action (*repeto*, *repleo*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the examples given, movement indicating 'back' in some way encompass the first three types of use, while &quot;again&quot; is rather limited.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also helps to remember that *credere* takes a dative, and therefore has a sense of *giving* implicit in it. *Credere* in fact was originally tied to giving credit, and trust naturally stems from there. Likewise, the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew words for &quot;belief&quot; all refer to 'trust' and 'loyalty (*fides* is the other Latin word for belief in god, and the English derivative *fidelity* still maintain the sense of 'loyalty').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as *recroire*, if we imagine the opposite (ie: *recroire* without the prefix; *croire*) to mean not just belief, but &quot;believing in oneself&quot;, then to add the prefix to it would give us the meaning of &quot;taking back belief in oneself&quot; or &quot;no longer believing in oneself&quot;. If you no longer trust yourself in battle, the option is to retreat or, if you're honorable, surrender." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="427" RevisionGUID="3a74d192-00f4-42e8-ac32-4a422a01cf6d" CreationDate="2016-03-04T21:09:58.393" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[ [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/luctor#Etymology) :] From Proto-Indo-European _*lugsos_, from _*leug_ ‎(“bend, twist”). Cognates include Ancient Greek λύγος ‎(lúgos), Lithuanian lugnas, and Old Norse lykna.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Etymonline](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=reluctance&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) does not expose the PIE root directly, and [Uni. Texas's IE Lexicon](http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/X/P1192.html) omits it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1487" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="427" RevisionGUID="3a74d192-00f4-42e8-ac32-4a422a01cf6d" CreationDate="2016-03-04T21:09:58.393" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What underlying semantic notions connect 'luctor' to the PIE root *leug ‎(“bend, twist”)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1488" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="427" RevisionGUID="3a74d192-00f4-42e8-ac32-4a422a01cf6d" CreationDate="2016-03-04T21:09:58.393" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|proto-indo-european|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12" RevisionGUID="b721dda7-93dd-43ec-a57b-9f2171776cb1" CreationDate="2016-03-04T21:11:11.180" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 51 characters in body" Text="From the online etymology dictionary (boldface mine):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[spine (n.)](http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=spine)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; c. 1400, &quot;backbone,&quot; later &quot;thornlike part&quot; (early 15c.),      &#xD;&#xA;from Old French *espine* &quot;thorn, prickle; backbone, spine&quot; (12c., Modern French *épine*),      &#xD;&#xA;from Latin *spina* &quot;**backbone**,&quot; originally &quot;**thorn, prickle**&quot; (figuratively, in plural, &quot;difficulties, perplexities&quot;),      &#xD;&#xA;from PIE _*spe-ina-_, from root _*spei-_  &quot;sharp point&quot; (see [*spike*](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=spike&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.1)).     &#xD;&#xA;Meaning &quot;the back of a book&quot; is first attested 1922.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I do not comprehend the underlying semantic notions for entitled question; the human spine does not resemble or feel like a “thorn, prickle”. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="428" RevisionGUID="527d20e6-4fcc-4660-83ac-39cbb551e546" CreationDate="2016-03-04T21:12:57.197" UserId="20" Text="In the Perseus Project, I see many occurrences of [estote][1]; a disproportionate number of them appear to be in St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Here are two examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1 Maccabees 2:50, Latin Vulgate][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nunc ergo o filii aemulatores estote legis et date animas vestras pro testamento patrum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now therefore, O (my) sons, be zealots of the law...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1 Corinthians 4:16][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rogo ergo vos imitatores mei estote&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I ask you: be imitators of me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it could be that it's a rare construction, but for whatever reason, Jerome uses it a number of times. It's worth noting that again according to the Perseus project, [estote][4] can also come from _edo_, so those search results are an upper bound on the number of occurrences (at least twice as the plural future imperative of _esse_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;page=1&amp;phrase=&amp;documents=&amp;all_words=estote&amp;exclude_words=&amp;any_words=&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0060%3Abook%3D1%20Maccabees%3Achapter%3D2%3Averse%3D50&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0060%3Abook%3D1%20Corinthians%3Achapter%3D4%3Averse%3D16&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=estote&amp;la=la&amp;can=estote0&amp;prior=et" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="428" RevisionGUID="698f6b25-848c-4d6e-9e91-196466a5ca9f" CreationDate="2016-03-04T21:14:42.197" UserId="20" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="In the [Perseus Project][1], I see many occurrences of [estote][2]; a disproportionate number of them appear to be in St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Here are two examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1 Maccabees 2:50, Latin Vulgate][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nunc ergo o filii aemulatores estote legis et date animas vestras pro testamento patrum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now therefore, O (my) sons, be zealots of the law...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1 Corinthians 4:16][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rogo ergo vos imitatores mei estote&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I ask you: be imitators of me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it could be that it's a rare construction, but for whatever reason, Jerome uses it a number of times. It's worth noting that again according to the Perseus project, [estote][5] can also come from _edo_, so those search results are an upper bound on the number of occurrences (at least twice as the plural future imperative of _esse_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;page=1&amp;phrase=&amp;documents=&amp;all_words=estote&amp;exclude_words=&amp;any_words=&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0060%3Abook%3D1%20Maccabees%3Achapter%3D2%3Averse%3D50&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0060%3Abook%3D1%20Corinthians%3Achapter%3D4%3Averse%3D16&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=estote&amp;la=la&amp;can=estote0&amp;prior=et" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="426" RevisionGUID="81859658-dd58-4e4d-9f41-6f55eec69f3c" CreationDate="2016-03-04T21:15:31.983" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added 81 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In Latin today, we ran across the word &quot;*esto*&quot;, which our teacher told us is the future singular imperative of &quot;sum, esse&quot;. When I half-jokingly asked what the plural was, he thought for a few seconds and stated that, while it probably exists, he'd never seen it, but if he had to guess, he'd say &quot;estote&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After an admittedly brief search, seeing as I don't really know where to look, I can't find &quot;estote&quot; anywhere. However, [Victionarium](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/estote#Latin), and [William Whitaker's Words](http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?keyword=estote) confirm it exists. Where does it appear? Or do we just add -te to create the plural like any other infinitive and assume that it's correct?&#xA;&#xA;*NB: While I'd prefer examples in Classical Latin, usage in any Latin is fine.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1493" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="426" RevisionGUID="81859658-dd58-4e4d-9f41-6f55eec69f3c" CreationDate="2016-03-04T21:15:31.983" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added 81 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|verbs|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="428" RevisionGUID="abacf8ab-8725-46b9-ae0b-c6ab3e1b7ce5" CreationDate="2016-03-04T21:21:04.367" UserId="20" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="In the [Perseus Project][1], I see many occurrences of [estote][2]; a disproportionate number of them appear to be in St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Here are two examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1 Maccabees 2:50, Latin Vulgate][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nunc ergo o filii aemulatores estote legis et date animas vestras pro testamento patrum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now therefore, O (my) sons, be zealots of the law...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1 Corinthians 4:16][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rogo ergo vos imitatores mei estote&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I ask you: be imitators of me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a use in the Classical period, see [this][5] from [Seneca the Elder] [6](54 BC – c. 39 AD):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Quid fletis, pueri? securi estote;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Boys, why do you cry? Be free from care!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it could be that it's a rare construction, but for whatever reason, Jerome uses it a number of times. It's worth noting that again according to the Perseus project, [estote][7] can also come from _edo_, so those search results are an upper bound on the number of occurrences (at least twice as the plural future imperative of _esse_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;page=1&amp;phrase=&amp;documents=&amp;all_words=estote&amp;exclude_words=&amp;any_words=&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0060%3Abook%3D1%20Maccabees%3Achapter%3D2%3Averse%3D50&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0060%3Abook%3D1%20Corinthians%3Achapter%3D4%3Averse%3D16&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:2008.01.0564:book=4:chapter=6&amp;highlight=estote&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_the_Elder&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=estote&amp;la=la&amp;can=estote0&amp;prior=et" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1495" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="8033ce07-80e0-4ba6-9cb4-4e6041c01c20" CreationDate="2016-03-04T21:29:14.867" UserId="118" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Tamen vivitne metaphora &quot;de&quot; in &quot;demonstro&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1496" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="8033ce07-80e0-4ba6-9cb4-4e6041c01c20" CreationDate="2016-03-04T21:29:14.867" UserId="118" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|meaning|metaphora|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="429" RevisionGUID="6c67e783-2cdf-44aa-88c7-834a72735cb0" CreationDate="2016-03-04T21:33:42.697" UserId="44" Text="Yes, the grammar of this sentence is perfectly fine. It's a very simple sentence composed of subject, object and verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Sentence Outline ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Subject:** *Sola dea* - The subject needs to be nominative here. Remember that even though two Latin words may be translated with the same English words (so *dea* and *deam* are both translated &quot;goddess&quot;), that does not mean that they have the same meaning or function in Latin (to give another example, *ad deam* and *deae* could both be translated &quot;to the goddess,&quot; but they are not interchangeable).&#xD;&#xA; - **Object:** *fatum* - Your analysis is correct. The verb *novit* takes a direct object in the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA; - **Verb:** *Novit*, &quot;knows.&quot; Who knows? The goddess (alone). What does she know? Fate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Novit ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Novit* is a special verb. Even though **novi** is the perfect form of *nosco*, it is frequently used with the meaning of the present tense instead of **nosco**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnosco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry for L&amp;S cites a passage from the Plautus play *Pseudolus* (Act 4, Scene 2), which has multiple examples of this usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0107%3Aact%3D4%3Ascene%3D2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some observations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The form *novi* is always used (for the present tense) rather than *nosco*, except for one use of the present imperative *nosce*.&#xD;&#xA;2) The perfect passive participle is used as an present active participle!&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Novi, notis praedicas.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I know that! You are preaching to those who already know that!&#xD;&#xA;3) The derived verb *cognosco* is used (rather than *cognovi*), just as you would expect. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Video, et cognosco signum.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I see and recognize the seal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason why it might be particularly appropriate for your sentence to use *novit* rather than *noscit* is that the Latin Bible (the Vulgate) favors using *novit*. This may have influenced the author's choice of words. Here are a couple of examples from the Vulgate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Acts of the Apostles*, Chapter 19, Verse 15. Perfect-form but present-meaning *novi* is opposed to present-tense *scio*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Respondens autem spiritus nequam dixit eis: Jesum novi, et Paulum scio: vos autem qui estis?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But, responding, the evil spirit said to them, &quot;Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are you?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*2 Thessalonians* Chapter 1, Verse 8. Perfect-form, present-meaning *noverunt* is in opposition to present tense *obediunt*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*in flamma ignis dantis vindictam iis qui non noverunt Deum, et qui non obediunt Evangelio Domini nostri Jesu Christi*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In a blaze of fire, vengeance to those who do not know God, and who do not obey the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching online for the phrase *Sola dea fatum novit* reveals that your sentence comes from the soundtrack to the video game *Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children*. Since this phrase is part of a larger set of lyrics, is it possible that this other person was referring to the lyrics as a whole, rather than this particular sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="430" RevisionGUID="8a4aae3c-c54a-42a5-9dfb-6034a1c847df" CreationDate="2016-03-04T22:21:00.447" UserId="30" Text="De Vaan confirms your etymology. Luctor means &quot;to wrestle&quot;. When you're wrestling with someone, you writhe and twist your bodies, so it makes sense that a word for &quot;bend, twist&quot; should have acquired a sense like &quot;wrestle&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="431" RevisionGUID="1de0f114-e227-416f-a339-4ec9249833a2" CreationDate="2016-03-04T22:21:01.967" UserId="79" Text="Not only was *estote* used, but also the third person plural future imperative *sunto*.&#xD;&#xA;This is not limited to *esse*; a quick search produced examples for *facere* as well (*facito*, *facitote*, *faciunto*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides using a specialized search tool like James Kingsbery mentions, you can also use Google.&#xD;&#xA;Knowing that [The Latin Library](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/) contains a lot of relevant texts, searching for &quot;site:thelatinlibrary.com estote&quot; is a simple way to find examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will leave finding examples of the mentioned forms to you because I want to encourage you to play with such search tools." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1502" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="83ee958f-0dc3-4e9a-8d8d-4fdd7714192e" CreationDate="2016-03-04T22:57:53.120" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|meaning|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1503" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="2e1659cf-9147-40d6-92fa-39b917321909" CreationDate="2016-03-04T23:01:56.933" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="|accusative|history|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1504" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="244" RevisionGUID="9ae7798a-2a24-4b91-9699-f41ab71a13b9" CreationDate="2016-03-04T23:02:10.057" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1505" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="106" RevisionGUID="a63a2b29-9501-4187-bee9-e0260a3a3fc2" CreationDate="2016-03-04T23:02:27.497" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1506" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15" RevisionGUID="3303a954-4689-4c42-8c10-72d86987133d" CreationDate="2016-03-04T23:03:30.487" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|orthography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1507" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="31" RevisionGUID="9963e733-1977-4a22-840a-91f99718f076" CreationDate="2016-03-04T23:03:47.770" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="|language-evolution|medieval-latin|declension|orthography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="393" RevisionGUID="7f73c5af-f29f-4595-b9a7-c9b5af94a4ef" CreationDate="2016-03-04T23:24:31.197" UserId="12" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Why is there no future perfect subjunctive verb form in classical Latin? I can't think of a time it would be used, but I can think of an English translation: &quot;if *subject* were to have *verb*ed, then *clause*&quot;. I've tried looking it up and I can't seem to find it, so I assume it is non-existent. Why is this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1509" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="393" RevisionGUID="7f73c5af-f29f-4595-b9a7-c9b5af94a4ef" CreationDate="2016-03-04T23:24:31.197" UserId="12" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Why is there no future perfect subjunctive in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1510" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="393" RevisionGUID="7f73c5af-f29f-4595-b9a7-c9b5af94a4ef" CreationDate="2016-03-04T23:24:31.197" UserId="12" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|classical-latin|verbs|conjunctive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="432" RevisionGUID="1c25b7af-1b68-4c19-bd77-f7ae4ed4d1ae" CreationDate="2016-03-05T00:10:11.057" UserId="118" Text="**Estōte** occurs five times in _Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata_ by Hans Henning Ørberg. This textbook, written in the 20th century, teaches elementary conversational classical Latin by example. The story is set in about 150 A.D., is limited to basic language, and often presents simplified versions of excerpts from classical works, sometimes quoting directly when the language is basic enough. I take Ørberg's use of **estōte** to mean that it's _basic_ Latin that everyone should feel comfortable with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are three examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;p. 209, illustrating _gerundium_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Industriī **estōte** in scrīb&lt;i&gt;endō,&lt;/i&gt; discipulī!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;p. 282, illustrating the plural _imperātīvus futūrī_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Magister: &quot;Posthāc bonī discipulī **estōte**, puerī! Semper mihi pār&lt;i&gt;ētōte!&lt;/i&gt; Dīligenter aud&lt;i&gt;ītōte!&lt;/i&gt; Pulchrē recit&lt;i&gt;ātōte&lt;/i&gt; et rēctē scrīb&lt;i&gt;itōte!&quot;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;p. 225–226, quoting Matthew 14:26–27:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Discipulī autem videntēs eum super mare ambulantem turbātī sunt dīcentēs: &quot;Phantasma est!&quot; et prae timōre clāmāvērunt. Statimque Iēsūs locūtus est eīs dīcēns: &quot;Cōnstantēs **estōte**! Ego sum. Nōlīte timēre!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is from a version of _Matthaeus_ in use in 150 A.D.; see [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=8odbAAAAMAAJ&amp;lpg=PR11&amp;ots=HvCtsA8LXH&amp;dq=old%20latin%20book%20matthew&amp;pg=PA20#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) for a similar one. Jerome's version has _habete fiduciam_ rather than _constantes estote._ However, a quick Google search suggests that _constantes estote_ and similar are common expressions. _Constantes estote et videbitis auxilium Domini super vos, Estote fortes in bello,_ etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quārē dubitāstī? :)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="433" RevisionGUID="12f3b276-4982-49b2-8ad1-ad47f7c89a42" CreationDate="2016-03-05T01:29:45.533" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="There's not much literature on this subject -- maybe because synizesis is so rare. Aside from the obvious answer of &quot;whenever the meter requires it&quot;, I couldn't find any hard-and-fast rules, just hints. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Synizesis is particularly common ... [in] the initial ea- and -eo of eadem and eodem ... and words ending in -ea and -eo. Synizesis is also common in the eu and ei and ea of Greek proper names. When the first vowel is an i or a u, it can become semi-cononantal in synizesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;^(source: [*A Guide to Latin Meter and Verse Composition* by David J. Califf, p.20][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He gives a few examples as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ipse deus vatum palla spectabilis aur**ea** (Ov. *Am.* 1.8.59)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Italiam fato profugus Lauiniaque **ue**nit (*A.* 1.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;among others. See the linked source for details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found a few more places that go more into detail on treating I and U as consonants, but that's fairly intuitive, so I see no reason for more copypasta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from that, though, there really isn't much. A lot of it is very, very technical stuff that I can't quite read, but from what I understand is basically saying the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zUvx8lX3I3YC&amp;pg=PA20" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="433" RevisionGUID="b55e1c48-8728-4bdb-b74f-8ceda7d220b2" CreationDate="2016-03-05T01:38:07.740" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Formatting" Text="There's not much literature on this subject -- maybe because synizesis is so rare. Aside from the obvious answer of &quot;whenever the meter requires it&quot;, I couldn't find any hard-and-fast rules, just hints.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, from what I could find, it's particularly common in...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the initial ea- and -eo of eadem and eodem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* words ending in -ea and -eo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the *eu* and *ei* and ea of Greek proper names&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* words where the first vowel is an i or a u (it becomes semi-consonantal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;stolen almost verbatim from [*A Guide to Latin Meter and Verse Composition* by David J. Califf, p.20][1]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author of the source above gives a few examples as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ipse deus vatum palla spectabilis aur**ea** (Ov. *Am.* 1.8.59)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Italiam fato profugus Lauiniaque **ue**nit (*A.* 1.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;among others. See the linked source for details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found a few more places that go more into detail on treating I and U as consonants, but that's fairly intuitive, so I see no reason for more copypasta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from that, though, there really isn't much. A lot of it is very, very technical stuff that I can't quite read, but from what I understand is basically saying the same thing as Califf's book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zUvx8lX3I3YC&amp;pg=PA20" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="433" RevisionGUID="edde6f44-713f-4565-90b0-2a21bc597f19" CreationDate="2016-03-05T01:58:56.927" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Formatting, removed extra thing" Text="There's not much literature on this subject -- maybe because synizesis is so rare. Aside from the obvious answer of &quot;whenever the meter requires it&quot;, I couldn't find any hard-and-fast rules, just hints.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, from what I could find, it's particularly common in...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the initial *ea-* and *-eo* of eadem and eodem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* words ending in *-ea* and *-eo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the *eu*, *ei* and *ea* in Greek proper names&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;stolen almost verbatim from [*A Guide to Latin Meter and Verse Composition* by David J. Califf, p.20][1]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author of the source above gives a few examples as well; for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ipse deus vatum palla spectabilis aur**ea**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;(Ov. *Am.* 1.8.59)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;among others. See the linked source for details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from that, though, there really isn't much. A lot of it is very, very technical stuff that I can't quite read, but from what I understand is basically saying the same thing as Califf's book. A lot of the rest is intuitive stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zUvx8lX3I3YC&amp;pg=PA20" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="3205ac35-7161-4630-a3dd-aeb0bd2a1bbc" CreationDate="2016-03-05T02:03:58.997" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="I found the following inscription above a sundial outside the York Minster:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LVCEM DEMONSTRAT VMBRA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems extraordinarily poetic to me, for many reasons. One reason is the reversal of prosaic word order, aligning with the reversal of light's ordinary role from what shows us things to the thing being shown. Another reason is more of a guess on my part: does **de-** suggest a perspective of looking downward upon something—even in the word **demonstro**? If so, then the sentence reverses light in another way, since normally sunlight is above and shadow is below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been thinking that the primary sense of _de_ is a perspective of &quot;from higher to lower&quot;, as in **de cælo demissus**, **descendo**, etc., and the other senses, such as &quot;about&quot;, &quot;all the way&quot;, and &quot;to destruction&quot;, are extensions of the primary sense—and as often happens, the primary sense tends to linger on in the secondary senses. &quot;About&quot;, as in the topic of a book, fits the perspective of looking down from above, where you can &quot;see&quot; the whole of the topic. **Destruere** is to send what has been built back down to the ground; **devolvere** is to roll downhill or delegate authority &quot;downward&quot;; and countless more examples. **Deesse** is to be away from where you're expected, suggesting that **de** takes a steady, upright perspective from which other things are perceived as falling down or straying. Even much later neologisms seem to retain this meaning, like &quot;decadent&quot;, which seems to emphasize falling away from a higher state of culture. I've inferred this somewhat subconsciously from learning words and reading, not from any explicit description, though I just checked [Forcellini](http://linguax.com/lexica/forc.php?searchedLG=de) and he seems to agree that the spatial sense is the primary one. If I'm wrong about this, please let me know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that the spatial sense is primary, then, is it a completely dead metaphor in **demonstro** or does that word still convey some sense of a perspective of looking down from a higher perspective, somehow &quot;coming down&quot;? Are there other pithy or poetic Latin sentences whose punch **de**rives from activating the downward spatial sense of &quot;de&quot; even in a word that seems to have forgotten it? Or to put this yet another way, what does **demonstro** have that **monstro** lacks?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="a46bab10-447c-4d88-97a8-67f744d2f02c" CreationDate="2016-03-05T02:52:23.210" UserId="78" Text="Anyone who reads Cicero's letters cannot fail to notice that he quite frequently uses *nos* and *noster* to mean *ego* and *meus*. Earlier I heard a paper where *nos* in Lucretius' proem was meant singularly (primarily because Venus in Epicurean thought cannot have actually helped Lucretius like the Muses help epic poets).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This made me wonder where this plural actually comes from. Is it just a stylistic development? Is its use in English as the *pluralis maiestatis* derived from Latin? Wikie also suggests its use in other languages, but they're usually fairly traceable developments; Andreas Katsouris 1977 (&quot;Plural in place of singular,&quot; *RhM* 120: 228–240; he suggests that the use of it in Roman comedy may have come from Greek translations, but provides nothing further than that) examined the phenonmenon in Greek, but what of Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you're not entirely sure about its usage, see Bradley's *Lessons in Latin Prose* p. 212 (with cleaned up commas):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Obs*. 1. *Nos*, *noster*, or *a plural verb* are often used when only one person is spoken of in preference to *ego*, *meus*, or *a singular verb*. This idiom is rare in narrative and in historical writers. Instasnces of it abound in Cicero, especially in those parts where he is writing in a philosophic, conversational, or epistolary style. *Multis de rebus scripsimus*, I have written on many subjects." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1517" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="a46bab10-447c-4d88-97a8-67f744d2f02c" CreationDate="2016-03-05T02:52:23.210" UserId="78" Text="Where did the poetic/majestic plural come from in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1518" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="a46bab10-447c-4d88-97a8-67f744d2f02c" CreationDate="2016-03-05T02:52:23.210" UserId="78" Text="|classical-latin|plural|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1519" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="ee55e4cb-0a03-407b-8598-f3cf229f27f2" CreationDate="2016-03-05T03:04:43.037" UserId="78" Comment="edited title" Text="Where did pluralis-ut-singularis come from in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="ee55e4cb-0a03-407b-8598-f3cf229f27f2" CreationDate="2016-03-05T03:04:43.037" UserId="78" Comment="edited title" Text="Anyone who reads Cicero's letters cannot fail to notice that he quite frequently uses *nos* and *noster* to mean *ego* and *meus*. Earlier I heard a paper where *nos* in Lucretius' proem was meant singularly (primarily because Venus in Epicurean thought cannot have actually helped Lucretius like the Muses help epic poets).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This made me wonder where this plural actually comes from. Is it just a stylistic development? Is its use in English as the *pluralis maiestatis* derived from Latin? Wikie also suggests its use in other languages, but they're usually fairly traceable developments; Andreas Katsouris 1977 (&quot;Plural in place of singular,&quot; *RhM* 120: 228–240; he suggests that the use of it in Roman comedy may have come from Greek translations, but provides nothing further than that) examined the phenonmenon in Greek, but what of Latin? Is it related at all to the poetic plural?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you're not entirely sure about its usage, see Bradley's *Lessons in Latin Prose* p. 212 (with cleaned up commas):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Obs*. 1. *Nos*, *noster*, or *a plural verb* are often used when only one person is spoken of in preference to *ego*, *meus*, or *a singular verb*. This idiom is rare in narrative and in historical writers. Instasnces of it abound in Cicero, especially in those parts where he is writing in a philosophic, conversational, or epistolary style. *Multis de rebus scripsimus*, I have written on many subjects." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="429" RevisionGUID="a8f31b39-913e-43e4-b0e2-9a6879488709" CreationDate="2016-03-05T05:16:28.223" UserId="44" Comment="Added proper markdown to fix list." Text="Yes, the grammar of this sentence is perfectly fine. It's a very simple sentence composed of subject, object and verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Sentence Outline ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Subject:** *Sola dea* - The subject needs to be nominative here. Remember that even though two Latin words may be translated with the same English words (so *dea* and *deam* are both translated &quot;goddess&quot;), that does not mean that they have the same meaning or function in Latin (to give another example, *ad deam* and *deae* could both be translated &quot;to the goddess,&quot; but they are not interchangeable).&#xD;&#xA; - **Object:** *fatum* - Your analysis is correct. The verb *novit* takes a direct object in the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA; - **Verb:** *Novit*, &quot;knows.&quot; Who knows? The goddess (alone). What does she know? Fate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Novit ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Novit* is a special verb. Even though **novi** is the perfect form of *nosco*, it is frequently used with the meaning of the present tense instead of **nosco**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnosco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry for L&amp;S cites a passage from the Plautus play *Pseudolus* (Act 4, Scene 2), which has multiple examples of this usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0107%3Aact%3D4%3Ascene%3D2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some observations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The form *novi* is always used (for the present tense) rather than *nosco*, except for one use of the present imperative *nosce*.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The perfect passive participle is used as an present active participle!&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Novi, notis praedicas.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I know that! You are preaching to those who already know that!&#xD;&#xA; 3. The derived verb *cognosco* is used (rather than *cognovi*), just as you would expect. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Video, et cognosco signum.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I see and recognize the seal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason why it might be particularly appropriate for your sentence to use *novit* rather than *noscit* is that the Latin Bible (the Vulgate) favors using *novit*. This may have influenced the author's choice of words. Here are a couple of examples from the Vulgate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Acts of the Apostles*, Chapter 19, Verse 15. Perfect-form but present-meaning *novi* is opposed to present-tense *scio*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Respondens autem spiritus nequam dixit eis: Jesum novi, et Paulum scio: vos autem qui estis?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But, responding, the evil spirit said to them, &quot;Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are you?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*2 Thessalonians* Chapter 1, Verse 8. Perfect-form, present-meaning *noverunt* is in opposition to present tense *obediunt*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*in flamma ignis dantis vindictam iis qui non noverunt Deum, et qui non obediunt Evangelio Domini nostri Jesu Christi*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In a blaze of fire, vengeance to those who do not know God, and who do not obey the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching online for the phrase *Sola dea fatum novit* reveals that your sentence comes from the soundtrack to the video game *Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children*. Since this phrase is part of a larger set of lyrics, is it possible that this other person was referring to the lyrics as a whole, rather than this particular sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="5d55beee-421d-42e3-ae20-00cff96e96c8" CreationDate="2016-03-05T07:30:45.963" UserId="118" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Are the terms **a fortiori**, **a priori**, and **a posteriori** bad Latin? If so, how and when did they become established?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the dative case never takes a preposition in Latin—a most welcome clue in a language where the dative and ablative have opposite meanings but often identical form. But _fortiori_ appears to be unambiguously dative, yet introduced by a preposition. And yet the meaning appears to be ablative: &quot;with stronger reason&quot; (&quot;all the more so&quot; more colloquially in English). The stronger reason is the source of the conclusion being justified. And how would you fill in the elided noun: _a fortiori rationi_ or _a fortiore ratione_? I don't see how the dative could even make sense here. Nothing is being given _to_ the stronger reason and there’s no suggestion that the stronger reason has anything at stake in the matter. Weight is coming _from_ the stronger reason, as suggested by the preposition _a_ (short for _ab_ as in ablative!).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="402" RevisionGUID="40abd124-f5a4-46b1-847c-cba81be97322" CreationDate="2016-03-05T09:34:44.483" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body" Text="From my googling so far, it appears that jade did not reach Ancient Rome, and classical Latin has no word for it. Possibly Pliny mentioned it in the _Naturalis Historia,_ but he mentioned a number of green stones and it's not clear that any of them are jade. So, you're going to have to settle for Latin from a later time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally a good first place to look for an established Latin word for something unnamed in Ancient Rome is Vicipædia, but Vicipædia has no article on jade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Isidorus of Seville mentioned it in the 7th-century _Etymologiæ,_ it would be in book XVI, _de lapidibus et metallis._ I haven't checked thoroughly, but Isidorus does not appear to have mentioned jade, though **iaspis** might be a term for a broad category of green stone possibly subsuming jade. However, _iaspis_ is almost certainly better translated &quot;[jasper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasper#Etymology_and_history)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, Marbode's 12th-century _[De Lapidibus](https://books.google.com/books?id=l_JPY4hbg5AC)_ doesn't mention jade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You sure picked a hard stone! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly one of the earliest people to write about jade in Latin was Friar Odoric of Pordenone, who encountered jade on a visit to China in the early 1300s. From [his travels](https://books.google.com/books?id=QRlUd8t0F50C&amp;pg=PA72&amp;dq=odoric+merdacas):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in medio autem palacii est pigna quedam magna &amp; alta passibus prulibus* quam duobus que tota est de quodam lapide preciosso nomine **merdacas**. &amp; est tota auro ligata. &amp; in quolibet ipsius angulo est serpens de auro, qui verberat eos fortissime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempted translation, aided by Berthold Laufer's _[Jade: A Study in Chinese Archaeology and Religion](https://books.google.com/books?id=vqoaAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA318&amp;lpg=PA318&amp;dq=odoric+pordenone+jade&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=IByVG7CJOK&amp;sig=zPqEPqf8z3K0fcw9kfBJhyxwkkw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwifu9_F_6PLAhWHkYMKHWnXBQoQ6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&amp;q=odoric%20pordenone%20jade&amp;f=false)_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the middle of the palace is a big jar more than two paces high, made entirely of a certain precious stone called &quot;jade&quot;. It's entirely lined with gold. Inside every corner of the jar, there is a dragon of gold, which attacks [them?] most powerfully.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Laufer believes that _merdacas_ is a corruption of the Mongolian _erdeni kash,_ meaning &quot;precious jade&quot;. I didn't find any other uses of _merdacas_ except to tell the story of Odoric's journey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might consider the etymology of _jade._ It comes from the Spanish _piedra de hijada,_ &quot;[stone of the flank](https://books.google.com/books?id=rjQMAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA383&amp;lpg=PA383)&quot;, so named because native Americans told the Spaniards that jade is useful for curing diseases related to the kidneys. Rewinding this back to Latin, you get **petra iliata**, though _iliata_ is unattested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The _[Latinitas Recens](http://latinlexicon.org/latinitas_recens_latine.php)_ offers **petra nephritica**, using the Greek word for kidney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt;I'm assuming that _prulibus_ is a misspelling of _pluribus._&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="435" RevisionGUID="76a10775-d8bb-4df4-a04c-06c047dafd82" CreationDate="2016-03-05T13:35:46.533" UserId="79" Text="[Castor and Pollux](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castor_et_Pollux) are famous mythological twins.&#xD;&#xA;[*Castor*](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castor_%28genus%29) is also the genus of beavers.&#xD;&#xA;This makes me wonder two things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are these two Castors related in any way?&#xD;&#xA;- Was this double meaning observed in antiquity?  &#xD;&#xA;(Were beavers known to Romans and did they call them *castor*?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two Castors do not look alike and only one of them is famous for riding horses.&#xD;&#xA;Ancient mythology is full of metamorphoses, but I am not aware of a story where Castor becomes a beaver.&#xD;&#xA;Castor and Pollux are also stars in the constellation Gemini, but I have found no trace of beaver-related constellations that could explain identifying beavers with Pollux's brother via naming stars.&#xD;&#xA;I have found no evidence that this double meaning of *Castor* is more than a coincidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the same double meaning for *Castor* also appears in Greek." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1526" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="435" RevisionGUID="76a10775-d8bb-4df4-a04c-06c047dafd82" CreationDate="2016-03-05T13:35:46.533" UserId="79" Text="Beaver and Pollux?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1527" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="435" RevisionGUID="76a10775-d8bb-4df4-a04c-06c047dafd82" CreationDate="2016-03-05T13:35:46.533" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|biology|scientific-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="435" RevisionGUID="eed65b1a-684c-428e-abc4-fac6c2f46805" CreationDate="2016-03-05T14:12:46.593" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="[Castor and Pollux](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castor_et_Pollux) are famous mythological twins.&#xD;&#xA;[*Castor*](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castor_%28genus%29) is also the genus of beavers.&#xD;&#xA;This makes me wonder two things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are these two *Castor*s related in any way?&#xD;&#xA;- Was this double meaning observed in antiquity?  &#xD;&#xA;(Were beavers known to Romans and did they call them *castor*?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two *Castor*s do not look alike and only one of them is famous for riding horses.&#xD;&#xA;Ancient mythology is full of metamorphoses, but I am not aware of a story where Castor becomes a beaver.&#xD;&#xA;Castor and Pollux are also stars in the constellation Gemini, but I have found no trace of beaver-related constellations that could explain identifying beavers with Pollux's brother via naming stars.&#xD;&#xA;I have found no evidence that this double meaning of *Castor* is more than a coincidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the same double meaning for *Castor* also appears in Greek." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1529" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="435" RevisionGUID="eed65b1a-684c-428e-abc4-fac6c2f46805" CreationDate="2016-03-05T14:12:46.593" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|etymology|biology|scientific-names|mythology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="436" RevisionGUID="f1857fc4-914e-41ee-b851-3b9c4ae4660f" CreationDate="2016-03-05T14:14:45.180" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="437" RevisionGUID="b8035c4d-9957-457a-ab48-3e6c085eb443" CreationDate="2016-03-05T14:14:45.180" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="411" RevisionGUID="d4c2e420-5186-4016-8d7e-2ae2bfd7a901" CreationDate="2016-03-05T16:39:36.193" UserId="39" Comment="added 685 characters in body" Text="The following is **my summary** of [Silvia Luraghi 2010][1] paper, in the tabular format (obviously, here I summarized those parts that are relevant to your question only). All the examples are hers, including the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luraghi 1986 writes that in Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“human agents are usually marked by a prepositional phrase introduced by the preposition ab, which takes the ablative case” whereas &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“[n]on-human agents are marked by the simple ablative” (pp. 53-54).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Drawing on volume 2.1 of Leumann, Luraghi does mention that “in some cases, however, **the preposition ab may be extended to non-human agents** as well” but it happens **in “[v]arious poetic occurrences**, with verbs like *mouere, agitare, uincere*, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*uinci a uoluptate*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;to be overwhelmed by pleasure&quot; (Cic.Off. 1.68).”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann et al. argue it happens with verbs &quot;die kraft ihrer Bedeutung den Agensbegriff suggerieren.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She concludes by saying that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“Non-human agents can receive the preposition ab in particular contexts, in which they are clearly connected to human activities,” e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*agros desertos a plebe et a cultura hominum liberorum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;fields abandoned by plebeians and by the care of free people&quot; (Cic. Leg. Agr. 2.84).” (footnote 11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110215458/9783110215458.19/9783110215458.19.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kr9ni.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="437" RevisionGUID="9dabac10-2989-4759-823e-7d25c775f4e7" CreationDate="2016-03-05T16:46:24.837" UserId="79" Comment="added 163 characters in body" Text="For questions related to mythology. If the question is not related to Latin language, consider asking at mythology.SE instead: http://mythology.stackexchange.com/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1534" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="437" RevisionGUID="9dabac10-2989-4759-823e-7d25c775f4e7" CreationDate="2016-03-05T16:46:24.837" Comment="Proposed by 79 approved by 118, 12 edit id of 90" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="438" RevisionGUID="da05a404-8e52-41b1-a663-24f7a1ec8dbe" CreationDate="2016-03-05T16:58:11.757" UserId="12" Text="Using the texts stored in the [Latin Library](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/) as a guide, we can see that the prevalence of *eumdem* waxes and wanes through history.  Its earliest significant use in writing appears to be approximately the 4th century, and it reaches its height in the late Medieval period, but even then it does not displace *eundem*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Earliest usage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several works from the post-classical era employ *eumdem* rather than *eundem*; here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Lactantius, *[Divine Institutes](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/lactantius/divinst1.shtml)*, 7 instances in Book I&#xD;&#xA; - The abridgement of Livy's [Ab Urbe Condita Libri](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab_Urbe_Condita_Libri_(Livy)), the *Periochae*, is thought to date to the 4th century ([30](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/livy/liv.per30.shtml), [59](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/livy/liv.per59.shtml), [85](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/livy/liv.per85.shtml))&#xD;&#xA; - Augustine uses *eumdem* in several of his sermons, for example,  [2](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/augustine/serm2.shtml), [15](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=18&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjmgO3S7KnLAhUlsoMKHQtLD7I4ChAWCE8wBw&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thelatinlibrary.com%2Faugustine%2Fserm15.shtml&amp;usg=AFQjCNEsi4HoxbBk8GUNwfSdV6il-rtBvg&amp;sig2=p8MBZyFPoMt5tnIvvfcTdw), as well as other works, like [*De Fide et Symbolo*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/augustine/fide.shtml)&#xD;&#xA; - Festus's [*Summary*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/festus.shtml) has one instance&#xD;&#xA; - Hydatius's [*Chronicle*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/hydatiuschronicon.html), of the 5th century, has 5 instances&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Of course, this analysis assumes that the transcriptions available on Latin Library have not been altered from the originals.  They seem to indicate, however, that *eumdem* was at least occasionally employed in this time period.  Still, many other authors of this time preferred *eundem*: Augustine himself used that form in several other works, and examples of this usage abound in Ammianus, Justinian, and Bede.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Late Medieval usage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several prominent authors in the 12th century make extensive use of *eumdem*, perhaps marking a high point of its usage.  They include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Albert of Aix](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_of_Aix), author of the [*Historia Hierosolymitanae expeditionis*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/albertofaix.html); over 20 instances of *eumdem*&#xD;&#xA; - [Hugo Falcandus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Falcandus), [*Liber de Regno Sicilie*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/falcandus.html), 7 instances&#xD;&#xA; - [William of Tyre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Tyre), [*Historia*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/williamtyre.html), 4 instances in book 20 alone&#xD;&#xA; - [Alanus de Insulis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_de_Lille), [*De Planctu Naturae*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/alanus/alanus1.html), 4 instances&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Even in this time period, however, other authors continued to use *eundem*.  Aquinas, Gregory VII, Gregory IX, and the Magna Carta, for example, all use the Classical form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Modernity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following the Medieval period, most authors seem to adopt the use of *eundem*.  Among them are Spinoza and Descartes, though Erasmus is a notable exception; his [*Institutes*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/erasmus/inst.shtml), for example, include *eumdem* several times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see any clear patterns of the use of *eumdem*, whether by time or by geography.  Examples of it exist back to at least Late Latin, and it was more widely employed in the late Medieval period.  But it does not appear to have ever achieved dominance over *eundem*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="ce553791-57eb-4109-8cd7-c12bf3115730" CreationDate="2016-03-05T22:29:36.593" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="Anyone who reads Cicero's letters cannot fail to notice that he quite frequently uses *nos* and *noster* to mean *ego* and *meus*. Earlier I heard a paper where *nos* in Lucretius' proem was meant singularly (primarily because Venus in Epicurean thought cannot have actually helped Lucretius like the Muses help epic poets).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This made me wonder where this plural actually comes from. Is it just a stylistic development? Is its use in English as the *pluralis maiestatis* derived from Latin? Wikie also suggests its use in other languages, but they're usually fairly traceable developments; Andreas Katsouris 1977 (&quot;Plural in place of singular,&quot; *RhM* 120: 228–240; he suggests that the use of it in Roman comedy may have come from Greek translations, but provides nothing further than that) examined the phenonmenon in Greek, but what of Latin? Is it related at all to the poetic plural?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you're not entirely sure about its usage, see Bradley's *Lessons in Latin Prose* p. 212 (with cleaned up commas):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Obs*. 1. *Nos*, *noster*, or *a plural verb* are often used when only one person is spoken of in preference to *ego*, *meus*, or *a singular verb*. This idiom is rare in narrative and in historical writers. Instances of it abound in Cicero, especially in those parts where he is writing in a philosophic, conversational, or epistolary style. *Multis de rebus scripsimus*, I have written on many subjects." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1537" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="ce553791-57eb-4109-8cd7-c12bf3115730" CreationDate="2016-03-05T22:29:36.593" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|plural|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="31" RevisionGUID="2fbe36f1-2774-4846-8660-e2ab5f2b870b" CreationDate="2016-03-05T22:37:35.527" UserId="12" Comment="minor spelling/grammar" Text="&quot;Eundem&quot; is the correct accusative of &quot;idem&quot;. However, I saw &quot;eumdem&quot; in various texts of medieval and/or Church Latin. So I wonder:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - when did &quot;eumdem&quot; start to be used, perhaps by non-native Latin users?&#xD;&#xA; - when did it become a regularly accepted alternative to &quot;eundem&quot; (this might not be distinguishable from previous subquestion though)?&#xD;&#xA; - did &quot;eumdem&quot; ever completely replace &quot;eundem&quot; in some time and region (not counting times/regions with very few written records)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="438" RevisionGUID="12b7dcdf-a5c1-41e5-ab02-b559c48b2d15" CreationDate="2016-03-05T22:40:47.353" UserId="12" Comment="update on Aquinas" Text="Using the texts stored in the [Latin Library](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/) as a guide, we can see that the prevalence of *eumdem* waxes and wanes through history.  Its earliest significant use in writing appears to be approximately the 4th century, and it reaches its height in the late Medieval period, but even then it does not displace *eundem*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Earliest usage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several works from the post-classical era employ *eumdem* rather than *eundem*; here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Lactantius, *[Divine Institutes](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/lactantius/divinst1.shtml)*, 7 instances in Book I&#xD;&#xA; - The abridgement of Livy's [Ab Urbe Condita Libri](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab_Urbe_Condita_Libri_(Livy)), the *Periochae*, is thought to date to the 4th century ([30](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/livy/liv.per30.shtml), [59](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/livy/liv.per59.shtml), [85](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/livy/liv.per85.shtml))&#xD;&#xA; - Augustine uses *eumdem* in several of his sermons, for example,  [2](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/augustine/serm2.shtml), [15](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=18&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjmgO3S7KnLAhUlsoMKHQtLD7I4ChAWCE8wBw&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thelatinlibrary.com%2Faugustine%2Fserm15.shtml&amp;usg=AFQjCNEsi4HoxbBk8GUNwfSdV6il-rtBvg&amp;sig2=p8MBZyFPoMt5tnIvvfcTdw), as well as other works, like [*De Fide et Symbolo*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/augustine/fide.shtml)&#xD;&#xA; - Festus's [*Summary*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/festus.shtml) has one instance&#xD;&#xA; - Hydatius's [*Chronicle*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/hydatiuschronicon.html), of the 5th century, has 5 instances&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Of course, this analysis assumes that the transcriptions available on Latin Library have not been altered from the originals.  They seem to indicate, however, that *eumdem* was at least occasionally employed in this time period.  Still, many other authors of this time preferred *eundem*: Augustine himself used that form in several other works, and examples of this usage abound in Ammianus, Justinian, and Bede.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Late Medieval usage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several prominent authors in the 12th century make extensive use of *eumdem*, perhaps marking a high point of its usage.  They include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Albert of Aix](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_of_Aix), author of the [*Historia Hierosolymitanae expeditionis*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/albertofaix.html); over 20 instances of *eumdem*&#xD;&#xA; - [Hugo Falcandus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Falcandus), [*Liber de Regno Sicilie*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/falcandus.html), 7 instances&#xD;&#xA; - [William of Tyre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Tyre), [*Historia*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/williamtyre.html), 4 instances in book 20 alone&#xD;&#xA; - [Alanus de Insulis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_de_Lille), [*De Planctu Naturae*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/alanus/alanus1.html), 4 instances&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Even in this time period, however, other authors continued to use *eundem*.  The Latin Library includes Aquinas, Gregory VII, Gregory IX, and the Magna Carta in this category, though a more thorough investigation of Aquinas's works reveals a fairly even split between the two forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Modernity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following the Medieval period, most authors seem to adopt the use of *eundem*.  Among them are Spinoza and Descartes, though Erasmus is a notable exception; his [*Institutes*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/erasmus/inst.shtml), for example, include *eumdem* several times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see any clear patterns of the use of *eumdem*, whether by time or by geography.  Examples of it exist back to at least Late Latin, and it was more widely employed in the late Medieval period.  But it does not appear to have ever achieved dominance over *eundem*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="439" RevisionGUID="d6d0fb06-b2ab-4560-a8ab-366cf89c450d" CreationDate="2016-03-06T00:59:27.867" UserId="9" Text="&quot;Why is it &quot;poeta&quot; and not &quot;poeeta&quot; in Latin?&quot; This question occurs in the [Harvard University Catalogue of 1872-73][1], but I haven't been able to find the answer. The reason I would expect &quot;pœeta&quot; is because it comes from Greek ποιητής *poiētēs*, and Greek οι is usually taken into Latin as *œ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked it up in Lewis and Short and Elementary Lewis using the [Perseus Online Latin Dictionary][2], but the relevant sound changes were not explained there. Unfortunately, I do not own a Latin etymological dictionary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=FbM4AAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA170&amp;lpg=PA170&amp;dq=why%20is%20it%20poeta%20and%20not%20%22poeeta%22%20in%20Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=no5afyXsWC&amp;sig=ZeScguKLs-tl9eVERhiD20bfOzg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipy_eO5KrLAhXBloMKHX4lDscQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&amp;q=why%20is%20it%20poeta%20and%20not%20%22poeeta%22%20in%20Latin&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=poeta&amp;lang=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1542" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="439" RevisionGUID="d6d0fb06-b2ab-4560-a8ab-366cf89c450d" CreationDate="2016-03-06T00:59:27.867" UserId="9" Text="Quare dicitur &quot;poeta&quot; et non &quot;pœeta&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1543" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="439" RevisionGUID="d6d0fb06-b2ab-4560-a8ab-366cf89c450d" CreationDate="2016-03-06T00:59:27.867" UserId="9" Text="|etymology|greek|phonology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="439" RevisionGUID="26846596-d838-4df0-b4e1-cfb174a2d9fb" CreationDate="2016-03-06T01:20:45.627" UserId="9" Comment="added 329 characters in body" Text="&quot;Why is it &quot;poeta&quot; and not &quot;poeeta&quot; in Latin?&quot; This question occurs in the [Harvard University Catalogue of 1872-73][1], but I haven't been able to find the answer. The reason I would expect &quot;pœeta&quot; is because it comes from Greek ποιητής *poiētēs*, and Greek οι is usually taken into Latin as *œ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked it up in Lewis and Short and Elementary Lewis using the [Perseus Online Latin Dictionary][2], but the relevant sound changes were not explained there. Unfortunately, I do not own a Latin etymological dictionary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first, I had an idea it might be due to some kind of aversion to &quot;double ee,&quot; but there are words with *æe* like *[præemino][3]* and *[haliæetus][4]* (that last one is another loan from Greek ἁλιαίετος *haliaietos*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=FbM4AAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA170&amp;lpg=PA170&amp;dq=why%20is%20it%20poeta%20and%20not%20%22poeeta%22%20in%20Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=no5afyXsWC&amp;sig=ZeScguKLs-tl9eVERhiD20bfOzg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipy_eO5KrLAhXBloMKHX4lDscQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&amp;q=why%20is%20it%20poeta%20and%20not%20%22poeeta%22%20in%20Latin&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=poeta&amp;lang=la&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/praeemineo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Haliaeetus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="440" RevisionGUID="17f7dddf-cacd-4427-9148-d14e1d0df3be" CreationDate="2016-03-06T01:39:46.323" UserId="73" Text="The [Online Etymological Dictionary](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=castor) states&#xD;&#xA;&gt; His [Castor's] name was given to secretions of the animal (Latin castoreum), used medicinally in ancient times. (Through this association his name replaced the native Latin word for &quot;beaver,&quot; which was fiber.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Castoreum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castoreum) has been used medicinally since Classical times, prominently as an ingredient in [*material medica*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materia_medica) and [theria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theriac) - the latter appeared in the [*Amsterdammer Apotheek*](https://books.google.com/books?id=QhdiAAAAcAAJ) as late as 1683, not too long before Linnaeus. Both concoctions had been used by the ancient Greeks and Romans, establishing themselves as supposed cure-alls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The connection between castoreum and Castor is not as clear. The Online Etymological Dictionary states that Castor was venerated by ancient Greek women as a healer; I have not been able to confirm this in any writings. [This page](http://www.billcasselman.com/cwod_archive/beaver_castor_two.htm) does state that no great explanation has been put forth in this regard, only that there is speculation that Castor (Kastor, if you prefer an alternate spelling) was transformed into a beaver and back in the course of some myth. Again, I have found no evidence of this. The direct mythological aspect here seems to be a dead end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part of your question is more interesting. The ancient Greeks and Romans were well aware of castoreum and used it for a variety of medicinal and health uses. Plutarch, for example, refers to it several times in his *Moralia* ([version in English](https://www.archive.org/stream/plutarchsmoralia00plutuoft/plutarchsmoralia00plutuoft_djvu.txt)). And yes, *castor* was one word used by the Romans to refer to beavers (see [the Lewis Elementary Latin dictionary](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1002193&amp;p2=c)), leading directly to the modern taxonomic usage, including that of Linnaeus in *Systema Naturae*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="441" RevisionGUID="bc671231-e7be-4b82-aa99-5ce1b667f855" CreationDate="2016-03-06T02:35:45.120" UserId="30" Text="Greek is a language of many respectable dialects. In more than a few dialects, there is no iota in ποιέω /poieô/ &quot;do, make&quot;, the word from which the word ποιητής /poiêtês/ &quot;poet&quot; is derived in Greek. And Greek spelling was not always the same as in the classical age. That is most probably why the borrowed form in Latin does not contain an i.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word was borrowed early in Latin, so say Ernout–Meillet (s.v.), probably before Attic-Ionic had come to dominate Rome's dealings with Greek nations. Magna Graecia (southern Italy and Sicily) was mostly colonised by cities that did not speak Attic or Ionic dialects, but Doric or Aeolic. In Aeolic, at least, forms of the verb without i were used, so say Liddell–Scott–Jones ([s.v.][1]). They even say such forms ere used in Attic too, at least in drama, though they are never found before -οι, -ου, or -ω in inscriptions. Meillet suggests *poeta* may have been borrowed from a Doric form without i.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=lsj&amp;lang=el&amp;word=poie%2Fw&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="441" RevisionGUID="db6ce6cb-37b4-4365-b516-68b45e8fd58e" CreationDate="2016-03-06T02:38:26.040" UserId="30" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Greek is a language of many respectable dialects. In more than a few dialects, there is no iota in ποιέω /poieô/ &quot;do, make&quot;, the word from which the word ποιητής /poiêtês/ &quot;poet&quot; is derived in Greek. And Greek spelling was not always the same as in the classical age. That is most probably why the borrowed form in Latin does not contain an i.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word was borrowed early in Latin, so say Ernout–Meillet (s.v.), probably before Attic-Ionic had come to dominate Rome's dealings with Greek nations. Magna Graecia (southern Italy and Sicily) was mostly colonised by cities that did not speak Attic or Ionic dialects, but Doric or Aeolic. In Aeolic, at least, forms of the verb without i were used, so say Liddell–Scott–Jones ([s.v.][1]). They even say such forms were used in Attic too (ποῶ), at least in drama, though they are never found before -οι, -ου, or -ω in inscriptions. Meillet suggests *poeta* may have been borrowed from a Doric form without i.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=lsj&amp;lang=el&amp;word=poie%2Fw&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="441" RevisionGUID="60bbb78a-e99c-433f-8131-d0b62e3bce80" CreationDate="2016-03-06T02:54:54.210" UserId="30" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="Greek is a language of many respectable dialects. In more than a few dialects, there is no iota in ποιέω /poieô/ &quot;do, make&quot;, the word from which the word ποιητής /poiêtês/ &quot;poet&quot; is derived in Greek. And Greek spelling was not always the same as in the classical age. That is most probably why the borrowed form in Latin does not contain an i.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word was borrowed early in Latin, so say Ernout–Meillet (s.v.), probably before Attic-Ionic had come to dominate Rome's dealings with Greek nations. Magna Graecia (southern Italy and Sicily) was mostly colonised by cities that did not speak Attic or Ionic dialects, but Doric or Aeolic. In Aeolic, at least, forms of the verb without i were used, so say Liddell–Scott–Jones ([s.v.][1]). They even say such forms were used in Attic too (ποῶ), at least in drama, though they are never found before -οι, -ου, or -ω in inscriptions. Meillet suggests *poeta* may have been borrowed from a Doric form without i.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples borrowed not from Attic or Koinê:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [silanus][2] from Doric σιλανός, where standard is σιληνός&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=lsj&amp;lang=el&amp;word=poie%2Fw&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=silanus%232&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="440" RevisionGUID="86c27b95-b003-434e-bde3-2adebd797bc6" CreationDate="2016-03-06T16:19:59.017" UserId="73" Comment="added 731 characters in body" Text="The [Online Etymological Dictionary](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=castor) states&#xD;&#xA;&gt; His [Castor's] name was given to secretions of the animal (Latin castoreum), used medicinally in ancient times. (Through this association his name replaced the native Latin word for &quot;beaver,&quot; which was fiber.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Castoreum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castoreum) has been used medicinally since Classical times, prominently as an ingredient in [*material medica*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materia_medica) and [theria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theriac) - the latter appeared in the [*Amsterdammer Apotheek*](https://books.google.com/books?id=QhdiAAAAcAAJ) as late as 1683, not too long before Linnaeus. Both concoctions had been used by the ancient Greeks and Romans, establishing themselves as supposed cure-alls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The connection between castoreum and Castor is not as clear. The Online Etymological Dictionary states that Castor was venerated by ancient Greek women as a healer; I have not been able to confirm this in any writings. [This page](http://www.billcasselman.com/cwod_archive/beaver_castor_two.htm) does state that no great explanation has been put forth in this regard, only that there is speculation that Castor (Kastor, if you prefer an alternate spelling) was transformed into a beaver and back in the course of some myth. Again, I have found no evidence of this. The direct mythological aspect here seems to be a dead end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part of your question is more interesting. The ancient Greeks and Romans were well aware of castoreum and used it for a variety of medicinal and health uses. Plutarch, for example, refers to it several times in his *Moralia* ([version in English](https://www.archive.org/stream/plutarchsmoralia00plutuoft/plutarchsmoralia00plutuoft_djvu.txt)). And yes, *castor* was one word used by the Romans to refer to beavers (see [the Lewis Elementary Latin dictionary](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1002193&amp;p2=c)), leading directly to the modern taxonomic usage, including that of Linnaeus in *Systema Naturae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The naming of the stars [Castor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castor_(star)) (actually a triple star system) and [Pollux](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollux_(star)) seems to be somewhat unrelated to the specifics of the Greek/Roman myths of Castor and Pollux. Rather, the names may have been applied the Alpha Geminorum and Beta Geminorum due to the Babylonian naming of the two stars as &quot;The Great Twins&quot; (see [Rogers (1998)](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998JBAA..108....9R)). The idea that the two stars were twins was then passed on to the Greeks, and then the Romans, and thus they used their example of the [divine twins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_twins).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stars are not, however, related to beavers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="382" RevisionGUID="d9938769-d5d0-4e62-87f0-c2a27b6e3107" CreationDate="2016-03-06T17:08:18.930" UserId="39" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="This is well-known and virtually all good grammars discuss this (as vowel syncope). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Genetivus singularis** helps us reconstruct the original nom.sg. form (*synchronically*), that's why we learn nouns in Latin in two forms, nominativus singularis and genetivus singularis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Type A.** No change, the vowel was present in all forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. sg. pu**e**ros &gt; *pu**e**rs &gt; pu**e**r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gen. sg. pu**e**ri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Type B.** Originally, there was no e in Nom. sg. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. sg. agros &gt; *agrs &gt; ag**e**r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gen. sg. agri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Data from Old Latin and other Indo-European languages (especially Ancient Greek) confirms this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Environment:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. consonant + *-ros, e.g. SAKROS &gt; sacer (cf. ferus);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. vowel + *-ros (in trisyllabic words, short penult), e.g. *vesperos &gt; vesper (cf. sincerus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details see Weiss 2009/2011, Chapter 23; Baldi 2002: 313; Meiser 1998, §55.1, and Sihler §74.4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="442" RevisionGUID="5f68c874-b72d-4071-8488-30ab754222d6" CreationDate="2016-03-06T20:01:51.317" UserId="12" Text="Stephen Wilson's *The Means of Naming* provides insight into the naming of Roman public slaves.  His discussion touches on the sources of personal names and names of slaves owned privately, but also includes treatment of the naming of the *servus publicus*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, he notes that the phrase *servus publicus*, or part of it, was often part of their name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Public slaves belong to the State or to cities had the status indicator &quot;servus publicus&quot;, from which &quot;servus&quot; was frequently omitted: for example, Herodes publicus; Laeus publicus populi Romani.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a second name was employed, it often referred back to the previous owner:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; During the Empire, two names were more common, with the second name referring usually to the previous owner who had sold the slave to the State, for example, Fortunatus publicus Sulpicianus; or Bithus publicus Paullianus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form here is neither nominative nor genitive, but rather the *-ianus* suffix is added to turn the noun into an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Slaves owned by towns and cities sometimes used the previous owner's name, but often employed the name of the town or city:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So we have Priscus colono. Aquil. s., from Aquileia, or Zosimus municipium Vercellensium vilicus, from Vercelli.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the occupation of the slave could be incorporated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Diodumenus publicus aquae Annesis and Laeus publicus populi Romani... aquarius aquae Annionis Veteris both worked for the water services of Rome; Felix arcarius republicae Neapolitanorum was municipal cashier of Naples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Slaves of the emperor were named differently from slaves of the state, as they were owned by the individual emperors.  Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;To the single personal name,... the emperor's slaves added the distinctive mark of status 'Caes(aris) ser(vus)' or 'Aug(usti) vern(a)', or simply 'Aug(usti)' or 'Caes(aris)'&quot; with the &quot;servus&quot; understood.  From the Flavian period the form Caes. n.(ostri) ser. became predominant, for example: Victorinus Caes. n. ser.; or Maximus Caes. n. vern..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wilson's research indicates that the names of public slaves often included the name of the former masters, the city in which they worked, or their occupation.  The forms of these second names varied, but often employed either a genitive or adjectival ending, just as was the case with privately owned slaves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Stephen Wilson, [*The Means of Naming*, 25–27](https://books.google.com/books?id=YHeOAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA25).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="443" RevisionGUID="16594666-6033-4cfd-a325-2a940dfb2bd5" CreationDate="2016-03-07T03:05:12.410" UserId="79" Text="How was 'ng' pronounced in classical Latin and how do we know?&#xD;&#xA;I believe metric considerations strongly indicate that it was not a short consonant (/ŋ/ or other), but I can still think of two reasonable (and many unreasonable) options: /ŋg/ and /ŋ:/.&#xD;&#xA;The second option is widely used in today's Finland &amp;mdash; in all languages, not just Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek the corresponding &amp;mdash; at least roughly corresponding &amp;mdash; sound was spelled '&amp;gamma;&amp;gamma;' instead of '&amp;nu;&amp;gamma;'.&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, however, 'gg' denotes /g:/ unless I am badly mistaken.&#xD;&#xA;This makes me wonder:&#xD;&#xA;Was 'ng' pronounced any differently in Greek loanwords than in originally Latin words?&#xD;&#xA;If the pronunciations in the two languages were identical, I assume the answer is negative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please do not confuse this question with the one about [pronouncing 'gn'](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/152/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1559" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="443" RevisionGUID="16594666-6033-4cfd-a325-2a940dfb2bd5" CreationDate="2016-03-07T03:05:12.410" UserId="79" Text="Do we know how 'ng' was pronounced in classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1560" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="443" RevisionGUID="16594666-6033-4cfd-a325-2a940dfb2bd5" CreationDate="2016-03-07T03:05:12.410" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="8789676a-cca0-4820-b268-6c6eda39f1fb" CreationDate="2016-03-07T03:43:20.613" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Formatting, English improvements" Text="We all know that &quot;ut&quot;, when paired with a subjunctive, is translated as &quot;in order to&quot; (purpose), &quot;to&quot; (indirect command), and, with some words, &quot;that&quot; (result/fear). However, &quot;ut&quot;  with an indicative means &quot;(just) as&quot;. I can't figure out how subjunctive/indicative makes that transformation. After all, subjunctive just adds a sense of &quot;maybe&quot;, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does that change &quot;just as&quot; into three other apparently different things? What underlying concept ties them all together?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, why does &quot;ut&quot; mean such different things when all that changes is the mood of the verb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*NB: I can understand why adding some words changes the meaning. I'm confused about why the mood has such a drastic effect.*&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="444" RevisionGUID="d28e30ad-5456-4941-b112-13c97a94779f" CreationDate="2016-03-07T04:46:22.210" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="445" RevisionGUID="dcf75b50-a302-4f64-b8fe-f8713414ed9a" CreationDate="2016-03-07T04:46:22.210" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="446" RevisionGUID="8cae360e-ac77-49ac-b7fd-2c625446fa70" CreationDate="2016-03-07T04:53:09.580" UserId="30" Text="The [Latin Library][1] has following punctuation for lines 60–62 of book IV of Ovid's Metamorphoses, describing how Pyramus and Thisbe fell in love but were forbidden from marrying by their parents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tempore crevit amor; taedae quoque iure coissent,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed vetuere patres: **quod non potuere vetare**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex aequo captis ardebant mentibus ambo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And [Perseus][2] similarly separates the *quod* clause from the preceding clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tempore crevit amor. Taedae quoque iure coissent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed vetuere patres. **Quod non potuere vetare**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex aequo captis ardebant mentibus ambo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Ed. Hugo Magnus, 1892)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This forces the *quod* clause in bold to describe what happens in the next line, rather than what happened in the *sed* clause immediately preceding it on the same line. The translation would then be something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;...with time, their love grew. And marriage would have brought them together in law, // but their parents forbade it: and yet they could not forbid it, // both burned equally with captured hearts.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it would make much more sense to me to remove the colon or full stop and translate it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but the parents forbade what they could not forbid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That way, you don't need to connect the *quod* clause with *ardebant*, which I'd rather not do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could argue that it is *sed vetuere patres. Quod non potuere vetare, [eo]...ardebant*, &quot;but the parents forbade it. They burned...with that which [the parents] could not forbid&quot;. Then *quod* would be a relative with enclosed antecedent as a complement modifying *ardebant*. But this seems a bit far fetched to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also that you then have two ablatives, where one must be the cause of their burning (*eo, quod...*), the other an absolute ablative of circumstances. And yet [Lewis &amp; Short][3] group this quotation under &quot;without ablative [complement]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I find the paradox &quot;forbade what they could not forbid&quot; much more powerful in a single sentence. It's a perfect, so I think it cannot be (literally) translated as &quot;but they tried to forbid&quot;, or it should have been an imperfect. So that makes it a strong paradox.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One translation from Perseus disagrees with me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They wished to join in marriage, but that joy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their fathers had forbidden them to hope;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **and yet the passion** that with equal strength&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inflamed their minds **no parents could forbid**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Brookes More, 1922) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other, much older translation agrees with me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For love to come to that to which it afterward did growe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And if that right had taken place they had bene man and wife,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **But still their Parents went about to let which (for their life)**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **They could not let.** For both their heartes with equall flame did burne.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Arthur Golding, 1567) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So should the punctuation and the translation be changed to what I consider the better interpretation? What do other editions and translations say?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/ovid/ovid.met4.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0029%3Abook%3D4%3Acard%3D55&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=ardeo&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1566" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="446" RevisionGUID="8cae360e-ac77-49ac-b7fd-2c625446fa70" CreationDate="2016-03-07T04:53:09.580" UserId="30" Text="Pyramus et Thisbe: did their parents forbid what they could not? Ovid, Metamorphoses IV.61" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1567" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="446" RevisionGUID="8cae360e-ac77-49ac-b7fd-2c625446fa70" CreationDate="2016-03-07T04:53:09.580" UserId="30" Text="|translation|punctuation|metamorphoses|ovidius|relative-pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="166" RevisionGUID="dfe73165-db87-483c-bc01-b6ce4070947c" CreationDate="2016-03-07T13:03:27.823" UserId="9" Comment="added 267 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Resources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A standard reference for Classical Latin pronunciation is W. Sidney Allen's *Vox Latina* (available as a [PDF][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ganino.com/files/Latin%20Copyright%20Books/29%20Vox%20Latina%20The%20Pronunciation%20of%20Classical%20Latin.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1569" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="166" RevisionGUID="dfe73165-db87-483c-bc01-b6ce4070947c" CreationDate="2016-03-07T13:03:27.823" Comment="Proposed by 9 approved by 118, 12 edit id of 92" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="445" RevisionGUID="e33a2c9b-590d-409e-90b5-0dcb38892ad1" CreationDate="2016-03-07T13:03:42.310" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added 197 characters in body" Text="For questions about the Latin that was commonly spoken, rather than written (i.e. classical) Latin. Note that this does not refer solely to profanity, but any non-standard, spoken dialect of Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1571" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="445" RevisionGUID="e33a2c9b-590d-409e-90b5-0dcb38892ad1" CreationDate="2016-03-07T13:03:42.310" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 118, 12 edit id of 91" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="447" RevisionGUID="dee6263a-88a7-47b0-8076-e2b39951fd21" CreationDate="2016-03-07T16:07:59.837" UserId="68" Text="Hmm. I find your analysis elegant and alluring, but I wonder whether it's simpler than that—could it be working from two slightly different senses of *vetāre*? You're far more versed in the lexicon here than I am, so I'm really just offering this as something that occurs to me in case it didn't occur to you, not as any kind of authoritative answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it instead be something like (working from your translation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;...with time, their love grew. And marriage would have brought them together in law, // but their parents forbade it. Since they could not forbid it, // both burned equally with captured hearts.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, could the second *vetāre* have a flavor of successful result where the first has more a flavor of attempt? In which case it might be something like (very inelegantly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And marriage would have brought them together in law, // but their parents forbade it. Since they could not prevent it, // both burned equally with captured hearts.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You touch on something like this when you mention the perfect vs. the imperfect, but if they're both perfect then there's the same kind of dramatic irony that appeals to you in the repunctuation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="72e7abd4-9046-498d-8b9c-0fffab52abd1" CreationDate="2016-03-07T17:14:10.117" UserId="118" Text="There seem to be two schools of thought about the meaning of the motto on Pope Francis's coat of arms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; miserando atque eligendo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These words are taken from the 21st homily of the Venerable Bede, describing Jesus's first meeting with Matthew:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum, et quia miserando atque eligendo vidit, ait illi, ‘Sequere me’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One school of thought, represented by [Fr. Z](http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/03/what-does-the-popes-motto-really-say-the-latin-motto-explained/), says that the phrase has two ablative gerunds and describes Jesus's way of seeing: &quot;by showing compassion and by choosing.&quot; Fr. Z would translate the sentence &quot;Jesus, therefore, saw the publican, and because he saw by having mercy and by choosing, He said to him, ‘Follow me.'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ron Conte](https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/more-on-the-papal-motto-miserando-atque-eligendo/), representing the other school of thought, says that's a literal, word-by-word translation that misses the meaning, as such an approach to translation often does. Conte would translate the motto &quot;pitiable yet chosen&quot;, and the whole sentence&#xD;&#xA;“Then Jesus saw the publican, and because he saw [him to be] pitiable and yet elect, he said to him: Follow me.” Most commonly, the motto is translated &quot;lowly but chosen.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My problem with Fr. Z's interpretation is that it doesn't make sense. What does it mean to &quot;see by choosing&quot;? My problem with Ron Conte's interpretation is that I don't understand the grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Miserando_ and _eligendo_ appear to be ablatives describing _vidit_. Or perhaps there are some elided words and the sentence should be understood like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum, et quia [eum] miserando atque eligendo [esse] vidit, ait illi, ‘Sequere me’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I still don't understand that. What does it mean to use an ablative gerund as a predicate like that? Why not a gerundive, like _eum miserandus atque eligendus esse vidit_?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1574" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="72e7abd4-9046-498d-8b9c-0fffab52abd1" CreationDate="2016-03-07T17:14:10.117" UserId="118" Text="&quot;Miserando atque eligendo&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1575" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="72e7abd4-9046-498d-8b9c-0fffab52abd1" CreationDate="2016-03-07T17:14:10.117" UserId="118" Text="|meaning|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="449" RevisionGUID="3f01e05c-245d-487d-a25d-d97e70c44b81" CreationDate="2016-03-07T17:16:12.977" UserId="213" Text="# Ancient and late antique scripts&#xD;&#xA;**Roman cursive** was sometimes mixed indiscriminately with Roman square capitals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There was no difference in meaning between upper case and lower case letters. The differences in the shapes of the letters were simply the result of the handwriting of the individual writer.([Source][1] — not the best, nor I have not found an example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roman cursive from the 1st century AD ([source][2]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Roman cursive.][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Insular and uncial scripts** (4th-8th centuries) sometimes made use of large decorative initials, such as in the Cathach of St. Columba ([source][4]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Carolingian minuscule (from c. 800)&#xD;&#xA;The Carolingian was the first truly bicameral script. Leila Avrin *Scribes, Script, and Books* (2010) p. 190 ([via Google Books][6]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **This [the Carolingian] system was the origin of our tradition of initial-word and proper-name capitalization**, and shows us why large and small letters are a permanent feature of modern European scripts but are lacking in Semitic scripts, which did not undergo the same medieval scribal development. By the eleventh century, capitalization of initial and important words began; it became more common in the thirteenth century and was ﬁxed in the sixteenth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these Carolingian-script capital letters were distinct from Roman square capitals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A hierarchy of scripts was established to distinguish different levels of text. At the top of the hierarchy were square capitals, which were used for book headings, and rustic capitals, used for the explicit (the last line of a book). Uncials signaled chapter headings, the table of contents, and the first line of text; half uncials were sometimes used for preface and the second text line; and Carolingian minuscules were used for the main text. Carefully drawn and coloured large Roman square capitals were used as major paragraph initials. This period marks the first time multiple writing styles were used both to decorate the text and to delineate categories of content. ([Source][7])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Carolingian script with Roman capitals][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carolingian minuscule was largely replaced by Gothic scripts until early humanists [such as Petrarch][9] (1304-1374) revived it. I have not read anywhere that Petrarch changed the use of capital letters, but it appears that he uses at least some Roman capitals as we do, as in this sample of his handwriting ([source][9]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Petrarch's handwriting][10]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Italic script (from c. 1400)&#xD;&#xA;Niccolò de' Niccoli (1363-1437, Florence) adapted the Carolingian minuscule popular among humanists, using Roman square capitals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An influential teacher of the Humanist rounded letterform, Niccoli combined classical Roman capitals with the Carolingian minuscule to form a dual alphabet. He adapted the Carolingian script for faster everyday writing by sloping the letters a little (the result of holding the pen at a more comfortable angle), and allowing some of them to join up. His script ... as that of Bartolomeo Sanvito, was a forerunner of the italic type metal type for follow. ([Source][11])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Niccolò de' Niccoli's Italic cursive ([source][12]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Niccolò de' Niccoli's Italic cursive][13]][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The first Italic type**, developed by Francesco Griffo (1450-1518, Venice) for the printer Aldus Manutius,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was used in the cheaper writing shops. Using this style produced faster results because it did not need the carefully formed lettering like its rival lettera antica. The huge pro for Italic type during this time was its cost. It was inexpensive to print, saved time and space. ([Source][14])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Francesco Griffo's Italic type][15]][15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Summary&#xD;&#xA;Initial-word and proper-name capitalization was first used in Carolingian minuscule (from c. 800), but the use of Roman square capitals for these purposes (which has continued to our time) was not fully developed until the 15th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://davidscommonplacebook.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/carolingian-miniscule/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:I_littera_in_manuscripto.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/u2kvB.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.saintsandstones.net/saints-cathachcolumba-journey.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/klpGC.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://Scribes,%20Script,%20and%20Books:%20The%20Book%20Arts%20from%20Antiquity%20to%20the%20Renaissance&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.britannica.com/art/calligraphy/Latin-alphabet-handwriting#toc53212&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/39uVw.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_minuscule#Petrarchan_reform&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9iQ01.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.designhistory.org/Handwriting_pages/Humanist.html&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Niccolo_de_Niccoli_italic_handwriting.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O8pim.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://blogs.baruch.cuny.edu/art3050s2013/2013/02/14/hw-2-4/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/m4aLv.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="25a8c713-c15a-4f18-bfa0-e24fe6bb7f0a" CreationDate="2016-03-07T17:20:33.960" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="There seem to be two schools of thought about the meaning of the motto on Pope Francis's coat of arms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; miserando atque eligendo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These words are taken from the 21st homily of the Venerable Bede, describing Jesus's first meeting with Matthew:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum, et quia miserando atque eligendo vidit, ait illi, ‘Sequere me’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One school of thought, represented by [Fr. Z](http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/03/what-does-the-popes-motto-really-say-the-latin-motto-explained/), says that the phrase has two ablative gerunds and describes Jesus's way of seeing: &quot;by showing compassion and by choosing.&quot; Fr. Z would translate the sentence &quot;Jesus, therefore, saw the publican, and because he saw by having mercy and by choosing, He said to him, ‘Follow me.'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ron Conte](https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/more-on-the-papal-motto-miserando-atque-eligendo/), representing the other school of thought, says that's a literal, word-by-word translation that misses the meaning, as such an approach to translation often does. Conte would translate the motto &quot;pitiable yet chosen&quot;, and the whole sentence&#xD;&#xA;“Then Jesus saw the publican, and because he saw [him to be] pitiable and yet elect, he said to him: Follow me.” Most commonly, the motto is translated &quot;lowly but chosen.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My problem with Fr. Z's interpretation is that it doesn't make sense. What does it mean to &quot;see by choosing&quot;? My problem with Ron Conte's interpretation is that I don't understand the grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Miserando_ and _eligendo_ appear to be ablatives describing _vidit_. Or perhaps there are some elided words and the sentence should be understood like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum, et quia [eum] miserando atque eligendo [esse] vidit, ait illi, ‘Sequere me’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I still don't understand that. What does it mean to use an ablative gerund as a predicate like that? Why not a gerundive, like _eum miserandum atque eligendum esse vidit_?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="449" RevisionGUID="561d3e97-8e14-4c3a-8295-cf2ad5f83c47" CreationDate="2016-03-07T17:57:20.917" UserId="213" Comment="fixed link" Text="# Ancient and late antique scripts&#xD;&#xA;**Roman cursive** was sometimes mixed indiscriminately with Roman square capitals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There was no difference in meaning between upper case and lower case letters. The differences in the shapes of the letters were simply the result of the handwriting of the individual writer.([Source][1] — not the best, nor I have not found an example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roman cursive from the 1st century AD ([source][2]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Roman cursive.][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Insular and uncial scripts** (4th-8th centuries) sometimes made use of large decorative initials, such as in the Cathach of St. Columba ([source][4]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Carolingian minuscule (from c. 800)&#xD;&#xA;The Carolingian was the first truly bicameral script. Leila Avrin *Scribes, Script, and Books* (2010) p. 190 ([via Google Books][6]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **This [the Carolingian] system was the origin of our tradition of initial-word and proper-name capitalization**, and shows us why large and small letters are a permanent feature of modern European scripts but are lacking in Semitic scripts, which did not undergo the same medieval scribal development. By the eleventh century, capitalization of initial and important words began; it became more common in the thirteenth century and was ﬁxed in the sixteenth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these Carolingian-script capital letters were distinct from Roman square capitals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A hierarchy of scripts was established to distinguish different levels of text. At the top of the hierarchy were square capitals, which were used for book headings, and rustic capitals, used for the explicit (the last line of a book). Uncials signaled chapter headings, the table of contents, and the first line of text; half uncials were sometimes used for preface and the second text line; and Carolingian minuscules were used for the main text. Carefully drawn and coloured large Roman square capitals were used as major paragraph initials. This period marks the first time multiple writing styles were used both to decorate the text and to delineate categories of content. ([Source][7])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Carolingian script with Roman capitals][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carolingian minuscule was largely replaced by Gothic scripts until early humanists [such as Petrarch][9] (1304-1374) revived its use. I have not read anywhere that Petrarch changed the use of capital letters, but it appears that he uses at least some Roman capitals as we do, as in this sample of his handwriting ([source][9]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Petrarch's handwriting][10]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Italic script (from c. 1400)&#xD;&#xA;Niccolò de' Niccoli (1363-1437, Florence) adapted the Carolingian minuscule popular among humanists, using Roman square capitals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An influential teacher of the Humanist rounded letterform, Niccoli combined classical Roman capitals with the Carolingian minuscule to form a dual alphabet. He adapted the Carolingian script for faster everyday writing by sloping the letters a little (the result of holding the pen at a more comfortable angle), and allowing some of them to join up. His script ... as that of Bartolomeo Sanvito, was a forerunner of the italic type metal type for follow. ([Source][11])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Niccolò de' Niccoli's Italic cursive ([source][12]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Niccolò de' Niccoli's Italic cursive][13]][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The first Italic type**, developed by Francesco Griffo (1450-1518, Venice) for the printer Aldus Manutius,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was used in the cheaper writing shops. Using this style produced faster results because it did not need the carefully formed lettering like its rival lettera antica. The huge pro for Italic type during this time was its cost. It was inexpensive to print, saved time and space. ([Source][14])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Francesco Griffo's Italic type][15]][15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Summary&#xD;&#xA;Initial-word and proper-name capitalization was first used in Carolingian minuscule (from c. 800), but the use of Roman square capitals for these purposes (which has continued to our time) was not fully developed until the 15th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://davidscommonplacebook.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/carolingian-miniscule/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:I_littera_in_manuscripto.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/u2kvB.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.saintsandstones.net/saints-cathachcolumba-journey.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/klpGC.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=4q1MHDoFVwkC&amp;pg=190&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.britannica.com/art/calligraphy/Latin-alphabet-handwriting#toc53212&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/39uVw.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_minuscule#Petrarchan_reform&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9iQ01.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.designhistory.org/Handwriting_pages/Humanist.html&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Niccolo_de_Niccoli_italic_handwriting.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O8pim.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://blogs.baruch.cuny.edu/art3050s2013/2013/02/14/hw-2-4/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/m4aLv.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="73f8c679-5850-4696-baf8-2c2bb215d6e6" CreationDate="2016-03-07T18:24:40.087" UserId="213" Text="Roland Hinterhölzl (2009) *Information Structure and Language Change* p. 177 ([via Google Books][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Roman scribes would usually operate by &quot;copying texts in *scriptio continua* – that is, without separating words or indicating any pauses within a major section of text (Parkes 1993: 10). Separation by spaces ﬁrst appears in the Insular area (see Saenger 1997: 84-99). It is then used in the Carolingian period (see Müller 1964: 35, Bischoff 1986: 229, Saenger 1990); Parkes (1993: 31) discusses several cases in which Carolingian scribes copying older manuscripts introduced separation. However, spaces were not yet used in a consequent manner (see Saenger 1997: 100): in Carolingian minuscule manuscripts &quot;space was present, but not consistently between every word&quot; (Saenger 1997: 32). Saenger (I997: 32) refers to this kind of separation as &quot;aerated script&quot; (as opposed to &quot;word separation&quot; proper). In central and southern Germany &quot;scribes, after the mid-ninth century, began to write Latin in intensely aerated script, sometimes approaching separation, and began to develop modes for writing the vernacular that were clearly stimulated by Anglo-Saxon models.&quot; (Saenger 1997: 102). It is notable that &quot;only at the Abbey of Saint Gall, one of the larger Continental colonies of Irish and Anglo-Saxon monks, did the evolution of text format go so far as to continue consistent emulation of Insular word separation.&quot; (Saenger 1997: 103). The *Vocabularius Sancti Galli*, a Latin-Old High German dictionary, provides an early example of Continental word separation (see Saenger 1997: 103).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A whole book on the topic (with a surprising twist) is the one repeatedly cited above, [Paul Saenger (1997) *Space Between Words: The Origins of Silent Reading*][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=GbbN60KWOSoC&amp;pg=PA177&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/Space-Between-Words-Origins-Medieval/dp/080474016X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1457374749&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=space%20between%20words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="94" RevisionGUID="0b07e2f8-ea1b-4374-bada-ef7546ca5732" CreationDate="2016-03-07T20:14:46.917" UserId="68" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Basically, your second option is correct. There is the Vatican's *Lexicon Recentis Latínitátis*, referred to in the comment, but its approach to Latin is very idiosyncratic; debates over neologisms often get incredibly acrimonious, if you can believe it, but there are (VERY roughly) two schools: the &quot;Ciceronian,&quot; in which making up words for concepts that didn't exist in ancient Rome is to be avoided whenever possible, and the &quot;Erasmian,&quot; in which new concepts call for new ideas. (&quot;Ciceronian&quot; and &quot;Erasmian&quot; are my names for them, though they're not entirely accurate; Cicero made up words all the time, and Erasmus has a whole screed about how people who think you can't use any Latin Cicero didn't use are idiots.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vatican is of the more &quot;Ciceronian&quot; school, which gives you, unfortunately, things like &quot;immódica medicamenti stupefactīvi iniéctio&quot; as the official term for &quot;overdose.&quot; Other than the Vatican, actually, I'm not aware of anybody who takes this approach to neologisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Actually, now that I think of it, even the Vatican doesn't take this approach, or not always: *The Diary of a Wimpy Kid* was translated into Latin by a priest from the Vatican (Monsignor Daniel Gallagher), and it *definitely* doesn't use the *Lexicon Recentis Latínitátis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically, somebody comes up with a word and it catches on. &quot;World-wide web,&quot; for example, is widely known as &quot;Téla Totíus Terrae,&quot; and I have to imagine that somebody came up with that and couldn't stop giggling, and it's so great (ttt) that there's no reason to come up with anything else. &quot;Computátrum&quot; is the generally used word for &quot;computer&quot; (though the Vatican prefers &quot;ínstrúmentum computátrálium&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TL;DR: People come up with stuff and whatever sticks, sticks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="440" RevisionGUID="abc49650-ea7b-44b7-9163-dec11ef3c44c" CreationDate="2016-03-07T22:05:46.803" UserId="73" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="The [Online Etymological Dictionary](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=castor) states&#xD;&#xA;&gt; His [Castor's] name was given to secretions of the animal (Latin castoreum), used medicinally in ancient times. (Through this association his name replaced the native Latin word for &quot;beaver,&quot; which was fiber.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Castoreum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castoreum) has been used medicinally since Classical times, prominently as an ingredient in [*material medica*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materia_medica) and [theria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theriac) - the latter appeared in the [*Amsterdammer Apotheek*](https://books.google.com/books?id=QhdiAAAAcAAJ) as late as 1683, not too long before Linnaeus. Both concoctions had been used by the ancient Greeks and Romans, establishing themselves as supposed cure-alls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The connection between castoreum and Castor is not as clear. The Online Etymological Dictionary states that Castor was venerated by ancient Greek women as a healer; I have not been able to confirm this in any writings. [This page](http://www.billcasselman.com/cwod_archive/beaver_castor_two.htm) does state that no great explanation has been put forth in this regard, only that there is speculation that Castor (Kastor, if you prefer an alternate spelling) was transformed into a beaver and back in the course of some myth. Again, I have found no evidence of this. The direct mythological aspect here seems to be a dead end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part of your question is more interesting. The ancient Greeks and Romans were well aware of castoreum and used it for a variety of medicinal and health uses. Plutarch, for example, refers to it several times in his *Moralia* ([version in English](https://www.archive.org/stream/plutarchsmoralia00plutuoft/plutarchsmoralia00plutuoft_djvu.txt)). And yes, *castor* was one word used by the Romans to refer to beavers (see [the Lewis Elementary Latin dictionary](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1002193&amp;p2=c)), leading directly to the modern taxonomic usage, including that of Linnaeus in *Systema Naturae*. Linnaeus's usage, interestingly enough, was originally towards the same species of beaver that the Romans would have been familiar with - the Eurasian beaver, *castor fiber*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The naming of the stars [Castor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castor_(star)) (actually a triple star system) and [Pollux](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollux_(star)) seems to be somewhat unrelated to the specifics of the Greek/Roman myths of Castor and Pollux. Rather, the names may have been applied the Alpha Geminorum and Beta Geminorum due to the Babylonian naming of the two stars as &quot;The Great Twins&quot; (see [Rogers (1998)](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998JBAA..108....9R)). The idea that the two stars were twins was then passed on to the Greeks, and then the Romans, and thus they used their example of the [divine twins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_twins).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stars are not, however, related to beavers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="452" RevisionGUID="c25962e5-4801-4857-8a19-7183ab456000" CreationDate="2016-03-07T22:21:21.833" UserId="45" Text="The term *jade* refers to two separate types of metamorphic rock, according to its [Wikipedia entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both forms, *jadeite* and *nephrite*, share the same etymology, which is detailed in the [entry for Nephrite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephrite#Name):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The name nephrite is derived from *lapis nephriticus*, which in turn is derived from Greek *λίθος νεφρίτίκος; νεφρός λίθος*, which means 'kidney stone' and is the Latin and Greek version of the Spanish piedra de ijada (the origin of &quot;jade&quot; and &quot;jadeite&quot;). Accordingly, nephrite jade was once believed to be a cure for kidney stones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It certainly is not a pleasant name and I have been able unable to locate uses of the term outside *nephriticus* used outside of its normal renal context (Lewis &amp; Short [cite an occurrence](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnephritis) in Cael. Aur. Tard. 5, 1, 6.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a (in my opinion, highly amusing) footnote, it is interesting that this translation evokes the kidneys while Ben Kovitz's other credible proposal based on Friar Odoric, *merdaca*, [evokes similar concepts](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmerdaceus)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="453" RevisionGUID="80476367-cbc1-452e-a55f-4cf443afbbdd" CreationDate="2016-03-07T22:26:24.487" UserId="78" Text="Prosody suggests punctuation before the *quod*. The line scanned looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sēd vĕtŭ|ērĕ pă|trēs quōd | nōn pǒtŭ|ērĕ vĕ|tārē&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly the principal caesura is between *patres* and *quod*, and that effect would be felt more strongly if it's a strong pause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the third line in this sequence lacks any conjunctions, relatives, or anything else that connects it to the former two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While these two reasons are not in themselves sufficient, together I think it makes it more likely that we're supposed to understand a strong pause after *patres*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, a master like Ovid is surely teasing us with intentional ambiguity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="452" RevisionGUID="a0a0fcf1-6344-4e28-ba62-5f3e81ee4070" CreationDate="2016-03-07T23:24:17.647" UserId="118" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The term *jade* refers to two separate types of metamorphic rock, according to its [Wikipedia entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both forms, *jadeite* and *nephrite*, share the same etymology, which is detailed in the [entry for Nephrite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephrite#Name):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The name nephrite is derived from *lapis nephriticus*, which in turn is derived from Greek *λίθος νεφρίτίκος; νεφρός λίθος*, which means 'kidney stone' and is the Latin and Greek version of the Spanish piedra de ijada (the origin of &quot;jade&quot; and &quot;jadeite&quot;). Accordingly, nephrite jade was once believed to be a cure for kidney stones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It certainly is not a pleasant name and I have been able unable to locate uses of the term outside *nephriticus* used outside of its normal renal context (Lewis &amp; Short [cite an occurrence](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnephritis) in Cael. Aur. Tard. 5, 1, 6.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a (in my opinion, highly amusing) footnote, it is interesting that this translation evokes the kidneys while Ben Kovitz's other credible proposal based on Friar Odoric, *merdacas*, [evokes similar concepts](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmerdaceus)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="c9abb4f0-0f60-40c0-a733-1c860c991841" CreationDate="2016-03-07T23:35:03.323" UserId="118" Comment="added 89 characters in body; edited tags" Text="There seem to be two schools of thought about the meaning of the motto on Pope Francis's coat of arms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; miserando atque eligendo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These words are taken from the 21st homily of the Venerable Bede, describing Jesus's first meeting with Matthew:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum, et quia miserando atque eligendo vidit, ait illi, ‘Sequere me’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One school of thought, represented by [Fr. Z](http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/03/what-does-the-popes-motto-really-say-the-latin-motto-explained/), says that the phrase has two ablative gerunds and describes Jesus's way of seeing: &quot;by showing compassion and by choosing.&quot; Fr. Z would translate the sentence &quot;Jesus, therefore, saw the publican, and because he saw by having mercy and by choosing, He said to him, ‘Follow me.'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ron Conte](https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/more-on-the-papal-motto-miserando-atque-eligendo/), representing the other school of thought, says that's a literal, word-by-word translation that misses the meaning, as such an approach to translation often does. Conte would translate the motto &quot;pitiable yet chosen&quot;, and the whole sentence&#xD;&#xA;“Then Jesus saw the publican, and because he saw [him to be] pitiable and yet elect, he said to him: Follow me.” Most commonly, the motto is translated &quot;lowly but chosen.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My problem with Fr. Z's interpretation is that it doesn't make sense. What does it mean to &quot;see by choosing&quot;? My problem with Ron Conte's interpretation is that I don't understand the grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Miserando_ and _eligendo_ appear to be ablatives describing _vidit_. Or perhaps there are some elided words and the sentence should be understood like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum, et quia [eum] miserando atque eligendo [esse] vidit, ait illi, ‘Sequere me’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I still don't understand that. What does it mean to use an ablative gerund as a predicate like that? Why not a gerundive, like _eum miserandum atque eligendum esse vidit_? Does the fact that _miseror_ can also be understood as a deponent verb play a role here?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1593" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="c9abb4f0-0f60-40c0-a733-1c860c991841" CreationDate="2016-03-07T23:35:03.323" UserId="118" Comment="added 89 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|meaning|medieval-latin|ablative|gerund|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="26573b0b-3731-4e53-89fd-3a73dab28667" CreationDate="2016-03-08T00:14:15.133" UserId="118" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="There seem to be two schools of thought about the meaning of the motto on Pope Francis's coat of arms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; miserando atque eligendo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These words are taken from the 21st homily of the Venerable Bede, describing Jesus's first meeting with Matthew:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum, et quia miserando atque eligendo vidit, ait illi, ‘Sequere me’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One school of thought, represented by [Fr. Z](http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/03/what-does-the-popes-motto-really-say-the-latin-motto-explained/), says that the phrase has two ablative gerunds and describes Jesus's way of seeing: &quot;by showing compassion and by choosing.&quot; Fr. Z would translate the sentence &quot;Jesus, therefore, saw the publican, and because he saw by having mercy and by choosing, He said to him, ‘Follow me.'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ron Conte](https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/more-on-the-papal-motto-miserando-atque-eligendo/), representing the other school of thought, says that's a literal, word-by-word translation that misses the meaning, as such an approach to translation often does. Conte would translate the motto &quot;pitiable yet chosen&quot;, and the whole sentence&#xD;&#xA;“Then Jesus saw the publican, and because he saw [him to be] pitiable and yet elect, he said to him: Follow me.” Most commonly, the motto is translated &quot;lowly but chosen.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My problem with Fr. Z's interpretation is that it doesn't make sense. What does it mean to &quot;see by choosing&quot;? My problem with Ron Conte's interpretation is that I don't understand the grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Miserando_ and _eligendo_ appear to be ablatives describing _vidit_. Or perhaps there are some elided words and the sentence should be understood like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum, et quia [eum] miserando atque eligendo [esse] vidit, ait illi, ‘Sequere me’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I still don't understand that. What does it mean to use an ablative gerund as a predicate like that? Why not a gerundive, like _eum miserandum atque eligendum esse vidit_? Does the fact that _miseror_ can also be understood as a deponent verb play a role here? Might these actually be dative gerunds?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="454" RevisionGUID="c4df9bc2-faec-4694-a15d-a0947fa22109" CreationDate="2016-03-08T00:25:14.123" UserId="12" Text="The last line of an AD 49 boundary stone uses the Ⅎ twice, representing the consonantal *v*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last line reads: *ampliaℲit terminaℲitq[ue]*.  ([*Illustrated Introduction to Latin Epigraphy*, 118](https://books.google.com/books?id=ywI6SDUggk4C&amp;pg=PA118)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the Ⱶ, its use is largely restricted to words of Greek origin, according to Revilo P. Oliver:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Revilo P. Oliver, &quot;The Claudian Letter Ⱶ,&quot; page 251][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He concludes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Revilo P. Oliver, &quot;The Claudian Letter Ⱶ,&quot; page 256][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remaining letter, Ↄ, has not been found in any published inscriptions, but based on the testimony of Priscian it was meant to represent the sound of *bs* and *ps*. (Oliver, 253)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[Revilo P. Oliver, &quot;The Claudian Letter Ⱶ,&quot; *American Journal of Archaeology*, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Jul.–Sep., 1949), pp. 249–257.](https://www.jstor.org/stable/500662)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PxFOb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uoDm0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ROk7N.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="454" RevisionGUID="72c0abc7-c8ec-465c-8752-8cca849701fd" CreationDate="2016-03-08T00:35:05.810" UserId="12" Comment="added 391 characters in body" Text="The last line of an AD 49 boundary stone uses the Ⅎ twice, representing the consonantal *v*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last line reads: *ampliaℲit terminaℲitq[ue]*.  ([*Illustrated Introduction to Latin Epigraphy*, 118](https://books.google.com/books?id=ywI6SDUggk4C&amp;pg=PA118)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to John Wordsworth, a few other examples include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; VOℲIMVS, ℲOℲEMVS, ARℲALES, ARℲALIVM [...] BOℲE, IOℲI [...] ℲELINA, ℲIR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the Ⱶ, its use is largely restricted to words of Greek origin, according to Revilo P. Oliver:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Revilo P. Oliver, &quot;The Claudian Letter Ⱶ,&quot; page 251][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He concludes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Revilo P. Oliver, &quot;The Claudian Letter Ⱶ,&quot; page 256][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of the use of the letter, according to John Worsdsworth, include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CⱵCNVS, BⱵBLIOTHECA, adn once in GⱵBERNATOR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remaining letter, Ↄ, has not been found in any published inscriptions, but based on the testimony of Priscian it was meant to represent the sound of *bs* and *ps*. (cf. Oliver and Wordsworth)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Revilo P. Oliver, &quot;The Claudian Letter Ⱶ,&quot; *American Journal of Archaeology*, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Jul.–Sep., 1949), pp. 249–257.](https://www.jstor.org/stable/500662)&#xD;&#xA;- John Worsworth, [*Fragments and specimens of early Latin*, 9](https://books.google.com/books?id=67wUAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA9)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PxFOb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uoDm0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ROk7N.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="271" RevisionGUID="b21bc112-54a6-4826-888f-3fd25d075a19" CreationDate="2016-03-08T00:44:43.293" UserId="12" Comment="cleanup" Text="Emperor Claudius introduced three additional letters to the Latin alphabet: Ⅎ, Ↄ, and Ⱶ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are some examples of the words in which these letters were used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1598" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="271" RevisionGUID="b21bc112-54a6-4826-888f-3fd25d075a19" CreationDate="2016-03-08T00:44:43.293" UserId="12" Comment="cleanup" Text="Examples of the use of Claudian letters (Ⅎ, Ↄ, Ⱶ)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="454" RevisionGUID="9651ab99-8eff-4297-a922-9e49bd27afd8" CreationDate="2016-03-08T00:45:01.137" UserId="12" Comment="typo" Text="The last line of an AD 49 boundary stone uses the Ⅎ twice, representing the consonantal *v*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last line reads: *ampliaℲit terminaℲitq[ue]*.  ([*Illustrated Introduction to Latin Epigraphy*, 118](https://books.google.com/books?id=ywI6SDUggk4C&amp;pg=PA118)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to John Wordsworth, a few other examples include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; VOℲIMVS, ℲOℲEMVS, ARℲALES, ARℲALIVM [...] BOℲE, IOℲI [...] ℲELINA, ℲIR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the Ⱶ, its use is largely restricted to words of Greek origin, according to Revilo P. Oliver:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Revilo P. Oliver, &quot;The Claudian Letter Ⱶ,&quot; page 251][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He concludes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Revilo P. Oliver, &quot;The Claudian Letter Ⱶ,&quot; page 256][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of the use of the letter, according to John Worsdsworth, include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CⱵCNVS, BⱵBLIOTHECA, and once in GⱵBERNATOR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remaining letter, Ↄ, has not been found in any published inscriptions, but based on the testimony of Priscian it was meant to represent the sound of *bs* and *ps*. (cf. Oliver and Wordsworth)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Revilo P. Oliver, &quot;The Claudian Letter Ⱶ,&quot; *American Journal of Archaeology*, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Jul.–Sep., 1949), pp. 249–257.](https://www.jstor.org/stable/500662)&#xD;&#xA;- John Worsworth, [*Fragments and specimens of early Latin*, 9](https://books.google.com/books?id=67wUAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA9)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PxFOb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uoDm0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ROk7N.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="223" RevisionGUID="be71b5ea-f796-49b0-933c-5c726d32a7a3" CreationDate="2016-03-08T01:51:14.697" UserId="78" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="The first one I ever encountered was in Metellus' letter to Cicero (*Fam*. 5.1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Existimaram pro mutuo inter nos animo et pro reconciliata gratia nec absentem umquam me abs te ludibrio laesum iri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had thought, on account of our mutual desire and reconciliation, that I while absent was not ever to be attacked with ridicule by you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's certainly rare. If we need more than four hands to count the instances in Cicero, it's because Cicero's corpus is so incredibly massive. That said, it's not completely unheard of, and this is a formal written style from one senator to another." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="417" RevisionGUID="33c4d91d-726b-4767-bd1b-f16dabbe440f" CreationDate="2016-03-08T01:52:29.283" UserId="78" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Grammatically it should be the first—*homo* and *intraturus* enclose *mundi*, and therefore the genitive belongs to them. This is a very common way of showing relationships between dependent words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if it is true that Linnaeus meant the latter, then I'd offer that this isn't the best Latin. The A1B2A2B1 structure doesn't feel like proper Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sort of distance is possible with gentive hyperbaton, but from the examples that Devine adduces in his *Latin Word Order* (Oxford, 2006), this one does not seem to fit in. The parallel in English he gives for genitive hyperbaton is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A critique hit the newstands of the Prime Minister's foreign policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Readers easily understand that these are not newstands of foreign policy, but rather that genitive goes with 'critique'. Indeed, in most of his examples, the genitive is separated from what it modifies by a verb (&quot;*contionem* advocat *militum*&quot;, BC 2.32; &quot;*nemo* inclamavit *patronorum*&quot;, De Orat. 1.230). He explains (with the example *sensibus carebit oculorum*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [In genitive hyperbaton] the cofocus is a single pragmatically uniform syntactic constituent. The syntax is massaged to provide for a simple and direct translation into a pragmatically structured meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't always the case, though. Take these four examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tantum* civitati Haeduae *dignitatis* tribuebat (BG 5.7)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; neque...*pacis* umquam apud vos *mentionem* feci (Livy 21.13.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is still no ambiguity here, and despite the hyperbaton, there isn't alternation between elements that go together. The structure is more chiastic here. I'd wager we only see the odd alternation in poetry, or if we see it at all in prose, it's very rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, all in all, the first translation is the more natural way of saying things, the second is the odd one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If* you wanted to force the odd one, simply put *mundi* after *theatrum*. If you wanted to make the first less ambiguous, Joonas' suggestions of an adjective instead of a genitive (which is excellent Latin) or a relative clause are both correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1602" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="345" RevisionGUID="32968840-aead-48a5-9de6-ca42e27b1d22" CreationDate="2016-03-08T01:53:31.540" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags" Text="|syntax|relative-pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="455" RevisionGUID="cdfa9f1c-38e3-4d22-a1cb-3c5ed757eaf1" CreationDate="2016-03-08T02:20:30.213" UserId="27" Text="Is there a way (spoken or written) to make a phrase sound ironic in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example &quot;good for you&quot; would be &quot;tibi bonum est&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could there be intonation or another word to make it sound ironic? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="455" RevisionGUID="cdfa9f1c-38e3-4d22-a1cb-3c5ed757eaf1" CreationDate="2016-03-08T02:20:30.213" UserId="27" Text="Is there a way to make a sentence ironic in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="455" RevisionGUID="cdfa9f1c-38e3-4d22-a1cb-3c5ed757eaf1" CreationDate="2016-03-08T02:20:30.213" UserId="27" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="94" RevisionGUID="7e2bebe7-21c9-4f76-8b2d-34a16cb6eec6" CreationDate="2016-03-08T03:13:40.750" UserId="68" Comment="added references" Text="Basically, your second option is correct. There is the Vatican's *[Lexicon Recentis Latínitátis][1]*, referred to in the comment, but its approach to Latin is very idiosyncratic; debates over neologisms often get incredibly acrimonious, if you can believe it, but there are (VERY roughly) two schools: the &quot;Ciceronian,&quot; in which making up words for concepts that didn't exist in ancient Rome is to be avoided whenever possible, and the &quot;Erasmian,&quot; in which new concepts call for new ideas. (&quot;Ciceronian&quot; and &quot;Erasmian&quot; are my names for them, though they're not entirely accurate; Cicero made up words all the time, and Erasmus has a whole screed about how people who think you can't use any Latin Cicero didn't use are idiots.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vatican is of the more &quot;Ciceronian&quot; school, which gives you, unfortunately, things like &quot;immódica medicamenti stupefactīvi iniéctio&quot; as the official term for &quot;overdose.&quot; Other than the Vatican, actually, I'm not aware of anybody who takes this approach to neologisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Actually, now that I think of it, even the Vatican doesn't take this approach, or not always: *The Diary of a Wimpy Kid* was translated into Latin (*[Commentarií dé Ineptó Pueró][2]*) by one of the Pope's Latinists ([Monsignor Daniel Gallagher][3]), and it *definitely* doesn't use the *Lexicon Recentis Latínitátis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically, somebody comes up with a word and it catches on. &quot;World-wide web,&quot; for example, is widely known as &quot;Téla Totíus Terrae,&quot; and I have to imagine that somebody came up with that and couldn't stop giggling, and it's so great (ttt) that there's no reason to come up with anything else. &quot;Computátrum&quot; is the generally used word for &quot;computer&quot; (though the Vatican prefers &quot;ínstrúmentum computátrálium&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TL;DR: People come up with stuff and whatever sticks, sticks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/rc_latinitas_20040601_lexicon_it.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1419719475?keywords=de%20inepto%20puero&amp;qid=1457406609&amp;ref_=sr_1_1&amp;sr=8-1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/27/priest-translates-pope-tweets-latin/6954991/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="456" RevisionGUID="fc5cb316-8aa7-4ebd-84c4-ac302f00f350" CreationDate="2016-03-08T03:32:41.150" UserId="68" Text="Whenever Cicero uses *crēdō* parenthetically, he means it ironically. For example *In Catilinam I*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si te iam, Catilina, comprehendi, si interfici iussero, credo, erit verendum mihi, ne non potius hoc omnes honi serius a me quam quisquam crudelius factum esse dicat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *In Verrem*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At, credo, in hisce solis rebus indomitas cupiditates atque effrenatas habebat: ceteræ libidines ejus ratione aliqua aut modo continebantur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm fairly certain the OLD discusses this in the entry for *credo* but I don't have one to hand at the moment so I'll have to quote an editorial signed only &quot;C.K.&quot; in *The Classical Weekly*, vol. X no. 3, October 16, 1916:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As everyone knows, the parenthetical *credo* repeatedly marks irony.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure I buy *tibi, credo, bonum est*, and of course there are all sorts of *non*-ironic uses of *credo*, but still you might find it useful at some point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="456" RevisionGUID="30812675-5bdf-4b8a-a670-24180ea86f76" CreationDate="2016-03-08T04:25:18.263" UserId="118" Comment="honi -&gt; boni (typo)" Text="Whenever Cicero uses *crēdō* parenthetically, he means it ironically. For example *In Catilinam I*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si te iam, Catilina, comprehendi, si interfici iussero, credo, erit verendum mihi, ne non potius hoc omnes boni serius a me quam quisquam crudelius factum esse dicat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *In Verrem*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At, credo, in hisce solis rebus indomitas cupiditates atque effrenatas habebat: ceteræ libidines ejus ratione aliqua aut modo continebantur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm fairly certain the OLD discusses this in the entry for *credo* but I don't have one to hand at the moment so I'll have to quote an editorial signed only &quot;C.K.&quot; in *The Classical Weekly*, vol. X no. 3, October 16, 1916:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As everyone knows, the parenthetical *credo* repeatedly marks irony.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure I buy *tibi, credo, bonum est*, and of course there are all sorts of *non*-ironic uses of *credo*, but still you might find it useful at some point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="376" RevisionGUID="07fc01a2-b1c2-4f5c-87fc-e49472a46ec1" CreationDate="2016-03-08T04:43:02.610" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I'll just add one possible exception to @C. M. Weimer's excellent answer. In &quot;A Note on Subordinate Clauses in Oratio Obliqua,&quot; *The Classical Review*, 1931, E.T. Salmon suggests that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the rule . . . that the future perfect indicative in the protasis of a conditional sentence becomes the perfect subjunctive when transferred to Oratio Obliqua in primary sequence . . . [ought] to be modified. . . . When the principal verb is in either the first or the second person Latin usually prefers to use the indicative mood in the clauses dependent on the Oratio Obliqua.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He then cites a number of examples from Cicero, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nolite arbitrari, o mihi carissimi filii, me, cum a vobis discessero, nusquam aut nullum fore.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; —*De Senectute* XXII, 79&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Spero, si absolutus erit, coniunctiorem illum nobis fore in ratione petitionis.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; —*Pro Marcllo*, II, 5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on. S/he goes on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Very instructive in this respect is *Ad Fam. XI, 28*. . . . On seven occasions he uses the indicative mood in clauses dependent on Oratio Obliqua constructions; on all seven occasions the principal verb is in either the first or the second person. In the same letter, whenever the Oratio Obliqua is introduced by a verb in the third person, the verb in the dependent clause is in the subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, this does nothing to change your example. If Salmon is correct, however—*non arbitrari audeo*—then if your example were&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quandocumque ad illam venero me accipiet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then Oratio Obliqua with the first or second person would be not&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dicis illam quandocumque ad illam venerim me accepturam esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dicis illam quandocumque ad illam venero me accepturam esse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="440" RevisionGUID="189cb6c4-0015-4bef-836d-d0f31b361e22" CreationDate="2016-03-08T08:30:35.040" UserId="152" Comment="Added link to Castor fiber description in Systema naturae. Corrected capitalization: always Genus (with an upper case initial) species (with a lower case initial)." Text="The [Online Etymological Dictionary](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=castor) states&#xD;&#xA;&gt; His [Castor's] name was given to secretions of the animal (Latin castoreum), used medicinally in ancient times. (Through this association his name replaced the native Latin word for &quot;beaver,&quot; which was fiber.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Castoreum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castoreum) has been used medicinally since Classical times, prominently as an ingredient in [*material medica*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materia_medica) and [theria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theriac) - the latter appeared in the [*Amsterdammer Apotheek*](https://books.google.com/books?id=QhdiAAAAcAAJ) as late as 1683, not too long before Linnaeus. Both concoctions had been used by the ancient Greeks and Romans, establishing themselves as supposed cure-alls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The connection between castoreum and Castor is not as clear. The Online Etymological Dictionary states that Castor was venerated by ancient Greek women as a healer; I have not been able to confirm this in any writings. [This page](http://www.billcasselman.com/cwod_archive/beaver_castor_two.htm) does state that no great explanation has been put forth in this regard, only that there is speculation that Castor (Kastor, if you prefer an alternate spelling) was transformed into a beaver and back in the course of some myth. Again, I have found no evidence of this. The direct mythological aspect here seems to be a dead end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part of your question is more interesting. The ancient Greeks and Romans were well aware of castoreum and used it for a variety of medicinal and health uses. Plutarch, for example, refers to it several times in his *Moralia* ([version in English](https://www.archive.org/stream/plutarchsmoralia00plutuoft/plutarchsmoralia00plutuoft_djvu.txt)). And yes, *castor* was one word used by the Romans to refer to beavers (see [the Lewis Elementary Latin dictionary](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1002193&amp;p2=c)), leading directly to the modern taxonomic usage, including that of Linnaeus in [*Systema Naturae*](http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/10277#page/68/mode/1up). Linnaeus's usage, interestingly enough, was originally towards the same species of beaver that the Romans would have been familiar with - the Eurasian beaver, *Castor fiber*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The naming of the stars [Castor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castor_(star)) (actually a triple star system) and [Pollux](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollux_(star)) seems to be somewhat unrelated to the specifics of the Greek/Roman myths of Castor and Pollux. Rather, the names may have been applied the Alpha Geminorum and Beta Geminorum due to the Babylonian naming of the two stars as &quot;The Great Twins&quot; (see [Rogers (1998)](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998JBAA..108....9R)). The idea that the two stars were twins was then passed on to the Greeks, and then the Romans, and thus they used their example of the [divine twins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_twins).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stars are not, however, related to beavers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1612" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="440" RevisionGUID="189cb6c4-0015-4bef-836d-d0f31b361e22" CreationDate="2016-03-08T08:30:35.040" Comment="Proposed by 152 approved by 118, 66 edit id of 93" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="452" RevisionGUID="5e440137-84d2-4aac-bd24-9ae24cb51e5f" CreationDate="2016-03-08T14:03:57.377" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="The term *jade* refers to two separate types of metamorphic rock, according to its [Wikipedia entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both forms, *jadeite* and *nephrite*, share the same etymology, which is detailed in the [entry for Nephrite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephrite#Name):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The name nephrite is derived from *lapis nephriticus*, which in turn is derived from Greek *λίθος νεφρίτίκος; νεφρός λίθος*, which means 'kidney stone' and is the Latin and Greek version of the Spanish piedra de ijada (the origin of &quot;jade&quot; and &quot;jadeite&quot;). Accordingly, nephrite jade was once believed to be a cure for kidney stones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It certainly is not a pleasant name and I have been unable to locate uses of the term *nephriticus* used outside of its normal renal context (Lewis &amp; Short [cite an occurrence](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnephritis) in Cael. Aur. Tard. 5, 1, 6.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a (in my opinion, highly amusing) footnote, it is interesting that this translation evokes the kidneys while Ben Kovitz's other credible proposal based on Friar Odoric, *merdacas*, [evokes similar concepts](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmerdaceus)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="369" RevisionGUID="0e13a342-34db-4b91-8a5e-50b845b6d511" CreationDate="2016-03-08T14:40:35.233" UserId="68" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Lewis Elementary gives the definition of *limito* as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. to enclose within boundaries or limits, to bound  &#xD;&#xA;2. to fix, settle, determine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the definition of *delimito* as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. to mark out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest, given these definitions, that *limito* has the sense of establishing the existence and placement of a boundary (&quot;You stay on your side of the back seat of the car and I'll stay on mine, and neither one of us will cross into the other's territory&quot;), whereas *delimito* has the sense of creating a physical representation of that boundary (&quot;Here, I'll put a piece of tape right down the middle of the seat so we can be sure not to cross the boundary&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say therefore that no, *de* in *delimito* is not actually redundant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="457" RevisionGUID="4537eb76-279b-4533-8fe4-f67f8f671b97" CreationDate="2016-03-08T15:27:30.433" UserId="45" Text="Irony is certainly present in the Latin lexicon: it was one of the classical rhetoric techniques in fact. Joel's reference to Cicero's *credo* is a good example of its use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other common [semantic inversions](http://www.sitelevel.com/click?url=http%3a%2f%2frhetoric.byu.edu%2fFigures%2fGroupings%2fSemantic%2520Inversions.htm&amp;sid=pTOFcHvoTwWddeuP), most of which we would recognize as a kind of irony, include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *[Paralipsis](http://www.sitelevel.com/click?url=http%3a%2f%2frhetoric.byu.edu%2fFigures%2fP%2fparalipsis.htm&amp;sid=pTOFcHvoTwWddeuP)*: mentioning something in the context of &quot;leaving it out,&quot; as Cicero is rather famous for, for example, in the repeated *praetermitto*'s of *In Catalinam I*.&#xD;&#xA;2. *[Sarcasm](http://www.sitelevel.com/click?url=http%3a%2f%2frhetoric.byu.edu%2fFigures%2fS%2fsarcasmus.htm&amp;sid=pTOFcHvoTwWddeuP)*: a more bitter kind of irony, demonstrated in the same speech by an ever-obliging Cicero with such turns of phrase as *Nos autem fortes viri*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To find a veritable treasure trove of more colloquial (and quite hilarious) irony, I recommend some quality time with Plautus. Here is a good example from the *Curculio*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Phaedrus**: Huic proxumum illud ostiumst oculissimum.&#xD;&#xA;salve, valuistin? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Palindromus**: Ostium occlusissimum,&#xD;&#xA;caruitne febris te heri vel nudiustertius&#xD;&#xA;et heri cenavistine? **Phaed**: Deridesne me?&#xD;&#xA;**Pal**: Quid tu ergo, insane, rogitas valeatne ostium?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Phaed**: Close to this [temple] is that most beautiful of doors. [to the door] Hello, how have you been? **Pal**: O most closed [N.B.: almost the same as &quot;most beautiful&quot;] of doors, I hope you haven't been sick yesterday or the day before and that you ate well yesterday. **Phaed**: Are you mocking me? **Pal**: Well, idiot, why were you just asking how the door has been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here (as in English), the use of unnecessary superlatives is an effective way of conveying the exact opposite. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along these lines, **I would suggest translating an ironic *good for you* as:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Optimum factu!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found examples from both Cicero and Caesar using the supine with *optimum*, so this should sound fairly fluent. An alternative that more readily fits into the supine mold would be *Mirabile factu!* I would be happy to help with a more exact translation of this phrase if you can provide more context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the proposed translation *tibi bonum est*, this does not convey the same meaning as the English idiomatic phrase *good for you*. I found a few examples of this phrase in some [Renaissance moral manuals](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=%22tibi%20bonum%20est%22), but the phrase depends on context: it means something like &quot;X is [a] good for you.&quot; I believe the phrase is so rare because this meaning would normally be conveyed by a double dative: *Tibi bono est*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the phrase &quot;good for you&quot; is not necessarily ironic: context, in English as in Latin, almost always determines the tone. &quot;Good for you&quot; can be alternatively ironic, condescending, or even complimentary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="458" RevisionGUID="a1a73e7c-b178-4611-b6fc-2dac25aad2f7" CreationDate="2016-03-08T19:38:24.963" UserId="12" Text="[*De Bello Africo*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Bello_Africo) and [*De Bello Hispaniensi*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Bello_Hispaniensi) are continuations of Julius Caesar's commentaries on various wars, which began with *De Bello Gallico*.  However, according to Wikipedia, neither Caesar nor Aulus Hirtius (the author of the eighth book of *De Bello Gallico*) is believed to have written these works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Due to considerable differences in style, scholarly consensus has ruled out the author of [*De Bello Alexandrino*], as well as Julius Caesar, as the author or authors of the two [works].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is it about the style of these two works that preclude the possibility that Caesar or Hirtius wrote them?  An overview of the main differences, preferably with a few examples, would be great." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1619" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="458" RevisionGUID="a1a73e7c-b178-4611-b6fc-2dac25aad2f7" CreationDate="2016-03-08T19:38:24.963" UserId="12" Text="Why are *De Bello Africo* and *Hispaniensi* not believed to have been written by Julius Caesar or Hirtius?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1620" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="458" RevisionGUID="a1a73e7c-b178-4611-b6fc-2dac25aad2f7" CreationDate="2016-03-08T19:38:24.963" UserId="12" Text="|classical-latin|style|gaius-iulius-caesar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="459" RevisionGUID="642e5ab4-c66a-47ba-a594-dcc0c82299ba" CreationDate="2016-03-08T20:15:37.893" UserId="79" Text="In today's mathematics, two lines are said to be normal to each other if they are at a right angle (perpendicular) to each other.&#xD;&#xA;I want to know how this can be expressed in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closely related questions have been asked on mathematical SE sites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [How did “normal” come to mean “perpendicular”?](http://mathoverflow.net/q/172690/558939)&#xD;&#xA;- [Etymology of the word “normal” (perpendicular)](http://math.stackexchange.com/q/328662/166535)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What expressions are there for normality in Latin, preferably classical?&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see examples of mathematical mentions of normality, as old ones as possible.&#xD;&#xA;Looking at dictionaries gives a list of possible translations to &quot;right angle&quot;, &quot;perpendicular&quot; and &quot;normal&quot;, but it is not clear which ones could be used in mathematical context.&#xD;&#xA;(Some possible expressions: *derectus, directus, praeceps, perpendicularis, perpendicularius, perpendiculatus, cathetus, angulus rectus, angulus normalis*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be able to write mathematics reasonably fluently, it is good to know several (possibly grammatically different) ways to express the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;The accepted [MathOverflow answer](http://mathoverflow.net/a/172694/55893) gives a classical example of *angulus normalis* (straight angle), but I have not been able to find more classical expressions for perpendicularity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since my question about [finding ancient mathematical texts in Latin](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/400/79) has produced no example texts so far, I will have to accept post-classical examples.&#xD;&#xA;Some amount of geometry does appear in non-mathematical texts, so I hope to find classical examples as well.&#xD;&#xA;(Maybe I should finally start reading my Vitruvius&amp;hellip;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1622" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="459" RevisionGUID="642e5ab4-c66a-47ba-a594-dcc0c82299ba" CreationDate="2016-03-08T20:15:37.893" UserId="79" Text="How was perpendicularity expressed in classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1623" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="459" RevisionGUID="642e5ab4-c66a-47ba-a594-dcc0c82299ba" CreationDate="2016-03-08T20:15:37.893" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="460" RevisionGUID="ce8c3acd-c6a0-41a8-a90e-877591ed4cc2" CreationDate="2016-03-08T20:18:12.193" UserId="45" Text="As you note from the Wikpedia articles, the scholarly consensus is that Caesar did not write these works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Loeb Classic Library edition](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/LCL402/1955/pb_LCL402.vii.xml) to these works and one other (*Alexandrian War. African War. Spanish War*) gives some brief examples of the reasons for this, noting that doubts can be traced back to the 2nd century A.D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hirtius is a likely next candidate, since the style of another &quot;campaign&quot; work (*De Bello Alexandrino*) is remarkably similar to the book that he appended to *De Bello Gallico*. Hirtius writes the following at the beginning of [Book VIII of *De Bello Gallico*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Caes.+Gal.+8&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0002):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Caesaris nostri commentarios rerum gestarum Galliae, non comparantibus superioribus atque insequentibus eius scriptis, contexui novissimumque imperfectum ab rebus gestis Alexandriae confeci usque ad exitum non quidem civilis dissensionis, cuius finem nullum videmus, sed vitae Caesaris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I have tacked a supplement to the Commentaries of our great Caesar on the operations in Gaul . . . and his last work (i.e. the Civil Wars), which was left unfinished from the operations at Alexandria onwards, I have completed as far as the conclusion, not indeed of civil discord, of which we see no end, but of Caesar's life.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The introduction to the Loeb edition, mentioned above, does not think this is plausible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This certainly appears to confirm what seems likely on stylistic grounds, namely that, if it was Hirtius who completed the Gallic Wars, it was Hirtius also who wrote de Bello Alexandrino.... Was he then also the author of *de Bello Africo* and *de Bello Hispaniensi*? His words—'as far as the conclusion of Caesar’s life' may indeed be so interpreted. **The internal evidence, however, seems strongly against this theory, and suggests, on the contrary, that the three works are the independent productions of three separate hands, none of which was Caesar’s own.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The introduction then goes on to mention how certain &quot;idiosyncrasies of style&quot; display themselves in one book without being in the other. Here are the provided examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **The author of *de Bello Hispaniensi*:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Frequent **quotations from Ennius**&#xD;&#xA; - Frequent use of ***bene* as an intensive particle**, e.g. *bene magna pars*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **The author of *de Bello Africo*:**&#xD;&#xA; - Frequent use of the word *interim*, such that he &quot;can seldom think of any alternative with which to introduce a new chapter&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because these literary traits are unique to each, and not present in any of the other works, scholars conclude that they were not written by the same author, at least as they have come down to us now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They propose Bouvet's suggestion in his addition of the *Commentarii*, which suggests that these works are &quot;no more than rough drafts prepared at the request of Hirtius by two separate soldiers who fought in the respective campaigns; and had he survived, Hirtius would have worked up this ‘copy’ into more effective literary form.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last possibility is reiterated later on in the Loeb introduction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The careful chronology and the faithful record of the feelings of the troops suggests a soldier - possibly a junior officer - who was on the spot. That he was young and inexperienced; an ardent, but not always a balanced, partisan; a keen observer of all that went on around him, but without access to the inner counsels of his C.-in-C." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="460" RevisionGUID="6c779bfd-0819-428a-a15d-306d9a5fff01" CreationDate="2016-03-08T20:25:18.587" UserId="45" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="As you note from the Wikpedia articles, the scholarly consensus is that Caesar did not write these works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Loeb Classic Library edition](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/LCL402/1955/pb_LCL402.vii.xml) to these works and one other (*Alexandrian War. African War. Spanish War*) gives some brief examples of the reasons for this, noting that doubts can be traced back to the 2nd century A.D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hirtius would seem a likely next candidate, since the style of another &quot;campaign&quot; work (*De Bello Alexandrino*) is remarkably similar to the book that he appended to *De Bello Gallico*. Hirtius writes the following at the beginning of [Book VIII of *De Bello Gallico*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Caes.+Gal.+8&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0002):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Caesaris nostri commentarios rerum gestarum Galliae, non comparantibus superioribus atque insequentibus eius scriptis, contexui novissimumque imperfectum ab rebus gestis Alexandriae confeci usque ad exitum non quidem civilis dissensionis, cuius finem nullum videmus, sed vitae Caesaris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I have tacked a supplement to the Commentaries of our great Caesar on the operations in Gaul . . . and his last work (i.e. the Civil Wars), which was left unfinished from the operations at Alexandria onwards, I have completed as far as the conclusion, not indeed of civil discord, of which we see no end, but of Caesar's life.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The introduction to the Loeb edition, mentioned above, does not think this is plausible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This certainly appears to confirm what seems likely on stylistic grounds, namely that, if it was Hirtius who completed the Gallic Wars, it was Hirtius also who wrote de Bello Alexandrino.... Was he then also the author of *de Bello Africo* and *de Bello Hispaniensi*? His words—'as far as the conclusion of Caesar’s life' may indeed be so interpreted. **The internal evidence, however, seems strongly against this theory, and suggests, on the contrary, that the three works are the independent productions of three separate hands, none of which was Caesar’s own.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The introduction then goes on to mention how certain &quot;idiosyncrasies of style&quot; display themselves in one book without being in the other. Here are the provided examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **The author of *de Bello Hispaniensi*:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Frequent **quotations from Ennius**&#xD;&#xA; - Frequent use of ***bene* as an intensive particle**, e.g. *bene magna pars*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **The author of *de Bello Africo*:**&#xD;&#xA; - Frequent use of the word *interim*, such that he &quot;can seldom think of any alternative with which to introduce a new chapter&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because these literary traits are unique to each, and not present in any of the other works, scholars conclude that they were not written by the same author, at least as they have come down to us now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They propose Bouvet's suggestion in his addition of the *Commentarii*, which suggests that these works are &quot;no more than rough drafts prepared at the request of Hirtius by two separate soldiers who fought in the respective campaigns; and had he survived, Hirtius would have worked up this ‘copy’ into more effective literary form.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last possibility is reiterated later on in the Loeb introduction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The careful chronology and the faithful record of the feelings of the troops suggests a soldier - possibly a junior officer - who was on the spot. That he was young and inexperienced; an ardent, but not always a balanced, partisan; a keen observer of all that went on around him, but without access to the inner counsels of his C.-in-C." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="458" RevisionGUID="f7fcb06a-a8ac-44d3-b323-61e96b2f7aa1" CreationDate="2016-03-08T20:32:02.837" UserId="12" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="[*De Bello Africo*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Bello_Africo) and [*De Bello Hispaniensi*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Bello_Hispaniensi) are the two final entries in the series of military commentaries initiated by Julius Caesar's *De Bello Gallico*.  However, according to Wikipedia, neither Caesar nor Aulus Hirtius (the author of the final book of *De Bello Gallico*) is believed to have written these works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Due to considerable differences in style, scholarly consensus has ruled out the author of [*De Bello Alexandrino*], as well as Julius Caesar, as the author or authors of the two [works].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is it about the style of these two works that preclude the possibility that Caesar or Hirtius wrote them?  An overview of the main differences, preferably with a few examples, would be great." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="401" RevisionGUID="027b9e4e-4ded-4da0-8774-a113fd26ebe2" CreationDate="2016-03-08T21:34:22.307" UserId="9" Comment="just minor capitalization edits" Text="The French national library has been scanning a lot of material throughout the years, available on their website [Gallica](http://gallica.bnf.fr). Using their advanced search tool we can narrow down to works in Latin about mathematics: [here is a direct link to that query result](http://gallica.bnf.fr/services/engine/search/sru?operation=searchRetrieve&amp;version=1.2&amp;startRecord=0&amp;maximumRecords=50&amp;page=1&amp;exactSearch=false&amp;query=%28dc.language%20all%20%22lat%22%29%20and%20%28dewey%20all%20%225%22%29&amp;filter=sdewey%20all%20%2251%22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly on [archive.org](http://archive.org), by finding the collection on mathematics and narrowing down to those written in Latin one can find the [following material](https://archive.org/details/texts?and[]=subject%3A%22Mathematics%22&amp;sort=-downloads&amp;and[]=languageSorter%3A%22Latin%22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases however it should be noted that all material is from 1400 to 1900, I didn't see anything older than this unfortunately, so no ancient mathematicians there. Euler, Descartes, Huygens etc. however all wrote in Latin, so one can find their work at both those links. A couple of ancient Greek mathematicians are translated in Latin there, but the translations are all from the 18th/19th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I also found [this website](http://www.wilbourhall.org/) that contains a lot of ancient mathematicians' works, some of them translated in Latin, but, again, those translations (as far as I can see) are all post-15th century." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="462" RevisionGUID="c6bf35d7-38e5-46b6-a253-d788bcf4a43f" CreationDate="2016-03-09T03:08:30.357" UserId="78" Text="You're right to look at Vitruvius for this. The best expression in Latin for &quot;perpendicular&quot; is actually the Greek πρὸς ὀρθᾶς, as Vitruvius uses in 9.7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Itaque in quibuscumque locis horologia erunt describenda, eo loci sumenda est aequinoctialis umbra, et si erunt quemadmodum Romae gnomonis partes novem, umbrae octo, linea describatur in planitia et e media **πρὸς ὀρθᾶς** erigatur ut sit ad normam quae dicitur gnomon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hence, wherever a sundial is to be constructed, we must take the equinoctial shadow of the place. If it is found to be, as in Rome, equal to eight ninths of the gnomon, let a line be drawn on a plane surface, and in the middle thereof erect a perpendicular, plumb to the line, which **perpendicular** is called the gnomon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; haec erit linea **πρὸς ὀρθᾶς** radio aequinoctiali.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This will be a line **perpendicular** to the equinoctial ray, and it is called in mathematical figures the axis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;9.7&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it must be strictly Latin, he chiefly uses *perpendiculum*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tum insuper alternis trabibus ex quattuor partibus angulos iugumentantes et ita parietes arboribus statuentes ad perpendiculum imarum educunt ad altitudinem turres, intervallaque, quae relinquuntur propter crassitudinem materiae, schidiis et luto obstruunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then upon these they place sticks of timber, one after the other on the four sides, crossing each other at the angles, and so, proceeding with their walls of trees laid perpendicularly above the lowest, they build up high towers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;2.1.4&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum autem, uti supra scriptum est, in fronte inclinata fuerint, tunc in aspectu videbuntur esse ad perpendiculum et normam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  But when the members are inclined to the front, as described above, they will seem to the beholder to be plumb and perpendicular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;3.5.13&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here he uses *ad normam* I think for &quot;perpendicularly&quot;, but *regula perpendicula* for &quot;straight lines&quot;, though it must also be perpendicular from the sounds of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ea habet ancones in capitibus extremis aequali modo perfectos inque regulae capitibus ad normam coagmentatos, et inter regulam et ancones a cardinibus compacta transversaria, quae habent lineas ad perpendiculum recte descriptas pendentiaque ex regula perpendicula in singulis partibus singula, quae, cum regula est conlocata aeque, tangendo aeque ac pariter lineas descriptionis indicant libratam conlocationem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At the extremities it has legs, made exactly alike and jointed on perpendicularly to the extremities of the straightedge, and also crosspieces, fastened by tenons, connecting the straightedge and the legs. These crosspieces have vertical lines drawn upon them, and there are plumblines hanging from the straightedge over each of the lines. When the straightedge is in position, and the plumblines strike both the lines alike and at the same time, they show that the instrument stands level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;8.5&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, Caesar uses *directis lateribus* for perpendicularity to the ground:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fossam pedum viginti directis lateribus duxit, ut eius fossae solum tantundem pateret quantum summae fossae labra distarent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He dug a trench twenty feet deep, with perpendicular sides, in such a manner that the base of this trench should extend so far as the edges were apart at the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Caesar *De Bello Gallico* 7.72&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="462" RevisionGUID="b34c1044-3397-4230-824a-e0a46c28d8e0" CreationDate="2016-03-09T03:24:27.717" UserId="78" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="You're right to look at Vitruvius for this. The best expression in Latin for &quot;perpendicular&quot; is actually the Greek πρὸς ὀρθᾶς, as Vitruvius uses in 9.7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Itaque in quibuscumque locis horologia erunt describenda, eo loci sumenda est aequinoctialis umbra, et si erunt quemadmodum Romae gnomonis partes novem, umbrae octo, linea describatur in planitia et e media **πρὸς ὀρθᾶς** erigatur ut sit ad normam quae dicitur gnomon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hence, wherever a sundial is to be constructed, we must take the equinoctial shadow of the place. If it is found to be, as in Rome, equal to eight ninths of the gnomon, let a line be drawn on a plane surface, and in the middle thereof erect a perpendicular, plumb to the line, which **perpendicular** is called the gnomon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; haec erit linea **πρὸς ὀρθᾶς** radio aequinoctiali.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This will be a line **perpendicular** to the equinoctial ray, and it is called in mathematical figures the axis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;9.7&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it must be strictly Latin, he chiefly uses *perpendiculum*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tum insuper alternis trabibus ex quattuor partibus angulos iugumentantes et ita parietes arboribus statuentes **ad perpendiculum** imarum educunt ad altitudinem turres, intervallaque, quae relinquuntur propter crassitudinem materiae, schidiis et luto obstruunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then upon these they place sticks of timber, one after the other on the four sides, crossing each other at the angles, and so, proceeding with their walls of trees laid **perpendicularly** above the lowest, they build up high towers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;2.1.4&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum autem, uti supra scriptum est, in fronte inclinata fuerint, tunc in aspectu videbuntur esse **ad perpendiculum et normam**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  But when the members are inclined to the front, as described above, they will seem to the beholder to be **plumb and perpendicular**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;3.5.13&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here he uses *ad normam* I think for &quot;perpendicularly&quot;, but *regula perpendicula* for &quot;straightedge.&quot; I'm not terribly sure what the translator is doing with *ad perpendiculum* here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ea habet ancones in capitibus extremis aequali modo perfectos inque regulae capitibus **ad normam** coagmentatos, et inter regulam et ancones a cardinibus compacta transversaria, quae habent lineas ad perpendiculum recte descriptas pendentiaque **ex regula perpendicula** in singulis partibus singula, quae, cum regula est conlocata aeque, tangendo aeque ac pariter lineas descriptionis indicant libratam conlocationem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At the extremities it has legs, made exactly alike and jointed on **perpendicularly** to the extremities of the straightedge, and also crosspieces, fastened by tenons, connecting the straightedge and the legs. These crosspieces have vertical lines drawn upon them, and there are plumblines hanging from the **straightedge** over each of the lines. When the straightedge is in position, and the plumblines strike both the lines alike and at the same time, they show that the instrument stands level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;8.5&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, Caesar uses *directis lateribus* for perpendicularity to the ground:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fossam pedum viginti directis lateribus duxit, ut eius fossae solum tantundem pateret quantum summae fossae labra distarent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He dug a trench twenty feet deep, with perpendicular sides, in such a manner that the base of this trench should extend so far as the edges were apart at the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Caesar *De Bello Gallico* 7.72&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="462" RevisionGUID="27234582-edd9-452f-bb1e-1507aa0242d4" CreationDate="2016-03-09T04:09:48.763" UserId="78" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="You're right to look at Vitruvius for this. The best expression in Latin for &quot;perpendicular&quot; is actually the Greek πρὸς ὀρθᾶς, as Vitruvius uses in 9.7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Itaque in quibuscumque locis horologia erunt describenda, eo loci sumenda est aequinoctialis umbra, et si erunt quemadmodum Romae gnomonis partes novem, umbrae octo, linea describatur in planitia et e media **πρὸς ὀρθᾶς** erigatur ut sit **ad normam** quae dicitur gnomon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hence, wherever a sundial is to be constructed, we must take the equinoctial shadow of the place. If it is found to be, as in Rome, equal to eight ninths of the gnomon, let a line be drawn on a plane surface, and in the middle thereof erect a **perpendicular**, **plumb** to the line, which perpendicular is called the gnomon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; haec erit linea **πρὸς ὀρθᾶς** radio aequinoctiali.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This will be a line **perpendicular** to the equinoctial ray, and it is called in mathematical figures the axis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;9.7&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concept is related to *plumb* (i.e. vertical in normal English), as you can see above as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it must be strictly Latin, he chiefly uses *perpendiculum*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tum insuper alternis trabibus ex quattuor partibus angulos iugumentantes et ita parietes arboribus statuentes **ad perpendiculum** imarum educunt ad altitudinem turres, intervallaque, quae relinquuntur propter crassitudinem materiae, schidiis et luto obstruunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then upon these they place sticks of timber, one after the other on the four sides, crossing each other at the angles, and so, proceeding with their walls of trees laid **perpendicularly** above the lowest, they build up high towers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;2.1.4&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum autem, uti supra scriptum est, in fronte inclinata fuerint, tunc in aspectu videbuntur esse **ad perpendiculum et normam**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  But when the members are inclined to the front, as described above, they will seem to the beholder to be **plumb and perpendicular**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;3.5.13&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here it seems he uses *ad perpendiculum recte* for a stronger version of &quot;perpendicular and vertical.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ea habet ancones in capitibus extremis aequali modo perfectos inque regulae capitibus **ad normam** coagmentatos, et inter regulam et ancones a cardinibus compacta transversaria, quae habent **lineas ad perpendiculum recte descriptas** **pendentia**que **ex regula perpendicula** in singulis partibus singula, quae, cum regula est conlocata aeque, tangendo aeque ac pariter lineas descriptionis indicant libratam conlocationem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At the extremities it has legs, made exactly alike and jointed on **perpendicularly** [i.e. vertically, but perpendicularity is implied - CW] to the extremities of the straightedge, and also crosspieces, fastened by tenons, connecting the straightedge and the legs. These crosspieces have **vertical lines drawn upon them**, and there are **plumblines hanging from the straightedge** over each of the lines. When the straightedge is in position, and the plumblines strike both the lines alike and at the same time, they show that the instrument stands level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;8.5&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, Caesar uses *directis lateribus* for perpendicularity to the ground:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fossam pedum viginti directis lateribus duxit, ut eius fossae solum tantundem pateret quantum summae fossae labra distarent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He dug a trench twenty feet deep, with perpendicular sides, in such a manner that the base of this trench should extend so far as the edges were apart at the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Caesar *De Bello Gallico* 7.72&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="462" RevisionGUID="5fcc5a33-5f80-4a1f-9c3c-0ce0abf3fa0c" CreationDate="2016-03-09T04:42:53.797" UserId="78" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="You're right to look at Vitruvius for this. The best expression in Latin for &quot;perpendicular&quot; is actually the Greek πρὸς ὀρθᾶς, as Vitruvius uses in 9.7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Itaque in quibuscumque locis horologia erunt describenda, eo loci sumenda est aequinoctialis umbra, et si erunt quemadmodum Romae gnomonis partes novem, umbrae octo, linea describatur in planitia et e media **πρὸς ὀρθᾶς** erigatur ut sit **ad normam** quae dicitur gnomon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hence, wherever a sundial is to be constructed, we must take the equinoctial shadow of the place. If it is found to be, as in Rome, equal to eight ninths of the gnomon, let a line be drawn on a plane surface, and in the middle thereof erect a **perpendicular**, **plumb** to the line, which perpendicular is called the gnomon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; haec erit linea **πρὸς ὀρθᾶς** radio aequinoctiali.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This will be a line **perpendicular** to the equinoctial ray, and it is called in mathematical figures the axis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;9.7&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concept is related to *plumb* (i.e. vertical in normal English), as you can see above as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it must be strictly Latin, he chiefly uses *perpendiculum*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tum insuper alternis trabibus ex quattuor partibus angulos iugumentantes et ita parietes arboribus statuentes **ad perpendiculum** imarum educunt ad altitudinem turres, intervallaque, quae relinquuntur propter crassitudinem materiae, schidiis et luto obstruunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then upon these they place sticks of timber, one after the other on the four sides, crossing each other at the angles, and so, proceeding with their walls of trees laid **perpendicularly** above the lowest, they build up high towers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;2.1.4&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum autem, uti supra scriptum est, in fronte inclinata fuerint, tunc in aspectu videbuntur esse **ad perpendiculum et normam**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  But when the members are inclined to the front, as described above, they will seem to the beholder to be **plumb and perpendicular**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;3.5.13&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here it seems he uses *ad perpendiculum recte* for a stronger version of &quot;perpendicular and vertical.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ea habet ancones in capitibus extremis aequali modo perfectos inque regulae capitibus **ad normam** coagmentatos, et inter regulam et ancones a cardinibus compacta transversaria, quae habent **lineas ad perpendiculum recte descriptas** **pendentia**que **ex regula perpendicula** in singulis partibus singula, quae, cum regula est conlocata aeque, tangendo aeque ac pariter lineas descriptionis indicant libratam conlocationem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At the extremities it has legs, made exactly alike and jointed on **perpendicularly** [i.e. vertically, but perpendicularity is implied - CW] to the extremities of the straightedge, and also crosspieces, fastened by tenons, connecting the straightedge and the legs. These crosspieces have **vertical lines drawn upon them**, and there are **plumblines hanging from the straightedge** over each of the lines. When the straightedge is in position, and the plumblines strike both the lines alike and at the same time, they show that the instrument stands level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;8.5&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, Caesar uses *directis lateribus* for perpendicularity to the ground:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fossam pedum viginti **directis lateribus** duxit, ut eius fossae solum tantundem pateret quantum summae fossae labra distarent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He dug a trench twenty feet deep, with **perpendicular sides**, in such a manner that the base of this trench should extend so far as the edges were apart at the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Caesar *De Bello Gallico* 7.72&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="127" RevisionGUID="50a085a9-8946-4763-82f5-a2cc89b5e830" CreationDate="2016-03-09T05:34:25.740" UserId="39" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="(The following is a summary of the relevant section in [Wallace 2011][1], *The Latin alphabet and orthography*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wallace observes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Most Latin documents, regardless of type, had very little in the way of punctuation** (p. 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Archaic Latin**. Written mostly in [scriptio continua][2] (i.e. often no word breaks or punctuation between words); sometimes, [interpuncts][3] were used between words (including two or three vertical interpuncts). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Classical Latin**. Interpuncts separated words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Late Latin.** Interpuncts for separating words became less common and were used to mark phrases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's really interesting about **interpuncts** is that they **were normally added after the text was inscribed** ([Edmondson 2015][4]: 127).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scriptio_continua&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpunct&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195336467.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195336467-e-007" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="127" RevisionGUID="88c2f531-e399-4043-9ed0-1c699c3d2660" CreationDate="2016-03-09T05:46:00.677" UserId="39" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="(The following is a summary of the relevant section in [Wallace 2011][1], *The Latin alphabet and orthography*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wallace observes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Most Latin documents, regardless of type, had very little in the way of punctuation** (p. 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Archaic Latin**. Written mostly in [scriptio continua][2] (i.e. often no word breaks or punctuation between words); sometimes, [interpuncts][3] were used between words (including two or three vertical interpuncts). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Classical Latin**. Interpuncts separated words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Late Latin.** Interpuncts for separating words became less common and were used to mark phrases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's really interesting about **interpuncts** is that they **were normally added after the text was inscribed** ([Edmondson 2015][4]: 127).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indentation as well as empty space was used in longer texts to mark paragraphs, e.g [in the Lyon Table][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scriptio_continua&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpunct&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195336467.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195336467-e-007&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon_Tablet#/media/File:Claudian_table_IMG_1073-black.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lMmJi.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="f32cf082-1e0f-4446-b6a9-8e9089f554a9" CreationDate="2016-03-09T05:46:00.677" UserId="118" Text="How, in classical Latin, did one say &quot;all the more so&quot; or otherwise indicate that a proposition harder than you're trying to prove has just been&#xD;&#xA;proven, so your proposition must be at least as certain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, we sometimes say **a fortiori** to indicate this: &quot;Unicorns&#xD;&#xA;don't exist, so, _a fortiori,_ one couldn't have bitten you.&quot; I'm researching&#xD;&#xA;the [origins of the term _a&#xD;&#xA;fortiori_](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/295/118), and so far, I have not&#xD;&#xA;found the idiom _a fortiore ratione_ in any Ancient Roman writing.  It seems&#xD;&#xA;likely, though, that people would have _some_ sort of common way of expressing&#xD;&#xA;the concept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do know of a phrase with this meaning which occurs throughout Latin&#xD;&#xA;translations of the Bible: **quanto magis**. Here are a couple examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si ergo uos cum sitis mali nostis bona data dare filiis uestris, **Quanto&#xD;&#xA;&gt; magis** pater uester de cælo dabit bona petentibus se? (Matthew 7:11, [Old&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin](https://books.google.com/books?id=8odbAAAAMAAJ&amp;lpg=PA90&amp;pg=PA90))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;i&gt;If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **how much more** shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; them that ask him? (KJV)&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Respicite uolatili a cæli, quoniam non serunt neque metunt neque congregant in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; horreo. Et pater vester cælestis alit illas. **Nonne magis uos pluris estis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; illis?** (Matthew 6:26, [Old Latin](https://books.google.com/books?id=8odbAAAAMAAJ&amp;lpg=PA7&amp;pg=PA7))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;i&gt;Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. **Are ye not much&#xD;&#xA;&gt; better than they?** (KJV)&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read, though, that &quot;how much more?&quot; is a direct translation of the Hebrew&#xD;&#xA;word אַף&#xD;&#xA;(_[af](https://books.google.com/books?id=U4btePgZO0IC&amp;pg=PA140&amp;lpg=PA140&amp;dq=%22and+how+much+more%22+bible+hebrew+rhetoric&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ir0fclcXLh&amp;sig=FmaketQE5bhaJHTxfrcS8j8mNbs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiUuP2N47LLAhVsk4MKHR5bAugQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22and%20how%20much%20more%22%20bible%20hebrew%20rhetoric&amp;f=false)_)&#xD;&#xA;or וְאַף, &quot;and how much more&quot;, commonly used in Jewish rhetoric at that time to&#xD;&#xA;indicate an _a fortiori_ argument. I can't tell if it's a Hebrew expression&#xD;&#xA;mostly limited to Bible translations, just as in English, or if it took root in&#xD;&#xA;Latin also. (Not to be confused with קַל וָחֹמֶר, _qal vachomer_, &quot;light and&#xD;&#xA;heavy&quot;, another Hebrew expression for the same kind of argument.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put this another way, how would&#xD;&#xA;[Vitruvius](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/vitruvius7.html#5.3) say,&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Plant-stalks with animal-heads don't exist, so —— one couldn't have bitten&#xD;&#xA;you&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1639" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="f32cf082-1e0f-4446-b6a9-8e9089f554a9" CreationDate="2016-03-09T05:46:00.677" UserId="118" Text="&quot;All the more so&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1640" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="f32cf082-1e0f-4446-b6a9-8e9089f554a9" CreationDate="2016-03-09T05:46:00.677" UserId="118" Text="|history|phrase-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="127" RevisionGUID="a25dce29-ed8a-422c-ba48-d246de632669" CreationDate="2016-03-09T05:57:27.250" UserId="39" Comment="added 217 characters in body" Text="(The following is based on [Wallace 2011][1], *The Latin alphabet and orthography* and [Edmondson 2015][2], *Inscribing Roman Texts: Officinae, Layout, and Carving Techniques*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wallace observes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Most Latin documents, regardless of type, had very little in the way of punctuation** (p. 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Archaic Latin**. Written mostly in [scriptio continua][3] (i.e. often no word breaks or punctuation between words); sometimes, [interpuncts][4] were used between words (including two or three vertical interpuncts). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Classical Latin**. Interpuncts separated words. Edmondson 2015 argues the most common form of interpuncts was triangles. He also mentions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - small squares;&#xD;&#xA; - rectangles;&#xD;&#xA; - arrow-heads;&#xD;&#xA; - commas;&#xD;&#xA; - ivy-leaves (hederae);&#xD;&#xA; - circles;&#xD;&#xA; - tildes etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Late Latin.** Interpuncts for separating words became less common and were used to mark phrases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's really interesting about **interpuncts** is that they **were normally added after the text was inscribed** ([Edmondson 2015][2]: 127).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indentation as well as empty space was used in longer texts to mark paragraphs, e.g [in the Lyon Table][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195336467.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195336467-e-007&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scriptio_continua&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpunct&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon_Tablet#/media/File:Claudian_table_IMG_1073-black.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lMmJi.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1642" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="cab4c303-b000-4db7-b56c-8cb4162f9257" CreationDate="2016-03-09T06:03:26.563" UserId="118" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|history|phrase-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="464" RevisionGUID="b0341347-258e-4930-90cb-072b5a9053c5" CreationDate="2016-03-09T11:27:37.313" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="465" RevisionGUID="15798a47-aa69-4d74-9c6c-6fe9634492ec" CreationDate="2016-03-09T11:27:37.313" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="465" RevisionGUID="8d164dd3-a041-4583-bedd-b4c8278f8487" CreationDate="2016-03-09T13:38:32.387" UserId="183" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="For questions about the meaning, usage, and translation of specific words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1647" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="465" RevisionGUID="8d164dd3-a041-4583-bedd-b4c8278f8487" CreationDate="2016-03-09T13:38:32.387" Comment="Proposed by 183 approved by 12, 118 edit id of 94" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="428" RevisionGUID="c5d048bf-561f-45f6-84dd-5834add566d7" CreationDate="2016-03-09T14:46:13.017" UserId="78" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In the [Perseus Project][1], I see many occurrences of [estote][2]; a disproportionate number of them appear to be in St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Here are two examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1 Maccabees 2:50, Latin Vulgate][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nunc ergo o filii aemulatores estote legis et date animas vestras pro testamento patrum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now therefore, O (my) sons, be zealots of the law...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1 Corinthians 4:16][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rogo ergo vos imitatores mei estote&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I ask you: be imitators of me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a use in the Classical period, see [this][5] from [Seneca the Elder] [6](54 BC – c. 39 AD):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Quid fletis, pueri? securi estote;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Boys, why do you cry? Be free from care!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it could be that it's a rare construction, but for whatever reason, Jerome uses it a number of times. It's worth noting that again according to the Perseus project, [_estote_][7] can also come from _edo_, so those search results are an upper bound on the number of occurrences (at least twice as the plural future imperative of _esse_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;page=1&amp;phrase=&amp;documents=&amp;all_words=estote&amp;exclude_words=&amp;any_words=&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0060%3Abook%3D1%20Maccabees%3Achapter%3D2%3Averse%3D50&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0060%3Abook%3D1%20Corinthians%3Achapter%3D4%3Averse%3D16&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:2008.01.0564:book=4:chapter=6&amp;highlight=estote&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_the_Elder&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=estote&amp;la=la&amp;can=estote0&amp;prior=et" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="466" RevisionGUID="27f39cbc-d4da-4423-99ba-7e603964f61f" CreationDate="2016-03-09T17:37:24.767" UserId="79" Text="I was taught that *Latinus* is an adjective related to the area of Latium.&#xD;&#xA;Latin would be called *lingua Latina*, &quot;the language of Latium&quot;, never merely *Latina*.&#xD;&#xA;There is a single-word expression referring to the language, *Latinitas*, but it has a different connotation than *lingua Latina*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What did ancient Romans really call their language?&#xD;&#xA;Was it ever just *Latina* (which I was emphatically taught to be wrong), or always *lingua Latina* (possibly with *lingua* replaced with another appropriate word like *sermo*) or *Latinitas*?&#xD;&#xA;I have only found examples of *lingua Latina*, so I would be curious to see if any other alternatives were used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1650" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="466" RevisionGUID="27f39cbc-d4da-4423-99ba-7e603964f61f" CreationDate="2016-03-09T17:37:24.767" UserId="79" Text="How did Romans call their language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1651" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="466" RevisionGUID="27f39cbc-d4da-4423-99ba-7e603964f61f" CreationDate="2016-03-09T17:37:24.767" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|example-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1652" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="22b8cfba-9517-465f-b631-cf60a6d4dbfb" CreationDate="2016-03-09T17:42:10.677" UserId="213" Comment="1" />
  <row Id="1653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="460" RevisionGUID="ba61ea41-a47b-4477-baec-d47de3ee6344" CreationDate="2016-03-09T18:30:40.770" UserId="45" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="As you note from the Wikpedia articles, the scholarly consensus is that Caesar did not write these works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Loeb Classic Library edition](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/LCL402/1955/pb_LCL402.vii.xml) to these works and one other (*Alexandrian War. African War. Spanish War*) gives some brief examples of the reasons for this, noting that doubts can be traced back to the 2nd century A.D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hirtius would seem a likely next candidate, since the style of another &quot;campaign&quot; work (*De Bello Alexandrino*) is remarkably similar to the book that he appended to *De Bello Gallico*. Hirtius writes the following at the beginning of [Book VIII of *De Bello Gallico*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Caes.+Gal.+8&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0002):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Caesaris nostri commentarios rerum gestarum Galliae, non comparantibus superioribus atque insequentibus eius scriptis, contexui novissimumque imperfectum ab rebus gestis Alexandriae confeci usque ad exitum non quidem civilis dissensionis, cuius finem nullum videmus, sed vitae Caesaris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I have tacked a supplement to the Commentaries of our great Caesar on the operations in Gaul . . . and his last work (i.e. the Civil Wars), which was left unfinished from the operations at Alexandria onwards, I have completed as far as the conclusion, not indeed of civil discord, of which we see no end, but of Caesar's life.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The introduction to the Loeb edition, mentioned above, does not think this is plausible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This certainly appears to confirm what seems likely on stylistic grounds, namely that, if it was Hirtius who completed the Gallic Wars, it was Hirtius also who wrote de Bello Alexandrino.... Was he then also the author of *de Bello Africo* and *de Bello Hispaniensi*? His words—'as far as the conclusion of Caesar’s life' may indeed be so interpreted. **The internal evidence, however, seems strongly against this theory, and suggests, on the contrary, that the three works are the independent productions of three separate hands, none of which was Caesar’s own.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The introduction then goes on to mention how certain &quot;idiosyncrasies of style&quot; display themselves in one book without being in the other. Here are the provided examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **The author of *de Bello Hispaniensi*:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Frequent **quotations from Ennius**&#xD;&#xA; - Frequent use of ***bene* as an intensive particle**, e.g. *bene magna pars*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **The author of *de Bello Africo*:**&#xD;&#xA; - Frequent use of the word *interim*, such that he &quot;can seldom think of any alternative with which to introduce a new chapter&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because these literary traits are unique to each, and not present in any of the other works, scholars conclude that they were not written by the same author, at least as they have come down to us now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They propose Bouvet's suggestion in his edition of the *Commentarii*, which suggests that these works are &quot;no more than rough drafts prepared at the request of Hirtius by two separate soldiers who fought in the respective campaigns; and had he survived, Hirtius would have worked up this ‘copy’ into more effective literary form.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last possibility is reiterated later on in the Loeb introduction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The careful chronology and the faithful record of the feelings of the troops suggests a soldier - possibly a junior officer - who was on the spot. That he was young and inexperienced; an ardent, but not always a balanced, partisan; a keen observer of all that went on around him, but without access to the inner counsels of his Commander-in-Chief." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="467" RevisionGUID="2df74002-649a-4f72-b590-a70cbb608600" CreationDate="2016-03-09T19:01:58.443" UserId="20" Text="Here is one example of [Cicero][1] using it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nam si quis minorem gloriae fructum putat ex Graecis versibus percipi quam ex Latinis, vehementer errat, propterea quod Graeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus, _Latina_ suis finibus exiguis sane continentur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The linked dictionary entry of [Latinus][2] has this definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of Latium, Latin: genus, the Romans, V.: lingua (opp. Graeca): (fabulae), in Latin, T.: litterae, S.: nomen, Latin citizenship, C., S.: res, O.—As subst n.: in Latinum illa convertere, the Latin language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is then an example (from Cicero, no less) of Latinus the adjective being used in substantive form (Latina) to refer to the language we call Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0015:text=Arch.:chapter=10&amp;highlight=latina&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=Latina&amp;la=la&amp;can=latina0&amp;prior=gentibus#Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=Latinus-contents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="468" RevisionGUID="06f3cbed-7624-49ee-9c62-657a685d4b2b" CreationDate="2016-03-09T19:30:10.773" UserId="45" Text="The most common form of expressing &quot;Latin&quot; when referring to the language is, as you note, to use *lingua latina*. Here are a few examples, many taken from the [Lewis &amp; Short entry for *lingua*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlingua):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ita sentio et saepe disserui, **Latinam linguam** non modo non inopem, ut vulgo putarent, sed locupletiorem etiam esse quam Graecam. (Cicero, *de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum*, 1, 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I feel and often have stated that the Latin Linguage not only is not poor, as it is often popularly reputed, but also is even richer than Greek.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod quidem **Latina lingua** sic observat... (Cicero, *Orator*, 44, 150)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero also provides us with many examples of *sermo Latinus*, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cui (Catulo) non solum nos Latini sermonis, sed etiam Graeci ipsi solent suae linguae subtilitatem elegantiamque concedere (Cicero, *de Oratore*, 2, 7, 28)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in Latino sermone (Cicero, *de Oratore*, 3, 11, 42)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another common word used to mean *in Latin*--as is often meant when we say *Latin* in English--is the adverb *latine*. Thus, *to speak Latin* is often rendered as *latine loqui*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Latinitas* is translated as &quot;pure Latin style, Latinity&quot; in its [L&amp;S entry](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlatinitas) and has a more precise usage that does not mean simple &quot;use of Latin.&quot; See the above entry for examples of its use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero's *[de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0036%3Abook%3D1)* contains several uses of the adjective *latinus, -a, -um* referring to the language alone. This excerpt contains three uses of &quot;Latinus&quot; as well as (for kicks) a more colloquial way of referring to Latin as the &quot;mother tongue&quot; or &quot;native language&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Iis igitur est difficilius satis facere, qui se **Latina scripta** dicunt contemnere. in quibus hoc primum est in quo admirer, cur in gravissimis rebus non delectet eos **sermo patrius**, cum idem **fabellas Latinas** ad verbum e Graecis expressas non inviti legant. quis enim tam inimicus paene nomini Romano est, qui Ennii Medeam aut Antiopam Pacuvii spernat aut reiciat, quod se isdem Euripidis fabulis delectari dicat, **Latinas litteras** oderit? (*Cic. Fin. 1, 2*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *It is therefore rather difficult to satisfy those who claim to despise Latin writings. In such people I rather wonder, for one thing, why their native tongue does not please them in grave matters, when they are not unwilling to read Latin fables translated literally from Greek ones. For who is so hostile to the Roman name that he would despise and reject the Medea of Ennius or the Antiopa of Pacuvius while claiming to delight in the fables of Euripides?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(my rough translation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As James noted in his answer, this adjective *latinus* can be used as a substantive as well, in the neuter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="468" RevisionGUID="ed10a575-3b64-4c71-91de-f3355b956ed9" CreationDate="2016-03-09T19:35:37.427" UserId="45" Comment="added 179 characters in body" Text="The most common form of expressing &quot;Latin&quot; when referring to the language is, as you note, to use *lingua latina*. Here are a few examples, many taken from the [Lewis &amp; Short entry for *lingua*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlingua):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ita sentio et saepe disserui, **Latinam linguam** non modo non inopem, ut vulgo putarent, sed locupletiorem etiam esse quam Graecam. (Cicero, *de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum*, 1, 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I feel and often have stated that the Latin Linguage not only is not poor, as it is often popularly reputed, but also is even richer than Greek.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod quidem **Latina lingua** sic observat... (Cicero, *Orator*, 44, 150)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero also provides us with many examples of *sermo Latinus*, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cui (Catulo) non solum nos **Latini sermonis**, sed etiam Graeci ipsi solent suae linguae subtilitatem elegantiamque concedere (Cicero, *de Oratore*, 2, 7, 28)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Not only do we accept [Catullus] as a subtle and elegant master of the Latin language, but even the Greeks often accept him as such for their own language.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in **Latino sermone** (Cicero, *de Oratore*, 3, 11, 42)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another common word used to mean *in Latin*--as is often meant when we say *Latin* in English--is the adverb ***latine***. Thus, *to speak Latin* is often rendered as *latine loqui*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero's *[de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0036%3Abook%3D1)* contains several uses of the adjective *latinus, -a, -um* referring to the language alone. This excerpt contains three uses of &quot;Latinus&quot; as well as (for kicks) a more colloquial way of referring to Latin as the &quot;mother tongue&quot; or &quot;native language&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Iis igitur est difficilius satis facere, qui se **Latina scripta** dicunt contemnere. in quibus hoc primum est in quo admirer, cur in gravissimis rebus non delectet eos **sermo patrius**, cum idem **fabellas Latinas** ad verbum e Graecis expressas non inviti legant. quis enim tam inimicus paene nomini Romano est, qui Ennii Medeam aut Antiopam Pacuvii spernat aut reiciat, quod se isdem Euripidis fabulis delectari dicat, **Latinas litteras** oderit? (*Cic. Fin. 1, 2*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *It is therefore rather difficult to satisfy those who claim to despise Latin writings. In such people I rather wonder, for one thing, why their native tongue does not please them in grave matters, when they are not unwilling to read Latin fables translated literally from Greek ones. For who is so hostile to the Roman name that he would despise and reject the Medea of Ennius or the Antiopa of Pacuvius while claiming to delight in the fables of Euripides?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(my rough translation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As James noted in his answer, this adjective *latinus* can be used as a substantive as well, in the neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Latinitas* is translated as &quot;pure Latin style, Latinity&quot; in its [L&amp;S entry](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlatinitas) and has a more precise usage that means much more than &quot;Latin.&quot; See the above entry for examples of its use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="469" RevisionGUID="682919ad-fc7e-4eda-a92f-06172fda7c7e" CreationDate="2016-03-09T19:36:39.060" UserId="78" Text="All the terms you used are used by Classical authors (and then some), but there is some differentiation of terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Lingua Latina* is what the Romans called their language. If you ever see *Latina* by itself to refer to language, *lingua* is naturally implied. However, that typically wasn't the way they referred to speaking the language. Instead the ablative was preferred: *Latine loqui* &quot;to speak Latin&quot;. This is done not just with Latin, but all sorts of languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Acilius qui Graece scripsit historiam.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Acilius who wrote a history in Greek.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Cic. *Off*. 2.32.115; cf. *graece loqui* Cic. *Tusc*. 1.8.15&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;“loqui,” id. Tusc. 1, 8, 15&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sermo Latinus* literally should mean the *speech* of a nation, as opposed to *litterae*, which are written down, but this distinction is falls away in regular usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;quae philosophi Graeco sermone tractavissent, ea Latinis litteris mandaremus&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Cic. *Fin*. 1.1.1.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly *Graeco sermone* is meant Greek language both written and spoken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Latinitas* is something else entirely. This does not refer to the language, but the art of speaking and writing the language. Whoever does not make grammatical mistakes, whose command of the language is good, that person embodies *Latinitas*. As the author of the *Rhetorica ad Herennium* 4.12.17 notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; latinitas est, quae sermonem purum conservat, ab omni vitio remotum. Vitia in sermone, quominus is latinus sit, duo possunt esse: soloecismus et barbarismus, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the emphasis on *sermonem purum* &quot;pure speech&quot;, which is *ab omni vitio remotum* &quot;removed of all vice&quot; (linguistically, that is). Also note *latinus*, which is masculine because of *sermo*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="470" RevisionGUID="c254108b-4ab4-4f60-a2b9-6ff4275b69a5" CreationDate="2016-03-09T20:33:25.470" UserId="45" Text="I would translate the phrase &quot;all the more&quot; using ***eo magis***. Note that this phrase is much more common when &quot;balanced&quot; with an introductory phrase that introduces the comparison, usually with a comparative adverb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few examples of usage: (hasty translations mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ita, quo minus petebat gloriam, eo magis illum sequebatur. (Sallust, *The Catilinarian Conspiracy*, 54)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Thus, the less he sought glory, the more it pursued him.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod quo studiosius absconditur, eo magis eminet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The more carefully it is hidden, the more it juts out.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and with *atque*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reliquum erat certamen positum in virtute, qua nostri milites facile superabant, atque eo magis, quod in conspectu Caesaris atque omnis exercitus res gerebatur (Caesar, *De Bello Gallico*, III 14, 8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The remaining fight depended on courage, by which our soldiers easily carried the day; all the more so because it unfolded in the sight of Caesar and the whole army.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that none of these examples quite covers the case that you are citing, which is a more direct translation of everything implied by *a fortiori*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some other options that might work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ***Ex quo patet*** + acc. and inf.: *from which it is evident, etc.* (Note that I did not find classical examples of this exact phrae)&#xD;&#xA;2. ***Constat ergo*** + acc. and inf.: *It is therefore certain, etc.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or, for some good ol' classical hyperbole:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. ***Quid dementius quam*** + inf.: *what could be more insane than* (And yes, this is probably inappropriate as a substitution for *a fortiori* 99.99% of the time.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1660" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="466" RevisionGUID="ab37c656-54dd-43eb-9ee4-fdc10a594892" CreationDate="2016-03-09T20:39:18.157" UserId="12" Comment="&quot;How... call&quot; doesn't quite sound right." Text="How did Romans refer to their language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1661" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="466" RevisionGUID="c7ef2e70-a829-4262-a047-0ca2d428d8c1" CreationDate="2016-03-09T20:44:48.640" UserId="79" Comment="Rollback to [27f39cbc-d4da-4423-99ba-7e603964f61f]" Text="How did Romans call their language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1662" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="466" RevisionGUID="b537ce95-ff7e-46f4-8b43-9c6c5cd5f4f2" CreationDate="2016-03-09T20:45:14.363" UserId="79" Comment="edited title" Text="What did Romans call their language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="471" RevisionGUID="209e6e21-cb2a-4a22-94d6-133808575214" CreationDate="2016-03-09T21:04:17.800" UserId="79" Text="It just occurred to me that I could express &quot;every fourth year&quot; as *semel quoque quadriennio*, literally &quot;once in every period of four years&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I think that avoids the ambiguity, but it is not very flexible (I don't want to use that construction to say &quot;every 17th second&quot;) and might not be as idiomatic as *quarto/quinto quoque anno*.&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, it only says that the thing occurs once in every four year period, not that it happens at the same time in each period.&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I think it's a decent alternative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="469" RevisionGUID="f0e871e4-b216-4baf-a820-2211a39c04fd" CreationDate="2016-03-09T21:44:11.987" UserId="78" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="All the terms you used are used by Classical authors (and then some), but there is some differentiation of terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Lingua Latina* is what the Romans called their language. If you ever see *Latina* by itself to refer to language, *lingua* is naturally implied. However, that typically wasn't the way they referred to speaking the language. Instead the adverbial form was preferred: *Latine loqui* &quot;to speak Latin&quot;. This is done not just with Latin, but all sorts of languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Acilius qui Graece scripsit historiam.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Acilius who wrote a history in Greek.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Cic. *Off*. 2.32.115; cf. *graece loqui* Cic. *Tusc*. 1.8.15&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;“loqui,” id. Tusc. 1, 8, 15&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sermo Latinus* literally should mean the *speech* of a nation, as opposed to *litterae*, which are written down, but this distinction is falls away in regular usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;quae philosophi Graeco sermone tractavissent, ea Latinis litteris mandaremus&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Cic. *Fin*. 1.1.1.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly *Graeco sermone* is meant Greek language both written and spoken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Latinitas* is something else entirely. This does not refer to the language, but the art of speaking and writing the language. Whoever does not make grammatical mistakes, whose command of the language is good, that person embodies *Latinitas*. As the author of the *Rhetorica ad Herennium* 4.12.17 notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; latinitas est, quae sermonem purum conservat, ab omni vitio remotum. Vitia in sermone, quominus is latinus sit, duo possunt esse: soloecismus et barbarismus, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the emphasis on *sermonem purum* &quot;pure speech&quot;, which is *ab omni vitio remotum* &quot;removed of all vice&quot; (linguistically, that is). Also note *latinus*, which is masculine because of *sermo*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="473" RevisionGUID="fa6ae137-0e55-400d-b7f0-0f3732bd9912" CreationDate="2016-03-09T22:57:29.277" UserId="45" Text="I am engaged in several translation projects on the side which often involve translating names that do not have a Roman equivalent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certain names obviously come from or have obvious equivalents in Latin (often through Greek):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Julius**: Iulius&#xD;&#xA;2. **Amelia**: Aemilia&#xD;&#xA;3. etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others have fairly standard representations, mostly because &quot;Christian names&quot; often come from Biblical figures or saints who have names in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Michael**: Michaelus&#xD;&#xA;2. **Mary**: Maria&#xD;&#xA;3. **John**: Iohannes (or Ioannes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was recently reading through a medieval [History of Norway](https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=VG0JAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA125&amp;hl=en#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), and I decided to write down how names were written in Latin versus how they are normally rendered in English. Here are some examples, with my comments in *italics*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Sunniva**: Sunniva *- unchanged*&#xD;&#xA;1. **Gunnhild**: Gunnilda *- h dropped*&#xD;&#xA;1. **Haakon**: Hacon, -nis (also: Haquinus) *- 3rd declension and consonant change*&#xD;&#xA;1. **Halstan**: Halstanus *- us appended*&#xD;&#xA;1. **Knut**: Canutus *- vowel added between double consonant*&#xD;&#xA;1. **Sigurd**: Sigwardus (also: Siwardus and Sigvarus) *- vowel (sometimes consonant) changed*&#xD;&#xA;1. **Halfdan**: Halfdan *- indeclinable*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a small sampling of person names (place names are an entirely different mess) for one geographic location which, because of Christian influence, probably has had time to assimilate some conventions from Latin-speaking Christian monks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: **Are there any accepted general principles for translating non-Latin names into Latin?** Am I doomed, in Latin circles, to an interminable cycle of being referred to as *Brianus*, *Brennus*, and (indeclinable) *Brian* based on irreconcilable opinions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples (and especially patterns) of translation from classical and medieval sources would be helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1670" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="473" RevisionGUID="fa6ae137-0e55-400d-b7f0-0f3732bd9912" CreationDate="2016-03-09T22:57:29.277" UserId="45" Text="General principles for translating non-Latin names into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1671" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="473" RevisionGUID="fa6ae137-0e55-400d-b7f0-0f3732bd9912" CreationDate="2016-03-09T22:57:29.277" UserId="45" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="474" RevisionGUID="c34018df-f3f4-4962-896b-2fa398a64dd5" CreationDate="2016-03-09T23:19:51.343" UserId="133" Text="Vergil's tomb bears the inscription:&#xD;&#xA;Mantua me genuit; Calabri rapuere; tenet nunc Parthenope; cecini Pascua, rura, duces,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why does &quot;Parthenope&quot; refer to Naples?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1673" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="474" RevisionGUID="c34018df-f3f4-4962-896b-2fa398a64dd5" CreationDate="2016-03-09T23:19:51.343" UserId="133" Text="Why does Parthenope refer to Naples?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1674" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="474" RevisionGUID="c34018df-f3f4-4962-896b-2fa398a64dd5" CreationDate="2016-03-09T23:19:51.343" UserId="133" Text="|vocabulary|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1675" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="474" RevisionGUID="135c9f20-f7e9-4633-85b0-b523fbc54f09" CreationDate="2016-03-09T23:28:57.333" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|names|vergilius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="475" RevisionGUID="b496805e-29ec-4a7a-8f02-36f3ef983edb" CreationDate="2016-03-09T23:44:52.153" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="476" RevisionGUID="dfea3ce5-fcd8-4d51-982c-a12afb8d1717" CreationDate="2016-03-09T23:44:52.153" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="477" RevisionGUID="a5f06929-3225-45cc-a2de-f75799d7f8c0" CreationDate="2016-03-09T23:59:46.787" UserId="68" Text="*Omnínó* is defined in Lewis &amp; Short as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; altogether, wholly, entirely, utterly, at all  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [with numerals] in all, altogether, only, but, just  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; by all means, indeed, doubtless, yes, certainly, to be sure  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; in general, generally, universally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm unsure of how to translate/interpret it when it's negative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I wrote, for example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Liber mihi nón omnínó placuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would that mean &quot;I didn't entirely like the book&quot; or &quot;I didn't like the book at all&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And whichever one it means, how would I say the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1679" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="477" RevisionGUID="a5f06929-3225-45cc-a2de-f75799d7f8c0" CreationDate="2016-03-09T23:59:46.787" UserId="68" Text="meaning of &quot;non omnínó&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1680" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="477" RevisionGUID="a5f06929-3225-45cc-a2de-f75799d7f8c0" CreationDate="2016-03-09T23:59:46.787" UserId="68" Text="|meaning|vocabulary|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="478" RevisionGUID="0c97868f-c787-437f-955b-3fd4eb458687" CreationDate="2016-03-10T00:05:29.090" UserId="73" Text="The name Parthenope originally refers to [a Siren](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenope_(Siren)) who killed herself after failing to attract Odysseus/Ulysses and his men with her songs. She threw herself into the sea and drowned, and her body washed ashore (see [*The Roman Paratext: Frame, Texts, Readers*](https://books.google.com/books?id=iXM9AwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA230&amp;dq=Parthenope+siren&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=Lk6vU57oM9KOqgb904BQ&amp;ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The locals who settled in the area where her body washed ashore, the Cumaeans, decided to name their newly-built city in her honor, calling it Parthenope. This is thought to have happened sometime around the 7th century B.C. (see [*Remembering Parthenope: The Reception of Classical Naples from Antiquity to the Present*](https://books.google.com/books?id=SEjTBgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA29&amp;lpg=PA29&amp;dq=parthenope+naples&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=hmiMKzMMrD&amp;sig=o7XT4A_BB4jGkvU8VtBl9GT5Udc&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjL1vWa57TLAhVBFh4KHfU9Akg4ChDoAQhHMAc#v=onepage&amp;q=parthenope%20naples&amp;f=false)). However, [some archaeological diggings](http://www.archemail.it/notizie2011.htm#21/10/2011_Napoli,_Gli_scavi_della_Linea_6_portano_alla_luce_una_novit%C3%A0_clamorosa:_la_Napoli_greca_%C3%A8_stata_fondata_nell%C2%B4ottavo_secolo_a._C.,_non_nel_settimo__%28Repubblica%29) have suggested that the city was actually built sometime earlier, in the 8th century B.C. That said, evidence suggests that the city was destroyed, perhaps by burning down. The inhabitants named it Neapolis, or &quot;new city&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="2d8f6770-d6bf-46fc-a056-46dfee0d99f6" CreationDate="2016-03-10T00:12:56.893" UserId="118" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="How, in classical Latin, did one say &quot;all the more so&quot; or otherwise indicate that a proposition harder than you're trying to prove has just been&#xD;&#xA;proven, so your proposition must be at least as certain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, we sometimes say **a fortiori** to indicate this: &quot;Unicorns&#xD;&#xA;don't exist, so, _a fortiori,_ one couldn't have bitten you.&quot; I'm researching&#xD;&#xA;the [origins of the term _a&#xD;&#xA;fortiori_](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/295/118), and so far, I have not&#xD;&#xA;found the idiom _a fortiore ratione_ in any Ancient Roman writing.  It seems&#xD;&#xA;likely, though, that people would have _some_ sort of common way of expressing&#xD;&#xA;the concept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do know of a phrase with this meaning which occurs throughout Latin&#xD;&#xA;translations of the Bible: **quanto magis**. Here are a couple examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si ergo uos cum sitis mali nostis bona data dare filiis uestris, **Quanto&#xD;&#xA;&gt; magis** pater uester de cælo dabit bona petentibus se? (Matthew 7:11, [Old&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin](https://books.google.com/books?id=8odbAAAAMAAJ&amp;lpg=PA90&amp;pg=PA90))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;i&gt;If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **how much more** shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; them that ask him? (KJV)&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Respicite uolatili a cæli, quoniam non serunt neque metunt neque congregant in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; horreo. Et pater vester cælestis alit illas. **Nonne magis uos pluris estis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; illis?** (Matthew 6:26, [Old Latin](https://books.google.com/books?id=8odbAAAAMAAJ&amp;lpg=PA7&amp;pg=PA7))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;i&gt;Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. **Are ye not much&#xD;&#xA;&gt; better than they?** (KJV)&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read, though, that &quot;how much more?&quot; is a direct translation of the Hebrew&#xD;&#xA;word אַף&#xD;&#xA;(_[af](https://books.google.com/books?id=U4btePgZO0IC&amp;pg=PA140&amp;lpg=PA140&amp;dq=%22and+how+much+more%22+bible+hebrew+rhetoric&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ir0fclcXLh&amp;sig=FmaketQE5bhaJHTxfrcS8j8mNbs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiUuP2N47LLAhVsk4MKHR5bAugQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22and%20how%20much%20more%22%20bible%20hebrew%20rhetoric&amp;f=false)_)&#xD;&#xA;or וְאַף, &quot;and how much more&quot;, commonly used in Jewish rhetoric at that time to&#xD;&#xA;indicate an _a fortiori_ argument. I can't tell if it's a Hebrew expression&#xD;&#xA;mostly limited to Bible translations, just as in English, or if it took root in&#xD;&#xA;Latin also. (Not to be confused with קַל וָחֹמֶר, _qal vachomer_, &quot;light and&#xD;&#xA;heavy&quot;, another Hebrew expression for the same kind of argument.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put this another way, how would&#xD;&#xA;[Vitruvius](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/vitruvius7.html#5.3) say,&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Plant-stalks with animal-heads don't exist, so ⎯⎯⎯⎯ one couldn't have bitten&#xD;&#xA;you&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="474" RevisionGUID="2d857181-936b-4d8b-a16e-9ab16d6f12f2" CreationDate="2016-03-10T00:49:50.860" UserId="73" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Vergil's tomb bears the inscription:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mantua me genuit; Calabri rapuere; tenet nunc Parthenope; cecini Pascua, rura, duces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why does &quot;Parthenope&quot; refer to Naples?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="479" RevisionGUID="ed2dd82b-526e-46ca-a3c4-ff03d5d6738d" CreationDate="2016-03-10T01:25:34.670" UserId="250" Text="I'm designing a sigil for my special forces team in a sci-fi book I'm writing, and without making this a 10,000 word post with backstory, the phrase on the sigil is &quot;Above all, the hunt&quot;. Google and every other translation site out there does literal word for word translation, and I know that is not how Latin works or pretty much how any language translated into another works, so I'm lost as to what it could be. Any help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1685" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="479" RevisionGUID="ed2dd82b-526e-46ca-a3c4-ff03d5d6738d" CreationDate="2016-03-10T01:25:34.670" UserId="250" Text="What is the phrase &quot;Above all the hunt&quot; translated into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1686" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="479" RevisionGUID="ed2dd82b-526e-46ca-a3c4-ff03d5d6738d" CreationDate="2016-03-10T01:25:34.670" UserId="250" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|saying|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="480" RevisionGUID="ed28f0af-7cc5-448c-a7b4-919a89be7364" CreationDate="2016-03-10T01:57:53.850" UserId="79" Text="I would suggest &quot;venatio supra omnia&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There are many ways to translate &quot;above all&quot;, and what I chose is a literal one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get started with future requests, you can look at an online Latin dictionary like [this one](http://latinlexicon.org/search_english.php).&#xD;&#xA;If you type in &quot;hunt&quot;, you will get several hunting-related words in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;You can read their English translations and decide which word would have the most suitable tone for your use even if you can't put words together into sentences.&#xD;&#xA;For hunting the case is pretty clear, but it's not so for all words.&#xD;&#xA;If you have some suitable words together and maybe a Google translation, you can give them in your question; sometimes such background work really helps, and most importantly it shows your own effort.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes short phrases are the hardest ones to translate well, so it might help to give several ways to express your sentence in English and explain what you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your translation request was simple enough, but I just wanted to give some advice to you (and others who end up reading this) to make things run smoothly when help is needed again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="477" RevisionGUID="9db1ea6f-c10f-4a81-a4c5-190d18db05f1" CreationDate="2016-03-10T02:23:34.733" UserId="68" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="*Omnínó* is defined in *Lewis Elementary* as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. altogether, wholly, entirely, utterly, at all  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. [with numerals] in all, altogether, only, but, just  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. by all means, indeed, doubtless, yes, certainly, to be sure  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. in general, generally, universally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm unsure of how to translate/interpret it when it's negative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I wrote, for example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Liber mihi nón omnínó placuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would that mean &quot;I didn't entirely like the book&quot; or &quot;I didn't like the book at all&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And whichever one it means, how would I say the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="478" RevisionGUID="04682be5-1d03-4d18-966b-9e34d949a831" CreationDate="2016-03-10T02:29:06.583" UserId="73" Comment="added 260 characters in body" Text="The name Parthenope originally refers to [a Siren](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenope_(Siren)) who killed herself after failing to attract Odysseus/Ulysses and his men with her songs. She threw herself into the sea and drowned, and her body washed ashore (see [*The Roman Paratext: Frame, Texts, Readers*](https://books.google.com/books?id=iXM9AwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA230&amp;dq=Parthenope+siren&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=Lk6vU57oM9KOqgb904BQ&amp;ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The locals who settled in the area where her body washed ashore, the Cumaeans, decided to name their newly-built city in her honor, calling it Parthenope. This is thought to have happened sometime around the 7th century B.C. (see [*Remembering Parthenope: The Reception of Classical Naples from Antiquity to the Present*](https://books.google.com/books?id=SEjTBgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA29&amp;lpg=PA29&amp;dq=parthenope+naples&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=hmiMKzMMrD&amp;sig=o7XT4A_BB4jGkvU8VtBl9GT5Udc&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjL1vWa57TLAhVBFh4KHfU9Akg4ChDoAQhHMAc#v=onepage&amp;q=parthenope%20naples&amp;f=false)). However, [some archaeological diggings](http://www.archemail.it/notizie2011.htm#21/10/2011_Napoli,_Gli_scavi_della_Linea_6_portano_alla_luce_una_novit%C3%A0_clamorosa:_la_Napoli_greca_%C3%A8_stata_fondata_nell%C2%B4ottavo_secolo_a._C.,_non_nel_settimo__%28Repubblica%29) have suggested that the city was actually built sometime earlier, in the 8th century B.C. That said, evidence suggests that the city was destroyed, perhaps by burning down. The inhabitants named it Neapolis, or &quot;new city&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's another question entirely as to why Vergil would want to refer to the old city, and not the newer one. He was 700 or so years too young for it. It's possible that he was trying to reference the history of the region, but it still seems rather strange." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="481" RevisionGUID="65a0b995-3460-4717-8b21-6cb61504d19c" CreationDate="2016-03-10T04:02:49.903" UserId="79" Text="The expression *non omnino* is not&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; rare in literature, but in most occurrences both interpretations make sense.&#xD;&#xA;I found some examples where only one of &quot;not entirely&quot; and &quot;not at all&quot; makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Augustinus in [Confessiones 1.2.2](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/sestio.shtml#39) writes &quot;*non ergo essem, deus meus, non omnino essem, nisi esses in me*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Judging by context, he means that he would not exist at all if God did not exist.&#xD;&#xA;Here *non omnino* means &quot;not at all&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Cicero in [Brutus 110](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/brut.shtml#110) writes &quot;*his quidem non omnino ingenium, sed oratorium ingenium defuit*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;He appears to mean &quot;they were not missing all talent, but only orator's talent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Here *non omnino* means &quot;not completely&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Plautus in [Asinaria 233](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/plautus/asinaria.shtml) writes &quot;*Non omnino iam perii, est relicuom quo peream magis*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Here it seems to make more sense that *non omnino* means &quot;not completely&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Tertullianus in [Apologeticum 47.2](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/tertullian/tertullian.apol.shtml#C47) writes &quot;*Quis poetarum, quis sophistarum, qui non omnino de prophetarum fonte potaverit?*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Here *non omnino* means &quot;not at all&quot;, since &quot;not completely&quot; makes no sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging by these examples, *non omnino* can mean either &quot;not at all&quot; or &quot;not completely&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The meaning may have changed between different authors and eras, but in general it doesn't seem to clearly refer to either possible translation.&#xD;&#xA;(I must say I am not&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; satisfied with this observation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, if you want to make your Latin book review unambiguous, I suggest avoiding *non omnino* in both cases.&#xD;&#xA;I might write &quot;I didn't like the book at all&quot; as *totus liber mihi displicuit* and &quot;I didn't entirely like the book&quot; as *libier mihi haud penitus placuit*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be happy if someone could provide more illuminating examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; You can read this as &quot;not entirely&quot; or &quot;not at all&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="482" RevisionGUID="0a9fc6f1-6ce0-4ea1-a5c6-c2852fa3f116" CreationDate="2016-03-10T05:22:25.480" UserId="79" Text="Did Romans or other ancient users of Latin have lists of difficult words with explanations in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I can think of many kinds of people who could have benefited from such dictionaries: native speakers during their studies, foreigners trying to learn Latin, public speakers trying to improve their speeches, citizens trying to understand difficult texts they encounter&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;If dictionaries were used, what evidence is there and have such word lists survived?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never heard of such dictionaries, but they would make a great source for understanding vocabulary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1692" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="482" RevisionGUID="0a9fc6f1-6ce0-4ea1-a5c6-c2852fa3f116" CreationDate="2016-03-10T05:22:25.480" UserId="79" Text="Did the Romans use dictionaries to check what words mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1693" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="482" RevisionGUID="0a9fc6f1-6ce0-4ea1-a5c6-c2852fa3f116" CreationDate="2016-03-10T05:22:25.480" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|dictionary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="476" RevisionGUID="5c784fef-d65c-4a6c-86cc-397fb0c1bb2d" CreationDate="2016-03-10T12:55:50.063" UserId="79" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="For questions about Publius Vergilius Maro and his work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1695" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="476" RevisionGUID="5c784fef-d65c-4a6c-86cc-397fb0c1bb2d" CreationDate="2016-03-10T12:55:50.063" Comment="Proposed by 79 approved by 118, 12 edit id of 95" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="457" RevisionGUID="bdeb84d2-f55c-42c5-a7bd-4029be808c20" CreationDate="2016-03-10T12:56:01.470" UserId="242" Comment="add line breaks to Curculio quote" Text="Irony is certainly present in the Latin lexicon: it was one of the classical rhetoric techniques in fact. Joel's reference to Cicero's *credo* is a good example of its use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other common [semantic inversions](http://www.sitelevel.com/click?url=http%3a%2f%2frhetoric.byu.edu%2fFigures%2fGroupings%2fSemantic%2520Inversions.htm&amp;sid=pTOFcHvoTwWddeuP), most of which we would recognize as a kind of irony, include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *[Paralipsis](http://www.sitelevel.com/click?url=http%3a%2f%2frhetoric.byu.edu%2fFigures%2fP%2fparalipsis.htm&amp;sid=pTOFcHvoTwWddeuP)*: mentioning something in the context of &quot;leaving it out,&quot; as Cicero is rather famous for, for example, in the repeated *praetermitto*'s of *In Catalinam I*.&#xD;&#xA;2. *[Sarcasm](http://www.sitelevel.com/click?url=http%3a%2f%2frhetoric.byu.edu%2fFigures%2fS%2fsarcasmus.htm&amp;sid=pTOFcHvoTwWddeuP)*: a more bitter kind of irony, demonstrated in the same speech by an ever-obliging Cicero with such turns of phrase as *Nos autem fortes viri*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To find a veritable treasure trove of more colloquial (and quite hilarious) irony, I recommend some quality time with Plautus. Here is a good example from the *Curculio*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Phaedrus**: Huic proxumum illud ostiumst oculissimum.&#xD;&#xA;salve, valuistin? &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Palindromus**: Ostium occlusissimum,&#xD;&#xA;caruitne febris te heri vel nudiustertius&#xD;&#xA;et heri cenavistine?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Phaed**: Deridesne me?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Pal**: Quid tu ergo, insane, rogitas valeatne ostium?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Phaed**: Close to this [temple] is that most beautiful of doors. [to the door] Hello, how have you been?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Pal**: O most closed [N.B.: almost the same as &quot;most beautiful&quot;] of doors, I hope you haven't been sick yesterday or the day before and that you ate well yesterday.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Phaed**: Are you mocking me?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Pal**: Well, idiot, why were you just asking how the door has been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here (as in English), the use of unnecessary superlatives is an effective way of conveying the exact opposite. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along these lines, **I would suggest translating an ironic *good for you* as:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Optimum factu!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found examples from both Cicero and Caesar using the supine with *optimum*, so this should sound fairly fluent. An alternative that more readily fits into the supine mold would be *Mirabile factu!* I would be happy to help with a more exact translation of this phrase if you can provide more context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the proposed translation *tibi bonum est*, this does not convey the same meaning as the English idiomatic phrase *good for you*. I found a few examples of this phrase in some [Renaissance moral manuals](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=%22tibi%20bonum%20est%22), but the phrase depends on context: it means something like &quot;X is [a] good for you.&quot; I believe the phrase is so rare because this meaning would normally be conveyed by a double dative: *Tibi bono est*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the phrase &quot;good for you&quot; is not necessarily ironic: context, in English as in Latin, almost always determines the tone. &quot;Good for you&quot; can be alternatively ironic, condescending, or even complimentary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1697" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="457" RevisionGUID="bdeb84d2-f55c-42c5-a7bd-4029be808c20" CreationDate="2016-03-10T12:56:01.470" Comment="Proposed by 242 approved by 118, 12 edit id of 96" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="481" RevisionGUID="17c5c80e-c8dd-4869-ace5-4798052bb36e" CreationDate="2016-03-10T13:36:13.487" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The expression *non omnino* is not&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; rare in literature, but in most occurrences both interpretations make sense.&#xD;&#xA;I found some examples where only one of &quot;not entirely&quot; and &quot;not at all&quot; makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Augustinus in [Confessiones 1.2.2](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/sestio.shtml#39) writes &quot;*non ergo essem, deus meus, non omnino essem, nisi esses in me*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Judging by context, he means that he would not exist at all if God did not exist.&#xD;&#xA;Here *non omnino* means &quot;not at all&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Cicero in [Brutus 110](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/brut.shtml#110) writes &quot;*his quidem non omnino ingenium, sed oratorium ingenium defuit*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;He appears to mean &quot;they were not missing all talent, but only orator's talent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Here *non omnino* means &quot;not completely&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Plautus in [Asinaria 233](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/plautus/asinaria.shtml) writes &quot;*Non omnino iam perii, est relicuom quo peream magis*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Here it seems to make more sense that *non omnino* means &quot;not completely&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Tertullianus in [Apologeticum 47.2](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/tertullian/tertullian.apol.shtml#C47) writes &quot;*Quis poetarum, quis sophistarum, qui non omnino de prophetarum fonte potaverit?*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Here *non omnino* means &quot;not at all&quot;, since &quot;not completely&quot; makes no sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging by these examples, *non omnino* can mean either &quot;not at all&quot; or &quot;not completely&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The meaning may have changed between different authors and eras, but in general it doesn't seem to clearly refer to either possible translation.&#xD;&#xA;(I must say I am not&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; satisfied with this observation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, if you want to make your Latin book review unambiguous, I suggest avoiding *non omnino* in both cases.&#xD;&#xA;I might write &quot;I didn't like the book at all&quot; as *totus liber mihi displicuit* and &quot;I didn't entirely like the book&quot; as *liber mihi haud penitus placuit*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be happy if someone could provide more illuminating examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; You can read this as &quot;not entirely&quot; or &quot;not at all&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="483" RevisionGUID="a30ec8ed-f64a-4b8a-8608-13cb4df5b714" CreationDate="2016-03-10T17:22:49.267" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="There's an alternate form of the third person plural perfect&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. Instead of, say, *habuerunt*, a poet might write *habuere*, to make the word fit with the meter, but that looks like the infinitive! How can I tell them apart?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;***&#xA;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1: I'm not sure if it's limited to active or indicative, but it might be.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1700" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="483" RevisionGUID="a30ec8ed-f64a-4b8a-8608-13cb4df5b714" CreationDate="2016-03-10T17:22:49.267" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="How can I tell if -ere is getting substituted for -erunt?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1701" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="483" RevisionGUID="a30ec8ed-f64a-4b8a-8608-13cb4df5b714" CreationDate="2016-03-10T17:22:49.267" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|classical-latin|verbs|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="484" RevisionGUID="838c82e5-0876-4c2e-89bc-fa441d999a0d" CreationDate="2016-03-10T17:46:57.910" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="There are two main ways. The first is context; if there's no other main verb, by process of elimination, the word in question has to be. This is typically how I figure it out; I'll read the sentence taking it as an infinitive, realize there's no main verb, and go back to look at all of the candidates. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is that this specific kind is an abbreviation, so it uses the same stem as the full form -- namely, the perfect. Notice the difference between habeo, habere's infinitive and this form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Habere&#xD;&#xA;    Habuere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One easy way to tell if it's the perfect stem instead of present is that present stems (almost?) never end in -u, -v, or -x, while perfect stems often do. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="484" RevisionGUID="99b4dc96-9905-485f-8bfe-f9568ba98ab7" CreationDate="2016-03-10T17:47:48.883" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="There are two main ways. The first is context; if there's no other main verb, by process of elimination, the word in question has to be. This is typically how I figure it out; I'll read the sentence taking it as an infinitive, realize there's no main verb, and go back to look at all of the candidates. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is that this specific kind is an abbreviation, so it uses the same stem as the full form -- namely, the perfect. Notice the difference between habeo, habere's infinitive and this form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Habere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Habuere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One easy way to tell if it's the perfect stem instead of present is that present stems (almost?) never end in -u, -v, or -x, while perfect stems often do. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="484" RevisionGUID="0aa9b8d5-1f4b-4b82-ac34-f87166855bf2" CreationDate="2016-03-10T17:54:31.853" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Pedantry is good when you're trying to be accurate" Text="There are two main ways. The first is context; if there's no other main verb, by process of elimination, the word in question has to be. This is typically how I figure it out; I'll read the sentence taking it as an infinitive, realize there's no main verb, and go back to look at all of the candidates. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is that this specific kind is an abbreviation, so it uses the same stem as the full form -- namely, the perfect. Notice the difference between habeo, habere's infinitive and this form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Habere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Habuere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One rule of thumb to tell if it's the perfect stem instead of present is that present stems rarely end in -u, -v, or -x, while perfect stems often do. However, there are many exceptions to this rule -- for example, the present stems of abluere, induere, salvere, exere, and mixere, and the perfect stems of such as bibi, feci, egi, arsi, cecini.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1: Source: [C.M.Weiner](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/483/how-can-i-tell-if-ere-is-getting-substituted-for-erunt/484?noredirect=1#comment862_484 &quot;God of Latin&quot;)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="485" RevisionGUID="825c112a-783f-4f0c-a5d3-a5b9fa69ed84" CreationDate="2016-03-10T17:58:20.283" UserId="45" Text="Three considerations are helpful to distinguish between the infinitive and the alternative 3rd person plural perfect ending:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **-ēre** is added to the **perfect (3rd) stem**, while the present infinitive is formed on the present (1st) stem. Although the perfect infinitive is also formed on the 3rd stem, its form (*isse*) is easily distinguishable.&#xD;&#xA;2. **-ēre** has a **long *ē* vowel**. Besides the second conjugation (e.g. *vidēre*), all other (common) verbs are formed with an *-a* (1st conjugation, e.g. *laudare*), a short *-e* (3rd conjugation -o and -io, e.g. *mittere* and *capere*), or an *-i* (4th conjugation, e.g. *audire*).&#xD;&#xA;3. **Context!** I cannot think of (though there probably are examples of...) a grammatical Latin sentence where an infinitive or a 3rd person perfect verb could be swapped without doing violence to the syntax. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are cases where (1) and (2) will fail, as in the case of *vidēre* which happens to have the same vowel length *and* the same 1st and 3rd stem. In this case, context is key: *Regressi eum vidēre* only makes sense where *vidēre* is perfect. *Te vidēre volo* only makes sense as an infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your footnote, yes, this contraction only normally exists in the active indicative. The perfect subjunctive (e.g. *viderint*) has no contraction and the perfect passive (both indicative and subjunctive) are compounds formed with the fourth principle part (*visi sunt, sint*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="486" RevisionGUID="823c40f1-312d-4f65-893a-c9e3fc64042b" CreationDate="2016-03-10T18:00:40.840" UserId="12" Text="In Anselm's [*Cur Deus Homo*, 1.9.12](https://books.google.com/books?id=HvRhAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA25), he writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Verbum autem quod positum est, *didicit*, duobus modis intelligi potest.  Aut enim *didicit* dictum est pro: alios fecit discere, aut quia, quod per scientiam non ignorabat, experimento *didicit*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Deane's translation](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/anselm/basic_works.vi.ii.ix.html) reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now the word “didicit,” which is used, can be understood in two ways. For either “didicit” is written for this: he caused others to learn; or it is used, because he did learn by experience what he had an understanding of before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these dual meanings don't appear to exist in Classical Latin: [Lewis and Short's entry](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=discere&amp;la=la#lexicon) focuses almost exclusively on the &quot;to learn&quot; definition, and only mentions &quot;to teach&quot; extremely briefly as &quot;Late Lat.,&quot; with no examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to know more specifically when this &quot;to teach&quot; meaning came about.  Was it attested in Classical or Late Latin (i.e., before AD 500)?  Or was it a relatively new meaning when Anselm was writing in the late 11th century?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1707" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="486" RevisionGUID="823c40f1-312d-4f65-893a-c9e3fc64042b" CreationDate="2016-03-10T18:00:40.840" UserId="12" Text="When did *discere* come to mean &quot;to teach&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1708" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="486" RevisionGUID="823c40f1-312d-4f65-893a-c9e3fc64042b" CreationDate="2016-03-10T18:00:40.840" UserId="12" Text="|vocabulary|medieval-latin|language-evolution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="483" RevisionGUID="8bc7cdcb-ab43-410c-8876-de0a03ca4cb4" CreationDate="2016-03-10T18:01:13.607" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Wow that's a long chain of grammar words" Text="There's an alternate form of the third person plural perfect active indicative. Instead of, say, *habuerunt*, a poet might write *habuere*, to make the word fit with the meter, but that looks like the infinitive! How can I tell them apart?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="3359a3f7-80c1-4802-8f57-f4297582860e" CreationDate="2016-03-10T19:56:16.493" UserId="79" Text="It is very rarely the case that the alternative form of the perfect in third person plural really looks like present infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;If you know how to conjugate your verbs, there is rarely a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second conjugation this happens with the following words (I have only listed the relevant forms):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- move&amp;omacr;, m&amp;omacr;v&amp;imacr; (with possible prefixes)&#xD;&#xA;- sede&amp;omacr;, s&amp;emacr;d&amp;imacr; (one-syllable prefixes weaken the present stem but not the perfect stem, so ambiguity is lost: asside&amp;omacr;, ass&amp;emacr;di but circumsede&amp;omacr;, circums&amp;emacr;d&amp;imacr;)&#xD;&#xA;- attonde&amp;omacr;, attond&amp;imacr; (reduplication in the absence of prefixes: tonde&amp;omacr;, totondi&amp;imacr;)&#xD;&#xA;- cave&amp;omacr;, c&amp;amacr;v&amp;imacr;&#xD;&#xA;- fove&amp;omacr;, f&amp;omacr;v&amp;imacr;&#xD;&#xA;- vide&amp;omacr;, v&amp;imacr;d&amp;imacr; (with possible prefixes)&#xD;&#xA;- responde&amp;omacr;, respond&amp;imacr; (reduplication without prefixes: sponde&amp;omacr;, spopond&amp;imacr;)&#xD;&#xA;- str&amp;imacr;de&amp;omacr;, str&amp;imacr;d&amp;imacr;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only ones of these that have the same vowel lengths and are thus metrically indistinguishable in verse, are *attondere*, *respondere* and *stridere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the third conjugation the infinitive always has a short *-e-* before the ending *-re*, so vowel length can always tell them apart.&#xD;&#xA;In the absence of macrons there are more look-alikes in third conjugation than in the second one, so I will not list them here.&#xD;&#xA;(I might do so later.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;Going through this list would be good:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cultus.hk/latin_lessons/conjugation/verb_3.html&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I missed some verbs, let me know.&#xD;&#xA;I'm travelling now and I don't have access to my printed dictionary that I would love to use here.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="4d6e4ac3-cd8b-4644-9098-4fcc02acec1f" CreationDate="2016-03-10T20:07:48.890" UserId="79" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="It is very rarely the case that the alternative form of the perfect in third person plural really looks like present infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;If you know how to conjugate your verbs, there is rarely a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second conjugation this happens with the following words (I have only listed the relevant forms):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- move&amp;omacr;, m&amp;omacr;v&amp;imacr; (with possible prefixes)&#xD;&#xA;- sede&amp;omacr;, s&amp;emacr;d&amp;imacr; (one-syllable prefixes weaken the present stem but not the perfect stem, so ambiguity is lost: asside&amp;omacr;, ass&amp;emacr;di but circumsede&amp;omacr;, circums&amp;emacr;d&amp;imacr;)&#xD;&#xA;- attonde&amp;omacr;, attond&amp;imacr; (reduplication in the absence of prefixes: tonde&amp;omacr;, totondi&amp;imacr;)&#xD;&#xA;- cave&amp;omacr;, c&amp;amacr;v&amp;imacr;&#xD;&#xA;- fave&amp;omacr;, f&amp;amacr;v&amp;imacr;&#xD;&#xA;- fove&amp;omacr;, f&amp;omacr;v&amp;imacr;&#xD;&#xA;- vide&amp;omacr;, v&amp;imacr;d&amp;imacr; (with possible prefixes)&#xD;&#xA;- responde&amp;omacr;, respond&amp;imacr; (reduplication without prefixes: sponde&amp;omacr;, spopond&amp;imacr;)&#xD;&#xA;- str&amp;imacr;de&amp;omacr;, str&amp;imacr;d&amp;imacr;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only ones of these that have the same vowel lengths and are thus metrically indistinguishable in verse, are *attondere*, *respondere* and *stridere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the third conjugation the infinitive always has a short *-e-* before the ending *-re*, so vowel length can always tell them apart.&#xD;&#xA;In the absence of macrons there are more look-alikes in third conjugation than in the second one, so I will not list them here.&#xD;&#xA;(I might do so later.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;Going through this list would be good:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cultus.hk/latin_lessons/conjugation/verb_3.html&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I missed some verbs, let me know.&#xD;&#xA;I'm travelling now and I don't have access to my printed dictionary that I would love to use here.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="484" RevisionGUID="840dd6e6-8d3b-444c-9fc9-23b5f83cccaf" CreationDate="2016-03-10T20:25:10.657" UserId="78" Comment="formatting" Text="There are two main ways. The first is context; if there's no other main verb, by process of elimination, the word in question has to be. This is typically how I figure it out; I'll read the sentence taking it as an infinitive, realize there's no main verb, and go back to look at all of the candidates. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is that this specific kind is an abbreviation, so it uses the same stem as the full form -- namely, the perfect. Notice the difference between habeo, habere's infinitive and this form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Habere&#xD;&#xA;- Habuere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One rule of thumb to tell if it's the perfect stem instead of present is that present stems rarely end in -u, -v, or -x, while perfect stems often do. However, there are many exceptions to this rule -- for example, the present stems of abluere, induere, salvere, exere, and mixere, and the perfect stems of such as bibi, feci, egi, arsi, cecini.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1: Source: [C.M.Weiner](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/483/how-can-i-tell-if-ere-is-getting-substituted-for-erunt/484?noredirect=1#comment862_484 &quot;God of Latin&quot;)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1713" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="483" RevisionGUID="33e832fc-51d0-4496-963e-bedda5e2f90d" CreationDate="2016-03-10T20:26:38.680" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|verbs|contraction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="432" RevisionGUID="5569948e-35a6-4b36-b7a3-249ba1b2b2c7" CreationDate="2016-03-10T23:54:23.840" UserId="78" Comment="feel free to edit it back out if you are not comfortable with it" Text="**Estōte** occurs five times in _Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata_ by Hans Henning Ørberg. This textbook, written in the 20th century, teaches elementary conversational classical Latin by example. The story is set in about 150 A.D., is limited to basic language, and often presents simplified versions of excerpts from classical works, sometimes quoting directly when the language is basic enough. It's my understanding that Ørberg took historical accuracy very seriously in *LLPSI*. I take Ørberg's use of **estōte** to mean that it's _basic_ Latin that everyone should feel comfortable with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are three examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;p. 209, illustrating _gerundium_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Industriī **estōte** in scrīb&lt;i&gt;endō,&lt;/i&gt; discipulī!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;p. 282, illustrating the plural _imperātīvus futūrī_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Magister: &quot;Posthāc bonī discipulī **estōte**, puerī! Semper mihi pār&lt;i&gt;ētōte!&lt;/i&gt; Dīligenter aud&lt;i&gt;ītōte!&lt;/i&gt; Pulchrē recit&lt;i&gt;ātōte&lt;/i&gt; et rēctē scrīb&lt;i&gt;itōte!&quot;&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;p. 225–226, quoting Matthew 14:26–27:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Discipulī autem videntēs eum super mare ambulantem turbātī sunt dīcentēs: &quot;Phantasma est!&quot; et prae timōre clāmāvērunt. Statimque Iēsūs locūtus est eīs dīcēns: &quot;Cōnstantēs **estōte**! Ego sum. Nōlīte timēre!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is from a version of _Matthaeus_ in use in 150 A.D.; see [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=8odbAAAAMAAJ&amp;lpg=PR11&amp;ots=HvCtsA8LXH&amp;dq=old%20latin%20book%20matthew&amp;pg=PA20#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) for a similar one. Jerome's version has _habete fiduciam_ rather than _constantes estote._ However, a quick Google search suggests that _constantes estote_ and similar are common expressions. _Constantes estote et videbitis auxilium Domini super vos, Estote fortes in bello,_ etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quārē dubitāstī? :)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="488" RevisionGUID="85a7c96c-318a-48d4-9c73-c228c7fea004" CreationDate="2016-03-11T00:37:52.513" UserId="73" Text="Sort of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This encyclopedia entry](http://www.webcitation.org/5kwbLyr75) explains that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Greeks and Romans did not attempt a work containing all the words of their own or any foreign language; their early dictionaries were merely lists of unusual words or phrases. [. . .] One of the earliest works in Latin lexicography, by Verrius Flaccus, is *De Verborum Significatu* (The Meaning of Words), compiled during the 1st century AD. This work, in which the words are arranged alphabetically, has furnished a great deal of information on antiquities and Latin grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*De Verborum Significatu*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_verborum_significatu) is, unfortunately, mostly missing in its original form - edited and published not be Flaccus but by Sextus Pompeius Festus. Various incomplete versions and updates have been compiled over the past few millennia since Restus published the first (see, for example, [the 1839 edition](https://archive.org/stream/deverborumsigni00fest/deverborumsigni00fest_djvu.txt)), and they are, in general, in better condition. Information about a project dedicated to improving our understanding of *De Verborum Significatu* can be found [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20130112064549/http://www.ucl.ac.uk/history2/research/festus/index.htm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The work was not, however, widely used. It was supposed to be a scholarly resource, and given its size (in full, it would have encompassed 40 volumes), it would have been impractical for an ordinary Roman to acquire a copy - or to make a significant number of copies, for that matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="488" RevisionGUID="e8a30eeb-e653-4faa-8c5d-3645944ded95" CreationDate="2016-03-11T01:46:00.623" UserId="144" Comment="A couple mistakes (I think, feel free to undo the edit)" Text="Sort of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This encyclopedia entry](http://www.webcitation.org/5kwbLyr75) explains that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Greeks and Romans did not attempt a work containing all the words of their own or any foreign language; their early dictionaries were merely lists of unusual words or phrases. [. . .] One of the earliest works in Latin lexicography, by Verrius Flaccus, is *De Verborum Significatu* (The Meaning of Words), compiled during the 1st century AD. This work, in which the words are arranged alphabetically, has furnished a great deal of information on antiquities and Latin grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*De Verborum Significatu*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_verborum_significatu) is, unfortunately, mostly missing in its original form - edited and published not by Flaccus but by Sextus Pompeius Festus. Various incomplete versions and updates have been compiled over the past few millennia since Festus published the first (see, for example, [the 1839 edition](https://archive.org/stream/deverborumsigni00fest/deverborumsigni00fest_djvu.txt)), and they are, in general, in better condition. Information about a project dedicated to improving our understanding of *De Verborum Significatu* can be found [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20130112064549/http://www.ucl.ac.uk/history2/research/festus/index.htm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the work was not widely used. It was supposed to be a scholarly resource, and given its size (in full, it would have encompassed 40 volumes), it would have been impractical for an ordinary Roman to acquire a copy - or to make a significant number of copies, for that matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1720" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="488" RevisionGUID="e8a30eeb-e653-4faa-8c5d-3645944ded95" CreationDate="2016-03-11T01:46:00.623" Comment="Proposed by 144 approved by 73 edit id of 97" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="489" RevisionGUID="6b03adea-107a-44f5-b09f-b92f666fedd0" CreationDate="2016-03-11T02:34:48.007" UserId="79" Text="The rigid poetic meters used by ancient poets strongly indicate that elision is done (almost) every time one word ends in a vowel and the next one begins with another &amp;mdash; with the usual exceptions regarding *h-* and *-m*.&#xD;&#xA;In prose there are no clear rhythmical hints as to whether elision was there or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know if elision was widely or systematically used in classical Latin outside poetry?&#xD;&#xA;Is there a reason to believe that elision was or was not specific to verse?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1722" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="489" RevisionGUID="6b03adea-107a-44f5-b09f-b92f666fedd0" CreationDate="2016-03-11T02:34:48.007" UserId="79" Text="Was elision specific to verse in classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1723" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="489" RevisionGUID="6b03adea-107a-44f5-b09f-b92f666fedd0" CreationDate="2016-03-11T02:34:48.007" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|poetry|elision|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1724" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="51" RevisionGUID="471938a5-9554-44c0-ada2-844114fc40f9" CreationDate="2016-03-11T02:35:52.787" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|classical-latin|grammar|poetry|elision|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="490" RevisionGUID="424cb29a-484a-43ef-a888-4ce50e27785e" CreationDate="2016-03-11T03:50:57.140" UserId="78" Text="First, though it is indicated by an apostrophe in modern texts, elision technically also occurs in ancient Greek poetry. The rules were different from Latin, though. I quote Smyth for them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - 70. Elision is the expulsion of a short vowel at the end of a word before a word beginning with a vowel. An apostrophe ( ’ ) marks the place where the vowel is elided.&#xD;&#xA;ἀλλ’(ά) ἄγε, ἄδωκ’(α) ἐννέα, ἐφ’ ( = ἐπὶ) ἑαυτοῦ (64), ἔχομ’ (ι) ἄν, γένοιτ’(ο) ἄν.&#xD;&#xA;- - a. Elision is often not expressed to the eye except in poetry. Both inscriptions and the Mss. of prose writers are very inconsistent, but even where the elision is not expressed, it seems to have occurred in speaking; i.e. ὅδε εἶπε and ὅδ’ εἶπε were spoken alike. The Mss. are of little value in such cases.&#xD;&#xA;- 71. Elision affects only unimportant words or syllables, such as particles, adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions of two syllables (except περί, ἄχρι, μέχρι, ὅτι 72 b, c), and the final syllables of nouns, pronouns, and verbs.&#xD;&#xA;a. The final vowel of an emphatic personal pronoun is rarely elided.&#xD;&#xA;- 72. Elision does not occur in&#xD;&#xA;- - a. Monosyllables, except such as end in ε (τέ, δέ, γέ).&#xD;&#xA;- - b. The conjunction ὅτι that ὅτ’ is ὅτε when).&#xD;&#xA;- - c. The prepositions πρό before, ἄχρι, μέχρι until, and περί concerning (except before ι).&#xD;&#xA;- - d. The dative singular ending ι of the third declension, and in σι, the ending of the dative plural.&#xD;&#xA;- - e. Words with final υ.&#xD;&#xA;- 73. Except ἐστί is, forms admitting movable ν (134 a) do not suffer elision in prose. (But some cases of ε in the perfect occur in Demosthenes.)&#xD;&#xA;- 74. αι in the personal endings and the infinitive is elided in Aristophanes; scarcely ever, if at all, in tragedy; its elision in prose is doubtful. οι is elided in tragedy in οἴμοι alas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, elision was not specific to verse. Tablet 234 of the Vindolanda tablets records a soldier writing home to buy good shoes because of the bothersome &quot;storms and winter&quot;. In Latin, that's *tempestates et hiems* (or *hiemps*), but this fellow wrote (or more likely dictated to a scribe) *tempestates etiam*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I quote the online digital commentary on it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The reading of tempestates is supported by the erasure [[et hiem]] which indicates that the scribe began to write et hiemes. TLL VI 2774.12-20 notes that grammarians and glossaries equate hiems and tempestas and gives the meaning uentus fortis (s.v.IA); the only citation with the words used together is Rufinus, Hist.mon.epil. 7, p.462a. **The supralinear substitution of etiam strongly suggests that this was a phonetic dictation error** (for which see Milne and Skeat (1938), 52, 55, and cf. Turner (1987), p.17).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is for common speech. There is a debate whether this occurs in e.g. the orations of Cicero. Cicero himself (and others) remarks on the matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We are not allowed to make a pause between vowels, even if we should wish to do so. This is shown by those famous though slightly uncouth speeches of Cato.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Cic. *Orat.* 152&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cato, it should be remembered, wrote oratory. He continues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Consonants were frequently omitted in contractions, for greater smoothness, as, for example, *multi' modis*, *in vas' argenteis*, *palm et crinibus*, *tecti' fractis*...Moreover, words are often contracted not for convenience but merely for the sake of sound. How was the name of your ancestor changed from Axilla to Ala except from a desire to avoid a harsh-sounding letter? The same letter is removed by refined Latin speech from *maxillae*, *taxilli*, *vexillum* and *pauxillum*. They were also ready to combine words by blending, e.g. *sodes* for *si audes*, and *sis* for *si vis*. You may even find three words in one—*capsis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Cic. *Orat*. 153–154; these passages translated by Hubbell for the LCL&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This indicates that indeed elision/contraction was common. In fact, a little further down he questions why some were against it despite its regular use in *antiquitas*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further reading, I recommend Andrew M. Riggsby 1991, &quot;Elision and Hiatus in Latin Prose,&quot; *Classical Antiquity* 10.2: 328–343.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, elision wasn't uncommon in certain Greek prose works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀλλ᾽ ἦ, τὸ λεγόμενον, κατόπιν ἑορτῆς ἥκομεν καὶ ὑστεροῦμεν;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Plato *Gorgias* 447a&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="490" RevisionGUID="3b7cae64-e350-4d50-9455-a9c8f567ea99" CreationDate="2016-03-11T03:58:09.813" UserId="78" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="First, though it is indicated by an apostrophe in modern texts, elision technically also occurs in ancient Greek poetry. The rules were different from Latin, though. I quote Smyth for them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - 70. Elision is the expulsion of a short vowel at the end of a word before a word beginning with a vowel. An apostrophe ( ’ ) marks the place where the vowel is elided.&#xD;&#xA;ἀλλ’(ά) ἄγε, ἄδωκ’(α) ἐννέα, ἐφ’ ( = ἐπὶ) ἑαυτοῦ (64), ἔχομ’ (ι) ἄν, γένοιτ’(ο) ἄν.&#xD;&#xA;- - a. Elision is often not expressed to the eye except in poetry. Both inscriptions and the Mss. of prose writers are very inconsistent, but even where the elision is not expressed, it seems to have occurred in speaking; i.e. ὅδε εἶπε and ὅδ’ εἶπε were spoken alike. The Mss. are of little value in such cases.&#xD;&#xA;- 71. Elision affects only unimportant words or syllables, such as particles, adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions of two syllables (except περί, ἄχρι, μέχρι, ὅτι 72 b, c), and the final syllables of nouns, pronouns, and verbs.&#xD;&#xA;a. The final vowel of an emphatic personal pronoun is rarely elided.&#xD;&#xA;- 72. Elision does not occur in&#xD;&#xA;- - a. Monosyllables, except such as end in ε (τέ, δέ, γέ).&#xD;&#xA;- - b. The conjunction ὅτι that ὅτ’ is ὅτε when).&#xD;&#xA;- - c. The prepositions πρό before, ἄχρι, μέχρι until, and περί concerning (except before ι).&#xD;&#xA;- - d. The dative singular ending ι of the third declension, and in σι, the ending of the dative plural.&#xD;&#xA;- - e. Words with final υ.&#xD;&#xA;- 73. Except ἐστί is, forms admitting movable ν (134 a) do not suffer elision in prose. (But some cases of ε in the perfect occur in Demosthenes.)&#xD;&#xA;- 74. αι in the personal endings and the infinitive is elided in Aristophanes; scarcely ever, if at all, in tragedy; its elision in prose is doubtful. οι is elided in tragedy in οἴμοι alas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, elision was not specific to verse. Tablet 234 of the Vindolanda tablets records a soldier writing home to buy good shoes because of the bothersome &quot;storms and winter&quot;. In Latin, that's *tempestates et hiems* (or *hiemps*), but this fellow wrote (or more likely dictated to a scribe) *tempestates etiam*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I quote the online digital commentary on it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The reading of tempestates is supported by the erasure [[et hiem]] which indicates that the scribe began to write et hiemes. TLL VI 2774.12-20 notes that grammarians and glossaries equate hiems and tempestas and gives the meaning uentus fortis (s.v.IA); the only citation with the words used together is Rufinus, Hist.mon.epil. 7, p.462a. **The supralinear substitution of etiam strongly suggests that this was a phonetic dictation error** (for which see Milne and Skeat (1938), 52, 55, and cf. Turner (1987), p.17).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is for common speech. There is a debate whether this occurs in e.g. the orations of Cicero. Cicero himself (and others) remarks on the matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We are not allowed to make a pause between vowels, even if we should wish to do so. This is shown by those famous though slightly uncouth speeches of Cato.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Cic. *Orat.* 152&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cato, it should be remembered, wrote oratory. He continues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Consonants were frequently omitted in contractions, for greater smoothness, as, for example, *multi' modis*, *in vas' argenteis*, *palm et crinibus*, *tecti' fractis*...Moreover, words are often contracted not for convenience but merely for the sake of sound. How was the name of your ancestor changed from Axilla to Ala except from a desire to avoid a harsh-sounding letter? The same letter is removed by refined Latin speech from *maxillae*, *taxilli*, *vexillum* and *pauxillum*. They were also ready to combine words by blending, e.g. *sodes* for *si audes*, and *sis* for *si vis*. You may even find three words in one—*capsis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Cic. *Orat*. 153–154; these passages translated by Hubbell for the LCL&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This indicates that indeed elision/contraction was common. In fact, a little further down he questions why some were against it despite its regular use in *antiquitas*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;For further reading, I recommend Andrew M. Riggsby 1991, &quot;Elision and Hiatus in Latin Prose,&quot; *Classical Antiquity* 10.2: 328–343.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, elision wasn't uncommon in certain Greek prose works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀλλ᾽ ἦ, τὸ λεγόμενον, κατόπιν ἑορτῆς ἥκομεν καὶ ὑστεροῦμεν;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Plato *Gorgias* 447a&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="491" RevisionGUID="72b18a70-5a56-4bae-a695-f8caad63c4ab" CreationDate="2016-03-11T05:17:43.457" UserId="118" Text="C.M. Weimer quotes Cicero's [_Orator,_ 153](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-orator/1939/pb_LCL342.427.xml), in [this answer](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/490/118):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How was the name of your ancestor changed from Axilla to Ala except from a desire to avoid a harsh-sounding letter? The same letter is removed by refined Latin speech from ***maxillae***, *taxilli*, *vexillum* and *pauxillum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This comes to me as quite a surprise. I had understood that _maxilla_ is a diminutive form of _māla_; see, for example, [etymonline](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=maxilla). Wouldn't dropping the _x_ undo the diminutive? If the Romans dropped the _x_, what would the result be? _Māilla?_ _Māla?_ Wouldn't this cause confusion? Aren't there already too many homonyms clashing over&lt;i&gt; [māla](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mala#Latin)?&lt;/i&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1728" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="491" RevisionGUID="72b18a70-5a56-4bae-a695-f8caad63c4ab" CreationDate="2016-03-11T05:17:43.457" UserId="118" Text="Did the Romans drop the x from &quot;maxilla&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1729" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="491" RevisionGUID="72b18a70-5a56-4bae-a695-f8caad63c4ab" CreationDate="2016-03-11T05:17:43.457" UserId="118" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="490" RevisionGUID="89973807-5ae8-4f62-8e1f-332c0fb1c397" CreationDate="2016-03-11T13:57:40.997" UserId="78" Comment="added 2275 characters in body" Text="First, though it is indicated by an apostrophe in modern texts, elision also occurs in ancient Greek poetry. The rules were different from Latin, though. I quote Smyth for them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - 70. Elision is the expulsion of a short vowel at the end of a word before a word beginning with a vowel. An apostrophe ( ’ ) marks the place where the vowel is elided.&#xD;&#xA;ἀλλ’(ά) ἄγε, ἄδωκ’(α) ἐννέα, ἐφ’ ( = ἐπὶ) ἑαυτοῦ (64), ἔχομ’ (ι) ἄν, γένοιτ’(ο) ἄν.&#xD;&#xA;- - a. Elision is often not expressed to the eye except in poetry. Both inscriptions and the Mss. of prose writers are very inconsistent, but even where the elision is not expressed, it seems to have occurred in speaking; i.e. ὅδε εἶπε and ὅδ’ εἶπε were spoken alike. The Mss. are of little value in such cases.&#xD;&#xA;- 71. Elision affects only unimportant words or syllables, such as particles, adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions of two syllables (except περί, ἄχρι, μέχρι, ὅτι 72 b, c), and the final syllables of nouns, pronouns, and verbs.&#xD;&#xA;a. The final vowel of an emphatic personal pronoun is rarely elided.&#xD;&#xA;- 72. Elision does not occur in&#xD;&#xA;- - a. Monosyllables, except such as end in ε (τέ, δέ, γέ).&#xD;&#xA;- - b. The conjunction ὅτι that ὅτ’ is ὅτε when).&#xD;&#xA;- - c. The prepositions πρό before, ἄχρι, μέχρι until, and περί concerning (except before ι).&#xD;&#xA;- - d. The dative singular ending ι of the third declension, and in σι, the ending of the dative plural.&#xD;&#xA;- - e. Words with final υ.&#xD;&#xA;- 73. Except ἐστί is, forms admitting movable ν (134 a) do not suffer elision in prose. (But some cases of ε in the perfect occur in Demosthenes.)&#xD;&#xA;- 74. αι in the personal endings and the infinitive is elided in Aristophanes; scarcely ever, if at all, in tragedy; its elision in prose is doubtful. οι is elided in tragedy in οἴμοι alas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, elision was not specific to verse. As usual for this type of thing, Sydney Allen is the first place to go to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The pronunciation of a final vowel and a following initial&#xD;&#xA;vowel,l each with its syllabic value, has the Latin title of&#xD;&#xA;'hiatus'. But, as we know, this type of junction was generally&#xD;&#xA;avoided in Latin verse, except at strong pauses, i.e. at verse&#xD;&#xA;ends and infrequently at main caesurae. In prose, Quintilian&#xD;&#xA;(ix, 4, 33 if.) is not opposed to occasional hiatus (' nonnumquam&#xD;&#xA;hiulca etiam decent faciuntque ampliora quaedam, ut &quot;pulchra&#xD;&#xA;oratione acta'''); Cicero (Or., 150, 152; cf. Her., iv, 18) seems&#xD;&#xA;less tolerant, but his practice does not altogether support his&#xD;&#xA;precept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The grammarians speak of complete loss of the final syllable in such cases (e.g. †Marius Victorinus, K. vi, 66) ;2 and one (Sacerdos, K. vi, 448) actually cites sequences such as *menincepto*, *monstrhor-* (for *mene incepto*, *monstrum horrendum*). The general term given to such loss is '*elisio*', corresponding to the Greek ἔκθλιψις, though the grammarians mostly refer to it as '*synaliphe*' (συναλοιφή). Such 'elision' is specifically contrasted with 'contraction' †('episynaliphe' or συνεκφώμησις), as in aeripedem for aëripedem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In spite of these statements, various modern writers have refused to believe that the final vowel could be completely lost in such cases, since this would be likely to obscure the meaning. This is not altogether a valid argument; towards the end of a word sounds tend to become more 'redundant', i.e. predictable in terms of what has already been uttered; and even in the case of grammatical inflexions the sense is often inferable from other factors in the context (it is thus very common in the IndoEuropean languages to find that the final syllable is phonetically weak and liable to assimilation, reduction, or loss). In the first hundred lines of the *Aeneid*, for example, it has been suggested that elision could cause ambiguity in only two cases-and that neither of these 'would perceptibly alter the meaning of the passage'. Moreover, Plautus (*Cure*., 691) seems deliberately to introduce an ambiguity by this means in order to pun on&#xD;&#xA;*cum catello ut accubas* and *cum catella ut accubas*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;W. Sidney Allen, *Vox Latina* 78–79&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fun little example is Tablet 234 of the Vindolanda tablets records a soldier writing home to buy good shoes because of the bothersome &quot;storms and winter&quot;. In Latin, that's *tempestates et hiems* (or *hiemps*), but this fellow wrote (or more likely dictated to a scribe) *tempestates etiam*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I quote the online digital commentary on it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The reading of tempestates is supported by the erasure [[et hiem]] which indicates that the scribe began to write et hiemes. TLL VI 2774.12-20 notes that grammarians and glossaries equate hiems and tempestas and gives the meaning uentus fortis (s.v.IA); the only citation with the words used together is Rufinus, Hist.mon.epil. 7, p.462a. **The supralinear substitution of etiam strongly suggests that this was a phonetic dictation error** (for which see Milne and Skeat (1938), 52, 55, and cf. Turner (1987), p.17).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is for common speech. There is a debate whether this occurs in e.g. the orations of Cicero. Cicero himself (and others) remarks on the matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We are not allowed to make a pause between vowels, even if we should wish to do so. This is shown by those famous though slightly uncouth speeches of Cato.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Cic. *Orat.* 152&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cato, it should be remembered, wrote oratory. He continues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Consonants were frequently omitted in contractions, for greater smoothness, as, for example, *multi' modis*, *in vas' argenteis*, *palm et crinibus*, *tecti' fractis*...Moreover, words are often contracted not for convenience but merely for the sake of sound. How was the name of your ancestor changed from Axilla to Ala except from a desire to avoid a harsh-sounding letter? The same letter is removed by refined Latin speech from *maxillae*, *taxilli*, *vexillum* and *pauxillum*. They were also ready to combine words by blending, e.g. *sodes* for *si audes*, and *sis* for *si vis*. You may even find three words in one—*capsis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Cic. *Orat*. 153–154; these passages translated by Hubbell for the LCL&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This indicates that indeed elision/contraction was common. In fact, a little further down he questions why some were against it despite its regular use in *antiquitas*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;For further reading, I recommend Andrew M. Riggsby 1991, &quot;Elision and Hiatus in Latin Prose,&quot; *Classical Antiquity* 10.2: 328–343.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, elision wasn't uncommon in certain Greek prose works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀλλ᾽ ἦ, τὸ λεγόμενον, κατόπιν ἑορτῆς ἥκομεν καὶ ὑστεροῦμεν;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Plato *Gorgias* 447a&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="488" RevisionGUID="76b48351-21bd-49e6-8438-4c6ea2881972" CreationDate="2016-03-11T16:28:56.473" UserId="73" Comment="More accurate introduction." Text="Not really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This encyclopedia entry](http://www.webcitation.org/5kwbLyr75) explains that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Greeks and Romans did not attempt a work containing all the words of their own or any foreign language; their early dictionaries were merely lists of unusual words or phrases. [. . .] One of the earliest works in Latin lexicography, by Verrius Flaccus, is *De Verborum Significatu* (The Meaning of Words), compiled during the 1st century AD. This work, in which the words are arranged alphabetically, has furnished a great deal of information on antiquities and Latin grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*De Verborum Significatu*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_verborum_significatu) is, unfortunately, mostly missing in its original form - edited and published not by Flaccus but by Sextus Pompeius Festus. Various incomplete versions and updates have been compiled over the past few millennia since Festus published the first (see, for example, [the 1839 edition](https://archive.org/stream/deverborumsigni00fest/deverborumsigni00fest_djvu.txt)), and they are, in general, in better condition. Information about a project dedicated to improving our understanding of *De Verborum Significatu* can be found [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20130112064549/http://www.ucl.ac.uk/history2/research/festus/index.htm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the work was not widely used. It was supposed to be a scholarly resource, and given its size (in full, it would have encompassed 40 volumes), it would have been impractical for an ordinary Roman to acquire a copy - or to make a significant number of copies, for that matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="492" RevisionGUID="f0b850a6-575c-4a6d-947f-f3f9aa7aa0ba" CreationDate="2016-03-11T17:00:36.690" UserId="78" Text="I think sumelic is correct, and both De Vaan and Etymonline appear to be wrong. If I may quote Lewis and Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maxilla , ae, f. dim. of a ground-form magsula (whence māla; root mag of μάσσω, to knead; μαγεύς. baker, etc.; cf. axilla, āla, from ago)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes sense, too, because *-xilla* is not a proper diminutive suffux. So here, the root is *mag-* with a sibilant for the ending. Making *that* diminutive gives us *magsula* or with a more modern orthography *maxilla* (cf. older Latin *optumus* and standard *optimus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan derives it back to *smaksla-* (cf. OIr. *smech* 'chin', Hit. *zamakur* 'beard', Lith. *smakras*, 'chin', etc.). However, he doesn't really account for the loss of the gutteral in *māla*; instead, he derives both from *PIE*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Māla* reflects *\*smaks(V)la*, whereas *maxilla* can be from *\*smakslela*, or has the productive suffix *-illa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if we were to use other Latin words for analogy, as Lewis and Short points out, āla is impossible to derive from *ag-*, and it makes more sense to go this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ag- &gt; axis &gt; axilla &gt; āla&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that *x* easily slips away from words, as it turned into /h/ in Spanish, *s* or *ss* in French, and *s*, *ss*, or *sci* in Italian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="492" RevisionGUID="af9b3772-f467-4839-b6a4-416f7e819e12" CreationDate="2016-03-11T18:49:52.893" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="I think sumelic is correct, though both De Vaan and Etymonline disagree. If I may quote Lewis and Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maxilla , ae, f. dim. of a ground-form magsula (whence māla; root mag of μάσσω, to knead; μαγεύς. baker, etc.; cf. axilla, āla, from ago)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes sense, too, because *-xilla* is not a proper diminutive suffux. So here, the root is *mag-* with a sibilant for the ending. Making *that* diminutive gives us *magsula* or with a more modern orthography *maxilla* (cf. older Latin *optumus* and standard *optimus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan derives it back to *smaksla-* (cf. OIr. *smech* 'chin', Hit. *zamakur* 'beard', Lith. *smakras*, 'chin', etc.). However, he doesn't really account for the loss of the gutteral in *māla*; instead, he derives both from *PIE*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Māla* reflects *\*smaks(V)la*, whereas *maxilla* can be from *\*smakslela*, or has the productive suffix *-illa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if we were to use other Latin words for analogy, as Lewis and Short points out, āla is impossible to derive from *ag-*, and it makes more sense to go this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ag- &gt; axis &gt; axilla &gt; āla&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that *x* easily slips away from words, as it turned into /h/ in Spanish, *s* or *ss* in French, and *s*, *ss*, or *sci* in Italian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="493" RevisionGUID="9409d0ae-36de-4870-a5ba-e956ce08e962" CreationDate="2016-03-12T01:05:51.733" UserId="203" Text="Apologies if this is too basic, and feel free to delete, but I am curious to know how Romans would address a person of higher status -  **not** a slave his/her master/mistress -  but, for instance, a wage-labourer to an employer, a shopkeeper to a high-status customer, any &quot;commoner&quot; to an aristocrat or, indeed, a slave to one who was **not** his/her owner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1738" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="493" RevisionGUID="9409d0ae-36de-4870-a5ba-e956ce08e962" CreationDate="2016-03-12T01:05:51.733" UserId="203" Text="Addressing a superior in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1739" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="493" RevisionGUID="9409d0ae-36de-4870-a5ba-e956ce08e962" CreationDate="2016-03-12T01:05:51.733" UserId="203" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="494" RevisionGUID="f6e83ae7-cf35-4254-8363-1576c23afd0d" CreationDate="2016-03-12T04:06:25.353" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[ [Etymonline](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=verse ) :] from Latin *versus* &quot;a line, row, line of verse, line of writing,&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;from PIE root _*wer-_ (3) &quot;to turn, bend&quot; (see [versus](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=versus&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)). The metaphor is of plowing, of &quot;turning&quot; from one line to another (*vertere* = &quot;to turn&quot;) as a plowman does. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does the metaphor of plowing explain the semantic shift from the PIE root to Latin? I can understand that the act of scrutinising each line of writing can be metaphorised by plowing each row, but then how does proceeding from one line to the next connect with turning in plowing? A reader would descend ocularly from the current line of writing to the next line; it sounds strange to describe this as 'turning' from one line to the next.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1741" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="494" RevisionGUID="f6e83ae7-cf35-4254-8363-1576c23afd0d" CreationDate="2016-03-12T04:06:25.353" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How does 'versus' metaphorise plowing in Ancient Rome?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1742" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="494" RevisionGUID="f6e83ae7-cf35-4254-8363-1576c23afd0d" CreationDate="2016-03-12T04:06:25.353" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="495" RevisionGUID="58241203-28f0-4709-a8a9-9f12b07150c5" CreationDate="2016-03-12T04:11:46.223" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[ [Etymonline](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=invitation) :]  [...] *invitare* &quot;invite, treat, entertain,&quot; originally &quot;be pleasant toward,&quot;    &#xD;&#xA;from *in-* &quot;toward&quot; (see [in-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=in-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (2)).   [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am conjecturing that entry by an object in a target necessitates the object's approach TOWARD the target; but the meaning of 'toward' still appears to suit the prefix *ad-* more than *in-*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1744" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="495" RevisionGUID="58241203-28f0-4709-a8a9-9f12b07150c5" CreationDate="2016-03-12T04:11:46.223" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What underlying semantic notions explain the meaning of 'toward' for the prefix 'in-'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1745" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="495" RevisionGUID="58241203-28f0-4709-a8a9-9f12b07150c5" CreationDate="2016-03-12T04:11:46.223" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="496" RevisionGUID="15d9e8cb-be35-43f9-9529-29e45d6c91bf" CreationDate="2016-03-12T04:21:30.343" UserId="79" Text="I think it is best to interpret &quot;turning to the next line&quot; simply as &quot;moving to the beginning of the next line&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There is no reason to expect that words would shift their meaning in a perfectly rational manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, some ancient texts were indeed read a way you (and many others) find strange: first line from left to right, the next one from right to left, then from left to right, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;Alternating directions allows one to easily find the beginning of the next line.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of writing is known as [boustrophedon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boustrophedon).&#xD;&#xA;The term itself comes from ploughing context.&#xD;&#xA;See the linked Wikipedia article for more details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="496" RevisionGUID="a1992cf1-7836-47de-aa54-33201303c86a" CreationDate="2016-03-12T08:19:03.720" UserId="68" Comment="clarify meaning" Text="I think it is best to interpret &quot;turning to the next line&quot; simply as &quot;moving to the beginning of the next line&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There is no reason to expect that words wouldn't shift their meaning in a perfectly rational manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, some ancient texts were indeed read a way you (and many others) find strange: first line from left to right, the next one from right to left, then from left to right, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;Alternating directions allows one to easily find the beginning of the next line.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of writing is known as [boustrophedon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boustrophedon).&#xD;&#xA;The term itself comes from ploughing context.&#xD;&#xA;See the linked Wikipedia article for more details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1754" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="496" RevisionGUID="3e5fcbca-c83b-4be0-b425-55234fb95a67" CreationDate="2016-03-12T18:51:03.730" UserId="79" Comment="Rollback to [15d9e8cb-be35-43f9-9529-29e45d6c91bf]" Text="I think it is best to interpret &quot;turning to the next line&quot; simply as &quot;moving to the beginning of the next line&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There is no reason to expect that words would shift their meaning in a perfectly rational manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, some ancient texts were indeed read a way you (and many others) find strange: first line from left to right, the next one from right to left, then from left to right, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;Alternating directions allows one to easily find the beginning of the next line.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of writing is known as [boustrophedon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boustrophedon).&#xD;&#xA;The term itself comes from ploughing context.&#xD;&#xA;See the linked Wikipedia article for more details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="500" RevisionGUID="484984a9-d328-46fa-9d67-bce13a71dd49" CreationDate="2016-03-13T03:25:06.440" UserId="79" Text="The Wikipedia entry for [Lapis Niger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapis_Niger#The_Inscription) mentions that the text was written in [boustrophedon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boustrophedon), alternating reading directions between every line.&#xD;&#xA;This inscription is far from complete.&#xD;&#xA;Are there Latin inscriptions that were written in boustrophedon that have have (essentially) completely survived to us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could not find examples of Latin inscriptions in boustrophedon besides the one I mentioned, probably because I am not familiar with any inscription databases.&#xD;&#xA;What I want is a good example or two, not necessarily a full listing of all known inscriptions (if there are many).&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind if an example inscription is short, but it should have at least two lines, of course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1758" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="500" RevisionGUID="484984a9-d328-46fa-9d67-bce13a71dd49" CreationDate="2016-03-13T03:25:06.440" UserId="79" Text="Are there any complete Latin inscriptions written in Boustrophedon?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1759" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="500" RevisionGUID="484984a9-d328-46fa-9d67-bce13a71dd49" CreationDate="2016-03-13T03:25:06.440" UserId="79" Text="|alphabet|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="501" RevisionGUID="74fd9222-3197-4ceb-ada5-fec0c37d1995" CreationDate="2016-03-13T03:28:59.690" UserId="30" Text="The Romance articles developed from Latin *ille*. Was *ille* already used in a way that resembles articles more than demonstratives in very late or Vulgar Latin? Or did it this use only emerge after Latin can be said to still have been Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1761" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="501" RevisionGUID="74fd9222-3197-4ceb-ada5-fec0c37d1995" CreationDate="2016-03-13T03:28:59.690" UserId="30" Text="Can the use of articles be traced back to Late/Vulgar Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1762" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="501" RevisionGUID="74fd9222-3197-4ceb-ada5-fec0c37d1995" CreationDate="2016-03-13T03:28:59.690" UserId="30" Text="|vulgar-latin|articles|demonstrative-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="502" RevisionGUID="88b28c95-82e7-473f-89be-215a3e7f8a6a" CreationDate="2016-03-13T03:35:18.540" UserId="68" Text="I don't know the literature well enough to give you an authoritative answer, but I believe it's fairly well established that forms of address did *not* vary based on rank, class, citizenship, etc., until the 4th century A.D., when people started addressing the emperor as &quot;vos.&quot; Roger Brown and Albert Gilman offer a few possible explanations for the development in &quot;[The pronouns of power and solidarity][1],&quot; in T.A. Sebeok's *Style in Language*: by that time, there were two Roman emperors, one in Rome and one in Constantinople, but they were administratively unified, so words addressed to one were actually addressed to both. Emperors and kings are also the summation of their people and can speak for/as them, which is why kings and queens say things like, &quot;We are not amused.&quot; Or it could have just, you know, happened. In any case, eventually the usage broadened to include other power figures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mapageweb.umontreal.ca/tuitekj/cours/2611pdf/Brown-Gilman-Pronouns.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="501" RevisionGUID="0865271e-32e9-4b1e-ba37-4156c3b95865" CreationDate="2016-03-13T04:04:39.320" UserId="30" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="The Romance articles developed from Latin *ille*. Was *ille* already used in a way that resembles articles more than demonstratives in very late or Vulgar Latin? Or did it this use only emerge after Latin can be said to still have been Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also interested in how the difference is identified, since demonstrative pronouns and definite articles are so much alike.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And how about *unus*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="500" RevisionGUID="4b566923-9b84-4e32-a8d3-090da614f34a" CreationDate="2016-03-13T04:12:16.317" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="The Wikipedia entry for [Lapis Niger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapis_Niger#The_Inscription) mentions that the inscription was written in [boustrophedon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boustrophedon), alternating reading direction between every line.&#xD;&#xA;This inscription is far from complete.&#xD;&#xA;Are there Latin inscriptions that were written in boustrophedon that have have (essentially) completely survived to us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could not find examples of Latin inscriptions in boustrophedon besides the one I mentioned, probably because I am not familiar with any inscription databases.&#xD;&#xA;What I want is a good example or two, not necessarily a full listing of all known inscriptions (if there are many).&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind if an example inscription is short, but it should have at least two lines, of course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1766" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="500" RevisionGUID="4b566923-9b84-4e32-a8d3-090da614f34a" CreationDate="2016-03-13T04:12:16.317" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Are there any complete Latin inscriptions written in boustrophedon?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1767" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="500" RevisionGUID="4b566923-9b84-4e32-a8d3-090da614f34a" CreationDate="2016-03-13T04:12:16.317" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|example-request|alphabet|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="503" RevisionGUID="3f251288-b360-4c36-8f75-676b81875660" CreationDate="2016-03-13T16:01:54.037" UserId="78" Text="We do in fact have a couple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best little collection of Old Latin inscriptions is found in Warmington's old Loeb, *Remains of Old Latin IV: Archaic Inscriptions*. It's a tiny bit out of date, but otherwise holds up well as an anthology of old inscriptions with a very good translation to go along with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thumbing through quickly, I noticed a couple dedicatory inscriptions. They're generally easy to find in here, as there are arrows by the editor which show the direction of the text. The first I noticed was the second of the dedicatory inscriptions, which is known as the *Lapis Fucinus* or Caso Cantovios bronze (CIL 1^2.5, dated c. 300 BCE)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ---------&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caso Cantovio&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;---------&#xD;&#xA;&gt; s Aprufclano cei&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ---------&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parpurfinem E&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ---------&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; salicom enur&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;---------&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bid Casontonia&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ---------&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; socieque doivo&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;---------&#xD;&#xA;&gt; m atolero Actia&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ---------&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pro l[ecio]nibus Mar&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;---------&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caso Cantovios Aprufclanos set up pillars at the Esalican boundary in the city Casontonia; and his allies brought a sacred gift to Angitia on behalf of Marsian legions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be the best example of a complete inscription in boustrophedon. We also have examples of left-to-right inscriptions, such as a Falerian bronze tablet (Warmington 71).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find a quick picture online, but when I do I'll add it here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="504" RevisionGUID="2fcac7c0-e316-46ef-8601-02c12574c3a4" CreationDate="2016-03-13T17:35:39.500" UserId="39" Text="Since this is not exactly my area of expertise, I will quote [Rex Wallace][1] ([Wallace 2011][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He argues that the earliest Latin inscriptions were written from right to left and from left to right (p. 22). He mentions three examples of right-to-left inscriptions in Latin: the Vetusia inscription (ET La 2.1) and the Fibula Praenestina (CIL I2.3). Not everyone agrees whether the language of the Vetusia inscription should be considered Latin, though, and there has never been consensus on the authenticity of the Fibula Praenestina. The third example is CIL I2.5 (I will try to upload its image later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, Wallace observes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; &quot;By the middle of the republican period, however, writers had settled on left-to-right direction as the norm, and almost all Latin inscriptions after this date are written in this manner. Inscriptions in other formats, such as boustrophendon, appear rather infrequently&quot; (Wallace 2011: 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wallace, Rex. 2011. “The Latin Alphabet and Orthography.” In James Clackson (ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language, pp. 9–28. London/New York: Wiley-Blackwell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.umass.edu/hfa/member/rex-wallace&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="504" RevisionGUID="75788ef8-a152-4ae0-9541-db97561458f5" CreationDate="2016-03-13T19:46:19.887" UserId="39" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="Since this is not exactly my area of expertise, I will quote [Rex Wallace][1] ([Wallace 2011][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He argues that the earliest Latin inscriptions were written from right to left and from left to right (p. 22). He mentions three examples of right-to-left inscriptions in Latin: the Vetusia inscription (ET La 2.1) and the Fibula Praenestina (CIL I2.3). Not everyone agrees whether the language of the Vetusia inscription should be considered Latin, though, and there has never been consensus on the authenticity of the Fibula Praenestina. The third example is CIL I2.5 (I will try to upload its image later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, Wallace observes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; &quot;By the middle of the republican period, however, writers had settled on left-to-right direction as the norm, and almost all Latin inscriptions after this date are written in this manner. Inscriptions in other formats, such as boustrophendon, appear rather infrequently&quot; (Wallace 2011: 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that there is a difference between **boustrophedon** (the direction of writing alternates) and **sinistroverse** (the direction of writing is right-to-left).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wallace, Rex. 2011. “The Latin Alphabet and Orthography.” In James Clackson (ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language, pp. 9–28. London/New York: Wiley-Blackwell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.umass.edu/hfa/member/rex-wallace&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="504" RevisionGUID="02dce43d-d8d1-4781-b3ff-5d84150e2d7a" CreationDate="2016-03-13T20:38:36.873" UserId="39" Comment="added 318 characters in body" Text="Since this is not exactly my area of expertise, I will quote [Rex Wallace][1] ([Wallace 2011][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He argues that the earliest Latin inscriptions were written from right to left and from left to right (p. 22). He mentions three examples of right-to-left inscriptions in Latin: the Vetusia inscription (ET La 2.1) and the Fibula Praenestina (CIL I2.3). Not everyone agrees whether the language of the Vetusia inscription should be considered Latin, though, and there has never been consensus on the authenticity of the Fibula Praenestina. The third example is the bronze Fucine Lake inscription (CIL I2.5), which was found in 1877 but is lost now. Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011 give its text in a new version proposed in Crawford 2006.&#xA;&#xA;[![Fucine1][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;[![Fucine2][4]][4]&#xA;&#xA;[![Fucine3][5]][5]&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, Wallace observes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; &quot;By the middle of the republican period, however, writers had settled on left-to-right direction as the norm, and almost all Latin inscriptions after this date are written in this manner. Inscriptions in other formats, such as boustrophendon, appear rather infrequently&quot; (Wallace 2011: 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that there is a difference between **boustrophedon** (the direction of writing alternates) and **sinistroverse** (the direction of writing is right-to-left).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wallace, Rex. 2011. “The Latin Alphabet and Orthography.” In James Clackson (ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language, pp. 9–28. London/New York: Wiley-Blackwell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.umass.edu/hfa/member/rex-wallace&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kmjeQ.jpg&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/u4wGf.jpg&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4MohO.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="503" RevisionGUID="577bc837-364c-47e5-a2db-e363f1264d2d" CreationDate="2016-03-13T21:06:44.027" UserId="78" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="We do in fact have a couple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best little collection of Old Latin inscriptions is found in Warmington's old Loeb, *Remains of Old Latin IV: Archaic Inscriptions*. It's a tiny bit out of date, but otherwise holds up well as an anthology of old inscriptions with a very good translation to go along with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thumbing through quickly, I noticed a couple dedicatory inscriptions. They're generally easy to find in here, as there are arrows by the editor which show the direction of the text. The first I noticed was the second of the dedicatory inscriptions, which is known as the *Lapis Fucinus* or Caso Cantovios bronze (CIL 1².5, dated c. 300 BCE). Below is a screenshot to the online Loeb edition, since I cannot figure out how to accurately preserve formatting without it looking a mess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Lapis Fucinus, example of boustrophedon][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caso Cantovios Aprufclanos set up pillars at the Esalican boundary in the city Casontonia; and his allies brought a sacred gift to Angitia on behalf of Marsian legions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be the best example of a complete inscription in boustrophedon. We also have examples of sinistroverse (left-to-right) inscriptions, such as a Falerian bronze tablet (Warmington 71).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Falerian Bronze, example of sinistroverse][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find a quick picture of the inscription, but the arrows again show the direction of the inscription.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uz6Lh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CqNZy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="504" RevisionGUID="0db9fc15-bdf8-4e95-9762-734079920083" CreationDate="2016-03-13T22:46:10.510" UserId="39" Comment="added 564 characters in body" Text="Since this is not exactly my area of expertise, I will quote [Rex Wallace][1] ([Wallace 2011][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He argues that the earliest Latin inscriptions were written from right to left and from left to right (p. 22). He mentions three examples of right-to-left inscriptions in Latin: the Vetusia inscription (ET La 2.1) and the Fibula Praenestina (CIL I^2.3). Not everyone agrees whether the language of the Vetusia inscription should be considered Latin, though, and there has never been consensus on the authenticity of the Fibula Praenestina. The third example is the bronze Fucine Lake inscription (CIL I^2.5), which was found in 1877 but is lost now. Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011 give its text in a new version proposed in Crawford 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fucine1][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fucine2][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fucine3][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, Wallace observes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; &quot;By the middle of the republican period, however, writers had settled on left-to-right direction as the norm, and almost all Latin inscriptions after this date are written in this manner. Inscriptions in other formats, such as boustrophendon, appear rather infrequently&quot; (Wallace 2011: 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that there is a difference between **boustrophedon** (the direction of writing alternates) and **sinistroverse** (the direction of writing is right-to-left), e.g. [a bronze tablet from Falerii Novi][6] (CIL I^2 365); please follow the link to see it, since it is copyrighted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson and Horrock 2007 argue it is written in Latin and not Faliscan (contrary to what Getty Images says). As they put it, it is written in the Faliscan manner (sinistroverse), with Faliscan letter forms and mainly Faliscan orthography (see Clackson and Horrock 2007: 119-120 for further detail).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wallace, Rex. 2011. “The Latin Alphabet and Orthography.” In James Clackson (ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language, pp. 9–28. London/New York: Wiley-Blackwell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.umass.edu/hfa/member/rex-wallace&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kmjeQ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/u4wGf.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4MohO.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/inscription-in-faliscan-language-dedicated-to-minerva-stock-graphic/148357367" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="504" RevisionGUID="8f16ca77-ac3e-4bff-b4a3-75b461ace1b2" CreationDate="2016-03-13T22:48:51.100" UserId="39" Comment="added 564 characters in body" Text="Since this is not exactly my area of expertise, I will quote [Rex Wallace][1] ([Wallace 2011][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He argues that the earliest Latin inscriptions were written from right to left and from left to right (p. 22). He mentions three examples of right-to-left inscriptions in Latin: the Vetusia inscription (ET La 2.1) and the Fibula Praenestina (CIL I^2.3). Not everyone agrees whether the language of the Vetusia inscription should be considered Latin, though, and there has never been consensus on the authenticity of the Fibula Praenestina. The third example is the bronze Fucine Lake inscription (CIL I^2.5), which was found in 1877 but is lost now. Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011 give its text in a new version proposed in Crawford 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fucine1][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fucine2][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fucine3][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, Wallace observes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; &quot;By the middle of the republican period, however, writers had settled on left-to-right direction as the norm, and almost all Latin inscriptions after this date are written in this manner. Inscriptions in other formats, such as boustrophendon, appear rather infrequently&quot; (Wallace 2011: 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that there is a difference between **boustrophedon** (the direction of writing alternates) and **sinistroverse** (the direction of writing is right-to-left), e.g. [a bronze tablet from Falerii Novi][6] (CIL I^2 365); please follow the link to see it, since it is copyrighted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson and Horrock 2007 argue it is written in Latin and not Faliscan (contrary to what Getty Images says). As they put it, it is written in the Faliscan manner (sinistroverse), with Faliscan letter forms and mainly Faliscan orthography (see Clackson and Horrock 2007: 119-120 for further detail).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson, James, and Geoffrey Horrocks. 2007. The Blackwell history of the Latin language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wallace, Rex. 2011. “The Latin Alphabet and Orthography.” In James Clackson (ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language, pp. 9–28. London/New York: Wiley-Blackwell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.umass.edu/hfa/member/rex-wallace&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kmjeQ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/u4wGf.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4MohO.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/inscription-in-faliscan-language-dedicated-to-minerva-stock-graphic/148357367" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="504" RevisionGUID="ba54ac1c-e702-46f7-a01a-1b2281007831" CreationDate="2016-03-13T22:56:23.287" UserId="39" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="Since this is not exactly my area of expertise, I will quote [Rex Wallace][1] ([Wallace 2011][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He argues that the earliest Latin inscriptions were written from right to left and from left to right (p. 22). He mentions three examples of right-to-left inscriptions in Latin: the Vetusia inscription (ET La 2.1) and the Fibula Praenestina (CIL I².3). Not everyone agrees whether the language of the Vetusia inscription should be considered Latin, though, and there has never been consensus on the authenticity of the Fibula Praenestina. The third example is the bronze Fucine Lake inscription (CIL I².5), which was found in 1877 but is lost now. Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011 give its text in a new version proposed in Crawford 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fucine1][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fucine2][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fucine3][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, Wallace observes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; &quot;By the middle of the republican period, however, writers had settled on left-to-right direction as the norm, and almost all Latin inscriptions after this date are written in this manner. Inscriptions in other formats, such as boustrophendon, appear rather infrequently&quot; (Wallace 2011: 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that there is a difference between **boustrophedon** (the direction of writing alternates) and **sinistroverse** (the direction of writing is right-to-left), e.g. [a bronze tablet from Falerii Novi][6] (CIL I² 365); please follow the link to see it, since it is copyrighted. Here's the glossed text, from Clackson and Horrocks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Falerii][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson and Horrocks 2007 argue it is written in Latin and not Faliscan (contrary to what Getty Images says). As they put it, it is written in the Faliscan manner (sinistroverse), with Faliscan letter forms and mainly Faliscan orthography (see Clackson and Horrock 2007: 119-120 for further detail).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson, James, and Geoffrey Horrocks. 2007. The Blackwell history of the Latin language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wallace, Rex. 2011. “The Latin Alphabet and Orthography.” In James Clackson (ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language, pp. 9–28. London/New York: Wiley-Blackwell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.umass.edu/hfa/member/rex-wallace&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kmjeQ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/u4wGf.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4MohO.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/inscription-in-faliscan-language-dedicated-to-minerva-stock-graphic/148357367&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jduh1.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="503" RevisionGUID="e9c67884-1f2e-4f34-bf01-2a7ecc6699fb" CreationDate="2016-03-13T22:58:01.420" UserId="78" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="We do in fact have a couple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best little collection of Old Latin inscriptions is found in Warmington's old Loeb, *Remains of Old Latin IV: Archaic Inscriptions*. It's a tiny bit out of date, but otherwise holds up well as an anthology of old inscriptions with a very good translation to go along with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thumbing through quickly, I noticed a couple dedicatory inscriptions. They're generally easy to find in here, as there are arrows by the editor which show the direction of the text. The first I noticed was the second of the dedicatory inscriptions, which is known as the *Lapis Fucinus* or Caso Cantovios bronze (CIL 1².5, dated c. 300 BCE). Below is a screenshot to the online Loeb edition, since I cannot figure out how to accurately preserve formatting without it looking a mess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Lapis Fucinus, example of boustrophedon][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caso Cantovios Aprufclanos set up pillars at the Esalican boundary in the city Casontonia; and his allies brought a sacred gift to Angitia on behalf of Marsian legions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be the best example of a complete inscription in boustrophedon. We also have examples of sinistroverse (left-to-right) inscriptions, such as a Falerian bronze tablet (Warmington 71).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Falerian Bronze, example of sinistroverse][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find a quick picture of the inscription, but the arrows again show the direction of the inscription.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: See Alex B.'s post for a picture of the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uz6Lh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CqNZy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="504" RevisionGUID="38c3d3e6-861c-4b84-85c5-853d71753311" CreationDate="2016-03-14T00:48:54.980" UserId="39" Comment="added 872 characters in body" Text="Since this is not exactly my area of expertise, I will quote [Rex Wallace][1] ([Wallace 2011][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He argues that the earliest Latin inscriptions were written from right to left and from left to right (p. 22). He mentions three examples of right-to-left inscriptions in Latin: the Vetusia inscription (ET La 2.1) and the Fibula Praenestina (CIL I².3). Not everyone agrees whether the language of the Vetusia inscription should be considered Latin, though, and there has never been consensus on the authenticity of the Fibula Praenestina. The third example is the bronze Fucine Lake inscription (CIL I².5), which was found in 1877 but is lost now. Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011 give its text in a new version proposed in Crawford 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fucine1][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fucine2][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fucine3][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, Wallace observes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; &quot;By the middle of the republican period, however, writers had settled on left-to-right direction as the norm, and almost all Latin inscriptions after this date are written in this manner. Inscriptions in other formats, such as boustrophendon, appear rather infrequently&quot; (Wallace 2011: 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that there is a difference between **boustrophedon** (the direction of writing alternates) and **sinistroverse** (the direction of writing is right-to-left), e.g. [a bronze tablet from Falerii Novi][6] (CIL I² 365); please follow the link to see it, since it is copyrighted. Here's the glossed text, from Clackson and Horrocks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Falerii][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson and Horrocks 2007 argue it is written in Latin and not Faliscan (contrary to what Getty Images says). As they put it, it is written in the Faliscan manner (sinistroverse), with Faliscan letter forms and mainly Faliscan orthography (see Clackson and Horrock 2007: 119-120 for further detail).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;John Bodel (**Bodel 2012) observes that by the end of the fifth BCE Latin texts &quot;regularly ran left to right&quot; (p. 82)**. He discusses **two theories**, neither of which, he argues, can be proven correct at this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the first theory, &quot;[w]hen inscribed writing began to&#xD;&#xA;be used to label larger monuments, however, the fixed position of (generally)&#xD;&#xA;rectilinear objects necessitated accommodating a more limited range&#xD;&#xA;of viewing perspectives&quot; (p. 83).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second theory holds that Roman script is dextroverse because of the desire to make it look as much different as possible from sinistroverse ductus in Etruscan, due to rising  political and cultural ambitions of Rome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bodel, John. 2012. Paragrams, punctuation, and system in ancient Roman script. In S. Houston (ed.), The Shape of script: How and why writing systems change, pp. 63-90. Santa Fe, NM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson, James, and Geoffrey Horrocks. 2007. The Blackwell history of the Latin language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wallace, Rex. 2011. “The Latin Alphabet and Orthography.” In James Clackson (ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language, pp. 9–28. London/New York: Wiley-Blackwell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.umass.edu/hfa/member/rex-wallace&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kmjeQ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/u4wGf.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4MohO.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/inscription-in-faliscan-language-dedicated-to-minerva-stock-graphic/148357367&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jduh1.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="504" RevisionGUID="68932ef7-0800-4af4-a282-10a6b6cc93f0" CreationDate="2016-03-14T00:56:02.983" UserId="39" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="Since this is not exactly my area of expertise, I will quote [Rex Wallace][1] ([Wallace 2011][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He argues that the earliest Latin inscriptions were written from right to left and from left to right (p. 22). He mentions three examples of right-to-left inscriptions in Latin: the Vetusia inscription (ET La 2.1) and the Fibula Praenestina (CIL I².3). Not everyone agrees whether the language of the Vetusia inscription should be considered Latin, though, and there has never been consensus on the authenticity of the Fibula Praenestina. The third example is the bronze Fucine Lake inscription (CIL I².5), which was found in 1877 but is lost now. Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011 give its text in a new version proposed in Crawford 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fucine1][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fucine2][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fucine3][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, Wallace observes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; &quot;By the middle of the republican period, however, writers had settled on left-to-right direction as the norm, and almost all Latin inscriptions after this date are written in this manner. Inscriptions in other formats, such as boustrophendon, appear rather infrequently&quot; (Wallace 2011: 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that there is a difference between **boustrophedon** (the direction of writing alternates) and **sinistroverse** (the direction of writing is right-to-left), e.g. [a bronze tablet from Falerii Novi][6] (CIL I² 365); please follow the link to see it, since it is copyrighted. Here's the glossed text, from Clackson and Horrocks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Falerii][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson and Horrocks 2007 argue it is written in Latin and not Faliscan (contrary to what Getty Images says). As they put it, it is written in the Faliscan manner (sinistroverse), with Faliscan letter forms and mainly Faliscan orthography (see Clackson and Horrock 2007: 119-120 for further detail).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[John Bodel][8] (**Bodel 2012) observes that by the end of the fifth BCE Latin texts &quot;regularly ran left to right&quot; (p. 82)**. He discusses **two theories**, neither of which, he argues, can be proven correct at this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the first theory, &quot;[w]hen inscribed writing began to&#xD;&#xA;be used to label larger monuments, however, the fixed position of (generally)&#xD;&#xA;rectilinear objects necessitated accommodating a more limited range&#xD;&#xA;of viewing perspectives&quot; (p. 83).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second theory holds that Roman script is dextroverse because of the desire to make it look as much different as possible from sinistroverse ductus in Etruscan, due to rising  political and cultural ambitions of Rome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bodel, John. 2012. Paragrams, punctuation, and system in ancient Roman script. In S. Houston (ed.), The Shape of script: How and why writing systems change, pp. 63-90. Santa Fe, NM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson, James, and Geoffrey Horrocks. 2007. The Blackwell history of the Latin language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wallace, Rex. 2011. “The Latin Alphabet and Orthography.” In James Clackson (ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language, pp. 9–28. London/New York: Wiley-Blackwell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.umass.edu/hfa/member/rex-wallace&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kmjeQ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/u4wGf.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4MohO.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/inscription-in-faliscan-language-dedicated-to-minerva-stock-graphic/148357367&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jduh1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://vivo.brown.edu/display/jbodel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="505" RevisionGUID="d4ae1e7e-532a-4a16-a80d-23312f9be275" CreationDate="2016-03-14T01:17:40.830" UserId="79" Text="I went to a zoo today, and I noticed that the scientific name of [llama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llama) is *Lama glama*.&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that both *lama* and *glama* are latinized versions of &quot;llama&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Why were two different versions of the word chosen for genus and species?&#xD;&#xA;I could imagine that they were latinized from different source languages, but I still find the inconsistency striking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that Linn&amp;eacute; originally grouped llamas under camels and named the species *Camelus glama*.&#xD;&#xA;I understand preserving the species name but I find it rather weird that a different spelling was introduced for the genus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is there a 'g' in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;Is 'gl' supposed to be pronounced like the Italian 'gli' or something similar?&#xD;&#xA;I do not know of a language where one would actually have a /g/ in llama's name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I apologize that I could not resist choosing that title.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1783" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="505" RevisionGUID="d4ae1e7e-532a-4a16-a80d-23312f9be275" CreationDate="2016-03-14T01:17:40.830" UserId="79" Text="Is llama lama or glama?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1784" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="505" RevisionGUID="d4ae1e7e-532a-4a16-a80d-23312f9be275" CreationDate="2016-03-14T01:17:40.830" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|biology|scientific-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="506" RevisionGUID="b8db35c1-9273-409b-ac1c-4be2894c6dfa" CreationDate="2016-03-14T15:19:51.557" UserId="12" Text="The [*Peregrinatio*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egeria_(pilgrim)), dated to 380 or so, is often seen as one of the earliest examples of a text containing the use of *ille* and *unus* as articles.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edward Bechtel cites several examples of both.  First, *ille*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ubi sex tamen montes illi inter quos ibamus aperiebant  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; deductores sancti illi qui nobiscum erant  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ille [mons] medianus tanto altior est omnibus illis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He lists many examples of *ille* as the article and as the pronoun, allowing comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *unus*, he gives two examples where it &quot;evidently&quot; does not have &quot;the force of a numeral&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ut dicretur etiam psalmus unus pertinens ad rem  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; dicitur unus ymnus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bechtel, &quot;Sanctae Silviae Peregrinatio&quot; in *Studies in Classical Philology*, Volume 4, [page 144](https://books.google.com/books?id=5-rfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA144).  This work includes the full text of the document, and his analysis of *ille* and *unus* includes many references to the particular lines where they appear, allowing analysis of context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="506" RevisionGUID="93d9c065-e5c7-4d4b-8ab8-04ec9e2135bd" CreationDate="2016-03-14T15:33:02.463" UserId="12" Comment="+clackson" Text="The [*Peregrinatio*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egeria_(pilgrim)), dated to 380 or so, is often seen as one of the earliest examples of a text containing the use of *ille* and *unus* as articles.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edward Bechtel cites several examples of both.  First, *ille*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ubi sex tamen montes illi inter quos ibamus aperiebant  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; deductores sancti illi qui nobiscum erant  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ille [mons] medianus tanto altior est omnibus illis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He lists many examples of *ille* as the article and as the pronoun, allowing comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *unus*, he gives two examples where it &quot;evidently&quot; does not have &quot;the force of a numeral&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ut dicretur etiam psalmus unus pertinens ad rem  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; dicitur unus ymnus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;James Clackson provides an example of both in a brief passage from Hygeburg of Heidenheem's *Vita sancti Willibaldi*, a late 8th century work (therefore medieval, not late, Latin), and says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Clearly, in the expression *unus homo de Ispania* “unus” is superfluous and the correct translation should be “a man from Spain”, while the phrase *ille nautor in cuius naue fuerant* means “the sailor in whose ship they had been”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bechtel, &quot;Sanctae Silviae Peregrinatio&quot; in *Studies in Classical Philology*, Volume 4, [page 144](https://books.google.com/books?id=5-rfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA144).  This work includes the full text of the document, and his analysis of *ille* and *unus* includes many references to the particular lines where they appear, allowing analysis of context.&#xD;&#xA; - Clackson, *A Companion to the Latin Language*, 301." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="507" RevisionGUID="a5a27f06-5fb2-4e0f-85ca-457b269cefb9" CreationDate="2016-03-14T15:58:58.627" UserId="45" Text="As you mentioned in your question, Linné originally grouped the llama under the genus &quot;Camelus&quot;, as you can see in [Systema Naturae](https://books.google.com/books?id=oXsZAAAAYAAJ&amp;q=lama#v=onepage&amp;q=glama&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Camelus**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Camelus* dorso laevi, pectore gibboso  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Camelus peruvianus **Glama** dictus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that this was later revised to be the genus *Lama* and the species *Glama* in 1758. (Source: [Wikispecies](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lama_glama)), leading to the current designation as **Lama Glama**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *llama* appears to come from the same Quechua word which is more or less pronounced as in Spanish: [ˈʝama]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have tried to search for usages of either term, but could not locate any. My presumption is that both words were an attempt to Latinize the correct pronunciation of *llama*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="506" RevisionGUID="636f011c-a31e-40d0-9970-bb09053a92c9" CreationDate="2016-03-14T17:19:52.603" UserId="12" Comment="+several common examples for unus" Text="The [*Peregrinatio*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egeria_(pilgrim)), dated to 380 or so, is often seen as one of the earliest examples of a text containing the use of *ille* and *unus* as articles.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edward Bechtel cites several examples of both.  First, *ille*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ubi sex tamen montes illi inter quos ibamus aperiebant  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; deductores sancti illi qui nobiscum erant  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ille [mons] medianus tanto altior est omnibus illis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He lists many examples of *ille* as the article and as the pronoun, allowing comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *unus*, he gives two examples where it &quot;evidently&quot; does not have &quot;the force of a numeral&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ut dicretur etiam psalmus unus pertinens ad rem  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; dicitur unus ymnus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ham Pinkster disputes the last example, saying that interpreting *unus* there is unnecessary.  However, he provides several other commonly cited examples of *unus* as article or article-like, some earlier than *Peregrinatio*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Petrus vero sedebat foris in atrio.  Et accessit ad eum **una** *ancilla* dicens [[*Vulgate*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate), Matthew 26:69; &quot;... and a servant-girl came to him...&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ibidem **una** aderit *mulier* lepida tibi savia super savia quae det. [[Plautus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plautus), [*Pseudolus*, 948](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0045%3Atln+line%3D948); &quot;... there will be a charming lady with you...&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Itaque cum maesti deliberaremus quonam genere praesentem evitaremus procellam, unus *servus* Agamemnonis interpellavit trepidantes [[Petronius, 26.8](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/petronius1.html); &quot;... when one of Agamemnon's servants...&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;James Clackson provides an example of both in a brief passage from Hygeburg of Heidenheem's *Vita sancti Willibaldi*, a late 8th century work (therefore medieval, not late, Latin), and says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Clearly, in the expression *unus homo de Ispania* “unus” is superfluous and the correct translation should be “a man from Spain”, while the phrase *ille nautor in cuius naue fuerant* means “the sailor in whose ship they had been”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bechtel, &quot;Sanctae Silviae Peregrinatio&quot; in *Studies in Classical Philology*, Volume 4, [page 144](https://books.google.com/books?id=5-rfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA144).  This work includes the full text of the document, and his analysis of *ille* and *unus* includes many references to the particular lines where they appear, allowing analysis of context.&#xD;&#xA; - Clackson, *A Companion to the Latin Language*, 301.&#xD;&#xA; - Pinkster, [*Oxford Latin Syntax*, Volume 1, 1114](https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA777). Emphasis in original." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="506" RevisionGUID="888e18f5-bc2d-46e7-a0e3-be1f10b95f5d" CreationDate="2016-03-14T17:51:47.350" UserId="30" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The [*Peregrinatio*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egeria_(pilgrim)), dated to 380 or so, is often seen as one of the earliest examples of a text containing the use of *ille* and *unus* as articles.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edward Bechtel cites several examples of both.  First, *ille*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ubi sex tamen montes illi inter quos ibamus aperiebant  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; deductores sancti illi qui nobiscum erant  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ille [mons] medianus tanto altior est omnibus illis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He lists many examples of *ille* as the article and as the pronoun, allowing comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *unus*, he gives two examples where it &quot;evidently&quot; does not have &quot;the force of a numeral&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ut dicretur etiam psalmus unus pertinens ad rem  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; dicitur unus ymnus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Harm Pinkster disputes the last example, saying that interpreting *unus* there is unnecessary.  However, he provides several other commonly cited examples of *unus* as article or article-like, some earlier than *Peregrinatio*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Petrus vero sedebat foris in atrio.  Et accessit ad eum **una** *ancilla* dicens [[*Vulgate*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate), Matthew 26:69; &quot;... and a servant-girl came to him...&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ibidem **una** aderit *mulier* lepida tibi savia super savia quae det. [[Plautus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plautus), [*Pseudolus*, 948](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0045%3Atln+line%3D948); &quot;... there will be a charming lady with you...&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Itaque cum maesti deliberaremus quonam genere praesentem evitaremus procellam, unus *servus* Agamemnonis interpellavit trepidantes [[Petronius, 26.8](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/petronius1.html); &quot;... when one of Agamemnon's servants...&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;James Clackson provides an example of both in a brief passage from Hygeburg of Heidenheem's *Vita sancti Willibaldi*, a late 8th century work (therefore medieval, not late, Latin), and says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Clearly, in the expression *unus homo de Ispania* “unus” is superfluous and the correct translation should be “a man from Spain”, while the phrase *ille nautor in cuius naue fuerant* means “the sailor in whose ship they had been”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bechtel, &quot;Sanctae Silviae Peregrinatio&quot; in *Studies in Classical Philology*, Volume 4, [page 144](https://books.google.com/books?id=5-rfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA144).  This work includes the full text of the document, and his analysis of *ille* and *unus* includes many references to the particular lines where they appear, allowing analysis of context.&#xD;&#xA; - Clackson, *A Companion to the Latin Language*, 301.&#xD;&#xA; - Pinkster, [*Oxford Latin Syntax*, Volume 1, 1114](https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA777). Emphasis in original." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="508" RevisionGUID="7bc34830-7772-4e2b-a640-12daedf50c65" CreationDate="2016-03-14T18:08:14.883" UserId="68" Text="[Theoi.com avers][1] that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The poor quality of [Hyginus's] works lead most to believe they are either wrongly attributed to this distinguished scholar or are a later abridgement of his works composed by a C2nd grammarian. In spite of the poor writing style and numerous errors, the works do preserve many myths and alternative versions of myths not found elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia offers these evaluations][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arthur L. Keith, reviewing H. J. Rose's edition (1934) of *Hygini Fabulae,* wondered &quot;at the caprices of Fortune who has allowed many of the plays of an Aeschylus, the larger portion of Livy's histories, and other priceless treasures to perish, while this school-boy's exercise has survived to become the pabulum of scholarly effort.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Like the *Fabulae*, the *Astronomia* is a collection of abridgements, and the style and level of Latin competence and the elementary mistakes (especially in the rendering of the Greek originals) were held by the anonymous contributor to the Encyclopædia Britannica (11th edition, 1911), to prove that they cannot have been the work of &quot;so distinguished&quot; a scholar as G. Julius Hyginus. It was further suggested that these treatises are an abridgment made in the latter half of the 2nd century of the *Genealogiae* of Hyginus by an unknown adapter, who added a complete treatise on mythology. The star lists in the *Astronomia* are in exactly the same order as in Ptolemy's *Almagest*, reinforcing the idea of a 2nd-century compilation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hyginus's tales are certainly brief and unnuanced. But I'm interested in Latin style, and my Latin isn't advanced enough that I can tell the difference between Hyginus's &quot;bad&quot; Latin and somebody else's &quot;good&quot; Latin. What are some examples in Hyginus of &quot;bad&quot; style, and how might they be rendered better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.theoi.com/Text/HyginusFabulae1.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Julius_Hyginus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1793" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="508" RevisionGUID="7bc34830-7772-4e2b-a640-12daedf50c65" CreationDate="2016-03-14T18:08:14.883" UserId="68" Text="How is Hyginus's Latin problematic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1794" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="508" RevisionGUID="7bc34830-7772-4e2b-a640-12daedf50c65" CreationDate="2016-03-14T18:08:14.883" UserId="68" Text="|style|hyginus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="506" RevisionGUID="d6da24da-f211-474a-b966-5a170fefba66" CreationDate="2016-03-14T18:13:32.947" UserId="12" Comment="wording and link" Text="The [*Peregrinatio*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egeria_(pilgrim)), dated to 380 or so, is often seen as one of the earliest examples of a text containing the use of *ille* and *unus* as articles.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edward Bechtel cites several examples of both.  First, *ille*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ubi sex tamen montes illi inter quos ibamus aperiebant  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; deductores sancti illi qui nobiscum erant  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ille [mons] medianus tanto altior est omnibus illis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He lists many examples of *ille* as the article and as the pronoun, allowing comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *unus*, he gives two examples where it &quot;evidently&quot; does not have &quot;the force of a numeral&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ut dicretur etiam psalmus unus pertinens ad rem  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; dicitur unus ymnus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Harm Pinkster disputes the last example, saying that interpreting *unus* as an article there is unnecessary.  However, he provides several other commonly cited examples of *unus* as article or article-like, some earlier than *Peregrinatio*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Petrus vero sedebat foris in atrio.  Et accessit ad eum **una** *ancilla* dicens [[*Vulgate*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate), [Matthew 26:69](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+26%3A69&amp;version=VULGATE); &quot;... and a servant-girl came to him...&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ibidem **una** aderit *mulier* lepida tibi savia super savia quae det. [[Plautus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plautus), [*Pseudolus*, 948](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0045%3Atln+line%3D948); &quot;... there will be a charming lady with you...&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Itaque cum maesti deliberaremus quonam genere praesentem evitaremus procellam, unus *servus* Agamemnonis interpellavit trepidantes [[Petronius, 26.8](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/petronius1.html); &quot;... when one of Agamemnon's servants...&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;James Clackson provides an example of both in a brief passage from Hygeburg of Heidenheem's *Vita sancti Willibaldi*, a late 8th century work (therefore medieval, not late, Latin), and says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Clearly, in the expression *unus homo de Ispania* “unus” is superfluous and the correct translation should be “a man from Spain”, while the phrase *ille nautor in cuius naue fuerant* means “the sailor in whose ship they had been”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bechtel, &quot;Sanctae Silviae Peregrinatio&quot; in *Studies in Classical Philology*, Volume 4, [page 144](https://books.google.com/books?id=5-rfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA144).  This work includes the full text of the document, and his analysis of *ille* and *unus* includes many references to the particular lines where they appear, allowing analysis of context.&#xD;&#xA; - Clackson, *A Companion to the Latin Language*, 301.&#xD;&#xA; - Pinkster, [*Oxford Latin Syntax*, Volume 1, 1114](https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA777). Emphasis in original." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="d230e7ba-624a-42ef-a312-e0b1905b3cec" CreationDate="2016-03-14T19:47:53.087" UserId="144" Text="I noticed that there is no word meaning firearm according to [this][1] site.Why is this? I've tried synonyms such as gun and pistol but none work. Has no one gotten around to making one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latinlexicon.org/info.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1797" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="d230e7ba-624a-42ef-a312-e0b1905b3cec" CreationDate="2016-03-14T19:47:53.087" UserId="144" Text="Why is there no word meaning firearm in contemporary latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1798" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="d230e7ba-624a-42ef-a312-e0b1905b3cec" CreationDate="2016-03-14T19:47:53.087" UserId="144" Text="|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="7234a882-2fbc-4f8f-93d2-c411436e04eb" CreationDate="2016-03-14T20:12:39.980" UserId="12" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I noticed that there is no word meaning *firearm* according to [this][1] site.Why is this? I've tried synonyms such as gun and pistol but none work. Has no one gotten around to making one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latinlexicon.org/info.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1800" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="7234a882-2fbc-4f8f-93d2-c411436e04eb" CreationDate="2016-03-14T20:12:39.980" UserId="12" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What is the word for firearm in contemporary Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1801" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="7234a882-2fbc-4f8f-93d2-c411436e04eb" CreationDate="2016-03-14T20:12:39.980" UserId="12" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|translation|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="510" RevisionGUID="70dc92f5-05b5-4283-863b-bdc8b52fce07" CreationDate="2016-03-14T20:12:50.210" UserId="12" Text="The Latin Wikipedia uses ***arma ignifera***, citing David Morgan's [*Lexicon Anglico-Latinum*](https://archive.org/stream/TheLexiconAnglumEtLatinumByDavidMorgan/MorganAndSilvaFurmanUniversityLexicon_djvu.txt).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on other lexicons, the Latin Wikipedia uses [*sclopetum*](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sclopetum) for long guns, while pistols are [*pistolium*](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistolium).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John C. Traupman uses *sclopetum* for &quot;gun&quot; generally in his *Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="510" RevisionGUID="e819f929-0c4e-49a8-9e7f-2ca0ac484e30" CreationDate="2016-03-14T20:41:19.673" UserId="12" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="The Latin Wikipedia uses ***arma ignifera***, citing David Morgan's [*Lexicon Anglico-Latinum*](https://archive.org/stream/TheLexiconAnglumEtLatinumByDavidMorgan/MorganAndSilvaFurmanUniversityLexicon_djvu.txt).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on other lexicons, the Latin Wikipedia uses [*sclopetum*](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sclopetum) for long guns, while pistols are [*pistolium*](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistolium).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John C. Traupman uses *sclopetum* for both &quot;gun&quot; and &quot;rifle&quot; in his *Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency* and Bantam *New College Dictionary*.  He includes no entry for &quot;pistol.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="511" RevisionGUID="297040b5-b12b-40bc-ac74-5bb6855f1b1d" CreationDate="2016-03-14T21:43:39.913" UserId="68" Text="It pains me to suggest that Latin Wikipedia is in error, but Latin Wikipedia is in error. *Arma ignifera* is in fact a word for firearm that some have used, but it's in the *silva* of the Morgan lexicon, not the *adumbratio*. The difference between the two is explained in [a short piece][1] by the lexicon's current editor, Patrick Owens:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Morgan-Owens Latin Lexicon is found under the link entitled &quot;adumbratio&quot;. The link entitled &quot;silva&quot; is a mere collection of other modern Latin dictionaries. If a term appears in the &quot;silva&quot; but not in the &quot;adumbratio&quot; it is because it has been intentionally rejected on philological grounds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the *adumbratio*, Morgan too went with *sclopetum* for a long gun and *pistola* for a short one, though I suspect *fistula* is better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;firearm&quot; the only thing I've seen is *[manuballista][2]*, which is a little too broad; it's the word the Romans used for the hand-held version of the *ballista*, a siege engine—so essentially a crossbow. If you're willing to include crossbows in your definition of &quot;firearms&quot; then *manuballista* is actually perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/11790987/Morgan-Owens_Lexicon_of_Neo-Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballista#Cheiroballistra_and_manuballista" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="510" RevisionGUID="d6d517e3-a4ca-4eff-98de-14a9daebeece" CreationDate="2016-03-14T22:03:56.183" UserId="12" Comment="rm bold and add link" Text="The Latin Wikipedia currently uses [*arma ignifera*](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arma_ignifera), citing David Morgan's [*Lexicon Anglico-Latinum*](https://archive.org/stream/TheLexiconAnglumEtLatinumByDavidMorgan/MorganAndSilvaFurmanUniversityLexicon_djvu.txt).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on other lexicons, the Latin Wikipedia uses [*sclopetum*](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sclopetum) for long guns, while pistols are [*pistolium*](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistolium).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John C. Traupman uses *sclopetum* for both &quot;gun&quot; and &quot;rifle&quot; in his *Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency* and Bantam *New College Dictionary*, but gives no entry for &quot;pistol.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1808" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="72fcb7d8-0a69-4f64-864b-cebb57f2bf17" CreationDate="2016-03-15T19:07:52.543" UserId="144" Comment="Rollback to [d230e7ba-624a-42ef-a312-e0b1905b3cec]" Text="I noticed that there is no word meaning firearm according to [this][1] site.Why is this? I've tried synonyms such as gun and pistol but none work. Has no one gotten around to making one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latinlexicon.org/info.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1809" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="72fcb7d8-0a69-4f64-864b-cebb57f2bf17" CreationDate="2016-03-15T19:07:52.543" UserId="144" Comment="Rollback to [d230e7ba-624a-42ef-a312-e0b1905b3cec]" Text="Why is there no word meaning firearm in contemporary latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1810" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="72fcb7d8-0a69-4f64-864b-cebb57f2bf17" CreationDate="2016-03-15T19:07:52.543" UserId="144" Comment="Rollback to [d230e7ba-624a-42ef-a312-e0b1905b3cec]" Text="|contemporary-latin|" />
  <row Id="1811" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="3e1bb79d-9a95-4a7e-ac82-2c53284876d4" CreationDate="2016-03-15T19:08:11.093" UserId="144" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="488" RevisionGUID="728675b4-08e3-48b2-a98a-e184f64b96a1" CreationDate="2016-03-15T22:14:35.747" UserId="73" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="Not really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This encyclopedia entry](http://www.webcitation.org/5kwbLyr75) explains that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Greeks and Romans did not attempt a work containing all the words of their own or any foreign language; their early dictionaries were merely lists of unusual words or phrases. [. . .] One of the earliest works in Latin lexicography, by Verrius Flaccus, is *De Verborum Significatu* (The Meaning of Words), compiled during the 1st century AD. This work, in which the words are arranged alphabetically, has furnished a great deal of information on antiquities and Latin grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*De Verborum Significatu*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_verborum_significatu) is, unfortunately, mostly missing in its original form - edited and published not by Flaccus but by Sextus Pompeius Festus, who made edits and inserted some new comments and thoughts. He also changed the organization of the work, alphabetizing some of it. Various incomplete versions and updates have been compiled over the past few millennia since Festus published the first (see, for example, [the 1839 edition](https://archive.org/stream/deverborumsigni00fest/deverborumsigni00fest_djvu.txt)), and they are, in general, in better condition. Information about a project dedicated to improving our understanding of *De Verborum Significatu* can be found [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20130112064549/http://www.ucl.ac.uk/history2/research/festus/index.htm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the work was not widely used. It was supposed to be a scholarly resource, and given its size (in full, it would have encompassed 40 volumes), it would have been impractical for an ordinary Roman to acquire a copy - or to make a significant number of copies, for that matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="506" RevisionGUID="fee0531d-fe7a-4135-b835-788faa75bdf8" CreationDate="2016-03-15T22:31:28.893" UserId="12" Comment="reorganize for clarity" Text="Isolated usages of *unus* as an indefinite article have been identified in Old and Classical Latin, but generally speaking *unus* and *ille* did not establish themselves as articles until Late and early Medieval Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#*Unus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding *unus*, Harm Pinkster provides several commonly cited examples of *unus* as article or article-like from the 4th century and earlier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Petrus vero sedebat foris in atrio.  Et accessit ad eum **una** *ancilla* dicens [[*Vulgate*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate), [Matthew 26:69](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+26%3A69&amp;version=VULGATE); &quot;... and a servant-girl came to him...&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ibidem **una** aderit *mulier* lepida tibi savia super savia quae det. [[Plautus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plautus), [*Pseudolus*, 948](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0045%3Atln+line%3D948); &quot;... there will be a charming lady with you...&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Itaque cum maesti deliberaremus quonam genere praesentem evitaremus procellam, unus *servus* Agamemnonis interpellavit trepidantes [[Petronius, 26.8](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/petronius1.html); &quot;... when one of Agamemnon's servants...&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#*Ille* and *unus* in Late Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [*Peregrinatio*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egeria_(pilgrim)), dated to 380 or so, is often seen as one of the earliest examples of a text extensively using *ille* and *unus* as articles.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edward Bechtel cites several examples of both.  First, *ille*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ubi sex tamen montes illi inter quos ibamus aperiebant  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; deductores sancti illi qui nobiscum erant  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ille [mons] medianus tanto altior est omnibus illis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He lists many examples of *ille* as the article and as the pronoun, allowing comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *unus*, he gives two examples where it &quot;evidently&quot; does not have &quot;the force of a numeral&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ut dicretur etiam psalmus unus pertinens ad rem  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; dicitur unus ymnus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Harm Pinkster disputes the last example, saying that interpreting *unus* as an article there is unnecessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#An Early Medieval example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;James Clackson provides an example of both in a brief passage from Hygeburg of Heidenheem's *Vita sancti Willibaldi*, a late 8th century work, and says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Clearly, in the expression *unus homo de Ispania* “unus” is superfluous and the correct translation should be “a man from Spain”, while the phrase *ille nautor in cuius naue fuerant* means “the sailor in whose ship they had been”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bechtel, &quot;Sanctae Silviae Peregrinatio&quot; in *Studies in Classical Philology*, Volume 4, [page 144](https://books.google.com/books?id=5-rfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA144).  This work includes the full text of the document, and his analysis of *ille* and *unus* includes many references to the particular lines where they appear, allowing analysis of context.&#xD;&#xA; - Clackson, *A Companion to the Latin Language*, 301.&#xD;&#xA; - Pinkster, [*Oxford Latin Syntax*, Volume 1, 1114](https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA777). Emphasis in original." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="512" RevisionGUID="6d5c642b-d2e4-4f7e-8e7a-f34619995843" CreationDate="2016-03-15T22:38:46.160" UserId="144" Text="I noticed there is a `Vox Populi` badge. Which latin does `Vox Populi` come from? I only know a very little bit of classical (I'm starting the second unit of the Cambridge course), and from that my guess is it could be popular voice, or speaking for the public. But it may come from a differnt latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1815" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="512" RevisionGUID="6d5c642b-d2e4-4f7e-8e7a-f34619995843" CreationDate="2016-03-15T22:38:46.160" UserId="144" Text="Vox Populi badge?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1816" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="512" RevisionGUID="6d5c642b-d2e4-4f7e-8e7a-f34619995843" CreationDate="2016-03-15T22:38:46.160" UserId="144" Text="|translation|language-evolution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="512" RevisionGUID="3f3106ce-bfb8-4a99-b498-bb5b568a1d7c" CreationDate="2016-03-15T22:53:41.810" UserId="144" Comment="added 136 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I noticed there is a `Vox Populi` badge. Which latin does `Vox Populi` come from? I only know a very little bit of classical (I'm starting the second unit of the Cambridge course), and from that, my guess is it could be popular voice, or speaking for the public, which makes sense given the definition. However, I don't know if it comes from ecclesiastical, classical, neo, vulgar, or contemporary latin. Which latin does it come from? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1818" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="512" RevisionGUID="3f3106ce-bfb8-4a99-b498-bb5b568a1d7c" CreationDate="2016-03-15T22:53:41.810" UserId="144" Comment="added 136 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What latin does Vox Populi come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1819" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="512" RevisionGUID="3f3106ce-bfb8-4a99-b498-bb5b568a1d7c" CreationDate="2016-03-15T22:53:41.810" UserId="144" Comment="added 136 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|language-evolution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="513" RevisionGUID="fca92219-6525-42ce-8468-c9b3146848cb" CreationDate="2016-03-15T22:55:07.240" UserId="260" Text="It is reasonable to assume that Romans learning Greek and Greeks learning Latin would have some bilingual dictionaries or at least word lists where the equivalents would be written, since among the educated part of both Greek and Roman society there were commonly bilingual speakers who would learn the other language by formal study. And there some sort of dictionary is pretty much prerequisite (although one can learn even without it with a teacher).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But nothing of that sort was retained. It is simply a reasonable assumption given the state of things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="514" RevisionGUID="82d179ee-68e4-4878-aaf8-c0dc5df3d938" CreationDate="2016-03-15T23:03:34.070" UserId="12" Text="In Augustine's *Confessions*, book 3, chapter 4, he writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et usitato iam discendi ordine perveneram in librum **cuiusdam Ciceronis** ([source](http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/latinconf/3.html))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Henry Chadwick translates the bolded phrase as &quot;a certain Cicero&quot; and writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'A certain Cicero' might seem cold and distant were it not that the same idiom is used for the apostle Paul [...] i.e. it is a rhetorical convention of the time. ([source](https://books.google.com/books?id=1QkigkuD_3oC&amp;pg=PA38))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the example he gives of Paul seems different to me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ait enim quidam servus tuus ([book 12, chapter 15](http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/latinconf/12.html))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, it's &quot;a certain servant,&quot; and we only know that he's referring to Paul because he proceeds to quote one of Paul's letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, &quot;a certain Cicero&quot; seems very different than &quot;a certain servant,&quot; since &quot;Cicero&quot; can refer to only one person, while the &quot;servant&quot; by itself is inherently vague.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my questions.  First, is Chadwick correct in saying that &quot;'a certain Cicero'&quot; was a &quot;common rhetorical convention of the time&quot;?  If so, was it also common in Classical Latin, or was it something more associated with Augustine's time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, is Chadwick's implication correct, that *quidam* used in this way could communicate notoriety or respect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd love to see some examples of this usage from the Classical period that back up Chadwick's understanding of this text." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1822" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="514" RevisionGUID="82d179ee-68e4-4878-aaf8-c0dc5df3d938" CreationDate="2016-03-15T23:03:34.070" UserId="12" Text="Does &quot;quidam Ciceronis&quot; indicate respect for the person?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1823" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="514" RevisionGUID="82d179ee-68e4-4878-aaf8-c0dc5df3d938" CreationDate="2016-03-15T23:03:34.070" UserId="12" Text="|late-latin|idiom|augustinus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="515" RevisionGUID="2aa5fba6-5673-43a6-8446-c36f693e14b9" CreationDate="2016-03-15T23:11:06.213" UserId="78" Text="*Vox Populi* means &quot;voice of the people,&quot; as *populi* is the genitive (= possessive) of *populus*, &quot;people&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, *vox popularis* would still mean the same thing, as *popularis* is just the adjectival form of *populus*. This would be the voice that the common people share, as opposed to elites, nobility, the government, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a meaning of something closer to &quot;popular opinion&quot; (i.e. an opinion shared and approved of by many, you'd want to use *celebra*, *claras*, *probata*, or *nota*, which would give it the meaning of &quot;celebrated, distinguished, highly esteemed or noteworthy/famous&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymonline explains the origin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **vox populi**, 1540s, Latin, literally &quot;voice of the people.&quot; The full maxim (first attested in Medieval Latin) is vox populi, vox Dei &quot;the voice of the people is the voice of God.&quot; Short form vox pop attested by 1964." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="506" RevisionGUID="39efd884-39d6-4666-b80b-e0439a935b34" CreationDate="2016-03-15T23:35:23.733" UserId="12" Comment="+pinkster summary" Text="Isolated usages of *unus* as an indefinite article have been identified in Old and Classical Latin, but generally speaking *unus* and *ille* did not establish themselves as articles until Late and early Medieval Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#*Unus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding *unus*, Harm Pinkster provides several commonly cited examples of *unus* as article or article-like from the 4th century and earlier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Petrus vero sedebat foris in atrio.  Et accessit ad eum **una** *ancilla* dicens [[*Vulgate*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate), [Matthew 26:69](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+26%3A69&amp;version=VULGATE); &quot;... and a servant-girl came to him...&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ibidem **una** aderit *mulier* lepida tibi savia super savia quae det. [[Plautus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plautus), [*Pseudolus*, 948](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0045%3Atln+line%3D948); &quot;... there will be a charming lady with you...&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Itaque cum maesti deliberaremus quonam genere praesentem evitaremus procellam, unus *servus* Agamemnonis interpellavit trepidantes [[Petronius, 26.8](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/petronius1.html); &quot;... when one of Agamemnon's servants...&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster concludes, however, that &quot;*unus* never developed into a real article in the [Classical] period.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#*Ille* and *unus* in Late Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [*Peregrinatio*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egeria_(pilgrim)), dated to 380 or so, is often seen as one of the earliest examples of a text extensively using *ille* and *unus* as articles.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edward Bechtel cites several examples of both.  First, *ille*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ubi sex tamen montes illi inter quos ibamus aperiebant  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; deductores sancti illi qui nobiscum erant  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ille [mons] medianus tanto altior est omnibus illis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He lists many examples of *ille* as the article and as the pronoun, allowing comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *unus*, he gives two examples where it &quot;evidently&quot; does not have &quot;the force of a numeral&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ut dicretur etiam psalmus unus pertinens ad rem  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; dicitur unus ymnus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Harm Pinkster disputes the last example, saying that interpreting *unus* as an article there is unnecessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#An Early Medieval example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;James Clackson provides an example of both in a brief passage from Hygeburg of Heidenheem's *Vita sancti Willibaldi*, a late 8th century work, and says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Clearly, in the expression *unus homo de Ispania* “unus” is superfluous and the correct translation should be “a man from Spain”, while the phrase *ille nautor in cuius naue fuerant* means “the sailor in whose ship they had been”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bechtel, &quot;Sanctae Silviae Peregrinatio&quot; in *Studies in Classical Philology*, Volume 4, [page 144](https://books.google.com/books?id=5-rfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA144).  This work includes the full text of the document, and his analysis of *ille* and *unus* includes many references to the particular lines where they appear, allowing analysis of context.&#xD;&#xA; - Clackson, *A Companion to the Latin Language*, 301.&#xD;&#xA; - Pinkster, [*Oxford Latin Syntax*, Volume 1, 1114](https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA777). Emphasis in original." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="516" RevisionGUID="5d1eee7e-e5d5-4fc7-933f-9ca142765125" CreationDate="2016-03-15T23:58:16.260" UserId="79" Text="In some situations it might be considered vulgar or lower style to say &quot;I have to go to the toilet&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In English there are many ways around this: you can call the toilet something finer (bathroom, restroom, men's room&amp;hellip;) or you can substitute another activity (like going to powder one's nose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I excuse myself in Latin in good style if I have such private business to attend to?&#xD;&#xA;I suppose I could just translate any of the common euphemisms in other languages, but I thought there might be something more idiomatic in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1829" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="516" RevisionGUID="5d1eee7e-e5d5-4fc7-933f-9ca142765125" CreationDate="2016-03-15T23:58:16.260" UserId="79" Text="Is there a Latin euphemism for going to the toilet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1830" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="516" RevisionGUID="5d1eee7e-e5d5-4fc7-933f-9ca142765125" CreationDate="2016-03-15T23:58:16.260" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|euphemism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="517" RevisionGUID="c89869d0-591c-40fd-a423-039253507426" CreationDate="2016-03-16T00:00:29.847" UserId="73" Text="I agree with [C. M. Weimer's use of Etymonline](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/515/73) to date the use of *vox populi* to the 16th century. However, I've found anecdotal evidence that gives even earlier uses of the phrase, in with essentially the same connotations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*A Sketch of the Life of Randolph Fairfax ... Including a Brief Account of Jackson's Celebrated Valley Campaign*](https://books.google.com/books?id=XWdLAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=inauthor:%22Philip+Slaughter%22&amp;source=gbs_navlinks_s) by Philip Slaughter and Randolph Fairfax (quite an old book, but likely no less reliable). It includes several famous uses of *vox populi* that predate the 1540s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Notes Vol 3 p 254 Notices to Correspondents. - EM. *Vox populi vox Dei* were the words chosen by Archbishop Mepham for his sermon when Edward III was called to the throne. See 'Notes and Queries' vol 1 pp 376 419 492 for further illustrations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Mepham&quot; refers to [Simon Mepeham](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Mepeham), and the mentioned Edward III is certainly [Edward III of England](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_III_of_England). This would put the date of this reference at about 1 February 1327.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The writer will, however, find that the earliest known instances of the use of the saying are by William of Malmesbury, who, speaking of Odo yielding his consent to be Archbishop of Canterbury, A.D. 920, says: '*Re Mud Proverbium, Vox, Populi Vox Dei,*' and by Walter Reynolds, Archbishop of Canterbury, who as we learn from Walsingham, took it as his text for the sermon which he preached when Edward III was called to the throne, from which the people had pulled down Edward II.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider this a somewhat interesting alternate account, because both Mepeham and [Reynolds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Reynolds) are credited differently with the use of the phrase at about the same time. &quot;Odo&quot;, by the way, almost certainly refers to [Oda of Canterbury](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oda_of_Canterbury).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is a claim mentioned of William Hamilton that states that his translation of Hesiod's *Works and Days* ends with a similar phrase (which would have been in Greek), but I can't find any evidence to suggest that he is right. If he *was* right, then this would, of course, put the origin of the phrase back another 1500 years or so, but I find it a little doubtful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it interesting that this corresponds quite well with [the English Wikipedia article on *vox populi*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox_populi#Proverbial_use), which I did not expect, despite different references being cited." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="517" RevisionGUID="c372cdce-6fd4-4c0a-a73f-23f79f37e679" CreationDate="2016-03-16T00:10:47.390" UserId="73" Comment="Corrected misinterpretation." Text="I agree with [C. M. Weimer's use of Etymonline](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/515/73) to date the use of the standalone phrase *vox populi* to the 16th century, and the use of *vox populi, vox dei* to earlier medieval usage. I think, however, a bit more backstory on that might be interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*A Sketch of the Life of Randolph Fairfax ... Including a Brief Account of Jackson's Celebrated Valley Campaign*](https://books.google.com/books?id=XWdLAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=inauthor:%22Philip+Slaughter%22&amp;source=gbs_navlinks_s) by Philip Slaughter and Randolph Fairfax (quite an old book, but likely no less reliable). It includes several famous uses of *vox populi* that predate the 1540s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Notes Vol 3 p 254 Notices to Correspondents. - EM. *Vox populi vox Dei* were the words chosen by Archbishop Mepham for his sermon when Edward III was called to the throne. See 'Notes and Queries' vol 1 pp 376 419 492 for further illustrations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Mepham&quot; refers to [Simon Mepeham](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Mepeham), and the mentioned Edward III is certainly [Edward III of England](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_III_of_England). This would put the date of this reference at about 1 February 1327.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The writer will, however, find that the earliest known instances of the use of the saying are by William of Malmesbury, who, speaking of Odo yielding his consent to be Archbishop of Canterbury, A.D. 920, says: '*Re Mud Proverbium, Vox, Populi Vox Dei,*' and by Walter Reynolds, Archbishop of Canterbury, who as we learn from Walsingham, took it as his text for the sermon which he preached when Edward III was called to the throne, from which the people had pulled down Edward II.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider this a somewhat interesting alternate account, because both Mepeham and [Reynolds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Reynolds) are credited differently with the use of the phrase at about the same time. &quot;Odo&quot;, by the way, almost certainly refers to [Oda of Canterbury](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oda_of_Canterbury).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is a claim mentioned of William Hamilton that states that his translation of Hesiod's *Works and Days* ends with a similar phrase (which would have been in Greek), but I can't find any evidence to suggest that he is right. If he *was* right, then this would, of course, put the origin of the phrase back another 1500 years or so, but I find it a little doubtful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it interesting that this corresponds quite well with [the English Wikipedia article on *vox populi*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox_populi#Proverbial_use), which I did not expect, despite different references being cited." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="518" RevisionGUID="39540557-6d0d-422d-84a3-9bd2142e80f7" CreationDate="2016-03-16T00:27:31.310" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="519" RevisionGUID="7525a630-525e-4a7e-82d9-28ea55368cd5" CreationDate="2016-03-16T00:27:31.310" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="520" RevisionGUID="43eda001-46e6-4e43-83bc-3faac7079dac" CreationDate="2016-03-16T00:31:48.553" UserId="12" Text="There's at least one earlier instance of *vox populi*: [Isaiah 66:6](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bible/isaiah.shtml#66), in the *Vulgate* (fourth century):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vox populi de civitate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jerome was translating from the Greek Septuagint, which *A New English Translation of the Septuagint* renders into English as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A voice of crying from the city! ([source](http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/33-esaias-nets.pdf))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Modern translations based on the Hebrew text](https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Isaiah%2066:6) take similar approaches. So we see that the phrase *vox populi* here is not used in its modern sense of &quot;popular opinion,&quot; but it still can be seen to capture the idea of the voice or noise of people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="519" RevisionGUID="bbb556ab-dcbf-4037-9f61-84efb15f12a9" CreationDate="2016-03-16T00:40:58.280" UserId="9" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="For questions about declination—the inflection of Latin nouns and adjectives to mark grammatical features such as case and number." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1837" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="519" RevisionGUID="bbb556ab-dcbf-4037-9f61-84efb15f12a9" CreationDate="2016-03-16T00:40:58.280" Comment="Proposed by 9 approved by 12, 68 edit id of 98" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="521" RevisionGUID="846365f8-1723-49e3-b8ce-1aca0cf72f2e" CreationDate="2016-03-16T00:49:30.840" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="&gt; He gave a toast: &quot;Let's drink -- for the couple to enjoy their marriage!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I've got most of this translated. The only thing I'm stumbling on is how to translate &quot;for&quot;. I see two options, but neither is very good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;pro&quot; -- It means &quot;on behalf of&quot;, so I could twist it into &quot;on behalf of the couple's happiness&quot;, but from the other meanings given I think it has a different connotation, and doesn't fit right.&#xD;&#xA;* An *ut* clause of purpose -- It seems to fit, until you realize that it's basically saying &quot;let us drink so that the couple will have a happy marriage&quot; -- I'm sure they could have a happy one without that toast, especially if they were both oblivious like me.&#xD;&#xA;* ad + gerund(ive) -- same as above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I missing something about these options? Is there another that would fit better?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1839" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="521" RevisionGUID="846365f8-1723-49e3-b8ce-1aca0cf72f2e" CreationDate="2016-03-16T00:49:30.840" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="How should I translate &quot;for&quot; in this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1840" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="521" RevisionGUID="846365f8-1723-49e3-b8ce-1aca0cf72f2e" CreationDate="2016-03-16T00:49:30.840" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="94" RevisionGUID="2914f80d-b716-4d34-aadb-64634d548baf" CreationDate="2016-03-16T00:52:57.500" UserId="68" Comment="added 1076 characters in body" Text="Basically, your second option is correct. There is the Vatican's *[Lexicon Recentis Latínitátis][1]*, referred to in the comment, but its approach to Latin is very idiosyncratic; debates over neologisms often get incredibly acrimonious, if you can believe it, but there are (VERY roughly) two schools: the &quot;Ciceronian,&quot; in which making up words for concepts that didn't exist in ancient Rome is to be avoided whenever possible, and the &quot;Erasmian,&quot; in which new concepts call for new ideas. (&quot;Ciceronian&quot; and &quot;Erasmian&quot; are my names for them, though they're not entirely accurate; Cicero made up words all the time, and Erasmus has a whole screed about how people who think you can't use any Latin Cicero didn't use are idiots.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vatican is of the more &quot;Ciceronian&quot; school, which gives you, unfortunately, things like &quot;immódica medicamenti stupefactīvi iniéctio&quot; as the official term for &quot;overdose.&quot; Other than the Vatican, actually, I'm not aware of anybody who takes this approach to neologisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Actually, now that I think of it, even the Vatican doesn't take this approach, or not always: *The Diary of a Wimpy Kid* was translated into Latin (*[Commentarií dé Ineptó Pueró][2]*) by one of the Pope's Latinists ([Monsignor Daniel Gallagher][3]), and it *definitely* doesn't use the *Lexicon Recentis Latínitátis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically, somebody comes up with a word and it catches on. &quot;World-wide web,&quot; for example, is widely known as &quot;Téla Totíus Terrae,&quot; and I have to imagine that somebody came up with that and couldn't stop giggling, and it's so great (ttt) that there's no reason to come up with anything else. &quot;Computátrum&quot; is the generally used word for &quot;computer&quot; (though the Vatican prefers &quot;ínstrúmentum computátrálium&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, David Morgan of Furman University put together a [lexicon][4] of Neo-Latin words that already exist that can be used for modern concepts. Careful, though, because the Lexicon Morganianum is in two parts, the *[adumbratio][5]* and the *[silva][6]*, and people tend not to realize this. Patrick Owens, the lexicon's current curator, [explains the difference][7]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Morgan-Owens Latin Lexicon is found under the link entitled &quot;adumbratio&quot; (see link below). The link entitled &quot;silva&quot; is a mere collection of other modern Latin dictionaries. If a term appears in the &quot;silva&quot; but not in the &quot;adumbratio&quot; it is because it has been intentionally rejected on philological grounds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TL;DR: People come up with stuff and whatever sticks, sticks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/rc_latinitas_20040601_lexicon_it.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1419719475?keywords=de%20inepto%20puero&amp;qid=1457406609&amp;ref_=sr_1_1&amp;sr=8-1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/27/priest-translates-pope-tweets-latin/6954991/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com/faculty-pages/patrick-owens/lexicon/index.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com/faculty-pages/patrick-owens/lexicon/adumbratio/index.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com/faculty-pages/patrick-owens/lexicon/silva/index.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.academia.edu/11790987/Morgan-Owens_Lexicon_of_Neo-Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="522" RevisionGUID="e32d7589-a97c-4f73-a3a8-51b0b4c87c0f" CreationDate="2016-03-16T01:00:20.783" UserId="68" Text="Hmm. Of the choices you offer I agree with @Cerberus that an *ut* clause is the way to go, but for the sentence you give I'd actually use the subjunctive: &quot;Let's drink: May the couple enjoy their marriage!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="521" RevisionGUID="68ec538a-ac88-4b0f-8053-d5f5d0dd8e88" CreationDate="2016-03-16T01:06:00.857" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="&gt; This room is for talking about Latin[.SE].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I've got most of this translated. The only thing I'm stumbling on is how to translate &quot;for&quot;. I see two options, but neither is very good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;pro&quot; -- It means &quot;on behalf of&quot;, so I could twist it into &quot;on behalf of the couple's happiness&quot;, but from the other meanings given I think it has a different connotation, and doesn't fit right.&#xD;&#xA;* An *ut* clause of purpose -- It seems to fit, until you realize that it's basically saying &quot;let us drink so that the couple will have a happy marriage&quot; -- I'm sure they could have a happy one without that toast, especially if they were both oblivious like me.&#xD;&#xA;* ad + gerund(ive) -- same as above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I missing something about these options? Is there another that would fit better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*NB: I'm leaving out the .SE part intentionally.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1844" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="522" RevisionGUID="6a53adb0-361d-418e-a37f-33abafb19fe5" CreationDate="2016-03-16T01:08:47.347" UserId="68" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:68,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joel Derfner&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="523" RevisionGUID="b1c5b3ed-064b-456b-a7fe-d56f0e379c18" CreationDate="2016-03-16T01:13:45.210" UserId="197" Text="There is none that I know about, but the most common phrase I use in class and with other students is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Licet mihi ad latrinam ire&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="515" RevisionGUID="8f2f050a-edb6-4819-9084-6e89618443dd" CreationDate="2016-03-16T01:42:24.163" UserId="78" Comment="edited body" Text="*Vox Populi* means &quot;voice of the people,&quot; as *populi* is the genitive (= possessive) of *populus*, &quot;people&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, *vox popularis* would still mean the same thing, as *popularis* is just the adjectival form of *populus*. This would be the voice that the common people share, as opposed to elites, nobility, the government, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a meaning of something closer to &quot;popular opinion&quot; (i.e. an opinion shared and approved of by many, you'd want to use *celebris*, *clara*, *probata*, or *nota*, which would give it the meaning of &quot;celebrated, distinguished, highly esteemed or noteworthy/famous&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymonline explains the origin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **vox populi**, 1540s, Latin, literally &quot;voice of the people.&quot; The full maxim (first attested in Medieval Latin) is vox populi, vox Dei &quot;the voice of the people is the voice of God.&quot; Short form vox pop attested by 1964." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="506" RevisionGUID="2c21cd7e-dce7-4991-b685-b67f96a84518" CreationDate="2016-03-16T02:04:28.560" UserId="12" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Isolated usages of *unus* as an indefinite article have been identified in Old and Classical Latin, but generally speaking *unus* and *ille* did not establish themselves as articles until Late and early Medieval Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#*Unus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding *unus*, Harm Pinkster provides several commonly cited examples of *unus* as article or article-like from the 4th century and earlier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Petrus vero sedebat foris in atrio.  Et accessit ad eum **una** *ancilla* dicens [[*Vulgate*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate), [Matthew 26:69](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+26%3A69&amp;version=VULGATE); &quot;... and a servant-girl came to him...&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ibidem **una** aderit *mulier* lepida tibi savia super savia quae det. [[Plautus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plautus), [*Pseudolus*, 948](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0045%3Atln+line%3D948); &quot;... there will be a charming lady with you...&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Itaque cum maesti deliberaremus quonam genere praesentem evitaremus procellam, unus *servus* Agamemnonis interpellavit trepidantes [[Petronius, 26.8](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/petronius1.html); &quot;... when one of Agamemnon's servants...&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster concludes, however, that &quot;*unus* never developed into a real article in the [Classical] period.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#*Ille* and *unus* in Late Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [*Peregrinatio*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egeria_(pilgrim)), dated to 380 or so, is often seen as one of the earliest examples of a text extensively using *ille* and *unus* as articles.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edward Bechtel cites several examples of both.  First, *ille*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ubi sex tamen montes illi inter quos ibamus aperiebant  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; deductores sancti illi qui nobiscum erant  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ille [mons] medianus tanto altior est omnibus illis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He lists many examples of *ille* as the article and as the pronoun, allowing comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *unus*, he gives two examples where it &quot;evidently&quot; does not have &quot;the force of a numeral&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ut dicretur etiam psalmus unus pertinens ad rem  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; dicitur unus ymnus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Harm Pinkster disputes the last example, saying that interpreting *unus* as an article there is unnecessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#An Early Medieval example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greti Dinkova-Bruun (ed. Clackson) provides an example of both in a brief passage from Hygeburg of Heidenheem's *Vita sancti Willibaldi*, a late 8th century work, and says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Clearly, in the expression *unus homo de Ispania* “unus” is superfluous and the correct translation should be “a man from Spain”, while the phrase *ille nautor in cuius naue fuerant* means “the sailor in whose ship they had been”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bechtel, &quot;Sanctae Silviae Peregrinatio&quot; in *Studies in Classical Philology*, Volume 4, [page 144](https://books.google.com/books?id=5-rfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA144).  This work includes the full text of the document, and his analysis of *ille* and *unus* includes many references to the particular lines where they appear, allowing analysis of context.&#xD;&#xA; - Clackson, *A Companion to the Latin Language*, 301.&#xD;&#xA; - Pinkster, [*Oxford Latin Syntax*, Volume 1, 1114](https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA777). Emphasis in original." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="524" RevisionGUID="1fc48ab1-466f-44b3-9c44-cc881880b03c" CreationDate="2016-03-16T02:17:39.827" UserId="79" Text="It's hard to translate &quot;for&quot; alone, so let me give you more complete expressions.&#xD;&#xA;A couple of options come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Hoc conclave situi (interretiali) Latin.SE disputando dedicatum est.&#xD;&#xA;- Hic de situ Latin.SE colloqui licet.&#xD;&#xA;- Ut de situ Latin.SE colloquamur. (So that we may talk about the site. This is incomplete but a beginning like &quot;Hoc conclave creatum est&quot; can be understood implicitly.)&#xD;&#xA;- Hoc conclave dedicatum est colloquiis de situ Latin.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are not literal, but may confer the meaning clearly enough.&#xD;&#xA;If you just want a (sub)title for a chat room, then a dative expression like &quot;[conclave] situi Latin.SE disputando&quot; or &quot;[conclave] disputationibus de situ Latin.SE&quot; would work well.&#xD;&#xA;A similar dative construction with a gerundive can be found in the name of [*Academia Latinitati Fovendae*](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia_Latinitati_Fovendae).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to talk about Latin as a language instead of Latin.SE as a website, simply substitute *Lingua latina* for my *situs Latin.SE*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My exact recommendation depends on where you want to use that phrase.&#xD;&#xA;I can update if you give more details.&#xD;&#xA;It often is difficult to translate compact expressions properly without context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="512" RevisionGUID="dc5a7706-a9b9-472b-ac2d-00522aa514c7" CreationDate="2016-03-16T03:36:56.023" UserId="12" Comment="minor cleanup and tag" Text="I noticed there is a `Vox Populi` badge. Which era of Latin does `Vox Populi` come from? I only know a very little bit of classical (I'm starting the second unit of the Cambridge course), and from that, my guess is it could be popular voice, or speaking for the public, which makes sense given the definition. However, I don't know if it comes from ecclesiastical, classical, neo, vulgar, or contemporary Latin. Which Latin does it come from? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1850" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="512" RevisionGUID="dc5a7706-a9b9-472b-ac2d-00522aa514c7" CreationDate="2016-03-16T03:36:56.023" UserId="12" Comment="minor cleanup and tag" Text="What era of Latin does Vox Populi come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1851" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="512" RevisionGUID="dc5a7706-a9b9-472b-ac2d-00522aa514c7" CreationDate="2016-03-16T03:36:56.023" UserId="12" Comment="minor cleanup and tag" Text="|language-evolution|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="e6bdd86c-8e8e-497f-a03b-55ab15710564" CreationDate="2016-03-16T03:38:47.830" UserId="131" Text="According to the Crash Course Philosophy video today, George Berkeley summarized his empirical philosophy with the phrase &quot;esse est percipi&quot;, to be is to be perceived. However, it feels somewhat incorrect to use infinitives this way. &quot;Cogito ergo sum&quot; uses present singular, and a translation of &quot;seeing is believing&quot; feels like it should use gerunds, although it could be converted to &quot;to see is to believe&quot;, which sounds more awkward. So then, why infinitives in this case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1853" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="e6bdd86c-8e8e-497f-a03b-55ab15710564" CreationDate="2016-03-16T03:38:47.830" UserId="131" Text="grammaticality of &quot;esse est percipi&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1854" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="e6bdd86c-8e8e-497f-a03b-55ab15710564" CreationDate="2016-03-16T03:38:47.830" UserId="131" Text="|grammar|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="526" RevisionGUID="b891d01a-04f5-46d5-aaf9-d15061eb3374" CreationDate="2016-03-16T03:52:52.737" UserId="78" Text="*Cogito ergo sum* does not mean &quot;seeing is believing&quot;. It in fact means &quot;I think therefore I am.&quot; Decartes used it as a statement of epistemology: If he can think, if he can conjure up rational process, it follows that he must exist. It establishes the *I*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, there is no nominative of the gerund. What that means is that you'll never see a gerund as the subject of the sentence. Instead, the infinitive is used. A case can actually be made that the infinitive functions as the nominative of the gerund. (It can't *actually* be the nominative, but essentially they're equivalent.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, indeed *esse est percipi* is fully grammatical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="527" RevisionGUID="3c912f59-0662-465f-be78-0bd605acb754" CreationDate="2016-03-16T03:53:14.303" UserId="79" Text="The expression *esse est percipi* is grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the gerund does not have a nominative form at all.&#xD;&#xA;If you want the corresponding nominative (or accusative when there is no preposition), you need to use infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The grammatical structure is the same as in *giraffa est alta* (&quot;the giraffe is tall&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;You are simply saying that something is something, and it does not really matter grammatically what these things are.&#xD;&#xA;The predicate is *est* and the subject can be *esse* just as well as *giraffa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say &quot;seeing is believing&quot;, infinitives are a good choice again.&#xD;&#xA;You can say the same thing in English as &quot;to see is to believe&quot; &amp;mdash; there might be a slight difference in nuance but the meaning is the same.&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest *videre est credere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, *cogito ergo sum* is a very different kind of sentence and the translation you mention is far from accurate.&#xD;&#xA;It has two clauses and the subject in both of them is the implicit *ego*.&#xD;&#xA;The expressions &quot;to see is to believe&quot; (*videre est credere*) and &quot;I think, therefore I am&quot; (*cogito ergo sum*) might deep down mean the same thing, but they are grammatically very different." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="9d370717-756e-41f5-9c1f-768d34d4458f" CreationDate="2016-03-16T03:59:05.710" UserId="131" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="According to the Crash Course Philosophy video today, George Berkeley summarized his empirical philosophy with the phrase &quot;esse est percipi&quot;, to be is to be perceived. However, it feels somewhat incorrect to use infinitives this way. &quot;Cogito ergo sum&quot;, _I think, therefore I am_, uses present singular. If &quot;seeing is believing&quot; were to be translated, it feels like it should use gerunds, although it could be converted to &quot;to see is to believe&quot;, which sounds more awkward. So then, why infinitives in this case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="527" RevisionGUID="72abe083-3010-4e98-8f60-4957b1319e9c" CreationDate="2016-03-16T04:01:22.303" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 177 characters in body" Text="The expression *esse est percipi* is grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the gerund does not have a nominative form at all.&#xD;&#xA;If you want the corresponding nominative (or accusative when there is no preposition), you need to use infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The grammatical structure is the same as in *giraffa est alta* (&quot;the giraffe is tall&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;You are simply saying that something is something, and it does not really matter grammatically what these things are.&#xD;&#xA;The predicate is *est* and the subject can be *esse* just as well as *giraffa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say &quot;seeing is believing&quot;, infinitives are a good choice again.&#xD;&#xA;You can say the same thing in English as &quot;to see is to believe&quot; &amp;mdash; there might be a slight difference in nuance but the meaning is the same.&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest *videre est credere*.&#xD;&#xA;You can't really phrase this as concisely with any other structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, *cogito ergo sum* is a very different kind of sentence.&#xD;&#xA;It has two clauses and the subject in both of them is the implicit *ego*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1859" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="a1d42beb-acd5-4cd1-93c9-afafd6bcc64f" CreationDate="2016-03-16T04:03:28.833" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Is &quot;esse est percipi&quot; grammatical, even with infinitives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1860" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="a1d42beb-acd5-4cd1-93c9-afafd6bcc64f" CreationDate="2016-03-16T04:03:28.833" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|grammar|infinitive|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="522" RevisionGUID="e8ff8804-e9ef-466f-979d-a1a25fe5cbe7" CreationDate="2016-03-16T05:00:48.677" UserId="68" Comment="added 293 characters in body" Text="Hmm. I'd actually suggest the gerundive: *ad Latīnam disputandam* or *ad Latinam disputandi causa*. [The Latin Library][1] puts it nicely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Gerundive (like the Gerund) may be used with ad + acc. or gen. + causa to express purpose. This is the regular construction where a Direct Object is involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, @Joonas Ilmavirta's suggestions, though they show less characteristically Roman brevity, all work very well, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/GerundGerundive.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1862" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="522" RevisionGUID="114dc1a9-b8b6-42a0-9bb6-cba5abfc81c7" CreationDate="2016-03-16T05:01:00.317" UserId="68" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:68,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joel Derfner&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="520" RevisionGUID="7c65dda9-37c7-4191-b852-849de4104f06" CreationDate="2016-03-16T05:25:36.920" UserId="12" Comment="this portion appears to have come from Hebrew, not the Septuagint" Text="There's at least one earlier instance of *vox populi*: [Isaiah 66:6](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bible/isaiah.shtml#66), in the *Vulgate* (fourth century):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vox populi de civitate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jerome was translating from Hebrew texts [believed to be similar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate#Critical_value) to those used in [modern English translations](https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Isaiah%2066:6), several of which have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; KJV: A voice of noise from the city  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; NASB: A voice of uproar from the city  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ESV: The sound of an uproar from the city  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; NABRE: A voice roaring from the city&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we see that the phrase *vox populi* here is not used in its modern sense of &quot;popular opinion,&quot; but it still can be seen to capture the idea of the voice or noise of people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="522" RevisionGUID="131e93f5-3dc8-4cfc-b0c4-e2702086c623" CreationDate="2016-03-16T15:06:49.317" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Hmm. I'd actually suggest the gerundive: *ad Latīnam disputandam* or *Latinam disputandi causa*. [The Latin Library][1] puts it nicely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Gerundive (like the Gerund) may be used with ad + acc. or gen. + causa to express purpose. This is the regular construction where a Direct Object is involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, @Joonas Ilmavirta's suggestions, though they show less characteristically Roman brevity, all work very well, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/GerundGerundive.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="522" RevisionGUID="9ac87850-89f5-485a-980e-004269715134" CreationDate="2016-03-16T15:24:27.613" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Hmm. I'd actually suggest the gerundive: *ad Latīnam disputandam* or *Latinæ disputandæ causa*. [The Latin Library][1] puts it nicely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Gerundive (like the Gerund) may be used with ad + acc. or gen. + causa to express purpose. This is the regular construction where a Direct Object is involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, @Joonas Ilmavirta's suggestions, though they show less characteristically Roman brevity, all work very well, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/GerundGerundive.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="529" RevisionGUID="4fa0ce05-9235-4c33-8f8a-6d4b26a3ada0" CreationDate="2016-03-16T16:30:21.420" UserId="45" Text="1. **Does *quidam* have a special meaning in this context?** I have been unable to find any indication, beyond Chadwick's assertion, that using &quot;quidam&quot; was a &quot;rhetorical convention of the time&quot; to express notoriety. [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquidam) gives no examples of classical usage.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; As you note, the example given of St. Paul is of a very different variety which is entirely in the spirit of *quidam*. I see no reason to assert a special meaning here, especially because Augustine received a classical rhetorical education and, as we shall see, no other modern commentator seems to advance this theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  In short: **I see no evidence for this claim.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **If it means *a certain*, what meaning is Augustine trying to convey?** James Joseph O'Donnell offers [an enlightening commentary](https://books.google.com/books?id=XwLXb-pdqCoC&amp;pg=PA164&amp;lpg=PA164&amp;dq=testard+confessions&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=lH1IOIk2Ww&amp;sig=J372OqmkLwXvCkFg02XEsYw4B0M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj8qPWKycXLAhXDNj4KHdS-BQEQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=testard%20confessions&amp;f=false), which--if not a definite answer--certainly underlines the confusion that the quoted passage has generated: he begins: &quot;The phrase has evoked abundant discussion.&quot; Here are some highlights:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Maurice Testard** (*Saint Augustin et Ciceron*, 1958): no pejorative intent&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Mohrmann** (*Vig. Chr. 13*, 1959): agrees with Testard, citing several examples of Christian authors using &quot;quidam&quot; to anonymously cite pagan authors.&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Michele Pellegrino** (*Les Confessions de saint Augustin*, 1961) calls Mohrmann's bluff by noting the obvious: you cannot be aiming for anonymity if you cite his name directly afterwards.&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Angel Vega** (*Obras de San Agustín*, 1946) says that it is a &quot;manera algún tanto despectiva--no ignorative--de citar a un escritor tan conocido y estimado de él: pero no es extraño al estilo del Santo.&quot; (My translation: &quot;A somewhat deprecatory--not unknowing--way to cite a writer who is so well known and esteemed by him.&quot;) He cites an example, similar to the above one with St. Paul, that illustrates the use of *quidam* (without a name) that is not &quot;condescending&quot;: *cuiusdam (=Ioshua) voto sol cum stetisset, etc.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Important to note, though, is that Augustine is not afraid to express his affection of Cicero in other locations, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; *Cicero noster* (c. acad. 1.3.7)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; *Tullius noster* (c. acad. 3.18.41)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; *philosophaster Tullius* (civ. 2.27)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  and anonymously with *quidam*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; *cuiusdam saecularis auctoris verba laudantur . . . ille homo eloquentissimus* (Io. ev. tr. 58.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; *dixit enim quidam* (doct. chr. 4.12.27)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  I think O'Donnell's assessment is the most reasonable. &quot;There is something **slightly arch** about the expression, but the derogatory tone is no more than is, surely, Cicero's due; in an address to God, **the expression signifies the vanity of a fame like that of Cicero in the presence of God.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Are there other plausible interpretations?** Certainly: here are a few, taken from Colin Starnes, [Augustine's Conversion: A Guide to the Argument of Confessions I-IX](https://books.google.com/books?id=b3CXqA_76w8C&amp;pg=PA79&amp;lpg=PA79&amp;dq=%22cuiusdam+ciceronis%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=FSkrPumE95&amp;sig=t_mF66WzSKGdt1-K0HvD2iytsSg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiE77KWx8XLAhVIWj4KHXU0AhEQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22cuiusdam%20ciceronis%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **O. Tescari** (&quot;Nota Augustinana&quot;, *Convivium 5*, 1933) claims that Augustine is speaking in the voice of himself at the time, since the *Hortensius* was the first book of Cicero he would have read. In other words, he is assuming the ignorance of that moment as he writes.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Starnes advances the theory that Cicero would not have been well known to his intended audience." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="529" RevisionGUID="03928d75-e66c-4de2-a3bc-b0a32a7791d7" CreationDate="2016-03-16T16:39:04.090" UserId="45" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="1. **Does *quidam* have a special meaning in this context?** I have been unable to find any indication, beyond Chadwick's assertion, that using &quot;quidam&quot; was a &quot;rhetorical convention of the time&quot; to express notoriety. [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquidam) gives no examples of classical usage.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; As you note, the example given of St. Paul is of a very different variety which is entirely in the spirit of *quidam*. I see no reason to assert a special meaning here, especially because Augustine received a classical rhetorical education and, as we shall see, no other modern commentator seems to advance this theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  In short: **I see no evidence for this claim.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **If it means *a certain*, what meaning is Augustine trying to convey?** James Joseph O'Donnell offers [an enlightening commentary](https://books.google.com/books?id=XwLXb-pdqCoC&amp;pg=PA164&amp;lpg=PA164&amp;dq=testard+confessions&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=lH1IOIk2Ww&amp;sig=J372OqmkLwXvCkFg02XEsYw4B0M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj8qPWKycXLAhXDNj4KHdS-BQEQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=testard%20confessions&amp;f=false), which--if not a definite answer--certainly underlines the confusion that the quoted passage has generated: he begins: &quot;The phrase has evoked abundant discussion.&quot; Here are some highlights:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Maurice Testard** (*Saint Augustin et Ciceron*, 1958): no pejorative intent&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Mohrmann** (*Vig. Chr. 13*, 1959): agrees with Testard, citing several examples of Christian authors using &quot;quidam&quot; to anonymously cite pagan authors.&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Michele Pellegrino** (*Les Confessions de saint Augustin*, 1961) calls Mohrmann's bluff by noting the obvious: you cannot be aiming for anonymity if you cite his name directly afterwards.&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Angel Vega** (*Obras de San Agustín*, 1946) says that it is a &quot;manera algún tanto despectiva--no ignorativa--de citar a un escritor tan conocido y estimado de él: pero no es extraño al estilo del Santo.&quot; (My translation: &quot;A somewhat deprecatory--not unknowing--way to cite a writer who is so well known and esteemed by him.&quot;) He cites an example, similar to the above one with St. Paul, that illustrates the use of *quidam* (without a name) that is not &quot;condescending&quot;: *cuiusdam (=Ioshua) voto sol cum stetisset, etc.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Important to note, though, is that Augustine is not afraid to express his affection of Cicero in other locations, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; *Cicero noster* (c. acad. 1.3.7)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; *Tullius noster* (c. acad. 3.18.41)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; *philosophaster Tullius* (civ. 2.27)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  and anonymously with *quidam*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; *cuiusdam saecularis auctoris verba laudantur . . . ille homo eloquentissimus* (Io. ev. tr. 58.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; *dixit enim quidam* (doct. chr. 4.12.27)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  I think O'Donnell's assessment is the most reasonable. &quot;There is something **slightly arch** about the expression, but the derogatory tone is no more than is, surely, Cicero's due; in an address to God, **the expression signifies the vanity of a fame like that of Cicero in the presence of God.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Are there other plausible interpretations?** Certainly: here are a few, taken from Colin Starnes, [Augustine's Conversion: A Guide to the Argument of Confessions I-IX](https://books.google.com/books?id=b3CXqA_76w8C&amp;pg=PA79&amp;lpg=PA79&amp;dq=%22cuiusdam+ciceronis%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=FSkrPumE95&amp;sig=t_mF66WzSKGdt1-K0HvD2iytsSg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiE77KWx8XLAhVIWj4KHXU0AhEQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22cuiusdam%20ciceronis%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **O. Tescari** (&quot;Nota Augustinana&quot;, *Convivium 5*, 1933) claims that Augustine is speaking in the voice of himself at the time, since the *Hortensius* was the first book of Cicero he would have read. In other words, he is assuming the ignorance of that moment as he writes, much as someone might say &quot;Ten years ago, I ran into a certain Jane Doe&quot; when recounting how he met his significant other.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Starnes advances the theory that Cicero would not have been well known to his intended audience." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="529" RevisionGUID="f9c5f73b-3b63-4be7-b552-7d4885d9af05" CreationDate="2016-03-16T17:16:06.013" UserId="45" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="1. **Does *quidam* have a special meaning in this context?** I have been unable to find any indication, beyond Chadwick's assertion, that using &quot;quidam&quot; was a &quot;rhetorical convention of the time&quot; to express notoriety. [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquidam) gives no examples of classical usage.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; As you note, the example given of St. Paul is of a very different variety which is entirely in the spirit of *quidam*. I see no reason to assert a special meaning here, especially because Augustine received a classical rhetorical education and, as we shall see, no other modern commentator seems to advance this theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  In short: **I see no evidence for this claim.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **If it means *a certain*, what meaning is Augustine trying to convey?** James Joseph O'Donnell offers [an enlightening commentary](https://books.google.com/books?id=XwLXb-pdqCoC&amp;pg=PA164&amp;lpg=PA164&amp;dq=testard+confessions&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=lH1IOIk2Ww&amp;sig=J372OqmkLwXvCkFg02XEsYw4B0M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj8qPWKycXLAhXDNj4KHdS-BQEQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=testard%20confessions&amp;f=false), which--if not a definite answer--certainly underlines the confusion that the quoted passage has generated: he begins: &quot;The phrase has evoked abundant discussion.&quot; Here are some highlights:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Maurice Testard** (*Saint Augustin et Ciceron*, 1958): no pejorative intent&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Mohrmann** (*Vig. Chr. 13*, 1959): agrees with Testard, citing several examples of Christian authors using &quot;quidam&quot; to anonymously cite pagan authors.&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Michele Pellegrino** (*Les Confessions de saint Augustin*, 1961) calls Mohrmann's bluff by noting the obvious: you cannot be aiming for anonymity if you cite his name directly afterwards.&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Angel Vega** (*Obras de San Agustín*, 1946) says that it is a &quot;manera algún tanto despectiva--no ignorativa--de citar a un escritor tan conocido y estimado de él: pero no es extraño al estilo del Santo.&quot; (My translation: &quot;A somewhat deprecatory--not unknowing--way to cite a writer who is so well known and esteemed by him.&quot;) He cites an example, similar to the above one with St. Paul, that illustrates the use of *quidam* (without a name) that is not &quot;condescending&quot;: *cuiusdam (=Ioshua) voto sol cum stetisset, etc.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Important to note, though, is that Augustine is not afraid to express his affection of Cicero in other locations, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; *Cicero noster* (c. acad. 1.3.7)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; *Tullius noster* (c. acad. 3.18.41)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; *philosophaster Tullius* (civ. 2.27)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  and anonymously with *quidam*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; *cuiusdam saecularis auctoris verba laudantur . . . ille homo eloquentissimus* (Io. ev. tr. 58.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; *dixit enim quidam* (doct. chr. 4.12.27)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  I think O'Donnell's assessment is the most reasonable. &quot;There is something **slightly arch** about the expression, but the derogatory tone is no more than is, surely, Cicero's due; in an address to God, **the expression signifies the vanity of a fame like that of Cicero in the presence of God.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Are there other plausible interpretations?** Certainly: here are a few, taken from Colin Starnes, [Augustine's Conversion: A Guide to the Argument of Confessions I-IX](https://books.google.com/books?id=b3CXqA_76w8C&amp;pg=PA79&amp;lpg=PA79&amp;dq=%22cuiusdam+ciceronis%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=FSkrPumE95&amp;sig=t_mF66WzSKGdt1-K0HvD2iytsSg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiE77KWx8XLAhVIWj4KHXU0AhEQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22cuiusdam%20ciceronis%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **O. Tescari** (&quot;Nota Augustinana&quot;, *Convivium 5*, 1933) claims that Augustine is speaking in the voice of himself at the time, since the *Hortensius* was the first book of Cicero he would have read. In other words, he is assuming the ignorance of that moment as he writes, much as someone might say &quot;Ten years ago, I ran into a certain Jane Doe&quot; when recounting how he met his significant other.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Starnes advances the theory that Cicero would not have been well known to the intended audience of *The Confessions*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="522" RevisionGUID="0cbab1a2-a3f0-473b-a28a-1c401f25d1a8" CreationDate="2016-03-16T21:40:32.790" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="Hmm. I'd actually suggest the gerundive: *ad Latinam disputandam* or *Latinæ disputandæ causa*. [The Latin Library][1] puts it nicely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Gerundive (like the Gerund) may be used with ad + acc. or gen. + causa to express purpose. This is the regular construction where a Direct Object is involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, @Joonas Ilmavirta's suggestions, though they show less characteristically Roman brevity, all work very well, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/GerundGerundive.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="490" RevisionGUID="e8e748a2-04f7-44d4-84ee-979eb4742a1e" CreationDate="2016-03-16T22:08:32.923" UserId="78" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="First, though it is indicated by an apostrophe in modern texts, elision also occurs in ancient Greek poetry. The rules were different from Latin, though. I quote Smyth for them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - 70. Elision is the expulsion of a short vowel at the end of a word before a word beginning with a vowel. An apostrophe ( ’ ) marks the place where the vowel is elided.&#xD;&#xA;ἀλλ’(ά) ἄγε, ἄδωκ’(α) ἐννέα, ἐφ’ ( = ἐπὶ) ἑαυτοῦ (64), ἔχομ’ (ι) ἄν, γένοιτ’(ο) ἄν.&#xD;&#xA;- - a. Elision is often not expressed to the eye except in poetry. Both inscriptions and the Mss. of prose writers are very inconsistent, but even where the elision is not expressed, it seems to have occurred in speaking; i.e. ὅδε εἶπε and ὅδ’ εἶπε were spoken alike. The Mss. are of little value in such cases.&#xD;&#xA;- 71. Elision affects only unimportant words or syllables, such as particles, adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions of two syllables (except περί, ἄχρι, μέχρι, ὅτι 72 b, c), and the final syllables of nouns, pronouns, and verbs.&#xD;&#xA;a. The final vowel of an emphatic personal pronoun is rarely elided.&#xD;&#xA;- 72. Elision does not occur in&#xD;&#xA;- - a. Monosyllables, except such as end in ε (τέ, δέ, γέ).&#xD;&#xA;- - b. The conjunction ὅτι that ὅτ’ is ὅτε when).&#xD;&#xA;- - c. The prepositions πρό before, ἄχρι, μέχρι until, and περί concerning (except before ι).&#xD;&#xA;- - d. The dative singular ending ι of the third declension, and in σι, the ending of the dative plural.&#xD;&#xA;- - e. Words with final υ.&#xD;&#xA;- 73. Except ἐστί is, forms admitting movable ν (134 a) do not suffer elision in prose. (But some cases of ε in the perfect occur in Demosthenes.)&#xD;&#xA;- 74. αι in the personal endings and the infinitive is elided in Aristophanes; scarcely ever, if at all, in tragedy; its elision in prose is doubtful. οι is elided in tragedy in οἴμοι alas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, elision was not specific to verse. As usual for this type of thing, Sydney Allen is the first place to go to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The pronunciation of a final vowel and a following initial&#xD;&#xA;vowel,l each with its syllabic value, has the Latin title of&#xD;&#xA;'hiatus'. But, as we know, this type of junction was generally&#xD;&#xA;avoided in Latin verse, except at strong pauses, i.e. at verse&#xD;&#xA;ends and infrequently at main caesurae. In prose, Quintilian&#xD;&#xA;(ix, 4, 33 if.) is not opposed to occasional hiatus (' nonnumquam&#xD;&#xA;hiulca etiam decent faciuntque ampliora quaedam, ut &quot;pulchra&#xD;&#xA;oratione acta'''); Cicero (Or., 150, 152; cf. Her., iv, 18) seems&#xD;&#xA;less tolerant, but his practice does not altogether support his&#xD;&#xA;precept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The grammarians speak of complete loss of the final syllable in such cases (e.g. †Marius Victorinus, K. vi, 66) ;2 and one (Sacerdos, K. vi, 448) actually cites sequences such as *menincepto*, *monstrhor-* (for *mene incepto*, *monstrum horrendum*). The general term given to such loss is '*elisio*', corresponding to the Greek ἔκθλιψις, though the grammarians mostly refer to it as '*synaliphe*' (συναλοιφή). Such 'elision' is specifically contrasted with 'contraction' †('episynaliphe' or συνεκφώμησις), as in aeripedem for aëripedem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In spite of these statements, various modern writers have refused to believe that the final vowel could be completely lost in such cases, since this would be likely to obscure the meaning. This is not altogether a valid argument; towards the end of a word sounds tend to become more 'redundant', i.e. predictable in terms of what has already been uttered; and even in the case of grammatical inflexions the sense is often inferable from other factors in the context (it is thus very common in the IndoEuropean languages to find that the final syllable is phonetically weak and liable to assimilation, reduction, or loss). In the first hundred lines of the *Aeneid*, for example, it has been suggested that elision could cause ambiguity in only two cases-and that neither of these 'would perceptibly alter the meaning of the passage'. Moreover, Plautus (*Cure*., 691) seems deliberately to introduce an ambiguity by this means in order to pun on&#xD;&#xA;*cum catello ut accubas* and *cum catella ut accubas*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;W. Sidney Allen, *Vox Latina* 78–79&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fun little example is Tablet 234 of the Vindolanda tablets records a soldier writing home to buy good shoes because of the bothersome &quot;storms and winter&quot;. In Latin, that's *tempestates et hiems* (or *hiemps*), but this fellow wrote (or more likely dictated to a scribe) *tempestates etiam*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I quote the online digital commentary on it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The reading of tempestates is supported by the erasure [[et hiem]] which indicates that the scribe began to write et hiemes. TLL VI 2774.12-20 notes that grammarians and glossaries equate hiems and tempestas and gives the meaning uentus fortis (s.v.IA); the only citation with the words used together is Rufinus, Hist.mon.epil. 7, p.462a. **The supralinear substitution of etiam strongly suggests that this was a phonetic dictation error** (for which see Milne and Skeat (1938), 52, 55, and cf. Turner (1987), p.17).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is for common speech. There is a debate whether this occurs in e.g. the orations of Cicero. Cicero himself (and others) remarks on the matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We are not allowed to make a pause between vowels, even if we should wish to do so. This is shown by those famous though slightly uncouth speeches of Cato.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Cic. *Orat.* 152&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cato, it should be remembered, wrote oratory. He continues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Consonants were frequently omitted in contractions, for greater smoothness, as, for example, *multi' modis*, *in vas' argenteis*, *palm et crinibus*, *tecti' fractis*...Moreover, words are often contracted not for convenience but merely for the sake of sound. How was the name of your ancestor changed from Axilla to Ala except from a desire to avoid a harsh-sounding letter? The same letter is removed by refined Latin speech from *maxillae*, *taxilli*, *vexillum* and *pauxillum*. They were also ready to combine words by blending, e.g. *sodes* for *si audes*, and *sis* for *si vis*. You may even find three words in one—*capsis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Cic. *Orat*. 153–154; these passages translated by Hubbell for the LCL&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This indicates that indeed elision/contraction was common. In fact, a little further down he questions why some were against it despite its regular use in *antiquitas*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;For further reading, I recommend Andrew M. Riggsby 1991, &quot;[Elision and Hiatus in Latin Prose](https://www.academia.edu/4205594/Elision_and_Hiatus_in_Latin_Prose),&quot; *Classical Antiquity* 10.2: 328–343.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, elision wasn't uncommon in certain Greek prose works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀλλ᾽ ἦ, τὸ λεγόμενον, κατόπιν ἑορτῆς ἥκομεν καὶ ὑστεροῦμεν;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Plato *Gorgias* 447a&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="531" RevisionGUID="18934655-89fb-4056-b31e-16d4b181a1d8" CreationDate="2016-03-17T00:22:42.393" UserId="68" Text="Well, I think the thing to do is to remember that, while *ut* has three different English meanings, it has only one Latin meaning and three uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Latin speaker might just as easily ask, &quot;Why does English *to* have such different meanings when it's used with the verb in a purpose clause and when it's used with a noun?&quot; (I realize that the analogy isn't exact; if I can think of a better one I'll edit.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is, I think that especially for function words like this, looking for a unifying meaning is doomed to fail unless you're examining language change through time. At some point in the development of Latin, the uses were close enough that they made sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the time of the Latin we know, however . . . the answer is pretty much &quot;just because.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I realize this is a highly unsatisfactory answer, and I apologize!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="532" RevisionGUID="5d6ee3d1-6a93-4e5f-9c8e-8c13d9e130fa" CreationDate="2016-03-17T01:15:16.240" UserId="68" Text="In his tale of Æetes, Hyginus writes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Itaque Æeta Jasoni hanc simultatem constituit: Si vellet pellem auratam auferre, tauros æripedes . . . jungeret. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis &amp; Short gives this definition for *simultas*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A hostile encounter, dissension, enmity, rivalry, jealousy, grudge, hatred, animosity&#xD;&#xA;2. a strife, contest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first I tried to translate the Hyginus passage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And so Ætes conceived this enmity for Jason: If he wanted, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that doesn't make any sense at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *The Myths of Hyginus*, Mary Grant translates [this passage][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And so Aeetes appointed this task for Jason: If he wished, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is &quot;task&quot; a recognized meaning of *simultas* that Lewis &amp; Short just leave out? And, if so, does it have a connotation of hostility, as the other definitions might suggest?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.theoi.com/Text/HyginusFabulae1.html#22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1880" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="532" RevisionGUID="5d6ee3d1-6a93-4e5f-9c8e-8c13d9e130fa" CreationDate="2016-03-17T01:15:16.240" UserId="68" Text="meaning/connotations of &quot;simultas&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1881" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="532" RevisionGUID="5d6ee3d1-6a93-4e5f-9c8e-8c13d9e130fa" CreationDate="2016-03-17T01:15:16.240" UserId="68" Text="|translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1882" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="532" RevisionGUID="8258b24d-1b9d-4be9-ad87-07886c92efc2" CreationDate="2016-03-17T02:00:50.993" UserId="12" Comment="more meaningful title, add tags" Text="Can &quot;simultas&quot; simply mean &quot;task,&quot; or does it always connote hostility?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1883" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="532" RevisionGUID="8258b24d-1b9d-4be9-ad87-07886c92efc2" CreationDate="2016-03-17T02:00:50.993" UserId="12" Comment="more meaningful title, add tags" Text="|classical-latin|translation|vocabulary|hyginus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="533" RevisionGUID="bf363899-6023-42b6-b915-4ceab0a5eb29" CreationDate="2016-03-17T02:01:12.937" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="In Ovid Tristia, 1.2.23-4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nihil est, nisi pontus et aer,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nubibus hic tumidus, fluctibus ille minax...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, this means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...There is nothing, unless the sea and air  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This one swollen with clouds and that one threatening with waves...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I _think_ &quot;this one&quot; means &quot;the air&quot; and &quot;that one&quot; means &quot;the sea&quot;, based on context. Is that right? Is using &quot;hic&quot; and &quot;ille&quot; like this typical and correct? If so, is there a better way to translate it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1885" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="533" RevisionGUID="bf363899-6023-42b6-b915-4ceab0a5eb29" CreationDate="2016-03-17T02:01:12.937" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="What do &quot;hic&quot; and &quot;Ille&quot; refer to in this passage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1886" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="533" RevisionGUID="bf363899-6023-42b6-b915-4ceab0a5eb29" CreationDate="2016-03-17T02:01:12.937" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|translation|vocabulary|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="533" RevisionGUID="94861281-c1b8-4f00-b334-6434abc39a1c" CreationDate="2016-03-17T02:08:51.893" UserId="12" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="In Ovid's *Tristia*, 1.2.23-4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nihil est, nisi pontus et aer,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nubibus hic tumidus, fluctibus ille minax...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, this means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...There is nothing, unless the sea and air  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This one swollen with clouds and that one threatening with waves...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I _think_ &quot;this one&quot; means &quot;the air&quot; and &quot;that one&quot; means &quot;the sea&quot;, based on context. Is that right? Is using &quot;hic&quot; and &quot;ille&quot; like this typical and correct? If so, is there a better way to translate it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1888" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="533" RevisionGUID="94861281-c1b8-4f00-b334-6434abc39a1c" CreationDate="2016-03-17T02:08:51.893" UserId="12" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What do &quot;hic&quot; and &quot;ille&quot; refer to in this passage from Ovid's Tristia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1889" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="533" RevisionGUID="94861281-c1b8-4f00-b334-6434abc39a1c" CreationDate="2016-03-17T02:08:51.893" UserId="12" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|translation|vocabulary|meaning|ovidius|demonstrative-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="4b0f3bfd-48b8-4fa3-9642-90e35f941592" CreationDate="2016-03-17T02:17:05.517" UserId="78" Text="When *hic* and *ille* are used like this, they refer to the distance of words: *hic* refers to the closest noun, *ille* the one that came first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, you have first *pontus* and then *aer*. *Hic* therefore refers to the one closer to the pronoun, and since *aer* is closer to *hic* than *pontus*, it must refer to that. Likewise, since *pontus* is further away than *aer*, it goes with *ille*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="0e832586-dad2-4d33-a065-7b299699e906" CreationDate="2016-03-17T02:21:55.113" UserId="78" Comment="added 430 characters in body" Text="When *hic* and *ille* are used like this, they refer to the distance of words: *hic* refers to the closest noun, *ille* the one that came first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, you have first *pontus* and then *aer*. *Hic* therefore refers to the one closer to the pronoun, and since *aer* is closer to *hic* than *pontus*, it must refer to that. Likewise, since *pontus* is further away than *aer*, it goes with *ille*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good way to think about this is visually. In a list like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We get the pronouns following them this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* iste&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ille&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* hic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While in English we would typically talk about them in the order we heard or read them, in Latin it's visual. The first thing mentioned is the furthest removed from our attention, so the closest thing (*hic*, i.e. this thing right here) is the one listed last." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="535" RevisionGUID="ebf6968b-d384-40af-af1c-70fc0215473e" CreationDate="2016-03-17T02:24:12.360" UserId="68" Text="Of course, as with so much in Latin, there are several answers, all of them correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first answer is yes, using *hic* and *ille* like this to mean &quot;the latter&quot; and &quot;the former&quot; is common and correct. Here's Cicero in *De Amicitia*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scitum est enim illud Catonis, ut multa: 'melius de quibusdam acerbos inimicos mereri quam eos amicos qui dulces videantur; illos verum saepe dicere, hos numquam.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That saying of Cato's was wise, as many were: there are certain people who owe more to bitter enemies than to friends who seem sweet; the former always speak the truth, the latter never.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer gets more complicated, however, because sometimes, when confusion is impossible, it's the other way around, as in these two passages from Ovid's *Daphne and Chloe*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ut canis in vacuo leporem cum Gallicus arvo  &#xD;&#xA;vidit, et hic praedam pedibus petit, ille salutem.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As when a French dog in an empty field sees a hare,&#xD;&#xA;and with his feet the former seeks his prey, the latter his safety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sic deus et virgo est hic spe celer, illa timore.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus the god and the maid were swift, the former with hope, the latter with fear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I suppose that in the end the answer is &quot;yes, and.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="a116fa60-784b-446d-8db5-237db536ab1c" CreationDate="2016-03-17T02:28:07.783" UserId="78" Comment="added 296 characters in body" Text="When *hic* and *ille* are used like this, they refer to the distance of words: *hic* refers to the closest noun, *ille* the one that came first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, you have first *pontus* and then *aer*. *Hic* therefore refers to the one closer to the pronoun, and since *aer* is closer to *hic* than *pontus*, it must refer to that. Likewise, since *pontus* is further away than *aer*, it goes with *ille*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good way to think about this is visually. In a list like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We get the pronouns following them this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* iste&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ille&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* hic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While in English we would typically talk about them in the order we heard or read them, in Latin it's visual. The first thing mentioned is the furthest removed from our attention, so the closest thing (*hic*, i.e. this thing right here) is the one listed last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: &quot;the former...the latter...&quot; Does it accurately convey the meaning of the sentence? First, you would have to switch the normal order. Second, though, using &quot;the latter...the former&quot; in English actually emphasizes the abnormality of the former, while in Latin there is no such connotation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="533" RevisionGUID="a7e9b36c-8964-4662-b2e1-56ccfe579821" CreationDate="2016-03-17T02:38:34.070" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Whoops that's the wrong word" Text="In Ovid's *Tristia*, 1.2.23-4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nihil est, nisi pontus et aer,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nubibus hic tumidus, fluctibus ille minax...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, this means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...There is nothing, unless the sea and air  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This one swollen with clouds and that one threatening with waves...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I _think_ &quot;this one&quot; means &quot;the air&quot; and &quot;that one&quot; means &quot;the sea&quot;, based on context. Is that right? Is translating &quot;hic&quot; and &quot;ille&quot; like this typical and correct? If so, is there a better way to translate it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="535" RevisionGUID="4877c494-4142-4183-b933-6b408d6dd98c" CreationDate="2016-03-17T02:41:50.853" UserId="68" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Of course, as with so much in Latin, there's more than one answer, none of them incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first answer is yes, using *hic* and *ille* like this to mean &quot;the latter&quot; and &quot;the former&quot; is common and correct. Here's Cicero in *De Amicitia*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scitum est enim illud Catonis, ut multa: 'melius de quibusdam acerbos inimicos mereri quam eos amicos qui dulces videantur; illos verum saepe dicere, hos numquam.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That saying of Cato's was wise, as many were: there are certain people who owe more to bitter enemies than to friends who seem sweet; the former always speak the truth, the latter never.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer gets more complicated, however, because sometimes, when confusion is impossible, it's the other way around, as in these two passages from Ovid's *Daphne and Chloe*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ut canis in vacuo leporem cum Gallicus arvo  &#xD;&#xA;vidit, et hic praedam pedibus petit, ille salutem.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As when a French dog in an empty field sees a hare,&#xD;&#xA;and with his feet the former seeks his prey, the latter his safety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sic deus et virgo est hic spe celer, illa timore.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus the god and the maid were swift, the former with hope, the latter with fear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I suppose that in the end the answer is &quot;yes, and.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="536" RevisionGUID="ad199e47-986a-47bd-8c3f-cc59656e2d42" CreationDate="2016-03-17T04:30:40.883" UserId="40" Text="&quot;Contest&quot; from L&amp;S's definition 2 works pretty well here: &quot;he appointed this contest for Jason&quot;. &quot;Issued this challenge&quot; might be better yet. I think this is a slightly unusual use of *simultas* in that this &quot;contest&quot; is not between Jason and anyone else, so the word doesn't seem to convey a specific connotation of hostility as it otherwise would." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1897" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="453" RevisionGUID="9da3a4bd-fa4a-4ef5-8091-95a38015bff1" CreationDate="2016-03-17T06:01:59.977" UserId="78" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1898" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="417" RevisionGUID="ead1ba92-8150-4cf4-aad6-ec1409f58a01" CreationDate="2016-03-17T06:02:29.310" UserId="78" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1899" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="417" RevisionGUID="7e7310ce-7adf-4761-ab22-53592028538a" CreationDate="2016-03-17T06:02:33.653" UserId="78" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="537" RevisionGUID="9e6bebd2-b235-403b-9605-02c1db65c601" CreationDate="2016-03-17T08:52:18.263" UserId="49" Text="&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, word order is mostly free. This is used intensively by poets and other authors to achieve a desired rhythm or rhetoric figures like chiasms. However, this does not apply to regular, spoken language and also to writings without any stylistic aspirations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My (limited) linguistic experience tells me that languages tend to use such a freedom to encode some information. For example, in the German language, word order is used to encode emphasis when it is free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do we know anything similar about a function of word order in colloquial Latin?** Note that this is not about aspects of the word order that are fixed by the grammar, such as prepositions coming before the word they refer to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1901" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="537" RevisionGUID="9e6bebd2-b235-403b-9605-02c1db65c601" CreationDate="2016-03-17T08:52:18.263" UserId="49" Text="Did word order have any function in colloquial Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1902" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="537" RevisionGUID="9e6bebd2-b235-403b-9605-02c1db65c601" CreationDate="2016-03-17T08:52:18.263" UserId="49" Text="|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="523" RevisionGUID="2cc21771-e331-4dfd-95b0-ea5a1721ddd3" CreationDate="2016-03-17T11:05:41.357" UserId="197" Comment="Updated and added sources. " Text="There is none that I know about, but the most common phrase I use in class and with other students is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Licet mihi ad latrinam ire&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The textbook Ecce Romani 1 as well as various Latin teachers I have met commonly agree on this as the best phrase to use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="537" RevisionGUID="a6efece6-8864-4559-8f2c-df1cb61f4207" CreationDate="2016-03-17T17:41:54.807" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In Latin, word order is mostly free. This is used intensively by poets and other authors to achieve a desired rhythm or rhetoric figures like chiasms. However, this does not apply to regular, spoken language and also to writings without any stylistic aspirations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My (limited) linguistic experience tells me that languages tend to use such a freedom to encode some information. For example, in the German language, word order is used to encode emphasis when it is free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do we know anything similar about a function of word order in colloquial Latin?** Note that this is not about aspects of the word order that are fixed by the grammar, such as prepositions coming before the word they refer to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1909" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="537" RevisionGUID="a6efece6-8864-4559-8f2c-df1cb61f4207" CreationDate="2016-03-17T17:41:54.807" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vulgar-latin|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="539" RevisionGUID="61e4f08b-22d0-42bf-bb82-da109b635a36" CreationDate="2016-03-17T22:27:30.117" UserId="12" Text="The first thing worth noting here is the pronunciation of *n* before certain consonants, including *g*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before a velar or a labio-velar, however (as in *uncus*, *ingens*, *relinquo*, *lingua*), [n] stands for a velar nasal [ŋ] (as in English *uncle* or *anger*). [Allen, *Vox Latina*, 27]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way we know this is from the descriptions of the sounds provided by Nigidius Figulus, who was quoted by Marius Victorinus (&quot;intermediate between *n* and *g*&quot;; see Allen, 28 and [Tafel, *Latin Pronunciation*, 46](https://books.google.com/books?id=co9EAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA46)).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, Accius attempted to associate the sound with the *g* character instead of *n*, following the Greek practice, by writing *aggulus* for *angulus*, for example (Allen, *VL*, 28; [Allen, *Vox Graeca* 35ff.](https://books.google.com/books?id=yws4Zey-ZnYC&amp;pg=PA35), [Haldeman, *Elements*, §242–43](https://books.google.com/books?id=J4UAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA48)).  And apparently the Greeks did the same thing in reverse: Haldeman cites Plutarch using gamma to represent the *n* in *principia* ([§246](https://books.google.com/books?id=J4UAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA49)), indicating the similarity of the sounds between the two languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this, then, we can have confidence that the *n* of the *ng* pairing is best represented by /ŋ/ and that therefore the entire pairing as /ŋg/, as pronunciation guides indicate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin *ng* corresponds to the double sound ('*ng*' + *g*) in English *finger*, and not the single sound heard in *singer* [...] Greek *γγ* = Latin *ng* = English or Welsh *ng* + *g*. [[Arnold and Conway, 11, 13](https://books.google.com/books?id=TNPTAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA11)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here **ng** = **ng** + **g**; **congero** = **cong-gero**.  [...] Lat. **ng** is never like *ng* in Eng. *singer* or *hanger*. [[Westaway, §37](https://books.google.com/books?id=FVZxAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA18)]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1913" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="269" RevisionGUID="7d06b14a-0c6d-4528-9157-8495efe67884" CreationDate="2016-03-18T00:47:04.637" UserId="78" Comment="2" />
  <row Id="1914" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="d793fe4f-6e7f-4aa4-8bd5-0af1a565256d" CreationDate="2016-03-18T00:47:17.200" UserId="78" Comment="3" />
  <row Id="1915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="541" RevisionGUID="df8bbda3-070f-423d-a249-2bfa5fbb555a" CreationDate="2016-03-18T01:01:18.817" UserId="68" Text="The definition you cite for *instruere* is sparse and leaves most of the uses of the word uncovered. The definition from Lewis &amp; Short is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. to build in or into&#xD;&#xA;2. to build, erect, construct&#xD;&#xA;3. To set in order, draw up in battle array&#xD;&#xA;4. To prepare, make ready, furnish, provide, to equip, fit out&#xD;&#xA;5. to procure, provide for, prepare for, furnish&#xD;&#xA;6. to provide with information, to teach, instruct&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can also mean &quot;instruct, teach,&quot; and &quot;institute&quot; (as in institute a festival), as well as being used in expressions like &quot;lay an ambush&quot; (*insidias instruere*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So going *strictly* from the definition it might seem redundant, but the way the word is used in practice it actually means something very different from *struere*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1916" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="192" RevisionGUID="c1080249-ceca-4e89-85e5-c3bac5567dbe" CreationDate="2016-03-18T01:20:14.390" UserId="73" Comment="4" />
  <row Id="1917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="511" RevisionGUID="19eab64b-415a-4711-93b2-cee78c037933" CreationDate="2016-03-18T02:06:05.137" UserId="68" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="It pains me to suggest that Latin Wikipedia is in error, but Latin Wikipedia is in error. The *arma ignifera* Nathanial suggests is in fact a word for firearm that some have used, but it's in the *silva* of the Morgan lexicon, not the *adumbratio*. The difference between the two is explained in [a short piece][1] by the lexicon's current editor, Patrick Owens:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Morgan-Owens Latin Lexicon is found under the link entitled &quot;adumbratio&quot;. The link entitled &quot;silva&quot; is a mere collection of other modern Latin dictionaries. If a term appears in the &quot;silva&quot; but not in the &quot;adumbratio&quot; it is because it has been intentionally rejected on philological grounds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the *adumbratio*, Morgan too went with *sclopetum* for a long gun and *pistola* for a short one, though I suspect *fistula* is better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;firearm&quot; the only thing I've seen is *[manuballista][2]*, which is a little too broad; it's the word the Romans used for the hand-held version of the *ballista*, a siege engine—so essentially a crossbow. If you're willing to include crossbows in your definition of &quot;firearms&quot; then *manuballista* is actually perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/11790987/Morgan-Owens_Lexicon_of_Neo-Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballista#Cheiroballistra_and_manuballista" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="542" RevisionGUID="c02c4d36-eb3c-4db6-9c15-89f595c29f5f" CreationDate="2016-03-18T02:20:36.493" UserId="68" Text="I think part of the issue here is that &quot;toward&quot; isn't particularly accurate as a a description of the meaning of &quot;in&quot;; &quot;into&quot; would be much more appropriate. Consider that in English you can be in a building or you can go in(to) a building. You may be interested in [this question][1] and its answers for further information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/37/what-underlying-semantic-notions-explain-the-meaning-of-against-for-the-prepos/56#56" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="543" RevisionGUID="4fa38f6b-e9c2-4371-9ff7-021425bf84cc" CreationDate="2016-03-18T06:45:51.537" UserId="106" Text="One of the great values in learning another language is learning the associated culture. Exporting ones own culture to the new language leads to unnatural use of the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latins tended to use very direct language, without the circumlocations used by many modern English speakers. Do I want to go to the bathroom? No, I want to do a shit! (Ignoring all the possible services one might enjoy in a bath house.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I recommend against using euphemisms, unless you are following a commonly used *latin* turn of phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of such directness can be seen in *Ab Urbe Condita Libri*, aka *The History of Rome* by Livy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(At present I'm moving house, so all my reference books are in boxes. As soon as I can I'll add some more concrete examples - other users feel free to edit some in also :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="544" RevisionGUID="0b4b060f-3f8c-4744-bfe8-6f9ed15f2cb1" CreationDate="2016-03-18T09:05:22.183" UserId="152" Text="To complement @brianpck answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let's state right away the obvious: since all known species of llamas are endemic to South America, it is highly unlikely that there is a classical latin word to name them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wheeler (2005) offered a short review of the taxonomical history of llamas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In  1758,  Linnaeus  described  the  two  domestic  New  World  camelids  as *Camelus  glama* “Camelus  peruvianus  Glama  dictus”  (llama)  and *Camelus pacos* “Camelus  peruvianus  laniger  Pacos  dictus”  (alpaca), placing  them  together  in a single  genus  with  the  Old  World  dromedary  and  bactrian  camels, *Camelus dromedarius* and *Camelus bactrianus*. The  two  remaining  New  World  species,  the wild  guanaco  and  vicuña,  were  subsequently  designated *Camelus guanicoe* by Müller  in  1776  and *Camelus vicugna* by  Molina  in  1782.  As  early as 1775, Frisch  proposed  that  the  four  New  World  species  be  placed  in  the  genus *Lama*, but  this  work  is  not  accepted  by  the  International  Commission  on  Zoological Nomenclature  (Hemming,  1985a) and authorship of *Lama* is  credited to Cuvier, 1800  (Hemming,  1985b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the nomenclatural history of llamas is even more complex than this as the [*Mammal Species of the World* database page](http://vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswCFApp/msw/taxon_browser.cfm?msw_id=12515) on the genus *Lama* Cuvier 1800 lists no less than 12 synonyms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Aucheria* F. Cuvier, 1830  &#xD;&#xA;*Auchenia* Illiger, 1811  &#xD;&#xA;*Auchenias* Wagner, 1843  &#xD;&#xA;*Dromedarius* Wagler, 1830  &#xD;&#xA;*Guanaco* Perry, 1811  &#xD;&#xA;*Lacma* Tiedemann, 1804  &#xD;&#xA;*Lama* Frisch, 1775  &#xD;&#xA;*Llacma* Illiger, 1815  &#xD;&#xA;*Llama* Gray, 1852  &#xD;&#xA;*Neoauchenia* Ameghino, 1891  &#xD;&#xA;*Pacos* Gray, 1872  &#xD;&#xA;*Vicunia* Rafinesque, 1815  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To go back to the main point: it is not clear why Linnaeus used *glama* instead of *lama* or *llama* because, at the time, it was not compulsory (nor even habitual) to explain the etymology of a species name. Maybe Linnaeus just misheard the Quechua word, we'll never really know. However the reason why the genus name was changed to *Lama* could be because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Frisch and Cuvier wanted to correct Linnaeus mistake (if it is indeed a mistake)&#xD;&#xA; - They wanted to avoid a tautonymous name: while Linnaeus seems to have been fond of them (being the author of *Alces alces*, *Bison bison*, *Cricetus cricetus*, *Dama dama* and many many others), the rest of the taxonomical community isn't. In fact the international code of nomenclature had to add an [article specifically allowing them](http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?nfv=&amp;article=23#3.7), to prevent the community from considering them invalids by default.&#xD;&#xA; - Another explanation, maybe less elegant, is that the community erroneously consider Cuvier to have named the genus *Lama*: indeed the [modern sources](http://vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswCFApp/msw/taxon_browser.cfm?msw_id=12515) linking the name to Cuvier's work are pointing at table 1 from book 1 of *Leçons d'anatomie comparée* as the source from the name. But that table is actually written in french (and needless to say, *Lama* is french for *llama*), and indeed I do not seem to find any occurrence in [*Leçons d'anatomie comparée*](http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/6850#/summary) of the word *Lama* where it is employed in any way other than as a vernacular name in french. If it is true, at this point, it doesn't really matter anymore as the name has been employed for more than a century to designate that genus so usage prevails (particularly since Cuvier's work and the usage of the genus name *Lama* predates the first international code of zoological nomenclature).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If in the end the question was: what word to employ in a vernacular context (i. e. non-taxonomical) to designates llamas in latin? I would say that both *glama* and *lama* could be considered, otherwise *auchenia* also makes sense to some extent (it derives from the greek *auchēn* meaning *neck*, and, as far as I know, it has no other meaning than *llama*).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="544" RevisionGUID="3a0d40b1-ce0e-4185-9ca3-044ea60591de" CreationDate="2016-03-18T09:12:18.497" UserId="152" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="To complement @brianpck answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let's state right away the obvious: since all known species of llamas are endemic to South America, it is highly unlikely that there is a classical latin word to name them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wheeler (2005)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1995.tb01037.x) offered a short review of the taxonomical history of llamas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In  1758,  Linnaeus  described  the  two  domestic  New  World  camelids  as *Camelus  glama* “Camelus  peruvianus  Glama  dictus”  (llama)  and *Camelus pacos* “Camelus  peruvianus  laniger  Pacos  dictus”  (alpaca), placing  them  together  in a single  genus  with  the  Old  World  dromedary  and  bactrian  camels, *Camelus dromedarius* and *Camelus bactrianus*. The  two  remaining  New  World  species,  the wild  guanaco  and  vicuña,  were  subsequently  designated *Camelus guanicoe* by Müller  in  1776  and *Camelus vicugna* by  Molina  in  1782.  As  early as 1775, Frisch  proposed  that  the  four  New  World  species  be  placed  in  the  genus *Lama*, but  this  work  is  not  accepted  by  the  International  Commission  on  Zoological Nomenclature  (Hemming,  1985a) and authorship of *Lama* is  credited to Cuvier, 1800  (Hemming,  1985b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the nomenclatural history of llamas is even more complex than this as the [*Mammal Species of the World* database page](http://vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswCFApp/msw/taxon_browser.cfm?msw_id=12515) on the genus *Lama* Cuvier 1800 lists no less than 12 synonyms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Aucheria* F. Cuvier, 1830  &#xD;&#xA;*Auchenia* Illiger, 1811  &#xD;&#xA;*Auchenias* Wagner, 1843  &#xD;&#xA;*Dromedarius* Wagler, 1830  &#xD;&#xA;*Guanaco* Perry, 1811  &#xD;&#xA;*Lacma* Tiedemann, 1804  &#xD;&#xA;*Lama* Frisch, 1775  &#xD;&#xA;*Llacma* Illiger, 1815  &#xD;&#xA;*Llama* Gray, 1852  &#xD;&#xA;*Neoauchenia* Ameghino, 1891  &#xD;&#xA;*Pacos* Gray, 1872  &#xD;&#xA;*Vicunia* Rafinesque, 1815  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To go back to the main point: it is not clear why Linnaeus used *glama* instead of *lama* or *llama* because, at the time, it was not compulsory (nor even habitual) to explain the etymology of a species name. Maybe Linnaeus just misheard the Quechua word, we'll never really know. However the reason why the genus name was changed to *Lama* could be because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Frisch and Cuvier wanted to correct Linnaeus mistake (if it is indeed a mistake)&#xD;&#xA; - They wanted to avoid a tautonymous name: while Linnaeus seems to have been fond of them (being the author of *Alces alces*, *Bison bison*, *Cricetus cricetus*, *Dama dama* and many many others), the rest of the taxonomical community isn't. In fact the international code of nomenclature had to add an [article specifically allowing them](http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?nfv=&amp;article=23#3.7), to prevent the community from considering them invalids by default.&#xD;&#xA; - Another explanation, maybe less elegant, is that the community erroneously consider Cuvier to have named the genus *Lama*: indeed the [modern sources](http://vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswCFApp/msw/taxon_browser.cfm?msw_id=12515) linking the name to Cuvier's work are pointing at table 1 from book 1 of *Leçons d'anatomie comparée* as the source from the name. But that table is actually written in french (and needless to say, *Lama* is french for *llama*), and indeed I do not seem to find any occurrence in [*Leçons d'anatomie comparée*](http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/6850#/summary) of the word *Lama* where it is employed in any way other than as a vernacular name in french. If it is true, at this point, it doesn't really matter anymore as the name has been employed for more than a century to designate that genus so usage prevails (particularly since Cuvier's work and the usage of the genus name *Lama* predates the first international code of zoological nomenclature).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If in the end the question was: what word to employ in a vernacular context (i. e. non-taxonomical) to designates llamas in latin? I would say that both *glama* and *lama* could be considered, otherwise *auchenia* also makes sense to some extent (it derives from the greek *auchēn* meaning *neck*, and, as far as I know, it has no other meaning than *llama*).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="544" RevisionGUID="a596a182-e463-485d-9e16-bdf32b2bdc1e" CreationDate="2016-03-18T09:31:52.310" UserId="152" Comment="added 365 characters in body" Text="To complement @brianpck answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let's state right away the obvious: since all known species of llamas are endemic to South America, it is highly unlikely that there is a classical latin word to name them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wheeler (2005)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1995.tb01037.x) offered a short review of the taxonomical history of llamas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In  1758,  Linnaeus  described  the  two  domestic  New  World  camelids  as *Camelus  glama* “Camelus  peruvianus  Glama  dictus”  (llama)  and *Camelus pacos* “Camelus  peruvianus  laniger  Pacos  dictus”  (alpaca), placing  them  together  in a single  genus  with  the  Old  World  dromedary  and  bactrian  camels, *Camelus dromedarius* and *Camelus bactrianus*. The  two  remaining  New  World  species,  the wild  guanaco  and  vicuña,  were  subsequently  designated *Camelus guanicoe* by Müller  in  1776  and *Camelus vicugna* by  Molina  in  1782.  As  early as 1775, Frisch  proposed  that  the  four  New  World  species  be  placed  in  the  genus *Lama*, but  this  work  is  not  accepted  by  the  International  Commission  on  Zoological Nomenclature  (Hemming,  1985a) and authorship of *Lama* is  credited to Cuvier, 1800  (Hemming,  1985b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the nomenclatural history of llamas is even more complex than this as the [*Mammal Species of the World* database page](http://vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswCFApp/msw/taxon_browser.cfm?msw_id=12515) on the genus *Lama* Cuvier 1800 lists no less than 12 synonyms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Aucheria* F. Cuvier, 1830  &#xD;&#xA;*Auchenia* Illiger, 1811  &#xD;&#xA;*Auchenias* Wagner, 1843  &#xD;&#xA;*Dromedarius* Wagler, 1830  &#xD;&#xA;*Guanaco* Perry, 1811  &#xD;&#xA;*Lacma* Tiedemann, 1804  &#xD;&#xA;*Lama* Frisch, 1775  &#xD;&#xA;*Llacma* Illiger, 1815  &#xD;&#xA;*Llama* Gray, 1852  &#xD;&#xA;*Neoauchenia* Ameghino, 1891  &#xD;&#xA;*Pacos* Gray, 1872  &#xD;&#xA;*Vicunia* Rafinesque, 1815  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To go back to the main point: it is not clear why Linnaeus used *glama* instead of *lama* or *llama* because, at the time, it was not compulsory (nor even habitual) to explain the etymology of a species name. Maybe Linnaeus just misheard the Quechua word, we'll never really know. However the reason why the genus name was changed to *Lama* could be because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Frisch and Cuvier wanted to correct Linnaeus mistake (if it is indeed a mistake)&#xD;&#xA; - They wanted to avoid a tautonymous name: while Linnaeus seems to have been fond of them (being the author of *Alces alces*, *Bison bison*, *Cricetus cricetus*, *Dama dama* and many many others), the rest of the taxonomical community isn't. In fact the international code of nomenclature had to add an [article specifically allowing them](http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?nfv=&amp;article=23#3.7), to prevent the community from considering them invalids by default.&#xD;&#xA; - Another explanation, maybe less elegant, is that the community erroneously consider Cuvier to have named the genus *Lama*: indeed the [modern sources](http://vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswCFApp/msw/taxon_browser.cfm?msw_id=12515) linking the name to Cuvier's work are pointing at table 1 from book 1 of *Leçons d'anatomie comparée* as the source from the name. But that table is actually written in french (and needless to say, *Lama* is french for *llama*), and indeed I do not seem to find any occurrence in [*Leçons d'anatomie comparée*](http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/6850#/summary) of the word *Lama* where it is employed in any way other than as a vernacular name in french. If it is true, at this point, it doesn't really matter anymore as the name has been employed for more than a century to designate that genus so usage prevails (particularly since Cuvier's work and the usage of the genus name *Lama* predates the first international code of zoological nomenclature).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If in the end the question was: what word to employ in a vernacular context (i. e. non-taxonomical) to designates llamas in latin? I would say that both *glama* and *lama* could be considered, though it might be worth noting that the latin version of wikipedia uses *lama*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lama glama (Linnaeus anno 1758), vulgo lama, est mammal familiae Camelidarum. Lama est indigena Americae Meridionalis et Andium montium, accurate Peruviae et Aequatoriae.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Source: [https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lama_glama](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lama_glama)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise *auchenia* also makes sense to some extent (it derives from the greek *auchēn* meaning *neck*, and, as far as I know, it has no other meaning than *llama*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="544" RevisionGUID="b711e1bf-61d1-402b-aecc-cfc072603bcd" CreationDate="2016-03-18T09:48:38.213" UserId="152" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="To complement @brianpck answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let's state right away the obvious: since all known species of llamas are endemic to South America, it is highly unlikely that there is a classical latin word to name them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wheeler (2005)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1995.tb01037.x) offered a short review of the taxonomical history of llamas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In  1758,  Linnaeus  described  the  two  domestic  New  World  camelids  as *Camelus  glama* “Camelus  peruvianus  Glama  dictus”  (llama)  and *Camelus pacos* “Camelus  peruvianus  laniger  Pacos  dictus”  (alpaca), placing  them  together  in a single  genus  with  the  Old  World  dromedary  and  bactrian  camels, *Camelus dromedarius* and *Camelus bactrianus*. The  two  remaining  New  World  species,  the wild  guanaco  and  vicuña,  were  subsequently  designated *Camelus guanicoe* by Müller  in  1776  and *Camelus vicugna* by  Molina  in  1782.  As  early as 1775, Frisch  proposed  that  the  four  New  World  species  be  placed  in  the  genus *Lama*, but  this  work  is  not  accepted  by  the  International  Commission  on  Zoological Nomenclature  (Hemming,  1985a) and authorship of *Lama* is  credited to Cuvier, 1800  (Hemming,  1985b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the nomenclatural history of llamas is even more complex than this as the [*Mammal Species of the World* database page](http://vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswCFApp/msw/taxon_browser.cfm?msw_id=12515) on the genus *Lama* Cuvier 1800 lists no less than 12 synonyms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Aucheria* F. Cuvier, 1830  &#xD;&#xA;*Auchenia* Illiger, 1811  &#xD;&#xA;*Auchenias* Wagner, 1843  &#xD;&#xA;*Dromedarius* Wagler, 1830  &#xD;&#xA;*Guanaco* Perry, 1811  &#xD;&#xA;*Lacma* Tiedemann, 1804  &#xD;&#xA;*Lama* Frisch, 1775  &#xD;&#xA;*Llacma* Illiger, 1815  &#xD;&#xA;*Llama* Gray, 1852  &#xD;&#xA;*Neoauchenia* Ameghino, 1891  &#xD;&#xA;*Pacos* Gray, 1872  &#xD;&#xA;*Vicunia* Rafinesque, 1815  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To go back to the main point: it is not clear why Linnaeus used *glama* instead of *lama* or *llama* because, at the time, it was not compulsory (nor even habitual) to explain the etymology of a species name. Maybe Linnaeus just misheard the Quechua word, we'll never really know. However the reason why the genus name was changed to *Lama* could be because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Frisch and Cuvier wanted to correct Linnaeus mistake (if it is indeed a mistake)&#xD;&#xA; - They wanted to avoid a tautonymous name: while Linnaeus seems to have been fond of them (being the author of *Alces alces*, *Bison bison*, *Cricetus cricetus*, *Dama dama* and many many others), the rest of the taxonomical community isn't. In fact the international code of nomenclature had to add an [article specifically allowing them](http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?nfv=&amp;article=23#3.7), to prevent the community from considering them invalids by default.&#xD;&#xA; - Another explanation, maybe less elegant, is that the community erroneously consider Cuvier to have named the genus *Lama*: indeed the [modern sources](http://vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswCFApp/msw/taxon_browser.cfm?msw_id=12515) linking the name to Cuvier's work are pointing at table 1 from book 1 of *Leçons d'anatomie comparée* as the source from the name. But that table is actually written in french (and needless to say, *Lama* is french for *llama*), and indeed I do not seem to find any occurrence in [*Leçons d'anatomie comparée*](http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/6850#/summary) of the word *Lama* where it is employed in any way other than as a vernacular name in french. If it is true, at this point, it doesn't really matter anymore as the name has been employed for more than a century to designate that genus so usage prevails (particularly since Cuvier's work and the usage of the genus name *Lama* predates the first international code of zoological nomenclature).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If in the end the question was: what word to employ in a vernacular context (i. e. non-taxonomical) to designates llamas in latin? I would say that both *glama* and *lama* could be considered, though it might be worth noting that the latin version of wikipedia uses *lama*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lama glama (Linnaeus anno 1758), **vulgo lama**, est mammal familiae Camelidarum. Lama est indigena Americae Meridionalis et Andium montium, accurate Peruviae et Aequatoriae.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Source: [https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lama_glama](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lama_glama). Emphasis mine.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise *auchenia* also makes sense to some extent (it derives from the greek *auchēn* meaning *neck*, and, as far as I know, it has no other meaning than *llama*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="545" RevisionGUID="b38ce4ef-5c5c-44ac-ac9d-cbff42a11f78" CreationDate="2016-03-18T13:59:15.573" UserId="278" Text="I'd like to offer an addition, which was originally posted as a comment but requested to be turned into an answer by OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As explained in the other two answers, _iste_, _ille_ and _hic_ are used to refer back to the items of a previous enumeration. In that sense, &quot;the former ... the latter&quot; is a perfectly acceptable translation. However, in your example this sounds a bit formal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is nothing, but the sea and air.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The latter swollen with clouds and the former threatening with waves...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, as [C. M. Weimer](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/534/278) remarks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] using &quot;the latter...the former&quot; in English actually emphasizes the abnormality of the former, while in Latin there is no such connotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, it is clear which of &quot;swollen with clouds&quot; and &quot;theathening with waves&quot; refers to &quot;sea&quot; and which one refers to &quot;air&quot;, so you could simply go with the more general &quot;_one / the other_&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is nothing, but the sea and air.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **One** swollen with clouds, **the other** threatening with waves...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This preserves the neutrality of the Latin formulation and sounds much more natural to me, at the expense of a less literal translation (which may or may not be what you are after).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could even go for an even more free interpretation, with something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is nothing but the sea, threatening with waves, and air, swollen with clouds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this is probably easiest to understand and arguably the most natural way to state it in English, it loses the [chiasmus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiasmus) from the original text." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="546" RevisionGUID="97e0a506-fe33-4d51-98e4-f2ffa3e40d2c" CreationDate="2016-03-18T15:51:02.623" UserId="68" Text="Well, as I read more of Hyginus, I'm beginning to get a sense of at least some places where the Latin feels inelegant. For example, in &quot;Parerga [Herculis],&quot; he writes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Achelous] cum Hercule propter Dejaniræ conjugium cum pugnaret, in taurum se convertit, cui Hercules cornu detraxit, quod cornu Hesperidibus sive Nymphis donavit, quod deæ pomis replerunt et cornu copiæ appellarunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The string of relatives (*cui . . . quod . . . quod*) seems awkward enough to lead me to want to rewrite it (&quot;Hercules cornu detractum Hesperidibus donavit, quod deæ. . . .&quot;, for example), though I'm sure my rewrite is just as flawed in other ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, this is just a feeling, so if anybody knows better, or has other examples, I'd still love to see them!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="547" RevisionGUID="29f4377d-dc52-4dbd-b622-96e2a51a3552" CreationDate="2016-03-18T21:30:46.787" UserId="68" Text="In his account of Œdipus, Hyginus writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Œdipus] fortissimus præter ceteros erat eique per invidiam æquales objiciebant eum subditum esse Polybo, eo quod Polybus tam clemens esset et ille impudens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt at a literal translation would read something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Œdipus] was far stronger than the others, and out of envy his rivals would mock him, [saying] that he had been falsely substituted as Polybus' [son], since Polybus was so mild and he [so] shameless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mary Grant's translation in *The Fables of Hyginus* reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Œdipus] was courageous beyond the rest, and through envy his compnaionns taunted him with not being Polybus’ son, since Polybus was so mild, and he so assertive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I see that my translation is more or less correct. But what I don't understand is how *eo* is working in *eo quod Polybus tam clemens esset it ille impudens*. Both my translation and Grant's seem to ignore it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anybody enlighten me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1930" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="547" RevisionGUID="29f4377d-dc52-4dbd-b622-96e2a51a3552" CreationDate="2016-03-18T21:30:46.787" UserId="68" Text="What does &quot;eo&quot; mean in this passage of Hyginus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1931" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="547" RevisionGUID="29f4377d-dc52-4dbd-b622-96e2a51a3552" CreationDate="2016-03-18T21:30:46.787" UserId="68" Text="|vocabulary|declension|hyginus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="548" RevisionGUID="bb9e132b-d71f-4d5e-8227-8860ad74c31f" CreationDate="2016-03-18T21:45:00.520" UserId="68" Text="James Kingsbery's answer is exactly correct. If two things &quot;belong&quot; together, then *-que* is appropriate. If you were going shopping, you might be asked to pick up *panem lactemque* (&quot;bread and milk&quot;), but if you were talking about what you saw on your walk through the countryside you'd be more likely to talk about *boves et rusticos* (&quot;cows and peasants&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="547" RevisionGUID="9b23b462-7978-4302-b5a7-38d0969bd880" CreationDate="2016-03-18T23:31:41.760" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="In his account of Œdipus, Hyginus writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Œdipus] fortissimus præter ceteros erat eique per invidiam æquales objiciebant eum subditum esse Polybo, eo quod Polybus tam clemens esset et ille impudens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt at a literal translation would read something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Œdipus] was far stronger than the others, and out of envy his rivals would mock him, [saying] that he had been falsely substituted as Polybus' [son], since Polybus was so mild and he [so] shameless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mary Grant's translation in *The Fables of Hyginus* reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Œdipus] was courageous beyond the rest, and through envy his companions taunted him with not being Polybus’ son, since Polybus was so mild, and he so assertive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I see that my translation is more or less correct. But what I don't understand is how *eo* is working in *eo quod Polybus tam clemens esset it ille impudens*. Both my translation and Grant's seem to ignore it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anybody enlighten me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="549" RevisionGUID="da2bee52-61d2-4466-b888-dc6c22be77cb" CreationDate="2016-03-18T23:57:10.473" UserId="79" Text="Let me expand my comment into an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most natural interpretation that occurs to me is that *eo* is the ablative of *id*.&#xD;&#xA;This ablative is causal, meaning &quot;for that reason&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I believe you could substitute *ea causa* if you wanted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate the passage as &quot;&amp;hellip;mocked him for the reason that Polybus&amp;hellip;&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Here &quot;for the reason&quot; is *eo* and &quot;that&quot; is *quod*, roughly.&#xD;&#xA;If there was no *eo*, I would translate it as &quot;&amp;hellip;mocked him since Polybus&amp;hellip;&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Here *quod* means &quot;since&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find *eo quod* a somewhat unnatural construction.&#xD;&#xA;One could argue that it is just Hyginus' (bad) style and ignore *eo* altogether, but I would not omit *eo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *eo* is not necessary but it does have a function:&#xD;&#xA;it practically adds emphasis to *quod*.&#xD;&#xA;The best translation is a matter of taste, but I think a bit of added emphasis preserves the spirit.&#xD;&#xA;I am not a native speaker of English, so I will leave it for others to judge which English expression best captures the idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="7bbf38e1-b337-4af9-8620-05209d87726f" CreationDate="2016-03-19T01:07:14.053" UserId="9" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="Obviously, you can check a dictionary. If you can't or don't feel like it, here are a few &quot;rules of thumb&quot; I use. I can't guarantee these will work in all cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you're an English speaker, look at a related English word from Latin. If it's spelled with &quot;j,&quot; it was probably consonantal &quot;j&quot; in Latin as well. For example, we can compare Latin MAIVS to English &quot;major,&quot; Latin OBIECTVM to English &quot;object,&quot; and so on.&#xD;&#xA;2. Generally, derivatives of IACIO (&quot;throw&quot;) are pronounced with /j/. There's a lot of them, so this is somewhat useful to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note: unlike most long consonants, phonetically long /jj/ was normally not written double in Latin. In addition, it seems that written I may have corresponded to /ji/ or /jji/ in some cases in words like [*TRAICIO*][1]  &quot;throw over&quot; (composed of TRANS + IACIO). This means that you actually have to choose between five options for written *i*: /i/ /j/, /jj/ /ji/ and /jji/. (Or at least six if the source doesn't use macrons!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some of what W. Sidney Allen wrote about consonantal I in *Vox Latina,* a book I would say is a must-read for anyone interested in Classical Latin pronunciation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One important peculiarity of the latin *i*-consonant is to be noted.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the interior of a word, this sound rarely occurred singly between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vowels. Where once it had been present, it was lost prehistorically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (thus Latin *trēs* beside Sanskrit *trayas*). With a few exceptions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; noted below, whenever a single, intervocalic *i*-consonant is written,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it stands for a *double* consonant, i.e. [yy]. Thus *aio, maior,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; peior, Troia* stand for *aiio, maiior,* etc. This is quite clear from various types of evidence. It is specifically mentioned by Quintilian and other grammarians, who also tell us that Cicero and Caesar used in fact to spell such words with *ii* (†Qu. i, 4, 11; †Priscian, K. ii, 14) and it is supported by frequent inscriptional spellings (e.g. `PompeIius, cuiIus, eiius, maiIorem`). In Italian a double consonant has been maintained in, for example, *peggio* from *peius.* Moreover, the consonant must be double in order to account for the fact that the preceding syllable is always metrically heavy; for the actual vowel is *short*—this is specifically mentioned by Ter. Maurus (†K. vi, 343), and is further evident from other considerations: e.g. *maior* is connected with *măgis,* being derived from *măg-iōs.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([p. 39][2]; it's page 51 in the linked PDF)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it appears sources that use a macron in &quot;māius&quot; (greater) are assigning false quantity to the vowel; according to Allen, the actual pronunciation would have been /majjus/ with a short &quot;a&quot; and a long &quot;j.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that &quot;Maius&quot; was probably pronounced the same as &quot;maius&quot;; I'm not sure why you learned that they were different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/traicio#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ganino.com/files/Latin%20Copyright%20Books/29%20Vox%20Latina%20The%20Pronunciation%20of%20Classical%20Latin.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="550" RevisionGUID="c6c9b4d3-14ce-4e2e-856d-b7290b2a464c" CreationDate="2016-03-19T02:23:53.370" UserId="78" Text="&quot;The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog&quot; is an English pangram, i.e. a phrase or sentence that contains all the letters of the alphabet (Wiki). Pangrams are often used in font typography to show off all the letters used in that font, with the purpose of trying to fit as many letters in together naturally in the shortest meaningful phrase or sentence. While there are shorter now, for English &quot;quick brown fox...&quot; accomplishes that nicely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is simple. Has someone already done this for Latin? As you can imagine, Googling would be a nightmare, since Latin refers to both the alphabet and the language, and even where people refer to the language, they often just discuss translating the English phrase above, which doesn't really do any good in getting to a nice, Latin pangram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus points if it's pure Classical Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1938" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="550" RevisionGUID="c6c9b4d3-14ce-4e2e-856d-b7290b2a464c" CreationDate="2016-03-19T02:23:53.370" UserId="78" Text="Is there a Latin version of &quot;Quick brown fox...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1939" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="550" RevisionGUID="c6c9b4d3-14ce-4e2e-856d-b7290b2a464c" CreationDate="2016-03-19T02:23:53.370" UserId="78" Text="|alphabet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="551" RevisionGUID="f224841d-2c22-472f-9c05-0966f9492d2d" CreationDate="2016-03-19T03:48:05.687" UserId="79" Text="Not best of my elegiac couplets, but here goes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sic tibi rex iuvenis gracili ore piloque Kalendis  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;hac forma lyrica littera quisque datur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Free translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Young king with simple face and hair, this is how you are given every letter through this lyrical form on the first day of the month." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="551" RevisionGUID="6adca1c9-2def-45ea-aa4a-858d9a9dfdca" CreationDate="2016-03-19T04:18:24.373" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="Not best of my elegiac couplets, but here goes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sic tibi rex iuvenis gracili ore piloque Kalendis  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;hac forma lyrica littera quaeque datur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Free translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Young king with simple face and hair, this is how you are given every letter through this lyrical form on the first day of the month." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="552" RevisionGUID="31258a7a-0e85-417a-b946-2e414b60f1d8" CreationDate="2016-03-19T05:57:48.760" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[[ Etymonline: ]](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=gerund&amp;searchmode=none)&#xD;&#xA;1510s, from Latin gerundum &quot;to be carried out,&quot; gerundive of *gerere* &quot;**to bear, carry**&quot; (see gest). In Latin, a verbal noun used for all cases of the infinitive but the nominative; applied in English to verbal nouns in -ing.      &#xD;&#xA;**[1.]** &quot;So called because according to the old grammarians, the gerund prop[erly] expressed the doing or the necessity of doing something&quot; [Century Dictionary]. ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 does not convince me, because it describes other verb forms also (eg: the imperative). So how and what do the ‘gerund' and 'gerundive‘ **bear, carry**?  What underlying semantic notions connect *gerere* to this grammatical term?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1943" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="552" RevisionGUID="31258a7a-0e85-417a-b946-2e414b60f1d8" CreationDate="2016-03-19T05:57:48.760" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How does the gerund 'bear' or 'carry'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1944" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="552" RevisionGUID="31258a7a-0e85-417a-b946-2e414b60f1d8" CreationDate="2016-03-19T05:57:48.760" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|terminology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="551" RevisionGUID="cc2f0c15-b8ef-4bd6-a3a8-859ba7469bd1" CreationDate="2016-03-19T15:46:48.180" UserId="79" Comment="added 372 characters in body" Text="Not best of my elegiac couplets, but here goes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sic tibi rex iuvenis gracili ore piloque Kalendis  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;hac forma lyrica littera quaeque datur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Free translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Young king with simple face and hair, this is how you are given every letter through this lyrical form on the first day of the month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I never use 'j' when writing Latin, but the couplet does contain one if you are inclined to use it (*juvenis*).&#xD;&#xA;The only missing letter is 'z', but that is [not much of a Latin letter](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/34/79).&#xD;&#xA;Also, not all vowels are included in both lengths.&#xD;&#xA;If you would prefer to have a 'z' and macrons, let me know and I will see what I can do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1958" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="508" RevisionGUID="e4886ffc-85ab-4b1d-9935-f64124dd5f6f" CreationDate="2016-03-19T17:42:00.890" UserId="68" Comment="edited tags" Text="|example-request|style|hyginus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="555" RevisionGUID="a96c3135-71b9-4dac-bdfc-3373af838d34" CreationDate="2016-03-19T22:04:19.740" UserId="68" Text="My earlier answer (my first Latin poetry ever!) left out the letter *x*. Let's try this one. I omit *y* as an effeminate Græcism but include *v* and *j*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Illecebróse spintria, quid jactantia pródest?  &#xD;&#xA;Karthágó breve stat, fax avidé moritur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A loose translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Enticing rent-boy, what good will boasting do you?  &#xD;&#xA;Carthage stands but a short time, and the torch is eager to die." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1966" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="555" RevisionGUID="81ff6589-3e4a-40b7-9c17-2bdc719ca8ae" CreationDate="2016-03-19T22:06:10.473" UserId="68" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:68,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joel Derfner&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="555" RevisionGUID="f8d8cbb5-412f-4a79-a8d5-deb65344e5da" CreationDate="2016-03-19T22:22:13.100" UserId="68" Comment="added 363 characters in body" Text="My earlier answer (my first Latin poetry ever!) left out the letter *x*. Let's try this one. I omit *y* as an effeminate Græcism but include *v* and *j*. I would offer, as @JoonasIlmavirta did, to edit so as to represent all vowel lengths, but honestly I'm not sure I'm capable of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Illecebróse spintria, quid jactantia pródest?  &#xD;&#xA;Væ! Karthágó occidit, fax avidé moritur!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A loose translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Enticing rent-boy, what good will boasting do you?  &#xD;&#xA;Alas! Carthage falls, the torch is eager to die!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keeping my fingers crossed that there are no scansion errors. I wasn't sure about treating the elided syllable in &quot;Karthágó occidit&quot; as short, but then I thought about &quot;Ódí et&quot; and &quot;quáré id&quot; in &quot;Ódí et amó&quot; and figured I was probably okay...." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1968" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="555" RevisionGUID="ec7adf42-11e0-45a0-9e32-1e7f04682eef" CreationDate="2016-03-19T22:22:20.253" UserId="68" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:68,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joel Derfner&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="556" RevisionGUID="8eb2bb66-8ea0-4199-b176-b45140be0494" CreationDate="2016-03-20T00:20:17.633" UserId="78" Text="First, while *gerere* can mean &quot;to bear, carry&quot;, it also can simply mean &quot;to do*, as in the *res gestae*, not &quot;things carried,&quot; but &quot;things done.&quot; This stems from a meaning close to English usage, where we have &quot;to carry&quot; and &quot;to carry out,&quot; where the latter simply means &quot;to do.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name was chosen to connote the usage of gerunds and gerundives. Since gerunds come directly from the verb, the name gerund is used to describe how they are conceptualized. Let's take *loqui* as our example. To get from *loqui* to *loquendum*, someone would have to perform an act of *loqui*. In other words, they would have to *carry out (= do) the act of speaking*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gerundives too originate similarly, but passively and in the future. *Verba loquenda* are not &quot;carried words,&quot; but rather &quot;words to be carried out,&quot; which is equal to &quot;words to be spoken.&quot; This is also where the necessity in gerundives come from. Things that are to be done in the future yet are currently not done *must* be done. See [Cerberus](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/414/why-does-a-future-passive-participle-have-a-sense-of-necessity/416#416)' post on that for more information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="555" RevisionGUID="39ce8dc9-f866-4a92-b9e7-14ee543d41e1" CreationDate="2016-03-20T00:56:07.333" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="My earlier answer (my first Latin poetry ever!) left out the letter *x*. Let's try this one. I omit *y* as an effeminate Græcism but include *v* and *j*. I would offer, as @JoonasIlmavirta did, to edit so as to represent all vowel lengths, but honestly I'm not sure I'm capable of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Illecebróse spintria, quid jactantia pródest?  &#xD;&#xA;Cadet Karthágó, fax avidé moritur!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A loose translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Enticing rent-boy, what good will boasting do you?  &#xD;&#xA;Carthage falls, the torch is eager to die!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keeping my fingers crossed that there are no scansion errors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="557" RevisionGUID="22e365e3-83c9-40a3-a752-ef440967add7" CreationDate="2016-03-20T01:01:33.867" UserId="78" Text="The original word is not *fond-/fund-*, but *sphondylium*, from the Greek σφονδύλιον. The original pronunciation would have been &quot;sp-,&quot; but as the Greek phi softened, it turned into an /f/, and the /s/ in /sf-/ is masked by the /f/, which makes it sound redundant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to σφονδύλιον, which is derived from σφόνδυλος, the normal Greek word for 'vertebra.' From the resemblance of verterbra, the word is also applied to mussels and oysters. Not coincidentally, the English for oyster comes the Greek ὄστρεον (via the Latin ostreum) 'oyster,' which as you can tell itself derives from ὀστέον meaning 'bone.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite σφόνδυλος meaning oyster in Greek, there is one occurrence (listed in LSJ, but perhaps elsewhere, too) of the word meaning 'verterbra' (ἵνα δὲ οἱ σφόνδυλοι καταλήγουσιν &quot;where the verterbra end&quot;, Jul. Poll. 2.182).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as the plant goes, it cannot mean scallops/mussels/oysters here, since it's in the book on vegetables. Moreover, the section comes immediately before carrots and parsnips, which secure their identification. Walter Hill (1936) points out that the recipes are not only perfectly consistent with cow-parsnips, but resemble the recipes for carrots and parsnips. Scallops would be in book 9 under seafood and mushrooms in book 7." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="557" RevisionGUID="d24c39df-da87-4675-ab42-94ec8bd16acf" CreationDate="2016-03-20T01:15:07.353" UserId="78" Comment="added 797 characters in body" Text="The original word is not *fond-/fund-*, but *sphondylium*, from the Greek [σφονδύλιον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*s111%3Aentry+group%3D175%3Aentry%3Dsfondu%2Flion). The original pronunciation would have been &quot;sp-,&quot; but as the Greek phi softened, it turned into an /f/, and the /s/ in /sf-/ is masked by the /f/, which makes it sound redundant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to σφονδύλιον, which is derived from [σφόνδυλος](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*s111%3Aentry+group%3D176%3Aentry%3Dsfo%2Fndulos), the normal Greek word for 'vertebra.' From the resemblance of verterbra, the word is also applied to mussels and oysters. Not coincidentally, the English for oyster comes the Greek [ὄστρεον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*o%3Aentry+group%3D76%3Aentry%3Do%29%2Fstreon) (via the Latin [ostreum/ostrea](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DO%3Aentry+group%3D33%3Aentry%3Dostrea)) 'oyster,' which as you can tell itself derives from [ὀστέον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*o%3Aentry+group%3D75%3Aentry%3Do%29ste%2Fon) meaning 'bone.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite σφόνδυλος meaning oyster in Greek, there is one occurrence (listed in LSJ, but perhaps elsewhere, too) of the word meaning 'verterbra' (ἵνα δὲ οἱ σφόνδυλοι καταλήγουσιν &quot;where the verterbra end&quot;, Jul. Poll. 2.182).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as the plant goes, it cannot mean scallops/mussels/oysters here, since it's in the book on vegetables. Moreover, the section comes immediately before carrots and parsnips, which secure their identification. [Walter Hill](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Apicius/3*.html) points out that the recipes are not only perfectly consistent with cow-parsnips, but resemble the recipes for carrots and parsnips. Scallops would be in book 9 under seafood and mushrooms in book 7." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="242" RevisionGUID="5b2cddde-4fd3-4093-93f9-0859e85e55c1" CreationDate="2016-03-20T01:31:45.030" UserId="78" Comment="Dropping the final -s after a possessive apostrophe is not a typo, but a stylistic convention; reverting to the author's original usage" Text="Apicius' *de re coquinaria* (Roman recipe book believed to have been compiled in the 4th/5th century CE) contains, in the book 3 &quot;*cepuros*&quot; on vegetables, a paragraph ([XX, recipes 115 to 121](https://archive.org/stream/ita-bnc-in2-00001189-001#page/n30/mode/2up)) entitled &quot;*sphondyli vel fonduli*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book having been copied again and again during all middle-age, alternative spellings/titles exist such as [*funduli sive sfondili*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/apicius/apicius3.shtml), [*spondyli vel fonduli, sphondyli vel funduli, spondili vel fonduli*, ...](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm#bkiii_chxx).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because these recipes are in the vegetable section, *sphondyli* is believed to refer to cow-parsnip, or parsnip according to some authors. However early in the book a recipe of scallops uses the same word to designate the scallops ([*isicia ex spondylis*](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm#r46)). Finally, according to various dictionaries, *sp*[h]*ondylus* means alternatively &quot;a kind of mushroom&quot;, &quot;a vertebra&quot;, &quot;the muscle of an oyster or another bivalve&quot; or &quot;a kind of muscle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Needless to say, I'm confused and a few questions arise from this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Are we sure (cow-)parsnips are the *sp*[h]*ondyli* meant in that [series of recipes](https://archive.org/stream/ita-bnc-in2-00001189-001#page/n30/mode/2up)? &#xD;&#xA;* What is the etymology of this word for it to have such different meanings? &#xD;&#xA;* And what does *fonduli*/*funduli* mean? (None of the translations of *de re coquinaria* I read have tried to translate it.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1974" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="242" RevisionGUID="5b2cddde-4fd3-4093-93f9-0859e85e55c1" CreationDate="2016-03-20T01:31:45.030" UserId="78" Comment="Dropping the final -s after a possessive apostrophe is not a typo, but a stylistic convention; reverting to the author's original usage" Text="Apicius' &quot;sp[h]ondyli vel fonduli&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="415" RevisionGUID="94fa94d2-7eee-481d-92e0-6371cd5460dd" CreationDate="2016-03-20T01:32:37.107" UserId="124" Comment="Fix puer gender from feminine to masculine" Text="I'm not entirely sure, but it could be that the future passive participle simply originated as a shorthand/alternate translation for the passive periphrastic, which is defined to have a sense of necessity. In your example, *Puer librum legendum habet*, you could just as easily have extended it to *Puer librum quem legendum est habet*, meaning &quot;The boy has a book which has to be read,&quot; and changing it to the passive periphrastic. The future passive participle seems to follow naturally as a shortening of this form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="416" RevisionGUID="8bd4df02-172f-4065-a984-f694a6b69985" CreationDate="2016-03-20T02:44:00.263" UserId="30" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="I see now that some people call this a &quot;future passive participle&quot;, but it is conventionally called a gerundive. So I wouldn't think of &quot;going to be read&quot; at all if I were to translate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A sense of prediction or obligation is inherent in any gerundive. The most literal translation is as follows—by most literal I mean the one that works in most situations, especially in a neutral context, and that is the least dependent on context in general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Puer librum legendum habet. — &quot;The boy has a book to read.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, *to* + infinitive can express that something will happen or should happen. Although this English construction and the gerundive are not related, they both happen to reflect this double modality: probability (*will happen*) and desirability (*should happen*). Necessity can be a kind of desirability (&quot;this room needs to be cleaned&quot;) or a kind of probability (&quot;random DNA mutations are necessary for cancer to develop&quot;). I beg your forgiveness for quoting myself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is a complicated issue, and one that is still not fully understood by linguists, or so I believe. In short: there is a tendency in many languages for words to shift in meaning between *probability* and *desirability*. This tendency is apparently strongest in certain verbs that are used without specifying who the judge is, which includes passive verb forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — [Why do we say “was supposed to” for “should have”?](http://english.stackexchange.com/a/21852/3036)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive always has this double, shifting connotation. In some contexts one kind of modality prevails, in other contexts the other. And with dominant gerundives, such as in gerundive constructions, neither seems to prevail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Floribus capiendis* Eurydice mordetur serpente." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="555" RevisionGUID="e684754d-a646-4664-9493-1e53fbefff7c" CreationDate="2016-03-20T04:01:28.383" UserId="68" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="My earlier answer (my first Latin poetry ever!) left out the letter *x*. Let's try this one. I omit *y* as an effeminate Græcism but include *v* and *j*. I would offer, as @JoonasIlmavirta did, to edit so as to represent all vowel lengths, but honestly I'm not sure I'm capable of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Illecebróse spintria, quid properás jactáre?  &#xD;&#xA;Karthágó interiit, fax avidé moritur!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A loose translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Enticing rent-boy, why do you hurry to boast?  &#xD;&#xA;Carthage passed away, the torch is eager to die!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to keep editing this until it's free of scansion errors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="555" RevisionGUID="5a361dd1-e1b6-4293-b94c-ee9f8c2437fa" CreationDate="2016-03-20T04:14:13.367" UserId="68" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="My earlier answer (my first Latin poetry ever!) left out the letter *x*. Let's try this one. I omit *y* as an effeminate Græcism but include *v* and *j*. I would offer, as @JoonasIlmavirta did, to edit so as to represent all vowel lengths, but honestly I'm not sure I'm capable of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Illecebróse spintria, quid properás jactáre?  &#xD;&#xA;Karthágó interiit, fax avidé moritur!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A loose translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Enticing rent-boy, why do you hurry to boast?  &#xD;&#xA;Carthage passed away, the torch is eager to die!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to keep editing this damn thing until it's free of scansion errors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="558" RevisionGUID="77eac6aa-9735-4407-a600-598410646625" CreationDate="2016-03-20T04:18:46.007" UserId="68" Text="I've read in various places that Latin, too, encodes emphasis in word order—for example that the first and last positions in the sentence get particular stress (especially the first). Unfortunately I don't remember any of the places I read that, so I can't, alas, be more helpful than this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="559" RevisionGUID="37aae41b-6495-460f-ad21-b8b80d262ff2" CreationDate="2016-03-20T05:49:56.883" UserId="289" Text="When using the dative of a noun in combination with a form of the verb _esse_ to indicate possession, should the verb be in the same number as the subject or as the predicate noun(s) when there is a disagreement between the two? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, which are correct?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Matching the subject numerically**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Puellis sunt rosa._ (The girls have a rose.)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Discipulo est multa pocula._ (The pupil has many cups.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...or...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Matching the predicate numerically**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Puellae sunt rosae._ (The girl has a rose.)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Discipulis est poculum parvum._ (The pupils have a small cup.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="559" RevisionGUID="37aae41b-6495-460f-ad21-b8b80d262ff2" CreationDate="2016-03-20T05:49:56.883" UserId="289" Text="Who do I match numerically when using the possessive dative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="559" RevisionGUID="37aae41b-6495-460f-ad21-b8b80d262ff2" CreationDate="2016-03-20T05:49:56.883" UserId="289" Text="|predicate|dative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="560" RevisionGUID="3f377931-02e1-4e31-ba79-522165529d34" CreationDate="2016-03-20T06:04:45.960" UserId="40" Text="What you're calling a &quot;predicate noun&quot; is, in fact, the subject. In the Latin construction, unlike the English translation, the thing possessed is the subject, so the verb has to agree with it. E.g. in *Puellis est rosa*, even though this can be translated as &quot;The girls have a rose&quot;, a literal translation would be something like &quot;A rose is to/for the girls&quot;. The subject is *rosa*, so the verb agrees with it and is singular." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="562" RevisionGUID="0fdde71d-c449-4210-9c1a-bb6e7ba24be4" CreationDate="2016-03-20T08:14:04.370" UserId="79" Text="In Finland *ae* and *oe* are both typically pronounced as /e:/ when they belong to the same syllable.&#xD;&#xA;In (and near) Turku the pronunciations are /ai/ and /oi/.&#xD;&#xA;(This excludes, for example, *aer* and *poema*; this difference only concerns the diphthong.)&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise these pronunciations seem to coincide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When and how did this difference appear between Turku and the rest of Finland?&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that Finnish pronunciation is fairly close to classical, with Turku using a slightly older version.&#xD;&#xA;I am not very well familiar with the details of how Latin came to Finland, but I hope understanding this difference will shed a little more light on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The question in the title also makes sense for the Finnish language, but my interest here is in Latin.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1989" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="562" RevisionGUID="0fdde71d-c449-4210-9c1a-bb6e7ba24be4" CreationDate="2016-03-20T08:14:04.370" UserId="79" Text="Why is pronunciation different in Turku than the rest of Finland?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1990" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="562" RevisionGUID="0fdde71d-c449-4210-9c1a-bb6e7ba24be4" CreationDate="2016-03-20T08:14:04.370" UserId="79" Text="|pronunciation|new-latin|contemporary-latin|diphthong|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="563" RevisionGUID="cf0eb2b8-eed7-4fb9-9316-9d76b9d721aa" CreationDate="2016-03-20T08:19:58.903" UserId="79" Text="The thing being possessed is the subject in this construction.&#xD;&#xA;The verb follows the subject, but the subject in your example is not the girl.&#xD;&#xA;Do not confuse the plural nominative and singular dative, although they both end in *-ae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider these examples (cases indicated in parentheses):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Girl has a rose. *Puellae* (dat) *est rosa* (nom).&#xD;&#xA;- Girls have a rose. *Puellis* (dat) *est rosa* (nom).&#xD;&#xA;- Girl has roses. *Puellae* (dat) *sunt rosae* (nom).&#xD;&#xA;- Girls have roses. *Puellis* (dat) *sunt rosae* (nom)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="555" RevisionGUID="3d63cf7b-fb4f-4f0d-a5c2-d5b3c94049ce" CreationDate="2016-03-20T13:10:11.617" UserId="68" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="My earlier answer (my first Latin poetry ever!) left out the letter *x*. Let's try this one. I omit *y* as an effeminate Græcism but include *v* and *j*. I would offer, as @JoonasIlmavirta did, to edit so as to represent all vowel lengths, but honestly I'm not sure I'm capable of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Illecebróse spintria, quid jactáre juventæ?  &#xD;&#xA;Karthágó interiit, fax avidé moritur!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A loose translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Enticing rent-boy, why do you boast of your youth?  &#xD;&#xA;Carthage passed away, the torch is eager to die!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to keep editing this damn thing until it's free of errors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="564" RevisionGUID="0043bda3-e30c-4f16-aaa8-c0b2ca9f2a92" CreationDate="2016-03-20T13:19:07.833" UserId="45" Text="I wrote a Python script to analyze every couplet in the *Aeneid*: I quickly realized that the only instances of &quot;K&quot; occur in inflections of *Karthago*. If I include *k*, there are no pangram couplets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I exclude *k* (as well as *z*, but **not** *y*), my program produced the following couplets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *venerat, insano Cassandrae incensus amore,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et gener auxilium Priamo Phrygibusque ferebat,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *obstipui, steteruntque comae et vox faucibus haesit.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hunc Polydorum auri quondam cum pondere magno*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nox erat, et terris animalia somnus habebat:*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *effigies sacrae divom Phrygiique Penates,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *infelix Theseus; Phlegyasque miserrimus omnis*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *admonet, et magna testatur voce per umbras:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Forte die sollemnem illo rex Arcas honorem*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Amphitryoniadae magno divisque ferebat*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *a quo post Itali fluvium cognomine Thybrim*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *diximus, amisit verum vetus Albula nomen;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Haud procul hinc saxo incolitur fundata vetusto*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *urbis Agyllinae sedes, ubi Lydia quondam*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quid gravidam bellis urbem et corda aspera temptas?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nosne tibi fluxas Phrygiae res vertere fundo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nosne tibi fluxas Phrygiae res vertere fundo*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *conamur, nos, an miseros qui Troas Achivis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tarquitus exultans contra fulgentibus armis,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *silvicolae Fauno Dryope quem nympha crearat,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ut bivias armato obsidam milite fauces.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tu Tyrrhenum equitem conlatis excipe signis;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Fovit ea volnus lympha longaevus Iapyx*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ignorans, subitoque omnis de corpore fugit*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quantus Athos aut quantus Eryx aut ipse coruscis*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *cum fremit ilicibus quantus gaudetque nivali*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Python code:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;FULL_TEXT = &quot;&quot;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;# Full text of Aeneid, separated by line breaks, here&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&quot;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LETTERS = 'abcdefghilmnopqrstuvyx'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;lines = FULL_TEXT.split('\n')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for i in range(len(lines)-1):&#xD;&#xA;    two_lines = (lines[i] + lines[i + 1]).lower()&#xD;&#xA;    for letter in LETTERS:&#xD;&#xA;        if letter not in two_lines:&#xD;&#xA;            break&#xD;&#xA;        elif letter == 'x':&#xD;&#xA;            print ('&gt; *{}*  \n&gt; *{}*\n\n'.format(lines[i], lines[i + 1]))&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="559" RevisionGUID="489a277a-db83-4b0e-ac84-e82f6e35dff6" CreationDate="2016-03-20T17:02:36.807" UserId="289" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="When using the dative of a noun in combination with a form of the verb _esse_ to indicate possession, should the verb be in the same number as the subject or as the predicate noun(s) when there is a disagreement between the two? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, which are correct?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Matching the subject numerically**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Puellis sunt rosa._ (The girls have a rose.)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Discipulo est multa pocula._ (The pupil has many cups.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...or...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Matching the predicate numerically**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Puellae sunt rosae._ (The girl has roses.)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Discipulis est poculum parvum._ (The pupils have a small cup.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="564" RevisionGUID="ebc70f6b-5ab2-4676-89be-8ce89b8802ea" CreationDate="2016-03-20T17:34:25.277" UserId="45" Comment="added 1191 characters in body" Text="I wrote a Python script to analyze every couplet in the *Aeneid*: I quickly realized that the only instances of &quot;K&quot; occur in inflections of *Karthago*. If I include *k*, there are no pangram couplets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I exclude *k* (as well as *z*, but **not** *y*), my program produced the following couplets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *venerat, insano Cassandrae incensus amore,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et gener auxilium Priamo Phrygibusque ferebat,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *obstipui, steteruntque comae et vox faucibus haesit.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hunc Polydorum auri quondam cum pondere magno*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nox erat, et terris animalia somnus habebat:*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *effigies sacrae divom Phrygiique Penates,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *infelix Theseus; Phlegyasque miserrimus omnis*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *admonet, et magna testatur voce per umbras:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Forte die sollemnem illo rex Arcas honorem*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Amphitryoniadae magno divisque ferebat*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *a quo post Itali fluvium cognomine Thybrim*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *diximus, amisit verum vetus Albula nomen;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Haud procul hinc saxo incolitur fundata vetusto*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *urbis Agyllinae sedes, ubi Lydia quondam*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quid gravidam bellis urbem et corda aspera temptas?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nosne tibi fluxas Phrygiae res vertere fundo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nosne tibi fluxas Phrygiae res vertere fundo*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *conamur, nos, an miseros qui Troas Achivis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tarquitus exultans contra fulgentibus armis,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *silvicolae Fauno Dryope quem nympha crearat,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ut bivias armato obsidam milite fauces.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tu Tyrrhenum equitem conlatis excipe signis;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Fovit ea volnus lympha longaevus Iapyx*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ignorans, subitoque omnis de corpore fugit*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quantus Athos aut quantus Eryx aut ipse coruscis*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *cum fremit ilicibus quantus gaudetque nivali*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Addendum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I added a simple counter: here are some stats:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All letters except *k* and *z*: **13**&#xD;&#xA;2. All letters except *k*, *y*, and *z*: **63**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Some complete statements that caught my eye:**&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Hic tamen ille urbem Patavi sedesque locavit*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Teucrorum, et genti nomen dedit, armaque fixit*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *solus hic inflexit sensus, animumque labantem*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *impulit: adgnosco veteris vestigia flammae.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *His medium dictis sermonem abrumpit, et auras*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *aegra fugit, seque ex oculis avertit et aufert,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Non dabitur regnis, esto, prohibere Latinis,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *atque immota manet fatis Lavinia coniunx:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *dereptumque ab equo dextra complectitur hostem*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et gremium ante suum multa vi concitus aufert.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. All letters except *k* and *y*: **1** (unfortunately, not a complete statement: *extruis* is missing from the next line)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Continuo invadit: 'Tu nunc Karthaginis altae*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *fundamenta locas, pulchramque uxorius urbem*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. All letters except *k* and *z* in Ovid's *Metamorphoses*: **11**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; **At least one complete statement**:&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *haut aliter stupuit, quam cum Tyrrhenus arator *  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *fatalem glaebam mediis adspexit in arvis *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Python code:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;FULL_TEXT = &quot;&quot;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;# Full text of Aeneid, separated by line breaks, here&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&quot;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LETTERS = 'abcdefghilmnopqrstuvyx'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;lines = FULL_TEXT.split('\n')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for i in range(len(lines)-1):&#xD;&#xA;    two_lines = (lines[i] + lines[i + 1]).lower()&#xD;&#xA;    for letter in LETTERS:&#xD;&#xA;        if letter not in two_lines:&#xD;&#xA;            break&#xD;&#xA;        elif letter == 'x':&#xD;&#xA;            print ('&gt; *{}*  \n&gt; *{}*\n\n'.format(lines[i], lines[i + 1]))&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="564" RevisionGUID="d32639af-1372-4952-b8cf-593fe5186231" CreationDate="2016-03-20T17:45:03.967" UserId="45" Comment="added 223 characters in body" Text="I wrote a Python script to analyze every couplet in the *Aeneid*: I quickly realized that the only instances of &quot;K&quot; occur in inflections of *Karthago*. If I include *k*, there are no pangram couplets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I exclude *k* (as well as *z*, but **not** *y*), my program produced the following couplets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *venerat, insano Cassandrae incensus amore,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et gener auxilium Priamo Phrygibusque ferebat,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *obstipui, steteruntque comae et vox faucibus haesit.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hunc Polydorum auri quondam cum pondere magno*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nox erat, et terris animalia somnus habebat:*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *effigies sacrae divom Phrygiique Penates,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *infelix Theseus; Phlegyasque miserrimus omnis*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *admonet, et magna testatur voce per umbras:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Forte die sollemnem illo rex Arcas honorem*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Amphitryoniadae magno divisque ferebat*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *a quo post Itali fluvium cognomine Thybrim*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *diximus, amisit verum vetus Albula nomen;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Haud procul hinc saxo incolitur fundata vetusto*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *urbis Agyllinae sedes, ubi Lydia quondam*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quid gravidam bellis urbem et corda aspera temptas?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nosne tibi fluxas Phrygiae res vertere fundo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nosne tibi fluxas Phrygiae res vertere fundo*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *conamur, nos, an miseros qui Troas Achivis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tarquitus exultans contra fulgentibus armis,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *silvicolae Fauno Dryope quem nympha crearat,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ut bivias armato obsidam milite fauces.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tu Tyrrhenum equitem conlatis excipe signis;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Fovit ea volnus lympha longaevus Iapyx*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ignorans, subitoque omnis de corpore fugit*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quantus Athos aut quantus Eryx aut ipse coruscis*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *cum fremit ilicibus quantus gaudetque nivali*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Addendum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I added a simple counter: here are some stats:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Virgil's *Aeneid*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All letters except *k* and *z*: **13**&#xD;&#xA;2. All letters except *k*, *y*, and *z*: **63**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Some complete statements that caught my eye:**&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Hic tamen ille urbem Patavi sedesque locavit*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Teucrorum, et genti nomen dedit, armaque fixit*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *solus hic inflexit sensus, animumque labantem*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *impulit: adgnosco veteris vestigia flammae.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *His medium dictis sermonem abrumpit, et auras*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *aegra fugit, seque ex oculis avertit et aufert,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Non dabitur regnis, esto, prohibere Latinis,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *atque immota manet fatis Lavinia coniunx:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *dereptumque ab equo dextra complectitur hostem*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et gremium ante suum multa vi concitus aufert.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. All letters except *z* and *y*: **1** (unfortunately, not a complete statement: *extruis* is missing from the next line)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Continuo invadit: 'Tu nunc Karthaginis altae*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *fundamenta locas, pulchramque uxorius urbem*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Ovid's *Metamorphoses*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All letters except *k* and *z*: **11**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; **At least one complete statement**:&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *haut aliter stupuit, quam cum Tyrrhenus arator*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *fatalem glaebam mediis adspexit in arvis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. All letters except *k*, *y*, and *z*: **76**&#xD;&#xA;3. All letters except *z* and *y*: **0** (no Karthago!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Python code:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;FULL_TEXT = &quot;&quot;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;# Full text of Aeneid, separated by line breaks, here&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&quot;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LETTERS = 'abcdefghilmnopqrstuvyx'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;lines = FULL_TEXT.split('\n')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for i in range(len(lines)-1):&#xD;&#xA;    two_lines = (lines[i] + lines[i + 1]).lower()&#xD;&#xA;    for letter in LETTERS:&#xD;&#xA;        if letter not in two_lines:&#xD;&#xA;            break&#xD;&#xA;        elif letter == 'x':&#xD;&#xA;            print ('&gt; *{}*  \n&gt; *{}*\n\n'.format(lines[i], lines[i + 1]))&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="564" RevisionGUID="951b87e5-aa6d-4d60-8124-6533e05a6c2a" CreationDate="2016-03-20T17:58:01.967" UserId="45" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="I wrote a Python script to analyze every couplet in the *Aeneid*: I quickly realized that the only instances of &quot;K&quot; occur in inflections of *Karthago*. If I include *k*, there are no pangram couplets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I exclude *k* (as well as *z*, but **not** *y*), my program produced the following couplets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *venerat, insano Cassandrae incensus amore,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et gener auxilium Priamo Phrygibusque ferebat,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *obstipui, steteruntque comae et vox faucibus haesit.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hunc Polydorum auri quondam cum pondere magno*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nox erat, et terris animalia somnus habebat:*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *effigies sacrae divom Phrygiique Penates,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *infelix Theseus; Phlegyasque miserrimus omnis*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *admonet, et magna testatur voce per umbras:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Forte die sollemnem illo rex Arcas honorem*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Amphitryoniadae magno divisque ferebat*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *a quo post Itali fluvium cognomine Thybrim*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *diximus, amisit verum vetus Albula nomen;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Haud procul hinc saxo incolitur fundata vetusto*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *urbis Agyllinae sedes, ubi Lydia quondam*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quid gravidam bellis urbem et corda aspera temptas?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nosne tibi fluxas Phrygiae res vertere fundo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nosne tibi fluxas Phrygiae res vertere fundo*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *conamur, nos, an miseros qui Troas Achivis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tarquitus exultans contra fulgentibus armis,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *silvicolae Fauno Dryope quem nympha crearat,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ut bivias armato obsidam milite fauces.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tu Tyrrhenum equitem conlatis excipe signis;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Fovit ea volnus lympha longaevus Iapyx*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ignorans, subitoque omnis de corpore fugit*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quantus Athos aut quantus Eryx aut ipse coruscis*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *cum fremit ilicibus quantus gaudetque nivali*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Addendum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I added a simple counter: here are some stats:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Virgil's *Aeneid*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All letters except *k* and *z*: **13**&#xD;&#xA;2. All letters except *k*, *y*, and *z*: **63**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Some complete statements that caught my eye:**&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Hic tamen ille urbem Patavi sedesque locavit*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Teucrorum, et genti nomen dedit, armaque fixit*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *solus hic inflexit sensus, animumque labantem*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *impulit: adgnosco veteris vestigia flammae.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *His medium dictis sermonem abrumpit, et auras*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *aegra fugit, seque ex oculis avertit et aufert,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Non dabitur regnis, esto, prohibere Latinis,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *atque immota manet fatis Lavinia coniunx:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *dereptumque ab equo dextra complectitur hostem*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et gremium ante suum multa vi concitus aufert.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. All letters except *z* and *y*: **1** (unfortunately, not a complete statement: *extruis* is missing from the next line)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Continuo invadit: 'Tu nunc Karthaginis altae*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *fundamenta locas, pulchramque uxorius urbem*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Ovid's *Metamorphoses*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All letters except *k* and *z*: **11**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; **At least one complete statement**:&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *haut aliter stupuit, quam cum Tyrrhenus arator*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *fatalem glaebam mediis adspexit in arvis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. All letters except *k*, *y*, and *z*: **76**&#xD;&#xA;3. All letters except *z* and *y*: **0** (no Karthago!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Python code:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;FULL_TEXT = &quot;&quot;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;# Full Latin text, separated by line breaks, here&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&quot;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LETTERS = 'abcdefghilmnopqrstuvyx' # Change as needed, but keep 'x' at the end&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;lines = FULL_TEXT.split('\n')&#xD;&#xA;times = 0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for i in range(len(lines)-1):&#xD;&#xA;    two_lines = (lines[i] + lines[i + 1]).lower()&#xD;&#xA;    for letter in LETTERS:&#xD;&#xA;        if letter not in two_lines:&#xD;&#xA;            break&#xD;&#xA;        elif letter == 'x':&#xD;&#xA;            print ('&gt; *{}*  \n&gt; *{}*\n\n'.format(lines[i], lines[i + 1]))&#xD;&#xA;            times += 1&#xD;&#xA;print (times)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="565" RevisionGUID="769d6357-37d3-4cd0-935e-38bb25a4d8ed" CreationDate="2016-03-20T20:11:53.463" UserId="144" Text="I have a book: *501 Latin Verbs: fully conjugated*. In the conjugations for the verb sum, it leaves out the future imperatives. Are there no future imperatives for sum? So how would, &quot;You must be *noun/adjective* by *time or condition*&quot; translate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2000" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="565" RevisionGUID="769d6357-37d3-4cd0-935e-38bb25a4d8ed" CreationDate="2016-03-20T20:11:53.463" UserId="144" Text="What are the future imperatives of sum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2001" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="565" RevisionGUID="769d6357-37d3-4cd0-935e-38bb25a4d8ed" CreationDate="2016-03-20T20:11:53.463" UserId="144" Text="|classical-latin|verbs|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="566" RevisionGUID="64148ff5-5340-46e6-a016-9006e9356baa" CreationDate="2016-03-20T21:12:42.250" UserId="45" Text="There certainly is a future imperative in Latin: see Allen and Greenough's [New Latin Grammar](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0001:part=1:section=25&amp;highlight=):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;IMPERATIVE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PRESENT	SING.	2. ĕs, be thou	PLUR.		2. este, be ye&#xD;&#xA;FUTURE			2. estō, thou shalt be		2. estōte, ye shall be&#xD;&#xA;				3. estō, he shall be		3. suntō, they shall be&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future imperatives are not the most common forms: in the example you give of &quot;must,&quot; I would suggest translating with a *passive periphrastic*, e.g. *legendum est tibi* = *you should read* &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="566" RevisionGUID="40f36247-af6a-47c8-a777-bd7f57caa573" CreationDate="2016-03-20T21:19:32.143" UserId="45" Comment="added 468 characters in body" Text="There certainly is a future imperative in Latin: see Allen and Greenough's [New Latin Grammar](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0001:part=1:section=25&amp;highlight=):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;IMPERATIVE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PRESENT	SING.	2. ĕs, be thou	PLUR.		2. este, be ye&#xD;&#xA;FUTURE			2. estō, thou shalt be		2. estōte, ye shall be&#xD;&#xA;				3. estō, he shall be		3. suntō, they shall be&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never met *sunto* in casual reading, though it is used. Here is a classical example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *regio imperio duo sunto* (Cic. de Legg. iii. 4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There shall be two [consuls] for the royal empire. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my reading, *esto* and *estote* are much more common. See, for example, an example from the Vulgate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *estote ergo vos perfecti sicut et Pater vester caelestis perfectus est* (Matt 5:48)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Be ye therefore perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future imperatives are not the most common forms: in the example you give of &quot;must,&quot; I would suggest translating with a *passive periphrastic*, e.g. *legendum est tibi* = *you should read* &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="567" RevisionGUID="bd42891e-43f7-48b6-90f4-1377e2cb3489" CreationDate="2016-03-20T22:10:33.283" UserId="144" Text="I noticed that quinque ends in -que. I asked my teacher if this was sheer coincidence or so reason for it. He didn't know but he thought it was coincidental. I, however, think that they probably share an etymology root. So is there a relation, if so what is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2005" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="567" RevisionGUID="bd42891e-43f7-48b6-90f4-1377e2cb3489" CreationDate="2016-03-20T22:10:33.283" UserId="144" Text="Is the -que in quinque at all related to the conjunction -que?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2006" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="567" RevisionGUID="bd42891e-43f7-48b6-90f4-1377e2cb3489" CreationDate="2016-03-20T22:10:33.283" UserId="144" Text="|etymology|conjunction|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="568" RevisionGUID="f8b4648f-2d89-4589-b62f-e5642dd6356f" CreationDate="2016-03-20T22:30:15.610" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="569" RevisionGUID="5da348b7-b3c1-4aa0-b386-7c4b29b546ec" CreationDate="2016-03-20T22:30:15.610" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="570" RevisionGUID="fa06e19f-7b57-4903-81b8-39d3d2b30be5" CreationDate="2016-03-20T22:41:30.190" UserId="39" Text="None.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what [de Vaan][1] gives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**-que** [cj. postpos.] ‘and’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reconstruction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Proto-Italic	-kwe.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Proto-Indo-European	*-kwe** 'and, -ever'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cognates**&#xD;&#xA;Italic	Ven. -kve, Fal. -cue 'and', O.U. -p, -p, O. -p]e 'and'.&#xD;&#xA;Indo-European	Hit. -kku 'now, even, and', Pal. -ku 'and?', CLuw. -ku 'and, furthermore?'; Skt. -ca, Av. -ca, OP -cā 'and, also, if', Gr. -τε 'and', Myc. -qe 'and'; Go. -uh 'and, also', nih 'if not'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**quīnque** [num. indecl.] ‘five’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reconstruction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Proto-Italic	kwenkwe 'five', kw(e)nkwto- 'fifth'.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Proto-Indo-European	*penkwe 'five', *pnkw-(t)o- 'fifth'.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cognates&#xD;&#xA;Italic	O. pumperias , púmperias [nom.pl.] , púmperiais [dat.abl.pl.], U. pumpeřias [nom.pl.] in O. probably 'fifth day', in U. unclear meaning, &lt; * pompe '5' + *-(e)ro + i̯o- (er probably from * peteria- &lt;&lt; * peturia- '4'); O. pomtis 'five times' &lt; * pompe-tis, suffix *-is (Lat. -iēs) &gt;&gt; *-tis by analogy with sept-, oct- cent-. U. puntes [nom.pl.], puntis [dat.abl.pl.] '?' &lt; * pomp-ti- 'group of five'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indo-European	OIr. cóic, W. pymp, Skt. páñca 'five', pañcamá- 'fifth', pakthá- PN, paṅktí- [f.] 'set of five', YAv. paṇca 'five', puxδa- 'fifth', Gr. πέντε, Thess., Lesb. πέμπε 'five', πέμπτος 'fifth', Arm. hing 'five'; Alb. pesë, OCS pętь, Ru. pjat' 'five', OCS pętъ, Ru. pjátyj 'fifth', Lith. penkì 'five', peñktas 'fifth', Go. fimf 'five', OHG fimfto 'fifth', ToA päñ, ToB piś ' five'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="571" RevisionGUID="77eee5f5-83d4-42a0-8d69-d1dcd365960e" CreationDate="2016-03-20T23:37:36.800" UserId="68" Text="The answer @brianpck gives is exactly right. However, the future imperative wouldn't work for your sentence, because the future imperative is used to describe long-lasting or permanent states, as in both his examples. If you were Minerva warning Paris against giving the Apple of Discord to the wrong goddess, you'd say (understanding that for *esse* the present subjunctive is usually substituted for the present imperative):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Probus sis!  &#xD;&#xA;Be good! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you were Ulysses leaving home knowing that this might be your last chance for a few decades to give Telemachus advice, you'd say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Probus esto!  &#xD;&#xA;Be good!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your example I'd probably use either the present subjunctive plus the subjunctive in a fear clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cras adsis ne moriaris!  &#xD;&#xA;Be there tomorrow, lest you die!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or a future more vivid condition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si cras non aderis, morieris.  &#xD;&#xA;If you're not there tomorrow, you will die. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cato also uses the future imperative as how-to instructions in *De Agricultura* (wash your hands, salt the meat, etc.), but I've read neither any other Cato nor any other how-to instructions, so I don't know how universal that is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="546" RevisionGUID="b414c2b1-b009-418d-8a42-4e07221b0f8c" CreationDate="2016-03-20T23:51:16.023" UserId="68" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="Well, as I read more of Hyginus, I'm beginning to get a sense of at least some places where the Latin feels inelegant. For example, in &quot;Parerga [Herculis],&quot; he writes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Achelous] cum Hercule propter Dejaniræ conjugium cum pugnaret, in taurum se convertit, cui Hercules cornu detraxit, quod cornu Hesperidibus sive Nymphis donavit, quod deæ pomis replerunt et cornu copiæ appellarunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The string of relatives (*cui . . . quod . . . quod*) seems awkward enough to lead me to want to rewrite it (&quot;Hercules cornu detractum Hesperidibus donavit, quod deæ. . . .&quot;, maybe?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The repetition of *cum* in the same clause also feels weird. Perhaps a more elegant writer would have replaced the first one with *contra*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, this is just a feeling, so if anybody knows better, or has other examples, I'd still love to see them!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="555" RevisionGUID="85a90d22-e0fc-45a0-9377-262c209e5a43" CreationDate="2016-03-21T00:21:26.500" UserId="68" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="My earlier answer (my first Latin poetry ever!) left out the letter *x*. Let's try this one. I omit *y* as an effeminate Græcism but include *v* and *j*. I would offer, as @JoonasIlmavirta did, to edit so as to represent all vowel lengths, but honestly I'm not sure I'm capable of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Illecebróse spintria, quid jactáre juventæ?  &#xD;&#xA;Karthágó interiit, fax citius moritur!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A loose translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Enticing rent-boy, why do you boast of your youth?  &#xD;&#xA;Carthage passed away, the torch dies so quickly!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to keep editing this damn thing until it's free of errors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="555" RevisionGUID="7ed6a11b-fbba-473e-ad59-52ab859bed60" CreationDate="2016-03-21T06:21:17.013" UserId="68" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="My earlier answer (my first Latin poetry ever!) left out the letter *x*. Let's try this one. I omit *y* as an effeminate Græcism but include *v* and *j*. I would offer, as @JoonasIlmavirta did, to edit so as to represent all vowel lengths, but honestly I'm not sure I'm capable of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Illecebróse spintria, quid jactáre juventam?  &#xD;&#xA;Karthágó interiit, fax citius moritur!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A loose translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Enticing rent-boy, why do you flaunt your youth?  &#xD;&#xA;Carthage passed away, the torch dies so quickly!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to keep editing this damn thing until it's free of errors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="572" RevisionGUID="876008cf-e2de-451c-8429-83ae9f841ac9" CreationDate="2016-03-21T12:50:44.313" UserId="68" Text="In English, the epigraph of *A Christmas Carol* reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have endeavoured in this Ghostly little book, to raise the Ghost of an Idea, which shall not put my readers out of humour with themselves, with each other, with the season, or with me. May it haunt their houses pleasantly, and no one wish to lay it.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Their faithful Friend and Servant, C.D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Carmen ad Festum Nativitatis][1]*, Tom Cotton translates this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc scrípsí Manibus ornátum libellum nescióquid Phantasmatis subjiciendí causá quóminus sive inter meós lectórés singillatim vel úná sive dé tempore anní sive dé mé displiceantur. Eórum domicilia suaviter inquietentur neque sint qui expellere vélint.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eórum Amícus fidélis et Servus, C.D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis Elementary defines *subicio* as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. to throw under, place under, cast below&#xD;&#xA;2. [of troops] to bring, cause to be encamped, post&#xD;&#xA;3. to set up, mount, throw up&#xD;&#xA;4. to substitute, forge, counterfeit&#xD;&#xA;5. to suborn&#xD;&#xA;6. [figuratively] to submit, subject, present&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming that Mr. Cotton is using *subicio* in its sixth meaning, &quot;to submit, subject, present,&quot; since none of the others makes sense in this context. How does *subicio* used with this meaning work as a translation of &quot;raise the Ghost of an Idea&quot;? What are some other examples of *subicio* being used in this way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I understand that Latin is a far more concrete language than English, much less given to metaphor and fancy, so I see that a more literal translation of &quot;raise the Ghost of an Idea&quot; wouldn't be great Latinity. But in this case my impulse would have been to use *suggero*, whose sixth meaning is &quot;to suggest, prompt,&quot; and I'm trying to figure out what makes *subicio* a better choice here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1446609359?keywords=carmen%20ad%20festum%20nativitatis&amp;qid=1458564868&amp;ref_=sr_1_1&amp;sr=8-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2017" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="572" RevisionGUID="876008cf-e2de-451c-8429-83ae9f841ac9" CreationDate="2016-03-21T12:50:44.313" UserId="68" Text="what are some examples of &quot;subicio&quot; being used to mean &quot;submit, subject, present&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2018" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="572" RevisionGUID="876008cf-e2de-451c-8429-83ae9f841ac9" CreationDate="2016-03-21T12:50:44.313" UserId="68" Text="|translation|vocabulary|nuance|example-request|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="563" RevisionGUID="941f8af8-522a-4096-92d0-65836c8c53d1" CreationDate="2016-03-21T12:58:23.397" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The thing being possessed is the subject in this construction.&#xD;&#xA;The verb agrees with the subject, but the subject in your example is not the girl.&#xD;&#xA;Do not confuse the plural nominative and singular dative, although they both end in *-ae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider these examples (cases indicated in parentheses):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Girl has a rose. *Puellae* (dat) *est rosa* (nom).&#xD;&#xA;- Girls have a rose. *Puellis* (dat) *est rosa* (nom).&#xD;&#xA;- Girl has roses. *Puellae* (dat) *sunt rosae* (nom).&#xD;&#xA;- Girls have roses. *Puellis* (dat) *sunt rosae* (nom)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="572" RevisionGUID="b76b98d9-7c71-4a75-8776-df562f7c74f0" CreationDate="2016-03-21T13:02:40.487" UserId="68" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="In English, the epigraph of *A Christmas Carol* reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have endeavoured in this Ghostly little book, to raise the Ghost of an Idea, which shall not put my readers out of humour with themselves, with each other, with the season, or with me. May it haunt their houses pleasantly, and no one wish to lay it.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Their faithful Friend and Servant, C.D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Carmen ad Festum Nativitatis][1]*, Tom Cotton translates this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc scrípsí Manibus ornátum libellum nescióquid Phantasmatis subjiciendí causá quóminus sive inter meós lectórés singillatim vel úná sive dé tempore anní sive dé mé displiceantur. Eórum domicilia suaviter inquietentur neque sint qui expellere vélint.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eórum Amícus fidélis et Servus, C.D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis Elementary defines *subicio* as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. to throw under, place under, cast below&#xD;&#xA;2. [of troops] to bring, cause to be encamped, post&#xD;&#xA;3. to set up, mount, throw up&#xD;&#xA;4. to substitute, forge, counterfeit&#xD;&#xA;5. to suborn&#xD;&#xA;6. [figuratively] to submit, subject, present&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming that Mr. Cotton is using *subicio* in its sixth meaning, &quot;to submit, subject, present,&quot; since none of the others makes sense in this context. How does *subicio* used with this meaning work as a translation of &quot;raise the Ghost of an Idea&quot;? What are some other examples of *subicio* being used in this way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I understand that Latin is a far more concrete language than English, much less given to metaphor and fancy, so I see that a more literal translation of &quot;raise the Ghost of an Idea&quot; wouldn't be great Latinity. But in this case my impulse would have been to use *suggero*, whose sixth meaning is &quot;to suggest, prompt,&quot; and I'm trying to understand what makes *subicio* a better choice here. Döderlein contains neither verb, so I don't have much to go on.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1446609359?keywords=carmen%20ad%20festum%20nativitatis&amp;qid=1458564868&amp;ref_=sr_1_1&amp;sr=8-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="573" RevisionGUID="807ca376-8dc0-4467-9565-a3d9427e5eca" CreationDate="2016-03-21T13:07:34.750" UserId="78" Text="Lewis &amp; Short II.B.5 has this definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. To bring forward, propose, adduce; to bring to mind, prompt, suggest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with these examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;cupio mihi **ab illo**, iudices, **subici**, quoniam de militari eius gloria dico, si quid forte praetereo.&quot; (Cic. *Verr*. 2.5.25)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;I wish, O judges, **to be prompted by him**, since I am speaking of his military renown, if by accident I pass over anything.&quot; (Clark &amp; Peterson translation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  vidi Archidemum, cum quidem idem hic mihi Maeandrius quasi ministrator aderat **subiciens** quid in suos civis civitatemque, si vellem, **dicerem**.&quot; (Cic. *Verr*. Fl 22.53)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I saw Archidemus, when this identical man Maeandrius came to me as a sort of attorney, **suggesting to me what I might say**, if I pleased, against his own fellow-citizens and his own city. (translation Yonge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So prompt/suggest overlap fine with *suggero*. I think the word though is especially appropriate here, since he is not just suggesting any old thing, but the main thing, the *subject*, if you will, which meaning *subiectum* holds in later Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="566" RevisionGUID="55507a48-aa7d-48c7-a9f3-94ee8e7af618" CreationDate="2016-03-21T13:17:40.923" UserId="45" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="There certainly is a future imperative of *esse* in Latin: see Allen and Greenough's [New Latin Grammar](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0001:part=1:section=25&amp;highlight=):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;IMPERATIVE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PRESENT	SING.	2. ĕs, be thou	PLUR.		2. este, be ye&#xD;&#xA;FUTURE			2. estō, thou shalt be		2. estōte, ye shall be&#xD;&#xA;				3. estō, he shall be		3. suntō, they shall be&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never met *sunto* in casual reading, though it often appears (per C.M. Weimer's comment) in legal contexts. Here is a classical example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *regio imperio duo sunto* (Cic. de Legg. iii. 4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There shall be two [consuls] for the royal empire. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my reading, *esto* and *estote* appear more frequently. See, for example, an example from the Vulgate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *estote ergo vos perfecti sicut et Pater vester caelestis perfectus est* (Matt 5:48)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Be ye therefore perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future imperatives are not the most common forms for necessity: in the example you give of &quot;must,&quot; I would suggest translating with a *passive periphrastic*, e.g. *legendum est tibi* = *you should read* &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="574" RevisionGUID="066297a6-e105-4be5-9736-54399b802763" CreationDate="2016-03-21T16:52:56.847" UserId="12" Text="H. J. Rose points to two characteristics of Hyginus's Latin that are considered substandard:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Overworked&quot; relative pronouns&#xD;&#xA; - Poor translations from Greek&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Rose gives one example of the &quot;monotonous use&quot; of relative pronouns, from [chapter 55 of *Fabulae*](https://books.google.com/books?id=Pl9Tn2W_k7gC&amp;pg=PA59), though he remarks that such use can be found in &quot;almost any passage&quot; of Hyginus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui cum conatus esset a Ioue fulmine est interfectus. qui nouem iugeribus ad inferos exporrectus iacere dicitur, et serpens ei appositus est qui iecur eius exesset, quod cum luna recrescit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rose also provides several examples of Hyginus's mistranslations in Greek, pulling them with some English commentary from [Werth's *De Hygini Fabularum indole*](https://books.google.com/books?id=MkY8AQAAMAAJ), (beginning on [page 11](https://books.google.com/books?id=MkY8AQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA10)).  One &quot;famous blunder&quot; relates to a misunderstanding of the Greek word for &quot;captive&quot; in the title of the play *Melanippe Captive*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Melanippen Desmontis filiam, siue Aeoli ut alii poetae dicunt*, and several other mentions of this mysterious Desmontes, who owes his existence to a misunderstanding of *δεσμωτις* in the title of Euripides' play.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With such deficiencies, Rose offers Hyginus no mercy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hyginus' style is poor and jejune, with no very outstanding characteristics save its very feebleness and clumsiness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; we must remember two characteristics of Hyginus—his gross carelessness and his atrocious&#xD;&#xA;mistakes in translating the simplest Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I know of no other Latin author at once so likely to have Latinized a compendium or paraphrase of Homer and so capable of distorting the sense thereof as Hyginus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Rose, *An Unrecognized Fragment of Hyginus, Fabvlae*. *The Classical Quarterly*, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Apr., 1929), pp. 96–99.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="575" RevisionGUID="c92197ea-377d-4599-a6d3-2fc95557d037" CreationDate="2016-03-21T17:39:48.093" UserId="293" Text="I want to confirm my understanding of the word `duco`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [wikipedia][1], it is a third conjugation, irregular short imperative. The Wikipedia examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. lead, guide&#xD;&#xA; 2. I draw, pull&#xD;&#xA; 3. I think, consider&#xD;&#xA; 4. I prolong&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it is therefore singular, present and first person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it irregular? the present infinitive is `ducere` and regular third conjugations have infinitives ending in '-ere'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please could someone provide an example of `duco` being used in a valid sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/duco&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_third_conjugation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2026" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="575" RevisionGUID="c92197ea-377d-4599-a6d3-2fc95557d037" CreationDate="2016-03-21T17:39:48.093" UserId="293" Text="Understanding 'Duco'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2027" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="575" RevisionGUID="c92197ea-377d-4599-a6d3-2fc95557d037" CreationDate="2016-03-21T17:39:48.093" UserId="293" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="576" RevisionGUID="19ce239c-29b5-4caa-bba8-3c3691c1a995" CreationDate="2016-03-21T17:58:14.550" UserId="68" Text="*Duco* is regular in the indicative and subjunctive moods but irregular in the imperative mood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you might say, using the indicative,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dido Æneam in aulam ducit.  &#xD;&#xA;Dido leads Æneas into the palace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If *duco* took a regular imperative, the singular second-person imperative would be *duce*. However, since it doesn't, the singular second-person imperative is *duc*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you were Æneas, you might say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dido! Me in aulam duc!  &#xD;&#xA;Dido! Lead me into the palace!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck with your project!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="577" RevisionGUID="8b20b278-1721-46b5-8d02-0b7a3607d0c2" CreationDate="2016-03-21T17:58:25.647" UserId="79" Text="In Latin a verb has several forms.&#xD;&#xA;In Wiktionary you can click the little &quot;More&quot; button to the right of &quot;Conjugation of duco&quot; under the title &quot;Inflection&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There you will notice that *duco* is only one of the many forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *duco* means &quot;I lead&quot; (let me choose only one from the list of translations to keep things simple).&#xD;&#xA;The word *ducere* means &quot;to lead&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This verb is listed in dictionaries as *duco* or *ducere*.&#xD;&#xA;There are different forms for different persons, tenses and such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a simple use example: *Te duco si sequi vis*. &quot;I lead you if you want to follow.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a verb like this (third conjugation), you would expect the second person singular present imperative to be *duce* but it is *duc*.&#xD;&#xA;There is no obvious reason why it is irregular.&#xD;&#xA;Only some of the most common verbs have an irregular imperative like this: *dicere* (to say), *ducere* (to lead), *facere* (to do) and *ferre* (to carry)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="575" RevisionGUID="4704ad8c-ff46-4d17-b9f8-ed22413f3273" CreationDate="2016-03-21T18:30:03.597" UserId="12" Comment="cleanup" Text="I want to confirm my understanding of the word `duco`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [wiktionary][1], it is a third conjugation, irregular short imperative. The examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. lead, guide&#xD;&#xA; 2. I draw, pull&#xD;&#xA; 3. I think, consider&#xD;&#xA; 4. I prolong&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it is therefore singular, present and first person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it irregular? The present infinitive is `ducere` and regular third conjugations have infinitives ending in '-ere'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please could someone provide an example of `duco` being used in a valid sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/duco" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2031" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="575" RevisionGUID="4704ad8c-ff46-4d17-b9f8-ed22413f3273" CreationDate="2016-03-21T18:30:03.597" UserId="12" Comment="cleanup" Text="What is the meaning and use of the word 'Duco'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="575" RevisionGUID="b4b11c60-a68f-4fe3-9534-ba9f850a4ea3" CreationDate="2016-03-21T18:33:25.270" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and corrected small typos." Text="I want to confirm my understanding of the word `duco`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Wiktionary][1], it is a third conjugation, irregular short imperative. The examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I lead, guide&#xD;&#xA; 2. I draw, pull&#xD;&#xA; 3. I think, consider&#xD;&#xA; 4. I prolong&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it is therefore singular, present and first person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it irregular? The present infinitive is `ducere` and regular third conjugations have infinitives ending in '-ere'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please could someone provide an example of `duco` being used in a valid sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/duco" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2033" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="575" RevisionGUID="b4b11c60-a68f-4fe3-9534-ba9f850a4ea3" CreationDate="2016-03-21T18:33:25.270" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and corrected small typos." Text="|vocabulary|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="578" RevisionGUID="176b8aee-102c-4fa2-a616-974ba0b3b02d" CreationDate="2016-03-21T18:37:50.973" UserId="78" Text="There isn't much more to add to Joel's and Joonas' posts, but I just wanted to make an additional note about the irregular imperatives. First, *ducere*, *dicere*, and *facere* are only irregular in the imperative singular: *duc*, *dic*, *fac*, but are fully regular in the imperative plural: *ducite*, *dicite*, *facite*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ferre*, however, is still irregular in the plural, *ferte* instead of *\*ferite*. It's also irregular in the 2nd/3rd-sing-ind-act (*fers*/*fert*), 2nd-pl-ind-act (*fertis*), and 2nd/3rd-sing-ind-pass (*ferris*/*fertur*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verbs *nolle* and *esse* also have irregular imperatives, which is expected since they're fully irregular verbs: s. *noli*, s. *es*, and pl. *este*. *Ire* is surprisingly regular in the imperative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="564" RevisionGUID="2935ceb7-2a33-4c64-ba94-6675972d724b" CreationDate="2016-03-21T19:24:01.280" UserId="45" Comment="refactored python code so that 'x' does not need to be at the end of alphabet string" Text="I wrote a Python script to analyze every couplet in the *Aeneid*: I quickly realized that the only instances of &quot;K&quot; occur in inflections of *Karthago*. If I include *k*, there are no pangram couplets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I exclude *k* (as well as *z*, but **not** *y*), my program produced the following couplets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *venerat, insano Cassandrae incensus amore,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et gener auxilium Priamo Phrygibusque ferebat,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *obstipui, steteruntque comae et vox faucibus haesit.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hunc Polydorum auri quondam cum pondere magno*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nox erat, et terris animalia somnus habebat:*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *effigies sacrae divom Phrygiique Penates,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *infelix Theseus; Phlegyasque miserrimus omnis*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *admonet, et magna testatur voce per umbras:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Forte die sollemnem illo rex Arcas honorem*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Amphitryoniadae magno divisque ferebat*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *a quo post Itali fluvium cognomine Thybrim*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *diximus, amisit verum vetus Albula nomen;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Haud procul hinc saxo incolitur fundata vetusto*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *urbis Agyllinae sedes, ubi Lydia quondam*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quid gravidam bellis urbem et corda aspera temptas?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nosne tibi fluxas Phrygiae res vertere fundo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nosne tibi fluxas Phrygiae res vertere fundo*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *conamur, nos, an miseros qui Troas Achivis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tarquitus exultans contra fulgentibus armis,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *silvicolae Fauno Dryope quem nympha crearat,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ut bivias armato obsidam milite fauces.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tu Tyrrhenum equitem conlatis excipe signis;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Fovit ea volnus lympha longaevus Iapyx*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ignorans, subitoque omnis de corpore fugit*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quantus Athos aut quantus Eryx aut ipse coruscis*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *cum fremit ilicibus quantus gaudetque nivali*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Addendum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I added a simple counter: here are some stats:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Virgil's *Aeneid*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All letters except *k* and *z*: **13**&#xD;&#xA;2. All letters except *k*, *y*, and *z*: **63**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Some complete statements that caught my eye:**&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Hic tamen ille urbem Patavi sedesque locavit*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Teucrorum, et genti nomen dedit, armaque fixit*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *solus hic inflexit sensus, animumque labantem*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *impulit: adgnosco veteris vestigia flammae.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *His medium dictis sermonem abrumpit, et auras*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *aegra fugit, seque ex oculis avertit et aufert,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Non dabitur regnis, esto, prohibere Latinis,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *atque immota manet fatis Lavinia coniunx:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *dereptumque ab equo dextra complectitur hostem*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et gremium ante suum multa vi concitus aufert.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. All letters except *z* and *y*: **1** (unfortunately, not a complete statement: *extruis* is missing from the next line)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Continuo invadit: 'Tu nunc Karthaginis altae*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *fundamenta locas, pulchramque uxorius urbem*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Ovid's *Metamorphoses*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All letters except *k* and *z*: **11**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; **At least one complete statement**:&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *haut aliter stupuit, quam cum Tyrrhenus arator*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *fatalem glaebam mediis adspexit in arvis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. All letters except *k*, *y*, and *z*: **76**&#xD;&#xA;3. All letters except *z* and *y*: **0** (no Karthago!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Python code:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;FULL_TEXT = &quot;&quot;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;# Full Latin text, separated by line breaks, here&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&quot;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LETTERS = 'abcdefghilmnopqrstuvyx' # Change as needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;lines = FULL_TEXT.split('\n')&#xD;&#xA;times = 0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for i in range(len(lines)-1):&#xD;&#xA;    two_lines = (lines[i] + lines[i + 1]).lower()&#xD;&#xA;    for letter in LETTERS:&#xD;&#xA;        if letter not in two_lines:&#xD;&#xA;            break&#xD;&#xA;    else:&#xD;&#xA;        print ('&gt; *{}*  \n&gt; *{}*\n\n'.format(lines[i], lines[i + 1]))&#xD;&#xA;        times += 1&#xD;&#xA;print (times)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="a46c2686-5411-4b8c-929c-c7ab80d7b44d" CreationDate="2016-03-21T19:36:56.953" UserId="296" Text="Could anyone help me understand the meaning of the Latin in this [Jodocus Hondius map](https://www.loc.gov/item/2010592453/) from the early 1600s?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Exquisita &amp; magno aliquot mensium periculo lustrata et iam retecta Freti Magellanici Facies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know very little Latin but have managed to figure out via Google Translate that &quot;Freti Magellanici&quot; is the Strait of Magellan (which is what this map is), but the rest of it is unclear, something about &quot;exquisite and great danger for several months examined and already unveiled&quot; which doesn't quite make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WWamr.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="a46c2686-5411-4b8c-929c-c7ab80d7b44d" CreationDate="2016-03-21T19:36:56.953" UserId="296" Text="translation of map inscription" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="a46c2686-5411-4b8c-929c-c7ab80d7b44d" CreationDate="2016-03-21T19:36:56.953" UserId="296" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2039" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="96e8aff0-b62e-4b48-9ab6-74718a9565a5" CreationDate="2016-03-21T19:52:16.577" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Translation of a Jodocus Hondius map inscription" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2040" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="96e8aff0-b62e-4b48-9ab6-74718a9565a5" CreationDate="2016-03-21T19:52:16.577" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|translation|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="580" RevisionGUID="c2dfbeaa-819d-4204-865d-8621e1707b8b" CreationDate="2016-03-21T20:39:02.593" UserId="78" Text="&gt; Exquisita &amp; magno aliquot mensium periculo lustrata et iam retecta Freti Magellanici Facies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The shape of the Straits of Magellan, accurate and illuminated with great danger of several months and now laid open [for all to see].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand *facies* as referring to the shape of the straits, which must have proven tricky for navigators. The islands and shadows seem to support that idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*magno aliquot mensium periculo* must mean a particular danger that is associated with *certain* bad months, such as winter in the Mediterranean. The idea is that the shape was figured out and illuminated during dangerous sailing seasons, however, now that it's figured out, it's no longer a mystery for ships to take them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exquisite isn't really the right meaning here. As you now, *exquiro* means &quot;to search out diligently,&quot; and so this map is the result of diligent inquiries into the shape. It could either have that force, or, more simply, &quot;accurate,&quot; but both are implied in the word simultaneously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="580" RevisionGUID="3eac062c-b1ca-469a-a9bc-745a2b0e9c81" CreationDate="2016-03-21T21:25:31.583" UserId="68" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; Exquisita &amp; magno aliquot mensium periculo lustrata et iam retecta Freti Magellanici Facies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The shape of the Straits of Magellan, accurate and illuminated with great danger of several months and now laid open [for all to see].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand *facies* as referring to the shape of the straits, which must have proven tricky for navigators. The islands and shadows seem to support that idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*magno aliquot mensium periculo* must mean a particular danger that is associated with *certain* bad months, such as winter in the Mediterranean. The idea is that the shape was figured out and illuminated during dangerous sailing seasons, however, now that it's figured out, it's no longer a mystery for ships to take them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exquisite isn't really the right meaning here. As you know, *exquiro* means &quot;to search out diligently,&quot; and so this map is the result of diligent inquiries into the shape. It could either have that force, or, more simply, &quot;accurate,&quot; but both are implied in the word simultaneously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="c062b926-d635-4839-9e8c-71037e4a52b8" CreationDate="2016-03-21T22:58:46.990" UserId="296" Comment="added 423 characters in body" Text="Could anyone help me understand the meaning of the Latin in this [Jodocus Hondius map](https://www.loc.gov/item/2010592453/) from the early 1600s?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Exquisita &amp; magno aliquot mensium periculo lustrata et iam retecta Freti Magellanici Facies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know very little Latin but have managed to figure out via Google Translate that &quot;Freti Magellanici&quot; is the Strait of Magellan (which is what this map is), but the rest of it is unclear, something about &quot;exquisite and great danger for several months examined and already unveiled&quot; which doesn't quite make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for what it's worth: from looking at C.M. Weimer's answer, the Dutch that follows may be the same text in both languages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Eijgentlicke afbeeldinghe der Magellanisher Strate die nu met veel gevaers eitelijeke Maenden doorsien van nieus ondecktis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I'm not sure about either, except that &quot;Eijgentlicke afbeeldinghe der Magellanisher Strate&quot; means something like &quot;authentic image of the Strait of Magellan&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WWamr.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="2d34ff71-8a4e-4b4d-ac1e-fd38975ebdac" CreationDate="2016-03-21T23:05:47.653" UserId="296" Comment="added 423 characters in body" Text="Could anyone help me understand the meaning of the Latin in this [Jodocus Hondius map](https://www.loc.gov/item/2010592453/) from the early 1600s?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Exquisita &amp; magno aliquot mensium periculo lustrata et iam retecta Freti Magellanici Facies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know very little Latin but have managed to figure out via Google Translate that &quot;Freti Magellanici&quot; is the Strait of Magellan (which is what this map is), but the rest of it is unclear, something about &quot;exquisite and great danger for several months examined and already unveiled&quot; which doesn't quite make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for what it's worth: from looking at C.M. Weimer's answer, the Dutch that follows may be the same text in both languages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Eijgentlicke afbeeldinghe der Magellanisher Strate die nu met veel gevaers ettelijeke Maenden doorsien van nieus ondecktis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I'm not sure about either, except that &quot;Eijgentlicke afbeeldinghe der Magellanisher Strate&quot; means something like &quot;authentic image of the Strait of Magellan&quot;. &quot;Maanden&quot; (not Maenden) in modern Dutch is &quot;months&quot;, &quot;gevaarlijk&quot; (not gevaers) is &quot;dangerous&quot;, &quot;ettelijke&quot; is several/some, and &quot;ondeckt&quot; is &quot;discovered&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WWamr.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="765c92e4-85df-41a8-a405-92c4ebcac8fc" CreationDate="2016-03-21T23:18:44.650" UserId="296" Comment="added 290 characters in body" Text="Could anyone help me understand the meaning of the Latin in this [Jodocus Hondius map](https://www.loc.gov/item/2010592453/) from the early 1600s?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Exquisita &amp; magno aliquot mensium periculo lustrata et iam retecta Freti Magellanici Facies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know very little Latin but have managed to figure out via Google Translate that &quot;Freti Magellanici&quot; is the Strait of Magellan (which is what this map is), but the rest of it is unclear, something about &quot;exquisite and great danger for several months examined and already unveiled&quot; which doesn't quite make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for what it's worth: from looking at C.M. Weimer's answer, the Dutch that follows may be the same text in both languages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Eijgentlicke afbeeldinghe der Magellanisher Strate die nu met veel gevaers ettelijeke Maenden doorsien, van nieus ondecktis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I'm not sure about either, except that &quot;Eijgentlicke afbeeldinghe der Magellanisher Strate&quot; means something like &quot;authentic image of the Strait of Magellan&quot;. &quot;Maanden&quot; (not Maenden) in modern Dutch is &quot;months&quot;, &quot;gevaarlijk&quot; (not gevaers) is &quot;dangerous&quot;, &quot;ettelijke&quot; is several/some, and &quot;ondeckt&quot; is &quot;discovered&quot;... &quot;nu&quot; is &quot;now&quot;, &quot;met&quot; is with, &quot;veel&quot; is &quot;many&quot;, &quot;nieuw&quot; is new/recent, but I can't figure out what &quot;doorsien&quot; is, so a literal translation would be something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Authentic image of the Strait of Magellan, that now with many dangerous several months ???, from recent discoveries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WWamr.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="40a036d0-2d47-4e5d-bccd-c5c19ee9c76d" CreationDate="2016-03-21T23:32:49.683" UserId="296" Comment="added 459 characters in body" Text="Could anyone help me understand the meaning of the Latin in this [Jodocus Hondius map](https://www.loc.gov/item/2010592453/) from the early 1600s?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Exquisita &amp; magno aliquot mensium periculo lustrata et iam retecta Freti Magellanici Facies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know very little Latin but have managed to figure out via Google Translate that &quot;Freti Magellanici&quot; is the Strait of Magellan (which is what this map is), but the rest of it is unclear, something about &quot;exquisite and great danger for several months examined and already unveiled&quot; which doesn't quite make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for what it's worth: from looking at C.M. Weimer's answer, the Dutch that follows may be the same text in both languages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Eijgentlicke afbeeldinghe der Magellanisher Strate die nu met veel gevaers ettelijeke Maenden doorsien, van nieus ondecktis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I'm not sure about either, except that &quot;Eijgentlicke afbeeldinghe der Magellanisher Strate&quot; means something like &quot;authentic image of the Strait of Magellan&quot;. &quot;Maanden&quot; (not Maenden) in modern Dutch is &quot;months&quot;, &quot;gevaarlijk&quot; (not gevaers) is &quot;dangerous&quot;, &quot;ettelijke&quot; is several/some, and &quot;ondeckt&quot; is &quot;discovered&quot;... &quot;nu&quot; is &quot;now&quot;, &quot;met&quot; is with, &quot;veel&quot; is &quot;many&quot;, &quot;nieuw&quot; is new/recent, but I can't figure out what &quot;doorsien&quot; is, so a literal translation would be something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Authentic image of the Strait of Magellan, that now with many dangerous several months ???, from recent discoveries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ooh: here we go, [I found something about *doorsien*](http://www.essentialvermeer.com/glossary/glossary_d_i.html#doorsien):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Doorsien is a Dutch word that literally means &quot;plunge through.&quot;  Dutch painters were particularly interested in views into the distance, which they called doorsien&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so I can get it to something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Authentic image of the Strait of Magellan, that now with many dangerous several months of observation, from recent discoveries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WWamr.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="581" RevisionGUID="da81bab1-3492-4e09-ba06-d04d8b4c0801" CreationDate="2016-03-22T00:40:33.007" UserId="293" Text="This follows on from my [prior question.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm working on the name for an art project concerned with physical, emotional and psychological optimisation with a view to nurturing wholesome leadership. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like the word `duco` but read that it may refer more to the leadership of an army rather than the 'art of leadership'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the consensus on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `educo` was suggested an alternative which I understood to mean `I teach` or `I stimulate mental growth`; is this accurate? Recent comments on the prior question suggest this is more aligned with the bringing up of children rather than general teaching?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other single words that spring to mind that could be more relevant to my direction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/575/what-is-the-meaning-and-use-of-the-word-duco" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2049" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="581" RevisionGUID="da81bab1-3492-4e09-ba06-d04d8b4c0801" CreationDate="2016-03-22T00:40:33.007" UserId="293" Text="Does 'duco' refer to the art of leadership?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2050" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="581" RevisionGUID="da81bab1-3492-4e09-ba06-d04d8b4c0801" CreationDate="2016-03-22T00:40:33.007" UserId="293" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="7a958b8c-0f6b-4df5-ad80-60b43341a918" CreationDate="2016-03-22T01:54:48.230" UserId="78" Text="*Duco* just means &quot;I lead,&quot; so no, it does not exactly refer to the *art* of leadership. It can mean a whole host of things, though, especially militarily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Dux*, for example, means &quot;commander&quot; or &quot;general&quot; (and actually we get the word *duke* from it), but *uxorem ducere* means &quot;to marry&quot; (literally, &quot;to lead a wife&quot;). It can also mean &quot;to guide&quot; and can be used for gods guiding mortals etc, as in Seneca's aphorism, *ducunt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt* &quot;The fates guide the willing, but drags the unwilling.&quot; That same poem Seneca asks Zeus to lead him as a parent would, *Duc, o parens* &quot;Lead me, oh father.&quot; Guide is really the better term here, and there are no military connotations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *educo*, yes, &quot;I teach&quot; or &quot;I educate&quot; (whence the word is derived) are great ways to translate it. Others could be *doceo* (I teach, I instruct, but from where we get the word *doctor*, which meant a learned teacher in Latin), along with the words *edoceo* and *erudio*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good way for you to see the full connotations in all its uses is to check out the Lewis and Short dictionary, which you can find on [Philologus](http://philolog.us/). Just type in the word you want (making sure you're on the right tab) and you'll see all the very many ways the Romans used a word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="53c520dc-dcc0-4f3b-9fa4-45fb9679d4e4" CreationDate="2016-03-22T03:09:27.263" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="*Duco* just means &quot;I lead,&quot; so no, it does not exactly refer to the *art* of leadership. It can mean a whole host of things, though, especially militarily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Dux*, for example, means &quot;commander&quot; or &quot;general&quot; (and actually we get the word *duke* from it), but *uxorem ducere* means &quot;to marry&quot; (literally, &quot;to lead a wife&quot;). It can also mean &quot;to guide&quot; and can be used for gods guiding mortals etc, as in Seneca's aphorism, *ducunt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt* &quot;The fates guide the willing, but drag the unwilling.&quot; That same poem Seneca asks Zeus to lead him as a parent would, *Duc, o parens* &quot;Lead me, oh father.&quot; Guide is really the better term here, and there are no military connotations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *educo*, yes, &quot;I teach&quot; or &quot;I educate&quot; (whence the word is derived) are great ways to translate it. Others could be *doceo* (I teach, I instruct, but from where we get the word *doctor*, which meant a learned teacher in Latin), along with the words *edoceo* and *erudio*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good way for you to see the full connotations in all its uses is to check out the Lewis and Short dictionary, which you can find on [Philologus](http://philolog.us/). Just type in the word you want (making sure you're on the right tab) and you'll see all the very many ways the Romans used a word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="583" RevisionGUID="de8d1094-1a05-4255-ab3f-11fdac6130c1" CreationDate="2016-03-22T03:55:24.777" UserId="68" Text="I think that *duco* may in fact be your best bet, because I can't think of a word in Latin that refers to the art of leadership in the way you're talking about, whereas *duco* could very easily encompass what you're trying to convey. It's true that *duco* is often used in military contexts, but part of the reason for that is that we have a lot of military writing in Latin! As @C.M.Weimer points out, there are lots of uses of *duco* that *don't* have to do with the military. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other words that deal with aspects of the kind of leadership you're talking about—inspiring, being an example, being wholesome, etc.—but there's no word, as far as I'm aware (though there are others much more knowledgeable than I on the site) that combines them all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin actually has a very small vocabulary compared with a lot of other languages, and it ends up using a very few words to mean a lot of different things. So I think that if you go ahead with *duco* you'll be more than fine. It certainly isn't inconsistent with what you describe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="584" RevisionGUID="2de5e339-604f-43eb-ae4a-c7e9f9110449" CreationDate="2016-03-22T08:13:26.277" UserId="79" Text="There are many verbs for leading:&#xD;&#xA;*duco*,&#xD;&#xA;*rego*,&#xD;&#xA;*administro*,&#xD;&#xA;*praesum*,&#xD;&#xA;*moderor*,&#xD;&#xA;and *ducere* with various prefixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check a dictionary (like [Numen](http://latinlexicon.org/)) for detailed meanings.&#xD;&#xA;Prefixes often change meaning more than the prefix itself might suggest, so to figure out what *induco* means it is not enough to look at *in* and *duco*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the possible prefixes is *e-* (from the preposition *e* or *ex*).&#xD;&#xA;The verb *educere* (first person singular *educo*) literally means to lead out, for example to lead troops out from hiding.&#xD;&#xA;This verb also means &quot;to educate&quot;, but there is another verb that only means to educate: *educare* (first person singular also *educo*).&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that *duco* refers to both kinds of leadership you mention.&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joel Derfner: this verb is appropriate for what you want, although it also means other things.&#xD;&#xA;I think *duco* is the most appropriate verb for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I simplify the meaning to leading, do you really want the title to say &quot;I lead&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;It is not hard to say &quot;you lead&quot;, &quot;they will lead&quot;, &quot;we have led&quot; or many other things in a single word if those would feel more suitable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There is a difference between these two *educo*s, though, other than coming from different verbs.&#xD;&#xA;The first one is *&amp;emacr;d&amp;umacr;c&amp;omacr;*, the second one is *&amp;emacr;duc&amp;omacr;*.&#xD;&#xA;A bar above a vowel indicates that the vowel is long." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="7fff5cb6-38d6-4594-903c-92d03e1b23b1" CreationDate="2016-03-22T11:52:03.610" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 29 characters in body" Text="*Duco* just means &quot;I lead,&quot; so no, it does not exactly refer to the *art* of leadership. It can mean a whole host of things, though, especially militarily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Dux*, for example, means &quot;commander&quot; or &quot;general&quot; (and actually we get the word *duke* from it), but *uxorem ducere* means &quot;to marry&quot; (literally, &quot;to lead a wife&quot;). It can also mean &quot;to guide&quot; and can be used for gods guiding mortals etc, as in Seneca's aphorism, *ducunt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt* &quot;The fates guide the willing, but drag the unwilling.&quot; That same poem Seneca asks Zeus to lead him as a parent would, *Duc, o parens* &quot;Lead me, oh father.&quot; Guide is really the better term here, and there are no military connotations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *educo*, yes, &quot;I teach&quot; or &quot;I educate&quot; are great ways to translate it. Others could be *doceo* (I teach, I instruct, but from where we get the word *doctor*, which meant a learned teacher in Latin), along with the words *edoceo* and *erudio*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good way for you to see the full connotations in all its uses is to check out the Lewis and Short dictionary, which you can find on [Philologus](http://philolog.us/). Just type in the word you want (making sure you're on the right tab) and you'll see all the very many ways the Romans used a word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="203" RevisionGUID="2ff2d314-c68e-4992-8ebf-405577c97cb3" CreationDate="2016-03-22T13:29:23.470" UserId="189" Comment="Fix wrong word." Text="I have seen this sentence translated as both &quot;Only the Goddess knows fate&quot; and &quot;Only the Goddess knows their fate&quot;. That aside, I remember someone telling me that this was not correct Latin, and it has been bugging me ever since. What I have been able to piece together so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;sola dea&quot; I am not sure about. I know that &quot;dea&quot; is a first-declension feminine noun in the nominative case. However, since &quot;dea&quot; is the active noun in the sentence, the one doing the &quot;knowing&quot;, I am not sure that it should be in the nominative case. None of the other cases seem like they fit, except for possibly the accusative case, making it &quot;solam deam&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;fatum&quot; is a second-declension neuter noun in the accusative case, which I believe is correct, but I can't explain why. Something to do with it being the object acted upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the verb, &quot;novit&quot;, infinitive form &quot;noscere&quot;? Or is it &quot;nosco&quot;? From [this chart][1] it looks like novit is in the perfect tense, which doesn't make any sense; would that not translate as &quot;Only the Goddess has known fate&quot;? This is the one I've been having the most trouble with and have been unable to figure out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/go.php?D1=9&amp;H1=109&amp;T1=nosco &quot;this chart&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="585" RevisionGUID="7d912a6c-47ae-4c27-9444-d620a99c205c" CreationDate="2016-03-22T15:19:21.750" UserId="293" Text="Is `duco sanitas` a grammatically correct way of saying `I lead health`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For context, I'm looking for a short but grammatically correct way of saying I lead the development of healthy minds and bodies. I'm working on the tagline for an art project concerned with physical, emotional and psychological optimisation with a view to nurturing wholesome leadership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are any other words concerned more with natural/organic health than sanitas, please let me know!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This follows on from my [prior q][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/581/does-duco-refer-to-the-art-of-leadership" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2061" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="585" RevisionGUID="7d912a6c-47ae-4c27-9444-d620a99c205c" CreationDate="2016-03-22T15:19:21.750" UserId="293" Text="Is `duco sanitas` a grammatically correct way of saying `I lead health`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2062" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="585" RevisionGUID="7d912a6c-47ae-4c27-9444-d620a99c205c" CreationDate="2016-03-22T15:19:21.750" UserId="293" Text="|meaning|grammar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="586" RevisionGUID="73d36f5b-9873-4f12-9eb4-4c99ae08f242" CreationDate="2016-03-22T15:32:22.637" UserId="79" Text="I suggest ***Sanitatem duco***.&#xD;&#xA;Reasoning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Sanitas* is a good word for health, but it has to be declined to the accusative case: *sanitatem*.&#xD;&#xA;(If you say *Duco sanitas*, it could be read as something like &quot;I lead as health&quot;, but it makes little sense to think that you are health.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The English sentence &quot;I lead health&quot; is quite meaningless as such, but it can be understood the way you describe, given enough context.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly the Latin translation I suggest is grammatical but doesn't mean much as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In Latin it is more natural to put the verb after the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a longer version of the expression I suggest this:&#xD;&#xA;*Studium sanitatis animi corporisque fovendae duco*.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I lead the pursuit of fostering health of mind and body.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="587" RevisionGUID="90101386-f5d2-4234-a53a-4e94aecd9d8c" CreationDate="2016-03-22T16:21:03.410" UserId="45" Text="I am interested in the development of the word *sacramentum*, from the classical to the current ecclesiastical usage. The [Lewis &amp; Short entry](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsacramentum) lists the following meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A. Jurid. t. t., the **sum which the two parties to a suit at first deposited, but afterwards became bound for**, with the tresviri capitales; so called because the sum deposited by the losing party was used for religious purposes, esp. for the sacra publica; v. Fest. p. 344 Müll.; or, perh. more correctly, because the money was deposited in a sacred place;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B. Milit. t. t. (cf. infra, 2, the passage from Cic. Off. 1, 11, 36), orig. the **preliminary engagement entered into by newly-enlisted troops** (this was followed by the proper military oath, jusjurandum, which was at first voluntary, but, after the second Punic war, was demanded by the military tribune):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. In eccl. and late Lat., **something to be kept sacred.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In current (Catholic) Ecclesiastical Latin, the word has a precise meaning: one of the seven sacraments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Vulgate and Patristic Latin, though, this term has many usages, many of which are detailed in the L&amp;S entry under meaning (II). St. Paul, Augustine,  and Hilary (of Poitiers), e.g., use the term almost interchangeably with the Greek loan-word *mysterium*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If possible, I would like a **brief overview of the evolution of the meaning of *sacramentum***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2065" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="587" RevisionGUID="90101386-f5d2-4234-a53a-4e94aecd9d8c" CreationDate="2016-03-22T16:21:03.410" UserId="45" Text="Evolution of the Meaning of *sacramentum*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2066" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="587" RevisionGUID="90101386-f5d2-4234-a53a-4e94aecd9d8c" CreationDate="2016-03-22T16:21:03.410" UserId="45" Text="|classical-latin|etymology|vocabulary|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2067" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="587" RevisionGUID="cb03a81d-ebba-4117-9693-6bedfc0bb603" CreationDate="2016-03-22T16:36:47.863" UserId="45" Comment="edited title" Text="Evolution of the meaning of sacramentum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="570" RevisionGUID="2d73c556-8ebf-4497-8347-b16fc2c3afbf" CreationDate="2016-03-22T17:12:05.713" UserId="39" Comment="added 861 characters in body" Text="None, and here's why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Meaning:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at -que cognates (Hittite -kku 'now, even, and'; Sanskrit -ca 'and'; Greek  Gr. -τε 'and' etc.), you will see that the meaning is virtually the same (and). There is no evidence to suggest that -que was an enclitic in five. What would it mean, &quot;five.and&quot;, anyway??? And there are no other numerals of the type &quot;X.and.&quot; (e.g., four.and, ten.and).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Morphology**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at quinque cognates (Skt. páñca 'five', YAv. paṇca 'five', Gr. πέντε, Arm. hing 'five'; Lith. penkì 'five'), you will see that the segment *kwe is present in a number of languages, which mostly likely means it was inherited from PIE - otherwise, you will have to explain how and why it emerged in all those languages (Sanskrit, Greek, Lithuanian, Armenian etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no evidence to suggest that *kwe in five was an enclitic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what [de Vaan][1] gives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**-que** [cj. postpos.] ‘and’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reconstruction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Proto-Italic	-kwe.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Proto-Indo-European	*-kwe** 'and, -ever'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cognates**&#xD;&#xA;Italic	Ven. -kve, Fal. -cue 'and', O.U. -p, -p, O. -p]e 'and'.&#xD;&#xA;Indo-European	Hit. -kku 'now, even, and', Pal. -ku 'and?', CLuw. -ku 'and, furthermore?'; Skt. -ca, Av. -ca, OP -cā 'and, also, if', Gr. -τε 'and', Myc. -qe 'and'; Go. -uh 'and, also', nih 'if not'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**quīnque** [num. indecl.] ‘five’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reconstruction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Proto-Italic	kwenkwe 'five', kw(e)nkwto- 'fifth'.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Proto-Indo-European	*penkwe 'five', *pnkw-(t)o- 'fifth'.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cognates&#xD;&#xA;Italic	O. pumperias , púmperias [nom.pl.] , púmperiais [dat.abl.pl.], U. pumpeřias [nom.pl.] in O. probably 'fifth day', in U. unclear meaning, &lt; * pompe '5' + *-(e)ro + i̯o- (er probably from * peteria- &lt;&lt; * peturia- '4'); O. pomtis 'five times' &lt; * pompe-tis, suffix *-is (Lat. -iēs) &gt;&gt; *-tis by analogy with sept-, oct- cent-. U. puntes [nom.pl.], puntis [dat.abl.pl.] '?' &lt; * pomp-ti- 'group of five'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indo-European	OIr. cóic, W. pymp, Skt. páñca 'five', pañcamá- 'fifth', pakthá- PN, paṅktí- [f.] 'set of five', YAv. paṇca 'five', puxδa- 'fifth', Gr. πέντε, Thess., Lesb. πέμπε 'five', πέμπτος 'fifth', Arm. hing 'five'; Alb. pesë, OCS pętь, Ru. pjat' 'five', OCS pętъ, Ru. pjátyj 'fifth', Lith. penkì 'five', peñktas 'fifth', Go. fimf 'five', OHG fimfto 'fifth', ToA päñ, ToB piś ' five'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="570" RevisionGUID="ad60722f-b10a-4c54-8ac2-80093408739e" CreationDate="2016-03-22T17:21:20.870" UserId="39" Comment="added 861 characters in body" Text="None, and here's why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Meaning**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at -que cognates (Hittite -kku 'now, even, and'; Sanskrit -ca 'and'; Greek  Gr. -τε 'and' etc.), you will see that the meaning is virtually the same (and). There is no evidence to suggest that -que was an enclitic in five. What would it mean, &quot;five.and&quot;, anyway??? And there are no other numerals of the type &quot;X.and.&quot; (e.g., four.and, ten.and).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Morphology**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at quinque cognates (Skt. páñca 'five', YAv. paṇca 'five', Gr. πέντε, Arm. hing 'five'; Lith. penkì 'five'), you will see that the segment *kwe is present in a number of languages, which mostly likely means it was inherited from PIE - otherwise, you will have to explain how and why it emerged in all those languages (Sanskrit, Greek, Lithuanian, Armenian etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no evidence to suggest that *kwe in five was an enclitic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Syntax**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, [grammaticalization][1] works this way: a free (standalone) word may become a &quot;less free&quot; morpheme (i.e. an enclitic or affix), not the other way (although there might be some extremely rare counterexamples).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what [de Vaan][2] gives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**-que** [cj. postpos.] ‘and’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reconstruction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Proto-Italic	-kwe.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Proto-Indo-European	*-kwe** 'and, -ever'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cognates**&#xD;&#xA;Italic	Ven. -kve, Fal. -cue 'and', O.U. -p, -p, O. -p]e 'and'.&#xD;&#xA;Indo-European	Hit. -kku 'now, even, and', Pal. -ku 'and?', CLuw. -ku 'and, furthermore?'; Skt. -ca, Av. -ca, OP -cā 'and, also, if', Gr. -τε 'and', Myc. -qe 'and'; Go. -uh 'and, also', nih 'if not'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**quīnque** [num. indecl.] ‘five’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reconstruction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Proto-Italic	kwenkwe 'five', kw(e)nkwto- 'fifth'.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Proto-Indo-European	*penkwe 'five', *pnkw-(t)o- 'fifth'.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cognates&#xD;&#xA;Italic	O. pumperias , púmperias [nom.pl.] , púmperiais [dat.abl.pl.], U. pumpeřias [nom.pl.] in O. probably 'fifth day', in U. unclear meaning, &lt; * pompe '5' + *-(e)ro + i̯o- (er probably from * peteria- &lt;&lt; * peturia- '4'); O. pomtis 'five times' &lt; * pompe-tis, suffix *-is (Lat. -iēs) &gt;&gt; *-tis by analogy with sept-, oct- cent-. U. puntes [nom.pl.], puntis [dat.abl.pl.] '?' &lt; * pomp-ti- 'group of five'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indo-European	OIr. cóic, W. pymp, Skt. páñca 'five', pañcamá- 'fifth', pakthá- PN, paṅktí- [f.] 'set of five', YAv. paṇca 'five', puxδa- 'fifth', Gr. πέντε, Thess., Lesb. πέμπε 'five', πέμπτος 'fifth', Arm. hing 'five'; Alb. pesë, OCS pętь, Ru. pjat' 'five', OCS pętъ, Ru. pjátyj 'fifth', Lith. penkì 'five', peñktas 'fifth', Go. fimf 'five', OHG fimfto 'fifth', ToA päñ, ToB piś ' five'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammaticalization&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="588" RevisionGUID="fc01f777-acf4-411d-a92a-de6b94461525" CreationDate="2016-03-22T17:51:17.993" UserId="79" Text="Is there a Latin idiom for preparing for work?&#xD;&#xA;In English one can roll up one's sleeves, and the corresponding expression has the same meaning in Finnish.&#xD;&#xA;I doubt a direct translation of this idiom works in Latin, especially classical Latin, since sleeves were not as common in antiquity as they are today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can suggest an idiom, please indicate if it is related to a specific kind of work or has other context restrictions.&#xD;&#xA;I prefer classical Latin, but also later expressions are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;If your suggestion is not attested in literature, please explain why it is good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2071" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="588" RevisionGUID="fc01f777-acf4-411d-a92a-de6b94461525" CreationDate="2016-03-22T17:51:17.993" UserId="79" Text="How can I roll up my sleeves in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2072" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="588" RevisionGUID="fc01f777-acf4-411d-a92a-de6b94461525" CreationDate="2016-03-22T17:51:17.993" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="589" RevisionGUID="230ae3c8-1b36-471b-af2d-449185b9f08a" CreationDate="2016-03-22T18:46:02.217" UserId="40" Text="*Cingo* or *accingo* &quot;gird&quot; might be what you're looking for. In the passive (with a reflexive meaning), these verbs are often used in the sense of &quot;prepare for&quot; (some effort). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short on [*cingo*][1]: &quot;As a girding up of the Roman dress was necessary in pursuits requiring physical action, hence, cingor (cf accingor), to make one's self ready for any thing, to prepare: “cingitur, certe expedit se,” Plaut. Am. 1, 1, 152; “cingitur ipse furens certatim in proelia Turnus,” Verg. A. 11, 486&quot;. And on *[accingo][2]*: &quot;accingere se or accingi, to enter upon or undertake a thing, girded, i. e. well prepared, to prepare one's self, make one's self ready (taken from the girding of the flowing robes when in active occupation); constr. absol., with ad, in, dat., or inf.: “tibi omne est exedendum, accingere,” make yourself ready, Ter. Ph. 2, 2, 4; so id. Eun. 5, 9, 30; Lucr. 2, 1043: “illi se praedae accingunt,” Verg. A. 1, 210: “accingi ad consulatum,” Liv. 4, 2&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=cingo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daccingo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="590" RevisionGUID="7cbc84a9-123b-4dcc-9735-949a28600046" CreationDate="2016-03-22T18:47:10.467" UserId="45" Text="Although this is not entirely idiomatic, a word that I find evocative and powerful is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# obnitor, obniti(er), obnixus ([L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dobnitor))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has military connotations of &quot;standing firm&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *stant **obnixa** omnia contra* (Verg, A. 10, 359)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***obnixos** vos stabili gradu impetum hostium excipere* (Liv. 6, 12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well as more general meanings of &quot;striving&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *triumphum Pauli impedire **obnitebantur*** (Vell. 1, 9, 6.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***obnixe** omnia facere* (Ter. And. 1, 1, 134)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might not exactly fit the bill of what you're describing: but I recall asking a Latin professor of mine what this word meant many years ago and he (true to the natural method) remained silent and rolled up his sleeves until I understood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="589" RevisionGUID="5ff5684f-3e49-47fb-94a3-2e8cb90b7318" CreationDate="2016-03-22T19:01:56.573" UserId="12" Comment="cleanup quotes" Text="*Cingo* or *accingo* &quot;gird&quot; might be what you're looking for. In the passive (with a reflexive meaning), these verbs are often used in the sense of &quot;prepare for&quot; (some effort). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short on [*cingo*][1]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As a girding up of the Roman dress was necessary in pursuits requiring physical action, hence, cingor (cf accingor), *to make one's self ready for any thing, to prepare*: “cingitur, certe expedit se,” Plaut. Am. 1, 1, 152; “cingitur ipse furens certatim in proelia Turnus,” Verg. A. 11, 486. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And on *[accingo][2]*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;accingere se or accingi, *to enter upon or undertake a thing, girded,* i. e. *well prepared, to prepare one's self, make one's self ready* (taken from the girding of the flowing robes when in active occupation); constr. *absol.*, with *ad, in,* dat., or *inf*.: “tibi omne est exedendum, accingere,” *make yourself ready, Ter. Ph. 2, 2, 4*; so id. Eun. 5, 9, 30; Lucr. 2, 1043: “illi se praedae accingunt,” Verg. A. 1, 210: “accingi ad consulatum,” Liv. 4, 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=cingo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daccingo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="591" RevisionGUID="7d59aceb-e3e9-4169-893a-1e5b5d09d7df" CreationDate="2016-03-22T20:50:37.710" UserId="12" Text="Eleanor Dickey, a professor of Classics, [responded recently](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/49cvdy/iama_classics_professor_who_has_travelled_around/d0r1cjo) to a question about the works read by those learning Latin as a second language in the ancient world:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Students in the East] start on Virgil (mainly the Aeneid) and Cicero (mainly the Catilinarians) and then read Terence, Sallust, Seneca’s tragedies, and Juvenal. **Caesar is conspicuous by his absence.** [emphasis added]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That last sentence is intriguing, since Caesar's works play such an important role in modern Latin instruction.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When did the works of Caesar, like the [*Commentarii de Bello Gallico*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentarii_de_Bello_Gallico), begin to be used widely for Latin language instruction among non-native speakers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2077" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="591" RevisionGUID="7d59aceb-e3e9-4169-893a-1e5b5d09d7df" CreationDate="2016-03-22T20:50:37.710" UserId="12" Text="When did Caesar's works begin to be used to teach Latin to non-native speakers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2078" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="591" RevisionGUID="7d59aceb-e3e9-4169-893a-1e5b5d09d7df" CreationDate="2016-03-22T20:50:37.710" UserId="12" Text="|classical-latin|gaius-iulius-caesar|pedagogy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="592" RevisionGUID="3445fd27-c611-4a8a-a5ba-565ea31b6fa0" CreationDate="2016-03-22T21:32:45.800" UserId="68" Text="Joonas Ilmavirta's suggestions are excellent. As he says, though, *Sanitatem duco* doesn't really mean very much. And *Studium sanitatis animi corporisque fovendæ duco* is a mouthful (eyeful?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to suggest a compromise, which may or may not be suitable: *In sanitatem duco*. This means &quot;I lead into health.&quot; If your project is about nurturing qualities of wholeness, then this might work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option would be *In integritatem duco*. This means &quot;I lead into completeness&quot; or &quot;I lead into wholeness.&quot; *Integritatem* is the way the word *integritas* would be used in this sentence; *integritas* is, of course, the source of the English word &quot;integrity,&quot; which might be nice given that you're talking about leadership. However, it's important to note that what we today usually mean when we say &quot;integrity&quot; (a commitment to keeping one's word, honesty, etc.) isn't really part of *integritas/integritatem*. That said, our &quot;integrity&quot; also isn't *excluded* by *integritas/integritatem*, so you'd be getting the benefit of the connotation without betraying the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, good luck with the project!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="592" RevisionGUID="222e5610-31b4-4b54-9902-ca563eaa4e8c" CreationDate="2016-03-22T23:04:39.773" UserId="68" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Joonas Ilmavirta's suggestions are excellent. As he says, though, *Sanitatem duco* doesn't really mean very much. And *Studium sanitatis animi corporisque fovendæ duco* is a mouthful (eyeful?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to suggest a compromise, which may or may not be suitable: *In sanitatem duco*. This means &quot;I lead into health.&quot; If your project is about nurturing qualities of wholeness, then this might work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option would be *In integritatem duco*. This means &quot;I lead into completeness&quot; or &quot;I lead into wholeness.&quot; *Integritatem* is the way the word *integritas* would look like in this sentence; *integritas* is, of course, the source of the English word &quot;integrity,&quot; which might be nice given that you're talking about leadership. However, it's important to note that what we today usually mean when we say &quot;integrity&quot; (a commitment to keeping one's word, honesty, etc.) isn't really part of *integritas/integritatem*. That said, our &quot;integrity&quot; also isn't *excluded* by *integritas/integritatem*, so you'd be getting the benefit of the connotation without betraying the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, good luck with the project!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="593" RevisionGUID="0edea221-5db0-48d7-92bd-65ec6cd0c6cd" CreationDate="2016-03-23T00:07:07.927" UserId="68" Text="You have several excellent answers here. I just want to add a few words about C. M. Weimer's suggestion that *scit* might be better than *novit*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Scire* (*scit*) and *noscere/novisse* (*novit*), two Latin words for &quot;know,&quot; have cognates in many Romance languages (perhaps all of them; certainly all those I'm familiar with): *savoir/connaître* in French, *sapere/cognoscere* in Italian, and so on. English speakers often confuse the two. *Noscere/novisse* means to be acquainted with (usually) a person, to recognize, to be familiar with. *Scire* is far more often used of inanimate objects, and is more about knowing facts and knowing how to do things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I agree that *scit* is probably more appropriate here. *Sola dea fatum novit* means something more like &quot;Only the goddess recognizes fate.&quot; Now, *fatum* in Latin has a much broader meaning than &quot;fate&quot; as we use it in English today, so *novit* isn't actually *wrong* here. But what the sentence is probably referring to is the idea of knowing the future, which would be much better rendered as *Sola dea fatum scit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For what it's worth, there's another word, *callere*, which means &quot;to know by experience&quot;; it's the word that &quot;callus&quot; comes from, as in the hard bumps on your fingers when you've played a lot of guitar. I suppose it would be possible to say *Sola dea fatum callet*, but in addition to being probably not what's intended, that would also be false!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Jean Baptiste Gardin Dusmenil's *Latin Synonyms, with Their Different Significations: and Examples Taken from the Best Latin Authors* (gotta love 19th century book titles!), translated by J.M. Gossett, 1819 edition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non **sciunt** ipsi viam, qua domum redeant.  &#xD;&#xA;They themselves don't **know** the way by which to go home. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is qui de omnibus **scierit**, de Scylla se **scire** negavit.&#xD;&#xA;He who **knew** about everything said he didn't **know** about Scylla.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —Cicero  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unde tam bene me **nosti**?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; How do you **know** me so well?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —Horace&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Virtutem tu ne de facie quidem **nosti**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You don't even **know** what strength *looks* like.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —Cicero&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Dumesnil goes on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Noscere* is to have in one's mind the idea or the notion of a thing or of a person; and *scire* is only to have a knowledge of a thing or person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="573" RevisionGUID="e6564786-7a59-4c1b-9db0-ef27115144f4" CreationDate="2016-03-23T00:09:57.660" UserId="68" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Lewis &amp; Short II.B.5 has this definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. To bring forward, propose, adduce; to bring to mind, prompt, suggest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with these examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;cupio mihi **ab illo**, iudices, **subici**, quoniam de militari eius gloria dico, si quid forte praetereo.&quot; (Cic. *Verr*. 2.5.25)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;I wish, O judges, **to be prompted by him**, since I am speaking of his military renown, if by accident I pass over anything.&quot; (Clark &amp; Peterson translation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  vidi Archidemum, cum quidem idem hic mihi Maeandrius quasi ministrator aderat **subiciens** quid in suos civis civitatemque, si vellem, **dicerem**.&quot; (Cic. *Verr*. Fl 22.53)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I saw Archidemus, when this identical man Maeandrius came to me as a sort of attorney, **suggesting to me what I might say**, if I pleased, against his own fellow-citizens and his own city. (translation Yonge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So prompt/suggest overlaps fine with *suggero*. I think the word though is especially appropriate here, since he is not just suggesting any old thing, but the main thing, the *subject*, if you will, which meaning *subiectum* holds in later Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="572" RevisionGUID="9aac12f6-073f-4384-8cd9-f683ea4ee6b2" CreationDate="2016-03-23T01:43:59.037" UserId="12" Comment="link and caps" Text="In English, the epigraph of *A Christmas Carol* reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have endeavoured in this Ghostly little book, to raise the Ghost of an Idea, which shall not put my readers out of humour with themselves, with each other, with the season, or with me. May it haunt their houses pleasantly, and no one wish to lay it.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Their faithful Friend and Servant, C.D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Carmen ad Festum Nativitatis][1]*, Tom Cotton translates this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc scrípsí Manibus ornátum libellum nescióquid Phantasmatis subjiciendí causá quóminus sive inter meós lectórés singillatim vel úná sive dé tempore anní sive dé mé displiceantur. Eórum domicilia suaviter inquietentur neque sint qui expellere vélint.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eórum Amícus fidélis et Servus, C.D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis Elementary defines [*subicio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=subicio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060) as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. to throw under, place under, cast below&#xD;&#xA;2. [of troops] to bring, cause to be encamped, post&#xD;&#xA;3. to set up, mount, throw up&#xD;&#xA;4. to substitute, forge, counterfeit&#xD;&#xA;5. to suborn&#xD;&#xA;6. [figuratively] to submit, subject, present&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming that Mr. Cotton is using *subicio* in its sixth meaning, &quot;to submit, subject, present,&quot; since none of the others makes sense in this context. How does *subicio* used with this meaning work as a translation of &quot;raise the Ghost of an Idea&quot;? What are some other examples of *subicio* being used in this way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I understand that Latin is a far more concrete language than English, much less given to metaphor and fancy, so I see that a more literal translation of &quot;raise the Ghost of an Idea&quot; wouldn't be great Latinity. But in this case my impulse would have been to use *suggero*, whose sixth meaning is &quot;to suggest, prompt,&quot; and I'm trying to understand what makes *subicio* a better choice here. Döderlein contains neither verb, so I don't have much to go on.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1446609359?keywords=carmen%20ad%20festum%20nativitatis&amp;qid=1458564868&amp;ref_=sr_1_1&amp;sr=8-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2084" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="572" RevisionGUID="9aac12f6-073f-4384-8cd9-f683ea4ee6b2" CreationDate="2016-03-23T01:43:59.037" UserId="12" Comment="link and caps" Text="What are some examples of &quot;subicio&quot; being used to mean &quot;submit, subject, present&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="594" RevisionGUID="5355f068-59e5-4021-b61a-3f913be30ecc" CreationDate="2016-03-23T03:32:28.717" UserId="30" Text="Since Jodocus Hondius was Flemish (Joost de Hondt / d'Hondt), it makes sense to interpret the Dutch first, and then treat the Latin as a translation in our analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Eijgentlicke afbeeldinghe der Magellanisher Strate die nu met veel gevaers ettelijeke Maenden doorsien, van nieus ondeckt is.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [*Eijgentlicke*][1] can mean, and probably means, &quot;reliable, faithful&#xD;&#xA;   to the original&quot;, as in a faithful representation.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  *Afbeeldinghe* means a depiction of something.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  *Nu* means &quot;now&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  *Gevaers* is an old plural of *gevaar*, &quot;danger&quot;. *Met veel gevaar* means &quot;with great danger&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  *Ettelijeke* means &quot;several&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  *[Doorsien][2]* means, amongst other things, &quot;inspected, surveyed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  *Van nieus* is an old expression meaning &quot;anew, again&quot; (see *[nieuwe][3]* under 4.b).&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  *Ontdeckt* means &quot;discovered, revealed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the Dutch is best translated as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Faithful depiction of the Strait of Magellan, which now, surveyed with many dangers for several months, has been revealed anew.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin words seem to be all translations of Dutch words, except that the syntax has been shaken up a bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Exquisita &amp; magno aliquot mensium periculo lustrata et iam retecta Freti Magellanici Facies.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Exquisitus* can mean &quot;[ascertained, accurate][4]&quot; and seems to be a translation of *eijgentlicke*.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - *Aliquot* means &quot;several&quot; and is a translation of *ettelijeke*.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  *Lustrata* means &quot;[surveyed][5]&quot; and is a translation of *doorsien*.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  *Retecta* means &quot;revealed, discovered&quot; and is a translation of *ondeckt*. Perhaps the prefix *re-* is intended to perform a double service, as the *re-* in &quot;reveal&quot; as well as a translation of *van nieu* &quot;anew&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  *Facies* means &quot;shape, appearance, aspect&quot; and is a translation of *afbeeldinghe*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A literal translation of the Latin would be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Accurate &amp; surveyed with the great danger of several months, and now revealed (anew), the shape of the Strait of Magellan.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more liberal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Accurate representation of the Strait of Magellan, revealed anew with great danger after a survey of several months.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gtb.inl.nl/iWDB/search?actie=article&amp;wdb=WNT&amp;id=M015764&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gtb.inl.nl/iWDB/search?actie=article&amp;wdb=WNT&amp;id=M014771&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://gtb.inl.nl/iWDB/search?wdb=MNW&amp;actie=article&amp;id=32622&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=exquiro&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=lustro%231&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="595" RevisionGUID="85642ec7-ed22-4c28-8bbb-aaa981d4443d" CreationDate="2016-03-23T04:08:38.460" UserId="30" Text="There doesn't seem to be any conexion in Proto-Italic, according to the etymological dictionaries. As to whether there is a conexion in Proto-Indo-European, in which both words originate, that is uncertain. Walde-Hoffmann (1938) on *quinque* offer a suggestion based on Cuny:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Weitere Analyse von *quinque* unsicher; vergleiche Cuny, *Ét[ymologie] prégr[eque]* 1 und die folgende (generalisierendes *\*que* wie in lateinischen *quisque* und in *\*que-tuor-es* (&quot;vier&quot;), sehe *quattuor*); ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So perhaps the *-que* in *quinque* is related to the generalising *que* in *quisque* &quot;every one, whoever&quot; and in *\*quetuores* &quot;four&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="596" RevisionGUID="b8c716d2-ece2-4f24-a397-1848e1175720" CreationDate="2016-03-23T08:56:39.230" UserId="79" Text="Some Latin words end in *-que* (for example *quinque*, vocative of adjectives ending in *-quus* and imperatives like *relinque*), but I have never seen the conjunction *-que* attached to such words.&#xD;&#xA;Are there examples of having a double *-que* in this sense?&#xD;&#xA;Do grammarians or other writers suggest avoiding such combinations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not interested in pronouns where the final *-que* comes from the conjunction, but in words that coincidentally end in *-que*.&#xD;&#xA;The answers to [an earlier question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/567/79) indicate that *quinque* does not have the conjunction *-que* in it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2089" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="596" RevisionGUID="b8c716d2-ece2-4f24-a397-1848e1175720" CreationDate="2016-03-23T08:56:39.230" UserId="79" Text="Can -que be attached to a word ending in -que?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2090" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="596" RevisionGUID="b8c716d2-ece2-4f24-a397-1848e1175720" CreationDate="2016-03-23T08:56:39.230" UserId="79" Text="|example-request|conjunction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="593" RevisionGUID="88762942-9655-4381-9154-f05de4e98cda" CreationDate="2016-03-23T13:18:25.870" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="You have several excellent answers here. I just want to add a few words about C. M. Weimer's suggestion that *scit* might be better than *novit*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Scire* (*scit*) and *noscere/novisse* (*novit*), two Latin words for &quot;know,&quot; have cognates in many Romance languages (perhaps all of them; certainly all those I'm familiar with): *savoir/connaître* in French, *sapere/cognoscere* in Italian, and so on. English speakers often confuse the two. *Noscere/novisse* means to be acquainted with (usually a person), to recognize, to be familiar with. *Scire* is far more often used of inanimate objects, and is more about knowing facts and knowing how to do things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I agree that *scit* is probably more appropriate here. *Sola dea fatum novit* means something more like &quot;Only the goddess recognizes [or &quot;is acquainted with&quot;] fate.&quot; Now, *fatus/fatum* in Latin has a much broader meaning than &quot;fate&quot; as we use it in English today, so *novit* isn't actually *wrong* here. But if the sentence is referring to the idea of knowing the future, as seems likely, it would be much better rendered as *Sola dea fatum scit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For what it's worth, there's another word, *callere*, which means &quot;to know by experience&quot;; it's the word that &quot;callus&quot; comes from, as in the hard bumps on your fingers when you've played a lot of guitar. I suppose it would be possible to say *Sola dea fatum callet*, but in addition to being probably not what's intended, that would also be false!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Jean Baptiste Gardin Dusmenil's *Latin Synonyms, with Their Different Significations: and Examples Taken from the Best Latin Authors* (gotta love 19th century book titles!), translated by J.M. Gossett, 1819 edition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non **sciunt** ipsi viam, qua domum redeant.  &#xD;&#xA;They themselves don't **know** the way by which to go home. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is qui de omnibus **scierit**, de Scylla se **scire** negavit.&#xD;&#xA;He who **knew** about everything said he didn't **know** about Scylla.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —Cicero  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unde tam bene me **nosti**?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; How do you **know** me so well?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —Horace&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Virtutem tu ne de facie quidem **nosti**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You don't even **know** what strength *looks* like.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —Cicero&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Dumesnil goes on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Noscere* is to have in one's mind the idea or the notion of a thing or of a person; and *scire* is only to have a knowledge of a thing or person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="597" RevisionGUID="9d0a6fa2-8f50-4f41-9844-fab2980ff5fa" CreationDate="2016-03-23T13:28:20.230" UserId="45" Text="I searched through plausible forms (particularly adverbial forms of adjectives ending in -quus) and only found one example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Aequeque&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in rebus minoribus socium fallere turpissimum est **aequeque** turpe atque illud de quo ante dixi ([Cic. S. Rosc. 40](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0010%3Atext%3DS.+Rosc.%3Achapter%3D40))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; simili quae praedita constant   &#xD;&#xA;natura atque ipsae res sunt **aequeque** laborant   &#xD;&#xA;et pereunt ([Lucr. 1.847](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0130%3Abook%3D1%3Acard%3D847))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, I have not found one example, even in later Latin writings. All search results for these are either typos (*usqueque* for *usquequo*) or bad machine transcriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does not take much imagination to see that most words in the [relatively short list of Latin words ending in *-que*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?lang=la&amp;type=end&amp;page=1&amp;lookup=que) would complain if a -que was added. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It does not take a sensitive soul to cringe at the **dissonance** of such words as *usqueque*, *quicumqueque*, or (my favorite) *jamjamqueque*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Many words ending in -que **already use the ending -que**, e.g. *itaque*, *neque*, and *atque*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="597" RevisionGUID="6351a615-f9ec-4520-9e0b-6d3a967eeca8" CreationDate="2016-03-23T13:36:03.213" UserId="45" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="I searched through plausible forms (particularly adverbial forms of adjectives ending in -quus) and only found one example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Aequeque&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in rebus minoribus socium fallere turpissimum est **aequeque** turpe atque illud de quo ante dixi ([Cic. S. Rosc. 40](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0010%3Atext%3DS.+Rosc.%3Achapter%3D40))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; simili quae praedita constant   &#xD;&#xA;natura atque ipsae res sunt **aequeque** laborant   &#xD;&#xA;et pereunt ([Lucr. 1.847](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0130%3Abook%3D1%3Acard%3D847))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, I have not found one example, even in later Latin writings. All search results for these are either typos (*usqueque* for *usquequo*) or bad machine transcriptions (*propinqueque* for *propinquaeque*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does not take much imagination to see that most words in the [relatively short list of Latin words ending in *-que*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?lang=la&amp;type=end&amp;page=1&amp;lookup=que) would complain if a -que was added. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It does not take a sensitive soul to cringe at the **dissonance** of such words as *usqueque*, *quicumqueque*, or (my favorite) *jamjamqueque*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Many words ending in -que **already use the ending -que**, e.g. *itaque*, *neque*, and *atque*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="594" RevisionGUID="2384e955-0944-416c-938e-f56119523d43" CreationDate="2016-03-23T14:09:10.797" UserId="30" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="Since Jodocus Hondius was Flemish (Joost de Hondt / d'Hondt), it makes sense to interpret the Dutch first, and then treat the Latin as a translation in our analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Eijgentlicke afbeeldinghe der Magellanisher Strate die nu met veel gevaers ettelijeke Maenden doorsien, van nieus ondeckt is.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [*Eijgentlicke*][1] can mean, and probably means, &quot;reliable, faithful&#xD;&#xA;   to the original&quot;, as in a faithful representation.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  *Afbeeldinghe* means a depiction of something.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  *Nu* means &quot;now&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  *Gevaers* is an old plural of *gevaar*, &quot;danger&quot;. *Met veel gevaar* means &quot;with great danger&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  *[Ettelijeke][2]* means &quot;several&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  *[Doorsien][3]* means, amongst other things, &quot;inspected, surveyed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  *Van nieus* is an old expression meaning &quot;anew, again&quot; (see *[nieuwe][4]* under 4.b).&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  *Ontdeckt* means &quot;discovered, revealed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the Dutch is best translated as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Faithful depiction of the Strait of Magellan, which now, surveyed with many dangers for several months, has been revealed anew.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin words seem to be all translations of Dutch words, except that the syntax has been shaken up a bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Exquisita &amp; magno aliquot mensium periculo lustrata et iam retecta Freti Magellanici Facies.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Exquisitus* can mean &quot;[ascertained, accurate][5]&quot; and seems to be a translation of *eijgentlicke*.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - *Aliquot* means &quot;several&quot; and is a translation of *ettelijeke*.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  *Lustrata* means &quot;[surveyed][6]&quot; and is a translation of *doorsien*.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  *Retecta* means &quot;revealed, discovered&quot; and is a translation of *ondeckt*. Perhaps the prefix *re-* is intended to perform a double service, as the *re-* in &quot;reveal&quot; as well as a translation of *van nieu* &quot;anew&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  *Facies* means &quot;shape, appearance, aspect&quot; and is a translation of *afbeeldinghe*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A literal translation of the Latin would be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Accurate &amp; surveyed with the great danger of several months, and now revealed (anew), the shape of the Strait of Magellan.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more liberal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Accurate representation of the Strait of Magellan, revealed anew with great danger after a survey of several months.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gtb.inl.nl/iWDB/search?actie=article&amp;wdb=WNT&amp;id=M015764&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gtb.inl.nl/iWDB/search?actie=article&amp;wdb=WNT&amp;id=M016163&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://gtb.inl.nl/iWDB/search?actie=article&amp;wdb=WNT&amp;id=M014771&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://gtb.inl.nl/iWDB/search?wdb=MNW&amp;actie=article&amp;id=32622&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=exquiro&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=lustro%231&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="591" RevisionGUID="61301b49-5873-4751-a9db-44842d7834cd" CreationDate="2016-03-23T14:29:56.120" UserId="12" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="Eleanor Dickey, a professor of Classics, [responded recently](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/49cvdy/iama_classics_professor_who_has_travelled_around/d0r1cjo) to a question about the works read by those learning Latin as a second language in the Greek-speaking ancient world:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Students in the East] start on Virgil (mainly the Aeneid) and Cicero (mainly the Catilinarians) and then read Terence, Sallust, Seneca’s tragedies, and Juvenal. **Caesar is conspicuous by his absence.** [emphasis added]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That last sentence is intriguing, since Caesar's works play such an important role in modern Latin instruction.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When did the works of Caesar, like the [*Commentarii de Bello Gallico*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentarii_de_Bello_Gallico), begin to be used widely for Latin language instruction among non-native speakers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="596" RevisionGUID="1f8eb806-93ad-4b51-8568-17fc0ee20259" CreationDate="2016-03-23T14:33:19.070" UserId="79" Comment="added 216 characters in body" Text="Some Latin words end in *-que* (for example *quinque*, vocative of adjectives ending in *-quus* and imperatives like *relinque*), but I have never seen the conjunction *-que* attached to such words.&#xD;&#xA;Are there examples of having a double *-que* in this sense?&#xD;&#xA;Do grammarians or other writers suggest avoiding such combinations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not interested in pronouns where the final *-que* comes from the conjunction, but in words that coincidentally end in *-que*.&#xD;&#xA;The answers to [an earlier question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/567/79) indicate that *quinque* does not have the conjunction *-que* in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Added detail:**&#xD;&#xA;I am mostly interested in the case where both 'e's are short, that is, words ending in *-quĕquĕ* instead of *-qu&amp;emacr;quĕ*.&#xD;&#xA;The answer by brianpck below gives an example with *-qu&amp;emacr;quĕ*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2097" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="596" RevisionGUID="acfbbe81-9ef8-43b0-807d-56a55e057ed5" CreationDate="2016-03-23T14:38:26.513" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|example-request|conjunction|enclitic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="598" RevisionGUID="59184a92-b951-4408-a4c0-6d114cffd798" CreationDate="2016-03-23T18:46:34.040" UserId="68" Text="Lewis &amp; Short gives the following definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;surely, certainly, to be sure, by all means, indeed, in fact  &#xD;&#xA;certainly, indeed, forsooth  &#xD;&#xA;for, for in fact  &#xD;&#xA;for, because, inasmuch as  &#xD;&#xA;for indeed, since in fact, inasmuch as  &#xD;&#xA;as one in fact who, which, that, since or inasmuch as I, thou, he, it  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which, to be frank, I find completely unhelpful when trying to write in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best I can come up with is that &quot;quippe blah blah blah&quot; is generally used to mean something like &quot;since, of course, blah blah blah.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eum reliqui, quippe in Tartarum intrare non poterat.  &#xD;&#xA;I left him behind, since of course he couldn't enter Tartarus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That seems like it would work with all the examples given in Lewis &amp; Short, even the ironic speech of Juno's from the Æneid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this the right way to think about what *quippe* means and how it's used? If not, what would be a better way? Does it have any additional meanings/uses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2100" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="598" RevisionGUID="59184a92-b951-4408-a4c0-6d114cffd798" CreationDate="2016-03-23T18:46:34.040" UserId="68" Text="How can I use &quot;quippe&quot; properly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2101" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="598" RevisionGUID="59184a92-b951-4408-a4c0-6d114cffd798" CreationDate="2016-03-23T18:46:34.040" UserId="68" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="599" RevisionGUID="51140b4d-c591-42ad-b02a-9fd0b2a43221" CreationDate="2016-03-23T19:07:41.587" UserId="79" Text="I have typically encountered *quippe* with relative pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;It strengthens the relative pronoun in a way that is often best translated with something other than a relative structure.&#xD;&#xA;The word *quippe* emphasizes that the relative clause contains an explanation.&#xD;&#xA;Artificial examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Amicus meus non cantat, quippe qui ne loqui quidem potest.* &quot;My friend does not sing, for he can't even speak.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *Ille mihi auxiliari non potebat, quippe qui ipse quoque inops erat.* &quot;He could not help me, because in fact he was broke, too.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the only possible use of *quippe*, but this is the one I feel most comfortable with (and have seen most often)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="598" RevisionGUID="c0b7ce4f-d9ef-4f79-9711-79f340810981" CreationDate="2016-03-23T20:01:21.397" UserId="68" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="Lewis &amp; Short gives the following definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;surely, certainly, to be sure, by all means, indeed, in fact  &#xD;&#xA;certainly, indeed, forsooth  &#xD;&#xA;for, for in fact  &#xD;&#xA;for, because, inasmuch as  &#xD;&#xA;for indeed, since in fact, inasmuch as  &#xD;&#xA;as one in fact who, which, that, since or inasmuch as I, thou, he, it  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which, to be frank, I find completely unhelpful when trying to write in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best I can come up with is that &quot;quippe blah blah blah&quot; is generally used to mean something like &quot;since, of course, blah blah blah.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eum reliqui, quippe in Tartarum intrare non poterat.  &#xD;&#xA;I left him behind, since of course he couldn't enter Tartarus.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mansi, quippe qui eum in Tartarum comitari non possem.  &#xD;&#xA;I stayed, since of course I couldn't accompany him into Tartarus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That seems like it would work with all the examples given in Lewis &amp; Short, even the ironic speech of Juno's from the Æneid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this the right way to think about what *quippe* means and how it's used? If not, what would be a better way? Does it have any additional meanings/uses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="599" RevisionGUID="546a004f-8de6-4584-955c-aac3fd85fd50" CreationDate="2016-03-23T20:11:52.223" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="I have typically encountered *quippe* with relative pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;It strengthens the relative pronoun in a way that is often best translated with something other than a relative structure.&#xD;&#xA;The word *quippe* emphasizes that the relative clause contains an explanation.&#xD;&#xA;Artificial examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Amicus meus non cantat, quippe qui ne loqui quidem potest.* &quot;My friend does not sing, for he can't even speak.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *Ille mihi auxiliari non poterat, quippe qui ipse quoque inops erat.* &quot;He could not help me, because in fact he was broke, too.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the only possible use of *quippe*, but this is the one I feel most comfortable with (and have seen most often)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="600" RevisionGUID="c76ac422-e16e-46df-aef7-574d498fff0e" CreationDate="2016-03-23T21:11:14.887" UserId="225" Text="Do the Latin stress rules (antepenultimate if penultimate is light, penultimate if heavy) have any known exceptions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, what are the exceptions, and what evidence is there in the grammatical canon or in literature or poetry for them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Following a consensus on [Latin Meta.SE](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/questions/159/reposting-latin-questions-from-linguistics-se-which-could-be-answered-better-her), I'm reposting [this question from Linguistics.SE](http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/1954/latin-stress-rules-exceptions) here, as I believe the classics community may be better able to support their answer with quotations and historical context.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2106" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="600" RevisionGUID="c76ac422-e16e-46df-aef7-574d498fff0e" CreationDate="2016-03-23T21:11:14.887" UserId="225" Text="Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2107" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="600" RevisionGUID="c76ac422-e16e-46df-aef7-574d498fff0e" CreationDate="2016-03-23T21:11:14.887" UserId="225" Text="|phonetics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="601" RevisionGUID="aefea671-5746-4c73-bd3d-1c095f25aa05" CreationDate="2016-03-23T23:01:58.320" UserId="78" Text="Yes, there are exceptions, but fortunately not very many. Allen &amp; Greenough has a short summary at §12.a, which I'll discuss here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first common exception you'll come across is a word with an enclitic (-*que*, -*ve*, -*ne*). With these, the accent always falls on the penult of the new word, so, using an example from Allen and Greenough, the accent for *itaque* &quot;and so&quot; falls on the 'a' *itắque*, though the a is still short. We can contrast that with the homograph *itaque*, where the accent falls on the antepenult: *ítăque*, though the 'i' is short, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next exception comprises 2nd declension genitive and vocative singular nouns ending in -ius, which &quot;retain the accent of the nominative.&quot; So, again from their examples, the name Vergilius in the genitive and vocative is Vergílī, despite the fact that the accented 'i' is short. This also applies to the genitive of neuter nouns ending in -ium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words like *satin* (a colloquial form of *satisne* or *produc* (the imperative of *producere*) that lost a terminal short 'e' are still accented as if the 'e' were never lost. So for the above examples, we get *prōdū́c* (older *\*prōdū́ce*) and *satín* (from satísne).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the *facere* compounds (e.g. *benefacere*, *calefacere*) ignore the first root and are accented as if there was only the verb. Allen &amp; Greenough explain this by pointing out that they're not properly compounds at all, but phrases (*bene facere*) which were so frequently used that the adverb lost its accent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="601" RevisionGUID="e98bf6af-0115-41ed-8e8b-7f4b646f3e38" CreationDate="2016-03-23T23:13:50.490" UserId="78" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Yes, there are exceptions, but fortunately not very many. Allen &amp; Greenough has a short summary at §12.a, which I'll discuss here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first common exception you'll come across is a word with an enclitic (-*que*, -*ve*, -*ne*). With these, the accent always falls on the penult of the new word, so, using an example from Allen and Greenough, the accent for *itaque* &quot;and so&quot; falls on the 'a' *itắque*, though the a is still short. We can contrast that with the homograph *itaque*, where the accent falls on the antepenult: *ítăque*, though the 'i' is short, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next exception comprises 2nd declension genitive and vocative singular nouns ending in -ius, which &quot;retain the accent of the nominative.&quot; So, again from their examples, the name *Vergilius* in the genitive and vocative is *Vergílī*, despite the fact that the accented 'i' is short. This also applies to the genitive of neuter nouns ending in -ium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words like *satin* (a colloquial form of *satisne* or *produc* (the imperative of *producere*) that lost a terminal short 'e' are still accented as if the 'e' were never lost. So for the above examples, we get *prōdū́c* (older *\*prōdū́ce*) and *satín* (from satísne).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the *facere* compounds (e.g. *benefacere*, *calefacere*) ignore the first root and are accented as if it were only the verb. Allen &amp; Greenough explain this by pointing out that that they are not properly compounds at all, but phrases (*bene facere*) which were so frequently used that the adverb lost its accent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="601" RevisionGUID="deaddee5-9a39-4500-9646-0ba2965861ef" CreationDate="2016-03-24T00:44:23.807" UserId="78" Comment="added 722 characters in body" Text="Yes, there are exceptions, but fortunately not very many. Allen &amp; Greenough has a short summary at §12.a, which I'll discuss here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first common exception you'll come across is a word with an enclitic (-*que*, -*ve*, -*ne*). With these, the accent always falls on the penult of the new word, so, using an example from Allen and Greenough, the accent for *itaque* &quot;and so&quot; falls on the 'a' *itắque*, though the a is still short. We can contrast that with the homograph *itaque*, where the accent falls on the antepenult: *ítăque*, though the 'i' is short, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the ancient grammarians state this, some modern scholars, notably R. Whitney Tucker in the 1965 article &quot;Accentuation before Enclitics in Latin&quot; (*TAPA* 96: 449–461), dispute this by metrical analysis of Seneca's (and others') lines, since there is a coincidence of stress and length in the third foot. I quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [In] iambic trimeter lines (senarii), in the third foot, the long syllable of the iambus is the accented syllable of a word; or, if it is resolved into two short syllables, the first of these is the accented syllable of a word...This rule is observed also by Horace and Phaedrus, but not by Plautus and Terence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next exception comprises 2nd declension genitive and vocative singular nouns ending in -ius, which &quot;retain the accent of the nominative.&quot; So, again from their examples, the name *Vergilius* in the genitive and vocative is *Vergílī*, despite the fact that the accented 'i' is short. This also applies to the genitive of neuter nouns ending in -ium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Final-syllable-syncopated words like *satin* (a colloquial form of *satisne* or *produc* (the imperative of *producere*) that lost a terminal short 'e' are still accented as if the 'e' were never lost. So for the above examples, we get *prōdū́c* (older *\*prōdū́ce*) and *satín* (from satísne).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Thanks to TKR below for the fuller account.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the *facere* compounds (e.g. *benefacere*, *calefacere*) ignore the first root and are accented as if it were only the verb. Allen &amp; Greenough explain this by pointing out that that they are not properly compounds at all, but phrases (*bene facere*) which were so frequently used that the adverb lost its accent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="602" RevisionGUID="1e6ca8a9-354d-4b7f-ba2f-8c529c78e7bc" CreationDate="2016-03-24T01:21:20.730" UserId="68" Text="I'll just add one class to what C. M. Weimer says in his excellent answer, which is shortened fourth-conjugation first-person singular perfects. *Dormiī, audiī, veniī*, and the like are all stressed on a short penultimate syllable, even though it's short. Like some of the other exceptions, this stress was regular before a letter disappeared; they come from *dormīvī, audīvī, venīvī*, and so on, which are regularly stressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="603" RevisionGUID="d64255c3-531e-454c-89e8-77ed615a6028" CreationDate="2016-03-24T03:23:56.007" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[1.] [premium (n.)](http://w6ww.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=premium)     c. 1600, &quot;reward given for a specific act,&quot;    &#xD;&#xA;[2.] from Latin *praemium* &quot;reward, profit derived from booty,&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;[3.] from *prae-* &quot;before&quot; (see [pre-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pre-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + *emere* &quot;to buy,&quot; originally &quot;to take&quot; (see [exempt](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=exempt&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (adj.)). Insurance sense is 1660s, from Italian *premio*.    &#xD;&#xA;Adjectival sense of &quot;superior in quality&quot; is first attested 1925, originally in reference to butter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[4.] [pre-emption, n.](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/149931#eid28866465)   &lt; [PRE- prefix](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/149454#eid55940861) + [EMPTION n.](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/61422#eid5541523), after French *préemption* (right to) advance purchase (1569 in Middle French as *preemption*) and its etymon post-classical Latin *praeemption-*, *praeemptio* previous purchase (14th cent. in British and continental sources). Compare classical Latin *praeemere* to buy beforehand    &#xD;&#xA;(recorded in an 8th-cent. epitome of a 2nd-cent. grammarian).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can conjecture the semantic shift in the etymology for 4. I can imagine some rich [compulsive hoarder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoarding) who BUYS much of some material product BEFORE everyone else, whose compulsive BUYING BEFORE ergo caused the anticipation and preclusion for others to buy this same product: which anticipation and preclusion matches the newest definition of 'pre-empt' for 2016 English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5\. But how did 2 shift semantically to mean 3? How can the preposition '*prae-*' explain the semantic shift from *emere*'s meaning 'to buy', to '*praemium*'s meaning of 'reward or profit' ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6\. Also, does the semantic shift for 1 connect with that of 4 (as my entitled question implies)? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2113" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="603" RevisionGUID="d64255c3-531e-454c-89e8-77ed615a6028" CreationDate="2016-03-24T03:23:56.007" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What is the semantic field of derivatives of 'prae-' + 'emere'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2114" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="603" RevisionGUID="d64255c3-531e-454c-89e8-77ed615a6028" CreationDate="2016-03-24T03:23:56.007" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="604" RevisionGUID="0f3614ea-7bf4-4066-9d71-05692501ffd9" CreationDate="2016-03-24T04:07:21.797" UserId="39" Text="Imho the most comprehensive treatment of Latin accent is Leumann, Hofmann, and Szantyr 1977, *Lateinische Grammatik. Band I. Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre*. (para 235-246, Betonung und Akzent). Caveat: It is in German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there is a significant number of exceptions, I will focus on oxytones for now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oxytone** (final syllable accented) **as a result of an apocope** (of the final vowel) **or a syncope** of the Inlaut syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a)	**in some conjunctions**: pone (after), sine, ergo, verum (but);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Mancini 1997 disagrees&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b)	**in some proper nouns or adjectives (containing suffix *ati or *iti)**:  Arpinas (from Arpinatis), Suffenas, Maecenas, (Valerius) Antias, Samnis (from Samnitis); nostras (from nostratis);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c)	**in some pronominal adverbs**: illic, istic; illuc, adhuc; illinc; illac, posthac etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;d)	**in some cases with the interrogative enclitic particle ne**: viden (from vides-ne), tanton (from tantone);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e)	**in some adverbs**: falso, una, alias;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;f)	**the short forms of the Perfect**: audit (from audivit), intritat (from intritavit), disturbat (from disturbavit), sepeli (from sepelivi), petit, cupit, fumat;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Tronskii 1960 argues such forms were rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;g)	**2SG imperative of duc and dic compounds**: educ (from educe), addic (from addice) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Weiss 2009 writes that such forms derived from dico are not attested in Classical Latin (p. 422, footnote 22);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;h)	**in some interjections**: attat, papae (Tronskii 1960, p. 62).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="604" RevisionGUID="082971a0-7677-4ff2-92b9-713b779d0491" CreationDate="2016-03-24T04:13:56.333" UserId="39" Comment="added 120 characters in body" Text="Imho the most comprehensive treatment of Latin accent is Leumann, Hofmann, and Szantyr 1977, *Lateinische Grammatik. Band I. Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre*. (para 235-246, Betonung und Akzent). Caveat: It is in German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there is a significant number of exceptions, I will focus on oxytones for now. The following is my summary of relevant parts in Leumann, Hofmann, and Szantyr 1977, Tronskii 1960, and Weiss 2009/2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oxytone** (final syllable accented) **as a result of an apocope** (of the final vowel) **or a syncope** of the Inlaut syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a)	**in some conjunctions**: pone (after), sine, ergo, verum (but);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Mancini 1997 disagrees&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b)	**in some proper nouns or adjectives (containing suffix *ati or *iti)**:  Arpinas (from Arpinatis), Suffenas, Maecenas, (Valerius) Antias, Samnis (from Samnitis); nostras (from nostratis);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c)	**in some pronominal adverbs**: illic, istic; illuc, adhuc; illinc; illac, posthac etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;d)	**in some cases with the interrogative enclitic particle ne**: viden (from vides-ne), tanton (from tantone);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e)	**in some adverbs**: falso, una, alias;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;f)	**the short forms of the Perfect**: audit (from audivit), intritat (from intritavit), disturbat (from disturbavit), sepeli (from sepelivi), petit, cupit, fumat;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Tronskii 1960 argues such forms were rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;g)	**2SG imperative of duc and dic compounds**: educ (from educe), addic (from addice) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Weiss 2009 writes that such forms derived from dico are not attested in Classical Latin (p. 422, footnote 22);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;h)	**in some interjections**: attat, papae (Tronskii 1960, p. 62).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="604" RevisionGUID="d3858d02-692c-4c30-8c30-8d036011c107" CreationDate="2016-03-24T04:24:07.853" UserId="39" Comment="added 217 characters in body" Text="Imho the most comprehensive treatment of Latin accent is Leumann, Hofmann, and Szantyr 1977, *Lateinische Grammatik. Band I. Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre*. (para 235-246, Betonung und Akzent). Caveat: It is in German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there is a significant number of exceptions, I will focus on oxytones for now. The following is my summary of relevant parts in Leumann, Hofmann, and Szantyr 1977, Tronskii 1960, and Weiss 2009/2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oxytone** (final syllable accented) **as a result of an apocope** (of the final vowel) **or a syncope** of the Inlaut syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a)	**in some proper nouns or adjectives (containing suffix *ati or *iti)**:  Arpinas (from Arpinatis), Suffenas, Maecenas, (Valerius) Antias, Samnis (from Samnitis); nostras (from nostratis);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b)	**in some pronominal adverbs**: illic, istic; illuc, adhuc; illinc; illac, posthac etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c)	**in some cases with the interrogative enclitic particle ne**: viden (from vides-ne), tanton (from tantone);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;d)	**in some adverbs**: falso, una, alias;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e)	**the short forms of the Perfect**: audit (from audivit), intritat (from intritavit), disturbat (from disturbavit), sepeli (from sepelivi), petit, cupit, fumat;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Tronskii 1960 argues such forms were rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;f)	**2SG imperative of duc and dic compounds**: educ (from educe), addic (from addice) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Weiss 2009 writes that such forms derived from dico are not attested in Classical Latin (p. 422, footnote 22);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;g)	**in some interjections**: attat, papae (Tronskii 1960, p. 62).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, ancient grammarians insisted on oxytone stress **in some conjunctions**: pone (after), sine, ergo, verum (but), arguably to distinguish those from other homophones. Mancini 1997, however, seems to dispute this.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="605" RevisionGUID="5f298e8e-b4ac-4bab-8e9c-68fc05aba9d4" CreationDate="2016-03-24T04:27:53.807" UserId="30" Text="As you can see in your own quotation, *emo* originally meant &quot;take&quot;, as it still does in *demo* and *adimo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Praeemo* must have originally meant &quot;to take something before others&quot;. If you have the right to take something before others, e.g. from a booty or from the possessions of some other party, then that is likely to be a reward for your valour or other virtues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Praeemptio is a much later invention, based on the sense of *emo* as &quot;buy&quot;. The sense of *prae-* &quot;before others&quot; is the same as that in *praemium*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis &amp; Short say this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  praemĭum, ii, n. [prae-emo, what one has got before or better than others] (class.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that they use *has got* in its original sense of &quot;has acquired&quot; here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="604" RevisionGUID="95dbd622-f085-4d8e-9429-f67d01deeb5e" CreationDate="2016-03-24T04:29:46.977" UserId="39" Comment="added 217 characters in body" Text="Imho the most comprehensive treatment of Latin accent is Leumann, Hofmann, and Szantyr 1977, *Lateinische Grammatik. Band I. Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre*. (para 235-246, Betonung und Akzent). Caveat: It is in German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there is a significant number of exceptions, I will focus on oxytones for now. The following is my summary of relevant parts in Leumann, Hofmann, and Szantyr 1977, Tronskii 1960, and Weiss 2009/2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oxytone** (final syllable accented) **as a result of an apocope** (of the final vowel) **or a syncope** of the Inlaut syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a)	**in some proper nouns or adjectives (containing suffix *ati or *iti)**:  Arpinas (from Arpinatis), Suffenas, Maecenas, (Valerius) Antias, Samnis (from Samnitis); nostras (from nostratis);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b)	**in some pronominal adverbs**: illic, istic; illuc, adhuc; illinc; illac, posthac etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c)	**in some cases with the interrogative enclitic particle ne**: viden (from vides-ne), tanton (from tantone);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;d)	**the short forms of the Perfect**: audit (from audivit), intritat (from intritavit), disturbat (from disturbavit), sepeli (from sepelivi), petit, cupit, fumat;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Tronskii 1960 argues such forms were rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e)	**2SG imperative of duc and dic compounds**: educ (from educe), addic (from addice) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Weiss 2009 writes that such forms derived from dico are not attested in Classical Latin (p. 422, footnote 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other exceptions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;f) Also, ancient grammarians insisted on oxytone stress **in some conjunctions**: pone (after), sine, ergo, verum (but), in some cases arguably to distinguish those from other homophones. Mancini 1997, however, seems to dispute this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;g) **in some adverbs**: falso, una, alias;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;h) **in some interjections**: attat, papae (Tronskii 1960, p. 62)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="606" RevisionGUID="f141f1c0-d12c-4df3-8465-b4dd116855a8" CreationDate="2016-03-24T06:01:31.340" UserId="225" Text="Certain verbs, such as *curro*, have reduplicated perfect stems (such as *cucurri*). Other verbs, such as *facio*, *fero* had a reduplicated perfect stem in Old Latin (as seen on the [Praeneste fibula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praeneste_fibula)) which were levelled by the time of Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which verbs preserve the reduplicated perfect through Classical Latin? Are there any hypotheses in the literature as to why particular verbs' paradigms were levelled and others were not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2121" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="606" RevisionGUID="f141f1c0-d12c-4df3-8465-b4dd116855a8" CreationDate="2016-03-24T06:01:31.340" UserId="225" Text="Which verbs have reduplicated perfect stems?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2122" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="606" RevisionGUID="f141f1c0-d12c-4df3-8465-b4dd116855a8" CreationDate="2016-03-24T06:01:31.340" UserId="225" Text="|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="606" RevisionGUID="af2cdbab-e259-4772-a47d-8fc69e1e634c" CreationDate="2016-03-24T07:12:30.323" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Certain verbs, such as *curro*, have reduplicated perfect stems (such as *cucurri*). Other verbs, such as *facio*, *fero* had a reduplicated perfect stem in Old Latin (as seen on the [Praeneste fibula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praeneste_fibula)) which were levelled by the time of Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which verbs preserve the reduplicated perfect through Classical Latin? Are there any hypotheses in the literature as to why the paradigms of particular verbs were levelled and others were not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2124" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="606" RevisionGUID="af2cdbab-e259-4772-a47d-8fc69e1e634c" CreationDate="2016-03-24T07:12:30.323" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|language-evolution|morphology|perfect-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="607" RevisionGUID="56395c1d-f4a0-4f9d-a4ad-9a8f01cb72b2" CreationDate="2016-03-24T14:04:13.630" UserId="45" Text="There is a small but noticeable subset of Latin positive adverbs that end in *-us*. (By &quot;positive,&quot; I am excluding the standard comparative adverb form of *-ius*, e.g. *citius*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples that come immediately to mind are *penitus*, *protinus*, *caelitus*, *divinitus*, and (my favorite) *medullitus*. I also appended a list of such adverbs at the bottom of this question, though some (like *adversus*) are simply taken from the corresponding adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can anyone elucidate why these adverbs formed in this way?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Complete list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *adversus*,&#xD;&#xA;*advorsus*,&#xD;&#xA;*aliorsus*,&#xD;&#xA;*aliovorsus*,&#xD;&#xA;*aliquatenus*,&#xD;&#xA;*alterinsecus*,&#xD;&#xA;*alterius*,&#xD;&#xA;*alterorsus*,&#xD;&#xA;*altrimsecus*,&#xD;&#xA;*altrinsecus*,&#xD;&#xA;*antiquitus*,&#xD;&#xA;*caelitus*,&#xD;&#xA;*circumsecus*,&#xD;&#xA;*claritus*,&#xD;&#xA;*coelitus*,&#xD;&#xA;*cominus*,&#xD;&#xA;*comminus*,&#xD;&#xA;*communitus*,&#xD;&#xA;*conmunitus*,&#xD;&#xA;*controversus*,&#xD;&#xA;*cordetenus*,&#xD;&#xA;*cordicitus*,&#xD;&#xA;*corsus*,&#xD;&#xA;*deintus*,&#xD;&#xA;*demus*,&#xD;&#xA;*demus*,&#xD;&#xA;*deorsus*,&#xD;&#xA;*deversus*,&#xD;&#xA;*dextrorsus*,&#xD;&#xA;*dextroversus*,&#xD;&#xA;*dextrovorsus*,&#xD;&#xA;*dius*,&#xD;&#xA;*divinitus*,&#xD;&#xA;*eatenus*,&#xD;&#xA;*eminus*,&#xD;&#xA;*exadversus*,&#xD;&#xA;*exterius*,&#xD;&#xA;*extrinsecus*,&#xD;&#xA;*forinsecus*,&#xD;&#xA;*funditus*,&#xD;&#xA;*fundius*,&#xD;&#xA;*hactenus*,&#xD;&#xA;*humanitus*,&#xD;&#xA;*interdius*,&#xD;&#xA;*intrinsecus*,&#xD;&#xA;*introrsus*,&#xD;&#xA;*introsus*,&#xD;&#xA;*intus*,&#xD;&#xA;*laevorsus*,&#xD;&#xA;*medullitus*,&#xD;&#xA;*mordicus*,&#xD;&#xA;*nihilominus*,&#xD;&#xA;*nominetenus*,&#xD;&#xA;*nudius*,&#xD;&#xA;*nudiustertius*,&#xD;&#xA;*nullatenus*,&#xD;&#xA;*penitus*,&#xD;&#xA;*peropus*,&#xD;&#xA;*perpensius*,&#xD;&#xA;*potius*,&#xD;&#xA;*primitus*,&#xD;&#xA;*prius*,&#xD;&#xA;*prorsus*,&#xD;&#xA;*prosus*,&#xD;&#xA;*protinus*,&#xD;&#xA;*publicitus*,&#xD;&#xA;*quadamtenus*,&#xD;&#xA;*quadantenus*,&#xD;&#xA;*quamtocius*,&#xD;&#xA;*quamtotius*,&#xD;&#xA;*quandius*,&#xD;&#xA;*quantocius*,&#xD;&#xA;*quatenus*,&#xD;&#xA;*quatinus*,&#xD;&#xA;*quoquoversus*,&#xD;&#xA;*quorsus*,&#xD;&#xA;*radicitus*,&#xD;&#xA;*retrorsus*,&#xD;&#xA;*retroversus*,&#xD;&#xA;*rursus*,&#xD;&#xA;*secius*,&#xD;&#xA;*secus*,&#xD;&#xA;*seorsus*,&#xD;&#xA;*sequius*,&#xD;&#xA;*seriosius*,&#xD;&#xA;*serius*,&#xD;&#xA;*setius*,&#xD;&#xA;*sinisbrorsus*,&#xD;&#xA;*sinisbrosus*,&#xD;&#xA;*sinistrorsus*,&#xD;&#xA;*solemnitus*,&#xD;&#xA;*sollemnitus*,&#xD;&#xA;*subtus*,&#xD;&#xA;*superficietenus*,&#xD;&#xA;*terratenus*,&#xD;&#xA;*ullatenus*,&#xD;&#xA;*undiquesecus*,&#xD;&#xA;*undiquesecus*,&#xD;&#xA;*utrimquesecus*,&#xD;&#xA;*versus*,&#xD;&#xA;*vorsus*," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2126" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="607" RevisionGUID="56395c1d-f4a0-4f9d-a4ad-9a8f01cb72b2" CreationDate="2016-03-24T14:04:13.630" UserId="45" Text="Latin adverbs ending in -us" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2127" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="607" RevisionGUID="56395c1d-f4a0-4f9d-a4ad-9a8f01cb72b2" CreationDate="2016-03-24T14:04:13.630" UserId="45" Text="|language-evolution|morphology|adverb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="604" RevisionGUID="ceffc52c-336e-48e1-ab57-d4069fff3275" CreationDate="2016-03-24T15:03:15.690" UserId="39" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="Imho the most comprehensive treatment of Latin accent is Leumann, Hofmann, and Szantyr 1977, *Lateinische Grammatik. Band I. Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre*. (para 235-246, Betonung und Akzent). Caveat: It is in German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there is a significant number of exceptions (all of them are *rara*), I will focus on oxytones for now. The following is my summary of relevant parts in Leumann, Hofmann, and Szantyr 1977, Tronskii 1960, and Weiss 2009/2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oxytone** (final syllable accented) **as a result of an apocope** (of the final vowel) **or a syncope** of the Inlaut syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a)	**in some proper nouns or adjectives (containing suffix *ati or *iti)**:  Arpinas (from Arpinatis), Suffenas, Maecenas, (Valerius) Antias, Samnis (from Samnitis); nostras (from nostratis);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b)	**in some pronominal adverbs**: illic, istic; illuc, adhuc; illinc; illac, posthac etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c)	**in some cases with the interrogative enclitic particle ne**: viden (from vides-ne), tanton (from tantone);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;d)	**the short forms of the Perfect**: audit (from audivit), intritat (from intritavit), disturbat (from disturbavit), sepeli (from sepelivi), petit, cupit, fumat;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Tronskii 1960 argues such forms were rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e)	**2SG imperative of duc and dic compounds**: educ (from educe), addic (from addice) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Weiss 2009 writes that such forms derived from dico are not attested in Classical Latin (p. 422, footnote 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other exceptions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;f) Also, ancient grammarians insisted on oxytone stress **in some conjunctions**: pone (after), sine, ergo, verum (but), in some cases arguably to distinguish those from other homophones. Mancini 1997, however, seems to dispute this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;g) **in some adverbs**: falso, una, alias;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;h) **in some interjections**: attat, papae (Tronskii 1960, p. 62)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="608" RevisionGUID="3822dc97-75b3-4e00-99c3-a0446b33cb8d" CreationDate="2016-03-24T16:12:48.180" UserId="48" Text="I am learning latin on my own and I came across this (quite comical) picture.[![&quot;fighting with someone&quot;][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When looking up the word &quot;with&quot;, I found the following translations: `apud`, `cum`, `per`, and `qum`. But I am unsure of what the particular semantic and syntactic differences are for these words. Where would they be used and what are their differences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qEj4x.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2130" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="608" RevisionGUID="3822dc97-75b3-4e00-99c3-a0446b33cb8d" CreationDate="2016-03-24T16:12:48.180" UserId="48" Text="Understanding the different uses of &quot;with&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2131" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="608" RevisionGUID="3822dc97-75b3-4e00-99c3-a0446b33cb8d" CreationDate="2016-03-24T16:12:48.180" UserId="48" Text="|vocabulary|semantics|differences|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="609" RevisionGUID="1cf17e3c-d55f-48fb-b843-f94ce3d2962a" CreationDate="2016-03-24T16:13:26.583" UserId="39" Text="The following is a summary of Ferri 2011. His Academia.edu account can be found [here][1]. Rolando Ferri is Professore Ordinario presso il Dipartimento di Filologia, Letteratura e Linguistica, at the [University of Pisa][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roman lexicography includes “anonymous or pseudo-epigrapha glossaries and word-lists, both monolingual (Latin-Latin) and bilingual (Greek-Latin or the reverse)” (p. 9).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He writes that such lexica are “extant mostly in medieval redactions” but papyrus finds make us hypothesize they were common early on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ferri also argues that those lexica were bilingual and included obsolete words or words exhibiting grammatical irregularity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Reference:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The Latin of Roman lexicography*, ed. Rolando Ferri. 2011. Pisa, Italy: Fabrizio Serra.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://unipi.academia.edu/RolandoFerri&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.unipi.it/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="609" RevisionGUID="3f5a1198-3592-498c-806e-fdb13cc51165" CreationDate="2016-03-24T16:18:41.360" UserId="39" Comment="edited body" Text="The following is a summary of Ferri 2011. His Academia.edu account can be found [here][1]. Rolando Ferri is Professore Ordinario presso at Dipartimento di Filologia, Letteratura e Linguistica, at the [University of Pisa][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roman lexicography includes “anonymous or pseudo-epigrapha glossaries and word-lists, both monolingual (Latin-Latin) and bilingual (Greek-Latin or the reverse)” (p. 9).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He writes that such lexica are “extant mostly in medieval redactions” but papyrus finds make us hypothesize they were common early on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ferri also argues that those lexica were bilingual and included obsolete words or words exhibiting grammatical irregularity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Reference:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*The Latin of Roman lexicography*, ed. Rolando Ferri. 2011. Pisa, Italy: Fabrizio Serra.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://unipi.academia.edu/RolandoFerri&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.unipi.it/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.libraweb.net/result1.php?chiave=2550&amp;valore=sku" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="069c846d-1e29-4d22-b625-f5123385c274" CreationDate="2016-03-24T16:23:58.540" UserId="30" Text="Lewis &amp; Short say *-tus* in *intus* is an old ablative ending or suffix, related to the Greek adverbial ending *-τός* as in ἐντός:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **intus**, adv. [1. in and the abl. termination -tus; Sanscr. -tas; cf. ἐντός].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A suffix *-tus* often turns into *-sus*, as in ordinary past participles like *passus, versus, missus, mansus, caesus*. This may explain many of the adverbs in *-sus*. I wonder whether this ablative could be related to the ablative plural ending *-bus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They say *tenus* is different, being originally an accusative of direction. It makes sense that it should be difference, since it functions as a preposition in classical Latin, not an adverb. Only with a prefixed ablative does it become an adverb (*hac tenus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **tĕnus** [root ten; v. teneo], perh. orig., an acc. of direction, and hence joined with gen.; afterwards a prep. with abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither L&amp;S nor De Vaan explain the ending of adverbial *secus*, except in so far that it was originally an adjective or participle probably derived from the same root as *sequor*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="1bd7de59-e2f5-40d6-9ded-26e2ac2aecbc" CreationDate="2016-03-24T16:29:25.963" UserId="30" Comment="added 431 characters in body" Text="Lewis &amp; Short say *-tus* in *intus* is an old ablative ending or suffix, related to the Greek adverbial ending *-τός* as in ἐντός:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **intus**, adv. [1. in and the abl. termination -tus; Sanscr. -tas; cf. ἐντός].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A suffix *-tus* often turns into *-sus*, as in ordinary past participles like *passus, versus, missus, mansus, caesus*. This may explain many of the adverbs in *-sus*. I wonder whether this ablative could be related to the ablative plural ending *-bus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **dēmum** (also *demus*, like *prorsus, quorsus, rursus, deorsus*...), adv. [a sup. form from *de*, downmost; ...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry for *demus* in L&amp;S says simply &quot;see *demum*&quot;. So it seems likely that both *demus* and *demum* are supine forms. Apparently, both an *-us* form and an *-um* form of a supine could be used to express something adverbial. Perhaps the ablative suffix *-tus* above was an ablative ending *-us* of the supine stem on *-t-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S say *tenus* is different, being originally an accusative of direction. It makes sense that it should be difference, since it functions as a preposition in classical Latin, not an adverb. Only with a prefixed ablative does it become an adverb (*hac tenus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **tĕnus** [root ten; v. teneo], perh. orig., an acc. of direction, and hence joined with gen.; afterwards a prep. with abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither L&amp;S nor De Vaan explain the ending of adverbial *secus*, except in so far that it was originally an adjective or participle probably derived from the same root as *sequor*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="fd9eced2-30cf-47ee-907f-276a152b8519" CreationDate="2016-03-24T16:39:32.543" UserId="30" Comment="added 431 characters in body" Text="Lewis &amp; Short say *-tus* in *intus* is an old ablative ending or suffix, related to the Greek adverbial ending *-τός* as in ἐντός:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **intus**, adv. [1. in and the abl. termination -tus; Sanscr. -tas; cf. ἐντός].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A suffix *-tus* often turns into *-sus*, as in ordinary past participles like *passus, versus, missus, mansus, caesus*. This may explain many of the adverbs in *-sus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **dēmum** (also *demus*, like *prorsus, quorsus, rursus, deorsus*...), adv. [a sup. form from *de*, downmost; ...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry for *demus* in L&amp;S says simply &quot;see *demum*&quot;. So it seems likely that both *demus* and *demum* are supine forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, both an *-us* form and an *-um* form of a supine could be used to express something adverbial (we already know the *-u* (ablative) form can be used adverbially, as in *mirabile dictu*). Perhaps the ablative suffix *-tus* above was an ablative ending *-us* of the supine stem on *-t-*. I wonder whether this ablative could be related to the ablative plural ending *-bus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the words are derived from *versus/vorsus*, like *prorsus, quorsus, rursus, deorsus, introsus, seorsus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S say *tenus* is different, being originally an accusative of direction. It makes sense that it should be difference, since it functions as a preposition in classical Latin, not an adverb. Only with a prefixed ablative does it become an adverb (*hac tenus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **tĕnus** [root ten; v. teneo], perh. orig., an acc. of direction, and hence joined with gen.; afterwards a prep. with abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither L&amp;S nor De Vaan explain the ending of adverbial *secus*, except in so far that it was originally an adjective or participle probably derived from the same root as *sequor*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the words in your list are accusative neuter forms of comparatives, with the neuter comparative suffix *-(i)us,* genitive *-(i)oris*. Among those I would group almost all of the words on *-ius*, and *minus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Peropus* must be *per opus*, where *opus* is simply the neuter noun *opus*, in the accusative singular as dictated by the perposition *per*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="604" RevisionGUID="37b2e305-71b9-4b79-b4ba-bf9e9ecd9ae3" CreationDate="2016-03-24T16:40:39.007" UserId="39" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Imho the most comprehensive treatment of Latin accent (**&quot;anima vocis&quot;**) is Leumann, Hofmann, and Szantyr 1977, *Lateinische Grammatik. Band I. Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre*. (para 235-246, Betonung und Akzent). Caveat: It is in German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there is a significant number of exceptions (all of them are *rara*), I will focus on oxytones for now. The following is my summary of relevant parts in Leumann, Hofmann, and Szantyr 1977, Tronskii 1960, and Weiss 2009/2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oxytone** (final syllable accented) **as a result of an apocope** (of the final vowel) **or a syncope** of the Inlaut syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a)	**in some proper nouns or adjectives (containing suffix *ati or *iti)**:  Arpinas (from Arpinatis), Suffenas, Maecenas, (Valerius) Antias, Samnis (from Samnitis); nostras (from nostratis);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b)	**in some pronominal adverbs**: illic, istic; illuc, adhuc; illinc; illac, posthac etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c)	**in some cases with the interrogative enclitic particle ne**: viden (from vides-ne), tanton (from tantone);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;d)	**the short forms of the Perfect**: audit (from audivit), intritat (from intritavit), disturbat (from disturbavit), sepeli (from sepelivi), petit, cupit, fumat;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Tronskii 1960 argues such forms were rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e)	**2SG imperative of duc and dic compounds**: educ (from educe), addic (from addice) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Weiss 2009 writes that such forms derived from dico are not attested in Classical Latin (p. 422, footnote 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other exceptions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;f) Also, ancient grammarians insisted on oxytone stress **in some conjunctions**: pone (after), sine, ergo, verum (but), in some cases arguably to distinguish those from other homophones. Mancini 1997, however, seems to dispute this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;g) **in some adverbs**: falso, una, alias;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;h) **in some interjections**: attat, papae (Tronskii 1960, p. 62)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="604" RevisionGUID="75873942-0ac8-4f34-b0b7-2383753bd66c" CreationDate="2016-03-24T16:46:19.943" UserId="39" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Imho the most comprehensive treatment of Latin accent (beautifully defined as **&quot;anima vocis&quot;** by some Roman grammarians) is Leumann, Hofmann, and Szantyr 1977, *Lateinische Grammatik. Band I. Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre*. (para 235-246, Betonung und Akzent). Caveat: It is in German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some evidence that even Roman grammarians admitted struggling with Latin accentology, e.g. [Probus][1] wrote this (taken from Belov 2005):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there is a significant number of exceptions (all of them are *rara*), I will focus on oxytones for now. The following is my summary of relevant parts in Leumann, Hofmann, and Szantyr 1977, Tronskii 1960, and Weiss 2009/2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oxytone** (final syllable accented) **as a result of an apocope** (of the final vowel) **or a syncope** of the Inlaut syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a)	**in some proper nouns or adjectives (containing suffix *ati or *iti)**:  Arpinas (from Arpinatis), Suffenas, Maecenas, (Valerius) Antias, Samnis (from Samnitis); nostras (from nostratis);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b)	**in some pronominal adverbs**: illic, istic; illuc, adhuc; illinc; illac, posthac etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c)	**in some cases with the interrogative enclitic particle ne**: viden (from vides-ne), tanton (from tantone);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;d)	**the short forms of the Perfect**: audit (from audivit), intritat (from intritavit), disturbat (from disturbavit), sepeli (from sepelivi), petit, cupit, fumat;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Tronskii 1960 argues such forms were rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e)	**2SG imperative of duc and dic compounds**: educ (from educe), addic (from addice) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Weiss 2009 writes that such forms derived from dico are not attested in Classical Latin (p. 422, footnote 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other exceptions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;f) Also, ancient grammarians insisted on oxytone stress **in some conjunctions**: pone (after), sine, ergo, verum (but), in some cases arguably to distinguish those from other homophones. Mancini 1997, however, seems to dispute this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;g) **in some adverbs**: falso, una, alias;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;h) **in some interjections**: attat, papae (Tronskii 1960, p. 62).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read in Russian, I strongly recommend [Belov 2005][3], especially Part III, where he analyzes data from ancient grammarians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Valerius_Probus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JAn05.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://genhis.philol.msu.ru/dissAMB.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="446f7d39-20e1-465f-ae0b-bcb2c55dcb5b" CreationDate="2016-03-24T16:49:01.140" UserId="30" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="Lewis &amp; Short say *-tus* in *intus* is an old ablative ending or suffix, related to the Greek adverbial ending *-τός* as in ἐντός:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **intus**, adv. [1. in and the abl. termination -tus; Sanscr. -tas; cf. ἐντός].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A suffix *-tus* often turns into *-sus*, as in ordinary past participles like *passus, versus, missus, mansus, caesus*. This may explain many of the adverbs in *-sus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I wonder whether this ablative could be related to the ablative plural ending *-bus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **dēmum** (also *demus*, like *prorsus, quorsus, rursus, deorsus*...), adv. [a sup. form from *de*, downmost; cf.: *sub, summus*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry for *demus* in L&amp;S says simply &quot;see *demum*&quot;. So it seems likely that both *demus* and *demum* are superlative forms (&quot;sup.&quot; stands for superlative here, not supine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, both an *-us* form and an *-um* form of a superlative could be used to express something adverbial. So the ablative suffix *-tus* in *intus* need not be derived from the supine stem on *-tu-*, since superlatives are standard consonantal stems without a *u* in the stem—unless superlatives could also have *-u-* in archaic/proto-Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the words are derived from *versus/vorsus*, like *prorsus, quorsus, rursus, deorsus, introsus, seorsus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S say *tenus* is different, being originally an accusative of direction. It makes sense that it should be difference, since it functions as a preposition in classical Latin, not an adverb. Only with a prefixed ablative does it become an adverb (*hac tenus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **tĕnus** [root ten; v. teneo], perh. orig., an acc. of direction, and hence joined with gen.; afterwards a prep. with abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither L&amp;S nor De Vaan explain the ending of adverbial *secus*, except in so far that it was originally an adjective or participle probably derived from the same root as *sequor*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the words in your list are accusative neuter forms of comparatives, with the neuter comparative suffix *-(i)us,* genitive *-(i)oris*. Among those I would group almost all of the words on *-ius*, and *minus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Peropus* must be *per opus*, where *opus* is simply the neuter noun *opus*, in the accusative singular as dictated by the perposition *per*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="f8831453-a5c1-4521-83b2-26e38700556c" CreationDate="2016-03-24T16:55:48.580" UserId="30" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="Lewis &amp; Short say *-tus* in *intus* is an old ablative ending or suffix, related to the Greek adverbial ending *-τός* as in ἐντός:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **intus**, adv. [1. in and the abl. termination -tus; Sanscr. -tas; cf. ἐντός].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the words on *-tus* in your list seem to contain the same suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A suffix *-tus* often turns into *-sus*, as in ordinary past participles like *passus, versus, missus, mansus, caesus*. This may explain many of the adverbs in *-sus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I wonder whether this ablative could be related to the ablative plural ending *-bus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **dēmum** (also *demus*, like *prorsus, quorsus, rursus, deorsus*...), adv. [a sup. form from *de*, downmost; cf.: *sub, summus*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry for *demus* in L&amp;S says simply &quot;see *demum*&quot;. So it seems likely that both *demus* and *demum* are superlative forms (&quot;sup.&quot; stands for superlative here, not supine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, both an *-us* form and an *-um* form of a superlative could be used to express something adverbial. So the ablative suffix *-tus* in *intus* need not be derived from the supine stem on *-tu-*, since superlatives are standard consonantal stems without a *u* in the stem—unless superlatives could also have *-u-* in archaic/proto-Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the words are derived from *versus/vorsus*, like *prorsus, quorsus, rursus, deorsus, introsus, seorsus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S say *tenus* is different, being originally an accusative of direction. It makes sense that it should be different, since it functions as a preposition in classical Latin, not an adverb. Only with a prefixed ablative does it become an adverb (*hac tenus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **tĕnus** [root ten; v. teneo], perh. orig., an acc. of direction, and hence joined with gen.; afterwards a prep. with abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither L&amp;S nor De Vaan explain the ending of adverbial *secus*, except in so far that it was originally an adjective or participle probably derived from the same root as *sequor*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the words in your list are accusative neuter forms of comparatives, with the ordinary neuter comparative suffix *-(i)us,* genitive *-(i)oris*. Among those I would group almost all of the words on *-ius*, and *minus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Peropus* must be *per opus*, where *opus* is simply the neuter noun *opus*, in the accusative singular as dictated by the perposition *per*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="611" RevisionGUID="e5bad0c5-2e43-4997-90c1-6bdf7835e302" CreationDate="2016-03-24T17:30:23.840" UserId="78" Text="*With* is such a versatile word in English that how's it actually being used is sometimes obscured. Consider the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am going to the store with my friends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am making a house with the best tools.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*With* is used in these sentences, but they're using it very differently. The first expresses accompaniment: the friend are coming along. The second expresses means: the job is accomplished by means of an object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no one Latin word that encompasses all the varied uses of with. There is, instead, a combination of uses. This is typically accomplished by three different constructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Note: some of the examples I give come from Moreland &amp; Fleischer or Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is the ablative of means, as mentioned above. For expressing &quot;with = by means of&quot;, all you need is a simple ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nautae **gladiis** pugnant. | The sailors **fight with (= by means of) swords**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is the ablative of manner. Like the ablative of means, the noun within the prepositional phrase is an ablative, but this time it often has the preposition *cum* to go with it. Ablatives of manner express the way or, as you guessed it, manner in which something is done. Essentially, if you can replace it with an adverb, it's likely an ablative of manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Verba misera **cum venia** audivisti. | You listened to my wretched words **with indulgence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you can substitute &quot;with indulgence&quot; or &quot;indulgently&quot;, but you cannot do that for the means or accompaniment &quot;with.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: if you further modify the ablative of manner with an adjective, it can drop the *cum*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Verba misera **magna (cum) venia** audivisti. | You listened to my wretched words **with great indulgence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third way to express *with* is with the ablative of accompaniment. This is the first one I explained above. It also looks identical to ablative of manner, except that you cannot replace it with an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Domum **cum amicis** eamus. | Let us go home **with our friends**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, sometimes qualities of a noun are denoted with *with*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's that girl **with the ugly nose**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin this is typically constructed with the ablative, though sometimes the genitive is used instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Est ista puella **naso turpiculo**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gildersleeve notes about the distinction between the ablative and genitive here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; External and transient qualities are put by preference in the Ablative ; Measure, Number, Time, and Space are put in the Genitive only ; parts of the body in the Ablative only.  Otherwise there is often no difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While there are other uses of *with* in English, this should give you a good sense of what is common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One last note, though, about the words you listed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, *qum* is a misspelling of archaic forms of *cum*, both *quom* and *quum* being used at different times (even as late as the first century BCE).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Apud* can sometimes substitute for the ablative of accompaniment—*apud me* = &quot;with me&quot;—but typically it refers to location. Therefore it answers *ubi* (where?), whereas the ablative of accompaniment answers *cum quibus&quot; (with whom?). This way, it also can refer more generally to things associated with the noun it precedes. *Apud me* can mean &quot;with me,&quot; &quot;at my house,&quot; or even &quot;in my book&quot; (though typically the latter is only used when referring to someone else, so *apud Herodotum* = &quot;in the works of Herodotus&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Per* plus the accusative can substitute for the ablative of means, but the means are less physical and more abstract, and usually impute some sort of authority or intentionality. You can typically use &quot;through&quot; for *per*, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="16053530-1008-482f-9e3b-8ae179855b81" CreationDate="2016-03-24T21:10:17.933" UserId="12" Text="Henry Preston Vaughan Nunn, in his [*Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin*](https://books.google.com/books?id=iFxiAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA4), is helpful in this regard.  He sets the stage for the distinctions between Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin by briefly covering the origin of the latter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The most potent influences in the formation of early Ecclesiastical Latin were (1) the Vernacular Latin of the period, by which the Fathers allowed themselves to be influenced in order that they might be understood by half-educated people, (2) the Old Latin version of the Bible with its many Graecisms and Hebraisms, (3) the Classical Latin as taught in the schools, of which all the Fathers were pupils, or even teachers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, it's perhaps not surprising that two of the main differences identified between Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin, besides the pronunciation, are **grammar** and **vocabulary**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the innovations of Ecclesiastical Latin, as enumerated by Nunn, can be seen to be either influences from Greek or Vulgar Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The extended use of prepositions where in Classical Latin a simple case of the noun would have sufficed&#xD;&#xA;- The disappearance of long and elaborate sentences with many dependent clauses&#xD;&#xA;- The disappearance to a great extent of the Oratio Obliqua and the Accusative with Infinitive construction&#xD;&#xA;- The substitution therefor of a new construction imitated from the Greek and introduced by *quod*, *quia*, or *quoniam*.&#xD;&#xA;- The gradual extension of this construction even in clauses where *ut* would be used in Classical Latin especially in noun clauses.&#xD;&#xA;- The Infinitive used to express purpose or result, as in Greek, and also to express dependent commands&#xD;&#xA;- The Subjunctive is used where it would not be used in Classical Latin and vice versa&#xD;&#xA;- The use of periphrastic forms of verbs, especially forms made up with *esse* or *habere*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Vocabulary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the realm of vocabulary, Nunn notes several significant changes in Ecclesiastical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The use of a great number of abstract and compound nouns and of nouns denoting an agent and ending in *or*&#xD;&#xA;- The use of diminutives.  The use of words transliterated from Greek.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Donald Fairbairn in fact calls the influence of biblical languages the primary difference between the two varieties: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The main difference between classical and ecclesiastical Latin is that the latter has been influenced to some degree by the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament.  A significant number of Greek words and a fair number of Hebrew-style expressions came into the Latin language as Christian writers translated the Scriptures. ([*Understanding Language*, 14](https://books.google.com/books?id=n-6dWmYqVBgC&amp;pg=PA14))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of a Greek loan-word is *scandalum*, [unknown during the Classical period](http://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=scandalum) but frequently used in the Vulgate.  It replaces *offendiculum*, and in English is commonly rendered &quot;stumbling block&quot; or &quot;offense&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nos autem praedicamus Christum crucifixum Iudaeis quidem scandalum gentibus autem stultitiam ([1 Co 1:23](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthios+1:23&amp;version=VULGATE))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles ([ESV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthios+1:23&amp;version=ESV))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Johannes Tromp, [*Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigrapha*](https://books.google.com/books?id=nP3A5eNHwOoC&amp;pg=PA27), mentions several others, like *propheta* and *idolum*, that came from Greek through Jewish and Christian writings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary are seen as the primary distinctions between these two varieties of Latin.  Still, the differences are often deemphasized—Fairbairn, for example, calls the distinction between them &quot;somewhat artificial.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="748b3a1f-9f8d-4827-9c5c-b086a12b604d" CreationDate="2016-03-24T21:21:21.107" UserId="12" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="Henry Preston Vaughan Nunn, in his [*Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin*](https://books.google.com/books?id=iFxiAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA4), is helpful in this regard.  He sets the stage for the distinctions between Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin by briefly covering the origin of the latter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The most potent influences in the formation of early Ecclesiastical Latin were (1) the Vernacular Latin of the period, by which the Fathers allowed themselves to be influenced in order that they might be understood by half-educated people, (2) the Old Latin version of the Bible with its many Graecisms and Hebraisms, (3) the Classical Latin as taught in the schools, of which all the Fathers were pupils, or even teachers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, it's perhaps not surprising that two of the main differences identified between Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin, besides the pronunciation, are **grammar** and **vocabulary**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the innovations of Ecclesiastical Latin, as enumerated by Nunn, can be seen to be either influences from Greek or Vulgar Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The extended use of prepositions where in Classical Latin a simple case of the noun would have sufficed&#xD;&#xA;- The disappearance of long and elaborate sentences with many dependent clauses&#xD;&#xA;- The disappearance to a great extent of the Oratio Obliqua and the Accusative with Infinitive construction&#xD;&#xA;- The substitution therefor of a new construction imitated from the Greek and introduced by *quod*, *quia*, or *quoniam*.&#xD;&#xA;- The gradual extension of this construction even in clauses where *ut* would be used in Classical Latin especially in noun clauses.&#xD;&#xA;- The Infinitive used to express purpose or result, as in Greek, and also to express dependent commands&#xD;&#xA;- The Subjunctive is used where it would not be used in Classical Latin and vice versa&#xD;&#xA;- The use of periphrastic forms of verbs, especially forms made up with *esse* or *habere*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Vocabulary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the realm of vocabulary, Nunn notes several significant changes in Ecclesiastical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The use of a great number of abstract and compound nouns and of nouns denoting an agent and ending in *or*&#xD;&#xA;- The use of diminutives.  The use of words transliterated from Greek.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Donald Fairbairn in fact calls the influence of biblical languages the primary difference between the two varieties: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The main difference between classical and ecclesiastical Latin is that the latter has been influenced to some degree by the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament.  A significant number of Greek words and a fair number of Hebrew-style expressions came into the Latin language as Christian writers translated the Scriptures. ([*Understanding Language*, 14](https://books.google.com/books?id=n-6dWmYqVBgC&amp;pg=PA14))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of a Greek loan-word is *scandalum*, [unknown during the Classical period](http://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=scandalum) but frequently used in the Vulgate.  In English the Greek word it is commonly rendered &quot;stumbling block&quot; or &quot;offense&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nos autem praedicamus Christum crucifixum Iudaeis quidem scandalum gentibus autem stultitiam ([1 Co 1:23](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthios+1:23&amp;version=VULGATE))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles ([ESV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthios+1:23&amp;version=ESV))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Johannes Tromp, [*Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigrapha*](https://books.google.com/books?id=nP3A5eNHwOoC&amp;pg=PA27), mentions several others, like *propheta* and *idolum*, that came from Greek through Jewish and Christian writings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary are seen as the primary distinctions between these two varieties of Latin.  Still, the differences are often deemphasized—Fairbairn, for example, calls the distinction between them &quot;somewhat artificial.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="613" RevisionGUID="4c53c505-1125-4ab2-aa1f-8e549f42349b" CreationDate="2016-03-24T21:30:02.203" UserId="30" Text="Cappeli is the most reliable source in the field of Latin palaeography. What he says in the description of the signs of truncation also matches my experience. So there are hardly any different connotations at all, except that some of the signs are used more frequently to indicate that certain specific letters have been omitted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The first truncation sign, a dot or period, is gen­erally placed after the abbreviated word and is still in use today with the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of the other signs, the first three are cross-strokes cut diagonally through the last letter of the abbreviated word, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... while the last three are tails that form a ligature with the final letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although the next to the last sign can be used to indicate simply the omission of any final letter(s), it is used especially to indicate the dropping of the ending *-is*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The third sign from the last is usually joined to the letter d to indicate the endings *-dum* and *-dam*, or the syllable *dis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zVVAj.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JVWCD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UD2mU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q5j1e.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sNWkJ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="613" RevisionGUID="e0d3c2ab-7488-4735-8571-4688d854a25a" CreationDate="2016-03-24T21:34:40.063" UserId="30" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Cappelli is the most reliable source in the field of Latin palaeography. What he says in the description of the signs of truncation also matches my experience. So there are hardly any different connotations at all, except that some of the signs are used more frequently to indicate that certain specific letters have been omitted. Quoting Cappelli:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The first truncation sign, a dot or period, is gen­erally placed after the abbreviated word and is still in use today with the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of the other signs, the first three are cross-strokes cut diagonally through the last letter of the abbreviated word, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... while the last three are tails that form a ligature with the final letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although the next to the last sign can be used to indicate simply the omission of any final letter(s), it is used especially to indicate the dropping of the ending *-is*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The third sign from the last is usually joined to the letter d to indicate the endings *-dum* and *-dam*, or the syllable *dis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zVVAj.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JVWCD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UD2mU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q5j1e.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sNWkJ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2148" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="608" RevisionGUID="8562fda1-9920-4af7-8413-ff58eed4601f" CreationDate="2016-03-24T21:47:36.650" UserId="12" Comment="hopefully more helpful title" Text="&quot;Fighting with someone&quot; and the different uses of &quot;with&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2149" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="608" RevisionGUID="8562fda1-9920-4af7-8413-ff58eed4601f" CreationDate="2016-03-24T21:47:36.650" UserId="12" Comment="hopefully more helpful title" Text="|vocabulary|semantics|preposition|differences|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="192" RevisionGUID="5826678e-a424-4c16-99a3-0080697e3336" CreationDate="2016-03-24T23:13:35.037" UserId="73" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="I'm continuing reading Cappelli's [*The elements of abbreviation in medieval Latin paleography*](https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/1821/47cappelli.pdf?sequence=3), and early on he discusses medieval truncation signs. There are three types used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An [interpunct](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpunct) (first sign), which was not used much in medieval Latin.&#xD;&#xA; - Strokes through the last letter of a word (second to fourth signs).&#xD;&#xA; - Ligatures added to the final letter of a word (final three signs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/UCys1.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The differences in use between the three classes is clear, but I'm not sure about the different connotations between signs of the same class (save for first one and the last three, which Cappelli deals with shortly afterwards). Specifically, what is the difference between the second, third, and fourth truncation signs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By &quot;connotations&quot;, I'm referring to anything about the declension/conjugation of the word, its pronunciation (unlikely), the precise meaning, or some other related difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="613" RevisionGUID="e2b67ef4-ef0f-4c95-bba7-8b3a861e91e1" CreationDate="2016-03-24T23:14:39.600" UserId="30" Comment="added 284 characters in body" Text="Cappelli is the most reliable source in the field of Latin palaeography. What he says in the description of the signs of truncation also matches my experience. So there are hardly any different connotations at all, except that some of the signs are used more frequently to indicate that certain specific letters have been omitted. Quoting Cappelli:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The first truncation sign, a dot or period, is gen­erally placed after the abbreviated word and is still in use today with the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of the other signs, the first three are cross-strokes cut diagonally through the last letter of the abbreviated word, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience, there is no difference whatsoever between these three signs. It's just that some scribes use straight lines while others make them curly, etc. Or the same scribe might even vary between different shapes. There was a lot less uniformity in premodern handwriting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... while the last three are tails that form a ligature with the final letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although the next to the last sign can be used to indicate simply the omission of any final letter(s), it is used especially to indicate the dropping of the ending *-is*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The third sign from the last is usually joined to the letter d to indicate the endings *-dum* and *-dam*, or the syllable *dis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zVVAj.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JVWCD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UD2mU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q5j1e.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sNWkJ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="614" RevisionGUID="07fd1c94-8a3e-4470-a76f-7e3cb10da8ea" CreationDate="2016-03-24T23:23:30.753" UserId="12" Text="As far as origins go, [Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge, §204.7](https://books.google.com/books?id=UU0BIAbE0SIC&amp;pg=PA145), call it a false modesty:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The usage [of first person plural for first person singular] originates in modesty, but mock modesty is the worst form of pomposity.  It is never very common, and is not found before Cicero: **Librum ad tē dē senectūte mīsimus**, C., *Cat. M.*, 1, 3; *we* (I) *have sent you a treatise on old age*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;§204.6 discusses similar usage in poetry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Pl. is freely used in poetry and in later prose: **Ōtia sī tollās, periēre Cupīdinis arcūs**, Ov., *Rem. Am.*, 139; *if you do away with holidays, Cupid's bow* (and arrows) *are ruined.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="614" RevisionGUID="26ce0bf0-ec24-4e72-9e6b-39e7654ccff8" CreationDate="2016-03-24T23:57:37.127" UserId="12" Comment="added 427 characters in body" Text="As far as origins go, [Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge, §204.7](https://books.google.com/books?id=UU0BIAbE0SIC&amp;pg=PA145), call it a false modesty:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The usage [of first person plural for first person singular] originates in modesty, but mock modesty is the worst form of pomposity.  It is never very common, and is not found before Cicero: **Librum ad tē dē senectūte mīsimus**, C., *Cat. M.*, 1, 3; *we* (I) *have sent you a treatise on old age*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Harm Pinkster, [*Oxford Latin Syntax*, v. 1, 11.122](https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA782), agrees with this timeline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The use of the first person plural by a speaker or writer to refer to his own activities is found from the Classical period onwards [...] A common Latin term for this use of the plural is *pluralis modestiae*; however not all instances do reflect modesty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gildersleeve and Lodge, §204.6, discusses similar usage in poetry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Pl. is freely used in poetry and in later prose: **Ōtia sī tollās, periēre Cupīdinis arcūs**, Ov., *Rem. Am.*, 139; *if you do away with holidays, Cupid's bow* (and arrows) *are ruined.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2154" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="269" RevisionGUID="967542ac-341b-4563-8bf1-5335edb659a7" CreationDate="2016-03-25T00:15:54.967" UserId="78" Comment="2" />
  <row Id="2155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="615" RevisionGUID="f09f820b-9042-431d-bc19-0b57b09de82b" CreationDate="2016-03-25T00:55:51.147" UserId="30" Text="In addition to Nathaniel's excellent answer, we offer this quotation from Ennius:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Liber VII*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;*Ennii de Naevio sententia:* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;         scripsere alii rem               231 &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     Versibus quos olim Faunei vatesque canebant; &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     Cum neque Musarum scopulos quisquam superarat &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     Nec dicti studiosus erat, &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;         ante hunc &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     Nos ausi reserare . . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears to be about how Ennius (&quot;nos&quot;) dared open the doors/fount of creativity to compose his poems, or something like that. Kühner–Stegmann pointed us to Ennius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to K–S, &quot;we&quot; for &quot;I&quot; is rare in Greek prose but more frequent in Greek poetry, so we wouldn't be surprised if that's where the Romans took it from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They explain the plural as &quot;modest&quot; in that the author does not wish to call too much attention to himself but rather suggests a certain point of view is held by others as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="615" RevisionGUID="b1be224e-866c-449c-9fd1-2429a14f1670" CreationDate="2016-03-25T01:31:57.740" UserId="30" Comment="added 636 characters in body" Text="In addition to Nathaniel's excellent answer, we offer this quotation from Ennius:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Liber VII*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;*Ennii de Naevio sententia:* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;         scripsere alii rem               231 &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     Versibus quos olim Faunei vatesque canebant; &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     Cum neque Musarum scopulos quisquam superarat &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     Nec dicti studiosus erat, &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;         ante hunc &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     Nos ausi reserare . . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears to be about how Ennius (&quot;nos&quot;) dared open the doors/fount of creativity to compose his poems, or something like that. Kühner–Stegmann pointed us to Ennius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to K–S, &quot;we&quot; for &quot;I&quot; is rare in Greek prose but more frequent in Greek poetry, so we wouldn't be surprised if that's where the Romans took it from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They explain the plural as &quot;modest&quot; in that the author does not wish to call too much attention to himself but rather suggests a certain point of view is held by others as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They also state that the modest plural stands in an unmistakable relation to the &quot;general plural&quot;. They also mention the plural of &quot;relatives&quot;, which appears to be a subspecies of the general plural. From the Aeneid, 2, 579:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Helena) ... *patres* (= Tyndarum) *natosque* (= Hermionen) videbit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it says that Helena will see her parents and children upon her return, when in fact she will only see Tyndarus and Hermione. Hermione was her only child, and her mother Leda would according to K–S not be present in Sparta or Mycenae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rtCqM.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/G3Y6D.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eosj3.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="8ea746b4-7a09-42e3-b597-81d788fd3dd2" CreationDate="2016-03-25T03:49:44.780" UserId="68" Text="There are two translations of *The Little Prince* into Latin, one by Auguste Haury and one by Franz Schlosser. I'm trying to get a sense of the relative merits of their Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the dedication of *The Little Prince* in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; TO LEON WERTH  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I ask the indulgence of the children who may read this book for dedicating it to a grown-up. I have a serious reason: he is the best friend I have in the world. I have another reason: this grown-up understands everything, even books about children. I have a third reason: he lives in France where he is hungry and cold. He needs cheering up. If all these reasons are not enough, I will dedicate the book to the child from whom this grown-up grew. All grown-ups were once children—although few of them remember it. And so I correct my dedication:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;TO LEON WERTH WHEN HE WAS A LITTLE BOY&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is Haury's translation (in the book he calls *Regulus*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ANTONIUS LEONI WERTH S.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pueros oro ut mihi ignoscant quod librum hunc ad adultum hominem inscripserim. Hanc probabilem excusationem habeo, quod adultus ille homo mihi unus omnium amicissimus est. Secundam excusationem habeo, quod adultus ille homo eo ingenio est ut omnia intellegat, etiam ea quæ puerorum causa scripta sunt. Jam vero tertiam excusationem habeo, quod adultus ille homo in Gallia habitat, ubi et esurit et alget. Itaque consolatione magnopere eget. Quod si omnes hæ excusationes non satis valebunt, morem eis geram et librum hunc ad puerum illum inscribam ex quo ad hanc ætatem adolevit. Omnes enim qui adoleverunt puerili primum ætate fuerunt (sed pauci recordantur). Quæ igitur inscripsi sic corrigo:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ANTONIUS LEONI WERTH PUERITIÆ MEMORI MEMOR S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's Schlosser's version (from *Principulus*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LEONI WERTH&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rogo mihi ignoscatis, pueruli puellæque, quod hunc librum ad hominem adultum inscripsi. Hoc autem excusatione deprecor: Homo adultus ille mihi omnium gratissimus et amicissimus est. Alteram excusationem habeo: adultus ille homo omnia intellegit, et libros intellegit liberorum causa scriptos. Tertiam excusationem habeo: Homo adultus ille in Francogallia habitat, ubi friget fameque urgetur. Quam ob rem puto eum consolandum esse. Nisi quidem hæ omnes excusationes sufficient, hunc libellum puero dedicabo, qui olim fuit homo ille adultus. Omnes enim homines adulti primum pueri fuerunt. (Cujus rei pauci autem memores sunt.) Qua de causa, quæ dedicavi, ita corrigo:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LEONI WERTH PUERO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is one of these better Latin than the other? If so, which one? Why? What are some particularly felicitous or infelicitous choices in each?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2158" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="8ea746b4-7a09-42e3-b597-81d788fd3dd2" CreationDate="2016-03-25T03:49:44.780" UserId="68" Text="How does the Latin of these two translations of THE LITTLE PRINCE compare?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2159" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="8ea746b4-7a09-42e3-b597-81d788fd3dd2" CreationDate="2016-03-25T03:49:44.780" UserId="68" Text="|translation|nuance|contemporary-latin|style|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="617" RevisionGUID="29d1d4af-9cf6-4c11-854b-d1235e334cc3" CreationDate="2016-03-25T10:55:24.763" UserId="183" Text="It is clear that the reduplicating verbs are deeply rooted in Proto-Indoeuropean, not only Latin and Greek exhibit them, but there are also traces of them in the Germanic languages (One class of strong verbs represented by German fallen, fällt, fiel, gefallen trace back to reduplicating verbs). Note that there was only a certing class that used reduplication, there were always other classes competing with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin was already in the stage of getting rid of reduplication: Only the simple verbs reduplicate, but prefix forms (like incurro) doesn't. The force of analogy works towards the removal of residual reduplication, taking one verb after the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any rules governing this process and predicting what verbs are more conservative than others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="5e91db5e-1fc6-4d45-96cc-e6f4434bf3a9" CreationDate="2016-03-25T12:51:02.323" UserId="68" Comment="added 846 characters in body" Text="There are two translations of *The Little Prince* into Latin, one by Auguste Haury and one by Franz Schlosser. I'm trying to get a sense of the relative merits of their Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the dedication of *The Little Prince* in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; TO LEON WERTH  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I ask the indulgence of the children who may read this book for dedicating it to a grown-up. I have a serious reason: he is the best friend I have in the world. I have another reason: this grown-up understands everything, even books about children. I have a third reason: he lives in France where he is hungry and cold. He needs cheering up. If all these reasons are not enough, I will dedicate the book to the child from whom this grown-up grew. All grown-ups were once children—although few of them remember it. And so I correct my dedication:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;TO LEON WERTH WHEN HE WAS A LITTLE BOY&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is Haury's translation (in the book he calls *Regulus*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ANTONIUS LEONI WERTH S.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pueros oro ut mihi ignoscant quod librum hunc ad adultum hominem inscripserim. Hanc probabilem excusationem habeo, quod adultus ille homo mihi unus omnium amicissimus est. Secundam excusationem habeo, quod adultus ille homo eo ingenio est ut omnia intellegat, etiam ea quæ puerorum causa scripta sunt. Jam vero tertiam excusationem habeo, quod adultus ille homo in Gallia habitat, ubi et esurit et alget. Itaque consolatione magnopere eget. Quod si omnes hæ excusationes non satis valebunt, morem eis geram et librum hunc ad puerum illum inscribam ex quo ad hanc ætatem adolevit. Omnes enim qui adoleverunt puerili primum ætate fuerunt (sed pauci recordantur). Quæ igitur inscripsi sic corrigo:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ANTONIUS LEONI WERTH PUERITIÆ MEMORI MEMOR S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's Schlosser's version (from *Principulus*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LEONI WERTH&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rogo mihi ignoscatis, pueruli puellæque, quod hunc librum ad hominem adultum inscripsi. Hoc autem excusatione deprecor: Homo adultus ille mihi omnium gratissimus et amicissimus est. Alteram excusationem habeo: adultus ille homo omnia intellegit, et libros intellegit liberorum causa scriptos. Tertiam excusationem habeo: Homo adultus ille in Francogallia habitat, ubi friget fameque urgetur. Quam ob rem puto eum consolandum esse. Nisi quidem hæ omnes excusationes sufficient, hunc libellum puero dedicabo, qui olim fuit homo ille adultus. Omnes enim homines adulti primum pueri fuerunt. (Cujus rei pauci autem memores sunt.) Qua de causa, quæ dedicavi, ita corrigo:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LEONI WERTH PUERO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is one of these better Latin than the other? If so, which one? Why? What are some particularly felicitous or infelicitous choices in each?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three things occur to me that suggest Haury's is the better translation, but I'm not confident that my analysis of any of them is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Haury uses *alget* where Schlosser uses *friget* to translate &quot;he is cold.&quot; I believe that &quot;alget&quot; is used of *feeling* cold, and *friget* is used impersonally to say that it *is* cold. Now, Schlosser could be using *friget* to mean &quot;it is cold,&quot; in which case it's a question not of the quality of the Latin but of the accuracy of the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Haury uses *sic* to indicate the correction he's about to make, where Schlosser uses *ita*. My understanding is that *sic* points to what follows it, where *ita* points to what precedes it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, those are both small things, and obviously there's a lot more going on in each one than just those two words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are people's thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="ef94f4fa-fa8b-423f-98ff-9f609aa2142c" CreationDate="2016-03-25T13:26:45.657" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="There are two translations of *The Little Prince* into Latin, one by Auguste Haury and one by Franz Schlosser. I'm trying to get a sense of the relative merits of their Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the dedication of *The Little Prince* in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; TO LEON WERTH  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I ask the indulgence of the children who may read this book for dedicating it to a grown-up. I have a serious reason: he is the best friend I have in the world. I have another reason: this grown-up understands everything, even books about children. I have a third reason: he lives in France where he is hungry and cold. He needs cheering up. If all these reasons are not enough, I will dedicate the book to the child from whom this grown-up grew. All grown-ups were once children—although few of them remember it. And so I correct my dedication:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;TO LEON WERTH WHEN HE WAS A LITTLE BOY&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is Haury's translation (in the book he calls *Regulus*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ANTONIUS LEONI WERTH S.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pueros oro ut mihi ignoscant quod librum hunc ad adultum hominem inscripserim. Hanc probabilem excusationem habeo, quod adultus ille homo mihi unus omnium amicissimus est. Secundam excusationem habeo, quod adultus ille homo eo ingenio est ut omnia intellegat, etiam ea quæ puerorum causa scripta sunt. Jam vero tertiam excusationem habeo, quod adultus ille homo in Gallia habitat, ubi et esurit et alget. Itaque consolatione magnopere eget. Quod si omnes hæ excusationes non satis valebunt, morem eis geram et librum hunc ad puerum illum inscribam ex quo ad hanc ætatem adolevit. Omnes enim qui adoleverunt puerili primum ætate fuerunt (sed pauci recordantur). Quæ igitur inscripsi sic corrigo:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ANTONIUS LEONI WERTH PUERITIÆ MEMORI MEMOR S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's Schlosser's version (from *Principulus*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LEONI WERTH&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rogo mihi ignoscatis, pueruli puellæque, quod hunc librum ad hominem adultum inscripsi. Hoc autem excusatione deprecor: Homo adultus ille mihi omnium gratissimus et amicissimus est. Alteram excusationem habeo: adultus ille homo omnia intellegit, et libros intellegit liberorum causa scriptos. Tertiam excusationem habeo: Homo adultus ille in Francogallia habitat, ubi friget fameque urgetur. Quam ob rem puto eum consolandum esse. Nisi quidem hæ omnes excusationes sufficient, hunc libellum puero dedicabo, qui olim fuit homo ille adultus. Omnes enim homines adulti primum pueri fuerunt. (Cujus rei pauci autem memores sunt.) Qua de causa, quæ dedicavi, ita corrigo:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LEONI WERTH PUERO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is one of these better Latin than the other? If so, which one? Why? What are some particularly felicitous or infelicitous choices in each?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two things occur to me that suggest Haury's is the better translation, but I'm not confident that my analysis of any of them is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Haury uses *alget* where Schlosser uses *friget* to translate &quot;he is cold.&quot; I believe that &quot;alget&quot; is used of *feeling* cold, and *friget* is used impersonally to say that it *is* cold. Now, Schlosser could be using *friget* to mean &quot;it is cold,&quot; in which case it's a question not of the quality of the Latin but of the accuracy of the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Haury uses *sic* to indicate the correction he's about to make, where Schlosser uses *ita*. My understanding is that *sic* points to what follows it, where *ita* points to what precedes it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, those are both small things, and obviously there's a lot more going on in each one than just those two words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are people's thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2163" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="f2f84432-c826-444e-89ed-1e94ae4d2adf" CreationDate="2016-03-25T13:37:55.863" UserId="78" Comment="3" />
  <row Id="2164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="614" RevisionGUID="f76070b1-a223-4fb1-a499-1dfeb277a729" CreationDate="2016-03-25T14:13:25.663" UserId="12" Comment="reorganize, logical development in Greek" Text="There are three commonly recognized types of *nosism*, in which the plural first-person pronoun is used rather than the singular: the *pluralis societatis* (&quot;social plural&quot;), *pluralis modestiae* (&quot;plural of modesty&quot;), and *pluralis maiestatis* (&quot;plural of majesty&quot; or &quot;royal we&quot;).  In some sense all of these can be considered specialized uses of the *poetic plural*, which occurs frequently in the poetry of Classical Latin, as indicated by [Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge, §204.6](https://books.google.com/books?id=UU0BIAbE0SIC&amp;pg=PA145):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Pl. is freely used in poetry and in later prose: **Ōtia sī tollās, periēre Cupīdinis arcūs**, Ov., *Rem. Am.*, 139; *if you do away with holidays, Cupid's bow* (and arrows) *are ruined.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The poetic plural appears widely in Ancient Greek as well.  Horace Leonard Jones identifies several examples of all three types of *nosism* (*societatis*, *modestiae*, and *maiestatis*) in the *Iliad* and *Odyssey*, and argues that they logically develop from one another:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Three uses of the first person plural pronoun for the singular may be recognized, which apparently represent the logical development of the plural *as meaning one person* out of the *true* plural.  The steps are: (1) Pluralis Societatis, (2) Pluralis Modestiae, (3) Pluralis Maiestatis.  We may suppose that at first the *ημεις* [we] associates in thought others with the *εγω* [I]—the speaker, and that the plural is really *κατα συνεσιν*; the speaker then with purpose sinks his identity in the class to which he belongs, and the notion of modesty, humility results; as in Latin. ([*The Poetic Plural of Greek Tragedy*, 127ff.](https://books.google.com/books?id=c4QLAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA127))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge, §204.7](https://books.google.com/books?id=UU0BIAbE0SIC&amp;pg=PA145), find the practical use of *pluralis modestiae* to often reflect a false modesty:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The usage [of first person plural for first person singular] originates in modesty, but mock modesty is the worst form of pomposity.  It is never very common, and is not found before Cicero: **Librum ad tē dē senectūte mīsimus**, C., *Cat. M.*, 1, 3; *we* (I) *have sent you a treatise on old age*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Harm Pinkster, [*Oxford Latin Syntax*, v. 1, 11.122](https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA782), agrees with this analysis and confirms the timeline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The use of the first person plural by a speaker or writer to refer to his own activities is found from the Classical period onwards [...] A common Latin term for this use of the plural is *pluralis modestiae*; however not all instances do reflect modesty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2165" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="486" RevisionGUID="15b45fa4-a5df-41fe-92bc-13631bc67e4a" CreationDate="2016-03-25T15:30:46.357" UserId="12" Comment="5" />
  <row Id="2166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="618" RevisionGUID="d81ae8a1-68eb-4ff9-9d02-99d538466f7e" CreationDate="2016-03-25T16:22:26.437" UserId="39" Text="Weiss 2009 writes that &quot;verbs of second conjugation have u-perfect if the stem is light, but some other formation (s-perfect, reduplicated perfects) is the stem is heavy&quot; (p. 413).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;doceo - docui&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;moneo - monui&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;augeo - auxi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;rideo - risi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mordeo - momordi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He mentions the following exceptions to this rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - all verbs with a heavy base that ends in an *r* or *l* have a u-perfect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;floreo - florui&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;palleo - pallui&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - miscellanea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;maneo (mansi), arceo (arcui), censeo (censui), splendeo (splendui), torpeo (torpui).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="504" RevisionGUID="ce8bceba-57fa-42ca-9d39-8063e956e554" CreationDate="2016-03-25T18:23:13.377" UserId="39" Comment="uploaded images from CIL (taken by me)" Text="Since this is not exactly my area of expertise, I will quote [Rex Wallace][1] ([Wallace 2011][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He argues that the earliest Latin inscriptions were written from right to left and from left to right (p. 22). He mentions three examples of right-to-left inscriptions in Latin: the Vetusia inscription (ET La 2.1) and the Fibula Praenestina (CIL I².3). Not everyone agrees whether the language of the Vetusia inscription should be considered Latin, though, and there has never been consensus on the authenticity of the Fibula Praenestina. The third example is the bronze Fucine Lake inscription (CIL I².5), which was found in 1877 but is lost now. Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011 give its text in a new version proposed in Crawford 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fucine1][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fucine2][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fucine3][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This is what it looks like in CIL** (de visu, I took the picture myself):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![CIL2.1.2.5][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, Wallace observes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; &quot;By the middle of the republican period, however, writers had settled on left-to-right direction as the norm, and almost all Latin inscriptions after this date are written in this manner. Inscriptions in other formats, such as boustrophendon, appear rather infrequently&quot; (Wallace 2011: 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that there is a difference between **boustrophedon** (the direction of writing alternates) and **sinistroverse** (the direction of writing is right-to-left), e.g. [a bronze tablet from Falerii Novi][7] (CIL I² 365); please follow the link to see it, since it is copyrighted. Here's the glossed text, from Clackson and Horrocks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Falerii][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This is what it looks like in CIL** (de visu, I took the picture myself):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][9]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson and Horrocks 2007 argue it is written in Latin and not Faliscan (contrary to what Getty Images says). As they put it, it is written in the Faliscan manner (sinistroverse), with Faliscan letter forms and mainly Faliscan orthography (see Clackson and Horrock 2007: 119-120 for further detail).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[John Bodel][10] (**Bodel 2012) observes that by the end of the fifth BCE Latin texts &quot;regularly ran left to right&quot; (p. 82)**. He discusses **two theories**, neither of which, he argues, can be proven correct at this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the first theory, &quot;[w]hen inscribed writing began to&#xD;&#xA;be used to label larger monuments, however, the fixed position of (generally)&#xD;&#xA;rectilinear objects necessitated accommodating a more limited range&#xD;&#xA;of viewing perspectives&quot; (p. 83).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second theory holds that Roman script is dextroverse because of the desire to make it look as much different as possible from sinistroverse ductus in Etruscan, due to rising  political and cultural ambitions of Rome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bodel, John. 2012. Paragrams, punctuation, and system in ancient Roman script. In S. Houston (ed.), The Shape of script: How and why writing systems change, pp. 63-90. Santa Fe, NM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson, James, and Geoffrey Horrocks. 2007. The Blackwell history of the Latin language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wallace, Rex. 2011. “The Latin Alphabet and Orthography.” In James Clackson (ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language, pp. 9–28. London/New York: Wiley-Blackwell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.umass.edu/hfa/member/rex-wallace&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kmjeQ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/u4wGf.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4MohO.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/w5ZgF.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/inscription-in-faliscan-language-dedicated-to-minerva-stock-graphic/148357367&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jduh1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jm0GR.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://vivo.brown.edu/display/jbodel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="619" RevisionGUID="2bd3ebce-aaaf-48b1-b129-aca3cafb7856" CreationDate="2016-03-25T19:23:47.783" UserId="39" Text="Here's what I found in TLL:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**IV i. q. docere.**&#xD;&#xA;*de hac confusione, quam praecipue in vul- gari sermone obviam iam impugnare videtur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IS ID. diff. 1, 177 (v. p. 1331, 35 ), cf. Plasberg, Rhein. Mus. 54, 148 , ubi adde anglosax. learn pro teach: ANTH. 666, 28 comforta, revoca, corripe, -e&#xD;&#xA;(defendit Plasberg l. c., duce Bücheler ), mone. EXC. Lat. Barb. p. 268, 2 astro- logica arte didicebatur (sic ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**nescio an huc pertineat :**&#xD;&#xA;HIL. trin. 7, 16 quia deum esse dominum nostrum Iesum Christum … -issemus (docuissemus codd. dett.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="619" RevisionGUID="ec9e4498-1fbd-4b2c-bfc3-a28c94c45836" CreationDate="2016-03-25T19:42:28.703" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 136 characters in body" Text="Here's what I found in TLL:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**IV i. q. docere.**&#xD;&#xA;*de hac confusione, quam praecipue in vul- gari sermone obviam iam impugnare videtur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IS ID. diff. 1, 177 (v. p. 1331, 35 ), cf. Plasberg, Rhein. Mus. 54, 148 , ubi adde anglosax. learn pro teach: ANTH. 666, 28 comforta, revoca, corripe, -e&#xD;&#xA;(defendit Plasberg l. c., duce Bücheler ), mone. EXC. Lat. Barb. p. 268, 2 astro- logica arte didicebatur (sic )." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="9b8d6e29-ae7e-4807-8099-2f034a0c8202" CreationDate="2016-03-25T20:10:07.123" UserId="79" Text="The name *Iesus* is declined in a very peculiar way in Latin, and no other word seems to follow similar declensions.&#xD;&#xA;Why is this so?&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to put this broader declension in context to make some sense of it and make it easier to remember?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the [Latin](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Iesus) declension is borrowed directly from the [Greek](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%B8%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6%CF%82) one.&#xD;&#xA;I only know Greek at a very basic level, but the Greek declension looks unusual as well.&#xD;&#xA;The word is not originally Greek, but I would have expected a &quot;more Greek&quot; declension for a borrowed word.&#xD;&#xA;I realize that this may be ultimately a question about Greek (or yet another language, depending on how far the chain extends), but my sole goal is to understand the Latin word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2171" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="9b8d6e29-ae7e-4807-8099-2f034a0c8202" CreationDate="2016-03-25T20:10:07.123" UserId="79" Text="Why is Jesus inflected in such a way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2172" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="9b8d6e29-ae7e-4807-8099-2f034a0c8202" CreationDate="2016-03-25T20:10:07.123" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|declension|names|greek|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="619" RevisionGUID="66aa1499-b91f-49a1-a411-0d21393d2ce1" CreationDate="2016-03-25T21:06:12.673" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Here's what I found in TLL:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**IV i. q. docere.**&#xD;&#xA;*de hac confusione, quam praecipue in vulgari sermone obviam iam impugnare videtur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IS ID. diff. 1, 177 (v. p. 1331, 35 ), cf. Plasberg, Rhein. Mus. 54, 148 , ubi adde anglosax. learn pro teach: ANTH. 666, 28 comforta, revoca, corripe, -e&#xD;&#xA;(defendit Plasberg l. c., duce Bücheler ), mone. EXC. Lat. Barb. p. 268, 2 astrologica arte didicebatur (sic )." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="619" RevisionGUID="7befad3c-2330-4d98-bdf3-13ef6b0b4007" CreationDate="2016-03-25T21:53:36.293" UserId="39" Comment="added 313 characters in body" Text="Here's what I found in [Thesaurus Linguae Latinae][1] (TLL; institutional subscription only):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**IV i. q. docere.**&#xD;&#xA;*de hac confusione, quam praecipue in vulgari sermone obviam iam impugnare videtur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IS ID. diff. 1, 177 (v. p. 1331, 35 ), cf. Plasberg, Rhein. Mus. 54, 148 , ubi adde anglosax. learn pro teach: ANTH. 666, 28 comforta, revoca, corripe, -e&#xD;&#xA;(defendit Plasberg l. c., duce Bücheler ), mone. EXC. Lat. Barb. p. 268, 2 astrologica arte didicebatur (sic ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from the entry above, there are some interesting examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; from *Excerpta Latina Barbari* ([Garstad 2012][3] dates it **around 692**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.degruyter.com/databasecontent?dbid=tll&amp;dbsource=%2Fdb%2Ftll&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vGmV3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674053076" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="619" RevisionGUID="c528b1c0-baf9-438b-b963-63c393e530cc" CreationDate="2016-03-25T21:59:47.140" UserId="39" Comment="added 313 characters in body" Text="Here's what I found in [Thesaurus Linguae Latinae][1] (TLL; institutional subscription only):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**IV i. q. docere.**&#xD;&#xA;*de hac confusione, quam praecipue in vulgari sermone obviam iam impugnare videtur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IS ID. diff. 1, 177 (v. p. 1331, 35 ), cf. Plasberg, Rhein. Mus. 54, 148 , ubi adde anglosax. learn pro teach: ANTH. 666, 28 comforta, revoca, corripe, -e&#xD;&#xA;(defendit Plasberg l. c., duce Bücheler ), mone. EXC. Lat. Barb. p. 268, 2 astrologica arte didicebatur (sic ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from the entry above, there are some interesting examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; from *Excerpta Latina Barbari* ([Garstad 2012][3] dates it **around 692**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.degruyter.com/databasecontent?dbid=tll&amp;dbsource=%2Fdb%2Ftll&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vGmV3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674053076&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4AQB2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="621" RevisionGUID="1096b454-bf4d-461b-a2c7-1121e2bb4273" CreationDate="2016-03-25T23:45:40.410" UserId="40" Text="The normal way of forming the perfect passive system is: perfect passive participle + a form from the present system of *sum*, e.g. *amatus est, amatus erat, amatus sit, amatus esset*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But one occasionally comes across forms which use the perfect system of *sum* instead, e.g. *amatus fuit, amatus fuisset*. Many grammars and textbooks don't even mention these forms, or mention them briefly only as synonymous alternatives to the usual, present-system forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess would be that the latter forms serve to emphasize completion of the action, or to avoid ambiguity with a present-perfective meaning, but I've never seen this topic discussed. Can anyone point me to a description, grounded in actual examples, of the semantic difference between these sets of forms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2177" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="621" RevisionGUID="1096b454-bf4d-461b-a2c7-1121e2bb4273" CreationDate="2016-03-25T23:45:40.410" UserId="40" Text="Perfect passive forms like &quot;amatus fuit&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2178" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="621" RevisionGUID="1096b454-bf4d-461b-a2c7-1121e2bb4273" CreationDate="2016-03-25T23:45:40.410" UserId="40" Text="|grammar|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="619" RevisionGUID="1243abd2-3681-4a39-9ad8-d17f25d9d7da" CreationDate="2016-03-26T01:16:24.063" UserId="39" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="Here's what I found in [Thesaurus Linguae Latinae][1] (TLL; institutional subscription only):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**IV i. q. docere.**&#xD;&#xA;*de hac confusione, quam praecipue in vulgari sermone obviam iam impugnare videtur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IS ID. diff. 1, 177 (v. p. 1331, 35 ), cf. Plasberg, Rhein. Mus. 54, 148 , ubi adde anglosax. learn pro teach: ANTH. 666, 28 comforta, revoca, corripe, -e&#xD;&#xA;(defendit Plasberg l. c., duce Bücheler ), mone. EXC. Lat. Barb. p. 268, 2 astrologica arte didicebatur (sic ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from the entry above, there are some interesting examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; from *Excerpta Latina Barbari* ([Garstad 2012][3] dates it **around 692**). Here's its English translation (Garstad 2012):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.degruyter.com/databasecontent?dbid=tll&amp;dbsource=%2Fdb%2Ftll&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vGmV3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674053076&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VuiqW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4AQB2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2180" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="192" RevisionGUID="3494c5af-d63a-4233-91a9-ed492c43163c" CreationDate="2016-03-26T02:47:54.747" UserId="-1" Comment="4" />
  <row Id="2181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="622" RevisionGUID="521693ea-1d18-4bda-9735-61fcf9f755ca" CreationDate="2016-03-26T10:22:33.837" UserId="315" Text="I need the latin translation for the word: showcase (a collection of products/things I want to show to other people)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2182" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="622" RevisionGUID="521693ea-1d18-4bda-9735-61fcf9f755ca" CreationDate="2016-03-26T10:22:33.837" UserId="315" Text="which is the latin translation for: showcase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2183" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="622" RevisionGUID="521693ea-1d18-4bda-9735-61fcf9f755ca" CreationDate="2016-03-26T10:22:33.837" UserId="315" Text="|vocabulary|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="622" RevisionGUID="f3ad6d29-be05-4ee9-82f7-dc0f7a23cd1a" CreationDate="2016-03-26T13:14:23.837" UserId="12" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="I need the Latin translation for the word &quot;showcase&quot; (a collection of products/things I want to show to other people)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2185" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="622" RevisionGUID="f3ad6d29-be05-4ee9-82f7-dc0f7a23cd1a" CreationDate="2016-03-26T13:14:23.837" UserId="12" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="What is the Latin translation for &quot;showcase&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="623" RevisionGUID="98ccb0bd-88e1-4bbb-b677-ecb68e215d80" CreationDate="2016-03-26T14:06:52.497" UserId="78" Text="Why isn't usually a good question for these types of things, because the answer is always &quot;just because.&quot; The Greek isn't typical, but it does have a parallel with o-contracted words like νοῦς, περίπλους, or (neuter) κανοῦν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Nominative	Ἰησοῦς         νοῦς&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive	Ἰησοῦ          νοῦ&#xD;&#xA;    Dative	    Ἰησοῖ/Ἰησοῦ    νῷ&#xD;&#xA;    Acusative	Ἰησοῦν         νοῦν&#xD;&#xA;    Vocative	Ἰησοῦ          νοῦ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only part that looks odd is the dative, but that actually has a [close precedent elsewhere](https://books.google.com/books?id=AMc1WQAnRTkC&amp;pg=PA45&amp;dq=koine+dative#v=onepage&amp;q=koine%20dative&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Greek papyri there is widespread confusion of ε and η and ο and ω reflecting a loss of phonemic distinctions of quantity in koine Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it's not unheard of for Semitic names to come in irregular in the Septuagint (Μωυσῆς)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="623" RevisionGUID="34aeac9b-1291-4256-91dd-88591da423d0" CreationDate="2016-03-26T14:11:54.507" UserId="78" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="'Why' isn't usually a good question for these types of things, because the answer is often &quot;just because.&quot; The Greek isn't typical, but it does have a parallel with o-contracted words like νοῦς, περίπλους, or (neuter) κανοῦν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Nominative	Ἰησοῦς         νοῦς&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive	Ἰησοῦ          νοῦ&#xD;&#xA;    Dative	    Ἰησοῖ/Ἰησοῦ    νῷ&#xD;&#xA;    Acusative	Ἰησοῦν         νοῦν&#xD;&#xA;    Vocative	Ἰησοῦ          νοῦ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only part that looks odd is the dative, but that actually has a [close precedent elsewhere](https://books.google.com/books?id=AMc1WQAnRTkC&amp;pg=PA45&amp;dq=koine+dative#v=onepage&amp;q=koine%20dative&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Greek papyri there is widespread confusion of ε and η and ο and ω reflecting a loss of phonemic distinctions of quantity in koine Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it's not unheard of for Semitic names to come in irregular in the Septuagint (Μωυσῆς)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="17961e9b-0ef9-4fe3-bd46-3ecfe823a280" CreationDate="2016-03-26T15:15:03.673" UserId="68" Comment="added 747 characters in body" Text="There are two translations of *The Little Prince* into Latin, one by Auguste Haury and one by Franz Schlosser. I'm trying to get a sense of the relative merits of their Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the dedication of *The Little Prince* in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; TO LEON WERTH  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I ask the indulgence of the children who may read this book for dedicating it to a grown-up. I have a serious reason: he is the best friend I have in the world. I have another reason: this grown-up understands everything, even books about children. I have a third reason: he lives in France where he is hungry and cold. He needs cheering up. If all these reasons are not enough, I will dedicate the book to the child from whom this grown-up grew. All grown-ups were once children—although few of them remember it. And so I correct my dedication:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;TO LEON WERTH WHEN HE WAS A LITTLE BOY&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the original French:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A LÉON WERTH&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Je demande pardon aux enfants d'avoir dédié ce livre à une grande personne. J'ai une excuse sérieuse: cette grande personne est le meilleur ami que j'ai au monde. J'ai une autre excuse: cette grande personne peut tout comprendre, même les livres pour enfants. J'ai une troisième excuse: cette grande personne habite la France où elle a faim et froid. Elle a besoin d'être consolée. Si toutes ces excuses ne suffisent pas, je veux bien dédier ce livre à l'enfant qu'a été autrefois cette grande personne. Toutes les grandes personnes ont d'abord été des enfants. (Mais peux d'entre elles s'en souviennent.) Je corrige donc ma dédicace:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A LÉON WERTH&#xD;&#xA;&gt; QUAND IL ÉTAIT PETIT GARÇON&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is Haury's translation into Latin (in the book he calls *Regulus*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ANTONIUS LEONI WERTH S.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pueros oro ut mihi ignoscant quod librum hunc ad adultum hominem inscripserim. Hanc probabilem excusationem habeo, quod adultus ille homo mihi unus omnium amicissimus est. Secundam excusationem habeo, quod adultus ille homo eo ingenio est ut omnia intellegat, etiam ea quæ puerorum causa scripta sunt. Jam vero tertiam excusationem habeo, quod adultus ille homo in Gallia habitat, ubi et esurit et alget. Itaque consolatione magnopere eget. Quod si omnes hæ excusationes non satis valebunt, morem eis geram et librum hunc ad puerum illum inscribam ex quo ad hanc ætatem adolevit. Omnes enim qui adoleverunt puerili primum ætate fuerunt (sed pauci recordantur). Quæ igitur inscripsi sic corrigo:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ANTONIUS LEONI WERTH PUERITIÆ MEMORI MEMOR S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's Schlosser's version (from *Principulus*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LEONI WERTH&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rogo mihi ignoscatis, pueruli puellæque, quod hunc librum ad hominem adultum inscripsi. Hoc autem excusatione deprecor: Homo adultus ille mihi omnium gratissimus et amicissimus est. Alteram excusationem habeo: adultus ille homo omnia intellegit, et libros intellegit liberorum causa scriptos. Tertiam excusationem habeo: Homo adultus ille in Francogallia habitat, ubi friget fameque urgetur. Quam ob rem puto eum consolandum esse. Nisi quidem hæ omnes excusationes sufficient, hunc libellum puero dedicabo, qui olim fuit homo ille adultus. Omnes enim homines adulti primum pueri fuerunt. (Cujus rei pauci autem memores sunt.) Qua de causa, quæ dedicavi, ita corrigo:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LEONI WERTH PUERO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is one of these better Latin than the other? If so, which one? Why? What are some particularly felicitous or infelicitous choices in each?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two things occur to me that suggest Haury's is the better translation, but I'm not confident that my analysis of any of them is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Haury uses *alget* where Schlosser uses *friget* to translate &quot;he is cold.&quot; I believe that &quot;alget&quot; is used of *feeling* cold, and *friget* is used impersonally to say that it *is* cold. Now, Schlosser could be using *friget* to mean &quot;it is cold,&quot; in which case it's a question not of the quality of the Latin but of the accuracy of the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Haury uses *sic* to indicate the correction he's about to make, where Schlosser uses *ita*. My understanding is that *sic* points to what follows it, where *ita* points to what precedes it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, those are both small things, and obviously there's a lot more going on in each one than just those two words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are people's thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="c3e6e881-b29c-401c-81e6-9fb2b3f59cd5" CreationDate="2016-03-26T15:20:14.640" UserId="68" Comment="added 747 characters in body" Text="There are two translations of *The Little Prince* into Latin, one by Auguste Haury and one by Franz Schlosser. I'm trying to get a sense of the relative merits of their Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the dedication of *The Little Prince* in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; TO LEON WERTH  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I ask the indulgence of the children who may read this book for dedicating it to a grown-up. I have a serious reason: he is the best friend I have in the world. I have another reason: this grown-up understands everything, even books about children. I have a third reason: he lives in France where he is hungry and cold. He needs cheering up. If all these reasons are not enough, I will dedicate the book to the child from whom this grown-up grew. All grown-ups were once children—although few of them remember it. And so I correct my dedication:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;TO LEON WERTH WHEN HE WAS A LITTLE BOY&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the original French:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A LÉON WERTH&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Je demande pardon aux enfants d'avoir dédié ce livre à une grande personne. J'ai une excuse sérieuse: cette grande personne est le meilleur ami que j'ai au monde. J'ai une autre excuse: cette grande personne peut tout comprendre, même les livres pour enfants. J'ai une troisième excuse: cette grande personne habite la France où elle a faim et froid. Elle a besoin d'être consolée. Si toutes ces excuses ne suffisent pas, je veux bien dédier ce livre à l'enfant qu'a été autrefois cette grande personne. Toutes les grandes personnes ont d'abord été des enfants. (Mais peux d'entre elles s'en souviennent.) Je corrige donc ma dédicace:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A LÉON WERTH&#xD;&#xA;&gt; QUAND IL ÉTAIT PETIT GARÇON&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is Haury's translation into Latin (in the book he calls *Regulus*). I assume, since he was French, that he was translating from the French:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ANTONIUS LEONI WERTH S.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pueros oro ut mihi ignoscant quod librum hunc ad adultum hominem inscripserim. Hanc probabilem excusationem habeo, quod adultus ille homo mihi unus omnium amicissimus est. Secundam excusationem habeo, quod adultus ille homo eo ingenio est ut omnia intellegat, etiam ea quæ puerorum causa scripta sunt. Jam vero tertiam excusationem habeo, quod adultus ille homo in Gallia habitat, ubi et esurit et alget. Itaque consolatione magnopere eget. Quod si omnes hæ excusationes non satis valebunt, morem eis geram et librum hunc ad puerum illum inscribam ex quo ad hanc ætatem adolevit. Omnes enim qui adoleverunt puerili primum ætate fuerunt (sed pauci recordantur). Quæ igitur inscripsi sic corrigo:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ANTONIUS LEONI WERTH PUERITIÆ MEMORI MEMOR S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's Schlosser's version (from *Principulus*). I believe German is his first language, but I know he also teaches French and English, so I'm not sure what language he was working from:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LEONI WERTH&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rogo mihi ignoscatis, pueruli puellæque, quod hunc librum ad hominem adultum inscripsi. Hoc autem excusatione deprecor: Homo adultus ille mihi omnium gratissimus et amicissimus est. Alteram excusationem habeo: adultus ille homo omnia intellegit, et libros intellegit liberorum causa scriptos. Tertiam excusationem habeo: Homo adultus ille in Francogallia habitat, ubi friget fameque urgetur. Quam ob rem puto eum consolandum esse. Nisi quidem hæ omnes excusationes sufficient, hunc libellum puero dedicabo, qui olim fuit homo ille adultus. Omnes enim homines adulti primum pueri fuerunt. (Cujus rei pauci autem memores sunt.) Qua de causa, quæ dedicavi, ita corrigo:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LEONI WERTH PUERO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is one of these better Latin than the other? If so, which one? Why? What are some particularly felicitous or infelicitous choices in each?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two things occur to me that suggest Haury's is the better translation, but I'm not confident that my analysis of any of them is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Haury uses *alget* where Schlosser uses *friget* to translate &quot;he is cold.&quot; I believe that &quot;alget&quot; is used of *feeling* cold, and *friget* is used impersonally to say that it *is* cold. Now, Schlosser could be using *friget* to mean &quot;it is cold,&quot; in which case it's a question not of the quality of the Latin but of the accuracy of the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Haury uses *sic* to indicate the correction he's about to make, where Schlosser uses *ita*. My understanding is that *sic* points to what follows it, where *ita* points to what precedes it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, those are both small things, and obviously there's a lot more going on in each one than just those two words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I'm asking less about the quality of the *translation* than the quality of the *Latinity*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are people's thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="622" RevisionGUID="1bc566af-7ba0-4853-b606-7a3e3c2a9aae" CreationDate="2016-03-26T15:55:14.083" UserId="315" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="I need the Latin translation for the word &quot;showcase&quot;. I should use it in a blog, replacing the English word to indicate a collection of products/things to be shown to all the visitors. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="410f9607-aa5b-42a7-9f92-f41b15d13dbd" CreationDate="2016-03-26T16:40:53.423" UserId="68" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="There are two translations of *The Little Prince* into Latin, one by Auguste Haury and one by Franz Schlosser. I'm trying to get a sense of the relative merits of their Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the dedication of *The Little Prince* in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; TO LEON WERTH  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I ask the indulgence of the children who may read this book for dedicating it to a grown-up. I have a serious reason: he is the best friend I have in the world. I have another reason: this grown-up understands everything, even books about children. I have a third reason: he lives in France where he is hungry and cold. He needs cheering up. If all these reasons are not enough, I will dedicate the book to the child from whom this grown-up grew. All grown-ups were once children—although few of them remember it. And so I correct my dedication:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;TO LEON WERTH WHEN HE WAS A LITTLE BOY&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the original French:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A LÉON WERTH&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Je demande pardon aux enfants d'avoir dédié ce livre à une grande personne. J'ai une excuse sérieuse: cette grande personne est le meilleur ami que j'ai au monde. J'ai une autre excuse: cette grande personne peut tout comprendre, même les livres pour enfants. J'ai une troisième excuse: cette grande personne habite la France où elle a faim et froid. Elle a besoin d'être consolée. Si toutes ces excuses ne suffisent pas, je veux bien dédier ce livre à l'enfant qu'a été autrefois cette grande personne. Toutes les grandes personnes ont d'abord été des enfants. (Mais peux d'entre elles s'en souviennent.) Je corrige donc ma dédicace:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A LÉON WERTH&#xD;&#xA;&gt; QUAND IL ÉTAIT PETIT GARÇON&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is Haury's translation into Latin (in the book he calls *Regulus*). I assume, since he was French, that he was translating from the French:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ANTONIUS LEONI WERTH S.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pueros oro ut mihi ignoscant quod librum hunc ad adultum hominem inscripserim. Hanc probabilem excusationem habeo, quod adultus ille homo mihi unus omnium amicissimus est. Secundam excusationem habeo, quod adultus ille homo eo ingenio est ut omnia intellegat, etiam ea quæ puerorum causa scripta sunt. Jam vero tertiam excusationem habeo, quod adultus ille homo in Gallia habitat, ubi et esurit et alget. Itaque consolatione magnopere eget. Quod si omnes hæ excusationes non satis valebunt, morem eis geram et librum hunc ad puerum illum inscribam ex quo ad hanc ætatem adolevit. Omnes enim qui adoleverunt puerili primum ætate fuerunt (sed pauci recordantur). Quæ igitur inscripsi sic corrigo:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ANTONIUS LEONI WERTH PUERITIÆ MEMORI MEMOR S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's Schlosser's version (from *Principulus*). I believe German is his first language, but I know he also teaches French and English, so I'm not sure what language he was working from:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LEONI WERTH&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rogo mihi ignoscatis, pueruli puellæque, quod hunc librum ad hominem adultum inscripsi. Hoc autem excusatione deprecor: Homo adultus ille mihi omnium gratissimus et amicissimus est. Alteram excusationem habeo: adultus ille homo omnia intellegit, et libros intellegit liberorum causa scriptos. Tertiam excusationem habeo: Homo adultus ille in Francogallia habitat, ubi friget fameque urgetur. Quam ob rem puto eum consolandum esse. Nisi quidem hæ omnes excusationes sufficient, hunc libellum puero dedicabo, qui olim fuit homo ille adultus. Omnes enim homines adulti primum pueri fuerunt. (Cujus rei pauci autem memores sunt.) Qua de causa, quæ dedicavi, ita corrigo:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LEONI WERTH PUERO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is one of these better Latin than the other? If so, which one? Why? What are some particularly felicitous or infelicitous choices in each?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three things occur to me that suggest Haury's is the better translation, but I'm not confident that my analysis of any of them is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Haury uses *alget* where Schlosser uses *friget* to translate &quot;he is cold.&quot; I believe that &quot;alget&quot; is used of *feeling* cold, and *friget* is used impersonally to say that it *is* cold. Now, Schlosser could be using *friget* to mean &quot;it is cold,&quot; in which case it's a question not of the quality of the Latin but of the accuracy of the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Haury uses *sic* to indicate the correction he's about to make, where Schlosser uses *ita*. My understanding is that *sic* points to what follows it, where *ita* points to what precedes it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Schlosser writes &quot;Adultus ille homo omnia intellegit, et libros intellegit liberorum causa scriptos.&quot; The repetition of *intellegit* seems particularly unLatinate to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, those are all small things, and obviously there's a lot more going on in each one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I'm asking less about the quality of the *translation* than the quality of the *Latinity*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are people's thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="624" RevisionGUID="f5456773-4a19-4caa-86dc-011846b2ee81" CreationDate="2016-03-26T17:38:25.497" UserId="78" Text="You have a couple options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, more plainly, you have *conlectio*, which simply means a gathering together. In rhetoric, though, it can also mean a summary of arguments (because a summary is a short collection of what was said before).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could similarly use *conceptus*, but instead of the nifty summary definition, you get pregnancy instead. It still can mean simply a collection or gathering together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You also have *conlatio*. Like *conlectio*, it can mean a gathering together of anything, but has the bonus of tending to mean ordered as well, which from there also extends to comparison of things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't go with any of these, but I am giving you them anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get *choicest* in that collection, you'll probably want to go with *electa* or *electio*. These have the added meaning of a collecting *the best* or *quality selections*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to be extra fancy, you could do what the ancients did when they gathered together the poems and use *anthologia* (from the Greek for &quot;flower-gathering&quot;), e.g. with the *Anthologia Graeca* (Greek Anthology) or *Anthologia Latina* (Latin Anthology), collections of short poems by both major and minor authors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Romans sometimes translated *anthologia* as *[florilegium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florilegium)*, which was the word used during the Medieval age for a collection of excerpted writings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="623" RevisionGUID="9f0905ae-dd5a-4ca4-93b1-69e6981c03dd" CreationDate="2016-03-26T19:43:52.670" UserId="78" Comment="added 513 characters in body" Text="'Why' isn't usually a good question for these types of things, because the answer is often &quot;just because.&quot; The Greek isn't typical, but it does have a parallel with o-contracted words like νοῦς, περίπλους, or (neuter) κανοῦν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Nominative	Ἰησοῦς         νοῦς&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive	Ἰησοῦ          νοῦ&#xD;&#xA;    Dative	    Ἰησοῖ/Ἰησοῦ    νῷ&#xD;&#xA;    Acusative	Ἰησοῦν         νοῦν&#xD;&#xA;    Vocative	Ἰησοῦ          νοῦ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only part that looks odd is the dative, but that actually has a [close precedent elsewhere](https://books.google.com/books?id=AMc1WQAnRTkC&amp;pg=PA45&amp;dq=koine+dative#v=onepage&amp;q=koine%20dative&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Greek papyri there is widespread confusion of ε and η and ο and ω reflecting a loss of phonemic distinctions of quantity in koine Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it's not unheard of for Semitic names to come in irregular in the Septuagint (Μωυσῆς).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why Latin would have stuck with the Greek, well, they tended to. Plenty of names that are indeclinable in the LXX or NT were likewise left without endings in the Latin translations. Sacred scripture also adds a familiarity and conservatism to language that makes it nigh impervious to some forms of change, which is why English contains Hebraisms (e.g. [[2]](http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/and-so-it-came-to-pass.2520005/); see[[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebraism#Hebrew_etymologies)). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="623" RevisionGUID="57d58f07-4db1-4737-b66c-bb99f27b84e9" CreationDate="2016-03-26T20:15:16.540" UserId="78" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="'Why' isn't usually a good question for these types of things, because the answer is often &quot;just because.&quot; The Greek isn't typical, but it does have a parallel with o-contracted words like νοῦς, περίπλους, or (neuter) κανοῦν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Nominative	Ἰησοῦς         νοῦς&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive	Ἰησοῦ          νοῦ&#xD;&#xA;    Dative	    Ἰησοῖ/Ἰησοῦ    νῷ&#xD;&#xA;    Acusative	Ἰησοῦν         νοῦν&#xD;&#xA;    Vocative	Ἰησοῦ          νοῦ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only part that looks odd is the dative, but that actually has a [close precedent elsewhere](https://books.google.com/books?id=AMc1WQAnRTkC&amp;pg=PA45&amp;dq=koine+dative#v=onepage&amp;q=koine%20dative&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Greek papyri there is widespread confusion of ε and η and ο and ω reflecting a loss of phonemic distinctions of quantity in koine Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it's not unheard of for Semitic names to come in irregular in the Septuagint (Μωυσῆς).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why Latin would have stuck with the Greek, well, they tended to. Plenty of names that are indeclinable in the LXX or NT were likewise left without endings in the Latin translations. Sacred scripture also adds a familiarity and conservatism to language that makes it nigh impervious to some forms of change, which is why English contains Hebraisms (e.g. [[2]](http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/and-so-it-came-to-pass.2520005/); see [[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebraism#Hebrew_etymologies)). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="c4ab0560-0ce3-42f7-a6da-2710c32fc8ed" CreationDate="2016-03-26T20:21:51.747" UserId="78" Comment="Add *quick* sources. It's a legit claim." Text="To answer your second question, this rule is completely exceptionless, not only in Latin but in all Indo-European languages (that is, those that have a neuter gender at all).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; neuter gender always had identical nominative, accusative and vocative forms in all three numbers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiki link](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Indo-European_declension)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Archaic Syntax in Indo-European](https://books.google.com/books?id=aiEqn_WQl-8C&amp;pg=PA44)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="625" RevisionGUID="d011d2d1-f6ee-446a-b1af-f5cdefcff962" CreationDate="2016-03-26T21:24:41.187" UserId="79" Text="Can you suggest example sentences where changing the case of one noun keeps the sentence grammatical but changes meaning?&#xD;&#xA;Preferably a noun in the same sentence could be used in all five main cases (or as many as possible).&#xD;&#xA;I want to have an illuminating example of two to make the point that case is crucially important in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for such examples for a couple of purposes: teaching, fun and talking about Latin to friends.&#xD;&#xA;I have given an example answer below to give a better idea of what I want to see." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2199" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="625" RevisionGUID="d011d2d1-f6ee-446a-b1af-f5cdefcff962" CreationDate="2016-03-26T21:24:41.187" UserId="79" Text="Example sentences where different cases mean different things" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2200" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="625" RevisionGUID="d011d2d1-f6ee-446a-b1af-f5cdefcff962" CreationDate="2016-03-26T21:24:41.187" UserId="79" Text="|example-request|declension|syntax|pedagogy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="626" RevisionGUID="d1e96a9d-a1da-464b-99b4-c7207f9d0a98" CreationDate="2016-03-26T21:24:41.187" UserId="79" Text="Here is a very simple example that works with four cases (ablative excluded):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Nominative: *Marcus donum dat.* Marcus gives a gift.&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative: *Marcum donum dat.* He gives Marcus as a gift.&#xD;&#xA;- Genitive: *Marci donum dat.* He gives Marcus' gift.&#xD;&#xA;- Dative: *Marco donum dat.* He gives a gift to Marcus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A variant of this idea replaces *dat* with *do*.&#xD;&#xA;This would replace &quot;he gives&quot; with &quot;I give&quot; for the last three cases and the first one would become &quot;I give a gift as Marcus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence does not seem to make sense with ablative.&#xD;&#xA;If one adds an adjective to *Marcus*, then the ablative could be interpreted as absolute ablative:&#xD;&#xA;*Marco felice donum dat.* &quot;He gives a gift because Marcus is happy.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The other cases would translate just as above, with &quot;Marcus&quot; replaced with &quot;happy Marcus&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="627" RevisionGUID="dbb04530-7d88-43c0-ae74-1d8b1b6b510b" CreationDate="2016-03-26T22:53:07.420" UserId="39" Text="Pinkster 2015 writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“[t]he use of the perfect passive as a present state in in fact part of an entire paradigm of forms of the *perfectum* stem of *sum* with participles denoting a resulting state” (p. 446).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bis deinde post Numae regnum **clausus fuit** … . (Liv. 1.19.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Itaque in iis **scriptum** litteris Punicis **fuit** regem Massinissam imprudentem accepisse … . (Cic. Ver.4.103)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quo est detestabilior istorum immanitas, qui lacerarunt omni scelere patriam et in ea funditus delenda **occupati** et sunt et **fuerunt**. (Cic. Off. 1.57)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Omnia fere, quae sunt conclusa nunc artibus, **dispersa et dissipata** quondam **fuerunt** … . (Cic. De Orat. 1.187)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="625" RevisionGUID="5ba676b9-8fb1-4cc6-8504-edc450e387b7" CreationDate="2016-03-26T23:00:30.740" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="Can you suggest example sentences where changing the case of one noun keeps the sentence grammatical but changes meaning?&#xD;&#xA;Preferably a noun in the same sentence could be used in all five main cases (or as many as possible).&#xD;&#xA;I want to have an illuminating example or two to make the point that case is crucially important in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for such examples for a couple of purposes: teaching, fun and talking about Latin to friends.&#xD;&#xA;I have given an example answer below to give a better idea of what I want to see." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="627" RevisionGUID="ff8cb6de-14cd-4bde-94d9-db9bbe5e1d02" CreationDate="2016-03-26T23:19:14.047" UserId="39" Comment="added 650 characters in body" Text="Pinkster 2015 writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“[t]he use of the perfect passive as a present state in in fact part of an entire paradigm of forms of the *perfectum* stem of *sum* with participles denoting a resulting state” (p. 446).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bis deinde post Numae regnum **clausus fuit** … . (Liv. 1.19.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Itaque in iis **scriptum** litteris Punicis **fuit** regem Massinissam imprudentem accepisse … . (Cic. Ver.4.103)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gerd Haverling][1] ([Haverling 2008][2]) notes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In Cicero *positum fuit* indicates a situation anterior to the action expressed by *positum est*, i.e. 'was deposited' as opposed to 'was erected'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;simulacrum e marmore in sepulchro **positum fuit**: hoc quidam homo nobilis deportavit... in&#xD;&#xA;eo monumento quod **positum est** ut esset indicium oppressi senatus (Cic. dom. 111-112)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lingfil.uu.se/staff/Gerd_Haverling/?languageId=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/slcs.103.06hav/details" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2205" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="627" RevisionGUID="d5e8ef72-d1ec-42a1-af0d-2214d02a0d72" CreationDate="2016-03-26T23:22:15.733" UserId="39" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2206" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="627" RevisionGUID="e4164fb7-c251-415b-afdc-32eb6f9863aa" CreationDate="2016-03-26T23:35:55.507" UserId="39" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="627" RevisionGUID="fa90bf62-36fb-4e25-82f9-2df8c217a3c0" CreationDate="2016-03-26T23:37:58.487" UserId="39" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="(this is just a prelim. answer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster 2015 writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“[t]he use of the perfect passive as a present state in in fact part of an entire paradigm of forms of the *perfectum* stem of *sum* with participles denoting a resulting state” (p. 446).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bis deinde post Numae regnum **clausus fuit** … . (Liv. 1.19.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Itaque in iis **scriptum** litteris Punicis **fuit** regem Massinissam imprudentem accepisse … . (Cic. Ver.4.103)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gerd Haverling][1] ([Haverling 2008][2]) notes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In Cicero *positum fuit* indicates a situation anterior to the action expressed by *positum est*, i.e. 'was deposited' as opposed to 'was erected'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;simulacrum e marmore in sepulchro **positum fuit**: hoc quidam homo nobilis deportavit... in&#xD;&#xA;eo monumento quod **positum est** ut esset indicium oppressi senatus (Cic. dom. 111-112)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Borovskii and Boldyrev mention that such perfect forms were rather common in poetry (for metrical reasons).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lingfil.uu.se/staff/Gerd_Haverling/?languageId=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/slcs.103.06hav/details" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="627" RevisionGUID="8d584f91-1dd3-4118-ba57-fbc6a6bb36fc" CreationDate="2016-03-27T00:07:37.157" UserId="39" Comment="added 658 characters in body" Text="(this is just a prelim. answer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster 2015 writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“[t]he use of the perfect passive as a present state in in fact part of an entire paradigm of forms of the *perfectum* stem of *sum* with participles denoting a resulting state” (p. 446).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bis deinde post Numae regnum **clausus fuit** … . (Liv. 1.19.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Itaque in iis **scriptum** litteris Punicis **fuit** regem Massinissam imprudentem accepisse … . (Cic. Ver.4.103)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gerd Haverling][1] ([Haverling 2008][2]) notes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In Cicero *positum fuit* indicates a situation anterior to the action expressed by *positum est*, i.e. 'was deposited' as opposed to 'was erected'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;simulacrum e marmore in sepulchro **positum fuit**: hoc quidam homo nobilis deportavit... in&#xD;&#xA;eo monumento quod **positum est** ut esset indicium oppressi senatus (Cic. dom. 111-112)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is discussed in LHS *Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik* (para 179:b or p. 322), Die Verschiebung des Perf. Pass. - so they call it &quot;verschobene Perfekt.&quot; They argue that &quot;Die altlateinische Gesetzes- und Verwaltungssprache unterscheidet gleichfalls noch genau zwischen praesentischen und Vergangenheitsperfektum.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LHS also refer to Neue and Wagner *Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache*, volume III (pp. 135-151), who wrote &quot;Indessen lesen wir oefters fui und fuerim neben dem Particip. Perfect. so, dass es sich von dem in gleicher Verbindung gebrauchten sum und sim nicht unterscheiden laesst&quot; (p. 139). You may want to take a look at NW III.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Borovskii and Boldyrev mention that such perfect forms were rather common in poetry (for metrical reasons).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lingfil.uu.se/staff/Gerd_Haverling/?languageId=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/slcs.103.06hav/details" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="627" RevisionGUID="3d748466-8d3f-4784-8de0-2216421d758f" CreationDate="2016-03-27T00:27:38.417" UserId="39" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="(this is just a prelim. answer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster 2015 writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“[t]he use of the perfect passive as a present state in in fact part of an entire paradigm of forms of the *perfectum* stem of *sum* with participles denoting a resulting state” (p. 446).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bis deinde post Numae regnum **clausus fuit** … . (Liv. 1.19.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Itaque in iis **scriptum** litteris Punicis **fuit** regem Massinissam imprudentem accepisse … . (Cic. Ver.4.103)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gerd Haverling][1] ([Haverling 2008][2]) notes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In Cicero *positum fuit* indicates a situation anterior to the action expressed by *positum est*, i.e. 'was deposited' as opposed to 'was erected'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;simulacrum e marmore in sepulchro **positum fuit**: hoc quidam homo nobilis deportavit... in&#xD;&#xA;eo monumento quod **positum est** ut esset indicium oppressi senatus (Cic. dom. 111-112)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is discussed in LHS *Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik* (para 179:b or p. 322), Die Verschiebung des Perf. Pass. - so they call it &quot;verschobene Perfekt.&quot; They argue that &quot;Die altlateinische Gesetzes- und Verwaltungssprache unterscheidet gleichfalls noch genau zwischen praesentischen und Vergangenheitsperfektum.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LHS also refer to Neue and Wagner *Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache*, volume III (pp. 135-151), who wrote &quot;Indessen lesen wir oefters fui und fuerim neben dem Particip. Perfect. so, dass es sich von dem in gleicher Verbindung gebrauchten sum und sim nicht unterscheiden laesst&quot; (p. 139). You may want to take a look at NW III.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Borovskii and Boldyrev mention that such perfect forms were rather common in poetry (for metrical reasons).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure [Haverling 2010][3] provides a more recent analysis of such forms but I don't have it at hand now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lingfil.uu.se/staff/Gerd_Haverling/?languageId=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/slcs.103.06hav/details&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110215458/9783110215458.277/9783110215458.277.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="627" RevisionGUID="643875ac-d9a4-4d71-88f2-ab468b5d3425" CreationDate="2016-03-27T01:00:23.180" UserId="39" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="(this is just a prelim. answer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster 2015 writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“[t]he use of the perfect passive as a present state in in fact part of an entire paradigm of forms of the *perfectum* stem of *sum* with participles denoting a resulting state” (p. 446).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bis deinde post Numae regnum **clausus fuit** … . (Liv. 1.19.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Itaque in iis **scriptum** litteris Punicis **fuit** regem Massinissam imprudentem accepisse … . (Cic. Ver.4.103)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gerd Haverling][1] ([Haverling 2008][2]) notes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In Cicero *positum fuit* indicates a situation anterior to the action expressed by *positum est*, i.e. 'was deposited' as opposed to 'was erected'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;simulacrum e marmore in sepulchro **positum fuit**: hoc quidam homo nobilis deportavit... in&#xD;&#xA;eo monumento quod **positum est** ut esset indicium oppressi senatus (Cic. dom. 111-112)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is discussed in LHS *Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik* (para 179:b or p. 322), Die Verschiebung des Perf. Pass. - so they call it &quot;verschobene Perfekt.&quot; They argue that &quot;Die altlateinische Gesetzes- und Verwaltungssprache unterscheidet gleichfalls noch genau zwischen praesentischen und Vergangenheitsperfektum.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LHS also refer to Neue and Wagner *Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache*, volume III (pp. 135-151), who wrote &quot;Indessen lesen wir oefters fui und fuerim neben dem Particip. Perfect. so, dass es sich von dem in gleicher Verbindung gebrauchten sum und sim nicht unterscheiden laesst&quot; (p. 139). You may want to take a look at NW III.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Borovskii and Boldyrev 1975 (p. 95) mention that such perfect forms were rather common in poetry (for metrical reasons).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure [Haverling 2010][3] provides a more recent analysis of such forms but I don't have it at hand now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lingfil.uu.se/staff/Gerd_Haverling/?languageId=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/slcs.103.06hav/details&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110215458/9783110215458.277/9783110215458.277.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="dfcee6c4-479e-4447-827c-0e7778b7c748" CreationDate="2016-03-27T04:27:18.540" UserId="78" Text="What if you switch *Marcus* with *domus*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Nom. Domus donum dat.&#xD;&#xA;            &quot;The house gives a gift.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Gen. Domi donum dat.&#xD;&#xA;            &quot;He gives a gift of a house&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Dat. Domo donum dat.&#xD;&#xA;            &quot;He gives a gift to the house.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Acc. Domum donum dat.&#xD;&#xA;            &quot;He gives a house as a gift.&quot; // This is nearly the same as the genitive.&#xD;&#xA;    Abl. Domo donum dat.&#xD;&#xA;            &quot;He gives a gift by means of a house.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Loc. Domi donum dat.&#xD;&#xA;            &quot;In the house he gives a gift.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="627" RevisionGUID="d8da6869-3d08-4d72-827c-c554074531a9" CreationDate="2016-03-27T17:16:53.673" UserId="39" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="(this is just a prelim. answer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster 2015 writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“[t]he use of the perfect passive as a present state in in fact part of an entire paradigm of forms of the *perfectum* stem of *sum* with participles denoting a resulting state” (p. 446).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bis deinde post Numae regnum **clausus fuit** … . (Liv. 1.19.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Itaque in iis **scriptum** litteris Punicis **fuit** regem Massinissam imprudentem accepisse … . (Cic. Ver.4.103)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gerd Haverling][1] ([Haverling 2008][2]) notes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In Cicero *positum fuit* indicates a situation anterior to the action expressed by *positum est*, i.e. 'was deposited' as opposed to 'was erected'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;simulacrum e marmore in sepulchro **positum fuit**: hoc quidam homo nobilis deportavit... in&#xD;&#xA;eo monumento quod **positum est** ut esset indicium oppressi senatus (Cic. dom. 111-112)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is discussed in LHS *Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik* (para 179:b or p. 322), Die Verschiebung des Perf. Pass. - so they call it &quot;verschobene Perfekt.&quot; They argue that &quot;Die altlateinische Gesetzes- und Verwaltungssprache unterscheidet gleichfalls noch genau zwischen praesentischen und Vergangenheitsperfektum.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LHS also refer to Neue and Wagner *Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache*, volume III (pp. 135-151), who wrote &quot;Indessen lesen wir oefters fui und fuerim neben dem Particip. Perfect. so, dass es sich von dem in gleicher Verbindung gebrauchten sum und sim nicht unterscheiden laesst&quot; (p. 139) [&quot;However, we often read/find fui and fuerim next to Particip. Perfect., so it is not possible to distinguish them from constructions with sum and sim&quot; - translation mine]. You may want to take a look at NW III.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Borovskii and Boldyrev 1975 (p. 95) mention that such perfect forms were rather common in poetry (for metrical reasons).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure [Haverling 2010][3] provides a more recent analysis of such forms but I don't have it at hand now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lingfil.uu.se/staff/Gerd_Haverling/?languageId=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/slcs.103.06hav/details&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110215458/9783110215458.277/9783110215458.277.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="627" RevisionGUID="0ded6964-1bfb-4f5c-b7a7-aeb0fe58cef1" CreationDate="2016-03-27T17:23:58.493" UserId="39" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="(this is just a prelim. answer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster 2015 writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“[t]he use of the perfect passive as a present state in in fact part of an entire paradigm of forms of the *perfectum* stem of *sum* with participles denoting a resulting state” (p. 446).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bis deinde post Numae regnum **clausus fuit** … . (Liv. 1.19.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Itaque in iis **scriptum** litteris Punicis **fuit** regem Massinissam imprudentem accepisse … . (Cic. Ver.4.103)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gerd Haverling][1] ([Haverling 2008][2]) notes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In Cicero *positum fuit* indicates a situation anterior to the action expressed by *positum est*, i.e. 'was deposited' as opposed to 'was erected'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;simulacrum e marmore in sepulchro **positum fuit**: hoc quidam homo nobilis deportavit... in&#xD;&#xA;eo monumento quod **positum est** ut esset indicium oppressi senatus (Cic. dom. 111-112)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is discussed in LHS *Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik* (para 179:b or p. 322), Die Verschiebung des Perf. Pass. - so they call it &quot;verschobene Perfekt.&quot; They argue that &quot;Die altlateinische Gesetzes- und Verwaltungssprache unterscheidet gleichfalls noch genau zwischen praesentischen und Vergangenheitsperfektum&quot; [&quot;Likewise, Old Latin legislative and administrative language still makes a distinction between present tense and perfect expressing anteriority&quot; - translation mine].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LHS also refer to Neue and Wagner *Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache*, volume III (pp. 135-151), who wrote &quot;Indessen lesen wir oefters fui und fuerim neben dem Particip. Perfect. so, dass es sich von dem in gleicher Verbindung gebrauchten sum und sim nicht unterscheiden laesst&quot; (p. 139) [&quot;However, we often read/find fui and fuerim next to Particip. Perfect., so it is not possible to distinguish them from constructions with sum and sim&quot; - translation mine]. You may want to take a look at NW III.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Borovskii and Boldyrev 1975 (p. 95) mention that such perfect forms were rather common in poetry (for metrical reasons).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure [Haverling 2010][3] provides a more recent analysis of such forms but I don't have it at hand now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lingfil.uu.se/staff/Gerd_Haverling/?languageId=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/slcs.103.06hav/details&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110215458/9783110215458.277/9783110215458.277.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="629" RevisionGUID="3178351e-1184-42a8-a47c-aa6d6be648e8" CreationDate="2016-03-27T17:55:34.197" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="f89f7159-dee8-4bac-8878-99a389b4bbd9" CreationDate="2016-03-27T17:55:34.197" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="e06a54f1-0e6d-4123-9104-9c6e0cfef63f" CreationDate="2016-03-27T19:10:21.290" UserId="78" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="For questions concerning the interaction and influence of Greek on Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2219" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="e06a54f1-0e6d-4123-9104-9c6e0cfef63f" CreationDate="2016-03-27T19:10:21.290" Comment="Proposed by 78 approved by 12, 79 edit id of 102" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="629" RevisionGUID="544a7741-740a-4414-89ba-449f8a00e9b8" CreationDate="2016-03-27T19:10:30.620" UserId="78" Comment="added 203 characters in body" Text="For questions concerning the interaction and influence of Greek on Latin. This includes Greek loan words, translations, or aspects of Greek literature that was read, borrowed, and imitated by the Romans." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2221" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="629" RevisionGUID="544a7741-740a-4414-89ba-449f8a00e9b8" CreationDate="2016-03-27T19:10:30.620" Comment="Proposed by 78 approved by 12, 79 edit id of 101" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="631" RevisionGUID="6ff040ae-ce46-4f3b-b5e9-aae186750651" CreationDate="2016-03-27T20:35:44.060" UserId="144" Text="[In my research][1] I found something about an `old latin` and that that is where the locative case comes from. So I clicked on the old latin page, and surprise, it's just an older version of latin. So is there a major difference between Old Latin and Classical Latin? If I know one could I read the other? Why do we just define one as before 75 B.C.E. was there a sudden change?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locative_case#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2223" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="631" RevisionGUID="6ff040ae-ce46-4f3b-b5e9-aae186750651" CreationDate="2016-03-27T20:35:44.060" UserId="144" Text="Old vs Classical latins" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2224" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="631" RevisionGUID="6ff040ae-ce46-4f3b-b5e9-aae186750651" CreationDate="2016-03-27T20:35:44.060" UserId="144" Text="|classical-latin|language-evolution|history|old-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="632" RevisionGUID="131ebd49-ac42-45cc-a548-fd3f04c8453e" CreationDate="2016-03-27T22:01:26.270" UserId="68" Text="Old Latin bears the same kind of relationship to Classical Latin as English of, a few centuries ago does to modern English. The oldest Old Latin texts we have, unless I'm remembering incorrectly, are from the 3rd century BC, so there wasn't a whole lot of time for the language to change between then and 75 B.C. Old Latin has one more case than Classical Latin (locative), some of the case endings are a little different (*-os* instead of *-us* ending for second declension nominative masculine, *-eis* instead of *-is* for first and second dative and ablative, etc.), and some of the spellings and pronunciations are a little different. There's little evidence for what the verb forms were, and it's pretty inconsistent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for what happened in 75 B.C., no, there wasn't a sudden shift—it's just that people needed a place to start Classical Latin. Somebody else here probably knows much better than I, but my guess is that there was either a historical event in 75 that seemed appropriate or an appearance or disappearance of some linguistic feature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="634" RevisionGUID="35399f25-a1fe-4d9a-ab8b-3c2f72d695cd" CreationDate="2016-03-28T13:40:02.670" UserId="292" Text="First of all, a warm hello to all the users here!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was recently thinking about the pronunciation of *nūntius* and *nūntiāre* along with its derivations (such as *prōnūntiāre*). According to &quot;Latin for Beginners&quot; by Benjamin L. D'Ooge, the &quot;ū&quot; in &quot;nūntius&quot; is long by exception because vowels before *nt* and *nd* are short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is as follows. Is there a specific reason why this vowel is long despite the aforementioned rule?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2231" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="634" RevisionGUID="35399f25-a1fe-4d9a-ab8b-3c2f72d695cd" CreationDate="2016-03-28T13:40:02.670" UserId="292" Text="Why is the &quot;u&quot; in &quot;nuntius&quot; and &quot;nuntiare&quot; long by exception?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2232" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="634" RevisionGUID="35399f25-a1fe-4d9a-ab8b-3c2f72d695cd" CreationDate="2016-03-28T13:40:02.670" UserId="292" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="634" RevisionGUID="b8162fd5-ac7c-478c-9019-8ff92b870dec" CreationDate="2016-03-28T13:49:15.310" UserId="292" Comment="edited body" Text="First of all, a warm hello to all the users here!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was recently thinking about the pronunciation of *nūntius* and *nūntiāre* along with its derivatives (such as *prōnūntiāre*). According to &quot;Latin for Beginners&quot; by Benjamin L. D'Ooge, the &quot;ū&quot; in &quot;nūntius&quot; is long by exception because vowels before *nt* and *nd* are short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is as follows. Is there a specific reason why this vowel is long despite the aforementioned rule?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="632" RevisionGUID="5283f5de-940e-4a2a-9510-e2f162c9a28b" CreationDate="2016-03-28T14:04:35.003" UserId="68" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="Old Latin bears the same kind of relationship to Classical Latin as English of, a few centuries ago does to modern English. The oldest Old Latin texts we have, unless I'm remembering incorrectly, are from the 3rd century BC, so there wasn't a whole lot of time for the language to change between then and 75 B.C. Old Latin has one more case than Classical Latin (locative), some of the case endings are a little different (*-os* instead of *-us* ending for second declension nominative masculine, *-eis* instead of *-is* for first and second dative and ablative, etc.), and some of the spellings and pronunciations are a little different. There's little evidence for what the verb forms were, and it's pretty inconsistent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for what happened in 75 B.C., no, there wasn't a sudden shift—it's just that people in the modern world, when thinking about the history of Latin, needed a place to start Classical Latin. Somebody else here probably knows much better than I, but my guess is that there was either a historical event in 75 that seemed appropriate or an appearance or disappearance of some linguistic feature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="635" RevisionGUID="97a04053-fd46-4139-9851-ee7e06a4b06b" CreationDate="2016-03-28T14:18:00.300" UserId="45" Text="For my answer, I will use Bennett's [*New Latin Grammar*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect5) as a reference. There are two important rules which come together to make a long ū in *nūntius*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. As you noted, a vowel followed by *nt* or *nd* is **usually** short, e.g. laudănt, landăndi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The usual **exception** to this rule occurs in compounds whose first word includes a long vowel, such as *nōndum (nōn dum)*. This is not the case with *nūntius* and *nūntiare*, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. There is, however, another rule at work here: vowels that are the **result of a contraction** are long, e.g. *nīlum* for *nihilum*. If you look at the [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnuntius) entry for *nuntius*, you will see that it is a contraction of the longer word *noventius* (from the older verb *novere*: &quot;to make new&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Presumably, the first *nt* rule is at work in the original word: *novĕntius* and then the second rule comes into play to contract the first two syllables into its current form: *nūntius*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="634" RevisionGUID="5c5df055-83a9-423a-96d3-efdd361bc5b5" CreationDate="2016-03-28T14:54:55.193" UserId="12" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="First of all, a warm hello to all the users here!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was recently thinking about the pronunciation of *nūntius* and *nūntiāre* along with its derivatives (such as *prōnūntiāre*). According to &quot;Latin for Beginners&quot; by Benjamin L. D'Ooge, the &quot;ū&quot; in &quot;nūntius&quot; is long by exception because vowels before *nt* and *nd* are short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is as follows: Is there a specific reason why this vowel is long despite the aforementioned rule?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2237" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="634" RevisionGUID="5c5df055-83a9-423a-96d3-efdd361bc5b5" CreationDate="2016-03-28T14:54:55.193" UserId="12" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="636" RevisionGUID="613ee57d-34c8-48b6-b8b9-36b0c96fd2df" CreationDate="2016-03-28T15:19:25.620" UserId="39" Text="Monophthongization most likely happened first (3rd century BCE), in this case *eu &gt; *ū.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*n**oue**ntiio &gt; n**ou**ntios (G.L. 6.12.18; Tronskii 1960: 104) &gt; n**u**ntius (*neu- 'shout') (Weiss 2009: 278).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2099 writes that Osthoff's law happened &quot;at least three times in the history of Latin&quot; (p. 125), cf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Osthoff's law**: A long vowel before a liquid, nasal, or glide plus a stop was shortened (Weiss 2009, p. 125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss does mention that &quot;probably yet another round of Osthoff's also applied after monophthongization (P. 126) and he gives one example, *oino(m)-dekem &gt;  ūndecim &gt; undecim &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the word &quot;**probably**&quot; though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="636" RevisionGUID="516e125d-a1ce-46e6-a6e9-036b42dfb075" CreationDate="2016-03-28T15:37:13.780" UserId="39" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="Monophthongization most likely happened **after** Osthoff's shortening in Latin, in this case *eu &gt; *ū (completed by the end of the 3rd century BCE, Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011: 91).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*n**oue**ntiio &gt; n**ou**ntios (G.L. 6.12.18; Tronskii 1960: 104) &gt; n**u**ntius (*neu- 'shout') (Weiss 2009: 278).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2099 writes that Osthoff's law happened &quot;at least three times in the history of Latin&quot; (p. 125), cf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Osthoff's law**: A long vowel before a liquid, nasal, or glide plus a stop was shortened (Weiss 2009, p. 125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss does mention that &quot;probably yet another round of Osthoff's also applied after monophthongization (P. 126) and he gives one example, *oino(m)-dekem &gt;  ūndecim &gt; undecim &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the word &quot;**probably**&quot; though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="636" RevisionGUID="ada18ed6-c726-4308-b71c-9c1aee717e4c" CreationDate="2016-03-28T15:49:23.913" UserId="39" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="**Monophthongization** (of diphthongs in Latin) most likely happened **after** Osthoff's shortening (in Proto-Italic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Osthoff's law**: A long vowel before a liquid, nasal, or glide plus a stop was shortened (Weiss 2009, p. 125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Monophthongization in this case was *eu &gt; *ū (completed by the end of the **3rd century BCE**, Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011: 91).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that **Osthoff's shortening** most likely **happened** already **in Proto-Italic** (Meiser 1998:75, &quot;Schon im Uritalischen&#xD;&#xA;sind Langdiphthonge vor Konsonant gekürzt worden.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*n**oue**ntiio &gt; n**ou**ntios (G.L. 6.12.18; Tronskii 1960: 104) &gt; n**u**ntius (*neu- 'shout') (Weiss 2009: 278).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2099 writes that Osthoff's law happened &quot;at least three times in the history of Latin&quot; (p. 125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss does mention that &quot;probably yet another round of Osthoff's also applied after monophthongization (P. 126) and he gives one example, *oino(m)-dekem &gt;  ūndecim &gt; undecim &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the word &quot;**probably**&quot; though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="636" RevisionGUID="d2b1914b-194a-4808-a80b-d0fcbb4e2296" CreationDate="2016-03-28T15:54:34.677" UserId="39" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="**Monophthongization** (of diphthongs in Latin) most likely happened **after** Osthoff's shortening (in Proto-Italic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Osthoff's law**: A long vowel before a liquid, nasal, or glide plus a stop was shortened (Weiss 2009, p. 125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Monophthongization in this case was *eu &gt; *ū (completed by the end of the **3rd century BCE**, Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011: 91).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that **Osthoff's shortening** most likely **happened** already **in Proto-Italic** (Meiser 1998:75, &quot;Schon im Uritalischen&#xD;&#xA;sind Langdiphthonge vor Konsonant gekürzt worden.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*n**oue**ntiio &gt; n**ou**ntios (G.L. 6.12.18; Tronskii 1960: 104) &gt; n**u**ntius (*neu- 'shout') (Weiss 2009: 278).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Weiss 2099 writes that Osthoff's law happened &quot;at least three times in the history of Latin&quot; (p. 125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss does mention that &quot;probably yet another round of Osthoff's also applied after monophthongization (P. 126) and he gives one example, *oino(m)-dekem &gt;  ūndecim &gt; undecim &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the word &quot;**probably**&quot; though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="636" RevisionGUID="a46dee14-ff85-4125-be0c-0321692baec6" CreationDate="2016-03-28T16:15:27.240" UserId="39" Comment="added 163 characters in body" Text="**Monophthongization** (of diphthongs in Latin) most likely happened **after** Osthoff's shortening (in Proto-Italic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Osthoff's law**: A long vowel before a liquid, nasal, or glide plus a stop was shortened (Weiss 2009, p. 125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Monophthongization in this case was *eu &gt; *ū (completed by the end of the **3rd century BCE**), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/eu/ &gt; /ou/ &gt; /o̝ː/ &gt; /uː/ (Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011: 95).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that **Osthoff's shortening** most likely **happened** already **in Proto-Italic** (Meiser 1998:75, &quot;Schon im Uritalischen&#xD;&#xA;sind Langdiphthonge vor Konsonant gekürzt worden.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*n**oue**ntiio &gt; n**ou**ntios (G.L. 6.12.18; Tronskii 1960: 104) &gt; n**u**ntius (*neu- 'shout') (Weiss 2009: 278).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Weiss 2099 writes that Osthoff's law happened &quot;at least three times in the history of Latin&quot; (p. 125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss does mention that &quot;probably yet another round of Osthoff's also applied after monophthongization (P. 126) and he gives one example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*oino(m)-dekem &gt;  ūndecim &gt; undecim &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the word &quot;**probably**&quot; though; cf. Leumann, Hofmann, and Szantyr 1977, para 119:γ, &quot;Verhältnismäßig jung (frühestens II&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt;) muss die Kürzung erfolgt sein bei *ī* und *ū* aus *oi ou ove*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="636" RevisionGUID="ff9ae489-f757-474e-b96d-097eda8ca0d5" CreationDate="2016-03-28T16:33:11.767" UserId="39" Comment="added 399 characters in body" Text="**Monophthongization** (of diphthongs in Latin) most likely happened **after** Osthoff's shortening (in Proto-Italic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Osthoff's law**: A long vowel before a liquid, nasal, or glide plus a stop was shortened (Weiss 2009, p. 125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Monophthongization in this case was *eu &gt; *ū (completed by the end of the **3rd century BCE**), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/eu/ &gt; /ou/ &gt; /o̝ː/ &gt; /uː/ (Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011: 95).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that **Osthoff's shortening** most likely **happened** already **in Proto-Italic**, cf. Meiser 1998 &quot;Schon im Uritalischen&#xD;&#xA;sind Langdiphthonge vor Konsonant gekürzt worden&quot; (p. 75) or Sihler 1995 &quot;[l]ong vowels were shortened in prehistoric times before a resonant plus consonant&quot; (para 82).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*n**oue**ntiio &gt; n**ou**ntios (G.L. 6.12.18; Tronskii 1960: 104) &gt; n**u**ntius (*neu- 'shout') (Weiss 2009: 278).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Weiss 2099 writes that Osthoff's law happened &quot;at least three times in the history of Latin&quot; (p. 125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss does mention that &quot;probably yet another round of Osthoff's also applied after monophthongization (P. 126) and he gives one example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*oino(m)-dekem &gt;  ūndecim &gt; undecim &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the word &quot;**probably**&quot; though; cf. Leumann, Hofmann, and Szantyr 1977, para 119:γ, &quot;Verhältnismäßig jung (frühestens II&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt;) muss die Kürzung erfolgt sein bei *ī* und *ū* aus *oi ou ove*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;That is why Sihler 1995 writes that &quot;**[e]vidence for the length of these vowels, however, is conflicting** (para 82b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Sihler reasonably avoids referring to vowel shortening in Greek and Latin as Osthoff's Law because these two processes were independent (i.e. not shared innovations).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="636" RevisionGUID="1ad67536-008a-46ec-9d1a-3b4de6603fc5" CreationDate="2016-03-28T17:04:45.410" UserId="39" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="**Monophthongization** (of diphthongs in Latin) most likely happened **after** Osthoff's shortening (in Proto-Italic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Osthoff's law**: A long vowel before a liquid, nasal, or glide plus a stop was shortened (Weiss 2009, p. 125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Monophthongization in this case was *eu &gt; *ū (completed by the end of the **3rd century BCE**), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/eu/ &gt; /ou/ &gt; /o̝ː/ &gt; /uː/ (Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011: 95).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that **Osthoff's shortening** most likely **happened** already **in Proto-Italic**, cf. Meiser 1998 &quot;Schon im Uritalischen&#xD;&#xA;sind Langdiphthonge vor Konsonant gekürzt worden&quot; (p. 75) or Sihler 1995 &quot;[l]ong vowels were shortened in prehistoric times before a resonant plus consonant&quot; (para 82).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*n**oue**ntiio &gt; n**ou**ntios (G.L. 6.12.18; Tronskii 1960: 104) &gt; n**u**ntius (*neu- 'shout') (Weiss 2009: 278).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Weiss 2099 writes that Osthoff's law happened &quot;at least three times in the history of Latin&quot; (p. 125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss does mention that &quot;probably yet another round of Osthoff's also applied after monophthongization (P. 126) and he gives one example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*oino(m)-dekem &gt;  ūndecim &gt; undecim &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the word &quot;**probably**&quot; though; cf. Leumann, Hofmann, and Szantyr 1977, para 119:γ, &quot;Verhältnismäßig jung (frühestens II&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt;) muss die Kürzung erfolgt sein bei *ī* und *ū* aus *oi ou ove*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;That is why - taking into account evidence from ancient grammars and Romance languages - Sihler 1995 writes that &quot;**[e]vidence for the length of these vowels, however, is conflicting** (para 82b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Sihler reasonably avoids referring to vowel shortening in Greek and Latin as Osthoff's Law because these two processes were independent (i.e. not shared innovations).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="637" RevisionGUID="d7ee7b42-dec0-46c1-b2cc-9f515f4307e5" CreationDate="2016-03-28T19:12:29.957" UserId="12" Text="In English, the voiceless stops/plosives (*p*, *t*, *k*, &quot;hard&quot; *c*) are [aspirated](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirated_consonant), particularly when beginning a word.  That is, speakers release a burst of air when saying *pop*, *tea*, *kaluha*, or *coffee* (put your hand in front of your mouth and try it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in a Romance language like Spanish, these consonants are unaspirated: very little air is released when pronouncing them (see [Is the /p/ sound aspirated in Spanish?](http://spanish.stackexchange.com/q/14879/9309)).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to know how these voiceless plosives were pronounced in Classical Latin.  Were they aspirated?  How do we know?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2247" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="637" RevisionGUID="d7ee7b42-dec0-46c1-b2cc-9f515f4307e5" CreationDate="2016-03-28T19:12:29.957" UserId="12" Text="Were voiceless stops (p, t, c, qu) aspirated in Classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2248" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="637" RevisionGUID="d7ee7b42-dec0-46c1-b2cc-9f515f4307e5" CreationDate="2016-03-28T19:12:29.957" UserId="12" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|consonants|aspiration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="638" RevisionGUID="f6f14ec6-a946-4d43-9138-3dfb11fb4ea9" CreationDate="2016-03-28T19:14:20.347" UserId="12" Text="W. Sydney Allen, [*Vox Latina*, 12–13](https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA12), contends that the voiceless plosives in Latin were, compared to English, &quot;relatively unaspirated,&quot; but that some aspiration may have been tolerated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, evidence for a lack of aspiration can be seen in Greek transcriptions of these letters: π, τ, κ were used for *p*, *t*, and *c*/*qu* (&quot;e.g., Καπετωλιον, Κοιντος for *Capitolium*, *Quintus*&quot;), which is significant because these &quot;Greek letters can only stand for unaspirated plosives.&quot;  Allen also mentions the unaspirated nature of these consonants in Romance languages as evidence for a lack of aspiration in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, because Latin did not contrast unaspirated and aspirated plosives, Allen argues that &quot;some degree of aspiration could theoretically have been tolerated.&quot; He also suggests that the way some words were borrowed from Greek is indirect evidence that some aspiration was employed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Greek word πύξος begins with a voiceless unaspirated consonant, π.  This word is borrowed into Latin, however, as *buxus*, not *puxus*.  Something similar happens with κυβερνω (which becomes *guberno*) and κόμμι (*gummi*).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this can be illustrated in English.  English speakers associate aspiration with voicelessness, so they tend interpret a lack of aspiration as voice, even though none is there.  So the unaspirated voiceless *p* and *k* sound as though they are voiced, and are heard as *b* and *g*, respectively.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, then, Latin speakers, hearing words like πύξος and κόμμι, understood the initial consonants like English speakers might, and transcribed them with *b* and *g*.  Thus, like English speakers, they must have associated aspiration and voicelessness to at least some extent, possibly indicating that their voiceless plosives *p*, *t*, *c*, and *qu* had some aspiration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen summarizes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One should probably not insist too strongly on the complete avoidance of aspiration in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="639" RevisionGUID="54a0105b-a8c3-4f01-9a5a-92d428ed6f87" CreationDate="2016-03-28T20:16:01.540" UserId="79" Text="I would like to express the following times in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;at four o'clock sharp&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;every hour, on the hour&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize that the event takes place exactly on the hour.&#xD;&#xA;My dictionaries do not contain such time expressions, so I don't know if there is an idiomatic expression for these.&#xD;&#xA;Besides looking for something idiomatic, I want to make it as difficult as possible to misinterpret the times.&#xD;&#xA;The best translations I have come up with so far are these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *hora quarta exacte*&#xD;&#xA;2. *quaque hora, hora ineunte/incipiente* or *quaque hora ineunte/incipiente*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first one I also thought of *hora quarta exacta*, but I don't want to turn it into an absolute ablative corresponding to *exigere*; such interpretation might lead to &quot;at the end of the fourth hour&quot; or &quot;not before five o'clock&quot;, so misinterpretation is too easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin *hora quarta* can be thought of as &quot;on the fourth hour&quot; as well as &quot;at four o'clock&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I think a simple *hora quarta* does not express what I want to say in the first point.&#xD;&#xA;And even the English expression &quot;at four o'clock&quot; does not emphasize that something should happen exactly on the hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that hours were counted from a differently in antiquity than today, from dawn instead of midnight or noon.&#xD;&#xA;This is irrelevant for me here so you can ignore this problem; I believe the way of counting hours should be clear enough from context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What translations would you suggest and why?&#xD;&#xA;If you suggestions are different from mine, can you explain why yours would be better?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2251" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="639" RevisionGUID="54a0105b-a8c3-4f01-9a5a-92d428ed6f87" CreationDate="2016-03-28T20:16:01.540" UserId="79" Text="How to express a time exactly on the hour?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2252" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="639" RevisionGUID="54a0105b-a8c3-4f01-9a5a-92d428ed6f87" CreationDate="2016-03-28T20:16:01.540" UserId="79" Text="|translation|idiom|time|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="636" RevisionGUID="3c00292c-0c44-4ced-9d8e-ecea70f9b2be" CreationDate="2016-03-28T23:54:59.410" UserId="39" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="**[Monophthongization][1]** (of diphthongs in Latin) most likely happened **after** Osthoff's shortening (in Proto-Italic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**[Osthoff's law][2]**: A long vowel before a liquid, nasal, or glide plus a stop was shortened (Weiss 2009, p. 125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Monophthongization in this case was *eu &gt; *ū (completed by the end of the **3rd century BCE**), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/eu/ &gt; /ou/ &gt; /o̝ː/ &gt; /uː/ (Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011: 95).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that **Osthoff's shortening** most likely **happened** already **in [Proto-Italic][3]**, cf. Meiser 1998 &quot;Schon im Uritalischen&#xD;&#xA;sind Langdiphthonge vor Konsonant gekürzt worden&quot; (p. 75) or Sihler 1995 &quot;[l]ong vowels were shortened in prehistoric times before [a resonant][4] plus consonant&quot; (para 82).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*n**oue**ntiio &gt; n**ou**ntios (G.L. 6.12.18; Tronskii 1960: 104) &gt; n**u**ntius (*neu- 'shout') (Weiss 2009: 278).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Weiss 2009 writes that Osthoff's law happened &quot;at least three times in the history of Latin&quot; (p. 125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss does mention that &quot;probably yet another round of Osthoff's also applied after monophthongization (P. 126) and he gives one example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*oino(m)-dekem &gt;  ūndecim &gt; undecim &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the word &quot;**probably**&quot; though; cf. Leumann, Hofmann, and Szantyr 1977, para 119:γ, &quot;Verhältnismäßig jung (frühestens II&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt;) muss die Kürzung erfolgt sein bei *ī* und *ū* aus *oi ou ove*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;That is why - taking into account evidence from ancient grammars and Romance languages - Sihler 1995 writes that &quot;**[e]vidence for the length of these vowels, however, is conflicting** (para 82b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Sihler reasonably avoids referring to vowel shortening in Greek and Latin as Osthoff's Law because these two processes were independent (i.e. not shared innovations).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophthongization&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osthoff%27s_law&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic_language&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonorant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="635" RevisionGUID="4d94b2f5-1996-4afa-887d-a5a08fd140c1" CreationDate="2016-03-29T00:04:35.087" UserId="45" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="For my answer, I will use Bennett's [*New Latin Grammar*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect5) as a reference. There are two important rules which come together to make a long ū in *nūntius*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. As you noted, a vowel followed by *nt* or *nd* is **usually** short, e.g. laudănt, landăndi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The usual **exception** to this rule occurs in compounds whose first word includes a long vowel, such as *nōndum (nōn dum)*. This is not the case with *nūntius* and *nūntiare*, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. There is, however, another rule at work here: vowels that are the **result of a contraction** are long, e.g. *nīlum* for *nihilum*. If you look at the [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnuntius) entry for *nuntius*, you will see that it is conjectured to be a contraction of the longer word *noventius* (from the older verb *novere*: &quot;to make new&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Presumably, the first *nt* rule is at work in the original word: *novĕntius* and then the second rule comes into play to contract the first two syllables into its current form: *nūntius*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="636" RevisionGUID="f0f5649e-7e86-43f3-bada-a2612a02bf07" CreationDate="2016-03-29T00:05:56.593" UserId="39" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="**[Monophthongization][1]** (of diphthongs in Latin) most likely happened **after** Osthoff's shortening (in Proto-Italic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**[Osthoff's law][2]**: A long vowel before a liquid, nasal, or glide plus a stop was shortened (Weiss 2009, p. 125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Monophthongization in this case was *eu &gt; *ū (completed by the end of the **3rd century BCE**), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/eu/ &gt; /ou/ &gt; /o̝ː/ &gt; /uː/ (Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011: 95).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that **Osthoff's shortening** most likely **happened** already **in [Proto-Italic][3]**, cf. Meiser 1998 &quot;Schon im Uritalischen&#xD;&#xA;sind Langdiphthonge vor Konsonant gekürzt worden&quot; (p. 75) or Sihler 1995 &quot;[l]ong vowels were shortened in prehistoric times before [a resonant][4] plus consonant&quot; (para 82).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*n**oue**ntiio &gt; n**ou**ntios (G.L. 6.12.18; Tronskii 1960: 104) &gt; n**u**ntius (*neu- 'shout') (Weiss 2009: 278).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Weiss 2009 writes that Osthoff's law happened &quot;at least three times in the history of Latin&quot; (p. 125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss does mention that &quot;probably yet another round of Osthoff's also applied after monophthongization (P. 126) and he gives one example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*oino(m)-dekem &gt;  ūndecim &gt; undecim &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the word &quot;**probably**&quot; though; cf. Leumann, Hofmann, and Szantyr 1977, para 119:γ, &quot;Verhältnismäßig jung (frühestens II&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt;) muss die Kürzung erfolgt sein bei *ī* und *ū* aus *oi ou ove*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;That is why - taking into account evidence from ancient grammars and Romance languages - Sihler 1995 writes that &quot;**[e]vidence for the length of these vowels, however, is conflicting** (para 82b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Sihler reasonably avoids referring to vowel shortening in Greek and Latin as Osthoff's Law because these two processes were independent (i.e. not shared innovations).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/monophthongization-SIM_00000498?s.num&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/osthoffs-law-SIM_00000505&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic_language&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonorant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="632" RevisionGUID="320d770c-543b-4c2e-9376-426c5655e710" CreationDate="2016-03-29T02:24:30.510" UserId="68" Comment="added 2012 characters in body" Text="Old Latin bears the same kind of relationship to Classical Latin as English of, a few centuries ago does to modern English. The oldest Old Latin texts we have, unless I'm remembering incorrectly, are from the 3rd century BC, so there wasn't a whole lot of time for the language to change between then and 75 B.C. Old Latin has one more case than Classical Latin (locative), some of the case endings are a little different (*-os* instead of *-us* ending for second declension nominative masculine, *-eis* instead of *-is* for first and second dative and ablative, etc.), and some of the spellings and pronunciations are a little different. There's little evidence for what the verb forms were, and it's pretty inconsistent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for what happened in 75 B.C., no, there wasn't a sudden shift—it's just that people in the modern world, when thinking about the history of Latin, needed a place to start Classical Latin. Somebody else here probably knows much better than I, but my guess is that there was either a historical event in 75 that seemed appropriate or an appearance or disappearance of some linguistic feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** Unsurprisingly, I *was* remembering incorrectly. The earliest records we have, though fragmentary and very problematic, are from the early sixth century B.C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a much clearer account than I could give of the development of Old Latin, from *Blackwell's Companion to the Latin Language*, chapter 14, by John Penney:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The earliest remains of Latin are dated to the seventh century BCE; by the middle of the first century BCE, Classical Latin had become established as the dominant prestige variety. The language of the six pre-Classical centuries is sometimes labelled as a whole “Archaic Latin” or “Early Latin” or “Old Latin”, and a single term has the advantage of acknowledging that there is a continuum, but a division into periods has also been proposed by some scholars and these same labels (and others) may then be applied in narrower senses, which may unfortunately vary from author to author. For instance, Meiser (1998) 2 distinguishes between *Frühlatein* (“Early Latin”), from the first attestations down to 240 BCE and the first literary productions, and *Altlatein* (“Old Latin”) from 240 down to the first half of the first century, and is happy to use Archaisches Latein (“Archaic Latin”) as an all-embracing term. Weiss (2009) 23 makes a similar division between “Very Old Latin” (down to the third century and the first literature) and “Old Latin” (third and second centuries). Clackson and Horrocks (2007) adopt an alternative division between the language of the first inscriptions, down to c. 400, which is labelled “Archaic Latin”, and the language from c. 400 to the first century, which is labelled “Old Latin”; there is virtually no evidence for Latin in the later fifth and early fourth centuries which makes 400 a convenient dividing point. The . . . terminological divergences and disagreements should not be allowed to obscure the fact that the development of the language continues seamlessly throughout the whole period, and indeed on into Classical Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="640" RevisionGUID="1a9c623d-3f37-4b44-98d7-e51e3e3a16c6" CreationDate="2016-03-29T04:59:31.337" UserId="68" Text="I like *exacte*, though I worry that its similarity to &quot;exactly&quot; might be leading me to think it's closer to what you need than it actually is. It occurs to me that *adamussim* (&quot;to the level&quot;) might also work for the first, but it's not a word I've seen many times in my reading so it could be less appropriate than I suspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your second sentence implies to me a general period of time (that is, &quot;around when the hour is starting&quot;) rather than something exact. I wonder whether *ad cujusque horæ initium* would do the trick." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="617" RevisionGUID="0572584c-cf2a-4c2b-b13e-1ba3155050c3" CreationDate="2016-03-29T09:51:43.567" UserId="183" Comment="spelling fixes" Text="It is clear that the reduplicating verbs are deeply rooted in Proto-Indoeuropean, not only Latin and Greek exhibit them, but there are also traces of them in the Germanic languages (One class of strong verbs represented by German fallen, fällt, fiel, gefallen traces back to reduplicating verbs). Note that there was only a certain class that used reduplication, there were always other classes competing with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin was already in the stage of getting rid of reduplication: Only the simple verbs reduplicate, but prefixed forms (like incurro) don't. The force of analogy works towards the removal of residual reduplication, taking one verb after the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any rules governing this process and predicting what verbs are more conservative than others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="641" RevisionGUID="529fba7e-7142-4c78-9a98-2a1766cd483f" CreationDate="2016-03-29T11:00:00.900" UserId="12" Text="[According to Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals), there are two notable ways to render large numbers, reaching up to hundreds of thousands and higher: [*apostrophus* and *vinculum*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#Large_numbers).  The first uses a system of expanding rings, so that 100,000 looks something like CCC|ƆƆƆ.  The second uses lines above and on the side as multipliers, so Ī might mean 1,000 and |X̄| might be 1,000,000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't provide classical examples of the use of these, so I'm wondering: were both of these systems for rendering large numbers in use during the classical period (75 BC – AD 300)?  Which system came first?  Which was more commonly used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2263" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="641" RevisionGUID="529fba7e-7142-4c78-9a98-2a1766cd483f" CreationDate="2016-03-29T11:00:00.900" UserId="12" Text="Which Roman Numerals were used to express extremely large numbers in Classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2264" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="641" RevisionGUID="529fba7e-7142-4c78-9a98-2a1766cd483f" CreationDate="2016-03-29T11:00:00.900" UserId="12" Text="|classical-latin|numbers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="642" RevisionGUID="b197077c-9c98-418a-91e3-b06eac52747d" CreationDate="2016-03-29T13:35:03.970" UserId="45" Text="As indicated in previous answers, [reduplication](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduplication) comes from Proto-Indoeuropean, mainly for stative aspect and imperfective aspect verb forms. This reduplication is seen in many PIE-derived languages, as cited in the above article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ancient Greek:** λύω lúō 'I free' vs. λέλυκα léluka &quot;I have freed&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;**Gothic:** hald &quot;I hold&quot; vs. haíhald (hĕhald) &quot;I/he held&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;**Latin:** currō &quot;I run&quot; vs. cucurrī &quot;I ran&quot; or &quot;have run&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot propose a convincing litmus test for which Latin verbs preserve reduplication and which ones do not. I did do some digging to find a full list of verbs with reduplicated perfect stems (since that was, after all, the primary question). Interesting to note: **The vast majority are 3rd conjugation -o verbs**. The only exceptions in the below list are *do* (1st), *mordeo* (2nd), and *pario* (3rd -io).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Verbs with Reduplicated Stems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please comment with additions/corrections so we can make a canonical list.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *cado, cecidit  &#xD;&#xA;caedo, cecidit  &#xD;&#xA;cano, cecinit  &#xD;&#xA;curro, cucurrit  &#xD;&#xA;do, dedit  &#xD;&#xA;disco, didicit  &#xD;&#xA;fallo, fefellit  &#xD;&#xA;mordeo, momordit (also: memordit)  &#xD;&#xA;pango, pepigit  &#xD;&#xA;parco, pepercit  &#xD;&#xA;pario, peperit  &#xD;&#xA;pello, pepulit  &#xD;&#xA;pendo, pependit  &#xD;&#xA;posco, poposcit  &#xD;&#xA;pungo, pupugit (also: pepugit)  &#xD;&#xA;tango, tetigit  &#xD;&#xA;tendo, tetendit  &#xD;&#xA;tondo, totondit (also: tundo, tutudit)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="618" RevisionGUID="d2f783b0-2ea7-4a75-a681-f49977589cef" CreationDate="2016-03-30T04:58:57.977" UserId="39" Comment="added 1757 characters in body" Text="Since you’re asking about **reduplicated perfect** (and not **reduplicated present**, as in bibo &lt; *pi-ph3-e or sero &lt; si-sh1-e, Weiss 2009: 405), I will try to address perfect formation only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the problems is that **synchronically we may not see all cases of reduplicated perfect in Classical Latin**. However, by drawing on data from Old Latin and other Indo-European languages (especially from [Greek][1], [Sanskrit][2] or [Anatolian languages][3]), we may discover more interesting cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, Baldi mentions that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“Vowel weakening and the accompanying syncope have caused many Latin verbs with inherited PIE reduplication to lose the vowel of the reduplicated syllable” (p. 378).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Tronskii 1960 (2003) argues that if a reduplicated form had more than three syllables, the extra syllable was syncopated (para 624):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - compound verbs: rettuli (*retetuli), reppuli (*repepuli), reccidi&#xD;&#xA;   (*rececidi), repperi (*repeperi) etc.&#xD;&#xA; - cecidi but: occidi (*ob-cecidi), concidi (*con-cecidi);&#xD;&#xA; - tetigi but: contigi;&#xD;&#xA; - spopondi but: respondi;&#xD;&#xA; - tetuli but: abstuli (*abs-tetuli), attuli, sustuli etc.;&#xD;&#xA; - dedi or condidi but: abscondi;&#xD;&#xA; - converti (*conveverti);&#xD;&#xA; - incidi (*in-cecaidi) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tronski also mentions that *tetuli* was ousted by *tuli*, *scicidi* by *scidi*, *tetendi* by *tendi* etc. He also talks about some verbs that changed their perfect formation type because of syncope, e.g. *tetini* and *continui* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baldi also discusses Mester 1994, who examined the distribution of the three most common perfect formations. Baldi sums up by saying that perfect formation can be determined by prosodic, analogical, morphological and frequency factors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009 writes that &quot;verbs of second conjugation have u-perfect if the stem is light, but some other formation (s-perfect, **reduplicated perfects**) **if the stem is heavy**&quot; (p. 413).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;doceo - docui&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;augeo - auxi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mordeo - momordi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He mentions a number of exceptions to this rule, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/reduplication-COM_000021?s.num&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405184236_chunk_g9781405184236121&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://gradworks.umi.com/37/06/3706190.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="644" RevisionGUID="7b01452b-06e6-4059-a586-1a9d1fb7582b" CreationDate="2016-03-30T13:16:03.523" UserId="319" Text="The phrase is used when in thr ceremony of assigning a new pope, and can be interpreted in many ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A translation would be: &quot;So pass the worldly glories.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you interpret its meaning, think of its context being used in religion and, possibly, some esoteric circles as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2274" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="644" RevisionGUID="7b01452b-06e6-4059-a586-1a9d1fb7582b" CreationDate="2016-03-30T13:16:03.523" UserId="319" Text="What is meant by the expression 'Sic Transit Gloria Mundi'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2275" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="644" RevisionGUID="7b01452b-06e6-4059-a586-1a9d1fb7582b" CreationDate="2016-03-30T13:16:03.523" UserId="319" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="644" RevisionGUID="0d3945c4-5fe0-4d10-b9fd-ea5167b771c5" CreationDate="2016-03-30T13:21:15.270" UserId="12" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="The phrase is used when in the ceremony of assigning a new pope, and can be interpreted in many ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A translation would be: &quot;So pass the worldly glories.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you interpret its meaning, think of its context being used in religion and, possibly, some esoteric circles as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2277" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="644" RevisionGUID="0d3945c4-5fe0-4d10-b9fd-ea5167b771c5" CreationDate="2016-03-30T13:21:15.270" UserId="12" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|meaning|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="645" RevisionGUID="6c55d594-5b65-449b-90c3-3fc086174cd0" CreationDate="2016-03-30T13:33:02.613" UserId="45" Text="*Sic Transit Gloria Mundi* is literally translated as *So passes the glory of the world*. The associated [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic_transit_gloria_mundi) includes some further detail about its use in the papal coronation ceremony from 1409 to 1963:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As the newly chosen pope proceeded from the sacristy of St. Peter's Basilica in his sedia gestatoria, the procession stopped three times. On each occasion a papal master of ceremonies would fall to his knees before the pope, holding a silver or brass reed, bearing a tow of smoldering flax. For three times in succession, as the cloth burned away, he would say in a loud and mournful voice, &quot;Pater Sancte, sic transit gloria mundi!&quot; (&quot;Holy Father, so passes worldly glory!&quot;) These words, thus addressed to the pope, served as a reminder of the transitory nature of life and earthly honors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase probably originates from [Book 1, Chapter 3, Paragraph 6](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/kempis/kempis1.shtml) of the *Imitatio Christi* of Thomas a Kempis, as he discusses the death of former teachers. In context it reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O quam cito **transit gloria mundi**. Utinam vita eorum scientiæ concordasset eorum, tunc bene legissent et studuissent. Quam multi pereunt per vanam scientiam in hoc sæculo, qui parum curant de Dei fervitio. Et quia magis diligunt magni esse quam humiles, ideo evanuerunt in cognitationibus suis. Vere magnus est qui in si parvus est et pro nihilo omne culmen honoris ducit. Vere prudens est qui omnia terrena arbitratur uti stercora ut Christum lucrifaciat. Et vere bene doctus est qui Dei voluntatem facit et suam voluntatem relinquit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is a commentary on the vanity of worldly glory: a kind of *memento mori* (remember, you shall die) or *vanitas vanitatum* (vanity of vanities, cf. Ecclesiastes)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="646" RevisionGUID="dc5c8b22-4241-4f23-b7dd-94263f3b9749" CreationDate="2016-03-30T13:34:15.570" UserId="12" Text="During papal coronations, these words are spoken to the pope while a cloth is burned in front of him.  [Janos M. Bak interprets](https://books.google.com/books?id=m6nsnzLRPlIC&amp;pg=PA187):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pater sancte, sic transit gloria mundi* [...] is supposed to remind the pontiff of the temporality of even his power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that vein, though your literal translation is on track, perhaps a more idiomatic rendering would be &quot;worldly glories are fleeting.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="644" RevisionGUID="759ae408-3389-47ab-b209-38f8f226a8b5" CreationDate="2016-03-30T13:47:16.617" UserId="319" Comment="added 342 characters in body" Text="The phrase is used when in the ceremony of assigning a new pope, and can be interpreted in many ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A translation would be: &quot;So pass the worldly glories.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you interpret its meaning, think of its context being used in religion and, possibly, some esoteric circles as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: To clarify, I know the translation and the instance in which it is used; I also saw the the wikipedia page. &#xD;&#xA;What I'm looking for is if there is some contextual knowledge, regarding (the history of) the latin language that would add to the *symbolic*, *historical* or *ethical* meaning of it.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks though for all the answers so far." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="646" RevisionGUID="3cd68a0d-31b0-4b01-913a-3a2460473ff7" CreationDate="2016-03-30T13:49:22.127" UserId="12" Comment="added 1028 characters in body" Text="During papal coronations, these words are spoken to the pope while a cloth is burned in front of him.  [Janos M. Bak interprets](https://books.google.com/books?id=m6nsnzLRPlIC&amp;pg=PA187):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pater sancte, sic transit gloria mundi* [...] is supposed to remind the pontiff of the temporality of even his power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that vein, though your literal translation is on track, perhaps a more idiomatic rendering would be &quot;worldly glories are fleeting.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a common biblical theme, though the specific wording is not explicitly biblical.  For example, James 1:9–11:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; Let the lowly brother boast in his exaltation, &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; and the rich in his humiliation, because like a flower of the grass he will pass away. &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes. So also will the rich man fade away in the midst of his pursuits. ([ESV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+1&amp;version=ESV); cf. [Vulgate](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+1&amp;version=VULGATE))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;James 4:14:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. ([ESV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+4%3A14&amp;version=ESV); cf. [Vulgate](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+4%3A14&amp;version=VULGATE))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And 1 John 2:17:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. ([ESV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A17&amp;version=ESV); cf. [Vulgate](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A17&amp;version=VULGATE), &quot;et mundus transit&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="646" RevisionGUID="d1ea6894-f739-42db-b771-b5cdb4ab3091" CreationDate="2016-03-30T14:04:40.450" UserId="12" Comment="vulgate" Text="During papal coronations, these words are spoken to the pope while a cloth is burned in front of him.  [Janos M. Bak interprets](https://books.google.com/books?id=m6nsnzLRPlIC&amp;pg=PA187):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pater sancte, sic transit gloria mundi* [...] is supposed to remind the pontiff of the temporality of even his power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that vein, though your literal translation is on track, perhaps a more idiomatic rendering would be &quot;worldly glories are fleeting.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a common biblical theme (see [James 1:9–11](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+1&amp;version=ESV) and [4:14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+4%3A14&amp;version=ESV)), but the statement is not a direct biblical quote.  Still, its language is reminiscent of the Vulgate's in several places, particularly Matthew 4:8 and 1 John 2:17.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, Matthew 4:8, where Satan tempts Christ by showing him the kingdoms of the world:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iterum adsumit eum diabolus in montem excelsum valde et ostendit ei omnia **regna mundi et gloriam eorum** ([Vulgate](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthaeus+4:8&amp;version=VULGATE))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. ([ESV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4%3A8&amp;version=ESV))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And 1 John 2:17:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **et mundus transit** et concupiscentia eius qui autem facit voluntatem Dei manet in aeternum ([Vulgate](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A17&amp;version=VULGATE))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. ([ESV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A17&amp;version=ESV))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="646" RevisionGUID="d8d89ae9-c9f8-46d7-b0a2-ed4c19978f82" CreationDate="2016-03-30T14:13:11.467" UserId="12" Comment="vulgate" Text="During papal coronations, these words are spoken to the pope while a cloth is burned in front of him.  [Janos M. Bak interprets](https://books.google.com/books?id=m6nsnzLRPlIC&amp;pg=PA187):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pater sancte, sic transit gloria mundi* [...] is supposed to remind the pontiff of the temporality of even his power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that vein, though your literal translation is on track, perhaps a more idiomatic rendering would be &quot;worldly glories are fleeting.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a common biblical theme (see [James 1:9–11](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+1&amp;version=ESV) and [4:14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+4%3A14&amp;version=ESV)), but the statement is not a direct biblical quote.  Still, its language is reminiscent of the Vulgate's in several places, particularly Matthew 4:8 and 1 John 2:17.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, Matthew 4:8, where Satan tempts Christ by showing him the kingdoms of the world:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iterum adsumit eum diabolus in montem excelsum valde et ostendit ei omnia **regna mundi et gloriam eorum** ([Vulgate](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthaeus+4:8&amp;version=VULGATE))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. ([ESV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4%3A8&amp;version=ESV))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And 1 John 2:17:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **et mundus transit** et concupiscentia eius qui autem facit voluntatem Dei manet in aeternum ([Vulgate](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A17&amp;version=VULGATE))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. ([ESV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A17&amp;version=ESV))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this quote is indeed correctly traced to Thomas à Kempis's similar phrase, *o quam cito transit gloria mundi*, then it's natural that the familiar wording of the Vulgate would be used here as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="344" RevisionGUID="0d065c63-64b0-4500-a1bc-86f7731a0288" CreationDate="2016-03-30T14:43:38.577" UserId="78" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="This might not be the best question to ask for this format chiefly because there are so many color words in Latin, and their meanings are not always as simple and exact as English would have you believe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one, &quot;basic colors&quot; is a modern categorization, though it does have its roots in [ancient Aristotelian thought](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Aristotle/de_Coloribus*.html). See [this paper](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/col.20296/abstract) if you have access to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, a fun little study was conducted by an undergradate at UNC Greensboro—Emily Gering, who published the study as &quot;Diachronic Trends in Latin's Basic Color Vocabulary,&quot; published in the student journal *Explorations* ([link](http://uncw.edu/csurf/Explorations/volume9.html)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fuller study can be found in Rachael Goldman's 2011 dissertation *Tinturae Romanorum: Social and Cultural Constructions of Color-Terms in Roman Literature*. If you have a good library or access to ILL, do make sure to grab this one. She is a historian, so there is plenty of social context of color (which is inseparable from understanding the color's precise hue). She also provides an exhaustive appendix for your own perusal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NEW**: A [BMCR review](http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2016/2016-03-13.html) just popped up on it! I had not realized it had already been turned into a book and published in Gorgias Press a couple years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you may be interested in Alexander Borg's 1999 monograph *The Language of Color in the Mediterranean: an anthology of ethnographic aspects of color terms*, Stockholm." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="646" RevisionGUID="4e576532-67f7-466b-9d59-75828610c824" CreationDate="2016-03-30T15:25:10.480" UserId="12" Comment="added 117 characters in body" Text="During papal coronations, these words are spoken to the pope while a cloth is burned in front of him.  [Janos M. Bak interprets](https://books.google.com/books?id=m6nsnzLRPlIC&amp;pg=PA187):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pater sancte, sic transit gloria mundi* [...] is supposed to remind the pontiff of the temporality of even his power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that vein, though your literal translation is on track, perhaps a more idiomatic rendering would be &quot;worldly glories are fleeting.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a common biblical theme (see [James 1:9–11](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+1&amp;version=ESV) and [4:14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+4%3A14&amp;version=ESV)), but the statement is not a direct biblical quote.  Still, its language is reminiscent of the Vulgate's in several places, particularly Matthew 4:8 and 1 John 2:17.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, Matthew 4:8, where Satan tempts Christ by showing him the kingdoms of the world:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iterum adsumit eum diabolus in montem excelsum valde et ostendit ei omnia **regna mundi et gloriam eorum** ([Vulgate](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthaeus+4:8&amp;version=VULGATE))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. ([ESV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4%3A8&amp;version=ESV))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And 1 John 2:17:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **et mundus transit** et concupiscentia eius qui autem facit voluntatem Dei manet in aeternum ([Vulgate](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A17&amp;version=VULGATE))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. ([ESV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A17&amp;version=ESV))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reliance on the Vulgate, of course, makes sense, given its ubiquity in the medieval and early modern church.  If Thomas à Kempis is the originator (*o quam cito transit gloria mundi*), or even if he isn't, it's natural that this phrase, given its Christian context, would correspond in some ways to biblical language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="618" RevisionGUID="a5363e40-8a7b-499d-8f48-4811c8416d13" CreationDate="2016-03-30T15:34:38.553" UserId="39" Comment="added 1362 characters in body" Text="Since you’re asking about **reduplicated perfect** (and not **reduplicated present**, as in bibo &lt; *pi-ph3-e or sero &lt; si-sh1-e, Weiss 2009: 405), I will try to address perfect formation only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the problems is that **synchronically we may not see all cases of reduplicated perfect in Classical Latin**. However, by drawing on data from Old Latin and other Indo-European languages (especially from [Greek][1], [Sanskrit][2] or [Anatolian languages][3]), we may discover more interesting cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, Baldi mentions that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“Vowel weakening and the accompanying syncope have caused many Latin verbs with inherited PIE reduplication to lose the vowel of the reduplicated syllable” (p. 378).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Tronskii 1960 (2003) argues that if a reduplicated form had more than three syllables, the extra syllable was syncopated (para 624):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - compound verbs: rettuli (*retetuli), reppuli (*repepuli), reccidi&#xD;&#xA;   (*rececidi), repperi (*repeperi) etc.&#xD;&#xA; - cecidi but: occidi (*ob-cecidi), concidi (*con-cecidi);&#xD;&#xA; - tetigi but: contigi;&#xD;&#xA; - spopondi but: respondi;&#xD;&#xA; - tetuli but: abstuli (*abs-tetuli), attuli, sustuli etc.;&#xD;&#xA; - dedi or condidi but: abscondi;&#xD;&#xA; - converti (*conveverti);&#xD;&#xA; - incidi (*in-cecaidi) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tronski also mentions that *tetuli* was ousted by *tuli*, *scicidi* by *scidi*, *tetendi* by *tendi* etc. He also talks about some verbs that changed their perfect formation type because of syncope, e.g. *tetini* and *continui* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baldi also discusses Mester 1994, who examined the distribution of the three most common perfect formations. Baldi sums up by saying that perfect formation can be determined by prosodic, analogical, morphological and frequency factors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009 writes that &quot;verbs of second conjugation have u-perfect if the stem is light, but some other formation (s-perfect, **reduplicated perfects**) **if the stem is heavy**&quot; (p. 413).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;doceo - docui&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;augeo - auxi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mordeo - momordi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He mentions a number of exceptions to this rule, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if you really need **a list of most common verbs that have reduplicated perfect**, here's one, from Borovskii and Boldyrev 1975 - by no means exhaustive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**First conjugation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do – dedi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Circumdo – circumdedi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sto – steti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Praesto – praestiti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obsto – obstiti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Second conjugation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mordeo – momordi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pendeo – pependi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spondeo – spopondi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Respondeo – respondi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tondeo – totondi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Detondeo – detondi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Third conjugation conjugation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cado – cecidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;occido – occidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;caedo – cecidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;occido – occidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pendo – pependi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;impendo – impendi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tendo – tetendi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;attendo – attendi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ostendo – ostendi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;credo – credidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vendo – vendidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;perdo – perdidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;addo – addidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;condo – condidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;abscondo – abscondi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;parco – peperci (parsi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;fallo – fefelli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;refello – refelli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cano – cecini&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;curro – cucurri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;accurro – accurri (accucurri)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;posco – poposci&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tundo – tutudi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;contundo – contudi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tango – tetigi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;attingo – attigi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pango – pepigi (pegi, panxi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pungo – pupugi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;interpungo – interpunxi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pello – pepuli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;expello – expuli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;disco – didici&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sisto – (stiti)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sisto – steti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;circumsisto – circumsteti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;obsisto – obstiti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;subsisto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;desisto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;resisto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;existo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Third conjugation (io):**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pario – peperi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fourth conjugation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comperio – comperi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reperio - repperi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/reduplication-COM_000021?s.num&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405184236_chunk_g9781405184236121&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://gradworks.umi.com/37/06/3706190.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="618" RevisionGUID="0f6797e9-ce66-4a15-be98-33b4f2398ebf" CreationDate="2016-03-30T16:36:48.157" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="Since you’re asking about **reduplicated perfect** (and not **reduplicated present**, as in bibo &lt; *pi-ph3-e or sero &lt; si-sh1-e, Weiss 2009: 405), I will try to address perfect formation only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the problems is that **synchronically we may not see all cases of reduplicated perfect in Classical Latin**. However, by drawing on data from Old Latin and other Indo-European languages (especially from [Greek][1], [Sanskrit][2] or [Anatolian languages][3]), we may discover more interesting cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, Baldi mentions that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“Vowel weakening and the accompanying syncope have caused many Latin verbs with inherited PIE reduplication to lose the vowel of the reduplicated syllable” (p. 378).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Tronskii 1960 (2003) argues that if a reduplicated form had more than three syllables, the extra syllable was syncopated (para 624):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - compound verbs: rettuli (*retetuli), reppuli (*repepuli), reccidi&#xD;&#xA;   (*rececidi), repperi (*repeperi) etc.&#xD;&#xA; - cecidi but: occidi (*ob-cecidi), concidi (*con-cecidi);&#xD;&#xA; - tetigi but: contigi;&#xD;&#xA; - spopondi but: respondi;&#xD;&#xA; - tetuli but: abstuli (*abs-tetuli), attuli, sustuli etc.;&#xD;&#xA; - dedi or condidi but: abscondi;&#xD;&#xA; - converti (*conveverti);&#xD;&#xA; - incidi (*in-cecaidi) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tronski also mentions that *tetuli* was ousted by *tuli*, *scicidi* by *scidi*, *tetendi* by *tendi* etc. He also talks about some verbs that changed their perfect formation type because of syncope, e.g. *tetini* and *continui* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baldi also discusses Mester 1994, who examined the distribution of the three most common perfect formations. Baldi sums up by saying that perfect formation can be determined by prosodic, analogical, morphological and frequency factors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009 writes that &quot;verbs of second conjugation have u-perfect if the stem is light, but some other formation (s-perfect, **reduplicated perfects**) **if the stem is heavy**&quot; (p. 413).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;doceo - docui&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;augeo - auxi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mordeo - momordi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He mentions a number of exceptions to this rule, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if you really need **a list of most common verbs that have reduplicated perfect**, here's one, from Borovskii and Boldyrev 1975 - by no means exhaustive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**First conjugation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do – dedi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Circumdo – circumdedi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sto – steti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Praesto – praestiti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obsto – obstiti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Second conjugation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mordeo – momordi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pendeo – pependi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spondeo – spopondi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Respondeo – respondi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tondeo – totondi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Detondeo – detondi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Third conjugation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cado – cecidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;occido – occidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;caedo – cecidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;occido – occidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pendo – pependi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;impendo – impendi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tendo – tetendi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;attendo – attendi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ostendo – ostendi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;credo – credidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vendo – vendidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;perdo – perdidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;addo – addidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;condo – condidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;abscondo – abscondi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;parco – peperci (parsi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;fallo – fefelli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;refello – refelli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cano – cecini&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;curro – cucurri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;accurro – accurri (accucurri)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;posco – poposci&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tundo – tutudi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;contundo – contudi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tango – tetigi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;attingo – attigi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pango – pepigi (pegi, panxi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pungo – pupugi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;interpungo – interpunxi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pello – pepuli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;expello – expuli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;disco – didici&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sisto – (stiti)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sisto – steti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;circumsisto – circumsteti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;obsisto – obstiti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;subsisto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;desisto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;resisto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;existo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Third conjugation (io):**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pario – peperi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fourth conjugation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comperio – comperi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reperio - repperi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/reduplication-COM_000021?s.num&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405184236_chunk_g9781405184236121&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://gradworks.umi.com/37/06/3706190.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="618" RevisionGUID="0535dbc8-7d76-41ea-81ae-32749388176f" CreationDate="2016-03-30T16:51:03.967" UserId="39" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Since you’re asking about **reduplicated perfect** (and not **reduplicated present**, as in bibo &lt; *pi-ph3-e or sero &lt; si-sh1-e, Weiss 2009: 405), I will try to address perfect formation only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the problems is that **synchronically we may not see all cases of reduplicated perfect in Classical Latin**. However, by drawing on data from Old Latin and other Indo-European languages (especially from [Greek][1], [Sanskrit][2] or [Anatolian languages][3]), we may discover more interesting cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, Baldi mentions that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“Vowel weakening and the accompanying syncope have caused many Latin verbs with inherited PIE reduplication to lose the vowel of the reduplicated syllable” (p. 378).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Tronskii 1960 (2003) argues that if a reduplicated form had more than three syllables, the extra syllable was syncopated (para 624):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - compound verbs: rettuli (*retetuli), reppuli (*repepuli), reccidi&#xD;&#xA;   (*rececidi), repperi (*repeperi) etc.&#xD;&#xA; - cecidi but: occidi (*ob-cecidi), concidi (*con-cecidi);&#xD;&#xA; - tetigi but: contigi;&#xD;&#xA; - spopondi but: respondi;&#xD;&#xA; - tetuli but: abstuli (*abs-tetuli), attuli, sustuli etc.;&#xD;&#xA; - dedi or condidi but: abscondi;&#xD;&#xA; - converti (*conveverti);&#xD;&#xA; - incidi (*in-cecaidi) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tronski also mentions that *tetuli* was ousted by *tuli*, *scicidi* by *scidi*, *tetendi* by *tendi* etc. He also talks about some verbs that changed their perfect formation type because of syncope, e.g. *tetini* and *continui* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baldi also discusses Mester 1994, who examined the distribution of the three most common perfect formations. Baldi sums up by saying that perfect formation can be determined by prosodic, analogical, morphological and frequency factors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009 writes that &quot;verbs of second conjugation have u-perfect if the stem is light, but some other formation (s-perfect, **reduplicated perfects**) **if the stem is heavy**&quot; (p. 413).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;doceo - docui&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;augeo - auxi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mordeo - momordi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He mentions a number of exceptions to this rule, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if you really need **a list of most common verbs that have reduplicated perfect**, here's one, from Borovskii and Boldyrev 1975 - by no means exhaustive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**First conjugation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do – dedi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Circumdo – circumdedi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sto – steti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Praesto – praestiti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obsto – obstiti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Second conjugation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mordeo – momordi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pendeo – pependi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spondeo – spopondi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Respondeo – respondi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tondeo – totondi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Detondeo – detondi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Third conjugation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cado – cecidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;occido – occidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;caedo – cecidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;occido – occidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pendo – pependi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;impendo – impendi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tendo – tetendi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;attendo – attendi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ostendo – ostendi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;credo – credidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vendo – vendidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;perdo – perdidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;addo – addidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;condo – condidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;abscondo – abscondi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;parco – peperci (parsi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;fallo – fefelli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;refello – refelli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cano – cecini&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;curro – cucurri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;accurro – accurri (accucurri)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;posco – poposci&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tundo – tutudi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;contundo – contudi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tango – tetigi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;attingo – attigi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pango – pepigi (pegi, panxi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pungo – pupugi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;interpungo – interpunxi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pello – pepuli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;expello – expuli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;disco – didici&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sisto – (stiti)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sisto – steti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;circumsisto – circumsteti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;obsisto – obstiti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;subsisto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;desisto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;resisto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;existo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Third conjugation (io):**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pario – peperi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Fourth conjugation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comperio – comperi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reperio - repperi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/reduplication-COM_000021?s.num&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405184236_chunk_g9781405184236121&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://gradworks.umi.com/37/06/3706190.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="618" RevisionGUID="851c6833-f5dc-4c03-a061-2b93330f3f2e" CreationDate="2016-03-30T17:00:21.407" UserId="39" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="Since you’re asking about **reduplicated perfect** (and not **reduplicated present**, as in bibo &lt; *pi-ph3-e or sero &lt; si-sh1-e, Weiss 2009: 405), I will try to address perfect formation only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the problems is that **synchronically we may not see all cases of reduplicated perfect in Classical Latin**. However, by drawing on data from Old Latin and other Indo-European languages (especially from [Greek][1], [Sanskrit][2] or [Anatolian languages][3]), we may discover more interesting cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, Baldi mentions that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“Vowel weakening and the accompanying syncope have caused many Latin verbs with inherited PIE reduplication to lose the vowel of the reduplicated syllable” (p. 378).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Tronskii 1960 (2003) argues that if a reduplicated form had more than three syllables, the extra syllable was syncopated (para 624):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - compound verbs: rettuli (*retetuli), reppuli (*repepuli), reccidi&#xD;&#xA;   (*rececidi), repperi (*repeperi) etc.&#xD;&#xA; - cecidi but: occidi (*ob-cecidi), concidi (*con-cecidi);&#xD;&#xA; - tetigi but: contigi;&#xD;&#xA; - spopondi but: respondi;&#xD;&#xA; - tetuli but: abstuli (*abs-tetuli), attuli, sustuli etc.;&#xD;&#xA; - dedi or condidi but: abscondi;&#xD;&#xA; - converti (*conveverti);&#xD;&#xA; - incidi (*in-cecaidi) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tronski also mentions that *tetuli* was ousted by *tuli*, *scicidi* by *scidi*, *tetendi* by *tendi* etc. He also talks about some verbs that changed their perfect formation type because of syncope, e.g. *tetini* and *continui* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baldi also discusses Mester 1994, who examined the distribution of the three most common perfect formations. Baldi sums up by saying that perfect formation can be determined by prosodic, analogical, morphological and frequency factors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009 writes that &quot;verbs of second conjugation have u-perfect if the stem is light, but some other formation (s-perfect, **reduplicated perfects**) **if the stem is heavy**&quot; (p. 413).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;doceo - docui&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;augeo - auxi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mordeo - momordi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He mentions a number of exceptions to this rule, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if you really need **a list of most common verbs that have reduplicated perfect**, here's one, from Borovskii and Boldyrev 1975 - by no means exhaustive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**First conjugation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;do – dedi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - circumdo – circumdedi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sto – steti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - praesto – praestiti&#xD;&#xA; - obsto – obstiti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Second conjugation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mordeo – momordi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pendeo – pependi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;spondeo – spopondi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - respondeo – respondi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tondeo – totondi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - detondeo – detondi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Third conjugation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cado – cecidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - occido – occidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;caedo – cecidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - occido – occidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pendo – pependi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - impendo – impendi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tendo – tetendi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - attendo – attendi&#xD;&#xA; - ostendo – ostendi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;credo – credidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vendo – vendidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;perdo – perdidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;addo – addidi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - condo – condidi&#xD;&#xA; - abscondo – abscondi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;parco – peperci (parsi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;fallo – fefelli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - refello – refelli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cano – cecini&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;curro – cucurri (cf. Old Latin cecurri)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - accurro – accurri (accucurri)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;posco – poposci&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tundo – tutudi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - contundo – contudi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tango – tetigi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - attingo – attigi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pango – pepigi (pegi, panxi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pungo – pupugi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - interpungo – interpunxi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pello – pepuli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - expello – expuli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;disco – didici&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sisto&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; – (stiti)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sisto&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; – steti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - circumsisto – circumsteti&#xD;&#xA; - obsisto – obstiti&#xD;&#xA; - subsisto&#xD;&#xA; - desisto&#xD;&#xA; - resisto&#xD;&#xA; - existo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Third conjugation (io):**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pario – peperi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Fourth conjugation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;comperio – comperi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;reperio - repperi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/reduplication-COM_000021?s.num&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405184236_chunk_g9781405184236121&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://gradworks.umi.com/37/06/3706190.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="647" RevisionGUID="5abfc191-2487-404d-b884-da5956473a6f" CreationDate="2016-03-30T20:14:12.137" UserId="79" Text="I have been taught that 'th' and 'ch' were pronounced just like 't' and 'c' in classical Latin, with no aspiration.&#xD;&#xA;The answer to [this earlier question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/637/79) confirms that 't' and 'c' had indeed little or no aspiration.&#xD;&#xA;But did 'th' and 'ch' really lack aspiration as well?&#xD;&#xA;Was there any distinction between 't' and 'th' or 'c' and 'ch'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The combinations 'th' and 'ch' mostly appear in Greek loan words, but for example *pulcher* is &amp;mdash; as far as I know &amp;mdash; not a Greek loan.&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding Greek letters &amp;theta; and &amp;chi; were aspirated, and I have understood that aspiration was a way of showing of high education, not a widespread feature in Latin pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some rare cases aspiration is called for, like in [Catullus' poem to Harrius](http://thelatinlibrary.com/catullus.shtml#84).&#xD;&#xA;There one needs strong aspiration to make a difference between *commoda* and *chommoda*.&#xD;&#xA;Rare examples like this do not necessarily imply that every occurrence of 'ch' and 'th' is aspirated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2293" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="647" RevisionGUID="5abfc191-2487-404d-b884-da5956473a6f" CreationDate="2016-03-30T20:14:12.137" UserId="79" Text="Were 'th' and 'ch' aspirated in classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2294" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="647" RevisionGUID="5abfc191-2487-404d-b884-da5956473a6f" CreationDate="2016-03-30T20:14:12.137" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="648" RevisionGUID="7ec886b1-7600-4966-888f-c745410595b6" CreationDate="2016-03-30T21:00:44.283" UserId="12" Text="W. Sydney Allen, not unexpectedly, has the answer in [*Vox Latina*, 26–27](https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA26):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The digraphs *ph*, *th*, *ch* represented aspirated voiceless plosives—not&#xD;&#xA;unlike the initial sounds of *pot*, *top*, *cot* respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They *were* indeed aspirated, and this is due to Greek influence.  They were not found in the oldest inscriptions (*p*, *t*, and *c* sufficed), and initially, beginning in the 2nd century, appeared only in Greek loan words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They are then used, and become standard, primarily in transcribing Greek names and loan-words containing aspirated plosives (φ, θ, χ), e.g., *Philippus, philtrum, Corinthus, cithara, thesaurus, Achaea, bacchanal, machina, chorus*; and in such cases it is likely that educated Roman speakers in fact reproduced the Greek aspirates with more or less fidelity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it wasn't long until native Latin words, like *pulcher*, began using them.  Other examples include *lachrima*, *sepulchrum*, and *triumphus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero discusses an actual pronunciation change taking place during his time in [*Orat.* 48.160](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.%20Orat.%2048.160&amp;lang=original); he accepts the new pronunciation of *pulcher* but not of *sepulchrum*.  Allen argues that the shift was not merely &quot;fashionable misapplication of Greek speech-habits,&quot; but that it was a &quot;natural environmental development in Latin itself&quot; that began using the introduced diagraphs to mark aspiration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen concludes that *ph*, *th*, and *ch* were certainly more aspirated than *p*, *t*, and *c*, and reminds readers that they were not fricatives (i.e., *photo*, *thick*, *loch*) in classical Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2296" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="647" RevisionGUID="ad5c6c0f-f6d9-4f83-9b95-8e5f709f9050" CreationDate="2016-03-30T21:02:56.190" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|consonants|aspiration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="648" RevisionGUID="6e14e445-b594-4911-b137-fc73bfaf3442" CreationDate="2016-03-30T21:12:44.477" UserId="12" Comment="minor typo that makes a big difference!" Text="W. Sydney Allen, not unexpectedly, has the answer in [*Vox Latina*, 26–27](https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA26):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The digraphs *ph*, *th*, *ch* represented aspirated voiceless plosives—not&#xD;&#xA;unlike the initial sounds of *pot*, *top*, *cot* respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They *were* indeed aspirated, and this is due to Greek influence.  They were not found in the oldest inscriptions (*p*, *t*, and *c* sufficed), and initially, beginning in the 2nd century BC, appeared only in Greek loan words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They are then used, and become standard, primarily in transcribing Greek names and loan-words containing aspirated plosives (φ, θ, χ), e.g., *Philippus, philtrum, Corinthus, cithara, thesaurus, Achaea, bacchanal, machina, chorus*; and in such cases it is likely that educated Roman speakers in fact reproduced the Greek aspirates with more or less fidelity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it wasn't long until native Latin words, like *pulcher*, began using them.  Other examples include *lachrima*, *sepulchrum*, and *triumphus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero discusses an actual pronunciation change taking place during his time in [*Orat.* 48.160](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.%20Orat.%2048.160&amp;lang=original); he accepts the new pronunciation of *pulcher* but not of *sepulchrum*.  Allen argues that the shift was not merely &quot;fashionable misapplication of Greek speech-habits,&quot; but that it was a &quot;natural environmental development in Latin itself&quot; that began using the introduced diagraphs to mark aspiration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen concludes that *ph*, *th*, and *ch* were certainly more aspirated than *p*, *t*, and *c*, and reminds readers that they were not fricatives (i.e., *photo*, *thick*, *loch*) in classical Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="646" RevisionGUID="bca8d4a1-72bf-4cc1-93b9-c7d3e0265502" CreationDate="2016-03-30T21:28:36.937" UserId="12" Comment="links to cross-post answer" Text="&lt;sup&gt;I've also answered [the cross-posted version of this question on the Christianity Stack Exchange](http://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/47860/21576).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During papal coronations, these words are spoken to the pope while a cloth is burned in front of him.  [Janos M. Bak interprets](https://books.google.com/books?id=m6nsnzLRPlIC&amp;pg=PA187):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pater sancte, sic transit gloria mundi* [...] is supposed to remind the pontiff of the temporality of even his power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that vein, though your literal translation is on track, perhaps a more idiomatic rendering would be &quot;worldly glories are fleeting.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a common biblical theme (see my [parallel answer](http://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/47860/21576) and passages like [James 1:9–11](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+1&amp;version=ESV) and [4:14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+4%3A14&amp;version=ESV)), but the statement is not a direct biblical quote.  Still, its language is reminiscent of the Vulgate's in several places, particularly Matthew 4:8 and 1 John 2:17.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, Matthew 4:8, where Satan tempts Christ by showing him the kingdoms of the world:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iterum adsumit eum diabolus in montem excelsum valde et ostendit ei omnia **regna mundi et gloriam eorum** ([Vulgate](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthaeus+4:8&amp;version=VULGATE))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. ([ESV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4%3A8&amp;version=ESV))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And 1 John 2:17:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **et mundus transit** et concupiscentia eius qui autem facit voluntatem Dei manet in aeternum ([Vulgate](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A17&amp;version=VULGATE))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. ([ESV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A17&amp;version=ESV))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reliance on the Vulgate, of course, makes sense, given its ubiquity in the medieval and early modern church.  If Thomas à Kempis is the originator (*o quam cito transit gloria mundi*), or even if he isn't, it's natural that this phrase, given its Christian context, would correspond in some ways to biblical language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="649" RevisionGUID="9bdc3954-0da3-40ea-8374-b92bed879d1a" CreationDate="2016-03-31T11:44:16.273" UserId="79" Text="I learned from Nathaniel's answer to [my previous question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/647/79) that 'ch', 'th' and 'ph' were aspirated voiceless stops in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Many contemporary speakers of Latin &amp;mdash; judging by my experience &amp;mdash; pronounce 'ph' as /f/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When did 'ph' turn into a fricative?&#xD;&#xA;How do we know when this happened?&#xD;&#xA;Was this change a regional thing or did it occur simultaneously in different places?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been told that a similar development happened to the Greek &amp;phi;.&#xD;&#xA;Were these changes in Greek and Latin connected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If this feels like too many questions, let me know and I can split it up.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2300" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="649" RevisionGUID="9bdc3954-0da3-40ea-8374-b92bed879d1a" CreationDate="2016-03-31T11:44:16.273" UserId="79" Text="When did 'ph' start to be pronounced like 'f'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2301" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="649" RevisionGUID="9bdc3954-0da3-40ea-8374-b92bed879d1a" CreationDate="2016-03-31T11:44:16.273" UserId="79" Text="|pronunciation|language-evolution|consonants|aspiration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="650" RevisionGUID="23f106a6-9b21-4eef-8d76-1d9c2c730d4c" CreationDate="2016-03-31T13:01:12.273" UserId="78" Text="Again, this comes from *Vox Graeca* or Sihler's *New Comparative Grammar*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest inscription we have of a Greek phi transliterated as a Latin 'F' comes from Pompeii in the first century CE, where the name Daphne was inscribed on a wall as *Dafne*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might not have been monolithic, but from Jewish catacombs in the first-third centuries CE and in second century grammarians have rules on when to transliterate phi as F and when as PH. This is also evidence that the Latin followed Greek speakers in making PH a fricative, as Clackson and Horrocks (2007: p. 75) note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where there was still contact with Greek speakers, the spoken language adopted the change of ph, etc. to fricatives, which had taken place in spoken Greek&#xD;&#xA;at the beginning of the Christian era." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="650" RevisionGUID="90e53f05-a4eb-4020-85ae-a1ec20a2a5d6" CreationDate="2016-03-31T13:08:05.017" UserId="78" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="Again, this comes from *Vox Graeca* or Sihler's *New Comparative Grammar*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest inscription we have of a Greek phi transliterated as a Latin 'F' comes from Pompeii in the first century CE, where the name Daphne was inscribed on a wall as *Dafne*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might not have been monolithic, but Jewish catacombs in the first-third centuries CE transliterate PH as F and second century grammarians have rules on when to transliterate phi as F and when as PH. This latter tidbit is evidence that the Latin followed Greek speakers in making PH a fricative, as Clackson and Horrocks (2007: p. 75) note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where there was still contact with Greek speakers, the spoken language adopted the change of ph, etc. to fricatives, which had taken place in spoken Greek&#xD;&#xA;at the beginning of the Christian era." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="650" RevisionGUID="50fbcd8a-871c-44e1-9def-4c62f14ecb05" CreationDate="2016-03-31T13:14:00.507" UserId="12" Comment="link relevant page in Vox Graeca" Text="Again, this comes from [*Vox Graeca*](https://books.google.com/books?id=5i89AAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA21) or Sihler's *New Comparative Grammar*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest inscription we have of a Greek phi transliterated as a Latin 'F' comes from Pompeii in the first century CE, where the name Daphne was inscribed on a wall as *Dafne*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might not have been monolithic, but Jewish catacombs in the first-third centuries CE transliterate PH as F and second century grammarians have rules on when to transliterate phi as F and when as PH. This latter tidbit is evidence that the Latin followed Greek speakers in making PH a fricative, as Clackson and Horrocks (2007: p. 75) note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where there was still contact with Greek speakers, the spoken language adopted the change of ph, etc. to fricatives, which had taken place in spoken Greek&#xD;&#xA;at the beginning of the Christian era." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2305" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="649" RevisionGUID="d00496e7-e850-4164-b6fb-76d7389a54a0" CreationDate="2016-03-31T13:14:54.503" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags" Text="|pronunciation|language-evolution|greek|consonants|aspiration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="650" RevisionGUID="e20d64dc-44b1-4138-a2ee-7e8ed74645c9" CreationDate="2016-03-31T14:03:11.633" UserId="12" Comment="I believe that's page 275, not 75" Text="Again, this comes from [*Vox Graeca*](https://books.google.com/books?id=5i89AAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA21) or Sihler's *New Comparative Grammar*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest inscription we have of a Greek phi transliterated as a Latin 'F' comes from Pompeii in the first century CE, where the name Daphne was inscribed on a wall as *Dafne*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might not have been monolithic, but Jewish catacombs in the first-third centuries CE transliterate PH as F and second century grammarians have rules on when to transliterate phi as F and when as PH. This latter tidbit is evidence that the Latin followed Greek speakers in making PH a fricative, as Clackson and Horrocks (2007: p. 275) note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where there was still contact with Greek speakers, the spoken language adopted the change of *ph*, etc. to fricatives, which had taken place in spoken Greek&#xD;&#xA;at the beginning of the Christian era." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="650" RevisionGUID="6b4cba75-3dfa-4112-a4a4-3dd17e262b11" CreationDate="2016-03-31T14:27:40.860" UserId="78" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="It's impossible to pinpoint an exact date, but there is evidence. As usualy, [*Vox Graeca*](https://books.google.com/books?id=5i89AAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA21) or Sihler's *New Comparative Grammar* is where to look.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest inscription we have of a Greek phi transliterated as a Latin 'F' comes from Pompeii in the first century CE, where the name Daphne was inscribed on a wall as *Dafne*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might not have been monolithic, but Jewish catacombs in the first-third centuries CE transliterate PH as F and second century grammarians have rules on when to transliterate phi as F and when as PH. This latter tidbit is evidence that the Latin followed Greek speakers in making PH a fricative, as Clackson and Horrocks (2007: p. 275) note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where there was still contact with Greek speakers, the spoken language adopted the change of *ph*, etc. to fricatives, which had taken place in spoken Greek&#xD;&#xA;at the beginning of the Christian era." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="650" RevisionGUID="82478640-ce02-481b-9706-7169fab15d2b" CreationDate="2016-03-31T14:46:27.110" UserId="78" Comment="added 567 characters in body" Text="It's impossible to pinpoint an exact date, but there is evidence. As usualy, [*Vox Graeca*](https://books.google.com/books?id=5i89AAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA21) or Sihler's *New Comparative Grammar* is where to look.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest inscription we have of a Greek phi transliterated as a Latin 'F' comes from Pompeii in the first century CE, where the name Daphne was inscribed on a wall as *Dafne*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might not have been monolithic, but Jewish catacombs in the first-third centuries CE transliterate PH as F and second century grammarians have rules on when to transliterate phi as F and when as PH. This latter tidbit is evidence that the Latin followed Greek speakers in making PH a fricative, as Clackson and Horrocks (2007: p. 275) note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where there was still contact with Greek speakers, the spoken language adopted the change of *ph*, etc. to fricatives, which had taken place in spoken Greek&#xD;&#xA;at the beginning of the Christian era.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PH as a fricative in Latin appears to be fairly uniform as early as the second century. J. N. Adams [notes](https://books.google.com/books?id=AMc1WQAnRTkC) this receipt from Egypt dated to c. 150 CE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Idem cosulubus aeadem diem Domitius Theophilus scrisi me in ueditionem puellae Marmariae supra scriptae pro Aescine Aescine philium Flauianum secumdum auctorem exstitise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the spelling of *filium* as *philium*. This would indicate that here in Egypt in the middle of the second century there is no difference in Latin in the pronunciation of PH and F." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="650" RevisionGUID="686777c2-bf97-4c9d-8c72-aa559928d61e" CreationDate="2016-03-31T15:01:54.357" UserId="78" Comment="added 567 characters in body" Text="It's impossible to pinpoint an exact date, but there is evidence. As usualy, [*Vox Graeca*](https://books.google.com/books?id=5i89AAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA21) or Sihler's *New Comparative Grammar* is where to look.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest inscription we have of a Greek phi transliterated as a Latin 'F' comes from Pompeii in the first century CE, where the name Daphne was inscribed on a wall as *Dafne*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might not have been monolithic, but Jewish catacombs in the first-third centuries CE transliterate PH as F and second century grammarians have rules on when to transliterate phi as F and when as PH. This latter tidbit is evidence that the Latin followed Greek speakers in making PH a fricative, as Clackson and Horrocks (2007: p. 275) note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where there was still contact with Greek speakers, the spoken language adopted the change of *ph*, etc. to fricatives, which had taken place in spoken Greek&#xD;&#xA;at the beginning of the Christian era.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PH as a fricative in Latin appears to be fairly uniform as early as the second century. J. N. Adams [notes](https://books.google.com/books?id=AMc1WQAnRTkC) this receipt from Egypt dated to c. 150 CE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Idem cosulubus aeadem diem Domitius Theophilus scrisi me in ueditionem puellae Marmariae supra scriptae pro Aescine Aescine philium Flauianum secumdum auctorem exstitise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the spelling of *filium* as *philium*. This would indicate that here in Egypt in the middle of the second century there is no difference in Latin in the pronunciation of PH and F. Interestingly about Egypt, though, is that apparently the shift never fully happened there. Coptic retained the aspirated plosives. Gignac (*A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, Vol. I: Phonology*, 1976) argues that in Egypt phi and chi remained as they were pronounced in Classical Greek. Horrocks (*Greek*, 2009) doubts this was ever universal, though it was widespread by the fourth century." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="652" RevisionGUID="7e50b005-0796-4f4a-8895-b75f9f0a16e8" CreationDate="2016-03-31T22:56:01.810" UserId="235" Text="I'm translating the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pluto, qui de Hercule famam acceperat, eum benigne excepit &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Fabulae Faciles)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I chose to translate it as &quot;Pluto, who had heard stories about Hercules, received him kindly&quot;. But I realize this is a loose translation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more literal translation would be, &quot;Pluto, who had heard of the reputation concerning Hercules, received him with kindness&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I assume that the phrase &quot;famam acceperat&quot; is repeated a lot in Latin literature, I'm curious, what are some popular ways of translating it?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2315" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="652" RevisionGUID="7e50b005-0796-4f4a-8895-b75f9f0a16e8" CreationDate="2016-03-31T22:56:01.810" UserId="235" Text="What's the best way to translate &quot;de Hercule famam acceperat&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2316" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="652" RevisionGUID="7e50b005-0796-4f4a-8895-b75f9f0a16e8" CreationDate="2016-03-31T22:56:01.810" UserId="235" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="653" RevisionGUID="3d4ad85c-33d8-4cc5-89a7-a2afeffbc5f7" CreationDate="2016-04-01T00:07:21.267" UserId="337" Text="In the introduction to the original, English version of *Leviathan*, Thomas Hobbes says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... there is another saying not of late understood, by which they&#xD;&#xA;&gt; might learn truly to read one another, if they would take the pains;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and that is, ***Nosce Teipsum [sic], Read Thy Self***: which was not meant, as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it is now used, to countenance, either the barbarous state of men in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; power, towards their inferiors; or to encourage men of low degree, to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a sawcie behaviour towards their betters; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But *nosce* is not usually translated as *read* but *know*. It's Greek counterpart in the original phrase meant &quot;know&quot; too. Could this have been a reasonable translation at one point in time? Is it a valid but uncommon translation today? Is he just bad at Latin (I'm in no position to judge), or deliberately stretching the definition to make his point? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone clarify this for me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2318" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="653" RevisionGUID="3d4ad85c-33d8-4cc5-89a7-a2afeffbc5f7" CreationDate="2016-04-01T00:07:21.267" UserId="337" Text="Is Thomas Hobbes' translation of &quot;nosce te ispum&quot; as &quot;read thyself&quot; valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2319" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="653" RevisionGUID="3d4ad85c-33d8-4cc5-89a7-a2afeffbc5f7" CreationDate="2016-04-01T00:07:21.267" UserId="337" Text="|translation|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="654" RevisionGUID="a2116673-2b4e-4247-bdaa-a22e3fa49de9" CreationDate="2016-04-01T00:39:34.857" UserId="30" Text="First I must object to this horrible story. My abduction by Hercules was illegal, and I am still angry at Pluto for it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I think your translation &quot;heard stories about&quot; is fine, although &quot;stories&quot; sometimes suggests something a bit more exciting or adventurous than *fama* does: it may be an account of something or someone, a story, or someone's reputation. Depending on context, &quot;stories&quot; may fit. &quot;Who had heard about Hercules's reputation&quot; is also fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression is indeed used by classical authors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vespasianus in Italiam resque urbis intentus **adversam de Domitiano famam accipit**, tamquam terminos aetatis et concessa filio egrederetur... (Tacitus, *Historiae* IV.51)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Church &amp; Brodribb (1873)][1] translate this as &quot;heard an unfavourable account of Domitianus&quot;, which I think is a very good translation. In your case, &quot;had heard of Hercules&quot; is possible, although the context seems to suggest something a bit stronger and more favourable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0079%3Abook%3D4%3Achapter%3D51" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="654" RevisionGUID="fc8334b7-d447-4b50-b358-da13a793cbac" CreationDate="2016-04-01T00:54:12.990" UserId="30" Comment="added 748 characters in body" Text="First I must object to this horrible story. My abduction to your overworld by Hercules was illegal, and I am still angry at Pluto for it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I think your translation &quot;heard stories about&quot; is fine, although &quot;stories&quot; sometimes suggests something a bit more exciting or adventurous than *fama* does: it may be an account of something or someone, a story, or someone's reputation. Depending on context, &quot;stories&quot; may fit. &quot;Who had heard about Hercules's reputation&quot; is also fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression is indeed used by classical authors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vespasianus in Italiam resque urbis intentus **adversam de Domitiano famam accipit**, tamquam terminos aetatis et concessa filio egrederetur... (Tacitus, *Historiae* IV.51)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Church &amp; Brodribb (1873)][1] translate this as &quot;heard an unfavourable account of Domitianus&quot;, which I think is a very good translation. In your case, &quot;had heard of Hercules&quot; is possible, although the context seems to suggest something a bit stronger and more favourable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  nam Romae neuter animi habitus satis dici enarrarique potest, nec [habitus animi] quo incerta exspectatione euentus ciuitas fuerat nec [habitus animi] quo **uictoriae famam accepit**. (Livius, *Ab Urbe Condita* XXVII.50.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roberts (1912) translates this as &quot;the enthusiasm which the report of the victory aroused&quot;. Translated a bit more literally would be &quot;the state of mind in which they received the report of the victory&quot;. This is a bit different from Tacitus and from your story, in which it is about merely hearing news: Livius is describing *accipere* as a kind of action, as listening to a message and reacting to it, together comprising *accepit*. &quot;Hear a report&quot; or &quot;receive a report&quot; are good basic translations in such a context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0079%3Abook%3D4%3Achapter%3D51" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="655" RevisionGUID="6f787fa1-49d6-4596-963e-ed1eb44d0066" CreationDate="2016-04-01T01:14:32.180" UserId="30" Text="It is a bit odd that Hobbes should translate *nosce* as &quot;know&quot;. However, it becomes clear from the context that by &quot;read&quot; he means roughly the same as &quot;know&quot;, i.e. &quot;understand&quot;. So I think it is reasonable enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What remains to be explained is why he chose &quot;read&quot;. Perhaps he did so because the expression &quot;read someone&quot; as in &quot;understand someone's character&quot; was already in common use? Reading the passage in Leviathan gives me the impression that this was indeed the case. So it is a variation on that expression: if you want to read other people (sc. understand their characters), you must first read yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="655" RevisionGUID="805d8665-febe-4ea0-b4ca-976c2cda192b" CreationDate="2016-04-01T01:25:14.610" UserId="337" Comment="typo (I assume)" Text="It is a bit odd that Hobbes should translate *nosce* as &quot;read&quot;. However, it becomes clear from the context that by &quot;read&quot; he means roughly the same as &quot;know&quot;, i.e. &quot;understand&quot;. So I think it is reasonable enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What remains to be explained is why he chose &quot;read&quot;. Perhaps he did so because the expression &quot;read someone&quot; as in &quot;understand someone's character&quot; was already in common use? Reading the passage in Leviathan gives me the impression that this was indeed the case. So it is a variation on that expression: if you want to read other people (sc. understand their characters), you must first read yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2324" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="655" RevisionGUID="805d8665-febe-4ea0-b4ca-976c2cda192b" CreationDate="2016-04-01T01:25:14.610" Comment="Proposed by 337 approved by 30 edit id of 103" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="654" RevisionGUID="c4d6b8f4-5d6b-4402-a372-22cdadc2dff5" CreationDate="2016-04-01T01:31:27.190" UserId="30" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="First I must object to this horrible story. My abduction to your overworld by Hercules was illegal, and I am still angry at Pluto for it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I think your translation &quot;heard stories about&quot; is fine, although &quot;stories&quot; sometimes suggests something a bit more exciting or adventurous than *fama* does: it may be an account of something or someone, a story, or someone's reputation. Depending on context, &quot;stories&quot; may fit. &quot;Who had heard about Hercules's reputation&quot; is also fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression is indeed used by classical authors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vespasianus in Italiam resque urbis intentus **adversam de Domitiano famam accipit**, tamquam terminos aetatis et concessa filio egrederetur... (Tacitus, *Historiae* IV.51)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Church &amp; Brodribb (1873)][1] translate this as &quot;heard an unfavourable account of Domitianus&quot;, which I think is a very good translation. In your case, &quot;had heard of Hercules&quot; is possible, although the context seems to suggest something a bit stronger and more favourable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  nam Romae neuter animi habitus satis dici enarrarique potest, nec [habitus animi] quo incerta exspectatione euentus ciuitas fuerat nec [habitus animi] quo **uictoriae famam accepit**. (Livius, *Ab Urbe Condita* XXVII.50.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roberts (1912) translates this as &quot;the enthusiasm which the report of the victory aroused&quot;. Translated a bit more literally, it would be &quot;the state of mind in which they received the report of the victory&quot;. This is a bit different from Tacitus and from your story, in which it is about merely hearing news: Livius is describing *accipere* as a kind of action, as listening to a message and reacting to it, together comprising *accepit*. &quot;Hear a report&quot; or &quot;receive a report&quot; are good basic translations in such a context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0079%3Abook%3D4%3Achapter%3D51" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="652" RevisionGUID="508d7d6e-1f04-4331-aca0-a0a38dc56375" CreationDate="2016-04-01T02:07:32.197" UserId="12" Comment="added 53 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm translating the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pluto, qui de Hercule famam acceperat, eum benigne excepit &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ([*Fabulae Faciles*, 53](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/ritchie.html))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I chose to translate it as &quot;Pluto, who had heard stories about Hercules, received him kindly&quot;. But I realize this is a loose translation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more literal translation would be, &quot;Pluto, who had heard of the reputation concerning Hercules, received him with kindness&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I assume that the phrase &quot;famam acceperat&quot; is repeated a lot in Latin literature, I'm curious, what are some popular ways of translating it?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2327" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="652" RevisionGUID="508d7d6e-1f04-4331-aca0-a0a38dc56375" CreationDate="2016-04-01T02:07:32.197" UserId="12" Comment="added 53 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="656" RevisionGUID="e4125068-2408-4c74-9d86-05718dea6ff1" CreationDate="2016-04-01T03:46:19.827" UserId="68" Text="As @Cerberus says, it's an unusual but valid translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think, however, it becomes clearer when one adds the beginning of the paragraph, so that it reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is a saying much usurped of late, That Wisedome is acquired, not by reading of Books, but of Men. Consequently whereunto, those persons, that for the most part can give no other proof of being wise, take great delight to shew what they think they have read in men, by uncharitable censures of one another behind their backs. But there is another saying not of late understood, by which they might learn truly to read one another, if they would take the pains; and that is, Nosce Teipsum, Read Thy Self: which was not meant, as it is now used, to countenance, either the barbarous state of men in power, towards their inferiors; or to encourage men of low degree, to a sawcie behaviour towards their betters; But to teach us, that for the similitude of the thoughts, and Passions of one man, to the thoughts, and Passions of another, whosoever looketh into himselfe, and considereth what he doth, when he does Think, Opine, Reason, Hope, Feare, &amp;c, and upon what grounds; he shall thereby read and know, what are the thoughts, and Passions of all other men, upon the like occasions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, he's contrasting reading *oneself* to reading *books*. People who read books may think themselves wise and put themselves forward as such, but to be truly wise one must read oneself. So I suspect that he chose &quot;read&quot; simply because the contrast between &quot;reading books&quot; and &quot;knowing thyself&quot; isn't nearly as striking as the contrast between &quot;reading books&quot; and &quot;reading thyself.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words: the choice of &quot;read&quot; as the translation was rhetorical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I find interesting is the claim that *nosce te ipsum* was used &quot;to countenance, either the barbarous state of men in power, towards their inferiors; or to encourage men of low degree, to a sawcie behaviour towards their betters.&quot; I'm trying to figure out how that shift occurred and what the phrase meant in that usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="649" RevisionGUID="244874ec-9182-41fc-8765-30aef1f2eeb4" CreationDate="2016-04-01T07:54:12.467" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="I learned from Nathaniel's answer to [my previous question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/647/79) that 'ch', 'th' and 'ph' were aspirated voiceless stops in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;In my experience many contemporary speakers of Latin pronounce 'ph' as /f/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When did 'ph' turn into a fricative?&#xD;&#xA;How do we know when this happened?&#xD;&#xA;Was this change a regional thing or did it occur simultaneously in different places?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been told that a similar development happened to the Greek &amp;phi;.&#xD;&#xA;Were these changes in Greek and Latin connected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;(If this feels like too many questions, let me know and I can split it up.)&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="657" RevisionGUID="af53a55f-c706-438b-b04b-365f7e203e84" CreationDate="2016-04-01T08:03:43.427" UserId="338" Text="Both the Greek &quot;gnothi&quot; and Latin &quot;nosce&quot; indicate a process. I always struggle with the translation &quot;know&quot; because it's actually better to say &quot;get to know / recognize yourself&quot; as this is not likely something you will ever be finished with. So &quot;read&quot; is quite fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="656" RevisionGUID="0b4cfb22-fbc4-4aab-a118-74541aff0eda" CreationDate="2016-04-01T12:57:30.620" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="As @Cerberus says, it's an unusual but valid translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think, however, it becomes clearer when one adds the beginning of the paragraph, so that it reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is a saying much usurped of late, That Wisedome is acquired, not by reading of Books, but of Men. Consequently whereunto, those persons, that for the most part can give no other proof of being wise, take great delight to shew what they think they have read in men, by uncharitable censures of one another behind their backs. But there is another saying not of late understood, by which they might learn truly to read one another, if they would take the pains; and that is, Nosce Teipsum, Read Thy Self: which was not meant, as it is now used, to countenance, either the barbarous state of men in power, towards their inferiors; or to encourage men of low degree, to a sawcie behaviour towards their betters; But to teach us, that for the similitude of the thoughts, and Passions of one man, to the thoughts, and Passions of another, whosoever looketh into himselfe, and considereth what he doth, when he does Think, Opine, Reason, Hope, Feare, &amp;c, and upon what grounds; he shall thereby read and know, what are the thoughts, and Passions of all other men, upon the like occasions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, he's contrasting reading *oneself* to reading *books*. People who read books may think themselves wise and put themselves forward as such, but to be truly wise one must read oneself. So I suspect that he chose &quot;read&quot; simply because the contrast between &quot;reading books&quot; and &quot;knowing thyself&quot; isn't nearly as striking as the contrast between &quot;reading books&quot; and &quot;reading thyself.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is to say, the choice of &quot;read&quot; as the translation was rhetorical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I find interesting is the claim that *nosce te ipsum* was used &quot;to countenance, either the barbarous state of men in power, towards their inferiors; or to encourage men of low degree, to a sawcie behaviour towards their betters.&quot; I'm trying to figure out how that shift occurred and what the phrase meant in that usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="658" RevisionGUID="841b6802-4efd-4bc6-bf1b-7e99735a9faa" CreationDate="2016-04-01T15:32:35.200" UserId="293" Text="A few parts to this question but they're only short!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are all three of these valid spellings and have I listed them in the chronological order they would have been used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. DVCITIS&#xD;&#xA; 2. DUCITIS&#xD;&#xA; 3. DŪCITIS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the C have been pronounced with a hard 'K', or a 'CH'? Anyone happen to know the official International Phonetic Alphabet spelling for this word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2334" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="658" RevisionGUID="841b6802-4efd-4bc6-bf1b-7e99735a9faa" CreationDate="2016-04-01T15:32:35.200" UserId="293" Text="DVCITIS, DUCITIS, DŪCITIS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2335" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="658" RevisionGUID="841b6802-4efd-4bc6-bf1b-7e99735a9faa" CreationDate="2016-04-01T15:32:35.200" UserId="293" Text="|vocabulary|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="658" RevisionGUID="0a221f63-48ac-4bca-b83f-1efa7ced2305" CreationDate="2016-04-01T15:57:14.747" UserId="293" Comment="deleted 57 characters in body" Text="Are all three of these valid spellings and have I listed them in the chronological order they would have been used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. DVCITIS&#xD;&#xA; 2. DUCITIS&#xD;&#xA; 3. DŪCITIS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the C have been pronounced with a hard 'K', or a 'CH'? Anyone happen to know the official International Phonetic Alphabet spelling for this word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2337" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="486" RevisionGUID="faba86c8-acf0-4cfd-8332-d0bd7caa2c52" CreationDate="2016-04-01T17:07:16.380" UserId="12" Comment="5" />
  <row Id="2338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="657" RevisionGUID="f842ee6c-3f5e-4288-9a21-a6d253913a7b" CreationDate="2016-04-01T17:25:19.233" UserId="12" Comment="incorporate source" Text="Both the Greek &quot;gnothi&quot; and Latin &quot;nosce&quot; indicate a process; see [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=nosco), point I: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from the root gno; Gr. γιγνώσκω, to begin to know, *to get a knowledge of, become acquainted with, come to know a thing* (syn.: scio, calleo).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always struggle with the translation &quot;know&quot; because it's actually better to say &quot;get to know / recognize yourself&quot; as this is not likely something you will ever be finished with. So &quot;read&quot; is quite fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="659" RevisionGUID="1fb07464-de36-47f5-a899-208d55757a2f" CreationDate="2016-04-01T18:49:41.197" UserId="68" Text="Yes, the spelling DVCITIS was absolutely valid in the Roman Republic and early Empire. The introduction of the letter U allowed people to mark the difference between the sound used as a consonant (sounding like our letter w) and the sound used as a vowel (sounding like our oo). I don't know when folks started using U, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, there are different approaches to spelling Latin today, too. I prefer to alternate between v/u and j/i for consonantal/vocalic sounds. Church Latinists tend to do this as well. Most other folks seem to be to alternate v/u for consonantal/vocalic V but to use i for consonantal and vocalic I. I've encountered a number of texts printed in the last several, however, that use only U and I for both consonantal and vocalic sounds; I'll admit to finding this a little annoying to read, but it could be that I'm used to alternating V/U.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the time of Cicero, Cæsar, and their compatriots, yes, the C would have been pronounced like K. The change to a CH sound occurred some time between 300 and 700 BCE; you can read more about it and the other phonological changes from classical to medieval Latin [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/156-classical-vs-ecclesiastical-latin-part-1.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="659" RevisionGUID="391a2b2c-280e-4b15-93e3-3a7300cf2163" CreationDate="2016-04-01T18:55:28.073" UserId="68" Comment="added 1097 characters in body" Text="Yes, the spelling DVCITIS was absolutely valid in the Roman Republic and early Empire. The introduction of the letter U allowed people to mark the difference between the sound used as a consonant (sounding like our letter w) and the sound used as a vowel (sounding like our oo). I don't know when folks started using U, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, there are different approaches to spelling Latin today, too. I prefer to alternate between v/u and j/i for consonantal/vocalic sounds. Church Latinists tend to do this as well. Most other folks seem to be to alternate v/u for consonantal/vocalic V but to use i for consonantal and vocalic I. I've encountered a number of texts printed in the last several, however, that use only U and I for both consonantal and vocalic sounds; I'll admit to finding this a little annoying to read, but it could be that I'm used to alternating V/U.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the time of Cicero, Cæsar, and their compatriots, yes, the C would have been pronounced like K. The change to a CH sound occurred some time between 300 and 700 BCE; you can read more about it and the other phonological changes from classical to medieval Latin [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The addition of the macron to the U in later years isn't really a spelling change; it's more a visual aide to let readers less familiar with the vocabulary know what vowels are long. So in classical Rome, you might for example find graffiti that read DVVCITIS, doubling the length of the vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Romans did on occasion mark long vowels, but they did it differently, with what we think of today as the French *accent aigu*; you can read [this meta post][2] for a more detailed discussion. However, they usually did this only to mark vowels that, if left unmarked, might cause the words to mean different things (for example, the word *anus* means both &quot;anus&quot; and &quot;old woman,&quot; so if there was any risk of confusion you might want to avoid it by marking the vowel). However, the use of apices isn't widespread these days, and if this is meant for a general audience I'd advise against it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd say you should go with either *DVCITIS* or *DUCITIS*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/156-classical-vs-ecclesiastical-latin-part-1.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/questions/93/should-we-standardize-macrons-for-long-vowels-or-allow-users-to-mark-long-vowels" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="660" RevisionGUID="f2bc5759-b053-4492-bb08-888a93f701ed" CreationDate="2016-04-01T19:15:17.860" UserId="79" Text="All three are valid, and I would recommend 1 or 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between 2 and 3 is the macron, the bar above the vowel U.&#xD;&#xA;The macron is used to indicate a long vowel, and it is an auxiliary mark.&#xD;&#xA;Such auxiliary symbols are often used in textbooks, dictionaries and such places where the reader is not assumed to be familiar with the word in advance and is expected to learn the correct length.&#xD;&#xA;However, if you want to write a more ceremonial text (like the title of an art project), I would consider it slightly bad style to include a macron.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to guide the reader &amp;mdash; who is assumed to know the basics of pronouncing Latin &amp;mdash; to read the title out loud, option 3 is good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letters U and V can be used to denote the same vowel.&#xD;&#xA;These two symbols were not distinguished in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore options 1 and 2 are essentially equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;At the time when U and V were the same thing, mainly upper case letters were used.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would prefer any of &quot;DVCITIS&quot;, &quot;DUCITIS&quot; and &quot;ducitis&quot; to &quot;dvcitis&quot;, but this is partly a matter of taste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would actually consider it ok to write a V with a macron as well, although it is less common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In classical Latin the letter 'c' is indeed pronounced like 'k'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="659" RevisionGUID="4a2becce-e02a-449a-8f66-f6f874d851dd" CreationDate="2016-04-01T19:23:55.743" UserId="68" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Yes, the spelling DVCITIS was absolutely valid in the Roman Republic and early Empire. The introduction of the letter U allowed people to mark the difference between the sound used as a consonant (sounding like our letter w) and the sound used as a vowel (sounding like our oo). I don't know when folks started using U, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, there are different approaches to spelling Latin today, too. I prefer to alternate between v/u and j/i for consonantal/vocalic sounds. Church Latinists tend to do this as well. Most other folks seem to be to alternate v/u for consonantal/vocalic V but to use i for consonantal and vocalic I. I've encountered a number of texts printed in the last several years, however, that use only U and I for both consonantal and vocalic sounds; I'll admit to finding this a little annoying to read, but it could be that I'm used to alternating V/U.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the time of Cicero, Cæsar, and their compatriots, yes, the C would have been pronounced like K. The change to a CH sound occurred some time between 300 and 700 CE; you can read more about it and the other phonological changes from classical to medieval Latin [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The addition of the macron to the U in later years isn't really a spelling change; it's more a visual aide to let readers less familiar with the vocabulary know what vowels are long. So in classical Rome, you might for example find graffiti that read DVVCITIS, doubling the length of the vowel. No one who actually spoke Latin as a native tongue would require macrons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Romans did on occasion mark long vowels, but they did it differently, with what we think of today as the French *accent aigu*; you can read [this meta post][2] for a more detailed discussion. However, they usually did this only to mark vowels that, if left unmarked, might cause the words to mean different things (for example, the word *anus* means both &quot;anus&quot; and &quot;old woman,&quot; so if there was any risk of confusion you might want to avoid it by marking the vowel). However, the use of apices isn't widespread these days, and if this is meant for a general audience I'd advise against it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd say you should go with either *DVCITIS* or *DUCITIS*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/156-classical-vs-ecclesiastical-latin-part-1.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/questions/93/should-we-standardize-macrons-for-long-vowels-or-allow-users-to-mark-long-vowels" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="661" RevisionGUID="0f52ac73-3a36-4dae-ae4a-8ed868fd099d" CreationDate="2016-04-01T21:26:11.157" UserId="203" Text="I am just restarting my schoolgirl Latin, but have already become fascinated with its links to Greek. According to *Wheelock*, whom I have absolutely **no** right to question, both Latin and Greek are *independently* descended from PIE, with no direct input from Greek into Latin until the Hellenistic period. However, it goes on to say:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Today we are in the habit of distinguishing the Roman alphabet from the Greek , but the fact is that the Romans learned to write from the Etruscans, who in turn had learned to write from Greek colonists who had settled in the vicinity of Naples during the 8th century BC. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is early Latin epigraphy written in Greek letters, (and boustrephedon) and I cannot escape the suspicion, *pace* the experts, that even early Latin owes more to Greek than mere common ancestry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have I **completely** missed the point? I'm prepared for the answer &quot;Yes!&quot;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2344" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="661" RevisionGUID="0f52ac73-3a36-4dae-ae4a-8ed868fd099d" CreationDate="2016-04-01T21:26:11.157" UserId="203" Text="Relationship between early Latin and Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2345" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="661" RevisionGUID="0f52ac73-3a36-4dae-ae4a-8ed868fd099d" CreationDate="2016-04-01T21:26:11.157" UserId="203" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="658" RevisionGUID="bb9d24aa-1b1d-41cb-8437-daa9f6fdd271" CreationDate="2016-04-01T21:33:42.413" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and a word." Text="Are all three of these valid spellings and have I listed them in the chronological order they would have been used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. DVCITIS&#xD;&#xA; 2. DUCITIS&#xD;&#xA; 3. DŪCITIS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the C have been pronounced with a hard 'K', or a 'CH'? Does anyone happen to know the official International Phonetic Alphabet spelling for this word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2347" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="658" RevisionGUID="bb9d24aa-1b1d-41cb-8437-daa9f6fdd271" CreationDate="2016-04-01T21:33:42.413" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and a word." Text="|vocabulary|pronunciation|alphabet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="662" RevisionGUID="bef4e841-d2f8-4ed9-bb52-99171fa63dd6" CreationDate="2016-04-01T21:36:10.877" UserId="79" Text="Do not confuse relations of languages to relations of writing systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both Latin and Greek descended from PIE in oral form, prior to the introduction of (a preserved and widely used) writing system.&#xD;&#xA;Latin indeed borrowed its writing system from the Greek via the Etruscans, but this says nothing about the relation of the languages involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By analogy, consider the situation in today's world.&#xD;&#xA;Many languages around the world are written with variants of the Latin alphabet although many have no relation whatsoever to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted, though, that heavy cultural exchange led to words (and structures to some extent) being loaned between Greek and Latin.&#xD;&#xA;This brought the languages slightly closer together, but writing in both languages was established before this really happened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="660" RevisionGUID="01a9245d-6e96-44cc-8428-cfc202e4ca91" CreationDate="2016-04-01T21:37:49.550" UserId="79" Comment="added 303 characters in body" Text="All three are valid, and I would recommend 1 or 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between 2 and 3 is the macron, the bar above the vowel U.&#xD;&#xA;The macron is used to indicate a long vowel, and it is an auxiliary mark.&#xD;&#xA;Such auxiliary symbols are often used in textbooks, dictionaries and such places where the reader is not assumed to be familiar with the word in advance and is expected to learn the correct length.&#xD;&#xA;However, if you want to write a more ceremonial text (like the title of an art project), I would consider it slightly bad style to include a macron.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to guide the reader &amp;mdash; who is assumed to know the basics of pronouncing Latin &amp;mdash; to read the title out loud, option 3 is good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letters U and V can be used to denote the same vowel.&#xD;&#xA;These two symbols were not distinguished in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore options 1 and 2 are essentially equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;At the time when U and V were the same thing, mainly upper case letters were used.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would prefer any of &quot;DVCITIS&quot;, &quot;DUCITIS&quot; and &quot;ducitis&quot; to &quot;dvcitis&quot;, but this is partly a matter of taste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would actually consider it ok to write a V with a macron as well, although it is less common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In classical Latin the letter 'c' is indeed pronounced like 'k'.&#xD;&#xA;Maybe someone can provide you with a good guess of the classical pronunciation in IPA.&#xD;&#xA;I am not familiar enough with the alphabet to provide one.&#xD;&#xA;There is not going to be an official one, since Latin is pronounced differently in different countries and all ancient Roman officials are believed dead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="661" RevisionGUID="79a16a67-2221-417e-9cdd-683c995a1925" CreationDate="2016-04-01T21:38:41.193" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="I am just restarting my schoolgirl Latin, but have already become fascinated with its links to Greek. According to *Wheelock*, whom I have absolutely **no** right to question, both Latin and Greek are *independently* descended from PIE, with no direct input from Greek into Latin until the Hellenistic period. However, it goes on to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Today we are in the habit of distinguishing the Roman alphabet from the Greek , but the fact is that the Romans learned to write from the Etruscans, who in turn had learned to write from Greek colonists who had settled in the vicinity of Naples during the 8th century BC. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is early Latin epigraphy written in Greek letters, (and boustrephedon) and I cannot escape the suspicion, *pace* the experts, that even early Latin owes more to Greek than mere common ancestry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have I **completely** missed the point? I'm prepared for the answer &quot;Yes!&quot;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2351" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="661" RevisionGUID="79a16a67-2221-417e-9cdd-683c995a1925" CreationDate="2016-04-01T21:38:41.193" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|language-evolution|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="662" RevisionGUID="750fcae2-f8d4-45ce-beba-50a1a0d4027f" CreationDate="2016-04-01T21:42:59.990" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Do not confuse relations of languages with relations of writing systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both Latin and Greek descended from PIE in oral form, prior to the introduction of (a preserved and widely used) writing system.&#xD;&#xA;Latin indeed borrowed its writing system from the Greek via the Etruscans, but this says nothing about the relation of the languages involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By analogy, consider the situation in today's world.&#xD;&#xA;Many languages around the world are written with variants of the Latin alphabet although many have no relation whatsoever to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted, though, that heavy cultural exchange led to words (and structures to some extent) being loaned between Greek and Latin.&#xD;&#xA;This brought the languages slightly closer together, but writing in both languages was established before this really happened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="662" RevisionGUID="8e2954e0-e533-4be0-91ac-85819de8884e" CreationDate="2016-04-01T21:48:04.730" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Do not confuse relations of languages with relations of writing systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both Latin and Greek descended from PIE in oral form, prior to the introduction of (a preserved and widely used) writing system.&#xD;&#xA;Latin indeed borrowed its writing system from the Greek via the Etruscans, but this tells nothing about the relation of the languages involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By analogy, consider the situation in today's world.&#xD;&#xA;Many languages around the world are written with variants of the Latin alphabet although many have no relation whatsoever to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted, though, that heavy cultural exchange led to words (and structures to some extent) being loaned between Greek and Latin.&#xD;&#xA;This brought the languages slightly closer together, but writing in both languages was established before this really happened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="663" RevisionGUID="c113bc14-f6d9-4d11-bb6e-ec615cc85857" CreationDate="2016-04-01T22:21:51.190" UserId="39" Text="I'd like to add some interesting data I found in Weiss 2009. He mentioned Purnelle 1995, *Les usages des graveurs dans la notation d'upsilon et des phonèmes aspirés: Le cas des anthroponymes grecs dans les inscriptions latines de Rome*. Liège: diff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from the title, Gérald Purnelle studied how Greek proper nouns were transliterated in Roman inscriptions. I made a diagram to better present his findings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BiLYK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="664" RevisionGUID="5c76f2bb-2d1a-4d95-a5bb-4ddc3e7690e8" CreationDate="2016-04-01T22:53:11.717" UserId="12" Text="Latin and Greek share a common ancestor, [Proto-Indo-European](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language), which scholars believe was spoken in the 4th millennium BC or earlier, and then began diverging into separate languages by 3500 BC.   Many PIE children have been identified:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Anatolian&#xD;&#xA; - Proto-Greek&#xD;&#xA; - Indo-Iranian&#xD;&#xA; - Italic&#xD;&#xA; - Celtic&#xD;&#xA; - Germanic&#xD;&#xA; - ... and others&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Linguists can reconstruct PIE with some precision based on the common features of its child (and grandchild) languages.  Then, by examining how each individual language diverges from the &quot;standard&quot; or &quot;original&quot; PIE language, the languages can be categorized and their development traced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The search for &quot;relatives&quot; of Latin has gone on for a long time, and Greek has often been proposed.  However, modern scholarship does not see a close connection between the two.  Clackson and Horrocks write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The IE language groups which we know to have been spoken adjacent to the Latin speech area in historic times are Germanic, Celtic and Greek. In the nineteenth century scholars grouped Latin closest to Greek and Celtic. [...] It later became apparent that the features shared by Latin and Greek reflected common inheritances from the parent language, lost in other IE languages, rather than new developments, and were thus not significant for their relationship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, most of the original similarities between Latin and Ancient Greek are due to them having the same ancestor, centuries prior, and not due to &quot;borrowing&quot; occurring between them.  In fact, if we must select the closest relative to Latin, it would not be Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin shares more features with Celtic than any other IE language branch outside Italy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For much more on the story of this development, see Clackson and Horrocks, *The Blackwell History of the Latin Language* (2007), chapters 1 and 2." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="665" RevisionGUID="6cd1fffb-9439-4ec8-af4c-74b0d7e352ed" CreationDate="2016-04-02T00:16:45.683" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[incarceration (n.)](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=incarceration&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)       &#xD;&#xA;    &quot;fact of being imprisoned,&quot; 1530s, from Medieval Latin *incarcerationem* (nominative *incarceratio*), noun of action from past participle stem of *incarcerare* &quot;to imprison,&quot; from *in-* &quot;in&quot; (see [in-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=in-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (2)) + carcer &quot;prison, an enclosed space,&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;from Proto-Italic _*kar-kr(o)-_, of uncertain origin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;It seems best to connect *carcer* with other IE words for 'circle, round object', such as [Latin] *curvus*, [Greek] *κιρκος* 'ring', [Old Norse] *hringr*, although not all of these have a good IE etymology. The reduplication in Latin *carcer* could be **iconic**; thus, the original meaning would have been 'enclosure'. [de Vaan] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does 'iconic' mean or refer to here? I researched [the OED](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/90882?redirectedFrom=iconic#eid) but remain confused. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2357" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="665" RevisionGUID="6cd1fffb-9439-4ec8-af4c-74b0d7e352ed" CreationDate="2016-04-02T00:16:45.683" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What does 'iconic' mean in the context of the reduplication in Latin 'carcer'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2358" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="665" RevisionGUID="6cd1fffb-9439-4ec8-af4c-74b0d7e352ed" CreationDate="2016-04-02T00:16:45.683" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="666" RevisionGUID="7af430f9-320f-4271-8b30-a248e8e68f4e" CreationDate="2016-04-02T03:56:57.480" UserId="68" Text="It's been a long time since I did any linguistics, but *iconic* features are said to be features in which (my paraphrase) form supports function. In other words, if somebody was late to come and meet me and I said, &quot;It sure took you a long time to get here!&quot; and extended the vowel in &quot;long&quot; so that it took a long time, that would be iconic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example of iconic use would be the fact that in the series &quot;high, higher, highest,&quot; the further in the series you go, the higher the number of [phonemes][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The poetic device [onomatopoeia][2] is a specific form of iconic language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what the passage you quoted is saying is that *carcer* could have started out as *cur* or some variant, meaning something circular, and then the syllable was doubled to represent something VERY circular—a prison that enclosed a person entirely, a circle that didn't let anybody out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself find this a little fuzzy, but it's certainly possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't think of any iconic reduplication in English, but if you read the work of Sharon Inkelas, linguistics professor at UC Berkeley ([this][3] for example) you may find something (and you'll certainly find her referring to it in other languages).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneme&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopoeia&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~inkelas/Papers/2013HandbookOfDerivationInkelas.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="666" RevisionGUID="b25eef72-80ed-4cc4-8e51-540b56443307" CreationDate="2016-04-02T13:56:42.337" UserId="68" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="It's been a long time since I did any linguistics, but *iconic* features are said to be features in which (my paraphrase) form supports function. In other words, if somebody was late to come and meet me and I said, &quot;It sure took you a long time to get here!&quot; and extended the vowel in &quot;long&quot; so that it took a long time, that would be iconic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example of iconic use would be the fact that in the series &quot;high, higher, highest,&quot; the further in the series you go, the higher the number of [phonemes][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The poetic device [onomatopoeia][2] is a specific form of iconic language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what the passage you quoted is saying is that *carcer* could have started out as *cur* or *cir* or *cer* or the like, meaning something circular, and then the syllable was doubled to represent something VERY circular—a prison that enclosed a person entirely, a circle that didn't let anybody out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself find this a little fuzzy, but it's certainly possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't think of any iconic reduplication in English, but if you read the work of Sharon Inkelas, linguistics professor at UC Berkeley ([this][3] for example) you may find something (and you'll certainly find her referring to it in other languages).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneme&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopoeia&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~inkelas/Papers/2013HandbookOfDerivationInkelas.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="659" RevisionGUID="bbad3986-0f80-402a-9546-6268d1174bc5" CreationDate="2016-04-02T15:59:24.700" UserId="68" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Yes, the spelling DVCITIS was absolutely valid in the Roman Republic and early Empire. The introduction of the letter U allowed people to mark the difference between the sound used as a consonant (sounding like our letter w) and the sound used as a vowel (sounding like our oo). I don't know when folks started using U, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, there are different approaches to spelling Latin today, too. I prefer to alternate between v/u and j/i for consonantal/vocalic sounds. Church Latinists tend to do this as well. Most other folks seem to be to alternate v/u for consonantal/vocalic V but to use i for consonantal and vocalic I. I've encountered a number of texts printed in the last several years, however, that use only U and I for both consonantal and vocalic sounds; I'll admit to finding this a little annoying to read, but it could be that I'm used to alternating V/U.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the time of Cicero, Cæsar, and their compatriots, yes, the C would have been pronounced like K. The change to a CH sound occurred some time between 300 and 700 CE; you can read more about it and the other phonological changes from classical to medieval Latin [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The addition of the macron to the U in later years isn't really a spelling change; it's more a visual aide to let readers less familiar with the vocabulary know what vowels are long. So in classical Rome, you might for example find misspelled graffiti that read DVVCITIS, doubling the length of the vowel. No one who actually spoke Latin as a native tongue would require macrons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Romans did on occasion mark long vowels, but they did it differently, with what we think of today as the French *accent aigu*; you can read [this meta post][2] for a more detailed discussion. However, they usually did this only to mark vowels that, if left unmarked, might cause the words to mean different things (for example, the word *anus* means both &quot;anus&quot; and &quot;old woman,&quot; so if there was any risk of confusion you might want to avoid it by marking the vowel). However, the use of apices isn't widespread these days, and if this is meant for a general audience I'd advise against it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd say you should go with either *DVCITIS* or *DUCITIS*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/156-classical-vs-ecclesiastical-latin-part-1.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/questions/93/should-we-standardize-macrons-for-long-vowels-or-allow-users-to-mark-long-vowels" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="667" RevisionGUID="ae71c604-3a3d-47d1-bbe6-7727e6669569" CreationDate="2016-04-02T19:52:25.783" UserId="144" Text="Did the Romans ever develop any form of cryptography, where either words were replaced with other words or letters were replaced with other letters? Do we have any remaining examples, and if so have we translated them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2363" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="667" RevisionGUID="ae71c604-3a3d-47d1-bbe6-7727e6669569" CreationDate="2016-04-02T19:52:25.783" UserId="144" Text="Latin Cryptography?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2364" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="667" RevisionGUID="ae71c604-3a3d-47d1-bbe6-7727e6669569" CreationDate="2016-04-02T19:52:25.783" UserId="144" Text="|history|roman-culture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2365" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="667" RevisionGUID="e16a886e-88ce-4419-80b2-54ee0ab4a0b1" CreationDate="2016-04-02T21:00:33.627" UserId="12" Comment="edited title" Text="Did ancient Romans develop cryptography for Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="668" RevisionGUID="ed109146-3bd1-431e-af0f-6eaf872533bd" CreationDate="2016-04-02T21:06:30.583" UserId="78" Text="Yes. We know that Caesar was famous for using cipher, which is still named for him:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Some letters of his to the senate are also preserved, and he seems to have been the first to reduce such documents to pages and the form of a note-book, whereas previously consuls and generals sent their reports written right across the sheet. There are also letters of his to Cicero, as well as to his intimates on private affairs, and in the latter, if he had anything confidential to say, he wrote it in cipher, that is, by so changing the order of the letters of the alphabet, that not a word could be made out. If anyone wishes to decipher these, and get at their meaning, he must substitute the fourth letter of the alphabet, namely D, for A, and so with the others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Suet. *Div. Jul.* 56.6&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2367" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="653" RevisionGUID="4128a075-2aa0-45d7-bb40-e75c13fe4fd7" CreationDate="2016-04-02T22:13:52.040" UserId="225" Comment="fixed typo in title" Text="Is Thomas Hobbes' translation of &quot;nosce te ipsum&quot; as &quot;read thyself&quot; valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2368" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="653" RevisionGUID="4128a075-2aa0-45d7-bb40-e75c13fe4fd7" CreationDate="2016-04-02T22:13:52.040" Comment="Proposed by 225 approved by 12, 78 edit id of 104" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="669" RevisionGUID="afee281b-b292-4cb4-bed1-0589d6ddfdcc" CreationDate="2016-04-03T05:54:58.227" UserId="343" Text="This question is a beginner's confusion about sentences of the form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [subject_noun] [object_noun] est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    E.g. Bob agricola est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my understanding, both the subject and object are declined in the nominative. Hence I am wondering how the ambiguity is resolved with a sentence such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Crimen mater necessitatis est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I understand to mean &quot;crime is the mother of necessity&quot;, although I believe it can equally be parsed as &quot;[a] mother is [a] crime of necessity&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone explain how to differentiate the two?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2370" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="669" RevisionGUID="afee281b-b292-4cb4-bed1-0589d6ddfdcc" CreationDate="2016-04-03T05:54:58.227" UserId="343" Text="2 nominative nouns in sentence; what order resolves ambiguity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2371" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="669" RevisionGUID="afee281b-b292-4cb4-bed1-0589d6ddfdcc" CreationDate="2016-04-03T05:54:58.227" UserId="343" Text="|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="670" RevisionGUID="fa9fb211-f0fa-49d4-bdfd-2344de22e366" CreationDate="2016-04-03T07:42:28.417" UserId="79" Text="The direct object of an active sentence is typically in accusative, an indirect one in dative.&#xD;&#xA;An object in an active sentence is never nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *esse* (to be) is active but does not take an object.&#xD;&#xA;When you say that something is something, *aliquid aliquid est*, both nouns are in nominative.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Marcus dux est.* (Marcus is the leader.)&#xD;&#xA;- *Giraffa alta est.* (The giraffe is tall.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word order is relatively free, so such sentences could be interpreted the other way as well.&#xD;&#xA;However, context tells which way it goes, and this is especially clear with adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;It makes sense to say &quot;The leader is Marcus.&quot; but &quot;The tall is giraffe.&quot; (or however you would phrase this weird statement in English) does not mean much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;necessity&quot; in your sentence is declined in genitive: *necessitatis*.&#xD;&#xA;The words *crimen* and *mater* are in nominative (although the accusative of *crimen* looks the same).&#xD;&#xA;This leaves two possible translations as you suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Crime is the mother of necessity.&#xD;&#xA;- Mother is the crime of necessity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word order suggests the first translation, and so does context.&#xD;&#xA;The ambiguity between these two remains, but it is not a serious source of confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is typical &amp;mdash; although not at all necessary &amp;mdash; that the word in genitive is next to the word it describes.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore it is more likely that *necessitatis* describes *mater* (mother of necessity) than *crimen* (crime of necessity).&#xD;&#xA;But the ultimate reason to pick one translation is context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="669" RevisionGUID="ad15511b-e0e3-419a-befc-3e4f586d7357" CreationDate="2016-04-03T07:50:46.837" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags and reformatted a bit." Text="This question is a beginner's confusion about sentences of the form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [subject_noun] [object_noun] est.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; E.g. Bob agricola est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my understanding, both the subject and object are declined in the nominative. Hence I am wondering how the ambiguity is resolved with a sentence such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Crimen mater necessitatis est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I understand to mean &quot;crime is the mother of necessity&quot;, although I believe it can equally be parsed as &quot;[a] mother is [a] crime of necessity&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone explain how to differentiate the two?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2374" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="669" RevisionGUID="ad15511b-e0e3-419a-befc-3e4f586d7357" CreationDate="2016-04-03T07:50:46.837" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags and reformatted a bit." Text="|declension|syntax|ambiguity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="672" RevisionGUID="22aa248f-6e07-435b-9de5-331e626f9dee" CreationDate="2016-04-03T16:39:29.047" UserId="39" Text="[Spivak 2010][1] writes that the most frequent pattern is **Subject Predicative.Noun sum** (in Cicero, it's 57%), as opposed to **Predicative.Noun Subject sum** (3%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since other orderings are possible (see the table below), and there is no special way to mark the difference between the subject and predicative noun in Latin, context helps us parse such sentences correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Spivak2010][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: A&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; stands for &quot;subject.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027288516&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZEdBU.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="672" RevisionGUID="c9403af1-006f-4a7f-98db-e1685790802c" CreationDate="2016-04-03T16:44:33.483" UserId="39" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="[Spivak 2010][1] writes that the most frequent pattern is **Subject Predicative.Noun sum** (in Cicero, it's 57%), as opposed to **Predicative.Noun Subject sum** (3%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since other orderings are possible (see the table below), and there is no special way to mark the difference between the subject and predicative noun in Latin (both are in Nominativus), context helps us parse such sentences correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Spivak2010][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: A&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; stands for &quot;subject.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027288516&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZEdBU.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2382" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="669" RevisionGUID="dd62450e-9aaf-41b6-979e-86046c47da1e" CreationDate="2016-04-04T01:42:29.613" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="What word order resolves the ambiguity of two nominative nouns in a sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2383" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="669" RevisionGUID="dd62450e-9aaf-41b6-979e-86046c47da1e" CreationDate="2016-04-04T01:42:29.613" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|declension|syntax|ambiguity|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="673" RevisionGUID="a3063711-4169-4493-94d3-65b45a7cc8d1" CreationDate="2016-04-04T12:40:15.560" UserId="324" Text="I am not able to say “when” exactly Caesar’s De bello Gallico became the first book foisted onto juvenile learners of Latin, but I suspect it was not long ago. In the 19th century and the first part of the 20th Caesar was certainly at the top of the Latin curriculum, and Xenophon’s Anabasis was the first book on the Greek syllabus. It is surely no coincidence that both of these books are all about war and conquest. Today I think most learners of classical languages find Caesar and Xenophon much less interesting than Horace, Catullus, Ovid, Homer, Plato or Sophocles. Tastes change." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="672" RevisionGUID="c9e713f1-bf54-4e9c-a876-5d6c0f13b595" CreationDate="2016-04-04T14:33:09.930" UserId="39" Comment="edited body" Text="[Spevak 2010][1] writes that the most frequent pattern is **Subject Predicative.Noun sum** (in Cicero, it's 57%), as opposed to **Predicative.Noun Subject sum** (3%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since other orderings are possible (see the table below), and there is no special way to mark the difference between the subject and predicative noun in Latin (both are in Nominativus), context helps us parse such sentences correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Spivak2010][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: A&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; stands for &quot;subject.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027288516&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZEdBU.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="674" RevisionGUID="b6fa6fe8-0dd4-4a13-8fa6-e64158ffb793" CreationDate="2016-04-04T17:50:31.277" UserId="20" Text="I am uncertain of the _earliest_, but Jefferson often wrote to younger men he mentored that it should be included in their personal reading lists (see for example [a letter to Peter Carr][1]), so presumably at least as early as the later half of the 18th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl61.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="674" RevisionGUID="3631f3e8-fa99-4622-baf1-9467ea9075e1" CreationDate="2016-04-04T21:27:49.127" UserId="20" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I am uncertain of the _earliest_, but Thomas Jefferson often wrote to younger men he mentored that it should be included in their personal reading lists (see for example [a letter to Peter Carr][1]), so presumably at least as early as the later half of the 18th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl61.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="675" RevisionGUID="7039ea47-a18a-4a3f-872f-b661e1420630" CreationDate="2016-04-05T02:36:29.817" UserId="30" Text="Normally, substantive nouns of the 3rd declension get an -e in the ablative (*patre*), and adjectives of the 3rd get an -i (*audaci*). This is already odd: normally, substantives and adjectives, both being nouns, are declined in the exact same way, as in the other declensions (bono servo, bonā servā). How did this difference come about? Was there one original ending, or two?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To complicates matters, sometimes adjectives end on -e, such as participles (*deo volente*) and comparatives (*priore muliere*). And sometimes substantives end on -i (*a mari, de turri*). Is there a specific phonological law behind these exceptions, or is it all just chaos?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2391" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="675" RevisionGUID="7039ea47-a18a-4a3f-872f-b661e1420630" CreationDate="2016-04-05T02:36:29.817" UserId="30" Text="Why do ablatives of the 3rd declension sometimes end on -e, at other times on -i?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2392" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="675" RevisionGUID="7039ea47-a18a-4a3f-872f-b661e1420630" CreationDate="2016-04-05T02:36:29.817" UserId="30" Text="|ablative|third-declension|ending|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="672" RevisionGUID="ef1e4809-aae5-4c38-8e4d-55dbfa02b7f4" CreationDate="2016-04-05T03:13:49.980" UserId="39" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="[Spevak 2010][1] writes that the most frequent pattern is **Subject Predicative.Noun sum** (in Cicero, it's 57%), as opposed to **Predicative.Noun Subject sum** (3%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since other orderings are possible (see the table below), and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;there is no special way to mark the difference between the subject and predicative noun in Latin (both are in Nominativus), **context helps us parse such sentences correctly**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Spivak2010][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: A&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; stands for &quot;subject.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027288516&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZEdBU.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="676" RevisionGUID="b9f82f33-e00a-4f07-8266-27aac7398a56" CreationDate="2016-04-05T05:06:23.697" UserId="40" Text="(This answer is based on Weiss's *Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin* and Clackson and Horrocks's *Blackwell History of the Latin Language*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thing to know about these two ablative endings, -e and -ī, is that neither of them is descended from the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) ablative ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-e comes most probably from the PIE locative ending, *-i, which became -e by regular sound change. (Another possibility is that it comes from the PIE instrumental ending, *-eh₁.) The functions of case endings often change or merge over time, so it's not too uncommon to see one case turn into another in this way. Importantly, this was the ending used for words whose stem ended in a consonant, a.k.a. consonant-stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The origin of -ī is more complicated, as it doesn't directly come form any PIE case ending; instead, it arose by analogy. Second-declension nouns, as you know, have an ablative in -ō; this comes from an earlier ending -ōd (which is preserved in early inscriptions). On the basis of this -ōd ending, Latin (actually Italic, as this also happened in the Sabellic languages) innovated other ablative endings ending in a long vowel plus -d: first-declension nouns, whose stem ends in -a, got an ablative in -ād (which also later lost its -d); nouns with a stem in -u got an ablative in -ūd (ditto); and i-stems got an ablative in -īd, which later became -ī.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So at this point, consonant-stem words have an ablative in -e, while i-stem words have an ablative in -ī. Now the &quot;third declension&quot; is really a combination of the consonant-stem and i-stem classes, and for the most part, nouns like *turris* whose ablative is -ī are historically i-stems, while nouns like *pater* whose ablative ends in-e are historically consonant-stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, things did not remain that neat, for the simple reason that as a speaker, it's often hard to tell whether a word is an i-stem or a consonant-stem (since most of the cases look the same), so there was a certain amount of slippage between the two groups: some words that historically &quot;should&quot; have had -ī got -e instead and vice versa, and some words occur with both endings. Specifically, since the class of i-stem adjectives happened to be a large one, things were somewhat regularized to the extent that all adjectives came to be declined as i-stems (though not in the comparative, which is historically a consonant-stem form). However, as you point out, there was never anything like a full rationalization of the system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="677" RevisionGUID="e8c4a0be-b011-4d6e-95af-4e01152b609c" CreationDate="2016-04-05T16:43:22.393" UserId="320" Text="The forms of _nōs_ and _vōs_ exhibit a pattern, except in the genitive (_n**ō**strī/um_, _v**e**strī/um_) and the possessive (_n**o**ster_, _v**e**ster_). Did _vōs_ originally resemble _nōs_ in all its forms, only to diverge later? If so, what caused the change, and why did _nōs_ remain the same while _vōs_ changed (or vice versa)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2396" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="677" RevisionGUID="e8c4a0be-b011-4d6e-95af-4e01152b609c" CreationDate="2016-04-05T16:43:22.393" UserId="320" Text="Why did vowels shorten in forms of 'vōs' but not 'nōs'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2397" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="677" RevisionGUID="e8c4a0be-b011-4d6e-95af-4e01152b609c" CreationDate="2016-04-05T16:43:22.393" UserId="320" Text="|pronunciation|language-evolution|pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="678" RevisionGUID="e658806c-ac26-46f1-9f89-27f0c9cd64e0" CreationDate="2016-04-05T19:42:12.290" UserId="79" Text="How can I express something like the following sentences in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Being a teacher is simple; it's a question of discipline.&#xD;&#xA;- I don't care if I win or not; it's all about surviving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can offer some translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Facile est magister esse; nullo opus est nisi disciplina.&#xD;&#xA;- Mea non interest an vincam necne; de pervivendo agitur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe these translations would be understood correctly, but I fear they might not be all that idiomatic to classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;**What would be a good idiomatic way to express things like this in classical Latin? Please provide a classical use example.**&#xD;&#xA;I prefer Caesar or Cicero if there is room for choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2399" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="678" RevisionGUID="e658806c-ac26-46f1-9f89-27f0c9cd64e0" CreationDate="2016-04-05T19:42:12.290" UserId="79" Text="How to say &quot;it's a question of&quot; or &quot;it's all about&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2400" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="678" RevisionGUID="e658806c-ac26-46f1-9f89-27f0c9cd64e0" CreationDate="2016-04-05T19:42:12.290" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="679" RevisionGUID="ab98e641-2181-4486-a270-03d6ef829108" CreationDate="2016-04-06T01:53:58.527" UserId="40" Text="Yes, the forms of *vōs* did originally resemble those of *nōs*. But there was a sound change in Latin whereby the sequence *vo* became *ve*; this is an example of [dissimilation][1]. Apparently this only occurred when the *o* was short, which is why it did not happen in the word *vōs* itself. Other examples are *adversum, veto*, which were originally *advorsum, voto*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss (*Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin*, p. 140) states that this change only took place when *ve* was followed by a dental, and that, based on inscriptional evidence, it occurred in the second century BC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissimilation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="680" RevisionGUID="55c4fc85-f6dc-4b0d-94f5-f1f681f5079e" CreationDate="2016-04-06T03:25:22.577" UserId="12" Text="In *Lingua Latin per se Illustrata I*, Orberg generally avoids [comma splices](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_splice), that is, he typically connects independent clauses in a single sentence with semicolons, dashes, or coordinating conjunctions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Collum Lȳdiae margarītīs pulchrīs ōrnātur; Lȳdia autem nūllum aliud ōrnāmentum habet (8.32)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aliae fēminae digitōs ānulōrum plēnōs habent—meī digitī vacuī sunt! (8.85)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mēdus est servus Iūliī, sed dominus eius Rōmae nōn est. (8.27)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, he sometimes uses a mere comma to connect such clauses in a way that would less than ideal to some English speakers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ānulus digitum Aemiliae ōrnat, margarītae collum eius ōrnant. (8.22)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some Romance languages, like French, I understand that comma splices like this would not be considered incorrect.  But a comma splice like this would be considered [borderline at best](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style/Rules#5._Do_not_join_independent_clauses_by_a_comma.) by some English grammars since at least the beginning of the 20th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this leads me to wonder if the &quot;rules&quot; for comma splices in Latin might be more lenient than they are in English.   Of course, a key tool for avoiding comma splices, the semicolon, wasn't even invented until the 15th century, so I doubt the Romans had an opinion on this (correct me if I'm wrong?).  Instead, let me ask this in two ways: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Generally, did Modern Latin (pre-1900) adopt a distinctive and at least somewhat internationally uniform approach to comma splices?  &#xD;&#xA; - Particularly, do any Modern Latin texts forbid connecting independent clauses with a mere comma?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2403" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="680" RevisionGUID="55c4fc85-f6dc-4b0d-94f5-f1f681f5079e" CreationDate="2016-04-06T03:25:22.577" UserId="12" Text="Were comma splices avoided in Modern Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2404" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="680" RevisionGUID="55c4fc85-f6dc-4b0d-94f5-f1f681f5079e" CreationDate="2016-04-06T03:25:22.577" UserId="12" Text="|new-latin|punctuation|clauses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="681" RevisionGUID="cdadd59d-93a5-4bc2-90b3-72269ce2588b" CreationDate="2016-04-06T04:37:05.550" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[ [Wiktionary :](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/adhuc) ]   **Etymology**    &#xD;&#xA;[ad](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad) &quot;*to*&quot; + [hūc](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/huc) &quot;*here*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Adverb   **adhūc**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. so far, thus far, hitherto, still    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. [2.1] again; [2.2] furthermore; [2.3] moreover; [2.4] besides *(used in scholastic debates to introduce an additional point in one's argument)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. [3.1] even as, [3.2] while still&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please pardon my laziness; I have not linked the English adverbs above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. How did Compounding of [ad](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad) &quot;*to*&quot; +  [hūc](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/huc) &quot;*here*&quot; produce the meanings in 2.1, 3.1, 3.2? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. If I erred, please also correct my conjectures of the semantic shift from *ad* + *hūc* to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: because I can imagine a Roman physically pointing to a specific interval or object or moment (which would be 'here' in his/her perspective), to describe everything that had occurred up to that point ('to here' in his/her perspective).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.2-2.4: because I can imagine two Roman arguers, one of whom points to an argument 'here' on some writing tool (e.g. wax tablet, piece of wood, papyrus), besides which the other adds another argument. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2406" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="681" RevisionGUID="cdadd59d-93a5-4bc2-90b3-72269ce2588b" CreationDate="2016-04-06T04:37:05.550" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How did 'ad' + 'hūc' compound to mean 'again, even as, while still'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2407" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="681" RevisionGUID="cdadd59d-93a5-4bc2-90b3-72269ce2588b" CreationDate="2016-04-06T04:37:05.550" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="680" RevisionGUID="740b336f-928a-4bea-a456-e11aec49ce56" CreationDate="2016-04-06T05:12:33.117" UserId="12" Comment="wording" Text="In *Lingua Latin per se Illustrata I*, Orberg generally avoids [comma splices](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_splice), that is, he typically connects independent clauses in a single sentence with semicolons, dashes, or coordinating conjunctions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Collum Lȳdiae margarītīs pulchrīs ōrnātur; Lȳdia autem nūllum aliud ōrnāmentum habet (8.32)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aliae fēminae digitōs ānulōrum plēnōs habent—meī digitī vacuī sunt! (8.85)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mēdus est servus Iūliī, sed dominus eius Rōmae nōn est. (8.27)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, he sometimes uses a mere comma to connect such clauses in a way that would be less than ideal to some English speakers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ānulus digitum Aemiliae ōrnat, margarītae collum eius ōrnant. (8.22)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some Romance languages, like French, I understand that comma splices are not generally considered incorrect.  But a comma splice like this would be considered [borderline at best](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style/Rules#5._Do_not_join_independent_clauses_by_a_comma.) by some English grammars since at least the beginning of the 20th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this leads me to wonder if the &quot;rules&quot; for comma splices in Latin might be more lenient than they are in English.   Of course, a key tool for avoiding comma splices, the semicolon, wasn't even invented until the 15th century, so I doubt the Romans had an opinion on this (correct me if I'm wrong?).  Instead, let me ask this in two ways: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Generally, did Modern Latin (pre-1900) adopt a distinctive and at least somewhat internationally uniform approach to comma splices?  &#xD;&#xA; - Particularly, do any Modern Latin texts forbid connecting independent clauses with a mere comma?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="682" RevisionGUID="327ca813-74c9-4e8d-8553-9941a2641817" CreationDate="2016-04-06T06:00:58.757" UserId="79" Text="If I wear a toga, I can say *toga me vestio/induo* or *toga vestior/induor* or I could use the adjective *togatus*.&#xD;&#xA;For normal clothing it is clear what it means when I say that I wear it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know, however, how to express wearing unusual clothing.&#xD;&#xA;Suppose I want to say: &quot;I wear boxes for shoes.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;In this case &quot;I wear boxes&quot; is not clear enough, since I could wear them in many ways.&#xD;&#xA;I could wear a shirt in many ways as well, but then not all ways would be equally weird.&#xD;&#xA;There is no canonical way to wear a box.&#xD;&#xA;I can come up with a couple of Latin translations for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Cistis pro calceis utor.*&#xD;&#xA;- *Cistis me induo sicut calceis.*&#xD;&#xA;- *Cistis me calceo.* (This is only applicable to clothes that have a related verb.)&#xD;&#xA;- I could use the attribute *cistis calceatus* in a clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Finnish and English there is a preferred way to express things like this, and other constructions sound weird although they would be understood.&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea what construction would be most natural for Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If I want to wear boxes for shoes and a tent for a shirt, how can I express it in Latin? Is there a structure for this kind of expression that I could always use?**&#xD;&#xA;The actual words (box, shoes, tent, shirt) are not that important; I am interested in the construction.&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer to see actual use examples, but I will be satisfied with any justified answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2410" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="682" RevisionGUID="327ca813-74c9-4e8d-8553-9941a2641817" CreationDate="2016-04-06T06:00:58.757" UserId="79" Text="How to wear unsual clothing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2411" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="682" RevisionGUID="327ca813-74c9-4e8d-8553-9941a2641817" CreationDate="2016-04-06T06:00:58.757" UserId="79" Text="|example-request|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="682" RevisionGUID="5b9fdb74-b10c-4c6a-a466-238be6d3da88" CreationDate="2016-04-06T13:40:28.357" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="If I wear a toga, I can say *toga me vestio/induo* or *toga vestior/induor* or I could use the adjective *togatus*.&#xD;&#xA;For normal clothing it is clear what it means when I say that I wear it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know, however, how to express wearing unusual clothing.&#xD;&#xA;Suppose I want to say: &quot;I wear boxes for shoes.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;In this case &quot;I wear boxes&quot; is not clear enough, since I could wear them in many ways.&#xD;&#xA;I could wear a shirt in many ways as well, but not all ways would be equally weird.&#xD;&#xA;There is no canonical way to wear a box.&#xD;&#xA;I can come up with a couple of Latin translations for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Cistis pro calceis utor.*&#xD;&#xA;- *Cistis me induo sicut calceis.*&#xD;&#xA;- *Cistis me calceo.* (This is only applicable to clothes that have a related verb.)&#xD;&#xA;- I could use the attribute *cistis calceatus* in a clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Finnish and English there is a preferred way to express things like this, and other constructions sound weird although they would be understood.&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea what construction would be most natural for Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If I want to wear boxes for shoes and a tent for a shirt, how can I express it in Latin? Is there a structure for this kind of expression that I could always use?**&#xD;&#xA;The actual words (box, shoes, tent, shirt) are not that important; I am interested in the construction.&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer to see actual use examples, but I will be satisfied with any justified answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2414" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="682" RevisionGUID="5b9fdb74-b10c-4c6a-a466-238be6d3da88" CreationDate="2016-04-06T13:40:28.357" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to wear unusual clothing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="683" RevisionGUID="6535a54f-9b7e-4055-b8ad-9a15df1fe363" CreationDate="2016-04-06T14:08:35.437" UserId="68" Text="My impulse would be to use the verb *usurpare*—that is to make use of something, to resort to using something, often instead of what is appropriate, either because what is appropriate is unavailable or because one is making (either knowingly or unknowingly) an unusual choice—along with *pro* or *ut*. Here are some uses I've seen (mostly in private correspondence, alas, and none classical):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plinius (Nat. 18,191) ‘sápó, Galliarum’ inquit ‘hocc inventum rutilandis capillis’ et idem testatur Martialis (14,27), sed nihil vetat quominus nunc temporis **usurpemus** etiam sensu moderno (soap / jabón).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et ‘manducáre’ significat to chew / masticar; tantum sermone vilissimo **usurpatur** ut to eat / comer (edere, comedere).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In hác sententiá ‘ederem’ male **usurpatum** est, nam id significaret petulantem istum puerum non sperare se pernam esse habiturum, quamquam pater dixerit ‘quid nón sit?’ potius quam ‘quid nón esset?’; melius ergo ‘libenter pernam edam’ (subj.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Male vero sententia 18 (et adn. 15) **usurpat** ‘lúx’ (quæ e Sole venit) pro ‘lúmen’ (ex ignibus ac lucernis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd probably say *Cistas ut calceos usurpo* or *Cistas pro calceis usurpo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a word with a more general meaning than &quot;wear,&quot; of course, but it quite specifically fits the situation you're talking about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2419" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="129" RevisionGUID="170eecdc-35e6-4fc1-9ac7-f441e75e567e" CreationDate="2016-04-06T20:06:03.673" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|verbs|passive-voice|object|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="684" RevisionGUID="f9dc2333-59f8-40bc-948b-9df516919c0c" CreationDate="2016-04-06T21:33:26.053" UserId="235" Text="I'm a little confused about a verse in Matthew 2 of the Vulgate Bible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Futurum est enim ut Herodes quærat puerum ad perdendum eum.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Matthew 2:13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Douay-Rheims translates this as, &quot;For it will come to pass that Herod will seek the child to destroy him.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how would you classify the verb phrase &quot;Futurum est&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it looks like perfect passive indicative, but that wouldn't fit the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though I know how Douay-Rheims translated it, I'm struggling to figure out the rules they used to arrive at their translation. I appreciate any help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2421" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="684" RevisionGUID="f9dc2333-59f8-40bc-948b-9df516919c0c" CreationDate="2016-04-06T21:33:26.053" UserId="235" Text="How do you parse &quot;Futurum est&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2422" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="684" RevisionGUID="f9dc2333-59f8-40bc-948b-9df516919c0c" CreationDate="2016-04-06T21:33:26.053" UserId="235" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="684" RevisionGUID="d781c208-0511-4f02-86fd-ad66102838b0" CreationDate="2016-04-06T22:20:29.967" UserId="12" Comment="+links and tag" Text="I'm a little confused about a verse in Matthew 2 of the Vulgate Bible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Futurum est enim ut Herodes quærat puerum ad perdendum eum.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ([Matthew 2:13](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+2%3A13&amp;version=VULGATE))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Douay-Rheims](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+2%3A13&amp;version=DRA) translates this as, &quot;For it will come to pass that Herod will seek the child to destroy him.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how would you classify the verb phrase &quot;Futurum est&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it looks like perfect passive indicative, but that wouldn't fit the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though I know how Douay-Rheims translated it, I'm struggling to figure out the rules they used to arrive at their translation. I appreciate any help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2424" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="684" RevisionGUID="d781c208-0511-4f02-86fd-ad66102838b0" CreationDate="2016-04-06T22:20:29.967" UserId="12" Comment="+links and tag" Text="|translation|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2425" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="684" RevisionGUID="d781c208-0511-4f02-86fd-ad66102838b0" CreationDate="2016-04-06T22:20:29.967" UserId="12" Comment="+links and tag" Text="How do you parse &quot;futurum est&quot; in Matthew 2:13?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="685" RevisionGUID="e4b525bc-5133-49c2-bd59-6130cbbdb123" CreationDate="2016-04-06T23:08:34.477" UserId="40" Text="*Futurum est* is a future active periphrastic form. It is built from *futurum*, the future active participle of *sum* (here in the neuter), which by itself means &quot;going to be, about to be&quot;. With the addition of *est*, it means &quot;It is going to be&quot;, or in the translation you quote, &quot;It will come to pass&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="686" RevisionGUID="3bc2df47-b43e-4347-8449-8b761349b08d" CreationDate="2016-04-07T09:58:38.997" UserId="324" Text="The Greek original has μέλλει γὰρ Ἡρῴδης ζητεῖν τὸ παιδίον τοῦ ἀπολέσαι αὐτό (&quot;Herod is on the point of seeking the child in order to destroy him&quot;). Jerome seems to have taken μέλλει as an impersonal verb (&quot;it will come about that Herod...&quot;), but this is not a possible interpretation of the Greek text as it stands. Maybe his manuscript had the accusative Ἡρῴδην?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="683" RevisionGUID="ab6629e6-e10c-477c-b3e5-79621037f827" CreationDate="2016-04-07T22:19:05.673" UserId="68" Comment="added 678 characters in body" Text="My impulse would be to use the verb *usurpare*—that is to make use of something, to resort to using something, often instead of another, either because what is appropriate is unavailable or because one is making (either knowingly or unknowingly) an unusual choice—along with *pro* or *ut*. Here are some uses I've seen (mostly in private correspondence, alas, and none classical):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plinius (Nat. 18,191) ‘sápó, Galliarum’ inquit ‘hocc inventum rutilandis capillis’ et idem testatur Martialis (14,27), sed nihil vetat quominus nunc temporis **usurpemus** etiam sensu moderno (soap / jabón).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et ‘manducáre’ significat to chew / masticar; tantum sermone vilissimo **usurpatur** ut to eat / comer (edere, comedere).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In hác sententiá ‘ederem’ male **usurpatum** est, nam id significaret petulantem istum puerum non sperare se pernam esse habiturum, quamquam pater dixerit ‘quid nón sit?’ potius quam ‘quid nón esset?’; melius ergo ‘libenter pernam edam’ (subj.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Male vero sententia 18 (et adn. 15) **usurpat** ‘lúx’ (quæ e Sole venit) pro ‘lúmen’ (ex ignibus ac lucernis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd probably say *Cistas ut calceos usurpo* or *Cistas pro calceis usurpo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a word with a more general meaning than &quot;wear,&quot; of course, but it quite specifically fits the situation you're talking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** I found a couple examples from actual Romans:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid veteres Latini dixerint quas Graeci προσῳδίας appellant; item quod vocabulum barbarismi non usurpaverint neque Romani antiquiores neque Attici.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; —Aulus Gellius, from the chapter summaries of book 13, chapter 6&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nec vero usquam discedebam nec a re publica deiciebam oculos ex eo die, quo in aedem Telluris convocati sumus. In quo templo, quantum in me fuit, ieci fundamenta pacis Atheniensiumque renovavi vetus exemplum; Graecum etiam verbum usurpavi, quo tum in sedandis discordiis usa erat civitas illa, atque omnem memoriam discordiarum oblivione sempiterna delendam censui.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; —Cicero, from Phillipic 1.1&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="677" RevisionGUID="d7b29e11-2c1b-4310-b0a5-b4457d5f2c80" CreationDate="2016-04-07T22:57:30.897" UserId="320" Comment="Fix erroneous macron" Text="The forms of _nōs_ and _vōs_ exhibit a pattern, except in the genitive (_n**o**strī/um_, _v**e**strī/um_) and the possessive (_n**o**ster_, _v**e**ster_). Did _vōs_ originally resemble _nōs_ in all its forms, only to diverge later? If so, what caused the change, and why did _nōs_ remain the same while _vōs_ changed (or vice versa)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="c4cf1635-c1c0-469e-86f0-32565dd1bdf3" CreationDate="2016-04-08T20:15:37.457" UserId="355" Text="According to google translate, this means &quot;onions&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any connotations, other words that carry the same meaning, or anything else specifically related to it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2431" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="c4cf1635-c1c0-469e-86f0-32565dd1bdf3" CreationDate="2016-04-08T20:15:37.457" UserId="355" Text="Meaning of &quot;cepeo&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2432" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="c4cf1635-c1c0-469e-86f0-32565dd1bdf3" CreationDate="2016-04-08T20:15:37.457" UserId="355" Text="|etymologia|translation|vocabulary|meaning|definitions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="688" RevisionGUID="8bbbe3ca-eb18-4b40-887c-ddce645a350d" CreationDate="2016-04-08T21:14:04.830" UserId="20" Text="Here are two data points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There are no results on [The Latin Library for cepeo][1].&#xD;&#xA;* There are no results on [The Perseus Project for cepeo][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=site%3Awww.thelatinlibrary.com%20cepeo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;all_words=cepeo&amp;phrase=&amp;any_words=&amp;exclude_words=&amp;documents=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="689" RevisionGUID="3e6a7f43-fb30-4f39-bbb3-23e170f01700" CreationDate="2016-04-09T21:15:53.043" UserId="79" Text="In [synizesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synizesis) two vowels that would normally be pronounced separately are pronounced as one without any change in spelling.&#xD;&#xA;This happens sometimes in Latin poetry and it can be recognized from the metric &amp;mdash; sometimes proper scansion is impossible without synizesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Synizesis seems to be somewhat rare.&#xD;&#xA;**How rare exactly was it in Latin poetry of Augustan era?**&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for **numerical answers** for the frequency of synizesis, answering either of the following questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How many times does synizesis occur in a verse on average?&#xD;&#xA;- In what percentage of the places where synizesis is possible does it actually take place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the frequency of synizesis varied between poets and eras, and therefore I restricted my attention to Augustan poets (Vergilius, Horatius, Ovidius).&#xD;&#xA;It may also vary significantly between the works of individual authors.&#xD;&#xA;If such synizesis data is available for the main works of all these authors, please give a couple of examples (like data for *Aeneis* or *Metamorphoses*) in addition to instructions for finding more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I chose to make this question slightly open-ended in order to make it more easily answerable. If you feel that this question should be more specific (only about *Aeneid*, for example), let me know and I will reformulate it.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2435" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="689" RevisionGUID="3e6a7f43-fb30-4f39-bbb3-23e170f01700" CreationDate="2016-04-09T21:15:53.043" UserId="79" Text="How common was synizesis in classical poetry?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2436" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="689" RevisionGUID="3e6a7f43-fb30-4f39-bbb3-23e170f01700" CreationDate="2016-04-09T21:15:53.043" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|poetry|synizesis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="690" RevisionGUID="88f42034-4a87-42ac-81f5-9dfe96a6857f" CreationDate="2016-04-10T02:09:47.993" UserId="358" Text="Why is this word order correct, as opposed to putting the verb at the end of the sentence?&#xA;&#xA;&gt; frater meus habet unum filium&#xA;&#xA;This [site][1] supplied this quote. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://learn101.org/latin_numbers.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2438" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="690" RevisionGUID="88f42034-4a87-42ac-81f5-9dfe96a6857f" CreationDate="2016-04-10T02:09:47.993" UserId="358" Text="Elementary word order question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2439" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="690" RevisionGUID="88f42034-4a87-42ac-81f5-9dfe96a6857f" CreationDate="2016-04-10T02:09:47.993" UserId="358" Text="|verbs|object|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="691" RevisionGUID="1d25bded-f5ac-4ea3-bda0-6b6be354d16a" CreationDate="2016-04-10T08:12:54.830" UserId="79" Text="The word order is quite free in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;It is typical to put the verb last, but by no means compulsory.&#xD;&#xA;The example sentence you give has a correct word order, but it is not the only correct one.&#xD;&#xA;It would sound a bit more natural to put *habet* at the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The online learning site you link to seems to cut an awful lot of corners short.&#xD;&#xA;It can be a good tool to quickly get some idea of how Latin works, but if your goals are higher than that, I strongly suggest finding a better source and building your Latin on a more solid foundation.&#xD;&#xA;The site does not explain much and it does contain mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have learned Latin from Finnish books, so, assuming you are not fluent in Finnish, I cannot suggest a book.&#xD;&#xA;I will therefore have to leave it to others to suggest good learning material." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="690" RevisionGUID="f81767db-9b0d-4e48-929a-59ebfb9aed63" CreationDate="2016-04-10T08:14:21.947" UserId="79" Comment="I changed the tags, since this question is only really about word order. I also reformatted a bit." Text="Why is this word order correct, as opposed to putting the verb at the end of the sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Frater meus habet unum filium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [site](http://learn101.org/latin_numbers.php) supplied this quote. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2442" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="690" RevisionGUID="f81767db-9b0d-4e48-929a-59ebfb9aed63" CreationDate="2016-04-10T08:14:21.947" UserId="79" Comment="I changed the tags, since this question is only really about word order. I also reformatted a bit." Text="|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="9e733024-a724-4782-964c-9d89e1dd3188" CreationDate="2016-04-10T08:46:33.883" UserId="79" Text="In classical poetry, if two vowels are next to each other (without a consonant in between), there are two ways to avoid the collision:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Elision removes one of the consonants when the vowels meet at a word boundary.&#xD;&#xA;- Synizesis works within a word, combining two adjacent vowels from different syllables into one syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither of these two sound changes is marked in writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My experience suggests that when possible, elision happens almost always and synizesis almost never.&#xD;&#xA;(I asked a [separate question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/689/79) about the frequency of synizesis.)&#xD;&#xA;It seems as if hiatus was a bigger problem between words than within a word, and this feels weird to me.&#xD;&#xA;I feel that streamlining within a word is more important than gluing words together seamlessly.&#xD;&#xA;When studying Latin poetry, I have never seen this issue addressed or even mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you explain why elision is so much more common than synizesis?&#xD;&#xA;I understand that &quot;why?&quot; is not an easy question to answer, but I hope that someone has thought and written about this issue although I have not managed to find anything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2444" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="9e733024-a724-4782-964c-9d89e1dd3188" CreationDate="2016-04-10T08:46:33.883" UserId="79" Text="Why is elision more common than synizesis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2445" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="9e733024-a724-4782-964c-9d89e1dd3188" CreationDate="2016-04-10T08:46:33.883" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|poetry|synizesis|elision|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="38d2aabc-ff06-49e8-b025-69e5ee2937c0" CreationDate="2016-04-10T09:08:04.997" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="In classical poetry, if two vowels are next to each other (without a consonant in between), there are two ways to avoid the collision:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Elision removes one of the vowels when the vowels meet at a word boundary.&#xD;&#xA;- Synizesis works within a word, combining two adjacent vowels from different syllables into one syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither of these two sound changes is marked in writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My experience suggests that when possible, elision happens almost always and synizesis almost never.&#xD;&#xA;(I asked a [separate question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/689/79) about the frequency of synizesis.)&#xD;&#xA;It seems as if hiatus was a bigger problem between words than within a word, and this feels weird to me.&#xD;&#xA;I feel that streamlining within a word is more important than gluing words together seamlessly.&#xD;&#xA;When studying Latin poetry, I have never seen this issue addressed or even mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you explain why elision is so much more common than synizesis?&#xD;&#xA;I understand that &quot;why?&quot; is not an easy question to answer, but I hope that someone has thought and written about this issue although I have not managed to find anything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="693" RevisionGUID="8d8900f4-e802-4603-8cc3-0ea97ec60106" CreationDate="2016-04-10T10:14:13.350" UserId="203" Text="I'm **no** expert, but have always understood that Subject - Object - Verb is the &quot;default&quot;  word order in Latin, unless you want to emphasise something -  like &quot;My brother **has** one son. &quot; - as opposed to a simple statement of &quot;My brother has one son.&quot; But I stand to be corrected by the experts! ;)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="694" RevisionGUID="e79c453b-c567-4e8a-9e78-52fc4885ae95" CreationDate="2016-04-10T10:31:03.623" UserId="68" Text="Joonas Ilmavirta's answer is exactly correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll just add two things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, although word order is relatively free in Latin, the default position, as you rightly believe, is *Frater meus unum filium habet.* Changing a sentence's word order from the default adds a slight change in emphasis—here, emphasizing the fact that your brother has one son, rather than one ship, or one Gorgon, or perhaps three sons. The emphasis would be even stronger if *unum filium* came first in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second point to consider is that adding *unum* does more than just adding the Latin equivalent of &quot;a&quot; (as in, &quot;My brother has a son&quot;). If that were all you wanted to do, you'd just say, *Frater meus filium habet* or, more likely, *Frater filium habet*. Adding *unum* makes the sentence mean something more like, &quot;My brother has one son&quot; or &quot;My brother has one son, and only one.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course word order depends a great deal on context. But in the absence of any context, the two most natural ways to write this sentence, it seems to me, would be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Frater filium habet* (&quot;My brother has a son&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Unum filium habet frater* (&quot;My brother has just one son&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main point about word order, however, still holds: Both *Frater meus habet unum filium* and *Frater meus unum filium habet* are correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="58efefcc-6965-4c1e-a75f-fa3371c073e2" CreationDate="2016-04-10T13:25:04.673" UserId="79" Comment="added 710 characters in body" Text="In classical poetry, if two vowels are next to each other (without a consonant in between), there are two ways to avoid the collision:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Elision removes one of the vowels when the vowels meet at a word boundary.&#xD;&#xA;- Synizesis works within a word, combining two adjacent vowels from different syllables into one syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither of these two sound changes is marked in writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My experience suggests that when possible, elision happens almost always and synizesis almost never.&#xD;&#xA;(I asked a [separate question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/689/79) about the frequency of synizesis.)&#xD;&#xA;It seems as if hiatus was a bigger problem between words than within a word, and this feels weird to me.&#xD;&#xA;I feel that streamlining within a word is more important than gluing words together seamlessly.&#xD;&#xA;When studying Latin poetry, I have never seen this issue addressed or even mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you explain why elision is so much more common than synizesis?&#xD;&#xA;I understand that &quot;why?&quot; is not an easy question to answer, but I hope that someone has thought and written about this issue although I have not managed to find anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me elaborate on what I mean by elision being more common than synizesis.&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks Joel Derfner for pointing out the need for clarification here.)&#xD;&#xA;I do not mean a difference in frequency per verse, but a difference in frequency per possibility.&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that if an elision is possible, there is a 98 % change for it to take place, but the corresponding probability for synizesis is more like 1 %.&#xD;&#xA;Don't quote me on the numbers, though, as I have nothing but experience (without statistics) to support them, but they should make the point clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;One can also reformulate my question this way:&#xD;&#xA;Why does elision happen almost always and synizesis almost never when the possibility arises?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="71b72b2f-fa9c-4e4a-af01-99cc3dbd6fe8" CreationDate="2016-04-10T16:29:37.100" UserId="68" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In classical poetry, if two vowels are next to each other (without a consonant in between), there are two ways to avoid the collision:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Elision removes one of the vowels when the vowels meet at a word boundary.&#xD;&#xA;- Synizesis works within a word, combining two adjacent vowels from different syllables into one syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither of these two sound changes is marked in writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My experience suggests that when possible, elision happens almost always and synizesis almost never.&#xD;&#xA;(I asked a [separate question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/689/79) about the frequency of synizesis.)&#xD;&#xA;It seems as if hiatus was a bigger problem between words than within a word, and this feels weird to me.&#xD;&#xA;I feel that streamlining within a word is more important than gluing words together seamlessly.&#xD;&#xA;When studying Latin poetry, I have never seen this issue addressed or even mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you explain why elision is so much more common than synizesis?&#xD;&#xA;I understand that &quot;why?&quot; is not an easy question to answer, but I hope that someone has thought and written about this issue although I have not managed to find anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me elaborate on what I mean by elision being more common than synizesis.&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks Joel Derfner for pointing out the need for clarification here.)&#xD;&#xA;I do not mean a difference in frequency per verse, but a difference in frequency per possibility.&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that if an elision is possible, there is a 98 % change for it to take place, but the corresponding probability for synizesis is more like 1 %.&#xD;&#xA;Don't quote me on the numbers, though, as I have nothing but experience (without statistics) to support them, but they should make the point clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;One can also reformulate my question this way:&#xD;&#xA;Why, when the possibility arises, does elision happen almost always and synizesis almost never?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="696" RevisionGUID="3eedf61b-8975-4627-a6ad-e12361eaf14a" CreationDate="2016-04-10T18:03:15.807" UserId="360" Text="Both gaudium and laetitia denote joy, but appear to be used differently depending on the circumstances. What is the distinction that latin has two (and more) words for joy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2455" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="696" RevisionGUID="3eedf61b-8975-4627-a6ad-e12361eaf14a" CreationDate="2016-04-10T18:03:15.807" UserId="360" Text="what is the distinction between gaudium and laetitia when both denote &quot;joy&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2456" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="696" RevisionGUID="3eedf61b-8975-4627-a6ad-e12361eaf14a" CreationDate="2016-04-10T18:03:15.807" UserId="360" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="e514315e-ef4b-4c04-943e-e2fc1c3e246e" CreationDate="2016-04-10T18:13:36.233" UserId="79" Comment="added 259 characters in body" Text="In classical poetry, if two vowels are next to each other (without a consonant in between), there are two ways to avoid the collision:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Elision removes one of the vowels when the vowels meet at a word boundary.&#xD;&#xA;- Synizesis works within a word, combining two adjacent vowels from different syllables into one syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither of these two sound changes is marked in writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My experience suggests that when possible, elision happens almost always and synizesis almost never.&#xD;&#xA;(I asked a [separate question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/689/79) about the frequency of synizesis.)&#xD;&#xA;It seems as if hiatus was a bigger problem between words than within a word, and this feels weird to me.&#xD;&#xA;I feel that streamlining within a word is more important than gluing words together seamlessly.&#xD;&#xA;When studying Latin poetry, I have never seen this issue addressed or even mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you explain why elision is so much more common than synizesis?&#xD;&#xA;I understand that &quot;why?&quot; is not an easy question to answer, but I hope that someone has thought and written about this issue although I have not managed to find anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me elaborate on what I mean by elision being more common than synizesis.&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks Joel Derfner for pointing out the need for clarification here.)&#xD;&#xA;I do not mean a difference in frequency per verse, but a difference in frequency per possibility.&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that if an elision is possible, there is a 98 % change for it to take place, but the corresponding probability for synizesis is more like 1 %.&#xD;&#xA;Don't quote me on the numbers, though, as I have nothing but experience (without statistics) to support them, but they should make the point clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;One can also reformulate my question this way:&#xD;&#xA;Why, when the possibility arises, does elision happen almost always and synizesis almost never?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it turns out that synizesis is not as rare as I think, an answer explaining this misconception would be fine.&#xD;&#xA;In that case I would appreciate an answer to the linked question about frequency, but an answer without actual statistics is acceptable here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="697" RevisionGUID="9fb6bc61-1d54-4b81-9f81-569378645729" CreationDate="2016-04-10T18:25:25.640" UserId="79" Text="At least one of the differences is the way of expressing joy.&#xD;&#xA;This is probably not the only difference, but let me focus on this aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*Gaudium*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1006709) is inward joy that you keep to yourself.&#xD;&#xA;It is about feeling something inside, not about showing it.&#xD;&#xA;- [*Exsultatio*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1005921) is more like jumping around in joy.&#xD;&#xA;It emphasizes showing the joy to everyone &amp;mdash; which to me at least includes a mild connotation of a shallower feeling.&#xD;&#xA;- [*Laetitia*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1008998) is somewhere between these two." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="698" RevisionGUID="431bf04d-c150-46d5-850a-277639feac6a" CreationDate="2016-04-10T18:30:20.523" UserId="78" Text="*Laetitia* is a state of being, from *laetus* *happy*. Someone who is *laetus* has *gaudium*, in the sense that someone who is rich has money. It more generally should be translated as *happiness* instead of *joy*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that the two words became synonymous in poetry and in later Latin prose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the Lewis and Short entries under [gaudium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aalphabetic+letter%3Dg%3Aentry+group%3D1%3Aentry%3Dgaudium) and [laetitia](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aalphabetic+letter%3Dl%3Aentry+group%3D2%3Aentry%3Dlaetitia).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [*hilaritas*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aalphabetic+letter%3Dh%3Aentry+group%3D4%3Aentry%3Dhilaritas), which is more similar to *laetitia* than *gaudium*, and means general *cheerfulness*. Think of it as the beaming smile on customer service's face rather than the joy at finding a sale (*gaudium*) or the happiness from having a series of successful encounters at a store (*laetitia*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="697" RevisionGUID="4affda28-e585-4dc9-9cd2-1a8812e88015" CreationDate="2016-04-10T19:37:34.513" UserId="79" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="One of the differences is the way of expressing joy.&#xD;&#xA;This is not the only difference, but let me focus on this aspect.&#xD;&#xA;The aspect of expressing joy is not always present, but my understanding is that these words have such tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*Gaudium*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1006709) is inward joy that you keep to yourself.&#xD;&#xA;It is about feeling something inside, not about showing it.&#xD;&#xA;- [*Exsultatio*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1005921) is more like jumping around in joy.&#xD;&#xA;It emphasizes showing the joy to everyone &amp;mdash; which to me at least includes a mild connotation of a shallower feeling.&#xD;&#xA;- [*Laetitia*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1008998) is somewhere between these two." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="696" RevisionGUID="89121947-0868-4e12-9308-3b8e73d01748" CreationDate="2016-04-11T01:27:39.433" UserId="12" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="Both *gaudium* and *laetitia* denote joy, but appear to be used differently depending on the circumstances. What is the distinction that Latin has two (and more) words for joy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2464" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="696" RevisionGUID="89121947-0868-4e12-9308-3b8e73d01748" CreationDate="2016-04-11T01:27:39.433" UserId="12" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the distinction between gaudium and laetitia when both denote &quot;joy&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="699" RevisionGUID="42d1ca8b-5283-47b3-b354-f7281a0d6c2f" CreationDate="2016-04-11T21:09:19.057" UserId="79" Text="The phrase *ab urbe condita* is used to express time in years after founding Rome.&#xD;&#xA;This can be found in ancient texts.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the natural counterpart would be *ante urbem conditam* when one wants to describe time before that event.&#xD;&#xA;However, searching for *ante urbem conditam* in [The Latin Library](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com) produces only four hits, and they are from third and fifth centuries CE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How were years before founding Rome expressed in the republic or early imperial era (first century CE or anything BCE)?&#xD;&#xA;Was there a canonical choice or was a new expression concocted for every occurrence?&#xD;&#xA;Or was it perhaps the case that there simply was little need to give exact years before founding Rome?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that *anno decimo ante urbem conditam* is a grammatical expression.&#xD;&#xA;My goal is not to find a way to express this thing in Latin, but to find the way(s) this was expressed around the golden age of Latin literature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2466" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="699" RevisionGUID="42d1ca8b-5283-47b3-b354-f7281a0d6c2f" CreationDate="2016-04-11T21:09:19.057" UserId="79" Text="Ante urbem conditam" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2467" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="699" RevisionGUID="42d1ca8b-5283-47b3-b354-f7281a0d6c2f" CreationDate="2016-04-11T21:09:19.057" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|time|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="700" RevisionGUID="58f6d737-2495-4740-a0f8-e6d54ddb1599" CreationDate="2016-04-11T21:31:49.367" UserId="45" Text="As a brief stub, I wish to briefly note that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## &quot;*ante urbem conditam*&quot; is correct and has classical examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The natural place for my search was Livy's [*Ab Urbe Condita*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0151%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3Dpr), which includes the following phrase in the preface of chapter one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quae **ante conditam condendamve urbem** poeticis magis decora fabulis quam incorruptis rerum gestarum monumentis traduntur, ea nec adfirmare nec refellere in animo est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Canon Robert's translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The traditions of what happened prior to the foundation of the City or whilst it was being built, are more fitted to adorn the creations of the poet than the authentic records of the historian, and I have no intention of establishing either their truth or their falsehood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will continue looking for specific examples of a &quot;X specific time *ante urbem conditam*&quot;, and will update this answer with my findings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="700" RevisionGUID="cef1715e-03db-4d5b-b137-baa673b71402" CreationDate="2016-04-11T21:37:09.217" UserId="45" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="As a brief stub, I wish to briefly note that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## &quot;*ante urbem conditam*&quot; is correct and has classical examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The natural place for my search was Livy's [*Ab Urbe Condita*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0151%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3Dpr), which includes the following phrase in the preface of chapter one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quae **ante conditam** condendamve **urbem** poeticis magis decora fabulis quam incorruptis rerum gestarum monumentis traduntur, ea nec adfirmare nec refellere in animo est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Canon Robert's translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The traditions of what happened **prior to the foundation of the City** or whilst it was being built, are more fitted to adorn the creations of the poet than the authentic records of the historian, and I have no intention of establishing either their truth or their falsehood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will continue looking for specific examples of a &quot;X specific time *ante urbem conditam*&quot;, and will update this answer with my findings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="700" RevisionGUID="cc0e6025-c57c-4b82-a546-52af2339a330" CreationDate="2016-04-11T21:52:58.523" UserId="45" Comment="added 418 characters in body" Text="As a brief stub, I wish to briefly note that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## &quot;*ante urbem conditam*&quot; is correct and has classical examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The natural place for my search was Livy's [*Ab Urbe Condita*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0151%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3Dpr), which includes the following phrase in the preface of chapter one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quae **ante conditam** condendamve **urbem** poeticis magis decora fabulis quam incorruptis rerum gestarum monumentis traduntur, ea nec adfirmare nec refellere in animo est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Canon Robert's translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The traditions of what happened **prior to the foundation of the City** or whilst it was being built, are more fitted to adorn the creations of the poet than the authentic records of the historian, and I have no intention of establishing either their truth or their falsehood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will continue looking for specific examples of a &quot;X specific time *ante urbem conditam*&quot;, and will update this answer with my findings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero will use this construction as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; itaque et illos septem, qui a Graecis σοφοί, sapientes a nostris et habebantur et nominabantur, et multis ante saeculis Lycurgum, cuius temporibus Homerus etiam fuisse ante hanc urbem conditam traditur, et iam heroicis aetatibus Ulixem et Nestorem accepimus et fuisse et habitos esse sapientis. (Cicero, *Tusculanae Disputationes*, V, 7)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more variations and examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tot bella gesta conscripta sunt uel **ante conditam Romam** uel ab eius exortu et imperio, Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, I, 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam hunc Homerus de stirpe Aeneae, a cuius posteris Roma est, cum **ante illam urbem conditam** idem poeta fuisse dicatur, inducit magnum aliquid diuinantem Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, III, 2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="700" RevisionGUID="67b90e18-aff3-4f94-a489-5f56bfe91f04" CreationDate="2016-04-11T22:03:13.263" UserId="45" Comment="added 418 characters in body" Text="Your first suggestion seems spot on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## &quot;*ante urbem conditam*&quot; is correct and has several classical examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The natural place for my search was Livy's [*Ab Urbe Condita*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0151%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3Dpr), which includes the following phrase in the preface of chapter one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quae **ante conditam** condendamve **urbem** poeticis magis decora fabulis quam incorruptis rerum gestarum monumentis traduntur, ea nec adfirmare nec refellere in animo est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Canon Robert's translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The traditions of what happened **prior to the foundation of the City** or whilst it was being built, are more fitted to adorn the creations of the poet than the authentic records of the historian, and I have no intention of establishing either their truth or their falsehood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will continue looking for specific examples of a &quot;X specific time *ante urbem conditam*&quot;, and will update this answer with my findings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero will [use this construction as well](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0044%3Abook%3D5%3Asection%3D7):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; itaque et illos septem, qui a Graecis σοφοί, sapientes a nostris et habebantur et nominabantur, et multis ante saeculis Lycurgum, cuius temporibus Homerus etiam fuisse **ante hanc urbem conditam** traditur, et iam heroicis aetatibus Ulixem et Nestorem accepimus et fuisse et habitos esse sapientis. (Cicero, *Tusculanae Disputationes*, V, 7)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And so we have received these seven, who were held and esteemed as &quot;sophoi&quot; by the Greeks and &quot;wise&quot; by our own, as well as Lycurugus many centuries **before the founding of this city**, in whose times Homer is even said to have lived, as well as Odysseus and Nestor in heroic ages--we have agreed that these men lived and were held to be wise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*I'm too tired to do a good translation...and I can't think of a way to twist that into understandable English. Edits welcome.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this last example, I think it is debatable and potentially important to the spirit of this question whether &quot;multis ante saeculis* is meant to quantify &quot;ante urbem conditam* or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more variations and examples from Augustine, who is admittedly not in the Latin golden age but whose Latin--in general--is reminiscent of the best:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tot bella gesta conscripta sunt uel **ante conditam Romam** uel ab eius exortu et imperio, Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, I, 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam hunc Homerus de stirpe Aeneae, a cuius posteris Roma est, cum **ante illam urbem conditam** idem poeta fuisse dicatur, inducit magnum aliquid diuinantem Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, III, 2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="700" RevisionGUID="92990c24-ad98-4a3b-844a-98e3a32356d8" CreationDate="2016-04-11T22:54:12.240" UserId="78" Comment="typo" Text="Your first suggestion seems spot on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## &quot;*ante urbem conditam*&quot; is correct and has several classical examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The natural place for my search was Livy's [*Ab Urbe Condita*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0151%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3Dpr), which includes the following phrase in the preface of chapter one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quae **ante conditam** condendamve **urbem** poeticis magis decora fabulis quam incorruptis rerum gestarum monumentis traduntur, ea nec adfirmare nec refellere in animo est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Canon Robert's translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The traditions of what happened **prior to the foundation of the City** or whilst it was being built, are more fitted to adorn the creations of the poet than the authentic records of the historian, and I have no intention of establishing either their truth or their falsehood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will continue looking for specific examples of a &quot;X specific time *ante urbem conditam*&quot;, and will update this answer with my findings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero will [use this construction as well](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0044%3Abook%3D5%3Asection%3D7):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; itaque et illos septem, qui a Graecis σοφοί, sapientes a nostris et habebantur et nominabantur, et multis ante saeculis Lycurgum, cuius temporibus Homerus etiam fuisse **ante hanc urbem conditam** traditur, et iam heroicis aetatibus Ulixem et Nestorem accepimus et fuisse et habitos esse sapientis. (Cicero, *Tusculanae Disputationes*, V, 7)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And so we have received these seven, who were held and esteemed as &quot;sophoi&quot; by the Greeks and &quot;wise&quot; by our own, as well as Lycurgus many centuries **before the founding of this city**, in whose times Homer is even said to have lived, as well as Odysseus and Nestor in heroic ages--we have agreed that these men lived and were held to be wise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*I'm too tired to do a good translation...and I can't think of a way to twist that into understandable English. Edits welcome.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this last example, I think it is debatable and potentially important to the spirit of this question whether &quot;multis ante saeculis* is meant to quantify &quot;ante urbem conditam* or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more variations and examples from Augustine, who is admittedly not in the Latin golden age but whose Latin--in general--is reminiscent of the best:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tot bella gesta conscripta sunt uel **ante conditam Romam** uel ab eius exortu et imperio, Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, I, 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam hunc Homerus de stirpe Aeneae, a cuius posteris Roma est, cum **ante illam urbem conditam** idem poeta fuisse dicatur, inducit magnum aliquid diuinantem Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, III, 2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="701" RevisionGUID="6cdf8828-e58d-47e8-be8e-2d49c1378a30" CreationDate="2016-04-11T23:59:53.677" UserId="324" Text="The answer to your question is very simple. Neither the Romans nor any other ancient civilisation counted the years before any era. This has largely to do with the fact that ancient mathematics had no concept of negative numbers. The counting of years backward from the beginning of the so-called Christian era did not become common practice until the 15th century." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="702" RevisionGUID="31051c14-5ca0-46a2-8571-3fb374cc9047" CreationDate="2016-04-12T05:32:41.850" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="I was reading [the etymology of fiend](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=fiend) which propelled me to read Univ. Texas's page on the PIE etymon [&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; pē(i)-, pī-  &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; 'to hurt, scold, shame'](http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/X/P1460.html), whose Semantic Fields are stated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;to Harm, Injure, Damage; Shame (n).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I saw the Latin *paene* listed under this PIE etymon, as  [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paene) does also; but I am confused because *paene* does not connote or denote any negativity or injure or shame?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2475" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="702" RevisionGUID="31051c14-5ca0-46a2-8571-3fb374cc9047" CreationDate="2016-04-12T05:32:41.850" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What underlying semantic notions connect 'paene' to the PIE root 'pē(i)-' (to hurt, scold, shame)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2476" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="702" RevisionGUID="31051c14-5ca0-46a2-8571-3fb374cc9047" CreationDate="2016-04-12T05:32:41.850" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|proto-indo-european|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="603" RevisionGUID="427deb0f-92e0-4ea4-beb2-3dfd0139f184" CreationDate="2016-04-12T05:37:02.153" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 146 characters in body" Text="&gt;[3.] [premium (n.)](http://w6ww.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=premium)     c. 1600, &quot;reward given for a specific act,&quot;    &#xD;&#xA;[2.] from Latin *praemium* &quot;reward, profit derived from booty,&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;[1.] from *prae-* &quot;before&quot; (see [pre-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pre-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + *emere* &quot;to buy,&quot; originally &quot;to take&quot; (see [exempt](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=exempt&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (adj.)). Insurance sense is 1660s, from Italian *premio*.    &#xD;&#xA;Adjectival sense of &quot;superior in quality&quot; is first attested 1925, originally in reference to butter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[4.] [pre-emption, n.](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/149931#eid28866465)   &lt; [PRE- prefix](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/149454#eid55940861) + [EMPTION n.](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/61422#eid5541523), after French *préemption* (right to) advance purchase (1569 in Middle French as *preemption*) and its etymon post-classical Latin *praeemption-*, *praeemptio* previous purchase (14th cent. in British and continental sources). Compare classical Latin *praeemere* to buy beforehand    &#xD;&#xA;(recorded in an 8th-cent. epitome of a 2nd-cent. grammarian).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can conjecture the semantic shift in the etymology for 4. I can imagine some rich [compulsive hoarder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoarding)'s excessive buying of some product BEFORE everyone else to anticipate and preclude others from buying the same (this matches the 2016 English definition of 'pre-empt').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5\. But how did 3 shift semantically to mean 2? How can the preposition '*prae-*' explain the semantic shift from *emere*'s meaning 'to buy', to '*praemium*'s meaning of 'reward or profit' ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. What underlying semantic notions connect 3 and 4?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="700" RevisionGUID="7ef4cb68-f67e-4317-86c3-f29723c8fd69" CreationDate="2016-04-12T14:01:06.193" UserId="45" Comment="added 1075 characters in body" Text="Your first suggestion seems spot on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## &quot;*ante urbem conditam*&quot; is correct and has several classical examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero [provides the most convincing example of this usage](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0044%3Abook%3D5%3Asection%3D7):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; itaque et illos septem, qui a Graecis σοφοί, sapientes a nostris et habebantur et nominabantur, et multis ante saeculis Lycurgum, cuius temporibus Homerus etiam fuisse **ante hanc urbem conditam** traditur, et iam heroicis aetatibus Ulixem et Nestorem accepimus et fuisse et habitos esse sapientis. (Cicero, *Tusculanae Disputationes*, V, 7)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And so we have received these seven, who were held and esteemed as &quot;sophoi&quot; by the Greeks and &quot;wise&quot; by our own, as well as Lycurgus many centuries **before the founding of this city**, in whose times Homer is even said to have lived, as well as Odysseus and Nestor in heroic ages--we have agreed that these men lived and were held to be wise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this example, I think it is debatable and potentially important to the spirit of this question whether &quot;multis ante saeculis* is meant to quantify &quot;ante urbem conditam* or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other natural place to search was Livy's [*Ab Urbe Condita*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0151%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3Dpr), which quickly yielded the following phrase in the preface to chapter I:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quae **ante conditam** condendamve **urbem** poeticis magis decora fabulis quam incorruptis rerum gestarum monumentis traduntur, ea nec adfirmare nec refellere in animo est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Canon Robert's translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The traditions of what happened **prior to the foundation of the City** or whilst it was being built, are more fitted to adorn the creations of the poet than the authentic records of the historian, and I have no intention of establishing either their truth or their falsehood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will continue looking for specific examples of a &quot;X specific time *ante urbem conditam*&quot;, and will update this answer with my findings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some considerable searching, I found an example from [Marcus Velleius Paterculus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Velleius_Paterculus) (19 BC - AD 31), who is squarely on the border of the Golden and Silver age though he is usually classified as the first author of the latter age. He includes the following phrase in his *History of Rome*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc tractu temporum **ante annos quinque et sexaginta quam urbs Romana conderetur**, ab Elissa Tyria, quam quidam Dido autumant, Carthago conditur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In this time-period, **sixty-five years before the city of Rome was founded**, Carthage was founded by Elyssa of Tyre, whom some call Dido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This certainly does not read as a formulaic way of telling time, but I believe in this respect @Ilmari Karonen's observation is very apt: there was generally very little history that could be precisely dated, using the historical methods at their disposal, before the founding of the Rome. Note that even this &quot;sixty-five&quot; figure is one of at least [three proposed figures](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0104%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DD%3Aentry+group%3D9%3Aentry%3Ddido-bio-1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more variations and examples from Augustine, who is admittedly not in the Latin golden age but whose Latin--in general--is reminiscent of the best:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tot bella gesta conscripta sunt uel **ante conditam Romam** uel ab eius exortu et imperio, Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, I, 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam hunc Homerus de stirpe Aeneae, a cuius posteris Roma est, cum **ante illam urbem conditam** idem poeta fuisse dicatur, inducit magnum aliquid diuinantem Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, III, 2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="705" RevisionGUID="98e6f9ae-6ce7-4966-a3f7-1eee8d88ba4c" CreationDate="2016-04-12T16:14:26.893" UserId="12" Text="I understand that Vergil often uses the *-um* genitive plural ending for some second declension nouns, instead of *-ōrum*.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; huc delecta **virum** sortiti corpora furtim ([*Aeneid*, Book II, line 18](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/vergil/aen2.shtml))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen &amp; Greenough, [§49d](https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA22), provide a bit of usage guidance, saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The genitive plural often has **-um** or (after **v**) **-om** [...] especially in the poets&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like a better understanding, however, of &quot;often&quot; and &quot;especially&quot; here.  Do we have any examples of *-um* being used in this way outside the constraints of meter?  Was it especially associated with particular authors, or periods within Classical Latin?  How common was it compared to the &quot;standard&quot; *-ōrum* ending?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2487" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="705" RevisionGUID="98e6f9ae-6ce7-4966-a3f7-1eee8d88ba4c" CreationDate="2016-04-12T16:14:26.893" UserId="12" Text="Is -um (instead of -ōrum) a typical genitive plural ending outside of poetry?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2488" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="705" RevisionGUID="98e6f9ae-6ce7-4966-a3f7-1eee8d88ba4c" CreationDate="2016-04-12T16:14:26.893" UserId="12" Text="|classical-latin|poetry|declension|genitive|vergilius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="706" RevisionGUID="e2050946-6298-448d-9ffe-23ac814bd92b" CreationDate="2016-04-12T17:06:56.607" UserId="30" Text="I believe it is also used in prose with certain *words*, like *deum* and *virum*, although it is indeed less common. [Livius, *Ab Urbe Condita* V 14.4][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... pestilentiam agris urbique [esse] inlatam haud dubia ira **deum**, quos pestis eius arcendae causa placandos esse in libris fatalibus inuentum sit; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...by/through the undoubted ire of the gods, whom in order to placate...&quot;. The plural relative pronoun shows that *deum* must be plural, and accusative singular wouldn't with the sentence anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:phi,0914,0015:14:4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="706" RevisionGUID="8b9226c7-7074-4b3d-b9b2-8cc9f49c7160" CreationDate="2016-04-12T21:57:19.787" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I believe it is also used in prose with certain *words*, like *deum* and *virum*, although it is indeed less common. [Livius, *Ab Urbe Condita* V 14.4][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... pestilentiam agris urbique [esse] inlatam haud dubia ira **deum**, quos pestis eius arcendae causa placandos esse in libris fatalibus inuentum sit; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...by/through the undoubted ire of the gods, whom in order to placate...&quot;. The plural relative pronoun shows that *deum* must be plural, and accusative singular wouldn't fit the sentence anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:phi,0914,0015:14:4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="72" RevisionGUID="7505ca1c-1c63-451b-952c-f93bb27ce83a" CreationDate="2016-04-13T00:44:59.980" UserId="30" Comment="added 408 characters in body" Text="I believe your conjecture is mistaken: the shape of your head has nothing to do with it. As I have always understood it, *prae* means &quot;forward, first&quot;, so *praeceps* means &quot;head-first&quot;. If you enter into a situation head first, such as a fall or a cooking pot or an enemy, you're being hurried or reckless or desperate, because your head is vulnerable: you would normally stick out your hand or foot first, since you're human, not canine like me. If you jump off a cliff head first, you're hasty indeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you stick your head into a cooking pot, you might get burned. I don't know whether *praeceps* is related to the Tarpeian Rock, but anyone can fall into a precipice. Or from a 2-metre-high ledge: if you jump or fall down head first, you are far more likely to sustain serious injuries. So you would not normally do this, unless you were reckless or somehow desperate (to escape from an attacking lion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;               &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="708" RevisionGUID="f9d4bd98-854c-4d35-a8a8-f058f11c697a" CreationDate="2016-04-13T02:33:46.890" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Univ. Texas's page on [kam-p- &amp;nbsp;  'to bend'](http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/X/P0834.html) states: 'Semantic Field: to Bend'. Then I saw *campus* (plain, campus, open field) listed, but what semantic notions underlie it and 'to bend'? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2501" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="708" RevisionGUID="f9d4bd98-854c-4d35-a8a8-f058f11c697a" CreationDate="2016-04-13T02:33:46.890" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What underlying semantic notions connect 'campus' to the PIE root *kam-p- (to bend)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2502" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="708" RevisionGUID="f9d4bd98-854c-4d35-a8a8-f058f11c697a" CreationDate="2016-04-13T02:33:46.890" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|proto-indo-european|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="708" RevisionGUID="7077e0aa-85c1-47fe-a358-632d926eae8b" CreationDate="2016-04-13T03:25:58.143" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="added 280 characters in body" Text="Univ. Texas's page on [kam-p- &amp;nbsp;  'to bend'](http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/X/P0834.html) states: 'Semantic Field: to Bend'. Then I saw *campus* (plain, campus, open field) listed, but what semantic notions underlie it and 'to bend'?    &#xD;&#xA;I can understand that any corner contains a bend, but how did 2 shift semantically to 3?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ [Etymonline:](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=campus) ] [...] [3.] from Latin *campus* &quot;a field,&quot; probably properly &quot;an expanse surrounded&quot; (by woods, higher ground, etc.),      &#xD;&#xA;[2.] from PIE _*kampos_ &quot;a corner, cove,&quot;   &#xD;&#xA;[1.] from root _*kamp-_ &quot;to bend&quot; [...]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="701" RevisionGUID="3e2757d5-8ff5-4c3e-a419-7eff111b0583" CreationDate="2016-04-13T08:20:39.353" UserId="324" Comment="added 499 characters in body" Text="The answer to your question is very simple. Neither the Romans nor any other ancient civilisation counted the years before any era. This has largely to do with the fact that ancient mathematics had no concept of negative numbers. The counting of years backward from the beginning of the so-called Christian era did not become common practice until the 15th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addendum:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brianpck has now supplied the interesting passage from Paterculus (ante annos quinque et sexaginta quam urbs Romana conderetur). I would, however, still maintain that there is a difference between the one-off statement that some event happened a certain number of years “before the Roman city was founded”, and the systematic use of a negative AUC era, analogous to our BC era. I still do not see any evidence for the systematic use of this sort of dating before the 15th century.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="709" RevisionGUID="7650186b-b3d4-47d2-9d0d-67420faad4de" CreationDate="2016-04-13T17:45:16.750" UserId="380" Text="Poēta puellae fābulam narrant -&#xD;&#xA;does every word in here have a case (i.e Dative, accusative, nominative, etc)? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2506" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="709" RevisionGUID="7650186b-b3d4-47d2-9d0d-67420faad4de" CreationDate="2016-04-13T17:45:16.750" UserId="380" Text="Does every word have a case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2507" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="709" RevisionGUID="7650186b-b3d4-47d2-9d0d-67420faad4de" CreationDate="2016-04-13T17:45:16.750" UserId="380" Text="|classical-latin|specific-words|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="710" RevisionGUID="eb620c46-faf9-42a4-8ae8-c10298fe5c02" CreationDate="2016-04-13T17:54:17.323" UserId="79" Text="Every **noun** in your sentence has a case, but the **verb** does not.&#xD;&#xA;This is always the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here *poeta*, *puellae* and *fabulam* are nouns and have cases (nominative, dative, accusative).&#xD;&#xA;The verb *narrat* (I assume there is a typo in your sentence) is also in a specific form, but not in any case.&#xD;&#xA;The verb is in third person singular, more specifically that of active present indicative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="709" RevisionGUID="ce469eef-98e8-4de3-ba68-e738253cb9a1" CreationDate="2016-04-13T17:55:14.220" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="*Poēta puellae fābulam narrant.*&#xD;&#xA;Does every word in here have a case (i.e. dative, accusative, nominative, etc)? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2510" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="709" RevisionGUID="ce469eef-98e8-4de3-ba68-e738253cb9a1" CreationDate="2016-04-13T17:55:14.220" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="711" RevisionGUID="938fab81-d73c-49ff-8028-c1caa4456d28" CreationDate="2016-04-13T18:49:56.137" UserId="79" Text="What would be a good way express the following sentence in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The translation need not be literal, I am just after a good choice of structure here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I regret to inform you that our old teacher has died.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--(Alternatively &quot;I regret to inform you of the death of our old teacher.&quot;)--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is *Doleo te certiorem facere de morte magistri nostro veteris.*&#xD;&#xA;Is *doleo te certiorem facere* or *doleo tibi narrare* an idiomatic and grammatical way of putting this?&#xD;&#xA;I could go with *dolens tibi narro* or *doleo, quod tibi narro*, but they don't feel as good to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2512" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="711" RevisionGUID="938fab81-d73c-49ff-8028-c1caa4456d28" CreationDate="2016-04-13T18:49:56.137" UserId="79" Text="How to say &quot;I regret to inform you that&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2513" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="711" RevisionGUID="938fab81-d73c-49ff-8028-c1caa4456d28" CreationDate="2016-04-13T18:49:56.137" UserId="79" Text="|translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="712" RevisionGUID="a1dd6333-c9ef-4548-bc59-e7e8dd9610cd" CreationDate="2016-04-13T19:29:30.173" UserId="78" Text="There are a few ways to say this, but I like *paenitere*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Paenitet me tibi dicere de morte..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="713" RevisionGUID="5d8d933e-c210-45bf-a56d-a6f02620b967" CreationDate="2016-04-13T19:31:58.463" UserId="45" Text="I would use *me poenitet* ([Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpaeniteo)) for this kind of construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the specific example you cited, I would say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; me poenitet te certiorem facere de morte magistri pristini nostri." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="74981e98-1c64-4879-a902-3710e42bffdd" CreationDate="2016-04-13T19:44:07.647" UserId="12" Text="Through [answers to another question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/711/12), I came across [Lewis &amp; Short's definition of *paeniteo*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpaeniteo), which begins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; paenĭtĕo (less correctly poen- )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the basis for judging *paen-* more correct than *poen-*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2517" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="74981e98-1c64-4879-a902-3710e42bffdd" CreationDate="2016-04-13T19:44:07.647" UserId="12" Text="Why is &quot;paeniteo&quot; considered more correct than &quot;poeniteo&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2518" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="74981e98-1c64-4879-a902-3710e42bffdd" CreationDate="2016-04-13T19:44:07.647" UserId="12" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="258faed5-eb44-45c9-8e73-4c008a46ffc1" CreationDate="2016-04-13T20:01:40.450" UserId="12" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="Through [answers to another question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/711/12), I came across [Lewis &amp; Short's definition of *paeniteo*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpaeniteo), which begins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; paenĭtĕo (less correctly poen- )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S say that it comes from the Greek *ποινή*, which to me would suggest that *poen-* would be preferred.  So what is the basis for judging *paen-* more correct than *poen-*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="b7640119-4f46-4f56-94eb-feff5dee9142" CreationDate="2016-04-13T20:49:43.673" UserId="78" Text="My guess is that the similarity between *poena* and *paenitere* led to a misunderstanding by L&amp;S. De Vaan, for example, doesn't mention *poena* in his entry on *paenitere*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **paene** 'almost, practicaly' [adv.] (Pl.+)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Derivatives: *paenitere* (p.. *-ui*) 'to cause dissatisfaction, cause to regret' (Pl.+) ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The basic meaning of the stem *\*paen-* seems to be 'missing, lacking'. IEW connects *paene* with the Skt. *piyati* scorns', which would fit if we posit \*ph&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-u-; but the root is reconstructed as \*ph&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;-i- in LIV, which does not explain Latin *-ae*. Also, the semantics do not match well. Nero (2007: 78f.) takes up a suggestion by Vine and proposes *\*p(e)-ai-ni-* 'not entirely' &lt; \*'from whom has been taken away' or \*'who takes away', from a preverb \**pe* 'away' and a verb \**h&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;ai* 'to give, take'. A PIE phoneme sequence *h&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;ai- is in my view not possible, however, and the existence of a PIE preverb \*pe is uncertain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Paenitere* from *paene* seems more likely than from *poena*, and there is no way that *paene* and *poena* are related." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="716" RevisionGUID="9f24f64c-e195-48a9-8942-37240aa6326d" CreationDate="2016-04-13T21:39:31.363" UserId="45" Text="In English, it is fairly common to write/say such sentences as the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is the possessive case of *she*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should I use *who* or *whom* after *man*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is the past participle of *run*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These kinds of questions quickly get thorny when I attempt to translate them into Latin. Here are some off-the-top-of-my-head translation options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Precede with *verbum/vocabulum***: Quid est casus genitivus verbi *ea*?&#xD;&#xA;2. **Treat as indeclinable**: Debeo *qui* aut *quem* post *vir* uti?&#xD;&#xA;3. **Rework the sentence**: *Correre* quale habet participium praeteritum?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone offer **general guidance for speaking about inflected words outside their original context?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2522" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="716" RevisionGUID="9f24f64c-e195-48a9-8942-37240aa6326d" CreationDate="2016-04-13T21:39:31.363" UserId="45" Text="Speaking about an inflected word in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2523" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="716" RevisionGUID="9f24f64c-e195-48a9-8942-37240aa6326d" CreationDate="2016-04-13T21:39:31.363" UserId="45" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="709" RevisionGUID="b8bd51cc-3ca5-4249-973a-d3cf19d37d89" CreationDate="2016-04-14T01:58:53.043" UserId="380" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="*Poēta puellae fābulam narrat.*&#xD;&#xA;Does every word in here have a case (i.e. dative, accusative, nominative, etc)? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="711" RevisionGUID="eb3756ef-c8c8-452e-a0e1-fc5a963b9457" CreationDate="2016-04-14T05:11:29.203" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="What would be a good way express the following sentence in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The translation need not be literal, I am just after a good choice of structure here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I regret to inform you that our old teacher has died.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--(Alternatively &quot;I regret to inform you of the death of our old teacher.&quot;)--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is *Doleo te certiorem facere de morte magistri nostri veteris.*&#xD;&#xA;Is *doleo te certiorem facere* or *doleo tibi narrare* an idiomatic and grammatical way of putting this?&#xD;&#xA;I could go with *dolens tibi narro* or *doleo, quod tibi narro*, but they don't feel as good to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="717" RevisionGUID="2b2a16d2-1ad4-4f86-b5de-6dde28592be8" CreationDate="2016-04-14T05:24:39.677" UserId="68" Text="@Cerberus is right that it does appear in prose in limited circumstances. In addition to *deum* and *virum*, genitive plurals of second declension nouns denoting money or measure often end in *-um*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam cum fere constaret, curriculum stadii quod est Pisis apud Jovem Olympium Herculem pedibus suis metatum [esse] idque fecisse longum pedes sescentos, cetera quoque stadia in terra Græcia ab aliis postea instituta **pedum** quidem esse numero **sescentum**, sed tamen esse aliquantulum breviora, facile intellexit. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For since it was quite well known that Hercules measured out the track of the stadium of Olympian Jupiter at Pisa and made it six hundred feet long, and that the *rest* of the stadia built later in Greece by *others* were **of six hundred** [feet], but a little shorter, he easily understood. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aulus Gellius, *Noctes Atticæ*, I.1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="718" RevisionGUID="fd1473b1-2d91-47c8-a24d-a27ff666dfd4" CreationDate="2016-04-14T05:35:44.153" UserId="68" Text="A few times in spoken-Latin circles I've come across this kind of locution:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *In sententiá &quot;Ódió virum quí canem meum siccávit,&quot; opportébatne vóce &quot;quem&quot; pró illó &quot;quí&quot; útí?* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, my experience is of limited enough scope that you probably shouldn't take this answer as definitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="719" RevisionGUID="b8ca4b39-cad3-414f-a5c5-96c2ea80da4b" CreationDate="2016-04-14T10:37:18.113" UserId="79" Text="The most important aspect here is clarity, and your first option is best for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend against treating declined words out of context as indeclinable (*casus generalis*), unless you mark them with quotes of some kind.&#xD;&#xA;With pronouns and other common words the reader might not parse them the way you intend.&#xD;&#xA;Reading *qui* and *quem* in your second example sentence as declined pronouns makes the sentence a mess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quotes around the inflected word (or any other phrase for that matter) make the indeclinable status clear.&#xD;&#xA;To clarify the syntactical role of the indeclinable, I would add a suitable noun in front of it.&#xD;&#xA;That is, write *Debes voce &quot;qui&quot; uti* or *In locutione &quot;&amp;hellip;&quot; accusativo utimur*.&#xD;&#xA;If the case of the auxiliary word would be nominative or accusative or it would come with a preposition, leaving it out does not confuse too much.&#xD;&#xA;In other situation the risk of confusion is significant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been taught to use *vox* for &quot;word&quot; and *verbum* only for &quot;verb&quot;, but I do not always do so.&#xD;&#xA;Unless you need to discuss pronunciation, it might be better to reserve *verbum* for verbs and use *vox* or *vocabulum* for words in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suggested translations of your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What is the possessive case of she?  &#xD;&#xA;*Qualis est casus genetivus vocis &quot;ea&quot;?*&#xD;&#xA;2. Should I use who or whom after man?  &#xD;&#xA;*Debeone adhibere vocem &quot;qui&quot; aut &quot;quem&quot; post vocem &quot;vir&quot;?*  &#xD;&#xA;*Utro uti debeo post vocem &quot;vir&quot;: &quot;qui&quot; aut &quot;quem&quot;?*&#xD;&#xA;3. What is the past participle of run?  &#xD;&#xA;*Quale est participium praeteritum verbi &quot;currere&quot;?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="4a11c0f6-cf4f-4306-9e47-d697e6edd413" CreationDate="2016-04-15T03:59:46.773" UserId="253" Text="In Medieval Latin, the word &quot;ly&quot; could be paired with the relevant term, which could then be treated as an indeclinable term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See for example these passages from St. Thomas Aquinas written in the 1250's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quia ly se potest esse ablativi casus, et tunc simpliciter vera est: et est sensus: genuit alterum se, idest alterum a se. Vel potest esse accusativi casus; et tunc vel facit simplicem relationem . . . (*Super Sent*., lib. 1 d. 4 q. 2 a. 2 expos.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Si enim cum dicitur, Deus genuit Deum, qui est Deus pater, ly pater construitur appositive ad ly Deus, locutio falsa est: quia tunc ly Deus restringetur ad standum pro persona patris . . . (*Super Sent.*, lib. 1 d. 4 q. 1 a. 3 ad 4)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="722" RevisionGUID="6b594efd-f349-4505-8195-f9a1a62c7dc4" CreationDate="2016-04-15T04:10:42.967" UserId="253" Text="In an answer to [this question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/716/speaking-about-an-inflected-word-in-latin/721#721), I gave examples of the word &quot;ly&quot; in Medieval Latin.  This leads me to wonder when the term entered the language and where did it come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because it resembles the article in present romance languages, my best guess is that &quot;ly&quot; is an article borrowed from the vernacular which can perhaps ultimately be traced back to the latin &quot;ille.&quot;  But I'd like to have an authoritative answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2535" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="722" RevisionGUID="6b594efd-f349-4505-8195-f9a1a62c7dc4" CreationDate="2016-04-15T04:10:42.967" UserId="253" Text="When did the word &quot;ly&quot; enter the Latin language and where did it come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2536" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="722" RevisionGUID="6b594efd-f349-4505-8195-f9a1a62c7dc4" CreationDate="2016-04-15T04:10:42.967" UserId="253" Text="|etymology|medieval-latin|history|articles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="722" RevisionGUID="b8742e45-dfce-47a4-b98d-3f84fd2911b0" CreationDate="2016-04-15T04:21:10.547" UserId="253" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="In an answer to [this question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/716/speaking-about-an-inflected-word-in-latin/721#721), I gave examples of the word &quot;ly&quot; in Medieval Latin.  This leads me to wonder when the term entered the language and where it came from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because it resembles the article in present romance languages, my best guess is that &quot;ly&quot; is an article borrowed from the vernacular which can perhaps ultimately be traced back to the latin &quot;ille.&quot;  But I'd like to have an authoritative answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="df5ad149-d8e0-4b14-b8fc-b1b3dfa1500d" CreationDate="2016-04-15T04:28:18.987" UserId="253" Comment="Added last paragraph at the suggestion of a moderator." Text="In Medieval Latin, the word &quot;ly&quot; could be paired with the relevant term, which could then be treated as an indeclinable term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See for example these passages from St. Thomas Aquinas written in the 1250's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quia ly se potest esse ablativi casus, et tunc simpliciter vera est: et est sensus: genuit alterum se, idest alterum a se. Vel potest esse accusativi casus; et tunc vel facit simplicem relationem . . . (*Super Sent*., lib. 1 d. 4 q. 2 a. 2 expos.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Si enim cum dicitur, Deus genuit Deum, qui est Deus pater, ly pater construitur appositive ad ly Deus, locutio falsa est: quia tunc ly Deus restringetur ad standum pro persona patris . . . (*Super Sent.*, lib. 1 d. 4 q. 1 a. 3 ad 4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first example &quot;ly se&quot; allows &quot;se&quot; to function as the subject of the sentence even though it is in the accusative or ablative. &quot;Ly&quot; seems to act a lot like mention marks in English. For instance, I would be inclined to translate the first example: &quot;Since &quot;se&quot; can be in the ablative case . . . &quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="723" RevisionGUID="4808ddca-88aa-4a77-bd66-8fa9369affe6" CreationDate="2016-04-15T05:42:47.770" UserId="68" Text="This doesn't quite make the 1900 cutoff, but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Arcadius Avellanus][1], born Mogyoróssy Arkád in 1851 Hungary, is said to have been the last native speaker of Latin. In 1878 he emigrated to the US, where he became a Latin teacher, advocating (evidently with not much success) living Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked through his translation, published in 1918, of Guy de Maupassant's &quot;La Parure&quot; (The Necklace) and found a strong tendency to avoid comma splices, though the occasional one did pop up, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Naturalis subtilitas, instinctus innatus cognoscendi quid elegans sit, atque tractabilitas ingenii sola sunt hierarchia quae mulieres etiam tenuissimae sortis, pares efficit matronis ordinis optimatum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that, as far as I can tell, in the original French these two sentences are *not* a comma splice; they're connected with *et* (&quot;and&quot;). I'm basing that on a version I found online, though, so it's possible that the transcription introduced an error.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But comma splices were certainly much rarer in this text than they are in Ørberg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcadius_Avellanus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="724" RevisionGUID="24ac45b8-c58f-4837-b161-b161548535b5" CreationDate="2016-04-15T15:44:33.223" UserId="79" Text="The name *Iesus* has [peculiar declension](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/620/79) in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The declension of this word in every source that I have seen only gives singular forms.&#xD;&#xA;However, I can imagine situations where a plural is needed: a story might include several Jesuses.&#xD;&#xA;I have hard time believing that a plural form would never have been used in Latin literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the plural of *Iesus*?&#xD;&#xA;Where has this plural been used?&#xD;&#xA;It would be great to have all cases, but the nominative would already be interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was inspired by today's [SMBC](http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4081).&#xD;&#xA;If you click the red button below the comic, you will see a tongue-in-cheek suggestion: singular *Jesus*, plural *Jesupodes*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2541" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="724" RevisionGUID="24ac45b8-c58f-4837-b161-b161548535b5" CreationDate="2016-04-15T15:44:33.223" UserId="79" Text="Is there a plural of Jesus in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2542" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="724" RevisionGUID="24ac45b8-c58f-4837-b161-b161548535b5" CreationDate="2016-04-15T15:44:33.223" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|example-request|declension|names|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="725" RevisionGUID="6537e461-cc92-4b23-b099-a7de0637a8af" CreationDate="2016-04-15T15:53:12.903" UserId="324" Text="As you say, “ly” is the Romance article. Aquinas uses it in his commentary on the Gospel of John 1,1 explicitly as the equivalent of the Greek article in its specifying sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; “Ut ergo Evangelista hanc supereminentiam divini verbi significaret, ipsum verbum absque ulla additione nobis absolute proposuit; et quia Graeci, quando volunt significare aliquid segregatum et elevatum ab omnibus aliis, consueverunt apponere articulum nomini, per quod illud significatur sicut Platonici volentes significare substantias separatas, puta bonum separatum, vel hominem separatum, vocabant illud ly per se bonum, vel ly per se hominem ideo Evangelista volens significare segregationem et elevationem istius verbi super omnia, **apposuit articulum ad hoc nomen logos, ut si dicatur in Latino, ly verbum**.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words: “ly verbum” means “ho logos”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="725" RevisionGUID="bf58a578-79e4-432a-a47a-51a2800840a7" CreationDate="2016-04-15T16:01:27.327" UserId="324" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="As you say, “ly” is an early form of the Romance article. Aquinas uses it in his commentary on the Gospel of John 1,1 explicitly as the equivalent of the Greek article in its specifying sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; “Ut ergo Evangelista hanc supereminentiam divini verbi significaret, ipsum verbum absque ulla additione nobis absolute proposuit; et quia Graeci, quando volunt significare aliquid segregatum et elevatum ab omnibus aliis, consueverunt apponere articulum nomini, per quod illud significatur sicut Platonici volentes significare substantias separatas, puta bonum separatum, vel hominem separatum, vocabant illud ly per se bonum, vel ly per se hominem ideo Evangelista volens significare segregationem et elevationem istius verbi super omnia, **apposuit articulum ad hoc nomen logos, ut si dicatur in Latino, ly verbum**.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words: “ly verbum” means “ὁ λόγος”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="725" RevisionGUID="ac2ee8fc-436a-4e0e-8af3-59a9c135796f" CreationDate="2016-04-15T16:49:26.880" UserId="12" Comment="minor formatting, link" Text="As you say, “ly” is an early form of the Romance article. Aquinas uses it in his [commentary on the Gospel of John 1,1](http://dhspriory.org/thomas/John1.htm) explicitly as the equivalent of the Greek article in its specifying sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Ut ergo Evangelista hanc supereminentiam divini verbi significaret, ipsum verbum absque ulla additione nobis absolute proposuit; et quia Graeci, quando volunt significare aliquid segregatum et elevatum ab omnibus aliis, consueverunt apponere articulum nomini, per quod illud significatur sicut Platonici volentes significare substantias separatas, puta bonum separatum, vel hominem separatum, vocabant illud ly per se bonum, vel ly per se hominem ideo Evangelista volens significare segregationem et elevationem istius verbi super omnia, **apposuit articulum ad hoc nomen logos, ut si dicatur in Latino, ly verbum**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words: “ly verbum” means “ὁ λόγος”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="725" RevisionGUID="b16f28e7-f5d7-4b3c-ba6a-f10a35560db5" CreationDate="2016-04-15T17:12:31.970" UserId="324" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="As you say, “ly” is an early form of the Romance article; you can compare the Old French article for nom. sing. masc. &quot;li&quot;. Aquinas uses it in his [commentary on the Gospel of John 1,1](http://dhspriory.org/thomas/John1.htm) explicitly as the equivalent of the Greek article in its specifying sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Ut ergo Evangelista hanc supereminentiam divini verbi significaret, ipsum verbum absque ulla additione nobis absolute proposuit; et quia Graeci, quando volunt significare aliquid segregatum et elevatum ab omnibus aliis, consueverunt apponere articulum nomini, per quod illud significatur sicut Platonici volentes significare substantias separatas, puta bonum separatum, vel hominem separatum, vocabant illud ly per se bonum, vel ly per se hominem ideo Evangelista volens significare segregationem et elevationem istius verbi super omnia, **apposuit articulum ad hoc nomen logos, ut si dicatur in Latino, ly verbum**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words: “ly verbum” means “ὁ λόγος”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="713" RevisionGUID="9ab04512-9a68-40eb-b5d1-ba716de93c63" CreationDate="2016-04-15T18:51:24.820" UserId="79" Comment="I reformatted to make this question eligible for the tour. See http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/28990638#28990638" Text="I would use *me poenitet* ([Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpaeniteo)) for this kind of construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the specific example you cited, I would say: *Me poenitet te certiorem facere de morte magistri pristini nostri.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="712" RevisionGUID="e330703a-874a-4c89-beeb-65fe161857df" CreationDate="2016-04-15T18:52:32.717" UserId="79" Comment="I reformatted to make this question eligible for the tour. See http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/28990638#28990638" Text="There are a few ways to say this, but I like *paenitere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say: *Paenitet me tibi dicere de morte...*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="711" RevisionGUID="ce929999-05a0-43e2-97a5-9f1e058daa8a" CreationDate="2016-04-15T19:04:31.700" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 183 characters in body" Text="What would be a good way express the following sentence in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The translation need not be literal, I am just after a good choice of structure here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I regret to inform you that our old teacher has died.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is *Doleo te certiorem facere de morte magistri nostri veteris.*&#xD;&#xA;Is *doleo te certiorem facere* or *doleo tibi narrare* an idiomatic and grammatical way of putting this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="727" RevisionGUID="876f3e9d-af6c-4db9-bcbf-269fb62e2a82" CreationDate="2016-04-15T19:21:28.203" UserId="386" Text="The Latin plural of *Iesus* (m, genitive: *Iesū*) would be ***Iesūs*** since it is often [considered to belong][1] to the [fourth declension][2], although it is highly irregular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in reality I highy doubt that you will come across a real case of *Iesus* being used in its plural form considering that it would not make a lot of sense to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Iesus#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_fourth_declension" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="727" RevisionGUID="18467268-4403-49e6-bca6-1baa9bd0ca77" CreationDate="2016-04-15T19:38:09.857" UserId="386" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="The Latin plural of *Iesus* (m, genitive: *Iesū*) would technically be ***Iesūs*** since it is often considered to belong to the fourth declension, although it is highly irregular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in reality I highy doubt that you will come across a real case of *Iesus* being used in its plural form considering that it would not make a lot of sense to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: After further research it seems that *Iesus* indeed does not have a plural form as stated by a [Latin Teacher][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vocabulary-lesson-plans.com/the-declension-of-jesus.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="727" RevisionGUID="f24cf8c9-44ee-43bd-bb51-1ca00eae629e" CreationDate="2016-04-15T19:42:47.857" UserId="79" Comment="Recovered links from first version." Text="The Latin plural of *Iesus* (m, genitive: *Iesū*) would technically be ***Iesūs*** since it is often [considered to belong](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Iesus#Latin) to the [fourth declension](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_fourth_declension), although it is highly irregular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in reality I highy doubt that you will come across a real case of *Iesus* being used in its plural form considering that it would not make a lot of sense to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: After further research it seems that *Iesus* indeed does not have a plural form as stated by a [Latin Teacher](http://www.vocabulary-lesson-plans.com/the-declension-of-jesus.html)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="727" RevisionGUID="c8f8d9bd-a4ef-459f-88a5-05992d219df7" CreationDate="2016-04-15T19:48:06.900" UserId="386" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="The Latin plural of *Iesus* (m, genitive: *Iesū*) would technically be ***Iesūs*** since it is often [considered to belong](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Iesus#Latin) to the fourth declension ([here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_fourth_declension) and [here](http://liturgialatina.blogspot.ch/2011/01/latin-of-introits-holy-name-of-jesus-in.html)), although it is highly irregular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in reality I highy doubt that you will come across a real case of *Iesus* being used in its plural form considering that it would not make a lot of sense to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: After further research it seems that *Iesus* indeed does not have a plural form as stated by a [Latin Teacher](http://www.vocabulary-lesson-plans.com/the-declension-of-jesus.html)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="709" RevisionGUID="5a675416-1a07-48ff-9e47-37af979c5749" CreationDate="2016-04-15T20:45:14.243" UserId="380" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="*Poēta puellae fābulam narrat.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Does every word in here have a case (i.e. dative, accusative, nominative, etc)? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="548" RevisionGUID="7d6b5146-540f-4a25-bc68-bdaa29060880" CreationDate="2016-04-15T21:59:35.607" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="James Kingsbery's answer is exactly correct. If two things &quot;belong&quot; together, then *-que* is appropriate. If you were going shopping, you might be asked to pick up *panem lacque* (&quot;bread and milk&quot;), but if you were talking about what you saw on your walk through the countryside you'd be more likely to talk about *boves et rusticos* (&quot;cows and peasants&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="548" RevisionGUID="d06b165b-2e27-4f08-86e1-a28184c71c34" CreationDate="2016-04-15T22:25:35.700" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="James Kingsbery's answer is exactly correct. If two things &quot;belong&quot; together, then *-que* is appropriate. If you were going shopping, you might be asked to pick up *lac panemque* (&quot;bread and milk&quot;), but if you were talking about what you saw on your walk through the countryside you'd be more likely to talk about *boves et rusticos* (&quot;cows and peasants&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="548" RevisionGUID="5abc067c-cb16-419e-ab55-72be99af035a" CreationDate="2016-04-15T22:30:47.587" UserId="68" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="James Kingsbery's answer is exactly correct. If two things &quot;belong&quot; together, then *-que* is appropriate. If you were going shopping, you might be asked to pick up *ova butyrumque* (&quot;eggs and butter&quot;), but if you were talking about what you saw on your walk through the countryside you'd be more likely to talk about *boves et rusticos* (&quot;cows and peasants&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2560" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="677" RevisionGUID="cbbaf320-3169-48eb-b277-1fd0a1bfcafb" CreationDate="2016-04-16T01:58:53.367" UserId="320" Comment="edited title" Text="Why does &quot;e&quot; occur in forms of 'vōs' but not 'nōs'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="729" RevisionGUID="d4783646-9783-46d1-b6ca-f2ba94a08733" CreationDate="2016-04-16T07:47:50.590" UserId="79" Text="Sometimes I come across Latin profanities, for example when reading [a certain poem of Catullus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16).&#xD;&#xA;Many dictionaries fail to translate profanities properly, perhaps in order to maintain a certain level tact.&#xD;&#xA;This makes it difficult to understand text containing profanities well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a Latin verb describing, say, a very specific sexual act is translated as &quot;treating another person disgracefully&quot;, I feel cheated.&#xD;&#xA;(See this [example in L&amp;S](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2041409).)&#xD;&#xA;I would like to have a dictionary that translates profanities honestly, using sufficient detail and equally foul language to give a good idea of the tone and meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is some online dictionary well suited for this need?&#xD;&#xA;Or is there perhaps a printed dictionary?&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind if the dictionary is restricted to profane language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_profanity) offers a decent list, but it's not very broad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2565" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="729" RevisionGUID="d4783646-9783-46d1-b6ca-f2ba94a08733" CreationDate="2016-04-16T07:47:50.590" UserId="79" Text="Are there dictionaries that translate profanities profanely?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2566" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="729" RevisionGUID="d4783646-9783-46d1-b6ca-f2ba94a08733" CreationDate="2016-04-16T07:47:50.590" UserId="79" Text="|nuance|dictionary|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="730" RevisionGUID="ebbdf9d5-7acf-4aff-b6c8-4ed4f650818c" CreationDate="2016-04-16T13:38:33.847" UserId="68" Text="Oh, God, the prudish lengths to which dictionaries go to avoid translating profanity correctly! I feel your pain—I too feel cheated and betrayed when this happens. It's like, aren't you supposed to tell me what this word means? Well, &quot;to practice unnatural vice&quot; is not what this word means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any *dictionaries* that do their jobs properly in this regard, but you might want to take a look at J.N. Adams's *[Latin Sexual Vocabulary][1]*. I haven't read the whole thing but the chapters I've read have been very illuminating; it doesn't shy away from profanity. I actually have a PDF copy if you'd like; let me know in a comment and I'll get in touch on chat and get your email address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/The-Latin-Sexual-Vocabulary-Adams/dp/0801841062?ie=UTF8&amp;keywords=latin%20sexual%20vocabulary&amp;qid=1460813620&amp;ref_=sr_1_1&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="730" RevisionGUID="477c5e95-eff7-400d-8423-33a621c62a21" CreationDate="2016-04-16T15:58:57.857" UserId="66" Comment="removed chat invite" Text="Oh, God, the prudish lengths to which dictionaries go to avoid translating profanity correctly! I feel your pain—I too feel cheated and betrayed when this happens. It's like, aren't you supposed to tell me what this word means? Well, &quot;to practice unnatural vice&quot; is not what this word means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any *dictionaries* that do their jobs properly in this regard, but you might want to take a look at J.N. Adams's *[Latin Sexual Vocabulary][1]*. I haven't read the whole thing but the chapters I've read have been very illuminating; it doesn't shy away from profanity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/The-Latin-Sexual-Vocabulary-Adams/dp/0801841062?ie=UTF8&amp;keywords=latin%20sexual%20vocabulary&amp;qid=1460813620&amp;ref_=sr_1_1&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2569" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="730" RevisionGUID="477c5e95-eff7-400d-8423-33a621c62a21" CreationDate="2016-04-16T15:58:57.857" Comment="Proposed by 66 approved by 12 edit id of 105" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="729" RevisionGUID="20300999-b60d-4b27-ae45-78608ccb9373" CreationDate="2016-04-16T16:04:21.577" UserId="12" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Sometimes I come across Latin profanities, for example when reading [a certain poem of Catullus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16).&#xD;&#xA;Many dictionaries fail to translate profanities properly, perhaps in order to maintain a certain level of tact.&#xD;&#xA;This makes it difficult to understand text containing profanities well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a Latin verb describing, say, a very specific sexual act is translated as &quot;treating another person disgracefully&quot;, I feel cheated.&#xD;&#xA;(See this [example in L&amp;S](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2041409).)&#xD;&#xA;I would like to have a dictionary that translates profanities honestly, using sufficient detail and equally foul language to give a good idea of the tone and meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is some online dictionary well suited for this need?&#xD;&#xA;Or is there perhaps a printed dictionary?&#xD;&#xA;I don't mind if the dictionary is restricted to profane language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_profanity) offers a decent list, but it's not very broad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2571" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="729" RevisionGUID="20300999-b60d-4b27-ae45-78608ccb9373" CreationDate="2016-04-16T16:04:21.577" UserId="12" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|nuance|dictionary|profanity|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="731" RevisionGUID="c5468d32-87e0-44d8-a53a-ed798569b3e4" CreationDate="2016-04-16T18:27:31.910" UserId="68" Text="Well, there's the story from chapter five of Suetonius' life of Galba about how Tiberius cheated Galba out of his inheritance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Observavit ante omnis Liviam Augustam, cujus et vivae gratia plurimum valuit et mortuae testamento paene ditatus est; sestertium namque quingenties praecipuum inter legatarios habuit, sed quia notata, non perscripta, erat summa, herede Tiberio legatum ad quingenta revocante, ne haec quidem accepit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He showed marked respect to Livia Augusta, to whose favour he owed great influence during her lifetime and by whose last will he almost became a rich man; for he had the largest bequest among her legatees, one of fifty million sesterces. But because the sum was designated in figures and not written out in words, Tiberius, who was her heir, reduced the bequest to five hundred thousand, and Galba never received even that amount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One presumes that the question centered somehow on vincula, but Suetonius, alas, *did* write his sums out in words, so we can't see exactly how Tiberius's fraud worked. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="732" RevisionGUID="37ee3980-108d-4a64-8188-04962799d96e" CreationDate="2016-04-16T18:38:25.867" UserId="12" Text="When I refer to letters in Latin, I (sadly) use the English names for them.  If I knew the Latin names, I could apply Classical Latin pronunciation rules to say them properly.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how was each letter referred to in Classical Latin?  How do we know?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2574" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="732" RevisionGUID="37ee3980-108d-4a64-8188-04962799d96e" CreationDate="2016-04-16T18:38:25.867" UserId="12" Text="What is the classical pronunciation of the letters of the Latin alphabet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2575" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="732" RevisionGUID="37ee3980-108d-4a64-8188-04962799d96e" CreationDate="2016-04-16T18:38:25.867" UserId="12" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|alphabet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="731" RevisionGUID="a10d5cc8-2a8d-4628-a93a-b49819401e22" CreationDate="2016-04-16T18:38:45.013" UserId="68" Comment="added 117 characters in body" Text="Well, there's the story from chapter five of Suetonius' life of Galba about how Tiberius cheated Galba out of his inheritance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Observavit ante omnis Liviam Augustam, cujus et vivae gratia plurimum valuit et mortuae testamento paene ditatus est; sestertium namque quingenties praecipuum inter legatarios habuit, sed quia notata, non perscripta, erat summa, herede Tiberio legatum ad quingenta revocante, ne haec quidem accepit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He showed marked respect to Livia Augusta, to whose favour he owed great influence during her lifetime and by whose last will he almost became a rich man; for he had the largest bequest among her legatees, one of fifty million sesterces. But because the sum was designated in figures and not written out in words, Tiberius, who was her heir, reduced the bequest to five hundred thousand, and Galba never received even that amount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a pretty extensive discussion of large numbers [here][1]. It mentions the passage from Galba and offers the following illustration:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.numericana.com/answer/roman.htm#roman&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PU48F.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="733" RevisionGUID="b7830573-07a2-4264-a496-79ae6a8ba080" CreationDate="2016-04-16T18:40:23.320" UserId="12" Text="I'll briefly summarize the analysis of W. Sydney Allen in *Vox Latina*, 111ff., which is itself a summary of A. E. Gordon's *The Letter Names of the Latin Alphabet*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the vowels.  These have the phonetic value of the letter in its long form: *ā, ē, ī, ō, ū*.  This is well established both by grammarians (Allen cites Pompeius, &quot;quando solae proferuntur, logae sun semper&quot;, *Commentum Artis Donati*) and use in poetry, where the hexameter demands that the lone vowel is long:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A primum est, hinc incipiam, et quae nomina ab hoc sunt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turning to consonants, most of the plosives (*b, c, d, g, t*) have a vowel, ē, added to the end of them.  The fact that the added vowel is an *e* is attested by grammarians, while the length of it is established by the meter of a number of works of poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two plosives that don't follow this rule are *k* and *q*.  Their names, according to grammarians and other sources, are *cā* and *cū*, respectively; this is likely a result of ways these letters were commonly used (frequently *ka-* and *qu-*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter *h*, an aspirate, receives relatively little attention, but some grammarians give its name as *hā*, with the vowel quantity demonstrated by meter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remaining letters in the original Latin alphabet, *f, l, m, n, r, s, x*, represent sounds that can be prolonged (unlike the plosives), allowing them to form independent syllables and therefore, theoretically, to be named simply by sounding them (without the addition of a vowel).  This may have been the practice of some, but a system attributed to Varro adds *ĕ*, a short vowel, in front: *ĕf, ĕl, ĕm, ĕn, ĕr, ĕs, ĕx*. Some writers, influenced by Greek, name *x* as *ĭx*.  This system apparently prevailed (it is found in Priscian, among others), but one alternative system we are aware of employed a short vowel before and after, to form the disyllabic names *ĕffĕ*, *ĕllĕ*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letters *y* and *z* were not originally members of the Latin alphabet.  The earliest name of *y* may have been *hy*, from Greek, but later this would have been confused with the name for *i*, so it was given the name *y graeca*, pronounced as *ī graeca*.  The letter *z* took its Greek name, *zēta*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the names of all the letters are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ā &#xD;&#xA; - bē &#xD;&#xA; - cē &#xD;&#xA; - dē &#xD;&#xA; - ē &#xD;&#xA; - ĕf &#xD;&#xA; - gē &#xD;&#xA; - hā &#xD;&#xA; - ī &#xD;&#xA; - cā &#xD;&#xA; - ĕl &#xD;&#xA; - ĕm &#xD;&#xA; - ĕn &#xD;&#xA; - ō &#xD;&#xA; - pē &#xD;&#xA; - cū &#xD;&#xA; - ĕr &#xD;&#xA; - ĕs &#xD;&#xA; - tē &#xD;&#xA; - ū &#xD;&#xA; - ĕx or ĭx&#xD;&#xA; - ī graeca&#xD;&#xA; - zēta" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2578" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="732" RevisionGUID="b4f3cf22-fa0f-40e2-880f-c698d25c37d1" CreationDate="2016-04-16T18:43:36.163" UserId="12" Comment="edited title" Text="What are the classical names of the letters of the Latin alphabet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="733" RevisionGUID="7c4e5c41-6f58-44b2-9789-880a1fca11fe" CreationDate="2016-04-16T18:52:04.273" UserId="12" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I'll briefly summarize the analysis of W. Sydney Allen in *Vox Latina*, 111ff., which is itself a summary of A. E. Gordon's *The Letter Names of the Latin Alphabet*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the vowels.  These have the phonetic value of the letter in its long form: *ā, ē, ī, ō, ū*.  This is well established both by grammarians (Allen cites Pompeius, &quot;quando solae proferuntur, longae sunt semper,&quot; *Commentum Artis Donati*) and use in poetry, where the hexameter demands that the lone vowel is long:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A primum est, hinc incipiam, et quae nomina ab hoc sunt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turning to consonants, most of the plosives (*b, c, d, g, t*) have a vowel, ē, added to the end of them.  The fact that the added vowel is an *e* is attested by grammarians, while the length of it is established by the meter of a number of works of poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two plosives that don't follow this rule are *k* and *q*.  Their names, according to grammarians and other sources, are *cā* and *cū*, respectively; this is likely a result of ways these letters were commonly used (frequently *ka-* and *qu-*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter *h*, an aspirate, receives relatively little attention, but some grammarians give its name as *hā*, with the vowel quantity demonstrated by meter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remaining letters in the original Latin alphabet, *f, l, m, n, r, s, x*, represent sounds that can be prolonged (unlike the plosives), allowing them to form independent syllables and therefore, theoretically, to be named simply by sounding them (without the addition of a vowel).  This may have been the practice of some, but a system attributed to Varro adds *ĕ*, a short vowel, in front: *ĕf, ĕl, ĕm, ĕn, ĕr, ĕs, ĕx*. Some writers, influenced by Greek, name *x* as *ĭx*.  This system apparently prevailed (it is found in Priscian, among others), but one alternative system we are aware of employed a short vowel before and after, to form the disyllabic names *ĕffĕ*, *ĕllĕ*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letters *y* and *z* were not originally members of the Latin alphabet.  The earliest name of *y* may have been *hy*, from Greek, but later this would have been confused with the name for *i*, so it was given the name *y graeca*, pronounced as *ī graeca*.  The letter *z* took its Greek name, *zēta*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the names of all the letters are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ā &#xD;&#xA; - bē &#xD;&#xA; - cē &#xD;&#xA; - dē &#xD;&#xA; - ē &#xD;&#xA; - ĕf &#xD;&#xA; - gē &#xD;&#xA; - hā &#xD;&#xA; - ī &#xD;&#xA; - cā &#xD;&#xA; - ĕl &#xD;&#xA; - ĕm &#xD;&#xA; - ĕn &#xD;&#xA; - ō &#xD;&#xA; - pē &#xD;&#xA; - cū &#xD;&#xA; - ĕr &#xD;&#xA; - ĕs &#xD;&#xA; - tē &#xD;&#xA; - ū &#xD;&#xA; - ĕx or ĭx&#xD;&#xA; - ī graeca&#xD;&#xA; - zēta" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="733" RevisionGUID="c0a766c4-1444-4f6f-80c2-2c0ffa22be5c" CreationDate="2016-04-16T18:57:41.103" UserId="12" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I'll briefly summarize the analysis of W. Sydney Allen in *Vox Latina*, 111ff., which is itself a summary of A. E. Gordon's *The Letter Names of the Latin Alphabet*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the vowels.  These have the phonetic value of the letter in its long form: *ā, ē, ī, ō, ū*.  This is well established both by grammarians (Allen cites Pompeius, &quot;quando solae proferuntur, longae sunt semper,&quot; *Commentum Artis Donati*) and use in poetry, where the hexameter demands that the lone vowel is long:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A primum est, hinc incipiam, et quae nomina ab hoc sunt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turning to consonants, most of the plosives (*b, c, d, g, t*) have a vowel, ē, added to the end of them.  The fact that the added vowel is an *e* is attested by grammarians, while the length of it is established by the meter of a number of works of poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two plosives that don't follow this rule are *k* and *q*.  Their names, according to grammarians and other sources, are *cā* and *cū*, respectively; this is likely a result of ways these letters were commonly used (frequently *ka-* and *qu-*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter *h*, an aspirate, receives relatively little attention, but some grammarians give its name as *hā*, with the vowel quantity demonstrated by meter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remaining letters in the original Latin alphabet, *f, l, m, n, r, s, x*, represent sounds that can be prolonged (unlike the plosives), allowing them to form independent syllables and therefore, theoretically, to be named simply by sounding them (without the addition of a vowel).  This may have been the practice of some, but a system attributed to Varro adds *ĕ*, a short vowel, in front: *ĕf, ĕl, ĕm, ĕn, ĕr, ĕs, ĕx*. Some writers, influenced by Greek, name *x* as *ĭx*.  This system apparently prevailed (it is found in Priscian, among others), but one alternative system we are aware of employed a short vowel before and after, to form the disyllabic names *ĕffĕ*, *ĕllĕ*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letters *y* and *z* were not originally members of the Latin alphabet.  The earliest name of *y* may have been *hy*, from Greek, but later this would have been confused with the name for *i*, so it was given the name *y graeca*, pronounced as *ī graeca*.  The letter *z* took its Greek name, *zēta*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the names of all the letters are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A    B    C    D    E    F    G    H    I    K &#xD;&#xA;    ā    bē   cē   dē   ē    ĕf   gē   hā   ī    cā&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    L    M    N    O    P    Q    R    S    T    U&#xD;&#xA;    ĕl   ĕm   ĕn   ō    pē   cū   ĕr   ĕs   tē   ū   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    X            Y                 Z&#xD;&#xA;    ĕx or ĭx     y ([ī]) graeca    zēta" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="727" RevisionGUID="4adb8107-51be-4b78-b106-f20a4033ed44" CreationDate="2016-04-17T02:52:49.973" UserId="386" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="The Latin plural of *Iesus* (m, genitive: *Iesū*) would technically be ***Iesūs*** since it is often [considered to belong](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Iesus#Latin) (also [here](http://liturgialatina.blogspot.ch/2011/01/latin-of-introits-holy-name-of-jesus-in.html)) to the [fourth declension](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_fourth_declension), although it is highly irregular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in reality I highy doubt that you will come across a real case of *Iesus* being used in its plural form considering that it would not make a lot of sense to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: After further research it seems that *Iesus* indeed does not have a plural form as stated by a [Latin Teacher](http://www.vocabulary-lesson-plans.com/the-declension-of-jesus.html)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="734" RevisionGUID="a4915512-d24b-48dd-aed3-738f5ea15e83" CreationDate="2016-04-17T17:46:54.810" UserId="79" Text="In English, like in many other languages, &quot;to drink&quot; often means &quot;to drink alcohol&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I dislike this connotation, and I would like to be able to talk about drinking with minimal alcoholic connotations.&#xD;&#xA;Which Latin verb for drinking is best suited for this purpose?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several verbs for drinking.&#xD;&#xA;The most important ones are *bibere* and *potare*, but there are also verbs like *sorbere*, *haurire*, *exsiccare* that could mean drinking in some context.&#xD;&#xA;These verbs also come with various prefixes.&#xD;&#xA;There is also *sumere*, but that can refer to any kind of consumption, not just drinks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more specific version of the question:&#xD;&#xA;Which one of *bibere* and *potare* has weaker alcoholic connotation?&#xD;&#xA;Is there some other verb that would be even better in this respect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2585" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="734" RevisionGUID="a4915512-d24b-48dd-aed3-738f5ea15e83" CreationDate="2016-04-17T17:46:54.810" UserId="79" Text="Which verb for drinking is least related to alcohol?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2586" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="734" RevisionGUID="a4915512-d24b-48dd-aed3-738f5ea15e83" CreationDate="2016-04-17T17:46:54.810" UserId="79" Text="|nuance|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="735" RevisionGUID="af5abf5b-f282-4118-b396-1a9e47340b0a" CreationDate="2016-04-17T18:24:31.900" UserId="68" Text="A look at Lewis &amp; Short suggests that perhaps *bíbó* is what you want:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. to drink&#xD;&#xA;2. to arrive at the region of the river&#xD;&#xA;3. the inhabitants of the country through which the river passes&#xD;&#xA;4. to be drowned&#xD;&#xA;5. to founder, to be wrecked&#xD;&#xA;6. to draw blood, to kill&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The notes suggest that a connotation of alcohol isn't unknown for *bíbó*, but it doesn't seem to be common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Pótó*, on the other hand, seems both in its definitions and its notes to include alcohol as an option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. to drink&#xD;&#xA;2. to drink from a stream, to dwell by it&#xD;&#xA;3. to drink up, to suck or draw in, to absorb&#xD;&#xA;4. Causative, to give to drink, to cause to drink&#xD;&#xA;5. to drink&#xD;&#xA;6. to drink, tope, tipple&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Isidore, in his *Differentiæ I.74*, supports the choice of *pótó* as more likely to include alcohol with this distinction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bibere naturae est, potare luxuriae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think if you want to be abstemious, *bíbó* is the best bet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="736" RevisionGUID="c1159220-edd8-4c00-981f-8598ec179beb" CreationDate="2016-04-17T18:27:12.870" UserId="45" Text="I'm afraid you might be out of luck, my friend, if you are looking for a word that means &quot;drink&quot; while excluding the possibility of alcohol consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't believe there is any way to prevent common parlance from taking innocuous words and using them with derived meanings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick tour of how Plautus uses *bibere* and *potare* might serve to illustrate this point. This exercise was ridiculously simple: there were almost no cases of these verbs *not* applying to alcohol. In some of the below cases, wine is already introduced or in the sentence itself. In others, the mere presence of the verb, in the appropriate context, allows one to infer what is being drunk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Phaedromus pours wine in libation on the doorposts, he recites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Agite **bibite**, festivae fores;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **potate**, fite mihi volentes propitiae. (*Curc*, I.i)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, speaking to the alcoholic guardian of the house:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Le. Egon salva sim, quae siti sicca sum? Ph. At iam **bibes**.  &#xD;&#xA;Leaena Diu fit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Phaed. Em tibi anus lepida. Leaena Salve, oculissime homo.  &#xD;&#xA;Pal. Age, effunde hoc cito in barathrum, propere  &#xD;&#xA;prolue cloacam. Phaed. Tace. Nolo huic male dici. Pal. Faciam igitur male  &#xD;&#xA;        potius.  &#xD;&#xA;Le. Venus, de paulo paululum hoc tibi dabo haud lubenter.  &#xD;&#xA;nam tibi amantes propitiantes vinum **potantes** danunt  &#xD;&#xA;omnes, mihi haud saepe evenunt tales hereditates. (I.ii)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Curculio, speaking of Greeks in public places:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obstant, obsistunt, incedunt cum suis sententiis,  &#xD;&#xA;quos semper videas **bibentes** esse in thermipolio (II.ii)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leonida, speaking of his companions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quando mecum pariter **potant**, pariter scortari solent (*Asinaria*, II.ii)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Artemona, speaking of her husband in the same play:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ain tu meum virum hic **potare** (V.ii)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is also clear for derived adjectives, such as *potulentus* (see meaning 2 of [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpotulentus)) and *(ad)potus* ([L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=adpotus&amp;la=la#lexicon)), *bibax*, *bibulus*, or (my favorite) the nickname given to Tiberius Claudius Nero because of his love of drink: *[Biberius Caldius Mero](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DBiberius)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: I do not believe it is possible to exclude the possibility of this interpretation by mere verb choice. Even the most descriptive, innocuous ways of expressing drinking (like *sitim satisfacere*) are easily appropriated for other purposes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="711" RevisionGUID="5f61dc18-5540-4466-9dd1-9947c919db3a" CreationDate="2016-04-17T18:55:15.657" UserId="79" Comment="Tried to push it under the limit of a tour example." Text="How to express the following sentence in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I am after a good choice of structure, not a literal translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I regret to inform you that our old teacher has died.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is *Doleo te certiorem facere de morte magistri nostri veteris.*&#xD;&#xA;Is *doleo te certiorem facere* or *doleo tibi narrare* an idiomatic and grammatical way of putting this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="735" RevisionGUID="c8fb696d-b033-43ec-b485-7fd028eeac18" CreationDate="2016-04-17T19:04:26.960" UserId="68" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="A look at Lewis &amp; Short suggests that perhaps *bíbó* is what you want:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. to drink&#xD;&#xA;2. to arrive at the region of the river&#xD;&#xA;3. the inhabitants of the country through which the river passes&#xD;&#xA;4. to be drowned&#xD;&#xA;5. to founder, to be wrecked&#xD;&#xA;6. to draw blood, to kill&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the definition doesn't mention alcohol. The notes do suggest, though, that a connotation of alcohol isn't unknown for *bíbó*, so it can be used intemperately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Pótó*, on the other hand, seems both in its definitions and its notes to include alcohol as an option more strongly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. to drink&#xD;&#xA;2. to drink from a stream, to dwell by it&#xD;&#xA;3. to drink up, to suck or draw in, to absorb&#xD;&#xA;4. Causative, to give to drink, to cause to drink&#xD;&#xA;5. to drink&#xD;&#xA;6. to drink, tope, tipple&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Isidore, in his *Differentiæ I.74*, supports the choice of *pótó* as more likely to include alcohol with this distinction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bibere naturae est, potare luxuriae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think if you want to be abstemious, *bíbó* is a better bet than *pótó*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="735" RevisionGUID="f66d29d1-d8a7-4acc-bf75-e9a3552b0a7d" CreationDate="2016-04-17T19:10:44.740" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="A look at Lewis &amp; Short suggests that perhaps *bíbó* is what you want:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. to drink&#xD;&#xA;2. to arrive at the region of the river&#xD;&#xA;3. the inhabitants of the country through which the river passes&#xD;&#xA;4. to be drowned&#xD;&#xA;5. to founder, to be wrecked&#xD;&#xA;6. to draw blood, to kill&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the definition doesn't mention alcohol. The notes do suggest, though, that a connotation of alcohol isn't unknown for *bíbó*, so it can be used intemperately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Pótó*, on the other hand, seems both in its definitions and its notes to include alcohol as an option more strongly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. to drink&#xD;&#xA;2. to drink from a stream, to dwell by it&#xD;&#xA;3. to drink up, to suck or draw in, to absorb&#xD;&#xA;4. Causative, to give to drink, to cause to drink&#xD;&#xA;5. to drink&#xD;&#xA;6. to drink, tope, tipple&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Isidore, in his *Etymologiæ I.74*, supports the choice of *pótó* as more likely to include alcohol with this distinction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bibere naturae est, potare luxuriae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think if you want to be abstemious, *bíbó* is a better bet than *pótó*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="735" RevisionGUID="a4ab2627-7a0b-4b1c-a3eb-edc129913df6" CreationDate="2016-04-17T19:27:33.813" UserId="68" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="A look at Lewis &amp; Short suggests that perhaps *bíbó* is what you want:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. to drink&#xD;&#xA;2. to arrive at the region of the river&#xD;&#xA;3. the inhabitants of the country through which the river passes&#xD;&#xA;4. to be drowned&#xD;&#xA;5. to founder, to be wrecked&#xD;&#xA;6. to draw blood, to kill&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the definition doesn't mention alcohol. The notes do suggest, though, that a connotation of alcohol isn't unknown for *bíbó*, so it can be used intemperately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Pótó*, on the other hand, seems both in its definitions and its notes to include alcohol as an option more strongly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. to drink&#xD;&#xA;2. to drink from a stream, to dwell by it&#xD;&#xA;3. to drink up, to suck or draw in, to absorb&#xD;&#xA;4. Causative, to give to drink, to cause to drink&#xD;&#xA;5. to drink&#xD;&#xA;6. to drink, tope, tipple&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Isidore, in his *Dé Differentiís Verbórum I.74*, supports the choice of *pótó* as more likely to include alcohol with this distinction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bibere naturae est, potare luxuriae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think if you want to be abstemious, *bíbó* is a better bet than *pótó*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="737" RevisionGUID="854ef980-b216-4cae-8cfe-764db1802e0d" CreationDate="2016-04-18T11:50:05.263" UserId="79" Text="&lt;b&gt;Latin Language Stack Exchange&lt;/b&gt; is a question and answer site for linguists, teachers, and students wanting to discuss the finer points of the Latin language. It's built and run &lt;i&gt;by you&lt;/i&gt; as part of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Stack Exchange&lt;/a&gt; network of Q&amp;amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about Latin language. &lt;i&gt;Si Anglice non intellegis et hoc situ uti vis, vide &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/168/79&quot;&gt;hanc paginam Latine scriptam&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/i&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="738" RevisionGUID="8ebaf33f-e432-4eb5-bbbe-52ca03c7c82a" CreationDate="2016-04-18T11:51:25.013" UserId="79" Text="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Specific issues with Latin language, for example about grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;History and culture when there is a close relation to Latin language&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Latin literature&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Real problems or questions that you’ve encountered&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="739" RevisionGUID="bb8fc142-f7c2-4e77-8f3d-b6d468e49965" CreationDate="2016-04-18T11:51:55.713" UserId="79" Text="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Anything not directly related to Latin language&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Questions that are primarily opinion-based&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Questions with too many possible answers or that would require an extremely long answer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Questions that show no research effort using readily available online sources&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="740" RevisionGUID="0c483485-3438-4981-9bc8-0ed971d13175" CreationDate="2016-04-18T11:52:56.497" UserId="79" Text="&lt;p&gt;Si Anglice non intellegis et hoc situ uti vis, vide &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/168/79&quot;&gt;hanc paginam Latine scriptam&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="741" RevisionGUID="e8e9c38f-9bca-4604-8c9d-ef6667f25ac4" CreationDate="2016-04-18T11:54:43.747" UserId="79" Text="&lt;p&gt;The site is for questions about the Latin language throughout its history. We welcome questions about all aspects of Latin language, its relation to other languages and also cultural and historical questions that are strongly related to Latin. The site is aimed for experts and students in the field. The site is not a translation service or a homework help center.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have a look around to get an idea what kinds of questions are welcome here. Possible topics include but may not be limited to the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Latin grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;etymology and relations to other languages&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;interpretation of difficult passages and works of literature in Latin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;history and culture when directly about or when there is a strong connection to the Latin language&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;requests of examples in literature for uses of certain words or structures&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions may be asked and answered in English or Latin, preferably with an English summary if in Latin. If you are not fluent in either language, post your question in your language of preference and provide a rough translation to English or Latin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;/search&quot;&gt;look around&lt;/a&gt; to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to &lt;a href=&quot;/helpcenter/self-answer&quot;&gt;ask and answer your own question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your question is not specifically on-topic for $SiteName, it may be on topic for another Stack Exchange site. If no site currently exists that will accept your question, you may &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/faq&quot;&gt;commit to&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76974/how-can-i-propose-a-new-site&quot;&gt;propose&lt;/a&gt; a new site at &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Area51&lt;/a&gt;, the place where new Stack Exchange communities are democratically created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="741" RevisionGUID="c3161937-2ec3-4c0b-b553-1c643366537b" CreationDate="2016-04-18T12:12:36.963" UserId="79" Comment="Moderator edits article" Text="&lt;p&gt;The site is for questions about the Latin language throughout its history. We welcome questions about all aspects of Latin language, its relation to other languages and also cultural and historical questions that are strongly related to Latin. The site is aimed for experts and students in the field. The site is not a translation service or a homework help center.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have a look around to get an idea what kinds of questions are welcome here. Possible topics include but may not be limited to the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Latin grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;etymology and relations to other languages&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;interpretation of difficult passages and works of literature in Latin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;history and culture when directly about or when there is a strong connection to the Latin language&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;requests of examples in literature for uses of certain words or structures&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, questions of the following kinds should generally not be asked here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;translation requests or etymological queries that show no serious research effort using readily available online sources&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;requests for homework help unless they show significant attempt to solve the problems without outside help&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions may be asked and answered in English or Latin, preferably with an English summary if in Latin. If you are not fluent in either language, post your question in your language of preference and provide a rough translation to English or Latin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;/search&quot;&gt;look around&lt;/a&gt; to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to &lt;a href=&quot;/helpcenter/self-answer&quot;&gt;ask and answer your own question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your question is not specifically on-topic for $SiteName, it may be on topic for another Stack Exchange site. If no site currently exists that will accept your question, you may &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/faq&quot;&gt;commit to&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76974/how-can-i-propose-a-new-site&quot;&gt;propose&lt;/a&gt; a new site at &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Area51&lt;/a&gt;, the place where new Stack Exchange communities are democratically created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2600" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="741" RevisionGUID="c3161937-2ec3-4c0b-b553-1c643366537b" CreationDate="2016-04-18T12:12:36.963" UserId="79" Comment="Moderator edits article" Text="What topics can I ask about here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="742" RevisionGUID="474a236b-7595-4ca3-ab67-5c2b8b286f10" CreationDate="2016-04-18T12:41:03.133" UserId="79" Text="I was thinking about expanding our [help page in Latin](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/168/79), and I realized I don't know a good expression for &quot;user account&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;user&quot; can be reasonably translated as *usor*, but &quot;account&quot; is harder.&#xD;&#xA;The words that I have found (*ratio*, *computum*, *codex*) seem to miss the point and are prone to misunderstandings.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a good expression for &quot;account&quot; or &quot;user account&quot; in Latin that is easy to understand and preferably already in use?&#xD;&#xA;My best guess now is [*logarion*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2033306), but I doubt that is recognized widely enough to be useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2602" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="742" RevisionGUID="474a236b-7595-4ca3-ab67-5c2b8b286f10" CreationDate="2016-04-18T12:41:03.133" UserId="79" Text="What is &quot;user account&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2603" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="742" RevisionGUID="474a236b-7595-4ca3-ab67-5c2b8b286f10" CreationDate="2016-04-18T12:41:03.133" UserId="79" Text="|translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="742" RevisionGUID="fb42ffed-2755-4bd3-9805-2bf0a95f840f" CreationDate="2016-04-18T12:53:19.817" UserId="79" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I was thinking about expanding our [help page in Latin](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/168/79), and I realized I don't know a good expression for &quot;user account&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;user&quot; can be reasonably translated as *usor*, but &quot;account&quot; is harder.&#xD;&#xA;The words that I have found (*ratio*, *computum*, *codex*) seem to miss the point and are prone to misunderstandings.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a good expression for &quot;account&quot; or &quot;user account&quot; in Latin that is easy to understand and preferably already in use?&#xD;&#xA;My best guess now is *[logarion](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2033306) usoris*, but I doubt that is recognized widely enough to be useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="738" RevisionGUID="a639ef3d-6c85-466b-9d78-c2d056f2dc2d" CreationDate="2016-04-18T13:38:34.830" UserId="12" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Specific issues with Latin, such as with grammar, vocabulary or pronunciation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;History and culture when there is a close relation to the Latin language&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Latin literature&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Real problems or questions that you’ve encountered&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="739" RevisionGUID="c2f63466-83d9-4fcb-9405-5440b9a22bb0" CreationDate="2016-04-18T13:39:23.720" UserId="12" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Anything not directly related to the Latin language&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Questions that are primarily opinion-based&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Questions with too many possible answers or that would require an extremely long answer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Questions that show no research effort using readily available online sources&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="739" RevisionGUID="ce5de804-c55a-408e-a9a4-62736fa23486" CreationDate="2016-04-18T14:11:29.147" UserId="12" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Anything not directly related to the Latin language&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Questions that are primarily opinion-based&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Questions with too many possible answers or that would require an extremely long answer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Questions that show &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/143&quot;&gt;no research effort&lt;/a&gt; using readily available online sources&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="741" RevisionGUID="c522544d-7d94-4557-90ee-d2d98a8ecb3d" CreationDate="2016-04-18T14:15:49.917" UserId="12" Comment="Moderator edits article" Text="&lt;p&gt;The site is for questions about the Latin language throughout its history. We welcome questions about all aspects of Latin language, its relation to other languages and also cultural and historical questions that are strongly related to Latin. The site is aimed for experts and students in the field. The site is not a translation service or a homework help center.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have a look around to get an idea what kinds of questions are welcome here. Possible topics include but may not be limited to the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Latin grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;etymology and relations to other languages&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;interpretation of difficult passages and works of literature in Latin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;history and culture when directly about or when there is a strong connection to the Latin language&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;requests of examples in literature for uses of certain words or structures&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, questions of the following kinds should generally not be asked here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;translation requests or etymological queries that show no serious research effort using readily available online sources&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;requests for homework help unless they show significant attempt to solve the problems without outside help (for guidance, see: &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/143/12&quot;&gt;How can I ask a translation or homework question?&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions may be asked and answered in English or Latin, preferably with an English summary if in Latin. If you are not fluent in either language, post your question in your language of preference and provide a rough translation to English or Latin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;/search&quot;&gt;look around&lt;/a&gt; to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to &lt;a href=&quot;/helpcenter/self-answer&quot;&gt;ask and answer your own question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your question is not specifically on-topic for $SiteName, it may be on topic for another Stack Exchange site. If no site currently exists that will accept your question, you may &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/faq&quot;&gt;commit to&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76974/how-can-i-propose-a-new-site&quot;&gt;propose&lt;/a&gt; a new site at &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Area51&lt;/a&gt;, the place where new Stack Exchange communities are democratically created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="743" RevisionGUID="1cad2c5c-b55d-4388-a9b3-cb1d1f7e544c" CreationDate="2016-04-18T19:46:17.523" UserId="45" Text="In the Catholic liturgy at the dismissal, the Latin phrase used is &quot;Ite, missa est.&quot; The usual translation for this is &quot;Go, the Mass has ended.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone suggest a proper parsing of this somewhat opaque phrase? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2610" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="743" RevisionGUID="1cad2c5c-b55d-4388-a9b3-cb1d1f7e544c" CreationDate="2016-04-18T19:46:17.523" UserId="45" Text="Proper parsing of &quot;Ite, missa est&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2611" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="743" RevisionGUID="1cad2c5c-b55d-4388-a9b3-cb1d1f7e544c" CreationDate="2016-04-18T19:46:17.523" UserId="45" Text="|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="743" RevisionGUID="865a601f-4781-4fe0-a666-e7fb08d27e22" CreationDate="2016-04-18T19:55:17.573" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="In the Catholic liturgy at the dismissal, the Latin phrase used is &quot;Ite, missa est.&quot; The usual translation for this is &quot;Go, the Mass has ended.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone suggest a proper parsing of this somewhat opaque phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2613" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="743" RevisionGUID="865a601f-4781-4fe0-a666-e7fb08d27e22" CreationDate="2016-04-18T19:55:17.573" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|translation|phrase|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="737" RevisionGUID="18b33fc8-c0fd-4bc0-9522-c52763217645" CreationDate="2016-04-18T21:19:49.727" UserId="12" Comment="edited body" Text="&lt;b&gt;Latin Language Stack Exchange&lt;/b&gt; is a question and answer site for linguists, teachers, and students wanting to discuss the finer points of the Latin language. It's built and run &lt;i&gt;by you &lt;/i&gt;as part of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Stack Exchange&lt;/a&gt; network of Q&amp;amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about Latin language. &lt;i&gt;Si Anglice non intellegis et hoc situ uti vis, vide &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/168/79&quot;&gt;hanc paginam Latine scriptam&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/i&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="744" RevisionGUID="a8bc4e71-362b-4897-9078-216b246b4af0" CreationDate="2016-04-18T23:57:42.243" UserId="44" Text="The phrase is confusing if one assumes that *missa* is a perfect passive participle, since it has no obvious antecedent. The ending dialogue of the (Pauline/Novus Ordo) mass goes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; V: Benedicat vos Omnipotens Deus: Pater, Filius et Spiritus Sanctus.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; R: Amen.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; V: Ite, missa est.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; R: Deo gratias.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could guess that it is the *benedictio* that is sent. But in the older form of the mass, this blessing does not come until after the *Ite missa est* (the *Ita missa est* is preceded only by *Dominus vobiscum / Et cum spiritu tuo*). One might guess that the antecedent is something else like *ecclesia* or *congregatio*, but any proposed answer would be at best a guess. There is no sure historical answer. There was no liturgical committee from, say, the fourth century that composed this form out of nothing and wrote down exactly what they were thinking when they did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more probably and generally accepted answer is that *missa* in this case is probably not a perfect passive participle at all. It is just an alternative form of the noun *missio*, i.e. dismissal. The Catholic Encyclopedia provides some analogous cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before it became the technical name of the holy Liturgy in the Roman&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rite, it meant simply &quot;dismissal&quot;. The form missa for missio is like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that of collecta (for collectio), ascensa (ascensio), etc. So Ite&#xD;&#xA;&gt; missa est should be translated &quot;Go it is the dismissal.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08253a.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *missa* is just a first declension, singular, nominative noun, meaning, &quot;dismissal.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08253a.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="745" RevisionGUID="2e202c8c-d8e6-4f9f-9b77-502c79030b57" CreationDate="2016-04-19T07:13:22.153" UserId="79" Text="I know the Romans did derive verbs from nouns (*laudare*, *finire*, *lucere*&amp;hellip;), but did they ever derive verbs from names?&#xD;&#xA;The Greeks did, for example forming *homerizein* (ὁ&amp;mu;&amp;eta;&amp;rho;ί&amp;zeta;&amp;epsilon;&amp;iota;&amp;nu;) from *Homeros*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that *-izare*, borrowed from Greek, was used (productively) in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;However, I have never seen it attached to a name in classical context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the verb *latinizare* is easy to understand, but would a word like this ever have been used by classical authors?&#xD;&#xA;(There are of course longer ways around this word, like *ad linguam Latinan adaptare*.)&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer answers from the Augustan era or earlier, but later ones are also interesting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2617" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="745" RevisionGUID="2e202c8c-d8e6-4f9f-9b77-502c79030b57" CreationDate="2016-04-19T07:13:22.153" UserId="79" Text="Did the Romans derive verbs from names?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2618" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="745" RevisionGUID="2e202c8c-d8e6-4f9f-9b77-502c79030b57" CreationDate="2016-04-19T07:13:22.153" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|verbs|names|derivation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="746" RevisionGUID="35d5bbe6-c4e4-440f-a013-31c1a134f112" CreationDate="2016-04-19T13:33:17.343" UserId="45" Text="After searching for classical words that were used to similar effect, I have two suggestions for the word *account*: *[breviarium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dbreviarius)* and *[summarium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsummarium)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My preference is for *breviarium*, which means &quot;a summary, abridgment, abstract, epitome&quot; and which, when combined with *rationum*, means &quot;statistical view&quot;. Here are some example usages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Commentarios**, quos desideras, **diligenter ordinatos et in angustum coactos** ego vero conponam. Sed vide, ne plus profutura sit ratio ordinaria quam haec, **quae nunc vulgo breviarium dicitur**, olim cum latine loquerentur, **summarium** vocabatur. Illa res discenti magis necessaria est, haec scienti. Illa enim docet, haec admonet. Sed utriusque rei tibi copiam faciam. (Sen. Ep. 39.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is my reason for also suggesting *summarium*, which means the same thing but--at least for Seneca--represents purer Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; illa quoque uerene an falso per ludibrium iactabantur, adposita lautiore cena ingemuisse eum, et ordinario quidem dispensatori **breuiarium rationum** offerenti paropsidem leguminis pro sedulitate ac diligentia porrexisse (Suet. Galb. 12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The following ridiculous stories were also related of him; but whether with or without foundation, I know not; such as, that when a more sumptuous entertainment than usual was served up, he fetched a deep groan; that when one of the stewards presented him with an **account of his expenses**, he reached for a dish of legumes from his table as a reward for his care and diligence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for &quot;user&quot;, I cannot find even a neo-Latin usage of the term *usor*, which strikes me as awkward. (though I did find one for *[interretiarius](http://www.latin-english.com/word/12215/interretiarius-interretiarii/)* for &quot;internet user&quot;, but that's contrived and long.) Why not simply use *usus* ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion would therefore be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Usus Breviarium" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="747" RevisionGUID="cd68bc73-f8c6-4db3-9ebc-f725c67cd70c" CreationDate="2016-04-19T16:23:56.467" UserId="399" Text="I'm a student and my class laughes when we learn a new verb for &quot;to kill&quot;. Just to list some of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - necare&#xD;&#xA; - interficere&#xD;&#xA; - extinguere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Of course this is not all of them)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now my question is, why did they need so many words which mean virtually the same? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2621" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="747" RevisionGUID="cd68bc73-f8c6-4db3-9ebc-f725c67cd70c" CreationDate="2016-04-19T16:23:56.467" UserId="399" Text="Why are there so many latin verbs for &quot;to kill&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2622" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="747" RevisionGUID="cd68bc73-f8c6-4db3-9ebc-f725c67cd70c" CreationDate="2016-04-19T16:23:56.467" UserId="399" Text="|language-evolution|verbs|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="747" RevisionGUID="e16a2325-d9f2-4d7d-afab-a0226c96cbeb" CreationDate="2016-04-19T16:56:29.613" UserId="399" Comment="Updated my question to avoid being too broad" Text="I'm a student and my class laughes when we learn a new verb for &quot;to kill&quot;. Just to list some of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - necare&#xD;&#xA; - interficere&#xD;&#xA; - extinguere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to @JoonasIlmavirta for the following verbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - caedere&#xD;&#xA; - trucidare&#xD;&#xA; - concidere&#xD;&#xA; - effligere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Of course this is not all of them)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now my (updated) question is, how do these verbs differ from each other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2624" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="747" RevisionGUID="e16a2325-d9f2-4d7d-afab-a0226c96cbeb" CreationDate="2016-04-19T16:56:29.613" UserId="399" Comment="Updated my question to avoid being too broad" Text="|verbs|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="748" RevisionGUID="763c6c11-c5d1-47e2-a22c-01312c9036a0" CreationDate="2016-04-19T17:28:03.880" UserId="68" Text="What about *tabula sodalis* or *tabula sodalicia* (with an understood *rationum* or *rerum gestarum*)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I offer as support Cicero, *Pro Quinto Roscio*. Yonge's translation uses &quot;account&quot; very literally in some places here, but in other places he uses &quot;books&quot; and I think an extension of the metaphor isn't inappropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is scilicet vir optimus et singulari fide praeditus in suo iudicio suis **tabulis** testibus uti conatur. Solent fere dicere qui per **tabulas** hominis honesti pecuniam expensam tulerunt: 'egone talem virum corrumpere potui, ut mea causa falsum in codicem referret?' Exspecto quam mox Chaerea hac oratione utatur: 'egone hanc manum plenam perfidiae et hos digitos meos impellere potui ut falsum perscriberent nomen?' Quod si ille suas proferet **tabulas**, proferet suas	quoque Roscius. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Erit in illius **tabulis** hoc nomen, at &lt;in&gt; huius non erit. Cur potius illius quam huius credetur? Scripsisset ille, si non iussu huius expensum tulisset?	Non scripsisset hic quod sibi expensum ferre iussisset?	Nam quem ad modum turpe est scribere quod non debeatur, sic improbum est non referre quod debeas. Aeque enim **tabulae** condemnantur eius qui verum non rettulit et eius qui falsum perscripsit. Sed ego copia et facultate causae confisus vide quo progrediar. Si **tabulas** C. Fannius accepti et expensi profert suas in suam rem suo arbitratu scriptas, quo minus secundum illum iudicetis non recuso. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yonge's version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He, forsooth, excellent man, and of singular integrity, endeavours in his own cause to bring forward his **account-books** as witnesses. Those who desire to prove the payment of a sum of money by the **account-books** of an honorable man are accustomed to say.... Did I endeavour to corrupt such a man as that, so as to induce him to make a false entrance for my sake? I am waiting till Chaerea uses this argument. Was I able to induce this hand to be full of falsehood, and these fingers to make a false entry? But if he produces his **accounts**, Roscius will also produce his.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;These words will appear in the **books** of the one, but not in those of the other. Why should you trust one rather than the other? Oh, would he ever have written it if he had not borne this expense by his authority? No, says the other, would he not have written it if he had given the authority? For just as it is discreditable to put down what is not owed, so it is dishonest not to put down what you do owe. For his **accounts** are just as much condemned who omits to make an entry of the truth, as his who puts down what is false. But see now to what, relying on the abundance and cogency of my arguments, I am now coming. If Caius Fannius produces in his own behalf his **accounts** of money received and paid, written at his own pleasure, I do not object to your giving your decision in his favour." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="747" RevisionGUID="8c33afb9-3312-4fcc-af04-d52681264ae9" CreationDate="2016-04-19T17:33:10.953" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I'm a student and my class laughs when we learn a new verb for &quot;to kill&quot;. Just to list some of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - necare&#xD;&#xA; - interficere&#xD;&#xA; - extinguere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to @JoonasIlmavirta for the following verbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - caedere&#xD;&#xA; - trucidare&#xD;&#xA; - concidere&#xD;&#xA; - effligere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Of course this is not all of them)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now my (updated) question is, how do these verbs differ from each other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="748" RevisionGUID="9b430be2-1575-4485-8f37-c8ebed320d43" CreationDate="2016-04-19T17:44:27.420" UserId="68" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="What about *tabula sodalis* or *tabula sodalicia* (with an understood *rationum* or *rerum gestarum*)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I offer as support Cicero, *Pro Quinto Roscio*. Yonge's translation uses &quot;account&quot; very literally in some places here, but in other places he uses &quot;books&quot; and I think an extension of the metaphor isn't inappropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is scilicet vir optimus et singulari fide praeditus in suo iudicio suis **tabulis** testibus uti conatur. Solent fere dicere qui per **tabulas** hominis honesti pecuniam expensam tulerunt: 'egone talem virum corrumpere potui, ut mea causa falsum in codicem referret?' Exspecto quam mox Chaerea hac oratione utatur: 'egone hanc manum plenam perfidiae et hos digitos meos impellere potui ut falsum perscriberent nomen?' Quod si ille suas proferet **tabulas**, proferet suas	quoque Roscius. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Erit in illius **tabulis** hoc nomen, at &lt;in&gt; huius non erit. Cur potius illius quam huius credetur? Scripsisset ille, si non iussu huius expensum tulisset?	Non scripsisset hic quod sibi expensum ferre iussisset?	Nam quem ad modum turpe est scribere quod non debeatur, sic improbum est non referre quod debeas. Aeque enim **tabulae** condemnantur eius qui verum non rettulit et eius qui falsum perscripsit. Sed ego copia et facultate causae confisus vide quo progrediar. Si **tabulas** C. Fannius accepti et expensi profert suas in suam rem suo arbitratu scriptas, quo minus secundum illum iudicetis non recuso. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yonge's version, supplemented by Loeb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He, forsooth, excellent man, and of singular integrity, endeavours in his own cause to bring forward his **account-books** as witnesses. Those who desire to prove the payment of a sum of money by the **account-books** of an honorable man are accustomed to say.... Did I endeavour to corrupt such a man as that, so as to induce him to make a false entrance for my sake? I am waiting till Chaerea uses this argument. Was I able to induce this hand to be full of falsehood, and these fingers to make a false entry? But if he produces his **accounts**, Roscius will also produce his.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;These words will appear in the **books** of the one, but not in those of the other. Why should you trust one rather than the other? Oh, would he ever have written it if he had not borne this expense by his authority? No, says the other, would he not have written it if he had given the authority? For just as it is discreditable to put down what is not owed, so it is dishonest not to put down what you do owe. For his **accounts** are just as much condemned who omits to make an entry of the truth, as his who puts down what is false. But see now to what, relying on the abundance and cogency of my arguments, I am now coming. If Caius Fannius produces in his own behalf his **accounts** of money received and paid, written at his own pleasure, I do not object to your giving your decision in his favour." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2628" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="747" RevisionGUID="30947cf8-6d2d-4cc8-b1c3-98fe8827d8e9" CreationDate="2016-04-19T18:44:57.903" UserId="79" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="749" RevisionGUID="d4cf3bbd-f511-46e5-a63f-435bd2106a31" CreationDate="2016-04-19T21:23:25.950" UserId="401" Text="I'm looking to use Night bird as a name or title for something.   I don't know which would be more correct, if either is correct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Noctis Avem&#xD;&#xA;Avem Noctis&#xD;&#xA;Avis Noctem&#xD;&#xA;Avem nox &#xD;&#xA;and ect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What rules come into play when this is being used as a name or title of something, and is there more than one correct way to phrase it? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2630" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="749" RevisionGUID="d4cf3bbd-f511-46e5-a63f-435bd2106a31" CreationDate="2016-04-19T21:23:25.950" UserId="401" Text="What is the correct way to say &quot;Noctis Avem&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2631" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="749" RevisionGUID="d4cf3bbd-f511-46e5-a63f-435bd2106a31" CreationDate="2016-04-19T21:23:25.950" UserId="401" Text="|classical-latin|translation|poetry|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="749" RevisionGUID="58b17336-cf1a-4209-b92e-790e4ec0f355" CreationDate="2016-04-19T21:42:44.410" UserId="12" Comment="cleanup" Text="I'm looking to use &quot;Night bird&quot; as a name or title for something.   I don't know which, if any, of the following would be correct: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Noctis Avem&#xD;&#xA; - Avem Noctis&#xD;&#xA; - Avis Noctem&#xD;&#xA; - Avem nox &#xD;&#xA; - etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What rules come into play when this is being used as a name or title of something, and is there more than one correct way to phrase it? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2633" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="749" RevisionGUID="58b17336-cf1a-4209-b92e-790e4ec0f355" CreationDate="2016-04-19T21:42:44.410" UserId="12" Comment="cleanup" Text="What is the correct way to say &quot;Noctis Avem&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="750" RevisionGUID="1054cf50-3d6d-4ee7-b82d-6264a51a4e58" CreationDate="2016-04-19T22:03:39.803" UserId="79" Text="If you want to say &quot;night bird&quot; with the words &quot;night&quot; (*nox*) and &quot;bird&quot; (*avis*), you should say &quot;bird of the night&quot;, *avis noctis*.&#xD;&#xA;When you decline this expression, *noctis* (of the night) remains in the genitive case whereas *avis* takes the required case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more Latin way would be to use an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;I would go with *nocturnus* (nightly).&#xD;&#xA;Thus &quot;night bird&quot; would be *avis nocturna* (literally &quot;nightly bird&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;Here both words are declined, since we have an adjective attribute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use it as a title, the nominative (undeclined) case is the best choice.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I suggest ***avis nocturna***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="749" RevisionGUID="90ee2640-51b8-4339-83b6-e2624d54ca12" CreationDate="2016-04-19T22:05:03.420" UserId="79" Comment="Changed the tags." Text="I'm looking to use &quot;Night bird&quot; as a name or title for something.   I don't know which, if any, of the following would be correct: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Noctis Avem&#xD;&#xA; - Avem Noctis&#xD;&#xA; - Avis Noctem&#xD;&#xA; - Avem nox&#xD;&#xA; - etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What rules come into play when this is being used as a name or title of something, and is there more than one correct way to phrase it? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2636" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="749" RevisionGUID="90ee2640-51b8-4339-83b6-e2624d54ca12" CreationDate="2016-04-19T22:05:03.420" UserId="79" Comment="Changed the tags." Text="|classical-latin|translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="5d0baa43-2d80-4f09-a4fe-b0f781c3a715" CreationDate="2016-04-19T22:13:20.103" UserId="402" Text="I want to translate 2 terms:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The view (with the meaning of &quot;focus&quot;) to all.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    prospectus omnium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the &quot;contrary&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The view (to only) the strong ones&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    prospectus ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the first translation correct. How do I translate &quot;the strong ones&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks alot in advance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2638" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="5d0baa43-2d80-4f09-a4fe-b0f781c3a715" CreationDate="2016-04-19T22:13:20.103" UserId="402" Text="How to translate terms with prospectus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2639" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="5d0baa43-2d80-4f09-a4fe-b0f781c3a715" CreationDate="2016-04-19T22:13:20.103" UserId="402" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="eb6a1f8b-a814-475e-9a43-24af262f564d" CreationDate="2016-04-19T22:21:22.770" UserId="12" Comment="added 80 characters in body; edited title" Text="I want to translate two phrases:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The view [with the meaning of &quot;focus&quot;] to all.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; prospectus omnium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the opposite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The view to [only] the strong ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *prospectus* should be used here too, but not sure about the rest.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: is the first translation correct? And how do I translate &quot;the strong ones&quot; in the second phrase?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2641" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="eb6a1f8b-a814-475e-9a43-24af262f564d" CreationDate="2016-04-19T22:21:22.770" UserId="12" Comment="added 80 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to translate phrases using &quot;prospectus&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="bbbf70a3-1a6c-4662-8842-ce5221d938c2" CreationDate="2016-04-19T22:40:29.153" UserId="402" Comment="added 192 characters in body" Text="I want to translate two phrases:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The view [with the meaning of &quot;focus&quot;] to all.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; prospectus omnium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the opposite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The view to [only] the strong ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *prospectus* should be used here too, but not sure about the rest.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: is the first translation correct? And how do I translate &quot;the strong ones&quot; in the second phrase?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:  &#xD;&#xA;With the first expression I want to write about an ideology, where people focus on the whole community. And with the secound expression only the strong&#xD;&#xA;in a community are in focus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="752" RevisionGUID="2b2bf140-0c4b-4d18-9abe-8f73c005c0a6" CreationDate="2016-04-19T23:05:54.827" UserId="79" Text="I think *prospectus* is a decent word for &quot;view&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The harder part is formulating the target of the view, &quot;all&quot; (*omnes*) or &quot;the strong ones&quot; (*fortes*).&#xD;&#xA;One option is to use objective genitive.&#xD;&#xA;With this choice, your sentences look like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *prospectus omnium* (as you suggested) and *prospectus fortium*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a problem with this choice, though.&#xD;&#xA;One could interpret the genitives as subjective genitives instead of objective ones, whence the first one would mean the view held by all and the second one that held by the strong ones.&#xD;&#xA;If you want *omnes* and *fortes* to refer to the target of the view instead of the viewer, something else should be found.&#xD;&#xA;If this possibility of misinterpretation does not feel fatal, I suggest using the genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second option that comes to mind is to use the preposition *in* with accusative.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if this construction is really attested.&#xD;&#xA;This leads to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *prospectus in omnes* and *prospectus in fortes*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds a little fishy to me.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps someone can suggest a better alternative if these ideas don't work for you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="e768e29a-3066-4c05-a480-ee83bcf4a7bc" CreationDate="2016-04-19T23:07:15.787" UserId="79" Comment="Removed unnecessary metatext and corrected spelling." Text="I want to translate two phrases:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The view [with the meaning of &quot;focus&quot;] to all.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; prospectus omnium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the opposite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The view to [only] the strong ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *prospectus* should be used here too, but not sure about the rest.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the first translation correct? And how do I translate &quot;the strong ones&quot; in the second phrase?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;With the first expression I want to write about an ideology, where people focus on the whole community. And with the second expression only the strong&#xD;&#xA;in a community are in focus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="9019d638-762e-4a1d-9576-80a08115d209" CreationDate="2016-04-19T23:10:37.963" UserId="68" Text="I second the recommendation of *avis nocturna*. (It would also be possible to say *nocturna avis*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted something more poetic, you could also go with something like *avis tenebrosa*, which would translate to something like &quot;gloomy bird&quot; or &quot;bird of gloom.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="754" RevisionGUID="e3fcab91-abd8-46be-a57c-1fd548d54abf" CreationDate="2016-04-19T23:16:51.637" UserId="68" Text="I agree with Joonas Ilmavirta's thoughts about the subjective and objective genitive about about the fishiness of *in omnes/in fortes*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd suggest *prospectus ad omnes* and *prospectus ad fortes*. There's a flavor of purpose here—you're looking at all/the strong but you're also looking to accomplish something for or in relation to all/the strong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm unfamiliar enough with the literature to say that you shouldn't accept this answer on faith—perhaps some others can weigh in on it or add other options with answers of their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="9610ee40-63a4-4d59-b715-6fdd0dfc75d3" CreationDate="2016-04-19T23:35:26.937" UserId="68" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="I second the recommendation of *avis nocturna*. (It would also be possible to say *nocturna avis*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted something more poetic, you could also go with something like *avis tenebrosa*, which would translate to something like &quot;gloomy bird&quot; or &quot;bird of gloom&quot; or &quot;dark bird.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="755" RevisionGUID="cd74c839-b3b7-4cae-b76f-6f995083c868" CreationDate="2016-04-20T04:56:06.137" UserId="406" Text="I agree with Joonas about the genitive ambiguity; &quot;the view of [i.e. held by] the people&quot; seems to be a fairly common classical construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not finding much of anything attested for *prōspectus in...*, except for a kind of strange usage in 2 Maccabees 13.5. However, *prōspectus ex...* is definitely attested: from Catullus 64, *summā prōspectum ex arce* &quot;the view from the highest peaks&quot;. And the verb form *prōspiciō*, though usually found with a direct object in the accusative, is also attested with *in* and *per*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say use *ad* here; *prōspectus in...* sounds to me like you're looking into a building through the window or something, rather than looking at a person. But there's not really enough evidence to enforce one over the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: LSJ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="756" RevisionGUID="495069b3-3187-464d-8fd3-a32f4b6ab2d1" CreationDate="2016-04-20T05:11:45.530" UserId="406" Text="Proving non-existence is difficult, but in my (albeit limited) experience I've never seen *-izō* used in Classical Latin. The first verb-forming suffix that comes to mind is *-ficō*, derived from *fāciō*, applied to an adjective; the ancestor of English -ify. *Latinificāre* sounds a bit better than *Latinizāre* (which feels too Greek to me)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="757" RevisionGUID="b18828df-47d4-4103-a23f-4df58dcd1558" CreationDate="2016-04-20T09:01:19.973" UserId="79" Text="Sometimes it is preferable to leave a person's gender undisclosed and some people do not fall into the usual two gender categories.&#xD;&#xA;This requires some adaptations in languages that indicate gender in nouns or pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;In English one can use the plural &quot;they&quot; in the singular so as to avoid choosing between &quot;he&quot; and &quot;she&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In Swedish a new neutral pronoun &quot;hen&quot; has been introduced in addition to the masculine &quot;han&quot; and the feminine &quot;hon&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know if there is a neutral choice in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Using neuter (e.g. *id* instead of *is* or *ea*) is one option, but it makes the person in question sound inanimate.&#xD;&#xA;In case of a person of unknown gender Latin uses masculine, but this is not really a good option for this purpose:&#xD;&#xA;If I speak about a specific person, then using a masculine pronoun indicates that the person is male, whereas I wanted to make no statement about their gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which Latin pronoun(s) could I use to refer to people of unspecified gender?**&#xD;&#xA;If you suggest a new pronoun, where has it been used and how can I decline it?&#xD;&#xA;If you suggest using neuter pronouns for people in this case, can you provide use examples to show that this has really been done before?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2651" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="757" RevisionGUID="b18828df-47d4-4103-a23f-4df58dcd1558" CreationDate="2016-04-20T09:01:19.973" UserId="79" Text="Is there a gender-neutral pronoun for people in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2652" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="757" RevisionGUID="b18828df-47d4-4103-a23f-4df58dcd1558" CreationDate="2016-04-20T09:01:19.973" UserId="79" Text="|pronouns|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="758" RevisionGUID="b5341a7c-f0ca-48c7-92fd-54c007cc14e6" CreationDate="2016-04-20T13:14:42.443" UserId="30" Text="It is important to distinguish between syntactic gender and semantic gender. As we all know, a word like *centuria*, &quot;group of ca. 100 soldiers&quot;, is syntactically feminine, but semantically it is masculine, since the Romans had no female soldiers. A feminine word is used to describe men. There is no necessary conexion between syntactic and semantic gender. Cf. German *das Mädchen* &quot;the girl&quot; (neuter), Dutch *het meisje* &quot;the girl&quot; (neuter). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say, in Latin the masculine gender is used to indicate that you are talking about a person of unknown gender. It is the same in many Indo-European languages (all that I know, at least), and that's probably why no neutral pronouns for people are used: the reader or listener knows that you are not actually indicating that this unknown person should be masculine, you're just applying the neutral use of the pronoun. So you could say that e.g. *is* really is the neutral pronoun for people in Latin, in addition to its being the masculine pronoun. A word can have two different senses, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in case you want to talk about someone without revealing his gender, you can just use masculine pronouns and adjectives, and nobody will know!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="758" RevisionGUID="369b77f7-44fc-4b39-9f2a-b1fd2e2c3b9e" CreationDate="2016-04-20T13:53:06.300" UserId="30" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="It is important to distinguish between syntactic gender and semantic gender. As we all know, a word like *centuria*, &quot;group of ca. 100 soldiers&quot;, is syntactically feminine, but semantically it is masculine, since the Romans had no female soldiers. A feminine word is used to describe men. Or consider the feminine word *virtus* &quot;manhood&quot;, from *vir* &quot;man&quot;. There is no necessary conexion between syntactic and semantic gender. Cf. German *das Mädchen* &quot;the girl&quot; (neuter), Dutch *het meisje* &quot;the girl&quot; (neuter). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say, in Latin the masculine gender is used to indicate that you are talking about a person of unknown gender. It is the same in many Indo-European languages (all that I know, at least), and that's probably why no neutral pronouns for people are used: the reader or listener knows that you are not actually indicating that this unknown person should be masculine, you're just applying the neutral use of the pronoun. So you could say that e.g. *is* really is the neutral pronoun for people in Latin, in addition to its being the masculine pronoun. A word can have two different senses, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in case you want to talk about someone without revealing his gender, you can just use masculine pronouns and adjectives, and nobody will know!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="759" RevisionGUID="1cd2ec63-6666-4859-9e9a-39ea7fa187a9" CreationDate="2016-04-20T14:46:22.287" UserId="68" Text="Given the general statūs (plural) of women in the ancient world, I think you're going to have to invent something [epicene][1], as in Swedish *hen*. (Many folks in English have started using *ze* as a nominative, *hir* as a genitive, and *mer* as an objective or, alternatively, *hu*, *hus*, and *hum*. In fact, historically English had two epicene pronouns, *ou* and *a*, but nobody seems interested in reviving them. *Thon* was very popular for a while, starting in the nineteenth century, but seems to have died out.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, nobody has come up with syntactically epicene pronouns for Latin (the current pronouns, as @Cerberus says, are already semantically epicene). If you want new words I propose therefore *es* to go along with *is, ea, id*, *hec* with *hic, hæc, hoc*, and *illed* with *ille, illa, illud*. I have however no strong attachment to these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps declensions would be (in the order nom, gen, dat, acc, abl):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*es, es, e, em, e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*hec, hes, he, hem, he*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*illed, illes, illu, illem, illu*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be honest, though, if you start using these words with these declensions, I'm far more likely to be confused than to understand what you're saying. Perhaps it would be easier then simply to decide always to use *ea*, *hæc*, and *illa*, and make it clear in other ways that you intend these pronouns epicenically. (*Malum eæ dabo, quæ veniat. Si Marcus venit, exempli gratia, malum dabo*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicene" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="759" RevisionGUID="1a4e14ec-2968-4091-9155-91006ee58b67" CreationDate="2016-04-20T14:55:45.937" UserId="68" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Given the general statūs (plural) of women in the ancient world, I think you're going to have to invent something [epicene][1], as in Swedish *hen*. (Many folks in English have started using *ze* as a nominative, *hir* as a genitive, and *mer* as an objective or, alternatively, *hu*, *hus*, and *hum*. In fact, historically English had two epicene pronouns, *ou* and *a*, but nobody seems interested in reviving them. *Thon* was very popular for a while, starting in the nineteenth century, but seems to have died out.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, nobody has come up with syntactically epicene pronouns for Latin (the current pronouns, as @Cerberus says, are already semantically epicene). If you want new words I propose therefore *es* to go along with *is, ea, id*, *hec* with *hic, hæc, hoc*, and *illed* with *ille, illa, illud*. I have however no strong attachment to these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps declensions would be (in the order nom, gen, dat, acc, abl):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*es, es, e, em, e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*hec, hes, he, hem, he*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*illed, illes, illu, illem, illu*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find these kind of hideous, though, and, to be honest, if you start using them, I'm far more likely to be confused than to understand what you're saying. Perhaps it would be easier then simply to decide always to use *ea*, *hæc*, and *illa*, and make it clear in other ways that you intend these pronouns epicenically. (*Malum eæ dabo, quæ veniat. Si Marcus venit, exempli gratia, malum dabo*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicene" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="758" RevisionGUID="33c8ae19-a383-47d3-8092-fbc777deddd5" CreationDate="2016-04-20T15:03:28.180" UserId="30" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="It is important to distinguish between syntactic gender and semantic gender. As we all know, a word like *centuria*, &quot;group of ca. 100 soldiers&quot;, is syntactically feminine, but semantically it is masculine, since the Romans had no female soldiers. A feminine word is used to describe men. Or consider the feminine word *virtus* &quot;manhood&quot;, from *vir* &quot;man&quot;. There is no necessary conexion between syntactic and semantic gender. Cf. German *das Mädchen* &quot;the girl&quot; (neuter), Dutch *het meisje* &quot;the girl&quot; (neuter). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say, in Latin the masculine gender is used if you want to indicate that you are talking about a person of unknown gender. It is the same in many Indo-European languages (all that I know, at least), and that's probably why no neutral pronouns for people are used: the reader or listener knows that you are not actually indicating that this unknown person should be masculine, you're just applying the neutral use of the pronoun. So you could say that e.g. *is* really is the neutral pronoun for people in Latin, in addition to its being the masculine pronoun. A word can have two different senses, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in case you want to talk about someone without revealing his gender, you can just use masculine pronouns and adjectives, and nobody will know!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="750" RevisionGUID="400e1abc-a9af-458a-b12b-1387aade8f7c" CreationDate="2016-04-20T19:04:15.347" UserId="79" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="If you want to say &quot;night bird&quot; with the words &quot;night&quot; (*nox*) and &quot;bird&quot; (*avis*), you should say &quot;bird of the night&quot;, *avis noctis*.&#xD;&#xA;When you decline this expression, *noctis* (of the night) remains in the genitive case whereas *avis* takes the required case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more Latin way would be to use an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;I would go with *nocturnus* (nightly, nocturnal or nighttime).&#xD;&#xA;Thus &quot;night bird&quot; would be *avis nocturna* (literally &quot;nightly bird&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;Here both words are declined, since we have an adjective attribute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use it as a title, the nominative (undeclined) case is the best choice.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I suggest ***avis nocturna***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="757" RevisionGUID="d4c0ce39-5bb8-4b4f-bc2c-ea3f4a1794e8" CreationDate="2016-04-20T19:50:25.697" UserId="79" Comment="added 420 characters in body" Text="Sometimes it is preferable to leave a person's gender undisclosed and some people do not fall into the usual two gender categories.&#xD;&#xA;This requires some adaptations in languages that indicate gender in nouns or pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;In English one can use the plural &quot;they&quot; in the singular so as to avoid choosing between &quot;he&quot; and &quot;she&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In Swedish a new neutral pronoun &quot;hen&quot; has been introduced in addition to the masculine &quot;han&quot; and the feminine &quot;hon&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know if there is a neutral choice in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Using neuter (e.g. *id* instead of *is* or *ea*) is one option, but it makes the person in question sound inanimate.&#xD;&#xA;In case of a person of unknown gender Latin uses masculine, but this is not really a good option for this purpose:&#xD;&#xA;If I speak about a specific person, then using a masculine pronoun indicates that the person is male, whereas I wanted to make no statement about their gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which Latin pronoun(s) could I use to refer to people of unspecified gender?**&#xD;&#xA;If you suggest a new pronoun, where has it been used and how can I decline it?&#xD;&#xA;If you suggest using neuter pronouns for people in this case, can you provide use examples to show that this has really been done before?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me stress that I am looking for pronouns in the case of a specific person.&#xD;&#xA;As I wrote in a comment below Cerberus' answer about the neutrality of masculine pronouns:&#xD;&#xA;It is important that the person is specified.&#xD;&#xA;If someone says &quot;If someone comes to my office, I will sing him a song&quot;, I understand that it doesn't have to be a man.&#xD;&#xA;But if I hear &quot;My spouse has his own business&quot;, I assume the spouse is male." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="760" RevisionGUID="ba3351f5-cd07-4311-81cc-eefaedfc5e79" CreationDate="2016-04-20T23:27:36.603" UserId="40" Text="Latin has lots of verbs which can be translated as &quot;think&quot;, including *puto, opinor, arbitror, existimo, reor, censeo, cogito*, and doubtless many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How might one get a handle on the semantic nuances that distinguish these verbs? Ideally, I'd like to be pointed to a discussion of all the most common of these verbs with usage examples, but answers focusing on specific verbs are also welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2662" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="760" RevisionGUID="ba3351f5-cd07-4311-81cc-eefaedfc5e79" CreationDate="2016-04-20T23:27:36.603" UserId="40" Text="Semantic differences between verbs of thinking" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2663" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="760" RevisionGUID="ba3351f5-cd07-4311-81cc-eefaedfc5e79" CreationDate="2016-04-20T23:27:36.603" UserId="40" Text="|vocabulary|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2664" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="760" RevisionGUID="61ae4317-53b5-4b6b-9c99-4d29f9784896" CreationDate="2016-04-21T00:02:36.787" UserId="68" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|nuance|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="762" RevisionGUID="9e7a9ee0-eb79-4303-9ae1-7b8b7798bae9" CreationDate="2016-04-21T00:35:11.160" UserId="78" Text="[Champneys/Rundall](https://books.google.com/books?id=gvtJAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA111#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) have a good run down of the words. They break them down into four categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Think* = *to have an opinion*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - puto.&#xD;&#xA; - existimo.&#xD;&#xA; - credo.&#xD;&#xA; - reor.&#xD;&#xA; - arbitror.&#xD;&#xA; - opinor.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;= *to have an opinion and express it—*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - censeo.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;= *to think over, reflect upon—*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - cogito.&#xD;&#xA; - reputo.&#xD;&#xA; - delibero.&#xD;&#xA; - considero.&#xD;&#xA; - meditor.&#xD;&#xA; - an animo agito.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;= *to think of doing something—*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - cogito.&#xD;&#xA; - in animo habeo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find the category between the first and second arbitrary, as *arbitror*, *credo*, and *opinor* all have been used for expressing opinions. The distinction between *think* = *have an opinion* and *think* = *reflect upon* is very important though. Notice the lack of overlap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter category is made up of various shades reflection, which should be easy to figure out by using a dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former category, though, has important distinctions in itself. *Credo*, for example, has been used in Christian literature (and elsewhere) to indicate a strongly held belief. Meanwhile, *arbitror* originated from the idea of a judgment based on evidence (thus an *arbiter* is a judge of sorts, someone whose opinion is based on observation), and *existimo* has a value aspect to it. The verb for &quot;I think this is enough water to add&quot; would use the word *arbitror* while someone saying &quot;I think this is worth one denarius&quot; would use *existimo*. Both are opinions, but they're used differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, over time, these often get mixed up and used as synonyms, but some of the original definition is felt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other notes: *reor* is closer to *existimo* in needing calculations, which *censeo* originally had, too. *Opinor* is closer to *arbitror*, but seems along with *puto* and *censeo* to connote one's own personal opinion the best. *Puto* also had a &quot;reckoning&quot; sense, especially when used with *ratio*, however, it too is most often used purely of a personal opinion. *Puto* is probably closest to the thought equivalent of &quot;dico*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="763" RevisionGUID="c520a4d9-6a46-4a2e-8e44-6bdede3b67ee" CreationDate="2016-04-21T00:47:28.460" UserId="78" Text="*Tabula* is good, but *ratio* is better usage. Accounts, of course, come from banking language, and *ratio* is one of the most natural ways to express such a term in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Relation, reference, respect to a thing: “(agricolae) habent rationem cum terrā, quae nunquam recusat imperium,” have an account, have to do, have dealings with the earth, Cic. Sen. 15, 51; cf.: “ubi ratio cum Orco habetur,” Varr. R. R. 1, 4, 3; “for which: ubi sit cum Orco ratio ponenda,” Col. 1, 3, 2: “cum omnibus Musis rationem habere cogito,” Cic. Att. 2, 5, 2: “cum hac (muliere) aliquid adulescentem hominem habuisse rationis,” id. Cael. 20, 50; cf. Cic. Verr. 2, 2, 77, § 190. omnes, quibuscum ratio huic aut est aut fuit, assunt, defendunt, id. Quint. 23, 75; cf.“. quae ratio tibi cum eo intercesserat?” id. Rosc. Com. 14, 41: “pacis vero quae potest esse cum eo ratio, in quo est incredibilis crudelitas, fides nulla?” id. Phil. 4, 6, 14: “quod si habenda cum M. Antonii latrocinio pacis ratio fuit, etc.,” id. ib. 12, 7, 17: “fontes ad nostrorum annalium rationem veteres, ad ipsorum sane recentes,” in respect to our annals, id. Brut. 13, 49.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even &quot;accountant&quot; is related:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “A RATIONIBVS,” an accountant, Inscr. Orell. 1494; 2973; 2986; 4173 et saep. (cf. ab).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And like the English, both are used without appearing odd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main issue with *tabula* is that its use is metonymy for *ratio*. That doesn't make it bad, but it does make it less than ideal for any sort of official translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="762" RevisionGUID="5f37461e-cf51-462d-9465-657b1cb31437" CreationDate="2016-04-21T01:57:48.207" UserId="30" Comment="edited body" Text="[Champneys/Rundall](https://books.google.com/books?id=gvtJAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA111#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) have a good run down of the words. They break them down into four categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Think* = *to have an opinion*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - puto.&#xD;&#xA; - existimo.&#xD;&#xA; - credo.&#xD;&#xA; - reor.&#xD;&#xA; - arbitror.&#xD;&#xA; - opinor.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;= *to have an opinion and express it—*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - censeo.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;= *to think over, reflect upon—*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - cogito.&#xD;&#xA; - reputo.&#xD;&#xA; - delibero.&#xD;&#xA; - considero.&#xD;&#xA; - meditor.&#xD;&#xA; - an animo agito.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;= *to think of doing something—*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - cogito.&#xD;&#xA; - in animo habeo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find the category between the first and second arbitrary, as *arbitror*, *credo*, and *opinor* all have been used for expressing opinions. The distinction between *think* = *have an opinion* and *think* = *reflect upon* is very important though. Notice the lack of overlap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter category is made up of various shades reflection, which should be easy to figure out by using a dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former category, though, has important distinctions in itself. *Credo*, for example, has been used in Christian literature (and elsewhere) to indicate a strongly held belief. Meanwhile, *arbitror* originated from the idea of a judgment based on evidence (thus an *arbiter* is a judge of sorts, someone whose opinion is based on observation), and *existimo* has a value aspect to it. The verb for &quot;I think this is enough water to add&quot; would use the word *arbitror* while someone saying &quot;I think this is worth one denarius&quot; would use *existimo*. Both are opinions, but they're used differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, over time, these often get mixed up and used as synonyms, but some of the original definition is felt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other notes: *reor* is closer to *existimo* in needing calculations, which *censeo* originally had, too. *Opinor* is closer to *arbitror*, but seems along with *puto* and *censeo* to connote one's own personal opinion the best. *Puto* also had a &quot;reckoning&quot; sense, especially when used with *ratio*, however, it too is most often used purely of a personal opinion. *Puto* is probably closest to the thought equivalent of *dico*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="764" RevisionGUID="56d466fb-f546-4564-8da2-1a8228205fc6" CreationDate="2016-04-21T05:20:00.670" UserId="68" Text="I'll offer a few thoughts gleaned from [the entry for *glauben* in *Georges: kleine deutsch-lateinisches Handwörterbuch*][1] and from Smith's [Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary][2]. (I'd quote and translate, but my German, while good enough to get a general sense of the text, is unequal to anything like a satisfying translation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Credo* is closest to &quot;I believe&quot; or &quot;I dare say&quot;; it's often used ironically.  &#xD;&#xA;*Opinor* is closest to &quot;I suppose.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;*Arbitror* is closest to &quot;I judge,&quot; or, since that's not really something we say much in English these days, to &quot;I think&quot; with a sense of judging based on available evidence, without necessarily knowing all of the facts.  &#xD;&#xA;*Existimo* is closest to &quot;I value,&quot; as in &quot;I judge something to be of great/little value.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;*Puto* is closest to &quot;I think&quot;; it's often used parenthetically.  &#xD;&#xA;*Reor* belongs to a very elevated register.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.zeno.org/Georges-1910/A/glauben&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=jeQIAQAAIAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=copious%20and%20critical%20english%20latin%20dictionary&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj7xpSF_Z7MAhXHwj4KHZBnAtAQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=copious%20and%20critical%20english%20latin%20dictionary&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="c96b705c-25f0-426e-bd64-1a602f4e48ca" CreationDate="2016-04-21T05:54:42.510" UserId="68" Text="In the odds and ends section of *Ephemeris*, a Latin news site, a [recent article][1] tells the story of a cat whose owner accidentally put him in the mail along with some DVDs. (Happily, Cupcake survived.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article contains the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Iulia (Julie) Bagott, quae Falénsi Portú (Falmouth) in Angliá meridionali-occidentali habitat, digitálés versatílés disculós (DVD) in fascem cursuálem condébat sed, mirabile dictú, felem suam quae intus dormiébat non animadvertit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis Elementary offers this definition of *condó*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. to put together, make by joining, found, establish, build, settle&#xD;&#xA;2. to erect, make, construct, build, found&#xD;&#xA;3. to compose, write, celebrate, treat, describe&#xD;&#xA;4. to establish, found, be the author of, produce, make&#xD;&#xA;5. to put away, lay by, lay up, store, treasure&#xD;&#xA;6. to preserve, pickle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impulse, if I were writing the sentence, would be to say *in fascem posuit* (or perhaps *deposuit* or *insévit*), though none of those feels particularly felicitous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the use of *condó* in the sentence in question correct and, if so, what does it mean? Is it an idiom? She obviously didn't put the cat together into a package, nor, one presumes, did she pickle him. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ephemeris.alcuinus.net/insolita.php?id=1418" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2673" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="c96b705c-25f0-426e-bd64-1a602f4e48ca" CreationDate="2016-04-21T05:54:42.510" UserId="68" Text="What does &quot;condó&quot; mean in this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2674" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="c96b705c-25f0-426e-bd64-1a602f4e48ca" CreationDate="2016-04-21T05:54:42.510" UserId="68" Text="|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="757" RevisionGUID="2120d087-8fb5-48da-a27c-09e0d6b33d7f" CreationDate="2016-04-21T07:38:47.743" UserId="79" Comment="added 149 characters in body" Text="Sometimes it is preferable to leave a person's gender undisclosed and some people do not fall into the usual two gender categories.&#xD;&#xA;This requires some adaptations in languages that indicate gender in nouns or pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;In English one can use the plural &quot;they&quot; in the singular so as to avoid choosing between &quot;he&quot; and &quot;she&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In Swedish a new neutral pronoun &quot;hen&quot; has been introduced in addition to the masculine &quot;han&quot; and the feminine &quot;hon&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know if there is a neutral choice in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Using neuter (e.g. *id* instead of *is* or *ea*) is one option, but it makes the person in question sound inanimate.&#xD;&#xA;In case of a person of unknown gender Latin uses masculine, but this is not really a good option for this purpose:&#xD;&#xA;If I speak about a specific person, then using a masculine pronoun indicates that the person is male, whereas I wanted to make no statement about their gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which Latin pronoun(s) could I use to refer to people of unspecified gender?**&#xD;&#xA;If you suggest a new pronoun, where has it been used and how can I decline it?&#xD;&#xA;(I am not asking you to come up with new pronouns. I am asking if there are attested pronoun suggestions for this purpose in the Latin literature.)&#xD;&#xA;If you suggest using neuter pronouns for people in this case, can you provide use examples to show that this has really been done before?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me stress that I am looking for pronouns in the case of a specific person.&#xD;&#xA;As I wrote in a comment below Cerberus' answer about the neutrality of masculine pronouns:&#xD;&#xA;It is important that the person is specified.&#xD;&#xA;If someone says &quot;If someone comes to my office, I will sing him a song&quot;, I understand that it doesn't have to be a man.&#xD;&#xA;But if I hear &quot;My spouse has his own business&quot;, I assume the spouse is male." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="766" RevisionGUID="06a5e8d6-98d4-451d-81e9-cacda9c3d02d" CreationDate="2016-04-21T08:07:42.533" UserId="79" Text="Your fifth option is the way to go to interpret this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;(I do hope the sixth one was not intended!)&#xD;&#xA;I might use *condere* if I were to store something in a box or to deposit some money to my bank account.&#xD;&#xA;To me at least, this (fifth) meaning of *condere* comes with the idea that you store the thing for yourself.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I want to be able to take my thing from the box or withdraw my money later on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this perspective the choice of verb is poor.&#xD;&#xA;When you put something in the mail box, you surely do not expect to find it there &amp;mdash; or anywhere else, for that matter &amp;mdash; later on.&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence I would simply use *ponere*.&#xD;&#xA;Also *deponere* or *inserere* might work, but they feel less suitable.&#xD;&#xA;The former puts more emphasis on giving something away, rather than just placing something somewhere, and it also can mean things like your fifth translation of *condere*.&#xD;&#xA;The latter is more appropriate, and preferring it or *ponere* is perhaps a matter of taste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more note:&#xD;&#xA;There are two verbs *inserere*.&#xD;&#xA;If you are planting a tree, [*insevit*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2029373) is the perfect tense.&#xD;&#xA;If you are inserting something, it is [*inseruit*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2029376).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I would like to hear if others see this verb the same way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="d6f6f070-77e6-445a-839b-b7c2e912537f" CreationDate="2016-04-21T08:10:03.397" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="In the odds and ends section of *Ephemeris*, a Latin news site, a [recent article][1] tells the story of a cat whose owner accidentally put him in the mail along with some DVDs. (Happily, Cupcake survived.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article contains the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Iulia (Julie) Bagott, quae Falénsi Portú (Falmouth) in Angliá meridionali-occidentali habitat, digitálés versatílés disculós (DVD) in fascem cursuálem condébat sed, mirabile dictú, felem suam quae intus dormiébat non animadvertit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis Elementary offers this definition of *condó*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. to put together, make by joining, found, establish, build, settle&#xD;&#xA;2. to erect, make, construct, build, found&#xD;&#xA;3. to compose, write, celebrate, treat, describe&#xD;&#xA;4. to establish, found, be the author of, produce, make&#xD;&#xA;5. to put away, lay by, lay up, store, treasure&#xD;&#xA;6. to preserve, pickle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impulse, if I were writing the sentence, would be to say *in fascem posuit* (or perhaps *deposuit* or *ínsévit*), though none of those feels particularly felicitous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the use of *condó* in the sentence in question correct and, if so, what does it mean? Is it an idiom? She obviously didn't put the cat together into a package, nor, one presumes, did she pickle him. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ephemeris.alcuinus.net/insolita.php?id=1418" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="747" RevisionGUID="d7c470e7-b026-4fb7-a51c-d4691d70ad68" CreationDate="2016-04-21T12:45:39.963" UserId="12" Comment="deleted 79 characters in body; edited title" Text="I'm a student and my class laughs when we learn a new verb for &quot;to kill&quot;. Just to list some of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - necare&#xD;&#xA; - interficere&#xD;&#xA; - extinguere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are of course many others.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the key differences between these and other significant Latin words that are frequently translated &quot;to kill&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2680" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="747" RevisionGUID="d7c470e7-b026-4fb7-a51c-d4691d70ad68" CreationDate="2016-04-21T12:45:39.963" UserId="12" Comment="deleted 79 characters in body; edited title" Text="What are the key differences between the main Latin verbs meaning &quot;to kill&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2681" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="747" RevisionGUID="ac036d6d-a47a-4e7f-b430-4fa6df4930de" CreationDate="2016-04-21T12:56:04.890" UserId="12" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:12,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nathaniel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="767" RevisionGUID="e9ea755c-8496-4724-be83-228f7be709f1" CreationDate="2016-04-21T13:45:51.897" UserId="45" Text="The fifth meaning indeed seems to be at play here. Though I normally think of *condo* in its primary sense of &quot;build,&quot; I was able to infer the meaning even without looking at the dictionary by recalling the word *recondo*, which means more or less the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contrary to Joonas's answer, I really have no problem with this usage and, after looking up several samples, think that it fits very well into the mold of classical examples. Here are some, taken from the [Lewis &amp; short entry for *condo*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcondo) (meaning 2.A.1.b)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples where *condere* suggests &quot;depositing with intent of withdrawal&quot;:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homo cruminam sibi de collo detrahit,  &#xD;&#xA;minas viginti mihi dat. accipio libens,  &#xD;&#xA;condo in cruminam. (Plaut. Truc. 3, 1, 9)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mustum in dolium condidit (Varr. R. R. 1, 65, 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples where *condere* simply means &quot;putting inside something&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adiitque uenerabundus ac per semet [cineres] in urnas condidit (Suet. Calig. 15)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  barbam primam posuit conditamque in auream pyxidem et pretiosissimis margaritis adornatam Capitolio consecrauit. (Suet. Ner. 12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(note that here &quot;barbam ponere&quot; means to &quot;shave his beard&quot;: it is then &quot;conditam&quot; in an &quot;auream pyxidem.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [piratas] produci atque in carcerem condi imperavit (Cic. Verr. 2, 5, 29, § 76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These last three examples--particularly the example of committing ashes to an urn--correspond pretty exactly to the idea of putting DVDs in a parcel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the usage is apt and corresponds to the impressively fluent Latin of the rest of the article." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="768" RevisionGUID="b9a82a94-2a2b-43dd-9076-d88ae94d3447" CreationDate="2016-04-21T13:47:11.330" UserId="68" Text="The thesauri and dictionaries offer marvelous help with some of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adapted from Döderlein's *Hand-book of Latin Synonymes*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Interficere* and *perimere* are the most general expressions for putting to death, in whatever manner, and from whatever motive, but *interficere* as a usual, *perimere* as an old, forcible, poetical expression. *Interimere* involves the accessory notion of privacy, as to remove out of the way; *necare*, that of injustice, or, at least, cruelty, &quot;to murder.&quot; [Cic. Tusc. v. 20. *Dionysius alterum jussit interfici, quia viam demonstravisset interimendi sui.* Curt. ix. 7, 8. *Boxum protinus placuit interfici; Biconem etiam per cruciatus necari*.] *Occidere*, *jugulare*, *trucidare*, *obtruncare*, *percutere*, denote a sanguinary death-blow; *occidere* means by cutting down, especially the business of the soldier in honorable open battle; *jugulare*, by cutting the throat or neck, or rather by a skilfully-directed thrust into the collar-bone, especially the business of the bandit, after the pattern of the gladiator; *obtruncare* means to butcher, massacre, and cut to pieces, after the manner of the awkward murderer; *trucidare*, to slaughter as one would a steer, after the manner of the blood-thirsty miscreant, who, without meeting with resistance, plays the hero on the defenceless; *percutere*, to execute, as a mere mechanical act, after the manner of the headsman, or other executioner of a sentence of condemnation, or, at least, of a death-warrant. [Sallust. Fr. *Cæteri vice pecorum obtruncantur*; so that you may see a mangled mass of limbs, as in the heap of slain in a battle. Tac. Hist. *Juberet interfici; offerre se corpora iræ; trucidaret*. Cic. Cat. iv. 6. and Rosc. Am. 34. *Cujus consilio occisus sit invenio; cujus manu percussus sit non invenio*.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And adapted from Smith's *Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;kill: 1. *interficio (most general term). 2 *cædo* (to cut or beat, whether to death or not; to kill by wounds or blows). **To slay**. 3. *neco* (by wicked and cruel means; as, assassination, poison). **To murder**. 4. *occido* (to cut down, esp. in battle). **To slay**. 5. *trucido* (to kill violently and ruthlessly). **To butcher**. 6. *interimo* (to do away with, cut off). **To destroy**. 7. *obtrunco* (to cut down, esp. in the way of murder or assassination). **To slaughter**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must say, as a spoken-Latin advocate, that, while Latin can be frustrating when you want to talk about things like a malfunctioning ATM or the difficulty one has signing up for a [user account][1], when you're as angry a person as I am it's quite useful to have so many words with which to imagine people's violent ends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/742/what-is-user-account-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="768" RevisionGUID="e2c4b22a-072b-4ace-bc30-6246501fd835" CreationDate="2016-04-21T13:57:39.670" UserId="68" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="The thesauri and dictionaries offer marvelous help with some of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adapted from Döderlein's *Hand-book of Latin Synonymes*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Interficere* and *perimere* are the most general expressions for **putting to death**, in whatever manner, and from whatever motive, but *interficere* as a usual, *perimere* as an old, forcible, poetical expression. *Interimere* involves the accessory notion of privacy, as to **remove out of the way**; *necare*, that of injustice, or, at least, cruelty, to **murder**. [Cic. Tusc. v. 20. *Dionysius alterum jussit interfici, quia viam demonstravisset interimendi sui.* Curt. ix. 7, 8. *Boxum protinus placuit interfici; Biconem etiam per cruciatus necari*.] *Occidere*, *jugulare*, *trucidare*, *obtruncare*, *percutere*, denote a sanguinary death-blow; *occidere* means by **cutting down**, especially the business of the soldier in honorable open battle; *jugulare*, by **cutting the throat** or neck, or rather by a skilfully-directed thrust into the collar-bone, especially the business of the bandit, after the pattern of the gladiator; *obtruncare* means to **butcher**, **massacre**, and **cut to pieces**, after the manner of the awkward murderer; *trucidare*, to **slaughter** as one would a steer, after the manner of the blood-thirsty miscreant, who, without meeting with resistance, plays the hero on the defenceless; *percutere*, to **execute**, as a mere mechanical act, after the manner of the headsman, or other executioner of a sentence of condemnation, or, at least, of a death-warrant. [Sallust. Fr. *Cæteri vice pecorum obtruncantur*; so that you may see a mangled mass of limbs, as in the heap of slain in a battle. Tac. Hist. *Juberet interfici; offerre se corpora iræ; trucidaret*. Cic. Cat. iv. 6. and Rosc. Am. 34. *Cujus consilio occisus sit invenio; cujus manu percussus sit non invenio*.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And adapted from Smith's *Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;kill: 1. *interficio (most general term). 2 *cædo* (to cut or beat, whether to death or not; to kill by wounds or blows). **To slay**. 3. *neco* (by wicked and cruel means; as, assassination, poison). **To murder**. 4. *occido* (to cut down, esp. in battle). **To slay**. 5. *trucido* (to kill violently and ruthlessly). **To butcher**. 6. *interimo* (to do away with, cut off). **To destroy**. 7. *obtrunco* (to cut down, esp. in the way of murder or assassination). **To slaughter**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must say, as a spoken-Latin advocate, that, while Latin can be frustrating when you want to talk about things like a malfunctioning ATM or the difficulty one has signing up for a [user account][1], when you're as angry a person as I am it's quite useful to have so many words with which to imagine people's violent ends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/742/what-is-user-account-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="768" RevisionGUID="48500f57-3646-482b-a2fb-c7b46a5d31b4" CreationDate="2016-04-21T14:08:29.400" UserId="45" Comment="formatted into a more readable list." Text="The thesauri and dictionaries offer marvelous help with some of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adapted from Döderlein's *Hand-book of Latin Synonymes*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. *Interficere* and *perimere* are the most general expressions for **putting to death**, in whatever manner, and from whatever motive, but *interficere* as a usual, *perimere* as an old, forcible, poetical expression.&#xD;&#xA;2.  *Interimere* involves the accessory notion of privacy, as to **remove out of the way**; &#xD;&#xA;3. *necare*, that of injustice, or, at least, cruelty, to **murder**. [Cic. Tusc. v. 20. *Dionysius alterum jussit interfici, quia viam demonstravisset interimendi sui.* Curt. ix. 7, 8. *Boxum protinus placuit interfici; Biconem etiam per cruciatus necari*.] &#xD;&#xA;4. *Occidere*, *jugulare*, *trucidare*, *obtruncare*, *percutere*, denote a sanguinary death-blow; *occidere* means by **cutting down**, especially the business of the soldier in honorable open battle; *jugulare*, by **cutting the throat** or neck, or rather by a skilfully-directed thrust into the collar-bone, especially the business of the bandit, after the pattern of the gladiator; &#xD;&#xA;5. *obtruncare* means to **butcher**, **massacre**, and **cut to pieces**, after the manner of the awkward murderer; &#xD;&#xA;6. *trucidare*, to **slaughter** as one would a steer, after the manner of the blood-thirsty miscreant, who, without meeting with resistance, plays the hero on the defenceless; &#xD;&#xA;7. *percutere*, to **execute**, as a mere mechanical act, after the manner of the headsman, or other executioner of a sentence of condemnation, or, at least, of a death-warrant. [Sallust. Fr. *Cæteri vice pecorum obtruncantur*; so that you may see a mangled mass of limbs, as in the heap of slain in a battle. Tac. Hist. *Juberet interfici; offerre se corpora iræ; trucidaret*. Cic. Cat. iv. 6. and Rosc. Am. 34. *Cujus consilio occisus sit invenio; cujus manu percussus sit non invenio*.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And adapted from Smith's *Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **kill:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. *interficio* (most general term). &#xD;&#xA;2. *cædo* (to cut or beat, whether to death or not; to kill by wounds or blows). **To slay**. &#xD;&#xA;3. *neco* (by wicked and cruel means; as, assassination, poison). **To murder**. &#xD;&#xA;4. *occido* (to cut down, esp. in battle). **To slay**. &#xD;&#xA;5. *trucido* (to kill violently and ruthlessly). **To butcher**. &#xD;&#xA;6. *interimo* (to do away with, cut off). **To destroy**. &#xD;&#xA;7. *obtrunco* (to cut down, esp. in the way of murder or assassination). **To slaughter**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must say, as a spoken-Latin advocate, that, while Latin can be frustrating when you want to talk about things like a malfunctioning ATM or the difficulty one has signing up for a [user account][1], when you're as angry a person as I am it's quite useful to have so many words with which to imagine people's violent ends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/742/what-is-user-account-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="768" RevisionGUID="b975e8ed-1d9a-4299-8f8d-b4fcdb3c26d5" CreationDate="2016-04-21T14:14:08.280" UserId="68" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="The thesauri and dictionaries offer marvelous help with some of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adapted from Döderlein's *Hand-book of Latin Synonymes*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. *Interficere* and *perimere* are the most general expressions for **putting to death**, in whatever manner, and from whatever motive, but *interficere* as a usual, *perimere* as an old, forcible, poetical expression.&#xD;&#xA;2.  *Interimere* involves the accessory notion of privacy, as to **remove out of the way**; [Cic. Tusc. v. 20. *Dionysius alterum jussit interfici, quia viam demonstravisset interimendi sui.*]&#xD;&#xA;3. *necare*, that of injustice, or, at least, cruelty, to **murder**.  [Curt. ix. 7, 8. *Boxum protinus placuit interfici; Biconem etiam per cruciatus necari*.] &#xD;&#xA;4. *Occidere*, *jugulare*, *trucidare*, *obtruncare*, *percutere*, denote a sanguinary death-blow; *occidere* means by **cutting down**, especially the business of the soldier in honorable open battle; &#xD;&#xA;5. *jugulare*, by **cutting the throat** or neck, or rather by a skilfully-directed thrust into the collar-bone, especially the business of the bandit, after the pattern of the gladiator; &#xD;&#xA;6. *obtruncare* means to **butcher**, **massacre**, and **cut to pieces**, after the manner of the awkward murderer; [Sallust. Fr. *Cæteri vice pecorum obtruncantur*; so that you may see a mangled mass of limbs, as in the heap of slain in a battle.]&#xD;&#xA;7. *trucidare*, to **slaughter** as one would a steer, after the manner of the blood-thirsty miscreant, who, without meeting with resistance, plays the hero on the defenceless; [Tac. Hist. *Juberet interfici; offerre se corpora iræ; trucidaret*.]&#xD;&#xA;8. *percutere*, to **execute**, as a mere mechanical act, after the manner of the headsman, or other executioner of a sentence of condemnation, or, at least, of a death-warrant.  [Cic. Cat. iv. 6. and Rosc. Am. 34. *Cujus consilio occisus sit invenio; cujus manu percussus sit non invenio*.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And adapted from Smith's *Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **kill:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. *interficio* (most general term). &#xD;&#xA;2. *cædo* (to cut or beat, whether to death or not; to kill by wounds or blows). **To slay**. &#xD;&#xA;3. *neco* (by wicked and cruel means; as, assassination, poison). **To murder**. &#xD;&#xA;4. *occido* (to cut down, esp. in battle). **To slay**. &#xD;&#xA;5. *trucido* (to kill violently and ruthlessly). **To butcher**. &#xD;&#xA;6. *interimo* (to do away with, cut off). **To destroy**. &#xD;&#xA;7. *obtrunco* (to cut down, esp. in the way of murder or assassination). **To slaughter**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must say, as a spoken-Latin advocate, that, while Latin can be frustrating when you want to talk about things like a malfunctioning ATM or the difficulty one has signing up for a [user account][1], when you're as angry a person as I am it's quite useful to have so many words with which to imagine people's violent ends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/742/what-is-user-account-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="769" RevisionGUID="cece3ed0-9ec7-4b48-b7c0-f71f211731d6" CreationDate="2016-04-21T18:51:42.097" UserId="79" Text="Quo modo expressio Anglica &quot;fool proof&quot; Latine reddi potest?&#xD;&#xA;Nullum idioma Latinum significatione simile scio.&#xD;&#xA;Eamdem rem Latine exprimere possum, exempli gratia dicendo &quot;perbene munitus&quot;, sed malim vocem (aut voces) invenire, qua utebantur iam Romani antiqui.&#xD;&#xA;Ecce exemplum usus: &quot;Hoc systema securitatis ____ est.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2688" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="769" RevisionGUID="cece3ed0-9ec7-4b48-b7c0-f71f211731d6" CreationDate="2016-04-21T18:51:42.097" UserId="79" Text="Quo modo Latine redditur &quot;fool proof&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2689" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="769" RevisionGUID="cece3ed0-9ec7-4b48-b7c0-f71f211731d6" CreationDate="2016-04-21T18:51:42.097" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="770" RevisionGUID="d8d9e5c1-ddb4-40f8-a112-55c862e8f4c0" CreationDate="2016-04-21T20:35:02.707" UserId="45" Text="If I wanted to preserve the same idea as *foolproof*, I would say something like ***et(iam) stultis idoneum***. I add the *et* or *etiam* because *stultis idoneum* does not convey the same idea of even foolproof, which I venture to gloss as &quot;*even* an idiot could not mess this up, *a fortiori* you, who are not an idiot.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if I were translating this in a case that did not require this exact idiom, I would use one of Virgil's favorite words: ***fidum*** ([Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfidus1), meaning II for inanimate objects): *sure, certain, safe, trustworthy*. This emphasizes the &quot;lack of failure&quot; aspect of foolproof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, on the other hand, you are looking for the &quot;simple to operate&quot; or &quot;what could go wrong?&quot; sense, perhaps ***facile (usu)*** or ***planum***, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; satin' haec sunt tibi plana et certa! (Plaut. Pers. 2, 2, 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, perhaps a good translation would combine two of these suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc systema securitatis facile fidumque est" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="771" RevisionGUID="ec0a6d24-16b6-44d2-88bf-5e33eb0b26d7" CreationDate="2016-04-21T21:01:49.820" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt; [[ Etymonline :](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=prorogation) ] [...]   from Latin *prorogare*, literally &quot;to ask publicly,&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;from *pro* &quot;before&quot; (see [pro-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pro-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + *rogare* &quot;to ask&quot; (see [rogation](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rogation&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)). Perhaps the original sense in Latin was &quot;to ask for public assent to extending someone's term in office.&quot;    &#xD;&#xA;**[1.]**   Legislative meaning &quot;discontinue temporarily&quot; is attested from mid-15c.  [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ [Wiktionary :](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prorogo#Latin) ] From [prō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pro#Latin) + [rogō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rogo#Latin) ‎(“ask; request”).    &#xD;&#xA;[...]   4. I defer, put off, postpone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not reproduced Wiktionary's entry to keep this post short, but please tell me if I should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. What precisely does the prefix *prō* mean here? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. How did the prefix *prō* combine with the root *rogō* to produce meaning 4 above? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5\. Is 1 correct? 1 appears to mean the same as 4, but 4 already existed in Latin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2692" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="771" RevisionGUID="ec0a6d24-16b6-44d2-88bf-5e33eb0b26d7" CreationDate="2016-04-21T21:01:49.820" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What did 'prō' mean in 'prōrogō' ? What is its Semantic Field?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2693" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="771" RevisionGUID="ec0a6d24-16b6-44d2-88bf-5e33eb0b26d7" CreationDate="2016-04-21T21:01:49.820" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="770" RevisionGUID="43aca828-95e3-4266-994f-3467dcc465fc" CreationDate="2016-04-21T21:07:31.900" UserId="45" Comment="added 1268 characters in body" Text="Ne perderetur quomodo sensus communicetur voce anglica *foolproof*, dicerem aliquid ***et(iam) stultis idoneum*** esse. Hoc *et* vel *etiam* addo, nam mea sententia  *foolproof* recte dici potest anglice alteris verbis significare, &quot;*even* an idiot could not mess this up, so *a fortiori* you, who are not an idiot&quot; (*et* stultus hoc destruere nequit, itaque quanto magis ipse tu, stultus qui non es.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Si tamen libertas aliis utendi verbis mihi esset reddenti in latinam, uterer unum ex verbis Vergilio gratis: ***fidum*** ([Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfidus1), sensus IIus rebus exanimis pertinet): certus, fidelis, incolumis, fidedignus. Hoc modo defectuum absentia magis significatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Si altera ex parte conaris sensum &quot;operandi simplicitatis&quot; aut &quot;quomodo falli potest?&quot; communicare, forsan uti deberes his: ***facile (usu)*** or ***planum***, *exempli gratia*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; satin' haec sunt tibi plana et certa! (Plaut. Pers. 2, 2, 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In exemplo tuo, forsitan reddendum est duobus superioribus verbis implicatis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc systema securitatis facile fidumque est&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, if you want to wade through the above quagmire: as my professor used to say when things got difficult in Latin: *anglice paulisper*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I wanted to preserve the same idea as *foolproof*, I would say something like ***et(iam) stultis idoneum***. I add the *et* or *etiam* because *stultis idoneum* because I believe *foolproof* can be glossed as &quot;*even* an idiot could not mess this up, *a fortiori* you, who are not an idiot.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if I were translating this in a case that did not require this exact idiom, I would use one of Virgil's favorite words: ***fidum*** ([Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfidus1), meaning II for inanimate objects): *sure, certain, safe, trustworthy*. This emphasizes the &quot;lack of failure&quot; aspect of foolproof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, on the other hand, you are looking for the &quot;simple to operate&quot; or &quot;what could go wrong?&quot; sense, perhaps ***facile (usu)*** or ***planum***, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; satin' haec sunt tibi plana et certa! (Plaut. Pers. 2, 2, 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, perhaps a good translation would combine two of these suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc systema securitatis facile fidumque est" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="771" RevisionGUID="86502f4c-b45a-4e97-90fd-624cf0380c2a" CreationDate="2016-04-21T21:27:05.037" UserId="45" Comment="formatting" Text="&gt; [Etymonline](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=prorogation): from Latin *prorogare*, literally &quot;to ask publicly,&quot; from *pro* &quot;before&quot; (see [pro-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pro-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + *rogare* &quot;to ask&quot; (see [rogation](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rogation&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)). Perhaps the original sense in Latin was &quot;to ask for public assent to extending someone's term in office.&quot;    &#xD;&#xA;1. **Legislative meaning: &quot;discontinue temporarily&quot; is attested from mid-15c.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prorogo#Latin): from [prō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pro#Latin) + [rogō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rogo#Latin) ‎(“ask; request”).    &#xD;&#xA;4. **I defer, put off, postpone.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not reproduced Wiktionary's entry to keep this post short, but please tell me if I should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What precisely does the prefix *prō* mean here?&#xD;&#xA;2. How did the prefix *prō* combine with the root *rogō* to produce meaning 4 above? &#xD;&#xA;3. Is (1) correct? (1) appears to mean the same as (4), but (4) already existed in Latin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2696" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="771" RevisionGUID="bdac58ab-0d43-4bc9-b2e2-ca42e0c94e1c" CreationDate="2016-04-22T02:36:29.080" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="Rollback to [ec0a6d24-16b6-44d2-88bf-5e33eb0b26d7]" Text="&gt; [[ Etymonline :](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=prorogation) ] [...]   from Latin *prorogare*, literally &quot;to ask publicly,&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;from *pro* &quot;before&quot; (see [pro-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pro-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + *rogare* &quot;to ask&quot; (see [rogation](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rogation&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)). Perhaps the original sense in Latin was &quot;to ask for public assent to extending someone's term in office.&quot;    &#xD;&#xA;**[1.]**   Legislative meaning &quot;discontinue temporarily&quot; is attested from mid-15c.  [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ [Wiktionary :](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prorogo#Latin) ] From [prō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pro#Latin) + [rogō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rogo#Latin) ‎(“ask; request”).    &#xD;&#xA;[...]   4. I defer, put off, postpone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not reproduced Wiktionary's entry to keep this post short, but please tell me if I should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. What precisely does the prefix *prō* mean here? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. How did the prefix *prō* combine with the root *rogō* to produce meaning 4 above? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5\. Is 1 correct? 1 appears to mean the same as 4, but 4 already existed in Latin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="771" RevisionGUID="d0425666-b886-4ee2-8673-cfdf14463023" CreationDate="2016-04-22T02:37:05.003" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="&gt; [[ Etymonline :](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=prorogation) ]   [...]   from Latin *prorogare*, literally &quot;to ask publicly,&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;from *pro* &quot;before&quot; (see [pro-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pro-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + *rogare* &quot;to ask&quot; (see [rogation](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rogation&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)). Perhaps the original sense in Latin was &quot;to ask for public assent to extending someone's term in office.&quot;    &#xD;&#xA;**[1.]** Legislative meaning &quot;discontinue temporarily&quot; is attested from mid-15c.  [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ [Wiktionary :](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prorogo#Latin) ] From [prō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pro#Latin) + [rogō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rogo#Latin) ‎(“ask; request”).    &#xD;&#xA; 4. I defer, put off, postpone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not reproduced Wiktionary's entry to keep this post short, but please tell me if I should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. What precisely does the prefix *prō* mean here? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. How did the prefix *prō* combine with the root *rogō* to produce meaning 4 above? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5\. Is 1 correct? 1 appears to mean the same as 4, but 4 already existed in Latin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="e56dbedf-793a-43d6-aead-6bb999e000c0" CreationDate="2016-04-22T03:21:49.963" UserId="68" Text="I've been thinking about this because of the word *sicárius*, which Lewis Elementary translates as &quot;assassin&quot; (from *sica*, &quot;dagger&quot;). I wrote a flirty email to somebody in Latin confessing that he inspired in me a desire to assassinate my husband, and I seem to have invented the word *sicáre*. (Actually, I didn't proofread before I sent the email, and it turns out that I actually told him he made me want to *dry* (*siccáre*) my husband.) He seems to have understood exactly what I meant, though, since he made a joke about it in his reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it got me thinking. Lewis &amp; Short has no entry for *sicáre*. I don't have access to an OLD at the moment, but I'm going to guess it doesn't list *sicáre* either, but even if it does, the principle is the same:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How sure can we be, based on the fact that *sicáre* (or whatever other word is in question) doesn't seem to appear in the corpus, that Latin speakers didn't use it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously it's impossible to prove the non-existence of something, so on an epidemiological level the question is sort of unanswerable. But on a practical level, what answer can we come up with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(While his response wasn't nearly flirty enough for my taste, he did mention that he was delighted to learn that he hadn't been responsible for my husband's death; I wrote back, &quot;Audax sáne marítum adhúc inter agere vívós opínáris; félíciter tamen té favet hóc in casú fortúna, nam ita est. Quamquam néminem dé vítá discessisse meí quidem causá cónfiteor, scílicet maritós præstáre (intendó “be responsible for” vel “vouch for” vel “speak for” dícere) aliórum nequeó quí, á té idem percussí bonísque meó carentes móribus, nesció quátenus nec quibus verbís mótúrí essent Acheronta.&quot; I'm still waiting for his response.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2699" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="e56dbedf-793a-43d6-aead-6bb999e000c0" CreationDate="2016-04-22T03:21:49.963" UserId="68" Text="What's the chance that words not in the corpus were still existed and used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2700" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="e56dbedf-793a-43d6-aead-6bb999e000c0" CreationDate="2016-04-22T03:21:49.963" UserId="68" Text="|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="773" RevisionGUID="f85c3ec3-dc65-473f-981b-b3eeddc04f70" CreationDate="2016-04-22T11:59:17.043" UserId="183" Text="What is the size of attested (or accepted) Latin vocabulary by period (Old, Classical, Late etc.)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am specifically interested in the Classical period, but I have added the other ones to the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2702" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="773" RevisionGUID="f85c3ec3-dc65-473f-981b-b3eeddc04f70" CreationDate="2016-04-22T11:59:17.043" UserId="183" Text="Size of Latin vocabulary by period" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2703" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="773" RevisionGUID="f85c3ec3-dc65-473f-981b-b3eeddc04f70" CreationDate="2016-04-22T11:59:17.043" UserId="183" Text="|history|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="770" RevisionGUID="1bc6a4f5-a83a-495d-b739-18774e7f2d2e" CreationDate="2016-04-22T13:08:47.110" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Ne perderetur quomodo sensus communicetur voce anglica *foolproof*, dicerem aliquid ***et(iam) stultis idoneum*** esse. Hoc *et* vel *etiam* addo, nam mea sententia  *foolproof* recte dici potest anglice alteris verbis significare, &quot;*even* an idiot could not mess this up, so *a fortiori* you, who are not an idiot&quot; (*et* stultus hoc destruere nequit, itaque quanto magis ipse tu, stultus qui non es.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Si tamen libertas aliis utendi verbis mihi esset reddenti in latinam, uterer uno ex verbis Vergilio gratis: ***fidum*** ([Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfidus1), sensus IIus rebus exanimis pertinet): certus, fidelis, incolumis, fidedignus. Hoc modo defectuum absentia magis significatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Si altera ex parte conaris sensum &quot;operandi simplicitatis&quot; aut &quot;quomodo falli potest?&quot; communicare, forsan uti deberes his: ***facile (usu)*** vel ***planum***, *exempli gratia*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; satin' haec sunt tibi plana et certa! (Plaut. Pers. 2, 2, 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In exemplo tuo, forsitan reddendum est duobus superioribus verbis implicatis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc systema securitatis facile fidumque est&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, if you want to wade through the above quagmire: as my professor used to say when things got difficult in Latin: *anglice paulisper*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I wanted to preserve the same idea as *foolproof*, I would say something like ***et(iam) stultis idoneum***. I add the *et* or *etiam* because *stultis idoneum* because I believe *foolproof* can be glossed as &quot;*even* an idiot could not mess this up, *a fortiori* you, who are not an idiot.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if I were translating this in a case that did not require this exact idiom, I would use one of Virgil's favorite words: ***fidum*** ([Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfidus1), meaning II for inanimate objects): *sure, certain, safe, trustworthy*. This emphasizes the &quot;lack of failure&quot; aspect of foolproof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, on the other hand, you are looking for the &quot;simple to operate&quot; or &quot;what could go wrong?&quot; sense, perhaps ***facile (usu)*** or ***planum***, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; satin' haec sunt tibi plana et certa! (Plaut. Pers. 2, 2, 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, perhaps a good translation would combine two of these suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc systema securitatis facile fidumque est" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="770" RevisionGUID="0eebc4c0-62b8-46a8-b5bd-188eb9f4e4ab" CreationDate="2016-04-22T14:45:24.847" UserId="45" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Ne perderetur quomodo sensus communicetur voce anglica *foolproof*, dicerem aliquid ***et(iam) stultis idoneum*** esse. Hoc *et* vel *etiam* addo, nam mea sententia  *foolproof* recte dici potest anglice alteris verbis significare, &quot;*even* an idiot could not mess this up, so *a fortiori* you, who are not an idiot&quot; (*et* stultus hoc destruere nequit, itaque quanto magis ipse tu, stultus qui non es.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Si tamen libertas aliis utendi verbis mihi esset reddenti in latinam, uterer uno ex verbis Vergilio gratis: ***fidum*** ([Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfidus1), sensus IIus rebus exanimis pertinet): certus, fidelis, incolumis, fidedignus. Hoc modo defectuum absentia magis significatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Si altera ex parte conaris sensum &quot;operandi simplicitatis&quot; aut &quot;quomodo falli potest?&quot; communicare, forsan uti deberes his: ***facile (usu)*** vel ***planum***, *exempli gratia*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; satin' haec sunt tibi plana et certa! (Plaut. Pers. 2, 2, 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In exemplo tuo, forsitan reddendum est duobus superioribus verbis implicatis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc systema securitatis facile fidumque est&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, if you don't want to wade through the above quagmire: as my professor used to say when things got difficult in Latin: *anglice paulisper*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I wanted to preserve the same idea as *foolproof*, I would say something like ***et(iam) stultis idoneum***. I add the *et* or *etiam* to *stultis idoneum* because I believe *foolproof* can be glossed as &quot;*even* an idiot could not mess this up, *a fortiori* you, who are not an idiot.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if I were translating this in a case that did not require this exact idiom, I would use one of Virgil's favorite words: ***fidum*** ([Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfidus1), meaning II for inanimate objects): *sure, certain, safe, trustworthy*. This emphasizes the &quot;lack of failure&quot; aspect of foolproof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, on the other hand, you are looking for the &quot;simple to operate&quot; or &quot;what could go wrong?&quot; sense, perhaps ***facile (usu)*** or ***planum***, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; satin' haec sunt tibi plana et certa! (Plaut. Pers. 2, 2, 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, perhaps a good translation would combine two of these suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc systema securitatis facile fidumque est" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2706" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="037e9c53-0194-461f-9a9d-90a5c244a4c8" CreationDate="2016-04-22T15:13:43.460" UserId="68" Comment="edited title" Text="What's the chance that words not attested in the corpus still existed and were used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="774" RevisionGUID="2e99d458-7701-4dae-9af9-e0390b5d68f7" CreationDate="2016-04-22T19:58:04.057" UserId="324" Text="Obviously there are lots of words that were used in spoken Latin which are not recorded in any text, classical or otherwise. You need only to open an etymological dictionary of any one of the Romance languages to see that perhaps half of the vocabulary of French, Italian etc. is traced back to a form with an asterisk in front of it, that is: a hypothetical Vulgar Latin reconstruction. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="775" RevisionGUID="9b625a4f-2a33-49ca-97cd-94e087d1f325" CreationDate="2016-04-22T20:04:42.667" UserId="324" Text="I don’t know how far you want to stretch your definition of classical Latin, but Christianizo is used by Tertullian, and Judaizo in the Vulgata." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="f048ba34-102d-4ada-96a2-23f2b5992494" CreationDate="2016-04-22T20:48:20.777" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 832 characters in body; edited title" Text="The corpus of Latin literature, while large compared with the corpora of many other classical languages, is also more or less finite; in many periods (e.g. classical) it represents some but not other registers of speech. Cicero's speeches are great examples of rhetorical style, for example, but they neither represent nor profess to represent colloquial style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take the word *sícáre*, for example, which I made up the other day (thinking it was a real word) as a back-formation from *sícárius*, &quot;assassin.&quot; As far as I know (and as far as Lewis &amp; Short tells me), the verb *sícáre* isn't recorded as having been used in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, there's no way to prove non-existence of something—we can only prove or fail to prove its existence—so there's no way to answer this question definitively as a matter of epidemiology. But as a practical matter, if something isn't attested, should we assume it wasn't used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2710" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="f048ba34-102d-4ada-96a2-23f2b5992494" CreationDate="2016-04-22T20:48:20.777" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 832 characters in body; edited title" Text="If a word isn't attested in the corpus, does that mean it didn't exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="cea9d57a-1cb9-4bad-9d4e-8c683f941014" CreationDate="2016-04-22T20:58:21.603" UserId="68" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="The corpus of Latin literature, while large compared with the corpora of many other classical languages, is also more or less finite; in many periods (e.g. classical) it represents some but not other registers of speech. Cicero's speeches are great examples of rhetorical style, for example, but they neither represent nor profess to represent colloquial style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take the word *sícáre*, for example, which I made up the other day (thinking it was a real word) as a back-formation from *sícárius*, &quot;assassin.&quot; As far as I know (and as far as Lewis &amp; Short tells me), the verb *sícáre* isn't recorded as having been used in Latin. But it doesn't seem impossible to me that there could have been a verb *sícáre* that nobody happened to write down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, there's no way to prove non-existence of something—we can only prove or fail to prove its existence—so there's no way to answer this question definitively as a matter of epidemiology. But as a practical matter, if something isn't attested, should we assume it wasn't used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="776" RevisionGUID="9ade9a2a-ebb9-4508-8a4f-3a4623481c1f" CreationDate="2016-04-23T14:38:10.940" UserId="45" Text="I have another entry for this exhibit that answers your question with a resounding *yes*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enter Plautus, in the [Menaechmi](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/plautus/menaechmi.shtml), with **three** verbs derived from proper names in his prologue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Atque hoc poetae faciunt in comoediis:  &#xD;&#xA;omnis res gestas esse Athenis autumant,  &#xD;&#xA;quo illud vobis graecum videatur magis;  &#xD;&#xA;ego nusquam dicam nisi ubi factum dicitur.  &#xD;&#xA;atque adeo hoc argumentum **graecissat**, tamen  &#xD;&#xA;non **atticissat**, verum **sicilicissitat**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *-isso* ending seems to be a Latinized (how meta of me!) version of the Greek *-ιζο*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of these verbs was not immediately apparent to me, so I defer to the authority of [Henry Thomas Riley's translation](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0101%3Aact%3Dprologue%3Ascene%3D0#note3). Note that he inverts the order of the above two sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And, in fact, **this subject is a Greek one; still, it is not an Attic, but a Sicilian one**. But in their Comedies the poets do this; they feign that all the business takes place at Athens, in order that it may appear the more Grecian to you. I will not tell you that this matter happened anywhere except where it is said to have happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He adds in a footnote the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Graecissat, Atticissat, Sicelissat*: Perhaps these words might be more literally translated, &quot;Graecize,&quot; &quot;Atticize,&quot; and &quot;Sicilicize.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just imagine how wonderful life would be if words like &quot;Sicilicize&quot; were more frequently used!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="769" RevisionGUID="961ca539-3a6b-4729-a402-a734df1d7576" CreationDate="2016-04-23T14:54:53.693" UserId="79" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="Quo modo expressio Anglica &quot;fool proof&quot; Latine reddi potest?&#xD;&#xA;Nullum idioma Latinum significatione simile scio.&#xD;&#xA;Eamdem rem Latine exprimere possum, exempli gratia dicendo &quot;perbene munitus&quot;, sed malim vocem (aut voces) invenire, qua utebantur iam Romani antiqui.&#xD;&#xA;Ecce exemplum usus: &quot;Hoc systema securitatis ____ est.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short English version: How to translate &quot;fool proof&quot; into Latin? *Perbene munitus*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="777" RevisionGUID="0bfe2f12-d60b-4883-98cd-c9051572f77f" CreationDate="2016-04-23T17:27:46.400" UserId="40" Text="Are there any ancient works, or parts of ancient works, which we possess in both Greek and Latin -- i.e. both the original and a translation into the other language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there are many cases of e.g. Roman historians basing their work on Greek sources, which in some cases have also survived, but these (AFAIK) tend not to be straight translations, but adaptations. And there are Latin translations of Greek works which we know about (e.g. Livius Andronicus's Odyssey), but these survive only fragmentarily. What I would like to be able to do is to read the same passage in Greek and Latin, side by side. Has anything like this survived?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2715" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="777" RevisionGUID="0bfe2f12-d60b-4883-98cd-c9051572f77f" CreationDate="2016-04-23T17:27:46.400" UserId="40" Text="Latin translations from extant Greek sources (or vice versa)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2716" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="777" RevisionGUID="0bfe2f12-d60b-4883-98cd-c9051572f77f" CreationDate="2016-04-23T17:27:46.400" UserId="40" Text="|translation|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="778" RevisionGUID="aec7c0c2-9c8a-436d-ae4a-e654587364ae" CreationDate="2016-04-23T19:50:36.930" UserId="30" Text="I suspect that you may be looking for a translation made in Antiquity, but I couldn't resist posting a few scans from this book I have here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SgByJ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/L0nbU.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="777" RevisionGUID="b034ac51-832c-47f0-82d8-45dfe0e15d72" CreationDate="2016-04-23T21:51:07.400" UserId="40" Comment="clarified that translation should be ancient" Text="Are there any ancient works, or parts of ancient works, which we possess in both Greek and Latin -- i.e. both the original and a translation, made in antiquity, into the other language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there are many cases of e.g. Roman historians basing their work on Greek sources, which in some cases have also survived, but these (AFAIK) tend not to be straight translations, but adaptations. And there are Latin translations of Greek works which we know about (e.g. Livius Andronicus's Odyssey), but these survive only fragmentarily. What I would like to be able to do is to read the same passage in Greek and Latin, side by side -- preferably both versions being from classical antiquity (rather than a later translation of a classical work). Has anything like this survived?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2719" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="777" RevisionGUID="b034ac51-832c-47f0-82d8-45dfe0e15d72" CreationDate="2016-04-23T21:51:07.400" UserId="40" Comment="clarified that translation should be ancient" Text="Classical Latin translations from extant Greek sources (or vice versa)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="779" RevisionGUID="e22d2853-7b73-4477-8c30-7add1ad1ef48" CreationDate="2016-04-23T22:22:51.820" UserId="79" Text="I know that if I have a regular first conjugation verb, I can contract some forms.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *amavisti* and *amaverunt* can become *amasti* and *amarunt*, and I have come across such forms repeatedly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I do the same if the perfect stem is irregular but still comes with a 'v'?&#xD;&#xA;For example, I was thinking of *lavisti* and *adiuvisti* becoming *lasti* and *adiusti*.&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen such forms for irregular perfect stems although they are easy to form by analogy.&#xD;&#xA;Can such forms be found in the Latin literature?&#xD;&#xA;A quick search turned up nothing, but I only checked a couple of forms for a couple of verbs.&#xD;&#xA;Is there perhaps a source that suggests that such contraction is wrong if they are nowhere to be found?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2721" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="779" RevisionGUID="e22d2853-7b73-4477-8c30-7add1ad1ef48" CreationDate="2016-04-23T22:22:51.820" UserId="79" Text="Can I contract with an irregular perfect stem in v?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2722" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="779" RevisionGUID="e22d2853-7b73-4477-8c30-7add1ad1ef48" CreationDate="2016-04-23T22:22:51.820" UserId="79" Text="|verbs|perfect-tense|contraction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="2eff15fc-a718-4348-8701-0e6eddf58a6a" CreationDate="2016-04-24T01:24:15.330" UserId="30" Text="I think this is not normally done, except if the perfect stem ends on *-ev/iv/av-*, because only then does one get the familiar contracted sequences *-esti/isti/asti*. The sequence *-usti* looks too unfamiliar, I tnink. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example: the forms **consuerunt, consuesti,** and **consuestis** are common. *Consuesco* has an irregular perfect on *-v-*, *consuevi*. In the form *consuesti* it can be seen that *consuesco* does not have an alternative perfect *consui*, for otherwise it would have been *consuisti*, not *consuesti*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Marcus Tullius Cicero, *Epistulae ad Familiares* 6.7.6.7:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... sed utrique rei excusationem tuae vitae consuetudo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dat. nam quod ita **consuesti** pro amicis laborare, non iam sic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sperant abs te sed etiam sic imperant tibi familiares.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="8851f3d7-9625-4d24-b4e7-f3104b720884" CreationDate="2016-04-24T01:43:48.853" UserId="30" Comment="added 253 characters in body" Text="I think this is not normally done, except if the perfect stem ends on *-ev/iv/av-*, because only then does one get the familiar contracted sequences *-esti/isti/asti*. The sequence *-usti* looks too unfamiliar, I tnink. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example: the forms **consuerunt, consuesti,** and **consuestis** are common. *Consuesco* has an irregular perfect on *-v-*, *consuevi*. In the form *consuesti* it can be seen that *consuesco* does not have an alternative perfect *consui*, for otherwise it would have been *consuisti*, not *consuesti*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Marcus Tullius Cicero, *Epistulae ad Familiares* 6.7.6.7:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... sed utrique rei excusationem tuae vitae consuetudo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dat. nam quod ita **consuesti** pro amicis laborare, non iam sic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sperant abs te sed etiam sic imperant tibi familiares.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also forms from *-io* present stems, like *quaesisti* and *adisti*, but those are are probably best considered contractions of *quaesiisti* and *adiisti*, not of *quaesivisti* and *adivisti*, because *quaesirunt* and *adirunt* do not exist. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="3c947adf-ae1f-470f-808d-71b64b02a6ac" CreationDate="2016-04-24T01:54:26.560" UserId="30" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="I think this is not normally done, except if the perfect stem ends on *-ev/iv/av-*, because only then does one get the familiar contracted sequences *-esti/isti/asti*. The sequence *-usti* would look too unfamiliar as a perfect contraction, I think, not to mention *-urunt*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe irregular perfecta on *-evi/ivi/avi* are mostly irregular because the verb has a present suffix in the present tense, like *-sc-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example: the forms **consuerunt, consuesti,** and **consuestis** are common. *Consuesco* has an irregular perfect on *-v-*, *consuevi*. In the form *consuesti* it can be seen that *consuesco* does not have an alternative perfect *consui*, for otherwise it would have been *consuisti*, not *consuesti*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Marcus Tullius Cicero, *Epistulae ad Familiares* 6.7.6.7:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... sed utrique rei excusationem tuae vitae consuetudo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dat. nam quod ita **consuesti** pro amicis laborare, non iam sic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sperant abs te sed etiam sic imperant tibi familiares.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also forms from *-io* present stems, like *quaesisti* and *adisti*, but those are are probably best considered contractions of *quaesiisti* and *adiisti*, not of *quaesivisti* and *adivisti*, because *quaesirunt* and *adirunt* do not exist. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="779" RevisionGUID="43070756-cfc2-406b-8239-70f65084ec69" CreationDate="2016-04-24T08:54:19.633" UserId="79" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="I know that if I have a regular first conjugation verb, I can contract some forms.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *amavisti* and *amaverunt* can become *amasti* and *amarunt*, and I have come across such forms repeatedly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I contract the 'v' away if the perfect stem is irregular but still comes with a 'v'?&#xD;&#xA;For example, I was thinking of *lavisti* and *adiuvisti* becoming *lasti* and *adiusti*.&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen such forms for irregular perfect stems although they are easy to form by analogy.&#xD;&#xA;Can such forms be found in the Latin literature?&#xD;&#xA;A quick search turned up nothing, but I only checked a couple of forms for a couple of verbs.&#xD;&#xA;Is there perhaps a source that suggests that such contraction is wrong if they are nowhere to be found?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="781" RevisionGUID="55368c37-8a52-4995-a801-b217d5a9e5b6" CreationDate="2016-04-24T20:11:14.597" UserId="30" Text="*Laudavēre* is an (apparently older) alternative to *laudaverunt*. What is the origin of this ending? Is it connected with any other known endings or affixes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Clackson &amp; Horrocks][2] say it is from an alternative 3rd-person plural ending *-er* plus a &quot;primary marker&quot; *-i*. I don't know this marker: I only know the primary paradigma as something resembling -m/s/t/mus/tis/nt. What is this marker about?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bauer][1] seem to be saying it contains the &quot;impersonal&quot; *-r-* also found in the infinitive (*laudare*) and in passive forms (*laudatur*). He, too, speaks of a primary ending *-ri*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both sources agree that *-ĕrunt* is from the perfective suffix *-is-*, found in *laudav-is-se* and *laudav-is-ti(s)* (and related to the *-s-* found in the Greek sigmatic aorist). The regular 3rd-person ending *-ont* was stuck on as expected. The suffix *-is-* (was) then rhotacized into *-ir-*, which in turn became *-er-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would make me suspect that *-ere* also contains this rhotacized suffix *-is-*, with some mysterious suffix *-e* at the end. Neither of the sources mentioned seems to allow for this interpretation, but they don't fully explain *-ere* either: is this at all possible? Or are there any other theories?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=O7z4Sl-SgFEC&amp;pg=PA275&amp;lpg=PA275&amp;dq=latin%20ere%20erunt%20origin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=rMJkZtZCbs&amp;sig=ucQuBQ1mNBKmszhFVIkB5A8_Wp0&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjd2eKX8afMAhVElxoKHeW3AzIQ6AEIKDAD#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20ere%20erunt%20origin&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=4fdFv71U81cC&amp;pg=PT127&amp;lpg=PT127&amp;dq=latin%20ere%20erunt%20origin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=5AlgHAzy2_&amp;sig=wuZEydh7hT6iVVrio3vncw1_2Ks&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjd2eKX8afMAhVElxoKHeW3AzIQ6AEIKzAE#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20ere%20erunt%20origin&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2728" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="781" RevisionGUID="55368c37-8a52-4995-a801-b217d5a9e5b6" CreationDate="2016-04-24T20:11:14.597" UserId="30" Text="What is the origin of the 3rd-person plural perfect ending &quot;-ēre&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2729" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="781" RevisionGUID="55368c37-8a52-4995-a801-b217d5a9e5b6" CreationDate="2016-04-24T20:11:14.597" UserId="30" Text="|etymology|perfect-tense|plural|ending|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2730" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="781" RevisionGUID="875f7696-21c9-449f-b5ec-ff44a1143811" CreationDate="2016-04-24T20:29:55.500" UserId="30" Comment="edited tags" Text="|etymology|perfect-tense|morphology|plural|ending|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="f4c80988-e8d8-498f-aded-49dcbb67cd9a" CreationDate="2016-04-24T20:37:13.627" UserId="30" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Lewis &amp; Short say *-tus* in *intus* is an old ablative ending or suffix, related to the Greek adverbial ending *-τός* as in ἐντός:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **intus**, adv. [1. in and the abl. termination -tus; Sanscr. -tas; cf. ἐντός].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the words on *-tus* in your list seem to contain the same suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A suffix *-tus* often turns into *-sus*, as in ordinary past participles like *passus, versus, missus, mansus, caesus*. This may explain many of the adverbs in *-sus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I wonder whether this ablative could be related to the ablative plural ending *-bus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **dēmum** (also *demus*, like *prorsus, quorsus, rursus, deorsus*...), adv. [a sup. form from *de*, downmost; cf.: *sub, summus*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry for *demus* in L&amp;S says simply &quot;see *demum*&quot;. So it seems likely that both *demus* and *demum* are superlative forms (&quot;sup.&quot; stands for superlative here, not supine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, both an *-us* form and an *-um* form of a superlative could be used to express something adverbial. So the ablative suffix *-tus* in *intus* need not be derived from the supine stem on *-tu-*, since superlatives are standard consonantal stems without a *u* in the stem—unless superlatives could also have *-u-* in archaic/proto-Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the words are derived from *versus/vorsus*, like *prorsus, quorsus, rursus, deorsus, introsus, seorsus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S say *tenus* is different, perhaps being originally an accusative of direction. It makes sense that it should be different, since it functions as a postposition in classical Latin, not an adverb. Only with a prefixed ablative does it become an adverb (*hac tenus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **tĕnus** [root ten; v. teneo], perh. orig., an acc. of direction, and hence joined with gen.; afterwards a prep. with abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither L&amp;S nor De Vaan explain the ending of adverbial *secus*, except in so far that it was originally an adjective or participle probably derived from the same root as *sequor*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the words in your list are accusative neuter forms of comparatives, with the ordinary neuter comparative suffix *-(i)us,* genitive *-(i)oris*. Among those I would group almost all of the words on *-ius*, and *minus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Peropus* must be *per opus*, where *opus* is simply the neuter noun *opus*, in the accusative singular as dictated by the perposition *per*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="782" RevisionGUID="622a1df4-5257-493d-827b-112694ae776b" CreationDate="2016-04-24T20:55:16.557" UserId="324" Text="Catullus 51 (Ille mi par esse deo videtur…) is a fairly literal translation of a very famous poem by Sappho (φαίνεταί μοι κῆνος ἴσος θέοισιν)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="783" RevisionGUID="ad3bf9de-2e24-4398-99f9-3992c5e41bf0" CreationDate="2016-04-24T21:25:21.943" UserId="40" Text="(This answer is based on Weiss's *Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin*, which is usually the place to go for this kind of thing.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common Indo-European 3pl active ending is -nt(i), which is part of the familiar set -m(i), -s(i), -t(i), ..., -nt(i). (The 1pl and 2pl are a bit harder to reconstruct because they vary more in the individual languages). In these endings, the -i is originally a deictic marker meaning something like &quot;here and now&quot; (often referred to as the &quot;hic-et-nunc i&quot;); this is why the endings that have -i tend to be present-tense endings, while those that lack it tend to be past-tense endings. This situation is seen fairly clearly in Greek, where athematic verbs have e.g. pres. 1sg. -mi, while in the impf. and second aor. the 1sg. ending is -n, from earlier -m.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there was also another, completely different set of active personal endings in Proto-Indo-European. These show up mostly in the perfect, where e.g. Greek has  1sg. -a, completely unrelated to -m. The 3pl ending of this set was -rs or -ers, and the latter became -ēr by a regular sound change (Szemerényi's Law) already in PIE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This -ēr, with the addition of the hic-et-nunc -i, is what's thought to underlie the Latin pf. 3sg -ēre (which would originally have been -ēri, with a regular sound change of final -i to -e, also seen in e.g. the 3rd declension abl. sg., as *pede* from earlier *pedi*). It's a bit unclear to me why -i would be added to a non-present form, but then the Latin perfect does sometime have present meaning (&quot;they have gone&quot; as opposed to &quot;they went&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ending -ērunt would then be, as you say, the result of a mix of -ēre with a different existing ending, -ĕrunt. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason that -ēre can't be descended from -is-e (or -is-i) is the long -ē-, which there's no regular way of deriving from the short -i- of -is-." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="783" RevisionGUID="795f1ec9-a5d4-4961-a569-f20dc573f30b" CreationDate="2016-04-24T23:12:44.927" UserId="40" Comment="fixed typo &quot;sometimes&quot;" Text="(This answer is based on Weiss's *Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin*, which is usually the place to go for this kind of thing.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common Indo-European 3pl active ending is -nt(i), which is part of the familiar set -m(i), -s(i), -t(i), ..., -nt(i). (The 1pl and 2pl are a bit harder to reconstruct because they vary more in the individual languages). In these endings, the -i is originally a deictic marker meaning something like &quot;here and now&quot; (often referred to as the &quot;hic-et-nunc i&quot;); this is why the endings that have -i tend to be present-tense endings, while those that lack it tend to be past-tense endings. This situation is seen fairly clearly in Greek, where athematic verbs have e.g. pres. 1sg. -mi, while in the impf. and second aor. the 1sg. ending is -n, from earlier -m.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there was also another, completely different set of active personal endings in Proto-Indo-European. These show up mostly in the perfect, where e.g. Greek has  1sg. -a, completely unrelated to -m. The 3pl ending of this set was -rs or -ers, and the latter became -ēr by a regular sound change (Szemerényi's Law) already in PIE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This -ēr, with the addition of the hic-et-nunc -i, is what's thought to underlie the Latin pf. 3sg -ēre (which would originally have been -ēri, with a regular sound change of final -i to -e, also seen in e.g. the 3rd declension abl. sg., as *pede* from earlier *pedi*). It's a bit unclear to me why -i would be added to a non-present form, but then the Latin perfect does sometimes have present meaning (&quot;they have gone&quot; as opposed to &quot;they went&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ending -ērunt would then be, as you say, the result of a mix of -ēre with a different existing ending, -ĕrunt. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason that -ēre can't be descended from -is-e (or -is-i) is the long -ē-, which there's no regular way of deriving from the short -i- of -is-." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="028e1cde-d988-420c-8c18-a9c75261084d" CreationDate="2016-04-24T23:43:37.960" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="I think this is not normally done, except if the perfect stem ends on *-ev/iv/av-*, because only then does one get the familiar contracted sequences *-esti/isti/asti*. The sequence *-usti* would look too unfamiliar as a perfect contraction, I think, not to mention *-urunt*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe irregular perfecta on *-evi/ivi/avi* are mostly irregular because the verb has a present suffix in the present tense, like *-sc-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example: the forms **consuerunt, consuesti,** and **consuestis** are common. *Consuesco* has an irregular perfect on *-v-*, *consuevi*. In the form *consuesti* it can be seen that *consuesco* does not have an alternative perfect *consui*, for otherwise it would have been *consuisti*, not *consuesti*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Marcus Tullius Cicero, *Epistulae ad Familiares* 6.7.6.7:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... sed utrique rei excusationem tuae vitae consuetudo dat. nam quod ita **consuesti** pro amicis laborare, non iam sic sperant abs te sed etiam sic imperant tibi familiares.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also forms from *-io* present stems, like *quaesisti* and *adisti*, but those are are probably best considered contractions of *quaesiisti* and *adiisti*, not of *quaesivisti* and *adivisti*, because *quaesirunt* and *adirunt* do not exist. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="781" RevisionGUID="591a7b00-d2a6-4e6d-9783-e9ad19cae8a8" CreationDate="2016-04-25T01:42:25.593" UserId="30" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="*Laudavēre* is an (apparently older) alternative to *laudaverunt*. What is the origin of this ending? Is it connected with any other known endings or affixes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Clackson &amp; Horrocks][2] say it is from an alternative 3rd-person plural ending *-er* plus a &quot;primary marker&quot; *-i*. I don't know this marker: I only know the primary paradigma as something resembling -m/s/t/mus/tis/nt. What is this marker about?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Palmer][1] seems to be saying it contains the &quot;impersonal&quot; *-r-* also found in the infinitive (*laudare*) and in passive forms (*laudatur*). He, too, speaks of a primary ending *-ri*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both sources agree that *-ĕrunt* is from the perfective suffix *-is-*, found in *laudav-is-se* and *laudav-is-ti(s)* (and related to the *-s-* found in the Greek sigmatic aorist). The regular 3rd-person ending *-ont* was stuck on as expected. The suffix *-is-* (was) then rhotacized into *-ir-*, which in turn became *-er-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would make me suspect that *-ere* also contains this rhotacized suffix *-is-*, with some mysterious suffix *-e* at the end. Neither of the sources mentioned seems to allow for this interpretation, but they don't fully explain *-ere* either: is this at all possible? Or are there any other theories?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=O7z4Sl-SgFEC&amp;pg=PA275&amp;lpg=PA275&amp;dq=latin%20ere%20erunt%20origin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=rMJkZtZCbs&amp;sig=ucQuBQ1mNBKmszhFVIkB5A8_Wp0&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjd2eKX8afMAhVElxoKHeW3AzIQ6AEIKDAD#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20ere%20erunt%20origin&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=4fdFv71U81cC&amp;pg=PT127&amp;lpg=PT127&amp;dq=latin%20ere%20erunt%20origin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=5AlgHAzy2_&amp;sig=wuZEydh7hT6iVVrio3vncw1_2Ks&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjd2eKX8afMAhVElxoKHeW3AzIQ6AEIKzAE#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20ere%20erunt%20origin&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="784" RevisionGUID="b18e8e55-30e1-4167-8a83-7122e3e60762" CreationDate="2016-04-25T02:22:11.120" UserId="423" Text="Cicero uses *quaestio*, as in *quaestio est iurene occiderit...*, implying the meaning &quot;problem (concerning)&quot;. Maybe the preposition *circa* could help, in the appropriate context; Greek has the perfect περὶ + gen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="785" RevisionGUID="42e87bd7-8ce4-42bb-b23a-13d2ae9fa113" CreationDate="2016-04-25T14:12:40.420" UserId="79" Text="Let me give you a concrete example of how common the structure is.&#xD;&#xA;Caesar, whose language is considered good classical style, uses the word *iri* four times in *De Bello Gallico*, three of which are passive future infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;These are&#xD;&#xA;*nocitum iri* in [5.36.2](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/caesar/gall5.shtml#36),&#xD;&#xA;*ductum iri* in [7.11.4](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/caesar/gall7.shtml#11) and&#xD;&#xA;*spoliatum iri* in [7.66.5](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/caesar/gall7.shtml#66).&#xD;&#xA;The irrelevant one is *ad castra iri oportere* in 3.18.6." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="86" RevisionGUID="fc4a9f07-ca8c-41dd-9bd2-7437f7b1f41b" CreationDate="2016-04-25T14:21:30.623" UserId="79" Comment="Polished the answer a bit." Text="Both et and -que can often translate &quot;and&quot;. The use of -que is more limited (see James's answer), so et is a safer choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix -que only means &quot;and&quot;, but et can also be used as an adverb (&quot;also&quot;, &quot;in addition&quot;). Sometimes et and etiam are both equally valid. As a rule of thumb, you can use et whenever you want to add something. Sometimes etiam or quoque is better, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="786" RevisionGUID="7c88b1fd-e9ca-4ff4-b6ae-9a46845cd4dc" CreationDate="2016-04-25T19:22:05.100" UserId="12" Text="Allen and Greenough, [§10d](https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA5), provide a general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A vowel before ns, nf, **gn**, is long: as in cōnstāns, īnferō, **māgnus** [emphasis modified]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Priscian seems to agree:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'gnus' quoque vel 'gna' vel 'gnum' terminantia longam habent vocalem paenultimam, ut 'rēgnum', 'stāgnum', 'benīgnus', 'malīgnus', 'abiēgnus', 'privīgnus', 'Pelīgnus'. ([Keil, II.82](https://books.google.com/books?id=RMBDgH3dq9AC&amp;pg=PA82))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Priscian does not mention *magnus*, and Lewis and Short [disagree with A&amp;G and say it has a short vowel](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmagnus1). Interestingly, Bennet includes *ns* and *nf* in his parallel rule, [but does not mention *gn*](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15665/15665-h/15665-h.htm#sect5). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So which is it?  Are vowels before *gn* generally long or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2743" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="786" RevisionGUID="7c88b1fd-e9ca-4ff4-b6ae-9a46845cd4dc" CreationDate="2016-04-25T19:22:05.100" UserId="12" Text="Are vowels long before &quot;gn&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2744" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="786" RevisionGUID="7c88b1fd-e9ca-4ff4-b6ae-9a46845cd4dc" CreationDate="2016-04-25T19:22:05.100" UserId="12" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|consonants|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="787" RevisionGUID="e1c0d3c4-0440-442c-b13f-db437ad266dd" CreationDate="2016-04-25T19:23:53.867" UserId="12" Text="First of all, it's important to note that *syllables* containing a vowel + *gn* combination are long (or, less confusingly, &quot;heavy&quot;), regardless of the length of the vowel itself.  As Bennet says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A syllable is long,—  &#xD;&#xA;a) if it contains a long vowel; [...]  &#xD;&#xA;c) if it contains a short vowel followed by x, z, or any two consonants ([5.B.1](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15665/15665-h/15665-h.htm#sect5))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does not follow, however, that the *vowel* preceding *gn* is necessarily long.  For that, we'll need to turn to other sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;W. Sydney Allen addresses the matter in [*Vox Latina*, 71ff](https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA71):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is commonly, and mistakenly, believed that vowels in Latin are regularly long before the consonant-group *gn*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen contends that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The &quot;rule&quot; rests on a single passage in Priscian&#xD;&#xA; - The passage in Priscian is an interpolation, not original&#xD;&#xA; - Historical evidence frequently contradicts the rule&#xD;&#xA; - Only a few words—*rēgnum, stāgnum, sēgnis,* and *abiēgnus*—are likely to have a long vowel preceding *gn*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;First, Allen addresses Priscian, and argues that the passage quoted above, in Keil II.82, is an interpolation first based on context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The interpolatory nature of the '*gnus*' passage is strongly suggested by its irrelevant interruption of the discussion of proper names, more particularly those with adjectives in *-īnus*; and by introduction of nouns into a chapter which is exclusively concerned with adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interpolator, Allen continues, misinterpreted Priscian's discussion of *Anagnīnus*, where the vowel following *gn*, not preceding it, is long. Furthermore, the examples of the rule are not convincing: in several we would expect a long vowel for historical/phonological reasons, while many common words, for which we have evidence of a short vowel, are not mentioned.  Allen summarizes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It seems most probable, therefore, that what the interpolator states as a general rule is not so, and that he was at a loss to cite much more by way of example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turning to inscriptions, Allen says &quot;we nowhere find even so common a word as *magnus* marked with a long *a*.&quot;  There is some evidence for a long *i* in a few of the interpolator's examples, but Allen suggests that this could be explained by phonetic influences on the short *i* before [ŋ] that made its quality (not length) approach that of the long *ī*.  This explanation is corroborated by long *ī* appearing occassionally in front of other inscriptional instances of [ŋ], like *ng, nc* and *nqu*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, Allen concludes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We may safely say, then, that the vowel is long in *rēgnum, stāgnum, sēgnis, abiēgnus*, but probably NOT before *gn* in any other instances." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="91ca1c45-d1b8-4853-9009-be9a3ac00833" CreationDate="2016-04-25T19:26:32.153" UserId="79" Text="For adjectives of the first and second declension, the corresponding adverb is formed with the ending *-e*.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *pulchre* (beautifully) comes from *pulcher* (beautiful).&#xD;&#xA;Canonically this *-e* is viewed as a suffixed used to derive adverbs from adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;It is also possible to view it as a case ending, and the adverb as yet another case.&#xD;&#xA;The line between declension and deriving adverbs is not always clear&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, since many cases of a noun make the word into an adverb of some kind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did any ancient or later grammarian hold or consider this view of *-e* (or the corresponding third declension version *-iter*) as a case ending?&#xD;&#xA;Who was the first to think or propose this?&#xD;&#xA;I assume this was never a popular way to see things, but it is not an entirely unreasonable idea to have.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know when this idea came about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should add that I have never seen anyone discuss *-e* or *-iter* as case endings, but I highly doubt my idea is original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean only Latin, but all languages that have cases.&#xD;&#xA;It could be that such an idea of *-e* as a case ending was introduced to Latin grammar by analogy to some other language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2747" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="91ca1c45-d1b8-4853-9009-be9a3ac00833" CreationDate="2016-04-25T19:26:32.153" UserId="79" Text="Did grammarians consider the adverbial -e a case ending?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2748" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="91ca1c45-d1b8-4853-9009-be9a3ac00833" CreationDate="2016-04-25T19:26:32.153" UserId="79" Text="|declension|derivation|adverb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="786" RevisionGUID="1589a647-3791-41ec-82a8-61ef8e452092" CreationDate="2016-04-25T21:02:02.410" UserId="12" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Allen and Greenough, [§10d](https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA5), provide a general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A vowel before ns, nf, **gn**, is long: as in cōnstāns, īnferō, **māgnus** [emphasis modified]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to agree with Priscian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'gnus' quoque vel 'gna' vel 'gnum' terminantia longam habent vocalem paenultimam, ut 'rēgnum', 'stāgnum', 'benīgnus', 'malīgnus', 'abiēgnus', 'privīgnus', 'Pelīgnus'. ([Keil, II.82](https://books.google.com/books?id=RMBDgH3dq9AC&amp;pg=PA82))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Priscian does not mention *magnus*, and Lewis and Short [disagree with A&amp;G and say it has a short vowel](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmagnus1). Interestingly, Bennet includes *ns* and *nf* in his parallel rule, [but does not mention *gn*](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15665/15665-h/15665-h.htm#sect5). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So which is it?  Are vowels before *gn* generally long or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="789" RevisionGUID="31d26f08-ec4c-4a1b-a755-c4035b1616ff" CreationDate="2016-04-26T12:18:56.480" UserId="324" Text="As far as I can see, the Roman grammarians did not consider the adverbial -e a case ending. On the other hand, from the standpoint of historical linguistics most Latin adverbs are indeed fossilised case forms of adjectives. The “adverbial -e” is fact of two-fold origin. i-stem adjectives like facilis use the accusative singular neuter as an adverb (in this instance: facile). The first/second declension adjectives form adverbs in -ē (Old Latin -ēd), the older form of the suffix for the ablative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The formation of adverbs is discussed in detail in Buck’s “Comparative grammar of Greek and Latin” (1933) pp. 348-352, but in Sihler’s reworking of that book (“New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin” 1995) this section was for some reason omitted.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="efcbdad9-2f60-4505-829c-85b8f7e8f3f4" CreationDate="2016-04-26T12:42:52.113" UserId="12" Text="In Augustine's [*Confessions*, I.18](http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/latinconf/1.html), he writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et certe non est interior litterarum scientia quam scripta conscientia, id se alteri facere quod nolit pati. quam tu secretus es, habitans in excelsis in silentio, deus solus magnus, lege infatigabili spargens poenales caecitates supra inlicitas cupiditates, cum homo eloquentiae famam quaeritans ante hominem iudicem, circumstante hominum multitudine, inimicum suum odio inmanissimo insectans, vigilantissime cavet, ne per linguae errorem dicat: Inter omines, et ne per mentis furorem hominem auferat ex hominibus non cavet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key phrase for my question is translated by [Henry Chadwick](https://books.google.com/books?id=1QkigkuD_3oC&amp;pg=PA21) as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The speaker] is indifferent to the possibility that the emotional force of his mind **may bring about a man's execution**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same portion is translated a bit differently by [Edward Pusey](http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/augconf/aug01.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [He] takes no heed, lest, through the fury of his spirit, **he murder the real human being**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the difference between &quot;bring about a man's execution&quot; and &quot;murder the real human being.&quot;  This may seem inconsequential, but in Christianity, there's a teaching that hatred or anger is akin to murder (see [Matthew 5:21–22](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%205%3A21-22&amp;version=ESV;VULGATE)), which could theoretically allow Pusey's translation to be read as &quot;he *sin against* the real human being&quot; or &quot;he murder the real human being *in his heart*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question, thus, revolves around this distinction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Does the Latin text specifically indicate, or strongly imply, capital punishment as the outcome of the speaker's eloquence?  &#xD;&#xA; - Is the *physical death* of the man clearly indicated?  &#xD;&#xA; - Or is a metaphorical interpretation possible or likely?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;This question is inspired by an answer to a [question regarding Augustine's views on capital punishment](http://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/47118/21576).  If Chadwick unjustifiably makes the connection to capital punishment, perhaps this passage tells us nothing about Augustine's view of the practice.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2752" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="efcbdad9-2f60-4505-829c-85b8f7e8f3f4" CreationDate="2016-04-26T12:42:52.113" UserId="12" Text="In Confessions I.18, does Augustine clearly indicate the physical death of an enemy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2753" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="efcbdad9-2f60-4505-829c-85b8f7e8f3f4" CreationDate="2016-04-26T12:42:52.113" UserId="12" Text="|meaning|augustinus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="791" RevisionGUID="a36ee244-860d-4340-a7ca-231c8ed4c3a7" CreationDate="2016-04-26T14:32:26.203" UserId="79" Text="The seven liberal arts were divided into *trivium* and *quadrivium*.&#xD;&#xA;The easier half, *trivium*, gives rise to the adjective *trivialis*, which has connotations of simplicity and vulgarity.&#xD;&#xA;The adjective *quadrivialis* serves &amp;mdash; in addition to referring to *quadrivium* &amp;mdash; as an antonym to *trivialis* (or so I understood).&#xD;&#xA;The Latin word *quadrivialis* seems very rare, and so does the English counterpart &quot;quadrivial&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When were these two adjectives, *trivialis* and *quadrivialis* introduced to Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Were they always opposite to each other (one meaning simple and the other meaning advanced), or did this contrast develop later?&#xD;&#xA;Was there a different established antonym for *trivialis* if *quadrivialis* was much rarer than *trivialis*?&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see these two adjectives and their histories compared.&#xD;&#xA;If a full account is available but too long to share here, I would much appreciate an outline and a link to further reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching for *quadrivialis* does produce some hits, but I was unable to track any discussion to reliable or more complete sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2755" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="791" RevisionGUID="a36ee244-860d-4340-a7ca-231c8ed4c3a7" CreationDate="2016-04-26T14:32:26.203" UserId="79" Text="When were trivialis and quadrivialis introduced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2756" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="791" RevisionGUID="a36ee244-860d-4340-a7ca-231c8ed4c3a7" CreationDate="2016-04-26T14:32:26.203" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|medieval-latin|new-latin|word-comparison|adjective|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="792" RevisionGUID="56742c2e-8c31-4a2c-8402-1bced4ffad48" CreationDate="2016-04-26T15:26:40.043" UserId="45" Text="I believe the cursory etymology you stated is incorrect. Here is what my research shows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Medieval Latin meaning of *trivium / trivialis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Middle Ages, the liberal arts were divided into the *trivium* (grammar, logic, and rhetoric) and the *quadrivium* (music, arithmetic, geometry and astronomy), but this was hardly a relationship of easy and difficulty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *quadrivium* (&quot;four ways&quot;) seems to have been [coined first by Boethius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrivium) in the 6th century. *trivium* as a term for the other three liberal arts seems to have been coined in imitation of this term [during the Carolingian Renaissance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivium). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [Online Etymological Dictionary](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=trivial), the first use of English *trivial* is in the early 15th century and is used to mean &quot;of the first three liberal arts,&quot; corresponding to the Medieval Latin *trivialis* which had the same meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Post-Augustinian meaning of *trivium / trivialis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current meaning of *trivial* (&quot;straightforward, unimportant&quot;) comes from the (post-Augustinian, but certainly not medieval) Latin word [*trivialis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtrivialis), which Lewis &amp; Short translates as &quot;that may be found everywhere, common, commonplace, vulgar, ordinary, trivial.&quot; This in turn is an adjective coming from [*trivium*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtrivium), &quot;a place where three roads meet&quot; (*tres* + *via*) and, by extension, &quot;a public square, the public street, highway.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Online Etymological Dictionary (*op. cit.*) indicates that **this prior meaning is the origin of the current meaning of *trivial*, not the later Medieval Latin coining to refer to the three humane liberal arts.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="792" RevisionGUID="cfe59e36-ce49-4883-ba7c-18c3d3c60c40" CreationDate="2016-04-26T15:51:17.943" UserId="45" Comment="added 221 characters in body" Text="I believe the cursory etymology you stated is inaccurate. Here is what my research shows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Medieval Latin meaning of *trivium / trivialis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Middle Ages, the liberal arts were divided into the *trivium* (grammar, logic, and rhetoric) and the *quadrivium* (music, arithmetic, geometry and astronomy), but this was hardly a relationship of easy and difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *quadrivium* (&quot;four ways&quot;) was first [coined by Boethius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrivium) in the 6th century. *trivium* as a term for the other three liberal arts was later coined in imitation of this term [during the Carolingian Renaissance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivium). In this sense, they refer to the &quot;three/four ways of knowledge.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [Online Etymological Dictionary](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=trivial), the first use of English *trivial* is in the early 15th century to mean &quot;of the first three liberal arts,&quot; corresponding to the Medieval Latin *trivialis* which had the same meeting. At this point, it had no dismissive undertones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Post-Augustinian meaning of *trivium / trivialis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current meaning of *trivial* (&quot;straightforward, unimportant&quot;) comes from the (post-Augustinian, but certainly not medieval) Latin word [*trivialis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtrivialis), which Lewis &amp; Short translates as &quot;that may be found everywhere, common, commonplace, vulgar, ordinary, trivial.&quot; This in turn is an adjective coming from [*trivium*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtrivium), &quot;a place where three roads meet&quot; (*tres* + *via*) and, by extension, &quot;a public square, the public street, highway.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Online Etymological Dictionary (*op. cit.*) indicates that **this prior meaning is the origin of the current meaning of *trivial*, not the later Medieval Latin coining to refer to the three humane liberal arts.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We thus have a case of two separate derived meanings coming from the same word, *trivium*, which literally means &quot;the meeting of three ways.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="792" RevisionGUID="18572d01-1f5c-4e6f-a3a9-d8cb920815b5" CreationDate="2016-04-26T15:57:20.303" UserId="45" Comment="added 221 characters in body" Text="I believe the cursory etymology you stated is inaccurate. Here is what my research shows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Medieval Latin meaning of *trivium / trivialis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Middle Ages, the liberal arts were divided into the *trivium* (grammar, logic, and rhetoric) and the *quadrivium* (music, arithmetic, geometry and astronomy), but this was hardly a relationship of easy and difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *quadrivium* (&quot;four ways&quot;) was first [coined by Boethius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrivium) in the 6th century. *trivium* as a term for the other three liberal arts was later coined in imitation of this term [during the Carolingian Renaissance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivium). In this sense, they refer to the &quot;three/four ways of knowledge.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [Online Etymological Dictionary](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=trivial), the first use of English *trivial* is in the early 15th century to mean &quot;of the first three liberal arts,&quot; corresponding to the Medieval Latin *trivialis* which had the same meeting. At this point, it had no dismissive undertones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Post-Augustinian meaning of *trivium / trivialis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current meaning of *trivial* (&quot;straightforward, unimportant&quot;) comes from the (post-Augustinian, but certainly not medieval) Latin word [*trivialis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtrivialis), which Lewis &amp; Short translates as &quot;that may be found everywhere, common, commonplace, vulgar, ordinary, trivial.&quot; This in turn is an adjective coming from [*trivium*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtrivium), &quot;a place where three roads meet&quot; (*tres* + *via*) and, by extension, &quot;a public square, the public street, highway.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Online Etymological Dictionary (*op. cit.*) indicates that **this prior meaning is the origin of the current meaning of *trivial*, not the later Medieval Latin coining to refer to the three humane liberal arts.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We thus have a case of two separate derived meanings coming from the same word, *trivium*, which literally means &quot;the meeting of three ways.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the explanation for why *quadrivial* is not a common word in English and certainly is not an antonym of *trivial*: *quadrivial* is an adjective referring to the *quadrivium* or, literally, referring to the meeting of four ways, but there is no non-Medieval Latin word *quadrivialis* which had an extended meaning like *trivialis*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="793" RevisionGUID="ce765bbd-220e-4ec6-930b-0bcb3da83784" CreationDate="2016-04-27T04:33:46.157" UserId="40" Text="In *Latin Prose Composition* by J. Arbuthnot Nairn (Cambridge UP, 1926; p. 5 of &quot;Versions&quot; section), I find the following as a translation of Shakespeare's &quot;Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Populus Romanus Quiritium, amicique et cives mei, benigne me attenteque audiatis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct Latin? It seems to me that *Populus Romanus Quiritum* needs to be vocative. But Nairn was an eminent Latinist and I have not so far found any other errors in his book, and it's a little hard to believe that he would have made such an elementary blunder. I've searched for the phrase *Populus Romanus Quiritum* but have not been able to find it used in direct address (while on the other hand Cicero [uses][1] *popule Romane* in the vocative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any possible justification for the nominatives here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.packhum.org/loc/474/75/1/2301-2308@1#1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2762" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="793" RevisionGUID="ce765bbd-220e-4ec6-930b-0bcb3da83784" CreationDate="2016-04-27T04:33:46.157" UserId="40" Text="&quot;Populus Romanus Quiritium&quot; as vocative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2763" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="793" RevisionGUID="ce765bbd-220e-4ec6-930b-0bcb3da83784" CreationDate="2016-04-27T04:33:46.157" UserId="40" Text="|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="794" RevisionGUID="e8357ae3-a100-4946-b59c-aca4455f01b2" CreationDate="2016-04-27T07:19:38.927" UserId="79" Text="It does indeed look like direct address where the author forgot to use vocative, but it is not the only option.&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to read your sentence this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Listen to me the kindly and carefully, as the Roman nation of citizens, as my friends and as my compatriots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Viewed like this, the use of a nominative without any added words (like the English &quot;as&quot;) is perfectly grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;This gives the sentence a different tone, but it says essentially the same thing as the English &quot;Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="795" RevisionGUID="43ac90ee-9ff1-4717-976d-f682df7e3dfd" CreationDate="2016-04-27T08:23:08.813" UserId="79" Text="If you leave a situation or a job in a way that makes you unwelcome to return ever again, you can be said to burn your bridges in English.&#xD;&#xA;Is there an idiom in classical Latin for irrevocably destroying one's earlier relations?&#xD;&#xA;Can you provide a classical use example?&#xD;&#xA;The English phrase could be translated as *pontes suos exurere*, but I have never seen anything like it in use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2766" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="795" RevisionGUID="43ac90ee-9ff1-4717-976d-f682df7e3dfd" CreationDate="2016-04-27T08:23:08.813" UserId="79" Text="How to burn one's bridges in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2767" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="795" RevisionGUID="43ac90ee-9ff1-4717-976d-f682df7e3dfd" CreationDate="2016-04-27T08:23:08.813" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="794" RevisionGUID="8271d03c-d139-410f-b8b3-b28f325254c6" CreationDate="2016-04-27T10:54:59.943" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="It does indeed look like direct address where the author forgot to use vocative, but it is not the only option.&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to read your sentence this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Listen to me kindly and carefully, as the Roman nation of citizens, as my friends and as my compatriots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Viewed like this, the use of a nominative without any added words (like the English &quot;as&quot;) is perfectly grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;This gives the sentence a different tone, but it says essentially the same thing as the English &quot;Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="789" RevisionGUID="b429c9ff-3cb9-429f-88d6-9e668207af57" CreationDate="2016-04-27T13:32:15.060" UserId="324" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="As far as I can see, the Roman grammarians did not consider the adverbial -e to be a case ending. On the other hand, from the standpoint of historical linguistics most Latin adverbs are indeed fossilised case forms of adjectives. The “adverbial -e” is in fact of two-fold origin. i-stem adjectives like facilis use the accusative singular neuter as an adverb (in this instance: facile). The first/second declension adjectives form adverbs in -ē (Old Latin -ēd), the older form of the suffix for the ablative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The formation of adverbs is discussed in detail in Buck’s “Comparative grammar of Greek and Latin” (1933) pp. 348-352, but in Sihler’s reworking of that book (“New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin” 1995) this section was for some reason omitted.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="796" RevisionGUID="3ad3e19f-6bcd-434b-935d-78e553727ee0" CreationDate="2016-04-27T15:43:29.517" UserId="68" Text="For what it's worth, there seem to be two translations of *Julius Caesar* into Latin, and both are useless for determining what's &quot;correct&quot; here, since they use plural nouns, which would be the same whether nominative or vocative. One, from 1856, is by [Henry Denison][1]; the relevant lines are rendered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Amici, Cives, Quirites, commodate mihi aliquantisper aures vestras: adsum ut efferam Cæsarem, non ut laudem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other, from an 1899 issue of *Praeco Latinus* edited by Arcadius Avellanus, is by [C. W. Goodchild][2]; there they are rendered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Romani, amici, cives, auscultate mihi;  &#xD;&#xA;Venio sepultum non laudatum Cæsarem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Avellanus was a native Latin speaker, but I don't know the extent to which he futzed with his writers' material in the *Praeco Latinus*. Of Denison and Goodchild, alas, I know nothing, so I'm not in a position to comment on the quality of their translations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/46768/46768-h/46768-h.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=d6pDAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA76&amp;dq=praeco%20latinus%20caesar%20shakespeare&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjZvKvKka_MAhWBPD4KHXkFB1QQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=praeco%20latinus%20caesar%20shakespeare&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="796" RevisionGUID="e3c47fd5-49fa-4620-b0bd-00c9fef4b648" CreationDate="2016-04-27T16:32:19.640" UserId="68" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="(I would leave this as a comment but it's too long, so.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, there seem to be two translations of *Julius Caesar* into Latin, and both are useless for determining what's &quot;correct&quot; here, since they use plural nouns, which would be the same whether nominative or vocative. One, from 1856, is by [Henry Denison][1]; the relevant lines are rendered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Amici, Cives, Quirites, commodate mihi aliquantisper aures vestras: adsum ut efferam Cæsarem, non ut laudem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other, from an 1899 issue of *Praeco Latinus* edited by Arcadius Avellanus, is by [C. W. Goodchild][2]; there they are rendered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Romani, amici, cives, auscultate mihi;  &#xD;&#xA;Venio sepultum non laudatum Cæsarem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Avellanus was a native Latin speaker, but I don't know the extent to which he futzed with his writers' material in the *Praeco Latinus*. Of Denison and Goodchild, alas, I know nothing, so I'm not in a position to comment on the quality of their translations, but I will say that *commodate mihi aures vestras*, though a literally exact translation of the English, feels far too metaphoric for Latin, which tends to be a very concrete language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/46768/46768-h/46768-h.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=d6pDAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA76&amp;dq=praeco%20latinus%20caesar%20shakespeare&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjZvKvKka_MAhWBPD4KHXkFB1QQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=praeco%20latinus%20caesar%20shakespeare&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="797" RevisionGUID="d8241185-34b1-4bc0-b808-c04bbc7c73fc" CreationDate="2016-04-27T23:30:30.227" UserId="68" Text="Hmm. I don't know of any corresponding idioms in Latin, but in general Latin is a pretty concrete language, shunning metaphor when it can, so my suspicion is that the way to say this is going to turn out to be rather prosaic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translated from metaphor, &quot;burn your bridges&quot; means something like &quot;break connections of goodwill.&quot; In looking for less fanciful expressions that mean the same thing I find for example in Virgil's *Georgics IV*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;rege incolumi mens omnibus una est;	&#xD;&#xA;amisso rupere fidem, constructaque mella	&#xD;&#xA;diripuere ipsae et cratis **soluere fauorum**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in Cicero's *De Amicitia* 85&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nam implicati ultro et citro vel usu diuturno vel etiam officiis repente in medio cursu **amicitias** exorta aliqua offensione **disrumpimus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I had to bet, I'd say it's going to be something boring like that, alas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="797" RevisionGUID="d7b229d5-57ef-4879-ace0-e7600f504d1b" CreationDate="2016-04-27T23:52:56.640" UserId="68" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Hmm. I don't know of any corresponding idioms in Latin, but in general Latin is a pretty concrete language, shunning metaphor when it can, so my suspicion is that the way to say this is going to turn out to be rather prosaic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translated from metaphor, &quot;burn your bridges&quot; means something like &quot;break connections of goodwill.&quot; In looking for less fanciful expressions that mean the same thing I find for example in Virgil's *Georgics IV*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;rege incolumi mens omnibus una est;	&#xD;&#xA;amisso **rupere fidem**, constructaque mella	&#xD;&#xA;diripuere ipsae et cratis **solvere favorum**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in Cicero's *De Amicitia* 85&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nam implicati ultro et citro vel usu diuturno vel etiam officiis repente in medio cursu **amicitias** exorta aliqua offensione **disrumpimus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I had to bet, I'd say it's going to be something boring like that, alas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="798" RevisionGUID="1fa14023-f2f5-45fd-9281-01b6a7113b8d" CreationDate="2016-04-28T10:32:04.840" UserId="79" Text="I am uncertain when to use nominative and when vocative in an apposition related to direct address.&#xD;&#xA;This issue is easiest to describe with examples.&#xD;&#xA;I have understood that the following use is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Marce, amice bone, me audi!* &quot;Marcus, good friend, listen to me!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Marce, amicus bonus me audi!* &quot;Marcus, listen to me as a good friend!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. *Amice bone, me audi!* &quot;Good friend, listen to me!&quot; (No apposition here.)&#xD;&#xA;4. *Amicus bonus me audi!* &quot;Listen to me as a good friend!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, if I want the addressee to do something as something, I would use nominative instead of vocative.&#xD;&#xA;If I use the apposition as an address, then I would choose vocative.&#xD;&#xA;Is this use correct?&#xD;&#xA;I have not seen this properly discussed in Latin grammars.&#xD;&#xA;I would like classical examples that clearly distinguish using vocative and nominative in address like this, but also discussions from Latin grammars are most welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question arose in comments to my answer to [a question about vocative](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/793/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2776" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="798" RevisionGUID="1fa14023-f2f5-45fd-9281-01b6a7113b8d" CreationDate="2016-04-28T10:32:04.840" UserId="79" Text="How to use apposition with vocative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2777" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="798" RevisionGUID="1fa14023-f2f5-45fd-9281-01b6a7113b8d" CreationDate="2016-04-28T10:32:04.840" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|syntax|vocative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2778" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="793" RevisionGUID="96dec0d4-ca2e-4db6-9b1b-d8f662f4ec10" CreationDate="2016-04-28T10:33:29.513" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|syntax|vocative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="797" RevisionGUID="8c697880-9f2e-4f7d-9f00-507ff20bb496" CreationDate="2016-04-28T15:25:39.713" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Hmm. I don't know of any corresponding idioms in Latin, but in general Latin is a pretty concrete language, shunning metaphor when it can, so my suspicion is that the way to say this is going to turn out to be rather prosaic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translated from metaphor, &quot;burn your bridges&quot; means something like &quot;break connections of goodwill.&quot; In looking for less fanciful expressions that mean the same thing I find for example in Virgil's *Georgic IV*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;rege incolumi mens omnibus una est;	&#xD;&#xA;amisso **rupere fidem**, constructaque mella	&#xD;&#xA;diripuere ipsae et **cratis solvere favorum**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in Cicero's *De Amicitia* 85&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nam implicati ultro et citro vel usu diuturno vel etiam officiis repente in medio cursu **amicitias** exorta aliqua offensione **disrumpimus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I had to bet, I'd say it's going to be something boring like that, alas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="799" RevisionGUID="88a5200e-097b-4249-b6bd-bd2563a1c01e" CreationDate="2016-04-29T03:24:35.577" UserId="30" Text="I believe all of those options are possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vocative on *-e* only came to Latin relatively late, although it had become the standard by the classical age. In older Latin, the nominative *-us* functioned as the vocative—i.e. Latin had no separate vocative at first, for all other forms of the vocative were and always remained identical to those of the nominative, like *femina*, *pater*, etc. Perhaps it was borrowed from the Greek vocative on *-e* of the same declension as in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *-e* was still not used, or not often used, with certain specific words, like *deus*, whose vocative remained *deus* throughout the classical age and beyond, I believe, probably because *dee* looked and sounded odd. Ritter, through [Eden (in his commentary on Aeneid VIII.77)][1], says that the vocative *popule* did not occur before Quintilian, but that is not quite true, unless there are textual errors in [Ovid and Cicero][2], which seems very unlikely. But *popule* does seem to be rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it makes the most sense to say that it was possible for classical authors to use the nominative where one would expect a vocative, both in Greek and in Latin, although it was uncommon to do so.  I suspect it was mostly used in poetry or high oratory, and in ancient texts. Perhaps some instances could be explained away as appositions to an unmentioned nominative subject, but I believe others cannot (see below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At any rate, in those examples that could be explained away, the construction is such that the author might have used either a vocative or a nominative; for I believe basically any noun (substantive or adjective) that refers to the same thing as the subject of a verb in the second person can be written in the vocative in Latin. Does it really make any difference whether we translate Horace's *laudas insanus/insane trilibrem mullum* as &quot;you, being insane, praise a three-pound mullet&quot;, or &quot;you, o insane one, praise a three-pound mullet&quot;? Isn't the meaning always the same?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We may get the impression that the Romans consistently used the nominative when it was an apposition and the vocative when it was an address, but that is only because we add commas around a vocative but not around a nominative, and either case is normally possible when the verb is in the second person. Can you guess which case Horace really used in the example above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Priscianus][3] describes the phaenomenon thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; omnia autem pronomina, quae uocari possunt, similem habent nominatiuo uocatiuum excepto mi pro mee. nec mirum, cum etiam (0208) nomina pleraque apud Latinos, ut diximus, eosdem habent nominatiuos et uocatiuos. **Atticis quoque mos est nominatiuos pro uocatiuis proferre.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homerus: « **ἠέλιός** θ᾽ ὃς πάντ᾽ ἐφορᾷς καὶ πάντ᾽ ἐπακούεις.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quem secutus Virgilius in VIII:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *corniger Hesperidum **fluuius** regnator aquarum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fluuius pro fluuie dixit, et Lucanus in II:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *degener o **populus**, uix saecula longa decorum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sic meruisse uiris*, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pro popule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Priscianus says the nominative could be used instead of the vocative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example he gives from Lucanus has &quot;o&quot; and couldn't be taken as appositive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full quotation from Virgil that Priscianus mentions is as follows, from Aeneid VIII.77:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quo te cumque lacus miserantem incommoda nostra&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fonte tenet, quocumque solo pulcherrimus exis, 75&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  semper honore meo, semper celebrabere donis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corniger Hesperidum **fluvius** regnator aquarum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Loeb translation][4] is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;In whatever spring your water contains you as you pity our travails, from whatever soil you flow forth in all your beauty, ever with my offerings, ever with my gifts, you will be graced, horned stream, lord of Hesperian waters.&quot; I suppose you could see this as appositive, but I'd rather see it as a free choice between nominative and vocative, especially in poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Servius, too, mentions the possibility of a nominativus pro vocativo, in his [commentary on Aeneid XI.464][5]. The passage from the Aeneid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *“tu, Voluse, armari Volscorum edice maniplis,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *duc” ait “et Rutulos. equitem **Messapus** in armis,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et cum fratre Coras latis diffundite campis.* 465&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; His commentary: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot; 'Messapus' autem ut diceret, vitavit ὁμοιοτέλευτον: nam vitiosum erat 'Voluse' 'edice' 'Messape'. ergo 'Messapus' aut antiquus vocativus est, ut 'Hesperidum **fluvius** regnator aquarum', item 'socer arma **Latinus** habeto': aut certe nominativus est pro vocativo. quamquam possit etiam nominativus esse, ut sit 'Messapus et Coras equitem diffundite' pro 'diffundant': melior tamen est sensus superior. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He first offers the possibility that archaic vocatives on *-us* existed, like *fluvius* and *Latinus* in his examples. His second suggestion is that it may be a nominativus pro vocativo. His third suggestion is that there is an error in the text, but he says the &quot;interpretation above&quot; (&quot;sensus superior&quot;) is the better one; this suggests that a nominativus pro vocativo and an archaic vocative more or less amount to the same thing (the &quot;interpretation above&quot;) phrased in two different ways, which would make sense and would agree with Priscian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Servius's second example, Aeneas is speaking in the presence of Latinus, but he is speaking in the third person (*habeto*): &quot;Latinus, my father-in-law, is to keep the sword&quot; ([Loeb translation][6]). This example does not seem relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A relevant example from Livius:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *audi, inquit, Iuppiter, audi pater patrate populi Albani, audi tu, **populus** Albanus* (Livius, *Ab Urbe Condita* I.24.7)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Listen, he said, Jupiter, listen, pater patratus of the Alban people, listen you, the Alban people.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though some interpretors would want to explain this as an appositive,  it seems to be a classic example of a situation in which one would use a vocative. *Populus Albanus* is parallel with *Iuppiter* and *pater patrate* (&quot;fetial priest&quot;), which has the vocative ending *-e*. It may be so that the priest is addressing the Alban People in the incarnation of some official, but then that official is still the Alban people, so a vocative would by all means be appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Horatius, *Odes* I.2.43:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sive mutata iuvenem figura*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *ales in terris imitaris almae*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ***filius** Maiae patiens vocari*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *Caesaris ultor*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Or you, o winged son of kindly Maia, if you take on the shape of a young man on earth and are willing to be called Caesar’s avenger&quot; ([Loeb translation][7]). The speaker is exhorting Mercurius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=B7cfAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA44&amp;lpg=PA44&amp;dq=Audi%20tu,%20**populus**%20Albanus*&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Dv0woeKNcP&amp;sig=EqtzVMrz80skSqibKh8GgBMoxKc&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwizhaKH6LLMAhUJNxQKHdtQAt4Q6AEIIDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=Audi%20tu%2C%20**populus**%20Albanus*&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23popule%23&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=pMcc5jKgKvIC&amp;pg=PA295&amp;lpg=PA295&amp;dq=degener%20o%20populus,%20uix%20saecula%20longa%20decorum&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=VzRKZNyuBE&amp;sig=BeleipE_rnwc1N1CmI6jMNMGH1g&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj9t9fBy7LMAhXJ7BQKHXPBD6IQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=degener%20o%20populus%2C%20uix%20saecula%20longa%20decorum&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/virgil-aeneid/1916/pb_LCL064.65.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.monumenta.ch/latein/text.php?tabelle=Servius&amp;rumpfid=Servius,%20in%20Vergilii%20Aeneidos%20Commentarius,%2011,%20%20464&amp;nf=1&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/virgil-aeneid/1916/pb_LCL064.315.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/horace-odes/2004/pb_LCL033.29.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="799" RevisionGUID="20653285-39bd-4aea-abfa-a8824d038110" CreationDate="2016-04-29T03:57:53.600" UserId="30" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I believe all of those options are possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vocative on *-e* only came to Latin relatively late, although it had become the standard by the classical age. In older Latin, the nominative *-us* functioned as the vocative—i.e. Latin had no separate vocative at first, for all other forms of the vocative were and always remained identical to those of the nominative, like *femina*, *pater*, etc. Perhaps it was borrowed from the Greek vocative on *-e* of the same declension as in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *-e* was still not used, or not often used, with certain specific words, like *deus*, whose vocative remained *deus* throughout the classical age and beyond, I believe, probably because *dee* looked and sounded odd. Ritter, through [Eden (in his commentary on Aeneid VIII.77)][1], says that the vocative *popule* did not occur before Quintilian, but that is not quite true, unless there are textual errors in [Ovid and Cicero][2], which seems very unlikely. But *popule* does seem to be rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it makes the most sense to say that it was possible for classical authors to use the nominative where one would expect a vocative, both in Greek and in Latin, although it was uncommon to do so.  I suspect it was mostly used in poetry or high oratory, and in ancient texts. Perhaps some instances could be explained away as appositions to an unmentioned nominative subject, but I believe others cannot (see below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At any rate, in those examples that could be explained away, the construction is such that the author might have used either a vocative or a nominative; for I believe basically any noun (substantive or adjective) that refers to the same thing as the subject of a verb in the second person can be written in the vocative in Latin. Does it really make any difference whether we translate Horace's *laudas insanus/insane trilibrem mullum* as &quot;you, being insane, praise a three-pound mullet&quot;, or &quot;you, o insane one, praise a three-pound mullet&quot;? Isn't the meaning always the same?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We may get the impression that the Romans consistently used the nominative when it was an apposition and the vocative when it was an address, but that is only because we add commas around a vocative but not around a nominative, and either case is normally possible when the verb is in the second person. Can you guess which case Horace really used in the example above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Priscianus][3] describes the phaenomenon thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; omnia autem pronomina, quae uocari possunt, similem habent nominatiuo uocatiuum excepto mi pro mee. nec mirum, cum etiam (0208) nomina pleraque apud Latinos, ut diximus, eosdem habent nominatiuos et uocatiuos. **Atticis quoque mos est nominatiuos pro uocatiuis proferre.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homerus: « **ἠέλιός** θ᾽ ὃς πάντ᾽ ἐφορᾷς καὶ πάντ᾽ ἐπακούεις.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quem secutus Virgilius in VIII:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *corniger Hesperidum **fluuius** regnator aquarum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fluuius pro fluuie dixit, et Lucanus in II:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *degener o **populus**, uix saecula longa decorum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sic meruisse uiris*, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pro popule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Priscianus says the nominative could be used instead of the vocative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example he gives from Lucanus has &quot;o&quot; and couldn't be taken as appositive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full quotation from Virgil that Priscianus mentions is as follows, from Aeneid VIII.77:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quo te cumque lacus miserantem incommoda nostra&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fonte tenet, quocumque solo pulcherrimus exis, 75&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  semper honore meo, semper celebrabere donis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corniger Hesperidum **fluvius** regnator aquarum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Loeb translation][4] is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;In whatever spring your water contains you as you pity our travails, from whatever soil you flow forth in all your beauty, ever with my offerings, ever with my gifts, you will be graced, horned stream, lord of Hesperian waters.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose you could see this as appositive, but I'd rather see it as a free choice between nominative and vocative, especially in poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Servius, too, mentions the possibility of a nominativus pro vocativo, in his [commentary on Aeneid XI.464][5]. The passage from the Aeneid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *“tu, Voluse, armari Volscorum edice maniplis,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *duc” ait “et Rutulos. equitem **Messapus** in armis,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et cum fratre Coras latis diffundite campis.* 465&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; His commentary: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot; 'Messapus' autem ut diceret, vitavit ὁμοιοτέλευτον: nam vitiosum erat 'Voluse' 'edice' 'Messape'. ergo 'Messapus' aut antiquus vocativus est, ut 'Hesperidum **fluvius** regnator aquarum', item 'socer arma **Latinus** habeto': aut certe nominativus est pro vocativo. quamquam possit etiam nominativus esse, ut sit 'Messapus et Coras equitem diffundite' pro 'diffundant': melior tamen est sensus superior. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He first offers the possibility that archaic vocatives on *-us* existed, like *fluvius* and *Latinus* in his examples. His second suggestion is that it may be a nominativus pro vocativo. His third suggestion is that there is an error in the text, but he says the &quot;interpretation above&quot; (&quot;sensus superior&quot;) is the better one; this suggests that a nominativus pro vocativo and an archaic vocative more or less amount to the same thing (the &quot;interpretation above&quot;) phrased in two different ways, which would make sense and would agree with Priscian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Servius's second example, Aeneas is speaking in the presence of Latinus, but he is speaking in the third person (*habeto*): &quot;Latinus, my father-in-law, is to keep the sword&quot; ([Loeb translation][6]). This example does not seem relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A relevant example from Livius:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *audi, inquit, Iuppiter, audi pater patrate populi Albani, audi tu, **populus** Albanus* (Livius, *Ab Urbe Condita* I.24.7)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Listen, he said, Jupiter, listen, pater patratus of the Alban people, listen you, the Alban people.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though some interpretors would want to explain this as an appositive,  it seems to be a classic example of a situation in which one would use a vocative. *Populus Albanus* is parallel with *Iuppiter* and *pater patrate* (&quot;fetial priest&quot;), which has the vocative ending *-e*. It may be so that the priest is addressing the Alban People in the incarnation of some official, but then that official is still the Alban people, so a vocative would by all means be appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Horatius, *Odes* I.2.43:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sive mutata iuvenem figura*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *ales in terris imitaris almae*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ***filius** Maiae patiens vocari*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *Caesaris ultor*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Or you, o winged son of kindly Maia, if you take on the shape of a young man on earth and are willing to be called Caesar’s avenger&quot; ([Loeb translation][7]). The speaker is exhorting Mercurius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=B7cfAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA44&amp;lpg=PA44&amp;dq=Audi%20tu,%20**populus**%20Albanus*&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Dv0woeKNcP&amp;sig=EqtzVMrz80skSqibKh8GgBMoxKc&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwizhaKH6LLMAhUJNxQKHdtQAt4Q6AEIIDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=Audi%20tu%2C%20**populus**%20Albanus*&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23popule%23&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=pMcc5jKgKvIC&amp;pg=PA295&amp;lpg=PA295&amp;dq=degener%20o%20populus,%20uix%20saecula%20longa%20decorum&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=VzRKZNyuBE&amp;sig=BeleipE_rnwc1N1CmI6jMNMGH1g&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj9t9fBy7LMAhXJ7BQKHXPBD6IQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=degener%20o%20populus%2C%20uix%20saecula%20longa%20decorum&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/virgil-aeneid/1916/pb_LCL064.65.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.monumenta.ch/latein/text.php?tabelle=Servius&amp;rumpfid=Servius,%20in%20Vergilii%20Aeneidos%20Commentarius,%2011,%20%20464&amp;nf=1&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/virgil-aeneid/1916/pb_LCL064.315.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/horace-odes/2004/pb_LCL033.29.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="799" RevisionGUID="aeb61fce-b3e4-475a-87cf-2bfb3acd2361" CreationDate="2016-04-29T04:03:09.807" UserId="30" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I believe all of those options are possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vocative on *-e* only came to Latin relatively late, although it had become the standard by the classical age. In older Latin, the nominative *-us* functioned as the vocative—i.e. Latin had no separate vocative at first, for all other forms of the vocative were and always remained identical to those of the nominative, like *femina*, *pater*, etc. Perhaps it was borrowed from the Greek vocative on *-e* of the same declension as in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *-e* was still not used, or not often used, with certain specific words, like *deus*, whose vocative remained *deus* throughout the classical age and beyond, I believe, probably because *dee* looked and sounded odd. Ritter, through [Eden (in his commentary on Aeneid VIII.77)][1], says that the vocative *popule* did not occur before Quintilian, but that is not quite true, unless there are textual errors in [Ovid and Cicero][2], which seems very unlikely. But *popule* does seem to be rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it makes the most sense to say that it was possible for classical authors to use the nominative where one would expect a vocative, both in Greek and in Latin, although it was uncommon to do so.  I suspect it was mostly used in poetry or high oratory, and in ancient texts. Perhaps some instances could be explained away as appositions to an unmentioned nominative subject, but I believe others cannot (see below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At any rate, in those examples that could be explained away, the construction is such that the author might have used either a vocative or a nominative; for I believe basically any noun (substantive or adjective) that refers to the same thing as the subject of a verb in the second person can be written in the vocative in Latin. Does it really make any difference whether we translate Horace's *laudas insanus/insane trilibrem mullum* as &quot;you, being insane, praise a three-pound mullet&quot;, or &quot;you, o insane one, praise a three-pound mullet&quot;? Isn't the meaning always the same?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We may get the impression that the Romans consistently used the nominative when it was an apposition and the vocative when it was an address, but that is only because we add commas around a vocative but not around a nominative, and either case is normally possible when the verb is in the second person. Can you guess which case Horace really used in the example above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Priscianus][3] describes the phaenomenon thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; omnia autem pronomina, quae uocari possunt, similem habent nominatiuo uocatiuum excepto mi pro mee. nec mirum, cum etiam (0208) nomina pleraque apud Latinos, ut diximus, eosdem habent nominatiuos et uocatiuos. **Atticis quoque mos est nominatiuos pro uocatiuis proferre.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homerus: « **ἠέλιός** θ᾽ ὃς πάντ᾽ ἐφορᾷς καὶ πάντ᾽ ἐπακούεις.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quem secutus Virgilius in VIII:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *corniger Hesperidum **fluuius** regnator aquarum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fluuius pro fluuie dixit, et Lucanus in II:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *degener o **populus**, uix saecula longa decorum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sic meruisse uiris*, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pro popule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Priscianus says the nominative could be used instead of the vocative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example he gives from Lucanus has &quot;o&quot; and couldn't be taken as appositive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full quotation from Virgil that Priscianus mentions is as follows, from Aeneid VIII.77:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quo te cumque lacus miserantem incommoda nostra&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fonte tenet, quocumque solo pulcherrimus exis, 75&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  semper honore meo, semper celebrabere donis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corniger Hesperidum **fluvius** regnator aquarum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Loeb translation][4] is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;In whatever spring your water contains you as you pity our travails, from whatever soil you flow forth in all your beauty, ever with my offerings, ever with my gifts, you will be graced, horned stream, lord of Hesperian waters.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose you could see this as appositive, but I'd rather see it as a free choice between nominative and vocative, especially in poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Servius, too, mentions the possibility of a nominativus pro vocativo, in his [commentary on Aeneid XI.464][5]. The passage from the Aeneid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *“tu, Voluse, armari Volscorum edice maniplis,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *duc” ait “et Rutulos. equitem **Messapus** in armis,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et cum fratre Coras latis diffundite campis.* 465&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; His commentary: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot; 'Messapus' autem ut diceret, vitavit ὁμοιοτέλευτον: nam vitiosum erat 'Voluse' 'edice' 'Messape'. ergo 'Messapus' aut antiquus vocativus est, ut 'Hesperidum **fluvius** regnator aquarum', item 'socer arma **Latinus** habeto': aut certe nominativus est pro vocativo. quamquam possit etiam nominativus esse, ut sit 'Messapus et Coras equitem diffundite' pro 'diffundant': melior tamen est sensus superior. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He first offers the possibility that archaic vocatives on *-us* existed, like *fluvius* and *Latinus* in his examples. His second suggestion is that it may be a nominativus pro vocativo. His third suggestion is that there is an error in the text, but he says the &quot;interpretation above&quot; (&quot;sensus superior&quot;) is the better one; this suggests that a nominativus pro vocativo and an archaic vocative more or less amount to the same thing (the &quot;interpretation above&quot;) phrased in two different ways, which would make sense and would agree with Priscian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Servius's second example, Aeneas is speaking in the presence of Latinus, but he is speaking in the third person (*habeto*): &quot;Latinus, my father-in-law, is to keep the sword&quot; ([Loeb translation][6]). This example does not seem relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A relevant example from Livius:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *audi, inquit, Iuppiter, audi pater patrate populi Albani, audi tu, **populus** Albanus* (Livius, *Ab Urbe Condita* I.24.7)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Listen, he said, Jupiter, listen, pater patratus of the Alban people, listen you, the Alban people.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though some interpretors would want to explain this as an appositive,  it seems to be a classic example of a situation in which one would use a vocative. *Populus Albanus* is parallel with *Iuppiter* and *pater patrate* (a certain official), which has the vocative ending *-e*. It may be so that the priest is addressing the Alban People in the incarnation of some dignitary or leader, but then that official still *is* the Alban people, so a vocative would by all means be appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Horatius, *Odes* I.2.43:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sive mutata iuvenem figura*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *ales in terris imitaris almae*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ***filius** Maiae patiens vocari*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *Caesaris ultor*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Or you, o winged son of kindly Maia, if you take on the shape of a young man on earth and are willing to be called Caesar’s avenger&quot; ([Loeb translation][7]). The speaker is exhorting Mercurius. You could explain it away, but why would you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=B7cfAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA44&amp;lpg=PA44&amp;dq=Audi%20tu,%20**populus**%20Albanus*&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Dv0woeKNcP&amp;sig=EqtzVMrz80skSqibKh8GgBMoxKc&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwizhaKH6LLMAhUJNxQKHdtQAt4Q6AEIIDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=Audi%20tu%2C%20**populus**%20Albanus*&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23popule%23&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=pMcc5jKgKvIC&amp;pg=PA295&amp;lpg=PA295&amp;dq=degener%20o%20populus,%20uix%20saecula%20longa%20decorum&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=VzRKZNyuBE&amp;sig=BeleipE_rnwc1N1CmI6jMNMGH1g&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj9t9fBy7LMAhXJ7BQKHXPBD6IQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=degener%20o%20populus%2C%20uix%20saecula%20longa%20decorum&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/virgil-aeneid/1916/pb_LCL064.65.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.monumenta.ch/latein/text.php?tabelle=Servius&amp;rumpfid=Servius,%20in%20Vergilii%20Aeneidos%20Commentarius,%2011,%20%20464&amp;nf=1&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/virgil-aeneid/1916/pb_LCL064.315.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/horace-odes/2004/pb_LCL033.29.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="800" RevisionGUID="06017093-d969-44ea-a82f-dfe27b6acb06" CreationDate="2016-04-29T04:51:42.283" UserId="40" Text="This question has now been answered by Cerberus, though his answer was posted in regard to a different (related) [question][1]. It seems that there are examples from Livy and Lucan (at least) of the form *populus* being used as a vocative (though *popule* is also attested). So Nairn is justified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/798/how-to-use-apposition-with-vocative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="801" RevisionGUID="ae033185-40f5-46fc-9793-4e761a0e76e6" CreationDate="2016-04-29T10:17:22.240" UserId="324" Text="It is not true that the vocative in -e is late, that &quot;Latin had no separate vocative at first&quot;, nor that the vocative is borrowed from Greek. On the contrary, the use of the bare stem of nouns for the vocative singular is common Indo-European (e.g. in Sanskrit). The use of the nominative instead of the vocative is a syntactic feature in Greek, and it is probably a Graecism in Latin. In some words, the nominative has replaced the vocative, e.g. in puer, older puere (Plautus). In other instances the two forms can be used interchangeably." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="801" RevisionGUID="05a9f376-5374-4bee-ae26-d0cf757e0785" CreationDate="2016-04-29T14:01:07.670" UserId="324" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="It is not true that the vocative in -e is late, that &quot;Latin had no separate vocative at first&quot;, nor that the vocative is borrowed from Greek. On the contrary, the use of the bare stem of nouns for the vocative singular is common Indo-European (e.g. in Sanskrit). The use of the nominative instead of the vocative is a syntactic feature in Greek, and it is probably a Graecism in Latin. In some words, the nominative eventually replaced the vocative, e.g. in puer, older puere (Plautus, As. 2, 3, 2; 5, 2, 42; id. Most. 4, 2, 32 et saep. acc. to L/S). In other instances the two forms can be used interchangeably." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="802" RevisionGUID="750398f4-0dfd-453f-84de-eecf2e3beebe" CreationDate="2016-04-29T16:28:11.903" UserId="235" Text="I'm a little confused by the clause that begins Matthew 10.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [10:1][1] **Et convocatis duodecim discipulis suis**,  dedit illis potestatem spirituum immundorum,  ut ejicerent eos, et curarent omnem languorem, et omnem infirmitatem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Douay-Rheims bible translates this verse as such:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [10:1][2] **And having called his twelve disciples together**, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mostly on board with this translation. However, one thing confuses me. Doesn't the translation &quot;And having called his twelve disciples together&quot; smack of the active voice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, it looks like a perfect passive participle, and should be translated as &quot;And his twelve disciples having been summoned&quot;, or, to make it flow more smoothly, &quot;And when his twelve disciples were summoned, he gave them power over unclean spirits...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Curious for feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/mat010.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47010.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2787" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="802" RevisionGUID="750398f4-0dfd-453f-84de-eecf2e3beebe" CreationDate="2016-04-29T16:28:11.903" UserId="235" Text="Translating a participle in Matthew 10:1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2788" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="802" RevisionGUID="750398f4-0dfd-453f-84de-eecf2e3beebe" CreationDate="2016-04-29T16:28:11.903" UserId="235" Text="|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="803" RevisionGUID="75237e22-01f7-4e12-8545-954004c16b76" CreationDate="2016-04-29T16:47:32.967" UserId="68" Text="I'm not an expert in Latin of the age of the Vulgate, so somebody else may have a more enlightened view, but grammatically speaking you're exactly right; the phrase in question is an ablative absolute, meaning &quot;his twelve disciples having been called together,&quot; and &quot;And having called his twelve disciples together&quot; seems to be a mistranslation, or at least a less direct/literal translation. The meaning is the same—the implication in *convocatis duodecim discipulis suis* is certainly that he's the one who did the calling—so it's possible that the translator simply felt it was more idiomatic English. (If I were trying to do a translation into actual English of today—rather than translationese—I'd probably go with, &quot;Once he had called his twelve disciples together.&quot;) But I don't know enough about the Douay-Rheims Bible to be able to opine further on that point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="804" RevisionGUID="494e7175-ce85-4aed-b781-31ed37307b35" CreationDate="2016-04-29T16:51:11.510" UserId="40" Text="The translation is indeed syntactically inexact, but in a very common and justifiable way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that Latin -- unlike e.g. Greek, from which this text is translated -- lacks a perfect active participle. This means that there's no direct way of saying &quot;Having called his disciples together...&quot;. (The exception to this is using a deponent verb, since these have passive forms but active meanings; so their perfect passive participle can be used actively, e.g. *haec locutus* &quot;Having said these things...&quot;.) What Latin conventionally does in such situations is to turn the clause around into a passive and use the perfect passive participle in an ablative absolute construction, as here. The implied agent of the passive, though not actually expressed, is understood to be the same as the subject of the main clause. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an extremely common way of doing what Greek would do with an aorist active participle -- and indeed in this case, that's what the original Greek has, προσκαλεσάμενος τοὺς δώδεκα μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ &quot;having called his twelve disciples&quot;. In translation, it makes sense to render the Latin passive construction actively, since there's no particular reason to follow the syntactic constraints of Latin in an English translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="804" RevisionGUID="59851f32-34fe-4a89-a055-ced7a79cd63d" CreationDate="2016-04-29T18:19:04.607" UserId="40" Comment="Greek middle, not active, participle in this sentence" Text="The translation is indeed syntactically inexact, but in a very common and justifiable way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that Latin -- unlike e.g. Greek, from which this text is translated -- lacks a perfect active participle. This means that there's no direct way of saying &quot;Having called his disciples together...&quot;. (The exception to this is using a deponent verb, since these have passive forms but active meanings; so their perfect passive participle can be used actively, e.g. *haec locutus* &quot;Having said these things...&quot;.) What Latin conventionally does in such situations is to turn the clause around into a passive and use the perfect passive participle in an ablative absolute construction, as here. The implied agent of the passive, though not actually expressed, is understood to be the same as the subject of the main clause. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an extremely common way of doing in Latin what Greek would do with an aorist active (or middle) participle; in this case, the original Greek has an aorist middle participle, προσκαλεσάμενος τοὺς δώδεκα μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ &quot;having called to himself his twelve disciples&quot;. In translation, it makes sense to render the Latin passive construction actively, since there's no particular reason to follow the syntactic constraints of Latin in an English translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="793" RevisionGUID="ddf6a88d-0419-4c53-b338-1a7545a704e7" CreationDate="2016-04-29T19:10:16.497" UserId="66" Comment="improved formatting" Text="In *Latin Prose Composition* by John Arbuthnot Nairn (Cambridge UP, 1926; p. 5 of &quot;Versions&quot; section), I find the following as a translation of Shakespeare's &quot;Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Populus Romanus Quiritium, amicique et cives mei, benigne me attenteque audiatis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct Latin? It seems to me that *Populus Romanus Quiritum* needs to be vocative. But Nairn was an eminent Latinist and I have not so far found any other errors in his book, and it's a little hard to believe that he would have made such an elementary blunder. I've searched for the phrase *Populus Romanus Quiritum* but have not been able to find it used in direct address (while on the other hand Cicero [uses][1] *popule Romane* in the vocative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any possible justification for the nominatives here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.packhum.org/loc/474/75/1/2301-2308@1#1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2793" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="793" RevisionGUID="ddf6a88d-0419-4c53-b338-1a7545a704e7" CreationDate="2016-04-29T19:10:16.497" Comment="Proposed by 66 approved by 40 edit id of 106" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="802" RevisionGUID="44900b1a-ab8e-4573-8dde-13d2acac1fe8" CreationDate="2016-04-29T21:38:35.057" UserId="12" Comment="clearer title and add tags" Text="I'm a little confused by the clause that begins Matthew 10:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [10:1][1] **Et convocatis duodecim discipulis suis**,  dedit illis potestatem spirituum immundorum,  ut ejicerent eos, et curarent omnem languorem, et omnem infirmitatem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Douay-Rheims bible translates this verse as such:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [10:1][2] **And having called his twelve disciples together**, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mostly on board with this translation. However, one thing confuses me. Doesn't the translation &quot;And having called his twelve disciples together&quot; smack of the active voice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, it looks like a perfect passive participle, and should be translated as &quot;And his twelve disciples having been summoned&quot;, or, to make it flow more smoothly, &quot;And when his twelve disciples were summoned, he gave them power over unclean spirits...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Curious for feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/mat010.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47010.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2795" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="802" RevisionGUID="44900b1a-ab8e-4573-8dde-13d2acac1fe8" CreationDate="2016-04-29T21:38:35.057" UserId="12" Comment="clearer title and add tags" Text="Why is the passive participle in Matthew 10:1 rendered as active in English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2796" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="802" RevisionGUID="44900b1a-ab8e-4573-8dde-13d2acac1fe8" CreationDate="2016-04-29T21:38:35.057" UserId="12" Comment="clearer title and add tags" Text="|participle|passive-voice|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="805" RevisionGUID="939ceff4-6910-4430-9281-9f8c4042645c" CreationDate="2016-04-30T05:35:56.033" UserId="9" Text="I have learned that there is a suffix *-cundus,* found in words like *fecundus, jucundus/jocundus,* and *rubicundus,* which means something like &quot;full of&quot; or &quot;characterized by.&quot; It seems to often mentioned along with participles ending in *-ndus* and *-bundus* (such as  Allen and Greenough's [New Latin Grammar][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, it is of &quot;disputed origin&quot; (*[The Foundations of Latin][2],* Philip Baldi 1999) but I'm interested in learning what etymologies have been proposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did find one paper that summarized the current state of the art: [«Une loi phonétique méconnue en latin : la lex-&#xD;&#xA;*hircus*»][3], by Romain Garnier (in French; I couldn't find the publication date but it must be recent since it has citations from 2015).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Garnier says Beneviste (1933) and Szemerényi (1950) proposed derivations from a PIE root *\*ḱuH-* meaning «être gonflé» (&quot;to be swollen, inflated&quot;), followed by a suffix (according to Beneviste, *-ond-ó-*; according to Szemerényi, *-tn-ó-*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan (2015) is supposed to have proposed that the *c* is not part of the suffix at all, and that *fecundus* should be analyzed as *fec-undus* with the same stem as in the perfect *feci.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Garnier himself argues that *fecundus* comes from a form *\*bʰéh₂-tu-* followed by a group of suffixes *\*-u̯o-dn-ó*, which syncopated to *\*fātu̯ond-o,* and then assimilated to *\*fāqu̯ond-o* (which subsequently developed according to generally recognized sound laws).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really know how to evaluate these etymologies. Which one is most widely accepted? Are there any others that I haven't found?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.253.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=gWY7-DBWPW4C&amp;pg=PA307&amp;lpg=PA307&amp;dq=latin%20suffix%20cundus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=_k_EHBlzB1&amp;sig=JPrWKjAo56Z6AgbH7_FaLtBV8rE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjsn_SCybXMAhXGmoMKHR2RCD4Q6AEIJjAC#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20suffix%20cundus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.academia.edu/18792465/_Sur_les_para-participes_en_-cundus_du_latin_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2799" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="805" RevisionGUID="939ceff4-6910-4430-9281-9f8c4042645c" CreationDate="2016-04-30T05:35:56.033" UserId="9" Text="What is the origin of the adjectival suffix &quot;-cundus&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2800" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="805" RevisionGUID="939ceff4-6910-4430-9281-9f8c4042645c" CreationDate="2016-04-30T05:35:56.033" UserId="9" Text="|etymology|participle|adjective|suffixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2801" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="805" RevisionGUID="d31ff297-ff72-461c-bb4d-87fccb16c567" CreationDate="2016-04-30T05:41:43.847" UserId="9" Comment="tried to speak more &quot;Latine&quot; in the title" Text="Unde &quot;-cundus&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="805" RevisionGUID="d31ff297-ff72-461c-bb4d-87fccb16c567" CreationDate="2016-04-30T05:41:43.847" UserId="9" Comment="tried to speak more &quot;Latine&quot; in the title" Text="I have learned that there is a suffix *-cundus,* found in words like *fecundus, jucundus/jocundus,* and *rubicundus,* which means something like &quot;full of&quot; or &quot;characterized by.&quot; It seems to often be mentioned along with participles ending in *-ndus* and *-bundus* (such as  Allen and Greenough's [New Latin Grammar][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, it is of &quot;disputed origin&quot; (*[The Foundations of Latin][2],* Philip Baldi 1999) but I'm interested in learning what etymologies have been proposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did find one paper that summarized the current state of the art: [«Une loi phonétique méconnue en latin : la lex-&#xD;&#xA;*hircus*»][3], by Romain Garnier (in French; I couldn't find the publication date but it must be recent since it has citations from 2015).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Garnier says Beneviste (1933) and Szemerényi (1950) proposed derivations from a PIE root *\*ḱuH-* meaning «être gonflé» (&quot;to be swollen, inflated&quot;), followed by a suffix (according to Beneviste, *-ond-ó-*; according to Szemerényi, *-tn-ó-*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan (2015) is supposed to have proposed that the *c* is not part of the suffix at all, and that *fecundus* should be analyzed as *fec-undus* with the same stem as in the perfect *feci.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Garnier himself argues that *fecundus* comes from a form *\*bʰéh₂-tu-* followed by a group of suffixes *\*-u̯o-dn-ó*, which syncopated to *\*fātu̯ond-o,* and then assimilated to *\*fāqu̯ond-o* (which subsequently developed according to generally recognized sound laws).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really know how to evaluate these etymologies. Which one is most widely accepted? Are there any others that I haven't found?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.253.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=gWY7-DBWPW4C&amp;pg=PA307&amp;lpg=PA307&amp;dq=latin%20suffix%20cundus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=_k_EHBlzB1&amp;sig=JPrWKjAo56Z6AgbH7_FaLtBV8rE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjsn_SCybXMAhXGmoMKHR2RCD4Q6AEIJjAC#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20suffix%20cundus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.academia.edu/18792465/_Sur_les_para-participes_en_-cundus_du_latin_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="805" RevisionGUID="45e207c7-dc75-48e5-8bce-f1ffc2e577f2" CreationDate="2016-04-30T05:49:34.613" UserId="9" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I have learned that there is a suffix *-cundus,* found in words like *fecundus, jucundus/jocundus,* and *rubicundus,* which means something like &quot;full of&quot; or &quot;characterized by.&quot; It seems to often be mentioned along with participles ending in *-ndus* and *-bundus* (such as  Allen and Greenough's [New Latin Grammar][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, it is of &quot;disputed origin&quot; (*[The Foundations of Latin][2],* Philip Baldi 1999) but I'm interested in learning what etymologies have been proposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did find one paper that contains a summary of the current &quot;state of the art&quot;: [«Une loi phonétique méconnue en latin : la lex-&#xD;&#xA;*hircus*»][3], by Romain Garnier (in French; I couldn't find the publication date but it must be recent since it has citations from 2015).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Garnier says Beneviste (1933) and Szemerényi (1950) proposed derivations from a PIE root *\*ḱuH-* meaning «être gonflé» (&quot;to be swollen, inflated&quot;), followed by a suffix (according to Beneviste, *-ond-ó-*; according to Szemerényi, *-tn-ó-*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan (2015) is supposed to have proposed that the *c* is not part of the suffix at all, and that *fecundus* should be analyzed as *fec-undus* with the same stem as in the perfect *feci.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Garnier himself argues that *fecundus* comes from a form *\*bʰéh₂-tu-* followed by a group of suffixes *\*-u̯o-dn-ó*, which syncopated to *\*fātu̯ond-o,* and then assimilated to *\*fāqu̯ond-o* (which subsequently developed according to generally recognized sound laws).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really know how to evaluate these etymologies. Which one is most widely accepted? Are there any others that I haven't found?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.253.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=gWY7-DBWPW4C&amp;pg=PA307&amp;lpg=PA307&amp;dq=latin%20suffix%20cundus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=_k_EHBlzB1&amp;sig=JPrWKjAo56Z6AgbH7_FaLtBV8rE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjsn_SCybXMAhXGmoMKHR2RCD4Q6AEIJjAC#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20suffix%20cundus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.academia.edu/18792465/_Sur_les_para-participes_en_-cundus_du_latin_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="805" RevisionGUID="dd73e864-6f12-4b75-ba53-f714ac7896b5" CreationDate="2016-04-30T16:07:32.320" UserId="9" Comment="fixed a mistake" Text="I have learned that there is a suffix *-cundus,* found in words like *fecundus, jucundus/jocundus,* and *rubicundus,* which means something like &quot;full of&quot; or &quot;characterized by.&quot; It seems to often be mentioned along with participles ending in *-ndus* and *-bundus* (such as  Allen and Greenough's [New Latin Grammar][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, it is of &quot;disputed origin&quot; (*[The Foundations of Latin][2],* Philip Baldi 1999) but I'm interested in learning what etymologies have been proposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did find one paper that contains a summary of the current &quot;state of the art&quot;: [«Une loi phonétique méconnue en latin : la lex-&#xD;&#xA;*hircus*»][3], by Romain Garnier (in French; I couldn't find the publication date but it must be recent since it has citations from 2015).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Garnier says Beneviste (1933) and Szemerényi (1950) proposed derivations from a PIE root *\*ḱuH-* meaning «être gonflé» (&quot;to be swollen, inflated&quot;), followed by a suffix (according to Beneviste, *-ond-ó-*; according to Szemerényi, *-tn-ó-*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan (2015) is supposed to have proposed that the *c* is not part of the suffix at all, and that *fecundus* should be analyzed as *fec-undus* with the same stem as in the perfect *feci.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Garnier himself argues that *facundus* comes from a form *\*bʰéh₂-tu-* followed by a group of suffixes *\*-u̯o-dn-ó*, which syncopated to *\*fātu̯ond-o,* and then assimilated to *\*fāqu̯ond-o* (which subsequently developed according to generally recognized sound laws).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really know how to evaluate these etymologies. Which one is most widely accepted? Are there any others that I haven't found?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.253.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=gWY7-DBWPW4C&amp;pg=PA307&amp;lpg=PA307&amp;dq=latin%20suffix%20cundus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=_k_EHBlzB1&amp;sig=JPrWKjAo56Z6AgbH7_FaLtBV8rE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjsn_SCybXMAhXGmoMKHR2RCD4Q6AEIJjAC#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20suffix%20cundus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.academia.edu/18792465/_Sur_les_para-participes_en_-cundus_du_latin_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="806" RevisionGUID="24b8af2b-631c-48c8-a82b-4c650a450173" CreationDate="2016-04-30T18:26:54.077" UserId="68" Text="I'm trying to develop a stronger sense of what/how Latin vocabulary was used at different points in the history of the language. In looking around Google and archive.org, I've found dictionaries from, say, the 17th century that contain only words Cicero used, but are there any modern dictionaries or dictionary-like resources that either&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) contain only Latin from certain ages (preferably Golden, Silver, or both),  &#xD;&#xA;b) classify entries by age, or  &#xD;&#xA;c) include information on age as part of a word's entry?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main current aim is to develop a sense of the corpus of Golden Age vocabulary and what words meant at that time, as distinct from words that entered the language later or that changed their meaning over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I can imagine all sorts of other ways in which such a dictionary/resource might be helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2806" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="806" RevisionGUID="24b8af2b-631c-48c8-a82b-4c650a450173" CreationDate="2016-04-30T18:26:54.077" UserId="68" Text="Resources that classify words/definitions by period in Latin history?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2807" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="806" RevisionGUID="24b8af2b-631c-48c8-a82b-4c650a450173" CreationDate="2016-04-30T18:26:54.077" UserId="68" Text="|vocabulary|dictionary|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="807" RevisionGUID="a333c090-33cb-497a-a94f-f5c52635754a" CreationDate="2016-04-30T20:50:52.077" UserId="39" Text="I am aware of the following online resources (Brill's Dictionary Platform). Caveat: **all of them are available by subscription only** (not free). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[The Dictionary of Renaissance Latin from Prose Sources / Lexique de la prose latine de la Renaissance Online][1]**. This is how it is described on the website: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It records the vocabulary of over 230 Latin prose authors from different regional backgrounds who wrote between c. 1300 and c. 1600, and gives translations in French and English in approximately 11,000 entries.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus Online][2]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;It explores the post-classical Latin language of the Western European Middle Ages from 550 to 1150, tracing the development and use of words.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It provides French, English and German translations &quot;for every entry of a Medieval Latin concept and searches on lemma and full text: searches can be refined by century of use.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Gruyter provides access to **[Thesaurus Linguae Latinae][3]** (**institutional subscription only**). It covers &quot;all the Latin texts from the classical period up to about 600 A.D.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/hoven&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/niermeyer&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.degruyter.com/databasecontent?dbid=tll&amp;dbsource=%2Fdb%2Ftll" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="807" RevisionGUID="e00e847d-0780-45a8-857d-de2d979cd4a3" CreationDate="2016-04-30T20:56:19.667" UserId="39" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I am aware of the following online resources (Brill's Dictionary Platform). Caveat: **all of them are available by subscription only** (not free). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[The Dictionary of Renaissance Latin from Prose Sources / Lexique de la prose latine de la Renaissance Online][1]**. This is how it is described on the website: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It records the vocabulary of over 230 Latin prose authors from different regional backgrounds who wrote between c. 1300 and c. 1600, and gives translations in French and English in approximately 11,000 entries.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus Online][2]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;It explores the post-classical Latin language of the Western European Middle Ages from 550 to 1150, tracing the development and use of words.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It provides French, English and German translations &quot;for every entry of a Medieval Latin concept and searches on lemma and full text: searches can be refined by century of use.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, De Gruyter provides access to **[Thesaurus Linguae Latinae][3]** (**institutional subscription only**). It covers &quot;all the Latin texts from the classical period up to about 600 A.D.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/hoven&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/niermeyer&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.degruyter.com/databasecontent?dbid=tll&amp;dbsource=%2Fdb%2Ftll" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="808" RevisionGUID="c3850358-0023-48e5-a144-0350c18684fa" CreationDate="2016-05-01T04:15:43.030" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt; [ [Etymonline :](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=delicious&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) ]  [...]  from Late Latin *deliciosus* &quot;delicious, delicate,&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;from Latin *delicia* (plural *deliciae*) &quot;a delight, allurement, charm,&quot; from *delicere* &quot;to allure, entice,&quot; from ***de-* &quot;away&quot;** (see [de-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=de-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + *lacere* &quot;lure, deceive&quot; (related to *laqueus* &quot;noose, snare;&quot; see [lace](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=lace&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)).   [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also read [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deliciae). How does Etymonline's opinion (per the bolded, of 'de-' to mean &quot;away&quot;) make sense? If an agent lures or deceives an experiencer, then the agent must cause to agent to approach or near it, and not to become AWAY from it? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2811" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="808" RevisionGUID="c3850358-0023-48e5-a144-0350c18684fa" CreationDate="2016-05-01T04:15:43.030" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What did the prefix 'de' mean in: de- + lacere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2812" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="808" RevisionGUID="c3850358-0023-48e5-a144-0350c18684fa" CreationDate="2016-05-01T04:15:43.030" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|affixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="809" RevisionGUID="ecd75300-68b0-47e8-b00a-4086aeb35152" CreationDate="2016-05-01T13:30:40.773" UserId="79" Text="The [Latin Wikipedia article about spelt](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelta) mentions two ancient Latin names for spelt: *spelta* and *scandala*.&#xD;&#xA;I have found *spelta* used in more recent Latin, but nothing ancient.&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen *scandala* &amp;mdash; apart from being the plural of *scandalum*.&#xD;&#xA;I presume there is nothing scandalous about spelt, so these words should be unrelated.&#xD;&#xA;My dictionaries recognize neither *spelta* nor *scandala*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which words were used for spelt in antiquity?&#xD;&#xA;In other words, is Vicipaedia correct?&#xD;&#xA;If you can give a word, please indicate if it was reconstructed or actually attested.&#xD;&#xA;For attested words I would like to see use examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spelt is old enough to have an ancient name, but this is no proof that such a name must exist.&#xD;&#xA;It may be that it was not given a separate name if it was considered merely a type of wheat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2814" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="809" RevisionGUID="ecd75300-68b0-47e8-b00a-4086aeb35152" CreationDate="2016-05-01T13:30:40.773" UserId="79" Text="Classical words for spelt" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2815" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="809" RevisionGUID="ecd75300-68b0-47e8-b00a-4086aeb35152" CreationDate="2016-05-01T13:30:40.773" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|example-request|biology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="810" RevisionGUID="cac17974-9377-44d1-9daa-3f5240d5bdb2" CreationDate="2016-05-01T14:59:21.870" UserId="68" Text="I find Vicipædia fairly untrustworthy as a rule. *Scandala* does not occur in Lewis &amp; Short; perhaps the author(s) of the Vicipædia article are thinking of *secāle*, which is used in Pliny of black spelt (though I don't know what the difference is between spelt and black spelt, and some apparently think *secāle* refers to rye).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Spelta* is part of the Linnaean name for spelt, *Triticum spelta*. According to Lewis &amp; Short, *spelta* is used in Rhemnius Fanninus and Hieronymus, two fifth-century-A.D. authors, to mean &quot;spelt.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Lewis &amp; Short also offer several other options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**ador, oris and ōris, n.** cf. 1. edo, ἔδομαι, Engl. to eat, Goth. ita, Sanscr. admi; and Ang.-Sax. ata = Engl. oat, and Sanscr. annam (for adnam) = food, corn, a kind of grain, spelt, Triticum spelta, Linn. (acc. to Paul. ex Fest.: Ador farris genus, edor quondam appellatum ab edendo, vel quod aduratur, ut fiat tostum, unde in sacrificio mola salsa officitur, p. 3 Mull.: Ador frumenti genus, quod epulis et immolationibus sacris pium putatur, unde et adorare, propitiare religiones, potest dictum videri, Non. 52, 20): cum pater ipse domus palea porrectus in horna Esset ador loliumque, Hor. S. 2, 6, 89: adoris de polline, Aus. Mon. de Cibis, p. 238; Gannius ap. Prisc. p. 700: satos adoris stravisse, id. ib.: ardor adōris, id. ib. (Ador is often indeclinable, acc. to Prisc. p. 785, 100 P.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**fār farris, n.** 1 FER-, a sort of grain, spelt (roasted and ground), L.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;—Corn, grain: flava farra, V.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;—Coarse meal, grits: olus ac far, H.: Mollivit Penates Farre pio, sacrificial meal, H., V., Tb.: torrida cum micā farra, O.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;—Bread: non sine farre, H.: una Farris libra, H.: caninum, coarse bread for dogs, Iu.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;being the most well supported. (*Alica*, *mola*, *sēmen*, and *zēa* also have &quot;spelt&quot; as possible definitions in L&amp;S, but they seem to have come to refer to spelt, if in fact they do, more by metonymy than by actual definition. Not that that makes it any less a word for spelt, but the citations don't seem particularly convincing or numerous.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="811" RevisionGUID="395f275b-0f39-4fdb-9b73-3c21fb17cedd" CreationDate="2016-05-01T15:04:09.393" UserId="68" Text="Well, if, as Lewis &amp; Short suggest, the definition of *dēliciō* is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**dēlicio, ere, v.** a. lacio, the root of deliciae and delecto, to allure one from the right way, to entice, delight: aliquem, Titin. ap. Non. 277, 17.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then *dē* would make sense. If *liciō* is &quot;to allure&quot; and *dēliciō* is &quot;to allure away from the right way,&quot; then *dē* meaning &quot;away&quot; means that the word focuses, as @JoonasIlmavirta's comment suggests, on not just the alluring but the alluring *away* from something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="811" RevisionGUID="4441a6e2-3696-4630-bc94-9743e1f9446b" CreationDate="2016-05-01T15:26:58.707" UserId="30" Comment="added some additional formatting, hope you won't disagree" Text="Well, if, as Lewis &amp; Short suggest, the definition of *dēliciō* is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**dēlicio, ere, v.** a. *lacio*, the root of *deliciae* and *delecto*, &quot;to allure one from the right way, to entice, delight&quot;: *aliquem*, Titin. ap. Non. 277, 17.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then *dē* would make sense. If *liciō* is &quot;to allure&quot; and *dēliciō* is &quot;to allure away from the right way,&quot; then *dē* meaning &quot;away&quot; means that the word focuses, as @JoonasIlmavirta's comment suggests, on not just the alluring but the alluring *away* from something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="810" RevisionGUID="7a2b1ace-d1d2-48c0-a6f0-0aa038af78d9" CreationDate="2016-05-01T22:29:53.723" UserId="68" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="I find Vicipædia fairly untrustworthy as a rule. *Scandala* does not occur in Lewis &amp; Short; perhaps the author(s) of the Vicipædia article are thinking of *secāle*, which is used in Pliny of black spelt (though I don't know what the difference is between spelt and black spelt, and some apparently think *secāle* refers to rye).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Spelta* is part of the Linnaean name for spelt, *Triticum spelta*. According to Lewis &amp; Short, *spelta* is used in Rhemnius Fanninus and Hieronymus, two fifth-century-A.D. authors, to mean &quot;spelt.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Lewis &amp; Short also offer several other options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**ador, oris and ōris, n.** cf. 1. edo, ἔδομαι, Engl. to eat, Goth. ita, Sanscr. admi; and Ang.-Sax. ata = Engl. oat, and Sanscr. annam (for adnam) = food, corn, a kind of grain, spelt, Triticum spelta, Linn. (acc. to Paul. ex Fest.: *Ador farris genus, edor quondam appellatum ab edendo, vel quod aduratur, ut fiat tostum, unde in sacrificio mola salsa officitur*, p. 3 Mull.: *Ador frumenti genus, quod epulis et immolationibus sacris pium putatur, unde et adorare, propitiare religiones, potest dictum videri*, Non. 52, 20): *cum pater ipse domus palea porrectus in horna Esset ador loliumque*, Hor. S. 2, 6, 89: *adoris de polline*, Aus. Mon. de Cibis, p. 238; Gannius ap. Prisc. p. 700: *satos adoris stravisse*, id. ib.: *ardor adōris*, id. ib. (Ador is often indeclinable, acc. to Prisc. p. 785, 100 P.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**fār farris, n.** 1 FER-, a sort of grain, spelt (roasted and ground), L.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;—Corn, grain: flava farra, V.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;—Coarse meal, grits: olus ac far, H.: Mollivit Penates Farre pio, sacrificial meal, H., V., Tb.: torrida cum micā farra, O.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;—Bread: non sine farre, H.: una Farris libra, H.: caninum, coarse bread for dogs, Iu.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;being the most well supported. (*Alica*, *mola*, *sēmen*, and *zēa* also have &quot;spelt&quot; as possible definitions in L&amp;S, but they seem to have come to refer to spelt, if in fact they do, more by metonymy than by actual definition. Not that that makes it any less a word for spelt, but the citations don't seem particularly convincing or numerous.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="810" RevisionGUID="ba52d8c6-2740-4c36-9314-d64b418ac1a4" CreationDate="2016-05-02T00:39:16.183" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="I find Vicipædia fairly untrustworthy as a rule. *Scandala* does not occur in Lewis &amp; Short; perhaps the author(s) of the Vicipædia article are thinking of *secāle*, which is used in Pliny of black spelt (though I don't know what the difference is between spelt and black spelt, and some apparently think *secāle* refers to rye).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Spelta* is part of the Linnaean name for spelt, *Triticum spelta*. According to Lewis &amp; Short, *spelta* is used in Rhemnius Fanninus and Hieronymus, two fifth-century-A.D. authors, to mean &quot;spelt.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Lewis &amp; Short also offer several other options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**ador, oris and ōris, n.** cf. 1. edo, ἔδομαι, Engl. to eat, Goth. ita, Sanscr. admi; and Ang.-Sax. ata = Engl. oat, and Sanscr. annam (for adnam) = food, corn, a kind of grain, spelt, Triticum spelta, Linn. (acc. to Paul. ex Fest.: *Ador farris genus, edor quondam appellatum ab edendo, vel quod aduratur, ut fiat tostum, unde in sacrificio mola salsa officitur*, p. 3 Mull.: *Ador frumenti genus, quod epulis et immolationibus sacris pium putatur, unde et adorare, propitiare religiones, potest dictum videri*, Non. 52, 20): *cum pater ipse domus palea porrectus in horna Esset ador loliumque*, Hor. S. 2, 6, 89: *adoris de polline*, Aus. Mon. de Cibis, p. 238; Gannius ap. Prisc. p. 700: *satos adoris stravisse*, id. ib.: *ardor adōris*, id. ib. (Ador is often indeclinable, acc. to Prisc. p. 785, 100 P.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**far farris, n.** 1 FER-, a sort of grain, spelt (roasted and ground), L.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;—Corn, grain: flava farra, V.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;—Coarse meal, grits: olus ac far, H.: Mollivit Penates Farre pio, sacrificial meal, H., V., Tb.: torrida cum micā farra, O.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;—Bread: non sine farre, H.: una Farris libra, H.: caninum, coarse bread for dogs, Iu.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;being the most well supported. (*Alica*, *mola*, *sēmen*, and *zēa* also have &quot;spelt&quot; as possible definitions in L&amp;S, but they seem to have come to refer to spelt, if in fact they do, more by metonymy than by actual definition. Not that that makes it any less a word for spelt, but the citations don't seem particularly convincing or numerous.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="812" RevisionGUID="4f52feb6-97fc-4b74-b0cd-52e50886c298" CreationDate="2016-05-02T08:26:17.683" UserId="79" Text="My dictionary gives two translations for &quot;week&quot;: *septim&amp;amacr;na* and *hebdomas* (gen. *hebdomadis*, feminine).&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference between these two words?&#xD;&#xA;Are there contexts where only one of them is valid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *septimana* is more common in my experience and it looks like an original Latin word, whereas *hebdomas* looks like a Greek loan.&#xD;&#xA;Using a Greek loan instead of a more Latin word does already affect the tone, but I wonder if there are more nuance differences between these two words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2823" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="812" RevisionGUID="4f52feb6-97fc-4b74-b0cd-52e50886c298" CreationDate="2016-05-02T08:26:17.683" UserId="79" Text="Is there a difference between septimana and hebdomas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2824" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="812" RevisionGUID="4f52feb6-97fc-4b74-b0cd-52e50886c298" CreationDate="2016-05-02T08:26:17.683" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|nuance|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="813" RevisionGUID="87cd2500-5108-45bc-8559-1d0b7305c9f5" CreationDate="2016-05-02T15:19:40.627" UserId="68" Text="A look at the corpus suggests that they were both in use at the same time. Varro uses both; the latest (classical) writer to use *septimana* is Tacitus, the latest to use *hebdomas* Aulus Gellius. *Hebdomas* occurs thirteen times to *septimana*'s six, but half of those uses of *hebdomas* are in one author, Aulus Gellius (many of them referring to Varro, but my quick look wasn't enough to tell me which of the two Varro used in the work Gellius is referring to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, Cicero uses *hebdomas* once but he doesn't use *septimana*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="814" RevisionGUID="d7542321-d9cc-4d4e-86f6-09274f29fc54" CreationDate="2016-05-02T15:56:10.977" UserId="235" Text="Usually, it's easy to tell whether a word has Latin or German ancestry. Water (&quot;wasser&quot;) clearly comes from German, whereas aquatic (&quot;aqua&quot;) clearly comes from Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what's harder for me to tell, at first glance, is the ancestry of the words &quot;mother&quot; and &quot;father&quot;. The Latin equivalent is &quot;mater&quot; and &quot;pater&quot;, and the German equivalent is &quot;Vater&quot; and &quot;Mutter&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both the Latin and German equivalents are extremely similar to the English as well as to each other. This leads me to ask a couple questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Why are the Latin and German words for &quot;mother&quot; and &quot;father&quot; so similar?&#xD;&#xA;2. Is the ancestry of &quot;mother&quot; and &quot;father&quot; Latin or German?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2827" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="814" RevisionGUID="d7542321-d9cc-4d4e-86f6-09274f29fc54" CreationDate="2016-05-02T15:56:10.977" UserId="235" Text="Etymology of English words &quot;mother&quot; and &quot;father&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2828" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="814" RevisionGUID="d7542321-d9cc-4d4e-86f6-09274f29fc54" CreationDate="2016-05-02T15:56:10.977" UserId="235" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="798ab39d-8f80-4919-ac4f-327782e82c08" CreationDate="2016-05-02T16:09:50.077" UserId="68" Text="I suspect somebody else will be able to give you a much more thorough answer, but the gist is that, though Latin and German are different branches of the language tree, they're still related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest way to think of it is that Latin and German are siblings from the parent, Proto-Indo-European, which had the words * *meH₂tér-* and * *pH₂tér-*. (The asterisks mean that we have no evidence of the existence of those words, but working backwards from the languages we *do* have evidence of, we can say with some confidence that they probably existed.) Eventually, PIE split into several language families, one of which was Romantic (and included Latin) and one of which was Germanic (and included German). The Germanic family continued to split until it gave rise to English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *Wasser* probably entered German after the split from PIE; same with *aqua*. But the words for &quot;father&quot; and &quot;mother&quot; already existed in PIE, so they just sort of changed shape as the language evolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, Latin is German's sibling, and English is German's daughter but Latin's niece. (Which means that English and, say, Spanish are first cousins)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="816" RevisionGUID="d3c02736-442e-4706-986d-42867175fec0" CreationDate="2016-05-02T16:11:13.850" UserId="79" Text="As far as I know, both &quot;mother&quot; and &quot;father&quot; are old Indo-European words that have been traced all the way back to PIE. Both Italic and Germanic languages took these words, and both words ended up in Latin, English and German. So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. They come from the same PIE word.&#xD;&#xA;2. Neither. It comes from PIE through Proto-Germanic, not passing through German or Latin. The German and Latin words are its cousins, not parents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="a07b74fd-4eb8-4f90-a0f3-c64caf2ac09a" CreationDate="2016-05-02T16:20:38.027" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I suspect somebody else will be able to give you a much more thorough answer, but the gist is that, though Latin and German are different branches of the language tree, they're still related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest way to think of it is that Latin and German are siblings from the parent, Proto-Indo-European, which had the words * *meH₂tér-* and * *pH₂tér-*. (The asterisks mean that we have no evidence of the existence of those words, but working backwards from the languages we *do* have evidence of, we can say with some confidence that they probably existed.) Eventually, PIE split into several language families, one of which was Italic (and included Latin) and one of which was Germanic (and included German). The Germanic family continued to split until it gave rise to English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *Wasser* probably entered German after the split from PIE; same with *aqua*. But the words for &quot;father&quot; and &quot;mother&quot; already existed in PIE, so they just sort of changed shape as the language evolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, Latin is German's sibling, and English is German's daughter but Latin's niece. (Which means that English and, say, Spanish are first cousins)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="810" RevisionGUID="9d0c7aca-b9a1-4931-996a-462cd465630d" CreationDate="2016-05-02T16:24:55.970" UserId="68" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="I find Vicipædia fairly untrustworthy as a rule. *Scandala* does not occur in Lewis &amp; Short; perhaps the author(s) of the Vicipædia article are thinking of *secāle*, which is used in Pliny of black spelt (though I don't know what the difference is between spelt and black spelt, and some apparently think *secāle* refers to rye).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Spelta* is part of the Linnaean name for spelt, *Triticum spelta*. According to Lewis &amp; Short, *spelta* is used in Rhemnius Fanninus and Hieronymus, two fifth-century-A.D. authors, to mean &quot;spelt.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Lewis &amp; Short also offer several other options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**ador, oris and ōris, n.** cf. 1. edo, ἔδομαι, Engl. to eat, Goth. ita, Sanscr. admi; and Ang.-Sax. ata = Engl. oat, and Sanscr. annam (for adnam) = food, corn, a kind of grain, spelt, Triticum spelta, Linn. (acc. to Paul. ex Fest.: *Ador farris genus, edor quondam appellatum ab edendo, vel quod aduratur, ut fiat tostum, unde in sacrificio mola salsa officitur*, p. 3 Mull.: *Ador frumenti genus, quod epulis et immolationibus sacris pium putatur, unde et adorare, propitiare religiones, potest dictum videri*, Non. 52, 20): *cum pater ipse domus palea porrectus in horna Esset ador loliumque*, Hor. S. 2, 6, 89: *adoris de polline*, Aus. Mon. de Cibis, p. 238; Gannius ap. Prisc. p. 700: *satos adoris stravisse*, id. ib.: *ardor adōris*, id. ib. (Ador is often indeclinable, acc. to Prisc. p. 785, 100 P.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**far farris, n.** 1 FER-, a sort of grain, spelt (roasted and ground), L.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;—Corn, grain: *flava farra*, V.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;—Coarse meal, grits: *olus ac far*, H.: *Mollivit Penates Farre pio*, sacrificial meal, H., V., Tb.: *torrida cum micā farra*, O.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;—Bread: *non sine farre*, H.: *una Farris libra*, H.: *caninum*, coarse bread for dogs, Iu.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;being the most well supported. (*Alica*, *mola*, *sēmen*, and *zēa* also have &quot;spelt&quot; as possible definitions in L&amp;S, but they seem to have come to refer to spelt, if in fact they do, more by metonymy than by actual definition. Not that that makes it any less a word for spelt, but the citations don't seem particularly convincing or numerous.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="ce663e27-41d9-4368-8811-571c17c4aec6" CreationDate="2016-05-02T18:24:44.230" UserId="68" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="I suspect somebody else will be able to give you a much more thorough answer, but the gist is that, though Latin and German are different branches of the language tree, they're still related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest way to think of it is that Latin and German are related from the same ancestor, Proto-Indo-European, which had the words * *meH₂tér-* and * *pH₂tér-*. (The asterisks mean that we have no evidence of the existence of those words, but working backwards from the languages we *do* have evidence of, we can say with some confidence that they probably existed.) Eventually, PIE split into several language families, one of which was Italic (and included Latin) and one of which was Germanic (and included German). The Germanic family continued to split until it gave rise to English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The words for &quot;father&quot; and &quot;mother&quot; already existed in PIE, so they just sort of changed shape as the language evolved. (Actually, *Wasser* also goes back to PIE—Latin just happens to have a different word for it. Thanks to @TKR for the correction.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, Latin is sort of an aunt of German and English, which are sisters. (Thanks again to @TKR for the correction.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="813" RevisionGUID="76b3de3b-a2d6-410f-a71a-fa0a2a9bdd7c" CreationDate="2016-05-02T18:26:54.023" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="A look at the corpus suggests that they were both in use at the same time. Varro uses both; the latest (classical) writer to use *septimana* is Tacitus, the latest to use *hebdomas* Aulus Gellius. *Hebdomas* occurs thirteen times to *septimana*'s six, but half of those uses of *hebdomas* are in Aulus Gellius (many of them referring to Varro, but my quick look wasn't enough to tell me which of the two Varro used in the work Gellius is referring to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, Cicero uses *hebdomas* once but he doesn't use *septimana*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="817" RevisionGUID="98340477-9e8d-4df1-989e-3046cceca5a7" CreationDate="2016-05-02T19:47:44.357" UserId="12" Text="Some singular third declension nouns, ending in *-s*, have a *t* in their stem, so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; singular *mons* → plural *montes*  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; *infans* → *infantes*  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; *miles* → *milites*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand these to be examples of &quot;lingual&quot; or &quot;T&quot; mute stems, as described in [Allen &amp; Greenough §56](https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA25) and [Gildersleeve §53](https://books.google.com/books?id=UU0BIAbE0SIC&amp;pg=PA25).  Their analysis indicates that the *t* is dropped in the singular nominative, not added in the other cases.  But I'd like to know *why*: what are the linguistic and etymological reasons that the *t* is dropped in this kind of word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2838" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="817" RevisionGUID="98340477-9e8d-4df1-989e-3046cceca5a7" CreationDate="2016-05-02T19:47:44.357" UserId="12" Text="Why does singular &quot;mons&quot; become plural &quot;montes&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2839" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="817" RevisionGUID="98340477-9e8d-4df1-989e-3046cceca5a7" CreationDate="2016-05-02T19:47:44.357" UserId="12" Text="|pronunciation|declension|third-declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="818" RevisionGUID="1825d8ca-7724-4411-bfaf-38446f8c79c5" CreationDate="2016-05-02T20:11:33.903" UserId="40" Text="Short answer: Latin does not allow the sequence *ts*, so an expected form like *monts* was remade into *mons*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, this only leads to the further question of *why* this sequence was disallowed in Latin, which is much more difficult to answer. Every language has a set of preferences as to which sequences of sounds it does and doesn't permit -- this is called *phonotactics*. But the reasons why one language's phonotactic rules are different from another's are usually hard to state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the particular case of *ts*, we have two adjacent consonants that are phonetically similar: they're both coronals, i.e. are both pronounced with the tip of the tongue at or near the teeth. This is the kind of environment where loss of one of the two sounds (&quot;assimilatory loss&quot;) is a linguistically common pattern. A possible explanation is that the similarity in articulation makes it hard to hear that there are two distinct consonants there, so the whole sequence might often have been perceived as just an [s] sound -- and if this happened often enough, speakers would eventually forget that there had ever been a *t* there at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="519" RevisionGUID="bab24302-b413-45f8-87bb-111cad5eeb67" CreationDate="2016-05-02T20:30:52.327" UserId="12" Comment="&quot;declination&quot; is actually not used in linguistics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declension" Text="For questions about declension—the inflection of Latin nouns and adjectives to mark grammatical features such as case and number." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="819" RevisionGUID="c1d0a53d-e720-4a01-903c-8321cb46a443" CreationDate="2016-05-02T20:48:45.827" UserId="45" Text="Resurrecting an older question, I was recently reading some selections from Erasmus's [*Colloquia*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/erasmus/coll.shtml) when I came across the following terms for relieving oneself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed incivilius etiam, eum salutare, qui reddit urinam, aut alvum exonerat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is a fairly literal phrasing, but I think the second could be classified as a euphemism of sorts. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="819" RevisionGUID="cb921494-fa1c-413d-8c7e-36579de43d9a" CreationDate="2016-05-02T21:12:43.123" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Resurrecting an older question, I was recently reading some selections from Erasmus's [*Colloquia*](https://books.google.com/books?id=yzoLQBZMzb8C) when I came across the following terms for relieving oneself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed incivilius etiam, eum salutare, qui reddit urinam, aut alvum exonerat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is a fairly literal phrasing, but I think the second could be classified as a euphemism of sorts. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="813" RevisionGUID="931e3ee7-4b04-4ef8-a176-24b58b537e41" CreationDate="2016-05-02T21:37:34.000" UserId="68" Comment="added 314 characters in body" Text="A look at the corpus suggests that both words were in use at the same time. Varro uses both; the latest (classical) writer to use *septimana* is Tacitus, the latest to use *hebdomas* Aulus Gellius. *Hebdomas* occurs thirteen times to *septimana*'s six, but half of those uses of *hebdomas* are in Aulus Gellius (many of them referring to Varro, but my quick look wasn't enough to tell me which of the two Varro used in the work Gellius is referring to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, Cicero uses *hebdomas* once but he doesn't use *septimana*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as @fdb points out (thanks for the correction!), classical authors who use the word *septimana* are *not* using it to mean &quot;week&quot;—it's only Christian Latin authors who give it that meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So ultimately the difference is that in classical Latin *hebdomas* meant &quot;week&quot; and *septimana* didn't!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="821" RevisionGUID="1588c73e-d91a-4287-ab25-31ae9a688ae0" CreationDate="2016-05-03T01:17:32.710" UserId="447" Text="First time poster here. I was reading about PIE a couple of days ago, and found this nice image (via http://mentalfloss.com/article/68281/evolution-two-indo-european-language-family):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![The evolution of 'two' in PIE][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Yp0F5.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which explains how, from my part of this world, we got the word 'dua' as the number two. I believe this fits in with the 'mother/father' word ancestry!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="822" RevisionGUID="e2d386b8-2464-4a32-83fb-9d6b47c6c5f8" CreationDate="2016-05-03T03:39:30.337" UserId="68" Text="My Latin is okay reading Cæsar and Livy, and I'm even (mostly) fine reading Cicero's vicious orations. But when I come to philosophy and politics, it's all *ratio* this and *res* that and *condiciones* and *præstat* and *cursus* and so on and so forth, and I feel like I'm swimming around in a sea of so many possible meanings that I can't figure out a single one to hold on to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any a) introductions to reading philosophical/political Latin or b) philosophers/political writings in which the Latin is more easily decipherable than in other writing of its ilk?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2848" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="822" RevisionGUID="e2d386b8-2464-4a32-83fb-9d6b47c6c5f8" CreationDate="2016-05-03T03:39:30.337" UserId="68" Text="Recommendations for &quot;easy&quot; philosophical/political Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2849" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="822" RevisionGUID="e2d386b8-2464-4a32-83fb-9d6b47c6c5f8" CreationDate="2016-05-03T03:39:30.337" UserId="68" Text="|resource-request|philosophy-terms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="822" RevisionGUID="4e067fba-4a36-4b9d-9acc-5cd99ecf2df5" CreationDate="2016-05-03T05:29:29.750" UserId="68" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="My Latin is okay reading Cæsar and Livy, and I'm even (mostly) fine reading Cicero's vicious orations. But when I come to philosophy and politics, it's all *ratio* this and *res* that and *condiciones* and *præstat* and *cursus* and so on and so forth, and I feel like I'm swimming around in a sea of so many possible meanings that I can't figure out a single one to hold on to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any a) introductions to reading philosophical/political Latin or b) philosophical/political writings in which the Latin is more easily decipherable than in other writings of their ilk?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="823" RevisionGUID="53c21767-e918-4b5f-bb8c-18d0ec416f7c" CreationDate="2016-05-03T05:47:58.037" UserId="358" Text="Why do Latin to English dictionaries list three forms of a Latin verb? I've seen this other places like grammar books too. For example:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; sedeō, sėdi, sessum: to sit. &#xA;&#xA;There's no Latin keyboard for my phone, so please excuse the mixed up symbol for the long e in the second word. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2852" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="823" RevisionGUID="53c21767-e918-4b5f-bb8c-18d0ec416f7c" CreationDate="2016-05-03T05:47:58.037" UserId="358" Text="Three forms of a Latin verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2853" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="823" RevisionGUID="53c21767-e918-4b5f-bb8c-18d0ec416f7c" CreationDate="2016-05-03T05:47:58.037" UserId="358" Text="|verbs|dictionary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="823" RevisionGUID="69df481a-2c05-475f-8dfa-e7186aa58645" CreationDate="2016-05-03T06:02:12.300" UserId="68" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Why do Latin to English dictionaries list three forms of a Latin verb? I've seen this other places like grammar books too. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sedeō, sēdī, sessum: to sit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no Latin keyboard for my phone, so please excuse the mixed up symbol for the long e in the second word. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="824" RevisionGUID="d2e41d22-9cff-4942-a9e8-7baec7e7d14e" CreationDate="2016-05-03T06:20:39.933" UserId="79" Text="If you want to be able to conjugate a new verb, one form is not enough.&#xD;&#xA;If you have those three and the conjugation number (some dictionaries give the present infinitive instead of the number), you can figure out any form of the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb you mention has three stems: *sed-*, *s&amp;emacr;d-* and *sess-*, as one can read from those three forms.&#xD;&#xA;All other forms are formed by attaching endings to these stems.&#xD;&#xA;Many Latin verbs are irregular in the sense that it is next to impossible to guess the correct stems with great certainty.&#xD;&#xA;The endings themselves are rarely irregular.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, apart from the most irregular verbs (like *esse*), those stems are sufficient and necessary for finding all the forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially the same thing happens with nouns.&#xD;&#xA;One form is not enough, but if you are given singular nominative and genitive and the gender of the word, you can find all other forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="825" RevisionGUID="0f66144b-20e2-4148-a60c-060a5c452ff7" CreationDate="2016-05-03T06:22:02.070" UserId="68" Text="Actually, Latin dictionaries tend to list *four* forms of a Latin verb. These forms are known as &quot;principal parts.&quot; So the &quot;official&quot; listing for your example consists of four principal parts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;sedeō, sedēre, sēdī, sessum [or &quot;sessus,&quot; depending on which tradition you follow].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first word means &quot;I sit,&quot; the second one &quot;to sit,&quot; the third &quot;I sat,&quot; and the fourth—well, the fourth is a little complicated in the case of this verb, so let's leave it alone for now, but it's used in a few different constructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest way to explain why dictionaries list these four parts is to look at English verbs. Most English verbs are regular: if the present tense is &quot;walk,&quot; then the past tense is &quot;walked&quot; and the past perfect is &quot;had walked.&quot; Same with &quot;rain, rained, had rained.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if this was the only rule you knew about English verbs, what would happen if you saw the verb &quot;eat&quot;? You'd think that the past tense was &quot;eated&quot; and the past perfect was &quot;had eated.&quot; Or you'd come up with &quot;run, runned, had runned.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in *English* this usually happens just with irregular verbs, but in Latin it operates with almost *all* verbs. So for any given verb, there's no way to know what the past tenses are except to learn them, just like you have to learn &quot;eat, ate, eaten.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some other verbs the present tense of which looks like *sedeō*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;habeō, habēre, habuī, habitus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;ineō, inīre, inīvī, initus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;gaudeō, gaudēre, gavīsus sum, —  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;videō, vidēre, vīdī, vīsus  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the third word in the dictionary entry lets you know whether the past tense of the verb *sedeō* is *seduī, sedīvī, sevīsus sum,* or *sēdī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are rules of thumb—for example, there are a *lot* of verbs that look like *habeō, habēre, habuī, habitus*, so if you don't know, it's not a bad guess. And verbs that start out *amō, amāre* almost always end *amāvī, amātus*. But there are exceptions! So the dictionaries just play it safe and give you all four parts for every verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="825" RevisionGUID="fb5e8517-13bd-4ac3-9d9b-af2b152f4984" CreationDate="2016-05-03T06:25:05.727" UserId="68" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="Actually, Latin dictionaries tend to list *four* forms of a Latin verb. These forms are known as &quot;principal parts.&quot; So the &quot;official&quot; listing for your example consists of four principal parts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;sedeō, sedēre, sēdī, sessum [or &quot;sessus,&quot; depending on which tradition you follow].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first word means &quot;I sit,&quot; the second one &quot;to sit,&quot; the third &quot;I sat,&quot; and the fourth—well, the fourth is a little complicated in the case of this verb, so let's leave it alone for now, but it's used in a few different constructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest way to explain why dictionaries list these four parts is to look at English verbs. Most English verbs are regular: if the present tense is &quot;walk,&quot; then the past tense is &quot;walked&quot; and the past perfect is &quot;had walked.&quot; Same with &quot;rain, rained, had rained.&quot; Easy, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, not quite. If this were the only rule you knew about English verbs, what would happen if you saw the verb &quot;eat&quot;? You'd think that the past tense was &quot;eated&quot; and the past perfect was &quot;had eated.&quot; Or you'd come up with &quot;run, runned, had runned.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in *English* this usually happens just with irregular verbs, but in Latin it operates with *most* verbs. So for any given verb, there's no way to know what the past tenses are except to learn them, just like you have to learn &quot;eat, ate, eaten.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some other verbs the present tense of which seems to look like *sedeō*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;habeō, habēre, habuī, habitus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;ineō, inīre, inīvī, initus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;gaudeō, gaudēre, gavīsus sum, —  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;videō, vidēre, vīdī, vīsus  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the third word in the dictionary entry lets you know whether the past tense of the verb *sedeō* is *seduī, sedīvī, sevīsus sum,* or *sēdī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are rules of thumb—for example, there are a *lot* of verbs that look like *habeō, habēre, habuī, habitus*, so if you don't know, it's not a bad guess. And verbs that start out *amō, amāre* almost always end *amāvī, amātus*. But there are exceptions! So the dictionaries just play it safe and give you all four parts for every verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="821" RevisionGUID="00dfb110-4e38-4df0-a892-2492c3420d86" CreationDate="2016-05-03T07:03:47.047" UserId="79" Comment="Related the answer to the question." Text="First time poster here. I was reading about PIE a couple of days ago, and found this nice image (via http://mentalfloss.com/article/68281/evolution-two-indo-european-language-family):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![The evolution of 'two' in PIE][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Yp0F5.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which explains how, from my part of this world, we got the word 'dua' as the number two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not have the corresponding image for &quot;mother&quot; or &quot;father&quot;, but the idea is the same: &quot;two&quot; does not come from the Latin *duo* or German *zwei*, but they all come from the same word in PIE." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="824" RevisionGUID="d3ac8e9e-dbd8-4213-ae24-f88df76d75ce" CreationDate="2016-05-03T07:05:53.060" UserId="79" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="If you want to be able to conjugate a new verb, one form is not enough.&#xD;&#xA;If you have those three and the conjugation number (some dictionaries give the present infinitive instead of the number), you can figure out any form of the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb you mention has three stems (or principal parts): *sed-*, *s&amp;emacr;d-* and *sess-*, as one can read from those three forms.&#xD;&#xA;All other forms are formed by attaching endings to these stems.&#xD;&#xA;Many Latin verbs are irregular in the sense that it is next to impossible to guess the correct stems with great certainty.&#xD;&#xA;The endings themselves are rarely irregular.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, apart from the most irregular verbs (like *esse*), those stems are sufficient and necessary for finding all the forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially the same thing happens with nouns.&#xD;&#xA;One form is not enough, but if you are given singular nominative and genitive and the gender of the word, you can find all other forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="826" RevisionGUID="730e92c6-b6c0-4db3-b133-75b456f8012d" CreationDate="2016-05-03T08:23:05.477" UserId="324" Text="The early Romans did not have a seven-day week. The earliest evidence for a seven-day planetary week (seven days each associated with one of the seven planets) is not until the 2nd century BC.  A look at the references in Lewis/Short shows that neither the Latin word septimana, nor the Greek loan word hebdomas is ever used by any classical author to mean “week”. This usage begins with Christian authors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a summary of a recent academic colloquium on the origin of the week: http://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/calendars-ancient-medieval-project/2015/07/08/the-origins-of-the-seven-day-week/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="813" RevisionGUID="1c378f04-b6d1-4ed1-9424-0159ed588132" CreationDate="2016-05-03T10:59:01.890" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 111 characters in body" Text="A look at the corpus suggests that both words were in use at the same time. Varro uses both; the latest (classical) writer to use *septimana* is Tacitus, the latest to use *hebdomas* Aulus Gellius. *Hebdomas* occurs thirteen times to *septimana*'s six, but half of those uses of *hebdomas* are in Aulus Gellius (many of them referring to Varro, but my quick look wasn't enough to tell me which of the two Varro used in the work Gellius is referring to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, Cicero uses *hebdomas* once but he doesn't use *septimana*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as @fdb points out (thanks for the correction!), classical authors who use the word *septimana* are *not* using it to mean &quot;week&quot;—it's only Christian Latin authors who give it that meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="822" RevisionGUID="26cb77a5-90bd-4093-9f09-36afcdade3be" CreationDate="2016-05-03T11:01:17.557" UserId="68" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="My Latin is okay reading Cæsar and Livy, and I'm even (mostly) fine reading Cicero's vicious attacks on the enemies of whoever happened to hire him for the occasion. But when I come to philosophy and politics, it's all *ratio* this and *res* that and *condiciones* and *præstat* and *cursus* and so on and so forth, and I feel like I'm swimming around in a sea of so many possible meanings that I can't figure out a single one to hold on to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any a) introductions to reading philosophical/political Latin or b) philosophical/political writings in which the Latin is more easily decipherable than in other writings of their ilk?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="827" RevisionGUID="fb208f59-b159-49b0-8f55-82e5d882c542" CreationDate="2016-05-03T14:42:51.900" UserId="324" Text="The loss of the final consonant of –t stems before the –s suffix of the nominative singular is not specific to Latin, but is general Indo-European. It is thus not correct to try to explain it in terms of some inner-Latin exclusion law. It is something that Latin has inherited from IE." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="828" RevisionGUID="56f4b335-da38-4b92-a94b-aa72049566ed" CreationDate="2016-05-03T16:38:05.957" UserId="40" Text="I find Cicero's *De Natura Deorum* fairly easily decipherable. The subject matter is less abstrusely technical than much philosophical writing, and the fact that it's written as a dialogue, or really a series of polemical speeches, also helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="818" RevisionGUID="77ac3bd7-13de-4019-98e2-73b5a793da7d" CreationDate="2016-05-03T16:49:12.920" UserId="40" Comment="&quot;(except in compound words)&quot;" Text="Short answer: Latin does not allow the sequence *ts* (except in compound words), so an expected form like *monts* was remade into *mons*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, this only leads to the further question of *why* this sequence was disallowed in Latin, which is much more difficult to answer. Every language has a set of preferences as to which sequences of sounds it does and doesn't permit -- this is called *phonotactics*. But the reasons why one language's phonotactic rules are different from another's are usually hard to state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the particular case of *ts*, we have two adjacent consonants that are phonetically similar: they're both coronals, i.e. are both pronounced with the tip of the tongue at or near the teeth. This is the kind of environment where loss of one of the two sounds (&quot;assimilatory loss&quot;) is a linguistically common pattern. A possible explanation is that the similarity in articulation makes it hard to hear that there are two distinct consonants there, so the whole sequence might often have been perceived as just an [s] sound -- and if this happened often enough, speakers would eventually forget that there had ever been a *t* there at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="829" RevisionGUID="a457e4ff-c58b-4f24-af7c-40fc6012f7a8" CreationDate="2016-05-03T21:53:49.880" UserId="452" Text="Almost. Narrat has no &quot;case&quot;, since case only applies to declining a noun. Narrare is a verb and has a conjugation. Every other word is a noun and therefore has a case. All nouns and adjectives and only nouns and adjectives have cases. The adjective takes on the same gender and case as the noun that it is modifying. It still does even if it stands by itself.&#xD;&#xA;Poeta - Nominative Singular&#xD;&#xA;Puellae - Dative Singular&#xD;&#xA;Fabulam - Accusative Singular&#xD;&#xA;Narrat - 3rd person singular present indicative&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I saw someone provide a translation that is different than what I think it is. So to be very clear I'm providing my translation.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The poet tells a/the story to the girls.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="830" RevisionGUID="3840be1c-9347-4a2f-8b7f-aaedbdccd365" CreationDate="2016-05-04T02:16:11.207" UserId="9" Text="In &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real][1],&quot; Kyle Gorman describes the deletion of /t/ in the nominative form of words like *mons, montis* as part of a larger pattern of deletion of coronal consonants which also applies to words like *pes, pedis* and *pollis, pollinis.* The main argument of the paper is that nouns with variation between *r* in some forms and and *s* in the nominative in Classical Latin should be synchronically analyzed according to this deletion rule, rather than according to a separate rule of intervocalic rhotacization.  So if Gorman is right, the deletion rule was still active in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He notes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The sequence [ts] (from /ts/, or /ds/ and DEVOICING) does not occur in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; word-final position (Devine and Stephens 1977:129), and its medial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; occurrences are limited to syllable contact, allowing a rule of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deletion to be stated generally (cf. Heslin 1987:142).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is explained by a the following &quot;pre-/s/ deletion&quot; rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [CORONAL, +ORAL, -CONTINUANT] → ∅ / _]&lt;sub&gt;σ&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to prevent this rule from improperly deleting multiple consonants (such as the *n* in *mons*) Gorman proposes that the rule is &quot;non-iterative&quot; and &quot;rightward-applying&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In processing /mont-s/, the rule “sees” /t-s/, but the resulting [ns]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is not scanned by the rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For nouns with with stems that end in -t- and -d-, the source of this variation seems to be a phonetic change that applied in conditions similar to Gorman's synchronic rule, where word-final [ts] was phonetically simplified at some point to [s]. It seems to me this could be considered a form of deaffrication, which is a common sort of change. Unfortunately, I do not know the underlying phonetic motivations for this change, but TKR's explanation about the auditory similarity of the sounds seems convincing to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know the historical origin of the nouns like *pollis* that have *n* in the stem but not in the nominative. The nouns that have *r* in the stem but not in the nominative generally originated from the historical process of rhotacism described by the answers to [Rhotacism: why?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/153/9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="830" RevisionGUID="2c86a370-d006-41b8-9753-3b2defcb5bbb" CreationDate="2016-05-04T02:23:44.130" UserId="9" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="In &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real][1],&quot; Kyle Gorman describes the deletion of /t/ in the nominative form of words like *mons, montis* as part of a larger pattern of deletion of coronal consonants which also applies to words like *pes, pedis* and *pollis, pollinis.* The main argument of the paper is that nouns with variation between *r* in some forms and and *s* in the nominative in Classical Latin should be synchronically analyzed according to this deletion rule, rather than according to a separate rule of intervocalic rhotacization.  So if Gorman is right, the deletion rule was still active in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He notes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The sequence [ts] (from /ts/, or /ds/ and DEVOICING) does not occur in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; word-final position (Devine and Stephens 1977:129), and its medial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; occurrences are limited to syllable contact, allowing a rule of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deletion to be stated generally (cf. Heslin 1987:142).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the following &quot;pre-/s/ deletion&quot; rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [CORONAL, +ORAL, -CONTINUANT] → ∅ / _]&lt;sub&gt;σ&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to prevent this rule from improperly deleting multiple consonants (such as the *n* in *mons*) Gorman proposes that the rule is &quot;non-iterative&quot; and &quot;rightward-applying&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In processing /mont-s/, the rule “sees” /t-s/, but the resulting [ns]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is not scanned by the rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For nouns with with stems that end in -t- and -d-, the historical source of this variation seems to be a phonetic change that applied in conditions similar to Gorman's synchronic rule, where word-final [ts] was phonetically simplified at some point to [s]. It seems to me this could be considered a form of deaffrication, which is a common sort of change. Unfortunately, I do not know the underlying phonetic motivations for this change, but TKR's explanation about the auditory similarity of the sounds seems convincing to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know the historical origin of the nouns like *pollis* that have *n* in the stem but not in the nominative. The nouns that have *r* in the stem but not in the nominative generally originated from the historical process of rhotacism described by the answers to [Rhotacism: why?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/153/9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="827" RevisionGUID="6141f50c-bd2e-4476-bbf1-f0f3c075d6be" CreationDate="2016-05-04T14:39:34.720" UserId="324" Comment="added 152 characters in body" Text="The loss of the final consonant of –t stems before the –s suffix of the nominative singular is not specific to Latin, but is general Indo-European. It is thus not correct to try to explain it in terms of some inner-Latin exclusion law. It is something that Latin has inherited from IE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: IE *nepōt-, nom. sing. *nepōt-s &gt; *nepōs &gt; Iranian *napāh &gt; Avestan napå. See Hoffmann/Forssman, Avestische Laut- und Flexionslehre, p.139." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="710" RevisionGUID="7946aed9-9eca-4298-9107-9de574a2f178" CreationDate="2016-05-04T14:59:13.320" UserId="79" Comment="Removed a parenthetical note referring to a typo in a previous version of the question." Text="Every **noun** in your sentence has a case, but the **verb** does not.&#xD;&#xA;This is always the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here *poeta*, *puellae* and *fabulam* are nouns and have cases (nominative, dative, accusative).&#xD;&#xA;The verb *narrat* is also in a specific form, but not in any case.&#xD;&#xA;The verb is in third person singular, more specifically that of active present indicative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="829" RevisionGUID="a8d97bb4-6780-4cbf-9051-3d638bc0fc8a" CreationDate="2016-05-04T15:00:43.913" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted to include the line breaks (that I assume were intended)." Text="Almost. Narrat has no &quot;case&quot;, since case only applies to declining a noun. Narrare is a verb and has a conjugation. Every other word is a noun and therefore has a case. All nouns and adjectives and only nouns and adjectives have cases. The adjective takes on the same gender and case as the noun that it is modifying. It still does even if it stands by itself.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Poeta - Nominative Singular  &#xD;&#xA;Puellae - Dative Singular  &#xD;&#xA;Fabulam - Accusative Singular  &#xD;&#xA;Narrat - 3rd person singular present indicative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I saw someone provide a translation that is different than what I think it is. So to be very clear I'm providing my translation.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The poet tells a/the story to the girls.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="831" RevisionGUID="80a82217-539c-4cd7-9e1f-f177d5690e5e" CreationDate="2016-05-04T15:15:51.820" UserId="79" Text="Many universities use Latin in some ceremonial occasions.&#xD;&#xA;Many academic titles in Latin are masculine but have natural feminine counterparts:&#xD;&#xA;*doctor*&amp;ndash;*doctrix*,&#xD;&#xA;*lector*&amp;ndash;*lectrix*,&#xD;&#xA;*professor*&amp;ndash;[*profestrix*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/178/79).&#xD;&#xA;**Are these feminine versions used in today's formal academic contexts?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know, for example, whether it would be appropriate to address a female lecturer as *lectrix*.&#xD;&#xA;To better understand which choice to make, I would like to know if such address is in use elsewhere; maybe precedents can help me judge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen the feminine versions in use in less formal occasions.&#xD;&#xA;For example, many Latin texts written about [an annual cultural event in my home city](http://www.athenisfinlandiae.com/) do this for many titles: *scriptrix*, *lectrix*, *protectrix*&amp;hellip;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2879" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="831" RevisionGUID="80a82217-539c-4cd7-9e1f-f177d5690e5e" CreationDate="2016-05-04T15:15:51.820" UserId="79" Text="Are Latin feminine academic titles used in formal occasions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2880" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="831" RevisionGUID="80a82217-539c-4cd7-9e1f-f177d5690e5e" CreationDate="2016-05-04T15:15:51.820" UserId="79" Text="|contemporary-latin|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="832" RevisionGUID="323d5adb-deac-4f6e-9373-feaa3d2943d4" CreationDate="2016-05-04T16:08:52.120" UserId="45" Text="I will mark this question as [tag:contemporary-latin] because there are obviously not any precise classical equivalents of the titles implied by such English honorifics as Mr (Mister or Master), Mrs (Misses), or Miss. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is somewhat related to another question about [addressing superiors in Latin](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/493/addressing-a-superior-in-latin?rq=1), but my question here is more practical: **What is the best way of translating a sentence like &quot;Mr. Smith Goes to Washington&quot;?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2882" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="832" RevisionGUID="323d5adb-deac-4f6e-9373-feaa3d2943d4" CreationDate="2016-05-04T16:08:52.120" UserId="45" Text="How to say Mister (Mrs, Miss, etc.) in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2883" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="832" RevisionGUID="323d5adb-deac-4f6e-9373-feaa3d2943d4" CreationDate="2016-05-04T16:08:52.120" UserId="45" Text="|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="58707169-6acd-41b2-894b-ce32a7253196" CreationDate="2016-05-04T16:23:39.063" UserId="79" Text="I have seen *dominus* used for &quot;Mr&quot; in some comics translated to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Analogously I would use *domina* for &quot;Mrs&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I don't have a good suggestion for &quot;Miss&quot;, though.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the diminutive *dominula* is better than *virgo* or *puella*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would translate &quot;Mr. Smith Goes to Washington&quot; as ***Dominus Smith Vasitoniam it***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="830" RevisionGUID="e039adbb-c198-4636-91d0-8b2777119808" CreationDate="2016-05-04T16:46:25.970" UserId="9" Comment="I forgot that extending this rule to n-stem nouns requires the +ORAL specification to be eliminated" Text="A synchronic analysis: deletion of coronals before s within a syllable&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real][1],&quot; Kyle Gorman describes the deletion of /t/ in the nominative form of words like *mons, montis* as part of a larger pattern of deletion of coronal consonants which also applies to words like *pes, pedis* and *pollis, pollinis.* The main argument of the paper is that in Classical Latin, nouns with variation between *r* in some forms and and *s* in the nominative  should be analyzed according to this deletion rule, rather than according to a separate rule of intervocalic rhotacization.  So if Gorman is right, the deletion rule was still active in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He notes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The sequence [ts] (from /ts/, or /ds/ and DEVOICING) does not occur in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; word-final position (Devine and Stephens 1977:129), and its medial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; occurrences are limited to syllable contact, allowing a rule of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deletion to be stated generally (cf. Heslin 1987:142).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the following &quot;pre-/s/ deletion&quot; rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [CORONAL, +ORAL, -CONTINUANT] → ∅ / _s]&lt;sub&gt;σ&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gorman extends this rule to nouns with stems ending in *n* such as *pollis* and *sanguis* by removing the [+ORAL] specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [CORONAL, -CONTINUANT] → ∅ / _s]&lt;sub&gt;σ&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to prevent this extended rule from improperly deleting multiple consonants (such as the *n* in *mons*) Gorman proposes that the rule is &quot;non-iterative&quot; and &quot;rightward-applying&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In processing /mont-s/, the rule “sees” /t-s/, but the resulting [ns]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is not scanned by the rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the basis for his argument that forms like *mos, moris* can be analyzed using deletion of *r* before *s,* even though *r* is not deleted in the nominative forms of words with stems ending in *rt* such as *ars, artis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymological analysis&#xD;&#xA;---------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gorman's rule is clearly not based on the etymology of the words, since historically, the alternation of *s* and *r* did in fact originate from [rhotacism][2] and not from a historical process of r-deletion. (I don't know the historical origin of the nouns like *pollis* that have *n* in the stem but not in the nominative.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nonetheless, for nouns with with stems that end in -t- and -d-, the historical source of this variation seems to be similar to Gorman's synchronic rule. In some ancestor to Latin, a phonetic change occurred where word-final [ts] was eventually simplified to [s]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymological consonant stem nouns&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a paper that describes some theories about when this happened and what the intermediate steps were: &quot;[The Proto-Indo-European *-VTs# clusters and the formulation of Szemerényi’s Law][3],&quot; by Dariusz Piwowarczyk. The main example word he uses actually has &quot;d&quot; (*pod-s) but it seems that all scholars agree that underlying /ds/ was already devoiced to [ts] in PIE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Piwowarczyk, Oswald Szemerényi thinks the a simplification of word-final [ts] to [s] in nominative forms happened in Proto-Indo-European. The processes involved are anticipatory assimilation of [t] to the following [s], with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel when the resulting geminate [ss] simplifies to single [s]. Examples of this in Latin would be words like *pēs.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Piwowarczyk himself argues that the *Ts clusters were simplified independently in different branches of Indo-European.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymological i-stem nouns&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------&#xD;&#xA;[TKR][4] pointed out in the comments that Classical Latin also has many words that lose t in the nominative that come from Proto-Indo-European i-stem nouns. *Mons* and *sors* are two examples. The nominative forms of words like these seem to originate from syncope of *i*, followed by simplification of the cluster [ts] to [s]. Since this syncope was a Latin-specific development, and preceded the cluster simplification, these seem to require a Latin-specific rule at some point that changed [ts] to [s] in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/153/9&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.academia.edu/18765354/The_Proto-Indo-European_-VTs_clusters_and_the_formulation_of_Szemer%C3%A9nyi_s_Law&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/817/why-does-singular-mons-become-plural-montes#comment1720_827" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="830" RevisionGUID="495a3beb-3300-4579-9ec7-7aa9d4f783c9" CreationDate="2016-05-04T17:56:08.730" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 391 characters in body" Text="A synchronic analysis: deletion of coronals before s within a syllable&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real][1],&quot; Kyle Gorman describes the deletion of /t/ in the nominative form of words like *mons, montis* as part of a larger pattern of deletion of coronal consonants which also applies to words like *pes, pedis* and *pollis, pollinis.* The main argument of the paper is that in Classical Latin, nouns with variation between *r* in some forms and and *s* in the nominative  should be analyzed according to this deletion rule, rather than according to a separate rule of intervocalic rhotacization.  So if Gorman is right, the deletion rule was still active in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He notes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The sequence [ts] (from /ts/, or /ds/ and DEVOICING) does not occur in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; word-final position (Devine and Stephens 1977:129), and its medial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; occurrences are limited to syllable contact, allowing a rule of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deletion to be stated generally (cf. Heslin 1987:142).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the following &quot;pre-/s/ deletion&quot; rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [CORONAL, +ORAL, -CONTINUANT] → ∅ / _s]&lt;sub&gt;σ&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gorman extends this rule to nouns with stems ending in *n* such as *pollis* and *sanguis* by removing the [+ORAL] specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [CORONAL, -CONTINUANT] → ∅ / _s]&lt;sub&gt;σ&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to prevent this extended rule from improperly deleting multiple consonants (such as the *n* in *mons*) Gorman proposes that the rule is &quot;non-iterative&quot; and &quot;rightward-applying&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In processing /mont-s/, the rule “sees” /t-s/, but the resulting [ns]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is not scanned by the rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the basis for his argument that forms like *mos, moris* can be analyzed using deletion of *r* before *s,* even though *r* is not deleted in the nominative forms of words with stems ending in *rt* such as *ars, artis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymological analysis&#xD;&#xA;---------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gorman's rule is clearly not based on the etymology of the words, since historically, the alternation of *s* and *r* did in fact originate from [rhotacism][2] and not from a historical process of r-deletion. (I don't know the historical origin of the nouns like *pollis* that have *n* in the stem but not in the nominative.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nonetheless, for nouns with with stems that end in -t- and -d-, the historical source of this variation seems to be similar to Gorman's synchronic rule. In some ancestor to Latin, a phonetic change occurred where word-final [ts] was eventually simplified to [s]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymological consonant stem nouns&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a paper that describes some theories about when this happened and what the intermediate steps were: &quot;[The Proto-Indo-European *-VTs# clusters and the formulation of Szemerényi’s Law][3],&quot; by Dariusz Piwowarczyk. The main example word he uses actually has &quot;d&quot; (*pod-s) but it seems that all scholars agree that underlying /ds/ was already devoiced to [ts] in PIE. There is disagreement about whether this [ts] was simplified to [s] in PIE or independently in the later branches of Indo-European.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymological i-stem nouns&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------&#xD;&#xA;[TKR][4] pointed out in the comments that Classical Latin also has many words that lose t in the nominative that come from Proto-Indo-European i-stem nouns. *Mons* and *sors* are two examples. The nominative forms of words like these seem to originate from syncope of *i*, followed by simplification of the cluster [ts] to [s]. Since this syncope was a Latin-specific development, and preceded the cluster simplification, these seem to require a Latin-specific rule at some point that changed [ts] to [s] in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/153/9&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.academia.edu/18765354/The_Proto-Indo-European_-VTs_clusters_and_the_formulation_of_Szemer%C3%A9nyi_s_Law&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/817/why-does-singular-mons-become-plural-montes#comment1720_827" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="834" RevisionGUID="65931c5e-5710-4a0a-9649-1abac2cdc2e9" CreationDate="2016-05-04T22:55:40.820" UserId="12" Text="[Daniel Morgan's lexicon](http://www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com/faculty-pages/patrick-owens/lexicon/adumbratio/index.aspx), section 754, gives options for Mister and Misses, but not Miss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Mister&#xD;&#xA;  - *dominus* (or *domine* in direct address)&#xD;&#xA;  - *eques* (as in English &quot;sir,&quot; used before a name)&#xD;&#xA; - Misses / ma'am&#xD;&#xA;  - *domina* (same for direct address)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The options for Mister are based on suitable words for &quot;knight,&quot; and are attested as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (SEN. Ep. 3, 1: &quot;si ... sic illum amicum vocasti quo modo omnes candidatos 'bonos viros' dicimus, quomodo obvios, si nomen non succurrit, 'dominos' salutamus, hac abierit)  |  1652 TURS. 417, listing members of Parliament Charles I of England attempted to arrest in 1642: &quot;Eques Arthur Haselrig, Domini Pym et Hampden&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Morgan does not provide suitable abbreviations, unfortunately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="835" RevisionGUID="272d5f11-54e1-4e0d-9df7-2c9415e54f68" CreationDate="2016-05-05T00:31:58.820" UserId="124" Text="There are also certain nouns in Latin that are indeclinable and thus don't really have a concept of &quot;case&quot; like normal nouns do (although you could argue they're just always in the nominative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Fas* = &quot;divine law&quot;; *Nefas* = &quot;sin&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *Nihil* = &quot;nothing&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *Ir* = &quot;hand&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="836" RevisionGUID="a48cff8a-a84c-4970-91ca-d3c7d6c29dfa" CreationDate="2016-05-05T03:55:07.497" UserId="358" Text="This passage is from Matthaeus 14:29 of the Latin Vulgate. I've included much of the surrounding text because the lack of punctuation makes it difficult for me to distinguish the sentence structure. &#xA;&#xA;&gt; respondens autem Petrus dixit Domine si tu es iube me venire ad te super aquas 29 at ipse ait veni et descendens Petrus de navicula ambulabat super aquam ut veniret ad Iesum 30 videns vero ventum validum timuit et cum coepisset mergi clamavit dicens Domine salvum me fac 31 et continuo Iesus extendens manum adprehendit eum et ait illi modicae fidei quare dubitasti 32 et cum ascendissent in naviculam cessavit ventus 33 qui autem in navicula erant venerunt et adoraverunt eum dicentes vere Filius Dei es&#xA;&#xA;This can be seen at: http://biblehub.com/vul/matthew/14.htm&#xA;&#xA;Am I correct in determining that the word &quot;ambulabat&quot; is here used as a present participal in the imperfect sense? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2895" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="836" RevisionGUID="a48cff8a-a84c-4970-91ca-d3c7d6c29dfa" CreationDate="2016-05-05T03:55:07.497" UserId="358" Text="Is &quot;ambulabat&quot; a present participal in the imperfect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2896" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="836" RevisionGUID="a48cff8a-a84c-4970-91ca-d3c7d6c29dfa" CreationDate="2016-05-05T03:55:07.497" UserId="358" Text="|conjugation|participle|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="837" RevisionGUID="8c95c6b3-e3ed-44f6-8711-874d284554cb" CreationDate="2016-05-05T04:13:51.780" UserId="124" Text="Unless there's some bizarre, ultra-special construction going on here, *ambulabat* can never be a present participle -- it is the 3rd person singular, imperfect active form of *ambulare*, and can be translated as *was walking*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="836" RevisionGUID="61d48148-0fd9-488c-bb7d-e19919f449a0" CreationDate="2016-05-05T13:52:38.787" UserId="-1" Comment="Spelling of “participle”" Text="This passage is from Matthaeus 14:29 of the Latin Vulgate. I've included much of the surrounding text because the lack of punctuation makes it difficult for me to distinguish the sentence structure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respondens autem Petrus dixit Domine si tu es iube me venire ad te super aquas 29 at ipse ait veni et descendens Petrus de navicula ambulabat super aquam ut veniret ad Iesum 30 videns vero ventum validum timuit et cum coepisset mergi clamavit dicens Domine salvum me fac 31 et continuo Iesus extendens manum adprehendit eum et ait illi modicae fidei quare dubitasti 32 et cum ascendissent in naviculam cessavit ventus 33 qui autem in navicula erant venerunt et adoraverunt eum dicentes vere Filius Dei es&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be seen at: http://biblehub.com/vul/matthew/14.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I correct in determining that the word &quot;ambulabat&quot; is here used as a present participle in the imperfect sense? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2899" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="836" RevisionGUID="61d48148-0fd9-488c-bb7d-e19919f449a0" CreationDate="2016-05-05T13:52:38.787" UserId="-1" Comment="Spelling of “participle”" Text="Is &quot;ambulabat&quot; a present participle in the imperfect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2900" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="836" RevisionGUID="61d48148-0fd9-488c-bb7d-e19919f449a0" CreationDate="2016-05-05T13:52:38.787" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 79 edit id of 107" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="838" RevisionGUID="1ddfbb95-5b3a-4979-96ce-f3b9be1a2d7b" CreationDate="2016-05-05T13:57:28.477" UserId="68" Text="In the notes to *Superbia et Odium*, his translation of *Pride and Prejudice*, Tom Cotton writes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Latin has neither appropriate nouns nor convenient abbreviations (Mr, Mrs, etc) by which to indicate social status; to avoid the cumbersome repetition of *Honestior, Matrona* where Jane Austen has used the English abbreviations, I have devised the forms *Hr* and *Mra*. Elsewhere, I have adopted *Hera, Domina,* and *Senior* (Miss, Lady, Sir) to usages which are not strictly classical, but in which the meaning is unambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I mentioned in a comment above, Terence Tunberg, who along with Milena Minkova runs the [University of Kentucky Institute for Latin Studies][1], which (as far as I understand) uses Latin as its main language of spoken and written communication, uses *Dominus* for &quot;Mr.&quot; and abbreviates it *Dno.* in the dative. If I learn more case abbreviations I'll update this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://mcl.as.uky.edu/latin-institute" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="279" RevisionGUID="5146e177-306d-4a8f-80ef-b5588e91c0f7" CreationDate="2016-05-05T15:45:40.307" UserId="79" Comment="Added a line break that seemed to be missing." Text="It would be impossible for me to give as exhaustive an answer as the one @Cerberus gave, so I'll just say that I always see ablative absolutes as containing implied participles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Legione dispersa victi sumus.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; With the legion *having been scattered*, we were conquered.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesare duce urbem cepimus.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; With Caesar *being the general*, we took the city.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, too, that this has the (dubious) advantage of being a literal translation of the ablative absolute, which I find can be a helpful way for English speakers to understand the construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="6f0e7478-4a7c-415f-bff0-4b33d91954cf" CreationDate="2016-05-05T21:37:16.793" UserId="79" Text="Years ago a fellow Latinist told me that singing in the shower is not a new invention.&#xD;&#xA;He mentioned some ancient (Roman, I believe) writer mentioning that singing is convenient while bathing due to the echo amplifying and altering the voice.&#xD;&#xA;I no longer remember the details, but I would like to locate such a text and verify this singing tradition for myself.&#xD;&#xA;So, can anyone point me to a passage in ancient Roman literature about singing while bathing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2905" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="6f0e7478-4a7c-415f-bff0-4b33d91954cf" CreationDate="2016-05-05T21:37:16.793" UserId="79" Text="Ancient sources for singing in a bath" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2906" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="6f0e7478-4a7c-415f-bff0-4b33d91954cf" CreationDate="2016-05-05T21:37:16.793" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="840" RevisionGUID="a4c2b5e9-b04d-4331-8c7d-3756ebb5c72c" CreationDate="2016-05-06T07:30:47.773" UserId="79" Text="The agent of a passive construction is in ablative, and human agents also come with the preposition *a*/*ab*.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *Marcus **a** Gnaeo occisus est* but *Marcus sica occisus est*.&#xD;&#xA;But which agents should be considered human?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many cases are clear, but there are also less obvious situations.&#xD;&#xA;For example, are gods, dolls, anthropomorphic robots and pets with human-like status human?&#xD;&#xA;My Latin grammar gives the example *A Deo mundus creatus est*, implying that the Christian god can be viewed as human &amp;mdash; without implying that it would always be viewed so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you give some guidelines for choosing which agents to consider human and which ones non-human?&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer the guidelines to be backed by classical usage or a reliable grammar book." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2912" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="840" RevisionGUID="a4c2b5e9-b04d-4331-8c7d-3756ebb5c72c" CreationDate="2016-05-06T07:30:47.773" UserId="79" Text="Which agents are human?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2913" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="840" RevisionGUID="a4c2b5e9-b04d-4331-8c7d-3756ebb5c72c" CreationDate="2016-05-06T07:30:47.773" UserId="79" Text="|agent|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="841" RevisionGUID="37c10fa6-53e8-4940-a18c-17f554c657b5" CreationDate="2016-05-06T10:40:10.817" UserId="324" Text="I think there is a semantic difference between &quot;a Gnaeo&quot; for the agent and &quot;sica&quot; for the instrument. The agent will be expressed in this way only in a passive sentence, but the ablative of instrument can be used also in an active sentence (Gnaeum sica occidit). The agent is normally animate. Note that there is a difference between &quot;animate&quot; (=humans, gods, animals), &quot;rational&quot; (=humans and gods, but not animals) and &quot;human&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="841" RevisionGUID="ee51d0e6-08d0-48d6-a006-bbca049dfcfb" CreationDate="2016-05-06T11:36:17.323" UserId="324" Comment="edited body" Text="I think there is a semantic difference between &quot;a Gnaeo&quot; for the agent and &quot;sica&quot; for the instrument. The agent will be expressed in this way only in a passive sentence, but the ablative of instrument can be used also in an active sentence (Marcum sica occidit). The agent is normally animate. Note that there is a difference between &quot;animate&quot; (=humans, gods, animals), &quot;rational&quot; (=humans and gods, but not animals) and &quot;human&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2916" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="840" RevisionGUID="ef03a83e-aec1-4a74-93ce-37f7e70b4580" CreationDate="2016-05-06T13:16:47.000" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|ablative|ablativus-instrumenti|agent|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2917" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="3aa33195-6674-4cfc-8910-5716397b42aa" CreationDate="2016-05-06T13:17:19.250" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|classical-latin|ablative|ablativus-instrumenti|agent|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="842" RevisionGUID="b9e39c77-339f-439f-b670-7225e0d5df30" CreationDate="2016-05-06T16:39:59.223" UserId="68" Text="Jeanne Marie Neumann, in *Lingua Latina: A College Companion*, suggests &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You will sometimes find *quis* (i.e. the form of the interrogative pronoun) used instead of *quī* (the form of the interrogative adjective) **before a noun** in **questions of identity**: *Quis servus? Mēdus.* [emphasis mine]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a previous answer, @fvogel offered these examples, all of which meet the conditions Neumann imposes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Horace *Satires*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quis homo hic est? (I.6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Plautus *Miles Gloriosus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quis homo id vidit? (176)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quis homo in terra te alter est audacior? (313)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quis homo sit magis meus quam tu es? (615)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would seem to be an answer to the first part of your question. As to whether there's a difference in meaning in these cases between *quis* and *quī*, alas, I am as yet unenlightened. If I discover more information I'll update this answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="07472446-72c1-4329-b83f-26e677c9de55" CreationDate="2016-05-06T16:44:47.193" UserId="45" Text="Found one reference!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## [Petronius, *Satyricon*, 73](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0001%3Atext%3DSatyricon%3Asection%3D73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deinde ut lassatus consedit, **invitatus balnei sono diduxit usque ad cameramos ebrium et coepit Menecratis cantica lacerare**, sicut illi dicebant, qui linguam eius intellegebant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *He then became tired and sat down, and **the echoes of the bathroom encouraged him to open his tipsy jaws to the ceiling and begin to murder Menecrates's songs**, as I was told by those who could understand what he said.* (Heseltine's translation)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="844" RevisionGUID="15a4457d-1c2e-4de0-bd98-90717ff62866" CreationDate="2016-05-06T18:44:29.840" UserId="9" Text="Apparently, *[contrōversus][1]* comes from the preposition *contrā-* + *versus.* So why does it have &quot;ō&quot; instead of &quot;ā&quot;? I checked [Lewis and Short][2], but it doesn't explain the development of this vowel. I also found that [*contrāversus*][3] does in fact exist, although it seems to have a different meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=C4E1AQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA377&amp;lpg=PA377&amp;dq=Latin%20contra%20controversus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QGZBtAJ8ek&amp;sig=riR8Sd7D7AFSFlS8pvp6e4Tl_yQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiXosnPisbMAhWMHT4KHRh2CLQQ6AEIMjAE#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20contra%20controversus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=controversus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcontraversus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2921" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="844" RevisionGUID="15a4457d-1c2e-4de0-bd98-90717ff62866" CreationDate="2016-05-06T18:44:29.840" UserId="9" Text="Why is there an &quot;o&quot; in &quot;controversus&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2922" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="844" RevisionGUID="15a4457d-1c2e-4de0-bd98-90717ff62866" CreationDate="2016-05-06T18:44:29.840" UserId="9" Text="|etymology|phonology|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="845" RevisionGUID="301aa1f7-be0b-4b4a-ae2b-436d3dd46599" CreationDate="2016-05-06T19:20:52.840" UserId="40" Text="Just as we have both *intrā* and *intrō*, *citrā/citrō, ultrā/ultrō*, there used to be a form *contrō*, which has only survived in this word. De Vaan adduces an Oscan form *contrud*. Historically, the -ō forms are masc./neut. ablatives, the -ā forms are fem. ablatives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="846" RevisionGUID="f01f9455-a12c-4994-a41f-a9382d1e337b" CreationDate="2016-05-06T23:48:20.997" UserId="68" Text="Ovid's *Remédia Amórés* 422 suggests that your grammar is mistaken and that non-humans with agency can be considered agents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Á cane** nón mágno sæpe tenétur aper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero's *Dé Officiís* 1.68 suggests that, at least metaphorically, *emotions* can be considered agents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nón est autem cónsentanéum, quí metú non frangátur, eum frangí cupiditáte, nec quí invictum sé á labóre præstiterit, vincí **á voluptáte**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I take from these examples, along with others, such as this from Livy III.37, which suggest that *humans* can be *instruments*—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Et decemvirí, quí prímó tribuniciós hominés, quia id populáre habebátur, circum sé ostentáverant plebí, **patriciís iuvenibus** sæpserant latera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;—is that, *pace* nineteenth-century grammarians, we are permitted to and indeed must decide for ourselves, when determining what construction to use, whether any given noun is functioning as an agent or an instrument." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="847" RevisionGUID="c8880f6a-32c3-4f0c-8a6a-c2b23c461c3e" CreationDate="2016-05-06T23:51:22.920" UserId="68" Text="Not only can animals and non-humans personified act as agent, but humans can act as instruments, as we see in Livy III.37:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Et decemvirí, quí prímó tribuniciós hominés, quia id populáre habebátur, circum sé ostentáverant plebí, **patriciís iuvenibus** sæpserant latera." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="846" RevisionGUID="d4b6d389-78ed-4d4b-b0c2-e1f14ddaa405" CreationDate="2016-05-07T00:46:01.440" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="Ovid's *Remédia Amórés* 422 suggests that your grammar is mistaken and that non-humans with agency can be considered agents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Á cane** nón mágno sæpe tenétur aper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero's *Dé Officiís* 1.68 suggests that, at least metaphorically, *emotions* can be considered agents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nón est autem cónsentanéum, quí metú non frangátur, eum frangí cupiditáte, nec quí invictum sé á labóre præstiterit, vincí **á voluptáte**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I take from these examples, along with others, such as this from Livy III.37, which suggest that *humans* can be *instruments*—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Et decemvirí, quí prímó tribuniciós hominés, quia id populáre habebátur, circum sé ostentáverant plebi, **patriciís iuvenibus** sæpserant latera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;—is that, *pace* nineteenth-century grammarians, we are permitted to and indeed must decide for ourselves, when determining what construction to use, whether any given noun is functioning as an agent or an instrument." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="846" RevisionGUID="999542de-0516-4821-97f1-c90771ea38d3" CreationDate="2016-05-07T00:51:49.580" UserId="68" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="Ovid's *Remédia Amórés* 422 suggests that your grammar is mistaken and that non-humans with agency can be considered agents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Á cane** nón mágno sæpe tenétur aper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero's *Dé Officiís* 1.68 suggests that, at least metaphorically, *emotions* can be considered agents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nón est autem cónsentanéum, quí metú non frangátur, eum frangí cupiditáte, nec quí invictum sé á labóre præstiterit, vincí **á voluptáte**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I take from these examples, along with others, such as this from Livy III.37, which suggest that *humans* can be *instruments*—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Et decemvirí, quí prímó tribuniciós hominés, quia id populáre habebátur, circum sé ostentáverant plebi, **patriciís iuvenibus** sæpserant latera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;—is that, *pace* nineteenth-century grammarians, we are permitted to and indeed must decide for ourselves, when determining what construction to use, whether any given noun is functioning as an agent or an instrument—that is, whether it is **exercising its will** (use the preposition) or being *used* by something *else* that is exercising its will (omit the preposition)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="846" RevisionGUID="ecf69191-5320-4cd0-9e4b-9bdae455956d" CreationDate="2016-05-07T01:33:15.163" UserId="68" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Ovid's *Remédia Amórés* 422 suggests that your grammar is mistaken and that non-humans with agency can be considered agents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Á cane** nón mágnó sæpe tenétur aper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero's *Dé Officiís* 1.68 suggests that, at least metaphorically, *emotions* can be considered agents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nón est autem cónsentáneum, quí metú non frangátur, eum frangí cupiditáte, nec quí invictum sé á labóre præstiterit, vincí **á voluptáte**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I take from these examples, along with others, such as this from Livy III.37, which suggest that *humans* can be *instruments*—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Et decemvirí, quí prímó tribuniciós hominés, quia id populáre habebátur, circum sé ostentáverant plebí, **patriciís iuvenibus** sæpserant latera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;—is that, *pace* nineteenth-century grammarians, we are permitted to and indeed must decide for ourselves, when determining what construction to use, whether any given noun is functioning as an agent or an instrument—that is, whether it is **exercising its will** (agent; use the preposition) or being *used* by something *else* that is exercising its will (instrument; omit the preposition)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="116" RevisionGUID="156f7127-92dc-4f1e-8647-516fcf6f9c01" CreationDate="2016-05-07T02:07:29.180" UserId="30" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="The ablative absolute does not require a participle. It can be a noun and an adjective, as you say, or two nouns (*Caesare duce urbem cepimus*), or even an adjective and an accusative with infinitive (most probably, see the end of this post).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is a &quot;verb-like&quot; aspect to the construction that makes you want to add &quot;being&quot; if there is no participle. The reason for this probably lies in the fact that the ablative absolute is a so-called **dominant construction**, where semantics and syntax are slightly out of tune: semantically, there is a kind of '**oblique predicate**' (with a 'subject' and its 'predicate'), even though syntactically there are just two nominals in the ablative. And for there to be a predicate, you need a kind of verb in your translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is called dominant because the participle in a dominant construction is normally translated more prominently than a mere (attributive) participle: it is translated as a finite verb (or a noun). Otherwise our translation would fail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Legione dispersa victi sumus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you translated this as &quot;with the dispersed legion, we were defeated&quot;, that would sound wrong, because the participle is translated attributively. English has a trick where you can make an adjective or participle predicate-like by placing it after its 'subject': &quot;with the legion dispersed, we were defeated&quot;. That works, because the participle is translated predicatively. The standard translation would be &quot;after the legion was dispersed, we were defeated&quot;. That's a full predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesare duce urbem cepimus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With our leader Caesar, we captured the city&quot;. That is grammatical, but it is not what the Latin intended, if only because *with* is usually rendered as *cum* when followed by a person. It should be &quot;with Caesar as our leader, we captured the city&quot;. The word *as* (rightfully) introduces a predicate-like aspect to our translation: one of the things we want to say is that Caesar was our leader. That is a fact that the Latin is stating separately by means of the ablative absolute, supporting the 'main clause' *urbem cepimus*. You could also translate it as &quot;because Caesar was our leader, we captured the city&quot; (optional causal link), with a full predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Other examples of dominant and predicative constructions are the **gerundive construction**, the so-called **dominant participle** (of which you could say the ablative absolute with a participle  is a sub-species), the **dominant substantive apposition** (of which the ablative absolute without a participle is a sub-species), and even the ordinary **copula with subject complement**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Floribus carpendis Eurydice mordetur a serpente.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;During/with the flowers to pick, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent.&quot; That's not right. The **gerundive construction** should be translated dominantly, where the adjectival/attributive gerundive is translated as a substantive noun or even as a finite verb: &quot;during the picking of flowers, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent&quot;, or &quot;when she was picking flowers, Eurydice was bitten by a serpent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Latin alternative is the **gerund construction**, which is normal, not 'dominant', because a gerund is a kind of noun, which is already fairly dominant: as such it is not translated as more dominant than a noun normally is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Flores carpendo Eurydice mordetur a serpente.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;During the flowers-picking, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar occisus senatores placuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The dead Caesar pleased the senators.&quot; That kind of works, because a **dominant participle construction** also happens to be possible in English in certain cases. But what we're really saying is this: &quot;Caesar's death pleased the senators&quot;. A substantive noun is stronger than a mere attributive participle. Or, even more dominantly: &quot;the fact that Caesar died pleased the senators&quot;. What we're really not trying to say is &quot;Caesar (who had died) pleased the senators&quot;. The brackets express low degree of dominance, since the words are thereby separated from the main sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar primus Romam advenit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The first Caesar arrived in Rome&quot;: it seems clear that this is not what was intended. &quot;Caesar arrived in Rome first&quot;: this predicative translation is correct, where the **predicative adjective** is translated almost like a subject complement or an adverb of manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar victor Romam advenit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The victor Caesar arrived in Rome.&quot; This is perhaps acceptable, but what the author probably intended was the predicative translation &quot;Caesar arrived in Rome as (the) victor&quot;. The word *as* clarifies that it is to be understood predicatively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar fortis est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a **plain copula with a subject complement**. An attributive translation would be absurd: &quot;the brave Caesar is&quot;. This is the simplest kind of predicative construction, equally common in other Indo-European languages, and we must translate it predicatively, so as a copula with subject complement: &quot;Caesar is brave&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;N.B. There is one kind of ablative absolute that interests me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Audito Agrippinam a filio suo necatam esse tota in urbe populus luxerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;When it had been heard that Agrippina had been murdered by her son, the people mourned throughout the city.&quot; The participle in the ablative is the neuter *audito*; the 'noun' belonging to the ablative absolute is the entire accusative with infinitive, *Agrippinam a filio suo necatam esse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is possible in Latin, and I believe it is used when you need an accusative with infinitive but the verb of saying or hearing or thinking etc. cannot be made to agree with an existing word in the sentence. This may happen when the hearing happened before the main clause, because then you need a past participle, and past participles cannot be made to agree with an agent (because they're passive). The person who hears cannot be made to agree in number, case and gender with the past participle *auditus*, so it has to be used absolutely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="848" RevisionGUID="a789ba59-d8d1-4501-abc5-a6e4e2227742" CreationDate="2016-05-07T06:03:11.073" UserId="358" Text="I can't understand what ūnō means in this sentence, or what grammatical role it provides:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; uxor quae bona est ūnō uirō est contenta. &#xA;&#xA;The sentence is from page 70 of A Latin Grammar by James Morwood, Oxford University Press, 1999. The specific chapter deals with relative clauses. &#xA;&#xA;I believe that *uirō est contenta* (a/the man is content) is the main clause and that *uxor quae bona est* (a/the wife that is good) is a subordinate clause. But that's as far as I can get. &#xA;&#xA;Given these two clauses, I can't come up with an English translation that makes any sense. It seems to me that ūnō must mean more than simply &quot;one&quot; here. Is ūnō being used as a relative pronoun? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2932" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="848" RevisionGUID="a789ba59-d8d1-4501-abc5-a6e4e2227742" CreationDate="2016-05-07T06:03:11.073" UserId="358" Text="Is ūnō a relative pronoun in this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2933" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="848" RevisionGUID="a789ba59-d8d1-4501-abc5-a6e4e2227742" CreationDate="2016-05-07T06:03:11.073" UserId="358" Text="|relative-pronouns|clauses|subordinate-clause|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="849" RevisionGUID="35699860-94de-4dff-a099-ea6a21df1c4a" CreationDate="2016-05-07T10:58:42.560" UserId="79" Text="The adjective *contentus* (satisfied) can be modified with ablative.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *viro contentus* means &quot;satisfied with a/the man&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In your case the attribute has two words: *unus vir* (*uno viro* in ablative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would translate like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Uxor, quae bona est, uno viro est contenta.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A wife, who is good, is satisfied with one man.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I added commas to make the relative clause clearer in both languages.&#xD;&#xA;If you drop the relative clause altogether, you can see more clearly how *contenta* works together with *uxor* and the ablative attribute." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="849" RevisionGUID="49cf1e24-89a0-4ce0-a169-e18d04e30e74" CreationDate="2016-05-07T11:05:01.620" UserId="79" Comment="added 674 characters in body" Text="The adjective *contentus* (satisfied, content) can be modified with ablative.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *viro contentus* means &quot;satisfied with a/the man&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In your case the attribute has two words: *unus vir* (*uno viro* in ablative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would translate like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Uxor, quae bona est, uno viro est contenta.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A wife, who is good, is satisfied with one man.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I added commas to make the relative clause clearer in both languages.&#xD;&#xA;If you drop the relative clause altogether, you can see more clearly how *contenta* works together with *uxor* and the ablative attribute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me also comment on your attempted translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you want to say &quot;a man is satisfied&quot;, you should write *vir est contentus*.&#xD;&#xA;Notice that *vir* is the subject and therefore in nominative, and *contentus* follows the gender of *vir*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore translating *viro est content* as &quot;man is satisfied&quot; fails for two reasons.&#xD;&#xA;- The relative pronoun is *quae* and the relative clause is *quae bona est*.&#xD;&#xA;A relative clause can well be inside the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;The main clause is *Uxor uno viro est contenta*.&#xD;&#xA;- The numeral *uno* can be thought of as an adjective attribute of of *viro*.&#xD;&#xA;It just emphasizes that a wife should be satisfied with **one** man." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="850" RevisionGUID="86f6452f-2e9b-4b96-bff6-e204cd325c6f" CreationDate="2016-05-07T14:42:38.103" UserId="68" Text="I suspect one of the things that's throwing you off is the word order: it would have been much easier if the sentence had been&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;uxor quae bona est contenta est ūnō uirō.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing to remember is that Latin word order is *very* flexible, and often words that appear right next to each other don't go together grammatically. This is one of the things that can make Latin very difficult, so even in short sentences it's a good idea to keep track of the endings of all the words. As @JoonasIlmavirta says, &quot;the man is content&quot; would be something like *vir est contentus*. But *virō* tells you that &quot;the man&quot; is singular, masculine, and in the dative or ablative case, and *contenta* tells you that &quot;content&quot; is singular, feminine, and in the nominative case (alternatively it could be plural, neuter, and in the nominative or accusative case, but there's nothing neuter in the sentence for it to go with). Even if you could put &quot;the man&quot; and &quot;content&quot; together in English, in Latin the endings show they *can't* go together, so that's ruled out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="849" RevisionGUID="53551ca5-fd10-4448-8f29-df4dc856869f" CreationDate="2016-05-07T14:52:54.017" UserId="79" Comment="added 216 characters in body" Text="The adjective *contentus* (satisfied, content) can be modified with ablative.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *viro contentus* means &quot;satisfied with a/the man&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In your case the attribute has two words: *unus vir* (*uno viro* in ablative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would translate like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Uxor, quae bona est, uno viro est contenta.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A wife, who is good, is satisfied with one man.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I added commas to make the relative clause clearer in both languages.&#xD;&#xA;If you drop the relative clause altogether, you can see more clearly how *contenta* works together with *uxor* and the ablative attribute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me also comment on your attempted translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you want to say &quot;a man is satisfied&quot;, you should write *vir est contentus*.&#xD;&#xA;Notice that *vir* is the subject and therefore in nominative, and *contentus* follows the gender of *vir*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore translating *viro est content* as &quot;man is satisfied&quot; fails for two reasons.&#xD;&#xA;- The relative pronoun is *quae* and the relative clause is *quae bona est*.&#xD;&#xA;A relative clause can well be inside the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;The main clause is *Uxor uno viro est contenta*.&#xD;&#xA;- The numeral *uno* can be thought of as an adjective attribute of of *viro*.&#xD;&#xA;It just emphasizes that a wife should be satisfied with **one** man.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Added note:&#xD;&#xA;One could read the sentence as *Uxor, quae bona est uno viro, est contenta* (&quot;A wife, who is good to one man, is content&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;This feels unlikely to me, but it is grammatically a valid interpretation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="850" RevisionGUID="402f277c-559b-4ba0-a177-b592ad32d358" CreationDate="2016-05-07T14:53:03.643" UserId="68" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="I suspect one of the things that's throwing you off is the word order: it would have been much easier if the sentence had been&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;uxor quae bona est contenta est ūnō uirō.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, that order feels sort of strange. The thing to remember is that Latin word order is *very* flexible (though not *infinitely* flexible), and often words that appear right next to each other don't go together grammatically. This is one of the things that can make Latin very difficult, so even in short sentences it's a good idea to keep track of the endings of all the words. As @JoonasIlmavirta says, &quot;the man is content&quot; would be something like *vir est contentus*. But *virō* tells you that &quot;the man&quot; is singular, masculine, and in the dative or ablative case, and *contenta* tells you that &quot;content&quot; is singular, feminine, and in the nominative case (alternatively it could be plural, neuter, and in the nominative or accusative case, but there's nothing neuter in the sentence for it to go with). Even if you could put &quot;the man&quot; and &quot;content&quot; together in English, in Latin the endings show they *can't* go together, so that's ruled out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="851" RevisionGUID="d86953a7-d0fc-42e3-b821-d935a153a985" CreationDate="2016-05-07T22:59:22.183" UserId="144" Text="I've never seen anything except [this][1] provide passive forms of the verb esse. And even with [that][1] most of the passive forms are crossed out. Why is this? It would make sense for there to be no passive forms of esse, because of the structure of sentences with est: nominative est nominative. There is no object to become the subject, but then why does the website provide passive forms? How would these work? Or are these just approximations to what such a word would look like?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/go.php?D1=9&amp;H1=109&amp;T1=sum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2940" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="851" RevisionGUID="d86953a7-d0fc-42e3-b821-d935a153a985" CreationDate="2016-05-07T22:59:22.183" UserId="144" Text="Does there exist an passive form of sum, esse, fui?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2941" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="851" RevisionGUID="d86953a7-d0fc-42e3-b821-d935a153a985" CreationDate="2016-05-07T22:59:22.183" UserId="144" Text="|classical-latin|conjugation|passive-voice|irregular-words|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="852" RevisionGUID="706ff447-28a6-4b02-958f-0f7b885fc291" CreationDate="2016-05-07T23:05:01.557" UserId="324" Text="This thing you linked to is total rubbish. It was obviously produced by a machine. The passive forms given there are fictitious. The verb &quot;to be&quot; does not take a direct object and thus cannot be passive; this is true in Latin and all languages. I suggest you buy a Latin grammar and stop using machine-generated websites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="853" RevisionGUID="aaa601aa-4395-480b-9ae0-5cc9a95c252b" CreationDate="2016-05-07T23:05:43.790" UserId="40" Text="There are no passive forms of *esse*, for the reason you state -- it's not a transitive verb. The crossed-out forms on that site don't exist. (Neither do some of the forms that aren't crossed out, like the gerundive *esendus* and several others. On the other hand, the &quot;II imperative&quot; forms actually do exist even though they are crossed out for some reason.) Presumably the site generates forms by an algorithm, which doesn't necessarily know which forms really exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="854" RevisionGUID="88bb917c-ed3c-4bb7-b55a-de3e4b3004d8" CreationDate="2016-05-07T23:12:20.030" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="855" RevisionGUID="e1557977-2731-47da-aa2b-ad6ea4da31ed" CreationDate="2016-05-07T23:12:20.030" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="856" RevisionGUID="66fa5fa2-dd68-4828-ae2e-8e5b4a7d42a1" CreationDate="2016-05-08T03:26:19.953" UserId="459" Text="This is from an explanation of the six Ptolemaic statements, the one that concludes that the world is round (*terram esse rotundam*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Terra tamen ob duritiem non potuit perfectam rotunditatem adipisci:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed montium eminentiae, aut valles ad tantam mollem collatae non&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sentiuntur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*-- [Opuscula Mathematica (1625), Francesco Maurolico, bottom of p. 7][1]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what I have so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The land, however, because of its hardness, cannot acquire perfect roundness, but the prominences of mountains and valleys are not perceived...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...compared to such softness?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What softness? I don't see any softness mentioned in the paragraph. I know what it *should* mean: compared to the magnitude of the Earth's diameter. But how does *mollis* mean that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=qZI8AAAAcAAJ&amp;dq=Opuscula%20Mathematica&amp;pg=PA7#v=onepage&amp;q=Opuscula%20Mathematica&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2947" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="856" RevisionGUID="66fa5fa2-dd68-4828-ae2e-8e5b4a7d42a1" CreationDate="2016-05-08T03:26:19.953" UserId="459" Text="What does ad tantam mollem refer to in this context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2948" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="856" RevisionGUID="66fa5fa2-dd68-4828-ae2e-8e5b4a7d42a1" CreationDate="2016-05-08T03:26:19.953" UserId="459" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="857" RevisionGUID="ea3e80c6-ccfd-475a-a333-eecc71ca71e9" CreationDate="2016-05-08T04:40:25.860" UserId="79" Text="Notice that it says [*molem*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1010056), not *mollem*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I suggest this translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *montium eminentiae aut valles ad tantam molem collatae non sentiuntur*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; valleys or eminences of mountains are not observed to be collapsed into such a shapeless mass" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="856" RevisionGUID="41a81e1f-f4ff-4c24-bbfa-576ef1ba541c" CreationDate="2016-05-08T04:42:42.760" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags." Text="This is from an explanation of the six Ptolemaic statements, the one that concludes that the world is round (*terram esse rotundam*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Terra tamen ob duritiem non potuit perfectam rotunditatem adipisci:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed montium eminentiae, aut valles ad tantam mollem collatae non&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sentiuntur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&amp;ndash; [Opuscula Mathematica (1625), Francesco Maurolico, bottom of p. 7][1]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what I have so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The land, however, because of its hardness, cannot acquire perfect roundness, but the prominences of mountains and valleys are not perceived...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...compared to such softness?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What softness? I don't see any softness mentioned in the paragraph. I know what it *should* mean: compared to the magnitude of the Earth's diameter. But how does *mollis* mean that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=qZI8AAAAcAAJ&amp;dq=Opuscula%20Mathematica&amp;pg=PA7#v=onepage&amp;q=Opuscula%20Mathematica&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2951" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="856" RevisionGUID="41a81e1f-f4ff-4c24-bbfa-576ef1ba541c" CreationDate="2016-05-08T04:42:42.760" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags." Text="|translation|vocabulary|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="842" RevisionGUID="e6692343-3bd8-4294-9937-c56ced402b6e" CreationDate="2016-05-08T17:55:10.873" UserId="68" Comment="added 1334 characters in body" Text="Jeanne Marie Neumann, in *Lingua Latina: A College Companion*, suggests &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You will sometimes find *quis* (i.e. the form of the interrogative pronoun) used instead of *quī* (the form of the interrogative adjective) **before a noun** in **questions of identity**: *Quis servus? Mēdus.* [emphasis mine]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a previous answer, @fvogel offered these examples, all of which meet the conditions Neumann imposes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Horace *Satires*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quis homo hic est? (I.6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Plautus *Miles Gloriosus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quis homo id vidit? (176)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quis homo in terra te alter est audacior? (313)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quis homo sit magis meus quam tu es? (615)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find another set of examples in Cicero, *In Catilinam* II:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;O fortunatam rem publicam, si quidem hanc sentinam urbis eiecerit! Uno mehercule Catilina exhausto levata mihi et recreata res publica videtur. Quid enim mali aut sceleris fingi aut cogitari potest, quod non ille conceperit? **quis** tota Italia **veneficus, quis gladiator, quis latro, quis sicarius, quis parricida, quis testamentorum subiector, quis circumscriptor, quis ganeo, quis nepos, quis adulter**, quae mulier infamis, **quis corruptor iuventutis, quis corruptus, quis perditus** inveniri potest, qui se cum Catilina non familiarissime vixisse fateatur? quae caedes per hosce annos sine illo facta est, quod nefarium stuprum non per illum?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *A Preparatory Course in Latin Prose Authors*, Albert Harkness writes of this paragraph,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Quis*, though more commonly used *substantively*, may be used *adjectivally*, when, as in this case, the inquiry relates, not to the *character* of the person or thing, but to the person or thing itself. Thus *quis veneficus* is not *what kind of poisoner*, but *what* poisoner, *i.e.*, which one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's interesting, though, isn't it, that Cicero uses *quis* here only for masculine nouns, but for *mulier infamis* he uses *quæ*. I wonder whether *quis* as a noun is used in place of *qui* but not *quæ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, this would seem to be an answer to the first part of your question. As to whether there's a difference in meaning in these cases between *quis* and *quī*, alas, I am as yet unenlightened. If I discover more information I'll update this answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="853" RevisionGUID="29c2a1b1-1191-4d3d-b0bc-52dd9ea054ba" CreationDate="2016-05-08T18:38:23.820" UserId="40" Comment="added note about impersonal passive" Text="There are no passive forms of *esse*, for the reason you state -- it's not a transitive verb. Intransitive verbs cannot be passivized, with the minor exception of &quot;impersonal passive&quot; forms (in the 3sg. only), which are not used with *esse*. The crossed-out forms on that site don't exist. (Neither do some of the forms that aren't crossed out, like the gerundive *esendus* and several others. On the other hand, the &quot;II imperative&quot; forms actually do exist even though they are crossed out for some reason.) Presumably the site generates forms by an algorithm, which doesn't necessarily know which forms really exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="857" RevisionGUID="2f4ca3fd-d483-40ed-bf86-17eaa4d16b36" CreationDate="2016-05-08T21:16:01.393" UserId="79" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="Notice that it says [*molem*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1010056), not *mollem*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I suggest this translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *montium eminentiae aut valles ad tantam molem collatae non sentiuntur*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;del&gt;valleys or eminences of mountains are not observed to be collapsed into such a shapeless mass&lt;/del&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; valleys or eminences of mountains combined are not observable in comparison to such a large mass&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to the commenters for the improved translation!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="842" RevisionGUID="bda06b06-59bd-495b-bdc5-3f60cee033d3" CreationDate="2016-05-08T22:00:17.807" UserId="68" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="Jeanne Marie Neumann, in *Lingua Latina: A College Companion*, suggests &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You will sometimes find *quis* (i.e. the form of the interrogative pronoun) used instead of *quī* (the form of the interrogative adjective) **before a noun** in **questions of identity**: *Quis servus? Medus.* [emphasis mine]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a previous answer, @fvogel offered these examples, all of which meet the conditions Neumann imposes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Horace *Satires*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quis homo hic est? (I.6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Plautus *Miles Gloriosus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quis homo id vidit? (176)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quis homo in terra te alter est audacior? (313)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quis homo sit magis meus quam tu es? (615)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find another set of examples in Cicero, *In Catilinam* II:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;O fortunatam rem publicam, si quidem hanc sentinam urbis eiecerit! Uno mehercule Catilina exhausto levata mihi et recreata res publica videtur. Quid enim mali aut sceleris fingi aut cogitari potest, quod non ille conceperit? **quis** tota Italia **veneficus, quis gladiator, quis latro, quis sicarius, quis parricida, quis testamentorum subiector, quis circumscriptor, quis ganeo, quis nepos, quis adulter**, quae mulier infamis, **quis corruptor iuventutis, quis corruptus, quis perditus** inveniri potest, qui se cum Catilina non familiarissime vixisse fateatur? quae caedes per hosce annos sine illo facta est, quod nefarium stuprum non per illum?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *A Preparatory Course in Latin Prose Authors*, Albert Harkness writes of this paragraph,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Quis*, though more commonly used *substantively*, may be used *adjectivally*, when, as in this case, the inquiry relates, not to the *character* of the person or thing, but to the person or thing itself. Thus *quis veneficus* is not *what kind of poisoner*, but *what* poisoner, *i.e.*, which one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's interesting, though, isn't it, that Cicero uses *quis* here only for masculine nouns, but for *mulier infamis* he uses *quæ*. I wonder whether *quis* as a noun is used in place of adjectival *qui* but not adjectival *quæ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, this would seem to be an answer to the first part of your question. As to whether there's a difference in meaning in these cases between *quis* and *quī*, alas, I am as yet unenlightened. If I discover more information I'll update this answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="858" RevisionGUID="6e0b2552-91f3-4fd6-b3c0-288e8dfbc654" CreationDate="2016-05-09T01:46:54.053" UserId="203" Text="I have been reading Cicero's letters in translation on the Perseus.uchicago.edu site, but check the Latin to improve my limited ability. Most of the letters include **S. P. D.** in the salutation, and I am wondering -  is this formulaic and what does it mean?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2957" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="858" RevisionGUID="6e0b2552-91f3-4fd6-b3c0-288e8dfbc654" CreationDate="2016-05-09T01:46:54.053" UserId="203" Text="Meaning of &quot;S. P. D.&quot; in letters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2958" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="858" RevisionGUID="6e0b2552-91f3-4fd6-b3c0-288e8dfbc654" CreationDate="2016-05-09T01:46:54.053" UserId="203" Text="|translation|contraction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="859" RevisionGUID="aeece155-c909-43dd-afd4-ed6b194311f5" CreationDate="2016-05-09T01:56:30.877" UserId="73" Text="*SPD* is likely an acronym for *Salutem Plurimam Dicit*. When used in the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Person X] salutem plurimam dicit [Person Y]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it literally becomes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Person X sends many greetings to Person Y&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Person X would be the sender/writer of the letter, and Person Y would be the recipient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;For more on Latin letter-writing, see [this page](http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~mclennan/OM/CSC.html).&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="860" RevisionGUID="4187a411-b85a-4be9-ad05-39d12ee98e69" CreationDate="2016-05-09T04:17:08.710" UserId="68" Text="I'll just expand slightly on @HDE226868's excellent and correct answer and say that the literal translation of *salutem plurimam dicit* is &quot;says very much health.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another version you're likely to see is SQPD, which stands for *salutem quam plurimam dicit*, or &quot;says as much health as possible.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another set of abbreviations that crops up often is SVBEEV or variants thereof. This stands for *Si vales, bene est; ego valeo* or &quot;If you are well, that is good; I am well.&quot; It's sort of the Latin equivalent of &quot;How are you? I am fine.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Letters often close with just *vale*, which means &quot;be well,&quot; but sometimes you'll see *cura ut valeas*, which means &quot;take care to be well&quot; or &quot;see that you are well.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="861" RevisionGUID="fb7d6619-1858-4531-ab5b-f55d25ebb90d" CreationDate="2016-05-09T04:57:44.483" UserId="68" Text="Having finally gotten a basic handle on the sorts of things *rés* can mean, I find myself stymied by *ratió*. I've understood it as meaning essentially &quot;process of (logical) thinking,&quot; and that tends to work, though what it means more specifically in any given circumstance still evades me far more often than I'd like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then I see Cicero's *In Catilinam* II.V.9, which begins&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Atque, ut ejus díversa studia in dissimilí ratióne perspicere possitis. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I would translate, if I were sacrificing style to exactitude of meaning,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But, that you might be able to see clearly his various enthusiasms by a different thought process. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero then goes on to offer two metaphors: that of a gladiator inclined to crime and that of a worthless, good-for-nothing actor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My inclination here would be to think that *ratio* referred to the method Cicero was using to describe Catiline's associates—a Latin version of &quot;let me say it in another way.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translations that I've seen, however, seem to take a different approach. Michael Grant's (which to be sure often goes for elegance and style over meaning) is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And note well the diversity of his interests, the wide range of his activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gould and Whiteley, in their student commentary, offer for *dissimilí ratióne*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;in a very different sphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yonge translates the clause&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And, that you may understand the diversity of his pursuits and the variety of his designs. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all of these, the translators seem to be taking *ratió* as referring to Catiline's actions or habits. And I'm having a lot of trouble understanding *ratió* as &quot;activities,&quot; &quot;sphere,&quot; or even &quot;designs.&quot; This last comes closest to my understanding of *ratió*, but it's still pretty far from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody help me out? What am I missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2962" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="861" RevisionGUID="fb7d6619-1858-4531-ab5b-f55d25ebb90d" CreationDate="2016-05-09T04:57:44.483" UserId="68" Text="meaning of &quot;ratio&quot; in the second Catilinarian V.9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2963" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="861" RevisionGUID="fb7d6619-1858-4531-ab5b-f55d25ebb90d" CreationDate="2016-05-09T04:57:44.483" UserId="68" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|cicero|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="862" RevisionGUID="7b837c51-39a9-403e-9638-3c7b2a62c3d5" CreationDate="2016-05-09T06:36:03.517" UserId="79" Text="In this context I see *studium* as endeavor, activity or interest.&#xD;&#xA;I understand *in dissimili ratione perspicere* as &quot;to see in a different way&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I offer these translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Atque ut eius diversa studia in dissimili ratione perspicere possitis&amp;hellip;*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And so that you could examine his diverse interests in a different way&amp;hellip;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And to offer you a way to see his various endeavors from another angle&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that I took *in dissimili ratione* to modify *perspicere*.&#xD;&#xA;If you read that as modifying *diversa studia*, the picture changes, but that sounds less natural to me &amp;mdash; although the translators you cite seem to have chosen this reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Read the whole sentence in context [here](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/cat2.shtml#9).)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="863" RevisionGUID="26af9e8c-b785-4592-8d54-1b7c8bdc275a" CreationDate="2016-05-09T09:27:53.963" UserId="423" Text="The first ever woman professor (and second ever laureate) was Laura Bassi, who held her dissertation in philosophy in 1732 at the university of Bologna and taught Newtonian physics there. I've found [this _effigies_][1] of hers which reads, «_LAURA CATHARINA BASSIA / Bononiensis / Philosophiae **Doctrix**, Collegii **Lectrix** publica / Instituti Scientiarum Socia._ [...]». Also see [these interesting _Miscellanea_][2] about her academic achievements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another notable example is Maria Gaetana Agnesi, widely recognized as one of the greatest mathematicians of all times, and author of an important textbook &quot;for the use of the Italian youth&quot; on the subject of analysis, which consectrated her fame throughout Europe. She taught mathematics in Bologna from 1750 to 1752, replacing her ill father, but I could not find any titles related to her (she never actually held a formal dissertation and thus had no degree).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/sites/www.open.edu.openlearn/files/ole_images/page_laura_bassi_0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://137.204.24.205/cis13b/bsco3/BROWSE.ASP?id_opera=31&amp;pg=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="863" RevisionGUID="99f6e2ea-795b-499b-8343-6edfe36735c6" CreationDate="2016-05-09T09:33:02.357" UserId="423" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="The first ever female professor (and second ever female laureate) was Laura Bassi, who held her dissertation in philosophy in 1732 at the university of Bologna and taught Newtonian physics there. I've found [this _effigies_][1] of hers which reads, «_LAURA CATHARINA BASSIA / Bononiensis / Philosophiae **Doctrix**, Collegii **Lectrix** publica / Instituti Scientiarum Socia._ [...]». Also see [these interesting _Miscellanea_][2] about her academic achievements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another notable example is Maria Gaetana Agnesi, widely recognized as one of the greatest mathematicians of all times, and author of an important textbook &quot;for the use of the Italian youth&quot; on the subject of analysis, which consectrated her fame throughout Europe. She taught mathematics in Bologna from 1750 to 1752, replacing her ill father, but I could not find any titles related to her (she never actually held a formal dissertation and thus had no degree).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is stuff from 300 years ago, but I think it would honor any female member of the academia to be addressed with the same titles as these important women back in their times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/sites/www.open.edu.openlearn/files/ole_images/page_laura_bassi_0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://137.204.24.205/cis13b/bsco3/BROWSE.ASP?id_opera=31&amp;pg=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2968" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="861" RevisionGUID="0505dfeb-20cc-444e-85db-dc8bacfebf97" CreationDate="2016-05-09T12:13:19.013" UserId="12" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the meaning of &quot;ratio&quot; in the second Catilinarian V.9?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="842" RevisionGUID="25500909-bc73-4973-8a14-35e6229a3ed9" CreationDate="2016-05-09T13:54:44.777" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 255 characters in body; deleted 10 characters in body" Text="Jeanne Marie Neumann, in *Lingua Latina: A College Companion*, suggests &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You will sometimes find *quis* (i.e. the form of the interrogative pronoun) used instead of *quī* (the form of the interrogative adjective) **before a noun** in **questions of identity**: *Quis servus? Medus.* [emphasis mine]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a previous answer, @fvogel offered these examples, all of which meet the conditions Neumann imposes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Horace *Satires*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quis homo hic est? (I.6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Plautus *Miles Gloriosus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quis homo id vidit? (176)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quis homo in terra te alter est audacior? (313)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quis homo sit magis meus quam tu es? (615)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find another set of examples in Cicero, *In Catilinam* II:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;O fortunatam rem publicam, si quidem hanc sentinam urbis eiecerit! Uno mehercule Catilina exhausto levata mihi et recreata res publica videtur. Quid enim mali aut sceleris fingi aut cogitari potest, quod non ille conceperit? **quis** tota Italia **veneficus, quis gladiator, quis latro, quis sicarius, quis parricida, quis testamentorum subiector, quis circumscriptor, quis ganeo, quis nepos, quis adulter**, quae mulier infamis, **quis corruptor iuventutis, quis corruptus, quis perditus** inveniri potest, qui se cum Catilina non familiarissime vixisse fateatur? quae caedes per hosce annos sine illo facta est, quod nefarium stuprum non per illum?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *A Preparatory Course in Latin Prose Authors*, Albert Harkness writes of this paragraph,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Quis*, though more commonly used *substantively*, may be used *adjectivally*, when, as in this case, the inquiry relates, not to the *character* of the person or thing, but to the person or thing itself. Thus *quis veneficus* is not *what kind of poisoner*, but *what* poisoner, *i.e.*, which one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's interesting, though, that Cicero uses *quis* here only for masculine nouns, but for *mulier infamis* he uses *quæ*. I wonder whether *quis* as a noun is used in place of adjectival *qui* but not adjectival *quæ*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="864" RevisionGUID="7d4ec375-ae73-47d1-875f-579c97b541b7" CreationDate="2016-05-09T15:03:25.253" UserId="79" Text="I would like to know how to decline the name *Gnaeus* in vocative.&#xD;&#xA;I see three options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Gnaee* (regular declension)&#xD;&#xA;- *Gnai* (would make sense by analogy to *Gai* if the name is pronounced /gnaius/)&#xD;&#xA;- *Gnaeus* (if no declined vocative sounds natural, nominative is a reasonable choice)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is hard to search for the nominative used as vocative, and the same problem comes with the variant *Gnaei* of my second option.&#xD;&#xA;Searching [The Latin Library](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/) gives no results for *Gnaee* or *Gnai*.&#xD;&#xA;*Gnaee* sounds weird but I can't figure out if that sounded too weird to the Romans as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an attested (preferably classical) vocative of the name *Gnaeus*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2971" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="864" RevisionGUID="7d4ec375-ae73-47d1-875f-579c97b541b7" CreationDate="2016-05-09T15:03:25.253" UserId="79" Text="What is the vocative of Gnaeus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2972" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="864" RevisionGUID="7d4ec375-ae73-47d1-875f-579c97b541b7" CreationDate="2016-05-09T15:03:25.253" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|names|vocative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="865" RevisionGUID="0a5d787a-4475-4893-8560-e1aaa4c90c4a" CreationDate="2016-05-09T15:31:00.520" UserId="68" Text="Eureka, as the scientist said. [J. L. Vives][1], 16th century humanist, seems to have the vocative of Gnæus Pompeius in *Pompeius Fugiens* ([page 136 of the Brill edition of his early writings, volume I][2]). Brill spells it *Gnæe*, but the notes seem to indicate that one ms spells it *Gnee* and three others spell it *Cnee*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Luis_Vives&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=qp43AAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA136&amp;lpg=PA136&amp;dq=gnaee&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=uB42j-zV4J&amp;sig=MLFhpkzDtN4Ng_JZJA0Fhxfqg0Y&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj-pOOepc3MAhVGMj4KHaqrCxoQ6AEIjwEwFQ#v=onepage&amp;q=gnaee&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="865" RevisionGUID="87e6e642-d7ad-4679-b531-e898eb53bfd6" CreationDate="2016-05-09T15:52:38.867" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Eureka, as the scientist said. [J. L. Vives][1], 16th century humanist, uses the vocative of Gnæus Pompeius in *Pompeius Fugiens* ([page 136 of the Brill edition of his early writings, volume I][2]). Brill spells it *Gnæe*, but the notes seem to indicate that one ms spells it *Gnee* and three others spell it *Cnee*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Luis_Vives&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=qp43AAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA136&amp;lpg=PA136&amp;dq=gnaee&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=uB42j-zV4J&amp;sig=MLFhpkzDtN4Ng_JZJA0Fhxfqg0Y&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj-pOOepc3MAhVGMj4KHaqrCxoQ6AEIjwEwFQ#v=onepage&amp;q=gnaee&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="866" RevisionGUID="cea1ff32-fd7a-4796-b972-51703133b2cd" CreationDate="2016-05-09T16:32:45.927" UserId="45" Text="I searched for the vocative form *Gnaee* in several *corpora* but did not find any results. A general web search seems to reveal only [automatically generated vocatives](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gnaee), which I would not lend much credence to, as well as the excellent 16th century example cited by @JoelDerfner in Juan Luis Vives's [*De Initiis Sectis Et Laudibus Philosophiae*](https://books.google.com/books?id=qp43AAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA136&amp;lpg=PA136&amp;dq=Gnaee&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=uB42j0sU7E&amp;sig=cWTHofSTKS4pMO5jscLfrbsw7gI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiQ87KRsM3MAhWLdj4KHTdoAhk4ChDoAQhHMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Gnaee&amp;f=false). The two alternatives in the critical apparatus (*Gnee* and *Cnee*) correspond to a pretty common transposing of *ae* to *e* (*saeculorum* &gt; *seclorum*) and *g* to *c* (*Gaius* &gt; *Caius*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To add some more classical weight to this, I looked up similar names ending in *aeus* whose vocative forms are attested in the classical corpus. Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Hymenaeus**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; turba ruunt et &quot;Hymen&quot; clamant &quot;**Hymenaee!**&quot; frequenter (Ovid, *Heroides* XII)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nec lenius altera virgo  &#xD;&#xA;aestuat, utque celer venias, **Hymenaee**, precatur. (Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, IX)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [(and many more)](https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=hymenaee+site:thelatinlibrary.com)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Lenaeus**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dulce periculum est,  &#xD;&#xA;     o **Lenaee**, sequi deum  &#xD;&#xA;cingentem viridi tempora pampino. (Horace, *Carmina*, III)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; huc, pater o **Lenaee**, ueni, nudataque musto  &#xD;&#xA;tinge nouo mecum dereptis crura coturnis. (Vergil, *Georgicon*, II)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ptolemaeus**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ne caedes confusa manu permissaque fatis  &#xD;&#xA;te, **Ptolemaee**, trahat. (Lucan, *Bellum Civile*, X)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All things considered, ***Gnaee* is definitely a safe supposition as the vocative of *Gnaeus***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2978" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="864" RevisionGUID="6aa2db4a-5f36-4eac-9664-b416eb384bd0" CreationDate="2016-05-10T10:00:23.450" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|declension|names|vocative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="cd4b3b7f-4106-48fc-ac6e-a901124a8035" CreationDate="2016-05-10T12:51:31.127" UserId="79" Text="What good **online** Latin dictionaries do you know?&#xD;&#xA;What are their benefits and drawbacks?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Please give only one dictionary per answer.**&#xD;&#xA;If you have many dictionaries to suggest, give multiple answers.&#xD;&#xA;This way people can vote on individual dictionaries, causing the best ones to rise up and the worst ones to sink down, so that we can easily find the most loved dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;If there are many dictionaries listed in an answer, it's hard to link the answer score to the quality of each listed dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Note about resource questions:**&#xD;&#xA;Broad resource questions like this are generally **not** allowed on this site.&#xD;&#xA;The community chooses a select few to avoid an overflow of questions of this kind.&#xD;&#xA;If you have an opinion on what resource questions should be asked next, post a suggestion in [this meta post](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) or vote the existing ones.&#xD;&#xA;The ones to be asked will be chosen from that list in the order of votes.&#xD;&#xA;If you have ideas about listing resources on this site in general, you can contribute to [this meta discussion](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/177/79).&#xD;&#xA;In particular, if you would like to ask a similar resource request question, **do not just go ahead and ask it**, but post a suggestion in the [mentioned meta post](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2980" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="cd4b3b7f-4106-48fc-ac6e-a901124a8035" CreationDate="2016-05-10T12:51:31.127" UserId="79" Text="Which online Latin dictionaries should I use and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2981" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="cd4b3b7f-4106-48fc-ac6e-a901124a8035" CreationDate="2016-05-10T12:51:31.127" UserId="79" Text="|dictionary|vocabulary|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="868" RevisionGUID="37226f5c-e5d5-49cb-bae0-dc93b5d954b3" CreationDate="2016-05-10T12:57:31.503" UserId="79" Text="I often use [Numen, the Latin lexicon (latinlexicon.org)](http://latinlexicon.org/).&#xD;&#xA;It is easy to use and allows searches for both Latin and English words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many entries have use examples, although they can be quite cryptic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also has a &quot;word study tool&quot; where you can enter a passage of Latin text and look at all possible translations word by word.&#xD;&#xA;This tool works because the dictionary can decline and conjugate all words (you can also see all forms of a Latin word in its entry), but unfortunately there seem to be occasional errors in irregular conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dictionary is based on two printed dictionaries, An Elementary Latin Dictionary (by Charlton T. Lewis) and A Latin Dictionary (by Lewis &amp; Short).&#xD;&#xA;The dictionary contains macrons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="869" RevisionGUID="6520bb49-3b44-4269-a7e9-66a6d0e208f8" CreationDate="2016-05-10T12:58:36.457" UserId="79" Text="One possibility is to use [Webxicon](http://webxicon.org/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It translates between several languages, including Latin and English.&#xD;&#xA;You can even leave the target or source language blank to get answers for all possible languages.&#xD;&#xA;It is sometimes useful to translate a Latin word to several languages at once and to see many translations options in all languages at one glance.&#xD;&#xA;If you know several languages, this can help you find a tone.&#xD;&#xA;You can use the same tool between many languages, so it's not limited to Latin at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some words you get use examples and pronunciation help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are downsides as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It is not very consistent: Some words are there, some are not. Sometimes translations are abundant in some language and scarce in others. Sometimes declined forms appear as separate entries.&#xD;&#xA;- Macrons are rare.&#xD;&#xA;- You get a list of translations, not an explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This dictionary is based on [Wiktionary](https://www.wiktionary.org), which is not the most reliable of all sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2984" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="72722da2-284c-4870-8ee6-349929bd9715" CreationDate="2016-05-10T12:58:49.347" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2985" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="868" RevisionGUID="c6709d4f-a7e3-427c-8e5d-ccc523df1325" CreationDate="2016-05-10T12:58:49.347" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2986" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="869" RevisionGUID="61e3ca7b-00d8-499f-8070-eb04cce74da5" CreationDate="2016-05-10T12:58:49.347" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="2987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="ba9c2544-bc2d-46c0-b3ec-4dd46761a806" CreationDate="2016-05-10T13:03:42.693" UserId="12" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="What good **online** Latin dictionaries do you know?&#xD;&#xA;What are their benefits and drawbacks?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Please give only one dictionary per answer.**&#xD;&#xA;If you have many dictionaries to suggest, give multiple answers.&#xD;&#xA;This way people can vote on individual dictionaries, causing the best ones to rise up and the worst ones to sink down, so that we can easily find the most loved dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;If there are many dictionaries listed in an answer, it's hard to link the answer score to the quality of each listed dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Note about resource questions:**  &#xD;&#xA;Broad resource questions like this are generally **not** allowed on this site.&#xD;&#xA;The community chooses a select few to avoid an overflow of questions of this kind.  &#xD;&#xA;If you have an opinion on what resource questions should be asked next, post a suggestion in [this meta post](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) or vote the existing ones.  &#xD;&#xA;The ones to be asked will be chosen from that list according to their number of votes.&#xD;&#xA;If you have ideas about listing resources on this site in general, you can contribute to [this meta discussion](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/177/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In particular, if you would like to ask a similar resource request question, do **not** just ask it, but post a suggestion in the [mentioned meta post](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="6c6b43b6-198e-4fbc-ba35-e429f3b4da23" CreationDate="2016-05-10T13:07:56.953" UserId="79" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="What good **online** Latin dictionaries do you know?&#xD;&#xA;What are their benefits and drawbacks?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Please give only one dictionary per answer.**&#xD;&#xA;If you have many dictionaries to suggest, give multiple answers &amp;mdash; but read the other answers to avoid duplicating answers.&#xD;&#xA;This way people can vote on individual dictionaries, causing the best ones to rise up and the worst ones to sink down, so that we can easily find the most loved dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;If there are many dictionaries listed in an answer, it's hard to link the answer score to the quality of each listed dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Note about resource questions:**  &#xD;&#xA;Broad resource questions like this are generally **not** allowed on this site.&#xD;&#xA;The community chooses a select few to avoid an overflow of questions of this kind.&#xD;&#xA;If you have an opinion on what resource questions should be asked next, post a suggestion in [this meta post](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) or vote the existing ones.&#xD;&#xA;The ones to be asked will be chosen from that list according to their number of votes.&#xD;&#xA;If you have ideas about listing resources on this site in general, you can contribute to [this meta discussion](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/177/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In particular, if you would like to ask a similar resource request question, do **not** just ask it, but post a suggestion in the [mentioned meta post](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="870" RevisionGUID="8051a1cf-0efc-4d10-9034-3ac0c8a3c49f" CreationDate="2016-05-10T19:08:27.707" UserId="469" Text="Well, I don't know if it counts, but I think you should search among recent species re-classing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When Linnaeus wrote, Latin names were the logical option to choose a scientific name from. That is why it seems hard to even find one single example of what you're looking for. More recent descriptions of old species (especially when a single common name is found to apply to two different genera) force the need of new names. (i.e., *non-common-Latin* names for species that were known to native Latin-speakers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example is *Loxodonta africana*, the [African elephant][1]. It was in the XVIII century that it was described by [Georges Cuvier][2] as a diferent species from *Elephas maximus*, the Asian elephant (hence both were probably *Elephas* in Latin)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_elephant&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Cuvier" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="872" RevisionGUID="8d1aab25-19ec-4c85-9180-28a930e68926" CreationDate="2016-05-10T20:05:32.560" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[ [Wiktionary :](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cyma#Latin) ] **Etymology**       &#xD;&#xA;From the Ancient Greek κῦμα ‎(kûma), from κύω ‎(kúō, “I am pregnant, I conceive”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*κυμαί ‎(*kumaí), the first-declension nominative plural form which would give precedent to the Latin cȳmae, does not occur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. a young sprout of a cabbage      &#xD;&#xA; 2. hollow sphere&#xD;&#xA; 3. spherical layer, stratum&#xD;&#xA; 4. spring shoots of cabbage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What underlying semantic notions connect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. 'cabbage shoots or sprouts' (1 and 4) to 'hollow sphere' (2)?   &#xD;&#xA;[Cabbage shoots](https://www.google.com/search?q=hollow+sphere&amp;safe=off&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjJ6JP0pNDMAhWJ6oMKHdTSCAUQ_AUIBygB&amp;biw=1280&amp;bih=597#safe=off&amp;tbm=isch&amp;q=young+sprout+cabbage&amp;imgrc=_) do not appear spherical; a cabbage does (but which this noun does not mean).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. 'stratum' (3) to all the other meanings? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2993" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="872" RevisionGUID="8d1aab25-19ec-4c85-9180-28a930e68926" CreationDate="2016-05-10T20:05:32.560" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What is the semantic field of 'cȳma'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2994" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="872" RevisionGUID="8d1aab25-19ec-4c85-9180-28a930e68926" CreationDate="2016-05-10T20:05:32.560" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="d37ff0d9-f562-4d6e-9b5e-0cf25ec535c0" CreationDate="2016-05-10T21:05:36.023" UserId="68" Text="If you're looking for an English-to-Latin dictionary, I recommend *A Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary*, by William Smith and Theophilus (!) Hall. The most recent edition was published in 1871, so there are lots of ways in which it's not really suitable for today: many English words have changed their meanings since then, and many more have changed nuances. However, it's still an excellent resource. There's a reprint published by Bolchazy-Carducci. You can download a scan of the original [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QacujJRVXbELZNMqgjwJPDRlzAtkato0LfzmtpwsIBDIMmhxzrnOt47Ofxfe1Dg94fw8tq2kgu2EDLL7nAVDfena4Ko7cpAcAj16jQpx5mMnC2ezMN03jIR2RxRTqCIrQNU8duUp3Kmb_zePOS_xDVzY6zBHOHJffyMY7yaAEkK3GvtCDp15TiUuLd3pAKQl6qUz5lXTulMCxm0ieACb9nhnXWghUhBzUYieHm77dapxfqKLkwpI6Oy4zr7wl-xUR2nIOOyv9E1SWW5hWvbOYv5pavQr5A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2996" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="743f2ebc-fafa-44d4-a3f7-9402dfc6eeec" CreationDate="2016-05-10T21:05:36.023" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="2997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="479ed11a-d55a-4e90-af4c-f3fe7e04f20e" CreationDate="2016-05-10T21:18:24.420" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 89 characters in body" Text="If you're looking for an English-to-Latin dictionary, I recommend *A Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary*, by William Smith and Theophilus (!) Hall. The most recent edition was published in 1871, so there are lots of ways in which it's not really suitable for today: many English words have changed their meanings since then, and many more have changed nuances. However, it's still an excellent resource. There's a reprint published by Bolchazy-Carducci. You can download a scan of the original [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=jeQIAQAAIAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=copious%20and%20critical%20english-latin%20dictionary&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi2vp2mt9DMAhWCLsAKHd_BAF0Q6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=copious%20and%20critical%20english-latin%20dictionary&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="a6bf2ca3-90f2-464b-a60a-8b5996bad20a" CreationDate="2016-05-10T21:19:36.370" UserId="12" Comment="remove stuff from link that isn't needed; make link more visible" Text="If you're looking for an English-to-Latin dictionary, I recommend *A Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary*, by William Smith and Theophilus (!) Hall. The most recent edition was published in 1871, so there are lots of ways in which it's not really suitable for today: many English words have changed their meanings since then, and many more have changed nuances. However, it's still an excellent resource. There's a reprint published by Bolchazy-Carducci. A [scan of the original is available for download][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=jeQIAQAAIAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="874" RevisionGUID="5c74d2a7-aacb-433d-9e4f-aea41bda1ad0" CreationDate="2016-05-10T21:40:31.010" UserId="79" Text="Some cabbages do form a layered spherical structure much like onions.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore cabbages are much more suitable for describing spherical (layered) objects than many other words.&#xD;&#xA;A hollow sphere is not far from a spherical layer, and stratum is a layer.&#xD;&#xA;The connection between (2), (3) and cabbages seems quite clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of things remain unclear to me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I can see the connection between cabbages and spherical things, but not why it would have to be young cabbages in particular.&#xD;&#xA;It might be helpful to know what varieties of cabbage were available in antiquity.&#xD;&#xA;Many farmed plants have evolved quite a lot in the last two millennia.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the ancient cabbage was round as young and then took some other shape later on (opened up?).&#xD;&#xA;- I can see why the Greek verb gives rise to *cyma* referring to a sprout, but why cabbage?&#xD;&#xA;You didn't ask this, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="872" RevisionGUID="7ce8813e-0d11-4ee7-bfdf-2f4144f4de42" CreationDate="2016-05-10T21:41:31.797" UserId="79" Comment="Made the indentations more consistent." Text="&gt;[ [Wiktionary :](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cyma#Latin) ] **Etymology**       &#xD;&#xA;From the Ancient Greek κῦμα ‎(kûma), from κύω ‎(kúō, “I am pregnant, I conceive”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*κυμαί ‎(*kumaí), the first-declension nominative plural form which would give precedent to the Latin cȳmae, does not occur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. a young sprout of a cabbage      &#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. hollow sphere&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. spherical layer, stratum&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. spring shoots of cabbage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What underlying semantic notions connect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. 'cabbage shoots or sprouts' (1 and 4) to 'hollow sphere' (2)?   &#xD;&#xA;[Cabbage shoots](https://www.google.com/search?q=hollow+sphere&amp;safe=off&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjJ6JP0pNDMAhWJ6oMKHdTSCAUQ_AUIBygB&amp;biw=1280&amp;bih=597#safe=off&amp;tbm=isch&amp;q=young+sprout+cabbage&amp;imgrc=_) do not appear spherical; a cabbage does (but which this noun does not mean).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. 'stratum' (3) to all the other meanings? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="876" RevisionGUID="a2b04c8e-73cd-4dc2-9b74-41285fa00915" CreationDate="2016-05-11T12:32:53.627" UserId="469" Text="First of all, I must confess I don't know many. However, the one I commonly use meets my needs pretty well and isn't mentioned above: it is University of Notre Dame's [Latin Dictionary and Grammar Aid][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pros:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 15,000+ Words. Classical-Latin prone.&#xD;&#xA;- Latin and English search, very intuitive. It looks for words *starting with* your query by default, allowing great flexibility.&#xD;&#xA;- Conjugation and declension descriptions by their principal parts.&#xD;&#xA;- My vocabulary is not very broad, but I have found it reliable enough so far.&#xD;&#xA;- It offers a couple more resources besides the dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cons:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Doesn't cite any sources. So if you want to perform an academic translation to Latin, maybe it won't be enough. Even the original dictionary source is unkown. Like, literally: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Florin Neumann, who found the data on the Internet (...) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- No examples of usage.&#xD;&#xA;- No length markings.&#xD;&#xA;- When looking for a common English word to translate to Latin, you might get a too many unwanted results, since it searches whole entries in the Latin dictionary (just for fun, try searching [*the*][2]: it gives maybe 3,000 entries).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://archives.nd.edu/latgramm.htm&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://latin.campus.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookdown.pl?the" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3005" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="876" RevisionGUID="4f03eab6-e7b6-4de0-bde7-2bfdf686b4ff" CreationDate="2016-05-11T12:32:53.627" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="3006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="877" RevisionGUID="e9e09796-6779-4cca-bd65-4578bf68472a" CreationDate="2016-05-11T16:34:30.500" UserId="45" Text="One option to consider is the online [Latin-English Dictionary](http://www.latin-english.com/). It is essentially an online version of William Whitaker's words, and uses the exact same word list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Full disclosure: this is a shameless self-plug for a side-project I worked on while teaching myself Python / Django.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Pros&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. 35,000+ words&#xD;&#xA;2. Can accept and parse inflected words. (Searching for [*tulisset*](http://www.latin-english.com/latin/tulisset/), [*gnaee*](http://www.latin-english.com/latin/gnaee/), and [*maria*](http://www.latin-english.com/latin/maria/) all return the appropriate entries.)&#xD;&#xA;3. Basic word-usage information, especially for medieval words/spellings&#xD;&#xA;4. Relatively smart English-Latin translation with some advanced search&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Cons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Few word usage examples or citations from classical authors&#xD;&#xA;2. Generic &quot;list-style&quot; definitions&#xD;&#xA;3. Unable to accept more than one word at a time&#xD;&#xA;4. Server speed needs some work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3007" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="877" RevisionGUID="362e8bdb-77ef-494b-9b72-7210892e6b37" CreationDate="2016-05-11T16:34:30.500" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="3008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="878" RevisionGUID="c86a7ae9-e843-49ae-924a-70969aed1fca" CreationDate="2016-05-11T18:10:02.250" UserId="68" Text="The first sentence of Cicero's second Catilinarian reads in part&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Tandem aliquando, Quirites, L. Catilinam . . . ex urbe . . . ejecimus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I realize I'm leaving out all the fun parts; forgive me.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't say &quot;Finally at some point, Romans,&quot; etc. in English, so I'm trying to figure out what flavor *aliquando* adds to *tandem*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yonge translates the part I've quoted as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At length, O Romans, we have dismissed from the city . . . Lucius Catiline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Grant gives&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At long last, citizens, Lucius Catilina . . . has been expelled from Rome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;At length&quot; seems like a straight translation of *tandem*. I imagine that &quot;at long last&quot; could add to &quot;at last&quot; a flavor of having waited for something a very long time, but I could also just be making that up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A search of the corpus for *tandem aliquando* shows several occurrences (many in the Catilinarians), but I can't figure out from any of the rest of them what &quot;aliquando&quot; is doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the difference between *tandem* and *tandem aliquando*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3009" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="878" RevisionGUID="c86a7ae9-e843-49ae-924a-70969aed1fca" CreationDate="2016-05-11T18:10:02.250" UserId="68" Text="Flavor/meaning/nuance of &quot;aliquando&quot; in &quot;tandem aliquando&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3010" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="878" RevisionGUID="c86a7ae9-e843-49ae-924a-70969aed1fca" CreationDate="2016-05-11T18:10:02.250" UserId="68" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="879" RevisionGUID="ff3ad698-4b1d-4ecb-b260-8dcda9308d27" CreationDate="2016-05-12T15:14:33.713" UserId="469" Text="`Aliquando` (at some point in time) besides `Tandem` (finally) seems to be adding that the end of a -long or eagerly expected- process (expelling LC) was reached after an undeterminate waiting period (thus emphasizing that it felt long)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="879" RevisionGUID="2f68424e-db65-4590-8c33-c1b145aa48a4" CreationDate="2016-05-12T18:16:43.603" UserId="469" Comment="edited body" Text="`Aliquando` (at some point in time) besides `Tandem` (finally) seems to be adding that the -long or eagerly expected- end of a process (expelling LC) was reached after an undeterminate waiting period (thus emphasizing that it felt long)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="948b048d-fb83-4765-8db4-24e83f496a77" CreationDate="2016-05-13T01:28:50.223" UserId="473" Text="In [Avenged Sevenfold's &quot;Requiem&quot;][1] there is a passage in latin in the very beginning of the song. It says something like:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Prodigia comploratus&#xA;Silens, oro&#xA;Regnet exitium&#xA;&#xA;I know nothing about this language but I assume that the written above is Latin. What does that mean (if it means anything)?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://youtu.be/mV7bND-_KdI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3014" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="948b048d-fb83-4765-8db4-24e83f496a77" CreationDate="2016-05-13T01:28:50.223" UserId="473" Text="What is the translation for this song passage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3015" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="948b048d-fb83-4765-8db4-24e83f496a77" CreationDate="2016-05-13T01:28:50.223" UserId="473" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="881" RevisionGUID="cdb16094-5ec9-402e-8248-ca6c214c0ad0" CreationDate="2016-05-13T04:23:42.557" UserId="68" Text="Alas, @Tendero, I'm afraid that *prodigia comploratus silens oro regnet exitium* doesn't have a coherent meaning as a Latin expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Comploratus silens* means something like &quot;silent lamentation,&quot; but there isn't any way for *prodigia* (which means &quot;wonders&quot; or &quot;miracles&quot;) to go along with it grammatically—&quot;silent lamentation of wonders&quot; would work in English but for the Latin to mean that, *prodigia* would have to be something like *prodigiis*. *Oro **ut** regnet exitium* would mean more or less &quot;I beg destruction to reign&quot; or &quot;I beg that destruction might reign,&quot; but without the *ut*, as in the lines you quote, it doesn't really work either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this isn't too disappointing!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="882" RevisionGUID="eb731efa-bd80-42da-b085-cefab5929933" CreationDate="2016-05-13T13:18:36.300" UserId="45" Text="Actually, I disagree: this sentence does have a coherent meaning in Latin, if my parsing is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than as a noun, I read *comploratus* as the past participle of [*comploro*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcomploro) which has attested forms of taking the accusative (see the first example in the linked entry). It is rare and post-Augustinian, but it is not *incorrect*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest is not hard to put together, if you understand *comploratus* as a past participle and *silens* as a present participle both modifying *ego*. The last trick would be to put a colon after *oro* and see &quot;regnet exitium&quot; as direct discourse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Prodigia comporatus		Having bewailed these [bad] portents,&#xD;&#xA;silens, oro:			Keeping silence, I pray:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Regnet exitium.&quot;		&quot;Let destruction reign.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="882" RevisionGUID="b40cfafe-af4f-4f79-9de7-2dceb1353baf" CreationDate="2016-05-13T13:34:10.910" UserId="45" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Actually, I disagree: this sentence does have a coherent meaning in Latin, if my parsing is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than as a noun, I read *comploratus* as the past participle of [*comploro*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcomploro) which has attested forms of taking the accusative (see the first example in the linked entry). It is rare and post-Augustinian, but it is not *incorrect*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest is not hard to put together, if you understand *comploratus* as a past participle and *silens* as a present participle both modifying *ego*. The last trick would be to put a colon after *oro* and see &quot;regnet exitium&quot; as direct discourse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Prodigia comploratus,		Having bewailed these [bad] portents,&#xD;&#xA;silens, oro:				Keeping silence, I pray:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Regnet exitium.&quot;			&quot;Let destruction reign.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="9a574dfe-594a-4c60-959c-a975a5e67a1e" CreationDate="2016-05-13T15:45:57.990" UserId="473" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="In [Avenged Sevenfold's &quot;Requiem&quot;][1] there is a passage in latin in the very beginning of the song. It says something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prodigia comploratus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Silens, oro&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Regnet exitium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know nothing about this language but I assume that the written above is Latin. What does that mean (if it means anything)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://youtu.be/mV7bND-_KdI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="882" RevisionGUID="7b5ca990-fbb0-48c6-855c-4ce7114f6229" CreationDate="2016-05-13T19:41:36.943" UserId="45" Comment="added 575 characters in body" Text="Actually, I disagree: this sentence does have a coherent meaning in Latin, if my parsing is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than as a noun, I read *comploratus* as the past participle of [*comploro*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcomploro) which has attested forms of taking the accusative (see the first example in the linked entry). It is rare and post-Augustinian, but it is not *incorrect*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest is not hard to put together, if you understand *comploratus* as a past participle and *silens* as a present participle both modifying *ego*. The last trick would be to put a colon after *oro* and see &quot;regnet exitium&quot; as direct discourse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Prodigia comploratus,		Having bewailed these [bad] portents,&#xD;&#xA;silens, oro:				Keeping silence, I pray:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Regnet exitium.&quot;			&quot;Let destruction reign.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As @TKR pointed out in the comments, *comploratus* can only be interpreted as active (&quot;having bewailed&quot;) rather than passive (&quot;having been bewailed&quot;) if it is deponent. I do not see any precedent for this, so it turns out that the phrase *is*  bad Latin, because a passive participle cannot take an accusative direct object in this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I *still* think that this is a more probably interpretation of what they were getting at and shows perhaps a little more effort on their part than visiting our friends at [Google Translate](http://google.com/translate)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3021" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="882" RevisionGUID="ab1de75a-5a24-4919-aedd-de822c1b832f" CreationDate="2016-05-13T19:49:17.487" UserId="12" Comment="typo" Text="Actually, I disagree: this sentence does have a coherent meaning in Latin, if my parsing is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than as a noun, I read *comploratus* as the past participle of [*comploro*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcomploro) which has attested forms of taking the accusative (see the first example in the linked entry). It is rare and post-Augustinian, but it is not *incorrect*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest is not hard to put together, if you understand *comploratus* as a past participle and *silens* as a present participle both modifying *ego*. The last trick would be to put a colon after *oro* and see &quot;regnet exitium&quot; as direct discourse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Prodigia comploratus,		Having bewailed these [bad] portents,&#xD;&#xA;silens, oro:				Keeping silence, I pray:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Regnet exitium.&quot;			&quot;Let destruction reign.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As @TKR pointed out in the comments, *comploratus* can only be interpreted as active (&quot;having bewailed&quot;) rather than passive (&quot;having been bewailed&quot;) if it is deponent. I do not see any precedent for this, so it turns out that the phrase *is*  bad Latin, because a passive participle cannot take an accusative direct object in this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I *still* think that this is a more probable interpretation of what they were getting at and shows perhaps a little more effort on their part than visiting our friends at [Google Translate](http://google.com/translate)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="e5ba30d7-5a7c-4648-8992-f59c90b81f73" CreationDate="2016-05-13T20:28:02.917" UserId="469" Text="In Latin, there are prepositions that may be followed by a noun in accusative (like *ad*), ablative (*cum*) or both (*in*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I once thought *ope* was a preposition to be used with genitive, which I found pretty interesting because most Latin grammars do not mention it (I think I once read one that did, but I can't find it now). Then I realized it is just the dative of *ops* (in my defense, ope -*by the power or support* of sth- has a very preposition-ish meaning). Nevertheless, doing some linguistics-fiction I wondered it was a feasible way for such a preposition to *evolve* after the desappearence of other uses of *ops*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then I found [this site][1], stating that there is the preposition *tenus*, which actually *works* with genitive. I've never heard of that one, and the page does not cite any sources, but there are [other sources][2] that favor the point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Latin is mostly *ecclesiastical*, so I am more or less ignorant of many classical- and medieval-specific features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: were prepositions with genitive a real thing at any point in Latin history? Is there more than one such preposition?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.informalmusic.com/latinsoc/prep.html&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://latin.campus.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=tenus&amp;ending=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3023" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="e5ba30d7-5a7c-4648-8992-f59c90b81f73" CreationDate="2016-05-13T20:28:02.917" UserId="469" Text="Prepositions with genitive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3024" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="e5ba30d7-5a7c-4648-8992-f59c90b81f73" CreationDate="2016-05-13T20:28:02.917" UserId="469" Text="|preposition|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="884" RevisionGUID="7b0b23f7-346d-4fbe-b7cb-45da60f4b94e" CreationDate="2016-05-13T21:16:28.307" UserId="476" Text="What is the role of *eadem mutata* in this phrase? I'm guessing either neuter plural accusative of extent, or feminine nominative as apposition to an implied *ego*. The original context of this line is limited and I couldn't find any detailed imformation about the background that prompted this phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3026" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="884" RevisionGUID="7b0b23f7-346d-4fbe-b7cb-45da60f4b94e" CreationDate="2016-05-13T21:16:28.307" UserId="476" Text="eadem mutata resurgo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3027" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="884" RevisionGUID="7b0b23f7-346d-4fbe-b7cb-45da60f4b94e" CreationDate="2016-05-13T21:16:28.307" UserId="476" Text="|accusative|ablative|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="885" RevisionGUID="c6b38b0c-f56c-4ebd-9f7b-383eb6824872" CreationDate="2016-05-13T21:27:12.253" UserId="79" Text="Latin has such a long history that at some point some native &amp;mdash; or otherwise very fluent &amp;mdash; speakers surely have disagreed about what is correct and grammatical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know if such disagreements have survived in literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me formulate the question more precisely.&#xD;&#xA;(Partial answers or interesting observations about the topic are welcome as answers, though; I don't mean to discourage anyone from answering.)&#xD;&#xA;What is the earliest written record of grammatical disagreement, like &quot;This other author wrote that *plenus* comes with ablative but he is wrong since it should always come with a genitive attribute&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Ideally I would like to see a situation where two grammarians disagree on some point and the later writer is aware of the disagreement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3029" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="885" RevisionGUID="c6b38b0c-f56c-4ebd-9f7b-383eb6824872" CreationDate="2016-05-13T21:27:12.253" UserId="79" Text="Were there grammatical disagreements in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3030" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="885" RevisionGUID="c6b38b0c-f56c-4ebd-9f7b-383eb6824872" CreationDate="2016-05-13T21:27:12.253" UserId="79" Text="|grammar|grammarians|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="886" RevisionGUID="801bfa84-116e-44a8-b847-99892b9396ec" CreationDate="2016-05-13T21:41:47.873" UserId="79" Text="Without additional context I am inclined to view *eadem mutata* as an absolute ablative.&#xD;&#xA;Then your phrase *eadem mutata resurgo* would mean something like &quot;I rise again when/because the same thing has changed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is impossible to provide a good general translation without further context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me extend your phrase a little bit to see how it could work in a fuller sentence.&#xD;&#xA;This extension is just an example I came up with, since I have no idea of the origin of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Rerum condicio pessima erat et eius causa cecidi. At eadem mutata resurgo nunc.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The situation was very bad and I fell. But now that it (the situation) has changed, I rise again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="886" RevisionGUID="8c957b3e-11c7-45d7-81b5-ea012acff64a" CreationDate="2016-05-13T21:52:29.750" UserId="79" Comment="added 659 characters in body" Text="Without additional context I am inclined to view *eadem mutata* as an absolute ablative.&#xD;&#xA;Then your phrase *eadem mutata resurgo* would mean something like &quot;I rise again when/because the same thing has changed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is impossible to provide a good general translation without further context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me extend your phrase a little bit to see how it could work in a fuller sentence.&#xD;&#xA;This extension is just an example I came up with, since I have no idea of the origin of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Rerum condicio pessima erat et eius causa cecidi. At eadem mutata resurgo nunc.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The situation was very bad and I fell. But now that it (the situation) has changed, I rise again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rafael points to the [Wikipedia article on the phrase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eadem_mutata_resurgo) in his comment below.&#xD;&#xA;The interpretation offered there is indeed grammatical; there are just numerous grammatical ways to read a short expression like this, and this makes context so important.&#xD;&#xA;In this reading a feminine *ego* is understood as the subject and *eadem* and *mutata* are appositions.&#xD;&#xA;The subject raises again, being both the same as before and changed.&#xD;&#xA;One can see this from many angles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Although changed, I rise as the same.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Although the same, I rise changed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I rise changed and unchanged.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- (and other options)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="887" RevisionGUID="cce1808b-2b89-45c1-bc6e-f08f89a72a81" CreationDate="2016-05-14T01:03:09.580" UserId="469" Text="I've been thinking of this one and suddenly remebered the use of *singulis* + period of time in pl. abl. (*singulis annis*, *singulis horis*). ***Singulis quadrienniis*** is even attested a couple of times: [1](https://books.google.cl/books?id=UQNFAAAAcAAJ&amp;lpg=PA454&amp;ots=laIztjXV6M&amp;dq=%22singulis%20quadrienniis%22&amp;pg=PA454#v=onepage&amp;q=%22singulis%20quadrienniis%22&amp;f=false), [2](https://books.google.cl/books?id=THFBAAAAcAAJ&amp;lpg=PA89&amp;ots=UgCuBKSb5y&amp;dq=%22singulis%20quadrienniis%22&amp;pg=PA89#v=onepage&amp;q=%22singulis%20quadrienniis%22&amp;f=false), [3](https://books.google.cl/books/about/Elenchus_tractatuum_et_quaestionum_quas.html?id=Tbg4QwAACAAJ&amp;redir_esc=y).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to be valid to mean an average (yet irregular) frequency, as much as a steady one (e.gr., singulis annis may be every 13th of May, or at whatever date but once in every calendar year). However, that doesn't seem to be such big deal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="888" RevisionGUID="82261c67-8e27-4652-a390-ff80ec374d87" CreationDate="2016-05-14T21:02:04.627" UserId="79" Text="The best free, online Latin-English dictionary is undoubtedly Lewis and Short. There are several ways to access it, too, and they are given in separate answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most people seem to go straight to Tufts' Perseus website, which has the [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.04.0059) in its entirety. As it provides a direct link to each word, this is a great way to link someone to a definition. Moreover, their [Morphological Word Study Tool](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?) is a god-send to any new student, and it also has morphological analysis for Ancient Greek, Arabic, and (new!) Old Norse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For just dictionary-entry look up, it's probably not the best interface. It's rather slow, for one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3036" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="888" RevisionGUID="decb05b3-88a4-4fcb-b7a5-3c03ec0d4857" CreationDate="2016-05-14T21:02:04.627" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="889" RevisionGUID="87b269c0-fbab-436f-b870-fc189dc4ee2e" CreationDate="2016-05-14T21:05:54.300" UserId="79" Text="One option is [Philolog.us](http://philolog.us/) which not only allows for quick looking up of entries in Lewis and Short, but also the Greek dictionaries Liddel and Scott's and Slater's *Lexicon to Pindar*. The big bonus for Philologus is its iPhone app. Sorry Android users, no Philologus yet, though I know one is in the works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3038" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="889" RevisionGUID="11476437-f6df-4070-a9a4-5e49eecd3ee7" CreationDate="2016-05-14T21:05:54.300" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="890" RevisionGUID="f2368204-c7ae-4110-abfa-43b7df149fac" CreationDate="2016-05-14T21:08:41.720" UserId="79" Text="For more thorough comparisons with different Latin dictionaries, including the Latin-Dutch dictionary LaNe, one can use Chicago's [Logeion](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html). You can type in either Latin or Greek (transliterated or unicode) and it will bring up a drop down menu for you to select the word (good for seeing a bunch of potentially related words very quickly). Besides LaNe and Lewis and Short, it also includes the Frieze-Dennison's lexicon to Vergil's Aeneid and, great for many members here, the Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources for those special Medieval Latin words (e.g. [dictamen](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#dictamen))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3040" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="890" RevisionGUID="09a511be-4bf2-422b-b7e2-65bac346270e" CreationDate="2016-05-14T21:08:41.720" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="0490c090-eac0-47fe-b290-cf6230ab35a1" CreationDate="2016-05-14T21:12:58.637" UserId="79" Comment="Added another way to access the dictionary. This was in C. M. Weimer's old meta answer." Text="If you're looking for an English-to-Latin dictionary, I recommend *A Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary*, by William Smith and Theophilus (!) Hall. The most recent edition was published in 1871, so there are lots of ways in which it's not really suitable for today: many English words have changed their meanings since then, and many more have changed nuances. However, it's still an excellent resource. There's a reprint published by Bolchazy-Carducci. A [scan of the original is available for download](https://books.google.com/books?id=jeQIAQAAIAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get a PDF of the scanned book through [Archive.org](https://archive.org/details/copiouscriticale00smit). Besides searching the PDF, you can also get a quick list of results through [Google Books](https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Copious_and_Critical_English_Latin_Dic.html?id=dM0GAQAAIAAJ).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3042" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="2bf199d0-5551-48a3-927f-e05bb807161b" CreationDate="2016-05-14T22:55:26.193" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|declension|derivation|adverb|grammarians|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="891" RevisionGUID="295133d1-fa81-4406-b5ba-670f34192ba6" CreationDate="2016-05-14T22:58:52.070" UserId="79" Text="One can derive nouns from verbs by attaching *-us* or *-io* to the perfect participle stem.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *movere* gives rise to *motus* and *motio*.&#xD;&#xA;The meanings of these derived words are quite close to each other.&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between *-us* and *-io*?&#xD;&#xA;I am not looking for a comparison of *motus* and *motio*, but a broader view of the difference of these to suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;I understand that a general rule will probably have exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my understanding of the difference (which I would like to have corrected or verified):&#xD;&#xA;The suffix *-io* produces a noun for the general phenomenon related to the verb, whereas *-us* gives a single instance of the phenomenon or action.&#xD;&#xA;For instance, *motio* means motion in general (the fact that things move, ability to move) where as *motus* means a more concrete single movement or gesture.&#xD;&#xA;This division is not strict, however, and both suffixes can mean both things, but this is the general difference in tone.&#xD;&#xA;(Do not take this paragraph for a fact. These are just my thoughts that lack justification. The descriptions of *motio* and *motus* are supposed to illustrate my general point, not be accurate translations of these words.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3044" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="891" RevisionGUID="295133d1-fa81-4406-b5ba-670f34192ba6" CreationDate="2016-05-14T22:58:52.070" UserId="79" Text="What is the difference between -us and -io?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3045" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="891" RevisionGUID="295133d1-fa81-4406-b5ba-670f34192ba6" CreationDate="2016-05-14T22:58:52.070" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|derivation|suffixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="892" RevisionGUID="9c9b3a6e-d596-4a5b-be2f-e8b86757b83f" CreationDate="2016-05-15T00:04:46.827" UserId="68" Text="Unfortunately, it seems that people have tried for centuries to answer this question, with limited success or at least limited consistency. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his 1841 *Dictionary of Latin Synonymes*, Lewis Ramshorn indicates that fourth-declension words derived from the supine &quot;designate permanent conditions,&quot; while third-declention words in *-tio* and *-sio* designate &quot;activity with regard to an object or a suffering, passive subject.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, *Latinæ Grammaticæ Curriculum*, printed in 1844 with no author I can find listed, in discussing the difference suggests that &quot;generally the forms in *io* denote the action as *happening*; those in *us* as *having happened*: but this distinction is not always maintained.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gustav Fischer's 1879 *Latin Grammar: Etymology and an introduction of syntax*, is courageous enough to say that &quot;sometimes the same verb forms nouns with both endings, *io* and *us*, with a kindred but somewhat different signification,&quot; but then doesn't say anything else about it—he just gives examples!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I take this collection of explanations to mean, &quot;Nobody really knows, and we can come up with explanations but they're all sort of lame.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I find anything more definitive I'll update this answer.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="893" RevisionGUID="a491dae1-1232-4cbe-87a2-d8ed40de846a" CreationDate="2016-05-15T09:45:39.433" UserId="324" Text="I assume that you are asking about nouns like motus, -ūs, not the perfect passive participle motus, -ī. The former is one of many masculine abstract deverbal nouns with the suffix –tu-, like cantus “singing”, and similar formations in Greek, Sanskrit etc. These are not from the p.p.p. as such; they merely share the element /t/. From an IE perspective, the abstract noun is from *-tu-, the participle from *-to-. See Buck, Comparative grammar of Greek and Latin (1933) p. 338.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin suffix –iōn- forms masculine agent nouns like histriō “actor”, and feminine abstract nouns like regiō “direction”. See Buck p. 322.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="894" RevisionGUID="5702dbc1-5d03-4338-b939-a74d42220e5e" CreationDate="2016-05-15T11:51:11.057" UserId="480" Text="For example I recently came across this sentence (a practice sentence with no given answer) in my Latin textbook: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    mare nostrum plurimos portus habet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I translated this as 'The sea has most of our harbour.' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I am not sure that I have got this translation right as `nostrum` and `plurimos` are both accusative plural. Is `portus` a partitive genitive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it not be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    mare plurimos nostrorum portus habet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where `nostrorum` agrees in case with `portus`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3049" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="894" RevisionGUID="5702dbc1-5d03-4338-b939-a74d42220e5e" CreationDate="2016-05-15T11:51:11.057" UserId="480" Text="Do Possessive Pronouns Always Agree with the Thing Being Possessed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3050" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="894" RevisionGUID="5702dbc1-5d03-4338-b939-a74d42220e5e" CreationDate="2016-05-15T11:51:11.057" UserId="480" Text="|pronouns|agreement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="895" RevisionGUID="4f2ed033-662a-4c89-8174-30bc31f92f64" CreationDate="2016-05-15T13:06:17.810" UserId="469" Text="In my opinion, the most likely translation of the sentece is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our sea has many docks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Mare Nostrum` was a common name given by the Romans to the Mediterranean Sea around the I century AD, since the empire possesed all of its coast by that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your question in the title, **yes** adjectives and pronouns must agree in gender, number *and* case with the respective noun. In this case, `nostrum` acts as an adjective, since it isn't replacing any nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Mare` and `nostrum` are *neuters* in nominative, singular (sing. neut. are the same in nom., voc., and acc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Portus` belongs to the fourth declension, meaning that it forms its accusative plural with -us, just as its nom. singular. In this case, `portus` agrees with `plurimos` to say *many docks* as the object of the verb `habere` (hence it is not in genitive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="895" RevisionGUID="863a9056-c77d-40f4-9bc3-3ea91c2df1de" CreationDate="2016-05-15T13:11:31.667" UserId="469" Comment="added comment on alternative Latin sentence offered by asker" Text="In my opinion, the most likely translation of the sentece is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our sea has many docks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Mare Nostrum` was a common name given by the Romans to the Mediterranean Sea around the I century AD, since the empire possesed all of its coast by that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your question in the title, **yes** adjectives and pronouns must agree in gender, number *and* case with the respective noun. In this case, `nostrum` acts as an adjective, since it isn't replacing any nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Mare` and `nostrum` are *neuters* in nominative, singular (sing. neut. are the same in nom., voc., and acc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Portus` belongs to the fourth declension, meaning that it forms its accusative plural with -us, just as its nom. singular. In this case, `portus` agrees with `plurimos` to say *many docks* as the object of the verb `habere` (hence it is not in genitive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I forgot to mention the alternative sentence you offered. Since `portus` is plural, `mare plurimos nostrorum portus habet` may well mean *The sea has most of our* harbours. No need for partitive plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="895" RevisionGUID="c6382e58-c5a0-4f6b-805f-f04ae6fd331c" CreationDate="2016-05-15T13:30:29.343" UserId="469" Comment="corrected mistake with gen. pl. of portus" Text="In my opinion, the most likely translation of the sentece is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our sea has many docks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Mare Nostrum` was a common name given by the Romans to the Mediterranean Sea around the I century AD, since the empire possesed all of its coast by that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your question in the title, **yes** adjectives and pronouns must agree in gender, number *and* case with the respective noun. In this case, `nostrum` acts as an adjective, since it isn't replacing any nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Mare` and `nostrum` are *neuters* in nominative, singular (sing. neut. are the same in nom., voc., and acc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Portus` belongs to the fourth declension, meaning that it forms its accusative plural with -us, just as its nom. singular. In this case, `portus` agrees with `plurimos` to say *many docks* as the object of the verb `habere` (hence it is not in genitive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** about the alternative sentence you offered: Since `portus` is plural, `mare plurimos nostrorum portus habet` agrees in number: no need for partitive plural. However, as Brianpck notes, portus should change to `portuum` in order to be in genitive and agree with `nostrorum`, so that the sentence can mean *The sea has most of our harbours*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="889" RevisionGUID="3de3d23e-b12a-4e13-9ad5-17cc6eee5233" CreationDate="2016-05-15T13:59:11.877" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="One option is [Philolog.us](http://philolog.us/) which not only allows for quick looking up of entries in Lewis and Short, but also the Greek dictionaries Liddel and Scott's and Slater's *Lexicon to Pindar*. The big bonus for Philologus is its iPhone app. Sorry Android users, no Philologus yet, though one is in the works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="895" RevisionGUID="5a418f7d-67e0-4e41-9583-1df48a5fc225" CreationDate="2016-05-15T14:03:14.347" UserId="68" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In my opinion, the most likely translation of the sentece is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our sea has many docks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Mare Nostrum` was a common name given by the Romans to the Mediterranean Sea around the I century AD, since the empire possesed all of its coast by that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your question in the title, **yes** adjectives and pronouns must agree in gender, number *and* case with the respective noun. In this case, `nostrum` acts as an adjective, since it isn't replacing any nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Mare` and `nostrum` are *neuters* in nominative, singular (sing. neut. are the same in nom., voc., and acc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Portus` belongs to the fourth declension, meaning that it forms its accusative plural with -us, just as its nom. singular. In this case, `portus` agrees with `plurimos` to say *many docks* as the object of the verb `habere` (hence it is not in genitive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** about the alternative sentence you offered: Since `portus` is plural, `mare plurimos nostrorum portus habet` agrees in number: no need for partitive plural. However, as @brianpck notes, portus should change to `portuum` in order to be in genitive and agree with `nostrorum`, so that the sentence can mean *The sea has most of our harbours*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="896" RevisionGUID="831dc3b5-ad61-4bae-b614-98c267eda09c" CreationDate="2016-05-15T20:13:58.340" UserId="79" Text="In all examples I have seen, the *ne* in *ne &amp;hellip; quidem* means *non*, not *ne*.&#xD;&#xA;That is, in those examples one could replace *ne &amp;hellip; quidem* with *non* (changing &quot;not even&quot; to &quot;not&quot;) but not with *ne*.&#xD;&#xA;Are there examples in classical literature where the *ne* is actually a *ne* (could be replaced with *ne*)?&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see an authentic example to convince myself that this is possible, assuming it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me try to illustrate what I'm looking for by an artificial example.&#xD;&#xA;First, consider this simple example with *non* and *ne*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Non hodie canis.* &amp;mdash; *Spero, ne hodie canas.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You do not sing today. &amp;mdash; I hope that you will not sing today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us then add *quidem* to emphasize the negation on &quot;today&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ne hodie quidem canis.* &amp;mdash; *Spero, ne hodie quidem canas.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You do not sing today, either. &amp;mdash; I hope that you will not sing today, either.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (For both statement and hope: You usually don't sing and today is no exception.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen various examples of structures like *ne hodie quidem* which mean *non hodie* but emphasize the negation with *quidem*.&#xD;&#xA;What I have never seen is *ne hodie quidem* in a clause where you would expect *ne* instead of *non* if you drop the *quidem*.&#xD;&#xA;Using the word *hodie* is not important, of course; I am looking for *ne &amp;hellip; quidem* with anything in between." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3057" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="896" RevisionGUID="831dc3b5-ad61-4bae-b614-98c267eda09c" CreationDate="2016-05-15T20:13:58.340" UserId="79" Text="Can *ne* in *ne ... quidem* mean *ne* instead of *non*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3058" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="896" RevisionGUID="831dc3b5-ad61-4bae-b614-98c267eda09c" CreationDate="2016-05-15T20:13:58.340" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="896" RevisionGUID="c886f291-8971-44e0-8a86-ad0a840c1ab5" CreationDate="2016-05-16T06:19:22.613" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 56 characters in body" Text="In all examples I have seen, the *ne* in *ne &amp;hellip; quidem* means *non*, not *ne*.&#xD;&#xA;That is, in those examples one could replace *ne &amp;hellip; quidem* with *non* (changing &quot;not even&quot; to &quot;not&quot;) but not with *ne*.&#xD;&#xA;Are there examples in classical literature where the *ne* is actually a *ne* (could be replaced with *ne*)?&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see an authentic example to convince myself that this is possible, assuming it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me try to illustrate what I'm looking for by an artificial example.&#xD;&#xA;First, consider this simple example with *non* and *ne*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Non hodie canis.* &amp;mdash; *Spero, ne hodie canas.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You do not sing today. &amp;mdash; I hope that you will not sing today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us then add *quidem*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ne hodie quidem canis.* &amp;mdash; *Spero, ne hodie quidem canas.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You do not sing today, either. &amp;mdash; I hope that you will not sing today, either.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (For both statement and hope: You usually don't sing and today is no exception.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen various examples of structures like *ne hodie quidem* which mean *non hodie* but have the *quidem*.&#xD;&#xA;What I have never seen is *ne hodie quidem* in a clause where you would expect *ne* instead of *non* if you drop the *quidem*.&#xD;&#xA;Using the word *hodie* is not important, of course; I am looking for *ne &amp;hellip; quidem* with anything in between." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="897" RevisionGUID="bc65b5cc-4351-4d5d-a01d-0a38e79fdda0" CreationDate="2016-05-16T06:35:13.737" UserId="79" Text="The following constructions feel simple enough:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;You don't even move.&quot; &amp;mdash; *Ne moveris quidem.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Don't move!&quot; &amp;mdash; *Noli movere!* or &quot;Ne motus sis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what if I want to give a negative order with &quot;even&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;That is, how to say &quot;Don't even move!&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding statement would containt *ne &amp;hellip; quidem*, but I'm not sure how to combine that with the order structure.&#xD;&#xA;Can I add the &quot;even&quot; (*quidem*) with both constructions, *noli* + infinitive and *ne* + perfect conjunctive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that I would get *Noli movere quidem!* and *Ne motus quidem sis!* but I have never seen either of these and I wonder if they are in fact grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is related to [another question about using *quidem*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/896/79), but not quite the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3061" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="897" RevisionGUID="bc65b5cc-4351-4d5d-a01d-0a38e79fdda0" CreationDate="2016-05-16T06:35:13.737" UserId="79" Text="How to say &quot;Don't even...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3062" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="897" RevisionGUID="bc65b5cc-4351-4d5d-a01d-0a38e79fdda0" CreationDate="2016-05-16T06:35:13.737" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|conjunctive|imperative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="896" RevisionGUID="e7b9ed31-f5ba-4157-b182-b2459b61618c" CreationDate="2016-05-16T11:09:24.833" UserId="68" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="In all examples I have seen, the *ne* in *ne &amp;hellip; quidem* means *non*, not *ne*.&#xD;&#xA;That is, in those examples one could replace *ne &amp;hellip; quidem* with *non* (changing &quot;not even&quot; to &quot;not&quot;) and still have a grammatically correct sentence but not with *ne*.&#xD;&#xA;Are there examples in classical literature where the *ne* is actually a *ne* (could be replaced with *ne* and still make the sentence grammatically correct)?&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see an authentic example to convince myself that this is possible, assuming it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me try to illustrate what I'm looking for by an artificial example.&#xD;&#xA;First, consider this simple example with *non* and *ne*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Non hodie canis.* &amp;mdash; *Spero, ne hodie canas.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You do not sing today. &amp;mdash; I hope that you will not sing today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us then add *quidem*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ne hodie quidem canis.* &amp;mdash; *Spero, ne hodie quidem canas.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You do not sing today, either. &amp;mdash; I hope that you will not sing today, either.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (For both statement and hope: You usually don't sing and today is no exception.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen various examples of structures like *ne hodie quidem* which mean *non hodie* but have the *quidem*.&#xD;&#xA;What I have never seen is *ne hodie quidem* in a clause where you would expect *ne* instead of *non* if you drop the *quidem* (so, introducing the subjunctive in a prohibition or a fear/danger clause).&#xD;&#xA;Using the word *hodie* is not important, of course; I am looking for *ne &amp;hellip; quidem* with anything in between." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="896" RevisionGUID="367c973d-9ba1-4475-a3de-a6d7a0ca42df" CreationDate="2016-05-16T11:14:22.623" UserId="68" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="In all examples I have seen, the *ne* in *ne &amp;hellip; quidem* could be replaced with *non* alone, leaving out the *quidem* (thus changing the meaning from &quot;not even&quot; to &quot;not&quot;), and still make a grammatically correct sentence but not with *ne*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there examples in classical literature where the *ne* in *ne &amp;hellip; quidem* could be replaced with *ne* alone, leaving out the *quidem*, and still make a grammatically correct sentence)?&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see an authentic example to convince myself that this is possible, assuming it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me try to illustrate what I'm looking for by an artificial example.&#xD;&#xA;First, consider this simple example with *non* and *ne*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Non hodie canis.* &amp;mdash; *Spero, ne hodie canas.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You do not sing today. &amp;mdash; I hope that you will not sing today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us then add *quidem*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ne hodie quidem canis.* &amp;mdash; *Spero, ne hodie quidem canas.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You do not sing today, either. &amp;mdash; I hope that you will not sing today, either.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (For both statement and hope: You usually don't sing and today is no exception.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen various examples of structures like *ne hodie quidem* which mean *non hodie* but have the *quidem*.&#xD;&#xA;What I have never seen is *ne hodie quidem* in a clause where you would expect *ne* instead of *non* if you drop the *quidem* (so, introducing the subjunctive in a prohibition or a fear/danger clause).&#xD;&#xA;Using the word *hodie* is not important, of course; I am looking for *ne &amp;hellip; quidem* with anything in between." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="896" RevisionGUID="a71eb5fe-f138-49e7-b401-f556ccc93ec6" CreationDate="2016-05-16T12:08:05.610" UserId="79" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="In all examples I have seen, the *ne* in *ne &amp;hellip; quidem* could be replaced with *non* alone, leaving out the *quidem* (thus changing the meaning from &quot;not even&quot; to &quot;not&quot;), and still make a grammatically correct sentence but not with *ne*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there examples in classical literature where the *ne* in *ne &amp;hellip; quidem* could be replaced with *ne* alone, leaving out the *quidem*, and still make a grammatically correct sentence?&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see an authentic example to convince myself that this is possible, assuming it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me try to illustrate what I'm looking for by an artificial example.&#xD;&#xA;First, consider this simple example with *non* and *ne*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Non hodie canis.* &amp;mdash; *Spero, ne hodie canas.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You do not sing today. &amp;mdash; I hope that you will not sing today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us then add *quidem*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ne hodie quidem canis.* &amp;mdash; *Spero, ne hodie quidem canas.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You do not sing today, either. &amp;mdash; I hope that you will not sing today, either.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (For both statement and hope: You usually don't sing and today is no exception.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen various examples of structures like *ne hodie quidem* which mean *non hodie* but have the *quidem*.&#xD;&#xA;What I have never seen is *ne hodie quidem* in a clause where you would expect *ne* instead of *non* if you drop the *quidem* (for example, introducing the conjunctive in a prohibition, fear or danger clause).&#xD;&#xA;Using the word *hodie* is not important, of course; I am looking for *ne &amp;hellip; quidem* with anything in between." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="898" RevisionGUID="48fc64f1-83c5-4ea9-8afe-8ec47655dad5" CreationDate="2016-05-16T17:56:54.670" UserId="45" Text="I believe I have found at least one example where *ne...quidem* replaces what would otherwise just be *ne*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in foribus scribat occupatam ésse se.  &#xD;&#xA;aut quod illa dicat peregre allatam epistulam,	  &#xD;&#xA;**ne epistula quidem ulla sit** in aedibus	  &#xD;&#xA;nec cerata adeo tabula;  (Plautus, *Asinaria*, IV.1)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="899" RevisionGUID="98a28a73-ed82-420e-b152-e986e190e1ce" CreationDate="2016-05-17T02:10:24.350" UserId="30" Text="Latin has quite a few words with -oe-, such as *Poenus* and *moenia*. But I've heard it said that all of those words are either translitterations from Greek -oi- or adopted from non-standard dialects of Latin (although I thought the Romans seldom passed on a chance to standardise variants, which is why Latin spelling is so uniform, compared to e.g. Greek or Mediaeval Dutch?). Is this true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are there other origins of -oe- in Latin than the two mentioned above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Was -oe- used more frequently in pre-classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3068" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="899" RevisionGUID="98a28a73-ed82-420e-b152-e986e190e1ce" CreationDate="2016-05-17T02:10:24.350" UserId="30" Text="Was -oe- used natively in standard classical Latin, or was every word with -oe- adopted from a foreign or non-standard origin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3069" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="899" RevisionGUID="98a28a73-ed82-420e-b152-e986e190e1ce" CreationDate="2016-05-17T02:10:24.350" UserId="30" Text="|greek|diphthong|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="273bb0df-6b36-415d-80fa-fb00abdf603d" CreationDate="2016-05-17T02:24:23.390" UserId="483" Text="There was a Greek play translated to Latin wherein a term was translated then to English as &quot;TRUMPED UP CHARGES&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Might somebody know the play and more particularly the term itself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3071" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="273bb0df-6b36-415d-80fa-fb00abdf603d" CreationDate="2016-05-17T02:24:23.390" UserId="483" Text="Phrase/term translation/request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3072" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="273bb0df-6b36-415d-80fa-fb00abdf603d" CreationDate="2016-05-17T02:24:23.390" UserId="483" Text="|phrase-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="901" RevisionGUID="4f821543-996f-41d5-8730-465a1a37c42a" CreationDate="2016-05-17T06:51:30.120" UserId="469" Text="With the little information you give, all that can be said is *calumnia* (pl. *calumniae*) is Latin (specifically, Roman law) for false accusation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3074" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="e100d378-f24b-4be0-8f94-38941ea0bd93" CreationDate="2016-05-17T11:01:44.177" UserId="79" Comment="Chose more suitable tags and edited the title. Feel free to re-edit." Text="Term translation request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3075" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="e100d378-f24b-4be0-8f94-38941ea0bd93" CreationDate="2016-05-17T11:01:44.177" UserId="79" Comment="Chose more suitable tags and edited the title. Feel free to re-edit." Text="|translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="9314e7fb-ef35-41f9-a7e2-ce79c0d1f94e" CreationDate="2016-05-17T11:36:58.383" UserId="12" Comment="more descriptive title" Text="There was a Greek play translated to Latin wherein a term was translated then to English as **&quot;trumped up charges&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Might somebody know the play and more particularly the term itself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3077" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="9314e7fb-ef35-41f9-a7e2-ce79c0d1f94e" CreationDate="2016-05-17T11:36:58.383" UserId="12" Comment="more descriptive title" Text="Translation of &quot;trumped up charges&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="902" RevisionGUID="e81d506d-1382-4189-814b-04d7813a66e3" CreationDate="2016-05-17T14:45:00.653" UserId="45" Text="I agree that [*calumnia*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=calumnia&amp;la=la#lexicon) is a good translation for a &quot;trumped-up charge.&quot; Here is one example from Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; condemnati erant Fabricii: nec elabi alio accusatore poterat Albius nec sine ignominia **calumniae** relinquere accusationem Cluentius ([Cic. Pro Cluentio, XXXI](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/cluentio.shtml))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *the Fabricii had been condemned; Albius could not possibly escape if there were any other prosecutor, nor could Cluentius abandon the prosecution without rendering himself liable to the imputation of having **trumped up a false accusation**. (trans. C. D. Yonge)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few other possible phrases that abound in Latin's wide judicial vocabulary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## [*commenticius -a -um*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcommenticius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ille quo modo **crimen commenticium** confirmaret non inveniebat. ([Cic. S. Rosc. 15.42](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:phi,0474,002:15:42))  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *He did not find a way to support his **trumped-up charge**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can also be used as a verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Commenta** mater **est** esse ex alio viro  &#xD;&#xA;Nescio quo puerum natum ([Ter. Ad. 4.5](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:phi,0134,006:4:5))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The mother has **trumped up a tale**, that there is a child by some other man, I know not who (trans. Henry Thomas Riley)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## *mendacium compositum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ne tu istic hodie malo tuo **compositis mendaciis**  &#xD;&#xA;advenisti, audaciai columen, consutis dolis. ([Pl. Am. I.1](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0030%3Aact%3D1%3Ascene%3D1))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Assuredly, at your peril have you come here this day, with your **trumped-up lies**, your patched-up knaveries, you essence of effrontery. (trans. Henry Riley)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## *fabula*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; oportuit autem, Perseu, si proditor ego patris regnique eram, si cum Romanis, si cum aliis inimicis patris inieram consilia, non expectatam **fabulam** esse noctis huius, sed proditionis [meae] ante me accusatum. ([Liv. 40 12](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0144%3Abook%3D40%3Achapter%3D12))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *But, Perseus, if I were a traitor to my father and the realm, if I were scheming with the Romans or with any of my father's enemies, you ought not to have waited for this **trumped-up story** of last night's doings, you ought to have accused me of treachery before this. (trans. Canon Roberts)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="903" RevisionGUID="45e13bf9-f99f-4a88-826a-4fae83d54e17" CreationDate="2016-05-18T00:02:07.703" UserId="485" Text="This question is partially open ended. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for a Latin idiom or euphemism or phrase that expresses something being from or related to practice as opposed to being related to theory. Something that was practiced or developed or is otherwise related to being &quot;in combat&quot; as opposed to &quot;on paper&quot;. Surely the Romans had a distinction for this with their love of heuristic and difficult numbering system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not asking for a translation for &quot;in combat&quot; or any host of English phrases that suit this purpose, or anything specific, I'm wondering if there is a more general Latin expression for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems like something that we surely have inherited a Latin phrase for in modern speaking like &quot;Sine qua non&quot; or &quot;Cui bono&quot;. Does this phrase exist in the modern lexicon of adopted Latin expressions? If it's not something that exists in the aforementioned, what would or could it be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3080" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="903" RevisionGUID="45e13bf9-f99f-4a88-826a-4fae83d54e17" CreationDate="2016-05-18T00:02:07.703" UserId="485" Text="Is there a Latinism for &quot;under fire&quot;/&quot;in combat&quot;/&quot;under duress&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3081" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="903" RevisionGUID="45e13bf9-f99f-4a88-826a-4fae83d54e17" CreationDate="2016-05-18T00:02:07.703" UserId="485" Text="|idiom|euphemism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="904" RevisionGUID="1130b6a3-bff6-4d8d-bfb4-71f8f33b32c0" CreationDate="2016-05-18T02:37:30.720" UserId="12" Text="In [Wikipedia's list of Latin phrases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(full)#V), the expression *virtus in medio stat* is included, with the explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Idiomatically: Good practice lies in the middle path. There is disagreement as to whether &quot;medi**a**&quot; or &quot;medi**o**&quot; is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my deductive reasoning skills have not failed me, the word in question here is *medius*.  In [Lewis &amp; Short's definition](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/contextualize.pl?p.11.lewisandshort.1330510), I see examples of both *in media* and *in medio*, so I'm assuming that Wikipedia's &quot;correct&quot; refers not to rules of grammar but to some &quot;official&quot; origin of the phrase.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if that's the case, however, it's not clear to me if there is an actual difference in meaning between the two.  So, are both versions grammatically acceptable?  If so, are their meanings different, or is it simply a variation in syntax?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3083" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="904" RevisionGUID="1130b6a3-bff6-4d8d-bfb4-71f8f33b32c0" CreationDate="2016-05-18T02:37:30.720" UserId="12" Text="What's the difference between &quot;media&quot; and &quot;medio&quot; in &quot;virtus in medio stat&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3084" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="904" RevisionGUID="1130b6a3-bff6-4d8d-bfb4-71f8f33b32c0" CreationDate="2016-05-18T02:37:30.720" UserId="12" Text="|meaning|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="905" RevisionGUID="a1f04ebc-f937-43ce-adda-07503fafb46f" CreationDate="2016-05-18T08:17:47.830" UserId="486" Text="&gt; Equus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Classical) IPA(key): /ˈe.kʷus/, [ˈɛ.kʷʊs]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aequus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Classical) IPA(key): /ˈae̯.kʷus/, [ˈae̯.kʷʊs]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this similarity coincidental or do they have a common origin? Are there any specific reasons why the two words are so similar-sounding - some cultural reason, myth, belief, tradition of respect towards horses or the like?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3086" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="905" RevisionGUID="a1f04ebc-f937-43ce-adda-07503fafb46f" CreationDate="2016-05-18T08:17:47.830" UserId="486" Text="Is there a (cultural, religious etc?) reason, why equus and aequus are nearly homophones?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3087" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="905" RevisionGUID="a1f04ebc-f937-43ce-adda-07503fafb46f" CreationDate="2016-05-18T08:17:47.830" UserId="486" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="906" RevisionGUID="183cfad6-b299-4b67-9501-152026440f1e" CreationDate="2016-05-18T09:37:35.017" UserId="487" Text="Trying for a pithy bit of Latin to echo &quot;Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carers as in doctors / nurses etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3089" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="906" RevisionGUID="183cfad6-b299-4b67-9501-152026440f1e" CreationDate="2016-05-18T09:37:35.017" UserId="487" Text="How can would I translate &quot;Who cares for the carers?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3090" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="906" RevisionGUID="183cfad6-b299-4b67-9501-152026440f1e" CreationDate="2016-05-18T09:37:35.017" UserId="487" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="907" RevisionGUID="f5984a79-f502-4fa3-bc33-f24d70e1da8e" CreationDate="2016-05-18T11:12:52.247" UserId="45" Text="If you need to modify the original phrase, here are some possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quis medebitur ipsis medicis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quis curabit ipsos curatores?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that *medicus* has a more restricted sense than English than English *caregiver*, and a *curator* is more like a *superintendent*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more I think of it, though, the more I think you should **just keep the original phrase**: remember that *custos* has many extended senses, among which (according to [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcustos)) *a guard, watch, preserver, keeper, overseer, protector, defender, attendant*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="907" RevisionGUID="fe7b0916-7df6-49bb-953b-792c7186fe64" CreationDate="2016-05-18T11:24:55.857" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="If you need to modify the original phrase, here are some possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quis medebitur ipsis medicis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quis curabit ipsos curatores?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that *medicus* has a more restricted sense than English *caregiver*, and a *curator* is more like a *superintendent*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more I think of it, though, the more I think you should **just keep the original phrase**: remember that *custos* has many extended senses, among which (according to [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcustos)) *a guard, watch, preserver, keeper, overseer, protector, defender, attendant*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="908" RevisionGUID="b5e8c687-a53b-4e0a-944d-023f6986c4fe" CreationDate="2016-05-18T11:42:45.817" UserId="68" Text="I second @brianpck's recommendation of *Quis medebit ipsis medicis*, if you're talking specifically about medical professionals and medical care. My sense of *custodire* is that most of its uses are in the sense of protecting others from something rather than protecting the thing itself, so I myself probably wouldn't use the original phrase. (However, I'm only familiar with a small part of the literature, so I could be wrong.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option, if you're looking for something more general than &quot;Who will give medical care to the medical professionals?&quot;, might be *Quis tuebitur ipsis tutoribus?*: &quot;Who watches over those who watch over?&quot; or &quot;Who protects the protectors&quot;?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Tutor* in Lewis Elementary is defined in part as as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. a watcher, protector, defender&#xD;&#xA;2. [in law] a guardian, tutor, guardian of the person&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and *tueor* as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. to look at, gaze upon, behold, watch, view, regard, consider, examine&#xD;&#xA;2. [figuratively] to keep in mind, regard&#xD;&#xA;3. to look to, care for, watch over, keep up, uphold, maintain, support, guard, preserve, defend, protect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="903" RevisionGUID="5cdbbcb7-bf6f-433c-9447-004e0ba7d8d4" CreationDate="2016-05-18T13:24:31.473" UserId="485" Comment="added 182 characters in body" Text="This question is partially open ended. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for a Latin idiom or euphemism or phrase that expresses something being from or related to practice as opposed to being related to theory. Something that was practiced or developed or is otherwise related to being &quot;in combat&quot; as opposed to &quot;on paper&quot;. Surely the Romans had a distinction for this with their love of heuristic and difficult numbering system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not asking for a translation for &quot;in combat&quot; or any host of English phrases that suit this purpose, or anything specific, I'm wondering if there is a more general Latin expression for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems like something that we surely have inherited a Latin phrase for in modern speaking like &quot;Sine qua non&quot; or &quot;Cui bono&quot;. Does this phrase exist in the modern lexicon of adopted Latin expressions? If it's not something that exists in the aforementioned, what would or could it be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I would like to use this Latinism would fit well into the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Our tactics were tested and refined in the field after we implemented them in training exercises&quot;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="909" RevisionGUID="cb088eb7-c28c-4aaa-bb2b-237bb59738ed" CreationDate="2016-05-18T13:45:54.190" UserId="469" Text="According to http://starling.rinet.ru, they come from different [Proto Indo-European roots][1]. The database is based in the [Indo-European Etymological Dictionary][2] project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *aequus* would come from *aikʷ-, meaning flat and also present in Baltic languages such as Lithuanian.&#xD;&#xA; - *equus* would come from *ek'w-, meaning *horse*, properly. Hippos comes from the same root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no Proto-IE expert, but apparently these are regular transformations, and it is nothing but a coincidence (or, at most, an example of *convergent evolution*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Caveat*: since Proto-IE was never written, all we have is a theoretical reconstruction, mostly agreed by scholars (and thus reliable enough for modern-day purposes). That is why roots always start with an asterisk (*): they aren't properly attested. Maybe if we travelled back in time we'd be surprised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&amp;morpho=0&amp;basename=\data\ie\piet&amp;first=1&amp;off=&amp;text_proto=&amp;method_proto=substring&amp;ic_proto=on&amp;text_meaning=&amp;method_meaning=substring&amp;ic_meaning=on&amp;text_hitt=&amp;method_hitt=substring&amp;ic_hitt=on&amp;text_tokh=&amp;method_tokh=substring&amp;ic_tokh=on&amp;text_ind=&amp;method_ind=substring&amp;ic_ind=on&amp;text_avest=&amp;method_avest=substring&amp;ic_avest=on&amp;text_iran=&amp;method_iran=substring&amp;ic_iran=on&amp;text_arm=&amp;method_arm=substring&amp;ic_arm=on&amp;text_greek=&amp;method_greek=substring&amp;ic_greek=on&amp;text_slav=&amp;method_slav=substring&amp;ic_slav=on&amp;text_balt=&amp;method_balt=substring&amp;ic_balt=on&amp;text_germ=&amp;method_germ=substring&amp;ic_germ=on&amp;text_lat=equus&amp;method_lat=substring&amp;ic_lat=on&amp;text_ital=&amp;method_ital=substring&amp;ic_ital=on&amp;text_celt=&amp;method_celt=substring&amp;ic_celt=on&amp;text_alb=&amp;method_alb=substring&amp;ic_alb=on&amp;text_rusmean=&amp;method_rusmean=substring&amp;ic_rusmean=on&amp;text_refer=&amp;method_refer=substring&amp;ic_refer=on&amp;text_comment=&amp;method_comment=substring&amp;ic_comment=on&amp;text_any=&amp;method_any=substring&amp;sort=proto&amp;ic_any=on&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_Etymological_Dictionary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="910" RevisionGUID="62c2b19c-ea72-43a0-b67d-b18e143ad72c" CreationDate="2016-05-18T16:01:41.793" UserId="45" Text="The origin of the phrase--or at least the catalyst for its widespread adoption by medieval scholastics--is the *Nicomachean Ethics* of Aristotle, which in a famous passage defines virtue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἔστιν ἄρα ἡ ἀρετὴ ἕξις προαιρετική, **ἐν μεσότητι** οὖσα τῇ πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ὡρισμένῃ λόγῳ καὶ ᾧ ἂν ὁ φρόνιμος ὁρίσειεν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Virtue then is a settled disposition of the mind determining the choice of actions and emotions, consisting essentially in the observance of the **mean** relative to us, this being determined by principle, that is, as the prudent man would determine it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As already mentioned in a comment, *virtus in medio* is much more common. It is attested in the works of Thomas Aquinas numerous times:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Praeterea, omnis virtus in medio consistit, ut habetur in II Ethic. (ST II-II Q 146 i arg iii)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can search the [*Corpus Thomisticum*](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/it/index.age) for &quot;virtus in medio&quot; (unfortunately, the site does not have permalinks) to see many more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the alternative *virtus in media*, I would not give much credence to an unsourced Wikipedia article. A [Google search for *virtus in media*](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=%22virtus%20in%20media%22) does not return a single reference from a Latin text in the first 5 pages. If I were to venture a guess, *media* probably is meant to refer to the *via media*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="911" RevisionGUID="1d7408e9-a6fa-475a-ae9f-5f51bd1f0906" CreationDate="2016-05-18T16:04:14.570" UserId="490" Text="As a tongue-in-cheek joke, I'm trying to make a motto out of Russian phrase &quot;впихнуть невпихуемое&quot;, which is literally translated as &quot;to squeeze &lt;something which is&gt; unsqueezable&quot;. 'Squeeze' being used in this context as 'to forcibly fit something into a tight place'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a more informal version of &quot;put a camel through the eye of a needle&quot;, basically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know a slightest bit of latin, so tried my best with Wikipedia and came up with this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    urgeo inurgor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rationale:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `urgeo` is something which comes in Google Translate for 'push'/'press'&#xD;&#xA;* `in` as a negative prefix&#xD;&#xA;* taken the stem `urg` for the second word&#xD;&#xA;* `or` suffix - one of verb-to-noun suffixes I found in the [Wiki list](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Latin_suffixes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this an accurate representation of the above ('to squeeze the unsqueezable')? Or is there a better way to *squeeze* the meaning in?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3098" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="911" RevisionGUID="1d7408e9-a6fa-475a-ae9f-5f51bd1f0906" CreationDate="2016-05-18T16:04:14.570" UserId="490" Text="Is this a correct Latin phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3099" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="911" RevisionGUID="1d7408e9-a6fa-475a-ae9f-5f51bd1f0906" CreationDate="2016-05-18T16:04:14.570" UserId="490" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="912" RevisionGUID="fd534221-1bc3-4189-a3b1-e8d3bcb90f2b" CreationDate="2016-05-18T18:37:08.097" UserId="68" Text="*Urgueo/urgeo* does mean &quot;push/press,&quot; but it's more in the sense of trying to push forward rather than into something: militarily, rivers against a shore, age against a person as time passes. I don't think it's the right word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to offer &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Magna per lacunas ponenda parvas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as a motto. A literal translation would be something like, &quot;Large things must be put through small gaps.&quot; Latin has a pretty free word order, and putting *magna* (&quot;large&quot;) first and *parvas* (&quot;small&quot;) last creates a nice balance that's characteristic of mottos and aphorisms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="906" RevisionGUID="922614bc-d43e-4b99-90a8-22b3208a5348" CreationDate="2016-05-18T18:39:11.797" UserId="487" Comment="added 757 characters in body" Text="Trying for a pithy bit of Latin to echo &quot;Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carers as in doctors / nurses etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, to clarify...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding / interpretation is that &quot;who guards the guards?&quot; is that it is a cleverly circular idea that you might have a population of civilians/prisoners who might have an army or guards looking after / guarding them, but that the guards themselves also need protecting, or keeping an eye on (in case they stray from their duty).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for an echo of this idea in Latin to end an essay. The essay is about difficult working conditions for doctors, stress, and professional burnout, and what I would like to get to is something like &quot;who cares for the caregivers&quot;. It's not simply who is giving medical care to the medical profession, ideally broader about those who give care, could be family, nurses, doctors. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3102" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="906" RevisionGUID="16d01b8c-96f4-4960-aaa2-8b77504c87a0" CreationDate="2016-05-19T12:12:48.917" UserId="469" Comment="grammar inconsistence in the title?" Text="How can I translate &quot;Who cares for the carers?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3103" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="906" RevisionGUID="16d01b8c-96f4-4960-aaa2-8b77504c87a0" CreationDate="2016-05-19T12:12:48.917" Comment="Proposed by 469 approved by 79 edit id of 110" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="913" RevisionGUID="f8cd43e8-bce3-490c-8b1c-72f6d8eb8db4" CreationDate="2016-05-19T16:36:20.017" UserId="68" Text="The dictionary definitions of these three words aren't particularly helpful in figuring out when to use which one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Lewis Elementary*'s definition of *sáné* includes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. indeed, doubtless, by all means, truly, certainly, of course, right, very&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Certé*, meanwhile, includes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. really, surely, assuredly, actually, certainly, as a fact&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *profectó* is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;actually, indeed, really, truly, assuredly, certainly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very frustrating from a living-Latin perspective. I have no idea, when I'm speaking/writing a sentence that would in English call for, say, *certainly*, which one of these three to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anybody provide any guidance? It's possible that the clearest thing to do would be to provide *English* examples illustrating the different uses (i.e., &quot;You would use *certé* if you were trying to say something like, 'Blah blah blah certainly blah blah,'&quot;) but I'm happy for anything that helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3105" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="913" RevisionGUID="f8cd43e8-bce3-490c-8b1c-72f6d8eb8db4" CreationDate="2016-05-19T16:36:20.017" UserId="68" Text="using &quot;sáné&quot; v. &quot;certé&quot; v. &quot;profectó&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3106" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="913" RevisionGUID="f8cd43e8-bce3-490c-8b1c-72f6d8eb8db4" CreationDate="2016-05-19T16:36:20.017" UserId="68" Text="|vocabulary|nuance|adverb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3107" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="913" RevisionGUID="1b8c7353-5c85-4cc2-8f66-a6ed859a16cd" CreationDate="2016-05-19T19:52:33.797" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Using &quot;sáné&quot; v. &quot;certé&quot; v. &quot;profectó&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3108" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="913" RevisionGUID="1b8c7353-5c85-4cc2-8f66-a6ed859a16cd" CreationDate="2016-05-19T19:52:33.797" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|vocabulary|nuance|word-comparison|adverb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17" RevisionGUID="953b7eac-4008-47d7-aad5-d1600840dc84" CreationDate="2016-05-19T21:48:23.767" UserId="9" Comment="fixed link, added more explanation of hidden quantity" Text="In general, the whole purpose of using macrons is to clearly indicate pronunciation, so they're usually pretty straightforward. (Macrons were not used classically, although there were some older devices used for indicating vowel length such as the [apex][1] and &quot;i longa&quot; a taller I.) However, it's true that they can indicate several aspects of pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contrastive Vowel Quantity (i.e. Length)&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macrons primarily indicate that the modified vowel is long. Literally, that is: it's held for a more extended period of time than a regular, short vowel. Vowel length was what is called phonemic in Classical Latin, which means that there were pairs of words for which the only difference in pronunciation was the length of some vowel: for example, *liber* &quot;book&quot; vs. *līber* &quot;free.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that at one point, duration may have been the only difference between long and short vowels. In the International Phonetic Alphabet, we transcribe vowel length with a triangular colon ː after the vowel; so we could say that the early Classical Latin pronunciation of the vowels we spell *a ā e ē i ī o ō u ū* would be /a aː e eː i iː o oː u uː/. We don't know for sure the precise phonetic quality of these vowels. Andrea Calabrese has proposed that they were [ɑ ɑː ɛ ɛː i iː ɔ ɔː u uː] ([*On the Evolution of the Short High Vowels of Latin into Romance*][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowel Quality&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is known is that at some point between Classical and Vulgar Latin, the corresponding long and short vowels also became distinguished in quality. (Calabrese mentions Allen and Sturtevant as linguists who reconstruct these quality distinctions back to the Classical Latin stage.) The non-low vowels (all but a aː) clearly show distinct qualities for short vs. long in some of the Romance languages descended from Vulgar Latin, which causes us to  reconstruct something like [a aː ɛ eː ɪ iː ɔ oː ʊ uː]. I believe I've read some accounts that also reconstruct a difference in quality for short a and long a along the lines of [ɐ aː], but I don't know what evidence this is based on. It's also not clear if short unstressed i between a consonant and a vowel (which in Romance normally developed to some kind of glide, or palatalized the preceding consonant and was lost entirely) was ever pronounced as [ɪ]; it may have been something like [i] or [ij] all the way up until it lost its syllabicity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Vulgar Latin is also believed to have had long [ɛː], but as the realization of *ae* rather than of *ē.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Metrical Quantity/False Quantity&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that sometimes when dealing with poetry or old dictionaries, you might see macrons used (or misused) just to mark heavy syllables, which might have had a short vowel but were heavy because they ended with a consonant. The vowel in such syllables has a &quot;[hidden quantity][3],&quot; so be careful in situations like this and try to check several sources that distinguish between short and long in closed syllables to see if they agree on the length of the vowel. We cannot reconstruct vowel length here based on metrical evidence, but we sometimes can based on inscriptions that use the apex, vowel quality in descended Romance words, or descriptions of ancient grammarians. I actually just found an apparent example of this in a recent question (http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14/when-is-an-i-not-an-i): apparently the word most dictionaries write as *māiŏr* was, according to the linguist W. Sidney Allen, actually pronounced as /majjor/ with *short* &quot;a,&quot; but a long /jj/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, it's fairly obvious if a syllable ends in a consonant in Latin, but there are a few tricky cases where a single letter may represent a double consonant (which is always divided between two syllables for metrical purposes). The consonants *j* and *z* are not written double, but are generally long in Latin, so a vowel preceding either of these will have hidden quality (and might be written with a macron even if the vowel is short).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also some cases where it seems word-final consonants in Latin were pronounced long, and you may see this written as a macron on the preceding vowel. According to *[The Latin Language: A Historical Outline of Its Sounds, Inflections, and Syntax][4],* by Charles Edwin Bennett (1907), a long final consonant may have occured in some words where original *-s* was assimilated to a preceding *s, l,* or *r* (as in [*far, farris*][5], possibly pronounced /farr, farris/). Another case where this is believed to have occured is *hoc* (sometimes written *hōc*) which Bennett says was pronounced /hokk/ and not /hoːk/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Automatic (but real) Quantity&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another related point of pronunciation: macrons are generally always used on vowels that occur in the combination Vnf and Vns (where &quot;V&quot; stands for any vowel). Although this means there is no contrast here between short and long, it does appear that these vowels were phonetically long (*[The Latin Language: A Historical Outline of Its Sounds, Inflections, and Syntax][6],* by Charles Edwin Bennett). In languages descended from Latin, the consonantal /n/ sound was actually regularly dropped from these clusters. I don't remember if there is any consensus on if it was phonetically present in Latin. In any case, it is believed that these vowels were nasalized, so sequences like *īnf* would still have contrasted with sequences like *īf* in Classical Latin even if the consonant /n/ was already elided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect evidence for other pronunciation features&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, a macron doesn't affect the pronunciation of any other sound directly. But knowing that a vowel is long may help you apply the regular Latin stress rule, whereby a word is stressed on the second-to-last syllable if it is heavy (contains a long vowel or diphthong or ends in a consonant) and on the third-to-last if the the second-to-last is light (contains a short vowel and doesn't end with a consonant). In addition, as jwodder pointed out in a [comment][7], a macron on either vowel in a sequence like *ae, oe, au, eu* tells you that the two vowels are pronounced separately rather than as a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_(diacritic)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=o9wpGIF0JWcC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA63&amp;dq=%22Latin%22%20vowel%20quality%20e%20o%20advanced%20tongue%20root&amp;ots=ND1tWjhtE5&amp;sig=SwcVUHalU_QmM6ZMBER2nw7Fzxg#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zJEQAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA34&amp;lpg=PA34&amp;dq=hidden%20quantity&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GOCpxL3sp7&amp;sig=GOCXZHN762CFUSUgqlIJYRkw7hY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi-nrOlx47LAhVCkYMKHekGDTIQ6AEIMDAD#v=onepage&amp;q=hidden%20quantity&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=N1RfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA118&amp;lpg=PA118&amp;dq=latin%20rhotacism%20farr&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zJZyIcVRGn&amp;sig=18BkOGKVlju5YnjaxJJd189tbMs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjMvMePlrrMAhWHloMKHSeQB_IQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20rhotacism%20farr&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/810/9&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=N1RfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA40&amp;lpg=PA40&amp;dq=Latin%20quantity%20before%20ns&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zJYCJcYXCm&amp;sig=_2DOx92MQseKIE_fkhkVLjmDltY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjTudCVyI7LAhWrtIMKHc4pDzYQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20quantity%20before%20ns&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5/what-effect-should-a-macron-have-on-the-sound-of-a-letter-and-its-word#comment15_5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17" RevisionGUID="3bea6f06-548f-47ee-a932-1b9c581cf078" CreationDate="2016-05-19T21:54:01.910" UserId="9" Comment="fixed link, added more explanation of hidden quantity" Text="In general, the whole purpose of using macrons is to clearly indicate pronunciation, so they're usually pretty straightforward. (Macrons were not used classically, although there were some older devices used for indicating vowel length such as the [apex][1] and &quot;i longa&quot; a taller I.) However, it's true that they can indicate several aspects of pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contrastive Vowel Quantity (i.e. Length)&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macrons primarily indicate that the modified vowel is long. Literally, that is: it's held for a more extended period of time than a regular, short vowel. Vowel length was what is called phonemic in Classical Latin, which means that there were pairs of words for which the only difference in pronunciation was the length of some vowel: for example, *liber* &quot;book&quot; vs. *līber* &quot;free.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that at one point, duration may have been the only difference between long and short vowels. In the International Phonetic Alphabet, we transcribe vowel length with a triangular colon ː after the vowel; so we could say that the early Classical Latin pronunciation of the vowels we spell *a ā e ē i ī o ō u ū* would be /a aː e eː i iː o oː u uː/. We don't know for sure the precise phonetic quality of these vowels. Andrea Calabrese has proposed that they were [ɑ ɑː ɛ ɛː i iː ɔ ɔː u uː] ([*On the Evolution of the Short High Vowels of Latin into Romance*][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowel Quality&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is known is that at some point between Classical and Vulgar Latin, the corresponding long and short vowels also became distinguished in quality. (Calabrese mentions Allen and Sturtevant as linguists who reconstruct these quality distinctions back to the Classical Latin stage.) The non-low vowels (all but a aː) clearly show distinct qualities for short vs. long in some of the Romance languages descended from Vulgar Latin, which causes us to  reconstruct something like [a aː ɛ eː ɪ iː ɔ oː ʊ uː]. I believe I've read some accounts that also reconstruct a difference in quality for short a and long a along the lines of [ɐ aː], but I don't know what evidence this is based on. It's also not clear if short unstressed i between a consonant and a vowel (which in Romance normally developed to some kind of glide, or palatalized the preceding consonant and was lost entirely) was ever pronounced as [ɪ]; it may have been something like [i] or [ij] all the way up until it lost its syllabicity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Vulgar Latin is also believed to have had long [ɛː], but as the realization of *ae* rather than of *ē.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Metrical Quantity/False Quantity&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that sometimes when dealing with poetry or old dictionaries, you might see macrons used (or misused) just to mark heavy syllables, which might have had a short vowel but were heavy because they ended with a consonant. The vowel in such syllables has a &quot;[hidden quantity][3],&quot; so be careful in situations like this and try to check several sources that distinguish between short and long in closed syllables to see if they agree on the length of the vowel. We cannot reconstruct vowel length here based on metrical evidence, but we sometimes can based on inscriptions that use the apex, vowel quality in descended Romance words, or descriptions of ancient grammarians. I actually just found an apparent example of this in a recent question (http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14/when-is-an-i-not-an-i): apparently the word most dictionaries write as *māiŏr* was, according to the linguist W. Sidney Allen, actually pronounced as /majjor/ with *short* &quot;a,&quot; but a long /jj/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, it's fairly obvious if a syllable ends in a consonant in Latin, but there are a few tricky cases where a single letter may represent a double consonant (which is always divided between two syllables for metrical purposes). In particular, the consonants *j* and *z* are not written double, but generally represent double consonants in Latin, so a vowel preceding either of these will have hidden quantity (and might be written with a macron even if the vowel is short).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also some cases where it seems word-final consonants in Latin were pronounced long, and you may see this written as a macron on the preceding vowel. According to *[The Latin Language: A Historical Outline of Its Sounds, Inflections, and Syntax][4],* by Charles Edwin Bennett (1907), a long final consonant may have occured in some words where original *-s* was assimilated to a preceding *s, l,* or *r* (as in [*far, farris*][5], possibly pronounced /farr, farris/). Another case where this is believed to have occured is *hoc* (sometimes written *hōc*) which Bennett says was pronounced /hokk/ and not /hoːk/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Automatic (but real) Quantity&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another related point of pronunciation: macrons are generally always used on vowels that occur in the combination Vnf and Vns (where &quot;V&quot; stands for any vowel). Although this means there is no contrast here between short and long, it does appear that these vowels were phonetically long (*[The Latin Language: A Historical Outline of Its Sounds, Inflections, and Syntax][6],* by Charles Edwin Bennett). In languages descended from Latin, the consonantal /n/ sound was actually regularly dropped from these clusters. I don't remember if there is any consensus on if it was phonetically present in Latin. In any case, it is believed that these vowels were nasalized, so sequences like *īnf* would still have contrasted with sequences like *īf* in Classical Latin even if the consonant /n/ was already elided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect evidence for other pronunciation features&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, a macron doesn't affect the pronunciation of any other sound directly. But knowing that a vowel is long may help you apply the regular Latin stress rule, whereby a word is stressed on the second-to-last syllable if it is heavy (contains a long vowel or diphthong or ends in a consonant) and on the third-to-last if the the second-to-last is light (contains a short vowel and doesn't end with a consonant). In addition, as jwodder pointed out in a [comment][7], a macron on either vowel in a sequence like *ae, oe, au, eu* tells you that the two vowels are pronounced separately rather than as a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_(diacritic)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=o9wpGIF0JWcC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA63&amp;dq=%22Latin%22%20vowel%20quality%20e%20o%20advanced%20tongue%20root&amp;ots=ND1tWjhtE5&amp;sig=SwcVUHalU_QmM6ZMBER2nw7Fzxg#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zJEQAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA34&amp;lpg=PA34&amp;dq=hidden%20quantity&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GOCpxL3sp7&amp;sig=GOCXZHN762CFUSUgqlIJYRkw7hY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi-nrOlx47LAhVCkYMKHekGDTIQ6AEIMDAD#v=onepage&amp;q=hidden%20quantity&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=N1RfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA118&amp;lpg=PA118&amp;dq=latin%20rhotacism%20farr&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zJZyIcVRGn&amp;sig=18BkOGKVlju5YnjaxJJd189tbMs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjMvMePlrrMAhWHloMKHSeQB_IQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20rhotacism%20farr&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/810/9&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=N1RfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA40&amp;lpg=PA40&amp;dq=Latin%20quantity%20before%20ns&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zJYCJcYXCm&amp;sig=_2DOx92MQseKIE_fkhkVLjmDltY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjTudCVyI7LAhWrtIMKHc4pDzYQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20quantity%20before%20ns&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5/what-effect-should-a-macron-have-on-the-sound-of-a-letter-and-its-word#comment15_5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="321" RevisionGUID="8b440940-7034-40b5-9e8e-51af8f5ea3df" CreationDate="2016-05-20T02:46:34.017" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="&lt;sub&gt; [This](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/234/37) inspired this question; I should verify whether the prefix really means something. I quoted the French version of Wiktionary because the [English version](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/aperio#la) does not state the Latin etymons (only the PIE etymons).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [operīre](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/operio#Latin)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; De l’indo-européen commun _*u̯er-_ [1] (« couvrir » → voir [*veru*](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/veru#la)) avec le préfixe [*op-*](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/ob-#la),    &#xD;&#xA;plutôt qu'un dérivé [2] de [*pario*](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/pario#la).&#xD;&#xA;Voyez son antonyme [*aperio*](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/aperio#la)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="5395ea10-ccde-4526-96c9-be346268096f" CreationDate="2016-05-20T02:58:55.693" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt; [ [U Texas :] ](http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/X/P1235.html)  Pokorny Etymon: 3. mē-, m-e-t-   'to measure'     &#xD;&#xA;Semantic Field: [to Measure](http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/iedocctr/ie-ling/ie-sem/SR/SR_MS.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...]   **Italic:**   Latin:   mēnsa&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ [Wiktionary :](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mensa#Latin) ] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1.	a table&#xD;&#xA;2.	a table of food; meal, course, feast&#xD;&#xA;3.	an altar (sacrificial table)&#xD;&#xA;4.	vocative singular of mēnsa&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 reminds me of [the semantic shift of the English 'meal'](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=meal&amp;allowed_in_frame=0), from this same PIE root to &gt;repast or time for eating&lt;. But what explains the semantic shift to 1 or 3?    &#xD;&#xA;Is it as direct and simple as the fact that tables were used by the Romans to eat? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3116" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="5395ea10-ccde-4526-96c9-be346268096f" CreationDate="2016-05-20T02:58:55.693" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What underlying semantic notions connect 'mēnsa' to the PIE *me-?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3117" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="5395ea10-ccde-4526-96c9-be346268096f" CreationDate="2016-05-20T02:58:55.693" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|proto-indo-european|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="916" RevisionGUID="ea7b0a3e-a645-4d50-9667-8af70c34c2c4" CreationDate="2016-05-20T12:48:33.633" UserId="496" Text="&gt; **Cum haruspex in templo cenaret**, rex ipse appropinquabat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My problem is with the part in **bold**, firstly the *cenaret*, an imperfect subunctive does not agree with *haruspex* (or does it? I could be wrong). Obviously it will not agree with *templo* (have you ever heard of a temple eating its dinner?). The problem continues, as *templo* is either dative, or ablative. Assuming my teacher (this an exam revision exercise by the way) made a mistake with either *cenaret* or *haruspex*, so we can reasonably assume that the soothsayers were eating in the temple, even then neither dative (by or to the temple) or ablative (by or with the temple) make sense in the context of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Help please!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3120" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="916" RevisionGUID="ea7b0a3e-a645-4d50-9667-8af70c34c2c4" CreationDate="2016-05-20T12:48:33.633" UserId="496" Text="Is this a correct sentence (I'm trying to translate it but can't)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3121" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="916" RevisionGUID="ea7b0a3e-a645-4d50-9667-8af70c34c2c4" CreationDate="2016-05-20T12:48:33.633" UserId="496" Text="|ablative|dative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="917" RevisionGUID="d1b6eb1f-b332-41fe-97a0-7b29974a5cbb" CreationDate="2016-05-20T13:04:28.307" UserId="68" Text="In this instance, alas, though I'm sure in no other, you are mistaken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Haruspex* is a nominative singular noun meaning a kind of soothsayer. It takes a third-person singular verb, which *cenaret* is. Clauses that start with *cum* and have subjunctive verbs are usually &quot;*cum* circumstantial&quot; clauses, so in this case the meaning would be something like &quot;Since the soothsayers were eating&quot; or &quot;Although the soothsayers were eating.&quot; (To know more exactly what it said you'd need a little more context from the surrounding text.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Templo* is in the ablative. The preposition *in* takes either the accusative or the ablative; when it takes the accusative it usually means something like &quot;into&quot; or &quot;onto&quot; or &quot;against,&quot; and when it takes the ablative it usually means something like &quot;in&quot; or &quot;on&quot;—that is, it takes the accusative when it refers to the direction in which something is moving or aiming, and the ablative when it refers to the place where something is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence your teacher provides means, therefore, something like &quot;Since the soothsayers were dining in the temple, the king himself was approaching them&quot; or &quot;Although the soothsayers would dine in the temple, the king himself would approach them.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Welcome to the site!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="918" RevisionGUID="9f353c29-3a4d-4eb5-9479-506e38c8bd9b" CreationDate="2016-05-20T13:06:52.787" UserId="79" Text="I assume that by agreement between a verb and a noun you mean that the noun is the subject of the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject of the verb *cenaret* is indeed *haruspex*.&#xD;&#xA;The noun is singular and the verb is third person singular, so there is no problem with agreement.&#xD;&#xA;Tempus (imperfect) and modus (conjunctive) do not effect the possibility of *haruspex* being the subject.&#xD;&#xA;(Context can give some hints, of course, but here there is only one option.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A subject of a finite verb form has to be in nominative.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *templo*, which is in ablative (because of the preposition *in*), cannot be one.&#xD;&#xA;It merely indicates place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="919" RevisionGUID="e48b7844-2b26-4d58-8d2e-6025c8a8378e" CreationDate="2016-05-20T13:34:42.227" UserId="68" Text="In *De Finibus* 48, Cicero writes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Qui ingenuis studiis atque artibus delectantur, nonne videmus eos nec valetudinis nec rei familiaris habere rationem omniaque perpeti ipsa cognitione et scientia captos et cum maximis curis et laboribus compensare eam quam ex discendo capiant voluptatem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This all makes sense to me except *omniaque perpeti [ipsa]* (I put *ipsa* in brackets because I don't know whether it modifies *omnia* or *cognitione et scientia*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation in the Loeb edition reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Take persons who delight in the liberal arts and studies; do we not see them careless of health or business, patiently enduring any inconvenience when under the spell of learning and of science, and repaid for endless toil and trouble by the pleasure they derive from acquiring knowledge?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate *omniaque perpeti ipsa* with something like &quot;by everything continuous itself.&quot; This makes sense neither out of context (no great difficulty in Latin) nor in context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does *omniaque perpeti ipsa* function so that it can mean &quot;patiently enduring any inconvenience&quot;? What am I missing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3125" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="919" RevisionGUID="e48b7844-2b26-4d58-8d2e-6025c8a8378e" CreationDate="2016-05-20T13:34:42.227" UserId="68" Text="&quot;omniaque perpeti ipsa&quot; in De Finibus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3126" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="919" RevisionGUID="e48b7844-2b26-4d58-8d2e-6025c8a8378e" CreationDate="2016-05-20T13:34:42.227" UserId="68" Text="|translation|grammar|cicero|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="920" RevisionGUID="eb8169ec-43f8-476a-ae18-2d17475af732" CreationDate="2016-05-20T13:46:31.440" UserId="79" Text="The verb [*perpeti*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1011952) means roughly &quot;to endure patiently&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;With the object *omnia* this seems to become &quot;to endure anything patiently&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin phrase is constructed with *accusativus cum infinitivo*, so a natural English translation would indeed be &quot;patiently enduring any inconvenience&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="920" RevisionGUID="0af34a72-9cfe-4900-bde6-634eb3217c06" CreationDate="2016-05-20T13:48:10.740" UserId="79" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="The verb [*perpeti*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1011952) means roughly &quot;to endure patiently&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;With the object *omnia* this seems to become &quot;to endure anything patiently&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin phrase is constructed with *accusativus cum infinitivo*, so a natural English translation would indeed be &quot;patiently enduring any inconvenience&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would consider *ipsa* to modify *cognitione et scientia* rather than *omnia*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="916" RevisionGUID="39c8dc4e-f74d-46e1-9d4b-87429444eb44" CreationDate="2016-05-20T13:54:48.367" UserId="79" Comment="Polished the question a bit. Feel free to re-edit or roll back (undo)." Text="&gt; **Cum haruspex in templo cenaret**, rex ipse appropinquabat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My problem is with the part in **bold**, firstly the *cenaret*, an imperfect subunctive does not agree with *haruspex*. (Or does it? I could be wrong.) Obviously it will not agree with *templo* (have you ever heard of a temple eating its dinner?). The problem continues, as *templo* is either dative, or ablative. Assuming my teacher (this an exam revision exercise by the way) made a mistake with either *cenaret* or *haruspex*, so we can reasonably assume that the soothsayers were eating in the temple, even then neither dative (by or to the temple) or ablative (by or with the temple) make sense in the context of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Help please!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3130" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="916" RevisionGUID="39c8dc4e-f74d-46e1-9d4b-87429444eb44" CreationDate="2016-05-20T13:54:48.367" UserId="79" Comment="Polished the question a bit. Feel free to re-edit or roll back (undo)." Text="Is this a correct sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3131" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="916" RevisionGUID="39c8dc4e-f74d-46e1-9d4b-87429444eb44" CreationDate="2016-05-20T13:54:48.367" UserId="79" Comment="Polished the question a bit. Feel free to re-edit or roll back (undo)." Text="|syntax|ablative|dative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="917" RevisionGUID="15cea110-0a82-4d75-b00a-81afc69bc39d" CreationDate="2016-05-20T14:11:00.180" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="In this instance, alas, though I'm sure in no other, you are mistaken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Haruspex* is a nominative singular noun meaning a kind of soothsayer. It takes a third-person singular verb, which *cenaret* is. *Cum* followed by a subjunctive can mean either &quot;when&quot; (temporal) or &quot;since, because&quot; (circumstantial). In this case, temporal seems more appropriate, so the meaning would be something like &quot;When the soothsayer was eating&quot; or &quot;When the soothsayer would eat.&quot; (To know more exactly what it said you'd need a little more context from the surrounding text.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Templo* is in the ablative. The preposition *in* takes either the accusative or the ablative; when it takes the accusative it usually means something like &quot;into&quot; or &quot;onto&quot; or &quot;against,&quot; and when it takes the ablative it usually means something like &quot;in&quot; or &quot;on&quot;—that is, it takes the accusative when it refers to the direction in which something is moving or aiming, and the ablative when it refers to the place where something is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence your teacher provides means, therefore, something like &quot;When the soothsayer was dining in the temple, the king himself was approaching him&quot; or &quot;Although the soothsayer would dine in the temple, the king himself would approach him.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Welcome to the site!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="917" RevisionGUID="50f9dc5b-3318-44c0-9b04-0a7b6f2062aa" CreationDate="2016-05-20T14:18:21.933" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="In this instance, alas, though I'm sure in no other, you are mistaken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Haruspex* is a nominative singular noun meaning a kind of soothsayer. It takes a third-person singular verb, which *cenaret* is. *Cum* followed by a subjunctive can mean either &quot;when&quot; (temporal) or &quot;since, because&quot; (circumstantial). In this case, temporal seems more appropriate, so the meaning would be something like &quot;When the soothsayer was eating&quot; or &quot;When the soothsayer would eat.&quot; (To know more exactly what it said you'd need a little more context from the surrounding text.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Templo* is in the ablative. The preposition *in* takes either the accusative or the ablative; when it takes the accusative it usually means something like &quot;into&quot; or &quot;onto&quot; or &quot;against,&quot; and when it takes the ablative it usually means something like &quot;in&quot; or &quot;on&quot;—that is, it takes the accusative when it refers to the direction in which something is moving or aiming, and the ablative when it refers to the place where something is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence your teacher provides means, therefore, something like &quot;When the soothsayer was dining in the temple, the king himself was approaching him&quot; or &quot;When the soothsayer would dine in the temple, the king himself would approach him.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Welcome to the site!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="921" RevisionGUID="80287483-90fd-4f7b-8da5-fb64464f4b35" CreationDate="2016-05-20T19:48:03.640" UserId="118" Text="I thought I read somewhere that Latin verbs usually have about 150 different endings, but when I looked over a paradigm table I only found around 90. How many distinct forms do you need to memorize, say, for a regular verb in _-are,_ to know _all_ the inflections of the verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3135" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="921" RevisionGUID="80287483-90fd-4f7b-8da5-fb64464f4b35" CreationDate="2016-05-20T19:48:03.640" UserId="118" Text="How many distinct forms does a typical Latin verb have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3136" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="921" RevisionGUID="80287483-90fd-4f7b-8da5-fb64464f4b35" CreationDate="2016-05-20T19:48:03.640" UserId="118" Text="|grammar|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="922" RevisionGUID="6ab492e0-13d4-42e3-9ad0-f11dc966d40c" CreationDate="2016-05-20T20:11:20.100" UserId="79" Text="Here is a count of different verb forms for a verb like *amare*.&#xD;&#xA;Including or excluding some forms is a matter of taste, like passive imperatives which only seem common for deponent verbs.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some might also want to include comparatives or superlatives of participles.&#xD;&#xA;The point is that there are different legitimate ways to count, and this is only one.&#xD;&#xA;Declination of participles could also be considered to be outside the realm of verb forms; with little exceptions participles are just adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;I will give detailed calculations so that anyone can easily pick which forms they wish to include and end up with their own number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Active personal forms with 6 persons (60 total):&#xD;&#xA;- nominative (6 tenses)&#xD;&#xA;- conjunctive (4 tenses)&#xD;&#xA;2. Passive personal forms with 6 persons (half of the tenses use a participle and *esse*) (30 total):&#xD;&#xA;- nominative (3 tenses)&#xD;&#xA;- conjunctive (2 tenses)&#xD;&#xA;3. Personal forms with less than six persons (6 total):&#xD;&#xA;- present active imperative (2 persons)&#xD;&#xA;- future active imperative (4 persons)&#xD;&#xA;- present and future passive imperatives not used for non-deponent verbs? [See the separate question.](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/62/79)&#xD;&#xA;4. Infinitives (only those that are formed without *esse* or *ire*) (3 total):&#xD;&#xA;- present active and passive&#xD;&#xA;- perfect active&#xD;&#xA;5. Supine (2 cases)&#xD;&#xA;6. Gerund (4 cases)&#xD;&#xA;7. Participles and gerundive (144):&#xD;&#xA;- gerundive (3 genders, 2 numbers, 6 cases)&#xD;&#xA;- present active participle (3 genders, 2 numbers, 6 cases)&#xD;&#xA;- future active participle (3 genders, 2 numbers, 6 cases)&#xD;&#xA;- perfect passive participle (3 genders, 2 numbers, 6 cases)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Total: 249**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from the full declension of participles and gerundive, I think one has to know all these forms to be able to reproduce any given form.&#xD;&#xA;Note that I have not listed forms like *amatus sis*, since they are composed from *esse* and a form of *amare* already on the list." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="923" RevisionGUID="d808b954-2c22-4693-83fa-1380023938f4" CreationDate="2016-05-20T20:23:34.890" UserId="118" Text="Is there a convention for moving the stress out of its spoken position when singing Latin? Or should the singer endeavor to keep the stress where it would occur in speech even when the melody seems to pull the stress to other syllables?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the strongest example that's gotten me wondering about this. Adolphe Adam's (1803–1856) version of the _Ave Verum Corpus_…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Ave Verum Corpus by Adolphe Adam][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;…has a melody that seems to pull the stresses to go like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **A**ve ve**rum** cor**pus** na**tum**, na**tum** de Ma**ri**a, **Ma**ria Virgi**ne** vere pas**sum**, pas**sum** immola**tum**…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All but two of those stresses are on the wrong syllable. The correct ones are &quot;**A**ve&quot; and &quot;Ma**ri**a&quot;. The next &quot;Maria&quot;, with the stress on the first syllable, seems to sound the Latin word for &quot;seas&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adam's native language was French, which puts the stress on the last syllable, so maybe that explains it. Maybe in the French pronunciation of Latin, one moved the stress to the final syllable. That would make sense since every language's pronunciation of Latin uses its native phonology. But that doesn't really make sense, because the stressed syllable in French is always the same syllable that was stressed in the Latin root. French stresses the final syllable not so much because it works by stressing final syllables as by *dropping* all syllables after the stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility is that stress plays only a minor role in all Romance languages, so maybe it's always played only a minor role in Latin, in Ancient Rome as well as during its use as an international second language. If so, then maybe moving stress to fit the melody doesn't sound cringeworthy in Latin the way it does in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet another possibility is that Adam wanted the singer to muffle the strong beats of the melody just a bit, to preserve the spoken stress, balancing it against the melodic stress, as a deliberate musical effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All I can do is guess. Are there established customs regarding this sort of thing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;The [score for _Ave Verum Corpus_](http://imslp.nl/imglnks/usimg/4/48/IMSLP106942-PMLP217860-Adam_-_Ave_verum_rsl.pdf) is in the public domain, and copied from the [International Music Score Library Project](http://imslp.org/wiki/Ave_verum_(Adam,_Adolphe)).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ACPrC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3139" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="923" RevisionGUID="d808b954-2c22-4693-83fa-1380023938f4" CreationDate="2016-05-20T20:23:34.890" UserId="118" Text="Moving the stress in sung Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3140" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="923" RevisionGUID="d808b954-2c22-4693-83fa-1380023938f4" CreationDate="2016-05-20T20:23:34.890" UserId="118" Text="|stress|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="911" RevisionGUID="c027b50c-dce2-4e6e-b02f-4f4badd079e9" CreationDate="2016-05-20T21:22:02.780" UserId="12" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="As a tongue-in-cheek joke, I'm trying to make a motto out of Russian phrase &quot;впихнуть невпихуемое&quot;, which is literally translated as &quot;to squeeze &lt;something which is&gt; unsqueezable&quot;. 'Squeeze' being used in this context as 'to forcibly fit something into a tight place'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a more informal version of &quot;put a camel through the eye of a needle&quot;, basically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know a slightest bit of Latin, so tried my best with Wikipedia and came up with this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    urgeo inurgor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rationale:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `urgeo` is something which comes in Google Translate for 'push'/'press'&#xD;&#xA;* `in` as a negative prefix&#xD;&#xA;* taken the stem `urg` for the second word&#xD;&#xA;* `or` suffix - one of verb-to-noun suffixes I found in the [Wiki list](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Latin_suffixes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this an accurate representation of the above ('to squeeze the unsqueezable')? Or is there a better way to *squeeze* the meaning in?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3144" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="911" RevisionGUID="c027b50c-dce2-4e6e-b02f-4f4badd079e9" CreationDate="2016-05-20T21:22:02.780" UserId="12" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Is &quot;urgeo inurgor&quot; a correct Latin phrase, meaning &quot;to squeeze the unsqeezable&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3146" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="916" RevisionGUID="a2a618f8-c757-435e-9333-764ed675b184" CreationDate="2016-05-20T21:24:02.063" UserId="12" Comment="more helpful title" Text="Is &quot;cum haruspex in templo cenaret&quot; correct Latin in this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="924" RevisionGUID="ecf94d6e-38f5-4f28-b0c6-827e9da017d6" CreationDate="2016-05-21T07:08:35.217" UserId="498" Text="Lines one and two of book 2 of Vergil's Aeneid sparked this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conticuere omnes intentique ora tenebant&#xD;&#xA;inde toro pater Aeneas sic orsus ab alto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had two interpretations. My first interpretation is that the &quot;-que&quot; in intentique links the verbs &quot;conticuere&quot; (perfect active indicative) and tenebant. However, that makes it unclear as to how the second line connects grammatically to the first unless &quot;inde&quot; can somehow be used as a temporal clause but I was under the impression (perhaps too narrow) that only &quot;dum, cum, donec, postquam, ubi, and ut&quot; could introduce temporal clauses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My other interpretation was that &quot;-que&quot; links the two clauses with the first line just having a missing conjunction for poetic effect: &quot;All were silent [and] attentive were holding their mouths and from there ...&quot;. However, this version feels weird considering the placement of &quot;-que&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would a contemporary Roman perceive the &quot;-que&quot; as connecting?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3149" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="924" RevisionGUID="ecf94d6e-38f5-4f28-b0c6-827e9da017d6" CreationDate="2016-05-21T07:08:35.217" UserId="498" Text="Can Latin &quot;inde&quot; Introduce A Temporal Clause?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3150" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="924" RevisionGUID="ecf94d6e-38f5-4f28-b0c6-827e9da017d6" CreationDate="2016-05-21T07:08:35.217" UserId="498" Text="|translation|meaning|grammar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="924" RevisionGUID="75b93104-5629-44d5-ac32-1f74a9d7a122" CreationDate="2016-05-21T07:15:50.017" UserId="66" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Lines one and two of book 2 of Vergil's Aeneid sparked this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Conticuere omnes intentique ora tenebant  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; inde toro pater Aeneas sic orsus ab alto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had two interpretations. My first interpretation is that the &quot;-que&quot; in intentique links the verbs &quot;conticuere&quot; (perfect active indicative) and tenebant. However, that makes it unclear as to how the second line connects grammatically to the first unless &quot;inde&quot; can somehow be used as a temporal clause but I was under the impression (perhaps too narrow) that only &quot;dum, cum, donec, postquam, ubi, and ut&quot; could introduce temporal clauses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My other interpretation was that &quot;-que&quot; links the two clauses with the first line just having a missing conjunction for poetic effect: &quot;All were silent [and] attentive were holding their mouths and from there ...&quot;. However, this version feels weird considering the placement of &quot;-que&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would a contemporary Roman perceive the &quot;-que&quot; as connecting?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3152" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="924" RevisionGUID="75b93104-5629-44d5-ac32-1f74a9d7a122" CreationDate="2016-05-21T07:15:50.017" UserId="66" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Can Latin &quot;inde&quot; introduce a temporal clause?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3153" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="924" RevisionGUID="75b93104-5629-44d5-ac32-1f74a9d7a122" CreationDate="2016-05-21T07:15:50.017" Comment="Proposed by 66 approved by 498 edit id of 112" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="924" RevisionGUID="3d1e6ec5-d31c-4b45-8fc9-fd33b9f84f55" CreationDate="2016-05-21T07:17:36.470" UserId="498" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Lines one and two of book 2 of Vergil's Aeneid sparked this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Conticuere omnes intentique ora tenebant  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; inde toro pater Aeneas sic orsus ab alto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had two interpretations. My first interpretation is that the &quot;-que&quot; in intentique links the verbs &quot;conticuere&quot; (perfect active indicative) and tenebant. However, that makes it unclear as to how the second line connects grammatically to the first unless &quot;inde&quot; can somehow be used as an introduction to a temporal clause, but I was under the impression (perhaps too narrow) that only &quot;dum, cum, donec, postquam, ubi, and ut&quot; could introduce temporal clauses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My other interpretation was that &quot;-que&quot; links the two clauses with the first line just having a missing conjunction for poetic effect: &quot;All were silent [and] attentive were holding their mouths and from there ...&quot;. However, this version feels weird considering the placement of &quot;-que&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would a contemporary Roman perceive the &quot;-que&quot; as connecting?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="925" RevisionGUID="9e5abe72-22eb-4b53-876f-c861425ccb26" CreationDate="2016-05-21T09:36:58.710" UserId="79" Text="In English, John Doe or Jane Doe is understood not to be an actual name of a person, but to be some kind of a placeholder name or mean an average citizen.&#xD;&#xA;There are many variants of this name in English and similar names exists in other languages.&#xD;&#xA;[This Finnish Wikipedia page](https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matti_Meik%C3%A4l%C3%A4inen) lists similar names in various languages &amp;mdash; for some reason there is no similar list in the linked English Wikipedia page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin is missing from the list.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a Latin equivalent of the name, either masculine or feminine?&#xD;&#xA;When and how was it used?&#xD;&#xA;I am not looking for suggestions for forming such a name in Latin, but for examples from the literature.&#xD;&#xA;I prefer my Latin classical, but I would be happy to receive examples from any era." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3156" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="925" RevisionGUID="9e5abe72-22eb-4b53-876f-c861425ccb26" CreationDate="2016-05-21T09:36:58.710" UserId="79" Text="Is there a John or Jane Doe in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3157" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="925" RevisionGUID="9e5abe72-22eb-4b53-876f-c861425ccb26" CreationDate="2016-05-21T09:36:58.710" UserId="79" Text="|example-request|idiom|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="926" RevisionGUID="825f08d9-29bd-465f-885b-5b287816e73b" CreationDate="2016-05-21T12:45:53.930" UserId="68" Text="I've never seen Latin set like this, by French composers or others: Couperin, Charpentier, Lully, Fauré, Duruflé, Poulenc—they all set their Latin so that it's follows the stress pattern we all know and love. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is just a case, unfortunately, of bad text-setting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/40O3i.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="927" RevisionGUID="21aae6d5-69f7-41a0-b616-2aaa3d070bd0" CreationDate="2016-05-21T13:55:14.420" UserId="469" Text="N.N. is still used in Spanish and some other languages. It comes from [*nomen nescio*][1]. Although it is not a name, it is actually used as if it were. (At least in modern day usage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomen_nescio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="927" RevisionGUID="ab9ef10c-0e2d-42ab-b079-c52231cec77f" CreationDate="2016-05-21T15:17:13.767" UserId="469" Comment="added 312 characters in body" Text="N.N. is still used in Spanish and some other languages. It comes from [*nomen nescio*][1]. Although it is not a name, it is actually used as if it were. (At least in modern day usage).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, according to [this][2], Numerius Negidius was used &quot;in jurisprudence in ancient Rome (...) specifically to refer to the defendant in a hypothetical lawsuit&quot;, and was an intentional wordplay with N.N. (the wp article links to a book on Roman law)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomen_nescio&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerius_Negidius" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="926" RevisionGUID="885d5283-ed06-4d59-bd72-8e1b201dad48" CreationDate="2016-05-21T17:35:24.170" UserId="68" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="I've never seen Latin set like this, by French composers or others: Couperin, Charpentier, Lully, Fauré, Duruflé, Poulenc—they all set their Latin so that it's follows the stress pattern we all know and love. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fauré was born well before Adam died, so I doubt pronunciation changed radically between the two. I think this is just a case, unfortunately, of bad text-setting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/40O3i.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="926" RevisionGUID="73903ef0-7685-446c-85b0-eb5cc3fb3fdb" CreationDate="2016-05-21T17:45:15.817" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="I've never seen Latin set like this, by French composers or others: Couperin, Charpentier, Lully, Fauré, Duruflé, Poulenc—they all set their Latin so that it follows the stress pattern we all know and love. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fauré (1845-1924) overlapped Adam, so I doubt pronunciation changed radically between the two. I think this is just a case, unfortunately, of bad text-setting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/40O3i.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="927" RevisionGUID="8fa21ae1-9ef5-43c6-82f2-a8af825101ba" CreationDate="2016-05-21T21:56:27.397" UserId="469" Comment="added 229 characters in body" Text="N.N. is still used in Spanish and some other languages. It comes from [*nomen nescio*][1]. Although it is not a name, it is actually used as if it were.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, according to [this][2], Numerius Negidius was used &quot;in jurisprudence in ancient Rome (...) specifically to refer to the defendant in a hypothetical lawsuit&quot;, and was an intentional wordplay to fit N.N.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*See also*: A google search of Numerius Negidius in [The Sources of Roman Law: Problems and Methods for Ancient Historians][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomen_nescio&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerius_Negidius&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=Hg5c7rZe-S0C&amp;pg=PA80&amp;vq=Numerius+Negidius&amp;dq=Numerius+Negidius&amp;source=gbs_search_r&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=Numerius%20Negidius&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="d78ab203-4813-4f91-b54a-1df2c3000145" CreationDate="2016-05-22T18:36:32.860" UserId="39" Text="(*This is only a partial answer so far.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joseph Denooz (Denooz 2010) gives the following frequency data for the verbs mentioned in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dP4oP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="929" RevisionGUID="f03f2a85-5720-44a9-8bdf-8235907c9d4b" CreationDate="2016-05-22T20:51:39.413" UserId="469" Text="Regarding the question in the title, [Lewis and Short][1] (seemingly this community's [favorite dictionary][2]) lists among the meanings of *inde* the following: *from that time*, *thenceforward*, *since*, *after that*, *thereafter*, *thereupon*, *then*. Just in case, there is the same entry on [other dictionary][3]. The same idea applies to *unde*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relative pronouns/adverbs that mark location (even with movement) can in fact mark time as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the role of *-que*, remember that it always works as a suffix to the second term in the conjunction. A valid rephrasing (at least for the sake of understanding) could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Conticuere omnes* et *intenti ora tenebant*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A plausible word-to-word translation would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They all fell silent and kept their mouths stretched&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at a couple of translations, *intenti ora tenere* is read as *pay deep attention*, *keep rapt gaze*. All of them read *inde* as *then* or a synonym of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dinde&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/867/which-online-latin-dictionaries-should-i-use-and-why&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://latin.campus.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=inde&amp;ending=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="931" RevisionGUID="d549c405-d751-4fcc-af21-4728a83e0511" CreationDate="2016-05-23T20:46:51.623" UserId="79" Text="The Latin ablative *re* has become a word in English, meaning &quot;regarding&quot; or &quot;with reference to&quot; or something along those lines.&#xD;&#xA;This is also used in emails as an automatically generated prefix &quot;Re:&amp;nbsp;&quot; to replies.&#xD;&#xA;Was the word *re* used in a similar fashion in antiquity, to indicate the topic at the start of a letter or a passage?&#xD;&#xA;In other words, did Romans use *re* in the same meaning as we do today in English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/re&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3173" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="931" RevisionGUID="d549c405-d751-4fcc-af21-4728a83e0511" CreationDate="2016-05-23T20:46:51.623" UserId="79" Text="Does the &quot;re&quot; in emails have an ancient origin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3174" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="931" RevisionGUID="d549c405-d751-4fcc-af21-4728a83e0511" CreationDate="2016-05-23T20:46:51.623" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|example-request|idiom|ablative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3175" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="50" RevisionGUID="d9177e0c-491c-460b-a2fe-83058f1bab04" CreationDate="2016-05-23T21:40:08.697" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="3176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="932" RevisionGUID="b7042d81-e0b1-4bee-a800-5416be9dad96" CreationDate="2016-05-23T22:33:43.293" UserId="502" Text="I'm coming up with a title for a song, and I thought &quot;I'm a human, I will be a god&quot; or &quot;I'm human, I will be God&quot; was prety sweet sounding, but translating it into a short Latin saying would make it even better. Since I remember the word order &quot;homo sum&quot; from the famous humanist motto, I wonder if adding &quot;Deus ero&quot; after a simple comma would be correct? I came to this quite simply via analogy, since &quot;ero&quot; is the 1st person future form of &quot;to be&quot;. Thanks for your answer!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3177" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="932" RevisionGUID="b7042d81-e0b1-4bee-a800-5416be9dad96" CreationDate="2016-05-23T22:33:43.293" UserId="502" Text="Is &quot;Homo sum, Deus ero&quot; a correct way to say this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3178" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="932" RevisionGUID="b7042d81-e0b1-4bee-a800-5416be9dad96" CreationDate="2016-05-23T22:33:43.293" UserId="502" Text="|grammar|syntax|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="933" RevisionGUID="1cffff03-a50a-4625-9b9c-2356adc8e9df" CreationDate="2016-05-24T00:37:59.660" UserId="30" Text="What your question really seems to be about is whether *inde* can serve as a *subordinate conjunction*, like *dum, cum,* etc., introducing a subordinate clause, to be translated as &quot;when&quot; or &quot;while&quot;. You ask this, because you feel that a conjunction is needed to link the two lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the link to Lewis &amp; Short above, you will see that *inde* (unlike *unde*) is exclusively used as an adverb, not as a conjunction. And I have never seen it used as a conjunction. It therefore seems impossible to treat it as a conjunction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You were correct about *-que*: it links *conticuere omnes* with *intenti ora tenebant*, so it cannot serve to connect this line with the next either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;solution&quot; is that the Romans normally used neither commas nor full stops, and the punctuation is not Virgil's. The punctuation chosen in your edition seems to be based on on modern rules; but you can just add a comma between the lines, or even a full stop, to make it work. Or you could read it as an *[asyndeton][1]*, where a conjunction is omitted to rhetorical effect, à la *veni, vidi, vici*: imagine something like *cum* or *et* was omitted. All of this is legitimate in editions of classical Latin texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asyndeton" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="934" RevisionGUID="fe7eb0b4-51cf-4b0a-9b46-33f9bdc2935b" CreationDate="2016-05-24T03:39:16.593" UserId="68" Text="That works fine. The Romans might have done it in a different order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Homo sum, ero deus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Homo sum, deus futurus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be roughly &quot;I am a man [who] is to be a god.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet another way to do this would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Homo sum, fiam deus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I am a man, I will become a god.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="762" RevisionGUID="be1b6d01-2375-4357-a8cf-bcef792b5600" CreationDate="2016-05-24T03:40:20.160" UserId="68" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="[Champneys/Rundall](https://books.google.com/books?id=gvtJAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA111#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) have a good run down of the words. They break them down into four categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Think* = *to have an opinion*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - puto.&#xD;&#xA; - existimo.&#xD;&#xA; - credo.&#xD;&#xA; - reor.&#xD;&#xA; - arbitror.&#xD;&#xA; - opinor.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;= *to have an opinion and express it—*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - censeo.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;= *to think over, reflect upon—*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - cogito.&#xD;&#xA; - reputo.&#xD;&#xA; - delibero.&#xD;&#xA; - considero.&#xD;&#xA; - meditor.&#xD;&#xA; - an animo agito.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;= *to think of doing something—*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - cogito.&#xD;&#xA; - in animo habeo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find the category between the first and second arbitrary, as *arbitror*, *credo*, and *opinor* all have been used for expressing opinions. The distinction between *think* = *have an opinion* and *think* = *reflect upon* is very important though. Notice the lack of overlap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter category is made up of various shades of reflection, which should be easy to figure out by using a dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former category, though, has important distinctions in itself. *Credo*, for example, has been used in Christian literature (and elsewhere) to indicate a strongly held belief. Meanwhile, *arbitror* originated from the idea of a judgment based on evidence (thus an *arbiter* is a judge of sorts, someone whose opinion is based on observation), and *existimo* has a value aspect to it. The verb for &quot;I think this is enough water to add&quot; would use the word *arbitror* while someone saying &quot;I think this is worth one denarius&quot; would use *existimo*. Both are opinions, but they're used differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, over time, these often get mixed up and used as synonyms, but some of the original definition is felt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other notes: *reor* is closer to *existimo* in needing calculations, which *censeo* originally had, too. *Opinor* is closer to *arbitror*, but seems along with *puto* and *censeo* to connote one's own personal opinion the best. *Puto* also had a &quot;reckoning&quot; sense, especially when used with *ratio*, however, it too is most often used purely of a personal opinion. *Puto* is probably closest to the thought equivalent of *dico*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="934" RevisionGUID="5ab30da5-6d58-4a31-ad8d-7787168ca53e" CreationDate="2016-05-24T04:27:25.150" UserId="68" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="That works fine. The Romans might have done it in a different order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Homo sum, ero deus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Homo sum, deus futurus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be roughly &quot;I am a man [who] is to be a god.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet another way to do this would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Homo sum, fiam deus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which means &quot;I am a man, I will become a god.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="935" RevisionGUID="176c8175-54dd-43fe-869d-b8357614eef6" CreationDate="2016-05-24T16:12:07.820" UserId="12" Text="The pronunciation of the letter *m* at the end of words is actually rather varied.  W. Sydney Allen, in [*Vox Latina* 30–31](https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA30), lays out the evidence for several different ways the letter impacted the pronunciation of words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In general,&quot; Allen says, *m* at the end of words marked &quot;a mere nasalization of the preceding vowel.&quot;  He cites the imprecise descriptions of Velius Longus (&quot;almost a foreign letter&quot;) and Priscian (&quot;obscurum in extremitate dictionum sonat&quot;) as evidence for this, as well as inscriptions in which the final *m* is omitted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; honc oino ploirume cosentiont...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; [*hunc unu**m** plurimi consentiunt*]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; duonoro optumo fuise uiro  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; [*bonoru**m** optimu**m** fuisse uiru**m***]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final vowel preceding an *m* may have also been lengthened, as suggested by Cato the Elder's spelling of *diem* as *diee*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another piece of evidence for *m* not being a true consonant in this position is that syllables ending in *m* were elided in poetry as if they ended in a vowel, [as Joonas's answer explains](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/80/12).  Similarly, in cases of [aphaeresis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apheresis_(linguistics)), the final *m* does not protect the syllable as other consonants would, so *scriptum est* becomes *scriptust* in inscriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, however, inscriptions and grammarians indicate that this treatment of the final *m* was not universal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where, however, a final *m* was followed by a closely connected word beginning with a stop (plosive or nasal) consonant, it seems to have been treated rather as in the interior of a word, being assimilated to the following consonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *tam durum* becomes *tan durum* in inscriptions, thanks to the *d* following the final *m*.  And in *etiam nunc*, &quot;plenius per *n* quam per *m* enuntiatur,&quot; according to Velius Longus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the final *m* indicates nasalization of the final vowel, and it is not truly a consonant.  However, preceding a stop consonant in the next word, it sometimes retained its consonantal properties." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="934" RevisionGUID="ad8aadbc-f302-4f38-952c-fe88379a879e" CreationDate="2016-05-24T18:50:55.197" UserId="68" Comment="added 392 characters in body" Text="That works fine. The Romans might have done it in a different order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Homo sum, ero deus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Homo sum, deus futurus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be roughly &quot;I am a man [who] is to be a god.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet another way to do this would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Homo sum, fiam deus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which means &quot;I am a man, I will become a god.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, there's a great story about the emperor Vespasian told by the historian Suetonius. After Julius Caesar died, Roman emperors were considered, to a greater or lesser degree, to become divine when they died, at which point people worshipped them as gods. Vespasian's last words, according to Suetonius, were, &quot;Væ, puto deus fio,&quot; which means, &quot;Alas, I think I am becoming a god.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="936" RevisionGUID="f870fe13-f877-485e-903d-1fd2163be50c" CreationDate="2016-05-25T08:16:56.230" UserId="505" Text="I've been trying to find a proper translation for a phrase that means something like ''a new mind'' or ''a new attitude'', etc. I would like to use it as an inspiration for a company-name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The words that I would like to combine are ''Novus'' and ''mente'', so a way of naming a company would then be '**'novamente''**. I like the way this sounds, but I'm not sure if the grammar in this one is correct. I've tried to look up all the grammar rules but it's just too complicated to make sense of, as someone who doesn't know latin language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone please help me with this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="936" RevisionGUID="f870fe13-f877-485e-903d-1fd2163be50c" CreationDate="2016-05-25T08:16:56.230" UserId="505" Text="Proper grammar ''new mind/attitude''" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="936" RevisionGUID="f870fe13-f877-485e-903d-1fd2163be50c" CreationDate="2016-05-25T08:16:56.230" UserId="505" Text="|meaning|grammar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="937" RevisionGUID="c98692e2-3401-411e-ace2-f7be874d2e33" CreationDate="2016-05-25T09:42:56.313" UserId="79" Text="If you want to combine *mens* and *nova* to say &quot;a new mind&quot;, the correct way is *mens nova* or *nova mens*.&#xD;&#xA;Putting the adjective after the noun is more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The singular ablative of *mens* is *mente* and that of *nova* is *nova*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *mente nova* or *nova mente* (spelled as two words!) can mean something like &quot;with a new mind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The ablative has many uses, so the interpretation is not unique." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="938" RevisionGUID="7c4ef5db-5d79-482c-9407-e44f4e35dc7f" CreationDate="2016-05-25T10:49:22.173" UserId="68" Text="I'd say that both @Earthliŋ 's comment and @JoonasIlmavirta's answer are arguments against *novamente*. It also seems that there already is (or has been) a company called [Novamente][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like you're thinking of a fairly broad meaning of &quot;mind,&quot; however, while the Latin word *mens* has a pretty narrow meaning, limited to rational faculties of thought, often as opposed to physical faculties. For the kind of broader meaning you seem to have in mind there's a better Latin word, which is *animus*. This is usually translated &quot;spirit&quot; but &quot;attitude&quot; is just as good a translation in many situations—as is &quot;courage,&quot; &quot;spirits&quot; (as in &quot;in good spirits&quot;), &quot;belief,&quot; &quot;imagination,&quot; and so on. If you wanted to use that word, the combination would be *Novus Animus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope our answers haven't been disappointing—and good luck with your company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://wp.novamente.net" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="936" RevisionGUID="d7b88d30-351a-4736-8538-716bd2d6d573" CreationDate="2016-05-25T13:55:00.163" UserId="12" Comment="cleanup and tag" Text="I've been trying to find a proper translation for a phrase that means something like &quot;a new mind&quot; or &quot;a new attitude&quot;, etc. I would like to use it as an inspiration for a company-name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The words that I would like to combine are *Novus* and *mente*, so a way of naming a company would then be ***novamente***. I like the way this sounds, but I'm not sure if the grammar in this one is correct. I've tried to look up all the grammar rules but it's just too complicated to make sense of, as someone who doesn't know Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone please help me with this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3191" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="936" RevisionGUID="d7b88d30-351a-4736-8538-716bd2d6d573" CreationDate="2016-05-25T13:55:00.163" UserId="12" Comment="cleanup and tag" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3192" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="936" RevisionGUID="d7b88d30-351a-4736-8538-716bd2d6d573" CreationDate="2016-05-25T13:55:00.163" UserId="12" Comment="cleanup and tag" Text="Is this translation of &quot;new mind/attitude&quot; correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="939" RevisionGUID="cd2e0e29-7185-4551-9567-2b38822bf148" CreationDate="2016-05-25T17:24:15.727" UserId="197" Text="While working in class, I came across this. They have a similar spelling, yet mean completely different things. Is this just random or have actual purpose in the Latin Language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Book = Libri&#xD;&#xA; - Children = Liberi&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3194" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="939" RevisionGUID="cd2e0e29-7185-4551-9567-2b38822bf148" CreationDate="2016-05-25T17:24:15.727" UserId="197" Text="Why are Children ( liberi ) &amp; Book (Libri) so closely related?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3195" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="939" RevisionGUID="cd2e0e29-7185-4551-9567-2b38822bf148" CreationDate="2016-05-25T17:24:15.727" UserId="197" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3196" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="939" RevisionGUID="2d120015-9436-4a4c-ab0b-145a9c241555" CreationDate="2016-05-25T17:42:53.763" UserId="197" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="939" RevisionGUID="8a1d5416-f475-4051-8daa-687d7e97702f" CreationDate="2016-05-25T17:46:28.010" UserId="12" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="While working in class, I came across this. They have a similar spelling, yet mean completely different things. Is this just random or have actual purpose in the Latin language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Book = Libri&#xD;&#xA; - Children = Liberi&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3198" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="939" RevisionGUID="8a1d5416-f475-4051-8daa-687d7e97702f" CreationDate="2016-05-25T17:46:28.010" UserId="12" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Why are the words for &quot;children&quot; (liberi) and &quot;book&quot; (libri) so similar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3199" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="939" RevisionGUID="8a1d5416-f475-4051-8daa-687d7e97702f" CreationDate="2016-05-25T17:46:28.010" UserId="12" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|classical-latin|etymology|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="940" RevisionGUID="34773318-30b8-4650-977b-6c9d77854c7c" CreationDate="2016-05-25T17:46:43.917" UserId="12" Text="These words are unrelated: they developed independently from different Proto-Indo-European roots, according to Michiel de Vaan's *Etymological Dictionary* (337–38).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, *liber* or *librī*, meaning &quot;book,&quot; is thought to come from a PIE word meaning &quot;leaf, rind&quot;: *lub-ro*.  De Vaan sites several Indo-European languages that have attested cognates and summarizes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We may surmise that *liber* is cognate with *lub-* and goes back to a PIE word or a European word 'leaf, rind'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, *līber*, meaning &quot;children,&quot; comes from a different PIE word (*hleud-ero*), through a Proto-Italian word *leup-ero*.  The word also means &quot;free,&quot; and the &quot;children&quot; meaning developed later.  De Vaan explains again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The change of the pl. *līberī* to 'children' is explained by Benveniste from legal terminology, in which the legitimate 'children' of a free couple were denominated as 'free ones'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's simply a coincidence that these words ultimately came to look very similar: they developed from distinct PIE roots." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="940" RevisionGUID="d4a800ca-4192-4559-9d92-89b11634949d" CreationDate="2016-05-25T17:53:12.870" UserId="12" Comment="edited body" Text="These words are unrelated: they developed independently from different Proto-Indo-European roots, according to Michiel de Vaan's *Etymological Dictionary* (337–38).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, *liber* or *librī*, meaning &quot;book,&quot; is thought to come from a PIE word meaning &quot;leaf, rind&quot;: *lub-ro*.  De Vaan cites several Indo-European languages that have attested cognates and summarizes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We may surmise that *liber* is cognate with *lub-* and goes back to a PIE word or a European word 'leaf, rind'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, *līber*, meaning &quot;children,&quot; comes from a different PIE word (*hleud-ero*), through a Proto-Italian word *leup-ero*.  The word also means &quot;free,&quot; and the &quot;children&quot; meaning developed later.  De Vaan explains again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The change of the pl. *līberī* to 'children' is explained by Benveniste from legal terminology, in which the legitimate 'children' of a free couple were denominated as 'free ones'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's simply a coincidence that these words ultimately came to look very similar: they developed from distinct PIE roots." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="941" RevisionGUID="42a14066-e30d-4ad9-baaa-c0c16a5d33f9" CreationDate="2016-05-26T00:32:31.253" UserId="68" Text="I'm reading Arcadius Avellanus's translation of fairy tales (he was the last known native speaker of Latin), and I've come across this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Regia Filia jocum dignata mittit ancillam cum lucerna, quam et magus erga novam perlibenter emutavit, quod satis novit in tali tantaque Aladdini palatio haud duas lucernas antiquas reperiri posse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two things in the sentence that escape me. The first is that *et*, which context makes clear isn't the first or second of a pair. What does it mean here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second thing I'm having trouble with is *novit in tali*, which I can't make heads or tails of, whether the subject is *Regis Filia* or *magus*. Is *in tali tantaque* an idiom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts about either of these things?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3203" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="941" RevisionGUID="42a14066-e30d-4ad9-baaa-c0c16a5d33f9" CreationDate="2016-05-26T00:32:31.253" UserId="68" Text="What does &quot;novit in tali&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3204" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="941" RevisionGUID="42a14066-e30d-4ad9-baaa-c0c16a5d33f9" CreationDate="2016-05-26T00:32:31.253" UserId="68" Text="|translation|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="942" RevisionGUID="b162efa8-8fb0-4933-aab5-730e737c1dcc" CreationDate="2016-05-26T13:01:02.577" UserId="505" Text="What would be a correct way of combining the words ''visio'' and ''novus''? &#xD;&#xA;Could I just combine those two or is ''visio'' + ''Nova'' a better option?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3206" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="942" RevisionGUID="b162efa8-8fb0-4933-aab5-730e737c1dcc" CreationDate="2016-05-26T13:01:02.577" UserId="505" Text="how to combine visio and novus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3207" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="942" RevisionGUID="b162efa8-8fb0-4933-aab5-730e737c1dcc" CreationDate="2016-05-26T13:01:02.577" UserId="505" Text="|meaning|grammar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="943" RevisionGUID="03a3eb02-aa9e-456a-bf66-14adcd078a97" CreationDate="2016-05-26T20:18:47.583" UserId="45" Text="I am using [this edition of the *Fabulae Divales*](https://books.google.com/books?id=JfI_TJo2Z_YC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) as a basis for my below answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## *quam et*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, Latin prefers to link clauses that would often be independent in English: *propter quod*, *quam ob rem*, *qua ratione* are examples of causal linking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the relative pronoun with *et* (or, even more commonly, *autem* or *enim*) has many precedents: it links two otherwise separate clauses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In eo perpetua canalis, **in quam et** cibus imponitur iis et immittitur aqua ([Varro, *De Agri Cultura*, III.11](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/varro.rr3.html))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is a perpetual channel in it, **and in it [=this channel]** food is placed for them and water is allowed in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## *in tali tantaque*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase is fairly common and means something like &quot;of such a great kind&quot;. At least in my own head, I see it as a kind of [*hendiadys*](https://mcl.as.uky.edu/glossary-rhetorical-terms#20) (&quot;use of two words connected by a conjunction, instead of subordinating one to the other, to express a single complex idea&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is one classical example of its usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; atque hoc non solum in te, **tali et tanto viro**, satis habebit ([*Letters to Atticus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0008%3Abook%3D9))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*tantaque* throws me for a bit of a loop, but I am confident that it is a typo. The only feminine words it could agree with in context are *ancilla* and *lucerna*, but neither works: *tanta ancilla* is rather mean, and there is no way to make *tanta lucerna* work with the rest of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read through the (otherwise delightful) Latin of the tale and noticed some other small errors such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* pg. 9: *qaum* instead of *quum* (= *cum*)&#xD;&#xA;* pg. 12: *nolli timere* instead of *noli timere*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in the absence of better suggestions, I am willing to chalk this up to bad copy-editing or type-setting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My proposed full translation (keeping the narrative present tense):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Regia Filia jocum dignata mittit ancillam cum lucerna, quam et magus erga novam perlibenter emutavit, quod satis novit in tali tantaque Aladdini palatio haud duas lucernas antiquas reperiri posse.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Princess, consenting to the joke, sends her handmaid with the lamp, and the magician gladly exchanged it for a new one, for he knows well enough that two old lamps can hardly be found in such a great palace as Aladdin's." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="944" RevisionGUID="8b922baa-c10b-48ea-a3c6-e38340c00f7f" CreationDate="2016-05-26T21:02:17.750" UserId="9" Text="[*Ars Goetia*][1] is a well-known book about demonology written in Mediaeval Latin. I'm having trouble analyzing the grammatical structure of the title. *Ars* is a feminine noun in the singular nominative form. *Goetia* looks like it is feminine and in the singular nominative form. However, I'm not sure how it relates grammatically to *Ars.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked up the entry for [*ars*][2] in Lewis and Short, and it seems to say that it is generally modified by an adjective (e.g. *ars gymnastica*) or a noun in the genitive case (e.g. *ars disserendi*). *Goetia* is obviously not a genitive form, but I also wouldn't think it would be used as an adjective: it's a loanword from the Greek &#xD;&#xA; noun *γοητεια* (I would expect the corresponding adjective to be something like *Goeticus*/*-um*/*-a*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, it seems like it is an appositive noun. Am I right? If so, are there examples of this construction being used with *ars* in Classical Latin? And are there any differences in meaning, or other reasons to use the title *Ars Goetia* instead of *Ars Goetiae* or *Ars Goetica*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_Key_of_Solomon#Ars_Goetia&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dars" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3210" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="944" RevisionGUID="8b922baa-c10b-48ea-a3c6-e38340c00f7f" CreationDate="2016-05-26T21:02:17.750" UserId="9" Text="In the title &quot;Ars Goetia,&quot; is &quot;Goetia&quot; an appositive noun?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3211" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="944" RevisionGUID="8b922baa-c10b-48ea-a3c6-e38340c00f7f" CreationDate="2016-05-26T21:02:17.750" UserId="9" Text="|grammar|adjective|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="94" RevisionGUID="11919a69-0784-4cd2-8bca-0a15f8717d8e" CreationDate="2016-05-26T21:40:14.397" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="Basically, your second option is correct. There is the Vatican's *[Lexicon Recentis Latínitátis][1]*, referred to in the comment, but its approach to Latin is very idiosyncratic; debates over neologisms often get incredibly acrimonious, if you can believe it, but there are (VERY roughly) two schools: the &quot;Ciceronian,&quot; in which making up words for concepts that didn't exist in ancient Rome is to be avoided whenever possible, and the &quot;Erasmian,&quot; in which new concepts call for new ideas. (&quot;Ciceronian&quot; and &quot;Erasmian&quot; are my names for them, though they're not entirely accurate; Cicero made up words all the time, and Erasmus has a whole screed about how people who think you can't use any Latin Cicero didn't use are idiots.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vatican is of the more &quot;Ciceronian&quot; school, which gives you, unfortunately, things like &quot;immódica medicamenti stupefactívi iniéctió&quot; as the official term for &quot;overdose.&quot; Other than the Vatican, actually, I'm not aware of anybody who takes this approach to neologisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Actually, now that I think of it, even the Vatican doesn't take this approach, or not always: *The Diary of a Wimpy Kid* was translated into Latin (*[Commentarií dé Ineptó Pueró][2]*) by one of the Pope's Latinists ([Monsignor Daniel Gallagher][3]), and it *definitely* doesn't use the *Lexicon Recentis Latínitátis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically, somebody comes up with a word and it catches on. &quot;World-wide web,&quot; for example, is widely known as &quot;Téla Totíus Terrae,&quot; and I have to imagine that somebody came up with that and couldn't stop giggling, and it's so great (ttt) that there's no reason to come up with anything else. &quot;Computátrum&quot; is the generally used word for &quot;computer&quot; (though the Vatican prefers &quot;ínstrúmentum computátrálium&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, David Morgan of Furman University put together a [lexicon][4] of Neo-Latin words that already exist that can be used for modern concepts. Careful, though, because the Lexicon Morganianum is in two parts, the *[adumbratio][5]* and the *[silva][6]*, and people tend not to realize this. Patrick Owens, the lexicon's current curator, [explains the difference][7]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Morgan-Owens Latin Lexicon is found under the link entitled &quot;adumbratio&quot; (see link below). The link entitled &quot;silva&quot; is a mere collection of other modern Latin dictionaries. If a term appears in the &quot;silva&quot; but not in the &quot;adumbratio&quot; it is because it has been intentionally rejected on philological grounds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TL;DR: People come up with stuff and whatever sticks, sticks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/rc_latinitas_20040601_lexicon_it.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1419719475?keywords=de%20inepto%20puero&amp;qid=1457406609&amp;ref_=sr_1_1&amp;sr=8-1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/27/priest-translates-pope-tweets-latin/6954991/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com/faculty-pages/patrick-owens/lexicon/index.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com/faculty-pages/patrick-owens/lexicon/adumbratio/index.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com/faculty-pages/patrick-owens/lexicon/silva/index.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.academia.edu/11790987/Morgan-Owens_Lexicon_of_Neo-Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="945" RevisionGUID="84614924-d4ca-43e5-b8ab-276d586ee89a" CreationDate="2016-05-27T05:40:24.487" UserId="386" Text="Yes, it does have an ancient origin. See [RFC 5332][1] (3.6.5):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; When used in a reply, the field body MAY start with the&#xA;   string &quot;Re: &quot; (an abbreviation of the Latin &quot;in re&quot;, meaning &quot;in the&#xA;   matter of&quot;) followed by the contents of the &quot;Subject:&quot; field body of&#xA;   the original message.  If this is done, only one instance of the&#xA;   literal string &quot;Re: &quot; ought to be used since use of other strings or&#xA;   more than one instance can lead to undesirable consequences.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322 &quot;RFC 5322&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="935" RevisionGUID="8a19539b-200e-4062-87b6-f0a55fb981ad" CreationDate="2016-05-27T14:44:56.517" UserId="12" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="The pronunciation of the letter *m* at the end of words isn't completely uniform in Classical Latin.  W. Sydney Allen, in [*Vox Latina* 30–31](https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA30), lays out the evidence for several different ways the letter impacted the pronunciation of words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In general,&quot; Allen says, *m* at the end of words marked &quot;a mere nasalization of the preceding vowel.&quot;  He cites the imprecise descriptions of Velius Longus (&quot;almost a foreign letter&quot;) and Priscian (&quot;obscurum in extremitate dictionum sonat&quot;) as evidence for this, as well as inscriptions in which the final *m* is omitted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; honc oino ploirume cosentiont...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; [*hunc unu**m** plurimi consentiunt*]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; duonoro optumo fuise uiro  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; [*bonoru**m** optimu**m** fuisse uiru**m***]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final vowel preceding an *m* may have also been lengthened, as suggested by Cato the Elder's spelling of *diem* as *diee*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another piece of evidence for *m* not being a true consonant in this position is that syllables ending in *m* are elided in poetry as if they ended in a vowel, [as Joonas's answer explains](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/80/12).  Similarly, in cases of [aphaeresis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apheresis_(linguistics)), the final *m* does not protect the syllable as other consonants would, so *scriptum est* becomes *scriptust* in inscriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, however, inscriptions and grammarians indicate that this treatment of the final *m* was not universal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where, however, a final *m* was followed by a closely connected word beginning with a stop (plosive or nasal) consonant, it seems to have been treated rather as in the interior of a word, being assimilated to the following consonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *tam durum* becomes *tan durum* in inscriptions, thanks to the *d* following the final *m* in *tam*.  And in *etiam nunc*, &quot;plenius per *n* quam per *m* enuntiatur,&quot; according to Velius Longus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the final *m* indicates nasalization, and possibly lengthening, of the final vowel, and it is not truly a consonant.  However, preceding a stop consonant in the next word, it sometimes retained its consonantal properties." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3216" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="06f361bc-b9d2-49b2-abc7-6eccfa05045c" CreationDate="2016-05-27T14:48:02.863" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|pronunciation|consonants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3217" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="a4e139a5-e032-4b61-8fac-af8eb61374af" CreationDate="2016-05-27T14:53:35.953" UserId="12" Comment="6" />
  <row Id="3218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="946" RevisionGUID="7e80f252-952a-4cf8-9cdb-81de94ff8944" CreationDate="2016-05-27T18:06:46.927" UserId="469" Text="Since _visio_ is feminine, _nova_ fits while _novus_ does not. So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nova Visio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;does the trick as well as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Visio Nova&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But remember that in Latin word endings change according to the grammatical function of the word. Since in the comments you mention that _the idea is to lead_ the reader _towards a new vision_. You may want to ad endings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Visionem Novam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;suggesting that the title is part of a longer sentence, like *ostendam vobis visionem (meam) novam* (I'll show you the/my new vision) or *ad novam visionem* (towards a new vision).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Visio** has the [meaning][1] of *an idea, conception, notion*, but I suspect it does not mean _vision_ in the full modern extent from which _visionary_ derives (*the ability to think about or plan the future with imagination or wisdom*, according to Google definition).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other nouns that might be useful if _visio_ doesn't convince  you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _Sapientia_: (f.) wisdom. _Sapientia[m] Nova[m]_&#xD;&#xA; - _Prospectus_: (m.) prospect, outlook. _Novus Prospectus_ or _Prospectum Novum_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvisio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="942" RevisionGUID="a89ec2d2-a823-4e8f-b65f-21a7c78a1ee5" CreationDate="2016-05-27T18:21:12.393" UserId="12" Comment="added 255 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What would be a correct way of combining the words &quot;visio&quot; and &quot;novus&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;Could I just combine those two or is &quot;visio&quot; + &quot;nova&quot; a better option?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like the phrase to mean something like &quot;a new vision/perspective&quot;.  The idea is to lead people towards a new vision/perspective that could be the start of a behavioural change. It's for a personal training/health intervention (focus on long-term behaviour changes)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3220" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="942" RevisionGUID="a89ec2d2-a823-4e8f-b65f-21a7c78a1ee5" CreationDate="2016-05-27T18:21:12.393" UserId="12" Comment="added 255 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How can &quot;visio&quot; and &quot;novus&quot; be correctly combined to mean &quot;a new vision/perspective&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3221" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="942" RevisionGUID="a89ec2d2-a823-4e8f-b65f-21a7c78a1ee5" CreationDate="2016-05-27T18:21:12.393" UserId="12" Comment="added 255 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|translation|vocabulary|agreement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="947" RevisionGUID="544fa5c4-fcbc-4f40-a6db-3ed15eccb587" CreationDate="2016-05-27T18:34:04.143" UserId="515" Text="Some students of mine are creating a school publication featuring student work, and the proposed subtitle of their publication is &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Scholaris Opus, Scholaris Vox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intended meaning is &quot;student work, student voice&quot; or &quot;scholar&quot; in place of &quot;student.&quot;  Online dictionaries seem to translate it to the intended meaning, but I just wanted to make sure the Latin is correct.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3223" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="947" RevisionGUID="544fa5c4-fcbc-4f40-a6db-3ed15eccb587" CreationDate="2016-05-27T18:34:04.143" UserId="515" Text="Scholaris opus, vox" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3224" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="947" RevisionGUID="544fa5c4-fcbc-4f40-a6db-3ed15eccb587" CreationDate="2016-05-27T18:34:04.143" UserId="515" Text="|grammar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3225" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="947" RevisionGUID="9076d9fd-dc06-4c59-a404-b173c3123513" CreationDate="2016-05-27T18:40:42.880" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Is &quot;scholaris opus, scholaris vox&quot; a correct translation of &quot;student work, student voice&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3226" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="947" RevisionGUID="9076d9fd-dc06-4c59-a404-b173c3123513" CreationDate="2016-05-27T18:40:42.880" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|translation|grammar|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="947" RevisionGUID="43ab241f-37ef-46f8-8fe5-3a784025bdc4" CreationDate="2016-05-27T18:49:30.393" UserId="515" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="Some students of mine are creating a school publication featuring student work, and the proposed subtitle of their publication is &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Scholaris Opus, Scholaris Vox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intended meaning is &quot;student work, student voice&quot; or &quot;scholar&quot; in place of &quot;student.&quot;  The content of the publication will be be broad and include essays, poetry, mathematics, science, photography, and visual art.  Online dictionaries seem to translate it to the intended meaning, but I just wanted to make sure the Latin is correct.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="948" RevisionGUID="5c666de1-b5df-47bf-80c4-16d41f782cde" CreationDate="2016-05-27T19:18:34.770" UserId="79" Text="As point out in the comments, *scholaris* is an adjective meaning &quot;belonging to a school&quot; or &quot;of school&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you say *opus scholare, vox scholaris*, it means &quot;work of school, voice of school&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;To me that sounds essentially opposite of what you want to say, so I would not suggest it.&#xD;&#xA;Notice in my example above that *opus* is a neuter and therefore the adjective is in the form *scholare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reach the correct tone, I strongly suggest that you pick some Latin dictionary (you can find suggestions [in this other question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79)) and find the words you wish to use.&#xD;&#xA;We can then help you use them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me give you some suggestions (see more detailed translations and more suggestions in a dictionary):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Work might be *labor* (physical work), *opus* (a piece of work), *facta* (done things) or *scripta* (written things).&#xD;&#xA;- A student might be *studens*, *studiosus* or *discipulus*.&#xD;&#xA;- A voice might be *vox* or *dicta* (said things).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use participles, just look up the verbs that are relevant (do, say, write, or something) and we'll figure out suitable forms for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best guess now is *scripcta studentium, dicta studentium* &quot;things done by students, things said by students&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I'm happy to give a better suggestion if you can comment on the tone of these words and perhaps suggest better ones (see a dictionary for both)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="948" RevisionGUID="ae321d40-8f77-484a-89ff-b10e1b6dfcfd" CreationDate="2016-05-27T19:48:39.300" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="As point out in the comments, *scholaris* is an adjective meaning &quot;belonging to a school&quot; or &quot;of school&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you say *opus scholare, vox scholaris*, it means &quot;work of school, voice of school&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;To me that sounds essentially opposite of what you want to say, so I would not suggest it.&#xD;&#xA;Notice in my example above that *opus* is a neuter and therefore the adjective is in the form *scholare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reach the correct tone, I strongly suggest that you pick some Latin dictionary (you can find suggestions [in this other question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79)) and find the words you wish to use.&#xD;&#xA;We can then help you use them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me give you some suggestions (see more detailed translations and more suggestions in a dictionary):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Work might be *labor* (physical work), *opus* (a piece of work), *facta* (done things) or *scripta* (written things).&#xD;&#xA;- A student might be *studens*, *studiosus* or *discipulus*.&#xD;&#xA;- A voice might be *vox* or *dicta* (said things).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use participles, just look up the verbs that are relevant (do, say, write, or something) and we'll figure out suitable forms for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best guess now is *scripta studentium, dicta studentium* &quot;things done by students, things said by students&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I'm happy to give a better suggestion if you can comment on the tone of these words and perhaps suggest better ones (see a dictionary for both)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="948" RevisionGUID="ccb1fadc-5461-48b0-a952-184dcc749388" CreationDate="2016-05-27T21:15:19.140" UserId="79" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="As point out in the comments, *scholaris* is an adjective meaning &quot;belonging to a school&quot; or &quot;of school&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you say *opus scholare, vox scholaris*, it means &quot;work of school, voice of school&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;To me that sounds essentially opposite of what you want to say, so I would not suggest it.&#xD;&#xA;Notice in my example above that *opus* is a neuter and therefore the adjective is in the form *scholare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reach the correct tone, I strongly suggest that you pick some Latin dictionary (you can find suggestions [in this other question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79)) and find the words you wish to use.&#xD;&#xA;We can then help you use them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me give you some suggestions (see more detailed translations and more suggestions in a dictionary):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Work might be *labor* (physical work), *opus* (a piece of work), *facta* (made things), *acta* (done things) or *scripta* (written things).&#xD;&#xA;- A student might be *studens*, *studiosus* or *discipulus*.&#xD;&#xA;- A voice might be *vox* or *dicta* (said things).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use participles, just look up the verbs that are relevant (study, do, say, write, or something) and we'll figure out suitable forms for them.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *studens* comes from the verb *studere* (or *studeo* in some dictionaries), which means much more than studying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best guess now is *scripta studentium, dicta studentium* &quot;things written by students, things said by students&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I'm happy to give a better suggestion if you can comment on the tone of these words and perhaps suggest better ones (see a dictionary for both)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="949" RevisionGUID="cb264763-5148-4fd3-8a5b-b862da59a959" CreationDate="2016-05-28T10:34:31.377" UserId="324" Text="As you say, γοητεία “sorcery, witchcraft” is a noun. Apparently some mediaeval Latinist mistook it for the feminine singular nominative of an adjective. Classical Latin does have words like “musica” as a synonym for “ars musica”, so it could be that someone thought you could equate “goetia” with “ars goetia”, but this could only work if goetia were an adjective. Which it is not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="940" RevisionGUID="72764e68-bef2-45d1-9cef-609a4eaa6343" CreationDate="2016-05-28T17:35:07.193" UserId="12" Comment="sp" Text="These words are unrelated: they developed independently from different Proto-Indo-European roots, according to Michiel de Vaan's *Etymological Dictionary* (337–38).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, *liber* or *librī*, meaning &quot;book,&quot; is thought to come from a PIE word meaning &quot;leaf, rind&quot;: *lub-ro*.  De Vaan cites several Indo-European languages that have attested cognates and summarizes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We may surmise that *liber* is cognate with *lub-* and goes back to a PIE word or a European word 'leaf, rind'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, *līber*, meaning &quot;children,&quot; comes from a different PIE word (*hleud-ero*), through a Proto-Italic word *leup-ero*.  The word also means &quot;free,&quot; and the &quot;children&quot; meaning developed later.  De Vaan explains again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The change of the pl. *līberī* to 'children' is explained by Benveniste from legal terminology, in which the legitimate 'children' of a free couple were denominated as 'free ones'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's simply a coincidence that these words ultimately came to look very similar: they developed from distinct PIE roots." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="950" RevisionGUID="cacb9c08-d6a7-4346-afd8-fb72d5c3c609" CreationDate="2016-05-28T21:05:21.587" UserId="469" Text="Basically what's in the title: How did ***mundus*** come to mean both [*world*][1] and [*clean*][2]? L&amp;S lists a number of other meanings, but in my knowledge these are two very frequent uses, that do not seem to have much in common. I have always wondered whether there is any documented history to explain such different meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seemingly there is a [Proto-IE root][3] related to mundus meaning to adorn, which would explain most of the _clean_ meaning, but I have not found anything for the _world_ part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmundus2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmundus1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&amp;morpho=0&amp;basename=\data\ie\piet&amp;first=1&amp;off=&amp;text_lat=mundus&amp;method_lat=substring&amp;ic_lat=on&amp;sort=proto&amp;ic_any=on" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3234" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="950" RevisionGUID="cacb9c08-d6a7-4346-afd8-fb72d5c3c609" CreationDate="2016-05-28T21:05:21.587" UserId="469" Text="How did mundus come to mean both world and clean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3235" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="950" RevisionGUID="cacb9c08-d6a7-4346-afd8-fb72d5c3c609" CreationDate="2016-05-28T21:05:21.587" UserId="469" Text="|etymology|vocabulary|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="950" RevisionGUID="25696ce3-7782-474b-a4d6-47dccc418269" CreationDate="2016-05-28T21:33:15.857" UserId="469" Comment="added 2807 characters in body" Text="Basically what's in the title: How did ***mundus*** come to mean both [*world*][1] and [*clean*][2]? L&amp;S lists a number of other meanings, but in my knowledge these are two very frequent uses, that do not seem to have much in common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have always wondered whether there is any documented history to explain such different meanings. Was it just the fruit of convergent evolution, a complex process of meaning change from a common original meaning, or something different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;My research so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a [Proto-IE root][3] related to mundus meaning to adorn, which would explain most of the _clean_ meaning, but I have not found anything for the _world_ part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin also has the words _Terra_ and _Universum_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[_Terra_][4] means Earth (as a _part_ of the whole world, as I understand from the first quote to Cicero in L&amp;S, which makes sense to me). It also has a close [PIE root][5] with the same meaning. That seems to suggest _terra_ predates _mundus_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About _universum_ I do not have so many clues, except that it seems to be a composite of uni+versus, the later having some ancient semantic field related to [_turning_][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmundus2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmundus1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&amp;morpho=0&amp;basename=\data\ie\piet&amp;first=1&amp;off=&amp;text_lat=mundus&amp;method_lat=substring&amp;ic_lat=on&amp;sort=proto&amp;ic_any=on&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dterra&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&amp;morpho=0&amp;basename=\data\ie\piet&amp;first=1&amp;off=&amp;text_proto=&amp;method_proto=substring&amp;ic_proto=on&amp;text_meaning=&amp;method_meaning=substring&amp;ic_meaning=on&amp;text_hitt=&amp;method_hitt=substring&amp;ic_hitt=on&amp;text_tokh=&amp;method_tokh=substring&amp;ic_tokh=on&amp;text_ind=&amp;method_ind=substring&amp;ic_ind=on&amp;text_avest=&amp;method_avest=substring&amp;ic_avest=on&amp;text_iran=&amp;method_iran=substring&amp;ic_iran=on&amp;text_arm=&amp;method_arm=substring&amp;ic_arm=on&amp;text_greek=&amp;method_greek=substring&amp;ic_greek=on&amp;text_slav=&amp;method_slav=substring&amp;ic_slav=on&amp;text_balt=&amp;method_balt=substring&amp;ic_balt=on&amp;text_germ=&amp;method_germ=substring&amp;ic_germ=on&amp;text_lat=terra&amp;method_lat=substring&amp;ic_lat=on&amp;text_ital=&amp;method_ital=substring&amp;ic_ital=on&amp;text_celt=&amp;method_celt=substring&amp;ic_celt=on&amp;text_alb=&amp;method_alb=substring&amp;ic_alb=on&amp;text_rusmean=&amp;method_rusmean=substring&amp;ic_rusmean=on&amp;text_refer=&amp;method_refer=substring&amp;ic_refer=on&amp;text_comment=&amp;method_comment=substring&amp;ic_comment=on&amp;text_any=&amp;method_any=substring&amp;sort=proto&amp;ic_any=on&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&amp;morpho=0&amp;basename=\data\ie\piet&amp;first=1&amp;off=&amp;text_proto=&amp;method_proto=substring&amp;ic_proto=on&amp;text_meaning=&amp;method_meaning=substring&amp;ic_meaning=on&amp;text_hitt=&amp;method_hitt=substring&amp;ic_hitt=on&amp;text_tokh=&amp;method_tokh=substring&amp;ic_tokh=on&amp;text_ind=&amp;method_ind=substring&amp;ic_ind=on&amp;text_avest=&amp;method_avest=substring&amp;ic_avest=on&amp;text_iran=&amp;method_iran=substring&amp;ic_iran=on&amp;text_arm=&amp;method_arm=substring&amp;ic_arm=on&amp;text_greek=&amp;method_greek=substring&amp;ic_greek=on&amp;text_slav=&amp;method_slav=substring&amp;ic_slav=on&amp;text_balt=&amp;method_balt=substring&amp;ic_balt=on&amp;text_germ=&amp;method_germ=substring&amp;ic_germ=on&amp;text_lat=versu&amp;method_lat=substring&amp;ic_lat=on&amp;text_ital=&amp;method_ital=substring&amp;ic_ital=on&amp;text_celt=&amp;method_celt=substring&amp;ic_celt=on&amp;text_alb=&amp;method_alb=substring&amp;ic_alb=on&amp;text_rusmean=&amp;method_rusmean=substring&amp;ic_rusmean=on&amp;text_refer=&amp;method_refer=substring&amp;ic_refer=on&amp;text_comment=&amp;method_comment=substring&amp;ic_comment=on&amp;text_any=&amp;method_any=substring&amp;sort=proto&amp;ic_any=on" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="950" RevisionGUID="51efcffe-2ae3-4f3b-a19e-480fd171f388" CreationDate="2016-05-28T22:33:42.540" UserId="469" Comment="added 187 characters in body" Text="Basically what's in the title: How did ***mundus*** come to mean both [*world*][1] and [*clean*][2]? L&amp;S lists a number of other meanings, but in my knowledge these are two very frequent uses, that do not seem to have much in common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have always wondered whether there is any documented history to explain such different meanings. Was it just the fruit of convergent evolution, a complex process of meaning change from a common original meaning, or something different? I find it even funny that with time in Ecclesiastical Latin both meanings came to be close to opposite: the World as _the realm of sin and death_, and cleanliness as the absense of evil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;My research so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a [Proto-IE root][3] related to mundus meaning to adorn, which would explain most of the _clean_ meaning, but I have not found anything for the _world_ part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin also has the words _Terra_ and _Universum_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[_Terra_][4] means Earth (as a _part_ of the whole world, as I understand from the first quote to Cicero in L&amp;S, which makes sense to me). It also has a close [PIE root][5] with the same meaning. That seems to suggest _terra_ predates _mundus_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About _universum_ I do not have so many clues, except that it seems to be a composite of uni+versus, the later having some ancient semantic field related to [_turning_][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmundus2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmundus1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&amp;morpho=0&amp;basename=\data\ie\piet&amp;first=1&amp;off=&amp;text_lat=mundus&amp;method_lat=substring&amp;ic_lat=on&amp;sort=proto&amp;ic_any=on&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dterra&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&amp;morpho=0&amp;basename=\data\ie\piet&amp;first=1&amp;off=&amp;text_proto=&amp;method_proto=substring&amp;ic_proto=on&amp;text_meaning=&amp;method_meaning=substring&amp;ic_meaning=on&amp;text_hitt=&amp;method_hitt=substring&amp;ic_hitt=on&amp;text_tokh=&amp;method_tokh=substring&amp;ic_tokh=on&amp;text_ind=&amp;method_ind=substring&amp;ic_ind=on&amp;text_avest=&amp;method_avest=substring&amp;ic_avest=on&amp;text_iran=&amp;method_iran=substring&amp;ic_iran=on&amp;text_arm=&amp;method_arm=substring&amp;ic_arm=on&amp;text_greek=&amp;method_greek=substring&amp;ic_greek=on&amp;text_slav=&amp;method_slav=substring&amp;ic_slav=on&amp;text_balt=&amp;method_balt=substring&amp;ic_balt=on&amp;text_germ=&amp;method_germ=substring&amp;ic_germ=on&amp;text_lat=terra&amp;method_lat=substring&amp;ic_lat=on&amp;text_ital=&amp;method_ital=substring&amp;ic_ital=on&amp;text_celt=&amp;method_celt=substring&amp;ic_celt=on&amp;text_alb=&amp;method_alb=substring&amp;ic_alb=on&amp;text_rusmean=&amp;method_rusmean=substring&amp;ic_rusmean=on&amp;text_refer=&amp;method_refer=substring&amp;ic_refer=on&amp;text_comment=&amp;method_comment=substring&amp;ic_comment=on&amp;text_any=&amp;method_any=substring&amp;sort=proto&amp;ic_any=on&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&amp;morpho=0&amp;basename=\data\ie\piet&amp;first=1&amp;off=&amp;text_proto=&amp;method_proto=substring&amp;ic_proto=on&amp;text_meaning=&amp;method_meaning=substring&amp;ic_meaning=on&amp;text_hitt=&amp;method_hitt=substring&amp;ic_hitt=on&amp;text_tokh=&amp;method_tokh=substring&amp;ic_tokh=on&amp;text_ind=&amp;method_ind=substring&amp;ic_ind=on&amp;text_avest=&amp;method_avest=substring&amp;ic_avest=on&amp;text_iran=&amp;method_iran=substring&amp;ic_iran=on&amp;text_arm=&amp;method_arm=substring&amp;ic_arm=on&amp;text_greek=&amp;method_greek=substring&amp;ic_greek=on&amp;text_slav=&amp;method_slav=substring&amp;ic_slav=on&amp;text_balt=&amp;method_balt=substring&amp;ic_balt=on&amp;text_germ=&amp;method_germ=substring&amp;ic_germ=on&amp;text_lat=versu&amp;method_lat=substring&amp;ic_lat=on&amp;text_ital=&amp;method_ital=substring&amp;ic_ital=on&amp;text_celt=&amp;method_celt=substring&amp;ic_celt=on&amp;text_alb=&amp;method_alb=substring&amp;ic_alb=on&amp;text_rusmean=&amp;method_rusmean=substring&amp;ic_rusmean=on&amp;text_refer=&amp;method_refer=substring&amp;ic_refer=on&amp;text_comment=&amp;method_comment=substring&amp;ic_comment=on&amp;text_any=&amp;method_any=substring&amp;sort=proto&amp;ic_any=on" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="951" RevisionGUID="51458cfa-aee0-4094-be90-16fdf8d292fe" CreationDate="2016-05-28T22:43:54.537" UserId="40" Text="It's possible that the identity is a coincidence and that the adjective and the noun are unrelated homophones. De Vann's etymological dictionary lists the two words as separate entries and does not draw any connection between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, it seems plausible that there is a relationship, namely that the &quot;world&quot; sense is based on a calque of the Greek word κόσμος. This has the basic meaning of &quot;order&quot;, but also means both &quot;ornament, decoration&quot; and &quot;world&quot;, just like the noun *mundus*. (The semantic connection appears to be the idea of the world as a &quot;natural order&quot;.) The concepts &quot;clean&quot; and &quot;ornament&quot; are semantically close enough that *mundus* (adj.) and *mundus* (n.) could easily be related, and then the latter would have picked up its additional meaning of &quot;world&quot; in imitation of the Greek word. The possibility of Greek influence is supported by the fact that *mundus* appears to have been a specifically philosophical word for &quot;world&quot;, as opposed to a more common term like *orbis terrarum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="940" RevisionGUID="ede6fcda-78ce-4c18-a7d2-30d64900f96b" CreationDate="2016-05-28T23:25:02.340" UserId="12" Comment="more accurate characters" Text="These words are unrelated: they developed independently from different Proto-Indo-European roots, according to Michiel de Vaan's *Etymological Dictionary* (337–38).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, *liber* or *librī*, meaning &quot;book,&quot; is thought to come from a PIE word meaning &quot;leaf, rind&quot;: *&lt;i&gt;lubʰ-ro-&lt;/i&gt;.  De Vaan cites several Indo-European languages that have attested cognates and summarizes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We may surmise that *liber* is cognate with *&lt;i&gt;lubʰ-&lt;/i&gt; and goes back to a PIE word or a European word 'leaf, rind'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, *līber*, meaning &quot;children,&quot; comes from a different PIE word (*&lt;i&gt;h&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;leudʰ-ero-&lt;/i&gt;), through a Proto-Italic word *&lt;i&gt;leuþ-ero&lt;/i&gt;.  The word also means &quot;free,&quot; and the &quot;children&quot; meaning developed later.  De Vaan explains again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The change of the pl. *līberī* to 'children' is explained by Benveniste from legal terminology, in which the legitimate 'children' of a free couple were denominated as 'free ones'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's simply a coincidence that these words ultimately came to look very similar: they developed from distinct PIE roots." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="951" RevisionGUID="b37b5f6e-6a06-4bd4-9a3e-25a1d9c13da3" CreationDate="2016-05-29T01:13:34.880" UserId="30" Comment="Dutch!" Text="It's possible that the identity is a coincidence and that the adjective and the noun are unrelated homophones. De Vaan's etymological dictionary lists the two words as separate entries and does not draw any connection between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, it seems plausible that there is a relationship, namely that the &quot;world&quot; sense is based on a calque of the Greek word κόσμος. This has the basic meaning of &quot;order&quot;, but also means both &quot;ornament, decoration&quot; and &quot;world&quot;, just like the noun *mundus*. (The semantic connection appears to be the idea of the world as a &quot;natural order&quot;.) The concepts &quot;clean&quot; and &quot;ornament&quot; are semantically close enough that *mundus* (adj.) and *mundus* (n.) could easily be related, and then the latter would have picked up its additional meaning of &quot;world&quot; in imitation of the Greek word. The possibility of Greek influence is supported by the fact that *mundus* appears to have been a specifically philosophical word for &quot;world&quot;, as opposed to a more common term like *orbis terrarum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="952" RevisionGUID="b431661f-45fa-4162-b155-eefadf1092f3" CreationDate="2016-05-29T15:00:22.020" UserId="518" Text="I used to study Latin at my old high school. I was pretty good, and finished 2 years, enough to take the SAT II Latin test, if I so wished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I then switched to a high school that doesn't offer Latin. I've been wanting to take Latin up again, but I'm not sure how. We finished Wheelock at my old school. **Does anyone know any good textbooks or strategies for restarting a study of Latin?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3242" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="952" RevisionGUID="b431661f-45fa-4162-b155-eefadf1092f3" CreationDate="2016-05-29T15:00:22.020" UserId="518" Text="Studying Latin After Wheelock" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3243" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="952" RevisionGUID="b431661f-45fa-4162-b155-eefadf1092f3" CreationDate="2016-05-29T15:00:22.020" UserId="518" Text="|classical-latin|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="953" RevisionGUID="2c46f1e4-a921-4b7c-9b0f-c5c14b239160" CreationDate="2016-05-29T15:57:06.583" UserId="522" Text="More Latin, and possibly more interesting Latin, was written and studied after the classical period than you might expect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you would consider learning [medieval Latin][2], there is a course on the UK National Archive site. The course uses handwriting from manuscripts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would give you access to such treasures as the [early geographical material from the][3] University of Ghent, and the Yale Beinecke [early manuscript Library][1]; and an account of [The White Ship Tragedy][4];&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://beinecke.library.yale.edu/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/latin/beginners/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://adore.ugent.be/view?q=_id:%22archive.ugent.be:018970A2-B1E8-11DF-A2E0-A70579F64438%22&amp;search_type=advanced&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UagBO.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="640" RevisionGUID="1926b943-d072-427b-8630-f80a0e99934e" CreationDate="2016-05-29T16:51:26.453" UserId="68" Comment="added 703 characters in body" Text="I like *exacte*, though I worry that its similarity to &quot;exactly&quot; might be leading me to think it's closer to what you need than it actually is. It occurs to me that *adamussim* (&quot;to the level&quot;) might also work for the first, but it's not a word I've seen many times in my reading so it could be less appropriate than I suspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: It turns out *exacte* may be just what you want. In his translation of &quot;Sleeping Beauty,&quot; Arcadius Avellanus (the last native speaker of Latin) has the good fairy saying&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Régia Fília digitum suum fúsó révérá scarificábit, nón tamen moriétur; attamen ex vulnere in profundum cónsopiétur somnum, nec ante centum annós inde expergíscet, quó tamen tempore **exactó** filius cujusdam régis veniet, eamque expergefaciet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few sentences later, he writes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Post **exactós** quínósdénós aut sénósdénós annós [which seems to me to defeat the purpose, but whatever], dum réx régínaque in villá suá rurí agébant, evenit, ut adoléscentula Régia Fília quódam dié totam régiam percursáret. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your second sentence implies to me a general period of time (that is, &quot;around when the hour is starting&quot;) rather than something exact. I wonder whether *ad cujusque horæ initium* would do the trick." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="954" RevisionGUID="b4067bd9-d7b3-4e26-9f20-a66b9244e161" CreationDate="2016-05-29T18:41:40.020" UserId="523" Text="my girlfriend asked me to translate phrase &quot;I live for my family&quot; for her. As I found out, it is much more difficult then I thought, so I am asking you for help.&#xD;&#xA;I don't really believe online translators and based on my amateurish research I constructed translation as &quot;vivo per meus familiae(cognatio?)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Do you knot what should be proper translation for her phrase? Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3248" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="954" RevisionGUID="b4067bd9-d7b3-4e26-9f20-a66b9244e161" CreationDate="2016-05-29T18:41:40.020" UserId="523" Text="How to say &quot;I live for my family&quot; in latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3249" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="954" RevisionGUID="b4067bd9-d7b3-4e26-9f20-a66b9244e161" CreationDate="2016-05-29T18:41:40.020" UserId="523" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="954" RevisionGUID="638ef12a-e54a-472f-b920-32e89349c11c" CreationDate="2016-05-29T19:07:07.900" UserId="45" Comment="corrected typos" Text="My girlfriend asked me to translate the phrase &quot;I live for my family&quot; for her. As I found out, it is much more difficult then I thought, so I am asking you for help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really believe online translators and based on my amateurish research I constructed the translation as &quot;Vivo per meus familiae(cognatio?)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you know what should be the proper translation for this phrase? Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3251" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="954" RevisionGUID="638ef12a-e54a-472f-b920-32e89349c11c" CreationDate="2016-05-29T19:07:07.900" UserId="45" Comment="corrected typos" Text="How to say &quot;I live for my family&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="955" RevisionGUID="2260499e-86f5-4ffe-80e8-319b60c7f143" CreationDate="2016-05-29T19:19:48.477" UserId="45" Text="It's great that you are trying to pursue Latin on your own: I too studied in high school but only started getting decent when I started reading and studying on my own time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to this question really depends on what your goals and skill level are. @Hugh offers a good suggestion if you are interested in studying medieval Latin. Here are three suggestions, in no particular order, that might put you on the right track.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Review your previous textbook**: Two years can be an eternity if you don't practice in between: the familiarity of the lessons, exercises, and vocabulary might give you a leg up if you are trying to get back into the swing of things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Have a look at [Orberg's *Lingua Latina*](http://www.amazon.com/Lingua-Latina-per-Illustrata-Pars/dp/1585104205/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1464549329&amp;sr=1-1)**: Orberg uses the natural method to slowly increase in difficulty: by the time you finish the second book, you will be reading fairly advanced Latin. If my own experience is any indication, I think that the natural method pairs excellently with a prior foundation in the rote learning techniques of more traditional books like Wheelock's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Read on your own!** There are innumerable ways to get Latin texts online, for almost any skill level. If you are interested in a particular topic (Philosophy, History, Theology, etc.), it is likely that you can find a Latin work that you would be able to go through, albeit painfully at first. The bridge from curated textbook Latin to real Latin can be a difficult one to cross, but once you do...you realize why Latin is awesome to know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="954" RevisionGUID="d93697cb-9d20-4686-b5e0-40dc14db0dce" CreationDate="2016-05-29T23:26:10.093" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="My girlfriend asked me to translate the phrase &quot;I live for my family&quot; for her. As I found out, it is much more difficult than I thought, so I am asking you for help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really believe online translators and based on my amateurish research I constructed the translation as &quot;Vivo per meus familiae(cognatio?)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you know what should be the proper translation for this phrase? Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="640" RevisionGUID="13a9ff65-7e23-4a88-8994-29bf822e8c19" CreationDate="2016-05-30T01:03:55.770" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 703 characters in body" Text="I like *exacte*, though I worry that its similarity to &quot;exactly&quot; might be leading me to think it's closer to what you need than it actually is. It occurs to me that *adamussim* (&quot;to the level&quot;) might also work for the first, but it's not a word I've seen many times in my reading so it could be less appropriate than I suspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your second sentence implies to me a general period of time (that is, &quot;around when the hour is starting&quot;) rather than something exact. I wonder whether *ad cujusque horæ initium* would do the trick." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3258" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="952" RevisionGUID="aa879313-a75a-403a-9484-6b0023d083be" CreationDate="2016-05-30T03:23:40.817" UserId="12" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:12,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nathaniel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3259" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="952" RevisionGUID="bc8ef7b5-b083-4a91-80df-7a36684334dc" CreationDate="2016-05-30T03:40:11.963" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="957" RevisionGUID="f8c5aafd-d8d6-481b-972d-e126527fa33f" CreationDate="2016-05-30T14:39:20.273" UserId="68" Text="What good widely available courses (e.g. textbooks, online classes) are there for people who wish to learn or study Latin on their own?&#xD;&#xA;What are their benefits and drawbacks?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Please give only one course per answer.**&#xD;&#xA;If you have many courses to suggest, give multiple answers—but read the other answers to avoid duplicating answers.&#xD;&#xA;This way people can vote on individual courses, causing the best ones to rise up and the worst ones to sink down, so that we can easily find the most loved courses.&#xD;&#xA;If there are many courses listed in an answer, it's hard to link the answer score to the quality of each listed course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Note about resource questions:**  &#xD;&#xA;Broad resource questions like this are generally **not** allowed on this site.&#xD;&#xA;The community chooses a select few to avoid an overflow of questions of this kind.&#xD;&#xA;If you have an opinion on what resource questions should be asked next, post a suggestion in [this meta post](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) or vote on the existing ones.&#xD;&#xA;The ones to be asked will be chosen from that list according to their number of votes.&#xD;&#xA;If you have ideas about listing resources on this site in general, you can contribute to [this meta discussion](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/177/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In particular, if you would like to ask a similar resource request question, do **not** just ask it, but post a suggestion in the [mentioned meta post](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3261" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="957" RevisionGUID="f8c5aafd-d8d6-481b-972d-e126527fa33f" CreationDate="2016-05-30T14:39:20.273" UserId="68" Text="How can I study Latin on my own?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3262" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="957" RevisionGUID="f8c5aafd-d8d6-481b-972d-e126527fa33f" CreationDate="2016-05-30T14:39:20.273" UserId="68" Text="|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3263" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="957" RevisionGUID="b0a82595-87af-4e25-8e26-61130f92e9c0" CreationDate="2016-05-30T14:42:19.570" UserId="68" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:68,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joel Derfner&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3264" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="957" RevisionGUID="7733342c-734e-4823-a76a-7320a7845802" CreationDate="2016-05-30T14:59:11.350" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="3265" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="957" RevisionGUID="de42fea1-b66e-43b6-bd25-1c697d3dabc9" CreationDate="2016-05-30T16:00:22.970" UserId="79" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="958" RevisionGUID="d3a005c3-6acb-4c3d-bf2a-492fcfd35cbb" CreationDate="2016-05-30T16:12:06.767" UserId="68" Text="I recommend Hans Ørberg's *Lingua Latīna per sē illustrāta* series. Its main books are volume I, *[Familia Rōmāna][1]*, at the end of which the careful reader has a pretty fair grasp of Latin grammar, and volume II, *[Rōma Æterna][2]*, which takes readers from &quot;textbook Latin&quot; to &quot;real Latin.&quot; These two texts also have associated workbooks and teachers' guides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ørberg uses the &quot;natural method&quot;—that is, everything is in Latin, and new words and ideas are explained using words and ideas that have already been introduced. There are several supplemental books in the series, including Cæsar, Cicero, Sallust, Vergil, Plautus, and so on. There are also a lot of resources scattered around the web for people using the series, since it's fairly popular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're working on your own and you've never studied Latin before, Ørberg probably isn't the place to start, but after almost 30 years away from the language I found these books a very good way to return.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Lingua-Latina-Illustrata-Pars-Familia/dp/1585104205?ie=UTF8&amp;keywords=lingua%20latina%20per%20se%20illustrata&amp;qid=1464624525&amp;ref_=sr_1_1&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/Roma-Aeterna-Pars-Lingua-Latina/dp/1585103144?ie=UTF8&amp;keywords=lingua%20latina%20per%20se%20illustrata&amp;qid=1464624525&amp;ref_=sr_1_6&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3267" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="958" RevisionGUID="cf5364ec-c259-4265-bb2f-46fe113c35e5" CreationDate="2016-05-30T16:12:06.767" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="3268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="958" RevisionGUID="bf568272-cf22-4666-959e-cb2e71e37722" CreationDate="2016-05-30T16:17:22.950" UserId="68" Comment="added 297 characters in body" Text="I recommend Hans Ørberg's *Lingua Latīna per sē illustrāta* series. Its main books are volume I, *[Familia Rōmāna][1]*, at the end of which the careful reader has a pretty fair grasp of Latin grammar, and volume II, *[Rōma Æterna][2]*, which takes readers from &quot;textbook Latin&quot; to &quot;real Latin.&quot; These two texts also have associated workbooks and teachers' guides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ørberg uses the &quot;natural method&quot;—that is, everything is in Latin, and new words and ideas are explained using words and ideas that have already been introduced. There are several supplemental books in the series, including Cæsar, Cicero, Sallust, Vergil, Plautus, and so on. There are also a lot of resources scattered around the web for people using the series, since it's fairly popular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're working on your own and you've never studied Latin before, Ørberg probably isn't the place to start, though the *[Lingua Latīna College Companion][3]* can fill in some of the gaps. If you have a teacher, though, or if you're returning after a hiatus, chances are you'll find Ørberg's books both useful and fun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Lingua-Latina-Illustrata-Pars-Familia/dp/1585104205?ie=UTF8&amp;keywords=lingua%20latina%20per%20se%20illustrata&amp;qid=1464624525&amp;ref_=sr_1_1&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/Roma-Aeterna-Pars-Lingua-Latina/dp/1585103144?ie=UTF8&amp;keywords=lingua%20latina%20per%20se%20illustrata&amp;qid=1464624525&amp;ref_=sr_1_6&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-6&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.amazon.com/College-Companion-Oerbergs-Vocabulary-Grammar/dp/1585101915/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1464624809&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=lingua%20latina%20college%20companion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="958" RevisionGUID="2b561339-311c-4138-9e87-a6bc4a8cb37d" CreationDate="2016-05-30T16:24:11.453" UserId="68" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="I recommend Hans Ørberg's *[Lingua Latīna per sē illustrāta][1]* series. Its main books are volume I, *[Familia Rōmāna][2]*, at the end of which the careful reader has a pretty fair grasp of Latin grammar, and volume II, *[Rōma Æterna][3]*, which takes readers from &quot;textbook Latin&quot; to &quot;real Latin.&quot; These two texts also have associated workbooks and teachers' guides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ørberg uses the &quot;natural method&quot;—that is, everything is in Latin, and new words and ideas are explained using words and ideas that have already been introduced. There are several supplemental books in the series, including Cæsar, Cicero, Sallust, Vergil, Plautus, and so on. There are also a lot of resources scattered around the web for people using the series, since it's fairly popular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're working on your own and you've never studied Latin before, Ørberg probably isn't the place to start, though the *[Lingua Latīna College Companion][4]* can fill in some of the gaps. If you have a teacher, though, or if you're returning after a hiatus, chances are you'll find Ørberg's books both useful and fun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.hackettpublishing.com/lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata-series&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/Lingua-Latina-Illustrata-Pars-Familia/dp/1585104205?ie=UTF8&amp;keywords=lingua%20latina%20per%20se%20illustrata&amp;qid=1464624525&amp;ref_=sr_1_1&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.amazon.com/Roma-Aeterna-Pars-Lingua-Latina/dp/1585103144?ie=UTF8&amp;keywords=lingua%20latina%20per%20se%20illustrata&amp;qid=1464624525&amp;ref_=sr_1_6&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-6&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.amazon.com/College-Companion-Oerbergs-Vocabulary-Grammar/dp/1585101915/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1464624809&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=lingua%20latina%20college%20companion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="959" RevisionGUID="3c8171e5-ccc9-4c35-9cda-a660d217422b" CreationDate="2016-05-30T17:34:06.683" UserId="324" Text="“Teach yourself Latin” in the Teach Yourself series is very good. I have used it to teach my students, but you can use it on your own. What I like about it is that it has genuine Roman texts right from the beginning, and at that very good ones (especially poetry)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3271" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="959" RevisionGUID="02e76794-0cfd-4a87-9a93-6a7dfd5993ad" CreationDate="2016-05-30T17:34:06.683" UserId="324" />
  <row Id="3272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="960" RevisionGUID="bfa615d8-7ad5-4eb4-b251-6247341f5113" CreationDate="2016-05-30T20:37:30.510" UserId="68" Text="I'd suggest something like *Familiam ad sustinendam vivo.* Literally translated, this means something like &quot;I live for the sustaining of my family.&quot; Latin word order is pretty free, so putting *familiam* (&quot;family&quot;) first emphasizes the importance of that word in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This construction (*familiam ad sustinendam*) is an example of the **gerundive**, which is a way to turn verbs into adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also say *Familiam ut sustineam vivo*, which would be using the **subjunctive** rather than the gerundive. This is an equally correct way of saying it, but using the gerundive adds a flavor of something that *must* be done that's absent from the subjunctive. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="961" RevisionGUID="d69876a2-ec7d-4112-a363-5443ded4c72b" CreationDate="2016-05-31T00:31:08.903" UserId="124" Text="The one I used when I first began to study in 7th grade was [*Latin for the New Millenium*](http://www.amazon.com/Latin-New-Millennium-Student-Text/dp/0865165602). I found it to be very organized and cumulative, introducing finite chunks of syntax and grammar rules in each chapter and not getting too long-winded and confusing in its explanations (which I've noticed can be the case in a lot of the older, more famous textbooks). You should be able to work through it pretty quickly - I think there are two volumes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3274" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="961" RevisionGUID="de938fc6-0e97-4d17-8902-0890687dff8b" CreationDate="2016-05-31T00:31:08.903" UserId="124" />
  <row Id="3275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="960" RevisionGUID="3ec252c2-2129-467b-a2c0-6e777153cb2e" CreationDate="2016-05-31T04:05:31.467" UserId="68" Comment="added 634 characters in body" Text="I'd suggest something like *Familiam ad sustinendam vivo.* Literally translated, this means something like &quot;I live for the sustaining of my family.&quot; Latin word order is pretty free, so putting *familiam* (&quot;family&quot;) first emphasizes the importance of that word in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This construction (*familiam ad sustinendam*) is an example of the **gerundive**, which is a way to turn verbs into adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also say *Familiam ut sustineam vivo*, which would be using the **subjunctive** rather than the gerundive. This is an equally correct way of saying it, but using the gerundive adds a flavor of something that *must* be done that's absent from the subjunctive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way to say it, as @Rafael suggests in the comments, is *Pro mea familia vivo*, though to my ear *Pro familia vivo* sounds more idiomatic, the *mea* (&quot;my&quot;) being the sort of thing that Romans tended to assume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It occurs to me that if what she's looking for is more a *motto* than a way to make a *statement*, she might also consider something like *Familia mea est vita,* which means &quot;My family is my life.&quot; (There I'd include the *mea* because otherwise it would be &quot;family is life,&quot; which seems to be a broader statement about the human importance of family rather than the personal importance of one specific family.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="957" RevisionGUID="53820691-417b-43fd-9fd5-b6fc3c3a96c7" CreationDate="2016-05-31T12:51:06.633" UserId="68" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="What good widely available courses (e.g. textbooks, online classes) are there for people who wish to learn (or continue to learn) Latin on their own?&#xD;&#xA;What are their benefits and drawbacks?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Please give only one course per answer.**&#xD;&#xA;If you have many courses to suggest, give multiple answers—but read the other answers to avoid duplicating answers.&#xD;&#xA;This way people can vote on individual courses, causing the best ones to rise up and the worst ones to sink down, so that we can easily find the most loved courses.&#xD;&#xA;If there are many courses listed in an answer, it's hard to link the answer score to the quality of each listed course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Note about resource questions:**  &#xD;&#xA;Broad resource questions like this are generally **not** allowed on this site.&#xD;&#xA;The community chooses a select few to avoid an overflow of questions of this kind.&#xD;&#xA;If you have an opinion on what resource questions should be asked next, post a suggestion in [this meta post](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) or vote on the existing ones.&#xD;&#xA;The ones to be asked will be chosen from that list according to their number of votes.&#xD;&#xA;If you have ideas about listing resources on this site in general, you can contribute to [this meta discussion](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/177/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In particular, if you would like to ask a similar resource request question, do **not** just ask it, but post a suggestion in the [mentioned meta post](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="bfdbb50c-537c-49ff-ad78-74142da90a31" CreationDate="2016-05-31T13:34:08.037" UserId="469" Comment="added the concept of _adposition_ to the title, plus some comments" Text="In Latin, there are prepositions that may be followed by a noun in accusative (like *ad*), ablative (*cum*) or both (*in*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I once thought *ope* was a preposition to be used with genitive, which I found pretty interesting because most Latin grammars do not mention it (I think I once read one that did, but I can't find it now). Then I realized it is just the dative of *ops* (in my defense, ope -*by the power or support* of sth- has a very preposition-ish meaning). Nevertheless, doing some linguistics-fiction I wondered it was a feasible way for such a preposition to *evolve* after the desappearence of other uses of *ops*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then I found [this site][1], stating that there is the preposition *tenus*, which actually *works* with genitive. I've never heard of that one, and the page does not cite any sources, but there are [other sources][2] that favor the point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Latin is mostly *ecclesiastical*, so I am more or less ignorant of many classical- and medieval-specific features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: were prepositions/adpositions with genitive a real thing at any point in Latin history? Is there more than one such adposition?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** some people have pointed that _tenus_ is indeed a _postposition_, since it goes _after_ the noun being modified. In the meantime, I have learnt that in linguistics there is a more general word, _adposition_ to embrace both pre- and postpositions. I was unaware on any of these two words: good to learn new things. Thanks @Cerberus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I added the concept to the question's title. I left the word _preposition_ here and there for a number of reasons: 1) both sources cited treat _tenus_ as a _preposition_ (even clarifying it has to be used after the noun), 2) there is no `adposition` tag in Latin.SE, 3) in English, prepositions _may_ be used _after_ nouns in certain circumstances (see [here][3], under the title _Usage Note_), and some definitions [confirm it][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.informalmusic.com/latinsoc/prep.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.campus.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=tenus&amp;ending=&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/preposition?s=t&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Apreposition&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;client=firefox-b" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3278" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="bfdbb50c-537c-49ff-ad78-74142da90a31" CreationDate="2016-05-31T13:34:08.037" UserId="469" Comment="added the concept of _adposition_ to the title, plus some comments" Text="Prepositions/adpositions with genitive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="962" RevisionGUID="8890c699-893d-4ce3-b041-2639fa9a140d" CreationDate="2016-05-31T19:39:58.473" UserId="118" Text="In the legal and logical maxim **Contra principia negantem non est disputandum**, what exactly does **principia** mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, the word _principle_ means an abstract proposition, or something deep in the nature of things, which is the source of more-concrete or surface-level conclusions or consequences. For example, when parties agree in principle, they make an agreement that omits details expected to be worked out later; the principle of relativity in physics means that the reference point for a coordinate system shouldn't have any bearing on the substance of a physical law; judges in common law are said to extract a principle from a precedent case that implies a conclusion for the present case; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder, though, if the Latin **principium** in the maxim is broader, maybe even having the same meaning as the the English word _premise,_ which carries no implication of abstractness. Another possibility is _foundation,_ which is usually understood in this kind of context in English as referring to abstract principles but can also refer to concrete facts, as in “This accusation has no foundation in evidence.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are two examples of usage where **principium** _could_ be interpreted as designating a proposition by its role as starting point for reasoning, without implying that it must be abstract, though neither case is clear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Schopenhauer [invokes the maxim](https://books.google.com/books?id=hITMo2jDaGYC&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;dq=struve%20%22contra%20principia%20negantem%22&amp;pg=PA14#v=onepage&amp;q=contra%20principia&amp;f=false) to summarize this: “In every disputation or argument on any subject we must agree about something; and by this, as a principle, we must be willing to judge the matter in question.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Lenin [criticizes](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1894/narodniks/ch03.htm#fwV01P433F01) Struve's invocation of the maxim as an attempt to treat the “principle” that private property drives economic progress as a raw historical fact. Lenin counters, “that depends on how these principia are formulated.” His point seems to be that Struve's “principle” can in fact be fruitfully disputed, by appeal to the common ground of genuinely concrete historical fact—another kind of **principium**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [earliest invocation](https://books.google.com/books?id=sJUXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA93#v=onepage&amp;q=%22contra%20autem%20negantem%22&amp;f=false) of the maxim that I'm aware of is by Duns Scotus, which I think is clearly limited to abstract principles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si autem hic discursus non sit convincens, multa principia revocantur in dubium, **quæ supponitur a Philosophis**; contra autem negantem **principia communiter recepta**, non est disputandum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I got interested in this several years ago, before I started studying Latin seriously, when I worked a little on [the Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_principia_negantem_non_est_disputandum) about this maxim. I wondered if in translating **principia** as _principles,_ we might have been seduced by “false friends”. I discussed it with Wareh, the editor who did the most work on the page, [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Contra_principia_negantem_non_est_disputandum&amp;oldid=530732818#What_does_it_mean.2C_exactly.3F) and [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Contra_principia_negantem_non_est_disputandum&amp;oldid=530732818#Source_of_the_translation.3F). He persuaded me that _principles_ seems to be the accepted translation. It’s not Wikipedia's place to provide an original translation if a standard one already exists. Here on StackExchange, of course, we can go a little further and even [put two and two together](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SYNTH) if someone can find some relevant historical usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wareh suggested, perhaps most wisely of all, that the meaning of **principia** in this context is vague, and that this has given the maxim vitality. If there is specific evidence for that, I'd be especially interested in hearing it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3280" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="962" RevisionGUID="8890c699-893d-4ce3-b041-2639fa9a140d" CreationDate="2016-05-31T19:39:58.473" UserId="118" Text="Translating &quot;Contra principia negantem non est disputandum&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3281" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="962" RevisionGUID="8890c699-893d-4ce3-b041-2639fa9a140d" CreationDate="2016-05-31T19:39:58.473" UserId="118" Text="|medieval-latin|vocabulary|logic|legal-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="962" RevisionGUID="e6dd9aeb-2bee-4cbf-bb82-7d99144e66ac" CreationDate="2016-05-31T19:50:28.977" UserId="118" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="In the legal and logical maxim **Contra principia negantem non est disputandum**, what exactly does **principia** mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, the word _principle_ means an abstract proposition, or something deep in the nature of things, which is the source of more-concrete or surface-level conclusions or consequences. For example, when parties agree in principle, they make an agreement that omits details expected to be worked out later; the principle of relativity in physics means that the reference point for a coordinate system shouldn't have any bearing on the substance of a physical law; judges in common law are said to extract a principle from a precedent case that implies a conclusion for the present case; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder, though, if the Latin **principium** in the maxim is broader, maybe even having the same meaning as the the English word _premise,_ which carries no implication of abstractness. Another possibility is _foundation,_ which is usually understood in this kind of context in English as referring to abstract principles but can also refer to concrete facts, as in “This accusation has no foundation in evidence.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are two examples of usage where **principium** _could_ be interpreted as designating a proposition by its role as starting point for reasoning, without implying that it must be abstract, though neither case is clear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Schopenhauer [invokes the maxim](https://books.google.com/books?id=hITMo2jDaGYC&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;dq=struve%20%22contra%20principia%20negantem%22&amp;pg=PA14#v=onepage&amp;q=contra%20principia&amp;f=false) to summarize this: “In every disputation or argument on any subject we must agree about something; and by this, as a principle, we must be willing to judge the matter in question.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Lenin [criticizes](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1894/narodniks/ch03.htm#fwV01P433F01) Struve's invocation of the maxim as an attempt to treat the “principle” that private property drives economic progress as a raw historical fact. Lenin counters, “that depends on how these principia are formulated.” His point seems to be that Struve's “principle” can in fact be fruitfully disputed, by appeal to the common ground of genuinely concrete historical fact—another kind of **principium**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [earliest invocation](https://books.google.com/books?id=sJUXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA93#v=onepage&amp;q=%22contra%20autem%20negantem%22&amp;f=false) of the maxim that I'm aware of is by Duns Scotus, which I think is clearly limited to abstract principles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si autem hic discursus non sit convincens, multa principia revocantur in dubium, **quæ supponitur a Philosophis**; contra autem negantem **principia communiter recepta**, non est disputandum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I got interested in this several years ago, before I started studying Latin seriously, when I worked a little on [the Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_principia_negantem_non_est_disputandum) about this maxim. I wondered if in translating **principia** as _principles,_ we might have been seduced by “false friends”. I discussed it with Wareh, the editor who did most of the work on the page, [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Contra_principia_negantem_non_est_disputandum&amp;oldid=530732818#What_does_it_mean.2C_exactly.3F) and [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Contra_principia_negantem_non_est_disputandum&amp;oldid=530732818#Source_of_the_translation.3F). He persuaded me that _principles_ seems to be the accepted translation. It’s not Wikipedia's place to provide an original translation if a standard one already exists. Here on StackExchange, of course, we can go a little further and even [put two and two together](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SYNTH) if someone can find some relevant historical usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wareh suggested, perhaps most wisely of all, that the meaning of **principia** in this context is vague, and that this has given the maxim vitality. If there is specific evidence for that, I'd be especially interested in hearing it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="963" RevisionGUID="a34dcd1c-1412-47a1-8649-4f6b3ca4260c" CreationDate="2016-05-31T21:03:42.700" UserId="235" Text="I had assumed that Apollo was the sun god in the Augustan era of Rome. I still think this is true. But I read a passage in Wikipedia that made me doubt this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Hellenistic times, especially during the 3rd century BCE, as Apollo Helios he became identified among Greeks with Helios, Titan god of the sun, and his sister Artemis similarly equated with Selene, Titan goddess of the moon.[2] **In Latin texts,** on the other hand, Joseph Fontenrose declared himself unable to find any conflation of Apollo with Sol among the Augustan poets of the 1st century, not even in the conjurations of Aeneas and Latinus in Aeneid XII (161–215).[3] Apollo and Helios/Sol remained separate beings in literary and mythological texts until the 3rd century CE. [Wikipedia (Apollo)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am confident that Apollo was the god of the sun, since Charles Martin's translation of the *Metamorphoses* refers to the sun god by the names Phoebus or Phoebus Apollo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the passage seems to say that Apollo was not conflated with Sol. That would leave us with two sun gods. Or maybe an &quot;old&quot; sun god and a &quot;new&quot; sun god.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious what you guys think of this question. Was there simply an &quot;old&quot; sun god (Sol) and a newer, assimilated sun god (Apolllo)? Or is the Wikipedia passage inaccurate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3284" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="963" RevisionGUID="a34dcd1c-1412-47a1-8649-4f6b3ca4260c" CreationDate="2016-05-31T21:03:42.700" UserId="235" Text="Was Apollo the sun god in the Augustan era?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3285" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="963" RevisionGUID="a34dcd1c-1412-47a1-8649-4f6b3ca4260c" CreationDate="2016-05-31T21:03:42.700" UserId="235" Text="|mythology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="964" RevisionGUID="4beb2015-0344-4a4e-8e58-7d0854039870" CreationDate="2016-05-31T21:18:28.893" UserId="45" Text="My background studying medieval scholastic Philosophy leads me to translate *principia* with the somewhat redundant phrase &quot;first principles.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is common in Scholastic philosophy (see your quote from Duns Scotus and the high hit count in the [*Corpus Thomisticum*](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/it/index.age;jsessionid=E4F06A864BC76D95675ACA78C1FD9AA4)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luther seems confident that the phrase has &quot;heathen&quot; sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Denn mit dem soll man nicht disputiren, der da *prima principia*, das ist die ersten Gruende und das Haeuptfundament, verneinet und verwirft; wie auch die Heiden gesaget haben: *Contra negantem prima principia non esse disputandum*. (Luther, [*Tischreden*](https://books.google.com/books?dq=Unnuetze+fragen+tischreden&amp;q=principia&amp;id=H9tDAQAAMAAJ&amp;ots=Guz4KgOzAt&amp;output=text#v=snippet&amp;q=principia&amp;f=false), 25)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For one ought not dispute with he who denies and discards the *prima principia*, that is, the first principles and main foundation; as even the Heathens have said: *Contra negantem prima principia non esse disputandum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a little digging turns up an almost direct quotation from the Scholastics' favorite Greek philosopher, Aristotle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ τῷ γεωμέτρῃ **οὐκέτι λόγος ἔστι πρὸς τὸν ἀνελόντα τὰς ἀρχάς**, ἀλλ' ἤτοι ἑτέρας ἐπιστήμης ἢ πασῶν κοινῆς, οὕτως οὐδὲ τῷ περὶ ἀρχῶν. (*Phys*, I.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For just as the geometer has **nothing more to say to one who denies the principles of his science**—this being a question for a different science or common to all—so a man investigating principles cannot argue with one who denies their existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (I don't feel like transcribing abbreviated Greek and I cannot find a version of the Greek text online besides [this secondhand version from a commentary](https://books.google.com/books?id=LKZCAAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=aristotelis+topica&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwieyIDCm4XNAhUDdT4KHXaOAIwQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=sunt%20autem%20vera%20et%20prima&amp;f=false). Edits welcome if someone wants to transcribe!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Things are 'true' and 'primary' which are believed on the strength not of anything else but of themselves: for **in regard to the first principles of science it is improper to ask any further for the why and wherefore of them**; each of the first principles should command belief in and by itself. (*Topica*, I.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*principium* is the literal translation of Greek *ἀρχή*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *principium*, in this context, is something which is known through itself (*per se notum*), not through any dialectical reasoning process. It is an intuition, like Euclid's definitions and postulates. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since all dialectical arguments are built on top of these *per se nota*, the reasoning behind this aphorism is that someone who is unwilling to consent to these things cannot even begin to have a constructive argument." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="965" RevisionGUID="12bd9b60-13df-4118-8e1b-ab9be883b6a9" CreationDate="2016-05-31T21:42:53.747" UserId="79" Text="The word *res* alone can mean state, and especially *res publica* means that (or republic).&#xD;&#xA;Looking at meanings of *res* and *publicus*, this is not the only possible translation of *res publica*, if no context is given.&#xD;&#xA;Is there an example of *res publica* not referring to the state in classical literature?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, it sounds possible to say about different forms of violence within family: *Vexatio est res privata, caedes est res publica.* &quot;Harassing is a private thing, murder a public thing.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see examples of *res publica* meaning &quot;public thing&quot; in a way like this.&#xD;&#xA;I have been unable to locate any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was inspired by [an earlier one about translating *res*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/309/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3288" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="965" RevisionGUID="12bd9b60-13df-4118-8e1b-ab9be883b6a9" CreationDate="2016-05-31T21:42:53.747" UserId="79" Text="Is there an example where res publica is not republic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3289" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="965" RevisionGUID="12bd9b60-13df-4118-8e1b-ab9be883b6a9" CreationDate="2016-05-31T21:42:53.747" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|vocabulary|example-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="966" RevisionGUID="4a5f0a46-9e83-4634-b1ac-3da0d79fbca2" CreationDate="2016-06-01T14:16:30.897" UserId="469" Text="According to [Lewis and Short][1] (see meaning K), _res publica_, also written as one word (_respublica, reipublicae_), has a wide range of meanings, not limited to _Republic_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Res publica, also as one word, respublica, the common weal, a commonwealth, state, republic (cf. civitas); also, civil affairs, administration, or power, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It cites several examples of _res publica_ confronted to _res privata_, although a scheptic could still argue that the confrontation may well be between private affairs and the Republic (I think). In my opinion, one clear example is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Si re publica non possis frui, stultum est nolle privata (Cic. Fam. 4, 9, 4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term is also used in Ecclesiastical Latin to mean things other than the Republic (either the form of government or in the -arguably different- wider Roman sense), e.g. several times in Rerum Novarum to refer to public goods/or affairs. One such example is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Neque est, cur providentia introducatur reipublicae: est enim homo, quam respublica, senior (RN, 8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(this is said in the context that the fact that God has given the world to the whole human race does not rule out private property).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dres" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="963" RevisionGUID="73ec87ce-4f9a-4d96-982c-6c52cc979276" CreationDate="2016-06-01T19:07:06.077" UserId="235" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="I had assumed that Apollo was the sun god in the Augustan era of Rome. I still think this is true. But I read a passage in Wikipedia that made me doubt this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Hellenistic times, especially during the 3rd century BCE, as Apollo Helios he became identified among Greeks with Helios, Titan god of the sun, and his sister Artemis similarly equated with Selene, Titan goddess of the moon.[2] **In Latin texts,** on the other hand, Joseph Fontenrose declared himself unable to find any conflation of Apollo with Sol among the Augustan poets of the 1st century, not even in the conjurations of Aeneas and Latinus in Aeneid XII (161–215).[3] Apollo and Helios/Sol remained separate beings in literary and mythological texts until the 3rd century CE. [Wikipedia (Apollo)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am confident that Apollo was the god of the sun, since Charles Martin's translation of the *Metamorphoses* refers to the sun god by the names Phoebus or Phoebus Apollo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the passage seems to say that Apollo was not conflated with Sol. That would leave us with two sun gods. Or maybe an &quot;old&quot; sun god and a &quot;new&quot; sun god.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious what you guys think of this question. Was there simply an &quot;old&quot; sun god (Sol) and a newer, assimilated sun god (Apolllo)? Or is the Wikipedia passage inaccurate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Per the comments below, I've copied this question to mythology.SE.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://mythology.stackexchange.com/questions/1683/was-apollo-the-sun-god-in-augustan-rome" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="967" RevisionGUID="5a6ecc11-3f26-4280-8f26-16759c02c52e" CreationDate="2016-06-01T19:28:16.707" UserId="79" Text="The phrase *semper eadem*, &quot;always the same&quot;, is a [fairly popular motto](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/semper_eadem).&#xD;&#xA;It is easy enough to interpret semantically, but I could not convince myself about the exact grammatical interpretation of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the word *eadem* in this phrase?**&#xD;&#xA;It could be neuter plural nominative or accusative, meaning &quot;always the same thing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It could be feminine singular nominative, but then some feminine noun should be understood.&#xD;&#xA;It could be feminine singular ablative functioning as *ablativus viae*, meaning &quot;always along the same path&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Semantically all these are more or less the same, but I wonder if there is a canonical grammatical reading of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ideas behind different uses of the motto may be different.&#xD;&#xA;Answers about individual uses are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some auxiliary questions answering which might shed light on the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;Are there sources that indicate the length of the 'a' in *eadem*?&#xD;&#xA;For example, if it appears in hexameter, then the 'a' is short.&#xD;&#xA;Is the phrase considered part of a longer phrase?&#xD;&#xA;Are there official, authoritative or canonical sources that indicate how the phrase should be understood?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3294" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="967" RevisionGUID="5a6ecc11-3f26-4280-8f26-16759c02c52e" CreationDate="2016-06-01T19:28:16.707" UserId="79" Text="How to parse &quot;semper eadem&quot; grammatically?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3295" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="967" RevisionGUID="5a6ecc11-3f26-4280-8f26-16759c02c52e" CreationDate="2016-06-01T19:28:16.707" UserId="79" Text="|new-latin|contemporary-latin|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="967" RevisionGUID="abb1408d-78ec-46d2-a989-b9e65ecd7459" CreationDate="2016-06-01T19:47:12.123" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The phrase *semper eadem*, &quot;always the same&quot;, is a [fairly popular motto](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/semper_eadem).&#xD;&#xA;It is easy enough to interpret semantically, but I could not convince myself about the exact grammatical interpretation of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the word *eadem* in this phrase?**&#xD;&#xA;It could be neuter plural nominative or accusative, meaning &quot;always the same thing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It could be feminine singular nominative, but then some feminine noun should be understood.&#xD;&#xA;It could be feminine singular ablative functioning as *ablativus viae*, meaning &quot;always along the same path&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Semantically all these are more or less the same, but I wonder if there is a canonical grammatical reading of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ideas behind different uses of the motto may be different.&#xD;&#xA;Answers about individual uses are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some auxiliary questions answering which might shed light on the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;Are there sources that indicate the length of the 'a' in *eadem*?&#xD;&#xA;For example, if it appears in hexameter, then the 'a' is long.&#xD;&#xA;Is the phrase considered part of a longer phrase?&#xD;&#xA;Are there official, authoritative or canonical sources that indicate how the phrase should be understood?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="913" RevisionGUID="665e1f72-5123-4541-85ca-64872f98a7fa" CreationDate="2016-06-02T12:46:05.810" UserId="68" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="The dictionary definitions of these three words aren't particularly helpful in figuring out when to use which one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Lewis Elementary*'s definition of *sáné* includes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. indeed, doubtless, by all means, truly, certainly, of course, right, very&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Certé*, meanwhile, includes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. really, surely, assuredly, actually, certainly, as a fact&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *profectó* is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;actually, indeed, really, truly, assuredly, certainly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very frustrating from a living-Latin perspective. Obviously, we use &quot;certainly&quot; in a lot of different contexts, but I wish the dictionary had more to say about which contexts call for which word. From what I can tell, for example, one use of *sáné* is as a concessive &quot;to be sure&quot;—&quot;He's loathsome, to be sure, but he's still your brother.&quot; But I can very easily imagine that &quot;sure&quot; in &quot;Surely you can see that I'm right about this&quot; would call for a different word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anybody provide any guidance in the matter of different uses of these words? It's possible that the clearest thing to do would be to provide *English* examples illustrating the different uses (i.e., &quot;You would use *certé* if you were trying to say something like, 'Blah blah blah certainly blah blah,'&quot;) but I'm happy for anything that helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3298" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="913" RevisionGUID="14d69683-1333-46c3-bf06-b5c268e7e4b0" CreationDate="2016-06-02T12:55:08.120" UserId="68" Comment="7" />
  <row Id="3299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="913" RevisionGUID="c07fc8b9-c1ff-4985-9f06-0d4e59388f64" CreationDate="2016-06-02T13:00:32.490" UserId="68" Comment="added 386 characters in body" Text="The dictionary definitions of these three words aren't particularly helpful in figuring out when to use which one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Lewis Elementary*'s definition of *sáné* includes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. indeed, doubtless, by all means, truly, certainly, of course, right, very&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Certé*, meanwhile, includes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. really, surely, assuredly, actually, certainly, as a fact&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *profectó* is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;actually, indeed, really, truly, assuredly, certainly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very frustrating from a living-Latin perspective. Obviously, we use &quot;certainly&quot; in a lot of different contexts, but I wish the dictionary had more to say about which contexts call for which word. From what I can tell, for example, one use of *sáné* is as a concessive &quot;to be sure&quot;—&quot;He's loathsome, to be sure, but he's still your brother.&quot; But I can very easily imagine that &quot;sure&quot; in &quot;Surely you can see that I'm right about this&quot; would call for a different word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example sentences provided in Lewis &amp; Short aren't much help either. In *Nón est ita, júdicés, non est profectó*, *profectó* could be meant in so many different ways that I find it unhelpful as a guide. (&quot;It's not like that, judges; [you may think it's like that, but] in fact it's not.&quot; Or &quot;It's not like that, judges; it most assuredly isn't.&quot; And so on.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anybody provide any guidance, however incomplete, in the matter of different uses of these words? It's possible that the clearest thing to do would be to provide *English* examples illustrating the different uses (i.e., &quot;You would use *certé* if you were trying to say something like, 'Blah blah blah certainly blah blah,'&quot;) but I'm happy for anything that helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="968" RevisionGUID="25a008bf-9bb7-43c1-95a4-7c2287f2557c" CreationDate="2016-06-02T14:20:23.777" UserId="45" Text="Ramshorn's [*Dictionary of Latin Synonyms*](https://books.google.com/books?id=UhdgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA113), pg. 113, has a helpful entry on the four related terms *certe, certo, profecto,* and *sane*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Certe**: certainly, of a thing; at least, if it applies to a given case;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Si Deus scit, certe illud eveniet. Cic.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Quod eæ nostris literis certe scire potuistis. Id.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Homines mortem vel optare incipiant, vel certe timere desistant. Id.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Certo**: with certainty, of the conviction of him who knows: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; De quo te non dubitare certo scio. Id. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. **Profecto**: assuredly, in fact, assuring something as fact: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Non est ita, judices, non est profecto. Cic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **Sane**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  * entirely so, verily ; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Sane vellem potuisset obsequi voluntati tuæ. Cic. ; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  * in &quot;concessive style,&quot; it signifies, may it be so : &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Hæc sint falsa sane. Id. 198.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walter's [*Latin Prose Composition for College Use*](https://books.google.com/books?id=Us9AAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA14) offers the following guidance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; profecto, sane, certe, certo, etc.: certainly; any way; these particles simply lend emphasis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **profecto**: (pro + facto = &quot;for a fact&quot;) is the strongest— as a matter of course, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **certe**: precedes and lends assurance to the whole thought,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. **certo**: [lends assurance] to the predicate, as such, alone; and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **sane**: concedes, grants something as true, and so = yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This entry also ends with an interesting note that might be relevant to the inherent issue of translation in your question: &quot;Oftentimes our 'indeed,' 'really,' etc., are fully translated merely by placing the verb in an emphatic position.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To add some simple personal observations to the above: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Certo* is less common as an adverb, and seems to be used [overwhelmingly with *scio*](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=certo%20site%3Athelatinlibrary.com) to signify **my own confidence in what I am saying**. It thus means something like &quot;I know for certain&quot; whereas *certe scio*, for instance, is more like &quot;It is certain that I know...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;2. *Profecto* appears to be the **most objective word for expressing factual certainty**, as witnessed in its origin from *pro* + *facto*. Walter suggests that it means something closer to &quot;obviously,&quot; but I think this depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;3. *Certe* means certainly as well, but much like English &quot;certainly&quot; is **often juxtaposed with another idea that is not certain**. It can thus mean something like &quot;at least&quot; or &quot;of course&quot; with something potentially more ominous to follow.&#xD;&#xA;4. *Sane* appears to be the most subjective and, in my experience, **often is paired with the subjunctive as a concession** and means something more like &quot;even&quot;. &quot;Let us accept that X, *but*...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And last, a quote from Cicero that seems to juxtapose and contrast two of these words nicely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quid habet enim vita commodi? quid non potius laboris? sed habeat **sane**; habet **certe** tamen aut satietatem aut modum. ([Cicero, *De Senectute*, 84](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0038%3Asection%3D84))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *For what advantage does life have? Or rather, what toil does it not have? But **even** if it should have advantages, nevertheless it **certainly** either reaches satiety or comes to an end.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="969" RevisionGUID="e06cd7a3-834b-4386-8f30-ab352b31ece6" CreationDate="2016-06-02T16:17:50.557" UserId="45" Text="It is rare to find a true (i.e. non-deponent) passive imperative, because the idea of ordering someone to do something is opposed to the idea of having something done to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster, in [*Oxford Latin Syntax*](https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA164-IA155) (pg. 164), explains this more clearly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The grammatical category of 'mood' is one of the means by which the speaker can convey his view of the extralinguistic reality and his communicative intentions with regard to one or more interlocutors. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is evident that the moods have the semantic function discussed in the preceding paragraph from the fact that **there exist cases of (in)compatibility of (grammatical) mood with other entities**. For example, **in the case of the imperative, it is very odd to order a person to do something when he has no control over it; this explains the very low frequency of true passive imperative forms.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, he does cite in [section 7.66](https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA164-IA155#v=onepage&amp;q=%22passive%20imperative%22&amp;f=false) (*op. cit.*) several excellent examples from classical and post-classical sources. He splits them into several categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## True passive (&quot;rare&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vis illud augustissimum consulum aliquando tribunal maiestati suae reddere? ascende. Vis constare reverentiam magistratibus, legibus auctoritatem, modestiam postulantibus? **adire**. ([Pliny, *Panegyricus*, 60.3](http://www.loebclassics.com/view/pliny_younger-panegyricus/1969/pb_LCL059.461.xml))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Would you restore its former majesty to the consuls' tribunal, once so much revered? Then mount it. Do you want to strengthen respect for the magistrates, spread restraint among litigants, and confirm the authority of the law? **Then let men come before you.*** (from Loeb translation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(note that some older editions, such as [this one](https://books.google.com/books?id=1wEcwUcehXQC&amp;pg=PA372&amp;lpg=PA372), use *accipe* and mark *adire* as a variant in the critical apparatus, presumably because the usage is so rare.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quaecumque pestis sive quaecumque es fera, / palam **timere** (Seneca, *Hercules Oetaeus*, 1260-1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Whatever pest you be or wild thing, / be thou openly feared!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Virgil has one example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hic tibi certa domus, certi, ne absiste, penates. / Neu belli **terrere** minis. (*Aeneid*, 8.39-40)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Here your home is sure--draw not back--and sure are your gods! Be note scared by threats of war!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And (post-classical) the Vulgate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; venite et **curamini** (Luke 13:14)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Come and **be cured***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## &quot;Decausative&quot; Passive (&quot;rare&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lassare** et disce sine armis / posse pati. (Luc. 5.313-14)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Grow weary**; learn to find life endurable without fighting.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Autocausative Passive (&quot;slightly less rare&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I read this as similar to the Greek middle voice.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tute hoc intristi. Tibi omne'st exedendum. **Adcingere**. (Ter, *Ph*, 318)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *You mashed up this mess. You must eat it all up. **Gird yourself.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Facesse hinc Tarquinios... **Devolvere** retro ad stirpem... (Liv. 1.47.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Be off from here to Tarquinii! **Sink back** [lit. be returned] into the rank of your family.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Virgil again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ergo age, care pater, cervici **imponere** nostrae. (*Aeneid*, 2.707)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Come now then, dear father, **place thyself** on my neck.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Seneca:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sic ergo **formare** ut scias non posse te consequi, ut sis impenetrabilis. (Sen. *Nat*, 4a.pr.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Be you therefore formed** so that you know that you cannot be taken, so that you are impenetrable.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Future Passive Imperative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Used once by Cicero, but in the third person: &quot;apparently intended as a third person plural form, in the style of Twelve Tables.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Regio imperio duo sunto, iique a praeeundo, iudicando, consulendo praetores, iudices, consules **appellamino**. (Cicero, *Leg.* 3.8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *There shall be two magistrates with royal powers.  Since they lead, judge, and confer, from these functions **they shall be called** praetors, judges, and consuls.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="970" RevisionGUID="a8f15785-451c-42a4-b852-fc95fe178e48" CreationDate="2016-06-02T17:00:33.820" UserId="12" Text="In Bede's [*Ecclesiastical History*, 2.5](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bede/bede2.shtml), there's a phrase that appears to be the subject of some debate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam primus imperium huiusmodi Aelli rex Australium Saxonum; secundus Caelin rex Occidentalium Saxonum, qui lingua ipsorum Ceaulin uocabatur; tertius, ut diximus, Aedilberct rex Cantuariorum; quartus Reduald rex Orientalium Anglorum, **qui etiam uiuente Aedilbercto eidem suae genti ducatum praebebat, obtinuit**; quintus Aeduini rex Nordanhymbrorum gentis...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My copy ([Oxford, 1999](https://books.google.com/books?id=egy-k7LV-e4C&amp;pg=PA78)), translated by Colgrave, renders the bolded phrase as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; who even during the lifetime of Æthelberht was gaining the leadership for his own race&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's quite different from [L. C. Jane's translation](http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/bede-book2.asp):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; who, whilst Ethelbert lived, had been subservient to him&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The note in my copy reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Various translations have been suggested, each altering its significance.  What it seems to be saying is that Rædwald obtained independent rule over his own people, the East Angles, even during the lifetime of Æthelberht of Kent.  It is notable that the author of the Anglo-Saxon translation of *EH* was equally perplexed, and omitted the entire phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a reasonable interpretation?  What is it about this phrase that makes it so difficult to interpret?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3303" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="970" RevisionGUID="a8f15785-451c-42a4-b852-fc95fe178e48" CreationDate="2016-06-02T17:00:33.820" UserId="12" Text="What does Bede's phrase, &quot;suae genti ducatum praebebat, obtinuit,&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3304" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="970" RevisionGUID="a8f15785-451c-42a4-b852-fc95fe178e48" CreationDate="2016-06-02T17:00:33.820" UserId="12" Text="|meaning|medieval-latin|beda|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="971" RevisionGUID="44f99c1c-4672-475c-9e38-add39b4ff5b1" CreationDate="2016-06-02T17:49:28.990" UserId="79" Text="For what it's worth, here is how I see the passage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One interpretation is to to assume that *eidem* refers to Aedilberct.&#xD;&#xA;Then one reads *suae genti ducatum* as &quot;the leadership of his people&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is this leadership that he offered to Aedilberct: *ille ducatum eidem Aedilbercto praebebat*.&#xD;&#xA;This means being subordinate to Aedilberct.&#xD;&#xA;This approach has severe problems: The word *obtinuit* makes little sense and one would expect *suae genti**s** ducatum* instead of the dative.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if any of the translators thought this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of these issues I would consider *eidem* to modify *suae genti*, but that feels a bit fishy, too.&#xD;&#xA;It could also be that *eidem* refers to Reduald, but I would have expected *sibi* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that *praebebat* and *obtinuit* have the same object, *ducatum*.&#xD;&#xA;It makes sense that Reduald obtained leadership, but it is a weird combination that he would also offer it.&#xD;&#xA;I see two ways around this:&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps he offered leadership to his people and then obtained it; the people recognized him as their leader.&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps *praebere* does not mean &quot;to offer&quot; but &quot;acquire&quot; (my Finnish&amp;ndash;Latin&amp;ndash;Finnish dictionary offers such an option); he tried to gain power for his people and succeeded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No matter which way I approach the passage, it sounds fishy.&#xD;&#xA;The difficulty seems to boil down to two questions:&#xD;&#xA;What does *praebere* mean here?&#xD;&#xA;And, more importantly, what does *eidem* refer to?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="972" RevisionGUID="7d003c33-46be-4f94-8d3a-0227e9413838" CreationDate="2016-06-02T20:58:39.800" UserId="79" Text="It is easy to translate &quot;black sheep&quot; literally: *ovis nigra*.&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that this phrase does not have the same meaning as in English (and Finnish), judging by its absence in literature &amp;mdash; assuming my searches were correct.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a Latin phrase that means a disreputable member in a group, preferably classical?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3307" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="972" RevisionGUID="7d003c33-46be-4f94-8d3a-0227e9413838" CreationDate="2016-06-02T20:58:39.800" UserId="79" Text="What is a black sheep in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3308" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="972" RevisionGUID="7d003c33-46be-4f94-8d3a-0227e9413838" CreationDate="2016-06-02T20:58:39.800" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3309" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="952" RevisionGUID="5604f988-3ee2-4cd7-8cd4-5758e05244c8" CreationDate="2016-06-02T22:11:04.140" UserId="12" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:12,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nathaniel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3310" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="952" RevisionGUID="9a77b0ff-bf39-4e79-af31-b36ee6d52292" CreationDate="2016-06-02T22:11:20.950" UserId="12" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[957],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:12,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nathaniel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="973" RevisionGUID="c1e216de-12cb-408d-bf8a-28927fa5bd19" CreationDate="2016-06-02T22:16:24.517" UserId="12" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="974" RevisionGUID="55e58ae8-ac24-47ac-b71c-32b92640356e" CreationDate="2016-06-02T22:16:24.517" UserId="12" Text="Bēda Venerābilis, or the Venerable Bede (673–735); author of Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="975" RevisionGUID="88de2024-8db2-424c-ae78-64528110b358" CreationDate="2016-06-03T03:14:01.567" UserId="459" Text="Maybe *dedecus familiae*, the shame of or to the family (e.g. Cicero pro Cluentio)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="975" RevisionGUID="d83e2d29-eb3d-4591-bc61-4bbddee0d9cf" CreationDate="2016-06-03T07:18:59.393" UserId="79" Comment="added 341 characters in body" Text="Maybe *dedecus familiae*, the shame of or to the family (e.g. Cicero pro Cluentio).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C. D. Yonge [translates](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0019%3Atext%3DClu.%3Asection%3D16) Cicero's [original](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0010%3Atext%3DClu.%3Asection%3D16) *dedecus familiae* as &quot;disgrace of his family&quot;, which is what a black sheep means." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="086c3563-1dec-4b49-84ce-bdcf2a3f3dee" CreationDate="2016-06-03T16:31:35.310" UserId="118" Text="My Latin is poor, so this is only guesswork too long to suggest in comments. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can confirm my guesses here or correct my errors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“obtinuit”&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Elsewhere in similar historical records](http://bit.ly/1P9xGm3), **obtinuit** seems to mean &quot;took office&quot;, as in chronologies of who served as bishop or archdeacon at a certain place, etc. For example, _Prioratum obtinuit anno 1478_: he became Prior in 1478. The verb _obtineo_ suggests receiving something that already exists, and indeed in the small sampling of these chronologies that I looked at, this verb seems to appear often in sequences, describing the continuity of a single office as a succession of different people hold it. In many instances, _obtinuit_ combines with _ab_ to indicate who appointed the person to the office; e.g. the office was &quot;obtained from&quot; the Pope. I've also seen _tradidit_ (&quot;handed on&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that is correct, then **imperium obtinuit** means &quot;obtained the realm&quot;, that is, took over as ruler of all the kingdoms—became a sort of emperor. Some cursory googling suggests that this is indeed a common way of putting it. If so, then _ducatum_ is not the object of _obtinuit_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“ducatum”&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Many of the names of the medieval offices that go with _obtinuit_ seem to end in _-atum_, which I'm guessing is cognate with English _-ate_ in the same contexts. For example, _Archidiaconatum obtinuit_ = he became archdeacon.  _Decanatum obtinuit_ = he became dean, though I'm less sure of this one. Note that in English we usually say &quot;became archdeacon&quot;, but the Latin literally translated is &quot;obtained the Archdeaconate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following that analogy, in this context, **ducatum** might specifically mean &quot;the Dukeship&quot; or &quot;a Dukedom&quot; rather than leadership in general. See [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=kWdHAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=obtinuit&amp;pg=PA330#v=snippet&amp;q=ducatum&amp;f=false) for other instances of _ducatum_ in similar records.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;So, paring down the sentence, this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quartus Reduald rex Orientalium Anglorum, qui etiam uiuente Aedilbercto eidem suae genti ducatum praebebat, [imperium] obtinuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would mean either of the following, depending on how you take **ducatum** and **praebebat**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rædwald, king of the East Angles,  became the fourth to hold rule over all the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Even while the previous such ruler, Æthelberht, was still alive, Rædwald **granted a dukedom** to his (Æthelberht's) people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rædwald, king of the East Angles,  became the fourth to hold rule over all the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Even while the previous such ruler, Æthelberht, was still alive, Rædwald **displayed leadership** (or authority) to his (own, or maybe Æthelbert's) people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big question is: did Æthelberht lose the imperium while he was still alive? If so, then the sentence by Bede would mean that Rædwald muscled out Æthelberht but Æthelberht survived as ruler of his own people, and Rædwald gave the Kentish people some kind of official status as an autonomous dukedom within Rædwald's wider &quot;kingdom&quot;.  [This chronology](http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/EnglandBretwaldas.htm) says that when Rædwald took the imperium, he did not control Kent, viewing it instead as an ally. So perhaps in this sense, he granted Kent **ducatum**, meaning autonomy, self-leadership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Æthelberht maintained control until he died, then the sentence would mean that Rædwald was clearly well on his way to taking over the imperium even before Æthelberht died.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, notice that Æthelberht is called _rex Cantuariorum,_ not _rex Cantiæ,_ that is, king of the Kentish People, not king of Kent. This seems to agree with _genti._ However, the same applies to _Orientalium Anglorum,_ so this doesn't help resolve the ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, note that **praebebat** is imperfect. My first translation above would fit a lot better with the perfect tense. The imperfect tense suggests the second reading, but I'm not aware of _praebeo_ being used in this sense of &quot;demonstrating&quot; or &quot;showing (a quality, like leadership).&quot; (That sense might have plenty of currency; I'm just not familiar enough with the literature to know. Can anyone here point out an interesting source?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why so ambiguous?&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for _why_ the passage is so ambiguous, while the words **ducatum**, **praebebat**, and **eidem** (same as _which_ people?) invite confusion, the trouble might result mainly from the ambiguous nature of the **imperium** itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the **imperium** is something vague, like a tendency on the part of leaders on the Continent to write to you when they want to address all the Anglo-Saxons through one person, but does not imply military supremacy or recognition at home, then it won't agree with modern expectations about hierarchical relations among leaders. Æthelberht might be [bretwalda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretwalda) but at the same time he might sometimes be subservient to Rædwald; the situation changes continually as battles are won and alliances shift.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperium also violates the modern expectations that a ruler is ruler for life and that these rulers were consecutive with no long gaps between them. For example, [Ceawlin's Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceawlin_of_Wessex#Bretwaldaship) says there was an approximately 50–year gap between Ælle and Ceawlin, and mentions that even during his bretwaldaship, Ceawlin often lost control of some of the kingdoms. The [chronology mentioned above](http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/EnglandBretwaldas.htm) suggests that Æthelberht's failure to broker an agreement between the Roman Church and the Celtic Church around 603 damaged his credibility as bretwalda. Rædwald became bretwalda in 616, so there may have been another long gap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passage _might_ even be Bede's way of saying that holding the Anglo-Saxon imperium doesn't necessarily mean that you were the top dog always and everywhere.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="31904347-6028-438b-a562-8554d73f374b" CreationDate="2016-06-03T16:37:36.463" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 47 characters in body" Text="My Latin is poor, so this is only guesswork too long to suggest in comments. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can confirm my guesses here or correct my errors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“obtinuit”&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Elsewhere in similar historical records](http://bit.ly/1P9xGm3), **obtinuit** seems to mean &quot;took office&quot;, as in chronologies of who served as bishop or archdeacon at a certain place, etc. For example, _Prioratum obtinuit anno 1478_: he became Prior in 1478. The verb _obtineo_ suggests receiving something that already exists, and indeed in the small sampling of these chronologies that I looked at, this verb seems to appear often in sequences, describing the continuity of a single office as a succession of different people hold it. In many instances, _obtinuit_ combines with _ab_ to indicate who appointed the person to the office; e.g. the office was &quot;obtained from&quot; the Pope. I've also seen _tradidit_ (&quot;handed on&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that is correct, then **imperium obtinuit** means &quot;obtained the realm&quot;, that is, took over as ruler of all the kingdoms—became a sort of emperor. Some cursory googling suggests that this is indeed a common way of putting it. If so, then _ducatum_ is not the object of _obtinuit_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“ducatum”&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Many of the names of the medieval offices that go with _obtinuit_ seem to end in _-atum_, which I'm guessing is cognate with English _-ate_ in the same contexts. For example, _Archidiaconatum obtinuit_ = he became archdeacon.  _Decanatum obtinuit_ = he became dean, though I'm less sure of this one. Note that in English we usually say &quot;became archdeacon&quot;, but the Latin literally translated is &quot;obtained the Archdeaconate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following that analogy, in this context **ducatum** might specifically mean &quot;the Dukeship&quot; or &quot;a Dukedom&quot; rather than leadership in general. See [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=kWdHAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=obtinuit&amp;pg=PA330#v=snippet&amp;q=ducatum&amp;f=false) for other instances of _ducatum_ in similar records.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;So, paring down the sentence, this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quartus Reduald rex Orientalium Anglorum, qui etiam uiuente Aedilbercto eidem suae genti ducatum praebebat, [imperium] obtinuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would mean either of the following, depending on how you take **ducatum** and **praebebat**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rædwald, king of the East Angles,  became the fourth to hold rule over all the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Even while the previous such ruler, Æthelberht, was still alive, Rædwald **granted a dukedom** to his (Æthelberht's) people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rædwald, king of the East Angles,  became the fourth to hold rule over all the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Even while the previous such ruler, Æthelberht, was still alive, Rædwald **displayed leadership** (or authority) to his (own, or maybe Æthelbert's) people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big question is: did Æthelberht lose the imperium while he was still alive? If so, then the sentence by Bede would mean that Æthelberht lost the imperium but survived as ruler of his own people, and Rædwald gave the Kentish people some kind of official status as an autonomous dukedom.  [This chronology](http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/EnglandBretwaldas.htm) says that when Rædwald took the imperium, he did not control Kent, viewing it instead as a peer. So perhaps in this sense, he granted Kent **ducatum**, meaning autonomy, self-leadership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Æthelberht maintained control until he died, then the sentence would mean that Rædwald was clearly well on his way to taking over the imperium even before Æthelberht died.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, notice that Æthelberht is called _rex Cantuariorum,_ not _rex Cantiæ,_ that is, king of the Kentish People, not king of Kent. This seems to agree with _genti._ However, the same applies to _Orientalium Anglorum,_ so this doesn't help resolve the ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, note that **praebebat** is imperfect. My first translation above would fit a lot better with the perfect tense. The imperfect tense suggests the second reading, but I'm not aware of _praebeo_ being used in this sense of &quot;demonstrating&quot; or &quot;showing (a quality, like leadership).&quot; (That sense might have plenty of currency; I'm just not familiar enough with the literature to know. Can anyone here point out an interesting source?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why so ambiguous?&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for _why_ the passage is so ambiguous, while the words **ducatum**, **praebebat**, and **eidem** (same as _which_ people?) invite confusion, the trouble might result mainly from the ambiguous nature of the **imperium** itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the **imperium** is something vague, like a tendency on the part of leaders on the Continent to write to you when they want to address all the Anglo-Saxons through one person, but does not imply military supremacy or recognition at home, then it won't agree with modern expectations about hierarchical relations among leaders. Æthelberht might be [bretwalda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretwalda) but at the same time he might sometimes be subservient to Rædwald; the situation changes continually as battles are won and alliances shift.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperium also violates the modern expectations that a ruler is ruler for life and that these rulers were consecutive with no long gaps between them. For example, [Ceawlin's Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceawlin_of_Wessex#Bretwaldaship) says there was an approximately 50–year gap between Ælle and Ceawlin, and mentions that even during his bretwaldaship, Ceawlin often lost control of some of the kingdoms. The [chronology mentioned above](http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/EnglandBretwaldas.htm) suggests that Æthelberht's failure to broker an agreement between the Roman Church and the Celtic Church around 603 damaged his credibility as bretwalda. Rædwald became bretwalda in 616, so there may have been another long gap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passage _might_ even be Bede's way of saying that holding the Anglo-Saxon imperium doesn't necessarily mean that you were the top dog always and everywhere.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="2a69ad3e-8eb6-4b48-9f9f-30a4ddf43c70" CreationDate="2016-06-03T16:44:26.873" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 47 characters in body" Text="My Latin is poor, so this is only guesswork too long to suggest in comments. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can confirm my guesses here or correct my errors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“obtinuit”&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Elsewhere in similar historical records](http://bit.ly/1P9xGm3), **obtinuit** seems to mean &quot;took office&quot;, as in chronologies of who served as bishop or archdeacon at a certain place, etc. For example, _Prioratum obtinuit anno 1478_: he became Prior in 1478. The verb _obtineo_ suggests receiving something that already exists, and indeed in the small sampling of these chronologies that I looked at, this verb seems to appear often in sequences, describing the continuity of a single office as a succession of different people hold it. In many instances, _obtinuit_ combines with _ab_ to indicate who appointed the person to the office; e.g. the office was &quot;obtained from&quot; the Pope. I've also seen _tradidit_ (&quot;handed on&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that is correct, then **imperium obtinuit** means &quot;obtained the realm&quot;, that is, took over as ruler of all the kingdoms—became a sort of emperor. Some cursory googling suggests that this is indeed a common way of putting it. If so, then _ducatum_ is not the object of _obtinuit_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“ducatum”&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Many of the names of the medieval offices that go with _obtinuit_ seem to end in _-atum_, which I'm guessing is cognate with English _-ate_ in the same contexts. For example, _Archidiaconatum obtinuit_ = he became archdeacon.  _Decanatum obtinuit_ = he became dean, though I'm less sure of this one. Note that in English we usually say &quot;became archdeacon&quot;, but the Latin literally translated is &quot;obtained the Archdeaconate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following that analogy, in this context **ducatum** might specifically mean &quot;the Dukeship&quot; or &quot;a Dukedom&quot; rather than leadership in general. See [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=kWdHAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=obtinuit&amp;pg=PA330#v=snippet&amp;q=ducatum&amp;f=false) for other instances of _ducatum_ in similar records.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;So, paring down the sentence, this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quartus Reduald rex Orientalium Anglorum, qui etiam uiuente Aedilbercto eidem suae genti ducatum praebebat, [imperium] obtinuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would mean either of the following, depending on how you take **ducatum** and **praebebat**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rædwald, king of the East Angles,  became the fourth to hold rule over all the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Even while the previous such ruler, Æthelberht, was still alive, Rædwald **granted a dukedom** to his (Æthelberht's) people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rædwald, king of the East Angles,  became the fourth to hold rule over all the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Even while the previous such ruler, Æthelberht, was still alive, Rædwald **displayed leadership** (or authority) to his (own, or maybe Æthelbert's) people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big question is: did Æthelberht lose the imperium while he was still alive? If so, then the sentence by Bede would mean that Æthelberht lost the imperium but survived as ruler of his own people, and Rædwald gave the Kentish people some kind of official status as an autonomous dukedom.  [This chronology](http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/EnglandBretwaldas.htm) says that when Rædwald took the imperium, he did not control Kent, viewing it instead as a peer. So perhaps in this sense, he granted Kent **ducatum**, meaning autonomy, self-leadership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Æthelberht maintained control until he died, then the sentence would mean that Rædwald was clearly well on his way to taking over the imperium even before Æthelberht died.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, notice that Æthelberht is called _rex Cantuariorum,_ not _rex Cantiæ,_ that is, king of the Kentish People, not king of Kent. This seems to agree with _genti._ However, the same applies to _Orientalium Anglorum,_ so this doesn't help resolve the ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, note that **praebebat** is imperfect. My first translation above would fit a lot better with the perfect tense. The imperfect tense suggests the second reading, but I'm not aware of _praebeo_ being used in this sense of &quot;demonstrating&quot; or &quot;showing (a quality, like leadership).&quot; (That sense might have plenty of currency; I'm just not familiar enough with the literature to know. Can anyone here point out an interesting source?) So, for now, I'm favoring the first translation: Rædwald did not conquer Kent, even as he assumed the imperium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why so ambiguous?&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for _why_ the passage is so ambiguous, while the words **ducatum**, **praebebat**, and **eidem** (same as _which_ people?) invite confusion, the trouble might result mainly from the ambiguous nature of the **imperium** itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the **imperium** is something vague, like a tendency on the part of leaders on the Continent to write to you when they want to address all the Anglo-Saxons through one person, but does not imply military supremacy or recognition at home, then it won't agree with modern expectations about hierarchical relations among leaders. Æthelberht might be [bretwalda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretwalda) but at the same time he might sometimes be subservient to Rædwald; the situation changes continually as battles are won and alliances shift.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperium also violates the modern expectations that a ruler is ruler for life and that these rulers were consecutive with no long gaps between them. For example, [Ceawlin's Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceawlin_of_Wessex#Bretwaldaship) says there was an approximately 50–year gap between Ælle and Ceawlin, and mentions that even during his bretwaldaship, Ceawlin often lost control of some of the kingdoms. The [chronology mentioned above](http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/EnglandBretwaldas.htm) suggests that Æthelberht's failure to broker an agreement between the Roman Church and the Celtic Church around 603 damaged his credibility as bretwalda. Rædwald became bretwalda in 616, so there may have been another long gap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passage _might_ even be Bede's way of saying that holding the Anglo-Saxon imperium doesn't necessarily mean that you were the top dog always and everywhere.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="971" RevisionGUID="dc052dcc-19aa-4de8-867e-57431c0482c9" CreationDate="2016-06-03T17:39:26.860" UserId="79" Comment="added 671 characters in body" Text="For what it's worth, here is how I see the passage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One interpretation is to to assume that *eidem* refers to Aedilberct.&#xD;&#xA;Then one reads *suae genti ducatum* as &quot;the leadership of his people&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is this leadership that he offered to Aedilberct: *ille ducatum eidem Aedilbercto praebebat*.&#xD;&#xA;This means being subordinate to Aedilberct.&#xD;&#xA;This approach has severe problems: The word *obtinuit* makes little sense and one would expect *suae genti**s** ducatum* instead of the dative.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if any of the translators thought this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of these issues I would consider *eidem* to modify *suae genti*, but that feels a bit fishy, too.&#xD;&#xA;It could also be that *eidem* refers to Reduald, but I would have expected *sibi* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that *praebebat* and *obtinuit* have the same object, *ducatum*.&#xD;&#xA;It makes sense that Reduald obtained leadership, but it is a weird combination that he would also offer it.&#xD;&#xA;I see two ways around this:&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps he offered leadership to his people and then obtained it; the people recognized him as their leader.&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps *praebere* does not mean &quot;to offer&quot; but &quot;acquire&quot; (my Finnish&amp;ndash;Latin&amp;ndash;Finnish dictionary offers such an option); he tried to gain power for his people and succeeded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No matter which way I approach the passage, it sounds fishy.&#xD;&#xA;The difficulty seems to boil down to two questions:&#xD;&#xA;What does *praebere* mean here?&#xD;&#xA;And, more importantly, what does *eidem* refer to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Added:**&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to comments from TKR, I have refined my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;First, *obtinuit* is the predicate of the sentence *Nam primus imperium huiusmodi Aelli rex Australium Saxonum &amp;hellip; obtinuit*.&#xD;&#xA;It is unrelated to the rest of the boldface passage.&#xD;&#xA;Second, *eidem* seems to refer Reduald's own people (the people last mentioned, *Orientales Angli*).&#xD;&#xA;I still feel a bit uneasy about this, since *eidem* and *suae* express almost the same thing and this combination feels somehow wrong.&#xD;&#xA;Other explanations make less sense, so I see it just as a way of adding emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;This brings me essentially to Colgrave's translation, so I will not give a new translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="977" RevisionGUID="ad1193a7-98b9-4a42-911c-695fdf2a0825" CreationDate="2016-06-03T18:15:17.517" UserId="79" Text="In Greek masculines of the first declension borrow the singular genitive ending *-&amp;omicron;&amp;upsilon;* from second declension.&#xD;&#xA;Latin uses the ending *-ae* for all of first declension: *puellae*, *nautae*, *Anchisae*, *Aeneae*.&#xD;&#xA;There are also occasional genitives similar to the Greek first declension ones (*familias*, *musices*, *Melpomenes*), but these are besides my point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was *-i* ever used as a genitive ending for masculines of the first declension?&#xD;&#xA;If this happens, it is presumably due to Greek influence, and I suspect it is more likely to happen in words or names of Greek origin.&#xD;&#xA;Despite seeing many Greek loan words, I have never seen this genitive in any text or grammar.&#xD;&#xA;Searches for *nauti* and *Anchisi* give nothing, and *Aenei* gives unrelated hits for the adjective *a&amp;emacr;neus*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3320" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="977" RevisionGUID="ad1193a7-98b9-4a42-911c-695fdf2a0825" CreationDate="2016-06-03T18:15:17.517" UserId="79" Text="Was -i used as genitive ending for first declension masculines?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3321" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="977" RevisionGUID="ad1193a7-98b9-4a42-911c-695fdf2a0825" CreationDate="2016-06-03T18:15:17.517" UserId="79" Text="|declension|greek|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="329f2451-5eb0-4f86-ab2b-881032fd8c1b" CreationDate="2016-06-03T23:46:20.760" UserId="118" Comment="added 1542 characters in body" Text="My Latin is poor, so this is only guesswork too long to suggest in comments. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can confirm my guesses here or correct my errors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“obtinuit”&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Elsewhere in similar historical records](http://bit.ly/1P9xGm3), **obtinuit** seems to mean &quot;took office&quot;, as in chronologies of who served as bishop or archdeacon at a certain place, etc. For example, _Prioratum obtinuit anno 1478_: he became Prior in 1478. The verb _obtineo_ suggests receiving something that already exists, and indeed in the small sampling of these chronologies that I looked at, this verb seems to appear often in sequences, describing the continuity of a single office as a succession of different people hold it. In many instances, _obtinuit_ combines with _ab_ to indicate who appointed the person to the office; e.g. the office was &quot;obtained from&quot; the Pope. I've also seen _tradidit_ (&quot;handed on&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that is correct, then **imperium obtinuit** means &quot;obtained the realm&quot;, that is, took over as ruler of all the kingdoms—became a sort of emperor. Some cursory googling suggests that this is indeed a common way of putting it. If so, then _ducatum_ is not the object of _obtinuit_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“ducatum”&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Many of the names of the medieval offices that go with _obtinuit_ seem to end in _-atum_, which I'm guessing is cognate with English _-ate_ in the same contexts. For example, _Archidiaconatum obtinuit_ = he became archdeacon.  _Decanatum obtinuit_ = he became dean, though I'm less sure of this one. Note that in English we usually say &quot;became archdeacon&quot;, but the Latin literally translated is &quot;obtained the Archdeaconate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following that analogy, in this context **ducatum** might specifically mean &quot;the Dukeship&quot; or &quot;a Dukedom&quot; rather than leadership in general. See [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=kWdHAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=obtinuit&amp;pg=PA330#v=snippet&amp;q=ducatum&amp;f=false) for other instances of _ducatum_ in similar records.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;So, paring down the sentence, this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quartus Reduald rex Orientalium Anglorum, qui etiam uiuente Aedilbercto eidem suae genti ducatum praebebat, [imperium] obtinuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Rædwald, king of the East Angles, became the fourth to hold rule over all the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Even while the previous such ruler, Æthelberht, was still alive, Rædwald **granted a dukedom** (or granted independence) to his (Æthelberht's) people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A problem with this translation is that **suae** is reflexive and Rædwald is the subject. Possibly, though, Bede intended the apparently redundant **eidem suae genti** (to his own same people) to relocate the referent of **suae** to Æthelberht. This would agree with **etiam**, since the point would be to point out something unexpected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big question is: did Æthelberht lose the imperium while he was still alive? If so, then the sentence by Bede would mean that Rædwald took the imperium while Æthelberht was still alive and gave the Kentish people some kind of official status as an autonomous dukedom.  [This chronology](http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/EnglandBretwaldas.htm) says that when Rædwald took the imperium, he did not control Kent, viewing it instead as a peer. So perhaps in this sense, he granted Kent **ducatum**, meaning autonomy, self-leadership (only a guess of mine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If **suae** is Rædwald, then in order to make sense, you'd probably have to interpret **ducatum** as leadership, as in Colgrave's interpretation, with the somewhat hazy implication that the East Angles were moving up in the world during Æthelberht's lifetime:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Rædwald, king of the East Angles,  became the fourth to hold rule over all the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Even while the previous such ruler, Æthelberht, was still alive, Rædwald **provided leadership** to his (own) people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, notice that Æthelberht is called _rex Cantuariorum,_ not _rex Cantiæ,_ that is, king of the Kentish People, not king of Kent. This seems to agree with _genti._ However, the same applies to _Orientalium Anglorum,_ so this doesn't help resolve the ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, note that **praebebat** is imperfect. My first translation above would fit a lot better with the perfect tense. The imperfect tense suggests the second reading, but I'm not aware of **praebere** being used in that sense. (That sense might have plenty of currency; I'm just not familiar enough with the literature to know. Can anyone here point out an interesting source?) So, for now, I'm favoring the first translation: Rædwald did not conquer Kent, even as he assumed the imperium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why so ambiguous?&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for _why_ the passage is so ambiguous, there seem to be several different ways to hook up the grammar and sense, none of which is fully satisfactory. Simon Keynes goes over several interpretations in &quot;[Rædwald the Bretwalda](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nq5MuuiZxdYC&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;ots=DaSRcQYzea&amp;dq=%22eidem%20suae%20genti%22&amp;pg=PA106#v=onepage&amp;q=%22eidem%20suae%20genti%22&amp;f=false)&quot;. It seems strange to say that Rædwald &quot;supplied leadership&quot; to his own people; isn't that what kings normally do? Why **etiam**, then, which suggests something beyond expectation? It might make sense to say that Rædwald offered Æthelberht leadership of the East Angles, but that would be **ducatum suae gentis**. **Ducatum** seems like it's there to contrast with **imperium**: it's a smaller sort of imperium. &quot;Rædwald was leading his people's advancement during Æthelberht's imperium&quot; (Colgrave's interpretation) violates common usage of **praebebat**. My translation #1 (originally proposed by Hanna Vollrath-Reichelt in 1971) seems to violate common usage of **suae**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trouble might actually result not from the grammar as much as from the ambiguous nature of the **imperium** itself. If the **imperium** is something vague, like a tendency on the part of leaders on the Continent to write to you when they want to address all the Anglo-Saxons through one person, but does not imply military supremacy or recognition at home, then it won't agree with modern expectations about hierarchical relations among leaders. Æthelberht might be [bretwalda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretwalda) but at the same time he might sometimes be subservient to Rædwald; the situation changes continually as battles are won and alliances shift.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperium also violates the expectation that a ruler is ruler for life and that these rulers were consecutive with no long gaps between them. For example, [Ceawlin's Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceawlin_of_Wessex#Bretwaldaship) says there was an approximately 50–year gap between Ælle and Ceawlin, and mentions that even during his bretwaldaship, Ceawlin often lost control of some of the kingdoms. The [chronology mentioned above](http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/EnglandBretwaldas.htm) suggests that Æthelberht's failure to broker an agreement between the Roman Church and the Celtic Church around 603 damaged his credibility as bretwalda. Rædwald became bretwalda in 616, so there may have been another long gap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passage _might_ even be Bede's way of saying that holding the Anglo-Saxon imperium doesn't necessarily mean that you were the top dog always and everywhere. And then again, it might just be a transcription error, as suggested by Henry Hallam [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=8sJeAAAAcAAJ&amp;dq=%22eidem%20suae%20genti%22%20transposition&amp;pg=PA248#v=onepage&amp;q=%22eidem%20suae%20genti%22%20transposition&amp;f=false).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="410fe67c-e42d-4228-8e3f-f8bdb4db2782" CreationDate="2016-06-04T00:02:24.777" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="My Latin is poor, so this is only guesswork too long to suggest in comments. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can confirm my guesses here or correct my errors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“obtinuit”&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Elsewhere in similar historical records](http://bit.ly/1P9xGm3), **obtinuit** seems to mean &quot;took office&quot;, as in chronologies of who served as bishop or archdeacon at a certain place, etc. For example, _Prioratum obtinuit anno 1478_: he became Prior in 1478. The verb _obtineo_ suggests receiving something that already exists, and indeed in the small sampling of these chronologies that I looked at, this verb seems to appear often in sequences, describing the continuity of a single office as a succession of different people hold it. In many instances, _obtinuit_ combines with _ab_ to indicate who appointed the person to the office; e.g. the office was &quot;obtained from&quot; the Pope. I've also seen _tradidit_ (&quot;handed on&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that is correct, then **imperium obtinuit** means &quot;obtained the realm&quot;, that is, took over as ruler of all the kingdoms—became a sort of emperor. Some cursory googling suggests that this is indeed a common way of putting it. If so, then _ducatum_ is not the object of _obtinuit_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“ducatum”&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Many of the names of the medieval offices that go with _obtinuit_ seem to end in _-atum_, which I'm guessing is cognate with English _-ate_ in the same contexts. For example, _Archidiaconatum obtinuit_ = he became archdeacon.  _Decanatum obtinuit_ = he became dean, though I'm less sure of this one. Note that in English we usually say &quot;became archdeacon&quot;, but the Latin literally translated is &quot;obtained the Archdeaconate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following that analogy, in this context **ducatum** might specifically mean &quot;the Dukeship&quot; or &quot;a Dukedom&quot; rather than leadership in general. See [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=kWdHAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=obtinuit&amp;pg=PA330#v=snippet&amp;q=ducatum&amp;f=false) for other instances of _ducatum_ in similar records.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;So, paring down the sentence, this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quartus Reduald rex Orientalium Anglorum, qui etiam uiuente Aedilbercto eidem suae genti ducatum praebebat, [imperium] obtinuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Rædwald, king of the East Angles, became the fourth to hold rule over all the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Even while the previous such ruler, Æthelberht, was still alive, Rædwald **granted a dukedom** (or granted independence) to his (Æthelberht's) people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A problem with this translation is that **suae** is reflexive and Rædwald is the subject. Possibly, though, Bede intended the apparently redundant **eidem suae genti** (to his own same people) to relocate the referent of **suae** to Æthelberht. This would agree with **etiam**, since the passage would point out something unexpected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big question is: did Æthelberht lose the imperium while he was still alive? If so, then the sentence by Bede would mean that Rædwald took the imperium while Æthelberht was still alive and gave the Kentish people some kind of official status as an autonomous dukedom.  [This chronology](http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/EnglandBretwaldas.htm) says that when Rædwald took the imperium, he did not control Kent, viewing it instead as a peer. So perhaps in this sense, he granted Kent **ducatum**, meaning autonomy, self-leadership (only a guess of mine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If **suae** is Rædwald, then in order to make sense, you'd probably have to interpret **ducatum** as leadership, as in Colgrave's interpretation, with the somewhat hazy implication that the East Angles were moving up in the world during Æthelberht's lifetime:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Rædwald, king of the East Angles,  became the fourth to hold rule over all the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Even while the previous such ruler, Æthelberht, was still alive, Rædwald **provided leadership** to his (own) people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, notice that Æthelberht is called _rex Cantuariorum,_ not _rex Cantiæ,_ that is, king of the Kentish People, not king of Kent. This seems to agree with _genti._ However, the same applies to _Orientalium Anglorum,_ so this doesn't help resolve the ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, note that **praebebat** is imperfect. My first translation above would fit a lot better with the perfect tense. The imperfect tense suggests the second reading, but I'm not aware of **praebere** being used in that sense. (That sense might have plenty of currency; I'm just not familiar enough with the literature to know. Can anyone here point out an interesting source?) So, for now, I'm favoring the first translation: Rædwald did not conquer Kent, even as he assumed the imperium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why so ambiguous?&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for _why_ the passage is so ambiguous, there seem to be several different ways to hook up the grammar and sense, none of which is fully satisfactory. Simon Keynes goes over several interpretations in &quot;[Rædwald the Bretwalda](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nq5MuuiZxdYC&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;ots=DaSRcQYzea&amp;dq=%22eidem%20suae%20genti%22&amp;pg=PA106#v=onepage&amp;q=%22eidem%20suae%20genti%22&amp;f=false)&quot;. It seems strange to say that Rædwald &quot;supplied leadership&quot; to his own people; isn't that what kings normally do? Why **etiam**, then, which suggests something beyond expectation? It might make sense to say that Rædwald offered Æthelberht leadership of the East Angles, but that would be **ducatum suae gentis**. **Ducatum** seems like it's there to contrast with **imperium**: it's a smaller sort of imperium. &quot;Rædwald was leading his people's advancement during Æthelberht's imperium&quot; (Colgrave's interpretation) violates common usage of **praebebat**. My translation #1 (originally proposed by Hanna Vollrath-Reichelt in 1971) seems to violate common usage of **suae**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trouble might actually result not from the grammar as much as from the ambiguous nature of the **imperium** itself. If the **imperium** is something vague, like a tendency on the part of leaders on the Continent to write to you when they want to address all the Anglo-Saxons through one person, but does not imply military supremacy or recognition at home, then it won't agree with modern expectations about hierarchical relations among leaders. Æthelberht might be [bretwalda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretwalda) but at the same time he might sometimes be subservient to Rædwald; the situation changes continually as battles are won and alliances shift.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperium also violates the expectation that a ruler is ruler for life and that these rulers were consecutive with no long gaps between them. For example, [Ceawlin's Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceawlin_of_Wessex#Bretwaldaship) says there was an approximately 50–year gap between Ælle and Ceawlin, and mentions that even during his bretwaldaship, Ceawlin often lost control of some of the kingdoms. The [chronology mentioned above](http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/EnglandBretwaldas.htm) suggests that Æthelberht's failure to broker an agreement between the Roman Church and the Celtic Church around 603 damaged his credibility as bretwalda. Rædwald became bretwalda in 616, so there may have been another long gap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passage _might_ even be Bede's way of saying that holding the Anglo-Saxon imperium doesn't necessarily mean that you were the top dog always and everywhere. And then again, it might just be a transcription error, as suggested by Henry Hallam [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=8sJeAAAAcAAJ&amp;dq=%22eidem%20suae%20genti%22%20transposition&amp;pg=PA248#v=onepage&amp;q=%22eidem%20suae%20genti%22%20transposition&amp;f=false).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="978" RevisionGUID="85423b8f-ea80-48d2-9cd9-fe5eaa4f5330" CreationDate="2016-06-04T01:24:54.743" UserId="118" Text="(A tangent off [this speculative answer](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/976/118) to a question about a sentence containing the words **eidem suae**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the apparently redundant phrase **eidem suae** (&quot;to his/her/its own same&quot;) provide a way to indicate that the antecedent of **suae** is not the subject of the verb, as is normal for the reflexive pronoun in the dative case, but something else having a (different) reflexive relation to whatever follows **suae**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible example, from the Apostolic Letter &quot;[Quod De Beatissima](http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/la/apost_letters/documents/hf_p-xii_apl_19570330_quod-de-beatissima.html)&quot; by Pope Pius XII (1957):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Venerabilis Frater Constantinus Christianus Luna, Episcopus Zacapensis, a Nobis enixe postulavit, ut **eidem suae dioecesi**, noviter conditae nulloque Patrono adhuc concreditae, eandem Virginem a Fatima caelestem Patronam benigne eligere dignaremus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a little beyond my current skill with Latin, but here's my attempt at a translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The venerable Brother Constantine Christian Luna, Bishop of Zacapa, has strenuously asked us, for **his own** newly founded **diocese**, as yet entrusted with no Patron, that we deem worthy to kindly choose Our Lady of Fatima as Patroness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject of the relevant clause is the author, that is, the Pope. It would be silly if Luna asked the Pope to choose a Patroness for his own—the Pope's own—diocese, but that's what **suae dioecesi** would literally mean. So, I'm wondering if **eidem suae** is a way to relocate the antecedent of **suae** to where it makes sense and thus avoid a very clumsy circumlocution. And is this a common idiom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the same thing commonly occurs in another grammatical case, that would answer the question, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3326" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="978" RevisionGUID="85423b8f-ea80-48d2-9cd9-fe5eaa4f5330" CreationDate="2016-06-04T01:24:54.743" UserId="118" Text="&quot;Eidem suae&quot;: a way to make the reflexive pronoun refer to someone other than the subject?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3327" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="978" RevisionGUID="85423b8f-ea80-48d2-9cd9-fe5eaa4f5330" CreationDate="2016-06-04T01:24:54.743" UserId="118" Text="|pronouns|reflexive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="0504c048-ac26-460f-b7b3-f3fff3a2e147" CreationDate="2016-06-04T01:44:01.480" UserId="118" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="My Latin is poor, so this is only guesswork too long to suggest in comments. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can confirm my guesses here or correct my errors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“obtinuit”&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Elsewhere in similar historical records](http://bit.ly/1P9xGm3), **obtinuit** seems to mean &quot;took office&quot;, as in chronologies of who served as bishop or archdeacon at a certain place, etc. For example, _Prioratum obtinuit anno 1478_: he became Prior in 1478. The verb _obtineo_ suggests receiving something that already exists, and indeed in the small sampling of these chronologies that I looked at, this verb seems to appear often in sequences, describing the continuity of a single office as a succession of different people hold it. In many instances, _obtinuit_ combines with _ab_ to indicate who appointed the person to the office; e.g. the office was &quot;obtained from&quot; the Pope. I've also seen _tradidit_ (&quot;handed on&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that is correct, then **imperium obtinuit** means &quot;obtained the realm&quot;, that is, took over as ruler of all the kingdoms—became a sort of emperor. Some cursory googling suggests that this is indeed a common way of putting it. If so, then _ducatum_ is not the object of _obtinuit_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“ducatum”&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Many of the names of the medieval offices that go with _obtinuit_ seem to end in _-atum_, which I'm guessing is cognate with English _-ate_ in the same contexts. For example, _Archidiaconatum obtinuit_ = he became archdeacon.  _Decanatum obtinuit_ = he became dean, though I'm less sure of this one. Note that in English we usually say &quot;became archdeacon&quot;, but the Latin literally translated is &quot;obtained the Archdeaconate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following that analogy, in this context **ducatum** might specifically mean &quot;the Dukeship&quot; or &quot;a Dukedom&quot; rather than leadership in general. See [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=kWdHAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=obtinuit&amp;pg=PA330#v=snippet&amp;q=ducatum&amp;f=false) for other instances of _ducatum_ in similar records.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;So, paring down the sentence, this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quartus Reduald rex Orientalium Anglorum, qui etiam uiuente Aedilbercto eidem suae genti ducatum praebebat, [imperium] obtinuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Rædwald, king of the East Angles, became the fourth to hold rule over all the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Even while the previous such ruler, Æthelberht, was still alive, Rædwald **granted a dukedom** (or granted independence) to his (Æthelberht's) people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A problem with this translation is that **suae** is reflexive and Rædwald is the subject. Possibly, though, Bede intended the apparently redundant **eidem suae genti** (to his own same people) to relocate the referent of **suae** to Æthelberht. This would agree with **etiam**, since the passage would point out something unexpected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big question is: did Æthelberht lose the imperium while he was still alive? If so, then the sentence by Bede would mean that Rædwald took the imperium while Æthelberht was still alive and gave the Kentish people some kind of official status as an autonomous dukedom.  [This chronology](http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/EnglandBretwaldas.htm) says that when Rædwald took the imperium, he did not control Kent, viewing it instead as a peer. So perhaps in this sense, he granted Kent **ducatum**, meaning autonomy, self-leadership (only a guess of mine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If **suae** is Rædwald, then in order to make sense, you'd probably have to interpret **ducatum** as leadership, as in Colgrave's interpretation, with the somewhat hazy implication that the East Angles were moving up in the world during Æthelberht's lifetime:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Rædwald, king of the East Angles,  became the fourth to hold rule over all the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Even while the previous such ruler, Æthelberht, was still alive, Rædwald **provided leadership** to his (own) people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, notice that Æthelberht is called _rex Cantuariorum,_ not _rex Cantiæ,_ that is, king of the Kentish People, not king of Kent. This seems to agree with _genti._ However, the same applies to _Orientalium Anglorum,_ so this doesn't help resolve the ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, note that **praebebat** is imperfect. My first translation above would fit a lot better with the perfect tense. The imperfect tense suggests the second reading, but I'm not aware of **praebere** being used in that sense. (That sense might have plenty of currency; I'm just not familiar enough with the literature to know. Can anyone here point out an interesting source?) So, for now, I'm favoring the first translation: Rædwald did not conquer Kent, even as he assumed the imperium from Æthelberht.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why so ambiguous?&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for _why_ the passage is so ambiguous, there seem to be several different ways to hook up the grammar and sense, none of which is fully satisfactory. Simon Keynes goes over several interpretations in &quot;[Rædwald the Bretwalda](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nq5MuuiZxdYC&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;ots=DaSRcQYzea&amp;dq=%22eidem%20suae%20genti%22&amp;pg=PA106#v=onepage&amp;q=%22eidem%20suae%20genti%22&amp;f=false)&quot;. It seems strange to say that Rædwald &quot;supplied leadership&quot; to his own people; isn't that what kings normally do? Why **etiam**, then, which suggests something beyond expectation? It might make sense to say that Rædwald offered Æthelberht leadership of the East Angles, but that would be **ducatum suae gentis**. **Ducatum** seems like it's there to contrast with **imperium**: it's a smaller sort of imperium. &quot;Rædwald was leading his people's advancement during Æthelberht's imperium&quot; (Colgrave's interpretation) violates common usage of **praebebat**. My translation #1 (originally proposed by Hanna Vollrath-Reichelt in 1971) seems to violate common usage of **suae**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trouble might actually result not from the grammar as much as from the ambiguous nature of the **imperium** itself. If the **imperium** is something vague, like a tendency on the part of leaders on the Continent to write to you when they want to address all the Anglo-Saxons through one person, but does not imply military supremacy or recognition at home, then it won't agree with modern expectations about hierarchical relations among leaders. Æthelberht might be [bretwalda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretwalda) but at the same time he might sometimes be subservient to Rædwald; the situation changes continually as battles are won and alliances shift.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperium also violates the expectation that a ruler is ruler for life and that these rulers were consecutive with no long gaps between them. For example, [Ceawlin's Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceawlin_of_Wessex#Bretwaldaship) says there was an approximately 50–year gap between Ælle and Ceawlin, and mentions that even during his bretwaldaship, Ceawlin often lost control of some of the kingdoms. The [chronology mentioned above](http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/EnglandBretwaldas.htm) suggests that Æthelberht's failure to broker an agreement between the Roman Church and the Celtic Church around 603 damaged his credibility as bretwalda. Rædwald became bretwalda in 616, so there may have been another long gap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passage _might_ even be Bede's way of saying that holding the Anglo-Saxon imperium doesn't necessarily mean that you were the top dog always and everywhere. And then again, it might just be a transcription error, as suggested by Henry Hallam [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=8sJeAAAAcAAJ&amp;dq=%22eidem%20suae%20genti%22%20transposition&amp;pg=PA248#v=onepage&amp;q=%22eidem%20suae%20genti%22%20transposition&amp;f=false).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="979" RevisionGUID="c028f132-73c7-4daa-8ac7-0b6b64adc202" CreationDate="2016-06-04T03:53:12.723" UserId="30" Text="This *eidem suae* sound unclassical to me. But Church Latin is full of Mediaevalisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject of the sentence is *Venerabilis Frater Constantinus Christianus Luna, Episcopus Zacapensis*, so I would take *suae* to refer to him. If it should refer to *nobis*, I would expect *nostrae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to *eidem*: I believe that can be used to mean &quot;aforementioned&quot; in later Latin (cf. English *he who takes out a book from the library must return same within the space of two weeks*). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="979" RevisionGUID="e7f288b7-b4c0-45f2-a825-844e6a58b850" CreationDate="2016-06-04T14:46:45.273" UserId="30" Comment="added 244 characters in body" Text="This *eidem suae* sound unclassical to me. But Church Latin is full of Mediaevalisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject of the sentence is *Venerabilis Frater Constantinus Christianus Luna, Episcopus Zacapensis*, so I would take *suae* to refer to him. If it should refer to *nobis*, I would expect *nostrae*. I believe *suus/se/sibi* normally refers to the subject of the main clause, not the subject of the subordinate clause, but that exceptions are not uncommon. The subject of the subordinate clause would still have to be the third person, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to *eidem*: I believe that can be used to mean &quot;aforementioned&quot; in later Latin (cf. English *he who takes out a book from the library must return same within the space of two weeks*). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="979" RevisionGUID="f6924c87-b157-4b56-be30-70f6f7ade5aa" CreationDate="2016-06-04T14:54:16.403" UserId="30" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="This *eidem suae* sounds unclassical to me. But Church Latin is full of Mediaevalisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject of the sentence is *Venerabilis Frater Constantinus Christianus Luna, Episcopus Zacapensis*, so I would take *suae* to refer to him. If it should refer to *nobis*, I would expect *nostrae*. I believe *suus/se/sibi* normally refers to the subject of the main clause, not the subject of the subordinate clause, but that exceptions are not uncommon. The subject of the subordinate clause would still have to be the third person, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to *eidem*: I believe that can be used to mean &quot;aforementioned&quot; in later Latin (cf. English *he who takes out a book from the library must return same within the space of two weeks*). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3332" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="588685f3-cfac-4770-a852-0738c60c8c29" CreationDate="2016-06-04T16:05:17.367" UserId="-1" Comment="6" />
  <row Id="3333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="980" RevisionGUID="28a4205c-7bb4-4108-9486-fc26e3412441" CreationDate="2016-06-04T19:17:39.550" UserId="40" Text="I don't see any reference to such an ending in either Allen and Greenough or Gildersleeve and Lodge, so I strongly suspect the answer is no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, in another, historical sense the *-ī* ending *was* used as a first-declension gen. sg. ending, and not just for masculines. The ending *-ae* is historically formed from *-a-ī*: the *-a-* of the first-declension stem plus the same *-ī* as in the second declension. The earlier spelling of this ending was -AI, which is found in inscriptions and occasionally in poetry where a disyllabic ending was needed for the meter. (This is unlike the case of Greek, where the first- and second-declension gen. sg. endings have different origins.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="981" RevisionGUID="df3bff1b-699a-4e51-9f42-441fedf129f8" CreationDate="2016-06-06T04:14:20.430" UserId="12" Text="In English, we say &quot;practice makes perfect&quot; to indicate that practice of a skill leads to mastery.  So a Latin teacher might attempt to inspire a student to diligence by saying &quot;Write out these declensions 50 times.  Practice makes perfect.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is an idiomatic way of saying this phrase in Latin, preferably Classical Latin?  I notice that [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(U)) lists a phrase,  *usus est magister optimus*, to mean this, but [a search for that phrase in the Classical corpus](http://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=usus+est+magister+optimus) comes back with nothing.  Is this the best option available?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3337" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="981" RevisionGUID="df3bff1b-699a-4e51-9f42-441fedf129f8" CreationDate="2016-06-06T04:14:20.430" UserId="12" Text="What is an idiomatic translation of &quot;practice makes perfect&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3338" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="981" RevisionGUID="df3bff1b-699a-4e51-9f42-441fedf129f8" CreationDate="2016-06-06T04:14:20.430" UserId="12" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="982" RevisionGUID="1371f681-de98-4eba-b6df-3c317840f556" CreationDate="2016-06-06T08:33:47.327" UserId="79" Text="I would like to have an idiomatic way to say &quot;good news&quot; and &quot;bad news&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I would like to be able to say &quot;I have some good news&quot; or &quot;The bad news is that you need an operation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I found *boni nuntii* in [Cicero's *Ad Atticum* 3.XI.1](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/att3.shtml#11), and context suggests it means what I want.&#xD;&#xA;(The same phrase appears also in the [Second Book of Kings](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bible/kings2.shtml#7), but it is in singular genitive.)&#xD;&#xA;However, I have been unable to locate a similar expression for bad news.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there attested examples in classical literature of something that means &quot;bad news&quot; in a way similar to how *boni nuntii* means &quot;good news&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;I believe *mali nuntii* (which I didn't find) would be understood perfectly, but I wonder if I'm missing an idiom here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3340" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="982" RevisionGUID="1371f681-de98-4eba-b6df-3c317840f556" CreationDate="2016-06-06T08:33:47.327" UserId="79" Text="How did the Romans say &quot;bad news&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3341" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="982" RevisionGUID="1371f681-de98-4eba-b6df-3c317840f556" CreationDate="2016-06-06T08:33:47.327" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="983" RevisionGUID="8952f4ea-dc8e-42d1-8af4-f419655c8df8" CreationDate="2016-06-06T12:31:49.007" UserId="522" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*superbis iuvenibus* the 'proud young men' (dative pl) are described as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **siccis herbis** 'withered crops.' *(1310 - 20 de Lisle Psalter:)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is closer to &quot;He's such a disappointment,&quot; than &quot;The black sheep of the family.&quot; Alternatively,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**impius,** (3) undutiful  (Ainsworth &amp; Mead)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Filius impius in patrem *(Tacitus)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="984" RevisionGUID="cbf1f6c7-04dc-444b-aa62-bc9540edd1fb" CreationDate="2016-06-06T14:13:08.520" UserId="469" Text="I'm surprised to find that apparently _usus facit magistrum_ isn't attested until the XIX century. However:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Usus est magister optimus**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;was first written by [Cicero][1] (Rab. Post. 4), and may be considered a [cliche][2] nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Variants include alternative word orders and later statements such as _usus facit habitum_, _usus facit artem_ and even a couple of _exercitatio facit habitum_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A less direct phrase, although arguably more _idiomatic_ may be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Gutta cavat lapidem** non vi sed saepe cadendo,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the first part being written by Ovid [(Pont. 4.10)][3], and the second one added in medieval times ([according to WP][4]) and recorded by [Giordano Bruno][5] in _The Torchbearer_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0013:text=Rab.%20Post.:chapter=4&amp;highlight=usus%2Cmagister%2Coptimus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.cl/search?tbm=bks&amp;hl=en&amp;q=%22usus%20est%20magister%20optimus%22#q=%22usus%20est%20magister%20optimus%22&amp;safe=active&amp;hl=en&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:2008.01.0493:book=4:poem=10&amp;highlight=lapidem%2Ccavat%2Cgutta&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjqpYy5ypPNAhXF2T4KHXLgA2oQFggdMAA&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FList_of_Latin_phrases_(G)&amp;usg=AFQjCNGRni9I3RjPQmfMaPc7vu-6F4uMSg&amp;sig2=3HREKvF4y-CpUZBe8spSdA&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutta_cavat_lapidem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="984" RevisionGUID="fa7582e1-9568-426a-b464-3b88d37a3ee6" CreationDate="2016-06-06T14:21:37.447" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body" Text="I'm surprised to find that apparently _usus facit magistrum_ isn't attested until the XIX century. However:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Usus est magister optimus**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;was actually first written by [Cicero][1] (Rab. Post. 4). Note that [googling][2] the sentence with quotes gives 65K+ results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Variants include alternative word orders and later statements such as _usus facit habitum_, _usus facit artem_ and even a couple of _exercitatio facit habitum_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A less direct phrase, although arguably more _idiomatic_ may be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Gutta cavat lapidem** non vi sed saepe cadendo,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the first part being written by Ovid [(Pont. 4.10)][3], and the second one added in medieval times ([according to WP][4]) and recorded by [Giordano Bruno][5] in _The Torchbearer_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0013:text=Rab.%20Post.:chapter=4&amp;highlight=usus%2Cmagister%2Coptimus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22usus%20est%20magister%20optimus%22&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;client=firefox-b&amp;gfe_rd=cr&amp;ei=todVV4aEC9ilxgTw3omwCA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:2008.01.0493:book=4:poem=10&amp;highlight=lapidem%2Ccavat%2Cgutta&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjqpYy5ypPNAhXF2T4KHXLgA2oQFggdMAA&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FList_of_Latin_phrases_(G)&amp;usg=AFQjCNGRni9I3RjPQmfMaPc7vu-6F4uMSg&amp;sig2=3HREKvF4y-CpUZBe8spSdA&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutta_cavat_lapidem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="984" RevisionGUID="4eaa5fef-ae25-4697-845a-da8d0828e650" CreationDate="2016-06-06T14:27:44.997" UserId="469" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="I'm surprised to find that apparently _usus facit magistrum_ isn't attested until the XIX century. However:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Usus est magister optimus**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;was actually first written by [Cicero][1] (Rab. Post. 4). Note that [googling][2] the sentence with quotes gives 65K+ results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Variants include alternative word orders and later statements such as _usus facit habitum_, _usus facit artem_ and even a couple of _exercitatio facit habitum_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A less direct phrase, although arguably more _idiomatic_ may be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Gutta cavat lapidem** non vi sed saepe cadendo,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the first part being written by Ovid [(Pont. 4.10)][3], and the second one added in medieval times ([according to WP][4]) and recorded by [Giordano Bruno][5] in _The Torchbearer_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually my Latin professor used _gutta cavat lapidem..._ to encourage us to study.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0013:text=Rab.%20Post.:chapter=4&amp;highlight=usus%2Cmagister%2Coptimus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22usus%20est%20magister%20optimus%22&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;client=firefox-b&amp;gfe_rd=cr&amp;ei=todVV4aEC9ilxgTw3omwCA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:2008.01.0493:book=4:poem=10&amp;highlight=lapidem%2Ccavat%2Cgutta&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjqpYy5ypPNAhXF2T4KHXLgA2oQFggdMAA&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FList_of_Latin_phrases_(G)&amp;usg=AFQjCNGRni9I3RjPQmfMaPc7vu-6F4uMSg&amp;sig2=3HREKvF4y-CpUZBe8spSdA&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutta_cavat_lapidem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="937a3b1b-9947-47b5-85a3-7c1c43f97ea2" CreationDate="2016-06-07T02:08:07.010" UserId="25" Text="**Yes** [Phoebus Apollo][1] was the sun god during the time of [Augustine][2] at Rome!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The worship of Apollo was widespread not only in Greece but also throughout the ancient world. Shrines could be found in places from Egypt to Anatolia (now northwestern Turkey). The Romans built their first temple to Apollo (Phoebus) in 432  B  .  C  ., and he became a favorite Roman god. The Roman emperor Augustus was a devoted worshiper because the battle of Actium, in which he gained political supremacy, was fought near a temple of Apollo. - [Myths Encyclopedia.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how do we reconcile this with the Roman Cult of Mithras or the [Sol Invictus][3] of Rome?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Roman deity Mithras appears in the historical record in the late 1st century A.D., and disappears from it in the late 4th century A.D. Unlike the major mythological figures of Graeco-Roman religion, such as Jupiter and Hercules, no ancient source preserves the mythology of the god. All of our information is therefore derived from depictions on monuments, and the limited mentions of the cult in literary sources. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;The temples of Mithras were always an underground cave, featuring a relief of Mithras killing the bull. This &quot;tauroctony&quot;, as it is known today, appears in the same format everywhere, but with minor variations. Other standard themes appear in the iconography. - [The Cult of Mithras.][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Roman Emperor [Aurelian][5] made the Cult of the Invincible Sun official in the year 274 AD:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Roman gens Aurelia was associated with the cult of Sol. After his victories in the East, the Emperor Aurelian thoroughly reformed the Roman cult of Sol, elevating the sun-god to one of the premier divinities of the Empire. Where previously priests of Sol had been simply sacerdotes and tended to belong to lower ranks of Roman society, they were now pontifices and members of the new college of pontifices instituted by Aurelian. Every pontifex of Sol was a member of the senatorial elite, indicating that the priesthood of Sol was now highly prestigious. Almost all these senators held other priesthoods as well, however, and some of these other priesthoods take precedence in the inscriptions in which they are listed, suggesting that they were considered more prestigious than the priesthood of Sol. Aurelian also built a new temple for Sol, bringing the total number of temples for the god in Rome to (at least) four[34] He also instituted games in honor of the sun god, held every four years from AD 274 onwards. - [Sol Invictus (Wikipedia).][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Cult of Mithras thus came into being after Augustine and became obsolete in or around the 4th century AD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Am-Ar/Apollo.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=main&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelian&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://The%20Roman%20gens%20Aurelia%20was%20associated%20with%20the%20cult%20of%20Sol.[31]%20After%20his%20victories%20in%20the%20East,%20the%20Emperor%20Aurelian%20thoroughly%20reformed%20the%20Roman%20cult%20of%20Sol,%20elevating%20the%20sun-god%20to%20one%20of%20the%20premier%20divinities%20of%20the%20Empire.%20Where%20previously%20priests%20of%20Sol%20had%20been%20simply%20sacerdotes%20and%20tended%20to%20belong%20to%20lower%20ranks%20of%20Roman%20society,[32]%20they%20were%20now%20pontifices%20and%20members%20of%20the%20new%20college%20of%20pontifices%20instituted%20by%20Aurelian.%20Every%20pontifex%20of%20Sol%20was%20a%20member%20of%20the%20senatorial%20elite,%20indicating%20that%20the%20priesthood%20of%20Sol%20was%20now%20highly%20prestigious.%20Almost%20all%20these%20senators%20held%20other%20priesthoods%20as%20well,%20however,%20and%20some%20of%20these%20other%20priesthoods%20take%20precedence%20in%20the%20inscriptions%20in%20which%20they%20are%20listed,%20suggesting%20that%20they%20were%20considered%20more%20prestigious%20than%20the%20priesthood%20of%20Sol.[33]%20Aurelian%20also%20built%20a%20new%20temple%20for%20Sol,%20bringing%20the%20total%20number%20of%20temples%20for%20the%20god%20in%20Rome%20to%20(at%20least)%20four[34]%20He%20also%20instituted%20games%20in%20honor%20of%20the%20sun%20god,%20held%20every%20four%20years%20from%20AD%20274%20onwards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="e41c0035-e363-40fb-8b74-a05a0f1ad549" CreationDate="2016-06-07T02:14:09.607" UserId="25" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="**Yes** [Phoebus Apollo][1] was the sun god during the time of [Augustine][2] at Rome!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The worship of Apollo was widespread not only in Greece but also throughout the ancient world. Shrines could be found in places from Egypt to Anatolia (now northwestern Turkey). The Romans built their first temple to Apollo (Phoebus) in 432  B  .  C  ., and he became a favorite Roman god. The Roman emperor Augustus was a devoted worshiper because the battle of Actium, in which he gained political supremacy, was fought near a temple of Apollo. - [Myths Encyclopedia.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how do we reconcile this with the Roman Cult of Mithras or the [Sol Invictus][3] of Rome?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Roman deity Mithras appears in the historical record in the late 1st century A.D., and disappears from it in the late 4th century A.D. Unlike the major mythological figures of Graeco-Roman religion, such as Jupiter and Hercules, no ancient source preserves the mythology of the god. All of our information is therefore derived from depictions on monuments, and the limited mentions of the cult in literary sources. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;The temples of Mithras were always an underground cave, featuring a relief of Mithras killing the bull. This &quot;tauroctony&quot;, as it is known today, appears in the same format everywhere, but with minor variations. Other standard themes appear in the iconography. - [The Cult of Mithras.][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Roman Emperor [Aurelian][5] made the Cult of the Invincible Sun official in the year 274 AD:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Roman gens Aurelia was associated with the cult of Sol. After his victories in the East, the Emperor Aurelian thoroughly reformed the Roman cult of Sol, elevating the sun-god to one of the premier divinities of the Empire. Where previously priests of Sol had been simply sacerdotes and tended to belong to lower ranks of Roman society, they were now pontifices and members of the new college of pontifices instituted by Aurelian. Every pontifex of Sol was a member of the senatorial elite, indicating that the priesthood of Sol was now highly prestigious. Almost all these senators held other priesthoods as well, however, and some of these other priesthoods take precedence in the inscriptions in which they are listed, suggesting that they were considered more prestigious than the priesthood of Sol. Aurelian also built a new temple for Sol, bringing the total number of temples for the god in Rome to (at least) four. He also instituted games in honor of the sun god, held every four years from AD 274 onwards. - [Sol Invictus (Wikipedia).][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Cult of Mithras thus came into being after Augustine and became obsolete in or around the 4th century AD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Am-Ar/Apollo.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=main&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelian&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://The%20Roman%20gens%20Aurelia%20was%20associated%20with%20the%20cult%20of%20Sol.[31]%20After%20his%20victories%20in%20the%20East,%20the%20Emperor%20Aurelian%20thoroughly%20reformed%20the%20Roman%20cult%20of%20Sol,%20elevating%20the%20sun-god%20to%20one%20of%20the%20premier%20divinities%20of%20the%20Empire.%20Where%20previously%20priests%20of%20Sol%20had%20been%20simply%20sacerdotes%20and%20tended%20to%20belong%20to%20lower%20ranks%20of%20Roman%20society,[32]%20they%20were%20now%20pontifices%20and%20members%20of%20the%20new%20college%20of%20pontifices%20instituted%20by%20Aurelian.%20Every%20pontifex%20of%20Sol%20was%20a%20member%20of%20the%20senatorial%20elite,%20indicating%20that%20the%20priesthood%20of%20Sol%20was%20now%20highly%20prestigious.%20Almost%20all%20these%20senators%20held%20other%20priesthoods%20as%20well,%20however,%20and%20some%20of%20these%20other%20priesthoods%20take%20precedence%20in%20the%20inscriptions%20in%20which%20they%20are%20listed,%20suggesting%20that%20they%20were%20considered%20more%20prestigious%20than%20the%20priesthood%20of%20Sol.[33]%20Aurelian%20also%20built%20a%20new%20temple%20for%20Sol,%20bringing%20the%20total%20number%20of%20temples%20for%20the%20god%20in%20Rome%20to%20(at%20least)%20four[34]%20He%20also%20instituted%20games%20in%20honor%20of%20the%20sun%20god,%20held%20every%20four%20years%20from%20AD%20274%20onwards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3351" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="963" RevisionGUID="b788458a-8b71-448c-a1ed-f4a1a36e51fe" CreationDate="2016-06-07T05:35:34.240" UserId="25" Comment="Added one tag." Text="|history|mythology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3352" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="963" RevisionGUID="b788458a-8b71-448c-a1ed-f4a1a36e51fe" CreationDate="2016-06-07T05:35:34.240" Comment="Proposed by 25 approved by 79 edit id of 113" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="c8024702-8d6a-47dd-8a5d-55e173d05d76" CreationDate="2016-06-07T13:36:55.887" UserId="12" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="**Yes** [Phoebus Apollo][1] was the sun god during the time of [Augustine][2] at Rome!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The worship of Apollo was widespread not only in Greece but also throughout the ancient world. Shrines could be found in places from Egypt to Anatolia (now northwestern Turkey). The Romans built their first temple to Apollo (Phoebus) in 432  B  .  C  ., and he became a favorite Roman god. The Roman emperor Augustus was a devoted worshiper because the battle of Actium, in which he gained political supremacy, was fought near a temple of Apollo. - [Myths Encyclopedia.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how do we reconcile this with the Roman Cult of Mithras or the [Sol Invictus][3] of Rome?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Roman deity Mithras appears in the historical record in the late 1st century A.D., and disappears from it in the late 4th century A.D. Unlike the major mythological figures of Graeco-Roman religion, such as Jupiter and Hercules, no ancient source preserves the mythology of the god. All of our information is therefore derived from depictions on monuments, and the limited mentions of the cult in literary sources. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;The temples of Mithras were always an underground cave, featuring a relief of Mithras killing the bull. This &quot;tauroctony&quot;, as it is known today, appears in the same format everywhere, but with minor variations. Other standard themes appear in the iconography. - [The Cult of Mithras.][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Roman Emperor [Aurelian][5] made the Cult of the Invincible Sun official in the year 274 AD:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Roman gens Aurelia was associated with the cult of Sol. After his victories in the East, the Emperor Aurelian thoroughly reformed the Roman cult of Sol, elevating the sun-god to one of the premier divinities of the Empire. Where previously priests of Sol had been simply sacerdotes and tended to belong to lower ranks of Roman society, they were now pontifices and members of the new college of pontifices instituted by Aurelian. Every pontifex of Sol was a member of the senatorial elite, indicating that the priesthood of Sol was now highly prestigious. Almost all these senators held other priesthoods as well, however, and some of these other priesthoods take precedence in the inscriptions in which they are listed, suggesting that they were considered more prestigious than the priesthood of Sol. Aurelian also built a new temple for Sol, bringing the total number of temples for the god in Rome to (at least) four. He also instituted games in honor of the sun god, held every four years from AD 274 onwards. - [Sol Invictus (Wikipedia).][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Cult of Mithras thus came into being after Augustine and became obsolete in or around the 4th century AD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;([Crossposted on Mythology.SE](http://mythology.stackexchange.com/a/1685/1268))&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Am-Ar/Apollo.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=main&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelian&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://The%20Roman%20gens%20Aurelia%20was%20associated%20with%20the%20cult%20of%20Sol.[31]%20After%20his%20victories%20in%20the%20East,%20the%20Emperor%20Aurelian%20thoroughly%20reformed%20the%20Roman%20cult%20of%20Sol,%20elevating%20the%20sun-god%20to%20one%20of%20the%20premier%20divinities%20of%20the%20Empire.%20Where%20previously%20priests%20of%20Sol%20had%20been%20simply%20sacerdotes%20and%20tended%20to%20belong%20to%20lower%20ranks%20of%20Roman%20society,[32]%20they%20were%20now%20pontifices%20and%20members%20of%20the%20new%20college%20of%20pontifices%20instituted%20by%20Aurelian.%20Every%20pontifex%20of%20Sol%20was%20a%20member%20of%20the%20senatorial%20elite,%20indicating%20that%20the%20priesthood%20of%20Sol%20was%20now%20highly%20prestigious.%20Almost%20all%20these%20senators%20held%20other%20priesthoods%20as%20well,%20however,%20and%20some%20of%20these%20other%20priesthoods%20take%20precedence%20in%20the%20inscriptions%20in%20which%20they%20are%20listed,%20suggesting%20that%20they%20were%20considered%20more%20prestigious%20than%20the%20priesthood%20of%20Sol.[33]%20Aurelian%20also%20built%20a%20new%20temple%20for%20Sol,%20bringing%20the%20total%20number%20of%20temples%20for%20the%20god%20in%20Rome%20to%20(at%20least)%20four[34]%20He%20also%20instituted%20games%20in%20honor%20of%20the%20sun%20god,%20held%20every%20four%20years%20from%20AD%20274%20onwards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="987" RevisionGUID="1b98733b-db80-4957-b896-6cb3e8803e09" CreationDate="2016-06-07T19:52:04.380" UserId="47" Text="Why is the object of mercy (&quot;me&quot;, &quot;us&quot;) rendered in the genitive in these two cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;miserere mei&quot;  (Psalm li)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;miserere nostri&quot;  (Psalm cxxi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would expect accusative, or even dative.  But, genitive surprises me.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, the dative appears in the &quot;miserere nobis&quot; of the Agnus Dei, so genitive does not seems to a hard rule here.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3355" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="987" RevisionGUID="1b98733b-db80-4957-b896-6cb3e8803e09" CreationDate="2016-06-07T19:52:04.380" UserId="47" Text="Miserere mei! Miserere nostri! Why genitive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3356" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="987" RevisionGUID="1b98733b-db80-4957-b896-6cb3e8803e09" CreationDate="2016-06-07T19:52:04.380" UserId="47" Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="988" RevisionGUID="32580a6e-d697-4b0d-81cb-81ff51322117" CreationDate="2016-06-07T20:13:28.550" UserId="469" Text="I praise the scholar effort of Ben and Joonas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though I feel I am not even close to give such a thorough answer, I think I can add some complementary insights. Particularly, I'd start with the last question, which seems to me -correct my if I am wrong- as an important part of the concern:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What is it about this phrase that makes it so difficult to interpret?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the point has become clear that there is some **ambiguity** in the construction, especially: which role are both verbs playing and to whom is the refelxive _reflecting_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It must not be ignored that Latin allows for intricate, even recursive, relative clauses. In fact there are plenty of examples of written Latin sentences that simply cannot be translated as just one into modern languages. This special _freedom_ is not exempt of greater risks of ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMHO, the fact that most of us are not 100% certain of what the author really meant (not even the translators agree) is nothing but evidence of such ambiguity. (*Moreover, I see some advantage in not assuming that just* every *sentence that has been preserved from historic times is free of **error***, even grammatical ones).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some additional ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Although I agree that the **reflexive** may be intended to either Æthelberht or Rædwald, I see _qui_ in nominative while _eidem_ in dative, and can't help but think that _suae_ means _Redualdi_. I ignore whether, as suggested in the comments, it could be some grammatical feature particular to mediaeval Latin, or whether I am wrong with this notion.&#xD;&#xA;2. Regarding the verbal form **obtinuit**, I do not see alternatives to it being the main verb of the sentence: Reduald rex Orientalium Anglorum is the subject of obtinuit. And its object cannot be other than _ducatum_, the leadership. (unless it is tretaed as intransitive???)&#xD;&#xA;3. As for **praebebat**, I feel inclined to think that the subject is also R, sharing the object with the main sentence (which is a strange alternative, yet the most plausible to me). That is the best I can do with the nouns's cases. I think some of the [meanings][1] of the verb are consistent with R not having power yet, meaning that he was _pursuing_ or _claiming_ such power at the time Æ was alive.&#xD;&#xA;4. Regarding the most-contentious **_eidem suae genti_**, I see it as separate complements: R was holding forth power _to Æthelberht_ (eidem), _for_ [the sake of] _his people/clan_ (suae genti). I think this reading is more likely than willing to give power _to the people_ in the historical context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am still not 100% convinced of this. Either due to my own incomplete knowledge or (maybe?) the author's ambiguity (or both? Clearly I'm not the one to certify that). A good translation is beyond my knowledge of English, but I'll try my best:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; quartus Reduald rex Orientalium Anglorum, qui etiam uiuente Aedilbercto eidem suae genti ducatum praebebat, obtinuit;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fourth, Redwald, king of the Eastern Angles, who obtained for his clan the leadership he was claiming from Æthelberht while he (the later, i.e. Æthelberht) was still alive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpraebeo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="989" RevisionGUID="f380fe86-fe4f-4472-8a06-9e61b93a4195" CreationDate="2016-06-07T20:17:51.553" UserId="79" Text="First, this is not specific to ecclesiastical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The same genitive is there in classical Latin as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *miserere* is used impersonally.&#xD;&#xA;It means roughly &quot;to distress&quot; or &quot;to excite pity&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *me miseret* means &quot;I am distressed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The reason of distress or the target of pity is indicated by genitive: *me miseret Marci* means &quot;I pity Marcus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb can also be used in passive voice.&#xD;&#xA;This use is personal because passive gets rid of the impersonal subject.&#xD;&#xA;Instead of *me miseret Marci* I can say *misereor Marci*.&#xD;&#xA;The verbs *miserere* and *misereri* are listed separately in many dictionaries, but it makes most sense to me to see them as one verb used in both active and passive voice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *miserere* is a passive imperative form of *miserere* &amp;mdash; or the imperative of the deponent verb *misereri* if you wish to see it that way.&#xD;&#xA;(This reminds me of [passive imperative forms of non-deponent verbs](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/62/79), which are rare but exist. It didn't occur to me before that *miserere* might count.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same construction is found with many impersonal verbs expressing feelings: *miserere*, *pigere*, *pudere*, *paenitere*, *taedere*.&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I cannot fully explain why genitive is used in cases like this.&#xD;&#xA;I see the object of pitying more as a cause than an actual object.&#xD;&#xA;It helps me to think that the ablative *causa* is intended (whether or not this really is the case):&#xD;&#xA;I might read *misereor Marci* as *misereor Marci causa*, &quot;I pity because of Marcus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not recall seeing *miserere* with dative in classical usage, but I may be mistaken.&#xD;&#xA;Using dative is not surprising, though.&#xD;&#xA;Dative is often used to indicate the entity that benefits or suffers from the action of a verb.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore verbs like *auxiliari*, *favere*, *servire* and *deesse* require dative instead of accusative.&#xD;&#xA;This idea of benefit is understandable with *miserere* as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="988" RevisionGUID="9abfe3d1-7059-4fda-a3de-983c9cf15a1c" CreationDate="2016-06-07T20:23:03.597" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="I praise the scholar effort of Ben and Joonas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though I feel I am not even close to give such a thorough answer, I think I can add some complementary insights. Particularly, I'd start with the last question, which seems to me -correct my if I am wrong- as an important part of the concern:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What is it about this phrase that makes it so difficult to interpret?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the point has become clear that there is some **ambiguity** in the construction, especially: which role are both verbs playing and to whom is the reflexive _reflecting_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It must not be ignored that Latin allows for intricate, even recursive, relative clauses. In fact there are plenty of examples of written Latin sentences that simply cannot be translated as just one into modern languages. This special _freedom_ is not exempt of greater risks of ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMHO, the fact that most of us are not 100% certain of what the author really meant (not even the translators agree) is nothing but evidence of such ambiguity. (*Moreover, I see some advantage in not assuming that just* every *sentence that has been preserved from historic times is free of **error***, even grammatical ones).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some additional ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Although I agree that the **reflexive** may be intended to either Æthelberht or Rædwald, I see _qui_ in nominative while _eidem_ in dative, and can't help but think that _suae_ means _Redualdi_. I ignore whether, as suggested in the comments, it could be some grammatical feature particular to medieval Latin, or whether I am wrong with this notion.&#xD;&#xA;2. Regarding the verbal form **obtinuit**, I do not see alternatives to it being the main verb of the sentence: Reduald rex Orientalium Anglorum is the subject of *obtinuit*. And its object cannot be other than _ducatum_, the leadership. (Unless it is treated as intransitive?)&#xD;&#xA;3. As for **praebebat**, I feel inclined to think that the subject is also R, sharing the object with the main sentence (which is a strange alternative, yet the most plausible to me). That is the best I can do with the nouns's cases. I think some of the [meanings](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpraebeo) of the verb are consistent with R not having power yet, meaning that he was _pursuing_ or _claiming_ such power at the time Æ was alive.&#xD;&#xA;4. Regarding the most-contentious **_eidem suae genti_**, I see it as separate complements: R was holding forth power _to Æthelberht_ (eidem), _for_ [the sake of] _his people/clan_ (suae genti). I think this reading is more likely than willing to give power _to the people_ in the historical context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am still not 100% convinced of this. Either due to my own incomplete knowledge or (maybe?) the author's ambiguity (or both? Clearly I'm not the one to certify that). A good translation is beyond my knowledge of English, but I'll try my best:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; quartus Reduald rex Orientalium Anglorum, qui etiam uiuente Aedilbercto eidem suae genti ducatum praebebat, obtinuit;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fourth, Redwald, king of the Eastern Angles, who obtained for his clan the leadership he was claiming from Æthelberht while he (the later, i.e. Æthelberht) was still alive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="987" RevisionGUID="d43d5064-3d0c-44e2-a193-954be1befe72" CreationDate="2016-06-07T20:27:34.933" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="Why is the object of mercy (&quot;me&quot;, &quot;us&quot;) rendered in the genitive in these two cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *miserere mei*  (Psalm li)&#xD;&#xA;* *miserere nostri*  (Psalm cxxi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would expect accusative, or even dative.  But, genitive surprises me.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, the dative appears in the *miserere nobis* of the Agnus Dei, so genitive does not seems to a hard rule here.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3361" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="987" RevisionGUID="d43d5064-3d0c-44e2-a193-954be1befe72" CreationDate="2016-06-07T20:27:34.933" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|dative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="990" RevisionGUID="f002fc24-6b7c-45d6-80dd-ac8264761177" CreationDate="2016-06-07T20:28:11.747" UserId="469" Text="For what it's worth, I found [Cic. Agr. 2.30][1], using the compound *malus nuntius* twice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am concerned, however, that this might not necessarily be the right answer: Just finding one example or two of something does not imply it is *the* way a Roman would have said it. Maybe they just used some other expression (not invoving _nuntii_ at all) that sounded better to them (what about _fabula_, _rumor_? What if one of these has an intrinsic bad connotation?). I remember a professor of mine (he was a PhD in AI) using a very strange word/spelling, claiming it was right just because he googled it and there where results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pity that [Linguee][2] doesn't have Latin among its alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0013:text=Agr.:speech=2:chapter=30&amp;highlight=malum%2Cmalus%2Cnuntium%2Cnuntius&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.linguee.com/english-spanish/?moreLanguages=1#moreLanguages" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="990" RevisionGUID="ec34e73a-9489-43ce-8d36-3b726c621189" CreationDate="2016-06-07T20:41:12.427" UserId="469" Comment="added 375 characters in body" Text="For what it's worth, I found [Cic. Agr. 2.30][1], using the compound *malus nuntius* twice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am concerned, however, that this might not necessarily be the right answer: Just finding one example or two of something does not imply it is *the* way a Roman would have said it. Maybe they just used some other expression (not invoving _nuntii_ at all) that sounded better to them (what about _fabula_, _rumor_? What if one of these has an intrinsic bad connotation?). I remember a professor of mine (he was a PhD in AI) using a very strange word/spelling, claiming it was right just because he googled it and there where results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pity that [Linguee][2] doesn't have Latin among its alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Apparently, Cicero also uses [tristis fama][3] to mean bad news (according to [translation][4], bad meaning _sad_ here, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0013:text=Agr.:speech=2:chapter=30&amp;highlight=malum%2Cmalus%2Cnuntium%2Cnuntius&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.linguee.com/english-spanish/?moreLanguages=1#moreLanguages&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0011:text=Phil.:speech=14:chapter=6&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0021:speech=14:chapter=6&amp;highlight=news%2Cbad" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="988" RevisionGUID="2cb8e4d5-3a3b-4d6b-998f-3b6c0d0e4f78" CreationDate="2016-06-07T20:56:08.547" UserId="469" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I praise the scholar effort of Ben and Joonas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though I feel I am not even close to give such a thorough answer, I think I can add some complementary insights. Particularly, I'd start with the last question, which seems to me -correct my if I am wrong- as an important part of the concern:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What is it about this phrase that makes it so difficult to interpret?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the point has become clear that there is some **ambiguity** in the construction, especially: which role are both verbs playing and to whom is the reflexive _reflecting_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It must not be ignored that Latin allows for intricate, even recursive, relative clauses. In fact there are plenty of examples of written Latin sentences that simply cannot be translated as just one into modern languages. This special _freedom_ is not exempt of greater risks of ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMHO, the fact that most of us are not 100% certain of what the author really meant (not even the translators agree) is nothing but evidence of such ambiguity. (*Moreover, I see some advantage in not assuming that just* every *sentence that has been preserved from historic times is free of **error***, even grammatical ones).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some additional ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Although I agree that the **reflexive** may be intended to either Æthelberht or Rædwald, I see _qui_ in nominative while _eidem_ in dative, and can't help but think that _suae_ means _Redualdi_. I ignore whether, as suggested in the comments, it could be some grammatical feature particular to medieval Latin, or whether I am wrong with this notion.&#xD;&#xA;2. Regarding the verbal form **obtinuit**, I do not see alternatives to it being the main verb of the sentence: Reduald rex Orientalium Anglorum is the subject of *obtinuit*. And its object cannot be other than _ducatum_, the leadership. (Unless it is treated as intransitive??!!)&#xD;&#xA;3. As for **praebebat**, I feel inclined to think that the subject is also R, sharing the object with the main sentence (which is a strange alternative, yet the most plausible to me). That is the best I can do with the nouns's cases. I think some of the [meanings](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpraebeo) of the verb are consistent with R not having power yet, meaning that he was _pursuing_ or _claiming_ such power at the time Æ was alive.&#xD;&#xA;4. Regarding the most-contentious **_eidem suae genti_**, I see it as separate complements: R was holding forth power _to Æthelberht_ (eidem), _for_ [the sake of] _his people/clan_ (suae genti). I think this reading is more likely than willing to give power _to the people_ in the historical context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am still not 100% convinced of this. Either due to my own incomplete knowledge or (maybe?) the author's ambiguity (or both? Clearly I'm not the one to certify that). A good translation is beyond my knowledge of English, but I'll try my best:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_quartus Reduald rex Orientalium Anglorum, qui etiam uiuente Aedilbercto eidem suae genti ducatum praebebat, obtinuit;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fourth, Redwald, king of the Eastern Angles, who obtained for his clan the leadership he was claiming from Æthelberht while he (the later, i.e. Æthelberht) was still alive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3365" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="913" RevisionGUID="dd29622b-16da-4d8f-81fe-7f8ef41e26f6" CreationDate="2016-06-09T13:23:45.923" UserId="68" Comment="7" />
  <row Id="3366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="991" RevisionGUID="c890537a-e013-4e8f-8a3b-1b7daebfb6a1" CreationDate="2016-06-09T13:35:02.737" UserId="537" Text="From [Wikipedia][1]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latin adverb sic (&quot;thus&quot;; in full: sic erat scriptum, &quot;thus was it written&quot;) inserted after a quoted word or passage, indicates that the quoted matter has been transcribed exactly as found in the source text, complete with any erroneous or archaic spelling, surprising assertion, faulty reasoning, or other matter that might otherwise be taken as an error of transcription.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there variant for audio transcriptions? Or do you still use [sic] to point out that this is exactly what he/she said?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3367" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="991" RevisionGUID="c890537a-e013-4e8f-8a3b-1b7daebfb6a1" CreationDate="2016-06-09T13:35:02.737" UserId="537" Text="Sīc erat scriptum equivalent for spoken information?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3368" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="991" RevisionGUID="c890537a-e013-4e8f-8a3b-1b7daebfb6a1" CreationDate="2016-06-09T13:35:02.737" UserId="537" Text="|adverb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="992" RevisionGUID="922a3627-4ac7-49a4-a60c-162a390eaf86" CreationDate="2016-06-09T13:48:58.393" UserId="538" Text="I'm trying to translate the sentence &quot;The whole state was thanking this man's brither alone.&quot; &#xA;My try is: Tota civitas fratri huius soli gratias agebat. &#xA;&#xA;I wonder if my usage of soli (as genetive) is right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3370" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="992" RevisionGUID="922a3627-4ac7-49a4-a60c-162a390eaf86" CreationDate="2016-06-09T13:48:58.393" UserId="538" Text="Usage of adjective solus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3371" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="992" RevisionGUID="922a3627-4ac7-49a4-a60c-162a390eaf86" CreationDate="2016-06-09T13:48:58.393" UserId="538" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="992" RevisionGUID="6ab1f6bf-1242-4d69-ae50-416f42cc6a99" CreationDate="2016-06-09T14:00:21.690" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and slightly reformatted." Text="I'm trying to translate the sentence &quot;The whole state was thanking this man's brother alone.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;My try is: *Tota civitas fratri huius soli gratias agebat*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if my usage of soli (as genetive) is right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3373" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="992" RevisionGUID="6ab1f6bf-1242-4d69-ae50-416f42cc6a99" CreationDate="2016-06-09T14:00:21.690" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and slightly reformatted." Text="|translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="993" RevisionGUID="7f55dba5-ad69-443c-b1d7-f29450462668" CreationDate="2016-06-09T14:07:49.197" UserId="79" Text="The word *sic* means &quot;thus&quot; and is not tied to written contexts.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say &quot;thus it was said&quot;, a simple and analogous option is to say *sic erat dictum*.&#xD;&#xA;The underlying verbs are *scribere* (to write) and *dicere* (to say).&#xD;&#xA;If you only use the short form *sic* as is typical, it is valid for both contexts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="992" RevisionGUID="b102faee-4cb0-4559-8ac6-7d4f65fa2fe8" CreationDate="2016-06-09T14:23:24.973" UserId="538" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="I'm trying to translate the sentence &quot;The whole state was thanking this man's brother alone.&quot; (that is, the brother the only one being thanked)&#xD;&#xA;My try is: *Tota civitas fratri huius soli gratias agebat*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if my usage of soli (as dative) is right. (I think solus must follow the case of fratri, which is dative. Am I correct?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="994" RevisionGUID="0e03abe6-b7cc-4872-b77a-87864da80d17" CreationDate="2016-06-09T14:26:17.483" UserId="79" Text="Your translation is correct, apart from missing the word *viri*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The whole state&quot; was thanking is indeed translated well with *Tota civitas gratias agebat*.&#xD;&#xA;The expression *gratias agere* requires dative to indicate who is thanked.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore if you want to thank &quot;this man's brother&quot; (*frater huius viri*), the dative expression you need is *fratri huius viri*.&#xD;&#xA;The genitive *huius viri* (&quot;this man's&quot;) does not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact translation of &quot;alone&quot; depends on what it refers to.&#xD;&#xA;The most natural interpretation is that it refers to the brother, whence *solus* takes the gender and case of *fratri*.&#xD;&#xA;The singular masculine dative is *soli* &amp;mdash; note that *solus* is declined like *unus* rather than like *bonus*.&#xD;&#xA;(The genitive would be *solius*.)&#xD;&#xA;This leaves us with this translation: *Tota civitas fratri huius viri soli gratias agebat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish &quot;alone&quot; to refer to the man (whose brother is being thanked), switch *solus* to the same form as *huius viri*.&#xD;&#xA;The singular masculine genitive is *solius*.&#xD;&#xA;Thus you get: *Tota civitas fratri huius viri solius gratias agebat*.&#xD;&#xA;I doubt this was intended, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(An earlier version of the question mentioned that *soli* was genitive. This is why I added some emphasis on its declination.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="995" RevisionGUID="2ba1b2c3-e834-4dd7-97f9-9b4468f4e9a1" CreationDate="2016-06-09T15:10:13.893" UserId="539" Text="One of the shorter, and maybe easier way to remember this would be *&quot;Vivo mea familia&quot;* i think. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence *mea familia* is an ablative which expresses an advantage. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="997" RevisionGUID="2718d5e2-08c9-48e4-a3fd-cc40298f2a17" CreationDate="2016-06-09T16:22:20.897" UserId="307" Text="In computer software, we have a &quot;watchdog&quot; process, which makes sure that the other software is running correctly and has not crashed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which, of course, leads to an obvious question, and I will like to know how to ask in Latin `but, who will watch the watchdog?` (Juvenal seems to have forgotten that one :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3380" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="997" RevisionGUID="2718d5e2-08c9-48e4-a3fd-cc40298f2a17" CreationDate="2016-06-09T16:22:20.897" UserId="307" Text="But, who will watch the watchdog?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3381" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="997" RevisionGUID="2718d5e2-08c9-48e4-a3fd-cc40298f2a17" CreationDate="2016-06-09T16:22:20.897" UserId="307" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="997" RevisionGUID="1d35c4ec-28a4-474d-962e-d5d19444ff80" CreationDate="2016-06-09T17:12:17.757" UserId="12" Comment="added 20 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In computer software, we have a &quot;watchdog&quot; process, which makes sure that the other software is running correctly and has not crashed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which, of course, leads to an obvious question: what is a Latin idiom expressing the idea of the English idiom, `but, who will watch the watchdog?` (Juvenal seems to have forgotten that one :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3383" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="997" RevisionGUID="1d35c4ec-28a4-474d-962e-d5d19444ff80" CreationDate="2016-06-09T17:12:17.757" UserId="12" Comment="added 20 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3384" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="997" RevisionGUID="fdf37713-4db8-4fac-8274-b4a42c553382" CreationDate="2016-06-09T17:44:51.383" UserId="12" Comment="Rollback to [2718d5e2-08c9-48e4-a3fd-cc40298f2a17]" Text="In computer software, we have a &quot;watchdog&quot; process, which makes sure that the other software is running correctly and has not crashed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which, of course, leads to an obvious question, and I will like to know how to ask in Latin `but, who will watch the watchdog?` (Juvenal seems to have forgotten that one :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3385" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="997" RevisionGUID="fdf37713-4db8-4fac-8274-b4a42c553382" CreationDate="2016-06-09T17:44:51.383" UserId="12" Comment="Rollback to [2718d5e2-08c9-48e4-a3fd-cc40298f2a17]" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" />
  <row Id="3386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="998" RevisionGUID="2d05af9d-e3bb-4830-9b8b-c8b381651898" CreationDate="2016-06-09T18:43:00.310" UserId="45" Text="I would advise using Juvenal's phrase without revision:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed quis custodiet ipsos / custodes? ([Satire VI](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/juvenal/6.shtml), 347-48)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Lewis &amp; Short remarks in its entry for [custos](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcustos), the term can be used alone to refer to (watch)dogs. Here is one example from Virgil:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Occupat Aeneas aditum **custode sepulto**,  &#xD;&#xA;evaditque celer ripam inremeabilis undae. (*Aeneid*, VI, 424-25)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Aeneas through hell's portal moved, **while sleep  &#xD;&#xA;Its warder buried**; then he fled that shore  &#xD;&#xA;Of Stygian stream, whence travellers ne'er return.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the whole trope is that the verb and noun align, so you would lose the flavor of the passage by reworking it to something like *Quis custodiet ipsos canes?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, however, you specifically want to emphasize that this guard is *not* a human, then I suppose it is possible to insert some kind of irreverent revision to get this across. (I say &quot;irreverent&quot; fully conscious of the fact that we are modifying a decidedly unscrupulous satire :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quis custodiet ipsos canes custodientes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this revision uses the present participle of *custodio*: I am not aware of any adjective derived from this word that would work better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="2525ab62-918e-431c-8244-c5603cb39a18" CreationDate="2016-06-10T17:32:29.720" UserId="235" Text="The [Merriam Webster definition][1] gives the following pronunciation: `\ˈlā-sh(ē-)əm\`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this doesn't sound right to me. I have never heard the consonant 't' pronounced this way in Latin. Which leads me to a few questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. How did the Romans pronounce Latium?&#xD;&#xA; 2. How do you pronounce Latium?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Do we pronounce it differently than the Romans did?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/latium" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3391" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="2525ab62-918e-431c-8244-c5603cb39a18" CreationDate="2016-06-10T17:32:29.720" UserId="235" Text="How do you pronounce Latium?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3392" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="2525ab62-918e-431c-8244-c5603cb39a18" CreationDate="2016-06-10T17:32:29.720" UserId="235" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1001" RevisionGUID="df4e2ae0-952d-45cc-a7e8-e7beaefaf73b" CreationDate="2016-06-10T17:35:59.143" UserId="253" Text="According to this [post][1] &quot;ad nutum&quot; can be used to mean &quot;instantly.&quot; However, in this [translation ][2] of a text of Thomas Aquinas, the translator uses the word &quot;blindly&quot; to translate &quot;ad nutum.&quot;  Aquinas's text reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ad tertium dicendum quod alia ratione regitur corpus ab anima, et irascibilis et concupiscibilis a ratione. Corpus enim **ad nutum** obedit animae absque contradictione, in his in quibus natum est ab anima moveri, unde philosophus dicit, in I Polit., quod anima regit corpus despotico principatu, idest sicut dominus servum. Et ideo totus motus corporis refertur ad animam. Et propter hoc in corpore non est virtus, sed solum in anima. Sed irascibilis et concupiscibilis non **ad nutum** obediunt rationi, sed habent proprios motus suos, quibus interdum rationi repugnant, unde in eodem libro philosophus dicit quod ratio regit irascibilem et concupiscibilem principatu politico, quo scilicet reguntur liberi, qui habent in aliquibus propriam voluntatem. Et propter hoc etiam oportet in irascibili et concupiscibili esse aliquas virtutes, quibus bene disponantur ad actum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any warrant for translating &quot;ad nutum&quot; as &quot;blindly&quot; in either classical or medieval texts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070327073359AArDDEb&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FS/FS056.html#FSQ56A4THEP1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3394" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1001" RevisionGUID="df4e2ae0-952d-45cc-a7e8-e7beaefaf73b" CreationDate="2016-06-10T17:35:59.143" UserId="253" Text="Translations of &quot;ad nutum&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3395" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1001" RevisionGUID="df4e2ae0-952d-45cc-a7e8-e7beaefaf73b" CreationDate="2016-06-10T17:35:59.143" UserId="253" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3396" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1001" RevisionGUID="0bf16c5c-49f7-4240-987e-732f0d23954b" CreationDate="2016-06-10T18:11:14.053" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|medieval-latin|aquinas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="083fae66-42d9-4e0f-8c79-a3753f7ed680" CreationDate="2016-06-10T18:20:42.420" UserId="12" Comment="added 86 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="The [Merriam Webster definition][1] gives the following pronunciation: `\ˈlā-sh(ē-)əm\`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this doesn't sound right to me. I have never heard the consonant 't' pronounced this way in Latin. Which leads me to a few questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. How did the Romans pronounce *Latium*?&#xD;&#xA; 2. How is *Latium* pronounced in the ecclesiastical and English pronunciation systems?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Is there a difference in pronunciation of this word between these three systems?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/latium" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3398" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="083fae66-42d9-4e0f-8c79-a3753f7ed680" CreationDate="2016-06-10T18:20:42.420" UserId="12" Comment="added 86 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How is Latium pronounced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3399" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="083fae66-42d9-4e0f-8c79-a3753f7ed680" CreationDate="2016-06-10T18:20:42.420" UserId="12" Comment="added 86 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|pronunciation|consonants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1002" RevisionGUID="1011e457-9c12-4e24-b8d9-043a1c1a21a8" CreationDate="2016-06-10T20:24:31.730" UserId="469" Text="Forgive me if I use [IPA][1] notation. As a non-native speaker of English, I still have some difficulty with English vowels and don't really feel comfortable using English-based systems as Webster's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In Classical _reconstructed_ pronuntiation, it would be **['la.ti.ũ:]**. Germans and clasicists prefer this one. Note that this is how Romans _most likely_ pronounced it, since there is only indirect (yet quite convincing) evidence. If you are not familiar with IPA, ũ means _oo_ as in g*oo*se, but _nasalized_.&#xD;&#xA;* In Ecclesiastical pronunciation, it is **['la.tsi.u:m]**: _ti_+vowel not preceded by s becomes _tsi_. This one was settled down in the 19th century and is well-documented. Although it is most likely not _the original way_ to pronounce Latin, it enjoys some official status. It is mostly based in how italian latinists and churchmen pronounced Latin at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases: 1) unlike English, _t_ is **not** aspirated (think of the sound of _t_ in Spanish or Italian). 2) _i_ and _u_ do not form a diphthong, hence they are in separate syllables. 3) since the i is short, the stress goes in the third-to-last syllable  (i.e., the first one in this case) 4) _a_ as in father, but shorter, _i_ as in sit, _u_ as in put (arguably).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding English pronunciation, there is an [intricate set][2] of rules to pronounce Latin in an academic context. It is basically the effect of the same sound changes that affected English plus some academic corrections along history. As a consequence, the very set of rules also changed with time. The best I can do trying to follow it (may a native English speaker which is also a latinist suggest corrections, please?) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Trad. English pronounciation:) **['læ.ʃəm]**, admiting some variants, it seems, like **['læ.ʃɨəm]**, which is pretty close (though not exactly) what MW says. As Nathaniel suggests, this is how most English-speaking Latin scholars pronounced Latin *before* the time when _Reconstructed_ and _Ecclesiastical_ pronunciations took force and pushed most local variants close to extinction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that MW offers a different pronunciation may obey the fact that English evolves with use (rather than what academics say), and the current pronunciation of original Latin words may have departed from what scholars say. For what it's worth, Dictionary.com offers the following one: [**ley**-shee-*uh* m], which -correct me if I am wrong- is consistent with MW's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_English_pronunciation_of_Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1002" RevisionGUID="96a308df-dca3-4f0a-9fc1-5e6c28befbb1" CreationDate="2016-06-10T20:29:58.327" UserId="469" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="Forgive me if I use [IPA][1] notation. As a non-native speaker of English, I still have some difficulty with English vowels and don't really feel comfortable using English-based systems as Webster's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In Classical _reconstructed_ pronuntiation, it would be **['la.ti.ũ:]**. Germans and clasicists prefer this one. Note that this is how Romans _most likely_ pronounced it, since there is only indirect (yet quite convincing) evidence. If you are not familiar with IPA, ũ means _oo_ as in g*oo*se, but _nasalized_.&#xD;&#xA;* In Ecclesiastical pronunciation, it is **['la.tsi.u:m]**: _ti_+vowel not preceded by s becomes _tsi_. This one was settled down in the 19th century and is well-documented. Although it is most likely not _the original way_ to pronounce Latin, it enjoys some official status. It is mostly based in how italian latinists and churchmen pronounced Latin at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases: 1) unlike English, _t_ is **not** aspirated (think of the sound of _t_ in Spanish or Italian). 2) _i_ and _u_ do not form a diphthong, hence they are in separate syllables. 3) since the i is short, the stress goes in the third-to-last syllable  (i.e., the first one in this case) 4) _a_ as in father, but shorter, _i_ as in sit, _u_ as in put (arguably).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding English pronunciation, there is an [intricate set][2] of rules to pronounce Latin in an academic context. It is basically the effect of the same sound changes that affected English plus some academic corrections along history. As a consequence, the very set of rules also changed with time. The best I can do trying to follow it (may a native English speaker which is also a latinist suggest corrections, please?) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Trad. English pronounciation:) **['læ.ʃəm]**, admiting some variants, it seems, like **['læ.ʃɨəm]**, which is pretty close (though not exactly) what MW says. As Nathaniel suggests, this is how most English-speaking Latin scholars pronounced Latin *before* the time when _Reconstructed_ and _Ecclesiastical_ pronunciations took force and pushed most local variants close to extinction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that MW offers a different pronunciation may obey the fact that English evolves with use (rather than what academics say), and the current pronunciation of original Latin words may have departed from what scholars say. For what it's worth, Dictionary.com offers the following one: [\[**ley**-shee-*uh* m\]][3], which -correct me if I am wrong- is consistent with MW's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_English_pronunciation_of_Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/latium?s=t" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1003" RevisionGUID="b14f4759-d7e9-4ac9-9bcc-c67bc1beb085" CreationDate="2016-06-10T20:47:21.197" UserId="79" Text="The word [*nutus*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2039226) means several things, and the most appropriate translation here seems to be &quot;command&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The most direct translation of *ad nutum* seems to be &quot;at command&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(Or is &quot;on command&quot; more idiomatic in English?)&#xD;&#xA;Coming with *ob(o)edire* (&quot;to obey&quot;), it means obeying at command, doing whatever ordered instantly without hesitation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore both &quot;instantly&quot; and &quot;blindly&quot; are good translations, but only in this context (with this verb).&#xD;&#xA;If you close the door instantly after entering your room, *ad nutum* is not a good Latin idiom.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, if you believe blindly every lie told to you, *ad nutum* is again a bad choice.&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest using &quot;at command&quot; as the main translation, and changing the wording to something more natural as context permits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see no difference in this usage between classical and later Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1002" RevisionGUID="aaa808a1-ebba-43c0-ab4f-8265c8015f1f" CreationDate="2016-06-10T20:48:24.047" UserId="469" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Forgive me if I use [IPA][1] notation. As a non-native speaker of English, I still have some difficulty with English vowels and don't really feel comfortable using English-based systems as Webster's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In Classical _reconstructed_ pronuntiation, it would be **['la.ti.ũ:]**. Germans and clasicists prefer this one. Note that this is how Romans _most likely_ pronounced it, since there is only indirect (yet quite convincing) evidence. If you are not familiar with IPA, ũ means _oo_ as in g*oo*se, but _nasalized_.&#xD;&#xA;* In Ecclesiastical pronunciation, it is **['la.tsi.u:m]**: _ti_+vowel not preceded by s becomes _tsi_. This one was settled down in the 19th century and is well-documented. Although it is most likely not _the original way_ to pronounce Latin, it enjoys some official status. It is mostly based in how italian latinists and churchmen pronounced Latin at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases: 1) unlike English, _t_ is **not** aspirated (think of the sound of _t_ in Spanish or Italian). 2) _i_ and _u_ do not form a diphthong, hence they are in separate syllables. 3) since the i is short, the stress goes in the third-to-last syllable  (i.e., the first one in this case) 4) _a_ as in father, but shorter, _i_ as in sit, _u_ as in put (arguably).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding English pronunciation, there is an [intricate set][2] of rules to pronounce Latin in an academic context. It is basically the effect of the same sound changes that affected English plus some academic corrections along history. As a consequence, the very set of rules also changed with time. The best I can do trying to follow it (may a native English speaker which is also a latinist suggest corrections, please?) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Trad. English pronounciation:) **['læ.ʃəm]**, admiting some variants, it seems, like **['læ.ʃɨəm]**, which is pretty close (though not exactly) what MW says. As Nathaniel suggests, this is how most English-speaking Latin scholars pronounced Latin *before* the time when _Reconstructed_ and _Ecclesiastical_ pronunciations took force and pushed most local variants close to extinction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that MW offers a different pronunciation may obey the fact that English evolves with use (rather than what academics say), and the current pronunciation of original Latin words may have departed from what scholars say. For what it's worth, Dictionary.com offers the following one: [\[**ley**-shee-*uh* m\]][3], which -correct me if I am wrong- is (almost) consistent with MW's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_English_pronunciation_of_Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/latium?s=t" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1004" RevisionGUID="fcd82f3f-d730-4aec-bb5d-aa5de6db0b6a" CreationDate="2016-06-10T22:41:55.870" UserId="47" Text="In Psalm cxxv, Little Office of the BVM, Baronius Press, I see:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; In convertendo Dominus captivitam Sion: facti sumus sicut consolati:&#xA;&#xA;Which it translates as:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; When the Lord turned again the captivity of Sion: we became like men that are comforted.&#xA;&#xA;Using [wiktionary.org][1], I discovered that *convertendo* is future passive participle ablative.  (I tried the Latin dictionary at tuffts.edu: no hits.)&#xA;&#xA;This does not seem to agree with the translation, which speaks of the *turning again* as if it were a past event.&#xA;&#xA;What is going on here?&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://wiktionary.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3405" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1004" RevisionGUID="fcd82f3f-d730-4aec-bb5d-aa5de6db0b6a" CreationDate="2016-06-10T22:41:55.870" UserId="47" Text="&quot;In convertendo...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3406" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1004" RevisionGUID="fcd82f3f-d730-4aec-bb5d-aa5de6db0b6a" CreationDate="2016-06-10T22:41:55.870" UserId="47" Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1002" RevisionGUID="6d62f65b-86ff-43de-9a12-a666ea91b737" CreationDate="2016-06-11T00:23:25.040" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Forgive me if I use [IPA][1] notation. As a non-native speaker of English, I still have some difficulty with English vowels and don't really feel comfortable using English-based systems as Webster's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In Classical _reconstructed_ pronuntiation, it would be **['la.ti.ũ:]**. Germans and clasicists prefer this one. Note that this is how Romans _most likely_ pronounced it, since there is only indirect (yet quite convincing) evidence. If you are not familiar with IPA, ũ means _oo_ as in g*oo*se, but _nasalized_.&#xD;&#xA;* In Ecclesiastical pronunciation, it is **['la.tsi.um]**: _ti_+vowel not preceded by s becomes _tsi_. This one was settled down in the 19th century and is well-documented. Although it is most likely not _the original way_ to pronounce Latin, it enjoys some official status. It is mostly based in how italian latinists and churchmen pronounced Latin at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases: 1) unlike English, _t_ is **not** aspirated (think of the sound of _t_ in Spanish or Italian). 2) _i_ and _u_ do not form a diphthong, hence they are in separate syllables. 3) since the i is short, the stress goes in the third-to-last syllable  (i.e., the first one in this case) 4) _a_ as in father, _i_ as ee in bee, _u_ as oo in boot, but all shorter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding English pronunciation, there is an [intricate set][2] of rules to pronounce Latin in an academic context. It is basically the effect of the same sound changes that affected English plus some academic corrections along history. As a consequence, the very set of rules also changed with time. Following it, you apparently get (thanks @):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Trad. English pronounciation:) **['leɪ.ʃəm]**, admiting some variants, it seems, like **['leɪ.ʃɨəm]**, which is pretty close to (if not the same as) what MW says. As Nathaniel suggests, this is how most English-speaking Latin scholars pronounced Latin *before* the time when _Reconstructed_ and _Ecclesiastical_ pronunciations took force and pushed most local variants close to extinction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that MW offers a different pronunciation may obey the fact that English evolves with use (rather than what academics say), and the current pronunciation of original Latin words may have departed from what scholars say. For what it's worth, Dictionary.com offers the following one: [\[**ley**-shee-*uh* m\]][3], which -correct me if I am wrong- is (almost) consistent with MW's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_English_pronunciation_of_Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/latium?s=t" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1002" RevisionGUID="904e61e8-82f4-4969-a538-10bdd21c7782" CreationDate="2016-06-11T00:28:34.293" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Forgive me if I use [IPA][1] notation. As a non-native speaker of English, I still have some difficulty with English vowels and don't really feel comfortable using English-based systems as Webster's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In Classical _reconstructed_ pronuntiation, it would be **['la.ti.ũ:]**. Germans and clasicists prefer this one. Note that this is how Romans _most likely_ pronounced it, since there is only indirect (yet quite convincing) evidence. If you are not familiar with IPA, ũ means _oo_ as in g*oo*se, but _nasalized_.&#xD;&#xA;* In Ecclesiastical pronunciation, it is **['la.tsi.um]**: _ti_+vowel not preceded by s becomes _tsi_. This one was settled down in the 19th century and is well-documented. Although it is most likely not _the original way_ to pronounce Latin, it enjoys some official status. It is mostly based in how italian latinists and churchmen pronounced Latin at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases: 1) unlike English, _t_ is **not** aspirated (think of the sound of _t_ in Spanish or Italian). 2) _i_ and _u_ do not form a diphthong, hence they are in separate syllables. 3) since the i is short, the stress goes in the third-to-last syllable  (i.e., the first one in this case) 4) _a_ as in father, _i_ as ee in bee, _u_ as oo in boot, but all shorter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding English pronunciation, there is an [intricate set][2] of rules to pronounce Latin in an academic context. It is basically the effect of the same sound changes that affected English plus some academic corrections along history. As a consequence, the very set of rules also changed with time. Following it, you apparently get (thanks Sumelic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Trad. English pronounciation:) **['leɪ.ʃəm]**, admiting some variants, it seems, like **['leɪ.ʃɨəm]**, which is pretty close to (if not the same as) what MW says. As Nathaniel suggests, this is how most English-speaking Latin scholars pronounced Latin *before* the time when _Reconstructed_ and _Ecclesiastical_ pronunciations took force and pushed most local variants close to extinction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that MW offers a different pronunciation may obey the fact that English evolves with use (rather than what academics say), and the current pronunciation of original Latin words may have departed from what scholars say. For what it's worth, Dictionary.com offers the following one: [\[**ley**-shee-*uh* m\]][3], which -correct me if I am wrong- is (almost) consistent with MW's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_English_pronunciation_of_Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/latium?s=t" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1006" RevisionGUID="0fa5ccd8-452f-4320-92b3-62fbea8b906d" CreationDate="2016-06-11T12:47:03.040" UserId="79" Text="The important thing here is to make a distinction between the **gerund** and the **gerundive**.&#xD;&#xA;The gerund looks exactly like the masculine or neuter singular forms of gerundive, but they are two different things.&#xD;&#xA;Gerundive is also known as passive future participle, and this alternative name describes its use quite well.&#xD;&#xA;Gerund is more like the infinitive; infinitive is only used in nominative and accusative functions, and other cases are covered by gerund and supine.&#xD;&#xA;The gerund is a noun, the gerundive is an adjective, so to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example *convertendo* is a gerund.&#xD;&#xA;*In convertendo* means literally &quot;in turning&quot;, and is more naturally translated here as &quot;when turning&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Here gerund (as infinitive or supine would), describes the action of turning in general, not really referring to present tense &amp;mdash; or any other tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this makes the situation clearer.&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if there is something more you would like to have explained about this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1006" RevisionGUID="13a9d09a-e771-48ab-a4c0-556767e0a6c4" CreationDate="2016-06-11T13:29:54.523" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The important thing here is to make a distinction between the **gerund** and the **gerundive**.&#xD;&#xA;The gerund looks exactly like the masculine or neuter singular forms of gerundive, but they are two different things.&#xD;&#xA;Gerundive is also known as passive future participle, and this alternative name describes its use quite well.&#xD;&#xA;Gerund is more like the infinitive; infinitive is only used in nominative and accusative functions, and other cases are covered by gerund and supine.&#xD;&#xA;The gerund is a noun, the gerundive is an adjective, so to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example *convertendo* is a gerund.&#xD;&#xA;*In convertendo* means literally &quot;in turning&quot;, and is more naturally translated here as &quot;when turning&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Here gerund (as infinitive or supine would) describes the action of turning in general, not really referring to present tense &amp;mdash; or any other tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this makes the situation clearer.&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if there is something more you would like to have explained about this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1007" RevisionGUID="54331a5e-34dd-4a4b-ae69-b97fab43502d" CreationDate="2016-06-11T15:56:53.240" UserId="68" Text="Epistólió in electronicó quídam mihi sic scrípsit: &quot;Quid tibi vidétur dé Epistuliís Leónínís?&quot; (Epistulæ Leónínæ acta sunt hebdomadália ab eó missa, quás nóndum vídí.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sententia (sive phrasis) &quot;Quid tibi vidétur dé [néscióquid]&quot; mihi ignóta est. Quid vélit dícere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Hóc in linguá Latíná scríptó rogátó, cernó sérius respónsum anglicum potius quam latínum mihi conveniat. . . .)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3417" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1007" RevisionGUID="54331a5e-34dd-4a4b-ae69-b97fab43502d" CreationDate="2016-06-11T15:56:53.240" UserId="68" Text="Quid vélit &quot;Quid tibi vidétur dé [aliquó]&quot; dícere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3418" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1007" RevisionGUID="54331a5e-34dd-4a4b-ae69-b97fab43502d" CreationDate="2016-06-11T15:56:53.240" UserId="68" Text="|translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1003" RevisionGUID="5eb99a25-b566-45eb-ad39-7d30384fbf6b" CreationDate="2016-06-11T16:11:11.280" UserId="79" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="The word [*nutus*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2039226) means several things, and the most appropriate translation here seems to be &quot;command&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The most direct translation of *ad nutum* seems to be &quot;at command&quot; or &quot;on command&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(I am not sure which is closer in nuance to what I want to say, but I hope the point gets across anyway.)&#xD;&#xA;Coming with *ob(o)edire* (&quot;to obey&quot;), it means obeying on command, doing whatever ordered instantly without hesitation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore both &quot;instantly&quot; and &quot;blindly&quot; are good translations, but only in this context (with this verb).&#xD;&#xA;If you close the door instantly after entering your room, *ad nutum* is not a good Latin idiom.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, if you believe blindly every lie told to you, *ad nutum* is again a bad choice.&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest using &quot;at/on command&quot; as the main translation, and changing the wording to something more natural as context permits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see no difference in this usage between classical and later Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1008" RevisionGUID="0590962c-0950-4a60-afd6-9d77ddf8fa8c" CreationDate="2016-06-11T16:11:20.080" UserId="40" Text="I take it to mean &quot;What do you think about X?&quot; or &quot;What is your opinion of X?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, &quot;What seems to you [sc. to be the case] about X?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if I've seen this expression in Latin authors, but it strikes me as idiomatic. There are other languages (including I think Romance languages) which have a similar idiom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Btw, I can't understand the last sentence of your question.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1004" RevisionGUID="313519c3-cb14-40f0-86d2-0a3c444bbb90" CreationDate="2016-06-11T16:21:24.610" UserId="47" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In Psalm cxxv, Little Office of the BVM, Baronius Press, I see:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; In convertendo Dominus captivitatem Sion: facti sumus sicut consolati:&#xA;&#xA;Which it translates as:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; When the Lord turned again the captivity of Sion: we became like men that are comforted.&#xA;&#xA;Using [wiktionary.org][1], I discovered that *convertendo* is future passive participle ablative.  (I tried the Latin dictionary at tuffts.edu: no hits.)&#xA;&#xA;This does not seem to agree with the translation, which speaks of the *turning again* as if it were a past event.&#xA;&#xA;What is going on here?&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://wiktionary.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1007" RevisionGUID="25045c7d-82eb-4f03-bad1-0dd588fc4f4f" CreationDate="2016-06-11T16:24:40.797" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Epistólió in electronicó quídam mihi sic scrípsit: &quot;Quid tibi vidétur dé Epistuliís Leónínís?&quot; (Epistulæ Leónínæ acta sunt hebdomadália ab eó missa, quás nóndum vídí.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sententia (sive phrasis) &quot;Quid tibi vidétur dé [néscióquó]&quot; mihi ignóta est. Quid vélit dícere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Hóc in linguá Latíná scríptó rogátó, cernó sérius respónsum anglicum potius quam latínum mihi conveniat. . . .)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1007" RevisionGUID="67394694-b08e-4fe6-89b1-4ef01750fed4" CreationDate="2016-06-11T16:33:04.297" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="Epistólió in electronicó quídam mihi sic scrípsit: &quot;Quid tibi vidétur dé Epistuliís Leónínís?&quot; (Epistulæ Leónínæ acta sunt hebdomadália ab eó missa, quás nóndum vídí.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sententia (sive phrasis) &quot;Quid tibi vidétur dé [néscióquó]&quot; mihi ignóta est. Quid vélit dícere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Hóc in linguá Latíná scríptó, cernó sérius respónsum anglicum potius quam latínum mihi conveníre. . . .)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1007" RevisionGUID="d2665032-bf11-4306-99f1-1024a12bfd8f" CreationDate="2016-06-11T16:38:00.397" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="Epistólió in electronicó quídam mihi sic scrípsit: &quot;Quid tibi vidétur dé Epistuliís Leónínís?&quot; (Epistulæ Leónínæ acta sunt hebdomadália ab eó missa, quás nóndum vídí.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sententia (síve phrasis) &quot;Quid tibi vidétur dé [néscióquó]&quot; mihi ignóta est. Quid velit dícere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Hóc in linguá Latíná scríptó, cernó sérius respónsum anglicum potius quam latínum mihi conveníre. . . .)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3425" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1007" RevisionGUID="d2665032-bf11-4306-99f1-1024a12bfd8f" CreationDate="2016-06-11T16:38:00.397" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="Quid velit &quot;Quid tibi vidétur dé [aliquó]&quot; dícere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1009" RevisionGUID="71c67466-a1ab-4a76-9559-e845ad60945f" CreationDate="2016-06-11T19:05:30.440" UserId="144" Text="I read in my Latin to English and English to Latin dictionary that the genitive plural of res is used to strengthen an adjective. However, my latin teacher said that he thought that if a superlative wasn't strong enough one could use valde in addition. So which is more correct, and why would rerum be used to strengthen a adverb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3427" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1009" RevisionGUID="71c67466-a1ab-4a76-9559-e845ad60945f" CreationDate="2016-06-11T19:05:30.440" UserId="144" Text="Rerum to strengthen an adjective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3428" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1009" RevisionGUID="71c67466-a1ab-4a76-9559-e845ad60945f" CreationDate="2016-06-11T19:05:30.440" UserId="144" Text="|word-comparison|adjective|superlatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1010" RevisionGUID="30349974-126e-4b8f-be6f-94e6e7041d34" CreationDate="2016-06-11T19:29:31.900" UserId="79" Text="I am not perfectly sure I interpret your question correctly, but I assume you mean one of two things.&#xD;&#xA;In both of them it is not that important that it is *rerum*; it could be almost any other genitive that fits the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I think *rerum* strengthens an adjective in a different way than superlative or *valde* does.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *peritus* means &quot;experienced&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore &quot;very experienced&quot; could be *valde peritus* or *peritissimus*.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say &quot;experienced in many things&quot;, you could say *variarum rerum peritus*.&#xD;&#xA;This of course requires that the adjective can take a genitive attribute in the first place; for example *peritus*, *cupidus*, *memor* and *plenus* do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you mean *rerum* strengthening superlative, then it is an instance of partitive genitive.&#xD;&#xA;For example *rerum dulcissimus* means &quot;the sweetest of things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly *nostrum sapientissimus* means &quot;the smartest one of us&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to disagree with your teacher &amp;mdash; if I understand correctly.&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen *valde* strengthening a superlative, and it sounds weird to me.&#xD;&#xA;Compare this to English, where it makes sense to strengthen &quot;the most beautiful&quot; to &quot;the most beautiful of all flowers&quot; but not to &quot;the very most beautiful&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1009" RevisionGUID="7b5ddb2c-c879-4504-bad6-81aad6df1c86" CreationDate="2016-06-11T19:33:21.740" UserId="144" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I read in my Latin to English and English to Latin dictionary that the genitive plural of res is used to strengthen an adjective. However, my latin teacher said that he thought that if a superlative wasn't strong enough one could use valde in addition. So which is more correct, and why would rerum be used to strengthen an adjective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1011" RevisionGUID="c2b525b3-7d23-4865-a583-1be6bdf80964" CreationDate="2016-06-11T20:03:09.740" UserId="144" Text="Is there any examples in classical texts where the word valde is used before a superlative? For example 'valde stultissimus' to mean very, very stupid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3432" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1011" RevisionGUID="c2b525b3-7d23-4865-a583-1be6bdf80964" CreationDate="2016-06-11T20:03:09.740" UserId="144" Text="does there exist &quot;valde &lt;superlative&gt;&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3433" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1011" RevisionGUID="c2b525b3-7d23-4865-a583-1be6bdf80964" CreationDate="2016-06-11T20:03:09.740" UserId="144" Text="|vocabulary|example-request|superlatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1011" RevisionGUID="c344b48a-a9a5-444b-86a4-a6030054728f" CreationDate="2016-06-11T20:49:53.757" UserId="118" Comment="Small correction; made formatting consistent." Text="Are there any examples in classical texts where the word 'valde' is used before a superlative? For example 'valde stultissimus' to mean very, very stupid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3435" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="57986b9a-91ec-4c44-b3b0-9b6fc8b01f7b" CreationDate="2016-06-11T20:55:10.780" UserId="118" Comment="edited tags" Text="|meaning|medieval-latin|ablative|gerund|beda|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1012" RevisionGUID="40bc4221-8c0d-4ff0-bcda-8b1472abef6a" CreationDate="2016-06-11T21:10:33.540" UserId="68" Text="In the *Tusculan Disputations* V.iii, Cicero writes about Pythagoras declaring that life seems to him like the great Greek games:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nam ut illic alii corporibus exercitatis gloriam et nobilitatem coronæ peterent, alii emendi aut vendendi quæstu et lucro ducerentur, esset autem quoddam genus eorum, idque **vel** maxime ingenuum, qui nec plausum nec lucrum quærerent, sed visendi causa venirent studuiosque perspicerent quid agitur et quo modo. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is *vel* working in this sentence and what does it mean? Without *vel* I would translate the relevant portion something like &quot;there was however a certain class of them, and that of the highest character, who sought neither applause nor money,&quot; etc. But I don't know what the addition of *vel* does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3437" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1012" RevisionGUID="40bc4221-8c0d-4ff0-bcda-8b1472abef6a" CreationDate="2016-06-11T21:10:33.540" UserId="68" Text="&quot;vel&quot; in Tusculan Disputations V.iii" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3438" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1012" RevisionGUID="40bc4221-8c0d-4ff0-bcda-8b1472abef6a" CreationDate="2016-06-11T21:10:33.540" UserId="68" Text="|translation|vocabulary|idiom|cicero|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1014" RevisionGUID="f5f33f51-df33-4baf-9c7a-729739c16c64" CreationDate="2016-06-11T21:59:08.287" UserId="40" Text="It's a way of intensifying the superlative: &quot;of the very highest...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[L&amp;S, s.v. *vel*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvel), II.B: &quot; With superlatives, to denote the highest possible degree, the very; the utmost; the most...possible.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1016" RevisionGUID="f616116f-30ab-4366-8b53-b06acae306cb" CreationDate="2016-06-11T22:27:38.870" UserId="136" Text="What is the grammatical difference between saying something like *Bonam Fortunam* (in the accusative) and *Bona Fortuna* (in the vocative) to another person? I have always heard the former, and I do not quite understand how it differs from the latter. Is the accusative used for addressing someone? If so, could you please explain why in &quot;*O mater, es pulcherrima*&quot; the *mater* is in the vocative..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3447" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1016" RevisionGUID="f616116f-30ab-4366-8b53-b06acae306cb" CreationDate="2016-06-11T22:27:38.870" UserId="136" Text="Difference between Vocative and Accusative usage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3448" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1016" RevisionGUID="f616116f-30ab-4366-8b53-b06acae306cb" CreationDate="2016-06-11T22:27:38.870" UserId="136" Text="|grammar|accusative|vocative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1017" RevisionGUID="4b7e3bb7-9012-4786-8e4a-620db87377e6" CreationDate="2016-06-11T22:45:04.237" UserId="136" Text="It appears that while the *oe* diphthong was common among words that came from dialects of Latin and/or Greek assimilations, other words exist that appear to be native to Latin. Take *coepio* ([to begin][1]), for instance. It is a very common word that has been in use seemingly since the beginning of the language. It was used all over, so it is not generally dialect-specific. Although it may have been more common in the sources you mentioned, it was also a natural entity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin-dictionary.net/definition/10764/coepio-coepere-coepi-coeptus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1018" RevisionGUID="05dae88b-068a-4275-ac27-3c8283ddafa5" CreationDate="2016-06-12T10:06:44.747" UserId="68" Text="The vocative is the case used for *addressing* someone. If you said to your friend Mike, &quot;Hey, Mike, I think your sister is swell,&quot; &quot;Mike&quot; would be in the vocative case. Or if you found someone in your seat at a bar and said, &quot;Hey, buddy, do you want to move?&quot; &quot;buddy&quot; would be in the vocative case. That's why *mater* is in the vocative case in *O mater, es pulcherrima*: it's the equivalent of saying, &quot;You know, mom, you're totally gorgeous.&quot; The easiest way to think of the vocative is to imagine it preceded by an imaginary &quot;Hey.&quot; (This is easier in Greek, where the vocative is generally preceded by *ὦ* or *O*, which is more or less translated &quot;Hey.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The accusative, on the other hand, is used for the direct object of a verb. If you said, &quot;I'm having a good day&quot; or &quot;I'm reading a boring book,&quot; &quot;good day&quot; and &quot;boring book&quot; would be in the accusative (*diem bonam* and *librum tædiosum*, respectively). *Bonam fortunam* (&quot;good luck!&quot;) is actually an implied direct object, since it's essentially an abbreviation of *Bonam fortunam tibi exopto* (&quot;I wish you good luck&quot;). If you were to say *Bona fortuna* instead, you'd be saying, &quot;Hey, good luck, [I think your sister is swell]&quot;—it would indicate that you were directly addressing good luck. But you're actually addressing your friend Fred, and you're wishing him good luck, so the accusative is called for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there's another kind of accusative called the accusative of exclamation, that's used when you're making an exclamation that consists of a noun or noun phrase without a verb. If you wanted to say &quot;What a man!&quot; or &quot;Oh, miserable me!&quot; you'd use the accusative: *Quem virum!* or *O me miserum!* respectively. I don't actually think that *bonam fortunam* is an accusative of exclamation; for that to be going on, you'd need to mean, more or less, &quot;Oh, how good fortune is!&quot; which isn't really what's going on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1019" RevisionGUID="8383f23e-6327-4388-a905-47225fef4b9e" CreationDate="2016-06-12T12:54:55.913" UserId="545" Text="No, valde can at most take a comparative adjective, not a superlative. However, &quot;vel&quot; can be used in your case. &quot;vel&quot; + a superlative is common in Latin literature, for example in Cicero's Pro Roscio Amerino:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vel potentissimus ... L. Cornelius Chrysogonus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1018" RevisionGUID="88a79250-3fa4-4690-a128-6b48260c880b" CreationDate="2016-06-12T14:11:46.443" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="The vocative is the case used for addressing someone. If you said to your friend Mike, &quot;Hey, Mike, I think your sister is swell,&quot; &quot;Mike&quot; would be in the vocative case. Or if you found someone in your seat at a bar and said, &quot;Hey, buddy, do you want to move?&quot; &quot;buddy&quot; would be in the vocative case. That's why *mater* is in the vocative case in *O mater, es pulcherrima*: it's the equivalent of saying, &quot;You know, mom, you're totally gorgeous.&quot; The easiest way to think of the vocative is to imagine it preceded by an imaginary &quot;Hey.&quot; (This is easier in Greek, where the vocative is generally preceded by *ὦ* or *O*, which is more or less translated &quot;Hey.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The accusative, on the other hand, is used for the direct object of a verb. If you said, &quot;I'm having a good day&quot; or &quot;I'm reading a boring book,&quot; &quot;good day&quot; and &quot;boring book&quot; would be in the accusative (*diem bonam* and *librum tædiosum*, respectively). *Bonam fortunam* (&quot;good luck!&quot;) is actually an implied direct object, since it's essentially an abbreviation of *Bonam fortunam tibi exopto* (&quot;I wish you good luck&quot;). If you were to say *Bona fortuna* instead, you'd be saying, &quot;Hey, good luck, [I think your sister is swell]&quot;—it would indicate that you were directly addressing good luck. But you're actually addressing your friend Fred, and you're wishing him good luck, so the accusative is called for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there's another kind of accusative called the accusative of exclamation, that's used when you're making an exclamation that consists of a noun or noun phrase without a verb. If you wanted to say &quot;What a man!&quot; or &quot;Oh, miserable me!&quot; you'd use the accusative: *Quem virum!* or *O me miserum!* respectively. I don't actually think that *bonam fortunam* is an accusative of exclamation; for that to be going on, you'd need to mean, more or less, &quot;Wow, what good luck!&quot; which isn't really what's going on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3453" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="b5c397fe-7054-4be8-976f-ef8998707901" CreationDate="2016-06-12T14:18:23.977" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|weapons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1020" RevisionGUID="4ac4e62c-1fe4-4c6c-96c2-596cae29ce89" CreationDate="2016-06-12T14:21:54.533" UserId="79" Text="The academic dress of a Finnish PhD looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Finnish male PhD gear](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zhh65.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are variants for different occasions.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the sword is sometimes omitted, sometimes a gown is worn instead of a white tie and ladies use a dress comparable to a white tie.&#xD;&#xA;If you want more details on the dress, you can have a look at [these instructions about hats and swords at my university](https://www.jyu.fi/en/academic-events/degrees-ceremony/instruct/doctoral-hats-and-sword).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a Latin word for the sword that comes with this dress.&#xD;&#xA;The sword is 87 cm long (blade 75 cm), weighs 730 g and looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Finnish doctoral sword](https://i.stack.imgur.com/a3yk5.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both photos are from the pages of my university.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several Latin words for a sword.&#xD;&#xA;I found these: *chalybs*, *copis*, *dolo*, *ensis*, *ensiculus/ensicula*, *ferrum*, *framea*, *gladius*, *harpe*, *ligula*, *machaera*, *mucro*, *palus/palum*, *rumpia*, *spatha*, *telum*.&#xD;&#xA;**Which Latin word would be most appropriate for this sword, given its appearance and use?**&#xD;&#xA;As a side question, if academic swords are used elsewhere, what are they called in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best guess is *ensis (doctoralis)*, but I am no expert in swords and I would like to know if there is a better choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;Photo originals:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.jyu.fi/akateemiset-tapahtumat/promootio/ohjeet/kariaho_pieni.jpg&#xD;&#xA;https://www.jyu.fi/akateemiset-tapahtumat/promootio/ohjeet/miekkakultakeskus.jpg&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3455" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1020" RevisionGUID="4ac4e62c-1fe4-4c6c-96c2-596cae29ce89" CreationDate="2016-06-12T14:21:54.533" UserId="79" Text="A Latin word for the Finnish doctoral sword" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3456" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1020" RevisionGUID="4ac4e62c-1fe4-4c6c-96c2-596cae29ce89" CreationDate="2016-06-12T14:21:54.533" UserId="79" Text="|academic-latin|weapons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1021" RevisionGUID="3e90a24b-5b73-4bb9-91b4-8d4146ab047b" CreationDate="2016-06-12T15:27:09.283" UserId="136" Text="While the Romans did not give swords to those who became educated at a higher level (education was not as formal as it is today), they did give swords for other occasions, such as when a gladiator was freed from slavery (*rudis*). This does not quite fit your situation, however, so I turned to swords that looked similar. The most similar sword is the *spatha*, which was a similar length and used by the cavalry. [![enter image description here][1]][1] The handle of the sword is definitely different, but the style of weaponry was very different during the Roman era. I would say that adding an adjective like *doctoralis* makes sense (i.e. *spatha doctoralis*). That is about as close as you could get to what you are looking for. *Ensis* means sword, but in a more general sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5dytE.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1022" RevisionGUID="8d2308ed-fe96-45a4-bd84-eaa8cf61e422" CreationDate="2016-06-12T17:09:06.993" UserId="235" Text="I'm reading Jason and the Argonauts from Fabulae Faciles, and I come across this phrase really often. I'll provide an example.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Erant olim in Thessalia duo fratres, quorum alter Aeson, Pelias alter appellabatur. Aeson primo regnum obtinuerat;&#xA;[Fabulae Faciles][1]&#xA;&#xA;I currently translate it as &quot;Aeson first possessed the kingdom&quot;. But could you also translate it as &quot;Aeson first ruled the kingdom&quot;?&#xA;&#xA;I feel like &quot;ruled the kingdom&quot; is a more idiomatic way of putting it. But when I look up obtinere, I don't find that sense of the word.&#xA;&#xA;I was curious whether regnum + obtinere was a common phrase in Latin, and how people commonly translate it.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/ritchie.html#3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3459" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1022" RevisionGUID="8d2308ed-fe96-45a4-bd84-eaa8cf61e422" CreationDate="2016-06-12T17:09:06.993" UserId="235" Text="How do you translate the phrase &quot;regnum obtinuerat&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3460" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1022" RevisionGUID="8d2308ed-fe96-45a4-bd84-eaa8cf61e422" CreationDate="2016-06-12T17:09:06.993" UserId="235" Text="|translation|vocabulary|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1023" RevisionGUID="daae5683-fa83-4073-9a4b-5ba9f09f86e0" CreationDate="2016-06-12T17:26:54.737" UserId="68" Text="It seems there are quite a lot of places to look for thoughts about the various words for swords. I offer passages from three, in chronological order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ramshorn (1841) gives the following commentary about some of the words for &quot;sword&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Gladius*, the sword for cut and thrust; *Ensis*, the longer sword, more adapted for the blow or cut, hence with heroes and gigantic people: *Graviter gladio caput percussit.* Hirt. *Stricto gladio transfigit puellam.* Liv. *Hectoreo perculsus concidit ense.* Cic. *Acinaces*, the crooked Persian sabre; *Sica (secare)*, a short cutlass used by banditti; *Pugio (pungere)*, a stiletto, dirk; *Tibi extorta est sica de manibus.* Cic. *Cæsare interfecto statim cruentem alte extollit Brutus pugionem.* Id.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Döderlein (1858), meanwhile, gives the following:&#xD;&#xA;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Gladius* (from κλάδος) is the usual, *ensis* (from *ansa*?) the select and poetical name for a sword. Quintil. x. 1,11. (v. 188). *Pugio* (from *pungere*) is a dagger, as a fair and openly used soldier's weapon, on a level with the sword; whereas *sica* (from *secare*) is the unfair and secret weapon of the bandit, on a level with poison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From these, it seems that *gladius* would work, but *ensis* is perhaps less appropriate. I'd vote against both *mucro* and *telum*, as the former usually refers to the *point* of a sword rather than the weapon entire and the latter to any kind of weapon whatsoever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most specificity I've been able to find is in a translation of Aulus Gellius's *Noctes Atticæ*, X.25. The original reads as follows: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Telorum iaculorum gladiorumque uocabula, quae in historiis ueteribus scripta sunt, item nauigiorum genera et	nomina libitum forte nobis est sedentibus in reda conquirere, ne quid aliarum ineptiarum uacantem stupentemque animum occuparet. Quae tum igitur suppetierant, haec sunt: hasta, pilum, phalarica, semiphalarica, soliferrea, gaesa, lancea, spari, rumices, trifaces, tragulae, frameae, mesanculae, cateiae, rumpiae, scorpii, sibones, siciles,	&#xD;&#xA;ueruta, enses, sicae, machaerae, spathae, lingulae, pugiones, clunacula.	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;De 'lingula', quoniam est minus frequens, admonendum existimo lingulam ueteres dixisse gladiolum oblongum in speciem linguae factum, cuius meminit Naeuius in tragoedia Hesiona. Versum Naeui apposui:	&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;sine mi gerere morem uidear lingua, uerum lingula.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Item 'rumpia' genus teli est Thraecae nationis, positumque hoc uocabulum in Quinti Enni annalium XIV.	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John Carew Rolfe (1927) gives the following translation of this passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Once upon a time, when I was riding in a carriage, to keep my mind from being dull and unoccupied and a prey to worthless trifles, it chanced to occur to me to try to recall the names of weapons, darts and swords which are found in the early histories, and also the various kinds of boats and their names. Those, then, of the former that came to mind at the time are the following: spear, pike, fire-pike, half-pike, iron bolt, Gallic spear, lance, hunting-darts, javelins, long bolts, barbed-javelins, German spears, thonged-javelin, Gallic bolt, broadswords, poisoned arrows, Illyrian hunting-spears, cimeters, darts, swords, daggers, broadswords, double-edged swords, small-swords, poniards, cleavers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Of the lingula, or &quot;little tongue,&quot; since it is less common, I think I ought to say that the ancients applied that term to an oblong small-sword, made in the form of a tongue; it is mentioned by Naevius in his tragedy Hesione. I quote the line:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pray let me seem to please you with my tongue,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But with my little tongue (lingula).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The rumpia too is a kind of weapon of the Thracian people, and the word occurs in the fourteenth book of the Annals of Quintus Ennius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the terms in Rolfe's translation, &quot;small-sword&quot; (&quot;[a light one-handed sword designed for thrusting which evolved out of the longer and heavier rapier of the late Renaissance][1]&quot;) seems the most appropriate for the images in your post. If he is to be trusted (I'm agnostic on the point), then *lingula* is probably what you want. I suppose you could add *doctoralis*, but given the paucity of uses one finds for the sword today that seems to me to be a touch scrupulous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_sword" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1024" RevisionGUID="b69d5423-36d8-44d9-ae87-84a0011804ca" CreationDate="2016-06-12T17:40:05.863" UserId="68" Text="The trick here is to broaden your translation not of *obtinuere* but of *regnum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis Elementary gives the following definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. kingly government, royal authority, kingship, royalty&#xD;&#xA;2. dominion, sovereignty, rule, authority, supreme power&#xD;&#xA;3. despotism, tyranny, personal sovereignty, arbitrary rule&#xD;&#xA;4. a kingdom, state governed by a king&#xD;&#xA;5. [figuratively] rule, authority, power, influence&#xD;&#xA;6. a territory, estate, possession&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *Æson primo regnum obtinuerat* can easily be understood to mean &quot;At first, Jason possessed the rule [of the kingdom]&quot; or &quot;Jason first possessed the kingship.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your more general question, yes, *regnum obtinuere* is a somewhat common phrase in Latin—you find it sprinkled throughout Cæsar, for example, and here and there in other authors as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1025" RevisionGUID="2e8f2668-9ca5-4a12-85f8-94fc9e433623" CreationDate="2016-06-12T18:37:39.230" UserId="324" Text="Georges’s Dictionary has references for valde optimus and valde summus from Pliny and Valerius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.zeno.org/Georges-1913/A/valde&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1024" RevisionGUID="f3250789-3b72-4877-b87e-0d978e686e05" CreationDate="2016-06-12T18:57:07.717" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The trick here is to broaden your translation not of *obtinuere* but of *regnum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis Elementary gives the following definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. kingly government, royal authority, kingship, royalty&#xD;&#xA;2. dominion, sovereignty, rule, authority, supreme power&#xD;&#xA;3. despotism, tyranny, personal sovereignty, arbitrary rule&#xD;&#xA;4. a kingdom, state governed by a king&#xD;&#xA;5. [figuratively] rule, authority, power, influence&#xD;&#xA;6. a territory, estate, possession&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *Æson primo regnum obtinuerat* can easily be understood to mean &quot;At first, Jason possessed the rule [of the kingdom]&quot; or &quot;Jason first possessed the kingship.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your more general question, yes, *regnum obtinere* is a somewhat common phrase in Latin—you find it sprinkled throughout Cæsar, for example, and here and there in other authors as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1026" RevisionGUID="cf9fe8ff-c11a-4bec-b7c0-1f297d3b17ce" CreationDate="2016-06-12T19:11:44.920" UserId="136" Text="There are several tips for translating non-Latin names into Latin: &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;+ Transform non-Latin sounds into Latin ones &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;+ Add the traditional *-us* or *-a* &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;+ Use the meaning of the name and translate that instead &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;+ Use an attribute of yourself and try translating that &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;So, for your case Brian, if we were trying to preserve the sounds of your name, we could use *Bræanus*. Now, yous could use the examples you gave, but they aren't quite right and would sound a bit odd compared to &quot;Brian.&quot; &quot;Brian&quot; comes from Old Celtic and means &quot;high&quot; or &quot;noble,&quot; so you could say your name was *Altus* or *Nobilis.* You could also try your personal qualities so you could choose names like *Fessus*, *Caducus*, or *Tenax*. You could even combine multiple names because often the Romans had up to four or five different names, so you could potentially be *Bræanus Altus Tenax* or something else along those lines!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1026" RevisionGUID="072d3955-0fe9-450e-9485-f31ec37362ac" CreationDate="2016-06-12T19:19:08.943" UserId="136" Comment="Added example and another tip" Text="There are several tips for translating non-Latin names into Latin: &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;+ Transform non-Latin sounds into Latin ones &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;+ Add the traditional *-us* or *-a* &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;+ Use the meaning of the name and translate that instead &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;+ Use an attribute of yourself and try translating that &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;+ Change nothing and make it indeclinable or third declension &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;So, for your case Brian, if we were trying to preserve the sounds of your name, we could use *Bræanus*. Now, yous could use the examples you gave, but they aren't quite right and would sound a bit odd compared to &quot;Brian.&quot; &quot;Brian&quot; comes from Old Celtic and means &quot;high&quot; or &quot;noble,&quot; so you could say your name was *Altus* or *Nobilis.* You could also try your personal qualities so you could choose names like *Fessus*, *Caducus*, or *Tenax*. You could even combine multiple names because often the Romans had up to four or five different names, so you could potentially be *Bræanus Altus Tenax* or something else along those lines!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For another example, the name Ryan could be translated as Ræon, Ræan, or Rex, if you wanted to preserve the pronunciation or translate its meaning.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1027" RevisionGUID="fed3e47f-9c20-4a45-ac24-9ccc02d900d1" CreationDate="2016-06-12T20:14:36.880" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt; [ [Wiktionary :](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/praetermitto#Latin) ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Etymology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;From [praeter-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/praeter-#Latin) +‎ [mitto](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mitto#Latin)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The polyfunctionality of *praeter-* and polysemy of *mitto* complicates the determination of the most probable semantic shift (though I can conjecture a few, but have not to keep this post short)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3470" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1027" RevisionGUID="fed3e47f-9c20-4a45-ac24-9ccc02d900d1" CreationDate="2016-06-12T20:14:36.880" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How did 'praeter-' + 'mitto' compound to generate 'praetermitto'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3471" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1027" RevisionGUID="fed3e47f-9c20-4a45-ac24-9ccc02d900d1" CreationDate="2016-06-12T20:14:36.880" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1028" RevisionGUID="2156163e-cc21-4112-be2f-995a70276223" CreationDate="2016-06-12T20:35:05.543" UserId="40" Text="Both *possessed* and *ruled* are slightly imprecise as translations for *obtinuerat*, because they don't correctly capture the meaning of the verb tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb is pluperfect, but *possessed / ruled* sound like translations of an imperfect -- they refer to an ongoing state that was in effect at some time in the past, while the pluperfect expresses an action that had been completed before some time in the past. That action in this case is *obtinere* &quot;to obtain&quot;, so a more correct translation would be &quot;had obtained&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Joel Derfner says, *regnum* is best translated as &quot;kingship&quot; rather than &quot;kingdom&quot;, so putting it all together, *regnum obtinuerat* is &quot;had obtained the kingship&quot;. Of course, you could consider other wordings which might sound more idiomatic in English, e.g. &quot;had acceded to the throne&quot;, as long as the pluperfectness of the action remains clear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1029" RevisionGUID="5440e7ac-37b0-496b-b1e9-fecbbc04d9ea" CreationDate="2016-06-12T21:38:15.843" UserId="136" Text="What you are looking for is an adverb that means &quot;not even,&quot; as &quot;Do not even move!&quot; Various words could fit this description, such as *nec*, *necnon*, or *ne...quidem*. *Ne...quidem* was the most common form of the three, so I would think that you would use that primarily. *Quidem* by itself is probably not a good idea, because it most likely was used in the context of &quot;Even the dog could speak!&quot; rather than &quot;not even&quot; when used with *Noli.* *Noli* literally means &quot;be unwilling&quot; so it can not be un-contracted to &quot;do not&quot; like &quot;don't&quot; can. Your second attempt literally-ish means &quot;You may not even be moved!&quot;, which isn't quite a command. Anyways, the idea of &quot;don't even&quot; seems to me to be a rather English construction, so it doesn't quite translate perfectly. I would say that there is no good translation, but if there appears there is, I'd be happy to hear about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1030" RevisionGUID="35b66ffa-6f19-4d8d-8ed9-065fb83fa9fd" CreationDate="2016-06-13T00:12:10.473" UserId="40" Text="This answer is based on the discussions in Weiss and Sihler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The regular development is *oi &gt; ū*: e.g. *ūnus* : Gk. οἴνη &quot;one (on a die)&quot;. There are inscriptions up until the second half of the 2nd century BC that still show OI, e.g. LOIDOS for later *lūdus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are a few words that have *oe* instead of *ū*: e.g. *moenia, poena, Poenus, foedus* &quot;ugly&quot;, *foedus* &quot;treaty&quot;. In all of these words the *oe* is preceded by a labial and followed by a coronal. (In other words with *oe*, e.g. *coepī, proelium*, the *oe* is secondary and results from the combination of a prefix ending in *-o* with the vowel *e*.) But, apparently it is not a question of simple phonetic conditioning, as Weiss says that &quot;this cannot be the whole story since evidently *oe* did monophthongize in this environment in some words&quot;. Unfortunately he doesn't give any examples. Sihler mentions the theory that the words which retained *oe* are &quot;technical or literary&quot; words, but this does not seem to be true of all of them. Neither Weiss nor Sihler mentions the possibility that these words are loans from a non-standard dialect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it looks like there's no complete answer: the outcome *oe* is partly phonetically conditioned, but there may be something more going on that we haven't figured out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1030" RevisionGUID="58d7c5b7-b58a-4469-9a0a-c71be7c877cc" CreationDate="2016-06-13T00:56:55.437" UserId="40" Comment="punicus, munire added as exceptions" Text="This answer is based on the discussions in Weiss and Sihler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The regular development is *oi &gt; ū*: e.g. *ūnus* : Gk. οἴνη &quot;one (on a die)&quot;. There are inscriptions up until the second half of the 2nd century BC that still show OI, e.g. LOIDOS for later *lūdus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are a few words that have *oe* instead of *ū*: e.g. *moenia, poena, Poenus, foedus* &quot;ugly&quot;, *foedus* &quot;treaty&quot;. In all of these words the *oe* is preceded by a labial and followed by a coronal. (In other words with *oe*, e.g. *coepī, proelium*, the *oe* is secondary and results from the combination of a prefix ending in *-o* with the vowel *e*.) But, apparently it is not a question of simple phonetic conditioning, as Weiss says that &quot;this cannot be the whole story since evidently *oe* did monophthongize in this environment in some words&quot;. Examples include some words from the same roots as the words above, e.g. *Pūnicus, mūnīre*. Sihler mentions the theory that the words which retained *oe* are &quot;technical or literary&quot; words, but this does not seem to be true of all of them. Neither Weiss nor Sihler mentions the possibility that these words are loans from a non-standard dialect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it looks like there's no complete answer: the outcome *oe* is partly phonetically conditioned, but there may be something more going on that we haven't figured out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="897" RevisionGUID="c2fdd859-6540-4fa1-b1d5-bef79461baeb" CreationDate="2016-06-13T01:05:53.580" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="The following constructions feel simple enough:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;You don't even move.&quot; &amp;mdash; *Ne moveris quidem.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Don't move!&quot; &amp;mdash; *Noli moveri!* or &quot;Ne motus sis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what if I want to give a negative order with &quot;even&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;That is, how to say &quot;Don't even move!&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding statement would containt *ne &amp;hellip; quidem*, but I'm not sure how to combine that with the order structure.&#xD;&#xA;Can I add the &quot;even&quot; (*quidem*) with both constructions, *noli* + infinitive and *ne* + perfect conjunctive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that I would get *Noli movere quidem!* and *Ne motus quidem sis!* but I have never seen either of these and I wonder if they are in fact grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is related to [another question about using *quidem*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/896/79), but not quite the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="897" RevisionGUID="351e7b35-bc6a-4b26-b6b2-06a362367887" CreationDate="2016-06-13T01:35:11.607" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="The following constructions feel simple enough:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;You don't even move.&quot; &amp;mdash; *Ne moveris quidem.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Don't move!&quot; &amp;mdash; *Noli moveri!* or &quot;Ne motus sis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what if I want to give a negative order with &quot;even&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;That is, how to say &quot;Don't even move!&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding statement would containt *ne &amp;hellip; quidem*, but I'm not sure how to combine that with the order structure.&#xD;&#xA;Can I add the &quot;even&quot; (*quidem*) with both constructions, *noli* + infinitive and *ne* + perfect conjunctive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that I would get *Noli moveri quidem!* and *Ne motus quidem sis!* but I have never seen either of these and I wonder if they are in fact grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is related to [another question about using *quidem*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/896/79), but not quite the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1031" RevisionGUID="5041e99f-a3fd-4a16-955f-963d2ad01479" CreationDate="2016-06-13T01:58:57.363" UserId="25" Text="Are doctoral dissertations still permitted to be spoken in Latin at any of the [Pontifical Universities][1] in or around Rome?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nota Bene: If this question is off topic, I will delete it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_university" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3480" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1031" RevisionGUID="5041e99f-a3fd-4a16-955f-963d2ad01479" CreationDate="2016-06-13T01:58:57.363" UserId="25" Text="Are doctoral dissertations still permitted to be given in Latin at any of the Pontifical Universities at Rome?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3481" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1031" RevisionGUID="5041e99f-a3fd-4a16-955f-963d2ad01479" CreationDate="2016-06-13T01:58:57.363" UserId="25" Text="|questions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1031" RevisionGUID="5baf7b99-d52e-4901-98c3-f6da77a78812" CreationDate="2016-06-13T04:23:17.217" UserId="79" Comment="Changed tags and removed the doubtful sentence about being off-topic." Text="Are doctoral dissertations still permitted to be spoken in Latin at any of the [Pontifical Universities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_university) in or around Rome?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3483" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1031" RevisionGUID="5baf7b99-d52e-4901-98c3-f6da77a78812" CreationDate="2016-06-13T04:23:17.217" UserId="79" Comment="Changed tags and removed the doubtful sentence about being off-topic." Text="|contemporary-latin|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1032" RevisionGUID="86c601ee-3a63-46c2-8c7d-b24d6a0271f7" CreationDate="2016-06-13T09:54:27.040" UserId="183" Text="There is another pattern for feminine names: besides adding -a, they can also be derived by adding -is. Examples include *Bilhidis*, *Richgundis*, and *Hildegardis* (from their Old German counterparts Bilhid, Richgund, and Hildegard)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1033" RevisionGUID="ac890d8a-f2fd-427b-a41b-2d62b65439b2" CreationDate="2016-06-13T11:38:48.277" UserId="548" Text="What does *ars mathematica* or *mathematicus* mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Augustine's [commentary to the Genesis][1] we have the following statement:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quapropter bono christiano, sive mathematici, sive quilibet impie divinantium, maxime dicentes vera, cavendi sunt, ne consortio daemoniorum animam deceptam, pacto quodam societatis irretiant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or from the [Codex Iustinianus][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Artem geometriae discere atque exerceri publice intersit. Ars autem mathematica damnabilis interdicta est &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely we don't assume that mathematics is so bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I didn't know anything else, from the context I would assume *numerology* is meant here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But *mathematici / ars mathematica* is translated as *astrologers/astrology.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Thomas Aquinas did understand it that way, as he uses the quote from Augustine to support his views on astrology in the Summa Theologiae:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et ideo astrologi in multis vera praenuntiant, et praecipue in communibus eventibus, qui dependent ex multitudine. Alio modo, propter Daemones se immiscentes. Unde Augustinus dicit, &quot;Fatendum est, quando a mathematicis vera dicuntur, instinctu quodam occultissimo dici, quem nescientes humanae mentes patiuntur. [...]&quot; Unde concludit, &quot;quapropter bono Christiano sive mathematici, sive quilibet impie divinantium, et maxime dicentes vera, cavendi sunt, ne consortio Daemoniorum animam deceptam pacto quodam societatis irretiant.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, I find this puzzling. In the quote from the Codex Iustinianus, why was *ars mathematica* contrasted to *ars geometriae*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is often claimed that *ars geometriae* didn't mean *geometry* but *mathematics in general.* But that still doesn't make so much sense, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At some point much later, in modern Latin, *mathematicus* seems (from my cursory knowledge) to always just mean *mathematical*, for example in Newton's *Philosophiae Naturalis Principia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thomas Aquinas again, as an example for medieval Latin, though he understood Augustine's use of *mathematicus* as meaning *astrological* himself uses *mathematicus* as just meaning *mathematical*. In De Substantiis Separatis he writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unde Plato duo genera rerum a sensibilibus abstracta ponebat: scilicet mathematica, et universalia, quae species sive ideas nominabat. Inter quae tamen haec differentia videbatur: quod in mathematicis apprehendere possumus plura unius speciei, puta duas lineas aequales, vel duos triangulos aequilateros et aequales; quod in speciebus omnino esse non potest, sed homo in universali acceptus, secundum speciem est unus tantum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So did *ars mathematica* also mean *mathematics* in classical (and late) Latin? Or did it **only** mean astrology? If so, why did it shift to meaning mathematics? And how was *numerology* described in classical Latin? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.augustinus.it/latino/genesi_lettera/genesi_lettera_02_libro.htm#GL_002_017_037&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/justinian/codex9.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3487" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1033" RevisionGUID="ac890d8a-f2fd-427b-a41b-2d62b65439b2" CreationDate="2016-06-13T11:38:48.277" UserId="548" Text="mathematics = ars mathematica?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3488" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1033" RevisionGUID="ac890d8a-f2fd-427b-a41b-2d62b65439b2" CreationDate="2016-06-13T11:38:48.277" UserId="548" Text="|language-evolution|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1033" RevisionGUID="e98bde3c-bb2c-4fe2-b488-95a4eafa892c" CreationDate="2016-06-13T12:37:16.400" UserId="548" Comment="deleted 104 characters in body" Text="What does *ars mathematica* or *mathematicus* mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Augustine's [commentary to the Genesis][1] we have the following statement:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quapropter bono christiano, sive mathematici, sive quilibet impie divinantium, maxime dicentes vera, cavendi sunt, ne consortio daemoniorum animam deceptam, pacto quodam societatis irretiant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or from the [Codex Iustinianus][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Artem geometriae discere atque exerceri publice intersit. Ars autem mathematica damnabilis interdicta est &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely we don't assume that mathematics is so bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I didn't know anything else, from the context I would assume *numerology* is meant here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But *mathematici / ars mathematica* is translated as *astrologers/astrology.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Thomas Aquinas did understand it that way, as he uses the quote from Augustine to support his views on astrology in the Summa Theologiae:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et ideo astrologi in multis vera praenuntiant, et praecipue in communibus eventibus, qui dependent ex multitudine. Alio modo, propter Daemones se immiscentes. Unde Augustinus dicit, &quot;Fatendum est, quando a mathematicis vera dicuntur, instinctu quodam occultissimo dici, quem nescientes humanae mentes patiuntur. [...]&quot; Unde concludit, &quot;quapropter bono Christiano sive mathematici, sive quilibet impie divinantium, et maxime dicentes vera, cavendi sunt, ne consortio Daemoniorum animam deceptam pacto quodam societatis irretiant.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, I find this puzzling. In the quote from the Codex Iustinianus, why was *ars mathematica* contrasted to *ars geometriae*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is often claimed that *ars geometriae* didn't mean *geometry* but *mathematics in general.* But that still doesn't make so much sense, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At some point much later, in modern Latin, *mathematicus* seems (from my cursory knowledge) to always just mean *mathematical*, for example in Newton's *Philosophiae Naturalis Principia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thomas Aquinas again, as an example for medieval Latin, though he understood Augustine's use of *mathematicus* as meaning *astrological* himself uses *mathematicus* as just meaning *mathematical*. In De Substantiis Separatis he writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unde Plato duo genera rerum a sensibilibus abstracta ponebat: scilicet mathematica, et universalia, quae species sive ideas nominabat. Inter quae tamen haec differentia videbatur: quod in mathematicis apprehendere possumus plura unius speciei, puta duas lineas aequales, vel duos triangulos aequilateros et aequales; quod in speciebus omnino esse non potest, sed homo in universali acceptus, secundum speciem est unus tantum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So did *ars mathematica* also mean *mathematics* in classical (and late) Latin? Or did it **only** mean astrology?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.augustinus.it/latino/genesi_lettera/genesi_lettera_02_libro.htm#GL_002_017_037&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/justinian/codex9.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3492" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1033" RevisionGUID="d5c73d2f-1b9d-42e9-b078-987878ece1cd" CreationDate="2016-06-13T14:23:35.607" UserId="68" Comment="edited title" Text="Did ars mathematica mean mathematics in classical (and late) Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="5ac605f3-62a9-4dc3-a868-5a8a277812be" CreationDate="2016-06-13T15:55:26.280" UserId="136" Text="Here is the Lewis and Short definition of *mathematica*: &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathēmaticus, a, um, adj., = μαθηματικο:ς, of or belonging to mathematics, mathematical (class.). Adj.: mathematica nota, Vitr. 1, 1: artes, Plin. 30, 1, 1, § 2: cogitatio, Macr. Somn. Scip. 2, 2: disciplinae, i. e. geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, music, geography, optics, Gell. 1, 9, 6. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;— Subst. Mathēmaticus, i, m. A mathematician, Cic. de Or 1, 3, 10; id. Ac. 2, 36, 116; id. Tusc. 1, 2, 5; Sen. Ep. 88, 26.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;— An astrologer (post-Aug.): mathematici, genus hominum potentibus infidum, sperantibus fallax, quod in civitate nostra et vetabitur semper et retinebitur, Tac. H. 1, 22: nota mathematicis genesis tua, Juv. 14, 248; Tert. Apol. 43: qui de salute principis ... mathematicos consulit, cum eo qui responderit, capite punitur, Paul. Sent. 5, 21, 3.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;— Mathēmatica, ae, f. Mathematics, Sen. Ep. 88, 23; v. l. ma-thēmaticē ( = μαθηματική, sc. τέχνη).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;— Astrology: addictus mathematicae, persuasionisque plenus, cuncta fato agi, Suet. Tib. 69.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This definition tells us that a *mathematicus* could mean astrologer OR mathematician. The difference between the occupations (in terms of the word used) became more apparent only after the reign of Augustus. This definition also states that *mathematica* meant mathematics. It makes sense that it could also mean astrology seeing as *mathematicus* has the duel meaning, and this is backed up by a definition found [here][1]. &lt;br/&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;So, to answer your question, it appears that *mathematica* had the duel meaning in Classical Latin. Pre-Augustus the word primarily meant astrology, but post-Augustus other words were used instead, with mathematics becoming the primary definition. Augustine and Justinian were both writing in Late Latin, the immediate descendant of Classical Latin, so it may have been more interchangeable for them as compared to Thomas Aquinas, who would have written in a mix between Medieval and Renaissance Latin, thus giving more time for the meanings to diverge. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Geometria* would have exclusively meant [geometry][2] at the same time *mathematica* had duel meaning. This makes sense because geometry was far more valuable to the Romans (architecture, road building, etc.) than number operations, so it is logical that there would be a difference. Geometry to the Romans could have meant mathematics in general because what we think of as &quot;mathematics&quot; (algebra, calculus, etc.) either did not exist or was not very advanced, so it would have been lopped into the broader category of geometry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/26536/mathematica-mathematicae&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/21446/geometria-geometriae" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="a2c02bed-fe5d-419a-9beb-87e5582352dd" CreationDate="2016-06-13T16:19:44.850" UserId="136" Comment="Fixed interpretation of definition, as per request" Text="Here is the Lewis and Short definition of *mathematica*: &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mathēmaticus, a, um, adj., = μαθηματικο:ς, of or belonging to mathematics, mathematical (class.). Adj.: mathematica nota, Vitr. 1, 1: artes, Plin. 30, 1, 1, § 2: cogitatio, Macr. Somn. Scip. 2, 2: disciplinae, i. e. geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, music, geography, optics, Gell. 1, 9, 6. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;— Subst. Mathēmaticus, i, m. A mathematician, Cic. de Or 1, 3, 10; id. Ac. 2, 36, 116; id. Tusc. 1, 2, 5; Sen. Ep. 88, 26.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;— An astrologer (post-Aug.): mathematici, genus hominum potentibus infidum, sperantibus fallax, quod in civitate nostra et vetabitur semper et retinebitur, Tac. H. 1, 22: nota mathematicis genesis tua, Juv. 14, 248; Tert. Apol. 43: qui de salute principis ... mathematicos consulit, cum eo qui responderit, capite punitur, Paul. Sent. 5, 21, 3.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;— Mathēmatica, ae, f. Mathematics, Sen. Ep. 88, 23; v. l. ma-thēmaticē ( = μαθηματική, sc. τέχνη).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;— Astrology: addictus mathematicae, persuasionisque plenus, cuncta fato agi, Suet. Tib. 69.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This definition tells us that a *mathematicus* could mean astrologer OR mathematician. The difference between the occupations (in terms of the word used) became more apparent only after the reign of Augustus. This definition also states that *mathematica* meant mathematics. It makes sense that it could also mean astrology seeing as *mathematicus* has the duel meaning, and this is backed up by a definition found [here][1]. &lt;br/&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;So, to answer your question, it appears that *mathematica* had the duel meaning in Classical Latin. Pre-Augustus the word primarily meant astrology, but post-Augustus other words were used instead (such as *astrologia*, see below), with mathematics becoming another common definition (It is important to note however that it still retained its astrologer meaning). Augustine and Justinian were both writing in Late Latin, the immediate descendant of Classical Latin, so it may have been more interchangeable for them as compared to Thomas Aquinas, who would have written in a mix between Medieval and Renaissance Latin, thus giving more time for the meanings to diverge. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Geometria* would have exclusively meant [geometry][2] at the same time *mathematica* had duel meaning. This makes sense because geometry was far more valuable to the Romans (architecture, road building, etc.) than number operations, so it is logical that there would be a difference. Geometry to the Romans could have meant mathematics in general because what we think of as &quot;mathematics&quot; (algebra, calculus, etc.) either did not exist or was not very advanced, so it would have been lopped into the broader category of geometry. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;______&#xD;&#xA;Definition of *astrologia*: &lt;/br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; astrologia, ae, f., = ἀστρολογία, knowledge of the stars, astronomy (class. for the later astronomia, while astrologia was used to designate astrology exclusively first in late Lat., Hier. adv. Pelag. 1, 8; cf. Isid. Orig. 8, 9), Cic. Div. 2, 42, 87 sqq.; id. de Or. 1, 16, 69; id. Off. 1, 6, 19: astrologiam Atlas Libyae filius, ut alii Aegyptii, ut alii Assyrii invenerunt, Plin. 7, 56, 57, § 203; also a work upon astronomy: occasum matutinum vergiliarum Hesiodus, nam hujus quoque nomine exstat astrologia, tradidit fieri, id. 18, 25, 57, § 213.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/26536/mathematica-mathematicae&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/21446/geometria-geometriae" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1035" RevisionGUID="60065750-5864-47d5-ab70-a6af9697db53" CreationDate="2016-06-13T22:59:16.053" UserId="118" Text="Many of the definitions and classical quotations in [Forcellini](http://linguax.com/lexica/forc.php?searchedLG=mathematica) make **mathematica** mean astrology. However, to illustrate the modern sense, Forcellini quotes from Seneca, _[Ep. 88](http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0230/_P2G.HTM)_, including this passage, where **mathematice** is rendered as &quot;the science of numbers&quot; in [this English translation](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Letter_88): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Philosophia nil ab alio petit, totum opus a solo excitat: **mathematice**, ut ita dicam, superficiaria est, in alieno aedificat; aliena accipit principia, quorum beneficio ad ulteriora perveniat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now philosophy asks no favours from any other source; it builds everything on its own soil; but the **science of numbers** is, so to speak, a structure built on another man's land – it builds on everything on alien soil; it accepts first principles, and by their favour arrives at further conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Elsewhere in the same letter, Seneca seems to use **geometria** as the science of measurement, and **mathematica** for astronomy (not astrology).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forcellini quotes the following sentence from Macrobius, _Somn. Scip._, apparently providing a Late Latin usage of **mathematica** in its modern sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Corpora **mathematicæ** cogitationi tantum subjicienda, non sensui.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but I was not able to find this sentence in the [original](https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Commentariorum_in_Somnium_Scipionis)! I did find two occurrences of **mathematica** in that work, which, at least by my beginner's level of Latin, appear to have the modern sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1026" RevisionGUID="9133ab31-48cf-455a-ae9c-d0669ff5f0b0" CreationDate="2016-06-15T14:40:11.653" UserId="45" Comment="formatted bullet points" Text="There are several tips for translating non-Latin names into Latin: &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Transform non-Latin sounds into Latin ones &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;+ Add the traditional *-us* or *-a* &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;+ Use the meaning of the name and translate that instead &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;+ Use an attribute of yourself and try translating that &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;+ Change nothing and make it indeclinable or third declension &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for your case Brian, if we were trying to preserve the sounds of your name, we could use *Bræanus*. Now, yous could use the examples you gave, but they aren't quite right and would sound a bit odd compared to &quot;Brian.&quot; &quot;Brian&quot; comes from Old Celtic and means &quot;high&quot; or &quot;noble,&quot; so you could say your name was *Altus* or *Nobilis.* You could also try your personal qualities so you could choose names like *Fessus*, *Caducus*, or *Tenax*. You could even combine multiple names because often the Romans had up to four or five different names, so you could potentially be *Bræanus Altus Tenax* or something else along those lines!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For another example, the name Ryan could be translated as Ræon, Ræan, or Rex, if you wanted to preserve the pronunciation or translate its meaning.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1026" RevisionGUID="0ae8c362-b06d-4e59-b122-b6f17175899b" CreationDate="2016-06-15T18:29:36.203" UserId="136" Comment="added 714 characters in body" Text="There are several tips for translating non-Latin names into Latin: &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Transform non-Latin sounds into Latin ones (Ex. Haakon &gt; *Hacon*)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;+ Add the traditional *-us*, *-a*, or *-is* (Ex. Halstan &gt; *Halstanus*)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;+ Use the meaning of the name and translate that instead (Ex. Darryl &gt; *Gratus*)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;+ Use an attribute of yourself and try translating that (Ex. Barack &gt; *Praefecus*) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;+ Change nothing and make it indeclinable or third declension (Ex. Halfdan &gt; *Halfdan*/*Halfdan, -is*)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for your case Brian, if we were trying to preserve the sounds of your name, we could use *Bræanus*. Now, yous could use the examples you gave, but they aren't quite right and would sound a bit odd compared to &quot;Brian.&quot; &quot;Brian&quot; comes from Old Celtic and means &quot;high&quot; or &quot;noble,&quot; so you could say your name was *Altus* or *Nobilis.* You could also try your personal qualities so you could choose names like *Fessus*, *Caducus*, or *Tenax*. You could even combine multiple names because often the Romans had up to four or five different names, so you could potentially be *Bræanus Altus Tenax* or something else along those lines!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For another example, the name Ryan could be translated as Ræon, Ræan, or Rex, if you wanted to preserve the pronunciation or translate its meaning.) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted to follow a series of steps for translating a name while preserving its sound, here is how one might do it:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. Transform non-Latin sounds into Latin ones. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. Add the *-us*, *-a*, or *-is* if the word ends in a consonant or make it third declension or indeclinable. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to note that since the name does not officially exist in Latin, you can use whatever method you want to translate it. It is usually best to consult the literature first to check if there is an already accepted translation, though.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1036" RevisionGUID="6c034fa9-f221-4ddc-be29-51c99ea5693a" CreationDate="2016-06-15T20:23:11.590" UserId="45" Text="There are many Ecclesiastical Latin hymns that incorporate a rhyming scheme that sounds very satisfying to an English ear. One common example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tantum ergo sacramentum  &#xD;&#xA;veneremur cernui  &#xD;&#xA;et antiquum documentum  &#xD;&#xA;novo cedat ritui  &#xD;&#xA;praestet fides supplementum  &#xD;&#xA;sensuum defectui&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It struck me, though, that I have never encountered a tail-rhyme scheme in any classical poetry I have seen. It all appears to be written in &quot;blank verse&quot; (to continue the comparison with English) with varying meters, especially dactylic hexameter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are there any classical examples of poetry with a rhyme scheme?** Obviously, rhyme existed at this time, but I am looking for examples where it is more than a one-off flourish--as, for instance, alliteration and assonance might be considered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are not any examples, I would also be interested in knowing when this started and why." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3500" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1036" RevisionGUID="6c034fa9-f221-4ddc-be29-51c99ea5693a" CreationDate="2016-06-15T20:23:11.590" UserId="45" Text="Rhyming in Classical Latin Poetry" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3501" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1036" RevisionGUID="6c034fa9-f221-4ddc-be29-51c99ea5693a" CreationDate="2016-06-15T20:23:11.590" UserId="45" Text="|poetry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1037" RevisionGUID="ea068594-c3ef-462d-8161-94d2a62eae4e" CreationDate="2016-06-16T01:04:51.190" UserId="30" Text="*Mitto* means &quot;to let [something] go&quot;. *Praeter* means &quot;along [a path], [moving] past/by [a location]&quot;. Together, they mean &quot;to let something go along its way, to let something pass by&quot;. Metaphorically, if you let something pass by, you get the same meaning as in English. So the etymology seems to make sense? Or is there something unexpected in it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1037" RevisionGUID="8f360330-e566-495b-ac87-73e23718a32d" CreationDate="2016-06-16T01:10:25.953" UserId="30" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="*[Mitto][1]* means &quot;to let [something] go&quot;. *[Praeter][2]* means &quot;along [a path], [moving] past/by [a location]&quot;. Together, they mean &quot;to let something go along its way, to let something pass by&quot;. Metaphorically, if you let something pass by, you get the same meaning as in English: you let it happen, you ignore it, you don't act on it. So the etymology seems to make sense? Or is there something unexpected in it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=mitto&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=praeter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1038" RevisionGUID="277b9121-90ca-49d3-aa21-5bdaa9863339" CreationDate="2016-06-16T17:48:30.420" UserId="40" Text="Textbooks, when describing the use of the locative, often say it's used with the names of &quot;cities and small islands&quot; (as well as a few nouns like *rus*). What counts as a &quot;small island&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locative_case#Latin) says that &quot;The Romans considered all Mediterranean islands to be small except for Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Crete, and Cyprus.&quot; This implies that the locative was used with the names of all other Mediterranean islands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I've also seen it claimed (though I can't remember where) that a &quot;small island&quot; in this context means either (a) an island that contains only one major settlement, and/or (b) an island which shares the name of its main town. If true, this represents a much more restricted set of islands: e.g. an island like Euboea or Lesbos is &quot;small&quot; by the Wiki definition but not by either of these definitions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what constitutes a &quot;small island&quot; for locative purposes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3505" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1038" RevisionGUID="277b9121-90ca-49d3-aa21-5bdaa9863339" CreationDate="2016-06-16T17:48:30.420" UserId="40" Text="Which islands appear in the locative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3506" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1038" RevisionGUID="277b9121-90ca-49d3-aa21-5bdaa9863339" CreationDate="2016-06-16T17:48:30.420" UserId="40" Text="|morphology|locative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1039" RevisionGUID="fe6ec144-aa7d-42f1-804e-4cdcde06be90" CreationDate="2016-06-16T18:52:08.800" UserId="68" Text="I have jury duty today, and I'm trying to figure out how I might say that in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the drawing of names it seems to me that *sortítió* is probably the best word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;jury,&quot; though, a few options strike me, one following the historical function and one following the language. In the Roman Republic, members of the jury were called *júdicés* (&quot;judges&quot;) and the trial was presided over by a *præator urbánus* (&quot;city magistrate,&quot; for want of a more exact term). We can see this term for jury members in the first sentence of *Pró Rosció Amerínó*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Credo ego vos, iudices, mirari, quid sit, quod, cum tot summi oratores hominesque nobilissimi sedeant, ego potissimum surrexerim, is, qui neque aetate neque ingenio neque auctoritate sim cum his, qui sedeant, comparandus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if we look to what the *function* of Roman *júdicés* was, then we get *júdicum sortítió*, and we'd call the judge, I guess, a *prætor*. This seems weird, given how exactly *júdex* translates into &quot;judge.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we let the modern judge be called *júdex*, though, what's left for the jury? It occurs to me that *cónsilium* is a possibility, again as evidenced by *Pró Sextó Amerínó*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Qui ex civitate in senatum propter dignitatem, ex senatu in hoc **consilium** delecti estis propter severitatem, ab his hoc postulare homines sicarios atque gladiatores, non modo ut supplicia vitent, quae a vobis pro maleficiis suis metuere atque horrere debent, verum etiam ut spoliis ex hoc iudicio ornati auctique discedant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that to a certain extent the choice of *júdicum sortítió* and *cónsilií sortítió* is a matter of one's philosophy of translation. But is there one that living Latinists use? Or is there an even better choice (for either word) that just isn't occurring to me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3508" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1039" RevisionGUID="fe6ec144-aa7d-42f1-804e-4cdcde06be90" CreationDate="2016-06-16T18:52:08.800" UserId="68" Text="How would one translate &quot;jury duty&quot; into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3509" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1039" RevisionGUID="fe6ec144-aa7d-42f1-804e-4cdcde06be90" CreationDate="2016-06-16T18:52:08.800" UserId="68" Text="|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1039" RevisionGUID="7cf63afe-2269-4c6a-95fc-d31fa6b5ce2a" CreationDate="2016-06-16T22:33:43.350" UserId="68" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I have jury duty today, and I'm trying to figure out how I might say that in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the drawing of names it seems to me that *sortítió* is probably the best word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;jury,&quot; though, a few options strike me, one following the historical function and one following the language. In the Roman Republic, members of the jury were called *júdicés* (&quot;judges&quot;) and the trial was presided over by a *præator urbánus* (&quot;city magistrate,&quot; for want of a more exact term). We can see this term for jury members in the first sentence of *Pró Rosció Amerínó*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Credo ego vos, iudices, mirari, quid sit, quod, cum tot summi oratores hominesque nobilissimi sedeant, ego potissimum surrexerim, is, qui neque aetate neque ingenio neque auctoritate sim cum his, qui sedeant, comparandus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if we look to what the *function* of Roman *júdicés* was, then we get *júdicum sortítió*, and we'd call the judge, I guess, a *prætor*. This seems weird, given how exactly *júdex* translates into &quot;judge.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we let the modern judge be called *júdex* instead, though, what's left for the jury? It occurs to me that *cónsilium* is a possibility, again as evidenced by *Pró Sextó Amerínó*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Qui ex civitate in senatum propter dignitatem, ex senatu in hoc **consilium** delecti estis propter severitatem, ab his hoc postulare homines sicarios atque gladiatores, non modo ut supplicia vitent, quae a vobis pro maleficiis suis metuere atque horrere debent, verum etiam ut spoliis ex hoc iudicio ornati auctique discedant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that to a certain extent the choice of *júdicum sortítió* and *cónsilií sortítió* is a matter of one's philosophy of translation. But is there one that living Latinists use? Or is there an even better choice (for either word) that just isn't occurring to me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1040" RevisionGUID="c4a4ff53-1202-4b34-b1ca-ce02b0d1d645" CreationDate="2016-06-16T22:39:57.600" UserId="118" Text="For _jury,_ [Vikipædia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iurata) has **iurata**. That's the root of _jury,_ even.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe its older, primary meaning is &quot;sworn&quot;, that is, a group of people who are sworn in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [Du Cange](http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/IURATA2), which defines _iurata_ as &quot;numerus duodecim legalium hominum juratorum, per quos omnis fere facti probatio fit, et ex quorum veredicto judex sententiam suam conficit et profert.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1041" RevisionGUID="16d79ef0-3a7d-4b99-8525-9e7f339568b3" CreationDate="2016-06-16T23:33:47.500" UserId="30" Text="I get [zero results for the locative *Lesbi*][1] in the HP corpus (the results appear to be all genitives), but I find [a handful of *in Lesbo*][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies to a [locative Euboeae][3], in favor of [in Euboea][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [locative Rhodi][5], on the other hand, is common, commoner than [in Rhodo][6], which seems to be limited to Plinius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rhodus did contain [several major settlements in Antiquity][7], but the capital was Rhodus from ca. 408 BC. So it appears that the Wikipaedian rule is wrong; your first rule (a) is wrong too, since the island contained more than one major settlement; but your second rule (b) may be true, the island and its capital sharing a name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one thing to consider: perhaps every time that the locative is used, the city of Rhodus is intended, not the island, since the city is the most likely place for people to be located, especially Roman travellers or generals. If so, we may never find out. It is not easy to find a passage where we are certain the island is meant and not the city.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=Lesbi%23&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=in%20Lesbo%23&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=Euboeae%23&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=in%20Euboea%23&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=Rhodi%23&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23in%20Rhodo%23&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Graecia_Vetus_Map_of_Ancient_Greece.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1040" RevisionGUID="4877e66e-fbae-41d4-8250-f28e0d27bcad" CreationDate="2016-06-17T00:04:37.483" UserId="118" Comment="added 1397 characters in body" Text="For _jury,_ [Vikipædia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iurata) has **iurata**. That's the root of _jury,_ even (via French [_juree_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/juree), also in the form of a participle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe its older, primary meaning is &quot;sworn&quot;, that is, a group of people who are sworn in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [Du Cange](http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/IURATA2), which defines _iurata_ as &quot;numerus duodecim legalium hominum juratorum, per quos omnis fere facti probatio fit, et ex quorum veredicto judex sententiam suam conficit et profert.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For _jury duty,_ I think _iurata_'s competing meaning of &quot;sworn&quot; prevents it from serving to make this phrase. Henry Beard offers **officium iudicale**, though perhaps this could also be understood as a &quot;judicial office&quot; in general, as [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=69cPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA66&amp;lpg=PA66&amp;dq=vitallarius&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=fvJ9R5-Ycd&amp;sig=mcUm5u4MZ6T1KYRtHI21-WgNTvQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj5g6ij1q3NAhUXVFIKHRu4DOQQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&amp;q=vitallarius&amp;f=false) (that has **judicialis** but the same law is quoted elsewhere as **judicalis**—but either way, what's that doing modifying a neuter noun?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another approach is to speak of jury service. I'm not sure, but I think jury duty (as a civic obligation) is much less common in countries with a civil-law tradition than in the common-law countries. If so, it might be difficult to find established Latin usage for _jury duty._ Spanish has _servicio de iurado,_ as in [this Seattle brochure](http://www.seattle.gov/courts/docs/spanish/JuryBrochureSpanish.pdf) for jurors. I don't think we can roll that back to Latin, though, since **servitium iudicale** would mean &quot;judicial servitude&quot;. (Well, I suppose you could say that if you wanted to describe jury duty quite disparagingly.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I'm going with **officium iudicale**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1042" RevisionGUID="b2cd4122-11ae-40ac-9a7b-f8f0260f83d4" CreationDate="2016-06-17T06:19:17.183" UserId="555" Text="Does it means a verb that should be used with a subject that is second-person and singular? What does &quot;future active indicative&quot; mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I know &quot;[acuēs][1]&quot; roughly means &quot;sharpen&quot;, but what's the right context? Does it means &quot;(would like to) sharpen (you in the future)&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acues" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3515" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1042" RevisionGUID="b2cd4122-11ae-40ac-9a7b-f8f0260f83d4" CreationDate="2016-06-17T06:19:17.183" UserId="555" Text="What is a &quot;second-person singular future active indicative&quot; verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3516" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1042" RevisionGUID="b2cd4122-11ae-40ac-9a7b-f8f0260f83d4" CreationDate="2016-06-17T06:19:17.183" UserId="555" Text="|specific-words|grammar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1043" RevisionGUID="d65d6a2d-294a-4c8e-8eef-61b65ebe4c8d" CreationDate="2016-06-17T07:35:33.053" UserId="68" Text="Welcome to the site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each of the adjectives you list tells you a little more about how the verb is being used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Second person** tells you that the subject is &quot;you.&quot; If the subject were &quot;I&quot; or &quot;we&quot; the verb would be &quot;first person&quot; (*acuam*), and if the subject were &quot;she&quot; or &quot;he&quot; or &quot;they&quot; it would be &quot;third person&quot; (*acuet*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Singular** tells you that the subject is one person (&quot;you, Kay, and nobody else&quot;). If the subject were &quot;you, Kay, and your brother, Englebert,&quot; then the verb would be &quot;plural&quot; (*acuētis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Future** tells you that the action hasn't happened yet. If you were talking about sharpening something yesterday, the verb might be &quot;perfect&quot; (*acuistī*) or &quot;imperfect&quot; (*acuēbās*) or &quot;pluperfect&quot; (*acuerās*) depending on other things about what you wanted to say). If you were talking about something you were doing right now, the verb would be &quot;present&quot; (*acuis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Active** tells you that the subject is doing the verb rather than that the subject is having the verb done to him/her/it. If you were talking to a pencil, you might use a &quot;passive&quot; verb instead (*acueris*): &quot;Pencil, you're going to be sharpened.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Indicative** is a little tricky; it basically tells you that you're talking about something that's happening in reality as opposed to something that might happen or might have happened, in which case you'd use the &quot;subjunctive&quot; (*acuās, acuerēs, acueris*, or *acuissēs*) or something that you're ordering somebody to do, in which case you'd use the &quot;imperative&quot; (*acue* or *acuitō*). That's an oversimplification, but it's probably close enough for government work. (Note that there's no such thing as a future subjunctive, and the future imperative is pretty rare.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1044" RevisionGUID="44ffb78c-4f17-41c5-a6a4-98c3553dfa3a" CreationDate="2016-06-17T09:48:35.190" UserId="79" Text="How to say &quot;information technology&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The Latin Wikipedia offers *technologia informationis*, but the genitive does not sound good to me.&#xD;&#xA;It is more natural to use an adjective, like *technlologia informatica*.&#xD;&#xA;However, I have not found the adjective *informatica* and I wonder whether it is a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;Is there any support for choosing this adjective (by analogy to some other derived adjective), or is there a more suitable one?&#xD;&#xA;Or should I stick to *informationis*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3519" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1044" RevisionGUID="44ffb78c-4f17-41c5-a6a4-98c3553dfa3a" CreationDate="2016-06-17T09:48:35.190" UserId="79" Text="What is information technology in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3520" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1044" RevisionGUID="44ffb78c-4f17-41c5-a6a4-98c3553dfa3a" CreationDate="2016-06-17T09:48:35.190" UserId="79" Text="|translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1045" RevisionGUID="877c6b43-8791-4865-92b3-55edbd680636" CreationDate="2016-06-17T10:43:14.690" UserId="556" Text="I studied a lot of poetry from the time around the end of the republic and early periods of the empire, and the Romans at that time did not employ rhymes in their poetry.  Rhyming in Latin is simply too easy, given the high flexibility of word order, so the poets used something a little more challenging to show off their skill.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What defined the poetry for them was meter.  Dactylic hexameter was one of the most common, and was the defining meter of epic poems.  To the best of my knowledge, this practice continued through the end of the empire, and rhyming did not come into practice until the Catholic Church became pretty much the only place to hear Latin in use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This section][1] of the Wikipedia article on rhyming gives an example of Cicero using a rhyme, but that was just prose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhyme#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3522" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="62" RevisionGUID="773aa5af-4569-4b4d-902a-c3056cf2933f" CreationDate="2016-06-17T10:55:01.343" UserId="79" Comment="8" />
  <row Id="3523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1046" RevisionGUID="1fc71a4b-7dad-42c5-968e-05c56d102619" CreationDate="2016-06-17T13:04:38.310" UserId="68" Text="As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm not a huge fan of Vikipædia, and this is part of the reason why. *Technologia informátiónis* is fine as far as a literal translation of the words, but it feels very un-Latinate. I'd go for something like *ars compútátrális* or the simple word *compútátrália* (with the understanding that *computátrum* is itself, imho, a problematic word, but it's what's widely used and accepted, so there you go)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="969" RevisionGUID="25439998-088a-4201-8717-98224b7bd63c" CreationDate="2016-06-17T13:30:43.330" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="It is rare to find a true (i.e. non-deponent) passive imperative, because the idea of ordering someone to do something is opposed to the idea of having something done to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster, in [*Oxford Latin Syntax*](https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA164-IA155) (pg. 164), explains this more clearly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The grammatical category of 'mood' is one of the means by which the speaker can convey his view of the extralinguistic reality and his communicative intentions with regard to one or more interlocutors. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is evident that the moods have the semantic function discussed in the preceding paragraph from the fact that **there exist cases of (in)compatibility of (grammatical) mood with other entities**. For example, **in the case of the imperative, it is very odd to order a person to do something when he has no control over it; this explains the very low frequency of true passive imperative forms.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, he does cite in [section 7.66](https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA164-IA155#v=onepage&amp;q=%22passive%20imperative%22&amp;f=false) (*op. cit.*) several excellent examples from classical and post-classical sources. He splits them into several categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## True passive (&quot;rare&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vis illud augustissimum consulum aliquando tribunal maiestati suae reddere? ascende. Vis constare reverentiam magistratibus, legibus auctoritatem, modestiam postulantibus? **adire**. ([Pliny, *Panegyricus*, 60.3](http://www.loebclassics.com/view/pliny_younger-panegyricus/1969/pb_LCL059.461.xml))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Would you restore its former majesty to the consuls' tribunal, once so much revered? Then mount it. Do you want to strengthen respect for the magistrates, spread restraint among litigants, and confirm the authority of the law? **Then let men come before you.*** (from Loeb translation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(note that some older editions, such as [this one](https://books.google.com/books?id=1wEcwUcehXQC&amp;pg=PA372&amp;lpg=PA372), use *accipe* and mark *adire* as a variant in the critical apparatus, presumably because the usage is so rare.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quaecumque pestis sive quaecumque es fera, / palam **timere** (Seneca, *Hercules Oetaeus*, 1260-1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Whatever pest you be or wild thing, / be thou openly feared!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Virgil has one example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hic tibi certa domus, certi, ne absiste, penates. / Neu belli **terrere** minis. (*Aeneid*, 8.39-40)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Here your home is sure--draw not back--and sure are your gods! Be not scared by threats of war!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And (post-classical) the Vulgate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; venite et **curamini** (Luke 13:14)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Come and **be cured***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## &quot;Decausative&quot; Passive (&quot;rare&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lassare** et disce sine armis / posse pati. (Luc. 5.313-14)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Grow weary**; learn to find life endurable without fighting.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Autocausative Passive (&quot;slightly less rare&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I read this as similar to the Greek middle voice.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tute hoc intristi. Tibi omne'st exedendum. **Adcingere**. (Ter, *Ph*, 318)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *You mashed up this mess. You must eat it all up. **Gird yourself.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Facesse hinc Tarquinios... **Devolvere** retro ad stirpem... (Liv. 1.47.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Be off from here to Tarquinii! **Sink back** [lit. be returned] into the rank of your family.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Virgil again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ergo age, care pater, cervici **imponere** nostrae. (*Aeneid*, 2.707)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Come now then, dear father, **place thyself** on my neck.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Seneca:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sic ergo **formare** ut scias non posse te consequi, ut sis impenetrabilis. (Sen. *Nat*, 4a.pr.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Be you therefore formed** so that you know that you cannot be taken, so that you are impenetrable.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Future Passive Imperative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Used once by Cicero, but in the third person: &quot;apparently intended as a third person plural form, in the style of Twelve Tables.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Regio imperio duo sunto, iique a praeeundo, iudicando, consulendo praetores, iudices, consules **appellamino**. (Cicero, *Leg.* 3.8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *There shall be two magistrates with royal powers.  Since they lead, judge, and confer, from these functions **they shall be called** praetors, judges, and consuls.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1043" RevisionGUID="a25adfda-c3b9-4d6c-bff0-5a80971abf48" CreationDate="2016-06-17T13:53:54.567" UserId="68" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="Welcome to the site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each of the adjectives you list tells you a little more about how the verb is being used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Second person** specifies **person**; it tells you that the subject of the verb is &quot;you.&quot; If the subject were &quot;I&quot; or &quot;we&quot; the verb would be &quot;first person&quot; (*acuam*), and if the subject were &quot;she&quot; or &quot;he&quot; or &quot;they&quot; it would be &quot;third person&quot; (*acuet*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Singular** specifies **number**; it tells you that the subject is one person (&quot;you, Kay, and nobody else&quot;). If the subject were &quot;you, Kay, and your brother, Englebert,&quot; then the verb would be &quot;plural&quot; (*acuētis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Future** specifies **tense**; it tells you that the action hasn't happened yet. If you were talking about sharpening something yesterday, the verb might be &quot;perfect&quot; (*acuistī*) or &quot;imperfect&quot; (*acuēbās*) or &quot;pluperfect&quot; (*acuerās*) depending on other things about what you wanted to say). If you were talking about something you were doing right now, the verb would be &quot;present&quot; (*acuis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Active** specifies **voice**; it tells you that the subject is doing the verb rather than that the subject is having the verb done to him/her/it. If you were talking to a pencil, you might use a &quot;passive&quot; verb instead (*acueris*): &quot;Pencil, you're going to be sharpened.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Indicative** specifies **mood**, but it's a little tricky; it basically tells you that you're talking about something that's happening in reality as opposed to something that might happen or might have happened, in which case you'd use the &quot;subjunctive&quot; (*acuās, acuerēs, acueris*, or *acuissēs*) or something that you're ordering somebody to do, in which case you'd use the &quot;imperative&quot; (*acue* or *acuitō*). That's an oversimplification, but it's probably close enough for government work. (Note that there's no such thing as a future subjunctive, and the future imperative is pretty rare.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1046" RevisionGUID="57621083-cdca-4734-ad6c-f7d19b5bd7bb" CreationDate="2016-06-17T14:51:09.283" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 139 characters in body" Text="As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm not a huge fan of Vikipædia, and this is part of the reason why. *Technologia informátiónis* is fine as far as a literal translation of the words, but it feels very un-Latinate. I'd go for something like *ars compútátrális* or the simple word *compútátrália*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3527" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1042" RevisionGUID="9418206b-2989-4b31-a76b-4a0b7296940f" CreationDate="2016-06-17T17:02:57.670" UserId="40" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1041" RevisionGUID="4c3de688-aa63-44ef-b3b0-c092e7918470" CreationDate="2016-06-18T00:59:07.867" UserId="30" Comment="added 1440 characters in body" Text="I get [zero results for the locative *Lesbi*][1] in the HP corpus (the results appear to be all genitives), but I find [a handful of *in Lesbo*][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies to a [locative Euboeae][3], in favor of [in Euboea][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [locative Rhodi][5], on the other hand, is common, commoner than [in Rhodo][6], which seems to be limited to Plinius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rhodus did contain [several major settlements in Antiquity][7], but the capital was Rhodus from ca. 408 BC. So it appears that the Wikipaedian rule is wrong; your first rule (a) is wrong too, since the island contained more than one major settlement; but your second rule (b) may be true, the island and its capital sharing a name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one thing to consider: perhaps every time that the locative is used, the city of Rhodus is intended, not the island, since the city is the most likely place for people to be located, especially Roman travellers or generals. If so, we may never find out. It is not easy to find a passage where we are certain the island is meant and not the city.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was easy to find several examples of the locative *Cretae*, so I'm afraid even uncontestedly 'large' islands can have the locative case. Below a few examples, found through the [HP corpus][8]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed ne illud quidem pertinet ad agricolas, quando et in qua regione primum natae sunt, utrum in Thessalia sub Aristaeo, an in insula Cea, ut scribit Euhemerus, an Erechthei temporibus in monte Hymetio, ut Eu&amp;lt;p&gt;hronius, an **Cretae** Saturni temporibus, ut Nicander; ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Columella, *De Re Rustica* 9.2.4.4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Loeb translation][9]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;But it does not even concern husbandmen when and in what country bees first came into existence, whether in Thessaly under Aristaeus, or in the island of Cea, as Euhemerus writes, or on Mount Hymettus in the time of Erechtheus, as Euthronius says, or **in Crete** in the time of Saturn, as Nicander says.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ... non haec tibi litora suasit&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Delius aut **Cretae** iussit considere Apollo. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Vergilius, *Aeneis* 3.162.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Translation by M. Wifstrand Schiebe (2009)][10]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Not these the shores the Delian Apollo counselled, not **in Crete** did&#xD;&#xA;he bid you settle.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=Lesbi%23&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=in%20Lesbo%23&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=Euboeae%23&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=in%20Euboea%23&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=Rhodi%23&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23in%20Rhodo%23&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Graecia_Vetus_Map_of_Ancient_Greece.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23Cretae%23&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.loebclassics.com/view/columella-agriculture/1941/pb_LCL407.431.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-85AM_jT5l4J:www2.lingfil.uu.se/klassiska/personal/MWS%2520Discrepancy.pdf%20&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=nl" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1041" RevisionGUID="0611035b-c44b-4101-b0eb-ffac8526c6bd" CreationDate="2016-06-18T01:04:16.677" UserId="30" Comment="added 1440 characters in body" Text="I get [zero results for the locative *Lesbi*][1] in the HP corpus (the results appear to be all genitives), but I find [a handful of *in Lesbo*][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies to a [locative Euboeae][3], in favor of [in Euboea][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [locative Rhodi][5], on the other hand, is common, commoner than [in Rhodo][6], which seems to be limited to Plinius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rhodus did contain [several major settlements in Antiquity][7], but the capital was Rhodus from ca. 408 BC. So it appears that the Wikipaedian rule is wrong; your first rule (a) is wrong too, since the island contained more than one major settlement; but your second rule (b) may be true, the island and its capital sharing a name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one thing to consider: perhaps every time that the locative is used, the city of Rhodus is intended, not the island, since the city is the most likely place for people to be located, especially Roman travellers or generals. If so, we may never find out. It is not easy to find a passage where we are certain the island is meant and not the city.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was easy to find several examples of the locative *Cretae*, so I'm afraid even uncontestedly 'large' islands can have the locative case. Below a few examples, found through the [HP corpus][8]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed ne illud quidem pertinet ad agricolas, quando et in qua regione primum natae sunt, utrum in Thessalia sub Aristaeo, an in insula Cea, ut scribit Euhemerus, an Erechthei temporibus in monte Hymetio, ut Eu&amp;lt;p&gt;hronius, an **Cretae** Saturni temporibus, ut Nicander; ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Columella, *De Re Rustica* 9.2.4.4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Loeb translation][9]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;But it does not even concern husbandmen when and in what country bees first came into existence, whether in Thessaly under Aristaeus, or in the island of Cea, as Euhemerus writes, or on Mount Hymettus in the time of Erechtheus, as Euthronius says, or **in Crete** in the time of Saturn, as Nicander says.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not a genitive here, because it is &quot;the times of Saturn&quot;, and &quot;the times of Saturn of Crete&quot; does not make sense: bees may have come into existence *in* or *on* Crete, so it is a locative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ... Non haec tibi litora suasit&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Delius aut **Cretae** iussit considere Apollo. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Vergilius, *Aeneis* 3.162.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Translation by M. Wifstrand Schiebe (2009)][10]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Not these the shores the Delian Apollo counselled, not **in Crete** did&#xD;&#xA;he bid you settle.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Consido* does not take a dative [according to Lewis &amp; Short][11], so it can't be a dative. Perhaps *aut [litora] Cretae* could be reconstructed, but I think the locative makes much more sense, if only because a poet is expected to take liberties with rules of grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=Lesbi%23&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=in%20Lesbo%23&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=Euboeae%23&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=in%20Euboea%23&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=Rhodi%23&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23in%20Rhodo%23&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Graecia_Vetus_Map_of_Ancient_Greece.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23Cretae%23&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.loebclassics.com/view/columella-agriculture/1941/pb_LCL407.431.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-85AM_jT5l4J:www2.lingfil.uu.se/klassiska/personal/MWS%2520Discrepancy.pdf%20&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=nl&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=consido&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1041" RevisionGUID="3f7831a1-9593-4568-8c2b-3f1ba883d149" CreationDate="2016-06-18T01:39:02.987" UserId="30" Comment="added 354 characters in body" Text="I get [zero results for the locative *Lesbi*][1] in the HP corpus (the results appear to be all genitives), but I find [a handful of *in Lesbo*][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies to a [locative Euboeae][3], in favor of [in Euboea][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [locative Rhodi][5], on the other hand, is common, commoner than [in Rhodo][6], which seems to be limited to Plinius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rhodus did contain [several major settlements in Antiquity][7], but the capital was Rhodus from ca. 408 BC. So it appears that the Wikipaedian rule is wrong; your first rule (a) is wrong too, since the island contained more than one major settlement; but your second rule (b) may be true, the island and its capital sharing a name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one thing to consider: perhaps every time that the locative is used, the city of Rhodus is intended, not the island, since the city is the most likely place for people to be located, especially Roman travellers or generals. If so, we may never find out. It is not easy to find a passage where we are certain the island is meant and not the city.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was easy to find several examples of the locative *Cretae*, so I'm afraid even uncontestedly 'large' islands can have the locative case. Below a few examples, found through the [HP corpus][8]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed ne illud quidem pertinet ad agricolas, quando et in qua regione primum natae sunt, utrum in Thessalia sub Aristaeo, an in insula Cea, ut scribit Euhemerus, an Erechthei temporibus in monte Hymetio, ut Eu&amp;lt;p&gt;hronius, an **Cretae** Saturni temporibus, ut Nicander; ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Columella, *De Re Rustica* 9.2.4.4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Loeb translation][9]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;But it does not even concern husbandmen when and in what country bees first came into existence, whether in Thessaly under Aristaeus, or in the island of Cea, as Euhemerus writes, or on Mount Hymettus in the time of Erechtheus, as Euthronius says, or **in Crete** in the time of Saturn, as Nicander says.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not a genitive here, because it is &quot;the times of Saturn&quot;, and &quot;the times of Saturn of Crete&quot; does not make sense: bees may have come into existence *in* or *on* Crete, so it is a locative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ... Non haec tibi litora suasit&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Delius aut **Cretae** iussit considere Apollo. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Vergilius, *Aeneis* 3.162.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Translation by M. Wifstrand Schiebe (2009)][10]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Not these the shores the Delian Apollo counselled, not **in Crete** did&#xD;&#xA;he bid you settle.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Consido* does not take a dative [according to Lewis &amp; Short][11], so it can't be a dative. Perhaps *aut [litora] Cretae* could be reconstructed, but I think the locative makes much more sense, if only because a poet is expected to take liberties with rules of grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non magis quam quid ita siluestres capreas **Cretae** genitas tantopere dilexerit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —  Valerius Maximus, *Facta et Dicta Memorabilia* 1.8(ext).18.7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Loeb translation][12]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Why does Nature favour the wild goats born **on Crete** so much?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=Lesbi%23&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=in%20Lesbo%23&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=Euboeae%23&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=in%20Euboea%23&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=Rhodi%23&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23in%20Rhodo%23&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Graecia_Vetus_Map_of_Ancient_Greece.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23Cretae%23&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.loebclassics.com/view/columella-agriculture/1941/pb_LCL407.431.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-85AM_jT5l4J:www2.lingfil.uu.se/klassiska/personal/MWS%2520Discrepancy.pdf%20&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=nl&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=consido&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&amp;id=LqAtAwAAQBAJ&amp;q=Cretae#v=onepage&amp;q=Crete&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1043" RevisionGUID="fbc28698-d9ce-47a9-8795-83145822e10d" CreationDate="2016-06-18T02:47:16.660" UserId="68" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Welcome to the site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each of the adjectives you list tells you a little more about how the verb is being used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Second person** specifies **person**; it tells you that the subject of the verb is &quot;you.&quot; If the subject were &quot;I&quot; or &quot;we&quot; the verb would be &quot;first person&quot; (*acuam* or *acuémus*), and if the subject were &quot;she&quot; or &quot;he&quot; or &quot;they&quot; it would be &quot;third person&quot; (*acuet* or *acuent*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Singular** specifies **number**; it tells you that the subject is one person (&quot;you, Kay, and nobody else&quot;). If the subject were &quot;you, Kay, and your brother, Englebert,&quot; then the verb would be &quot;plural&quot; (*acuētis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Future** specifies **tense**; it tells you that the action hasn't happened yet. If you were talking about sharpening something yesterday, the verb might be &quot;perfect&quot; (*acuistī*) or &quot;imperfect&quot; (*acuēbās*) or &quot;pluperfect&quot; (*acuerās*) depending on other things about what you wanted to say). If you were talking about something you were doing right now, the verb would be &quot;present&quot; (*acuis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Active** specifies **voice**; it tells you that the subject is doing the verb rather than that the subject is having the verb done to him/her/it. If you were talking to a pencil, you might use a &quot;passive&quot; verb instead (*acueris*): &quot;Pencil, you're going to be sharpened.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Indicative** specifies **mood**, but it's a little tricky; it basically tells you that you're talking about something that's happening in reality as opposed to something that might happen or might have happened, in which case you'd use the &quot;subjunctive&quot; (*acuās, acuerēs, acueris*, or *acuissēs*), or something that you're ordering somebody to do, in which case you'd use the &quot;imperative&quot; (*acue* or *acuitō*). That's an oversimplification, but it's probably close enough for government work. (Note that there's no such thing as a future subjunctive, and the future imperative is pretty rare.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1047" RevisionGUID="b5fd3123-4915-4786-8256-c9869dcd5775" CreationDate="2016-06-18T03:14:45.700" UserId="253" Text="Vatican Latinist [Fr. Daniel Gallagher][1], whom I met several years ago at event sponsored by [SALVI][2], told me then that he was working on a dissertation in Latin. This dissertation was for a doctorate in philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University. So apparently at least one of the Pontifical Universities still accepts Latin dissertations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/27/priest-translates-pope-tweets-latin/6954991/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.latin.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1048" RevisionGUID="4cdb1632-5da6-4856-872b-ade8f8223605" CreationDate="2016-06-18T07:37:06.090" UserId="556" Text="I was able to find several examples thanks to Cassell's &quot;Latin Dictionary,&quot; and Allen and Greenough's &quot;New Latin Grammar.&quot;  First, `tenus` is mentioned as taking either the genitive or ablative.  It references Vergil, Livy, and Lucretius as having examples of the genitive use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the grammar book, it mentions that `pridie`, `postridie`, and `ergo` can take the genitive.  Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    eius legis ergo - on account of this law&#xD;&#xA;    pridie (postridie) eius diei - the day before (after) that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there you have at least two examples of a preposition taking the genitive and placed in front of the word.  The grammar book points out that the second example there is from prose of the Republican Period, and not found elsewhere at that time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="f8aabc87-eef9-4d27-8434-c670990462b4" CreationDate="2016-06-18T11:43:49.837" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="In Latin, there are prepositions that may be followed by a noun in accusative (like *ad*), ablative (*cum*) or both (*in*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I once thought *ope* was a preposition to be used with genitive, which I found pretty interesting because most Latin grammars do not mention it (I think I once read one that did, but I can't find it now). Then I realized it is just the dative of *ops* (in my defense, ope -*by the power or support* of sth- has a very preposition-ish meaning). Nevertheless, doing some linguistics-fiction I wondered it was a feasible way for such a preposition to *evolve* after the desappearence of other uses of *ops*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then I found [this site][1], stating that there is the preposition *tenus*, which actually *works* with genitive. I've never heard of that one, and the page does not cite any sources, but there are [other sources][2] that favor the point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Latin is mostly *ecclesiastical*, so I am more or less ignorant of many classical- and medieval-specific features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: were prepositions/adpositions with genitive a real thing at any point in Latin history? Is there more than one such adposition?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** some people have pointed that _tenus_ is indeed a _postposition_, since it goes _after_ the noun being modified. In the meantime, I have learnt that in linguistics there is a more general word, _adposition_ to embrace both pre- and postpositions. I was unaware of any of these two words: good to learn new things. Thanks @Cerberus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I added the concept to the question's title. I left the word _preposition_ here and there for a number of reasons: 1) both sources cited treat _tenus_ as a _preposition_ (even clarifying it has to be used after the noun), 2) there is no `adposition` tag in Latin.SE, 3) in English, prepositions _may_ be used _after_ nouns in certain circumstances (see [here][3], under the title _Usage Note_), and some definitions [confirm it][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.informalmusic.com/latinsoc/prep.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.campus.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=tenus&amp;ending=&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/preposition?s=t&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Apreposition&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;client=firefox-b" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1049" RevisionGUID="085b4ede-325c-4ce3-a8c4-df325a74d115" CreationDate="2016-06-18T12:00:12.643" UserId="68" Text="I heard this on a podcast the other day to mean that the conversation had gotten stuck. I looked it up and it seems to be a reference to the textbook *Ecce Rómání*, in which a cart gets stuck in a ditch for a while, apparently—given how many references there are to it online—to the amusement of decades' worth of Latin students. However, I couldn't find any references to it in any authentic Roman/Latin texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering: is this an actual Latin saying/metaphor that the Romans or other Latin speakers used at any time in history? Or has it just become a thing because so many people learned Latin from *Ecce Rómání*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3537" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1049" RevisionGUID="085b4ede-325c-4ce3-a8c4-df325a74d115" CreationDate="2016-06-18T12:00:12.643" UserId="68" Text="Is &quot;ræda in fossá est&quot; an actual Latin saying/metaphor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3538" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1049" RevisionGUID="085b4ede-325c-4ce3-a8c4-df325a74d115" CreationDate="2016-06-18T12:00:12.643" UserId="68" Text="|idiom|metaphora|saying|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1040" RevisionGUID="4ee966f0-152d-4ce9-8a30-fd150b78b9fa" CreationDate="2016-06-18T20:46:19.713" UserId="118" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="For _jury,_ [Vikipædia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iurata) has **iurata**. That's the root of _jury,_ even (via French [_juree_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/juree), also in the form of a participle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe its older, primary meaning is &quot;sworn&quot;, that is, a group of people who are sworn in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [Du Cange](http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/IURATA2), which defines _iurata_ as &quot;numerus duodecim legalium hominum juratorum, per quos omnis fere facti probatio fit, et ex quorum veredicto judex sententiam suam conficit et profert.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For _jury duty,_ I think _iurata_'s competing meaning of &quot;sworn&quot; prevents it from serving to make this phrase. Henry Beard offers **officium iudicale**, though perhaps this could also be understood as a &quot;judicial office&quot; in general, as [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=69cPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA66&amp;lpg=PA66&amp;dq=vitallarius&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=fvJ9R5-Ycd&amp;sig=mcUm5u4MZ6T1KYRtHI21-WgNTvQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj5g6ij1q3NAhUXVFIKHRu4DOQQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&amp;q=vitallarius&amp;f=false) (that has **judicialis** but the same law is quoted elsewhere as **judicalis**—but either way, what's that doing modifying a neuter noun?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another approach is to speak of jury &quot;service&quot;. I'm not sure, but I think jury &quot;duty&quot; (as a civic obligation) is much less common in countries with a civil-law tradition than in the common-law countries. If so, it might be difficult to find established Latin usage for _jury duty._ Spanish has _servicio de iurado,_ as in [this Seattle brochure](http://www.seattle.gov/courts/docs/spanish/JuryBrochureSpanish.pdf) for jurors. I don't think we can roll that back to Latin, though, since **servitium iudicale** would mean &quot;judicial servitude&quot;. (Well, I suppose you could say that if you wanted to describe jury duty quite disparagingly.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I'm going with **officium iudicale**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1050" RevisionGUID="db3dc1b6-a167-4b62-8c37-694a9dcde7f8" CreationDate="2016-06-18T22:23:27.213" UserId="556" Text="I can't really prove a negative, but Cassell's &quot;Latin Dictionary&quot; has quotes and references from ancient sources for almost every entry.  Neither `raeda` nor `fossa` contains a reference to this saying, despite having several other references.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would go out on a limb and say that this was not a catch phrase for the ancients." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1041" RevisionGUID="9990373f-7520-48fe-a96d-b1f3b876ae9f" CreationDate="2016-06-19T00:25:31.667" UserId="30" Comment="added 637 characters in body" Text="I get [zero results for the locative *Lesbi*][1] in the HP corpus (the results appear to be all genitives), but I find [a handful of *in Lesbo*][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies to a [locative Euboeae][3], in favor of [in Euboea][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [locative Rhodi][5], on the other hand, is common, commoner than [in Rhodo][6], which seems to be limited to Plinius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rhodus did contain [several major settlements in Antiquity][7], but the capital was Rhodus from ca. 408 BC. So it appears that the Wikipaedian rule is wrong; your first rule (a) is wrong too, since the island contained more than one major settlement; but your second rule (b) may be true, the island and its capital sharing a name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one thing to consider: perhaps every time that the locative is used, the city of Rhodus is intended, not the island, since the city is the most likely place for people to be located, especially Roman travellers or generals. If so, we may never find out. It is not easy to find a passage where we are certain the island is meant and not the city.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was easy to find several examples of the locative *Cretae*, so I'm afraid even uncontestedly 'large' islands can have the locative case. Below a few examples, found through the [HP corpus][8]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed ne illud quidem pertinet ad agricolas, quando et in qua regione primum natae sunt, utrum in Thessalia sub Aristaeo, an in insula Cea, ut scribit Euhemerus, an Erechthei temporibus in monte Hymetio, ut Eu&amp;lt;p&gt;hronius, an **Cretae** Saturni temporibus, ut Nicander; ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Columella, *De Re Rustica* 9.2.4.4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Loeb translation][9]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;But it does not even concern husbandmen when and in what country bees first came into existence, whether in Thessaly under Aristaeus, or in the island of Cea, as Euhemerus writes, or on Mount Hymettus in the time of Erechtheus, as Euthronius says, or **in Crete** in the time of Saturn, as Nicander says.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not a genitive here, because it is &quot;the times of Saturn&quot;, and &quot;the times of Saturn of Crete&quot; does not make sense: bees may have come into existence *in* or *on* Crete, so it is a locative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ... Non haec tibi litora suasit&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Delius aut **Cretae** iussit considere Apollo. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Vergilius, *Aeneis* 3.162.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Translation by M. Wifstrand Schiebe (2009)][10]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Not these the shores the Delian Apollo counselled, not **in Crete** did&#xD;&#xA;he bid you settle.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Consido* does not take a dative [according to Lewis &amp; Short][11], so it can't be a dative. Perhaps *aut [litora] Cretae* could be reconstructed, but I think the locative makes much more sense, if only because a poet is expected to take liberties with rules of grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non magis quam quid ita siluestres capreas **Cretae** genitas tantopere dilexerit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —  Valerius Maximus, *Facta et Dicta Memorabilia* 1.8(ext).18.7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Loeb translation][12]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Why does Nature favour the wild goats born **on Crete** so much?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The participle *genitas* &quot;born&quot; requires a modifier: the goats have to be born in some way or somewhere. *Silvestres* is too far back, and only *Cretae* seems to be able to fulfil that role. Perhaps *genitus* can be constructed with a dative, &quot;born to Crete&quot;; but I believe words like *natus* normally express the origin of birth in an ablative. [Lewis &amp; Short][13] mention the ablative for the origin of *genitus*, and also give examples with *a* and *e*, as expected. They don't mention a dative. So I don't think a dative is possible. The same applies a fortiori to a genitive. A locative seems by far the best reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=Lesbi%23&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=in%20Lesbo%23&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=Euboeae%23&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=in%20Euboea%23&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=Rhodi%23&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23in%20Rhodo%23&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Graecia_Vetus_Map_of_Ancient_Greece.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23Cretae%23&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.loebclassics.com/view/columella-agriculture/1941/pb_LCL407.431.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-85AM_jT5l4J:www2.lingfil.uu.se/klassiska/personal/MWS%2520Discrepancy.pdf%20&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=nl&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=consido&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&amp;id=LqAtAwAAQBAJ&amp;q=Cretae#v=onepage&amp;q=Crete&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=gigno&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1051" RevisionGUID="7f4358ae-219e-4776-ba94-926599c73933" CreationDate="2016-06-19T08:18:07.517" UserId="556" Text="`Re` was certainly used with the same meaning, as @boban points out, but it was not used in the same manner.  For example, Cicero did not start his letters with it, although there are examples of him using the word with the meaning &quot;in the matter of.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many references in ancient texts showing the use of the word `res` in the ablative with the meaning &quot;in the matter of.&quot;  The Romans used `res` much like we use the word &quot;thing&quot; and they used it frequently.  Even our word &quot;republic&quot; is from `res publica` which literally means &quot;the public thing.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a crazy sci-fi world where the Romans had email, I think using `re` just as we do would be completely consistent and appropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1052" RevisionGUID="53e09353-b353-4fa3-90f6-52ff57d8e62a" CreationDate="2016-06-19T19:44:30.650" UserId="79" Text="Consider the following sentence with a tentative Latin translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let us meet in the building called Taberna.  &#xD;&#xA;*Conveniamus in aedificio Taberna appellato.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In which case should I decline the name of the building, *Taberna*, when it is a declinable Latin word?&#xD;&#xA;Both nominative and ablative would make some sense to me.&#xD;&#xA;Of course they look alike in the first declension, but I want to understand this structure better.&#xD;&#xA;Nominative sounds better to me, but I feel a bit unsure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can someone provide a passage from classical literature which demonstrates whether *Taberna* should follow the case of *appellato*?**&#xD;&#xA;The participle need not be of *appellare*, but other similarly used verbs are fine.&#xD;&#xA;(At least *nominare* and *vocare* are close in meaning, and probably some other verbs have similar case government.)&#xD;&#xA;Discussion from a good grammar is also welcome, but I find actual examples most convincing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3544" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1052" RevisionGUID="53e09353-b353-4fa3-90f6-52ff57d8e62a" CreationDate="2016-06-19T19:44:30.650" UserId="79" Text="Do names follow the case of a participle like appellatus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3545" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1052" RevisionGUID="53e09353-b353-4fa3-90f6-52ff57d8e62a" CreationDate="2016-06-19T19:44:30.650" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3546" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1052" RevisionGUID="4589eb9f-3bd7-40d5-8c6b-eeb9712a702a" CreationDate="2016-06-19T20:22:53.500" UserId="118" Comment="edited title" Text="Does the name take the same case as &quot;appellatus&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1053" RevisionGUID="e4acf001-b51b-4fa5-abe7-500a62a5d908" CreationDate="2016-06-19T22:02:33.447" UserId="118" Text="Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Varro, writing in [book 5](https://archive.org/stream/onlatinlanguage01varruoft#page/26/mode/2up) of _De Lingua Latina,_ about how things are named in Latin (!), has many examples, though not _exactly_ of the kind of sentence you're asking about. Here are a few.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Amnis id flumen quod circuit aliquod: nam ab ambitu amnis. Ab hoc qui circum Aternum habitant, **Amiternini appellati**. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An _amnis_ is a river that goes around something; for _amnis_ is named for _ambitus,_ &quot;circuit&quot;. From this, those who live around the Aternus are **called _Amiternini_**, &quot;men of Amiternum&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Ubi nunc est Roma, **Septimontium nominatum** ab tot montibus quos postea urbs muris comprehendit; e quis **Capitolinum dictum**, quod hic, cum fundamenta foderentur aedis Iovis, caput humanum dicitur inventum. Hic mons ante **Tarpeius dictus** a virgine Vestale Tarpeia, quae ibi ab Sabinis necata armis et sepulta: cuius nominis monimentum relictum, quod etiam nunc eius rupes **Tarpeium appellatur saxum**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where Rome now is, was **called the Septimontium** from the number of hills that the city afterward embraced within its walls; of those, **Capitoline** got its **name** because here, it is said, when the foundations of the temple of Jupiter were being dug, a human head was found. The hill was previously **called the Tarpeian**, from the Vestal Virgin Tarpeia, who was killed there by the Sabines with their shields and buried; of her name a reminder is left, that even now its cliff is **called the Tarpeian Rock**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these are ambiguous, like **Septimontium** (which would be the same in the accusative, and isn't really following its participle), and not all are exactly what you asked for, such as **appellatur**, which the main verb rather than a participle. But I think these examples illustrate that the name is given in the case appropriate for its place in the sentence; the name is not put in the nominative to show you its canonical form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cum Caelio coniunctum Carinae et inter eas quem locum **Caeriolensem appellatum** apparet, quod primae regionis quartum sacrarium scriptum sic est:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Caeriolensis: quarticeps circa Minervium qua in Caelium montem&#xD;&#xA;          itur: in tabernola est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Caeriolensis** a Carinarum iunctu **dictus**…&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Joined to the Caelian is the Carinae, &quot;the Keels&quot;; and between them is the place which is **called Caeriolensis**, obviously because the fourth shrine of the first region is thus written in the records:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Caeriolensis: fourth shrine, near the temple of Minerva, in the street&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   by which you go up the Caelian hill; it is in a booth.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Caeriolensis is so called** from the joining of the Carinae with the Caelian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suburam Iunius scribit ab eo, quod fuerit sub antiqua urbe; cui testimonium potest esse, quod subest ei loco qui **terreus murus vocatur**. Sed ego a pago potius Succusano **dictam** puto **Succusam**: quod in nota etiam nunc scribitur SVC tertia littera C, non B. **Pagus Succusanus**, quod succurrit Carinis.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Junius writes that Subura is so named because it was at the foot of the old city (_sub urbe_), proof of which may be found in the fact that it is under that place which is **called the earth wall**. But I rather think that from the Succusan district it was **called Succusa**, for even now when abbreviated it is written SVC, with C and not B as third letter. The **Succusan district** is so named because it _succurrit,_ &quot;runs up to&quot;, the Carinae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;The translations are by Roland H. Kent, in the Loeb Classical Library edition, with some minor modernizing edits by me.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1054" RevisionGUID="660cb0d9-38dc-4792-b5f5-6ac5273819de" CreationDate="2016-06-20T08:36:47.110" UserId="563" Text="I came up with *legio apsconditus defensorius patriae*, but it doesn't really suit my need (and is not quite correct). For certain project of mine it has to be acronymable to  &quot;PLDN&quot; (preferred) or &quot;PALDN&quot; or &quot;PLADN&quot;. It doesn't have to be four- or five-word name - if I can torture it so that I get what I need anything goes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did some research but seems that I sort of can't order the words so that I get the P letter in front. Or can I?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3550" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1054" RevisionGUID="660cb0d9-38dc-4792-b5f5-6ac5273819de" CreationDate="2016-06-20T08:36:47.110" UserId="563" Text="Need a Latin backronym for military unit - defensive, national, secret" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3551" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1054" RevisionGUID="660cb0d9-38dc-4792-b5f5-6ac5273819de" CreationDate="2016-06-20T08:36:47.110" UserId="563" Text="|contemporary-latin|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1055" RevisionGUID="c70044bb-8b5e-415c-812f-0aa8ceccfddf" CreationDate="2016-06-20T09:41:10.597" UserId="79" Text="How about *praetorium laribus defendendis nostris*, or &quot;the body guard for defending our homes&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;The word order in Latin is quite free, so the key problem is to find the words you want to use.&#xD;&#xA;It would be more natural to put *nostris* before *defendendis*, but the version I propose is not wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some words that can be used to compile such a name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: *patria* (fatherland), *praetorium* (body guard), *praetorianus* (member of body guard), *pervigiliare* (to stay awake or on guard through the night)&#xD;&#xA;- **L**: *legio* (legion), *lar* (household god, home)&#xD;&#xA;- **D**: *defendere* (to defend, with many derived words), *dedicatus* (dedicated (to indicate the purpose of the unit))&#xD;&#xA;- **N**: *natio* (nation), *noster* (our)&#xD;&#xA;- **A**: *absconditus* (hidden, secret), *arcanus* (secret, mysterious)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These give rise to many options, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *praetorium laribus dedicatum nostrum*, &quot;our body guard dedicated to homes (=homeland)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *praetorianorum legio (arcana) defensiva nationalis*, &quot;national (secret) defensive legion of body guards&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does some of these sound good to you?&#xD;&#xA;Is there some word that you would like to see used but I didn't use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1055" RevisionGUID="b31b340e-44e1-4072-b645-a37ee34b16ad" CreationDate="2016-06-20T09:43:00.120" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="How about *praetorium laribus defendendis nostris*, or &quot;the body guard for defending our homes&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;The word order in Latin is quite free, so the key problem is to find the words you want to use.&#xD;&#xA;It would be more natural to put *nostris* before *defendendis*, but the version I propose is not wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some words that can be used to compile such a name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: *patria* (fatherland), *praetorium* (body guard), *praetorianus* (member of body guard), *pervigiliare* (to stay awake or on guard through the night)&#xD;&#xA;- **L**: *legio* (legion), *lar* (household god, home)&#xD;&#xA;- **D**: *defendere* (to defend, with many derived words), *dedicatus* (dedicated (to indicate the purpose of the unit))&#xD;&#xA;- **N**: *natio* (nation), *noster* (our)&#xD;&#xA;- **A**: *absconditus* (hidden, secret), *arcanus* (secret, mysterious)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These give rise to many options, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *praetorium laribus dedicatum nostrum*, &quot;our body guard dedicated to homes (=homeland)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *praetorianorum legio (arcana) defensiva nationalis*, &quot;national (secret) defensive legion of body guards&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do some of these sound good to you?&#xD;&#xA;Is there some word that you would like to see used but I didn't use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1055" RevisionGUID="4b58779b-6c6b-439b-9551-c2a78f9c1fee" CreationDate="2016-06-20T10:00:04.707" UserId="68" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="How about *praetorium laribus defendendis nostris*, or &quot;the body guard for defending our homes&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;The word order in Latin is quite free, so the key problem is to find the words you want to use.&#xD;&#xA;It would be more natural to put *nostris* before *defendendis*, but the version I propose is not wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some words that can be used to compile such a name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: *patria* (fatherland), *praetorium* (body guard), *praetorianus* (member of body guard), *pervigiliare* (to stay awake or on guard through the night)&#xD;&#xA;- **L**: *legio* (legion), *lar* (household god, home)&#xD;&#xA;- **D**: *defendere* (to defend, with many derived words), *dedicatus* (dedicated (to indicate the purpose of the unit))&#xD;&#xA;- **N**: *natio* (nation), *noster* (our)&#xD;&#xA;- **A**: *absconditus* (hidden, secret), *arcanus* (secret, mysterious)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These give rise to many options, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *praetorium laribus dedicatum nostrum*, &quot;our body guard dedicated to homes (=homeland)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *praetorianorum legio (arcana) defensiva nationalis*, &quot;national (secret) defensive legion of body guards&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does any of these sound good to you?&#xD;&#xA;Is there some word that you would like to see used but I didn't use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1051" RevisionGUID="6b4f3a2a-8493-45e4-bab6-fbc9b2e558b1" CreationDate="2016-06-20T11:37:35.683" UserId="556" Comment="more detail" Text="`Re` was certainly used with the same meaning, as @boban points out, but it was not used in the same manner.  For example, Cicero did not start his letters with it, although there are examples of him using the word with the meaning &quot;in the matter of.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many references in ancient texts showing the use of the word `res` in the ablative with the meaning &quot;in the matter of.&quot;  The Romans used `res` much like we use the word &quot;thing&quot; and they used it frequently.  Even our word &quot;republic&quot; is from `res publica` which literally means &quot;the public thing.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a crazy sci-fi world where the Romans had email, I think using `re` just as we do would be completely consistent and appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: From Cicero's letters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [`in hac re`][1] translated as &quot;[in this matter][2]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found abundant other examples among Cicero's letters of his use of `re` which I think could hold a meaning like what we're discussing, but this was the only one for which I was able to match the Latin text to an existing translation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These examples are all in the body of his letters as he directs the reader's attention to some matter they've previously discussed.  `Re` does not ever occur as a sort of subject line like we use it.  There's also the example I mentioned in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0017%3Abook%3D1%3Aletter%3D1%3Asection%3D2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0022%3Atext%3DQ%20FR%3Abook%3D1%3Aletter%3D1%3Asection%3D1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3556" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1052" RevisionGUID="7dc2e5da-1d19-4b6b-b945-bf99bcea69d4" CreationDate="2016-06-20T12:08:42.363" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|syntax|unknown-grammar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1056" RevisionGUID="1b72524c-caed-4632-870a-a8fd7df81cce" CreationDate="2016-06-20T12:10:07.573" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1057" RevisionGUID="9d36a44c-29bb-40a0-9556-ff0fbfa7e040" CreationDate="2016-06-20T12:10:07.573" UserId="79" Text="When you want an explanation for a grammatical structure you cannot name or you are unsure which choice (case, tense, mood etc.) would be grammatical, use this tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3559" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="987" RevisionGUID="1bd4ce00-fe7c-4e50-8ad0-247889c30b86" CreationDate="2016-06-20T12:13:16.403" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|dative|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3560" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1052" RevisionGUID="3bde37e8-8bba-4517-8367-8cf166017187" CreationDate="2016-06-20T12:22:18.820" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|syntax|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1058" RevisionGUID="ae72281e-54e7-4105-b631-25b44d3145a4" CreationDate="2016-06-20T12:23:45.133" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1059" RevisionGUID="0204031a-4ddd-4ab9-b950-7277877d308d" CreationDate="2016-06-20T12:23:45.133" UserId="79" Text="When asking which choice (case, tense, mood etc.) is grammatical in a given situation, use this tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3563" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="675a646e-2c32-434c-b181-8dd27cb80efd" CreationDate="2016-06-20T12:39:45.093" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1060" RevisionGUID="60aa89f7-dd78-4c5b-bb0e-92c401f31e4b" CreationDate="2016-06-20T12:40:37.000" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="dd475399-bda7-4d33-8193-73c2b7e8db65" CreationDate="2016-06-20T12:40:37.000" UserId="79" Text="Use this tag when asking about a grammatical structure you cannot name and want explained." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3566" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="98" RevisionGUID="b1aadd6a-d44b-4f11-8ab3-be5484e02157" CreationDate="2016-06-20T12:45:06.033" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vulgata|numerals|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3567" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="95" RevisionGUID="60329828-5eee-46a2-85b9-375bbe4f73c3" CreationDate="2016-06-20T12:45:59.347" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3568" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="62" RevisionGUID="1588e663-10a1-4732-b9ec-94387082a422" CreationDate="2016-06-20T12:46:35.630" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|conjugation|deponent-verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1054" RevisionGUID="bb0ddb82-ad30-4a93-949a-2a81906ea52d" CreationDate="2016-06-20T13:33:50.643" UserId="563" Comment="added 413 characters in body" Text="I came up with *legio apsconditus defensorius patriae*, but it doesn't really suit my need (and is not quite correct). For certain project of mine it has to be acronymable to  &quot;PLDN&quot; (preferred) or &quot;PALDN&quot; or &quot;PLADN&quot;. It doesn't have to be four- or five-word name - if I can torture it so that I get what I need anything goes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Should put the following in answer at the beginning: the name should convey the meaning similar to &quot;Secret National Guard Regiment&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explanation (sort of): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Secret&quot; like in &quot;Black Ops Disavowed if exposed&quot;,&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;National Guard&quot; as in unit tasked with protecting the country&#xD;&#xA;   (understood as a legal entity, not linked to ethnicity whatsoever) &#xD;&#xA;   and not deployable outside borders,regiment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did some research but seems that I sort of can't order the words so that I get the P letter in front. Or can I?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1054" RevisionGUID="22d36514-33b7-476d-b813-98befe7349b1" CreationDate="2016-06-20T13:47:39.193" UserId="563" Comment="added 413 characters in body" Text="I came up with *legio apsconditus defensorius patriae*, but it doesn't really suit my need (and is not quite correct). For certain project of mine it has to be acronymable to  &quot;PLDN&quot; (preferred) or &quot;PALDN&quot; or &quot;PLADN&quot;. It doesn't have to be four- or five-word name - if I can torture it so that I get what I need anything goes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Should put the following in answer at the beginning: the name should convey the meaning similar to &quot;Secret National Guard Regiment&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explanation (sort of): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Secret&quot; like in &quot;Black Ops Disavowed if exposed&quot;,&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;National Guard&quot; as in &quot;unit tasked with protecting the country&#xD;&#xA;   (understood as a legal entity, not linked to ethnicity whatsoever) &#xD;&#xA;   and not deployable outside borders&quot;, hence &quot;defense&quot; part requirement,&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Regiment&quot; as in the best traditions of British Army: independent, self-sufficient etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weird, I know, but that what my project needs.&#xD;&#xA;Generally, I'm trying to come up with a name for modern military unit of brigade size. I would prefer having &quot;Legio&quot; in name, as it is a military unit and has it's structure with rank and functions. Which I think I may use in my project - the structure I mean (decurion, centurion, tribune etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did some research but seems that I sort of can't order the words so that I get the P letter in front. Or can I?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1054" RevisionGUID="8a174b3d-300c-4a02-889d-3d0b75324bfe" CreationDate="2016-06-20T14:02:18.830" UserId="563" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="I came up with *legio apsconditus defensorius patriae*, but it doesn't really suit my need (and is not quite correct). For certain project of mine it has to be acronymable to  &quot;PLDN&quot; (preferred) or &quot;PALDN&quot; or &quot;PLADN&quot;. It doesn't have to be four- or five-word name - if I can torture it so that I get what I need anything goes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Should put the following in answer at the beginning: the name should convey the meaning similar to &quot;Secret National Guard Regiment&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explanation (sort of): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Secret&quot; like in &quot;Black Ops Disavowed if exposed&quot;,&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;National Guard&quot; as in &quot;unit tasked with protecting the country&#xD;&#xA;   (understood as a legal entity, not linked to ethnicity whatsoever) &#xD;&#xA;   and not deployable outside borders&quot;, hence &quot;defense&quot; part requirement,&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Regiment&quot; as in the best traditions of British Army: independent, self-sufficient etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weird, I know, but that what my project needs. And I do understand the problems of matching the letter of the translation with the spirit of the original, so I may settle for cooler name if more precise will happen to be a mouthful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, I'm trying to come up with a name for modern military unit of brigade size. I would prefer having &quot;Legio&quot; in name, as it is a military unit and has it's structure with rank and functions. Which I think I may use in my project - the structure I mean (decurion, centurion, tribune etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did some research but seems that I sort of can't order the words so that I get the P letter in front. Or can I?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1055" RevisionGUID="e99a506e-05e2-42c2-aed1-763662b33bb8" CreationDate="2016-06-20T14:59:56.093" UserId="79" Comment="added 689 characters in body" Text="How about *praetorium laribus defendendis nostris*, or &quot;the body guard for defending our homes&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;The word order in Latin is quite free, so the key problem is to find the words you want to use.&#xD;&#xA;It would be more natural to put *nostris* before *defendendis*, but the version I propose is not wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some words that can be used to compile such a name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: *patria* (fatherland), *praetorium* (body guard), *praetorianus* (member of body guard), *pervigiliare* (to stay awake or on guard through the night)&#xD;&#xA;- **L**: *legio* (legion), *lar* (household god, home)&#xD;&#xA;- **D**: *defendere* (to defend, with many derived words), *dedicatus* (dedicated (to indicate the purpose of the unit))&#xD;&#xA;- **N**: *natio* (nation), *noster* (our)&#xD;&#xA;- **A**: *absconditus* or *abditus* (hidden, secret), *arcanus* (secret, mysterious)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These give rise to many options, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *praetorium laribus dedicatum nostrum*, &quot;our body guard dedicated to homes (=homeland)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *praetorianorum legio (arcana) defensiva nationalis*, &quot;national (secret) defensive legion of body guards&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does any of these sound good to you?&#xD;&#xA;Is there some word that you would like to see used but I didn't use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit** (in response to edits in the question):&#xD;&#xA;The praetorian guard also had some internal structure, but a legion has richer structure.&#xD;&#xA;For brigade size, *legio* sounds appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;The word *praetorium*, &quot;praetorian guard&quot;, can be understood to mean &quot;national defense guard&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If we go with *patria*, the tone is a bit different.&#xD;&#xA;If initial letters are constrained to PLDNA, then the word &quot;secret&quot; only fits A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With these constraints, I offer these options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *praetorianorum legio arcana defensoria nostra/nationalis*, &quot;our/national secret defensive praetorian legion&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *patriae legio arcana defensoria nostrae*, &quot;our fatherland's secret defensive legion&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1062" RevisionGUID="571df4e3-f885-4042-a008-bc521af44ee6" CreationDate="2016-06-21T11:04:36.470" UserId="79" Text="I want to understand a diploma text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;DIPLOMA&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;QVOD DEVS OPTIME VERTAT  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;EX LEGIBVS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;VNIVERSITATIS JYVÄSKYLÄENSIS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ATQVE EX DECRETO  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;FACVLTATIS (&amp;hellip;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I consider *Diploma* as a title and *Quod Deus optime vertat* a subtitle (not grammatically tied to following text), I can parse the sentence starting *ex legibus universitatis Jyväskyläensis atque ex decreto facultatis&amp;hellip;*: &quot;by the rules of the University of Jyväskylä and by the decision of the faculty&amp;hellip;&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The rest of the diploma makes sense as a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The real question is, **what does *quod Deus optime vertat* mean?**&#xD;&#xA;The reason for giving additional context is that it might somehow be part of the sentence that the rest of the diploma forms.&#xD;&#xA;I assume it is a separate &quot;slogan&quot;, but there is no punctuation whatsoever and the layout does not give clear syntactical clues.&#xD;&#xA;(If the second line is grammatically entirely separate from the third one, I will recommend to the university that a blank line be added in between for clarity.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best guess is that the second line means simply &quot;May God bring success&quot;, and a separate sentence starts at the beginning of the third line.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to be sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3575" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1062" RevisionGUID="571df4e3-f885-4042-a008-bc521af44ee6" CreationDate="2016-06-21T11:04:36.470" UserId="79" Text="Parsing &quot;quod deus optime vertat&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3576" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1062" RevisionGUID="571df4e3-f885-4042-a008-bc521af44ee6" CreationDate="2016-06-21T11:04:36.470" UserId="79" Text="|translation|contemporary-latin|phrase|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1062" RevisionGUID="dbde366e-6255-4800-ac5e-c3e972064d44" CreationDate="2016-06-21T11:28:09.047" UserId="79" Comment="added 779 characters in body" Text="I want to understand a diploma text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;DIPLOMA&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;QVOD DEVS OPTIME VERTAT  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;EX LEGIBVS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;VNIVERSITATIS JYVÄSKYLÄENSIS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ATQVE EX DECRETO  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;FACVLTATIS (&amp;hellip;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I consider *Diploma* as a title and *Quod Deus optime vertat* a subtitle (not grammatically tied to following text), I can parse the sentence starting *ex legibus universitatis Jyväskyläensis atque ex decreto facultatis&amp;hellip;*: &quot;by the rules of the University of Jyväskylä and by the decision of the faculty&amp;hellip;&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The rest of the diploma makes sense as a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The real question is, **what does *quod Deus optime vertat* mean?**&#xD;&#xA;The reason for giving additional context is that it might somehow be part of the sentence that the rest of the diploma forms.&#xD;&#xA;I assume it is a separate &quot;slogan&quot;, but there is no punctuation whatsoever and the layout does not give clear syntactical clues.&#xD;&#xA;(If the second line is grammatically entirely separate from the third one, I will recommend to the university that a blank line be added in between for clarity.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best guess is that the second line means simply &quot;May God bring success&quot;, and a separate sentence starts at the beginning of the third line.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the full text for a female graduating as a Master of Psychology (with the added empty row if my suspicion is correct):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;DIPLOMA&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;QVOD DEVS OPTIME VERTAT&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;EX LEGIBVS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;VNIVERSITATIS JYVÄSKYLÄENSIS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ATQVE EX DECRETO  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;AMPLISSIMAE RERVM CIVILIVM IN EA VNIVERSITATE FACVLTATIS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ABSOLVTO OMNI SPECIMINE LEGITIMO&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ARTIS PSYCHOLOGICAE MAGISTRA&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;CREATVR OMNIBVSQVE HVIVS DIGNITATIS IVRIBVS PRIVILEGIISQVE ORNATVR  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;IN VRBE JYVÄSKYLÄ  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;IDIBVS AVGVSTIS ANNO MMXVI  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;FEMINA PRAECLARISSIMA&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;lt;insert name of student&amp;gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ARTIS PSYCHOLOGICAE CANDIDATA  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;QVOD FACTVM  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;NOMINE MEO SVBSCRIPTO ET SIGILLO VNIVERSITATIS ADFIGO  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;EGO CONFIRMO  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;LEGITIME CONSTITVTVS PROMOTOR  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;lt;insert name of conferrer of degrees&amp;gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1062" RevisionGUID="32f5ec4c-7b0b-4f21-898a-2aeae3dfb51d" CreationDate="2016-06-21T11:39:30.320" UserId="79" Comment="added 779 characters in body" Text="I want to understand a diploma text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;DIPLOMA&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;QVOD DEVS OPTIME VERTAT  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;EX LEGIBVS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;VNIVERSITATIS JYVÄSKYLÄENSIS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ATQVE EX DECRETO  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;FACVLTATIS (&amp;hellip;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I consider *Diploma* as a title and *Quod Deus optime vertat* a subtitle (not grammatically tied to following text), I can parse the sentence starting *ex legibus universitatis Jyväskyläensis atque ex decreto facultatis&amp;hellip;*: &quot;by the rules of the University of Jyväskylä and by the decision of the faculty&amp;hellip;&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The rest of the diploma makes sense as a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The real question is, **what does *quod Deus optime vertat* mean?**&#xD;&#xA;The reason for giving additional context is that it might somehow be part of the sentence that the rest of the diploma forms.&#xD;&#xA;I assume it is a separate &quot;slogan&quot;, but there is no punctuation whatsoever and the layout does not give clear syntactical clues.&#xD;&#xA;(If the second line is grammatically entirely separate from the third one, I will recommend to the university that a blank line be added in between for clarity.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best guess is that the second line means simply &quot;May God bring success&quot;, and a separate sentence starts at the beginning of the third line.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the full text for a female graduating as a Master of Psychology (with the added empty row if my suspicion is correct).&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to skip; this is just additional background information for the curious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;DIPLOMA&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;QVOD DEVS OPTIME VERTAT&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;EX LEGIBVS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;VNIVERSITATIS JYVÄSKYLÄENSIS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ATQVE EX DECRETO  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;AMPLISSIMAE RERVM CIVILIVM IN EA VNIVERSITATE FACVLTATIS  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;ABSOLVTO OMNI SPECIMINE LEGITIMO&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ARTIS PSYCHOLOGICAE MAGISTRA&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;CREATVR OMNIBVSQVE HVIVS DIGNITATIS IVRIBVS PRIVILEGIISQVE ORNATVR  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;IN VRBE JYVÄSKYLÄ  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;IDIBVS AVGVSTIS ANNO MMXVI  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;FEMINA PRAECLARISSIMA&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;lt;insert name of student&amp;gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ARTIS PSYCHOLOGICAE CANDIDATA  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;QVOD FACTVM  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;NOMINE MEO SVBSCRIPTO ET SIGILLO VNIVERSITATIS ADFIGO  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;EGO CONFIRMO  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;LEGITIME CONSTITVTVS PROMOTOR  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;lt;insert name of conferrer of degrees&amp;gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quick English translation (as it seems to me) of the whole thing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Diploma&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;May God bring success&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;By the rules&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;of the University of Jyväskylä&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and by the decision  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;of the great faculty of social sciences  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;after the completion of all due exams&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the exceptional lady  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Bachelor of Psychology&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;lt;insert name of student&amp;gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;is promoted to&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Master of Psychology&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and is equipped with all rights, privileges and insignia of this status  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;in the city of Jyväskylä  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;on August 13, 2016&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;which I confirm by my signature and the seal of the university  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;as the legitimely appointed conferrer of degrees&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;lt;insert name of conferrer of degrees&amp;gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1063" RevisionGUID="6a9aa9b9-2890-472a-af57-e1cf121ace03" CreationDate="2016-06-21T16:20:40.280" UserId="68" Text="A Google search reveals several instances of *Quod Deus Optime Vertat* or simply *QDOV* in titles of things, but most of them seem similarly ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a [letter][1] written on September 21 of 1520 in Frankfurt contains the following paragraph (forgive me; I'm in a rush and can't take the time to figure out exactly who it's from or what the circumstances are, but when I return later I'll edit this answer to include that information).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Huc princeps noster pientissimus vere pater Romani imperii, nedum patriæ et suorum incolumis cum suis pervenit heri, mi eruditissime præceptor Mutiane, cras Deo adjutore hinc navali profectione soluturus Agrippinam. Quod Deus optime vertat. Salutavit Hessorum principem id magnis precibus petentem exultante omni Hessia et applaudente.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context, along with the other citations in titles, leads me to believe that your impulse is correct in believing that it's a separate saying or slogan: &quot;May God turn it [= whatever matter is under discussion] to the best.&quot; If this is so, then yes, there definitely ought to be a line separating it from *ex legibus*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aK0MAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA270&amp;lpg=RA1-PA270&amp;dq=%22quod%20deus%20optime%20vertat%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Td5uyqTVY4&amp;sig=Y1rtFzGzBicbrlLgJ9s5Psw_OaQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwib7PXIwLnNAhULMj4KHS_bCQsQ6AEIKzAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22quod%20deus%20optime%20vertat%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1063" RevisionGUID="5c5ae7b1-7acf-4f03-b4f7-0b5bc33bde4c" CreationDate="2016-06-21T16:59:13.600" UserId="68" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="A Google search reveals several instances of *Quod Deus Optime Vertat* or simply *QDOV* in titles of things, but most of them seem similarly ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a [letter][1] written on September 21 of 1520 in Frankfurt by Karl Gillert to Conrad Mutianus (as quoted in *Historical Sources of the Province of Saxony and Adjacent Areas*, volume 18, which seems to contain nothing but the correspondence between the two of them, which leads me to wonder to just how many volumes the series extends) contains the following paragraph (forgive me; I'm in a rush and can't take the time to figure out exactly who it's from or what the circumstances are, but when I return later I'll edit this answer to include that information).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Huc princeps noster pientissimus vere pater Romani imperii, nedum patriæ et suorum incolumis cum suis pervenit heri, mi eruditissime præceptor Mutiane, cras Deo adjutore hinc navali profectione soluturus Agrippinam. **Quod Deus optime vertat**. Salutavit Hessorum principem id magnis precibus petentem exultante omni Hessia et applaudente.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context, along with the other citations in titles, leads me to believe that your impulse is correct in believing that it's a separate saying or slogan: &quot;May God turn it [= whatever matter is under discussion] to the best.&quot; If this is so, then yes, there definitely ought to be a line separating it from *ex legibus*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aK0MAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA270&amp;lpg=RA1-PA270&amp;dq=%22quod%20deus%20optime%20vertat%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Td5uyqTVY4&amp;sig=Y1rtFzGzBicbrlLgJ9s5Psw_OaQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwib7PXIwLnNAhULMj4KHS_bCQsQ6AEIKzAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22quod%20deus%20optime%20vertat%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1064" RevisionGUID="9eb8a141-77b0-4268-909a-a4e53270efac" CreationDate="2016-06-22T07:58:30.443" UserId="568" Text="&gt; Nisi Dominus ædificaverit domum, laboraverunt in vanum qui ædificant eam.    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;I am pretty sure that classical Hebrew has no future perfect tense, so how did Jerome arrive at his decision to employ it, and other un-Hebraic tenses, as above in the Vulgate?    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;(I apologize in advance if my question is somewhat elementary; the last time I had instruction in Latin was during my undistinguished high school career in 1958.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3582" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1064" RevisionGUID="9eb8a141-77b0-4268-909a-a4e53270efac" CreationDate="2016-06-22T07:58:30.443" UserId="568" Text="How did Hieronymus select his tenses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3583" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1064" RevisionGUID="9eb8a141-77b0-4268-909a-a4e53270efac" CreationDate="2016-06-22T07:58:30.443" UserId="568" Text="|perfect-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1062" RevisionGUID="8332d686-6094-4ba4-a0f0-01834da0cd89" CreationDate="2016-06-22T07:59:15.223" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="I want to understand a diploma text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;DIPLOMA&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;QVOD DEVS OPTIME VERTAT  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;EX LEGIBVS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;VNIVERSITATIS JYVÄSKYLÄENSIS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ATQVE EX DECRETO  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;FACVLTATIS (&amp;hellip;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I consider *Diploma* as a title and *Quod Deus optime vertat* a subtitle (not grammatically tied to following text), I can parse the sentence starting *ex legibus universitatis Jyväskyläensis atque ex decreto facultatis&amp;hellip;*: &quot;by the rules of the University of Jyväskylä and by the decision of the faculty&amp;hellip;&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The rest of the diploma makes sense as a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The real question is, **what does *quod Deus optime vertat* mean?**&#xD;&#xA;The reason for giving additional context is that it might somehow be part of the sentence that the rest of the diploma forms.&#xD;&#xA;I assume it is a separate &quot;slogan&quot;, but there is no punctuation whatsoever and the layout does not give clear syntactical clues.&#xD;&#xA;(If the second line is grammatically entirely separate from the third one, I will recommend to the university that a blank line be added in between for clarity.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best guess is that the second line means simply &quot;May God bring success&quot;, and a separate sentence starts at the beginning of the third line.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the full text for a female graduating as a Master of Psychology (with the added empty row if my suspicion is correct).&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to skip; this is just additional background information for the curious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;DIPLOMA&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;QVOD DEVS OPTIME VERTAT&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;EX LEGIBVS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;VNIVERSITATIS JYVÄSKYLÄENSIS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ATQVE EX DECRETO  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;AMPLISSIMAE RERVM CIVILIVM IN EA VNIVERSITATE FACVLTATIS  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;ABSOLVTO OMNI SPECIMINE LEGITIMO&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ARTIS PSYCHOLOGICAE MAGISTRA&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;CREATVR OMNIBVSQVE HVIVS DIGNITATIS IVRIBVS PRIVILEGIISQVE ORNATVR  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;IN VRBE JYVÄSKYLÄ  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;IDIBVS AVGVSTIS ANNO MMXVI  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;FEMINA PRAECLARISSIMA&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;lt;insert name of student&amp;gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ARTIS PSYCHOLOGICAE CANDIDATA  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;QVOD FACTVM  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;NOMINE MEO SVBSCRIPTO ET SIGILLO VNIVERSITATIS ADFIXO  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;EGO CONFIRMO  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;LEGITIME CONSTITVTVS PROMOTOR  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;lt;insert name of conferrer of degrees&amp;gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quick English translation (as it seems to me) of the whole thing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Diploma&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;May God bring success&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;By the rules&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;of the University of Jyväskylä&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and by the decision  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;of the great faculty of social sciences  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;after the completion of all due exams&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the exceptional lady  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Bachelor of Psychology&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;lt;insert name of student&amp;gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;is promoted to&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Master of Psychology&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and is equipped with all rights, privileges and insignia of this status  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;in the city of Jyväskylä  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;on August 13, 2016&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;which I confirm by my signature and the seal of the university  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;as the legitimely appointed conferrer of degrees&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;lt;insert name of conferrer of degrees&amp;gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3585" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1062" RevisionGUID="8332d686-6094-4ba4-a0f0-01834da0cd89" CreationDate="2016-06-22T07:59:15.223" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Parsing &quot;quod Deus optime vertat&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3586" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1064" RevisionGUID="6921e8a4-69e7-4557-83b7-c22d0c7cdf80" CreationDate="2016-06-22T12:56:35.593" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Why did Hieronymus choose to use Latin tenses that don't exist in Hebrew when translating for the Vulgata?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3587" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1064" RevisionGUID="6921e8a4-69e7-4557-83b7-c22d0c7cdf80" CreationDate="2016-06-22T12:56:35.593" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|perfect-tense|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1065" RevisionGUID="7e4e7687-be9e-4a31-b1db-53dd8c8c6f6c" CreationDate="2016-06-22T15:14:09.410" UserId="68" Text="I have two thoughts about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the thing to keep in mind here is that different languages use different tenses differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, for example, I'd use the present tense followed by the future tense followed by the present tense to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you arrive tomorrow, I'll see you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In French, however, such a thing would make no sense. How can you use the present tense for something that's happening in the future? So I'd use two future tenses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Si tu arriveras demain, je te verrai. [&quot;If you'll arrive tomorrow, I'll see you.&quot; ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, which is often even more specific when it comes to things happening in the future I'd use a future perfect followed by a future, since for me to see you you have to have arrived already. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Si crás advéneris, té vidébó. [&quot;If you will have arrived tomorrow, I'll see you.&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin arrangement of tenses is correct in English, but it's not what we'd say. The French isn't even correct—you can't say &quot;if you'll arrive tomorrow.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that different languages can have different grammatical structures to communicate the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, I actually think that *ædificávérit* is a perfect subjunctive rather than a future perfect indicative. Perfect subjunctive followed by a perfect indicative in a conditional sentence is rare, but it's not unheard of ([Harkness 511, 512][1]). Mixed conditionals are often wonky to translate in Latin, but it's the difference between &quot;If the Lord doesn't build the house, they who built it labored in vain&quot; (future perfect indicative) and &quot;If the Lord didn't build the house, they who built it labored in vain&quot; (perfect subjunctive). To me the second makes more sense—the idea is that God has to do the building *with* them, not that, once they're finished building, God shows up and does the *real* building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, a third thing: welcome to the site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=n4sAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA235&amp;dq=harkness+latin+grammar+schools+colleges+mixed+forms&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiI9ILE9bvNAhVM2SYKHZ4sDoYQ6AEINjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=harkness%20latin%20grammar%20schools%20colleges%20mixed%20forms&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1064" RevisionGUID="53415b0e-f637-49ca-adec-a353ac6c6274" CreationDate="2016-06-22T17:43:41.767" UserId="568" Comment="added 407 characters in body" Text="&gt; Nisi Dominus ædificaverit domum, in vanum shivering qui ædificant eam. [psalm 126:1]    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;I am pretty sure that classical Hebrew has no future perfect tense, so how did Jerome arrive at his decision to employ it, and other un-Hebraic tenses, as above in the Vulgate?    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;(I apologize in advance if my question is somewhat elementary; the last time I had instruction in Latin was during my undistinguished high school career in 1958.)    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Addendum 2016·6·22    &#xD;&#xA;original text without introductory descriptive phrase:    &#xD;&#xA;אִם־יְהוָ֤ה׀ לֹא־יִבְנֶ֬ה בַ֗יִת שָׁ֤וְא׀ עָמְל֣וּ בוֹנָ֣יו בּ֑וֹ&#xD;&#xA;[psalm 127:1]    &#xD;&#xA;You will notice that the תנ&quot;ך numbers the cited passage as 127:1, whereas the Vulgate numbers it as 126:1. Is Jerome trying to drive me crazy or something?    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Thank you for the warmth of your welcome to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1064" RevisionGUID="d34566fd-71da-4e27-ae3b-6baa03fb1889" CreationDate="2016-06-22T17:48:05.070" UserId="568" Comment="added 410 characters in body" Text="&gt; Nisi Dominus ædificaverit domum, in vanum laboraverunt qui ædificant eam. [psalm 126:1]    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;I am pretty sure that classical Hebrew has no future perfect tense, so how did Jerome arrive at his decision to employ it, and other un-Hebraic tenses, as above in the Vulgate?    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;(I apologize in advance if my question is somewhat elementary; the last time I had instruction in Latin was during my undistinguished high school career in 1958.)    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Addendum 2016·6·22    &#xD;&#xA;original text without introductory descriptive phrase:    &#xD;&#xA;אִם־יְהוָ֤ה׀ לֹא־יִבְנֶ֬ה בַ֗יִת שָׁ֤וְא׀ עָמְל֣וּ בוֹנָ֣יו בּ֑וֹ&#xD;&#xA;[psalm 127:1]    &#xD;&#xA;You will notice that the תנ&quot;ך numbers the cited passage as 127:1, whereas the Vulgate numbers it as 126:1. Is Jerome trying to drive me crazy or something?    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Thank you for the warmth of your welcome to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1066" RevisionGUID="fce4b8c2-66b6-45c0-91a4-987bdf63fb55" CreationDate="2016-06-22T19:13:49.710" UserId="570" Text="If you've read the V for Vendetta comics you may remember the quote *&quot;Vi veri vniversum vivus vici&quot;*, which is supposed to mean *&quot;By the power of truth, I, a mortal [/ while living], have conquered the universe&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am told this is at best a partially forced interpretation. Thus, I'd like to ask what the more natural translation of the sentence would be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3592" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1066" RevisionGUID="fce4b8c2-66b6-45c0-91a4-987bdf63fb55" CreationDate="2016-06-22T19:13:49.710" UserId="570" Text="A correct latin translation of &quot;By the power of truth, I, a mortal, have conquered the universe&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3593" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1066" RevisionGUID="fce4b8c2-66b6-45c0-91a4-987bdf63fb55" CreationDate="2016-06-22T19:13:49.710" UserId="570" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1067" RevisionGUID="5cb8d433-9cfb-4aa9-b870-04b283f2b5e3" CreationDate="2016-06-22T19:13:57.567" UserId="79" Text="The verb *auxiliari* is used with dative to indicate the entity that benefits from the help.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *tibi auxilior* means &quot;I help you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Can use an accusative object to express how the help is given?&#xD;&#xA;For example, can I say *hoc tibi auxilior* to say &quot;I help you by/in doing this&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;If such an object is possible, what exactly does it mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen constructions like this, but they are somewhat rare, and I do not recall seeing *auxiliari* used this way.&#xD;&#xA;To give a concrete example, *minari* can take an accusative object to indicate the content of the threat.&#xD;&#xA;I previously explained in an answer to [another question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/130/79) that *hoc tibi minor* means &quot;I threaten you with this&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how broadly accusative can be used in this fashion, whence the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3595" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1067" RevisionGUID="5cb8d433-9cfb-4aa9-b870-04b283f2b5e3" CreationDate="2016-06-22T19:13:57.567" UserId="79" Text="Can the verb auxiliari take an accusative object?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3596" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1067" RevisionGUID="5cb8d433-9cfb-4aa9-b870-04b283f2b5e3" CreationDate="2016-06-22T19:13:57.567" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|verbs|grammar-choice|object|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1068" RevisionGUID="1df11e16-7413-439c-bcf1-082f9de2a0b9" CreationDate="2016-06-22T19:41:42.843" UserId="79" Text="The translation you offer is a good one.&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted, however, that translating short slogans correctly without context is often difficult or impossible.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes there is room for wildly different interpretations, but this one seems pretty clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation doesn't seem unnatural, but since it is out of context, the meaning may differ from the writer's intentions.&#xD;&#xA;I would not call the translation &quot;forced&quot; without better knowledge of original context.&#xD;&#xA;And even if there was a different original context, it does not rule our using the same phrase in a new context to mean something different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me break down the sentence word by word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ***vi***, &quot;by the power&quot;. This is an instrumental ablative of the word &quot;force&quot; or &quot;power&quot; which unfortunately has no nominative (uninflected) form at all.&#xD;&#xA;- ***veri***, &quot;of the truth&quot;. This is a genitive of the word *verum*, &quot;the truth&quot;. This could also be the adjective &quot;true&quot;, but it does not seem to refer to any word within the phrase. A less ambiguous word for truth would have been *veritas*, or *veritatis* in genitive.&#xD;&#xA;- ***universum***, &quot;the universe&quot;. This appears to be the accusative object. Spelling the vowel 'u' with 'v' is not uncommon in Latin, and there are different views on choosing between the two letters.&#xD;&#xA;- ***vivus***, &quot;alive&quot;. This is an appositive attribute to the implied subject *ego*, &quot;I&quot;. This Latin structure does not have a clear English counterpart, so you have to translate it in a way that best fits the context. (In Finnish this is quite well captured by the essive case.) Something like &quot;I, (while / due to / despite) being alive, &amp;hellip;&quot; is a bit heavy, so &quot;I, mortal&quot; sounds just right.&#xD;&#xA;- ***vici***, &quot;I won&quot; or &quot;I conquered&quot;. This could also come from the word *vicus*, &quot;village&quot;, but it makes most sense as a form of the verb *vincere*. This interpretation might change if the phrase was part of a longer one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word order of Latin is relatively free, and the one in this phrase feels natural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1068" RevisionGUID="20412377-bbf4-46d5-9a0e-32f9f9b740d0" CreationDate="2016-06-22T19:53:26.477" UserId="79" Comment="added 319 characters in body" Text="The translation you offer is a good one.&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted, however, that translating short slogans correctly without context is often difficult or impossible.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes there is room for wildly different interpretations, but this one seems pretty clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation doesn't seem unnatural, but since it is out of context, the meaning may differ from the writer's intentions.&#xD;&#xA;I would not call the translation &quot;forced&quot; without better knowledge of original context.&#xD;&#xA;And even if there was a different original context, it does not rule our using the same phrase in a new context to mean something different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me break down the sentence word by word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ***vi***, &quot;by the power&quot;. This is an instrumental ablative of the word &quot;force&quot; or &quot;power&quot; which unfortunately has no nominative (uninflected) form at all.&#xD;&#xA;- ***veri***, &quot;of the truth&quot;. This is a genitive of the word *verum*, &quot;the truth&quot;. This could also be the adjective &quot;true&quot;, but it does not seem to refer to any word within the phrase. A less ambiguous word for truth would have been *veritas*, or *veritatis* in genitive.&#xD;&#xA;- ***universum***, &quot;the universe&quot;. This appears to be the accusative object. Spelling the vowel 'u' with 'v' is not uncommon in Latin, and there are different views on choosing between the two letters.&#xD;&#xA;- ***vivus***, &quot;alive&quot;. This is an appositive attribute to the implied subject *ego*, &quot;I&quot;. This Latin structure does not have a clear English counterpart, so you have to translate it in a way that best fits the context. (In Finnish this is quite well captured by the essive case.) Something like &quot;I, (while / due to / despite) being alive, &amp;hellip;&quot; is a bit heavy, so &quot;I, mortal&quot; sounds just right.&#xD;&#xA;- ***vici***, &quot;I won&quot; or &quot;I conquered&quot;. This could also come from the word *vicus*, &quot;village&quot;, but it makes most sense as a form of the verb *vincere*. This interpretation might change if the phrase was part of a longer one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word order of Latin is relatively free, and the one in this phrase feels natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation is of course slightly forced into having every word start with a 'v', but I guess that the whole phrase was coined so as to facilitate these initials.&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, I cannot suggest a significantly more natural Latin translation of your phrase.&#xD;&#xA;I would replace *veri* with *veritatis*, that's all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3599" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="50" RevisionGUID="f0263d86-07c6-48f9-849e-62bed2a0a250" CreationDate="2016-06-22T21:45:29.067" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="3600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="947" RevisionGUID="3c936182-f61d-432a-8b1d-da64853b7f82" CreationDate="2016-06-23T14:47:29.807" UserId="12" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Some students of mine are creating a school publication featuring student work, and the proposed subtitle of their publication is:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Scholaris Opus, Scholaris Vox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intended meaning is &quot;student work, student voice&quot; or &quot;scholar&quot; in place of &quot;student.&quot;  The content of the publication will be be broad and include essays, poetry, mathematics, science, photography, and visual art.  Online dictionaries seem to translate it to the intended meaning, but I just wanted to make sure the Latin is correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3601" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="947" RevisionGUID="3c936182-f61d-432a-8b1d-da64853b7f82" CreationDate="2016-06-23T14:47:29.807" UserId="12" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3602" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="51" RevisionGUID="fe5043f5-44c5-4f87-8406-1bc009529831" CreationDate="2016-06-23T14:49:19.707" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|poetry|elision|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3603" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="62" RevisionGUID="21cdd234-463c-4c80-9650-42bac21b1f99" CreationDate="2016-06-23T19:22:05.143" UserId="79" Comment="8" />
  <row Id="3604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1068" RevisionGUID="978709fe-3a27-4e69-a9c3-0392ef2d1fbf" CreationDate="2016-06-24T02:51:04.947" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="The translation you offer is a good one.&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted, however, that translating short slogans correctly without context is often difficult or impossible.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes there is room for wildly different interpretations, but this one seems pretty clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation doesn't seem unnatural, but since it is out of context, the meaning may differ from the writer's intentions.&#xD;&#xA;I would not call the translation &quot;forced&quot; without better knowledge of original context.&#xD;&#xA;And even if there was a different original context, it does not rule out using the same phrase in a new context to mean something different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me break down the sentence word by word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ***vi***, &quot;by the power&quot;. This is an instrumental ablative of the word &quot;force&quot; or &quot;power&quot; which unfortunately has no nominative (uninflected) form at all.&#xD;&#xA;- ***veri***, &quot;of the truth&quot;. This is a genitive of the word *verum*, &quot;the truth&quot;. This could also be the adjective &quot;true&quot;, but it does not seem to refer to any word within the phrase. A less ambiguous word for truth would have been *veritas*, or *veritatis* in genitive.&#xD;&#xA;- ***universum***, &quot;the universe&quot;. This appears to be the accusative object. Spelling the vowel 'u' with 'v' is not uncommon in Latin, and there are different views on choosing between the two letters.&#xD;&#xA;- ***vivus***, &quot;alive&quot;. This is an appositive attribute to the implied subject *ego*, &quot;I&quot;. This Latin structure does not have a clear English counterpart, so you have to translate it in a way that best fits the context. (In Finnish this is quite well captured by the essive case.) Something like &quot;I, (while / due to / despite) being alive, &amp;hellip;&quot; is a bit heavy, so &quot;I, mortal&quot; sounds just right.&#xD;&#xA;- ***vici***, &quot;I won&quot; or &quot;I conquered&quot;. This could also come from the word *vicus*, &quot;village&quot;, but it makes most sense as a form of the verb *vincere*. This interpretation might change if the phrase was part of a longer one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word order of Latin is relatively free, and the one in this phrase feels natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation is of course slightly forced into having every word start with a 'v', but I guess that the whole phrase was coined so as to facilitate these initials.&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, I cannot suggest a significantly more natural Latin translation of your phrase.&#xD;&#xA;I would replace *veri* with *veritatis*, that's all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1069" RevisionGUID="c0bf6dc5-0410-40e5-aa44-52f98d8b6f67" CreationDate="2016-06-24T07:23:58.800" UserId="556" Text="Cassell's &quot;Latin Dictionary&quot; specifies `auxilior` can be used, as you said, with the dative, or in a construction with `contra` plus the accusative.  However, that's not really `auxilior` taking the accusative itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The construction you suggest as &quot;I help you by/in doing this&quot; sounds like it would be ablative of means by which, not accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short answer, I'd say, is that it cannot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1070" RevisionGUID="e139cc78-8560-4d9b-bac1-5ef6a3e0ca9a" CreationDate="2016-06-24T07:36:14.807" UserId="235" Text="I finished re-reading the myth of Niobe and Latona, and it made me wonder, how did the Romans pronounce the name Niobe? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it the same way we North American English speakers would pronounce it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;nigh - **oh** - bee?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or would you pronounce it following normal rules? (Probably butchering this...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;nih - ah - **bay**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3607" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1070" RevisionGUID="e139cc78-8560-4d9b-bac1-5ef6a3e0ca9a" CreationDate="2016-06-24T07:36:14.807" UserId="235" Text="How did the Romans pronounce Niobe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3608" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1070" RevisionGUID="e139cc78-8560-4d9b-bac1-5ef6a3e0ca9a" CreationDate="2016-06-24T07:36:14.807" UserId="235" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1071" RevisionGUID="0e9e3eee-cd8d-4f03-8338-66e3626bf778" CreationDate="2016-06-24T19:02:11.267" UserId="68" Text="According to Lewis &amp; Short, the only long vowel in the word is the final *e*: *Niobē*. The rule of Latin stress is that if the penultimate (next-to-last) syllable of a word is short, then the antepenultimate (next-to-next-to-last) syllable receives the stress. Note that Latin long vowels were pronounced for about twice as long as short vowels. So in fact in Latin it was probably pronounced&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NEE**-oh-bay&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the *bay* being held for twice as long as the other two syllables. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there were long stretches of Roman history where all educated people spoke Greek, and in fact many periods in which Greek was the *preferred* language of communication, Latin being seen as barbaric. And ancient Greek pronunciation followed a very different set of rules: it didn't have syllable stress at all, and was organized instead by *pitch*. In Greek the word is spelled *Νιόβη*, which means that it would probably have been pronounced as if the speaker were imitating the sound of a fire engine going down the street:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;nee (low pitch) - oh (high pitch) - bay (low pitch)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, the last syllable was held twice as long as the other two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think you can take your pick, but ultimately the answer is that the Romans were almost certain not to have pronounced the word like we do in North America!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1072" RevisionGUID="7f90ecc6-d6f8-4cad-a61a-1708ab5a8d83" CreationDate="2016-06-25T00:00:52.973" UserId="9" Text="It's fairly certain that it was not pronounced as it is in modern English (aside from the consonants, which I won't discuss further in this answer).&#xD;&#xA; Please don't misinterpret this to mean that the English pronunciation is &quot;wrong&quot;—it's perfectly correct, *in English.* It's just different from the Latin pronunciation, just as the acceptable English pronunciations of the word *status* are different from the pronunciation we think was used for this word by the Romans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, the forms *Nĭŏba* and *Nĭŏbē* were both used according to Lewis and Short as accessed through [Perseus][1].&#xD;&#xA;The broadest phonemic transcription for the pronunciation of *Nĭŏbē*  would be /ˈniobeː/. The stress would have been on the first syllable, due to the [normal Latin rules for assigning stress][2]. Latin was not pronounced with the exact same sounds as English, so any attempt to write this out using English sounds can only be approximate. That is why I am using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). If you are not familiar with it, here is a chart showing some of the vowel sounds in IPA and their relative positions, with audio files representing the general sound that each symbol is used to represent: [IPA Chart With Sounds][3]. You can see that the IPA is more systematic and includes more vowels than the English sound system, so even though it is also an approximation, it allows us to be a bit more precise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonemic vs. phonetic transcription&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I said earlier that the transcription /ˈniobeː/ I gave was &quot;broad&quot; and &quot;phonemic.&quot; This means that it only has the essential details needed to distinguish the sounds from other sounds used in Latin. It does not describe the details that are not contrastive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Classical Latin, some of these non-contrastive details were related to vowel &quot;quality,&quot; or the position of vowels in the mouth. Latin basically started out with only 5 distinct vowel qualities (the familiar /a e i o u/); the main  distinction between short and long vowels was vowel &quot;quantity,&quot;  whether a vowel was phonetically long or short. But over the course of Classical Latin, most pairs of vowels with distinct quantities began to evolve to also have distinct qualities, and phonetic length distinctions were eventually lost entirely in Vulgar Latin, the ancestor of the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to try to explain the quality of some vowels in Classical Latin; to do this, I'll use two types of IPA transcriptions. Broad transcriptions, such as /ˈniobeː/, are enclosed by square slashes, and don't include any information about non-phonemic details of vowel quality. For narrow transcriptions that do describe vowel quality in detail, I'll use square brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation of ŏ: [ɔ]&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin short ŏ phoneme (IPA /o/) seems to be fairly widely agreed to have been pronounced with the phonetic vowel quality [ɔ], both in the Classical period and in Vulgar Latin. If you want approximations for this sound in English: for a British English speaker, it's similar to the vowel used in the word *lot.* For an American English speaker, it's similar to the vowel used in the word *more,* but with the &quot;r&quot; removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation of the other two vowels is more complicated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation of ĭ: [i] &gt; [ɪ] (&gt; Vulgar Latin [e])&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, it seems likely that the Latin short ĭ phoneme (IPA /i/) was pronounced with the same vowel quality as long ī /iː/. The most likely phonetic value for short ĭ at this point would be IPA [i] (about the same as the English vowel in *bee,* but distinctively short). However, by the time Latin split into the Romance languages, this vowel is believed to have lowered to [e] (approximately the vowel in French *clé,* which often sounds to English speakers like our diphthong /eɪ/ as in &quot;clay&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In between these two stages, it's likely the vowel passed through an intermediate quality transcribed [ɪ], which is approximately the same sound as in English &quot;bit.&quot; There doesn't seem to be total consensus about whether short ĭ was pronounced [i] or [ɪ] in early Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Vox Latina][4],* W. Sidney Allen recommends that English speakers (specifically, speakers of &quot;Received Pronunciation&quot;) use the vowel in *pit* for Latin short ĭ, and says that they &quot;had much the same value&quot; (p. 49). So, this is certainly acceptable, and would not qualify as a &quot;butchering.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, though, I find it awkward to try to use this value before another vowel or word-finally. In Received Pronunciation, /ɪ/ can occur in these positions (in words such as &quot;bar**y**on&quot; /ˈbærɪɒn/  and &quot;happ**y**&quot; /ˈhæpɪ/) but in my accent of English, these words use /i/ instead. So I just use [i] in these contexts when pronouncing a word in Latin (but I still try to maintain a distinction in phonetic length). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Andrea Calabrese's paper [*On the Evolution of the Short High Vowels of Latin into Romance*][5], short ĭ was still [i] in early urban Classical Latin (around the time of Cicero) and quality distinctions between long and short versions of the same vowel only became established around the first century A.D. (p. 73). So I think [i] (a short version of the vowel sound in English *bee*) is also defensible as an approximation of the early Classical Latin pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation of ē: [ɛː]? &gt; [eː] (&gt; Vulgar Latin [e])&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, it seems likely that long ē /eː/ was pronounced with the same vowel quality as short ĕ /e/. Calabrese argues that it's most likely that the phonetic value of long ē at this early stage was [ɛː] (about the same as the English vowel in &quot;bed,&quot; but distinctively long).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But long ē eventually developed a distinct vowel quality from short ĕ; we have evidence that this had occurred already in Late Classical Latin (and possibly earlier). The quality of long ē was &quot;raised&quot; closer to an i-like sound, resulting in [eː].  You'll notice that this is the same vowel quality as the one I described earlier for short ĭ; in fact, Latin short ĭ and long ē generally evolved to the same vowel in Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's Allen's description of this sound:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Long *ē* and *ō* present rather greater difficulty for R.P.* speakers,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; since this dialect contains nothing really similar; the nearest are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the sounds of e.g. *bait* and *boat*-but these are very distinctly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diphthongs, [ei] and [ou] respectively, which the Latin vowels were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not. (p. 50)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DN%3Aentry%20group%3D14%3Aentry%3DNioba&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/languages/classical/latin/tchmat/grammar/g-accnt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.internationalphoneticalphabet.org/ipa-sounds/ipa-chart-with-sounds/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ganino.com/files/Latin%20Copyright%20Books/29%20Vox%20Latina%20The%20Pronunciation%20of%20Classical%20Latin.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=o9wpGIF0JWcC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA63&amp;dq=%22Latin%22%20vowel%20quality%20e%20o%20advanced%20tongue%20root&amp;ots=ND1tWjhtE5&amp;sig=SwcVUHalU_QmM6ZMBER2nw7Fzxg#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1072" RevisionGUID="16e8c17c-84dc-495d-a228-6c1dbf35535d" CreationDate="2016-06-25T00:06:42.303" UserId="9" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="It's fairly certain that it was not pronounced as it is in modern English (aside from the consonants, which I won't discuss further in this answer).&#xD;&#xA; Please don't misinterpret this to mean that the English pronunciation is &quot;wrong&quot;—it's perfectly correct, *in English.* It's just different from the Latin pronunciation, just as the acceptable English pronunciations of the word *status* are different from the pronunciation we think was used for this word by the Romans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, the forms *Nĭŏba* and *Nĭŏbē* were both used according to Lewis and Short as accessed through [Perseus][1].&#xD;&#xA;The broadest phonemic transcription for the pronunciation of *Nĭŏbē*  would be /ˈniobeː/. The stress would have been on the first syllable, due to the [normal Latin rules for assigning stress][2]. Latin was not pronounced with the exact same sounds as English, so any attempt to write this out using English sounds can only be approximate. That is why I am using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). If you are not familiar with it, here is a chart showing some of the vowel sounds in IPA and their relative positions, with audio files representing the general sound that each symbol is used to represent: [IPA Chart With Sounds][3]. You can see that the IPA is more systematic and includes more vowels than the English sound system, so even though it is also an approximation, it allows us to be a bit more precise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonemic vs. phonetic transcription&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I said earlier that the transcription /ˈniobeː/ I gave was &quot;broad&quot; and &quot;phonemic.&quot; This means that it only has the essential details needed to distinguish the sounds from other sounds used in Latin. It does not describe the details that are not contrastive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Classical Latin, some of these non-contrastive details were related to vowel &quot;quality,&quot; or the position of vowels in the mouth. Latin basically started out with only 5 distinct vowel qualities (the familiar /a e i o u/); the main  distinction between short and long vowels was vowel &quot;quantity,&quot;  whether a vowel was phonetically long or short. But over the course of Classical Latin, most pairs of vowels with distinct quantities began to evolve to also have distinct qualities, and phonetic length distinctions were eventually lost entirely in Vulgar Latin, the ancestor of the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to try to explain the quality of some vowels in Classical Latin; to do this, I'll use two types of IPA transcriptions. Broad transcriptions, such as /ˈniobeː/, are enclosed by square slashes, and don't include any information about non-phonemic details of vowel quality. For narrow transcriptions that do describe vowel quality in detail, I'll use square brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation of ŏ: [ɔ]&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin short ŏ phoneme (IPA /o/) seems to be fairly widely agreed to have been pronounced with the phonetic vowel quality [ɔ], both in the Classical period and in Vulgar Latin. If you want approximations for this sound in English: for a British English speaker, it's similar to the vowel used in the word *lot.* For an American English speaker, it's similar to the vowel used in the word *more,* but with the &quot;r&quot; removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation of the other two vowels is more complicated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation of ĭ: [i] &gt; [ɪ] (&gt; Vulgar Latin [e])&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, it seems likely that the Latin short ĭ phoneme (IPA /i/) was pronounced with the same vowel quality as long ī /iː/. The most likely phonetic value for short ĭ at this point would be IPA [i] (about the same as the English vowel in *bee,* but distinctively short). However, by the time Latin split into the Romance languages, this vowel is believed to have lowered to [e] (approximately the vowel in French *clé,* which often sounds to English speakers like our diphthong /eɪ/ as in &quot;clay&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In between these two stages, it's likely the vowel passed through an intermediate quality transcribed [ɪ], which is approximately the same sound as in English &quot;bit.&quot; There doesn't seem to be total consensus about whether short ĭ was pronounced [i] or [ɪ] in early Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Vox Latina][4],* W. Sidney Allen recommends that English speakers (specifically, speakers of &quot;Received Pronunciation&quot;) use the vowel in *pit* for Latin short ĭ, and says that they &quot;had much the same value&quot; (p. 49). So, this is certainly acceptable, and would not qualify as a &quot;butchering.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, though, I find it awkward to try to use this vowel quality before another vowel or word-finally. In Received Pronunciation, /ɪ/ can occur in these positions, at least in unstressed syllables (in words such as &quot;bar**y**on&quot; /ˈbærɪɒn/  and &quot;happ**y**&quot; /ˈhæpɪ/) but in my accent of English, these words use /i/ instead. So I just use [i] in these contexts when pronouncing a word in Latin (but I still try to maintain a distinction in phonetic length). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Andrea Calabrese's paper [*On the Evolution of the Short High Vowels of Latin into Romance*][5], short ĭ was still [i] in early urban Classical Latin (around the time of Cicero) and quality distinctions between long and short versions of the same vowel only became established around the first century A.D. (p. 73). So I think [i] (a short version of the vowel sound in English *bee*) is also defensible as an approximation of the early Classical Latin pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation of ē: [ɛː]? &gt; [eː] (&gt; Vulgar Latin [e])&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, it seems likely that long ē /eː/ was pronounced with the same vowel quality as short ĕ /e/. Calabrese argues that it's most likely that the phonetic value of long ē at this early stage was [ɛː] (about the same as the English vowel in &quot;bed,&quot; but distinctively long).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But long ē eventually developed a distinct vowel quality from short ĕ; we have evidence that this had occurred already in Late Classical Latin (and possibly earlier). The quality of long ē was &quot;raised&quot; closer to an i-like sound, resulting in [eː].  You'll notice that this is the same vowel quality as the one I described earlier for short ĭ; in fact, Latin short ĭ and long ē generally evolved to the same vowel in Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's Allen's description of this sound:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Long *ē* and *ō* present rather greater difficulty for R.P.* speakers,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; since this dialect contains nothing really similar; the nearest are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the sounds of e.g. *bait* and *boat*-but these are very distinctly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diphthongs, [ei] and [ou] respectively, which the Latin vowels were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not. (p. 50)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DN%3Aentry%20group%3D14%3Aentry%3DNioba&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/languages/classical/latin/tchmat/grammar/g-accnt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.internationalphoneticalphabet.org/ipa-sounds/ipa-chart-with-sounds/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ganino.com/files/Latin%20Copyright%20Books/29%20Vox%20Latina%20The%20Pronunciation%20of%20Classical%20Latin.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=o9wpGIF0JWcC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA63&amp;dq=%22Latin%22%20vowel%20quality%20e%20o%20advanced%20tongue%20root&amp;ots=ND1tWjhtE5&amp;sig=SwcVUHalU_QmM6ZMBER2nw7Fzxg#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1072" RevisionGUID="fde9d3de-15f3-45ae-b233-8c8d872fa4d2" CreationDate="2016-06-25T00:15:25.507" UserId="9" Comment="added relevant Allen quote" Text="It's fairly certain that it was not pronounced as it is in modern English (aside from the consonants, which I won't discuss further in this answer).&#xD;&#xA; Please don't misinterpret this to mean that the English pronunciation is &quot;wrong&quot;—it's perfectly correct, *in English.* It's just different from the Latin pronunciation, just as the acceptable English pronunciations of the word *status* are different from the pronunciation we think was used for this word by the Romans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, the forms *Nĭŏba* and *Nĭŏbē* were both used according to Lewis and Short as accessed through [Perseus][1].&#xD;&#xA;The broadest phonemic transcription for the pronunciation of *Nĭŏbē*  would be /ˈniobeː/. The stress would have been on the first syllable, due to the [normal Latin rules for assigning stress][2]. Latin was not pronounced with the exact same sounds as English, so any attempt to write this out using English sounds can only be approximate. That is why I am using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). If you are not familiar with it, here is a chart showing some of the vowel sounds in IPA and their relative positions, with audio files representing the general sound that each symbol is used to represent: [IPA Chart With Sounds][3]. You can see that the IPA is more systematic and includes more vowels than the English sound system, so even though it is also an approximation, it allows us to be a bit more precise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonemic vs. phonetic transcription&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I said earlier that the transcription /ˈniobeː/ I gave was &quot;broad&quot; and &quot;phonemic.&quot; This means that it only has the essential details needed to distinguish the sounds from other sounds used in Latin. It does not describe the details that are not contrastive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Classical Latin, some of these non-contrastive details were related to vowel &quot;quality,&quot; or the position of vowels in the mouth. Latin basically started out with only 5 distinct vowel qualities (the familiar /a e i o u/); the main  distinction between short and long vowels was vowel &quot;quantity,&quot;  whether a vowel was phonetically long or short. But over the course of Classical Latin, most pairs of vowels with distinct quantities began to evolve to also have distinct qualities, and phonetic length distinctions were eventually lost entirely in Vulgar Latin, the ancestor of the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to try to explain the quality of some vowels in Classical Latin; to do this, I'll use two types of IPA transcriptions. Broad transcriptions, such as /ˈniobeː/, are enclosed by square slashes, and don't include any information about non-phonemic details of vowel quality. For narrow transcriptions that do describe vowel quality in detail, I'll use square brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation of ŏ: [ɔ]&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin short ŏ phoneme (IPA /o/) seems to be fairly widely agreed to have been pronounced with the phonetic vowel quality [ɔ], both in the Classical period and in Vulgar Latin. If you want approximations for this sound in English: for a British English speaker, it's similar to the vowel used in the word *lot.* For an American English speaker, it's similar to the vowel used in the word *more,* but with the &quot;r&quot; removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation of the other two vowels is more complicated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation of ĭ: [i] &gt; [ɪ] (&gt; Vulgar Latin [e])&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, it seems likely that the Latin short ĭ phoneme (IPA /i/) was pronounced with the same vowel quality as long ī /iː/. The most likely phonetic value for short ĭ at this point would be IPA [i] (about the same as the English vowel in *bee,* but distinctively short). However, by the time Latin split into the Romance languages, this vowel is believed to have lowered to [e] (approximately the vowel in French *clé,* which often sounds to English speakers like our diphthong /eɪ/ as in &quot;clay&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In between these two stages, it's likely the vowel passed through an intermediate quality transcribed [ɪ], which is approximately the same sound as in English &quot;bit.&quot; There doesn't seem to be total consensus about whether short ĭ was pronounced [i] or [ɪ] in early Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Vox Latina][4],* W. Sidney Allen recommends that English speakers (specifically, speakers of &quot;Received Pronunciation&quot;) use the vowel in *pit* for Latin short ĭ, and says that they &quot;had much the same value&quot; (p. 49). So, this is certainly acceptable, and would not qualify as a &quot;butchering.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, though, I find it awkward to try to use this vowel quality before another vowel or word-finally. In Received Pronunciation, /ɪ/ can occur in these positions, at least in unstressed syllables (in words such as &quot;bar**y**on&quot; /ˈbærɪɒn/  and &quot;happ**y**&quot; /ˈhæpɪ/) but in my accent of English, these words use /i/ instead. So I just use [i] in these contexts when pronouncing a word in Latin (but I still try to maintain a distinction in phonetic length). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen seems to suggest that using a more [i]-like quality before vowels was actually a feature of Roman pronunciation in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latin short *i* [...] may well have had a closer quality (more like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that of the long *ī*) before vowels, to judge from the Romance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; developments of Latin *dies* (Italian/Old French *di,* as *chi/qui* from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui); this is indicated also by the fact that i is scarcely ever&#xD;&#xA;&gt; written as *e* in this position (cf. p. 49), and is indeed often written&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with the *I* longa (e.g. `prIusquam, dIes, pIus`). There is a close&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parallel to this situation in English, where the first vowel of e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *react* is closer than that of *recall,* being more similar in quality to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the long *ī*; English speakers of Latin will therefore also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; automatically make this adjustment. These closer pre-vocalic qualities&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of *e* and *i* are probably due to the *y*-' glide' which automatically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; follows them in these conditions—and which the English speaker will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; automatically produce. (p. 51-52)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, according to Andrea Calabrese's paper [*On the Evolution of the Short High Vowels of Latin into Romance*][5], short ĭ in any environment was still [i] in early urban Classical Latin (around the time of Cicero) and quality distinctions between long and short versions of the same vowel only became established around the first century A.D. (p. 73). So I think [i] (a short version of the vowel sound in English *bee*) is defensible in general for short ĭ as an approximation of the early Classical Latin pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation of ē: [ɛː]? &gt; [eː] (&gt; Vulgar Latin [e])&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, it seems likely that long ē /eː/ was pronounced with the same vowel quality as short ĕ /e/. Calabrese argues that it's most likely that the phonetic value of long ē at this early stage was [ɛː] (about the same as the English vowel in &quot;bed,&quot; but distinctively long).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But long ē eventually developed a distinct vowel quality from short ĕ; we have evidence that this had occurred already in Late Classical Latin (and possibly earlier). The quality of long ē was &quot;raised&quot; closer to an i-like sound, resulting in [eː].  You'll notice that this is the same vowel quality as the one I described earlier for short ĭ; in fact, Latin short ĭ and long ē generally evolved to the same vowel in Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's Allen's description of this sound:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Long *ē* and *ō* present rather greater difficulty for R.P.* speakers,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; since this dialect contains nothing really similar; the nearest are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the sounds of e.g. *bait* and *boat*-but these are very distinctly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diphthongs, [ei] and [ou] respectively, which the Latin vowels were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not. (p. 50)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DN%3Aentry%20group%3D14%3Aentry%3DNioba&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/languages/classical/latin/tchmat/grammar/g-accnt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.internationalphoneticalphabet.org/ipa-sounds/ipa-chart-with-sounds/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ganino.com/files/Latin%20Copyright%20Books/29%20Vox%20Latina%20The%20Pronunciation%20of%20Classical%20Latin.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=o9wpGIF0JWcC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA63&amp;dq=%22Latin%22%20vowel%20quality%20e%20o%20advanced%20tongue%20root&amp;ots=ND1tWjhtE5&amp;sig=SwcVUHalU_QmM6ZMBER2nw7Fzxg#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1072" RevisionGUID="14c251d0-9e47-43f8-84fd-7be94d0119a0" CreationDate="2016-06-25T00:22:51.290" UserId="9" Comment="added relevant Allen quote" Text="It's fairly certain that it was not pronounced as it is in modern English (aside from the consonants, which I won't discuss further in this answer).&#xD;&#xA; Please don't misinterpret this to mean that the English pronunciation is &quot;wrong&quot;—it's perfectly correct, *in English.* It's just different from the Latin pronunciation, just as the acceptable English pronunciations of the word *status* are different from the pronunciation we think was used for this word by the Romans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, the forms *Nĭŏba* and *Nĭŏbē* were both used according to Lewis and Short as accessed through [Perseus][1].&#xD;&#xA;The broadest phonemic transcription for the pronunciation of *Nĭŏbē*  would be /ˈniobeː/. The stress would have been on the first syllable, due to the [normal Latin rules for assigning stress][2]. Latin was not pronounced with the exact same sounds as English, so any attempt to write this out using English sounds can only be approximate. That is why I am using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). If you are not familiar with it, here is a chart showing some of the vowel sounds in IPA and their relative positions, with audio files representing the general sound that each symbol is used to represent: [IPA Chart With Sounds][3]. You can see that the IPA is more systematic and includes more vowels than the English sound system, so even though it is also an approximation, it allows us to be a bit more precise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonemic vs. phonetic transcription&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I said earlier that the transcription /ˈniobeː/ I gave was &quot;broad&quot; and &quot;phonemic.&quot; This means that it only has the essential details needed to distinguish the sounds from other sounds used in Latin. It does not describe the details that are not contrastive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Classical Latin, some of these non-contrastive details were related to vowel &quot;quality,&quot; or the position of vowels in the mouth. Latin basically started out with only 5 distinct vowel qualities (the familiar /a e i o u/); the main  distinction between short and long vowels was vowel &quot;quantity,&quot;  whether a vowel was phonetically long or short. But over the course of Classical Latin, most pairs of vowels with distinct quantities began to evolve to also have distinct qualities, and phonetic length distinctions were eventually lost entirely in Vulgar Latin, the ancestor of the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to try to explain the quality of some vowels in Classical Latin; to do this, I'll use two types of IPA transcriptions. Broad transcriptions, such as /ˈniobeː/, are enclosed by square slashes, and don't include any information about non-phonemic details of vowel quality. For narrow transcriptions that do describe vowel quality in detail, I'll use square brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation of ŏ: [ɔ]&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin short ŏ phoneme (IPA /o/) seems to be fairly widely agreed to have been pronounced with the phonetic vowel quality [ɔ], both in the Classical period and in Vulgar Latin. If you want approximations for this sound in English: for a British English speaker, it's similar to the vowel used in the word *lot.* For an American English speaker, it's similar to the vowel used in the word *more,* but with the &quot;r&quot; removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation of the other two vowels is more complicated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation of ĭ: [i] &gt; [ɪ] (&gt; Vulgar Latin [e])&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, it seems likely that the Latin short ĭ phoneme (IPA /i/) was pronounced with the same vowel quality as long ī /iː/. The most likely phonetic value for short ĭ at this point would be IPA [i] (about the same as the English vowel in *bee,* but distinctively short). However, by the time Latin split into the Romance languages, this vowel is believed to have lowered to [e] (approximately the vowel in French *clé,* which often sounds to English speakers like our diphthong /eɪ/ as in &quot;clay&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In between these two stages, it's likely the vowel passed through an intermediate quality transcribed [ɪ], which is approximately the same sound as in English &quot;bit.&quot; There doesn't seem to be total consensus about whether short ĭ was pronounced [i] or [ɪ] in early Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Vox Latina][4],* W. Sidney Allen recommends that English speakers (specifically, speakers of &quot;Received Pronunciation&quot;) use the vowel in *pit* for Latin short ĭ, and says that they &quot;had much the same value&quot; (p. 49). So, this is certainly acceptable, and would not qualify as a &quot;butchering.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, though, I find it awkward to try to use this vowel quality before another vowel or word-finally. In Received Pronunciation, /ɪ/ can occur in these positions, at least in unstressed syllables (in words such as &quot;bar**y**on&quot; /ˈbærɪɒn/  and &quot;happ**y**&quot; /ˈhæpɪ/) but in my accent of English, these words use /i/ instead. So I just use [i] in these contexts when pronouncing a word in Latin (but I still try to maintain a distinction in phonetic length). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen seems to suggest that using a more [i]-like quality before vowels was actually a feature of Roman pronunciation in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latin short *i* [...] may well have had a closer quality (more like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that of the long *ī*) before vowels, to judge from the Romance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; developments of Latin *dies* (Italian/Old French *di,* as *chi/qui* from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui); this is indicated also by the fact that i is scarcely ever&#xD;&#xA;&gt; written as *e* in this position (cf. p. 49), and is indeed often written&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with the *I* longa (e.g. `prIusquam, dIes, pIus`). There is a close&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parallel to this situation in English, where the first vowel of e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *react* is closer than that of *recall,* being more similar in quality to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the long *ī*; English speakers of Latin will therefore also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; automatically make this adjustment. These closer pre-vocalic qualities&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of *e* and *i* are probably due to the *y*-' glide' which automatically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; follows them in these conditions—and which the English speaker will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; automatically produce. (p. 51-52)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, according to Andrea Calabrese's paper [*On the Evolution of the Short High Vowels of Latin into Romance*][5], short ĭ in any environment was probably still [i] in early urban Classical Latin (around the time of Cicero) and quality distinctions between long and short versions of the same vowel only became established around the first century A.D. (p. 73). So I think [i] (a short version of the vowel sound in English *bee*) is defensible in general for short ĭ as an approximation of the early Classical Latin pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation of ē: [ɛː]? &gt; [eː] (&gt; Vulgar Latin [e])&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, it seems likely that long ē /eː/ was pronounced with the same vowel quality as short ĕ /e/. Calabrese argues that it's most likely that the phonetic value of long ē at this early stage was [ɛː] (about the same as the English vowel in &quot;bed,&quot; but distinctively long).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But long ē eventually developed a distinct vowel quality from short ĕ; we have evidence that this had occurred already in Late Classical Latin (and possibly earlier). The quality of long ē was &quot;raised&quot; closer to an i-like sound, resulting in [eː].  You'll notice that this is the same vowel quality as the one I described earlier for short ĭ; in fact, Latin short ĭ and long ē generally evolved to the same vowel in Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's Allen's description of this sound:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Long *ē* and *ō* present rather greater difficulty for R.P.* speakers,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; since this dialect contains nothing really similar; the nearest are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the sounds of e.g. *bait* and *boat*-but these are very distinctly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diphthongs, [ei] and [ou] respectively, which the Latin vowels were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not. (p. 50)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting it all together&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the Roman pronunciation would likely sound something like &quot;**NEE**-ob-ay&quot; to a British English speaker, or &quot;**NEE**-o(r)-bay&quot; to an American English speaker (where &quot;o(r)&quot; represents the vowel sound in the word *more,* but without the &quot;r&quot;). Unlike in English, the first vowel would contrast with a longer &quot;ee&quot;-like sound, and the last vowel would be a single, pure long vowel sound rather than a gliding diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DN%3Aentry%20group%3D14%3Aentry%3DNioba&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/languages/classical/latin/tchmat/grammar/g-accnt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.internationalphoneticalphabet.org/ipa-sounds/ipa-chart-with-sounds/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ganino.com/files/Latin%20Copyright%20Books/29%20Vox%20Latina%20The%20Pronunciation%20of%20Classical%20Latin.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=o9wpGIF0JWcC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA63&amp;dq=%22Latin%22%20vowel%20quality%20e%20o%20advanced%20tongue%20root&amp;ots=ND1tWjhtE5&amp;sig=SwcVUHalU_QmM6ZMBER2nw7Fzxg#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1073" RevisionGUID="efc1ef3a-b9c4-4845-8e27-3e9c3aa3ddff" CreationDate="2016-06-25T03:47:04.843" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;Pokorny Etymon: [g&lt;sup&gt;u̯&lt;/sup&gt;hedh-](https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/lex_reflex/2966)   'to ask, beg, wish for'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Semantic Field(s): to Ask, Request, to Will, Wish&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Italic    &#xD;&#xA;Latin: 	  -festus		  [suffix] 	  hit 	  W7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What semantic notions underlie 'hit' to the Semantic Fields above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3616" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1073" RevisionGUID="efc1ef3a-b9c4-4845-8e27-3e9c3aa3ddff" CreationDate="2016-06-25T03:47:04.843" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What underlying semantic notions connect the suffix '-fetus' to the PIE root *gu̯hedh- ('to ask, beg, wish for')?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3617" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1073" RevisionGUID="efc1ef3a-b9c4-4845-8e27-3e9c3aa3ddff" CreationDate="2016-06-25T03:47:04.843" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|proto-indo-european|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1074" RevisionGUID="984c38e8-c5f1-4d1c-bcd2-a525950d0872" CreationDate="2016-06-25T11:32:18.583" UserId="324" Text="This etymology is based on the assumption that infestus “hostile” comes from Indo-European *n-gwhedh-to- “implacable”. There are serious semantic and phonetic problems with this theory (which are spelt out in de Vaan’s Latin etymological dictionary, s.v. “infestus”). I would recommend that you take the Texas site with a very large grain of salt. It is particularly annoying that it mixes up loan words (like English “infest”) with cognates. Anyway, festus is not a &quot;suffix&quot;, but a stem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1071" RevisionGUID="38ff491e-6f82-4adb-85a9-bda83f41be43" CreationDate="2016-06-25T17:12:41.020" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="According to Lewis &amp; Short, the only long vowel in the word is the final *e*: *Niobē*. The rule of Latin stress is that if the penultimate (next-to-last) syllable of a word is short, then the antepenultimate (next-to-next-to-last) syllable receives the stress. Note that Latin long vowels were pronounced for about twice as long as short vowels. So in fact in Latin it was probably pronounced&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NEE**-oh-bay&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the *bay* being held for twice as long as the other two syllables. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there were long stretches of Roman history where all educated people spoke Greek, and in fact many periods in which Greek was the *preferred* language of communication, Latin being seen as barbaric. And ancient Greek pronunciation followed a very different set of rules: it didn't have syllable stress at all, and was organized instead by *pitch*. In Greek the word is spelled *Νιόβη*, which means that it would probably have been pronounced as if the speaker were imitating the sound of a fire engine going down the street:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;nee (low pitch) - oh (high pitch) - beh (low pitch)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, the last syllable was held twice as long as the other two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think you can take your pick, but ultimately the answer is that the Romans were almost certain not to have pronounced the word like we do in North America!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1075" RevisionGUID="c86c266a-914b-44ee-b7f7-112761efa56f" CreationDate="2016-06-25T23:31:11.583" UserId="423" Text="Seems to me we're dealing with what I've usually seen called &quot;relational accusative&quot; or &quot;Greek accusative&quot;, something that is usually restricted to pronouns and you could also find in the standard *interest* or *opus est* construction. When you encounter one, you are most likely able to render it as &quot;concerning sth&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1076" RevisionGUID="dbaa0e00-9f70-4afd-bb47-84fdbdb48e62" CreationDate="2016-06-25T23:38:45.220" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&lt;sub&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;Source: p 175, [*Introducing Philosophy for Canadians: A Text with Integrated Readings*](https://www.amazon.ca/Introducing-Philosophy-Canadians-Integrated-Readings/dp/0195430964) (2011 1 ed).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...]  &quot;*essentia involvit existentiam*&quot; [essence entails existence].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/involvo#Latin) (and the Lewis &amp; Charles Short entry cited thereunder) do not list 'entail'. I understand not the semantic shift, because decomposing  'involvō' into 'in' + ' 'volvō' reveals that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A involves B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;⟹ A rolls around/into/to/on B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for A to be able to roll about B in some manner, B must have existed before A.   &#xD;&#xA;So how can A be thought to entail B? If anything, B should entail A, because B precedes A." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3622" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1076" RevisionGUID="dbaa0e00-9f70-4afd-bb47-84fdbdb48e62" CreationDate="2016-06-25T23:38:45.220" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What underlying semantic notions connect 'involvō' to mean 'entail'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3623" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1076" RevisionGUID="dbaa0e00-9f70-4afd-bb47-84fdbdb48e62" CreationDate="2016-06-25T23:38:45.220" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1075" RevisionGUID="c6991ae9-cdcc-4677-8edc-424e1dfb5ac1" CreationDate="2016-06-25T23:41:15.907" UserId="423" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="Seems to me we're dealing with what I've usually seen mentioned as &quot;relational accusative&quot; or &quot;Greek accusative&quot;, something that is usually restricted to pronouns and you could also find in the standard *interest* or *opus est* construction. When you encounter one, you are most likely able to render it as &quot;concerning sth&quot; (limitation), but I would not exclude other close possibilities, i.e. what one would expect the ablative to be used for (cause, means,...)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="a3bb7212-16e9-4d4d-9b47-5361a55d46d4" CreationDate="2016-06-26T04:34:49.440" UserId="571" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I like reading medieval travel literature and I want to translate a short text (one chapter or two) from medieval Latin into English to improve my translation skills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, most medieval travel literature is written in vernacular languages (e.g. English, French or Italian) not Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only medieval work I know written in Latin is the journey of William Rubruck. Is there any similar works? and where can I find them on the internet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3626" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="a3bb7212-16e9-4d4d-9b47-5361a55d46d4" CreationDate="2016-06-26T04:34:49.440" UserId="571" Text="What are some good travel literature written in medieval Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3627" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="a3bb7212-16e9-4d4d-9b47-5361a55d46d4" CreationDate="2016-06-26T04:34:49.440" UserId="571" Text="|translation|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1078" RevisionGUID="cf65e3cb-b09d-4d45-8892-7892cc671ae7" CreationDate="2016-06-26T05:58:27.647" UserId="118" Text="While trying to find a [Latin word for jade](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/402/118), I learned of the _[Travels of Friar Odoric of Pordenone](https://books.google.com/books?id=QRlUd8t0F50C&amp;pg=PA46),_ which occurred from 1318–1330. From my small sampling of the text, it appears to be strongly influenced by the vernacular, but it's still Medieval Latin. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Odoric_of_Pordenone&amp;oldid=718407291#Life) says that it was &quot;taken down in homely Latin by Friar William of Solagna.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1079" RevisionGUID="7ed3434e-4235-4246-be6f-e866d222c6e6" CreationDate="2016-06-26T06:07:05.313" UserId="68" Text="I know of two works that fall slightly outside the boundaries of your question but that I'll mention just in case they might be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is the [*Itinerarium Egeriæ*][1], which was written, as far as I understand, near the end of the 4th century A.D.—so a little before your time period, but not *too* much so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is the [*Mirabilia descripta*][2], or *Wonders of the East*, which exists both in Old English and in Latin but is apparently from a Greek original; it's a description of fantastical beasts in the form of letters home from a traveler. So it's not *actual* travel literature, but it's in the *form* of travel literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Welcome to the site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egeria_(pilgrim)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonders_of_the_East" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1080" RevisionGUID="e17859c8-d696-4097-a2e0-08c555832e4c" CreationDate="2016-06-26T13:38:53.480" UserId="572" Text="I understand that that the correct spelling of the legal term for law of residence is: &quot;jus domiciliī&quot; (with a line over the i), and &quot;just solī&quot; (with the line) for law of soil. Would it also be jus nexī (with the line) for law of connection? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3631" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1080" RevisionGUID="e17859c8-d696-4097-a2e0-08c555832e4c" CreationDate="2016-06-26T13:38:53.480" UserId="572" Text="correct spelling of jus domicilii, jus soli, and jus nexi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3632" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1080" RevisionGUID="e17859c8-d696-4097-a2e0-08c555832e4c" CreationDate="2016-06-26T13:38:53.480" UserId="572" Text="|legal-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1082" RevisionGUID="9cdb49cd-d0db-497b-b982-e65f4dfce252" CreationDate="2016-06-26T17:42:14.623" UserId="40" Text="In terms of correct Latin grammar the answer is no, because *nexus* is a different type of noun than *domicilium* and *solum*. The latter are second-declension nouns, so their genitive (&quot;of&quot;) form ends in -ī; but *nexus* is a fourth-declension noun, so its genitive ends in -ūs. &quot;Law of connection&quot; would thus be *jūs nexūs*. (Note that if you are using macrons, which are optional and usually left out, then the *u* of *jūs* has one too. Also, an alternative and equally correct spelling of *jūs* is *iūs*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, googling *jus nexi* shows that it appears to be an existing, though recently coined, legal term. It is incorrect Latin, though. If you're asking whether the macron would be used on the incorrect *i* of *nexi*, then the answer is yes, if you're writing with macrons, but these are usually omitted except in textbooks and beginner's texts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1084" RevisionGUID="ade5eee7-ed7b-4c34-a5bb-1e6fd54aafdf" CreationDate="2016-06-26T18:59:53.443" UserId="574" Text="I was looking in a dictionary to find the meaning of the word: kalendae. When I came to the letter K, I saw that there are only a few words/names which starts with the letter K. I saw that there aren't many words which contain the letter K either. Why did the native speakers of Latin never used the letter K? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3637" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1084" RevisionGUID="ade5eee7-ed7b-4c34-a5bb-1e6fd54aafdf" CreationDate="2016-06-26T18:59:53.443" UserId="574" Text="Why is the letter K a rare letter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3638" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1084" RevisionGUID="ade5eee7-ed7b-4c34-a5bb-1e6fd54aafdf" CreationDate="2016-06-26T18:59:53.443" UserId="574" Text="|classical-latin|alphabet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1085" RevisionGUID="e68f3841-b975-49f3-8d58-77eeec879480" CreationDate="2016-06-26T21:55:08.917" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Etymologically, per [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viz.), from which I excerpt the following but whose links I omit:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Viz. is an abbreviation of *[videlicet](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/videlicet)*, which itself is a contraction from Latin of *videre licet* meaning &quot;it is permitted to see&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A similar expression is [scilicet](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scilicet), abbreviated as sc., which is Latin for &quot;it is permitted to know&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why would a reader need licence (etymologically from *licet*) to know and see? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3641" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1085" RevisionGUID="e68f3841-b975-49f3-8d58-77eeec879480" CreationDate="2016-06-26T21:55:08.917" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="sc. and viz. : Why need a reader license to know and see?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3642" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1085" RevisionGUID="e68f3841-b975-49f3-8d58-77eeec879480" CreationDate="2016-06-26T21:55:08.917" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3643" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="311" RevisionGUID="eb399863-243a-4fab-9bc5-fc09c7a66199" CreationDate="2016-06-27T13:44:51.067" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|language-evolution|declension|locative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3644" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="921" RevisionGUID="5bb91ee1-bcd7-4eb5-ba03-17f8a76c56a0" CreationDate="2016-06-27T13:46:48.430" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|verbs|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1086" RevisionGUID="8f6e262b-c5a3-4427-acc0-ced235ece786" CreationDate="2016-06-27T13:47:24.053" UserId="12" Text="In *Lingua Latina per se illustrata*, chapter 7, there are several examples of phrases where a compound verb, using a preposition as a prefix, is used in conjunction with a lone preposition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid **in**est **in** saccīs?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iūlius **ad** vīllam **ad**venit.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iūlia **ē** cubiculō **ex**it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the purpose of this repetition?  For example, in place of the second sentence, why not either of these options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iūlius vīllam **ad**venit.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iūlius **ad** vīllam venit.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does a lack of repetition here make the sentence ungrammatical?  Or is the purpose emphasis, or something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3646" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1086" RevisionGUID="8f6e262b-c5a3-4427-acc0-ced235ece786" CreationDate="2016-06-27T13:47:24.053" UserId="12" Text="What is the purpose of repeating prepositions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3647" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1086" RevisionGUID="8f6e262b-c5a3-4427-acc0-ced235ece786" CreationDate="2016-06-27T13:47:24.053" UserId="12" Text="|verbs|preposition|compound-verb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="71" RevisionGUID="37aee7ad-bd4a-4c1f-9ea8-ec953c86fc42" CreationDate="2016-06-27T15:24:55.780" UserId="12" Comment="+examples" Text="A standard work in this area is [*Vox Latina*](https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC), by W. Sidney Allen.  The author answers your question in his foreword, identifying 6 types of evidence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. specific statements of Latin grammarians and other authors&#xD;&#xA;regarding the pronunciation of the language; &#xD;&#xA;2. puns, plays on words, ancient etymologies, and imitations of natural sounds;&#xD;&#xA;3. the representation of Latin words in other languages;&#xD;&#xA;4. developments in the Romance languages; &#xD;&#xA;5. the spelling conventions of Latin, and particularly scribal or epigraphic&#xD;&#xA;variations; and &#xD;&#xA;6. the internal structure of the Latin language itself, including its metrical patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The evidence for some sounds, of course, will be stronger than for others:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The degree of accuracy, with which we can reconstruct the ancient pronunciation varies from sound to sound, but for the most part can be determined within quite narrow limits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Briefly, here are examples of each of these six points from Allen's work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Latin grammarians**.  Prominent rhetoricians and grammarians instructed their students in proper pronunciation.  For example, Cicero described the [pronunciation of the diagraph *ch*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/648/12), and Priscian and Velius Longus attempted to explain the [sound of the final -*m*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/935/12).&#xD;&#xA;2. **Plays on words**.  Cicero gives a frequently cited example of this, providing evidence that [*v* was pronounced as [w]](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/319/12), when he equates the sounds of *Cauneas* and *Caue ne eas*, which would only make sense if the *u* of *caue* was similar to that of *Cauneas*.&#xD;&#xA;3. **Word borrowing**.  Latin shared vocabulary with Greek and other languages, with both languages borrowing from each other.  The letters used in transcriptions of these words give clues into the Latin sounds.  For example, [evidence for *n* being pronounced as [ŋ] before certain consonants](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/539/12) comes from transcriptions from Latin to Greek and vice versa.&#xD;&#xA;4. **Romance languages**.  The development of Romance languages like Spanish from Vulgar Latin is sometimes helpful with respect to pronunciation.  For example, the [relative lack of aspiration in voiceless stops (p, t, c, qu)](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/637/12) is suggested by the lack of aspiration of these stops in Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;5. **Spelling**.  The conventions and variations of Latin spelling provide helpful pronunciation clues in a number of cases.  For example, thanks to widespread spelling confusion, we can trace changes in the [pronunciation of the *u*-consonant](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/326/12) back to the first century.  Similarly, inscriptional evidence is used to establish the [length of vowels before “gn”?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/787/12).&#xD;&#xA;6. **Structure and meter**.  The meter of Latin poetry is particularly helpful in ascertaining the lengths of vowels, such as in determining the correct pronunciation of the [names of the letters of the alphabet](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/733/12)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1087" RevisionGUID="d95bc783-b1bb-4f4f-aab6-25efefa4fcec" CreationDate="2016-06-27T15:31:04.547" UserId="574" Text="I always use the site: https://en.glosbe.com/&#xD;&#xA;I like the site because it has got more then 15.000 words, new and old Latin. It shows: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The conjugation of the word&#xD;&#xA;- Many meanings&#xD;&#xA;- A lot of example sentences&#xD;&#xA;- You can listen to the pronunciation&#xD;&#xA;- It is based on several online dictionaries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a great site, I recommend it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3651" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1087" RevisionGUID="52d71262-e96a-42b3-8bac-aaff1e4c632d" CreationDate="2016-06-27T15:31:04.547" UserId="574" />
  <row Id="3652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1088" RevisionGUID="04b03ec7-5f0f-474b-a7ad-5662cbaf1485" CreationDate="2016-06-27T21:07:34.600" UserId="79" Text="The Greek accusative or the accusative of respect (*accusativus Graecus* or *accusativus respectus*) is used like the ablative of respect (*ablativus respectus*).&#xD;&#xA;This construction is a loan from Greek, where there is no ablative and respect is expressed via the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;I have understood that the use of the Greek version is much narrower in Latin, but I do not exactly know how.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I use the Greek accusative whenever I would use the ablative of respect, both grammatically and stylistically?&#xD;&#xA;Are there situations where accusative is preferred to ablative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3653" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1088" RevisionGUID="04b03ec7-5f0f-474b-a7ad-5662cbaf1485" CreationDate="2016-06-27T21:07:34.600" UserId="79" Text="When to use the Greek accusative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3654" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1088" RevisionGUID="04b03ec7-5f0f-474b-a7ad-5662cbaf1485" CreationDate="2016-06-27T21:07:34.600" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|greek|ablative|grammar-choice|accusative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1089" RevisionGUID="b679b9e2-2708-4324-99b2-15a75500cc82" CreationDate="2016-06-27T21:38:25.173" UserId="12" Text="Among [Bennett](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15665/15665-h/15665-h.htm#sect180) (§180), [Allen &amp; Greenough](https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA247) (§397b), and [Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge](https://books.google.com/books?id=UU0BIAbE0SIC&amp;pg=PA215) (§338), the last provides the most detail on this construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two varieties are identified:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. *Definite:* The Accusative of the part affected  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. *Indefinite:* **cētera, alia, reliqua, omnia, plēraque, cūncta;** *in other respects, in all respects, in most respects.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is &quot;very rare&quot; in early Latin, but is present Sallust's and Livy's prose, and &quot;in both is applied usually to wounds.&quot;  It's also used in poetry.  Of the second type *cētera* &quot;is found here and there at all periods&quot; but the others are rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most valuable perhaps is the usage guidance that G&amp;L provide:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Good prose uses the Ablative for the first variety, and for the second, **ad cētera, in cēterīs, per cētera**, *etc.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1090" RevisionGUID="05b1abeb-ef4a-4313-9f64-68488b4b6106" CreationDate="2016-06-27T22:56:23.307" UserId="30" Text="Neither the Oxford Latin Dictionary nor Lewis &amp; Short mention it, but I believe *licet* can also sometimes mean **&quot;it is possible&quot;**. I distinctly remember seeing it used that way, although I have no proof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This shouldn't be surprising, because notions of &quot;desirable&quot; and &quot;possible&quot;, [the two kinds of modality, are often intertwined][1]; a word that means &quot;desirable&quot; can easily acquire a sense of &quot;possible&quot; and vice versa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then *videre licet* would mean &quot;it is possible [for you] to see...&quot;, and *scire licet* &quot;it is possible [for you] to know...&quot;. That would make sense in a sentence like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Multae feminae magnae sunt in orbi terrarum; sci[re ]licet Cleopatra(m).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;There are many great women in the world; you may know Cleopatra&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/21706/why-do-we-say-was-supposed-to-for-should-have/21852#21852" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1091" RevisionGUID="6b28963d-c68b-4f7b-b547-c2fac83ddf33" CreationDate="2016-06-27T23:26:14.633" UserId="30" Text="The letter K was common in the old Latin alphabet, but somehow it all but died out before the classical age. It may have been ousted by the letter C, but I'm not sure why that happened. Sometimes things happen for no apparent reason, arbitrary developments. [Lewis &amp; Short][1] have this to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; K, k, was used in the oldest period of the language as a separate character for the sound k, while C was used for the scund g. In course of time the character C came to be used also for the k sound, and, after the introduction of the character G, for that alone, and K disappeared almost entirely from the Latin orthography, except at the beginning of a few words, for each of which, also, the letter K itself was in common use as an abbreviation; thus, Kæso (or Cæso), Kalendæ (less correctly Calendæ), sometimes Karthago (or Kar.; v. Carthago); &quot;and in special connections, Kalumnia, Kaput (for Calumnia and Caput, e. g. k. k. = calumniae causā in jurid. lang.): nam k quidem in nullis verbis utendum puto, nisi quae significat, etiam ut sola ponatur&quot;, Quint. 1, 7, 10; cf. id. 1, 4, 9.—Some grammarians, indeed, as early as Quintilian's time, thought it proper always to write K for initial C before a, Quint. 1, 7, 10.—Besides the above-mentioned abbreviations, the K is also found in KA. for capitalis, KK. for castrorum, K. S. for carus suis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=k&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1092" RevisionGUID="edb7ad32-c155-437e-bd2a-4f0451ecfe98" CreationDate="2016-06-27T23:37:05.640" UserId="30" Text="I don't think *involvo* necessitates a temporal order: for essence to involve or entail existence, it isn't necessary for existence to exist before essence existed. The order is not temporal, nor causal, but merely rational: one thinks of existence when one thinks of essence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The image involved in the word *involvo* is that of a cloud circling around and touching a mountaintop, or a snake entwining a tree: the snake is very close to the tree , and it would be hard to separate them. That is what *involvo* should mean in this sense: one thing is close to another and hard to separate from it. The metaphor is obvious from there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1093" RevisionGUID="3d53dda7-f0c8-4c87-958f-3a6e61ffab55" CreationDate="2016-06-28T00:24:18.767" UserId="576" Text="What are post-Late Latin's comma rules? Specifically, where do post-Late Latin's comma rules differ from English's comma rules?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3660" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1093" RevisionGUID="3d53dda7-f0c8-4c87-958f-3a6e61ffab55" CreationDate="2016-06-28T00:24:18.767" UserId="576" Text="What are post-Late Latin's comma rules?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3661" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1093" RevisionGUID="3d53dda7-f0c8-4c87-958f-3a6e61ffab55" CreationDate="2016-06-28T00:24:18.767" UserId="576" Text="|medieval-latin|contemporary-latin|new-latin|punctuation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1094" RevisionGUID="20f950b3-33ee-476d-8497-d561a2f31ae2" CreationDate="2016-06-28T04:42:31.180" UserId="68" Text="All three versions (*Július villam advenit, Július ad villam advenit,* and *Július ad villam venit*) are grammatically correct. My sense is that the latter two are more frequently found than the first, but I can't swear by that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Latin Prose Through English Idiom* (1882), Edwin Abbott writes (all emphases and capitalization as in the original)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A few general rules may be laid down about Latin Verbs *containing Prepositions and conveying a notion of motion to, or motion from* Such verbs, *e.g.* **detraho**, can be used metaphorically or literally. If we say 'princeps **detrahit** milites' we do not mean that the emperor literally himself draws away the soldiers; but in '**detrahit** anulum' the Verb is literally used. *Literal* motion must be *more emphatically expressed*. If literally used, they require *the Preposition to be repeated for emphasis*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Princeps detraxit milites imperatori.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Princeps detraxit anulum de digito suo." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1084" RevisionGUID="83d7e11d-a2b2-4789-afb4-1b74154c986a" CreationDate="2016-06-28T04:46:29.477" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I was looking in a dictionary to find the meaning of the word: kalendae. When I came to the letter K, I saw that there are only a few words/names which starts with the letter K. I saw that there aren't many words which contain the letter K either. Why did the native speakers of Latin never use the letter K? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1091" RevisionGUID="7168c556-7c07-40d8-bd71-b98cb910f690" CreationDate="2016-06-28T19:08:51.070" UserId="118" Comment="fixed typo" Text="The letter K was common in the old Latin alphabet, but somehow it all but died out before the classical age. It may have been ousted by the letter C, but I'm not sure why that happened. Sometimes things happen for no apparent reason, arbitrary developments. [Lewis &amp; Short][1] have this to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; K, k, was used in the oldest period of the language as a separate character for the sound k, while C was used for the sound g. In course of time the character C came to be used also for the k sound, and, after the introduction of the character G, for that alone, and K disappeared almost entirely from the Latin orthography, except at the beginning of a few words, for each of which, also, the letter K itself was in common use as an abbreviation; thus, Kæso (or Cæso), Kalendæ (less correctly Calendæ), sometimes Karthago (or Kar.; v. Carthago); &quot;and in special connections, Kalumnia, Kaput (for Calumnia and Caput, e. g. k. k. = calumniae causā in jurid. lang.): nam k quidem in nullis verbis utendum puto, nisi quae significat, etiam ut sola ponatur&quot;, Quint. 1, 7, 10; cf. id. 1, 4, 9.—Some grammarians, indeed, as early as Quintilian's time, thought it proper always to write K for initial C before a, Quint. 1, 7, 10.—Besides the above-mentioned abbreviations, the K is also found in KA. for capitalis, KK. for castrorum, K. S. for carus suis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=k&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1093" RevisionGUID="6b8a1fa3-8cbc-4078-be29-2f22f09322b8" CreationDate="2016-06-29T00:01:05.300" UserId="576" Comment="narrowed down to new-latin era" Text="What are New Latin's comma rules? Specifically, where do post-Late Latin's comma rules differ from English's comma rules?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3668" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1093" RevisionGUID="6b8a1fa3-8cbc-4078-be29-2f22f09322b8" CreationDate="2016-06-29T00:01:05.300" UserId="576" Comment="narrowed down to new-latin era" Text="What are New Latin's comma rules?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3669" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1093" RevisionGUID="6b8a1fa3-8cbc-4078-be29-2f22f09322b8" CreationDate="2016-06-29T00:01:05.300" UserId="576" Comment="narrowed down to new-latin era" Text="|new-latin|punctuation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1093" RevisionGUID="a5cc7284-79f7-4408-8524-f46543f1f3d6" CreationDate="2016-06-29T00:09:41.873" UserId="576" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="What are New Latin's comma rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, where do New Latin's comma rules differ from modern English's comma rules (e.g., as documented in the 16&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; ed. of the *Chicago Manual of Style* §§6.15-6.53)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1095" RevisionGUID="23542875-8fcf-4e28-9d5f-4cbd3a025e5f" CreationDate="2016-06-29T04:04:07.270" UserId="235" Text="I would like to translate the following sentence into Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Minerva is the goddess of wisdom and of wool.` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first guess would be,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Minerva est dea sapientiae et lanae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm not sure whether this is the correct syntax. Is the use of two genitives modifying one noun, dea, correct? Also, could the word order be improved?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3672" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1095" RevisionGUID="23542875-8fcf-4e28-9d5f-4cbd3a025e5f" CreationDate="2016-06-29T04:04:07.270" UserId="235" Text="How to write a sentence with two genitives describing one noun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3673" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1095" RevisionGUID="23542875-8fcf-4e28-9d5f-4cbd3a025e5f" CreationDate="2016-06-29T04:04:07.270" UserId="235" Text="|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1096" RevisionGUID="00b34636-19b5-4f5c-900a-bb0953817ccf" CreationDate="2016-06-29T07:58:43.017" UserId="79" Text="Your syntax is correct.&#xD;&#xA;You can combine as many genitives as you wish in a similar fashion.&#xD;&#xA;For choosing between *et* and *-que*, see [the question about that choice](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1/79).&#xD;&#xA;I think *et* is more appropriate here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To improve your translation, I would put *est* all the way to the end: *Minerva dea sapientiae et lanae est.*&#xD;&#xA;Besides being more natural word order in Latin, it helps to group the genitives together.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to keep *est* closer to *dea*, *dea est* is more natural than *est dea*.&#xD;&#xA;If you put *est* between the genitives, wool becomes a side note:&#xD;&#xA;*Minerva dea sapientiae est et lanae.*&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Minerva is the goddess of wisdom, and also of wool.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1095" RevisionGUID="2699e035-c6f4-498c-bef2-7de09b285ce5" CreationDate="2016-06-29T08:00:01.360" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and slightly reformatted." Text="I would like to translate the following sentence into Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Minerva is the goddess of wisdom and of wool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first guess would be,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Minerva est dea sapientiae et lanae.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm not sure whether this is the correct syntax. Is the use of two genitives modifying one noun, *dea*, correct? Also, could the word order be improved?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3676" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1095" RevisionGUID="2699e035-c6f4-498c-bef2-7de09b285ce5" CreationDate="2016-06-29T08:00:01.360" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and slightly reformatted." Text="|syntax|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1097" RevisionGUID="ffe3568c-a6df-453c-919d-026cfa26c9e2" CreationDate="2016-06-29T08:40:19.593" UserId="79" Text="It is sometimes appropriate to add &quot;I look forward to hearing from you&quot; at the end of a letter or other similar communication.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a phrase that says more &quot;I am happy if you react to this letter in some way&quot; rather than &quot;please write back&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(To be precise, I really mean &quot;please come to Latin.SE&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;What would be an idiomatic way to express this in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The Roman letters from antiquity must have a phrase that has this effect, but I'm not familiar with any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A direct translation might be something like *Expecto mihi de te audire licere*, &quot;I await a change to hear about you&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3678" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1097" RevisionGUID="ffe3568c-a6df-453c-919d-026cfa26c9e2" CreationDate="2016-06-29T08:40:19.593" UserId="79" Text="How to say &quot;I look forward to hearing from you&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3679" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1097" RevisionGUID="ffe3568c-a6df-453c-919d-026cfa26c9e2" CreationDate="2016-06-29T08:40:19.593" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1098" RevisionGUID="80c82b63-6916-432f-9336-e3eba38dab10" CreationDate="2016-06-29T14:07:55.043" UserId="574" Text="I just learned the comparison for adjectives. The most adjective's got regular conjugations (every case/grammatical gender has got their own output). But I learned a few irregular adjectives as well (all in masculinum):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- bonus, melior, optimus (good, better, best)&#xD;&#xA;- malus, peior, pessimus (bad, worse, worst)&#xD;&#xA;- magnus, maior, maximus (big, bigger, biggest)&#xD;&#xA;- parvus, minor, minimus (small, smaller, smallest)&#xD;&#xA;- multi, plures, plurimi (much, more, most)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I still miss some irregular adjectives, or did I learn all the irregular adjectives already? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3681" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1098" RevisionGUID="80c82b63-6916-432f-9336-e3eba38dab10" CreationDate="2016-06-29T14:07:55.043" UserId="574" Text="Are there many irregular adjectives for the Latin comparison?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3682" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1098" RevisionGUID="80c82b63-6916-432f-9336-e3eba38dab10" CreationDate="2016-06-29T14:07:55.043" UserId="574" Text="|grammar|word-comparison|adjective|irregular-verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3683" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1098" RevisionGUID="bd081f29-aec0-4f9b-b35d-c68f0f373c80" CreationDate="2016-06-29T14:23:06.147" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|word-comparison|adjective|irregular-words|comparative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3684" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="851" RevisionGUID="73218914-97f8-43f4-b765-3b8686620bad" CreationDate="2016-06-29T14:23:40.597" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|conjugation|passive-voice|irregular-words|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1099" RevisionGUID="71593689-9209-4727-92cc-42b302e05076" CreationDate="2016-06-29T16:01:13.380" UserId="40" Text="Allen and Greenough list three more, but they are rare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - nequam, nequior, nequissimus &quot;worthless&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - frugi, frugalior, frugalissimus &quot;useful&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - dexter, dexterior, dextimus &quot;on the right, handy&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1100" RevisionGUID="00f788d7-1c6f-417c-8fea-730caf6d4317" CreationDate="2016-06-29T17:44:56.147" UserId="576" Text="Are there any historical recordings of Latin used in university lectures, such as for theology or philosophy courses, or in academic events? I'm looking for audio from before circa 1960." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3687" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1100" RevisionGUID="00f788d7-1c6f-417c-8fea-730caf6d4317" CreationDate="2016-06-29T17:44:56.147" UserId="576" Text="Historical recordings of Latin used in university lectures?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3688" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1100" RevisionGUID="00f788d7-1c6f-417c-8fea-730caf6d4317" CreationDate="2016-06-29T17:44:56.147" UserId="576" Text="|history|resource-request|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1101" RevisionGUID="4298fdd1-f4de-4b62-9951-d79eb78895e3" CreationDate="2016-06-29T17:56:08.340" UserId="576" Text="This comes from Dom Prosper Guéranger's [*Explanation of the Prayers and Ceremonies of Holy Mass*][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ### &lt;a name=&quot;itemissa&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;ITE MISSA EST.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; These words are usually translated thus: “Go, the Mass is said.”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, we must here observe that this is not their proper sense.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This formula, adopted by the Church, was in general use amongst the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Romans, in public assemblies, to announce the termination of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; meeting. So, these words: _Ite, concio missa est,_ meant “go, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assembly is dismissed.”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the early ages, the Holy Sacrifice was never called by our word&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Missa,_ the Mass. When the Sacrifice was finished, the assembled faithful were dismissed by the Deacon, in the form usual at all public&#xD;&#xA;&gt; meetings. Later, the word _missa_ having been adopted, the confusion&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of ideas became complete, when by the putting of a capital M to this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; formula, it ended in _Ite Missa est,_ being thus translated amiss: Go,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Mass is said. In Masses at penitential times, in Lent, for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; example, instead of the _Ite Missa est,_ the Deacon says _Benedicamus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Domino;_ the faithful are not dismissed, because it is supposed that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they would like to remain longer in prayer, during these days of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; expiation. The _Ite Missa est_ is consequently a sign of joy, and, as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; such, it is excluded from Requiem masses: a Song of joy would be out&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of keeping with a Mass breathing only sadness and supplication.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The _Ite Missa est_ having been said, the Priest turns again to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Altar, and bowing somewhat, with his hands joined, he says: _Placeat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tibi Sancta Trinitas obsequium servtutis meae, et praesta ut&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sacrificium, quod oculis tuae majestatis indignus obtuli, tibi sit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; acceptabile, mihique et omnibus, pro quibus illud obtuli, sit, te&#xD;&#xA;&gt; miserante, propitiabile. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen._ This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; prayer is a kind of epitome made by the Priest, reminding the Holy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Trinity of all he has just been doing, begging acceptance of this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sacrifice, and that it may be profitable to all those for whom he has&#xD;&#xA;&gt; been praying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.liturgialatina.org/benedictine/holymass.htm#itemissa" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1102" RevisionGUID="6651a4ce-017e-4937-a649-be8654dc1b0a" CreationDate="2016-06-29T18:37:57.693" UserId="576" Text="Roy J. DeFerrari's [*A Lexicon of St. Thomas Aquinas*][1] (1948) p. 983 ([PDF][1] p. 990):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;sacramentum, i, *n*., (1) *sacrament* in the wider sense of the word, i.e., that which is sanctified or consecrated, (2) *sacrament* in the proper sense of the word, i.e., sign of a holy thing which sanctifies man or concerns him, (3) *sacrament* in the narrowest sense of the word, excluding the sacraments of the Old Law, a visible sign or rite, instituted by Christ to confer grace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DeFerrari first quotes [*Summa Theologica* III q. 60 a. 1 (&quot;Whether a sacrament is a kind of sign?&quot;)][2] c.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*sacramentum potest aliquid dici vel quia in se habet aliquam sanctitatem occultam, et secundum hoc sacramentum idem est quod sacrum secretum, vel quia habet aliquem ordinem ad hanc sanctitatem, vel causae vel signi vel secundum quamcumque aliam habitudinem.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[a thing may be called a &quot;sacrament,&quot; either from having a certain hidden sanctity, and in this sense a sacrament is a &quot;sacred secret&quot;; or from having some relationship to this sanctity, which relationship may be that of a cause, or of a sign or of any other relation.]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the relationship of *μυστήριον* to *sacramentum*, the [*OED*][3] says this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In ancient Greek _μυστήριον_ &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt; occurs chiefly in the plural, denoting certain secret religious ceremonies (the most famous being those of Demeter at Eleusis) which were allowed to be witnessed only by the initiated, who were sworn never to disclose their nature (see sense [&lt;span class=&quot;xref&quot;&gt;7a&lt;/span&gt;](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/124644#eid35211356)). In the Septuagint the word occurs only in Daniel and the Apocrypha, where it has the sense of ‘secret purpose or counsel’ (especially of a king or of God). This sense is found in the New Testament, where the word also means either a religious truth long kept secret, but now revealed through Christ to his Church, or something of symbolic significance. In later Christian use _μυστήριον_ &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt; became equivalent to [&lt;span class=&quot;xref&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;smallCaps&quot;&gt;sacrament&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;ps&quot;&gt;n.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/169523#eid24605396) &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt; (in several passages, e.g. Daniel 2:18, the Vulgate renders it by _sacramentum_ &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt;, even when it means only ‘secret’; in other passages _mysterium_ &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt; is used). In Old French and English the Christian senses of the word appear earliest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In post-classical Latin (from Vetus Latina) the form _misterium_ &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt; occurs with the sense ‘ecclesiastical service’ more usually associated with _ministerium_ &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt;[&lt;span class=&quot;xref&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;smallCaps&quot;&gt;ministry&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;ps&quot;&gt;n.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/118901#eid37004042) &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt; Confusion between _mysterium_ &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt; and _ministerium_ &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt; in post-classical Latin is not surprising, given the phonetic and semantic similarity between the two words. The distinction between [&lt;span class=&quot;xref&quot;&gt;3&lt;/span&gt;](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/124644#eid35210695)* &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt; and [&lt;span class=&quot;xref&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;smallCaps&quot;&gt;mystery&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;ps&quot;&gt;n.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 1a&lt;/span&gt;](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/124645#eid35213202),** and the distinction between [&lt;span class=&quot;xref&quot;&gt;10&lt;/span&gt;](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/124644#eid35211678)&lt;sup&gt;†&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt; and [&lt;span class=&quot;xref&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;smallCaps&quot;&gt;mystery&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;ps&quot;&gt;n.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 2&lt;/span&gt;](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/124645#eid35213276),&lt;sup&gt;††&lt;/sup&gt; can only be arbitrary from an etymological point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;* An ordinance, rite, or sacrament of the Christian Church, esp. (in later use) the Eastern Orthodox Church. In *pl*.: the Eucharist; the consecrated elements used in the Eucharist.&lt;br&gt;** Ministry, office; service, occupation. *Obs*.&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;†&lt;/sup&gt; More generally: an action or practice about which there is or is reputed to be some secrecy; _esp._ a highly skilful or technical operation in a trade or art. Now usu. in _pl._ Cf. [&lt;span class=&quot;xref&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;smallCaps&quot;&gt;mystery&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;ps&quot;&gt;n.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 2&lt;/span&gt;](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/124645#eid35213276). Now chiefly _humorous_.&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;††&lt;/sup&gt; Craft, art; a trade, profession, calling. Now _arch._ &lt;span class=&quot;note&quot; id=&quot;eid35213280&quot;&gt;Cf. [&lt;span class=&quot;xref&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;smallCaps&quot;&gt;mystery&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;ps&quot;&gt;n.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 10&lt;/span&gt;](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/124644#eid35211678).&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/book/2847&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/TP/TP060.html#TPQ60A1THEP1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/124644" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1102" RevisionGUID="210765cf-3fd9-4744-8778-102553acca7d" CreationDate="2016-06-29T18:43:26.643" UserId="576" Comment="added 287 characters in body" Text="Roy J. DeFerrari's [*A Lexicon of St. Thomas Aquinas*][1] (1948) p. 983 ([PDF][1] p. 990):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;sacramentum, i, *n*., (1) *sacrament* in the wider sense of the word, i.e., that which is sanctified or consecrated, (2) *sacrament* in the proper sense of the word, i.e., sign of a holy thing which sanctifies man or concerns him, (3) *sacrament* in the narrowest sense of the word, excluding the sacraments of the Old Law, a visible sign or rite, instituted by Christ to confer grace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DeFerrari first quotes [*Summa Theologica* III q. 60 a. 1 (&quot;Whether a sacrament is a kind of sign?&quot;)][2] c.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*sacramentum potest aliquid dici vel quia in se habet aliquam sanctitatem occultam, et secundum hoc sacramentum idem est quod sacrum secretum, vel quia habet aliquem ordinem ad hanc sanctitatem, vel causae vel signi vel secundum quamcumque aliam habitudinem.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[a thing may be called a &quot;sacrament,&quot; either from having a certain hidden sanctity, and in this sense a sacrament is a &quot;sacred secret&quot;; or from having some relationship to this sanctity, which relationship may be that of a cause, or of a sign or of any other relation.]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The definition of *sacramentum* as a *signum* dates back to St. Augustine (cf. semiotician [John N. Deely][3]'s [*Four Ages of Understanding* p. 223][4]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the relationship of *μυστήριον* to *sacramentum*, the [*OED*][5] says this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In ancient Greek _μυστήριον_ &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt; occurs chiefly in the plural, denoting certain secret religious ceremonies (the most famous being those of Demeter at Eleusis) which were allowed to be witnessed only by the initiated, who were sworn never to disclose their nature (see sense [&lt;span class=&quot;xref&quot;&gt;7a&lt;/span&gt;](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/124644#eid35211356)). In the Septuagint the word occurs only in Daniel and the Apocrypha, where it has the sense of ‘secret purpose or counsel’ (especially of a king or of God). This sense is found in the New Testament, where the word also means either a religious truth long kept secret, but now revealed through Christ to his Church, or something of symbolic significance. In later Christian use _μυστήριον_ &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt; became equivalent to [&lt;span class=&quot;xref&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;smallCaps&quot;&gt;sacrament&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;ps&quot;&gt;n.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/169523#eid24605396) &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt; (in several passages, e.g. Daniel 2:18, the Vulgate renders it by _sacramentum_ &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt;, even when it means only ‘secret’; in other passages _mysterium_ &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt; is used). In Old French and English the Christian senses of the word appear earliest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In post-classical Latin (from Vetus Latina) the form _misterium_ &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt; occurs with the sense ‘ecclesiastical service’ more usually associated with _ministerium_ &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt;[&lt;span class=&quot;xref&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;smallCaps&quot;&gt;ministry&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;ps&quot;&gt;n.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/118901#eid37004042) &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt; Confusion between _mysterium_ &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt; and _ministerium_ &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt; in post-classical Latin is not surprising, given the phonetic and semantic similarity between the two words. The distinction between [&lt;span class=&quot;xref&quot;&gt;3&lt;/span&gt;](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/124644#eid35210695)* &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt; and [&lt;span class=&quot;xref&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;smallCaps&quot;&gt;mystery&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;ps&quot;&gt;n.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 1a&lt;/span&gt;](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/124645#eid35213202),** and the distinction between [&lt;span class=&quot;xref&quot;&gt;10&lt;/span&gt;](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/124644#eid35211678)&lt;sup&gt;†&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;ieWhitespace&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt; and [&lt;span class=&quot;xref&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;smallCaps&quot;&gt;mystery&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;ps&quot;&gt;n.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 2&lt;/span&gt;](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/124645#eid35213276),&lt;sup&gt;††&lt;/sup&gt; can only be arbitrary from an etymological point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;* An ordinance, rite, or sacrament of the Christian Church, esp. (in later use) the Eastern Orthodox Church. In *pl*.: the Eucharist; the consecrated elements used in the Eucharist.&lt;br&gt;** Ministry, office; service, occupation. *Obs*.&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;†&lt;/sup&gt; More generally: an action or practice about which there is or is reputed to be some secrecy; _esp._ a highly skilful or technical operation in a trade or art. Now usu. in _pl._ Cf. [&lt;span class=&quot;xref&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;smallCaps&quot;&gt;mystery&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;ps&quot;&gt;n.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 2&lt;/span&gt;](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/124645#eid35213276). Now chiefly _humorous_.&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;††&lt;/sup&gt; Craft, art; a trade, profession, calling. Now _arch._ &lt;span class=&quot;note&quot; id=&quot;eid35213280&quot;&gt;Cf. [&lt;span class=&quot;xref&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;smallCaps&quot;&gt;mystery&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;ps&quot;&gt;n.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 10&lt;/span&gt;](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/124644#eid35211678).&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/book/2847&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/TP/TP060.html#TPQ60A1THEP1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://morec.com/semiotic/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zAsjkHJ8aP8C&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;pg=PA223#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/124644" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1100" RevisionGUID="c6aa631d-f84c-4ac1-a9e6-a9ab29e3aae2" CreationDate="2016-06-29T18:49:42.047" UserId="576" Comment="added example that comes closest to what I'm looking for" Text="Are there any historical recordings of fluent *ex tempore* Latin used in university lectures, such as for theology or philosophy courses, or in academic events? I'm looking for audio from before circa 1960.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest I've been able to find to this is [Wyoming Catholic College][1]'s Dr. Jeremy Holmes [reading St. Thomas Aquinas's *Compendium Theologiæ* and explaining its grammar *ex tempore* in Latin][2] (source: [Latin resources here][3]), but it is fairly recent (2010).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Jeremy%20Holmes%22%20subject%3A%22Latin%22&amp;sort=publicdate&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/latin/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3693" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1100" RevisionGUID="c6aa631d-f84c-4ac1-a9e6-a9ab29e3aae2" CreationDate="2016-06-29T18:49:42.047" UserId="576" Comment="added example that comes closest to what I'm looking for" Text="Historical recordings of ex tempore Latin used in university lectures?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1103" RevisionGUID="e218fe39-06b1-477c-9c2c-b0790be8fe04" CreationDate="2016-06-29T19:23:45.157" UserId="79" Text="Let me mention some things to complement your and TKR's lists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the adjectives *iuvenis* and *senex* have the irregular comparatives *iunior* and *senior*.&#xD;&#xA;These comparatives are rarely (if ever) used in neuter.&#xD;&#xA;Neither adjective has a superlative.&#xD;&#xA;For *senex*, the superlative can be replaced by that of *vetustus* (*vetustissimus*).&#xD;&#xA;For *vetus*, comparatives and superlatives are often taken from *vetustus*.&#xD;&#xA;I do not know how the missing superlative of *iuvenis* is typically replaced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some adjectives ending in *-dicus*, *-ficus* and *-volus* form comparative an superlative from *-dicent-*, *-ficent-* and *-volent-*.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *maledicus, maledicentior, maledicentissimus*&#xD;&#xA;- *magnificus, magnificentior, magnificentissimus*&#xD;&#xA;- *benevolus, benevolentior, benevolentissimus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For adjectives ending in *-eus*, *-ius* or *-uus* (not *-quus*) use *magis* or *maxime* to form comparative and superlative.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *magis/maxime idoneus* instead of *idoneior/idoneissimus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are adjectives coming from prepositions that only have comparative and superlative but no positive.&#xD;&#xA;These are *prior/primus*, *posterior/postremus*, *superior/summus/supremus*, *inferior/infimus/imus*, *exterior/extremus*, *interior/intimus*, *citerior/citimus*, *ulterior/ultimus* and *propior/proximus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For adjectives ending in *-er*, the superlative is formed with *-rimus*.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *pulcher, pulchrior, pulcherrimus*&#xD;&#xA;- *liber, liberior, liberrimus*&#xD;&#xA;- *acer, acrior, acerrimus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The superlative *veterrimus* also has this ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, these six adjectives ending in *-ilis* form the superlative with *-limus*: *difficilis, dissimilis, facilis, gracilis, humilis, similis*.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *dissimilis, dissimilior, dissimillimus*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1100" RevisionGUID="01478342-2e1c-4ec9-95f6-d1c7a1a51dd8" CreationDate="2016-06-29T19:27:47.930" UserId="576" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Are there any historical recordings of fluent *ex tempore* Latin used in university lectures, such as for theology or philosophy courses, or in academic events? I'm looking for audio from before circa 1960.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest I've been able to find to this is [Wyoming Catholic College][1]'s Dr. Jeremy Holmes [reading St. Thomas Aquinas's *Compendium Theologiæ* and explaining its grammar *ex tempore* in Latin][2] (source: [Latin resources here][3]), but it is fairly recent (2010).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Jeremy%20Holmes%22%20subject%3A%22Latin%22&amp;sort=publicdate&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/latin/#resources" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1104" RevisionGUID="26f5593b-4972-4e7e-888e-707ba740aba3" CreationDate="2016-06-29T20:28:18.930" UserId="68" Text="Professor Wilifried Stroh's [lectures][1] on the history of Latin literature and [on other subjects][2] are incredibly entertaining, learned, and eloquent. I don't know when he made them, but since he was born in 1950 I doubt it was before 1960, unfortunately. Still, they're very worth listening to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U5kjdOM5j8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stroh.userweb.mwn.de/main21.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1100" RevisionGUID="9a03f827-a08d-40b3-b127-d379268b1846" CreationDate="2016-06-29T21:18:24.027" UserId="576" Comment="added 33 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Are there any historical recordings of fluent *ex tempore* Latin used in university lectures, such as for theology or philosophy courses, in academic events, or in scholastic disputations? I'm looking for audio between circa 1900 and 1960.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest I've been able to find to this is [Wyoming Catholic College][1]'s Dr. Jeremy Holmes [reading St. Thomas Aquinas's *Compendium Theologiæ* and explaining its grammar *ex tempore* in Latin][2] (source: [Latin resources here][3]), but it is fairly recent (2010).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Jeremy%20Holmes%22%20subject%3A%22Latin%22&amp;sort=publicdate&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/latin/#resources" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3701" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1100" RevisionGUID="9a03f827-a08d-40b3-b127-d379268b1846" CreationDate="2016-06-29T21:18:24.027" UserId="576" Comment="added 33 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Historical recordings of ex tempore contemporary Latin used in university lectures?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3702" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1100" RevisionGUID="9a03f827-a08d-40b3-b127-d379268b1846" CreationDate="2016-06-29T21:18:24.027" UserId="576" Comment="added 33 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|contemporary-latin|history|resource-request|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1096" RevisionGUID="e0765ddd-db52-4241-9bf2-a3ace0bfa153" CreationDate="2016-06-30T04:33:15.550" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="Your syntax is correct.&#xD;&#xA;You can combine as many genitives as you wish in a similar fashion.&#xD;&#xA;For choosing between *et* and *-que*, see [the question about that choice](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1/79).&#xD;&#xA;I think *et* is more appropriate here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To improve your translation, I would put *est* all the way at the end: *Minerva dea sapientiae et lanae est.*&#xD;&#xA;Besides being more natural word order in Latin, it helps to group the genitives together.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to keep *est* closer to *dea*, *dea est* is more natural than *est dea*.&#xD;&#xA;If you put *est* between the genitives, wool becomes a side note:&#xD;&#xA;*Minerva dea sapientiae est et lanae.*&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Minerva is the goddess of wisdom, and also of wool.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1106" RevisionGUID="9b2f25bf-6972-4045-b56e-11f6b57e80ce" CreationDate="2016-06-30T16:57:35.913" UserId="47" Text="Another little puzzle inside Little Office of the BVM, Baronius Press, which is based upon the Gallican Psalter.&#xA;&#xA;Psalm cxxi has:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Stantes erant pedes nostri, in atriis tuis, Jerusalem.&#xA;&#xA;Which it translates: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Our feet were wont to stand: in thy courts, O Jerusalem.&#xA;&#xA;This translation surprises me because I cannot detect within the Latin sentence the element of **desire** nor **privation**. As a beginner, it seems to me to say, more simply:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Our feet were standing in thy courts, O Jerusalem.&#xA;&#xA;The first, mysterious (to me) translation fits the context better than my own. I just see no justification for it within the sentence itself.&#xA;&#xA;Is this perhaps another Hebraism? Or some Latin idiom I have yet to learn? Or something else entirely?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3708" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1106" RevisionGUID="9b2f25bf-6972-4045-b56e-11f6b57e80ce" CreationDate="2016-06-30T16:57:35.913" UserId="47" Text="&quot;Stantes erant pedes nostri...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3709" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1106" RevisionGUID="9b2f25bf-6972-4045-b56e-11f6b57e80ce" CreationDate="2016-06-30T16:57:35.913" UserId="47" Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1107" RevisionGUID="c22039e1-0069-4909-b0ed-ab3fe63190a5" CreationDate="2016-06-30T18:15:40.293" UserId="68" Text="Forgive me if I'm missing something, but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think your issue here may be with the English rather than the Latin. To say that something &quot;was wont to do&quot; something (&quot;wont&quot; with an *o* and no apostrophe rather than &quot;want&quot; with an *a*) is an archaic way to say that it &quot;was used to doing&quot; something or &quot;used to do&quot; something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So rather than desire or privation, the English is saying (in a more modern translation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Our feet used to stand in your courts, Jerusalem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Or feet were accustomed to stand in your courts, Jerusalem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which seems like a translation closer to the original." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1108" RevisionGUID="9078e3cb-3639-4c1e-9dc3-2db9f286bfb1" CreationDate="2016-06-30T18:45:20.460" UserId="68" Text="I'm trying to say in Latin, &quot;Our garden has been full of junk for three years&quot;  and I can't figure out what tense to put the verb in. In English, &quot;has been&quot; expresses present tense with perfective aspect of a stative verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other present-tense, perfective-aspect verbs (stative or otherwise, unless I'm mistaken) call for the perfect. But somehow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hortus trés annós scopí quisquiliæque fuit plénus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;makes me feel the past tense only, not the present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hortus trés annós scopí quisuiliæque erat plénus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also feels wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hortus trés annós scopí quisquiliæque est plénus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can't be right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, past tense perfective aspect seems impossible to me too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hortus trés annós scopí quisquiliæque fuerat plénus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the feeling this is actually a really easy thing to deal with and I'm just overthinking it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3712" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1108" RevisionGUID="9078e3cb-3639-4c1e-9dc3-2db9f286bfb1" CreationDate="2016-06-30T18:45:20.460" UserId="68" Text="Latin for English &quot;has been&quot; + adjective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3713" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1108" RevisionGUID="9078e3cb-3639-4c1e-9dc3-2db9f286bfb1" CreationDate="2016-06-30T18:45:20.460" UserId="68" Text="|translation|verbs|perfect-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3714" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1108" RevisionGUID="2b232589-df1d-49f3-9f0b-ddb81e7ddee8" CreationDate="2016-06-30T19:05:18.737" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|verbs|perfect-tense|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1109" RevisionGUID="cb71c2ba-5077-43b6-8c1e-ede062523571" CreationDate="2016-06-30T19:16:41.647" UserId="79" Text="I think the perfect is the way to go.&#xD;&#xA;There is in principle a danger of misinterpretation as past only.&#xD;&#xA;However, when the Latin perfect refers to the past, it typically refers to instantaneous events.&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;*giraffa canebat, elephas eum percussit*&quot; is in the past due to the imperfect, so the elephant was not beating the giraffe but probably gave a single punch.&#xD;&#xA;(Sorry for the silly example. I just happen to have an elephant and a giraffe on my desk now.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instantaneity is impossible due to the temporal accusative *tres annos*, so I see no room for confusion &amp;mdash; unless your full sentence is going to be longer.&#xD;&#xA;If the garden was full in the past for three years and then was cleared up, one would expect pluperfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would interpret the present *est* correctly, but I do not know if that is idiomatic or grammatical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1110" RevisionGUID="0f9d8bb7-07d0-4e05-87e0-778cfd8f4300" CreationDate="2016-06-30T19:54:24.560" UserId="79" Text="I would like to express the following ideas in Latin, for the purpose of describing this site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Through voting, the best answers rise to more visible positions at the top of the page.&#xD;&#xA;2. You can vote on questions and answers, making the best questions and answers more visible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My current translations are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Suffragando responsus optimi moventur sursum et pessimi deorsum.*&#xD;&#xA;2. *Potes scripta aliorum suffragari et ita substantiam optimam promovere.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is *suffragari* a good verb for the kind of voting we have on this site?&#xD;&#xA;Whatever the most suitable verb is, how does it work syntactically?&#xD;&#xA;I was unable to figure out whether *suffragari* is transitive or not.&#xD;&#xA;How could I improve my translations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3717" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1110" RevisionGUID="0f9d8bb7-07d0-4e05-87e0-778cfd8f4300" CreationDate="2016-06-30T19:54:24.560" UserId="79" Text="How to describe the SE voting system in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3718" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1110" RevisionGUID="0f9d8bb7-07d0-4e05-87e0-778cfd8f4300" CreationDate="2016-06-30T19:54:24.560" UserId="79" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1111" RevisionGUID="f03348a2-008b-4918-8c9c-c38f5c810447" CreationDate="2016-06-30T20:20:47.043" UserId="68" Text="I'd go for *suffragiis* or *per suffragia* in the first translation instead of *suffragando* and *suffragium ferre* instead of *suffragari*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd go with *quis* instead of *potes*, though it's a rare enough word that confusion with the nominative interrogative pronoun would probably arise. So maybe *licet* as in &quot;it is possible&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And rather than *substantiam promovere* I'd go with *roganda responsaque optima conspicuiora ferre* or maybe *inlustrare*, but then again as soon as anything gets abstract in Latin I start having trouble understanding it, so *substantiam promovere* might be better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1112" RevisionGUID="048ea14a-4fac-460d-8854-b501410405dc" CreationDate="2016-06-30T23:42:06.300" UserId="40" Text="I'd say you want the present tense. A&amp;G 466, &quot;Present with *iam diu* etc.&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Present with expressions of *duration of time* (especially *iam diu, iam dudum*) denotes an action continuing in the present, but begun in the past... In this use the present is commonly to be rendered by the perfect in English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They give examples such as *annum iam audis Crattipum* &quot;for a year you have been a student of Crattipus&quot; (Cicero), which seems like the kind of thing you're looking for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1113" RevisionGUID="f041c01f-d19f-41ad-b1de-50d7db19d731" CreationDate="2016-07-01T05:37:42.570" UserId="118" Text="I'm only a beginner with Latin, but the first thing that occurred to me as a way to express &quot;the art of leadership&quot; in Latin is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ars ducendi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [quick search](https://www.google.com/?#q=ars+ducendi&amp;gws_rd=ssl) turned up a [company in England](http://www.arsducendi.co.uk/artofleadership/) called Ars Ducendi, which teaches leadership. Searching [Google Books](https://www.google.com/#tbm=bks&amp;q=ars+ducendi) turned up many hits, including an 1842 [commentary](https://books.google.com/books?id=Y1E-AAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA13&amp;dq=%22ars+ducendi%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjftpWKodHNAhXpzIMKHfVMD_kQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&amp;q=ars%20ducendi&amp;f=false) on Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, written in Latin, which translates στρατηγητικη as **ars ducendi et regendi exercitum** (the art of leading and governing an army). [This book review](https://books.google.com/books?id=PZF-T1ObPUsC&amp;pg=PA64&amp;dq=ars+ducendi&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjB0LiusNHNAhVGPiYKHSHqCP4Q6AEINjAE#v=onepage&amp;q=ars%20ducendi&amp;f=false) (I think!) from 1708 mentions describing logic as **ars ducendi mentem ad veritatem** (the art of leading the mind to truth).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt that **ars ducendi** was used by the ancient Romans, but it's definitely got some established usage at least in New Latin. While it's not completely soaked with military connotation, it still might not be what you're looking for. If **educo** fits your meaning as a verb, then perhaps this what you're looking for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ars educendi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [quick search](https://www.google.com/?client=safari#q=%22ars+educendi%22&amp;nfpr=1) turns up two occurrences (also New Latin). I don't have as good a feeling for the meaning of **ēdūcō**. I understand it to literally mean leading something _out of_ something, but easily taking secondary and poetic senses of leading out of something lower or unworthy or merely inactive, into action or something higher. Lewis &amp; Short mention secondary senses of leading troops in march, assisting in childbirth, and raising a child (among others more prosaic). [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/educo#Etymology_1) illustrates **ēdūcō** with this quotation from Exodus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus, qui **eduxi** te de terra Aegypti, de domo servitutis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am the Lord thy God, who hath **brought** thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jerome's Latin here seems more poetic than the KJV. If the art that you want to name is the art of leading people (metaphorically) out of the house of bondage and into the promised land, **ars educendi** might work, though it requires giving **ēdūcō** a restricted sense (which, as Joe Derfner said, is often necessary and customary due to Latin's relatively small vocabulary). Happily, the second **e** distinguishes it from **ars educandi**, the art of educating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can comment on the appropriateness of either of these phrases. I don't have enough exposure to Latin writings to be fully confident." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1114" RevisionGUID="6d1f2d5a-8ab4-4c7b-8208-4d6d1c9fc812" CreationDate="2016-07-02T03:18:43.280" UserId="68" Text="Would something as simple as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Té (vós) summé præstolámur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Scító (-óte) té valde exspectátum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;do the trick? (I'm going with your real meaning rather than the specific sentence you asked for.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Præstolor* seems to take the dative or the accusative indiscriminately.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1098" RevisionGUID="a6272e76-70d7-49d1-b2be-d4e31a16fe14" CreationDate="2016-07-02T03:55:46.253" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="I just learned the comparison for adjectives. Most adjectives have regular conjugations (every case/grammatical gender has its own output). But I learned a few irregular adjectives as well (all in masculinum):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- bonus, melior, optimus (good, better, best)&#xD;&#xA;- malus, peior, pessimus (bad, worse, worst)&#xD;&#xA;- magnus, maior, maximus (big, bigger, biggest)&#xD;&#xA;- parvus, minor, minimus (small, smaller, smallest)&#xD;&#xA;- multi, plures, plurimi (much, more, most)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I missing any irregular adjectives, or have I learned all the irregular adjectives already? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1097" RevisionGUID="c027f539-bdd5-4cb4-8531-10762d38518c" CreationDate="2016-07-02T04:43:13.410" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="It is sometimes appropriate to add &quot;I look forward to hearing from you&quot; at the end of a letter or other similar communication.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a phrase that says more &quot;I am happy if you react to this letter in some way&quot; rather than &quot;please write back&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(To be precise, I really mean &quot;please come to Latin.SE&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;What would be an idiomatic way to express this in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The Roman letters from antiquity must have a phrase that has this effect, but I'm not familiar with any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A direct translation might be something like *Expecto mihi de te audire licere*, &quot;I await a chance to hear about you&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1114" RevisionGUID="f91294bb-3eaf-4d22-9740-6d18f4b136fc" CreationDate="2016-07-02T04:44:44.113" UserId="68" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Would something as simple as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Té (vós) summé præstolámur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Scító (-óte) té (vós) valde exspectátum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;do the trick? (I'm going with your real meaning rather than the specific sentence you asked for.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Præstolor* seems to take the dative or the accusative indiscriminately.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1115" RevisionGUID="fd5e8f41-9ca4-476b-be26-d4e83773c771" CreationDate="2016-07-02T14:00:17.007" UserId="68" Text="&quot;It is permitted to know&quot; and &quot;it is permitted to see,&quot; while literally correct translations of the two words in question, aren't actually what they mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Latin commitment-markers: *scilicet* and *videlicet*][1],&quot; by Josine Schrickx, has a very detailed account of the similarities and differences between the two words, the gist of which is that *scilicet* means something like &quot;of course&quot; or &quot;naturally&quot; or &quot;obviously,&quot; indicating that the speaker takes it as a given that the listener will agree with what s/he is saying, while *videlicet* means something like &quot;evidently&quot; or &quot;apparently&quot; or &quot;it seems,&quot; indicating that, while what the speaker is saying is supported by the evidence, s/he is unwilling to commit to it as true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Scilicet and videlicet are both evidential commitment-markers - the com-mitment is based on evidence - and have a comparable origin (from a form of scire / vidēre and licet). As we have seen, however, there are important differences:&#xD;&#xA;scilicet indicates that the evidence is based on expectation (‘as is to be expected’, ‘of course’) and is strongly directed towards the addressee, videlicet indicates that the evidence is inferable from the context or reasoning&#xD;&#xA;(‘clearly’) and is not directed towards the addressee. The differences are shown by the different contexts in which they occur: scilicet often appears with a verb in the first person, videlicet rarely so and if so then only when used ironically; scilicet can be used in bases and contrasts ,videlicet cannot; scilicet can be combined with a future form of the verb in the second person, to mitigate an appeal to the addressee, videlicet cannot; videlicet is rarely used with a future verb form of any kind; scilicet can be used independently as a reaction, videlicet cannot (or at any rate is not so used in our material). Both adverbials can be used ironically, in which case they are not strictly speaking commitment-markers. The speaker uses scilicet to appeal to the addressee and to show solidarity with him; it can be used for ‘positive politeness’.&#xD;&#xA;Videlicet cannot be used for these purposes; with this marker speakers show that they have good evidence for what they are saying and do not need to appeal to the addressee for support or confirmation of the common ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this article (and my answer) deal with how the words are used in Latin. It's possible that their use in English has shifted, but if it has, I suspect that's matter for a different question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/3781268/Latin_commitment-markers_scilicet_and_videlicet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1115" RevisionGUID="cfea7a05-14f1-46b5-9643-f85a9b7e90a4" CreationDate="2016-07-02T14:10:41.863" UserId="79" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="&quot;It is permitted to know&quot; and &quot;it is permitted to see,&quot; while literally correct translations of the two words in question, aren't actually what they mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Latin commitment-markers: *scilicet* and *videlicet*][1],&quot; by Josine Schrickx, has a very detailed account of the similarities and differences between the two words, the gist of which is that *scilicet* means something like &quot;of course&quot; or &quot;naturally&quot; or &quot;obviously,&quot; indicating that the speaker takes it as a given that the listener will agree with what s/he is saying, while *videlicet* means something like &quot;evidently&quot; or &quot;apparently&quot; or &quot;it seems,&quot; indicating that, while what the speaker is saying is supported by the evidence, s/he is unwilling to commit to it as true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Scilicet* and *videlicet* are both evidential commitment-markers &amp;ndash; the commitment is based on evidence &amp;ndash; and have a comparable origin (from a form of *scire / vidēre* and *licet*). As we have seen, however, there are important differences:&#xD;&#xA;*scilicet* indicates that the evidence is based on expectation (‘as is to be expected’, ‘of course’) and is strongly directed towards the addressee, *videlicet* indicates that the evidence is inferable from the context or reasoning&#xD;&#xA;(‘clearly’) and is not directed towards the addressee. The differences are shown by the different contexts in which they occur: *scilicet* often appears with a verb in the first person, *videlicet* rarely so and if so then only when used ironically; *scilicet* can be used in ‘bases’ and contrasts, *videlicet* cannot; *scilicet* can be combined with a future form of the verb in the second person, to mitigate an appeal to the addressee, *videlicet* cannot; *videlicet* is rarely used with a future verb form of any kind; *scilicet* can be used independently as a reaction, *videlicet* cannot (or at any rate is not so used in our material). Both adverbials can be used ironically, in which case they are not strictly speaking commitment-markers. The speaker uses *scilicet* to appeal to the addressee and to show solidarity with him; it can be used for ‘positive politeness’.&#xD;&#xA;*Videlicet* cannot be used for these purposes; with this marker speakers show that they have good evidence for what they are saying and do not need to appeal to the addressee for support or confirmation of the common ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this article (and my answer) deal with how the words are used in Latin. It's possible that their use in English has shifted, but if it has, I suspect that's matter for a different question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/3781268/Latin_commitment-markers_scilicet_and_videlicet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1115" RevisionGUID="c608a712-f184-44c8-b6a0-300168518438" CreationDate="2016-07-02T15:00:11.043" UserId="68" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="&quot;It is permitted to know&quot; and &quot;it is permitted to see,&quot; while literally correct translations of the two words in question, aren't actually what they mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Latin commitment-markers: *scilicet* and *videlicet*][1],&quot; by Josine Schrickx, has a very detailed account of the similarities and differences between the two words, the gist of which is that *scilicet* means something like &quot;of course&quot; or &quot;naturally&quot; or &quot;obviously,&quot; indicating that the speaker takes it as a given that the listener will agree with what s/he is saying, while *videlicet* means something like &quot;evidently&quot; or &quot;apparently&quot; or &quot;it seems,&quot; indicating that, while what the speaker is saying is supported by the evidence, s/he is unwilling to commit to it as true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Scilicet* and *videlicet* are both evidential commitment-markers &amp;ndash; the commitment is based on evidence &amp;ndash; and have a comparable origin (from a form of *scire / vidēre* and *licet*). As we have seen, however, there are important differences:&#xD;&#xA;*scilicet* indicates that the evidence is based on expectation (‘as is to be expected’, ‘of course’) and is strongly directed towards the addressee, *videlicet* indicates that the evidence is inferable from the context or reasoning&#xD;&#xA;(‘clearly’) and is not directed towards the addressee. The differences are shown by the different contexts in which they occur: *scilicet* often appears with a verb in the first person, *videlicet* rarely so and if so then only when used ironically; *scilicet* can be used in ‘bases’ and contrasts, *videlicet* cannot; *scilicet* can be combined with a future form of the verb in the second person, to mitigate an appeal to the addressee, *videlicet* cannot; *videlicet* is rarely used with a future verb form of any kind; *scilicet* can be used independently as a reaction, *videlicet* cannot (or at any rate is not so used in our material). Both adverbials can be used ironically, in which case they are not strictly speaking commitment-markers. The speaker uses *scilicet* to appeal to the addressee and to show solidarity with him; it can be used for ‘positive politeness’.&#xD;&#xA;*Videlicet* cannot be used for these purposes; with this marker speakers show that they have good evidence for what they are saying and do not need to appeal to the addressee for support or confirmation of the common ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this article (and my answer) deal with how the words are used in Classical Latin. It's possible that their use shifted in later Latin and/or in English, but if that's so, I suspect it's a matter for a different question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/3781268/Latin_commitment-markers_scilicet_and_videlicet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1114" RevisionGUID="088220cb-548c-490e-99f0-05c052ec08cd" CreationDate="2016-07-02T23:24:10.543" UserId="68" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Would something as simple as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Té (vós) summé præstolámur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Scító (-óte) té (vós) valde exspectátum (-ós).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;do the trick? (I'm going with your real meaning rather than the specific sentence you asked for.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Præstolor* seems to take the dative or the accusative indiscriminately.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1116" RevisionGUID="2c74cad3-5a1e-4e9e-a10a-e8b62122e556" CreationDate="2016-07-03T20:37:11.677" UserId="79" Text="I am looking for a Latin word for &quot;pseudonym&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;My (Finnish&amp;ndash;Latin&amp;ndash;Finnish) dictionary gives the translation *pseud&amp;omacr;nymum*.&#xD;&#xA;However, this word seems to be absent in Lewis &amp; Short, and no Latin word for &quot;pseudonym&quot; can be found.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin Wikipedia [article](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonymum) about the word mentions sources from the 19th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads to a couple of questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How old is the Latin word *pseudonymum*?&#xD;&#xA;2. What are the classical ways to say &quot;pseudonym&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that *pseudonymum* is too young to be classical, but I have no evidence.&#xD;&#xA;I have found some ancient instances of *nomen falsum*, but I wonder if this is the only expression or the preferred one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Partial answers are welcome if you cannot provide a full answer to both questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3738" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1116" RevisionGUID="2c74cad3-5a1e-4e9e-a10a-e8b62122e556" CreationDate="2016-07-03T20:37:11.677" UserId="79" Text="The word &quot;pseudonymum&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3739" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1116" RevisionGUID="2c74cad3-5a1e-4e9e-a10a-e8b62122e556" CreationDate="2016-07-03T20:37:11.677" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|translation|etymology|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1117" RevisionGUID="1dfbd5bc-2ad7-406a-b747-ec65bf28307e" CreationDate="2016-07-03T23:29:11.100" UserId="30" Text="*Virus* is a neuter word of the second declension even though it ends on *-us*, as evidenced by its genitive on *-i* (it has no plural). Are there any other such words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus question: is it possible that there were two forms of *virus*, one masculine on *-us*, the other neuter on *-um*, that were later conflated into one word? Their origin might then be adjectival." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3741" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1117" RevisionGUID="1dfbd5bc-2ad7-406a-b747-ec65bf28307e" CreationDate="2016-07-03T23:29:11.100" UserId="30" Text="Are there any other neuter words of the second declension that end on -us than &quot;virus&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3742" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1117" RevisionGUID="1dfbd5bc-2ad7-406a-b747-ec65bf28307e" CreationDate="2016-07-03T23:29:11.100" UserId="30" Text="|declension|morphology|ending|neuter|second-declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1118" RevisionGUID="e1dcbead-fa29-4f56-9b33-cbb98a6f6a84" CreationDate="2016-07-03T23:35:21.243" UserId="79" Text="Tuomo Pekkanen's *Ars Grammatica* (a Latin grammar in Finnish) says that the second declension has three neuters ending in *-us*: *v&amp;imacr;rus*, *vulgus* and *pelagus*.&#xD;&#xA;They are only used in the singular, and accusative is exactly like the nominative (not *-um*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no clue about the origin of these words.&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if these words even have a similar history." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1119" RevisionGUID="d71359b0-b193-45a3-8c11-93d355c36fb2" CreationDate="2016-07-03T23:42:21.310" UserId="324" Text="The adjective ψευδώνυμος “falsely called” is good classical Greek, so one would expect the corresponding noun to be *ψευδώνυμα (neuter) “a false name”, and as such borrowable into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Oxford English Dictionary traces “the Latinate form” pseudonymus to the 17th century.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1120" RevisionGUID="b5d5ebde-8482-48a2-b16d-163c1198a394" CreationDate="2016-07-03T23:49:12.793" UserId="118" Text="&gt; Dædalus solus volare didicit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Dædalus alone learned to fly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Dædalus learned to fly alone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Dædalus learned on his own to fly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's ambiguous, how could you indicate each of those meanings without ambiguity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3746" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1120" RevisionGUID="b5d5ebde-8482-48a2-b16d-163c1198a394" CreationDate="2016-07-03T23:49:12.793" UserId="118" Text="Ambiguity of &quot;sōlus&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3747" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1120" RevisionGUID="b5d5ebde-8482-48a2-b16d-163c1198a394" CreationDate="2016-07-03T23:49:12.793" UserId="118" Text="|ambiguity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1119" RevisionGUID="36f94a77-df4b-4411-910d-a7607f8a567e" CreationDate="2016-07-03T23:55:58.300" UserId="324" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The adjective ψευδώνυμος “falsely called” is good classical Greek, so one would expect the corresponding noun to be *ψευδώνυμον (neuter) “a false name”, and as such borrowable into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Oxford English Dictionary traces “the Latinate form” pseudonymus to the 17th century.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1120" RevisionGUID="73f30f25-4d52-4381-951c-90138f62a6ca" CreationDate="2016-07-04T00:09:22.460" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="&gt; Dædalus solus volare didicit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Dædalus alone learned to fly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Dædalus learned to fly alone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Dædalus learned on his own to fly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How could you indicate each of those meanings without ambiguity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1121" RevisionGUID="2041ef16-0013-425c-aec3-c38b280ba530" CreationDate="2016-07-04T02:09:14.880" UserId="68" Text="I'd probably translate them, in the order you have them, as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Dædalus solus volare didicit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Dædalus volare incomitate didicit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Dædalus volare nullo magistro didicit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Actually for the third I'd probably use *Dædalus se volare docuit*, but that's not really an answer to your question.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1122" RevisionGUID="3e0f9059-ab61-4c87-be4c-1a61d8f07f22" CreationDate="2016-07-04T12:42:25.613" UserId="79" Text="There are three neuters in the second declension ending in *-us*: *virus*, *vulgus* and *pelagus*.&#xD;&#xA;(See [this previous question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1117/79) for origin and listing of such words.)&#xD;&#xA;My grammar tells me that these words are not used in the plural at all.&#xD;&#xA;I cannot believe that no one would have used these words in the plural through the millennia of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;If I want to scan my computer for viruses, describe how globalization brings the masses of different areas closer together, or sail the seven seas, I could use some plurals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the plural forms of these three words?&#xD;&#xA;Are they found in all cases?&#xD;&#xA;Are they declined in the same way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neuters ending in *-us* typically have plurals *-ora* or *-era* (e.g. *tempus&amp;ndash;tempora* and *vulnus&amp;ndash;vulneris*).&#xD;&#xA;But these are in third declension and the *-s* is part of the stem.&#xD;&#xA;For my three words *-s* is (a part of?) the nominative case ending and they follow the second declension.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the most appealing plural endings are *-a*, *-orum* and *-is*, but I have not seen these mentioned anywhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1122" RevisionGUID="3e0f9059-ab61-4c87-be4c-1a61d8f07f22" CreationDate="2016-07-04T12:42:25.613" UserId="79" Text="What is the plural of virus, vulgus and pelagus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1122" RevisionGUID="3e0f9059-ab61-4c87-be4c-1a61d8f07f22" CreationDate="2016-07-04T12:42:25.613" UserId="79" Text="|declension|morphology|plural|second-declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1124" RevisionGUID="d2f3bd68-902a-4ea5-81c9-f45989bee6bd" CreationDate="2016-07-04T14:54:45.923" UserId="68" Text="It seems there are [many theories][1], among them *viri*, *virora*, and *virus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Sorry about the other answer, which I've deleted—I forgot momentarily how to use a dictionary and was taking genitive as plural.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ofb.net/~jlm/virus.html#ASM_Update" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1124" RevisionGUID="89e20539-a68b-4bd8-8e2d-c275b338d922" CreationDate="2016-07-04T15:00:07.417" UserId="68" Comment="added 338 characters in body" Text="It seems there are [many theories][1], among them *viri*, *virora*, and *virus*. (The point of the article is that it's pointless to try to figure it out.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, however, is a [refutation][2] of the article linked above that contains an argument based on what seems to be solid linguistics (&quot;seems&quot; because it's been so long since I studied linguistics that I can't really tell anymore) and asserts that the plural has to be *vira*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Sorry about the other answer, which I've deleted—I forgot momentarily how to use a dictionary and was taking genitive as plural.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ofb.net/~jlm/virus.html#ASM_Update&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://interretialia.tumblr.com/post/58389248885/some-notes-on-the-inflection-of-the-latin-word" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1125" RevisionGUID="6fce8d45-cb99-47a0-8ea6-a2b57422c872" CreationDate="2016-07-04T19:28:00.663" UserId="40" Text="Acc. pl. *pelagē* occurs in Lucretius, *De Rerum Natura* 6.619:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at pelage multa et late substrata videmus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is simply the Greek plural: the word is a loan of Greek πέλαγος, whose nom./acc. pl. is πελάγη.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [Packard](http://latin.packhum.org/search) search finds no results for *vira, virora, vulga, vulgora*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3765" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1073" RevisionGUID="271cc260-9843-45dc-830f-78abbb819a59" CreationDate="2016-07-04T19:47:03.350" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="edited title" Text="What underlying semantic notions connect the stem '-fetus' to the PIE root *gu̯hedh- ('to ask, beg, wish for')?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1092" RevisionGUID="6de15231-1ad6-4049-9fff-c4cc64a9c60f" CreationDate="2016-07-04T20:36:02.007" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I don't think *involvo* necessitates a temporal order: for essence to involve or entail existence, it isn't necessary for existence to exist before essence existed. The order is not temporal, nor causal, but merely rational: one thinks of existence when one thinks of essence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The image involved in the word *involvo* is that of a cloud encircling and touching a mountaintop, or a snake entwining a tree: the snake is very close to the tree, and it would be difficult to separate them. That is what *involvo* should mean in this sense: one thing is close to another and hard to separate from it. The metaphor is obvious from there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3767" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1073" RevisionGUID="7ba25638-3121-4936-9453-4151a1b7f9f9" CreationDate="2016-07-04T23:53:19.477" UserId="68" Comment="edited title" Text="What underlying semantic notions connect the stem '-festus' to the PIE root *gu̯hedh- ('to ask, beg, wish for')?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1126" RevisionGUID="03db45ff-e70f-4de1-ae88-b0902999581c" CreationDate="2016-07-05T00:28:31.950" UserId="12" Text="In English and other languages, we often use alternatives to &quot;I forgot,&quot; apparently to shift blame from ourselves to inanimate objects.  So in English, we say,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It slipped my mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in Spanish:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Se me olvidó.  [*lit.* It forgot itself on me]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a similar blame-avoiding phrase in Latin for this, to replace &quot;I forgot&quot; or &quot;It slipped my mind&quot;?  I'd love an example that is attested in the classical period." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3769" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1126" RevisionGUID="03db45ff-e70f-4de1-ae88-b0902999581c" CreationDate="2016-07-05T00:28:31.950" UserId="12" Text="What is &quot;slipped my mind&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3770" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1126" RevisionGUID="03db45ff-e70f-4de1-ae88-b0902999581c" CreationDate="2016-07-05T00:28:31.950" UserId="12" Text="|idiom|phrase-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3771" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="1127" RevisionGUID="aec45346-9cb5-4319-abb7-6d5762c974bf" CreationDate="2016-07-05T00:48:21.030" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/50518/whats-the-correct-way-to-say-in-latin-creation-within-god-creation-throu" />
  <row Id="3772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1127" RevisionGUID="c42f724e-c7f7-4bf8-a563-e558b0d8b2f1" CreationDate="2016-07-03T03:01:40.810" UserId="589" Text="A great swath of Christendom has, from as early as Augustinus Hipponensis, held that God created the universe *ex nihilo*, &quot;from/ out of nothing.&quot; One of the motivations behind this has been to refute or avoid the *ex materia* conclusion, which would presuppose that God had to have pre-existent matter out of which to fashion the universe as we now know it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another motivation is to avoid a blurring of the distinction between God and his creation which *creatio ex deo* may suggest, based on certain philosophical starting-points. There are, however, portions of the Bible (such as Colossians 1.16) which explicitly say that the cosmos was made &quot;*in* God&quot; and whose motion takes place as though a journey &quot;*through* God&quot; (see Acts 17.28).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is in this sense that I ask how, in Latin, to express those prepositional relationships between God and the universe. In other words, which of the following would be the correct way to say, in formulations similar to *creatio ex nihilo* &amp; *creatio ex deo* :  &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`1. creation [with]in God` or `creation in[side] God` &lt;br&gt; &#xD;&#xA;`2. creation through God` &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Would they be, respectively: &lt;br&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;1. `creatio intra deo` or `creatio introrsum deo`? &lt;br&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;2. `creatio per deo` or `creatio per deum`, &lt;br&gt; &#xD;&#xA;or perhaps, rather, &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`creatio trans deo` or `creation trans deum`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The above are the results of my GoogleTranslations of the afore-listed expressions but my grammar is nowhere good enough for me to tell if any of these is correct and if so by how much.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3773" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1127" RevisionGUID="c42f724e-c7f7-4bf8-a563-e558b0d8b2f1" CreationDate="2016-07-03T03:01:40.810" UserId="589" Text="What's the correct way to say, in Latin, &quot;creation within God&quot; &amp; &quot;creation through God&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3774" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1127" RevisionGUID="c42f724e-c7f7-4bf8-a563-e558b0d8b2f1" CreationDate="2016-07-03T03:01:40.810" UserId="589" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3775" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1127" RevisionGUID="708a538b-fdcd-4086-af31-bc9682fb5b1f" CreationDate="2016-07-05T01:35:08.750" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1128" RevisionGUID="a7b13d48-085d-40ce-8b5c-96f420063a3a" CreationDate="2016-07-05T01:38:51.007" UserId="40" Text="It seems like *memoriam meam fugit* or *memoria me fefellit* would be good candidates. Here are some relevant passages I've found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...et si qua sunt alia, quae nunc memoriam meam fugiunt (Columella, *De Re Rustica* 12.52.8.9)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nisi memoria me fallit (Aulus Gellius, *Noctes Attica* 20.1.14)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This longer passage from Quintilian also has a couple of relevant phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pleraque gratiora sunt si inventa subito nec domo allata sed inter dicendum ex re ipsa nata videantur, unde illa non iniucunda schemata: &quot;paene excidit mihi&quot; et &quot;fugerat me&quot; et &quot;recte admones&quot; (Quinitilian, *Institutio Oratoria* 4.5.4). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Translation](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Quintilian/Institutio_Oratoria/4C*.html): there are many points which can be produced in a more attractive manner, if they appear to be discovered on the spot and not to have been brought ready made from our study, but rather to have sprung from the requirements of the case itself while we were speaking. Thus we get those not unpleasing figures such as &quot;It has almost escaped me,&quot; &quot;I had forgotten,&quot; or &quot;You do well to remind me.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1129" RevisionGUID="9bfa5b18-978d-425d-bbfc-365444712e70" CreationDate="2016-07-05T01:53:23.253" UserId="40" Text="Here are the Vulgate versions of the two verses you mention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Colossians 1.16: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quoniam **in ipso** condita sunt universa in cælis, et in terra, visibilia, et invisibilia, sive throni, sive dominationes, sive principatus, sive potestates: omnia **per ipsum** et **in ipso** creata sunt*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acts 17.28: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;***In ipso** enim vivimus, et movemur, et sumus: sicut et quidam vestrorum poëtarum dixerunt: Ipsius enim et genus sumus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both verses use *in* + ablative to mean &quot;in&quot;, and the first also uses *per* + accusative to mean &quot;through&quot;. Based on this, the phrases you're looking for would be *in deo* and *per deum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1130" RevisionGUID="c0299f92-9d27-4da9-aa39-67591e06d55f" CreationDate="2016-07-05T02:33:35.863" UserId="68" Text="Auden's translation of Meissner's *Lateinische Phraseologie* offers the following options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;memoria labi (&quot;to make a slip of the memory&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;oblivio alicujus rei me capit (&quot;I forget something&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;aliquid excidit e memoria, effluit/excidit ex animo (&quot;something escapes, vanishes from the memory&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of blame-shifting, the second seems strongest to me, but the third works too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My memory is that Meissner is pulled entirely from classical authors, but I can't find confirmation of that at the moment. If I do, I'll come back and add.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If anybody wants to edit this answer to make those bullet points I won't mind—I don't know how to do them myself.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1130" RevisionGUID="35e9ac11-d6bc-4e6b-8299-1504b6ce0f19" CreationDate="2016-07-05T02:36:35.440" UserId="40" Comment="made bullet points" Text="Auden's translation of Meissner's *Lateinische Phraseologie* offers the following options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - memoria labi (&quot;to make a slip of the memory&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - oblivio alicujus rei me capit (&quot;I forget something&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - aliquid excidit e memoria, effluit/excidit ex animo (&quot;something escapes, vanishes from the memory&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of blame-shifting, the second seems strongest to me, but the third works too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My memory is that Meissner is pulled entirely from classical authors, but I can't find confirmation of that at the moment. If I do, I'll come back and add." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1131" RevisionGUID="f1aa8721-2f41-4279-8904-69dae7c2887a" CreationDate="2016-07-05T09:37:51.030" UserId="324" Text="If I may supplement TKR's answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Colossians 1:16 is decidedly ambiguous. The Greek original has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα, τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι τὰ πάντα δι᾽αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which the Vulgate renders as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;quoniam in ipso condita sunt universa in cælis, et in terra, visibilia, et invisibilia, sive throni, sive dominationes, sive principatus, sive potestates: omnia per ipsum, et in ipso creata sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ἐν αὐτῷ is correctly rendered as “in ipso”, though it could be debated whether this means “in himself” or “in themselves” (with the singular αὐτῷ referring to the neuter plural subject of ἐκτίσθη). δι᾽αὐτοῦ means “per ipsum”, but εἰς αὐτὸν cannot really mean “in ipso”, but must mean “for him” (or literally: “towards him”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reference: the English KJV has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would think that the Biblical authority for the doctrine that God created the universe &quot;in himself&quot; is quite shaky. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1127" RevisionGUID="67c63391-68d5-4a7f-8722-5c2e9e47e59b" CreationDate="2016-07-05T12:46:09.090" UserId="79" Comment="Improved formatting and added a tag." Text="A great swath of Christendom has, from as early as Augustinus Hipponensis, held that God created the universe *ex nihilo*, &quot;from/ out of nothing.&quot; One of the motivations behind this has been to refute or avoid the *ex materia* conclusion, which would presuppose that God had to have pre-existent matter out of which to fashion the universe as we now know it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another motivation is to avoid a blurring of the distinction between God and his creation which *creatio ex deo* may suggest, based on certain philosophical starting-points. There are, however, portions of the Bible (such as Colossians 1.16) which explicitly say that the cosmos was made &quot;*in* God&quot; and whose motion takes place as though a journey &quot;*through* God&quot; (see Acts 17.28).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is in this sense that I ask how, in Latin, to express those prepositional relationships between God and the universe. In other words, which of the following would be the correct way to say, in formulations similar to *creatio ex nihilo* &amp; *creatio ex deo*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;creation [with]in God&quot; or &quot;creation in[side] God&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;creation through God&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would they be, respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *creatio intra deo* or *creatio introrsum deo*?&#xD;&#xA;2. *creatio per deo* or *creatio per deum*,  &#xD;&#xA;or perhaps, rather,  &#xD;&#xA;*creatio trans deo* or *creation trans deum*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The above are the results of my GoogleTranslations of the afore-listed expressions but my grammar is nowhere good enough for me to tell if any of these is correct and if so by how much.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3783" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1127" RevisionGUID="67c63391-68d5-4a7f-8722-5c2e9e47e59b" CreationDate="2016-07-05T12:46:09.090" UserId="79" Comment="Improved formatting and added a tag." Text="|english-to-latin-translation|preposition|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="132" RevisionGUID="e87a5015-8c71-4c71-8698-45dc4567fcd5" CreationDate="2016-07-05T13:20:43.380" UserId="79" Comment="Removed the grammar tag and reformatted slightly." Text="I am tutoring a friend who is preparing for a graduate school translation exam, of the &quot;unseen passage, dictionary allowed, time limit imposed, be accurate&quot; variety. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We came across *nacti* in paragraph 22 [here][1]. I found *nanciscor* pretty quickly, and she didn't. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I tried to explain how I knew to check that spelling, I was at a loss. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my real question: Is there any sort of good procedure I could give a student that would allow them to make a list of probable first principal part spellings, given later principal parts? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/la/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3785" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="132" RevisionGUID="e87a5015-8c71-4c71-8698-45dc4567fcd5" CreationDate="2016-07-05T13:20:43.380" UserId="79" Comment="Removed the grammar tag and reformatted slightly." Text="|dictionary|orthography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3786" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="885" RevisionGUID="b005f77b-6f71-4477-aab0-923445f38084" CreationDate="2016-07-05T13:22:22.380" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammarians|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="932" RevisionGUID="7df29ea1-b240-4e7d-9d5c-2c0a66076039" CreationDate="2016-07-05T13:24:03.177" UserId="79" Comment="Removed the grammar tag and reformatted slightly." Text="I'm coming up with a title for a song, and I thought &quot;I'm a human, I will be a god&quot; or &quot;I'm human, I will be God&quot; was pretty sweet sounding, but translating it into a short Latin saying would make it even better. Since I remember the word order &quot;homo sum&quot; from the famous humanist motto, I wonder if adding &quot;Deus ero&quot; after a simple comma would be correct? I came to this quite simply via analogy, since &quot;ero&quot; is the first person future form of &quot;to be&quot;. Thanks for your answer!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3788" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="932" RevisionGUID="7df29ea1-b240-4e7d-9d5c-2c0a66076039" CreationDate="2016-07-05T13:24:03.177" UserId="79" Comment="Removed the grammar tag and reformatted slightly." Text="|syntax|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3789" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1042" RevisionGUID="b2739a46-ff59-4c7b-b521-0a1e12c898fb" CreationDate="2016-07-05T13:25:25.537" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|verbs|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1130" RevisionGUID="a31eca8a-103e-49ba-a1c3-49db02096f93" CreationDate="2016-07-05T16:18:24.357" UserId="68" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Auden's translation of Meissner's *Lateinische Phraseologie* offers the following options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *memoria labi* (&quot;to make a slip of the memory&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - *oblivio alicujus rei me capit* (&quot;I forget something&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - *aliquid excidit e memoria, effluit/excidit ex animo* (&quot;something escapes, vanishes from the memory&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of blame-shifting, the second seems strongest to me, but the third works too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My memory is that Meissner is pulled entirely from classical authors, but I can't find confirmation of that at the moment. If I do, I'll come back and add." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1132" RevisionGUID="2fcfc30b-0c91-413e-a9bf-5901dcd17074" CreationDate="2016-07-05T17:07:25.130" UserId="30" Text="A typical upper- and probably also middle-class Roman house in the classical age contained a *peristylium*, or so I was told. I wonder why they used a Greek word for such a standard Roman architectural feature. Did they also have a Latin term for it? Or was the feature adopted from Greek architecture?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus question: if the construction was borrowed from the Greeks, when did this happen, and what did Roman houses look like before?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Brogi%2C_Carlo_%281850-1925%29_-_Pompei_-_Domus_Vettiorum_-_Veduta_del_peristilio_-_n._9711_-_ca._1896.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3792" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1132" RevisionGUID="2fcfc30b-0c91-413e-a9bf-5901dcd17074" CreationDate="2016-07-05T17:07:25.130" UserId="30" Text="Did the Romans have a Latin name for their domestic peristylia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3793" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1132" RevisionGUID="2fcfc30b-0c91-413e-a9bf-5901dcd17074" CreationDate="2016-07-05T17:07:25.130" UserId="30" Text="|greek|terminology|architecture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1133" RevisionGUID="69b70908-3054-4651-b83d-c519ce170a35" CreationDate="2016-07-05T18:33:55.660" UserId="600" Text="Nearly every human language is named after the people who spoke it, from ancient Egyptian, Hebrew and Greek, to modern tongues such as English, German and Chinese.  And then we have the language of the ancient Romans: *Latin*.  Why do we call it that, rather than &quot;Roman&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3795" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1133" RevisionGUID="69b70908-3054-4651-b83d-c519ce170a35" CreationDate="2016-07-05T18:33:55.660" UserId="600" Text="Why do we not call it &quot;Roman&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3796" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1133" RevisionGUID="69b70908-3054-4651-b83d-c519ce170a35" CreationDate="2016-07-05T18:33:55.660" UserId="600" Text="|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1134" RevisionGUID="f16f05c6-f900-4389-bb3d-281cdb2c5bad" CreationDate="2016-07-05T18:48:09.647" UserId="574" Text="The Latin language has been founded by a nation called the Latins. Check the information below: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latins referred originally to an Italic tribe in ancient central Italy. They were living between 1200 BC and 1000 BC. From about 1000 BC, the Latins inhabited the small region known to the Romans as Old Latium (Latium Vetus), that is, the area between the river Tiber and the promontory of Mount Circeo 100 kilometres (62 mi) SE of Rome. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Romans took the language of the Latins, but they changed a lot of things, so they actually ''stole'' the basis of the Latin language, but improved it to their own language. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1134" RevisionGUID="b9adc286-cd5c-4789-8250-f9c56a703cb2" CreationDate="2016-07-05T18:53:40.003" UserId="574" Comment="added 645 characters in body" Text="The Latin language has been founded by a nation called the Latins. Check the information below: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latins referred originally to an Italic tribe in ancient central Italy. They were living between 1200 BC and 1000 BC. From about 1000 BC, the Latins inhabited the small region known to the Romans as Old Latium (Latium Vetus), that is, the area between the river Tiber and the promontory of Mount Circeo 100 kilometres (62 mi) SE of Rome. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this card you can see how close the Latins lived to Rome:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1135" RevisionGUID="8aced2cc-36ea-4195-a55b-457690c71544" CreationDate="2016-07-05T18:57:19.370" UserId="79" Text="The Latin language is named after the area it was spoken in &amp;mdash; or the people that spoke it.&#xD;&#xA;(It is impossible to distinguish the two.)&#xD;&#xA;Latin, by name, is the language of Latium (Lazio in today's Italian), not the language of Rome.&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can see it as the language of the tribe of Latins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Latinus* is the Latin adjective meaning &quot;related to Latium&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The people inhabiting Latium were called *Latini* and their language *lingua Latina*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why did they choose to name it after Latium instead of Rome, then?&#xD;&#xA;After all, *lingua Romana* would be a reasonable name for the language.&#xD;&#xA;The reason is that Rome was not such a significant city by the time the language got its name.&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the area of Latium and their language is older than Rome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1134" RevisionGUID="fb1eac24-b2f3-4eb0-b520-65d8de241e22" CreationDate="2016-07-05T18:58:58.550" UserId="574" Comment="added 645 characters in body" Text="The Latin language has been founded by a nation called the Latins. Check the information below: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latins referred originally to an Italic tribe in ancient central Italy. They were living between 1200 BC and 1000 BC. From about 1000 BC, the Latins inhabited the small region known to the Romans as Old Latium (Latium Vetus), that is, the area between the river Tiber and the promontory of Mount Circeo 100 kilometres (62 mi) SE of Rome. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this card you can see how close the Latins lived to Rome:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![Card Latium][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ziFnD.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1133" RevisionGUID="c199f82f-20ce-45ca-90d1-58d91f2687f2" CreationDate="2016-07-05T19:06:31.797" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Nearly every human language is named after the people who spoke it, from ancient Egyptian, Hebrew and Greek, to modern tongues such as English, German and Chinese. And then we have the language of the ancient Romans: *Latin*. Why do we call it that, rather than &quot;Roman&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3802" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1133" RevisionGUID="c199f82f-20ce-45ca-90d1-58d91f2687f2" CreationDate="2016-07-05T19:06:31.797" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1135" RevisionGUID="c41970f5-7083-4095-949d-6254c90c043c" CreationDate="2016-07-05T19:08:17.047" UserId="79" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="The Latin language is named after the area it was spoken in &amp;mdash; or the people that spoke it.&#xD;&#xA;(It is impossible to distinguish the two.)&#xD;&#xA;Latin, by name, is the language of Latium (Lazio in today's Italian), not the language of Rome.&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can see it as the language of the tribe of Latins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Latinus* is the Latin adjective meaning &quot;related to Latium&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The people inhabiting Latium were called *Latini* and their language *lingua Latina*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why did they choose to name it after Latium instead of Rome, then?&#xD;&#xA;After all, *lingua Romana* would be a reasonable name for the language.&#xD;&#xA;The reason is that Rome was not such a significant city by the time the language got its name.&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the area of Latium and their language is older than Rome.&#xD;&#xA;It just so happened that a small subtribe eventually took over and the language became associated with one city." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1132" RevisionGUID="106b10d1-35fb-4ae3-b3b5-c4bd717f6a76" CreationDate="2016-07-05T19:20:48.287" UserId="30" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="A typical upper- and probably also middle-class Roman house in the classical age contained a *peristylium* or *peristylum*, or so I was told. I wonder why they used a Greek word for such a standard Roman architectural feature. Did they also have a Latin term for it? Or was the feature adopted from Greek architecture?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus question: if the construction was borrowed from the Greeks, when did this happen, and what did Roman houses look like before?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Brogi%2C_Carlo_%281850-1925%29_-_Pompei_-_Domus_Vettiorum_-_Veduta_del_peristilio_-_n._9711_-_ca._1896.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1136" RevisionGUID="c33832f1-93ca-4657-86fa-9b02555c911e" CreationDate="2016-07-05T19:24:50.023" UserId="12" Text="The word *latin* comes from *latinus*, [&quot;of Latium,&quot;](https://books.google.com/books?id=xqKcAQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA515) a [region in central Italy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latium).  In this territory, around the turn of the first millennium BC, lived a tribe known as the *Latins*, and their language was the immediate predecessor of Old Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not coincidentally, Rome was founded in this region around the 8th century BC.  Other peoples were involved as well, such as the Etruscans and the Sabellians, but the dominance of the Latin language in Rome may be explained by the perception that their neighbors were uncivilized, as explained by Clackson and Horrocks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the notion that the speakers of Sabellian languages were wild and uncivilized goes back as far as the eighth century, it could help explain some of the linguistic divergences between Latin and Sabellian. A Roman desire to differentiate themselves from their neighbours may have led to their choice of linguistic forms which were not found in Sabellian, and the innovation of new linguistic features. (*Blackwell History of the Latin Language*, chapter 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rome's founding within Latium, and its dependence on the Latins, help explain why the older term (*Latin*) was retained to describe the language, rather than the newer (*Roman*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1136" RevisionGUID="cb77cd74-59c6-469c-af64-683b73de94de" CreationDate="2016-07-05T22:06:38.020" UserId="12" Comment="added 550 characters in body" Text="The word *latin* comes from *latinus*, [&quot;of Latium,&quot;](https://books.google.com/books?id=xqKcAQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA515) a [region in central Italy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latium).  In this territory, around the turn of the first millennium BC, lived a tribe known as the *Latins*, and their language was the immediate predecessor of Old Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not coincidentally, Rome was founded in this region around the 8th century BC.  Other peoples were involved as well, such as the Etruscans and the Sabellians, but the dominance of the Latin language in Rome may be explained by the perception that their neighbors were uncivilized, as explained by Clackson and Horrocks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the notion that the speakers of Sabellian languages were wild and uncivilized goes back as far as the eighth century, it could help explain some of the linguistic divergences between Latin and Sabellian. A Roman desire to differentiate themselves from their neighbours may have led to their choice of linguistic forms which were not found in Sabellian, and the innovation of new linguistic features. (*Blackwell History of the Latin Language*, chapter 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rome's founding within Latium, and its dependence on the Latins, help explain why the older term (*Latin*) was retained to describe the language, rather than the newer (*Roman*).  William Cleaver Wilkinson suggests the explanation that Rome considered literature &quot;a subordinate interest&quot; compared to conquest, law, and history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the more proximate cause for why we use the word &quot;Latin&quot; today is that this is what the Romans themselves called their language:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When we say Latin, we observe the custom of the Romans, who habitually so described their own language and literature.  In both cases we acknowledge the authority of Rome. ([Wilkinson, *Latin Classics*](https://books.google.com/books?id=Ra5OAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA12))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1136" RevisionGUID="4d48ecff-4ac4-493e-9acd-bee7e47c7536" CreationDate="2016-07-05T22:19:57.350" UserId="12" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="The word *latin* comes from *latinus*, [&quot;of Latium,&quot;](https://books.google.com/books?id=xqKcAQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA515) a [region in central Italy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latium).  In this territory, around the turn of the first millennium BC, lived a tribe known as the *Latins*, and their language was the immediate predecessor of Old Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not coincidentally, Rome was founded in this region around the 8th century BC.  Other peoples were involved as well, such as the Etruscans and the Sabellians, but the dominance of the Latin language in Rome may be explained by the perception that their neighbors were uncivilized, as explained by Clackson and Horrocks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the notion that the speakers of Sabellian languages were wild and uncivilized goes back as far as the eighth century, it could help explain some of the linguistic divergences between Latin and Sabellian. A Roman desire to differentiate themselves from their neighbours may have led to their choice of linguistic forms which were not found in Sabellian, and the innovation of new linguistic features. (*Blackwell History of the Latin Language*, chapter 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rome's founding within Latium, and its dependence on the Latins, help explain why the older term (*Latin*) was retained to describe the language, rather than the newer (*Roman*).  William Cleaver Wilkinson suggests the explanation that Rome considered literature &quot;a subordinate interest&quot; compared to conquest, law, and history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the more proximate cause for why we use the word &quot;Latin&quot; today is that [this is what the Romans themselves called their language](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/466/12):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When we say Latin, we observe the custom of the Romans, who habitually so described their own language and literature.  In both cases we acknowledge the authority of Rome. ([Wilkinson, *Latin Classics*](https://books.google.com/books?id=Ra5OAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA12))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1046" RevisionGUID="46ebe461-3762-4b03-8073-c6b80943865a" CreationDate="2016-07-05T23:00:19.903" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm not a huge fan of Vicipædia, and this is part of the reason why. *Technologia informátiónis* is fine as far as a literal translation of the words, but it feels very un-Latinate. I'd go for something like *ars compútátrális* or the simple word *compútátrália*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1046" RevisionGUID="aa860aff-b0fe-49d6-8934-08b8022c5893" CreationDate="2016-07-05T23:04:40.957" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm not a huge fan of Vicipædia, and this is part of the reason why. *Technologia informátiónis* is fine as far as a literal translation of the words, but it feels very un-Latinate. I'd go for something like *ars computátrális* or the simple word *computátrália*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1138" RevisionGUID="12b1332e-6f1c-403c-b70e-4de1e08f71c0" CreationDate="2016-07-06T03:21:42.547" UserId="68" Text="I'm figuring that if I want to talk about &quot;refurbishing&quot; something, then *renovare* is a pretty good verb to use, or perhaps *reficere* (depending on how beat up it was).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to talk about &quot;reusing&quot; it, then *iterum uti* actually makes a lot of sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how do I talk about &quot;recycling&quot; something? *Ad reversum* or *in se versum mittere*? That seems a little twee." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3813" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1138" RevisionGUID="12b1332e-6f1c-403c-b70e-4de1e08f71c0" CreationDate="2016-07-06T03:21:42.547" UserId="68" Text="Latin for &quot;recycle&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3814" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1138" RevisionGUID="12b1332e-6f1c-403c-b70e-4de1e08f71c0" CreationDate="2016-07-06T03:21:42.547" UserId="68" Text="|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1139" RevisionGUID="4f2a45c2-470e-4e49-92a5-d5aefc4b1036" CreationDate="2016-07-06T03:31:54.327" UserId="40" Text="How about *ad novum usum aptare*, lit. &quot;adapt for a new use&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3818" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="331" RevisionGUID="4d24a34a-0336-41d6-aec6-ea9d7430b4ce" CreationDate="2016-07-06T04:52:54.540" UserId="75" Comment="9" />
  <row Id="3820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1134" RevisionGUID="aec649e1-9d0b-4ed2-8a7d-a1bd390a07c4" CreationDate="2016-07-06T10:32:57.837" UserId="609" Comment="Adding a reference link to the Wikipedia article this answer is based on." Text="The Latin language has been founded by a nation called the Latins. Check the information below [as quoted from Wikipedia][1]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latins referred originally to an Italic tribe in ancient central Italy. They were living between 1200 BC and 1000 BC. From about 1000 BC, the Latins inhabited the small region known to the Romans as Old Latium (Latium Vetus), that is, the area between the river Tiber and the promontory of Mount Circeo 100 kilometres (62 mi) SE of Rome. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this card you can see how close the Latins lived to Rome:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![Card Latium][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latins_(Italic_tribe)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ziFnD.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3821" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1134" RevisionGUID="aec649e1-9d0b-4ed2-8a7d-a1bd390a07c4" CreationDate="2016-07-06T10:32:57.837" Comment="Proposed by 609 approved by 79 edit id of 114" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="963fc003-05a0-4dbe-93bc-a82381a26b3f" CreationDate="2016-07-06T10:33:32.900" UserId="-1" Comment="grammar/spelling" Text="Some of the reasons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, contact between various regions slowed down and lost a lot of its importance; thus the strongest reason to maintain the unity of the language ceased to work&#xD;&#xA; - also, at the same time Roman bureaucracy ceased to require correct Latin&#xD;&#xA; - when there are no strong reasons to keep a language united, regional dialects diverge with time, this is natural, but would probably take slightly longer to make those dialects full-fledged new languages&#xD;&#xA; - various Germanic tribes with their own languages/ dialects of Germanic language (or something in between, I'm not sure how different they were) ruled various parts of the former Roman Empire, influencing Latin spoken there in slightly different manners&#xD;&#xA; - the Iberic or Celtic languages spoken there before arrival of Latin were not official, but somewhere they survived in the countryside (definitely in Brittany) - this probably wasn't as big influence as we might expect in the age of &quot;celtomania&quot;, but it was an influence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm just an archaeologist, not linguist, so I'll leave the second part of your question (what made them different) to some linguist, but it happened in Early Middle Ages, in few centuries after the fall of the Western Roman Empire." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3823" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="963fc003-05a0-4dbe-93bc-a82381a26b3f" CreationDate="2016-07-06T10:33:32.900" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 79 edit id of 115" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1089" RevisionGUID="a9e4d7bd-aa7e-4629-ac16-b8dae6f150d1" CreationDate="2016-07-06T13:00:14.697" UserId="12" Comment="note on late/medieval" Text="Among [Bennett](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15665/15665-h/15665-h.htm#sect180) (§180), [Allen &amp; Greenough](https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA247) (§397b), and [Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge](https://books.google.com/books?id=UU0BIAbE0SIC&amp;pg=PA215) (§338), the last provides the most detail on this construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two varieties are identified:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. *Definite:* The Accusative of the part affected  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. *Indefinite:* **cētera, alia, reliqua, omnia, plēraque, cūncta;** *in other respects, in all respects, in most respects.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is &quot;very rare&quot; in early Latin, but is present Sallust's and Livy's prose, and &quot;in both is applied usually to wounds.&quot;  It's also used in poetry.  Of the second type *cētera* &quot;is found here and there at all periods&quot; but the others are rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most valuable perhaps is the usage guidance that G&amp;L provide:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Good prose uses the Ablative for the first variety, and for the second, **ad cētera, in cēterīs, per cētera**, *etc.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, however, the use of the accusative of respect increased in Late and Medieval Latin (cf. *Medieval Latin*, ed. Harrington, 2nd edition, 20)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1140" RevisionGUID="82be70bd-739d-48a2-86dc-691da1db1a40" CreationDate="2016-07-06T13:05:17.290" UserId="79" Text="How about the verb [*circumagere*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2010325)?&#xD;&#xA;The translations include &quot;to drive or turn in a circle, to turn round, to drive around, to produce by going around&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I think &quot;to make something go in a circle&quot; is pretty close to &quot;to recycle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might sometimes want to clarify the translation by adding more words, but I believe in most contexts there is little danger of confusion.&#xD;&#xA;(Perhaps you could parse the English &quot;to recycle&quot; as &quot;to ride a bike again&quot;, but this ambiguity is not a real issue, is it?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ho do these examples sound to you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Haec charta e materia circumacta facta est.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Nonne hi cumuli quisquiliarum nos ad circumagendum hortantur?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3826" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1133" RevisionGUID="c62f9b2b-825b-4f02-a0d0-2ac6bf27945d" CreationDate="2016-07-06T14:43:19.723" UserId="-1" Comment="question title stands alone" Text="Why is the language of ancient Rome called &quot;Latin&quot; instead of &quot;Roman&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3827" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1133" RevisionGUID="c62f9b2b-825b-4f02-a0d0-2ac6bf27945d" CreationDate="2016-07-06T14:43:19.723" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 79 edit id of 116" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3828" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1138" RevisionGUID="d8413c74-0e60-43a8-98f2-0dde163acba9" CreationDate="2016-07-06T16:18:52.927" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1141" RevisionGUID="d2a2f1dc-450d-48ae-97ba-2d8fe0bd747b" CreationDate="2016-07-07T05:18:31.500" UserId="522" Text="For metalwork, hardware re-cycling:  Isaiah 2:4&#xD;&#xA;They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks (sickles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **conflabunt** gladios suos in vomeres et lanceas suas in falces&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Micah 4:3&#xD;&#xA;They will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks (garden tools =plough, pick, rake, spade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et **concident** gladios suos in vomeres et hastas suas in ligones&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For human re-cycling: 1 Corinthians 15:52 &#xD;&#xA;in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, *and we will be changed.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **et nos inmutabimur.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But vertor, versus, &quot;turned into,&quot; is a more general term for &quot;recycled as.&quot; The corpse (tenth stage of life) says (1300CE):  &#xD;&#xA;I have been recycled as dust; Life caught me out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **versus sum** in cinerem, Vita me decepit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1141" RevisionGUID="d69ece71-702a-4ca9-ba82-02aa6dcbb332" CreationDate="2016-07-07T05:58:07.983" UserId="522" Comment="added recudo polio; and re format." Text="**.1.** For metalwork, hardware re-cycling:  Isaiah 2:4&#xD;&#xA;They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks (sickles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **conflabunt** gladios suos in vomeres et lanceas suas in falces&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Micah 4:3&#xD;&#xA;They will hammer their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks (garden tools =plough, pick, rake, spade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et **concident** gladios suos in vomeres et hastas suas in ligones&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**.2.** For refurbishment rather than recycling:To forge anew; or to hammer again as in coin: **recudo. recudere, recudi. recusum.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vetera metalla **recudunt,** *Varr.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**.3.** Or if the refurbishment is spit and polish: **polio, polire, polivi, politum.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**.4.** For human re-cycling: 1 Corinthians 15:52 &#xD;&#xA;in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, *and we will be changed.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **et nos inmutabimur.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**.5.** But vertor, versus, &quot;turned into,&quot; is a more general term for &quot;recycled as.&quot; The corpse (tenth stage of life) says (1300CE):  &#xD;&#xA;I have been recycled as dust; Life caught me out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **versus sum** in cinerem, Vita me decepit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1142" RevisionGUID="3903ff07-4ddf-43cf-8dc0-2cf35aa7c41a" CreationDate="2016-07-07T07:06:01.283" UserId="522" Text="In addition to family names and given names, if a fourth name is taken it is either a **descriptive title.** in which case it is *agnomen, agnominis;* (e.g. Cato Censorinus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or it is a **nick-name,** '*cognomen, cognominis.'* (Cic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cognominati  ergo simus, aut cognominatae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(cognomino  -Pliny, Suetonius)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1142" RevisionGUID="70c1981f-d60b-4317-a08b-73259ad11646" CreationDate="2016-07-07T07:55:23.563" UserId="522" Comment="added 'pseudonymus#" Text="In addition to family names and given names, if a fourth name is taken it is either a **descriptive title.** in which case it is *agnomen, agnominis;* (e.g. Cato Censorinus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or it is a **nick-name,** '*cognomen, cognominis.'* (Cic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cognominati  ergo simus, aut cognominatae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(cognomino  -Pliny, Suetonius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**pseudonymus,** *m.* is listed in the  'late, uncouth, and barbaric' section of Ainsworth as a 'false name,' along with pseudomartyrs, pseudobishops, pseudodeacons, and the smelly pseudacorus. No citations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1142" RevisionGUID="8198c7e2-a5fe-4bb5-bd33-54d5fb6600da" CreationDate="2016-07-07T08:11:17.670" UserId="522" Comment="+ alias" Text="In addition to family names and given names, if a fourth name is taken it is either a **descriptive title.** in which case it is *agnomen, agnominis;* (e.g. Cato Censorinus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or it is a **nick-name,** '*cognomen, cognominis.'* (Cic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cognominati  ergo simus, aut cognominatae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(cognomino  -Pliny, Suetonius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**pseudonymus,** *m.* is listed in the  'late, uncouth, and barbaric' section of Ainsworth as a 'false name,' along with pseudomartyrs, pseudobishops, pseudodeacons, and the smelly pseudacorus. No citations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Smith's *'Smaller English-Latin'* 1870/1936, has the following entry:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **alias:** Phr. *Turner alias Powell,* *Turner aliter nominatus Powell.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;(asterisk * means non-classical)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1143" RevisionGUID="f0371b05-d1fb-4df4-80a5-a81cfbf5764b" CreationDate="2016-07-07T09:10:40.857" UserId="522" Text="In Latin it is possible to create sentences from two identical words (homonym or homogram), or two minimal pairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Puro puro**, I ritually purify with a bonfire.  &#xD;&#xA;**Ēquus ĕquus**, The horse is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; steady (aequus, even, steady, becomes medieval ēquus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only classical quote known to me that approaches this is Cicero's &#xD;&#xA;&gt;O fortunatam natam me consule Romam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;O fortunate state for my natal date and Consulate&quot;...and he was assassinated soon after. Jingle and rhyme doesn't become acceptable until 400.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, does anyone know of a collection of these two-word sentences.  &#xD;&#xA;If any more individual examples are known to you, I would be very happy to hear of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1143" RevisionGUID="f0371b05-d1fb-4df4-80a5-a81cfbf5764b" CreationDate="2016-07-07T09:10:40.857" UserId="522" Text="Main clauses from minimal pairs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3838" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1143" RevisionGUID="f0371b05-d1fb-4df4-80a5-a81cfbf5764b" CreationDate="2016-07-07T09:10:40.857" UserId="522" Text="|word-play|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1144" RevisionGUID="f0f87645-af96-4cfa-9fdb-e943b864d5d1" CreationDate="2016-07-07T11:06:20.507" UserId="79" Text="Typically the gerundive is employed when one using a gerund with an object seems possible.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I have understood that *aqua bibenda est* and *rei faciendae causa* are preferable to *aquam bibendum est* and *rem faciendi causa*.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that one can always transform a gerund with an object into a gerundive (as an attribute to the object), but my grammar tells that this is not strictly necessary in all situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tuomo Pekkanen's *Ars grammatica* states that the gerund can take an object only in genitive (without *causa* or *gratia*) and in ablative (without prepositions) and in all cases the gerundive can also be employed.&#xD;&#xA;For example, one can say *spes urbem capiendi* or *spes urbis capiendae* and *librum legendo* or *libro legendo*.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, one cannot say *aquam bibendum est* and *rem faciendi causa*.&#xD;&#xA;This rule sounds weird to me, and I wonder how confident we really are that classical Latin uses gerundives with objects in these and only these situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How strong is the rule?&#xD;&#xA;That is, do we have strong evidence that the Romans always obeyed this rule?&#xD;&#xA;Do ancient authors always follow this rule?&#xD;&#xA;Do other modern grammarians agree about these limitations to a gerund having an object?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3840" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1144" RevisionGUID="f0f87645-af96-4cfa-9fdb-e943b864d5d1" CreationDate="2016-07-07T11:06:20.507" UserId="79" Text="When can the gerund take an object?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3841" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1144" RevisionGUID="f0f87645-af96-4cfa-9fdb-e943b864d5d1" CreationDate="2016-07-07T11:06:20.507" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|grammarians|gerund|gerundive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1145" RevisionGUID="1d166803-8b39-493b-888f-1825914d4b84" CreationDate="2016-07-07T15:15:24.287" UserId="45" Text="I was reading Plautus and came across *quacum*, which set in motion a few observations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Most beginning Latinists are familiar with the following constructions with **first- and second- person and reflexive pronouns**, which usage seems to mandate **in all cases**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; * *cum* + *te* = *tecum*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *cum* + *nobis* = *nobiscum*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *idem* for *se*, *vobis*, and *me*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Other constructions (according to my cursory research) appear to be **optional**. I have seen this especially with **relative pronouns**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; * *cum + qua = quacum **or** cum qua*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *cum + quibus = quibuscum **or** cum quibus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Everything else** seems simply **forbidden**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; * *cum + Marco =/= Marcocum*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *cum + filio =/= filiocum*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *cum + eo =/= eocum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a few related questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Are there good counterexamples where *cum* + personal pronoun is not combined, e.g. *cum te*?&#xD;&#xA;2. Are there examples of *cum* being added at the end of a word not in the first or second category?&#xD;&#xA;3. Is there any difference between *cum qua* and *quacum*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if this seems too broad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3843" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1145" RevisionGUID="1d166803-8b39-493b-888f-1825914d4b84" CreationDate="2016-07-07T15:15:24.287" UserId="45" Text="When should the preposition *cum* be added as a suffix?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3844" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1145" RevisionGUID="1d166803-8b39-493b-888f-1825914d4b84" CreationDate="2016-07-07T15:15:24.287" UserId="45" Text="|grammar|preposition|suffixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1146" RevisionGUID="b89fe1f7-2c19-44a4-b658-209542e6c06b" CreationDate="2016-07-07T15:53:17.730" UserId="324" Text="From Lewis/Short, s.v. cum:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Cum in anastrophe. So always with the pers. pron.: mecum, tecum, secum, nobiscum, etc.; cf. Cic. Or. 45, 154; Prisc. pp. 949 and 988 P.; and in gen. with the rel. pron.: “quocum (quīcum), quacum, quibuscum, quīcum (for quocum),” Cic. Or. 45, 154; Liv. 38, 9, 2; Cic. Att. 5, 1, 4; Cic. Verr. 2, 2, 31, §§ 76 and 77; Caes. B. G. 1, 8; Cic. Rep. 1, 10, 15; id. Att. 4, 9, 2; id. Off. 1, 35, 126; Quint. 8, 6, 65; 10, 5, 7; 11, 2, 38. But where cum is emphatic, or a demonstrative pron. is understood, cum is placed before the rel.; cf.: “his de rebus velim cum Pompeio, cum Camillo, cum quibus vobis videbitur, consideretis,” Cic. Fam. 14, 14, 3: “adhibuit sibi quindecim principes cum quibus causas cognovit,” id. Off. 2, 23, 82; Liv. 1, 45, 2.—" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1147" RevisionGUID="08bac2a9-2acf-4639-ab61-53e848ae7b2e" CreationDate="2016-07-07T16:18:36.533" UserId="40" Text="The enclitic use of *cum* is actually much broader than just these cases, but this is obscured by modern choices about the use of spaces. A phrase like *magna cum laude* probably had enclitic *cum*. The Romans, who didn't use spaces, wrote it as MAGNACVMLAVDE; if they'd used spaces, it's possible they would have written *magnacum laude*, just like *tecum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1148" RevisionGUID="c1140ade-09fd-4b07-9e29-8650391d771a" CreationDate="2016-07-07T16:26:15.170" UserId="40" Text="Pekkanen is wrong: the gerund can take an accusative object, &quot;especially a neuter pronoun or a neuter adjective used substantivally&quot;. The quote is from Allen and Greenough 504, who give examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nulla causa iusta cuiquam esse potest contra patriam arma capiendi (Cic. Phil. 2 53)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; artem vera ac falsa diiudicandi (Cic. Or. 2.157)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This mostly happens when the gerund is itself in the genitive: they say that such constructions are rare or nonexistent with the other cases in classical prose (though Plautus has two examples with a gerund in the dative)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1144" RevisionGUID="261d00b6-e5ca-4906-8d7d-86c86ae905ab" CreationDate="2016-07-07T17:04:44.770" UserId="79" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Typically the gerundive is employed when one using a gerund with an object seems possible.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I have understood that *aqua bibenda est* and *rei faciendae causa* are preferable to *aquam bibendum est* and *rem faciendi causa*.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that one can always transform a gerund with an object into a gerundive (as an attribute to the object), but my grammar tells that this is not strictly necessary in all situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tuomo Pekkanen's *Ars grammatica* states that the gerund can take an object only if the gerund is in genitive (without *causa* or *gratia*) or in ablative (without prepositions) and in all cases the gerundive can also be employed.&#xD;&#xA;For example, one can say *spes urbem capiendi* or *spes urbis capiendae* and *librum legendo* or *libro legendo*.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, one cannot say *aquam bibendum est* and *rem faciendi causa*.&#xD;&#xA;This rule sounds weird to me, and I wonder how confident we really are that classical Latin uses gerundives with objects in these and only these situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How strong is the rule?&#xD;&#xA;That is, do we have strong evidence that the Romans always obeyed this rule?&#xD;&#xA;Do ancient authors always follow this rule?&#xD;&#xA;Do other modern grammarians agree about these limitations to a gerund having an object?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1148" RevisionGUID="b146cf9c-3cc1-48cf-b7e5-c44dd79d31e6" CreationDate="2016-07-07T18:08:50.330" UserId="40" Comment="deleted 71 characters in body" Text="Allen and Greenough (504) say that a gerund in the genitive can take an accusative object, &quot;especially a neuter pronoun or a neuter adjective used substantivally&quot;. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nulla causa iusta cuiquam esse potest contra patriam arma capiendi (Cic. Phil. 2 53)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; artem vera ac falsa diiudicandi (Cic. Or. 2.157)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They say that such constructions are rare or nonexistent with the other cases of the gerund in classical prose (though Plautus has two examples with a gerund in the dative)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1149" RevisionGUID="05d2d371-69ff-40e4-867e-3b1b8ad1e012" CreationDate="2016-07-08T16:13:04.807" UserId="118" Text="How do you scan line 621 of _De Rerum Natura_, [book VI](https://books.google.com/books?id=bVoCAAAAQAAJ&amp;lpg=PA207&amp;ots=SSnqfECpZN&amp;dq=at%20pelage%20multa%20et%20late%20substrata%20videmus&amp;pg=PA207#v=onepage&amp;q=proinde%20licet%20quamvis%20ex%20unoquoque%20loco%20sol&amp;f=false), shown in bold below?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Praeterea, magnam sol partem detrahit æstu.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quippe videmus enim vestes humore madentes&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exsiccare suis radiis ardentibu’ solem.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At pelage multa et late substrata videmus.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Proinde, licet quamvis ex unoquoque loco sol**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Humoris parvam delibet ab æquore partem;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Largiter in tanto spatio tamen auferet undis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(My amateur translation: &quot;Furthermore, the Sun draws off a large part of [the oceans' water] with its heat. Certainly we see that the Sun dries out clothes dripping with moisture with its fiery rays. And we see the many seas stretched out below [the Sun]. **So, however** small a part of the moisture **the Sun** takes from the sea **out of any one spot**, it still takes abundantly in such a space from the waves.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I assume that Lucretius is lengthening the first syllable of _proinde,_ I get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prōin/dē licet / quamvīs / ex ū/nōquoque / locō sōl&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That last foot is crazy. It doesn't have anything like the cadence you normally get in hexameter. Is this just a flaw in Lucretius's verse, am I mis-scanning it, or is there some hexameter custom at work here that I'm not aware of?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3852" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1149" RevisionGUID="05d2d371-69ff-40e4-867e-3b1b8ad1e012" CreationDate="2016-07-08T16:13:04.807" UserId="118" Text="Pes ultimus insanus cuiusdam versus Lucretii?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3853" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1149" RevisionGUID="05d2d371-69ff-40e4-867e-3b1b8ad1e012" CreationDate="2016-07-08T16:13:04.807" UserId="118" Text="|scansion|lucretius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1150" RevisionGUID="f0974011-b24a-4ec3-8ddd-3400fdb1928d" CreationDate="2016-07-08T16:37:20.723" UserId="118" Text="Lines 617–623 of _De Rerum Natura_, [book VI](https://books.google.com/books?id=bVoCAAAAQAAJ&amp;lpg=PA207&amp;ots=SSnqfECpZN&amp;dq=at%20pelage%20multa%20et%20late%20substrata%20videmus&amp;pg=PA207#v=onepage&amp;q=%22in%20tanto%20spatio%22&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Praeterea, magnam sol partem detrahit æstu.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quippe videmus enim vestes humore madentes&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exsiccare suis radiis ardentibu’ solem.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At pelage multa et late substrata videmus.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proinde, licet quamvis ex unoquoque loco sol&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Humoris parvam delibet ab æquore partem;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Largiter **in tanto spatio** tamen auferet undis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my attempt at a translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Furthermore, the Sun draws off a large part of [the oceans' water] with its heat.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For certainly we see that the Sun dries out clothes&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;dripping with moisture with its fiery rays.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;And we see the many seas stretched out below [the Sun].&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;So, however small a part of the moisture the Sun&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;takes from the sea out of any one spot,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;it still takes abundantly **in such a space** from the waves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if I've got _in tanto spatio_ wrong, maybe influenced too much by the English word &quot;space&quot;. Does Lucretius mean something more like &quot;to that extent&quot;? Or might he even mean something like &quot;However little water the Sun takes from that spot, it becomes a great amount because of the waves that pass through it&quot;? Or simply, &quot;The ocean is very big (such a space!), so even if only a little water is lost in any one spot, a vast amount is lost over the ocean as a whole'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1150" RevisionGUID="f0974011-b24a-4ec3-8ddd-3400fdb1928d" CreationDate="2016-07-08T16:37:20.723" UserId="118" Text="&quot;In tanto spatio&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1150" RevisionGUID="f0974011-b24a-4ec3-8ddd-3400fdb1928d" CreationDate="2016-07-08T16:37:20.723" UserId="118" Text="|meaning|lucretius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1149" RevisionGUID="07d687ce-f8dc-4fa0-807b-9e6c30cf30e9" CreationDate="2016-07-08T16:38:50.410" UserId="118" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="How do you scan line 621 of _De Rerum Natura_, [book VI](https://books.google.com/books?id=bVoCAAAAQAAJ&amp;lpg=PA207&amp;ots=SSnqfECpZN&amp;dq=at%20pelage%20multa%20et%20late%20substrata%20videmus&amp;pg=PA207#v=onepage&amp;q=proinde%20licet%20quamvis%20ex%20unoquoque%20loco%20sol&amp;f=false), shown in bold below?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Praeterea, magnam sol partem detrahit æstu.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quippe videmus enim vestes humore madentes&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exsiccare suis radiis ardentibu’ solem.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At pelage multa et late substrata videmus.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Proinde, licet quamvis ex unoquoque loco sol**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Humoris parvam delibet ab æquore partem;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Largiter in tanto spatio tamen auferet undis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(My amateur translation: &quot;Furthermore, the Sun draws off a large part of [the oceans' water] with its heat. Certainly we see that the Sun dries out clothes dripping with moisture with its fiery rays. And we see the many seas stretched out below [the Sun]. **So, however** small a part of the moisture **the Sun** takes from the sea **out of any one spot**, it still takes abundantly in such a space from the waves.&quot; I'm not sure of this translation; I've asked a question about it [here](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1150/118).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I assume that Lucretius is lengthening the first syllable of _proinde,_ I get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prōin/dē licet / quamvīs / ex ū/nōquoque / locō sōl&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That last foot is crazy. It doesn't have anything like the cadence you normally get in hexameter. Is this just a flaw in Lucretius's verse, am I mis-scanning it, or is there some hexameter custom at work here that I'm not aware of?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3858" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="e41aa64e-cfe5-470a-b04c-6286ae618609" CreationDate="2016-07-08T16:39:12.917" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|medieval-latin|legal-latin|philosophy-terms|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="98ca6356-90af-42f2-a97c-c1914ba1587e" CreationDate="2016-07-08T16:40:07.897" UserId="12" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In *Róma Æterna* (second volume of *Lingua Latína per sé illustráta*), p. 209, in a discussion of Hannibal adapted from Livy book XXI, contains the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Odiís etiam prope májóribus certávérunt quam víribus, Rómánís indignantibus quod victóribus victí ultró ínferrent arma, Pœnís quod superbé aváréque créderent imperitátum victís esse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused both by *victís* and by *imperitátum* (though more by the latter than the former).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impulse would be to make the infinitive *victós esse*, with an implied *sé* somewhere in there, so that it would agree with the accusative + infinitive construction. I can easily imagine, though, that *victís* has been attracted by *Pœnís* into the ablative. If that's not what's going on, though, does anybody have any ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More confusing to me (or at least less productive of possible explanations) is *imperitátum*. The only neuter noun in the sentence is *arma*, which doesn't match in number (and also *arma imperitáta* doesn't make any sense), so if it's a participle I don't see what it could be referring to. But there aren't any verbs of motion, so it can't be a supine either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3860" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="98ca6356-90af-42f2-a97c-c1914ba1587e" CreationDate="2016-07-08T16:40:07.897" UserId="12" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1150" RevisionGUID="b2d500b4-c6fa-4909-af16-9fb8f7659e95" CreationDate="2016-07-08T16:46:35.917" UserId="118" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Lines 617–623 of _De Rerum Natura_, [book VI](https://books.google.com/books?id=bVoCAAAAQAAJ&amp;lpg=PA207&amp;ots=SSnqfECpZN&amp;dq=at%20pelage%20multa%20et%20late%20substrata%20videmus&amp;pg=PA207#v=onepage&amp;q=%22in%20tanto%20spatio%22&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Praeterea, magnam sol partem detrahit æstu.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quippe videmus enim vestes humore madentes&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exsiccare suis radiis ardentibu’ solem.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At pelage multa et late substrata videmus.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proinde, licet quamvis ex unoquoque loco sol&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Humoris parvam delibet ab æquore partem;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Largiter **in tanto spatio** tamen auferet undis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my attempt at a translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Furthermore, the Sun draws off a large part of [the oceans' water] with its heat.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For certainly we see that clothes dripping with moisture&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;are dried out by the Sun's fiery rays.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;And we see the many seas stretched out below [the Sun].&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;So, it can be seen that from any one spot,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;however small a part of the moisture the Sun takes away,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;it still takes abundantly **in such a space** from the waves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if I've got _in tanto spatio_ wrong, maybe influenced too much by the English word &quot;space&quot;. Does Lucretius mean something more like &quot;to that extent&quot;? Or might he even mean something like &quot;However little water the Sun takes from that spot, it becomes a great amount because of the waves that pass through it&quot;? Or simply, &quot;The ocean is very big (such a space!), so even if only a little water is lost in any one spot, a vast amount is lost over the ocean as a whole'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1150" RevisionGUID="77835296-36f4-479a-8b7c-186e6bafd0ba" CreationDate="2016-07-08T16:52:15.847" UserId="118" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Lines 617–623 of _De Rerum Natura_, [book VI](https://books.google.com/books?id=bVoCAAAAQAAJ&amp;lpg=PA207&amp;ots=SSnqfECpZN&amp;dq=at%20pelage%20multa%20et%20late%20substrata%20videmus&amp;pg=PA207#v=onepage&amp;q=%22in%20tanto%20spatio%22&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Praeterea, magnam sol partem detrahit æstu.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quippe videmus enim vestes humore madentes&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exsiccare suis radiis ardentibu’ solem.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At pelage multa et late substrata videmus.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proinde, licet quamvis ex unoquoque loco sol&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Humoris parvam delibet ab æquore partem;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Largiter **in tanto spatio** tamen auferet undis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my attempt at a translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Furthermore, the Sun draws off a large part of [the oceans' water] with its heat.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For certainly we see that clothes dripping with moisture&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;are dried out by the Sun's fiery rays.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;And we see the many seas stretched out below [the Sun].&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;So, it can be seen that out of any one spot,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;however small a part of the moisture the Sun takes away,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;it still takes abundantly **in such a space** from the waves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if I've got _in tanto spatio_ wrong, maybe influenced too much by the English word &quot;space&quot;. Does Lucretius mean something more like &quot;to that extent&quot;? Or might he even mean something like &quot;However little water the Sun takes from that spot, it becomes a great amount because of the waves that pass through it&quot;? Or simply, &quot;The ocean is very big (such a space!), so even if only a little water is lost in any one spot, a vast amount is lost over the ocean as a whole'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1151" RevisionGUID="cab8a503-3fd7-4cec-af97-7025b2c6558f" CreationDate="2016-07-08T16:58:19.013" UserId="79" Text="The last syllable in *proinde* is short but the first one is not split in two.&#xD;&#xA;Correcting this makes the rest of the line scans naturally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proinde&amp;#x306;, li&amp;#x306;/cet quam/v&amp;imacr;s ex / &amp;umacr;n&amp;omacr;/qu&amp;omacr;que&amp;#x306; lo&amp;#x306;/c&amp;omacr; s&amp;omacr;l&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The caesura seems to take place between *quamvis* and *ex*.&#xD;&#xA;I do not find a similarly suitable place for it in your scansion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also notice that both 'O's in *unoquoque* are long &amp;mdash; the ablative ending is needed for both *unus* and *quis* that together with the enclitic *-que* form the pronoun *unusquisque*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1151" RevisionGUID="ddb8e11b-b177-4194-aab2-a564486da90c" CreationDate="2016-07-08T17:04:59.860" UserId="79" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="The last syllable in *proinde* is short but the first one is not split in two.&#xD;&#xA;Correcting this makes the rest of the line scan naturally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proinde&amp;#x306;, li&amp;#x306;/cet quam/v&amp;imacr;s ex / &amp;umacr;n&amp;omacr;/qu&amp;omacr;que&amp;#x306; lo&amp;#x306;/c&amp;omacr; s&amp;omacr;l&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The caesura seems to take place between *quamvis* and *ex*.&#xD;&#xA;I do not find a similarly suitable place for it in your scansion.&#xD;&#xA;Having trouble placing the caesura is a good sign of wrong scansion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also notice that both 'O's in *unoquoque* are long &amp;mdash; the ablative ending is needed for both *unus* and *quis* that together with the enclitic *-que* form the pronoun *unusquisque*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1152" RevisionGUID="8ad02072-bdaf-4706-8afe-aad94d63516d" CreationDate="2016-07-08T17:20:37.470" UserId="79" Text="I think your last suggestion is correct: &quot;The ocean is very big (such a space!), so even if only a little water is lost in any one spot, a vast amount is lost over the ocean as a whole&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The other options do not make nearly as much sense to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice also that *proinde* (&quot;therefore, so&quot;) refers to a preceding statement, here the previous line.&#xD;&#xA;You could translate *proinde* as &quot;because the sea is so vast&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me offer my own translation of the three lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, however small fraction of water the sun takes away from the sea in each place, it removes a lot of water over such a big area." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1153" RevisionGUID="448594aa-5090-43c2-af11-d9f2da4b1daf" CreationDate="2016-07-08T18:29:10.260" UserId="635" Text="I know that in Medieval Latin i and j were interchangeable in sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was the choice of the letter arbitrary, or were there rules dictating which letter to use depending on the situation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1153" RevisionGUID="448594aa-5090-43c2-af11-d9f2da4b1daf" CreationDate="2016-07-08T18:29:10.260" UserId="635" Text="When to use j and when to use i?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1153" RevisionGUID="448594aa-5090-43c2-af11-d9f2da4b1daf" CreationDate="2016-07-08T18:29:10.260" UserId="635" Text="|medieval-latin|orthography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1154" RevisionGUID="90c49f88-9974-426f-9f0c-aa24b77ef943" CreationDate="2016-07-08T20:52:12.063" UserId="637" Text="It was a difference between consonants (J) and vowels (I). Generally, use J when you were making a consonant version of the noise. Use I as a vowel version. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1155" RevisionGUID="60b4d7f6-a1a7-4549-becd-f8cd2358179d" CreationDate="2016-07-08T23:12:24.920" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[ [CNRTL :](http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/encore) ]  Du lat[in] vulg[aire] _*hinc ha (c) hora_ ou _*hinc ad horam_;     &#xD;&#xA;la forme a[ncienne] fr[ançaise] *uncore*, *oncore* est due à l'infl[uence] de *onque*, _onc*_.      &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;[This thread](http://french.stackexchange.com/q/17180/1995) redirects you to the elongations of the the abbreviations used above.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ [Etymonline :](http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/encore) ]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...]   French *encore* &quot;**[3.]** still, **[4.]** yet, **[5.]** again, **[6.]** also, **[7.]** furthermore&quot; (12c.), generally explained as being from Vulgar Latin phrase    &#xD;&#xA;    **[1.]** _*hinc ad horam_ &quot;from then to this hour,&quot; or       &#xD;&#xA;**[2.]** _(in) hanc horam_ &quot;(to) this hour&quot;  [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can conceive how 1 and 2 shifted semantically to mean 3. For example, a Roman may complain about how a problem has not been resolved from then (when the problem started) to this hour: i.e. how it has STILL not been completed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what underlying semantic notions connect 1-2 to 3-7? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3871" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1155" RevisionGUID="60b4d7f6-a1a7-4549-becd-f8cd2358179d" CreationDate="2016-07-08T23:12:24.920" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What underlying semantic notions connect the Latin for '(from then) to this hour' to the French « encore » ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3872" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1155" RevisionGUID="60b4d7f6-a1a7-4549-becd-f8cd2358179d" CreationDate="2016-07-08T23:12:24.920" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|vulgar-latin|french|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1156" RevisionGUID="8cad140d-668d-4129-9a13-14af50f7531d" CreationDate="2016-07-08T23:18:02.640" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[ [Adverb   **adhūc** :](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/adhuc) ]   **Etymology**    &#xD;&#xA;[ad](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad) &quot;*to*&quot; + [hūc](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/huc) &quot;*here*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. so far, thus far, hitherto, still    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. [2.1] again; [2.2] furthermore; [2.3] moreover; [2.4] besides *(used in scholastic debates to introduce an additional point in one's argument)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. [3.1] even as, [3.2] while still&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please pardon my laziness; I have not linked the English adverbs above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did Compounding of [ad](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad) &quot;*to*&quot; +  [hūc](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/huc) &quot;*here*&quot; generate the meanings in 1? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My conjecture:&#xD;&#xA; I can imagine a Roman physically pointing to a specific interval or object or moment (which would be 'here' in his/her perspective), to describe everything that had occurred up to that point ('to here' in his/her perspective).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3874" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1156" RevisionGUID="8cad140d-668d-4129-9a13-14af50f7531d" CreationDate="2016-07-08T23:18:02.640" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How did 'ad' + 'hūc' compound to mean 'so far, thus far, hitherto, still'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3875" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1156" RevisionGUID="8cad140d-668d-4129-9a13-14af50f7531d" CreationDate="2016-07-08T23:18:02.640" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1157" RevisionGUID="f18a72d6-6d30-42a0-bf2c-29286223b9ae" CreationDate="2016-07-08T23:20:53.530" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[ [Adverb   **adhūc** :](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/adhuc) ]   **Etymology**    &#xD;&#xA;[ad](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad) &quot;*to*&quot; + [hūc](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/huc) &quot;*here*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. so far, thus far, hitherto, still    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. [2.1] again; [2.2] furthermore; [2.3] moreover; [2.4] besides *(used in scholastic debates to introduce an additional point in one's argument)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. [3.1] even as, [3.2] while still&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please pardon my laziness; I have not linked the English adverbs above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did Compounding of [ad](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad) &quot;*to*&quot; +  [hūc](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/huc) &quot;*here*&quot; generate the meanings in 2.2-2.4? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My conjecture: I can imagine two Roman arguers, one of whom points to an argument at some specific location (i.e. 'here') on some writing tool (e.g. wax tablet, piece of wood, papyrus), to which (i.e. to 'here') the other arguer adds more writing. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3877" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1157" RevisionGUID="f18a72d6-6d30-42a0-bf2c-29286223b9ae" CreationDate="2016-07-08T23:20:53.530" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How did 'ad' + 'hūc' compound to mean 'furthermore; moreover; besides'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3878" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1157" RevisionGUID="f18a72d6-6d30-42a0-bf2c-29286223b9ae" CreationDate="2016-07-08T23:20:53.530" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="681" RevisionGUID="5086b2f4-8db7-4d12-a848-444893721308" CreationDate="2016-07-08T23:21:20.220" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 559 characters in body" Text="&gt;[ [Adverb   **adhūc** :](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/adhuc) ]   **Etymology**    &#xD;&#xA;[ad](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad) &quot;*to*&quot; + [hūc](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/huc) &quot;*here*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. so far, thus far, hitherto, still    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. [2.1] again; [2.2] furthermore; [2.3] moreover; [2.4] besides *(used in scholastic debates to introduce an additional point in one's argument)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. [3.1] even as, [3.2] while still&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please pardon my laziness; I have not linked the English adverbs above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did Compounding of [ad](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad) &quot;*to*&quot; +  [hūc](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/huc) &quot;*here*&quot; generate the meanings in 2.1, 3.1, 3.2? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1155" RevisionGUID="6bef49ed-281f-40db-af6b-70eafa53fe48" CreationDate="2016-07-08T23:21:52.440" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="&gt;[ [CNRTL :](http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/encore) ]  Du lat[in] vulg[aire] _*hinc ha (c) hora_ ou _*hinc ad horam_;     &#xD;&#xA;la forme a[ncienne] fr[ançaise] *uncore*, *oncore* est due à l'infl[uence] de *onque*, _onc*_.      &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;[This thread](http://french.stackexchange.com/q/17180/1995) redirects you to the elongations of the the abbreviations used above.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ [Etymonline :](http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/encore) ]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...]   French *encore* &quot;**[3.]** still, **[4.]** yet, **[5.]** again, **[6.]** also, **[7.]** furthermore&quot; (12c.), generally explained as being from Vulgar Latin phrase    &#xD;&#xA;    **[1.]** _*hinc ad horam_ &quot;from then to this hour,&quot; or       &#xD;&#xA;**[2.]** _(in) hanc horam_ &quot;(to) this hour&quot;  [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can conceive how 1 and 2 shifted semantically to mean 3. For example, a Roman may complain about how a problem has not been resolved from then (when the problem started) to this hour: i.e. how it has STILL not been resolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what underlying semantic notions connect 1-2 to 3-7? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3881" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1155" RevisionGUID="6bef49ed-281f-40db-af6b-70eafa53fe48" CreationDate="2016-07-08T23:21:52.440" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="What underlying semantic notions connect the Latin for '(from then) to this hour' to the French « encore »?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1158" RevisionGUID="ba2c8236-d33a-4940-97be-4b1925fd80df" CreationDate="2016-07-09T01:18:13.650" UserId="639" Text="I am writing a blog and I want to have the title in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;It's a personal blog and I want to share about my personal experiences, the thing to do when there is no one else to share it with ;)&#xD;&#xA;I want to name it in Latin (don't know why I want to, but that's not the point, I like Latin), and the title in English would be &#xD;&#xA;&quot;A life, mine!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you please help to translate this to Latin? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried Google Translate but since obviously I do not know Latin, it's better not to risk being a butt of jokes using a strange translation by Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3883" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1158" RevisionGUID="ba2c8236-d33a-4940-97be-4b1925fd80df" CreationDate="2016-07-09T01:18:13.650" UserId="639" Text="Please help to translate &quot;A life, mine...&quot; to Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3884" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1158" RevisionGUID="ba2c8236-d33a-4940-97be-4b1925fd80df" CreationDate="2016-07-09T01:18:13.650" UserId="639" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1159" RevisionGUID="02603cf8-9141-4230-9e2b-3efe8f1e8967" CreationDate="2016-07-09T01:32:24.307" UserId="136" Text="The most literal translation would be *Vita, Mea.* You could also do *Mea Vita* (My Life), or *Quaedam Vita, Mea* (A Certain Life, Mine). Latin does not have articles, so &quot;a/an&quot; does not translate very well. Other words that could be used, but aren't as perfect are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Life: *lux, lumen, spiritus, k/caput, &amp; anima*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mine: *mi*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would have to adjust *mea* to match the gender of the noun &quot;life&quot; depending on what translation you use. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1159" RevisionGUID="42e0e835-4ddd-4d70-83ff-34cc0938be20" CreationDate="2016-07-09T05:14:51.793" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected &quot;mine&quot;." Text="The most literal translation would be *Vita, Mea.* You could also do *Mea Vita* (My Life), or *Quaedam Vita, Mea* (A Certain Life, Mine). Latin does not have articles, so &quot;a/an&quot; does not translate very well. Other words that could be used, but aren't as perfect are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Life: *lux, lumen, spiritus, caput, &amp; anima*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mine: *meus, mea, meum* (masculine, feminine, neuter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would have to adjust *mea* to match the gender of the noun &quot;life&quot; depending on what translation you use. &#xD;&#xA;The gender is indicated in dictionaries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1160" RevisionGUID="6ceb0d35-13a4-438f-9d1f-a01607f3a798" CreationDate="2016-07-09T05:34:58.627" UserId="47" Text="I am still working through the *Parvum Officium* and I am having a little trouble parsing the first verse of this hymn. I am pretty confident you people can straighten me out. The verse:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Memento rerum conditor,&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Nostri quod olim corporis&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Sacrata ab alvo Virginis&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Nascendo formam sumpseris.&#xA;&#xA;I'm fairly confident I understand the first and third lines, but let me attempt translation just in case I do not. First:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Remember! Creator of [the] things!&#xA;&#xA;Third:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; From the holy womb of [the] Virgin&#xA;&#xA;Now, (gulp) the second. I think *nostri* and *corporis* are linked together to mean *of our body* and that *quod olim* is a kind of parenthetical, subordinate adjectival clause:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; ..., that at that time, of our body...&#xA;&#xA;Perhaps that is right. Perhaps not.&#xA;&#xA;I have even less to work with in the fourth line, because I do not really understand the gerundive *nascendo*.  I suspect that the accusative *formam* is linked to the *nostri ... corporis* in the second line.&#xA;&#xA;So, it seems my questions are:&#xA;&#xA; - Are any of my above assertions incorrect?&#xA; - How does *nascendo* operate in this text?&#xA;&#xA;I have an English translation in hand, but given that this is a hymn and subject to rhyme and meter constraints, I do not expect it to follow very rigidly, and I really want to understand the Latin on its own terms. Here is the translation for reference:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Remember, O Creator Lord!&#xA;&#xA;&gt; That in the Virgin's sacred womb&#xA;&#xA;&gt; thou wast conceived, and of her flesh&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Didst our mortality assume.&#xA;&#xA;Thanks a bunch!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3888" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1160" RevisionGUID="6ceb0d35-13a4-438f-9d1f-a01607f3a798" CreationDate="2016-07-09T05:34:58.627" UserId="47" Text="&quot;Memento rerum conditor...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3889" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1160" RevisionGUID="6ceb0d35-13a4-438f-9d1f-a01607f3a798" CreationDate="2016-07-09T05:34:58.627" UserId="47" Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1161" RevisionGUID="82d64d20-3c04-4147-aa5c-2a66f3c529e0" CreationDate="2016-07-09T11:53:35.747" UserId="13" Text="Many languages I now of have a way of making causative constructions. For example, English uses &quot;make&quot; or &quot;have&quot;: I _make_ you do something or _have_ you do something, or even _cause you_ to do something. How do you do that in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3891" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1161" RevisionGUID="82d64d20-3c04-4147-aa5c-2a66f3c529e0" CreationDate="2016-07-09T11:53:35.747" UserId="13" Text="Causatives in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3892" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1161" RevisionGUID="82d64d20-3c04-4147-aa5c-2a66f3c529e0" CreationDate="2016-07-09T11:53:35.747" UserId="13" Text="|grammar|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1162" RevisionGUID="b29785bf-3b92-492d-9483-caf58de9175e" CreationDate="2016-07-09T12:02:24.323" UserId="13" Text="The Italian word &quot;fare&quot; is often used in a very generic way. English doesn't use &quot;do&quot; or &quot;make&quot; that much, but it can still be a good comparison. Let me make some examples. We may say &quot;fare Greco&quot; (&quot;make Greek&quot;, literally, or &quot;do Greek&quot;) to mean &quot;do something related to Greek&quot;, like studying grammar, translating something. We can say &quot;fare piano&quot; (&quot;do/make piano&quot;) for &quot;play the piano&quot;. I once kept a diary in Latin, and to render that I simply used the suffix -izo to create new verbs. The examples above gave me Græcizo and clavilizo. But I was wondering: was there something like this in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3894" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1162" RevisionGUID="b29785bf-3b92-492d-9483-caf58de9175e" CreationDate="2016-07-09T12:02:24.323" UserId="13" Text="Generic use of Italian &quot;fare&quot;: analogue in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3895" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1162" RevisionGUID="b29785bf-3b92-492d-9483-caf58de9175e" CreationDate="2016-07-09T12:02:24.323" UserId="13" Text="|translation|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1163" RevisionGUID="474a490e-e4e6-4bba-9be9-5e92ec87f276" CreationDate="2016-07-09T12:40:17.817" UserId="118" Text="Here's my understanding of the verse. (Note: I'm only a beginner with Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remember (_Memento_), O founder/maker (_conditor_) of things (_rerum_), that (_quod_) once (_olim_), you took (_sumpserīs_) the form (_formam_) of our (_nostri_) body (_corporis_) by being born (_nascendo_) from (_ab_) the sacred (_sacratā_) womb (_alvo_) of a virgin (_virginis_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nascendo** here is a gerund, not a gerundive. That is, it's functioning as a noun, not an adjective modifying some other noun. It's in the ablative case to mean that it's _by_ being born that the Maker takes on human form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you are right that **nostri corporis** modifies **formam**. I understand the whole phrase to be a poetic way of saying &quot;mortality&quot;, that is, &quot;the form of our body&quot;. **Nostri corporis** might seem an awfully long distance from the noun that it modifies. In between them there is another genitive, even! Possibly that long distance is actually intentional bracketing of the enclosing clause rather than a compromise with meter. Seen that way, enclosing **Sacrata ab alvo Virginis nascendo** inside **nostri corporis formam** might even be a way to indicate how the causal relation between the two phrases is intended to be understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think of **olim** as meaning something similar to English &quot;once upon a time&quot;, but not limited to the past, so it can also mean &quot;someday&quot;, and not limited to children's stories, so it can also mean &quot;once&quot; or &quot;one time&quot;, as in &quot;Once, I adopted a stray cat.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something I'm not completely sure of is **sumpseris**. With a short _i_, **sumpserĭs**, it's future perfect: &quot;Remember that one day, you will have taken the form…&quot; With a long _i_, **sumpserīs**, it's perfect subjunctive: &quot;Remember that once, you took the form…&quot; I figure that the past tense makes more sense here, but the subjunctive mood seems strange, since the event is already accomplished fact. Possibly imperative **memini** customarily governs a subjunctive clause even when referring to known fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alas, I'm pretty sure that vowel quantity plays no role in medieval rhyme, so I don't think that we can use the short vowels of **corporĭs** and **virginĭs** to infer the quantity of the last vowel in **sumpseris**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1163" RevisionGUID="048bfeda-c401-4d14-ae27-092dd8efdc06" CreationDate="2016-07-09T12:47:06.023" UserId="118" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="Here's my understanding of the verse. (Note: I'm only a beginner with Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remember (_Memento_), O founder/maker (_conditor_) of things (_rerum_), that (_quod_) once (_olim_), you took (_sumpserīs_) the form (_formam_) of our (_nostri_) body (_corporis_) by being born (_nascendo_) from (_ab_) the sacred (_sacratā_) womb (_alvo_) of a virgin (_virginis_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nascendo** here is a gerund, not a gerundive. That is, it's functioning as a noun, not an adjective modifying some other noun. It's in the ablative case to mean that it's _by_ being born that the Maker takes on human form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you are right that **nostri corporis** modifies **formam**. I understand the whole phrase to be a poetic way of saying &quot;mortality&quot;, that is, &quot;the form of our body&quot;. **Nostri corporis** might seem an awfully long distance from the noun that it modifies. In between them there is another genitive, even! Possibly that long distance is actually intentional bracketing of the enclosing clause rather than a compromise with meter. Seen that way, enclosing **Sacrata ab alvo Virginis nascendo** inside **nostri corporis formam** might even be a way to indicate how the causal relation between the two phrases is intended to be understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think of **olim** as meaning something similar to English &quot;once upon a time&quot;, but not limited to the past, so it can also mean &quot;someday&quot;, and not limited to children's stories, so it can also mean &quot;once&quot; or &quot;one time&quot;, as in &quot;Once, I adopted a stray cat.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something I'm not completely sure of is **sumpseris**. With a short _i_, **sumpserĭs**, it's future perfect: &quot;Keep in mind that one day, you will have taken the form…&quot; With a long _i_, **sumpserīs**, it's perfect subjunctive: &quot;Remember that once, you took the form…&quot; I figure that the past tense makes more sense here, but the subjunctive mood seems strange, since the event is already accomplished fact. Possibly imperative **memini** customarily governs a subjunctive verb even when referring to known fact; someone with better knowledge of Latin will have to clarify that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alas, I'm pretty sure that vowel quantity plays no role in medieval rhyme, so I don't think that we can use the short vowels of **corporĭs** and **virginĭs** to infer the quantity of the last vowel in **sumpseris**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1163" RevisionGUID="28e8a6d5-3a1c-42f7-85a0-b30268a0a1d1" CreationDate="2016-07-09T14:02:57.110" UserId="118" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Here's my understanding of the verse. (Note: I'm only a beginner with Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remember (_Memento_), O founder/maker (_conditor_) of things (_rerum_), that (_quod_) once (_olim_), you took (_sumpserīs_) the form (_formam_) of our (_nostri_) body (_corporis_) by being born (_nascendo_) from (_ab_) the sanctified (_sacratā_) womb (_alvo_) of a virgin (_virginis_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nascendo** here is a gerund, not a gerundive. That is, it's functioning as a noun, not an adjective modifying some other noun. It's in the ablative case to mean that it's _by_ being born that the Maker takes on human form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you are right that **nostri corporis** modifies **formam**. **Nostri corporis** might seem an awfully long distance from the noun that it modifies. In between them there is another genitive, even! Possibly that long distance is actually intentional bracketing of the enclosing clause rather than a compromise with meter. Seen that way, enclosing **sacrata ab alvo Virginis nascendo** inside **nostri corporis formam** might even be a way to indicate how the causal relation between the two phrases is intended to be understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think of **olim** as meaning something similar to English &quot;once upon a time&quot;, but not limited to the past, so it can also mean &quot;someday&quot;, and not limited to children's stories, so it can also mean &quot;once&quot; or &quot;one time&quot;, as in &quot;Once, I adopted a stray cat.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something I'm not completely sure of is **sumpseris**. With a short _i_, **sumpserĭs**, it's future perfect: &quot;Keep in mind that one day, you will have taken the form…&quot; With a long _i_, **sumpserīs**, it's perfect subjunctive: &quot;Remember that once, you took the form…&quot; I figure that the past tense makes more sense here, but the subjunctive mood seems strange because the event is already accomplished fact. Possibly imperative **memini** customarily governs a subjunctive verb even when referring to known fact; someone with better knowledge of Latin will have to clarify that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alas, I'm pretty sure that vowel quantity plays no role in medieval rhyme, so I don't think that we can use the short vowels of **corporĭs** and **virginĭs** to infer the quantity of the last vowel in **sumpseris**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1164" RevisionGUID="8364c49c-1e5a-4eeb-9549-a910033323d9" CreationDate="2016-07-09T19:29:46.880" UserId="79" Text="A relatively common construction in Latin is to use the verb *curare*.&#xD;&#xA;If &quot;I do this&quot; is *hoc facio*, then &quot;I have someone do this&quot; is &quot;hoc faciendum curo&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;To my knowledge this construction is impersonal in the sense that you cannot indicate who you make do the job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a way to indicate who has to do something, and it is called the passive periphrastic conjugation and formed with *esse*, dative and gerundive.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *hoc tibi faciendum est* is &quot;you have to do this&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This structure does not typically indicate why the thing has to be done, but a causal ablative can always be added:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Meo iusso hoc tibi faciendum est.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Due to my order you have to do this.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not far from saying *te hoc facere iubeo* or &quot;I order you to do this&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore it does not feel like the causative as much as you might want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A heavier option is to use a final *ut* clause with *efficere* or some other suitable verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Effeci, ut hoc faceres.* &amp;mdash; *Effeci, ut hoc tibi faciendum esset.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I did so that you do this. &amp;mdash; I did so that you have to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English translations are a bit clumsy, but I wanted to emphasize the Latin structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think none of these ideas exactly matches either of the English causative structures you mention, but they should offer a decent toolbox for expressing similar ideas in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1165" RevisionGUID="820e9427-05ac-4b1c-a5ff-0cbe511ef421" CreationDate="2016-07-09T23:16:39.737" UserId="290" Text="I know the word cuncti/ae/a means &quot;all&quot;, but then I came across the word cunctare or cunctari, alternatively, which means &quot;to hesitate&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;Do these two words share a common etymology to some extent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3901" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1165" RevisionGUID="820e9427-05ac-4b1c-a5ff-0cbe511ef421" CreationDate="2016-07-09T23:16:39.737" UserId="290" Text="Relation of cuncti and cunctare?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3902" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1165" RevisionGUID="820e9427-05ac-4b1c-a5ff-0cbe511ef421" CreationDate="2016-07-09T23:16:39.737" UserId="290" Text="|etymology|vocabulary|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1166" RevisionGUID="3e34f46a-49c3-49b2-ab8c-8cb1e308b522" CreationDate="2016-07-09T23:51:00.747" UserId="30" Text="Probably not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to *[Lewis &amp; Short][1]*, ***cunctus*** &quot;all&quot; is a contraction of *coniunctus* &quot;bound together&quot;, from *con-* &quot;together&quot; and *iungo* &quot;to bind&quot;. *Iungo* is from Proto-Indo-European *\*(H)iug-* &quot;yoke&quot;. But De Vaan does not mention this etymology; he only says *cunctus* may be a contraction of *concitus*, from *con-* and *cieo* &quot;to move, incite&quot;. He adds that *Ernout &amp; Meillet* reject this etymology. *Cieo* is from Proto-Indo-European *\*keih2-* &quot;begin to move&quot;, according to De Vaan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Cunctor*** &quot;hesitate&quot; is from Proto-Indo-European *\*ḱ(e/o)nk-(eie-)* &quot;to hang, falter, hesitate&quot;, according to De Vaan and [Philippa][2], and it is cognate with English *hang*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the two words are probably not in any way related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=cunctus&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/hangen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1167" RevisionGUID="2866e42f-0eeb-4df6-b787-97b5f7689519" CreationDate="2016-07-10T00:32:11.737" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[ [Wiktionary :](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quotidian#Etymology) ]  [...]  Latin cottīdiānus, quōtīdiānus ‎(“happening every day”), from adverb cottīdiē, quōtīdiē ‎(“every day, daily”),      &#xD;&#xA;from an unattested adjective derived from [*quot*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quot#Latin) ‎(“how many”) + locative form of [*diēs*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dies#Latin) ‎(“day”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ [Etymonline :](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=quotidian) ]  [...]  from Latin *quotidianus* &quot;daily,&quot; from Latin *quotus* &quot;how many? which in order or number?&quot; (see [quote](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=quote&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (v.)) + *dies* &quot;day&quot; (see [diurnal](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=diurnal&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)).  [...] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'quot' and 'quotus' appear a wrong, discordant choice  of adjective to Compound *dies*, because they are used to connect or question a quantity with another noun'; but the frequency and quantity in  'every day' is evident: it is 'every'. So an adjective like [omnis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/omnis#Latin) appears more reasonable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3905" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1167" RevisionGUID="2866e42f-0eeb-4df6-b787-97b5f7689519" CreationDate="2016-07-10T00:32:11.737" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What underlying semantic notions explain 'quotus' in 'quotidianus'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3906" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1167" RevisionGUID="2866e42f-0eeb-4df6-b787-97b5f7689519" CreationDate="2016-07-10T00:32:11.737" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1168" RevisionGUID="1be49f16-240f-4cb8-9246-f99bf9f415c1" CreationDate="2016-07-10T02:19:57.870" UserId="641" Text="In medieval Latin, habere came to express (also) ability or obligation. I'd have to dig up an example, but I see it in Ockham with some (minor) frequency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is also mentioned in Elliott's 'Brief Introduction to Medieval Latin Grammar' in *Medieval Latin*, ed. Harrington, rev. Pucci (Chicago, 1997), § 7.2.2, citing (e.g.) Tertullian, [Apologeticum](http://www.tertullian.org/latin/apologeticum_becker.htm) 37: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si inimicos, ut supra diximus, iubemur diligere, quem habemus odisse?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1169" RevisionGUID="a00363b7-48dc-43f2-a0fd-7f1f88348029" CreationDate="2016-07-10T02:59:58.037" UserId="641" Text="Note: Not a direct answer, but... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to A.G. Rigg, 'Morphologoy and Syntax' in Mantello and Rigg, eds, *Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide* (Washington, DC, 1996), 85:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Classical Latin the past participle is sometimes (though rarely) used predicatively after *habere*: *domitas habere libidines*, &quot;to have one's desires tamed,&quot; i.e. &quot;to have tamed one's desires.&quot; From this it is an easy step to the French *Je l'ai tué*, &quot;I have killed him.&quot; English developed *I have killed him* in the same way, not from French influence but from the senses inherent in *have* and the past participle. When Medieval Latin uses such constructions (*habere* plus perfect participle to form a &#xD;&#xA;transitive perfect tense), it is probably in imitation of the vernacular rather than of the rare Classical Latin construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'd say the more common medieval 'analytic' forms involved a shift in the way the passive voice might be written:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                     Classical                  Medieval&#xD;&#xA;    Indicative: &#xD;&#xA;    present          scribitur                  scriptus, -a, -um est&#xD;&#xA;    perfect          scriptus, -a, -um est      scriptus, -a, -um fuit&#xD;&#xA;    pluperfect       scriptus, -a, -um erat     scriptus, -a, -um fuerat&#xD;&#xA;    future perfect   scriptus, -a, -um erit     scriptus, -a, -um fuerit&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Subjunctive:&#xD;&#xA;    present          scribatur                  scriptus, -a, -um sit&#xD;&#xA;    perfect          scriptus, -a, -um sit      scriptus, -a, -um fuerit&#xD;&#xA;    pluperfect       scriptus, -a, -um erat     scriptus, -a, -um fuisset&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When reading post-classical texts, then, one must be careful about this shift. In particular, one must watch for ambiguity in three cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Classical perfect indicative vs ‘medieval’ present indicative →&#xD;&#xA;    `scriptus, -a, -um est`; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Classical perfect subjunctive vs ‘medieval’ present subjuctive → `scriptus, -a, -um sit`; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. (as is regularly the case) ‘medieval’ future perfect indicative and&#xD;&#xA;    ‘medieval’ perfect subjunctive → `scriptus, -a, -um fuerit`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, certainly, a 'medieval' author might use both the medieval and classical form in one and the same work. Whether that is because there is some special distinction that can be drawn between the two uses is hard to say. But I doubt that there was a universal, but unstated, distinction that all authors drew upon. (Indeed, I'd be inclined to wonder if the different uses might not be attributable to what we might call palaeographical reasons.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, another avenue of inquiry might be the adoption of the Greek periphrastic in, e.g., the Vulgate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et ecce: eris tacens et non poteris loqui usque in diem, quo haec fiant... ([Lc 1:20](http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/49001.htm))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin construction of the Greek periphrastic is a present participle + some tense of *esse* (present, imperfect, or future). But I don't know, off-hand, what connection the above analytic forms have to the adoption of this type of periphrastic construction...." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1170" RevisionGUID="3589fabb-59cd-4946-a816-2bfe1a00aa81" CreationDate="2016-07-10T03:36:25.287" UserId="641" Text="It's not 'every' day, but 'any' day. Think of it along the lines of 'how soever many days', i.e., all days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Cicero's *Letters to Atticus* 5.7](https://archive.org/details/letterstoatticus01ciceuoft) (or on [Perseus](http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:latinLit:phi0474.phi057.perseus-lat1:5.7)) for a distinction between *cotidie* and *in dies singulos*. In the translation linked to above, we read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Daily, or rather more and more every day, I send you shorter letters...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  cotidie vel potius in dies singulos breviores litteras ad te mitto...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a loose translation, but the distinction seems to be along the lines of: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On whatsoever day [you might pick/name], or, rather, on every single day, I send you shorter letters..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1171" RevisionGUID="a00f9561-d49a-49a9-93be-1f9230f651d2" CreationDate="2016-07-10T03:54:56.643" UserId="641" Text="Another possibility:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vita propria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it has a horrible ring to it (to me), the adjective *proprius, -a, -um* may capture the 'mine!' better. The adjective has the meaning (Lewis &amp; Short, q.v.):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not common with others, **one's own**, special, particular, proper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can also have the sense of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; peculiar, special, characteristic, personal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's antonym is *communis* (common, shared, etc.). If a thing is *proprium*, it is *meum* (mine) and not *tuum* (yours).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@SamK's point about *quaedam* stands here as well. But *Quaedam vita, propria* (*A* [Certain] *Life, my own!*) just seems like a locution to be avoided. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... But, *de gustibus non est disputandum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1172" RevisionGUID="8f8899ab-a08f-4a0c-b93e-49848671fb4d" CreationDate="2016-07-10T06:25:20.763" UserId="641" Text="I'd say *goetia* is clearly a noun, as you say. Some points to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Nouns are sometimes used as adjectives: *victor exercitus* -- the victorious army (A&amp;G, § 321 c);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. There was some confusion as to what this word actually referred to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    See, e.g., Du Cange's entry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Getia, *Maleficiorum doctrina*. Glossae antiq. Forte pro γοητεία, [vel forte a Geta mago celeberrimo, quem diu in AEgypto commoratum fuisse narrat Strabo lib. 7. Papias editus et MS. habet: *Gethia, maleficiorum doctrina, Gheticus, Thracus.* Vide *Gitta*.] {The entry on *gitta* refers to *praetigiae per manuum invocationem, maleficia*.}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    And then there's Augustine, who contrasts it with theurgy (both under 'magic'):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Fiebant autem simplici fide atque fiducia pietatis, non incantationibus et carminibus nefariae curiositatis arte compositis, quam uel **magian** uel detestabiliore nomine **goetian** uel honorabiliore **theurgian** uocant, qui quasi conantur ista discernere et inlicitis artibus deditos alios damnabiles, quos et maleficos uulgus appellat (hos enim ad **goetian** pertinere dicunt), alios autem laudabiles uideri uolunt, quibus theurgian deputant; cum sint utrique ritibus fallacibus daemonum obstricti sub nominibus angelorum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Medieval authors sometimes like to give a 'Greek' flavour to their titles, especially when they are writing something esoteric. But even 'conventional' authors sometimes couldn't resist Anselm's *Monologion* and *Prosologion* come to mind, for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1172" RevisionGUID="d848048b-1691-4d10-9230-d8420b92fda8" CreationDate="2016-07-10T06:45:20.543" UserId="641" Comment="added Augustine link" Text="I'd say *goetia* is clearly a noun, as you say. Some points to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Nouns are sometimes used as adjectives: *victor exercitus* -- the victorious army (A&amp;G, § 321 c);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. There was some confusion as to what this word actually referred to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    See, e.g., Du Cange's entry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Getia, *Maleficiorum doctrina*. Glossae antiq. Forte pro γοητεία, [vel forte a Geta mago celeberrimo, quem diu in AEgypto commoratum fuisse narrat Strabo lib. 7. Papias editus et MS. habet: *Gethia, maleficiorum doctrina, Gheticus, Thracus.* Vide *Gitta*.] {The entry on *gitta* refers to *praestigiae per manuum invocationem, maleficia*.}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    And then there's Augustine, who contrasts it with theurgy (both under 'magic') in [*Civ.* 10.9](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/augustine/civ10.shtml) (or, as in Jensen's [1475 edition](https://archive.org/stream/augustinidecivitatedei00jensuoft#page/n233/mode/2up)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Fiebant autem simplici fide atque fiducia pietatis, non incantationibus et carminibus nefariae curiositatis arte compositis, quam uel **magian** uel detestabiliore nomine **goetian** uel honorabiliore **theurgian** uocant, qui quasi conantur ista discernere et inlicitis artibus deditos alios damnabiles, quos et maleficos uulgus appellat (hos enim ad **goetian** pertinere dicunt), alios autem laudabiles uideri uolunt, quibus theurgian deputant; cum sint utrique ritibus fallacibus daemonum obstricti sub nominibus angelorum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Medieval authors sometimes like to give a 'Greek' flavour to their titles, especially when they are writing something esoteric. But even 'conventional' authors sometimes couldn't resist Anselm's *Monologion* and *Prosologion* come to mind, for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1173" RevisionGUID="f1ccd7ac-b69e-43db-8a37-f4f0bf18495c" CreationDate="2016-07-10T11:20:18.287" UserId="642" Text="I would translate &quot;licet&quot; as &quot;able.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So scilicet would translate as something that was &quot;knowable,&quot; or in plain English, &quot;self-evident.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Videlicet would translate into &quot;seeable,&quot; that is you can &quot;see it that way.&quot; (But the connotation is &quot;maybe you can see it another way,&quot; so it is weaker than scilicet.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1169" RevisionGUID="56008c94-a92b-4266-adb4-6b46ff8266ee" CreationDate="2016-07-10T17:01:31.863" UserId="641" Comment="Added a bit about statal passive" Text="Note: Not a direct answer, but... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to A.G. Rigg, 'Morphologoy and Syntax' in Mantello and Rigg, eds, *Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide* (Washington, DC, 1996), 85:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Classical Latin the past participle is sometimes (though rarely) used predicatively after *habere*: *domitas habere libidines*, &quot;to have one's desires tamed,&quot; i.e. &quot;to have tamed one's desires.&quot; From this it is an easy step to the French *Je l'ai tué*, &quot;I have killed him.&quot; English developed *I have killed him* in the same way, not from French influence but from the senses inherent in *have* and the past participle. When Medieval Latin uses such constructions (*habere* plus perfect participle to form a &#xD;&#xA;transitive perfect tense), it is probably in imitation of the vernacular rather than of the rare Classical Latin construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'd say the more common medieval 'analytic' forms involved a shift in the way the passive voice might be written:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                     Classical                  'Medieval'&#xD;&#xA;    Indicative: &#xD;&#xA;    present          scribitur                  scriptus, -a, -um est&#xD;&#xA;    perfect          scriptus, -a, -um est      scriptus, -a, -um fuit&#xD;&#xA;    pluperfect       scriptus, -a, -um erat     scriptus, -a, -um fuerat&#xD;&#xA;    future perfect   scriptus, -a, -um erit     scriptus, -a, -um fuerit&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Subjunctive:&#xD;&#xA;    present          scribatur                  scriptus, -a, -um sit&#xD;&#xA;    perfect          scriptus, -a, -um sit      scriptus, -a, -um fuerit&#xD;&#xA;    pluperfect       scriptus, -a, -um erat     scriptus, -a, -um fuisset&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare Rigg, ibid.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  In Classical Latin the perfect passive is formed by *esse* and the past participle (*iussus est*, &quot;he was ordered&quot;); in Medieval Latin the verb *esse* sometimes regains its literal tense, so that *amata est* can mean &quot;she is loved&quot;; consequently, to form the past, past tenses of *esse* are needed (*amata erat/fuit*); this is a natural consequence of the adjectival nature of the past participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When reading post-classical texts, then, one must be careful about this shift. In particular, one must watch for ambiguity in three cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Classical perfect indicative vs ‘medieval’ present indicative →&#xD;&#xA;    `scriptus, -a, -um est`; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Classical perfect subjunctive vs ‘medieval’ present subjuctive → `scriptus, -a, -um sit`; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. (as is regularly the case) ‘medieval’ future perfect indicative and&#xD;&#xA;    ‘medieval’ perfect subjunctive → `scriptus, -a, -um fuerit`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, certainly, a 'medieval' author might use both the medieval and classical form in one and the same work. Whether that is because there is some special distinction that can be drawn between the two uses is hard to say. But I doubt that there was a universal, but unstated, distinction that all authors drew upon. (Indeed, I'd be inclined to wonder if the different uses might not be attributable to what we might call palaeographical reasons.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, another avenue of inquiry might be the adoption of the Greek periphrastic in, e.g., the Vulgate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et ecce: eris tacens et non poteris loqui usque in diem, quo haec fiant... ([Lc 1:20](http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/49001.htm))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin construction of the Greek periphrastic is a present participle + some tense of *esse* (present, imperfect, or future). But I don't know, off-hand, what connection the above analytic forms have to the adoption of this type of periphrastic construction...." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1174" RevisionGUID="fbe9c489-4937-421f-b698-00ce51aa5f2c" CreationDate="2016-07-10T17:41:28.757" UserId="643" Text="What are the written Latin names of the Latin alphabet's letters? Alpha is the written name of the first Greek letter. Aleph is the written name of the first Hebrew.How did the Romans refer in writing to each alphabetic character?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3919" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1174" RevisionGUID="fbe9c489-4937-421f-b698-00ce51aa5f2c" CreationDate="2016-07-10T17:41:28.757" UserId="643" Text="Written Latin names of the Latin alphabet's letters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3920" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1174" RevisionGUID="fbe9c489-4937-421f-b698-00ce51aa5f2c" CreationDate="2016-07-10T17:41:28.757" UserId="643" Text="|alphabet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1175" RevisionGUID="6b7f927a-91ae-4153-bf1f-7a6fc8d75f5d" CreationDate="2016-07-10T17:55:43.483" UserId="136" Text="Here is the alphabet:&#xD;&#xA;Á, Bē, Cē, Dē, É, Ef, Gē, Hā, I, Kā, El, Em, En, O, Pē, Qū, Er, Es, Tē, Ú, Ix, I Graeca, Zēta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia article is pretty good on this subject, and can be found [here][1]. [This][2] is also a good resource. Here is an important quote from the latter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There were no lower case letters at first, and K, Y and Z used only for writing words of Greek origin. The letters J, U and W were added to the alphabet at a later stage to write languages other than Latin. J is a variant of I, U is a variant of V, and W was introduced as a 'double-v' to make a distinction between the sounds we know as 'v' and 'w' which was unnecessary in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/latin.htm#roman" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1173" RevisionGUID="76ed3d0c-9acd-49e9-ae8e-ad9a43f50cef" CreationDate="2016-07-10T20:02:56.800" UserId="642" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="I would translate &quot;licet&quot; as &quot;able&quot; (in the sense of being allowed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So scilicet would translate as something that was &quot;knowable,&quot; or in plain English, &quot;self-evident.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Videlicet would translate into &quot;seeable,&quot; that is you can &quot;see it that way.&quot; (But the connotation is &quot;maybe you can see it another way,&quot; so it is weaker than scilicet.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3923" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1174" RevisionGUID="3a2b6334-f4dc-457a-8fef-17c4b051f055" CreationDate="2016-07-10T22:08:41.650" UserId="12" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[732],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:12,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nathaniel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1163" RevisionGUID="972d0b45-6db0-4bab-a88e-316b97669594" CreationDate="2016-07-11T00:04:46.787" UserId="118" Comment="added 3055 characters in body" Text="Here's my understanding of the verse. (Note: I'm only a beginner with Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remember (_Memento_), O founder/maker (_conditor_) of things (_rerum_), that (_quod_) once (_olim_), you took (_sumpserīs_) the form (_formam_) of our (_nostri_) body (_corporis_) by being born (_nascendo_) from (_ab_) the sanctified (_sacratā_) womb (_alvo_) of a virgin (_virginis_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nascendo / gerund vs. gerundive&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**Nascendo** here is a gerund, not a gerundive. That is, it's functioning as a noun, not an adjective modifying some other noun. It's in the ablative case to mean that it's _by_ being born that the Maker takes on human form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gerund**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gerund in Latin is a verb functioning substantively, i.e., as a noun, in an oblique case. In the ablative case, **nascendo** means **by being born**. Notice that English has the same construction, also called &quot;gerund&quot;, in which a verb plays the role of a noun. &quot;Being born happens early in a person's life.&quot; A gerund has the active voice. For example, in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Desine fata deum flecti sperare **precando**.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = Stop hoping to bend the will of the gods **by praying**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the person doing the praying is Aeneas, i.e., the person being addressed. Since **nascor** is a deponent verb, **nascendo** takes an active meaning even though the verb is basically passive (or at least we think of it that way in English: **to be born**, **being born**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gerundive**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive has the same form as the gerund, but a gerundive is a participle, i.e. a verb functioning as an adjective. For example, in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Karthago **delenda** est.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = Carthage must be **destroyed**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**delenda** is an adjective modifying **Karthago**. It changes case to agree with the noun that it modifies, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ceterum censeo Karthaginem **delendum** esse.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = And lastly, I recommend that Carthage be **destroyed**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike the gerund, the gerundive is passive. Cato isn't recommending that Carthage do some destroying; he's recommending that Carthage _be_ destroyed. Notice that the gerundive is the same as the future participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of **nascendo**, since **nascor** is deponent and intransitive, I'm not sure there's any difference in meaning between understanding it actively or passively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there's no noun in the verse for a gerundive **nascendo** to modify, it seems unlikely that it's meant as a gerundive. It might cause some confusion that in Latin, an adjective can function substantively, and that applies to gerundives, too. For example, **mutatis mutandis**, &quot;the necessary changes having been made,&quot; or literally, &quot;the things that need to be changed, having been changed.&quot; Without a noun to modify, the gerundive means &quot;things that are to be _X_'ed.&quot; However, in the verse, I don't think it would make sense to understand **nascendo** that way; then it would mean &quot;someone who is to be born&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See below, about **sumpseris**, for one other possible way to look at this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I did not think any of the above through when reading the sentence. Happily, even with my fairly meager experience reading Latin, I understood it simply by analogy with sentences like the one above ending in **precando**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other bits and pieces&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you are right that **nostri corporis** modifies **formam**. **Nostri corporis** might seem an awfully long distance from the noun that it modifies. In between them there is another genitive, even! Possibly that long distance is actually intentional bracketing of the enclosing clause rather than a compromise with meter. Seen that way, enclosing **sacrata ab alvo Virginis nascendo** inside **nostri corporis formam** might even be a way to indicate how the causal relation between the two phrases is intended to be understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think of **olim** as meaning something similar to English &quot;once upon a time&quot;, but not limited to the past, so it can also mean &quot;someday&quot;, and not limited to children's stories, so it can also mean &quot;once&quot; or &quot;one time&quot;, as in &quot;Once, I adopted a stray cat.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something I'm not completely sure of is **sumpseris**. With a short _i_, **sumpserĭs**, it's future perfect: &quot;Keep in mind that one day, you will have taken the form…&quot; With a long _i_, **sumpserīs**, it's perfect subjunctive: &quot;Remember that once, you took the form…&quot; I figure that the past tense makes more sense here, but the subjunctive mood seems strange because the event is already accomplished fact. Possibly imperative **memini** customarily governs a subjunctive verb even when referring to known fact; someone with better knowledge of Latin will have to clarify that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alas, I'm pretty sure that vowel quantity plays no role in medieval rhyme, so I don't think that we can use the short vowels of **corporĭs** and **virginĭs** to infer the quantity of the last vowel in **sumpseris**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding gerund vs. gerundive, perhaps one could argue that **nascendo** modifies an implied noun **te**, so the meaning is &quot;by you who are to be born&quot;. I don't think this makes sense with either reading of **sumpseris**, though. As **sumpserĭs**: &quot;Remember that thou took'st human form by thee who art to be born…&quot; As **sumpserīs**: &quot;Keep in mind that thou wilt have taken human form by  thee who art to be born…&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1163" RevisionGUID="03d9cd55-f5d5-4582-94cc-c2460071d46b" CreationDate="2016-07-11T00:26:02.390" UserId="118" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="Here's my understanding of the verse. (Note: I'm only a beginner with Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remember (_Memento_), O founder/maker (_conditor_) of things (_rerum_), that (_quod_) once (_olim_), you took (_sumpserīs_) the form (_formam_) of our (_nostri_) body (_corporis_) by being born (_nascendo_) from (_ab_) the sanctified (_sacratā_) womb (_alvo_) of a virgin (_virginis_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nascendo / gerund vs. gerundive&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**Nascendo** here is a gerund, not a gerundive. That is, it's functioning as a noun, not an adjective modifying some other noun. It's in the ablative case to mean that it's _by_ being born that the Maker takes on human form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gerund**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gerund in Latin is a verb functioning substantively, i.e., as a noun, in an oblique case. In the ablative case, **nascendo** means **by being born**. Notice that English has the same construction, also called &quot;gerund&quot;, in which a verb plays the role of a noun. &quot;Being born happens early in a person's life.&quot; A gerund has the active voice. For example, in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Desine fata deum flecti sperare **precando**. [Aeneid, 6.376]&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = Stop hoping to bend the will of the gods **by praying**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the person doing the praying is Aeneas, i.e., the person being addressed. Since **nascor** is a deponent verb, **nascendo** takes an active meaning even though the verb is basically passive (or at least we think of it that way in English: **to be born**, **being born**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gerundive**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive has the same form as the gerund, but a gerundive is a participle, i.e. a verb functioning as an adjective. For example, in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Karthago **delenda** est.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = Carthage must be **destroyed**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**delenda** is an adjective modifying **Karthago**. It changes case to agree with the noun that it modifies, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ceterum censeo Karthaginem **delendam** esse.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = And lastly, I say that Carthage must be **destroyed**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike the gerund, the gerundive is passive. Cato isn't recommending that Carthage do some destroying; he's recommending that Carthage _be_ destroyed. Notice that the gerundive is the same as the future participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of **nascendo**, since **nascor** is deponent and intransitive, I'm not sure there's any difference in meaning between understanding it actively or passively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there's no noun in the verse for a gerundive **nascendo** to modify, it seems unlikely that it's meant as a gerundive. It might cause some confusion that in Latin, an adjective can function substantively, and that applies to gerundives, too. For example, **mutatis mutandis**, &quot;the necessary changes having been made,&quot; or literally, &quot;the things that need to be changed, having been changed.&quot; Without a noun to modify, the gerundive means &quot;things that are to be _X_'ed.&quot; However, in the verse, I don't think it would make sense to understand **nascendo** that way; then it would mean &quot;someone who is to be born&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See below, about **sumpseris**, for one other possible way to look at this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I did not think any of the above through when reading the sentence. Happily, even with my fairly meager experience reading Latin, I understood it simply by analogy with sentences like the one above ending in **precando**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other bits and pieces&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you are right that **nostri corporis** modifies **formam**. **Nostri corporis** might seem an awfully long distance from the noun that it modifies. In between them there is another genitive, even! Possibly that long distance is actually intentional bracketing of the enclosing clause rather than a compromise with meter. Seen that way, enclosing **sacrata ab alvo Virginis nascendo** inside **nostri corporis formam** might even be a way to indicate how the causal relation between the two phrases is intended to be understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think of **olim** as meaning something similar to English &quot;once upon a time&quot;, but not limited to the past, so it can also mean &quot;someday&quot;, and not limited to children's stories, so it can also mean &quot;once&quot; or &quot;one time&quot;, as in &quot;Once, I adopted a stray cat.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something I'm not completely sure of is **sumpseris**. With a short _i_, **sumpserĭs**, it's future perfect: &quot;Keep in mind that one day, you will have taken the form…&quot; With a long _i_, **sumpserīs**, it's perfect subjunctive: &quot;Remember that once, you took the form…&quot; I figure that the past tense makes more sense here, but the subjunctive mood seems strange because the event is already accomplished fact. Possibly imperative **memini** customarily governs a subjunctive verb even when referring to known fact; someone with better knowledge of Latin will have to clarify that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alas, I'm pretty sure that vowel quantity plays no role in medieval rhyme, so I don't think that we can use the short vowels of **corporĭs** and **virginĭs** to infer the quantity of the last vowel in **sumpseris**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding gerund vs. gerundive, perhaps one could argue that **nascendo** modifies an implied noun **te**, so the meaning is &quot;by you who are to be born&quot;. I don't think this makes sense with either reading of **sumpseris**, though. As **sumpserĭs**: &quot;Remember that thou took'st human form by thee who art to be born…&quot; As **sumpserīs**: &quot;Keep in mind that thou wilt have taken human form by  thee who art to be born…&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1163" RevisionGUID="c0e0d211-3fce-4644-b391-ad873cded919" CreationDate="2016-07-11T00:34:24.647" UserId="118" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Here's my understanding of the verse. (Note: I'm only a beginner with Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remember (_Memento_), O founder/maker (_conditor_) of things (_rerum_), that (_quod_) once (_olim_), you took (_sumpserīs_) the form (_formam_) of our (_nostri_) body (_corporis_) by being born (_nascendo_) from (_ab_) the sanctified (_sacratā_) womb (_alvo_) of a virgin (_virginis_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nascendo / gerund vs. gerundive&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**Nascendo** here is a gerund, not a gerundive. That is, it's functioning as a noun, not an adjective modifying some other noun. It's in the ablative case to mean that it's _by_ being born that the Maker takes on human form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gerund**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gerund in Latin is a verb functioning substantively, i.e., as a noun, in an oblique case. In the ablative case, **nascendo** means **by being born**. Notice that English has the same construction, also called &quot;gerund&quot;, in which a verb plays the role of a noun. &quot;Being born happens early in a person's life.&quot; A gerund has the active voice. For example, in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Desine fata deum flecti sperare **precando**. [Aeneid, 6.376]&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = Stop hoping to bend the will of the gods **by praying**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the person doing the praying is Aeneas, i.e., the person being addressed. Since **nascor** is a deponent verb, **nascendo** takes an active meaning even though the verb is basically passive (or at least we think of it that way in English: **to be born**, **being born**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gerundive**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive has the same form as the gerund, but a gerundive is a participle, i.e. a verb functioning as an adjective. For example, in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Karthago **delenda** est.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = Carthage must be **destroyed**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**delenda** is an adjective modifying **Karthago**. It changes case to agree with the noun that it modifies, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ceterum censeo Karthaginem **delendam** esse.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = And lastly, I say that Carthage must be **destroyed**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike the gerund, the gerundive is passive. Cato isn't recommending that Carthage do some destroying; he's recommending that Carthage _be_ destroyed. Notice that the gerundive is the same as the future participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of **nascendo**, since **nascor** is deponent and intransitive, I'm not sure there's any difference in meaning between understanding it actively or passively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there's no noun in the verse for a gerundive **nascendo** to modify, it seems unlikely that it's meant as a gerundive. It might cause some confusion that in Latin, an adjective can function substantively, and that applies to gerundives, too. For example, **mutatis mutandis**, &quot;the necessary changes having been made,&quot; or literally, &quot;the things that need to be changed, having been changed.&quot; Without a noun to modify, the gerundive means &quot;things that are to be _X_'ed.&quot; However, in the verse, I don't think it would make sense to understand **nascendo** that way; then it would mean &quot;by someone who is to be born&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See below, about **sumpseris**, for one other possible way to look at this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I did not think any of the above through when reading the sentence. Happily, even with my fairly meager experience reading Latin, I understood it simply by analogy with sentences like the one above ending in **precando**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other bits and pieces&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you are right that **nostri corporis** modifies **formam**. **Nostri corporis** might seem an awfully long distance from the noun that it modifies. In between them there is another genitive, even! Possibly that long distance is actually intentional bracketing of the enclosing clause rather than a compromise with meter. Seen that way, enclosing **sacrata ab alvo Virginis nascendo** inside **nostri corporis formam** might even be a way to indicate how the causal relation between the two phrases is intended to be understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think of **olim** as meaning something similar to English &quot;once upon a time&quot;, but not limited to the past, so it can also mean &quot;someday&quot;, and not limited to children's stories, so it can also mean &quot;once&quot; or &quot;one time&quot;, as in &quot;Once, I adopted a stray cat.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something I'm not completely sure of is **sumpseris**. With a short _i_, **sumpserĭs**, it's future perfect: &quot;Keep in mind that one day, you will have taken the form…&quot; With a long _i_, **sumpserīs**, it's perfect subjunctive: &quot;Remember that once, you took the form…&quot; I figure that the past tense makes more sense here, but the subjunctive mood seems strange because the event is already accomplished fact. Possibly imperative **memini** customarily governs a subjunctive verb even when referring to known fact; someone with better knowledge of Latin will have to clarify that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alas, I'm pretty sure that vowel quantity plays no role in medieval rhyme, so I don't think that we can use the short vowels of **corporĭs** and **virginĭs** to infer the quantity of the last vowel in **sumpseris**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding gerund vs. gerundive, perhaps one could argue that **nascendo** modifies an implied noun **te**, so the meaning is &quot;by you who are to be born&quot;. I don't think this makes sense with either reading of **sumpseris**, though. As **sumpserĭs**: &quot;Remember that thou took'st human form by thee who art to be born…&quot; As **sumpserīs**: &quot;Keep in mind that thou wilt have taken human form by  thee who art to be born…&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="944" RevisionGUID="a0d03d7d-afd5-4c60-889a-cef6fccf73b7" CreationDate="2016-07-11T00:41:56.117" UserId="9" Comment="added clarifying comment that I had posted earlier to the main post" Text="[*Ars Goetia*][1] is a well-known book about demonology written in Mediaeval Latin. I'm having trouble analyzing the grammatical structure of the title. *Ars* is a feminine noun in the singular nominative form. *Goetia* looks like it is feminine and in the singular nominative form. However, I'm not sure how it relates grammatically to *Ars.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked up the entry for [*ars*][2] in Lewis and Short, and it seems to say that it is generally modified by an adjective (e.g. *ars gymnastica*) or a noun in the genitive case (e.g. *ars disserendi*). *Goetia* is obviously not a genitive form, but I also wouldn't think it would be used as an adjective: it's a loanword from the Greek &#xD;&#xA; noun *γοητεια* (I would expect the corresponding adjective to be something like *Goeticus*/*-um*/*-a*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, it seems like it is an appositive noun. Am I right? If so, are there examples of this construction being used with *ars* in Classical Latin? And are there any differences in meaning, or other reasons to use the title *Ars Goetia* instead of *Ars Goetiae* or *Ars Goetica*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason I suspect the author intentionally used an appositive noun after *ars* here is because a few of the other books in the Lesser Key of Solomon also seem to be titled this way, such as &quot;Ars Theurgia-Goetia&quot; and &quot;Ars Almadel.&quot; But there is also a book that seems to have the structure with an adjective, the &quot;Ars Paulina.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_Key_of_Solomon#Ars_Goetia&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dars" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1163" RevisionGUID="79134bfd-f228-46d2-812c-f644bf942264" CreationDate="2016-07-11T01:06:29.007" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 59 characters in body" Text="Here's my understanding of the verse. (Note: I'm only a beginner with Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remember (_Memento_), O founder/maker (_conditor_) of things (_rerum_), that (_quod_) once (_olim_), you took (_sumpserīs_) the form (_formam_) of our (_nostri_) body (_corporis_) by being born (_nascendo_) from (_ab_) the sanctified (_sacratā_) womb (_alvo_) of a virgin (_virginis_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nascendo / gerund vs. gerundive&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**Nascendo** here is a gerund, not a gerundive. That is, it's functioning as a noun, not an adjective modifying some other noun. It's in the ablative case to mean that it's _by_ being born that the Maker takes on human form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gerund**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gerund in Latin is a verb functioning substantively, i.e., as a noun, in an oblique case. In the ablative case, **nascendo** means **by being born**. Notice that English has the same construction, also called &quot;gerund&quot;, in which a verb plays the role of a noun. &quot;Being born happens early in a person's life.&quot; A gerund has the active voice. For example, in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Desine fata deum flecti sperare **precando**. [Aeneid, 6.376]&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = Stop hoping to bend the will of the gods **by praying**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the person doing the praying is Aeneas, i.e., the person being addressed. Since **nascor** is a deponent verb, **nascendo** takes an active meaning even though the verb is basically passive (or at least we think of it that way in English: **to be born**, **being born**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gerundive**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive has the same form as the gerund, but a gerundive is a participle, i.e. a verb functioning as an adjective. For example, in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Karthago **delenda** est.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = Carthage must be **destroyed**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**delenda** is an adjective modifying **Karthago**. It changes case to agree with the noun that it modifies, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ceterum censeo Karthaginem **delendam** esse.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = And lastly, I say that Carthage must be **destroyed**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike the gerund, the gerundive is passive. Cato isn't recommending that Carthage do some destroying; he's recommending that Carthage _be_ destroyed. In the case of **nascendo**, though, since **nascor** is deponent and intransitive, I'm not sure there's any difference in meaning between understanding it actively or passively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there's no noun in the verse for a gerundive **nascendo** to modify, it seems unlikely that it's meant as a gerundive. It might cause some confusion that in Latin, an adjective can function substantively, and that applies to gerundives, too. For example, **mutatis mutandis**, &quot;the necessary changes having been made,&quot; or literally, &quot;the things that need to be changed, having been changed.&quot; Without a noun to modify, the gerundive means &quot;things that are to be _X_'ed.&quot; However, in the verse, I don't think it would make sense to understand **nascendo** that way; then it would mean &quot;by someone who is to be born&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See below, about **sumpseris**, for one other possible way to look at this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I did not think any of the above through when reading the sentence. Happily, even with my fairly meager experience reading Latin, I understood it simply by analogy with sentences like the one above ending in **precando**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other bits and pieces&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you are right that **nostri corporis** modifies **formam**. **Nostri corporis** might seem an awfully long distance from the noun that it modifies. In between them there is another genitive, even! Possibly that long distance is actually intentional bracketing of the enclosing clause rather than a compromise with meter. Seen that way, enclosing **sacrata ab alvo Virginis nascendo** inside **nostri corporis formam** might even be a way to indicate how the causal relation between the two phrases is intended to be understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think of **olim** as meaning something similar to English &quot;once upon a time&quot;, but not limited to the past, so it can also mean &quot;someday&quot;, and not limited to children's stories, so it can also mean &quot;once&quot; or &quot;one time&quot;, as in &quot;Once, I adopted a stray cat.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something I'm not completely sure of is **sumpseris**. With a short _i_, **sumpserĭs**, it's future perfect: &quot;Keep in mind that one day, you will have taken the form…&quot; With a long _i_, **sumpserīs**, it's perfect subjunctive: &quot;Remember that once, you took the form…&quot; I figure that the past tense makes more sense here, but the subjunctive mood seems strange because the event is already accomplished fact. Possibly imperative **memini** customarily governs a subjunctive verb even when referring to known fact; someone with better knowledge of Latin will have to clarify that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alas, I'm pretty sure that vowel quantity plays no role in medieval rhyme, so I don't think that we can use the short vowels of **corporĭs** and **virginĭs** to infer the quantity of the last vowel in **sumpseris**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding gerund vs. gerundive, perhaps one could argue that **nascendo** modifies an implied noun **te**, so the meaning is &quot;by you who are to be born&quot;. I don't think this makes sense with either reading of **sumpseris**, though. As **sumpserĭs**: &quot;Remember that thou took'st human form by thee who art to be born…&quot; As **sumpserīs**: &quot;Keep in mind that thou wilt have taken human form by  thee who art to be born…&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3931" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="b4947431-2e28-4206-aed3-1ce4b068c4c1" CreationDate="2016-07-11T01:13:49.300" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|poetry|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|grammar-identification|aeneis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3932" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="944" RevisionGUID="184d3529-ec1c-4d50-ba31-d82d35b97285" CreationDate="2016-07-11T01:14:48.050" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|adjective|grammar-identification|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1168" RevisionGUID="2c1aa020-7ea7-4640-88f8-c3bd0f1e06a5" CreationDate="2016-07-11T01:16:43.097" UserId="641" Comment="additio propter argumentum" Text="In medieval Latin, habere came to express (also) ability or obligation. I'd have to dig up an example, but I see it in Ockham with some (minor) frequency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is also mentioned in Elliott's 'Brief Introduction to Medieval Latin Grammar' in *Medieval Latin*, ed. Harrington, rev. Pucci (Chicago, 1997), § 7.2.2, citing (e.g.) Tertullian, [Apologeticum](http://www.tertullian.org/latin/apologeticum_becker.htm) 37: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si inimicos, ut supra diximus, iubemur diligere, quem habemus odisse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit.** As pointed out in a comment, the above construction is not, strictly speaking, a 'causative clause'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, there is no special 'clause' in Latin that qualifies, but consider this examples (from [*Bradley's Arnold*, § 131](https://archive.org/details/practicalintrod00arnouoft)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Per te stetit quominus vinceremus (You were the cause of our not winning the day)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the 'General Vocabulary', he also gives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; per me fit ut = I am the cause of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More common, I think, would be the following (based on examples in *Cassell's Latin Dictionary*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *facere* or *efficere* plus *ut* and the subjunctive;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *cogere* plus the infinitive;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *movere* -- *risum homini movere* (to make a person laugh);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *excitare*; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *dare* and *exhibere* (usually translated, in this context, as producing/causing something -- not *making* someone do something)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two examples in Joonas Ilmavirta's answer are also quite relevant, of course.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1177" RevisionGUID="55eec091-cb0b-4a5e-9442-cac9a40c3440" CreationDate="2016-07-11T10:07:41.487" UserId="646" Text="I learned Latin in a US public school.   Although pronunciation was admittedly never emphasized in the course, classical Latin pronunciation was always the ideal.  I've met Latin students from across the country, and classical-style pronunciation seems to be by far the most commonly taught in the US, based on my own limited experience.  (You can of course correct me if I'm wrong about this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: In current teaching practice, what style of Latin pronunciation is most commonly taught in schools the UK, France, Germany, and other European countries?  Classical?  Ecclesiastical?  A traditional local pronunciation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that practices are sure to vary widely between countries and even within countries, so I can hardly expect a general answer for all of &quot;Europe&quot;.  Thus, even if you can only attest to the pronunciation in a particular country or region, I warmly welcome your answer.  However, please be wary of speculation or over-generalization." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3937" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1177" RevisionGUID="55eec091-cb0b-4a5e-9442-cac9a40c3440" CreationDate="2016-07-11T10:07:41.487" UserId="646" Text="In current teaching practice, what Latin pronunciation is most commonly taught in Europe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3938" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1177" RevisionGUID="55eec091-cb0b-4a5e-9442-cac9a40c3440" CreationDate="2016-07-11T10:07:41.487" UserId="646" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1163" RevisionGUID="694bd615-bcc7-4e80-9c06-62e20cadd5b4" CreationDate="2016-07-11T17:03:01.297" UserId="118" Comment="added 1118 characters in body" Text="Here's my understanding of the verse. (Note: I'm only a beginner with Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remember (_Memento_), O founder/maker (_conditor_) of things (_rerum_), that (_quod_) once (_olim_), you took (_sumpserīs_) the form (_formam_) of our (_nostri_) body (_corporis_) by being born (_nascendo_) from (_ab_) the sanctified (_sacratā_) womb (_alvo_) of a virgin (_virginis_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nascendo / gerund vs. gerundive&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**Nascendo** here is a gerund, not a gerundive. That is, it's functioning as a noun, not an adjective modifying some other noun. It's in the ablative case to mean that it's _by_ being born that the Maker takes on human form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gerund**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gerund in Latin is a verb functioning substantively, i.e., as a noun, in an oblique case. In the ablative case, **nascendo** means **by being born**. Notice that English has the same construction, also called &quot;gerund&quot;, in which a verb plays the role of a noun. &quot;Being born happens early in a person's life.&quot; A gerund has the active voice. For example, in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Desine fata deum flecti sperare **precando**. [Aeneid, 6.376]&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = Stop hoping to bend the will of the gods **by praying**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the person doing the praying is Aeneas, i.e., the person being addressed. Since **nascor** is a deponent verb, **nascendo** takes an active meaning even though the verb is basically passive (or at least we think of it that way in English: **to be born**, **being born**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gerundive**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive has the same form as the gerund, but a gerundive is a participle, i.e. a verb functioning as an adjective. For example, in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Karthago **delenda** est.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = Carthage must be **destroyed**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**delenda** is an adjective modifying **Karthago**. It changes case to agree with the noun that it modifies, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ceterum censeo Karthaginem **delendam** esse.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = And lastly, I say that Carthage must be **destroyed**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike the gerund, the gerundive is passive. Cato isn't recommending that Carthage do some destroying; he's recommending that Carthage _be_ destroyed. In the case of **nascendo**, though, since **nascor** is deponent and intransitive, I'm not sure there's any difference in meaning between understanding it actively or passively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there's no noun in the verse for a gerundive **nascendo** to modify, it seems unlikely that it's meant as a gerundive. It might cause some confusion that in Latin, an adjective can function substantively, and that applies to gerundives, too. For example, **mutatis mutandis**, &quot;the necessary changes having been made,&quot; or literally, &quot;the things that need to be changed, having been changed.&quot; Without a noun to modify, the gerundive means &quot;things that are to be _X_'ed.&quot; However, in the verse, I don't think it would make sense to understand **nascendo** that way; then it would mean &quot;by someone who is to be born&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I did not think any of the above through when reading the sentence. Happily, even with my fairly meager experience reading Latin, I understood it simply by analogy with sentences like the one above ending in **precando**.&#xD;&#xA;The text below mentions a couple other possibilities for how to understand **nascendo** in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other bits and pieces&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you are right that **nostri corporis** modifies **formam**. **Nostri corporis** might seem an awfully long distance from the noun that it modifies. In between them there is another genitive, even! Possibly that long distance is actually intentional bracketing of the enclosing clause rather than a compromise with meter. Seen that way, enclosing **sacrata ab alvo Virginis nascendo** inside **nostri corporis formam** might even be a way to indicate how the causal relation between the two phrases is intended to be understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think of **olim** as meaning something similar to English &quot;once upon a time&quot; or &quot;long ago&quot;, but not limited to the past, so it can also mean &quot;someday&quot;, and not limited to children's stories, so it can also mean &quot;once&quot; or &quot;one time&quot;, as in &quot;Once, I adopted a stray cat.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something I'm not completely sure of is **sumpseris**. With a short _i_, **sumpserĭs**, it's future perfect: &quot;Keep in mind that one day, you will have taken the form…&quot; With a long _i_, **sumpserīs**, it's perfect subjunctive: &quot;Remember that once, you took the form…&quot; I figure that the past tense makes more sense here, but the subjunctive mood seems strange because the event is already accomplished fact. Possibly imperative **memini** customarily governs a subjunctive verb even when referring to known fact; someone with better knowledge of Latin will have to clarify that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alas, I'm pretty sure that vowel quantity plays no role in medieval rhyme, so I don't think that we can use the short vowels of **corporĭs** and **virginĭs** to infer the quantity of the last vowel in **sumpseris**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding gerund vs. gerundive, perhaps one could argue that **nascendo** modifies an implied noun **te**, so the meaning is &quot;by you who are to be born&quot;. I don't think this makes sense with either reading of **sumpseris**, though. As **sumpserĭs**: &quot;Remember that thou took'st human form by thee who art to be born…&quot; As **sumpserīs**: &quot;Keep in mind that thou wilt have taken human form by  thee who art to be born…&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ablative of time?&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;I found a few English translations that treat **nascendo** as referring not to the means but the time of the Maker's taking human form. The [_Manual of Devout Prayers_](https://books.google.com/books?id=kx1lAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA84&amp;dq=%22memento+rerum+conditor%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjpw6jw5OvNAhWMTSYKHexGBPc4FBC7BQg0MAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22memento%20rerum%20conditor%22&amp;f=false) (1688), p. 84, has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Divine Creator, bear in mind,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;That thou, of our corporeal kind,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The form assumedst heretofore,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;When thee a Sacred Virgin bore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless **nascendo** is commonly used to refer to _when_ someone was born, analogous to &quot;et requievit **die septimo**&quot;, I think it needs a preposition or adverb to refer only to the time of the birth, but I thought I should mention this. The grammar might mark an important point of theology: that the Maker got human form _from_ Mary's womb, indicated by _ab._ I think that in ordinary Latin grammar, this means that the _act_ that transferred the form was the birth—hence the need for an ablative gerund." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1178" RevisionGUID="156b5d3a-351d-4ea2-a7b1-790028498d33" CreationDate="2016-07-11T17:13:10.037" UserId="45" Text="Given that this is a blog, I would take some of the excellent ideas in the above answers and use the preposition *de*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most obvious suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De Vita Mea&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are trying to put emphasis on &quot;mine&quot; by your (otherwise slightly awkward) English phrasing, then a fluid way of doing this would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mea De Vita&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also like @jon's suggestion if you are emphasizing that this is not someone else's life:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De Vita Propria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a somewhat far-fetched suggestion, you can also take a line from John Henry Newman (an excellent Latinist if ever there was one) and call it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apologia Pro Vita Sua&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this above example, there is a little distance created by abandoing the first person and using the reflexive pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, in my opinion the inclusion of &quot;de&quot; is best." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1179" RevisionGUID="18a4683f-4e45-42d7-8bca-357240aa57e4" CreationDate="2016-07-11T18:24:05.653" UserId="118" Text="(A tangent off of a [question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1160/118) and [comment](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1160/memento-rerum-conditor#comment2544_1163) by [David Charles](http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/47/david-charles).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This verse](https://books.google.com/books?id=fjCjefY3KKsC&amp;lpg=PA7&amp;dq=%22memento%20rerum%20conditor%22%20born&amp;pg=PA7#v=onepage&amp;q=%22memento%20rerum%20conditor%22&amp;f=false) from roughly the ninth century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Memento** rerum conditor,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nostri **quod** olim corporis&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sacrata ab alvo Virginis&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nascendo formam **sumpseris**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;exhorts the creator to remember that he took human form from the womb of a virgin. Since this is taken as a known fact, why is **sumpseris** (_thou took_) in the subjunctive mood? Why not the indicative **sumpsisti**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;[A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin](https://books.google.com/books?id=rqoXOW6LmVMC&amp;lpg=PA84&amp;pg=PA216#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), by John F. Collins, §135, “Indirect Statements: Object Clauses with Subjunctives”, offers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Indirect statements in the form of object clauses introduced by **quod**, **quia**, **quoniam** ‘that’ may take the indicative; this is called the retained indicative. But the use of the subjunctive mood in such clauses emphasizes the grammatical subordination of the indirect statement:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Invēnimus quod Paulus Rōmam jam īsset.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘We discovered that Paul had already gone to Rome.’&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Crēdunt quia Chrīstus sit Dominus.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘They believed that Christ is Lord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks to [jon](http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/641/jon) for [finding this](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1160/memento-rerum-conditor#comment2537_1163).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Medieval Latin](https://books.google.ca/books?id=ReCp978iiA8C&amp;pg=PA48&amp;lpg=PA4&amp;hl=en#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), 2nd. ed., by Harrington and Pucci, §7.10.1, “Mood in Indirect Discourse”, says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek ὅτι is followed by the indicative. **Quia** and **quod** may be followed by either the indicative or the subjunctive; **quod** tends to take the subjunctive, **quia** the indicative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither explanation really clarifies what is meant by choosing the subjunctive mood in the verse above. It does not seem to be indirect discourse. The subjunctive with **quod** does not appear to be purely a medieval phenomenon. Jerome translates Genesis 1.4 thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et vidit Deus lucem quod **esset** bona et divisit lucem ac tenebras.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what's the reason for the subjunctive here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Does **memento quod** customarily take the subjunctive, so that the indicative would seem ungrammatical?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Or would the indicative change the meaning or perhaps alter the shade of meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Or (the worst hypothesis of all) is **sumpseris** ungrammatical or nonsensical, and so was only chosen because it rhymes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you could provide other examples of the choice of indicative or subjunctive in similar or contrasting circumstances, that might be especially enlightening." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3943" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1179" RevisionGUID="18a4683f-4e45-42d7-8bca-357240aa57e4" CreationDate="2016-07-11T18:24:05.653" UserId="118" Text="Memento quod &lt;subjunctive&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3944" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1179" RevisionGUID="18a4683f-4e45-42d7-8bca-357240aa57e4" CreationDate="2016-07-11T18:24:05.653" UserId="118" Text="|grammar-choice|conjunctive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1174" RevisionGUID="d41e0dd5-6be6-4d7a-b522-c7c2c83496fb" CreationDate="2016-07-11T18:32:45.277" UserId="643" Comment="improved framing" Text="The spoken Latin names of letters have been given. I want to know how the letters were referred to in writing. What are the written Latin names of the Latin alphabet's letters? Alpha is the written name of the first Greek letter. Aleph is the written name of the first Hebrew.How did the Romans refer in writing to each alphabetic character?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1179" RevisionGUID="17f8c957-4252-4604-8347-9a403c8db3c0" CreationDate="2016-07-11T19:31:54.117" UserId="118" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="(A tangent off of a [question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1160/118) and [comment](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1160/memento-rerum-conditor#comment2544_1163) by [David Charles](http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/47/david-charles).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This verse](https://books.google.com/books?id=fjCjefY3KKsC&amp;lpg=PA7&amp;dq=%22memento%20rerum%20conditor%22%20born&amp;pg=PA7#v=onepage&amp;q=%22memento%20rerum%20conditor%22&amp;f=false) from roughly the ninth century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Memento** rerum conditor,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nostri **quod** olim corporis&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sacrata ab alvo Virginis&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nascendo formam **sumpseris**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;exhorts the creator to remember that he took human form from the womb of a virgin. Since this is taken as a known fact, why is **sumpseris** (_thou took_) in the subjunctive mood? Why not the indicative **sumpsisti**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;[A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin](https://books.google.com/books?id=rqoXOW6LmVMC&amp;lpg=PA84&amp;pg=PA216#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), by John F. Collins, §135, “Indirect Statements: Object Clauses with Subjunctives”, offers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Indirect statements in the form of object clauses introduced by **quod**, **quia**, **quoniam** ‘that’ may take the indicative; this is called the retained indicative. But the use of the subjunctive mood in such clauses emphasizes the grammatical subordination of the indirect statement:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Invēnimus quod Paulus Rōmam jam īsset.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘We discovered that Paul had already gone to Rome.’&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Crēdunt quia Chrīstus sit Dominus.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘They believed that Christ is Lord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks to [jon](http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/641/jon) for [finding this](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1160/memento-rerum-conditor#comment2537_1163).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Medieval Latin](https://books.google.ca/books?id=ReCp978iiA8C&amp;pg=PA48&amp;lpg=PA4&amp;hl=en#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), 2nd. ed., by Harrington and Pucci, §7.10.1, “Mood in Indirect Discourse”, says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek ὅτι is followed by the indicative. **Quia** and **quod** may be followed by either the indicative or the subjunctive; **quod** tends to take the subjunctive, **quia** the indicative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither explanation really clarifies what is meant by choosing the subjunctive mood in the verse above. It does not seem to be indirect discourse. The subjunctive with **quod** does not appear to be purely a medieval phenomenon. Jerome translates Genesis 1.4 thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et vidit Deus lucem quod **esset** bona et divisit lucem ac tenebras.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what's the reason for the subjunctive here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Does **memento quod** customarily take the subjunctive, so that the indicative would seem ungrammatical?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Or would the indicative change the meaning or perhaps alter the shade of meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Or (the worst hypothesis of all) is **sumpseris** ungrammatical or nonsensical, and so was only chosen because it rhymes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you could provide other examples of the choice of indicative or subjunctive in similar or contrasting circumstances, that might be especially enlightening. What I'm really hoping to understand is: What does **memento quod sumpseris** &quot;echo&quot; in the mind of a listener?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1163" RevisionGUID="aaaa4153-fdcb-45a7-a3b1-5e0ad8ef5a16" CreationDate="2016-07-11T19:34:04.563" UserId="118" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="Here's my understanding of the verse. (Note: I'm only a beginner with Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remember (_Memento_), O founder/maker (_conditor_) of things (_rerum_), that (_quod_) once (_olim_), you took (_sumpserīs_) the form (_formam_) of our (_nostri_) body (_corporis_) by being born (_nascendo_) from (_ab_) the sanctified (_sacratā_) womb (_alvo_) of a virgin (_virginis_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nascendo / gerund vs. gerundive&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**Nascendo** here is a gerund, not a gerundive. That is, it's functioning as a noun, not an adjective modifying some other noun. It's in the ablative case to mean that it's _by_ being born that the Maker takes on human form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gerund**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gerund in Latin is a verb functioning substantively, i.e., as a noun, in an oblique case. In the ablative case, **nascendo** means **by being born**. Notice that English has the same construction, also called &quot;gerund&quot;, in which a verb plays the role of a noun. &quot;Being born happens early in a person's life.&quot; A gerund has the active voice. For example, in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Desine fata deum flecti sperare **precando**. [Aeneid, 6.376]&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = Stop hoping to bend the will of the gods **by praying**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the person doing the praying is Aeneas, i.e., the person being addressed. Since **nascor** is a deponent verb, **nascendo** takes an active meaning even though the verb is basically passive (or at least we think of it that way in English: **to be born**, **being born**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gerundive**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive has the same form as the gerund, but a gerundive is a participle, i.e. a verb functioning as an adjective. For example, in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Karthago **delenda** est.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = Carthage must be **destroyed**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**delenda** is an adjective modifying **Karthago**. It changes case to agree with the noun that it modifies, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ceterum censeo Karthaginem **delendam** esse.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = And lastly, I say that Carthage must be **destroyed**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike the gerund, the gerundive is passive. Cato isn't recommending that Carthage do some destroying; he's recommending that Carthage _be_ destroyed. In the case of **nascendo**, though, since **nascor** is deponent and intransitive, I'm not sure there's any difference in meaning between understanding it actively or passively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there's no noun in the verse for a gerundive **nascendo** to modify, it seems unlikely that it's meant as a gerundive. It might cause some confusion that in Latin, an adjective can function substantively, and that applies to gerundives, too. For example, **mutatis mutandis**, &quot;the necessary changes having been made,&quot; or literally, &quot;the things that need to be changed, having been changed.&quot; Without a noun to modify, the gerundive means &quot;things that are to be _X_'ed.&quot; However, in the verse, I don't think it would make sense to understand **nascendo** that way; then it would mean &quot;by someone who is to be born&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I did not think any of the above through when reading the sentence. Happily, even with my fairly meager experience reading Latin, I understood it simply by analogy with sentences like the one above ending in **precando**.&#xD;&#xA;The text below mentions a couple other possibilities for how to understand **nascendo** in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other bits and pieces&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you are right that **nostri corporis** modifies **formam**. **Nostri corporis** might seem an awfully long distance from the noun that it modifies. In between them there is another genitive, even! Possibly that long distance is actually intentional bracketing of the enclosing clause rather than a compromise with meter. Seen that way, enclosing **sacrata ab alvo Virginis nascendo** inside **nostri corporis formam** might even be a way to indicate how the causal relation between the two phrases is intended to be understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think of **olim** as meaning something similar to English &quot;once upon a time&quot; or &quot;long ago&quot;, but not limited to the past, so it can also mean &quot;someday&quot;, and not limited to children's stories, so it can also mean &quot;once&quot; or &quot;one time&quot;, as in &quot;Once, I adopted a stray cat.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something I'm not completely sure of is **sumpseris**. With a short _i_, **sumpserĭs**, it's future perfect: &quot;Keep in mind that one day, you will have taken the form…&quot; With a long _i_, **sumpserīs**, it's perfect subjunctive: &quot;Remember that once, you took the form…&quot; I figure that the past tense makes more sense here, but the subjunctive mood seems strange because the event is already accomplished fact. Possibly imperative **memini** customarily governs a subjunctive verb even when referring to known fact; someone with better knowledge of Latin will have to clarify that. (See [new question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1179/118) about this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alas, I'm pretty sure that vowel quantity plays no role in medieval rhyme, so I don't think that we can use the short vowels of **corporĭs** and **virginĭs** to infer the quantity of the last vowel in **sumpseris**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding gerund vs. gerundive, perhaps one could argue that **nascendo** modifies an implied noun **te**, so the meaning is &quot;by you who are to be born&quot;. I don't think this makes sense with either reading of **sumpseris**, though. As **sumpserĭs**: &quot;Remember that thou took'st human form by thee who art to be born…&quot; As **sumpserīs**: &quot;Keep in mind that thou wilt have taken human form by  thee who art to be born…&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ablative of time?&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;I found a few English translations that treat **nascendo** as referring not to the means but the time of the Maker's taking human form. The [_Manual of Devout Prayers_](https://books.google.com/books?id=kx1lAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA84&amp;dq=%22memento+rerum+conditor%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjpw6jw5OvNAhWMTSYKHexGBPc4FBC7BQg0MAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22memento%20rerum%20conditor%22&amp;f=false) (1688), p. 84, has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Divine Creator, bear in mind,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;That thou, of our corporeal kind,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The form assumedst heretofore,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;When thee a Sacred Virgin bore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless **nascendo** is commonly used to refer to _when_ someone was born, analogous to &quot;et requievit **die septimo**&quot;, I think it needs a preposition or adverb to refer only to the time of the birth, but I thought I should mention this. The grammar might mark an important point of theology: that the Maker got human form _from_ Mary's womb, indicated by _ab._ I think that in ordinary Latin grammar, this means that the _act_ that transferred the form was the birth—hence the need for an ablative gerund." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1179" RevisionGUID="75ea7912-e750-4132-8537-8b84b31297d7" CreationDate="2016-07-11T19:49:55.063" UserId="118" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="(A tangent off of a [question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1160/118) and [comment](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1160/memento-rerum-conditor#comment2544_1163) by [David Charles](http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/47/david-charles).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This verse](https://books.google.com/books?id=fjCjefY3KKsC&amp;lpg=PA7&amp;dq=%22memento%20rerum%20conditor%22%20born&amp;pg=PA7#v=onepage&amp;q=%22memento%20rerum%20conditor%22&amp;f=false) from roughly the ninth century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Memento** rerum conditor,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nostri **quod** olim corporis&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sacrata ab alvo Virginis&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nascendo formam **sumpseris**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;exhorts the creator to remember that he took human form from the womb of a virgin. Since this is taken as a known fact, why is **sumpseris** (_thou took_) in the subjunctive mood? Why not the indicative **sumpsisti**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;[A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin](https://books.google.com/books?id=rqoXOW6LmVMC&amp;lpg=PA84&amp;pg=PA216#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), by John F. Collins, §135, “Indirect Statements: Object Clauses with Subjunctives”, offers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Indirect statements in the form of object clauses introduced by **quod**, **quia**, **quoniam** ‘that’ may take the indicative; this is called the retained indicative. But the use of the subjunctive mood in such clauses emphasizes the grammatical subordination of the indirect statement:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Invēnimus quod Paulus Rōmam jam īsset.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘We discovered that Paul had already gone to Rome.’&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Crēdunt quia Chrīstus sit Dominus.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘They believed that Christ is Lord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks to [jon](http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/641/jon) for [finding this](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1160/memento-rerum-conditor#comment2537_1163).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Medieval Latin](https://books.google.ca/books?id=ReCp978iiA8C&amp;pg=PA48&amp;lpg=PA4&amp;hl=en#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), 2nd. ed., by Harrington and Pucci, §7.10.1, “Mood in Indirect Discourse”, says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek ὅτι is followed by the indicative. **Quia** and **quod** may be followed by either the indicative or the subjunctive; **quod** tends to take the subjunctive, **quia** the indicative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither explanation really clarifies what is meant by choosing the subjunctive mood in the verse above. It does not seem to be indirect discourse. The subjunctive with **quod** does not appear to be purely a medieval phenomenon. Jerome translates Genesis 1.4 thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et vidit Deus lucem quod **esset** bona et divisit lucem ac tenebras.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deuteronomy 15.15 has both subjunctive and indicative in the same subordinate clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Memento quod** ipse **servieris** in terra Aegypti et **liberavit** te Dominus Deus…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what's the reason for the subjunctive here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Does **memento quod** customarily take the subjunctive for some reason?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Does the indicative change the meaning or perhaps alter the shade of meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Or does the mood make no difference here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Or (the worst hypothesis of all) is **sumpseris** ungrammatical or nonsensical, chosen only because it rhymes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you could provide other examples of the choice of indicative or subjunctive in similar or contrasting circumstances, that might be especially enlightening. What I'm really hoping to understand is: What does **memento quod sumpseris** &quot;echo&quot; in the mind of a listener?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1180" RevisionGUID="7ee88431-e3f0-4d0d-ad25-9f506ab57ad3" CreationDate="2016-07-11T19:50:32.337" UserId="643" Text="In what circumstances did Romans use diacritical marks, like macrons, in their writing? In particular how common was it to use diacritics in naming letters?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3950" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1180" RevisionGUID="7ee88431-e3f0-4d0d-ad25-9f506ab57ad3" CreationDate="2016-07-11T19:50:32.337" UserId="643" Text="Roman uses of diacritical marks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3951" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1180" RevisionGUID="7ee88431-e3f0-4d0d-ad25-9f506ab57ad3" CreationDate="2016-07-11T19:50:32.337" UserId="643" Text="|example-request|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1179" RevisionGUID="f06d1ec2-ca47-4874-8ba1-32432649b886" CreationDate="2016-07-11T19:55:06.947" UserId="118" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="(A tangent off of a [question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1160/118) and [comment](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1160/memento-rerum-conditor#comment2544_1163) by [David Charles](http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/47/david-charles).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This verse](https://books.google.com/books?id=fjCjefY3KKsC&amp;lpg=PA7&amp;dq=%22memento%20rerum%20conditor%22%20born&amp;pg=PA7#v=onepage&amp;q=%22memento%20rerum%20conditor%22&amp;f=false) from roughly the ninth century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Memento** rerum conditor,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nostri **quod** olim corporis&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sacrata ab alvo Virginis&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nascendo formam **sumpseris**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;exhorts the creator to remember that he took human form from the womb of a virgin. Since this is taken as a known fact, why is **sumpseris** (_thou took_) in the subjunctive mood? Why not the indicative **sumpsisti**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;[A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin](https://books.google.com/books?id=rqoXOW6LmVMC&amp;lpg=PA84&amp;pg=PA216#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), by John F. Collins, §135, “Indirect Statements: Object Clauses with Subjunctives”, offers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Indirect statements in the form of object clauses introduced by **quod**, **quia**, **quoniam** ‘that’ may take the indicative; this is called the retained indicative. But the use of the subjunctive mood in such clauses emphasizes the grammatical subordination of the indirect statement:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Invēnimus quod Paulus Rōmam jam īsset.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘We discovered that Paul had already gone to Rome.’&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Crēdunt quia Chrīstus sit Dominus.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘They believed that Christ is Lord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks to [jon](http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/641/jon) for [finding this](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1160/memento-rerum-conditor#comment2537_1163).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Medieval Latin](https://books.google.ca/books?id=ReCp978iiA8C&amp;pg=PA48&amp;lpg=PA4&amp;hl=en#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), 2nd. ed., by Harrington and Pucci, §7.10.1, “Mood in Indirect Discourse”, says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek ὅτι is followed by the indicative. **Quia** and **quod** may be followed by either the indicative or the subjunctive; **quod** tends to take the subjunctive, **quia** the indicative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither explanation really clarifies what is meant by choosing the subjunctive mood in the verse above. It does not seem to be indirect discourse. The subjunctive with **quod** does not appear to be purely a medieval phenomenon. Jerome translates Genesis 1.4 thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et vidit Deus lucem quod **esset** bona et divisit lucem ac tenebras.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deuteronomy 15.15 has both subjunctive and indicative subordinated to the same **quod**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Memento quod** ipse **servieris** in terra Aegypti et **liberavit** te Dominus Deus…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what's the reason for the subjunctive here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Does **memento quod** customarily take the subjunctive for some reason?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Does the indicative change the meaning or perhaps alter the shade of meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Or does the mood make no difference here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Or is there something about the meaning of **sumo** here that calls for the subjunctive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Or (the worst hypothesis of all) is **sumpseris** ungrammatical or nonsensical, chosen only because it rhymes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you could provide other examples of the choice of indicative or subjunctive in similar or contrasting circumstances, that might be especially enlightening. What I'm really hoping to understand is: What does **memento quod sumpseris** &quot;echo&quot; in the mind of a listener?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1179" RevisionGUID="618de4cf-b57b-45a2-9a85-b07d643e439f" CreationDate="2016-07-11T20:10:10.660" UserId="118" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="(A tangent off of a [question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1160/118) and [comment](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1160/memento-rerum-conditor#comment2544_1163) by [David Charles](http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/47/david-charles).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This verse](https://books.google.com/books?id=fjCjefY3KKsC&amp;lpg=PA7&amp;dq=%22memento%20rerum%20conditor%22%20born&amp;pg=PA7#v=onepage&amp;q=%22memento%20rerum%20conditor%22&amp;f=false) from roughly the ninth century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Memento** rerum conditor,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nostri **quod** olim corporis&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sacrata ab alvo Virginis&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nascendo formam **sumpseris**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;exhorts the creator to remember that he took human form from the womb of a virgin. Since this is taken as a known fact, why is **sumpseris** (_thou took_) in the subjunctive mood? Why not the indicative **sumpsisti**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;[A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin](https://books.google.com/books?id=rqoXOW6LmVMC&amp;lpg=PA84&amp;pg=PA216#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), by John F. Collins, §135, “Indirect Statements: Object Clauses with Subjunctives”, offers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Indirect statements in the form of object clauses introduced by **quod**, **quia**, **quoniam** ‘that’ may take the indicative; this is called the retained indicative. But the use of the subjunctive mood in such clauses emphasizes the grammatical subordination of the indirect statement:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Invēnimus quod Paulus Rōmam jam īsset.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘We discovered that Paul had already gone to Rome.’&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Crēdunt quia Chrīstus sit Dominus.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘They believed that Christ is Lord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks to [jon](http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/641/jon) for [finding this](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1160/memento-rerum-conditor#comment2537_1163).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Medieval Latin](https://books.google.ca/books?id=ReCp978iiA8C&amp;pg=PA48&amp;lpg=PA4&amp;hl=en#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), 2nd. ed., by Harrington and Pucci, §7.10.1, “Mood in Indirect Discourse”, says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek ὅτι is followed by the indicative. **Quia** and **quod** may be followed by either the indicative or the subjunctive; **quod** tends to take the subjunctive, **quia** the indicative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither explanation really clarifies what is meant by choosing the subjunctive mood in the verse above. It does not seem to be indirect discourse. The subjunctive with **quod** does not appear to be purely a medieval phenomenon. Jerome translates Genesis 1.4 thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et vidit Deus lucem quod **esset** bona et divisit lucem ac tenebras.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deuteronomy 15.15 has both subjunctive and indicative subordinated to the same **quod**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Memento quod** et ipse **servieris** in terra Aegypti et **liberavit** te Dominus Deus…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what's the reason for the subjunctive here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Does **memento quod** customarily take the subjunctive for some reason?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Does the indicative change the meaning or perhaps alter the shade of meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Or does the mood make no difference here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Or is there something about the meaning of **sumo** here that calls for the subjunctive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Or (the worst hypothesis of all) is **sumpseris** ungrammatical or nonsensical, chosen only because it rhymes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you could provide other examples of the choice of indicative or subjunctive in similar or contrasting circumstances, that might be especially enlightening. What I'm really hoping to understand is: What does **memento quod sumpseris** &quot;echo&quot; in the mind of a listener?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1179" RevisionGUID="ae9086cc-1596-40ec-ba80-f7b9c1ad857e" CreationDate="2016-07-11T20:52:16.100" UserId="118" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="(A tangent off of a [question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1160/118) and [comment](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1160/memento-rerum-conditor#comment2544_1163) by [David Charles](http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/47/david-charles).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This verse](https://books.google.com/books?id=fjCjefY3KKsC&amp;lpg=PA7&amp;dq=%22memento%20rerum%20conditor%22%20born&amp;pg=PA7#v=onepage&amp;q=%22memento%20rerum%20conditor%22&amp;f=false) from roughly the ninth century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Memento** rerum conditor,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nostri **quod** olim corporis&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sacrata ab alvo Virginis&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nascendo formam **sumpseris**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;exhorts the creator to remember that he took human form from the womb of a virgin. Since this is taken as a known fact, why is **sumpseris** (_thou took_) in the subjunctive mood? Why not the indicative **sumpsisti**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;[A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin](https://books.google.com/books?id=rqoXOW6LmVMC&amp;lpg=PA84&amp;pg=PA216#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), by John F. Collins, §135, “Indirect Statements: Object Clauses with Subjunctives”, offers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Indirect statements in the form of object clauses introduced by **quod**, **quia**, **quoniam** ‘that’ may take the indicative; this is called the retained indicative. But the use of the subjunctive mood in such clauses emphasizes the grammatical subordination of the indirect statement:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Invēnimus quod Paulus Rōmam jam īsset.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘We discovered that Paul had already gone to Rome.’&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Crēdunt quia Chrīstus sit Dominus.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘They believed that Christ is Lord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks to [jon](http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/641/jon) for [finding this](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1160/memento-rerum-conditor#comment2537_1163).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Medieval Latin](https://books.google.ca/books?id=ReCp978iiA8C&amp;pg=PA48&amp;lpg=PA4&amp;hl=en#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), 2nd. ed., by Harrington and Pucci, §7.10.1, “Mood in Indirect Discourse”, says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek ὅτι is followed by the indicative. **Quia** and **quod** may be followed by either the indicative or the subjunctive; **quod** tends to take the subjunctive, **quia** the indicative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither explanation really clarifies what is meant by choosing the subjunctive mood in the verse above. It does not seem to be indirect discourse. The subjunctive with **quod** does not appear to be purely a medieval phenomenon. Jerome translates Genesis 1.4 thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et vidit Deus lucem quod **esset** bona et divisit lucem ac tenebras.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deuteronomy 15.15 has both subjunctive and indicative subordinated to the same **quod**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Memento quod** et ipse **servieris** in terra Aegypti et **liberavit** te Dominus Deus…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what's the reason for the subjunctive here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Does **memento quod** customarily take the subjunctive for some reason?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Does the indicative change the meaning or perhaps alter the shade of meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Or is the custom regarding different moods in this context so weak that the mood makes no difference here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Or is there something about the meaning of **sumo** here that calls for the subjunctive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Or (the worst hypothesis of all) is **sumpseris** ungrammatical or nonsensical, chosen only because it rhymes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you could provide other examples of the choice of indicative or subjunctive in similar or contrasting circumstances, that might be especially enlightening. What I'm really hoping to understand is: What does **memento quod sumpseris** &quot;echo&quot; in the mind of a listener?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3955" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1180" RevisionGUID="4e48e6d3-ed22-4828-ae7c-e2998c5c3ec4" CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:12:50.843" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|orthography|diacritics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1181" RevisionGUID="f8ae96e7-e792-40ff-8923-0c55e60d4795" CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:14:52.597" UserId="12" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1182" RevisionGUID="b0aa6e47-07ea-4934-a038-2cb80c3bf9b1" CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:14:52.597" UserId="12" Text="Conventions of written Latin – including spelling, punctuation, and capitalization" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1183" RevisionGUID="c3c22475-a560-4b47-9b5d-e040e6aa5edb" CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:51:44.757" UserId="30" Text="**[Pollux: Archimedes Project Dictionary Access][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you can search Lewis &amp; Short, Liddell Scott Jones, and a few other dictionaries. The **layout is not as good** as on Perseus, but it **loads much faster**, so it is what I use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;You can add a bookmark with keyword in Firefox in order to search from the address bar. You can then simply type e.g. `le meretrix` in order to search for *meretrix* immediately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to create a new bookmark. Then use this as the url of the bookmark:&#xD;&#xA;`http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=%s&amp;filter=CUTF8`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this as the keyword of the bookmark: `le` (or pick some other keyword of your choosing: this stands for &quot;Latin–English&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/pollux/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3959" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1183" RevisionGUID="57a42b4e-020a-4ab3-8d69-0aa5509d8db0" CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:51:44.757" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="3960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1184" RevisionGUID="97099354-4758-4bea-a53a-267484ce8e63" CreationDate="2016-07-11T22:57:31.107" UserId="136" Text="The Romans actually didn't use diacritical marks for the most part. I understand that this question was asked based off of a comment made on a post (which was answered by myself). In my response, I used two diacritical marks: the acute accent (Á) and the macron (ā). These marks are used by modern Latinists to distinguish between long and short vowels, with the acute accent being short and the macron being long. People also use the breve (ă) for short vowels. The breve is only used when the author is not using the acute accent, and needs to distinguish between words spelled the same except for a vowel length. [Here is a great website][1] explaining how Romans actually would have written. The written names of letters from your previous post were written using these accent marks, but that was not how a Roman would have most likely written them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://moorstation.org/typoasis/tbp/topic/romworx/eng/roman.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1184" RevisionGUID="098a4dba-d062-4114-b311-d91b42a018e7" CreationDate="2016-07-12T00:54:04.203" UserId="136" Comment="added 733 characters in body" Text="The Romans actually didn't use diacritical marks for the most part. I understand that this question was asked based off of a comment made on a post (which was answered by myself). In my response, I used two diacritical marks: the acute accent (Á) and the macron (ā). These marks are used by modern Latinists to distinguish between long and short vowels, with the acute accent being short and the macron being long. People also use the breve (ă) for short vowels. The breve is only used when the author is not using the acute accent, and needs to distinguish between words spelled the same except for a vowel length. [Here is a great website][1] explaining how Romans actually would have written. The written names of letters from your previous post were written using these accent marks, but that was not how a Roman would have most likely written them.&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;**Edit (as per Ben Kovitz's comment)** &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Romans did use one mark, however, called the apex. &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It indicated that a vowel was long, and was quite common (it was also used above consonants). It originates from the time when vowels were written twice to indicate that they were long. It was a type of shorthand, before becoming widespread. Here is a good image of its usage (look for what looks like scratches angled toward the right above letters). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How this would have been used writing the names of the letters in the alphabet remains unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://moorstation.org/typoasis/tbp/topic/romworx/eng/roman.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DzrK7.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MJLxW.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1185" RevisionGUID="52d7876d-eae0-4105-924b-5f423cdcdd4d" CreationDate="2016-07-12T06:10:20.717" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&lt;sub&gt;I already consulted [Etymonline](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=fustian) and [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fustis).   &#xD;&#xA;[Source:](https://books.google.com/books?id=IrcZEZ1bOJsC&amp;lpg=PA56&amp;ots=7RyAl92AYn&amp;dq=fustaneum&amp;pg=PA56#v=onepage&amp;q=fustaneum&amp;f=false) p 56. *The Merriam-Webster New Book of Word Histories* (1991).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Another word that has undergone a similar development is *fustian*. In &#xD;&#xA;its earliest sense      &#xD;&#xA;**[4.]** *fustian* is 'a fabric made from cotton and linen', but like &#xD;&#xA;*bombast* it too is now used to mean 'pretentious speech or writing'.     &#xD;&#xA;The &#xD;&#xA;word itself is from **[3.]** Medieval Latin *fustaneum*, whose origin is disputed. &#xD;&#xA;One account traces it to **[2.]** Latin *fustis* 'club, staff', as a translation of      &#xD;&#xA;**[1.]** Greek *xylinon*, literally meaning 'wooden' (from *xylon*, 'wood, club') but applied &#xD;&#xA;to cotton.     &#xD;&#xA;That such an origin is at least semantically possible is shown by &#xD;&#xA;another Medieval Latin term referring to cotton, *lana de ligno*, literally &#xD;&#xA;'wool of wood'. Such a conception lies at the basis of the German word for &#xD;&#xA;cotton to this day, *Baumwolle*, literally 'tree-wool'. Another account de- &#xD;&#xA;rives *fustaneum* from the Cairo suburb Fostat (Arabic *fusṭāṭ*), where fus- &#xD;&#xA;tian is said to have been manufactured. Even on that route we wind up &#xD;&#xA;back at Latin, since *fusṭāṭ*, literally 'camp', comes (via Greek transmission) &#xD;&#xA;from Late Latin *fossatum* 'ditch, fosse'. See also DENIM. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What underlying semantic notions connect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. 1 and 2 (i.e. 'wooden' + 'cotton' to 'club, staff')? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. 2 and 4? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3963" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1185" RevisionGUID="52d7876d-eae0-4105-924b-5f423cdcdd4d" CreationDate="2016-07-12T06:10:20.717" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What underlying semantic notions explain the etymology of 'fustis'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3964" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1185" RevisionGUID="52d7876d-eae0-4105-924b-5f423cdcdd4d" CreationDate="2016-07-12T06:10:20.717" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3965" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="331" RevisionGUID="f67113a4-a826-45a5-959d-e15cfaf31f0c" CreationDate="2016-07-12T07:25:45.950" UserId="75" Comment="9" />
  <row Id="3966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1186" RevisionGUID="eeb24b17-2632-40ad-9c30-7b075d523c40" CreationDate="2016-07-12T14:54:17.470" UserId="79" Text="In short, is there a relation between the preposition *cum* and the conjunction *cum*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It makes some sense that the conjunction would come from the preposition.&#xD;&#xA;One could interpret some *cum* clauses so that the main clause happens **with** a condition expressed in a subordinate clause or at the same time **with** the subordinate clause.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some other kinds of connections would make sense, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen both *cum*s discussed in many places, but I have never seen any comparison between them.&#xD;&#xA;Is the similarity a coincidence or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3967" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1186" RevisionGUID="eeb24b17-2632-40ad-9c30-7b075d523c40" CreationDate="2016-07-12T14:54:17.470" UserId="79" Text="Are the two cums related?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3968" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1186" RevisionGUID="eeb24b17-2632-40ad-9c30-7b075d523c40" CreationDate="2016-07-12T14:54:17.470" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|word-comparison|conjunction|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1187" RevisionGUID="5ff48426-16ab-431a-a816-7b72ba95e73c" CreationDate="2016-07-12T16:27:36.277" UserId="40" Text="The similarity is a coincidence; these words are unrelated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earlier form of the conjunction *cum* is *quom*; this is attested in early Latin, and also in the word *quoniam* (&lt; *quom iam*). It is descended from Proto-Indo-European *kʷom &quot;when&quot; and has cognates in other IE languages, including English *when*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earlier form of preposition *cum* is *com*, which remains its form in compounds (*com-*). This is from PIE *ḱom* &quot;with&quot;, which also has reflexes in other languages, including the Germanic verbal prefix *ge-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italic cognates suffice to show that the first sound of the conjunction was a labiovelar (Umbrian **pumpe** &quot;whenever&quot;, with *p* from *kʷ*) but the first sound of the preposition was a velar (Umbrian **kum-**)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1188" RevisionGUID="65eb9d76-9d51-407f-86c7-816bfc5e44da" CreationDate="2016-07-12T17:27:16.410" UserId="118" Text="I can only make educated guesses, mostly about what the quoted paragraph is intended to mean, but these might help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Note that the Greek word [ξύλινων](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ξύλινος#Greek) primarily means &quot;wooden&quot;. Using the word for &quot;wood&quot; for a club comes pretty naturally, since clubs are made of wood. Even in English, heavy (wooden) golf clubs are called &quot;[woods](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_(golf))&quot;. In the connection from &quot;wooden&quot; (ξύλινων) to &quot;club&quot; (**fustis**), the notion of &quot;cotton&quot; plays no role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. As I understand the quoted etymology, it says that people speaking Greek were referring to cotton using the word ξύλινων, by a somewhat inscrutable connection with wood also found in modern German. The hypothesis is, when someone wanted a Latin word for a certain kind of cloth, they thought to do in Latin what had been done in Greek: use the word for &quot;wooden&quot; to mean &quot;made of cotton&quot;; and then make a noun out of it. So, the hypothesis proposes _two_ somewhat strange analogies: first, wood–cotton; second, &quot;Let's do the wood–cotton analogy in Latin analogously to what they're doing in Greek.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the quoted etymology is trying to explain the origin of the English word **fustian**—which nobody really knows. It's not trying to explain the origin of the Latin word **fustis**—the origin of which is also not known for sure. Even the origin of the Latin word **fustaneum** isn't known for sure. The whole thing is awash in uncertainty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1187" RevisionGUID="8c771b23-d573-485d-b3a7-3ebcd86e6cd1" CreationDate="2016-07-12T17:29:15.253" UserId="40" Comment="added ref to De Vaan" Text="The similarity is a coincidence; these words are unrelated. Etymological dictionaries such as [De Vaan's](http://www.brill.com/etymological-dictionary-latin) give the following account of the two words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earlier form of the conjunction *cum* is *quom*; this is attested in early Latin, and also in the word *quoniam* (&lt; *quom iam*). It is descended from Proto-Indo-European *kʷom &quot;when&quot; and has cognates in other IE languages, including English *when*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earlier form of preposition *cum* is *com*, which remains its form in compounds (*com-*). This is from PIE *ḱom* &quot;with&quot;, which also has reflexes in other languages, including the Germanic verbal prefix *ge-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italic cognates suffice to show that the first sound of the conjunction was a labiovelar (Umbrian **pumpe** &quot;whenever&quot;, with *p* from *kʷ*) but the first sound of the preposition was a velar (Umbrian **kum-**)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1189" RevisionGUID="5f6d6dac-8bd7-4aff-9c06-9ea8cf9bd30a" CreationDate="2016-07-12T17:51:01.037" UserId="47" Text="I am learning from John F. Collins' [A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin][1], since I am most interested in Church Latin and more than one person recommended it to me.  There is an [answer key][2] for the drills and exercises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I typically alternate between doing a unit in Collins and trying to decode some piece of 'real' Church Latin that I use daily (currently [Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Baronius Press][3]) with the assistance of Collins, on-line dictionaries, and (when I get really stuck) [latin.stackexchange.com][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.amazon.com/Primer-Ecclesiastical-Latin-John-Collins/dp/0813206677&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.amazon.com/Answer-Key-Primer-Ecclesiastical-Latin/dp/0813214696/ref=pd_sim_14_1?ie=UTF8&amp;dpID=41uliJ9jAPL&amp;dpSrc=sims&amp;preST=_AC_UL160_SR107%2C160_&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=VEB08XVGRDAJWHE0XMB5&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.amazon.com/Little-Office-Blessed-Virgin-English/dp/1905574401/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1468345679&amp;sr=1-3&amp;keywords=little%20office%20of%20the%20blessed%20virgin%20mary&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latin.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3973" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1189" RevisionGUID="de218489-4e61-4af4-852a-5c4d3533750c" CreationDate="2016-07-12T17:51:01.037" UserId="47" />
  <row Id="3975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1190" RevisionGUID="b99788c8-e623-4c7d-b99b-aae54f1fa597" CreationDate="2016-07-12T19:41:48.390" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="For example, this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My furnace works&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would be one of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Furnus meus [some verb]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Furnus meus [some adjective] est (i.e. &quot;my furnace is working&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could I put in for either the verb or the adjective? Ideally, what word has versions that I could put in for both?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3976" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1190" RevisionGUID="b99788c8-e623-4c7d-b99b-aae54f1fa597" CreationDate="2016-07-12T19:41:48.390" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="How can I say something is working (as in, not broken)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3977" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1190" RevisionGUID="b99788c8-e623-4c7d-b99b-aae54f1fa597" CreationDate="2016-07-12T19:41:48.390" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1174" RevisionGUID="5a936f03-30c6-4150-9fd5-32f726f4c87f" CreationDate="2016-07-12T20:53:36.947" UserId="79" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="The spoken Latin names of letters have been given in an answer to [another question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/732/79). I want to know how the letters were referred to in writing. What are the written Latin names of the Latin alphabet's letters? Alpha is the written name of the first Greek letter. Aleph is the written name of the first Hebrew. How did the Romans refer in writing to each alphabetic character?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3979" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="1174" RevisionGUID="4d1dcef2-67e3-4864-98e8-18ae3992817a" CreationDate="2016-07-12T20:53:37.227" UserId="79" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:66,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Earthliŋ&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1191" RevisionGUID="57a28df3-82fc-482b-ab40-23f10f3aa32a" CreationDate="2016-07-13T01:28:03.527" UserId="45" Text="A first point is that I believe the premise of this question is mistaken: there is not some monumental divide between how a letter is written and how it is spoken. In Hebrew, the first letter is written &quot;אָלֶף&quot; and spoken &quot;aleph.&quot; In Greek, the first letter is written &quot;άλφα&quot; and spoken &quot;alpha.&quot; If we have already established, in the cited question, that the first letter of the Latin alphabet is simply &quot;a&quot;, it seems unreasonable to suppose another way of writing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes me say that the letters were written **exactly as in English: alone without any additional letters**. This, of course, excludes any direct references to other alphabets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the OP seemed to indicate that a classical source with three or more letters will do to illustrate this...I adduce Quintilian (at the beginning of the Silver Age):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  nam **k** quidem in nullis verbis utendum puto, nisi quae significant, etiam ut sola ponatur. hoc eo non omisi, quod quidam eam, quotiens **a** sequatur, necessariam credunt, cum sit **c** littera, quae ad omnes vocales vim suam perferat. ([Quint. Inst. 1 7.10](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Quint.%20Inst.%201.7.10&amp;lang=original))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an rursus aliae redundent, praeter notam aspirationis, (quae si necessaria est, etiam contrariam sibi poscit) ut **K**, quae et ipsa quorundam nominum nota est, et **Q**, cuius similis effectu specieque, nisi quod paulum a nostris obliquatur, Coppa apud Graecos nunc tantum in numero manet, et nostrarum ultima, qua tam carere potuimus quam ψ non quaerimus? ([Quint. Inst. 1 4.9](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Quint.%20Inst.%201.4.9&amp;lang=original))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this last quote especially pertinent because he directly opposes the single &quot;Q&quot; with the (&quot;full&quot;) Greek spelling &quot;Coppa.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1191" RevisionGUID="c94c02b3-793e-4a37-a7d1-811b4a9342e8" CreationDate="2016-07-13T02:48:15.273" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="A quick first point: I believe the premise of this question is mistaken: there is not some monumental divide between how a letter is written and how it is spoken. As noted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In Hebrew, the first letter is written &quot;אָלֶף&quot; and spoken &quot;aleph.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;* In Greek, the first letter is written &quot;άλφα&quot; and spoken &quot;alpha.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we have already established, in the cited question, that the first letter of the Latin alphabet is pronounced as simply &quot;a&quot;, it seems unreasonable to suppose another way of writing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes me say that the letters were written **exactly as in English: alone without any additional letters**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the OP seemed to indicate that a classical source with three or more letters will do to illustrate this...I adduce Quintilian, who writes at the beginning of the Silver Age:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  nam **k** quidem in nullis verbis utendum puto, nisi quae significant, etiam ut sola ponatur. hoc eo non omisi, quod quidam eam, quotiens **a** sequatur, necessariam credunt, cum sit **c** littera, quae ad omnes vocales vim suam perferat. ([Quint. Inst. 1 7.10](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Quint.%20Inst.%201.7.10&amp;lang=original))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an rursus aliae redundent, praeter notam aspirationis, (quae si necessaria est, etiam contrariam sibi poscit) ut **K**, quae et ipsa quorundam nominum nota est, et **Q**, cuius similis effectu specieque, nisi quod paulum a nostris obliquatur, Coppa apud Graecos nunc tantum in numero manet, et nostrarum ultima, qua tam carere potuimus quam ψ non quaerimus? ([Quint. Inst. 1 4.9](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Quint.%20Inst.%201.4.9&amp;lang=original))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this last quote especially pertinent because he directly opposes the single &quot;Q&quot; with the (&quot;full&quot;) Greek spelling &quot;Coppa.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1188" RevisionGUID="68f3d16c-ab48-45a1-968d-30f3bcd481be" CreationDate="2016-07-13T04:01:07.563" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I can only make educated guesses, mostly about what the quoted paragraph is intended to mean, but these might help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Note that the Greek word [ξύλινων](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ξύλινος#Greek) primarily means &quot;wooden&quot;. Using the word for &quot;wood&quot; for a club comes pretty naturally, since clubs are made of wood. Even in English, heavy (wooden) golf clubs are called &quot;[woods](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_(golf))&quot;. In the connection from &quot;wooden&quot; (ξύλινων) to &quot;club&quot; (**fustis**), the notion of &quot;cotton&quot; plays no role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. As I understand the quoted etymology, it says that people speaking Greek were referring to cotton using the word ξύλινων, by a somewhat inscrutable connection with wood also found in modern German. The hypothesis is, when someone wanted a Latin word for a certain kind of cloth, they thought to do in Latin what had been done in Greek: use the word for &quot;wooden&quot; to mean &quot;made of cotton&quot;; and then make a noun out of it. So, the hypothesis proposes that **fustaneum** arose from _two_ somewhat strange analogies: first, wood–cotton; second, &quot;Let's do the wood–cotton analogy in Latin analogously to what they're doing in Greek.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the quoted etymology is trying to explain the origin of the English word **fustian**. It's not trying to explain the origin of the Latin word **fustis**—the origin of which is not known for sure. Even the origin of the Latin word **fustaneum** isn't known for sure. The whole thing is awash in uncertainty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1193" RevisionGUID="b4bf79f4-e7c3-4466-9bd0-2f452c08e08d" CreationDate="2016-07-13T07:34:06.700" UserId="68" Text="Living Latinists say, *Furnus meus munere fungitur.* I've seen no classical attestation of this use, so it's probably a modern adaptation, but I just got back from a living Latin conference where several people said it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose you could also say *Furnus non deficit*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In neither of these cases is there a suitable adjective, as far as I can tell. You could use *munifex* for the former, but that of course is really a noun describing a particular kind of Roman soldier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1194" RevisionGUID="6c8505d4-df36-4f59-b2d3-04e0c4ca126a" CreationDate="2016-07-13T20:27:38.093" UserId="47" Text="This verse from Psalm lxxxiv:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus tu conversus vivificabis nos: et plebs tua laetabitur in te.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Appears in the *Parvum Officium* of the BVM (and other liturgical prayers that currently escape my memory).  The Baronious Press edition translates it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thou wilt turn again, O God, and quicken us: and thy people shall rejoice in thee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do we get from &quot;Deus tu *conversus*&quot;---*conversus* being a participle according to Lewis and Short---to &quot;Thou wilt turn again, O God...&quot;?  My limited understanding of Latin cannot make the journey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A participle is a noun, but it seems like the English requires a **verb** in the the **future tense**, like *convertes*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary adds to my confusion by telling me that conversus is a **perfect** **passive** participle, pulling the action out of the future into the past, or at least present completed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where have I gone wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3990" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1194" RevisionGUID="6c8505d4-df36-4f59-b2d3-04e0c4ca126a" CreationDate="2016-07-13T20:27:38.093" UserId="47" Text="&quot;Deus tu conversus vivificabis nos...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3991" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1194" RevisionGUID="6c8505d4-df36-4f59-b2d3-04e0c4ca126a" CreationDate="2016-07-13T20:27:38.093" UserId="47" Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1194" RevisionGUID="33c965cc-7181-4229-bae6-be3d59aeda22" CreationDate="2016-07-13T20:38:00.273" UserId="12" Comment="added 74 characters in body; edited tags" Text="This verse from [Psalm lxxxiv](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalmi+84%3A7&amp;version=VULGATE):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus tu conversus vivificabis nos: et plebs tua laetabitur in te.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Appears in the *Parvum Officium* of the BVM (and other liturgical prayers that currently escape my memory).  The Baronious Press edition translates it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thou wilt turn again, O God, and quicken us: and thy people shall rejoice in thee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do we get from &quot;Deus tu *conversus*&quot;—*conversus* being a participle according to Lewis and Short—to &quot;Thou wilt turn again, O God...&quot;?  My limited understanding of Latin cannot make the journey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A participle is a noun, but it seems like the English requires a **verb** in the the **future tense**, like *convertes*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary adds to my confusion by telling me that conversus is a **perfect** **passive** participle, pulling the action out of the future into the past, or at least present completed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where have I gone wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3993" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1194" RevisionGUID="33c965cc-7181-4229-bae6-be3d59aeda22" CreationDate="2016-07-13T20:38:00.273" UserId="12" Comment="added 74 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1130" RevisionGUID="3f5b156b-09b4-4c7b-be5d-0fbb7ac99119" CreationDate="2016-07-13T20:39:03.290" UserId="68" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="Auden's translation of Meissner's *Lateinische Phraseologie* offers the following options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *memoria labi* (&quot;to make a slip of the memory&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - *oblivio alicujus rei me capit* (&quot;I forget something,&quot; or, literally, &quot;forgetfulness of something has captured me&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - *aliquid excidit e memoria, effluit/excidit ex animo* (&quot;something escapes, vanishes from the memory&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of blame-shifting, the second seems strongest to me, but the third works too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My memory is that Meissner is pulled entirely from classical authors, but I can't find confirmation of that at the moment. If I do, I'll come back and add." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1195" RevisionGUID="0eb2dce2-a83a-44db-bafd-f5d649a7a098" CreationDate="2016-07-13T20:47:15.790" UserId="79" Text="What you see is a symptom of English and Latin having grammatically different idiomatic expressions for things like that.&#xD;&#xA;I cannot find a perfectly literal translation, but perhaps this series of attempts sheds some more light&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Deus tu conversus vivificabis nos.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You God, having turned, will quicken us.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You God, when turned, will quicken us.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You, the turned God, will quicken us.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Turned, you God will quicken us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of the participle *conversus* as an adjective, not as a personal verb.&#xD;&#xA;The fact that the participle is a perfect one means that turning takes place before quickening, not that it takes place before the present.&#xD;&#xA;Context indicates that both will happen in the future, and if they happen close to each other, it is reasonable to join them with a mere &quot;and&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;Temporal order in English is indicated by word order: turning comes before quickening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Passive indicates that the God was turned, but it does not rule out that the God turned himself.&#xD;&#xA;Passive adds emphasis to the God as the one being turned.&#xD;&#xA;This is quite common with similar verbs of movement.&#xD;&#xA;A similar active participle (together with the object *se*) would have been equally fine, but Latin does not have an active perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be possible to express essentially the same thing in Latin by joining two future verbs with *et*, or by adding a temporal clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; My translations may not be perfect English, but I hope the point is clear enough. Suggestions are welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1196" RevisionGUID="d86615d0-8d54-43b0-85cb-3da9b9acfbd4" CreationDate="2016-07-13T20:48:54.027" UserId="68" Text="The Baronius press edition is going (rightly so, I think) for elegance of English rather than absolute correct correspondence to Latin grammar. *Conversus* is a little tricky here, because while it's technically, as you say, a perfect passive participle, there's also a sense in which it's neither passive nor active but **middle**, which is a voice from ancient Greek that sometimes sort of shows up in Latin in weird ways; it has to do with actions that one performs on oneself or for one's own benefit (&quot;I wash the dog&quot; is active, &quot;I am washed&quot; passive, and &quot;I wash myself&quot; is middle). (I don't know much, unfortunately, though I suspect others on the site do, about Greek influences on Biblical Latin.) A more exact rendering of the Latin would therefore be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;God, having turned thyself around, thou wilt quicken us: and thy people will rejoice in thee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to deal with the idea of the Latin middle voice (a perfectly respectable position, as far as I'm concerned), another correct translation would also be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;God, having been turned around, thou wilt quicken us: and they people will rejoice in thee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of those are correct English, but neither is particularly felicitously expressed; hence the change to two future indicative verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1194" RevisionGUID="4d7e0189-035f-406f-ab31-1bf6f856458f" CreationDate="2016-07-13T20:49:37.633" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="This verse from [Psalm lxxxiv](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalmi+84%3A7&amp;version=VULGATE):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus tu conversus vivificabis nos: et plebs tua laetabitur in te.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Appears in the *Parvum Officium* of the BVM (and other liturgical prayers that currently escape my memory).  The Baronious Press edition translates it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thou wilt turn again, O God, and quicken us: and thy people shall rejoice in thee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do we get from &quot;Deus tu *conversus*&quot;—*conversus* being a participle according to Lewis and Short—to &quot;Thou wilt turn again, O God...&quot;?  My limited understanding of Latin cannot make the journey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A participle is a noun, but it seems like the English requires a **verb** in the the **future tense**, like *convertes*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary adds to my confusion by telling me that conversus is a **perfect** **passive** participle, pulling the action out of the future into the past, or at least present completed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where have I gone wrong? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3998" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1194" RevisionGUID="4d7e0189-035f-406f-ab31-1bf6f856458f" CreationDate="2016-07-13T20:49:37.633" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|vulgata|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3999" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="169" RevisionGUID="dcafdd2d-0d45-4b05-97c4-d6e7be6b3875" CreationDate="2016-07-13T21:14:44.060" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|new-latin|christianity|definitions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4000" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1016" RevisionGUID="9aa63469-9c75-4d24-8ca0-45e87ec8ee75" CreationDate="2016-07-13T21:20:01.793" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|accusative|vocative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4001" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="924" RevisionGUID="ef25441c-317a-4848-81e3-61243715c7c6" CreationDate="2016-07-13T21:22:02.437" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|translation|meaning|grammar-choice|aeneis|vergilius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1197" RevisionGUID="44ab5449-d63f-4333-a8df-5cd19d4a1484" CreationDate="2016-07-13T21:30:17.560" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1198" RevisionGUID="3773c6e2-e586-48f3-bae9-667cbe7e283e" CreationDate="2016-07-13T21:30:17.560" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Use this tag for all questions related to Christianity. Consider using also more specific tags like &quot;vulgata&quot; or &quot;ecclesiastical-latin&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1198" RevisionGUID="6804ae81-6d98-4f33-948d-7da37d3a3802" CreationDate="2016-07-13T21:34:08.560" UserId="12" Comment="edited body" Text="Use this tag for all questions related to Christianity. Consider also using more specific tags like &quot;vulgata&quot; or &quot;ecclesiastical-latin&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1196" RevisionGUID="8d4df0b9-9f1d-4a1b-8c01-05182786b06b" CreationDate="2016-07-13T22:08:46.087" UserId="68" Comment="added 702 characters in body" Text="The Baronius press edition is going (rightly so, I think) for elegance of English rather than absolute correct correspondence to Latin grammar. *Conversus* is a little tricky here, because while it's technically, as you say, a perfect passive participle, there's also a sense in which it's neither passive nor active but **middle**, which is a voice from ancient Greek that sometimes sort of shows up in Latin in weird ways; it has to do with actions that one performs on oneself or for one's own benefit (&quot;I wash the dog&quot; is active, &quot;I am washed&quot; passive, and &quot;I wash myself&quot; is middle). (I don't know much, unfortunately, though I suspect others on the site do, about Greek influences on Biblical Latin.) A more exact rendering of the Latin would therefore be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;God, having turned thyself around, thou wilt quicken us: and thy people will rejoice in thee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to deal with the idea of the Latin middle voice (a perfectly respectable position, as far as I'm concerned), another correct translation would also be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;God, having been turned around, thou wilt quicken us: and they people will rejoice in thee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of those are correct English, but neither is particularly felicitously expressed; hence the change to two future indicative verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: I note that neither this nor @JoonasIlmavirta's excellent answer takes up the issue of &quot;again&quot; in &quot;wilt turn **again**.&quot; It's possible that &quot;turn again&quot; meant &quot;turn around&quot; in the days when this was translated. If not, I'd point to *con* in *conversus* as a prefix that often makes verbs mean &quot;completely&quot; or &quot;all the way.&quot; Something *versus* might have been partially turned around, or in the act of turning around, but *conversus* has been turned all the way around. I take &quot;wilt turn again&quot; to mean &quot;wilt turn to face us again,&quot; which ultimately means the same thing—if God used to face us and then turned partially around, then once he finished turning around he'd be facing us again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1193" RevisionGUID="ab1485fb-92db-445d-bfd7-c8e193d1d65d" CreationDate="2016-07-13T22:14:15.867" UserId="68" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="Living Latinists say, *Furnus meus munere fungitur.* I've seen no classical attestation of this use applied to objects rather than people, so it's probably a modern adaptation, but I just got back from a living Latin conference where several people said it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose you could also say *Furnus non deficit*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In neither of these cases is there a suitable adjective, as far as I can tell. You could use *munifex* for the former, but that of course is really a noun describing a particular kind of Roman soldier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1199" RevisionGUID="4ea4617e-b2fb-463d-9146-53891699503c" CreationDate="2016-07-14T05:15:53.440" UserId="641" Text="The other answers are good for explaining the grammar. However, I would add that an important part of translating any text is remembering the context in which the passage was written. (I realize that the other answerers probably subscribe to this platitude as well.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, let's look at the opening lines of the psalm (taken from [Douay-Rheims](http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/21084.htm)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; [2.] Benedixisti, Domine, terram tuam; **avertisti** captivitatem Jacob. &#xD;&#xA; &gt; [3.] Remisisti iniquitatem plebis tuae, operuisti omnia peccata eorum. &#xD;&#xA; &gt; [4.] Mitigasti omnem iram tuam, **avertisti** ab ira indignationis tuae. &#xD;&#xA; &gt; [5.] **Converte** nos, Deus salutaris noster, et **averte** iram tuam a nobis.&#xD;&#xA; &gt; [6.] Numquid in aeternum irasceris nobis? aut extendes iram tuam a generatione in generationem? &#xD;&#xA; &gt; [7.] Deus, tu **conversus** vivificabis nos, et plebs tua laetabitur in te.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [2.] Lord, thou hast blessed thy land: thou hast turned away the captivity of Jacob. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [3.] Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people: thou hast covered all their sins. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [4.] Thou hast mitigated all thy anger: thou hast turned away from the wrath of thy indignation. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [5.] Convert us, O God our saviour: and turn off thy anger from us. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [6.] Wilt thou be angry with us for ever: or wilt thou extend thy wrath from generation to generation? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [7.] Thou wilt turn, O God, and bring us to life: and thy people shall rejoice in thee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, there's a lot of 'turn' language in this passage. So, there is no 'again' in the strict sense, but Ps. 84:5 especially explains why the translator did not feel it was out of place to add it in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 'future' tense here, 'wilt turn' is explained by virtue of the fact that it is controlled by the tense of the main verb (as others have mentioned).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What has he turn (himself) from? His anger, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I don't think we need advanced theology or literary degrees to come to that conclusion, it might be worth looking at the so-called *Glossa ordinaria* (and I'm simplifying what that refers to) on that passage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this image (taken from the a [scan of an edition from Basel, 1498](http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0002/bsb00026026/image_425), you can see how several possibilities were aired:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![psalm 84:7][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The large text in the centre is the Psalm and some small interlinear glosses. In the left margin, in red, you can see :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus conuertens. quasi sicut uiuificatio est a te: ita et conuersatio. **h** Deus tu conuer. Casus. Non extendens. Set deus conuertens. Prius dat uotum conuersitionis [sic]: post ad uitam ducit. Uel: Deus tu conuersus. ab ira in aduentum filii.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; God converting, as if: just as vivification is from you, so too is conversion. **h** *Deus tu conversus*: Overview/summary. Not extending; but God converting. Earlier he gives a vow of conversion; after, he leads to life. Or: *Deus tu conversus*: from anger at the advent of his son.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The **h** is a the (late!) medieval equivalent of a footnote here, to help readers track where to find the commentary on the relevant passage. Thus, I'm actually starting a little before the lemma we are interested in.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the right side, there is the more succinct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus tu conuersus. ad nos per tuam benedictam incarnationem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Deus tu conversus*: toward us, by means of your blessed incarnation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in this impage from a [subsequent page](http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0002/bsb00026026/image_427)&#xD;&#xA; you can see in red that the vivification will be due to his augmenting of grace in us:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Psalm 84:7 comment][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The line reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus tu conuersus uiuificabis nos. gratiam in nobis augmentando&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Deus tu conversus vivificabis nos*: by increasing the grace in us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VLyWo.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/thOqy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1199" RevisionGUID="24ca5194-b26a-47df-8672-53f9489345f8" CreationDate="2016-07-14T05:24:58.620" UserId="641" Comment="fixed typo" Text="The other answers are good for explaining the grammar. However, I would add that an important part of translating any text is remembering the context in which the passage was written. (I realize that the other answerers probably subscribe to this platitude as well.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, let's look at the opening lines of the psalm (taken from [Douay-Rheims](http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/21084.htm)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; [2.] Benedixisti, Domine, terram tuam; **avertisti** captivitatem Jacob. &#xD;&#xA; &gt; [3.] Remisisti iniquitatem plebis tuae, operuisti omnia peccata eorum. &#xD;&#xA; &gt; [4.] Mitigasti omnem iram tuam, **avertisti** ab ira indignationis tuae. &#xD;&#xA; &gt; [5.] **Converte** nos, Deus salutaris noster, et **averte** iram tuam a nobis.&#xD;&#xA; &gt; [6.] Numquid in aeternum irasceris nobis? aut extendes iram tuam a generatione in generationem? &#xD;&#xA; &gt; [7.] Deus, tu **conversus** vivificabis nos, et plebs tua laetabitur in te.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [2.] Lord, thou hast blessed thy land: thou hast turned away the captivity of Jacob. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [3.] Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people: thou hast covered all their sins. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [4.] Thou hast mitigated all thy anger: thou hast turned away from the wrath of thy indignation. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [5.] Convert us, O God our saviour: and turn off thy anger from us. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [6.] Wilt thou be angry with us for ever: or wilt thou extend thy wrath from generation to generation? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [7.] Thou wilt turn, O God, and bring us to life: and thy people shall rejoice in thee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, there's a lot of 'turn' language in this passage. So, there is no 'again' in the strict sense, but Ps. 84:5 especially explains why the translator did not feel it was out of place to add it in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 'future' tense here, 'wilt turn' is explained by virtue of the fact that it is controlled by the tense of the main verb (as others have mentioned).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What will he have turned (himself) from? His anger, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I don't think we need advanced theology or literary degrees to come to that conclusion, it might be worth looking at the so-called *Glossa ordinaria* (and I'm simplifying what that refers to) on that passage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this image (taken from the a [scan of an edition from Basel, 1498](http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0002/bsb00026026/image_425), you can see how several possibilities were aired:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![psalm 84:7][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The large text in the centre is the Psalm and some small interlinear glosses. In the left margin, in red, you can see :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus conuertens. quasi sicut uiuificatio est a te: ita et conuersatio. **h** Deus tu conuer. Casus. Non extendens. Set deus conuertens. Prius dat uotum conuersitionis [sic]: post ad uitam ducit. Uel: Deus tu conuersus. ab ira in aduentum filii.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; God converting. As if: just as vivification is from you, so too is conversion. **h** *Deus tu conversus*: Overview/summary. Not extending; but God converting. Earlier he gives a vow of conversion; after, he leads to life. Or: *Deus tu conversus*: from anger at the advent of his son.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The **h** is a the (late!) medieval equivalent of a footnote here, to help readers track where to find the commentary on the relevant passage. Thus, I'm actually starting a little before the lemma we are interested in.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the right side, there is the more succinct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus tu conuersus. ad nos per tuam benedictam incarnationem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Deus tu conversus*: toward us, by means of your blessed incarnation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in this impage from a [subsequent page](http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0002/bsb00026026/image_427)&#xD;&#xA; you can see in red that the vivification will be due to his augmenting of grace in us:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Psalm 84:7 comment][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The line reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus tu conuersus uiuificabis nos. gratiam in nobis augmentando&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Deus tu conversus vivificabis nos*: by increasing the grace in us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VLyWo.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/thOqy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1200" RevisionGUID="1aae3758-1ce8-41a6-b876-9458bf110522" CreationDate="2016-07-14T05:44:37.853" UserId="641" Text="A great resource, if you can get a copy, for medieval Latin is J. F. Niermeyer's *Mediae latinitatis lexicon minor* (Leiden: Brill, 1976). There are other post-classical dictionaries, but this is a great single-volume supplement to Lewis &amp; Short (the OLD is great, but mainly great for classicists / classical texts). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, here's the entry for *suffragium*. Note that each entry contains a French and then English translation. I'm including the French in parentheses where I think it adds some help about the intended meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **suffragium**: 1. aid, support, succour. 2. incitement. 3. laying down (confirmation, fixation). 4. maintenance. 5. resource. 6. tribute.&#xD;&#xA;7. intercession by a saint with God. 8. prayer said on the basis of a prayer community. 9. church province.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first meaning clearly makes the most sense in the passage averted to. But remember that the definitions found in a resource like Niermeyer add to existing meanings (found in other dictionaries); it doesn't eradicate them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1195" RevisionGUID="fa86a361-8bfa-4e99-a54c-066b1121c41f" CreationDate="2016-07-14T11:53:07.163" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="What you see is a symptom of English and Latin having grammatically different idiomatic expressions for things like that.&#xD;&#xA;I cannot find a perfectly literal translation, but perhaps this series of attempts sheds some more light&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Deus tu conversus vivificabis nos.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You God, having been turned, will quicken us.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You God, when turned, will quicken us.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You, the turned God, will quicken us.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Turned, you God will quicken us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of the participle *conversus* as an adjective, not as a personal verb.&#xD;&#xA;The fact that the participle is a perfect one means that turning takes place before quickening, not that it takes place before the present.&#xD;&#xA;Context indicates that both will happen in the future, and if they happen close to each other, it is reasonable to join them with a mere &quot;and&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;Temporal order in English is indicated by word order: turning comes before quickening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Passive indicates that the God was turned, but it does not rule out that the God turned himself.&#xD;&#xA;Passive adds emphasis to the God as the one being turned.&#xD;&#xA;This is quite common with similar verbs of movement.&#xD;&#xA;A similar active participle (together with the object *se*) would have been equally fine, but Latin does not have an active perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be possible to express essentially the same thing in Latin by joining two future verbs with *et*, or by adding a temporal clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; My translations may not be perfect English, but I hope the point is clear enough. Suggestions are welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1196" RevisionGUID="d55f8a2b-0c08-4ab6-8974-d9ea8ef4cfb0" CreationDate="2016-07-14T12:00:36.030" UserId="47" Comment="As stated in my comment, I don't think you need to explain the word *again*." Text="The Baronius press edition is going (rightly so, I think) for elegance of English rather than absolute correct correspondence to Latin grammar. *Conversus* is a little tricky here, because while it's technically, as you say, a perfect passive participle, there's also a sense in which it's neither passive nor active but **middle**, which is a voice from ancient Greek that sometimes sort of shows up in Latin in weird ways; it has to do with actions that one performs on oneself or for one's own benefit (&quot;I wash the dog&quot; is active, &quot;I am washed&quot; passive, and &quot;I wash myself&quot; is middle). (I don't know much, unfortunately, though I suspect others on the site do, about Greek influences on Biblical Latin.) A more exact rendering of the Latin would therefore be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;God, having turned thyself around, thou wilt quicken us: and thy people will rejoice in thee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to deal with the idea of the Latin middle voice (a perfectly respectable position, as far as I'm concerned), another correct translation would also be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;God, having been turned around, thou wilt quicken us: and they people will rejoice in thee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of those are correct English, but neither is particularly felicitously expressed; hence the change to two future indicative verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4016" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1196" RevisionGUID="d55f8a2b-0c08-4ab6-8974-d9ea8ef4cfb0" CreationDate="2016-07-14T12:00:36.030" Comment="Proposed by 47 approved by 68 edit id of 117" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4017" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="585" RevisionGUID="2744d50b-bd22-4dff-9289-ae4ade10e5fa" CreationDate="2016-07-14T19:39:58.403" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|meaning|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="585" RevisionGUID="2744d50b-bd22-4dff-9289-ae4ade10e5fa" CreationDate="2016-07-14T19:39:58.403" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="Is `duco sanitas` a grammatically correct way of saying `I lead health`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For context, I'm looking for a short but grammatically correct way of saying I lead the development of healthy minds and bodies. I'm working on the tagline for an art project concerned with physical, emotional and psychological optimisation with a view to nurturing wholesome leadership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are any other words concerned more with natural/organic health than sanitas, please let me know!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This follows on from my [prior question][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/581/does-duco-refer-to-the-art-of-leadership" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4019" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1161" RevisionGUID="23cfb29a-20b0-45b3-b51d-88724fa6a015" CreationDate="2016-07-14T19:43:19.140" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-identification|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1201" RevisionGUID="528ef5a2-de25-4eb8-ace1-9382e7f27e93" CreationDate="2016-07-14T21:07:27.687" UserId="654" Text="Does anybody know how normal Latin dialog sounded - not the oratory or ecclesiastical versions? Are there any audio files that you recommend?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4021" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1201" RevisionGUID="528ef5a2-de25-4eb8-ace1-9382e7f27e93" CreationDate="2016-07-14T21:07:27.687" UserId="654" Text="How Latin sounded?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4022" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1201" RevisionGUID="528ef5a2-de25-4eb8-ace1-9382e7f27e93" CreationDate="2016-07-14T21:07:27.687" UserId="654" Text="|classical-latin|vulgar-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1201" RevisionGUID="e6e4a753-110c-4774-8052-edf2a3c8e144" CreationDate="2016-07-14T21:44:29.997" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="Does anybody know how normal Latin dialog sounded &amp;mdash; not the oratory or ecclesiastical versions? Are there any audio files that you recommend?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4024" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1201" RevisionGUID="e6e4a753-110c-4774-8052-edf2a3c8e144" CreationDate="2016-07-14T21:44:29.997" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="How did Latin sound?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1202" RevisionGUID="d927fdbf-195b-4dd1-896b-49a1886f1eaf" CreationDate="2016-07-15T11:32:08.467" UserId="68" Text="In addition to the excellent answers, I'll add the construction *facere ut* + subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We see it all over in Plautus, e.g. *Bacchides*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Propterea hoc **facio, ut suadeas** gnato meo	&#xD;&#xA;ut pergraecetur tecum, tervenefice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All over in Cicero, e.g. *Pro Cælio*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quæ tu omnia tuis foedis factis **facis ut** nequiquam **velim**: vix ferendi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so on. The construction seems, as far as a quick look through the corpus indicates, to be used more impersonally than personally, but personal uses abound." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4026" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1201" RevisionGUID="9e95e9b5-d75c-4180-bab6-9cd15b1e6ede" CreationDate="2016-07-15T19:41:46.393" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|vulgar-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1203" RevisionGUID="747908a6-9215-4145-877f-854e0b15c82a" CreationDate="2016-07-16T02:18:44.853" UserId="68" Text="In the prologue to Plautus' *Amphitryo*, lines 20-25, Mercurius says this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pater huc me misit ad vos oratum meus,  &#xD;&#xA;tam etsi, pro imperio vobis quod dictum foret,  &#xD;&#xA;scibat **facturos**—quippe qui intellexerat  &#xD;&#xA;vereri vos se et metuere, ita ut æquom est Jovem—  &#xD;&#xA;verum profecto hoc petere me precario  &#xD;&#xA;a vobis jussit, leniter, dictis bonis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having trouble figuring out what *facturos* is doing here. I'm assuming it goes with the *vos* of *me misit ad vos oratum*, but what I can't for the life of me understand is what its *object* is. What does Jupiter know the audience members (that is, *vos*) are going to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or am I misinterpreting something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4028" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1203" RevisionGUID="747908a6-9215-4145-877f-854e0b15c82a" CreationDate="2016-07-16T02:18:44.853" UserId="68" Text="&quot;scibat facturos&quot; in the prologue of Plautus' Amphitryon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4029" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1203" RevisionGUID="747908a6-9215-4145-877f-854e0b15c82a" CreationDate="2016-07-16T02:18:44.853" UserId="68" Text="|vocabulary|plautus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1204" RevisionGUID="61b7e806-a679-4c29-ab2b-855ded2ba621" CreationDate="2016-07-16T11:30:08.620" UserId="659" Text="A friend is interested in conveying the sense of &quot;don't rock the boat&quot;, but in Latin. Is there an equivalent saying in Latin, or a transliteration which would convey the correct meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4031" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1204" RevisionGUID="61b7e806-a679-4c29-ab2b-855ded2ba621" CreationDate="2016-07-16T11:30:08.620" UserId="659" Text="&quot;don't rock the boat&quot; equivalent or transliteration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4032" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1204" RevisionGUID="61b7e806-a679-4c29-ab2b-855ded2ba621" CreationDate="2016-07-16T11:30:08.620" UserId="659" Text="|saying|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1204" RevisionGUID="810a8990-ea3d-45ba-80a2-d6b1d986a0fb" CreationDate="2016-07-16T12:49:16.893" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="A friend is interested in conveying the sense of &quot;don't rock the boat&quot;, but in Latin. Is there an equivalent saying in Latin, or a phrase which would convey the correct meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4034" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1204" RevisionGUID="810a8990-ea3d-45ba-80a2-d6b1d986a0fb" CreationDate="2016-07-16T12:49:16.893" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How to say &quot;don't rock the boat&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4035" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1204" RevisionGUID="810a8990-ea3d-45ba-80a2-d6b1d986a0fb" CreationDate="2016-07-16T12:49:16.893" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|saying|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1205" RevisionGUID="7a99d068-2e83-4567-9c40-7f5f200a0067" CreationDate="2016-07-16T13:36:33.600" UserId="68" Text="There's a Latin maxim that means exactly that! *Quieta non movere* (or, more fully, *Quieta non movere et mota quietare*—that is, &quot;Don't move things that are at rest, and put at rest things that move&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know whether this maxim comes from Roman times or later, but it's been around for a while; in a 1763 letter to Horace Mann advising him about a move to Naples he was considering, Horace Walpole wrote&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I do not know what to advise about Naples. You know I always repeat my father's maxim, &quot;Quieta non movere.&quot; Besides, should you like it? After so many years, &#xD;&#xA;would you care to tap a new world, a new set of acquaintance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1206" RevisionGUID="2d450517-0e2e-49fa-b58b-60138ea6051e" CreationDate="2016-07-16T14:53:14.313" UserId="645" Text="There is something deeper behind my reply, which I previously hesitated to express. It is this: that there is no reason why we should expect to find a translation to suit precisely every circumstance, even such a commonplace as ‘good night’. Broadly, the Romans used Latin for a thousand years; it would be unlikely that the usages remained in force, without alteration, for all that time - just as our own idiom changes and develops. Martial, for example, may well have wished a companion ‘good night’ in a phrase not found two hundred years earlier - and we simply cannot know. I have often come across this kind of problem during years of translating into Latin and, as long as no rule of grammar is broken, have no shame in using an expression that fits the situation. That is how I came to suggest *quiescas quam optime*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1207" RevisionGUID="f2da6934-bf65-4b5d-8117-4e955a1d6eac" CreationDate="2016-07-16T15:31:45.913" UserId="660" Text="Boetius's *Arithmetica* is one example, from around 500 AD.  See the manuscript [here][1] or text [here][2].&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.maa.org/press/periodicals/convergence/mathematical-treasures-boethiuss-arithmetic&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/aniciimanliitor01friegoog" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1206" RevisionGUID="f7c48a50-a7e3-4190-850d-f6141aca4c55" CreationDate="2016-07-16T17:40:54.013" UserId="68" Comment="combined two answers by same person" Text="I have used 'quiescas quam optime'. I know of no precedent, but it seems to fit the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no reason why we should expect to find a translation to suit precisely every circumstance, even such a commonplace as ‘good night’. Broadly, the Romans used Latin for a thousand years; it would be unlikely that the usages remained in force, without alteration, for all that time - just as our own idiom changes and develops. Martial, for example, may well have wished a companion ‘good night’ in a phrase not found two hundred years earlier - and we simply cannot know. I have often come across this kind of problem during years of translating into Latin and, as long as no rule of grammar is broken, have no shame in using an expression that fits the situation. That is how I came to suggest *quiescas quam optime*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1208" RevisionGUID="41ad275e-6e05-4ac3-bae1-60123121e17f" CreationDate="2016-07-16T19:53:54.637" UserId="40" Text="The object is *quod dictum foret*: literally, &quot;even though he knew that you would do that which would be said to you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Riley](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:phi,0119,001:1:prol) translates the first four lines thus: &quot;My father has sent me hither to you to entreat, although, what should as his commands be enjoined on you, he knew that you would do, inasmuch as he knew full well that you venerate and fear himself, as is befitting Jupiter.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1209" RevisionGUID="3818438f-61f7-49de-a910-c5c709d34dc6" CreationDate="2016-07-16T20:42:56.507" UserId="79" Text="I would like to understand how Rome transformed from republic to empire from the point of view of Latin language.&#xD;&#xA;I think I already have a sufficient understanding of Roman history to understand the political transformation, but I realized that I know almost nothing about how this transform was described by contemporaries in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the Roman Republic become the Roman Empire, was there any change in how Romans referred to their country?&#xD;&#xA;An obvious first guess is that in the republic era it was called *res publica Romana* and later on *imperium Romanum*.&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems likely to me that *res publica* simply meant &quot;state&quot;, republic or not, and *imperium* meant something like &quot;command&quot;, &quot;realm&quot; or &quot;authority&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In this reading *res publica Romana* would mean the state of Rome from a political point of view and *imperium Romanum* the area under Rome's control.&#xD;&#xA;Evolving *res publica* and *imperium* into today's concepts of &quot;republic&quot; and &quot;empire&quot; can well be a later development.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To understand this issue, I would like to know an answer to these (interwoven) questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What were the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire called in classical Latin when one wanted to make a distinction? My dictionary translates &quot;republic&quot; and &quot;empire&quot; as *libera res publica* and *imperium*, respectively, but I don't think this is the whole story.&#xD;&#xA;- Did the way Romans referred to their state change when the republic became an empire?&#xD;&#xA;- What did *res publica Romana* and *imperium Romanum* (and perhaps *senatus populusque Romanus*) exactly refer to? Was their use limited to some eras?&#xD;&#xA;- Is there an ancient Latin text discussing a change in the name of the state due to the republic turning into an empire?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer this question, it is not necessary to answer every single question listed above &amp;mdash; although I would be happy to see a thorough answer.&#xD;&#xA;I hope the list conveys the problem I want to have cleared out.&#xD;&#xA;Due to the somewhat broad nature of the question I want to explicitly encourage partial answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4042" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1209" RevisionGUID="3818438f-61f7-49de-a910-c5c709d34dc6" CreationDate="2016-07-16T20:42:56.507" UserId="79" Text="How did Rome transform from republic to empire in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4043" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1209" RevisionGUID="3818438f-61f7-49de-a910-c5c709d34dc6" CreationDate="2016-07-16T20:42:56.507" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1208" RevisionGUID="b745e8fe-4b7e-42c1-92be-5aa46ad03219" CreationDate="2016-07-16T21:55:41.070" UserId="40" Comment="added 147 characters in body" Text="The object is *pro imperio vobis quod dictum foret* (a relative clause in which the relative pronoun *quod* is postponed though logically belonging before *pro imperio*): literally, &quot;even though he knew that you would do that which would be said to you in command&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Riley](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:phi,0119,001:1:prol) translates the first four lines thus: &quot;My father has sent me hither to you to entreat, although, what should as his commands be enjoined on you, he knew that you would do, inasmuch as he knew full well that you venerate and fear himself, as is befitting Jupiter.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1209" RevisionGUID="a3ab1f77-b678-4850-b5f4-316b7af58fce" CreationDate="2016-07-17T11:53:47.520" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I would like to understand how Rome transformed from republic to empire from the point of view of Latin language.&#xD;&#xA;I think I already have a sufficient understanding of Roman history to understand the political transformation, but I realized that I know almost nothing about how this transform was described by contemporaries in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the Roman Republic become the Roman Empire, was there any change in how Romans referred to their country?&#xD;&#xA;An obvious first guess is that in the republic era it was called *res publica Romana* and later on *imperium Romanum*.&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems likely to me that *res publica* simply meant &quot;state&quot;, republic or not, and *imperium* meant something like &quot;command&quot;, &quot;realm&quot; or &quot;authority&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In this reading *res publica Romana* would mean the state of Rome from a political point of view and *imperium Romanum* the area under Rome's control.&#xD;&#xA;Evolving *res publica* and *imperium* into today's concepts of &quot;republic&quot; and &quot;empire&quot; can well be a later development.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To understand this issue, I would like to know an answer to these (interwoven) questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What were the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire called in classical Latin when one wanted to make a distinction? My dictionary translates &quot;republic&quot; and &quot;empire&quot; as *libera res publica* and *imperium*, respectively, but I don't think this is the whole story.&#xD;&#xA;- Did the way Romans referred to their state change when the republic became an empire?&#xD;&#xA;- What did *res publica Romana* and *imperium Romanum* (and perhaps *senatus populusque Romanus*) exactly refer to? Was their use limited to some eras?&#xD;&#xA;- Is there an ancient Latin text discussing a change in the name of the state due to the republic turning into an empire?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer this question, it is not necessary to answer every single question listed above &amp;mdash; although I would be happy to see a thorough answer.&#xD;&#xA;I hope the list conveys the problem I want to have cleared up.&#xD;&#xA;Due to the somewhat broad nature of the question I want to explicitly encourage partial answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1210" RevisionGUID="e45a2e56-773c-4cfb-8ef4-9781d968df13" CreationDate="2016-07-17T13:34:31.887" UserId="661" Text="First, apologies for my Latin ignorance. I have never learned the language, thus everything I say below may contain errors. If so, please correct me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My fiancee has recently started her podiatry (podology) practice, that we have named 'Propedis'. The name is derived from what was meant to be Latin for: 'for foot'. (still not sure if we've declined it correctly). The idea was inspired by the name of a mattress maker: 'PerDormire' - for sleep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, another company appeared to have registered the name 'Pro Pedis' as their trademark and they are now threatening us with court trial for the infringement, which we'd like to avoid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result, we are looking for a new name, that would sound nice and would not infringe the registered one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We thought of something like 'healthy foot/feet' or 'light foot/feet', yet could not find any credible online translation service to help us. By 'light' I mean the adjective, opposite of 'heavy', not the noun, which I was the only Latin translation of the word I was able to find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you please forgive me for making this question a little bit more open, any suggestions of well-sounding foot-related names for a podiatric business would be welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4047" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1210" RevisionGUID="e45a2e56-773c-4cfb-8ef4-9781d968df13" CreationDate="2016-07-17T13:34:31.887" UserId="661" Text="'Light feet', 'healthy feet' or other podiatry-related names in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4048" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1210" RevisionGUID="e45a2e56-773c-4cfb-8ef4-9781d968df13" CreationDate="2016-07-17T13:34:31.887" UserId="661" Text="|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1211" RevisionGUID="587f5326-ecb3-4aa1-8306-033fe519dd58" CreationDate="2016-07-17T14:55:24.097" UserId="79" Text="When using a preposition in Latin, it is important to decline the word correctly.&#xD;&#xA;Prepositions require accusative or ablative, and *pro* happens to require ablative.&#xD;&#xA;The singular ablative of *pes* (foot) is *pede* and the plural one is *pedibus*.&#xD;&#xA;Thus &quot;for foot&quot; and &quot;for feet&quot; would be *pro pede* and *pro pedibus*, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;Using genitive as in *pro pedis* is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;However, correcting to *pro pede* might still be too close to the earlier name to avoid an infringement trial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using an adjective is probably a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;foot&quot; can be made singular or plural and with or without *pro* (or any other preposition).&#xD;&#xA;Just remember that also the adjective has to be in the correct case and number.&#xD;&#xA;I will not list all possible combinations &amp;mdash; if you like something and would like to have a different version of it, leave a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some adjectives you might consider using:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *pes levis/sanus/validus/dexter*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; light/healthy/strong/dexterous foot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To find more adjectives and more precise translations of the ones I chose, use any of the [online dictionaries listed in a separate question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;It is easiest to help if we know what you want, and browsing a dictionary for good words is something you can easily do with no knowledge of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;There rarely are exact translations of an English word to Latin (including the ones I listed above), so to get a good translation you have to look at the options and figure which has the most suitable tone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1212" RevisionGUID="9dceb438-79f9-4d56-8f44-80adb42292d7" CreationDate="2016-07-17T19:06:57.127" UserId="118" Text="Here's another alternative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pes Laetus (the happy foot)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pedes Laeti (happy feet)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gives you the opportunity to have fun with the logo by making **ae** into a ligature, like this: **Pedes Læti**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You (and your customers) might already know the word **læti** from the Christmas carol _Adeste Fideles,_ where **læti triumphantes** is usually translated &quot;joyful and triumphant&quot;. To get a feel for its meaning in classical Latin, [this dictionary page](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=laetus&amp;la=la#lexicon) provides many illustrations of its usage. I understand it to have a connotation of &quot;light, carefree, content, cheerful, glad&quot;. In Medieval Latin, I believe it also took on a secondary sense of &quot;someone who has paid off his debts&quot;—I assume from how someone likely feels just then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible disadvantage is that **ae** is pronounced differently in [different traditions for Latin pronunciation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_regional_pronunciation). English pronunciation makes it _ā,_ Ecclesiastical pronunciation makes it _ĕ,_ and in classical pronunciation it's like English _ī._ I think the best approach to the multiplicity of pronunciations is &quot;welcome all&quot;, but you'll probably have to choose one pronunciation to use yourself.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1212" RevisionGUID="e5525a3f-4ae2-457d-a7ce-ff8514eca48f" CreationDate="2016-07-17T19:12:00.030" UserId="118" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="Here's another alternative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pes Laetus (the happy foot)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pedes Laeti (happy feet)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gives you the opportunity to have fun with the logo by making **ae** into a ligature, like this: **Pedes Læti**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You (and your customers) might already know the word **læti** from the Christmas carol _Adeste Fideles,_ where **læti triumphantes** is usually translated &quot;joyful and triumphant&quot;. To get a feel for its meaning in classical Latin, [this dictionary page](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=laetus&amp;la=la#lexicon) provides many illustrations of its usage. I understand it to have a connotation of &quot;light, carefree, content, cheerful, glad&quot;—feeling so good that you can't help but smile. In Medieval Latin, I believe it also took on a secondary sense of &quot;someone who has paid off his debts&quot;—I assume from how someone likely feels just then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible disadvantage is that **ae** is pronounced differently in [different traditions for Latin pronunciation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_regional_pronunciation). English pronunciation makes it _ā,_ Ecclesiastical pronunciation makes it _ĕ,_ and in classical pronunciation it's like English _ī._ I think the best approach to the multiplicity of pronunciations is &quot;welcome all&quot;, but you'll probably have to choose one pronunciation to use yourself.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1213" RevisionGUID="6a736d7d-a5e1-4a1e-a05a-6208fd9e2d9e" CreationDate="2016-07-17T19:39:28.273" UserId="663" Text="What is a latin morpheme for “middle” which can be used as a prefix, instead of “sub“ and “super”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context is the use of such a construct in English. So the following mentions some English examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can say “subscript“ and “superscript”, and normal text is probably just “script”. But it might sometimes be useful to use a prefix which means “normal“ or “middle”, to make the distinction clear. You can also say “subordinate” and “superordinate” (though “superior” is probably more common), but there is apparently no similar word for “colleague” or “peer”. (By the way: one can not use the word “ordinate” itself for that, according to Merriam-Webster.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4053" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1213" RevisionGUID="6a736d7d-a5e1-4a1e-a05a-6208fd9e2d9e" CreationDate="2016-07-17T19:39:28.273" UserId="663" Text="Word or morpheme for “middle” or “not above or below”, as opposed to “super” and “sub”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4054" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1213" RevisionGUID="6a736d7d-a5e1-4a1e-a05a-6208fd9e2d9e" CreationDate="2016-07-17T19:39:28.273" UserId="663" Text="|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1214" RevisionGUID="bbc918bc-9f39-48a5-8ba9-9d8bd1000ca1" CreationDate="2016-07-17T19:57:51.267" UserId="136" Text="My friend wrote this fake holy scripture passage for his nation's religion on [NationStates][1], and I have been translating it into Latin, as any proper fake holy scripture should be. I came upon one part that reads &quot;because it was as holy as a pigeon.&quot; How would one translate &quot;as holy as a pigeon,&quot; or &quot;as &lt;adjective&gt; as a &lt;noun&gt;&quot; for that matter? I believe it may use either *ut* or *sicut*, but I am not quite sure. Any help with this grammar would be greatly appreciated. (Note that I am using Classical Latin, if that makes a difference).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;Here's the whole passage for your entertainment. It contains references to Cambridge Latin Course and some inside jokes, so it might not make that much sense to everyone, but it is still interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There lived two tribes in the land, which is called Colum-ba because it was as holy as a pigeon. One tribe, the Quinti, had the favor of the Lord. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Grumio spoke to Pantagathus, king of the Quinti, &quot;Tell my people that they have found favor in me. You will be saved, so long as you keep my commands. Go to the place east of here, and destroy the tribe of the Basedgodi. They have lost my favor, and worship strange gods. When the sky sings and the scent of roast peacock fills the air, you will know it is time to destroy them.&quot; &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Pantagathus responded, &quot;Lord, I am but your lowly servant. It shall be done.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;And the Quinti went to the east, where they found the tribe of the Basedgodi. The Basedgodi king, Prit-zlaff, welcomed Pantagathus and took him into his own home. Then the wife of Prit-zlaff tried to seduce Pantagathus, but he resisted her advances.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A second time she tried to get him to go to bed with her, but once again he resisted.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;On the third day, the wife of Prit-zlaff went to the room where Pantagathus was staying. Just as he was about to give in, the sky sang and the smell of roasted peacock filled the air. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The Basedgodi wondered at the miracle. But Pantagathus remembered Grumio's command. He slaughtered the wife of Prit-zlaff, and returned to his army. They lay waste to the land of the Basedgodi, sparing no child, woman, or animal. They took prisoner only the cooks of the Basedgodi, for it is written &quot;You shall not lay a hand on the cooks of the enemy.&quot; The Lord granted them great victory, and they returned home rejoicing. They praised Grumio, for He had kept his covenant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.nationstates.net" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4056" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1214" RevisionGUID="bbc918bc-9f39-48a5-8ba9-9d8bd1000ca1" CreationDate="2016-07-17T19:57:51.267" UserId="136" Text="Comparison of Adjective to Noun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4057" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1214" RevisionGUID="bbc918bc-9f39-48a5-8ba9-9d8bd1000ca1" CreationDate="2016-07-17T19:57:51.267" UserId="136" Text="|classical-latin|grammar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1215" RevisionGUID="55a2088a-ab65-4293-a3c6-74f1ea21c349" CreationDate="2016-07-17T20:45:55.183" UserId="665" Text="I need to create a family logo for the wedding of a Classics prof. I'd like the phrase to be &quot;Music and Beer.&quot; I don't speak Latin and I'm getting strange results from Google translate depending on the wording of the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Beer and Music: ebrietate et musica&#xD;&#xA; - Music and Beer: Musica et in Bersabee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't show up to this wedding with bad Latin :-). What's the correct phrasing --- and is there a linguistic reason why the translations are diverging?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4059" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1215" RevisionGUID="55a2088a-ab65-4293-a3c6-74f1ea21c349" CreationDate="2016-07-17T20:45:55.183" UserId="665" Text="&quot;Music and Beer&quot; in latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4060" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1215" RevisionGUID="55a2088a-ab65-4293-a3c6-74f1ea21c349" CreationDate="2016-07-17T20:45:55.183" UserId="665" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1214" RevisionGUID="7b9b4ced-f50c-4158-a96d-baa36f187be4" CreationDate="2016-07-17T20:53:36.630" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body; edited tags" Text="My friend wrote this fake holy scripture passage for his nation's religion on [NationStates][1], and I have been translating it into Latin, as any proper fake holy scripture should be. I came upon one part that reads &quot;because it was as holy as a pigeon.&quot; How would one translate &quot;as holy as a pigeon,&quot; or &quot;as &lt;adjective&gt; as a &lt;noun&gt;&quot; for that matter? I believe it may use either *ut* or *sicut*, but I am not quite sure. Any help with this grammar would be greatly appreciated. (Note that I am using Classical Latin, if that makes a difference).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;Here's the whole passage for your entertainment. It contains references to Cambridge Latin Course and some inside jokes, so it might not make that much sense to everyone, but it is still interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There lived two tribes in the land, which is called Colum-ba because it was as holy as a pigeon. One tribe, the Quinti, had the favor of the Lord. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Grumio spoke to Pantagathus, king of the Quinti, &quot;Tell my people that they have found favor in me. You will be saved, so long as you keep my commands. Go to the place east of here, and destroy the tribe of the Basedgodi. They have lost my favor, and worship strange gods. When the sky sings and the scent of roast peacock fills the air, you will know it is time to destroy them.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pantagathus responded, &quot;Lord, I am but your lowly servant. It shall be done.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the Quinti went to the east, where they found the tribe of the Basedgodi. The Basedgodi king, Prit-zlaff, welcomed Pantagathus and took him into his own home. Then the wife of Prit-zlaff tried to seduce Pantagathus, but he resisted her advances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A second time she tried to get him to go to bed with her, but once again he resisted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On the third day, the wife of Prit-zlaff went to the room where Pantagathus was staying. Just as he was about to give in, the sky sang and the smell of roasted peacock filled the air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Basedgodi wondered at the miracle. But Pantagathus remembered Grumio's command. He slaughtered the wife of Prit-zlaff, and returned to his army. They lay waste to the land of the Basedgodi, sparing no child, woman, or animal. They took prisoner only the cooks of the Basedgodi, for it is written &quot;You shall not lay a hand on the cooks of the enemy.&quot; The Lord granted them great victory, and they returned home rejoicing. They praised Grumio, for He had kept his covenant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.nationstates.net" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4062" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1214" RevisionGUID="7b9b4ced-f50c-4158-a96d-baa36f187be4" CreationDate="2016-07-17T20:53:36.630" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1216" RevisionGUID="bb3d68b3-fa41-4ad0-8ddb-625d4206dce6" CreationDate="2016-07-17T20:55:52.490" UserId="79" Text="I would translate &quot;as X as a Y&quot; with *tam X quam Y*.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly I would translate &quot;X like a Y&quot; with *X sicut Y*.&#xD;&#xA;There must be other options as well, but these come to mind.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I offer this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the land, which is called Columba because it was as holy as a pigeon.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *terra Columba appellata, quippe quae tam sancta quam columba erat*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1217" RevisionGUID="e166b6bb-a7b2-4696-8053-57ec99c57893" CreationDate="2016-07-17T21:00:45.253" UserId="136" Text="So, here is what I found for you. The &quot;and&quot; could be *et* or *-que* (there are other options but these are the most common), and &quot;music&quot; could be *musica* as you found. For &quot;beer,&quot; you have two options, *fermentum*, which is a more general fermented drink, or *cervisia*, which is beer specifically. So here are the words put together into the phrase you requested. Choose whatever sounds/looks best to you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Musica et Fermenta&#xD;&#xA;2. Musica Fermentaque&#xD;&#xA;3. Musica et Cervisiae&#xD;&#xA;4. Musica Cervisiaeque&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sidenote: I made &quot;beer&quot; plural (&quot;Music and Beers&quot;) because it makes sense in the context, but you could switch it to singular if you want. *Fermenta* becomes *fermentum*, and *cervisiae* becomes *cervisia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: Lewis and Short through [Latin Lexicon][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latinlexicon.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1217" RevisionGUID="8f9afa54-6661-462b-893e-eb17a849d48b" CreationDate="2016-07-17T21:10:18.063" UserId="136" Comment="added 343 characters in body" Text="So, here is what I found for you. The &quot;and&quot; could be *et* or *-que* (there are other options but these are the most common), and &quot;music&quot; could be *musica* as you found. For &quot;beer,&quot; you have two options, *fermentum*, which is a more general fermented drink, or *cervisia*, which is beer specifically. So here are the words put together into the phrase you requested. Choose whatever sounds/looks best to you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Musica et Fermenta&#xD;&#xA;2. Musica Fermentaque&#xD;&#xA;3. Musica et Cervisiae&#xD;&#xA;4. Musica Cervisiaeque&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sidenote: I made &quot;beer&quot; plural (&quot;Music and Beers&quot;) because it makes sense in the context, but you could switch it to singular if you want. *Fermenta* becomes *fermentum*, and *cervisiae* becomes *cervisia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: Lewis and Short through [Latin Lexicon][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;Edit: There should be no linguistic difference (except perhaps word order). Google Translate, as mentioned by @Nathaniel, is terrible at translating Latin, so it spits out random stuff. For instance, what you found means (roughly) &quot;(You all) make drunk and music&quot; and &quot;music and in Beersheba (as in the city in Israel)&quot; respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latinlexicon.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1218" RevisionGUID="ae2ff0d2-ba77-4d92-8703-882cb3149418" CreationDate="2016-07-17T21:19:21.847" UserId="79" Text="If you are fluent in Finnish, I strongly recommend the book series *Clavis Latina I&amp;ndash;III* by Maija-Leena Kallela and Erkki Palmén.&#xD;&#xA;I started learning Latin from these books, and it worked well.&#xD;&#xA;I used the books in Latin courses given by a teacher, but they also work well for self-study; I have learned a lot of content not covered in the courses by simply reading the chapters and doing the exercises.&#xD;&#xA;This series is the best (in my opinion), newest and most widely available option for a Finn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is my understanding that whenever a book is used to teach elementary Latin in Finland, this is the series used.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any online material or freely available lecture notes in Finnish.&#xD;&#xA;And even if you manage to find some, changes are they are not as good as *Clavis Latina*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each of the three books comes as a pair, one called *Textus et cultura* (texts and culture) and *Grammatica et exercitia* (grammar and exercises).&#xD;&#xA;The books are a good stand-alone pack, but for more depth I suggest acquiring *Ars Grammatica (Latinan kielioppi)* by Tuomo Pekkanen and the dictionary *Suomi&amp;ndash;latina&amp;ndash;suomi-sanakirja* by Reijo Pitkäranta.&#xD;&#xA;There is also a continuation to the series under the name *Ianua Latina* by Kallela and Palmén, which is a single book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole pack is 9 books and can cost quite a lot.&#xD;&#xA;I suggest first getting both parts of *Clavis Latina I* and then deciding how to proceed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There will probably be things that you cannot figure out on your own.&#xD;&#xA;If you don't know a Latinist you could turn to, you can ask questions at this site.&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to ask in Finnish as well if you don't feel comfortable enough using English or Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4067" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1218" RevisionGUID="d377a6c0-d6c9-40bc-8f96-e832920fe5e1" CreationDate="2016-07-17T21:19:21.847" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="4068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1211" RevisionGUID="d3a498af-58ac-42c1-9964-475e83b37733" CreationDate="2016-07-17T21:28:40.283" UserId="79" Comment="added 582 characters in body" Text="When using a preposition in Latin, it is important to decline the word correctly.&#xD;&#xA;Prepositions require accusative or ablative, and *pro* happens to require ablative.&#xD;&#xA;The singular ablative of *pes* (foot) is *pede* and the plural one is *pedibus*.&#xD;&#xA;Thus &quot;for foot&quot; and &quot;for feet&quot; would be *pro pede* and *pro pedibus*, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;Using genitive as in *pro pedis* is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;However, correcting to *pro pede* might still be too close to the earlier name to avoid an infringement trial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using an adjective is probably a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;foot&quot; can be made singular or plural and with or without *pro* (or any other preposition).&#xD;&#xA;Just remember that also the adjective has to be in the correct case and number.&#xD;&#xA;I will not list all possible combinations &amp;mdash; if you like something and would like to have a different version of it, leave a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some adjectives you might consider using:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *pes levis/sanus/validus/dexter*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; light/healthy/strong/dexterous foot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To find more adjectives and more precise translations of the ones I chose, use any of the [online dictionaries listed in a separate question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;It is easiest to help if we know what you want, and browsing a dictionary for good words is something you can easily do with no knowledge of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;There rarely are exact translations of an English word to Latin (including the ones I listed above), so to get a good translation you have to look at the options and figure which has the most suitable tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;As requested in a comment below, here is a version with nouns instead of adjectives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *levitas/sanitas/validitas/dexteritas pedis*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; lightness/health/strength/dexterity of foot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the form *pes* is bugging you, you can switch to ablative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *pro pede levi/sano/valido/dextro*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; for the light/healthy/strong/dexterous foot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *pedes leves/sani/validi/dextri*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; light/healthy/strong/dexterous feet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course, these ideas can be combined.&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;for the health of the feet&quot; is *pro sanitate pedum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1212" RevisionGUID="e57a27e8-d8dc-48d6-9515-1f3e9f201480" CreationDate="2016-07-17T22:00:43.733" UserId="118" Comment="added 800 characters in body" Text="Here's another alternative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pes Laetus (&quot;the happy foot&quot;)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pedes Laeti (&quot;happy feet&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gives you the opportunity to have fun with the logo by making **ae** into a ligature, like this: **Pedes Læti**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You (and your customers) might already know the word **læti** from the Christmas carol _Adeste Fideles,_ where **læti triumphantes** is usually translated &quot;joyful and triumphant&quot;. To get a feel for its meaning in classical Latin, [this dictionary page](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=laetus&amp;la=la#lexicon) provides many illustrations of its usage. I understand it to have a connotation of &quot;light, carefree, content, cheerful, glad&quot;—feeling so good that you can't help but smile. In Medieval Latin, I believe it also took on a secondary sense of &quot;someone who has paid off his debts&quot;—I assume from how someone likely feels just then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible disadvantage is that **ae** is pronounced differently in [different traditions for Latin pronunciation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_regional_pronunciation). English pronunciation makes it _ā,_ Ecclesiastical and Slavic pronunciation make it _ĕ,_ and in classical pronunciation it's like English _ī._ I think the best approach to the multiplicity of pronunciations is &quot;welcome all&quot;, but you'll probably have to choose one pronunciation to use yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Here are some variants if **pes** and **pedes** are out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Laetitia pedis (&quot;happiness of the foot&quot;)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Laetitia pedum (&quot;happiness of the feet&quot;)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pedem laetum (&quot;toward a happy foot&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also reverse the word order in any of these (including the ones above).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not so sure that these are such good Latin. (Then again, your competitor's name is an out-an-out grammatical error.) [This 1826 book](https://books.google.com/books?id=6tFFAQAAMAAJ&amp;lpg=PA257&amp;ots=QJfoYcE0aR&amp;dq=%22laetitia%20pedis%22&amp;pg=PA257#v=onepage&amp;q=laetitia%20pedis&amp;f=false) in Italian uses the phrase **laetitia pedis** twice, but I can't figure out the intended meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more (which I think is good Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gratia pedibus (&quot;for feet's sake!&quot;—well, it's funny in English)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1219" RevisionGUID="a4fd71c4-bd42-40c4-8ae9-b5a2fd91d091" CreationDate="2016-07-17T22:32:57.233" UserId="324" Text="Quieta non movere is a common enough expression in mediaeval legal Latin. But I do not think non + infinitive is a very classical way to express a prohibition. Classical Latin would be noli quieta movere (or any other combination of these three words)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1220" RevisionGUID="d9a01d97-bf7e-4e8c-9a29-334c65eb31cb" CreationDate="2016-07-17T23:31:29.480" UserId="118" Text="[Suppose](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1210/118) there were podiatry practice named _Pes Integer Sit._ How would you put this into a complete sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you simply treat it as indeclinable? For example, would &quot;I am going to Pes Integer Sit&quot; be _Eo Pes Integer Sit,_ or _Ad Pes Integer Sit eo_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly for a business whose name is a noun phrase in an oblique case. If the business were [named](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1210/light-feet-healthy-feet-or-other-podiatry-related-names-in-latin/1212#comment2638_1211) _Pedibus Sanis,_ would you have to avoid declining it, when, say, it was in a place in a sentence that called for the accusative or nominative case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if these are indeclinable, does that cause confusion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is a custom for choosing the case of business names, please let me know. That might (happily) render the whole question moot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4072" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1220" RevisionGUID="d9a01d97-bf7e-4e8c-9a29-334c65eb31cb" CreationDate="2016-07-17T23:31:29.480" UserId="118" Text="How to decline a business name that is a Latin sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4073" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1220" RevisionGUID="d9a01d97-bf7e-4e8c-9a29-334c65eb31cb" CreationDate="2016-07-17T23:31:29.480" UserId="118" Text="|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1212" RevisionGUID="d9f7438a-c0d6-4ab5-8140-c789215e9326" CreationDate="2016-07-17T23:40:39.450" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Here's another alternative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pes Laetus (&quot;the happy foot&quot;)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pedes Laeti (&quot;happy feet&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gives you the opportunity to have fun with the logo by making **ae** into a ligature, like this: **Pedes Læti**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You (and your customers) might already know the word **læti** from the Christmas carol _Adeste Fideles,_ where **læti triumphantes** is usually translated &quot;joyful and triumphant&quot;. To get a feel for its meaning in classical Latin, [this dictionary page](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=laetus&amp;la=la#lexicon) provides many illustrations of its usage. I understand it to have a connotation of &quot;light, carefree, content, cheerful, glad&quot;—feeling so good that you can't help but smile. In Medieval Latin, I believe it also took on a secondary sense of &quot;someone who has paid off his debts&quot;—I assume from how someone likely feels just then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible disadvantage is that **ae** is pronounced differently in [different traditions for Latin pronunciation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_regional_pronunciation). English pronunciation makes it _ā,_ Ecclesiastical and Slavic pronunciation make it _ĕ,_ and in classical pronunciation it's like English _ī._ I think the best approach to the multiplicity of pronunciations is &quot;welcome all&quot;, but you'll probably have to choose one pronunciation to use yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Here are some variants if **pes** and **pedes** are out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Laetitia pedis (&quot;happiness of the foot&quot;)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Laetitia pedum (&quot;happiness of the feet&quot;)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pedem laetum (&quot;toward a happy foot&quot;)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gratia pedum (&quot;for feet's sake!&quot;—well, it's funny in English)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also reverse the word order in any of these (including the ones above).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not so sure that these are such good Latin. (Then again, your competitor's name is an out-an-out grammatical error.) [This 1826 book](https://books.google.com/books?id=6tFFAQAAMAAJ&amp;lpg=PA257&amp;ots=QJfoYcE0aR&amp;dq=%22laetitia%20pedis%22&amp;pg=PA257#v=onepage&amp;q=laetitia%20pedis&amp;f=false) in Italian uses the phrase **laetitia pedis** twice, but I can't figure out the intended meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1221" RevisionGUID="cb8501d5-6952-46c5-9269-01dd1adfa007" CreationDate="2016-07-18T04:04:41.807" UserId="40" Text="In circumstances where the same meaning can be expressed by an indirect question depending on a verb of speech, or by a relative clause modifying an (implicit or explicit) object of that verb, which is more idiomatic in Classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;He related to me what had happened.&quot; This can be cast as an indirect question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Rettulit mihi quid acciderit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it could also be expressed with a relative clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Rettulit mihi (id) quod acciderat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is better Latin? Do different verbs have different preferences, and if so what are they?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4076" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1221" RevisionGUID="cb8501d5-6952-46c5-9269-01dd1adfa007" CreationDate="2016-07-18T04:04:41.807" UserId="40" Text="Indirect question vs. relative clause" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4077" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1221" RevisionGUID="cb8501d5-6952-46c5-9269-01dd1adfa007" CreationDate="2016-07-18T04:04:41.807" UserId="40" Text="|idiom|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1222" RevisionGUID="6a61637d-65a3-4739-81fd-b270e4039df6" CreationDate="2016-07-18T06:54:25.010" UserId="667" Text="I think *Noli labefactare scaphan!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1223" RevisionGUID="e24e2734-5dae-495c-ac55-6f9dd0452b66" CreationDate="2016-07-18T09:28:48.463" UserId="79" Text="I don't think there is a custom for choosing the case of business names.&#xD;&#xA;I wish there was a custom for using grammatical Latin and actual Latin words in any case in business names&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the name has a main word in nominative, then you can decline that as usual.&#xD;&#xA;For example, if it's called *Institutum Pedibus Sanis*, then you can decline *Institutum* normally.&#xD;&#xA;Your question is specifically not about this case, but sometimes it can help usage to add a dummy word like *Institutum* to the name even if it's not officially part of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An indeclinable Latin word of foreign origin can often be used in a simple sentence without much confusion.&#xD;&#xA;Prepositions make this particularly easy.&#xD;&#xA;It is important that the name be foreign; a declined Latin phrase is too easily misinterpreted to play a different grammatical role than it's supposed to.&#xD;&#xA;The risk for confusion is significant, and I would be careful in introducing the name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose the business is called *Pes Integer Sit*.&#xD;&#xA;When you mention it for the first time, I suggest saying or writing something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Eo in institutum &quot;Pes Integer Sit&quot; appellatum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After you have introduced the name and your audience should be able parse it as a name, you can use it more freely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pes Integer Sit quam iucundissimum erat!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1224" RevisionGUID="c50b7d88-44b3-44ca-9a84-1e7be5fa147d" CreationDate="2016-07-18T12:22:49.193" UserId="645" Text="*Semper eadem* was the motto of my school, a Queen Elizabeth's grammar chartered in 1561, and it came from the queen's heraldic device, *quartered England and France*. It simply denotes constancy. The 'a' is long and the pronoun is ablative, used adverbially (as in other cases, e.g. *una*, together)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="741" RevisionGUID="1e23d309-8abc-4fab-b68e-b17e7d6e42d0" CreationDate="2016-07-18T12:40:02.767" UserId="161" Comment="Moderator edits article" Text="&lt;p&gt;The site is for questions about the Latin language throughout its history. We welcome questions about all aspects of Latin language, its relation to other languages and also cultural and historical questions that are strongly related to Latin. The site is aimed for experts and students in the field. The site is not a translation service or a homework help center.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have a look around to get an idea what kinds of questions are welcome here. Possible topics include but may not be limited to the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Latin grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;etymology and relations to other languages&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;interpretation of difficult passages and works of literature in Latin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;history and culture when directly about or when there is a strong connection to the Latin language&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;requests of examples in literature for uses of certain words or structures&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, questions of the following kinds should generally not be asked here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;translation requests or etymological queries that show no serious research effort using readily available online sources&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;requests for homework help unless they show significant attempt to solve the problems without outside help (for guidance, see: &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/143/12&quot;&gt;How can I ask a translation or homework question?&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions may be asked and answered in English or Latin, preferably with an English summary if in Latin. If you are not fluent in either language, post your question in your language of preference and provide a rough translation to English or Latin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;/search&quot;&gt;look around&lt;/a&gt; to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to &lt;a href=&quot;/helpcenter/self-answer&quot;&gt;ask and answer your own question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your question is not specifically on-topic for $SiteName, it may be on topic for another Stack Exchange site. If no site currently exists that will accept your question, you may &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/faq&quot;&gt;commit to&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76974/how-can-i-propose-a-new-site&quot;&gt;propose&lt;/a&gt; a new site at &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Area 51&lt;/a&gt;, the place where new Stack Exchange communities are democratically created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4082" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1222" RevisionGUID="24fd5f70-148d-4cb3-b2a1-d09e9cc671d1" CreationDate="2016-07-18T13:32:46.290" UserId="79" Comment="11" />
  <row Id="4083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1225" RevisionGUID="20bd0b86-7ec9-4223-8bef-c72f3db17602" CreationDate="2016-07-18T13:45:22.750" UserId="136" Text="I have always been taught that indirect questions are written as such:&#xD;&#xA;*Rettulit mihi quid accidisset.* Indirect questions are formed where the main part of the sentence, in this case to relate, is in the indicative, followed by the question word (what), and ending with the verb making up the question in the subjunctive. Let me make this more clear with another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rogavisti me cur per noctem ambularem.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; She asked me why I was walking during the night.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Rogavisti* the main verb, is in the indicative, while *ambularem*, the indirect question verb, is in the subjunctive **but still translated as indicative.** The subjunctive tense you use should match that of the indicative it is being translated as. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, according to my education, neither of your options are correct. But, I have read somewhere that the indicative can still be used instead of the subjunctive. In this case it would then be *Rettulit mihi quid acciderat*. I'm sure you could bend it to make it relative, but I would advise against it, as it somewhat distorts the meaning when there are already good options that preserve the meaning. Thus, verbs don't really have &quot;preferences.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;If I didn't explain it very well, I found [this site][1] that does a nice job with great examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://virdrinksbeer.com/page29.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1225" RevisionGUID="75c43974-f87f-4449-b3d4-aef37fc02c42" CreationDate="2016-07-18T13:55:13.403" UserId="136" Comment="Changed she to you in example" Text="I have always been taught that indirect questions are written as such:&#xD;&#xA;*Rettulit mihi quid accidisset.* Indirect questions are formed where the main part of the sentence, in this case to relate, is in the indicative, followed by the question word (what), and ending with the verb making up the question in the subjunctive. Let me make this more clear with another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rogavisti me cur per noctem ambularem.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You asked me why I was walking during the night.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Rogavisti* the main verb, is in the indicative, while *ambularem*, the indirect question verb, is in the subjunctive **but still translated as indicative.** The subjunctive tense you use should match that of the indicative it is being translated as. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, according to my education, neither of your options are correct. But, I have read somewhere that the indicative can still be used instead of the subjunctive. In this case it would then be *Rettulit mihi quid acciderat*. I'm sure you could bend it to make it relative, but I would advise against it, as it somewhat distorts the meaning when there are already good options that preserve the meaning. Thus, verbs don't really have &quot;preferences.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;If I didn't explain it very well, I found [this site][1] that does a nice job with great examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://virdrinksbeer.com/page29.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1222" RevisionGUID="3a56e81f-2454-4ce3-81d5-3522398723b8" CreationDate="2016-07-18T16:14:30.937" UserId="667" Comment="edited body" Text="I think *Noli labefactare scapham!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1221" RevisionGUID="1ee26f6b-76a5-4490-9e14-a42ba09be595" CreationDate="2016-07-18T16:22:11.363" UserId="40" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In circumstances where the same meaning can be expressed by an indirect question depending on a verb of speech, or by a relative clause modifying an (implicit or explicit) object of that verb, which is more idiomatic in Classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;He related to me what had happened.&quot; This can be cast as an indirect question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Rettulit mihi quid accidisset.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it could also be expressed with a relative clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Rettulit mihi (id) quod acciderat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is better Latin? Do different verbs have different preferences, and if so what are they?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1226" RevisionGUID="6a6a7f07-4b68-422b-b9d8-aebac9a0bdbe" CreationDate="2016-07-19T11:01:41.723" UserId="68" Text="I think @JoonasIlmavirta's response is good, and I agree with it in part, but I'm thinking that I take the opposite view in part, which is that such names should be declined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In institutum nomine &quot;Pedes Integros Sit&quot; eo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After all, if you say &quot;I'm going to visit Marcus,&quot; you decline the name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Marcum visitatum eo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But nobody would suggest that this means you thought has given name was &quot;Marcum&quot; rather than &quot;Marcus.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, put another way, in English we would say &quot;I'm going to Feet-B-Whole.&quot; If somebody said &quot;I'm going Feet-B-Whole,&quot; we'd think it was wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately there's no tradition that I know of—it's very possible that living Latinists are developing one; I'm about to spend another week with some, so I'll try to remember to ask—but in the meantime my vote is to decline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1227" RevisionGUID="10aaac19-8768-47d7-8210-620e3dc6adfe" CreationDate="2016-07-19T16:29:26.547" UserId="79" Text="The typical suffix to derive an adverb from a third declension adjective is *-iter*, but sometimes the *-i-* is dropped:&#xD;&#xA;*dulciter* but *audacter*.&#xD;&#xA;I am not asking for a rule for choosing *-iter* or *-ter* &amp;mdash; that should be treated in a separate question if there is interest &amp;mdash; but how far I can bend that rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I occasionally write metric poetry in Latin, and it is very convenient to have some rhythmic flexibility.&#xD;&#xA;**Can I freely choose between *-ter* and *-iter* to save the scansion?**&#xD;&#xA;I think most adjectives have a preference for one or the other, but did ancient Romans ever use both endings with the same adjective?&#xD;&#xA;If they did, was this more common in poetry than prose?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give a concrete example, I could use the phrases *audaciter ille canit* and *ille celerter abit* in hexameter, but not if I change to the more typical versions *audacter* and *celeriter*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the stem of the adjective ends in *-nt-*, then the ending is *-er* (for example *prudenter*), and I see no room for movement here.&#xD;&#xA;*Prudentiter* would sound weird, although it probably would be understood correctly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4089" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1227" RevisionGUID="10aaac19-8768-47d7-8210-620e3dc6adfe" CreationDate="2016-07-19T16:29:26.547" UserId="79" Text="Choosing -ter or -iter for adverbs from third declension adjectives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4090" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1227" RevisionGUID="10aaac19-8768-47d7-8210-620e3dc6adfe" CreationDate="2016-07-19T16:29:26.547" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|poetry|adverb|third-declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1228" RevisionGUID="f6b85938-75ec-4ba2-af3a-66d76adccccc" CreationDate="2016-07-19T19:33:33.623" UserId="672" Text="I have run a quick analysis using data from [latinlexicon.org][1]. I included adverbs ending in -ter (about 820). Most end in -iter (the rule). A good number end in -nter (which as you know are formed with syncopation regularly when the base adjective/participle ends in -nt). The remainders are a mix of declinables and indeclinables (e.g., propter is indeclinable so I excluded it). There were only a very few left, which can be summarized into three categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Based on an adjectives ending in -t (which does happen to include the -nt participles): there is a syncopation that seems to suggest the rule is -titer = -ter.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Based on an adjectives ending in -c (the only example seems to be audacter): there is a syncopation that seems to suggest the rule is -citer = cter.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Based on an adjectives ending in -lis (facil, dificil, simil)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next question becomes, are there a large number of adjectives in these categories that don't conform to the preceding categories? This is a difficult question to answer because there are so few adverbs that were recorded in Latin literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, here are my anecdotal notes on the three categories of adjectives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. This group almost totally devoid of adverbs that haven't already been mentioned, but based on the production of -nter adverbs I would guess that it would hold true to a native Latin speaker. Honestly, most of the adjectives are place names anyway and they don't form adverbs in most cases. However, there seems to be a lot of adverbs in this category of place names that use -e (most likely an old locative). &#xD;&#xA; 2. Audacter seems to be the one exception to the rule. Most other adverbs seems to comfortably end in -citer not -cter (e.g., pugnaciter). &#xD;&#xA; 3. These seem to comfortably form -iter adverbs (visibiliter, gentiliter). It seems like the only ones that forms this are the &quot;irregular&quot; adjectives facil, difficil, simul, etc. (the ones that form their adverbs with -limus).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to answer your question with a mix of analysis and opinion, I would say only in one case would you want to syncopate, that being adjectives of the 3rd declension ending in -t (which definitely includes -nt) but not -c and not -l.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is, of course, poetry. So I'm quite sure you could add and subtract an 'i' here and there and only the most picky editors would care. After all, Adele sings the word &quot;hello&quot; with 8 syllables. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Adverbs ending in -ter that are not -iter/-nter][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latinlexicon.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6DB5L.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1228" RevisionGUID="fc673aee-f85c-4050-95e6-1fb8ebb8f1eb" CreationDate="2016-07-19T20:56:42.143" UserId="672" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I have run a quick analysis using data from [latinlexicon.org][1]. I included adverbs ending in -ter (about 820). Most end in -iter (the rule). A good number end in -nter (which as you know are formed with syncopation regularly when the base adjective/participle ends in -nt). The remainders are a mix of declinables and indeclinables (e.g., propter is indeclinable so I excluded it). There were only a very few left, which can be summarized into three categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Based on an adjectives ending in -t (which does happen to include the -nt participles): there is a syncopation that seems to suggest the rule is -titer = -ter.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Based on an adjectives ending in -c (the only example seems to be audacter): there is a syncopation that seems to suggest the rule is -citer = cter.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Based on an adjectives ending in -lis (facil, dificil, simil)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next question becomes, are there a large number of adjectives in these categories that don't conform to the preceding categories? This is a difficult question to answer because there are so few adverbs that were recorded in Latin literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, here are my anecdotal notes on the three categories of adjectives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. This group almost totally devoid of adverbs that haven't already been mentioned, but based on the production of -nter adverbs I would guess that it would hold true to a native Latin speaker. Honestly, most of the adjectives are place names anyway and they don't form adverbs in most cases. However, there seems to be a lot of adverbs in this category of place names that use -e (most likely an old locative). &#xD;&#xA; 2. Audacter seems to be the one exception to the rule. Most other adverbs seems to comfortably end in -citer not -cter (e.g., pugnaciter). &#xD;&#xA; 3. These seem to comfortably form -iter adverbs (visibiliter, gentiliter). It seems like the only ones that forms this are some of the &quot;irregular&quot; adjectives facil, difficil, simul, etc. (the ones that form their superlatives with -limus).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to answer your question with a mix of analysis and opinion, I would say only in one case would you want to syncopate, that being adjectives of the 3rd declension ending in -t (which definitely includes -nt) but not -c and not -l.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is, of course, poetry. So I'm quite sure you could add and subtract an 'i' here and there and only the most picky editors would care. After all, Adele sings the word &quot;hello&quot; with 8 syllables. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Adverbs ending in -ter that are not -iter/-nter][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latinlexicon.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6DB5L.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1228" RevisionGUID="497fa9c4-3d06-44fe-b0e2-39045450d27a" CreationDate="2016-07-19T21:46:27.023" UserId="672" Comment="Better phrasing: category to observation" Text="I have run a quick analysis using data from [latinlexicon.org][1]. I included adverbs ending in -ter (about 820). Most end in -iter (the rule). A good number end in -nter (which as you know are formed with syncopation regularly when the base adjective/participle ends in -nt). The remainders are a mix of declinables and indeclinables (e.g., propter is indeclinable so I excluded it). There were only a very few left, which can be summarized into three observations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Based on an adjectives ending in -t (which does happen to include the -nt participles): there is a syncopation that seems to suggest the rule is -titer = -ter.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Based on an adjectives ending in -c (the only example seems to be audacter): there is a syncopation that seems to suggest the rule is -citer = cter.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Based on an adjectives ending in -lis (facil, dificil, simil)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next question becomes, are there a large number of adjectives in these categories that don't conform to the preceding observations? This is a difficult question to answer because there are so few adverbs that were recorded in Latin literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, here are my anecdotal notes on the three categories of adjectives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. This group is almost totally devoid of adverbs that haven't already been mentioned, but based on the production of -nter adverbs I would guess that it would hold true to a native Latin speaker. Honestly, most of the adjectives are place names anyway that don't form adverbs in most cases. However, there seem to be a lot of adverbs from 3rd declension adjectives that use -e instead of -iter (most likely an old locative). &#xD;&#xA; 2. Audacter seems to be the one exception to this rule. Most other adverbs seems to comfortably end in -citer not -cter (e.g., pugnaciter). &#xD;&#xA; 3. These seem to comfortably form -iter adverbs (visibiliter, gentiliter). It seems like the only ones that form -ter adverbs are some of the &quot;irregular&quot; adjectives facil, difficil, simul, etc. (the ones that form their superlatives with -limus).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to answer your question with a mix of analysis and opinion, I would say only in one case would you want to syncopate, that being adjectives of the 3rd declension ending in -t (which definitely includes -nt) but not -c and not -l.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is, of course, poetry. So I'm quite sure you could add and subtract an 'i' here and there and only the most picky editors would care. After all, Adele sings the word &quot;hello&quot; with 8 syllables. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Adverbs ending in -ter that are not -iter/-nter][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latinlexicon.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6DB5L.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1228" RevisionGUID="abb74024-79ef-4417-b020-050a231ada41" CreationDate="2016-07-19T22:14:04.103" UserId="672" Comment="deleted 43 characters in body" Text="I have run a quick analysis using data from [latinlexicon.org][1]. I included adverbs ending in -ter (about 820). Most end in -iter (the rule). A good number end in -nter (which as you know are formed with syncopation regularly when the base adjective/participle ends in -nt). The remainders are a mix of declinables and indeclinables (e.g., propter is indeclinable so I excluded it). There were only a very few left, which can be summarized into three observations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Based on an adjectives ending in -t (which does happen to include the -nt participles): there is a syncopation that seems to suggest the rule is -titer = -ter.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Based on an adjectives ending in -c (the only example seems to be audacter): there is a syncopation that seems to suggest the rule is -citer = cter.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Based on an adjectives ending in -lis (facil, dificil, simil)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next question becomes, are there a large number of adjectives in these categories that don't conform to the preceding observations? This is a difficult question to answer because there are so few adverbs that were recorded in Latin literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, here are my anecdotal notes on the three categories of adjectives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. This group is almost totally devoid of adverbs that haven't already been mentioned, but based on the production of -nter adverbs I would guess that it would hold true to a native Latin speaker. Honestly, most of the adjectives are place names anyway that rarely form adverbs. However, when they do form adjectives, the often use -e instead of -iter (most likely an old locative). &#xD;&#xA; 2. Audacter seems to be the one exception to this rule. Most other adverbs seems to comfortably end in -citer not -cter (e.g., pugnaciter). &#xD;&#xA; 3. These seem to comfortably form -iter adverbs (visibiliter, gentiliter). It seems like the only ones that form -ter adverbs are some of the &quot;irregular&quot; adjectives facil, difficil, simul, etc. (the ones that form their superlatives with -limus).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to answer your question with a mix of analysis and opinion, I would say only in one case would you want to syncopate, that being adjectives of the 3rd declension ending in -t (which definitely includes -nt) but not -c and not -l.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is, of course, poetry. So I'm quite sure you could add and subtract an 'i' here and there and only the most picky editors would care. After all, Adele sings the word &quot;hello&quot; with 8 syllables. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Adverbs ending in -ter that are not -iter/-nter][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latinlexicon.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6DB5L.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1187" RevisionGUID="040d567a-ba56-4266-9f8e-33426c836337" CreationDate="2016-07-19T23:28:57.613" UserId="40" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The similarity is a coincidence; these words are unrelated. Etymological dictionaries such as [De Vaan's](http://www.brill.com/etymological-dictionary-latin) give the following account of the two words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earlier form of the conjunction *cum* is *quom*; this is attested in early Latin, and also in the word *quoniam* (&lt; *quom iam*). It is descended from Proto-Indo-European *kʷom &quot;when&quot; and has cognates in other IE languages, including English *when*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earlier form of the preposition *cum* is *com*, which remains its form in compounds (*com-*). This is from PIE *ḱom* &quot;with&quot;, which also has reflexes in other languages, including the Germanic verbal prefix *ge-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italic cognates suffice to show that the first sound of the conjunction was a labiovelar (Umbrian **pumpe** &quot;whenever&quot;, with *p* from *kʷ*) but the first sound of the preposition was a velar (Umbrian **kum-**)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1229" RevisionGUID="8d69e67a-6017-41c6-9859-c89b602daa0a" CreationDate="2016-07-20T00:43:04.493" UserId="40" Text="What is the difference, if any, between using *apud* with the name of a town, and using the locative form of that name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading Suetonius *Tiberius* 40, I noticed this usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  statimque reuocante assidua obtestatione populo propter cladem, qua **apud Fidenas** supra uiginti hominum milia gladiatorio munere amphitheatri ruina perierant, transiit in continentem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first thought was that this might mean &quot;near Fidenae&quot;, but presumably the amphitheater would be in the town; and Alexander Thomson [translates](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0132%3Alife%3Dtib.%3Achapter%3D40): &quot;But immediately, the people of Rome being extremely clamorous for his return, on account of a disaster **at Fidenae**, where upwards of twenty thousand persons had been killed by the fall of the amphitheatre, during a public spectacle of gladiators, he crossed over again to the continent&quot;. So is there no difference between this and the locative *Fidenis* ([which is found](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=fidenis) in Cicero and elsewhere)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As another data point, Tacitus, [recounting the same event](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0077%3Abook%3D4%3Achapter%3D62), also uses *apud* (though with a singular form of the place name): &quot;nam coepto **apud Fidenam** amphitheatro Atilius quidam libertini generis...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dapud) (section II B of the entry) give a definition of *apud* as &quot;At, in = in with abl. or gen. or abl. of place&quot;, which seems to imply it can also be equivalent to a locative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is *apud* with a place name completely equivalent to a locative, or is there any difference at all, whether in meaning, style, or author/period-specific preferences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4097" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1229" RevisionGUID="8d69e67a-6017-41c6-9859-c89b602daa0a" CreationDate="2016-07-20T00:43:04.493" UserId="40" Text="apud + place name vs. locative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4098" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1229" RevisionGUID="8d69e67a-6017-41c6-9859-c89b602daa0a" CreationDate="2016-07-20T00:43:04.493" UserId="40" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1230" RevisionGUID="32c4291e-deee-4b81-a1de-3307873dfa40" CreationDate="2016-07-20T04:50:39.847" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[ [Source :](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/qua#Etymology_1) ] Etymology 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Adverb declined from [quī](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/qui#Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Adverb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;quā (not comparable)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. On which side, at or in which place, in what direction, where, by&#xD;&#xA;    what way (qua...ea...)     &#xD;&#xA;2. as; in the capacity or character of    &#xD;&#xA;3. In&#xD;&#xA;    so far as    &#xD;&#xA;4. In what way, how, by what method; to what degree or extent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am conjecturing that 1 and 4 have close Semantic Fields, and both originate from the adverb quī per the above. But if so, then I find strange that 1 and 4 were enumerated the farthest from each other: they should have been 1 and 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyhow, how did 1 + 4 semantically shift to mean 2 and 3?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4100" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1230" RevisionGUID="32c4291e-deee-4b81-a1de-3307873dfa40" CreationDate="2016-07-20T04:50:39.847" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What underlying semantic notions explain the etymology of 'quā'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4101" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1230" RevisionGUID="32c4291e-deee-4b81-a1de-3307873dfa40" CreationDate="2016-07-20T04:50:39.847" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1231" RevisionGUID="eda267ee-003b-4384-a96d-2ac44902e3e4" CreationDate="2016-07-20T10:44:49.367" UserId="675" Text="I'm trying to translate &quot;Best Man - True Friend - Bad Influence&quot; into Latin for a gift inscription for (unsurprisingly) my best man.  &#xD;&#xA;So far I've got to &quot;Optimum Vir - Verum Amicus - Malum Auctoritas.&quot; using online translators but I'm not sure how good it actually is in terms of word order and nomination (declension?) etc.  &#xD;&#xA;I have a sensation that something like &quot;Virum Optimum - Amicus Verum - Auctoritas Malum&quot; feels 'better'. As you can probably tell, I haven't studied Latin, but the best man has!  &#xD;&#xA;Is one of these options correct or is there a better translation?  Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4103" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1231" RevisionGUID="eda267ee-003b-4384-a96d-2ac44902e3e4" CreationDate="2016-07-20T10:44:49.367" UserId="675" Text="Trying to translate &quot;Best Man, True Friend, Bad Influence&quot; into latin for an inscription" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4104" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1231" RevisionGUID="eda267ee-003b-4384-a96d-2ac44902e3e4" CreationDate="2016-07-20T10:44:49.367" UserId="675" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|word-order|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1232" RevisionGUID="7bf4a67e-d3ac-46e9-93a4-df88ae8aedb7" CreationDate="2016-07-20T12:19:03.780" UserId="677" Text="I saw some different ways to translate this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Lord bless and protect my family, amen&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like this:&#xD;&#xA;Domine benedic et protege familiam meam amen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4107" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1232" RevisionGUID="7bf4a67e-d3ac-46e9-93a4-df88ae8aedb7" CreationDate="2016-07-20T12:19:03.780" UserId="677" Text="How is the correct way to say &quot;Lord bless and protect my family, amen&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4108" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1232" RevisionGUID="7bf4a67e-d3ac-46e9-93a4-df88ae8aedb7" CreationDate="2016-07-20T12:19:03.780" UserId="677" Text="|classical-latin|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1233" RevisionGUID="2ddaad26-56da-4da6-95eb-2acb165d4239" CreationDate="2016-07-20T12:21:20.730" UserId="79" Text="A [very recent question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1231/79) asks about a phrase involving a best man.&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good Latin translation of &quot;best man&quot;, the groom's assistant in a wedding?&#xD;&#xA;I don't think *vir optimus* really means this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if there was a role analogous to a best man's in ancient wedding ceremonies, but some modern style weddings must have been recorded in Latin in sufficient detail to include the best man.&#xD;&#xA;However, I have not been able to find any such translation in online dictionaries or Google." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4110" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1233" RevisionGUID="2ddaad26-56da-4da6-95eb-2acb165d4239" CreationDate="2016-07-20T12:21:20.730" UserId="79" Text="What is a best man in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4111" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1233" RevisionGUID="2ddaad26-56da-4da6-95eb-2acb165d4239" CreationDate="2016-07-20T12:21:20.730" UserId="79" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1234" RevisionGUID="f9ea81dd-27eb-414d-8db2-7d5282db950d" CreationDate="2016-07-20T12:34:45.167" UserId="324" Text="It looks as though there are three stages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First: inherited adverbs ending in -ter, like praeter, subter, propter (IE -ter-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second: the ending -ter is abstracted from these and attached to the stem of an adjective, as in brevi-ter, gravi-ter, audāc-ter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third: the ending -iter is abstracted from the second type and attached to the bare root of an adjective, as in firm-iter, perhaps by analogy to words like firmi-tas, itself by analogy to words like civi-tas, where the -i- is etymologically justified.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1235" RevisionGUID="ed7f2470-d2d6-4ebb-9d9d-595271ec87c3" CreationDate="2016-07-20T12:38:43.150" UserId="68" Text="Welcome to the site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given @JoonasIlmavirta's point that the word for &quot;best&quot; and the word for &quot;man&quot; together won't end up meaning &quot;best man&quot;—or, rather, that they'll end up meaning &quot;the man who is best&quot; rather than &quot;groom's attendant at a wedding,&quot; I'm going to suggest the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pronubus — Amicus — Corruptor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translates, more or less, as &quot;Wedding attendant, friend, seducer,&quot; with the sense that the seduction can be into any vice, not just sexual. There are actually lots of Latin words for &quot;seducer&quot; in that sense, but *corruptor* has the advantage of being pretty recognizable by people who don't speak Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin also tends to use fewer words where English uses more, which is why I'm opting for single words instead of nouns modified by adjectives. You could do it with two words for each term, and it would be grammatically correct, but it wouldn't feel very Latinate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best wishes on (what I assume are) your upcoming nuptials! Or, as we might say in Latin, *Omnia vobis bona fausta felicia fortunataque!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1236" RevisionGUID="590ebef5-88ba-457d-84bf-ca52044a7b35" CreationDate="2016-07-20T12:45:24.247" UserId="79" Text="The first thing you should do is to choose between second and third person.&#xD;&#xA;Do you want to say &quot;You Lord, bless and protect&quot; or &quot;May the Lord bless and protect&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;If you are directly addressing the God and want to give him an order, second person is more appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say this while speaking to other people &amp;mdash; like you might at a family dinner &amp;mdash; then third person sounds better.&#xD;&#xA;In English the difference can boil down to a comma: &quot;Lord, bless...&quot; is second person and &quot;Lord bless...&quot; is third person.&#xD;&#xA;In Latin the choice has to be more visible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second person translation: *Domine, benedice et protege familiam meam, amen.*&#xD;&#xA;Your translation is good, although I think *benedicere* has a regular imperative *benedice* in spite of *dicere* having the irregular *dic*.&#xD;&#xA;I could be mistaken about this, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third person translation: *Benedicat et protegat Dominus familiam meam, amen.*&#xD;&#xA;Conjunctive is a good way to express things like this.&#xD;&#xA;In some situations the future imperative (which also has a third person) can be used, but I prefer conjunctive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1237" RevisionGUID="ce2c6fa1-f1b0-47a5-8215-1a3667c072a3" CreationDate="2016-07-20T13:06:22.563" UserId="324" Text="In the light of témoin, testimone, Trauzeuge, I would expect “testis”, though this might give rise to some ribald humour, as already in Plautus (quod amas, amato testibus praesentibus)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1236" RevisionGUID="23754359-6148-4c2e-987e-59182c2abbef" CreationDate="2016-07-20T13:10:02.500" UserId="79" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="The first thing you should do is to choose between second and third person.&#xD;&#xA;Do you want to say &quot;You Lord, bless and protect&quot; or &quot;May the Lord bless and protect&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;If you are directly addressing the God and want to give him an order, second person is more appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say this while speaking to other people &amp;mdash; like you might at a family dinner &amp;mdash; then third person sounds better.&#xD;&#xA;In English the difference can boil down to a comma: &quot;Lord, bless...&quot; is second person and &quot;Lord bless...&quot; is third person.&#xD;&#xA;In Latin the choice has to be more visible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second person translation: *Domine, benedic et protege familiam meam, amen.*&#xD;&#xA;I thought that *benedicere* would have a regular imperative *benedice* in spite of *dicere* having the irregular *dic*, but brianpck corrected me (see comment).&#xD;&#xA;Your translation is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third person translation: *Benedicat et protegat Dominus familiam meam, amen.*&#xD;&#xA;Conjunctive is a good way to express things like this.&#xD;&#xA;In some situations the future imperative (which also has a third person) can be used, but I prefer conjunctive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1238" RevisionGUID="b86d4a58-6eed-4af7-8b71-0b154aa17f7f" CreationDate="2016-07-20T13:48:28.217" UserId="522" Text="Suggestion .a.  &#xD;&#xA;Jerome interpreting John the Baptist: (Gospel of John, ch3.) has 'best man' as 'the friend of the bridegroom.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 29. qui habet sponsam sponsus est **amicus autem sponsi** qui stat et audit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; eum gaudio gaudet propter vocem sponsi hoc ergo gaudium meum impletum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suggestion .b.  &#xD;&#xA;In the Apocryphal Gospels, Architriclinus become the personal name of a master of ceremonies at a wedding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1238" RevisionGUID="b860b4bf-3f24-4ccb-9c8e-d1d4605add84" CreationDate="2016-07-20T14:03:03.890" UserId="522" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="Suggestion .a.  &#xD;&#xA;Jerome interpreting John the Baptist: (Gospel of John, ch3.) has 'best man' as 'the friend of the bridegroom.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 29. qui habet sponsam sponsus est **amicus** autem **sponsi** qui stat et audit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; eum gaudio gaudet propter vocem sponsi hoc ergo gaudium meum impletum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suggestion .b.  &#xD;&#xA;In the Apocryphal Gospels, **Architriclinus** become the personal name of a master of ceremonies at a wedding.  &#xD;&#xA;In John Ch2 v9 it is the master of ceremonies at the Wedding. The word is transliterated from the Greek word for the 'Ruler of the Dinnertable.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="ec876c60-15f3-4468-9728-a1d5d3e673f7" CreationDate="2016-07-20T14:06:33.650" UserId="68" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I posted this question here because it was something I struggled with for a long, long time, right up until I read [Caroline Kroon][1]'s article &quot;Latin Particles and the Grammar of Discourse&quot; in *[A Companion to the Latin Language][2]*, ed. James Clackson.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between the two isn't so much semantic as it is . . . dí immortálés, I'm terrible with terms . . . about discourse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, *nam* has a narrative function, where *enim* has a dialogical one. With *nam*, the speaker is simply informing the listener of what he believes to be a causal relationship between two facts. With *enim*, the speaker is indicating that he thinks the listener is on the same page as he is. I've found the easiest translations of *enim*, then, to be &quot;y'know,&quot; or &quot;right?&quot; (in questions), or even &quot;after all.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dídó sibi mortem cónscívit, nam ab Ænéá relicta erat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dido killed herself, for she had been left by Aeneas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There I'm simply telling you the facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dídó sibi mortem cónscívit, ab enim Ænéá relicta erat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dido killed herself; she had been left by Aeneas, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There I'm showing you an assumption I'm making that you believe as I do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of *enim* as being accompanied by a knowing shrug or a nod of the head that invites the listener to agree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uva.nl/en/news-events/news/uva-news/content/professor-appointments/2013/08/caroline-kroon-professor-of-latin-language-and-literature.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1405186054?keywords=companion%20to%20the%20latin%20language&amp;qid=1456505596&amp;ref_=sr_1_1&amp;sr=8-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1235" RevisionGUID="09a530f8-737a-4461-b52f-9a4bc6ce3cef" CreationDate="2016-07-20T14:17:05.790" UserId="68" Comment="added 210 characters in body; added 104 characters in body" Text="Welcome to the site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given @JoonasIlmavirta's point that the word for &quot;best&quot; and the word for &quot;man&quot; together won't end up meaning &quot;best man&quot;—or, rather, that they'll end up meaning &quot;the man who is best&quot; rather than &quot;groom's attendant at a wedding,&quot; I'm going to suggest the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pronubus — Amicus — Corruptor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translates, more or less, as &quot;Wedding attendant, friend, seducer,&quot; with the sense that the seduction can be into any vice, not just sexual. There are actually lots of Latin words for &quot;seducer&quot; in that sense, but *corruptor* has the advantage of being pretty recognizable by people who don't speak Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin also tends to use fewer words where English uses more, which is why I'm opting for single words instead of nouns modified by adjectives. You could do it with two words for each term, and it would be grammatically correct, but it wouldn't feel very Latinate. &#xA;&#xA;However, if you definitely want to use the words you've chosen (including what you suggest in your comment below) the correct way to do so would probably be&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Pronubus Primus — Amicus Verus — Auctoritas Mala. &#xA;&#xA;*Auctoritas mala* is &quot;evil authority.&quot; If you want &quot;authority of evil&quot; it would be *mali auctoritas*. &#xA;&#xA;Best wishes on (what I assume are) your upcoming nuptials! Or, as we might say in Latin, *Omnia vobis bona fausta felicia fortunataque!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1239" RevisionGUID="dbe9d321-8810-45dd-a8ee-93b051d6d257" CreationDate="2016-07-20T14:29:22.823" UserId="675" Text="From discussions around my [other question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1231/79) with a colleague, we came upon &quot;praefectum prōnŭbus&quot; as 'Commander of the Wedding-Attendants' to describe with an air of rank or authority the role of the best man." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1240" RevisionGUID="115109f3-c24c-4f6e-8664-5d9ed8b41abd" CreationDate="2016-07-20T15:13:22.357" UserId="679" Text="I don't know if phrase translation requestes are on-toip but I would really like to know is there's a way to convey this meaning in latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;You can't automatize a mess&quot; or &quot;Disorder cannot be automatized&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This mean that in order to automatize a process you whould first bring order to said process, otherwise you wouldn't have clear rules for an automaton/machine/software to perform tasks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know the verb automatize is modern but the word *automaton* is not. That maybe of help. I would preffer the lain equivalent to *mess* since it has the informal spirit of the original phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the worst case scenario an equivalent known proverb that conveys the same meaning could be useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4123" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1240" RevisionGUID="115109f3-c24c-4f6e-8664-5d9ed8b41abd" CreationDate="2016-07-20T15:13:22.357" UserId="679" Text="How do you say &quot;You can't automatize a mess&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4124" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1240" RevisionGUID="115109f3-c24c-4f6e-8664-5d9ed8b41abd" CreationDate="2016-07-20T15:13:22.357" UserId="679" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|phrase|phrase-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1240" RevisionGUID="4759aa6b-7264-4d31-8f71-9288515c56c5" CreationDate="2016-07-20T15:18:44.767" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I don't know if phrase translation requests are on-topic but I would really like to know is there's a way to convey this meaning in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;You can't automatize a mess&quot; or &quot;Disorder cannot be automatized&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This mean that in order to automatize a process you should first bring order to said process, otherwise you wouldn't have clear rules for an automaton/machine/software to perform tasks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know the verb *automatize* is modern but the word *automaton* is not. That maybe of help. I would prefer the Latin equivalent to *mess* since it has the informal spirit of the original phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the worst case scenario an equivalent known proverb that conveys the same meaning could be useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1240" RevisionGUID="732aafc7-2a8a-4a3e-afdf-6e491d22a608" CreationDate="2016-07-20T15:23:21.670" UserId="679" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I don't know if phrase translation requests are on-topic but I would really like to know is there's a way to convey this meaning in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;You can't automatize a mess&quot; or &quot;Disorder cannot be automatized&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This mean that in order to automatize a process you should first bring order to said process, otherwise you wouldn't have clear rules for an automaton/machine/software to perform tasks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know the verb *automatize* is modern but the word *automaton* is not. That may be of help. I would prefer the Latin equivalent to *mess* since it has the informal spirit of the original phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the worst case scenario an equivalent known proverb that conveys the same meaning could be useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1241" RevisionGUID="8d543407-11d3-4eec-861a-4e02ecd3c24d" CreationDate="2016-07-20T15:38:31.173" UserId="79" Text="I don't know a classical Latin word for &quot;automatize&quot;, and I don't think using only classical words to say something along the lines of &quot;to turn something into a self-moving machine&quot; would do any good here.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I suggest using the verb *automatizare* for &quot;to automatize&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I do not recall ever seeing this verb, but it should be easy enough to understand, given the analogous words in other languages and the natural Latin derivation *automatum/automaton* + *-izare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;mess&quot; I suggest&#xD;&#xA;[*confusio*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2012773),&#xD;&#xA;[*turba*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2061161) or&#xD;&#xA;[*perturbatio*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2044298).&#xD;&#xA;Check the English translations of those words and choose what fits your intention.&#xD;&#xA;Or find a new word altogether; I'm not entirely satisfied with these words, but I can't think of better ones.&#xD;&#xA;We have a list of online dictionaries [here](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With these ingredients I suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Confusio automatizari non potest.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Disorder cannot be automatized." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1242" RevisionGUID="3387b39f-1a71-41dd-83a5-1dc8aaf1d86c" CreationDate="2016-07-20T17:31:55.600" UserId="68" Text="I'd go for *pronubus*, in its substantive meaning here (though Ovid's *pronuba Tisiphone*, while a terrifying image, is certainly compelling):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;prōnubus, a, um, adj. pro-nubo, of or belonging to marriage, bridal, promoting marriage: *canes*, pimps, Tert. ad Nat. 1, 2: *anulus*, wedding-ring, id. Apol. 6: *nox*, the bridal night, Claud. Cons. Honor. 642: *flamma*, a bridal torch, id. Rapt. Pros. 1, 131: dextra, id. Epigr. 2, 53.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**&gt;—Hence, as subst. prōnubus, i, m., = παράνυμφος, auspex (2. b.), the promoter of a marriage, a groomsman, Anthol. Lat. 6, 50, 2: *accepit maritum suum de amicis ejus et pronubis*, Vulg. Judic. 14, 20.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;— prōnu-ba, ae, f., a woman who attended to the necessary arrangements of a wedding on the part of the bride, a bridewoman (corresp. to the auspex on the part of the bridegroom), Varr ap. Serv. Verg. A. 4, 166; Fest. p. 242 Mull., Paul. ex Fest. p. 244 ib.; Tert. Exhort. ad Cast. 13; Cat. 61, 186; Stat. S. 1, 2, 11.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;—Hence, Pronuba, an epithet of Juno, the patron goddess of marriage, Verg. A. 4, 166; Ov. H. 6, 43.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;—Transf., of Bellona, as the presider over a marriage in which the bride is obtained by war, Verg. A. 7, 319; also, of one of the Furies, Ov. H. 2, 117; Luc. 8, 90; App. M. 8, p. 207, 3." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1235" RevisionGUID="83a2eb0a-8e94-44fd-ba0c-1ed093706244" CreationDate="2016-07-20T17:45:36.230" UserId="68" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Welcome to the site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given Joonas Ilmavirta's point that the word for &quot;best&quot; and the word for &quot;man&quot; together won't end up meaning &quot;best man&quot;—or, rather, that they'll end up meaning &quot;the man who is best&quot; rather than &quot;groom's attendant at a wedding,&quot; I'm going to suggest the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pronubus — Amicus — Corruptor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translates, more or less, as &quot;Wedding attendant, friend, seducer,&quot; with the sense that the seduction can be into any vice, not just sexual. There are actually lots of Latin words for &quot;seducer&quot; in that sense, but *corruptor* has the advantage of being pretty recognizable by people who don't speak Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin also tends to use fewer words where English uses more, which is why I'm opting for single words instead of nouns modified by adjectives. You could do it with two words for each term, and it would be grammatically correct, but it wouldn't feel very Latinate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you definitely want to use the words you've chosen (including what you suggest in your comment below) the correct way to do so would probably be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pronubus Primus — Amicus Verus — Auctoritas Mala. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Auctoritas mala* is &quot;evil authority.&quot; If you want &quot;authority of evil&quot; it would be *mali auctoritas*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best wishes on (what I assume are) your upcoming nuptials! Or, as we might say in Latin, *Omnia vobis bona fausta felicia fortunataque!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="7bda4534-4e25-4cd4-ab79-c5b8c741ade8" CreationDate="2016-07-20T18:28:37.397" UserId="680" Text="The &quot;Ancient Wedding Ceremonies&quot; are, strictly speaking, still used by adherents to the Catholic [1962 Rituale Romanum][1], where it speaks of the wedding taking place between &quot;two witnesses&quot;. These same witnesses have evolved over time to become the &quot;best man&quot; and &quot;best woman&quot; in English speaking countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ergo, &quot;testis&quot;, as mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/67-matrimony-rite.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="25c74ba9-3650-4864-8650-95901fcb4aa9" CreationDate="2016-07-20T21:00:42.083" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="I am still trying to understand the etymology of the French adverbial ['ne que'](http://french.stackexchange.com/q/14160/1995), and so researched the Latin etymons of these two Functional Morphemes for more sapience.    &#xD;&#xA;This question concerns only the meaning in V and VII below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ [Wiktionary in French](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/que#.C3.89tymologie) :] I. (Conjonction 1) Du latin [quia](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/quia#la), qui exprime la cause.       &#xD;&#xA;II. (Conjonction 2) Du latin [quam](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/quam#la).      &#xD;&#xA;III. (Pronom relatif) Du latin [qui](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/qui#la), [quae](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/quae#la), [quod](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/quod#la) ; dans l’ancien français, *que* devint la forme atone du [cas régime](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/cas_r%C3%A9gime), sans distinction de genre ni de nombre.   &#xD;&#xA;IV. (Pronom interrogatif) Du latin [quid](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/quid#la).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]  [ V. [Adverbe 2 :](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/que#Adverbe_2) ] Personne excepté, rien excepté. Seulement. Utilisé avec [ne](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/ne#fr-part). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]  [ VI. [Etymology 1 :](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/que#Etymology_1_2) ] From Latin [quia](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quia#Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Conjunction    &#xD;&#xA;que**   [...] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[VII.] 2. (used with [*ne*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ne#French)) only   &#xD;&#xA; (n*e ... que*   parses roughly as   &quot;(do[es]) not / nothing ... other than&quot;) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somewhere is at least 1 error, because English Wiktionary classifies 'que' as a Conjunction, but French Wiktionary an adverb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyhow, which is the Latin etymon of the French *que*?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4134" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="25c74ba9-3650-4864-8650-95901fcb4aa9" CreationDate="2016-07-20T21:00:42.083" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What is the Latin etymon of 'que' in the French « ne ... que »?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4135" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="25c74ba9-3650-4864-8650-95901fcb4aa9" CreationDate="2016-07-20T21:00:42.083" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|french|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1247" RevisionGUID="58028ac6-fa7c-451a-ab48-1de5a688d9ab" CreationDate="2016-07-20T21:57:21.493" UserId="30" Text="It would seem logical to me if it came from *quam*. The [Trésor de la langue française][1] does not explain its exact origin, but it does give the meaning of *ne ... que* as &quot;ne ... rien d'autre que&quot;. And *other than* is often expressed as *aliud quam* in Latin. The Tlf groups in under the subsense of *que* as a conjunction of comparison, like *plus que, mieux que*, which works the same way in Latin *plus quam, melius quam*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://circe.atilf.fr/definition/que" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1247" RevisionGUID="adccb14b-a342-4e3c-be17-c6beb05424d5" CreationDate="2016-07-20T22:13:03.807" UserId="30" Comment="added 812 characters in body" Text="It would seem logical to me if it came from *quam*. The [Trésor de la langue française][1] does not explain its exact origin, but it does give the meaning of *ne ... que* as &quot;ne ... rien d'autre que&quot;. And *other than* is often expressed as *aliud quam* in Latin. The Tlf groups in under the subsense of *que* as a conjunction of comparison, like *plus que, mieux que*, which works the same way in Latin *plus quam, melius quam*. The Tlf mentions that the conjunction *que* &quot;that&quot;, from *quia*, was at some point confused with the conjunction *quam* (which probably also sounded somewhat like *que* by then?), especiall with comparatives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  D'autre part, à basse époque, *quia* s'affaiblit progressivement en *qua* devant consonne init. et *qui* devant voyelle; ces deux formes s'étant par la suite, empl. indistinctement, *qua* se localisa notamment en Italie du Nord et du Sud, et *qui* en Italie centrale, dans le domaine ibéro-roman et dans le domaine gallo-rom. où il est relevé au viiie s. sous la forme *que*. **Cette forme favorise sa confusion avec** le rel. *quem*, cas régime (*que* rel.) et **la conj. *quam*, spéc. dans son empl. en corrélation avec un compar.** (ixe s.), v. FEW t. 2, 1466ab et J. Herman, op. cit., pp. 125-129.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://circe.atilf.fr/definition/que" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1248" RevisionGUID="5b5fe5c3-cf44-4706-99b9-48716635a361" CreationDate="2016-07-20T23:44:54.930" UserId="40" Text="I suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Chaos non in automatum reducitur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A literal translation is &quot;Chaos is not reduced to an automaton&quot;, i.e. &quot;cannot be brought into the condition of something that works automatically&quot;. As Joonas Ilmavirta says, it's hard to a find a Latin verb meaning &quot;automatize&quot;. A workaround is to use a phrase like &quot;reduce to an automaton, bring into the state of an automaton&quot;; this is what I used above, but in the passive. *Chaos* is originally a Greek word, but was widely used in Latin; Ovid (*Metamorphoses* book 1) describes the creation of the ordered world out of primeval chaos. As a word for the ultimate state of lack of order, it seems to be appropriate here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1247" RevisionGUID="819396a4-ec6f-43ac-a6f8-606faa575925" CreationDate="2016-07-20T23:51:37.980" UserId="30" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="It would seem logical to me if it came from *quam*. The [Trésor de la langue française][1] does not explain its exact origin, but it does give the meaning of *ne ... que* as &quot;ne ... rien d'autre que&quot;. And *other than* is often expressed as *aliud quam* in Latin. The Tlf groups *ne ... que* under that subsense of *que* which is a conjunction of comparison, like *plus que, mieux que*, which works the same way in Latin: *plus quam, melius quam*. The Tlf mentions that the conjunction *que* &quot;that&quot;, from *quia*, was at some point confused with the conjunction *quam* (which probably also sounded somewhat like *que* by then?), especially with comparatives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  D'autre part, à basse époque, *quia* s'affaiblit progressivement en *qua* devant consonne init. et *qui* devant voyelle; ces deux formes s'étant par la suite, empl. indistinctement, *qua* se localisa notamment en Italie du Nord et du Sud, et *qui* en Italie centrale, dans le domaine ibéro-roman et dans le domaine gallo-rom. où il est relevé au viiie s. sous la forme *que*. **Cette forme favorise sa confusion avec** le rel. *quem*, cas régime (*que* rel.) et **la conj. *quam*, spéc. dans son empl. en corrélation avec un compar.** (ixe s.), v. FEW t. 2, 1466ab et J. Herman, op. cit., pp. 125-129.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://circe.atilf.fr/definition/que" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4142" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="246" RevisionGUID="16696c18-5309-4af4-8f6e-29495df0a3c7" CreationDate="2016-07-21T01:00:02.503" UserId="68" Comment="edited title" Text="What's the difference between nam and enim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1235" RevisionGUID="ed7e12f0-5a2f-40a8-8598-0fc0c6970422" CreationDate="2016-07-21T01:09:23.910" UserId="68" Comment="added 279 characters in body" Text="Welcome to the site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given Joonas Ilmavirta's point that the word for &quot;best&quot; and the word for &quot;man&quot; together won't end up meaning &quot;best man&quot;—or, rather, that they'll end up meaning &quot;the man who is best&quot; rather than &quot;groom's attendant at a wedding,&quot; I'm going to suggest the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pronubus — Amicus — Corruptor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translates, more or less, as &quot;Wedding attendant, friend, seducer,&quot; with the sense that the seduction can be into any vice, not just sexual. There are actually lots of Latin words for &quot;seducer&quot; in that sense, but *corruptor* has the advantage of being pretty recognizable by people who don't speak Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As TKR points out in his comment below, if this is to be inscribed on a gift, then the words would be in the dative case, indicating that the gift is going to another person. The words as modified would read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pronubo — Amico — Corruptori&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Latin tends to use fewer words where English uses more, which is why I'm opting for single words instead of nouns modified by adjectives. You could do it with two words for each term, and it would be grammatically correct, but it wouldn't feel very Latinate.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you definitely want to use the words you've chosen (including what you suggest in your comment below) the correct way to do so (using the dative case) would probably be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pronubo Primo — Amico Vero — Auctoritati Malae. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Auctoritati malae* is &quot;to the evil authority.&quot; If you want &quot;to the authority of evil&quot; it would be *mali auctoritati*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best wishes on (what I assume are) your upcoming nuptials! Or, as we might say in Latin, *Omnia vobis bona fausta felicia fortunataque!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1248" RevisionGUID="4966a011-d852-4f85-8cfe-606e034f8ee0" CreationDate="2016-07-21T01:10:59.000" UserId="40" Comment="edited body" Text="I suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Chaos in automatum non reducitur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A literal translation is &quot;Chaos is not reduced to an automaton&quot;, i.e. &quot;cannot be brought into the condition of something that works automatically&quot;. As Joonas Ilmavirta says, it's hard to a find a Latin verb meaning &quot;automatize&quot;. A workaround is to use a phrase like &quot;reduce to an automaton, bring into the state of an automaton&quot;; this is what I used above, but in the passive. *Chaos* is originally a Greek word, but was widely used in Latin; Ovid (*Metamorphoses* book 1) describes the creation of the ordered world out of primeval chaos. As a word for the ultimate state of lack of order, it seems to be appropriate here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1249" RevisionGUID="62ef93eb-ea53-472c-8ab7-9a42103beacb" CreationDate="2016-07-22T02:24:20.190" UserId="692" Text="There's an old, and I guess relatively famous, aphorism &quot;*[De mortuis nil nisi bene dicendum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_mortuis_nil_nisi_bonum)*&quot; (&quot;Of the dead speak nothing but good&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if there are any classical Latin counterpoints or rebuttals to this.  In particular I wonder one might something to the effect: &quot;Criticize the departed only with love and noble intentions.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4146" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1249" RevisionGUID="62ef93eb-ea53-472c-8ab7-9a42103beacb" CreationDate="2016-07-22T02:24:20.190" UserId="692" Text="Counterpoint to: De mortuis nil nisi bene [dicendum]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4147" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1249" RevisionGUID="62ef93eb-ea53-472c-8ab7-9a42103beacb" CreationDate="2016-07-22T02:24:20.190" UserId="692" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1250" RevisionGUID="6f94ff24-5dce-4acf-a7df-fef35198aaac" CreationDate="2016-07-22T15:54:02.370" UserId="12" Text="[Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dab) provide some guidance on the limitations of the pre-consonant use of *ab*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [*ab*] has become the principal form and the one most generally used through all periods—and indeed the only one used before all vowels and *h*; here and there also before some consonants, particularly *l*, *n*, *r*, and *s*; rarely before *c*, *j*, *d*, *t*; and almost never before the labials *p*, *b*, *f*, *v*, or before *m*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the use of *ab* before consonants can be summarized:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sometimes: *l*, *n*, *r*, *s*&#xD;&#xA; - Rarely: *c*, *j*, *d*, *t*&#xD;&#xA; - Almost never: *p*, *b*, *f*, *v*, *m*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1251" RevisionGUID="57d3735c-c7a0-41c5-a579-6d2b002531f6" CreationDate="2016-07-22T16:14:56.903" UserId="12" Text="Lewis and Short, in their [entry on *ab*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dab), describe a shift in use of *abs* in Cicero's works that had far-reaching ramifications:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The use of *abs* was confined almost exclusively to the combination *abs te* during the whole ante-classic period, and with Cicero till about the year 700 A. U. C. (=B. C. 54). **After that time Cicero evidently hesitates between *abs te* and *a te*, but during the last five or six years of his life *a te* became predominant in all his writings, even in his letters**; consequently *abs te* appears but rarely in later authors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we have any indication as to why Cicero's preference changed over the course of his life?  Did he or his contemporaries suggest that *abs te* had come to represent poor style?  Do any subsequent grammarians, particularly those of the Late Latin era or before, suggest any explanations for Cicero's shift?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4150" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1251" RevisionGUID="57d3735c-c7a0-41c5-a579-6d2b002531f6" CreationDate="2016-07-22T16:14:56.903" UserId="12" Text="Why did Cicero switch from &quot;abs te&quot; to &quot;a te&quot; in his later works?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4151" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1251" RevisionGUID="57d3735c-c7a0-41c5-a579-6d2b002531f6" CreationDate="2016-07-22T16:14:56.903" UserId="12" Text="|classical-latin|language-evolution|preposition|cicero|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1252" RevisionGUID="dde72ffa-50fa-40e0-958f-ab0706c50894" CreationDate="2016-07-22T20:17:55.373" UserId="79" Text="One can insert the particle *quippe* in a relative clause to give it a causal or otherwise explaining tone.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Does *quippe* require using conjunctive in the relative clause?&#xD;&#xA;If not, are there some rules for choosing between indicative and conjunctive that are special to *quippe*?&#xD;&#xA;Causal relative clauses usually have conjunctive, but I wonder if *quippe* is enough for expressing causality and the conjunctive can be omitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words can also be used to emphasize a causal nature of a relative clause: *ut*, *utpote* and *praesertim*.&#xD;&#xA;I suspect these behave like *quippe* as far as using conjunctive is concerned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After reading my grammar once again while preparing this question, I am inclined to believe that conjunctive is obligatory with *quippe* in a relative clause, but I want to have my suspicions clearly confirmed or refuted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question originated from our [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm).&#xD;&#xA;When chatting about using three languages at the same time, I remarked:&#xD;&#xA;*Sed crediderim id facilius esse Cerbero, quippe qui tria capita habet.*&#xD;&#xA;Cerberus questioned my choice of indicative, and since I couldn't find a definitive answer elsewhere, I had to ask this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I have only ever seen *quippe* in this use.&#xD;&#xA;If you know other uses, please answer [this question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/598/79).&#xD;&#xA;I have explained the causal use in my answer&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; to that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I may have to update that answer depending on the answer I get here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4153" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1252" RevisionGUID="dde72ffa-50fa-40e0-958f-ab0706c50894" CreationDate="2016-07-22T20:17:55.373" UserId="79" Text="Does using quippe in a relative clause require conjunctive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4154" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1252" RevisionGUID="dde72ffa-50fa-40e0-958f-ab0706c50894" CreationDate="2016-07-22T20:17:55.373" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|grammar-choice|conjunctive|quippe|relative-clause|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4155" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="598" RevisionGUID="06c5c200-f4ac-49a4-93a6-24065fa43ef3" CreationDate="2016-07-22T20:19:42.287" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|nuance|quippe|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1253" RevisionGUID="7170a4d4-9f35-4321-bb63-d3b3fd36a801" CreationDate="2016-07-22T21:07:21.410" UserId="30" Text="It seems that either mode was used, but each author seems to have chosen either one or the other, or both. Based on a cursory glance at the first couple of pages with [*quippe qui*][1] from the HP corpus, the following impressions present themselves:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus uses the indicative almost exclusively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sallustius seems to use mainly the indicative, but also sometimes the subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero uses the subjunctive exclusively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Livius uses the subjunctive in most cases, but sometimes the indicative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apuleius seems to be using both modes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=quippe%20qui" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1254" RevisionGUID="f32132a6-82ad-40b7-be79-db699b06354c" CreationDate="2016-07-22T21:33:24.670" UserId="79" Text="This answer covers only Finland, but covers it completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin pronunciation is very uniform throughout Finland.&#xD;&#xA;Rather than describing the pronunciation in words, let me give you a sample: [Nuntii Latini](http://areena.yle.fi/1-1931339) is a Latin news broadcast from Finland, and the podcast is freely available online.&#xD;&#xA;For example, my own pronunciation is (to reasonable accuracy) exactly like the one in the news.&#xD;&#xA;This pronunciation is taught throughout Finland, with one exception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Turku 'ae' and 'oe' or pronounced as the diphthongs /ɑi/ and /oi/ whereas elsewhere they are both the long /e:/.&#xD;&#xA;[I have previously asked about the origin of this difference](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/562/79), and I still crave to understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that the general Finnish pronunciation is very close the pronunciation of early imperial era, whereas the one in Turku is more late republic.&#xD;&#xA;Both fall in the category &quot;classical&quot; in the classification of your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quick summary of the Finnish pronunciation (let me know if I forgot to address something important):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- C and G are always /k/ an /g/.&#xD;&#xA;- AE and OE are both /e:/ (or /ɑi/ and /oi/, see above).&#xD;&#xA;- Vowel length is always clearly indicated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1253" RevisionGUID="76e1d0dd-ba04-4869-b761-c96b4b869011" CreationDate="2016-07-22T21:55:42.670" UserId="30" Comment="edited body" Text="It seems that either mode was used, but each author seems to have chosen either one or the other, or both. Based on a cursory glance at the first couple of pages with [*quippe qui*][1] from the HP corpus, the following impressions present themselves:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus uses the indicative almost exclusively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sallustius seems to use mainly the indicative, but also sometimes the subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero uses the subjunctive exclusively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Livius uses the subjunctive in most cases, but sometimes the indicative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apuleius seems to be using both moods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=quippe%20qui" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4160" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="50" RevisionGUID="0dfe0687-a9a3-4afe-aa11-d9160125eca4" CreationDate="2016-07-22T22:15:42.420" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="4161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1255" RevisionGUID="1d5bbdb5-83c8-445b-8aa4-7ea1f8d33e98" CreationDate="2016-07-22T23:44:19.400" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="I'm writing a story. Part of the world of this story are the wolves. Because I'm uncreative, I'm using real-world languages for each race; the wolves got Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, these wolves are largely identical to real-world wolves, in terms of anatomy and where they live, or similar enough that a description of the differences really doesn't affect anything. With that in mind, I'm trying to find a word for &quot;wolf den&quot;. I've been using &quot;cava&quot;, because it was the first word that meant anything remotely similar that popped into my head, but that's not even a real word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest real Latin word to my half memory is &quot;cavea&quot;. However, as far as I can tell, that just means &quot;cave&quot;, which happens to be where wolf dens are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a Latin word that specifically means &quot;wolf den&quot;? Failing that, is there a word that means something other than &quot;wolf den&quot;, but is very strongly associated with them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Side note: I Googled quite a lot, and got about a billion businesses named &quot;Wolf Den&quot; or with something called a wolf den in them.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4162" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1255" RevisionGUID="1d5bbdb5-83c8-445b-8aa4-7ea1f8d33e98" CreationDate="2016-07-22T23:44:19.400" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="What's a word for &quot;wolf den&quot;/&quot;wolf house&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4163" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1255" RevisionGUID="1d5bbdb5-83c8-445b-8aa4-7ea1f8d33e98" CreationDate="2016-07-22T23:44:19.400" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1256" RevisionGUID="209c9f4f-6906-4e0d-b587-d772be44086f" CreationDate="2016-07-23T00:23:33.220" UserId="136" Text="Well, I did a quick search and found no words that quite match what you are looking for (one might exist, i just didn't find it), so here are some words that mean &quot;den&quot; in some form, which might be useful to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ *Cavea*: cave, but also enclosure for animals&#xD;&#xA;+ *Latibulum*: a hiding-place, refuge, or lurking-hole &#xD;&#xA;+ *Lustrum*: den of wild beasts&#xD;&#xA;+ *Specus*: cave or den&#xD;&#xA;+ *Spelaeum*: cave or den&#xD;&#xA;+ *Spelunca*: cave or den&#xD;&#xA;+ *Spoliarium*: den of cut-throats or robbers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I am not the one writing your story, but wolves are usually associated in modern culture with evil, thievery, greed, destruction, and even stealth. This is why I included *Latibulum* and *Spoliarium* because they both could be a cool, metaphorical name for the home of the wolves. These are just ideas, and if someone else finds something that fits your situation better, go ahead and use it. Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to reinforce the relationship with wolves, you could use the adjective *Lupinus*, which means &quot;pertaining to wolves&quot;, or you could use the genitive of *Lupus/-a*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1256" RevisionGUID="22ffdb2b-a3e2-4116-9281-cbc438fc935e" CreationDate="2016-07-23T01:11:50.043" UserId="136" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="Well, I did a quick search and found no words that quite match what you are looking for (one might exist, i just didn't find it), so here are some words that mean &quot;den&quot; in some form, which might be useful to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ *Cavea*: cave, but also enclosure for animals&#xD;&#xA;+ *Latebra*: hiding place, den&#xD;&#xA;+ *Latibulum*: a hiding-place, refuge, or lurking-hole &#xD;&#xA;+ *Lustrum*: den of wild beasts&#xD;&#xA;+ *Specus*: cave or den&#xD;&#xA;+ *Spelaeum*: cave or den&#xD;&#xA;+ *Spelunca*: cave or den&#xD;&#xA;+ *Spoliarium*: den of cut-throats or robbers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I am not the one writing your story, but wolves are usually associated in modern culture with evil, thievery, greed, destruction, and even stealth. This is why I included *Latibulum* and *Spoliarium* because they both could be a cool, metaphorical name for the home of the wolves. These are just ideas, and if someone else finds something that fits your situation better, go ahead and use it. Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to reinforce the relationship with wolves, you could use the adjective *Lupinus*, which means &quot;pertaining to wolves&quot;, or you could use the genitive of *Lupus/-a*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1256" RevisionGUID="18be934d-78d0-4510-858b-a142fec55dcd" CreationDate="2016-07-23T01:25:43.963" UserId="136" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="Well, I did a quick search and found no words that quite match what you are looking for (one might exist, i just didn't find it), so here are some words that mean &quot;den&quot; in some form, which might be useful to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ *Cavea*: cave, but also enclosure for animals&#xD;&#xA;+ *Latebra*: hiding place, den&#xD;&#xA;+ *Latibulum*: a hiding-place, refuge, or lurking-hole &#xD;&#xA;+ *Lustrum*: den of wild beasts&#xD;&#xA;+ *Secessus*: hiding-place&#xD;&#xA;+ *Secretum*: hiding-place&#xD;&#xA;+ *Specus*: cave or den&#xD;&#xA;+ *Spelaeum*: cave or den&#xD;&#xA;+ *Spelunca*: cave or den&#xD;&#xA;+ *Spoliarium*: den of cut-throats or robbers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I am not the one writing your story, but wolves are usually associated in modern culture with evil, thievery, greed, destruction, and even stealth. This is why I included *Latibulum* and *Spoliarium* because they both could be a cool, metaphorical name for the home of the wolves. These are just ideas, and if someone else finds something that fits your situation better, go ahead and use it. Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to reinforce the relationship with wolves, you could use the adjective *Lupinus*, which means &quot;pertaining to wolves&quot;, or you could use the genitive of *Lupus/-a*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1258" RevisionGUID="563e67ab-6698-4b13-b291-0fb295e91c68" CreationDate="2016-07-23T04:43:58.367" UserId="30" Text="[This question][1] seems to assume that the Romans actually used *et cetera* as we do. But did they really? By that, I mean: did they use *et cetera* at the end of a clause or phrase, without any noun agreeing with *cetera*, to mean &quot;and so on, und so weiter, enzovoorts&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, do we have any idea when it began to be used in the modern way? I know it exists at least in Dutch, English, and French, but those could be borrowings from humanist Latin, for all I know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/85/are-there-any-recorded-classical-roman-abbreviations-of-et-cetera/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4169" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1258" RevisionGUID="563e67ab-6698-4b13-b291-0fb295e91c68" CreationDate="2016-07-23T04:43:58.367" UserId="30" Text="Who invented the common expression &quot;et cetera&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4170" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1258" RevisionGUID="563e67ab-6698-4b13-b291-0fb295e91c68" CreationDate="2016-07-23T04:43:58.367" UserId="30" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1258" RevisionGUID="d50df9d7-f197-4b50-abf0-cfd6c31c700a" CreationDate="2016-07-23T04:55:08.467" UserId="30" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="[This question][1] seems to assume that the Romans actually used *et cetera* as we do. But did they really? By that, I mean: did they use *et cetera* at the end of a clause or phrase, without any noun agreeing with *cetera*, to mean &quot;and so on, und so weiter, enzovoorts&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the Romans did not &quot;invent&quot; it, do we then have any idea when it began to be used in the modern way? I know it exists at least in Dutch, English, and French, but those could be borrowings from humanist Latin, for all I know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/85/are-there-any-recorded-classical-roman-abbreviations-of-et-cetera/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1260" RevisionGUID="99bf42e3-07d5-4202-85aa-9e4029493190" CreationDate="2016-07-23T12:18:06.317" UserId="79" Text="I propose the word *lupercal* (*luperc&amp;amacr;lis, neuter*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lupercal is the name of a cave under the Palatine hill where the wolf was believed to nurse Romulus and Remus.&#xD;&#xA;For more information about this cave, please consult [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupercal), [Vicipaesia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupercal) or [this BBC news article](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7104330.stm).&#xD;&#xA;The cave made it to the news because it was discovered relatively recently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understood correctly, the name *Lupercal* refers to this one cave, but for the purpose of writing a story that does not take place in ancient Rome it can be well used for a wolf den.&#xD;&#xA;I would say that *Lupercal* means &quot;the wolf den&quot;, not &quot;a wolf den&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If your wolves all live in one den or there is a main den for a herd of wolves, I think *lupercal* is a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;If you have several small dens, I might prefer using some of the words SamK listed in his answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="599" RevisionGUID="88340bde-d526-4864-9c04-5db3b75e6785" CreationDate="2016-07-23T12:41:05.493" UserId="79" Comment="added 215 characters in body" Text="I have typically encountered *quippe* with relative pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;It strengthens the relative pronoun in a way that is often best translated with something other than a relative structure.&#xD;&#xA;The word *quippe* emphasizes that the relative clause contains an explanation.&#xD;&#xA;Artificial examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Amicus meus non cantat, quippe qui ne loqui quidem potest.* &quot;My friend does not sing, for he can't even speak.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *Ille mihi auxiliari non poterat, quippe qui ipse quoque inops erat.* &quot;He could not help me, because in fact he was broke, too.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the only possible use of *quippe*, but this is the one I feel most comfortable with (and have seen most often).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note added later:**&#xD;&#xA;Is used the indicative above, but conjunctive may be preferable in relative clauses with *quippe*.&#xD;&#xA;See [this separate question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1252/79) about this issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1261" RevisionGUID="14174aa4-fa8d-4b12-8428-10d83add5947" CreationDate="2016-07-23T12:48:25.040" UserId="79" Text="In Latin a relative clause can be causal and the causal nature can be emphasized with *quippe*, *ut*, *utpote* or *praesertim*.&#xD;&#xA;A causal relative clause can always be replaced with a causal clause, but not vice versa.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a preference to use a causal relative clause rather than a causal clause in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, would classical Roman authors rather write&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Caesar domi manebat, quippe/ut/utpote qui aegrotaret.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;than&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Caesar domi manebat, cum aegrotaret.* or  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Caesar domi manebat, quia aegrotabat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or are both choices equally common when both are possible?&#xD;&#xA;Both are grammatically valid, so it is a question of style." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4176" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1261" RevisionGUID="14174aa4-fa8d-4b12-8428-10d83add5947" CreationDate="2016-07-23T12:48:25.040" UserId="79" Text="Are causal relative clauses stylistically preferred to causal clauses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4177" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1261" RevisionGUID="14174aa4-fa8d-4b12-8428-10d83add5947" CreationDate="2016-07-23T12:48:25.040" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|quippe|subordinate-clause|particle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4179" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1258" RevisionGUID="5186ccc8-ff63-4cc3-888a-387ec721def0" CreationDate="2016-07-23T14:32:01.887" UserId="30" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|etymology|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1262" RevisionGUID="c9d14974-b4bc-4be1-a5b2-3a02481ab3d2" CreationDate="2016-07-23T14:46:09.690" UserId="45" Text="Following a chat discussion, I want to know if we have any written record or general indication of how Latin was spoken by young children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most languages that I know have several distinct characteristics associated with baby talk: French children will often &quot;faire dodo&quot; instead of &quot;dormir&quot; (sleep), Latin American children often heavily use the diminutive (&quot;¡Hay un conejito aquicito!&quot;). Usually, sentence structure is simplified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are there any works that preserve what this speech might have been like?** I'm mostly interested in classical times, but later evidence would certainly be welcome as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4181" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1262" RevisionGUID="c9d14974-b4bc-4be1-a5b2-3a02481ab3d2" CreationDate="2016-07-23T14:46:09.690" UserId="45" Text="How did Roman babies talk?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4182" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1262" RevisionGUID="c9d14974-b4bc-4be1-a5b2-3a02481ab3d2" CreationDate="2016-07-23T14:46:09.690" UserId="45" Text="|classical-latin|roman-culture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1260" RevisionGUID="3cbb04ff-d790-46ff-9db8-432f4541eb4b" CreationDate="2016-07-23T14:55:57.277" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="I propose the word *lupercal* (*luperc&amp;amacr;lis, neuter*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lupercal is the name of a cave under the Palatine hill where the wolf was believed to nurse Romulus and Remus.&#xD;&#xA;For more information about this cave, please consult [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupercal), [Vicipaedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupercal) or [this BBC news article](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7104330.stm).&#xD;&#xA;The cave made it to the news because it was discovered relatively recently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understood correctly, the name *Lupercal* refers to this one cave, but for the purpose of writing a story that does not take place in ancient Rome it can be well used for a wolf den.&#xD;&#xA;I would say that *Lupercal* means &quot;the wolf den&quot;, not &quot;a wolf den&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If your wolves all live in one den or there is a main den for a herd of wolves, I think *lupercal* is a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;If you have several small dens, I might prefer using some of the words SamK listed in his answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1260" RevisionGUID="6608425f-6929-4fe7-9072-e85606decb66" CreationDate="2016-07-23T15:39:44.137" UserId="79" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="I propose the word *lupercal* (*luperc&amp;amacr;lis, neuter*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lupercal is the name of a cave under the Palatine hill where the wolf was believed to nurse Romulus and Remus.&#xD;&#xA;For more information about this cave, please consult [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupercal), [Vicipaedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupercal) or [this BBC news article](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7104330.stm).&#xD;&#xA;The cave made it to the news because it was discovered relatively recently.&#xD;&#xA;It is not certain that the cave actually is Lupercal, but it makes no difference for this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understood correctly, the name *Lupercal* refers to this one cave, but for the purpose of writing a story that does not take place in ancient Rome it can be well used for a wolf den.&#xD;&#xA;I would say that *Lupercal* means &quot;the wolf den&quot;, not &quot;a wolf den&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If your wolves all live in one den or there is a main den for a herd of wolves, I think *lupercal* is a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;If you have several small dens, I might prefer using some of the words SamK listed in his answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="211" RevisionGUID="ec718b9a-ef51-45f2-a22b-32298a5e37c9" CreationDate="2016-07-23T15:44:52.107" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Given that [this](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulatio_computatralis) is the Vicipaedia article on computer models, I'd suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In simulatione&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't quite fit -- like you pointed out -- but it's the best word I can find. It means &quot;model&quot;, _seems_ to have a connotation of &quot;computer&quot; or &quot;mathematical&quot;, and is short enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1261" RevisionGUID="18b68da3-066a-45e1-80a1-325587bd1437" CreationDate="2016-07-23T20:00:38.277" UserId="79" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="In Latin a relative clause can be causal and the causal nature can be emphasized with *quippe*, *ut*, *utpote* or *praesertim*.&#xD;&#xA;A causal relative clause can always be replaced with a causal clause, but not vice versa.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a preference to use a causal relative clause rather than a causal clause in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, would classical Roman authors rather write&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Caesar domi manebat, quippe/ut/utpote qui aegrotaret.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;than&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Caesar domi manebat, cum aegrotaret.* or  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Caesar domi manebat, quia aegrotabat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or are both choices equally common when both are possible?&#xD;&#xA;Both are grammatically valid, so it is a question of style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no clear preference for one or the other in general, what is the difference in tone between a causal relative clause and a causal clause?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1261" RevisionGUID="d93b1c9a-81e1-47c8-bcfb-89af2a8f6c80" CreationDate="2016-07-23T20:07:05.597" UserId="79" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="In Latin a relative clause can be causal and the causal nature can be emphasized with *quippe*, *ut*, *utpote* or *praesertim*.&#xD;&#xA;A causal relative clause can always be replaced with a causal clause, but not vice versa.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a preference to use a causal relative clause rather than a causal clause in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, would classical Roman authors rather write&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Caesar domi manebat, quippe/ut/utpote qui aegrotaret.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;than&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Caesar domi manebat, cum aegrotaret.* or  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Caesar domi manebat, quia aegrotabat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or are both choices equally common when both are possible?&#xD;&#xA;Both are grammatically valid, so it is a question of style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no clear preference for one or the other in general, what is the difference in tone between a causal relative clause and a causal clause?&#xD;&#xA;When might one prefer one and when the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1263" RevisionGUID="467059dc-9d88-4537-a84c-0ac6b1d725ca" CreationDate="2016-07-23T20:19:08.880" UserId="40" Text="It seems to be a case of simple regularization. As L&amp;S point out, *abs* is rarely used before a word other than *te*; a [Packard search](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23abs%23) yields only ten such cases vs. 277 of *abs te* (and two of the ten are *tuo, tua*). This is the kind of situation in which regularization tends to happen: the special rule &quot;use the variant form *abs* instead of *a* if the following word is *te*&quot; seems to have been eliminated by extending the use of the regular form *a*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If L&amp;S are correct about the change in Cicero's patterns of usage, that may simply give us a date for when the regularization was occurring. It doesn't necessarily imply either that Cicero himself initiated the change, or that later writers adopted it by imitating his late usage (which seems unlikely anyway -- Cicero was certainly a model for imitation, but did writers imitate one period of his style rather than another?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(To put some numbers on L&amp;S's &quot;but rarely in later authors&quot;: the same search finds 25 post-Ciceronian instances of *abs te*, vs. about 350 for [a te](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23a+te%23).)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1264" RevisionGUID="a2205f3f-83c2-4f21-ad5a-66dfdeb79917" CreationDate="2016-07-23T20:26:23.133" UserId="40" Text="[Here](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/1374/1/6/186-190,657-661,1092-1096,1210-1214#6) is a relevant passage from the second-century (CE) grammarian Velius Longus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; antiquos scimus et abs te dixisse: nos contenti sumus a te dicere. scimus ipsos et ab Lucio dixisse: nos observamus ut &lt;ab&gt; praeponatur his nominibus quae a vocali incipiunt, ut cum dicimus ab Olympo. non adsumitur autem haec b littera, quotiens nomina a consonante incipiunt, ut a Romulo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;We know that the ancients also said *abs te*; we are content to say *a te*. We know that they also said *ab Lucio*; we observe the rule that *ab* is used before nouns that begin with a vowel, as when we say *ab Olympo*. But this letter *b* is not added whenever nouns begin with a consonant, as *a Romulo*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the other answers show, this rule is not completely true of the Latin of all periods, but Velius Longus at least thought it was true of his own time's usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1264" RevisionGUID="e9000ef8-0c9b-4810-a045-2b7524849499" CreationDate="2016-07-23T23:33:46.047" UserId="40" Comment="edited body" Text="[Here](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/1374/1/6/186-190,657-661,1092-1096,1210-1214#6) is a relevant passage from the second-century (CE) grammarian Velius Longus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; antiquos scimus et abs te dixisse: nos contenti sumus a te dicere. scimus ipsos et ab Lucio dixisse: nos observamus ut [ab] praeponatur his nominibus quae a vocali incipiunt, ut cum dicimus ab Olympo. non adsumitur autem haec b littera, quotiens nomina a consonante incipiunt, ut a Romulo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;We know that the ancients also said *abs te*; we are content to say *a te*. We know that they also said *ab Lucio*; we observe the rule that *ab* is used before nouns that begin with a vowel, as when we say *ab Olympo*. But this letter *b* is not added whenever nouns begin with a consonant, as *a Romulo*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the other answers show, this rule is not completely true of the Latin of all periods, but Velius Longus at least thought it was true of his own time's usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1265" RevisionGUID="5f2d8ad3-9104-4a7e-a470-e5fa0bbcfd5f" CreationDate="2016-07-24T06:59:47.303" UserId="79" Text="I asked yesterday about [the difference between causal clauses and causal relative clauses](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1261/79), and I was surprised by a comment:&#xD;&#xA;apparently there is a difference between causal *cum* clauses and causal *quia* clauses.&#xD;&#xA;I had not heard of any such difference, so I was left puzzled.&#xD;&#xA;**What is the difference between *cum*, *quia* and *quod* in causal clauses?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course *cum* always requires conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;With *quia* and *quod* one uses indicative, unless there is some special reason for conjunctive &amp;mdash; the cause is an opinion rather than fact or the clause is subordinate to *oratio obliqua*.&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that *quia* and *quod* are equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To formulate the question in terms of a concrete example, what is the difference between these sentences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Amicus meus exire nolebat, cum nimis plueret.*&#xD;&#xA;2. *Amicus meus exire nolebat, quia/quod nimis pluebat.*&#xD;&#xA;3. *Amicus meus exire nolebat, quia/quod nimis plueret.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2 the prohibiting amount of rain is expressed as a fact, in 3 as the friend's opinion.&#xD;&#xA;In 1 this distinction is not made, but otherwise I see no difference between 1 and 2/3.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4192" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1265" RevisionGUID="5f2d8ad3-9104-4a7e-a470-e5fa0bbcfd5f" CreationDate="2016-07-24T06:59:47.303" UserId="79" Text="What is the difference between cum, quia and quod in a causal clause?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4193" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1265" RevisionGUID="5f2d8ad3-9104-4a7e-a470-e5fa0bbcfd5f" CreationDate="2016-07-24T06:59:47.303" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|conjunction|subordinate-clause|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1266" RevisionGUID="2bc5beb5-df54-4974-b4d5-7eeb9d3aaa08" CreationDate="2016-07-24T22:00:00.757" UserId="118" Text="In pagina 132 primi libri _Linguae Latinae Per Se Illustratae,_ auctoris Iohannis Ørbergi, est scriptum:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus ab hominibus nec vidētur nec audītur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Estne deducta a scriptura antiqua haec sententia? Si est, quanam?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quaero quia scio nonnullos locos huius libri ab antiquitatis operibus celebribus deductosque simplices redditos esse, mihi etiam insolitam videtur vocem passivam docendi rationem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4195" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1266" RevisionGUID="2bc5beb5-df54-4974-b4d5-7eeb9d3aaa08" CreationDate="2016-07-24T22:00:00.757" UserId="118" Text="&quot;Deus ab hominibus nec videtur nec auditur&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4196" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1266" RevisionGUID="2bc5beb5-df54-4974-b4d5-7eeb9d3aaa08" CreationDate="2016-07-24T22:00:00.757" UserId="118" Text="|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1267" RevisionGUID="3080bc90-284a-4561-ac84-5e15bcaf8a57" CreationDate="2016-07-24T23:26:08.883" UserId="118" Text="In the essay &quot;Of Empire&quot;, Francis Bacon wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All precepts concerning kings are in effect comprehended in those two remembrances: **Memento quod es homo** and **Memento quod es Deus** or **vice Dei**—the one bridleth their power, and the other their will.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bacon chose the pronoun **those** rather than **these**. Is he referring to some well-known &quot;remembrances&quot; already stated by someone else, or are these original with Bacon?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4198" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1267" RevisionGUID="3080bc90-284a-4561-ac84-5e15bcaf8a57" CreationDate="2016-07-24T23:26:08.883" UserId="118" Text="&quot;Memento quod es homo&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4199" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1267" RevisionGUID="3080bc90-284a-4561-ac84-5e15bcaf8a57" CreationDate="2016-07-24T23:26:08.883" UserId="118" Text="|literature|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1268" RevisionGUID="410a2d07-cb75-429d-aaf9-b3d1171bd537" CreationDate="2016-07-25T05:47:48.177" UserId="576" Text="Why is the possessive adjective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***suus*** (his, hers, its, theirs)&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(and its declensions)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;less commonly used than the genitive, possessive pronoun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ejus*** (of her, of him, of it)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or can't these two words be used interchangeably?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be true at least in Ecclesiastical Latin. Is it true in the Latin of other eras?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4201" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1268" RevisionGUID="410a2d07-cb75-429d-aaf9-b3d1171bd537" CreationDate="2016-07-25T05:47:48.177" UserId="576" Text="Why is the possessive adjective &quot;suus&quot; less commonly used than the genitive, possessive pronoun &quot;ejus&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4202" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1268" RevisionGUID="410a2d07-cb75-429d-aaf9-b3d1171bd537" CreationDate="2016-07-25T05:47:48.177" UserId="576" Text="|pronouns|adjective|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1268" RevisionGUID="c0cc6e97-940b-4712-b1dd-8d225a02deeb" CreationDate="2016-07-25T05:52:53.363" UserId="576" Comment="deleted 88 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why does it seem the possessive adjective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***suus*** (his, hers, its, theirs)&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(and its declensions)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;less commonly used than the genitive, possessive pronoun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ejus*** (of her, of him, of it)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or can't these two words be used interchangeably?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4204" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1268" RevisionGUID="c0cc6e97-940b-4712-b1dd-8d225a02deeb" CreationDate="2016-07-25T05:52:53.363" UserId="576" Comment="deleted 88 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why does it seem the possessive adjective &quot;suus&quot; is less commonly used than the genitive, possessive pronoun &quot;ejus&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1269" RevisionGUID="2c83ad9f-8d7a-4446-88b8-5e1b35177310" CreationDate="2016-07-25T08:30:28.517" UserId="79" Text="Simply, what is &quot;major subject&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I mean the subject a university students mainly focuses on.&#xD;&#xA;I have used the translation *materia principalis*, but I wonder if there is a more suitable one.&#xD;&#xA;In particular, is (or was) a Latin expression for this already in use somewhere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4206" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1269" RevisionGUID="2c83ad9f-8d7a-4446-88b8-5e1b35177310" CreationDate="2016-07-25T08:30:28.517" UserId="79" Text="What is a major subject in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4207" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1269" RevisionGUID="2c83ad9f-8d7a-4446-88b8-5e1b35177310" CreationDate="2016-07-25T08:30:28.517" UserId="79" Text="|translation|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1270" RevisionGUID="5149c668-d9a2-4ad2-be20-0f9ed2b1bbe3" CreationDate="2016-07-25T14:07:52.290" UserId="30" Text="All forms of *se*, including *suus*, normally refer to the subject of the main clause of the sentence. *Eius*, however, normally does not refer to this subject, but to someone else. So the two words have different meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sextus Tarquinius crudelis est. Lucretia praevidet mortem suam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;S.T. is cruel. Lucretia foresees her own death.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sextus Tarquinius crudelis est. Lucretia praevidet mortem eius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;S.T. is cruel. Lucretia foresees his death.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The words *suam* and *eius* must be interpreted this way in the examples above; *suam* cannot refer to Tarquinius, nor can *eius* refer to Lucretia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1268" RevisionGUID="f29f9cbc-f964-43f4-9275-30f973ad5a55" CreationDate="2016-07-25T14:31:07.280" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Why does it seem the possessive adjective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***suus*** (his, hers, its, theirs)  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;(and its declensions)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;less commonly used than the genitive, possessive pronoun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ejus*** (of her, of him, of it)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or can't these two words be used interchangeably?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4210" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1268" RevisionGUID="f29f9cbc-f964-43f4-9275-30f973ad5a55" CreationDate="2016-07-25T14:31:07.280" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|word-comparison|pronouns|adjective|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1271" RevisionGUID="8d6361a6-0da8-43cb-bf41-ea8795780b32" CreationDate="2016-07-25T14:41:40.143" UserId="136" Text="Whenever I need to translate relatively new words into Latin, I find that the [Morgan and Silva Furman University Lexicon][1] is particularly useful. Here is the entry for &quot;major&quot;, which is what we call a student's primary concentration in the U.S. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; .univ major in, specialize in / speciale studium (alicuius rei) amplecti |&#xD;&#xA;major, specialization specializatio* [Latinitas] (HELF.)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;.univ major, specialize / speciali studio se excolere (v. operam dare)&#xD;&#xA;(LRL)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, *specializatio* seems to be somewhat adequate in describing a &quot;major&quot;. It obviously is related to the English &quot;specialization&quot;, which makes sense for the purpose it serves. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ia801000.us.archive.org/12/items/TheLexiconAnglumEtLatinumByDavidMorgan/MorganAndSilvaFurmanUniversityLexicon.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1268" RevisionGUID="3e9ec391-c9e4-4da5-b229-a8793cecaad7" CreationDate="2016-07-25T18:31:46.500" UserId="576" Comment="changed question to be about the difference between &quot;suus&quot; and &quot;ejus&quot;" Text="What is the difference between the possessive adjective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***suus*** (his, hers, its, theirs)  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;(and its declensions)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the genitive, possessive pronoun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ejus*** (of her, of him, of it)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can these words be used interchangeably?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4213" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1268" RevisionGUID="3e9ec391-c9e4-4da5-b229-a8793cecaad7" CreationDate="2016-07-25T18:31:46.500" UserId="576" Comment="changed question to be about the difference between &quot;suus&quot; and &quot;ejus&quot;" Text="What is the difference between suus and ejus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1268" RevisionGUID="ec49a77f-3463-480b-b542-f080b72156bc" CreationDate="2016-07-25T18:40:05.480" UserId="576" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="What is the difference between the possessive adjective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***suus*** (his, hers, its, theirs)  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;(and its declensions)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the genitive, possessive pronoun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***eius*** (of her, of him, of it)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can these words be used interchangeably?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4215" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1268" RevisionGUID="ec49a77f-3463-480b-b542-f080b72156bc" CreationDate="2016-07-25T18:40:05.480" UserId="576" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="What is the difference between suus and eius?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1272" RevisionGUID="49e34f53-c188-4dd5-b7ae-3a7d217e084c" CreationDate="2016-07-25T21:51:25.280" UserId="45" Text="## Francis Bacon is referencing previous &quot;remembrances&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The beginning of the epilogue to [*The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology*](https://books.google.com/books?id=Ty7FCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA496), by Ernst Kantorowicz, references this quotation from Bacon and includes an explanation of their probable sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bacon's first &quot;remembrance&quot; should not be mistaken for the famous Camaldolite motto *Memento mori* which, especially in connection with its artistic symbol, the skull, had a singular appeal to the religious sentiment of the later Middle Ages. *Memento quod es homo* is not of monastic origin, but **descended from classical Antiquity**; and Francis Bacon could not have been ignorant of its proper Roman setting. When, on the day of his triumph, the victorious Roman imperator rolled on the chariot drawn by four white horses from the Campus Martius to the Capitol...the slave riding with him on the chariot and holding the golden wreath over his head, whispered to him: &quot;Look behind thee. Remember thou art a man.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The actual wording, which we have from Tertullian (an early Christian apologist), is recognizable although slightly different:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hominem se esse in illo sublimissimo curru admonetur, suggeritur enim ei a tergo 'respice post te, hominem memento te.' (Tertull. *Apolog.* 33)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the second, it is likely a reference to a psalm verse, which is especially famous because it is quoted in the Gospels in Jn 10:34:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **His other remembrance may have referred to Psalm 81:6**, &quot;Ye are gods,&quot; a versicle very much to the taste of political writers in the age of absolutism and most certainly to that of James I, who quoted it and gave his own interpretation of it in great detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Francis Bacon may have appropriated this thought and expressed it in a different way in order to achieve parallelism between the two." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1273" RevisionGUID="4ad46191-f8f7-45c8-b1a9-fc06a550ed54" CreationDate="2016-07-25T22:35:58.277" UserId="45" Text="Quamquam difficile sit talis oratio antiquitus esse scripta annon comprobare, cum haud ornatis verbis utatur, mihi videtur illam potius ex auctoris inventione quam ex operibus antiquis auferri, duobus e rationibus, altera practica alteraque theoretica:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Patet in contextu hanc ad vocem passivam discendam esse compositam. Quid hoc? Capitula libri *Familia Romana* semper a lectione incipiunt, post quam sequuntur pars grammatica ac pensa. Haec &quot;pars grammatica&quot; ex qua tua oratio carpitur manifester componitur ad mostandam vocem passivam trium personarum: &quot;nec videris nec audiris..nec videor nec audior...nec videtur nec auditur.&quot; Haec dua paragrapha perlegenti  dubium haud oriri quit quin auctor hoc modo breviter illustrare tabulam grammaticam supra positam conetur. His ex considerationibus non intelligo quare &quot;insolitam&quot; esse hanc docendi formam dicas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Sicut @TKR iam indicavit, Romani non arbitrantur invisibiles esse deos: immo invisibilitas Dei magis eis incommoda et mira sibi videretur, cum oritur ex traditione iudaica (et hac via ad christianitatem). Deis esse formas, corpora, libidines, habitcula non dubitant attribuere. Fabulae anitquae deorum, ex quibus [Orci galea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_of_invisibility) mihi in memoria venit, nonnumquam asserunt deis opus esse huiusmodi artificia ut sese ab hominum visu occultent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1273" RevisionGUID="62575e03-9f1e-4ffa-8af1-10a2427ac580" CreationDate="2016-07-25T22:41:19.793" UserId="45" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="Quamquam difficile sit talis oratio antiquitus esse scripta annon comprobare, cum haud ornatis verbis utatur, mihi videtur illam potius ex auctoris inventione quam ex operibus antiquis auferri, duobus e rationibus, altera practica alteraque theoretica:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Patet in contextu orationem hanc ad vocem passivam discendam esse compositam. Quid hoc? Capitula libri *Familia Romana* semper a lectione incipiunt, deinde sequitur pars grammatica, atque pensa. Haec &quot;pars grammatica&quot; ex qua tua oratio carpitur manifeste componitur ad mostrandam vocem passivam trium personarum: &quot;nec videris nec audiris..nec videor nec audior...nec videtur nec auditur.&quot; Haec duo paragrapha perlegenti dubium haud oriri quit quin auctor hoc modo breviter illustrare tabulam grammaticam supra positam conetur. His ex considerationibus non intelligo quare &quot;insolitam&quot; esse hanc docendi formam dicas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Sicut @TKR iam indicavit, Romani non arbitrantur invisibiles esse deos: immo invisibilitas Dei magis eis incommoda et mira sibi videretur, exorita ex traditione iudaica (et hac via ad christianitatem). Deis esse formas, corpora, libidines, habitacula, et cetera huiusmodi non dubitant attribuere. Fabulae anitquae deorum, ex quibus [Orci galea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_of_invisibility) mihi in memoria venit exempli gratia, nonnumquam asserunt deis opus esse huiusmodi artificia ut sese ab hominum visu occultent. Quomodo invisibiles *effici* possunt, qui iam tales sunt? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1273" RevisionGUID="b20e7d47-7aec-4514-b887-9de9a613b567" CreationDate="2016-07-26T01:53:14.597" UserId="45" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Quamquam difficile sit talem orationem antiquitus esse scriptam annon comprobare, cum haud ornatis verbis utatur, mihi videtur illam potius ex auctoris inventione quam ex operibus antiquis auferri, duobus e rationibus, altera practica alteraque theoretica:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Patet in contextu orationem hanc ad vocem passivam discendam esse compositam. Quid hoc? Capitula libri *Familia Romana* semper a lectione incipiunt, deinde sequitur pars grammatica, atque pensa. Haec &quot;pars grammatica&quot; ex qua tua oratio carpitur manifeste componitur ad monstrandam vocem passivam trium personarum: &quot;nec videris nec audiris..nec videor nec audior...nec videtur nec auditur.&quot; Haec duo paragrapha perlegenti dubium haud oriri quit quin auctor hoc modo breviter illustrare tabulam grammaticam supra positam conetur. His ex considerationibus non intelligo quare &quot;insolitam&quot; esse hanc docendi formam dicas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Sicut @TKR iam indicavit, Romani non arbitrantur invisibiles esse deos: immo invisibilitas Dei magis eis incommoda et mira sibi videretur, exorita ex traditione iudaica (et hac via ad christianitatem). Deis esse formas, corpora, libidines, habitacula, et cetera huiusmodi non dubitant attribuere. Fabulae anitquae deorum, ex quibus [Orci galea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_of_invisibility) mihi in memoria venit exempli gratia, nonnumquam asserunt deis opus esse huiusmodi artificia ut sese ab hominum visu occultent. Quomodo invisibiles *effici* possunt, qui iam tales sunt? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1274" RevisionGUID="d68a4353-8e31-469d-8a4a-3d700f16a2d4" CreationDate="2016-07-26T06:39:58.990" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt; [ [CNRTL :](http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/ecarter) ] Empr.[unt] au lat[in] _*exquartare_, dér.[ivé] du lat[in] class[ique] *quartus* « quart ». &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%A9carter#fr) states the same etymology: how does the Numeral Adjective 4 in Latin semantically connect with the notions of removal or separation or deployment? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4222" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1274" RevisionGUID="d68a4353-8e31-469d-8a4a-3d700f16a2d4" CreationDate="2016-07-26T06:39:58.990" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What semantic notions underlie the Latin 'quartus' &amp; the French « écarter »?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4223" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1274" RevisionGUID="d68a4353-8e31-469d-8a4a-3d700f16a2d4" CreationDate="2016-07-26T06:39:58.990" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|french|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1275" RevisionGUID="9b771533-addd-4c0e-8899-c3815cde8d82" CreationDate="2016-07-26T09:00:58.973" UserId="79" Text="I want to translate the phrase *drama ingens in hac familia actum est* from Latin to English.&#xD;&#xA;I know what the phrase means, but I struggle to find an idiomatic translation in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it just &quot;a great drama has been acted in this family&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;The word I am unsure about is &quot;act&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Should it rather be &quot;enact&quot;, &quot;act out&quot;, or something else, or would it be better to say &quot;there was a great drama in this family&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase is a simplified version of something that will appear in a certain Latin performance, and it needs to be &quot;subtitled&quot; for the benefit of an international audience with a limited command of Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4225" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1275" RevisionGUID="9b771533-addd-4c0e-8899-c3815cde8d82" CreationDate="2016-07-26T09:00:58.973" UserId="79" Text="How to translate &quot;drama actum est&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4226" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1275" RevisionGUID="9b771533-addd-4c0e-8899-c3815cde8d82" CreationDate="2016-07-26T09:00:58.973" UserId="79" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1276" RevisionGUID="d8aa9e8a-6eb7-4cdd-b4af-142a26091a75" CreationDate="2016-07-26T11:57:48.173" UserId="12" Text="Taking Latin *drama* as English [*a drama, play*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DD%3Aentry+group%3D51%3Aentry%3Ddrama): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *A great drama has been performed by this family*&#xD;&#xA;  - This indicates that a particular family put on a performance of a play.  I.e., *The Collins family performed* The Sound of Music *for us, and it was great!*&#xD;&#xA; - *A great drama has been acted out in this family*&#xD;&#xA;  - This indicates that the events of the family's life unintentionally produced a dramatic story.  I.e., *It's terrible to say, but I love keeping an eye on the Collins family—their lives lately have been so interesting, and I can't wait to see how things turn out!* &#xD;&#xA;  - *Performed* in place of *acted out* would result in a similar meaning, but to me would imply more intentionality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English *drama* can also refer more colloquially to *dramatic*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *There was a lot of drama in this family*&#xD;&#xA;  - Many dramatic things happened within this family – usually referring to the interpersonal relationships within it.  I.e., *Now that Tina is back from school, there is a lot more drama with her sisters as they fight over who sleeps where, who gets the bathroom first, and who has the cutest boyfriend*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, here are a few notes on the options you suggested:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *A great drama has been acted in this family*&#xD;&#xA;  - This is not idiomatic.  &quot;Acted&quot; here needs to be &quot;performed&quot; or &quot;acted out&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *There was a great drama in this family*&#xD;&#xA;  - This isn't idiomatic, except perhaps in the sense that the family was or will be responsible for the production of a great drama at some point in their lives.  Similar in sense to *Tina has a great song in her; she just needs to sit down and write it*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1277" RevisionGUID="289094b9-f5e1-4e20-8ef7-ba9d4e1add16" CreationDate="2016-07-26T15:53:04.860" UserId="324" Text="I suggest: &quot;A great drama has been played out in this family&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1278" RevisionGUID="0a93e9b2-7661-4ca1-89b9-aac9339f9546" CreationDate="2016-07-26T20:42:35.683" UserId="274" Text="I'm an avid follower of the TV-show &quot;Game of Thrones&quot;, and wonder what a Latin translation of the Stark's families motto - &quot;Winter is Coming&quot; - would be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's used in the form of a warning, that there are dark and difficult days ahead.  Should perhaps also add that in the GoT-universe, a winter lasts for years (decades)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/House_Stark" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4231" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1278" RevisionGUID="0a93e9b2-7661-4ca1-89b9-aac9339f9546" CreationDate="2016-07-26T20:42:35.683" UserId="274" Text="What is &quot;Winter is Coming&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4232" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1278" RevisionGUID="0a93e9b2-7661-4ca1-89b9-aac9339f9546" CreationDate="2016-07-26T20:42:35.683" UserId="274" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1279" RevisionGUID="c3b1a86e-c8bf-4832-bdf0-11323df215b3" CreationDate="2016-07-26T20:46:58.550" UserId="704" Text="I believe it is: Hiems Venit (hiems is winter. venit is come)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1279" RevisionGUID="36248659-45ee-4667-938f-be0a77df2e5a" CreationDate="2016-07-26T21:05:21.270" UserId="79" Comment="Slight reformatting." Text="I believe it is: *Hiems venit* (*hiems* is winter, *venit* is comes)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1279" RevisionGUID="6103999e-fbb4-4e0b-a32a-2ea92cdf31ba" CreationDate="2016-07-26T21:41:33.743" UserId="704" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="I believe it is: *Hiems venit* (*hiems* is winter, *venit* is comes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Hiems*:](http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/noun:hiems) Winter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Venire*:](http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/verb:venire) To come/go" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1281" RevisionGUID="d58de76c-9fa0-4805-8d84-65baed9a7fcb" CreationDate="2016-07-27T02:05:00.513" UserId="172" Text="Caesar (B. Gall., iii, 27) simply uses *subest* “be close at hand, be near”: *...quod hiems suberat...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, *hiems subest*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1282" RevisionGUID="b9914d1c-66bd-42f1-a41d-60a8940090ea" CreationDate="2016-07-27T03:40:16.920" UserId="40" Text="In Suetonius's [*Life of Claudius*](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Claudius*.html) 42 we read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nec minore cura Graeca studia secutus est, amorem praestantiamque linguae occasione omni professus. Cuidam barbaro Graece ac Latine disserenti: &quot;Cum utroque,&quot; inquit, &quot;sermone nostro sis paratus&quot;; et in commendanda patribus conscriptis Achaia, gratam sibi provinciam ait **communium studiorum commercio**; ac saepe in senatu legatis perpetua oratione respondit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure about the exact meaning of the phrase *communium studiorum commercio*. The [Loeb translation](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Claudius*.html) of this passage runs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He gave no less attention to Greek studies, taking every occasion to declare his regard for that language and its superiority. To a foreigner who held forth both in Greek and in Latin he said: &quot;Since you are ready with both our tongues&quot;; and in commending Achaia to the senators he declared that it was a province dear to him **through the association of kindred studies**; while he often replied to Greek envoys in the senate in a set speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's not clear to me either. What is &quot;the association of kindred studies&quot;? The studies are presumably Claudius's studies of Greek, but what or who are they kindred (*communes*) with and what is the &quot;association&quot; (*commercium*)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4240" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1282" RevisionGUID="b9914d1c-66bd-42f1-a41d-60a8940090ea" CreationDate="2016-07-27T03:40:16.920" UserId="40" Text="&quot;Communium studiorum commercio&quot; in Suetonius" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4241" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1282" RevisionGUID="b9914d1c-66bd-42f1-a41d-60a8940090ea" CreationDate="2016-07-27T03:40:16.920" UserId="40" Text="|translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1283" RevisionGUID="ff29f336-8228-4731-9328-fe746c557402" CreationDate="2016-07-27T05:33:38.213" UserId="40" Text="Here is a passage from Ovid's description of the flood in *Metamorphoses* 1, 293-4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; occupat hic collem, cumba sedet alter adunca&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et ducit remos illic ubi nuper ararat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;This man occupies a hill, another sits in a curved boat and plies oars where he &#xD;&#xA;had recently plowed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, *ararat* is a perfectly regular syncopated pluperfect verb form, &quot;he had plowed&quot;. But it also happens to look exactly like the name of Mt. Ararat, which is an odd coincidence in the context of a deluge story (especially as the next hundred or so lines tell the story of Deucalion). Is it possible that Ovid knew the Biblical version of the flood story, or some other version that involved Mt. Ararat, and was making a learned pun? Or is it sheer coincidence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4243" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1283" RevisionGUID="ff29f336-8228-4731-9328-fe746c557402" CreationDate="2016-07-27T05:33:38.213" UserId="40" Text="Did Ovid know of Mt. Ararat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4244" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1283" RevisionGUID="ff29f336-8228-4731-9328-fe746c557402" CreationDate="2016-07-27T05:33:38.213" UserId="40" Text="|mythology|ovidius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1283" RevisionGUID="cfbb4e83-9fd6-46d6-870d-af765a7ec509" CreationDate="2016-07-27T07:14:30.157" UserId="79" Comment="You can break the row without paragraph change with a double space." Text="Here is a passage from Ovid's description of the flood in *Metamorphoses* 1, 293&amp;ndash;4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; occupat hic collem, cumba sedet alter adunca  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et ducit remos illic ubi nuper ararat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;This man occupies a hill, another sits in a curved boat and plies oars where he &#xD;&#xA;had recently plowed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, *ararat* is a perfectly regular syncopated pluperfect verb form, &quot;he had plowed&quot;. But it also happens to look exactly like the name of Mt. Ararat, which is an odd coincidence in the context of a deluge story (especially as the next hundred or so lines tell the story of Deucalion). Is it possible that Ovid knew the Biblical version of the flood story, or some other version that involved Mt. Ararat, and was making a learned pun? Or is it sheer coincidence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4246" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1282" RevisionGUID="1dcd8785-3087-4eb3-be8b-24cf14cec71d" CreationDate="2016-07-27T07:14:56.360" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1284" RevisionGUID="df390174-d1b6-41fc-8908-b49109916a7e" CreationDate="2016-07-27T08:00:55.067" UserId="79" Text="I want to say &quot;people continue to study Latin&quot;, and I came up with *lingua Latina studenda pergit*.&#xD;&#xA;Is such a combination gerundive and *pergere* grammatical?&#xD;&#xA;It must be understandable, but I do not recall ever seeing it used or discussed.&#xD;&#xA;Another option would be *lingua Latina studeri pergit*, but I want to know if the gerundive works, too.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4248" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1284" RevisionGUID="df390174-d1b6-41fc-8908-b49109916a7e" CreationDate="2016-07-27T08:00:55.067" UserId="79" Text="Is &quot;lingua Latina studenda pergit&quot; grammatical?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4249" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1284" RevisionGUID="df390174-d1b6-41fc-8908-b49109916a7e" CreationDate="2016-07-27T08:00:55.067" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|gerundive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1285" RevisionGUID="38818081-89ba-4ced-81b5-f2aef2a93037" CreationDate="2016-07-27T08:59:47.713" UserId="709" Text="In English, and most modern european languages, we have one single word, &quot;very,&quot; which is accepted as the regular way to make an adjective more extreme.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a common way to do this in latin?&#xD;&#xA;Ways I can think of are just using the superlative, or using some adjective like nimis, multum or magnopere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. (something) is very cold: maybe &quot;est frigidissimus,&quot; &quot;est multum frigidus&quot; or &quot;est nimis frigidus?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what I'm really interested in is whether there's a &quot;regular&quot; way of doing this (perhaps different ways were idiomatic in different eras.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw, this is not the same sort of emphasis as moving the adjective to the start of the sentence - that emphasizes the importance of the word, whereas I want to change the meaning of it (make it more extreme.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4251" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1285" RevisionGUID="38818081-89ba-4ced-81b5-f2aef2a93037" CreationDate="2016-07-27T08:59:47.713" UserId="709" Text="How to emphasize adjectives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4252" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1285" RevisionGUID="38818081-89ba-4ced-81b5-f2aef2a93037" CreationDate="2016-07-27T08:59:47.713" UserId="709" Text="|translation|idiom|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1286" RevisionGUID="518f38b5-6c41-42f6-aa34-e0291f4d155c" CreationDate="2016-07-27T09:16:50.693" UserId="79" Text="Using *nimis* (or related words) before an adjective strengthens it, but in a specific direction: *nimis frigidus* is &quot;too cold&quot;, not &quot;very cold&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You can also reach a similar tone with comparative: *frigidior* can mean &quot;too cold&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest three ways to emphasize an adjective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Superlative:&#xD;&#xA;*Frigidissimus* is a very idiomatic way to say &quot;too cold&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The absolute superlative (superlative without a comparison to anything else) is common.&#xD;&#xA;The absolute comparative (see above) is less common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Valde*:&#xD;&#xA;*Valde frigidus* is one way to go.&#xD;&#xA;It should be noticed, though, that *valde* is a contraction from *valide*.&#xD;&#xA;This gives the word a tone different from the English &quot;very&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However, *valde* is a good translation of &quot;very&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Prefix:&#xD;&#xA;Many adjectives can be emphasized with a prefix.&#xD;&#xA;A typical choice for emphasis is *per-*, and it can also be used for verbs.&#xD;&#xA;This prefix is so common that I would encourage using it productively.&#xD;&#xA;But for your example this is not needed, since [*perfrigidus*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2043484) is attested in ancient literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am unsure about *multum*.&#xD;&#xA;It sounds less idiomatic to me, but it may turn out to be valid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1285" RevisionGUID="c24dff5d-87a3-4ada-b489-c9a9b65f11f4" CreationDate="2016-07-27T09:18:53.773" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags and slightly reformatted." Text="In English, and most modern European languages, we have one single word, &quot;very,&quot; which is accepted as the regular way to make an adjective more extreme.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a common way to do this in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Ways I can think of are just using the superlative, or using some adjective like *nimis*, *multum* or *magnopere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. (something) is very cold: maybe &quot;est frigidissimus,&quot; &quot;est multum frigidus&quot; or &quot;est nimis frigidus?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what I'm really interested in is whether there's a &quot;regular&quot; way of doing this.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps different ways were idiomatic in different eras.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the same sort of emphasis as moving the adjective to the start of the sentence &amp;mdash; that emphasizes the importance of the word, whereas I want to change the meaning of it, make it more extreme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4255" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1285" RevisionGUID="c24dff5d-87a3-4ada-b489-c9a9b65f11f4" CreationDate="2016-07-27T09:18:53.773" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags and slightly reformatted." Text="|translation|vocabulary|idiom|grammar-choice|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1287" RevisionGUID="7610203f-1b77-4d36-bd7b-05e589168afb" CreationDate="2016-07-27T11:08:05.087" UserId="324" Text="Of course, this is a very interesting question. From a purely chronological point of view one could imagine that Ovid might have run across a copy of the Septuagint and read there of how Noah’s ark came to rest on ὄρη τὰ ᾿Αραράτ. Having said this, I do not see that there is any evidence that the Septuagint, or any other version of the Hebrew scripture, was known to or read by anyone outside the Jewish community until the time when Christianity emerged as a separate community, that is: towards the end of the first century. So I think we need to accept that this is a coincidence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1288" RevisionGUID="f73ca979-f750-4e8f-890f-48179e8b7f9e" CreationDate="2016-07-27T15:13:40.343" UserId="710" Text="I take it to be in the neighborhood of &quot;common study of commerce&quot; or &quot;art of business&quot;, possibly &quot;togetherness of trade&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1289" RevisionGUID="288e2f23-638a-48ae-88b1-3c426becf9a2" CreationDate="2016-07-27T17:17:59.547" UserId="45" Text="The Loeb translation seems about right: Alexander Thomson translates the bolded passage in a similar way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on account of our common studies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passage could go any number of ways, but I tend to favor a reading of *commercium* not so much as (economic) commerce as simply fellowship. Lewis &amp; Short, in its [entry for *commercium*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcommercium), offers as one meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. In gen., intercourse, communication, correspondence, fellowship&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suetonius's point is that Claudius feels a special affinity (*commercium*) for Greece because of their common interests/studies (*communia studia*). This is paralleled in the previous anecdote, where he makes the similar point that Greek is not an alien tongue but, like Latin, &quot;our tongue.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1266" RevisionGUID="17d7a7f8-2da8-4394-9513-205c785b7ce1" CreationDate="2016-07-27T19:20:09.867" UserId="118" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="In [pagina 132](https://books.google.com/books?id=MFowBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA132#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) primi libri _Linguae Latinae Per Se Illustratae,_ auctoris Iohannis Ørbergi, est scriptum:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus ab hominibus nec vidētur nec audītur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Estne deducta a scriptura antiqua haec sententia? Si est, quanam?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quaero quia scio nonnullos locos huius libri ab antiquitatis operibus celebribus deductosque simplices redditos esse, mihi etiam insolitam videtur vocem passivam docendi rationem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="ab625628-8c51-44e1-9215-1a55a3c74bba" CreationDate="2016-07-27T20:04:47.733" UserId="711" Text="As an expression of the fact that much of life is beyond one's control, the English phrase 'Such is life.', or 'That's the way the cookie crumbles.', or, more vulgarly, 'Shit happens.' is common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would this, idiomatically and succinctly, be expressed in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4262" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="ab625628-8c51-44e1-9215-1a55a3c74bba" CreationDate="2016-07-27T20:04:47.733" UserId="711" Text="How to say 'Such is life'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4263" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="ab625628-8c51-44e1-9215-1a55a3c74bba" CreationDate="2016-07-27T20:04:47.733" UserId="711" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|saying|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="f3d37ec3-6d35-49e3-9810-4d01bffc15c3" CreationDate="2016-07-27T20:57:48.240" UserId="711" Comment="added 216 characters in body" Text="As an expression of the fact that much of life is beyond one's control, the English phrase 'Such is life.', or 'That's the way the cookie crumbles.', or, more vulgarly, 'Shit happens.' is common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would this, idiomatically and succinctly, be expressed in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With my limited knowledge and a latin dictionary, I've arrived at something like 'Talis vita est', but I'm pretty sure that's not right at all. It seems forced, and too 'literal translation'-y. Also, too literal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1291" RevisionGUID="ed21b6bd-7c49-403f-b094-209a56fe7d4d" CreationDate="2016-07-27T21:30:06.960" UserId="12" Text="One option here is ***sic vita est***.  A form of it, *sic vita erat*, appears in Publius Terentius's [*Andria*](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/134/1/1/1800-1808#1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sic vita erat: facile omnis perferre ac pati;	  &#xD;&#xA;cum quibus erat quomque una îs sese dedere,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Such was his life; readily to bear and comply with all;  &#xD;&#xA;with whomsoever he was in company, to them to resign ([translation source](https://books.google.com/books?id=B3y1enBOD9kC&amp;pg=PA430))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meanings of each of the words of *sic vita est* are straight forward (*sic* [means *thus* or *in such manner*](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.17:2009.lewisandshort), while *vita* and *est* mean *life* and *is*, respectively).  And put together, it's translated to convey your intended meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Such is the way of the world&quot; (Riddle's [*Complete Dictionary*](https://books.google.com/books?id=l_UsAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA301&amp;dq=&quot;sic+vita+est&quot;))&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Such is life&quot; (Archer's [*500 Foreign Words and Phrases*](https://books.google.com/books?id=UKWagDlpmIQC&amp;pg=PA185&amp;dq=&quot;sic+vita+est&quot;))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1292" RevisionGUID="a7e7f55c-adc9-437a-8aa2-aeec6dd8dda5" CreationDate="2016-07-27T23:31:25.807" UserId="203" Text="In **Rome:Its people life and customs** by Ugo Enrico Paoli, some rooms in plans of Pompeiian houses are marked *tricoinium* with no explanation or definition. I cannot find this, either in my own dictionary nor L&amp;S or other online dictionaries. Is this a mispelling/mistranslation - the book was originally written in Italian? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4267" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1292" RevisionGUID="a7e7f55c-adc9-437a-8aa2-aeec6dd8dda5" CreationDate="2016-07-27T23:31:25.807" UserId="203" Text="Meaning of &quot;tricoinium&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4268" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1292" RevisionGUID="a7e7f55c-adc9-437a-8aa2-aeec6dd8dda5" CreationDate="2016-07-27T23:31:25.807" UserId="203" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1293" RevisionGUID="8dd802c2-07e5-416e-9ccd-86798350ce32" CreationDate="2016-07-27T23:34:39.093" UserId="40" Text="Presumably a typo for [triclinium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triclinium)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1294" RevisionGUID="90f0df55-f42f-4d11-8e45-cab7d7c5b0de" CreationDate="2016-07-28T21:29:08.553" UserId="79" Text="What would be a good Latin adjective for things related to opening ceremonies?&#xD;&#xA;It might be used together with words meaning speech, ceremony, parade or something similar.&#xD;&#xA;Starting with the verb *inaugurare*, the derivatives *inaugurativus* and *inauguralis* come to mind.&#xD;&#xA;I have used *inaugurativus*.&#xD;&#xA;Which one is better?&#xD;&#xA;Or is there perhaps a better adjective than either of these?&#xD;&#xA;Do *inaugurativus* and *inauguralis* mean the same if they are both usable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4271" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1294" RevisionGUID="90f0df55-f42f-4d11-8e45-cab7d7c5b0de" CreationDate="2016-07-28T21:29:08.553" UserId="79" Text="Inaugurativus or inauguralis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4272" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1294" RevisionGUID="90f0df55-f42f-4d11-8e45-cab7d7c5b0de" CreationDate="2016-07-28T21:29:08.553" UserId="79" Text="|translation|vocabulary|derivatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1295" RevisionGUID="d66d4c04-06a5-4fdd-9978-afbb668a0fed" CreationDate="2016-07-29T00:23:37.750" UserId="40" Text="Google gives quite a lot of hits for *inauguralis* (in phrases like *dissertatio inauguralis, lectio inauguralis*), and very few for *inaugurativus*, most of which aren't actually Latin. So I'd say that's your answer. (For what it's worth, *inauguralis* sounds better to me personally.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1295" RevisionGUID="b9de1882-3724-4ace-b8db-d63f77ef392c" CreationDate="2016-07-29T03:00:12.677" UserId="40" Comment="added links" Text="Google gives quite a lot of hits for [*inauguralis*](https://www.google.com/search?q=inauguralis&amp;oq=inauguralis&amp;aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8) (in phrases like *dissertatio inauguralis, lectio inauguralis*), and very few for [*inaugurativus*](https://www.google.com/search?q=inaugurativus&amp;oq=inaugurativus&amp;aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=inaugurativus&amp;nfpr=1), most of which aren't actually Latin. So I'd say that's your answer. (For what it's worth, *inauguralis* sounds better to me personally.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4276" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1145" RevisionGUID="03797105-9889-417f-ac29-e92ac26ebca5" CreationDate="2016-07-29T19:24:02.560" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|preposition|suffixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4277" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="203" RevisionGUID="af2a76d8-56fe-4083-9b2b-f061b2d9a268" CreationDate="2016-07-29T19:28:16.560" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1296" RevisionGUID="08425cf9-3c18-4815-8c47-a6d77da996f9" CreationDate="2016-07-29T19:43:24.083" UserId="79" Text="In today's English the word &quot;animal&quot; can include or exclude humans, depending on context.&#xD;&#xA;How about the word *animal* in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Does it include humans?&#xD;&#xA;If not, is there a term that would cover human and other animals?&#xD;&#xA;If *animal* means &quot;something with *anima*&quot;, then humans should be included, but this argument feels insufficient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4279" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1296" RevisionGUID="08425cf9-3c18-4815-8c47-a6d77da996f9" CreationDate="2016-07-29T19:43:24.083" UserId="79" Text="Does animal include human?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4280" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1296" RevisionGUID="08425cf9-3c18-4815-8c47-a6d77da996f9" CreationDate="2016-07-29T19:43:24.083" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|translation|vocabulary|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1297" RevisionGUID="cf73c018-226e-49df-bce0-f8d23df6c0c9" CreationDate="2016-07-29T20:58:36.803" UserId="45" Text="*Animal* is certainly applicable to men, both in classical literary usage and in prevalent philosophical discourse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Classical Literary Usage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Referring to man&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, a few examples of *animal* being used to refer to men, all taken from the [Lewis &amp; Short entry for *animal*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Danimal):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **animal hoc** prouidum, sagax, multiplex, acutum, memor, plenum rationis et consilii, **quem uocamus hominem**, praeclara quadam condicione generatum esse a supremo deo. (Cic. Leg. 1.22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Sanctius his animal** mentisque capacius altae  &#xD;&#xA;deerat adhuc et quod dominari in cetera posset.  &#xD;&#xA;Natus homo est... (Ov. M. 1.76-78)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Distinguishing from man&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Animal* can also be used to **distinguish from men**. In other words, it can be used just as the English word *animal*. One example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed ea non ab hominibus modo petitur verum etiam ab animalibus... (Quint. 6, 3, 57)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Philosophical Usage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A strong philosophical current defined man as belong to the genus *animal* and having the specific difference of being *rationale*. This goes back to Aristotle's definition of man as a &quot;zoon logikon.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, Quintillian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Itaque a genere perveniendum ad ultimam species: ut homo est animal non est satis, id enim genus est; mortale, etiamsi est species, cum aliis tamen communis finitio; rationale, nihil supererit ad demonstrandum id quod velis. (Quint. Inst. 5 10.56)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The medieval scholastics took and ran with this Aristotelian current. Aquinas provides a good example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unde etiam in rebus humanis, si quaeratur, quis est iste? Respondetur, Socrates, quod nomen est suppositi, si autem quaeratur, quid est iste? Respondetur, animal rationale et mortale. (*Summa Theologiae* I Q. 31 a. 2 ad 4)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1298" RevisionGUID="4cde7edb-5c9c-4075-aa5c-c080ae320043" CreationDate="2016-07-31T05:03:48.283" UserId="30" Text="I don't think so. First, are you sure that *pergit* can be used in this sense? I would use *pergo* to indicate a sense of progression, and I would have an agent in mind as its subject, someone who continues to move in a certain direction. Perhaps *permanet* or *perstat* would fit?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the gerundive construction, i.e. a gerundive that is used dominantly, I believe it cannot be used in the nominative, nor in the accusative without a preposition. The same applies a to gerunds, mutatis mutandis. In its non-dominant use, a gerundive has a sense of obligation or prediction, which, as you say, is not what we want in this example: &quot;the Latin language continues to be compulsory to be studied&quot;; or as an ablative: &quot;it continues while studying the Latin language&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the passivity of the gerund is also problematic here, because *studeo* is normally intransitive: it goes with the dative and cannot normally be passivised with a subject. A gerundive is also passive, but *studendus* and *linga Latina* could not agree in case. Then what would the gerundive agree with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the nominative, one would use a simple noun or an infinitive rather than a gerundive, to express &quot;doing something&quot; as a subject or direct object. In this case, a noun comes first to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Studium lingae Latinae permanet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An infinitive is possible in theory:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ? Studere linguae Latinae permanet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somehow, I don't like this very much, but it's hard to explain why not. Perhaps verbs that mean &quot;continue&quot; are not often used with infinitive constructions? At least I don't think *permanet* is constructed with an infinitive; and *perstat* with an infinitive means something else, as does *pergit*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Linguae Latinae adhuc studemus / semper studebimus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has a slightly different meaning, but it could be appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1299" RevisionGUID="f9e278ff-de28-4481-9ecd-e3c2f21dc232" CreationDate="2016-07-31T05:09:48.520" UserId="30" Text="When you quarter something, you divide it into four, so that you have four separate parts. This notion of separation is what developed into the sense of enclosure or separation or removal. That's why most languages have a word like *quarter, quartier, kwartier, Viertel* meaning &quot;a fourth part, a separate part of the city, a quartered-off neighbourhood&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That a fourth part should have developed this sense, and not a fifth or a sixth party, is perhaps arbitrary. But perhaps it was common to divide cities into northern, eastern, southern, and western parts? We also do that in mathematics with quadrants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1300" RevisionGUID="556465da-2871-4182-b133-bd7f5f805210" CreationDate="2016-07-31T17:10:59.003" UserId="68" Text="I'll expand this later (I'm on my phone), but I'd offer *Etiamnunc linguae Latinae studetur.* (&quot;People are still studying Latin,&quot; or, more literally, &quot;Study is still given to Latin.&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1286" RevisionGUID="bdeaeccb-3a74-43da-b5a5-2d1434e169bf" CreationDate="2016-07-31T20:36:17.570" UserId="79" Comment="added 230 characters in body" Text="Using *nimis* (or related words) before an adjective strengthens it, but in a specific direction: *nimis frigidus* is &quot;too cold&quot;, not &quot;very cold&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You can also reach a similar tone with comparative: *frigidior* can mean &quot;too cold&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest three ways to emphasize an adjective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Superlative:&#xD;&#xA;*Frigidissimus* is a very idiomatic way to say &quot;too cold&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The absolute superlative (superlative without a comparison to anything else) is common.&#xD;&#xA;The absolute comparative (see above) is less common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Valde*:&#xD;&#xA;*Valde frigidus* is one way to go.&#xD;&#xA;It should be noticed, though, that *valde* is a contraction from *valide*.&#xD;&#xA;This gives the word a tone&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; different from the English &quot;very&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However, *valde* is a good translation of &quot;very&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Prefix:&#xD;&#xA;Many adjectives can be emphasized with a prefix.&#xD;&#xA;A typical choice for emphasis is *per-*, and it can also be used for verbs.&#xD;&#xA;This prefix is so common that I would encourage using it productively.&#xD;&#xA;But for your example this is not needed, since [*perfrigidus*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2043484) is attested in ancient literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am unsure about *multum*.&#xD;&#xA;It sounds less idiomatic to me, but it may turn out to be valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that *val(i)de* means also &quot;strongly&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The English &quot;very&quot; is not connected to an adjective like *validus*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore &quot;very&quot; and *valde* are not exactly alike, but they are very close." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4288" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="48e9d736-a961-4c6f-84a8-47108c82217b" CreationDate="2016-08-01T14:33:45.043" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|phrase|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4289" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="621" RevisionGUID="aa0c5afb-02b0-4c21-8f9f-3acb8140e0b9" CreationDate="2016-08-01T14:34:45.277" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|verbs|passive-voice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4290" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="919" RevisionGUID="a4d65392-5cee-4c00-8ce7-02b3faaf3632" CreationDate="2016-08-01T14:35:33.123" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|grammar-identification|cicero|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1301" RevisionGUID="e1be2c76-1b4c-43e7-af64-7bcaf260ed86" CreationDate="2016-08-01T14:47:33.953" UserId="12" Text="I understand that a legitimate, though perhaps uncommon, way to introduce oneself in Latin is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Ego] sum Iulius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also know that in Latin, as in English, people's names are often connected to their occupations.  So in English we have the name *Smith*, and in Latin we have the name *Faber*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, because of the rules relating to the use of articles, someone named &quot;Smith&quot; can safely use the &quot;I am&quot; construction to introduce himself: &quot;I'm Smith&quot; cannot refer to his profession (that would be &quot;I'm *a* smith&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But Latin has no articles, of course, so I wonder how the following sentence, when spoken, would be understood:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sum Faber&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this always mean &quot;I am a/the craftsman&quot;?  Or is it ambiguous without context?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Put another way, if used in the context of introductions, would it be immediately understood as &quot;My name is Faber,&quot; or would the listener wonder why the speaker is talking about his profession prior to providing his name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4292" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1301" RevisionGUID="e1be2c76-1b4c-43e7-af64-7bcaf260ed86" CreationDate="2016-08-01T14:47:33.953" UserId="12" Text="Does &quot;Sum faber&quot; necessarily mean &quot;I am a craftsman,&quot; or can it mean &quot;My name is Faber&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4293" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1301" RevisionGUID="e1be2c76-1b4c-43e7-af64-7bcaf260ed86" CreationDate="2016-08-01T14:47:33.953" UserId="12" Text="|verbs|names|ambiguity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1302" RevisionGUID="3b41d44b-d570-4b27-aa6e-88e39a9640de" CreationDate="2016-08-01T16:46:02.217" UserId="68" Text="I actually just spent a week with a bunch of living Latinists one of whom was named Faber, so I can say that *with* context there's no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;Faber&quot; was not at all a Roman name, and I sort of feel like if you were transported back in time and said this, it would be like introducing yourself today to somebody as Ablacksmith. &quot;Hi, I'm Ablacksmith.&quot; That is, without any context, no, it wouldn't make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today I sort of feel like it would be fairly clear from the social context whether somebody was giving you his name or his profession. If you meet somebody at a cocktail party and say, Hi, I'm Nathaniel, and he responds, *Faber sum*, it's a fair bet he's giving you his name. If it's *not* clear, you could always ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But absent any context, social or verbal, I'd say it would be better to stick with *Fabrum me vocant* or *Nomen mihi est Faber*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1303" RevisionGUID="41c979f5-79ce-4b0b-b9bd-60921ba94375" CreationDate="2016-08-01T17:49:36.857" UserId="725" Text="I have renewed my self-studies of Latin and I have observed that the greatest effect (and motivation) of studies comes from trying to translate important texts from the foreign language to English or my native language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I have question - are there Latin texts that still are not translated in English language but which are worthy to be translated. I guess that there are lot of medieval and more late scientific texts which has only historical importance and which I don't want to translate. But maybe there are new texts appearing today?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found Latinitas Foundation sponsored by Vatican and their Certamen competition of poetry:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/index_en.htm&#xD;&#xA;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/rc_latinitas_20040601_certamen-vaticanum_lt.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can be happy with ecclesiastical texts as well but I am not sure whether I would like (or be ready) to translate poems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;p.s. I guess that Greenough grammar book is still the best grammar book despite its old age. I am aware of recent Latin grammars by CUP or OUP but they have only 200-300 pages and it is impossible to squeeze all the distinct sentence structures in such a number of pages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4296" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1303" RevisionGUID="41c979f5-79ce-4b0b-b9bd-60921ba94375" CreationDate="2016-08-01T17:49:36.857" UserId="725" Text="Untranslated (but important) content in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4297" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1303" RevisionGUID="41c979f5-79ce-4b0b-b9bd-60921ba94375" CreationDate="2016-08-01T17:49:36.857" UserId="725" Text="|translation|contemporary-latin|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1303" RevisionGUID="3549e859-50ec-4d6a-bef9-8b96acf76096" CreationDate="2016-08-01T18:35:54.373" UserId="725" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="I have renewed my self-studies of Latin and I have observed that the greatest effect (and motivation) of studies comes from trying to translate important texts from the foreign language to English or my native language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I have question - are there Latin texts that still are not translated in English language but which are worthy to be translated. I guess that there are lot of medieval and more late scientific texts which has only historical importance and which I don't want to translate. But maybe there are new texts appearing today?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found Latinitas Foundation sponsored by Vatican and their Certamen competition of poetry:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/index_en.htm&#xD;&#xA;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/rc_latinitas_20040601_certamen-vaticanum_lt.html&#xD;&#xA;These Vatican activities is one source of contemporary Latin texts that are being created now and which, probably, lack translation in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can be happy with ecclesiastical texts as well but I am not sure whether I would like (or be ready) to translate poems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;p.s. I guess that Greenough grammar book is still the best grammar book despite its old age. I am aware of recent Latin grammars by CUP or OUP but they have only 200-300 pages and it is impossible to squeeze all the distinct sentence structures in such a number of pages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4299" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1303" RevisionGUID="3bbfc3c5-a147-4818-ad04-01715ffd86bd" CreationDate="2016-08-01T20:19:24.467" UserId="12" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:12,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nathaniel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1303" RevisionGUID="e3a8465b-ea02-44bb-84f0-3fe355f5893c" CreationDate="2016-08-01T20:27:55.150" UserId="725" Comment="deleted 275 characters in body" Text="I have renewed my self-studies of Latin and I have observed that the greatest effect (and motivation) of studies comes from trying to translate important texts from the foreign language to English or my native language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I have question - are there Latin texts that still are not translated in English language but which are worthy to be translated. I guess that there are lot of medieval and more late scientific texts which has only historical importance and which I don't want to translate. But maybe there are new texts appearing today?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found Latinitas Foundation sponsored by Vatican and their Certamen competition of poetry:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/index_en.htm&#xD;&#xA;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/rc_latinitas_20040601_certamen-vaticanum_lt.html&#xD;&#xA;These Vatican activities is one source of contemporary Latin texts that are being created now and which, probably, lack translation in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can be happy with ecclesiastical texts as well but I am not sure whether I would like (or be ready) to translate poems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1304" RevisionGUID="f1eb721e-ae2f-499b-bc59-7db0a3183b0e" CreationDate="2016-08-01T20:34:01.100" UserId="726" Text="Trying to remember the Latin word for the person at cena who decided whether more or less water was added to the wine to keep the party going steady." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4302" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1304" RevisionGUID="f1eb721e-ae2f-499b-bc59-7db0a3183b0e" CreationDate="2016-08-01T20:34:01.100" UserId="726" Text="Term for the water/wine ratio chooser?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4303" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1304" RevisionGUID="f1eb721e-ae2f-499b-bc59-7db0a3183b0e" CreationDate="2016-08-01T20:34:01.100" UserId="726" Text="|roman-culture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1304" RevisionGUID="a49bdc9d-b577-4005-9085-d1d518538d8f" CreationDate="2016-08-01T20:39:01.983" UserId="12" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="What's the Latin word for the person at cena who decided whether more or less water was added to the wine to keep the party going steadily?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4305" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1304" RevisionGUID="a49bdc9d-b577-4005-9085-d1d518538d8f" CreationDate="2016-08-01T20:39:01.983" UserId="12" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|word-request|roman-culture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1305" RevisionGUID="1db9589f-74d3-4b0a-b725-2d1aea5faa19" CreationDate="2016-08-01T21:02:25.363" UserId="12" Text="The Latin term for this is ***magister bibendi*** or ***arbiter bibendi***, or &quot;master of drinking.&quot;  Here's some context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; After a roll of the dice, a magister bibendi was chosen.  By appointing a certain ratio of water to wine to be mixed in the cups, this so-called &quot;master of the drinking&quot; then decided the strength of the wine to be drunk. ([*Latin for Dummies*](https://books.google.com/books?id=Jmdmv6sjSEoC&amp;pg=PT141&amp;lpg=PT141&amp;dq=&quot;magister+bibendi&quot;))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in [*A Companion to Latin Studies*, §250](https://books.google.com/books?id=6q0MAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA207):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Drinking at the *cena* was moderate, but it was frequently followed by a drinking bout called *cōmissatio*.  One of the guests was chosen *magister* or *arbiter bibendi*, and his function was to decide the respective proportions of wine and water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Horace mentions the latter option in [*Odes*, 2.7](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0024%3Abook%3D2%3Apoem%3D7):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;curatve myrto? quem Venus **arbitrum  &#xD;&#xA;dicet bibendi?** non ego sanius  &#xD;&#xA;bacchabor Edonis: recepto  &#xD;&#xA;dulce mihi furere est amico.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Who’ll throw high Venus at dice and so become  &#xD;&#xA;**the master of drink**? I’ll rage as insanely  &#xD;&#xA;as any Thracian: It’s sweet to me  &#xD;&#xA;to revel when a friend is home again. ([translation source](http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/HoraceOdesBkII.htm#anchor_Toc39742781))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1058" RevisionGUID="a0888429-96be-40e2-90a0-a98ac28df327" CreationDate="2016-08-01T22:25:07.487" UserId="12" Comment="added 677 characters in body" Text="Several excellent Latin grammars are available online:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Gildersleeve's [*Latin Grammar*](https://books.google.com/books?id=UU0BIAbE0SIC)&#xD;&#xA; - Allen and Greenough's [*New Latin Grammar*](https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ)&#xD;&#xA; - Bennett's [*New Latin Grammar*](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15665/15665-h/15665-h.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of these, Gildersleeve is usually the most detailed and comprehensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin grammars not in the public domain include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Woodcock's [*A New Latin Syntax*](https://books.google.com/books/about/A_New_Latin_Syntax.html?id=WmT6mS5v4dAC) (1959)&#xD;&#xA; - Pinkster's [*Oxford Latin Syntax*](https://books.google.com/books?id=yxxfCgAAQBAJ) (2015)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4308" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1179" RevisionGUID="8c21a6be-931f-424c-b7b7-cf9ad22cc54d" CreationDate="2016-08-01T22:38:26.093" UserId="12" Comment="12" />
  <row Id="4310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1306" RevisionGUID="73aa2cf6-b7d8-4663-8852-67db6b7822ff" CreationDate="2016-08-02T13:27:28.337" UserId="45" Text="The genitive form of the personal pronouns (e.g. *mei*, *tui*, *nostri*, *nostrum*, etc.) seem to occur fairly often in the following contexts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Partitive genitive**: to indicate a part of some whole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quis vestrum non morietur?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **With an adjective that takes the genitive**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Memor mei esto!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **With a verb that takes the genitive**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Miserere nostri!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: **is there any classical precedent for using the possessive personal pronoun to indicate possession?** In other words, are there any examples of *mei* being used instead of *meus* in a sentence like the following: *Filius es mei?* In English we can say things such as &quot;He is a son of mine,&quot; and other languages have parallels, e.g. *mon fils à moi* or *un hijo mío*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is, **what nuance of meaning is this used to convey?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4311" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1306" RevisionGUID="73aa2cf6-b7d8-4663-8852-67db6b7822ff" CreationDate="2016-08-02T13:27:28.337" UserId="45" Text="When to use a genitive pronoun instead of a possessive adjective" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4312" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1306" RevisionGUID="73aa2cf6-b7d8-4663-8852-67db6b7822ff" CreationDate="2016-08-02T13:27:28.337" UserId="45" Text="|pronouns|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1307" RevisionGUID="d7f66da8-eabc-4f53-913b-d9b8296d8482" CreationDate="2016-08-02T13:52:29.153" UserId="79" Text="I want to talk about different ministers in a government in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;*Minister* and *ministra* are good words for a minister, but how to say &quot;minister of justice and employment&quot; and &quot;minister of economic affairs&quot;, for example?&#xD;&#xA;Ministers of foreign affairs appear occasionally in [Nuntii Latini](http://areena.yle.fi/1-1931339), and they use the expression *minister a rebus exteris*, and the prime minister seems to be *princeps minister*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which constructions can I use to refer to ministers?&#xD;&#xA;For example, are *minister culturae* (genitive), *minister culturae* (dative), *minister culturalis* and *minister a rebus culturalibus* all correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have understood that in classical Latin titles typically come with datives, so I would expect *minister culturae* (dative, not genitive).&#xD;&#xA;However, at least Nuntii Latini doesn't seem to use dative here.&#xD;&#xA;Is abandoning the dative a post-classical thing or is it that *minister* requires a different construction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any insights to the origin and proper usage of ministers' titles are welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4314" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1307" RevisionGUID="d7f66da8-eabc-4f53-913b-d9b8296d8482" CreationDate="2016-08-02T13:52:29.153" UserId="79" Text="How to describe ministers in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4315" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1307" RevisionGUID="d7f66da8-eabc-4f53-913b-d9b8296d8482" CreationDate="2016-08-02T13:52:29.153" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|contemporary-latin|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4316" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1306" RevisionGUID="0046a3c1-8986-4f92-9ef3-c17bf22ee7b3" CreationDate="2016-08-02T14:37:41.460" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|pronouns|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4317" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1307" RevisionGUID="cc08ca89-af6d-4f04-9774-f404cdd5264d" CreationDate="2016-08-02T14:37:55.990" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|etymology|contemporary-latin|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1308" RevisionGUID="93891de2-5288-47a2-8576-316ddf3fc71a" CreationDate="2016-08-02T15:15:08.037" UserId="45" Text="To reiterate @Cerberus's answer, the reflexive usually refers to the subject of the main/independent clause. In this case, this is especially clear, since the Pope is using the &quot;royal we&quot; to refer to himself, and thus would use *noster* instead of *suus* to refer to himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing this answer, though, to address the actual question in your title. The answer is **yes, there are certainly examples of reflexive pronouns referring to someone other than the subject.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Oxford Latin Syntax: Volume I, the Simple Clause*, Pinkster says the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In complex sentences a constitutent of the subordinate clause may be coreferential with a constituent of its own clause (normally the subject) or with a constituent of the governing clause, **not necessarily the subject.** (pg. 1124) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example of this, he quotes Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vos **ex M. Favonio** audistis Clodium **sibi** dixisse, et audistis vivo Clodio, periturum Milonem triduo. (Cic. *Mil.* 44)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence is perhaps easier to parse because &quot;ex aliquo audio&quot; can be transposed without difficulty to *aliquis dicit*. Still, I believe this is an enlightening example from an authoritative source of a reflexive not referring to a subject." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1309" RevisionGUID="e02e4700-1228-4aad-9d32-36f7b4f4f101" CreationDate="2016-08-02T15:32:03.740" UserId="45" Text="A comment to an answer of [this question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/978/eidem-suae-a-way-to-make-the-reflexive-pronoun-refer-to-someone-other-than-th) mentions that ambiguity can arise with a reflexive pronoun when both the independent clause and the clause with the reflexive pronoun have third-person subjects. A minimal example of this kind of ambiguity is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dixit Marcum se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my reading, this could mean either that Mark hates himself or that Mark hates the speaker. (And I suppose there is also nothing to prevent this from meaning that the speaker hates Mark....)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Is this sentence truly ambiguous?** Are there perhaps rules that govern what the antecedent really is in cases like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If it is, **what options do I have to remove ambiguity?** One option that comes to mind would be to use *semetipsum* if the meaning is that Mark hates himself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4320" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1309" RevisionGUID="e02e4700-1228-4aad-9d32-36f7b4f4f101" CreationDate="2016-08-02T15:32:03.740" UserId="45" Text="How to resolve ambiguity with reflexive pronouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4321" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1309" RevisionGUID="e02e4700-1228-4aad-9d32-36f7b4f4f101" CreationDate="2016-08-02T15:32:03.740" UserId="45" Text="|grammar-choice|reflexive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4322" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="1307" RevisionGUID="6312a524-6901-49de-8e80-688bf7cad486" CreationDate="2016-08-02T20:13:04.303" UserId="12" Comment="Rollback to [d7f66da8-eabc-4f53-913b-d9b8296d8482]" Text="|etymology|contemporary-latin|grammar-choice|" />
  <row Id="4323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1310" RevisionGUID="5b8eec8c-1473-4e78-aa6f-e090e210b417" CreationDate="2016-08-03T04:12:33.713" UserId="39" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Anlaut (word initial position):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i+V=j+V iubeo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i+V=i+V only in some forms of the pronoun is (ii, iis) and the verb ire (iens, ii, ieram); also in Greek loans (iambus, iaspis, iota, Io, Iones etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inlaut (word medial position):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In compounds and prefixed verbs&#xD;&#xA;C+i=C+j adiacet&#xD;&#xA;V+i=V+j seiungo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;V+i+V=V+i+V only in very few examples&#xD;&#xA;In Greek names: Achaia, Laius, Naiades, Troius, Acheloius, Minoius; Pleiades, Deianira; Nereius, Priameius, Achileius, Aeneius etc.;&#xD;&#xA;In some adjectives: -uus, -uis followed by the comparative suffix –ior (strenuior, tenuior);&#xD;&#xA;In some nouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1311" RevisionGUID="b17f7a69-f138-4b6f-a6c5-8ef66b5df32f" CreationDate="2016-08-03T06:02:18.210" UserId="79" Text="The phrase *omnia vincit amor* (from Vergilius' tenth Ecloga; see full text in [Latin](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0056%3Apoem%3D10) and [English](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0057%3Apoem%3D10)) is typically translated as &quot;love conquers everything&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However, *vincit* can come from either *vincere* (to win) or *vincire* (to bind).&#xD;&#xA;This leads to the alternative translation &quot;love confines everything&quot;, which is also a meaningful statement.&#xD;&#xA;This double meaning makes some sense in the context, too.&#xD;&#xA;Is there evidence that this double meaning was observed in antiquity?&#xD;&#xA;Has the phrase been used with both meanings?&#xD;&#xA;Is there a good reason to believe that it should be read as *vincere* rather than *vincire*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4325" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1311" RevisionGUID="b17f7a69-f138-4b6f-a6c5-8ef66b5df32f" CreationDate="2016-08-03T06:02:18.210" UserId="79" Text="Omnia vincit amor: vincere or vincire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4326" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1311" RevisionGUID="b17f7a69-f138-4b6f-a6c5-8ef66b5df32f" CreationDate="2016-08-03T06:02:18.210" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|poetry|ambiguity|saying|vergilius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1312" RevisionGUID="b31b99b5-6500-461d-9a7a-8b3b5ecafe8b" CreationDate="2016-08-03T16:01:42.840" UserId="203" Text="I'm not sure whether this question is allowed, but I'm preparing for a course starting in September. The last time I heard Latin spoken was about 50 years ago at school, and that was Church or Ecclesiastical Latin. Can anyone point me to online resources of Classical spoken Latin, if this is within guidelines? Many thanks. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4329" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1312" RevisionGUID="b31b99b5-6500-461d-9a7a-8b3b5ecafe8b" CreationDate="2016-08-03T16:01:42.840" UserId="203" Text="Spoken Classical Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4330" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1312" RevisionGUID="b31b99b5-6500-461d-9a7a-8b3b5ecafe8b" CreationDate="2016-08-03T16:01:42.840" UserId="203" Text="|spoken-language|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1313" RevisionGUID="8eb95258-99be-4c2d-a761-6833e2525913" CreationDate="2016-08-03T17:38:02.560" UserId="45" Text="As a first point, you are certainly not the first person to recognize this. I found a [delightful little poem](https://books.google.com/books?id=sC5qzmxjLsUC&amp;pg=PA8) composed in the 19th century by a certain Piré that uses this same word-play:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Omnia Vincit Amor**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Omnia vincit amor*; non est hoc simplice sensu  &#xD;&#xA;Verum; cura duplex nascitur inde tibi:  &#xD;&#xA;*Vincere* scit telis, roseis *vincire* catenis;  &#xD;&#xA;Utcumque accipias, *omnia vincit amor* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not all, though: Varro, who was contemporary with Vergil (although born 40 years prior), develops this double-entendre:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hinc comicus:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Huic victrix Venus, videsne haec?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non quod vincere velit Venus, sed vincire. Ipsa Victoria ab eo quod superati vinciuntur. (Varro, De lingua latina, 5, 62)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is hard to judge Vergil's actual intention, but it seems fairly clear from context that the primary sense is from *vincere*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few lines before the cited verse, he speaks of carving his initials on a tree so that they grow together:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; crescent illae, crescetis, amores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is of a love that will face all adversities. This is further developed in the verses immediately preceding, which speaks of various adversities the speak will endure (even if to no avail).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the juxtaposition with *cedere* favors the interpretation of *vincere*: if love conquers all, then we must yield to it. The step is less obvious (though, I admit, not implausible) if we see this as *vincire*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1314" RevisionGUID="a2e437b5-a6ef-4f05-9be2-3ca4e3824f1b" CreationDate="2016-08-03T18:22:21.337" UserId="68" Text="There are lots and lots of recordings around. Check YouTube for Terentius Tunberg and Milena Minkova. Also for Wilifried Stroh, whom I find very entertaining to watch (a series of his lectures in Latin is here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXsWVmkaLeYZx7U22BcT_5fiS1E6ypRSL).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also a collection of audio recordings of various lecture series of his at &#xD;&#xA;http://stroh.userweb.mwn.de/main21.html.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These should certainly be enough to get you started. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="8f3526cc-18a8-4971-a582-44a70b557f2e" CreationDate="2016-08-03T18:47:10.743" UserId="9" Comment="added more info on &quot;Maius&quot;" Text="Obviously, you can check a dictionary. If you can't or don't feel like it, here are a few &quot;rules of thumb&quot; I use. I can't guarantee these will work in all cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you're an English speaker, look at a related English word from Latin. If it's spelled with &quot;j,&quot; it was probably consonantal &quot;j&quot; in Latin as well. For example, we can compare Latin MAIVS to English &quot;major,&quot; Latin OBIECTVM to English &quot;object,&quot; and so on.&#xD;&#xA;2. Generally, derivatives of IACIO (&quot;throw&quot;) are pronounced with /j/. There's a lot of them, so this is somewhat useful to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note: unlike most long consonants, phonetically long /jj/ was normally not written double in Latin. In addition, it seems that written I may have corresponded to /ji/ or /jji/ in some cases in words like [*TRAICIO*][1]  &quot;throw over&quot; (composed of TRANS + IACIO). This means that you actually have to choose between five options for written *i*: /i/ /j/, /jj/ /ji/ and /jji/. (Or at least six if the source doesn't use macrons!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some of what W. Sidney Allen wrote about consonantal I in *Vox Latina,* a book I would say is a must-read for anyone interested in Classical Latin pronunciation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One important peculiarity of the latin *i*-consonant is to be noted.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the interior of a word, this sound rarely occurred singly between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vowels. Where once it had been present, it was lost prehistorically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (thus Latin *trēs* beside Sanskrit *trayas*). With a few exceptions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; noted below, whenever a single, intervocalic *i*-consonant is written,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it stands for a *double* consonant, i.e. [yy]. Thus *aio, maior,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; peior, Troia* stand for *aiio, maiior,* etc. This is quite clear from various types of evidence. It is specifically mentioned by Quintilian and other grammarians, who also tell us that Cicero and Caesar used in fact to spell such words with *ii* (†Qu. i, 4, 11; †Priscian, K. ii, 14) and it is supported by frequent inscriptional spellings (e.g. `PompeIius, cuiIus, eiius, maiIorem`). In Italian a double consonant has been maintained in, for example, *peggio* from *peius.* Moreover, the consonant must be double in order to account for the fact that the preceding syllable is always metrically heavy; for the actual vowel is *short*—this is specifically mentioned by Ter. Maurus (†K. vi, 343), and is further evident from other considerations: e.g. *maior* is connected with *măgis,* being derived from *măg-iōs.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([p. 39][2]; it's page 51 in the linked PDF)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it appears sources that use a macron in &quot;māius&quot; (greater) are assigning false quantity to the vowel; according to Allen, the actual pronunciation would have been /majjus/ with a short &quot;a&quot; and a long &quot;j.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that &quot;Maius&quot; was probably pronounced the same as &quot;maius&quot; (there is metrical evidence that both had two syllables). I'm not sure why you learned that they were different. If &quot;Maius&quot; was pronounced differently, it probably had the &quot;i&quot; forming the offglide of a diphthong, like /ˈmai̯.us/. But in Italian at least, the modern pronunciation is indistinguishable from words that we know had intervocalic consonantal /jj/ (the Italian descendant of &quot;Maius&quot; is [*maggio*][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/traicio#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ganino.com/files/Latin%20Copyright%20Books/29%20Vox%20Latina%20The%20Pronunciation%20of%20Classical%20Latin.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/maggio#Italian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1266" RevisionGUID="37c71cea-27c8-42bd-a8d5-0c3cc657082d" CreationDate="2016-08-03T23:18:01.377" UserId="118" Comment="Non certo hoc meliorem Latinitatem habere, sed &quot;deductosque&quot; plumbeum puto." Text="In [pagina 132](https://books.google.com/books?id=MFowBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA132#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) primi libri _Linguae Latinae Per Se Illustratae,_ auctoris Iohannis Ørbergi, est scriptum:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus ab hominibus nec vidētur nec audītur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Estne deducta a scriptura antiqua haec sententia? Si est, quanam?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quaero quia scio nonnullos locos huius libri ab antiquitatis operibus celebribus deductos redditosque ad simplices esse, mihi etiam insolitam videtur vocem passivam docendi rationem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1266" RevisionGUID="2795380d-6396-4521-9bb7-5a3a5cd1265e" CreationDate="2016-08-03T23:40:46.257" UserId="118" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In [pagina 132ª](https://books.google.com/books?id=MFowBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA132#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) primi libri _Linguae Latinae Per Se Illustratae,_ auctoris Iohannis Ørbergi, est scriptum:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus ab hominibus nec vidētur nec audītur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Estne deducta a scriptura antiqua haec sententia? Si est, quanam?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quaero quia scio nonnullos locos huius libri ab antiquitatis operibus celebribus deductos redditosque ad simplices esse, mihi etiam insolitam videtur vocem passivam docendi rationem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1310" RevisionGUID="c47b11e8-5a9f-4c99-87c0-6ad5a106708b" CreationDate="2016-08-04T00:20:04.400" UserId="39" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="**Anlaut (word initial position):**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**i+V = &gt;j+V**, e.g. iubeo (in most cases)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*but also* i+V =&gt; i+V&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - only in some forms of the pronoun *is* (ii, iis) and the verb *ire*&#xD;&#xA;   (iens, ii, ieram);&#xD;&#xA; - also in Greek loans (iambus, iaspis, iota, Io, Iones etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Inlaut (word medial position):**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In compounds and prefixed verbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C+i =&gt; C+j *adiacet*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;V+i =&gt; V+j *seiungo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;V+i+V =&gt; V+i+V **only in very few examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In Greek names: Achaia, Laius, Naiades, Troius, Acheloius, Minoius;&#xD;&#xA;   Pleiades, Deianira; Nereius, Priameius, Achileius, Aeneius etc.;&#xD;&#xA; - In some adjectives: -uus, -uis followed by the comparative suffix&#xD;&#xA;   –ior (strenuior, tenuior);&#xD;&#xA; - In some nouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5337" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1294" RevisionGUID="9e98253b-b916-4eb5-aad4-bdd926d2d46f" CreationDate="2016-08-04T06:58:53.283" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|vocabulary|derivation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1315" RevisionGUID="422dafa8-0b82-42d7-8eed-e1f5290c20d9" CreationDate="2016-08-04T06:59:59.300" UserId="79" Text="The verb *esse* has two sets of imperfect conjunctive forms: *essem, esses, esset, &amp;hellip;* and *forem, fores, foret, &amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between these two, in meaning and in use?&#xD;&#xA;Are there cases where only *essem* is valid, or ones where only *forem* is?&#xD;&#xA;When both are valid, is there a difference in meaning?&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately my grammar does not discuss *forem* at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5339" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1315" RevisionGUID="422dafa8-0b82-42d7-8eed-e1f5290c20d9" CreationDate="2016-08-04T06:59:59.300" UserId="79" Text="How does forem compare to essem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5340" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1315" RevisionGUID="422dafa8-0b82-42d7-8eed-e1f5290c20d9" CreationDate="2016-08-04T06:59:59.300" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|word-comparison|conjugation|esse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1315" RevisionGUID="04593875-c6bd-4b87-8e1f-508816cee13e" CreationDate="2016-08-04T07:11:36.673" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="The verb *esse* has two sets of imperfect conjunctive forms: *essem, esses, esset&amp;hellip;* and *forem, fores, foret&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between these two, in meaning and in use?&#xD;&#xA;Are there cases where only *essem* is valid, or ones where only *forem* is?&#xD;&#xA;When both are valid, is there a difference in meaning?&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately my grammar does not discuss *forem* at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1316" RevisionGUID="18164ade-9563-4bbf-a951-7bbb525c28b2" CreationDate="2016-08-04T09:03:46.197" UserId="733" Text="Say I want to mock up the idiom &quot;Vox Populi&quot; using not &quot;populus&quot; (m, people) but &quot;populus&quot; (f, poplar tree). Meaning something like &quot;the sound of the poplar leaves rustling&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I have a way to discriminate enough between the two senses in written - with no context? &#xD;&#xA;Right now I see that both f and m are &quot;populi&quot; in genitive; and &quot;vox populorum&quot; could be rendered both as &quot;voice of the peopleS/nationS&quot; as well as &quot;voice of the poplarS&quot;. Looks I'm stuck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5343" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1316" RevisionGUID="18164ade-9563-4bbf-a951-7bbb525c28b2" CreationDate="2016-08-04T09:03:46.197" UserId="733" Text="Wordplay with &quot;Vox Populi&quot; (populus,m vs. populus, f)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5344" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1316" RevisionGUID="18164ade-9563-4bbf-a951-7bbb525c28b2" CreationDate="2016-08-04T09:03:46.197" UserId="733" Text="|idiom|second-declension|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1314" RevisionGUID="6c54f5b1-b90c-480b-b0ef-3df944dc2ed7" CreationDate="2016-08-04T09:05:08.040" UserId="25" Comment="Improved formatting." Text="There are lots and lots of recordings around. Check YouTube for Terentius Tunberg and Milena Minkova. Also for Wilifried Stroh, whom I find very entertaining to watch (a series of his lectures in Latin is here: [Wilfried Stroh - Valahfridus - Latin Lectures](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXsWVmkaLeYZx7U22BcT_5fiS1E6ypRSL).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also a collection of audio recordings of various lecture series of his at [Wilfried Stroh (Valahfridus)](http://stroh.userweb.mwn.de/main21.html.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These should certainly be enough to get you started. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5346" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1314" RevisionGUID="6c54f5b1-b90c-480b-b0ef-3df944dc2ed7" CreationDate="2016-08-04T09:05:08.040" Comment="Proposed by 25 approved by 118, 79 edit id of 119" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5347" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1316" RevisionGUID="6ab826ed-772f-406d-9a15-07ea2ec237f9" CreationDate="2016-08-04T09:06:26.493" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Wordplay with &quot;Vox Populi&quot; (populus, m vs. populus, f)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5348" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1316" RevisionGUID="6ab826ed-772f-406d-9a15-07ea2ec237f9" CreationDate="2016-08-04T09:06:26.493" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|idiom|ambiguity|second-declension|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1317" RevisionGUID="d0340416-dc31-4535-88dd-cdfd5705256c" CreationDate="2016-08-04T09:17:46.463" UserId="79" Text="There is a small difference between the people and the tree:&#xD;&#xA;vowel length.&#xD;&#xA;Indicating long vowels with a bar and short ones with a cup as usual, the masculine word is *po&amp;#x306;pu&amp;#x306;lu&amp;#x306;s* and the feminine one *p&amp;omacr;pu&amp;#x306;lu&amp;#x306;s*.&#xD;&#xA;Long vowels are indicated in many dictionaries, whereas short vowels are indicated by a lack of macron (the bar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowel lengths are typically not marked in writing, but you might want to do so to make the distinction.&#xD;&#xA;If you write *vox p&amp;omacr;puli*, it is clear that you mean the tree.&#xD;&#xA;(The O in *vox* and the final I are also long, but those lengths need no emphasis. You can use macrons for all long vowels or only when emphasis is needed.)&#xD;&#xA;If in the same text you also want to refer to the voice of the people, you might want to emphasize the shortness: *vox po&amp;#x306;puli*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To emphasize ambiguity, you could write *vox p&amp;omacr;&amp;#x306;puli*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1306" RevisionGUID="58c5666b-51c2-4648-8dce-6aaae171dfdf" CreationDate="2016-08-04T13:39:35.403" UserId="45" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="The genitive form of the personal pronouns (e.g. *mei*, *tui*, *nostri*, *nostrum*, etc.) seem to occur fairly often in the following contexts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Partitive genitive**: to indicate a part of some whole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quis vestrum non morietur?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Objective genitive**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Metus tui*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **With an adjective that takes the genitive**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Memor mei esto!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **With a verb that takes the genitive**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Miserere nostri!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: **is there any classical precedent for using the possessive personal pronoun to indicate possession?** In other words, are there any examples of *mei* being used instead of *meus* in a sentence like the following: *Filius es mei?* In English we can say things such as &quot;He is a son of mine,&quot; and other languages have parallels, e.g. *mon fils à moi* or *un hijo mío*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is, **what nuance of meaning is this used to convey?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1318" RevisionGUID="4bc4970f-6098-4ef5-987a-1e38952ab463" CreationDate="2016-08-04T15:02:36.850" UserId="645" Text="*Minister* somehow doesn't quite fit the case: its primary meanings imply subservience. A better word would, I think, be praepositivus, which better indicates someone put in charge.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of thing is always a bit unsatisfactory in the result. *Princeps minister*, which you quote, doesn't seem quite right, either, even though, in context, the meaning should be clear enough; remember that, in earlier British cabinets, he was always considered *primus inter pares*. Perhaps, therefore, *Primus a Parlamento*, first man of parliament." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1319" RevisionGUID="4bd656a4-ea53-41c4-8091-04387222ca92" CreationDate="2016-08-04T21:39:12.357" UserId="45" Text="For my answer, I will use material from a 1931 article written to address this very issue: &quot;The Use of Forem and Essem&quot; by Winnie D. Lawrence, [available on JSTOR](https://www.jstor.org/stable/282971).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the stub for an answer which I will expand later, here is the abstract of the paper:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While *essem* was always a good literary word, *forem*, after Plautus, gave evidence of decline in this respect. In later writers, especially in Sallust and Tacitus, it was an affected archaism, but in the poets, metrical convenience also was often the deciding factor in its use. The etymology of *forem* suggests a future meaning and those who employ it most frequently have a strong feeling for this quality. Syntatically, *forem* is met most often in conditional sentences, being employed in this way in 42% of its occurrences, while *essem* is so used in only 15%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;1. Future quality&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1320" RevisionGUID="41946685-fdee-4619-9939-43d313539a71" CreationDate="2016-08-05T06:58:13.833" UserId="79" Text="*Respondere* looks like a good verb for answering, but how can I say &quot;to answer a question&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;I failed to find an answer by looking at dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;These options come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *quaestionem respondere*&#xD;&#xA;2. *in quaestionem respondere*&#xD;&#xA;3. *ad quaestionem respondere*&#xD;&#xA;4. *quaestioni respondere*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one should I use?&#xD;&#xA;Or should I use some other construction?&#xD;&#xA;Does the choice depend on which word I use for &quot;question&quot; (*quaestio, rogatio, rogatum* or something else)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5354" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1320" RevisionGUID="41946685-fdee-4619-9939-43d313539a71" CreationDate="2016-08-05T06:58:13.833" UserId="79" Text="How to answer a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5355" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1320" RevisionGUID="41946685-fdee-4619-9939-43d313539a71" CreationDate="2016-08-05T06:58:13.833" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|grammar-choice|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1321" RevisionGUID="97d894d6-2f69-46b2-87e4-4a98b6b49872" CreationDate="2016-08-05T09:23:01.913" UserId="645" Text="You could use *responsum dare*, which answers pretty well in every case that I can think of, no matter what the precise choice of word for *question*. Both the person addressed and the question itself can be either dative, or ad + accusative; Wm. Smith's dictionaries have plenty of examples.. Hope that helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1322" RevisionGUID="ab3cbe7a-791e-461e-9dda-7f34bdedc00f" CreationDate="2016-08-05T13:56:35.123" UserId="45" Text="After doing some digging, it appears that **this construction is rare but is attested in several classical authors.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster's *Oxford Latin Syntax* (p. 977ff) is my guide. He states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The use of the genitives of the personal pronouns *nostrum* and *vostrum* instead of the corresponding possessive adjectives is rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two examples from Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Recordamini qui dies nudius tertius decimus fuerit, quantus **consensus vestrum**, quanta virtus, quanta constantia. (Cic. *Phil.* 5.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example &quot;sounds&quot; like a partitive genitive, but I still think the use of the genitive pronoun instead of the possessive adjective is remarkable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is enim **splendor** est **vestrum** ut eadem postulentur a vobis quae ab amplissimis civibus. (Cic. *Att.* 7.13.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an unmistakable example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Above all, this construction seems to occur with the reflexive possessive pronoun, *sui*. Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lysander Lacedaemonius magnam reliquit **sui famam**, magis felicitate quam virtute partam. (Nep. *Lys.* 1.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non aliud Scaevolae Mucio cognomen dedit et capto contra Porsennam regem libertatem relquit quam **vilitas sui**. (Sen. *Con.* 8.4.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster provides more examples in *op. cit.* p. 978.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *mei* and *tui*, the only example of this usage is in the dubious context of a paraphrase by Priscian (who is decidedly post-classical). Glossing the Virgilian verse &quot;Est mihi nata, viro gentis quam iungere nostrae...&quot;, he says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nam ad scientes, esse natam, nomen autem proprium ignorantes, dixisset 'mea' vel '**mei nata**, Lavinia est', subdistinctione posita post 'natam'.... (Pris. *Inst* XVIII)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for nuances of meaning, the construction seems so rare that it is hard to speculate: in some of the above examples, hints of a partitive (&quot;consensus vestrum&quot;) and objective (&quot;famam sui&quot;) meaning appear. In others, the reason is less obvious." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1323" RevisionGUID="9fece4a9-95a2-4c34-9a2c-7df012271d0d" CreationDate="2016-08-05T14:25:35.463" UserId="45" Text="I like @TomCotton's suggestion, but I thought I would add to it by providing some other options in Smith's *Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think, first of all, that *quaestio* is not a good translation of English *question*. If you look through the [Lewis &amp; Short entry for *quaestio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquaestio), the word has a technical legal meaning and is also used to refer to something closer to the English word *investigation*. The Scholastics would refer to different topics of investigation, such as *Utrum Deus Sit*, as a *quaestio*, but I do not think they would regard *Quid tibi nomen est?* as one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, Smith recommends **rogatum** or **interrogatum** as a more direct translation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*To answer a question* would thus be **ad rogatum respondere**, which has good classical precedent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero uses this construction to refer to rhetorical questions in his *Orator*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sic igitur dicet ille, quem expetimus, ut...interrogando urgeat; ut rursus quasi ad interrogata sibi ipse respondeat. (Cic. *Or* 40)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples substitute *rogatum* with another word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ad ea, quae quaesita erant, respondebat. (Cic. *Phil.* 1.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *ad* appears to be unnecessary, at least in colloquial speech. Here is Plautus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hoc quod te rogo responde mihi. (Pl. *Merc.* 1.101)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Terence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; etiam tu hoc respondes? (Ter. *Andr.* 2.2.8)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1324" RevisionGUID="555be8bf-2354-4321-9d0f-f75ea36b1bcc" CreationDate="2016-08-05T14:42:02.633" UserId="12" Text="According to Wikipedia, the definition of a [government minister](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minister_(government)&amp;oldid=730119502) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A minister is a politician who holds significant public office in a national or regional government, making and implementing decisions on policies in conjunction with the other ministers. Some ministers are more senior than others, and are usually members of the government's cabinet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in many governments there are such titles as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Education minister&#xD;&#xA; - Agriculture minister&#xD;&#xA; - Foreign minister&#xD;&#xA; - Prime minister&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other jurisdictions, the title *secretary* is used as a synonym or near-synonym:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Secretary of Interior&#xD;&#xA; - Secretary of State&#xD;&#xA; - Secretary of Commerce&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question: what is a Latin word that captures this sense of the words *minister* and *secretary*?  Does a single word fully capture this type of government official?  Or must I use different words to reflect the difference between *secretary* and *minister*, or between a Secretary of State (higher level) and a Forestry minister (lower level)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;This question inspired by [How to describe ministers in Latin?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1307/12)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5361" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1324" RevisionGUID="555be8bf-2354-4321-9d0f-f75ea36b1bcc" CreationDate="2016-08-05T14:42:02.633" UserId="12" Text="What's the the Latin word for a government minister / secretary?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5362" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1324" RevisionGUID="555be8bf-2354-4321-9d0f-f75ea36b1bcc" CreationDate="2016-08-05T14:42:02.633" UserId="12" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|government|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1325" RevisionGUID="a19d1715-6d85-46a1-bdcb-e4e00f09e8c0" CreationDate="2016-08-05T20:32:42.090" UserId="738" Text="What are the origins of the expression &quot;mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa&quot;. I have heard one of my past math professors day this, and was wondering.&#xA;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5364" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1325" RevisionGUID="a19d1715-6d85-46a1-bdcb-e4e00f09e8c0" CreationDate="2016-08-05T20:32:42.090" UserId="738" Text="Origins of the expression &quot;mea culpa&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5365" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1325" RevisionGUID="a19d1715-6d85-46a1-bdcb-e4e00f09e8c0" CreationDate="2016-08-05T20:32:42.090" UserId="738" Text="|etymology|meaning|language-evolution|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1324" RevisionGUID="c7025d23-b6c8-4dd1-802c-fb44b14135e5" CreationDate="2016-08-05T20:42:26.843" UserId="12" Comment="following my own advice" Text="According to Wikipedia, the definition of a [government minister](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minister_(government)&amp;oldid=730119502) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A minister is a politician who holds significant public office in a national or regional government, making and implementing decisions on policies in conjunction with the other ministers. Some ministers are more senior than others, and are usually members of the government's cabinet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in many governments there are such titles as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Education minister&#xD;&#xA; - Agriculture minister&#xD;&#xA; - Foreign minister&#xD;&#xA; - Prime minister&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other jurisdictions, the title *secretary* is used as a synonym or near-synonym:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Secretary of Interior&#xD;&#xA; - Secretary of State&#xD;&#xA; - Secretary of Commerce&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question: what is a Latin word that captures this sense of the words *minister* and *secretary*?  Does a single word fully capture this type of government official?  Or must I use different words to reflect the difference between *secretary* and *minister*, or between a Secretary of State (higher level) and a Forestry minister (lower level)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've consulted Traupman's Latin-English dictionary, and it offers *administer* for &quot;minister&quot; and *administer*, *minister*, or *praefectus* for the political meaning of &quot;secretary.&quot;  Is one more suitable than others?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;This question inspired by [How to describe ministers in Latin?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1307/12)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5367" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1324" RevisionGUID="647f7787-c1b2-4940-8797-0152350f518c" CreationDate="2016-08-05T20:47:49.450" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|politics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1326" RevisionGUID="407b3d5d-b249-40d6-b9fb-c3f8700e7aed" CreationDate="2016-08-05T21:56:38.180" UserId="45" Text="*Mea culpa* comes from the [*Confiteor*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confiteor) which is a common prayer recited, among other times, towards the end of the prayers at the foot of the altar in the (Catholic) Roman rite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full text of the prayer as recited in the Tridentine missal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, beatæ Mariæ semper Virgini, beato Michaeli Archangelo, beato Ioanni Baptistæ, sanctis Apostolis Petro et Paulo, omnibus Sanctis, et vobis, fratres: quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo et opere: **mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa**. Ideo precor beatam Mariam semper Virginem, beatum Michaelem Archangelum, beatum Ioannem Baptistam, sanctos Apostolos Petrum et Paulum, omnes Sanctos, et vos, fratres, orare pro me ad Dominum Deum nostrum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is usually translated as: *through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that *mea culpa* is in the ablative, answering the question of &quot;in what way&quot; once has sinned (*peccavi*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase *mea culpa* (along with other variants, including the one you cited) has passed into colloquial speech and, at least in my experience, has become a slightly tongue-in-cheek way of saying, &quot;My bad.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1327" RevisionGUID="d40ee6a3-484e-4e17-8058-c3eb1e252763" CreationDate="2016-08-06T00:02:03.900" UserId="68" Text="Traupman's book is great for a lot of things, but there are some things he seems just to have made up (as far as I can tell), and *administer, minister* seem to be among them. I think there's a sense of the subordinate in those words that doesn't mesh well with the meaning you're looking for. I'd go with *præfectus* here—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;—unless you wanted to use *archon*, which was much more clearly the Athenian title for the position you're thinking of." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1328" RevisionGUID="43c7d03c-e6d0-42f5-9b11-f32f1613d42b" CreationDate="2016-08-06T03:02:47.980" UserId="136" Text="With the Olympics starting this week, I got interested in all the countries of the world. Naturally, I would like to know the Latin names for modern countries. I have only been able to find a few Wikipedia pages, but they mostly focus on the countries that used to be Roman provinces, but I want to know the Latin name for EVERY country. Are there any sources that have compiled these names? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5372" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1328" RevisionGUID="43c7d03c-e6d0-42f5-9b11-f32f1613d42b" CreationDate="2016-08-06T03:02:47.980" UserId="136" Text="What are the Latin names for modern countries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5373" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1328" RevisionGUID="43c7d03c-e6d0-42f5-9b11-f32f1613d42b" CreationDate="2016-08-06T03:02:47.980" UserId="136" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1325" RevisionGUID="ce9b8687-ee56-47ea-a186-cb597103309f" CreationDate="2016-08-06T08:01:08.620" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="What are the origins of the expression &quot;mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa&quot;. I have heard one of my past math professors say this, and was wondering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1329" RevisionGUID="faa51d5e-d70f-46df-9438-ce1b6526374a" CreationDate="2016-08-06T08:05:38.420" UserId="79" Text="I am looking for some guidelines for using the *-tim* suffix in the sense &quot;one by one&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;[*guttatim*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dguttatim),&#xD;&#xA;[*nominatim*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnominatim),&#xD;&#xA;[*paul(l)atim*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpaulatim),&#xD;&#xA;[*syllabatim*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsyllabatim),&#xD;&#xA;[*viritim*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dviritim).&#xD;&#xA;(It seems that [this is not the only use of the suffix](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=tim&amp;lang=la), but I want to focus on this particular use.)&#xD;&#xA;Can I use this suffix productively?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, are there rules for attaching it to a word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is related to a specific problem that I have: I want to say &quot;one faculty at a time&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;My university uses the word *facultas* for &quot;faculty&quot; &amp;mdash; translating, for example, &quot;the faculty of humanities&quot; with *facultas rerum humanarum*.&#xD;&#xA;Would *facultatim* be correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5377" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1329" RevisionGUID="faa51d5e-d70f-46df-9438-ce1b6526374a" CreationDate="2016-08-06T08:05:38.420" UserId="79" Text="Using the -tim suffix" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5378" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1329" RevisionGUID="faa51d5e-d70f-46df-9438-ce1b6526374a" CreationDate="2016-08-06T08:05:38.420" UserId="79" Text="|academic-latin|derivation|suffixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1329" RevisionGUID="3af74417-bf16-4dc1-950d-06a4a6e22979" CreationDate="2016-08-06T14:27:41.643" UserId="79" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="I am looking for some guidelines for using the *-tim* suffix in the sense &quot;one by one&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;[*guttatim*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dguttatim),&#xD;&#xA;[*nominatim*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnominatim),&#xD;&#xA;[*paul(l)atim*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpaulatim),&#xD;&#xA;[*syllabatim*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsyllabatim),&#xD;&#xA;[*viritim*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dviritim).&#xD;&#xA;(It seems that [this is not the only use of the suffix](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=tim&amp;lang=la), but I want to focus on this particular use.)&#xD;&#xA;Can I use this suffix productively?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, are there rules for attaching it to a word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is related to a specific problem that I have: I want to say &quot;one faculty at a time&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;My university uses the word *facultas* for &quot;faculty&quot; &amp;mdash; translating, for example, &quot;the faculty of humanities&quot; with *facultas rerum humanarum*.&#xD;&#xA;Would *facultatim* be correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;New doctors are promoted faculty by faculty.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;*Doctores novi facultatim creantur.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1330" RevisionGUID="ba414ccd-7993-4cee-a367-25c230c38ded" CreationDate="2016-08-06T15:12:14.993" UserId="79" Text="The book *Clavis Latina II, grammatica &amp; exercitia* by Maija-Leena Kallela and Erkki Palmén (I advertised this series for self-study [here](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1218/79)) contains a list of many modern countries as an appendix.&#xD;&#xA;In my experience the series is well researched and reliable.&#xD;&#xA;Some countries have several spelling variants, but I don't think all options are included here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This book has only appeared in print in Finnish, so I will reproduce the appendix here in English.&#xD;&#xA;Each country is given three Latin words, in the order &quot;Finland, Finnish, Finns&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The original list also contains macrons and diereses, but I have not reproduced them here; ask for details if you need them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Europa Septentrionalis:&#xD;&#xA; - Finland: Finnia, Finnicus, Finni&#xD;&#xA; - Sweden: Suetia, Sueticus, Sueti&#xD;&#xA; - Norway: Norvegia, Norvegicus, Norvegi&#xD;&#xA; - Denmark: Dania, Danicus, Dani&#xD;&#xA; - Iceland: Islandia, Islandiensis, Islandienses&#xD;&#xA;- Europa Occidentalis:&#xD;&#xA; - The Netherlands: Nederlandia, Nederlandiensis, Nederlandienses&#xD;&#xA; - Belgium: Belgium, Belgicus, Belgae&#xD;&#xA; - Eire: Res Publica Irlandiae, Irlandiensis, Irlandienses&#xD;&#xA; - Monaco: Monoecus, Monoecensis, Monoecenses&#xD;&#xA; - Liechtenstein: Lichtenstenum, Lichtenstenensis, Lichtenstenenses&#xD;&#xA; - Luxemburg: Luxemburgum, Luxemburgensis, Luxemburgenses&#xD;&#xA; - France: Francogallia, Francogallicus, Francogalli&#xD;&#xA; - UK: Regnum Unitum (Magna Britannia et Irlandia Septentrionalis), Britannicus, Britanni&#xD;&#xA; - England: Anglia, Anglicus, Angli&#xD;&#xA; - Scotland: Scotia, Scoticus, Scoti&#xD;&#xA; - Wales: Vallia, Vallicus, Valli&#xD;&#xA;- Europa Centralis:&#xD;&#xA; - Austria: Austria, Austriacus, Austriaci&#xD;&#xA; - Latvia: Lettonia, Lettonicus, Lettones&#xD;&#xA; - Lithuania: Lithuania, Lithuanicus, Lithuani&#xD;&#xA; - Poland: Polonia, Polonicus, Poloni&#xD;&#xA; - Romania: Dacoromania, Dacoromanicus, Dacoromani&#xD;&#xA; - Germany: Germania, Theodiscus/Germanicus, Germani&#xD;&#xA; - Slovakia: Slovakia, Slovakus, Slovaki&#xD;&#xA; - Switzerland: Helvetia, Helveticus, Helvetii&#xD;&#xA; - Czech Republic: Tzechia, Tzechicus, Tzechi&#xD;&#xA; - Hungary: Hungaria, Hungaricus, Hungari&#xD;&#xA; - Estonia: Estonia, Estonicus, Estoni&#xD;&#xA;- Europa Australis:&#xD;&#xA; - Andorra: Andorra, Andorrensis, Andorrenses&#xD;&#xA; - Albania: Albania, Albanus, Albani&#xD;&#xA; - Bosnia-Herzegovina: Bosnia, Bosniensis, Bosnienses&#xD;&#xA; - Bulgaria: Bulgaria, Bulgaricus, Bulgari&#xD;&#xA; - Spain: Hispania, Hispanicus, Hispani&#xD;&#xA; - Italy: Italia, Italicus/Italianus, Italiani/Itali&#xD;&#xA; - Yugoslavia: Iugoslavia, Iugoslavicus, Iugoslavi&#xD;&#xA; - Greece: Graecia, Graecus, Graeci&#xD;&#xA; - Croatia: Croatia, Croatus, Croatae&#xD;&#xA; - Macedonia: Macedonia, Macedonicus, Macedones&#xD;&#xA; - Malta: Melita, Melitensis, Melitenses&#xD;&#xA; - Portugal: Portugallia, Portugallicus, Portugalli&#xD;&#xA; - San Marino: Res Publica Mariniana, Marinianus, Mariniani&#xD;&#xA; - Slovenia: Slovenia, Slovenus, Sloveni&#xD;&#xA; - Turkey: Turcia, Turcicus, Turcae&#xD;&#xA; - Vatican: Civitas Vaticana, Vaticanus, Vaticani&#xD;&#xA;- Europa Orientalis:&#xD;&#xA; - Moldova: Moldova, Moldovanus, Moldovani&#xD;&#xA; - Ukraine: Ucraine, Ucrainus, Ucraini&#xD;&#xA; - Belarus: Belorussia / Russia Alba, Belorussicus, Belorussi&#xD;&#xA; - Russia: Russia, Russicus, Russi&#xD;&#xA;- Oriens Proxima:&#xD;&#xA; - Israel: Israel, Israeliticus, Israelitae&#xD;&#xA; - Iran: Irania, Iranianus, Iraniani&#xD;&#xA; - Iraq: Iraquia, Iraquicus, Iraquiani&#xD;&#xA; - Jordan: Iordania, Iordanus, Iordani&#xD;&#xA; - Palestine: Palestina, Plaestinus, Palestini&#xD;&#xA; - Saudi-Arabia: Arabia Saudiana, Saudianus, Saudi&#xD;&#xA; - Syria: Syria, Syriacus, Syri&#xD;&#xA;- Africa:&#xD;&#xA; - Algeria: Algeria, Algerianus, Algeriani&#xD;&#xA; - Egypt: Aegyptus, Aegyptius, Aegyptii&#xD;&#xA; - South Africa: Africa Australis, Austroafricanus, Austroafricani&#xD;&#xA; - Kenia: Kenia, Kenianus, Keniani&#xD;&#xA; - Libya: Libya, Libycus, Libyes&#xD;&#xA; - Morocco: Marochium, Marochianus, Marochiani&#xD;&#xA; - Namibia: Namibia, Namibiensis, Namibienses&#xD;&#xA; - Sudan: Sudania, Sudaniensis, Sudanienses&#xD;&#xA; - Tanzania: Tanzania, Tanzaniensis, Tanzanienses&#xD;&#xA; - Tunisia: Tunesia, Tunesiensis, Tunesienses&#xD;&#xA;- Asia:&#xD;&#xA; - Afghanistan: Afganistania, Afganistanianus, Afgani&#xD;&#xA; - Philippines: Philippinae, Philippinus, Philippini&#xD;&#xA; - Indonesia: Indonesia, Indonesianus, Indonesiani&#xD;&#xA; - India: India, Indicus, Indi&#xD;&#xA; - Japan: Iaponia, Iaponicus, Iaponienses&#xD;&#xA; - China: Sinae, Sinensis, Sinenses&#xD;&#xA; - (South/North) Korea: Corea (Septentrionalis/Australis), Coreanus (Septentrionalis/Australis), Coreani (Septentrionales/Australes)&#xD;&#xA; - Malaysia: Malaesia, Malaesianus, Malaesiani&#xD;&#xA; - Nepal: Nepalia, Nepalianus, Nepaliani&#xD;&#xA; - Pakistan: Pakistania, Pakistanianus, Pakistaniani&#xD;&#xA; - Sri Lanka: Sri Lanka, Srilancanus, Srilancani&#xD;&#xA; - Thailand: Thailandia, Thailandiensis, Thailandienses&#xD;&#xA;- America Septentrionalis:&#xD;&#xA; - Canada: Canada, Canadensis, Canadenses&#xD;&#xA; - US: Civitates Americae Unitae, Americanus, Americani&#xD;&#xA;- America Australis:&#xD;&#xA; - Argentina: Argentina, Argentinianus, Argentiniani&#xD;&#xA; - Bolivia: Bolivia, Bolivianus, Boliviani&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil: Brasilia, Brasiliensis, Brasilienses&#xD;&#xA; - Chile: Chilia, Chiliensis, Chilienses&#xD;&#xA; - Mexico: Mexicum, Mexicanus, Mexicani&#xD;&#xA; - Peru: Peruvia, Peruvianus, Peruviani&#xD;&#xA; - Venezuela: Venetiola, Venetiolanus, Venetiolani&#xD;&#xA;- Australia: Australia (no further details given)&#xD;&#xA;- Terra Antarctica&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if there seem to be typos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The next appendix contains a list of cities of similar length, but that is irrelevant here.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1331" RevisionGUID="9b793c2c-97fe-40d3-8753-4a64041a1532" CreationDate="2016-08-06T18:16:27.133" UserId="68" Text="*Facultatim* would be a good translation of &quot;one faculty at a time,&quot; but only if you're talking about human ability (first sight, then reason, then hearing, then perception, and so on). If you're talking about university faculty then I'm not sure what the right word is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1332" RevisionGUID="26cb96d7-472c-4d94-99d0-eb21f7015d41" CreationDate="2016-08-06T18:52:42.207" UserId="740" Text="I'm looking for the latin translation of the Serenity Prayer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; God,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The courage to change the things I can,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the wisdom to know the difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what [Wikipedia][1] says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dona mihi serenitatem accipere res quae non possum,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fortitudinem mutare res quae possum,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Atque sapientiam differentiam cognoscere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A change I might make is to use &quot;Domine&quot; instead of &quot;Deus&quot;, what do you think?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks a lot!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pri%C3%A8re_de_la_S%C3%A9r%C3%A9nit%C3%A9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5383" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1332" RevisionGUID="26cb96d7-472c-4d94-99d0-eb21f7015d41" CreationDate="2016-08-06T18:52:42.207" UserId="740" Text="Latin translation for the Serenity Prayer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5384" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1332" RevisionGUID="26cb96d7-472c-4d94-99d0-eb21f7015d41" CreationDate="2016-08-06T18:52:42.207" UserId="740" Text="|classical-latin|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1333" RevisionGUID="e6f008c1-1bf6-40dd-af12-3666e13df189" CreationDate="2016-08-06T20:17:24.230" UserId="40" Text="The Wiki translation is bad in several ways (the first line is missing the word &quot;change&quot;; the infinitives are not good Latin; the verbs in the relative clauses should be subjunctive; and the word choices are mostly unidiomatic translationese). Here's an attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O deus / domine, dona mihi animi aequitatem, ut quae mutare non possim, clementer feram; ac fortitudinem, ut quae mutare possim, mutem; ac sapientiam, ut haec ab illis discernam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've replaced *serenitas*, which is mostly used as a description of weather, with a more idiomatic phrase *animi aequitatem* &quot;serenity of mind&quot;. A little looser, but probably more natural Latin, would be *aequum animum* &quot;a serene mind&quot;. For &quot;accept&quot; in the sense of &quot;endure without struggling&quot;, the usual word is *fero*, often with some adverb such as *clementer* &quot;gently&quot;. And for &quot;know the difference&quot; a more natural Latin expression is something like &quot;tell the former from the latter&quot;, which is what *haec ab illis discernam* means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be freer yet, I think it sounds better with the order of the first two parts reversed, and the second of the two *mutare* &quot;to change&quot; elided:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O deus / domine, dona mihi fortitudinem, ut quae mutare possim, mutem; ac aequum animum, ut quae non possim, clementer feram; ac sapientiam, ut haec ab illis discernam.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5386" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1332" RevisionGUID="78c62a3f-8a7a-4640-bc6e-522571f11e3d" CreationDate="2016-08-06T20:23:14.837" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|translation|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1332" RevisionGUID="ebbd35c2-6af2-4051-aa9c-d67f04dee8ee" CreationDate="2016-08-06T21:04:15.980" UserId="740" Comment="Reformated quotes." Text="I'm looking for the latin translation of the Serenity Prayer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; God,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The courage to change the things I can,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the wisdom to know the difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what [Wikipedia][1] says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dona mihi serenitatem accipere res quae non possum,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fortitudinem mutare res quae possum,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Atque sapientiam differentiam cognoscere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A change I might make is to use &quot;Domine&quot; instead of &quot;Deus&quot;, what do you think?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks a lot!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pri%C3%A8re_de_la_S%C3%A9r%C3%A9nit%C3%A9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1334" RevisionGUID="67abfce7-81e6-4cf4-9764-3b8ae508fac0" CreationDate="2016-08-07T18:18:13.650" UserId="79" Text="The pronoun *nemo* is usually said to have only nominative, accusative and dative forms (*nemo, neminem, nemini*).&#xD;&#xA;The other forms, including plural, are easy to form, since *nemo* seems to come from *ne+homo* and *homo* is easily declined:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    nemo      *nemines&#xD;&#xA;    neminem   *nemines&#xD;&#xA;    *neminis  *neminum&#xD;&#xA;    nemini    *neminibus&#xD;&#xA;    *nemine   *neminibus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The genitive *neminis* and ablative *nemine* are found in Plautus and also in later writers.&#xD;&#xA;These forms are rare and (almost, at least) absent in the classical era.&#xD;&#xA;I do not understand why these two forms would be considered bad style.&#xD;&#xA;The plurals are nowhere to be found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know what happened to the missing forms?&#xD;&#xA;That is, do we know why and how they were left out?&#xD;&#xA;As a bonus question, have the plurals ever been used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The plural forms are admittedly a little unnatural, but I can imagine situations where I would like to use them.&#xD;&#xA;If I give a lecture and expect to have a large audience but not a single person shows up, I would be tempted to say *nemines aderant*.&#xD;&#xA;The plural is particularly attracting for events where a single person could not meaningfully attend &amp;mdash; a priest cannot wed a single person, for example.&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, if I speak with some utterly unimportant people&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, I might say *cum neminibus locutus sum*.&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not you like the examples, I hope you can agree that it is not completely unreasonable to use the plural forms sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I don't classify anyone I know in this category; this might be natural for passers-by that I have no relation to whatsoever.&#xD;&#xA;Certainly no user of Latin.SE qualifies as utterly unimportant to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5389" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1334" RevisionGUID="67abfce7-81e6-4cf4-9764-3b8ae508fac0" CreationDate="2016-08-07T18:18:13.650" UserId="79" Text="Where did the missing forms of nemo go?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5390" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1334" RevisionGUID="67abfce7-81e6-4cf4-9764-3b8ae508fac0" CreationDate="2016-08-07T18:18:13.650" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|vocabulary|language-evolution|pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1328" RevisionGUID="d577bebb-7259-431c-86d1-04e9facc7732" CreationDate="2016-08-07T18:22:10.607" UserId="136" Comment="added 137 characters in body" Text="With the Olympics starting this week, I got interested in all the countries of the world. Naturally, I would like to know the Latin names for modern countries. I have only been able to find a few Wikipedia pages, but they mostly focus on the countries that used to be Roman provinces, but I want to know the Latin name for EVERY country. Are there any sources that have compiled these names? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Please note that although I have already accepted an answer, new, more complete answers are welcome, and could be accepted instead.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1335" RevisionGUID="fa1bd427-585c-4d09-8b36-9ee67664f5e0" CreationDate="2016-08-07T19:29:54.340" UserId="40" Text="Suetonius, in his *Vita Horati*, reports that the emperor Augustus jokingly referred to Horace as a *purissimus penis*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Praeterea saepe eum inter alios iocos **purissimum penem** et homuncionem lepidissimum appellat, unaque et altera liberalitate locupletavit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is this intended to mean? *Purus* can mean &quot;pure, clean&quot;, and also &quot;chaste&quot;; but a meaning &quot;most chaste penis&quot;, if that's what's intended, must be ironic, since a little later Suetonius reports that Horace was so lustful that he had a room lined with mirrors in which to watch himself disporting with prostitutes. Is that the joke -- an ironic reference to Horace's lasciviousness?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Loeb translation](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/de_Poetis/Horace*.html) gives &quot;a most immaculate libertine&quot;, but I'm not sure (a) what that means at all, and (b) whether it represents Suetonius's meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5393" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1335" RevisionGUID="fa1bd427-585c-4d09-8b36-9ee67664f5e0" CreationDate="2016-08-07T19:29:54.340" UserId="40" Text="&quot;Purissimum penem&quot; in Suetonius's Life of Horace" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5394" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1335" RevisionGUID="fa1bd427-585c-4d09-8b36-9ee67664f5e0" CreationDate="2016-08-07T19:29:54.340" UserId="40" Text="|vocabulary|horatius|suetonius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1336" RevisionGUID="536f771b-c76d-48e2-887b-996fadfcd84a" CreationDate="2016-08-07T19:46:05.427" UserId="40" Text="In Suetonius's [*Vita Horati*](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/de_Poetis/Horace*.html), a letter from Augustus to Horace is quoted, which includes the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sume tibi aliquid iuris apud me, tamquam si convictor mihi fueris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Loeb translation](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/de_Poetis/Horace*.html) gives: &quot;Enjoy any privilege at my house, as if you were making your home there&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why the perfect subjunctive *fueris*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bennett's New Latin Grammar](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html), section 307, discusses the forms of verbs after such phrases as *tamquam si*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Conditional Clauses of Comparison are introduced by the particles, ac sī, ut sī, quasi, quam sī, tamquam sī, velut sī, or simply by velut or tamquam. They stand in the Subjunctive mood and regularly involve an ellipsis (see § 374, 1), as indicated in the following examples:—  &#xD;&#xA;tantus patrēs metus cēpit, velat sī jam ad portās hostis esset, as great fear seized the senators as (would have seized them) if the enemy were already at the gates;&#xD;&#xA;sed quid ego hīs testibus ūtor quasi rēs dubia aut obscūra sit, but why do I use these witnesses, as (I should do) if the matter were doubtful or obscure;&#xD;&#xA;serviam tibi tam quasi ēmerīs mē argentō, I will serve you as though you had bought me for money.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that in sentences of this kind the Latin observes the regular principles for the Sequence of Tenses. Thus after principal tenses the Latin uses the Present and Perfect (as in the second and third examples), where the English uses the Past and Past Perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in this example we're in primary sequence. So if the usual sequence of tenses rules are in force, the perfect subjunctive should express prior time: &quot;as if you had (at some time in the past) been living with me&quot;. This seems not to be what's intended, though -- rather, it looks like a present counterfactual: &quot;as if you were (now) living with me&quot;. But in that case, shouldn't we expect either *sis* (if following sequence of tenses), or maybe *esses* (as in an ordinary present counterfactual condition)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a bonus question, how does the Loeb get to &quot;enjoy *any* privilege at my house&quot;? AFAIK, *aliquis* does not mean &quot;any whatsoever&quot; (that's *quicumque* or *quilibet*), but &quot;some&quot;, so it should literally be &quot;take some (not further identified) kind of privilege at my house&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5396" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1336" RevisionGUID="536f771b-c76d-48e2-887b-996fadfcd84a" CreationDate="2016-08-07T19:46:05.427" UserId="40" Text="Verb forms after &quot;tamquam si&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5397" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1336" RevisionGUID="536f771b-c76d-48e2-887b-996fadfcd84a" CreationDate="2016-08-07T19:46:05.427" UserId="40" Text="|syntax|conjunctive|suetonius|conditions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1337" RevisionGUID="00eae4db-75fa-43c2-a936-fb3f91249fee" CreationDate="2016-08-07T19:57:51.413" UserId="743" Text="&quot;Nemine contradicente&quot; is a kind of set expression in Latin. The plural forms are probably missing because it sounds goofy, in any language, to say &quot;I spoke with no ones.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ipse loquor Latine fluenter, et nullum problema habeo cum his formis. -Mentifex" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1338" RevisionGUID="761e2f5e-eadc-4983-a10f-bbf2d8d40069" CreationDate="2016-08-07T21:30:35.213" UserId="744" Text="I do not remember exactly how this classical sentence is in Latin. It means start your exposition explaining the terms, i.e. its title.&#xD;&#xA;I cannot even find it on the internet, so a reference to it being use would top it off." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5400" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1338" RevisionGUID="761e2f5e-eadc-4983-a10f-bbf2d8d40069" CreationDate="2016-08-07T21:30:35.213" UserId="744" Text="&quot;initia doctrinae sit consideratio nominae&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5401" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1338" RevisionGUID="761e2f5e-eadc-4983-a10f-bbf2d8d40069" CreationDate="2016-08-07T21:30:35.213" UserId="744" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5402" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1338" RevisionGUID="b27d92ab-5c92-4bb7-ab60-0ff282b1404d" CreationDate="2016-08-07T23:29:26.080" UserId="68" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;initium doctrinae sit consideratio nominis&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="bb7ea087-9f73-4510-b750-cff1aa066839" CreationDate="2016-08-07T23:34:39.577" UserId="68" Text="It's the Latin version of a sentence from the Stoic philosopher Epictetus. What we know of his thought was written not by him but by his student Arrian, who wrote in Greek rather than in Latin. The sentence means, more or less, &quot;Let the beginning of a doctrine be the study of its name.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know Epictetus/Arrian at all well, though, so I hope somebody else can give a fuller answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="3bc0a65c-11a1-4b92-9969-2260d8b26000" CreationDate="2016-08-08T01:15:32.777" UserId="68" Comment="added 366 characters in body" Text="It's the Latin version of a sentence from the Stoic philosopher Epictetus. What we know of his thought was written not by him but by his student Arrian, who wrote in Greek rather than in Latin. The sentence means, more or less, &quot;Let the beginning of a doctrine be the study of its name.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT** @TKR, in the first comment below, has given both the Greek original and the source; according to his better information, both my attribution and my translation are wrong! The quote does occur in Arrian's transcription of Epictetus' lectures (I.17.12: &quot;ἀρχὴ παιδεύσεως ἡ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐπίσκεψις&quot;), but Epictetus himself attributes it to Antisthenes. And the Greek makes it clear that the meaning is actually &quot;The beginning of education is the study of names.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="f64089cc-4799-43e3-9f0b-42ecbb7987d3" CreationDate="2016-08-08T01:29:28.213" UserId="40" Text="As Joel Derfner points out, the quote comes from the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, and is originally in Greek; it can be found [here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0235%3Atext%3Ddisc%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D17), in a collection of his sayings by his student Arrian,  in the form ἀρχὴ παιδεύσεως ἡ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐπίσκεψις. In that text the quote seems to be ascribed by Epictetus to the fifth- and fourth-century BC philosopher Antisthenes, a student of Socrates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest Latin version I can find is from 1604, in Justus Lipsius's [*Manuductio ad Stoicam Philosophiam*](https://books.google.com/books?id=DoE-bOYV4BkC&amp;pg=PR94&amp;lpg=PR94&amp;dq=initium+doctrinae+consideratio+nominum&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=yn0JX9qQZJ&amp;sig=GNgedeE-2OnRXqzRXkpqBjLRPBM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi48u_20bDOAhWB34MKHQmYCtIQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=initium%20doctrinae%20consideratio%20nominum&amp;f=false). The Latin translation -- *initium disciplinae nominum consideratio* -- is presumably Lipsius's own, unless there's an earlier Latin version I've missed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1338" RevisionGUID="f725cee9-4be0-4f82-a99f-68a842335097" CreationDate="2016-08-08T01:58:52.937" UserId="12" Comment="added 67 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm looking for a Latin phrase for starting your exposition by explaining the terms, i.e. its title.  I believe the quote is &quot;initium doctrinae sit consideratio nominis,&quot; but I'm not sure that that's correct.  I haven't been able to find it online, so I'd also like a reference to it in use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5407" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1338" RevisionGUID="f725cee9-4be0-4f82-a99f-68a842335097" CreationDate="2016-08-08T01:58:52.937" UserId="12" Comment="added 67 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|translation|phrase-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5408" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1338" RevisionGUID="71e9dfe1-f959-4936-abbe-b92b3922ae5f" CreationDate="2016-08-08T02:51:59.243" UserId="68" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;initium doctrinae sit consideratio nominum&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1339" RevisionGUID="34d36969-28b5-4348-84b1-7737dad88193" CreationDate="2016-08-08T02:54:23.180" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 79 characters in body" Text="So actually your translation isn't correct—or, rather, it's technically correct, but it's not *actually* correct. I'll explain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I should note that this is an edited version of my previous answer—the edits are based on @TKR's comments to this answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence you quote the Latin version of a sentence from the *Discourses* of the Stoic philosopher Epictetus. The *Discourses* are transcripts of his lectures, written not by him but by his student Arrian, who wrote in Greek rather than in Latin. Epictetus, however, attributes the sentence to Antisthenes. The sentence means, more or less, &quot;The beginning of education is the consideration [or &quot;the study&quot;] of names.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="c2da4f1a-a14e-42f9-849a-bcabed5a6e88" CreationDate="2016-08-08T07:06:05.617" UserId="79" Text="I checked a couple of dictionaries, but I found no translation for &quot;close combat&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for an expression for fighting close to one's enemy as opposed to using long distance weaponry.&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good translation for &quot;close combat&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;How did the Romans describe fighting without long range weapons?&#xD;&#xA;*Pugna proxima* is my best attempt, but it sounds wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example sentence I have in mind is &quot;A sword is a weapon for close combat&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(Pick any of the words for a sword you like.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5411" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="c2da4f1a-a14e-42f9-849a-bcabed5a6e88" CreationDate="2016-08-08T07:06:05.617" UserId="79" Text="What is close combat in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5412" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="c2da4f1a-a14e-42f9-849a-bcabed5a6e88" CreationDate="2016-08-08T07:06:05.617" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|translation|idiom|weapons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5413" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1338" RevisionGUID="225917c8-2066-48e8-9e51-a4828a359f74" CreationDate="2016-08-08T11:20:07.607" UserId="744" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;initium doctrinae sit consideratio nominis&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1342" RevisionGUID="ea868eef-bd74-4543-817f-cbe8921dfcae" CreationDate="2016-08-08T13:16:18.373" UserId="522" Text="All the adverbs in this answer (all four groups), suggests Ainsworth (1780), are colloquial accusatives. Compare--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aetatem =for a long period of time, for ages.  &#xD;&#xA;prorsum =straight on  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; prorsum et rursum =back and forth  &#xD;&#xA;passim =everywhere  &#xD;&#xA;interim = in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between  &#xD;&#xA;sparsim =scattered  &#xD;&#xA;praesertim =foremost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a sub-group of these the stem ending, *-t-,* indicates a verbal adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seriatim=one by one   &#xD;&#xA;partim = piece by piece  &#xD;&#xA;guttatim =drop by drop  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; particulatim =a littlebit at a time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 2 following groups make use of this *-tim* suffix to indicate analogous incremental units.  &#xD;&#xA;(grammar)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; literatim, letter by letter  &#xD;&#xA;verbatim,  word by word  &#xD;&#xA;phrasatim&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Quintilian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(military)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; viritim =man by man  &#xD;&#xA;manipulatim =platoon by platoon  &#xD;&#xA;centuriatim&#xD;&#xA;&gt; =company by company&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO .1. the absence of any parallel adverbs for 'class by class,' 'tutorial group by tutorial group,' and 'university by university' makes *facultatim* an anomaly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.2. The *-t-* in *facultatim* is part of the noun stem, and to create a verbal or pseudo-verbal stem to match the other examples would create *facultatatim.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.3. There is a certain objectification in any form of administration but especially in the army which describes men as units. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I may be being too timid, or too set in my ways." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1342" RevisionGUID="3ca1df26-3404-4c00-ab8d-ad6e045f3991" CreationDate="2016-08-08T13:22:28.923" UserId="522" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="All the adverbs in this answer (all four groups), suggests Ainsworth (1780), are colloquial accusatives. Compare--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aetatem =for a long period of time, for ages.  &#xD;&#xA;prorsum =straight on  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; prorsum et rursum =back and forth  &#xD;&#xA;passim =everywhere  &#xD;&#xA;interim = in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between  &#xD;&#xA;sparsim =scattered  &#xD;&#xA;praesertim =foremost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a sub-group of these the stem ending, *-t-,* indicates a verbal adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seriatim=one by one   &#xD;&#xA;partim = piece by piece  &#xD;&#xA;guttatim =drop by drop  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; particulatim =a littlebit at a time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 2 following groups make use of this *-tim* suffix to indicate analogous incremental units.  &#xD;&#xA;(grammar)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; literatim, letter by letter  &#xD;&#xA;verbatim,  word by word  &#xD;&#xA;phrasatim&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Quintilian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(military)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; viritim =man by man  &#xD;&#xA;manipulatim =platoon by platoon  &#xD;&#xA;centuriatim&#xD;&#xA;&gt; =company by company&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO .1. the absence of any parallel adverbs for 'class by class,' 'tutorial group by tutorial group,' and 'university by university' makes *facultatim* an anomaly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.2. The *-t-* in *facultatim* is part of the noun stem, and to create a verbal or pseudo-verbal stem to match the other examples would create *facultatatim.* (vid. sup. *guttatim* )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.3. There is a certain objectification in any form of administration but especially in the army which describes men as units. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I may be being too timid, or too set in my ways." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1343" RevisionGUID="8f8b92d4-bb70-4042-ad92-3ed511627826" CreationDate="2016-08-08T13:41:17.280" UserId="45" Text="Vergil uses a great adverb to convey the idea of being &quot;at close quarters&quot;: [*comminus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcomminus). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* with *pugnare*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dum locus **comminus pugnandi** daretur... (Caes. B. C. 1, 58)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* with ablative of means (here *comminus* is contrasted with its opposite, *eminus*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nec eminus hastis aut **comminus gladiis** uteretur (Cic. Sen. 6, 19)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* with other verbs (approaching closer to your example sentence):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...gladio **comminus geri** rem... (Liv. 44, 35, 12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using these examples as a model, I would translate *A sword is a weapon for close combat* as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Gladium instrumentum est comminus pugnandi**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm not too happy with *instrumentum* here, but I am having trouble thinking of a generic word for *weapon* besides *telum*, which for me implies distance.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1343" RevisionGUID="6f6f5929-4d3c-4e42-8ed1-f0d62fba2a0e" CreationDate="2016-08-08T13:50:25.653" UserId="45" Comment="added 263 characters in body" Text="Vergil uses a great adverb to convey the idea of being &quot;at close quarters&quot;: [*comminus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcomminus). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tum contra Iuno; “Terrorum et fraudis abunde est;  &#xD;&#xA;stant belli causae, **pugnatur comminus armis**,  &#xD;&#xA;quae fors prima dedit sanguis novus imbuit arma...&quot; (Vir. *Aen* 7.552-554)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more examples from other authors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* with *pugnare*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dum locus **comminus pugnandi** daretur... (Caes. B. C. 1, 58)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* with ablative of means (here *comminus* is contrasted with its opposite, *eminus*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nec eminus hastis aut **comminus gladiis** uteretur (Cic. Sen. 6, 19)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* with other verbs (approaching closer to your example sentence):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...gladio **comminus geri** rem... (Liv. 44, 35, 12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using these examples as a model, I would translate *A sword is a weapon for close combat* as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Gladium instrumentum est comminus pugnandi**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm not too happy with *instrumentum* here, but I am having trouble thinking of a generic word for *weapon* besides *telum*, which for me implies distance, and *arma*, which I believe only works in the plural.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5418" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1342" RevisionGUID="95964a12-0f53-46ab-b7eb-6c6ac0acff18" CreationDate="2016-08-08T14:19:57.780" UserId="522" Comment="suggested version at the end" Text="All the adverbs in this answer (all four groups), suggests Ainsworth (1780), are colloquial accusatives. Compare--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aetatem =for a long period of time, for ages.  &#xD;&#xA;prorsum =straight on  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; prorsum et rursum =back and forth  &#xD;&#xA;passim =everywhere  &#xD;&#xA;interim = in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between  &#xD;&#xA;sparsim =scattered  &#xD;&#xA;praesertim =foremost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a sub-group of these the stem ending, *-t-,* indicates a verbal adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seriatim=one by one   &#xD;&#xA;partim = piece by piece  &#xD;&#xA;guttatim =drop by drop  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; particulatim =a littlebit at a time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 2 following groups make use of this *-tim* suffix to indicate analogous incremental units.  &#xD;&#xA;(grammar)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; literatim, letter by letter  &#xD;&#xA;verbatim,  word by word  &#xD;&#xA;phrasatim&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Quintilian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(military)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; viritim =man by man  &#xD;&#xA;manipulatim =platoon by platoon  &#xD;&#xA;centuriatim&#xD;&#xA;&gt; =company by company&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO .1. the absence of any parallel adverbs for 'class by class,' 'tutorial group by tutorial group,' and 'university by university' makes *facultatim* an anomaly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.2. The *-t-* in *facultatim* is part of the noun stem, and to create a verbal or pseudo-verbal stem to match the other examples would create *facultatatim.* (vid. sup. *guttatim* )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.3. There is a certain objectification in any form of administration but especially in the army which describes men as units. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I may be being too timid, or too set in my ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tentatively, I am out of practice and was never fluent, may I suggest: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quos dignos clarosque illos doctores quanquam facultatem seriatim&#xD;&#xA;&gt; eligere decet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1327" RevisionGUID="91573027-ff9c-41db-b083-2f89d404c7e5" CreationDate="2016-08-08T15:11:09.590" UserId="68" Comment="added 2234 characters in body" Text="Traupman's book is great for a lot of things, but there are some things he seems just to have made up (as far as I can tell), and *administer, minister* seem to be among them. I think there's a sense of the subordinate in those words that doesn't mesh well with the meaning you're looking for. I'd go with *præfectus* here—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;—unless you wanted to use *archon*, which was much more clearly the Athenian title for the position you're thinking of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From *Döderlein's Hand-Book of Latin Synonymes*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Servus, ancilla, famulus, and mancipium denote a servant who is not free, a slave; mancipium one who is free, or only in subordination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And from Lewis and Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; minister, tra, trum, adj. (gen. plur. ministrūm, Stat. S. 3, 1, 86) [a double comp. in form, from minus and comp. ending -ter, Gr. τερ-ος; cf.: magister, sinister], that is at hand, that serves, ministers (as an adj. only poet. and later): lumina (i. e. oculi) propositi facta ministra tui, that further, promote; promotive, or in a subst. sense, Ov. H. 21, 114: minister Grex, Sil. 11, 274: ardor, Lucr. 5, 297: ministro baculo, with the aid of a staff, Ov. Ib. 261.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Subst. minister, tri, m., an attendant, waiter, servant; also a priest's attendant or assistant; likewise an inferior officer, underofficial; hence, transf., an aider in a good or bad sense, a furtherer, promoter, helper, an abettor, accomplice: centum aliae (famulae), totidemque pares aetate ministri, Verg. A. 1, 705: Phrygius, the cup-bearer Ganymede, Val. Fl. 5, 691; Mart. 12, 15, 7: Falerni, a cup -bearer, Cat. 27, 1: ministri publici Martis, Cic. Clu. 15, 43: hostia Inter cunctantes cecidit moribunda ministros, Verg. G. 3, 488: ministri imperii tui, inferior officers, under-officials, Cic. Q. Fr 1, 1, 3: regni, an assistant in the regal government, a minister, Just. 16, 1, 3: infimi homines ministros se praebent in judiciis oratoribus, i. e. inform the orators what the law is, Cic. de Or 1, 45, 146: legum, a minister, administrator, id. Clu. 53, 198: sermonum, a mediator, negotiator, Tac. H. 2, 99: consiliorum suorum, Vell. 2, 129, 3: Tiberius Alexander ... minister bello datus, Tac. A. 15, 28: ministri ac servi seditionum, Cic. Fam. 1, 9, 13: ministri ac satellites cupiditatum, id. Verr 2, 3, 8, § 21; so, furoris alieni, agents, instruments, Lact. 5, 11: libidinis, Cic Lael. 10, 35: socii scelerum atque ministri, Lucr. 3, 61: Calchante ministro, with the help of Calchas, Verg. A. 2, 100: ministrum esse in maleficio, Cic. Clu. 22, 60: minister fulminis ales, i. e. the eagle, Hor. C. 4, 4, 1: calidae gelidaeque (aquae) minister, one who serves, Juv. 5, 63: me nemo ministro fur erit, by my aid, id. 3, 46." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1344" RevisionGUID="1d805f7c-1286-4593-92cc-acf5cdba53a5" CreationDate="2016-08-08T15:16:00.443" UserId="68" Text="Smith's *Introduction to Latin Prose Composition* gives the following distinctions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Prœlium, i**, an engagement, action, or skirmish. **Pugna, æ**, generally a close engagement, but often in a general sense for any kind of contest or battle. **Acies, ei** generally a pitched battle, properly the first line of an army, resembling the edge of an instrument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In which case *pugna* is exactly what you want, which sort of makes sense—any engagement with the fist (*pugna*) has to be close." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1330" RevisionGUID="9aae7a91-6152-4547-91ec-91e66499b10a" CreationDate="2016-08-08T20:51:15.987" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The book *Clavis Latina II, grammatica &amp; exercitia* by Maija-Leena Kallela and Erkki Palmén (I advertised this series for self-study [here](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1218/79)) contains a list of many modern countries as an appendix.&#xD;&#xA;In my experience the series is well researched and reliable.&#xD;&#xA;Some countries have several spelling variants, but I don't think all options are included here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This book has only appeared in print in Finnish, so I will reproduce the appendix here in English.&#xD;&#xA;Each country is given three Latin words, in the order &quot;Finland, Finnish, Finns&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The original list also contains macrons and diereses, but I have not reproduced them here; ask for details if you need them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Europa Septentrionalis:&#xD;&#xA; - Finland: Finnia, Finnicus, Finni&#xD;&#xA; - Sweden: Suetia, Sueticus, Sueti&#xD;&#xA; - Norway: Norvegia, Norvegicus, Norvegi&#xD;&#xA; - Denmark: Dania, Danicus, Dani&#xD;&#xA; - Iceland: Islandia, Islandiensis, Islandienses&#xD;&#xA;- Europa Occidentalis:&#xD;&#xA; - The Netherlands: Nederlandia, Nederlandiensis, Nederlandienses&#xD;&#xA; - Belgium: Belgium, Belgicus, Belgae&#xD;&#xA; - Eire: Res Publica Irlandiae, Irlandiensis, Irlandienses&#xD;&#xA; - Monaco: Monoecus, Monoecensis, Monoecenses&#xD;&#xA; - Liechtenstein: Lichtenstenum, Lichtenstenensis, Lichtenstenenses&#xD;&#xA; - Luxemburg: Luxemburgum, Luxemburgensis, Luxemburgenses&#xD;&#xA; - France: Francogallia, Francogallicus, Francogalli&#xD;&#xA; - UK: Regnum Unitum (Magna Britannia et Irlandia Septentrionalis), Britannicus, Britanni&#xD;&#xA; - England: Anglia, Anglicus, Angli&#xD;&#xA; - Scotland: Scotia, Scoticus, Scoti&#xD;&#xA; - Wales: Vallia, Vallicus, Valli&#xD;&#xA;- Europa Centralis:&#xD;&#xA; - Austria: Austria, Austriacus, Austriaci&#xD;&#xA; - Latvia: Lettonia, Lettonicus, Lettones&#xD;&#xA; - Lithuania: Lithuania, Lithuanicus, Lithuani&#xD;&#xA; - Poland: Polonia, Polonicus, Poloni&#xD;&#xA; - Romania: Dacoromania, Dacoromanicus, Dacoromani&#xD;&#xA; - Germany: Germania, Theodiscus/Germanicus, Germani&#xD;&#xA; - Slovakia: Slovakia, Slovakus, Slovaki&#xD;&#xA; - Switzerland: Helvetia, Helveticus, Helvetii&#xD;&#xA; - Czech Republic: Tzechia, Tzechicus, Tzechi&#xD;&#xA; - Hungary: Hungaria, Hungaricus, Hungari&#xD;&#xA; - Estonia: Estonia, Estonicus, Estoni&#xD;&#xA;- Europa Australis:&#xD;&#xA; - Andorra: Andorra, Andorrensis, Andorrenses&#xD;&#xA; - Albania: Albania, Albanus, Albani&#xD;&#xA; - Bosnia-Herzegovina: Bosnia, Bosniensis, Bosnienses&#xD;&#xA; - Bulgaria: Bulgaria, Bulgaricus, Bulgari&#xD;&#xA; - Spain: Hispania, Hispanicus, Hispani&#xD;&#xA; - Italy: Italia, Italicus/Italianus, Italiani/Itali&#xD;&#xA; - Yugoslavia: Iugoslavia, Iugoslavicus, Iugoslavi&#xD;&#xA; - Greece: Graecia, Graecus, Graeci&#xD;&#xA; - Croatia: Croatia, Croatus, Croatae&#xD;&#xA; - Macedonia: Macedonia, Macedonicus, Macedones&#xD;&#xA; - Malta: Melita, Melitensis, Melitenses&#xD;&#xA; - Portugal: Portugallia, Portugallicus, Portugalli&#xD;&#xA; - San Marino: Res Publica Mariniana, Marinianus, Mariniani&#xD;&#xA; - Slovenia: Slovenia, Slovenus, Sloveni&#xD;&#xA; - Turkey: Turcia, Turcicus, Turcae&#xD;&#xA; - Vatican: Civitas Vaticana, Vaticanus, Vaticani&#xD;&#xA;- Europa Orientalis:&#xD;&#xA; - Moldova: Moldova, Moldovanus, Moldovani&#xD;&#xA; - Ukraine: Ucraine, Ucrainus, Ucraini&#xD;&#xA; - Belarus: Belorussia / Russia Alba, Belorussicus, Belorussi&#xD;&#xA; - Russia: Russia, Russicus, Russi&#xD;&#xA;- Oriens Proxima:&#xD;&#xA; - Israel: Israel, Israeliticus, Israelitae&#xD;&#xA; - Iran: Irania, Iranianus, Iraniani&#xD;&#xA; - Iraq: Iraquia, Iraquicus, Iraquiani&#xD;&#xA; - Jordan: Iordania, Iordanus, Iordani&#xD;&#xA; - Palestine: Palaestina, Plaestinus, Palaestini&#xD;&#xA; - Saudi-Arabia: Arabia Saudiana, Saudianus, Saudi&#xD;&#xA; - Syria: Syria, Syriacus, Syri&#xD;&#xA;- Africa:&#xD;&#xA; - Algeria: Algeria, Algerianus, Algeriani&#xD;&#xA; - Egypt: Aegyptus, Aegyptius, Aegyptii&#xD;&#xA; - South Africa: Africa Australis, Austroafricanus, Austroafricani&#xD;&#xA; - Kenia: Kenia, Kenianus, Keniani&#xD;&#xA; - Libya: Libya, Libycus, Libyes&#xD;&#xA; - Morocco: Marochium, Marochianus, Marochiani&#xD;&#xA; - Namibia: Namibia, Namibiensis, Namibienses&#xD;&#xA; - Sudan: Sudania, Sudaniensis, Sudanienses&#xD;&#xA; - Tanzania: Tanzania, Tanzaniensis, Tanzanienses&#xD;&#xA; - Tunisia: Tunesia, Tunesiensis, Tunesienses&#xD;&#xA;- Asia:&#xD;&#xA; - Afghanistan: Afganistania, Afganistanianus, Afgani&#xD;&#xA; - Philippines: Philippinae, Philippinus, Philippini&#xD;&#xA; - Indonesia: Indonesia, Indonesianus, Indonesiani&#xD;&#xA; - India: India, Indicus, Indi&#xD;&#xA; - Japan: Iaponia, Iaponicus, Iaponienses&#xD;&#xA; - China: Sinae, Sinensis, Sinenses&#xD;&#xA; - (South/North) Korea: Corea (Septentrionalis/Australis), Coreanus (Septentrionalis/Australis), Coreani (Septentrionales/Australes)&#xD;&#xA; - Malaysia: Malaesia, Malaesianus, Malaesiani&#xD;&#xA; - Nepal: Nepalia, Nepalianus, Nepaliani&#xD;&#xA; - Pakistan: Pakistania, Pakistanianus, Pakistaniani&#xD;&#xA; - Sri Lanka: Sri Lanka, Srilancanus, Srilancani&#xD;&#xA; - Thailand: Thailandia, Thailandiensis, Thailandienses&#xD;&#xA;- America Septentrionalis:&#xD;&#xA; - Canada: Canada, Canadensis, Canadenses&#xD;&#xA; - US: Civitates Americae Unitae, Americanus, Americani&#xD;&#xA;- America Australis:&#xD;&#xA; - Argentina: Argentina, Argentinianus, Argentiniani&#xD;&#xA; - Bolivia: Bolivia, Bolivianus, Boliviani&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil: Brasilia, Brasiliensis, Brasilienses&#xD;&#xA; - Chile: Chilia, Chiliensis, Chilienses&#xD;&#xA; - Mexico: Mexicum, Mexicanus, Mexicani&#xD;&#xA; - Peru: Peruvia, Peruvianus, Peruviani&#xD;&#xA; - Venezuela: Venetiola, Venetiolanus, Venetiolani&#xD;&#xA;- Australia: Australia (no further details given)&#xD;&#xA;- Terra Antarctica&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if there seem to be typos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The next appendix contains a list of cities of similar length, but that is irrelevant here.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1345" RevisionGUID="22b6021a-4c83-4668-9036-b41553f042a0" CreationDate="2016-08-08T22:48:39.753" UserId="666" Text="How do you say &quot;address&quot; as in a street address in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;My address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5423" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1345" RevisionGUID="22b6021a-4c83-4668-9036-b41553f042a0" CreationDate="2016-08-08T22:48:39.753" UserId="666" Text="Street Address in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5424" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1345" RevisionGUID="22b6021a-4c83-4668-9036-b41553f042a0" CreationDate="2016-08-08T22:48:39.753" UserId="666" Text="|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1346" RevisionGUID="00cc2df5-be10-4217-85a8-876414a89dea" CreationDate="2016-08-09T03:33:26.887" UserId="68" Text="The standard term among living Latinists is *inscriptio cursualis*; that is, &quot;the inscription that has to do with speed&quot; or &quot;that has to do with the course run.&quot; &quot;Inscription&quot; for *inscriptio* should be pretty clear—it's what's inscribed on an envelope or package sent through the mail. *Cursualis* acquired the meaning &quot;postal&quot; (as in &quot;by posts&quot; or &quot;in stages&quot;) fairly early: in the Codex Justinianus, post-horses are referred to as *equi cursuales*; in the Codex Theodosianus, a *ræda cursualis* is a stage-coach. It's not too far a leap from there to the mail, which is, after all, the postal service." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1347" RevisionGUID="f7c1a206-e428-4e60-b53a-2027678422df" CreationDate="2016-08-09T09:04:06.120" UserId="324" Text="I think the point of departure for all of these is partim, originally the acc. sing. of pars (classical part-em), but later lexicalised as an adverb. From this, speakers isolated the pseudo-suffix -tim and attached it to the stem of other words, like gutta-tim. At a third stage this was reanalysed as gutt-atim and the new pseudo-suffix -atim was used to form words like nomin-atim. I assume (and this is actually what you are asking) that they were relatively productive.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1348" RevisionGUID="c0623e99-e030-434a-82d6-dc8c9d324ac9" CreationDate="2016-08-09T11:26:05.547" UserId="645" Text="Everything that Joel Derfner writes is correct, but simply to say 'my address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue' requires no more than 'habito MDC . . .  '" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1349" RevisionGUID="725effcb-881f-4024-b00a-14705544940c" CreationDate="2016-08-09T11:50:54.580" UserId="324" Text="The Romance equivalents (adresse, indirizzo, dirección, endereço, adresă) all come from directio, with or without a prefix. I wonder whether “directio” might not be a less clumsy way of saying it in (modern) Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1346" RevisionGUID="a448fdac-a376-43af-8c2a-e72eb0a28627" CreationDate="2016-08-09T12:04:21.903" UserId="68" Comment="added 277 characters in body" Text="The standard term among living Latinists is *inscriptio cursualis*; that is, &quot;the inscription that has to do with speed&quot; or &quot;that has to do with the course run.&quot; &quot;Inscription&quot; for *inscriptio* should be pretty clear—it's what's inscribed on an envelope or package sent through the mail. *Cursualis* acquired the meaning &quot;postal&quot; (as in &quot;by posts&quot; or &quot;in stages&quot;) fairly early: in the Codex Justinianus, post-horses are referred to as *equi cursuales*; in the Codex Theodosianus, a *ræda cursualis* is a stage-coach. It's not too far a leap from there to the mail, which is, after all, the postal service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using this phrase to give one's address, however, would be weird. &quot;Inscriptio cursualis mea est MDC Platea Pennsylvania&quot; is really un-Latinate. As Tom Cotton writes, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Habito MDC Plateam Pennsylvaniam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is much more idiomatic. (I'm guessing about the accusative here.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1350" RevisionGUID="ccb54339-6771-4ccd-9e63-4452cc6275dc" CreationDate="2016-08-09T16:19:33.783" UserId="79" Text="Is there a Latin phrase that could be used like &quot;ladies and gentlemen&quot; when addressing a large audience but without commenting the circumstances or identities of the people involved?&#xD;&#xA;In special cases I can use more specific expressions (*amicae amicique* or *cari collegae*), but my vocabulary does not contain a good expression that I could use in almost any situation.&#xD;&#xA;Attested classical greetings are preferred but not required." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5431" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1350" RevisionGUID="ccb54339-6771-4ccd-9e63-4452cc6275dc" CreationDate="2016-08-09T16:19:33.783" UserId="79" Text="&quot;Ladies and gentlemen&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5432" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1350" RevisionGUID="ccb54339-6771-4ccd-9e63-4452cc6275dc" CreationDate="2016-08-09T16:19:33.783" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1319" RevisionGUID="8030c14c-429b-48f9-882d-4c22593745b0" CreationDate="2016-08-09T16:23:22.050" UserId="45" Comment="added 3828 characters in body" Text="For my answer, I will use material from a 1931 article written to address this very issue: &quot;The Use of Forem and Essem&quot; by Winnie D. Lawrence, [available on JSTOR](https://www.jstor.org/stable/282971).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While *essem* was always a good literary word, *forem*, after Plautus, gave evidence of decline in this respect. In later writers, especially in Sallust and Tacitus, it was an affected archaism, but in the poets, metrical convenience also was often the deciding factor in its use. The etymology of *forem* suggests a future meaning and those who employ it most frequently have a strong feeling for this quality. Syntatically, *forem* is met most often in conditional sentences, being employed in this way in 42% of its occurrences, while *essem* is so used in only 15%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some general points sprinkled with the findings of Lawrence's study, which includes a fairly rigorous statistical analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## *forem* has a future tendency&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*forem* comes from the PIE root &quot;BHEU&quot;, *essem* from &quot;ES.&quot; &quot;BHEU&quot; survives in other forms like fu-, fore, and the -ba- and -bo- endings of the imperfect and future (and also English's *be*!). A rough equivalent &quot;future subjunctive&quot; survives in Spanish (*fuere*) and Portuguese (*for*). This future force was recognized by Roman authors, even though it can also be granted to *essem*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Servius, commenting on the *Aeneid*, remarks with surprise when Vergil uses *forem* without any future kind of meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; modo praeteritum significat tempus, quod rarum est, **saepius enim futurum significat**. (Servius on *Aen.* III, 417)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ilio tria fuisse audivi fata quae illi forent exitio. (Pl. *Bacch.* 953)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sallust is especially prone to this kind of usage, using *forem* 33 times with a future sense (e.g. as a substitute for *ero* in indirect discourse) and *essem* only once. One quote in particular even juxtaposes *essem* and *fores* with these two different senses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At Catilina ex itinere...litteras mittit: se...in exitium proficisci, non quo sibi tanti sceleris **conscius esset**, sed uti res public **quieta foret**... (Sal. *Cat.* 34, 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is only a *tendency* with multiple exceptions. However, as Lawrence remarks, &quot;those who use *forem* most often have a strong feeling for its future quality.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## *forem* is more archaic and colloquial&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier writers, such as Plautus, use *forem* comparatively frequently (about 25% of the time). Lucretius uses *forem* more often than *essem*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, more formal writers tend to shy away from heavy usage of *forem*. The most prominent example of this is Vergil, who does not use *forem* at all in the *Eclogues* or *Georgics* and uses it only 15 times in the *Aeneid* (we will see why in the next section). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sallust used the word heavily, but was also often accused of over-employing archaisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## *forem* is great for meter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the most cogent conclusion of Lawrence's study is that *forem* is chosen by poets not for any difference of meaning but because of *metrical expediency*. *Forem* is ideal for metrical schemes ending in an iamb, for instance. Likewise, *forem* is often placed after words ending in a vowel which would cause an elision. Some striking figures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Terence uses *forem* 8 times: 7 are at the end of a line requiring an iamb, and 1 is after a vowel that would otherwise be elided.&#xD;&#xA;- Lucretius: 21 out of 27 cases avoid elision&#xD;&#xA;- Catullus: 7 out 9 avoid elision: in *all 9* cases using *essem* would violate the meter&#xD;&#xA;- Notably, Vergil, who is known for his elision, uses *essem* much more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## *forem* fits better with certain constructions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the previous cases, there is one particularly one construction in which *forem* predominates: **conditionals**. This is very likely a matter of sound, especially for poets, since *si essem* is unpleasant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Half of Terence's *forem*'s are in conditionals&#xD;&#xA;- Quintilian, Seneca Philosophus, and Pliny--who otherwise use *forem* very rarely--use *forem* at a much higher percentage in conditionals&#xD;&#xA;- Tacitus also provides numerous examples, e.g. &quot;Si in Britannia foret&quot; (Ag. 40), &quot;si mali forent&quot; (Hist 1.49), &quot;si vera forent&quot; (Ann 2.8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is likely a question of sound and feel, since a sensitive prose or poetry writer will carefully balance his usage of *s*'s. This seems to explain, for instance, some of the few times when Vergil opts for *forem*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the end of the day, though, we must always appeal to that invisible, inexplicable &quot;choice&quot; an author makes between two roughly equivalent words: the two words evidently have different &quot;feels&quot;, but I would hesitate to formulate any kind of *rules* that apply to all particular cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1351" RevisionGUID="e56c7d99-5258-428a-9b18-1fd5d7143559" CreationDate="2016-08-09T20:40:49.110" UserId="136" Text="As per the comments on the question, I have two phrases that I use during this situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Dominae dominique*&#xD;&#xA;+ I prefer this one because it retains the English subtext. When saying &quot;ladies and gentlemen,&quot; we are literally calling the audience the mistresses and masters of their households, which is a connotation that this translation also has. (It also sounds cool.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  *Feminae virique*&#xD;&#xA;+  This one literally means &quot;women and men,&quot; and could also be used, maybe for a more informal setting, but even then (in English at least) we still use &quot;ladies and gentlemen.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;Please note that these are my personal creations, and not (to my knowledge) idiomatic Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1352" RevisionGUID="d7daab5e-1706-4ff4-bfc8-3d15797ab81a" CreationDate="2016-08-09T21:29:05.587" UserId="45" Text="Let us first look at the Latin Vulgate, which had an enormous influence on medieval Latin. The exact phrase *memento quod* occurs 5 times (of which 4, interestingly, are in Deuteronomy) and **each occurrence uses the subjunctive**. I unfortunately do not have a critical apparatus handy at the moment, but my text of Deut 15:15 (both [here](https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=%22memento+quod%22&amp;qs_version=VULGATE) and [here](http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=0&amp;b=5&amp;c=15)) uses *liberaverit*, not *liberavit*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **memento quod** et ipse **servieris** in Aegypto et **eduxerit** te inde Dominus Deus tuus (Deut 5:15)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **memento quod** et ipse **servieris** in terra Aegypti et **liberaverit** te Dominus Deus tuus (Deut 15:15)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **memento quod** **servieris** in Aegypto et **eruerit** te Dominus Deus tuus (Deut 24:18)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **memento quod** et tu **servieris** in Aegypto (Deut 24:22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **memento quod** **ignores** opus eius (Iob 36:24)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thomas Aquinas, a towering figure of medieval philosophy and a composer of many medieval hymns, also uses *memento quod* with the subjunctive, though in the context of quoting others. He quotes the above verse from Job, and, interestingly, he paraphrases Ex 20:28 (*memento ut diem sabbati sanctifices*) putting *quod* instead of *ut*. (*Super Mt.* cap. 23 l. 2.) It is perhaps significant that the *ut* and *quod* both are seen as serving the same purpose: *ut* obviously taking the subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some notes taken from some *ad hoc* analysis of the [*Corpus Thomisticum*](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/it/index.age):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The quintessential medieval form of indirect discourse, *dixit quod X* **takes the indicative in every case I could find.** The same goes for other &quot;objective&quot; verbs such as *scio*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The moment we depart from such words and move on to verbs like *cogito* and (especially in medieval Latin!) *videtur*, the **subjunctive predominates**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted in the comments, I believe the generic medieval Latin primer advice that *quia* takes the indicative and *quod* takes the subjunctive is misleading if taken as a general prescription. This is **not a hard and steadfast rule**: I found some examples of *memini* with the indicative as well in other medieval writers. If we are to talk of a shade of meeting in this specific example of *sumpseris*, this has much more to do with the fact that we are asking the Redeemer to recall from *his* memory an event that happened *to him*: it is not some subtle way of calling into questions the factual accuracy of that event." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5436" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="1179" RevisionGUID="1ccb1651-01cb-4d48-b29a-c0f2d68bc6ec" CreationDate="2016-08-09T21:30:16.173" UserId="12" Comment="12" />
  <row Id="5437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1352" RevisionGUID="24f5cb90-f357-4b37-858b-2da2089f6635" CreationDate="2016-08-09T23:56:39.953" UserId="45" Comment="edited body" Text="Let us first look at the Latin Vulgate, which had an enormous influence on medieval Latin. The exact phrase *memento quod* occurs 5 times (of which 4, interestingly, are in Deuteronomy) and **each occurrence uses the subjunctive**. I unfortunately do not have a critical apparatus handy at the moment, but my text of Deut 15:15 (both [here](https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=%22memento+quod%22&amp;qs_version=VULGATE) and [here](http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=0&amp;b=5&amp;c=15)) uses *liberaverit*, not *liberavit*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **memento quod** et ipse **servieris** in Aegypto et **eduxerit** te inde Dominus Deus tuus (Deut 5:15)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **memento quod** et ipse **servieris** in terra Aegypti et **liberaverit** te Dominus Deus tuus (Deut 15:15)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **memento quod** **servieris** in Aegypto et **eruerit** te Dominus Deus tuus (Deut 24:18)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **memento quod** et tu **servieris** in Aegypto (Deut 24:22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **memento quod** **ignores** opus eius (Iob 36:24)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thomas Aquinas, a towering figure of medieval philosophy and a composer of many medieval hymns, also uses *memento quod* with the subjunctive, though in the context of quoting others. He quotes the above verse from Job, and, interestingly, he paraphrases Ex 20:28 (*memento ut diem sabbati sanctifices*) putting *quod* instead of *ut*. (*Super Mt.* cap. 23 l. 2.) It is perhaps significant that the *ut* and *quod* both are seen as serving the same purpose: *ut* obviously taking the subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some notes taken from some *ad hoc* analysis of the [*Corpus Thomisticum*](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/it/index.age):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The quintessential medieval form of indirect discourse, *dixit quod X* **takes the indicative in every case I could find.** The same goes for other &quot;objective&quot; verbs such as *scio*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The moment we depart from such words and move on to verbs like *cogito* and (especially in medieval Latin!) *videtur*, the **subjunctive predominates**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted in the comments, I believe the generic medieval Latin primer advice that *quia* takes the indicative and *quod* takes the subjunctive is misleading if taken as a general prescription. This is **not a hard and steadfast rule**: I found some examples of *memini* with the indicative as well in other medieval writers. If we are to talk of a shade of meaning in this specific example of *sumpseris*, this has much more to do with the fact that we are asking the Redeemer to recall from *his* memory an event that happened *to him*: it is not some subtle way of calling into questions the factual accuracy of that event." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1343" RevisionGUID="d7607937-ff57-4a4a-b63c-159023d7d617" CreationDate="2016-08-10T01:55:03.213" UserId="45" Comment="oops! that's not ablative of means..." Text="Vergil uses a great adverb to convey the idea of being &quot;at close quarters&quot;: [*comminus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcomminus). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tum contra Iuno; “Terrorum et fraudis abunde est;  &#xD;&#xA;stant belli causae, **pugnatur comminus armis**,  &#xD;&#xA;quae fors prima dedit sanguis novus imbuit arma...&quot; (Vir. *Aen* 7.552-554)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more examples from other authors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* with *pugnare*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dum locus **comminus pugnandi** daretur... (Caes. B. C. 1, 58)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* with *utor* + ablative (here *comminus* is contrasted with its opposite, *eminus*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nec eminus hastis aut **comminus gladiis** uteretur (Cic. Sen. 6, 19)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* with other verbs (approaching closer to your example sentence):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...gladio **comminus geri** rem... (Liv. 44, 35, 12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using these examples as a model, I would translate *A sword is a weapon for close combat* as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Gladium instrumentum est comminus pugnandi**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm not too happy with *instrumentum* here, but I am having trouble thinking of a generic word for *weapon* besides *telum*, which for me implies distance, and *arma*, which I believe only works in the plural.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1353" RevisionGUID="6c5bd43e-89aa-45f5-b2fd-162d39ddd9d2" CreationDate="2016-08-10T06:30:50.627" UserId="79" Text="Some nouns derived from verbs look like future participles: *cultura* from *colere*, *sepultura* from *sepelire*, *scriptura* from *scribere*&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;These do not have a future meaning, but are merely names for the activity associated with the verb.&#xD;&#xA;Are they actually related to the future participle in one way or another?&#xD;&#xA;Or do they just happen to have an unrelated suffix that looks the same?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5441" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1353" RevisionGUID="6c5bd43e-89aa-45f5-b2fd-162d39ddd9d2" CreationDate="2016-08-10T06:30:50.627" UserId="79" Text="Is cultura a future participle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5442" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1353" RevisionGUID="6c5bd43e-89aa-45f5-b2fd-162d39ddd9d2" CreationDate="2016-08-10T06:30:50.627" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|derivation|suffixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1354" RevisionGUID="22859979-dd79-425c-a87d-b3bd7f482931" CreationDate="2016-08-10T15:57:39.677" UserId="45" Text="Gary Miller, in [*Latin Suffixal Derivatives in English and Their Indo-European Ancestry*](https://books.google.com/books?id=7rMUDAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA119&amp;lpg=PA119&amp;dq=pictura+cultura+fractura+latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=i4lluhDHUA&amp;sig=34PvDXwlJk4or4xuKHOqdg2JKnE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwii1vfOl7fOAhVoBMAKHQEYB3MQ6AEIJDAC#v=onepage&amp;q=pictura%20cultura%20fractura%20latin&amp;f=false) says that **there is no direct relation between nouns formed from verbs with *-ura* and the similar future active participles**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Formally, this suffix seems to be an adjectival *\*-ro-* (fem. *\*-reh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;*) extension of nominal *\*-t(e/o)u-*.... While *-tura* bears a close resemblance to the future active participle *-turus, -a, -um*, there is no simple way the two can be related. (p. 118)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He gives two reasons for this lack of resemblance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Temporal difference**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the future active participle *futurus, -a, -um* is older than the substantivized neuter *futurum*, pl. *futura*, the nominal suffix could not have spawned the future participle. (ibid)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Differences in stem formation**: Two examples:&#xD;&#xA;  1. FAP *pariturus* vs. noun *partura*&#xD;&#xA;  2. FAP *stātūrus* vs. noun *statūra* (short a)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Similarity with other nominal suffixes**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The nominal suffix patterns with *-or/-tor* (etc.) in having an older form *-ura* beside *-tura* (build on stem II). (ibid)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of this would be *figura* and *fictura*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1354" RevisionGUID="ab1ce199-ee3a-4d9f-b562-2d6b0b21a8f5" CreationDate="2016-08-10T16:08:31.990" UserId="45" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Gary Miller, in [*Latin Suffixal Derivatives in English and Their Indo-European Ancestry*](https://books.google.com/books?id=7rMUDAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA119&amp;lpg=PA119&amp;dq=pictura+cultura+fractura+latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=i4lluhDHUA&amp;sig=34PvDXwlJk4or4xuKHOqdg2JKnE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwii1vfOl7fOAhVoBMAKHQEYB3MQ6AEIJDAC#v=onepage&amp;q=pictura%20cultura%20fractura%20latin&amp;f=false) says that **there is no direct relation between nouns formed from verbs with *-ura* and the similar future active participles**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Formally, this suffix seems to be an adjectival *\*-ro-* (fem. *\*-reh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;*) extension of nominal *\*-t(e/o)u-*.... While *-tura* bears a close resemblance to the future active participle *-turus, -a, -um*, there is no simple way the two can be related. (p. 118)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He gives three reasons for this lack of resemblance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Temporal difference**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the future active participle *futurus, -a, -um* is older than the substantivized neuter *futurum*, pl. *futura*, the nominal suffix could not have spawned the future participle. (ibid)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Differences in stem formation**: Two examples:&#xD;&#xA;  1. FAP *pariturus* vs. noun *partura*&#xD;&#xA;  2. FAP *stātūrus* vs. noun *statūra* (short a)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Similarity with other nominal suffixes**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The nominal suffix patterns with *-or/-tor* (etc.) in having an older form *-ura* beside *-tura* (build on stem II). (ibid)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of this would be *figura* and *fictura*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1355" RevisionGUID="88f06ed9-008c-4160-9cae-6899854948b7" CreationDate="2016-08-10T18:56:52.763" UserId="750" Text="Also, is it a noun or an adjective? What's the nominative?  &#xD;&#xA;And why is the ending of &quot;Mediolanensis&quot; in &quot;Archiepiscopus Mediolanensis&quot; and &quot;Archidioecesis Mediolanensis&quot; the same even though the former noun is male and the latter female?  &#xD;&#xA;(Sorry, I'm a total n00b and checked all sorts of declension tables but I just can't figure this one out.)  &#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5446" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1355" RevisionGUID="88f06ed9-008c-4160-9cae-6899854948b7" CreationDate="2016-08-10T18:56:52.763" UserId="750" Text="In what case is &quot;Venetiarum&quot; in &quot;Patriarchatus Venetiarum&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5447" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1355" RevisionGUID="88f06ed9-008c-4160-9cae-6899854948b7" CreationDate="2016-08-10T18:56:52.763" UserId="750" Text="|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1356" RevisionGUID="37622ecf-786a-432b-a0c0-bf46f3215944" CreationDate="2016-08-10T19:48:07.747" UserId="750" Text="Why is the ending of &quot;Mediolanensis&quot; in &quot;Archiepiscopus Mediolanensis&quot; and &quot;Archidioecesis Mediolanensis&quot; the same even though the former noun is male and the latter female?  &#xD;&#xA;(Was told to split this question from the previous post.)  &#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5449" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1356" RevisionGUID="37622ecf-786a-432b-a0c0-bf46f3215944" CreationDate="2016-08-10T19:48:07.747" UserId="750" Text="Same ending of &quot;Mediolanensis&quot; in &quot;Archiepiscopus Mediolanensis&quot; and &quot;Archidioecesis Mediolanensis&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5450" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1356" RevisionGUID="37622ecf-786a-432b-a0c0-bf46f3215944" CreationDate="2016-08-10T19:48:07.747" UserId="750" Text="|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1355" RevisionGUID="6843b751-f40c-4e14-9639-b014074ff6f4" CreationDate="2016-08-10T19:53:15.493" UserId="750" Comment="deleted 26 characters in body" Text="Also, is it a noun or an adjective? What's the nominative?  &#xD;&#xA;[moved second question &lt;a href=&quot;http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1356/same-ending-of-mediolanensis-in-archiepiscopus-mediolanensis-and-archidioec&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;]  &#xD;&#xA;(Sorry, I'm a total n00b and checked all sorts of declension tables but I just can't figure this one out.)  &#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1357" RevisionGUID="0be0c5f1-50e9-40bd-8750-300807c62413" CreationDate="2016-08-10T20:06:18.380" UserId="79" Text="There are two (main) classes of adjectives in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Some adjectives use the first declension for feminines (eg. *Romana*) and the second declension for masculines and neuters (eg. *Romanus* and *Romanum*).&#xD;&#xA;For adjectives like this masculine forms look different from feminine forms &amp;mdash; with the exception of plural dative and ablative.&#xD;&#xA;- Some adjectives use the third declension for all genders (eg. *Mediolanensis/Mediolanensis/Mediolanense* for feminine/masculine/neuter).&#xD;&#xA;For these adjectives masculine and feminine forms look almost always the same.&#xD;&#xA;The only exception can be in the singular nominative, but only for some adjectives (eg. *celeris/celer/celere* for feminine/masculine/neuter).&#xD;&#xA;For *Mediolanensis* there is no difference between feminine and masculine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short:&#xD;&#xA;**Some adjectives look different in masculine and feminine, some don't.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is also true in Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;In Italian you have the two forms *romana* and *romano* for the two genders (Italian has no neuter) but *milanese* is both feminine and masculine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1356" RevisionGUID="5d39ebad-1d9b-485b-8aca-c2b8375e5dbd" CreationDate="2016-08-10T20:08:34.803" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted slightly and removed the parenthetical remark." Text="Why is the ending of *Mediolanensis* in *Archiepiscopus Mediolanensis* and *Archidioecesis Mediolanensis* the same even though the former noun is male and the latter female?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5454" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1356" RevisionGUID="5d39ebad-1d9b-485b-8aca-c2b8375e5dbd" CreationDate="2016-08-10T20:08:34.803" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted slightly and removed the parenthetical remark." Text="|declension|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1358" RevisionGUID="5da47ae1-3831-46ba-be89-e76d2383dd1b" CreationDate="2016-08-10T20:15:39.743" UserId="45" Text="*Venetiarum* is the genitive plural of the first-declension noun *Venetia, -ae*. *Venetiae, -arum* (plural) is Latin for English *Venice* (singular).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Patriarchatus Venetiarum* thus means &quot;The Patriarchate of Venice.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is *Venetiae* plural? We have a parallel situation in English, since we refer to one country as &quot;The Maldives&quot; (plural). The plural refers in both cases to a group of islands classed as one country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation of Carl von Czoernig's [*Die alten Völker Oberitaliens*](https://books.google.com/books?id=Vr9xCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA125):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the time of Constantine, this country was no longer called *Venetia* but *Venetiae* in the plural, because of the distinction between *Venetia superior* and *inferior*; in all likelihood the former comprised the mainland area and the latter included the area along the lagoon. The latter was also already in Roman times called *Venetia marittima*. During the time that the Goths, Longabards, and Franks ruled, this country was also called *Venetiae, -arum* in the plural. (pg. 125)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1358" RevisionGUID="b961690b-00ba-4962-930d-c434d6628c52" CreationDate="2016-08-10T20:23:20.113" UserId="45" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="*Venetiarum* is the genitive plural of the first-declension noun *Venetia, -ae*. *Venetiae, -arum* (plural) is Latin for English *Venice* (singular).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Patriarchatus Venetiarum* thus means &quot;The Patriarchate of Venice.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is *Venetiae* plural? We have a parallel situation in English, since we refer to one country as &quot;The Maldives&quot; (plural). The plural refers in both cases to a group of islands classed as one territory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation of Carl von Czoernig's [*Die alten Völker Oberitaliens*](https://books.google.com/books?id=Vr9xCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA125):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the time of Constantine, this country was no longer called *Venetia* but *Venetiae* in the plural, because of the distinction between *Venetia superior* and *inferior*; in all likelihood the former comprised the mainland area and the latter included the area along the lagoon. The latter was also already in Roman times called *Venetia marittima*. During the time that the Goths, Longabards, and Franks ruled, this country was also called *Venetiae, -arum* in the plural. (pg. 125)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1359" RevisionGUID="0019f351-bb8d-40f1-9212-a8500884fc9f" CreationDate="2016-08-11T07:19:56.977" UserId="79" Text="Suppose I want to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It can happen that my horse dies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not want to say &quot;my horse can die&quot;, but I want to keep this structure where the thing that happens is in a subordinate clause.&#xD;&#xA;This helps clarify the structure in some longer sentences and it also gives a different tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It can happen&quot; is &quot;Fieri potest&quot;, but I can think of two options for the rest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fieri potest, ut equus meus moriatur.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fieri potest, quod equus meus moritur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are both of these valid?&#xD;&#xA;If both are grammatical, is there a difference in tone?&#xD;&#xA;Are there even more ways to form a similar subordinate clause?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see the following difference between *ut* and *quod* (which I hope is clear enough from the more emphatic versions), but I am not sure if the Romans would agree:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It can happen so that my horse dies.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Ita) fieri potest, ut equus meus moriatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The thing can happen that my horse dies.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Id) fieri potest, quod equus meus moritur." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5459" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1359" RevisionGUID="0019f351-bb8d-40f1-9212-a8500884fc9f" CreationDate="2016-08-11T07:19:56.977" UserId="79" Text="Fieri potest with final ut or explicative quod" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5460" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1359" RevisionGUID="0019f351-bb8d-40f1-9212-a8500884fc9f" CreationDate="2016-08-11T07:19:56.977" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|conjunction|subordinate-clause|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1360" RevisionGUID="9a5eb9b6-d6a0-4520-a998-fe1147003e1f" CreationDate="2016-08-11T14:41:33.063" UserId="68" Text="I've never seen *fieri potest, quod*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find however several examples of *fieri potest, ut* subjunctive in the corpora; the first two are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si hoc **fieri potest ut** in hac civitate quae longe iure libertatis	ceteris civitatibus antecellit quisquam nullis comitiis imperium aut potestatem adsequi **possit**, quid attinet tertio	capite legem curiatam ferre iubere, cum quarto permittas ut sine lege curiata idem iuris habeant quod haberent, si	optima lege a populo essent creati?  &#xD;&#xA;—Cicero, *De Lege Agraria*, 2.26.1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Neque enim **fieri potest ut** aliud iudicari	de iure, aliud responderi **oporteat**, nec **ut** quisquam iuris **numeretur** peritus qui id statuat esse ius quod non oporteat iudicari.  &#xD;&#xA;—Cicero, *Pro Cæcina*, 65.1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself don't mistake it for a purpose clause, especially since *si fieri potest* shows up a lot and seems to be a locution for &quot;if possible,&quot; so I take it as a clue that what's coming up next isn't purpose. I'd mistake *quod*, though, for &quot;because,&quot; and it would cause all kinds of confusion. (Not that that's unusual for me.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1361" RevisionGUID="4f3823f9-dfbb-434d-9dda-8cad4675bcad" CreationDate="2016-08-11T16:31:17.773" UserId="45" Text="Although these two words are obviously closely related (I believe *tunc* = *tum* + *ce*), I would like to know whether they are usually **interchangeable** and the **meaning differences that exist between them**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to refer to a past time (*tum/tunc homines alas habebant*), which is appropriate? Can both be used to indicate sequentiality, like *deinde* or English *then*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5463" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1361" RevisionGUID="4f3823f9-dfbb-434d-9dda-8cad4675bcad" CreationDate="2016-08-11T16:31:17.773" UserId="45" Text="The difference between tum and tunc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5464" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1361" RevisionGUID="4f3823f9-dfbb-434d-9dda-8cad4675bcad" CreationDate="2016-08-11T16:31:17.773" UserId="45" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1362" RevisionGUID="eaf6eaee-f099-4e60-90c7-18890b02fe68" CreationDate="2016-08-11T17:27:24.427" UserId="45" Text="I was recently reading Karl Gottlob Zumpt's excellent [*Grammar of the Latin Language*](https://books.google.com/books?id=vosAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA258&amp;lpg=PA258&amp;dq=conjunctions&amp;source=web&amp;ots=dIYi7uXN28&amp;sig=Q8UQ7e1zL697wZgG1oq4lah324Q#v=onepage&amp;q=conjunctions&amp;f=false), which contains an extensive section on conjunctions and their differences (pp. 250ff).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His distinctions are largely the same as the above answer, but it might help to shed some more light for those who are still confused:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the practical difference that *nam* begins a clause while *enim* is postpositive, he states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The differenc ein meaning seems to consist in this, that *nam* introduces a **conclusive reason**, and *enim* merely a **confirming circumstance**, the consideration of which depends upon the inclination of the speaker. *Nam*, therefore, denotes an objective reason, and *enim* merely a subjective one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1362" RevisionGUID="8330fa9a-f256-490c-ae02-5f912aec0c1f" CreationDate="2016-08-11T18:16:36.563" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected a typo." Text="I was recently reading Karl Gottlob Zumpt's excellent [*Grammar of the Latin Language*](https://books.google.com/books?id=vosAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA258&amp;lpg=PA258&amp;dq=conjunctions&amp;source=web&amp;ots=dIYi7uXN28&amp;sig=Q8UQ7e1zL697wZgG1oq4lah324Q#v=onepage&amp;q=conjunctions&amp;f=false), which contains an extensive section on conjunctions and their differences (pp. 250ff).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His distinctions are largely the same as the above answer, but it might help to shed some more light for those who are still confused:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the practical difference that *nam* begins a clause while *enim* is postpositive, he states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The difference in meaning seems to consist in this, that *nam* introduces a **conclusive reason**, and *enim* merely a **confirming circumstance**, the consideration of which depends upon the inclination of the speaker. *Nam*, therefore, denotes an objective reason, and *enim* merely a subjective one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1363" RevisionGUID="4f10a048-f759-47b4-8e16-ff8a9a44e450" CreationDate="2016-08-12T07:36:53.950" UserId="79" Text="I learned in [a recent question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1353/79) that derived nouns like *figura*, *statura* and *cultura* do not always look like the future participle but are actually formed from a different stem.&#xD;&#xA;Examples of differences: *figura/fictura*, *sta&amp;#x306;tura/st&amp;amacr;tura*, *partura/partitura*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a rule for stem formation in this derivation?&#xD;&#xA;The nouns do not (always) come from the perfect participle stem.&#xD;&#xA;That is, if I want to productively derive more such nouns, how do I do it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5468" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1363" RevisionGUID="4f10a048-f759-47b4-8e16-ff8a9a44e450" CreationDate="2016-08-12T07:36:53.950" UserId="79" Text="Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5469" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1363" RevisionGUID="4f10a048-f759-47b4-8e16-ff8a9a44e450" CreationDate="2016-08-12T07:36:53.950" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|conjugation|derivation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1364" RevisionGUID="d081666d-7042-48a2-96f3-5e062b031a52" CreationDate="2016-08-12T16:03:03.073" UserId="118" Text="Is there a difference in meaning between **argumentum ad** and **argumentum a**? Does the latter even have authoritative usage in Latin?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some samples that I've found, not always from authoritative works, which seem to follow an interesting pattern:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _argumentum **ad** misericordiam_: an appeal to mercy or pity, attempting to override the law or truth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _argumentum **ad** hominem_: an appeal specific to the person you're trying to persuade, i.e. telling each person a different story, hoping to get them all on your side; or, in contemporary usage, trying to get the faults of a person who advocates an idea to rub off onto the idea&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _argumentum **ad** populum_: an appeal to the people at large, i.e. arguing that the idea is popular, not that it's true (or perhaps arguing that since it's popular, it's likely true)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _argumentum **ad** baculum_: an appeal to force (&quot;the stick&quot;), i.e. convincing by threat rather than by enlightening&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _argumentum **ad** verecundiam_: an appeal to reverence; I once read _verecundia_ explained as the kind of bashfulness that you feel in the presence of something great or socially important, so that appealing to this emotion works like this: &quot;How could say such an awful thing about our church?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _argumentum **a** simili_: an appeal to similarity: since this is similar to that, the rule for that applies to this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _argumentum **a** contrario_ (or _**e** contrario_): an appeal to the contrary: since this is different from that, the rule for that doesn't apply&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _argumentum **a** coherentia_: an appeal to internal consistency: a proposal to resolve a conflict between rules that keeps the system of rules coherent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _argumentum **a** fortiori [[ratione?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/295/118)]_: an appeal to a comparable, stronger case where the result is known&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pattern appears to be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Ad** introduces something about _who_ is judging the matter: their emotions, their loyalties, their numbers, their power or lack of it—all matters that are outside the matter under consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Ab** introduces something within the _topic_: a kind of fact, a relevant factor, a relation between the present case and a known or settled case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this right? Is there an authoritative source about this? Or can you point to common usages of **argumentum** or **ad/ab** in other contexts that might serve as a precedent for the pattern above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt;Not just classical Latin.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5471" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1364" RevisionGUID="d081666d-7042-48a2-96f3-5e062b031a52" CreationDate="2016-08-12T16:03:03.073" UserId="118" Text="&quot;Argumentum ad&quot; vs. &quot;argumentum a&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5472" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1364" RevisionGUID="d081666d-7042-48a2-96f3-5e062b031a52" CreationDate="2016-08-12T16:03:03.073" UserId="118" Text="|preposition|legal-latin|logic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1365" RevisionGUID="0713c8bf-ea0f-4597-8b48-4f697a43813e" CreationDate="2016-08-12T16:30:20.490" UserId="118" Text="Here are two apparent counterexamples that I think are not really counterexamples. I post them here to give people an opportunity to confirm or refute my understanding of them (I'll be grateful for either).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Argumentum **ab** auctoritate est fortissimum in lege.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One might say that an authority is outside the topic and therefore should follow the **ad** pattern. However, the authority is understood as the source of the law, not as a factor specific to the person being appealed to. Since the authority is the source of the law, it is properly the source of the decision when considered in connection with the facts of the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps we could understand all the **argumenta ab** as appeals whose _source_ is the next thing mentioned. That naturally calls for the ablative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By that token, **argumenta ad** would be appeals that &quot;target&quot; something about the person being persuaded rather than &quot;coming from&quot; the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Argumentum **a** maiore **ad** minus negative non valet; valet e converso.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one has **ad** introducing a part of the topic, certainly nothing specific to the person being appealed to. However, I am thinking that this is still not a counterexample, because **ad** is serving a different meaning: it's paired with **ab** to form a range, &quot;from the greater to the lesser&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1366" RevisionGUID="2a582efb-6089-43b5-9d77-62a6d893b1d5" CreationDate="2016-08-12T18:30:55.493" UserId="40" Text="I don't think there's a general answer to this -- the forms you cite appear to be individual random exceptions to the rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The long *ā* of the fut. ppl. *stātūrus* is historically secondary. The pf. ppl. *stătus* has short *ă*, which is etymologically expected (it's the reflex of an Indo-European laryngeal, like in *dătus*); *stātūrus* must therefore be an analogical form, based on the long *ā* that appears in practically all first-conjugation verbs. The noun *stătūra*, not being a verb form, presumably escaped this analogy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *par(i)tūra*: there seems to be no noun of either form in Lewis and Short. A [PackHum search](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=partura) for *partūra* finds only one example, in Varro; the normal fut. ppl. form seems to be *paritūrus*. This fut. ppl. is slightly irregular in that it does not share the stem of the pf. ppl. *partus*; the latter presumably results from vowel syncope between coronal consonants, which is a common phenomenon (though not a wholly regular sound change) in Latin. In this case the fut. ppl., maybe because it's a less common form, evaded the sound change and remained regular (or was analogically reformed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Figūra* is the only really anomalous form in that it obviously cannot be derived from the stem of the fut. ppl.: in other words the suffix here is *-ūr-* rather than *-tūr-*. It seems to be the only such example; Weiss's historical grammar of Latin lists it specifically as such in the section about derived nouns in *-tūra-* (I don't have the book handy at the moment so can't cite the page)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1367" RevisionGUID="9a2ed88e-f386-4ac9-a3e7-bd2961c41e63" CreationDate="2016-08-13T18:41:19.333" UserId="118" Text="Occasionally while reading, I've mistaken a first-declension ablative for a nominative, or _vice versa,_* and gotten confused for a moment until I sorted it out. Both appear the same in writing, of course, except for learners' texts with macrons and the occasional indication by a diacritical mark where the author or editor thought the case was ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do fluent readers occasionally get confused about this, or is the case pretty much always clear? For example, if you're reading aloud, would you pretty much always know when to lengthen the _a_ and when not to, without having to go back and correct yourself?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're always able to determine the case on sight, how are you doing that? Are you exploiting a convention about when to mark the ablative case in writing and when it's not needed? Are you just &quot;looking ahead&quot; pretty quickly, like the way skilled pianists [sight-read](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232577045_The_Eye-Hand_Span-An_Approach_to_the_Study_of_Sight_Reading), so you're able to infer the case from context even when the necessary clues come later in the sentence? Or do ablative phrases follow customary word order so frequently in practice that you're actually tracking familiar phrase patterns? (If so, I wouldn't expect that to work on poetry.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Sorry I don't have any good examples of this confusion off-hand. I've gotten tired of waiting to happen onto a good example before posting this question. Up above, though, I see in the &quot;Questions that may already have your answer&quot;, the sentence _Sola Dea fatum novit._ Indeed that one throws me every time I see it. I keep expecting the first two words to be ablative, and then they turn out nominative.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;*Should that be read _vice versă_ or _vice versā_?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5477" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1367" RevisionGUID="9a2ed88e-f386-4ac9-a3e7-bd2961c41e63" CreationDate="2016-08-13T18:41:19.333" UserId="118" Text="Is the unmarked 1st-declension ablative in writing ever jarring or confusing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5478" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1367" RevisionGUID="9a2ed88e-f386-4ac9-a3e7-bd2961c41e63" CreationDate="2016-08-13T18:41:19.333" UserId="118" Text="|ablative|ambiguity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1368" RevisionGUID="3fdb02ea-8041-44af-bccb-c4d61d2a0d2a" CreationDate="2016-08-13T18:48:05.800" UserId="118" Text="In contemporary spoken Latin, such as (I think) occurs among canon lawyers in the Vatican and at Latin-only conventicula, do people clearly lengthen the _-ā_ at the end of first-declension nouns in the ablative case? If not, does this cause confusion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5480" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1368" RevisionGUID="3fdb02ea-8041-44af-bccb-c4d61d2a0d2a" CreationDate="2016-08-13T18:48:05.800" UserId="118" Text="In contemporary spoken Latin, do people mark the 1st-declension ablative case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5481" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1368" RevisionGUID="3fdb02ea-8041-44af-bccb-c4d61d2a0d2a" CreationDate="2016-08-13T18:48:05.800" UserId="118" Text="|contemporary-latin|ablative|spoken-language|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1369" RevisionGUID="99e77ede-5473-449d-9f5b-870dda50e013" CreationDate="2016-08-13T21:33:39.740" UserId="68" Text="I don't know about the Vatican. But I've met very few people at conventicula, living-Latin events, etc., who make any distinction whatsoever. I don't generally have a problem, I think in part because nobody talks in insane periods like Cicero uses for orations, and with many speakers, unfortunately, though by no means a majority, word order is closer to English than to Latin, so I don't have to hold the possibility of nominative/ablative in my mind while I wait for a verb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know of two people who actually lengthen the vowels as the Romans did—that is, who pronounce long vowels over a longer period of time than short vowels. I know Finnish Latin speakers often observe this rule, since Finnish has vowel lengths. I haven't listened to Radio Bremen in a while, so I don't know if they do or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is, though, that I'm very unused to *listening* for lengthened vowels, so on the rare occasions when I hear people use them, it basically makes no difference whatsoever to me, at least as far as I can tell. It's possible that when my comprehension is more secure or I've just had more experience listening that will change, but for now I don't really even notice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1370" RevisionGUID="a40eb615-b00c-4744-b449-44bec0f9f9d2" CreationDate="2016-08-13T21:40:44.827" UserId="68" Text="I'll give you a partial answer, but I'm not a fluent reader yet, so others will be better able to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the structure is complex enough that I have to &quot;work it out,&quot; then it's sort of moot. But, as I've grown more experienced, the complexity of sentences I've been able to &quot;just read&quot; has slowly increased. And when I'm &quot;just reading,&quot; it seems I'm able to hold both options (nominative/ablative) in my head as options, and wait for an indication of which one is the right one to decide." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1371" RevisionGUID="4cb2bf58-b6e8-4990-9eba-4c0df142592f" CreationDate="2016-08-14T04:11:23.377" UserId="576" Text="What is the difference between *ac* (or *atque*) and *et*? And how do I know when to use *atque* instead of just *ac*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that *ac* &quot;binds more tightly&quot; than *et*. Is this true? Or is the difference between *ac* (or *atque*) and *et* the conjunctive analogue of [the difference between *vel* (or *sive*) and *aut*][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/73/576" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5485" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1371" RevisionGUID="4cb2bf58-b6e8-4990-9eba-4c0df142592f" CreationDate="2016-08-14T04:11:23.377" UserId="576" Text="What is the difference between &quot;ac&quot; (or &quot;atque&quot;) and &quot;et&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5486" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1371" RevisionGUID="4cb2bf58-b6e8-4990-9eba-4c0df142592f" CreationDate="2016-08-14T04:11:23.377" UserId="576" Text="|word-comparison|conjunction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1372" RevisionGUID="d68d4626-40fc-44ef-b894-b15fa1ec5441" CreationDate="2016-08-14T04:12:52.377" UserId="576" Text="Scientists up until the mid-19&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; century would frequently write in Latin. What sort of Latin would it be considered? Are there any resources on the history of the scientific use of Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5488" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1372" RevisionGUID="d68d4626-40fc-44ef-b894-b15fa1ec5441" CreationDate="2016-08-14T04:12:52.377" UserId="576" Text="What is the history of scientific Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5489" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1372" RevisionGUID="d68d4626-40fc-44ef-b894-b15fa1ec5441" CreationDate="2016-08-14T04:12:52.377" UserId="576" Text="|history|science|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1373" RevisionGUID="1ad4dc11-4723-4f0d-93db-8de46c8cfebe" CreationDate="2016-08-14T06:47:19.673" UserId="750" Text="In the following clause the agent is in the accusative, not ablative. Why? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;quod Civitas Aquilegensis et oppida Sancti Viti A. et Sancti Danielis in dicta patria consistentia cum omnibus eorum districtibus, pertinentiis (…) habeantur per ipsum Reverendissimum Dominum Cardinalem et Patriarcham  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(the full sentence is too long, you can read it [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=Yfr3uyHhZkwC&amp;pg=PA530))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5491" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1373" RevisionGUID="1ad4dc11-4723-4f0d-93db-8de46c8cfebe" CreationDate="2016-08-14T06:47:19.673" UserId="750" Text="agent of passive sentence in accusative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5492" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1373" RevisionGUID="1ad4dc11-4723-4f0d-93db-8de46c8cfebe" CreationDate="2016-08-14T06:47:19.673" UserId="750" Text="|declension|passive-voice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5493" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1373" RevisionGUID="474bddef-5025-4f85-b747-2c4716d147ca" CreationDate="2016-08-14T06:53:59.720" UserId="750" Comment="edited title" Text="Agent of passive sentence in accusative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1374" RevisionGUID="453ccbd7-01b2-445e-9b51-66ab6bb1e910" CreationDate="2016-08-14T09:58:13.957" UserId="324" Text="The agent here is not denoted by the bare accusative, but by per + accusative. This usage is classical. L/S s.v. “per” cites several examples from Cicero, e.g. “quod nefarium stuprum non per illum factum est,”  “What nefarious crime has not been commited by him?” It survives with (for example) French “par”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1375" RevisionGUID="eb114163-3e57-4bf4-8a34-2e33d70b2e28" CreationDate="2016-08-14T11:48:31.807" UserId="645" Text="The earliest writings on what might be called ‘real science’ begin in the seventeenth century. They were in Latin because it was a lingua franca, widely understood across Europe. Among the greatest exemplars were Isaac Newton and Karl Friedrich Gauss (another interesting case is that of William Harvey, who wrote De Motu Cardis). It’s interesting to read earlier essays (e.g. of Roger Bacon and Erasmus), too, which tend to be more, as we would nowadays put it, philosophical, as well as other kinds of account - such as those about  pioneering explorers. They are, in general, written in a Latin which might be said to begin with the Italian Renaissance in the 14th century: it is clear, owes much to the classical authors which were a normal study for all young scholars, and introduces necessary  new vocabulary to science in much the same way as did Milton and Spenser to English. I’m sorry to say that I know of no useful work that discusses this as a particular subject." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1376" RevisionGUID="ab493839-bbc5-4e1b-a258-abac37c0d49c" CreationDate="2016-08-14T14:36:01.127" UserId="645" Text="There is a long and very thorough explanation under ‘and’ in Smith &amp; Hall’s *Copious &amp; Critical English-Latin Dictionary*, which is readily available in various forms. (The authors also refer the reader to Allen’s *Doctrina Cop. Ling. Latinae*, which I have not been able to trace, but is probably 19th century and available in specialised academic libraries.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1377" RevisionGUID="1a042832-1e5c-4eed-a766-39dd274a0fea" CreationDate="2016-08-14T20:54:41.283" UserId="324" Text="All languages have homographs. In English we have (for example) “read” /ri:d/ and “read” /rɛd/. It belongs to basic literacy to be able to distinguish the two when reading aloud." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1372" RevisionGUID="dac7c5ba-0295-4b60-9957-d521cc81b12a" CreationDate="2016-08-14T21:03:58.637" UserId="576" Comment="added 447 characters in body" Text="Scientists up until the mid-19&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; century (e.g., Gauss) would frequently write scientific works in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What sort of Latin would it be considered? Would Gauss's writings be considered New Latin? Ecclesiastical Latin? Or is &quot;scientific Latin&quot; a completely different &quot;stream&quot; in the evolution of Latin over the centuries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin was the universal language in the medieval European university system run by the Church, so it would seem that scientific or academic Latin would be very similar to, if not identical to, ecclesiastical Latin or medieval Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any resources on the history of the scientific use of Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1371" RevisionGUID="a1539359-45e2-4856-b950-c1e9eb743a5e" CreationDate="2016-08-14T21:08:00.467" UserId="576" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="What is the difference between *ac* (or *atque*) and *et*? And how do I know when to use *atque* instead of just *ac*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that *ac* &quot;binds more tightly&quot; than *et*. Is this true? Or is the difference between *ac* (or *atque*) and *et* the conjunctive analogue of [the difference between *vel* (or *sive* / *seu*) and *aut*][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/73/576" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1372" RevisionGUID="ccca32aa-be8f-44a3-ad1e-181c4436b86b" CreationDate="2016-08-14T21:16:17.107" UserId="576" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Scientists up until the mid-19&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; century (e.g., Gauss) would frequently write scientific works in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What sort of Latin would it be considered? Would Gauss's writings, for example, be considered New Latin? Ecclesiastical Latin? Or is scientific Latin a completely different &quot;stream&quot; in the evolution of Latin over the centuries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin was the universal language in the medieval European university system run by the Church, so it would seem that scientific or academic Latin would be very similar to, if not identical to, ecclesiastical Latin or medieval Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any resources on the history of the scientific use of Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1371" RevisionGUID="c6bee97d-4280-46a2-a202-48eca957faf8" CreationDate="2016-08-14T21:20:46.027" UserId="576" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body" Text="What is the difference between *ac* (or *atque*) and *et*? And how do I know when to use *atque* instead of just *ac*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that *ac* &quot;binds more tightly&quot; than *et*. Is this true? Or is the difference between *ac* (or *atque*) and *et* the conjunctive analogue of [the difference between *vel* and *aut*][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/73/576" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1378" RevisionGUID="3f3485c1-70b1-474a-9561-8a8d38fdb152" CreationDate="2016-08-14T21:52:21.950" UserId="576" Text="*Atque*, [according to L&amp;S][1], means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a copulative particle, *and also*, *and besides*, *and even*, *and*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Bennett's *New Latin Grammar* ch. 6 §&quot;Coordinate Conjunctions&quot;][2], &quot;*atque* is used before vowels and consonants; *ac* never before vowels, and seldom before *c*, *g*, *qu*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Atque*, according to L&amp;S,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;indicat[es] a close internal connection between single words or whole clauses; while *et* designates an external connection of diff. objects with each other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it seems these would make sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;mulier ***atque*** mater&lt;br&gt;(a woman *and also* a mother ← related)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;pater ***et*** arbor&lt;br&gt;(a father *and* a tree ← unrelated)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett also mentions that *-que* binds more tightly than *atque*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems this analogy would hold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***vel* : *aut* :: *atque* : *et***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;inclusive disjunction&quot; : &quot;exclusive disjunction&quot; :: &quot;inclusive conjunction&quot; : &quot;exclusive conjunction&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=atque&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15665/15665-h/15665-h.htm#sect341" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1378" RevisionGUID="999f1fe9-ae1b-4d27-a68f-bbefa0fc4c61" CreationDate="2016-08-14T22:32:16.067" UserId="576" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="*Atque*, [according to L&amp;S][1], means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a copulative particle, *and also*, *and besides*, *and even*, *and*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Bennett's *New Latin Grammar* ch. 6 §&quot;Coordinate Conjunctions&quot;][2], &quot;*atque* is used before vowels and consonants; *ac* never before vowels, and seldom before *c*, *g*, *qu*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[L&amp;S][1] continue, saying that *atque*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;indicat[es] a close internal connection between single words or whole clauses; while *et* designates an external connection of diff. objects with each other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it seems these would make sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;mulier ***atque*** mater&lt;br&gt;(a woman *and also* a mother ← related)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;pater ***et*** arbor&lt;br&gt;(a father *and* a tree ← unrelated)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett also mentions that *-que* binds more tightly than *atque*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems this analogy would hold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[*vel* : *aut*][3] :: *atque* : *et***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;inclusive disjunction&quot; : &quot;exclusive disjunction&quot; :: &quot;inclusive conjunction&quot; : &quot;exclusive conjunction&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=atque&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15665/15665-h/15665-h.htm#sect341&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/73/576" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1379" RevisionGUID="41de50e5-17a9-41b6-9599-203f8cd42aa2" CreationDate="2016-08-14T23:35:25.940" UserId="576" Text="From G. Waldo Dunnington's 2004 biography of Gauss, [*Carl Friedrich Gauss: Titan of Science*][1], p. 37-8:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;… Of unusual interest is the part which Meyerhoff⁶ took in this book [*sc.* Gauss's most important mathematical work: the *Disquisitiones arithmeticæ*]—the correction of the Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;⁶Johann Heinrich Jakob Meyerhoff (1770-1812) became in 1794 collaborator, and in 1802 director, of the gymnasium in Holzminden. He was thoroughly grounded and trained in the ancient and modern languages. As a Göttingen student he had won a golden prize medal for a Latin dissertationon the Phoenicians. Yet mathematics was rather foreign to him.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The above is striking enough, if one considers how little Gauss needed to mistrust his own proficiency in this respect. According to Moritz Cantor, Gauss wrote a classical Latin, giving rise to the expression that Cicero, if he could understand the mathematics of it, would have censured nothing in the Gaussian Latinity, except perhaps several customary incorrect modes of expression which Gauss used purposely. But it was Latin just the same and therefore attractive and stimulating to only a narrow circle of readers. Referring to Meyerhoff's work, Gauss wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Of course I understand that it cannot be an especially attractive work for Mr. Meyerhoff, since he does not seem to be sufficiently acquainted with mathematics, in order to look on it just as reading. Thus the word *algorithmus* was unknown to him. Only on a single point must I take the liberty of disagreeing with him. I well know that *si* with the subjunctive is not good Latin; but modern mathematicians seem to have made for themselves the rule of constantly using the subjunctive in hypotheses and definitions; I do not remember an example of the opposite, and in [Huyghens][2], who according to my notion writes the most elegant Latin and whom I purposely, therefore, have imitated, I find the subjunctive continually in these cases. I open at random and find *Opera*, p. 156, *Quodsi fuerit*; p. 157, *Si sit, si fiat, si agitetur*; p. 158, *si suspendatur*; pp. 188 *seqq.* are examples by the dozen. Therefore, since in this instance the desire to be a genuine Roman would be only purism (which as far as I am concerned would be less allowable, because I am well minded not to be so in any case) and the thing is not at all absurd in itself, I went with the current. I hope Mr. M. will not take offense at me. What was incomprehensible to him in the *accedere possunt*, p. 5, I have not been able able to guess; I have therefore let it stand. The passage p. 7, which previously ran thus: *Si numeri decadice expressi figuræ singulæ sine respectu loci quem occupant addantur*, Mr. M. misunderstood, because he probably didn't know that *figuræ* means numbers; he took *numeri* for the nominative plural and *figuræ* for the dative singular and on that account suggested to me that *singulus* is not wrong; but just for this reason a mathematician will probably not construe it incorrectly, chiefly because it doesn't make sense; nevertheless I have now arranged the words somewhat differently by this time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, Gauss seems to have worked with a *mathematical Latin* based on classical Latin. Gauss also wasn't afraid to innovate the Latin. It seemed to be a truly living language to him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gauss's *Dictionary of Scientific Biography* entry][3] says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He published in Latin not from internationalist sentiments but at the demands of his publishers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/53933110&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Christiaan_Huygens.aspx#1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Carl_Friedrich_Gauss.aspx#1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1381" RevisionGUID="cce44f9d-e175-4a31-b05a-a60a74e3c3d7" CreationDate="2016-08-15T20:43:25.970" UserDisplayName="user761" Text="What are the Latin root words for the English words &quot;imperative&quot; and &quot;declarative&quot;? What are their respective meanings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5508" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1381" RevisionGUID="cce44f9d-e175-4a31-b05a-a60a74e3c3d7" CreationDate="2016-08-15T20:43:25.970" UserDisplayName="user761" Text="Latin Root Word and Meaning of Imperative and Declarative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5509" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1381" RevisionGUID="cce44f9d-e175-4a31-b05a-a60a74e3c3d7" CreationDate="2016-08-15T20:43:25.970" UserDisplayName="user761" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1382" RevisionGUID="2a64f8c8-5050-4132-bbf7-e3461a3b35a5" CreationDate="2016-08-15T21:01:29.723" UserId="12" Text="Etymonline.com offers this for [*imperative*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=imperative&amp;allowed_in_frame=0):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from Late Latin *imperativus* &quot;pertaining to a command,&quot; from *imperat-*, past participle stem of *imperare* &quot;to command, requisition,&quot; from assimilated form of *in-* &quot;into, in&quot; + *parare* &quot;prepare&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For *declarative*, it points to the entry on [*declare*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=declare&amp;allowed_in_frame=0):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from Latin *declarare* &quot;make clear, reveal, disclose, announce,&quot; from *de-* intensive prefix + *clarare* &quot;clarify,&quot; from *clarus* &quot;clear&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="806" RevisionGUID="e2ace73a-9131-47db-a3c8-f75cde0e1334" CreationDate="2016-08-16T10:04:23.363" UserId="68" Comment="added 812 characters in body" Text="I'm trying to develop a stronger sense of what/how Latin vocabulary was used at different points in the history of the language. In looking around Google and archive.org, I've found dictionaries from, say, the 19th century that contain only words Cicero used (e.g. the Lexicon Ciceronianum, in three volumes ([1][1], [2][2], and [3][3])), but are there any modern dictionaries or dictionary-like resources that either&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) contain only Latin from certain ages (preferably Golden, Silver, or both),  &#xD;&#xA;b) classify entries by age, or  &#xD;&#xA;c) include information on age as part of a word's entry?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main current aim is to develop a sense of the corpus of Golden Age vocabulary and what words meant at that time, as distinct from words that entered the language later or that changed their meaning over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I can imagine all sorts of other ways in which such a dictionary/resource might be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=uO8wAQAAMAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=lexicon%20ciceronianum&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjj_uGumsPOAhWHkh4KHb0XDF8Q6AEIPzAF#v=onepage&amp;q=lexicon%20ciceronianum&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=QRngAAAAMAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=lexicon%20ciceronianum&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjj_uGumsPOAhWHkh4KHb0XDF8Q6AEIUTAI#v=onepage&amp;q=lexicon%20ciceronianum&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5Qac0W4wgz0os7ONfTCTLGqRLXq8eXtsBsDcSzUOBtDY1EUI9DSPGvjRVIET1RQtXO48ZH-hlz0HRXzXkcDikpaFwN1S56bkCyCHiXRzH9umceC8juVJAVvElhGQ4aaihTRX4ZOpqUCsjW9equvHY_AScifHezSOUuZxLfjdwm3qo1o_VBcUpZVFwQTzeBwrPAEZzsQFxXIFmLoYrbDzRAIMtTlmDSiioUWyjWmpCjTCFh6qmufIcT_dEu6i_H1Ethvbg6Vur" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1384" RevisionGUID="9ca3232b-6fe4-4593-9049-ddc284fcfcee" CreationDate="2016-08-16T12:24:08.097" UserId="763" Text="I am translating a medical text from the late 16th century. The author is Swiss. The text uses the &quot;ß&quot; character. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    toti amplißimo coseßui&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this character being used in place of a double ss?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5519" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1384" RevisionGUID="9ca3232b-6fe4-4593-9049-ddc284fcfcee" CreationDate="2016-08-16T12:24:08.097" UserId="763" Text="Use of &quot;eszett&quot; - ß - in Latin text" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5520" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1384" RevisionGUID="9ca3232b-6fe4-4593-9049-ddc284fcfcee" CreationDate="2016-08-16T12:24:08.097" UserId="763" Text="|new-latin|orthography|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1384" RevisionGUID="7c493018-3619-46aa-95a6-9df07d52cab1" CreationDate="2016-08-16T12:55:51.660" UserId="763" Comment="added example of double-s used in same Latin text" Text="I am translating a medical text from the late 16th century. The author is Swiss. The text uses the &quot;ß&quot; character. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    toti amplißimo coseßui&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this character being used in place of a double s?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: earlier in the text, a double s is used expressly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Veru maioris doctrinae capessendae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference in usage between &quot;ss&quot; and &quot;ß&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1375" RevisionGUID="79ffc096-2945-4d04-8199-6c0f7271a540" CreationDate="2016-08-16T14:49:55.150" UserId="645" Comment="added 641 characters in body" Text="The earliest writings on what might be called ‘real science’ begin in the seventeenth century. They were in Latin because it was a lingua franca, widely understood across Europe. Among the greatest exemplars were Isaac Newton and Karl Friedrich Gauss (another interesting case is that of William Harvey, who wrote De Motu Cardis). It’s interesting to read earlier essays (e.g. of Roger Bacon and Erasmus), too, which tend to be more, as we would nowadays put it, philosophical, as well as other kinds of account - such as those about  pioneering explorers. They are, in general, written in a Latin which might be said to begin with the Italian Renaissance in the 14th century: it is clear, owes much to the classical authors which were a normal study for all young scholars, and introduces necessary  new vocabulary to science in much the same way as did Milton and Spenser to English. I’m sorry to say that I know of no useful work that discusses this as a particular subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this opinion really anachronistic? (see comments). It depends on what you mean by ‘real science’. I date it from the introduction of calculus, probability theory etc, which enabled the explanation of quantitative behaviour. The two observation-based branches, physics and chemistry, begin to take off here too, by discovering the laws governing *the behaviour and constitution of matter itself*. Newton himself admitted that, like others, he had depended on the labour of predecessors. It may take a practitioner of science to appreciate the size of the change, but none worthy of that description would belittle what had gone before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1384" RevisionGUID="cb487655-f9b1-44a7-8d59-be255a71e588" CreationDate="2016-08-16T15:48:26.850" UserId="49" Comment="Formatting, in particular using blockquotes instead of code blocks" Text="I am translating a medical text from the late 16th century. The author is Swiss. The text uses the *ß* character (like the German [eszett](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9F)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; toti amplißimo coseßui&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this character being used in place of a double s?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier in the text, a double *s* is used expressly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Veru maioris doctrinae capessendae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference in usage between *ss* and *ß?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5524" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1384" RevisionGUID="cb487655-f9b1-44a7-8d59-be255a71e588" CreationDate="2016-08-16T15:48:26.850" UserId="49" Comment="Formatting, in particular using blockquotes instead of code blocks" Text="Use of ß (“eszett”) in Latin text" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5525" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1384" RevisionGUID="cb487655-f9b1-44a7-8d59-be255a71e588" CreationDate="2016-08-16T15:48:26.850" Comment="Proposed by 49 approved by 763 edit id of 120" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1384" RevisionGUID="cdc09b47-9056-4436-8f61-01a212ed36f3" CreationDate="2016-08-16T15:52:19.990" UserId="763" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="I am translating a medical text from the late 16th century. The author is Swiss. The text uses the *ß* character (like the German [eszett](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9F)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; toti amplißimo coseßui&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this character being used in place of a double s?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier in the text, a double *s* is used expressly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Veru maioris doctrinae capessendae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference in usage between *ss* and *ß?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sample images:&#xD;&#xA;Eszett&#xD;&#xA;[![Eszett example][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Double s&#xD;&#xA;[![Double s example][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iLhTE.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jG5xl.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1384" RevisionGUID="f2633b31-df90-4cf7-b0cc-548876775e45" CreationDate="2016-08-16T18:01:15.877" UserId="763" Comment="changed coseßui in an example to conseßui, reflecting a comment about orthography" Text="I am translating a medical text from the late 16th century. The author is Swiss. The text uses the *ß* character (like the German [eszett](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9F)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; toti amplißimo conseßui&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this character being used in place of a double s?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier in the text, a double *s* is used expressly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Veru maioris doctrinae capessendae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference in usage between *ss* and *ß?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sample images:&#xD;&#xA;Eszett&#xD;&#xA;[![Eszett example][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Double s&#xD;&#xA;[![Double s example][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iLhTE.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jG5xl.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1385" RevisionGUID="b1c4144c-0a5e-4bfa-b58c-e441eb6dd138" CreationDate="2016-08-16T19:17:48.583" UserId="49" Text="The modern German roman-type *ß* was developed at the end of the 19&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; century as an analogue of the blackletter *ß,* which was a ligature of *ſ* and *z* (which is reflected in its name) that had slowly acquired letter status and looked distinctively different from your *ſs* (more like *ſʒ*). Some of the new *ß* designs may have been inspired by your *ſs* and similar forms. However, at your time, no German letter *ß* with that form existed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you have in your text, is a ligature of the long *s (ſ)* and the round *s (s).* In my experience, in most languages there was considerable arbitrariness in the usage of *s* and *ſ* at that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be said for sure is that *ſ* was used at the beginning of words and *s* was used at the end. In every other case the distinction may depend on whether the *s* is located after the vowel of its syllable, at the end of a morpheme, and what letter is following it. The distinction may be also be covered by what was typographically nice or available¹. The blog [Babelstone](http://babelstone.blogspot.de/2006/06/rules-for-long-s.html) has a nice extensive survey of the usage of *ſ* and *s* in old texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to why your author (or typesetter) decided to write *ampliſsimo, cõſeſsui* but *eſſe* and *neceſſum* is difficult to say without more example text. My best guess is that it was a fluke, arbitrary, or because the typesetter run out of one ligature glyph. However, it may also be that the writer considered that the *ſs* in *ampliſsimo* and *cõſeſsui* is positioned towards the end of a syllable or morpheme, while the *ſſ* in *eſſe* and *neceſſum* is not. The usage of *eﬆ* instead of *eﬅ* hints at a paradigm of that sort being employed here (in particular if *ﬅ* is used at the beginning of words). However, to arrive at a useful conclusion, you have to look at more example words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Source: For my work on a blackletter font (see my profile) and a user-friendly and correct long-s rule set for the German language, I looked at various old texts in that regard and also consumed a lot of information on the history of the Germanletter *ß.* The aforementioned blog post should also confirm many things.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;¹ e.g., there are English texts in which *husband* is written exactly like this, probably because the typesetter did not have an *ſb* ligature available and also wanted to avoid a large gap between *ſ* and *b* – which becomes evident through the word being hyphenated *huſ-band.*&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1386" RevisionGUID="4a3e9f28-bbdc-435c-a539-7e7b57647e8a" CreationDate="2016-08-17T13:27:18.213" UserId="12" Text="Historically, has there ever been a &quot;Latin Sign Language&quot;?  Perhaps the Romans developed one, or maybe the Catholic Church did so at some point?  Perhaps suggesting &quot;no,&quot; [Wikipedia's list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sign_languages) doesn't seem to include one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By &quot;Latin Sign Language,&quot; I'm thinking of a sign language influenced by Latin, maybe in its vocabulary or syntax.  Perhaps, but not necessarily, a language developed by Latin speakers for communication with the deaf or mute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I'm interested in a historical sign language, not something recently developed as part of the contemporary Latin movement.  So let's restrict ourselves to examples from the 19th century or earlier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5533" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1386" RevisionGUID="4a3e9f28-bbdc-435c-a539-7e7b57647e8a" CreationDate="2016-08-17T13:27:18.213" UserId="12" Text="Does any historical Latin-based sign language exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5534" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1386" RevisionGUID="4a3e9f28-bbdc-435c-a539-7e7b57647e8a" CreationDate="2016-08-17T13:27:18.213" UserId="12" Text="|language-evolution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1387" RevisionGUID="eceb3dd7-c4a8-4f70-afde-d320d7a1e169" CreationDate="2016-08-17T20:39:25.690" UserId="45" Text="This is a fascinating question which taught me several new things about Roman culture!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The extent to which we can answer this question affirmatively depends heavily on how we define &quot;sign language.&quot; I will divide my answer into three levels. I will exclude, as an obvious first level, the universal human ability to communicate via bodily attitudes, such as hand gestures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Signs that indicate specific meaning** (dactylonomy): Yes, the Romans had a well-known and attested numbering system involving the hands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Signs that indicate letters** (dactylology): Yes, certain classical authors seem to refer to this and Bede offers a comprehensive description of how to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Signs that indicate words**: I am not aware of a described system for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will use many quotes from [this article](http://en.antiquitatem.com/language-by-the-gesture-digital-computer) on antiquitatem.com for my answer. I recommend reading the whole article if you want to learn more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Manual system for numbers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Romans had a specific set of finger signs they used to count and calculate numbers. The system was much more refined than simply finger counting, which restricts one to 10): 1-9, 10-90 had specific representations on the left hand. 100-900, 1000-9000 had representations on the right. Combinations of these symbols (in succession, of course) could be used to represent numbers up to a million.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Juvenal uses this fact to explain how Nestor is more than a century years old:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rex Pylius, magno si quicquam credis Homero, exemplum uitae fuit a cornice secundae. felix nimirum, qui tot per saecula mortem distulit atque **suos iam dextra conputat annos**, quique nouum totiens mustum bibit. (Juvenal, *Sat* X, 246 251)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numerous other testimonies of this exist, from classical and Christian writers. The Venerable Bede (7th century) offers a comprehensive overview of this system in his [*De Computo vel Loquela Digitorum*](https://books.google.com/books?id=YYZPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA141), which is really fascinating to read. As an example, here is his description of how to form &quot;10&quot; and &quot;20&quot; (on the left hand):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quum dicis Decem, unguem indicis in medio figes artu pollicis. Quum dicis Viginti, summitatem pollicis inter medios indicis et impudici artus imittes.... (pg. 142)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Manual system for letters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This too is referred to (albeit less explicitly) in Roman times. Here is an example from Ovid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nihil opus est **digitis, per quos arcana loquaris** (Ovid, *Ars amatoria*, I, 137)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After describing numerical counting, Bede (*op. cit.*) describes how this same system can be used to spell words by individually indicating each letter's position in the alphabet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Potest autem et de ipso quem praenotavi computo quaedam manualis loquela, tam ingenii exercendi, quam ludi agendi gratia figurari: qua literis quis singillatim expressis verba, quae iisdem literis contineantur, alteri qui hanc quoque noverit industriam...legenda atque intelligenda contradat.... (pg. 143)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is perhaps significant to the spirit of this question that he sees this system as an &quot;exercise of ingenuity&quot; or a &quot;game&quot;: this system is not well suited to communicating ideas efficiently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He gives the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Verbi gratia: Si amicum inter insidiatores positum, ut caute rem agat, admonere desideras: III, et I, et XX, et XIX, et V, et I, et VII, et V, digitis ostende. Hujus namque ordinis literae, Caute age, significant. (pg. 144)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He also indicates that this system is even easier with Greek letters, since by convention each Greek letter already has a numerical value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for a functional **sign language**, in the fullest sense, I cannot find any attestations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1388" RevisionGUID="3d1b5af2-c79e-458c-bc51-eb54f5a623c3" CreationDate="2016-08-18T14:41:50.103" UserId="645" Text="Smith's suggests that *tunc* (formed from *tum* + -*ce*, the enclitic adding emphasis) differs from *tum* only in being slightly stronger; although, since either is often strengthened by *demum*, etc., to me it seems a pretty fine distinction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When making a contrast (*tum* . . . *cum* . .), I think using *tunc*  for *tum* would be just clumsy; for the same reason I would use only *tunc*  in a contrast with *nunc*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1093" RevisionGUID="555b458c-8555-4a17-a604-bc63a9a9a3ac" CreationDate="2016-08-19T17:10:56.130" UserId="576" Comment="added 450 characters in body" Text="What are New Latin's comma rules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, where do New Latin's comma rules differ from modern English's comma rules (e.g., as documented in the 16&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; ed. of the *Chicago Manual of Style* §§6.15-6.53)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I frequently see a comma between *id* and *quod* (&quot;that which&quot;), as in this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Potentiale receptivum vocabimus ***id, quod*** utrumque punctum recipit tempore *t*…&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(by physicist [Carl Neumann 1868][1], p. 121)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've even seen this in Renaissance era Latin and earlier Latin, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is something that would never be done with English comma rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02419606" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5542" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1386" RevisionGUID="56fa1a9d-5aae-485f-8a3b-2d2aa0ff2245" CreationDate="2016-08-19T19:40:33.760" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|language-evolution|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1389" RevisionGUID="da94b989-90e5-4a36-a79a-bef182c9e2fa" CreationDate="2016-08-20T14:39:55.187" UserId="45" Text="I was recently reading a work where I became (re)acquainted with the fact that the middle finger can be referred to as the *digitus impudicus* -- the &quot;shameful finger&quot; -- in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is whether we have **classical attestations, anecdotal or otherwise, of the middle finger having the same meaning** as it does in many cultures today." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5544" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1389" RevisionGUID="da94b989-90e5-4a36-a79a-bef182c9e2fa" CreationDate="2016-08-20T14:39:55.187" UserId="45" Text="Was the middle finger obscene in Ancient Rome?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5545" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1389" RevisionGUID="da94b989-90e5-4a36-a79a-bef182c9e2fa" CreationDate="2016-08-20T14:39:55.187" UserId="45" Text="|classical-latin|roman-culture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5546" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="364" RevisionGUID="ded2181e-2664-4e5d-b4be-85e8eebb68e7" CreationDate="2016-08-21T07:41:21.687" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|idiom|syntax|word-comparison|pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1390" RevisionGUID="d31a2cd9-bd15-491f-a4b9-ea21b20cd99d" CreationDate="2016-08-21T07:41:37.363" UserId="79" Text="The pronouns *quicumque*, *quilibet*, *quisquis* and *quivis* have a somewhat similar meaning, roughly &quot;anyone&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;What exactly are their differences?&#xD;&#xA;The dictionary entries I have seen do not provide a clear comparison between these pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;Is there perhaps an example sentence where one can grammatically use any of these words but the meaning or tone is different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To some extent this was explained [in this question about *quisquis* and *quicumque*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/364/79), but I would like to know how the other two pronouns fit the picture." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5548" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1390" RevisionGUID="d31a2cd9-bd15-491f-a4b9-ea21b20cd99d" CreationDate="2016-08-21T07:41:37.363" UserId="79" Text="Comparing quicumque, quilibet, quisquis, quivis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5549" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1390" RevisionGUID="d31a2cd9-bd15-491f-a4b9-ea21b20cd99d" CreationDate="2016-08-21T07:41:37.363" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|word-comparison|pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1391" RevisionGUID="eee07392-87fe-415b-9fd7-6ccff1ef8473" CreationDate="2016-08-21T09:55:50.973" UserId="113" Text="*quisquis* and *quicumque* are relative pronouns, so they introduce a restricting clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quisquis es, noster eris.* Whoever you are, you will be one of us.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *...scilicet omnibus quicumque terrae munere vescimur enaviganda.* ... (which) all of us who feed on the bounty of the earth will surely have to sail through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By contrast, *quivis* and *quilibet* are indefinite pronouns, so they don't have a clause of their own:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Non cuivis homini contingit adire Corinthum.* It doesn't fall to everyone's lot to go to Corinth.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quemlibet, modo aliquem.* Anyone, as long as it's someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that *quivis* and *quilibet* in the negative mean &quot;not every&quot;, whereas *quisquam* in the negative means &quot;not any&quot;.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1392" RevisionGUID="68a2c422-9e6c-4c2b-92f3-e024be200558" CreationDate="2016-08-21T17:19:00.373" UserId="535" Text="The noun *Bonum* (&quot;a good thing&quot;) seems to have taken on a life of its own as a distinct word in Latin usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In derivation and meaning, is this simply a neuter substantive of the adjective *Bonus* (&quot;good&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References to any discussion of this that may appear in the works of recognized Classical or Neoclassical Latin scholars would be much appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5552" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1392" RevisionGUID="68a2c422-9e6c-4c2b-92f3-e024be200558" CreationDate="2016-08-21T17:19:00.373" UserId="535" Text="Is the noun Bonum, -i simply a substantive of the adjective Bonus, -a -um?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5553" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1392" RevisionGUID="68a2c422-9e6c-4c2b-92f3-e024be200558" CreationDate="2016-08-21T17:19:00.373" UserId="535" Text="|adjective|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1393" RevisionGUID="e47c9a99-a54f-450a-9572-a4eeb648be4d" CreationDate="2016-08-21T17:34:55.347" UserId="79" Text="I don't have anything to say about this particular case, but the phenomenon itself is common.&#xD;&#xA;Any adjective can be substantivized.&#xD;&#xA;For example *rubrum* (from *ruber*, &quot;red&quot;) can mean &quot;the color red&quot; or &quot;a red thing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Translating such nouns depends heavily on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with any word, a substantivized adjective can acquire a meaning different from the original literal one.&#xD;&#xA;I do not know there has been such a development with *bonum*, but *bonum* as a noun meaning &quot;a good thing&quot; is a regular derivation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1392" RevisionGUID="f9d5411e-c9f7-4993-803e-ba7c49095bb0" CreationDate="2016-08-21T17:36:00.930" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="The noun *Bonum* (&quot;a good thing&quot;) seems to have taken on a life of its own as a distinct word in Latin usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In derivation and meaning, is this simply a neuter substantive of the adjective *Bonus* (&quot;good&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References to any discussion of this that may appear in the works of recognized Classical or Neoclassical Latin scholars would be much appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5556" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1392" RevisionGUID="f9d5411e-c9f7-4993-803e-ba7c49095bb0" CreationDate="2016-08-21T17:36:00.930" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|adjective|derivation|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1394" RevisionGUID="2e59f24c-58f6-474a-8ca3-f0830db3cf69" CreationDate="2016-08-21T18:03:57.720" UserId="522" Text="Additional:  &#xD;&#xA;**Quisquis, quidquid,**   are used colloquially for **quisque,** each.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ut quidquid.* Properly quisquis is an indefinite relative: in this usage it has the same force as quisque (Roby, 2283, 2285). It may have been an archaism which became colloquial.(undoubted instances occur in Plautus, Terence, Cato who capture everyday speech).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also found in poetic philosophy --   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lucretius (with whom it is especially common: e.g. ruit qua quidquid fluctibus obstat, i. 289), and golden age oratory-- Cicero (Tusc. v. 98), and in the Agrarian Law (utei quicquid quoieique ante h. l. r. licuit, ita &amp;c. Mommsen C.I.L. 1 n. 200 v. 27). Cp. vii. 2, 35. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So too in this famous ancient grammar book   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Corn. ad. Herenn. ii. §47, where the MSS. almost without exception give quidquid (quicquid) for quicque.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Source: http://www.gutenberg.org/ Quintilian Bk X  Notes on the opening paragraphs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1393" RevisionGUID="a2a86b86-f9bd-4591-9915-cc2a114c25e4" CreationDate="2016-08-21T20:22:30.103" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I don't have anything to say about this particular case, but the phenomenon itself is common.&#xD;&#xA;Any adjective can be substantivized.&#xD;&#xA;For example *rubrum* (from *ruber*, &quot;red&quot;) can mean &quot;the color red&quot; or &quot;a red thing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Translating such nouns depends heavily on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with any word, a substantivized adjective can acquire a meaning different from the original literal one.&#xD;&#xA;I do not know if there has been such a development with *bonum*, but *bonum* as a noun meaning &quot;a good thing&quot; is a regular derivation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5559" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="50" RevisionGUID="4cfbab2d-50ef-4a33-8ec8-461996c0b298" CreationDate="2016-08-21T23:03:42.173" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="5560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1395" RevisionGUID="1d5b3b07-2603-4637-85fe-2e9262bd39b1" CreationDate="2016-08-22T01:43:21.367" UserId="642" Text="&quot;Mens&quot; means mind, and &quot;Mensa&quot; is the club for geniuses. I follow so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;mensa&quot; also means &quot;table.&quot; How would that relate to the meaning in the previous paragraph? Does a table have a relationship to a mind? Or is the &quot;Mensa&quot; in the genius club and &quot;mensa,&quot; the table just homonyms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5561" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1395" RevisionGUID="1d5b3b07-2603-4637-85fe-2e9262bd39b1" CreationDate="2016-08-22T01:43:21.367" UserId="642" Text="Is mensa somehow derived from mens?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5562" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1395" RevisionGUID="1d5b3b07-2603-4637-85fe-2e9262bd39b1" CreationDate="2016-08-22T01:43:21.367" UserId="642" Text="|derivation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1396" RevisionGUID="eea82b06-08e8-4dc7-b6d2-875dc07562f2" CreationDate="2016-08-22T02:42:15.267" UserId="25" Text="A friend of mine is completing a small statue of the Virgin Mary under the new title of Our Lady, Turner of Hearts. As it turns out, he would like to put the inscription of &quot;Our Lady, Turner of Hearts, pray for us&quot; on the base. I would like to be able to suggest to him putting the title in Latin, but my Latin is not so strong. Notwithstanding, I believe there are at least three possible solutions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sancta Maria Verticordia, ora pro nobis.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sancta Maria de Verticordiam, ora pro nobis.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sancta Maria a Verticordia, ora pro nobis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I prefer the title &quot;Sancta Maria a Verticordia, ora pro nobis.&quot; Do any of you know which of these three titles would best used in ecclesiastical Latin. Please fell free to suggest a different form, if you have the ability in the Latin language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5564" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1396" RevisionGUID="eea82b06-08e8-4dc7-b6d2-875dc07562f2" CreationDate="2016-08-22T02:42:15.267" UserId="25" Text="New devotional title to the Virgin Mary in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5565" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1396" RevisionGUID="eea82b06-08e8-4dc7-b6d2-875dc07562f2" CreationDate="2016-08-22T02:42:15.267" UserId="25" Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1395" RevisionGUID="c11a794a-b7f3-4c02-a203-fa198306385e" CreationDate="2016-08-22T02:44:51.620" UserId="642" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="&quot;Mens&quot; means mind, and &quot;Mensa&quot; is the club for geniuses. I follow so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;mensa&quot; also means &quot;table.&quot; How would that relate to the meaning in the previous paragraph? Does a table have a relationship to a mind, i.e. is there a connection I'm missing? Or is the &quot;Mensa&quot; in the genius club and &quot;mensa,&quot; the table just homonyms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1397" RevisionGUID="8e6333bd-b51c-45a7-a0ba-aec9373803fd" CreationDate="2016-08-22T03:11:46.960" UserId="79" Text="What would be an idiomatic Latin way to refer to reserve military?&#xD;&#xA;I mean troops that have previously served and have returned to civilian life but can be called back on duty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would much prefer attested use from any era, but also educated suggestions are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;If you can give examples from the literature, please describe briefly what it means to be a soldier in reserve in that context; I believe there have been many different systems that could be described in English as &quot;reserve military&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For concreteness, please give a translation to these example sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finland has a reserve military of 900 000 men.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Many Finns are soldiers in reserve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best guess is to use the participle *reservatus* (partly because it looks like the word used in English and Finnish):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finlandia exercitum reservatum nongentorum milium militum habet.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Complures Finni milites reservati sunt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5568" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1397" RevisionGUID="8e6333bd-b51c-45a7-a0ba-aec9373803fd" CreationDate="2016-08-22T03:11:46.960" UserId="79" Text="How to refer to reserve military?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5569" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1397" RevisionGUID="8e6333bd-b51c-45a7-a0ba-aec9373803fd" CreationDate="2016-08-22T03:11:46.960" UserId="79" Text="|translation|idiom|military|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1398" RevisionGUID="a40db66b-34f1-4110-804a-2fb4a1f30c35" CreationDate="2016-08-22T10:10:42.123" UserId="769" Text="in a recent paper (included in http://www.brepols.net/Pages/ShowProduct.aspx?prod_id=IS-9782503566276-1), I have made the point that Latin grammarians, unlike their Greek predecessors, did not expressly stressed the uninflectional nature of adverbs, and this may be due to the fact that they observed some sort of declension in some types of adverbs (not only those derived of adjetives -doctus &gt; docte-, but also the locatives, which some grammarians considered as *nomina adverbialia* or simply *adverbia*). Varro even included the type *docte* among the *verba declinata* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1399" RevisionGUID="95a4f443-9384-4365-a14e-42035a6c9ce2" CreationDate="2016-08-22T11:24:50.807" UserId="645" Text="Veteran soldiers were simply *veteri milites*. Military service was *militia*, and *veteranus militiae* a retired soldier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During republican times retired soldiers were enrolled into special legions, etc., but not necessarily in expectation of recall. This was probably the nearest thing to what you are looking for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1398" RevisionGUID="011a140c-f62e-485c-971d-97f6d1460e3f" CreationDate="2016-08-22T12:12:22.060" UserId="45" Comment="corrected typos" Text="In a recent paper (included in http://www.brepols.net/Pages/ShowProduct.aspx?prod_id=IS-9782503566276-1), I have made the point that Latin grammarians, unlike their Greek predecessors, did not expressly stress the uninflectional nature of adverbs, and this may be due to the fact that they observed some sort of declension in some types of adverbs (not only those derived of adjectives -doctus &gt; docte-, but also the locatives, which some grammarians considered as *nomina adverbialia* or simply *adverbia*). Varro even included the type *docte* among the *verba declinata*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1400" RevisionGUID="6825a374-51af-4a48-9eb0-4b48ce610552" CreationDate="2016-08-22T12:19:50.167" UserId="12" Text="According to De Vaan's *Etymological Dictionary*, these two words are not related.  Here are his notes on *mēns*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIt. &amp;#42;*mnti-*.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIE *mn-ti- [f.] 'thought, mind'.  IE cognates: Skt. *mati-* [f.] 'thought, mind', Av. &amp;#42;*maiti-*, Lith. *mintis* 'thought, idea'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Proto-Italic and Proto-Indo-European take this *mnti* form, which has a number of Indo-European cognates (in Sanskrit, Avestan, and Lithuanian, among others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, *mēnsa*'s etymology is different:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIt. &amp;#42;*menssa-* 'measured'.  It. cognates: U. **mefa**, *mefa* [acc.sg.], *mefa* [abl.sg.], **mefe** [loc.sg.] 'a certain sacrificial object, maybe cake'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the cognates are in the Umbrian language.  We might not make the connection with &quot;sacrifical objects,&quot; but de Vaan indicates that that was originally relevant to the definition – a *mēnsa* is a &quot;table (for sacred offerings, for meals).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So no, there's no connection.  [Mensa International](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International) actually employs the &quot;table&quot; meaning anyway, in order to emphasize its nature as a &quot;[round-table society](https://www.mensa.org/about-us), where race, color, creed, national origin, age, politics, educational or social background are irrelevant.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1401" RevisionGUID="4c21fdff-04f2-46d7-a360-e8817295aa08" CreationDate="2016-08-22T12:23:31.233" UserId="45" Text="According to Mensa's [*About Us*](https://www.mensa.org/about-us) page, the name is taken from Latin *mensa*, which means &quot;table&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **What does &quot;Mensa&quot; mean?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The word &quot;Mensa&quot; means &quot;table&quot; in Latin. Mensa is a round-table society, where race, color, creed, national origin, age, politics, educational or social background are irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is further corroborated by the fact that the logo depicts...a table:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Mensa](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ed/Mensa_logo.svg/225px-Mensa_logo.svg.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be the official account of things, but the *double entendre* (actually--*triple entendre*) does not appear to be lost to them either. From the official US site on [*Mensa's History*](http://www.us.mensa.org/learn/about/mensas-history/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The word **mensa means &quot;table&quot; in Latin; similarly, mens means &quot;mind&quot; and mensis means &quot;month.&quot;**  The name &quot;Mensa&quot; is reminiscent of &quot;mind, table, month,&quot; which suggests a **monthly meeting of great minds around a table**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather clever, if you ask me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1402" RevisionGUID="baf64ba0-04b9-41d3-b3ad-861d5b60aa85" CreationDate="2016-08-22T12:37:52.857" UserId="45" Text="The standard way of addressing the Virgin Mary under a (substantive) title is to use an appositive noun, in the same case. There is no need to add *a* or *de*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see in the [Litany of Loreto](http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/BVM/Laurentanae.html), all the titles follow this pattern:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Virgo fidelis,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Speculum iustitiae,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sedes sapientiae,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Causa nostrae laetitiae  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would thus say *Sancta Maria, Verticordia*: please be aware, though, that this epithet has also been [applied to Venus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Verticordia), though in a context that might be appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that *a(b)* is commonly used with names to indicate origin or religious names, e.g.: *Ioannes a Cruce* (John of the Cross) or *Theresia ab Infante Iesu* (Therese of the Child Jesus). This is fundamentally different, though, since we are not indicating what this saint *is*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1401" RevisionGUID="7e08b25f-e0b1-4573-b3f9-c0314a87c5c6" CreationDate="2016-08-22T12:47:22.373" UserId="45" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="According to Mensa's [*About Us*](https://www.mensa.org/about-us) page, the name is taken from Latin *mensa*, which means &quot;table&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **What does &quot;Mensa&quot; mean?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The word &quot;Mensa&quot; means &quot;table&quot; in Latin. Mensa is a round-table society, where race, color, creed, national origin, age, politics, educational or social background are irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is further corroborated by the fact that the logo depicts...a table:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Mensa](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ed/Mensa_logo.svg/225px-Mensa_logo.svg.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be the official account of things, but the *double entendre* (actually--*triple entendre*) does not appear to be lost to them either. From the official US site on [*Mensa's History*](http://www.us.mensa.org/learn/about/mensas-history/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The word **mensa means &quot;table&quot; in Latin; similarly, mens means &quot;mind&quot; and mensis means &quot;month.&quot;**  The name &quot;Mensa&quot; is reminiscent of &quot;mind, table, month,&quot; which suggests a **monthly meeting of great minds around a table**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather clever, if you ask me. &quot;Reminiscent&quot; suggests that they are not positing an etymological relationship between *mensa* and *mens*, which, as @Nathaniel demonstrates, are unrelated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1403" RevisionGUID="f2b3a4b7-3820-421d-86b1-592643e98bf9" CreationDate="2016-08-22T12:50:09.713" UserId="12" Text="The [First Council of Braga](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Braga) was a meeting of eight bishops that took place around AD 560.  They produced a number of decrees, one of which relates to the type of songs that could be sung in church.  Debates over the style and content of worship songs continue in many Christian traditions today, so some appeal to the early and medieval church, including this council.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't been able to find any full English translation of Braga's canons, but [they are available in Latin](https://books.google.com/books?id=BsjkkSlABXoC&amp;pg=PR364).  The relevant canon here is number XII, and is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Item placuit, ut extra psalmos vel canonicarum scripturarum novi et veteris Testamenti nihil poetice compositum in ecclesia psallatur, sicut et sancti praecipiunt canones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is beyond my skill to translate, and even beyond the vocabulary of my  Classical Latin parser, but I'd venture the following guess:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Likewise it satisfies, that except for the psalms of the canonical scriptures of the New and Old Testaments, no poetic composition shall be sung in church, as is also taught in the holy canons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, at a high level, my question is – how close is this translation?  More specifically, so that's it clear what I'm getting at, a 19th century commentator (Jas. Harper, [*The Psalter in the Early Church*](http://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-worship/exclusive-psalmody/the-psalter-in-the-early-church-by-the-rev-jas-harper/)) makes the following claims about this canon:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. it was ordained [...] that no poetic composition be sung in the Church except the Psalms of the sacred canon&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. this decree seems to allow the use of other songs than those contained in the Psalter&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. it plainly debars the use of any songs in worship except those contained in the Word of God.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the singing must be limited to poetic portions of Scripture, not extended to any part of the Bible whatsoever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I can see (2) and (3) in my translation, but I'm not sure about (4).  Is Harper's analysis correct?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5578" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1403" RevisionGUID="f2b3a4b7-3820-421d-86b1-592643e98bf9" CreationDate="2016-08-22T12:50:09.713" UserId="12" Text="What did the Council of Braga (~560) say about singing psalms in church?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5579" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1403" RevisionGUID="f2b3a4b7-3820-421d-86b1-592643e98bf9" CreationDate="2016-08-22T12:50:09.713" UserId="12" Text="|medieval-latin|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5580" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1403" RevisionGUID="12d413fd-55d1-4a81-ac54-7dfe9e0a33d0" CreationDate="2016-08-22T13:20:38.423" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|medieval-latin|ecclesiastical-latin|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1404" RevisionGUID="e03e90a4-8a11-4a59-9986-cc6e2ab369ca" CreationDate="2016-08-22T13:44:56.163" UserId="45" Text="One thing confuses me about the quoted portion of the canon: it does not seem gramatically correct for *canonicarum scripturarum* to be in the genitive. Given that it is copulated with *vel* to another accusative object of *extra*, I can only read it as accusative. It is interesting that there are several [Google hits](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=%22extra+psalmos+vel+canonicas%22) for *canonicas scripturas* instead, which makes a lot more sense: I will therefore amend the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Item placuit, ut extra psalmos vel **canonicas scripturas** novi et veteris Testamenti nihil poetice compositum in ecclesia psallatur, sicut et sancti praecipiunt canones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preserving word order and translating fairly literally, this reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Likewise it has pleased [the council] that, besides the psalms and the canonical writings of the new and old Testament, no poetic composition be sung in church, as the holy canons decree as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your bullet points, perhaps I am missing something but the points seem a loose jumble of (mostly) mutually contradictory points: I do not see how they come close to agreeing with each other, much less the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make some sense of it, I would combine point (1), (2), and (3): &quot;No poetic composition besides the psalms **and** the Word of God.&quot; (4) has absolutely no basis in the quoted text." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1404" RevisionGUID="16154991-11b3-4876-a7b1-c70d48388a98" CreationDate="2016-08-22T13:55:02.680" UserId="45" Comment="added 532 characters in body" Text="One thing confuses me about the quoted portion of the canon: it does not seem gramatically correct for *canonicarum scripturarum* to be in the genitive. Given that it is copulated with *vel* to another accusative object of *extra*, I can only read it as accusative. It is interesting that there are several [Google hits](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=%22extra+psalmos+vel+canonicas%22) for *canonicas scripturas* instead, which makes a lot more sense: I will therefore amend the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Item placuit, ut extra psalmos vel **canonicas scripturas** novi et veteris Testamenti nihil poetice compositum in ecclesia psallatur, sicut et sancti praecipiunt canones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preserving word order and translating fairly literally, this reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Likewise it has pleased [the council] that, besides the psalms and the canonical writings of the new and old Testament, no poetic composition be sung in church, as the holy canons decree as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your bullet points, perhaps I am missing something but the points seem a loose jumble of (mostly) mutually contradictory points: I do not see how they come close to agreeing with each other, much less the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make some sense of it, I would combine point (1), (2), and (3): &quot;No poetic composition besides the psalms **and** the Word of God.&quot; (4) has absolutely no basis in the quoted text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought about it, and I think it is *possible* to make sense of the original formulation if you read *vel* as an adverb (&quot;even&quot;) and *canonicarum scripturarum* as a partitive genitive with *nihil*. This would translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...that besides the psalms, no poetic composition even of the canonical scriptures of the new and old Testament should be sung in church.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reading strikes me as *highly unlikely*, both from a syntactical perspective (the word order is unnatural and clumsy) and from a commonsense perspective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1404" RevisionGUID="94ca795d-9e9c-4c17-a722-d02e1f50bdc8" CreationDate="2016-08-22T14:12:49.223" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="One thing confuses me about the quoted portion of the canon: it does not seem gramatically correct for *canonicarum scripturarum* to be in the genitive. Given that it is copulated with *vel* to another accusative object of *extra*, I can only read it as accusative. It is interesting that there are several [Google hits](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=%22extra+psalmos+vel+canonicas%22) for *canonicas scripturas* instead, which makes a lot more sense: I will therefore amend the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Item placuit, ut extra psalmos vel **canonicas scripturas** novi et veteris Testamenti nihil poetice compositum in ecclesia psallatur, sicut et sancti praecipiunt canones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preserving word order and translating fairly literally, this reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Likewise it has pleased [the council] that, besides the psalms and the canonical writings of the new and old Testament, no poetic composition be sung in church, as the holy canons decree as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your bullet points, perhaps I am missing something but they seem a loose jumble of (mostly) mutually contradictory points: I do not see how they come close to agreeing with each other, much less the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make some sense of it, I would combine points (1), (2), and (3): &quot;No poetic composition besides the psalms **and** the Word of God.&quot; (4) has absolutely no basis in the quoted text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought about it, and I think it is *possible* to make sense of the original formulation if you read *vel* as an adverb (&quot;even&quot;) and *canonicarum scripturarum* as a partitive genitive with *nihil*. This would translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...that besides the psalms, no poetic composition even of the canonical scriptures of the new and old Testament should be sung in church.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reading strikes me as *highly unlikely*, both from a syntactical perspective (the word order is unnatural and clumsy) and from a commonsense perspective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1403" RevisionGUID="1282dab5-c3fe-47b6-bf03-b84e33056d29" CreationDate="2016-08-22T14:19:44.480" UserId="12" Comment="added 120 characters in body" Text="The [First Council of Braga](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Braga) was a meeting of eight bishops that took place around AD 560.  They produced a number of decrees, one of which relates to the type of songs that could be sung in church.  Debates over the style and content of worship songs continue in many Christian traditions today, so some appeal to the early and medieval church, including this council.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't been able to find any full English translation of Braga's canons, but [they are available in Latin](https://books.google.com/books?id=BsjkkSlABXoC&amp;pg=PR364).  The relevant canon here is number XII, and is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Item placuit, ut extra psalmos vel canonicarum scripturarum novi et veteris Testamenti nihil poetice compositum in ecclesia psallatur, sicut et sancti praecipiunt canones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is beyond my skill to translate, and even beyond the vocabulary of my  Classical Latin parser, but I'd venture the following guess:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Likewise it satisfies, that except for the psalms of the canonical scriptures of the New and Old Testaments, no poetic composition shall be sung in church, as is also taught in the holy canons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, at a high level, my question is – how close is this translation?  More specifically, so that's it clear what I'm getting at, a 19th century commentator (Jas. Harper, [*The Psalter in the Early Church*](http://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-worship/exclusive-psalmody/the-psalter-in-the-early-church-by-the-rev-jas-harper/)) makes the following claims about this canon:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. it was ordained [...] that no poetic composition be sung in the Church except the Psalms of the sacred canon&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. this decree seems to allow the use of other songs than those contained in the Psalter&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. it plainly debars the use of any songs in worship except those contained in the Word of God.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. the singing must be limited to poetic portions of Scripture, not extended to any part of the Bible whatsoever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Harper's (1) seems to be contradictory to (2), and my translation seems to indicate that (2), not (1), is correct.  (3) seems to be there as well, but I'm not sure about (4).  Which of Harper's points can be defended in the text?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1398" RevisionGUID="c0937da9-3092-45ed-84cb-58e36088b8e1" CreationDate="2016-08-22T17:05:52.660" UserId="25" Comment="Improved formatting." Text="In a recent paper (included in [The Latin of the Grammarians](http://www.brepols.net/Pages/ShowProduct.aspx?prod_id=IS-9782503566276-1)), I have made the point that Latin grammarians, unlike their Greek predecessors, did not expressly stress the uninflectional nature of adverbs, and this may be due to the fact that they observed some sort of declension in some types of adverbs (not only those derived of adjectives -doctus &gt; docte-, but also the locatives, which some grammarians considered as *nomina adverbialia* or simply *adverbia*). Varro even included the type *docte* among the *verba declinata*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5586" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1398" RevisionGUID="c0937da9-3092-45ed-84cb-58e36088b8e1" CreationDate="2016-08-22T17:05:52.660" Comment="Proposed by 25 approved by 79 edit id of 121" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1404" RevisionGUID="22c31a06-e27d-485e-b5da-867d937460a0" CreationDate="2016-08-22T17:42:00.780" UserId="45" Comment="added 734 characters in body" Text="One thing confuses me about the quoted portion of the canon: it does not seem gramatically correct for *canonicarum scripturarum* to be in the genitive. Given that it is copulated with *vel* to another accusative object of *extra*, I can only read it as accusative. It is interesting that there are several [Google hits](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=%22extra+psalmos+vel+canonicas%22) for *canonicas scripturas* instead, which makes a lot more sense: I will therefore amend the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Item placuit, ut extra psalmos vel **canonicas scripturas** novi et veteris Testamenti nihil poetice compositum in ecclesia psallatur, sicut et sancti praecipiunt canones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preserving word order and translating fairly literally, this reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Likewise it has pleased [the council] that, besides the psalms and the canonical writings of the new and old Testament, no poetic composition be sung in church, as the holy canons decree as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am having difficulty reconciling Harper's points among each other, much more so with the text, and regardless it strikes me as a silly exercise to atomize what is really a fairly simple proscription. My comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **False**, since it allows psalms or (*vel*, inclusive &quot;or&quot;) canonical scriptures. The fact that he says &quot;psalms of the sacred canon&quot; leads me to think that he is misconstruing the phrase and perhaps a little confused: there is generally very little disagreement about what the &quot;canonical psalms&quot; are: *canonical* contextually and intuitively makes more sense applied to scripture as a whole, not just the psalms.&#xD;&#xA;2. **True**, it allows the psalms and Scripture.&#xD;&#xA;3. **Debateable**: it forbids non-Scriptural poetic compositions in church. This seems to leave open (a) non-poetic compositions and (b) worship that does not take place in the *ecclesia*. (This second point might be unnecessary, depending on Harper's definition of &quot;worship&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;4. **False** (or, if I worked for Politifact, &quot;Pants on Fire False&quot;): this has no basis in the text at all, even if we were to adopt the (highly improbable) reading below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought about it, and I think it is *possible* to make sense of the original formulation if you read *vel* as an adverb (&quot;even&quot;) and *canonicarum scripturarum* as a partitive genitive with *nihil*. This would translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...that besides the psalms, no poetic composition even of the canonical scriptures of the new and old Testament should be sung in church.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reading strikes me as *highly unlikely*, both from a syntactical perspective (the word order is unnatural and clumsy) and from a commonsense perspective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1405" RevisionGUID="1fa07d47-8c81-48df-8c0a-751fd0746a86" CreationDate="2016-08-23T01:04:35.417" UserId="118" Text="I'm thinking that a houseguest who stays on your couch should be something like _hospes lectuli._ But that sounds more like a guest invited by your couch, which is silly. In my non-expert understanding of how Latin normally works, this kind of construction should call for an adjective. But all know is the noun _lectulus._ How could I make that into an adjective so that it clearly modifies _hospes_?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5589" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1405" RevisionGUID="1fa07d47-8c81-48df-8c0a-751fd0746a86" CreationDate="2016-08-23T01:04:35.417" UserId="118" Text="How do you convert a noun to an adjective in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5590" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1405" RevisionGUID="1fa07d47-8c81-48df-8c0a-751fd0746a86" CreationDate="2016-08-23T01:04:35.417" UserId="118" Text="|grammar-choice|adjective|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1405" RevisionGUID="377e0ba9-eca1-4915-805b-9d9d02c5b986" CreationDate="2016-08-23T01:43:14.623" UserId="118" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I'm thinking that a houseguest who stays on your couch should be something like _hospes lectuli._ But that sounds more like a guest invited by your couch, which is silly. In my non-expert understanding of how Latin normally works, this kind of construction should call for an adjective. But all I know is the noun _lectulus._ How could I make that into an adjective so that it clearly modifies _hospes_?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1406" RevisionGUID="891c5b3b-c3be-4a30-bb3e-8c8fe779e21b" CreationDate="2016-08-23T02:42:03.443" UserId="522" Text="The **Council of Braga** clearly restricts independent usage. It decrees that everyone shall follow one and the same appointed psalms (I. ...unus et idem ordo); only the appointed portions of scripture for the vigils and feast days shall be read (II. ...non diversas).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Item' means then, or next.  &#xD;&#xA;Placet' in a vote means It is agreed. Placuit, it was agreed.  &#xD;&#xA;In Smith (1895)  **vel  II** (on its own)  where a climax is stated or understod, 'especially,' 'in particular,' 'indeed.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Item placuit, ut*  **Next it was agreed, that..**.  &#xD;&#xA;*nihil poetice compositum extra psalmos*&#xD;&#xA;**nothing poetically composed apart from the psalms**  &#xD;&#xA;*vel canonicarum scripturarum novi et veteris Testamenti* **indeed those of the New and Old Testament**  &#xD;&#xA;*in ecclesia psalletur* **may be sung in church,**  &#xD;&#xA;*sicut et* **even as**  &#xD;&#xA;*sancti praecipiunt canones.* **the holy canons decree.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that the 150 psalms, plus the song of Moses and the Song of the Three Children (&amp; perhaps Job and Song of Songs) would be allowed from the OT; as well as Magnificat and Nunc Dimittis from the NT.   ...but only when everyone else in that church was singing them, and only when those psalms were appointed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That seems to agree with all four bullet points, provided that 4 means 'not any random scripture.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1407" RevisionGUID="091d75b4-afb4-46e4-b7f9-a580ab39c0c9" CreationDate="2016-08-23T05:08:04.353" UserId="522" Text="In your question you have used the genitive, and *'lecti'* of a bed may be your best option. Or *'lectuli.'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It's almost impossible to find an adjective from any of the words for bed; and those two which can form adjectives imply the guest is sick or in child-birth. *Lectus, torus, cubile, stratum* (often in plural) or even *clinus, tectus* and *grabatus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *contubernalis,* a couch fellow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sounded promising, but it's the (ten) men who shared a tent in the army.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, adjectives from nouns are difficult;  it is much easier to form adjectives from verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *cubans:* present participle of *cubo:* lie down,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hospitality is best expressed by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Hospitio aliquem excipere*** where *'aliquem'* stands for any guest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1408" RevisionGUID="d5893870-cac3-47ee-a88d-c734ca83aecf" CreationDate="2016-08-23T07:58:30.983" UserId="79" Text="In the phrase *Soli Deo gloria* one can read *soli* in two different ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If it is *solus*, the phrase means &quot;glory only to the God&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;2. If it is *sol*, the phrase means &quot;glory to the Sun God&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Christian context the first one is intended, of course.&#xD;&#xA;But the second interpretation is also sensible.&#xD;&#xA;The same happens whenever *solus Deus* is in dative, not only in this particular phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When and how was this double meaning observed?&#xD;&#xA;Are there examples from the pagan antiquity of the phrase *sol deus* in dative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5595" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1408" RevisionGUID="d5893870-cac3-47ee-a88d-c734ca83aecf" CreationDate="2016-08-23T07:58:30.983" UserId="79" Text="Soli Deo gloria: sol or solus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5596" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1408" RevisionGUID="d5893870-cac3-47ee-a88d-c734ca83aecf" CreationDate="2016-08-23T07:58:30.983" UserId="79" Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|christianity|ambiguity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1409" RevisionGUID="f0ffbe89-1f08-4dd9-8a45-33f859ad6e3f" CreationDate="2016-08-23T15:02:03.403" UserId="68" Text="In *Róma Æterna*, the second volume of Ørberg's *Lingua Latína per sé illustráta*, in a chapter adapted from Eutropius I.9-III.6, on page 181 we find the following sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Verum dignitás tribúnórum mílitárium nón diú persevérávit. Nam post aliquantum núllós placuit fierí, et quadriennium in urbe ita flúxit ut **potestátés** ibi **majórés** nón essent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I first read this passage, I got stuck, because I kept thinking, *majórés quam quid*? Now I'm thinking it's just a general reference to high-ranking government officials, or to the top political positions. Is that right? For four years there was essentially anarchy, with nobody filling the offices of heads of state?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I'm wrong, how ought I to understand *potestátés majórés*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5601" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1409" RevisionGUID="f0ffbe89-1f08-4dd9-8a45-33f859ad6e3f" CreationDate="2016-08-23T15:02:03.403" UserId="68" Text="Ørberg/Eutropius &quot;potestátés majórés&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5602" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1409" RevisionGUID="f0ffbe89-1f08-4dd9-8a45-33f859ad6e3f" CreationDate="2016-08-23T15:02:03.403" UserId="68" Text="|translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1410" RevisionGUID="cbbc0726-3fd8-41bf-91be-cfb7b29dda89" CreationDate="2016-08-23T15:14:13.123" UserId="12" Text="In [Allen &amp; Greenough, §34](https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA15), I see a short discussion on the gender of animal names:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Many nouns may be either masculine or feminine, according to the sex of the object.  These are said to be of Common Gender: as, **exsul**, *exile;* **bōs**, *ox* or *cow;* **parēns**, *parent*.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Note.—Several names of animals have a grammatical gender, independent of sex.  These are called *epicene*.  Thus lepus, *hare*, is always masculine, and vulpēs, *fox*, is always feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, are there any clues as to *which* animals have &quot;common gender,&quot; and which have a fixed grammatical gender?  A few ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If it's easy to tell the gender of an animal just by looking at it, then it's common gender, otherwise it's grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;  - An issue with this is that *canis* appears to be common gender, while *vulpes* is grammatical – and it's surely not much more difficult to identify gender in a fox than in a dog.&#xD;&#xA; - If it's a domestic animal, then it's common gender, otherwise it's grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;  - But while *canis* and *bos* are common gender, *ovis* is feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this simply a matter of memorization?  Or is there a guideline, if not a rule, for animal name gender?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1410" RevisionGUID="cbbc0726-3fd8-41bf-91be-cfb7b29dda89" CreationDate="2016-08-23T15:14:13.123" UserId="12" Text="Which animal names have grammatical gender, and which have common gender?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1410" RevisionGUID="cbbc0726-3fd8-41bf-91be-cfb7b29dda89" CreationDate="2016-08-23T15:14:13.123" UserId="12" Text="|gender|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1404" RevisionGUID="709d390d-097d-41d5-8f59-54041a09c0e4" CreationDate="2016-08-23T15:48:39.330" UserId="45" Comment="added 1685 characters in body" Text="One thing confuses me about the quoted portion of the canon: it does not seem gramatically correct for *canonicarum scripturarum* to be in the genitive. Given that it is copulated with *vel* to another accusative object of *extra*, I can only read it as accusative. It is interesting that there are several [Google hits](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=%22extra+psalmos+vel+canonicas%22) for *canonicas scripturas* instead, which makes a lot more sense: I will therefore amend the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Item placuit, ut extra psalmos vel **canonicas scripturas** novi et veteris Testamenti nihil poetice compositum in ecclesia psallatur, sicut et sancti praecipiunt canones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preserving word order and translating fairly literally, this reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Likewise it has pleased [the council] that, besides the psalms and the canonical writings of the new and old Testament, no poetic composition be sung in church, as the holy canons decree as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am having difficulty reconciling Harper's points among each other, much more so with the text, and regardless it strikes me as a silly exercise to atomize what is really a fairly simple proscription. My comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **False**, since it allows psalms or (*vel*, inclusive &quot;or&quot;) canonical scriptures. The fact that he says &quot;psalms of the sacred canon&quot; leads me to think that he is misconstruing the phrase and perhaps a little confused: there is generally very little disagreement about what the &quot;canonical psalms&quot; are: *canonical* contextually and intuitively makes more sense applied to scripture as a whole, not just the psalms.&#xD;&#xA;2. **True**, it allows the psalms and Scripture.&#xD;&#xA;3. **Debateable**: it forbids non-Scriptural poetic compositions in church. This seems to leave open (a) non-poetic compositions and (b) worship that does not take place in the *ecclesia*. (This second point might be unnecessary, depending on Harper's definition of &quot;worship&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;4. **False** (or, if I worked for Politifact, &quot;Pants on Fire False&quot;): this has no basis in the text at all, even if we were to adopt the (highly improbable) reading below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## First Edit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought about it, and I think it is *possible* to make sense of the original formulation if you read *vel* as an adverb (&quot;even&quot;) and *canonicarum scripturarum* as a partitive genitive with *nihil*. This would translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...that besides the psalms, no poetic composition even of the canonical scriptures of the new and old Testament should be sung in church.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reading strikes me as *highly unlikely*, both from a syntactical perspective (the word order is unnatural and clumsy) and from a commonsense perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Second Edit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the footnotes of this [edition of the decrees of the Council of Braga](https://books.google.com/books?id=iF5Y1aGkxgAC&amp;pg=PA363&amp;dq=%22item+placuit,+ut+extra+psalmos+vel%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi498Df69fOAhVGbR4KHb8CDeg4FBDoAQgrMAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22item%20placuit%2C%20ut%20extra%20psalmos%20vel%22&amp;f=false), I believe the best explanation for this is that ***libros* is understood.** It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Item placuit, ut extra psalmos, vel canonicarum Scripturarum&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt; novi et veteris Testamenti, nihil poetice compositum in ecclesia psallatur, sicut et sancti praecipiunt canones&lt;sup&gt;b&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt; *Adde*: Libros.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;b&lt;/sup&gt; Can. 59. Laodic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This insertion makes sense of the passage and seems plausible. It avoids other attempts (like mine and Hugh's) to account for the genitive that simply do not sound right, and it also explains why some editions (see above link, as well as the second quote in Harper's own treatise) amended to accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, and most convincingly, this makes sense because the referenced &quot;holy canons&quot; of the the Council of Laodicea state (canon 59):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non oportet ab idiotis psalmos compositos et vulgares in ecclesiis dici neque libros qui sunt extra canonem legere, nisi solos canonicos novi et veteris testamenti.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is not fitting for psalms that are profane or composed by private individuals to be said in churches, nor to read books which are outside the canon, except only those canonical [books] of the new and old testament.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It then goes on to make a canonical list. This seems fairly conclusive proof that this is the sense of the passage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1408" RevisionGUID="72a3976b-63d4-4ad1-b6e4-d78909ca2552" CreationDate="2016-08-23T16:48:51.657" UserId="79" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="In the phrase *Soli Deo gloria* one can read *soli* in two different ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If it is *solus*, the phrase means &quot;glory only to the God&quot; or &quot;glory to the only God&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;2. If it is *sol*, the phrase means &quot;glory to the Sun God&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Christian context the first one is intended, of course.&#xD;&#xA;But the second interpretation is also sensible.&#xD;&#xA;The same happens whenever *solus Deus* is in dative, not only in this particular phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When and how was this double meaning observed?&#xD;&#xA;Are there examples from the pagan antiquity of the phrase *sol deus* in dative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5608" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1409" RevisionGUID="e732da08-78ff-4211-9ccb-542645c257b0" CreationDate="2016-08-23T18:01:57.183" UserId="118" Comment="+llpsi" Text="|translation|vocabulary|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1411" RevisionGUID="0969ff7b-0b01-4cb3-8d11-cc03739bae7a" CreationDate="2016-08-23T18:52:16.460" UserId="772" Text="I have totally no clue about latin language, but I need translation for my art project. The answer is NOT &quot;Magnum Opus Dei&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know what's in latin: polish - Wielkie Dzieło Stworzenia,&#xD;&#xA;english - The Great Act of Creation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These mean almost the same, allthough I prefer to translate polish version,  every try will be appreciated. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5610" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1411" RevisionGUID="0969ff7b-0b01-4cb3-8d11-cc03739bae7a" CreationDate="2016-08-23T18:52:16.460" UserId="772" Text="Simple translation from polishadn english to latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5611" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1411" RevisionGUID="0969ff7b-0b01-4cb3-8d11-cc03739bae7a" CreationDate="2016-08-23T18:52:16.460" UserId="772" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1411" RevisionGUID="404df21b-0c80-4b94-97b4-ab0480be9510" CreationDate="2016-08-23T19:23:27.247" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected typos and added a tag." Text="I have totally no clue about Latin language, but I need translation for my art project. The answer is **not** &quot;Magnum Opus Dei&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know what's in Latin: Polish - Wielkie Dzieło Stworzenia,&#xD;&#xA;English - The Great Act of Creation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These mean almost the same, although I prefer to translate Polish version,  every try will be appreciated. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5614" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1411" RevisionGUID="404df21b-0c80-4b94-97b4-ab0480be9510" CreationDate="2016-08-23T19:23:27.247" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected typos and added a tag." Text="Simple translation from Polish and English to Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5615" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1411" RevisionGUID="404df21b-0c80-4b94-97b4-ab0480be9510" CreationDate="2016-08-23T19:23:27.247" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected typos and added a tag." Text="|english-to-latin-translation|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1411" RevisionGUID="95772c93-4d66-4801-a2ad-5b44cfdd02d4" CreationDate="2016-08-23T19:48:38.607" UserId="772" Comment="added 471 characters in body" Text="I have totally no clue about Latin language, but I need translation for the title to my music project. The answer is **not** &quot;Magnum Opus Dei&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know what's in Latin: Polish - Wielkie Dzieło Stworzenia,&#xD;&#xA;English - The Great Work of Creation/The Great Act of Creation/The Great Art of Creation (the thing is, I can't translate it from polish to english good enough in my opinion; all these english tries don't have so much epicness and might in themselves). I don't want the word &quot;god&quot; in it. The meaning bonds with the creation of the world by God in christian beliefs, but I'm interested in naming only the act, not the being responsible for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These mean almost the same, although I prefer to translate Polish version,  every try will be appreciated. :) I will be very thankful for your time and energy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1412" RevisionGUID="8690c870-65da-4e95-87e0-d31eb154dd5f" CreationDate="2016-08-23T21:52:58.957" UserId="136" Text="So you gave three possible English translations, and here are some literal Latin translations of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  *Magnum Opus Genisis*&#xD;&#xA;2.  *Magnum Factum Genisis*&#xD;&#xA;3.  *Magna Ars Genisis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, here is something to keep in mind. It sound as if &quot;creation&quot; is supposed to have some relatively amorphous religious sense, and there are other words that might capture this better, as they were used in a religious sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ *creatio, creationis, f.*&#xD;&#xA;+  *plasmatio, plasmationis, f.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted to use these in place of *genesis*, then make sure to use the genitive, which would be the second word in the entries bullet-pointed above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also try something like *magnum opus creatum*, which would literally translate to &quot;great work having been created,&quot; if that sounds better for you. When translating phrases like this, where the &quot;goodness&quot; of the end result is entirely subjective, choose what sounds the best to you. Look at online dictionaries like [this one][1] and [this one][2], which I use primarily to find synonyms that might work better. Just make sure to properly decline your nouns. Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latinlexicon.org/search_english.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.latin-dictionary.net/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1412" RevisionGUID="b7b22d53-8c8b-44d8-ad6a-c7d30cd43f69" CreationDate="2016-08-23T23:41:01.020" UserId="136" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="So you gave three possible English translations, and here are some literal Latin translations of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  *Magnum Opus Genisis*&#xD;&#xA;2.  *Magnum Factum Genisis*&#xD;&#xA;3.  *Magna Ars Genisis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, here is something to keep in mind. It sound as if &quot;creation&quot; is supposed to have some relatively amorphous religious sense, and there are other words that might capture this better, as they were used in a religious sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ *creatio, creationis, f.*&#xD;&#xA;+  *plasmatio, plasmationis, f.*&#xD;&#xA;+  *creatura, creaturae, f.* (this one doesn't have Christian undertones)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted to use these in place of *genesis*, then make sure to use the genitive, which would be the second word in the entries bullet-pointed above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also try something like *magnum opus creatum*, which would literally translate to &quot;great work having been created,&quot; if that sounds better for you. When translating phrases like this, where the &quot;goodness&quot; of the end result is entirely subjective, choose what sounds the best to you. Look at online dictionaries like [this one][1] and [this one][2], which I use primarily to find synonyms that might work better. Just make sure to properly decline your nouns. Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latinlexicon.org/search_english.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.latin-dictionary.net/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1413" RevisionGUID="6f70fa6e-57d4-4873-ac36-104f4912b1e3" CreationDate="2016-08-24T05:49:30.987" UserId="79" Text="The (masculine) plural genitive of both the participle *victus* and the derived noun *victor* is *victorum*.&#xD;&#xA;If I write, for example, *uxores victorum infelices erant*, it is unclear which wives were unhappy.&#xD;&#xA;The word *vincere* is not special; the same happens with every verb that has the perfect participle and the derived noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Romans must have observed this ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;Are there any known ancient word plays or confusions due to it?&#xD;&#xA;I do not know how to search for such a thing in a corpus.&#xD;&#xA;The verb need not be *vincere*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5620" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1413" RevisionGUID="6f70fa6e-57d4-4873-ac36-104f4912b1e3" CreationDate="2016-08-24T05:49:30.987" UserId="79" Text="Victorum: victus or victor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5621" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1413" RevisionGUID="6f70fa6e-57d4-4873-ac36-104f4912b1e3" CreationDate="2016-08-24T05:49:30.987" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|ambiguity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1414" RevisionGUID="afddd5fa-8173-484a-a232-9f331f03e6a8" CreationDate="2016-08-24T09:27:14.783" UserId="773" Text="I am interested in finding out if any Latin enthusiasts speak Latin to their children, so that the children grow up with Latin as one of their native languages. If yes, can any description of their experience with this endeavour be found online?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5623" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1414" RevisionGUID="afddd5fa-8173-484a-a232-9f331f03e6a8" CreationDate="2016-08-24T09:27:14.783" UserId="773" Text="Does anyone learn Latin as a native language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5624" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1414" RevisionGUID="afddd5fa-8173-484a-a232-9f331f03e6a8" CreationDate="2016-08-24T09:27:14.783" UserId="773" Text="|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1398" RevisionGUID="34f2f4fb-b197-4882-876d-efbbac7bafbb" CreationDate="2016-08-24T16:02:18.100" UserId="769" Comment="I give details of my contribution to the topic, as well as the requested references." Text="In a recent paper (included in [The Latin of the Grammarians](http://www.brepols.net/Pages/ShowProduct.aspx?prod_id=IS-9782503566276-1)), I have made the point that Latin grammarians, unlike their Greek predecessors, did not expressly stress the uninflectional nature of adverbs, and this may be due to the fact that they observed some sort of declension in some types of adverbs (not only those derived of adjectives -doctus &gt; docte-, but also the locatives, which some grammarians considered as *nomina adverbialia* or simply *adverbia*). Varro even included the type *docte* among the *verba declinata*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More precisely, my point is that, whereas Greek grammarians used the word &quot;ákliton&quot; (uninflected) in their definitions of the adverb, the corresponding Latin word (*indeclinabile*) seems to be deliberately avoided by Roman grammarians. A revealing passage can be cited from Iulius Romanus (3rd century AD), as cited in Charisius (page 246 in Barwick's editions, and page 190 in Keil's *Grammatici Latini*): in that passage both the Greek and the Latin definitions are given, but only the former refers to the adverb's uninflectional nature.&#xD;&#xA;As for Varro, he includes the type docte among the *declinata verba* in *De lingua Latina*, book X, paragraph 17. Also, some modern scholars have dealt with adverbs as a kind of nominal cases: e. g., Calboli (1969, p. 405).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CALBOLI 1969 = G. CALBOLI¸ Review of CUPAIOLO 1967, «Lingua e stile» 2, 1969, pp. 404-406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1406" RevisionGUID="068b1198-82aa-4f97-a351-fd3d40357054" CreationDate="2016-08-24T22:53:59.603" UserId="522" Comment="Examples for **vel** given; + consequent rearrangement." Text="The **Council of Braga** clearly restricts independent usage. It decrees that everyone shall follow one and the same appointed psalms (I. ...unus et idem ordo); only the appointed portions of scripture for the vigils and feast days shall be read (II. ...non diversas).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***TRANSLATION:***  &#xD;&#xA;*Item placuit, ut*  **Next it was agreed, that..**.  &#xD;&#xA;*nihil poetice compositum extra psalmos*&#xD;&#xA;**nothing poetically composed apart from the psalms**  &#xD;&#xA;*vel canonicarum scripturarum novi et veteris Testamenti* **indeed those of the New and Old Testament**  &#xD;&#xA;*in ecclesia psalletur* **may be sung in church,**  &#xD;&#xA;*sicut et* **even as**  &#xD;&#xA;*sancti praecipiunt canones.* **the holy canons decree.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Notes:**  &#xD;&#xA;'Item' means then, or next; not 'likewise.'  &#xD;&#xA;Placet' in a vote means It is agreed. Placuit, it was agreed.&#xD;&#xA;**Vel,** (on its own) where a climax is stated or understood, here means 'in particular,' **as in these two examples**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sed ex his omnibus nihil magis ridetur, quam quod est praeter exspectationem; cuius innumerabilia sunt exempla, **vel** Appi*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maioris illius, *qui in senatu, cum ageretur de agris publicis* et de&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lege Thoria et peteretur Lucullus ab eis, qui a pecore eius depasci&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agros publicos dicerent, &quot;non est&quot; *inquit* &quot;Luculli pecus illud;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; erratis&quot;; - *defendere Lucullum videbatur* - &quot;ego liberum puto esse:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qua libet pascitur.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Oratore 2/284  &lt;http://nodictionaries.com/cicero/de-oratore-2/284&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [translation] But of all these nothing is funnier than what is  unexpected, of which there are innumerable eamples, **indeed/in particular** of Appius... who, when there was a debate about 'agris publicis,' public grazing etc., he [Appius] said (he seemed to be defending Lucullus)... &quot; he's a freed man; he eats where he nibbles.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ the punch line is a double entendre:  a joke about uninvited guests at a private view  going for the free food.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Second example ( **vel**) [Cicero *Republic* 3: 34][1]  ...nihil&#xD;&#xA;&gt; potest esse illa beatius. sed tamen vel regnum malo quam liberum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; populum;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that the 150 psalms, plus the Canticles: e.g. Psalm 151, the Song of Moses, the Song of the Three Children, would be allowed from the OT, as well as Magnificat and Nunc Dimittis from the NT.   ...but only when everyone else in that church was singing them, and only when those psalms were appointed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That seems to agree with all four bullet points, provided that 4 means 'not any random scripture.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://nodictionaries.com/cicero/de-oratore-2/284" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1415" RevisionGUID="92ce90b3-553e-489c-9343-9481fb268231" CreationDate="2016-08-25T00:02:51.233" UserId="68" Text="I know of five kids who are growing up speaking Latin, and I imagine there have to be more that I don't know about. One is Josiah Meadows, who does online spoken Latin lessons himself. You can see him in several YouTube videos [here][1]. Another is the now 2-year-old son of an American who lives in (or perhaps not far from) Rome. Two are the kids or stepkids or adopted kids of Patrick Owens, who now curates the [Morgan Lexicon][2]; I've met one of them. And the fifth is a boy whose name I can't remember but I met him a few weeks ago at the Conventiculum in Kentucky. They all started Latin before the critical age (that is, the age at which language-learning flips from being unconscious to being conscious), which is about 12.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confident that you could write Josiah or his father Scott (I've never met or communicated with either one of them, but they've both talked online and with newspapers/websites about Josiah's experience) and ask them further questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/user/lingualatinacom&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com/faculty-pages/patrick-owens/lexicon/adumbratio/index.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1416" RevisionGUID="2aead5d7-b8d5-43d9-80f7-85e2f4b634c4" CreationDate="2016-08-25T03:00:50.027" UserId="576" Text="When do I use the gerundive vs. participle forms of a verb in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5630" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1416" RevisionGUID="2aead5d7-b8d5-43d9-80f7-85e2f4b634c4" CreationDate="2016-08-25T03:00:50.027" UserId="576" Text="When do I use the gerundive vs. particple forms of a verb in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5631" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1416" RevisionGUID="2aead5d7-b8d5-43d9-80f7-85e2f4b634c4" CreationDate="2016-08-25T03:00:50.027" UserId="576" Text="|participle|gerund|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5633" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1416" RevisionGUID="9e4990a7-38a0-4b50-a9a9-e110451644de" CreationDate="2016-08-25T05:44:13.873" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|participle|gerund|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1417" RevisionGUID="2ed00741-b5da-44c2-81ab-b08d502f3746" CreationDate="2016-08-25T06:13:52.903" UserId="79" Text="Acronyms are abbreviations that are read as whole words rather than letter by letter &amp;mdash; or in other words, they are words formed from initials of a phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;NATO&quot; and &quot;laser&quot; are two examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen abbreviations used in Latin, but I get the impression that they are often expanded to whole in speech or read as an abbreviation letter by letter.&#xD;&#xA;Not all abbreviations are suitable for acronyms.&#xD;&#xA;I will not try to pronounce &quot;SPQR&quot; as a single word&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern Latin has some acronyms, for example the name &quot;NATO&quot;, but I wonder how new this phenomenon is.&#xD;&#xA;**When did acronyms first appear in Latin?**&#xD;&#xA;How do we know how they were read out?&#xD;&#xA;(Maybe they were declined?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no guess as to what the answer might be, so any examples of acronyms with timing and explanation are welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5635" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1417" RevisionGUID="2ed00741-b5da-44c2-81ab-b08d502f3746" CreationDate="2016-08-25T06:13:52.903" UserId="79" Text="When did acronyms first appear?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5636" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1417" RevisionGUID="2ed00741-b5da-44c2-81ab-b08d502f3746" CreationDate="2016-08-25T06:13:52.903" UserId="79" Text="|language-evolution|spoken-language|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1418" RevisionGUID="384243a4-b117-46b6-b948-f8ae143e37dc" CreationDate="2016-08-25T10:58:08.830" UserId="769" Text="What you mention is technically known as &quot;homonymy&quot;, and it was theoretically observed and practically used by the ancients. There are different types and many examples can be given: Cicero plays with the homonymy of the proper name *Verres* (the corrupt governor of Sicily whom Cicero attacked in the Verrines) and the noun *uerres* 'male-pig'. As for the theoretical side, you can fruitfully read a passage from Quintilian's *Institutio oratoria* (book 7, chapter 9), where he, when dealing with ambiguity, mentions several types of homonymy and homography, e. g. *Coruinum* (proper name) / *cor uinum* (two nouns) / *Gallus* (man from Gaul) / *gallus* (cock) / *gallus* (priest of Cybele), *in occulto loco* &quot;in a hidden place&quot; / *inocculto loco* &quot;a non-hidden place'... and many more (he also refers to the famous *aio te, Aeacica, uincere Romanus*...). This is not the only passage where Quintilian deals with the liguistic problem of homonymy and polysemy: in book one, he mentions the rare homonymy between *fraudator* ('a deceiver') and *fraudator* as an imperative passive form (very rarely used, indeed!) of the verb *fraudo*&#xD;&#xA;  There is a lot of literature dealing with the topic of puns based on homonymy. I can try to select some references for those who may be interested-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1419" RevisionGUID="d63118cb-e937-4488-8dd2-9730e4966d42" CreationDate="2016-08-25T12:37:03.897" UserId="45" Text="I think that your question will become a lot clearer when you realize that the **gerundive is a participle**: specifically, it is the **future passive participle**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is thus not a question of choosing *between* a gerundive and a participle, but rather choosing *which* participle (tense and voice) to use. Here is a brief overview of the kinds of participles of *amare* (to love):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Present active**: *amans, -ntis*&#xD;&#xA; - *mater amans*: &quot;a loving mother&quot; or &quot;a mother who loves&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Future active**: *amaturus, -i*&#xD;&#xA; - *mater amatura*: &quot;a mother who is about to love&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Perfect passive**: *amatus, -i* (N.B. this has an active meaning with deponent verbs)&#xD;&#xA; - *mater amata*: &quot;a beloved mother&quot; or &quot;a mother who was loved&quot;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Future passive**: *amandus, -i*&#xD;&#xA; - *mater amanda*: &quot;a mother who shall be loved&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this future passive meaning most often conveys a sense of obligation, i.e. &quot;a mother to be loved&quot; = &quot;a mother who should be loved.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you provide further details about your use case, I can specify further, but as you see there is a pretty clear distinction between each participial form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5640" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1409" RevisionGUID="f19a4537-5fc2-4482-b886-0dddbfecb20c" CreationDate="2016-08-25T15:04:48.197" UserId="68" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|vocabulary|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|eutropius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1420" RevisionGUID="174740cf-5a27-4e4b-866f-c618e50f6fed" CreationDate="2016-08-25T15:37:53.617" UserId="45" Text="As a first note, this particular phrase is taken with any emendations from [*Historiae Romanae Breviarum* II.3](https://books.google.com/books?id=1pNbAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA16).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is John Selby Watson's (1886) [translation of the same passage](http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eutropius_breviarium_2_text.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But the office of military tribunes did not last long; for, after a short time, it was enacted that no more should be created; and four years passed in the state in such a manner that none of the **superior magistrates** were appointed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more literal translation might be, &quot;...in such a manner that there were no higher offices.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [L&amp;S entry for *potestas*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpotestas) lists, under II.B., that it can mean &quot;magisterial power, authority, office, magistracy&quot; and, by transference, &quot;a person in office, a public officer, magistrate.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *majores*, it is frequently used by itself to indicate &quot;older, greater&quot; in much the same way English uses &quot;elder, superior.&quot; I was not able to locate other references to *potestates majores*, so it probably is not a formulaic reference to a certain kind of office. Rather, it just indicates &quot;higher offices.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1412" RevisionGUID="506cb5f9-7904-4027-a3f2-e1dd49e266db" CreationDate="2016-08-25T22:03:16.600" UserId="136" Comment="edited body" Text="So you gave three possible English translations, and here are some literal Latin translations of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  *Magnum Opus Genesis*&#xD;&#xA;2.  *Magnum Factum Genesis*&#xD;&#xA;3.  *Magna Ars Genesis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, here is something to keep in mind. It sound as if &quot;creation&quot; is supposed to have some relatively amorphous religious sense, and there are other words that might capture this better, as they were used in a religious sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ *creatio, creationis, f.*&#xD;&#xA;+  *plasmatio, plasmationis, f.*&#xD;&#xA;+  *creatura, creaturae, f.* (this one doesn't have Christian undertones)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted to use these in place of *genesis*, then make sure to use the genitive, which would be the second word in the entries bullet-pointed above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also try something like *magnum opus creatum*, which would literally translate to &quot;great work having been created,&quot; if that sounds better for you. When translating phrases like this, where the &quot;goodness&quot; of the end result is entirely subjective, choose what sounds the best to you. Look at online dictionaries like [this one][1] and [this one][2], which I use primarily to find synonyms that might work better. Just make sure to properly decline your nouns. Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latinlexicon.org/search_english.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.latin-dictionary.net/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1421" RevisionGUID="2b8ff071-fc03-4ed3-bde4-e9d718250a77" CreationDate="2016-08-26T02:54:07.067" UserId="776" Text="They are the words to the hauntingly beautiful [title song in Roger&#xD;&#xA;Eno's &quot;Lost in Translation&quot; CD ca. 1995](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMNjD8fxHGo):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Discontentus Sentimentum &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Listigatus Exocentum&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either maybe it's a joke (and the words are only pseudo-latin, I couldn't&#xD;&#xA;find any in an on-line dictionary) or maybe it's something like &quot;I have&#xD;&#xA;hundreds of complaints&quot; (that's my guess).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;grati&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;r b-j&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5644" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1421" RevisionGUID="2b8ff071-fc03-4ed3-bde4-e9d718250a77" CreationDate="2016-08-26T02:54:07.067" UserId="776" Text="Could someone translate this short phrase for me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5645" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1421" RevisionGUID="2b8ff071-fc03-4ed3-bde4-e9d718250a77" CreationDate="2016-08-26T02:54:07.067" UserId="776" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1422" RevisionGUID="c5946bb3-4e95-43c0-b4a7-42ea25aea9aa" CreationDate="2016-08-26T03:16:31.447" UserId="136" Text="This appears to be psuedo-Latin as you mentioned. The only truly real word is *sentimentum*, which means &quot;complaint or sentiment.&quot; *Discontentus* could be an actually word, formed from the prefix *dis-* meaning &quot;apart,&quot; and *contentus* meaning having been pulled/bent or secured/maintained (i.e. pulled apart for the former). The other two words are not Latin words that I can find. *Listigatus* is close to *litigatus* meaning &quot;lawsuit&quot; and *exocentum* could be a combination of *ex-* meaning out of/from and *centum* meaning &quot;one hundred.&quot; The latter does not seem to be a real construction, even though it might appear legitimate. In conclusion, this appears to be at least partially faux Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for fun, one might translate it as &quot;lawsuit having been pulled apart out of one hundred complaints,&quot; and even this isn't a very proper translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;If anyone does find these words, I would love to hear about about it. I used [Latin Lexicon][1], [LatDict][2], [William Whitaker's Words][3], and [Olivetti][4] for my sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latinlexicon.org/search_latin.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.latin-dictionary.net/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://archives.nd.edu/words.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-english-dictionary.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1424" RevisionGUID="f95bad71-0031-40aa-be06-17a88e07516d" CreationDate="2016-08-26T19:30:08.750" UserId="30" Text="*Pro* and *prae* are somewhat similar in meaning and form. De Vaan isn't clear about whether they are related; he mentions Proto-Indo-European roots *\*proH* or *\*pro*, and *\*pre-h2i*, respectively. Could it be some kind of ablaut?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5649" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1424" RevisionGUID="f95bad71-0031-40aa-be06-17a88e07516d" CreationDate="2016-08-26T19:30:08.750" UserId="30" Text="Are pro and prae etymologically related?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5650" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1424" RevisionGUID="f95bad71-0031-40aa-be06-17a88e07516d" CreationDate="2016-08-26T19:30:08.750" UserId="30" Text="|etymology|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1425" RevisionGUID="b0000cef-0134-412e-b323-3c94d2caf609" CreationDate="2016-08-26T20:34:25.497" UserId="778" Text="For instance, if you say, &quot;I came here to eat,&quot; or &quot;We want something good to eat,&quot; you are using the infinitive &quot;to eat.&quot; How do translate something like this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5652" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1425" RevisionGUID="b0000cef-0134-412e-b323-3c94d2caf609" CreationDate="2016-08-26T20:34:25.497" UserId="778" Text="How do you show an infinitive for reason?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5653" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1425" RevisionGUID="b0000cef-0134-412e-b323-3c94d2caf609" CreationDate="2016-08-26T20:34:25.497" UserId="778" Text="|translation|verbs|syntax|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1426" RevisionGUID="e1c657fc-f8b3-44ed-a3c2-09556d41785d" CreationDate="2016-08-27T01:58:55.653" UserId="45" Text="In Latin, the infinitive is not used to introduce a reason, or &quot;purpose clause&quot; as a Latin grammar would put it. Here are some other options, which I will gear toward the (very broad) use case of English translations using the infinitive with a sense of purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Ut + Subjunctive**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ut* means &quot;that, in order that&quot; and introduces a subordinate purpose clause. The negative of a purpose clause is *ne*. An example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Loquor ut meminerim.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I speak to remember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ad + Accusative Gerund**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ad pugnandum aggreditur.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He comes forward to fight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Genitive Gerund + Causa**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Debellandi causa venit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He comes to conquer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Gerundive Participle with object**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is a bit tricky: if you are speaking of an object on which something &quot;ought to be done,&quot; you can modify that word with a gerundive. This applies well to your second example sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Aliquid boni edendum volo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I want something good to eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This translation might be made better...comments welcome.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. And my favorite... **the supine**!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The supine is an oft-disregarded form that, for most intents and purposes, is the same as the neuter singular passive participle. It is quite common in everyday speech (just read Plautus and see it appear every page) and expresses purpose with verbs of motion. This translates your first example well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *veni esum/laudatum/plaudatum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I came to eat/praise/applaud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1427" RevisionGUID="6b691c0a-b2d7-4eeb-b596-aa42a29ab21a" CreationDate="2016-08-27T02:48:08.897" UserId="777" Text="In the case of *Aliquid boni edendum volo* — I think the most literal translation would be: &quot;I desire something of good having-to-be-eaten.&quot; I think edendeum is really the future passive participle; normally we expect to see the accusative of the gerund with ad to express purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that the accusative of the supine is most commonly used with verbs of motion (eo, ire, venire, et cetera). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1427" RevisionGUID="7827044e-8903-4942-ae66-a107834633b8" CreationDate="2016-08-27T02:55:35.290" UserId="777" Comment="added 285 characters in body" Text="The answer above is pretty comprehensive! I don't yet have the reputation points to make this into a comment, rather than a full answer, but there are a few things worth adding. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, In the case of *Aliquid boni edendum volo* — I think the most literal translation would be: &quot;I desire something of good having-to-be-eaten.&quot; *boni* is then a partitive genitive. I think edendeum is really the future passive participle, since the accusative of the gerund will usually want *ad* to express purpose, as noted in the answer. But they are morphologically identical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that the accusative of the supine is most commonly used with verbs of motion (eo, ire, venire, et cetera). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1429" RevisionGUID="6a6e4e4d-4846-4dc2-838b-8e5b7cd7c883" CreationDate="2016-08-27T16:02:30.543" UserId="780" Text="As per the title - is there a Latin phrase similar to &quot;annus horribilis&quot; meaning a year of change?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5659" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1429" RevisionGUID="6a6e4e4d-4846-4dc2-838b-8e5b7cd7c883" CreationDate="2016-08-27T16:02:30.543" UserId="780" Text="Phrase like &quot;annus horribilis&quot; but meaning a year of change, year where everything changes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5660" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1429" RevisionGUID="6a6e4e4d-4846-4dc2-838b-8e5b7cd7c883" CreationDate="2016-08-27T16:02:30.543" UserId="780" Text="|phrase-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1429" RevisionGUID="31670dee-36d6-4539-bfd6-ce0c9063d834" CreationDate="2016-08-27T20:09:45.773" UserId="12" Comment="added 21 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is a Latin phrase similar to &quot;annus horribilis&quot; meaning *a year of change*, as in a year where everything changes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5663" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1429" RevisionGUID="31670dee-36d6-4539-bfd6-ce0c9063d834" CreationDate="2016-08-27T20:09:45.773" UserId="12" Comment="added 21 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is a phrase like &quot;annus horribilis&quot; but meaning a year of change?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1426" RevisionGUID="fee7a04d-5e8d-421c-836f-4f96767e0ce3" CreationDate="2016-08-27T22:00:29.930" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="In Latin, the infinitive is not used to introduce a reason, or &quot;purpose clause&quot; as a Latin grammar would put it. Here are some other options, which I will gear toward the (very broad) use case of English translations using the infinitive with a sense of purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Ut + Subjunctive**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ut* means &quot;that, in order that&quot; and introduces a subordinate purpose clause. The negative of a purpose clause is *ne*. An example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Loquor ut meminerim.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I speak to remember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ad + Accusative Gerund**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ad pugnandum aggreditur.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He comes forward to fight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Genitive Gerund + Causa**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Debellandi causa venit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He comes to conquer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Gerundive Participle with object**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is a bit tricky: if you are speaking of an object on which something &quot;ought to be done,&quot; you can modify that word with a gerundive. This applies well to your second example sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Aliquid boni edendum volo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I want something good to eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This translation might be made better...comments welcome.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. And my favorite... **the supine**!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The supine is an oft-disregarded form that, for most intents and purposes, is the same as the neuter singular passive participle. It is quite common in everyday speech (just read Plautus and see it appear every page) and expresses purpose with verbs of motion. This translates your first example well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *veni esum/laudatum/plausum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I came to eat/praise/applaud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1430" RevisionGUID="b7975b21-fdcb-47c3-a396-b5c8b94353f6" CreationDate="2016-08-28T10:29:10.323" UserId="324" Text="As the point of departure for this question was the English phrase “I came here to eat”, it might be worth mentioning that in this construction “to eat” is not (at least historically) an infinitive, but the preposition “to” with the Old English dative of a verbal noun. Structurally it is thus more like Latin “ad edendum” (preposition plus accusative gerund)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1431" RevisionGUID="8f2c4957-a903-4325-8ce5-3d1514051559" CreationDate="2016-08-28T10:37:29.353" UserId="324" Text="In theory, *preh²i could be the locative singular of *proh², with e-grade ablaut. I think this is what de Vaan is suggesting, if in a somewhat roundabout way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1431" RevisionGUID="492c7324-d90a-4de7-82e8-19bcd200c770" CreationDate="2016-08-28T10:44:17.810" UserId="324" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="In theory, *preh²i could be the locative singular of *proH, with e-grade ablaut (and possibly a different laryngeal?). I think this is what de Vaan is suggesting, if in a somewhat roundabout way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5668" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1416" RevisionGUID="48d9f305-d08a-43ca-8860-af62b3791526" CreationDate="2016-08-28T18:14:01.583" UserId="118" Comment="Corrected a typo in the title" Text="When do I use the gerundive vs. participle forms of a verb in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1432" RevisionGUID="e9e59ae6-40af-4e02-8389-ef6d408a633f" CreationDate="2016-08-28T19:25:53.483" UserId="522" Text=" **There was one year that became especially proverbial for change.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the year of the Seven Emperors. **anno Septem Imperatorum...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...emperor #1 appointed his son joint-emperor. The senate already hated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the man and appointed an 83-year-old, who said he couldn't do it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; without his son's help, so they were appointed the REAL two emperors:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but they died in a serious defeat. Two more tried. An unfortified town&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wore the original Emperors down; starved their army; resisted a siege.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Emperor #7 was appointed in celebration. (Read the [Loeb text][1] here: posted by Thayer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all too much for Vikipedia; who have one short page on another hectic year:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Year of the Five Emperors, **[Annus Quinque Imperatorum][2]** which had much less change of course, but still slightly proverbial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More simply, **mutabilis,** means 'changeable,' (decribing a *mind,* a *woman,* a *face,* and (variusque labor) work.) . But if I met *'annus mutabilis,'* I would think of normal change, new fashions, changing seasons, weather, the varying year. A stronger phrase would be : **Annus mutabilitatis,** a year of change. (ponounced mootabilita:tis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If as a result of change everything is now upside down, back to front and inside out, say **Annus Inversus.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Maximini_duo*.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_quinque_imperatorum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1432" RevisionGUID="7b0f63d6-e9ee-45c1-9585-5c504f669337" CreationDate="2016-08-28T19:31:22.933" UserId="522" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text=" **There was one year that became especially proverbial for change.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the year of the Seven Emperors. **anno Septem Imperatorum...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...emperor #1 appointed his son joint-emperor. The senate already hated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the man and appointed an 83-year-old, who said he couldn't do it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; without his son's help, so they were appointed the REAL two emperors:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but they died in a serious defeat. Two more tried. An unfortified town&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wore the original Emperors down; starved their army; resisted a siege.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Emperor #7 was appointed in celebration. (Read the [Loeb text][1] here: posted by Thayer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all too much for Vikipedia; who have one short page on another hectic year:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Year of the Five Emperors, **[Annus Quinque Imperatorum][2]** which had much less change of course, but still slightly proverbial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More simply, **mutabilis,** means 'changeable,' (describing a *mind,* a *woman,* a *face,* and (variusque labor) work.) . But if I met *'annus mutabilis,'* I would think of normal change, new fashions, changing seasons, weather, the varying year. A stronger phrase would be : **Annus mutabilitatis,** a year of change. (ponounced mootabilita:tis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If as a result of change everything is now upside down, back to front and inside out, say **Annus Inversus.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Maximini_duo*.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_quinque_imperatorum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1433" RevisionGUID="17c9ef8f-dd7a-47d7-9562-6c7aba908165" CreationDate="2016-08-28T21:40:41.397" UserId="79" Text="The regular ablative of *nox* is *nocte*.&#xD;&#xA;At least in the temporal sense *noctu* is a synonym of *nocte*.&#xD;&#xA;Are *nocte* and *noctu* fully interchangeable as temporal expressions?&#xD;&#xA;In particular, can I attach adjectives or pronouns to *noctu* the way I can with *nocte*?&#xD;&#xA;For example, I can say *quadam nocte* or *nocte atra et procellosa*, but I don't know whether I can use *noctu* in such a way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5672" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1433" RevisionGUID="17c9ef8f-dd7a-47d7-9562-6c7aba908165" CreationDate="2016-08-28T21:40:41.397" UserId="79" Text="Are nocte and noctu interchangeable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5673" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1433" RevisionGUID="17c9ef8f-dd7a-47d7-9562-6c7aba908165" CreationDate="2016-08-28T21:40:41.397" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|grammar-choice|time|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="403" RevisionGUID="92ae0052-b331-4805-a69f-5d4f9ecf9e03" CreationDate="2016-08-29T02:18:55.240" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="The [first sentence](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/347/118) of the introduction to the _Systema Naturæ_ by Linnaeus is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homo **mundi** intraturus theatrum quæritur Quis sit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you tell what noun goes with **mundi**? Grammatically, two interpretations come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A man of the world about to enter a theater is asked who he is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Man about to enter the theater of the world is asked who he is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In context, the second interpretation seems clearly superior. Must you rely on sense to determine the &quot;object&quot; of a genitive, or are there grammatical clues?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put that another way, would you write the Latin any differently if you wanted the first interpretation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1434" RevisionGUID="2d23b9d9-1710-43c7-94b9-008759abdf13" CreationDate="2016-08-29T02:41:43.250" UserId="118" Text="Page 18 of &quot;Prosodic Phrasing in Adolescents with High-Functioning Autism&quot; by Jessica Mayo, an article that has nothing to do with Latin (but watch for the relevance, it's coming), describes an experiment in which children are presented with a set of toys including a lamb, a flower, and a lamb holding a flower, and given the instruction &quot;Hit the lamb with the flower.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, that sentence is ambiguous because &quot;with the flower&quot; could be meant instrumentally, modifying &quot;hit&quot;, or restrictively, modifying &quot;lamb&quot;. Oh, if only English still had an instrumental case!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin also lost the instrumental case from Proto-Indo-European, but, as I understand it, it got absorbed into the ablative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without using a subordinate clause like _Agnum qui florem tenet pulsa,_ can you disambiguate the two interpretations in Latin? Say, by a different word order, a different preposition, or different noun cases in two (unambiguous) versions of the sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;* &lt;sub&gt;Even &quot;given the instruction&quot; is ambiguous in English, and the most natural interpretation here is wrong. I'm exploiting the ambiguity to avoid going into unnecessary detail about the experiment.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5676" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1434" RevisionGUID="2d23b9d9-1710-43c7-94b9-008759abdf13" CreationDate="2016-08-29T02:41:43.250" UserId="118" Text="Hit the lamb with the flower" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5677" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1434" RevisionGUID="2d23b9d9-1710-43c7-94b9-008759abdf13" CreationDate="2016-08-29T02:41:43.250" UserId="118" Text="|grammar-choice|ambiguity|ablativus-instrumenti|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1435" RevisionGUID="807854fd-5c32-4856-9b16-3bd3bb96bdab" CreationDate="2016-08-29T03:41:23.753" UserId="40" Text="The two readings would be distinct in Latin, because the ablative used by itself (without a preposition) generally cannot indicate accompaniment -- you need *cum* for that -- but does indicate means or instrument. So something like *Pulsa agnum cum flore* can only mean &quot;Hit the lamb which has the flower&quot;, while *Pulsa agnum flore* can only mean &quot;Hit the lamb using the flower&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1436" RevisionGUID="7383082d-3ebc-4a0a-a1fc-1fba7bfb3faf" CreationDate="2016-08-29T03:58:02.137" UserId="522" Text="**.1.** If  'with' is translated by a participle instead of instrumental ablative,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Incŭte agnum florem tenens** (You with the flower hit the lamb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'tenens'  in the vocative to agree with the subject, &quot;Incŭte agnum, o mi amice florem tenens.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Incŭte agnem florem tenentem** (Hit the lamb-with-the-flower)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'tenentem' agreeing with agnum,' accusative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**.2.** with a compound adjective:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Florifere incŭte agnum,** You, flower-carrier, hit the lamb.    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Floriferum incŭte agnum.** Hit the flower-carrying lamb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1437" RevisionGUID="1184f38a-19a8-4a9d-9994-6bfb7898661e" CreationDate="2016-08-29T06:02:41.727" UserId="522" Text="**Adverbs** are not normally modified by adjectives. And **'noctu,'** occurs mostly in Livy, usually on its own, but sometimes modified by the adverb: secretly  **'clam.'** And occasionally  with **numquam, fere, saepe, diu.** (never, almost, often, for some time.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the ablative '**nocte**,' in an adverbial phrase can have an adjective. The phrase '**sub nocte**' in  the descent to the underworld 'Lonely, at nightfal, they went unseen through the shadow,' has a transferred epithet, and adverbial phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ibant obscuri sola sub nocte per umbram. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Adjectives qualifying 'nocte' : **proxima nocte,** 'next night,' and Adverbs qualifying the complete averbial phrase are found: **fere nocte, clam nocte**  'almost by night,' 'secretly by night.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1438" RevisionGUID="79169617-f022-437c-8d7c-6a442f687015" CreationDate="2016-08-29T10:38:29.520" UserId="79" Text="When, if ever, did the adjectives *negativus* and *positivus* evolve into an antonym pair like the English &quot;negative&quot; and &quot;positive&quot;, and how did *positivus* get this meaning?&#xD;&#xA;Deriving *negativus* from the verb *negare* produces something that should be close to the English adjective &quot;negative&quot;, and this indeed seems to be the case.&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, *positivus* comes from *ponere*, and it is not clear how and why it would come to mean &quot;positive&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;*Negare* is obviously a &quot;no&quot;-verb, but *ponere* does not look like a &quot;yes&quot;-verb to me.&#xD;&#xA;Is this meaning of *positivus* (and the pairing with *negativus*) classical or a later development?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5682" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1438" RevisionGUID="79169617-f022-437c-8d7c-6a442f687015" CreationDate="2016-08-29T10:38:29.520" UserId="79" Text="Negativus and positivus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5683" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1438" RevisionGUID="79169617-f022-437c-8d7c-6a442f687015" CreationDate="2016-08-29T10:38:29.520" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|language-evolution|adjective|derivation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1439" RevisionGUID="91604c55-5425-4540-8221-9aca8ea0ee06" CreationDate="2016-08-29T14:01:50.323" UserId="324" Text="The use of “positive” and “negative” as opposites is surprisingly modern. It seems to have originated (or at least been popularised) in the context of modern (i.e., 17th-century) mathematics with the distinction of positive and negative numbers. “Positive” numbers are numbers that you can posit, put on the table, observe as objective reality. “Negative” numbers negate positive numbers (positive 1 plus negative 1 makes zero)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1439" RevisionGUID="5321f0ce-f965-4350-8176-db9a5044f10e" CreationDate="2016-08-29T14:44:17.800" UserId="324" Comment="added 542 characters in body" Text="The use of “positive” and “negative” as opposites is surprisingly modern. It seems to have originated (or at least been popularised) in the context of modern (i.e., 17th-century) mathematics with the distinction of positive and negative numbers. “Positive” numbers are numbers that you can posit, put on the table, observe as objective reality. “Negative” numbers negate the corresponding positive numbers (positive 1 plus negative 1 makes zero). A couple of centuries later we get also &quot;positive&quot; and &quot;negative&quot; electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are two early examples from the OED:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1685   J. Hawkins Cocker's Decimal Arithm. iii. 217:   The first figure of every logarithme..sheweth the Nature of the number by it signified, viz. whether it be positive, or negative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1704   J. Harris Lexicon Technicum I:   Positive Quantities in Algebra, are such as are of a Real and Affirmative Nature, and either have, or are supposed to have the Affirmative or Positive Sign + before them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1439" RevisionGUID="5f3ba85b-cefa-4b1a-8a1d-87ec7711fb0d" CreationDate="2016-08-29T14:53:38.650" UserId="324" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="The use of “positive” and “negative” as opposites is surprisingly modern. It seems to have originated (or at least been popularised) in the context of modern (i.e., 17th-century) mathematics with the distinction of positive and negative numbers. “Positive” numbers are numbers that you can posit, put on the table, observe as objective reality. “Negative” numbers negate the corresponding positive numbers (positive 1 plus negative 1 makes zero). A century later we get also &quot;positive&quot; and &quot;negative&quot; electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are two early examples from the OED:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1685   J. Hawkins Cocker's Decimal Arithm. iii. 217:   The first figure of every logarithme..sheweth the Nature of the number by it signified, viz. whether it be positive, or negative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1704   J. Harris Lexicon Technicum I:   Positive Quantities in Algebra, are such as are of a Real and Affirmative Nature, and either have, or are supposed to have the Affirmative or Positive Sign + before them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this from CNRTL:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1761 électricité positive (Euler, Lettres à une Princesse d'Allemagne, éd. Cournot, t.2, p.116)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1440" RevisionGUID="ff9c15f9-e6bc-4e6c-bb2a-e2cffa040790" CreationDate="2016-08-29T22:27:42.147" UserId="12" Text="A macron is a diacritical mark, which, in modern Latin texts, is sometimes used to mark a long vowel: ā, ē, ī, ō, ū, ȳ.  From [Roman uses of diacritical marks](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1180/12), I understand that the ancient Romans did not use macrons (they occasionally used an apex instead).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: when were macrons first used to mark Latin text?  I'll keep it general, and not limit it to the way macrons are used today, in case they were originally used for some other purpose besides marking vowel length." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5688" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1440" RevisionGUID="ff9c15f9-e6bc-4e6c-bb2a-e2cffa040790" CreationDate="2016-08-29T22:27:42.147" UserId="12" Text="When were macrons first used to mark Latin text?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5689" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1440" RevisionGUID="ff9c15f9-e6bc-4e6c-bb2a-e2cffa040790" CreationDate="2016-08-29T22:27:42.147" UserId="12" Text="|language-evolution|orthography|diacritics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1441" RevisionGUID="6e0468cf-fa1f-404a-87da-984befb1d257" CreationDate="2016-08-30T07:36:36.547" UserId="79" Text="The academic year at the University Cambridge consists of three terms: Michaelmas, Lent and Easter.&#xD;&#xA;For more details, consult [the term date pages of the university](https://www.cam.ac.uk/about-the-university/term-dates-and-calendars).&#xD;&#xA;What are these terms called in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer to see actual use examples, newer or older.&#xD;&#xA;I assume that Cambridge has sufficient history in using Latin that Latin versions of the names do exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5691" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1441" RevisionGUID="6e0468cf-fa1f-404a-87da-984befb1d257" CreationDate="2016-08-30T07:36:36.547" UserId="79" Text="Latin names of Cambridge terms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5692" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1441" RevisionGUID="6e0468cf-fa1f-404a-87da-984befb1d257" CreationDate="2016-08-30T07:36:36.547" UserId="79" Text="|translation|contemporary-latin|new-latin|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1442" RevisionGUID="c7a5fe6e-6720-44f5-b085-19e1cb4cfcd3" CreationDate="2016-08-30T13:32:39.730" UserId="324" Text="These phrases come from English Law Latin, which divides the Legal Year into four quarters: Terminus Paschae, Terminus Trinitatis, Terminus Sancti Michaelis, Terminus Sancti Hilarii." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1443" RevisionGUID="c1fd7663-e6e0-475e-bdcb-e2b2bd3fb764" CreationDate="2016-08-30T13:35:28.993" UserId="45" Text="Every beginning Latin-learner is familiar with the idea of deponent verbs: verbs that have passive forms but active meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious about a small subset of Latin verbs that aren't just *intransitive*, but have unmistakably *passive meanings*. I can think of two important examples now, though I am sure there are more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [**vapulo, -are, -avi, -atus**](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvapulo): to be beaten&#xD;&#xA;- [**v(a)eneo, -ire, -ivi, -itum**](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=veneo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059): to be sold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Actually, the second example appears to be easily explicable: *vaeneo* = *venum eo*: to go to sale)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few clarifications:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Are these verbs really distinctive** at all? Would they have struck a Roman as being passive, or is this just a case where we lack an English translation that is not passive? A remark from a (post-)classical grammarian regarding *vapulare* would be helpful here.&#xD;&#xA;2. Assuming they are *sui generis*, **what are some other verbs (if any) that belong to this category**?&#xD;&#xA;3. Are there any **distinctive grammatical features** of verbs like this? For instance, could &quot;I am beaten by him&quot; be translated *vapulo ab eo*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5695" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1443" RevisionGUID="c1fd7663-e6e0-475e-bdcb-e2b2bd3fb764" CreationDate="2016-08-30T13:35:28.993" UserId="45" Text="Active verbs with passive meanings" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5696" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1443" RevisionGUID="c1fd7663-e6e0-475e-bdcb-e2b2bd3fb764" CreationDate="2016-08-30T13:35:28.993" UserId="45" Text="|grammar-identification|passive-voice|irregular-words|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1442" RevisionGUID="4b4f1e12-d4e9-48d3-a24b-f9657ae58fc1" CreationDate="2016-08-30T13:38:20.260" UserId="324" Comment="added 272 characters in body" Text="These phrases come from English Law Latin, which divides the Legal Year into four quarters: Terminus Paschae, Terminus Trinitatis, Terminus Sancti Michaelis, Terminus Sancti Hilarii.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See this: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DeQYXYMBtwgC&amp;pg=PA976&amp;lpg=PA976&amp;dq=%22Terminus+trinitatis%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=CV2kk-794L&amp;sig=1yXPeJLBn4AECOytRjeUsdm7c1w&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjripmNn-nOAhUkAsAKHZviAp0Q6AEIJDAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Terminus%20trinitatis%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1444" RevisionGUID="c0e26107-6144-42d7-898b-141cda07120e" CreationDate="2016-08-30T17:23:45.673" UserId="324" Text="In linguistic parlance these verbs are usually called “stative”, not “passive”. From a Latin standpoint they differ from passive verbs in that they cannot (apparently) be construed with an agent (Latin ab + ablative). &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Ancient Indo-European is believed to have had an active and a middle voice, but no passive. But it did have the facility to form stative stems using the suffix *-yo-. In Sanskrit these verbs are conjugated with middle-voice endings, but in Latin they take active endings. iacere vs. iacēre is a classic example.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1445" RevisionGUID="e75b9dee-46e7-4f64-b9ab-98b50403f04b" CreationDate="2016-08-30T18:41:15.400" UserId="12" Text="From [this answer](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/804/12) and [Allen &amp; Greenough §493](https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA310), I understand that Latin does not have a perfect active participle.  But on Wiktionary, I see the following usage note in the [entry on the suffix *-vus*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-vus#Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Originally forming the perfect active participle, as in alvus ‎(“entity having nourished”), clīvus ‎(“entity having leaned”), gnāvus ‎(“having known”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not clear if this is meant to suggest that Latin had a perfect active participle at one point, or if it only existed in Proto-Indo-European.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the history of the perfect active participle in Latin?  Did Classical Latin or Old Latin ever have such a thing, or did it die out in Proto-Italic or prior?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5700" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1445" RevisionGUID="e75b9dee-46e7-4f64-b9ab-98b50403f04b" CreationDate="2016-08-30T18:41:15.400" UserId="12" Text="What is the history of the perfect active participle in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5701" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1445" RevisionGUID="e75b9dee-46e7-4f64-b9ab-98b50403f04b" CreationDate="2016-08-30T18:41:15.400" UserId="12" Text="|language-evolution|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1446" RevisionGUID="d9929a3c-a6aa-4657-90ba-5ce36d26d091" CreationDate="2016-08-30T20:49:32.837" UserId="40" Text="Wiktionary seems to be wrong. De Vaan derives *clīvus* and *gnāvus* from forms with the PIE suffix *-wo-, which is not the same as the pf. ppl. suffix *-wos-; he derives *alvus* by metathesis from an earlier *aulos*. Weiss lists the first two along with many others under nouns formed with the suffix -uo-. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The PIE perfect participle was athematic and had *-wōs in the masc. nom. sg. It's hard to see how such a form would end up in the Latin second declension; you'd expect a paradigm ending in -ōs, -uris, or perhaps by analogy looking like *flōs, flōris* or *honor, honōris*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1447" RevisionGUID="5e765fb0-f820-4148-93a9-3f0ea7c74c94" CreationDate="2016-08-31T02:17:00.450" UserId="68" Text="In an excerpt from Livy XXI, *Lingua Latina per se illustrata* has this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; . . . Haud ferme plures Saguntini cadebant quam Pœni. Ut vero Hannibal ipse, dum murum incautius subit, tragula graviter ictus cecidit. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is the *ut* at the beginning of the second sentence to be understood? The English version I found doesn't translate it at all. It seemed to me that some of the gajillion meanings in Lewis &amp; Short given for *ut* + indicative could be shoved in somehow, but they all seemed a stretch to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5706" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1447" RevisionGUID="5e765fb0-f820-4148-93a9-3f0ea7c74c94" CreationDate="2016-08-31T02:17:00.450" UserId="68" Text="&quot;Ut&quot; in Livy XXI via LLpsi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5707" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1447" RevisionGUID="5e765fb0-f820-4148-93a9-3f0ea7c74c94" CreationDate="2016-08-31T02:17:00.450" UserId="68" Text="|translation|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1448" RevisionGUID="4115637f-2490-4bca-8575-7bea5722a15b" CreationDate="2016-08-31T03:38:55.873" UserId="30" Text="That full stop after *cecidit* is misleading and possibly an error; this is just ordinary *ut* + perfect &quot;when&quot;, introducing a subordinate clause. Many editions have a semicolon, which makes it work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...quibus tumultuariis certaminibus haud ferme plures Saguntini cadebant quam Poeni. **Ut uero Hannibal ipse, dum murum incautius subit, aduersum femur tragula grauiter ictus cecidit; tanta circa fuga ac trepidatio fuit ut** non multum abesset quin opera ac uineae desererentur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;But, when Hannibal himself, while recklessly going up the wall, was hit gravely in the thigh by a tragula and fell; there was such flight and terror all around that...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A semicolon can be used to mark a subordinate clause in a long sentence, especially in older print. And the Romans didn't use punctuation as we do at any rate, so we should not pay it too much heed. The Hewlett-Packard edition uses a comma there, for example.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1448" RevisionGUID="a03ab8ad-0003-4b3a-b9a4-32532d924c3d" CreationDate="2016-08-31T03:45:55.223" UserId="30" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="That full stop after *cecidit* is misleading and possibly an error; this is just ordinary *ut* + perfect &quot;when&quot;, introducing a subordinate clause. Many editions have a semicolon, which makes it work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...quibus tumultuariis certaminibus haud ferme plures Saguntini cadebant quam Poeni. **Ut uero Hannibal ipse, dum murum incautius subit, aduersum femur tragula grauiter ictus cecidit; tanta circa fuga ac trepidatio fuit ut** non multum abesset quin opera ac uineae desererentur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...and in those tumultuous battles hardly more Saguntines fell than Phoenicians. But, when Hannibal himself, while recklessly going up the wall, was hit gravely in the thigh by a tragula and fell; there was such flight and terror all around that the siege works and mantlets were almost left behind.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A semicolon can be used to mark a subordinate clause in a long sentence, especially in older print. And the Romans didn't use punctuation as we do at any rate, so we should not pay it too much heed. The Hewlett-Packard edition uses a comma there, for example.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1448" RevisionGUID="af93a9f0-6bf0-4498-a43f-9c465522a19e" CreationDate="2016-08-31T03:52:22.040" UserId="30" Comment="edited body" Text="That full stop after *cecidit* is misleading and possibly an error; this is just ordinary *ut* + perfect &quot;when&quot;, introducing a subordinate clause. Many editions have a semicolon, which makes it work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...quibus tumultuariis certaminibus haud ferme plures Saguntini cadebant quam Poeni. **Ut uero Hannibal ipse, dum murum incautius subit, aduersum femur tragula grauiter ictus cecidit; tanta circa fuga ac trepidatio fuit ut** non multum abesset quin opera ac uineae desererentur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hannibal is besieging Saguntum: &quot;...and in those tumultuous battles about as many Saguntines fell as Phoenicians. But, when Hannibal himself, as he went recklessly up (to) the wall, was hit gravely in the thigh by a tragula and fell; there was such flight and terror all around that the siege works and mantlets were almost left behind.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A semicolon can be used to mark a subordinate clause in a long sentence, especially in older print. And the Romans didn't use punctuation as we do at any rate, so we should not pay it too much heed. The Hewlett-Packard edition uses a comma there, for example.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1449" RevisionGUID="4361a826-596c-435e-af5c-d9069723885c" CreationDate="2016-08-31T04:28:00.963" UserId="172" Text="In Cicero [*In Verrem*, II, iv, 4][1],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unum Cupidinis marmoreum Praxiteli; nimirum didici etiam, dum in istum inquiro, artificum nomina. idem, opinor, artifex eiusdem modi Cupidinem fecit illum qui est Thespiis...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Had to learn even the names of these artisans,” “I believe, the same chap who carved the Thespian Cupid.” Forsooth, *nimirum didici Praxiteli et. al. nomina*.  Aw, c'mon, Marc!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously, why does Greek-educated Cicero pretends to have learned of Praxiteles' name only during his inquest? It couldn't possibly be a true statement! He admires the beauty of the art in the house of C. Heius, and at the same sneers at the artists (but then, still mentions Praxiteles by name).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I am seriously missing certain subtleties of this (extended) passage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=urn:cts:latinLit:phi0474.phi005.perseus-lat1:2.4.4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5712" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1449" RevisionGUID="4361a826-596c-435e-af5c-d9069723885c" CreationDate="2016-08-31T04:28:00.963" UserId="172" Text="Why does Cicero in his In Verrem pretend he has not heard of Praxiteles before?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5713" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1449" RevisionGUID="4361a826-596c-435e-af5c-d9069723885c" CreationDate="2016-08-31T04:28:00.963" UserId="172" Text="|cicero|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5714" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1449" RevisionGUID="2d079c69-936c-4266-985d-1493bb418d9f" CreationDate="2016-08-31T04:33:22.457" UserId="172" Comment="“rhetoric” tag" Text="|cicero|rhetoric|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1449" RevisionGUID="2d079c69-936c-4266-985d-1493bb418d9f" CreationDate="2016-08-31T04:33:22.457" UserId="172" Comment="“rhetoric” tag" Text="In Cicero [*In Verrem*, II, iv, 4][1],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unum Cupidinis marmoreum Praxiteli; nimirum didici etiam, dum in istum inquiro, artificum nomina. idem, opinor, artifex eiusdem modi Cupidinem fecit illum qui est Thespiis...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Had to learn even the names of these artisans,” “I believe, the same chap who carved the Thespian Cupid.” Forsooth, *nimirum didici Praxiteli et al. nomina*.  Aw, c'mon, Marc!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously, why does Greek-educated Cicero pretends to have learned of Praxiteles' name only during his inquest? It couldn't possibly be a true statement! He admires the beauty of the art in the house of C. Heius, and at the same sneers at the artists (but then, still mentions Praxiteles by name).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I am seriously missing certain subtleties of this (extended) passage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=urn:cts:latinLit:phi0474.phi005.perseus-lat1:2.4.4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1447" RevisionGUID="e70068fd-84a2-484d-b017-e70f8bea65f3" CreationDate="2016-08-31T13:44:32.607" UserId="68" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="In an excerpt from Livy XXI, *Lingua Latina per se illustrata* has this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; . . . Haud ferme plures Saguntini cadebant quam Pœni. Ut vero Hannibal ipse, dum murum incautius subit, tragula graviter ictus cecidit, tanta circa fuga ac trepidatio fuit ut non multum abesset quin opera ac vineæ desererentur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is the *ut* at the beginning of the second sentence to be understood? The English version I found doesn't translate it at all. It seemed to me that some of the gajillion meanings in Lewis &amp; Short given for *ut* + indicative could be shoved in somehow, but they all seemed a stretch to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1450" RevisionGUID="b66a3d9a-c2c0-4d8d-9dbe-49adaff42d8f" CreationDate="2016-08-31T14:49:21.657" UserId="45" Text="I think the meaning of the passage is a shade different from your translation. At this point, he is speaking of the *sacrarium* (private shrine) of Heius, in which four beautiful statues are located.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my reading, Cicero is not claiming that he learned the names of the *artisans themselves* for the first time while researching his case: he is claiming that he learned which artists made the four statues in Heius's *sacrarium*. Consider an analogous statement in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He has four books in his room, including *Crime and Punishment* by Dostoevsky. See, I even learned the names of the books in his room!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The fact that &quot;books&quot; (like Cicero's *artificum*) is in the plural implies that he is not only talking about the artist he just mentioned. &#xD;&#xA;- The fact that he is willing to attribute another statue to the same artist implies that he already knew this particular artist's name. (If he had researched it afterwards, he wouldn't say *opinor*.)&#xD;&#xA;- Your reading is certainly permitted, but even so, consider that certain oratorical techniques often border on disingenuousness: Cicero may be assuming the ignorance of his supposed audience, or saying *opinor* just because this is tangential to his actual point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, he could be &quot;lying,&quot; but in my opinion it is more likely that he is just asking his audience to admire his thoroughness, even going so far as to track down the the names of the artists who sculpted the four statues in this chapel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1448" RevisionGUID="bdaee7b5-3abc-4e6e-9a9e-ad1c66f92494" CreationDate="2016-08-31T16:47:16.317" UserId="30" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="After the latest change, the question has become less urgent, but I'll leave this answer up anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just ordinary *ut* + perfect &quot;when&quot;, introducing a subordinate clause. Some editions have a semicolon:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...quibus tumultuariis certaminibus haud ferme plures Saguntini cadebant quam Poeni. **Ut uero Hannibal ipse, dum murum incautius subit, aduersum femur tragula grauiter ictus cecidit; tanta circa fuga ac trepidatio fuit ut** non multum abesset quin opera ac uineae desererentur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hannibal is besieging Saguntum: &quot;...and in those tumultuous battles about as many Saguntines fell as Phoenicians. But, when Hannibal himself, as he went recklessly up (to) the wall, was hit gravely in the thigh by a tragula and fell; there was such flight and terror all around that the siege works and mantlets were almost left behind.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A semicolon can be used to mark a subordinate clause in a long sentence, especially in older print. And the Romans didn't use punctuation as we do at any rate, so we should not pay it too much heed. The Hewlett-Packard edition uses a comma there, as does your excerpt.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1451" RevisionGUID="d54ce7cd-7e78-4b81-882b-64c156112122" CreationDate="2016-08-31T18:14:25.707" UserDisplayName="user786" Text="We know very little, and only about lexicon, thanks to grammarians and erudite writers (Varro). Also inscriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* bua = potio&#xD;&#xA;* pappa = cibum&#xD;&#xA;* papa = pater, papilla&#xD;&#xA;* mamma, mama = mater&#xD;&#xA;* tata = pater&#xD;&#xA;* momma = mater, avia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should not trust the translations too much, because info is really scarce and often contradictory (partly because of the huge time span).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Source: Thesaurus linguae latinae. I recall reading about a german (?) article about voces infantium in latin, but I need to find the title)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1451" RevisionGUID="b6e7f71c-a1ee-46f2-ab08-ed8ab3da82ed" CreationDate="2016-08-31T18:29:49.130" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="added 217 characters in body" Text="We know very little, and only about lexicon, thanks to grammarians and erudite writers (Varro). Also inscriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* bua = potio&#xD;&#xA;* pappa = cibum&#xD;&#xA;* papa = pater, papilla&#xD;&#xA;* mamma, mama = mater&#xD;&#xA;* tata = pater&#xD;&#xA;* momma = mater, avia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should not trust the translations too much, because info is really scarce and often contradictory (partly because of the huge time span).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Source: Thesaurus linguae latinae)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is this old article about baby talk in latin. It's on [archive.org](https://ia800301.us.archive.org/7/items/archivfrlateini04wissgoog/archivfrlateini04wissgoog.pdf):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HERAEUS WILHELM (1904): Die Sprache der romischen Kinderstube. Archiv fur lateinische Lexikographie 13: 149-172. Repr. in Kleine Schriften von Wilhelm Heraeus. J. B. Hoffmann, ed. Heidelberg, Carl Winter's 1937, pp. 158-180." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1451" RevisionGUID="c5514967-a2be-4a3f-9f3b-db19d76100be" CreationDate="2016-08-31T18:35:40.920" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="We know very little, and only about lexicon, thanks to grammarians and erudite writers (Varro). Also inscriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* bua = potio&#xD;&#xA;* pappa = cibum&#xD;&#xA;* papa, appa = pater, papilla&#xD;&#xA;* mamma, mama, amma = mater&#xD;&#xA;* tata, atta = pater&#xD;&#xA;* momma = mater, avia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should not trust the translations too much, because info is really scarce and often contradictory (partly because of the huge time span).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Source: Thesaurus linguae latinae)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is this old article about baby talk in latin. It's on [archive.org](https://ia800301.us.archive.org/7/items/archivfrlateini04wissgoog/archivfrlateini04wissgoog.pdf):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HERAEUS WILHELM (1904): Die Sprache der romischen Kinderstube. Archiv fur lateinische Lexikographie 13: 149-172. Repr. in Kleine Schriften von Wilhelm Heraeus. J. B. Hoffmann, ed. Heidelberg, Carl Winter's 1937, pp. 158-180." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1451" RevisionGUID="386a0627-607d-4ce8-96cd-f5e5df46f24f" CreationDate="2016-08-31T20:07:20.017" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="We know very little, and only about lexicon, thanks to grammarians and erudite writers (Varro). Also inscriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* bua = potio&#xD;&#xA;* pappa = cibum&#xD;&#xA;* papa, appa = pater, papilla&#xD;&#xA;* mamma, mama, amma = mater&#xD;&#xA;* tata, atta = pater&#xD;&#xA;* momma = mater, avia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should not trust the translations too much, because info is really scarce and often contradictory (partly because of the huge time span).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Source: Thesaurus linguae latinae)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also this old article about baby talk in latin. It's on [archive.org](https://ia800301.us.archive.org/7/items/archivfrlateini04wissgoog/archivfrlateini04wissgoog.pdf):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HERAEUS WILHELM (1904): Die Sprache der romischen Kinderstube. Archiv fur lateinische Lexikographie 13: 149-172. Repr. in Kleine Schriften von Wilhelm Heraeus. J. B. Hoffmann, ed. Heidelberg, Carl Winter's 1937, pp. 158-180.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't read it yet, though, as I'm not that proficient in German. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1453" RevisionGUID="71698eaa-a637-4b99-bac7-8af7504b2499" CreationDate="2016-09-01T02:12:55.130" UserId="788" Text="In scansion, a vowel is long by position if there are more than two consonants between it and the next vowel.  Can a vowel be long by position if it ends a line and there is no next vowel?  e.g. is the &quot;E&quot; in &quot;REX&quot; long if it is the last syllable in a line?  I particularly concerned with the case for dactylic hexameter if it makes a difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5728" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1453" RevisionGUID="71698eaa-a637-4b99-bac7-8af7504b2499" CreationDate="2016-09-01T02:12:55.130" UserId="788" Text="Does an &quot;X&quot; at the end of a line make that syllable long?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5729" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1453" RevisionGUID="71698eaa-a637-4b99-bac7-8af7504b2499" CreationDate="2016-09-01T02:12:55.130" UserId="788" Text="|poetry|scansion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1453" RevisionGUID="3d467665-04dc-430f-a703-1e70da3b2e82" CreationDate="2016-09-01T03:04:28.580" UserId="30" Comment="confusion with the anceps sign x" Text="In scansion, a vowel is long by position if there are more than two consonants between it and the next vowel.  Can a vowel be long by position if it ends a line and there is no next vowel?  E.g. is the &quot;E&quot; in &quot;REX&quot; long if it is the last syllable in a line?  I am particularly concerned with the case for dactylic hexameter if it makes a difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5731" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1453" RevisionGUID="3d467665-04dc-430f-a703-1e70da3b2e82" CreationDate="2016-09-01T03:04:28.580" UserId="30" Comment="confusion with the anceps sign x" Text="Does the letter &quot;X&quot; at the end of a line make that syllable long?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1454" RevisionGUID="b9a670f2-3dc6-4ad3-b50f-ef1e19a413e7" CreationDate="2016-09-01T03:14:29.883" UserId="40" Text="*In scansion, a vowel is long by position if there are more than two consonants between it and the next vowel.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the usual way of putting it, but it's inacccurate/misleading in a couple of ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, it's not really the *vowel* that is long by position; it's the *syllable* that is long, or in a different terminology, &quot;heavy&quot;. (Linguists these days speak of &quot;light&quot; and &quot;heavy&quot; syllables, to avoid possible confusion with &quot;long&quot; and &quot;short&quot; vowels.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second and relatedly, the reason that a vowel followed by two or more consonants is &quot;long by position&quot; is really that in such a case, the syllable ends with a consonant, and is therefore heavy: e.g. a word like *centum* gets syllabified *cen-tum*, and any syllable that ends with a consonant (like *cen*) is heavy, i.e. can fill a &quot;long&quot; verse position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What this all leads to is that it doesn't matter whether the word is at the end of a line or not: a word like *rex* will always form a heavy syllable, so will always count as metrically long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(That said, since you're asking about dactylic hexameter: in that meter, *any* syllable, light or heavy, can stand at the end of a line, so in that context, everything I said above actually doesn't matter. Even a syllable with a short vowel and no final consonant can stand at the end of a hexameter line.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1453" RevisionGUID="c3a6a745-a7f1-4437-8f8c-ea543fc2f9f3" CreationDate="2016-09-01T03:40:34.777" UserId="788" Comment="Changed more than two to two or more" Text="In scansion, a vowel is long by position if there are two or more consonants between it and the next vowel.  Can a vowel be long by position if it ends a line and there is no next vowel?  E.g. is the &quot;E&quot; in &quot;REX&quot; long if it is the last syllable in a line?  I am particularly concerned with the case for dactylic hexameter if it makes a difference for the answer to the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1449" RevisionGUID="2116a275-dbcb-477a-92a4-c6675ce66cdf" CreationDate="2016-09-01T04:13:49.250" UserId="172" Comment="ypo fix" Text="In Cicero [*In Verrem*, II, iv, 4][1],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unum Cupidinis marmoreum Praxiteli; nimirum didici etiam, dum in istum inquiro, artificum nomina. idem, opinor, artifex eiusdem modi Cupidinem fecit illum qui est Thespiis...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Had to learn even the names of these artisans,” “I believe, the same chap who carved the Thespian Cupid.” Forsooth, *nimirum didici Praxiteli et al. nomina*.  Aw, c'mon, Marc!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously, why does Greek-educated Cicero pretend to have learned of Praxiteles' name only during his inquest? It couldn't possibly be a true statement! He admires the beauty of the art in the house of C. Heius, and at the same sneers at the artists (but then, still mentions Praxiteles by name).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I am seriously missing certain subtleties of this (extended) passage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=urn:cts:latinLit:phi0474.phi005.perseus-lat1:2.4.4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1455" RevisionGUID="332bdd1a-ce80-42aa-abcd-98b71f2a7489" CreationDate="2016-09-01T04:23:26.950" UserId="39" Text="This is what I’ve been able to find – thanks to [Oliver 1966][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oliver 1966 (in footnote 42) mentions two documents important to us:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A **fifth-century** fragment from a Virgil (text number 11 in&#xD;&#xA;   Cavenaile *Corpus papyrorum Latinarum*);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a leaf from a parchment codex of Juvenal (**sixth century AD**) – it&#xD;&#xA;   is text number 37 in Cavenaile *Corpus papyrorum Latinarum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from the screenshots below, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**both apices and macra are used for long vowels.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven’t counted those but at first glance apices are conspicuously much more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/292702&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uyPaF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JBGKu.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/k39M9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8Wjgj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1455" RevisionGUID="466d312e-5d7f-4925-8330-b7bf17a774ff" CreationDate="2016-09-01T04:31:22.767" UserId="39" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="This is what I’ve been able to find – thanks to [Oliver 1966][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oliver 1966 (in footnote 42) mentions two documents important to us, both of them most likely were schoolbook texts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A **fifth-century** fragment from a Virgil (text number 11 in&#xD;&#xA;   Cavenaile *Corpus papyrorum Latinarum*);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a leaf from a parchment codex of Juvenal (**sixth century AD**) – it&#xD;&#xA;   is text number 37 in Cavenaile *Corpus papyrorum Latinarum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from the screenshots above, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**both apices and macra are used for long vowels.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven’t counted those but at first glance apices are conspicuously much more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/292702&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uyPaF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JBGKu.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/k39M9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8Wjgj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1455" RevisionGUID="50761e9b-8d3b-4687-9c47-ded5147cc83a" CreationDate="2016-09-01T04:57:39.487" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="This is what I’ve been able to find – thanks to [Oliver 1966][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oliver 1966 (in footnote 42) mentions two documents important to us, both of them most likely were schoolbook texts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A **fifth-century** fragment from Virgil (text number 11 in&#xD;&#xA;   Cavenaile *Corpus papyrorum Latinarum*);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a leaf from a parchment codex of Juvenal (**sixth century AD**) – it&#xD;&#xA;   is text number 37 in Cavenaile *Corpus papyrorum Latinarum*; also known as the Antinoë fragment of Juvenal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from the screenshots above, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**both apices and macra are used for long vowels.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven’t counted those but at first glance apices are conspicuously much more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Roberts 1935][6] writes that “marks of quantity are used haphazardly and by no means correctly throughout the text” (pp. 201-202). He also argues that such accentuation symbols were “not unknown” but “by no means uncommon” in Latin manuscripts from Egypt. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/292702&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uyPaF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JBGKu.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/k39M9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8Wjgj.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3854712" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1455" RevisionGUID="2e899e12-3a1c-4962-8ac9-e03f53c2978c" CreationDate="2016-09-01T05:06:46.430" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 52 characters in body" Text="This is what I’ve been able to find – thanks to [Oliver 1966][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oliver 1966 (in footnote 42) mentions two documents important to us, both of them most likely were schoolbook texts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A **fifth-century** fragment from Virgil (text number 11 in&#xD;&#xA;   Cavenaile *Corpus papyrorum Latinarum*);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a leaf from a parchment codex of Juvenal (**sixth century AD**) – it&#xD;&#xA;   is text number 37 in Cavenaile *Corpus papyrorum Latinarum*; also known as the Antinoë fragment of Juvenal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from the screenshots above, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**both macra and breves are used for vowel length (long and short vowels respectively).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Roberts 1935][6] writes that “marks of quantity are used haphazardly and by no means correctly throughout the text” (pp. 201-202). He also argues that such accentuation symbols were “not unknown” but “by no means uncommon” in Latin manuscripts from Egypt. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/292702&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uyPaF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JBGKu.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/k39M9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8Wjgj.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3854712" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1436" RevisionGUID="b0ba81e1-2660-4cca-87cc-f6b9f35cad21" CreationDate="2016-09-01T06:31:32.533" UserId="522" Comment="edited body" Text="**.1.** If  'with' is translated by a participle instead of instrumental ablative,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Incŭte agnum florem tenens** (You with the flower hit the lamb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'tenens'  in the vocative to agree with the subject, &quot;Incŭte agnum, o mi amice florem tenens.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Incŭte agnem florem tenentem** (Hit the lamb-with-the-flower)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'tenentem' agreeing with agnum,' accusative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**.2.** with a compound adjective:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Florigere incŭte agnum,** You, flower-carrier, hit the lamb.    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Florigerum incŭte agnum.** Hit the flower-carrying lamb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1456" RevisionGUID="fbb1aa61-1a04-4cca-a5a7-8be488c3ce88" CreationDate="2016-09-01T07:37:27.020" UserDisplayName="user786" Text="In Latin (and Romance languages) grammatical gender usually corresponds to real gender only with animals which are very near to human life, that is animals we *need* to distinguish by gender. Obviously this applies to humans too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have *parens*, but also *mater* and *pater*. But we have only *exsul*, probably because back then most of the time political exile was inflicted to males.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for other animals, we don't usually care about the sex of an *hare* or a *fox*; the really few times we do, we can just say &quot;female fox&quot;: no need for a new word here; *ovis* is feminine, because sheep were of utmost importance for the Romans, so they *always* needed to distinguish between male and female. So *bos* is neutral, but *vacca* is used for the female and *taurus* for the male. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *canis*, they would call the female *canis femina*: this is probably because the sex of a dog was not of much importance at the beginning. In Martial, I 109 dogs appear to be a pet just as much as today, so the dog had its own **personal name**, *Issa*; but maybe it wasn't enough to grant female dogs their own name: we should note that both in Romance languages and English the female version of *dog* is not much used – I've heard it used only against women, or by dog breeders (actually nowadays *some* Italians will call a female dog *cagnolina* [not *cagna* because it's felt as an insult]: but I think that the need for *cagnolina* is recent) –. Maybe Roman breeders had a special word too, but it hasn't be recorded because there are no treatises on dog breeding extant...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there is no way to be sure about every single animal; you can make a good guess, but you should always check on your dictionary. For example it's not a given that a generic word *bos* must exist – it doesn't for sheep (maybe because there weren't &quot;standard&quot; situations when males and females needed to be named together)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1456" RevisionGUID="445acf4d-f798-4c33-b0ab-65665971e303" CreationDate="2016-09-01T07:47:22.027" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="In Latin (and Romance languages) grammatical gender usually corresponds to real gender only with animals which are very near to human life, that is animals we *need* to distinguish by gender. Obviously this applies to humans too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have *parens*, but also *mater* and *pater*. But we have only *exsul*, probably because back then most of the time political exile was inflicted to males.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for other animals, we don't usually care about the sex of an *hare* or a *fox*; the really few times we do, we can just say &quot;female fox&quot;: no need for a new word here; *ovis* is feminine, while *caper* and *hircus* are male, because sheep were of utmost importance for the Romans, so they often needed to distinguish between male and female. So *bos* is neutral, but *vacca* is used for the female and *taurus* for the male.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *canis*, they would call the female *canis femina*: this is probably because the sex of a dog was not of much importance at the beginning. In Martial, I 109 dogs appear to be a pet just as much as today, so the dog even had its own **personal name**, *Issa*; but maybe it wasn't enough to grant female dogs their own name: we should note that both in Romance languages and English the female version of *dog* is not much used – I've heard it used only against women, or by dog breeders (actually nowadays *some* Italians will call a female dog *cagnolina* [not *cagna* because it's felt as an insult]: but I think that the need for *cagnolina* is recent) –. Maybe Roman breeders had a special word too, but it hasn't be recorded because there are no treatises on dog breeding extant... Also there's the universal issue of bitch = whore that hinders the usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there is no way to be sure about every single animal; you can make a good guess, but you should always check on your dictionary. For example it's not a given that a generic word *bos* must exist – it doesn't for sheep (maybe because there weren't &quot;standard&quot; situations when males and females needed to be named together)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1456" RevisionGUID="6d89f3be-ab6b-4fbe-84c5-cdb91ec074f6" CreationDate="2016-09-01T07:58:05.120" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="added 244 characters in body" Text="In Latin (and Romance languages) grammatical gender usually corresponds to real gender only with animals which are very near to human life, that is animals we *need* to distinguish by gender. Obviously this applies to humans too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have *parens*, but also *mater* and *pater*. But we have only *exsul*, probably because back then most of the time political exile was inflicted to males.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for other animals, we don't usually care about the sex of an *hare* or a *fox*; the really few times we do, we can just say &quot;female fox&quot;: no need for a new word here; *ovis* is feminine, while *caper* and *hircus* are male, because sheep were of utmost importance for the Romans, so they often needed to distinguish between male and female. So *bos* is neutral, but *vacca* is used for the female and *taurus* for the male.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *canis*, they would call the female *canis femina*: this is probably because the sex of a dog was not of much importance at the beginning. In Martial, I 109 (about the female dog Issa) dogs appear to be a pet just as much as today; but maybe it wasn't enough to grant female dogs their own name: we should note that both in Romance languages and English the female version of *dog* is not much used – I've heard it used only against women, or by dog breeders. Maybe Roman breeders had a special word too, but it hasn't be recorded because there are no treatises on dog breeding extant... Actually nowadays *some* Italians will call a female dog *cagnolina* (diminutive form of *cagna*: not *cagna* because it's felt as an insult): but I think that the need for *cagnolina* is recent, and only limited to some of the dog owners, those who consider their dog a full member of their family, which even eats at the table together with them, and so on; for most of the other people, the sex of the dog is not of *everyday* importance. Also there's the universal issue of bitch = whore that hinders the usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there is no way to be sure about every single animal; you can make a good guess, but you should always check on your dictionary. For example it's not a given that a generic word *bos* must exist – it doesn't for sheep (maybe because there weren't &quot;standard&quot; situations when males and females needed to be named together)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1456" RevisionGUID="f1990892-0020-4d9f-a498-1c2abf5e9840" CreationDate="2016-09-01T09:02:38.540" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="fix spelling" Text="In Latin (and Romance languages) grammatical gender usually corresponds to real gender only with animals which are very near to human life, that is animals we *need* to distinguish by gender. Obviously this applies to humans too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have *parens*, but also *mater* and *pater*. But we have only *exsul*, probably because back then most of the time political exile was inflicted to males.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for other animals, we don't usually care about the sex of a *hare* or a *fox*; the really few times we do, we can just say &quot;female fox&quot;: no need for a new word here; *ovis* is feminine, while *caper* and *hircus* are male, because sheep were of utmost importance for the Romans, so they often needed to distinguish between male and female. So *bos* is neutral, but *vacca* is used for the female and *taurus* for the male.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *canis*, they would call the female *canis femina*: this is probably because the sex of a dog was not of much importance at the beginning. In Martial, I 109 (about the female dog Issa) dogs appear to be a pet just as much as today; but maybe it wasn't enough to grant female dogs their own name: we should note that both in Romance languages and English the female version of *dog* is not much used – I've heard it used only against women, or by dog breeders. Maybe Roman breeders had a special word too, but it hasn't be recorded because there are no treatises on dog breeding extant... Actually nowadays *some* Italians will call a female dog *cagnolina* (diminutive form of *cagna*: not *cagna* because it's felt as an insult): but I think that the need for *cagnolina* is recent, and only limited to some of the dog owners, those who consider their dog a full member of their family, which even eats at the table together with them, and so on; for most of the other people, the sex of the dog is not of *everyday* importance. Also there's the universal issue of bitch = whore that hinders the usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there is no way to be sure about every single animal; you can make a good guess, but you should always check on your dictionary. For example it's not a given that a generic word *bos* must exist – it doesn't for sheep (maybe because there weren't &quot;standard&quot; situations when males and females needed to be named together)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1456" RevisionGUID="6da47971-3f4d-4138-9730-ea84c49a9fb1" CreationDate="2016-09-01T09:51:52.313" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="more research about canis" Text="In Latin (and Romance languages) grammatical gender usually corresponds to real gender only with animals which are very near to human life, that is animals we *need* to distinguish by gender. Obviously this applies to humans too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have *parens*, but also *mater* and *pater*. But we have only *exsul*, probably because back then most of the time political exile was inflicted to males.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for other animals, we don't usually care about the sex of a *hare* or a *fox*; the really few times we do, we can just say &quot;female fox&quot;: no need for a new word here; *ovis* is feminine, while *caper* and *hircus* are male, because sheep were of utmost importance for the Romans, so they often needed to distinguish between male and female. So *bos* is neutral, but *vacca* is used for the female and *taurus* for the male.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *canis*, they would call the female *canis femina*: this is probably because the sex of a dog was of little importance at the beginning: maybe only to dog breeders, who maybe had a custom word that just happened to not survive. We have instead *catula* and *catulus*; this is probably because the diminutive form is also used to express attachment, not only real physical smallness: and if you are attached to a dog, you'll use its correct gender if you can (see italian *cagnolina*); while a female form of &quot;canis&quot; was difficult to create, the female form of &quot;catulus&quot; was immediately available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there is no way to be sure about every single animal; you can make a good guess, but you should always check on your dictionary. For example it's not a given that a generic word *bos* must exist – it doesn't for sheep (maybe because there weren't &quot;standard&quot; situations when males and females needed to be named together)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1457" RevisionGUID="2a0dc410-0b52-4e5e-bc4d-0536c5d21828" CreationDate="2016-09-01T10:32:49.070" UserDisplayName="user786" Text="There were plenty of discussions, and a record of some them has survived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About pronunciation and orthography: we have really a lot of specimens of this, for example from Cicero, Catullus, Quintilian, Varro. Also consider that emperor Claudius tried to reform the alphabet – this must have definitely spurred many discussions between erudite people and grammarians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About lexicon: at least indirectly, the Appendix Probi mentioned in comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About syntax: here too we have plenty; consider that there was even a major split among grammarians between analogists and anomalists. Quintilian (1.5.14) talks about the &quot;*pexus pinguisque doctor*&quot; (!) who dared refuse the irregular but commonly used *adsentior* (the &quot;correct&quot; form would be *adsentio*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the first occurrence, you'll find them as early as the IV century BCE in Greece – for example the controversy between analogists and anomalists began in Greece and was later adapted to the Latin language.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1458" RevisionGUID="bbd04d69-7cf9-4e6d-bfdf-01fbbc372b55" CreationDate="2016-09-01T11:45:10.560" UserId="198" Text="The Latin preposition *de* takes an ablative object and has several different translations including 'about', 'of', 'down from' and 'from'. The preposition *a*/*ab* also has multiple meanings including 'after', 'by' and 'from'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both words can mean 'from'. When the meaning of the word is 'from', is there a difference in usage or meaning and is it preferable to use one over the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5747" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1458" RevisionGUID="bbd04d69-7cf9-4e6d-bfdf-01fbbc372b55" CreationDate="2016-09-01T11:45:10.560" UserId="198" Text="Is there a difference between 'a' and 'de' when the meaning is 'from'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5748" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1458" RevisionGUID="bbd04d69-7cf9-4e6d-bfdf-01fbbc372b55" CreationDate="2016-09-01T11:45:10.560" UserId="198" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|preposition|differences|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1458" RevisionGUID="a2edd3d6-70d8-4b44-a74a-6bdcec6f5c5d" CreationDate="2016-09-01T11:48:56.023" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="The Latin preposition *de* takes an ablative object and has several different translations including 'about', 'of', 'down from' and 'from'. The preposition *a*/*ab* also has multiple meanings including 'after', 'by' and 'from'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both words can mean 'from'. When the meaning of the word is 'from', is there a difference in usage or meaning and is it preferable to use one over the other?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5750" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1458" RevisionGUID="a2edd3d6-70d8-4b44-a74a-6bdcec6f5c5d" CreationDate="2016-09-01T11:48:56.023" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|vocabulary|meaning|word-comparison|preposition|differences|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1457" RevisionGUID="bb7d590c-5ff0-4347-a624-e0150cdf371e" CreationDate="2016-09-01T12:12:42.307" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="added 950 characters in body" Text="There were plenty of discussions, and a record of some them has survived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Pronunciation and orthography&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have really a lot of specimens of this, for example from Cicero, Catullus, Quintilian, Varro. Also consider that emperor Claudius tried to reform the alphabet – this must have definitely spurred many discussions between erudite people and grammarians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Velius Longus (7.58 s. K.) says that &quot;there's controversy about whether equus must be written with one or two *u*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Augustin (Conf. 1.29) was irony about the fact that at his time it was more important to pronounce *homines* according to grammar rules [i.e. with h voiced] than to love them according to the law of God.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Catullus (c. 84):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Chommoda dicebat, si quando commoda vellet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dicere, et insidias Arrius hinsidias.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et tum mirifice sperabat se esse locutum,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum quantum poterat dixerat hinsidias.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Lexicon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least indirectly, the Appendix Probi mentioned in comments. Also the fragmentary *Dubius sermo* of Pliny the Elder (which according to naturalis historia 1.228 was badly criticized by grammarians); this was not only about lexicon but also other aspects of language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Syntax&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here too we have plenty; consider that there was even a major split among grammarians between analogists and anomalists. Quintilian (1.5.14) talks about the &quot;*pexus pinguisque doctor*&quot; (!) who dared refuse the irregular but commonly used *adsentior* (the &quot;correct&quot; form would be *adsentio*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero tells us that analogists wanted to abolish the genitive in -um for all 2nd declension nouns, while he and the other anomalists wished to preserve it in frequently used genitives like nummum, sestertium, triumvirum, deum. Similar positions about &quot;-asse&quot; for &quot;-avisse&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Datation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the first occurrence, you'll find them as early as the IV century BCE in Greece – for example the controversy between analogists and anomalists began in Greece and was later adapted to the Latin language.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1457" RevisionGUID="8fc3d877-bd15-4ef6-bbb3-0d5a9635d6ab" CreationDate="2016-09-01T12:16:22.283" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="There were plenty of discussions, and a record of some them has survived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Pronunciation and orthography&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have really a lot of specimens of this, for example from Cicero, Catullus, Quintilian, Varro. Also consider that emperor Claudius tried to reform the alphabet – this must have definitely spurred many discussions between erudite people and grammarians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Velius Longus (7.58 s. K.) says that &quot;there's controversy about whether equus must be written with one or two *u*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Augustin (Conf. 1.29) was ironic about the fact that at his time it was more important to pronounce *homines* according to grammar rules [i.e. with h voiced] than to love them according to the law of God.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Catullus (c. 84):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Chommoda dicebat, si quando commoda vellet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dicere, et insidias Arrius hinsidias.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et tum mirifice sperabat se esse locutum,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum quantum poterat dixerat hinsidias.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Lexicon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least indirectly, the Appendix Probi mentioned in comments. Also the fragmentary *Dubius sermo* of Pliny the Elder (which according to naturalis historia 1.228 was badly criticized by grammarians); this was not only about lexicon but also other aspects of language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Syntax&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here too we have plenty; consider that there was even a major split among grammarians between analogists and anomalists. Quintilian (1.5.14) talks about the &quot;*pexus pinguisque doctor*&quot; (!) who dared refuse the irregular but commonly used *adsentior* (the &quot;correct&quot; form would be *adsentio*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero tells us that analogists wanted to abolish the genitive in -um for all 2nd declension nouns, while he and the other anomalists wished to preserve it in frequently used genitives like nummum, sestertium, triumvirum, deum. Similar positions about &quot;-asse&quot; for &quot;-avisse&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Datation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the first occurrence, you'll find them as early as the IV century BCE in Greece – for example the controversy between analogists and anomalists began in Greece and was later adapted to the Latin language.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1456" RevisionGUID="01e041ba-8097-44bf-a55e-a4357a98cf39" CreationDate="2016-09-01T18:05:14.803" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="In Latin (and Romance languages) grammatical gender usually corresponds to real gender only with animals which are very near to human life, that is animals we *need* to distinguish by gender. Obviously this applies to humans too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have *parens*, but also *mater* and *pater*. But we have only *exsul*, probably because back then most of the time political exile was inflicted to males.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for other animals, we don't usually care about the sex of a *hare* or a *fox*; the really few times we do, we can just say &quot;female fox&quot;: no need for a new word here; *ovis* is feminine, while *aries* and *vervex* are male, because sheep were of utmost importance for the Romans, so they often needed to distinguish between male and female. So *bos* is neutral, but *vacca* is used for the female and *taurus* for the male. There is also *hircus* and *caper* vs *capra* and *capella* for male vs female goats (thanks @TKR).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *canis*, they would call the female *canis femina*: this is probably because the sex of a dog was of little importance at the beginning: maybe only to dog breeders, who maybe had a custom word that just happened to not survive. We have instead *catula* and *catulus*; this is probably because the diminutive form is also used to express attachment, not only real physical smallness: and if you are attached to a dog, you'll use its correct gender if you can (see italian *cagnolina*); while a female form of &quot;canis&quot; was difficult to create, the female form of &quot;catulus&quot; was immediately available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there is no way to be sure about every single animal; you can make a good guess, but you should always check on your dictionary. For example it's not a given that a generic word *bos* must exist – it doesn't for sheep (maybe because there weren't &quot;standard&quot; situations when males and females needed to be named together)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1421" RevisionGUID="e25e100d-4f29-49eb-bbcd-8003b34b8148" CreationDate="2016-09-01T21:34:01.530" UserId="712" Comment="made title a question and added translation tag" Text="They are the words to the hauntingly beautiful [title song in Roger&#xD;&#xA;Eno's &quot;Lost in Translation&quot; CD ca. 1995](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMNjD8fxHGo):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Discontentus Sentimentum &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Listigatus Exocentum&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either maybe it's a joke (and the words are only pseudo-latin, I couldn't find any in an on-line dictionary) or maybe it's something like &quot;I have&#xD;&#xA;hundreds of complaints&quot; (that's my guess)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5755" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1421" RevisionGUID="e25e100d-4f29-49eb-bbcd-8003b34b8148" CreationDate="2016-09-01T21:34:01.530" UserId="712" Comment="made title a question and added translation tag" Text="How do you translate the Pseudo-Latin Discontentus Sentimentum Listigatus Exocentum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5756" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1421" RevisionGUID="e25e100d-4f29-49eb-bbcd-8003b34b8148" CreationDate="2016-09-01T21:34:01.530" UserId="712" Comment="made title a question and added translation tag" Text="|translation|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5757" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1421" RevisionGUID="e25e100d-4f29-49eb-bbcd-8003b34b8148" CreationDate="2016-09-01T21:34:01.530" Comment="Proposed by 712 approved by 12 edit id of 122" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5758" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="1421" RevisionGUID="6df09133-7614-490a-a972-57ede834e988" CreationDate="2016-09-02T02:02:50.140" UserId="776" Comment="Rollback to [2b8ff071-fc03-4ed3-bde4-e9d718250a77]" Text="They are the words to the hauntingly beautiful [title song in Roger&#xD;&#xA;Eno's &quot;Lost in Translation&quot; CD ca. 1995](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMNjD8fxHGo):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Discontentus Sentimentum &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Listigatus Exocentum&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either maybe it's a joke (and the words are only pseudo-latin, I couldn't&#xD;&#xA;find any in an on-line dictionary) or maybe it's something like &quot;I have&#xD;&#xA;hundreds of complaints&quot; (that's my guess).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;grati&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;r b-j&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5759" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="1421" RevisionGUID="6df09133-7614-490a-a972-57ede834e988" CreationDate="2016-09-02T02:02:50.140" UserId="776" Comment="Rollback to [2b8ff071-fc03-4ed3-bde4-e9d718250a77]" Text="Could someone translate this short phrase for me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5760" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="1421" RevisionGUID="6df09133-7614-490a-a972-57ede834e988" CreationDate="2016-09-02T02:02:50.140" UserId="776" Comment="Rollback to [2b8ff071-fc03-4ed3-bde4-e9d718250a77]" Text="|meaning|" />
  <row Id="5761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1451" RevisionGUID="dce8b8cf-2dc1-4cba-aec8-0ef3245278b0" CreationDate="2016-09-02T08:39:26.557" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="We know very little, and only about lexicon, thanks to grammarians and erudite writers (Varro). Also inscriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* bua = potio&#xD;&#xA;* pappa = cibum&#xD;&#xA;* papa, appa = pater, papilla&#xD;&#xA;* mamma, mama, amma = mater&#xD;&#xA;* tata, atta = pater&#xD;&#xA;* momma = mater, avia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should not trust the translations too much, because info is really scarce and often contradictory (partly because of the huge time span).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Source: Thesaurus linguae latinae)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also this old German article about baby talk in latin, [Die Sprache der romischen Kinderstube](https://ia800301.us.archive.org/7/items/archivfrlateini04wissgoog/archivfrlateini04wissgoog.pdf) by Wilhelm Heraeus (1904) (pp. 167-190 of the scanned pdf).&#xD;&#xA;I haven't read it yet, though, as I'm not that proficient in German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: New words from the aforementioned article, thanks @brianpck who read it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* abbo = basio&#xD;&#xA;* ninna = cuna&#xD;&#xA;* totto = noli facere&#xD;&#xA;* siare = miare&#xD;&#xA;* cacare = defecare" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1451" RevisionGUID="0e974a08-a76c-4737-9a86-470f1c98853b" CreationDate="2016-09-02T08:45:32.177" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="reformatting" Text="We know very little, and only about lexicon, thanks to grammarians and erudite writers (Varro). Also inscriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list built from the Thesaurus linguae latinae and an old German article about baby talk in latin, [Die Sprache der romischen Kinderstube](https://ia800301.us.archive.org/7/items/archivfrlateini04wissgoog/archivfrlateini04wissgoog.pdf) by Wilhelm Heraeus (1904) (pp. 167-190 of the scanned pdf). Thanks @brianpck for looking up some of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* bua = potio&#xD;&#xA;* pappa = cibum&#xD;&#xA;* papa, appa = pater, papilla&#xD;&#xA;* mamma, mama, amma = mater&#xD;&#xA;* tata, atta = pater&#xD;&#xA;* momma = mater, avia&#xD;&#xA;* pupus = parvulus&#xD;&#xA;* pupa = parvula, mammilla, *doll*&#xD;&#xA;* abbo = basio&#xD;&#xA;* ninna = cuna&#xD;&#xA;* totto = noli facere&#xD;&#xA;* siare = miare&#xD;&#xA;* cacare = defecare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should not trust the translations too much, because info is really scarce and often contradictory (partly because of the huge time and space span)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1451" RevisionGUID="616beac7-2a38-4ee3-bffb-8f22fa6e7b99" CreationDate="2016-09-02T08:55:28.467" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="reformatting" Text="We know very little, and only about lexicon, thanks to grammarians and erudite writers (Varro). Also inscriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list built from the Thesaurus linguae latinae and an old German article about baby talk in latin, [Die Sprache der romischen Kinderstube](https://ia800301.us.archive.org/7/items/archivfrlateini04wissgoog/archivfrlateini04wissgoog.pdf) by Wilhelm Heraeus (1904) (pp. 167-190 of the scanned pdf). Thanks @brianpck for looking up some of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* bua = potio&#xD;&#xA;* pappa = cibum&#xD;&#xA;* pappare = esse&#xD;&#xA;* papa, appa = pater, papilla&#xD;&#xA;* mamma, mama, amma = mater&#xD;&#xA;* tata, atta = pater&#xD;&#xA;* momma = mater, avia&#xD;&#xA;* pupus = parvulus&#xD;&#xA;* pupa = parvula, mammilla, *doll*&#xD;&#xA;* abbo = basio&#xD;&#xA;* ninna = cuna&#xD;&#xA;* totto = noli facere&#xD;&#xA;* siare = miare&#xD;&#xA;* cacare = assidere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should not trust the translations too much, because info is really scarce and often contradictory (partly because of the huge time and space span)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1451" RevisionGUID="aa73742f-c7db-4eb1-8986-b912177c0452" CreationDate="2016-09-02T09:03:28.470" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="new words" Text="We know very little, and only about lexicon, thanks to grammarians and erudite writers (Varro). Also inscriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list built from the Thesaurus linguae latinae and an old German article about baby talk in latin, [Die Sprache der romischen Kinderstube](https://ia800301.us.archive.org/7/items/archivfrlateini04wissgoog/archivfrlateini04wissgoog.pdf) by Wilhelm Heraeus (1904) (pp. 167-190 of the scanned pdf). Thanks @brianpck for looking up some of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* bua = potio&#xD;&#xA;* pappa = cibum&#xD;&#xA;* pappare = esse&#xD;&#xA;* papa, appa = pater, papilla&#xD;&#xA;* mamma, mama, amma = mater&#xD;&#xA;* tata, atta = pater&#xD;&#xA;* momma = mater, avia&#xD;&#xA;* pupus = parvulus&#xD;&#xA;* pupa = parvula, mammilla, *doll*&#xD;&#xA;* abbo = basio&#xD;&#xA;* ninna = cuna&#xD;&#xA;* totto! = noli facere!&#xD;&#xA;* siare = miare&#xD;&#xA;* cacare, cunire = stercus facere&#xD;&#xA;* inbulbitare (dub.) = puerili stercore inquinare&#xD;&#xA;* poteaculum = *potty*&#xD;&#xA;* lallare = *lullaby*&#xD;&#xA;* [nutrices] infantibus, ut dormiant, saepe dicere solent: &quot;lalla lalla lalla, aut dormi aut lacta&quot; (scholia ad Persius, 3.16)&#xD;&#xA;* pipiare = vagire&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should not trust the translations too much, because info is really scarce and often contradictory (partly because of the huge time and space span)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5765" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1421" RevisionGUID="8b92c949-cd78-4c7c-b8eb-92065120945e" CreationDate="2016-09-02T12:01:41.710" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="What does this phrase from Roger Eno's &quot;Lost in Translation&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5766" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1421" RevisionGUID="8b92c949-cd78-4c7c-b8eb-92065120945e" CreationDate="2016-09-02T12:01:41.710" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|translation|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1459" RevisionGUID="4b439922-fa85-4e3f-879c-945f3cb03389" CreationDate="2016-09-02T12:35:34.907" UserId="793" Text="I know this: Si tu vales bene est, ego valeo. Usually written with 1 letter: SVBEEV or STVBEEV. Which means: If you are healthy (well) is good, I am healthy (fine) and is equivalent to Hello." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1460" RevisionGUID="7a388af9-4909-4f71-8733-d00b2ea087f8" CreationDate="2016-09-02T14:29:40.313" UserId="45" Text="Although there are numerous conventions that appear to be followed when borrowing words from Greek to English, an especially noticeable one is the change made to the endings of 2nd declension nouns, whereby -ον, -ος becomes -um, -us. Two examples that come immediately to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* angelus &lt; ἄγγελος &#xD;&#xA;* evangelium &lt; εὐαγγέλιον&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This convention also works the other way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Τιβέριος &lt; Tiberius&#xD;&#xA;* (Byzantine) βεστιάριον &lt; vestiarium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that in all other cases, the standard transcription of Latin &quot;u&quot; is the closer Greek &quot;ου&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Why is &quot;ο&quot; (omicron) used** in these cases instead?&#xD;&#xA;2. **Why does &quot;ν&quot; (nu) replace &quot;m&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;3. Bonus: **Why are some Greek works borrowed unchanged** (especially botanic and zoological names), like [*callitrichos*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=callitrichos&amp;la=la&amp;can=callitrichos0#lexicon) or [*aedon*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=aedon&amp;la=la&amp;can=aedon0&amp;prior=adynamon#lexicon)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5769" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1460" RevisionGUID="7a388af9-4909-4f71-8733-d00b2ea087f8" CreationDate="2016-09-02T14:29:40.313" UserId="45" Text="Why are Greek nouns in -ον, -ος transliterated in Latin as -um, -us?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5770" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1460" RevisionGUID="7a388af9-4909-4f71-8733-d00b2ea087f8" CreationDate="2016-09-02T14:29:40.313" UserId="45" Text="|greek|irregular-words|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1461" RevisionGUID="09d270d1-2153-4d03-87ad-128632276b0e" CreationDate="2016-09-02T14:54:50.053" UserDisplayName="user786" Text="You should consider that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Those words come to English through Latin, not directly from Greek; so you should not take the English borrowing system into account&#xD;&#xA;2. When Latin borrowed words, it didn't just &quot;transliterate&quot; them: it adapted them to its own morphological system; so the Greek suffixes were naturally swapped with Latin ones. It was very easy thanks to the high degree of similarity. This happened also from Latin to Greek.&#xD;&#xA;3. Zoological and botanical names are a different beast altogether: they don't come to English through the normal ways, they are &quot;learned borrowings&quot;; they are new words *artificially created* by modern people to cope with the ever-growing need of a scientific lexicon. Latin and Greek were used because for centuries they have been the language of the learned; also because using foreign words is better when building jargon (it allows for split-hair precise and unambiguous tagging)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1461" RevisionGUID="de05d764-e097-4799-aa5e-0ccdb59bcd46" CreationDate="2016-09-02T15:10:25.650" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="deleted 397 characters in body" Text="You should consider that when Latin borrowed words, it didn't just &quot;transliterate&quot; them: it adapted them to its own morphological system; so the Greek suffixes were naturally swapped with Latin ones. It was very easy thanks to the high degree of similarity. This happened also from Latin to Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Zoological and botanical names, they are a different beast altogether: they are new words *artificially created* by ancient and modern scientists to cope with the ever-growing need of a scientific lexicon. So they were just transliterated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personal names are a different thing too; in grammar books we actually find a section on names that are inflected using greek suffixes... I think it's a matter of taste (exoticism) and/or metric reasons, and probably it applies only to poetry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1461" RevisionGUID="9eb5ba4c-956c-4b20-953e-48712e965d97" CreationDate="2016-09-02T15:22:36.443" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="better answer" Text="You should consider that when Latin borrowed words, it didn't just &quot;transliterate&quot; them: it adapted them to its own morphological system; so the Greek suffixes were naturally swapped with Latin ones. It was very easy thanks to the high degree of similarity. This happened also from Latin to Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some words (personal, zoological, botanical names, but also words like *poesis*) were borrowed in Latin without swapping the suffix (or swapping it only in part of the declension; usually the plural is swapped with regular Latin suffixes, for example). It happened mainly in poetry, maybe to create a sense of exoticism and/or metric reasons. But most scientific words with Greek suffixes are modern words, created artificially by scientists; they were out of the natural system of Latin borrowing, so they just happened to be transliterated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1461" RevisionGUID="98feda25-4492-46ee-b23f-e4e4a5a25878" CreationDate="2016-09-02T15:28:11.857" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="better answer" Text="You should consider that when Latin borrowed words, it didn't just &quot;transliterate&quot; them: it adapted them to its own morphological system; so the Greek suffixes were naturally swapped with Latin ones. It was very easy thanks to the high degree of similarity. This happened also from Latin to Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some words (personal, zoological, botanical, geographical names, but also words like *poesis*) were borrowed in Latin without swapping the suffix (or swapping it only in part of the declension; usually the plural is swapped with regular Latin suffixes, for example). It happened mainly in poetry, maybe to create a sense of exoticism and/or metric reasons. Also, it was something only the learned (who by the way were perfectly bilingual) would do. Often you'll find both versions available (both *athletes* and *athleta*). But most scientific words with Greek suffixes are modern words, created artificially by scientists; they were out of the natural system of Latin borrowing, so they just happened to be transliterated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1462" RevisionGUID="e960d141-876a-4358-985e-aad92a688f67" CreationDate="2016-09-02T19:59:31.003" UserId="94" Text="The book is [*Panoplia Clericalis*][1], and the passage I'm having difficulty with (which I suspect is much easier than I think) is, from page 602:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;De colorum mixtione, qui differunt, ex varia eorum commixtione omnis fer&amp;egrave; generis colores fieri posse existimant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which looks a bit like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As far as a mixture of colors which are different, they(?) consider that from varying mixtures colors of nearly every kind can be made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure who &quot;they&quot; are, though. I'm wondering if I could translate that by something like &quot;they say&quot; rather than &quot;they consider&quot;; the next sentence begins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ex caeruleo enim et flavo (aiunt)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For from blue and yellow, they say, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm imagining that &quot;existimant&quot; is intended to give much the same idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had been questioning the occurrence of &quot;omnis&quot; as well but for some reason the fact that it can be a genitive form (and thus go with &quot;generis&quot;) had slipped my mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://books.google.com/books?id=KgT-UXgzQc8C&amp;dq=violaceus%20penitentiam&amp;pg=PP3#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5776" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1462" RevisionGUID="e960d141-876a-4358-985e-aad92a688f67" CreationDate="2016-09-02T19:59:31.003" UserId="94" Text="Help with Latin translation from a 17th century ecclesiastical Latin book" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5777" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1462" RevisionGUID="e960d141-876a-4358-985e-aad92a688f67" CreationDate="2016-09-02T19:59:31.003" UserId="94" Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1462" RevisionGUID="6400d092-5930-4387-a20d-fe773e07d3f4" CreationDate="2016-09-02T20:08:21.763" UserId="94" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="The book is [*Panoplia Clericalis*][1], and the passage I'm having difficulty with (which I suspect is much easier than I think) is, from page 602:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;De colorum mixtione, qui differunt, ex varia eorum commixtione omnis fer&amp;egrave; generis colores fieri posse existimant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which looks a bit like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As far as a mixture of colors which are different, they(?) consider that from varying mixtures colors of nearly every kind can be made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure who &quot;they&quot; are, though. I'm wondering if I could translate that by something like &quot;they say&quot; rather than &quot;they consider&quot;; the next sentence begins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ex caeruleo enim et flavo (aiunt) sit viridis...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For from blue and yellow, they say, there can be green...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm imagining that &quot;existimant&quot; is intended to give much the same idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had been questioning the occurrence of &quot;omnis&quot; as well but for some reason the fact that it can be a genitive form (and thus go with &quot;generis&quot;) had slipped my mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://books.google.com/books?id=KgT-UXgzQc8C&amp;dq=violaceus%20penitentiam&amp;pg=PP3#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1462" RevisionGUID="7298d38c-a253-4a50-8876-3d3b54ecaf1a" CreationDate="2016-09-02T20:30:47.727" UserId="94" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The book is [*Panoplia Clericalis*][1], and the passage I'm having difficulty with (which I suspect is much easier than I think) is, from page 602:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;De colorum mixtione, qui differunt, ex varia eorum commixtione omnis fer&amp;egrave; generis colores fieri posse existimant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which looks a bit like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As far as a mixture of colors which are different, they(?) consider that from varying mixtures colors of nearly every kind can be made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure who &quot;they&quot; are, though. I'm wondering if I could translate that by something like &quot;they say&quot; rather than &quot;they consider&quot;; the next sentence begins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ex caeruleo enim et flavo (aiunt) fit viridis...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For from blue and yellow, they say, green can be made...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm imagining that &quot;existimant&quot; is intended to give much the same idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had been questioning the occurrence of &quot;omnis&quot; as well but for some reason the fact that it can be a genitive form (and thus go with &quot;generis&quot;) had slipped my mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://books.google.com/books?id=KgT-UXgzQc8C&amp;dq=violaceus%20penitentiam&amp;pg=PP3#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1463" RevisionGUID="06d5d792-5e01-4de9-bede-a4c70bdd730e" CreationDate="2016-09-02T20:54:00.873" UserId="79" Text="Your translation is definitely on the right track, but there are a couple of things I want to point out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Omnis* modifies *generis*; that is, *omnis generis* means &quot;of every kind&quot;. There doesn't seem to be any other word than *generis* that *omnis* could match.&#xD;&#xA;- *Existimant* doesn't have an obvious subject. The sentence you quote starts a section, so if there is an intended subject, it should be common enough in (that part of) the book to make it clear. I didn't look too far back to find such a recurring subject, but it may well be that there is none. You can translate that as &quot;they consider&quot;, &quot;people consider&quot;, &quot;the practitioners of this art consider&quot; or some passive structure, depending on larger context.&#xD;&#xA;- I don't see a justification for the &quot;as far as&quot; structure you use at the beginning. Instead, *qui differunt* seems to be a simple relative clause modifying *colorum*. Since &quot;of colors, which are different&quot; is a bit heavy, I would go for &quot;of different colors.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- In my reading *de colorum mixtione* describes a topic and *ex varia [colorum] mixtione* describes raw materials. To clarify this in English, some restructuring is in order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These ideas lead me to this translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *De colorum mixtione, qui differunt, ex varia eorum commixtione omnis ferè generis colores fieri posse existimant.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; People think the following about mixing different colors: a color of almost any kind can come from varying mixture of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1463" RevisionGUID="46a1ff19-474b-48da-b7e5-6a261e60e839" CreationDate="2016-09-02T21:03:07.080" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Your translation is definitely on the right track, but there are a couple of things I want to point out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Omnis* modifies *generis*; that is, *omnis generis* means &quot;of every kind&quot;. There doesn't seem to be any other word than *generis* that *omnis* could match.&#xD;&#xA;- *Existimant* doesn't have an obvious subject. The sentence you quote starts a section, so if there is an intended subject, it should be common enough in (that part of) the book to make it clear. I didn't look too far back to find such a recurring subject, but it may well be that there is none. You can translate that as &quot;they consider&quot;, &quot;people consider&quot;, &quot;the practitioners of this art consider&quot; or some passive structure, depending on larger context.&#xD;&#xA;- I don't see a justification for the &quot;as far as&quot; structure you use at the beginning. Instead, *qui differunt* seems to be a simple relative clause modifying *colorum*. Since &quot;of colors, which are different&quot; is a bit heavy, I would go for &quot;of different colors.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- In my reading *de colorum mixtione* describes a topic and *ex varia [colorum] mixtione* describes raw materials. To clarify this in English, some restructuring is in order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These ideas lead me to this translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *De colorum mixtione, qui differunt, ex varia eorum commixtione omnis ferè generis colores fieri posse existimant.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; People think the following about mixing different colors: a color of almost any kind can come from a varying mixture of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1462" RevisionGUID="1c73d0c2-ad7f-49bd-8e84-6eeb9a76bc3d" CreationDate="2016-09-02T21:49:39.713" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="The book is [*Panoplia Clericalis*][1], and the passage I'm having difficulty with (which I suspect is much easier than I think) is, from page 602:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;De colorum mixtione, qui differunt, ex varia eorum commixtione omnis fer&amp;egrave; generis colores fieri posse existimant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which looks a bit like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As far as a mixture of colors which are different, they(?) consider that from varying mixtures colors of nearly every kind can be made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure who &quot;they&quot; are, though. I'm wondering if I could translate that by something like &quot;they say&quot; rather than &quot;they consider&quot;; the next sentence begins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ex caeruleo enim et flavo (aiunt) fit viridis...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For from blue and yellow, they say, green can be made...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm imagining that &quot;existimant&quot; is intended to give much the same idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had been questioning the occurrence of &quot;omnis&quot; as well but for some reason the fact that it can be a genitive form (and thus go with &quot;generis&quot;) had slipped my mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://books.google.com/books?id=KgT-UXgzQc8C&amp;dq=violaceus%20penitentiam&amp;pg=PP3#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5783" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1462" RevisionGUID="1c73d0c2-ad7f-49bd-8e84-6eeb9a76bc3d" CreationDate="2016-09-02T21:49:39.713" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|translation|new-latin|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1463" RevisionGUID="f2e993e6-0fbf-4e86-a43e-7e891768e1c0" CreationDate="2016-09-02T22:14:40.207" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Your translation is definitely on the right track, but there are a couple of things I want to point out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Omnis* modifies *generis*; that is, *omnis generis* means &quot;of every kind&quot;. There doesn't seem to be any other word than *generis* that *omnis* could match.&#xD;&#xA;- *Existimant* doesn't have an obvious subject. The sentence you quote starts a section, so if there is an intended subject, it should be common enough in (that part of) the book to make it clear. I didn't look too far back to find such a recurring subject, but it may well be that there is none. You can translate that as &quot;they consider&quot;, &quot;people consider&quot;, &quot;the practitioners of this art consider&quot; or some passive structure, depending on larger context.&#xD;&#xA;- I don't see a justification for the &quot;as far as&quot; structure you use at the beginning. Instead, *qui differunt* seems to be a simple relative clause modifying *colorum*. Since &quot;of colors, which are different&quot; is a bit heavy, I would go for &quot;of different colors&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- In my reading *de colorum mixtione* describes a topic and *ex varia [colorum] commixtione* describes raw materials. To clarify this in English, some restructuring is in order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These ideas lead me to this translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *De colorum mixtione, qui differunt, ex varia eorum commixtione omnis ferè generis colores fieri posse existimant.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; People think the following about mixing different colors: a color of almost any kind can come from a varying mixture of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1464" RevisionGUID="16d6e1f0-b281-4634-ba42-a1ed288b9c13" CreationDate="2016-09-02T22:50:03.587" UserId="522" Text="**.1. &quot;They&quot; impersonal**  &#xD;&#xA;In this and the following page he distinguishes between quotations, which he attributes to named authors, and common knowledge which is signified by **existimant,** they opine; **(aiunt)** they say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De colorum mixtione .....colores fieri posse **existimant**. (p.602 )   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **(aiunt)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and in the first line of the next paragraph&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dictum.**nemo nescit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   “no-one is unaware of it being named from the flower that is called *viola / violet.&quot;*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Murex est piscis qui ...**dicitur**...habet venam quâ promanat cruor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (p603)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**.2. &quot;qui differunt &quot;**  &#xD;&#xA;Since, in the previous paragraph, other colours are mentioned ( **Viridi** colore utatur // in hac enim **albo** utatur.)&quot;qui differunt &quot; could simply establish that the discussion is now moving on to other colours. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, from the context, it is more likely that he wants to distinguish **mixing,** from **blending,** (of say two reds, or the addition of black or white to change the tone). &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**.3. Translation** So, with a slight difference in emphasis, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De colorum mixtione, qui differunt, ex varia eorum commixtione omnis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ferè generis colores fieri posse existimant.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Concerning the mixing of the colours which are distinct, they understand  *(estimant)* that colours of almost every sort can be made from a varying *(varia)* mixture of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;..which is almost exactly what you said&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1465" RevisionGUID="31f1b743-c359-4957-a95a-424ca6e87de3" CreationDate="2016-09-03T13:18:06.877" UserId="79" Text="The phrase &quot;that can be arranged&quot; can be useful, and I would like to know an idiomatic way to put it in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;This phrase could be a respond to &quot;can we meet tomorrow at ten?&quot;, &quot;I'd like to eat something Italian tonight&quot;, &quot;I need a receipt to be reimbursed&quot;, or many other things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good Latin phrase for &quot;that can be arranged&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;My instinct is to say *fieri potest* or *curari potest*, but there might be a more idiomatic way that I'm missing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5787" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1465" RevisionGUID="31f1b743-c359-4957-a95a-424ca6e87de3" CreationDate="2016-09-03T13:18:06.877" UserId="79" Text="How to say &quot;that can be arranged&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5788" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1465" RevisionGUID="31f1b743-c359-4957-a95a-424ca6e87de3" CreationDate="2016-09-03T13:18:06.877" UserId="79" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1463" RevisionGUID="9fc33556-628d-4429-9424-4dc82f973156" CreationDate="2016-09-03T13:42:23.697" UserId="79" Comment="added 202 characters in body" Text="Your translation is definitely on the right track, but there are a couple of things I want to point out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Omnis* modifies *generis*; that is, *omnis generis* means &quot;of every kind&quot;. There doesn't seem to be any other word than *generis* that *omnis* could match.&#xD;&#xA;- *Existimant* doesn't have an obvious subject. The sentence you quote starts a section, so if there is an intended subject, it should be common enough in (that part of) the book to make it clear. I didn't look too far back to find such a recurring subject, but it may well be that there is none. You can translate that as &quot;they consider&quot;, &quot;people consider&quot;, &quot;the practitioners of this art consider&quot; or some passive structure like &quot;it is considered&quot;, depending on larger context.&#xD;&#xA;- I don't see a justification for the &quot;as far as&quot; structure you use at the beginning. Instead, *qui differunt* seems to be a simple relative clause modifying *colorum*. Since &quot;of colors, which are different&quot; is a bit heavy, I would go for &quot;of different colors&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- In my reading *de colorum mixtione* describes a topic and *ex varia [colorum] commixtione* describes raw materials. To clarify this in English, some restructuring is in order. I see no particular reason to use *mixtio* for one and *commixtio* for the other; I suppose it was done for the sake of variation and both words could be used for both meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These ideas lead me to this translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *De colorum mixtione, qui differunt, ex varia eorum commixtione omnis ferè generis colores fieri posse existimant.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; People think the following about mixing different colors: a color of almost any kind can come from a varying mixture of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1465" RevisionGUID="5e013994-118b-4e76-867f-f9b0445c7cb8" CreationDate="2016-09-03T14:08:13.160" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The phrase &quot;that can be arranged&quot; can be useful, and I would like to know an idiomatic way to put it in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;This phrase could be a response to &quot;can we meet tomorrow at ten?&quot;, &quot;I'd like to eat something Italian tonight&quot;, &quot;I need a receipt to be reimbursed&quot;, or many other things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good Latin phrase for &quot;that can be arranged&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;My instinct is to say *fieri potest* or *curari potest*, but there might be a more idiomatic way that I'm missing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1317" RevisionGUID="ddc814ce-647d-460e-b8e3-aae922ec87d9" CreationDate="2016-09-03T14:24:45.000" UserId="79" Comment="Added the verse." Text="There is a small difference between the people and the tree:&#xD;&#xA;vowel length.&#xD;&#xA;Indicating long vowels with a bar and short ones with a cup as usual, the masculine word is *po&amp;#x306;pu&amp;#x306;lu&amp;#x306;s* and the feminine one *p&amp;omacr;pu&amp;#x306;lu&amp;#x306;s*.&#xD;&#xA;Long vowels are indicated in many dictionaries, whereas short vowels are indicated by a lack of macron (the bar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowel lengths are typically not marked in writing, but you might want to do so to make the distinction.&#xD;&#xA;If you write *vox p&amp;omacr;puli*, it is clear that you mean the tree.&#xD;&#xA;(The O in *vox* and the final I are also long, but those lengths need no emphasis. You can use macrons for all long vowels or only when emphasis is needed.)&#xD;&#xA;If in the same text you also want to refer to the voice of the people, you might want to emphasize the shortness: *vox po&amp;#x306;puli*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To emphasize ambiguity, you could write *vox p&amp;omacr;&amp;#x306;puli*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As suggested in comments below, you could use the phrases in a metric verse to indicate vowel length.&#xD;&#xA;The rhythm typically unambiguously determines whether the O is long or short.&#xD;&#xA;Inspired by this idea, I composed this hexameter verse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Vox populi statuit sic nunc: vox populi abesto!*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The voice of the people has decided this now: the poplar shall have no voice!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1466" RevisionGUID="db852d14-1331-4823-aed2-f09e69662971" CreationDate="2016-09-03T15:11:08.090" UserId="712" Text="My secondary *(middle and high)* school has a trophy awarded to the most decorated sportsperson at sports day. &#xA;&#xA;From my vague memories, the trophy, and its subsequent winner, are called the *Victor Adornum* or *Victrix Adornum*. &#xA;&#xA;I presume that they translate as *adornèd victor*(m./f.). How do they really translate?&#xA;Are they Latin or some sort of pseudo-Latinate phrasing?&#xA;&#xA;Additionally, I was wondering how one ought to pluralise them, from my - limited - experience, one reverts to a masculine plural form if both genders are at play, so would it be *Victors Adornum*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5794" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1466" RevisionGUID="db852d14-1331-4823-aed2-f09e69662971" CreationDate="2016-09-03T15:11:08.090" UserId="712" Text="How does this phrase for most decorated sportsperson translate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5795" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1466" RevisionGUID="db852d14-1331-4823-aed2-f09e69662971" CreationDate="2016-09-03T15:11:08.090" UserId="712" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|etymology|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1466" RevisionGUID="bd9be3ca-3be3-4878-b676-57398e26ef15" CreationDate="2016-09-03T15:58:00.730" UserId="79" Comment="Removed a tag and reformatted slightly." Text="My secondary *(middle and high)* school has a trophy awarded to the most decorated sportsperson at sports day. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my vague memories, the trophy, and its subsequent winner, are called the *Victor Adornum* or *Victrix Adornum*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I presume that they translate as *adorned victor* (m./f.). How do they really translate?&#xD;&#xA;Are they Latin or some sort of pseudo-Latinate phrasing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, I was wondering how one ought to pluralise them, from my &amp;mdash; limited &amp;mdash; experience, one reverts to a masculine plural form if both genders are at play, so would it be *Victors Adornum*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5797" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1466" RevisionGUID="bd9be3ca-3be3-4878-b676-57398e26ef15" CreationDate="2016-09-03T15:58:00.730" UserId="79" Comment="Removed a tag and reformatted slightly." Text="|english-to-latin-translation|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1467" RevisionGUID="4a7bf46d-b536-4961-bf1f-dec07f249984" CreationDate="2016-09-03T16:12:58.743" UserId="79" Text="One possibility is that it was *victor adornatus* and *victrix adornata*.&#xD;&#xA;The participle *adornatus/adornata/adornatum* comes from the verb [*adornare*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2001146) and means roughly &quot;decorated&quot; or &quot;adorned&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The two expressions I gave translate as &quot;adorned victor&quot; and &quot;adorned victress&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;victress&quot; may be old-fashioned English, but I use it to keep the distinction that is present in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin the participle (like an adjective) follows the gender of the noun.&#xD;&#xA;It now happens that the different forms of the participle and the two genders of the winner all decline somewhat differently.&#xD;&#xA;The plurals would be *victores adornati* and *victrices adornatae*.&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to refer to both male and female recipients of the prize collectively, you can use the masculine version alone or you can combine them into *victores adornati et victrices adornatae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned in a comment that the second word ended in *-um*.&#xD;&#xA;If that was *adornatum*, then neuter was used.&#xD;&#xA;This is ungrammatical, since the words *victor* and *victrix* are masculine and feminine, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also possible that the second word is meant to mean &quot;decoration&quot; rather than &quot;decorated&quot;, but I am not familiar with a word *adornum* meaning such a thing.&#xD;&#xA;In this case the phrase is probably meant to translate as &quot;prize of the victor/victress&quot; or &quot;prize for the victor/victress&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This would require declining *victor* and *victrix* into genitive or dative: *victoris/victricis* or *victori/victrici*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems most likely to me that *adornatus/adornata* was meant, and there is a grammatical error.&#xD;&#xA;But I could be mistaken, and exact information of the spelling or ideas from other users may convince me to change my mind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1468" RevisionGUID="ac9ab81e-3473-4729-b20d-7b43f4cb8df3" CreationDate="2016-09-03T19:36:14.063" UserId="522" Text="In simpler times, for younger athletes, some schools awarded a woooden shield to the best all-rounder on sportsday. That contestant became:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***VICTOR LUDORUM*** the Winner of the Games&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible that, with your older, more serious competitors, the best athlete  was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***VICTOR AGŌNUM***  - the Winner of the Contests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*AGŌN, Agōnis,* a contest; the genitive plural *Agōnum* =of the contests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The plural of *Victor* is ***Victores ludorum;*** and of *Victrix* is ***Victrices agonum***  &#xD;&#xA;Athena is called *'victrix'* but otherwise the *victrix* title is more often awarded to a winning state. fleet, essay.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1469" RevisionGUID="1221ddfc-410e-4bca-97fd-a53730f36db8" CreationDate="2016-09-03T20:33:09.403" UserId="522" Text="*A place-holder,* until someone writes the perfect answer.  Rule of thumb rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Avoid an elision or a hiatus by choosing *'ab,' 'abs',* in preference to *'a'* or *'de.'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ab urbe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where 'from' can be replaced by 'down from', pick *'de'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; de montibus cucurrit. de turris autem versus concino.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1429" RevisionGUID="2c402367-da00-45fe-820c-316afa812efa" CreationDate="2016-09-04T16:11:10.463" UserId="780" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="What is a Latin phrase similar to &quot;annus horribilis&quot; meaning *a year of change*, as in a year where everything changes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example - a year in which I moved across the country, totally changed job etc I would refer to it in Latin as my &quot;year of change&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1470" RevisionGUID="22339477-9366-4ad1-9a0c-ca0a92d989a9" CreationDate="2016-09-05T09:11:59.117" UserId="801" Text="I have noticed that *appear* reduces to a Latin parere &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **appear** (v.) Look up appear at Dictionary.com&#xD;&#xA;late 13c., &quot;to come into view,&quot; from stem of Old French aparoir (12c., Modern French apparoir) &quot;appear, come to light, come forth,&quot; from Latin apparere &quot;to appear, come in sight, make an appearance,&quot; from ad- &quot;to&quot; (see ad-) + **parere &quot;to come forth, be visible.&quot;** Of persons, &quot;present oneself,&quot; late 14c. Meaning &quot;seem, have a certain appearance&quot; is late 14c. Related: Appeared; appearing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see that the meaning contrasts with parere in the origin of the other English words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **preparation** (n.) Look up preparation at Dictionary.com&#xD;&#xA;late 14c., &quot;act of preparing,&quot; from Latin praeparationem (nominative praeparatio) &quot;a making ready,&quot; noun of action from past participle stem of praeparare &quot;prepare,&quot; from prae &quot;before&quot; (see pre-) + **parare &quot;make ready&quot;** (see pare). Meaning &quot;a substance especially prepared&quot; is from 1640s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **repair** (v.1) Look up repair at Dictionary.com&#xD;&#xA;&quot;to mend, to put back in order,&quot; mid-14c., from Old French reparer &quot;repair, mend&quot; (12c.), from Latin reparare &quot;restore, put back in order,&quot; from re- &quot;again&quot; (see re-) + **parare &quot;make ready, prepare&quot;** (see pare). Related: Repaired; repairing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is that possible? Are the two meanings, be visible and ready, reducible to each other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **pare** (v.) Look up pare at Dictionary.com&#xD;&#xA;&quot;to trim by cutting close,&quot; c. 1300, from Old French parer &quot;arrange, prepare; trim, adorn,&quot; and directly from Latin parare &quot;make ready, prepare, furnish, provide, arrange, order; contrive, design, intend, resolve; procure, acquire, obtain, get; get with money, buy, purchase&quot; (related to parere &quot;produce, bring forth, give birth to&quot;), from PIE *par-a-, suffixed form of root *pere- (1) &quot;produce, procure, bring forward, bring forth,&quot; and derived words in diverse senses (source also of Lithuanian pariu &quot;to brood,&quot; Greek poris &quot;calf, bull,&quot; Old High German farro, German Farre &quot;bullock,&quot; Old English fearr &quot;bull,&quot; Sanskrit prthukah &quot;child, calf, young of an animal,&quot; Czech spratek &quot;brat, urchin, premature calf&quot;). Generalized meaning &quot;to reduce something little by little&quot; is from 1520s. Related: Pared; paring." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5805" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1470" RevisionGUID="22339477-9366-4ad1-9a0c-ca0a92d989a9" CreationDate="2016-09-05T09:11:59.117" UserId="801" Text="The meaning of common ground in appear/prepare" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5806" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1470" RevisionGUID="22339477-9366-4ad1-9a0c-ca0a92d989a9" CreationDate="2016-09-05T09:11:59.117" UserId="801" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1470" RevisionGUID="d50380ae-2000-4439-b082-b085b0a340a1" CreationDate="2016-09-05T09:47:30.473" UserId="801" Comment="a bit more highlighting of the differences that I have noticed" Text="I have noticed that *appear* reduces to a Latin parere &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **appear** (v.) Look up appear at Dictionary.com&#xD;&#xA;late 13c., &quot;to come into view,&quot; from stem of Old French aparoir (12c., Modern French apparoir) &quot;appear, come to light, come forth,&quot; from Latin apparere &quot;to appear, come in sight, make an appearance,&quot; from ad- &quot;to&quot; (see ad-) + **parere &quot;to come forth, be visible.&quot;** Of persons, &quot;present oneself,&quot; late 14c. Meaning &quot;seem, have a certain appearance&quot; is late 14c. Related: Appeared; appearing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see, they say that it stems from *parere*, which means *to come forth or be visible*. Yet, I see that this meaning of *parere* contrasts with *readiness* that is said to be meaning of the word when we look at the roots of the the other English words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **preparation** (n.) Look up preparation at Dictionary.com&#xD;&#xA;late 14c., &quot;act of preparing,&quot; from Latin praeparationem (nominative praeparatio) &quot;a making ready,&quot; noun of action from past participle stem of praeparare &quot;prepare,&quot; from prae &quot;before&quot; (see pre-) + **parare &quot;make ready&quot;** (see pare). Meaning &quot;a substance especially prepared&quot; is from 1640s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **repair** (v.1) Look up repair at Dictionary.com&#xD;&#xA;&quot;to mend, to put back in order,&quot; mid-14c., from Old French reparer &quot;repair, mend&quot; (12c.), from Latin reparare &quot;restore, put back in order,&quot; from re- &quot;again&quot; (see re-) + **parare &quot;make ready, prepare&quot;** (see pare). Related: Repaired; repairing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is that possible? Are the two meanings, _be visible_ and _ready_, reducible to each other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **pare** (v.) Look up pare at Dictionary.com&#xD;&#xA;&quot;to trim by cutting close,&quot; c. 1300, from Old French parer &quot;arrange, prepare; trim, adorn,&quot; and directly from Latin parare &quot;make ready, prepare, furnish, provide, arrange, order; contrive, design, intend, resolve; procure, acquire, obtain, get; get with money, buy, purchase&quot; (related to parere &quot;produce, bring forth, give birth to&quot;), from PIE *par-a-, suffixed form of root *pere- (1) &quot;produce, procure, bring forward, bring forth,&quot; and derived words in diverse senses (source also of Lithuanian pariu &quot;to brood,&quot; Greek poris &quot;calf, bull,&quot; Old High German farro, German Farre &quot;bullock,&quot; Old English fearr &quot;bull,&quot; Sanskrit prthukah &quot;child, calf, young of an animal,&quot; Czech spratek &quot;brat, urchin, premature calf&quot;). Generalized meaning &quot;to reduce something little by little&quot; is from 1520s. Related: Pared; paring." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1471" RevisionGUID="f539a5dc-8a0b-43c1-a92f-edd2fb467d85" CreationDate="2016-09-05T12:52:06.777" UserId="68" Text="The key here is the difference of one letter between the verbs. &quot;To come forth, be visible&quot; is *parere*; note that the antepenultimate (next to next to last) vowel is an &quot;e.&quot; But in &quot;make ready,&quot; the antepenultimate vowel is an &quot;a.&quot; This is because the former is a second-conjugation verb and the latter a first-conjugation verb. The forms in question here are the infinitives, but when the verbs are conjugated they begin to look quite different:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I appear&quot; = *pareo*; &quot;I make ready&quot; = *paro*  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;I appeared&quot; = *parui*; &quot;I made ready&quot; = *paravi*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things are actually even more complicated than that, because there's *another* verb spelled *parere* but pronounced differently. *Parere* meaning &quot;to appear&quot; is pronounced pah-RAY-reh, while &quot;to give birth&quot; is pronounced PAH-reh-reh. It looks even more different:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I give birth&quot; = *pario*  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;I gave birth&quot; = *peperi*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could make a sentence with all three of them as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Parta parere paravi.*  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;After I gave birth, I got ready to appear.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, whether these three verbs are etymologically related, I don't know—it could very well be that they share some sort of root meaning from which they all developed—but *pareo, parere* comes into English as &quot;appear,&quot; &quot;appearance,&quot; while *paro, parare* comes into English as &quot;prepare,&quot; &quot;preparation.&quot; (*Pario, parere* shows up in &quot;parturition,&quot; though I can't think of any other words that come from it other than &quot;post-partum,&quot; which isn't really English—it's Latin for &quot;after having given birth.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1472" RevisionGUID="84e553a5-e960-4b69-9f4b-0936d2e34db1" CreationDate="2016-09-05T20:02:51.230" UserId="803" Text="In my Sanskrit dictionary, the Latin phrase *metri causa* (&quot;for the sake of the metre&quot;) is used to alert the reader to forms which may be used irregularly in order to fit the metre. For example, in the available literature, a verb might occasionally be conjugated in the wrong voice for metrical reasons, and this irregular usage would be highlighted in the dictionary entry for the root in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if there exists a formulation that would mean &quot;for the sake of the plot&quot;, as when something happens in a novel apparently purely to advance the plot and which feels forced and poorly motivated. If not, can we coin one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(P.S.: This is more for my own amusement, I wouldn't use contrived Latin phrases in a real essay, I'd stick to plain English or bona fide Latin phrases (see what I did there?))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5810" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1472" RevisionGUID="84e553a5-e960-4b69-9f4b-0936d2e34db1" CreationDate="2016-09-05T20:02:51.230" UserId="803" Text="For the sake of the plot" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5811" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1472" RevisionGUID="84e553a5-e960-4b69-9f4b-0936d2e34db1" CreationDate="2016-09-05T20:02:51.230" UserId="803" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|phrase-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1472" RevisionGUID="e0bedcd8-e965-43bb-a498-e3c8b8fa3499" CreationDate="2016-09-05T20:59:45.167" UserId="803" Comment="what have you tried Au101?" Text="In my Sanskrit dictionary, the Latin phrase *metri causa* (&quot;for the sake of the metre&quot;) is used to alert the reader to forms which may be used irregularly in order to fit the metre. For example, in the available literature, a verb might occasionally be conjugated in the wrong voice for metrical reasons, and this irregular usage would be highlighted in the dictionary entry for the root in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if there exists a formulation that would mean &quot;for the sake of the plot&quot;, as when something happens in a novel apparently purely to advance the plot and which feels forced and poorly motivated. If not, can we coin one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using some online dictionaries ([one](http://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/english/plot), [two](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=actio&amp;highlight=plot)), the two possibilities for &quot;plot&quot; that I came up with are *argūmentum* and *āctiō*, giving us *argūmentī causa* and *āctiōnis causa* as possible translations of this phrase (if my conjugation skills are to be trusted (by which I of course mean, if Wiktionary's conjugation skills are to be trusted.))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dictionaries suggest that *argūmentum* is more commonly used for plays and its English daughter 'argument' makes it seem like a risky choice to me. *Āctiō* also seems to be used more of drama and its closeness to 'act' is tangible, although apparently they are not directly related. It seems like the better choice, though, as [the dictionary](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=actio&amp;highlight=plot) defines it as *inter alia*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the action, the connection or series of events, the plot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which seems quite suitable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, my two years of Latin were ever such a long time ago, so I'd welcome the input of somebody more familiar with the actual language, in order to get something that seems natural. I'd be especially interested if anybody can point to an actual formula that might have been used, either by the Romans themselves, or later European writers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(P.S.: This is more for my own amusement, I wouldn't use contrived Latin phrases in a real essay, I'd stick to plain English or bona fide Latin phrases (see what I did there?))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1472" RevisionGUID="17774383-5b3d-4ce9-b2fa-e3ea68cae4f3" CreationDate="2016-09-05T21:22:54.993" UserId="803" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="In my Sanskrit dictionary, the Latin phrase *metri causa* (&quot;for the sake of the metre&quot;) is used to alert the reader to forms which may be used irregularly in order to fit the metre. For example, in the available literature, a verb might occasionally be conjugated in the wrong voice for metrical reasons, and this irregular usage would be highlighted in the dictionary entry for the root in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if there exists a formulation that would mean &quot;for the sake of the plot&quot;, as when something happens in a novel apparently purely to advance the plot and which feels forced and poorly motivated. If not, can we coin one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using some online dictionaries ([one](http://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/english/plot), [two](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=actio&amp;highlight=plot)), the two possibilities for &quot;plot&quot; that I came up with are *argūmentum* and *āctiō*, giving us *argūmentī causa* and *āctiōnis causa* as possible translations of this phrase (if my declension skills are to be trusted (by which I of course mean, if Wiktionary's declension skills are to be trusted.))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dictionaries suggest that *argūmentum* is more commonly used for plays and its English daughter 'argument' makes it seem like a risky choice to me. *Āctiō* also seems to be used more of drama and its closeness to 'act' is tangible, although apparently they are not directly related. It seems like the better choice, though, as [the dictionary](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=actio&amp;highlight=plot) defines it as *inter alia*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the action, the connection or series of events, the plot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which seems quite suitable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, my two years of Latin were ever such a long time ago, so I'd welcome the input of somebody more familiar with the actual language, in order to get something that seems natural. I'd be especially interested if anybody can point to an actual formula that might have been used, either by the Romans themselves, or later European writers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(P.S.: This is more for my own amusement, I wouldn't use contrived Latin phrases in a real essay, I'd stick to plain English or bona fide Latin phrases (see what I did there?))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1473" RevisionGUID="0fa3702b-9013-48eb-af51-585d774754c2" CreationDate="2016-09-06T02:42:16.460" UserId="79" Text="The expression &quot;with respect to&quot; is common in mathematics.&#xD;&#xA;Consider these example sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The derivative of `x^2y` with respect to `y` is `x^2`.&#xD;&#xA;2. Let us reflect the point `A` with respect to the line `L` and call the new point `B`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This SE site doesn't support MathJax, so I'm not formatting the formulas at all. Using dollars would probably confuse users here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to be able to translate these sentences like these in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I believe such things can be found in scientific texts written in Latin, but I am not familiar with this literature.&#xD;&#xA;**Is there an attested Latin idiom for the mathematical &quot;with respect to&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By best guess is *respectu* with genitive.&#xD;&#xA;Using my examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Derivativus expressionis `x^2y` respectu (variabilis) `y` est `x^2`.&#xD;&#xA;2. Punctum `A` reflectimus respectu lineae `L` et punctum novum `B` appellamus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I don't know how to read formulas out loud in Latin. That should be asked separately at some point.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My feeling is that using a mere preposition or case is not enough.&#xD;&#xA;As a mathematician myself, I find it beneficial to have a somewhat heavier structure to make it more easily recognizable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5815" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1473" RevisionGUID="0fa3702b-9013-48eb-af51-585d774754c2" CreationDate="2016-09-06T02:42:16.460" UserId="79" Text="&quot;With respect to&quot; in mathematics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5816" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1473" RevisionGUID="0fa3702b-9013-48eb-af51-585d774754c2" CreationDate="2016-09-06T02:42:16.460" UserId="79" Text="|translation|idiom|science|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1474" RevisionGUID="465835d5-f8f3-4878-95cc-6c1d1b34c733" CreationDate="2016-09-06T02:53:26.893" UserId="522" Text="An oblique answer:  &#xD;&#xA;The Romans borrowed loads of Culture from the Athenians, including the words for theatre, scene, episode,  ...and the MACHINE.   &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The machine could be trundled out (Some historians say lowered on a crane) with a feast or a heap of dead bodies or anything surprising really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the plot got really tangled up, and the playwright couldn't see any way of sorting it out, they could wheel out The Machine with a suitable god on board to sort things out. Hence, any resolution of the plot which was unnatural, improbable, and out of character could be referred to as a&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Deus ex machina.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; noun: deus ex machina (Google Search.) an unexpected power or event&#xD;&#xA;&gt; saving a seemingly hopeless situation, especially as a contrived plot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; device in a play or novel.   late 17th century: modern Latin,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; translation of Greek theos ek mēkhanēs, ‘god from the machinery’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term the OP was looking for was an adjectival phrase to describe a deus-ex-machina-type solution. I offer a noun to use in apposition instead..  &#xD;&#xA;And here for comparison is [Merriam Webster][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deus%20ex%20machina" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1457" RevisionGUID="21fca9a3-6914-4118-99e4-e8315a71a475" CreationDate="2016-09-06T14:48:44.227" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="added 758 characters in body" Text="There were plenty of discussions, and a record of some them has survived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Pronunciation and orthography&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have really a lot of specimens of this, for example from Cicero, Catullus, Quintilian, Varro. Also consider that emperor Claudius tried to reform the alphabet – this must have definitely spurred many discussions between erudite people and grammarians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Velius Longus (7.58 s. K.) says that &quot;there's controversy about whether equus must be written with one or two *u*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Augustin (Conf. 1.29) was ironic about the fact that at his time it was more important to pronounce *homines* according to grammar rules [i.e. with h voiced] than to love them according to the law of God.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Catullus (c. 84):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Chommoda dicebat, si quando commoda vellet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dicere, et insidias Arrius hinsidias.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et tum mirifice sperabat se esse locutum,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum quantum poterat dixerat hinsidias.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Lexicon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least indirectly, the Appendix Probi mentioned in comments. Also the fragmentary *Dubius sermo* of Pliny the Elder (which according to naturalis historia 1.228 was badly criticized by grammarians); this was not only about lexicon but also other aspects of language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero ([Fam. 16.17](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=LatinAugust2012&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Cic.%20Fam.%2016.17)) criticizes a solecism from Tiro (thanks @TheHonRose):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I see what you are about: you want your letters also to be collected into books. But look here! You set up to be a standard of correctness in my writings—how came you to use such an unauthorized expression as &quot;by faithfully devoting myself to my health&quot;? How does fideliter come in there? The proper habitat of that word is in what refers to duty to others—though it often migrates to spheres not belonging to it. For instance: &quot;learning,&quot; &quot;house,&quot; &quot;art,,' &quot;land,&quot; can be called fidelis, granting, as Theophrastus holds, that the metaphor is not pushed too far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Syntax&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here too we have plenty; consider that there was even a major split among grammarians between analogists and anomalists. Quintilian (1.5.14) talks about the &quot;*pexus pinguisque doctor*&quot; (!) who dared refuse the irregular but commonly used *adsentior* (the &quot;correct&quot; form would be *adsentio*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero tells us that analogists wanted to abolish the genitive in -um for all 2nd declension nouns, while he and the other anomalists wished to preserve it in frequently used genitives like nummum, sestertium, triumvirum, deum. Similar positions about &quot;-asse&quot; for &quot;-avisse&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Datation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the first occurrence, you'll find them as early as the IV century BCE in Greece – for example the controversy between analogists and anomalists began in Greece and was later adapted to the Latin language.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1475" RevisionGUID="7697e33d-d0c2-4fa5-845b-8f2118f6498f" CreationDate="2016-09-06T17:45:58.263" UserDisplayName="user786" Text="Both translations are excellent Latin (repetitions were perfectly fine in Latin, just think about Caesar). The difference is that Haury's is literal, while Schlosser's takes many liberties (this is extremely apparent since the first sentence). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my taste, Haury's sounds a bit too schoolish, while Schlosser's is very elegant and pleasantly flowing... but this is just my taste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: Schlosser's &quot;Hoc autem excusatione deprecor&quot; omits the french &quot;serieuse&quot;, but Haury's &quot;Hanc probabilem excusationem habeo&quot; is really ugly (also, &quot;probabilem&quot; doesn't seem to me a fit translation of &quot;serieuse&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1475" RevisionGUID="359c181b-4ea8-4673-b2ce-cae8488aabd9" CreationDate="2016-09-06T17:51:16.813" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="Both translations are excellent Latin. The difference is that Haury's is literal, while Schlosser's takes many liberties (this is extremely apparent since the first sentence). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my taste, Haury's sounds a bit too schoolish, while Schlosser's is very elegant and pleasantly flowing... but this is just my taste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: Schlosser's &quot;Hoc autem excusatione deprecor&quot; omits the french &quot;serieuse&quot;, but Haury's &quot;Hanc probabilem excusationem habeo&quot; is really ugly (also, &quot;probabilem&quot; doesn't seem to me a fit translation of &quot;serieuse&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the repeated &quot;intellegit&quot;, I think the goal is to render the French &quot;meme&quot;; it's intentional, and very Latin. It's just not a literal translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1476" RevisionGUID="848e7065-a908-4886-8ec9-f795cae7e487" CreationDate="2016-09-07T03:50:21.783" UserId="79" Text="Latin has some nouns and adjectives derived from pronouns: &#xD;&#xA;*unicus, identitas, qualitas, neutralis*&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;I have the impression that such derivations are mainly later than classical, but I do not really know.&#xD;&#xA;These derivatives look like something I would expect to be more common in post-classical scientific language than classical prose.&#xD;&#xA;When did such derivations appear?&#xD;&#xA;Are they already present in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Did they become more common at some later point?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5822" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1476" RevisionGUID="848e7065-a908-4886-8ec9-f795cae7e487" CreationDate="2016-09-07T03:50:21.783" UserId="79" Text="When did nouns and adjectives derived from pronouns appear?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5823" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1476" RevisionGUID="848e7065-a908-4886-8ec9-f795cae7e487" CreationDate="2016-09-07T03:50:21.783" UserId="79" Text="|language-evolution|pronouns|derivation|adjective|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="937" RevisionGUID="ab7b2355-7ecc-4b53-ac9c-160b93c3e2ab" CreationDate="2016-09-07T17:26:36.333" UserId="79" Comment="added 627 characters in body" Text="If you want to combine *mens* and *nova* to say &quot;a new mind&quot;, the correct way is *mens nova* or *nova mens*.&#xD;&#xA;Putting the adjective after the noun is more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The singular ablative of *mens* is *mente* and that of *nova* is *nova*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *mente nova* or *nova mente* (spelled as two words!) can mean something like &quot;with a new mind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The ablative has many uses, so the interpretation is not unique.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be mentioned that *mens* is not the only possible translation for &quot;mind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You can look for other possible words in [various online Latin dictionaries](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;You can the put the adjective &quot;new&quot; before or after it in the correct gender.&#xD;&#xA;Dictionaries mention which gender words are, and the masculine, feminine and neuter versions of the adjective we are using are *novus*, *nova* and *novum*.&#xD;&#xA;There might be other adjectives as well, but this has the benefit of being simple and easily recognized.&#xD;&#xA;The word *mens* is feminine, so it goes with *nova*, not *novus* or *novum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1477" RevisionGUID="744138de-3dc4-4c4a-9944-580f9bb0d896" CreationDate="2016-09-07T17:33:07.013" UserId="79" Text="I ended up having to write &quot;information technology&quot; in a formal context in Latin, and I chose *technologia informatica*.&#xD;&#xA;It may not be as natural in Latin as the suggestions Joel gives in his answer, but it has the crucial benefit that people with no knowledge of Latin can interpret it correctly.&#xD;&#xA;There is also a difference between &quot;information technology&quot; and &quot;computational science&quot; which might be too blurred with *ars computatralis* in some contexts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1236" RevisionGUID="d7f58fc6-b182-4846-86d2-c9457649d92f" CreationDate="2016-09-07T19:15:37.517" UserId="79" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="The first thing you should do is to choose between second and third person.&#xD;&#xA;Do you want to say &quot;You Lord, bless and protect&quot; or &quot;May the Lord bless and protect&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;If you are directly addressing the God and want to give him an order, second person is more appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say this while speaking to other people &amp;mdash; like you might at a family dinner &amp;mdash; then third person sounds better.&#xD;&#xA;In English the difference can boil down to a comma: &quot;Lord, bless...&quot; is second person and &quot;Lord bless...&quot; is third person.&#xD;&#xA;In Latin the choice has to be more visible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second person translation: *Domine, benedic et protege familiam meam, amen.*&#xD;&#xA;I thought that *benedicere* would have a regular imperative *benedice* in spite of *dicere* having the irregular *dic*, but brianpck corrected me in a (now deleted) comment.&#xD;&#xA;Your translation is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third person translation: *Benedicat et protegat Dominus familiam meam, amen.*&#xD;&#xA;Conjunctive is a good way to express things like this.&#xD;&#xA;In some situations the future imperative (which also has a third person) can be used, but I prefer conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;The future imperatives would be *benedicito* and *protegito*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="480" RevisionGUID="123c9c68-dde8-43ab-8081-512a2461ead5" CreationDate="2016-09-07T19:21:41.553" UserId="79" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="I would suggest &quot;venatio supra omnia&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There are many ways to translate &quot;above all&quot;, and what I chose is a literal one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get started with future requests, you can look at an online Latin dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;[You can find a list in our dictionary list question.](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79)&#xD;&#xA;If you type in &quot;hunt&quot;, you will get several hunting-related words in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;You can read their English translations and decide which word would have the most suitable tone for your use even if you can't put words together into sentences.&#xD;&#xA;For hunting the case is pretty clear, but it's not so for all words.&#xD;&#xA;If you have some suitable words together and maybe a Google translation, you can give them in your question; sometimes such background work really helps, and most importantly it shows your own effort.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes short phrases are the hardest ones to translate well, so it might help to give several ways to express your sentence in English and explain what you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your translation request was simple enough, but I just wanted to give some advice to you (and others who end up reading this) to make things run smoothly when help is needed again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1478" RevisionGUID="d267038b-6bfb-472a-96d3-c29a74f4314b" CreationDate="2016-09-07T21:29:21.703" UserId="576" Text="Are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [*sex*][1] (the number 6) or [*sextus*][2] (⅙ or ordinal sixth)&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(From where the English word &quot;sextant&quot; comes.)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [*sexus*][3] (sex or gender)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etymologically related?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsex&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsextus1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsexus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5830" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1478" RevisionGUID="d267038b-6bfb-472a-96d3-c29a74f4314b" CreationDate="2016-09-07T21:29:21.703" UserId="576" Text="Are &quot;sex&quot; and &quot;sexus&quot; etymologically related?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5831" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1478" RevisionGUID="d267038b-6bfb-472a-96d3-c29a74f4314b" CreationDate="2016-09-07T21:29:21.703" UserId="576" Text="|etymology|word-comparison|noun|numbers|origin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1479" RevisionGUID="c65b9c23-8d04-4df2-8a9f-cd4248108f67" CreationDate="2016-09-07T22:19:44.170" UserId="203" Text="&gt;&quot;The early Italian house consisted only of the *atrium* and the surrounding rooms, with, in most cases, a small garden at the back....  Out of the small plot at the back of the early house developed the *peristylium*, a garden surrounded by colonnades on to which rooms opened on all sides,... The *peristylium*, both in general appearance and in name, reproduced the men's room of a Greek house. Whilst the names of the front rooms of a Roman house are Italian (sic) (*atrium, faces, alae, tablinum*)  those of the back are Greek (*peristylium, triclinium, oecus, exhedra*)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Rome:It's people, life and customs*  Ugo Enrico Paoli, trans R D Macnaghten, 1940, English version 1958" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1479" RevisionGUID="8083f4b5-e217-422d-beb5-c4804cbfb7fb" CreationDate="2016-09-07T22:33:27.847" UserId="203" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt;&quot;The early Italian house consisted only of the *atrium* and the surrounding rooms, with, in most cases, a small garden at the back....  Out of the small plot at the back of the early house developed the *peristylium*, a garden surrounded by colonnades on to which rooms opened on all sides,... The *peristylium*, both in general appearance and in name, reproduced the men's room of a Greek house. Whilst the names of the front rooms of a Roman house are Italian (sic) (*atrium,fauces, alae, tablinum*)  those of the back are Greek (*peristylium, triclinium, oecus, exhedra*)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Rome:It's people, life and customs*  Ugo Enrico Paoli, trans R D Macnaghten, 1940, English version 1958" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1479" RevisionGUID="0eee7bb1-a1eb-46c7-9021-a25603ea477c" CreationDate="2016-09-08T08:35:14.183" UserId="203" Comment="Added link for further information. " Text="&gt;&quot;The early Italian house consisted only of the *atrium* and the surrounding rooms, with, in most cases, a small garden at the back....  Out of the small plot at the back of the early house developed the *peristylium*, a garden surrounded by colonnades on to which rooms opened on all sides,... The *peristylium*, both in general appearance and in name, reproduced the men's room of a Greek house. Whilst the names of the front rooms of a Roman house are Italian (sic) (*atrium,fauces, alae, tablinum*)  those of the back are Greek (*peristylium, triclinium, oecus, exhedra*)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Rome:It's people, life and customs*  Ugo Enrico Paoli, trans R D Macnaghten, 1940, English version 1958&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This link discusses the House of the Surgeon and the architectural development mentioned :-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-vi/reg-vi-ins-1/house-of-the-surgeon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1480" RevisionGUID="48007579-80cc-4930-bfeb-b39a8deb4134" CreationDate="2016-09-08T08:37:16.153" UserId="803" Text="No, I don't think so, and for this I can actually rely on [etymonline](http://www.etymonline.com/) which is a fine resource, even if linguistics students are discouraged from using it for their homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry for the English word 'six' is complete enough:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Old English *siex*, *six*, *sex*, from Proto-Germanic \**sekhs* (source also of Old Saxon and Danish *seks*, Old Norse, Swedish, and Old Frisian *sex*, Middle Dutch *sesse*, Dutch *zes*, Old High German *sehs*, German *sechs*, Gothic *saihs*), **from PIE \**s(w)eks* (source also of** Sanskrit *ṣaṣ*, Avestan *kshvash*, Persian *shash*, Greek *hex*, **Latin *sex***, Old Church Slavonic *sesti*, Polish *sześć*, Russian *shesti*, Lithuanian *szeszi*, Old Irish *se*, Welsh *chwech*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Source](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=six)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then for 'sex':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;late 14c., &quot;males or females collectively,&quot; **from Latin *sexus* &quot;a sex, state of being either male or female, gender,&quot; of uncertain origin. &quot;Commonly taken with *seco* as division or 'half' of the race&quot; [Tucker], which would connect it to *secare* &quot;to divide or cut&quot;** (see section (n.)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Source](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sex&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for *secare* we can actually cheat and indulge in use of the same resource. The entry for 'section' reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;late 14c., &quot;intersection of two straight lines; division of a scale;&quot; from Old French *section* or directly from Latin *sectionem* (nominative *sectio*) &quot;a cutting, cutting off, division,&quot; noun of action **from past participle stem of *secare* &quot;to cut,&quot; from PIE root \**sek-* &quot;to cut&quot;** (source also of Old Church Slavonic *seko*, *sešti* &quot;to cut,&quot; *se čivo* &quot;ax, hatchet;&quot; Lithuanian *isekti* &quot;to engrave, carve;&quot; Albanian *šate* &quot;mattock;&quot; Old Saxon *segasna*, Old English *sigðe* &quot;scythe;&quot; Old English *secg* &quot;sword,&quot; *seax* &quot;knife, short sword;&quot; Old Irish *doescim* &quot;I cut;&quot; Latin *saxum* &quot;rock, stone&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1479" RevisionGUID="e54b71bd-b17d-410c-9064-53258d7384d3" CreationDate="2016-09-08T09:42:52.137" UserId="203" Comment="Added derivation. " Text="&gt;&quot;The early Italian house consisted only of the *atrium* and the surrounding rooms, with, in most cases, a small garden at the back....  Out of the small plot at the back of the early house developed the *peristylium*, a garden surrounded by colonnades on to which rooms opened on all sides,... The *peristylium*, both in general appearance and in name, reproduced the men's room of a Greek house. Whilst the names of the front rooms of a Roman house are Italian (sic) (*atrium,fauces, alae, tablinum*)  those of the back are Greek (*peristylium, triclinium, oecus, exhedra*)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Rome:It's people, life and customs*  Ugo Enrico Paoli, trans R D Macnaghten, 1940, English version 1958&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This link discusses the House of the Surgeon and the architectural development mentioned :-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-vi/reg-vi-ins-1/house-of-the-surgeon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S give this as the derivation of *peristylium*  :-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**peristylium** The Greek adjective περίστυλοςis applied either to a court surrounded by colonnades on the inside, or to a building surrounded by them on the outside, as a temple. It is then used alone, in all three genders, with a substantive understood, for a court with colonnades: hence the Latin peristylum,or more commonly the substantive form peristyliumn.It is especially used for the courts of a Greek dwellinghouse, and for that introduced into Roman houses in imitation of them. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1481" RevisionGUID="57dd8cdf-cd0e-441a-89c7-7433dcb49d64" CreationDate="2016-09-08T12:46:45.403" UserId="12" Text="The gist of [Au101's answer](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1480/12) is confirmed by de Vaan's *Etymological Dictionary*.  First, regarding *sex*, in Proto-Italic and Proto-Indo-European, he gives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIt. &amp;#42;*seks* 'six', &amp;#42;*seks-to-* 'sixth'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIE *(s)ueks 'six', *uks-ó- 'sixth'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The PIt. form &amp;#42;*seks* has analogically dropped &amp;#42;*-w-* from &amp;#42;*sweks* by analogy with &amp;#42;*septm* 'seven'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding *sexus*, there is some question as to its origin.  He writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Secus* seems the more original formation, but it is strange that the older texts only know *sexus*.  The modern meaning of *sectiō* 'division' suggests that *sec/xus* might derive from *secāre* 'to sever', but the morphology remains unclear: does *sexus* go back to an *s*-present &amp;#42;*sek-s-* 'to cut up', or was it derived from a form &amp;#42;*sek-s-* of the putative *s*-stem underlying *secus*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He gives the Proto-Italic root of *secāre* as &amp;#42;*sekaje/o-*, and the PIE root as *sekh&lt;sub&gt;I&lt;/sub&gt;-ie/o, meaning &quot;to cut off&quot;.  For *secus*, PIt. is &amp;#42;*sekwos* and PIE is *se-kuo, meaning &quot;for/by oneself, separate.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to summarize, even in PIE, the roots of these two Latin words were different words with distinct meanings – &quot;six&quot; in the case of *sex* and &quot;separate&quot; or &quot;to cut off&quot; in the case of *sexus*.  So though they bear superficial similarities, the Latin words are etymologically unrelated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1482" RevisionGUID="b759f425-2952-4bb4-9a96-1ed0bef7d671" CreationDate="2016-09-08T14:12:11.460" UserId="45" Text="There is one word that seems to fit the bill: [*quoad*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquoad). Although this word has a temporal (&quot;as long as&quot;) and spatial (&quot;as far as&quot;) meaning, Lewis and Short also gives the following meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B.3: With respect to, as to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also suggests that it derives from *quod attinet ad*. An interesting note is that all three classical examples given are *dubious readings*, so we cannot say that there is a rock-solid classical testimony that this word can be used like a normal PREP + ACC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, here are several usages in later mathematical works that use *quoad* in the same context as the OP's example sentences. (I don't know how to do do mathematical notation: feel free to edit.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Principia calculi differentialis et integralis*](https://books.google.com/books?id=-pBmvAWJpGAC&amp;pg=PA28), Andrea Caraffa&#xD;&#xA;&gt; denotabunt itaque f&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;'(x,y,z,...), f&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;&quot;(x,y,z,...), ... derivatas primi, secundi, ... ordinis ex f(x,y,z,...) **quoad x**, item f&lt;sub&gt;y&lt;/sub&gt;'(x,y,z,...), f&lt;sub&gt;y&lt;/sub&gt;&quot;(x,y,z,...), ... derivatas primi, secundi, ... ordinis ex f(x,y,z,...) **quoad y**; etc. (pg. 28)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another quote from the same page uses the same word, but also uses *respectu ipsius* to mean something else. (My multi-variable differential calculus is rusty, so perhaps a comment could clarify what the distinction should be):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ex functione  μ = f(x, y, z...) exsistunt etiam partiales variorum ordinum derivatae *per vices* quoad binas, ternas, ... variabiles v. gr. quoad y, x, quoad z, y, x, etc.; sic ax&lt;sup&gt;a-1&lt;/sup&gt;cos(y) est partialis derivata secundi ordinis ex functione x&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt;sin(y) quoad y, x, nimirum derivata **quoad x** ex derivata **quoad y respectu ipsius x&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt;sin(y)**. (pg. 28)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another, example of this usage from the [*Tentamen*](https://books.google.com/books?id=EENYAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA221&amp;lpg=PA221&amp;dq=%22quoad+x%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=P1Lk0_bIUu&amp;sig=CMO2q7VwrvY8ip78oriEHkmo9dc&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi2gYaH9__OAhXPth4KHeZXC8IQ6AEIIDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22quoad%20x%22&amp;f=false) of Wolfgangus Bolyai de Bolya (pg. 221), talking about differentials. This is significant because he is explicitly instructing on proper terminology:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tum vz(dot) dicitur *differentiale quoad z* et uẋ quoad x acceptum, atque v dicitur *derivata ipsius U quoad z* et u derivata quoad x accepta...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching for [*&quot;quoad x&quot;*](https://www.google.com/search?#q=%22quoad+x%22) with quotes reveals numerous other examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1483" RevisionGUID="4b353339-ab60-44b8-b5f0-1b996b657e25" CreationDate="2016-09-08T14:13:14.223" UserId="808" Text="The first occurrence of &quot;*Delphinum natare doces*&quot; I could find is in Erasmus' *Adagia*, after year 1500.  Due to the nature of this book, the proverb itself must be much older than that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where and when does it originate from ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5840" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1483" RevisionGUID="4b353339-ab60-44b8-b5f0-1b996b657e25" CreationDate="2016-09-08T14:13:14.223" UserId="808" Text="Where and when does the &quot;Delphinum natare doces&quot; proverb originate from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5841" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1483" RevisionGUID="4b353339-ab60-44b8-b5f0-1b996b657e25" CreationDate="2016-09-08T14:13:14.223" UserId="808" Text="|history|saying|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1482" RevisionGUID="b2d0d489-f05b-4f34-859b-8525129fec4a" CreationDate="2016-09-08T14:19:25.340" UserId="45" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="There is one word that seems to fit the bill: [*quoad*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquoad). Although this word has a temporal (&quot;as long as&quot;) and spatial (&quot;as far as&quot;) meaning, Lewis and Short also gives the following meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B.3: With respect to, as to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also suggests that it derives from *quod attinet ad*. An interesting note is that all three classical examples given are *dubious readings*, so we cannot say that there is a rock-solid classical testimony that this word can be used like a normal PREP + ACC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, here are several usages in later mathematical works that use *quoad* in the same context as the OP's example sentences. (I don't know how to do do mathematical notation: feel free to edit.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Principia calculi differentialis et integralis*](https://books.google.com/books?id=-pBmvAWJpGAC&amp;pg=PA28), Andrea Caraffa&#xD;&#xA;&gt; denotabunt itaque f&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;'(x,y,z,...), f&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;&quot;(x,y,z,...), ... derivatas primi, secundi, ... ordinis ex f(x,y,z,...) **quoad x**, item f&lt;sub&gt;y&lt;/sub&gt;'(x,y,z,...), f&lt;sub&gt;y&lt;/sub&gt;&quot;(x,y,z,...), ... derivatas primi, secundi, ... ordinis ex f(x,y,z,...) **quoad y**; etc. (pg. 28)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another quote from the same page uses the same word, but also uses *respectu ipsius* to mean something else. (My multi-variable differential calculus is rusty, so perhaps a comment could clarify what the distinction should be):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ex functione  μ = f(x, y, z...) exsistunt etiam partiales variorum ordinum derivatae *per vices* quoad binas, ternas, ... variabiles v. gr. quoad y, x, quoad z, y, x, etc.; sic ax&lt;sup&gt;a-1&lt;/sup&gt;cos(y) est partialis derivata secundi ordinis ex functione x&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt;sin(y) quoad y, x, nimirum derivata **quoad x** ex derivata **quoad y respectu ipsius x&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt;sin(y)**. (pg. 28)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another,example of this usage comes from the [*Tentamen*](https://books.google.com/books?id=EENYAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA221&amp;lpg=PA221&amp;dq=%22quoad+x%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=P1Lk0_bIUu&amp;sig=CMO2q7VwrvY8ip78oriEHkmo9dc&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi2gYaH9__OAhXPth4KHeZXC8IQ6AEIIDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22quoad%20x%22&amp;f=false) of Wolfgangus Bolyai de Bolya (pg. 221), talking about differentials. This is significant because he is explicitly instructing on proper terminology:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tum vz(dot) dicitur *differentiale quoad z* et uẋ quoad x acceptum, atque v dicitur *derivata ipsius U quoad z* et u derivata quoad x accepta...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching for [*&quot;quoad x&quot;*](https://www.google.com/search?#q=%22quoad+x%22) with quotes reveals numerous other examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1484" RevisionGUID="93c5a1cc-372d-48b3-8106-70cbdc6293bf" CreationDate="2016-09-08T15:38:54.823" UserId="45" Text="The *Adagia* of Erasmus was a compilation of Latin and Greek proverbs. This particular proverb (XCVII) is a translation from the Greek, as the entry makes clear. (I am using the 1703 *Opera Omnia* edition available on [Google Books](https://books.google.com/books?id=2cpgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA91&amp;lpg=PA91)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Δέλφῖνα νήχεσθαι διδάσκεις, id est Delphinum natare doces**. In eos competit, qui &#xD;&#xA;monere quempiam conantur in ea re, in qua cum sit ipse exercitatissimus, &#xD;&#xA;nihil eget doctore. Nam delphinus in natando pernicissimi impetus est, ita vt &#xD;&#xA;non modo superet omne natatilium genus velocitate, verumetiam terrestrium &#xD;&#xA;animantium vt autor Aelianus libro xii. Quin et naues transilit seque contento &#xD;&#xA;spiritu teli in morem eiaculatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [online edition](http://jvpoll.home.xs4all.nl/back/Web/erasmusa.htm) includes the following footnote from a German edition, indicating that it is found in the collections of [Zenobius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenobius) (AD 117-138) and [Diogenianus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenianus):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;491&lt;/sup&gt; **Δελφῖνα νήχεσθαι διδάσκεις** Dieses Proverb findet sich bei den Paroemiographen: Zenob. 3, 30 = Ald. col. 67-68. Diogen. 4, 33. Suid. δελφῖνα 212 (cf. Adag. 393, n.l. 468). Diogen. 1, 65 (cf. Adag. 398, n.l. 498). Apost. 5, 96. Cf. Zenob. Ald. col. 68: Δελφῖνα νήχεσθαι παιδεύεις.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The very similar adage *piscem natare doces* (XIX) is explicitly attributed by Erasmus to Diogenianus (see [the 1703 edition](https://books.google.com/books?id=2cpgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA853&amp;lpg=PA853)), so this strikes me as plausible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that these Greek sources were compiled so long ago, I do not think it would be easy to trace the phrase further than this. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1485" RevisionGUID="f735ee1c-45d5-4245-802d-23bd8961cf79" CreationDate="2016-09-08T22:34:42.303" UserId="809" Text="Programma is Greek in origin is it not? προγράμματα?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As too code: encifrāre, a neologism from cifra ou cifera, Medieval Latin for Arabic sifr, &quot;zero&quot;? Programmers ultimately reduce things to zeros and ones and owe a debt of thanks to the Arab mathematicians for inventing nothingness! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering myself just now what Latin would be for «open source». I want to create a pretentious blog name. De fontibus patentibus?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for the Vocabula, that is pretty cool." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1487" RevisionGUID="3f1eb2f5-eb8b-43ad-a84f-f0d5a640b9d6" CreationDate="2016-09-09T15:36:49.200" UserId="45" Text="It's [well known](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeneid#Virgil.27s_death_and_editing_of_the_Aeneid) that Virgil died before fully editing the *Aeneid* and that he wanted the manuscript to be burned. What isn't immediately clear to me, though, is whether this was a result of misguided fastidiousness or there are well-founded reasons for regarding it as unfinished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is whether there is a **full list of known issues or errors (metrical, narrative, poetic, etc.) in the current text of the *Aeneid*.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specific citations of problematic verses would be especially helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5854" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1487" RevisionGUID="3f1eb2f5-eb8b-43ad-a84f-f0d5a640b9d6" CreationDate="2016-09-09T15:36:49.200" UserId="45" Text="Why is Virgil's Aeneid considered incomplete?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5855" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1487" RevisionGUID="3f1eb2f5-eb8b-43ad-a84f-f0d5a640b9d6" CreationDate="2016-09-09T15:36:49.200" UserId="45" Text="|classical-latin|aeneis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1488" RevisionGUID="72a2612a-429c-4c76-b65c-bd9bbdd91538" CreationDate="2016-09-10T21:20:20.707" UserId="79" Text="Are there instances in known literature where *sal*, &quot;salt&quot;, is neuter instead of masculine?&#xD;&#xA;If yes (as it now seems), can it be freely used as both masculine and neuter or is there a difference?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I ask is something I heard years ago about the writings of *viri obscuri*.&#xD;&#xA;They interpreted *vos estis sal terrae* as &quot;you eat the salt of the land&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is valid to read *&amp;emacr;stis* with a long E (alternative form of *editis*), but this only makes sense if *sal* is the object.&#xD;&#xA;I want to know if the interpretation &quot;you eat salt&quot; instead of &quot;you are salt&quot; makes sense grammatically, ignoring the context of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Finnish&amp;ndash;Latin&amp;ndash;Finnish dictionary (the only thing I had access to when I heard the story) lists *sal* as masculine, but I see that [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DS%3Aentry+group%3D4%3Aentry%3Dsal) includes both genders.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to get rid of this confusion of mine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5857" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1488" RevisionGUID="72a2612a-429c-4c76-b65c-bd9bbdd91538" CreationDate="2016-09-10T21:20:20.707" UserId="79" Text="Is sal ever neuter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5858" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1488" RevisionGUID="72a2612a-429c-4c76-b65c-bd9bbdd91538" CreationDate="2016-09-10T21:20:20.707" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|ambiguity|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1489" RevisionGUID="aee08650-a6e7-4d38-ac28-b8fed681c0a2" CreationDate="2016-09-11T13:27:00.170" UserId="79" Text="I wrote up a lengthy question to ask here, but my computer crashed and I lost it.&#xD;&#xA;Instead of reproducing the question just now, I would like to know how to describe the situation in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The only thing I am missing is a good verb for crashing.&#xD;&#xA;Which word should I use and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best guess now is *mugire*, so I might write&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Computatrum meum mugivit, et ita rogatum meum amisi.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5861" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1489" RevisionGUID="aee08650-a6e7-4d38-ac28-b8fed681c0a2" CreationDate="2016-09-11T13:27:00.170" UserId="79" Text="How does a computer crash in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5862" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1489" RevisionGUID="aee08650-a6e7-4d38-ac28-b8fed681c0a2" CreationDate="2016-09-11T13:27:00.170" UserId="79" Text="|translation|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|technology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1490" RevisionGUID="7a646769-610f-47eb-9a89-78a0750bba17" CreationDate="2016-09-11T14:05:20.820" UserId="645" Text="There is much evidence on the composition of the Aeneid to support the tradition that it was left incomplete and unedited at the poet’s death and, further, that his will required it to be destroyed for that reason. It was preserved and published through the direct intervention of Augustus, who instructed the contemporary poet Varius Rufus (a friend of Virgil, Horace and Maecenas) to revise and edit the whole work; even after this, there remain obvious gaps and there are presumable attempts to supply bridging structures. &#xD;&#xA;The whole subject is treated quite clearly in the Oxford Classical Dictionary. My copy is of the second edition by Hammond &amp; Scullard: a third edition appeared a few years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know of no such full list as you ask for, and without knowing precisely what you are looking for it is not easy to give examples - though they are plentiful in their various kinds. However, there have been plenty of critical editions over the last 250 years, which usually give copious notes and explanations. The one that I used (many years ago!) in studying the Aeneid was published at Quedlinburg in 1846, with the critical apparatus not in German but in Latin: it has a long preface on the history of such criticism, a 22 page excursus on Virgilian hexameters and four useful genealogical tables of the characters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1491" RevisionGUID="d0033155-4b22-4de8-96d0-5b445ed7b8cc" CreationDate="2016-09-12T04:37:57.990" UserDisplayName="user425" Text="This is about the core meaning of *desinat in piscem* as in :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Humano capiti ceruicem pictor equinam&lt;br/&gt; iungere si uelit et uarias&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inducere plumas&lt;br/&gt; undique collatis membris, ut turpiter atrum&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *desinat in piscem* mulier formosa superne,&lt;br/&gt; spectatum admissi, risum teneatis, amici?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ *Quintus Horatius Flaccus* (Horace), [The Art of Poetry: an Epistle&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the Pisos][1] ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course I understand *desino/ere* is a transitive verb meaning *to end (in)* and there's the preposition *in* and the *accusative* *piscem*, literally (I'm guessing) *end in fish*.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I would describe the image the author crafts as an example of a *type mismatch* of sorts but this is not the point. The [*Gaffiot Dictionary*][2] also refers to *Virg. En 10, 211; Sen. Ep. 92, 10; 66, 43* for the expression. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as fish are concerned, they don't necessarily strike as beautiful-looking creatures (but then again it's all a matter of perspective). There's also morphology, which might vary depending on where one lives, and often the fish is wider in the middle and ends with a smaller section before the tail, so there's a contrasting element. Otherwise I'm not clear on the eating habits of the classical authors (and it's off topic) but more importantly I'm not clear on the references they might have about fish and how this translates into Latin, into this *desinat in piscem*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In Horace's, Seneca's, and Virgil's Latin, does *desinat in piscem*&#xD;&#xA;   refer to the *end/tail/shape* of the fish, or rather it's *looks* ? Is&#xD;&#xA;   that some figurative use for some *bad omen* or a *non sequitur*, or&#xD;&#xA;   just plain *bad taste* or what exactly? How and why are they using this?&#xD;&#xA; - Is there more to be said about the use/analysis of *in piscem*&#xD;&#xA;   generally, or with other verbs; anything peculiar I should know about&#xD;&#xA;   the construction *in* + *aninal name* (acc.), is that a significant construction in Latin; does that provide&#xD;&#xA;   further insight about Horace's quote and if so, how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; It is said (*DHLF/Rey*) that in French, *finir en queue de poisson* (lit. *to end as/like the tail of the fish*) [coined][3] by *Honoré de Balzac* (1833) is inspired by Horace's *desinat in piscem*; some French [translations][4] of Horace's text even refer to the fish tail per se. It goes without saying that the sentence *desinat in piscem* doesn't contain the word *tail*; but that doesn't really mean anything.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Poetica_(Horace)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?p=507&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://french.stackexchange.com/q/21745&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/queue_de_poisson_queues_de_poisson/65676/citation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5865" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1491" RevisionGUID="d0033155-4b22-4de8-96d0-5b445ed7b8cc" CreationDate="2016-09-12T04:37:57.990" UserDisplayName="user425" Text="&quot;Desinat in piscem&quot; in Horace's Ars Poetica: morphology or looks or what exactly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5866" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1491" RevisionGUID="d0033155-4b22-4de8-96d0-5b445ed7b8cc" CreationDate="2016-09-12T04:37:57.990" UserDisplayName="user425" Text="|classical-latin|meaning|idiom|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1492" RevisionGUID="bbe7b7d3-4569-444d-b39b-1bdedda24aed" CreationDate="2016-09-12T04:51:59.367" UserId="79" Text="Horatius describes a &quot;combined animal&quot; with human's head, horse's neck, bird's feathers and fish's rear end.&#xD;&#xA;This creature ends in a fish: instead of legs it presumably has a fishtail.&#xD;&#xA;No details of the fish are given; just that the creature contains a fish-like part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [translation available at Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0065) (the [Latin version](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0064%3Acard%3D1) is there, too) puts it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a painter should wish to unite a horse's neck to a human head, and spread a variety of plumage over limbs taken from every part, so that what is a beautiful woman in the upper part terminates unsightly in an ugly fish below; could you, my friends, refrain from laughter, were you admitted to such a sight?  &#xD;&#xA;*(Horace. The Works of Horace. C. Smart. Theodore Alois Buckley. New York. Harper &amp; Brothers. 1863.)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1491" RevisionGUID="e2f93f70-e4cb-4b9a-bcde-d18a06231bbb" CreationDate="2016-09-12T04:57:52.367" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted slightly and added a tag." Text="This is about the core meaning of *desinat in piscem* as in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Humano capiti ceruicem pictor equinam  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; iungere si uelit et uarias inducere plumas  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; undique collatis membris, ut turpiter atrum  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *desinat in piscem* mulier formosa superne,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; spectatum admissi, risum teneatis, amici?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [*Quintus Horatius Flaccus* (Horace), [The Art of Poetry: an Epistle&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the Pisos][1]]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course I understand *desino/ere* is a transitive verb meaning *to end (in)* and there's the preposition *in* and the *accusative* *piscem*, literally (I'm guessing) *end in fish*.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I would describe the image the author crafts as an example of a *type mismatch* of sorts but this is not the point. The [*Gaffiot Dictionary*][2] also refers to *Virg. En 10, 211; Sen. Ep. 92, 10; 66, 43* for the expression. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as fish are concerned, they don't necessarily strike as beautiful-looking creatures (but then again it's all a matter of perspective). There's also morphology, which might vary depending on where one lives, and often the fish is wider in the middle and ends with a smaller section before the tail, so there's a contrasting element. Otherwise I'm not clear on the eating habits of the classical authors (and it's off topic) but more importantly I'm not clear on the references they might have about fish and how this translates into Latin, into this *desinat in piscem*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In Horace's, Seneca's, and Virgil's Latin, does *desinat in piscem*&#xD;&#xA;   refer to the *end/tail/shape* of the fish, or rather it's *looks* ? Is&#xD;&#xA;   that some figurative use for some *bad omen* or a *non sequitur*, or&#xD;&#xA;   just plain *bad taste* or what exactly? How and why are they using this?&#xD;&#xA; - Is there more to be said about the use/analysis of *in piscem*&#xD;&#xA;   generally, or with other verbs; anything peculiar I should know about&#xD;&#xA;   the construction *in* + *aninal name* (acc.), is that a significant construction in Latin; does that provide&#xD;&#xA;   further insight about Horace's quote and if so, how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; It is said (*DHLF/Rey*) that in French, *finir en queue de poisson* (lit. *to end as/like the tail of the fish*) [coined][3] by *Honoré de Balzac* (1833) is inspired by Horace's *desinat in piscem*; some French [translations][4] of Horace's text even refer to the fish tail per se. It goes without saying that the sentence *desinat in piscem* doesn't contain the word *tail*; but that doesn't really mean anything.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Poetica_(Horace)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?p=507&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://french.stackexchange.com/q/21745&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/queue_de_poisson_queues_de_poisson/65676/citation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5869" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1491" RevisionGUID="e2f93f70-e4cb-4b9a-bcde-d18a06231bbb" CreationDate="2016-09-12T04:57:52.367" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted slightly and added a tag." Text="|classical-latin|meaning|idiom|animals|horatius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1493" RevisionGUID="c7c4086a-f11d-43e5-9d6d-85d4419e5c1d" CreationDate="2016-09-12T05:46:29.900" UserId="79" Text="I am looking for ways to describe collaboration in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;My main interest is scientific collaboration, if the type matters.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to have both a verb &quot;to collaborate&quot; and a noun &quot;collaboration&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;These English words have obviously a Latin origin, but I have been unable to find *collaborare* or *collaboratio* in Latin dictionaries, so I assume they are not found in classical literature.&#xD;&#xA;Are there better words for this kind of thing?&#xD;&#xA;I prefer attested classical expressions, but later ones are also welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5871" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1493" RevisionGUID="c7c4086a-f11d-43e5-9d6d-85d4419e5c1d" CreationDate="2016-09-12T05:46:29.900" UserId="79" Text="How to describe collaboration?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5872" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1493" RevisionGUID="c7c4086a-f11d-43e5-9d6d-85d4419e5c1d" CreationDate="2016-09-12T05:46:29.900" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|vocabulary|idiom|science|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1494" RevisionGUID="9eb7de4a-d0e4-47f6-9456-f9da8be04e10" CreationDate="2016-09-12T06:28:31.740" UserDisplayName="user425" Text="I have found *[collaboro][1]/collaborar*e in the Gaffiot (lit. *work in concert*) with reference to *cum, laboro* and Tertullian *On Repentance* :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non potest corpus de unius membri vexatione laetum agere: condoleat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; universum et ad remedium **conlaboret** necesse est.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [*De Paenitentia*][2], Tertulliani&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [translation][3] uses &quot;join with one consent&quot;. The same dictionary [provided][4] *collega* (colleague) and *collegarius* (one of the colleagues), refering to *cum, lego* and noting *conlega sapientae* from Cicero's *De natura deorum* :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Metrodori vero, qui est Epicuri **collega sapientiae**, multa inpudentiora&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recitabat; accusat enim Timocratem, fratrem suum, Metrodorus, quod&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dubitet omnia, quae ad beatam vitam pertineant, ventre metiri, neque&#xD;&#xA;&gt; id semel dicit, sed saepius.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [*De natura deorum*][5], Cicero&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [translation][6] says *co-partner in philosophy*, which feels like some colleague...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?p=340&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.tertullian.org/latin/de_paenitentia.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-47.htm#P11261_3190842&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?p=341&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/De_natura_deorum/Liber_I&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://archive.org/stream/denaturadeorumac00ciceuoft#page/108/mode/2up" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1491" RevisionGUID="09ffeed5-5f7a-4d08-b951-9443cd2cb7d0" CreationDate="2016-09-12T11:32:25.643" UserDisplayName="user425" Comment="typos" Text="This is about the core meaning of *desinat in piscem* as in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Humano capiti ceruicem pictor equinam  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; iungere si uelit et uarias inducere plumas  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; undique collatis membris, ut turpiter atrum  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *desinat in piscem* mulier formosa superne,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; spectatum admissi, risum teneatis, amici?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [*Quintus Horatius Flaccus* (Horace), [The Art of Poetry: an Epistle&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the Pisos][1]]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course I understand *desino/ere* is a transitive verb meaning *to end (in)* and there's the preposition *in* and the *accusative* *piscem*, literally (I'm guessing) *end in fish*.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I would describe the image the author crafts as an example of a *type mismatch* of sorts but this is not the point. The [*Gaffiot Dictionary*][2] also refers to *Virg. En 10, 211; Sen. Ep. 92, 10; 66, 43* for the expression. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as fish are concerned, they don't necessarily strike as beautiful-looking creatures (but then again it's all a matter of perspective). There's also morphology, which might vary depending on where one lives, and often the fish is wider in the middle and ends with a smaller section before the tail, so there's a contrasting element. Otherwise I'm not clear on the eating habits of the classical authors (and it's off topic) but more importantly I'm not clear on the references they might have about fish and how this translates into Latin, into this *desinat in piscem*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In Horace's, Seneca's, and Virgil's Latin, does *desinat in piscem*&#xD;&#xA;   refer to the *end/tail/shape* of the fish, or rather its *looks* ? Is&#xD;&#xA;   that some figurative use for some *bad omen* or a *non sequitur*, or&#xD;&#xA;   just plain *bad taste* or what exactly? How and why are they using this?&#xD;&#xA; - Is there more to be said about the use/analysis of *in piscem*&#xD;&#xA;   generally, or with other verbs; anything peculiar I should know about&#xD;&#xA;   the construction *in* + *animal name* (acc.), is that a significant construction in Latin; does that provide&#xD;&#xA;   further insight about Horace's quote and if so, how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; It is said (*DHLF/Rey*) that in French, *finir en queue de poisson* (lit. *to end as/like the tail of the fish*) [coined][3] by *Honoré de Balzac* (1833) is inspired by Horace's *desinat in piscem*; some French [translations][4] of Horace's text even refer to the fish tail per se. It goes without saying that the sentence *desinat in piscem* doesn't contain the word *tail*; but that doesn't really mean anything.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Poetica_(Horace)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?p=507&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://french.stackexchange.com/q/21745&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/queue_de_poisson_queues_de_poisson/65676/citation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1495" RevisionGUID="8580be04-824c-4f3f-bd34-c061aa3e5d23" CreationDate="2016-09-12T12:03:39.183" UserId="324" Text="collaboro  or conlaboro is also in L/S, with the same unique reference to the early Christian author Tertullian (who writes fairly decent classicising Latin). It is a correctly formed prefixed verb and I would think it mere chance that it is not attested in classical authors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcollaboro&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1496" RevisionGUID="fdedfd1e-9b5d-4ac9-bdcb-1f8f4a947527" CreationDate="2016-09-12T14:14:18.450" UserId="45" Text="My suggestion may or may not fit the spirit of your question, but the [*Creator ineffabilis*](http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Varia/CreatorIneff.html) (*Student's Prayer* of Thomas Aquinas) is beautifully written and includes a request that God collaborate with the three stages of a student's work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ingressum instruas,  &#xD;&#xA;progressum dirigas,  &#xD;&#xA;egressum compleas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are all classically attested words (obviously), though they certainly are not stand-ins for the more prosaic &quot;collaborate.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1497" RevisionGUID="1fd04524-f693-42a0-ba00-4f605ee2ac00" CreationDate="2016-09-12T23:03:04.313" UserId="821" Text="How do I use macrons? I understand what they do and how they do it, I just don't understand how you know when and where to place them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5878" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1497" RevisionGUID="1fd04524-f693-42a0-ba00-4f605ee2ac00" CreationDate="2016-09-12T23:03:04.313" UserId="821" Text="How do i use macrons?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5879" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1497" RevisionGUID="1fd04524-f693-42a0-ba00-4f605ee2ac00" CreationDate="2016-09-12T23:03:04.313" UserId="821" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5880" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1497" RevisionGUID="d980b379-8254-4ecd-ba3a-017fb0e7a698" CreationDate="2016-09-13T00:37:43.067" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="How do I use macrons?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5881" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1497" RevisionGUID="d980b379-8254-4ecd-ba3a-017fb0e7a698" CreationDate="2016-09-13T00:37:43.067" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|classical-latin|diacritics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1498" RevisionGUID="eebf55ea-899e-4382-a5ff-7fb5f17aaccb" CreationDate="2016-09-13T00:56:25.233" UserId="79" Text="Macrons are mainly pronunciation guides, telling which vowels are pronounced long.&#xD;&#xA;In some cases they can resolve ambiguities, when two words only differ by the length a vowel.&#xD;&#xA;Using them is not necessary, and I would personally consider it better style not to use macrons when writing in Latin, unless there is a special reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macrons were not used in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;See [this separate question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1440/79) for the arrival of the macron.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also point out that there also a sign to indicate short vowels: the breve.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the absence of a macron does not make it sufficiently clear that a vowel is short.&#xD;&#xA;For example, we had recently a question about [*p&amp;omacr;pulus* and *po&amp;#x306;pulus*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1316/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your main question seems to be how to know when vowels are short and when they are long.&#xD;&#xA;The answer is simply that you have to learn the lengths when you learn the vowels.&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;man&quot; is *vi&amp;#x306;r*, not *vi&amp;#x304;r*.&#xD;&#xA;The singular genitive ending of the first declension is *-i&amp;#x304;*, not *-i&amp;#x306;*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore &quot;man's&quot; is *vi&amp;#x306;ri&amp;#x304;*.&#xD;&#xA;To get the lengths right, it is not enough to know that the word is *vir* and the ending is *-i*, and there are no simple rules that would allow you to efficiently guess where to put macrons in a given Latin word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you progress in studying Latin, you will develop some intuition to the lengths.&#xD;&#xA;But it does not come without work, and I can offer no shortcut.&#xD;&#xA;This has the unfortunate consequence that if you have already learned many Latin words and endings without paying attention to lengths and you now want to learn where to put macrons, you have to relearn all vowels to get the lengths right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short:&#xD;&#xA;How do you know where to place macrons?&#xD;&#xA;You learn it case by case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1498" RevisionGUID="c0770fc1-a1d2-492c-9758-a71fabe5f9f0" CreationDate="2016-09-13T01:59:21.863" UserId="79" Comment="Added meta links." Text="Macrons are mainly pronunciation guides, telling which vowels are pronounced long.&#xD;&#xA;In some cases they can resolve ambiguities, when two words only differ by the length a vowel.&#xD;&#xA;Using them is not necessary, and I would personally consider it better style not to use macrons when writing in Latin, unless there is a special reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macrons were not used in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;See [this separate question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1440/79) for the arrival of the macron.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also point out that there also a sign to indicate short vowels: the breve.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the absence of a macron does not make it sufficiently clear that a vowel is short.&#xD;&#xA;For example, we had recently a question about [*p&amp;omacr;pulus* and *po&amp;#x306;pulus*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1316/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your main question seems to be how to know when vowels are short and when they are long.&#xD;&#xA;The answer is simply that you have to learn the lengths when you learn the vowels.&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;man&quot; is *vi&amp;#x306;r*, not *vi&amp;#x304;r*.&#xD;&#xA;The singular genitive ending of the first declension is *-i&amp;#x304;*, not *-i&amp;#x306;*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore &quot;man's&quot; is *vi&amp;#x306;ri&amp;#x304;*.&#xD;&#xA;To get the lengths right, it is not enough to know that the word is *vir* and the ending is *-i*, and there are no simple rules that would allow you to efficiently guess where to put macrons in a given Latin word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you progress in studying Latin, you will develop some intuition to the lengths.&#xD;&#xA;But it does not come without work, and I can offer no shortcut.&#xD;&#xA;This has the unfortunate consequence that if you have already learned many Latin words and endings without paying attention to lengths and you now want to learn where to put macrons, you have to relearn all vowels to get the lengths right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In short:&#xD;&#xA;How do you know where to place macrons?&#xD;&#xA;You learn it case by case.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have instructions for producing a [macron](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/172/79) or a [breve](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/2/79) on our meta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1499" RevisionGUID="21744b9a-c588-4ddd-919c-7f380641ac1d" CreationDate="2016-09-13T02:50:04.353" UserId="79" Text="Today in chat we spoke briefly about an earlier discussion I had had with [Cerberus](http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/30/cerberus) in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;(In case you did not know, we have a [chatroom](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm) for this site.)&#xD;&#xA;I realized that I do not know how to put both *ego* and *Cerberus* in a possessive form together to refer to our discussion.&#xD;&#xA;Would *colloquium meum et Cerberi* be valid?&#xD;&#xA;These &quot;mixed possessives&quot; look weird.&#xD;&#xA;Of course I could say *colloquium inter me et Cerberum*, but what I want to know is whether one can combine possessive pronouns with genitives like this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5885" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1499" RevisionGUID="21744b9a-c588-4ddd-919c-7f380641ac1d" CreationDate="2016-09-13T02:50:04.353" UserId="79" Text="Can I combine a possessive pronoun and the genitive of a noun?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5886" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1499" RevisionGUID="21744b9a-c588-4ddd-919c-7f380641ac1d" CreationDate="2016-09-13T02:50:04.353" UserId="79" Text="|grammar-choice|pronouns|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1500" RevisionGUID="b18cd713-2dd5-4004-9643-36e888de5131" CreationDate="2016-09-13T13:53:13.193" UserId="645" Text="For referring to a collaborator, have you thought of *socius* or *adiutor*? The latter does not necessarily imply a subordinate role and can quite well be used of equals in a partnership. Each has a wide range of application, but the sense is always of working together in the same enterprise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To describe a collaboration on matters scientific, it's probably better to try working round the subject. This would allow you to use such words/phrases as *una experire* to imply the relationship between co-workers: e.g. *Gaius et Marcus una operabantur.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of this is in the way of objecting to *collaborare*, etc., which strike me as perfectly valid but not quite the thing for a scientific dissertation in proper classical style - if that's what you want." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1501" RevisionGUID="edacc2d3-266e-4abf-a089-c7b75550e56d" CreationDate="2016-09-13T14:36:18.480" UserId="45" Text="Eugene McCartney has an article in *Classical Philology* (XIV 3 July 1919) entitled [&quot;Greek and Latin Constructions in Implied Agreement&quot;](https://books.google.com/books?id=s43PAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA186&amp;lpg=PA186) that mentions these constructions in its opening notes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While talking about the &quot;closeness of the relationship between the genitive of possession and the possessive adjective,&quot; he cites the coordination of the two in the same sentence as supporting evidence. He gives numerous examples that correspond to the OP's example sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cic. *Fam.* xii.4.2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; summa laus et tua et Bruti est&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caes. *B.G.* iii.20:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; calamitatem aut propriam suam aut temporum &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verg. *Ecl.* iii.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dic mihi, Damoeta, cuium pecus? an Meliboei? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid *Met.* iv.680:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nomen terraeque suumque &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid *Trist*. i.3.97:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nataeque meumque corpus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He also cites some interesting (non-possessive) examples where adjectives are coordinated with the genitive, to further demonstrate that Latin allows this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Livy xxi.29.4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; haud sane incruentam ancipitisque certaminis victoriam." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1502" RevisionGUID="f69498cc-2f6b-4f01-b470-5dd98014b408" CreationDate="2016-09-13T14:53:43.513" UserId="45" Text="In most Latin grammars, *cuius* is introduced as the genitive of *qui* (relative pronoun) or *quis* (interrogative): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Cuius soror es?* -Whose sister are you?&#xD;&#xA;* *Marcus, cuius pater sum, miles est.* -Mark, whose father I am, is a soldier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, however, uses *quoius* as an adjective predominantly (exclusively?):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quoiam** vocem ego audio? (*Curculio* II.i)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non voto ted amare qui dant **quoia** amentur gratia.  (*Asinaria* III.i)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **quoius** nunc es? (*Amphitruo* I.i)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *-us* ending is ambiguous: it could be either a standard 1st and 2nd declension ending, or a genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did one derive from another by some kind of analogy or confusion? Or do they have separate purposes? Also, what led to the apparent disappearance of the adjective form in favor of the genitive form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5890" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1502" RevisionGUID="f69498cc-2f6b-4f01-b470-5dd98014b408" CreationDate="2016-09-13T14:53:43.513" UserId="45" Text="What is the relationship between &quot;cuius&quot; and &quot;quoius&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5891" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1502" RevisionGUID="f69498cc-2f6b-4f01-b470-5dd98014b408" CreationDate="2016-09-13T14:53:43.513" UserId="45" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1503" RevisionGUID="826332ad-5c73-4d48-8001-390923c7cf43" CreationDate="2016-09-13T15:54:57.440" UserId="469" Text="[This][1] was cited in [the answer][2] to a recent question as the _de facto standard for Latin technology vocabulary_ by @C. M. Weimer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acording to it, the verbs _corruo_ and _collabor_ are enough for a _soft_ crash. L&amp;S cites [corruo][3] as _to fall, sink to the ground_ and with an active meaning of someone _to ruin_ sth. Meanwhile, [collabor][4] is more explicit in meaning _to fall in ruins_ (for buildings, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess as a choice to more properly mean that it was not just a matter of restarting your computer is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Computatrum meum collapsit_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.obta.uw.edu.pl/~draco/docs/voccomp.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/196/latin-word-for-code-or-program-the-verb&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcorruo&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcollabor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1504" RevisionGUID="d054973b-7722-45a7-b764-97f416d306a9" CreationDate="2016-09-13T19:04:10.450" UserId="645" Text="The distinction between ‘Republic’ and ‘Empire’ owes a great deal to convention among historians. When the Principate was first established by Augustus it did not, to the legalistic Roman mind, abolish the Republic, but merely continued it. Not until AD69 did it finally become clear that the reversion to rule by one man was irreversible, and at this point it was also apparent that military muscle was far more effective in appointing him than were the politicians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the death of Nero, the legionary commanders each commanded personal support, and the more ambitious made their bids for control. The eventual winner, Vespasian, was the first non-patrician ruler. Historians have given the title of Emperor to four of his predecessors, but only with Vespasian does it formally designate the new system of governance: a special definition of his powers passed into law for the purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thereafter it was customary to refer to the entire polity as an Empire, *Imperium Romanum*, and to each ruler as Emperor. The titles of ‘Augustus’ and ‘Caesar’ were given to the senior and junior rulers of the two halves of the Tetrarchy, first appointed (if that is the appropriate word) when the Empire split into eastern and western components in order to make more manageable. But it was still the ‘Roman Empire’ when Odoacer deposed Romulus Augustuls, the ‘last Emperor of the West’ in AD476, which left the East to become the Byzantine Empire." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="291" RevisionGUID="052a752f-0cbd-4b0f-86d8-cef27a75f2e4" CreationDate="2016-09-13T21:39:52.023" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="I think the accusative of exclamation is the best choice here.&#xD;&#xA;Its use can often be viewed as an elliptic sentence.&#xD;&#xA;When I write a birthday card in Latin, I often write *iucundum diem natalem tibi exopto* or *iucundum diem natalem tibi exoptat Ionas*.&#xD;&#xA;I could abbreviate that to *iucundum diem natalem* (or *felicem*) but I prefer whole sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Joel Derfner suggests, also *dies natalis tibi felix sit* is reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;That sounds a bit impersonal to me (***I*** am wishing you a happy birthday) so I would choose *exoptare* instead of *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether you should choose nominative or accusative in an exclamation depends on which case more naturally fits the completed sentence.&#xD;&#xA;This &quot;elliptic&quot; approach may be nothing more but a personal preference, but it works well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of your sentences are grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;Difference in nuance, if any, comes more from (explicit or implicit) other words than *dies natalis* itself.&#xD;&#xA;I might read the nominative version as *nunc est felix dies natalis* instead of *felix dies natalis sit/esto*.&#xD;&#xA;Accusative makes the exclamation more active in a way and I recommend using it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe I should add that I often close my Latin emails with *Te bene valere iubet Ionas* instead of *Vale! Ionas*.&#xD;&#xA;Others may not share my preference for whole sentences, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1505" RevisionGUID="5d31c349-ca07-4d2e-afb5-767114ffeeed" CreationDate="2016-09-14T01:46:20.363" UserId="79" Text="Can synizesis happen when the perfect stem ends in 'u' and the ending starts with a short 'i'?&#xD;&#xA;For example, can the 'ui' in *fuisti* be synizesized&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; into a diphtong?&#xD;&#xA;In my understanding the two vowels would normally be in different syllables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I would like to see is an example or two in classical poetry showing this synizesis.&#xD;&#xA;If no such example can be found, then something like &quot;I looked through the Aeneid and found no examples, but there were these cases without synizesis&quot; would make a good answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if this is the correct verb in English.&#xD;&#xA;I formed it by analogue to &quot;synthesis&quot; and &quot;synthesize&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5896" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1505" RevisionGUID="5d31c349-ca07-4d2e-afb5-767114ffeeed" CreationDate="2016-09-14T01:46:20.363" UserId="79" Text="Synizesis in perfect tense 'ui'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5897" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1505" RevisionGUID="5d31c349-ca07-4d2e-afb5-767114ffeeed" CreationDate="2016-09-14T01:46:20.363" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|poetry|synizesis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1505" RevisionGUID="93084703-1bc4-48ec-b60e-c7eb1e172458" CreationDate="2016-09-14T01:54:08.407" UserId="79" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="Can synizesis happen when the perfect stem ends in 'u' and the ending starts with a short 'i'?&#xD;&#xA;For example, can the 'ui' in *fuisti* be synizesized&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; into a diphthong?&#xD;&#xA;In my understanding the two vowels would normally be in different syllables.&#xD;&#xA;If it is normally a diphthong &amp;mdash; which I doubt &amp;mdash; can it be split in two?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I would like to see is an example or two in classical poetry showing this synizesis.&#xD;&#xA;If no such example can be found, then something like &quot;I looked through the Aeneid and found no examples, but there were these cases without synizesis&quot; would make a good answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if this is the correct verb in English.&#xD;&#xA;I formed it by analogy to &quot;synthesis&quot; and &quot;synthesize&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5899" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="9e477527-fdb5-46ca-9367-ab854ca50a12" CreationDate="2016-09-14T04:17:50.880" UserId="79" Comment="Added author tag." Text="Why &quot;impressa&quot; in Æneid IV.659–60?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5900" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="9e477527-fdb5-46ca-9367-ab854ca50a12" CreationDate="2016-09-14T04:17:50.880" UserId="79" Comment="Added author tag." Text="|poetry|grammar-identification|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|aeneis|vergilius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1502" RevisionGUID="d3973d0b-0d2e-4644-8eef-e64682dd0c1d" CreationDate="2016-09-14T04:22:49.853" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag. Feel free to remove if it feels unsuitable." Text="In most Latin grammars, *cuius* is introduced as the genitive of *qui* (relative pronoun) or *quis* (interrogative): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Cuius soror es?* &amp;mdash; Whose sister are you?&#xD;&#xA;* *Marcus, cuius pater sum, miles est.* &amp;mdash; Mark, whose father I am, is a soldier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, however, uses *quoius* as an adjective predominantly (exclusively?):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quoiam** vocem ego audio? (*Curculio* II.i)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non voto ted amare qui dant **quoia** amentur gratia.  (*Asinaria* III.i)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **quoius** nunc es? (*Amphitruo* I.i)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *-us* ending is ambiguous: it could be either a standard 1st and 2nd declension ending, or a genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did one derive from another by some kind of analogy or confusion? Or do they have separate purposes? Also, what led to the apparent disappearance of the adjective form in favor of the genitive form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5902" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1502" RevisionGUID="d3973d0b-0d2e-4644-8eef-e64682dd0c1d" CreationDate="2016-09-14T04:22:49.853" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag. Feel free to remove if it feels unsuitable." Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1506" RevisionGUID="78bc1b29-7de5-4126-b452-8fd805729ad7" CreationDate="2016-09-14T13:03:03.193" UserId="30" Text="When I scan a verse, I simply leave out elided vowels: I don't pronounce them at all. But I've heard theories that the Romans did pronounce them, but just as very short vowels of half a syllable's length. What do we know about this? Is there consensus about the pronunciation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5904" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1506" RevisionGUID="78bc1b29-7de5-4126-b452-8fd805729ad7" CreationDate="2016-09-14T13:03:03.193" UserId="30" Text="How were elided vowels pronounced by the Romans?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5905" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1506" RevisionGUID="78bc1b29-7de5-4126-b452-8fd805729ad7" CreationDate="2016-09-14T13:03:03.193" UserId="30" Text="|pronunciation|elision|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5906" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1506" RevisionGUID="f263f5fc-a9ca-4921-800e-cc03d47e3c9a" CreationDate="2016-09-14T13:32:20.313" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|elision|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1507" RevisionGUID="df9e34d7-aff1-4fc7-b4fc-2e8619059774" CreationDate="2016-09-14T15:35:16.847" UserId="324" Text="This is discussed in great detail in Allen’s classic “Vox Latina” ch. 4. His conclusion is (briefly) that a final short vowel followed by another vowel in the next word was elided (elisio), but a long vowel in the same position was reduced to a semivowel (synizesis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA78&amp;source=gbs_toc_r&amp;cad=3#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1507" RevisionGUID="af9032e6-a95c-40ee-88f1-6a617d63426f" CreationDate="2016-09-14T19:27:35.247" UserId="45" Comment="edited body" Text="This is discussed in great detail in Allen’s classic [*Vox Latina* ch. 4](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA78&amp;source=gbs_toc_r&amp;cad=3#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false). His conclusion is (briefly) that a final short vowel followed by another vowel in the next word was elided (elisio), but a long vowel in the same position was reduced to a semivowel (synizesis).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1508" RevisionGUID="98b7eb65-2f65-4330-97ba-d109bedd254f" CreationDate="2016-09-14T20:24:58.970" UserId="235" Text="I was reading Luke 10:25 in the Vulgate bible, trying my best to translate as literally as possible. But I found it hard to translate the question that the expert of law (*legisperitus*) poses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [(Vulgate)][1] Et ecce quidam legisperitus surrexit tentans illum, et dicens: **Magister, quid faciendo vitam æternam possidebo?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And behold a certain expert of the law stood up, testing him, and saying: **&quot;Master, by doing what shall I possess eternal life?&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First off, I think it's important to correctly parse *faciendo*. I take it to be the ablative form of the gerund. At first I thought it might be the gerundive, but I ruled out this possibility. Correct me if I'm wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that we've parsed *faciendo*, I'm a little confused by how the Douay-Rheims bible translates it. Of course, their translation sounds a lot better than mine. But I'm curious how liberal they were in translating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [(Douay-Rheims)][2] And behold a certain lawyer stood up, tempting him, and saying, **Master, what must I do to possess eternal life?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do they get from the ablative form of the gerund, to the subjunctive-sounding &quot;what must I do&quot;? Is the gerund often translated this way? Or did they take liberties in doing so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dilemma is that, without translating the sentence liberally, it's hard to arrive at an idiomatic, English translation. The one I gave sounds awful!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you translate the question posed by the *legisperitus*? And what do you think of the Douay-Rheims translation? I appreciate any feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/luk010.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/dou/luk.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5911" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1508" RevisionGUID="98b7eb65-2f65-4330-97ba-d109bedd254f" CreationDate="2016-09-14T20:24:58.970" UserId="235" Text="Use of the gerund in the Vulgate bible" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5912" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1508" RevisionGUID="98b7eb65-2f65-4330-97ba-d109bedd254f" CreationDate="2016-09-14T20:24:58.970" UserId="235" Text="|translation|vulgata|gerund|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1508" RevisionGUID="769a275b-a0c2-4d17-8ef9-37d1a5c225a7" CreationDate="2016-09-14T20:37:33.760" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="I was reading Luke 10:25 in the Vulgate bible, trying my best to translate as literally as possible. But I found it hard to translate the question that the expert of law (*legisperitus*) poses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [(Vulgate)][1] Et ecce quidam legisperitus surrexit tentans illum, et dicens: **Magister, quid faciendo vitam æternam possidebo?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And behold a certain expert of the law stood up, testing him, and saying: **&quot;Master, by doing what shall I possess eternal life?&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First off, I think it's important to correctly parse *faciendo*. I take it to be the ablative form of the gerund. At first I thought it might be the gerundive, but I ruled out this possibility. Correct me if I'm wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that we've parsed *faciendo*, I'm a little confused by how the Douay-Rheims bible translates it. Of course, their translation sounds a lot better than mine. But I'm curious how liberal they were in translating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [(Douay-Rheims)][2] And behold a certain lawyer stood up, tempting him, and saying, **Master, what must I do to possess eternal life?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do they get from the ablative form of the gerund, to the subjunctive-sounding &quot;what must I do&quot;? Is the gerund often translated this way? Or did they take liberties in doing so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dilemma is that, without translating the sentence liberally, it's hard to arrive at an idiomatic, English translation. The one I gave sounds awful!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you translate the question posed by the *legisperitus*? And what do you think of the Douay-Rheims translation? I appreciate any feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/luk010.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/dou/luk.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5914" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1508" RevisionGUID="769a275b-a0c2-4d17-8ef9-37d1a5c225a7" CreationDate="2016-09-14T20:37:33.760" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|translation|christianity|vulgata|gerund|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1508" RevisionGUID="7739d9e0-39ed-4546-818d-26cba5fe5ba9" CreationDate="2016-09-14T20:50:32.560" UserId="235" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="I was reading Luke 10:25 in the Vulgate bible, trying my best to translate as literally as possible. But I found it hard to translate the question that the expert of law (*legisperitus*) poses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [(Vulgate)][1] Et ecce quidam legisperitus surrexit tentans illum, et dicens: **Magister, quid faciendo vitam æternam possidebo?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And behold a certain expert of the law stood up, testing him, and saying: **&quot;Master, by doing what shall I possess eternal life?&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First off, I think it's important to correctly parse *faciendo*. I take it to be the ablative form of the gerund. At first I thought it might be the gerundive, but I ruled out this possibility. Correct me if I'm wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that we've parsed *faciendo*, I'm a little confused by how the Douay-Rheims bible translates it. Of course, their translation sounds a lot better than mine. But I'm curious how liberal they were in translating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [(Douay-Rheims)][2] And behold a certain lawyer stood up, tempting him, and saying, **Master, what must I do to possess eternal life?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do they get from the ablative form of the gerund, to the subjunctive-sounding &quot;what must I do&quot;? Is the gerund often translated this way? Or did they take liberties in doing so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dilemma is that, without translating the sentence liberally, it's hard to arrive at an idiomatic, English translation. The one I gave sounds awful!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you translate the question posed by the *legisperitus*? And what do you think of the Douay-Rheims translation? I appreciate any feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/luk010.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/dou/luk.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1509" RevisionGUID="b2bce31e-b8b3-4c64-860b-f54765f0d909" CreationDate="2016-09-14T20:57:38.327" UserId="823" Text="Im wondering how the Romans would have pronounced ph if they were together in a word like &quot;triumphantes&quot;? Would it be pronounced like the letter f or the letter p? OR did the Romans even ever put ph together in a word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5917" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1509" RevisionGUID="b2bce31e-b8b3-4c64-860b-f54765f0d909" CreationDate="2016-09-14T20:57:38.327" UserId="823" Text="Did the Romans pronounce ph like the letter f or the letter p?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5918" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1509" RevisionGUID="b2bce31e-b8b3-4c64-860b-f54765f0d909" CreationDate="2016-09-14T20:57:38.327" UserId="823" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1510" RevisionGUID="9f3c2d65-ad30-4d8e-95b4-69c3de3271c9" CreationDate="2016-09-14T21:05:31.247" UserId="40" Text="I think you've basically answered your own question. The literal translation you give is correct but is extremely unidiomatic English; the Douay-Rheims translation preserves the sense of the Latin but expresses it in idiomatic English. There's really no other option. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Placing the main point of a question in a subordinate clause is something Latin does freely but English does not. In this case the question can be expressed as &quot;There is some thing X by doing which I will obtain eternal life; what is that X?&quot; A natural Latin way to say this is with a gerund in the ablative; a natural English way to say it is with an infinitival purpose clause. The Douay-Rheims translation is syntactically distant from the Latin because it has to be, but is semantically basically equivalent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1509" RevisionGUID="9f786396-fcb7-47e7-8b49-750f9fe6662b" CreationDate="2016-09-14T21:32:15.780" UserId="12" Comment="added 20 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm wondering – how the Romans would have pronounced *ph* if these letters were together in a word like &quot;triumphantes&quot;? Would it be pronounced like the letter *f* or the letter *p*? Or did the Romans even ever put *ph* together in a word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5921" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1509" RevisionGUID="9f786396-fcb7-47e7-8b49-750f9fe6662b" CreationDate="2016-09-14T21:32:15.780" UserId="12" Comment="added 20 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1511" RevisionGUID="def7e17b-2a64-47ad-8be3-a63afdc8936d" CreationDate="2016-09-14T21:42:23.040" UserId="12" Text="The diagraph *ph* in Classical Latin represents an &quot;aspirated voiceless plosive,&quot; which means that it sounds like the *p* in the English word *pot* – a strong *p* sound, with aspiration (if you put your hand in front of your face, you'll feel air when you say it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ph* and its relatives *th* and *ch* were initially used primarily to transcribe Greek names and loan-words, like *Philippus* and *philtrum*, and later entered native Latin words like *triumphus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More details are available in *Vox Latina*, by W. Sydney Allen, and in [this related answer](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/648/12). Allen concludes his treatment of these letters by reminding us that the *ph* certainly did not sound like the *ph* in the English *photo*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is no justification for pronouncing the aspirates as fricatives—i.e. as in *photo*, *thick*, *loch*; this is admittedly the value of φ, θ, χ in Late Greek, but it had not yet developed by classical Latin times." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1511" RevisionGUID="23c6f370-8070-413d-b8a4-da192a1d249d" CreationDate="2016-09-14T21:49:26.190" UserId="12" Comment="added 251 characters in body" Text="The diagraph *ph* in Classical Latin represents an &quot;aspirated voiceless plosive,&quot; which means that it sounds like the *p* in the English word *pot* – a strong *p* sound, with aspiration (if you put your hand in front of your face, you'll feel air when you say it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ph* and its relatives *th* and *ch* were initially used primarily to transcribe Greek names and loan-words, like *Philippus* and *philtrum*, and later entered native Latin words like *triumphus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More details are available in *Vox Latina*, by W. Sydney Allen, and in [this related answer](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/648/12). Allen concludes his treatment of these letters by reminding us that the *ph* certainly did not sound like the *ph* in the English *photo*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is no justification for pronouncing the aspirates as fricatives—i.e. as in *photo*, *thick*, *loch*; this is admittedly the value of φ, θ, χ in Late Greek, but it had not yet developed by classical Latin times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, toward the end of the period of Classical Latin, instances of *ph* as a fricative (sounding like English *f*) do begin to appear, as described here: [When did 'ph' start to be pronounced like 'f'?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/649/12)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1512" RevisionGUID="953362b8-203f-4419-961f-7b31b26b13d0" CreationDate="2016-09-14T22:30:13.670" UserId="40" Text="The first thing to note is that the *cu-* and *quo-* spellings are equivalent:  *quoius* is an earlier form of *cuius*, in both the functions you describe. I think your question is really about the relationship between:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the gen. sg. of the relative pronoun, written *quoius* in Old Latin but *cuius* in Classical Latin; and&#xD;&#xA; - the possessive adjective meaning 'whose', written *quoius, -a, -um* in Old Latin but *cuius, -a, -um* in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the second form is not exclusively Plautine, but survived into Classical Latin: we have *cuium pecus* in Vergil, *Eclogues* 3.1, a couple of uses of *cuium* and *cuia* in Cicero, and a few other scattered instances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relationship between the two is not entirely clear. The most obvious explanation (thus de Vaan) is that the possessive adjective was derived from the gen. sg.: *cuius* was reanalyzed as the nominative singular masculine form of an adjective, and a new paradigm was created.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's also possible that both forms were inherited from Proto-Indo-European, since there's a Greek adjective ποῖος 'of what kind?' which looks formally equivalent to *cuius, -a, -um* and could be a cognate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your last question -- why the adjective disappeared -- is of the kind that historical linguistics finds hardest to answer. Forms fall out of use in every language often for no apparent reason, and there are many other Plautine usages which disappeared in later Latin. In this case it seems plausible that, since the possessive adjective had the same function as the genitive of the relative pronoun, there was no need for both forms and the simpler form (the one without an entire paradigm) won out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1512" RevisionGUID="8e27a41f-61c4-4903-b70a-9befb8b7b86a" CreationDate="2016-09-15T00:03:01.803" UserId="40" Comment="added part about Spanish cuyo" Text="The first thing to note is that the *cu-* and *quo-* spellings are equivalent:  *quoius* is an earlier form of *cuius*, in both the functions you describe. I think your question is really about the relationship between:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the gen. sg. of the relative pronoun, written *quoius* in Old Latin but *cuius* in Classical Latin; and&#xD;&#xA; - the possessive adjective meaning 'whose', written *quoius, -a, -um* in Old Latin but *cuius, -a, -um* in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the second form is not exclusively Plautine, but survived into Classical Latin: we have *cuium pecus* in Vergil, *Eclogues* 3.1, a couple of uses of *cuium* and *cuia* in Cicero, and a few other scattered instances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relationship between the two is not entirely clear. The most obvious explanation (thus de Vaan) is that the possessive adjective was derived from the gen. sg.: *cuius* was reanalyzed as the nominative singular masculine form of an adjective, and a new paradigm was created.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's also possible that both forms were inherited from Proto-Indo-European, since there's a Greek adjective ποῖος 'of what kind?' which looks formally equivalent to *cuius, -a, -um* and could be a cognate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your last question -- why the adjective disappeared -- is of the kind that historical linguistics finds hardest to answer. Forms fall out of use in every language often for no apparent reason, and there are many other Plautine usages which disappeared in later Latin. In this case it seems plausible that, since the possessive adjective had the same function as the genitive of the relative pronoun, there was no need for both forms and the simpler form (the one without an entire paradigm) won out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ETA: though maybe it didn't disappear: Spanish has a possessive adjective *cuyo, -a* 'whose'. Whether this is a survival of the Plautine usage or an independent later innovation, I don't know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1513" RevisionGUID="d789a9c1-62bc-41f7-b9c2-54ab4f292197" CreationDate="2016-09-15T04:33:29.887" UserId="824" Text="I can't seem to find anywhere how to make a Roman sundial so I'm wondering if anyone can tell me how or where I can find how to make a Roman sundial?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also wondering how Roman time works and how it is kept?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5928" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1513" RevisionGUID="d789a9c1-62bc-41f7-b9c2-54ab4f292197" CreationDate="2016-09-15T04:33:29.887" UserId="824" Text="How to make a Roman sundial and tell the time in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5929" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1513" RevisionGUID="d789a9c1-62bc-41f7-b9c2-54ab4f292197" CreationDate="2016-09-15T04:33:29.887" UserId="824" Text="|classical-latin|time|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1514" RevisionGUID="06b91dbf-7288-41e8-8191-c61df42e2d93" CreationDate="2016-09-15T14:08:05.430" UserId="828" Text="The reason for rhotacism is I believe ascribed to the fact that there was only one sibilant in latin - /s/, and as such it was not pronounced exactly [s] as in today's English or French. These two languages have more sibilants and in the terms of position, they distinguish two - /s/ and /š/. Latin, with only one position, is thought to have /s/ phoneme similar to the Castilian Spanish one (again only one sibilant), which is pronounced apically (with the tip of the tongue) and sounds perceptively as something between the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As explained in detail in other answers, the /s/ became sonorous in certain positions, so it was pronounced as apical [z] (perceptively, this would be something between [z] and [ž]). This sound is not very far from the way /r/ is pronounced by the British. It is unknown how exactly PIE or early Latin /r/ was pronounced but there is comparative evidence which suggest it might have been slightly retroflex and not a vibrant, so if that were the case, there would be ample opportunity for the latin sonorous apical /s/ to be confused with the /r/ and essentially merge in the same phoneme." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1509" RevisionGUID="4c1b4ddc-b748-4b5b-9db9-812659d13470" CreationDate="2016-09-15T14:34:36.877" UserId="12" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="I'm wondering – how would the Romans have pronounced *ph* if these letters were together in a word like &quot;triumphantes&quot;? Would it be pronounced like the letter *f* or the letter *p*? Did the Romans even ever put *ph* together in a word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1515" RevisionGUID="b141e449-87d6-47da-b042-f525729bce50" CreationDate="2016-09-15T16:53:52.570" UserId="79" Text="If I want to find research articles of some kind to learn more about a particular topic related to Latin, what should I do?&#xD;&#xA;I am a trained scientist, but my own research is on a very different field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to find mathematical articles, it is often best to use [arXiv](http://arxiv.org/) or [MathSciNet](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/).&#xD;&#xA;The latter requires subscription but the database is very comprehensive and the reviews are useful.&#xD;&#xA;The former is a preprint server where many mathematicians and physicists make their work freely available when they submit to a journal, making the articles readable long before the review process is complete.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes [Google Scholar](http://scholar.google.com/) is useful and it includes all fields, but I find it somewhat unreliable or inconsistent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a high level overview of how to find articles.&#xD;&#xA;What do researchers in Latin language, archaeology, history, literature and similar fields actually do when they want to read about something new?&#xD;&#xA;If there are numerous useful online services or the approach depends heavily on circumstances (for example being at a university or not) or the precise field, please indicate so.&#xD;&#xA;In that case more specific questions need to be asked later on to understand the details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5934" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1515" RevisionGUID="b141e449-87d6-47da-b042-f525729bce50" CreationDate="2016-09-15T16:53:52.570" UserId="79" Text="How to find scholarly articles related to Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5935" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1515" RevisionGUID="b141e449-87d6-47da-b042-f525729bce50" CreationDate="2016-09-15T16:53:52.570" UserId="79" Text="|resource-request|soft-question|study-strategies|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1516" RevisionGUID="4aa105b6-deae-4281-8762-473314fe64cd" CreationDate="2016-09-15T21:53:31.387" UserId="522" Text="By chance I came across this passage on teaching Vergil, and other Classics in  &#xD;&#xA;p. 32 [on-line 47/171]**[The Seven Liberal Arts][1],** Paul Abelson, 1909.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bernard of Chartres, for instance, who taught John of Salisbury, in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the twelfth century, not only read the authors with his pupils but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also explained constructions, **pointed out mistakes and beauties of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the text.** elucidated matters of antiquity, asked pupils to judge and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; criticise, make them memorise passages and write original passages in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; prose and verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The source can be found in **Metalogicus I. ch 9, 14,** accessible in&#xD;&#xA;Migne CXCIX col 838,853 et seq.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/stream/sevenliberalart02abelgoog#page/n45/mode/2up" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1517" RevisionGUID="ecfce06a-25f7-4847-a4c8-6468cf86ceb4" CreationDate="2016-09-16T01:19:52.000" UserId="30" Text="Some sources mention a genitive singular *alius*, but I've also seen *aliae*. And I don't recall seeing a dative singular *ali*, but neither do I remember *alio*. I think several forms exist, including even suppletive forms like *alterius*. What would be standard for Cicero?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5938" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1517" RevisionGUID="ecfce06a-25f7-4847-a4c8-6468cf86ceb4" CreationDate="2016-09-16T01:19:52.000" UserId="30" Text="What are the normal genitive and dative singular forms of &quot;alius&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5939" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1517" RevisionGUID="ecfce06a-25f7-4847-a4c8-6468cf86ceb4" CreationDate="2016-09-16T01:19:52.000" UserId="30" Text="|adjective|morphology|dative|ending|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1479" RevisionGUID="1136ca4f-4759-4b95-a2e2-283195554b8a" CreationDate="2016-09-16T01:30:46.553" UserId="30" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="&gt;&quot;The early Italian house consisted only of the *atrium* and the surrounding rooms, with, in most cases, a small garden at the back....  Out of the small plot at the back of the early house developed the *peristylium*, a garden surrounded by colonnades on to which rooms opened on all sides,... The *peristylium*, both in general appearance and in name, reproduced the men's room of a Greek house. Whilst the names of the front rooms of a Roman house are Italian (sic) (*atrium,fauces, alae, tablinum*)  those of the back are Greek (*peristylium, triclinium, oecus, exhedra*)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Rome: It's people, life and customs,*  Ugo Enrico Paoli, 1940, trans. R. D. Macnaghten, English version 1958.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This link discusses the House of the Surgeon and the architectural development mentioned :-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-vi/reg-vi-ins-1/house-of-the-surgeon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S give this as the derivation of *peristylium*  :-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**peristylium** The Greek adjective περίστυλος is applied either to a court surrounded by colonnades on the inside, or to a building surrounded by them on the outside, as a temple. It is then used alone, in all three genders, with a substantive understood, for a court with colonnades: hence the Latin peristylum, or more commonly the substantive form peristylium. It is especially used for the courts of a Greek dwellinghouse, and for that introduced into Roman houses in imitation of them. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1518" RevisionGUID="6aab3623-9abb-4372-83e4-ff04e8377e14" CreationDate="2016-09-16T01:46:34.663" UserId="40" Text="[Bennett](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect66) gives gen. *alterius*, dat. *aliī*. [Allen and Greenough](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-113.html) list *alius* among the adjectives that &quot;have the Genitive Singular in -īus and the Dative in -ī in all genders&quot;, implying *alīus, aliī*, but add in notes that &quot;Instead of *alīus*, *alterīus* is commonly used&quot; and that &quot;The regular genitive and dative forms (as in *bonus*) are sometimes found in some of these words: as, genitive and dative feminine, *aliae*; dative masculine, *aliō*&quot;. These possibilities presumably reflect Ciceronian and general Classical usage; it's hard to verify this with a search, though, because all the variants happen to be ambiguous with other case forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1519" RevisionGUID="a57e94f7-883c-47f0-8a70-cc4194edcfa8" CreationDate="2016-09-16T09:39:21.160" UserId="183" Text="You can go to a site like [CiteULike][1] and look for items tagged &quot;latin&quot; or and follow the links there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, there are a lot of articles about biology interferring the result. You can refine the result set using advance search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Entering &quot;latin language&quot; into Google Scholar's search slit didn't look that bad to me. (&quot;latin&quot; alone has many distractions like &quot;latin america&quot; or &quot;latin square&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://citeulike.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1516" RevisionGUID="b1603413-06df-4a66-bb41-631a6ed814cc" CreationDate="2016-09-16T10:43:00.017" UserId="522" Comment="edited body" Text="By chance I came across this passage on teaching Virgil, and other Classics in  &#xD;&#xA;p. 32 [on-line 47/171]**[The Seven Liberal Arts][1],** Paul Abelson, 1909.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bernard of Chartres, for instance, who taught John of Salisbury, in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the twelfth century, not only read the authors with his pupils but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also explained constructions, **pointed out mistakes and beauties of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the text.** elucidated matters of antiquity, asked pupils to judge and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; criticise, make them memorise passages and write original passages in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; prose and verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The source can be found in **Metalogicus I. ch 9, 14,** accessible in&#xD;&#xA;Migne CXCIX col 838,853 et seq.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/stream/sevenliberalart02abelgoog#page/n45/mode/2up" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1520" RevisionGUID="7d8f94c0-7336-43d0-aa96-57c2ef341cd3" CreationDate="2016-09-16T11:07:39.923" UserId="831" Text="Gildersleeve and Lodge, §76.r1: *The Gen. **alīus** is very rare, and as a possessive its place is usually taken by **alienus**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;§76.r2: *…usually make the Dat. Sing. in **-ī** … Alī is found in early Latin for aliī.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1520" RevisionGUID="c710e510-d996-43c0-82af-122491b5f4ec" CreationDate="2016-09-16T11:31:52.527" UserId="12" Comment="link" Text="[Gildersleeve and Lodge, §76.r1](https://books.google.com/books?id=UU0BIAbE0SIC&amp;pg=PA39): *The Gen. **alīus** is very rare, and as a possessive its place is usually taken by **alienus**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;§76.r2: *…usually make the Dat. Sing. in **-ī** … Alī is found in early Latin for aliī.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1521" RevisionGUID="c52fdcdc-fade-4d32-b4bd-67d9806f7f66" CreationDate="2016-09-16T15:21:27.950" UserId="324" Text="The only thing I can suggest is to become a regular reader of the standard specialist journals. A good start would be with these ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.jstor.org/publisher/classical" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1522" RevisionGUID="38015421-b17f-4b28-aa66-4f243a67b55a" CreationDate="2016-09-16T17:31:15.170" UserId="12" Text="I'm having difficulty parsing the following sentence from [Alfonsi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrus_Alphonsi)'s *Dialogi contra Iudaeos*, particularly the clause in bold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dies Dominica, dies, viz. resurrectionis, **quae suae salvationis causa exstitit**, Christianorum Sabbatum est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is most likely due to my lack of diligence in Latin studies, so apologies for that.  But here's what I have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - quae: plural neuter pronoun (probably accusative?)&#xD;&#xA; - suae: plural possessive pronoun&#xD;&#xA; - salvationis: noun, 3rd declension, singular genitive&#xD;&#xA; - causa: &quot;on account of&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  - My Latin dictionary gives &quot;in abl. with *gen.* or *posses. adj.* (usu. put after the noun)&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - exstitit: verb (3rd), third-person singular&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My rather wooden literal translation, then, would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Lord's day – the day, that is, of the resurrection, on which account their [Christians'] salvation emerges – is the Christians' Sabbath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure there are multiple issues here, but I'd like to focus on these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I'm not sure that my understanding of *suae* here is correct. I believe *christianorum* could be either the genitive of the noun christianus, or an adjective, and I wonder if *suae* or other context indicates which.  That is, is *christianorum sabbatum* &quot;the Christian Sabbath&quot; or &quot;the Christians' Sabbath,&quot; or both/either?&#xD;&#xA; - Is there some point to combining *suae* and a genitive noun?  Don't we know who possesses the salvation without *suae*?&#xD;&#xA; - How does *causa* fit into this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;This line from Alfonsi's work is widely quoted online, but I haven't been able to find the complete text that would include the broader context.  An English translation is available on Google Books, however; [Page 257](https://books.google.com/books?id=Tz_H7tWE6YMC&amp;pg=PA257) seems to include the text in question, but it translates it much differently, which is part of the reason for my confusion:&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;It was no longer necessary for all those believing in him to observe the Sabbath but to observe Sunday instead, namely, the day of the Resurrection, which was the basis of their salvation.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5950" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1522" RevisionGUID="38015421-b17f-4b28-aa66-4f243a67b55a" CreationDate="2016-09-16T17:31:15.170" UserId="12" Text="What does the clause &quot;quae suae salvationis causa exstitit&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5951" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1522" RevisionGUID="38015421-b17f-4b28-aa66-4f243a67b55a" CreationDate="2016-09-16T17:31:15.170" UserId="12" Text="|translation|medieval-latin|ecclesiastical-latin|pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1523" RevisionGUID="606d4531-3882-4461-9e6e-d27f588f1ee4" CreationDate="2016-09-16T17:40:31.917" UserId="39" Text="Subscription only (available mostly to institutions):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Brill Online Reference Works][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [De Gruyter][2]&#xD;&#xA; - [John Benjamins][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [Oxford Scholarship Online][4]&#xD;&#xA; - databases, like ProQuest and EBSCO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Free: [Academia][5] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://brillonline.nl/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.degruyter.com/browse?t1=LS&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/lin;jsessionid=28e5q9q1cr5k8.x-jbep-live-01&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/browse?t=OSO:classics&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.academia.edu/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1524" RevisionGUID="692b6697-ab99-49ef-8593-8a2cc8012044" CreationDate="2016-09-16T18:43:53.730" UserId="235" Text="Lately, I've been reading about demonstrative pronouns and adjectives. I'm fairly comfortable with *hic* and *ille*, but I'm not too sure about *is*. How is *is* weaker than the other demonstratives? When would you use *is* instead of the others?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5954" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1524" RevisionGUID="692b6697-ab99-49ef-8593-8a2cc8012044" CreationDate="2016-09-16T18:43:53.730" UserId="235" Text="How is the demonstrative pronoun &quot;is&quot; weaker than the others?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5955" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1524" RevisionGUID="692b6697-ab99-49ef-8593-8a2cc8012044" CreationDate="2016-09-16T18:43:53.730" UserId="235" Text="|demonstrative-pronoun|demonstrative-adjective|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1525" RevisionGUID="5decd4ad-0efb-4b6e-a9ee-123730b5acfa" CreationDate="2016-09-16T19:22:28.990" UserId="39" Text="Lateinische Grammatik (Leumann, Hofman and Szantyr 1977) argues that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**Im Genetiv ist -īus die Standardform der Endung**, **sie gilt** für Plautus und **für die klassische Prosa verbindlich**. In metrischen Texten bestehen zwei Nebenformen&quot; (Para 376B2a, p. 479) [emphasis mine - Alex B.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They also add that &quot;Einigermassen häufig sind nur gen. -i und dat. fem. -ae&quot; (p. 480). They admit that the evidence is shaky, cf. &quot;manche Zeugnisse sind unsicher.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Other forms*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prose**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Varro, De Lingua Latina 9.62 **alii** generis &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Poetry**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, Capt. 306: qui imperare insueram, nunc **alterius** imperio obsequor. [GEN]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, Bacch. 462: erum ingenium plus triginta annis maiust quam **alteri**. [DAT]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1525" RevisionGUID="07f62c29-75a5-42a4-b83f-2a14f420733c" CreationDate="2016-09-16T20:35:50.057" UserId="39" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="Lateinische Grammatik (Leumann, Hofman and Szantyr 1977) argues that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**Im Genetiv ist -īus die Standardform der Endung**, **sie gilt** für Plautus und **für die klassische Prosa verbindlich**. In metrischen Texten bestehen zwei Nebenformen&quot; (Para 376B2a, p. 479) [emphasis mine - Alex B.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They also add that &quot;Einigermassen häufig sind nur gen. -i und dat. fem. -ae&quot; (p. 480). They admit that the evidence is shaky, cf. &quot;manche Zeugnisse sind unsicher.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Other forms*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prose**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Varro, De Lingua Latina 9.62 **alii** generis &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Poetry**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, Capt. 306: qui imperare insueram, nunc **alterius** imperio obsequor. [GEN]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, Bacch. 462: erum ingenium plus triginta annis maiust quam **alteri**. [DAT]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a screenshot of the OLD entry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the OLD lexicographers mention that **alterius is sometimes used instead of alius.GEN.SG** For more elucidating examples/information, we need to look it up in TLL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YW89R.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1523" RevisionGUID="96473f5b-f9f3-4a3f-964e-ddac8375a4ae" CreationDate="2016-09-16T21:31:38.477" UserId="39" Comment="added 265 characters in body" Text="Subscription only (available mostly to institutions):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Brill Online Reference Works][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [De Gruyter][2] (includes [Journal of Latin Linguistics][3] and excellent [New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax][4] four-volume series, among other things)&#xD;&#xA; - [John Benjamins][5]&#xD;&#xA; - [Oxford Scholarship Online][6]&#xD;&#xA; - databases, like ProQuest and EBSCO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Free: [Academia][7] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://brillonline.nl/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.degruyter.com/browse?t1=LS&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/joll&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.degruyter.com/view/serial/35156?rskey=HleFLn&amp;result=1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/lin;jsessionid=28e5q9q1cr5k8.x-jbep-live-01&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/browse?t=OSO:classics&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.academia.edu/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1526" RevisionGUID="c52fce6a-da34-4ade-8f60-b2c3d20e2b24" CreationDate="2016-09-16T22:26:46.317" UserId="79" Text="The key confusion seems to be with *quae*.&#xD;&#xA;It is here the singular feminine nominative relative pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;I think it refers to *resurrectio*; there is also a reading which relates it to *dies (Dominica)*.&#xD;&#xA;See below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems most likely that *suae* refers to Christians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *resurrectio, quae suae salvationis causa exstitit*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; resurrection, which happened for the sake of their salvation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only word giving details of salvation is *suae*; without it we would not know who &quot;owns&quot; the salvation.&#xD;&#xA;*Causa* is an ablative and in my translation it corresponds to &quot;for the sake&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Notice also that *exstitit* is perfect tense.&#xD;&#xA;Present tense would be *ex(s)istit*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Christianorum* must mean &quot;of the Christians&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;*Sabbatum Christianum* would be &quot;Christian Sabbath&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It probably modifies *sabbatum*, but it is also possible to read it as modifying *resurrectionis*.&#xD;&#xA;(Context rules it if I understand correctly out but grammar doesn't. I include it anyway.)&#xD;&#xA;This leaves to translation options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dies Dominica, dies, viz. resurrectionis, quae suae salvationis causa exstitit, Christianorum Sabbatum est.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. The Lord's day, the day of resurrection, which happened for the sake of their salvation, is the Christian's Sabbath.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The Lord's day, the day of Christians' resurrection, which happened for the sake of their salvation, is the Sabbath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also include *viz.*, but I found it more fluent to leave it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If *quae* refers to *dies (Domenica)*, we have something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dies Dominica, dies, viz. resurrectionis, quae suae salvationis causa exstitit, Christianorum Sabbatum est.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Lord's day, the day of resurrection, which emerged due to their salvation, is the Christian's Sabbath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 2 from above can also modified to this case.&#xD;&#xA;Now the relative clause describes &quot;The Lord's day, the day of resurrection&quot; instead of &quot;resurrection&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There is probably a way to phrase that less ambiguously in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1527" RevisionGUID="10f864e8-3188-40c9-8214-5c755ceacca7" CreationDate="2016-09-17T03:02:57.553" UserId="40" Text="I don't have a source for this answer, as it's based on my intuition from reading Latin texts, but here's my sense of the difference between *is* and *hic/iste/ille*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Hic/iste/ille* are strongly [deictic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deixis): that is, they have a kind of &quot;pointing finger&quot; meaning. They often point out objects in space (here, near you, over there); but they can also point out things in metaphorical or &quot;discourse space&quot; -- *this* thing I'm about to say, *that* thing you're saying, *that* thing someone said a long time ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Is*, on the other hand, doesn't really point out a referent in any distinctive way; it just means &quot;the one we're talking about&quot;. It's a way of referring to something that's strongly &quot;discourse-active&quot;, i.e. currently activated as a topic of discussion in the speaker's and hearer's minds. This is why, used by itself, *is* gets translated as &quot;he&quot; (which presupposes that the listener knows who &quot;he&quot; is), while *hic* etc. get translated as &quot;this/that one&quot; (which points out a referent out of a set of possibilities).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though you didn't ask about them, the spatial adverbs show the same distinction. There's *ibi, eo, inde* &quot;in/to/from the place we're talking about&quot;, vs. *hic, huc, hinc* &quot;in/to/from this place here&quot;, *istic, istuc, istinc* &quot;in/to/from that place of yours&quot;, *illic, illuc, illinc* &quot;in/to/from that place&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1526" RevisionGUID="7ad4619e-f92b-47d6-a55e-16d59e5ab592" CreationDate="2016-09-17T03:33:38.527" UserId="79" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="The key confusion seems to be with *quae*.&#xD;&#xA;It is here the singular feminine nominative relative pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;I think it refers to *resurrectio*; there is also a reading which relates it to *dies (Dominica)*.&#xD;&#xA;See below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems most likely that *suae* refers to Christians.&#xD;&#xA;As pointed out in a comment below, this is somewhat unusual.&#xD;&#xA;Usually *suus* refers to the subject of the clause, but this is clearly not the case here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *resurrectio, quae suae salvationis causa exstitit*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; resurrection, which happened for the sake of their salvation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only word giving details of salvation is *suae*; without it we would not know who &quot;owns&quot; the salvation.&#xD;&#xA;*Causa* is an ablative and in my translation it corresponds to &quot;for the sake&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Notice also that *exstitit* is perfect tense.&#xD;&#xA;Present tense would be *ex(s)istit*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Christianorum* must mean &quot;of the Christians&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(*Sabbatum Christianum* would be &quot;Christian Sabbath&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;It probably modifies *sabbatum*, but it is also possible to read it as modifying *resurrectionis*.&#xD;&#xA;Context rules it if I understand correctly out but grammar doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;This leaves to two translation options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dies Dominica, dies, viz. resurrectionis, quae suae salvationis causa exstitit, Christianorum Sabbatum est.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. The Lord's day, the day of resurrection, which happened for the sake of their salvation, is the Christians' Sabbath.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The Lord's day, the day of Christians' resurrection, which happened for the sake of their salvation, is the Sabbath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also include *viz.*, but I found it more fluent to leave it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If *quae* refers to *dies (Domenica)*, we have something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dies Dominica, dies, viz. resurrectionis, quae suae salvationis causa exstitit, Christianorum Sabbatum est.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Lord's day, the day of resurrection, which emerged due to their salvation, is the Christians' Sabbath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 2 from above can also modified to this case.&#xD;&#xA;Now the relative clause describes &quot;The Lord's day, the day of resurrection&quot; instead of &quot;resurrection&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There is probably a way to phrase that less ambiguously in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1528" RevisionGUID="405dc300-fb28-4c4b-ac44-da9b377c0480" CreationDate="2016-09-17T04:08:10.197" UserId="79" Text="What would be good Latin words for a crêpe and a crêperie?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vicipaedia offers *crispa*](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispa) but mentions that the article quality is &quot;maxdubium&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(I find the expression &quot;maxdubium&quot; itself, well, maxdubium.)&#xD;&#xA;The etymologies I found all suggest that the French *crêpe* comes from the Latin adjective *crispus*, but that alone does not imply that *crispus* would be a good translation in any gender.&#xD;&#xA;The closest word for a crêpe that I could find is *libum*, but there could well be a better one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If *libum* is the food item, then the restaurant would probably be *libarium*.&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not you suggest going with *libum*, how would you derive crêperie?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5963" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1528" RevisionGUID="405dc300-fb28-4c4b-ac44-da9b377c0480" CreationDate="2016-09-17T04:08:10.197" UserId="79" Text="Crêpes and crêperies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5964" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1528" RevisionGUID="405dc300-fb28-4c4b-ac44-da9b377c0480" CreationDate="2016-09-17T04:08:10.197" UserId="79" Text="|translation|vocabulary|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1529" RevisionGUID="8290030c-fb79-4516-9e72-1d9ebcbb9ad0" CreationDate="2016-09-17T04:55:54.567" UserId="79" Text="I went through the first two books of Aeneis and found no evidence of this kind of synizesis.&#xD;&#xA;These two books contain 25+31 perfect forms of the kind (with the ending starting with a short 'i').&#xD;&#xA;Some of the 'ui's could be parsed as either two short syllables or one long syllable, but in most cases the metric forces two syllables.&#xD;&#xA;There was not a single instance where the metric would require synizesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the verses containing these perfect forms (with &quot;a&quot; for ambiguous cases allowing but not requiring synizesis):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Book 1:&#xD;&#xA;12, 16, 17a, 40, 45, 62, 98, 132, 176, 188, 242, 309, 405, 441, 513, 534a, 545, 613, 618, 629, 669, 690a, 698, 739, 741.&#xD;&#xA;- Book 2:&#xD;&#xA;26, 54, 64, 111a, 175, 250a, 290a, 292, 301, 325a, 325a, 363, 378, 383a, 427a, 433, 434, 474, 513, 534, 541, 542, 552, 593, 631, 641, 693, 724, 736, 744a, 791.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list may contain mistakes, but the conclusion is clear:&#xD;&#xA;Vergilius had ample opportunities to make the synizesis, but he does not do it.&#xD;&#xA;He might do it somewhere, but it is certainly rare.&#xD;&#xA;And other authors might be different." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1527" RevisionGUID="d48e69cb-e1eb-43d5-a9a5-4b0a0b5c389b" CreationDate="2016-09-17T17:06:51.887" UserId="40" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I don't have a source for this answer, as it's based on my intuition from reading Latin texts, but here's my sense of the difference between *is* and *hic/iste/ille*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Hic/iste/ille* are strongly [deictic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deixis): that is, they have a kind of &quot;pointing finger&quot; meaning. They often point out objects in space (here, near you, over there); but they can also point out things in metaphorical or &quot;discourse space&quot; -- *this* thing I'm about to say, *that* thing you're saying, *that* thing someone said a long time ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Is*, on the other hand, doesn't really point out a referent in any distinctive way; it just means &quot;the one we're talking about&quot;. It's a way of referring to something that's strongly &quot;discourse-active&quot;, i.e. currently activated as a topic of discussion in the speaker's and hearer's minds. This is why, used by itself, *is* gets translated as &quot;he&quot; (which presupposes that the listener knows who &quot;he&quot; is), while *hic* etc. get translated as &quot;this/that one&quot; (which points out a referent out of a set of possibilities).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though you didn't ask about them, the spatial adverbs show the same distinction. There's *ibi, eo, inde* &quot;in/to/from the place we're talking about&quot;, vs. *hic, huc, hinc* &quot;in/to/from this place here&quot;, *istic, istuc, istinc* &quot;in/to/from that place of yours&quot;, *illic, illuc, illinc* &quot;in/to/from that place there&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1526" RevisionGUID="43102dd7-a47b-4953-9df7-b100d8c17963" CreationDate="2016-09-17T20:19:46.740" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The key confusion seems to be with *quae*.&#xD;&#xA;It is here the singular feminine nominative relative pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;I think it refers to *resurrectio*; there is also a reading which relates it to *dies (Dominica)*.&#xD;&#xA;See below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems most likely that *suae* refers to Christians.&#xD;&#xA;As pointed out in a comment below, this is somewhat unusual.&#xD;&#xA;Usually *suus* refers to the subject of the clause, but this is clearly not the case here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *resurrectio, quae suae salvationis causa exstitit*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; resurrection, which happened for the sake of their salvation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only word giving details of salvation is *suae*; without it we would not know who &quot;owns&quot; the salvation.&#xD;&#xA;*Causa* is an ablative and in my translation it corresponds to &quot;for the sake&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Notice also that *exstitit* is perfect tense.&#xD;&#xA;Present tense would be *ex(s)istit*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Christianorum* must mean &quot;of the Christians&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(*Sabbatum Christianum* would be &quot;Christian Sabbath&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;It probably modifies *sabbatum*, but it is also possible to read it as modifying *resurrectionis*.&#xD;&#xA;Context rules it out if I understand correctly but grammar does not.&#xD;&#xA;This leaves to two translation options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dies Dominica, dies, viz. resurrectionis, quae suae salvationis causa exstitit, Christianorum Sabbatum est.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. The Lord's day, the day of resurrection, which happened for the sake of their salvation, is the Christians' Sabbath.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The Lord's day, the day of Christians' resurrection, which happened for the sake of their salvation, is the Sabbath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also include *viz.*, but I found it more fluent to leave it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If *quae* refers to *dies (Dominica)*, we have something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dies Dominica, dies, viz. resurrectionis, quae suae salvationis causa exstitit, Christianorum Sabbatum est.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Lord's day, the day of resurrection, which emerged due to their salvation, is the Christians' Sabbath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 2 from above can also modified to this case.&#xD;&#xA;Now the relative clause describes &quot;The Lord's day, the day of resurrection&quot; instead of &quot;resurrection&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There is probably a way to phrase that less ambiguously in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1530" RevisionGUID="78ef182c-9729-4d22-9abc-c14f7e224843" CreationDate="2016-09-17T23:14:09.293" UserId="522" Text="Both my English-Latin Dictionaries suggest **Laganum** (plural Lagana).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Smith: *laganun ex ovo frictum*  [explic. pancake (made with egg) fried.]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Ainsworth: *laganum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like &quot;Crêpe&quot; it is a borrowed word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  λάγανον, τό,      A a thin broad cake, of meal and oil,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [Henry George Liddell; Robert Scott \[1940\]][1],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A cookery site adds:][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's entirely possible that Laganum evolved into different forms in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different parts of the Roman Empire, at different times, and even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; continued evolving after the fall of official Rome&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vicipǽdia mentions *laganum* briefly on this page  &#xD;&#xA;***lucunculus***   https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucunculus &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are no related words for the crêperie or the cook. Perhaps  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Kitchen ***culina*** f. or  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Pistor,** baker.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **pistrina,** bakery  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **pistrilla,** a small bakery&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.42:2:55.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cooksinfo.com/laganum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1531" RevisionGUID="3cf2a9d3-cdae-48bd-a46d-45f35a018b00" CreationDate="2016-09-18T08:11:56.293" UserId="235" Text="This is a phrase from the opening lines of the *Metamorphoses*. [(1.1-4)][1] I am curious about a couple of things when it comes to this phrase. First, *mutastis* is an alternative form of the second-person perfect plural. How did this alternative come about? Also, which dictionaries should I look at to find these alternatives? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literal translation of the phrase is &quot;For you have changed them also&quot;. But what exactly does Ovid mean by this? I have reproduced the context, below, along with my English translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas corpora; di, coeptis (nam&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vos mutastis et illas) adspirate meis primaque ab origine mundi ad mea&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perpetuum deducite tempora carmen. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; My mind inclines me to speak of bodies changed into new forms; gods,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; breathe on my undertakings (for you have changed them also) and from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first origin of the world to my age lead my perpetual song.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate any help in understanding what Ovid means by this phrase and the peculiarity of its verb *mutastis*. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0029" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5971" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1531" RevisionGUID="3cf2a9d3-cdae-48bd-a46d-45f35a018b00" CreationDate="2016-09-18T08:11:56.293" UserId="235" Text="&quot;Nam vos mutastis et illas&quot; (Ovid)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5972" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1531" RevisionGUID="3cf2a9d3-cdae-48bd-a46d-45f35a018b00" CreationDate="2016-09-18T08:11:56.293" UserId="235" Text="|translation|vocabulary|metamorphoses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1531" RevisionGUID="3383b18f-03a0-48c4-a661-99441e0b5dbc" CreationDate="2016-09-18T11:28:07.017" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags and versified the quote." Text="This is a phrase from the opening lines of the *Metamorphoses*. [(1.1-4)][1] I am curious about a couple of things when it comes to this phrase. First, *mutastis* is an alternative form of the second-person perfect plural. How did this alternative come about? Also, which dictionaries should I look at to find these alternatives? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literal translation of the phrase is &quot;For you have changed them also&quot;. But what exactly does Ovid mean by this? I have reproduced the context, below, along with my English translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; corpora; di, coeptis (nam vos mutastis et illas)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; adspirate meis primaque ab origine mundi  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ad mea perpetuum deducite tempora carmen. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; My mind inclines me to speak of bodies changed into new forms; gods,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; breathe on my undertakings (for you have changed them also) and from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first origin of the world to my age lead my perpetual song.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate any help in understanding what Ovid means by this phrase and the peculiarity of its verb *mutastis*. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0029" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5974" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1531" RevisionGUID="3383b18f-03a0-48c4-a661-99441e0b5dbc" CreationDate="2016-09-18T11:28:07.017" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags and versified the quote." Text="|classical-latin|translation|vocabulary|metamorphoses|ovidius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1479" RevisionGUID="b2b8252a-80e1-4052-87ce-ace0eae8118d" CreationDate="2016-09-18T12:30:08.637" UserId="203" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="&gt;&quot;The early Italian house consisted only of the *atrium* and the surrounding rooms, with, in most cases, a small garden at the back....  Out of the small plot at the back of the early house developed the *peristylium*, a garden surrounded by colonnades on to which rooms opened on all sides,... The *peristylium*, both in general appearance and in name, reproduced the men's room of a Greek house. Whilst the names of the front rooms of a Roman house are Italian (sic) (*atrium,fauces, alae, tablinum*)  those of the back are Greek (*peristylium, triclinium, oecus, exhedra*)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Rome: It's people, life and customs,*  Ugo Enrico Paoli, 1940, trans. R. D. Macnaghten, English version 1958.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Comment and link incorporated as suggested by @Cerberus**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This link discusses the House of the Surgeon and the architectural development mentioned :-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-vi/reg-vi-ins-1/house-of-the-surgeon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S give this as the derivation of *peristylium*  :-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**peristylium** The Greek adjective περίστυλος is applied either to a court surrounded by colonnades on the inside, or to a building surrounded by them on the outside, as a temple. It is then used alone, in all three genders, with a substantive understood, for a court with colonnades: hence the Latin peristylum, or more commonly the substantive form peristylium. It is especially used for the courts of a Greek dwellinghouse, and for that introduced into Roman houses in imitation of them. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1532" RevisionGUID="67b0ef64-e2bb-4f4b-8825-7c045cbfadce" CreationDate="2016-09-18T16:20:00.797" UserId="144" Text="Do we have any cases where the Romans intentionally conjugated a noun or adjective into a verb? This is common in English and other modern languages, so I'm assuming it is a natural concept. However, it seems that the Romans didn't often think of their grammar, as there do not appear to be native words for verb, noun, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5977" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1532" RevisionGUID="67b0ef64-e2bb-4f4b-8825-7c045cbfadce" CreationDate="2016-09-18T16:20:00.797" UserId="144" Text="Verbing in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5978" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1532" RevisionGUID="67b0ef64-e2bb-4f4b-8825-7c045cbfadce" CreationDate="2016-09-18T16:20:00.797" UserId="144" Text="|classical-latin|verbs|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1531" RevisionGUID="b5644571-c4bf-4474-a619-67d1fb549053" CreationDate="2016-09-18T16:50:06.113" UserId="235" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="This is a phrase from the opening lines of the *Metamorphoses*. [(1.1-4)][1] I am curious about a couple of things when it comes to this phrase. First, *mutastis* is an alternative form of the second-person perfect plural. How did this alternative come about? Also, which grammar references should I look at to find these alternatives? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literal translation of the phrase is &quot;For you have changed them also&quot;. But what exactly does Ovid mean by this? I have reproduced the context, below, along with my English translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; corpora; di, coeptis (nam vos mutastis et illas)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; adspirate meis primaque ab origine mundi  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ad mea perpetuum deducite tempora carmen. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; My mind inclines me to speak of bodies changed into new forms; gods,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; breathe on my undertakings (for you have changed them also) and from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first origin of the world to my age lead my perpetual song.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate any help in understanding what Ovid means by this phrase and the peculiarity of its verb *mutastis*. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0029" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1533" RevisionGUID="9463169c-1191-4d03-93b8-bb22dfc65d6f" CreationDate="2016-09-18T17:01:02.800" UserId="645" Text="We can see how *miles, -itis* was adapted in *milito, militare*, and I seem to recall that *corinthio, -are* was &quot;to work in Corinthian brass&quot;, so the short answer would be &quot;yes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that, with a bit of imagination, you could conduct a simple search to find or verify other examples. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1534" RevisionGUID="b15d02d7-c29d-4777-adb1-788a6e0f8f3e" CreationDate="2016-09-18T17:02:41.017" UserId="79" Text="A noun can be turned into a verb in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;But since both nouns and verbs have endings &amp;mdash; quite incompatible ones one might add &amp;mdash; an adjective cannot work as a verb as such.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, slight modifications are needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, verbs can be derived from nouns.&#xD;&#xA;In English nouns and verbs can look alike, and the derivation need not do anything to the word, other than reinterpreting it as a verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider these derivations with minimal changes to the word, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *laus*, thank &gt; *laudare*, thank  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *vulnus*, wound &gt; *vulnerare*, wound  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *liber*, free &gt; *liberare*, free  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *finis*, end &gt; *finire*, end" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1535" RevisionGUID="08d33071-0d6b-4d30-a50b-ce0e3a3947c8" CreationDate="2016-09-18T17:03:14.547" UserId="68" Text="I'd say that *fieri potest* or *curari potest*, while grammatically correct, lack the implication of approval that &quot;that can be arranged&quot; contains. Honestly, I'd go with *quidni?*—that is, &quot;why not?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1533" RevisionGUID="9dd994a7-9ce6-4683-83e9-47839445efc5" CreationDate="2016-09-18T17:08:09.733" UserId="645" Comment="added 203 characters in body" Text="We can see how *miles, -itis* was adapted in *milito, militare*, and I seem to recall that *corinthio, -are* was &quot;to work in Corinthian brass&quot;, so the short answer would be &quot;yes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that, with a bit of imagination, you could conduct a simple search to find or verify other examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are certainly expressions for verb, recorded in some of the best writers, distinguishing *verba agentia*, *verba neutra* and *verba patiendi*. A proper noun is simply *nomen propria*, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1536" RevisionGUID="cfd83cca-36b0-4d17-ad5e-e03579927a60" CreationDate="2016-09-18T17:15:55.360" UserId="68" Text="I'd avoid both *argumenti causa*, for the reason brianpck states in his comment to your question, and *actionis causa*, which refers to the basis of a lawsuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick search suggests that the phrase *narrationis causa*, though not found in Classical Latin, appears a few times in Medieval and later Latin—&quot;for the sake of the story.&quot; Which strikes me as fairly apt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1537" RevisionGUID="2d93ad86-b2e9-4377-bd28-0360e7b7170c" CreationDate="2016-09-18T18:10:55.770" UserId="68" Text="The form of *mutastis* is called a &quot;syncopated perfect.&quot; From Gildersleeve, section 131: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The perfects in ̄*avī, ēvī, īvī,* often drop the *v* before *s* or *r*, and contract the vowels throughout, except those in *īvī*, which admit the contraction only before *s*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The syncopated forms are found in all periods, and in the poets are used to suit the metre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form of *mutastis* is called a &quot;syncopated perfect.&quot; From Gildersleeve, section 131: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The perfects in ̄*avī, ēvī, īvī,* often drop the *v* before *s* or *r*, and contract the vowels throughout, except those in *īvī*, which admit the contraction only before *s*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The syncopated forms are found in all periods, and in the poets are used to suit the metre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as the meaning, there's a good reason you're having trouble: in the last few decades, if I understand correctly, the scholarly consensus has more and more been that *illas*, which can only refer to *formas*—a reference that people have tied themselves in knots over for centuries, because it doesn't make any sense—is a textual corruption and that what Ovid probably wrote was *illa*, referring to *cœptīs* (from *cœpta*). (E.J. Kenney published the first suggestion of this in 1976; David Kovacs produced an alternative explanation of the same correction in 1987.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the new reading—*nam vos mutastis et illa*—Ovid is juxtaposing the change the gods have made to the shapes (*formas*) in transforming them into new bodies (*nova corpora*) with the change the gods have made to his undertakings (*cœptis)*. I won't presume to speak on what Ovid means, but several possible interpretations occur to me: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, Ovid, intended to talk about something else, but you, gods, have changed my undertakings so that I'm going to talk about metamorphoses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, Ovid, have undertaken many things in the past, and you, gods, have often changed them to suit you will; I beg you, therefore, to look favorably on this one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so on. Note that the change also occurs at the point in the line where his audience would be expecting elegiac meter—but he gives them hexameter. So he's playing around with form and reflecting it in the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Smart cookie, that Ovid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1538" RevisionGUID="71d8e880-6691-4384-873e-06e1baad91b8" CreationDate="2016-09-18T18:20:03.037" UserId="40" Text="I actually think *argumenti causa* is the best option. Suetonius uses the word in a very similar context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Nero] inter cetera cantavit ... Herculem insanum. In qua fabula fama est tirunculum militem positum ad custodiam aditus, cum eum ornari ac vinciri catenis, **sicut argumentum postulabat**, videret, accurrisse ferendae opis gratia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Among other parts, Nero sang that of Hercules in his madness. In which play the story goes that a novice recruit appointed to guard the gates, when he saw Nero in costume and bound with chains, **as the plot demanded**, ran up to give help.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1537" RevisionGUID="ddacae42-c31c-4d6f-9eb8-3c397e8b27f2" CreationDate="2016-09-18T18:36:29.437" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 370 characters in body" Text="The form of *mutastis* is called a &quot;syncopated perfect.&quot; From Gildersleeve, section 131: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The perfects in *āvī, ēvī, īvī,* often drop the *v* before *s* or *r*, and contract the vowels throughout, except those in *īvī*, which admit the contraction only before *s*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The syncopated forms are found in all periods, and in the poets are used to suit the metre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as the meaning, there's a good reason you're having trouble: in the last few decades, if I understand correctly, the scholarly consensus has more and more been that *illas*, which can only refer to *formas*—a reference that people have tied themselves in knots over for centuries, because it doesn't make any sense—is a textual corruption and that what Ovid probably wrote was *illa*, referring to *cœptīs* (from *cœpta*). (E.J. Kenney published the first suggestion of this in 1976; David Kovacs produced an alternative explanation of the same correction in 1987.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the new reading—*nam vos mutastis et illa*—Ovid is juxtaposing the change the gods have made to the shapes (*formas*) in transforming them into new bodies (*nova corpora*) with the change the gods have made to his undertakings (*cœptis)*. I won't presume to speak on what Ovid means, but several possible interpretations occur to me: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I, Ovid, intended to talk about something else, but you, gods, have changed my undertakings so that I'm going to talk about metamorphoses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I, Ovid, have undertaken many things in the past, and you, gods, have often changed them to suit your will; I beg you, therefore, to look favorably on this one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so on. Note that the change also occurs at the point in the line where his audience would be expecting elegiac meter—but he gives them hexameter. So he's playing around with form and reflecting it in the content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Smart cookie, that Ovid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1539" RevisionGUID="7457c543-5637-4742-a715-7f53448e857c" CreationDate="2016-09-18T19:35:04.410" UserId="79" Text="My dictionary (which I did not have access to when asking the question) also suggests *laganum*, and that word seems indeed very suitable.&#xD;&#xA;I have therefore accepted Hugh's answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can indeed refer to crêperies as small bakeries, but it may not be suitable if clearer connection to crêpes is called for.&#xD;&#xA;My grammar offers three ways to derive nouns from nouns describe places of storage or similar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *-arium*: *aerarium*, *pomarium*, *aquarium*, *herbarium*&#xD;&#xA;2. *-etum*: *dumetum*, *olivetum*, *querquetum*, *vinetum*&#xD;&#xA;3. *-ile*: *bovile*, *ovile*, *suile*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that *-ile* is restricted to animals and *-etum* to plants, so *-arium* is the best choice out of these three.&#xD;&#xA;The numerous other derivative options listed in the grammar seem inapplicable here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the best word for crêperie seems to be *laganarium*.&#xD;&#xA;This word seems to exist (mostly in scientific names), but not in the sense of a crêperie.&#xD;&#xA;But it is a reasonable derivation using classical principles and it is intelligible in proper context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1540" RevisionGUID="791018fc-fe0f-4a00-a180-d91add2b6cff" CreationDate="2016-09-18T19:48:51.307" UserId="79" Text="I ran into this hexameter verse by Vergilius when researching [for an answer to another question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1505/79):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et vera incessu patuit dea. Ille ubi matrem*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Aeneis I.405)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way I can scan that verse is to leave a hiatus between *dea* and *ille*.&#xD;&#xA;Is this scansion correct?&#xD;&#xA;Is elision still possible across punctuation, or should it always be omitted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5994" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1540" RevisionGUID="791018fc-fe0f-4a00-a180-d91add2b6cff" CreationDate="2016-09-18T19:48:51.307" UserId="79" Text="Omission of elision in Aeneis I.405?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5995" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1540" RevisionGUID="791018fc-fe0f-4a00-a180-d91add2b6cff" CreationDate="2016-09-18T19:48:51.307" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|poetry|elision|scansion|aeneis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1541" RevisionGUID="4d01dddd-82d1-420d-8ad7-706773752edc" CreationDate="2016-09-19T01:56:38.413" UserId="30" Text="The word *septentrionalis* &quot;northern&quot; comes from *septentriones*, cf. Lewis &amp; Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *septentrĭōnes* (septemptrĭōnes), um (sing. and tmesis, v. infra), m. [septemtrio; prop. the seven plough-oxen; hence, as a constellation]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what does this *-trio* mean? Does it have anything to do with the Italian word *trio*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5997" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1541" RevisionGUID="4d01dddd-82d1-420d-8ad7-706773752edc" CreationDate="2016-09-19T01:56:38.413" UserId="30" Text="What is the origin or significance of &quot;-trio&quot; in &quot;septentrionalis&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5998" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1541" RevisionGUID="4d01dddd-82d1-420d-8ad7-706773752edc" CreationDate="2016-09-19T01:56:38.413" UserId="30" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1542" RevisionGUID="6468f225-702e-43ab-b4d4-77dd6e600020" CreationDate="2016-09-19T09:22:59.787" UserId="645" Text="I doubt that anyone has ever given a satisfactory explanation of *septemtriones*. It wasn't always written as a single word (often, with another word interposed), which might  indicate that *septem* is the number of *triones* - and indeed there are seven stars in the ploughshare shaped constellation. Unfortunately, there is no real indication of what the triones are: I cannot myself believe that the word has anything to do with &quot;star&quot;, or even with the number three. Cicero and Ovid, among others, imply that they are the oxen drawing the plough (though it is a nonsense to identify the individual stars of the plough with the animals pulling it): but even such authorities as these were not immune to indulgence in speculation and themselves seem to be the source of the idea among a few later writers that *triones* (always plural) was a yoke of oxen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1543" RevisionGUID="0243f8ba-8185-4a80-96e2-23dc80d22caa" CreationDate="2016-09-19T15:26:27.507" UserId="68" Text="There are at least some cases in which this can be done. Lewis &amp; Short offers some in *-isso* or *-issizo*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**graecisso (-izo), āre,** v. n., = Γραικίζω, to imitate the Greeks, to adopt a Grecian manner or tone: atque adeo hoc argumentum graecissat; tamen Non atticissat; verum sicelissat, Plaut. Men. prol. 7; v. Ritschl ad h. l.: graecizat, Consent. 1063 P.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**atticisso, āre, v. n.,** = ἀττικίζω, to imitate the Athenian manner of speaking: hoc argumentum graecissat, tamen non atticissat, verum sicilicissitat, Plaut. Men. prol. 12; App. Flor. n. 18, p. 362, 12.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**sicilisso or sicelisso, āre,** v. n. Siculi, to imitate Sicilian manners: hoc argumentum graecissat: tamen Non atticissat, verum sicelissat, Plaut. Men. prol. 8; v. Ritschl ad h. l.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then there are some in *-or*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**cornīcor, āri,** v. dep. cornix, to caw like a crow (very rare): quid grave secum inepte, Pers. 5, 12; cf. Prisc. p. 828 P.; Hier. Ep. 125, n. 16.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**rhētorico, āvi, 1 (ante-class.), and rhētoricor, āri, v. dep. (post-class.) [rhetoricus],** to speak rhetorically or like an orator, Novat. ap. Non. 476, 6 (Com. Rel. p. 216 Rib.); act. form, Tert. Res. Carn. 5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Though I'll note that there's also **rhētorisso, āre,**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that this tendency is more common in ancient Greek than in Latin, but that's just from something my first Greek teacher said ten thousand years ago, so it could be totally wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, it seems to be fairly rare; then again, it's fairly rare in English too—we might talk about somebody &quot;Clinton-izing&quot; something or &quot;Coulter-izing&quot; something (sorry, politics on the brain), but not very often." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1543" RevisionGUID="52b2344d-24e6-4a93-a0aa-b54943f264cc" CreationDate="2016-09-19T15:37:37.527" UserId="68" Comment="added 251 characters in body" Text="There are at least some cases in which this can be done, with different shades of meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**graecisso (-izo), āre,** v. n., = Γραικίζω, to imitate the Greeks, to adopt a Grecian manner or tone: atque adeo hoc argumentum graecissat; tamen Non atticissat; verum sicelissat, Plaut. Men. prol. 7; v. Ritschl ad h. l.: graecizat, Consent. 1063 P.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**atticisso, āre, v. n.,** = ἀττικίζω, to imitate the Athenian manner of speaking: hoc argumentum graecissat, tamen non atticissat, verum sicilicissitat, Plaut. Men. prol. 12; App. Flor. n. 18, p. 362, 12.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**sicilisso or sicelisso, āre,** v. n. Siculi, to imitate Sicilian manners: hoc argumentum graecissat: tamen Non atticissat, verum sicelissat, Plaut. Men. prol. 8; v. Ritschl ad h. l.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then there are some in *-or*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**cornīcor, āri,** v. dep. cornix, to caw like a crow (very rare): quid grave secum inepte, Pers. 5, 12; cf. Prisc. p. 828 P.; Hier. Ep. 125, n. 16.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**rhētorico, āvi, 1 (ante-class.), and rhētoricor, āri, v. dep. (post-class.) [rhetoricus],** to speak rhetorically or like an orator, Novat. ap. Non. 476, 6 (Com. Rel. p. 216 Rib.); act. form, Tert. Res. Carn. 5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Though I'll note that there's also **rhētorisso, āre,**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that this tendency is more common in ancient Greek than in Latin, but that's just from something my first Greek teacher said ten thousand years ago, so it could be totally wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, it seems to be fairly rare; then again, it's fairly rare in English too—we might talk about somebody &quot;Clinton-izing&quot; something or &quot;Coulter-izing&quot; something (sorry, politics on the brain), but not very often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** An explanation from a different angle from 1841's *Linguæ Grammaticæ Rudimenta*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/A3Y3r.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nf8YB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1544" RevisionGUID="c609bdbf-2652-4c08-ae85-026bbe42bc8f" CreationDate="2016-09-19T21:25:09.030" UserId="79" Text="I ran into this hexameter verse by Vergilius when researching [for an answer to another question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1505/79):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *exuit, et gressu gaudens incedit Iuli.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Aeneis I.690)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way I seem to able to scan this line is by taking the fifth foot to be spondee.&#xD;&#xA;In my experience this is very rare, so I am in doubt.&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia tells me that spondee in the fifth foot was almost never used by Roman poets, and rarely (5 %) by Homeros.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my scansion correct?&#xD;&#xA;Should I treat this as a highly exceptional case, or something to be expected from Vergilius?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6005" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1544" RevisionGUID="c609bdbf-2652-4c08-ae85-026bbe42bc8f" CreationDate="2016-09-19T21:25:09.030" UserId="79" Text="Fifth spondee in Aeneis I.690" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6006" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1544" RevisionGUID="c609bdbf-2652-4c08-ae85-026bbe42bc8f" CreationDate="2016-09-19T21:25:09.030" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|poetry|vergilius|scansion|aeneis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1544" RevisionGUID="2f5cd72c-f595-4fae-804d-b0aebde9e58c" CreationDate="2016-09-19T21:31:48.040" UserId="79" Comment="added 191 characters in body" Text="I ran into this hexameter verse by Vergilius when researching [for an answer to another question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1505/79):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *exuit, et gressu gaudens incedit Iuli.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Aeneis I.690)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way I seem to able to scan this line is by taking the fifth foot to be spondee.&#xD;&#xA;In my experience this is very rare, so I am in doubt.&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia tells me that spondee in the fifth foot was almost never used by Roman poets, and rarely (5 %) by Homeros.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my scansion correct?&#xD;&#xA;Should I treat this as a highly exceptional case, or something to be expected from Vergilius?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just occurred to me, after posting the question, that perhaps *Iuli* could have three syllables: *I&amp;#x306;-&amp;umacr;-l&amp;imacr;*.&#xD;&#xA;This would save the dactyl but it sounds otherwise weird." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1545" RevisionGUID="de0e760f-1288-432d-bf45-913ddf665b85" CreationDate="2016-09-19T22:41:49.107" UserId="40" Text="The name Ĭūlus is trisyllabic. It's listed as such in dictionaries, e.g. [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DIulus2), and there's ample metrical evidence for this, though much of it is indirect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [search](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%5BVerg%3AA%5D+%23iul) for forms of Iūlus in the Aeneid finds that it never occurs at the beginning of a line -- in fact, it's almost always line-final, as in the line you quote. This itself is suspicious since if the name was Jūl-, beginning with a consonant, there would be no reason for it not to begin a line. Further, if you look at the final syllables of the words that precede these line-final forms of Iūlus, they always contain short vowels (like the *-dit* of *incedit* in your line). This is because they're the second syllables of dactyls. If they were the second syllables of spondees, this would be an odd coincidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I've found one case where the scansion seems unambiguously trisyllabic, namely a line from Propertius, *Elegies* 4.1a.48:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  felix terra tuos cepit, Iule, deos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the second line of an elegiac couplet, and the second half of such a line is always dactylic, which means the last two-and-a-half feet must be *cepit I|ule de|os*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason this sounds weird to you is maybe the association with the name *Iūlius*, in which the *I* is consonantal. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1546" RevisionGUID="0f3402ef-67d8-492c-ad0a-f20aa7132f5e" CreationDate="2016-09-20T02:25:21.877" UserId="522" Text="***purus*** adj 'pure' (more simply than other examples given) becomes ***puro*** (rare) ritually purify. So &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *butyro melleque vivo puro*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can be (Gilgamesh) &quot;I purify with life-giving butter and honey;&quot; or ([Winnie ille Pooh][1]) &quot;I live off pure butter and honey.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.arretetonchar.fr/wp-content/uploads/2013/IMG/archives/Divertissement/Latine%20Legere/Winnie%20Ille%20Pu.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1546" RevisionGUID="8562a780-33bb-4e2e-85f0-8157411c1607" CreationDate="2016-09-20T02:33:22.040" UserId="522" Comment="more elaboration" Text="***purus*** adj 'pure' (more simply than other examples given) becomes ***puro*** (rare) ritually purify.  &#xD;&#xA;And ***vivus,*** lifegiving, becomes ***vivo,*** I live,    So therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *butyro melleque vivo puro*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can be (Gilgamesh) &quot;I purify with life-giving butter and honey;&quot; or ([Winnie ille Pooh][1]) &quot;I live off pure butter and honey.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.arretetonchar.fr/wp-content/uploads/2013/IMG/archives/Divertissement/Latine%20Legere/Winnie%20Ille%20Pu.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1547" RevisionGUID="2914f9de-df23-4893-9e69-be795fc594df" CreationDate="2016-09-20T07:49:54.363" UserId="78" Text="It's a hiatus because it's located at the principle caesura:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et vera | inces|su patu|it dea. || Ille ubi | matrem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, Lodge [specifically references](https://books.google.com/books?id=H5UZAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA473#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) this line in the section on hiatus, as I'm sure do a few others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that hiatus isn't impossible anywhere, but it's common specifically here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1547" RevisionGUID="1e4772c5-1aac-47b5-8869-deed1c9e3bd7" CreationDate="2016-09-20T08:08:55.093" UserId="78" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="It's a hiatus because it's located at the principle caesura:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et vera | inces|su patu|it dea. || Ille ubi | matrem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, Lodge [specifically references](https://books.google.com/books?id=H5UZAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA473#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) this line in the section on hiatus, as I'm sure do a few others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that hiatus isn't impossible anywhere, but it's common specifically here. The grammars will typically say &quot;most&quot; or &quot;usually&quot;, and I'm sure you can find exceptions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1216" RevisionGUID="35720890-b48d-45f8-aaf3-90a80fbfa72d" CreationDate="2016-09-20T17:21:01.540" UserId="79" Comment="added 224 characters in body" Text="I would translate &quot;as X as a Y&quot; with *tam X quam Y*.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly I would translate &quot;X like a Y&quot; with *X sicut Y*.&#xD;&#xA;There must be other options as well, but these come to mind.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I offer this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the land, which is called Columba because it was as holy as a pigeon.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *terra Columba appellata, quippe quae tam sancta quam columba erat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note added later:&#xD;&#xA;Depending on your style goals, you may wish to replace *erat* with *esset*.&#xD;&#xA;See [this question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1252/79) for choosing between indicative and conjunctive with *quippe*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1549" RevisionGUID="ccbd4508-aa1c-4c18-a089-d248ff21b463" CreationDate="2016-09-20T18:19:28.937" UserId="79" Text="I am looking for examples in ancient literature with conflict between form and content.&#xD;&#xA;I believe such conflict is typically satirical, but there may be other reasons as well.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know in which form this phenomenon existed in antiquity, if at all.&#xD;&#xA;For modern examples, consider Tom Lehrer's [&quot;When you are old and gray&quot;](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NOZH0y7VxE) (love song by form but not exactly by content) and [&quot;A Christmas Carol&quot;](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtZR3lJobjw) (which does not quite share the usual Christmas carol spirit despite form).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where in ancient Roman literature is the conflict between form and content at its largest?&#xD;&#xA;Why would you argue so?&#xD;&#xA;This is a matter of opinion, of course, but I am confident that there are good examples out there.&#xD;&#xA;I have decided not to define what I mean by &quot;form&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It could mean a poetic meter but it could also mean other aspects or circumstances of performance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6017" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1549" RevisionGUID="ccbd4508-aa1c-4c18-a089-d248ff21b463" CreationDate="2016-09-20T18:19:28.937" UserId="79" Text="An ancient Roman &quot;Tom Lehrer&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6018" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1549" RevisionGUID="ccbd4508-aa1c-4c18-a089-d248ff21b463" CreationDate="2016-09-20T18:19:28.937" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|style|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1550" RevisionGUID="5d22a2ba-1504-40c9-b801-fe8856f9ed56" CreationDate="2016-09-20T18:54:58.643" UserId="235" Text="Last night I watched the movie *Matilda*, which I really liked, and I decided to write a few sentences about it in Latin. I was attempting to write a sentence involving a relative clause, when I became a little unsure of myself. I wanted to know, is my word order correct in the sentence below? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Est picturam moventem de puella intelligente qui amantem familiam&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(You'll notice that I use *picturam moventem* for movie, which is a [suggestion][1] I found on Reddit.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's not too much for one post, I have one more question. I wanted to say the movie is called *Matilda*. Would this be a correct way of saying it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Picturae moventi nomen est Matilda.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be some other ways of saying it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate any feedback. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/1064sn/latin_word_for_movie/?st=itbtypi4&amp;sh=5ffbe5bd" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6020" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1550" RevisionGUID="5d22a2ba-1504-40c9-b801-fe8856f9ed56" CreationDate="2016-09-20T18:54:58.643" UserId="235" Text="Word order with relative clauses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6021" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1550" RevisionGUID="5d22a2ba-1504-40c9-b801-fe8856f9ed56" CreationDate="2016-09-20T18:54:58.643" UserId="235" Text="|phrase-request|word-order|relative-clause|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1551" RevisionGUID="c6c1e930-4f19-4866-8c0b-14ecd21f3e50" CreationDate="2016-09-20T19:18:58.417" UserId="30" Text="Your word order looks fine—but then Latin is not very particular about word order altogether. You could swap around a few words and it would still be fine. What words were you concerned about, exactly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only see a typing error in your first sentence, where there should be a nominative. And I suspect *volo* is generally not used without an infinitive; you could use *desidero*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your second sentence looks fine to me. The only thing that springs to mind is that it would probably be part of a longer sentence in natural prose in most situations, but that's not really a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, if you still want it to be a short sentence, you could say *ecce pictura movens cui nomen Matilda* or *dicta Matilda* or *nomine Matilda*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1550" RevisionGUID="2aec3dd5-f67a-4b64-aaba-5af9be541ad5" CreationDate="2016-09-20T19:31:30.733" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Last night I watched the movie *Matilda*, which I really liked, and I decided to write a few sentences about it in Latin. I was attempting to write a sentence involving a relative clause, when I became a little unsure of myself. I wanted to know, is my word order correct in the sentence below? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Est pictura movens de puella intelligente qui amantem familiam&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(You'll notice that I use *picturam moventem* for movie, which is a [suggestion][1] I found on Reddit.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's not too much for one post, I have one more question. I wanted to say the movie is called *Matilda*. Would this be a correct way of saying it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Picturae moventi nomen est Matilda.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be some other ways of saying it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate any feedback. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/1064sn/latin_word_for_movie/?st=itbtypi4&amp;sh=5ffbe5bd" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1551" RevisionGUID="ed82c5de-1def-4e40-9c5a-2c9e11ba06c9" CreationDate="2016-09-20T19:33:56.097" UserId="30" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="Your word order looks fine—but then Latin is not very particular about word order altogether. You could swap around a few words and it would still be fine. *Est* at the beginning is perfectly fine. While main verbs often come at the end of a clause or sentence, that is by no means compulsory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect *volo* is generally not used without an infinitive; you could use *desidero*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your second sentence looks fine to me. The only thing that springs to mind is that it would probably be part of a longer sentence in natural prose in most situations, but that's not really a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, if you still want it to be a short sentence, you could say *ecce pictura movens cui nomen Matilda* or *dicta Matilda* or *nomine Matilda*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1552" RevisionGUID="e252e9b5-1d51-4280-a050-7f03700f618d" CreationDate="2016-09-20T19:34:20.950" UserId="79" Text="Equidem propono haec:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Est pellicula cinematographica de puella cata, quae familiam amantem habere vult.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ecce Matilda, pellicula de puella acri ingenio, quae familiam amantem desiderat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vocem *est* ponere potes in initio.&#xD;&#xA;Plerumeque in fine invenitur, sed hic clarius est vocem not ponere post enuntiatum secundarium. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronomen relativum in forma feminina est *quae*, non *qui*.&#xD;&#xA;Et, ut Cerberus quoque scribit, verbo *vult* non uti potes sic.&#xD;&#xA;Dicere potes *ea familiam desiderat* vel *ea familiam habere vult*, sed *ea familiam vult* mihi parum naturalis videtur." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1550" RevisionGUID="6bd4b20e-1f6c-4021-9a28-50a1ebf8ddaa" CreationDate="2016-09-20T19:34:58.933" UserId="235" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Last night I watched the movie *Matilda*, which I really liked, and I decided to write a few sentences about it in Latin. I was attempting to write a sentence involving a relative clause, when I became a little unsure of myself. I wanted to know, is my word order correct in the sentence below? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Est pictura movens de puella intelligente quae amantem familiam&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(You'll notice that I use *picturam moventem* for movie, which is a [suggestion][1] I found on Reddit.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's not too much for one post, I have one more question. I wanted to say the movie is called *Matilda*. Would this be a correct way of saying it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Picturae moventi nomen est Matilda.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be some other ways of saying it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate any feedback. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/1064sn/latin_word_for_movie/?st=itbtypi4&amp;sh=5ffbe5bd" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1549" RevisionGUID="ce2eef0d-6e4b-40f0-8eb2-a1577f78b077" CreationDate="2016-09-20T19:37:09.883" UserId="79" Comment="added 351 characters in body" Text="I am looking for examples in ancient literature with conflict between form and content.&#xD;&#xA;I believe such conflict is typically satirical, but there may be other reasons as well.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know in which form this phenomenon existed in antiquity, if at all.&#xD;&#xA;For modern examples, consider Tom Lehrer's [&quot;When you are old and gray&quot;](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NOZH0y7VxE) (love song by form but not exactly by content) and [&quot;A Christmas Carol&quot;](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtZR3lJobjw) (which does not quite share the usual Christmas carol spirit despite form).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where in ancient Roman literature is the conflict between form and content at its largest?&#xD;&#xA;Why would you argue so?&#xD;&#xA;This is a matter of opinion, of course, but I am confident that there are good examples out there.&#xD;&#xA;I have decided not to define what I mean by &quot;form&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It could mean a poetic meter but it could also mean other aspects or circumstances of performance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remarks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Tom Lehrer is just an example, and it is not important that the ancient text be like his songs &amp;mdash; I just thought mentioning him might get my point across to those who happen to know him.&#xD;&#xA;- If you feel the question is too broad, or otherwise bad, let me know. I am trying a new type of question and I am unsure how to phrase it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1552" RevisionGUID="046644bf-2bb0-4798-bb53-74b5d56e50c6" CreationDate="2016-09-20T19:39:39.847" UserId="79" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="Equidem propono haec:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Est pellicula cinematographica de puella cata, quae familiam amantem habere vult.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ecce Matilda, pellicula de puella acri ingenio, quae familiam amantem desiderat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vocem *est* ponere potes in initio.&#xD;&#xA;Plerumeque in fine invenitur, sed hic clarius est vocem not ponere post enuntiatum secundarium. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronomen relativum in forma feminina est *quae*, non *qui*.&#xD;&#xA;(Nota addita: Rogatum ita emendatum est, ut *qui* non iam assit.)&#xD;&#xA;Et, ut Cerberus quoque scribit, verbo *vult* non uti potes sic.&#xD;&#xA;Dicere potes *ea familiam desiderat* vel *ea familiam habere vult*, sed *ea familiam vult* mihi parum naturalis videtur." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6029" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1549" RevisionGUID="d9cd7cf0-cc5f-4e25-820d-7a580bf850f2" CreationDate="2016-09-20T19:57:22.013" UserId="79" Comment="edited title" Text="Conflict between form and content in ancient literature" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1553" RevisionGUID="279bb8b2-2eed-4808-9d1a-0ed133cb7b65" CreationDate="2016-09-20T20:06:19.193" UserId="30" Text="Is there an etymological (and hence historical) relation between Aeneas's son Iulus and Iulius Caesar? Virgil was obviously trying to establish a conexion of blood, be it mythological, between the gens Iulia and Ilos, but is there any evidence that he did not make this up?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility is that there are three people with a similar name, the Trojan ancestor Ilos, the Alban Iulus, and the Roman gens Iulia?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What triggered this question is the fact or strong hypothesis that [*Iulus* contains three syllables][1], where the i is vocalic, whereas the first i in *Iulius* is consonantal (/j/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1544/fifth-spondee-in-aeneis-i-690" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6031" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1553" RevisionGUID="279bb8b2-2eed-4808-9d1a-0ed133cb7b65" CreationDate="2016-09-20T20:06:19.193" UserId="30" Text="Are Iulus and Iulius related?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6032" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1553" RevisionGUID="279bb8b2-2eed-4808-9d1a-0ed133cb7b65" CreationDate="2016-09-20T20:06:19.193" UserId="30" Text="|etymology|vergilius|gaius-iulius-caesar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1554" RevisionGUID="cd76b4ab-d73b-46e1-a677-6b3d2c71a646" CreationDate="2016-09-20T20:10:38.557" UserId="30" Text="I have seen the term *familiae Troianae* mentioned in Pauly and elsewhere. It has something to do with Roman families and Trojan ancestry, but it seems to be a fixed and well known term: what does it mean exactly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6034" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1554" RevisionGUID="cd76b4ab-d73b-46e1-a677-6b3d2c71a646" CreationDate="2016-09-20T20:10:38.557" UserId="30" Text="What is meant exactly by the &quot;familiae Troianae&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6035" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1554" RevisionGUID="cd76b4ab-d73b-46e1-a677-6b3d2c71a646" CreationDate="2016-09-20T20:10:38.557" UserId="30" Text="|terminology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1554" RevisionGUID="2a1845a1-4f41-4c7e-99e8-2e2778988777" CreationDate="2016-09-20T20:19:58.817" UserId="30" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="I have seen the term *familiae Troianae* mentioned in Pauly and elsewhere. It has something to do with Roman families and Trojan ancestry, but it seems to be a fixed and well known term: what does it mean exactly? Here it is in Pauly's article on *Iulus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bYua3.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1555" RevisionGUID="22f7198f-7bab-4be3-9335-2281789df7a2" CreationDate="2016-09-20T22:15:23.650" UserId="522" Text="***Aestuans intrinsecus...***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is a set of fifty couplets by a medieval (1160) poet which purports to be a heart-felt confession but is in fact a boast to his patron. (Is he asking for forgiveness or permission **veniam**?)  Since his patron was an Archdeacon as well as an Arch-Duke, the poet became known as the Arch-Poet, and his poetry is exceptionally well-crafted (like Lehrer's).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Praesul discretissime, veniam te precor,* [verse 6]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *morte bona morior, dulci nece necor,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  meum pectus sauciat puellarum decor,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  et quas tactu nequeo, saltem corde moechor.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most exceptional Archdeacon, I beseech your forgiveness;  &#xD;&#xA;I die the good death, I am slain by sweet slaughter,  &#xD;&#xA;I am smitten in the breast by the beauty of women;  &#xD;&#xA;and whom I cannot by touch, in my heart at least I take.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's slick, it's mischievous, it is Oh so innocent.&#xD;&#xA;Read the rest on [John Whelpton’s site][1]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://linguae.weebly.com/latin--greek.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6038" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="50" RevisionGUID="610a3a7c-ac74-472c-9ca4-daa39b8163b1" CreationDate="2016-09-20T23:11:29.350" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="6039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1556" RevisionGUID="eb03b38c-cde7-4f8f-86e3-b6e42dba0745" CreationDate="2016-09-21T04:26:19.923" UserId="40" Text="Walde-Hofmann list a noun *trio* which they define as &quot;plough-ox&quot; (presumably following Varro as quoted in Tom Cotton's answer), and derive from the root of *tero* &quot;rub, wear out&quot;. A semantic connection between &quot;rubbing&quot; and &quot;ploughing&quot; seems possible ([L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtero) give &quot;tread under foot&quot; as one meaning of *tero*), so this is not too implausible an etymology, though somewhat speculative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1552" RevisionGUID="dd87c88d-bbed-4c4e-b0da-a66e514526f3" CreationDate="2016-09-21T07:19:27.900" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Equidem propono haec:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Est pellicula cinematographica de puella cata, quae familiam amantem habere vult.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ecce Matilda, pellicula de puella acri ingenio, quae familiam amantem desiderat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vocem *est* ponere potes in initio.&#xD;&#xA;Plerumeque in fine invenitur, sed hic clarius est vocem not ponere post enuntiatum secundarium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronomen relativum in forma feminina est *quae*, non *qui*.&#xD;&#xA;(Nota addita: Rogatum ita emendatum est, ut *qui* non iam assit.)&#xD;&#xA;Et, ut Cerberus quoque scribit, verbo *vult* non uti potes sic.&#xD;&#xA;Dicere potes *ea familiam desiderat* vel *ea familiam habere vult*, sed *ea familiam vult* mihi parum naturale videtur." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1557" RevisionGUID="42615b22-45fa-479f-9d5c-db51b4e67f93" CreationDate="2016-09-21T12:29:42.947" UserId="183" Text="It is quite a regular pattern that Latin given names wih a simple -us ending correspond to Latin gentile names with an -ius ending, like *Marcus* and *gens Marcia*, *Aulus* and *gens Aulia*, *Gnaeus* and *gens Naevia*; *Iulus* and *gens Iulia* just fit this pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of the -i-infix is probable something like &quot;offspring of&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1558" RevisionGUID="2360687d-c628-4e12-a30d-133fbbfd1670" CreationDate="2016-09-21T14:00:40.270" UserId="79" Text="There are several third declension neuters of Greek origin ending in *-ma* with genitive *-matis*.&#xD;&#xA;These have otherwise regular third declension forms, but the plural dative and ablative are often *-&amp;imacr;s* instead of *-ibus*.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen both endings, for example *poematis* and *poematibus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any rules for choosing between *-is* and *-ibus*?&#xD;&#xA;Is *-is* perhaps classical and *-ibus* a later corruption?&#xD;&#xA;Does the choice between the two depend both on the word to be declined and the style or context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6043" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1558" RevisionGUID="2360687d-c628-4e12-a30d-133fbbfd1670" CreationDate="2016-09-21T14:00:40.270" UserId="79" Text="Plural dative and ablative of Greek neuters ending in -ma" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6044" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1558" RevisionGUID="2360687d-c628-4e12-a30d-133fbbfd1670" CreationDate="2016-09-21T14:00:40.270" UserId="79" Text="|declension|greek|irregular-words|third-declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1559" RevisionGUID="5856fee9-e69a-4123-8075-f26432538f9d" CreationDate="2016-09-21T16:03:41.880" UserId="68" Text="Yeah, I'd go for either *nomine Matilda* (&quot;Matilda by name&quot;) or *cui titulus/nomen est Matilda* (&quot;to which the title is Matilda&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only possible flaw I see in your word order is that usually (not always, at least not as far as I know) *est* as the first word in a sentence means &quot;There is.&quot; So if you wanted to say &quot;It's a movie about a smart girl,&quot; you'd probably write&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pellicula est de puella callida.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted to be particularly elegant you could put *de* in between *puella* and *callida*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pellicula est puella de callida." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1476" RevisionGUID="ec4d8352-36ed-4419-985f-6aa697a5f952" CreationDate="2016-09-21T16:14:28.167" UserId="79" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="Latin has some nouns and adjectives derived from pronouns: &#xD;&#xA;*unicus, identitas, qualitas, neutralis*&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;I have the impression that such derivations are mainly later than classical, but I do not really know.&#xD;&#xA;These derivatives look like something I would expect to be more common in post-classical scientific language than classical prose.&#xD;&#xA;When did such derivations appear?&#xD;&#xA;Are they already present in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Did they become more common at some later point?&#xD;&#xA;Partial answers are also welcome, as I have no more understanding than I what have shared here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1561" RevisionGUID="3540476c-3090-4b5c-8678-a3dd08a6457c" CreationDate="2016-09-21T20:48:15.173" UserId="45" Text="## Greek Declension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a first note, I think it would be helpful to understand the morphology of these third-declension neuter nouns in *-ma* as they appear in Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;					Singular		Plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nominative			ὄνομᾰ			ὀνόμᾰτᾰ&#xD;&#xA;Genitive			ὀνόμᾰτος		ὀνομάτων&#xD;&#xA;Dative				ὀνόμᾰτῐ			ὀνομάσῐ(ν)&#xD;&#xA;Accusative			ὄνομᾰ			ὀνόμᾰτᾰ&#xD;&#xA;Vocative			ὄνομᾰ			ὀνόμᾰτᾰ&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the standard formation is *ὀνομάσῐ(ν)* [onomasi(n)]. Of all the forms above, this is the only one that does not have an immediately handy Latin morphological transcription (or near-transcription, as in the genitive singular and plural). The question then becomes: what dative/ablative form should they use instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Dictionary Authority&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In its entry for [*poema*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpoema), L&amp;S marks *poematis* as the &quot;usual&quot; form, quoting Cicero and Plautus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod idem in **poematis**, in picturis usu venit in aliisque compluribus (Cic. Off. 3.15)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nam neque fictum usquamst neque pictum neque scriptum in **poematis**  &#xD;&#xA;ubi lena bene agat cum quiquam amante, quae frugi esse volt. (Plaut. As. 1, 3, 22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also cites Suetonius as an example of *poematibus*. Besides the &quot;usually,&quot; it does not give additional helpful information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Usage numbers for *poematis/-ibus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A search of the [Packhum corpus](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=poematis) (keeping in mind that genitives must be excluded) reveals that Plautus uses *poematis* (dat.) once, Varro (2nd-1st century BC) 3 times, Cicero 4 times, and [Gellius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aulus_Gellius) (2nd century AD) numerous times. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar search for [*poematibus*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=poematibus) returns only 5 results, including 1 from Varro, 1 from Pliny the Elder (see below--this is probably a point for *poematis*), 1 from Suetonius (1st-2nd AD), 1 from Apuleius (2nd AD), and 1 from Pomponius Porphyrion (2nd AD).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion:** *poematibus* is significantly rarer and does not have any golden age attestations, whereas *poematis* has been used since Plautus and exists concurrently (even in the same author!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Explicit Testimonies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Maurius Servius Honoratus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurus_Servius_Honoratus) (4th-5th century AD) mentions the dative and ablative of neuter words specifically as an exception to normal Greek declension of borrowed words, citing Cicero as his authority. He does not even acknowledge the possibility of *-ibus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed haec maiores nostri aut tertia declinatione declinabant, si fuissent generis neutri, ut poema poematis; aut prima declinatione declinabant, si fuissent generis feminini, ut haec poema huius poemae. quamquam invenimus aliquos casus nec ab illis nec ab istis regulis declinatos, id est genetivum pluralem et dativum et ablativum plurales: legimus enim apud Ciceronem horum poematorum his poematis et	ab his poematis; similiter et emblematorum et emblematis, peripetasmatorum peripetasmatis. (Honoratus, *Commentarius in Artem Donati*, 435.8-13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Pliny the Elder's* (1st century AD) *Dubius Sermo* 83,84, the fragments seem to show him explicitly rejecting the &quot;more correct&quot; *-ibus* in favor of this usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quamquam ab 'hoc poemate' 'his poematibus' facere debeat, tamen consuetudini et suavitati aurium censet Varro summam esse tribuendam.... [break]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...quam maxime vicina Graeco Graece dicit uti ne 'schematis' quidem dicat, sed	&#xD;&#xA;'schemasin'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The text of the fragment in question is [here](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/978/2/0/13977-13987#0): feel free to correct if I am misinterpreting. The *facere debeat...tamen* juxtaposition, though, seems fairly convincing that he is recommending the usage of *-is*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My conclusion: ***poematis* is a safer bet,** even if neither is incorrect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1561" RevisionGUID="cf9b45d5-492a-44d3-b79c-b1da72ce20bc" CreationDate="2016-09-21T20:58:54.387" UserId="45" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="## Greek Declension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a first note, I think it would be helpful to understand the morphology of these third-declension neuter nouns in *-ma* as they appear in Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;					Singular		Plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nominative			ὄνομᾰ			ὀνόμᾰτᾰ&#xD;&#xA;Genitive			ὀνόμᾰτος		ὀνομάτων&#xD;&#xA;Dative				ὀνόμᾰτῐ			ὀνομάσῐ(ν)&#xD;&#xA;Accusative			ὄνομᾰ			ὀνόμᾰτᾰ&#xD;&#xA;Vocative			ὄνομᾰ			ὀνόμᾰτᾰ&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the standard formation is *ὀνομάσῐ(ν)* [onomasi(n)]. Of all the forms above, this is the only one that does not have an immediately handy Latin morphological transcription (or near-transcription, as in the genitive singular and plural). The question then becomes: what dative/ablative form should they use instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Dictionary Authority&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In its entry for [*poema*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpoema), L&amp;S marks *poematis* as the &quot;usual&quot; form, quoting Cicero and Plautus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod idem in **poematis**, in picturis usu venit in aliisque compluribus (Cic. Off. 3.15)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nam neque fictum usquamst neque pictum neque scriptum in **poematis**  &#xD;&#xA;ubi lena bene agat cum quiquam amante, quae frugi esse volt. (Plaut. As. 1, 3, 22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also cites Suetonius as an example of *poematibus*. Besides the &quot;usually,&quot; it does not give additional helpful information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Usage numbers for *poematis/-ibus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A search of the [Packhum corpus](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=poematis) (keeping in mind that genitives must be excluded) reveals that Plautus uses *poematis* (dat.) once, Varro (2nd-1st century BC) 3 times, Cicero 4 times, and [Gellius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aulus_Gellius) (2nd century AD) numerous times. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar search for [*poematibus*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=poematibus) returns only 5 results, including 1 from Varro, 1 from Pliny the Elder (see below--this is probably a point for *poematis*), 1 from Suetonius (1st-2nd AD), 1 from Apuleius (2nd AD), and 1 from Pomponius Porphyrion (2nd AD).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion:** *poematibus* is significantly rarer and has only one attestation from the Golden Age, whereas *poematis* has been used since Plautus and exists concurrently (even in the same author!). Significantly, Cicero *only* uses -is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Explicit Testimonies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Maurius Servius Honoratus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurus_Servius_Honoratus) (4th-5th century AD) mentions the dative and ablative of neuter words specifically as an exception to normal Greek declension of borrowed words, citing Cicero as his authority. He does not even acknowledge the possibility of *-ibus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed haec maiores nostri aut tertia declinatione declinabant, si fuissent generis neutri, ut poema poematis; aut prima declinatione declinabant, si fuissent generis feminini, ut haec poema huius poemae. quamquam invenimus aliquos casus nec ab illis nec ab istis regulis declinatos, id est genetivum pluralem et dativum et ablativum plurales: legimus enim apud Ciceronem horum poematorum his poematis et	ab his poematis; similiter et emblematorum et emblematis, peripetasmatorum peripetasmatis. (Honoratus, *Commentarius in Artem Donati*, 435.8-13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Pliny the Elder's* (1st century AD) *Dubius Sermo* 83,84, the fragments seem to show him explicitly rejecting the &quot;more correct&quot; *-ibus* in favor of this usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quamquam ab 'hoc poemate' 'his poematibus' facere debeat, tamen consuetudini et suavitati aurium censet Varro summam esse tribuendam.... [break]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...quam maxime vicina Graeco Graece dicit uti ne 'schematis' quidem dicat, sed	&#xD;&#xA;'schemasin'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The text of the fragment in question is [here](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/978/2/0/13977-13987#0): feel free to correct if I am misinterpreting. The *facere debeat...tamen* juxtaposition, though, seems fairly convincing that he is recommending the usage of *-is*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My conclusion: ***poematis* is a safer bet,** even if neither is incorrect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1562" RevisionGUID="18c849bc-4167-402d-a698-873651b3aeb9" CreationDate="2016-09-21T21:27:43.223" UserId="235" Text="I just worked on translating a passage that was very difficult for me, and not without a lot of help from online resources. Here is the passage below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Est nemus Haemoniae, praerupta quod undique claudit  &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; silva: vocant Tempe. Per quae Peneus ab imo          &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effusus Pindo spumosis volvitur undis,               &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deiectuque gravi tenues agitantia fumos              &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nubila conducit summisque adspergine silvis          &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inpluit et sonitu plus quam vicina fatigat.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is a grove in Thessaly, which an abrupt wood encloses on every&#xD;&#xA;&gt; side: they call it Tempe. Through which Peneus poured out from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; foot of Pindus is rolled out in frothy waves, and by its heavy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; downfall gathers mists driving thin fumes, and rains on the tops of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; woods with its spray, and vexes more than the vicinity with its sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, I wanted to know, what are the strengths and weaknesses of this translation? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, would you translate *tenues fumos* as thin fumes? I have a hard time seeing how a river creates &quot;thin fumes&quot;, but the online resource I was using translated the phrase that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, I had a hard time translating the final clause, *and vexes more than the vicinity with its sound*. Do you think I arrived at an appropriate translation? I personally like it, so I would be happy to keep it if it does the job well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6053" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1562" RevisionGUID="18c849bc-4167-402d-a698-873651b3aeb9" CreationDate="2016-09-21T21:27:43.223" UserId="235" Text="Peneus River (Metamorphoses 1.567-572)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6054" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1562" RevisionGUID="18c849bc-4167-402d-a698-873651b3aeb9" CreationDate="2016-09-21T21:27:43.223" UserId="235" Text="|translation|metamorphoses|ovidius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1562" RevisionGUID="694386ac-89ce-4e50-824b-012be3c968f8" CreationDate="2016-09-21T22:20:59.563" UserId="235" Comment="added 210 characters in body" Text="I just worked on translating a passage that was very difficult for me, and not without a lot of help from online resources. Here is the passage below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Est nemus Haemoniae, praerupta quod undique claudit  &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; silva: vocant Tempe. Per quae Peneus ab imo          &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effusus Pindo spumosis volvitur undis,               &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deiectuque gravi tenues agitantia fumos              &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nubila conducit summisque adspergine silvis          &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inpluit et sonitu plus quam vicina fatigat.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is a grove in Thessaly, which an abrupt wood encloses on every&#xD;&#xA;&gt; side: they call it Tempe. Through which Peneus poured out from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; foot of Pindus is rolled out in frothy waves, and by its heavy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; downfall gathers mists driving thin fumes, and rains on the tops of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; woods with its spray, and vexes more than the vicinity with its sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, what are the strengths and weaknesses of this translation? In particular, I have a few questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The beginning clause uses the genitive to communicate location, i.e., &quot;There is a grove in Thessaly&quot;. Is this a common use of the genitive? How would we qualify this use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Would you translate *tenues fumos* as thin fumes? I have a hard time seeing how a river creates &quot;thin fumes&quot;, but the online resource I was using translated the phrase that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. I had a hard time translating the final clause: *and vexes more than the vicinity with its sound*. Do you think I arrived at a good translation? I happen to like this translation, so I would be happy to keep it if it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate any feedback. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6056" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1562" RevisionGUID="5561a4e6-1e9d-4618-9cfd-5698426b8d06" CreationDate="2016-09-22T00:59:42.087" UserId="235" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|genitive|metamorphoses|ovidius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6057" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1095" RevisionGUID="23551017-9197-442b-bce2-077b39f26c29" CreationDate="2016-09-22T01:00:22.713" UserId="235" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|syntax|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1563" RevisionGUID="b85d07c8-8548-4c65-a467-54487e023e0e" CreationDate="2016-09-22T04:36:58.737" UserId="824" Text="I'm wondering how to say &quot;please&quot; in Classical Latin like &quot;please&quot; as in &quot;can I PLEASE have that?&quot; or &quot;PLEASE go away&quot; or something like that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6059" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1563" RevisionGUID="b85d07c8-8548-4c65-a467-54487e023e0e" CreationDate="2016-09-22T04:36:58.737" UserId="824" Text="How do you say &quot;please&quot; in Classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6060" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1563" RevisionGUID="b85d07c8-8548-4c65-a467-54487e023e0e" CreationDate="2016-09-22T04:36:58.737" UserId="824" Text="|classical-latin|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1564" RevisionGUID="9b92602a-19c5-4047-b66c-e68dc261e810" CreationDate="2016-09-22T04:46:42.393" UserId="235" Text="The verb *quaeso* was used to mean &quot;please&quot; in classical Latin. I did some research, and I think it can easily be added to the end of a sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Silentium, quaeso. (Silence, please.)&#xD;&#xA;2. Conside, quaeso. (Sit down, please.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure other people will have more insights. But this could be a start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought I would make an attempt to translate your examples into Latin. I would appreciate anyone correcting me if I'm wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Illumne habere possum, quaeso? (Not so sure about this.)&#xD;&#xA;2. Vade, quaeso. (A lot more sure about this.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1564" RevisionGUID="7b96186f-4105-4b13-b928-2d815d2c9a9a" CreationDate="2016-09-22T04:53:25.693" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 54 characters in body" Text="The verb *quaeso* was used to mean &quot;please&quot; in classical Latin. I did some research, and I think it can easily be added to the end of a sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Silentium, quaeso. (Silence, please.)&#xD;&#xA;2. Conside, quaeso. (Sit down, please.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure other people will have more insights. But this could be a start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought I would make an attempt to translate your examples into Latin. I would appreciate anyone correcting me if I'm wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Illumne habere possum, quaeso? &#xD;&#xA;2. Vade, quaeso. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1566" RevisionGUID="8a0563ca-e305-4425-968b-58a9e855ab82" CreationDate="2016-09-22T06:28:58.013" UserId="79" Text="What would be a good translation of &quot;touché&quot; from English to Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Translating the French participle gives *tactus*, but I doubt that will convey the same idea.&#xD;&#xA;Is there an idiomatic Latin expression that could be used in a similar way?&#xD;&#xA;I cannot think of anything better than *bene* or *ita vero*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6066" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1566" RevisionGUID="8a0563ca-e305-4425-968b-58a9e855ab82" CreationDate="2016-09-22T06:28:58.013" UserId="79" Text="What is touché in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6067" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1566" RevisionGUID="8a0563ca-e305-4425-968b-58a9e855ab82" CreationDate="2016-09-22T06:28:58.013" UserId="79" Text="|translation|vocabulary|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1567" RevisionGUID="8ffa4250-49be-4ddf-9126-5af34384806c" CreationDate="2016-09-22T07:04:42.637" UserId="79" Text="In Latin you need a verb to say &quot;please&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *quaesere* mentioned by ktm5124 is a good one, but not the only one.&#xD;&#xA;That verb is used typically only in first person singular nominative, *quaeso* or *quaesumus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some other verbs meaning &quot;ask&quot;, &quot;beg&quot;, or similar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *petere*&#xD;&#xA;- *rogare*&#xD;&#xA;- *precari*&#xD;&#xA;- *orare*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because these are verbs, you need to be more careful in using them than with the English &quot;please&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For example, choosing between *precor* and *precamur* depends on whether you speak only for yourself or as a part of a group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quaeso* or *quaesumus* is typically used similarly to &quot;please&quot;, but with other verbs you should also consider other structures to express the same thing. &#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples from my dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I ask you for help.&quot; (= &quot;Please help.&quot;) = *Te auxilium rogo.* / *A te opem peto.*&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I ask you to accept the plan.&quot; (= &quot;Please accept the plan.&quot;) = *A vobis peto, ut consilium probetis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also imply a &quot;please&quot; by using what I would call a soft order.&#xD;&#xA;Instead of saying *sede!* (&quot;sit!&quot;), you can say *fac sedeas!* (&quot;do so that you sit!&quot; or &quot;please sit!&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you need to conjugate *fac* to plural when you address several people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For idiomatic classical Latin, I think it is best not to translate &quot;please&quot; by any single word.&#xD;&#xA;*Quaeso* is good and simple, but you should also consider other ways to express the same.&#xD;&#xA;And sometimes you can just leave it out and express politeness in other ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, translations of your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Can I please have that?&quot; &amp;mdash; *Licetne mihi illud habere?* / *Permittisne mihi illud capere?*&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Please go away!&quot; &amp;mdash; *A te/vobis peto, ut abeas/abeatis!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1567" RevisionGUID="a40fcdcc-8381-452a-98e4-c3c7fb83ad69" CreationDate="2016-09-22T07:09:51.453" UserId="79" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="In Latin you need a verb to say &quot;please&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *quaesere* mentioned by ktm5124 is a good one, but not the only one.&#xD;&#xA;That verb is used typically only in first person singular nominative, *quaeso* or *quaesumus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some other verbs meaning &quot;ask&quot;, &quot;beg&quot;, or similar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *petere*&#xD;&#xA;- *rogare*&#xD;&#xA;- *precari*&#xD;&#xA;- *orare*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because these are verbs, you need to be more careful in using them than with the English &quot;please&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For example, choosing between *precor* and *precamur* depends on whether you speak only for yourself or as a part of a group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quaeso* or *quaesumus* is typically used similarly to &quot;please&quot;, but with other verbs you should also consider other structures to express the same thing. &#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples from my dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I ask you for help.&quot; (= &quot;Please help.&quot;) = *Te auxilium rogo.* / *A te opem peto.*&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I ask you to accept the plan.&quot; (= &quot;Please accept the plan.&quot;) = *A vobis peto, ut consilium probetis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also imply a &quot;please&quot; by using what I would call a soft order.&#xD;&#xA;Instead of saying *sede!* (&quot;sit!&quot;), you can say *fac sedeas!* (&quot;do so that you sit!&quot; or &quot;please sit!&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you need to conjugate *fac* to plural when you address several people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For idiomatic classical Latin, I think it is best not to translate &quot;please&quot; by any single word.&#xD;&#xA;*Quaeso* is good and simple, but you should also consider other ways to express the same.&#xD;&#xA;And sometimes you can just leave it out and express politeness in other ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, translations of your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Can I please have that?&quot; &amp;mdash; *Licetne mihi illud habere?* / *Permittisne mihi illud capere?*&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Please go away!&quot; &amp;mdash; *A te/vobis peto, ut abeas/abeatis!* / *Fac abeas!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1567" RevisionGUID="eb67c18b-da94-4eee-8312-b6a36b693f25" CreationDate="2016-09-22T13:13:49.163" UserId="79" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="In Latin you need a verb to say &quot;please&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *quaesere* mentioned by ktm5124 is a good one, but not the only one.&#xD;&#xA;That verb is used typically only in first person singular or plural present nominative, *quaeso* or *quaesumus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some other verbs meaning &quot;ask&quot;, &quot;beg&quot;, or similar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *petere*&#xD;&#xA;- *rogare*&#xD;&#xA;- *precari*&#xD;&#xA;- *orare*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because these are verbs, you need to be more careful in using them than with the English &quot;please&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For example, choosing between *precor* and *precamur* depends on whether you speak only for yourself or as a part of a group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quaeso* or *quaesumus* is typically used similarly to &quot;please&quot;, but with other verbs you should also consider other structures to express the same thing. &#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples from my dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I ask you for help.&quot; (= &quot;Please help.&quot;) = *Te auxilium rogo.* / *A te opem peto.*&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I ask you to accept the plan.&quot; (= &quot;Please accept the plan.&quot;) = *A vobis peto, ut consilium probetis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also imply a &quot;please&quot; by using what I would call a soft order.&#xD;&#xA;Instead of saying *sede!* (&quot;sit!&quot;), you can say *fac sedeas!* (&quot;do so that you sit!&quot; or &quot;please sit!&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you need to conjugate *fac* to plural when you address several people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For idiomatic classical Latin, I think it is best not to translate &quot;please&quot; by any single word.&#xD;&#xA;*Quaeso* is good and simple, but you should also consider other ways to express the same.&#xD;&#xA;And sometimes you can just leave it out and express politeness in other ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, translations of your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Can I please have that?&quot; &amp;mdash; *Licetne mihi illud habere?* / *Permittisne mihi illud capere?*&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Please go away!&quot; &amp;mdash; *A te/vobis peto, ut abeas/abeatis!* / *Fac abeas!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1568" RevisionGUID="4616f84b-5685-4b3f-b528-7530a6aa26ee" CreationDate="2016-09-22T15:44:36.487" UserId="406" Text="&quot;Touché&quot;, to me, indicates that one is gracefully conceding a point in argument. It can also sound a bit pretentious to use the French loanword instead of plain English &quot;granted&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##With that in mind, I would suggest *synchōrō*.##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is (a transliteration of) the first singular present indicative active of Greek συγχωρέω. It's a verb with many different meanings; depending on context it can mean &quot;combine, meet with&quot; or &quot;get out of the way of, withdraw from&quot;. But in rhetoric or debate, it means to concede or grant a point to your opponent. The first singular present indicative was used often in Plato, usually by people trying to argue against Socrates. And using a loanword, especially one which contains a non-native sound (&quot;y&quot;), gives it that slightly pretentious touch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Source: LSJ)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1569" RevisionGUID="b90fde10-85a5-4a52-b9e8-957dacce8b90" CreationDate="2016-09-22T16:13:59.700" UserId="235" Text="I'm interested in reading some passages from Julius Caesar, so that I can practice my Latin and get a better sense of classical prose. I don't have time to read the entire *Bellum Gallicum* or *Bellum Civile* in Latin, but I would like to read some of the more interesting parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for passages up to 15 lines in length from either of his memoirs. What do you think are some especially moving, insightful, or historically important passages that fit this criteria? If you could give the book and the line numbers, along with a short description, I would be very grateful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6073" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1569" RevisionGUID="b90fde10-85a5-4a52-b9e8-957dacce8b90" CreationDate="2016-09-22T16:13:59.700" UserId="235" Text="What are some great passages from Caesar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6074" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1569" RevisionGUID="b90fde10-85a5-4a52-b9e8-957dacce8b90" CreationDate="2016-09-22T16:13:59.700" UserId="235" Text="|gaius-iulius-caesar|passage-request|bellum-gallicum|bellum-civile|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1570" RevisionGUID="25b8f399-80f5-4de0-9945-113ea0c40c9b" CreationDate="2016-09-22T16:37:16.167" UserId="847" Text="I would like to know what are the rules to form the plural of a noun plus a noun in possessive case. I am not sure if this is a correct description of what I am interested in let me give an example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say, I have the head of a horse, that is &quot;caput equi.&quot; What would the plural be?  Is it &quot;capita equorum&quot; [both in plural] or &quot;capita equi&quot; [only the nominative in plural] (or still something else)? &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;I chose the example as it is relatively clear that the idea is one head goes to one horse and there is no head with multiple horses attached or a horse with multiple heads. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not care for the particular words, but I wonder if it might depend on whether it is an ad hoc combination or a common combination (like, for example, curriculum vitae)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, the motivation for this question derives from a side-discussion on a question related to curriculum vitae on another site, but I would like this question to be focused on the general rules.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6076" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1570" RevisionGUID="25b8f399-80f5-4de0-9945-113ea0c40c9b" CreationDate="2016-09-22T16:37:16.167" UserId="847" Text="How to form the plural of &quot;noun plus noun in possessive case&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6077" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1570" RevisionGUID="25b8f399-80f5-4de0-9945-113ea0c40c9b" CreationDate="2016-09-22T16:37:16.167" UserId="847" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1571" RevisionGUID="b86bd079-4ac9-4aaa-a482-6e6bf3a4e00e" CreationDate="2016-09-22T16:56:54.300" UserId="645" Text="The opening of BG I is a good place to begin. BG V.12 has his description of the inhabitants and V.13 the geography of Britain. BG VII.6 is news of the Gallic uprising and Caesar's decision to return.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The beginning of B.Civ is worth reading for some strong writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that enough to get you started?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1572" RevisionGUID="a405c588-b0f9-44f6-b6bf-d36ee0a9dc4f" CreationDate="2016-09-22T17:58:14.607" UserId="324" Text="I think the real answer to your question is that the Romans did not say “please”. The habit of attaching “please” more or less automatically to all imperatives is a phenomenon of modern European culture, which emerged (I assume) in courtly speech in the Baroque period. In the same spirit, classical Latin does not distinguish between intimate and polite forms of the second-person pronoun (as in French tu versus vous); this too is a fairly modern phenomenon. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1568" RevisionGUID="2d3f921f-7f67-41d2-9a87-70f42e71f62d" CreationDate="2016-09-22T18:08:34.957" UserId="406" Comment="added 280 characters in body" Text="&quot;Touché&quot;, to me, indicates that one is gracefully conceding a point in argument. It can also sound a bit pretentious to use the French loanword instead of plain English &quot;granted&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##With that in mind, I would suggest *synchōrō*.##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is (a transliteration of) the first singular present indicative active of Greek συγχωρέω. It's a verb with many different meanings; depending on context it can mean &quot;combine, meet with&quot; or &quot;get out of the way of, withdraw from&quot;. But in rhetoric or debate, it means to concede or grant a point to your opponent. The first singular present indicative was used often in Plato, usually by people trying to argue against Socrates. And using a loanword, especially one which contains a non-native sound (&quot;y&quot;), gives it that slightly pretentious touch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Source: LSJ)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: Plato's &quot;Republic&quot; 1.335e (translation based on Shorey 1969):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;So if [someone suggests punishing lawbreakers], then he is no truly wise man. For what he meant is not true. For it has been made clear to us that in no case is it just to harm anyone.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*Touché*.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6082" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1570" RevisionGUID="78ec30a3-7663-4721-ae49-edb317a3d16b" CreationDate="2016-09-22T18:34:41.180" UserId="847" Comment="added tags" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|genitive|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1573" RevisionGUID="86577a45-c67a-4260-a8ad-9992246d3ba3" CreationDate="2016-09-22T20:03:36.113" UserId="171" Text="I'm translating the following sentence from Johann Weyer's book [De&#xD;&#xA;Praestigiis Daemonum][1], published in 1563:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In tam perniciosa varietate fanaticarum &amp; pestilentium opinionum, quibus&#xD;&#xA;here &amp;uo misere orbem *cōcutit* Christianum Satan, non minimum eam momenti&#xD;&#xA;esse sentio, princeps ilustrissime: quam idem ille velut perditisimum&#xD;&#xA;feminarium, mentibus hominum insevit incantamentorum nomine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rough and incomplete translation, with the help of Google Translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In such a dangerous fanatic &amp; pestilentium variety of opinions , and here and no mercy for the world *cōcutit* Christian Satan , not least, it is important , I feel , high ilustrissimo : the same as perditisimum feminarium , spells the name of the minds of human instinct .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One word I'm having trouble with is &quot;cōcutit&quot;. It doesn't seem to be in any dictionary. However, juding from its ending (&quot;-it&quot;), it appears to be a verb in third person singular. Given the context, how should I translate &quot;cōcutit&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_praestigiis_daemonum&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6084" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1573" RevisionGUID="86577a45-c67a-4260-a8ad-9992246d3ba3" CreationDate="2016-09-22T20:03:36.113" UserId="171" Text="What does cōcutit mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6085" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1573" RevisionGUID="86577a45-c67a-4260-a8ad-9992246d3ba3" CreationDate="2016-09-22T20:03:36.113" UserId="171" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1573" RevisionGUID="7afeaf04-82ca-43bd-9488-3bccca2f0b89" CreationDate="2016-09-22T20:11:17.083" UserId="171" Comment="Add picture." Text="I'm translating the following sentence from Johann Weyer's book [De&#xD;&#xA;Praestigiis Daemonum][1], published in 1563:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In tam perniciosa varietate fanaticarum &amp; pestilentium opinionum, quibus&#xD;&#xA;here &amp;uo misere orbem **cōcutit** Christianum Satan, non minimum eam momenti&#xD;&#xA;esse sentio, princeps ilustrissime: quam idem ille velut perditisimum&#xD;&#xA;feminarium, mentibus hominum insevit incantamentorum nomine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A picture of the original text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rough and incomplete translation, with the help of Google Translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In such a dangerous fanatic &amp; pestilentium variety of opinions , and here and no mercy for the world **cōcutit** Christian Satan , not least, it is important , I feel , high ilustrissimo : the same as perditisimum feminarium , spells the name of the minds of human instinct .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One word I'm having trouble with is &quot;cōcutit&quot;. It doesn't seem to be in any dictionary. However, judging from its ending (&quot;-it&quot;), it appears to be a verb in third person singular. Given the context, how should I translate &quot;cōcutit&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_praestigiis_daemonum&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/b9HMW.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1573" RevisionGUID="0143983f-0a6f-409b-aa93-cb1209d12276" CreationDate="2016-09-22T20:18:37.973" UserId="171" Comment="Latin spelling" Text="I'm translating the following sentence from Johann Weyer's book [De&#xD;&#xA;Praestigiis Daemonum][1], published in 1563:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In tam perniciosa varietate fanaticarum &amp; pestilentium opinionum, quibus&#xD;&#xA;here &amp;uo misere orbem **cōcutit** Christianum Satan, non minimum eam momenti&#xD;&#xA;esse sentio, princeps ilustrissime: quam idem ille velut perditissimum&#xD;&#xA;seminarium, mentibus hominum insevit incantamentorum nomine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A picture of the original text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rough and incomplete translation, with the help of Google Translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In such a dangerous fanatic &amp; pestilentium variety of opinions , and here and no mercy for the world **cōcutit** Christian Satan , not least, it is important , I feel , high ilustrissimo : the same as if he had lost the nursery , spells the name of the minds of human instinct .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One word I'm having trouble with is &quot;cōcutit&quot;. It doesn't seem to be in any dictionary. However, judging from its ending (&quot;-it&quot;), it appears to be a verb in third person singular. Given the context, how should I translate &quot;cōcutit&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_praestigiis_daemonum&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/b9HMW.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1574" RevisionGUID="eba658b1-254b-4504-ba5e-bb6ebda30a11" CreationDate="2016-09-22T20:18:57.420" UserId="30" Text="The line or mark of abbreviation above a vowel often stands for n or m in Mediaeval and Early Modern texts, so this is *concutit*. You will also find *[Cōtroversie][1]* in the margin of that edition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=TgQ6AAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=%22De%20praestigiis%20daemonum%22&amp;cd=7&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1574" RevisionGUID="ec39b00c-296a-4423-b464-a58234b0d305" CreationDate="2016-09-22T20:27:04.160" UserId="30" Comment="added 149 characters in body" Text="The line or mark of abbreviation above a vowel often stands for n or m in Mediaeval and Early Modern texts, so this is *[concutit][1]*, &quot;pounds, shakes&quot;, possibly related to English *quake*. You will also find *[Cōtroversie][2]* in the margin of that edition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=concutio&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=TgQ6AAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=%22De%20praestigiis%20daemonum%22&amp;cd=7&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1573" RevisionGUID="6268aa07-5054-464d-a631-52de563d9540" CreationDate="2016-09-22T20:36:45.407" UserId="171" Comment="Add link to Google Books" Text="I'm translating the following sentence from Johann Weyer's book [De&#xD;&#xA;Praestigiis Daemonum][1], published in 1563:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In tam perniciosa varietate fanaticarum &amp; pestilentium opinionum, quibus&#xD;&#xA;here &amp;uo misere orbem **cōcutit** Christianum Satan, non minimum eam momenti&#xD;&#xA;esse sentio, princeps ilustrissime: quam idem ille velut perditissimum&#xD;&#xA;seminarium, mentibus hominum insevit incantamentorum nomine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A picture of the [original text][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rough and incomplete translation, with the help of Google Translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In such a dangerous fanatic &amp; pestilentium variety of opinions , and here and no mercy for the world **cōcutit** Christian Satan , not least, it is important , I feel , high ilustrissimo : the same as if he had lost the nursery , spells the name of the minds of human instinct .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One word I'm having trouble with is &quot;cōcutit&quot;. It doesn't seem to be in any dictionary. However, judging from its ending (&quot;-it&quot;), it appears to be a verb in third person singular. Given the context, how should I translate &quot;cōcutit&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_praestigiis_daemonum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/b9HMW.jpg &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=TgQ6AAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA1&amp;source=gbs_selected_pages&amp;cad=3#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1573" RevisionGUID="68596508-ba24-453c-8184-fbf91d9205bc" CreationDate="2016-09-22T20:44:15.750" UserId="171" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I'm translating the following sentence from Johann Weyer's book [De&#xD;&#xA;Praestigiis Daemonum][1], published in 1563:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In tam perniciosa varietate fanaticarum &amp; pestilentium opinionum, quibus&#xD;&#xA;here &amp;uo misere orbem **cōcutit** Christianum Satan, non minimum eam momenti&#xD;&#xA;esse sentio, princeps ilustrissime: quam idem ille velut perditissimum&#xD;&#xA;seminarium, mentibus hominum insevit incantamentorum nomine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A picture of the [original text][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rough and incomplete translation, with the help of Google Translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In such a dangerous fanatic &amp; pestilentium variety of opinions , and here and no mercy for the world **cōcutit** Christian Satan , not least, it is important , I feel , high ilustrissimo : the same as if he had lost the nursery , spells the name of the minds of human instinct .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One word I'm having trouble with is &quot;cōcutit&quot;. It doesn't seem to be in any dictionary. However, judging from its ending (&quot;-it&quot;), it appears to be a verb in third person singular form. Given the context, how should I translate &quot;cōcutit&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_praestigiis_daemonum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/b9HMW.jpg &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=TgQ6AAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA1&amp;source=gbs_selected_pages&amp;cad=3#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1575" RevisionGUID="2f7ebc96-a382-4fc3-84b9-7f84fa7b8871" CreationDate="2016-09-22T20:48:43.780" UserId="30" Text="Ad 1: I would not be surprised if it were a genitive: Tempe is a grove of Thessaly sound unremarkable enough. However, there are two other options. The first is a locative: there is a grove in Thessaly. That would be semantically good, but the locative is not normally used with regions in prose (rather than with cities and small islands). Lastly, it could be a possessive dative: nemus est Haemoniae = &quot;there is a grove to Thessaly&quot; = &quot;Thessaly has a grove&quot;. This construction is common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ad 2: that sounds OK; what it makes me think of is thin vapours of splashing water. The word &quot;fume&quot; is perhaps a bit misleading in English, because it's not normally used for mere water mists or vapours, I believe. Tenuis can mean thin in most senses, like delicate, subtle, but also just any opposite of thick. You could also translate it as *fine* in the context of mist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ad 3: sounds good. You seem to have captured both the construction and its intention very well. What did you think might be wrong with it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1573" RevisionGUID="0228a12d-e54c-48b3-8907-4f52e5f78019" CreationDate="2016-09-22T20:56:21.503" UserId="171" Comment="Latin spelling" Text="I'm translating the following sentence from Johann Weyer's book [De&#xD;&#xA;Praestigiis Daemonum][1], published in 1563:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In tam perniciosa varietate fanaticarum &amp; pestilentium opinionum, quibus&#xD;&#xA;hoc ævo misere orbem **cōcutit** Christianum Satan, non minimum eam momenti&#xD;&#xA;esse sentio, princeps ilustrissime: quam idem ille velut perditissimum&#xD;&#xA;seminarium, mentibus hominum insevit incantamentorum nomine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A picture of the [original text][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rough and incomplete translation, with the help of Google Translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In such a dangerous fanatic &amp; pestilentium variety of opinions , and here life miserable world **cōcutit** Christian Satan , not least, it is important , I feel , high ilustrissimo : the same as if he had lost the nursery , spells the name of the minds of human instinct .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One word I'm having trouble with is &quot;cōcutit&quot;. It doesn't seem to be in any dictionary. However, judging from its ending (&quot;-it&quot;), it appears to be a verb in third person singular form. Given the context, how should I translate &quot;cōcutit&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_praestigiis_daemonum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/b9HMW.jpg &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=TgQ6AAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA1&amp;source=gbs_selected_pages&amp;cad=3#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1576" RevisionGUID="3d2ad249-fba9-4bab-919a-cf34a4d6f464" CreationDate="2016-09-22T21:05:47.527" UserId="45" Text="To add to the other excellent answers, I would like to add a colloquial way of saying &quot;please&quot; that is very common in Plautus: *sis* (= *si vis*), which means &quot;if you want&quot; or &quot;if you please.&quot; All the usages I found were *with the imperative*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It obviously looks like the present subjunctive 2nd person of *esse*, but context makes it clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are just a few examples of this usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; modo **sis** veni huc: invenies infortunium. (*Amphitruo* 286)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vide **sis** quam mox vapulare vis, nisi actutum hinc abis. (*Ibid.* 360)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cave **sis** malam rem. (*Asinaria* 43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Occlude **sis** fores ambobus pessulis. iam ego hic ero. (*Aulularia* 103)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and [many more](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=sis+%5BPl%5D) (by my estimation about a quarter of the 200 instances are examples of this usage). [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvolo1) also provides examples from Terence, Cicero, and Livy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two particularly common phrases are *cave sis* (&quot;be careful now...&quot;) and *age sis* (&quot;come now&quot; or &quot;and now...&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6095" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1563" RevisionGUID="7e52a09d-68b1-47ae-8ec9-6ce5307ad04c" CreationDate="2016-09-22T21:12:08.673" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags." Text="|classical-latin|translation|vocabulary|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1577" RevisionGUID="c6dd5f26-4c7a-438b-91dd-f80a10504047" CreationDate="2016-09-22T21:16:27.640" UserId="79" Text="Let me offer a new transcription and translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In tam perniciosa varietate fanaticarum et pestilentium opinionum, quibus hoc aevo misere orbem concutit Christianum Satan, non minimum eam momenti esse sentio, princeps ilustrissime: quam idem ille velut perditissimum seminarium, mentibus hominum insevit incantamentorum nomine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In such a pernicious variety of fanatic and dangerous beliefs, by which Satan shatters the Christian world in this miserable era, I do not consider this to be of of little importance, o glorious prince: he himself, as a corrupted nursery garden, implanted human minds with the name of incantation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a relatively quick translation, and errors and room for improvement can probably be found.&#xD;&#xA;(Let me know if you have suggestions!)&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate can help you get started, sure, but it is often very unreliable with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Your translation includes some peculiar suggestions, like &quot;Chistian Satan&quot;, completely untranslated words, and a weird overall structure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1578" RevisionGUID="5e27368c-9c02-4ff6-b6bf-78b4b59d53f3" CreationDate="2016-09-22T22:40:24.360" UserId="235" Text="As the title says, how do you say *notes* in Latin? Originally I thought it would be *nota, notae*, but the online Perseus latin dictionary doesn't give the same sense of the word that I would like. Instead, I would like a word for the kind of notes I would take in a class room, or at a lecture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a little worried that this question might be too trivial, but I think that simple word requests are acceptable. I appreciate any feedback." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6098" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1578" RevisionGUID="5e27368c-9c02-4ff6-b6bf-78b4b59d53f3" CreationDate="2016-09-22T22:40:24.360" UserId="235" Text="How do you say &quot;notes&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6099" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1578" RevisionGUID="5e27368c-9c02-4ff6-b6bf-78b4b59d53f3" CreationDate="2016-09-22T22:40:24.360" UserId="235" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1579" RevisionGUID="8ed9de5d-ac1b-4c1a-b64d-67c3fac29c5f" CreationDate="2016-09-23T01:10:46.847" UserId="136" Text="I found a few options for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**From William Whitaker's Words**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+  *adnotatio, adnotationis, f.*- note or comment; writing/making notes; notice; rescript of emperor by his hand;&#xD;&#xA;+  *annotatio, annotationis, f.*- note or comment; writing/making notes; notice; rescript of emperor by his hand;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**From Lewis Elementary**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+  *commentarius, commentarii, m.*- a notebook, notes, memorandum&#xD;&#xA;+  *commentarium, commentarii, n.*- a notebook, notes, memorandum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**From Morgan and Silva Furman University Lexicon**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+  *adversaria (scholastica), adversariorum, n.pl.*- notes (for class)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;Out of the options I gave you, the entries from *Lewis Elementary* are probably the most idiomatic for the type of notes you mean. However, the *Morgan and Silva* option is far more accurate in meaning (this dictionary attempts to find Latin words for modern concepts, so its entries are not idiomatic classically). I hope this helps! &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1580" RevisionGUID="68c51ab9-4dda-4e1c-bef9-1a7591fa4d32" CreationDate="2016-09-23T09:34:17.193" UserDisplayName="user810" Text="I would like to know whether the adage above could be translated into Latin to make it sound more profound. The user [Sam K](http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/136/sam-k) has suggested the following translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In interneto, nemo scit te canem esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Joonas Ilmavirta](http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/79/joonas-ilmavirta) would prefer the calque *interrete* to *interneto*. Another option would be *internexus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you think of a way to improve it? It doesn't have to be verbatim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt follows. Do you reckon it is adequate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In internexus potes esse canis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6103" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1580" RevisionGUID="68c51ab9-4dda-4e1c-bef9-1a7591fa4d32" CreationDate="2016-09-23T09:34:17.193" UserDisplayName="user810" Text="On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6104" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1580" RevisionGUID="68c51ab9-4dda-4e1c-bef9-1a7591fa4d32" CreationDate="2016-09-23T09:34:17.193" UserDisplayName="user810" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1580" RevisionGUID="5a804bd4-a7b6-4e2f-90a6-a2c39d1e8658" CreationDate="2016-09-23T09:45:57.340" UserDisplayName="user810" Comment="added 224 characters in body" Text="I would like to know whether the adage above could be translated into Latin to make it sound more profound. The user [Sam K](http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/136/sam-k) has suggested the following translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In interneto, nemo scit te canem esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Joonas Ilmavirta](http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/79/joonas-ilmavirta) would prefer the calque *interrete* to *interneto*. Another option would be *internexus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you think of a way to improve it? It doesn't have to be verbatim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt follows. I used [wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/potes) and a [large collection of latin quotes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(full)) to assemble it, but my knowledge of latin grammar is still nil.  Do you reckon it is adequate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In internexus potes esse canis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1581" RevisionGUID="3051c904-3306-455e-bbfd-14bb5e4c6bd0" CreationDate="2016-09-23T13:14:57.150" UserId="79" Text="It is well known that the way animals &quot;speak&quot; is amusingly different in different languages.&#xD;&#xA;(See lion below.)&#xD;&#xA;This makes it hard to guess what kinds of words the Romans would have put in the mouths of various animals.&#xD;&#xA;Are there attested animal sounds in classical Latin literature?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in all animals, but if you think this is too broad (if numerous animal sounds are known and scattered all over the extant literature), I can narrow it down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that I am not looking for verbs corresponding to animal sounds (barking, hissing, roaring and so on), but for &quot;direct quotes from animals&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;A collection of relevant verbs can be found [here](http://www.curculio.org/animalia.html), and online dictionaries can probably be used to compile more thorough ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Lion roaring in various languages.](https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2013-10/enhanced/webdr05/16/6/anigif_enhanced-buzz-18447-1381917831-17.gif)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6107" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1581" RevisionGUID="3051c904-3306-455e-bbfd-14bb5e4c6bd0" CreationDate="2016-09-23T13:14:57.150" UserId="79" Text="What do animals say in classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6108" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1581" RevisionGUID="3051c904-3306-455e-bbfd-14bb5e4c6bd0" CreationDate="2016-09-23T13:14:57.150" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|vocabulary|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1582" RevisionGUID="eb0f64d6-16ea-4eea-a0fc-5da5272a15d4" CreationDate="2016-09-23T13:47:13.560" UserId="45" Text="For someone who has &quot;nil&quot; knowledge of Latin grammar, I'm really impressed with your attempt: there's only one grammatical error and the meaning is fairly clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, a grammar correction: *internexus* is presumably a neologism derived from [*nexus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnexus2), which is the 4th declension. You will thus want to use the ablative singular form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In internex**u** potes esse canis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, this translates as: &quot;On the internet, you can be a dog.&quot; As @Rafael pointed out in his comment, this &quot;can&quot; refers to *ability*, not *permission* as can be the case in English. As it stands this is a reasonable attempt at translation, though I tend to think that the joke gets obscured (&quot;you can be a dog...*even though everyone thinks you're a human*&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@SamK's translation is literal but perfectly good. I would just amend to the more commonly understood calque *interrete*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In interrete, nemo scit te canem esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My proposed translation would rework this a little bit to a more idiomatic phrasing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In interrete, canis et homo non distant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On the internet, a dog and a man do not differ. (lit. &quot;are not distant&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **In interrete, canis ab homine haud differt.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On the internet, a dog is not different from a man. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or slightly more elliptical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **In interrete, canis non cognoscitur.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On the internet, a dog is not recognized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like the two last (bolded) suggestions best." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1583" RevisionGUID="83b279d3-fd8d-4441-84b5-df9ecfa1ad51" CreationDate="2016-09-23T15:44:45.717" UserId="853" Text="I found an Indo-European root, *nō̆-men-*, in [the free dictionary][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know both macron and breve means the length of vowels. However, how should I pronounce the vowel with macron and breve simultaneously?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/roots.aspx?type=Indo-European&amp;root=n%C5%8D%CC%86-men-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6114" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1583" RevisionGUID="83b279d3-fd8d-4441-84b5-df9ecfa1ad51" CreationDate="2016-09-23T15:44:45.717" UserId="853" Text="What is the pronunciation of O with macron and greve?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6115" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1583" RevisionGUID="83b279d3-fd8d-4441-84b5-df9ecfa1ad51" CreationDate="2016-09-23T15:44:45.717" UserId="853" Text="|pronunciation|diacritics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1584" RevisionGUID="79fed572-2721-4783-a745-6e2fdecee475" CreationDate="2016-09-23T15:51:45.230" UserId="406" Text="Unfortunately, the verbs have survived much better in writing than the actual onomatopoeia. A few of these are fairly clearly based on the sound: *baubor* &quot;bark&quot;, *hinnio* &quot;whinny&quot;, *ululo* &quot;howl&quot; (and *ulula* &quot;owl&quot;), *mugio* &quot;moo&quot;, *crocio* &quot;croak&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as directly transcribing animal sounds, only a few examples are listed in the dictionaries I've found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *cocococo* - rooster crowing&#xD;&#xA; - *bee* - sheep bleating&#xD;&#xA; - *hinni* - horse whinnying&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few more for Greek are listed in the LSJ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *βαά/baá* - dog barking&#xD;&#xA; - *βῆ/bẽ* - sheep bleating (as *bee* above)&#xD;&#xA; - *γρῦ/grũ* - pig grunting (compare Latin *grunnio*, &quot;grunt&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - *ἀρρα/arra* - dog growling&#xD;&#xA; - *μῦ/mũ* - cow mooing&#xD;&#xA; - *υ/u* - owl hooting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These were likely similar between Latin and Greek, but I can't find solid evidence of them being used in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6117" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1583" RevisionGUID="0fd374a1-fc03-44b5-890d-d7cce88df3b6" CreationDate="2016-09-23T15:54:46.060" UserId="853" Comment="typo in title" Text="What is the pronunciation of O with macron and breve?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1585" RevisionGUID="38cad594-d81b-45d1-90ff-8fad8347831f" CreationDate="2016-09-23T16:15:14.497" UserId="68" Text="As a supplement to all the excellent answers above, I'll just point you to Eleanor Dickey's wonderful articles &quot;[How to Say 'Please' in Classical Latin][1]&quot; and &quot;[How to Say 'Please' in Post-Classical Latin][2].&quot; She's a professor at the University of Reading and has done a lot of work on (among many other things) politeness in the ancient world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/8113515/How_to_say_please_in_Classical_Latin_in_CQ_2012_&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.academia.edu/12042154/How_to_say_please_in_post-Classical_Latin_Fronto_and_the_importance_of_archaism_in_JLL_2015_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1584" RevisionGUID="c5942780-59ce-4482-8e0c-1869f92a9e19" CreationDate="2016-09-23T16:15:50.420" UserId="406" Comment="added 241 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately, the verbs have survived much better in writing than the actual onomatopoeia. A few of these are fairly clearly based on the sound: *baubor* &quot;bark&quot;, *hinnio* &quot;whinny&quot;, *ululo* &quot;howl&quot; (and *ulula* &quot;owl&quot;), *mugio* &quot;moo&quot;, *crocio* &quot;croak&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as directly transcribing animal sounds, only a few examples are listed in the dictionaries I've found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *cocococo* - rooster crowing&#xD;&#xA; - *bee* - sheep bleating&#xD;&#xA; - *hinni* - horse whinnying&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few more for Greek are listed in the LSJ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *βαά/baá* - dog barking&#xD;&#xA; - *βῆ/bẽ* - sheep bleating (as *bee* above)&#xD;&#xA; - *γρῦ/grũ* - pig grunting (compare Latin *grunnio*, &quot;grunt&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - *ἀρρα/arra* - dog growling&#xD;&#xA; - *μῦ/mũ* - cow mooing&#xD;&#xA; - *υ/u* - owl hooting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These were likely similar between Latin and Greek, but I can't find solid evidence of them being used in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: There is also the famous *brekekekèx koàx koáx* from Aristophanes' *Frogs*, which is still occasionally used in English nowadays. But I've only heard it as a reference to the *Frogs*, not because it sounds much like an actual frog." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1586" RevisionGUID="df8b9479-62d2-4c23-9bcf-6fe73afcf80e" CreationDate="2016-09-23T16:26:33.453" UserId="406" Text="###Either as a long vowel or as a short one...but linguists aren't entirely sure which.###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This root appears in Latin (and other languages) with a long ō, *nōmen*, but in Greek (and others) with a short o, *ónoma*. So it's not entirely clear whether the PIE vowel was long or short. We know it was one or the other, but there's not a consensus on which one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One theory is that it was short in PIE, and became long separately in Indo-Iranian (via Brugmann's Law), Germanic (via Germanic ablaut), and Latin (by analogy with other words: for example, *cōgnōmen* looks like *cognōsco*, which is from a separate root with a long ō). But Brugmann's Law is far from universally accepted, and others argue that the root had a long ō which became short in some languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, this isn't really a Latin question, since it's undisputed that Latin *nōmen* had a long ō." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1587" RevisionGUID="ed69b5c7-bf5b-45b5-a026-cd0ed37ba751" CreationDate="2016-09-23T16:53:50.717" UserId="406" Text="One of the best primary sources for sundials is from [Vitruvius, &quot;On Architecture&quot;, book 9][1]. He describes mathematically how to construct a sundial based on the works of the earlier Greek philosophers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One *hōra* (hour) was always 1/12 of the time from sunrise to sunset, regardless of how long the day was. This made timekeeping without a sundial significantly easier (since the sun is always in roughly the same place for any given hour), and made constructing a sundial easier as well. Vitruvius's construction is a bit difficult to follow in text, but doesn't require particularly complicated mathematics, and—most importantly—doesn't require much adjustment once the sundial is finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as how Romans actually kept time, that depends on the period you're talking about. In general the day was divided into twelve *hōrae* (hours) and the night into four *vigilae* (watches) of equal length; how accurately these were measured, however, varied wildly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Vitruvius/9*.html#7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1584" RevisionGUID="0e683d04-bd29-47cd-ab90-ce1f3e9464a9" CreationDate="2016-09-23T17:17:47.313" UserId="406" Comment="Add sources" Text="Unfortunately, the verbs have survived much better in writing than the actual onomatopoeia. A few of these are fairly clearly based on the sound: *baubor* &quot;bark&quot;, *hinnio* &quot;whinny&quot;, *ululo* &quot;howl&quot; (and *ulula* &quot;owl&quot;), *mugio* &quot;moo&quot;, *crocio* &quot;croak&quot;. See [Suetonius, *De Naturis Animantium*][1] for a long list of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as directly transcribing animal sounds, only a few examples are listed in the dictionaries I've found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [*cocococo*][2] - rooster crowing&#xD;&#xA; - [*bee*][2] - sheep bleating&#xD;&#xA; - [*hinni*][3] - horse whinnying (also listed [here][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few more for Greek are listed in the LSJ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [*βαά/baá*][5] - dog barking&#xD;&#xA; - [*βῆ/bẽ*][6] - sheep bleating (as *bee* above)&#xD;&#xA; - [*γρῦ/grũ*][7] - pig grunting (compare Latin *grunnio*, &quot;grunt&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - [*ἀρρα/arra*][8] - dog growling&#xD;&#xA; - [*μῦ/mũ*][9] - cow mooing&#xD;&#xA; - [*υ/hu*][10] - owl hooting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These were likely similar between Latin and Greek, but I can't find solid evidence of them being used in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: There is also the famous [*brekekekèx koàx koáx*][11] from Aristophanes' [*Frogs*][12] ([translations][13]), which is still occasionally used in English nowadays. But I've only heard it as a reference to the *Frogs*, not because it sounds much like an actual frog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost02/Suetonius/sue_anim.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0062%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DO%3Aentry%20group%3D4%3Aentry%3Donomatopoeia-harpers&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=hinnio&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-linguistic_onomatopoeias#Horse_whinnying&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dbau%2Fzw&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dbh%3D&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dgru%3D&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da)ra%2Fzw&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dmu%2Fzw1&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Du)u%2Fzw&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dkoa%2Fc&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Aristoph.%20Frogs%20230&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://ronsen.org/monkminkpinkpunk/20/frogs.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1583" RevisionGUID="eccb776b-c353-400f-bff1-abbd1f4a2a0f" CreationDate="2016-09-23T17:27:21.663" UserId="853" Comment="Make this question more on-topic (Thank Joonas Ilmavirta for an advice)" Text="I found an Indo-European root, *nō̆-men-*, in [the free dictionary][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know both macron and breve mean the length of vowels. And the Latin word, *nōmen*, has a long *ō*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, how should I pronounce the vowel with macron and breve simultaneously?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/roots.aspx?type=Indo-European&amp;root=n%C5%8D%CC%86-men-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1586" RevisionGUID="f42037ba-70ea-4508-b9b6-231ab742acf2" CreationDate="2016-09-23T17:33:13.560" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 106 characters in body" Text="###Either as a long vowel or as a short one...but linguists aren't entirely sure which.###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This root appears in Latin (and other languages) with a long ō, *nōmen*, but in Greek (and others) with a short o, *ónoma*. So it's not entirely clear whether the PIE vowel was long or short. We know it was one or the other, but there's not a consensus on which one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One theory is that it was short in PIE, and became long separately in Indo-Iranian (via Brugmann's Law), Germanic (via Germanic ablaut), and Latin (by analogy with other words: for example, *cōgnōmen* looks like *cognōsco*, which is from a separate root with a long ō). But Brugmann's Law is far from universally accepted, and others argue that the root had a long ō which became short in some languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1589" RevisionGUID="c56e1790-6fa6-4b20-ac7d-bbcc9a126ae8" CreationDate="2016-09-23T18:12:03.713" UserId="324" Text="The linked entry in “the free dictionary” has the lemma as “nō̆-men-“, but then proceeds to claim “oldest form *h1no(h3)-mn̥”. If *h1no(h3)-mn̥ is Proto-Indo-European (PIE) what language is nō̆-men- supposed to be? Surely not Latin? If not, what then is &quot;oldest form&quot; supposed to mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The “Leiden school”, as exemplified by de Vaan’s etymological dictionary, posits the PIE form *h3neh3-mn-, zero-grade *h3nh3-mn-. The first laryngeal would explain the initial o- in Greek onoma; the second laryngeal would account for the long vowel in Latin nōmen. This theory relieves of having to posit an ambiguous vowel in the first syllable. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1589" RevisionGUID="870bbe5a-a9ea-401d-88f9-f78db74a8f78" CreationDate="2016-09-23T18:17:10.493" UserId="324" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The linked entry in “the free dictionary” has the lemma as “nō̆-men-“, but then proceeds to claim “oldest form *h1no(h3)-mn̥”. If *h1no(h3)-mn̥ is Proto-Indo-European (PIE) what language is nō̆-men- supposed to be? Surely not Latin? If not, what then is &quot;oldest form&quot; supposed to mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The “Leiden school”, as exemplified by de Vaan’s etymological dictionary, posits the PIE form *h3neh3-mn-, zero-grade *h3nh3-mn-. The first laryngeal would explain the initial o- in Greek onoma; the second laryngeal would account for the long vowel in Latin nōmen. This theory relieves us of having to posit an ambiguous vowel in the first syllable. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1584" RevisionGUID="d0fcc561-18a7-4180-92fc-af4445e19eac" CreationDate="2016-09-23T18:32:16.570" UserId="406" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately, the verbs have survived much better in writing than the actual onomatopoeia. A few of these are fairly clearly based on the sound: *baubor* &quot;bark&quot;, *hinnio* &quot;whinny&quot;, *ululo* &quot;howl&quot; (and *ulula* &quot;owl&quot;), *mugio* &quot;moo&quot;, *crocio* &quot;croak&quot;. See [Suetonius, *De Naturis Animantium*][1] for a long list of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as directly transcribing animal sounds, only a few examples are listed in the dictionaries I've found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [*cocococo*][2] - rooster crowing&#xD;&#xA; - [*bee*][2] - sheep bleating&#xD;&#xA; - &lt;strike&gt;[*hinni*][3] - horse whinnying (also listed [here][4])&lt;/strike&gt; *debatable*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few more for Greek are listed in the LSJ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [*βαά/baá*][5] - dog barking&#xD;&#xA; - [*βῆ/bẽ*][6] - sheep bleating (as *bee* above)&#xD;&#xA; - [*γρῦ/grũ*][7] - pig grunting (compare Latin *grunnio*, &quot;grunt&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - [*ἀρρα/arra*][8] - dog growling&#xD;&#xA; - [*μῦ/mũ*][9] - cow mooing&#xD;&#xA; - [*υ/hu*][10] - owl hooting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These were likely similar between Latin and Greek, but I can't find solid evidence of them being used in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: There is also the famous [*brekekekèx koàx koáx*][11] from Aristophanes' [*Frogs*][12] ([translations][13]), which is still occasionally used in English nowadays. But I've only heard it as a reference to the *Frogs*, not because it sounds much like an actual frog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost02/Suetonius/sue_anim.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0062%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DO%3Aentry%20group%3D4%3Aentry%3Donomatopoeia-harpers&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=hinnio&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-linguistic_onomatopoeias#Horse_whinnying&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dbau%2Fzw&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dbh%3D&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dgru%3D&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da)ra%2Fzw&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dmu%2Fzw1&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Du)u%2Fzw&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dkoa%2Fc&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Aristoph.%20Frogs%20230&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://ronsen.org/monkminkpinkpunk/20/frogs.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1590" RevisionGUID="1a1cf920-e21c-436a-bf3e-5a5c8f93bdd7" CreationDate="2016-09-23T19:00:28.270" UserId="406" Text="Since you mention &quot;curriculum vitae&quot;, I assume you're focusing on metaphorical rather than physical uses, and on a name for something (rather than using it in a sentence)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When talking about ideas rather than physical objects, it's not uncommon to put the possession in the singular and the possessor in the plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Suetonius' *De Vitā Caesārum* &quot;on the Life (sg) of the Caesars (pl)&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Lucretius' *De Rērum Naturā* &quot;on the Nature (sg) of Things (pl)&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Flaccus' *De Verbōrum Significātū* &quot;on the Meaning (sg) of Words (pl)&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1591" RevisionGUID="2c515197-af43-4fa7-a5d4-f1b2e36f2b9f" CreationDate="2016-09-23T20:00:40.007" UserDisplayName="user786" Text="In classical Latin, town names wanted the original case-only form.&#xD;&#xA;So we usually find passages like Caesar, BC, 1, 24, 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pompeius Luceria proficiscitur Canusium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prepositions could also be used, though, usually **to increase precision**, that is to clearly distinguish between movement towards place, movement from place, or stasis. This already happened in Old Latin, such as in Plautus, Ep. 53:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apud Thebas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it became increasingly mainstream following on the same path that lead Latin to lose its case system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the times of Suetonius and Tacitus the use of the simple case-only form was already reduced to &quot;a literary elegantia that everyday language sacrificed to clarity&quot; (Ernout-Thomas, Syntaxe Latine, par. 131 – this is the best book on historical syntax of Latin, by the way) by using prepositions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, in Old and Classical Latin you could also frequently find a preposition with names of *Greek* towns (Plautus uses both *in Epheso* and *Ephesi*): this was a direct influx from the Greek expression, which used the preposition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1592" RevisionGUID="2467ee33-1c93-410a-9edd-87000e778a16" CreationDate="2016-09-24T05:23:22.133" UserId="824" Text="I'm wondering how the Romans would have said &quot;yes&quot; as in &quot;yes please&quot; or &quot;no&quot; as in &quot;no thank you&quot;? I don't know if they would have said it exactly like that, but what would they have said if they had to mean something like that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6138" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1592" RevisionGUID="2467ee33-1c93-410a-9edd-87000e778a16" CreationDate="2016-09-24T05:23:22.133" UserId="824" Text="How do you say &quot;yes&quot; and &quot;no&quot; in Classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6139" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1592" RevisionGUID="2467ee33-1c93-410a-9edd-87000e778a16" CreationDate="2016-09-24T05:23:22.133" UserId="824" Text="|classical-latin|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1593" RevisionGUID="2165298b-a314-4c74-818a-32bed0bdfd1e" CreationDate="2016-09-24T17:57:24.343" UserId="406" Text="In Classical Latin, there were no words exactly corresponding to &quot;yes&quot; and &quot;no&quot;. *Non* and *ne* were negatives, but they needed to combine with other words (like &quot;not&quot; in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were, however, particles which could be used to agree with something. Both *ita* and *sīc* meant &quot;thus&quot;, and became words for &quot;yes&quot; in the Romance languages. So if someone asked if you were lost, for example, you could respond &quot;*Ita!*&quot; (&quot;It is so!&quot;). For a stronger &quot;yes&quot;, add *vērō* (&quot;truly&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;No&quot; on its own was a bit more unwieldy to express. *Minimē* is &quot;not at all&quot;, *minimē vērō* even stronger. *Negō* means &quot;I deny it!&quot;, *nōlī* is &quot;don't!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way to respond to a yes/no question is to repeat the verb, in the positive for &quot;yes&quot; and in the negative for &quot;no&quot;. So if someone asked &quot;are you lost?&quot; you could say &quot;I am&quot; (*sum*) or &quot;I'm not&quot; (*non sum*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1591" RevisionGUID="0d397c04-9c51-44ac-99c5-985dc5d9ff03" CreationDate="2016-09-24T18:45:16.470" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="clarify some important points" Text="In classical Latin, town names wanted the original case-only form.&#xD;&#xA;So we usually find passages like Caesar, BC, 1, 24, 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pompeius Luceria proficiscitur Canusium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prepositions could also be used, though, usually **to increase precision**, that is to clearly distinguish between movement towards place, movement from place, or stasis. Confusion happened, for example, because the locative for 3rd decl. and 1/2nd plural decl. was identical to the ablative: so stasis, which wanted the simple locative, was often identical to movement from place, which wanted the simple ablative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By using the preposition instead they could not only clearly distinguish between the three main categories of place, they could also give different nuances depending of the particular preposition they used (yes, I am in this city with my army: but just *ante* or *circum* with my army? or I'm already *intra*?), just like they already did with generic names of place (*oppidum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This shift to prepositions already happened in Old Latin, such as in Plautus, Ep. 53:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apud Thebas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it became increasingly mainstream following on the same path that lead Latin to lose its case system: the main cause of which was most probably this same need for clarity (disambiguation: is it locative or ablative? locative or accusative? accusative of what? and so on) and precision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the times of Suetonius and Tacitus the use of the simple case-only form was already reduced to &quot;a literary elegantia that everyday language sacrificed to clarity&quot; (Ernout-Thomas, Syntaxe Latine, par. 131 – this is the best book on historical syntax of Latin, by the way) by using prepositions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, in Old and Classical Latin you could also frequently find a preposition with names of *Greek* towns (Plautus uses both *in Epheso* and *Ephesi*): this was a direct influx from the Greek expression, which used the preposition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1590" RevisionGUID="a55b3c2e-ba99-4eb4-ae0f-5af229a153c8" CreationDate="2016-09-24T18:46:50.593" UserId="406" Comment="Add physical examples" Text="Since you mention &quot;curriculum vitae&quot;, I assume you're focusing on metaphorical rather than physical uses, and on a name for something (rather than using it in a sentence)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When talking about ideas rather than physical objects, it's not uncommon to put the possession in the singular and the possessor in the plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Suetonius' *De Vitā Caesārum* &quot;on the Life (sg) of the Caesars (pl)&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Lucretius' *De Rērum Naturā* &quot;on the Nature (sg) of Things (pl)&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Flaccus' *De Verbōrum Significātū* &quot;on the Meaning (sg) of Words (pl)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For actual physical objects, it's more like in English: use the actual number of possessions, and the actual number of possessors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *filius senatoris* is &quot;the senator's son&quot;, one son, one senator&#xD;&#xA; - *filii senatoris* is &quot;the senator's sons&quot;, multiple sons, one senator&#xD;&#xA; - *#filius senatorum* is &quot;#the senators' son&quot;, one son, multiple senators (somehow)&#xD;&#xA; - *filii senatorum* is &quot;the senators' sons&quot;, multiple sons, multiple senators&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0007:book=1:letter=12&amp;highlight=puerorum&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0049:act=2:scene=7&amp;highlight=pater" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1594" RevisionGUID="c79fedcd-55c8-4c6c-88bc-bbeeb5fc24b0" CreationDate="2016-09-24T19:17:25.433" UserId="406" Text="The middle finger is mostly known from Greek comedy, but it is also mentioned in some Latin sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Martial's *Epigram* 28, lines 1-2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rideto multum qui te, Sextille, cinaedum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dixerit et digitum porrigito medium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Laugh at the man who calls you a faggot, Sextillus, and extend your middle finger.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1594" RevisionGUID="26a73b17-0d6b-4721-b483-5ec8870a06f6" CreationDate="2016-09-24T20:27:51.463" UserId="79" Comment="You can use two spaces at the end of a line to break it. An empty line causes a new paragraph which was not intended here." Text="The middle finger is mostly known from Greek comedy, but it is also mentioned in some Latin sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Martial's *Epigram* 28, lines 1&amp;ndash;2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rideto multum qui te, Sextille, cinaedum  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dixerit et digitum porrigito medium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Laugh at the man who calls you a faggot, Sextillus, and extend your middle finger.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1595" RevisionGUID="64c57ba9-deb5-40f1-95ab-c6f2b462f91c" CreationDate="2016-09-24T21:12:44.857" UserId="79" Text="What does the word *immo* really mean and how can I use it?&#xD;&#xA;I read [this](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1007701) and [this](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dimmo) dictionary entry, and I was left confused.&#xD;&#xA;Some of the uses I can understand, but some I cannot.&#xD;&#xA;Either I do not have enough context to see what *immo* does or I cannot parse the English.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the translation &quot;nay verily&quot; (see first link above) does not reduce my confusion at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Could someone provide me with a list of possible uses of *immo* with simple examples?**&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer simplified examples focusing on how *immo* works and interacts with other words, without too many distractions.&#xD;&#xA;Linking the different uses to the dictionary entries would also help me decipher the dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;Is there perhaps a good rule of thumb for interpreting *immo*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was reminded of this problem by [this question about &quot;yes&quot; and &quot;no&quot;](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1592/79) &amp;mdash; and in particular brianpck's comment under the answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6148" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1595" RevisionGUID="64c57ba9-deb5-40f1-95ab-c6f2b462f91c" CreationDate="2016-09-24T21:12:44.857" UserId="79" Text="How to use immo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6149" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1595" RevisionGUID="64c57ba9-deb5-40f1-95ab-c6f2b462f91c" CreationDate="2016-09-24T21:12:44.857" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|translation|vocabulary|meaning|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1596" RevisionGUID="d8d774de-23bb-47b6-9adf-dfdf2334b80c" CreationDate="2016-09-25T08:33:18.480" UserId="68" Text="Chapter 50 of *Lingua Latina per sē illustrāta: Rōma Æterna* contains this from Livy 33:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;. . . mājus gaudium fuit quam quod ūniversum hominēs acciperent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is *ūniversum* doing here? Its ending suggests its modifying *gaudium* to mean &quot;universal joy,&quot; but putting an adjective in a clause subordinate to the clause in which its noun appears seems very strange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't figure out anything else, though, for it to mean." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6151" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1596" RevisionGUID="d8d774de-23bb-47b6-9adf-dfdf2334b80c" CreationDate="2016-09-25T08:33:18.480" UserId="68" Text="sentence in Livy 33/LLPSI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6152" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1596" RevisionGUID="d8d774de-23bb-47b6-9adf-dfdf2334b80c" CreationDate="2016-09-25T08:33:18.480" UserId="68" Text="|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|livius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1596" RevisionGUID="4a5124bb-a2fc-4bf0-8545-9b12c3ee080a" CreationDate="2016-09-25T12:37:57.137" UserId="68" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Chapter 50 of *Lingua Latina per sē illustrāta: Rōma Æterna* contains this from Livy 33:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;. . . mājus gaudium fuit quam quod ūniversum hominēs acciperent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is *ūniversum* doing here? Its ending suggests that it's modifying *gaudium* to mean &quot;universal joy,&quot; but putting an adjective in a clause subordinate to the clause in which its noun appears seems very strange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't figure out anything else, though, for it to mean." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1598" RevisionGUID="f7bd704e-5656-4057-8147-4d824d4485b3" CreationDate="2016-09-25T16:12:45.620" UserId="61" Text="I have always learnt that ascendo means to go up and accendo means to ignite. Do they even originate from the same word and if so how have they come to be as they are?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6158" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1598" RevisionGUID="f7bd704e-5656-4057-8147-4d824d4485b3" CreationDate="2016-09-25T16:12:45.620" UserId="61" Text="Is there a relation between ascendo and accendo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6159" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1598" RevisionGUID="f7bd704e-5656-4057-8147-4d824d4485b3" CreationDate="2016-09-25T16:12:45.620" UserId="61" Text="|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1599" RevisionGUID="06cf87f0-4217-4f32-83f7-b7ea2695eb9d" CreationDate="2016-09-25T16:47:24.840" UserId="78" Text="No, they're two different roots. *Ascendere* is made up of the prefix *ad-* + *scandere* (first: *scando*), which means &quot;to climb.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, *accendere* comes from the prefix *ad-* + *candere* (first: *candeo*), which means &quot;to shine&quot; or &quot;to glow&quot; (like a fire)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1599" RevisionGUID="29bfcb1d-4e1c-4bac-97bb-5fdc913786b3" CreationDate="2016-09-25T16:52:43.323" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="No, they're two different roots. *Ascendere* is made up of the prefix *ad-* + *scandere* (first: *scando*), which means &quot;to climb.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, *accendere* is related to *candere* (first: *candeo*), which means &quot;to shine&quot; or &quot;to glow&quot; (like a fire)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1600" RevisionGUID="c9384c2c-a554-4786-b211-a0c98b338cf4" CreationDate="2016-09-26T02:33:13.207" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="...That is, a word meaning someone with deep and specialized knowledge, and could be used either as a badge of pride:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm a *huge* Linux nerd. I helped reoptimize some of the photonal decalcifiers for Intel CPUs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...or a mark of shame:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ugh, you're such a nerd. Stop going on about your kernel!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Those aren't the best examples, but I think they get the point across)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for something from Classical or Medieval Latin, but if there's a neologism with a similar meaning, I'd be interested to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context is a person mildly swearing at another person under their breath after they geek out about arcane tech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6166" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1600" RevisionGUID="c9384c2c-a554-4786-b211-a0c98b338cf4" CreationDate="2016-09-26T02:33:13.207" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="Was there a word which meant roughly the same thing as &quot;nerd&quot; or &quot;geek&quot; does today?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6167" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1600" RevisionGUID="c9384c2c-a554-4786-b211-a0c98b338cf4" CreationDate="2016-09-26T02:33:13.207" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|classical-latin|medieval-latin|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1601" RevisionGUID="6918037c-56d8-4f7b-8941-3d27b8315057" CreationDate="2016-09-26T16:03:23.337" UserId="39" Text="(*will add examples later*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, *immo* had several different uses in Classical Latin. Hannah Rosén ([Rosén 2009][1]) classifies it as a connective particle used for juncture and separation. She proposes four different uses of *immo*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. supplemental: &#xD;&#xA; 2. contrasting: &#xD;&#xA; 3. adjoining+contrasting: &#xD;&#xA; 4. adjoining+correcting (substituting): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She also argues that immo is not “admitted into (full-feldged) oratio obliqua” (p. 403); in other words, immo is impossible (unlikely) in reported speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110205626/9783110205626.317/9783110205626.317.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1601" RevisionGUID="30aae7af-0ae6-4a96-b485-2cb7af913f24" CreationDate="2016-09-26T16:15:20.297" UserId="39" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="(*will add examples later*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, *immo* had several different uses in Classical Latin. Hannah Rosén ([Rosén 2009][1]) classifies it as a connective particle used for juncture and separation. She proposes four different uses of *immo*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. supplemental: &#xD;&#xA; 2. contrasting: &#xD;&#xA; 3. adjoining+contrasting: &#xD;&#xA; 4. adjoining+correcting (substituting): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She also argues that immo is not “admitted into (full-feldged) oratio obliqua” (p. 403); in other words, immo is impossible (unlikely) in reported speech. On the other hand, immo is most commonly used in dialogs (but not exclusively).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinskter 2015 also discusses immo in section 6.46 (v.1) - he calls it a corrective adverb. See examples (a)-(g) pp. 377-378.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110205626/9783110205626.317/9783110205626.317.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1601" RevisionGUID="92600bd6-2202-4cc5-804b-e1326305cc14" CreationDate="2016-09-26T17:27:30.563" UserId="39" Comment="added 232 characters in body" Text="(*will add examples later*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, *immo* had several different uses in Classical Latin. Hannah Rosén ([Rosén 2009][1]) classifies it as a connective particle used for juncture and separation. She proposes four different uses of *immo*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. supplemental: &#xD;&#xA; 2. contrasting: &#xD;&#xA; 3. adjoining+contrasting: &#xD;&#xA; 4. adjoining+correcting (substituting): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She also argues that immo is not “admitted into (full-feldged) oratio obliqua” (p. 403); in other words, immo is impossible (unlikely) in reported speech. On the other hand, immo is most commonly used in dialogs (but not exclusively).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinskter 2015 also discusses immo in section 6.46 (v.1) - he calls it a corrective adverb. See examples (a)-(g) pp. 377-378.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to peruse pp. 218-234 in  Ferdinandi Handii Tursellinus, *[seu De particulis latinis commentarii][2]* (vol.3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110205626/9783110205626.317/9783110205626.317.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=UbYlp-5fgT0C&amp;dq=tursellinus%20immo&amp;pg=PT222#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1602" RevisionGUID="fce40fe7-ecae-4831-a3af-071a5f36d6ff" CreationDate="2016-09-26T18:41:11.727" UserId="235" Text="Pope Francis [tweeted on September 21st][1], &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sermonem confero cum aliquo sincerum tunc tantum agnosco illum esse donum Dei mihique aliquid pretiosum dicturum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my translation. (Credits to [Keith Massey][2] for his help.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I engage in a sincere dialogue with someone only after I recognize that person is a gift of God and about to say something precious to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My confusion is with the phrase *tunc tantum*. I recognize *tantum* as an adverb meaning &quot;only&quot;, but I'm unsure of how to translate *tunc* alongside of it. I am accustomed to *tunc* meaning &quot;then&quot;, but in this case could it possibly mean &quot;when&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I checked the Lewis and Short dictionary, and couldn't find this sense of *tunc*. But it seems to the most appropriate translation. Is going from &quot;then&quot; to &quot;when&quot; not such a big stretch after all — am I merely nitpicking? Or are there dictionaries that document this sense of *tunc* after all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://twitter.com/Pontifex_ln/status/778556988686934016&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2016/09/learning-latin-with-pope-francis_21.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6172" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1602" RevisionGUID="fce40fe7-ecae-4831-a3af-071a5f36d6ff" CreationDate="2016-09-26T18:41:11.727" UserId="235" Text="What do the words &quot;tunc tantum&quot; mean together?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6173" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1602" RevisionGUID="fce40fe7-ecae-4831-a3af-071a5f36d6ff" CreationDate="2016-09-26T18:41:11.727" UserId="235" Text="|meaning|christianity|adverb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1602" RevisionGUID="fa605486-2681-49f8-b64b-4bfaa0403b6b" CreationDate="2016-09-26T18:48:26.450" UserId="235" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Pope Francis [tweeted on September 21st][1], &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sermonem confero cum aliquo sincerum tunc tantum agnosco illum esse donum Dei mihique aliquid pretiosum dicturum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my translation. (Credits to [Keith Massey][2] for his help.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I engage in a sincere dialogue with someone only after I recognize that person is a gift of God and about to say something precious to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My confusion is with the phrase *tunc tantum*. I recognize *tantum* as an adverb meaning &quot;only&quot;, but I'm unsure of how to translate *tunc* alongside of it. I am accustomed to *tunc* meaning &quot;then&quot;, but in this case could it possibly mean &quot;when&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I checked the Lewis and Short dictionary, and couldn't find this sense of *tunc*. But it seems to be the most appropriate translation. Is going from &quot;then&quot; to &quot;when&quot; not such a big stretch after all — am I merely nitpicking? Or are there dictionaries that document this sense of *tunc* after all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://twitter.com/Pontifex_ln/status/778556988686934016&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2016/09/learning-latin-with-pope-francis_21.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1603" RevisionGUID="01cdb2a9-e595-42e1-b103-d6753e283abb" CreationDate="2016-09-26T20:19:15.710" UserId="45" Text="**This usage strikes me as strange**, so I will make the case for that. I would be happy if another answer corrects me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 12 matches in the [Packhum *corpus* database for *tunc tantum*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23tunc+tantum%23): there are no cases of it being a temporal/conditional conjunction. The vast majority are coordinated with temporal conjuctions (*tunc...cum / ubi / dum*), one is used alone to mean &quot;only at this time,&quot; and a final one is used with *quanto + comparative adjective* to mean &quot;this only occurs the more X something is.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtunc) entry does list some conditional meanings of *tunc*, but it is always used as an adverb. An example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cuperem tecum communicare tam subitam mutationem mei: **tunc** amicitiae nostrae certiorem fiduciam habere coepissem. (Sen. Ep. 6, 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I would like to discuss with you such a sudden change in me: **then** I would begin to have stronger confidence in our friendship.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion: ***tunc* can only be used as an adverb**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current usage is different though: it essentially functions as a restrictive particle like *dummodo*, *dumtaxat*, or *quatenus*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A simplified sentence that illustrates this use would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bonus sum **tunc tantum** fidelis sum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I am good **only when (?)** I am faithful.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another points that makes me question this usage is that **I expect the subjunctive for this kind of qualification**, whereas *agnosco* is indicative. The other restrictive conjunctions mentioned above take the subjunctive as well, which seems to confirm this gut feeling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, I am happy to be proven wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1604" RevisionGUID="af21f35d-684c-4222-9e99-8a2a3e808067" CreationDate="2016-09-26T20:34:38.393" UserId="645" Text="As it is virtually impossible to draw up a complete list of every adverbial phrase, the rarer ones are often omitted from dictionaries, this perhaps being justified as *hapax legomenon*. It's sometimes necessary to use a bit of imagination, as many scholiasts or commentators seem to have done quite often in such circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think here that *tunc tantum* simply means &quot;only then&quot;, but with a little licence you might express it as, say, &quot;at which point&quot; - or construe into something else which might fit the case. Provided that it agrees with its context, you could even translate as &quot;It is only when I'm engaged in serious dialogue with anyone that I can see that he is a gift, etc.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1605" RevisionGUID="e38e4046-1692-4928-bfde-da8dc9b94a93" CreationDate="2016-09-26T20:49:10.213" UserId="45" Text="In his [Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency](https://books.google.com/books?id=UOcRPumgVTsC&amp;pg=PA260&amp;lpg=PA260) (with which I am otherwise completely unfamiliar), John C. Traupman proposes [*inconcinnus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dinconcinnus), which is admittedly rare but has classical attestations. Lewis &amp; Short glosses it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inelegant, awkward, absurd&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also cautiously advance [*ineptus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dineptus) as a possibility:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unsuitable, impertinent, improper, tasteless, senseless, silly, pedantic, absurd, inept, without tact&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both words figure in Cicero's definition of an *ineptus*, in which he paints a picture of someone with no knowledge of social norms who wants to show off in a verbose way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui aut tempus quid postulet non videt aut plura loquitur aut se ostentat aut eorum, quibuscum est, vel dignitatis vel commodi rationem non habet aut denique in aliquo genere aut **inconcinnus** aut multus est, is **ineptus** esse dicitur. (Cic. *de Orat.* 2.17)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(N.B.: *multus* here means &quot;prolix&quot;--I learned something new today!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both words are obviously pejorative in a way that modern-day &quot;geek&quot; or &quot;nerd&quot; are not necessarily. They emphasize the *lack* of a certain kind of knowledge rather than excellence in another kind. Honestly, though, the &quot;nerd&quot; indicates such a localized cultural phenomenon that it's notoriously difficult/impossible to translate: see [this Language Log post](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4505) for an enlightening discussion of attempts to find an equivalent for the word in Sinitic languages, for instance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1600" RevisionGUID="68266f73-d27b-4d37-8766-29f0cd7898e3" CreationDate="2016-09-27T03:28:01.643" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Clarified" Text="...That is, a word meaning someone with deep and specialized knowledge, and could be used either as a badge of pride:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm a *huge* Linux nerd. I helped reoptimize some of the photonal decalcifiers for Intel CPUs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...or a mark of shame:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ugh, you're such a nerd. Stop going on about your kernel!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Those aren't the best examples, but I think they get the point across)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for something from Classical or Medieval Latin, but if there's a neologism with a similar meaning, I'd be interested to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context is a person mildly swearing at another person under their breath after they geek out about arcane tech, then the other person turning around and saying something along the lines of, &quot;I sure am a nerd!&quot; except with a few more words that you didn't know unicorns could say." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1606" RevisionGUID="70ad5a81-695a-415c-94c5-ec3453225d6a" CreationDate="2016-09-27T05:11:32.273" UserId="406" Text="Coming at this from the opposite direction, the first word I think of is *artifex* (*-icis*, m/f). It refers to a person who is highly skilled and knowledgeable about a specific topic, but not necessarily in a good way. An *artifex* is capable of twisting and controlling and manipulating something, whether it be marble and paint or the mood of a crowd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a positive example from *Aeneid* 1.455:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **artificumque** manus inter se operumque laborem  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; miratur, videt Iliacas ex ordine pugnas...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He sees the battles of Troy all in order, and marvels at the skill of the **crafters** and the effort of their works...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it was also an epithet of Odysseus, for example, when Sinon is explaining how he was chosen as a sacrifice (2.125):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hic Ithacus vatem magno Calchanta tumultu  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; protrahit in medios; quae sint ea numina divum  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; flagitat. et mihi iam multi crudele canebant  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **artificis** scelus, et taciti ventura videbant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here Odysseus brought out the seer Calchas among them, amid great commotion; he demanded to know from him what the will of the Gods might be. And already many people were cruelly predicting **that schemer's** wickedness, and were foreseeing what was about to come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hesitate to call it a real translation of &quot;nerd&quot;, since it doesn't imply anything about social awkwardness—quite the opposite, in fact. But it's a word implying specialized skill or knowledge, which can either be a compliment or an insult depending on context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1607" RevisionGUID="a72b2456-f013-4d9b-b391-3779e83eb5ea" CreationDate="2016-09-27T06:41:43.807" UserId="79" Text="I am looking for a Latin word for &quot;point&quot; to be used like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I see your point.&#xD;&#xA;- I hope this example gets the point across.&#xD;&#xA;- There is no point in peeling a banana.&#xD;&#xA;- Good point!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There probably is no exact Latin equivalent, but I hope something would come close.&#xD;&#xA;**What is the best Latin substitute (or a couple of them) for the English &quot;point&quot; in this sense?**&#xD;&#xA;I am prepared to have an imperfect fit and to make sure the Latin word is suitable when I use it.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a good rule of thumb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Classical Latin is preferred but not strictly required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt the literal translation *punctum* gets the correct kind of point across.&#xD;&#xA;This would not work in Finnish, either.&#xD;&#xA;The native word for &quot;point&quot; is &quot;piste&quot;, and can be used in contexts like &quot;staring at a point on the wall&quot; or &quot;getting ten points for a good answer to this question&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For the kind of thing this questions is about, Finnish often uses the obvious loan word &quot;pointti&quot; (informal) which can never mean the literal kind of point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6182" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1607" RevisionGUID="a72b2456-f013-4d9b-b391-3779e83eb5ea" CreationDate="2016-09-27T06:41:43.807" UserId="79" Text="A good Latin word for &quot;point&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6183" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1607" RevisionGUID="a72b2456-f013-4d9b-b391-3779e83eb5ea" CreationDate="2016-09-27T06:41:43.807" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|translation|vocabulary|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1608" RevisionGUID="039cc446-e41e-4fff-b16b-ff07162ed2f7" CreationDate="2016-09-27T09:27:13.590" UserId="867" Text="Perhaps *graeculus*, often translated as Greekling?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It refers to Greeks who held positions of some import in Roman society due to their education and higher learning yet were considered too Greek to actually be considered proper Romans and, therefore, part of Roman society.  It was also used to mock those Romans who exhibited a taste for Greek language, learning and customs, most (in)famously, of Hadrian in the *Historia Augusta* but also of Claudius in the *Apocolocyntosis* (see section 5).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The diminutive suggests a pejorative, as does its use in context (for example, the *graeculus esuriens* in Juvenal, *Satires*, 3.78 or almost anytime Cicero uses it!).  The animosity inherent in the term seems to lie in the erudition and cleverness of the Greek, rather than his Greekness per se, cleverness that the Romans evidently resented.  This is perplexing as Greek literacy was considered cultured and elegant among Roman elite.  Indeed, Cicero seems to use *graeculus* to mock Verres’ **lack** of authentic Greek learning (*Against Verres*, speech 2, book IV.127 – quite funny in its scathing sarcasm so I include a link: [Against Verres][1]).  It has also been debated whether the use of *graeculus* to label Hadrian was a compliment or an insult. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, I don’t know if someone would lay claim to the label *graeculus* as a matter of pride.  Perhaps for a successful, well-educated Greek in Rome, appropriating the term ironically as a marker of his Greekness could be an act of self-affirmation.  Macrobius (who was possibly Greek himself) seems to use *graeculus* in an almost affectionate way.  See the *Saturnalia* VI.26, for instance, when a guest exclaims “εὖγε, graeculus noster!/Well done, our little Greek!” after a very erudite exposition of the nervous system without any apparent malice, and also at II.31.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Thus, *graeculus* could perhaps encapsulate the idea of someone with great erudition and skill but on the outskirts of society.  Further, its use as a pejorative or a compliment seems to lie in the eyes of the beholder (so to speak).  Of course, it is also a racial epithet so perhaps not quite what you’re after.  Even so, I thought it an interesting possibility so persevered with the research!        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0012:text=Ver.:actio=2:book=4:section=127&amp;highlight=graeculus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1608" RevisionGUID="c5449521-bae2-4ffb-9f8a-27c68fe6a3ea" CreationDate="2016-09-27T09:47:47.553" UserId="867" Comment="deleted 63 characters in body" Text="Perhaps *graeculus*, often translated as Greekling?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It refers to Greeks who held positions of some import in Roman society due to their education and higher learning yet were considered too Greek to actually be considered proper Romans and, therefore, part of Roman society.  It was also used to mock those Romans who exhibited a taste for Greek language, learning and customs, most (in)famously, of Hadrian in the *Historia Augusta* but also of Claudius in the *Apocolocyntosis* (see section 5).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The diminutive suggests a pejorative, as does its use in context (for example, the *graeculus esuriens* in Juvenal, *Satires*, 3.78 or almost anytime Cicero uses it!).  The animosity inherent in the term seems to lie in the resentment of the erudition and cleverness of the Greek.  This is perplexing as Greek literacy was considered cultured and elegant among Roman elite.  Indeed, Cicero seems to use *graeculus* to mock Verres’ **lack** of authentic Greek learning (*Against Verres*, speech 2, book IV.127 – quite funny in its scathing sarcasm so I include a link: [Against Verres][1]).  It has also been debated whether the use of *graeculus* to label Hadrian was a compliment or an insult. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, I don’t know if someone would lay claim to the label *graeculus* as a matter of pride.  Perhaps for a successful, well-educated Greek in Rome, appropriating the term ironically as a marker of his Greekness could be an act of self-affirmation.  Macrobius (who was possibly Greek himself) seems to use *graeculus* in an almost affectionate way.  See the *Saturnalia* VI.26, for instance, when a guest exclaims “εὖγε, graeculus noster!/Well done, our little Greek!” after a very erudite exposition of the nervous system without any apparent malice, and also at II.31.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Thus, *graeculus* could perhaps encapsulate the idea of someone with great erudition and skill but on the outskirts of society.  Further, its use as a pejorative or a compliment seems to lie in the eyes of the beholder (so to speak).  Of course, it is also a racial epithet so perhaps not quite what you’re after.  Even so, I thought it an interesting possibility so persevered with the research!        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0012:text=Ver.:actio=2:book=4:section=127&amp;highlight=graeculus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1609" RevisionGUID="0f186b82-dc3d-4f0f-a02f-96f781c9751c" CreationDate="2016-09-27T15:00:14.610" UserId="645" Text="Maybe simpler than you think! The following are extracts from Smith's Latin-English Dictionary (1871), under the head &quot;point&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**II**. Fig., *the sting or telling feature of an epigram, etc*.:aculeus (a sting): *an epigram requires to have a p. to it*, *epigramma quasi aculeos quosdam in se habere oportet; cf. Cic. Br. 9, extr.; *his own epigrams have often very little p*., ipse hebetes interdum figit aculeos, Morhof, i. p. 1060; *having p*., salsus; *without point*., frigidus, insulsus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**IV**. *A particular* ; esp. in phr., *the main p.s*, ; **1**. summa : *just the main p.s*., ipsae summae rerum [atque sententiae], Cic. Quint. 9, 32    **2**. caput, -itis, n.: *the main point of a letter*, c. literarum, Cic. Ph. 2,31,77: *the leading p.s of a subject*, capita rerum, id. Br. 44,164. **3**. cardo, -inis, m.   *Phr*. : *to touch on the main point of a thing*, aliquid summatim attingere, Quint. 10,1,44 : Cic.: *in every p*., omni ex parte, Cic. Am. 21,79 : *let us return to the p. we digressed from*, eo unde huc digressi sumus revertamur, Cic. N. D. 2, fin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that this is enough to set you on the right path. Smith's is invaluable for this kind of thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="61b51c64-b7fa-43a6-a6cb-78e349a5ea5a" CreationDate="2016-09-27T16:04:27.273" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="Clarified, fixed a typo" Text="So I'm trying to write a short thing about a jade statuette that my family has had for roughly forever, but when I looked up &quot;jade&quot;, I found... nothing. Well, I found plenty of results, but there was nothing about the mineral, which is what I'm looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So... what's the Latin word for &quot;jade&quot; (as in the rock)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I'd prefer an answer from ancient Latin, either classical or vulgar, but if there isn't a word from that period, I'll take the most concise word that modern Latin speakers would likely understand. It also doesn't have to be &quot;pure&quot; Latin – loan words from other languages work just fine, as long as they were used by Romans at some point. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6189" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1607" RevisionGUID="06f0f9e7-646b-4666-b56d-1f61df171aca" CreationDate="2016-09-27T17:49:53.980" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|translation|vocabulary|idiom|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1610" RevisionGUID="65f1ba4c-8d2a-4076-9249-6d21b80b2a71" CreationDate="2016-09-28T07:56:53.357" UserId="79" Text="The phrases *si tibi placet* and *si vobis placet* can be found in Latin literature, but they are not particularly common.&#xD;&#xA;At least superficially they correspond to the French &quot;s'il to plaît&quot; and &quot;s'il vous plaît&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The difference in frequency can be partly explained by the cultural differences in expressing politeness.&#xD;&#xA;However, I wonder if this picture is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, does the Latin *si tibi/vobis placet* mean the same thing as the French &quot;s'il te/vous plaît&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;In which cases can they be used the same way, and in which ones not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was inspired by [the one about saying &quot;please&quot; in Latin](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1563/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6192" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1610" RevisionGUID="65f1ba4c-8d2a-4076-9249-6d21b80b2a71" CreationDate="2016-09-28T07:56:53.357" UserId="79" Text="French and Latin &quot;s'il te/vous plaît&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6193" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1610" RevisionGUID="65f1ba4c-8d2a-4076-9249-6d21b80b2a71" CreationDate="2016-09-28T07:56:53.357" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|nuance|french|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1611" RevisionGUID="ad445418-cf9f-47c8-9bcb-948f21270fb7" CreationDate="2016-09-28T09:30:16.823" UserId="645" Text="The Latin verb *placere* is certainly used as you suggest, but I think that its use tends to be formal rather than familiar (for instance, the Senate would be asked if it &quot;pleased&quot; to accept a proposition, and so on). This may tend to distance the use of *si tibi placet*, etc,. from the French *s'il to plaît*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you know, there are several nuances of the English phrase 'if you please' according to context, and I suspect that there is a similar situation in other languages. You probably need a native French speaker to answer your question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1611" RevisionGUID="518e4315-de5e-4f51-9191-9576a4d58f14" CreationDate="2016-09-28T09:59:01.870" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected a typo." Text="The Latin verb *placere* is certainly used as you suggest, but I think that its use tends to be formal rather than familiar (for instance, the Senate would be asked if it &quot;pleased&quot; to accept a proposition, and so on). This may tend to distance the use of *si tibi placet*, etc,. from the French *s'il te plaît*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you know, there are several nuances of the English phrase 'if you please' according to context, and I suspect that there is a similar situation in other languages. You probably need a native French speaker to answer your question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1612" RevisionGUID="e33ee763-de3f-4214-a329-72edf8977279" CreationDate="2016-09-28T10:32:47.657" UserId="324" Text="The French verb plaîre is not the DIRECT continuation of placēre, but seems to imply a parallel form *placĕre, or else (as others argue) it derives from the infinitive plaisir, which implies *placīre. Moreover, s'il vus plaist does not seem to be attested until the mid-twelfth century, which again argues against seeing it as a direct continuation of Latin si vobis placet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/plaire&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1610" RevisionGUID="f09b4174-6c94-4de9-9d96-b1eeec56340f" CreationDate="2016-09-28T13:58:31.720" UserId="45" Comment="edited body" Text="The phrases *si tibi placet* and *si vobis placet* can be found in Latin literature, but they are not particularly common.&#xD;&#xA;At least superficially they correspond to the French &quot;s'il te plaît&quot; and &quot;s'il vous plaît&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The difference in frequency can be partly explained by the cultural differences in expressing politeness.&#xD;&#xA;However, I wonder if this picture is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, does the Latin *si tibi/vobis placet* mean the same thing as the French &quot;s'il te/vous plaît&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;In which cases can they be used the same way, and in which ones not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was inspired by [the one about saying &quot;please&quot; in Latin](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1563/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1585" RevisionGUID="30aa1d1e-e144-49bf-a6b8-8ff0e4bde5f9" CreationDate="2016-09-28T19:18:11.650" UserId="68" Comment="added 681 characters in body" Text="As a supplement to all the excellent answers above, I'll just point you to Eleanor Dickey's wonderful articles &quot;[How to Say 'Please' in Classical Latin][1]&quot; and &quot;[How to Say 'Please' in Post-Classical Latin][2].&quot; She's a professor at the University of Reading and has done a lot of work on (among many other things) politeness in the ancient world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, they say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;—in Classical Latin, there was an ascending order of &quot;please&quot;s according to how major a request was: *velim* for minor requests, followed by *quæso* and *rogo*, on up through *peto* for very serious requests. (Of course there was overlap between each of these pairs; Dickey is just noting general tendencies.)&#xD;&#xA;—in post-Classical Latin, because the standard was to archaize, they basically kept *velim, quæso,* and *peto*, while adding several from earlier Latin: *sodes, sis, amabo, obsecro,* and *oro*, though of course shades of meaning and formality shifted over the centuries. (*Rogo* was used so much for a time that it came to be seen as inelegant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/8113515/How_to_say_please_in_Classical_Latin_in_CQ_2012_&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.academia.edu/12042154/How_to_say_please_in_post-Classical_Latin_Fronto_and_the_importance_of_archaism_in_JLL_2015_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1613" RevisionGUID="ffe45843-4c97-4d05-9f9e-1827f0344506" CreationDate="2016-09-29T05:34:22.657" UserId="867" Text="Building on Cerberus' answer above, I think the semantic link might be tied to the development of *quartus* --&gt; *quartier*: a piece of land; a neighbourhood; lodgings, accommodation; an encampment of troops [(see &quot;quartier&quot;)][1]   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the *é-* does denote a Latin *e(x)*- then perhaps we could understand *écarter* to mean &quot;out of the neighbourhood/lodgings/encampment, indeed, quarters&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What made me think of this was the original link to *écarter* above as the first attestation in the entry is &quot;*s'être éloigné du gros de l'armée*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/quartier" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1613" RevisionGUID="e7c65e4f-0d5d-4961-aa22-977fd781c1d7" CreationDate="2016-09-29T05:39:46.087" UserId="867" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="Building on Cerberus' answer above, I think the semantic link might be tied to the development of *quartus* --&gt; *quartier*: a piece of land; a neighbourhood; lodgings, accommodation; an encampment of troops [(see &quot;quartier&quot;)][1]   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the *é-* does denote a Latin *e(x)*- then perhaps we could understand *écarter* to mean &quot;out of the neighbourhood/lodgings/encampment&quot; and thus away, at a distance.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What made me think of this was the original link to *écarter* above as the first attestation in the entry is &quot;*s'être éloigné du gros de l'armée*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/quartier" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1614" RevisionGUID="a3fabbc4-9765-4161-a553-6d79b6cfe7f6" CreationDate="2016-09-29T06:47:12.320" UserId="867" Text="An adjective of number, a superlative or an emphatic adjective that describes the antecedent is often put in the relative clause (or &quot;attracted to the Clause of the Relative&quot;, as Kennedy phrases it).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; si veniat Caesar cum copiis *quas* habet **firmissimas**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if Caesar comes with the **strongest** troops *that* he has&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See *Kennedy's Revised Latin Primer*, 332, note 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also Morwood &amp; Ashdowne, *Writing Latin*, (no page no. available in my copy, sorry!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1614" RevisionGUID="06fb4fbb-74f8-46c2-b731-21a5100f7c97" CreationDate="2016-09-29T06:59:55.633" UserId="867" Comment="added 163 characters in body" Text="An adjective of number, a superlative or an emphatic adjective that describes the antecedent is often put in the relative clause (or &quot;attracted to the Clause of the Relative&quot;, as Kennedy phrases it).  Further, the adjective will agree with the relative pronoun.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; si veniat Caesar cum copiis *quas* habet **firmissimas**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if Caesar comes with the **strongest** troops *that* he has&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; librum *quem* **recentissimum** habebat mihi dedit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; he gave me the **newest** book *that* he had&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See *Kennedy's Revised Latin Primer*, p.156, point 332, note 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Colebourn, *Latin Sentence and Idiom*, p.115, point 375&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6204" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="1614" RevisionGUID="4517587d-f8fc-4369-9b53-5c04f5fa8ada" CreationDate="2016-09-29T07:13:25.357" UserId="867" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:867,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Penelope&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1614" RevisionGUID="e2f5708b-d6af-44f8-aaf4-ebad048f5a24" CreationDate="2016-09-29T07:44:51.543" UserId="867" Comment="added 564 characters in body" Text="An adjective of number, a superlative or an emphatic adjective that describes the antecedent is often put in the relative clause (or &quot;attracted to the Clause of the Relative&quot;, as Kennedy phrases it).  The adjective will agree with the relative pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;Examples: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; si veniat Caesar cum copiis **quas** habet **firmissimas**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if Caesar comes with the **strongest** troops **that** he has&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; librum **quem** **recentissimum** habebat mihi dedit &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; he gave me the **newest** book **that** he had&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the position of the adjective is entirely normal.  Thus, I would put *universum* with *gaudium* – universal joy (*pace* Evan T. Sage who has evidently translated it as an adverb!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that a comparative (*quam*) +/- a relative pronoun + the subjunctive suggests a result/consecutive clause, a literal translation could be:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there was a universal joy so great with the result that the men&#xD;&#xA;&gt; couldn’t accept it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or more polished:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there was universal joy greater than what the men could accept&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ref: *Kennedy's Revised Latin Primer*, p.156, point 332, note 2; and Colebourn, *Latin Sentence and Idiom*, p.115, point 375; and Morwood, *Latin Grammar*, p. 100, point 6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6206" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="1614" RevisionGUID="8eb6913f-2478-4a4c-aaee-7d7fe2418d1b" CreationDate="2016-09-29T07:45:08.443" UserId="867" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:867,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Penelope&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1615" RevisionGUID="2946262d-b875-40aa-9e2b-a46eb1b848e4" CreationDate="2016-09-29T10:16:35.477" UserId="79" Text="In the famous line &quot;*quicquid id est timeo Danaos et dona ferentis*&quot; Vergilius uses an older plural accusative form *ferentis* instead of *ferentes*.&#xD;&#xA;Is the *i* in the last syllable short or long, and how do we know?&#xD;&#xA;This particular case is the last syllable of a verse and therefore there is no metric constraint." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6208" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1615" RevisionGUID="2946262d-b875-40aa-9e2b-a46eb1b848e4" CreationDate="2016-09-29T10:16:35.477" UserId="79" Text="Length of i in Vergilius' &quot;ferentis&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6209" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1615" RevisionGUID="2946262d-b875-40aa-9e2b-a46eb1b848e4" CreationDate="2016-09-29T10:16:35.477" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|declension|vergilius|aeneis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1616" RevisionGUID="c1c5905c-36cf-433f-bb9f-86975e7fa891" CreationDate="2016-09-29T10:55:20.787" UserId="645" Text="This is so old a question, and this well-known line has so often been critically examined, that a definitive reply about the spelling appears out of the question. Wherever you consult a copy of the text you will find (mostly, I think) *quidquid* rather than *quicquid*, apparently at the whim of the editor or commentator. The same goes for *ferentes*/*ferentis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the host of imperfections in the Aeneid,I wonder if they really matter very much in this particular line? As for the scansion, of course we expect a hexameter to conclude with either a spondee or a trochee, and this is almost certainly the former. The rule is that final -*es* is long: there is a whole list of exceptions, but the nominative/accusative plural of a present participle isn't one of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1616" RevisionGUID="ed123bfd-b890-4f92-b0c6-45517cae6fa7" CreationDate="2016-09-29T11:01:32.190" UserId="645" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="This is so old a question, and this well-known line has so often been critically examined, that a definitive reply about the spelling appears out of the question. Wherever you consult a copy of the text you will find (mostly, I think) *quidquid* rather than *quicquid*, apparently at the whim of the editor or commentator. The same goes for *ferentes*/*ferentis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the host of imperfections in the Aeneid,I wonder if they really matter very much in this particular line? As for the scansion, of course we expect a hexameter to conclude with either a spondee or a trochee, and this is almost certainly the former. The rule is that final -*es* is long: there is a whole list of exceptions, but the nominative/accusative plural of a present participle isn't one of them. On the other hand final -*is* is generally short, though my old teacher insisted that its older use in the n/a plural has to be long: both -*es* and -*is* were certainly in use during the middle-to-late first century BC." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1615" RevisionGUID="3b57b318-bef2-46f1-9193-421e2ee0620d" CreationDate="2016-09-29T12:41:13.573" UserId="79" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="In the famous line &quot;*quicquid id est timeo Danaos et dona ferentis*&quot; Vergilius uses an older plural accusative form *ferentis* instead of *ferentes*.&#xD;&#xA;(It is unimportant here whether *quicquid* or *quidquid* is used.)&#xD;&#xA;Is the *i* in the last syllable short or long, and how do we know?&#xD;&#xA;This particular case is the last syllable of a verse and therefore there is no metric constraint." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="5d06e332-2e7f-451c-acc9-5792ba836dad" CreationDate="2016-09-29T13:35:19.640" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="The first verse of the first ode in [the first book of odes by Horatius](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/horace/carm1.shtml) is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Maecenas atavis edite regibus*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You Maecenas, who descend from great-great-great-grandfathers that were kings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who are these *atavi* (literally great-great-great-grandfathers) Horatius mentions?&#xD;&#xA;Does it mean some specific people or ancestry in general?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Maecenas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Maecenas), the Horatius' patron, came from a wealthy equestrian family, but describing such background as kings (*reges*) sounds tasteless to me &amp;mdash; but I may be missing a connotation of the word *rex*.&#xD;&#xA;I was unable to track his ancestry to great-great-great-grandparents, and I'm not sure Horatius could either.&#xD;&#xA;Especially since the expression is in plural (*atavis regibus* rather than *atavo rege*), I believe it refers to several ancestors in several generations.&#xD;&#xA;But it is still possible that Horatius has some specific ancestors in mind instead of his family in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know (or have good guesses) what Horatius meant by *atavi reges*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was partially inspired by [this earlier question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/294/79) about generations of grandparents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1617" RevisionGUID="1a9a19c9-d99d-4677-8ebe-f5b19981cc3e" CreationDate="2016-09-29T13:38:29.620" UserId="867" Text="*Plaire (à)* has many connotations, some of which overlap with the Latin meanings of *placere* – to please/be pleasing (to), to enjoy, to be acceptable (to), to like/be liked (by), to be agreeable (to).  There is perhaps also some overlap with the formulaic constructions such as *si tibi placet*/God willing (OLD) and *plût à Dieu* /may it please God or *ce qu’à Dieu ne plaise*/God forbid (TFLi).  The TLFi also indicates a similar use of *plaire* in a *formule de requête*, as in *plaise humblement votre Seigneurie accepter …*/may it humbly please your Lordship to accept …  This seems very formal and deferential and certainly does not have the same sense as *s’il te/vous plaît*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;*Placere* was used in the Senate (as mentioned above) as a technical term for *to be resolved* but I don’t know of an equivalent use of *plaire* in French. Interestingly, *placet* was used in Anglophone universities or Church assemblies “as a formula to express a vote in favour of a proposition: ‘It pleases (me or us)’”, which keeps that technical use of *placere* (OED).  I wonder too if the formulaic legal phrase “may it please the court” has a similar background?  (It is accepted that the English verb *to please* derives from the French *plaisir/plaire* and thus Latin *placere*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to whether *si tibi/vobis placet* and *s'il te/vous plaît* are equivalent, I didn’t find anything to suggest so.  They are saying the same thing – if it pleases you – but there the similarity seems to end.  I couldn’t even find that *si tibi/vobis placet* was for requests as such but rather for making suggestions/seeking agreement – *si tibi placet*/if you have no objections or for simply stating what one liked – *nunc tu mihi places*/now I like you (OLD).  This most definitely is not how *s’il te/vous plaît* is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I’m not a native speaker of French and the above is just the product of my research in dictionaries.  I’d welcome any corrections!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1618" RevisionGUID="f757fb64-dc08-4f1a-963b-763fc42b8fb3" CreationDate="2016-09-29T15:46:28.037" UserId="39" Text="FYI, the latest Teubner edition of Aeneis ([Conte 2009][1]) uses &quot;ferentis&quot; - no other forms are even mentioned:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so does [Mynors 1969][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110977882/9783110977882.32/9783110977882.32.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AVT6q.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.oxfordscholarlyeditions.com/view/10.1093/actrade/9780198146537.book.1/actrade-9780198146537-div1-16&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3z8Sh.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1618" RevisionGUID="73720216-b48a-4843-9ab0-b06eec3e75aa" CreationDate="2016-09-29T15:54:10.880" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 36 characters in body" Text="FYI, the latest Teubner edition of Aeneis ([Conte 2009][1]) uses &quot;ferentis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so does [Mynors 1969][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110977882/9783110977882.32/9783110977882.32.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AVT6q.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.oxfordscholarlyeditions.com/view/10.1093/actrade/9780198146537.book.1/actrade-9780198146537-div1-16&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3z8Sh.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1619" RevisionGUID="748da026-dbaf-4aa6-8876-be4a79b861e0" CreationDate="2016-09-29T16:25:24.843" UserId="40" Text="It's definitely long, because the vowel of that i-stem acc. pl. ending, *-īs*, is always long, as [any good grammar will tell you](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-074.html). (If the form was gen. sg., of course, it would be short, but that doesn't work in this line.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1618" RevisionGUID="ced259ae-7f07-46e9-9fc7-35c26d6e1acb" CreationDate="2016-09-29T16:32:47.817" UserId="39" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="FYI, the latest Teubner edition of Aeneis ([Conte 2009][1]) uses &quot;ferentis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so does [Mynors 1969][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's the complete paradigm (from Tronskii 1960, p. 155):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110977882/9783110977882.32/9783110977882.32.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AVT6q.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.oxfordscholarlyeditions.com/view/10.1093/actrade/9780198146537.book.1/actrade-9780198146537-div1-16&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3z8Sh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6CA29.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1618" RevisionGUID="3540f232-9505-46bc-b6d7-9b41f029b305" CreationDate="2016-09-29T17:00:50.337" UserId="39" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="&gt;ACC.PL. is **fĕrĕntīs**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final syllable is superheavy, i.e. it consists of three morae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FYI, the latest Teubner edition of Aeneis ([Conte 2009][1]) uses &quot;ferentis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so does [Mynors 1969][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's the complete paradigm (from Tronskii 1960, p. 155):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110977882/9783110977882.32/9783110977882.32.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AVT6q.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.oxfordscholarlyeditions.com/view/10.1093/actrade/9780198146537.book.1/actrade-9780198146537-div1-16&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3z8Sh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6CA29.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1618" RevisionGUID="70358edd-86c4-4367-9386-e1ba60800979" CreationDate="2016-09-29T18:23:39.107" UserId="39" Comment="added 408 characters in body" Text="&gt;ACC.PL. is **fĕrĕntīs**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final syllable is superheavy, i.e. it consists of three morae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FYI, the latest Teubner edition of Aeneis ([Conte 2009][1]) uses &quot;ferentis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so does [Mynors 1969][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's the complete paradigm (from Tronskii 1960, p. 155):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LHS (Leumann, Hofmann and Szantyr 1977) discuss this archaic form in section 357.C.3 (p. 440),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Andrerseits als archaisierendes Kolorit etwa bei Vergil, und zwar nur **dieses *-īs*** auch bei *i*-Adjektiven und bei *nt*-Partizipien, so bei Vergil *trīs, omnīs* (substantiviert) und ***-entīs*** (*can- fer- ru- sil -* uws., *sonantīs*).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - canentīs&#xD;&#xA; - ferentīs&#xD;&#xA; - ruentīs&#xD;&#xA; - silentīs&#xD;&#xA; - sonantīs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110977882/9783110977882.32/9783110977882.32.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AVT6q.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.oxfordscholarlyeditions.com/view/10.1093/actrade/9780198146537.book.1/actrade-9780198146537-div1-16&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3z8Sh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6CA29.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1620" RevisionGUID="2e00974c-3893-4770-b9ee-c92232718bfb" CreationDate="2016-09-29T18:46:44.817" UserId="235" Text="I just finished translating line 6 of *Bellum Gallicum, Book I Ch. I*, and the absence of a coordinating conjunction at the end made me wonder. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Belgae ab extremis Galliae finibus oriuntur, pertinent ad inferiorem partem fluminis Rheni, spectant in septentrionem et orientem solem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Belgians arise from the farthest lands of Gaul, extend to the lower part of the Rhine river, **and** look toward the north and the rising sun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see how, in the English translation, I added the conjunction which is normal for our language. But in the Latin, it's conspicuously missing. This bristles my prejudices as an English speaker. Clearly, I was expecting to see *et* or the enclitic *-que*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the deal here? Does classical Latin not require a coordinating conjunction at the end of a list? Is it optional? Is it better *not* to include it? Is there a hard-and-fast rule or is it just up to the author's discretion? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any feedback — I look forward to finding out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6222" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1620" RevisionGUID="2e00974c-3893-4770-b9ee-c92232718bfb" CreationDate="2016-09-29T18:46:44.817" UserId="235" Text="Is the coordinating conjunction necessary in a parallel series of terms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6223" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1620" RevisionGUID="2e00974c-3893-4770-b9ee-c92232718bfb" CreationDate="2016-09-29T18:46:44.817" UserId="235" Text="|conjunction|grammar-identification|gaius-iulius-caesar|bellum-gallicum|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1620" RevisionGUID="a28cc1c7-22e9-44b3-982f-a273a97f5656" CreationDate="2016-09-29T19:00:34.510" UserId="235" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="I just finished translating line 6 of *Bellum Gallicum, Book I Ch. I*, and the absence of a coordinating conjunction at the end made me wonder. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Belgae ab extremis Galliae finibus oriuntur, pertinent ad inferiorem partem fluminis Rheni, spectant in septentrionem et orientem solem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Belgians arise from the farthest lands of Gaul, extend to the lower part of the Rhine river, **and** look toward the north and the rising sun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see how, in the English translation, I added the conjunction which is normal for our language. But in the Latin, it's conspicuously missing. This bristles my prejudices as an English speaker. Clearly, I was expecting to see *et* or the enclitic *-que*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings me to my question. Does classical Latin not require a coordinating conjunction at the end of a list? Is it optional? Is it better *not* to include it? Is there a hard-and-fast rule or is it just up to the author's discretion? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any feedback — I look forward to finding out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1621" RevisionGUID="7f24526b-0cd5-4f34-b4ec-7069ecc7a3fc" CreationDate="2016-09-29T20:49:55.390" UserId="40" Text="I'm currently teaching with Keller and Russell's *Learn to Read Latin*. I have a vague memory that there exists, or used to exist, a website with drills and exercises that are specifically keyed to the chapters of that textbook, but if so, I can't seem to find it again. (My students are doing the drills in the workbook but it would be useful to them to have online drills as well.) Does anyone know if such a site exists and where it can be found?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6226" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1621" RevisionGUID="7f24526b-0cd5-4f34-b4ec-7069ecc7a3fc" CreationDate="2016-09-29T20:49:55.390" UserId="40" Text="Online drills for Keller and Russell's Learn to Read Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6227" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1621" RevisionGUID="7f24526b-0cd5-4f34-b4ec-7069ecc7a3fc" CreationDate="2016-09-29T20:49:55.390" UserId="40" Text="|pedagogy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6228" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1621" RevisionGUID="4e24e136-5745-4e9a-b680-8db1c775542a" CreationDate="2016-09-29T21:47:20.680" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|resource-request|pedagogy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1622" RevisionGUID="dcc98cf1-882a-4771-8c5f-1c67198b7e93" CreationDate="2016-09-30T01:35:58.630" UserId="522" Text="The Answer that should be here, that is: one relating to a period when most serious conversation was in Latin, and not just in School, is Donatus. What survives of that is just a skeleton memorised as a framework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Alexander de Villedieu** wrote ***Doctrinale,*** a very popular Schoolbook, in  **1199** just as the thorough teaching of Classics was being replaced by crash courses with Anthologies replacing full texts of Ovid and Cicero. This v. short exract covers 1st Declension. *Nominativus* is here called *Rectus.* The metre is Dactylic Hexameter.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Image taken from **Archive** post of  *Seven Liberal Arts,* Abelson 1903&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/87vnQ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1623" RevisionGUID="464aa3b9-92ce-4be1-99e5-e3c6df92fa48" CreationDate="2016-09-30T05:33:09.983" UserId="235" Text="For starters, I haven't finished translating this short passage yet, so I would be grateful if you refrain from giving the full translation. (And if it's hard to answer the question without doing so, then maybe a useful hint would suffice.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to know, what exactly is the perfect active infinitive *fecisse* doing here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Interea medios Iuno despexit in Argos         &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;et noctis faciem nebulas **fecisse** volucres   &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;sub nitido mirata die, [...] &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Metamorphoses 1.601-603&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first I thought, &quot;indirect discourse!&quot; But I don't see any verbs that introduce indirect discourse.  It's also clearly not a complementary infinitive. With these ruled out, I'm pretty much out of ideas. Perhaps it could be a historical/poetical form of the verb, but I doubt it. What are your thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6233" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1623" RevisionGUID="464aa3b9-92ce-4be1-99e5-e3c6df92fa48" CreationDate="2016-09-30T05:33:09.983" UserId="235" Text="How to make sense of this standalone infinitive? (Metamorphoses 1.601—603)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6234" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1623" RevisionGUID="464aa3b9-92ce-4be1-99e5-e3c6df92fa48" CreationDate="2016-09-30T05:33:09.983" UserId="235" Text="|perfect-tense|metamorphoses|ovidius|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6235" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1623" RevisionGUID="3d5a822b-c307-418d-8b8f-5c91465f4634" CreationDate="2016-09-30T05:41:38.203" UserId="235" Comment="edited tags" Text="|metamorphoses|ovidius|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1624" RevisionGUID="debf882c-e8c0-4b04-ae58-3c73853bd0e3" CreationDate="2016-09-30T07:45:22.540" UserId="79" Text="You need to read a little further.&#xD;&#xA;The key structure is this (simplified for clarity):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuno &amp;hellip; fecisse, &amp;hellip; non esse nec remitti sensit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, Juno sensed something, and that something is expressed with three ACIs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As requested, I refrain from giving a fuller translation or analysis.&#xD;&#xA;If you are still stuck, please ask for more details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1623" RevisionGUID="743f0a3a-a0ac-4a94-a2fc-b92c18843ba9" CreationDate="2016-09-30T07:46:48.360" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited tags" Text="For starters, I haven't finished translating this short passage yet, so I would be grateful if you refrain from giving the full translation. (And if it's hard to answer the question without doing so, then maybe a useful hint would suffice.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to know, what exactly is the perfect active infinitive *fecisse* doing here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Interea medios Iuno despexit in Argos  &#xD;&#xA;et noctis faciem nebulas **fecisse** volucres  &#xD;&#xA;sub nitido mirata die, [...]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;Metamorphoses 1.601&amp;ndash;603&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first I thought, &quot;indirect discourse!&quot; But I don't see any verbs that introduce indirect discourse.  It's also clearly not a complementary infinitive. With these ruled out, I'm pretty much out of ideas. Perhaps it could be a historical/poetical form of the verb, but I doubt it. What are your thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6238" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1623" RevisionGUID="743f0a3a-a0ac-4a94-a2fc-b92c18843ba9" CreationDate="2016-09-30T07:46:48.360" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|poetry|metamorphoses|ovidius|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1625" RevisionGUID="6b167f76-6b3b-411c-995e-0c74e1f25416" CreationDate="2016-09-30T07:58:00.043" UserId="79" Text="I am not sure of correct terminology, but let me call the medieval perfect tenses like *amatum habeo* &amp;mdash; as opposed to the classical *amavi* &amp;mdash; the &quot;composite active perfect&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;One would expect the participle in the composite perfect to follow the gender and number of the object:&#xD;&#xA;*acroasem auditam habeo, librum scriptum habeo, hoc factum habeo&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in Italian the composite active perfect is almost always masculine, whatever the gender (or number!) of the object.&#xD;&#xA;For example, one would say *ho mangiato una pizza*, not *ho mangiata una pizza*.&#xD;&#xA;Does the same ever happen in Latin when composite active perfect is used?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6240" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1625" RevisionGUID="6b167f76-6b3b-411c-995e-0c74e1f25416" CreationDate="2016-09-30T07:58:00.043" UserId="79" Text="Gender in medieval composite active perfect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6241" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1625" RevisionGUID="6b167f76-6b3b-411c-995e-0c74e1f25416" CreationDate="2016-09-30T07:58:00.043" UserId="79" Text="|grammar-choice|medieval-latin|new-latin|perfect-tense|italian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1626" RevisionGUID="05620cf0-ba98-4e92-944a-cc95230975dd" CreationDate="2016-09-30T08:11:20.060" UserId="79" Text="As commenters have pointed out, adding an &quot;and&quot; between the last two elements in a list is not required in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, I have been instructed that it is stylistically preferred to leave such conjunctions out when there are three or more items.&#xD;&#xA;(Where those who instructed me, university lecturers of Latin, got this information is unknown to me, so I cannot give a stronger reference.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to clarify or emphasize the conjunction, consider polysyndeton: put an &quot;and&quot; between all elements of the list.&#xD;&#xA;The opposite way is asyndeton, where no conjunction is left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern languages (that I know), it is a very general and common rule that an &quot;and&quot; is added between the last two elements when listing two or more items.&#xD;&#xA;This rule simply did not exist in antiquity, at least not as strongly as today.&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, I think using an &quot;and&quot; between the last two items is perfectly grammatical classical Latin, even if not preferred." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6243" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1620" RevisionGUID="f939fd9c-fdda-4a6d-93b1-5308e98344f5" CreationDate="2016-09-30T08:11:44.117" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|conjunction|grammar-identification|gaius-iulius-caesar|bellum-gallicum|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1162" RevisionGUID="7de8abd9-ae0f-4988-8630-53145f9cf528" CreationDate="2016-09-30T08:24:26.863" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The Italian word &quot;fare&quot; is often used in a very generic way. English doesn't use &quot;do&quot; or &quot;make&quot; that much, but it can still be a good comparison. Let me make some examples. We may say &quot;fare Greco&quot; (&quot;make Greek&quot;, literally, or &quot;do Greek&quot;) to mean &quot;do something related to Greek&quot;, like studying grammar, translating something. We can say &quot;fare piano&quot; (&quot;do/make piano&quot;) for &quot;play the piano&quot;. I once kept a diary in Latin, and to render that I simply used the suffix *-izo* to create new verbs. The examples above gave me *Græcizo* and *clavilizo*. But I was wondering: was there something like this in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6245" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1162" RevisionGUID="7de8abd9-ae0f-4988-8630-53145f9cf528" CreationDate="2016-09-30T08:24:26.863" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation|word-choice|italian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1625" RevisionGUID="d2fa6075-de03-45df-bf97-d2ce1c2b0c51" CreationDate="2016-09-30T11:31:51.093" UserId="79" Comment="added 185 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am not sure of correct terminology, but let me call the medieval perfect tenses like *amatum habeo* &amp;mdash; as opposed to the classical *amavi* &amp;mdash; the &quot;composite active perfect&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;One would expect the participle in the composite perfect to follow the gender and number of the object:&#xD;&#xA;*acroasem auditam habeo, librum scriptum habeo, hoc factum habeo, urbes visas habeo&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in Italian the composite active perfect is almost always masculine, whatever the gender or number of the object.&#xD;&#xA;For example, one would say *ho mangiato una pizza* or *ho mangiato due pizze*, not *ho mangiata una pizza* or *ho mangiate due pizze*.&#xD;&#xA;Does the same ever happen in Latin when composite active perfect is used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not very familiar with post-classical Latin, and I do not know how to figure things like this out on my own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6247" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1625" RevisionGUID="d2fa6075-de03-45df-bf97-d2ce1c2b0c51" CreationDate="2016-09-30T11:31:51.093" UserId="79" Comment="added 185 characters in body; edited title" Text="Gender and number in medieval composite active perfect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6248" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="1627" RevisionGUID="e864f349-fc26-4106-9317-72cf95cb357f" CreationDate="2016-09-30T13:14:07.210" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/19841/aurora-natalis-or-aurora-natalicus" />
  <row Id="6249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1627" RevisionGUID="86f336b6-d111-45e6-a5a7-6a3518f6198c" CreationDate="2016-09-29T22:51:58.347" UserId="877" UserDisplayName="Ruckus T-Boom" Text="I have practically no experience with Latin, but from what I understand Aurora Borealis roughly means northern dawn, and Aurora Australis roughly means southern dawn. What would be the equivalent way to say Christmas dawn? Would it be either Aurora Natalis or Aurora Natalicus, or am I way off the mark." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6250" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1627" RevisionGUID="86f336b6-d111-45e6-a5a7-6a3518f6198c" CreationDate="2016-09-29T22:51:58.347" UserId="877" UserDisplayName="Ruckus T-Boom" Text="Aurora Natalis or Aurora Natalicus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6251" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1627" RevisionGUID="86f336b6-d111-45e6-a5a7-6a3518f6198c" CreationDate="2016-09-29T22:51:58.347" UserId="877" UserDisplayName="Ruckus T-Boom" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1628" RevisionGUID="5f061d1d-c379-4466-b6f9-dd7014be3a73" CreationDate="2016-09-30T13:34:52.787" UserId="79" Text="*Aurora borealis/australis* indeed means &quot;northern/southern dawn&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;To convert this to a Christmas dawn, we need a Latin adjective meaning &quot;Christams-related&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin does not have a nice word for &quot;Christmas&quot; (or a related adjective) the way many modern European languages do.&#xD;&#xA;*Natalis* and *natalicius* both mean &quot;birthday-related&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The reason why words of this kind are associated with Christmas is that it is the Christ's birthday, *dies natalis Christi*.&#xD;&#xA;It depends on context whether confusion between birthday and Christmas is possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While *natalicius* means &quot;birthday-related&quot; in general, my feeling is that it is more commonly used for Christmas than *natalis*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *natalicius* is the adjective I suggest.&#xD;&#xA;Since *aurora* is feminine, we need to put it in feminine form: *natalicia*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore my suggestion is ***aurora natalicia***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would interpret *aurora natalicia* primarily as &quot;Christmas dawn&quot; and *aurora natalis* as &quot;birthday dawn&quot;, but it may be a matter of taste.&#xD;&#xA;Be aware that both mean both.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to be more verbose, you can always be explicit: *aurora diei natalis Christi* is &quot;the dawn of the Christ's birthday&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1627" RevisionGUID="5091a3a2-2d73-4847-a83a-08cac418a34e" CreationDate="2016-09-30T13:36:27.267" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and added a tag. If you feel that &quot;christianity&quot; is a bad tag or wish to reverse other changes, feel free to do so." Text="I have practically no experience with Latin, but from what I understand *Aurora Borealis* roughly means northern dawn, and *Aurora Australis* roughly means southern dawn. What would be the equivalent way to say Christmas dawn? Would it be either *Aurora Natalis* or *Aurora Natalicus*, or am I way off the mark." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6254" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1627" RevisionGUID="5091a3a2-2d73-4847-a83a-08cac418a34e" CreationDate="2016-09-30T13:36:27.267" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and added a tag. If you feel that &quot;christianity&quot; is a bad tag or wish to reverse other changes, feel free to do so." Text="|translation|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1629" RevisionGUID="f2315050-3334-4a20-958d-772218418b72" CreationDate="2016-09-30T14:39:00.333" UserId="469" Text="Since you are refering to a Christian concept (at least in its origin) I don't see any harm in using Ecclesiastical Latin. I would thus suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Aurora Nativitatis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ecclesiastical Latin, has a number of ways to say *Christmas*. Both _natalis, -is_ and [_nativitas, -atis_][1] are used to form most of the names (e.g. Nativitas Domini). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both words exist in Classical Latin, but of course in a broader meaning of _birth_ in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In liturgy, **_Nativitas_** is preferred, and sometimes used without modifiers to refer to Christmas, since other uses are somehow more specific (e.g. in _Nativitas Beatae Mariae Virginis_). Hence tempus Nativitatis, octava Nativitatis (Christmas time, Christmas octave). See e.g., the current General Instruction of the Roman Missal [in Latin][2] (a quite central, official document for Catholic Liturgy), that uses _Nativitas Domini_ as well as _Nativitas_ alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since _Christmas_ modifies _Dawn_ (the dawn somehow _belongs_ to Christmas day, and you could also say _the dawn of Christmas [day]_), it is necessary to use the genitive form of _Nativitas_ (i.e. _Nativitatis_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnativitas&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdwlgrm.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1630" RevisionGUID="54b546fd-4075-4e86-9fd0-501291bb2cee" CreationDate="2016-09-30T15:16:01.893" UserId="324" Text="In the Greek Bible there are at least three people called Ἰησοῦς (at least two Joshuas in OT, and one Jesus in the NT), so in principle there could very well be a plural. But I am not aware that it is ever actually used in the plural, so I think your question must remain unanswered." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1631" RevisionGUID="8e7274da-7e89-46b6-8a00-f56315b37a13" CreationDate="2016-09-30T15:52:14.053" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1632" RevisionGUID="3ab73b49-3be3-4782-8aa1-3d5eeda4a565" CreationDate="2016-09-30T15:52:14.053" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1632" RevisionGUID="b069343c-efa8-47ca-bada-2392c943a0b0" CreationDate="2016-09-30T16:33:19.093" UserId="12" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="Questions requesting a specific reference to a word, grammatical construct, or other language element, such as in the writings of a particular author." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1633" RevisionGUID="eea632e4-001b-4736-ad77-f019f482d4af" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:15:07.940" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1634" RevisionGUID="d2853f53-7ff8-4ad6-869b-cceab681473d" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:15:07.940" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1635" RevisionGUID="e4395daf-466d-46c1-8fb8-c510d1823c70" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:16:27.423" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1636" RevisionGUID="19ddd8df-513c-4e6d-8902-df839ad199c6" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:16:27.423" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1637" RevisionGUID="f746ff6b-bfff-4547-8e59-f61e1fb33d9b" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:19:07.390" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1638" RevisionGUID="ac2b2afd-7188-4e91-bf1d-412403b7827b" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:19:07.390" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1626" RevisionGUID="4cb065a7-777d-49e5-8ed9-3b3f017743ec" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:19:34.143" UserId="79" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="As commenters have pointed out, adding an &quot;and&quot; between the last two elements in a list is not required in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, I have been instructed that it is stylistically preferred to leave such conjunctions out when there are three or more items.&#xD;&#xA;(Where those who instructed me, university lecturers of Latin, got this information is unknown to me, so I cannot give a stronger reference.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to clarify or emphasize the conjunction, consider polysyndeton: put an &quot;and&quot; between all elements of the list.&#xD;&#xA;The opposite way is asyndeton, where no conjunction is left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern languages (that I know), it is a very general and common rule that an &quot;and&quot; is added between the last two elements when listing two or more items.&#xD;&#xA;This rule simply did not exist in antiquity, at least not as strongly as today.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;del&gt;Nevertheless, I think using an &quot;and&quot; between the last two items is perfectly grammatical classical Latin, even if not preferred.&lt;/del&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In good classical style it is either asyndeton or polysyndeton, not in between." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1639" RevisionGUID="110ff3af-0ae0-4700-b407-327ed589c36e" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:20:57.563" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1640" RevisionGUID="d07d4d69-b228-450a-9ad9-a52985163c42" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:20:57.563" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1638" RevisionGUID="04bb0be1-5191-4e01-924b-4b42db5ea66b" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:27:51.660" UserId="840" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="Questions relating to the language in the works of Flavius Eutropius (historian, 4th century AD)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6270" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1638" RevisionGUID="04bb0be1-5191-4e01-924b-4b42db5ea66b" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:27:51.660" Comment="Proposed by 840 approved by -1 edit id of 128" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1638" RevisionGUID="b5c2c7f8-fff7-48d1-a80c-0b7036ef8fd2" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:27:51.660" UserId="79" Comment="Not only language, but maybe also other aspects." Text="Questions relating to the works of Flavius Eutropius (historian, 4th century AD)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1634" RevisionGUID="8dcff472-ab34-4b82-a050-d4697a586cc9" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:28:38.130" UserId="840" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="Questions relating to the language in the works of Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6273" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1634" RevisionGUID="8dcff472-ab34-4b82-a050-d4697a586cc9" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:28:38.130" Comment="Proposed by 840 approved by -1 edit id of 126" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1634" RevisionGUID="81b2f23b-8ee6-4ecc-9acf-20d4502e61d4" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:28:38.130" UserId="79" Comment="Not only language." Text="Questions relating to the works of Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 BC)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1636" RevisionGUID="222e6a35-c7eb-42ef-a90c-2ae04bc2b161" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:29:17.743" UserId="840" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="Questions relating to the language in the works of Livy or Titus Livius (64 or 59 BC – AD 17)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6276" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1636" RevisionGUID="222e6a35-c7eb-42ef-a90c-2ae04bc2b161" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:29:17.743" Comment="Proposed by 840 approved by -1 edit id of 127" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1636" RevisionGUID="433ab348-e046-4c3b-85dd-3bfa57555b46" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:29:17.743" UserId="79" Comment="Not only language." Text="Questions relating to the works of Livy or Titus Livius (64 or 59 BC – AD 17)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1640" RevisionGUID="525c2a94-f3dd-45a3-8593-a7a0f6a6e7a2" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:29:39.563" UserId="840" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="Questions relating to the language in the works of Ovid or Publius Ovidius Naso (43 BC – AD 17/18)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6279" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1640" RevisionGUID="525c2a94-f3dd-45a3-8593-a7a0f6a6e7a2" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:29:39.563" Comment="Proposed by 840 approved by -1 edit id of 129" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1640" RevisionGUID="4d4eca06-4f9d-4b49-93e7-ef1666201b1d" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:29:39.563" UserId="79" Comment="Not only language." Text="Questions relating to the works of Ovid or Publius Ovidius Naso (43 BC – AD 17/18)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1641" RevisionGUID="e9ac39e3-6b5f-4b54-bffc-d40685d174ac" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:30:45.843" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1642" RevisionGUID="cb8c235b-8b6e-4d34-bb5d-71d2167f8b83" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:30:45.843" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1643" RevisionGUID="09fec05b-abf3-4401-8c96-f4b12cd18be1" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:32:59.367" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1644" RevisionGUID="f1012a88-d337-4a77-a7b1-392dc066269b" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:32:59.367" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1645" RevisionGUID="08204c33-d497-4c99-9856-688c6d19abf7" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:34:26.703" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1646" RevisionGUID="1a0503d7-acaf-462b-930d-08263cde0097" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:34:26.703" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1647" RevisionGUID="4272d4db-3205-44f9-b3f7-d012cecacaf5" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:35:47.787" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1648" RevisionGUID="693020fc-9f42-48d3-a7a4-e9f0fee24cc1" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:35:47.787" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1649" RevisionGUID="3feadeae-6b66-4c47-bd01-92e79cbaac74" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:37:26.043" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1650" RevisionGUID="5eb184d2-74db-47da-8e80-9f222d701e22" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:37:26.043" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1650" RevisionGUID="8bf4784d-51a4-4f6e-8502-5a9c717dd04f" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:41:07.800" UserId="840" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="Questions relating to Bellum Gallicum or the Commentarii de Bello Gallico by Gaius Julius Caesar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6292" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1650" RevisionGUID="8bf4784d-51a4-4f6e-8502-5a9c717dd04f" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:41:07.800" Comment="Proposed by 840 approved by 79 edit id of 134" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1642" RevisionGUID="baba27d1-8734-4a9e-8fea-bf7fd4e601a0" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:41:34.063" UserId="840" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="Questions about the language used in the Vulgate (or Vulgata), a late fourth-century translation of the Bible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6294" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1642" RevisionGUID="baba27d1-8734-4a9e-8fea-bf7fd4e601a0" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:41:34.063" Comment="Proposed by 840 approved by 79 edit id of 130" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1648" RevisionGUID="451c596f-6ed7-4976-911d-42b7d67b9d38" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:42:32.480" UserId="840" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="Questions relating to the works of Titus Maccius Plautus (c. 254 – 184 BC)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6296" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1648" RevisionGUID="451c596f-6ed7-4976-911d-42b7d67b9d38" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:42:32.480" Comment="Proposed by 840 approved by -1 edit id of 133" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1648" RevisionGUID="228633c0-c2f7-4531-bf5d-9e24a4ef54c3" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:42:32.480" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Questions relating to the works of Titus Maccius Plautus (c. 254–184 BC)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1644" RevisionGUID="c73fe610-1dc4-4c8f-82e9-6811c97ee157" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:42:49.320" UserId="840" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="Questions relating to the works of Gaius Julius Caesar (general, politician and author, 100-44 BC)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6299" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1644" RevisionGUID="c73fe610-1dc4-4c8f-82e9-6811c97ee157" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:42:49.320" Comment="Proposed by 840 approved by -1 edit id of 131" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1644" RevisionGUID="4987155e-2da9-4681-9f97-4d3c35df1038" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:42:49.320" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="Questions relating to the works of Gaius Julius Caesar (general, politician and author, 100–44 BC)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1646" RevisionGUID="587a4b8a-077b-450c-b4e6-c3c4571b9126" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:42:59.283" UserId="840" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="Questions relating to the work of Quintus Horatius Flaccus or Horace (65-27 BC)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6302" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1646" RevisionGUID="587a4b8a-077b-450c-b4e6-c3c4571b9126" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:42:59.283" Comment="Proposed by 840 approved by -1 edit id of 132" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1646" RevisionGUID="97069ed1-7876-4e86-81ba-b97410ab8659" CreationDate="2016-09-30T19:42:59.283" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="Questions relating to the work of Quintus Horatius Flaccus or Horace (65–27 BC)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1624" RevisionGUID="748ccaf3-211a-4df8-bf1f-733facde103a" CreationDate="2016-09-30T21:11:46.477" UserId="79" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="You need to read a little further.&#xD;&#xA;The key structure is this (simplified for clarity):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuno &amp;hellip; fecisse, &amp;hellip; non esse nec remitti sensit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, Juno sensed something, and that something is expressed with three ACIs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative reading is that *fecisse* is governed by *mirata*.&#xD;&#xA;I think both readings are grammatically possible, assuming that *mirari*&amp;nbsp;+&amp;nbsp;ACI is grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As requested, I refrain from giving a fuller translation or analysis.&#xD;&#xA;If you are still stuck, please ask for more details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1625" RevisionGUID="4a0d293e-8019-4db1-b246-a6aa8be7d7fc" CreationDate="2016-09-30T21:40:56.980" UserId="79" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="I am not sure of correct terminology, but let me call the medieval perfect tenses like *amatum habeo* &amp;mdash; as opposed to the classical *amavi* &amp;mdash; the &quot;composite active perfect&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;One would expect the participle in the composite perfect to follow the gender and number of the object:&#xD;&#xA;*acroasem auditam habeo, librum scriptum habeo, hoc factum habeo, urbes visas habeo&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in Italian the composite active perfect is almost always singular masculine, whatever the gender or number of the object.&#xD;&#xA;For example, one would say *ho mangiato una pizza* or *ho mangiato due pizze*, not *ho mangiata una pizza* or *ho mangiate due pizze*.&#xD;&#xA;Does the same ever happen in Latin when composite active perfect is used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not very familiar with post-classical Latin, and I do not know how to figure things like this out on my own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1651" RevisionGUID="61df794a-c088-4d87-9b35-ad191b8b4d27" CreationDate="2016-09-30T21:55:37.457" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1652" RevisionGUID="5ea55751-c735-465b-93e3-377f2e95bcfc" CreationDate="2016-09-30T21:55:37.457" UserId="79" Text="For questions related to Italian. Questions solely about Italian are off-topic, but relations between Italian and Latin are on-topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1653" RevisionGUID="020693ac-e0d8-4195-82ad-bd921a9bc3c7" CreationDate="2016-09-30T21:56:24.117" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1654" RevisionGUID="680fd2c2-b014-48f4-8976-fbfe7a904df4" CreationDate="2016-09-30T21:56:24.117" UserId="79" Text="For questions related to French. Questions solely about French are off-topic, but relations between French and Latin are on-topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1655" RevisionGUID="7e271d3f-176c-4ee4-a68c-9b31e7212728" CreationDate="2016-10-01T04:22:44.070" UserDisplayName="user425" Text="In the 16th century, *Robert et Antoine Lechevallier d'[Aigneaux*][1] made a famous translation of Virgil's *Aeneid* which was seemingly praised in the French world ; they also translated the [*Georgics*][2] including this segment :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At nebulæ magis ima petunt, campoque recumbunt ;&lt;br/&gt; Solis et occasum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; servans de culmine summo&lt;br/&gt; Nequidquam seros exercet **noctua&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cantus**.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ----------&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;[ Et observant le temps que panche vers sa couche&lt;br/&gt; Le soleil&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abaissé, son nocturne **hou, hou**&lt;br/&gt; Du haut d'un toit chaumeux&#xD;&#xA;&gt; n'entonne le **Hibou**. ]&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ Virgil, *Georgics*, [Latin][4] (*Wikisource*), [translation][5] from d'Aigneaux (1582) and my quick transcription and use of bold. I, 401-403 ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually one [attributes][6] to this very translation the first [onomatopoeic][7] use of *houhou* (similar to the *ew* sound in *dew* in English, twice) in French to represent the owl's hoot ([more][8] on *hou* in Fr.). Needless to say, *[noctua][9] [cantus][10]*, the *owl's chant* I guess, doesn't contain any onomatopoeia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In Latin, what is, and how would you write, the sequence of onomatopoeia used to represent the cry a type of bird such as the owl makes? Do we have a well-known example from the classics or from that era?&#xD;&#xA; - Could you please briefly analyze (cases, tenses, syntax) and explain&#xD;&#xA;   the *nequidquam seros exercet noctua cantus* segment ; in particular, what word is *seros* and what's its function ; is *exercet* a passive verb 3SG ; word for word is that something like : *uselessly [seros] is done the owl's chant*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famille_d%27Aigneaux&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgics&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3czUm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Georgicon/Liber_I&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?id=SQxwDb0TUNcC&amp;dq=d'aigneaux%20virgile%20eneide&amp;hl=fr&amp;pg=PT139#v=onepage&amp;q=hou&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/houhou&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopoeia&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://french.stackexchange.com/q/22162&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?q=noctua&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?q=cantus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6311" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1655" RevisionGUID="7e271d3f-176c-4ee4-a68c-9b31e7212728" CreationDate="2016-10-01T04:22:44.070" UserDisplayName="user425" Text="&quot;Nequidquam seros exercet noctua cantus&quot; : what is the Latin onomatopoeia for the owl's hoot?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6312" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1655" RevisionGUID="7e271d3f-176c-4ee4-a68c-9b31e7212728" CreationDate="2016-10-01T04:22:44.070" UserDisplayName="user425" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|grammar-identification|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1656" RevisionGUID="ef169d16-eb51-48a7-9e58-abffa37909a2" CreationDate="2016-10-01T10:07:14.157" UserId="79" Text="Toilet paper orientation is the source of some amount of debate, and it turns out it even has [a dedicated Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation).&#xD;&#xA;For reasons partly beyond my comprehension, I would like to describe this issue in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;My main motive is to be able to describe such mundane &quot;geometrical&quot; things in Latin in a natural way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only want to do it very simply, so my aim is to translate the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A toilet paper can be put in its holder in two ways.&#xD;&#xA;The more popular orientation is the &quot;over&quot; orientation where the paper comes from above the roll.&#xD;&#xA;In the &quot;under&quot; orientation the paper is against the wall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not important to translate word by word, but to describe the same thing in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Here is my attempted translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Charta latrinalis duobus modis in capulo suo poni potest.&#xD;&#xA;Orientatio popularior, &quot;orientatio superna&quot; appellata, talis est, ut pars chartae capienda super volumen chartae iaceat.&#xD;&#xA;In altra orientatione, quae &quot;orientatio subterna&quot; appellatur, charta capienda inter parietem et volumen est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you improve or comment this translation?&#xD;&#xA;I think it gets the point across, but choices of words and descriptions of the orientation options could probably be improved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6314" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1656" RevisionGUID="ef169d16-eb51-48a7-9e58-abffa37909a2" CreationDate="2016-10-01T10:07:14.157" UserId="79" Text="Toilet paper orientation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6315" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1656" RevisionGUID="ef169d16-eb51-48a7-9e58-abffa37909a2" CreationDate="2016-10-01T10:07:14.157" UserId="79" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|contemporary-latin|technology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1657" RevisionGUID="811524d6-3878-4d81-84b0-4c2a92f610be" CreationDate="2016-10-01T11:10:44.320" UserId="645" Text="Fieri solet ut charta mundatoria sit in capulo binis modibus ponenda. In vulgus gratus est modus quo chartam procidit summo de volumine. In altero modo retro decidit charta iuxta parietem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that you need to keep it simple, without inventing such a word as *orientatio*. Would *cursus* be neater, do you think?." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1656" RevisionGUID="8d07cb9a-b06f-49e0-9f1d-94fc95cf6ff1" CreationDate="2016-10-01T11:43:23.517" UserId="12" Comment="improve English (at least to my ear)" Text="Toilet paper orientation is the source of some amount of debate, and it turns out it even has [a dedicated Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation).&#xD;&#xA;For reasons partly beyond my comprehension, I would like to describe this issue in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;My main motive is to be able to describe such mundane &quot;geometrical&quot; things in Latin in a natural way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only want to do it very simply, so my aim is to translate the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A roll of toilet paper can be put in its holder in two ways.&#xD;&#xA;The more popular orientation is the &quot;over&quot; orientation where the paper comes from above the roll.&#xD;&#xA;In the &quot;under&quot; orientation the paper is against the wall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not important to translate word by word, but to describe the same thing in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Here is my attempted translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Charta latrinalis duobus modis in capulo suo poni potest.&#xD;&#xA;Orientatio popularior, &quot;orientatio superna&quot; appellata, talis est, ut pars chartae capienda super volumen chartae iaceat.&#xD;&#xA;In altra orientatione, quae &quot;orientatio subterna&quot; appellatur, charta capienda inter parietem et volumen est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you improve or comment this translation?&#xD;&#xA;I think it gets the point across, but choices of words and descriptions of the orientation options could probably be improved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1655" RevisionGUID="43487bfe-3cce-4006-81c7-1e67aba8cbd7" CreationDate="2016-10-01T18:46:16.980" UserDisplayName="user425" Comment="Dew was rather a poor example of how this sounds as it has more than one pronounciation. Not a native speaker so it took a moment before I realized &quot;hoot&quot; is probably onomatopeic of hoo in Eng., so yeah." Text="In the 16th century, *Robert et Antoine Lechevallier d'[Aigneaux*][1] made a famous translation of Virgil's *Aeneid* which was seemingly praised in the French world ; they also translated the [*Georgics*][2] including this segment :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At nebulæ magis ima petunt, campoque recumbunt ;&lt;br/&gt; Solis et occasum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; servans de culmine summo&lt;br/&gt; Nequidquam seros exercet **noctua&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cantus**.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ----------&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;[ Et observant le temps que panche vers sa couche&lt;br/&gt; Le soleil&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abaissé, son nocturne **hou, hou**&lt;br/&gt; Du haut d'un toit chaumeux&#xD;&#xA;&gt; n'entonne le **Hibou**. ]&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ Virgil, *Georgics*, [Latin][4] (*Wikisource*), [translation][5] from d'Aigneaux (1582) and my quick transcription and use of bold. I, 401-403 ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually one [attributes][6] to this very translation the first [onomatopoeic][7] use of *houhou* (similar to the *oo* sound in *hoot* in English, twice) in French to represent the owl's hoot ([more][8] on *hou*, pronounced [u] in Fr.). Needless to say, *[noctua][9] [cantus][10]*, the *owl's chant* I guess, doesn't contain any onomatopoeia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In Latin, what is, and how would you write, the sequence of onomatopoeia used to represent the cry a type of bird such as the owl makes? Do we have a well-known example from the classics or from that era?&#xD;&#xA; - Could you please briefly analyze (cases, tenses, syntax) and explain&#xD;&#xA;   the *nequidquam seros exercet noctua cantus* segment ; in particular, what word is *seros* and what's its function ; is *exercet* a passive verb 3SG ; word for word is that something like : *uselessly [seros] is done the owl's chant*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famille_d%27Aigneaux&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgics&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3czUm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Georgicon/Liber_I&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?id=SQxwDb0TUNcC&amp;dq=d'aigneaux%20virgile%20eneide&amp;hl=fr&amp;pg=PT139#v=onepage&amp;q=hou&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/houhou&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopoeia&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://french.stackexchange.com/q/22162&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?q=noctua&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?q=cantus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1655" RevisionGUID="42d9f360-84bd-49e0-8303-cd40635b50c7" CreationDate="2016-10-01T20:42:17.860" UserDisplayName="user425" Comment="No spaces." Text="In the 16th century, *Robert et Antoine Lechevallier d'[Aigneaux*][1] made a famous translation of Virgil's *Aeneid* which was seemingly praised in the French world; they also translated the [*Georgics*][2] including this segment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At nebulæ magis ima petunt, campoque recumbunt;&lt;br/&gt; Solis et occasum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; servans de culmine summo&lt;br/&gt; Nequidquam seros exercet **noctua&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cantus**.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ----------&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;[ Et observant le temps que panche vers sa couche&lt;br/&gt; Le soleil&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abaissé, son nocturne **hou, hou**&lt;br/&gt; Du haut d'un toit chaumeux&#xD;&#xA;&gt; n'entonne le **Hibou**. ]&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ Virgil, *Georgics*, [Latin][4] (*Wikisource*), [translation][5] from d'Aigneaux (1582) and my quick transcription and use of bold. I, 401-403 ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually one [attributes][6] to this very translation the first [onomatopoeic][7] use of *houhou* (similar to the *oo* sound in *hoot* in English, twice) in French to represent the owl's hoot ([more][8] on *hou*, pronounced [u] in Fr.). Needless to say, *[noctua][9] [cantus][10]*, the *owl's chant* I guess, doesn't contain any onomatopoeia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In Latin, what is, and how would you write, the sequence of onomatopoeia used to represent the cry a type of bird such as the owl makes? Do we have a well-known example from the classics or from that era?&#xD;&#xA; - Could you please briefly analyze (cases, tenses, syntax) and explain&#xD;&#xA;   the *nequidquam seros exercet noctua cantus* segment; in particular, what word is *seros* and what's its function; is *exercet* a passive verb 3SG; word for word is that something like: *uselessly [seros] is done the owl's chant*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famille_d%27Aigneaux&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgics&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3czUm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Georgicon/Liber_I&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?id=SQxwDb0TUNcC&amp;dq=d'aigneaux%20virgile%20eneide&amp;hl=fr&amp;pg=PT139#v=onepage&amp;q=hou&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/houhou&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopoeia&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://french.stackexchange.com/q/22162&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?q=noctua&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?q=cantus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6320" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1655" RevisionGUID="42d9f360-84bd-49e0-8303-cd40635b50c7" CreationDate="2016-10-01T20:42:17.860" UserDisplayName="user425" Comment="No spaces." Text="&quot;Nequidquam seros exercet noctua cantus&quot;: what is the Latin onomatopoeia for the owl's hoot?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1658" RevisionGUID="dc88a059-07fa-436f-996f-af7333ddd77c" CreationDate="2016-10-02T01:56:16.037" UserId="878" Text="I remember being told this by a Latin teacher, but I have since forgotten the details. Why should I use the accusative case instead of the nominative here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6322" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1658" RevisionGUID="dc88a059-07fa-436f-996f-af7333ddd77c" CreationDate="2016-10-02T01:56:16.037" UserId="878" Text="Why is &quot;Bonam Fortunam&quot; the correct way to wish someone good fortune instead of &quot;Bona Fortunam&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6323" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1658" RevisionGUID="dc88a059-07fa-436f-996f-af7333ddd77c" CreationDate="2016-10-02T01:56:16.037" UserId="878" Text="|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1659" RevisionGUID="625f9465-02da-44ac-86b0-bb6ada409131" CreationDate="2016-10-02T02:20:21.680" UserId="406" Text="The Romans didn't write out onomatopoeia very often, at least not in works which have survived. I'm not aware of any source which actually writes out the sound of an owl's call directly. We do, however, have records of onomatopoeic verbs for some of these sounds. (The equivalent of &quot;howl&quot; instead of &quot;awooooooo&quot; in English.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most descriptive verbs I've found for an owl's cry are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [*ululō, -āre*][1] (*ulula, -æ* = screech-owl)&#xD;&#xA; - [*tūtubō, -āre*][2]&#xD;&#xA; - [*būbulō, -āre*][3] (*būbo, -ōnis* = horned owl)&#xD;&#xA; - [*strizō*][4] (Greek verb; Lat. *strix, -igis* = screech-owl, archaic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek also includes the more descriptive [*hūhūzō*][5], but nothing of the sort is recorded in Latin sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your second question, I'd give&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nequidquam seros exercet noctua cantus*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; uselessly-ADV late-M-PL-ACC strive-3-SG-PRES-ACT-IND owl-F-SG-NOM songs-M-PL-ACC  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;the owl toils fruitlessly at her nighttime songs&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Serus* is an adjective meaning &quot;late&quot;, here in the masculine plural accusative to modify *cantūs*. In this case, probably better translated as &quot;evening&quot; or &quot;night-time&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- *Cantus* itself is fourth-declension, not second, so *-ūs* is the accusative plural. (The perils of omitting macrons.)&#xD;&#xA;- *Exercet* is active, with *noctua* as subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=ululo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=tutubo&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=bubulo&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=strix1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Du)u%2Fzw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1658" RevisionGUID="2bfb52c4-f8d1-446d-a131-447a64bc7045" CreationDate="2016-10-02T08:16:32.513" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I remember being told this by a Latin teacher, but I have since forgotten the details. Why should I use the accusative case instead of the nominative here?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6326" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1658" RevisionGUID="2bfb52c4-f8d1-446d-a131-447a64bc7045" CreationDate="2016-10-02T08:16:32.513" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|accusative|nominativus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1660" RevisionGUID="15edc8e1-11c7-4729-b78c-704e412c6fc2" CreationDate="2016-10-02T08:33:51.857" UserId="79" Text="First, if you say &quot;good fortune&quot;, the two words must have same case, number and gender.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *bona fortunam* is always wrong.&#xD;&#xA;(This may have been a typo, but I wanted to make sure.)&#xD;&#xA;The question is choosing between nominative (*bona fortuna*) and accusative (*bonam fortunam*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you wish something, accusative is more common than nominative.&#xD;&#xA;Think of them as parts of complete sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Bonam fortunam (tibi exopto)!* &amp;mdash; (I wish you) good fortune!&#xD;&#xA;- *Bona fortuna (tibi esto)!* &amp;mdash; (May you have) good fortune!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other options for both cases, but these should get the point across.&#xD;&#xA;If you use the nominative alone, it sounds more like the observation &quot;the fortune is good&quot; than wishing anyone anything.&#xD;&#xA;With accusative the intention is clearer and I find it more suitable anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest you also look at [this earlier question about the accusative of exclamation](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/286/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1661" RevisionGUID="ec3b2e69-fd56-4c6f-83b3-eb0402d3b26e" CreationDate="2016-10-02T08:44:50.107" UserId="79" Text="The word *lactuca* refers to lettuce, and *Lactuca sativa* is the scientific name.&#xD;&#xA;Some of the plants in this genus seem to contain some kind of milky liquid which must be the reason for deriving the word from milk.&#xD;&#xA;(I do not know what kind of lettuce the Romans had. Intensively cultivated plants have evolved quite a bit over the last two millennia, so it is hard to guess how milky their lettuce was.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How exactly is *lactuca* derived from *lac*?&#xD;&#xA;I am not familiar with this suffix *-uca*.&#xD;&#xA;Is this a regular derivative?&#xD;&#xA;Are there other examples?&#xD;&#xA;What does the suffix mean &amp;mdash; does the plant look taste like milk, contain milk, look like milk, does it help milk a cow, or something else?&#xD;&#xA;The last question is intended from a linguistic point of view, not a biological one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6329" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1661" RevisionGUID="ec3b2e69-fd56-4c6f-83b3-eb0402d3b26e" CreationDate="2016-10-02T08:44:50.107" UserId="79" Text="Deriving lactuca from lac" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6330" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1661" RevisionGUID="ec3b2e69-fd56-4c6f-83b3-eb0402d3b26e" CreationDate="2016-10-02T08:44:50.107" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|example-request|derivation|scientific-names|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1657" RevisionGUID="e4f12aa7-94b6-4037-ba85-ea0660f96cb1" CreationDate="2016-10-02T08:47:07.993" UserId="79" Comment="Removed a period." Text="Fieri solet ut charta mundatoria sit in capulo binis modibus ponenda. In vulgus gratus est modus quo chartam procidit summo de volumine. In altero modo retro decidit charta iuxta parietem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that you need to keep it simple, without inventing such a word as *orientatio*. Would *cursus* be neater, do you think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1662" RevisionGUID="ebc8962f-9133-4e5e-bbd7-9af102f9be52" CreationDate="2016-10-02T11:21:51.813" UserDisplayName="user786" Text="The original word was a feminine adjective, with *herba* implied. It meant *milky grass*, and it came from the milky liquid inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix *-ucus* was added to the 1st person singular of *lactare*, just like it happened in *caducus* from *cado* and in *manducus* from *mando*. I couldn't find anything about this suffix, but it should be more or less equivalent to a present participle (*lactens*, *cadens*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SOURCE: Ernout, Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue latine (the go-to source for latin etymology... there's nothing like this in English, sadly)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1662" RevisionGUID="db16718b-e37a-4d9b-a38e-4d57bb8d55cd" CreationDate="2016-10-02T11:28:21.360" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="The original word was a feminine adjective, with *herba* implied. It meant *milky grass*, and it came from the milky liquid inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix *-ucus* was added to the 1st person singular of *lactare*, just like it happened in *caducus* from *cado* and in *manducus* from *mando*. I couldn't find anything about this suffix, but it should be more or less equivalent to a present participle (*lactens*, *cadens*), at least by looking at their meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SOURCE: Ernout, Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue latine (the go-to source for latin etymology... there's nothing like this in English, sadly)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6334" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1658" RevisionGUID="4e32870d-4666-44e4-b01c-70f1c9eed469" CreationDate="2016-10-02T14:02:35.663" UserId="878" Comment="edited title" Text="Why is &quot;Bonam Fortunam&quot; the correct way to wish someone good fortune instead of &quot;Bona Fortuna&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1656" RevisionGUID="387f59ec-ad68-4738-81a0-847b63ac9a2a" CreationDate="2016-10-02T18:25:07.437" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Toilet paper orientation is the source of some amount of debate, and it turns out it even has [a dedicated Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation).&#xD;&#xA;For reasons partly beyond my comprehension, I would like to describe this issue in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;My main motive is to be able to describe such mundane &quot;geometrical&quot; things in Latin in a natural way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only want to do it very simply, so my aim is to translate the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A roll of toilet paper can be put in its holder in two ways.&#xD;&#xA;The more popular orientation is the &quot;over&quot; orientation where the paper comes from above the roll.&#xD;&#xA;In the &quot;under&quot; orientation the paper is against the wall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not important to translate word by word, but to describe the same thing in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Here is my attempted translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Charta latrinalis duobus modis in capulo suo poni potest.&#xD;&#xA;Orientatio popularior, &quot;orientatio superna&quot; appellata, talis est, ut pars chartae capienda super volumen chartae iaceat.&#xD;&#xA;In altera orientatione, quae &quot;orientatio subterna&quot; appellatur, charta capienda inter parietem et volumen est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you improve or comment this translation?&#xD;&#xA;I think it gets the point across, but choices of words and descriptions of the orientation options could probably be improved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1330" RevisionGUID="a28f1fda-2310-4ce4-b361-141bcc06ae48" CreationDate="2016-10-02T19:17:26.053" UserId="79" Comment="Added lengths." Text="**Update: Now with macrons!**&#xD;&#xA;(Macrons reproduced as in my source.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book *Clavis Latina II, grammatica &amp; exercitia* by Maija-Leena Kallela and Erkki Palmén (I advertised this series for self-study [here](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1218/79)) contains a list of many modern countries as an appendix.&#xD;&#xA;In my experience the series is well researched and reliable.&#xD;&#xA;Some countries have several spelling variants, but I don't think all options are included here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This book has only appeared in print in Finnish, so I will reproduce the appendix here in English.&#xD;&#xA;Each country is given three Latin words, in the order &quot;Finland, Finnish, Finns&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The original list also contains macrons and diereses, but I have not reproduced them here; ask for details if you need them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Euro&amp;#x304;pa Septentrio&amp;#x304;na&amp;#x304;lis:&#xD;&#xA; - Finland: Finnia, Finnicus, Finni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Sweden: Sue&amp;#x304;tia, Sue&amp;#x304;ticus, Sue&amp;#x304;ti&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Norway: Norve&amp;#x304;gia, Norve&amp;#x304;gicus, Norve&amp;#x304;gi&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Denmark: Da&amp;#x304;nia, Da&amp;#x304;nicus, Da&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Iceland: Islandia, Islandie&amp;#x304;nsis, Islandie&amp;#x304;nse&amp;#x304;s&#xD;&#xA;- Euro&amp;#x304;pa Occidenta&amp;#x304;lis:&#xD;&#xA; - The Netherlands: Ne&amp;#x304;derlandia, Ne&amp;#x304;derlandie&amp;#x304;nsis, Ne&amp;#x304;derlandie&amp;#x304;nse&amp;#x304;s&#xD;&#xA; - Belgium: Belgium, Belgicus, Belgae&#xD;&#xA; - Eire: Re&amp;#x304;s Pu&amp;#x304;blica Irlandiae, Irlandie&amp;#x304;nsis, Irlandie&amp;#x304;nse&amp;#x304;s&#xD;&#xA; - Monaco: Monoecus, Monoece&amp;#x304;nsis, Monoece&amp;#x304;nse&amp;#x304;s&#xD;&#xA; - Liechtenstein: Lichtenstenum, Lichtenstene&amp;#x304;nsis, Lichtenstene&amp;#x304;nse&amp;#x304;s&#xD;&#xA; - Luxemburg: Luxemburgum, Luxemburge&amp;#x304;nsis, Luxemburge&amp;#x304;nse&amp;#x304;s&#xD;&#xA; - France: Francogallia, Francogallicus, Francogalli&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - UK: Regnum U&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;tum (Magna Britannia et Irlandia Septentrio&amp;#x304;na&amp;#x304;lis), Britannicus, Britanni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - England: Anglia, Anglicus, Angli&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Scotland: Sco&amp;#x304;tia, Sco&amp;#x304;ticus, Sco&amp;#x304;ti&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Wales: Vallia, Vallicus, Valli&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA;- Euro&amp;#x304;pa Centra&amp;#x304;lis:&#xD;&#xA; - Austria: Austria, Austriacus, Austriaci&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Latvia: Lettonia, Lettonicus, Lettone&amp;#x304;s&#xD;&#xA; - Lithuania: Lithua&amp;#x304;nia, Lithua&amp;#x304;nicus, Lithua&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Poland: Polo&amp;#x304;nia, Polo&amp;#x304;nicus, Polo&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Romania: Da&amp;#x304;coro&amp;#x304;ma&amp;#x304;nia, Da&amp;#x304;coro&amp;#x304;ma&amp;#x304;nicus, Da&amp;#x304;coro&amp;#x304;ma&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Germany: Germa&amp;#x304;nia, Theodiscus/Germa&amp;#x304;nicus, Germa&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Slovakia: Slovakia, Slovakus, Slovaki&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Switzerland: Helve&amp;#x304;tia, Helve&amp;#x304;ticus, Helve&amp;#x304;tii&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Czech Republic: Tzechia, Tzechicus, Tzechi&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Hungary: Hungaria, Hungaricus, Hungari&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Estonia: Estonia, Estonicus, Estoni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA;- Euro&amp;#x304;pa Austra&amp;#x304;lis:&#xD;&#xA; - Andorra: Andorra, Andorre&amp;#x304;nsis, Andorre&amp;#x304;nse&amp;#x304;s&#xD;&#xA; - Albania: Alba&amp;#x304;nia, Alba&amp;#x304;nus, Alba&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Bosnia-Herzegovina: Bosnia, Bosnie&amp;#x304;nsis, Bosnie&amp;#x304;nse&amp;#x304;s&#xD;&#xA; - Bulgaria: Bulgaria, Bulgaricus, Bulgari&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Spain: Hispa&amp;#x304;nia, Hispa&amp;#x304;nicus, Hispa&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Italy: Italia, Italicus/Italia&amp;#x304;nus, Italia&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;/Itali&amp;#x304;  &#xD;&#xA;(Note that in Aeneis it is *I&amp;#x304;talia* for metric reasons.)&#xD;&#xA; - Yugoslavia: Iugoslavia, Iugoslavicus, Iugoslavi&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Greece: Graecia, Graecus, Graeci&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Croatia: Croatia, Croatus, Croatae&#xD;&#xA; - Cyprus: Cyprus, Cyprius, Cyprii&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Macedonia: Macedonia, Macedonicus, Macedones&#xD;&#xA; - Malta: Melita, Melite&amp;#x304;nsis, Melite&amp;#x304;nse&amp;#x304;s&#xD;&#xA; - Portugal: Portugallia, Portugallicus, Portugalli&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - San Marino: Re&amp;#x304;s Pu&amp;#x304;blica Mari&amp;#x304;nia&amp;#x304;na, Mari&amp;#x304;nia&amp;#x304;nus, Mari&amp;#x304;nia&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Slovenia: Slovenia, Slovenus, Sloveni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Turkey: Turcia, Turcicus, Turcae&#xD;&#xA; - Vatican: Ci&amp;#x304;vita&amp;#x304;s Va&amp;#x304;tica&amp;#x304;na, Va&amp;#x304;tica&amp;#x304;nus, Va&amp;#x304;tica&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA;- Euro&amp;#x304;pa Orienta&amp;#x304;lis:&#xD;&#xA; - Moldova: Moldova, Moldova&amp;#x304;nus, Moldova&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Ukraine: Ucraina, Ucrainus, Ucraini&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Belarus: Belorussia / Russia Alba, Belorussicus, Belorussi&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Russia: Russia, Russicus, Russi&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA;- Orie&amp;#x304;ns Proxima:&#xD;&#xA; - Israel: Isra&amp;#x304;ël (gen. Isra&amp;#x304;e&amp;#x304;lis), Isra&amp;#x304;e&amp;#x304;li&amp;#x304;ticus, Isra&amp;#x304;e&amp;#x304;li&amp;#x304;tae&#xD;&#xA; - Iran: Irania, Irania&amp;#x304;nus, Irania&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Iraq: Iraquia, Iraquicus, Iraquia&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Jordan: Iorda&amp;#x304;nia, Iorda&amp;#x304;nus, Iorda&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Palestine: Palaesti&amp;#x304;na, Plaesti&amp;#x304;nus, Palaesti&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Saudi-Arabia: Arabia Saudia&amp;#x304;na, Saudia&amp;#x304;nus, Saudi&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Syria: Syria, Syriacus, Syri&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA;- A&amp;#x304;frica:&#xD;&#xA; - Algeria: Algeria, Algeria&amp;#x304;nus, Algeria&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Egypt: Aegyptus, Aegyptius, Aegyptii&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - South Africa: A&amp;#x304;frica Austra&amp;#x304;lis, Austroa&amp;#x304;frica&amp;#x304;nus, Austroa&amp;#x304;frica&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Kenia: Kenia, Kenia&amp;#x304;nus, Kenia&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Libya: Libya, Libycus, Libyes&#xD;&#xA; - Morocco: Marochium, Marochia&amp;#x304;nus, Marochia&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Namibia: Namibia, Namibie&amp;#x304;nsis, Namibie&amp;#x304;nse&amp;#x304;s&#xD;&#xA; - Sudan: Sudania, Sudanie&amp;#x304;nsis, Sudanie&amp;#x304;nse&amp;#x304;s&#xD;&#xA; - Tanzania: Tanzania, Tanzanie&amp;#x304;nsis, Tanzanie&amp;#x304;nse&amp;#x304;s&#xD;&#xA; - Tunisia: Tunesia, Tunesie&amp;#x304;nsis, Tunesie&amp;#x304;nse&amp;#x304;s&#xD;&#xA;- Asia:&#xD;&#xA; - Afghanistan: Afganista&amp;#x304;nia, Afganista&amp;#x304;nia&amp;#x304;nus, Afgani&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Philippines: Philippi&amp;#x304;nae, Philippi&amp;#x304;nus, Philippi&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Indonesia: Indone&amp;#x304;sia, Indone&amp;#x304;sia&amp;#x304;nus, Indone&amp;#x304;sia&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - India: India, Indicus, Indi&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Japan: Iapo&amp;#x304;nia, Iapo&amp;#x304;nicus, Iapo&amp;#x304;nie&amp;#x304;nse&amp;#x304;s&#xD;&#xA; - China: Si&amp;#x304;nae, Si&amp;#x304;ne&amp;#x304;nsis, Si&amp;#x304;ne&amp;#x304;nse&amp;#x304;s&#xD;&#xA; - (South/North) Korea: Core&amp;#x304;a (Septentrio&amp;#x304;na&amp;#x304;lis/Austra&amp;#x304;lis), Core&amp;#x304;a&amp;#x304;nus (Septentrio&amp;#x304;na&amp;#x304;lis/Austra&amp;#x304;lis), Core&amp;#x304;a&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304; (Septentrio&amp;#x304;na&amp;#x304;le&amp;#x304;s/Austra&amp;#x304;le&amp;#x304;s)&#xD;&#xA; - Malaysia: Malaesia, Malaesia&amp;#x304;nus, Malaesia&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Nepal: Nepalia, Nepalia&amp;#x304;nus, Nepalia&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Pakistan: Pakistania, Pakistania&amp;#x304;nus, Pakistania&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Sri Lanka: Sri Lanka, Srilanca&amp;#x304;nus, Srilanca&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Thailand: Thailandia, Thailandie&amp;#x304;nsis, Thailandie&amp;#x304;nse&amp;#x304;s&#xD;&#xA;- America Septentrio&amp;#x304;na&amp;#x304;lis:&#xD;&#xA; - Canada: Canada, Canade&amp;#x304;nsis, Canade&amp;#x304;nse&amp;#x304;s&#xD;&#xA; - US: Ci&amp;#x304;vita&amp;#x304;te&amp;#x304;s Americae U&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;tae, America&amp;#x304;nus, America&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA;- America Austra&amp;#x304;lis:&#xD;&#xA; - Argentina: Argenti&amp;#x304;na, Argenti&amp;#x304;nia&amp;#x304;nus, Argenti&amp;#x304;nia&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Bolivia: Bolivia, Bolivia&amp;#x304;nus, Bolivia&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil: Brasilia, Brasilie&amp;#x304;nsis, Brasilie&amp;#x304;nse&amp;#x304;s&#xD;&#xA; - Chile: Chilia, Chilie&amp;#x304;nsis, Chilie&amp;#x304;nse&amp;#x304;s&#xD;&#xA; - Mexico: Mexicum, Mexica&amp;#x304;nus, Mexica&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Peru: Peruvia, Peruvia&amp;#x304;nus, Peruvia&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA; - Venezuela: Venetiola, Venetiola&amp;#x304;nus, Venetiola&amp;#x304;ni&amp;#x304;&#xD;&#xA;- Australia: Austra&amp;#x304;lia (no further details given)&#xD;&#xA;- Terra Antarctica&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if there seem to be typos, declination aid is needed or something is suspicious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two third declension plurals lack a macron in the list: *Macedones* and *Libyes*.&#xD;&#xA;This can be a typo or, as I find likely, ancient adaptations from Greek where the plural nominative ending is *-e&amp;#x306;s*.&#xD;&#xA;Also, I would expect the *-o-* in the antepenult to be long in *Lettones* and *Macedones*, but his may be a misunderstanding on my behalf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The next appendix contains a list of cities of similar length, but that is irrelevant here.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1624" RevisionGUID="e12f2fbf-ec8e-428b-a59a-282b0150e0cc" CreationDate="2016-10-02T19:45:42.067" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 99 characters in body" Text="(Edited drastically from previous version after several rereadings of the passage.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Mirata* means *mirata est*.&#xD;&#xA;It is not a plain participle, but a perfect form of a deponent verb.&#xD;&#xA;It governs an ACI, whose infinitive is *fecisse*.&#xD;&#xA;(And even if you read *mirata* as a plain participle, it can still govern an ACI.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next clause also has ACI: *non esse nec remitti sensit* (simplified).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As requested, I refrain from giving a fuller translation or analysis.&#xD;&#xA;If you are still stuck, please ask for more details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1330" RevisionGUID="a2a4a755-8f7e-4900-bfe9-f19b99b97751" CreationDate="2016-10-02T20:26:38.543" UserId="406" Comment="Unicode combining macrons were appearing mangled; replaced with precombined characters." Text="**Update: Now with macrons!**&#xD;&#xA;(Macrons reproduced as in my source.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book *Clavis Latina II, grammatica &amp; exercitia* by Maija-Leena Kallela and Erkki Palmén (I advertised this series for self-study [here](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1218/79)) contains a list of many modern countries as an appendix.&#xD;&#xA;In my experience the series is well researched and reliable.&#xD;&#xA;Some countries have several spelling variants, but I don't think all options are included here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This book has only appeared in print in Finnish, so I will reproduce the appendix here in English.&#xD;&#xA;Each country is given three Latin words, in the order &quot;Finland, Finnish, Finns&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The original list also contains macrons and diereses, but I have not reproduced them here; ask for details if you need them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Eurōpa Septentriōnālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Finland: Finnia, Finnicus, Finnī&#xD;&#xA; - Sweden: Suētia, Suēticus, Suētī&#xD;&#xA; - Norway: Norvēgia, Norvēgicus, Norvēgī&#xD;&#xA; - Denmark: Dānia, Dānicus, Dānī&#xD;&#xA; - Iceland: Islandia, Islandiēnsis, Islandiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA;- Eurōpa Occidentālis:&#xD;&#xA; - The Netherlands: Nēderlandia, Nēderlandiēnsis, Nēderlandiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Belgium: Belgium, Belgicus, Belgae&#xD;&#xA; - Eire: Rēs Pūblica Irlandiae, Irlandiēnsis, Irlandiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Monaco: Monoecus, Monoecēnsis, Monoecēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Liechtenstein: Lichtenstenum, Lichtenstenēnsis, Lichtenstenēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Luxemburg: Luxemburgum, Luxemburgēnsis, Luxemburgēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - France: Francogallia, Francogallicus, Francogallī&#xD;&#xA; - UK: Regnum Ūnītum (Magna Britannia et Irlandia Septentriōnālis), Britannicus, Britannī&#xD;&#xA; - England: Anglia, Anglicus, Anglī&#xD;&#xA; - Scotland: Scōtia, Scōticus, Scōtī&#xD;&#xA; - Wales: Vallia, Vallicus, Vallī&#xD;&#xA;- Eurōpa Centrālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Austria: Austria, Austriacus, Austriacī&#xD;&#xA; - Latvia: Lettonia, Lettonicus, Lettonēs&#xD;&#xA; - Lithuania: Lithuānia, Lithuānicus, Lithuānī&#xD;&#xA; - Poland: Polōnia, Polōnicus, Polōnī&#xD;&#xA; - Romania: Dācorōmānia, Dācorōmānicus, Dācorōmānī&#xD;&#xA; - Germany: Germānia, Theodiscus/Germānicus, Germānī&#xD;&#xA; - Slovakia: Slovakia, Slovakus, Slovakī&#xD;&#xA; - Switzerland: Helvētia, Helvēticus, Helvētiī&#xD;&#xA; - Czech Republic: Tzechia, Tzechicus, Tzechī&#xD;&#xA; - Hungary: Hungaria, Hungaricus, Hungarī&#xD;&#xA; - Estonia: Estonia, Estonicus, Estonī&#xD;&#xA;- Eurōpa Austrālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Andorra: Andorra, Andorrēnsis, Andorrēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Albania: Albānia, Albānus, Albānī&#xD;&#xA; - Bosnia-Herzegovina: Bosnia, Bosniēnsis, Bosniēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Bulgaria: Bulgaria, Bulgaricus, Bulgarī&#xD;&#xA; - Spain: Hispānia, Hispānicus, Hispānī&#xD;&#xA; - Italy: Italia, Italicus/Italiānus, Italiānī/Italī  &#xD;&#xA;(Note that in Aeneis it is *Ītalia* for metric reasons.)&#xD;&#xA; - Yugoslavia: Iugoslavia, Iugoslavicus, Iugoslavī&#xD;&#xA; - Greece: Graecia, Graecus, Graecī&#xD;&#xA; - Croatia: Croatia, Croatus, Croatae&#xD;&#xA; - Cyprus: Cyprus, Cyprius, Cypriī&#xD;&#xA; - Macedonia: Macedonia, Macedonicus, Macedones&#xD;&#xA; - Malta: Melita, Melitēnsis, Melitēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Portugal: Portugallia, Portugallicus, Portugallī&#xD;&#xA; - San Marino: Rēs Pūblica Marīniāna, Marīniānus, Marīniānī&#xD;&#xA; - Slovenia: Slovenia, Slovenus, Slovenī&#xD;&#xA; - Turkey: Turcia, Turcicus, Turcae&#xD;&#xA; - Vatican: Cīvitās Vāticāna, Vāticānus, Vāticānī&#xD;&#xA;- Eurōpa Orientālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Moldova: Moldova, Moldovānus, Moldovānī&#xD;&#xA; - Ukraine: Ucraina, Ucrainus, Ucrainī&#xD;&#xA; - Belarus: Belorussia / Russia Alba, Belorussicus, Belorussī&#xD;&#xA; - Russia: Russia, Russicus, Russī&#xD;&#xA;- Oriēns Proxima:&#xD;&#xA; - Israel: Isrāël (gen. Isrāēlis), Isrāēlīticus, Isrāēlītae&#xD;&#xA; - Iran: Irania, Iraniānus, Iraniānī&#xD;&#xA; - Iraq: Iraquia, Iraquicus, Iraquiānī&#xD;&#xA; - Jordan: Iordānia, Iordānus, Iordānī&#xD;&#xA; - Palestine: Palaestīna, Plaestīnus, Palaestīnī&#xD;&#xA; - Saudi-Arabia: Arabia Saudiāna, Saudiānus, Saudī&#xD;&#xA; - Syria: Syria, Syriacus, Syrī&#xD;&#xA;- Ãfrica:&#xD;&#xA; - Algeria: Algeria, Algeriānus, Algeriānī&#xD;&#xA; - Egypt: Aegyptus, Aegyptius, Aegyptiī&#xD;&#xA; - South Africa: Āfrica Austrālis, Austroāfricānus, Austroāfricānī&#xD;&#xA; - Kenia: Kenia, Keniānus, Keniānī&#xD;&#xA; - Libya: Libya, Libycus, Libyes&#xD;&#xA; - Morocco: Marochium, Marochiānus, Marochiānī&#xD;&#xA; - Namibia: Namibia, Namibiēnsis, Namibiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Sudan: Sudania, Sudaniēnsis, Sudaniēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Tanzania: Tanzania, Tanzaniēnsis, Tanzaniēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Tunisia: Tunesia, Tunesiēnsis, Tunesiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA;- Asia:&#xD;&#xA; - Afghanistan: Afganistānia, Afganistāniānus, Afganī&#xD;&#xA; - Philippines: Philippīnae, Philippīnus, Philippīnī&#xD;&#xA; - Indonesia: Indonēsia, Indonēsiānus, Indonēsiānī&#xD;&#xA; - India: India, Indicus, Indī&#xD;&#xA; - Japan: Iapōnia, Iapōnicus, Iapōniēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - China: Sīnae, Sīnēnsis, Sīnēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - (South/North) Korea: Corēa (Septentriōnālis/Austrālis), Corēānus (Septentriōnālis/Austrālis), Corēānī (Septentriōnālēs/Austrālēs)&#xD;&#xA; - Malaysia: Malaesia, Malaesiānus, Malaesiānī&#xD;&#xA; - Nepal: Nepalia, Nepaliānus, Nepaliānī&#xD;&#xA; - Pakistan: Pakistania, Pakistaniānus, Pakistaniānī&#xD;&#xA; - Sri Lanka: Sri Lanka, Srilancānus, Srilancānī&#xD;&#xA; - Thailand: Thailandia, Thailandiēnsis, Thailandiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA;- America Septentriōnālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Canada: Canada, Canadēnsis, Canadēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - US: Cīvitātēs Americae Ūnītae, Americānus, Americānī&#xD;&#xA;- America Austrālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Argentina: Argentīna, Argentīniānus, Argentīniānī&#xD;&#xA; - Bolivia: Bolivia, Boliviānus, Boliviānī&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil: Brasilia, Brasiliēnsis, Brasiliēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Chile: Chilia, Chiliēnsis, Chiliēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Mexico: Mexicum, Mexicānus, Mexicānī&#xD;&#xA; - Peru: Peruvia, Peruviānus, Peruviānī&#xD;&#xA; - Venezuela: Venetiola, Venetiolānus, Venetiolānī&#xD;&#xA;- Australia: Austrālia (no further details given)&#xD;&#xA;- Terra Antarctica&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if there seem to be typos, declination aid is needed or something is suspicious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two third declension plurals lack a macron in the list: *Macedones* and *Libyes*.&#xD;&#xA;This can be a typo or, as I find likely, ancient adaptations from Greek where the plural nominative ending is *-e&amp;#x306;s*.&#xD;&#xA;Also, I would expect the *-o-* in the antepenult to be long in *Lettones* and *Macedones*, but his may be a misunderstanding on my behalf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The next appendix contains a list of cities of similar length, but that is irrelevant here.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6339" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1330" RevisionGUID="a2a4a755-8f7e-4900-bfe9-f19b99b97751" CreationDate="2016-10-02T20:26:38.543" Comment="Proposed by 406 approved by -1 edit id of 135" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1330" RevisionGUID="3848deb0-5085-4901-8aa7-0d5b0d38464d" CreationDate="2016-10-02T20:26:38.543" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected tilde to macron in Africa." Text="**Update: Now with macrons!**&#xD;&#xA;(Macrons reproduced as in my source.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book *Clavis Latina II, grammatica &amp; exercitia* by Maija-Leena Kallela and Erkki Palmén (I advertised this series for self-study [here](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1218/79)) contains a list of many modern countries as an appendix.&#xD;&#xA;In my experience the series is well researched and reliable.&#xD;&#xA;Some countries have several spelling variants, but I don't think all options are included here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This book has only appeared in print in Finnish, so I will reproduce the appendix here in English.&#xD;&#xA;Each country is given three Latin words, in the order &quot;Finland, Finnish, Finns&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The original list also contains macrons and diereses, but I have not reproduced them here; ask for details if you need them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Eurōpa Septentriōnālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Finland: Finnia, Finnicus, Finnī&#xD;&#xA; - Sweden: Suētia, Suēticus, Suētī&#xD;&#xA; - Norway: Norvēgia, Norvēgicus, Norvēgī&#xD;&#xA; - Denmark: Dānia, Dānicus, Dānī&#xD;&#xA; - Iceland: Islandia, Islandiēnsis, Islandiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA;- Eurōpa Occidentālis:&#xD;&#xA; - The Netherlands: Nēderlandia, Nēderlandiēnsis, Nēderlandiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Belgium: Belgium, Belgicus, Belgae&#xD;&#xA; - Eire: Rēs Pūblica Irlandiae, Irlandiēnsis, Irlandiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Monaco: Monoecus, Monoecēnsis, Monoecēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Liechtenstein: Lichtenstenum, Lichtenstenēnsis, Lichtenstenēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Luxemburg: Luxemburgum, Luxemburgēnsis, Luxemburgēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - France: Francogallia, Francogallicus, Francogallī&#xD;&#xA; - UK: Regnum Ūnītum (Magna Britannia et Irlandia Septentriōnālis), Britannicus, Britannī&#xD;&#xA; - England: Anglia, Anglicus, Anglī&#xD;&#xA; - Scotland: Scōtia, Scōticus, Scōtī&#xD;&#xA; - Wales: Vallia, Vallicus, Vallī&#xD;&#xA;- Eurōpa Centrālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Austria: Austria, Austriacus, Austriacī&#xD;&#xA; - Latvia: Lettonia, Lettonicus, Lettonēs&#xD;&#xA; - Lithuania: Lithuānia, Lithuānicus, Lithuānī&#xD;&#xA; - Poland: Polōnia, Polōnicus, Polōnī&#xD;&#xA; - Romania: Dācorōmānia, Dācorōmānicus, Dācorōmānī&#xD;&#xA; - Germany: Germānia, Theodiscus/Germānicus, Germānī&#xD;&#xA; - Slovakia: Slovakia, Slovakus, Slovakī&#xD;&#xA; - Switzerland: Helvētia, Helvēticus, Helvētiī&#xD;&#xA; - Czech Republic: Tzechia, Tzechicus, Tzechī&#xD;&#xA; - Hungary: Hungaria, Hungaricus, Hungarī&#xD;&#xA; - Estonia: Estonia, Estonicus, Estonī&#xD;&#xA;- Eurōpa Austrālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Andorra: Andorra, Andorrēnsis, Andorrēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Albania: Albānia, Albānus, Albānī&#xD;&#xA; - Bosnia-Herzegovina: Bosnia, Bosniēnsis, Bosniēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Bulgaria: Bulgaria, Bulgaricus, Bulgarī&#xD;&#xA; - Spain: Hispānia, Hispānicus, Hispānī&#xD;&#xA; - Italy: Italia, Italicus/Italiānus, Italiānī/Italī  &#xD;&#xA;(Note that in Aeneis it is *Ītalia* for metric reasons.)&#xD;&#xA; - Yugoslavia: Iugoslavia, Iugoslavicus, Iugoslavī&#xD;&#xA; - Greece: Graecia, Graecus, Graecī&#xD;&#xA; - Croatia: Croatia, Croatus, Croatae&#xD;&#xA; - Cyprus: Cyprus, Cyprius, Cypriī&#xD;&#xA; - Macedonia: Macedonia, Macedonicus, Macedones&#xD;&#xA; - Malta: Melita, Melitēnsis, Melitēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Portugal: Portugallia, Portugallicus, Portugallī&#xD;&#xA; - San Marino: Rēs Pūblica Marīniāna, Marīniānus, Marīniānī&#xD;&#xA; - Slovenia: Slovenia, Slovenus, Slovenī&#xD;&#xA; - Turkey: Turcia, Turcicus, Turcae&#xD;&#xA; - Vatican: Cīvitās Vāticāna, Vāticānus, Vāticānī&#xD;&#xA;- Eurōpa Orientālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Moldova: Moldova, Moldovānus, Moldovānī&#xD;&#xA; - Ukraine: Ucraina, Ucrainus, Ucrainī&#xD;&#xA; - Belarus: Belorussia / Russia Alba, Belorussicus, Belorussī&#xD;&#xA; - Russia: Russia, Russicus, Russī&#xD;&#xA;- Oriēns Proxima:&#xD;&#xA; - Israel: Isrāël (gen. Isrāēlis), Isrāēlīticus, Isrāēlītae&#xD;&#xA; - Iran: Irania, Iraniānus, Iraniānī&#xD;&#xA; - Iraq: Iraquia, Iraquicus, Iraquiānī&#xD;&#xA; - Jordan: Iordānia, Iordānus, Iordānī&#xD;&#xA; - Palestine: Palaestīna, Plaestīnus, Palaestīnī&#xD;&#xA; - Saudi-Arabia: Arabia Saudiāna, Saudiānus, Saudī&#xD;&#xA; - Syria: Syria, Syriacus, Syrī&#xD;&#xA;- &amp;Amacr;frica:&#xD;&#xA; - Algeria: Algeria, Algeriānus, Algeriānī&#xD;&#xA; - Egypt: Aegyptus, Aegyptius, Aegyptiī&#xD;&#xA; - South Africa: Āfrica Austrālis, Austroāfricānus, Austroāfricānī&#xD;&#xA; - Kenia: Kenia, Keniānus, Keniānī&#xD;&#xA; - Libya: Libya, Libycus, Libyes&#xD;&#xA; - Morocco: Marochium, Marochiānus, Marochiānī&#xD;&#xA; - Namibia: Namibia, Namibiēnsis, Namibiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Sudan: Sudania, Sudaniēnsis, Sudaniēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Tanzania: Tanzania, Tanzaniēnsis, Tanzaniēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Tunisia: Tunesia, Tunesiēnsis, Tunesiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA;- Asia:&#xD;&#xA; - Afghanistan: Afganistānia, Afganistāniānus, Afganī&#xD;&#xA; - Philippines: Philippīnae, Philippīnus, Philippīnī&#xD;&#xA; - Indonesia: Indonēsia, Indonēsiānus, Indonēsiānī&#xD;&#xA; - India: India, Indicus, Indī&#xD;&#xA; - Japan: Iapōnia, Iapōnicus, Iapōniēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - China: Sīnae, Sīnēnsis, Sīnēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - (South/North) Korea: Corēa (Septentriōnālis/Austrālis), Corēānus (Septentriōnālis/Austrālis), Corēānī (Septentriōnālēs/Austrālēs)&#xD;&#xA; - Malaysia: Malaesia, Malaesiānus, Malaesiānī&#xD;&#xA; - Nepal: Nepalia, Nepaliānus, Nepaliānī&#xD;&#xA; - Pakistan: Pakistania, Pakistaniānus, Pakistaniānī&#xD;&#xA; - Sri Lanka: Sri Lanka, Srilancānus, Srilancānī&#xD;&#xA; - Thailand: Thailandia, Thailandiēnsis, Thailandiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA;- America Septentriōnālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Canada: Canada, Canadēnsis, Canadēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - US: Cīvitātēs Americae Ūnītae, Americānus, Americānī&#xD;&#xA;- America Austrālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Argentina: Argentīna, Argentīniānus, Argentīniānī&#xD;&#xA; - Bolivia: Bolivia, Boliviānus, Boliviānī&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil: Brasilia, Brasiliēnsis, Brasiliēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Chile: Chilia, Chiliēnsis, Chiliēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Mexico: Mexicum, Mexicānus, Mexicānī&#xD;&#xA; - Peru: Peruvia, Peruviānus, Peruviānī&#xD;&#xA; - Venezuela: Venetiola, Venetiolānus, Venetiolānī&#xD;&#xA;- Australia: Austrālia (no further details given)&#xD;&#xA;- Terra Antarctica&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if there seem to be typos, declination aid is needed or something is suspicious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two third declension plurals lack a macron in the list: *Macedones* and *Libyes*.&#xD;&#xA;This can be a typo or, as I find likely, ancient adaptations from Greek where the plural nominative ending is *-e&amp;#x306;s*.&#xD;&#xA;Also, I would expect the *-o-* in the antepenult to be long in *Lettones* and *Macedones*, but his may be a misunderstanding on my behalf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The next appendix contains a list of cities of similar length, but that is irrelevant here.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1663" RevisionGUID="52778d8b-4928-4bda-87ed-4fb14e05e44e" CreationDate="2016-10-02T22:12:24.340" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Wiktionary asserts the etymon of [reus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reus#Latin) as [rēs](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/res#Latin). But how might have 'rēs' shifted semantically to mean 'reus'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My conjecture: If I ignore the morality and subjectivity of something 'guilty', then one can consider something guilty as a thing, matter, or affair; but  this conjecture is outstretching the Semantic Field of 'reus' and feels too feigned. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6342" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1663" RevisionGUID="52778d8b-4928-4bda-87ed-4fb14e05e44e" CreationDate="2016-10-02T22:12:24.340" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What underlying semantic notions connect 'rēs' to 'reus'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6343" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1663" RevisionGUID="52778d8b-4928-4bda-87ed-4fb14e05e44e" CreationDate="2016-10-02T22:12:24.340" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1664" RevisionGUID="a8b67e38-8718-4c55-8264-fc2ab2cceeeb" CreationDate="2016-10-03T01:36:53.310" UserId="30" Text="To expand on Joonas's answer, I think he is 100% correct that *mirata* is elliptical; ***est* is left out** but must be assumed in order to translate the sentence. The structure is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuno **despexit** in Argos&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et **mirata [est]** nebulas volucres fecisse faciem noctis&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nec **sensit** [nebulas] remitti tellure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have three parallel main clauses here, separated by the coördinating conjunctions *et* and *nec*. Within the second clause, there is an accusative with infinitive that depends on / is governed by the verb *mirata*; the third clause* also contains an a.c.i., depending on *sensit*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;In your quotation, *est* must have been left out. The coördinating conjunction *et* forces us to read it as something that is parallel with what came before it; because it cannot be parallel with a single noun or a noun group, or whatever, that came before *et*, it must be parallel with the entire clause before it (*Iuno aspexit...*), which means that it must itself also be a full clause with a finite verb (*mirata est...*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An English aequivalent would be thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;s&gt;Juno looked down and amazed that ...&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems clear that *was* must be supplied, or the two parts cannot be properly read together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there had been no *et*, then the opposite would have obtained:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Iuno despexit in Argos&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *mirata nebulas volucres fecisse faciem noctis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English aequivalent would be thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Juno looked down, amazed that ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The participle would have had to be dependent on the previous clause, and one (full) clause can only depend on another clause (= be subordinate to it) if it is introduced with a subordinating conjunction or a relative pronoun, which is absent here. It follows that *mirata* could not have been a full clause, and the whole phrase would have been just a participial phrase (a participle with some arguments), just as in the English example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;As to whether participles can govern infinitives and indirect speech, the answer is yes. **A participle is both an adjective and a verb** at the same time. Externally, it is an adjective, since it must normally agree with a noun or pronoun (although those can be implicit—but that is also the case with adjectives). That's why participles have the same endings as participles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *laudo canem mordentem* = I praise the biting dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *curo canem vulneratum* = I care for the wounded dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Internally, however, it is a verb, which means that it can often have the same arguments as any other verb can—arguments that depend on it / are governed by it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *laudo canem mordentem inimicos* = I praise a dog biting enemies / that bites enemies (a direct object normally occurs only with verbs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *curo canem vulneratum ab inimico* = I care for a dog wounded by an enemy / that is wounded by an enemy (*ab* &quot;by&quot; normally occurs only with verbs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *mirata* can govern an a.c.i. just like any other verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;*) By &quot;clause&quot; I always mean a full clause, i.e. a finite verb with its dependencies—the conventional meaning of the word *clause* as something closed off and complete." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1665" RevisionGUID="e5d8fdc7-7621-4249-be43-82ed456aeb0d" CreationDate="2016-10-03T05:13:37.733" UserId="79" Text="How can one translate the Finnish phrase &quot;elämä kantaa&quot; or &quot;elämä voittaa&quot; to Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The literal English translations are &quot;life carries&quot; and &quot;life wins&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The first phrase means roughly &quot;even in hard times life will carry you forward&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The most similar English saying I know is &quot;life will prevail&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to offer my condolences in Latin with these ideas, how can I do that?&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good translation or a suitable Latin proverb?&#xD;&#xA;I doubt the literal *vita porta(bi)t* would be good and understandable Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A friend of mine asked me this recently. I adapted the question to fit here and gave the answer I gave my friend below in case others are looking for this as well. I found this question in an online forum, too, but without a good answer. Other answers are most welcome.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6347" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1665" RevisionGUID="e5d8fdc7-7621-4249-be43-82ed456aeb0d" CreationDate="2016-10-03T05:13:37.733" UserId="79" Text="How to say &quot;elämä kantaa&quot; or &quot;life will prevail&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6348" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1665" RevisionGUID="e5d8fdc7-7621-4249-be43-82ed456aeb0d" CreationDate="2016-10-03T05:13:37.733" UserId="79" Text="|phrase|phrase-request|saying|finnish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1666" RevisionGUID="8b746c16-4906-46af-972f-dac5d22ef58d" CreationDate="2016-10-03T05:13:37.733" UserId="79" Text="Let us start with the famous *omnia vincit amor*, &quot;love conquers/wins all&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is close to the original intention if we replace love with life: *omnia vincit vita*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word order *omnia vincit vita* makes the connection to the love phrase clear.&#xD;&#xA;Vergilius used hexameter, and for that *vita omnia vincit* is more convenient &amp;mdash; although both are possible.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps this full hexameter verse is close to what you are looking for (with prose translations):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tempore duro nunc vita omnia vincit, amice.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now in hard times life conquers everything, my friend.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nyt kovana aikana elämä voittaa kaiken, ystäväni.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These were prose translations.&#xD;&#xA;For hexameter, I offer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Life shall prevail, my friend, in times of hardship upon you.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ystävä, nyt kova aika kun on, voittaa elo kaiken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Hexameter in English is not my strongest suit.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to adress a female instead of a male, replace *amice* with *amica*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *vincit* has a double meaning: it can mean &quot;wins&quot; or &quot;conquers&quot; (from the verb *vincere*) or &quot;chains&quot; or &quot;confines&quot; (from *vincire*).&#xD;&#xA;But since both love and life both conquer and confine all, I believe this is not a problem.&#xD;&#xA;This ambiguity was treated in more detail in [a separate question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1311/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1662" RevisionGUID="0a516c36-8580-4799-a6fd-f3d05701cb8a" CreationDate="2016-10-03T08:50:30.553" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="The original word was a feminine adjective, with *herba* implied. It meant *milky grass*, and it came from the milky liquid inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix *-ucus* was added to the stem of *lactare*, just like it happened in *caducus* from *cadere* and in *manducus* from *mandere*. *Fiducia* too should come from an unattested *\*fiducus* (thanks @TKR). I couldn't find anything about this suffix, but it should be more or less equivalent to a present participle (*lactens*, *cadens*), at least by looking at their meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SOURCE: Ernout, Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue latine (the go-to source for latin etymology... there's nothing like this in English, sadly)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1662" RevisionGUID="f561ae6f-a503-4901-b65b-ee955ccd2d5e" CreationDate="2016-10-03T09:41:28.353" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="added 326 characters in body" Text="The suffix *-ucus* was added to the stem of *lactare*, just like it happened in *caducus* from *cadere* and in *manducus* from *mandere*. *Fiducia* too should come from an unattested *\*fiducus* (thanks @TKR).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Ernout (Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue latine) the original word was a feminine adjective, with *herba* implied. It meant *milky grass*, and it came from the milky liquid inside. He seems to imply that the suffix should be more or less equivalent to a present participle (*lactens*, *cadens*), which makes sense at least looking at their meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann (Lateinische Grammatik, vol. 1, par. 304) simply reports the suffix as a &quot;deverbative adjective&quot;, because &quot;no big functional group [funktionell bestimmten gruppen] can be found for adjectives and nouns coming from *-co-* and *-quo-*&quot;. He follows Szemerenyi, KZ 75, 178 (year 1958) in saying that *lactuca* is a substantive coming from Greek γλακτουχος, which Leumann translates as &quot;containing milk&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1662" RevisionGUID="0af2fc53-ab7a-48de-8d14-fba828782598" CreationDate="2016-10-03T09:55:49.517" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="The suffix *-ucus* was added to the stem of *lactare*, just like it happened in *caducus* from *cadere* and in *manducus* from *mandere*. *Fiducia* too should come from an unattested *\*fiducus* (thanks @TKR).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Ernout (Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue latine) the original word was a feminine adjective, with *herba* implied. It meant *milky grass*, and it came from the milky liquid inside. He seems to imply that the suffix should be more or less equivalent to a present participle (*lactens*, *cadens*), which makes sense at least looking at their meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann (Lateinische Grammatik, vol. 1, par. 304) simply reports the suffix as a &quot;deverbative adjective&quot;, because &quot;no big functional group [funktionell bestimmten gruppen] can be found for adjectives and nouns coming from *-co-* and *-quo-*&quot;. He follows Szemerenyi, KZ 75, 178 (year 1958) in saying that *lactuca* is a substantive coming from Greek γλακτουχος, which Leumann translates as &quot;containing milk&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walde (Lateinisches etymologisches Woerterbuch) only says: &quot;from milk, because of the milky juice&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1662" RevisionGUID="6b2c2b9b-9121-4488-bb3b-58c79b1e2f81" CreationDate="2016-10-03T10:17:57.447" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="added 709 characters in body" Text="The suffix *-ucus* was added to the stem of *lactare*, just like it happened in *caducus* from *cadere* and in *manducus* from *mandere*. *Fiducia* too should come from an unattested *\*fiducus* (thanks @TKR).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Ernout (Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue latine) the original word was a feminine adjective, with *herba* implied. It meant *milky grass*, and it came from the milky liquid inside. He seems to imply that the suffix should be more or less equivalent to a present participle (*lactens*, *cadens*), which makes sense at least looking at their meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szmerenyi (Greek γἀλα and the Indo-European term for „milk“) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Lactuca* can hardly be explained as bearing the same relation to *lacto* as *caducus* to *cado*, since *lact-are* is different from *cad-ere*; if Ernout is right in regarding late *lactare* as based on earlier *lactans*, then at the time of Lucilius or before, when only *lactans* existed, it was quite impossible to produce a new *lactuca* on the pattern of *cad-ens*: *cad-ucus*. Since, on the other hand, *γαλακτουχος* is attested in Greek, it is reasonable to infer that *lactuca* is a Latinization of *γαλακτουχη*, just as *\*tartaruca* (italian *tartaruga*) is from Greek *tartarouxos*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann (Lateinische Grammatik, vol. 1, par. 304) simply reports the suffix as a &quot;deverbative adjective&quot;, because &quot;no big functional group [funktionell bestimmten gruppen] can be found for adjectives and nouns coming from *-co-* and *-quo-*&quot;. He follows Szemerenyi, KZ 75, 178 (Greek γἀλα and the Indo-European term for „milk“) in saying that *lactuca* is a substantive coming from Greek γαλακτουχος, which Leumann translates as &quot;containing milk&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walde (Lateinisches etymologisches Woerterbuch) only says: &quot;from milk, because of the milky juice&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1667" RevisionGUID="8148c456-d0c5-42ce-aa90-2595e1350fb9" CreationDate="2016-10-03T11:23:25.590" UserId="881" Text="Is there a difference in meaning between super and supra (both + accusative)? Would one indicate motion and the other one position?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6355" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1667" RevisionGUID="8148c456-d0c5-42ce-aa90-2595e1350fb9" CreationDate="2016-10-03T11:23:25.590" UserId="881" Text="Difference between super and supra?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6356" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1667" RevisionGUID="8148c456-d0c5-42ce-aa90-2595e1350fb9" CreationDate="2016-10-03T11:23:25.590" UserId="881" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1667" RevisionGUID="58489642-ffd9-4c3c-b731-8b6bc270126c" CreationDate="2016-10-03T11:34:23.460" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Is there a difference in meaning between super and supra (both with accusative)? Would one indicate motion and the other one position?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6358" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1667" RevisionGUID="58489642-ffd9-4c3c-b731-8b6bc270126c" CreationDate="2016-10-03T11:34:23.460" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|meaning|word-comparison|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1668" RevisionGUID="16f4124a-fb5e-442b-8ba1-5fc3c1464dbd" CreationDate="2016-10-03T12:58:17.493" UserId="883" Text="Let me tell you why I ask the question. I am writing a book in which I quoted the following— “There are several instances in Revelation of this use of ἔρχεται as futurum instans ....” In the quote, I do not understand “futurum instans”. Yet I need to explain to my readers briefly what the term means. The author did not use it for Semitic languages but Greek. Please define “futurum instans” briefly so that I can in turn include the definition in my writing for informing my readers. Is &quot;the imminent future&quot; the correct definition? Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6360" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1668" RevisionGUID="16f4124a-fb5e-442b-8ba1-5fc3c1464dbd" CreationDate="2016-10-03T12:58:17.493" UserId="883" Text="Please briefly define &quot;futurum instans&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6361" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1668" RevisionGUID="16f4124a-fb5e-442b-8ba1-5fc3c1464dbd" CreationDate="2016-10-03T12:58:17.493" UserId="883" Text="|grammar-choice|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1669" RevisionGUID="a84f6887-717b-4367-9b79-db14e68caf82" CreationDate="2016-10-03T14:00:10.343" UserId="645" Text="The short answers are &quot;no&quot; and &quot;yes&quot;, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Supra* appears to be a contraction of *supera*, the fem. sing. abl. of *superus*, used adverbially (the *a* is long). There are plenty of analogous adverbial uses, e.g. *qua*, *una*. Unlike super, it almost never appears in compounds. As a preposition, it is found only with the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two useful bits of doggerel about common prepositions. First, with accusative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ante, apud, ad, adversus,/ Clam, circum, circa, citra, cis,/ Contra, inter, erga, extra,/ Infra, intra, iuxta, ob,/ Penes, pone, post and praeter,/ Prope propter, per, secundum,/ Supra, versus, ultra, trans :/ Add super, subter, sub and in,/ When ***motion*** 'tis, not ***state*** they mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With ablative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A, ab, absque, coram, de,/ Palam, clam, cum, ex and e,/ Sine, tenus, pro and prae : Add super, subter, sub and in,/ When ***state***, not ***motion***, 'tis they mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These were long ago hammered into pupils in England, presumably to induce a more-or-less automatic, correct usage&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6363" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1668" RevisionGUID="f00757ec-fd03-47a9-99ea-4e34a6b32b44" CreationDate="2016-10-03T14:39:26.197" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|vocabulary|christianity|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1670" RevisionGUID="340a5372-4370-4d4d-9dd1-1167fc821704" CreationDate="2016-10-03T14:47:56.023" UserId="45" Text="I like the suggested emendation. Another suggestion comes from the Preface of the Requiem Mass (text available [here](http://www.traditio.com/office/reqtext.htm)): **Vita mutatur non tollitur**, which literally means: &quot;Life is changed, not taken away.&quot; The context is religious but I think could be applied more broadly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vere dignum et justum est, aequum et salutare, nos tibi semper et ubique gratias agere: Domine sancte, Pater omnipotens, aeterne Deus: per Christum Dominum nostrum. In quo nobis spes beatae resurrectionis effulsit, ut quos contristat certa moriendi conditio, eosdem consoletur futurae immortalitatis promissio. Tuis enim fidelibus, Domine, **vita mutatur, non tollitur**: et dissoluta terrestris hujus incolatus domo, aeterna in caelis habitatio comparatur. Et ideo cum Angelis et Archangelis, cum Thronis et Dominationibus, cumque omni militia caelestis exercitus, hymnum gloriae tuae canimus, sine fine dicentes: etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1670" RevisionGUID="47ddce56-aee5-4cc9-9533-b37066c3c046" CreationDate="2016-10-03T14:57:49.337" UserId="45" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="I like the suggested emendation of Vergil's phrase. Another suggestion comes from the Preface of the Requiem Mass (text available [here](http://www.traditio.com/office/reqtext.htm)): **Vita mutatur non tollitur**, which literally means: &quot;Life is changed, not taken away.&quot; The context is religious but I think could be applied more broadly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vere dignum et justum est, aequum et salutare, nos tibi semper et ubique gratias agere: Domine sancte, Pater omnipotens, aeterne Deus: per Christum Dominum nostrum. In quo nobis spes beatae resurrectionis effulsit, ut quos contristat certa moriendi conditio, eosdem consoletur futurae immortalitatis promissio. Tuis enim fidelibus, Domine, **vita mutatur, non tollitur**: et dissoluta terrestris hujus incolatus domo, aeterna in caelis habitatio comparatur. Et ideo cum Angelis et Archangelis, cum Thronis et Dominationibus, cumque omni militia caelestis exercitus, hymnum gloriae tuae canimus, sine fine dicentes: etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1671" RevisionGUID="6fc075ba-7366-4ee5-920a-837bcfb880e7" CreationDate="2016-10-03T15:42:50.643" UserDisplayName="user786" Text="According to Ernout's Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue latine, *reus* properly means &quot;he who is related to the *res*&quot;, with *res* meaning *(contended) object*. Originally the word meant &quot;the defender in a court case&quot;; after that &quot;the accused one&quot;; only later it came to the meaning of &quot;guilty&quot; which is carried on by Romance languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1671" RevisionGUID="89b8b5d3-8edc-443a-8363-3007bfb8cc53" CreationDate="2016-10-03T15:47:59.253" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="According to Ernout's Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue latine, *reus* properly means &quot;he who is related to the *res*&quot;, with *res* meaning *object (contended in this court case)*. Originally the word meant &quot;the defender in a court case&quot; or also &quot;the accused one&quot;; only later it came to the meaning of &quot;guilty&quot; which is carried on by Romance languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1672" RevisionGUID="a1dd9923-5a24-49fe-9d81-717ed5f505c3" CreationDate="2016-10-03T17:19:04.163" UserId="39" Text="(I will add more details later)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;James O'Hara ([O'Hara 2010][1]) summarizes it very eloquently in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**To imagine an Aeneid without any of these discrepancies is an irresponsible fantasy**, broadly comparable to the practice of idealizing unpainted classical statues, or even removing bits of surviving paint from statues, since we now know that most classical statues were brightly if not even gaudily painted. Viewed in isolation or in small groups, these inconsistencies may look like problems the poet was “planning to fix, had not death intervened.” But **the sheer number of them** and **the way that they are woven into the text** suggest either that they were **deliberate**, or that Vergil spent a great deal of time accidentally creating complications for himself to resolve later&quot; (pp. 101-102).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444318050.ch7/summary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1673" RevisionGUID="469c83c4-068d-41f0-8c6e-55bbff998693" CreationDate="2016-10-03T19:47:04.143" UserId="79" Text="I compiled this list of mistakes with the help of the commentary accompanying the Finnish translation by Alpo R&amp;ouml;nty.&#xD;&#xA;I do not claim that the list is complete, but I hope it gives something concrete enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the epic contains anacronisms.&#xD;&#xA;For example, theaters (I.427) were not around at the time.&#xD;&#xA;These are probably partly intentional and partly due to incomplete historical knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also incomplete lines.&#xD;&#xA;The only one where the line terminates in the middle of a clause or thought is III.340.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will focus on plot inconsistencies instead.&#xD;&#xA;Here are some:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- II.255 and II.340 mention moon, but otherwise the night is told to be dark.&#xD;&#xA;- V.37 describes Acestes' appeareance very differently from the otherwise civilized and wealthy character. Perhaps this was a first draft of the character.&#xD;&#xA;- In VI.338 *Libyco cursu* implies that the trip began in Africa. Perhaps the stop in Sicily was added after writing this passage.&#xD;&#xA;- In VII.123 the prophecy is said to be given by Anchises, but in III.245&amp;ndash; it was given by Celaeno.&#xD;&#xA;- In VII.46-49 the ancestry of Latinus is Latinus&amp;ndash;Faunus&amp;ndash;Picus&amp;ndash;Saturnus, but in VII.178 Italus and Sabinus are mentioned. In XII.164 Sol is mentioned as a forefather.&#xD;&#xA;- Either the ships sent in VIII.550 had not yet arrived by the time of IX.193, or the author had forgotten them.&#xD;&#xA;- Numa is killed in IX.454 and again in X.562.&#xD;&#xA;- Camers dies in X.562 and Iuturna takes disguises as him in XII.224. This is not impossible, though.&#xD;&#xA;- Amycus dies in IX.772 and again in XII.509.&#xD;&#xA;- Diores is the brother of Amycus in XII.509. In V.297 he is a son of Priamos, but Amycuys is not thought to be his son.&#xD;&#xA;- Cretheus dies in IX.774 and again in XII.538.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;Also these passages we mentioned for inconsistencies, but not enough details were given to understand the issue:&#xD;&#xA;- II.567&amp;ndash;588&#xD;&#xA;- IX.176&amp;ndash;183 vs. V.318&amp;ndash;338&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1674" RevisionGUID="52ecee97-a0ab-4b57-8174-000c49d9d1ea" CreationDate="2016-10-03T20:20:45.857" UserId="45" Text="*futurum instans* literally means &quot;immediate/imminent future.&quot; (&quot;Instant&quot; comes from this word but has a different flavor in English now.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*futurum instans* seems to be a term especially prevalent in the grammar of Semitic languages. Most of the [top Google results](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=futurum%20instans) refer to Hebrew or Aramaic.  It appears to be a common term for a certain Hebrew participle (see [here](http://biblehub.com/hebrew/589.htm) for instance.) I have traced it to Gesenius's [*Hebrew Grammar*](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius%27_Hebrew_Grammar/116._The_Participles):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5 The use of the participle as predicate is very frequent in noun-clauses (which, according to §140e, describe established facts and states), in which the period of time intended by the description must again (see above, d) be inferred from the context. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) **To announce future actions or events**, e.g. 1 K 22, 2 K 416 at this season when the time cometh round, אַתְּ חֹבֶ֫קֶת בֵּן‎ thou shalt embrace a son; so after a specification of time, Gn 74, 1514, 1719, 1913, Hag 26 (but in Is 2315, where, after וְהָיָה‎ we should rather expect a perfect consecutive, it is better to explain וְנִשְׁכַּ֫חַת‎, with Qimḥi, as the 3rd sing. fem. of the perfect; on the form, cf. §44f); or in relative clauses, Gn 4125, Is 55, i.e. am in the act of doing; in a deliberative question, Gn 3730; but **especially often when the subject is introduced by הִנֵּה‎** (especially also if the subject be attached as a suffix to הִנֵּה‎ as הִנְנִי‎, הִנְּךָ‎, &amp;c.), if it is **intended to announce the event as imminent, or at least near at hand (and sure to happen)**, when it is called **futurum instan**s, e.g. Gn 617, 153, 203, 2413 f., 48:21, 50:5, Ex 313, 825, 93, 3410, Jos 218, Ju 717, 933, 1 S 311, 2 K 72, Is 31, 714, 171, Jer 3010, Zc 213, 38; with a participle passive, 2 S 2021.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of English, the *futurum instans* is [sometimes used to refer to](https://books.google.com/books?id=cewEAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA476&amp;lpg=PA476) the construction &quot;about to V&quot;, e.g. &quot;I am about to sing.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Biblical Greek often applies Semiticisms, it comes as no surprise that the Greek construction ἔρχεται + verb (*ἔρχεται* means &quot;he/she/it goes&quot;) is employed in the New Testament as a parallel of this construction. Note that English (as well as other languages) has a parallel of this kind of future: &quot;I am going to do X.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steven Thompson, in [*Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax*](https://books.google.com/books?id=9W9A1CdUXCoC&amp;pg=PA32&amp;lpg=PA32) gives more information about this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; C.F. Burney was among the first to apply the Semitic participle of *futurum instans* in explaining the futuristic present verbs in the NT. He explains the futuristic ἔρχομαι found often in the fourth Gospel as due to Aramaic influence of this nature, and notes that in a majority of cases where the futuristic ἔρχομαι occurs, the Peshitta represents it by a participle. (pg. 32)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1674" RevisionGUID="bfb969fa-cf37-4f04-bb4e-eed326654411" CreationDate="2016-10-03T20:27:03.350" UserId="45" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="*futurum instans* literally means &quot;immediate/imminent future.&quot; (&quot;Instant&quot; comes from this word but has a different flavor in English now.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*futurum instans* seems to be a term especially prevalent in the grammar of Semitic languages. Most of the [top Google results](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=futurum%20instans) refer to Hebrew or Aramaic.  It appears to be a common term for a certain Hebrew participle (see [here](http://biblehub.com/hebrew/589.htm) for instance.) I have traced it to Gesenius's [*Hebrew Grammar*](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius%27_Hebrew_Grammar/116._The_Participles):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5 The use of the participle as predicate is very frequent in noun-clauses (which, according to §140e, describe established facts and states), in which the period of time intended by the description must again (see above, d) be inferred from the context. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) **To announce future actions or events**, e.g. 1 K 22, 2 K 416 at this season when the time cometh round, אַתְּ חֹבֶ֫קֶת בֵּן‎ thou shalt embrace a son; so after a specification of time, Gn 74, 1514, 1719, 1913, Hag 26 (but in Is 2315, where, after וְהָיָה‎ we should rather expect a perfect consecutive, it is better to explain וְנִשְׁכַּ֫חַת‎, with Qimḥi, as the 3rd sing. fem. of the perfect; on the form, cf. §44f); or in relative clauses, Gn 4125, Is 55, i.e. am in the act of doing; in a deliberative question, Gn 3730; but **especially often when the subject is introduced by הִנֵּה‎** (especially also if the subject be attached as a suffix to הִנֵּה‎ as הִנְנִי‎, הִנְּךָ‎, &amp;c.), if it is **intended to announce the event as imminent, or at least near at hand (and sure to happen)**, when it is called **futurum instan**s, e.g. Gn 617, 153, 203, 2413 f., 48:21, 50:5, Ex 313, 825, 93, 3410, Jos 218, Ju 717, 933, 1 S 311, 2 K 72, Is 31, 714, 171, Jer 3010, Zc 213, 38; with a participle passive, 2 S 2021.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of English, the *futurum instans* is [sometimes used to refer to](https://books.google.com/books?id=cewEAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA476&amp;lpg=PA476) the construction &quot;about to V&quot;, e.g. &quot;I am about to sing.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Biblical Greek often applies Semiticisms, it comes as no surprise that the Greek construction ἔρχεται + verb (*ἔρχεται* means &quot;he/she/it goes&quot;) is employed in the New Testament as a parallel of this construction. Note that English (as well as other languages) has a parallel of this kind of future: &quot;I am going to do X.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steven Thompson, in [*Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax*](https://books.google.com/books?id=9W9A1CdUXCoC&amp;pg=PA32&amp;lpg=PA32) gives more information about this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; C.F. Burney was among the first to apply the Semitic participle of *futurum instans* in explaining the futuristic present verbs in the NT. He explains the futuristic ἔρχομαι found often in the fourth Gospel as due to Aramaic influence of this nature, and notes that in a majority of cases where the futuristic ἔρχομαι occurs, the Peshitta represents it by a participle. (pg. 32)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pg. 32ff is replete with details and examples of this construction in the Greek New Testament." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1674" RevisionGUID="a4436b4a-5826-4d9b-a498-4665c30292a0" CreationDate="2016-10-03T20:28:44.577" UserId="79" Comment="Small corrections." Text="*Futurum instans* literally means &quot;immediate/imminent future.&quot; (&quot;Instant&quot; comes from this word but has a different flavor in English now.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Futurum instans* seems to be a term especially prevalent in the grammar of Semitic languages. Most of the [top Google results](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=futurum%20instans) refer to Hebrew or Aramaic.  It appears to be a common term for a certain Hebrew participle (see [here](http://biblehub.com/hebrew/589.htm) for instance.) I have traced it to Gesenius's [*Hebrew Grammar*](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius%27_Hebrew_Grammar/116._The_Participles):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5 The use of the participle as predicate is very frequent in noun-clauses (which, according to §140e, describe established facts and states), in which the period of time intended by the description must again (see above, d) be inferred from the context. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) **To announce future actions or events**, e.g. 1 K 22, 2 K 416 at this season when the time cometh round, אַתְּ חֹבֶ֫קֶת בֵּן‎ thou shalt embrace a son; so after a specification of time, Gn 74, 1514, 1719, 1913, Hag 26 (but in Is 2315, where, after וְהָיָה‎ we should rather expect a perfect consecutive, it is better to explain וְנִשְׁכַּ֫חַת‎, with Qimḥi, as the 3rd sing. fem. of the perfect; on the form, cf. §44f); or in relative clauses, Gn 4125, Is 55, i.e. am in the act of doing; in a deliberative question, Gn 3730; but **especially often when the subject is introduced by הִנֵּה‎** (especially also if the subject be attached as a suffix to הִנֵּה‎ as הִנְנִי‎, הִנְּךָ‎, &amp;c.), if it is **intended to announce the event as imminent, or at least near at hand (and sure to happen)**, when it is called **futurum instans**, e.g. Gn 617, 153, 203, 2413 f., 48:21, 50:5, Ex 313, 825, 93, 3410, Jos 218, Ju 717, 933, 1 S 311, 2 K 72, Is 31, 714, 171, Jer 3010, Zc 213, 38; with a participle passive, 2 S 2021.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of English, the *futurum instans* is [sometimes used to refer to](https://books.google.com/books?id=cewEAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA476&amp;lpg=PA476) the construction &quot;about to V&quot;, e.g. &quot;I am about to sing.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Biblical Greek often applies Semiticisms, it comes as no surprise that the Greek construction ἔρχεται + verb (*ἔρχεται* means &quot;he/she/it goes&quot;) is employed in the New Testament as a parallel of this construction. Note that English (as well as other languages) has a parallel of this kind of future: &quot;I am going to do X.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steven Thompson, in [*Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax*](https://books.google.com/books?id=9W9A1CdUXCoC&amp;pg=PA32&amp;lpg=PA32) gives more information about this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; C.F. Burney was among the first to apply the Semitic participle of *futurum instans* in explaining the futuristic present verbs in the NT. He explains the futuristic ἔρχομαι found often in the fourth Gospel as due to Aramaic influence of this nature, and notes that in a majority of cases where the futuristic ἔρχομαι occurs, the Peshitta represents it by a participle. (pg. 32)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pg. 32ff is replete with details and examples of this construction in the Greek New Testament." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1674" RevisionGUID="832569d2-748d-4591-9365-316ce4abca05" CreationDate="2016-10-03T20:50:04.230" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 87 characters in body" Text="*Futurum instans* literally means &quot;immediate/imminent future.&quot; (&quot;Instant&quot; comes from this word but has a different flavor in English now.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Futurum instans* seems to be a term especially prevalent in the grammar of Semitic languages. Most of the [top Google results](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=futurum%20instans) refer to Hebrew or Aramaic.  It appears to be a common term for a certain Hebrew participle (see [here](http://biblehub.com/hebrew/589.htm) for instance.) I have traced it to Gesenius's [*Hebrew Grammar*](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius%27_Hebrew_Grammar/116._The_Participles):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5 The use of the participle as predicate is very frequent in noun-clauses (which, according to §140e, describe established facts and states), in which the period of time intended by the description must again (see above, d) be inferred from the context. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) **To announce future actions or events**, e.g. 1 K 22, 2 K 416 at this season when the time cometh round, אַתְּ חֹבֶ֫קֶת בֵּן‎ thou shalt embrace a son; so after a specification of time, Gn 74, 1514, 1719, 1913, Hag 26 (but in Is 2315, where, after וְהָיָה‎ we should rather expect a perfect consecutive, it is better to explain וְנִשְׁכַּ֫חַת‎, with Qimḥi, as the 3rd sing. fem. of the perfect; on the form, cf. §44f); or in relative clauses, Gn 4125, Is 55, i.e. am in the act of doing; in a deliberative question, Gn 3730; but **especially often when the subject is introduced by הִנֵּה‎** (especially also if the subject be attached as a suffix to הִנֵּה‎ as הִנְנִי‎, הִנְּךָ‎, &amp;c.), if it is **intended to announce the event as imminent, or at least near at hand (and sure to happen)**, when it is called **futurum instans**, e.g. Gn 617, 153, 203, 2413 f., 48:21, 50:5, Ex 313, 825, 93, 3410, Jos 218, Ju 717, 933, 1 S 311, 2 K 72, Is 31, 714, 171, Jer 3010, Zc 213, 38; with a participle passive, 2 S 2021.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of English, the *futurum instans* is [sometimes used to refer to](https://books.google.com/books?id=cewEAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA476&amp;lpg=PA476) the construction &quot;about to V&quot;, e.g. &quot;I am about to sing.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Biblical Greek often applies Semiticisms, it comes as no surprise that Greek ἔρχεται (*ἔρχεται* means &quot;he/she/it goes&quot;) is employed in the New Testament as a parallel of this construction. It is often used with ἰδού for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steven Thompson, in [*Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax*](https://books.google.com/books?id=9W9A1CdUXCoC&amp;pg=PA32&amp;lpg=PA32) gives more information about this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; C.F. Burney was among the first to apply the Semitic participle of *futurum instans* in explaining the futuristic present verbs in the NT. He explains the futuristic ἔρχομαι found often in the fourth Gospel as due to Aramaic influence of this nature, and notes that in a majority of cases where the futuristic ἔρχομαι occurs, the Peshitta represents it by a participle. (pg. 32)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pg. 32ff is replete with details and examples of this construction in the Greek New Testament." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1668" RevisionGUID="36b7a1b8-2dcb-442f-a95e-8b4795d3b1a3" CreationDate="2016-10-04T01:24:24.287" UserId="883" Comment="Showing more of my research and asking which source really suits my book." Text="I am writing a book, quoting from Aune: “There are several instances in Revelation of this use of ἔρχεται as futurum instans ....” Note that Aune uses the term “futurum instans” for Greek, not Semitic languages. Google Translate tells the term as “be instant” and tells “futurum” as “the future” and “istans” as “instant”. http://tbt.sagepub.com/content/66/2/129.abstract tells the term as “the imminent future, ‘about to’”. Perseus tells “present, immediate” for “istans” (nothing for “futurum”). If I want to give a brief definition of the term &quot;futurum istans&quot; to the readers of my book, could I give “the imminent future, ‘about to’”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6375" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1668" RevisionGUID="36b7a1b8-2dcb-442f-a95e-8b4795d3b1a3" CreationDate="2016-10-04T01:24:24.287" Comment="Proposed by 883 approved by 12 edit id of 136" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1675" RevisionGUID="f008502a-5393-4905-a853-1eebeec76293" CreationDate="2016-10-04T07:48:49.253" UserId="79" Text="The verb *sapere* can mean tasting like something or having a sense of taste.&#xD;&#xA;The latter can be understood figuratively close to &quot;to be wise or sensible&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Dictionaries list the participle *sapiens* separately, and only the figurative meaning is given in all sources I looked at.&#xD;&#xA;Why is this so?&#xD;&#xA;Are there cases where *sapiens* means something like &quot;tasty&quot; rather than &quot;smart&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Or, from a different point of view, can one interpret &amp;mdash; from a linguistic point of view &amp;mdash; the name *Homo sapiens* to mean that the [animals](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1296/79) in question are tasty instead of smart?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6378" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1675" RevisionGUID="f008502a-5393-4905-a853-1eebeec76293" CreationDate="2016-10-04T07:48:49.253" UserId="79" Text="Sapiens: tasty or smart?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6379" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1675" RevisionGUID="f008502a-5393-4905-a853-1eebeec76293" CreationDate="2016-10-04T07:48:49.253" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|example-request|ambiguity|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1676" RevisionGUID="fa62ad44-f7d1-4b66-bb29-8028e9df421d" CreationDate="2016-10-04T09:52:09.463" UserDisplayName="user425" Text="In a movie (*Event Horizon*, spoilers ahead), you have this Latin [phrase][1] they think they heard and what it ends up being :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Liberate me...&lt;br/&gt; Libera te tutemet (ex inferis).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's always the possibility of some poetic license in such works but the topic has been discussed elsewhere and someone thought (on [latindiscussion.com][2]) that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Libera temet [ipsum] ab inferis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;was more idiomatic but that the original was not ungrammatical per se. Of note is also the selection of a different preposition (*ab*) to introduce *inferis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For a reflexive sort of construction such as *save/free yourself* with a verb like *libero*, do you need anything else than [*temet*][3] ([2][4]); what difference does an emphatic form or something like *ipsum* make here in terms of meaning or style; isn't it overly redundant? &#xD;&#xA; - Is the thing you're saving yourself from mostly introduced with *ex*&#xD;&#xA;   or *ab* in such a construction; I see [examples][5] like *a Venere se* et *a quartana liberatus* as well as *ex incommodis pecunia se liberare*, so what type of prepositional logic does *libero* trigger: is it about *escaping* vs. *climbing out*?&#xD;&#xA; - What is a classic example of the imperative of *libero* with a reflexive pronoun and a complement as in *save/free yourself* from something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(L)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/liberate-tuteme-ex-inferis.7499/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/temet#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?q=tu&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?q=libero" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6381" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1676" RevisionGUID="fa62ad44-f7d1-4b66-bb29-8028e9df421d" CreationDate="2016-10-04T09:52:09.463" UserDisplayName="user425" Text="Libera te tutemet ex inferis vs. Libera temet [ipsum] ab inferis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6382" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1676" RevisionGUID="fa62ad44-f7d1-4b66-bb29-8028e9df421d" CreationDate="2016-10-04T09:52:09.463" UserDisplayName="user425" Text="|pronouns|preposition|imperative|reflexive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1677" RevisionGUID="a7c956e1-262d-42d3-ab35-227671a8a0c1" CreationDate="2016-10-04T12:04:40.180" UserDisplayName="user786" Text="Dictionaries only provide meanings **attested** in ancient sources. *Sapiens* might have been used as &quot;being tasty&quot;, but no trace of this is left. You'll often find derivatives that carry only part of the meanings of their origin, or on the contrary that add more; the same can apply to participles, because they can also be used as adjectives, that is: almost a different part of speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *homo sapiens*, you are right: linguistically it could mean &quot;tasty&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1677" RevisionGUID="e269f6ce-15a6-4967-a0bc-ac1652e84ffe" CreationDate="2016-10-04T12:15:32.060" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="remove unneded part" Text="Dictionaries only provide meanings **attested** in ancient sources. *Sapiens* might have been used as &quot;being tasty&quot;, but no trace of this is left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *homo sapiens*, you are right: linguistically it could mean &quot;tasty&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1678" RevisionGUID="b49f6b85-dfd7-4d3f-861f-cecec40d73d9" CreationDate="2016-10-04T16:13:38.090" UserId="645" Text="**Sapiens**, entis Part. [sapio].   || Adj. *wise, sensible, well-advised, discreet, judicious* : ut quisque maxime perspicit, quid in re quaque verissimum sit, quique acutissime et celerrime potest et videre et explicare rationem, is prudentissimus et sapientissimus rite haberi solet, Cic. Off. 1, 5, 16 …&#xD;&#xA;— and so on (at some length). This is followed by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sapienter**, Av. *sensibly, discreetly, prudently, judiciously, wisely* &#xD;&#xA;— (with examples of comparative and superlative), but&#xD;&#xA;**Sapidus**, a, um, adj. [sapio] well-tasting, relishing, savoury : tucetum perquam sapidissimum, App. M. 2, 117 : avis sapidior, Apic. 6, 6   || Fig. wise, prudent : puellae Alcim. 6 prooem.&#xD;&#xA;Then we also find from later sources&#xD;&#xA;Saporatus, a, um. adj. [sapor] seasoned, savoury : pulmenta, Tert. Spect 27 : cibi, Amm. 31, 2&#xD;&#xA;Saporatus looks like the perfect participle of an otherwise unknown verb saporo (1st conj.) Personally, I can think only that there might have been two verbs sapio and saporo, the similarity of which led to their meanings being confounded." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1678" RevisionGUID="8dc0335a-5c10-4f63-9e78-64912f2268d9" CreationDate="2016-10-04T16:21:32.587" UserId="645" Comment="added 277 characters in body" Text="I think that @Mus Silvanus is correct, but should like to answer separately by giving actual examples from an old dictionary, which may throw a little more light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sapiens**, entis Part. [sapio].   || Adj. *wise, sensible, well-advised, discreet, judicious* : ut quisque maxime perspicit, quid in re quaque verissimum sit, quique acutissime et celerrime potest et videre et explicare rationem, is prudentissimus et sapientissimus rite haberi solet, Cic. Off. 1, 5, 16 …&#xD;&#xA;— and so on (at some length). This is followed by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sapienter**, Av. *sensibly, discreetly, prudently, judiciously, wisely* &#xD;&#xA;— (with examples of comparative and superlative), but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sapidus**, a, um, adj. [sapio] *well-tasting, relishing, savoury* : tucetum perquam sapidissimum, App. M. 2, 117 : avis sapidior, Apic. 6, 6   || Fig. wise, prudent : puellae Alcim. 6 prooem.&#xD;&#xA;Then we also find from later sources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Saporatus**, a, um. adj. [sapor] *seasoned, savoury* : pulmenta, Tert. Spect 27 : cibi, Amm. 31, 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Saporatus* looks like the perfect participle of an otherwise unknown verb *saporo* (1st conj.) Personally, I can think only that there might have been two verbs *sapio* and *saporo*, the similarity of which, coupled with various dialects, led to their meanings having been confounded by the time when spelling became more standardised." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1679" RevisionGUID="c358009c-9161-48a8-8782-e0ba39e9a53c" CreationDate="2016-10-04T17:36:03.037" UserId="324" Text="I have not seen the movie, so I am not sure that I fully understand the question, but it seems obvious that this is variation on a phrase in the requiem liturgy: &quot;Libera me, domine, de morte aeterna&quot;. Only with the difference that it is asking not God, but you yourself, to save you. &quot;Libera te tutemet&quot; is acceptable, but neither &quot;de&quot; nor &quot;ex&quot; sounds like particularly good Latin. The classical construction would be with &quot;ab&quot; or with a bare ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it should be &quot;infernis&quot;, not &quot;inferis&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1679" RevisionGUID="584fad9a-e16c-4fe8-abb3-674789fd3fab" CreationDate="2016-10-04T17:41:09.700" UserId="324" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I have not seen the movie, so I am not sure that I fully understand the question, but it seems obvious that this is variation on a phrase in the requiem liturgy: &quot;Libera me, domine, de morte aeterna&quot;. Only with the difference that it is asking not God, but you yourself, to save you. &quot;Libera te tutemet&quot; is acceptable, but neither &quot;de&quot; nor &quot;ex&quot; sounds like particularly good Latin. The classical construction would be with &quot;ab&quot; or with a bare ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, of course, it should be &quot;infernis&quot;, not &quot;inferis&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1679" RevisionGUID="fb76c7b7-0308-4088-ba8b-abec2bb5b105" CreationDate="2016-10-04T18:01:53.477" UserId="324" Comment="deleted 57 characters in body" Text="I have not seen the movie, so I am not sure that I fully understand the question, but it seems obvious that this is variation on a phrase in the requiem liturgy: &quot;Libera me, domine, de morte aeterna&quot;. Only with the difference that it is asking not God, but you yourself, to save you. &quot;Libera te tutemet&quot; is acceptable, but neither &quot;de&quot; nor &quot;ex&quot; sounds like particularly good Latin. The classical construction would be with &quot;ab&quot; or with a bare ablative.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1679" RevisionGUID="cc051929-cb71-4a63-9c27-2573a906afbf" CreationDate="2016-10-04T19:07:36.637" UserId="324" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I have not seen the movie, so I am not sure that I fully understand the question, but it seems obvious that this is a variation on a phrase in the requiem liturgy: &quot;Libera me, domine, de morte aeterna&quot;. Only with the difference that it is asking not God, but you yourself, to save you. &quot;Libera te tutemet&quot; is acceptable, but neither &quot;de&quot; nor &quot;ex&quot; sounds like particularly good Latin. The classical construction would be with &quot;ab&quot; or with a bare ablative.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1680" RevisionGUID="8b93781f-ca9a-4aa1-be77-830979053c5c" CreationDate="2016-10-04T20:36:34.137" UserId="68" Text="I always read *immo* as signifying emphatic denial, though what this means in different contexts may differ: Is he alive? NO! He's very much dead! Or: So you hate him? NO! I make sacrifices every night for the earth to gape open and swallow him whole!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1681" RevisionGUID="3a29a8d0-f62b-4502-aac1-6dc496ef1f44" CreationDate="2016-10-04T22:48:26.773" UserId="118" Text="Sometimes, when you divide something into many pieces, the many pieces overwhelm you, like what happened to Mickey Mouse in [_Fantasia_](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DX2yVucz24). This suggests a variation on _divide et vinces_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Divide et vincere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But does this have the clarity or punch of English &quot;Divide and be conquered&quot;? I'm wondering because _vincere_ is the infinitive as well as the 2nd-person passive—which could be _vincĕre_ or _vincēre_ for present or future, possibly further blurring the meaning in a terse phrase. Is there a better way to put this thought in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6394" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1681" RevisionGUID="3a29a8d0-f62b-4502-aac1-6dc496ef1f44" CreationDate="2016-10-04T22:48:26.773" UserId="118" Text="Divide and be conquered" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6395" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1681" RevisionGUID="3a29a8d0-f62b-4502-aac1-6dc496ef1f44" CreationDate="2016-10-04T22:48:26.773" UserId="118" Text="|passive-voice|rhetoric|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1682" RevisionGUID="fa98752c-825a-42fa-97dc-abfa49631711" CreationDate="2016-10-04T22:58:00.217" UserId="40" Text="In your phrase *Dīvide et vincēs*, the second verb is future rather than imperative, so if you're OK with that phrasing you could do the same here to avoid the ambiguity of form: *Dīvide et vincēris*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;Divide and rule&quot; Wiki [gives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule) the Latin versions *Dīvide et imperā* and *Dīvide ut regnēs*. Passivizing the first (*Dīvide et imperāre*) doesn't avoid the ambiguity, and a purpose clause seems unsuitable in this case. But you might consider a conditional: *Sī dīvidēs, vincēris*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1683" RevisionGUID="3764df53-657d-4abe-a9fa-543bfda3d826" CreationDate="2016-10-04T23:15:10.157" UserId="40" Text="In English, there's a common construction which consists of two coordinated clauses, the first with an imperative verb, the second with a future-tense verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Take the first left and you'll find my house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is equivalent in meaning to a conditional:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you take the first left, you'll find my house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was this way of paraphrasing a condition also idiomatic in Latin? Are there examples of this construction in Latin authors? It seems plausible to me that one could say *Veni cras et me videbis* (meaning *Si cras venies, me videbis*), but I'd like to see some actual examples to be sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6398" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1683" RevisionGUID="3764df53-657d-4abe-a9fa-543bfda3d826" CreationDate="2016-10-04T23:15:10.157" UserId="40" Text="Is it idiomatic Latin to paraphrase a condition using an imperative plus a future indicative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6399" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1683" RevisionGUID="3764df53-657d-4abe-a9fa-543bfda3d826" CreationDate="2016-10-04T23:15:10.157" UserId="40" Text="|idiom|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1601" RevisionGUID="7225119b-b339-4763-bc09-acb9575d04f8" CreationDate="2016-10-04T23:52:34.057" UserId="39" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="(*will add examples later*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, *immo* had several different uses in Classical Latin. Hannah Rosén ([Rosén 2009][1]) classifies it as a connective particle used for juncture and separation. She proposes four different uses of *[immo][2]*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. supplemental: &#xD;&#xA; 2. contrasting: &#xD;&#xA; 3. adjoining+contrasting: &#xD;&#xA; 4. adjoining+correcting (substituting): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She also argues that immo is not “admitted into (full-feldged) oratio obliqua” (p. 403); in other words, immo is impossible (unlikely) in reported speech. On the other hand, immo is most commonly used in dialogs (but not exclusively).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinskter 2015 also discusses immo in section 6.46 (v.1) - he calls it a corrective adverb. See examples (a)-(g) pp. 377-378.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to peruse pp. 218-234 in  Ferdinandi Handii Tursellinus, *[seu De particulis latinis commentarii][3]* (vol.3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110205626/9783110205626.317/9783110205626.317.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/TLL/7-1-03/7_1_3_immo_v2007.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=UbYlp-5fgT0C&amp;dq=tursellinus%20immo&amp;pg=PT222#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1683" RevisionGUID="bb7d66f5-6c70-4ae0-8c3d-ecb0a83c3562" CreationDate="2016-10-05T00:21:45.307" UserId="40" Comment="added 376 characters in body" Text="In English, there's a common construction which consists of two coordinated clauses, the first with an imperative verb, the second with a future-tense verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Take the first left and you'll find my house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is equivalent in meaning to a conditional:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you take the first left, you'll find my house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was this way of paraphrasing a condition also idiomatic in Latin? Are there examples of this construction in Latin authors? It seems plausible to me that one could say *Veni cras et me videbis* (meaning *Si cras venies, me videbis*), but I'd like to see some actual examples to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ETA: brianpck mentions a closely related construction, in which the coordination is with &quot;or&quot; rather than &quot;and&quot;, and the equivalent condition has a negative protasis: &quot;Apologize or you'll be sorry!&quot; = &quot;If you don't apologize, you'll be sorry!&quot; I'd definitely also be interested in Latin examples of this (though for some reason I feel less sanguine about their existence)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1684" RevisionGUID="576b351d-4712-4c39-acf0-389858e5c54e" CreationDate="2016-10-05T03:52:56.297" UserId="39" Text="&#xD;&#xA;[Torrego 2009][1] mentions this use in her paper on coordination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110205626/9783110205626.443/9783110205626.443.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JoVoq.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1685" RevisionGUID="308f6bdf-387d-4451-b645-7e00044e9c14" CreationDate="2016-10-05T05:53:36.063" UserId="79" Text="Universities in the UK have two distinct titles (among others): &quot;lecturer&quot; and &quot;reader&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;A reader is more senior than a lecturer but both are below a professor.&#xD;&#xA;The US (rough?) equivalents are &quot;assistant professor&quot; and &quot;associate professor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate both of these words into Latin as *lector* or *lectrix*.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I could translate &quot;lecturer&quot; as *lector/lectrix* and &quot;reader&quot; as *lector/lectrix senior*, but I wonder if there is a better way.&#xD;&#xA;How do you suggest translating the two titles?&#xD;&#xA;Do such translations already exist, canonical or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6404" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1685" RevisionGUID="308f6bdf-387d-4451-b645-7e00044e9c14" CreationDate="2016-10-05T05:53:36.063" UserId="79" Text="How to distinguish &quot;lecturer&quot; and &quot;reader&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6405" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1685" RevisionGUID="308f6bdf-387d-4451-b645-7e00044e9c14" CreationDate="2016-10-05T05:53:36.063" UserId="79" Text="|translation|vocabulary|word-comparison|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1686" RevisionGUID="41d69e7f-577e-43b3-a4f8-33e4f0900e59" CreationDate="2016-10-05T17:28:55.637" UserId="380" Text="I am working on word endings in Latin, and I came across the word *Ago*.&#xD;&#xA;And I was looking at the different conjugations for this word and it did not make sense to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Observe:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Endings are: &#xD;&#xA;             &#xD;&#xA;             o/m   |   mus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;             s     |   tis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;             t     |   nt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, when *ago* is conjugated, this happens:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;            Ago | Agimus &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;           Agis | Agitis          &#xD;&#xA;           &#xD;&#xA;           Agit | Agunt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why does it conjigate with an *i*?          " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6407" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1686" RevisionGUID="41d69e7f-577e-43b3-a4f8-33e4f0900e59" CreationDate="2016-10-05T17:28:55.637" UserId="380" Text="Why does Ago become agit, agitis, agis, etc? [conjugate with an *i*?]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6408" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1686" RevisionGUID="41d69e7f-577e-43b3-a4f8-33e4f0900e59" CreationDate="2016-10-05T17:28:55.637" UserId="380" Text="|classical-latin|translation|declinatio|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1686" RevisionGUID="2d6cf5b2-1704-4d75-ba76-6f263cdc0955" CreationDate="2016-10-05T18:20:29.127" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and corrected a typo." Text="I am working on word endings in Latin, and I came across the word *Ago*.&#xD;&#xA;And I was looking at the different conjugations for this word and it did not make sense to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Observe:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Endings are: &#xD;&#xA;             &#xD;&#xA;             o/m   |   mus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;             s     |   tis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;             t     |   nt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, when *ago* is conjugated, this happens:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;            Ago | Agimus &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;           Agis | Agitis          &#xD;&#xA;           &#xD;&#xA;           Agit | Agunt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why does it conjugated with an *i*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6410" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1686" RevisionGUID="2d6cf5b2-1704-4d75-ba76-6f263cdc0955" CreationDate="2016-10-05T18:20:29.127" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and corrected a typo." Text="|classical-latin|morphology|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1687" RevisionGUID="c24708df-5a58-46af-b707-67642fa5fa75" CreationDate="2016-10-05T21:54:31.833" UserId="324" Text="To ask “why” is inevitably a question about etymology and Indo-European (IE) comparative linguistics. The Latin 3rd conjugation continues IE thematic presents. There is a root, then the “thematic vowel” *e or *o, and then the personal ending. In Latin *e regularly becomes /i/ before /s/ and /t/. Thus IE *bher-e-ti becomes bharati in Sanskrit, but ferit in Latin, while *bher-o-nti becomes Sanskrit bharanti, and Latin ferunt. Does that make it any clearer? I am not sure that it does. Reconstructed languages are just as inscrutable as real ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1688" RevisionGUID="6536c250-f0fa-49c7-aa41-e27c70c1a439" CreationDate="2016-10-05T21:59:10.153" UserId="40" Text="If you're asking how the third conjugation historically came to use the vowels *i/u*, it has to do with regular sound changes that affected the original Proto-Indo-European (PIE) endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The present indicative active paradigm for this verb in PIE, with its descendant paradigm in Latin, would look something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1sg. *h₂eǵ-ō &gt; agō  &#xD;&#xA;2sg. *h₂eǵ-e-si &gt; agis  &#xD;&#xA;3sg. *h₂eǵ-e-ti &gt; agit   &#xD;&#xA;1pl. *h₂eǵ-o-mos &gt; agimus  &#xD;&#xA;2pl. *h₂eǵ-e-tes &gt; agitis  &#xD;&#xA;3pl. *h₂eǵ-o-nti &gt; agunt  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In PIE, as you can see, the personal endings were preceded by a so-called &quot;thematic vowel&quot;, either *e* or *o* (except in the 1sg.). This vowel then underwent the following changes in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. In non-initial open syllables, all vowels (basically; there are some exceptions) in Latin became *i*. This is the source of the *i* in *agimus, agitis*.&#xD;&#xA; 2. *e* became *i* before a word-final consonant. This is what happened in *agis, agit*, where first the final *-i* of the PIE form was lost (as also in the 3pl.), leaving the *s/t* word-final.&#xD;&#xA; 3. *o* became *u* before a nasal (again not absolutely always, but in many cases). This gives the *u* of *agunt*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1689" RevisionGUID="bb333efa-56fd-451b-83e0-4764381b491d" CreationDate="2016-10-05T22:40:55.587" UserId="324" Text="Greek also uses μή after verbs of fearing. I think it is IE inheritance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1686" RevisionGUID="f9be7ea8-ee71-4cf5-9e2e-3b2ecdc97bb8" CreationDate="2016-10-05T23:05:29.720" UserId="40" Comment="fixed grammar (&quot;does it conjugated&quot;)" Text="I am working on word endings in Latin, and I came across the word *Ago*.&#xD;&#xA;And I was looking at the different conjugations for this word and it did not make sense to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Observe:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Endings are: &#xD;&#xA;             &#xD;&#xA;             o/m   |   mus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;             s     |   tis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;             t     |   nt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, when *ago* is conjugated, this happens:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;            Ago | Agimus &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;           Agis | Agitis          &#xD;&#xA;           &#xD;&#xA;           Agit | Agunt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it conjugated with an *i*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1690" RevisionGUID="2973473e-0eaf-40ee-8ea5-f3b337f5a6b2" CreationDate="2016-10-06T00:39:06.003" UserId="886" Text="Latin's been ages ago, but after an hour I think I finally figured the declensions out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Venare cervas arcubus, dēcipulīs leporēs &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     [&lt;imp&gt; &lt;acc&gt;  &lt;abl&gt; ]&lt;&lt;[&lt;abl&gt;    &lt;acc&gt; ]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     hunt   deer   bow    , snare     rabbit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now my question is, is it okay and proper form, and is it clear what is meant if the verb is implicitly reused by tacking on another clause without a predicate, or is that more of a germanic thing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6417" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1690" RevisionGUID="2973473e-0eaf-40ee-8ea5-f3b337f5a6b2" CreationDate="2016-10-06T00:39:06.003" UserId="886" Text="&quot;Hunt deer with bows, with snares: rabbits,&quot; or referencing a verb from a previous clause" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6418" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1690" RevisionGUID="2973473e-0eaf-40ee-8ea5-f3b337f5a6b2" CreationDate="2016-10-06T00:39:06.003" UserId="886" Text="|translation|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1687" RevisionGUID="7c7fb3d8-a801-4cf8-83d2-2c3740c4a19f" CreationDate="2016-10-06T07:13:23.347" UserId="324" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="To ask “why” is inevitably a question about etymology and Indo-European (IE) comparative linguistics. The Latin 3rd conjugation continues IE thematic presents. There is a root, then the “thematic vowel” *e or *o, and then the personal ending. In Latin *e regularly becomes /i/ before /s/ and /t/. Thus IE *bher-e-ti becomes bharati in Sanskrit, but fert in Latin, while *bher-o-nti becomes Sanskrit bharanti, and Latin ferunt. Does that make it any clearer? I am not sure that it does. Reconstructed languages are just as inscrutable as real ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1691" RevisionGUID="23cc1f56-61ea-4c7a-be16-3b9eaf18967d" CreationDate="2016-10-06T07:26:26.027" UserId="79" Text="Your translation is excellent Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The chiasm and ellipsis are very natural and good style.&#xD;&#xA;The only thing I might change is the location of the imperative.&#xD;&#xA;This change is optional.&#xD;&#xA;I would put it at the very end:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cervas arcubus, decipulis lepores venare.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With small changes the phrase can also be turned into a pentameter line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Cervam agita arcubus et decipulis lepores.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since pentameter is rarely seen alone, this should probably be completed into an elegiac couplet.&#xD;&#xA;For example (with prose translation):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Apte sic animal varium varie capiatur:*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cervam agita arcubus et decipulis lepores.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Varying animals should be captured in various ways like this:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hunt deer with bows and rabbits with snares.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1687" RevisionGUID="413f56f6-fc6c-4e16-bebb-2ea1f0318205" CreationDate="2016-10-06T08:17:14.220" UserId="324" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="To ask “why” is inevitably a question about etymology and Indo-European (IE) comparative linguistics. The Latin 3rd conjugation continues IE thematic presents. There is a root, then the “thematic vowel” *e or *o, and then the personal ending. In Latin *e regularly becomes /i/ before /s/ and /t/. Thus IE *bher-e-ti becomes bharati in Sanskrit, but *ferit &gt; fert in Latin, while *bher-o-nti becomes Sanskrit bharanti, and Latin ferunt. Does that make it any clearer? I am not sure that it does. Reconstructed languages are just as inscrutable as real ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1691" RevisionGUID="62a9e051-84c2-4476-af97-5369673b21f9" CreationDate="2016-10-06T13:33:41.557" UserId="79" Comment="added 159 characters in body" Text="(I assume you have translated from English to Latin. If it was the other way around, this answer is less relevant, although the translation is still good.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your translation is excellent Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The chiasm and ellipsis are very natural and good style.&#xD;&#xA;The only thing I might change is the location of the imperative.&#xD;&#xA;This change is optional.&#xD;&#xA;I would put it at the very end:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cervas arcubus, decipulis lepores venare.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With small changes the phrase can also be turned into a pentameter line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Cervam agita arcubus et decipulis lepores.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since pentameter is rarely seen alone, this should probably be completed into an elegiac couplet.&#xD;&#xA;For example (with prose translation):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Apte sic animal varium varie capiatur:*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cervam agita arcubus et decipulis lepores.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Varying animals should be captured in various ways like this:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hunt deer with bows and rabbits with snares.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1690" RevisionGUID="6ecfb6e4-24d5-4a3f-91c6-b05fbfd91da3" CreationDate="2016-10-06T15:22:50.077" UserId="886" Comment="updated question to clarify" Text="I've been trying to translate the following phrase into latin: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hunt deer with bows, with snares: rabbits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With my limited grasp of Latin, I have come to this result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Venare cervas arcubus, dēcipulīs leporēs &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     [&lt;imp&gt; &lt;acc&gt;  &lt;abl&gt; ]&lt;&lt;[&lt;abl&gt;    &lt;acc&gt; ]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     hunt   deer   bow    , snare     rabbit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now my question is, is it okay and proper form, and is it clear what is meant if the verb is implicitly reused by tacking on another clause without a predicate, or is that more of a germanic thing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6424" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="1691" RevisionGUID="98b77b1d-e60a-42e6-bd45-3864f9e6248f" CreationDate="2016-10-06T15:24:01.807" UserId="79" Comment="Rollback to [23cc1f56-61ea-4c7a-be16-3b9eaf18967d]" Text="Your translation is excellent Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The chiasm and ellipsis are very natural and good style.&#xD;&#xA;The only thing I might change is the location of the imperative.&#xD;&#xA;This change is optional.&#xD;&#xA;I would put it at the very end:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cervas arcubus, decipulis lepores venare.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With small changes the phrase can also be turned into a pentameter line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Cervam agita arcubus et decipulis lepores.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since pentameter is rarely seen alone, this should probably be completed into an elegiac couplet.&#xD;&#xA;For example (with prose translation):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Apte sic animal varium varie capiatur:*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cervam agita arcubus et decipulis lepores.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Varying animals should be captured in various ways like this:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hunt deer with bows and rabbits with snares.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1690" RevisionGUID="49bd9aff-ea76-416f-bb3c-ee37c0e3ac5d" CreationDate="2016-10-06T15:34:17.547" UserId="886" Comment="updated question to clarify work done" Text="I've been trying to translate the following phrase into latin: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hunt deer with bows, with snares: rabbits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With my limited grasp of Latin, I have come to this result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Vēnāre cervas arcubus, dēcipulīs leporēs &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     [&lt;imp&gt; &lt;acc&gt;  &lt;abl&gt; ]&lt;&lt;[&lt;abl&gt;    &lt;acc&gt; ]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     hunt   deer   bow    , snare     rabbit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've mainly used [Wikipedia: Latin declensions][1] to decide which form to use, [Wordhippo][2] and [Google translate][3] to decide which words to use, and [Wiktionary][4] to find the proper declensions and conjugations of the words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now my question is, is it okay and proper form, and is it clear what is meant if the verb is implicitly reused by tacking on another clause without a predicate, or is that more of a germanic thing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#Meanings_and_functions_of_the_various_cases &quot;Wikipedia: Latin Declensions&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wordhippo.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://translate.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.wiktionary.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1692" RevisionGUID="2a17aef5-7b37-443b-8bf6-27ea207bd5ec" CreationDate="2016-10-06T18:44:39.793" UserId="40" Text="In Ovid *Amores* 3.9, the elegy for Tibullus, we read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flebilis indignos, Elegeiia, solve capillos!  &#xD;&#xA;a! nimis ex vero nunc tibi nomen erit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My literal translation: &quot;Tearful, loosen your undeserving hair, Elegy! Ah! Now you will have too true a name.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what does the second line mean? Why will Elegy's name be &quot;too true&quot; after Tibullus's death? Or am I mistranslating?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6427" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1692" RevisionGUID="2a17aef5-7b37-443b-8bf6-27ea207bd5ec" CreationDate="2016-10-06T18:44:39.793" UserId="40" Text="Ovid: &quot;nimis ex vero nunc tibi nomen erit&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6428" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1692" RevisionGUID="2a17aef5-7b37-443b-8bf6-27ea207bd5ec" CreationDate="2016-10-06T18:44:39.793" UserId="40" Text="|ovidius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1692" RevisionGUID="2b06afdf-f25d-49ad-8cbd-ec5e640f6218" CreationDate="2016-10-06T18:58:29.427" UserId="40" Comment="added 234 characters in body" Text="In Ovid *Amores* 3.9, the elegy for Tibullus, we read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flebilis indignos, Elegeiia, solve capillos!  &#xD;&#xA;a! nimis ex vero nunc tibi nomen erit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My literal translation: &quot;Tearful, loosen your undeserving hair, Elegy! Ah! Now you will have too true a name.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what does the second line mean? Why will Elegy's name be &quot;too true&quot; after Tibullus's death? Or am I mistranslating?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My only guess is that this is a pun relating *elegia* to *ē* &quot;away&quot; + *lego* &quot;gather, collect&quot;, i.e. Elegy's hair will be uncollected/dishevelled and thus make her name true in more than one sense, but this seems a bit farfetched." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6430" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1692" RevisionGUID="53c4452f-ed3d-4d9b-98a7-fb6098581dbc" CreationDate="2016-10-06T20:46:38.690" UserId="40" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|ovidius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1692" RevisionGUID="a7997037-2031-4d4f-a4ea-a5f149e546e4" CreationDate="2016-10-06T23:27:08.240" UserId="40" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="In Ovid *Amores* 3.9, the elegy for Tibullus, we read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flebilis indignos, Elegeiia, solve capillos!  &#xD;&#xA;a! nimis ex vero nunc tibi nomen erit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My literal translation: &quot;Tearful, loosen your undeserving hair, Elegy! Ah! Now you will have too true a name.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what does the second line mean? Why will Elegy's name be &quot;too true&quot; after Tibullus's death? Or am I mistranslating?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My only guess is that this is a pun relating *elegia* to *e* &quot;away&quot; + *lego* &quot;gather, collect&quot;, i.e. Elegy's hair will be uncollected/dishevelled and thus make her name true in more than one sense, but this seems a bit farfetched. Or maybe the pun is on *elegans*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1692" RevisionGUID="6cf6dead-bf8a-476b-bfcc-9eec539c7206" CreationDate="2016-10-06T23:35:55.173" UserId="886" Comment="add a link to the text" Text="In [Ovid *Amores* 3.9, the elegy for Tibullus][1], we read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flebilis indignos, Elegeiia, solve capillos!  &#xD;&#xA;a! nimis ex vero nunc tibi nomen erit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My literal translation: &quot;Tearful, loosen your undeserving hair, Elegy! Ah! Now you will have too true a name.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what does the second line mean? Why will Elegy's name be &quot;too true&quot; after Tibullus's death? Or am I mistranslating?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My only guess is that this is a pun relating *elegia* to *e* &quot;away&quot; + *lego* &quot;gather, collect&quot;, i.e. Elegy's hair will be uncollected/dishevelled and thus make her name true in more than one sense, but this seems a bit farfetched. Or maybe the pun is on *elegans*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/ovid/lboo/lboo51.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6435" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1692" RevisionGUID="6cf6dead-bf8a-476b-bfcc-9eec539c7206" CreationDate="2016-10-06T23:35:55.173" Comment="Proposed by 886 approved by 40 edit id of 139" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1692" RevisionGUID="2e63f21a-f682-4179-8055-59f4aeeadd75" CreationDate="2016-10-06T23:36:50.403" UserId="40" Comment="deleted 291 characters in body" Text="In [Ovid *Amores* 3.9, the elegy for Tibullus][1], we read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flebilis indignos, Elegeiia, solve capillos!  &#xD;&#xA;a! nimis ex vero nunc tibi nomen erit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My literal translation: &quot;Tearful, loosen your undeserving hair, Elegy! Ah! Now you will have too true a name.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what does the second line mean? Why will Elegy's name be &quot;too true&quot; after Tibullus's death? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/ovid/lboo/lboo51.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6438" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1692" RevisionGUID="5941360b-b71b-428d-93da-2dd1a71d7533" CreationDate="2016-10-07T07:47:31.120" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|translation|poetry|ovidius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1694" RevisionGUID="f605ce7f-6876-4fc2-b662-6b938c348719" CreationDate="2016-10-07T11:57:35.767" UserDisplayName="user786" Text="Elegeia was said to come from ἔλεγος, meaning &quot;lament&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tibullus's pun is that now she will cry so much that she will really be Lament." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1695" RevisionGUID="c6b4624b-5f24-44b6-b3d4-3a93e1390ad1" CreationDate="2016-10-07T13:37:07.237" UserId="778" Text="As long as the adjective matches its noun in case, number, and gender, is it possible to move the adjective anywhere in a sentence, even outside of prepositions and subordinating or coordinating clauses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6441" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1695" RevisionGUID="c6b4624b-5f24-44b6-b3d4-3a93e1390ad1" CreationDate="2016-10-07T13:37:07.237" UserId="778" Text="Can adjectives describe any noun in a sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6442" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1695" RevisionGUID="c6b4624b-5f24-44b6-b3d4-3a93e1390ad1" CreationDate="2016-10-07T13:37:07.237" UserId="778" Text="|grammar-choice|nuance|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1696" RevisionGUID="758e7f4e-fa2e-48fb-98a2-39d08f5483ba" CreationDate="2016-10-07T15:35:46.287" UserId="645" Text="That's a large question! Whole books were written on Latin prose composition in the days when it was taken seriously in teaching the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle, yes, you can do as you suggest, but there are rules and, unless you are very careful, you might alter the meaning significantly. For example, *Gaius hastam magnam fert* simply means &quot;G. is carrying a large spear&quot;, but  *hastam Gaius fert magnam* is &quot;G. is carrying a spear that is large&quot;, drawing more attention to the weapon's size; in *Marcus Juliam amat*, the verb is less emphatic than in *amat Juliam Marcus*. This also applies to prepositions, with *magna cum laude* meaning more than *cum laude magna*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, a word placed out of its normally expected position is somehow emphasised. This kind of thing is just the beginning of the many subtleties which must be understood in order to compose good Latin prose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Poetry is a bit more complicated, in that the rules of prosody must be observed at the same time, though the same sort of rule applies. Look at this (an elegiac couplet from Ovid's Fasti):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Filia consuetis ut erat comitata puellis / Errabat nudo per sua prata pede*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— and you will see what I mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1695" RevisionGUID="ab6b3e68-8549-4572-a492-a64ad9df8a3f" CreationDate="2016-10-07T17:39:16.237" UserId="778" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="As long as the adjective matches its noun in case, number, and gender, is it possible to move the adjective anywhere in a sentence, even outside of prepositional phrases and subordinating or coordinating clauses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1697" RevisionGUID="910f4758-b8e7-4b1e-a7e2-a5750454abe2" CreationDate="2016-10-07T19:08:39.250" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1698" RevisionGUID="09ab7b95-8f72-4f57-8927-40b3d50339b1" CreationDate="2016-10-07T19:08:39.250" UserId="79" Text="For questions related to use of Latin in academia, for example Latin phrases or diplomas. Notice that this does not mean Latin at an academic level of study, but rather Latin questions related to universities and other academic institutions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1694" RevisionGUID="a47bbb50-0294-4570-8b34-173741f0fc35" CreationDate="2016-10-07T20:50:57.413" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Elegeia was said to come from ἔλεγος, meaning &quot;lament&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid's pun is that now she will cry so much that she will really be Lament." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1699" RevisionGUID="e2ac5fb9-3395-42a3-9bde-510f107b05e5" CreationDate="2016-10-07T21:25:08.403" UserId="79" Text="Sometimes I hear people geminate consonants after stressed vowels in speech.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *am&amp;amacr;ta* might be pronounced as *am&amp;amacr;tta*.&#xD;&#xA;I have not heard enough to tell if this gemination is consistent for those who do it, or if it requires that the vowel is long, too.&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that this is not valid classical pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;But was this kind of elongation standard or acceptable pronunciation at some later point in time?&#xD;&#xA;Such gemination seems to happen in Italian: It sounds to me that *amata* has a long *-t-*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6449" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1699" RevisionGUID="e2ac5fb9-3395-42a3-9bde-510f107b05e5" CreationDate="2016-10-07T21:25:08.403" UserId="79" Text="Gemination after stressed vowel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6450" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1699" RevisionGUID="e2ac5fb9-3395-42a3-9bde-510f107b05e5" CreationDate="2016-10-07T21:25:08.403" UserId="79" Text="|pronunciation|language-evolution|italian|stress|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1700" RevisionGUID="604c8384-dd22-4e12-b383-31e6145e7b60" CreationDate="2016-10-08T00:12:38.660" UserId="40" Text="You're right that such gemination is not correct Classical pronunciation, and I believe the answer to your question whether it occurred in post-Classical Latin/Romance is no. Italian *amata* does not, at least in standard pronunciation, have a geminate; phonetically it's [ama:ta], versus e.g. *matta* [mat:a] with a geminate *t*. To the best of my knowledge, there are no instances of innovative gemination after Latin stressed vowels in the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, however, a related phenomenon which seems to have taken place in the prehistory of Latin, known either as &quot;the *littera* rule&quot; or &quot;the *Iuppiter* rule&quot;, both those words being examples of it. This is a highly debated sound change and the details are controversial, but basically, with certain words we see variation between a long vowel followed by a single consonant (*lītera, Iūpiter*) and a short vowel followed by a geminate (*littera, Iuppiter*). In most or all such words the vowel is in the initial syllable, which would have always borne the stress in earlier Latin (and in most such words the initial syllable is still stressed in Classical Latin), so it's possible that the gemination is related to stress. For a recent overview see [this handout by Michael Weiss](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/53af/78a3d478a861eadf35445c8051f7db2ca612.pdf)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1700" RevisionGUID="66a73192-30d0-4394-99d7-18c0d89ff01d" CreationDate="2016-10-08T00:22:23.787" UserId="40" Comment="added raddoppiamento sintattico" Text="You're right that such gemination is not correct Classical pronunciation, and I believe the answer to your question whether it occurred in post-Classical Latin/Romance is no. Italian *amata* does not, at least in standard pronunciation, have a geminate; phonetically it's [ama:ta], versus e.g. *matta* [mat:a] with a geminate *t*. To the best of my knowledge, there are no instances of innovative gemination after Latin stressed vowels in the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, however, a related phenomenon which seems to have taken place in the prehistory of Latin, known either as &quot;the *littera* rule&quot; or &quot;the *Iuppiter* rule&quot;, both those words being examples of it. This is a highly debated sound change and the details are controversial, but basically, with certain words we see variation between a long vowel followed by a single consonant (*lītera, Iūpiter*) and a short vowel followed by a geminate (*littera, Iuppiter*). In most or all such words the vowel is in the initial syllable, which would have always borne the stress in earlier Latin (and in most such words the initial syllable is still stressed in Classical Latin), so it's possible that the gemination is related to stress. For a recent overview see [this handout by Michael Weiss](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/53af/78a3d478a861eadf35445c8051f7db2ca612.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another somewhat similar, though definitely post-Latin, phenomenon is so-called *raddoppiamento sintattico* (syntactic gemination) in Italian. This doubles the initial consonant of a word when the preceding word ends in a stressed vowel: e.g. in  *parlò **b**ene* &quot;he spoke well&quot; the *b* is geminated, but not in *parlo bene* &quot;I speak well&quot; where the preceding *o* is unstressed. But this is an Italian development, not an inheritance from Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1671" RevisionGUID="67cf6a1d-4f53-46c0-ba45-c5f0069d6a05" CreationDate="2016-10-08T07:22:59.433" UserDisplayName="user786" Comment="clarify" Text="According to Ernout's Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue latine, *reus* properly means &quot;he who is related to the *res*&quot;, with *res* meaning *object (contended in this court case)*. Originally the word meant &quot;the defender in a court case&quot; or also &quot;the accused one&quot;; only later it came to the meaning of &quot;guilty&quot; (accused &gt; suspected of being guilty &gt; guilty) which is carried on by Romance languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1665" RevisionGUID="9e17f85c-79b4-4186-811e-d20fd86eaa00" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:41:52.500" UserId="79" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="How can one translate the Finnish phrase &quot;elämä kantaa&quot; or &quot;elämä voittaa&quot; to Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The literal English translations are &quot;life carries&quot; and &quot;life wins&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The first phrase means roughly &quot;even in hard times life will carry you forward&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The most similar English saying I know is &quot;life will prevail&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to offer my condolences in Latin with these ideas, how can I do that?&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good translation or a suitable Latin proverb?&#xD;&#xA;I doubt the literal *vita porta(bi)t* would be good and understandable Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A friend of mine asked me this recently. I adapted the question to fit here and gave the answer I gave my friend below in case others are looking for this as well. I found this question in an online forum, too, but without a good answer. Other answers are most welcome.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(To make this easier to find, let me repeat the key question in Finnish: Miten sanotaan &quot;elämä kantaa&quot; tai &quot;elämä voittaa&quot; latinaksi?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1701" RevisionGUID="fa1e74f9-0383-478d-bb17-a6234082b647" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:43:21.160" UserId="79" Text="I would like to know how to translate the Finnish particle or adverb &quot;muka&quot; or &quot;mukamas&quot; into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Pitkäranta's Finnish&amp;ndash;Latin&amp;ndash;Finnish dictionary offers the translations *ut dicitur*, *specie* and *per speciem*.&#xD;&#xA;These translations are often fine, but I do not think they entirely capture the spirit of the Finnish word.&#xD;&#xA;Which other expressions or structures should I keep in mind when translating &quot;muka&quot; to Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The reason I ask this question for a Finnish word is that I know no close equivalent in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically &quot;muka&quot; adds a doubtful or condescending tone, or expresses that the speaker disagrees with others' claims.&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples of sentences with and without &quot;muka&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Hän oli kiireinen. / Hän oli muka kiireinen.  &#xD;&#xA;He was busy. / He claimed he was busy. (He was not really busy.)&#xD;&#xA;- Hän oli rikospaikalla. / Hän oli muka rikospaikalla.  &#xD;&#xA;He was at the crime scene. / He was allegedly at the crime scene. (He was not really there.)&#xD;&#xA;- Muukalaiset ovat vierailleet Maapallolla. / Muukalaiset ovat muka vierailleet Maapallolla.  &#xD;&#xA;Aliens have visited the Earth. / Aliens have supposedly visited the Earth. (But we all know they have not.)&#xD;&#xA;- Mitä sinä olet tehnyt? / Mitä sinä olet muka tehnyt?  &#xD;&#xA;What have you done? / Have you done anything? Do you think you have done something? (You haven't done anything although you claim otherwise!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do ask for clarification if needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(To make this easier to find, let me repeat the key question in Finnish: Miten sanotaan &quot;muka&quot; tai &quot;mukamas&quot; latinaksi?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6456" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1701" RevisionGUID="fa1e74f9-0383-478d-bb17-a6234082b647" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:43:21.160" UserId="79" Text="How to translate &quot;muka&quot; to Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6457" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1701" RevisionGUID="fa1e74f9-0383-478d-bb17-a6234082b647" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:43:21.160" UserId="79" Text="|translation|vocabulary|finnish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1702" RevisionGUID="fa5f9549-d2e8-4719-b890-08033403b35b" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:44:26.567" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1703" RevisionGUID="bb27dbaa-286d-4765-be7d-24f20943ac3c" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:44:26.567" UserId="79" Text="For questions related to Finnish. Note that questions solely about Finnish are off-topic, since all questions should be related to Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1704" RevisionGUID="71cbd03e-cbd3-4aa7-a3e7-ea5233d169ef" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:46:55.787" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1705" RevisionGUID="528e48e1-b913-4e79-be80-8b85323c9ff9" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:46:55.787" UserId="79" Text="For questions about adjectives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1706" RevisionGUID="04abe278-7fed-4628-a9ab-1786294f588b" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:47:28.827" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1707" RevisionGUID="b10efe9e-4ee7-4b9e-9e71-f3232b3da6b2" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:47:28.827" UserId="79" Text="For questions about the genitive case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1708" RevisionGUID="5db1da79-6743-4289-8146-18c1d7d24e15" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:47:56.627" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1709" RevisionGUID="01385ab6-613c-404e-a1f5-3f9ba5f62848" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:47:56.627" UserId="79" Text="For questions about morphology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1710" RevisionGUID="329cb55b-f0f2-4df1-aeca-4b661936f21d" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:48:41.083" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1711" RevisionGUID="2bec6ff5-2676-42ff-930e-6ba5a3064ad2" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:48:41.083" UserId="79" Text="For questions about the ablative case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1712" RevisionGUID="adfa770a-8385-4472-b61b-beb6ec349ead" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:49:22.557" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1713" RevisionGUID="90bde5f4-08a5-4c2e-a3dd-93c6d98ea49a" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:49:22.557" UserId="79" Text="For questions about the mood known as conjunctive or subjunctive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1714" RevisionGUID="05def088-981a-44e0-87a5-217093dd5972" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:50:20.810" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1715" RevisionGUID="2d692a60-c2d7-46c5-9d25-82bbadaa792b" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:50:20.810" UserId="79" Text="For questions about the epic Aeneis by Vergilius (Aeneid by Vergil)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1716" RevisionGUID="ebc75df3-5564-4d26-abf4-249ae3f10785" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:51:26.680" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1717" RevisionGUID="cbd80562-05a6-4a9f-bd4c-4353c7300a4d" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:51:26.680" UserId="79" Text="For questions about the dative case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1718" RevisionGUID="738c6e43-c061-429e-a9bc-808b2bd38524" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:53:38.683" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1719" RevisionGUID="4de7dc69-8d68-4b9a-b8d0-98b173b50f7c" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:53:38.683" UserId="79" Text="For questions about gerunds (not to be confused with gerundives)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1720" RevisionGUID="952a944e-6f75-40f3-95e4-dc2e8ec3404a" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:54:02.520" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1721" RevisionGUID="4810ec77-42af-4e09-984d-515b9fd2557b" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:54:02.520" UserId="79" Text="For questions about gerundives (not to be confused with gerunds)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1722" RevisionGUID="051be0be-253b-4c0d-8818-75c72fe74c9c" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:55:37.077" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1723" RevisionGUID="47c6c8f0-cd18-4182-8a9c-85abd970da5b" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:55:37.077" UserId="79" Text="For questions about conjugating Latin verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1724" RevisionGUID="bcebb4ff-6fb9-46f4-8fe5-6768de82004e" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:58:27.943" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1725" RevisionGUID="89cc415c-33f5-42f6-9260-1de6997cc712" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:58:27.943" UserId="79" Text="For questions about the locative case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1726" RevisionGUID="9ff12d2d-d8bb-483f-aa0d-dd569eba54e8" CreationDate="2016-10-09T00:00:08.897" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1727" RevisionGUID="3d0aeac3-c83e-48e2-b5a7-349c971eac5c" CreationDate="2016-10-09T00:00:08.897" UserId="79" Text="For questions about the vocative case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1728" RevisionGUID="443f863d-4aab-4ac0-b8c5-a3ee1db6c797" CreationDate="2016-10-09T00:00:42.387" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1729" RevisionGUID="cd299a02-4c16-4056-87aa-6a261940b57e" CreationDate="2016-10-09T00:00:42.387" UserId="79" Text="For questions about the imperative mood used for orders." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1730" RevisionGUID="b265ac2d-fd67-4646-90f6-38900233638e" CreationDate="2016-10-09T00:02:45.203" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1731" RevisionGUID="63df5cac-0dc4-4c5e-b8db-68498243bf72" CreationDate="2016-10-09T00:02:45.203" UserId="79" Text="For questions about the accusative case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1732" RevisionGUID="9d78766a-0b32-4d7b-b681-ff4a56f54120" CreationDate="2016-10-09T00:04:10.147" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1733" RevisionGUID="c9702c4e-d5e0-4ab3-823d-5a318dee5b17" CreationDate="2016-10-09T00:04:10.147" UserId="79" Text="For questions about the works of Titus Lucretius Carus (ca. 99–55 BC)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1734" RevisionGUID="748e3553-f33c-4cd9-8c71-47b3a6eb2b81" CreationDate="2016-10-09T00:06:54.010" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1735" RevisionGUID="2ef46837-e6e4-439d-ad36-aa43234f61ac" CreationDate="2016-10-09T00:06:54.010" UserId="79" Text="For questions about the works of Augustinus Hipponensis or Augustine of Hippo (ca. 354–430 AD)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1736" RevisionGUID="00f866b5-20fd-4522-bd81-09a7ec4aa9fa" CreationDate="2016-10-09T00:08:57.083" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1737" RevisionGUID="5e205eb1-7df8-4bea-a574-75fb44f3c496" CreationDate="2016-10-09T00:08:57.083" UserId="79" Text="For questions about the works of Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (ca. 69–122 AD)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1738" RevisionGUID="09525cd9-b125-46c7-bfbd-d724dc888ed1" CreationDate="2016-10-09T00:57:17.293" UserId="522" Text="***Scilicet .2. ironically***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As much space in Smiths is given to the ironical use 'forsooth,' 'you may be sure,' as to the simple emphatic particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When used in this sense ***Sc.*** is sometimes placed first and immediately followed by the object of derision/ suspicion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Scilicet is omnino talia curat.* He really cares about such things. (meaning he doesn't)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Scilicet is spectabat impia scelerosaque facta.* This man, wink! wink! was there watching the wicked criminal deeds." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1739" RevisionGUID="3e55e4be-8f7e-4d0c-961d-38fc535cf45a" CreationDate="2016-10-09T09:54:53.017" UserId="574" Text="I've got a test tomorrow and I have to learn the list of ''Tempus praeterium''.&#xD;&#xA;The problem is, that I don't know what it means and where it's used for.&#xD;&#xA;Can anybody help me? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6496" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1739" RevisionGUID="3e55e4be-8f7e-4d0c-961d-38fc535cf45a" CreationDate="2016-10-09T09:54:53.017" UserId="574" Text="What does the ''Tempus Praeterium'' mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6497" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1739" RevisionGUID="3e55e4be-8f7e-4d0c-961d-38fc535cf45a" CreationDate="2016-10-09T09:54:53.017" UserId="574" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1134" RevisionGUID="1d9d2a42-4a12-47d1-85d5-27d07590b6bf" CreationDate="2016-10-09T09:56:56.583" UserId="574" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="The Latin language has been founded by a nation called the Latins. Check the information below [as quoted from Wikipedia][1]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latins referred originally to an Italic tribe in ancient central Italy. They were living between 1200 BC and 1000 BC. From about 1000 BC, the Latins inhabited the small region known to the Romans as Old Latium (Latium Vetus), that is, the area between the river Tiber and the promontory of Mount Circeo 100 kilometres (62 mi) SE of Rome. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this map you can see how close the Latins lived to Rome:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![Card Latium][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latins_(Italic_tribe)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ziFnD.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1740" RevisionGUID="aa534929-b032-40c2-b4c8-488f2fec9091" CreationDate="2016-10-09T10:59:22.807" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1741" RevisionGUID="be232145-2e26-4a20-af5d-5ea579ce7d21" CreationDate="2016-10-09T10:59:22.807" UserId="79" Text="For questions about deriving words from other words, like &quot;dictator&quot; from &quot;dictare&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6501" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1476" RevisionGUID="f5815dd0-fe20-4762-9d35-1d3ffe61f20e" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:01:31.343" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|language-evolution|derivation|adjective|noun|pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1742" RevisionGUID="b46c2cea-e81b-483d-acb4-06eddd8f007a" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:01:50.463" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1743" RevisionGUID="af47826a-eb65-4b3d-8218-9013246a7f38" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:01:50.463" UserId="79" Text="For questions about pronouns." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1744" RevisionGUID="de7f6c42-481f-4774-b782-02d102b8bf2a" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:06:03.243" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1745" RevisionGUID="a783b7f8-b9aa-4b83-ad86-358cac6f65bf" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:06:03.243" UserId="79" Text="For questions about comparing two or more words, not for comparative forms of adjectives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1746" RevisionGUID="f020dbd6-b34b-4950-ae17-59f3b435318f" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:07:17.990" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1747" RevisionGUID="3909f81d-c7a9-42bf-bd50-03ab3f2b6b75" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:07:17.990" UserId="79" Text="For questions about passive voice, whether morphology, syntax, or something else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1748" RevisionGUID="d837c23f-5b0a-401b-a7a3-a3de9bcdc6d5" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:09:11.903" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1749" RevisionGUID="dfbfdc96-2862-4428-805b-a696483bad40" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:09:11.903" UserId="79" Text="For questions about elision, a phenomenon that removes certain vowels at word boundaries in poetry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1750" RevisionGUID="56b0db8c-ed3c-429c-946a-e2326538086c" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:09:52.277" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1751" RevisionGUID="e27e28e8-b11f-42ef-a9f0-0b7baf1543ee" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:09:52.277" UserId="79" Text="For question about synizesis, or joining two vowels originally in different syllables into one syllable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1752" RevisionGUID="75728040-f3f1-4fe5-a912-1529da1eb1cf" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:11:39.283" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1753" RevisionGUID="ae861fbd-dd82-4c11-a7e1-6e02ad994b29" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:11:39.283" UserId="79" Text="For questions about scansion, or rhythmic reading of poetry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1754" RevisionGUID="5dbaadec-bf37-4530-8718-b84103c9ec97" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:13:02.200" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1755" RevisionGUID="0dbbc2bb-093d-420f-b53a-482d6e2ac7db" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:13:02.200" UserId="79" Text="For questions about irregular words of any kind: verbs, nouns, adjectives, and other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1756" RevisionGUID="23922166-1f31-4bf2-b8f7-65355e351d1c" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:13:46.803" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1757" RevisionGUID="bac2d055-a544-425c-abf1-89e051620eca" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:13:46.803" UserId="79" Text="For questions about grammarians, or people who have studied grammar. Not to be confused with tags related to grammar itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="422" RevisionGUID="46765ff8-7905-4973-ae66-6b5f14f24185" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:14:51.520" UserId="79" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="For questions about Quintus Horatius Flaccus or Horace (65–27 BC) and his work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1758" RevisionGUID="05015aed-fd58-4771-bc1b-a239bd2eef12" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:17:19.173" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1759" RevisionGUID="2fb9f598-9414-4c0b-b1ee-ca83a06721df" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:17:19.173" UserId="79" Text="For questions about nouns." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1760" RevisionGUID="349dc094-6d14-47d7-ba7d-39d35fa7f36f" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:24:38.097" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1761" RevisionGUID="72ec26cd-69d4-4a6c-8b15-3b694f5719ef" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:24:38.097" UserId="79" Text="For questions about the nominative case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6523" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="455" RevisionGUID="69457915-0ebc-4a0e-ba5f-3e47b5b93c1b" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:28:44.530" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6524" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1438" RevisionGUID="9155830f-61fd-44b1-bb15-6c220d7f37a1" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:12:18.097" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|language-evolution|adjective|derivation|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1762" RevisionGUID="fcad1077-224c-407d-a600-32a96b534834" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:13:12.427" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1763" RevisionGUID="1f0e30ca-31da-4781-99c1-79e55c6d2632" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:13:12.427" UserId="79" Text="For questions about etymology: the history of words in Latin or the change in meaning as the words are loaned into another language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6527" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1701" RevisionGUID="d049aa5e-bc1c-404f-9ec7-87c4f3522b9c" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:32:53.433" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|vocabulary|nuance|finnish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1764" RevisionGUID="2e876205-7ff5-4be3-9f81-64a5bead6a7e" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:54:23.030" UserId="79" Text="Sometimes people with little or no knowledge of Latin end up having or wanting to use it.&#xD;&#xA;I am typically willing to help and I have learned how to do it effectively with Finns.&#xD;&#xA;But how should I instruct native speakers of English?&#xD;&#xA;It might be in the context of singing a song or that of giving a speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, here is a random sample of Latin text and possible instructions that I would give to a Finn.&#xD;&#xA;You may use it or some other example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*Pompeius maritimos praedones consectando mare tutum fecit.*  &#xD;&#xA;1) Pompeius maritimoos preedoonees koonsektandoo mare tuutum feekit.  &#xD;&#xA;2) Pompéi-us marítimoos preedóonees koonsektándoo máre túutum féekit.  &#xD;&#xA;3) Pom-pei-us ma-ri-ti-moos pree-doo-nees koon-sek-tan-doo ma-re tuu-tum fee-kit.  &#xD;&#xA;4) Pompeius maritim&amp;omacr;s praed&amp;omacr;n&amp;emacr;s c&amp;omacr;nsectand&amp;omacr; mare t&amp;umacr;tum f&amp;emacr;cit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 1 is a simple one that is typically easy to read for most Finns.&#xD;&#xA;Latin words look to alien to many, and hyphenating all into syllables (3) is sometimes needed.&#xD;&#xA;For more advanced pronunciation (2), I would give the stresses and hyphenate for clarity when adjacent vowels are in different syllables.&#xD;&#xA;People who have studied Latin and remember how to pronounce it typically only require macrons and possible diereses (4).&#xD;&#xA;In the case of poetry I would of course take care of elision, and for a song I would not indicate prose stress but the one needed for the song's rhythm.&#xD;&#xA;I doubt these would be particularly useful formats for British or American pronouncers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When giving an answer, please tell if you have actually used the method and what your experience of it is.&#xD;&#xA;I am mainly looking for ideas that are known to work.&#xD;&#xA;Educated guesses are welcome but should be marked as such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6529" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1764" RevisionGUID="2e876205-7ff5-4be3-9f81-64a5bead6a7e" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:54:23.030" UserId="79" Text="How to instruct people fluent in English to pronounce Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6530" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1764" RevisionGUID="2e876205-7ff5-4be3-9f81-64a5bead6a7e" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:54:23.030" UserId="79" Text="|pronunciation|pedagogy|soft-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1765" RevisionGUID="8eb2f2e5-5b7a-49cb-95f6-a022ba7f6f1a" CreationDate="2016-10-09T15:57:34.783" UserId="778" Text="Do we have any evidence of the use of sarcasm to create humor/insults in Latin - that is, intentional stress changes of words in order to imply falsehood of the statement being made?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6532" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1765" RevisionGUID="8eb2f2e5-5b7a-49cb-95f6-a022ba7f6f1a" CreationDate="2016-10-09T15:57:34.783" UserId="778" Text="Did the Romans have sarcasm?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6533" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1765" RevisionGUID="8eb2f2e5-5b7a-49cb-95f6-a022ba7f6f1a" CreationDate="2016-10-09T15:57:34.783" UserId="778" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1764" RevisionGUID="5de22c0c-5810-491e-a15f-2b1d5dc7eea3" CreationDate="2016-10-09T18:46:40.407" UserId="79" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="Sometimes people with little or no knowledge of Latin end up having or wanting to use it.&#xD;&#xA;I am typically willing to help and I have learned how to do it effectively with Finns.&#xD;&#xA;But how should I instruct native speakers of English?&#xD;&#xA;It might be in the context of singing a song or that of giving a speech.&#xD;&#xA;The goal is not to teach Latin pronunciation in general, but to give sufficient guidance to survive a performance in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, here is a random sample of Latin text and possible instructions that I would give to a Finn.&#xD;&#xA;You may use it or some other example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*Pompeius maritimos praedones consectando mare tutum fecit.*  &#xD;&#xA;1) Pompeius maritimoos preedoonees koonsektandoo mare tuutum feekit.  &#xD;&#xA;2) Pompéi-us marítimoos preedóonees koonsektándoo máre túutum féekit.  &#xD;&#xA;3) Pom-pei-us ma-ri-ti-moos pree-doo-nees koon-sek-tan-doo ma-re tuu-tum fee-kit.  &#xD;&#xA;4) Pompeius maritim&amp;omacr;s praed&amp;omacr;n&amp;emacr;s c&amp;omacr;nsectand&amp;omacr; mare t&amp;umacr;tum f&amp;emacr;cit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 1 is a simple one that is typically easy to read for most Finns.&#xD;&#xA;Latin words look to alien to many, and hyphenating all into syllables (3) is sometimes needed.&#xD;&#xA;For more advanced pronunciation (2), I would give the stresses and hyphenate for clarity when adjacent vowels are in different syllables.&#xD;&#xA;People who have studied Latin and remember how to pronounce it typically only require macrons and possible diereses (4).&#xD;&#xA;In the case of poetry I would of course take care of elision, and for a song I would not indicate prose stress but the one needed for the song's rhythm.&#xD;&#xA;I doubt these would be particularly useful formats for British or American pronouncers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When giving an answer, please tell if you have actually used the method and what your experience of it is.&#xD;&#xA;I am mainly looking for ideas that are known to work.&#xD;&#xA;Educated guesses are welcome but should be marked as such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6535" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1765" RevisionGUID="569b05c7-32d8-4530-badb-5b3e2ddac506" CreationDate="2016-10-09T21:44:52.337" UserId="12" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[455],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:12,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nathaniel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1764" RevisionGUID="03ee0125-1efe-4192-9cd0-3ef6f1e45626" CreationDate="2016-10-10T08:00:38.577" UserId="79" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="Sometimes people with little or no knowledge of Latin end up having or wanting to use it.&#xD;&#xA;I am typically willing to help and I have learned how to do it effectively with Finns.&#xD;&#xA;But how should I instruct native speakers of English?&#xD;&#xA;It might be in the context of singing a song or that of giving a speech.&#xD;&#xA;The goal is not to teach Latin pronunciation in general, but to give sufficient guidance to survive a performance in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, here is a random sample of Latin text and possible instructions that I would give to a Finn.&#xD;&#xA;You may use it or some other example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*Pompeius maritimos praedones consectando mare tutum fecit.*  &#xD;&#xA;1) Pompeijus maritimoos preedoonees koonsektandoo mare tuutum feekit.  &#xD;&#xA;2) Pompéijus marítimoos preedóonees koonsektándoo máre túutum féekit.  &#xD;&#xA;3) Pom-pei-jus ma-ri-ti-moos pree-doo-nees koon-sek-tan-doo ma-re tuu-tum fee-kit.  &#xD;&#xA;4) Pompeius maritim&amp;omacr;s praed&amp;omacr;n&amp;emacr;s c&amp;omacr;nsectand&amp;omacr; mare t&amp;umacr;tum f&amp;emacr;cit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 1 is a simple one that is typically easy to read for most Finns.&#xD;&#xA;Latin words look to alien to many, and hyphenating all into syllables (3) is sometimes needed.&#xD;&#xA;For more advanced pronunciation (2), I would give the stresses and hyphenate for clarity when adjacent vowels are in different syllables (to make sure *suus* and *s&amp;umacr;s* are different).&#xD;&#xA;People who have studied Latin and remember how to pronounce it typically only require macrons and possible diereses (4).&#xD;&#xA;In the case of poetry I would of course take care of elision, and for a song I would not indicate prose stress but the one needed for the song's rhythm.&#xD;&#xA;I doubt these would be particularly useful formats for British or American pronouncers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When giving an answer, please tell if you have actually used the method and what your experience of it is.&#xD;&#xA;I am mainly looking for ideas that are known to work.&#xD;&#xA;Educated guesses are welcome but should be marked as such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1766" RevisionGUID="f7c44d64-28ae-493d-b455-cc1c530c29a8" CreationDate="2016-10-10T08:20:57.163" UserId="79" Text="Several [Latin names of modern countries](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1328/79) end in *-landia* if the corresponding English name ends in *-land*:&#xD;&#xA;*Islandia*, *Nederlandia*, *Irlandia*, *Thailandia*, *Finlandia* (also *Finnia*).&#xD;&#xA;England has a much older Latin name, and it is different: *Anglia*.&#xD;&#xA;I do not of any region name ending in *-landia* in antiquity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where does the *-landia* suffix come from?&#xD;&#xA;Is it related to Latin?&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that it is the Germanic word *land* used in names of countries and regions, adapted to Latin by adding *-ia*.&#xD;&#xA;Is there an alternative for *-landia* in more classical Latin style?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6538" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1766" RevisionGUID="f7c44d64-28ae-493d-b455-cc1c530c29a8" CreationDate="2016-10-10T08:20:57.163" UserId="79" Text="Is &quot;-landia&quot; good Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6539" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1766" RevisionGUID="f7c44d64-28ae-493d-b455-cc1c530c29a8" CreationDate="2016-10-10T08:20:57.163" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|contemporary-latin|suffixes|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1767" RevisionGUID="a3e8bf8f-21dd-47bc-9f65-48010f726453" CreationDate="2016-10-10T10:34:42.893" UserId="183" Text="The suffix -landia is definitely derived from Germanic land. It has no clear cognates outside the Germanic languages and there are some hypotheses that it is a loan from some pre-indogermanic European language and/or that there is a connection to the Basque language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see no better Latin alternatives for Islandia or Nederlandia, but Finnia is definitely good, and why not Thaiia with an -ia suffix? And wasn't Hibernia used for Ireland (the island) earlier?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1768" RevisionGUID="a4c4a623-d711-47ea-93cc-c9e2cc30857c" CreationDate="2016-10-10T14:02:07.080" UserId="645" Text="This is a kind of extension to the question about -*landia* as a proper way of forming a country's Latin name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correspondents, usually helpful, comment on my Latin syntax and, ever seeking improvement, I accept criticism gladly.  However, in translating English novels I find place-names a perennial problem. Often there is an authentic Roman source, — *Aquae Sulis*, *Eboracum*. Some places have an ancient name not bestowed by the Romans — some of which are in Bede's History, for instance — perhaps, latinised names of Saxon settlements, and so on. For fictional place-names I have usually used a simple termination (e.g. *Merytona* for Meryton in Austen's Pride and Prejudice).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have yet to find anyone objecting to any of the foregoing. A popular option when nothing else is available is to adopt the actual English as an indeclinable proper noun, but my own inclination is to form something from real Latin words, such as *Agnovicum* for Lambton, or *Mareporta* for Margate. To me these seem harmless enough, but they are the aspect of my translations that draws by far the greatest attention and, often, downright hostility. I wonder what any reader here thinks about this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6542" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1768" RevisionGUID="a4c4a623-d711-47ea-93cc-c9e2cc30857c" CreationDate="2016-10-10T14:02:07.080" UserId="645" Text="What are your views on inventing place-names in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6543" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1768" RevisionGUID="a4c4a623-d711-47ea-93cc-c9e2cc30857c" CreationDate="2016-10-10T14:02:07.080" UserId="645" Text="|contemporary-latin|place-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1768" RevisionGUID="898ea65f-c477-4a1e-ac1a-dfcc3c3906e1" CreationDate="2016-10-10T14:35:28.863" UserId="79" Comment="Added link to the other question." Text="This is a kind of extension to [the question about -*landia*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1766/79) as a proper way of forming a country's Latin name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correspondents, usually helpful, comment on my Latin syntax and, ever seeking improvement, I accept criticism gladly.  However, in translating English novels I find place-names a perennial problem. Often there is an authentic Roman source, — *Aquae Sulis*, *Eboracum*. Some places have an ancient name not bestowed by the Romans — some of which are in Bede's History, for instance — perhaps, latinised names of Saxon settlements, and so on. For fictional place-names I have usually used a simple termination (e.g. *Merytona* for Meryton in Austen's Pride and Prejudice).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have yet to find anyone objecting to any of the foregoing. A popular option when nothing else is available is to adopt the actual English as an indeclinable proper noun, but my own inclination is to form something from real Latin words, such as *Agnovicum* for Lambton, or *Mareporta* for Margate. To me these seem harmless enough, but they are the aspect of my translations that draws by far the greatest attention and, often, downright hostility. I wonder what any reader here thinks about this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6545" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1766" RevisionGUID="1a7bef2f-9c7f-4f30-ac33-ca827bcba1aa" CreationDate="2016-10-10T14:35:51.877" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|contemporary-latin|suffixes|etymology|place-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6546" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1328" RevisionGUID="00741182-d8f3-49bf-96b7-592fec55205c" CreationDate="2016-10-10T14:36:03.170" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|place-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6547" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1739" RevisionGUID="7e71f3d5-48a3-4ba7-87ac-e9239a63b330" CreationDate="2016-10-10T15:05:46.313" UserId="574" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1769" RevisionGUID="b626b6ef-61e8-4dcb-ac87-0c894b1ec655" CreationDate="2016-10-10T15:13:49.510" UserId="79" Text="When you write a story in Latin, whether translating or not, you have two goals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You tell a story.&#xD;&#xA;2. You use Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You want to do both well, of course.&#xD;&#xA;But there are situations where good storytelling and good Latin are contradictory goals.&#xD;&#xA;A place name should be easily recognized (goal 1) but preferably also a declinable Latin word (goal 2).&#xD;&#xA;I think the main problem is in finding a balance between these two.&#xD;&#xA;This balance also depends on the importance of the location for the story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even when places have pre-existing Latin names, it can be better to use the widespread version.&#xD;&#xA;For example, in some contexts I would prefer calling a certain city *(urbs) New York* instead of *Novum Eboracum*, just to make sure the audience understands what I refer to.&#xD;&#xA;I consider it unwise to always prefer style (goal 2) over communication (goal 1), but I would not go all the way to the opposite direction, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating names (like *Agnovicum* for Lambton) produces more Latin-sounding names.&#xD;&#xA;But they are difficult to recognize, and perhaps not that good classical Latin after all.&#xD;&#xA;Such &quot;compound place names&quot; are relatively rare in my experience.&#xD;&#xA;(Such names are very common in Finland, so Finnish place names translated directly to Latin have a visibly non-Roman flavor.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One option is to introduce the name in two forms and only use the Latin one.&#xD;&#xA;You might want to remind the reader a couple of times in the case of a longer story.&#xD;&#xA;The Finnish Latin news broadcast *Nuntii Latini* does this occasionally with people's names if my memory serves me well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An intermediate position between undeclinable original names and fully translated Latin names is to Latinize the names with a suitable ending.&#xD;&#xA;For example, you might want to treat the common ending *-on* in English place names as a Greek second declension neuter ending and inflect accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes you need to add or modify an ending, but I cannot really give a general rule of thumb here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most important rule I want to convey is this:&#xD;&#xA;Look for balance between the two goals.&#xD;&#xA;Forgetting either one is not good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1330" RevisionGUID="2e49f4a8-676b-4e60-9761-89d557b9966a" CreationDate="2016-10-10T15:17:32.777" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 126 characters in body" Text="**Update: Now with macrons!**&#xD;&#xA;(Macrons reproduced as in my source.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book *Clavis Latina II, grammatica &amp; exercitia* by Maija-Leena Kallela and Erkki Palmén (I advertised this series for self-study [here](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1218/79)) contains a list of many modern countries as an appendix.&#xD;&#xA;In my experience the series is well researched and reliable.&#xD;&#xA;Some countries have several spelling variants, but I don't think all options are included here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This book has only appeared in print in Finnish, so I will reproduce the appendix here in English.&#xD;&#xA;Each country is given three Latin words, in the order &quot;Finland, Finnish, Finns&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Eurōpa Septentriōnālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Finland: Finnia, Finnicus, Finnī&#xD;&#xA; - Sweden: Suētia, Suēticus, Suētī&#xD;&#xA; - Norway: Norvēgia, Norvēgicus, Norvēgī&#xD;&#xA; - Denmark: Dānia, Dānicus, Dānī&#xD;&#xA; - Iceland: Islandia, Islandiēnsis, Islandiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA;- Eurōpa Occidentālis:&#xD;&#xA; - The Netherlands: Nēderlandia, Nēderlandiēnsis, Nēderlandiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Belgium: Belgium, Belgicus, Belgae&#xD;&#xA; - Eire: Rēs Pūblica Irlandiae, Irlandiēnsis, Irlandiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Monaco: Monoecus, Monoecēnsis, Monoecēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Liechtenstein: Lichtenstenum, Lichtenstenēnsis, Lichtenstenēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Luxemburg: Luxemburgum, Luxemburgēnsis, Luxemburgēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - France: Francogallia, Francogallicus, Francogallī&#xD;&#xA; - UK: Regnum Ūnītum (Magna Britannia et Irlandia Septentriōnālis), Britannicus, Britannī&#xD;&#xA; - England: Anglia, Anglicus, Anglī&#xD;&#xA; - Scotland: Scōtia, Scōticus, Scōtī&#xD;&#xA; - Wales: Vallia, Vallicus, Vallī&#xD;&#xA;- Eurōpa Centrālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Austria: Austria, Austriacus, Austriacī&#xD;&#xA; - Latvia: Lettonia, Lettonicus, Lettonēs&#xD;&#xA; - Lithuania: Lithuānia, Lithuānicus, Lithuānī&#xD;&#xA; - Poland: Polōnia, Polōnicus, Polōnī&#xD;&#xA; - Romania: Dācorōmānia, Dācorōmānicus, Dācorōmānī&#xD;&#xA; - Germany: Germānia, Theodiscus/Germānicus, Germānī&#xD;&#xA; - Slovakia: Slovakia, Slovakus, Slovakī&#xD;&#xA; - Switzerland: Helvētia, Helvēticus, Helvētiī&#xD;&#xA; - Czech Republic: Tzechia, Tzechicus, Tzechī&#xD;&#xA; - Hungary: Hungaria, Hungaricus, Hungarī&#xD;&#xA; - Estonia: Estonia, Estonicus, Estonī&#xD;&#xA;- Eurōpa Austrālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Andorra: Andorra, Andorrēnsis, Andorrēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Albania: Albānia, Albānus, Albānī&#xD;&#xA; - Bosnia-Herzegovina: Bosnia, Bosniēnsis, Bosniēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Bulgaria: Bulgaria, Bulgaricus, Bulgarī&#xD;&#xA; - Spain: Hispānia, Hispānicus, Hispānī&#xD;&#xA; - Italy: Italia, Italicus/Italiānus, Italiānī/Italī  &#xD;&#xA;(Note that in Aeneis it is *Ītalia* for metric reasons.)&#xD;&#xA; - Yugoslavia: Iugoslavia, Iugoslavicus, Iugoslavī&#xD;&#xA; - Greece: Graecia, Graecus, Graecī&#xD;&#xA; - Croatia: Croatia, Croatus, Croatae&#xD;&#xA; - Cyprus: Cyprus, Cyprius, Cypriī&#xD;&#xA; - Macedonia: Macedonia, Macedonicus, Macedones&#xD;&#xA; - Malta: Melita, Melitēnsis, Melitēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Portugal: Portugallia, Portugallicus, Portugallī&#xD;&#xA; - San Marino: Rēs Pūblica Marīniāna, Marīniānus, Marīniānī&#xD;&#xA; - Slovenia: Slovenia, Slovenus, Slovenī&#xD;&#xA; - Turkey: Turcia, Turcicus, Turcae&#xD;&#xA; - Vatican: Cīvitās Vāticāna, Vāticānus, Vāticānī&#xD;&#xA;- Eurōpa Orientālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Moldova: Moldova, Moldovānus, Moldovānī&#xD;&#xA; - Ukraine: Ucraina, Ucrainus, Ucrainī&#xD;&#xA; - Belarus: Belorussia / Russia Alba, Belorussicus, Belorussī&#xD;&#xA; - Russia: Russia, Russicus, Russī&#xD;&#xA;- Oriēns Proxima:&#xD;&#xA; - Israel: Isrāël (gen. Isrāēlis), Isrāēlīticus, Isrāēlītae&#xD;&#xA; - Iran: Irania, Iraniānus, Iraniānī&#xD;&#xA; - Iraq: Iraquia, Iraquicus, Iraquiānī&#xD;&#xA; - Jordan: Iordānia, Iordānus, Iordānī&#xD;&#xA; - Palestine: Palaestīna, Plaestīnus, Palaestīnī&#xD;&#xA; - Saudi-Arabia: Arabia Saudiāna, Saudiānus, Saudī&#xD;&#xA; - Syria: Syria, Syriacus, Syrī&#xD;&#xA;- &amp;Amacr;frica:&#xD;&#xA; - Algeria: Algeria, Algeriānus, Algeriānī&#xD;&#xA; - Egypt: Aegyptus, Aegyptius, Aegyptiī&#xD;&#xA; - South Africa: Āfrica Austrālis, Austroāfricānus, Austroāfricānī&#xD;&#xA; - Kenia: Kenia, Keniānus, Keniānī&#xD;&#xA; - Libya: Libya, Libycus, Libyes&#xD;&#xA; - Morocco: Marochium, Marochiānus, Marochiānī&#xD;&#xA; - Namibia: Namibia, Namibiēnsis, Namibiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Sudan: Sudania, Sudaniēnsis, Sudaniēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Tanzania: Tanzania, Tanzaniēnsis, Tanzaniēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Tunisia: Tunesia, Tunesiēnsis, Tunesiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA;- Asia:&#xD;&#xA; - Afghanistan: Afganistānia, Afganistāniānus, Afganī&#xD;&#xA; - Philippines: Philippīnae, Philippīnus, Philippīnī&#xD;&#xA; - Indonesia: Indonēsia, Indonēsiānus, Indonēsiānī&#xD;&#xA; - India: India, Indicus, Indī&#xD;&#xA; - Japan: Iapōnia, Iapōnicus, Iapōniēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - China: Sīnae, Sīnēnsis, Sīnēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - (South/North) Korea: Corēa (Septentriōnālis/Austrālis), Corēānus (Septentriōnālis/Austrālis), Corēānī (Septentriōnālēs/Austrālēs)&#xD;&#xA; - Malaysia: Malaesia, Malaesiānus, Malaesiānī&#xD;&#xA; - Nepal: Nepalia, Nepaliānus, Nepaliānī&#xD;&#xA; - Pakistan: Pakistania, Pakistaniānus, Pakistaniānī&#xD;&#xA; - Sri Lanka: Sri Lanka, Srilancānus, Srilancānī&#xD;&#xA; - Thailand: Thailandia, Thailandiēnsis, Thailandiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA;- America Septentriōnālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Canada: Canada, Canadēnsis, Canadēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - US: Cīvitātēs Americae Ūnītae, Americānus, Americānī&#xD;&#xA;- America Austrālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Argentina: Argentīna, Argentīniānus, Argentīniānī&#xD;&#xA; - Bolivia: Bolivia, Boliviānus, Boliviānī&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil: Brasilia, Brasiliēnsis, Brasiliēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Chile: Chilia, Chiliēnsis, Chiliēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Mexico: Mexicum, Mexicānus, Mexicānī&#xD;&#xA; - Peru: Peruvia, Peruviānus, Peruviānī&#xD;&#xA; - Venezuela: Venetiola, Venetiolānus, Venetiolānī&#xD;&#xA;- Australia: Austrālia (no further details given)&#xD;&#xA;- Terra Antarctica&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if there seem to be typos, declination aid is needed or something is suspicious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two third declension plurals lack a macron in the list: *Macedones* and *Libyes*.&#xD;&#xA;This can be a typo or, as I find likely, ancient adaptations from Greek where the plural nominative ending is *-e&amp;#x306;s*.&#xD;&#xA;Also, I would expect the *-o-* in the antepenult to be long in *Lettones* and *Macedones*, but his may be a misunderstanding on my behalf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The next appendix contains a list of cities of similar length, but that is irrelevant here.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1739" RevisionGUID="a5e7e771-5b45-44dd-805b-918a8aba265a" CreationDate="2016-10-10T16:17:51.480" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body; edited title" Text="I've got a test tomorrow and I have to learn the list of &quot;Tempus praeteritum&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The problem is, that I don't know what it means and where it's used for.&#xD;&#xA;Can anybody help me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6551" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1739" RevisionGUID="a5e7e771-5b45-44dd-805b-918a8aba265a" CreationDate="2016-10-10T16:17:51.480" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body; edited title" Text="What does the ''Tempus Praeteritum'' mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1769" RevisionGUID="2a78a32a-718c-409f-9ede-d1a42d8b6f1c" CreationDate="2016-10-10T16:24:02.670" UserId="79" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="When you write a story in Latin, whether translating or not, you have two goals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You tell a story.&#xD;&#xA;2. You use Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You want to do both well, of course.&#xD;&#xA;But there are situations where good storytelling and good Latin are contradictory goals.&#xD;&#xA;A place name should be easily recognized (goal 1) but preferably also a declinable Latin word (goal 2).&#xD;&#xA;I think the main problem is in finding a balance between these two.&#xD;&#xA;This balance also depends on the importance of the location for the story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even when places have pre-existing Latin names, it can be better to use the widespread version.&#xD;&#xA;For example, in some contexts I would prefer calling a certain city *(urbs) New York* instead of *Novum Eboracum*, just to make sure the audience understands what I refer to.&#xD;&#xA;I consider it unwise to always prefer style (goal 2) over communication (goal 1), but I would not go all the way to the opposite direction, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating names (like *Agnovicum* for Lambton) produces more Latin-sounding names.&#xD;&#xA;But they are difficult to recognize, and perhaps not that good classical Latin after all.&#xD;&#xA;Such &quot;compound place names&quot; are relatively rare in my experience.&#xD;&#xA;(Such names are very common in Finland, so Finnish place names translated directly to Latin have a visibly non-Roman flavor.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One option is to introduce the name in two forms and only use the Latin one later on.&#xD;&#xA;For example: *In urbe New York, quam Latine Novum Eboracum appellamus, &amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;You might want to remind the reader a couple of times in the case of a longer story.&#xD;&#xA;The Finnish Latin news broadcast *Nuntii Latini* does this occasionally with people's names if my memory serves me well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An intermediate position between undeclinable original names and fully translated Latin names is to Latinize the names with a suitable ending.&#xD;&#xA;For example, you might want to treat the common ending *-on* in English place names as a Greek second declension neuter ending and inflect accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes you need to add or modify an ending, but I cannot really give a general rule of thumb here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most important rule I want to convey is this:&#xD;&#xA;Look for balance between the two goals.&#xD;&#xA;Forgetting either one is not good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1766" RevisionGUID="4b965acf-3fde-4046-8182-e71f1de3472e" CreationDate="2016-10-10T17:35:30.127" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Several [Latin names of modern countries](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1328/79) end in *-landia* if the corresponding English name ends in *-land*:&#xD;&#xA;*Islandia*, *Nederlandia*, *Irlandia*, *Thailandia*, *Finlandia* (also *Finnia*).&#xD;&#xA;England has a much older Latin name, and it is different: *Anglia*.&#xD;&#xA;I do not know of any region name ending in *-landia* in antiquity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where does the *-landia* suffix come from?&#xD;&#xA;Is it related to Latin?&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that it is the Germanic word *land* used in names of countries and regions, adapted to Latin by adding *-ia*.&#xD;&#xA;Is there an alternative for *-landia* in more classical Latin style?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1770" RevisionGUID="5b18ec41-dba8-4e56-8ece-33716e9f895b" CreationDate="2016-10-10T18:15:22.363" UserId="235" Text="I was translating a simplified version of [Two Friends and a Bear][1], one of Aesop's fables, listed as [#65 in the Perry Index][2]. The text begins with the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Δυο φιλοι τη ὁδω τη εἰς την χωραν ἐσπευδον.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (My translation) Two friends were hastening by means of the road into the country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to know, why is the definite article τη duplicated in this sentence? You can see that there are two definite articles surrounding ὁδω (road).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Last I heard, Ancient Greek questions were kosher on this forum. Forgive me if I'm wrong, or if the rules have changed without me knowing.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=3jhwBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA62&amp;lpg=PA62&amp;dq=from+alpha+to+omega+a+bear+tells+all&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GRPbvgyYWE&amp;sig=l3xbdUhD2CBO5OWbGIw2GALXEWY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj27tr769DPAhUEgj4KHfB8AWUQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=from%20alpha%20to%20omega%20a%20bear%20tells%20all&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.mythfolklore.net/aesopica/perry/65.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6555" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1770" RevisionGUID="5b18ec41-dba8-4e56-8ece-33716e9f895b" CreationDate="2016-10-10T18:15:22.363" UserId="235" Text="Why is the Greek definite article τη duplicated in this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6556" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1770" RevisionGUID="5b18ec41-dba8-4e56-8ece-33716e9f895b" CreationDate="2016-10-10T18:15:22.363" UserId="235" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1689" RevisionGUID="49cf6497-5b67-469b-8bd9-4e2722d54764" CreationDate="2016-10-10T18:26:09.080" UserId="79" Comment="Added reference." Text="Greek also uses μή after verbs of fearing. I think it is IE inheritance. For example, see [the entry for δείδω](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.15:4:40.LSJ) in Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (1940)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1771" RevisionGUID="6a8b2c77-c6f6-4ac7-9673-6f535f044423" CreationDate="2016-10-10T19:08:52.703" UserId="30" Text="English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I followed the road to Sparta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This could mean two things, which will become clear if you add more context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Departing Athens I took the road to Sparta. I followed the road to Sparta for twenty minutes, until I came across a soothsayer's booth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means there is a road to Sparta, and I followed it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I departed Gytheion for Sparta and took the main road to Megalopolis. I knew that road passed by Pharis and Sparta, so I followed the road to Sparta and found lodgings in a sparsely furnished, uncomfortable inn (so I knew I had arrived in the right city).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means there is a road to Megalopolis, and I followed it until I reached Sparta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the former example, *the road to Sparta* is best considered a unit: the phrase *to Sparta* can be said to belong to *the road*, and not to the verb *followed* directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the latter example, *to Sparta* modifies the verb *followed*: it does not belong with the word *road* specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek, when you want to indicate that a certain phrase belongs to a specific noun, you can do this by repeating the article after the noun and before the phrase, as it was done in your text." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1772" RevisionGUID="cdc80a18-bf13-4578-9d2a-e4884a5476df" CreationDate="2016-10-10T19:49:28.787" UserId="30" Text="You want a partial answer? Very well, ecce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe some of those words were coined in classical times, but others (much) later. I also suspect that some were invented in intellectual discourse, often as direct translations of (equally abstract) Greek words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **qualitates** igitur appellavi quas ποιότητας Graeci vocant, quod ipsum apud Graecos non est vulgi verbum sed philosophorum, atque id in multis — Cicero, *Academica* 1.25.7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Qualitas* seems to have been fairly common from Cicero onwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Libanus:* Sicut tuom vis **unicum** gnatum tuae superesse vitae sospitem et superstitem, ita ted obtestor per senectutem tuam  — Plautus, *Asinaria* 16.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Unicus* seems to have been commonly used even in Republican times, such as by Plautus and Lucretius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nec statim diligentem putabo qui promiscua, quae epicoena dicuntur, ostenderit, in quibus sexus uterque per alterum apparet, aut quae feminina positione mares aut **neutrali** feminas significant, qualia sunt 'Murena' et 'Glycerium'. — Quintilianus, *Institutio Oratoria* 1.4.24.4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This grammatical term seems to have been in common use during the Principate and later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could not find any examples of *identitas* from classical authors, nor is the word found in *Lewis &amp; Short*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6560" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1267" RevisionGUID="b8272980-56f4-4e90-9aef-1d248c911b62" CreationDate="2016-10-10T20:28:35.210" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|history|origin|passage-request|bacon|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1773" RevisionGUID="f6e9037c-6481-4585-a056-c59390262016" CreationDate="2016-10-10T20:31:02.077" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1774" RevisionGUID="ffaf3ce1-edad-4b4c-8704-8c55f8f55ed7" CreationDate="2016-10-10T20:31:02.077" UserId="79" Text="For questions about the works of Francis Bacon (1561–1626)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1775" RevisionGUID="00f918d9-865c-4159-93cc-e4035069f6f3" CreationDate="2016-10-10T20:32:19.713" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1776" RevisionGUID="2f692b8f-8dff-4dc7-a261-ea6f8742ff1c" CreationDate="2016-10-10T20:32:19.713" UserId="79" Text="For questions related to history. Bear in mind that questions about only history are off-topic; there should be a connection to Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1777" RevisionGUID="a5ec8488-c0b9-4505-9b4b-c94f02169bf4" CreationDate="2016-10-10T20:34:09.323" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1778" RevisionGUID="cdc13276-1b89-44aa-8393-9c2981230d95" CreationDate="2016-10-10T20:34:09.323" UserId="79" Text="For questions about &quot;Bellum civile&quot; or &quot;Commentarii de bello civili&quot; by Caesar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1779" RevisionGUID="80b1fec7-0d51-4ae0-a506-a333cb4bfb50" CreationDate="2016-10-10T20:36:59.757" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1780" RevisionGUID="34908d32-af08-4032-ba47-0c1fd161a05e" CreationDate="2016-10-10T20:36:59.757" UserId="79" Text="For questions about grammatical gender." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1781" RevisionGUID="68dea5ce-17b8-479b-a9ee-ec486a62e689" CreationDate="2016-10-11T17:17:10.183" UserId="235" Text="I was reading Caesar's *De Bello Gallico 1.3.1*, and I was curious why he used the word *coemere* when *emere* also seemed possible; which got me wondering, what exactly is the difference between the two words? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; His rebus adducti et auctoritate Orgetorigis permoti constituerunt ea quae ad proficiscendum pertinerent comparare, iumentorum et carrorum quam maximum numerum **coemere**, sementes quam maximas facere, ut in itinere copia frumenti suppeteret, cum proximis civitatibus pacem et amicitiam confirmare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having been led by these things, and roused by the influence of Orgetorix, they decided to place together those things which pertain to departure, **to purchase** as great a number as possible of baggage animals and wagons, to do as much planting as possible, so that they would have a supply of grain available on the journey, and to make peace and friendship with the neighboring clans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if it's helpful or distracting to post my translation, but I thought it could provide some context. With that said, I'm curious why a compound verb like *coemere* exists when its meaning is so similar to its base word, *emere*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6570" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1781" RevisionGUID="68dea5ce-17b8-479b-a9ee-ec486a62e689" CreationDate="2016-10-11T17:17:10.183" UserId="235" Text="What's the difference between emere and coemere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6571" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1781" RevisionGUID="68dea5ce-17b8-479b-a9ee-ec486a62e689" CreationDate="2016-10-11T17:17:10.183" UserId="235" Text="|vocabulary|gaius-iulius-caesar|bellum-gallicum|compound-verb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1781" RevisionGUID="f29b7857-eb1e-429b-8751-ff860838f0ab" CreationDate="2016-10-11T17:24:50.573" UserId="235" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="I was reading Caesar's *De Bello Gallico 1.3.1*, and I was curious why he used the word *coemere* when *emere* also seemed possible; which got me wondering, what exactly is the difference between the two words? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; His rebus adducti et auctoritate Orgetorigis permoti constituerunt ea quae ad proficiscendum pertinerent comparare, iumentorum et carrorum quam maximum numerum **coemere**, sementes quam maximas facere, ut in itinere copia frumenti suppeteret, cum proximis civitatibus pacem et amicitiam confirmare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having been led by these things, and roused by the influence of Orgetorix, they decided to place together those things which pertain to departure, **to purchase** as great a number as possible of baggage animals and wagons, to do as much planting as possible, so that they would have a supply of grain available on the journey, and to make peace and friendship with the neighboring clans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm reproducing the text (and my translation) to provide some context, and I hope it's helpful instead of distracting. Anyway, I suspect that *coemere* might be an intensified form of *emere*, but if this is true then I'm not sure how it intensifies the meaning of the base verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1782" RevisionGUID="b11e3acd-f0d6-4591-a427-0c9ea0046f73" CreationDate="2016-10-11T17:39:00.383" UserId="79" Text="*Emere* would indeed be possible, but the prefix *co-* adds a flavor which suits this situation well.&#xD;&#xA;It is not intensified, but rather toned.&#xD;&#xA;I might translate *comere* as &quot;to collect by buying&quot; or &quot;to buy up&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;When buying everything needed for a long journey, I would use *coemere* instead of *emere*.&#xD;&#xA;Latin is redundant here: the fact that it is more *coemere* than *emere* is also indicated by the sentence as a whole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, you cannot make the same distinction in English as easily.&#xD;&#xA;Your translation with &quot;purchase&quot; looks good; the context conveys the meaning the Latin prefix *co-* does so there is no need in translating it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6574" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1781" RevisionGUID="fa43af10-2170-4be4-8edf-2ab142bf050e" CreationDate="2016-10-11T17:39:49.590" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="What is the difference between emere and coemere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6575" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1781" RevisionGUID="fa43af10-2170-4be4-8edf-2ab142bf050e" CreationDate="2016-10-11T17:39:49.590" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|vocabulary|word-comparison|gaius-iulius-caesar|bellum-gallicum|compound-verb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1782" RevisionGUID="12ab6e76-0ac1-4043-b2b3-ea5ed90c2ef1" CreationDate="2016-10-11T17:46:07.910" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="*Emere* would indeed be possible, but the prefix *co-* adds a flavor which suits this situation well.&#xD;&#xA;It is not intensified, but rather toned.&#xD;&#xA;I might translate *coemere* as &quot;to collect by buying&quot; or &quot;to buy up&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;When buying everything needed for a long journey, I would use *coemere* instead of *emere*.&#xD;&#xA;Latin is redundant here: the fact that it is more *coemere* than *emere* is also indicated by the sentence as a whole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, you cannot make the same distinction in English as easily.&#xD;&#xA;Your translation with &quot;purchase&quot; looks good; the context conveys the meaning the Latin prefix *co-* does so there is no need for translating it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6577" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1699" RevisionGUID="f4d0aa13-f2ca-4e39-a57e-a39d958eb8ce" CreationDate="2016-10-11T18:04:36.460" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|pronunciation|language-evolution|phonetics|italian|stress|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1783" RevisionGUID="6a159486-5949-4acb-9f37-f2c0d78b86ac" CreationDate="2016-10-11T18:12:34.473" UserId="79" Text="When traveling in Europe, I occasionally come across Latin inscriptions.&#xD;&#xA;Their ages vary greatly, and I would like to get some tools for quickly estimating their age.&#xD;&#xA;**How can I tell if an inscription is classical or later?**&#xD;&#xA;What should I look for in an inscription to decide whether it is classical or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great if you could show a couple of photos and tell about their &quot;dating signs&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I am not looking for a full scientific method to date an inscription, but a quick way to reasonably guess what is ancient and what is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think there is no simple rule of thumb, please explain why so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6579" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1783" RevisionGUID="6a159486-5949-4acb-9f37-f2c0d78b86ac" CreationDate="2016-10-11T18:12:34.473" UserId="79" Text="How tell when an inscription is post-classical?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6580" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1783" RevisionGUID="6a159486-5949-4acb-9f37-f2c0d78b86ac" CreationDate="2016-10-11T18:12:34.473" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|late-latin|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1784" RevisionGUID="849e79a3-97f5-415f-aab8-cf1da313fca6" CreationDate="2016-10-11T19:11:25.137" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1785" RevisionGUID="0a435716-3cab-4a50-8e87-c992b0de1ade" CreationDate="2016-10-11T19:11:25.137" UserId="79" Text="For questions about the third declension." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1786" RevisionGUID="879b49a2-0f31-4bbb-8074-d4524b08ff60" CreationDate="2016-10-11T19:11:46.500" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1787" RevisionGUID="19afb808-2d99-415a-8d52-bd25812e047f" CreationDate="2016-10-11T19:11:46.500" UserId="79" Text="For questions about the second declension." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1788" RevisionGUID="b4bf79b9-1d68-43c0-857d-f71ae738f5cd" CreationDate="2016-10-11T19:13:17.697" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1789" RevisionGUID="9932ce36-6d2a-49c0-8228-c1a5d552e7b1" CreationDate="2016-10-11T19:13:17.697" UserId="79" Text="For questions about vowel length." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6587" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1497" RevisionGUID="da640444-5d6c-4d9e-87c3-22a9b7ab3d83" CreationDate="2016-10-11T19:16:56.353" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|diacritics|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1790" RevisionGUID="57ceb05f-ea61-4dd5-b948-209d85f41534" CreationDate="2016-10-11T19:46:07.023" UserId="406" Text="So first, a point of terminology. In Latin, there are two tenses* which can be called the *tempus præteritum*. I'm assuming you mean the third principal part of your verb (*amāvī* or *habuī* or *cucurrī* or *audīvī*), also called the *simple past tense*, *aorist tense*, or *perfect tense*. Out of all these names, *perfect* seems by far the most common, and it's the one I learned in school. So I'll use that name here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin has a number of &quot;past tenses&quot;, but the perfect is the simplest. It's the one you'd use to say &quot;I went to the store&quot; or &quot;I saw the Pantheon&quot;. Often it doesn't imply anything except that the action happened in the past. So the easiest way to translate it into English is to use the simple past tense, *loved*, *held*, *hurried*, *listened*. You can also add a *did* for emphasis: I *did* say that!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When contrasted with the imperfect (the one with *-ba-* before the ending, like *amābat*), the perfect has one other meaning. It states that the action is finished, or that it was an instantaneous thing; either way, it isn't still happening. One way to translate this distinction is the simple past vs progressive past in English: perfect would be *the army fought*, imperfect would be *the army was fighting*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully that helps. I may have misunderstood the question; are you asking for Latin → English help, or English → Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_*(the other being the pluperfect /_ tempus plusquamperfectus, _but I've only seen that called the &quot;preterite&quot; once and it doesn't correspond as well with the English and German preterites.)_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1791" RevisionGUID="ea243401-b820-4d97-b857-674efbfb3537" CreationDate="2016-10-11T21:18:05.620" UserId="574" Text="The Latin expression ''Et cetera'' came originally from the Ancient Greek: they came up with a few expressions like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ''καὶ τὰ ἕτερα''  (literally: ''and the other things'')&#xD;&#xA;- ''καιὶτα τέρα'' (literally: ''and the other things'')&#xD;&#xA;- ''και τα λοιπά'' (literally: ''and the remainder'')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the answer on your first question: no, the Romans did not invent the expression 'et cetera', but the Greeks did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, there are many exhibits that the Romans used et cetera/et alii in speaking language. The 'et alii' is the most used form, but in the  newer Latin, et cetera became more popular. So in the time of the Roman empire, the Romans often used 'et alii', and rarely 'et cetera'. The image underneath, is from the book: *Aristophanous kōmōidiai: Comoediae in Latinum sermonem conversae (‎Christian Daniel Beck)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AH0YQ.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the writer used et alii, instead of et cetera." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1792" RevisionGUID="6950d159-4bb9-49b9-9fbb-06f30782ddef" CreationDate="2016-10-11T21:30:21.893" UserId="574" Text="I was reading a text from Hans H. Øberg, and I saw in the text the sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Noli dicere 'tatam' et 'mammam', Iuliola! Ea nomina a te audire nolumnus. Ita loquuntur parvuli infantes, nec sermo infantium te decet. 'Patrem' et 'matrem' dicere oportet!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence told me that 'tata' was the definition of 'father'. But didn't Roman children call their father ''pappa'? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, why did they say tata instead of pappa?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no, where does the name 'pappa' come from?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6591" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1792" RevisionGUID="6950d159-4bb9-49b9-9fbb-06f30782ddef" CreationDate="2016-10-11T21:30:21.893" UserId="574" Text="Why did Roman children call their father 'tata' instead of 'pappa'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6592" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1792" RevisionGUID="6950d159-4bb9-49b9-9fbb-06f30782ddef" CreationDate="2016-10-11T21:30:21.893" UserId="574" Text="|classical-latin|roman-culture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1792" RevisionGUID="f3970feb-0e98-470d-a022-86c72d2a4fff" CreationDate="2016-10-11T21:41:03.573" UserId="574" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="I was reading a text from Hans H. Øberg, and I saw in the text the following sentences: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Noli dicere 'tatam' et 'mammam', Iuliola! Ea nomina a te audire nolumnus. Ita loquuntur parvuli infantes, nec sermo infantium te decet. 'Patrem' et 'matrem' dicere oportet!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those sentences told me that 'tata' was the definition of 'father'. But didn't Roman children call their father ''pappa'? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, why did they say tata instead of pappa?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no, where does the name 'pappa' come from?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1792" RevisionGUID="1327dd85-5124-4d20-9627-67ad2a238f49" CreationDate="2016-10-12T00:52:45.633" UserId="40" Comment="fixed typo &quot;nolumnus&quot;" Text="I was reading a text from Hans H. Øberg, and I saw in the text the following sentences: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Noli dicere 'tatam' et 'mammam', Iuliola! Ea nomina a te audire nolumus. Ita loquuntur parvuli infantes, nec sermo infantium te decet. 'Patrem' et 'matrem' dicere oportet!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those sentences told me that 'tata' was the definition of 'father'. But didn't Roman children call their father ''pappa'? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, why did they say tata instead of pappa?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no, where does the name 'pappa' come from?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1791" RevisionGUID="1257bf75-24a0-41b4-a8b7-3df366a32961" CreationDate="2016-10-12T01:30:23.893" UserId="40" Comment="added accents on καὶ τὰ" Text="The Latin expression ''Et cetera'' came originally from the Ancient Greek: they came up with a few expressions like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ''καὶ τὰ ἕτερα''  (literally: ''and the other things'')&#xD;&#xA;- ''καιὶτα τέρα'' (literally: ''and the other things'')&#xD;&#xA;- ''καὶ τὰ λοιπά'' (literally: ''and the remainder'')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the answer on your first question: no, the Romans did not invent the expression 'et cetera', but the Greeks did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, there are many exhibits that the Romans used et cetera/et alii in speaking language. The 'et alii' is the most used form, but in the  newer Latin, et cetera became more popular. So in the time of the Roman empire, the Romans often used 'et alii', and rarely 'et cetera'. The image underneath, is from the book: *Aristophanous kōmōidiai: Comoediae in Latinum sermonem conversae (‎Christian Daniel Beck)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AH0YQ.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the writer used et alii, instead of et cetera." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1793" RevisionGUID="ad893a13-cb33-4540-8639-5fc14046e64e" CreationDate="2016-10-12T01:47:53.737" UserId="30" Text="Philippa (2003–2009) says about the Dutch word *graaf*, &quot;count&quot;, that it came from Greek *grapheus* &quot;writer/scribe&quot;, through Mediaeval Latin *-gravius*, &quot;royal administrative official, overseer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I wonder why people in Western Europe adopted this Greek word into Latin: where did it come from, where was it used, and when was it used? The following sub-questions might be relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From which Greek tradition was it adopted? Byzantium?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Did this adoption happen in Italy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- When was the word adopted into Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- When and where was it used in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Didn't this word compete with *comes* &quot;count&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Why does Philippa use a hyphen in *-gravius*: was it a suffix?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By no means does an answer have to answer all of these questions: any information about the adoption or use of *grapheus/-gravius* in Latin and its legacy would be appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N.B. Philippa says the word is not related to English *reeve/gerēfa*; although the English word probably did come from Greek *graphein* &quot;to write&quot;, it did so by another way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is part of Philippa's account:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wrsch. is dit woord in het Frankische gebied ontleend aan middeleeuws Latijn -grāvius ‘koninklijk bestuursambtenaar, toezichthouder’ &lt; Grieks grapheús ‘schrijver’, zie verder → -grafie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Een Frankische graaf was oorspronkelijk een beambte met alleen uitvoerende macht, maar sinds de 6e eeuw tevens voorzitter van de mallus ‘volksvergadering, rechtsbank’ (Lex Salica).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De betekenis ‘toezichthouder, bestuurder’ leeft voort in samenstellingen als → dijkgraaf ‘voorzitter van het bestuur van een waterschap’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omdat een koninklijk bestuursambtenaar een hoge positie en dikwijls ook een titel had, ontwikkelde de betekenis zich naar ‘edelman van zekere rang’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/graaf1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6597" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1793" RevisionGUID="ad893a13-cb33-4540-8639-5fc14046e64e" CreationDate="2016-10-12T01:47:53.737" UserId="30" Text="Mediaeval Latin adopted the Greek word 'grapheus' as '-gravius' (which led to Dutch/German 'graaf/Graf', &quot;count&quot;); where and when did this happen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6598" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1793" RevisionGUID="ad893a13-cb33-4540-8639-5fc14046e64e" CreationDate="2016-10-12T01:47:53.737" UserId="30" Text="|history|greek|origin|etymology|germanic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1793" RevisionGUID="656a7bf8-a2b3-4270-a55d-0b59bbffa16b" CreationDate="2016-10-12T01:53:55.877" UserId="30" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Philippa (2003–2009) says about the Dutch word *graaf*, &quot;count&quot;, that it came from Greek *grapheus* &quot;writer/scribe&quot;, through Mediaeval Latin *-gravius*, &quot;royal administrative official, overseer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I wonder why people in Western Europe adopted this Greek word into Latin: where did it come from, where was it used, and when was it used? The following sub-questions might be relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From which Greek tradition was it adopted? Byzantium?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Did this adoption happen in Italy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- When was the word adopted into Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- When and where was it used in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Didn't this word compete with *comes* &quot;count&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Why does Philippa use a hyphen in *-gravius*: was it a suffix?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By no means does an answer have to answer all of these questions: any information about the adoption or use of *grapheus/-gravius* in Latin and its legacy would be appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N.B. Philippa says the word is not closely related to English *reeve/gerēfa*; although the English word probably did come from Greek *graphein* &quot;to write&quot;, it did so by another way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is part of Philippa's account:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wrsch. is dit woord in het Frankische gebied ontleend aan middeleeuws Latijn -grāvius ‘koninklijk bestuursambtenaar, toezichthouder’ &lt; Grieks grapheús ‘schrijver’, zie verder → -grafie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Een Frankische graaf was oorspronkelijk een beambte met alleen uitvoerende macht, maar sinds de 6e eeuw tevens voorzitter van de mallus ‘volksvergadering, rechtsbank’ (Lex Salica).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De betekenis ‘toezichthouder, bestuurder’ leeft voort in samenstellingen als → dijkgraaf ‘voorzitter van het bestuur van een waterschap’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omdat een koninklijk bestuursambtenaar een hoge positie en dikwijls ook een titel had, ontwikkelde de betekenis zich naar ‘edelman van zekere rang’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/graaf1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6600" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1783" RevisionGUID="499b96b3-3669-4a3b-93b6-a9bc9a7ee18a" CreationDate="2016-10-12T03:00:55.253" UserId="12" Comment="edited title" Text="How to tell when an inscription is post-classical?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1794" RevisionGUID="5c382c8e-dcca-4a29-bfc0-6942cfb75a14" CreationDate="2016-10-12T08:44:17.017" UserId="79" Text="For reasons of rhyming I sometimes need to search for Latin words with specific kinds of endings.&#xD;&#xA;Translating songs to Latin is a hobby that seems to inevitably lead to this need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to search for third declension neuters ending in *-tus* (genitive *-toris*).&#xD;&#xA;Is there a tool that allows me to do that?&#xD;&#xA;Sufficient information &amp;mdash; nouns listed with their gender and nominative form &amp;mdash; exists in online databases, but I do not know how to make the search.&#xD;&#xA;I know I can [search for words ending in *-tus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=tus&amp;lang=la), but the amount of results is enormous and I would like to filter out the masculines." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6602" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1794" RevisionGUID="5c382c8e-dcca-4a29-bfc0-6942cfb75a14" CreationDate="2016-10-12T08:44:17.017" UserId="79" Text="How to search for neuters ending in -tus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6603" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1794" RevisionGUID="5c382c8e-dcca-4a29-bfc0-6942cfb75a14" CreationDate="2016-10-12T08:44:17.017" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|resource-request|dictionary|neuter|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1795" RevisionGUID="021567ca-85e0-4c78-af2d-d4be1ff22a36" CreationDate="2016-10-12T08:46:24.637" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1796" RevisionGUID="ed87cade-93c5-4eaa-a939-8b8d4bdfe1ff" CreationDate="2016-10-12T08:46:24.637" UserId="79" Text="For questions about neuter, one of grammatical genders together with masculine and feminine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1797" RevisionGUID="202c6dfe-9479-4435-971d-2d226c1ff5a6" CreationDate="2016-10-12T08:48:44.157" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1798" RevisionGUID="b3eb2caa-d732-428e-807b-d42f847b6572" CreationDate="2016-10-12T08:48:44.157" UserId="79" Text="For questions regarding origins of words, phrases, structures, and other things. Consider also using the tag &quot;etymology&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1799" RevisionGUID="cb3bf72b-9de5-4954-b7a6-99cbc5ead7e6" CreationDate="2016-10-12T08:49:22.283" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1800" RevisionGUID="0c7f3cfe-570c-4443-8b64-faf563d87eaa" CreationDate="2016-10-12T08:49:22.283" UserId="79" Text="For questions related to Germanic languages. The questions should be related to Latin, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6610" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1497" RevisionGUID="77959613-7a37-4041-a4a8-2df472124aca" CreationDate="2016-10-12T08:50:59.837" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vowel-quantity|diacritics|study-strategies|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1794" RevisionGUID="130c9f0a-11be-4f6b-a773-f4f933b34b17" CreationDate="2016-10-12T08:51:41.397" UserId="79" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="For reasons of rhyming I sometimes need to search for Latin words with specific kinds of endings.&#xD;&#xA;Translating songs to Latin is a hobby that seems to inevitably lead to this need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to search for third declension neuters ending in *-tus* (genitive *-toris*), like *litus* and *pectus*.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a tool that allows me to do that?&#xD;&#xA;Sufficient information &amp;mdash; nouns listed with their gender and nominative form &amp;mdash; exists in online databases, but I do not know how to make the search.&#xD;&#xA;I know I can [search for words ending in *-tus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=tus&amp;lang=la), but the amount of results is enormous and I would like to filter out the masculines." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1801" RevisionGUID="4a9dfd2a-ef5b-4fc0-8eff-1e88a278f6ed" CreationDate="2016-10-12T08:52:54.640" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1802" RevisionGUID="b1962b32-48a6-439a-9828-d5115e1f3f66" CreationDate="2016-10-12T08:52:54.640" UserId="79" Text="For questions related to all kinds of dictionaries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1803" RevisionGUID="8f6adb2e-84d4-43dd-a715-6c635d2fea32" CreationDate="2016-10-12T09:43:42.197" UserId="898" Text="My dad wants this translation. He took it from a book which I don't know the name.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; sed libera, mais delivre nous, sire, a malo, de tout mal et de cruel martire - pater noster, tu n'ies pas foulz Quar tu t'ies mis en grand repos Qui es montes haus in celis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6615" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1803" RevisionGUID="8f6adb2e-84d4-43dd-a715-6c635d2fea32" CreationDate="2016-10-12T09:43:42.197" UserId="898" Text="Can you please translate this paragraph?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6616" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1803" RevisionGUID="8f6adb2e-84d4-43dd-a715-6c635d2fea32" CreationDate="2016-10-12T09:43:42.197" UserId="898" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1804" RevisionGUID="267c9485-7a40-4ab6-a33d-6c30c054e0c1" CreationDate="2016-10-12T13:09:03.153" UserId="469" Text="The text is a mixture of French and Latin. The Latin part is just:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed libera, a malo, pater noster&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Deliver [us] from evil, our father*, an obvious quotation of the Lord's Prayer. The *us* (Latin *nos*) is omitted, but apparent in the French side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This essay][1] qualifies the whole text you cite as *macaronic* (i.e., an intentional mixture of languages, especially Latin and a vernacular). It comes from the High Middle Ages and according to the source is an irony writen in times of war, arguably blaming God for not delivering the outhor from the penalties of such hard times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=cblaBAAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PT155&amp;ots=5HrR5EpEwC&amp;dq=Quar%20tu%20t'ies%20mis%20en%20grand%20repos&amp;pg=PT155#v=onepage&amp;q=Quar%20tu%20t'ies%20mis%20en%20grand%20repos&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1805" RevisionGUID="01c20e5e-aeb4-4afe-907f-0704d0b8f4f9" CreationDate="2016-10-12T14:08:57.793" UserId="45" Text="I extracted the dictionary file from [Whitaker's Words](http://archives.nd.edu/words.html) (which admittedly has its flaws) while working on my (beta) [Latin-English Dictionary](http://www.latin-english.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though I still haven't developed many advanced search tools, I now have the luxury of running any SQL query I have a mind to. The following query returns 6 results:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    SELECT * FROM words WHERE part_of_speech = 'N' AND stem1 LIKE '%tus' AND gender = 'N'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* latus&#xD;&#xA;* littus (variant)&#xD;&#xA;* litus&#xD;&#xA;* pectus&#xD;&#xA;* tus&#xD;&#xA;* vetus (but only used in plural: *vetera* &quot;old times&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1804" RevisionGUID="965e7983-1d7a-45a7-bf28-16502f681b3f" CreationDate="2016-10-12T15:23:49.317" UserId="469" Comment="typo" Text="The text is a mixture of French and Latin. The Latin part is just:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed libera, a malo, pater noster&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Deliver [us] from evil, our father*, an obvious quotation of the Lord's Prayer. The *us* (Latin *nos*) is omitted, but apparent in the French side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This essay][1] qualifies the whole text you cite as *macaronic* (i.e., an intentional mixture of languages, especially Latin and a vernacular). It comes from the High Middle Ages and according to the source is an irony writen in times of war, arguably blaming God for not delivering the author from the penalties of such hard times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=cblaBAAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PT155&amp;ots=5HrR5EpEwC&amp;dq=Quar%20tu%20t'ies%20mis%20en%20grand%20repos&amp;pg=PT155#v=onepage&amp;q=Quar%20tu%20t'ies%20mis%20en%20grand%20repos&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1806" RevisionGUID="41848930-d1d5-4f55-aeb3-683eb1d0dc86" CreationDate="2016-10-12T19:08:07.173" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[1.1\. [consist in]](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/consist?q=consist+in#consist__9) = Have as an essential feature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[[Etymonline for **consist (v.)** :]](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=consist&amp;searchmode=none) 1520s, from Middle French *consister* (14c.) or directly from Latin *consistere* &quot;to stand firm, take a standing position, stop, halt,&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;from *com-* &quot;together&quot; (see [com-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=com-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + *sistere* &quot;to place,&quot; causative of stare &quot;to stand, be standing&quot; (see [stay](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=stay&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (v.)). Related: Consisted; consisting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This answer on ELU](http://english.stackexchange.com/a/193854/50720) advises that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the Classical Latin verb [*consisto*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consisto#Latin) already had definition 1.1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[2.] Lewis &amp; Short (see above) suggest that it more or less went from &quot;stand together, stand firm&quot; to &quot;be/exist&quot; to &quot;be in essence&quot; to &quot;be represented in essence in [a thing or quality]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My problem: I find 1.1 to have wrongly interchanged X and Y.        &#xD;&#xA;If I use 1.1 with nouns, then 1.1 means:   3. X **consists** in Y     &#xD;&#xA;⟷  X has Y as an essential feature.  ⟷  4. X features Y essentially.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I interpret **consist** as `stand` from Latin, then 3 becomes:     5. X `stands` in Y. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why does 5 mean that 'X features Y.' (per 4), and NOT 'Y  features X.'?  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6621" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1806" RevisionGUID="41848930-d1d5-4f55-aeb3-683eb1d0dc86" CreationDate="2016-10-12T19:08:07.173" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Does Latin 'consisto' explain how, in English, 'consist in' means 'to have as an essential feature'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6622" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1806" RevisionGUID="41848930-d1d5-4f55-aeb3-683eb1d0dc86" CreationDate="2016-10-12T19:08:07.173" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6623" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1806" RevisionGUID="85d5524f-4ae3-45f7-ac00-a72ce40ece85" CreationDate="2016-10-12T19:15:31.307" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="edited title" Text="Does Latin 'consisto' explain how, in English, 'X consists in Y' means “X features Y' and not 'Y features X'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1807" RevisionGUID="05314436-dc47-4e70-9537-04e0f8e8aed7" CreationDate="2016-10-12T19:34:47.643" UserId="235" Text="There are a couple words and phrases which are ambiguous to me in Caesar's *De Bello Gallico, 1.3.3.* I'll reproduce the text, here, which I got from the [Perseus digital library][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ad eas res conficiendas Orgetorix deligitur. Is sibi legationem ad&#xD;&#xA;&gt; civitates suscipit. In eo itinere persuadet Castico, Catamantaloedis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filio, Sequano, cuius pater regnum in Sequanis multos annos obtinuerat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et a senatu populi Romani amicus appellatus erat, ut regnum in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; civitate sua **occuparet**, quod pater ante **habuerit**;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For completing these things, Orgetorix is chosen. He takes it upon&#xD;&#xA;&gt; himself to be an ambassador to the clans. On his journey he persuades&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Casticus, the son of Catamantaloedes, a Sequanian, whose father had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; held sovereignty over the Sequanis for many years, and had been named&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a friend by the senate of the Roman people, that **he should seize**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sovereignty over his clan, which his father **had held** before;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ambiguities**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. It's unclear to me whether the subject of *occuparet* is Casticus,&#xD;&#xA;    or Orgetorix himself. That is, who should seize sovereignty? Is this made clear by context? &#xD;&#xA; 2. Should the verb *habuerit* be in the pluperfect, *habuerat*? Everything else describing the father is in the pluperfect, and it makes more sense here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate any help in clearing up these ambiguities — thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0002%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D3%3Asection%3D3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6625" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1807" RevisionGUID="05314436-dc47-4e70-9537-04e0f8e8aed7" CreationDate="2016-10-12T19:34:47.643" UserId="235" Text="Ambiguities in De Bello Gallico 1.3.3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6626" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1807" RevisionGUID="05314436-dc47-4e70-9537-04e0f8e8aed7" CreationDate="2016-10-12T19:34:47.643" UserId="235" Text="|specific-words|ambiguity|gaius-iulius-caesar|bellum-gallicum|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6627" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1807" RevisionGUID="00b4b80a-9bd9-4744-9705-4bc24d360e53" CreationDate="2016-10-12T19:38:40.147" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|specific-words|ambiguity|gaius-iulius-caesar|bellum-gallicum|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1808" RevisionGUID="0f15b89a-bf5a-4728-992e-2b915d2fa533" CreationDate="2016-10-12T20:04:46.907" UserId="324" Text="This is the most probable etymology of &quot;Graf&quot;. It was borrowed from Byzantine Greek at about the time of Charlemagne. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.dwds.de/wb/Graf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also this: http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/reeve-sheriff-en-vs-graf-grebe-graaf-greve-de-nds-nl-dk-sv.3016820/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1809" RevisionGUID="b3570d0a-349b-4dd1-8282-52c54398d421" CreationDate="2016-10-12T21:29:26.007" UserId="902" Text="I lack ample knowledge of Latin to piece together a proper equivalent phrase of the fallowing: Greatly fruitful, or Great bounty; in the context of referring to a food being very nutritious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what Ive came up with, are these accurate?&#xD;&#xA;Magnus frux, frux magnus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you to my answerers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6631" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1809" RevisionGUID="b3570d0a-349b-4dd1-8282-52c54398d421" CreationDate="2016-10-12T21:29:26.007" UserId="902" Text="Greatly fruitful in latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6632" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1809" RevisionGUID="b3570d0a-349b-4dd1-8282-52c54398d421" CreationDate="2016-10-12T21:29:26.007" UserId="902" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6633" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1809" RevisionGUID="7bf8c7f4-4f8b-41f8-9e07-9b4ba750f726" CreationDate="2016-10-12T21:41:18.883" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1803" RevisionGUID="88fa10c2-353f-433f-b7e9-7d7c993132cb" CreationDate="2016-10-13T01:41:07.563" UserId="898" Comment="added 376 characters in body" Text="My dad wants this translation. He took it from a book which I don't know the name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;13th century:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed libera, mais delivre nous, sire, a malo, de tout mal et de cruel martire  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this a prayer from 14th century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pater noster, tu n'ies pas foulz Quar tu t'ies mis en grand repos Qui es montes haus in celis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;=== EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I don't have any context for this. As I said, my dad took a photo of a page from a translated book and sent it to me. The book have these words left untranslated! I realised that this is a mixture of Latin and French (from Google translator) so that's why I posted it here, believing a person who knows Latin he/she may know old French as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1810" RevisionGUID="0dbb4853-088d-4683-b2c1-5f25f43f3967" CreationDate="2016-10-13T02:22:11.993" UserId="444" Text="This sentence depends a bit on context. Nothing grammatically precludes Orgetorix from being the subject of _occuparet_, but if he were then the _sua_ in _ciuitate sua_ would have to refer to Orgeterix, too. Orgetorix would be saying to Casticus, &quot;Since you father was king of _your_ clan, you should come be king of _my_ clan.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_habuerit_ is in the perfect tense because it took place before _persuadet_ while _occuparet_ is imperfect because it's at the same time. We use the pluperfect in English in this case (&quot;he persuades... that he should seize... because his father _had held_...) but that's just English. In Latin with the main verb in the present tense you choices in the subordinate clause are limited to imperfect or perfect subjunctive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1803" RevisionGUID="5971ba40-1578-4f35-9714-8f6d3509d341" CreationDate="2016-10-13T08:54:07.050" UserId="898" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="My dad wants this translation. He took it from a book which I don't know the name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;13th century:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed libera, mais delivre nous, sire, a malo, de tout mal et de cruel martire  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this a prayer from 14th century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pater noster, tu n'ies pas foulz Quar tu t'ies mis en grand repos Qui es montes haus in celis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;=== EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I don't have any context for this. As I said, my dad took a photo of a page from a translated book and sent it to me. The book have these words left untranslated! I realised that this is a mixture of Latin and French (from Google translator) so that's why I posted it here, believing a person who knows Latin he/she may know old French as well.&#xA;&#xA;=== Edit&#xA;&#xA;Apparently, if my dad has found it correctly, this is from Carmina Burana which by googling I found is an old manuscript " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1811" RevisionGUID="f991c25a-edeb-4b8b-ac94-3e082242c210" CreationDate="2016-10-13T11:20:30.573" UserId="645" Text="It's better to use single words of the intended meaning when they are available, as in this case, rather than invent phrases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*fructuosus* means actually yielding plentiful fruit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*frugifer* simply means yielding fruit, its superlative *frugerrimus* being virtually the same as *fructuosus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Very nourishing' is expressed by something like *maximi alimenti*, (roughly) 'of greatest alimentary value'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1812" RevisionGUID="e1b5ce91-c7cb-4d2b-8393-b0ca22f249b3" CreationDate="2016-10-13T13:57:09.293" UserId="45" Text="To add to the previous suggestions, the first word that came to my mind was [*almus, -a, -um*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dalmus), which Lewis and Short glosses as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **nourishing, affording nourishment**, cherishing (poet. epithet of Ceres, Venus, and other patron deities of the earth, of light, day, wine, etc.; cf. Bentl. ad Hor. S. 2, 4, 13).—Hence, genial, restoring, reviving, kind, propitious, indulgent, **bountiful**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's used, for instance, to describe *vites* (vines):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si deerunt, rarum pecorique et vitibus almis  &#xD;&#xA;aptius uber erit (Verg. G. 2, 233)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other complementary words are [*uber, -is*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=uber&amp;la=la&amp;can=uber0&amp;prior=aptius&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.02.0059:book=2:card=226&amp;i=1#lexicon), which means &quot;full, fruitful, fertile, abundant, plentiful, copious, productive,&quot; or [*fecundus, -a, -um*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfecundus), though these words are perhaps more appropriate in the context of living things than of food." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1803" RevisionGUID="bd87874a-aae2-407b-9854-7d75d86ea7bc" CreationDate="2016-10-13T16:09:40.420" UserId="840" Comment="grammar and other minor edits; link for Carmina Burana" Text="My dad wants this translation. He took it from a book which I don't know the title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;13th century:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed libera, mais delivre nous, sire, a malo, de tout mal et de cruel martire  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this a prayer from the 14th century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pater noster, tu n'ies pas foulz Quar tu t'ies mis en grand repos Qui es montes haus in celis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I don't have any context for this. As I said, my dad took a photo of a page from a translated book and sent it to me. The book has these words left untranslated! I realised that this is a mixture of Latin and French (from Google Translate) so that's why I posted it here, believing a person who knows Latin may know old French as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, if my dad has found it correctly, this is from the [Carmina Burana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmina_Burana), which by googling I found is an old manuscript." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6640" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1803" RevisionGUID="bd87874a-aae2-407b-9854-7d75d86ea7bc" CreationDate="2016-10-13T16:09:40.420" UserId="840" Comment="grammar and other minor edits; link for Carmina Burana" Text="Can you please translate these paragraphs (13th &amp; 14th century)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6641" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1803" RevisionGUID="bd87874a-aae2-407b-9854-7d75d86ea7bc" CreationDate="2016-10-13T16:09:40.420" Comment="Proposed by 840 approved by 469, -1 edit id of 140" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1803" RevisionGUID="6e2e0255-a498-42c3-92dd-cc2477f8761d" CreationDate="2016-10-13T16:09:40.420" UserId="79" Comment="Small improvements." Text="My dad found these two texts in a book whose title I don't know.&#xD;&#xA;For a guess of the origin, see below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;13th century:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed libera, mais delivre nous, sire, a malo, de tout mal et de cruel martire  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this a prayer from the 14th century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pater noster, tu n'ies pas foulz Quar tu t'ies mis en grand repos Qui es montes haus in celis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you translate these texts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I cannot provide more context for this. My dad took a photo of a page from a translated book and sent it to me. The book has these words left untranslated! I realised that this is a mixture of Latin and French (from Google Translate) so that's why I posted it here, believing a person who knows Latin may know old French as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, if my dad has found it correctly, this is from the [Carmina Burana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmina_Burana), which by googling I found is an old manuscript." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6643" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1803" RevisionGUID="6e2e0255-a498-42c3-92dd-cc2477f8761d" CreationDate="2016-10-13T16:09:40.420" UserId="79" Comment="Small improvements." Text="|translation|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6644" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1807" RevisionGUID="d66624e3-714c-465e-a49e-cfb189500fcb" CreationDate="2016-10-13T16:44:28.453" UserId="235" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|ambiguity|gaius-iulius-caesar|bellum-gallicum|praesens-historicum|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1813" RevisionGUID="03c5bf88-d817-4ba7-8bcb-dbd6512ed073" CreationDate="2016-10-13T16:47:10.187" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1814" RevisionGUID="5d4e0abb-1b84-477e-8444-3dd8fb30c597" CreationDate="2016-10-13T16:47:10.187" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1814" RevisionGUID="ea9dbcd5-d849-4635-9d4f-347f5d4567ab" CreationDate="2016-10-13T16:48:33.537" UserId="235" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="For questions about the historical present." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6648" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1814" RevisionGUID="ea9dbcd5-d849-4635-9d4f-347f5d4567ab" CreationDate="2016-10-13T16:48:33.537" Comment="Proposed by 235 approved by 79 edit id of 141" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1815" RevisionGUID="4303d42b-d3e5-4a82-a0e9-27dd45dab6f4" CreationDate="2016-10-13T17:07:45.453" UserId="293" Text="I'm looking for a Latin equivalent to the personification 'Mother Earth'. Does Matris Orbis or Mater Terram do the job? Do they translate in the same way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6650" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1815" RevisionGUID="4303d42b-d3e5-4a82-a0e9-27dd45dab6f4" CreationDate="2016-10-13T17:07:45.453" UserId="293" Text="Mother Earth in Latin - Personification" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6651" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1815" RevisionGUID="4303d42b-d3e5-4a82-a0e9-27dd45dab6f4" CreationDate="2016-10-13T17:07:45.453" UserId="293" Text="|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1816" RevisionGUID="f1c23881-e2f6-4575-9bea-0e51ba85a835" CreationDate="2016-10-13T17:46:37.890" UserId="79" Text="I propose *Mater Terra* or *Mater Tellus*.&#xD;&#xA;See [online Latin dictionaries](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) to see which word for &quot;Earth&quot; is more suitable.&#xD;&#xA;If you mean the planet as a whole, I suggest *Tellus*.&#xD;&#xA;If you mean the ground under our feet, I suggest *Terra*.&#xD;&#xA;The most suitable nuance depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin word for &quot;Earth&quot;, whatever you choose, should be in nominative.&#xD;&#xA;Here &quot;Earth&quot; behaves like a given name.&#xD;&#xA;Thus *Orbis* would be grammatically fine but I doubt it means what you want." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1817" RevisionGUID="21bf9d95-9b1d-47bf-a80a-0dbbdfe332ab" CreationDate="2016-10-13T18:11:50.590" UserId="469" Text="I see two approaches here: the literal and the historical one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. From a semantic point of view, your choice of words is mainly right, but as Joonas points, _[orbis][1]_ means primarily something round, and its assocaition (and meaning change into European languages) with the whole World derives from the fact that its use with _terrarum_ and _terrae_ (the roundness of the Earth, the round Earth) is rather common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Regarding the grammar, Latin noun endings change according to the function the fulfill in a sentece, hence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Mater Terra**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; is the way to put it as a stand alone name, in an English text, or as the subject of a sentence, but bear in mind that this might change if you want to go further. For example, if it is the object of the action, in Latin you would rather say/write _Matrem Terram_, if you are talking about something else that _belongs_ to Mother Earth you would go _Matris Terrae_, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. In case you want to stick to *Roman Mythology*, then Mother Earth as a godess actually has a proper noun:&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **[Gaea][2]** (equivalent to Greek [Gaia][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DO%3Aentry%20group%3D27%3Aentry%3Dorbis&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0104%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DG%3Aentry%20group%3D1%3Aentry%3Dgaea-bio-1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(mythology)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1817" RevisionGUID="058507dd-c0d8-48c0-af0c-1bc28b4a8bea" CreationDate="2016-10-13T18:17:05.020" UserId="469" Comment="typo" Text="I see two approaches here: the literal and the historical one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. From a semantic point of view, your choice of words is mainly right, but as Joonas points, _[orbis][1]_ means primarily something round, and its assocaition (and meaning change into European languages) with the whole World derives from the fact that its use with _terrarum_ and _terrae_ (the roundness of the Earth, the round Earth) is rather common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Regarding the grammar, Latin noun endings change according to the function they fulfill in a sentece, hence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Mater Terra**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; is the way to put it as a stand alone name, in an English text, or as the subject of a sentence, but bear in mind that this might change if you want to go further. For example, if it is the object of the action, in Latin you would rather say/write _Matrem Terram_, if you are talking about something else that _belongs_ to Mother Earth you would go _Matris Terrae_, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. In case you want to stick to *Roman Mythology*, then Mother Earth as a godess actually has a proper noun:&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **[Gaea][2]** (equivalent to Greek [Gaia][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DO%3Aentry%20group%3D27%3Aentry%3Dorbis&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0104%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DG%3Aentry%20group%3D1%3Aentry%3Dgaea-bio-1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(mythology)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1818" RevisionGUID="54b6bdc0-0c7f-4c42-bf7e-b60f8e952462" CreationDate="2016-10-13T18:52:44.323" UserId="9" Text="I agree with Joonas Ilmavirta's answer in that you want to use *tellus* or *terra* along with *mater.* But I am not sure which word order is more idiomatic in Latin. (It's true Latin word order is relatively &quot;free,&quot; but there are still tendencies towards using certain orders in set phrases.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A corpus search of &quot;[Classical Latin Texts][1]&quot; (prepared bt The Packard Humanities Institute) turned up the following sentence from *[Carmen Devotionis][2]*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Tellus mater** teque Iuppiter obtestor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this is an example of the phrase &quot;tellus mater&quot; being used as a single noun phrase meaning &quot;mother earth&quot;; however I am not a fluent reader of Latin so my analysis of the grammar of this sentence may be incorrect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other relevant results I found using this corpus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  primum, qui omnis fructos agri culturae caelo et terra continent,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iovem et Tellurem: itaque, quod ii parentes, magni dicuntur, Iuppiter&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pater appellatur, Tellus terra mater. ([Rerum Rusticarum de Agri Cultura, Liber Primus][3], &#xD;&#xA;Marcus Terentius Varro)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- seems to use &quot;terra mater&quot; as a title for Tellus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Terra mater est in medio quasi ovum	15.1 corrotundata, et omnia bona&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in se habet tamquam favus'. ([Petronius, *Satyrica* 39.1.1][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- seems to use &quot;terra mater&quot; as a poetic term for the Earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was not able to find any results when I searched for &quot;mater terra&quot; or &quot;mater tellus&quot; in this corpus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.packhum.org/index&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/loc/306/1/0/1100-1106#0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latin.packhum.org/loc/684/2/3/1567-1578#3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latin.packhum.org/loc/972/1/22/2037-2048#22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1816" RevisionGUID="3da4f56b-3ad2-43e8-b0c4-d5c5c9ed30e5" CreationDate="2016-10-13T18:58:27.293" UserId="79" Comment="added 357 characters in body" Text="I propose *Mater Terra* or *Mater Tellus*.&#xD;&#xA;See [online Latin dictionaries](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) to see which word for &quot;Earth&quot; is more suitable.&#xD;&#xA;If you mean the planet as a whole, I suggest *Tellus*.&#xD;&#xA;If you mean the ground under our feet, I suggest *Terra*.&#xD;&#xA;The most suitable nuance depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin word for &quot;Earth&quot;, whatever you choose, should be in nominative.&#xD;&#xA;Here &quot;Earth&quot; behaves like a given name.&#xD;&#xA;Thus *Orbis* would be grammatically fine but I doubt it means what you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;The Latin word order is quite free and I chose to put *Mater* first because it sounded best to me.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that my intuition was wrong, as the examples in sumelic's answer demonstrate.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore ***Terra Mater*** or ***Tellus Mater*** is better.&#xD;&#xA;The word order I originally proposed is not wrong as far as I know, but it seems less idiomatic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1819" RevisionGUID="355c8221-0a02-4197-8420-6ed835fce843" CreationDate="2016-10-13T19:09:09.063" UserId="79" Text="Sometimes in an intensive narrative the present tense is used to refer to past events.&#xD;&#xA;Such use of the present tense is called *praesens historicum*.&#xD;&#xA;It is formally present but semantically past.&#xD;&#xA;How does *consecutio temporum* of conjunctive subordinate clauses work with it?&#xD;&#xA;Should I use present and perfect conjunctive (as if *praesens historicum* was present) or imperfect and pluperfect conjunctive (as if *praesens historicum* was a past tense)?&#xD;&#xA;If both are possible, is there a difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6658" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1819" RevisionGUID="355c8221-0a02-4197-8420-6ed835fce843" CreationDate="2016-10-13T19:09:09.063" UserId="79" Text="Consecutio temporum et praesens historicum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6659" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1819" RevisionGUID="355c8221-0a02-4197-8420-6ed835fce843" CreationDate="2016-10-13T19:09:09.063" UserId="79" Text="|syntax|conjunctive|subordinate-clause|praesens-historicum|consecutio-temporum|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1820" RevisionGUID="7e8fe76b-3b52-4f8a-8f91-6fbadd1ebc01" CreationDate="2016-10-13T19:14:19.920" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1821" RevisionGUID="fcaca125-fc1e-4c87-b386-b0b2aceeacb3" CreationDate="2016-10-13T19:14:19.920" UserId="79" Text="For questions about naming cities, countries, islands and other places in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1822" RevisionGUID="536e34f8-d562-4a7c-a627-001b193eff56" CreationDate="2016-10-13T19:16:33.470" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1823" RevisionGUID="d2e12324-eabc-4e84-96d3-09a52f80ceff" CreationDate="2016-10-13T19:16:33.470" UserId="79" Text="For questions about participles, such as &quot;amans&quot;, &quot;amatus&quot; and &quot;amaturus&quot; from the verb &quot;amare&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1824" RevisionGUID="811eda7a-f1ec-460d-8420-3ad0fe5a61fc" CreationDate="2016-10-13T20:33:16.190" UserId="645" Text="In English, your *consecutio temporum* is usually called the ‘sequence of tenses’. There is a general rule that in the principal sentence (i) a primary tense  is followed in the subordinate clause by a primary tense, and (ii) a historic tense by a historic tense. In subordinate clauses the subjunctive is usual, incomplete action being represented by the present and imperfect, and completed action by the perfect and pluperfect. The historic present (*praesens historicum* ) and historic infinitive are mostly used with historic sequence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are exceptions, though — e.g. to avoid ambiguity, or in a consecutive clause if it describes a completed action; and in *oratio obliqua*, conditional statements have a different set of rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a tricky business in English, too — look at the difference between, for example, *I would have liked to see* and *I would like to have seen*, and you may reflect that a majority of speakers rely instead of either of these on *I would have liked to have seen*, without regard for the niceties of good grammar. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1825" RevisionGUID="88964083-4b3d-44c0-91fb-cc459fa3f4ce" CreationDate="2016-10-13T21:33:40.260" UserId="30" Text="These seem to be versions of the popular prayer &quot;Pater Noster&quot;. Here is an approximate literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  sed libera, mais delivre nous, sire, a malo, de tout mal et de cruel martire&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(Latin:) But free [us], (Middle French:) but deliver us, father, (Latin:) from evil, (Middle French:) from all evil and cruel torture.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a hybrid translation-explanation of the Latin words in French, possibly intended for those who did not know Latin, from the [13th century][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  pater noster, tu n'ies pas foulz Quar tu t'ies mis en grand repos Qui es montes haus in celis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(Latin:) our father, (M. French:) you are not insane. For you have taken great repose. Who is mounted high (Latin:) in the heavens.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is from the *[Patenostre de Lombardie][2]* (1379), a parody on the prayer, mocking and accusing God.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=k1LJAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA259&amp;lpg=PA259&amp;dq=sed%20libera,%20mais%20delivre%20nous,%20sire,%20a%20malo,%20de%20tout%20mal%20et%20de%20cruel%20martire&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=8AF9cUqniM&amp;sig=4hjuxKfU8pJkwvvZUy0Q7oNlv0A&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=sed%20libera%2C%20mais%20delivre%20nous%2C%20sire%2C%20a%20malo%2C%20de%20tout%20mal%20et%20de%20cruel%20martire&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=hjekPxL8B4AC&amp;pg=PT147&amp;lpg=PT147&amp;dq=pater%20noster,%20tu%20n%27ies%20pas%20foulz&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=J2CsLFHqdt&amp;sig=E4mB3kfSStO5aIqZwKWULGejtvU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=pater%20noster%2C%20tu%20n%27ies%20pas%20foulz&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1826" RevisionGUID="13936c86-9744-4310-92ce-a5f2a80ade90" CreationDate="2016-10-13T22:27:30.333" UserId="235" Text="As a textbook exercise, I'm translating the following sentence from English into Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Farewell, dear country! The war will be long, and I shall flee through the rivers and the marshes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (T1 = my first translation) χαιρε, ω φιλη χωρα. ὁ πολεμος ἐσται μακρος **και** φευξομαι δια **και** των ποταμων **και** των λιμνων.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect I may have used και incorrectly. In the first use, it coordinates two clauses; in the second use, it serves as a correlative conjunction. This is all well and good, but when I combine both functions of και in the same sentence, I feel like it's probably bad style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of a couple alternatives. One is to set up a μεν... δε construction, but I'm not sure whether it works grammatically. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (T2) χαιρε, ω φιλη χωρα. ὁ μεν πολεμος ἐσται μακρος, φευξομαι δε δια και των ποταμων και των λιμνων.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other alternative would be to simply use δε to convey the sense of the first και. In which case it would be placed postpositively after the verb φευξομαι. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (T3) χαιρε, ω φιλη χωρα. ὁ πολεμος ἐσται μακρος, φευξομαι δε δια και των ποταμων και των λιμνων.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that T3 would be the most accurate translation, and probably the best style. But I'm not completely sure of this, and I would appreciate your thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an interesting comparison (or contrast) between English and Greek. English has no problem using &quot;and&quot; two times in the same clause. But I don't want to assume the same is true about Greek." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6667" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1826" RevisionGUID="13936c86-9744-4310-92ce-a5f2a80ade90" CreationDate="2016-10-13T22:27:30.333" UserId="235" Text="Is it possible to use και as both coordinating and correlative conjunctions in the same sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6668" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1826" RevisionGUID="13936c86-9744-4310-92ce-a5f2a80ade90" CreationDate="2016-10-13T22:27:30.333" UserId="235" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1827" RevisionGUID="ad787a1f-0010-4604-9203-9e77d9d7511d" CreationDate="2016-10-13T22:39:53.387" UserId="40" Text="T1 is grammatically correct: there's no rule against using καί both as a simple connective and as part of a &quot;both ... and&quot; construction in the same sentence. You're right, however, that the result is a little awkward. Whether a Greek author would consider it bad enough to need avoiding might be a matter of stylistic preference, but if so, then yes, T3 would be the most natural way of fixing the problem. (T2, though not wrong, strikes me as unlikely since there seems to be nothing like a contrastive relationship between the μέν clause and the δέ clause.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two further notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The English doesn't say &quot;*both* through the rivers and the marshes&quot;, so you don't actually need καί ... καί in that part of the sentence, which avoids the problem altogether. The extra emphasis of &quot;both ... and&quot; doesn't really seem suitable or necessary here.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Not relevant to your question, but if you do use καί ... καί, idiomatic Greek would probably be καὶ δία τῶν ποταμῶν καὶ δία τῶν λιμνῶν. Putting a καί ... καί coordination inside a prepositional phrase is, I believe, either strictly impossible or at best rare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1809" RevisionGUID="8d5623e5-8d66-45cf-af2e-37dcc0b3ea09" CreationDate="2016-10-13T22:44:21.810" UserId="12" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body" Text="I lack ample knowledge of Latin to piece together a proper equivalent phrase of the following: &quot;Greatly fruitful,&quot; or &quot;Great bounty&quot;; in the context of referring to a food being very nutritious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what I've came up with; are these accurate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Magnus frux  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Frux magnus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1810" RevisionGUID="c5f7f9a2-95e0-4e0e-8e9c-543cc5306681" CreationDate="2016-10-14T02:57:24.150" UserId="444" Comment="Clarified that the verb tense is historical present" Text="This sentence depends a bit on context. Nothing grammatically precludes Orgetorix from being the subject of _occuparet_, but if he were then the _sua_ in _ciuitate sua_ would have to refer to Orgeterix, too. Orgetorix would be saying to Casticus, &quot;Since you father was king of _your_ clan, you should come be king of _my_ clan.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_habuerit_ is in the perfect tense because it took place before _persuadet_ while _occuparet_ is imperfect because it's at the same time. We use the pluperfect in English in this case (&quot;he persuades... that he should seize... because his father _had held_...) but that's just English. The present tense _persuadet_ should be considered quasi-past tense since it is really describing past events (&quot;historical&quot; present). In Latin with the main verb in a past tense your choices in the subordinate clause are limited to imperfect or perfect subjunctive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1828" RevisionGUID="9033632f-2369-43c9-b5e3-eb6310a7d928" CreationDate="2016-10-14T06:04:41.927" UserId="905" Text="The English language has a handful of words starting with *omni-* to express *all-*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *omniscient* all-knowing&#xD;&#xA;- *omnipotent* all-powerful&#xD;&#xA;- *omnipresent* present everywhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would one express *all-forgiving* using *omni-*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I am not sure which word to use for *forgive*, but please assume a theological context.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6673" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1828" RevisionGUID="9033632f-2369-43c9-b5e3-eb6310a7d928" CreationDate="2016-10-14T06:04:41.927" UserId="905" Text="&quot;All-forgiving&quot; expressed with the omni- prefix" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6674" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1828" RevisionGUID="9033632f-2369-43c9-b5e3-eb6310a7d928" CreationDate="2016-10-14T06:04:41.927" UserId="905" Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1829" RevisionGUID="32d9d1e2-34d1-4e1c-9088-d9bad116a809" CreationDate="2016-10-14T11:04:30.427" UserId="907" Text="&lt;p&gt;Is this short sentence correct? &lt;P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego quoque Latīnē scrībere possum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;it's supposed to say&lt;/P&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I too can write in Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;P&gt;But I'm not sure if it's correct. If anyone can help me it would be greatly appreciated&lt;/P&gt; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6677" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1829" RevisionGUID="32d9d1e2-34d1-4e1c-9088-d9bad116a809" CreationDate="2016-10-14T11:04:30.427" UserId="907" Text="Translation of basic sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6678" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1829" RevisionGUID="32d9d1e2-34d1-4e1c-9088-d9bad116a809" CreationDate="2016-10-14T11:04:30.427" UserId="907" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1829" RevisionGUID="4ff63f65-22c7-404f-aabb-e9bfc98e7c17" CreationDate="2016-10-14T13:45:43.487" UserId="79" Comment="added 163 characters in body; edited title" Text="I want to translate this short sentence to Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I too can write in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean that there are also others who know Latin, not that I can write in other languages or that I can speak Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my translation attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego quoque Latīnē scrībere possum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this short sentence correct? But I'm not sure if it's correct. If anyone can help me it would be greatly appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6681" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1829" RevisionGUID="4ff63f65-22c7-404f-aabb-e9bfc98e7c17" CreationDate="2016-10-14T13:45:43.487" UserId="79" Comment="added 163 characters in body; edited title" Text="Translating &quot;I too can write in Latin&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1828" RevisionGUID="953e097c-2dc8-4d9c-ba32-a2726296b6f7" CreationDate="2016-10-14T14:50:43.370" UserId="909" Comment="explained a bit more" Text="The English language has a handful of words starting with *omni-* to express *all-*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *omniscient* all-knowing&#xD;&#xA;- *omnipotent* all-powerful&#xD;&#xA;- *omnipresent* present everywhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would one express *all-forgiving* using *omni-*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I am not sure which word to use for *forgive*, but please assume a theological context.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware that it is possible that no word with this precise meaning appears in any English dictionary under *omni-*. However, the earliest words of the form *omni-* were modified versions of Medieval Latin terms, brought into English at some point by a person with knowledge of Latin. My question is: if the scholar who brought the word *omniscient* into the English language, were to have imported a word with the prefix *omni-* into English with the meaning *all-forgiving*, what choice would he have made, if you were to speculate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason I ask here is that there are a great many ways to say *to forgive* in Latin. Some of them look as though they also mean *to dismiss, to send away*. I would like to know which is most appropriate and least ambiguous, if that can be determined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this still seems like a question about English rather than Latin, then assume my question is: **How would *all-forgiving* be expressed in Medieval Latin, in a theological context?**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6683" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1828" RevisionGUID="953e097c-2dc8-4d9c-ba32-a2726296b6f7" CreationDate="2016-10-14T14:50:43.370" Comment="Proposed by 909 approved by 12 edit id of 142" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1830" RevisionGUID="96e9453c-d4e7-4a39-9064-b8579f60519c" CreationDate="2016-10-14T15:29:17.580" UserId="12" Text="Especially when speaking a second language, I am forced to frequently say something like &quot;Pardon me?&quot; or &quot;What was that?&quot; or &quot;Excuse me?&quot; when I fail to understand or hear what a speaker says.  I'd like to know what was used in Classical Latin to express one's remorse for not understanding while asking the other speaker to repeat himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [quick search for &quot;pardon&quot;](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/search3t?dbname=lewisandshort&amp;dgdivhead=&amp;matchtype=sameold&amp;word=pardon&amp;CONJUNCT=PHRASE) in L&amp;S provides many options, but I can't tell if any of them apply to this situation.  John Traupman offers *ignosce mihi* for &quot;Excuse me,&quot; but I'm not sure if that can be used in the situation I'm describing here (as opposed to accidentally inconveniencing or harming someone).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how do I say &quot;Pardon me&quot; in Classical Latin, to politely apologize for not understanding and imply a desire for the other speaker to repeat himself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6685" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1830" RevisionGUID="96e9453c-d4e7-4a39-9064-b8579f60519c" CreationDate="2016-10-14T15:29:17.580" UserId="12" Text="How would one say &quot;Pardon me,&quot; in the sense of not understanding or hearing, in Classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6686" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1830" RevisionGUID="96e9453c-d4e7-4a39-9064-b8579f60519c" CreationDate="2016-10-14T15:29:17.580" UserId="12" Text="|translation|phrase-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1831" RevisionGUID="06dee6c7-fe64-4da9-8d71-087207b07971" CreationDate="2016-10-14T15:51:30.503" UserId="45" Text="I found two examples (from [1667](https://books.google.com/books?id=XjhpAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA8&amp;lpg=RA1-PA8&amp;dq=omnimisericors&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PkLPLNbYEU&amp;sig=_l7qgwoT-jEqxfyEsZ3_-ijlkBo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjO2qzuwNrPAhVDdj4KHT8FD1sQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=omnimisericors&amp;f=false) and [1709](https://books.google.com/books?id=VfllAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA156&amp;lpg=PA156&amp;dq=omnimisericors&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=NkdtSuENIh&amp;sig=-6JvPJc3PK51i_y44ybxnAhlfPo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjO2qzuwNrPAhVDdj4KHT8FD1sQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=omnimisericors&amp;f=false)) that uses the first portmanteau that came to my mind: *omnimisericors*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...laudo, adoro, &amp; revereor te, Domine DEUS, Omnipotens, **Omnimisericors**, qui aquarum fontes creasti, etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is obviously *not* standard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The much more common way of saying &quot;most merciful&quot; in liturgical Latin is *clementissimus*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a reason why *omni-* is generally not paired with attributes like this: in the scholastic tradition, as exemplified for instance by Aquinas's *Summa Contra Gentiles*, the *omni-* attributes are derived in a specific logical order and for specific reasons. Omni- is used with *perfections*, whereas *mercy* is more properly a passion which is applied in a metaphorical way, of his attributes. From the [*Summa Contra Gentiles*](http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles1.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sciendum tamen etiam **alias affectiones**, quae secundum speciem suam divinae perfectioni repugnant, in sacra Scriptura **de Deo dici, non quidem proprie, ut probatum est, sed metaphorice, propter similitudinem vel effectuum**, vel alicuius affectionis praecedentis.	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dico autem effectuum, quia interdum voluntas ex sapientiae ordine in illum effectum tendit in quem aliquis ex passione defectiva inclinatur: iudex enim ex iustitia punit, sicut et iratus ex ira. Dicitur igitur aliquando Deus iratus, inquantum ex ordine suae sapientiae aliquem vult punire: secundum illud Psalmi: cum exarserit in brevi ira eius. **Misericors vero dicitur inquantum ex sua benevolentia miserias hominum tollit: sicut et nos propter misericordiae passionem facimus idem.** Unde in Psalmo: miserator et misericors dominus, patiens et multum misericors. Poenitens etiam interdum dicitur, inquantum secundum aeternum et immutabilem providentiae suae ordinem facit quae prius destruxerat, vel destruit quae prius fecit: sicut et poenitentia moti facere inveniuntur. Unde Gen. 6-7: poenitet me fecisse hominem. Quod autem hoc proprie intelligi non possit, patet per hoc quod habetur I Reg. 15-29: triumphator in Israel non parcet, nec poenitudine flectetur. [54]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a subtle distinction between *clemens* and *misericors* which explains this statement: since *misericordia* appears to imply a certain *compassion* (literally &quot;suffering with&quot;), it is not seen as &quot;properly&quot; part of the divine attributes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words like *clementissimus* and *summe misericors* of course abound in more devotional contexts, but I suspect an *omni-* word is missing because that terminology is more properly philosophical/theological." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1832" RevisionGUID="a428f211-527f-4d77-9d8a-ea236b991b58" CreationDate="2016-10-14T16:46:52.310" UserId="645" Text="There are quite a few options, of varying degrees of politeness. A few are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Peto (te) quod dicis iterare* is a bit wordy; *peto ut hoc iterares* is neater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Veniam abs te peto, sed sermonem non cepi* would be very polite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quid dixisti?* is rather abrupt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1833" RevisionGUID="bb736694-d588-4867-b5bb-47cc20648013" CreationDate="2016-10-14T20:06:58.483" UserId="912" Text="What are the Latin words for *machines* and *people*, I am not sure how accurate Google translate is, but what about&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*machinae* and *populo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are those even close?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6691" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1833" RevisionGUID="bb736694-d588-4867-b5bb-47cc20648013" CreationDate="2016-10-14T20:06:58.483" UserId="912" Text="Machines, People" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6692" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1833" RevisionGUID="bb736694-d588-4867-b5bb-47cc20648013" CreationDate="2016-10-14T20:06:58.483" UserId="912" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1834" RevisionGUID="07aec658-65b1-4c69-bbfb-8ffec2e366a4" CreationDate="2016-10-14T20:59:51.287" UserId="79" Text="*Machina* is indeed a good translation for &quot;machine&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In plural it is *machinae*, so this translation is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to be careful with the English word &quot;people&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you refer to a people (where &quot;people&quot; is singular), the Latin word is *populus*.&#xD;&#xA;(The word *populo* is the singular dative or ablative of this word. Such inflected forms are not a good choice here in my opinion.)&#xD;&#xA;If you refer to to humans (where &quot;people&quot; is plural), the Latin word is *homines*.&#xD;&#xA;A single human is *homo*, and the plural is *homines*.&#xD;&#xA;In the context you give *homines* would be a better choice.&#xD;&#xA;If one network is for humans and the other for machines, then *populus* would be too grandiose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, Google Translate is very unreliable with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to translate single words, I suggest using any of [several online Latin dictionaries](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;After finding a list possible translations of your English word, I suggest also looking at the translations from Latin to English for each option; this can provide good insight to choosing the most suitable translation.&#xD;&#xA;If you have trouble finding the correct form, you can ask for help here.&#xD;&#xA;We also have [a guide for asking translation questions](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/143/79) at our meta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1833" RevisionGUID="155506e2-2019-4352-9335-0bdab6ed9f34" CreationDate="2016-10-14T21:01:40.257" UserId="79" Comment="added 49 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What are the Latin words for *machines* and *people*?&#xD;&#xA;I want to use them as names of wireless networks.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure how accurate Google translate is, but it suggests *machinae* and *populo*.&#xD;&#xA;Are those even close?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6695" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1833" RevisionGUID="155506e2-2019-4352-9335-0bdab6ed9f34" CreationDate="2016-10-14T21:01:40.257" UserId="79" Comment="added 49 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Translating &quot;machines&quot; and &quot;people&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6696" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1833" RevisionGUID="155506e2-2019-4352-9335-0bdab6ed9f34" CreationDate="2016-10-14T21:01:40.257" UserId="79" Comment="added 49 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|vocabulary|technology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1835" RevisionGUID="3da0961b-ca33-478b-95d0-5bd1368ae531" CreationDate="2016-10-15T11:24:54.510" UserId="522" Text="A suggestion **:** that instead of choosing a plural noun, perhaps a group noun would work well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is only one machine that forms anything like a network in classical Rome and that is the ***War Machine***. There are several well-known units in the army; maniple (&quot;a handful&quot; platoon), ala (a wing, flank). But more machine-like are--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Testudo** (literally 'tortoise') a manoeuvre against arrows and slingstones when shields were interlocked above the heads of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; soldiers. And they might be using **Aries** (plural **Arietes**) a battering ram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or, if you could borrow a term from Greek, which Romans often did (*machina* is a Greek word):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Phalanx**  a mass of men in heavy armour advancing in a solid block&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**...** then your ***'Men'*** would be a group name from civilian life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Civitas** a city-state populated by &quot;cives&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;**Gens** a clan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you prefer to use plural nouns, my suggestions would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Viri** ( plural of **vir** ) grown men, not children.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Molae** (plural of **mola** ) mills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1834" RevisionGUID="b7c6ca8b-dec2-40fd-b5a8-773da73e2962" CreationDate="2016-10-15T16:23:27.437" UserId="79" Comment="added 440 characters in body" Text="*Machina* is indeed a good translation for &quot;machine&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In plural it is *machinae*, so this translation is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to be careful with the English word &quot;people&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you refer to a people (where &quot;people&quot; is singular), the Latin word is *populus*.&#xD;&#xA;(The word *populo* is the singular dative or ablative of this word. Such inflected forms are not a good choice here in my opinion.)&#xD;&#xA;If you refer to to humans (where &quot;people&quot; is plural), the Latin word is *homines*.&#xD;&#xA;A single human is *homo*, and the plural is *homines*.&#xD;&#xA;In the context you give *homines* would be a better choice.&#xD;&#xA;If one network is for humans and the other for machines, then *populus* would be too grandiose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, Google Translate is very unreliable with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to translate single words, I suggest using any of [several online Latin dictionaries](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;After finding a list possible translations of your English word, I suggest also looking at the translations from Latin to English for each option; this can provide good insight to choosing the most suitable translation.&#xD;&#xA;If you have trouble finding the correct form, you can ask for help here.&#xD;&#xA;We also have [a guide for asking translation questions](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/143/79) at our meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Added from comments:**&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say &quot;**for** people/humans&quot;, then it is *hominibus*, and similarly &quot;**for** machines&quot; is *machinis*. In Latin one uses the dative case instead of a preposition here. But when it's used as a name, the context makes the intention clear, so I would say *homines* and *hominibus* work equally well. Just use *machinae/homines* or *machinis/hominibus* without mixing the two options, for consistency." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1836" RevisionGUID="b3767d8e-a786-4725-8706-d0250e620e7b" CreationDate="2016-10-15T17:11:49.977" UserId="79" Text="I know how to wish a happy birthday in Latin: *Bonum diem natalem!*&#xD;&#xA;(There are other options as well.)&#xD;&#xA;It just occurred to me that I do not recall coming across any ancient birthday congratulations.&#xD;&#xA;Do we know how the Romans wished a happy birthday?&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for attested expressions from classical literature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6700" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1836" RevisionGUID="b3767d8e-a786-4725-8706-d0250e620e7b" CreationDate="2016-10-15T17:11:49.977" UserId="79" Text="How did the Romans wish good birthday?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6701" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1836" RevisionGUID="b3767d8e-a786-4725-8706-d0250e620e7b" CreationDate="2016-10-15T17:11:49.977" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|translation|example-request|phrase|saying|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1837" RevisionGUID="c690b137-d00c-4803-982f-8b5080ff9daf" CreationDate="2016-10-15T19:11:27.563" UserId="406" Text="My guess would be, there was no special or particular phrase, or if there was it didn't survive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest I found to a direct birthday greeting was [Pliny Ep. 6.30][1], a birthday letter to his friend Fabatus. But he never directly wishes him a happy birthday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Martial 8.64 (which doesn't seem to be available in Perseus?) talks about the custom of gift-giving, and Ovid's *Tristia* [5.5][2] and [3.13][3] mention the religious rituals, but none mention any special or particular greeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus' *Captīvī* I.2 contains this exchange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Erg.: Quia mi est natalis dies / propterea te vocari ad te ad cenam volo.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heg.: Facete dictum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Trans.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Erg.: Because it's my birthday, so I would like for you to be invited to dinner with me.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heg.: Politely said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this seems to be a refusal of his invitation, nothing more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plin.%20Ep.%206.30&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Ov.%20Tr.%205.5&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Ov.%20Tr.%203.13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1838" RevisionGUID="eee95328-8dff-4854-9cd4-b18bc493e5c6" CreationDate="2016-10-15T23:26:04.393" UserId="522" Text="You would have to start with this woeful line of poetry by Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O fortunatam natam me consule Rommam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with this translation by JPOMorford:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; O happy State for your natal date and my Consulate.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mary Beard quoted this line in an acute review of Cicero in the London [Review of Books][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  one of the worst pieces of Latin doggerel to have made it through the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dark Ages (‘O fortunatam natam me consule Romam’ – a jingle with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; something of the ring of ‘Rome was born a lucky city, when I as Consul&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wrote this ditty’).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But since Consulship doesn't come into it, and it's ***te*** not ***me,*** here's: &quot;O Happy world that you were born.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **O fortunatum orbem nato te.**  ../ **nata te *for a girl***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, *natalitia* (starts with 3 long syllables) are birthday celebrations: *felicia* happy is n. plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Natalitia felicia.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n16/contents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1838" RevisionGUID="8d3a29c4-ec24-4bb0-ba4c-30ad52042571" CreationDate="2016-10-15T23:31:46.703" UserId="522" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="You would have to start with this woeful line of poetry by Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O fortunatam natam me consule Romam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with this translation by JPOMorford:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; O happy State for your natal date and my Consulate.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mary Beard quoted this line in an acute review of Cicero in the London [Review of Books][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  one of the worst pieces of Latin doggerel to have made it through the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dark Ages (‘O fortunatam natam me consule Romam’ – a jingle with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; something of the ring of ‘Rome was born a lucky city, when I as Consul&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wrote this ditty’).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But since Consulship doesn't come into it, and it's ***te*** not ***me,*** here's: &quot;O Happy world that you were born.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **O fortunatum orbem nato te.**  ../ **nata te *for a girl***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, *natalitia* (starts with 3 long syllables) are birthday celebrations: *felicia* happy is n. plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Natalitia felicia.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n16/contents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1838" RevisionGUID="c2fb9cd7-6a40-4ccc-9355-2c77f107f287" CreationDate="2016-10-15T23:45:33.587" UserId="522" Comment="more authentic &quot;Happy Birthday.&quot;" Text="You would have to start with this woeful line of poetry by Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O fortunatam natam me consule Romam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with this translation by JPOMorford:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; O happy State for your natal date and my Consulate.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mary Beard quoted this line in an acute review of Cicero in the London [Review of Books][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  one of the worst pieces of Latin doggerel to have made it through the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dark Ages (‘O fortunatam natam me consule Romam’ – a jingle with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; something of the ring of ‘Rome was born a lucky city, when I as Consul&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wrote this ditty’).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But since Consulship doesn't come into it, and it's ***te*** not ***me,*** here's: &quot;O Happy world that you were born.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **O fortunatum orbem nato te.**  ../ **nata te *for a girl***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be more authentic, the celebration of a birthday would involve  *natalitia* (starts with 3 long syllables)  birthday sacrifices: *Do,* or *Damus* &quot;I give /we give,&quot; or the subjunctive would say that we take part in this ceelbration &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Natalitia dabuntur.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n16/contents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1839" RevisionGUID="233c37ec-7d44-4d35-a904-8c4917ba4b81" CreationDate="2016-10-16T04:41:41.523" UserId="323" Text="I would add that `persuadeo` often takes a dative and `ut` (or `ne`) + subjunctive. &quot;I persuade the dative to do (or not do) the subjunctive.&quot; Since `Castico` is in the dative right behind `persuadet` and `occuparet` follows later nicely filling out the period, the pattern matches perfectly and so it's hard not interpret this as a straight-up indirect command, with `Castico` therefore as the subject of `occuparet`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1840" RevisionGUID="492f1d74-19ea-4d04-8334-6d48a3374e71" CreationDate="2016-10-16T13:00:24.853" UserId="916" Text="I'm trying to understand a paragraph from the 1806 transcription of latin legal texts from 1331, while being proficient at neither law nor latin. An example:&#xD;&#xA;[![abbreviated latin text][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;which is from page 78 of [Placita de quo Warranto][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll come back and ask for more help when I've wrestled a bit more, but first I'm curious as to how to represent this text on the screen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw the question http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/192/do-different-truncation-signs-have-different-connotations and that led me to the Cappelli's magisterial *[The elements of abbreviation in medieval Latin paleography][3]* which has helped greatly. I also note the [Medieval Unicode Font Initiative][4] which seems to be making very slow progress. And Wikipedia's [Scribal Abbreviation][5], which gives some examples of unicode representation of common latin abbreviations. Unfortunately, some of the representations there such as p̱ or d̵ don't look much like the 1806 versions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The 1806 transcribers and typesetters have done an impressive job of representing the scribal abbreviation symbols in print. Can we do as well nowadays? If I try to type the text from the image above, complete with its abbreviation symbols, in a unicode document, is there a standard way of picking symbols and combining diacriticals to make sense? I can pick some symbols that more-or-less look like the ones from the text (like ħ or ƚ) but others (like the p with a line through the down-stroke) defeat me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a well-defined solution to this? Or haven't we got there yet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YMnOv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2R9DAAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/1821/47cappelli.pdf?sequence=3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://folk.uib.no/hnooh/mufi/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribal_abbreviation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6709" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1840" RevisionGUID="492f1d74-19ea-4d04-8334-6d48a3374e71" CreationDate="2016-10-16T13:00:24.853" UserId="916" Text="Representing medieval latin abbreviation symbols in Unicode" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6710" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1840" RevisionGUID="492f1d74-19ea-4d04-8334-6d48a3374e71" CreationDate="2016-10-16T13:00:24.853" UserId="916" Text="|medieval-latin|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1840" RevisionGUID="4f2e773d-002a-47ca-820a-9f2ef5342e67" CreationDate="2016-10-16T13:24:54.810" UserId="916" Comment="Update as reqested." Text="I'm trying to understand a paragraph from the 1806 transcription of latin legal texts from 1331, while being proficient at neither law nor latin. An example:&#xD;&#xA;[![abbreviated latin text][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;which is from page 78 of [Placita de quo Warranto][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll come back and ask for more help when I've wrestled a bit more, but first I'm curious as to how to represent this text on the screen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw the question http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/192/do-different-truncation-signs-have-different-connotations and that led me to the Cappelli's magisterial *[The elements of abbreviation in medieval Latin paleography][3]* which has helped greatly. I also note the [Medieval Unicode Font Initiative][4] which seems to be making very slow progress. And Wikipedia's [Scribal Abbreviation][5], which gives some examples of unicode representation of common latin abbreviations. Unfortunately, some of the representations there such as p̱ or d̵ don't look much like the 1806 versions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The 1806 transcribers and typesetters have done an impressive job of representing the scribal abbreviation symbols in print. Can we do as well nowadays? If I try to type the text from the image above, complete with its abbreviation symbols, in a unicode document, is there a standard way of picking symbols and combining diacriticals to make sense? I can pick some symbols that more-or-less look like the ones from the text (like ħ or ƚ) but others (like the p with a line through the down-stroke) defeat me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: I'd like a generic unicode solution that works with any conventional text processor or displays neatly and consistently in any browser equipped with adequately complete Unicode fonts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a well-defined solution to this? Or haven't we got there yet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YMnOv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2R9DAAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/1821/47cappelli.pdf?sequence=3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://folk.uib.no/hnooh/mufi/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribal_abbreviation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1840" RevisionGUID="b80360e3-5e60-4941-abc8-aad9c83107dc" CreationDate="2016-10-16T13:34:30.160" UserId="916" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="I'm trying to understand a paragraph from the 1806 transcription of latin legal texts from 1331, while being proficient at neither law nor latin. An example:&#xD;&#xA;[![abbreviated latin text][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;which is from page 78 of [Placita de quo Warranto][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll come back and ask for more help when I've wrestled a bit more, but first I'm curious as to how to represent this text on the screen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw the question http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/192/do-different-truncation-signs-have-different-connotations and that led me to the Cappelli's magisterial *[The elements of abbreviation in medieval Latin paleography][3]* which has helped greatly. I also note the [Medieval Unicode Font Initiative][4] which seems to be making very slow progress. And Wikipedia's [Scribal Abbreviation][5], which gives some examples of unicode representation of common latin abbreviations. Unfortunately, some of the representations there such as p̱ or d̵ don't look much like the 1806 versions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The 1806 transcribers and typesetters have done an impressive job of representing the scribal abbreviation symbols in print. Can we do as well nowadays? If I try to type the text from the image above, complete with its abbreviation symbols, in a unicode document, is there a standard way of picking symbols and combining diacriticals to make sense? I can pick some symbols that more-or-less look like the ones from the text (like ħ or ƚ) but others (like the p with a line through the down-stroke) defeat me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: I'd like a generic unicode solution that works with any conventional text processor or displays neatly and consistently in any browser equipped with adequately complete Unicode fonts. I'm actually imagining a way of representing the abbreviated text so that it would be useful as input to a machine translation program, even if no such program yet exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a well-defined solution to this? Or haven't we got there yet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YMnOv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2R9DAAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/1821/47cappelli.pdf?sequence=3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://folk.uib.no/hnooh/mufi/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribal_abbreviation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1842" RevisionGUID="ccb9153d-1392-49a0-b240-8d8a3d408975" CreationDate="2016-10-16T19:42:53.303" UserId="79" Text="I like metric poetry, and sometimes I want to broaden my horizons by learning a new poetic meter.&#xD;&#xA;This has proven quite difficult, because the descriptions in many guides are quite terse.&#xD;&#xA;For example, [the Wikipedia article on Latin prosody](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_%28Latin%29) contains useful information, but the depth is insufficient for my purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get a feeling of how a meter works and to make it flow naturally, I require lots of examples.&#xD;&#xA;I would like the examples to contain macrons, and also commentary when something metrically noteworthy happens.&#xD;&#xA;A list of poems written in a particular meter can also be helpful, since the poems can then be easily found.&#xD;&#xA;I would also like to be able to listen to recordings of some examples.&#xD;&#xA;That would allow me to get a grip of the rhythm by imitating the recordings.&#xD;&#xA;It would be nice to know the typical use contexts of a given meter to develop an understanding of the tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if there is a resource that provides all I hope for.&#xD;&#xA;However, I do hope that there are resources that would help me learn.&#xD;&#xA;I would really like to be able to read and write fluently in more meters than I do now.&#xD;&#xA;I enjoy reading metric poetry much more when I can feel the meter &amp;mdash; I cannot describe what this feeling really means, but I hope my point is clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;Can you suggest some resources for this purpose?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6718" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1842" RevisionGUID="ccb9153d-1392-49a0-b240-8d8a3d408975" CreationDate="2016-10-16T19:42:53.303" UserId="79" Text="Material for learning new poetic meters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6719" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1842" RevisionGUID="ccb9153d-1392-49a0-b240-8d8a3d408975" CreationDate="2016-10-16T19:42:53.303" UserId="79" Text="|poetry|resource-request|scansion|soft-question|study-strategies|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1843" RevisionGUID="60957a4b-fd09-4ea4-967f-b4544cb9f305" CreationDate="2016-10-16T21:54:19.730" UserId="406" Text="There are two Unicode blocks in particular filled with mediaeval abbreviations, if you (and your readers!) have the appropriate fonts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Combining Diacritical Marks Supplement][1] ([chart][2]) provides combining characters, which can be inserted after a letter to add a mark above or below. These are the most versatile, but don't always look good if the font designer didn't prepare for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Latin Extended-D block][3] ([chart][4]), on the other hand, provides &quot;precomposed&quot; versions of the most common combinations. Your p-with-stroke, for example, is encoded as U+A751 &quot;ꝑ&quot;. These will usually look better than the combining marks, but are even less likely to be supported in fonts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully these fit your purpose. I linked the Wikipedia pages as a good way to test your system, since they will attempt to display all the characters using your existing fonts. The official PDF charts on the other hand demonstrate what the characters *should* look like, once you find fonts to support them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combining_Diacritical_Marks_Supplement&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1DC0.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Extended-D&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/UA720.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1840" RevisionGUID="58e642fd-580d-4b16-9083-ca5e0ae6cd8e" CreationDate="2016-10-17T10:13:31.037" UserId="916" Comment="Added putative transcription into unicode" Text="I'm trying to understand a paragraph from the 1806 transcription of latin legal texts from 1331, while being proficient at neither law nor latin. An example:&#xD;&#xA;[![abbreviated latin text][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;which is from page 78 of [Placita de quo Warranto][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll come back and ask for more help when I've wrestled a bit more, but first I'm curious as to how to represent this text on the screen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw the question http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/192/do-different-truncation-signs-have-different-connotations and that led me to the Cappelli's magisterial *[The elements of abbreviation in medieval Latin paleography][3]* which has helped greatly. I also note the [Medieval Unicode Font Initiative][4] which seems to be making very slow progress. And Wikipedia's [Scribal Abbreviation][5], which gives some examples of unicode representation of common latin abbreviations. Unfortunately, some of the representations there such as p̱ or d̵ don't look much like the 1806 versions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The 1806 transcribers and typesetters have done an impressive job of representing the scribal abbreviation symbols in print. Can we do as well nowadays? If I try to type the text from the image above, complete with its abbreviation symbols, in a unicode document, is there a standard way of picking symbols and combining diacriticals to make sense? I can pick some symbols that more-or-less look like the ones from the text (like ħ or ƚ) but others (like the p with a line through the down-stroke) defeat me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: I'd like a generic unicode solution that works with any conventional text processor or displays neatly and consistently in any browser equipped with adequately complete Unicode fonts. I'm actually imagining a way of representing the abbreviated text so that it would be useful as input to a machine translation program, even if no such program yet exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a well-defined solution to this? Or haven't we got there yet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Another Update:** Following Draconis's suggestions, I have produced this version of the above text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Joħes ꝑſona eccƚie de Eversholt dat đno Regi dimidiam marcam ꝑ licencia ħenda clamandi ꝑ billam has liƀtates ſubſcriptas pⁱmo die itin...is hic nō clamat᷒&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That uses &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ꝑ U+A751 LATIN SMALL LETTER P WITH STROKE THROUGH DESCENDER &#xD;&#xA; - ħ U+0127 LATIN SMALL LETTER H WITH STROKE &#xD;&#xA; - ſ U+017F LATIN SMALL LETTER LONG S&#xD;&#xA; - ƚ U+019A LATIN SMALL LETTER L WITH BAR&#xD;&#xA; - ƀ U+0180 LATIN SMALL LETTER B WITH STROKE&#xD;&#xA; - ⁱ U+2071 SUPERSCRIPT LATIN SMALL LETTER I&#xD;&#xA; - ō U+014D LATIN SMALL LETTER O WITH MACRON&#xD;&#xA; -  ᷒ U+1DD2 COMBINING US ABOVE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have I made appropriate choices here? In particular, `nō clamat᷒`? I am guessing that (following Capelli section 4.33 and 3.41) this stands for `nota clamatus`. Is the `combining us above` character appropriate? It doesn't look much like the 1806 print.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And! How do I represent the mark in `itin...is`? Let alone, where do I find it in Capelli!&#xD;&#xA;[![itin...is][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YMnOv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2R9DAAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/1821/47cappelli.pdf?sequence=3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://folk.uib.no/hnooh/mufi/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribal_abbreviation&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lw7D5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1840" RevisionGUID="dd7007cd-31a3-40cc-badb-aae2409ccc18" CreationDate="2016-10-17T13:13:51.480" UserId="916" Comment="Improved Capelli reference" Text="I'm trying to understand a paragraph from the 1806 transcription of latin legal texts from 1331, while being proficient at neither law nor latin. An example:&#xD;&#xA;[![abbreviated latin text][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;which is from page 78 of [Placita de quo Warranto][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll come back and ask for more help when I've wrestled a bit more, but first I'm curious as to how to represent this text on the screen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw the question http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/192/do-different-truncation-signs-have-different-connotations and that led me to the Cappelli's magisterial *[The elements of abbreviation in medieval Latin paleography][3]* which has helped greatly. I also note the [Medieval Unicode Font Initiative][4] which seems to be making very slow progress. And Wikipedia's [Scribal Abbreviation][5], which gives some examples of unicode representation of common latin abbreviations. Unfortunately, some of the representations there such as p̱ or d̵ don't look much like the 1806 versions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The 1806 transcribers and typesetters have done an impressive job of representing the scribal abbreviation symbols in print. Can we do as well nowadays? If I try to type the text from the image above, complete with its abbreviation symbols, in a unicode document, is there a standard way of picking symbols and combining diacriticals to make sense? I can pick some symbols that more-or-less look like the ones from the text (like ħ or ƚ) but others (like the p with a line through the down-stroke) defeat me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: I'd like a generic unicode solution that works with any conventional text processor or displays neatly and consistently in any browser equipped with adequately complete Unicode fonts. I'm actually imagining a way of representing the abbreviated text so that it would be useful as input to a machine translation program, even if no such program yet exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a well-defined solution to this? Or haven't we got there yet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Another Update:** Following Draconis's suggestions, I have produced this version of the above text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Joħes ꝑſona eccƚie de Eversholt dat đno Regi dimidiam marcam ꝑ licencia ħenda clamandi ꝑ billam has liƀtates ſubſcriptas pⁱmo die itin...is hic nō clamat᷒&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That uses &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ꝑ U+A751 LATIN SMALL LETTER P WITH STROKE THROUGH DESCENDER &#xD;&#xA; - ħ U+0127 LATIN SMALL LETTER H WITH STROKE &#xD;&#xA; - ſ U+017F LATIN SMALL LETTER LONG S&#xD;&#xA; - ƚ U+019A LATIN SMALL LETTER L WITH BAR&#xD;&#xA; - ƀ U+0180 LATIN SMALL LETTER B WITH STROKE&#xD;&#xA; - ⁱ U+2071 SUPERSCRIPT LATIN SMALL LETTER I&#xD;&#xA; - ō U+014D LATIN SMALL LETTER O WITH MACRON&#xD;&#xA; -  ᷒ U+1DD2 COMBINING US ABOVE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have I made appropriate choices here? In particular, `nō clamat᷒`? I am guessing that (following Capelli section 4.33 and 3.3) this stands for `nota clamatus`. Is the `combining us above` character appropriate? It doesn't look much like the 1806 print.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And! How do I represent the mark in `itin...is`? Let alone, where do I find it in Capelli!&#xD;&#xA;[![itin...is][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YMnOv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2R9DAAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/1821/47cappelli.pdf?sequence=3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://folk.uib.no/hnooh/mufi/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribal_abbreviation&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lw7D5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1844" RevisionGUID="acdef959-4194-40ce-84b5-33d633a6e1bd" CreationDate="2016-10-17T18:56:30.280" UserId="79" Text="I will phrase my question through an example.&#xD;&#xA;Consider this sentence in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do not know whether you wrote where you are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has one governing clause (&quot;I do not know&quot;) and two indirect questions, first subordinate to the governing clause, the second subordinate the first one.&#xD;&#xA;In Latin the predicate of a subordinate conjunctive clause follows *consecutio temporum* (sequence of tenses), and the correct tense depends on that of the governing clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first question is governed by the present tense &quot;I know&quot; (*scio*) and describes an event before that of the governing clause, so I should use the perfect tense for &quot;wrote&quot; (*scripseris*).&#xD;&#xA;But which of the verbs *scio* and *scripseris* is considered to govern the second question?&#xD;&#xA;If *scio*, I should use the present tense for &quot;are&quot; (*sis*).&#xD;&#xA;If *scripseris*, then imperfect (*esses*).&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure, so I am left with two possible translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nescio, an scripseris necne, ubi sis.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nescio, an scripseris necne, ubi esses.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are both of these grammatical and good style in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, is there a difference between the two?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, if a conjunctive clause is subordinate to another conjunctive clause, what determines the tense in the &quot;lowest&quot; clause?&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer to see examples from classical literature where such nested clauses appear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clauses subordinate to a nominal form were treated [here](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/351/79), but the source used there does not discuss the present question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6726" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1844" RevisionGUID="acdef959-4194-40ce-84b5-33d633a6e1bd" CreationDate="2016-10-17T18:56:30.280" UserId="79" Text="How to choose conjunctive tenses in a clause subordinate to a subordinate clause" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6727" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1844" RevisionGUID="acdef959-4194-40ce-84b5-33d633a6e1bd" CreationDate="2016-10-17T18:56:30.280" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|conjunctive|subordinate-clause|consecutio-temporum|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1845" RevisionGUID="aec4495a-ea1f-449e-98b0-9071c0a33e16" CreationDate="2016-10-17T18:57:50.767" UserId="916" Text="The abbreviation `eccƚie` is common in medieval latin texts, like this:&#xD;&#xA;[![latin text][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;which is from page 78 of [Placita de quo Warranto][2]. It can also be seen in [this text][3] and [this text][4]. There is a horizontal bar through the vertical of the `l` indicating abbreviation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Presumably, it stands for one of [the eccles words][5] in some form or another, something to do with the church. The text above is (I think) about John, the rector of Eversholt church, paying the king for a licence to be preacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But just what full latin word, with what meaning, is implied by the abbreviation `eccƚie`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6Do9o.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2R9DAAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=x-IHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PR25&amp;lpg=PR25&amp;dq=%22ecclie%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=u5xfqQ_tJY&amp;sig=tnPlSj5rRPRVho6uRYAqlpSBBh0&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=%22ecclie%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gW5MAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA92&amp;lpg=PA92&amp;dq=%22ecclie%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=3dFik0jnAx&amp;sig=LuKPhyZpH3SU5CrsYGWTm-NMNeQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=ecclie&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/eccles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6729" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1845" RevisionGUID="aec4495a-ea1f-449e-98b0-9071c0a33e16" CreationDate="2016-10-17T18:57:50.767" UserId="916" Text="The medieval abbreviation eccƚie" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6730" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1845" RevisionGUID="aec4495a-ea1f-449e-98b0-9071c0a33e16" CreationDate="2016-10-17T18:57:50.767" UserId="916" Text="|medieval-latin|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1846" RevisionGUID="6fbe2932-d680-487d-9bca-82d0d65ce1e9" CreationDate="2016-10-17T19:04:07.517" UserId="79" Text="Tuomo Pekkanen's *Ars Grammatica &amp;ndash; Latinan kielioppi* (§116, lis&amp;auml;ys 3) mentions that the historical present can be treated as either a present tense or as a past tense when *consecutio temporum* is concerned.&#xD;&#xA;It gives this example without any citation or further explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quod cum videret, quaerit, quae causa sit/esset.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; When he saw it, he asked what was the reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know this is not very convincing evidence, but it does support the idea of two possibilities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1847" RevisionGUID="cb4b7379-3c0f-49fb-9977-8667e2e97050" CreationDate="2016-10-17T19:46:41.720" UserId="645" Text="It takes a long time to master Latin poetry, and a lot of practice in reading before you can attempt to write it. The metrical schemes are not hard to follow, but declaiming the poems as the classical poets intended is just about impossible, since we can only guess at the true sounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big difference from modern European, as you probably know, is that stress on syllables is immaterial to Latin poetry : instead, it is the syllable lengths as they are spoken that are the basis of any metrical scheme. Sometimes — but rarely — the Latin can be read to almost resemble an [English] style, e.g. Catullus IV, which begins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Phaselus ille, quem videtis, hospites* / *ait fuisse navium celerrimus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules of scansion are not too complicated, but have to be followed closely, especially in the elisions which inevitably occur (they are themselves part of the rules). The seven varieties of metrical foot are composed of long and short syllables in various combinations. Those used in the hexameter are the dactyl (long-short-short, — u u) and the spondee (two long syllables, — —). The use of macrons won't help much, as you will find when you study the rules governing syllable length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best, most concise explanation of the rules of prosody which I know is that in Kennedy's Revised Latin Primer (published in the UK by Longman), under the heading PROSODY (articles 471 to 483).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know of only one modern work on Latin prose composition, found at http://www.anthempress.com/a-guide-to-latin-meter-and-verse-composition&#xD;&#xA;though I've not actually seen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, to write Latin verse, it's advisable to get hold of a 'Gradus ad Parnassum (sive synonymorum et epithetorum thesaurus)', which is a comprehensive list of words and their epithets and synonyms for which there is a precedent in classical poetry. Such are no longer published, so far as I know, but in the UK they can be found in second-hand bookshops or through specialist book-finders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that all this helps you, rather than putting you off. I was taught Latin prose composition at school, and find it a very satisfying pastime." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1846" RevisionGUID="dfaa5cc3-bea0-4aa7-a09c-a9721c5f8643" CreationDate="2016-10-17T20:02:09.340" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="Tuomo Pekkanen's *Ars Grammatica &amp;ndash; Latinan kielioppi* (§116, lis&amp;auml;ys 3) mentions that the historical present can be treated as either a present tense or as a past tense when *consecutio temporum* is concerned.&#xD;&#xA;It gives this example without any citation or further explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quod cum videret, quaerit, quae causa sit/esset.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; When he saw it, he asked what the reason was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know this is not very convincing evidence, but it does support the idea of two possibilities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1847" RevisionGUID="c6bd7c6a-b35d-470a-b0cd-6dfb49b59d24" CreationDate="2016-10-17T21:12:53.227" UserId="645" Comment="Final sentence altered to read 'verse composition' instead of 'prose composition'." Text="It takes a long time to master Latin poetry, and a lot of practice in reading before you can attempt to write it. The metrical schemes are not hard to follow, but declaiming the poems as the classical poets intended is just about impossible, since we can only guess at the true sounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big difference from modern European, as you probably know, is that stress on syllables is immaterial to Latin poetry : instead, it is the syllable lengths as they are spoken that are the basis of any metrical scheme. Sometimes — but rarely — the Latin can be read to almost resemble an [English] style, e.g. Catullus IV, which begins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Phaselus ille, quem videtis, hospites* / *ait fuisse navium celerrimus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules of scansion are not too complicated, but have to be followed closely, especially in the elisions which inevitably occur (they are themselves part of the rules). The seven varieties of metrical foot are composed of long and short syllables in various combinations. Those used in the hexameter are the dactyl (long-short-short, — u u) and the spondee (two long syllables, — —). The use of macrons won't help much, as you will find when you study the rules governing syllable length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best, most concise explanation of the rules of prosody which I know is that in Kennedy's Revised Latin Primer (published in the UK by Longman), under the heading PROSODY (articles 471 to 483).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know of only one modern work on Latin prose composition, found at http://www.anthempress.com/a-guide-to-latin-meter-and-verse-composition&#xD;&#xA;though I've not actually seen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, to write Latin verse, it's advisable to get hold of a 'Gradus ad Parnassum (sive synonymorum et epithetorum thesaurus)', which is a comprehensive list of words and their epithets and synonyms for which there is a precedent in classical poetry. Such are no longer published, so far as I know, but in the UK they can be found in second-hand bookshops or through specialist book-finders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that all this helps you, rather than putting you off. I was taught Latin verse composition at school, and find it a very satisfying pastime." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1847" RevisionGUID="aa78784c-2c05-4a3a-97e1-f69705fd227e" CreationDate="2016-10-17T21:28:53.930" UserId="40" Comment="&quot;I know of only one modern work on Latin prose composition&quot; -&gt; &quot;verse composition&quot;" Text="It takes a long time to master Latin poetry, and a lot of practice in reading before you can attempt to write it. The metrical schemes are not hard to follow, but declaiming the poems as the classical poets intended is just about impossible, since we can only guess at the true sounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big difference from modern European, as you probably know, is that stress on syllables is immaterial to Latin poetry : instead, it is the syllable lengths as they are spoken that are the basis of any metrical scheme. Sometimes — but rarely — the Latin can be read to almost resemble an [English] style, e.g. Catullus IV, which begins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Phaselus ille, quem videtis, hospites* / *ait fuisse navium celerrimus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules of scansion are not too complicated, but have to be followed closely, especially in the elisions which inevitably occur (they are themselves part of the rules). The seven varieties of metrical foot are composed of long and short syllables in various combinations. Those used in the hexameter are the dactyl (long-short-short, — u u) and the spondee (two long syllables, — —). The use of macrons won't help much, as you will find when you study the rules governing syllable length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best, most concise explanation of the rules of prosody which I know is that in Kennedy's Revised Latin Primer (published in the UK by Longman), under the heading PROSODY (articles 471 to 483).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know of only one modern work on Latin verse composition, found at http://www.anthempress.com/a-guide-to-latin-meter-and-verse-composition&#xD;&#xA;though I've not actually seen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, to write Latin verse, it's advisable to get hold of a 'Gradus ad Parnassum (sive synonymorum et epithetorum thesaurus)', which is a comprehensive list of words and their epithets and synonyms for which there is a precedent in classical poetry. Such are no longer published, so far as I know, but in the UK they can be found in second-hand bookshops or through specialist book-finders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that all this helps you, rather than putting you off. I was taught Latin verse composition at school, and find it a very satisfying pastime." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1848" RevisionGUID="792e534d-6a15-486f-ae8d-743960014843" CreationDate="2016-10-18T01:18:21.393" UserId="522" Text="In Classical Latin the Genitive and Dative, first declension are **-ae** but in Medieval Latin, **-e.**  So this is the abbreviated form of **ecclesie.** ***&quot;of the church.&quot;***  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not all through-strikes have the same significance: though *per* and *pro* in this passage might originally have had  / and - strikes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Johannes persona ecclesie de EVERESHOLT dat domino Regi dimidiam&#xD;&#xA;&gt; marcam pro licencia habenda **...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The National Archive has posted a latin course on its Website.  &#xD;&#xA;The abbreviations can be found on pages posted by Wikipedia and Archive under ***&quot;Sigla&quot;***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1848" RevisionGUID="95345507-8d71-401d-933a-cb493b39d0a4" CreationDate="2016-10-18T01:28:14.493" UserId="522" Comment="links and references" Text="In Classical Latin the Genitive and Dative, first declension are **-ae** but in Medieval Latin, **-e.**  So this is the abbreviated form of **ecclesie.** ***&quot;of the church.&quot;***  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not all through-strikes have the same significance: though *per* and *pro* in this passage might originally have had  / and - strikes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Johannes persona ecclesie de EVERESHOLT dat domino Regi dimidiam&#xD;&#xA;&gt; marcam pro licencia habenda **...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The National Archive has posted  [beginners][1] and [advanced][2] latin course on its Website.  &#xD;&#xA;The abbreviations can be found on pages posted by Wikipedia under 'Scribal [Abbreviations][3]' and Archive under ***&quot;Sigla&quot;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/latin/beginners/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://%20http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/latin/advanced/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribal_abbreviation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1849" RevisionGUID="c5774b99-0ad9-4965-9ba6-ab2f627e6351" CreationDate="2016-10-18T03:32:31.127" UserId="921" Text="I was reading today's gospel from the Roman calendar and noticed this in Luke 12:20:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dixit autem illi Deus stulte hac nocte animam tuam repetunt a te quae autem parasti cuius erunt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The RSV translates it this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But God said to him, `Fool! This night your soul is required of you;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other English translations also translate `repetunt` as a singular, passive verb. Can anyone explain the use of the 3rd-person plural active here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6740" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1849" RevisionGUID="c5774b99-0ad9-4965-9ba6-ab2f627e6351" CreationDate="2016-10-18T03:32:31.127" UserId="921" Text="Why is &quot;repetunt&quot; 3rd pl active in Luke 12:20 (Vulgate)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6741" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1849" RevisionGUID="c5774b99-0ad9-4965-9ba6-ab2f627e6351" CreationDate="2016-10-18T03:32:31.127" UserId="921" Text="|christianity|passive-voice|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1849" RevisionGUID="77f4861d-a305-4d75-ac96-38685115b6be" CreationDate="2016-10-18T03:38:35.657" UserId="921" Comment="added 217 characters in body" Text="I was reading today's gospel from the Roman calendar and noticed this in Luke 12:20:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dixit autem illi Deus stulte hac nocte animam tuam **repetunt** a te quae autem parasti cuius erunt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was struck by the use of the 3rd-person plural verb `repetunt` here. It mirrors the Greek version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ειπεν δε αυτω ο θεος αφρων ταυτη τη νυκτι την ψυχην σου **απαιτουσιν** απο&#xD;&#xA;&gt; σου α δε ητοιμασας τινι εσται&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The RSV translates it this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But God said to him, `Fool! This night your soul is required of you;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other English translations also translate `repetunt` as a singular, passive verb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone explain the use of the 3rd-person plural active here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1849" RevisionGUID="cf1fc565-0585-45c3-8514-d396a8f18239" CreationDate="2016-10-18T03:48:27.430" UserId="921" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I was reading today's gospel from the Roman calendar and noticed this in Luke 12:20:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dixit autem illi Deus stulte hac nocte animam tuam **repetunt** a te quae autem parasti cuius erunt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was struck by the use of the 3rd-person plural active verb `repetunt` here. It mirrors the Greek version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ειπεν δε αυτω ο θεος αφρων ταυτη τη νυκτι την ψυχην σου **απαιτουσιν** απο&#xD;&#xA;&gt; σου α δε ητοιμασας τινι εσται&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The RSV translates it this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But God said to him, `Fool! This night your soul is required of you;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other English translations also translate `repetunt` as a singular, passive verb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone explain the use of the 3rd-person plural active here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1850" RevisionGUID="daef9987-1fd5-4cf0-b7d8-5893ee57406b" CreationDate="2016-10-18T06:32:54.393" UserDisplayName="user811" Text="The only one I've found so far is Google Translate. Is Google's Latin pronunciation good/reliable? If not, what are some other resources?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example from Google: [*ceteris paribus*][1] (click on the  icon).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://translate.google.com/#la/en/ceteris%20paribus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6745" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1850" RevisionGUID="daef9987-1fd5-4cf0-b7d8-5893ee57406b" CreationDate="2016-10-18T06:32:54.393" UserDisplayName="user811" Text="Websites for Latin pronunciation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6746" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1850" RevisionGUID="daef9987-1fd5-4cf0-b7d8-5893ee57406b" CreationDate="2016-10-18T06:32:54.393" UserDisplayName="user811" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1850" RevisionGUID="36852ffa-8d62-47dc-a7ff-4eb1ad104eca" CreationDate="2016-10-18T06:56:17.990" UserDisplayName="user811" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="The only one I've found so far is Google Translate. Is Google's Latin pronunciation good/reliable? If not, what are some other resources? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example from Google: [*ceteris paribus*][1] (click on the  icon).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Context: I know close to nothing about Latin and am interested only because Latin phrases are sometimes used in English.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://translate.google.com/#la/en/ceteris%20paribus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1851" RevisionGUID="8a75cfd3-9ab6-4a8b-89e9-79ce89b9dc42" CreationDate="2016-10-18T08:49:30.943" UserId="574" Text="I shouldn't trust Google translate for pronunciation, it often pronounces words/sentences wrong. I would recommend to learn how to pronounce Latin words yourself. The following site could help you: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Introductio/Pronunciatio.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/Grammar/Latin-Pronunciation-Syllable-Accent.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most automatic pronunciation sites aren't reliable: it are computers, 99% of all the automatic translators/pronunciators has got a few bugs/errors that the pronunciation isn't optimal. You could use automatic translators, but you can't trust 100% on them. So my advice: learn the pronunciation yourself.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1851" RevisionGUID="05b63bf5-008f-4d1c-95f2-4fcbe6dac3b7" CreationDate="2016-10-18T08:54:51.577" UserId="574" Comment="added 229 characters in body" Text="I shouldn't trust Google translate for pronunciation, it often pronounces words/sentences wrong. I would recommend to learn how to pronounce Latin words yourself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would recommend [this][1] and/or &#xD;&#xA;[this][2] site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most automatic pronunciation sites aren't reliable: it are computers, 99% of all the automatic translators/pronunciators has got a few bugs/errors that the pronunciation isn't optimal. You could use automatic translators, but you can't trust 100% on them. So my advice: learn the pronunciation yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really don't want to learn it yourself, then I would recommend [this][3] automatic site, but again: it doesn't pronounce all words right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Introductio/Pronunciatio.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/Grammar/Latin-Pronunciation-Syllable-Accent.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.howtopronounce.com/latin/index.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1853" RevisionGUID="f99963c5-6212-4b35-86d8-8bb3cb0edba6" CreationDate="2016-10-18T15:02:51.163" UserId="522" Text="**For the pronunciation of post Classical Latin:**&#xD;&#xA;*Singing Early Music*:  0253210267 claims that on their disc (with the book)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &quot;A specialist presents  each  of  the  languages  or dialects &#xD;&#xA;&gt; included,  which  are  English, Scots, French,  Occitan,  Catalan, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Spanish,   Portuguese,   Galician- Portuguese, Italian, German,  and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Flemish, **as well as the characteristic Latin**  of  each  area; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; sample  texts  can  be  heard  on  an  included compact disc.&quot; *(emphasis not in the original)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;This implies that Latin pronunciation changed distinctively region by region across Europe, and century by century from classical to renaissance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is accessible as a Google book, so not really a website; simply for this specialist field of local medieval sung Latin, the subject is being researched and the results are available here and elsewhere  if you need them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6755" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1850" RevisionGUID="1b7287b5-2f90-41fe-88d1-ab734f5a72f7" CreationDate="2016-10-18T17:46:33.327" UserId="12" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:12,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nathaniel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1854" RevisionGUID="46debb77-8e53-409e-b2c1-d0997c402b87" CreationDate="2016-10-18T18:23:07.963" UserId="79" Text="Suppose I want to search for a certain word, expression or structure in the Latin literature.&#xD;&#xA;What **online** tools can I use for such purposes?&#xD;&#xA;Where can I find a large collection of Latin texts in easily searchable form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To describe the source or tool, please answer at least these questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How is the corpus limited? (Is it only classical Latin, for example?)&#xD;&#xA;- What kinds of searches can be made?&#xD;&#xA;- How can I link to a specific passage that I want to cite?&#xD;&#xA;- Is it connected to some other tools (like a dictionary or a full text translation) that make usage easier?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do not need to limit your description to answering these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Please give only one corpus per answer.**&#xD;&#xA;If you have many suggestions, give multiple answers &amp;mdash; but read the other answers to avoid duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;This way people can vote on individual corpora, causing the best ones to rise up and the worst ones to sink down, so that we can easily find the most loved dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Note about resource questions:**  &#xD;&#xA;Broad resource questions like this are generally **not** allowed on this site.&#xD;&#xA;The community chooses a select few to avoid an overflow of questions of this kind.&#xD;&#xA;If you have an opinion on what resource questions should be asked next, post a suggestion in [this meta post](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) or vote the existing ones.&#xD;&#xA;The ones to be asked will be chosen from that list according to their number of votes.&#xD;&#xA;If you have ideas about listing resources on this site in general, you can contribute to [this meta discussion](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/177/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In particular, if you would like to ask a similar resource request question, do **not** just ask it, but post a suggestion in the [mentioned meta post](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1854" RevisionGUID="46debb77-8e53-409e-b2c1-d0997c402b87" CreationDate="2016-10-18T18:23:07.963" UserId="79" Text="Where to find an online Latin text corpus and what can I do with it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1854" RevisionGUID="46debb77-8e53-409e-b2c1-d0997c402b87" CreationDate="2016-10-18T18:23:07.963" UserId="79" Text="|resource-request|soft-question|study-strategies|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6759" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1854" RevisionGUID="1da62ff9-455e-4c98-aa7e-c2947507b1f3" CreationDate="2016-10-18T18:28:41.840" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1855" RevisionGUID="0103e203-7a7b-4301-a4be-b842d5f11deb" CreationDate="2016-10-18T19:25:23.313" UserId="235" Text="After some online research, I found that Professor Carl W. Conrad answered [the very same question.][1] He points to A.T. Robertson's commentary on the verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thou foolish one (aprwn). Fool, for lack of sense (a privative and prhn, sense) as in Luke 11:40 ; 2 Corinthians 11:19 . Old word, used by Socrates in Xenophon. Nominative form as vocative. Is thy soul required of thee (thn psuchn sou aitousin apo sou). Plural active present, not passive: &quot;They are demanding thy soul from thee.&quot; The **impersonal plural (aitousin)** is common enough ( Luke 6:38 ; Luke 12:11 ; Luke 16:9 ; Luke 23:31 ). The rabbis used &quot;they&quot; to avoid saying &quot;God.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ θεός Ἄφρων, ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ τὴν ψυχήν σου **αἰτοῦσιν** ἀπὸ σοῦ· ἃ δὲ ἡτοίμασας, τίνι ἔσται;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Westcott and Hort 1881][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you mentioned yourself, the Greek word αἰτοῦσιν, from which *repetunt* is derived, is in the third person plural. Robertson states the reason for this. It's an example of the **impersonal third person plural**, which has other occurrences in Luke. We can infer that this idiom has a long tradition, and was probably used in the Old Testament as well. As Robertson explains, it allows the author to avoid saying &quot;God&quot;. This can also be accomplished by use of the passive, which is what we see in  your given English translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the reason why we see **repetunt**, instead of a passive verb, is because the Vulgate was staying true to its source, copying the idiom into Latin instead of revising it with a passive. As Professor Conrad points out, an interesting analogy is the colloquial third-person plural in English. Nowadays, we often use this idiom to avoid being partial to a certain gender. It's probably accurate to say that this idiom has many uses, but most of them relate to the same idea: concealing the agent while still using the active voice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2003-September/026415.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/luke/luke-12-20.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://biblehub.com/text/luke/12-20.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1855" RevisionGUID="4213c9b3-973c-4f2a-bff2-eb4f923f6e3b" CreationDate="2016-10-18T20:29:11.193" UserId="235" Comment="added 828 characters in body" Text="I think it helps to look at two different commentaries on this verse. First we'll reproduce the Greek, and then the commentaries on the Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ θεός Ἄφρων, ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ τὴν ψυχήν σου **αἰτοῦσιν** ἀπὸ σοῦ· ἃ δὲ ἡτοίμασας, τίνι ἔσται;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Westcott and Hort 1881][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first commentator is A.T. Robertson.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thou foolish one (aprwn). Fool, for lack of sense (a privative and prhn, sense) as in Luke 11:40 ; 2 Corinthians 11:19 . Old word, used by Socrates in Xenophon. Nominative form as vocative. Is thy soul required of thee (thn psuchn sou aitousin apo sou). Plural active present, not passive: &quot;They are demanding thy soul from thee.&quot; The **impersonal plural (aitousin)** is common enough ( Luke 6:38 ; Luke 12:11 ; Luke 16:9 ; Luke 23:31 ). The rabbis used &quot;they&quot; to avoid saying &quot;God.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is Henry Alford.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; αἰτοῦσιν, not strictly impersonal; there are those whose business it is, even the angels, the ministers of the divine purposes: see ch. Luke 6:38 and note. The merely impersonal sense may be defended: cf. Luke 12:48 : but this saying seems so solemn, as to require something more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Henry Alford's Commentaries on Luke 12][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two commentators agree that the verb αἰτοῦσιν could be a case of the **impersonal third person plural**. Robertson gives a good description of this idiom. He notes that it has at least a few other occurrences in Luke. He claims that it allows the author to avoid having to say &quot;God&quot;, in the same way that the passive would, but keeping the active voice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one possible answer. That the Greek verb αἰτοῦσιν is impersonal, and thus the Vulgate's choice of *repetunt* is a way of copying the idiom into Latin. But Alford allows that it could be otherwise, explaining that it could possibly refer to angels. For this reason, I hesitate to say definitively whether *repetunt* is impersonal. I think it's a matter of interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also worth mentioning how the Douay-Rheims bible, an early and more literal translation of the Vulgate, keeps the third person and the active voice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And I will say to my soul: Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years take thy rest; eat, drink, make good cheer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But God said to him: Thou fool, this night do they require thy soul of thee: and whose shall those things be which thou hast provided? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Luke 12:19-20 Douay-Rheims][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going off on a tangent, I like how the vocative *Stulte* mirrors the man's exclamation, *Anima*. The man is referring to his life-giving soul, but when God uses the same word, God is likely referring to the immortal soul, neatly contradicting a man who assumed himself to be wise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://biblehub.com/text/luke/12-20.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/luke/luke-12-20.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hac/luke-12.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/dou/luk.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1855" RevisionGUID="01c823a6-a623-498f-9a2e-3998b87513d1" CreationDate="2016-10-18T22:38:24.603" UserId="235" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I think it helps to look at two different commentaries on this verse. First we'll reproduce the Greek, and then the commentaries on the Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ θεός Ἄφρων, ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ τὴν ψυχήν σου **αἰτοῦσιν** ἀπὸ σοῦ· ἃ δὲ ἡτοίμασας, τίνι ἔσται;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Westcott and Hort 1881][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first commentator is A.T. Robertson.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thou foolish one (aprwn). Fool, for lack of sense (a privative and prhn, sense) as in Luke 11:40 ; 2 Corinthians 11:19 . Old word, used by Socrates in Xenophon. Nominative form as vocative. Is thy soul required of thee (thn psuchn sou aitousin apo sou). Plural active present, not passive: &quot;They are demanding thy soul from thee.&quot; The **impersonal plural (aitousin)** is common enough ( Luke 6:38 ; Luke 12:11 ; Luke 16:9 ; Luke 23:31 ). The rabbis used &quot;they&quot; to avoid saying &quot;God.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is Henry Alford.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; αἰτοῦσιν, not strictly impersonal; there are those whose business it is, even the angels, the ministers of the divine purposes: see ch. Luke 6:38 and note. The merely impersonal sense may be defended: cf. Luke 12:48 : but this saying seems so solemn, as to require something more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Henry Alford's Commentaries on Luke 12][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two commentators agree that the verb αἰτοῦσιν could be a case of the **impersonal third person plural**. Robertson gives a good description of this idiom. He notes that it has at least a few other occurrences in Luke. He claims that it allows the author to avoid having to say &quot;God&quot;, in the same way that the passive would, but keeping the active voice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one possible answer. That the Greek verb αἰτοῦσιν is impersonal, and thus the Vulgate's choice of *repetunt* is a way of copying the idiom into Latin. But Alford allows that it could be otherwise, explaining that it could possibly refer to angels. For this reason, I hesitate to say definitively whether *repetunt* is impersonal. I think it's a matter of interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also worth mentioning how the Douay-Rheims bible, an early and more literal translation of the Vulgate, keeps the third person and the active voice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And I will say to my soul: Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years take thy rest; eat, drink, make good cheer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But God said to him: Thou fool, this night do **they require** thy soul of thee: and whose shall those things be which thou hast provided? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Luke 12:19-20 Douay-Rheims][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Going off on a tangent, I like how the vocative *Stulte* mirrors the man's exclamation, *Anima*. The man is referring to his life-giving soul, but when God uses the same word, God is likely referring to the immortal soul, neatly contradicting a man who assumed himself to be wise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://biblehub.com/text/luke/12-20.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/luke/luke-12-20.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hac/luke-12.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/dou/luk.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6763" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1849" RevisionGUID="51873af2-223c-4dcd-a198-d4276c079c37" CreationDate="2016-10-18T22:50:10.467" UserId="235" Comment="The idiom in question was probably articulated in the Greek text and then copied into the Vulgate. Also, Greek text is quoted." Text="|greek|christianity|passive-voice|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6764" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1849" RevisionGUID="51873af2-223c-4dcd-a198-d4276c079c37" CreationDate="2016-10-18T22:50:10.467" Comment="Proposed by 235 approved by 79 edit id of 143" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1857" RevisionGUID="1326bbbd-8051-4ae8-bac3-3f739cb8ec99" CreationDate="2016-10-19T13:44:09.603" UserId="183" Text="This is a meta-answer on **How to find Latin corpora?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Go to the [Virtual Language Observatory][1] (run by the European Union financed CLARIN project), search all resources and restrict the search to Latin Language and Resource type Corpus. On the day of writing this answer, this search yields 26 hits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The corpora are of very different nature and often contain additional annotations (like syntax trees).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://vlo.clarin.eu" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6769" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1857" RevisionGUID="5ab8e292-14dc-4bb7-8345-a19873f812d5" CreationDate="2016-10-19T13:44:09.603" UserId="183" />
  <row Id="6770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1858" RevisionGUID="bc99ad36-3c1b-44b4-9b36-eb2d65f015e9" CreationDate="2016-10-19T17:22:57.423" UserId="235" Text="I became curious about this question as I was translating a passage written by a textbook author. The passage begins, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Poeta Ovidius fabulam de dea Latona **et** de femina Niobe narrat. *(Latin via Ovid)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see how the author moved the conjunction &quot;et&quot; outside the prepositional phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to know, in classical Latin, is it bad style to place the conjunction &quot;et&quot; within a prepositional phrase? e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Poeta Ovidius fabulam de dea Latona **et** femina Niobe narrat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  I suspect it is bad style, but I wanted to make sure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this to be an interesting contrast with the English language, where such constructions are okay. It also reminds me of a [question I asked on Greek recently][1], where we determined it is probably bad style to do so. If this is true in Latin as well, then I wonder whether this convention comes from Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1826/is-it-possible-to-use-%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9-as-both-coordinating-and-correlative-conjunctions-in-t" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6771" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1858" RevisionGUID="bc99ad36-3c1b-44b4-9b36-eb2d65f015e9" CreationDate="2016-10-19T17:22:57.423" UserId="235" Text="Can you place &quot;et&quot; inside a prepositional phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6772" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1858" RevisionGUID="bc99ad36-3c1b-44b4-9b36-eb2d65f015e9" CreationDate="2016-10-19T17:22:57.423" UserId="235" Text="|classical-latin|greek|preposition|conjunction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1859" RevisionGUID="b6767fa0-1c0a-4566-8395-6b93c21794eb" CreationDate="2016-10-19T18:00:36.147" UserId="79" Text="An alternative way to phrase the question is to ask whether a preposition should be repeated after *et*.&#xD;&#xA;I went through a book for all the examples of *et* used with prepositions in a way that would allow both options.&#xD;&#xA;I excluded the preposition *inter* because it would make little sense to say *inter Sequanos et inter Helvetios* instead of *inter Sequanos et Helvetios*.&#xD;&#xA;I chose [first book](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/caesar/gall1.shtml) of Caesar's *Commentarii de bello Gallico*, and I found these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1.5: *ab Sequanis et Helvetiis*&#xD;&#xA;- 7.4: *ab iniuria et maleficio*&#xD;&#xA;- 9.4: *sine maleficio et iniuria*&#xD;&#xA;- 11.1: *per angustias et fines*&#xD;&#xA;- 13.5: *ex calamitate populi Romani et internecione exercitus*&#xD;&#xA;- 21.2: *cum duabus legionibus et iis ducibus*&#xD;&#xA;- 26.1: *ad impedimenta et carros*&#xD;&#xA;- 34.1: *de re publica et summis utriusque rebus*&#xD;&#xA;- 37.1: *et legati ab Haeduis et a Treveris*&#xD;&#xA;- 41.3: *cum tribunis militum et primorum ordinum centurionibus*&#xD;&#xA;- 47.4: *et propter fidem et propter linguae Gallicae scientiam*&#xD;&#xA;- 48.2: *ex Sequanis et Haeduis*&#xD;&#xA;- 53.6: *de tanta voluptate et gratulatione*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;- 2.3: *inter Sequanos et Helvetios*&#xD;&#xA;- 6.1: *inter montem Iuram et flumen Rhodanum*&#xD;&#xA;- 15.3: *inter novissimum hostium agmen et nostrum*&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this sample, it seems that the dominant option is not to repeat the preposition &amp;mdash; or, in other words, to place *et* inside a prepositional clause.&#xD;&#xA;There are two exceptions: 37.1 and 47.4.&#xD;&#xA;Both of them use the emphatic *et&amp;ndash;et* instead of a single *et*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caesar's style, at least in this particular book, seems to be to always place *et* inside a prepositional clause, with the sole exception of using *et&amp;ndash;et* in the sense of &quot;both&amp;ndash;and&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If what you suspect to be bad style is indeed bad style, then Caesar has consistently bad style in this respect.&#xD;&#xA;Other authors may have different idiosyncrasies, but at least you are not required to repeat the preposition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1860" RevisionGUID="64426d14-cbe3-402f-83a1-45f1472f7398" CreationDate="2016-10-19T18:15:45.953" UserId="79" Text="Judging by dictionaries and grammars, we seem to know the length of almost every vowel in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;For word-final vowels and those followed by a single consonant, the length can be figured out from metric poetry.&#xD;&#xA;But if there are more consonants after the vowel, the syllable is always long &amp;mdash; or heavy if you prefer that nomenclature &amp;mdash; and the length of the vowel itself is metrically irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;How do we know the lengths of such vowels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6775" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1860" RevisionGUID="64426d14-cbe3-402f-83a1-45f1472f7398" CreationDate="2016-10-19T18:15:45.953" UserId="79" Text="How do we know the quantity of vowels followed by several consonants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6776" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1860" RevisionGUID="64426d14-cbe3-402f-83a1-45f1472f7398" CreationDate="2016-10-19T18:15:45.953" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|poetry|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1861" RevisionGUID="11890eed-94ff-40b4-9a10-9eea7bf8ec3f" CreationDate="2016-10-19T19:12:42.007" UserId="926" Text="How to write &quot;knowledge to all&quot; in Classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate gave me: &quot;In omni scientia&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;But I also had &quot;Omnes enim scientiae&quot; or &quot;Omnis enim scientia&quot; and a scholar gave me &quot;Scientia per omnibus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one corresponds the best? Or is there yet another wording which would be more accurate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6778" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1861" RevisionGUID="11890eed-94ff-40b4-9a10-9eea7bf8ec3f" CreationDate="2016-10-19T19:12:42.007" UserId="926" Text="How to write &quot;knowledge to all&quot; in classical latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6779" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1861" RevisionGUID="11890eed-94ff-40b4-9a10-9eea7bf8ec3f" CreationDate="2016-10-19T19:12:42.007" UserId="926" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1861" RevisionGUID="f82aa1ac-55b0-481f-89b6-1485c1024870" CreationDate="2016-10-19T19:38:27.037" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How to write &quot;knowledge to all&quot; in Classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate gave me &quot;In omni scientia&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But I also had &quot;Omnes enim scientiae&quot; or &quot;Omnis enim scientia&quot; and a scholar gave me &quot;Scientia per omnibus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one corresponds the best? Or is there yet another wording which would be more accurate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6781" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1861" RevisionGUID="f82aa1ac-55b0-481f-89b6-1485c1024870" CreationDate="2016-10-19T19:38:27.037" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How to write &quot;knowledge to all&quot; in classical latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6782" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1861" RevisionGUID="f82aa1ac-55b0-481f-89b6-1485c1024870" CreationDate="2016-10-19T19:38:27.037" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1862" RevisionGUID="b02ddf73-7956-441a-ac53-b02e1b494995" CreationDate="2016-10-19T19:53:08.103" UserId="79" Text="Google Translate is very unreliable with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Let me go through the proposed translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *In omni scientia* means &quot;in all knowledge&quot; or &quot;there is knowledge in all&quot;. The translation depends on whether *scientia* is nominative or ablative &amp;mdash; the two forms look alike for this word.&#xD;&#xA;- *Omnes enim scientiae* means &quot;but all knowledges&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- *Omnis enim scientia* is the same in singular: &quot;but all knowledge&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- *Scientia per omnibus* is ungrammatical. With *per* you should have accusative but *omnibus* is in dative (or ablative). It is better not to use a preposition here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that *scientia* also means &quot;science&quot;, but I think this meaning is not yet present in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last suggestion is closest to a good one.&#xD;&#xA;***Scientia omnibus*** means &quot;knowledge to all&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In Latin &quot;to all&quot; is expressed with the single word *omnibus* (in dative) without any preposition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1863" RevisionGUID="fd5c5677-a08b-4ff4-bfcc-818ccf67bf67" CreationDate="2016-10-19T19:55:37.660" UserId="9" Text=" The length of vowels with “hidden quantity” can often be discovered from one of the following sources of information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Explicit descriptions of vowel length in ancient texts##&#xD;&#xA;“Lachmann’s law” is a well-known rule about the length of vowels in closed syllables in past participles; we have a description of this from the works of Aulus Gellius according to William Sidney Allen in *[Vox Latina][1]* (68). Allen's entry on Lachmann's Law also discusses various other types of evidence for vowel quality in this context, so I’ll reference it a few more times in this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of Uncertainty:** We don’t know how accurate ancient writers were at formulating accurate descriptions of rules. In some cases, there may be uncertainty about how to interpret the words used in ancient descriptions of pronunciation. Nonetheless, this is an important source of information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Use of apex/i longa, digraph “ei” in ancient inscriptions##&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;These are described in &quot;[The Use of Devices for Indicating Vowel Length in Latin][2],&quot; by John C. Rolfe, Ph.D., read April 20, 1922.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The modern scholar, in spite of the silence of the native grammarians,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; might be led to inquire whether the so‑called &quot;hidden quantities&quot; are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; designated by marks. We find that in the M. A. [*[Monumentum Ancyranum][3]*]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; twenty-six such vowels are marked, but they amount to only about&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 20 per cent of the 138 hidden quantities in the whole inscription. (87-88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Notable limitations:** As the quotation says, genuinely long vowels were not consistently marked with these devices. So it’s hard to get good evidence from this source for a vowel being short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of Uncertainty:** It seems that in some cases, the “i longa” was used on short vowels to indicate something other than vowel length (possibly “emphasis” or “dignity”). Both Rolfe (86, 91) and Allen (70) mention this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Vowel length in descendants##&#xD;&#xA;We can look at the vowel quality of descedant words in Romance langs: many of them have distinct reflexes of long and short vowels. For example, Allen contrasts French *d**oi**t,* from Latin *dir**ē**ctum,* and *dép**i**t,* from Latin *desp**ĕ**ctum* (70).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Notable limitations:** Not all Classical Latin words have attested descendents in a Romance language. As far as I know, long and short “a” do not have different reflexes in any Romance language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of uncertainty:**  Romance may reflect post-classical variation in vowel length (i.e. the length of a vowel in Proto-Romance may differ from the length in Classical Latin); words may show language-specific effects of analogy/restructuring. Allen mentions “dictus” shows inconsistent reflexes in Romance: Italian has *detto* (pointing to a short vowel) while French has *dit* (pointing to a long vowel) (70).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Vowel length in related Latin words, cognates##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can look other Latin words that seem related for which we know the quantity. We can also look at words in related Indo-European languages (such as Greek or Sanskrit) that might have clearer indications of the historical vowel length. (I can't think of an example of this, sorry.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of uncertainty:** Sometimes the etymology of a term is unclear. It’s also possible that that the length of the vowel in one or both of the languages was affected by some unknown sound change or analogical process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA69&amp;lpg=PA69&amp;dq=lectus%20past%20participle%20vowel%20length&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=TwUCgj2z_X&amp;sig=MOLsUgENWypHP-_JFE70o8_KA1M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjg9c3Qyo7LAhWEw4MKHXEeADEQ6AEINjAG#v=onepage&amp;q=lectus%20past%20participle%20vowel%20length&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Journals/PAPhS/61/1/Devices_for_Vowel_Length*.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monumentum_Ancyranum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1863" RevisionGUID="be507907-6994-44b6-8bc1-3e4c504f3713" CreationDate="2016-10-19T20:00:25.840" UserId="9" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text=" The length of vowels with “hidden quantity” can often be discovered from one of the following sources of information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Explicit descriptions of vowel length in ancient texts##&#xD;&#xA;“Lachmann’s law” is a well-known rule about the length of vowels in closed syllables in past participles; we have a description of this from the works of Aulus Gellius according to William Sidney Allen in *[Vox Latina][1]* (68). Allen's entry on Lachmann's Law also discusses various other types of evidence for vowel quality in this context, so I’ll reference it a few more times in this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of Uncertainty:** We don’t know how accurate ancient writers were at formulating accurate descriptions of rules for vowel length. In some cases, there may be uncertainty about how to interpret the words used in ancient descriptions of pronunciation. Nonetheless, this is an important source of information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Use of apex/i longa, digraph “ei” in ancient inscriptions##&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;These are described in &quot;[The Use of Devices for Indicating Vowel Length in Latin][2],&quot; by John C. Rolfe, Ph.D., read April 20, 1922.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The modern scholar, in spite of the silence of the native grammarians,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; might be led to inquire whether the so‑called &quot;hidden quantities&quot; are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; designated by marks. We find that in the M. A. [*[Monumentum Ancyranum][3]*]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; twenty-six such vowels are marked, but they amount to only about&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 20 per cent of the 138 hidden quantities in the whole inscription. (87-88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Notable limitations:** As the quotation says, genuinely long vowels were not consistently marked with these devices. So it’s hard to get good evidence from this source for a vowel being short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of Uncertainty:** It seems that in some cases, the “i longa” was used on short vowels to indicate something other than vowel length (possibly “emphasis” or “dignity”). Both Rolfe (86, 91) and Allen (70) mention this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Vowel length in descendants##&#xD;&#xA;We can look at the vowel quality of descedant words in Romance langs: many of them have distinct reflexes of long and short vowels. For example, Allen contrasts French *d**oi**t,* from Latin *dir**ē**ctum,* and *dép**i**t,* from Latin *desp**ĕ**ctum* (70).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Notable limitations:** Not all Classical Latin words have attested descendents in a Romance language. As far as I know, long and short “a” do not have different reflexes in any Romance language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of uncertainty:**  Romance may reflect post-classical variation in vowel length (i.e. the length of a vowel in Proto-Romance may differ from the length in Classical Latin); words may show language-specific effects of analogy/restructuring. Allen mentions “dictus” shows inconsistent reflexes in Romance: Italian has *detto* (pointing to a short vowel) while French has *dit* (pointing to a long vowel) (70).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Vowel length in related Latin words, cognates##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can look other Latin words that seem related for which we know the quantity. We can also look at words in related Indo-European languages (such as Greek or Sanskrit) that might have clearer indications of the historical vowel length. (I can't think of an example of this, sorry.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of uncertainty:** Sometimes the etymology of a term is unclear. It’s also possible that that the length of the vowel in one or both of the languages was affected by some unknown sound change or analogical process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA69&amp;lpg=PA69&amp;dq=lectus%20past%20participle%20vowel%20length&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=TwUCgj2z_X&amp;sig=MOLsUgENWypHP-_JFE70o8_KA1M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjg9c3Qyo7LAhWEw4MKHXEeADEQ6AEINjAG#v=onepage&amp;q=lectus%20past%20participle%20vowel%20length&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Journals/PAPhS/61/1/Devices_for_Vowel_Length*.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monumentum_Ancyranum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1863" RevisionGUID="f114632f-65f9-491b-b5f8-7cde46dc4587" CreationDate="2016-10-19T20:20:39.850" UserId="9" Comment="added 526 characters in body" Text=" The length of vowels with “hidden quantity” can often be discovered from one of the following sources of information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Explicit descriptions of vowel length in ancient texts##&#xD;&#xA;“Lachmann’s law” is a well-known rule about the length of vowels in closed syllables in past participles; we have a description of this from the works of Aulus Gellius according to William Sidney Allen in *[Vox Latina][1]* (68). Allen's entry on Lachmann's Law also discusses various other types of evidence for vowel quality in this context, so I’ll reference it a few more times in this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of Uncertainty:** We don’t know how accurate ancient writers were at formulating accurate descriptions of rules for vowel length. In some cases, there may be uncertainty about how to interpret the words used in ancient descriptions of pronunciation. Nonetheless, this is an important source of information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Use of apex, *i longa* and other devices in ancient inscriptions##&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;These are described in &quot;[The Use of Devices for Indicating Vowel Length in Latin][2],&quot; by John C. Rolfe, Ph.D., read April 20, 1922.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The modern scholar, in spite of the silence of the native grammarians,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; might be led to inquire whether the so‑called &quot;hidden quantities&quot; are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; designated by marks. We find that in the M. A. [*[Monumentum Ancyranum][3]*]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; twenty-six such vowels are marked, but they amount to only about&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 20 per cent of the 138 hidden quantities in the whole inscription. (87-88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This text also briefly mentions another device used earlier on to mark long *ī*: the digraph *ei* (83-84). This spelling convention arose due to sound changes between Old Latin to Classical Latin. There are other [Old Latin][4] digraphs that correspond to long vowels in Classical Latin, such as *ou* (which corresponds to long *ū*). Wikipedia and Rolfe (83) say that Old Latin inscriptions may also indicate long vowels by doubling the vowel; Wikipedia gives the example of &quot;*aara* for *āra*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Notable limitations:** As the quotation says, genuinely long vowels were not consistently marked with these devices. So it’s hard to get good evidence from this source for a vowel being short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of Uncertainty:** It seems that in some cases, the *i longa* was used on short vowels to indicate something other than vowel length (possibly “emphasis” or “dignity”). Both Rolfe (86, 91) and Allen (70) mention this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Vowel length in descendants##&#xD;&#xA;We can look at the vowel quality of descedant words in Romance langs: many of them have distinct reflexes of long and short vowels. For example, Allen contrasts French *d**oi**t,* from Latin *dir**ē**ctum,* and *dép**i**t,* from Latin *desp**ĕ**ctum* (70).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Notable limitations:** Not all Classical Latin words have attested descendents in a Romance language. As far as I know, long and short “a” do not have different reflexes in any Romance language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of uncertainty:**  Romance may reflect post-classical variation in vowel length (i.e. the length of a vowel in Proto-Romance may differ from the length in Classical Latin); words may show language-specific effects of analogy/restructuring. Allen mentions “dictus” shows inconsistent reflexes in Romance: Italian has *detto* (pointing to a short vowel) while French has *dit* (pointing to a long vowel) (70).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Vowel length in related Latin words, cognates##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can look other Latin words that seem related for which we know the quantity. We can also look at words in related Indo-European languages (such as Greek or Sanskrit) that might have clearer indications of the historical vowel length. (I can't think of an example of this, sorry.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of uncertainty:** Sometimes the etymology of a term is unclear. It’s also possible that that the length of the vowel in one or both of the languages was affected by some unknown sound change or analogical process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA69&amp;lpg=PA69&amp;dq=lectus%20past%20participle%20vowel%20length&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=TwUCgj2z_X&amp;sig=MOLsUgENWypHP-_JFE70o8_KA1M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjg9c3Qyo7LAhWEw4MKHXEeADEQ6AEINjAG#v=onepage&amp;q=lectus%20past%20participle%20vowel%20length&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Journals/PAPhS/61/1/Devices_for_Vowel_Length*.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monumentum_Ancyranum&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin#Orthography" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1863" RevisionGUID="ed2b100c-4beb-4eac-a129-1ac1a6f2b254" CreationDate="2016-10-19T20:32:24.343" UserId="9" Comment="added 1230 characters in body" Text=" The length of vowels with “hidden quantity” can often be discovered from one of the following sources of information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Explicit descriptions of vowel length in ancient texts##&#xD;&#xA;“Lachmann’s law” is a well-known rule about the length of vowels in closed syllables in past participles; we have a description of this from the works of Aulus Gellius according to William Sidney Allen in *[Vox Latina][1]* (68). Allen's entry on Lachmann's Law also discusses various other types of evidence for vowel quality in this context, so I’ll reference it a few more times in this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of Uncertainty:** We don’t know how accurate ancient writers were at formulating accurate descriptions of rules for vowel length. In some cases, there may be uncertainty about how to interpret the words used in ancient descriptions of pronunciation. Nonetheless, this is an important source of information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Use of apex, *i longa* and other devices in ancient inscriptions##&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;These are described in &quot;[The Use of Devices for Indicating Vowel Length in Latin][2],&quot; by John C. Rolfe, Ph.D., read April 20, 1922.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The modern scholar, in spite of the silence of the native grammarians,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; might be led to inquire whether the so‑called &quot;hidden quantities&quot; are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; designated by marks. We find that in the M. A. [*[Monumentum Ancyranum][3]*]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; twenty-six such vowels are marked, but they amount to only about&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 20 per cent of the 138 hidden quantities in the whole inscription. (87-88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This text also briefly mentions another device used earlier on to mark long *ī*: the digraph *ei* (83-84). This spelling convention arose due to sound changes between Old Latin to Classical Latin. There are other [Old Latin][4] digraphs that correspond to long vowels in Classical Latin, such as *ou* (which corresponds to long *ū*). Wikipedia and Rolfe (83) say that Old Latin inscriptions may also indicate long vowels by doubling the vowel; Wikipedia gives the example of &quot;*aara* for *āra*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Notable limitations:** As the quotation says, genuinely long vowels were not consistently marked with these devices. So it’s hard to get good evidence from this source for a vowel being short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of Uncertainty:** It seems that in some cases, the *i longa* was used on short vowels to indicate something other than vowel length (possibly “emphasis” or “dignity”). Both Rolfe (86, 91) and Allen (70) mention this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Vowel length in descendants##&#xD;&#xA;We can look at the vowel quality of descedant words in Romance langs: many of them have distinct reflexes of long and short vowels. For example, Allen contrasts French *d**oi**t,* from Latin *dir**ē**ctum,* and *dép**i**t,* from Latin *desp**ĕ**ctum* (70).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Notable limitations:** Not all Classical Latin words have attested descendents in a Romance language. As far as I know, long and short “a” do not have different reflexes in any Romance language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of uncertainty:**  Romance may reflect post-classical variation in vowel length (i.e. the length of a vowel in Proto-Romance may differ from the length in Classical Latin); words may show language-specific effects of analogy/restructuring. Allen mentions “dictus” shows inconsistent reflexes in Romance: Italian has *detto* (pointing to a short vowel) while French has *dit* (pointing to a long vowel) (70).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Vowel length in related Latin words, cognates##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can look other Latin words that seem related for which we know the quantity. We can also look at words in related Indo-European languages (such as Greek or Sanskrit) that might have clearer indications of the historical vowel length. (I can't think of an example of this, sorry.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of uncertainty:** Sometimes the etymology of a term is unclear. It’s also possible that that the length of the vowel in one or both of the languages was affected by some unknown sound change or analogical process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I only listed &quot;sources of uncertainty&quot; to try to be reserved about what we know. I think that in most cases, the quantity of a vowel is known fairly well because we have several different sources that agree with each other. A good dictionary should point out any areas of true uncertainty.  In my experience, I feel references have only misled me about hidden quantity in a few cases, each time by the use of macrons, since macrons are ambiguous between indicating length &quot;by nature&quot; or &quot;by position.&quot; The examples I can think of are: *[far][5]* (which Lewis transcribes as &quot;fār&quot;; [Charles Edwin Bennett][6] says it was the final consonant, not the vowel that was long) and *[major][7]* (which Lewis and Short transcribe as &quot;mājor&quot;; Allen says the &quot;a&quot; was short and the &quot;j&quot; was long). It may also be relevant that neither of these has two written consonants after the vowel, so the dictionary authors might have felt a macron on the vowel was the only option for indicating that the syllable was heavy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA69&amp;lpg=PA69&amp;dq=lectus%20past%20participle%20vowel%20length&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=TwUCgj2z_X&amp;sig=MOLsUgENWypHP-_JFE70o8_KA1M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjg9c3Qyo7LAhWEw4MKHXEeADEQ6AEINjAG#v=onepage&amp;q=lectus%20past%20participle%20vowel%20length&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Journals/PAPhS/61/1/Devices_for_Vowel_Length*.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monumentum_Ancyranum&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin#Orthography&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dfar&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=N1RfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA118&amp;lpg=PA118&amp;dq=latin%20rhotacism%20farr&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zJZyIcVRGn&amp;sig=18BkOGKVlju5YnjaxJJd189tbMs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjMvMePlrrMAhWHloMKHSeQB_IQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20rhotacism%20farr&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmajor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1863" RevisionGUID="27859494-409c-470f-989d-7789b373937b" CreationDate="2016-10-19T20:42:08.833" UserId="9" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text=" The length of vowels with “hidden quantity” can often be discovered from one of the following sources of information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Explicit descriptions of vowel length in ancient texts##&#xD;&#xA;“Lachmann’s law” is a well-known rule about the length of vowels in closed syllables in past participles; we have a description of this from the works of Aulus Gellius according to William Sidney Allen in *[Vox Latina][1]* (68). Allen's entry on Lachmann's Law also discusses various other types of evidence for vowel quality in this context, so I’ll reference it a few more times in this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of Uncertainty:** We don’t know how accurate ancient writers were at formulating accurate descriptions of rules for vowel length. In some cases, there may be uncertainty about how to interpret the words used in ancient descriptions of pronunciation. Nonetheless, this is an important source of information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Use of apex, *i longa* and other devices in ancient inscriptions##&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;These are described in &quot;[The Use of Devices for Indicating Vowel Length in Latin][2],&quot; by John C. Rolfe, Ph.D., read April 20, 1922.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The modern scholar, in spite of the silence of the native grammarians,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; might be led to inquire whether the so‑called &quot;hidden quantities&quot; are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; designated by marks. We find that in the M. A. [*[Monumentum Ancyranum][3]*]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; twenty-six such vowels are marked, but they amount to only about&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 20 per cent of the 138 hidden quantities in the whole inscription. (87-88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This text also briefly mentions another device used earlier on to mark long *ī*: the digraph *ei* (83-84). This spelling convention arose due to sound changes between Old Latin to Classical Latin. There are other [Old Latin][4] digraphs that correspond to long vowels in Classical Latin, such as *ou* (which corresponds to long *ū*). Wikipedia and Rolfe (83) say that Old Latin inscriptions may also indicate long vowels by doubling the vowel; Wikipedia gives the example of &quot;*aara* for *āra*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Notable limitations:** As the quotation says, genuinely long vowels were not consistently marked with these devices. So it’s hard to get good evidence from this source for a vowel being short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of Uncertainty:** It seems that in some cases, the *i longa* was used on short vowels to indicate something other than vowel length (possibly “emphasis” or “dignity”). Both Rolfe (86, 91) and Allen (70) mention this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Vowel length in descendants##&#xD;&#xA;We can look at the vowel quality of descedant words in Romance langs: many of them have distinct reflexes of long and short vowels. For example, Allen contrasts French *d**oi**t,* from Latin *dir**ē**ctum,* and *dép**i**t,* from Latin *desp**ĕ**ctum* (70).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Notable limitations:** Not all Classical Latin words have attested descendents in a Romance language. As far as I know, long and short “a” do not have different reflexes in any Romance language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of uncertainty:**  Romance may reflect post-classical variation in vowel length (i.e. the length of a vowel in Proto-Romance may differ from the length in Classical Latin); words may show language-specific effects of analogy/restructuring. Allen mentions “dictus” shows inconsistent reflexes in Romance: Italian has *detto* (pointing to a short vowel) while French has *dit* (pointing to a long vowel) (70).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Vowel length in related Latin words, cognates##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can look other Latin words that seem related for which we know the quantity. We can also look at words in related Indo-European languages (such as Greek or Sanskrit) that might have clearer indications of the historical vowel length. (I can't think of an example of this, sorry.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of uncertainty:** Sometimes the etymology of a term is unclear. It’s also possible that that the length of the vowel in one or both of the languages was affected by some unknown sound change or analogical process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I only listed &quot;sources of uncertainty&quot; to try to be reserved about what we know. I think that in most cases, the quantity of a vowel is known fairly well because we have several different sources that agree with each other. A good dictionary should indicate any areas of true uncertainty by some method like not marking length on the vowel, marking it with both a macron and a breve, or including a discussion of the pronunciation. In my experience, I feel references have misled me about hidden quantity in only a few cases, each time by the use of macrons, since macrons are unfortunately ambiguous between indicating vowel length or syllable length. The examples I can think of are: *[far][5]* (which Lewis transcribes as &quot;fār&quot;; [Charles Edwin Bennett][6] says it was the final consonant, not the vowel that was long) and *[major][7]* (which Lewis and Short transcribe as &quot;mājor&quot;; Allen says the &quot;a&quot; was short and the &quot;j&quot; was long). It may also be relevant that neither of these has two written consonants after the vowel, so the dictionary authors might have felt a macron on the vowel was the only option for indicating that the syllable was heavy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA69&amp;lpg=PA69&amp;dq=lectus%20past%20participle%20vowel%20length&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=TwUCgj2z_X&amp;sig=MOLsUgENWypHP-_JFE70o8_KA1M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjg9c3Qyo7LAhWEw4MKHXEeADEQ6AEINjAG#v=onepage&amp;q=lectus%20past%20participle%20vowel%20length&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Journals/PAPhS/61/1/Devices_for_Vowel_Length*.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monumentum_Ancyranum&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin#Orthography&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dfar&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=N1RfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA118&amp;lpg=PA118&amp;dq=latin%20rhotacism%20farr&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zJZyIcVRGn&amp;sig=18BkOGKVlju5YnjaxJJd189tbMs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjMvMePlrrMAhWHloMKHSeQB_IQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20rhotacism%20farr&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmajor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1863" RevisionGUID="ace314a7-25da-4a4a-a8dd-c35cca05f840" CreationDate="2016-10-19T21:55:45.237" UserId="9" Comment="added 203 characters in body" Text=" The length of vowels with “hidden quantity” can often be discovered from one of the following sources of information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Explicit descriptions of vowel length in ancient texts##&#xD;&#xA;“Lachmann’s law” is a well-known rule about the length of vowels in closed syllables in past participles; we have a description of this from the works of Aulus Gellius according to William Sidney Allen in *[Vox Latina][1]* (68). Allen's entry on Lachmann's Law also discusses various other types of evidence for vowel quality in this context, so I’ll reference it a few more times in this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of Uncertainty:** We don’t know how accurate ancient writers were at formulating accurate descriptions of rules for vowel length. In some cases, there may be uncertainty about how to interpret the words used in ancient descriptions of pronunciation. Nonetheless, this is an important source of information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Use of apex, *i longa* and other devices in ancient inscriptions##&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;These are described in &quot;[The Use of Devices for Indicating Vowel Length in Latin][2],&quot; by John C. Rolfe, Ph.D., read April 20, 1922.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The modern scholar, in spite of the silence of the native grammarians,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; might be led to inquire whether the so‑called &quot;hidden quantities&quot; are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; designated by marks. We find that in the M. A. [*[Monumentum Ancyranum][3]*]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; twenty-six such vowels are marked, but they amount to only about&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 20 per cent of the 138 hidden quantities in the whole inscription. (87-88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This text also briefly mentions another device used earlier on to mark long *ī*: the digraph *ei* (83-84). This spelling convention arose due to sound changes between Old Latin to Classical Latin. There are other [Old Latin][4] digraphs that correspond to long vowels in Classical Latin, such as *ou* (which corresponds to long *ū*). Wikipedia and Rolfe (83) say that Old Latin inscriptions may also indicate long vowels by doubling the vowel; Wikipedia gives the example of &quot;*aara* for *āra*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Notable limitations:** As the quotation says, genuinely long vowels were not consistently marked with these devices. So it’s hard to get good evidence from this source for a vowel being short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of Uncertainty:** It seems that in some cases, the *i longa* was used on short vowels to indicate something other than vowel length (possibly “emphasis” or “dignity”). Both Rolfe (86, 91) and Allen (70) mention this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Vowel length in descendants##&#xD;&#xA;We can look at the vowel quality of descedant words in Romance langs: many of them have distinct reflexes of long and short vowels. For example, Allen contrasts French *d**oi**t,* from Latin *dir**ē**ctum,* and *dép**i**t,* from Latin *desp**ĕ**ctum* (70).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Notable limitations:** Not all Classical Latin words have attested descendents in a Romance language. As far as I know, long and short “a” do not have different reflexes in any Romance language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of uncertainty:**  Romance may reflect post-classical variation in vowel length (i.e. the length of a vowel in Proto-Romance may differ from the length in Classical Latin); words may show language-specific effects of analogy/restructuring. Allen mentions “dictus” shows inconsistent reflexes in Romance: Italian has *detto* (pointing to a short vowel) while French has *dit* (pointing to a long vowel) (70).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Vowel length in related Latin words, cognates##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can look other Latin words that seem related for which we know the quantity. We can also look at words in related Indo-European languages (such as Greek or Sanskrit) that might have clearer indications of the historical vowel length. (I can't think of an example of this, sorry.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of uncertainty:** Sometimes the etymology of a term is unclear. It’s also possible that that the length of the vowel in one or both of the languages was affected by some unknown sound change or analogical process, or by the process of [ablaut][5] which could cause roots to have multiple forms with different vowel quantities already in Proto-Indo-European.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I only listed &quot;sources of uncertainty&quot; to try to be reserved about what we know. I think that in most cases, the quantity of a vowel is known fairly well because we have several different sources that agree with each other. A good dictionary should indicate any areas of true uncertainty by some method like not marking length on the vowel, marking it with both a macron and a breve, or including a discussion of the pronunciation. In my experience, I feel references have misled me about hidden quantity in only a few cases, each time by the use of macrons, since macrons are unfortunately ambiguous between indicating vowel length or syllable length. The examples I can think of are: *[far][6]* (which Lewis transcribes as &quot;fār&quot;; [Charles Edwin Bennett][7] says it was the final consonant, not the vowel that was long) and *[major][8]* (which Lewis and Short transcribe as &quot;mājor&quot;; Allen says the &quot;a&quot; was short and the &quot;j&quot; was long). It may also be relevant that neither of these has two written consonants after the vowel, so the dictionary authors might have felt a macron on the vowel was the only option for indicating that the syllable was heavy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA69&amp;lpg=PA69&amp;dq=lectus%20past%20participle%20vowel%20length&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=TwUCgj2z_X&amp;sig=MOLsUgENWypHP-_JFE70o8_KA1M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjg9c3Qyo7LAhWEw4MKHXEeADEQ6AEINjAG#v=onepage&amp;q=lectus%20past%20participle%20vowel%20length&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Journals/PAPhS/61/1/Devices_for_Vowel_Length*.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monumentum_Ancyranum&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin#Orthography&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_ablaut&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dfar&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=N1RfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA118&amp;lpg=PA118&amp;dq=latin%20rhotacism%20farr&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zJZyIcVRGn&amp;sig=18BkOGKVlju5YnjaxJJd189tbMs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjMvMePlrrMAhWHloMKHSeQB_IQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20rhotacism%20farr&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmajor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1859" RevisionGUID="1c9165ab-69f8-4431-842b-96b1d8867e6a" CreationDate="2016-10-20T05:55:40.043" UserId="79" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="An alternative way to phrase the question is to ask whether a preposition should be repeated after *et*.&#xD;&#xA;I went through a book for all the examples of *et* used with prepositions in a way that would allow both options.&#xD;&#xA;I excluded the preposition *inter* because it would make little sense to say *inter Sequanos et inter Helvetios* instead of *inter Sequanos et Helvetios*.&#xD;&#xA;I chose [the first book](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/caesar/gall1.shtml) of Caesar's *Commentarii de bello Gallico*, and I found these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1.5: *ab Sequanis et Helvetiis*&#xD;&#xA;- 7.4: *ab iniuria et maleficio*&#xD;&#xA;- 9.4: *sine maleficio et iniuria*&#xD;&#xA;- 11.1: *per angustias et fines*&#xD;&#xA;- 13.5: *ex calamitate populi Romani et internecione exercitus*&#xD;&#xA;- 21.2: *cum duabus legionibus et iis ducibus*&#xD;&#xA;- 26.1: *ad impedimenta et carros*&#xD;&#xA;- 34.1: *de re publica et summis utriusque rebus*&#xD;&#xA;- 37.1: *et legati ab Haeduis et a Treveris*&#xD;&#xA;- 41.3: *cum tribunis militum et primorum ordinum centurionibus*&#xD;&#xA;- 47.4: *et propter fidem et propter linguae Gallicae scientiam*&#xD;&#xA;- 48.2: *ex Sequanis et Haeduis*&#xD;&#xA;- 53.6: *de tanta voluptate et gratulatione*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;- 2.3: *inter Sequanos et Helvetios*&#xD;&#xA;- 6.1: *inter montem Iuram et flumen Rhodanum*&#xD;&#xA;- 15.3: *inter novissimum hostium agmen et nostrum*&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this sample, it seems that the dominant option is not to repeat the preposition &amp;mdash; or, in other words, to place *et* inside a prepositional clause.&#xD;&#xA;There are two exceptions: 37.1 and 47.4.&#xD;&#xA;Both of them use the emphatic *et&amp;hellip;et* instead of a single *et*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caesar's style, at least in this particular book, seems to be to always place *et* inside a prepositional clause, with the sole exception of using *et&amp;hellip;et* in the sense of &quot;both&amp;hellip;and&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If what you suspect to be bad style is indeed bad style, then Caesar has consistently bad style in this respect.&#xD;&#xA;Other authors may have different idiosyncrasies, but at least you are not required to repeat the preposition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1864" RevisionGUID="91ff404d-426b-4376-95c6-4c4779a4e76f" CreationDate="2016-10-20T06:20:49.640" UserId="79" Text="[The Latin Library](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com) is one possibility.&#xD;&#xA;It is very light, consisting of simple HTML pages with no unnecessary features.&#xD;&#xA;There are no additional features, just the Latin texts.&#xD;&#xA;Some might argue that also necessary features are missing, but that is always a matter of taste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The corpus has a large collection of texts which can be found following the links.&#xD;&#xA;There is no search feature.&#xD;&#xA;Because of the simple format, Google can be used efficiently.&#xD;&#xA;For example, to find whether the imperative *sunto* is actually in use, just enter `site:thelatinlibrary.com sunto` in Google.&#xD;&#xA;Also, the text is in large HTML pages, which makes searching with browser tools easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The corpus is not limited to any era.&#xD;&#xA;The only limitation seems to be Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Precise citing is also complicated.&#xD;&#xA;Suppose [I want to cite](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1858/79) I.34.1 in Caesar's *Commentarii de bello Gallico*.&#xD;&#xA;The entire first book is a single page, and linking to that one is easy.&#xD;&#xA;There are links at the top of the page, and clicking on &quot;34&quot; gives me a direct link to I.34: `http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/caesar/gall1.shtml#34`.&#xD;&#xA;There is no universally observed format for the links, so you have to either use the links or look at the source code near the desired passage for `&lt;a name=&quot;...&quot;&gt;`.&#xD;&#xA;Citing I.34 and instructing the reader to look at I.34.1 is often accurate enough, but sometimes the linked position is too far from the desired one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6793" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1864" RevisionGUID="14420754-52ed-4b64-b762-e48cefd83d76" CreationDate="2016-10-20T06:20:49.640" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="6794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1865" RevisionGUID="89ef90ba-dc57-4380-9157-44fa9c15a21a" CreationDate="2016-10-20T18:56:18.050" UserId="79" Text="I have understood that many poetic meters were inherited to Latin from the Greeks.&#xD;&#xA;This includes, for example, the dactylic hexameter and the Sapphic meters.&#xD;&#xA;But the Romans did have their own poetic forms before adopting anything from the east.&#xD;&#xA;The only thing I know of is the [Saturnian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnian_%28poetry%29).&#xD;&#xA;I do not know much about the history of metric poetry, but I would like a brief overview of the Greek influence on Latin poetry:&#xD;&#xA;How do the poetic forms of Greek origin differ from Latin ones?&#xD;&#xA;What, at a high level, changed in Roman poetry due to Greek influence?&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference in the way of viewing, structuring or reading poetry that captures the spirit of this transition?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no need to give a full account if it would be long.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, an overview with citations of further reading or ideas for more detailed questions would be nice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6795" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1865" RevisionGUID="89ef90ba-dc57-4380-9157-44fa9c15a21a" CreationDate="2016-10-20T18:56:18.050" UserId="79" Text="How do originally Roman meters differ from Greek inheritance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6796" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1865" RevisionGUID="89ef90ba-dc57-4380-9157-44fa9c15a21a" CreationDate="2016-10-20T18:56:18.050" UserId="79" Text="|poetry|greek|scansion|metre|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1542" RevisionGUID="6c46b21d-0e84-4801-b6cb-c625f5fb0f3e" CreationDate="2016-10-20T20:54:20.087" UserId="12" Comment="add content from other answer, along with some formatting changes" Text="I doubt that anyone has ever given a satisfactory explanation of *septemtriones*. It wasn't always written as a single word (often, with another word interposed), which might  indicate that *septem* is the number of *triones* - and indeed there are seven stars in the ploughshare shaped constellation. Unfortunately, there is no real indication of what the triones are: I cannot myself believe that the word has anything to do with &quot;star&quot;, or even with the number three. Cicero and Ovid, among others, imply that they are the oxen drawing the plough (though it is a nonsense to identify the individual stars of the plough with the animals pulling it): but even such authorities as these were not immune to indulgence in speculation and themselves seem to be the source of the idea among a few later writers that *triones* (always plural) was a yoke of oxen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Oldest reference to *triones*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, I believe, is the oldest reference to *triones*, which appears at&#xD;&#xA;M. Terentii Varronis *de Lingua Latina* VII, 4, 95. (Varro lived 116-27 BC.) I am quoting it because the subject seems to have attracted some interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nunc de temporibus dicam. Quod est apud Cassium. . . . .  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nocte intempesta nostram devenit domum, intempesta nox dicta ab tempestate,   tempestas ab tempore; nox intempesta, quo tempore nihil agitur.   &#xD;&#xA;Quid noctis videtur? — in altisono  &#xD;&#xA;Caeli clipeo temo superat  &#xD;&#xA;Stellas sublimen agens etiam  &#xD;&#xA;Atque etiam noctis iter.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hic multam noctem ostendere volt a temonis motu; sed temo unde et cur dicatur latet. Arbitror antiquos rusticos primum notasse quaedam in caelo signa, quae praeter alia erant insignia atque ad aliquem usum, ut culturae tempus, designandum convenire animadvertebantur.  &#xD;&#xA;Eius signa sunt, quod has septem stellas Graeci ut Homerus vocant hamaxan, et propinquum eius signum booten, nostri eas septem stellas triones et temonem et prope eas axem: triones enim et boves appellantur a bubulcis etiam nunc, maxime cum arant terram; e quis ut dicti Valentes glebarii, qui facile proscindunt glebas, sic omnes qui terram arabant a terra terriones, unde triones ut dicerentur e detrito.   &#xD;&#xA;Temo dictus a tenendo: is enim continet iugum et plaustrum, appellatum a parte totum, ut multa. Possunt triones dicti, VII quod ita sitae stellae, ut ternae trigona faciant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1847" RevisionGUID="8e193a14-8c39-4560-8569-60b216c112ee" CreationDate="2016-10-20T20:58:26.797" UserId="12" Comment="Merged from other answer" Text="It takes a long time to master Latin poetry, and a lot of practice in reading before you can attempt to write it. The metrical schemes are not hard to follow, but declaiming the poems as the classical poets intended is just about impossible, since we can only guess at the true sounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big difference from modern European, as you probably know, is that stress on syllables is immaterial to Latin poetry : instead, it is the syllable lengths as they are spoken that are the basis of any metrical scheme. Sometimes — but rarely — the Latin can be read to almost resemble an [English] style, e.g. Catullus IV, which begins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Phaselus ille, quem videtis, hospites* / *ait fuisse navium celerrimus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules of scansion are not too complicated, but have to be followed closely, especially in the elisions which inevitably occur (they are themselves part of the rules). The seven varieties of metrical foot are composed of long and short syllables in various combinations. Those used in the hexameter are the dactyl (long-short-short, — u u) and the spondee (two long syllables, — —). The use of macrons won't help much, as you will find when you study the rules governing syllable length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best, most concise explanation of the rules of prosody which I know is that in Kennedy's Revised Latin Primer (published in the UK by Longman), under the heading PROSODY (articles 471 to 483).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know of only one modern work on Latin verse composition, found at http://www.anthempress.com/a-guide-to-latin-meter-and-verse-composition&#xD;&#xA;though I've not actually seen it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, to write Latin verse, it's advisable to get hold of a 'Gradus ad Parnassum (sive synonymorum et epithetorum thesaurus)', which is a comprehensive list of words and their epithets and synonyms for which there is a precedent in classical poetry. Such are no longer published, so far as I know, but in the UK they can be found in second-hand bookshops or through specialist book-finders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that all this helps you, rather than putting you off. I was taught Latin verse composition at school, and find it a very satisfying pastime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#List of poems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You also asked for a list of poems in a particular metre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of syllable quantity instead of stress is very strange to a modern ear that is accustomed only to the latter, and very few manage to master it. It is made more difficult for us by the vagaries of a word order that is specially adapted to produce the required metrical form. For instance, Ovid, *Fasti IV, 425* :  &#xD;&#xA;*Filia consuetis ut erat comitata puellis /errabat nudo per sua prata pede*&#xD;&#xA;(actually, this is an elegiac couplet — a hexameter followed by a pentameter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best place to start is, without question, the hexameter (often called the ‘dactylic hexameter’, though it admits the use of spondees). This is the quintessential metre for Roman poets of the classical period, and examples are abundant and extensive. As well as the Aeneid, they include the Satires and Epistles of Horace. I recommend Horace’s Satires, each of which is self-contained, not over-long and interesting in its own right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1866" RevisionGUID="a7dc57f6-0054-45b7-87da-e02bce807045" CreationDate="2016-10-21T19:33:22.283" UserId="79" Text="Is it grammatical to combine *in* and *advenire* to say, for example, *in Finniam advenit*?&#xD;&#xA;This sounds otherwise fine to me, but I'm slightly worried about mixing the prepositions *in* and *ad* so I want to check." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6802" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1866" RevisionGUID="a7dc57f6-0054-45b7-87da-e02bce807045" CreationDate="2016-10-21T19:33:22.283" UserId="79" Text="Can I use in and advenire together?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6803" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1866" RevisionGUID="a7dc57f6-0054-45b7-87da-e02bce807045" CreationDate="2016-10-21T19:33:22.283" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|grammar-choice|compound-verb|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1867" RevisionGUID="6ca32362-eefb-46d5-a916-c658735d619c" CreationDate="2016-10-21T20:42:36.373" UserId="40" Text="Yes, this is an attested usage. Lewis and Short should be your first place to check for such information. For [advenio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dadvenio) they specifically give the list of constructions &quot;absol., with ad, in, or acc.&quot;, and cite several examples with *in*. Here's an example from Cicero, *Philippic* 11.30:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quamcumque in provinciam eius belli gerendi causa advenerit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;in whatever province he arrives for the purpose of waging that war&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1869" RevisionGUID="2a488b5f-16f9-4dbd-9429-39715dca4398" CreationDate="2016-10-22T20:22:00.507" UserId="79" Text="Are there historical characters in the Aeneis (or Aeneid)?&#xD;&#xA;I mean characters which are known or strongly believed to have really existed.&#xD;&#xA;I assume many of the characters are either from the traditional Roman myths or were created by the author.&#xD;&#xA;My question concerns characters in the main timeline of the epic, excluding prophecies of later eras in the Roman history.&#xD;&#xA;If there are several such characters, can you give an example or two and explain why they are considered historical?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6809" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1869" RevisionGUID="2a488b5f-16f9-4dbd-9429-39715dca4398" CreationDate="2016-10-22T20:22:00.507" UserId="79" Text="Are there historical characters in Aeneis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6810" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1869" RevisionGUID="2a488b5f-16f9-4dbd-9429-39715dca4398" CreationDate="2016-10-22T20:22:00.507" UserId="79" Text="|history|vergilius|aeneis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1870" RevisionGUID="b06cefcb-b506-40f6-9f14-64973aba3194" CreationDate="2016-10-23T02:27:18.953" UserId="94" Text="Father David Burrell, a well-known philosopher and theologian who has written on Thomas Aquinas, has discussed Aquinas' view of God, or at least of what could or could not be properly said about God. Aquinas (and Catholicism generally) believed that the nature of God was not distinct from the fact that he exists. Burrell's version of the statement is &quot;To be God is to be 'to-be'.&quot; (which Burrell recognizes as ungrammatical, but accepts as being an &quot;improper&quot; way of speaking about God which nevertheless gets across important ideas) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can one use a construction like &quot;Esse Deus est esse ...&quot; in this sort of situation? How might I approach translating this sentence into Latin? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6812" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1870" RevisionGUID="b06cefcb-b506-40f6-9f14-64973aba3194" CreationDate="2016-10-23T02:27:18.953" UserId="94" Text="&quot;To be&quot; and a commentator on Aquinas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6813" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1870" RevisionGUID="b06cefcb-b506-40f6-9f14-64973aba3194" CreationDate="2016-10-23T02:27:18.953" UserId="94" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1870" RevisionGUID="369c4591-ad98-4446-89bc-b76b2cb3bc90" CreationDate="2016-10-23T12:10:31.333" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags and slightly reformatted. Feel free to roll back to the previous version if you are unsatisfied!" Text="Father David Burrell, a well-known philosopher and theologian who has written on Thomas Aquinas, has discussed Aquinas' view of God, or at least of what could or could not be properly said about God. Aquinas (and Catholicism generally) believed that the nature of God was not distinct from the fact that he exists. Burrell's version of the statement is &quot;To be God is to be 'to-be'.&quot; (Burrell recognizes this as ungrammatical, but accepts as being an &quot;improper&quot; way of speaking about God which nevertheless gets across important ideas.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can one use a construction like *Esse Deus est esse* in this sort of situation? How might I approach translating this sentence into Latin? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6815" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1870" RevisionGUID="369c4591-ad98-4446-89bc-b76b2cb3bc90" CreationDate="2016-10-23T12:10:31.333" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags and slightly reformatted. Feel free to roll back to the previous version if you are unsatisfied!" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|christianity|infinitive|aquinas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1870" RevisionGUID="5803a0b2-51ce-454e-8bb5-90eb2cc61338" CreationDate="2016-10-23T12:40:59.350" UserId="79" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Father David Burrell, a well-known philosopher and theologian who has written on Thomas Aquinas, has discussed Aquinas' view of God, or at least of what could or could not be properly said about God. Aquinas (and Catholicism generally) believed that the nature of God was not distinct from the fact that he exists. Burrell's version of the statement is &quot;To be God is to be 'to-be'.&quot; (Burrell recognizes this as ungrammatical, but accepts as being an &quot;improper&quot; way of speaking about God which nevertheless gets across important ideas.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can one use a construction like *Esse Deus est esse&amp;hellip;* in this sort of situation? How might I approach translating this sentence into Latin? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1871" RevisionGUID="d3467b12-8aad-4bf0-baf3-aa95a8f0ef62" CreationDate="2016-10-23T12:44:14.107" UserId="79" Text="To construct the English phrase, you first introduce a new noun 'to-be'.&#xD;&#xA;Then you take the (grammatical) expression &quot;to be X is to be Y&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You can verify with different choices of X and Y that this is a grammatically sensible phrase &amp;mdash; semantic sensibility depends on the choice.&#xD;&#xA;For example, take X = &quot;an artist&quot; and Y = &quot;free&quot; or X = &quot;a human&quot; and Y = &quot;an animal&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Now, you apply this construction with X being &quot;God&quot; and Y being the new noun 'to-be'.&#xD;&#xA;You get the phrase you mention: &quot;To be God is to be 'to-be'.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I gave detailed steps is that now we can try to follow them for Latin &amp;mdash; or any other language, for that matter.&#xD;&#xA;The noun 'to-be' would be *'esse'*.&#xD;&#xA;It is a matter of taste whether you want to include quotes or not.&#xD;&#xA;Let me keep them for clarity.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &quot;to be X is to be Y&quot; would be &quot;*esse X est esse Y*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is admittedly a little weird construction, but so is the English one.&#xD;&#xA;Again, we can test: X = *heros* and Y = *pius* or perhaps X = *rex* and Y = *victor*.&#xD;&#xA;The structure makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;Now we apply it with X = *Deus* and Y = *'esse'* to get a translation:&#xD;&#xA;*Esse Deus est esse 'esse'*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may or may not be the bets way to phrase the thing in Latin, but I think it is a reasonable parallel and equally grammatical with the English phrase.&#xD;&#xA;One could of course try to say something like &quot;To be God is to exist.&quot;, but that would add a different tone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1872" RevisionGUID="b0113b67-0b4a-404c-9e4b-54dbacc6944a" CreationDate="2016-10-23T15:18:24.493" UserId="931" Text="This is a bit cheeky, but I'm trying to find out the meaning of what may be an 18th century abbreviation of a Latin phrase (for an answer to a [question](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/354909/abbreviation-in-a-business-letter) in EL&amp;U.SE). Since I have no Latin, I've been fumbling around a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The abbreviation is *QSD* (with a macron over the S). The context is a business letter between two brothers (which I do not have). I could find no ready interpretation online. Without going through all my searching, I eventually came up with &quot;quod sine dictum&quot; (that without mentioning).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it sound  reasonable, and if so, have I got the Latin (and translation) right? I couldn't decline a Latin verb if you threatened to string my up by my testes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acknowledgements will be given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, feel free to provide your own answer. I'm sure that the denizens of EL&amp;U will be grateful for any assistance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6819" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1872" RevisionGUID="b0113b67-0b4a-404c-9e4b-54dbacc6944a" CreationDate="2016-10-23T15:18:24.493" UserId="931" Text="Possible abbreviation for a Latin phrase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6820" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1872" RevisionGUID="b0113b67-0b4a-404c-9e4b-54dbacc6944a" CreationDate="2016-10-23T15:18:24.493" UserId="931" Text="|translation|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1872" RevisionGUID="3ae9ecb7-aa3c-4c8e-bf9b-f430df28c7a1" CreationDate="2016-10-23T15:25:56.817" UserId="931" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="This is a bit cheeky, but I'm trying to find out the meaning of what may be an 18th century abbreviation of a Latin phrase (for an answer to a [question](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/354909/abbreviation-in-a-business-letter) in EL&amp;U.SE). Since I have no Latin, I've been fumbling around a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The abbreviation is *QSD* (with a macron over the S). The context is a business letter between two brothers (which I do not have). I could find no ready interpretation online. Without going through all my researches, I eventually came up with &quot;quod sine dictum&quot; (that without mentioning), i.e. &quot;keep your mouth shut&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it sound  reasonable, and if so, have I got the Latin (and translation) right? I couldn't decline a Latin verb if you threatened to string my up by my testes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acknowledgements will be given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, feel free to provide your own answer. I'm sure that the denizens of EL&amp;U will be grateful for any assistance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1872" RevisionGUID="90ac1499-c640-4ddf-b6ee-4d60d2642149" CreationDate="2016-10-23T18:52:43.827" UserId="931" Comment="added 220 characters in body" Text="This is a bit cheeky, but I'm trying to find out the meaning of what may be an 18th century abbreviation of a Latin phrase (for an answer to a [question](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/354909/abbreviation-in-a-business-letter) in EL&amp;U.SE). Since I have no Latin, I've been fumbling around a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The abbreviation is *QSD* (with a macron over the S). The context is a business letter between two brothers (which I do not have). I could find no ready interpretation online. Without going through all my researches, I eventually came up with &quot;quod sine dictum&quot; (that without mentioning), i.e. &quot;keep your mouth shut&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it sound  reasonable, and if so, have I got the Latin (and translation) right? I couldn't decline a Latin verb if you threatened to string my up by my testes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acknowledgements will be given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, feel free to provide your own answer. I'm sure that the denizens of EL&amp;U will be grateful for any assistance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: This is all the context that we have so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In transcribing a business letter written in 1776, I keep finding an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparent abbreviation, 'qsd' with a line over the s, e.g &quot;this to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qsd my brother.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1873" RevisionGUID="56da6ea2-2ded-4141-af11-0098bbec5f6e" CreationDate="2016-10-23T19:38:58.673" UserId="522" Text="Ainsworth revised Morrell 1783 has 20 pages Quarto, three columns each page, of Latin abbreviations. It does not show QSD with or without *macron.* So here are some near-misses.&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;QS (also qs) is a standard abbreviation for QUASI, &quot;sort of,&quot; &quot;as if&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But Q.S. (with stops) is a standard abbreviation for QVOD SUPRA &quot;as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; above (previously)&quot; And Q.S.S standard abbreviation for QUOD (QUAE)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SUPRA SCRIPSI: &quot;Which thing(s) I have previously written.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Explicatio **Literarum &amp; Notarum** frequentius in antiquis Romanorum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; monumentis occurrentium.' Robert Aimsworth 1236 revised Th Morell 1783&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Bar over the S may be a differentiation between Supra previously and Subter below (later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Unless this is a private code,** it would be understood to mean &quot;Which  I said before,&quot; QUAE (QUOD) SUPRA DIXI. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1874" RevisionGUID="eb99389f-044c-4d06-8f5c-11878b0ce6fb" CreationDate="2016-10-23T19:46:08.203" UserId="235" Text="This question has been in the back of my mind for a while now. I'm curious to know, what's the difference in sound between the letter η and the diphthong ει? I would appreciate an answer in writing, but I think that a link to audio would also help (if you happen to know of any). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My textbook says that η should be pronounced like the *e* in *error* or the *a* in *ace* (which to my ear are two different sounds). Up till now, I have been pronouncing it very close to the *a* in *ace*. But isn't the Greek dipthong ει either close or identical to the vowel sound in *ace*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you can see my source of confusion. Thanks for any feedback." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6825" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1874" RevisionGUID="eb99389f-044c-4d06-8f5c-11878b0ce6fb" CreationDate="2016-10-23T19:46:08.203" UserId="235" Text="What's the difference in sound between the letter η and the diphthong ει?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6826" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1874" RevisionGUID="eb99389f-044c-4d06-8f5c-11878b0ce6fb" CreationDate="2016-10-23T19:46:08.203" UserId="235" Text="|greek|phonetics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1875" RevisionGUID="ccaba446-e699-4e4b-95db-ef82a73473c4" CreationDate="2016-10-23T20:43:52.147" UserId="932" Text="**The Latine version of Wikisource**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikisource can be a good idea, as I think its code is pretty good standardized — as an illustration, books can be exported in many formats with this (experimental) feature: &lt;http://tools.wmflabs.org/wsexport/tool/book.php&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the corpus isn’t limited to classical Latin (there you can find works of Newton for example) and some of the texts can be compared to translations from other versions of Wikisource: e.g. &lt;https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_Theologiae_prima_pars&gt;, by clicking on `⇔`, next to `English` in the section `Aliae linguae`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, quoting an exact part of the text (I mean more precisely than just the chapter) is possible only if the *facsimile* of the book digitized is on the website. In this case, it is possible to give a link to the exact page where the expression has been found. See for example, the *De re metallica* of Georgius Agricola." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6828" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1875" RevisionGUID="59b67897-3791-4fe4-9e1d-d972bcd89871" CreationDate="2016-10-23T20:43:52.147" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="6829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1876" RevisionGUID="7f22004e-808a-4de6-ba33-f9a727d4556e" CreationDate="2016-10-23T20:48:18.173" UserId="40" Text="The answer is complicated for two reasons: first, the digraph ει actually stood for two different sounds; and second, both these sounds *and* the sound of η later fell together into a single vowel sound. I'll describe the phonetic values of these symbols at the stage when the three different pronunciations were still distinct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;η stood for a long [open-mid front unrounded vowel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-mid_front_unrounded_vowel), IPA [ɛ:]. English has the short version of this vowel, [ɛ], in words like *bed* or *pet*. It is specifically &quot;open-mid&quot; rather than just &quot;mid&quot; because it is pronounced with a more open mouth than, for example, the *e* sound of a language like Spanish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ει, as stated above, had two different pronunciations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Just as its spelling suggests, it could stand for a diphthong [ei], like the *a* in English *ace*, to use your example. (Your textbook is wrong about eta, which did not stand for this sound.) This is known as the &quot;genuine diphthong&quot; pronunciation of ει.&#xD;&#xA; 2. But it could also stand for a long [close-mid front unrounded vowel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-mid_front_unrounded_vowel). This is the more close version (i.e. pronounced with a less open mouth) of the sound described for eta above. Standard English doesn't have this sound. Some other languages, though, make a contrast between the close-mid and open-mid front vowels: e.g. in French, *parlais* has the open-mid, *parlé* the close-mid sound. This is known as the &quot;spurious diphthong&quot; pronunciation of ει, since it looks like a diphthong but isn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether ει has the genuine or spurious pronunciation is unpredictable and depends on the specific word. The reason ει was used for both these sounds is that already early on in Classical Greek, the two were merging into one. Later on in the koine period, η too began to merge with them, and eventually all three ended up being pronounced [i], as they are in Modern Greek." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1877" RevisionGUID="514424e1-8ef1-4581-9b61-bd87fafc7329" CreationDate="2016-10-23T21:37:56.817" UserId="79" Text="Suppose I want to say something like &quot;I like being a human&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There are undoubtedly several ways to phrase that in Latin, but I want to do it so that it the subject is &quot;to be a human&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The complete English sentence would be something like &quot;To be a human pleases me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;When translating this to Latin, should the &quot;human&quot; be nominative (*homo*) or accusative (*hominem*)?&#xD;&#xA;That is, which one of the following is better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;1. *Homo esse me delectat.*  &#xD;&#xA;2. *Hominem esse me delectat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, for another example, consider &quot;To be a Finn is to sing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I have two options, analogous to the previous ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;1. *Finnus esse est canere.*  &#xD;&#xA;2. *Finnum esse est canere.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My intuition suggests that the nominative is the way to go, but I feel very unsure.&#xD;&#xA;Comparing with *accusativus cum infinitivo* suggests that it might be the accusative instead, but then there is also the related *nominativus cum infinitivo* construction&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer to see examples in classical literature, but also discussions from grammars are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question arose in connection to [this recent question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1870/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6831" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1877" RevisionGUID="514424e1-8ef1-4581-9b61-bd87fafc7329" CreationDate="2016-10-23T21:37:56.817" UserId="79" Text="Is the subject of esse in nominative or accusative when esse is a subject?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6832" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1877" RevisionGUID="514424e1-8ef1-4581-9b61-bd87fafc7329" CreationDate="2016-10-23T21:37:56.817" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|syntax|accusative|nominativus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6833" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1844" RevisionGUID="fed24bc8-e12f-459f-948c-c91ad54c31c0" CreationDate="2016-10-23T22:22:23.267" UserId="79" Comment="edited title" Text="Choosing conjunctive tenses in a clause subordinate to a subordinate clause" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1878" RevisionGUID="9a45421b-b138-4de9-87a7-aefb510ed59e" CreationDate="2016-10-23T22:31:50.960" UserId="253" Text="As is well known, &quot;etiam si&quot; is a Latin conjunction that means &quot;even if.&quot; Are there any examples in Classical or Medieval Latin in which reversing the word order and saying &quot;si etiam&quot; preserves the meaning &quot;even if&quot;, or does &quot;si etiam&quot; always mean &quot;if also&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6835" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1878" RevisionGUID="9a45421b-b138-4de9-87a7-aefb510ed59e" CreationDate="2016-10-23T22:31:50.960" UserId="253" Text="Can &quot;si etiam&quot; have the same meaning as &quot;etiam si&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6836" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1878" RevisionGUID="9a45421b-b138-4de9-87a7-aefb510ed59e" CreationDate="2016-10-23T22:31:50.960" UserId="253" Text="|classical-latin|medieval-latin|conjunction|word-order|style|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6837" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1872" RevisionGUID="891f0e06-fce8-4710-be4f-41db5a9cb5e8" CreationDate="2016-10-24T06:21:08.570" UserId="931" Comment="Changed capitalisation (of abbreviation)" Text="Is qsd an abbreviation for a Latin phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1872" RevisionGUID="891f0e06-fce8-4710-be4f-41db5a9cb5e8" CreationDate="2016-10-24T06:21:08.570" UserId="931" Comment="Changed capitalisation (of abbreviation)" Text="This is a bit cheeky, but I'm trying to find out the meaning of what may be an 18th century abbreviation of a Latin phrase (for an answer to a [question](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/354909/abbreviation-in-a-business-letter) in EL&amp;U.SE). Since I have no Latin, I've been fumbling around a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The abbreviation is *qsd* (with a macron over the s). The context is a business letter between two brothers (which I do not have). I could find no ready interpretation online. Without going through all my researches, I eventually came up with &quot;quod sine dictum&quot; (that without mentioning), i.e. &quot;keep your mouth shut&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it sound  reasonable, and if so, have I got the Latin (and translation) right? I couldn't decline a Latin verb if you threatened to string my up by my testes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acknowledgements will be given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, feel free to provide your own answer. I'm sure that the denizens of EL&amp;U will be grateful for any assistance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: This is all the context that we have so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In transcribing a business letter written in 1776, I keep finding an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparent abbreviation, 'qsd' with a line over the s, e.g &quot;this to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qsd my brother.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1879" RevisionGUID="3d28a37b-ab2a-4bdc-b129-630cbfee8dce" CreationDate="2016-10-24T12:02:03.947" UserId="932" Text="**The PHI Classical Latin Texts Database**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;http://latin.packhum.org&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *Packard Humanities Institute* provides free access to Latin Litterature texts from the beginning to ~200 AD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are currently two functions for searching through the database. It can be involved by using some keywords :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    You can refine a search with logical operators.&#xD;&#xA;    &amp;	and&#xD;&#xA;    |	or&#xD;&#xA;    ~	near (within about 100 characters)&#xD;&#xA;    ( )	precedence&#xD;&#xA;    #	word break&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    And you can restrict a search to set of authors or works by including filters in the search string. Filters use abbreviations (or numbers) for authors and works and are enclosed within square brackets. For example, [Cic] esse videtur would search for esse videtur in Cicero. These patterns are valid:&#xD;&#xA;    [Cic:Catil]	Cicero's In Catilinam&#xD;&#xA;    [Cic:56-59]	Cicero's Letters&#xD;&#xA;    [474:39-40,73]	Brutus, Orator, and Rhetorica ad Herennium&#xD;&#xA;    [Cic Quint]	Cicero and Quintilian&#xD;&#xA;    [Catul Tib Prop Ov]	Catullus, Tibullus, Propertius, and Ovid&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Abbreviations (and numbers) can be found in the Canon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Double clicking makes a search." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6840" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1879" RevisionGUID="004a8e54-9fb5-4f91-8211-b6c12aaa49bd" CreationDate="2016-10-24T12:02:03.947" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="6841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="a5a56eb5-b551-4268-b31e-6cecdd1646ab" CreationDate="2016-10-24T13:03:07.460" UserId="932" Text="The solution is given in the Quicherat French-Latin dictionnary above the article `PLAIRE`, and there are many solutions in classical Latin :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **S'il te plaît. S'il vous plaît.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Si placet.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. Si vobis videtur.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. Si tibi est commodum.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. Nisi molestum est.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. Si grave non est.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hor. Quæso*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is given:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Informe-moi s'il te plaît de ce que...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Velim me certiorem facias quid... (Cic)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1881" RevisionGUID="e175ab91-3960-4c3e-a5c7-f56206e34087" CreationDate="2016-10-24T13:39:40.867" UserId="45" Text="My suggestion is that **both phrases are most properly set in the accusative**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hominem esse me delectat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Finnum esse est canere.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will break my argument into two steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **The *accusativus cum infinitivo* (AcI) can be used as a subject**: this proves that the accusative case is not an &quot;accidental&quot; consequence of the fact that it is the object of such words as *dicere*, *arbitrari*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;2. **The *nominativus cum infinitivo* (NcI) is used in a different context**: the suggestive name requires an explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The *AcI* as subject&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us begin with Pinkster's examples in [*Oxford Latin Syntax*](https://books.google.com/books?id=yxxfCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA849&amp;lpg=PA849):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *In hac habitasse platea dictum'st Chrysidem.* (Ter. *An.* 796)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the subject is *Chrysidem habitasse in hac platea*: it is the thing that was said (*dictum est*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster also advances:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *...scalpellum adhiberi sine pernice non posse manifestum est.* (Cels. 7.20.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...though this may be begging the question, since *scalpellum* is neuter and could thus be nominative or accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A third example from Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sed iam tempus est me ipsum a me amari.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar one from Plautus not cited by Pinkster:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Video. edepol nunc nos tempus est malas peioris fieri.* (Pl. *Mil. Glor.* 1218)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another common usage is as the subject of *delectat* or *iuvat* (as in the OP's first example sentence).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *iuvitque me tibi cum summam humanitatem tum etiam **tuas litteras profuisse**.* (Cic. *Epist. ad Fam.* 182)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What *iuvit*'ed? &quot;*tuas litteras profuisse*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Applied to your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To justify my conclusion that the accusative should be used, here are two parallel examples that correspond fairly well to yours:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *hominem esse me delectat*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Venit hoc mihi, Megadóre, in mentem, **ted esse hominem divitem**, factiosum, me autem esse hominem pauperum pauperrimum; nunc si filiam locassim meam tibi, in mentem venit **te bovem esse et me esse asellum**. (Pl. *Aul.* 227-230)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *me esse + acc. N + V* seems a convincing parallel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Finnum esse est canere*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One &quot;last frontier&quot; that is seldom crossed presents itself: **Is the AcI ever used as the subject of *esse*?** Cicero says **yes**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non est igitur amici **talem esse in eum**, qualis ille in se est, sed potius eniti et efficere, ut amici iacentem animum excitet inducatque &lt;in&gt; spem cogitationemque meliorem. (Cic. *Lael. de Amicit* 59:5-8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those who have difficulty with the syntax, I would translate the first part as: &quot;Therefore, it is not a friend's task to be within [his friend] in the same way he is within himself.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Function of the *NcI*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it is difficult to find a definitive resource, it appears that this construction falls into two classes: **auxiliary verbs** and **passive verbs**. Let's look at a few examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***tárdus esse** ílico **coépi*** (Pl. *Cas* 885)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *T. Mihin malum minitare? C. Atque edepol non minitabor, sed dabo,&#xD;&#xA;mihi si **perges mólestus esse**.* (Pl. *Curc* 572)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These verbs of &quot;continuing,&quot; &quot;beginning,&quot; or &quot;ending&quot; can take the infinitive + nominative. I will not cite examples of the most ubiquitous use case (which I'm not sure even qualifies as an *NcI*): *volo* and *possum* (*et similia*) + infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And now we get to an interesting case: Nom. + *passive* verb + Inf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *etenim cum artifex eius modi sit ut **solus videatur dignus esse** qui in scaena spectetur...* (Cic. *Quinc.* 78.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **risisse Cupido dicitur** atque unum surripuisse pedem. (Ov. *Amor* 1.1.3-4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other passive examples (with *fertur*, *vetatur*, *iubentur*, etc.) abound. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overwhelming consideration in my mind is that for &quot;auxiliary verbs&quot;, the infinitive appears to be part of the verb itself (*vult esse*, *coepi fieri*, etc.), essentially functioning as one copulative. For *passive verbs* it is worth noting that the nominative is the *subject* of the passive verb--hence the nominative--and, to go out on a limb, the infinitive is added by way of analogy to the active construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, neither case seems to be met in your example sentences. **Counter-examples in another answer/comments are very welcome!**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1881" RevisionGUID="0c3ba69a-1822-4565-b601-96b47fc7e4de" CreationDate="2016-10-24T17:31:23.133" UserId="45" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="My suggestion is that **both phrases are most properly set in the accusative**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hominem esse me delectat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Finnum esse est canere.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will break my argument into two steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **The *accusativus cum infinitivo* (AcI) can be used as a subject**: this proves that the accusative case is not an &quot;accidental&quot; consequence of the fact that it is the object of such words as *dicere*, *arbitrari*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;2. **The *nominativus cum infinitivo* (NcI) is used in a different context**: the suggestive name requires an explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The *AcI* as subject&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us begin with Pinkster's examples in [*Oxford Latin Syntax*](https://books.google.com/books?id=yxxfCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA849&amp;lpg=PA849):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *In hac habitasse platea dictum'st Chrysidem.* (Ter. *An.* 796)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the subject is *Chrysidem habitasse in hac platea*: it is the thing that was said (*dictum est*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster also advances:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *...scalpellum adhiberi sine pernice non posse manifestum est.* (Cels. 7.20.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...though this may be begging the question, since *scalpellum* is neuter and could thus be nominative or accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A third example from Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sed iam tempus est me ipsum a me amari.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar one from Plautus not cited by Pinkster:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Video. edepol nunc nos tempus est malas peioris fieri.* (Pl. *Mil. Glor.* 1218)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another common usage is as the subject of *delectat* or *iuvat* (as in the OP's first example sentence).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *iuvitque me tibi cum summam humanitatem tum etiam **tuas litteras profuisse**.* (Cic. *Epist. ad Fam.* 182)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What *iuvit*'ed? &quot;*tuas litteras profuisse*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Applied to your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To justify my conclusion that the accusative should be used, here are two parallel examples that correspond fairly well to yours:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *hominem esse me delectat*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Venit hoc mihi, Megadóre, in mentem, **ted esse hominem divitem**, factiosum, me autem esse hominem pauperum pauperrimum; nunc si filiam locassim meam tibi, in mentem venit **te bovem esse et me esse asellum**. (Pl. *Aul.* 227-230)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *me esse + acc. N + V* seems a convincing parallel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Finnum esse est canere*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One &quot;last frontier&quot; that is seldom crossed presents itself: **Is the AcI ever used as the subject of *esse*?** Cicero says **yes**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non est igitur amici **talem esse in eum**, qualis ille in se est, sed potius eniti et efficere, ut amici iacentem animum excitet inducatque &lt;in&gt; spem cogitationemque meliorem. (Cic. *Lael. de Amicit* 59:5-8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those who have difficulty with the syntax, I would translate the first part as: &quot;Therefore, it is not a friend's task to be the same towards [his friend] as his friend is towards himself.&quot; (Amended by @TKR's suggestion)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Function of the *NcI*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it is difficult to find a definitive resource, it appears that this construction falls into two classes: **auxiliary verbs** and **passive verbs**. Let's look at a few examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***tárdus esse** ílico **coépi*** (Pl. *Cas* 885)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *T. Mihin malum minitare? C. Atque edepol non minitabor, sed dabo,&#xD;&#xA;mihi si **perges mólestus esse**.* (Pl. *Curc* 572)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These verbs of &quot;continuing,&quot; &quot;beginning,&quot; or &quot;ending&quot; can take the infinitive + nominative. I will not cite examples of the most ubiquitous use case (which I'm not sure even qualifies as an *NcI*): *volo* and *possum* (*et similia*) + infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And now we get to an interesting case: Nom. + *passive* verb + Inf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *etenim cum artifex eius modi sit ut **solus videatur dignus esse** qui in scaena spectetur...* (Cic. *Quinc.* 78.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **risisse Cupido dicitur** atque unum surripuisse pedem. (Ov. *Amor* 1.1.3-4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other passive examples (with *fertur*, *vetatur*, *iubentur*, etc.) abound. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overwhelming consideration in my mind is that for &quot;auxiliary verbs&quot;, the infinitive appears to be part of the verb itself (*vult esse*, *coepi fieri*, etc.), essentially functioning as one copulative. For *passive verbs* it is worth noting that the nominative is the *subject* of the passive verb--hence the nominative--and, to go out on a limb, the infinitive is added by way of analogy to the active construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, neither case seems to be met in your example sentences. **Counter-examples in another answer/comments are very welcome!**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1871" RevisionGUID="71554039-6d6e-4974-964c-e7f7f2028b23" CreationDate="2016-10-24T17:49:52.870" UserId="79" Comment="added 400 characters in body" Text="To construct the English phrase, you first introduce a new noun 'to-be'.&#xD;&#xA;Then you take the (grammatical) expression &quot;to be X is to be Y&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You can verify with different choices of X and Y that this is a grammatically sensible phrase &amp;mdash; semantic sensibility depends on the choice.&#xD;&#xA;For example, take X = &quot;an artist&quot; and Y = &quot;free&quot; or X = &quot;a human&quot; and Y = &quot;an animal&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Now, you apply this construction with X being &quot;God&quot; and Y being the new noun 'to-be'.&#xD;&#xA;You get the phrase you mention: &quot;To be God is to be 'to-be'.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I gave detailed steps is that now we can try to follow them for Latin &amp;mdash; or any other language, for that matter.&#xD;&#xA;The noun 'to-be' would be *'esse'*.&#xD;&#xA;It is a matter of taste whether you want to include quotes or not.&#xD;&#xA;Let me keep them for clarity.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &quot;to be X is to be Y&quot; would be &quot;*esse X est esse Y*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is admittedly a little weird construction, but so is the English one.&#xD;&#xA;What makes this even more weird is that both X and Y are in the accusative&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;Again, we can test: X = *heroem* and Y = *pium* or perhaps X = *regem* and Y = *victorem*.&#xD;&#xA;The structure makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;Now we apply it with X = *Deum* and Y = *'esse'* to get a translation:&#xD;&#xA;*Esse Deum est esse 'esse'*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may or may not be the bets way to phrase the thing in Latin, but I think it is a reasonable parallel and equally grammatical with the English phrase.&#xD;&#xA;One could of course try to say something like &quot;To be God is to exist.&quot;, but that would add a different tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I first used nominative, but then I was unsure.&#xD;&#xA;I asked [a separate question about the choice of case](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1877/79), and contrary to my intuition, it seems that accusative is the way to go.&#xD;&#xA;I thank all who have commented and helped fix my intuition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1882" RevisionGUID="caf23814-ccf9-47bd-ae65-e9b89508f968" CreationDate="2016-10-24T20:54:06.487" UserId="933" Text="I have been trying to find an accurate translation of something my grandmother always said: &quot;Sharing is Caring&quot; or &quot;To Share is to Care&quot;, into Latin. However online translators seem very inconsistent for Latin. I would like to translate it into Latin for a commemorative piece of art. Any help would be appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6848" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1882" RevisionGUID="caf23814-ccf9-47bd-ae65-e9b89508f968" CreationDate="2016-10-24T20:54:06.487" UserId="933" Text="Translate &quot;Sharing is Caring&quot; into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6849" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1882" RevisionGUID="caf23814-ccf9-47bd-ae65-e9b89508f968" CreationDate="2016-10-24T20:54:06.487" UserId="933" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1883" RevisionGUID="96e5ee89-555b-4601-a8c7-45864d4996fe" CreationDate="2016-10-24T22:49:57.393" UserId="79" Text="I came across a poem from 1621 written in Sapphic stanza.&#xD;&#xA;It contains this line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *pervigil Christi, lucubrando sudans*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To scan that, the third word must be *lu&amp;#x306;cu&amp;#x306;brando&amp;#x306;*.&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S tells me that the first U should always be long and the second one can be either long or short.&#xD;&#xA;The O of the gerund ablative ending should be long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Classic vowel length is otherwise observed very well throughout the nine stanzas of the poem.&#xD;&#xA;This line is a striking exception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that if the second U is short, then the second syllable is short (light), since the combination 'br' does not behave like most consonant clusters.&#xD;&#xA;But that is irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to understand what is going on.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would like to see an answer to at least some of these questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Would such shortened vowels be bad style in classical poetry? I would say yes, but I could use a second opinion.&#xD;&#xA;- Is such shortening a general post-classical phenomenon? Or should I see this line just as poetic liberty to accommodate a word the author wanted to use?&#xD;&#xA;- Is the final O in the gerund ablative still known to be long in the 17th century? As far as I know, everyday Latin speech at that time did not follow classical vowel lengths, but the rest of this poem demonstrates that people were able to emulate them when needed. In two other places in the poem where length matters, the second declension ablative or dative ending is long. I therefore wonder if the short O is something specific to gerunds.&#xD;&#xA;- Why are the vowels short?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6851" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1883" RevisionGUID="96e5ee89-555b-4601-a8c7-45864d4996fe" CreationDate="2016-10-24T22:49:57.393" UserId="79" Text="Short vowels in lucubrando" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6852" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1883" RevisionGUID="96e5ee89-555b-4601-a8c7-45864d4996fe" CreationDate="2016-10-24T22:49:57.393" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|poetry|new-latin|scansion|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1884" RevisionGUID="c5488b7c-3e11-479f-8337-04167ebafe13" CreationDate="2016-10-25T01:00:46.077" UserId="45" Text="Although your proposed translation, as amended in the previous answer, is grammatical (though certainly eyebrow-raising!), I would like to approach your question from an angle that might be more appropriate: **How did Thomas Aquinas express this thought?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fr. David Burrell's translation uses one verb (&quot;to be&quot;) to express two ideas, and succeeds I believe. Aquinas divides these concepts expressed by *esse*, using the famous distinction between *being* (*esse*) and *essence* (*essentia*, also *natura* as used in your question, or even *quidditas*). This distinction forms the subject of one of my favorite *opuscula* of Thomas Aquinas: [*De Ente et Essentia*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/aquinas/ente.shtml).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend reading the whole work through. The part that comes closest to expressing the idea of &quot;To be God is to be 'to be'&quot; is at the beginning of VI:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Invenitur enim triplex modus habendi essentiam in substantiis. Aliquid enim est, sicut **deus, cuius essentia est ipsummet suum esse**; et ideo inveniuntur aliqui philosophi dicentes quod deus non habet quiditatem vel essentiam, quia **essentia sua non est aliud quam esse eius**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Be careful with this last bolded statement, though, since he includes the *caveat* shortly afterwards: &quot;Nec oportet, si dicimus quod deus est esse tantum, ut in illorum errorem incidamus, qui deum dixerunt esse illud esse universale.&quot; This is a crucial step away from pantheism.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To fit the first phrase into roughly the same shape, I would thus translate: **Dei essentia est ipsummet suum esse.** You could take out *ipsummet*, but for me it adds the strange &quot;what's going on here...&quot; flavor that the repeated &quot;to be&quot; has in the English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1885" RevisionGUID="381982dd-a885-433a-861b-70b60adcb7dc" CreationDate="2016-10-25T01:08:01.803" UserId="934" Text=" - What are the differences between *et* and *atque*?&#xD;&#xA; - When should each be used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My current understanding is that they both mean *and*, although *atque* implies a slightly closer relationship." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1885" RevisionGUID="381982dd-a885-433a-861b-70b60adcb7dc" CreationDate="2016-10-25T01:08:01.803" UserId="934" Text="Differences between et and atque" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1885" RevisionGUID="381982dd-a885-433a-861b-70b60adcb7dc" CreationDate="2016-10-25T01:08:01.803" UserId="934" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1886" RevisionGUID="6ffbccd3-c674-4908-ba3a-f1ece7667a30" CreationDate="2016-10-25T05:48:03.563" UserId="9" Text="I don't know any reason why the first vowel of &quot;lucubrando&quot; would be short; I'd guess it might be an error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I was able to find some references that describe final *o* as often being treated as &quot;common&quot; (able to be long or short) for various words in various eras of poetry, and in particular in gerund.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Adam's Latin Grammar][1],* by Alexander Adam, from 1827, we find the following passage: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*O* final is common; as, *Virgo, Amo, quando.* [...] The gerund in DO in Virgil is long; in other poets it is short. (180)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this at least mentions the phenomenon; I don't know how accurate this description is for Classical usage, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another description from around 1898, in *[A Latin Grammar for Schools and Colleges][2]* by George Martin Lane, makes it seem less common:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Final **o** is short [in various listed words] and in many other words&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in late poetry : as īlico, immo, ergo, quando, octo, &amp;c. ; very rarely&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the ablative of the gerund. (447)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A book by Neil Wright about the Medieval Latin poem *[Gesta Regum Britannie][3]*&#xD;&#xA;says that in it &quot;the ablative singular of the gerund is usually short&quot;; obviously this is from not the classical period (it comes from the mid-1200s) but it may be a useful concrete example of another work with this feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=A6IAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA180&amp;lpg=PA180&amp;dq=gerund%20ablative%20poetry%20short%20o&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=5v_thh5jIe&amp;sig=oJOsqyLfa2qRsM8gvVHlwzuF2pM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiU5OG9nPXPAhWK14MKHW3YBmgQ6AEIMjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=gerund%20ablative%20poetry%20short%20o&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zLkAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA447&amp;lpg=PA447&amp;dq=gerund%20ablative%20poetry%20short%20o&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=X3n97JDoSC&amp;sig=09i-nl0hGlF4eJNEdXJNDWgck5I&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiU5OG9nPXPAhWK14MKHW3YBmgQ6AEIKDAD#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=IML4KrptqkAC&amp;pg=PR75&amp;lpg=PR75&amp;dq=gerund%20ablative%20poetry%20short%20o&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=guEA42UmzQ&amp;sig=RaaoUL64VOYa6Xs1nXW7NsB23Ek&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiU5OG9nPXPAhWK14MKHW3YBmgQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=gerund%20ablative%20poetry%20short%20o&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6858" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1885" RevisionGUID="b8b0e42f-db6f-4f7e-a670-1d8430d0d983" CreationDate="2016-10-25T07:28:23.913" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|word-comparison|conjunction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6859" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1883" RevisionGUID="f026e628-3b30-49a9-a4af-b3b7e575b0f1" CreationDate="2016-10-25T07:29:36.627" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|poetry|new-latin|scansion|vowel-quantity|gerund|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1887" RevisionGUID="7e021404-810b-4fa1-a666-72c39c3232c2" CreationDate="2016-10-25T08:24:51.963" UserId="79" Text="A poem from 1621 contains one ô and one â.&#xD;&#xA;The ô is the interjection *ô* and the â is in the relative pronoun *quâ*.&#xD;&#xA;No circumflexes are used elsewhere in the poem.&#xD;&#xA;Does the circumflex (or caret or however it should be called) only emphasize that the vowel is long, or does it have some other function?&#xD;&#xA;It would make some sense that the relative pronoun was *quae* instead of *qua* (neuter plural nominative instead of feminine singular ablative), but I am unsure if this would be a misinterpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are pictures of the words in question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ô and quâ](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z0JKz.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z0JKz.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My [previous question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1883/79) was about the same poem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6861" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1887" RevisionGUID="7e021404-810b-4fa1-a666-72c39c3232c2" CreationDate="2016-10-25T08:24:51.963" UserId="79" Text="Interpretation of circumflex in a poem from 1621" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6862" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1887" RevisionGUID="7e021404-810b-4fa1-a666-72c39c3232c2" CreationDate="2016-10-25T08:24:51.963" UserId="79" Text="|pronunciation|new-latin|orthography|vowel-quantity|diacritics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1888" RevisionGUID="7405e0e0-0283-4cfc-8690-5c892d58ab04" CreationDate="2016-10-25T10:11:39.410" UserId="645" Text="In having a principal verb with a subordinate clause, and short as it is, what you propose is technically a complex sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We seem, in @Brianpck's answer and subsequent comments, to have tied ourselves in a Gordian knot over the way to proceed. I should like in this answer of my own to cut away the tangle by pointing out that there is, as ever, no single correct way of saying what you want to in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subordinate clauses may be of three kinds: substantive, adverbial or adjectival.The types of both substantive and adverbial clauses, as recognised in standard primers of syntax, are many and various (and, incidentally, I have never seen in them a &quot;nominative and infinitive&quot; suggested as a construction for a subordinate clause in classical Latin). Adjectival clauses state, in one way or another, a fact about the antecedent, which seems to me to respond better than the other two types to the question you are asking, though this is a personal preference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than struggling with grammatical contortions and looking for suitable precedents (which are by no means always to be relied upon) for a substantive or an adverbial clause, my own choice would be a (relative pronoun) followed by an indicative (as of fact) as a neat and simple way to achieve your object — e.g. *libet mihi qui homo sum*. However, since you want to suggest that it is the fact of being human that pleases, I readily approve of your first suggestion *homo esse me delectat*, in which *homo esse* is a direct statement and *me delectat* its adjectival subordinate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fine, keep it simple: your intuition is right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1881" RevisionGUID="d038a285-6008-48c7-b67f-c6eaad20cbb0" CreationDate="2016-10-25T10:40:18.827" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="My suggestion is that **both phrases are most properly set in the accusative**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hominem esse me delectat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Finnum esse est canere.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will break my argument into two steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **The *accusativus cum infinitivo* (AcI) can be used as a subject**: this proves that the accusative case is not an &quot;accidental&quot; consequence of the fact that it is the object of such words as *dicere*, *arbitrari*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;2. **The *nominativus cum infinitivo* (NcI) is used in a different context**: the suggestive name requires an explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The *AcI* as subject&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us begin with Pinkster's examples in [*Oxford Latin Syntax*](https://books.google.com/books?id=yxxfCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA849&amp;lpg=PA849):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *In hac habitasse platea dictum'st Chrysidem.* (Ter. *An.* 796)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the subject is *Chrysidem habitasse in hac platea*: it is the thing that was said (*dictum est*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster also advances:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *...scalpellum adhiberi sine pernice non posse manifestum est.* (Cels. 7.20.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...though this may be begging the question, since *scalpellum* is neuter and could thus be nominative or accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A third example from Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sed iam tempus est me ipsum a me amari.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar one from Plautus not cited by Pinkster:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Video. edepol nunc nos tempus est malas peioris fieri.* (Pl. *Mil. Glor.* 1218)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another common usage is as the subject of *delectat* or *iuvat* (as in the OP's first example sentence).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *iuvitque me tibi cum summam humanitatem tum etiam **tuas litteras profuisse**.* (Cic. *Epist. ad Fam.* 182)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What *iuvit*'ed? &quot;*tuas litteras profuisse*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Applied to your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To justify my conclusion that the accusative should be used, here are two parallel examples that correspond fairly well to yours:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *hominem esse me delectat*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Venit hoc mihi, Megadóre, in mentem, **ted esse hominem divitem**, factiosum, me autem esse hominem pauperum pauperrimum; nunc si filiam locassim meam tibi, in mentem venit **te bovem esse et me esse asellum**. (Pl. *Aul.* 227-230)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *me esse + acc. N + V* seems a convincing parallel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Finnum esse est canere*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One &quot;last frontier&quot; that is seldom crossed presents itself: **Is the AcI ever used as the subject of *esse*?** Cicero says **yes**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non est igitur amici **talem esse in eum**, qualis ille in se est, sed potius eniti et efficere, ut amici iacentem animum excitet inducatque &lt;in&gt; spem cogitationemque meliorem. (Cic. *Lael. de Amicit* 59:5-8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those who have difficulty with the syntax, I would translate the first part as: &quot;Therefore, it is not a friend's task to be the same towards [his friend] as he is towards himself.&quot; (Amended by @TKR's suggestion)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Function of the *NcI*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it is difficult to find a definitive resource, it appears that this construction falls into two classes: **auxiliary verbs** and **passive verbs**. Let's look at a few examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***tárdus esse** ílico **coépi*** (Pl. *Cas* 885)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *T. Mihin malum minitare? C. Atque edepol non minitabor, sed dabo,&#xD;&#xA;mihi si **perges mólestus esse**.* (Pl. *Curc* 572)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These verbs of &quot;continuing,&quot; &quot;beginning,&quot; or &quot;ending&quot; can take the infinitive + nominative. I will not cite examples of the most ubiquitous use case (which I'm not sure even qualifies as an *NcI*): *volo* and *possum* (*et similia*) + infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And now we get to an interesting case: Nom. + *passive* verb + Inf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *etenim cum artifex eius modi sit ut **solus videatur dignus esse** qui in scaena spectetur...* (Cic. *Quinc.* 78.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **risisse Cupido dicitur** atque unum surripuisse pedem. (Ov. *Amor* 1.1.3-4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other passive examples (with *fertur*, *vetatur*, *iubentur*, etc.) abound. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overwhelming consideration in my mind is that for &quot;auxiliary verbs&quot;, the infinitive appears to be part of the verb itself (*vult esse*, *coepi fieri*, etc.), essentially functioning as one copulative. For *passive verbs* it is worth noting that the nominative is the *subject* of the passive verb--hence the nominative--and, to go out on a limb, the infinitive is added by way of analogy to the active construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, neither case seems to be met in your example sentences. **Counter-examples in another answer/comments are very welcome!**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6865" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1885" RevisionGUID="a644c8b7-7ed1-4afa-8245-500f152bd502" CreationDate="2016-10-25T11:47:59.073" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1371],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="6866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1889" RevisionGUID="5dc5912a-85ce-4a0f-8ebf-6dba112fe84b" CreationDate="2016-10-25T16:04:44.760" UserId="9" Text="*[Longmans' Latin Course: part III. Elementary Latin Prose][1],* by &#xD;&#xA;W. Horton Spragge, says that a subjective infinitive takes an accusative subject, giving an example using &quot;esse&quot; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **That you are happy** is agreeable to me &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;**Te beātum esse** mihi est gratum &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 17)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it looks like  &quot;Hominem esse me delectat&quot; would be correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I would not say that this infinitive has a subject (I'm unsure if you meant to suggest this, or if I misunderstood the wording of the question). If &quot;homine&quot; were the subject, I think the sentence would mean something like &quot;that a man is, pleases me.&quot; Rather, it seems to me that there is an implied subject &quot;me,&quot; and &quot;hominem&quot; is the complement of the subject. Of course, the complement will have the same case as the subject, so how you analyze this doesn't change the form of the word. (I know I left a comment saying this earlier, but now that I've posted an answer, I thought I might as well just put it here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PSo5AQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA17&amp;lpg=PA17&amp;dq=Latin%20esse%20%22subjective%20infinitive%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=YkPGDEIGX1&amp;sig=VDshj7IR9o2c7ZVsWeNKoGDrcio&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjCxszPpvbPAhVL0YMKHU5BDA04ChDoAQgeMAE#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1889" RevisionGUID="b883af0c-a214-44dc-a067-35ee7bf6e32e" CreationDate="2016-10-25T16:24:11.510" UserId="9" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="*[Longmans' Latin Course: part III. Elementary Latin Prose][1],* by &#xD;&#xA;W. Horton Spragge, says that a subjective infinitive takes an accusative subject, giving an example using &quot;esse&quot; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **That you are happy** is agreeable to me &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;**Te beātum esse** mihi est gratum &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 17)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it looks like  &quot;Hominem esse me delectat&quot; would be correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, other people also seem to have been uncertain about this matter; I just found a discussion here http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/to-be-yourself-is-not-a-crime.11748/ that I need to go through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I would not say that this infinitive has a subject (I'm unsure if you meant to suggest this, or if I misunderstood the wording of the question). If &quot;homine&quot; were the subject, I think the sentence would mean something like &quot;that a man is, pleases me.&quot; Rather, it seems to me that there is an implied subject &quot;me,&quot; and &quot;hominem&quot; is the complement of the subject. Of course, the complement will have the same case as the subject, so how you analyze this doesn't change the form of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PSo5AQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA17&amp;lpg=PA17&amp;dq=Latin%20esse%20%22subjective%20infinitive%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=YkPGDEIGX1&amp;sig=VDshj7IR9o2c7ZVsWeNKoGDrcio&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjCxszPpvbPAhVL0YMKHU5BDA04ChDoAQgeMAE#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1890" RevisionGUID="f70c4792-2ca8-44a4-a259-71b4aa82c79d" CreationDate="2016-10-25T16:25:06.947" UserId="40" Text="The accusative is correct. Allen and Greenough, [section 452, note 2](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-452.html), say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  An Appositive or Predicate noun or adjective used with an infinitive ín any of these constructions is put in the Accusative, whether the infinitive has a subject expressed or not. Thus, **nōn esse cupidum pecūnia est** (Par. 51), to be free from desires (not to be desirous) is money in hand. [No Subject Accusative.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also relevant is [section 455a](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-455.html), which gives some comparable examples, though with impersonal verbs rather than *esse* as the main verb of the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; expedit bonās esse vōbīs (Ter. Haut. 388), it is for your advantage to be good.  &#xD;&#xA;cūr hīs esse līberōs nōn licet (Flacc. 71), why is it not allowed these men to be free?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1877" RevisionGUID="b3e0c667-9b72-40cd-8f1a-5b6c60a7c4fa" CreationDate="2016-10-25T16:50:42.020" UserId="79" Comment="added 171 characters in body; edited title" Text="Suppose I want to say something like &quot;I like being a human&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There are undoubtedly several ways to phrase that in Latin, but I want to do it so that it the subject is &quot;to be a human&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The complete English sentence would be something like &quot;To be a human pleases me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;When translating this to Latin, should the &quot;human&quot; be nominative (*homo*) or accusative (*hominem*)?&#xD;&#xA;That is, which one of the following is better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;1. *Homo esse me delectat.*  &#xD;&#xA;2. *Hominem esse me delectat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, for another example, consider &quot;To be a Finn is to sing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I have two options, analogous to the previous ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;1. *Finnus esse est canere.*  &#xD;&#xA;2. *Finnum esse est canere.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My intuition suggests that the nominative is the way to go, but I feel very unsure.&#xD;&#xA;Comparing with *accusativus cum infinitivo* suggests that it might be the accusative instead, but then there is also the related *nominativus cum infinitivo* construction&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer to see examples in classical literature, but also discussions from grammars are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question arose in connection to [this recent question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1870/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Originally the question title mentioned &quot;subject of esse&quot;, but I corrected it to &quot;complement of esse&quot;. There is no subject. Thanks to commenters for clarifying this!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6870" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1877" RevisionGUID="b3e0c667-9b72-40cd-8f1a-5b6c60a7c4fa" CreationDate="2016-10-25T16:50:42.020" UserId="79" Comment="added 171 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is the complement of esse in nominative or accusative when esse is a subject?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1889" RevisionGUID="19295167-fbfa-48d7-94bd-0b7d4fe663a0" CreationDate="2016-10-25T17:40:53.953" UserId="9" Comment="added 2046 characters in body" Text="##Accusative + Subjective Infinitive seems to be grammatical##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Longmans' Latin Course: part III. Elementary Latin Prose][1],* by &#xD;&#xA;W. Horton Spragge, says that a subjective infinitive takes an accusative subject, giving an example using &quot;esse&quot; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **That you are happy** is agreeable to me &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;**Te beātum esse** mihi est gratum &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 17)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it looks like  &quot;Hominem esse me delectat&quot; would be correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, other people also seem to have been uncertain about this matter; I just found a discussion here http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/to-be-yourself-is-not-a-crime.11748/ where the user Bitmap provided the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic. inv.II,171: *Nam aliter dicere solemus: &quot;Necesse est **Casilinenses se dedere Hannibali**&quot;; aliter autem: &quot;Necesse est **Casilinum venire in Hannibalis potestatem**&quot;.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Example of accusative subject of a subjective infinitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Terence, Heaut. 666: *non licet hominem esse [saepe ita ut volt, si res non sinit.*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Example of accusative subject of *esse* as a subjective infinitive; I extended the quotation to add the end of the sentence using the [Packard Humanities Institute Latin Texts][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic.TuscI,9: *necesse est enim miseros esse eos qui centum milibus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; annorum ante occiderunt, vel potius omnis, quicumque nati sunt.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If I understand the grammar right, it's an example of an accusative subject (*eos*) and complement (*miseros*) with *esse* as a subjective infinitive; I might have switched the complement and subject)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##I don't think Nominative + Subjective Infinitive is a thing, but I don't know enough about Latin grammar to be sure##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another discussion on that site http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/the-subject-of-the-infinitive.11753/ mentions some exceptions to the general tendency for the subject of an infinitive to be in accusative. However, as far as I can tell, none of the exceptions seem to apply in this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first exception listed is &quot;Hercules fortis esse vult/videtur/dicitur&quot; with &quot;Hercules&quot; and &quot;fortis&quot; in the nominative. I would interpret this the same way as the corresponding English sentences &quot;Hercules wants/seems/is said to be strong': i.e., the grammatical subject is really &quot;Hercules&quot; rather than the infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my interperation is right, this structure (nominative + infinitive + main verb) would not work to express &quot;To be a human pleases me,&quot; because &quot;human&quot; is really a complement in this sentence, not a subject of any kind.  I think &quot;homo esse me delectat&quot;, if it's grammatical at all, would mean something like &quot;A man pleases me to be&quot; (i.e. &quot;For a man to be pleases me&quot;), which is pretty much nonsense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject of the infinitive must actually be something like an implicit &quot;me,&quot; and &quot;hominem&quot; is just the complement to that. (Or possibly, if it makes it feel more logical, you could even consider the following explicit &quot;me&quot; in &quot;Hominem esse me delectat&quot; to be the subject of the infinitive or the referent/&quot;postcedent&quot; of the complement. You can't do that for your second example &quot;Finnum esse est canere&quot; though.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PSo5AQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA17&amp;lpg=PA17&amp;dq=Latin%20esse%20%22subjective%20infinitive%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=YkPGDEIGX1&amp;sig=VDshj7IR9o2c7ZVsWeNKoGDrcio&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjCxszPpvbPAhVL0YMKHU5BDA04ChDoAQgeMAE#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/loc/134/2/4/3693-3706#4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1889" RevisionGUID="20574fae-7d27-4d41-b1a0-cead5303cfce" CreationDate="2016-10-25T17:46:03.500" UserId="9" Comment="added 2046 characters in body" Text="##Accusative + Subjective Infinitive seems to be grammatical##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Longmans' Latin Course: part III. Elementary Latin Prose][1],* by &#xD;&#xA;W. Horton Spragge, says that a subjective infinitive takes an accusative subject, giving an example using &quot;esse&quot; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **That you are happy** is agreeable to me &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;**Te beātum esse** mihi est gratum &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 17)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it looks like  &quot;Hominem esse me delectat&quot; would be correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, other people also seem to have been uncertain about this matter; I just found a discussion here http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/to-be-yourself-is-not-a-crime.11748/ where the user Bitmap provided the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic. inv.II,171: *Nam aliter dicere solemus: &quot;Necesse est **Casilinenses se dedere Hannibali**&quot;; aliter autem: &quot;Necesse est **Casilinum venire in Hannibalis potestatem**&quot;.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Example of accusative subject of a subjective infinitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Terence, Heaut. 666: *non licet hominem esse [saepe ita ut volt, si res non sinit.*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Example of accusative subject of *esse* as a subjective infinitive; I extended the quotation to add the end of the sentence using the [Packard Humanities Institute Latin Texts][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic.TuscI,9: *necesse est enim miseros esse eos qui centum milibus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; annorum ante occiderunt, vel potius omnis, quicumque nati sunt.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If I understand the grammar right, it's an example of an accusative subject (*eos*) and complement (*miseros*) with *esse* as a subjective infinitive; I might have switched the complement and subject)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##I don't think Nominative + Subjective Infinitive is a thing, but I don't know enough about Latin grammar to be sure##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another discussion on that site http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/the-subject-of-the-infinitive.11753/ mentions some exceptions to the general tendency for the subject of an infinitive to be in accusative. However, as far as I can tell, none of the exceptions seem to apply in this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first exception listed is &quot;Hercules fortis esse vult/videtur/dicitur&quot; with &quot;Hercules&quot; and &quot;fortis&quot; in the nominative. I would interpret this the same way as the corresponding English sentences &quot;Hercules wants/seems/is said to be strong': i.e., the grammatical subject is really &quot;Hercules&quot; rather than the infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my interperation is right, this structure (nominative + infinitive + main verb) would not work to express &quot;To be a human pleases me,&quot; because &quot;human&quot; is really a complement in this sentence, not a subject of any kind.  I think &quot;homo esse me delectat&quot;, if it's grammatical at all, would mean something like &quot;A man pleases me to be&quot; (i.e. &quot;For a man to be pleases me&quot;), which is pretty much nonsense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject of the infinitive must actually be something like an implicit &quot;me,&quot; and &quot;hominem&quot; is just the complement to that. (Or possibly, if it makes it feel more logical, you could even consider the following explicit &quot;me&quot; in &quot;Hominem esse me delectat&quot; to be like the subject of the infinitive, or at least the referent/&quot;postcedent&quot; of the complement. You can't do that for your second example &quot;Finnum esse est canere&quot; though.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PSo5AQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA17&amp;lpg=PA17&amp;dq=Latin%20esse%20%22subjective%20infinitive%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=YkPGDEIGX1&amp;sig=VDshj7IR9o2c7ZVsWeNKoGDrcio&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjCxszPpvbPAhVL0YMKHU5BDA04ChDoAQgeMAE#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/loc/134/2/4/3693-3706#4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1891" RevisionGUID="d7e6d2f8-f017-462b-99ae-d58d3ca60a46" CreationDate="2016-10-25T19:57:01.067" UserId="47" Text="How to translate 'breakfast', 'lunch', and 'dinner' into Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I gather *cena* is an adequate translation of 'dinner', but google translate produces many possibilities for 'breakfast' and 'lunch', and one of those possibilities, *prandium*, appears as possible translation of **both** 'breakfast' and 'lunch'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;breakfast:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* prandium&#xD;&#xA;* ientaculum&#xD;&#xA;* iantaculum&#xD;&#xA;* ieientaculum&#xD;&#xA;* iaientaculum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;lunch:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* prandium&#xD;&#xA;* merenda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are able to explain the nuance among these various words for the morning and midday meals, that would be fantastic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6875" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1891" RevisionGUID="d7e6d2f8-f017-462b-99ae-d58d3ca60a46" CreationDate="2016-10-25T19:57:01.067" UserId="47" Text="Breakfast, lunch, dinner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6876" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1891" RevisionGUID="d7e6d2f8-f017-462b-99ae-d58d3ca60a46" CreationDate="2016-10-25T19:57:01.067" UserId="47" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6877" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1891" RevisionGUID="0a15ff84-e520-47ee-a561-0d6593182a6e" CreationDate="2016-10-25T20:03:38.290" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|word-comparison|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1892" RevisionGUID="a018ff46-45c5-44ac-98b3-6be433d23919" CreationDate="2016-10-25T23:39:45.257" UserId="932" Text="# Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Roman Republic&#xD;&#xA;According to the *Guide Romain Antique*, by Jean Dautry, Georges Hacquard and Olivier Maisani, from the second century BC the Romans had 3 meals a day only one of which was plentiful : the ***cena***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The ***jentaculum*** was the breakfast: some bread and cheese after waking up;&#xD;&#xA;1. The ***prandium*** was a simple collation (*merenda*), eaten on the go around midday;&#xD;&#xA;1. The ***cena*** was the real meal: it began from the middle of the afternoon and generally ended at nightfall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, for special occasions, there was also a collation during the night: the ***comissatio***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Roman Empire&#xD;&#xA;This is only a general schema for the Republic: the habits were not exactly the same during the Empire: the *jentaculum* was sometimes replaced by a simple cup of water, and the *cena* could last longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Contemporary Latin&#xD;&#xA;According to the choice made by John Traupman in his *Conversaional Latin for Oral Proficiency*, we have the following translation for `breakfast`, `lunch`, and `dinner`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- breakfast: ientaculum (verb: ientare)&#xD;&#xA;- lunch: prandium (verb: prandeo)&#xD;&#xA;- dinner: cena (verb: cenare)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, there are many choices to translate `breakfast`, `lunch`, and `dinner`: for example, to translate dinner, you can say *cena* (or *cœna*), but also *cœnula* or *epulæ*. Another example of the many nuances that allows Latin: if you speak about a meal that you take at home, it can be translated by *domicenium*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1892" RevisionGUID="32705f38-0fb1-43a8-89c4-697d4484e80e" CreationDate="2016-10-25T23:45:55.363" UserId="932" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="# Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Roman Republic&#xD;&#xA;According to the *Guide Romain Antique*, by Jean Dautry, Georges Hacquard and Olivier Maisani, from the second century BC the Romans had 3 meals a day only one of which was plentiful : the ***cena***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The ***jentaculum*** was the breakfast: some bread and cheese after waking up;&#xD;&#xA;1. The ***prandium*** was a simple collation (*merenda*), eaten on the go around midday;&#xD;&#xA;1. The ***cena*** was the real meal: it began from the middle of the afternoon and generally ended at nightfall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, for special occasions, there was also a collation during the night: the ***comissatio***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Roman Empire&#xD;&#xA;This is only a general schema for the Republic: the habits were not exactly the same during the Empire: the *jentaculum* was sometimes replaced by a simple cup of water, and the *cena* could last longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Contemporary Latin&#xD;&#xA;According to the choice made by John Traupman in his *Conversaional Latin for Oral Proficiency*, we have the following translation for `breakfast`, `lunch`, and `dinner`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- breakfast: ientaculum (verb: ientare)&#xD;&#xA;- lunch: prandium (verb: prandeo)&#xD;&#xA;- dinner: cena (verb: cenare)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, there are many choices to translate `breakfast`, `lunch`, and `dinner`: for example, to translate dinner, you can say *cena* (or *cœna*), but also *cœnula* (a frugal dinner) or *epulæ* (a very large meal). Another example of the many nuances that allows Latin: if you speak about a meal that you take at home, it can be translated by *domicenium*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1893" RevisionGUID="d7bdca82-dd21-4a90-a271-f3182a453420" CreationDate="2016-10-26T02:39:33.973" UserId="39" Text="There are tons of research on this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a really good quote from New Pauly: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**In the early Republic,** people took three meals a day, the modest breakfast (**ientaculum** or **ieientaculum** in Plaut. Curc. 72-73) after sunrise, the midday main meal (**cena**) and a light meal in the evening (**vesperna**). In the later afternoon, there was (especially in the countryside) a kind of early supper, **merenda** (cf. Plaut. Vid. 52).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Beginning in the late Republic,** the light breakfast (**ientaculum**) was followed towards noon by a somewhat richer cold or hot meal (**prandium**), a sort of second breakfast without courses. The old vesperna was replaced by the **cena** , the main meal of the day routinely consisting of multiple courses (Fest. 54). It began late in the afternoon and could last late into the night. Until the end of antiquity and beyond, this arrangement of daily meals remained in effect. The rich favoured four or more meals over three (Suet. Nero 27,2; Suet. Vit. 13,1), while the poor often only had the means for one meal or went hungry.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gutsfeld, Andreas (Münster), “Meals”, in: Brill’s New Pauly, Antiquity volumes edited by: Hubert Cancik and , Helmuth Schneider. Consulted online on 26 October 2016 &lt;http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e717980&gt;&#xD;&#xA;First published online: 2006&#xD;&#xA;First print edition: 9789004122598, 20110510" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1893" RevisionGUID="beb09eb6-5eb5-41f8-9dd3-8b3e5e56a601" CreationDate="2016-10-26T02:45:38.053" UserId="39" Comment="added 286 characters in body" Text="There are tons of research on this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food: see relevant articles in [A Companion to Food in the Ancient World][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[John F. Donahue][2] has written extensively on this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, here's a really good quote from New Pauly: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**In the early Republic,** people took three meals a day, the modest breakfast (**ientaculum** or **ieientaculum** in Plaut. Curc. 72-73) after sunrise, the midday main meal (**cena**) and a light meal in the evening (**vesperna**). In the later afternoon, there was (especially in the countryside) a kind of early supper, **merenda** (cf. Plaut. Vid. 52).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Beginning in the late Republic,** the light breakfast (**ientaculum**) was followed towards noon by a somewhat richer cold or hot meal (**prandium**), a sort of second breakfast without courses. The old vesperna was replaced by the **cena** , the main meal of the day routinely consisting of multiple courses (Fest. 54). It began late in the afternoon and could last late into the night. Until the end of antiquity and beyond, this arrangement of daily meals remained in effect. The rich favoured four or more meals over three (Suet. Nero 27,2; Suet. Vit. 13,1), while the poor often only had the means for one meal or went hungry.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gutsfeld, Andreas (Münster), “Meals”, in: Brill’s New Pauly, Antiquity volumes edited by: Hubert Cancik and , Helmuth Schneider. Consulted online on 26 October 2016 &lt;http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e717980&gt;&#xD;&#xA;First published online: 2006&#xD;&#xA;First print edition: 9789004122598, 20110510&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781118878255&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wm.edu/as/classicalstudies/faculty/donahue_j.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1893" RevisionGUID="ddb29ee7-8860-4bb9-aa93-e7a234b49c3b" CreationDate="2016-10-26T02:54:00.857" UserId="39" Comment="added 340 characters in body" Text="There are tons of research on this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food: see relevant articles in [A Companion to Food in the Ancient World][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[John F. Donahue][2] has written extensively on this. Also see Dunbabin and Slater 2011, [Roman dining][3], in [The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, here's a really good quote from New Pauly: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**In the early Republic,** people took three meals a day, the modest breakfast (**ientaculum** or **ieientaculum** in Plaut. Curc. 72-73) after sunrise, the midday main meal (**cena**) and a light meal in the evening (**vesperna**). In the later afternoon, there was (especially in the countryside) a kind of early supper, **merenda** (cf. Plaut. Vid. 52).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Beginning in the late Republic,** the light breakfast (**ientaculum**) was followed towards noon by a somewhat richer cold or hot meal (**prandium**), a sort of second breakfast without courses. The old vesperna was replaced by the **cena** , the main meal of the day routinely consisting of multiple courses (Fest. 54). It began late in the afternoon and could last late into the night. Until the end of antiquity and beyond, this arrangement of daily meals remained in effect. The rich favoured four or more meals over three (Suet. Nero 27,2; Suet. Vit. 13,1), while the poor often only had the means for one meal or went hungry.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gutsfeld, Andreas (Münster), “Meals”, in: Brill’s New Pauly, Antiquity volumes edited by: Hubert Cancik and , Helmuth Schneider. Consulted online on 26 October 2016 &lt;http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e717980&gt;&#xD;&#xA;First published online: 2006&#xD;&#xA;First print edition: 9789004122598, 20110510&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781118878255&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wm.edu/as/classicalstudies/faculty/donahue_j.php&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188004-e-21&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188004" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1894" RevisionGUID="8d34d3c9-0ca0-47e9-b05c-062d2126648e" CreationDate="2016-10-26T03:26:36.277" UserId="406" Text="My quick attempt would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##consociāre, cūrāre##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consociāre is a slightly pretentious word, usually appearing in older works (Plautus) or more erudite authors (Cicero). But it captures the sense well; it means &quot;to make [something] common, to share [something] with [someone], to associate, join, connect,&quot; derived from roots for &quot;together&quot; and &quot;companion&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cūrāre is kind of your default word for &quot;take care of&quot;, with about the same connotations as the English phrase: &quot;you're safe; I'll take care of you&quot;, &quot;that paperwork will be taken care of&quot;, &quot;he's taking care of the livestock&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are infinitives, which is the typical way to use a verb as a subject (Latin doesn't like gerunds as subjects, like English does). The copula can often be omitted, and in this case I think it sounds better that way; you could also throw an &quot;est&quot; in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The alliteration and rhyme is my attempt to capture some of the rhythm from the English phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1892" RevisionGUID="558de786-2388-49b2-a574-45ae37a58f53" CreationDate="2016-10-26T08:34:14.623" UserId="932" Comment="links" Text="# Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Roman Republic&#xD;&#xA;According to the *[Guide Romain Antique](http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb324096783)*, by Jean Dautry, Georges Hacquard and Olivier Maisani, from the second century BC the Romans had 3 meals a day only one of which was plentiful : the ***cena***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The ***jentaculum*** was the breakfast: some bread and cheese after waking up;&#xD;&#xA;1. The ***prandium*** was a simple collation (*merenda*), eaten on the go around midday;&#xD;&#xA;1. The ***cena*** was the real meal: it began from the middle of the afternoon and generally ended at nightfall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, for special occasions, there was also a collation during the night: the ***comissatio***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Roman Empire&#xD;&#xA;This is only a general schema for the Republic: the habits were not exactly the same during the Empire: the *jentaculum* was sometimes replaced by a simple cup of water, and the *cena* could last longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Contemporary Latin&#xD;&#xA;According to the choice made by John Traupman in his *[Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency](http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb41482365v)*, we have the following translation for `breakfast`, `lunch`, and `dinner`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- breakfast: ientaculum (verb: ientare)&#xD;&#xA;- lunch: prandium (verb: prandeo)&#xD;&#xA;- dinner: cena (verb: cenare)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, there are many choices to translate `breakfast`, `lunch`, and `dinner`: for example, to translate dinner, you can say *cena* (or *cœna*), but also *cœnula* (a frugal dinner) or *epulæ* (a very large meal). Another example of the many nuances that allows Latin: if you speak about a meal that you take at home, it can be translated by *domicenium*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb41482365v" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1895" RevisionGUID="0cfa44d0-8222-436d-adea-736f5c14d20e" CreationDate="2016-10-26T08:53:18.007" UserId="738" Text="I would like to know the meaning of the Latin expression &quot; ARS GRATIA ARTIS&quot;, as it appears in the following logo of a lion with a &quot;wreath&quot; with the script on it for the company MGM (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer):&#xA;&#xA;[![MGM Logo][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;Thanks.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xda0q.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6887" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1895" RevisionGUID="0cfa44d0-8222-436d-adea-736f5c14d20e" CreationDate="2016-10-26T08:53:18.007" UserId="738" Text="ARS GRATIA ARTIS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6888" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1895" RevisionGUID="0cfa44d0-8222-436d-adea-736f5c14d20e" CreationDate="2016-10-26T08:53:18.007" UserId="738" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1896" RevisionGUID="d95534ef-9c6d-4784-8025-54c715ba767e" CreationDate="2016-10-26T09:02:31.257" UserId="932" Text="#Collatinus&#xD;&#xA;I highly recommand [Collatinus](http://outils.biblissima.fr/fr/collatinus-web/). There are a web version and a desktop version, and it's a free software (CC BY-NC).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Functionalities&#xD;&#xA;* search for lemma in several Latin dictionaries (Gaffiot, Calonghi, Lewis &amp; Short, du Cange, Georges, Valbuena)&#xD;&#xA;* flex a lemma&#xD;&#xA;* scan a Latin text&#xD;&#xA;* lemmatize a Latin text (with 7 target languages)&#xD;&#xA;* perform its morphological analysis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6890" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1896" RevisionGUID="876acd95-e6e2-4c34-b729-2e89dee025cd" CreationDate="2016-10-26T09:02:31.257" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="6891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1895" RevisionGUID="7799f704-aa5b-443d-8c81-4d8d2e968420" CreationDate="2016-10-26T11:22:58.347" UserId="45" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I would like to know the meaning of the Latin expression:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ARS GRATIA ARTIS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as it appears in the following logo of a lion with a &quot;wreath&quot; with the script on it for the company MGM (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![MGM Logo][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8GfXB.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1897" RevisionGUID="f9d13689-6f60-4779-8aa3-a9f5bc84ccfd" CreationDate="2016-10-26T11:42:27.833" UserId="45" Text="In Latin, worth or value can be expressed by the genitive or by the ablative. Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Genitive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non pono utrique par pretium: **pluris aestimo** beneficium quam iniuriam. (Sen *Ep. Mor.* 81.8.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non ego **te flocci facio**; ne me territes. (Pl. *Curc.* 713)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Ablative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Metellus Scipio tricliniaria Babylonica **sestertium octingentis milibus venisse** iam tunc ponit in Catonis criminibus... (Plin. *Nat. Hist.* 8.196.8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: *venisse* is from *venire* (*venum* + *ire*): &quot;to be sold&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...num ante tempus praemium petat et spem incertam **certo venditet pretio** (Cic. *De Invent.* 2.113.11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: **What is the rule, if any, for determining whether to use the ablative or the genitive?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6893" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1897" RevisionGUID="f9d13689-6f60-4779-8aa3-a9f5bc84ccfd" CreationDate="2016-10-26T11:42:27.833" UserId="45" Text="Genitive vs Ablative of Price" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6894" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1897" RevisionGUID="f9d13689-6f60-4779-8aa3-a9f5bc84ccfd" CreationDate="2016-10-26T11:42:27.833" UserId="45" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|genitive|ablative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1898" RevisionGUID="85cdfe14-faf7-4f8b-92b9-d475baa0632d" CreationDate="2016-10-26T12:06:07.683" UserId="932" Text="The French catalog **Arlima** proposes a list of such works: &lt;http://www.arlima.net/uz/voyage.html&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Bernard le Sage, Itinerarium&#xD;&#xA;    Burchardus de Monte Sion&#xD;&#xA;    Giovanni de' Marignolli, Chronica Bohemorum&#xD;&#xA;    Giovanni di Pian del Carpino, Historia Mongalorum ou Liber Tartarorum&#xD;&#xA;    Guillaume de Rubrouck, Itinerarium ad partes orientales&#xD;&#xA;    Iacopo da Verona, Liber peregrinationis&#xD;&#xA;    Jordan Catala de Sévérac, Mirabilia descripta&#xD;&#xA;    Louis de Rochechouart, Journal de voyage à Jérusalem&#xD;&#xA;    Ludolf von Sudheim, De itinere Terre sancte&#xD;&#xA;    Niccolò de' Conti, Livre 4 du De varietate Fortunae&#xD;&#xA;    Niccolò Falconi, Liber historiarum partium Orientis&#xD;&#xA;    Odorico da Pordenone, Itinerarium&#xD;&#xA;    Riccoldo da Monte Croce, Liber peregrinationis&#xD;&#xA;    Simon de Saint-Quentin, Historia Tartarorum&#xD;&#xA;    Wilbrand von Oldenburg, Itinerarium&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1853" RevisionGUID="bb9cae04-cac9-4624-bb39-35e9a9dec4aa" CreationDate="2016-10-26T12:14:21.337" UserId="932" Comment="link to GB" Text="**For the pronunciation of post Classical Latin:**&#xD;&#xA;*Singing Early Music*:  0253210267 claims that on their disc (with the book)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &quot;A specialist presents  each  of  the  languages  or dialects &#xD;&#xA;&gt; included,  which  are  English, Scots, French,  Occitan,  Catalan, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Spanish,   Portuguese,   Galician- Portuguese, Italian, German,  and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Flemish, **as well as the characteristic Latin**  of  each  area; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; sample  texts  can  be  heard  on  an  included compact disc.&quot; *(emphasis not in the original)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;This implies that Latin pronunciation changed distinctively region by region across Europe, and century by century from classical to renaissance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is accessible as a [Google book](https://books.google.fr/books?id=ltDo50IzGpIC), so not really a website; simply for this specialist field of local medieval sung Latin, the subject is being researched and the results are available here and elsewhere  if you need them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6897" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1853" RevisionGUID="bb9cae04-cac9-4624-bb39-35e9a9dec4aa" CreationDate="2016-10-26T12:14:21.337" Comment="Proposed by 932 approved by 79 edit id of 144" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1898" RevisionGUID="4a6397bc-d027-452e-b629-075d1b19e41f" CreationDate="2016-10-26T12:37:16.370" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="The French catalog **Arlima** proposes a list of such works: &lt;http://www.arlima.net/uz/voyage.html&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bernard le Sage, *Itinerarium*  &#xD;&#xA;Burchardus de Monte Sion  &#xD;&#xA;Giovanni de' Marignolli, *Chronica Bohemorum*  &#xD;&#xA;Giovanni di Pian del Carpino, *Historia Mongalorum ou Liber Tartarorum*  &#xD;&#xA;Guillaume de Rubrouck, *Itinerarium ad partes orientales*  &#xD;&#xA;Iacopo da Verona, *Liber peregrinationis*  &#xD;&#xA;Jordan Catala de Sévérac, *Mirabilia descripta*  &#xD;&#xA;Louis de Rochechouart, *Journal de voyage à Jérusalem*  &#xD;&#xA;Ludolf von Sudheim, *De itinere Terre sancte*  &#xD;&#xA;Niccolò de' Conti, *Livre 4 du De varietate Fortunae*  &#xD;&#xA;Niccolò Falconi, *Liber historiarum partium Orientis*  &#xD;&#xA;Odorico da Pordenone, *Itinerarium*  &#xD;&#xA;Riccoldo da Monte Croce, *Liber peregrinationis*  &#xD;&#xA;Simon de Saint-Quentin, *Historia Tartarorum*  &#xD;&#xA;Wilbrand von Oldenburg, *Itinerarium* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1898" RevisionGUID="9eae50a9-549d-4c37-aa4e-8935e3170491" CreationDate="2016-10-26T12:37:26.183" UserId="932" Comment="added 1171 characters in body" Text="The French catalog **Arlima** proposes a list of such works: &lt;http://www.arlima.net/uz/voyage.html&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arlima.net/ad/bernard_le_sage.html&quot;&gt;Bernard le Sage&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;i&gt;Itinerarium&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arlima.net/ad/burchardus_de_monte_sion.html&quot;&gt;Burchardus de Monte Sion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arlima.net/eh/giovanni_de_marignolli.html&quot;&gt;Giovanni de' Marignolli&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;i&gt;Chronica Bohemorum&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arlima.net/eh/giovanni_di_pian_del_carpino.html&quot;&gt;Giovanni di Pian del Carpino&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;i&gt;Historia Mongalorum ou Liber Tartarorum&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arlima.net/eh/guillaume_de_rubrouck.html&quot;&gt;Guillaume de Rubrouck&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;i&gt;Itinerarium ad partes orientales&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arlima.net/il/iacopo_da_verona.html&quot;&gt;Iacopo da Verona&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;i&gt;Liber peregrinationis&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arlima.net/il/jordan_catala.html&quot;&gt;Jordan Catala de Sévérac&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;i&gt;Mirabilia descripta&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arlima.net/il/louis_de_rochechouart.html&quot;&gt;Louis de Rochechouart&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;i&gt;Journal de voyage à Jérusalem&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arlima.net/il/ludolf_von_sudheim.html&quot;&gt;Ludolf von Sudheim&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;i&gt;De itinere Terre sancte&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arlima.net/mp/niccolo_de_conti.html&quot;&gt;Niccolò de' Conti&lt;/a&gt;, Livre 4 du &lt;i&gt;De varietate Fortunae&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arlima.net/mp/nicolo_falconi.html&quot;&gt;Niccolò Falconi&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;i&gt;Liber historiarum partium Orientis&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arlima.net/mp/odorico_da_pordenone.html&quot;&gt;Odorico da Pordenone&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;i&gt;Itinerarium&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arlima.net/qt/riccoldo_da_monte_croce.html&quot;&gt;Riccoldo da Monte Croce&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;i&gt;Liber peregrinationis&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arlima.net/qt/simon_de_saint-quentin.html&quot;&gt;Simon de Saint-Quentin&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;i&gt;Historia Tartarorum&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arlima.net/uz/wilbrand_von_oldenburg.html&quot;&gt;Wilbrand von Oldenburg&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;i&gt;Itinerarium&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6900" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1895" RevisionGUID="93c1325f-480f-409f-8b8e-0667bf9f4cfa" CreationDate="2016-10-26T13:05:08.850" UserId="79" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1895" RevisionGUID="af120963-9320-4216-a56a-d8b557f262f0" CreationDate="2016-10-26T13:13:36.813" UserId="738" Comment="added 429 characters in body" Text="I would like to know the meaning of the following Latin expression, as well as a grammatical analysis of the individual words in this context:&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ARS GRATIA ARTIS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as it appears in the following logo of a lion with a &quot;wreath&quot; with the script on it for the company MGM (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![MGM Logo][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;As mentioned in a comment, below, [Wikipedia][2] states that ARS GRATIA ARTIS stands for &quot;Art for Set's Sake&quot;, but it does not explain what each of the three words mean, their declension, and any other grammar details. Can someone please provide this in an answer?&#xA;&#xA;Thanks.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8GfXB.jpg&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_for_art%27s_sake?wprov=sfla1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1895" RevisionGUID="d1f5161b-4e52-49c8-b920-3feaa02fd07a" CreationDate="2016-10-26T13:21:36.767" UserId="79" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I would like to know the meaning of the following Latin expression, as well as a grammatical analysis of the individual words in this context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ARS GRATIA ARTIS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as it appears in the following logo of a lion with a &quot;wreath&quot; with the script on it for the company MGM (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![MGM Logo][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned in a comment, below, [Wikipedia][2] states that ARS GRATIA ARTIS stands for &quot;Art for Art's Sake&quot;, but it does not explain what each of the three words mean, their declension, and any other grammar details. Can someone please provide this in an answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8GfXB.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_for_art%27s_sake?wprov=sfla1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6903" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1895" RevisionGUID="d1f5161b-4e52-49c8-b920-3feaa02fd07a" CreationDate="2016-10-26T13:21:36.767" UserId="79" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation|vocabulary|phrase|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6904" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="1895" RevisionGUID="6e1243f3-f86c-4709-a6f1-5d92994495e6" CreationDate="2016-10-26T13:21:41.290" UserId="79" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1899" RevisionGUID="35b3328e-b5f2-4b83-8019-70b1a9da594d" CreationDate="2016-10-26T13:27:44.837" UserId="645" Text="Roundly, the ablative is used for price and the genitive for value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **ablative of price** occurs with verbs of acquiring, buying, selling etc., as in *mensam quadraginta sestertiis emit*. As well as specific forms there are, of course, general ablatives of price such as *magno*, *parvo*, *vili*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **genitive of value** (*quanti*, *tanti*, *plurimi*, *nihili* etc.), as you might expect, is used with verbs of valuing but does not express a definite price. A little confusingly, perhaps, such are also used with verbs of buying and selling — but never when expressing a definite price. Some examples, like *nihili* and often called vulgar in old dictionaries, compare the value to a worthless item, e.g *flocci*, *nauci*, *pili* (each of which you will recognise in the rather artificial English word *floccinaucinihilipilification*, &quot; the act of valuing as worthless&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1893" RevisionGUID="16ed71af-0290-444a-a046-47ad11d9f314" CreationDate="2016-10-26T16:44:44.503" UserId="39" Comment="added 160 characters in body" Text="There are tons of research on this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food: see relevant articles in [A Companion to Food in the Ancient World][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[John F. Donahue][2] has written extensively on this. Also see Dunbabin and Slater 2011, [Roman dining][3], in [The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a really good quote from New Pauly, from the article &quot;Meals&quot; written by [Professor Gustfeld][5] (Université de Lorraine): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**In the early Republic,** people took three meals a day, the modest breakfast (**ientaculum** or **ieientaculum** in Plaut. Curc. 72-73) after sunrise, the midday main meal (**cena**) and a light meal in the evening (**vesperna**). In the later afternoon, there was (especially in the countryside) a kind of early supper, **merenda** (cf. Plaut. Vid. 52).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Beginning in the late Republic,** the light breakfast (**ientaculum**) was followed towards noon by a somewhat richer cold or hot meal (**prandium**), a sort of second breakfast without courses. The old vesperna was replaced by the **cena** , the main meal of the day routinely consisting of multiple courses (Fest. 54). It began late in the afternoon and could last late into the night. Until the end of antiquity and beyond, this arrangement of daily meals remained in effect. The rich favoured four or more meals over three (Suet. Nero 27,2; Suet. Vit. 13,1), while the poor often only had the means for one meal or went hungry.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gutsfeld, Andreas (Münster), “Meals”, in: Brill’s New Pauly, Antiquity volumes edited by: Hubert Cancik and , Helmuth Schneider. Consulted online on 26 October 2016 &lt;http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e717980&gt;&#xD;&#xA;First published online: 2006&#xD;&#xA;First print edition: 9789004122598, 20110510&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781118878255&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wm.edu/as/classicalstudies/faculty/donahue_j.php&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188004-e-21&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188004&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://hiscant.univ-lorraine.fr/content/hiscant-ma-axe-3-gutsfeld-andreas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1900" RevisionGUID="db25e439-c980-4bce-b5ab-68af6a75d490" CreationDate="2016-10-26T16:54:27.493" UserId="39" Text="There's a widget that lets you look up any word in **[the Oxford Latin Dictionary][1]**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pros:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's the Oxford Latin Dictionary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cons:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's behind a paywall (subscription-based) - available to institutions only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a [free YouTube tutorial][2] that shows its functionality in all its glory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarlyeditions.com/page/the-oxford-latin-dictionary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://youtu.be/aUZrQgITdB4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6909" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1900" RevisionGUID="150e4e21-3186-4267-a7ad-50aa2b26dbac" CreationDate="2016-10-26T16:54:27.493" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="6910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1893" RevisionGUID="99f06aa4-ca1e-4309-a096-1fd7505bf504" CreationDate="2016-10-26T16:59:57.013" UserId="39" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="There are tons of research on this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food: see relevant articles in [A Companion to Food in the Ancient World][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[John F. Donahue][2] has written extensively on this. Also see Dunbabin and Slater 2011, [Roman dining][3], in [The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a really good quote from New Pauly, from the article &quot;Meals&quot; written by [Professor Gustfeld][5] (Université de Lorraine). I decided to copy and paste the most relevant part below because it's subscription-based (i.e. not easily accessible): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**In the early Republic,** people took three meals a day, the modest breakfast (**ientaculum** or **ieientaculum** in Plaut. Curc. 72-73) after sunrise, the midday main meal (**cena**) and a light meal in the evening (**vesperna**). In the later afternoon, there was (especially in the countryside) a kind of early supper, **merenda** (cf. Plaut. Vid. 52).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Beginning in the late Republic,** the light breakfast (**ientaculum**) was followed towards noon by a somewhat richer cold or hot meal (**prandium**), a sort of second breakfast without courses. The old vesperna was replaced by the **cena** , the main meal of the day routinely consisting of multiple courses (Fest. 54). It began late in the afternoon and could last late into the night. Until the end of antiquity and beyond, this arrangement of daily meals remained in effect. The rich favoured four or more meals over three (Suet. Nero 27,2; Suet. Vit. 13,1), while the poor often only had the means for one meal or went hungry.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gutsfeld, Andreas (Münster), “Meals”, in: Brill’s New Pauly, Antiquity volumes edited by: Hubert Cancik and , Helmuth Schneider. Consulted online on 26 October 2016 &lt;http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e717980&gt;&#xD;&#xA;First published online: 2006&#xD;&#xA;First print edition: 9789004122598, 20110510&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781118878255&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wm.edu/as/classicalstudies/faculty/donahue_j.php&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188004-e-21&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188004&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://hiscant.univ-lorraine.fr/content/hiscant-ma-axe-3-gutsfeld-andreas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6911" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="1893" RevisionGUID="bf0d577d-30ef-4180-8678-1b1c742bb194" CreationDate="2016-10-26T23:08:27.857" UserId="39" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6912" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="1893" RevisionGUID="892014eb-2ecb-4086-98bc-89ddbb092b37" CreationDate="2016-10-26T23:32:48.487" UserId="39" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1893" RevisionGUID="385b6c12-497a-4730-8253-6ca24750998f" CreationDate="2016-10-26T23:38:56.090" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 347 characters in body" Text="There are tons of research on this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food: see relevant articles in [A Companion to Food in the Ancient World][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[John F. Donahue][2] has written extensively on this. Also see Dunbabin and Slater 2011, [Roman dining][3], in [The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a summary of the article &quot;Meals&quot; written by [Professor Gustfeld][5] (Université de Lorraine) for Der Neue Pauly - if you're serious about Latin or classical studies, you should already know what it is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**early Republic** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - breakfast (**ientaculum** or **ieientaculum**)&#xD;&#xA; - midday main meal (**cena**)&#xD;&#xA; - light meal in the evening (**vesperna**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. In the later afternoon, there was (especially in the countryside) a kind of early supper, **merenda**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**the late Republic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - light breakfast (**ientaculum**)&#xD;&#xA; - **prandium** (second breakfast without courses);&#xD;&#xA; - **cena** (main meal consisting of several courses; late afternoon-night).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gustfelf writes that &quot;[u]ntil the end of antiquity and beyond, this arrangement of daily meals remained in effect. The rich favoured four or more meals over three while the poor often only had the means for one meal or went hungry.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gutsfeld, Andreas (Münster), “Meals”, in: Brill’s New Pauly, Antiquity volumes edited by: Hubert Cancik and , Helmuth Schneider. Consulted online on 26 October 2016 &lt;http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e717980&gt;&#xD;&#xA;First published online: 2006&#xD;&#xA;First print edition: 9789004122598, 20110510&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781118878255&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wm.edu/as/classicalstudies/faculty/donahue_j.php&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188004-e-21&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188004&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://hiscant.univ-lorraine.fr/content/hiscant-ma-axe-3-gutsfeld-andreas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1893" RevisionGUID="8bfe5106-c3dd-4186-bdf4-80efd0e18f07" CreationDate="2016-10-26T23:44:21.657" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 347 characters in body" Text="There are tons of research on this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food: see relevant articles in [A Companion to Food in the Ancient World][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[John F. Donahue][2] has written extensively on this. Also see Dunbabin and Slater 2011, [Roman dining][3], in [The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a summary of the article &quot;Meals&quot; written by [Professor Gutsfeld][5] (Université de Lorraine) for [Der Neue Pauly][6] - if you're serious about Latin or classical studies, you should already know what it is. Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall, so many of you will never access this fantastic multivolume reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Early Republic:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **ientaculum** or **ieientaculum** (breakfast);&#xD;&#xA; - **cena** (main midday meal);&#xD;&#xA; - **vesperna** (a light meal in the evening).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gutsfeld mentions that **merenda** was common in the countryside and was taken in the later afternoon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Late Republic:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **ientaculum** (light breakfast);&#xD;&#xA; - **prandium** (second breakfast without courses);&#xD;&#xA; - **cena** (main meal consisting of several courses; late afternoon-night).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gutsfeld also notes that &quot;[u]ntil the end of antiquity and beyond, this arrangement of daily meals remained in effect. The rich favoured four or more meals over three while the poor often only had the means for one meal or went hungry.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gutsfeld, Andreas (Münster), “Meals”, in: Brill’s New Pauly, Antiquity volumes edited by: Hubert Cancik and , Helmuth Schneider. Consulted online on 26 October 2016 &lt;http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e717980&gt;&#xD;&#xA;First published online: 2006&#xD;&#xA;First print edition: 9789004122598, 20110510&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781118878255&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wm.edu/as/classicalstudies/faculty/donahue_j.php&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188004-e-21&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188004&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://hiscant.univ-lorraine.fr/content/hiscant-ma-axe-3-gutsfeld-andreas&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/der-neue-pauly" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1893" RevisionGUID="2c6c7bbb-bde9-4e1f-bac8-3adc6030a425" CreationDate="2016-10-26T23:50:31.027" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 347 characters in body" Text="Here's a summary of the article [&quot;Meals&quot;][1] written by [Professor Gutsfeld][2] (Université de Lorraine) for [Der Neue Pauly][3] - if you're serious about Latin or classical studies, you should already know what it is. Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall, so many of you will never access this fantastic multivolume reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Early Republic:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **ientaculum** or **ieientaculum** (breakfast);&#xD;&#xA; - [**cena**][4] (main midday meal);&#xD;&#xA; - **vesperna** (a light meal in the evening).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gutsfeld mentions that **merenda** was common in the countryside and was taken in the later afternoon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Late Republic:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **ientaculum** (light breakfast);&#xD;&#xA; - **prandium** (second breakfast without courses);&#xD;&#xA; - [**cena**][4] (main meal consisting of several courses; late afternoon-night).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gutsfeld also notes that &quot;[u]ntil the end of antiquity and beyond, this arrangement of daily meals remained in effect. The rich favoured four or more meals over three while the poor often only had the means for one meal or went hungry.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since your question is about names of meals and their use, I did not write about food common at those meals nor did I address formal or public banquets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you are interested in this extensively researched topic, I direct you to the following sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food: see relevant articles in [A Companion to Food in the Ancient World][5]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[John F. Donahue][6] has written extensively on this. Also see Dunbabin and Slater 2011, [Roman dining][7], in [The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these sources are also subscription-based.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/meals-e717980&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://hiscant.univ-lorraine.fr/content/hiscant-ma-axe-3-gutsfeld-andreas&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/der-neue-pauly&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/cena-e230040&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781118878255&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.wm.edu/as/classicalstudies/faculty/donahue_j.php&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188004-e-21&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188004" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1893" RevisionGUID="e15d244e-4a6b-43ad-88c6-86d252fc69cb" CreationDate="2016-10-26T23:59:42.917" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 347 characters in body" Text="Here's a summary of the article [&quot;Meals&quot;][1] written by [Professor Gutsfeld][2] (Université de Lorraine) for [Der Neue Pauly][3] - if you're serious about Latin or classical studies, you should already know what it is. Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall, so many of you will never access this fantastic multivolume reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Early Republic:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **ientaculum** or **ieientaculum** (breakfast);&#xD;&#xA; - [**cena**][4] (main midday meal);&#xD;&#xA; - **vesperna** (a light meal in the evening).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gutsfeld mentions that **merenda** was common in the countryside and was taken in the later afternoon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Late Republic:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **ientaculum** (light breakfast);&#xD;&#xA; - **prandium** (second breakfast without courses);&#xD;&#xA; - [**cena**][4] (main meal consisting of several courses; late afternoon-night).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gutsfeld also notes that &quot;[u]ntil the end of antiquity and beyond, this arrangement of daily meals remained in effect. The rich favoured four or more meals over three while the poor often only had the means for one meal or went hungry.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since your question is about names of meals and their use, I did not write about food common at those meals nor did I address formal or public meals (e.g. **[convivium][5]**, a private banquet, or **[comissatio][6]**, a drinking party with dances, games, and alcohol).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you are interested in this extensively researched topic, I direct you to the following sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food: see relevant articles in [A Companion to Food in the Ancient World][7]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[John F. Donahue][8] has written extensively on this. Also see Dunbabin and Slater 2011, [Roman dining][9], in [The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World][10].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these sources are also subscription-based.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/meals-e717980&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://hiscant.univ-lorraine.fr/content/hiscant-ma-axe-3-gutsfeld-andreas&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/der-neue-pauly&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/cena-e230040&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/banquet-e419290&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/comissatio-e303460&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781118878255&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.wm.edu/as/classicalstudies/faculty/donahue_j.php&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188004-e-21&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188004" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1893" RevisionGUID="abc97dbe-a924-48ed-921c-0fa6e32e74e6" CreationDate="2016-10-27T00:15:26.020" UserId="39" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="Here's a summary of the article [&quot;Meals&quot;][1] written by [Professor Gutsfeld][2] (Université de Lorraine) for [Der Neue Pauly][3] - if you're serious about Latin or classical studies, you should already know what it is. Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall, so many of you will never access this fantastic multivolume reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Early Republic:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **ientaculum** or **ieientaculum** (breakfast);&#xD;&#xA; - [**cena**][4] (main midday meal);&#xD;&#xA; - **vesperna** (a light meal in the evening).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gutsfeld mentions that **merenda** was common in the countryside and was taken in the later afternoon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Late Republic - Empire:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **ientaculum** (light breakfast);&#xD;&#xA; - **prandium** (second breakfast without courses);&#xD;&#xA; - [**cena**][4] (main meal consisting of several courses; late afternoon-night).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gutsfeld also notes that &quot;[u]ntil the end of antiquity and beyond, this arrangement of daily meals remained in effect. The rich favoured four or more meals over three while the poor often only had the means for one meal or went hungry.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since your question is about names of meals and their use, I did not write about food common at those meals nor did I address formal or public meals (e.g. **[convivium][5]**, a private banquet, or **[comissatio][6]**, a drinking party with dances, games, and alcohol).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you are interested in this extensively researched topic, I direct you to the following sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food: see relevant articles in [A Companion to Food in the Ancient World][7]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[John F. Donahue][8] has written extensively on this. Also see Dunbabin and Slater 2011, [Roman dining][9], in [The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World][10].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these sources are also subscription-based.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/meals-e717980&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://hiscant.univ-lorraine.fr/content/hiscant-ma-axe-3-gutsfeld-andreas&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/der-neue-pauly&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/cena-e230040&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/banquet-e419290&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/comissatio-e303460&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781118878255&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.wm.edu/as/classicalstudies/faculty/donahue_j.php&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188004-e-21&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188004&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo3534520.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1901" RevisionGUID="aa112fd4-f26f-478d-811b-def23a50d540" CreationDate="2016-10-27T00:27:59.317" UserId="522" Text="A modern Latin source which may be of interest has three versions of Birthday Salutations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Winnie Ille Pu  -  A.A.Milnei(in Lat conv. Alexandro Lenard, ?1960) [pdf][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BVBO** (Owl or Wol)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ita Bubo scripsit . . . et ecce inscriptio:  'FLICM FELCM NTAALM&#xD;&#xA;&gt; TATALM NATATALM.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PORCELLUS** (Piglet)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **'** Utinam dies iste saepe et feliciter revertatur,**'** dixit Porcellus, appropinquans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PU** (Winnie-the-Pooh)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scriptum legimus: felicem natalem amanter ominatur Pu.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ac-grenoble.fr/lycee/diois/Latin/index.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1901" RevisionGUID="0b0e32d5-76c3-4b20-bc4a-ddca0f932794" CreationDate="2016-10-27T00:39:42.930" UserId="522" Comment="removed link to pdf =broken," Text="A modern Latin source which may be of interest has three versions of Birthday Salutations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Winnie Ille Pu  -  A.A.Milnei(in Lat conv. Alexandro Lenard, ?1960)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BVBO** (Owl or Wol)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ita Bubo scripsit . . . et ecce inscriptio:  'FLICM FELCM NTAALM&#xD;&#xA;&gt; TATALM NATATALM.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PORCELLUS** (Piglet)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **'** Utinam dies iste saepe et feliciter revertatur,**'** dixit Porcellus, appropinquans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PU** (Winnie-the-Pooh)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scriptum legimus: felicem natalem amanter ominatur Pu.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ac-grenoble.fr/lycee/diois/Latin/index.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1893" RevisionGUID="65dec44d-ead0-4cdd-967d-92ccebc165a8" CreationDate="2016-10-27T01:59:05.240" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 77 characters in body" Text="Here's a summary of the article [&quot;Meals&quot;][1] written by [Professor Gutsfeld][2] (Université de Lorraine) for [Der Neue Pauly][3] - if you're serious about Latin or classical studies, you should already know what it is. Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall, so many of us mostly likely will never access this fantastic multivolume reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Early Republic:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **ientaculum** or **ieientaculum** (breakfast);&#xD;&#xA; - [**cena**][4] (main midday meal);&#xD;&#xA; - **vesperna** (a light meal in the evening).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gutsfeld mentions that **merenda** was common in the countryside and was taken in the later afternoon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Late Republic - Empire:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **ientaculum** (light breakfast);&#xD;&#xA; - **prandium** (second breakfast without courses);&#xD;&#xA; - [**cena**][4] (main meal consisting of several courses; late afternoon-night).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gutsfeld also notes that &quot;[t]he rich favoured four or more meals over three while the poor often only had the means for one meal or went hungry.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since your question is about names of meals and their use, I did not write about food common at those meals nor did I address formal or public meals (e.g. **[convivium][5]**, a private banquet, or **[comissatio][6]**, a drinking party with dances, games, and alcohol).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you are interested in this extensively researched topic, I direct you to the following sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food: see relevant articles in [A Companion to Food in the Ancient World][7]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[John F. Donahue][8] has written extensively on this. Also see Dunbabin and Slater 2011, [Roman dining][9], in [The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World][10].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these sources are also subscription-based.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/meals-e717980&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://hiscant.univ-lorraine.fr/content/hiscant-ma-axe-3-gutsfeld-andreas&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/der-neue-pauly&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/cena-e230040&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/banquet-e419290&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/comissatio-e303460&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781118878255&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.wm.edu/as/classicalstudies/faculty/donahue_j.php&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188004-e-21&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188004&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo3534520.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1902" RevisionGUID="8537150c-425d-4385-b85b-7bcc92f77452" CreationDate="2016-10-27T03:35:37.523" UserId="406" Text="##&quot;Art for the Sake of Art&quot;##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase, quite conveniently, uses the same word order in both English and Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ars, artis (artium)* is a third-declension feminine noun. It can mean &quot;art&quot; in the sense of paintings and sculptures, but can also be more abstract, like the &quot;art&quot; of writing (i.e. the skill and experience required to be a good writer). *Ars* is the nominative &quot;art&quot;, *artis* is the genitive &quot;of art&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ex: *Ars Amātōria*, &quot;The Art of Love&quot;, a poem by Ovid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Grātiā* is one of the very very few prepositions taking the genitive case, meaning &quot;for the sake of&quot;. It started out as the ablative singular of the noun *grātia* (with short *a*), which originally meant &quot;sake&quot;. But just like in English, the noun became uncommon except in the fixed expression &quot;for the sake of...&quot;; *grātia* came to mean &quot;thanks&quot; instead, and that's the meaning it has in the Romance languages (Italian *grazie*, Spanish *gracias*, etc). So *grātiā* was re-analyzed as a preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ex: *exemplī grātiā* (e.g.), &quot;for the sake of example&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *ars* is nominative singular &quot;art&quot;, *grātiā* is a preposition &quot;for the sake&quot;, and *artis* is genitive singular &quot;of art&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1893" RevisionGUID="996668f1-ff48-4507-a137-adce078f1278" CreationDate="2016-10-27T04:47:54.680" UserId="39" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="Here's a summary of the article [&quot;Meals&quot;][1] written by [Professor Gutsfeld][2] (Université de Lorraine) for [Der Neue Pauly][3] - if you're serious about Latin or classical studies, you should already know what it is. Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall, so many of us mostly likely will never access this fantastic multivolume reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Early Republic:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **ientaculum** or **ieientaculum** (breakfast);&#xD;&#xA; - [**cena**][4] (main midday meal);&#xD;&#xA; - **vesperna** (a light meal in the evening).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gutsfeld mentions that **merenda** was common in the countryside and was taken in the later afternoon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Late Republic - Empire:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **ientaculum** (light breakfast);&#xD;&#xA; - **prandium** (second breakfast without courses);&#xD;&#xA; - [**cena**][4] (main meal consisting of several courses; late afternoon-night).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gutsfeld also notes that &quot;[t]he rich favoured four or more meals over three while the poor often only had the means for one meal or went hungry.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since your question is about names of meals and their use, I did not write about food common at those meals nor did I address formal or public meals (e.g. **[convivium][5]**, a private banquet, or **[comissatio][6]**, a drinking party with dances, games, and alcohol).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you are interested in this extensively researched topic, I direct you to the following sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food: see relevant articles in [A Companion to Food in the Ancient World][7]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[John F. Donahue][8] has written extensively on this. Also see Dunbabin and Slater 2011, [Roman dining][9], in [The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World][10]. Both Katherine Dunbabin (Department of Classics, McMaster University) and William Slater are well-known names/experts in Roman dining (among other things).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these sources are also subscription-based.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/meals-e717980&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://hiscant.univ-lorraine.fr/content/hiscant-ma-axe-3-gutsfeld-andreas&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/der-neue-pauly&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/cena-e230040&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/banquet-e419290&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/comissatio-e303460&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781118878255&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.wm.edu/as/classicalstudies/faculty/donahue_j.php&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188004-e-21&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188004&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo3534520.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1903" RevisionGUID="917bf627-fddf-4bba-b351-cb7c90c55c30" CreationDate="2016-10-27T07:09:15.307" UserId="738" Text="As Latin is a dead language, I imagine, people note pronounce it differently depending on in which county they are learning it. That said, I would like to know what IPA phoneme is commonly used to pronounce the &quot;ti&quot; sound.&#xA;&#xA;Is it just read as a t followed by an i, or as a forced z or as an elongated s sound?&#xA;&#xA;What is standard practice?&#xA;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6924" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1903" RevisionGUID="917bf627-fddf-4bba-b351-cb7c90c55c30" CreationDate="2016-10-27T07:09:15.307" UserId="738" Text="How to pronounce the sequence &quot;to&quot; when reading Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6925" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1903" RevisionGUID="917bf627-fddf-4bba-b351-cb7c90c55c30" CreationDate="2016-10-27T07:09:15.307" UserId="738" Text="|phonetics|phonology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1903" RevisionGUID="9a7edcaf-ed2b-40c7-a8c3-e5c12b799fb2" CreationDate="2016-10-27T10:08:37.923" UserId="45" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="As Latin is a dead language, I imagine, people note pronounce it differently depending on in which county they are learning it. That said, I would like to know what IPA phoneme is commonly used to pronounce the &quot;ti&quot; sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it just read as a *t* followed by an *i*, or as a forced *z* or as an elongated *s* sound?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is standard practice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6927" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1903" RevisionGUID="9a7edcaf-ed2b-40c7-a8c3-e5c12b799fb2" CreationDate="2016-10-27T10:08:37.923" UserId="45" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to pronounce the sequence &quot;ti&quot; when reading Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1892" RevisionGUID="0b7a1e62-38d9-4878-be71-5abd6c5be7df" CreationDate="2016-10-27T10:11:46.223" UserId="932" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="# Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Roman Republic&#xD;&#xA;According to the *[Guide Romain Antique](http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb324096783)*, by Jean Dautry, Georges Hacquard and Olivier Maisani, from the second century BC the Romans had 3 meals a day only one of which was plentiful : the ***cena***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The ***jentaculum*** was the breakfast: some bread and cheese after waking up;&#xD;&#xA;1. The ***prandium*** was a simple collation (*merenda*), eaten on the go around midday;&#xD;&#xA;1. The ***cena*** was the real meal: it began from the middle of the afternoon and generally ended at nightfall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, for special occasions, there was also a collation during the night: the ***comissatio***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Roman Empire&#xD;&#xA;This is only a general schema for the Republic: the habits were not exactly the same during the Empire: the *jentaculum* was sometimes replaced by a simple cup of water, and the *cena* could last longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Contemporary Latin&#xD;&#xA;According to the choice made by John Traupman in his *[Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency](http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb41482365v)*, we have the following translation for `breakfast`, `lunch`, and `dinner`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- breakfast: ientaculum (verb: ientare)&#xD;&#xA;- lunch: prandium (verb: prandere)&#xD;&#xA;- dinner: cena (verb: cenare)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, there are many choices to translate `breakfast`, `lunch`, and `dinner`: for example, to translate dinner, you can say *cena* (or *cœna*), but also *cœnula* (a frugal dinner) or *epulæ* (a very large meal). Another example of the many nuances that allows Latin: if you speak about a meal that you take at home, it can be translated by *domicenium*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb41482365v" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1904" RevisionGUID="71177513-5042-4eb6-872c-b1b4d1d6c835" CreationDate="2016-10-27T14:40:26.260" UserId="932" Text="Some simple and easily readable (with a growing difficulty) ***Epitomes*** were written for schools in the 19th century in France.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, I own a copy of the *Epitome Historæ Græcæ* by Lantoine (written for 11 year old pupils). First pages are easy to understand, and the difficulty grow little by little. There is a simple lexicon at the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Epitome Historæ Græcæ][2]][2][![Epitome Historæ Græcæ p. 1][3]][3][![Epitome Historæ Græcæ later][4]][4][![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there are different difficulties. The well-known ***[De viris illustribus][1]*** by Abbot Lhomond can also be used to learn Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/lhomond.viris.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/u08Y6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QBh6e.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ucdTl.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fQx4T.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6932" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1904" RevisionGUID="7e97c4be-3e70-4fe1-8c2c-140c04d475a8" CreationDate="2016-10-27T14:40:26.260" UserId="932" />
  <row Id="6933" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="1904" RevisionGUID="0f1facc3-dc5a-4804-aa50-28fadc8a3467" CreationDate="2016-10-27T15:02:49.383" UserId="932" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:932,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Luc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1905" RevisionGUID="63ba16d4-7c36-4221-98d7-3d0ef280bbfd" CreationDate="2016-10-27T15:48:15.693" UserId="406" Text="The common pronunciation depends somewhat on when you're learning, as well as where. In recent decades there's been a push toward &quot;reconstructed&quot; pronunciation in education; if you learned that &quot;c&quot; is always /k/, this is probably what you're using.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reconstructed pronunciation, *tĭ* (as in *sentiō*) is /tɪ/, and *tī* (as in *sentīre*) is /tiː/. In other words, the usual &quot;t&quot; followed by the usual &quot;i&quot;. Since this system is meant to imitate how the Romans actually spoke, it's mostly the same between countries, with differences attributable to accent. (For instance, as an English-speaker, my *tĭ* is more like /tʰɪ/.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, pronunciation has varied wildly depending where you learned. Luc provided [this link][1] which covers the major differences. But in the English-speaking world, the typical pronunciation was /ʃi ~ ʃɪ ~ ʃə/ before a vowel, and /taj ~ tɪ/ before a consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Before a vowel&#xD;&#xA;  - ratio /ˈɹej ʃi jow/&#xD;&#xA;  - rational[is] /ˈɹæ ʃə nl̩/&#xD;&#xA; - Before a consonant&#xD;&#xA;  - Collatinus /kɑ lə ˈtaj nɨs/&#xD;&#xA;  - (apparatus) criticus /ˈkɹɪ tɪ kɨs/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The IPA transcriptions are for General American dialect, which notably merges roses-Rosa's and cot-caught but not pin-pen.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_regional_pronunciation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1905" RevisionGUID="73249ecb-b33f-4b48-80bb-f349df94bd62" CreationDate="2016-10-27T17:08:24.997" UserId="406" Comment="added 354 characters in body" Text="The common pronunciation depends somewhat on when you're learning, as well as where. In recent decades there's been a push toward &quot;reconstructed&quot; pronunciation in education; if you learned that &quot;c&quot; is always /k/, this is probably what you're using.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reconstructed pronunciation, *tĭ* (as in *sentiō*) is /tɪ/, and *tī* (as in *sentīre*) is /tiː/. In other words, the usual &quot;t&quot; followed by the usual &quot;i&quot;. Since this system is meant to imitate how the Romans actually spoke, it's mostly the same between countries, with differences attributable to accent. (For instance, as an English-speaker, my *tĭ* is more like /tʰɪ/.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, pronunciation has varied wildly depending where you learned. Luc provided [this link][1] which covers the major differences. But in the English-speaking world, the typical pronunciation was /ʃi ~ ʃɪ ~ ʃə/ before a vowel, and /taj ~ tɪ/ before a consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Before a vowel&#xD;&#xA;  - ratio /ˈɹej ʃi jow/&#xD;&#xA;  - rational[is] /ˈɹæ ʃə nl̩/&#xD;&#xA; - Before a consonant&#xD;&#xA;  - Collatinus /kɑ lə ˈtaj nɨs/&#xD;&#xA;  - (apparatus) criticus /ˈkɹɪ tɪ kɨs/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The IPA transcriptions are for General American dialect, which notably merges roses-Rosa's and cot-caught but not pin-pen.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, ecclesiastic pronunciation is less common now than it used to be, but is still standard within the Catholic church. In this system, &quot;ti&quot; is pronounced /tsi/ when followed by a vowel and not preceded by &quot;s&quot;, &quot;t&quot;, or &quot;x&quot;, and /ti/ otherwise. Thus, &quot;ratio&quot; is /ratsio/, &quot;satis&quot; is /satis/, and &quot;festina&quot; is /festina/. (Vowel length is ignored.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_regional_pronunciation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1906" RevisionGUID="34f87679-5bdb-41fc-9c9c-f19a1abf7a8c" CreationDate="2016-10-27T20:54:34.083" UserId="79" Text="The English word [&quot;pastille&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastille) (and related words in other languages) obviously derives from the Latin *pastillus*.&#xD;&#xA;I know *pastillus* had a similar purpose to today's pastille, and, if I remember what I hear years ago, it was something like a small bread seasoned with a lot of herbs.&#xD;&#xA;However, I have been unable to find a reliable and detailed description.&#xD;&#xA;So, what exactly was the ancient *pastillus*?&#xD;&#xA;Do we have a recipe for making them, for example?&#xD;&#xA;Are there present-day food items that match *pastillus* well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6938" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1906" RevisionGUID="34f87679-5bdb-41fc-9c9c-f19a1abf7a8c" CreationDate="2016-10-27T20:54:34.083" UserId="79" Text="What exactly was a pastillus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6939" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1906" RevisionGUID="34f87679-5bdb-41fc-9c9c-f19a1abf7a8c" CreationDate="2016-10-27T20:54:34.083" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|history|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1907" RevisionGUID="45a18c31-7d30-4deb-8ee7-6fc4fd501f39" CreationDate="2016-10-28T00:03:45.587" UserId="406" Text="Much to students' annoyance, nouns ending in *-us* can belong to either the second (*servus*), third (*tempus*), or fourth (*circus*) declensions. I understand the origin of the second and fourth: Proto-Indo-European stems in *-o-* vs *-u-*. But the third-declension *-us* nouns are less predictable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - tempus → temporis (also *corpus*, *decus*, *nemus*)&#xD;&#xA; - latus → lateris (also *genus*, *funus*, *scelus*)&#xD;&#xA; - jūs → jūris (also *crūs*, *pūs*, *rūs*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last of these makes sense to me: the root was originally *jūs*, and the intervocalic *s* became *r* in pre-classical Latin (cf *flōs, flōris*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for the other two patterns, why sometimes *e* and sometimes *o*? The two patterns seem very distinct: even nouns of uncertain declension, like *penus, -ī/-ūs/oris*, never interchange *-eris* and *-oris* forms. What led to this distinction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6941" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1907" RevisionGUID="45a18c31-7d30-4deb-8ee7-6fc4fd501f39" CreationDate="2016-10-28T00:03:45.587" UserId="406" Text="-eris, -oris, -uris?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6942" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1907" RevisionGUID="45a18c31-7d30-4deb-8ee7-6fc4fd501f39" CreationDate="2016-10-28T00:03:45.587" UserId="406" Text="|declension|noun|third-declension|origin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1908" RevisionGUID="9a06b5c4-b6fe-40e2-8b17-7d33a4ea2f9b" CreationDate="2016-10-28T01:49:10.773" UserId="40" Text="The usual explanation given in historical grammars, e.g. those of Weiss, Sihler, and Buck, is that the *-er-* stems result from regular sound change, while the *-or-* stems result from analogical remodeling on the basis of the nominative/accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A well-known Latin sound change turned all short vowels in word-medial open syllables to *i*. Since short unstressed *ir* is a disfavored sequence in Latin, though, before *r* such vowels became *e* instead. (Compare second-person passive forms like *cap-e-ris*, vs. *cap-i-tur*.) This is how you get the medial vowel of the *lateris* type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, though, in some cases the vowel of the nominative/accusative -- which would still have been *o*, e.g. *tempos*, *corpos* -- was restored throughout the declension, giving the *temporis* type. Why this happened in some nouns and not others is unexplained: it's often the case that analogical changes hit some words but miss others for unclear reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, as I said, is the standard explanation. It is interesting, however, that in three of the four *-oris* examples you list, the consonant before the *o* is a labial. This could be coincidence, of course, but maybe part of the explanation is phonetic, since the presence of a labial could plausibly favor the rounded vowel *o*. It would be interesting to look at the full set of such neuter *s*-stems to see if there are any phonetic patterns of this kind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1907" RevisionGUID="6a57d8fc-cec8-4003-b586-f6088398509a" CreationDate="2016-10-28T03:23:19.380" UserId="406" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Much to students' annoyance, nouns ending in *-us* can belong to either the second (*servus*), third (*tempus*), or fourth (*circus*) declensions. I understand the origin of the second and fourth: Proto-Indo-European stems in *-o-* vs *-u-*. But the third-declension *-us* nouns are less predictable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - tempus → temporis (also *corpus*, *decus*, *nemus*)&#xD;&#xA; - latus → lateris (also *genus*, *funus*, *scelus*)&#xD;&#xA; - jūs → jūris (also *crūs*, *pūs*, *rūs*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last of these makes sense to me: the root was originally *jūs*, and the intervocalic *s* became *r* in pre-classical Latin (cf *flōs, flōris*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for the other two patterns, why sometimes *e* and sometimes *o*? The two patterns seem very distinct: even nouns of uncertain declension, like *penus, -ī/-ūs/-oris*, never interchange *-eris* and *-oris* forms. What led to this distinction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1909" RevisionGUID="3c2eb7b7-a030-445e-88c8-c384e0d2fafa" CreationDate="2016-10-28T04:33:11.133" UserId="235" Text="For a textbook exercise, I translated this sentence from English into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The terrified Callisto, now a wild animal, avoided men and beasts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (animals). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *(Latin via Ovid)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Territa Callisto, nunc animal ferum, viros et animalia fera evitavit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid this is a silly beginner's question, but I was wondering, is it correct to use *nunc* in apposition this way? Or would it be better to omit *nunc* and let it be implied?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6946" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1909" RevisionGUID="3c2eb7b7-a030-445e-88c8-c384e0d2fafa" CreationDate="2016-10-28T04:33:11.133" UserId="235" Text="Can the adverb nunc be used in apposition?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6947" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1909" RevisionGUID="3c2eb7b7-a030-445e-88c8-c384e0d2fafa" CreationDate="2016-10-28T04:33:11.133" UserId="235" Text="|word-order|adverb|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1910" RevisionGUID="42c17aef-e3aa-496b-aa68-781eb4b4568c" CreationDate="2016-10-28T14:04:36.733" UserId="645" Text="What you remember from years ago is probably as good a description as you will find. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dictionaries usually agree that a *pastillus* was a small, round object baked from flour, which some describe as a &quot;roll&quot;. Two classical references commonly appear: Horace, Satires 1. 2. 27, *pastillos Rufus olet*, and Martial, 1. 88 (which is not quoted literally in any of my sources, and should actually be 1.87 — so much for the independence of lexicographers!), *Ne gravis hesterno fragres, Fescennia, vino / pastillos Cosmi luxuriosa voras.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I'm unable to confirm it, I once had an older, Catholic acquaintance who believed that *pastillum* was the Latin word for the unconsecrated disc before it was used as the Hostia in the Mass. That's the closest I can get to a recipe or a present-day food item. It would agree with suggestions of shape and the use (with herbal content) as a breath-sweetener: the word is sometimes translated to English as lozenge, which certainly has a medicinal connotation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1911" RevisionGUID="a8449893-8bf8-4b9f-9010-c974c5391042" CreationDate="2016-10-28T14:13:05.533" UserId="933" Text="The best I have come up with so far is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**communicare est colere**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still very new to this and not the best with grammar, but looking at various options and trying to figure out the different words---this seems to have the right nuance. Communicare is to divide/share/partake with someone.&#xD;&#xA;Colere is to nuture/take care of/tend to.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="274" RevisionGUID="0ef429e5-8565-4498-bb43-f33f29fbb285" CreationDate="2016-10-28T15:44:06.167" UserId="12" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="For questions regarding evolution, pronunciation, and forms of the Latin alphabet and its letters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1912" RevisionGUID="b8498dea-e9e9-465c-8c24-16c8e59416aa" CreationDate="2016-10-28T17:29:26.660" UserId="45" Text="While joining two infinitives with a copula is certainly possible, it does not have the same ring to me as the English phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A very common Latin idiom that expresses the same idea is &quot;Qui Xat, Yat&quot; meaning: &quot;Everyone who X's, Y's.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, I recommend:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Qui partitur, procurat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*partior, -iri*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dpartior): means &quot;sharing&quot; or &quot;dividing up,&quot; and I think it's meaning is closer to the English when standing alone: *communico* has a broader meaning and would be better with an object.&#xD;&#xA;* [*procuro, -are*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dprocuro): This could really be any variation on *curo*, including *adcurat, accurat*, but the *pro* adds a bit of alliteration and (for me) a more personal touch." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1913" RevisionGUID="c2207e85-9302-48f3-95f9-2c3cf21fc4ca" CreationDate="2016-10-28T17:46:29.713" UserId="406" Text="###*Nunc* almost always modifies a verb.###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found any instances yet where *nunc* modifies a noun to mean &quot;now being...&quot;. For that meaning, you could use a relative clause or put in an *esse* for *nunc* to modify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Cicero's *Epistulae ad Familiārēs* 10.31.6:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...constitui, **ut nunc est**, cum exercitu proficisci.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Trans.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...I have decided, **with the way things are now**, to set out with my army.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And from his *Dē Ōrātore* 1.187:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnia fere, **quae sunt conclusa nunc artibus**, dispersa et dissipata quondam fuerunt...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Trans.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pretty much all the things **which are now incorporated into the arts** had previously been separate and disconnected...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some cases when *nunc* modifies a noun. For example, *nunc [noun] nunc [noun]* is an idiom when you give only a few examples from a longer list. &quot;The Helvetii swept through Gaul, destroying the forces of the other tribes: now the Sequani, now the Aedui.&quot; But I don't think this is your intent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1906" RevisionGUID="4cfc2c7e-ce3e-4cf0-9916-7a8dc5e2276e" CreationDate="2016-10-28T18:41:06.543" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The English word [&quot;pastille&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastille) (and related words in other languages) obviously derives from the Latin *pastillus*.&#xD;&#xA;I know *pastillus* had a similar purpose to today's pastille, and, if I remember what I heard years ago, it was something like a small bread seasoned with a lot of herbs.&#xD;&#xA;However, I have been unable to find a reliable and detailed description.&#xD;&#xA;So, what exactly was the ancient *pastillus*?&#xD;&#xA;Do we have a recipe for making them, for example?&#xD;&#xA;Are there present-day food items that match *pastillus* well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6956" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="3f88c2c2-5666-4afd-9ba7-d1a8526164b5" CreationDate="2016-10-29T12:55:31.653" UserId="932" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:932,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Luc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="e15f2d12-275d-4858-a01f-fa10a0ffeae9" CreationDate="2016-10-29T12:55:47.010" UserId="932" Comment="added 774 characters in body" Text="We can find the many meanings of `s'il te plaît` in the Littré above the article `PLAIRE`. They are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *Vouloir, trouver bon*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;E.g.: *Heureux, si vous voulez, malheureux, s'il vous plaît* (*in* *Tartuffe* by Molière)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *S'il vous plaît, terme de politesse, pour demander quelque chose à quelqu'un.*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;E.g.: *Ne m'oubliez jamais dans vos prières, s'il vous&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plaît* (in a letter by Mme de Maintenon)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *Parfois, s'il vous plaît, est une façon polie de recommander avec énergie ce qu'on dit.*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;E.g.: *Une seconde fois avisez, s'il vous&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plaît, à traiter Laodice en reine comme elle est ; C'est moi qui vous&#xD;&#xA;&gt; en prie* [Corneille, Nicom. II, 3]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Et moi, ma petite fille, ma mie, je veux que vous vous mariiez, s'il vous plaît* [Molière, Avare, I, 6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solution for the second meaning (term of politness) is given in the Quicherat French-Latin dictionnary above the article `PLAIRE`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **S'il te plaît. S'il vous plaît.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Si placet.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. Si vobis videtur.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. Si tibi est commodum.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. Nisi molestum est.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. Si grave non est.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hor. Quæso*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is given:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Informe-moi s'il te plaît de ce que...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Velim me certiorem facias quid... (Cic)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6958" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="6368cbea-939d-4f5e-a64d-b66f91c0d853" CreationDate="2016-10-29T12:56:04.350" UserId="932" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:932,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Luc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6959" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="b093e109-18f7-40d4-8f5d-328b36edcf02" CreationDate="2016-10-29T12:56:28.890" UserId="932" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:932,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Luc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1914" RevisionGUID="b5171279-af4d-4c3e-863f-e243b040a23f" CreationDate="2016-10-29T16:25:24.283" UserId="79" Text="I am interested in a couple of statues in Rome.&#xD;&#xA;They are on the north side of Via dei Fori Imperiali, between Via Cavour and Piazza Venezia.&#xD;&#xA;If my memory serves me well, they are of key figures in Roman history &amp;mdash; like Augustus &amp;mdash; and they have inscriptions in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I think they were erected in modern times, perhaps under Mussolini's rule.&#xD;&#xA;[Here is a picture (and location) of one of the statues](https://www.google.fi/maps/place/Via+dei+Fori+Imperiali,+Roma,+Italia/@41.8939114,12.4860852,3a,60y,26.95h,87.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sATyrCG5jmCz1px_biwQsug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x132f61b3f0a39c4f:0x42f40ce9df3b57c7!8m2!3d41.893238!4d12.487152?hl=fi&amp;authuser=0) from Google Maps street view.&#xD;&#xA;(I might not remember some details correctly, since it's been years since I saw the statues.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where can I find a list of all the statues in this series (of five or so statues?) and, in particular, the inscriptions accompanying them?&#xD;&#xA;If my memory fails me and the inscriptions are in Italian, I would still like to see them.&#xD;&#xA;It would be an easy matter if I were in Rome, but I am &amp;mdash; unfortunately! &amp;mdash; not going there in the foreseeable future.&#xD;&#xA;I was unable to find this information online, but that is rarely good proof that it is not there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6961" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1914" RevisionGUID="b5171279-af4d-4c3e-863f-e243b040a23f" CreationDate="2016-10-29T16:25:24.283" UserId="79" Text="Inscriptions in statues along Via dei Fori Imperiali" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6962" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1914" RevisionGUID="b5171279-af4d-4c3e-863f-e243b040a23f" CreationDate="2016-10-29T16:25:24.283" UserId="79" Text="|history|resource-request|passage-request|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6963" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1826" RevisionGUID="f9b69425-bb78-4de8-9162-6c1a25c02de0" CreationDate="2016-10-29T16:31:30.120" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|syntax|conjunction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6964" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1770" RevisionGUID="2a7cb4aa-53d1-4b84-bfc0-8fc047793d42" CreationDate="2016-10-29T16:32:06.643" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|syntax|grammar-identification|articles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1220" RevisionGUID="7206ea30-ec84-43a8-ae75-4957f468cc8c" CreationDate="2016-10-29T20:47:49.250" UserId="118" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="[Suppose](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1210/118) there were a podiatry practice named _Pes Integer Sit._ How would you put this into a complete sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you simply treat it as indeclinable? For example, would &quot;I am going to Pes Integer Sit&quot; be _Eo Pes Integer Sit,_ or _Ad Pes Integer Sit eo_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly for a business whose name is a noun phrase in an oblique case. If the business were [named](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1210/light-feet-healthy-feet-or-other-podiatry-related-names-in-latin/1212#comment2638_1211) _Pedibus Sanis,_ would you have to avoid declining it, when, say, it was in a place in a sentence that called for the accusative or nominative case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if these are indeclinable, does that cause confusion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is a custom for choosing the case of business names, please let me know. That might (happily) render the whole question moot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1915" RevisionGUID="29431d53-836a-4d3d-a6a4-65287233d4ba" CreationDate="2016-10-30T03:05:09.263" UserId="867" Text="Perhaps &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *optime natalis!* / best of birthdays!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from Ovid, *Tristia*, 5.5, line 13?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or even&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *vivat … consumatque annos … suos* / long life to her … and may she pass to the end of her years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also from Ovid, *Tristia*, 5.5, line 23.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other possibilities from *genethliacon*/birthday poems include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *transeat hic sine nube dies* / may this day pass without a cloud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Propertius, *Elegies*, 3.10, line 5 (I have actually used this line in a birthday greeting to a Classicist)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *at tu, Natalis, multos celebrande per annos,&#xD;&#xA;candidior semper candidiorque veni* /&#xD;&#xA;But you, Birthday, come to your honours for many a year,&#xD;&#xA;come ever brighter and brighter still&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tibullus, *Elegies*, 1.7, lines 63-64&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *dicamus bona verba: venit Natalis ad aras* / let us speak only good words: a Birthday comes to the altar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also Tibullus, *Elegies*, 2.2, line 1  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1916" RevisionGUID="dd7cbad6-eca6-47f5-bd17-af13dc5d1681" CreationDate="2016-10-30T05:12:45.640" UserId="867" Text="I can't actually find any reference to *pastillus* meaning a type of bread.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OLD defines it as a medical term meaning &quot;a pastille (either swallowed or applied as a medicament)&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have done a fairly exhaustive (and exhausting - Pliny mentions *pastillus* 60 times!) word search only to find it always means a pastille or lozenge, typically involving the grinding of powders and liquid or the drying out of liquids which are then formed into *pastilli*.  The only time *pastillus* is mentioned in conjunction with bread is by Pliny and it refers to the dried cakes of leaven made with wheat bran (*Natural History*, 18.102)   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other form of the *pastillus* I encountered is the cake of perfume: see Horace, *Satires*, 1.2, line 27 and again at 1.4, line 92; Seneca, *Epistles*, 86.13; Martial, *Epigrams*, 1.87 (as Tom Cotton noted above).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the OLD does have a separate entry for *pastillum* which is defined as a small sacrificial cake.  This has one attestation, Sextus Pompeius Festus, writing in the 2nd century AD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the given etymology of *panis* + the diminutive suffix *-illus* has given the impression that it once/also meant bread.  It is interesting to note, therefore, that the OED points out that some early Romance-language etymologists claimed its origins were linked to *paste/pasta/pâte*.  Although the OED dismisses this etymology, I find it not so far-fetched given that almost every single mention of *pastillus*, especially in Pliny, involves making a paste! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: In answer to your question about recipes, Pliny has plenty!  Although some are a little bizarre!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1916" RevisionGUID="7ae20527-b95d-4633-8adf-cc5bf47c8706" CreationDate="2016-10-30T05:19:35.233" UserId="867" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="I can't actually find any reference to *pastillus* meaning a type of bread.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OLD defines it as a medical term meaning &quot;a pastille (either swallowed or applied as a medicament)&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have done a fairly exhaustive (and exhausting - Pliny mentions *pastillus* 60 times!) word search only to find it always means a pastille or lozenge, typically involving the grinding of powders and liquid or the drying out of liquids which are then formed into *pastilli*.  The only time *pastillus* is mentioned in conjunction with bread is by Pliny and it refers to the dried cakes of leaven made with wheat bran (*Natural History*, 18.102)   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other form of the *pastillus* I encountered is the cake of perfume or breath-freshener: see Horace, *Satires*, 1.2, line 27 and again at 1.4, line 92; Seneca, *Epistles*, 86.13; Martial, *Epigrams*, 1.87.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the OLD does have a separate entry for *pastillum* which is defined as a small sacrificial cake (and perhaps the origins of the Hostia Tom Cotton mentions above?).  This has one attestation, Sextus Pompeius Festus, writing in the 2nd century AD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the given etymology of *panis* + the diminutive suffix *-illus* has given the impression that it once/also meant bread.  It is interesting to note, therefore, that the OED points out that some early Romance-language etymologists claimed its origins were linked to *paste/pasta/pâte*.  Although the OED dismisses this etymology, I find it not so far-fetched given that almost every single mention of *pastillus*, especially in Pliny, involves making a paste! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: In answer to your question about recipes, Pliny has plenty!  Although some are a little bizarre!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1917" RevisionGUID="c02ceb6c-90a3-42ea-a0d0-0fe22f0ff2bd" CreationDate="2016-10-31T03:08:59.593" UserId="406" Text="##Lucretius, [*De Rerum Natura* 4.1162][1]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; caesia Palladium, nervosa et lignea dorcas,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; parvula, pumilio, chariton mia, tota **merum sal**,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; magna atque inmanis cataplexis plenaque honoris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For *sāl* to be masculine here, the phrase would have to be *mērum salem*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other citations are mentioned in L&amp;S, but I have not been able to find copies of the texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0130%3Abook%3D4%3Acard%3D1141" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1917" RevisionGUID="24ef0aab-d8db-454a-a88e-d7fd9800be39" CreationDate="2016-10-31T03:39:48.027" UserId="406" Comment="Error in declension" Text="##Lucretius, [*De Rerum Natura* 4.1162][1]##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; caesia Palladium, nervosa et lignea dorcas,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; parvula, pumilio, chariton mia, tota **merum sal**,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; magna atque inmanis cataplexis plenaque honoris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If *sāl* were masculine here, it would be modified by *merus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other citations are mentioned in L&amp;S, but I have not been able to find copies of the texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0130%3Abook%3D4%3Acard%3D1141" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1918" RevisionGUID="9703dbd4-741f-450d-b74b-5cb284a2d328" CreationDate="2016-10-31T08:53:05.937" UserId="79" Text="Next year is the centennial of the independence of Finland, and I would like to learn how to speak of independence of countries in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that the Latin words *independens* and *independentia* are post-classical.&#xD;&#xA;What would be an idiomatic way to say &quot;independent&quot; or &quot;independence&quot; in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Although I would prefer an adjective and a noun, any kind of structure will do, as long as it is attested in this meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would use *independens* and *independentia* for this purpose, but I want to find classical alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;Or if these two words are indeed classical, I would be happy to be corrected.&#xD;&#xA;Words like *libertas*, *emancipare* and *solutus* come to mind, but I'm not sure they have the right spirit.&#xD;&#xA;Then there are words like *maiestas*, *potestas*, *regnum*, *imperium* and *res* for describing the power of a state, but they alone will not mean independence.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some combination of these words would work, but I do not know what would be idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone provide a passage from classical literature about the independence of a state or other such entity, with a little historical description about the situation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6973" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1918" RevisionGUID="9703dbd4-741f-450d-b74b-5cb284a2d328" CreationDate="2016-10-31T08:53:05.937" UserId="79" Text="Independence in classical Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6974" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1918" RevisionGUID="9703dbd4-741f-450d-b74b-5cb284a2d328" CreationDate="2016-10-31T08:53:05.937" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|idiom|history|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1919" RevisionGUID="eced39a7-afe3-4d56-8e47-77167d525831" CreationDate="2016-10-31T11:42:06.930" UserId="324" Text="Lewis and Short define “libertas” as (among other things) “Political freedom, liberty, or independence of a people not under monarchical rule, or not subject to another people (opp. servitus and dominatus)”. However, the only one of the passages cited to attest the sense of &quot;political independence of one country from another&quot; is the statement in Caesar BG 3,8,4 that the Veneti “reliquasque civitates sollicitant, ut in ea libertate quam a maioribus acceperint permanere quam Romanorum servitutem perferre malint”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English term “independent” does not occur before the early part of the 17th century; the French indépendant is a bit older (late 16th century). They do not, as far as I can see, have a Latin precedent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1919" RevisionGUID="17d4795c-5501-4fca-8ffc-bacc515e7990" CreationDate="2016-10-31T12:24:25.373" UserId="324" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Lewis and Short define “libertas” as (among other things) “Political freedom, liberty, or independence of a people not under monarchical rule, or not subject to another people (opp. servitus and dominatus)”. However, the only one of the passages cited which attests the sense of &quot;political independence of one country from another&quot; is the statement in Caesar BG 3,8,4 that the Veneti “reliquasque civitates sollicitant, ut in ea libertate quam a maioribus acceperint permanere quam Romanorum servitutem perferre malint”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English term “independent” does not occur before the early part of the 17th century; the French indépendant is a bit older (late 16th century). They do not, as far as I can see, have a Latin precedent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1920" RevisionGUID="b5170135-c0f1-4bf0-86fa-0312830feb0f" CreationDate="2016-10-31T13:29:49.930" UserId="522" Text="Ainsworth gives three translations for *pastillus,* each is a small lump made from various ingredients bound with gum/wax/resin and left to harden. All three types would fit the famous quote about Rufus giving off an aroma of *pastillus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Troches*** are bound with liquorice, a plant native to S. Europe, with some medical qualities, They were made up with a very wide variety of medications including scented herbs (mint and thyme). This example includes water hemlock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Brown's Troches:*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cubebs, Conium, ***ccia, Liquorice, Sugar *(letters lost in the photo)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Pastilles*** or ***lozenges*** are bound with pectin or gelatin, most contain fruit. Violet scented pastilles were used as breath fresheeners, 18th 19th Centuries, and perhaps antiquity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Pomander*** is usually bound with ambergris. It is mentioned in medical books because disease was believed to be carried on *effluvium.* The pomander is carried, not eaten. Warmth from your hand, or the heat of a crowded room would bring out the scent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Boyle Family Recipes  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *To Make Excellent Pomander*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Take fifteen grains&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of Musk, thirty grains of ambergreece, five and forty grains of Moss&#xD;&#xA;&gt; powder, and nine grains of civet. Grind all these in a stone mortar*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with some  gum Dragon, which must first be steeped in Rosewater with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; little civet two days, then grind all together to a perfect paste that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it works smooth, then mingle Oyntment of orange flowers with a little&#xD;&#xA;&gt; civet &amp; Musk to anoint Yo^ hands or Molds that the paste stick not to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; them. then dry them abroad. Another **...** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translations were found in James Ainsworth Classical section. The recipes were found by using the search box on the ***[Wellcome Library][1]*** website.  If you wish to pursue this seriously, I suggest you try them; they may be able to close the gap between Pliny and the Georgian Age of Reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://wellcomelibrary.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1921" RevisionGUID="e16c4f2d-f543-4e2d-b8d4-40ab1cdfd3f3" CreationDate="2016-10-31T17:31:52.390" UserId="645" Text="I think you need a fairly direct reference to what happened a hundred years ago. What Finland actually achieved was, I think, the restoration of the freedom of self-government, which suggests some such phrase as *Respublica restituta* — or simply, even, *Finnia restituta* (but note that you shouldn't actually say *liberatio* with the genitive *Finniae* as such).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other possibilities are *Restituta respublica liberta*, and *Occasio Finniae liberandae*. I would avoid *soluta*, which wouldn't have quite the right implication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these usages are well attested under dictionary entries for the classical period. *Vivat Finnia liberata!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1922" RevisionGUID="ebcf567b-096d-4131-a9ff-bbccd603e10b" CreationDate="2016-11-01T10:13:38.133" UserId="79" Text="Three verbs are well known to have an irregular short imperative: *fac*, *dic*, *duc*.&#xD;&#xA;Do the imperatives remain short in the presence of a prefix?&#xD;&#xA;For example, which ones are correct out of *effic/effac/effice*, *interdic/interdice*, *adduc/adduce*?&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that they are almost always in their usual long form if there is a prefix, but there are some exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;For some reason I feel that I should undo vowel gradation if I use a short imperative; *effac* sounds better than *effic*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a rule or guideline for the imperatives of *facere*, *dicere* and *ducere* with prefixes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1922" RevisionGUID="ebcf567b-096d-4131-a9ff-bbccd603e10b" CreationDate="2016-11-01T10:13:38.133" UserId="79" Text="Imperatives of derivatives of facere, dicere and ducere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1922" RevisionGUID="ebcf567b-096d-4131-a9ff-bbccd603e10b" CreationDate="2016-11-01T10:13:38.133" UserId="79" Text="|verbs|irregular-words|imperative|prefix|compound-verb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1923" RevisionGUID="c72f47eb-da65-4066-a9c7-20568270297e" CreationDate="2016-11-01T14:21:27.487" UserId="645" Text="Generally, verbs of mixed 3rd/4th conjugation and their compounds (inf. -*ere*, 1st. pres. sing. in -*io*) all follow the same pattern, which includes compounds of *facio*, but **not** *facio* itself — which means that *effice*, etc. are the correct forms. *Fac* is a peculiarity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike those of *facio*, the compounds of *dico* and *duco* mainly follow the pattern of the simple verbs, including the abbreviated imperatives. There are one or two exceptions, such as the occurrence of *adduce* for *adduc* and *dice* for *dic*, though my impression is that they are most often pre-classical. The compounds usually fall into the 3rd conjugation, but there may be exceptions: *indico*, for example, is a completely regular 1st conjugation verb with the imperatives *indica*, *indicato*, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1924" RevisionGUID="3b1a3b1e-48d6-41b5-a096-c79a7972036a" CreationDate="2016-11-01T15:38:30.703" UserId="406" Text="To supplement Tom Cotton's answer—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's one other verb which similarly shortens its imperative: *ferō, ferre, tulī, lātus*, imperative *fer, ferte*. Compounds always follow this form (*adfer*/*adferte*, *offer*/*offerte* etc), with *_adfere_ / *_adferete_, *_offere_ / *_offerete_ etc completely absent from the PHI corpus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the &quot;regular&quot; (-*e*) imperatives for compounds of *dīcere* and *dūcere* are almost exclusively found in Plautus, where they overshadow the &quot;irregular&quot; (bare) forms. He even uses *dīce* and *dūce* [as imperative of *dūcere*, not ablative singular of *dūx*] on occasion, which I can't find anywhere else, though he still prefers *dīc* and *dūc*. So these may have been colloquial or dialectal forms which died out during the classical era." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1925" RevisionGUID="f33066bb-518a-46e4-a3cf-a8746cb4fbf6" CreationDate="2016-11-01T16:03:41.663" UserId="39" Text="(based on Weiss 2009/2011, ft. 22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperatives from compounds of **duco** and **fero**: short (apocopated) forms, e.g. *educ! effer!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperatives from compounds of **dico**: not attested in Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperatives from compounds of **facio**: unapocopated forms, e.g. *calface! confice!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1925" RevisionGUID="df014f50-8f80-4b4b-b66e-4d85795bd962" CreationDate="2016-11-01T16:11:09.173" UserId="39" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="(based on Weiss 2009/2011, p. 147 beta and p. 422, ft. 22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperatives from compounds of **duco** and **fero**: short (apocopated) forms, e.g. *educ! effer!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperatives from compounds of **dico**: not attested in Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperatives from compounds of **facio**: unapocopated forms, e.g. *calface! confice!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Archaic Latin, imperatives seem to be unapocopated, e.g. Plautus uses dice (Mil. 256), duce (Poen. 1229), face (Epid. 39).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1924" RevisionGUID="0d2e66b9-c396-4ae9-ba51-8c21cc1bc9f3" CreationDate="2016-11-01T16:30:29.497" UserId="406" Comment="Paragraph breaks" Text="To supplement Tom Cotton's answer—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's one other verb which similarly shortens its imperative: *ferō, ferre, tulī, lātus*, imperative *fer, ferte*. Compounds always follow this form (*adfer*/*adferte*, *offer*/*offerte* etc), with *_adfere_ / *_adferete_, *_offere_ / *_offerete_ etc completely absent from the PHI corpus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the &quot;regular&quot; (-*e*) imperatives for compounds of *dīcere* and *dūcere* are almost exclusively found in Plautus, where they overshadow the &quot;irregular&quot; (bare) forms by a wide margin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus even uses *dīce* and *dūce* [as imperative of *dūcere*, not ablative singular of *dūx*] on occasion, which I can't find anywhere else, though he still prefers *dīc* and *dūc* (*dīc* appears over ten times as often as *dīce*). So these may have been colloquial or dialectal forms which died out during the classical era." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1925" RevisionGUID="7a0a5af0-48ad-459f-8f26-3b74fd0c1792" CreationDate="2016-11-01T17:14:04.243" UserId="39" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="Since your question is about imperatives from compounds of facere, dicere, and ducere, **I am going to address this issue only.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following is based on Weiss 2009/2011 (p. 147 beta and p. 422, ft. 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperatives from compounds of **duco** and **fero**: short (apocopated) forms, e.g. *educ! effer!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperatives from compounds of **dico**: not attested in Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperatives from compounds of **facio**: unapocopated forms, e.g. *calface! confice!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1924" RevisionGUID="b07f3470-b72a-4373-9176-8d5f1d7c3d1a" CreationDate="2016-11-01T18:33:39.910" UserId="406" Comment="added 1590 characters in body" Text="To supplement Tom Cotton's answer—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's one other verb which similarly shortens its imperative: *ferō, ferre, tulī, lātus*, imperative *fer, ferte*. Compounds always use the shortened/apocopated form (*adfer*/*adferte*, *offer*/*offerte* etc), with *_adfere_ / *_adferete_, *_offere_ / *_offerete_ etc entirely absent from the PHI corpus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So these two seem relatively certain: compounds of *facere* have regular imperatives (as Tom explains), while compounds of *ferre* have shortened ones. *Dīce* and *dūce* are less clear-cut.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For compounds of *dūcere*, the regular/long imperatives are almost exclusively found in Plautus, where they actually appear more frequently than the shortened forms: the PHI corpus (when restricted to Plautus) lists 7 occurrences of *addūce* and 7 of *abdūce*, but only one of *addūc* and three of *abdūc*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In later authors, compounds using *dūce* are much less common: ten instances of *prodūc* compared to zero of *prodūce*. (Both *addūc* and *abdūc* become rare, though still more common than *addūce* and *abdūce*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For *dīcere*, imperatives in compounds are extremely rare in general. *Aeneid* 11.463 contains one notable instance of *ēdīce*, which is marked as unusual in Honoratus's *Commentary*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'edice' autem plenus est imperativus; nam ab omnium coniugationum infinito detracta 're' ultima syllaba fit imperativus, ut 'amare ama', 'docere doce', 'legere lege', 'audire audi'. cum autem 'fac' vel 'dic' dicimus, apocopen verba patiuntur. ex 'face' 'dice' conposuit 'edice'. expressa autem festinantis oratio, quia Turnum non praedixit locuturum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ēdīce* however is a full imperative; for the imperative of every conjugation is formed by removing the final syllable *-re* from the infinitive, thus *amāre - amā*, *legere - lege*, *audīre - audī*. When, however, we say *fac* or *dīc*, the verbs undergo *apocope*. *Ēdīce* is composed from *face* or *dīce*. However, this is the rushed speech of someone in a hurry, because he did not mention Turnus being ready to speak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus even uses *dīce* and *dūce* [as imperative of *dūcere*, not ablative singular of *dūx*] on occasion, which I can't find anywhere else, though he still prefers *dīc* and *dūc*: *dīc* appears 121 times, *dīce* 12. So the regularized *-e* imperatives may have been colloquial or dialectal forms which were dying out in Plautus's time, and disappeared almost entirely by the Classical era." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1925" RevisionGUID="afe0cbaa-7683-41ab-900c-d8624af68000" CreationDate="2016-11-02T01:34:19.953" UserId="39" Comment="added 1975 characters in body" Text="As Weiss 2009/2011 mentions, word-final –e is “**normally retained**” (p. 147; emphasis mine – Alex B.). That being said, there are some few cases when word-final –e was lost (or apocopated).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your question, **you ask us specifically about imperatives from compound verbs** of *dico*, *duco*, and *facio*. In my answer below I will address this issue only. If you are interested in imperatives of simplex dico, duco, facio, and fere; how to interpret data from Archaic Latin (Plautus and **other authors**) – it’s **not** that simple as Draconis has been trying to convince us here – I am willing to write a *separate* answer, just post *another* question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let’s get back to our sheep.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, **facio**. Based on whether the root vowel is changed or not, the derivatives of facio can be grouped into two classes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Type A. calefacio [root vowel preserved]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Type B. conficio [root vowel weakened]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, **the 2nd singular imperative** of both types is formed the same way: calface! confice!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is no apocope in the plural imperative, against to what Draconis incorrectly wrote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, **dico**. Weiss argues that compound 2nd singular imperatives from dico are not attested in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, **duco** and **fere**. Apocopated forms are standard in Classical Latin. Apocopated means that originally they had –e at the end (in fact, such forms are attested) but eventually it was lost. Note that there are no root vowel changes in these compounds. Another strong evidence in support of this analysis comes from accentology. Such apocopated singular imperatives are oxytones, i.e. the last syllable is stressed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Educ! Effer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**The most interesting question** that has not been addressed in the other answers – even though you clearly ask us – **is how we know when the root vowel changes or not.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss discusses it on pp. 121-122 (footnote 25, citing Garrett 2005 and Pultrova 2006). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Back root vowel** [no change in compounds]: duco – adduco, educo etc. and, respectively, adduc, educ etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More diverse morphology** [vowel weakening, a changes to i]: facio – conficio and its 2 sg. imperative confice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To recap,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Imperatives from compounds of **duco** and **fero**: short (apocopated) forms, e.g. *educ! effer!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Imperatives from compounds of **dico**: not attested in Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Imperatives from compounds of **facio**: unapocopated forms, e.g. *calface! confice!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1925" RevisionGUID="1c98ec2c-3747-4177-b1d5-8ccb820e24cd" CreationDate="2016-11-02T01:39:39.553" UserId="39" Comment="added 1975 characters in body" Text="As Weiss 2009/2011 mentions, word-final –e is “**normally retained**” (p. 147; emphasis mine – Alex B.). That being said, there are some few cases when word-final –e was lost (or apocopated).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your question, **you ask us specifically about imperatives from compound verbs** of *dico*, *duco*, and *facio*. In my answer below I will address this issue only. If you are interested in imperatives of simplex dico, duco, facio, and fere; how to interpret data from Archaic Latin (Plautus and **other authors**) – it’s **not** that simple as Draconis has been trying to convince us here – I am willing to write a *separate* answer, just post *another* question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let’s get back to our sheep.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, **facio**. Based on whether the root vowel is changed or not, the derivatives of facio can be grouped into two classes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Type A. calefacio [root vowel preserved]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Type B. conficio [root vowel weakened]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, **the 2nd singular imperative** of both types is formed the same way: calface! confice!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is no apocope in the plural imperative, against to what Draconis incorrectly wrote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, **dico**. Weiss argues that compound 2nd singular imperatives from dico are not attested in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, **duco** and **fere**. Apocopated forms are standard in Classical Latin. Apocopated means that originally they had –e at the end (in fact, such forms are attested) but eventually it was lost. Note that there are no root vowel changes in these compounds. Another strong evidence in support of this analysis comes from accentology. **Such apocopated singular imperatives are oxytones**, i.e. the last syllable is stressed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Educ! Effer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**The most interesting question** that has not been addressed in the other answers – even though you clearly ask us – **is how we know when the root vowel changes or not.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss discusses it on pp. 121-122 (footnote 25, citing Garrett 2005 and Pultrova 2006). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Back root vowel** [no change in compounds]: duco – adduco, educo etc. and, respectively, adduc, educ etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More diverse morphology** [vowel weakening, a changes to i]: facio – conficio and its 2 sg. imperative confice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To recap,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Imperatives from compounds of **duco** and **fero**: short (apocopated) forms, e.g. *educ! effer!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Imperatives from compounds of **dico**: not attested in Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Imperatives from compounds of **facio**: unapocopated forms, e.g. *calface! confice!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1925" RevisionGUID="63a27ee2-8e17-4510-89a8-028c587679cb" CreationDate="2016-11-02T02:40:54.397" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="As Weiss 2009/2011 mentions, word-final –e is “**normally retained**” (p. 147; emphasis mine – Alex B.). That being said, there are some few cases when word-final –e was lost (or apocopated).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your question, **you ask us specifically about imperatives from compound verbs** of *dico*, *duco*, and *facio*. In my answer below I will address this issue only. If you are interested in imperatives of simplex dico, duco, facio, and fere; how to interpret data from Archaic Latin (Plautus and **other authors**) – it’s **not** that simple as Draconis has been trying to convince us here – I am willing to write a *separate* answer, just post *another* question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let’s get back to our sheep.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, **facio**. Based on whether the root vowel is changed or not, the derivatives of facio can be grouped into two classes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Type A. calefacio [root vowel preserved]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Type B. conficio [root vowel weakened]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, **the 2nd singular imperative** of both types is formed the same way: calface! confice!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is no apocope in the plural imperative, against to what Draconis incorrectly wrote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, **dico**. Weiss argues that compound 2nd singular imperatives from dico are not attested in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, **duco** and **fere**. Apocopated forms are standard in Classical Latin. Apocopated means that originally they had –e at the end (in fact, such forms are attested) but eventually it was lost. Note that there are no root vowel changes in these compounds. Another strong evidence in support of this analysis comes from accentology. **Such apocopated singular imperatives are oxytones**, i.e. the last syllable is stressed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Educ!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**The most interesting question** that has not been addressed in the other answers – even though you clearly ask us – **is how we know when the root vowel changes or not.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss discusses it on pp. 121-122 (footnote 25, citing Garrett 2005 and Pultrova 2006). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Back root vowel** [no change in compounds]: duco – adduco, educo etc. and, respectively, adduc, educ etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More diverse morphology** [vowel weakening, a changes to i]: facio – conficio and its 2 sg. imperative confice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To recap,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Imperatives from compounds of **duco** and **fero**: short (apocopated) forms, e.g. *educ! effer!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Imperatives from compounds of **dico**: not attested in Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Imperatives from compounds of **facio**: unapocopated forms, e.g. *calface! confice!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1925" RevisionGUID="5154dbb8-48a3-4b21-8988-e9e61e3b8dc5" CreationDate="2016-11-02T02:50:18.630" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="As Weiss 2009/2011 mentions, word-final –e is “**normally retained**” (p. 147; emphasis mine – Alex B.). That being said, there are some few cases when word-final –e was lost (or apocopated).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your question, **you ask us specifically about imperatives from compound verbs** of *dico*, *duco*, and *facio*. In my answer below I will address this issue only. If you are interested in imperatives of simplex dico, duco, facio, and fere; how to interpret data from Archaic Latin (Plautus and **other authors**) – it’s **not** that simple as Draconis has been trying to convince us here – I am willing to write a *separate* answer, just post *another* question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let’s get back to our sheep.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, **facio**. Based on whether the root vowel is changed or not, the derivatives of facio can be grouped into two classes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Type A. calefacio** [root vowel preserved], compound verbs (two roots).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Type B. conficio** [root vowel weakened], prefixed verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, **the 2nd singular imperative** of both types is formed the same way: calface! confice! areface! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is no apocope in the plural imperative, against to what Draconis incorrectly wrote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, **dico**. Weiss argues that compound 2nd singular imperatives from dico are not attested in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, **duco** and **fere**. Apocopated forms are standard in Classical Latin: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*confer! infer!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apocopated means that originally they had –e at the end (in fact, such forms are attested) but eventually it was lost. Note that there are no root vowel changes in these compounds. Another strong evidence in support of this analysis comes from accentology. **Such apocopated singular imperatives are oxytones**, i.e. the last syllable is stressed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*edúc!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**The most interesting question** that has not been addressed in the other answers – even though you clearly ask us – **is how we know when the root vowel changes or not.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss discusses it on pp. 121-122 (footnote 25, citing Garrett 2005 and Pultrova 2006). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Back root vowel** [no change in compounds]: duco – adduco, educo etc. and, respectively, adduc, educ etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More diverse morphology** [vowel weakening, a changes to i]: facio – conficio and its 2 sg. imperative confice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To recap,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Imperatives from compounds of **duco** and **fero**: short (apocopated) forms, e.g. *educ! effer!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Imperatives from compounds of **dico**: not attested in Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Imperatives from compounds of **facio**: unapocopated forms, e.g. *calface! confice!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1926" RevisionGUID="0029b086-a0ab-47cf-b75e-312b2ae5615d" CreationDate="2016-11-02T11:14:49.147" UserId="79" Text="What is the earliest text that is considered to be written in Italian (or a predecessor thereof), and what distinguishes it from Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I would like to understand the first signs of Latin evolving into Italian.&#xD;&#xA;(Or perhaps rather of Latin and Italian becoming separate languages?)&#xD;&#xA;It may be a matter of taste what is Latin and what is Italian, and therefore an answer should explain why the text should be not considered Latin anymore.&#xD;&#xA;A small text sample with commentary &amp;mdash; concrete deviations from Latin &amp;mdash; would be great." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6996" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1926" RevisionGUID="0029b086-a0ab-47cf-b75e-312b2ae5615d" CreationDate="2016-11-02T11:14:49.147" UserId="79" Text="What is the first text considered Italian instead of Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6997" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1926" RevisionGUID="0029b086-a0ab-47cf-b75e-312b2ae5615d" CreationDate="2016-11-02T11:14:49.147" UserId="79" Text="|language-evolution|history|italian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1927" RevisionGUID="51183dec-0f44-4703-87b0-7cc442959f02" CreationDate="2016-11-02T13:22:42.040" UserId="932" Text="According to the *[Handbook of Medieval Culture][1]* (Albrecht Classen, vol. 2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The first written evidence considered to be Italian rather than Latin is known as the *Placiti Cassinesi*, which are four legal documents containing vernacular testimonies in an Upper Southern dialect dated to 960-963.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **philological analysis** of this text is available on the Italian version of Wikipedia: &lt;https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placiti_cassinesi#Analisi_filologica&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, the distinction Latin-*Italian* was clearly established during the 10th century as a monk, Gunzo of Novare, wrote in 965: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;usu nostrae vulgaris linguae, quae latinitati vicina est&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An other example, according to the *[Manuel pratique de latin médiéval][2]* by Dag Norberg:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In 915, on the occasion of the coronation of King Berengar I, the senate paid him homage patrio ore, &quot;in Latin,&quot; while the people honored him nativa voce, &quot;in Italian,&quot; according to the text of a song composed a few years later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Norberg, the oaths of Capoue *mark the beginning of the history of Italian literature*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=Uh5pCgAAQBAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://homepages.wmich.edu/~johnsorh/MedievalLatin/Norberg/ital.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1927" RevisionGUID="1059d6aa-6b8f-4f53-87b0-81abdf02cebe" CreationDate="2016-11-02T14:32:00.200" UserId="932" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="According to the *[Handbook of Medieval Culture][1]* (Albrecht Classen, vol. 2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The first written evidence considered to be Italian rather than Latin is known as the *Placiti Cassinesi*, which are four legal documents containing vernacular testimonies in an Upper Southern dialect dated to 960-963.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **philological analysis** of this text is available on the Italian version of Wikipedia: &lt;https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placiti_cassinesi#Analisi_filologica&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, the distinction Latin-*Italian* was clearly established during the 10th century as a monk, Gunzo of Novare, wrote in 965: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;usu nostrae vulgaris linguae, quae latinitati vicina est&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An other example, according to the *[Manuel pratique de latin médiéval][2]* by [Dag Norberg][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In 915, on the occasion of the coronation of King Berengar I, the senate paid him homage patrio ore, &quot;in Latin,&quot; while the people honored him nativa voce, &quot;in Italian,&quot; according to the text of a song composed a few years later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Norberg, the oaths of Capoue *mark the beginning of the history of Italian literature*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=Uh5pCgAAQBAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://homepages.wmich.edu/~johnsorh/MedievalLatin/Norberg/ital.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/8892/ALMA_1996_54_5.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1924" RevisionGUID="850b27e2-1a8c-4920-bee6-4852c36c0be6" CreationDate="2016-11-02T16:06:42.403" UserId="406" Comment="Typo" Text="To supplement Tom Cotton's answer—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's one other verb which similarly shortens its imperative: *ferō, ferre, tulī, lātus*, imperative *fer, ferte*. Compounds always use the shortened/apocopated form (*adfer*/*adferte*, *offer*/*offerte* etc), with *_adfere_ / *_adferete_, *_offere_ / *_offerete_ etc entirely absent from the PHI corpus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So these two seem relatively certain: compounds of *facere* have regular imperatives (as Tom explains), while compounds of *ferre* have shortened ones. *Dīce* and *dūce* are less clear-cut.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For compounds of *dūcere*, the regular/long imperatives are almost exclusively found in Plautus, where they actually appear more frequently than the shortened forms: the PHI corpus (when restricted to Plautus) lists 7 occurrences of *addūce* and 7 of *abdūce*, but only one of *addūc* and three of *abdūc*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In later authors, compounds using *dūce* are much less common: ten instances of *prodūc* compared to zero of *prodūce*. (Both *addūc* and *abdūc* become rare, though still more common than *addūce* and *abdūce*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For *dīcere*, imperatives in compounds are extremely rare in general. *Aeneid* 11.463 contains one notable instance of *ēdīce*, which is marked as unusual in Honoratus's *Commentary*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'edice' autem plenus est imperativus; nam ab omnium coniugationum infinito detracta 're' ultima syllaba fit imperativus, ut 'amare ama', 'docere doce', 'legere lege', 'audire audi'. cum autem 'fac' vel 'dic' dicimus, apocopen verba patiuntur. ex 'face' 'dice' conposuit 'edice'. expressa autem festinantis oratio, quia Turnum non praedixit locuturum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ēdīce* however is a full imperative; for the imperative of every conjugation is formed by removing the final syllable *-re* from the infinitive, thus *amāre - amā*, *legere - lege*, *audīre - audī*. When, however, we say *fac* or *dīc*, the verbs undergo *apocope*. *Ēdīce* is composed from *face* or *dīce*. However, this is the rushed speech of someone in a hurry, because he did not mention Turnus being ready to speak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus even uses *dīce* and *dūce* [as imperative of *dūcere*, not ablative singular of *dŭx*] on occasion, which I can't find anywhere else, though he still prefers *dīc* and *dūc*: *dīc* appears 121 times, *dīce* 12. So the regularized *-e* imperatives may have been colloquial or dialectal forms which were dying out in Plautus's time, and disappeared almost entirely by the Classical era." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1928" RevisionGUID="56ad32ff-0a30-4ec1-9d2a-3da6140f9d0b" CreationDate="2016-11-02T16:38:44.803" UserId="916" Text="[Placita de quo Warranto][1] is the 1806 printed transcription of latin legal texts from around 1300 written on vellum. There are many abbreviations. The 1806 document in its preface gives an example transcription page with the same page printed from an 1806 engraving reproducing the original orthography. Here are transcribed and engraved versions of one paragraph from that example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![transcribed and original latin][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the abbreviations in this example are documented in Capelli's *[The elements of abbreviation in medieval Latin paleography][3]*. In particular, the abbreviation mark on the `p` for `pre` or `prae` is mentioned in section 4.1 at the top of page 20 of Capelli. Here it is in use in the example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![praedictis][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same flamboyant loop on top of the `p` can be seen in [this handy list of some latin abbreviations][5]. And it is also used on some other letters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![itinis][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia's [scribal abbreviation page][7] has an example embedded in an image:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but I can't actually find how that text was created. Anyway, that feeble mark hardly represents the flamboyance of the original. It may even be the Unicode COMBINING US ABOVE U+1DD2 which seems to be quite a different mark in the original scribal text with quite a different meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there a Unicode combining diacritical mark to allow composition of something like the flamboyant flourish on the `p`?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2R9DAAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/quCR7.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/1821/47cappelli.pdf?sequence=3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Gorcb.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://archive.org/stream/recordinterprete00martiala#page/104/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CGs40.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribal_abbreviation&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UjRiT.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7002" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1928" RevisionGUID="56ad32ff-0a30-4ec1-9d2a-3da6140f9d0b" CreationDate="2016-11-02T16:38:44.803" UserId="916" Text="A medieval scribal abbreviation missing from Unicode?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7003" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1928" RevisionGUID="56ad32ff-0a30-4ec1-9d2a-3da6140f9d0b" CreationDate="2016-11-02T16:38:44.803" UserId="916" Text="|medieval-latin|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7004" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1928" RevisionGUID="bc18e0c8-1538-4434-bb52-cb65df505758" CreationDate="2016-11-02T16:43:58.177" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|medieval-latin|orthography|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1925" RevisionGUID="5e09a58c-63e9-45fe-b4f1-bec9173d3af6" CreationDate="2016-11-02T17:02:24.350" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 103 characters in body" Text="As Weiss 2009/2011 mentions, word-final –e is “**normally retained**” (p. 147; emphasis mine – Alex B.). That being said, there are some few cases when word-final –e was lost (or apocopated).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your question, **you ask us specifically about imperatives from compound verbs** of *dico*, *duco*, and *facio*. In my answer below I will address this issue only. If you are interested in imperatives of simplex dico, duco, facio, and fere; how to interpret data from Archaic Latin (Plautus and **other authors**) – it’s **not** that simple as Draconis has been trying to convince us here – I am willing to write a *separate* answer, just post *another* question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let’s get back to our sheep.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, **facio**. Based on whether the root vowel is changed or not, the derivatives of facio can be grouped into two classes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Type A. calefacio** [root vowel preserved], compound verbs (two roots).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Type B. conficio** [root vowel weakened], prefixed verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, **the 2nd singular imperative** of both types is formed the same way: calface! confice! areface! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, **dico**. Weiss argues that compound 2nd singular imperatives from dico are not attested in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, **duco** and **fere**. Apocopated forms are standard in Classical Latin: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*confer! infer!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apocopated means that originally they had –e at the end (in fact, such forms are attested) but eventually it was lost. Note that there are no root vowel changes in these compounds. Another strong evidence in support of this analysis comes from accentology. **Such apocopated singular imperatives are oxytones**, i.e. the last syllable is stressed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*edúc!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**The most interesting question** that has not been addressed in the other answers – even though you clearly ask us – **is how we know when the root vowel changes or not.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss discusses it on pp. 121-122 (footnote 25, citing Garrett 2005 and Pultrova 2006). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Back root vowel** [no change in compounds]: duco – adduco, educo etc. and, respectively, adduc, educ etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More diverse morphology** [vowel weakening, a changes to i]: facio – conficio and its 2 sg. imperative confice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To recap,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Imperatives from compounds of **duco** and **fero**: short (apocopated) forms, e.g. *educ! effer!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Imperatives from compounds of **dico**: not attested in Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Imperatives from compounds of **facio**: unapocopated forms, e.g. *calface! confice!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1925" RevisionGUID="48a34ae3-0258-4004-a640-b8a082a835c8" CreationDate="2016-11-02T17:28:44.137" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="As Weiss 2009/2011 mentions, word-final –e is “**normally retained**” (p. 147; emphasis mine – Alex B.). That being said, there are some few cases when word-final –e was lost (or apocopated).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your question, **you ask us specifically about imperatives from compound verbs** of *dico*, *duco*, and *facio*. In my answer below I will address this issue only. If you are interested in imperatives of simplex dico, duco, facio, and fere; how to interpret data from Archaic Latin (Plautus and **other authors**) – it’s **not** that simple as Draconis has been trying to convince us here – I am willing to write a *separate* answer, just post *another* question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, revenons à nos moutons.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, **facio**. Based on whether the root vowel is changed or not, the derivatives of facio can be grouped into two classes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Type A. calefacio** [root vowel preserved], compound verbs (two roots).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Type B. conficio** [root vowel weakened], prefixed verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, **the 2nd singular imperative** of both types is formed the same way: calface! confice! areface! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, **dico**. Weiss argues that compound 2nd singular imperatives from dico are not attested in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, **duco** and **fere**. Apocopated forms are standard in Classical Latin: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*confer! infer!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apocopated means that originally they had –e at the end (in fact, such forms are attested) but eventually it was lost. Note that there are no root vowel changes in these compounds. Another strong evidence in support of this analysis comes from accentology. **Such apocopated singular imperatives are oxytones**, i.e. the last syllable is stressed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*edúc!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**The most interesting question** that has not been addressed in the other answers – even though you clearly ask us – **is how we know when the root vowel changes or not.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss discusses it on pp. 121-122 (footnote 25, citing Garrett 2005 and Pultrova 2006). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Back root vowel** [no change in compounds]: duco – adduco, educo etc. and, respectively, adduc, educ etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More diverse morphology** [vowel weakening, a changes to i]: facio – conficio and its 2 sg. imperative confice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To recap,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Imperatives from compounds of **duco** and **fero**: short (apocopated) forms, e.g. *educ! effer!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Imperatives from compounds of **dico**: not attested in Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Imperatives from compounds of **facio**: unapocopated forms, e.g. *calface! confice!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1929" RevisionGUID="88ef7768-8f52-4530-b5a7-eb6a9ecb7e35" CreationDate="2016-11-02T17:38:52.870" UserId="645" Text="Ostler (see my comment on Luc's answer) remarks, in relation to the appearance of a language that is recognisably Italian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot; . . . touchingly, the first surviving example of imperfect written Latin — if not yet conscious Italian — is an elegant riddle apparently used when trying out a new pen:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*'se pareba boues* / *alba pratalia araba* / *&amp; alba versorio teneba* / *&amp; negro semen* *seminaba'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;he yoked his oxen / white fields he ploughed / &amp; white plough he held / &amp; black seed he sowed.&quot; The manuscript (Biblioteca Capitolare di Verona, codex lxxxix [84]) dates to the turn of the eigth-ninth centuries and is a riddle on the act of writing itself, with black ink on a white page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not yet Italian, of course, but perhaps of interest as approaching the date of Luc's more definite example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1927" RevisionGUID="9a661635-c905-4130-b0ee-fbfe83fdbbeb" CreationDate="2016-11-02T18:55:00.857" UserId="932" Comment="text" Text="According to the *[Handbook of Medieval Culture][1]* (Albrecht Classen, vol. 2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The first written evidence considered to be Italian rather than Latin is known as the *Placiti Cassinesi*, which are four legal documents containing vernacular testimonies in an Upper Southern dialect dated to 960-963.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text of the four *placiti* has been published in *Storia della lingua italiana*, by B. Migliorini and is available on this [collection of Italian texts][2] established by Ulrich Harsch (*[Bibliotheca Augustana][3]*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sao ko kelle terre, per kelle fini que ki contene, trenta anni le possette parte sancti Benedicti.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Capua, marzo 960)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;II&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sao cco kelle terre, per kelle fini que tebe monstrai, Pergoaldi foro, que ki contene, et trenta anni le possette.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Sessa, marzo 963)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;III&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Kella terra, per kelle fini que bobe mostrai, sancte Marie è, et trenta anni la posset parte sancte Marie.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Teano, luglio 963)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;IV&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sao cco kelle terre, per kelle fini que tebe mostrai, trenta anni le possette parte sancte Marie.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Teano, ottobre 963)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **philological analysis** of this text is available on the Italian version of Wikipedia: &lt;https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placiti_cassinesi#Analisi_filologica&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, the distinction Latin-*Italian* was clearly established during the 10th century as a monk, Gunzo of Novare, wrote in 965: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;usu nostrae vulgaris linguae, quae latinitati vicina est&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An other example, according to the *[Manuel pratique de latin médiéval][4]* by [Dag Norberg][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In 915, on the occasion of the coronation of King Berengar I, the senate paid him homage patrio ore, &quot;in Latin,&quot; while the people honored him nativa voce, &quot;in Italian,&quot; according to the text of a song composed a few years later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Norberg, the oaths of Capoue *mark the beginning of the history of Italian literature*. Others claim that the first Italian text are the ***[Indovinello Veronese][6]***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=Uh5pCgAAQBAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/italica/Cronologia/i_crono.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/augustana.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://homepages.wmich.edu/~johnsorh/MedievalLatin/Norberg/ital.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/8892/ALMA_1996_54_5.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/italica/Cronologia/secolo09/Indovinello/ind_intr.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1927" RevisionGUID="c739ca0f-6a34-46ec-9c44-87271d1d660d" CreationDate="2016-11-02T19:06:54.970" UserId="932" Comment="correction" Text="According to the *[Handbook of Medieval Culture][1]* (Albrecht Classen, vol. 2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The first written evidence considered to be Italian rather than Latin is known as the *Placiti Cassinesi*, which are four legal documents containing vernacular testimonies in an Upper Southern dialect dated to 960-963.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text of the four *placiti* has been published in *Storia della lingua italiana*, by B. Migliorini and is available on this [collection of Italian texts][2] established by Ulrich Harsch (*[Bibliotheca Augustana][3]*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sao ko kelle terre, per kelle fini que ki contene, trenta anni le possette parte sancti Benedicti.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Capua, marzo 960)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;II&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sao cco kelle terre, per kelle fini que tebe monstrai, Pergoaldi foro, que ki contene, et trenta anni le possette.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Sessa, marzo 963)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;III&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Kella terra, per kelle fini que bobe mostrai, sancte Marie è, et trenta anni la posset parte sancte Marie.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Teano, luglio 963)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;IV&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sao cco kelle terre, per kelle fini que tebe mostrai, trenta anni le possette parte sancte Marie.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Teano, ottobre 963)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **philological analysis** of this text is available on the Italian version of Wikipedia: &lt;https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placiti_cassinesi#Analisi_filologica&gt; or in *[Vers les sources des langues romanes][4]* by Eugeen Roegiest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples of differences with Latin Language**: some forms like *cco* (from *quod*), *tebe* (*tibi*) or *bobe* (*vobis*, already betacism).  &#xD;&#xA;However, there still are latinisms such as the use of the genitive in proper nouns or the n of monstrai. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, the distinction Latin-*Italian* was clearly established during the 10th century as a monk, Gunzo of Novare, wrote in 965: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;usu nostrae vulgaris linguae, quae latinitati vicina est&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An other example, according to the *[Manuel pratique de latin médiéval][5]* by [Dag Norberg][6]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In 915, on the occasion of the coronation of King Berengar I, the senate paid him homage patrio ore, &quot;in Latin,&quot; while the people honored him nativa voce, &quot;in Italian,&quot; according to the text of a song composed a few years later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Norberg, the oaths of Capoue *mark the beginning of the history of Italian literature*. Others claim that the oldest preserved Italian text are the ***[Indovinello Veronese][7]***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=Uh5pCgAAQBAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/italica/Cronologia/i_crono.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/augustana.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=K7FeNc7B3EYC&amp;lpg=PA151&amp;hl=fr&amp;pg=PA151#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://homepages.wmich.edu/~johnsorh/MedievalLatin/Norberg/ital.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/8892/ALMA_1996_54_5.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/italica/Cronologia/secolo09/Indovinello/ind_intr.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="dd5e6ca3-f29a-4a48-a619-5a50b91849b4" CreationDate="2016-11-02T23:16:22.030" UserId="932" Comment="titles" Text="We can find the many meanings of `s'il te plaît` in the Littré above the article `PLAIRE`. They are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. *Vouloir, trouver bon*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;E.g.: *Heureux, si vous voulez, malheureux, s'il vous plaît* (*in* *Tartuffe* by Molière)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. *S'il vous plaît, terme de politesse, pour demander quelque chose à quelqu'un.*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;E.g.: *Ne m'oubliez jamais dans vos prières, s'il vous&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plaît* (in a letter by M&lt;sup&gt;me&lt;/sup&gt; de Maintenon)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  *Parfois, s'il vous plaît, est une façon polie de recommander avec énergie ce qu'on dit.*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;E.g.: *Une seconde fois avisez, s'il vous&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plaît, à traiter Laodice en reine comme elle est ; C'est moi qui vous&#xD;&#xA;&gt; en prie* [Corneille, Nicom. II, 3]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Et moi, ma petite fille, ma mie, je veux que vous vous mariiez, s'il vous plaît* [Molière, Avare, I, 6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Translations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, the (authoritative) Quicherat French-Latine dictionnary gives the following possibilities above the article `PLAIRE`:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Si placet.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. Si vobis videtur.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. Si tibi est commodum.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. Nisi molestum est.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. Si grave non est.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hor. Quæso*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##1. *Vouloir, trouver bon*&#xD;&#xA;###1.a) *Si placet*&#xD;&#xA;It fits really good with this meaning of *placere* (Lewis &amp; Short):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. Transf.: placet mihi (tibi, etc.), or simply placet, it pleases me, it seems good, right, or proper to me; it is my opinion, I am of opinion, I hold, believe, intend, purpose; and in perf., placuit, or placitum est, it is decided, resolved, determined (mihi, nobis, etc., or absol.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can find an exact parallel of the expression in Cicero (Rep. 2, 44, 71):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sed, si placet, in hunc diem hactenus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, in French, *mais, s’il vous le trouvez bon [=s’il vous plaît], c’est assez pour aujourd’hui*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1.b) *Sis*&#xD;&#xA;We could also think to ***sis*** [= *si vis*]. In fact, the *Gaffiot* gives the following translations of this one:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sis (=si vis): si tu veux, s’il te plaît, de grâce  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1.c) *Si videtur* (from *videor*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the *Gaffiot*, it fits well with the meaning of *trouver bon*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- ***si videtur*** or ***si tibi/vobis videtur***: s’il te paraît bon, si tu veux bien, s’il te plaît : Cic. Ac. 1, 35 ; Tusc. 1, 23 ; 1, 77 ; Fam. 14, 7, 3 ; Verr. 2, 4, 66, etc. ; Cæs. G. 5, 36, 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1.c) Example&#xD;&#xA;For example, I would translate Molière by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Heureux, si vous voulez, malheureux, s'il vous plaît*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Felix sis, infelix si placet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the play on *vouloir* and *plaire* is quite the same with *volere* and *placere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##2. *S'il vous plaît, terme de politesse, pour demander quelque chose à quelqu'un.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one is a polite way to ask something. Here, *s’il te plaît*, means more *if it doesn’t bother you* as it is a term of politness. So I think the following translations (from the *Quicherat*) fit very well with it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. **Si tibi est commodum**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. **Nisi molestum est**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. **Si grave non est**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can also translate it with (translations and examples from the *Gaffiot*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- ***quæso***: s'il te plaît, je te prie  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- ***si lĭbet***: s’il te plaît  (*libet = il plaît, il fait plaisir*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;E.g. adde, si libet Cic. Tusc. 5, 45, ajoute, s’il te plaît&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- ***sōdēs*** [=si audes]: s’il te plaît, de grâce Cic.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Or. 154 ; Pl., Ter.; Cic. Att. 7, 3, 11 ; Hor. Ep. 1, 7, 15 ; P. 438, etc. ;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*vescere, sodes* Hor. Ep. 1, 7, 15, mange, s’il te plaît&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Example&#xD;&#xA;I would translate M&lt;sup&gt;me&lt;/sup&gt; de Maintenon by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Ne m'oubliez jamais dans vos prières, s'il vous plaît* &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Noli dediscere me cum precaris, sis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##3. Parfois, s'il vous plaît, est une façon polie de recommander avec énergie ce qu'on dit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meaning seems more difficult to render. I think we can use the same as for the *polite* `s'il vous plaît`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the quotation from the *Avare* would be (e.g. [staging with Louis de Funès][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Et moi, ma petite fille, ma mie, je veux que vous vous mariiez, s'il vous plaît&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et ego, carissima filiola mea, opto ut in matrimonium eas, si placet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://youtu.be/eyaViznWlxs?t=17s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7011" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="b5713755-96c4-4ed5-bb90-82db08e94358" CreationDate="2016-11-02T23:16:37.930" UserId="932" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:932,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Luc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1930" RevisionGUID="d91be8f6-e518-4f90-8689-cbb74b394bba" CreationDate="2016-11-03T04:03:16.477" UserId="406" Text="English uses a variety of digraphs to represent sounds which lack their own letters. Some of these (such as &quot;th&quot; and &quot;sh&quot;) appear in native words; others (such as &quot;kh&quot;) only appear in loanwords.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know &quot;th&quot;, &quot;ph&quot;, and &quot;ch&quot; appear in Latin words borrowed from Greek, to represent θ, φ, χ. What other letters/digraphs did the Romans use to represent non-native sounds? Did these vary over time? Were any of the sounds &quot;standardized&quot;, the way &quot;kh&quot; in English now tends to represent a velar fricative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7013" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1930" RevisionGUID="d91be8f6-e518-4f90-8689-cbb74b394bba" CreationDate="2016-11-03T04:03:16.477" UserId="406" Text="What digraphs did the Romans use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7014" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1930" RevisionGUID="d91be8f6-e518-4f90-8689-cbb74b394bba" CreationDate="2016-11-03T04:03:16.477" UserId="406" Text="|pronunciation|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1931" RevisionGUID="692d0424-a744-458b-b8b5-0927e2a177cf" CreationDate="2016-11-03T04:36:39.930" UserId="406" Text="In English writing, there are certain conventions for representing foreign accents. For example, a French character could *replace all of zeir TH's wiz Z's*, while an Italian *might-a add-a short-a vowels to all-a their words*, a German *vould svap V's vith W's, ja?* and a Japanese might *assimirate their riquids*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words—exaggerating certain stereotypical features, as a cue to the reader to fill in the rest. When I see Z's replacing TH's in words, I also imagine the uvular &quot;r&quot;, nasal vowels, and ultima stress of a thick French accent, even though the author didn't mention those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anything similar appear in Latin literature? Is there some particular type of error that authors would use to indicate a foreign accent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I'm looking for spelling or grammar variation used intentionally by the authors, and specifically to suggest foreign-ness or non-native speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7016" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1931" RevisionGUID="692d0424-a744-458b-b8b5-0927e2a177cf" CreationDate="2016-11-03T04:36:39.930" UserId="406" Text="Stereotypical Foreign-ness" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7017" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1931" RevisionGUID="692d0424-a744-458b-b8b5-0927e2a177cf" CreationDate="2016-11-03T04:36:39.930" UserId="406" Text="|style|spoken-language|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1932" RevisionGUID="b30a8be2-4ee7-43cf-a20a-08a554cbcdea" CreationDate="2016-11-03T10:07:13.420" UserId="79" Text="The word *angulus* (angle or corner) looks like a diminutive.&#xD;&#xA;Was it derived from some other word or stem using the diminutive *-ulus* suffix, or is looking like a diminutive coincidental?&#xD;&#xA;It looks like it could be related to the verb *angere*, but I haven't found a related non-diminutive noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7019" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1932" RevisionGUID="b30a8be2-4ee7-43cf-a20a-08a554cbcdea" CreationDate="2016-11-03T10:07:13.420" UserId="79" Text="Is angulus a diminutive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7020" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1932" RevisionGUID="b30a8be2-4ee7-43cf-a20a-08a554cbcdea" CreationDate="2016-11-03T10:07:13.420" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|diminutive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1933" RevisionGUID="7616d422-c1c9-432e-b227-27035a54bed2" CreationDate="2016-11-03T11:04:45.713" UserId="324" Text="angulus is cognate with English “ankle” (and other Germanic words) and Russian “ugol” (corner) and its Slavic cognates, so the /l/ is Indo-European heritage, not a Latin innovation. PIE reconstructions such as *ang-(o)lo- or *h2eng-(o)lo- have been proposed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1933" RevisionGUID="98fde271-fb1b-4aea-8ea6-953a1537a863" CreationDate="2016-11-03T11:25:14.610" UserId="324" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="angulus is cognate with English “ankle” (and other Germanic words) and Russian “ugol” (corner) and its Slavic cognates, so the /l/ is Indo-European heritage, not a Latin innovation. PIE reconstructions such as *ang-(o)lo- or *h2eng-(o)lo- have been proposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;angere “to strangle” is supposed to be from *h2enǵho-, with a palatal *ǵh." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="b064dc68-9b74-4be3-95ae-2c54e5cb065e" CreationDate="2016-11-03T12:32:04.657" UserId="932" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="We can find the many meanings of `s'il te plaît` in the Littré above the article `PLAIRE`. They are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. *Vouloir, trouver bon*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;E.g.: *Heureux, si vous voulez, malheureux, s'il vous plaît* (*in* *Tartuffe* by Molière)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. *S'il vous plaît, terme de politesse, pour demander quelque chose à quelqu'un.*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;E.g.: *Ne m'oubliez jamais dans vos prières, s'il vous&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plaît* (in a letter by M&lt;sup&gt;me&lt;/sup&gt; de Maintenon)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  *Parfois, s'il vous plaît, est une façon polie de recommander avec énergie ce qu'on dit.*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;E.g.: *Une seconde fois avisez, s'il vous&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plaît, à traiter Laodice en reine comme elle est ; C'est moi qui vous&#xD;&#xA;&gt; en prie* [Corneille, Nicom. II, 3]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Et moi, ma petite fille, ma mie, je veux que vous vous mariiez, s'il vous plaît* [Molière, Avare, I, 6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Translations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, the (authoritative) *[Quicherat][1] French-Latine dictionnary* gives the following possibilities above the article `PLAIRE`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;***Si placet.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. Si vobis videtur.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. Si tibi est commodum.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. Nisi molestum est.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. Si grave non est.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hor. Quæso***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##1. *Vouloir, trouver bon*&#xD;&#xA;###1.a) *Si placet*&#xD;&#xA;It fits really good with this meaning of *placere* (Lewis &amp; Short):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. Transf.: placet mihi (tibi, etc.), or simply placet, it pleases me, it seems good, right, or proper to me; it is my opinion, I am of opinion, I hold, believe, intend, purpose; and in perf., placuit, or placitum est, it is decided, resolved, determined (mihi, nobis, etc., or absol.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can find an exact parallel of the expression in Cicero (Rep. 2, 44, 71):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sed, si placet, in hunc diem hactenus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, in French, *mais, s’il vous le trouvez bon [=s’il vous plaît], c’est assez pour aujourd’hui*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1.b) *Sis*&#xD;&#xA;We could also think to ***sis*** [= *si vis*]. In fact, the *Gaffiot* gives the following translations of this one:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sis (=si vis): si tu veux, s’il te plaît, de grâce  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1.c) *Si videtur* (from *videor*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the *[Gaffiot][2]*, it fits well with the meaning of *trouver bon*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- ***si videtur*** or ***si tibi/vobis videtur***: s’il te paraît bon, si tu veux bien, s’il te plaît : Cic. Ac. 1, 35 ; Tusc. 1, 23 ; 1, 77 ; Fam. 14, 7, 3 ; Verr. 2, 4, 66, etc. ; Cæs. G. 5, 36, 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1.c) Example&#xD;&#xA;For example, I would translate Molière by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Heureux, si vous voulez, malheureux, s'il vous plaît*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Felix sis, infelix si placet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the play on *vouloir* and *plaire* is quite the same with *volere* and *placere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##2. *S'il vous plaît, terme de politesse, pour demander quelque chose à quelqu'un.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one is a polite way to ask something. Here, *s’il te plaît*, means more *if it doesn’t bother you* as it is a term of politness. So I think the following translations (from the *Quicherat*) fit very well with it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. **Si tibi est commodum**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. **Nisi molestum est**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. **Si grave non est**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can also translate it with (translations and examples from the *Gaffiot*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- ***quæso***: s'il te plaît, je te prie  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- ***si lĭbet***: s’il te plaît  (*libet = il plaît, il fait plaisir*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;E.g. adde, si libet Cic. Tusc. 5, 45, ajoute, s’il te plaît&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- ***sōdēs*** [=si audes]: s’il te plaît, de grâce Cic.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Or. 154 ; Pl., Ter.; Cic. Att. 7, 3, 11 ; Hor. Ep. 1, 7, 15 ; P. 438, etc. ;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*vescere, sodes* Hor. Ep. 1, 7, 15, mange, s’il te plaît&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Example&#xD;&#xA;I would translate M&lt;sup&gt;me&lt;/sup&gt; de Maintenon by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Ne m'oubliez jamais dans vos prières, s'il vous plaît* &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Noli dediscere me cum precaris, sis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##*3. Parfois, s'il vous plaît, est une façon polie de recommander avec énergie ce qu'on dit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meaning seems more difficult to render. I think we can use the same as for the *polite* `s'il vous plaît`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the quotation from the *Avare* would be (e.g. [staging with Louis de Funès][3]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Et moi, ma petite fille, ma mie, je veux que vous vous mariiez, s'il vous plaît&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et ego, carissima filiola mea, opto ut in matrimonium eas, si placet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis-Marie_Quicherat&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionnaire_Illustr%C3%A9_Latin-Fran%C3%A7ais&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://youtu.be/eyaViznWlxs?t=17s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1927" RevisionGUID="8b355e33-e4e0-4a52-9234-7ee1448d2823" CreationDate="2016-11-03T12:36:39.463" UserId="932" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="According to the *[Handbook of Medieval Culture][1]* (Albrecht Classen, vol. 2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The first written evidence considered to be Italian rather than Latin is known as the *Placiti Cassinesi*, which are four legal documents containing vernacular testimonies in an Upper Southern dialect dated to 960-963.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text of the four *placiti* has been published in *Storia della lingua italiana*, by B. Migliorini and is available on this [collection of Italian texts][2] established by Ulrich Harsch (*[Bibliotheca Augustana][3]*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sao ko kelle terre, per kelle fini que ki contene, trenta anni le possette parte sancti Benedicti.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Capua, marzo 960)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;II&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sao cco kelle terre, per kelle fini que tebe monstrai, Pergoaldi foro, que ki contene, et trenta anni le possette.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Sessa, marzo 963)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;III&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Kella terra, per kelle fini que bobe mostrai, sancte Marie è, et trenta anni la posset parte sancte Marie.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Teano, luglio 963)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;IV&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sao cco kelle terre, per kelle fini que tebe mostrai, trenta anni le possette parte sancte Marie.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Teano, ottobre 963)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **philological analysis** of this text is available on the Italian version of Wikipedia: &lt;https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placiti_cassinesi#Analisi_filologica&gt; or in *[Vers les sources des langues romanes][4]* by Eugeen Roegiest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples of differences with Latin Language**: some forms like *cco* (from *quod*), *tebe* (*tibi*) or *bobe* (*vobis*, already betacism).  &#xD;&#xA;However, there still are latinisms such as the use of the genitive in proper nouns or the n of monstrai. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, the distinction Latin-*Italian* was clearly established during the 10th century as a monk, Gunzo of Novare, wrote in 965: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;usu nostrae vulgaris linguae, quae latinitati vicina est&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An other example, according to the *[Manuel pratique de latin médiéval][5]* by [Dag Norberg][6]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In 915, on the occasion of the coronation of King Berengar I, the senate paid him homage patrio ore, &quot;in Latin,&quot; while the people honored him nativa voce, &quot;in Italian,&quot; according to the text of a song composed a few years later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Norberg, the oaths of Capoue *mark the beginning of the history of Italian literature*. Others claim that the oldest preserved Italian text are the ***[Indovinello Veronese][7]*** (please see Tom's answer). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=Uh5pCgAAQBAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/italica/Cronologia/i_crono.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/augustana.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=K7FeNc7B3EYC&amp;lpg=PA151&amp;hl=fr&amp;pg=PA151#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://homepages.wmich.edu/~johnsorh/MedievalLatin/Norberg/ital.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/8892/ALMA_1996_54_5.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/italica/Cronologia/secolo09/Indovinello/ind_intr.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1934" RevisionGUID="060ec0c7-8450-491f-9608-abdd8f0cdf00" CreationDate="2016-11-03T19:34:22.473" UserId="645" Text="Similar things do occur in Latin literature, though I know of none that were part of a general tendency of the kind in which you are interested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are well-known illustrations of snobbery, some of which involve foreigners. Catullus LXXXIV, for example, is a witty offering about misplaced aitches, beginning *Chommoda dicebat, si quando commode vellet / dicere, et hinsidias Arrius insidias*. Vespasian, who according to his biographers was not alone in this, persisted in pronouncing *plaustrum* as *plostrum*, the old pronunciation echoing the change from *Clodius* (e.g. referring to the intruder in the *Bona Dea* ritual that induced Caesar to divorce his then wife) to *Claudius*. Even later, Juvenal complains of &quot;the Orontes pouring its filth into the Tiber&quot;, in a general complaint about the destruction of the way of life at Rome by streams of immigrants (one might say that *plus ca change!*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, my own view is that stereotyping must have been unavoidable. Ridicule by mimicry is, after all, hardly a modern phenomenon, and the Romans were not known for holding back from scoffing at the ineptitude of others, especially those of different backgrounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an interesting question that you ask. When the great analysts/commentators, such as Donatus and Priscian, were expounding the grammar of Latin, they must surely have noticed such eccentricities of pronunciation. I don't know their works well enough, however (well, hardly at all, in truth), to give you any guidance: maybe someone else here can help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1933" RevisionGUID="68d2e5f2-cc71-4df2-a178-85427c952fa9" CreationDate="2016-11-03T23:31:00.550" UserId="324" Comment="edited body" Text="angulus is cognate with English “ankle” (and other Germanic words) and Russian “ugol” (corner) and its Slavic cognates, so the /l/ is Indo-European heritage, not a Latin innovation. PIE reconstructions such as *ang-(o)lo- or *h2eng-(o)lo- have been proposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;angere “to strangle” is supposed to be from *h2emǵho-, with a palatal *ǵh." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1935" RevisionGUID="4ccee765-e7b3-4a04-9945-bbaf553b346c" CreationDate="2016-11-04T01:23:18.510" UserId="522" Text="Both Donatus and Quintillian have chapters in which they describe *barbarisms,* though the examples areshort, sometimes only one or two words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Donatus:  **Ars Major,** translated [Jim Marchand][1] (pdf) lists four&#xD;&#xA;&gt; types(sic) of mispronunciation and bad usage: adiectio, detractio,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inmutatio/ transmutatio litterae, syllabae, temporis (= vowel length)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; toni, adspirationis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of each are given, but not enough to create a character, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://investigacioneshistoricaseuroasiaticas-ihea.com/files/Donatusarsmaior.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1936" RevisionGUID="3b6ddd5d-a7ed-4d6d-8822-be079e366184" CreationDate="2016-11-04T07:59:13.947" UserId="867" Text="I would read *quâ* as *quae* for the following reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  If the poem is in a Sapphic meter, it scans long.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;2.  Although brianpck’s interpretation above is entirely feasible, if it scans long then a neuter nominative plural relative pronoun, the antecedent of which is *astra*, seems more convincing to me.  My translation then is something more like “the stars which appear and disappear [around] time’s fixed turning-post” (the picture in my mind is of the circular passage of the stars across the night sky like runners running around a turning-post on a racetrack).  I think *meta tempore certo* might be in the ablative under the force of the *ab-* prefix of *abeo*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  I have found evidence that earlier grammarians and teachers of Latin did use the circumflex, as well as the acute and grave accents.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A practical grammar of the Latin language; with perpetual exercises in speaking and writing. For the use of schools, colleges, and private learners*, by George Adler, published in **1858** and available on Wikisource says (among other things about accentuation): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    “Monosyllables have the circumflex, when their vowel is long by nature …”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Practical_Grammar_of_the_Latin_Language/Lesson_1#Of_the_Accent.  A facsimile is also available on Internet Archive:  https://archive.org/details/practicalgrammar00adle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An even earlier source, and therefore perhaps more pertinent to this 1621 poem, is Lily’s *A Short Introduction of Grammar Generally to be Used*, originally published in **1513**.  It spills much ink on the accentuation of Latin including the circumflex.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This book was the most widely used Latin textbook in England for almost 300 years, due in large part, I’m sure, to Henry VIII's edict that it be the only Latin grammar to be used in schools (see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lily_(grammarian) ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;It is also available on Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/ashortintroduct00lilygoog&#xD;&#xA;I include a picture of the first relevant page (to save you a lot of scrolling through the book!). You will see that rule 1 adumbrates Adler’s rule above about the long-by-nature vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Lily and accentuation, p. 195][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In answer to your question about other possible functions of the circumflex, I haven't found any and so I'm inclined to think that it is simply to mark a long vowel, as per Lily and Adler.  Why it only appears here, however, is another question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/APKnt.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1936" RevisionGUID="5cfdd6bf-6b1c-46d1-b6b3-163ac3e907bc" CreationDate="2016-11-04T08:24:04.213" UserId="867" Comment="deleted 616 characters in body" Text="I think the circumflex is used simply to indicate a long vowel.  I have found evidence that earlier grammarians and teachers of Latin did use the circumflex, as well as the acute and grave accents.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A practical grammar of the Latin language; with perpetual exercises in speaking and writing. For the use of schools, colleges, and private learners*, by George Adler, published in **1858** and available on Wikisource says (among other things about accentuation): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    “Monosyllables have the circumflex, when their vowel is long by nature …”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Practical_Grammar_of_the_Latin_Language/Lesson_1#Of_the_Accent.  A facsimile is also available on Internet Archive:  https://archive.org/details/practicalgrammar00adle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An even earlier source, and therefore perhaps more pertinent to this 1621 poem, is Lily’s *A Short Introduction of Grammar Generally to be Used*, originally published in **1513**.  It spills much ink on the accentuation of Latin including the circumflex.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This book was the most widely used Latin textbook in England for almost 300 years, due in large part, I’m sure, to Henry VIII's edict that it be the only Latin grammar to be used in schools (see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lily_(grammarian) ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;It is also available on Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/ashortintroduct00lilygoog&#xD;&#xA;I include a picture of the first relevant page (p. 195) (to save you a lot of scrolling through the book!). You will see that rule 1 adumbrates Adler’s rule above about the long-by-nature vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Lily and accentuation, p. 195][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In answer to your question about other possible functions of the circumflex, I haven't found any and so I'm inclined to think that it is simply to mark a long vowel, as per Lily and Adler.  Why it only appears here, however, is another question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/APKnt.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1936" RevisionGUID="b38fa21c-e110-4ed6-b176-f374ce038d35" CreationDate="2016-11-04T10:54:30.363" UserId="867" Comment="added 844 characters in body" Text="I have found two possible explanations for the circumflex: (1) to indicate a long vowel and (2) to indicate an ablative.  Both of these functions would seem to overlap!   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier grammarians frequently used the circumflex to indicate a long vowel.  *A practical grammar of the Latin language; with perpetual exercises in speaking and writing. For the use of schools, colleges, and private learners*, by George Adler, published in **1858** and available on Wikisource says (among other things about accentuation): &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Monosyllables have the circumflex, when their vowel is long by nature&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Practical_Grammar_of_the_Latin_Language/Lesson_1#Of_the_Accent.  A facsimile is also available on Internet Archive:  https://archive.org/details/practicalgrammar00adle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An even earlier source, and therefore perhaps more pertinent to this 1621 poem, is Lily’s *A Short Introduction of Grammar Generally to be Used*, originally published in **1513**.  It spills much ink on the accentuation of Latin including the circumflex.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This book was the most widely used Latin textbook in England for almost 300 years, due in large part, I’m sure, to Henry VIII's edict that it be the only Latin grammar to be used in schools (see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lily_(grammarian) ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;It is also available on Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/ashortintroduct00lilygoog&#xD;&#xA;I include a picture of the first relevant page (p. 195) (to save you a lot of scrolling through the book!). You will see that rule 1 adumbrates Adler’s rule above about the long-by-nature vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Lily and accentuation, p. 195][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia entry for &quot;New Latin”, under the sub-heading “diacritics” states that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “the circumflex accent … was chiefly found over an *a* representing an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ablative singular case”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly, this has no supporting citations. However, I did find this facsimile of a **1689** book that uses *quâ* liberally, including in its title, and apparently always as an ablative, which goes some way to corroborating the Wikipedia claim: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=8BJmAAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q=qu%C3%A2&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest thing I could find for an abbreviation that meant *quae* was this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![quae][2]][2]   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is a handwritten abbreviation from a much earlier period and is not like your *quâ* at all really.  This was found in an edition of Adriano Cappelli’s *Elements of Abbreviation in Medieval Latin Palaeography*, found here:  https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/1821/47cappelli.pdf?sequence=3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/APKnt.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EyRdN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1936" RevisionGUID="16451252-4c87-4fc5-be82-6e8640d490f3" CreationDate="2016-11-04T11:07:57.993" UserId="867" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="I have found two possible explanations for the circumflex: (1) to indicate a long vowel and (2) to indicate an ablative.  Both of these functions would seem to overlap!   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier grammarians frequently used the circumflex to indicate a long vowel.  *A practical grammar of the Latin language; with perpetual exercises in speaking and writing. For the use of schools, colleges, and private learners*, by George Adler, published in **1858** and available on Wikisource says (among other things about accentuation): &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Monosyllables have the circumflex, when their vowel is long by nature&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Practical_Grammar_of_the_Latin_Language/Lesson_1#Of_the_Accent.  A facsimile is also available on Internet Archive:  https://archive.org/details/practicalgrammar00adle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An even earlier source, and therefore perhaps more pertinent to this 1621 poem, is Lily’s *A Short Introduction of Grammar Generally to be Used*, originally published in **1513**.  It spills much ink on the accentuation of Latin including the circumflex.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This book was the most widely used Latin textbook in England for almost 300 years, due in large part, I’m sure, to Henry VIII's edict that it be the only Latin grammar to be used in schools (see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lily_(grammarian) ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;It is also available on Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/ashortintroduct00lilygoog&#xD;&#xA;I include a picture of the first relevant page (p. 195) (to save you a lot of scrolling through the book!). You will see that rule 1 adumbrates Adler’s rule above about the long-by-nature vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Lily and accentuation, p. 195][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility is that it marks an ablative.  The Wikipedia entry for &quot;New Latin”, under the sub-heading “diacritics” states that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “the circumflex accent … was chiefly found over an *a* representing an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ablative singular case”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly, this has no supporting citations. However, I did find this facsimile of a **1689** book that uses *quâ* liberally, including in its title, and apparently always as an ablative, which goes some way to corroborating the Wikipedia claim: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=8BJmAAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q=qu%C3%A2&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest thing I could find for an abbreviation that meant *quae* was this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![quae][2]][2]   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is a handwritten abbreviation from a much earlier period and is not like your *quâ* at all really.  This was found in an edition of Adriano Cappelli’s *Elements of Abbreviation in Medieval Latin Palaeography*, found here:  https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/1821/47cappelli.pdf?sequence=3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/APKnt.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EyRdN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1936" RevisionGUID="d3793d0d-c4be-4a27-925a-0cf374caa5ed" CreationDate="2016-11-04T12:16:08.700" UserId="867" Comment="deleted 1305 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I have found the following attested uses of the circumflex in Renaissance/Neo-Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	To indicate a long vowel.  Indeed, it is found “exclusively” over long vowels (Lily; Steenbakker).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	To distinguish between homographs where the long vowel differentiates the word (Steenbakker).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	To indicate the ablative singular (a practice adapted from Quintilian’s observation that the apex marked the long a of the ablative singular (Hale, p. 24)) but can also be found over singular genitives of the fourth declension (Steenbakkers).  Also see footnote 1 in Gilbert.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	To indicate contraction (*amâsse* for *amavisse*, for example) (Hale; Steenbakker).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	To mark an interjection (Steenbakker).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Allan H. Gilbert, « Mock Accents in Renaissance and Modern Latin », in *PMLA*, vol. 54, no. 2, 1939, https://www.jstor.org/stable/458579?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John K. Hale, « Observations on Milton’s Accents », in *Renaissance and Reformation / Renaissance et Réforme*, 1995, vol. 331, no. 3 http://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/renref/article/view/11626&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;William Lily, *A Short Introduction of Grammar Generally to be Used*, originally published in 1513, p. 195 https://archive.org/details/ashortintroduct00lilygoog   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Piet Steenbakkers, *Accent-marks in Neo -Latin*, (a word search for “circumflex” will take you right to his paper), conference proceedings from 1991, https://archive.org/stream/hafniactaconvent00inteuoft/hafniactaconvent00inteuoft_djvu.txt&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7034" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="1936" RevisionGUID="e2006eff-2f86-4631-81cf-8a259f711b3d" CreationDate="2016-11-04T12:21:25.810" UserId="867" Comment="Rollback to [16451252-4c87-4fc5-be82-6e8640d490f3]" Text="I have found two possible explanations for the circumflex: (1) to indicate a long vowel and (2) to indicate an ablative.  Both of these functions would seem to overlap!   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier grammarians frequently used the circumflex to indicate a long vowel.  *A practical grammar of the Latin language; with perpetual exercises in speaking and writing. For the use of schools, colleges, and private learners*, by George Adler, published in **1858** and available on Wikisource says (among other things about accentuation): &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Monosyllables have the circumflex, when their vowel is long by nature&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Practical_Grammar_of_the_Latin_Language/Lesson_1#Of_the_Accent.  A facsimile is also available on Internet Archive:  https://archive.org/details/practicalgrammar00adle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An even earlier source, and therefore perhaps more pertinent to this 1621 poem, is Lily’s *A Short Introduction of Grammar Generally to be Used*, originally published in **1513**.  It spills much ink on the accentuation of Latin including the circumflex.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This book was the most widely used Latin textbook in England for almost 300 years, due in large part, I’m sure, to Henry VIII's edict that it be the only Latin grammar to be used in schools (see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lily_(grammarian) ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;It is also available on Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/ashortintroduct00lilygoog&#xD;&#xA;I include a picture of the first relevant page (p. 195) (to save you a lot of scrolling through the book!). You will see that rule 1 adumbrates Adler’s rule above about the long-by-nature vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Lily and accentuation, p. 195][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility is that it marks an ablative.  The Wikipedia entry for &quot;New Latin”, under the sub-heading “diacritics” states that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “the circumflex accent … was chiefly found over an *a* representing an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ablative singular case”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly, this has no supporting citations. However, I did find this facsimile of a **1689** book that uses *quâ* liberally, including in its title, and apparently always as an ablative, which goes some way to corroborating the Wikipedia claim: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=8BJmAAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q=qu%C3%A2&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest thing I could find for an abbreviation that meant *quae* was this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![quae][2]][2]   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is a handwritten abbreviation from a much earlier period and is not like your *quâ* at all really.  This was found in an edition of Adriano Cappelli’s *Elements of Abbreviation in Medieval Latin Palaeography*, found here:  https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/1821/47cappelli.pdf?sequence=3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/APKnt.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EyRdN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1936" RevisionGUID="c90fe438-b680-47d3-95a2-c0c4a06225ee" CreationDate="2016-11-04T12:22:28.297" UserId="867" Comment="added 1530 characters in body" Text="*Please see addendum at the bottom&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found two possible explanations for the circumflex: (1) to indicate a long vowel and (2) to indicate an ablative.  Both of these functions would seem to overlap!   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier grammarians frequently used the circumflex to indicate a long vowel.  *A practical grammar of the Latin language; with perpetual exercises in speaking and writing. For the use of schools, colleges, and private learners*, by George Adler, published in **1858** and available on Wikisource says (among other things about accentuation): &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Monosyllables have the circumflex, when their vowel is long by nature&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Practical_Grammar_of_the_Latin_Language/Lesson_1#Of_the_Accent.  A facsimile is also available on Internet Archive:  https://archive.org/details/practicalgrammar00adle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An even earlier source, and therefore perhaps more pertinent to this 1621 poem, is Lily’s *A Short Introduction of Grammar Generally to be Used*, originally published in **1513**.  It spills much ink on the accentuation of Latin including the circumflex.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This book was the most widely used Latin textbook in England for almost 300 years, due in large part, I’m sure, to Henry VIII's edict that it be the only Latin grammar to be used in schools (see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lily_(grammarian) ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;It is also available on Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/ashortintroduct00lilygoog&#xD;&#xA;I include a picture of the first relevant page (p. 195) (to save you a lot of scrolling through the book!). You will see that rule 1 adumbrates Adler’s rule above about the long-by-nature vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Lily and accentuation, p. 195][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility is that it marks an ablative.  The Wikipedia entry for &quot;New Latin”, under the sub-heading “diacritics” states that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “the circumflex accent … was chiefly found over an *a* representing an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ablative singular case”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly, this has no supporting citations. However, I did find this facsimile of a **1689** book that uses *quâ* liberally, including in its title, and apparently always as an ablative, which goes some way to corroborating the Wikipedia claim: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=8BJmAAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q=qu%C3%A2&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest thing I could find for an abbreviation that meant *quae* was this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![quae][2]][2]   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is a handwritten abbreviation from a much earlier period and is not like your *quâ* at all really.  This was found in an edition of Adriano Cappelli’s *Elements of Abbreviation in Medieval Latin Palaeography*, found here:  https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/1821/47cappelli.pdf?sequence=3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Addendum:**&#xD;&#xA;I have found the following attested uses of the circumflex in Renaissance/Neo-Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;• To indicate a long vowel. Indeed, it is found “exclusively” over long vowels (Lily; Steenbakker).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;• To distinguish between homographs where the long vowel differentiates the word (Steenbakker).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;• To indicate the ablative singular (a practice adapted from Quintilian’s observation that the apex marked the long a of the ablative singular (Hale, p. 24)) but can also be found over singular genitives of the fourth declension (Steenbakkers). Also see footnote 1 in Gilbert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;• To indicate contraction (*amâsse* for *amavisse*, for example) (Hale; Steenbakker).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;• To mark an interjection (Steenbakker).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allan H. Gilbert, « Mock Accents in Renaissance and Modern Latin », in *PMLA*, vol. 54, no. 2, 1939, https://www.jstor.org/stable/458579?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John K. Hale, « Observations on Milton’s Accents », in *Renaissance and Reformation / Renaissance et Réforme*, 1995, vol. 331, no. 3 http://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/renref/article/view/11626&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;William Lily, *A Short Introduction of Grammar Generally to be Used*, originally published in 1513, p. 195 https://archive.org/details/ashortintroduct00lilygoog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Piet Steenbakkers, *Accent-marks in Neo -Latin*, (a word search for “circumflex” will take you right to his paper), conference proceedings from 1991, https://archive.org/stream/hafniactaconvent00inteuoft/hafniactaconvent00inteuoft_djvu.txt&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/APKnt.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EyRdN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1937" RevisionGUID="cac6bdf4-e968-40ed-90a0-fb2b1abf42a8" CreationDate="2016-11-04T15:17:15.960" UserId="79" Text="Reading symbolic mathematical expressions out loud in any language is mainly folklore: everyone in the field knows how to do it but finding explicit written instructions is surprisingly hard.&#xD;&#xA;I have yet to find good written instructions for any language, despite asking at [Mathematics Educators SE](http://matheducators.stackexchange.com/q/7978/2074).&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how to pronounce mathematics in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly, I do not expect to find a complete treatise on the topic.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I am asking for any documents or insights whatsoever on the subject.&#xD;&#xA;Any partial answers are warmly welcome.&#xD;&#xA;For example, do we know how Newton, Euler or Gauss read formulas out loud?&#xD;&#xA;(If there is a flood of partial answers to this questions, I can make it narrower, but that does not look like a real threat.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can provide material for pronouncing mathematics in other languages than Latin, please answer the linked question at Mathematics Educators instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1937" RevisionGUID="cac6bdf4-e968-40ed-90a0-fb2b1abf42a8" CreationDate="2016-11-04T15:17:15.960" UserId="79" Text="How to read mathematics out loud?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1937" RevisionGUID="cac6bdf4-e968-40ed-90a0-fb2b1abf42a8" CreationDate="2016-11-04T15:17:15.960" UserId="79" Text="|pronunciation|contemporary-latin|spoken-language|science|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1938" RevisionGUID="d2dce8df-c615-4869-8aee-8f88f9b520f8" CreationDate="2016-11-04T16:14:28.877" UserId="952" Text="Why is Line 546 of Ovid's _Daphne and Apollo_ considered a &quot;corrupted line&quot;?  &#xD;&#xA;Here's the section in which it is contained:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;543 viribus absumptis expalluit illa citaeque  &#xD;&#xA;544 victa labore fugae spectans Peneidas undas  &#xD;&#xA;545 'fer, pater,' inquit 'opem! si flumina numen habetis,  &#xD;&#xA;546 [quae facit ut laedar mutando perde figuram.]  &#xD;&#xA;547 qua nimium placui, mutando perde figuram!'   &#xD;&#xA;548 vix prece finita torpor gravis occupat artus,    &#xD;&#xA;549 mollia cinguntur tenui praecordia libro,  &#xD;&#xA;550 in frondem crines, in ramos bracchia crescunt,  &#xD;&#xA;551 pes modo tam velox pigris radicibus haeret,  &#xD;&#xA;552 ora cacumen habet: remanet nitor unus in illa." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7040" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1938" RevisionGUID="d2dce8df-c615-4869-8aee-8f88f9b520f8" CreationDate="2016-11-04T16:14:28.877" UserId="952" Text="Corrupted Line in Daphne and Apollo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7041" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1938" RevisionGUID="d2dce8df-c615-4869-8aee-8f88f9b520f8" CreationDate="2016-11-04T16:14:28.877" UserId="952" Text="|ovidius|metamorphoses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1939" RevisionGUID="b4fb48fa-a28c-4717-b564-bf2e1eeb9d80" CreationDate="2016-11-04T17:56:16.067" UserId="645" Text="What you quote are lines as they appear at http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/ovid/ovid.met1.shtml .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My own copy is the 1909 Teubner edition &quot;*cum emendationis summario*&quot;, and, for what it's worth, it differs from the lines you have quoted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(545) 'Fer pater' inquit 'opem! Tellus,' ait, 'hisce, vel istam /  (545 ! ) Quae fecit, ut laedar, mutando perde figuram?' / Vix prece finita, torpor gravis occupat artus, / Mollia cinguntur tenui praecodia libro, / (550) In frondem crines, in ramos bracchia crescunt: / Pes modo tam velox  pigris radicibus . . . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Your] line 547 does not appear. The *emendatio* as given by the [Teubner's] editor is :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;  545, 547 recepi quae in proecdosi posthabui. non est probabile solum Peneum invocatum voluisse poetam, a patre filiam mutatam fuisse. Tellurum aut crediderim desumptam ex *Aesch. Promethei vv. 565 581 H*., quam fabulam relegisse eum oportet antequam versum abhinc vigesimum conscriberet, aut ex *fabula Antiochena*, quam habet Nonnus Dion. XXXIII 214 (Munro, Aetna p.43). &quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1940" RevisionGUID="4ee6a1ab-a449-46eb-ad67-47de3518adb5" CreationDate="2016-11-04T18:17:02.517" UserId="406" Text="Partial answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, most mathematical discourse would be done in Greek. Latin was used for engineering purposes, but speaking unambiguously about mathematics became rather awkward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Vitruvius's description of the Pythagorean formula, from *De Architectura IX.6*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; namque si sumantur regulae tres e quibus una sit pedes III altera pedes IIII tertia pedes V, eaeque regulae inter se compositae tangant alia aliam suis cacuminibus extremis schema habentes trigoni, deformabunt normam emendatam. ad eas autem regularum singularum longitudines si singula quadrata paribus lateribus describantur, quod erit trium latus, areae habebit pedes VIIII, quod IIII, XVI, quod V erit, XXV. ita quantum areae pedum numerum duo quadrata ex tribus pedibus longitudinis laterum et quattuor efficiunt, aeque tantum numerum reddidit unum ex quinque descriptum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For if three straight rods are acquired (and from these let one be three feet, the other four feet, and the third five feet) and these rods are arranged together so that they touch each other at the very tip, making the shape of a triangle, they will form a perfect right angle. Then, if squares are marked out, with sides equal to the lengths of each of the rods, then the [square with the] side [length] of three will have an area of nine feet, the four, sixteen, and the five, twenty-five. Thus how many feet of area two squares with sides of three and four feet in length contain, is equal to how many one [square] marked out from five [feet] contained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words: *a² + b² = c²*, expressed geometrically and in far too many words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frontinus' *De Aquis* shows similarly how unwieldy numbers could be in Roman numerals. A small excerpt starting from I.50:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fistula quadragenaria: diametri digitos septem   ℈III, perimetri digitos XXII   , capit quinarias XXXII S .  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fistula quadragenum quinum: diametri digitos septem S  ℈ octo, perimetri digitos XXIII S   , capit quinarias XXXVI S   ℈ octo; in usu non est.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fistula quinquagenaria: diametri digitos septem S     ℈ quinque, perimetri digitos XXV  ℈VII, capit quinarias XL S   ℈V.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fistula quinquagenum quinum: diametri digitos octo   ℈ decem, perimetri digitos XXVI   , p382capit quinarias XLIIII S    ℈II; in usu non est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation from LacusCurtius, since I'm not familiar enough with the fractions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The 40‑pipe: 7 digits plus 1/12 plus 1/24 plus 3/288 in diameter; 22 digits plus 5/12 in circumference; it has a capacity of 32 quinariae plus 1/2 plus 1/12.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The 45‑pipe: 7 digits plus 1/12 plus 1/24 plus 8/288 in diameter; 23 digits plus 1/2 plus 3/12 plus 1/24 in circumference; it has a capacity of 36 quinariae plus 1/2 plus 1/12 plus 1/24 plus 8/288; is not in use.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The 50‑pipe: 7 digits plus 1/2 plus 5/12 plus 1/24 plus 5/288 in diameter; 25 digits plus 1/24 plus 7/288 in circumference; it has a capacity of 40 quinariae plus 1/2 plus 2/12 plus 1/24 plus 5/288.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The 55‑pipe: 8 digits plus 4/12 plus 10/288 in diameter; 26 digits plus 3/12 plus 1/24 in circumference; it has a capacity of 44 quinariae plus 1/2 plus 3/12 plus 1/24 plus 2/288; is not in use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is more likely that educated Romans preferred to speak about mathematics in Greek—especially as the most important mathematical texts at the time had all been written in Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Vitruvius's description shows, mathematics at that time was more focused on geometry than on formulas. Rather than calculating a number, the goal would be to construct a line segment of that length, or a triangle of that area, etc. This made certain things far more difficult: numerical methods can approximate the cube root of 2 to arbitrary precision, but with only a compass and straightedge it is *impossible* to construct exactly. Plato famously mocked this failing when the geometers couldn't double the volume of a cube, as related by Vitruvius, Plutarch, and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this also had the advantage of making it much easier to read out loud. Vitruvius's description of the Pythagorean formula may be harder to visualize than a diagram, but unlike a diagram it can be spoken without losing any information. As another example, from Euclid's *Elements*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; κγʹ. Παράλληλοί εἰσιν εὐθεῖαι, αἵτινες ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ἐπιπέδῳ οὖσαι καὶ ἐκβαλλόμεναι εἰς ἄπειρον ἐφ ̓ ἑκάτερα τὰ μέρη ἐπὶ μηδέτερα συμπίπτουσιν ἀλλήλαις.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 23. Lines which are in the same plane, and are projected infinitely in both directions, but touch each other in neither direction, are &quot;parallel&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's pretty much the same way I would describe parallel lines to someone if I didn't have pen and paper on hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(More to come when I find more examples: later usage, for instance.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1941" RevisionGUID="81fe9b8a-c00a-448d-bb65-b2d4667b5183" CreationDate="2016-11-04T22:22:05.257" UserId="932" Text="For basic mathematics, I’ve found some answers in the *[Institutiones Physicæ][1]* by Floriani Dalham, published in 1752:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1+2 = 3 would be read *unus plus duo sunt tres*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Additio est duorum, vel plurium Numerorum in unum collectio. Indicatur per signum + adjectum, id est : *plus*. (…)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Dicatur : 4+2+2+7 sunt 15   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*(Caput III, p. 26)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1-2 = -1 would be read *unus minus duo sunt minus unus*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(…) indicaturque per signum -, id est : *minus*. (…)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*(Caput IV, p. 28-29)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 7*4 is read *septies quatuor* or *quater septem*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; p.33&#xD;&#xA;Note: the tables of logarithms are called *tabularum Neperianarum&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(…)multiplicando 360 cum 5 prodibit numerus 1800 (…). [p.41]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 24/3 is *24 divisum per 3* [p.40] or *24 ad 3*7&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam sicut se habet 1 ad 3, ita se habent 2 ad 6. [p. 54]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A^3 is *A exponens 3* [p. 37]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cross-multiplication is regula trium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 2&gt;3: *2 majus ad 3*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;, &gt;, =: *Signum æqualitas est =. Signum similitudinis ~. &gt; notat majus ad minus. &lt; notat minus ad majus*. [p. 75]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- sqrt(2) would be *radix quadrata duorum*. [p. 101]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=dvA4AAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA120&amp;dq=Manualis%20mathematicae&amp;hl=fr&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwioq9DKhZDQAhXJkCwKHa7gBFQQ6AEIHjAA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1941" RevisionGUID="762eea3a-8373-48e6-ad5c-0e22d32de87a" CreationDate="2016-11-04T22:29:06.827" UserId="932" Comment="added 290 characters in body" Text="For basic mathematics, I’ve found some answers in the *[Institutiones Physicæ][1]* by Floriani Dalham, published in 1752:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1+2 = 3 would be read *unus plus duo sunt tres*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Additio est duorum, vel plurium Numerorum in unum collectio. Indicatur per signum + adjectum, id est : *plus*. (…)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Dicatur : 4+2+2+7 sunt 15   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*(Caput III, p. 26)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1-2 = -1 would be read *unus minus duo sunt minus unus*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(…) indicaturque per signum -, id est : *minus*. (…)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*(Caput IV, p. 28-29)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 7*4 is read *septies quatuor* or *quater septem*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; p.33&#xD;&#xA;Note: the tables of logarithms are called *tabularum Neperianarum&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(…)multiplicando 360 cum 5 prodibit numerus 1800 (…). [p.41]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 24/3 is *24 divisum per 3* [p.40] or *24 ad 3*7&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam sicut se habet 1 ad 3, ita se habent 2 ad 6. [p. 54]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A^3 is *A exponens 3* [p. 37]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cross-multiplication is regula trium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 2&gt;3: *2 majus ad 3*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;, &gt;, =: *Signum æqualitas est =. Signum similitudinis ~. &gt; notat majus ad minus. &lt; notat minus ad majus*. [p. 75]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- sqrt(2) would be *radix quadrata duorum*. [p. 101]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin version of Wikipedia can also certainly be of some help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Calculus integralis : &lt;https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrale&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Functio : &lt;https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functio&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- [Categoria:Mathematica][2]&#xD;&#xA;- etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=dvA4AAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA120&amp;dq=Manualis%20mathematicae&amp;hl=fr&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwioq9DKhZDQAhXJkCwKHa7gBFQQ6AEIHjAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Mathematica" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1942" RevisionGUID="82eea8ef-9c6f-46c5-9066-3ab47c13e483" CreationDate="2016-11-04T23:11:28.323" UserId="932" Text="Whereas Latin language was used by almost every scientist until the 18th century, this is a fact that since then the use of Latin in scientific publication has fastly decreased: the best example of it is Newton who wrote in Latin at the beginning of his carrier and in English at the end of it. Though the wikipedia article on [`New Latin`](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Latin#Decline) gives some interesting details on the subject, I remain unsatisfied by the explanation given (not very long nor very well-argued).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would like to know what reasons for that extinction have been given by scholars, historians, or what you will. In particular, can we make a link between that evolution and the controversy around the abbey of Port-Royal (the so-called *jansenism*)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your answers!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7048" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1942" RevisionGUID="82eea8ef-9c6f-46c5-9066-3ab47c13e483" CreationDate="2016-11-04T23:11:28.323" UserId="932" Text="Why did scientists abandon Latin in their publications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7049" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1942" RevisionGUID="82eea8ef-9c6f-46c5-9066-3ab47c13e483" CreationDate="2016-11-04T23:11:28.323" UserId="932" Text="|history|new-latin|science|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1942" RevisionGUID="e800efdc-5287-48ef-9fc3-568c33e0d5b0" CreationDate="2016-11-05T00:49:59.747" UserId="932" Comment="exact ref" Text="Whereas Latin language was used by almost every scientist until the 18th century, this is a fact that since then the use of Latin in scientific publication has fastly decreased: the best example of it is Newton who wrote in Latin at the beginning of his carrier and in English at the end of it. Though the wikipedia article on [`New Latin`](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Latin&amp;oldid=745912714#Decline) gives some interesting details on the subject, I remain unsatisfied by the explanation given (not very long nor very well-argued).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would like to know what reasons for that extinction have been given by scholars, historians, or what you will. In particular, can we make a link between that evolution and the controversy around the abbey of Port-Royal (the so-called *jansenism*)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your answers!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1943" RevisionGUID="22e1e5c3-37a4-4f21-9d64-74c8a3d8610b" CreationDate="2016-11-05T02:32:35.563" UserId="235" Text="I have read a little about the history of the Julian and Gregorian calendars. Julius Caesar introduced the twelve-month Julian calendar in 46 BC, and Pope Gregory XIII introduced the Gregorian calendar (a slight refinement of the Julian calendar) in the 16th century. However, this still leaves room for a lot of questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first question is, when Pope Gregory introduced the Gregorian calendar, did he change the names of any months, or did he keep the exact same Latin names? I would like to use the Latin names for months, but the only names I can find are those belonging to the Julian calendar. It's probably safe to use these names, but I do want to make sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second question is a little more interesting. I would like to say, in Latin, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Today is November 4, 2016&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (or, to be more expansive)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Today is the 4th of November of the year 2016&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would the Romans have said this during the late Roman republic (or the early empire)? Even though the Gregorian calendar replaced the Julian calendar, did the manner of stating the date in Latin change over all these centuries? Did they have  a concise shorthand (like my first example) or were they more expansive (like the second)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a parting observation, I would like to point out that, in English, *today* is both a noun and an adverb, and that in my two examples above I am using the noun. In Latin, is there also a noun meaning *today*? If so, is this in common use, or is it more customary to use the adverb, *hodie*? Assuming the latter is true, I'm guessing that any declaration of the date would start with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hodie est...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But as for the rest, I'm at a loss. Many thanks for any feedback." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7052" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1943" RevisionGUID="22e1e5c3-37a4-4f21-9d64-74c8a3d8610b" CreationDate="2016-11-05T02:32:35.563" UserId="235" Text="How do you write dates in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7053" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1943" RevisionGUID="22e1e5c3-37a4-4f21-9d64-74c8a3d8610b" CreationDate="2016-11-05T02:32:35.563" UserId="235" Text="|phrase-request|julian-calendar|gregorian-calendar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1944" RevisionGUID="6375a37c-7973-4a50-bdb6-a67186b8e857" CreationDate="2016-11-05T03:29:24.200" UserId="235" Text="I'm translating a sentence in my textbook from English to Greek, and that sentence uses the phrase *I often saw*. For copyright reasons, I'm going to create a new sentence using this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On this road, I often saw the children who had been hurt by him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best translation would be,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ἐν ταυτῃ τῃ ὁδῳ, τα τεκνα αὐτῳ βεβλαμμενα πολλακις **εἰδον** (ἑωρων).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this translation, I used the aorist form of the verb (and also put the imperfect in parentheses). I used the perfect passive participle βεβλαμμενα to translate the relative clause. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to the main verb, *I saw*, I'm unsure of whether to use the aorist or the imperfect. The phrase *I often saw* does seem to have the flavor of *I used to see*, which would be an example of the imperfect, but I'm not sure if this comparison is correct. As a followup question, is the phrase *I often saw* enough context for deciding between the aorist and the imperfect, or do you have to consider the entire sentence to decide? I would be interested to know whether adverbs like πολλακις typically point to one or the other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7055" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1944" RevisionGUID="6375a37c-7973-4a50-bdb6-a67186b8e857" CreationDate="2016-11-05T03:29:24.200" UserId="235" Text="Should the phrase &quot;I often saw&quot; use the imperfect or the aorist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7056" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1944" RevisionGUID="6375a37c-7973-4a50-bdb6-a67186b8e857" CreationDate="2016-11-05T03:29:24.200" UserId="235" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7057" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1944" RevisionGUID="dbab29d2-abe4-4713-ab6e-7e8ffffd169e" CreationDate="2016-11-05T12:58:28.653" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|verbs|greek|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7058" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1943" RevisionGUID="a8c04d04-cc76-424e-8e73-a4ddca33bc19" CreationDate="2016-11-05T12:58:50.407" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|phrase-request|time|julian-calendar|gregorian-calendar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7059" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1944" RevisionGUID="411196c1-48f5-40b5-9d8b-9b760bc99c43" CreationDate="2016-11-05T17:10:38.277" UserId="79" Comment="Added Greek to the title." Text="Should the phrase &quot;I often saw&quot; use the imperfect or the aorist in Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7060" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1943" RevisionGUID="59cd7b38-a440-4b4d-8f81-8d7989b3aa2e" CreationDate="2016-11-05T18:35:03.353" UserId="235" Comment="edited tags" Text="|phrase-request|time|calendarium|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1945" RevisionGUID="0fbaf2a0-cc16-4f8b-82da-037148a9bbfc" CreationDate="2016-11-05T18:39:34.883" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7062" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1945" RevisionGUID="0fbaf2a0-cc16-4f8b-82da-037148a9bbfc" CreationDate="2016-11-05T18:39:34.883" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1946" RevisionGUID="11fe43e0-61cb-4ed8-a4fb-123af280c5cf" CreationDate="2016-11-05T18:39:34.883" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7064" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1946" RevisionGUID="11fe43e0-61cb-4ed8-a4fb-123af280c5cf" CreationDate="2016-11-05T18:39:34.883" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1127" RevisionGUID="372774d7-59d9-4a86-a204-6f2fae6ee953" CreationDate="2016-11-05T19:20:46.407" UserId="589" Comment="improved formatting" Text="A great swath of Christendom has, from as early as Augustinus Hipponensis, held that God created the universe *ex nihilo*, &quot;from/ out of nothing.&quot; One of the motivations behind this has been to refute or avoid the *ex materia* conclusion, which would presuppose that God had to have pre-existent matter out of which to fashion the universe as we now know it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another motivation is to avoid a blurring of the distinction between God and his creation which *creatio ex deo* may suggest, based on certain philosophical starting-points. There are, however, portions of the Bible (such as Colossians 1.16) which explicitly say that the cosmos was made &quot;*in* God&quot; and whose motion takes place as though a journey &quot;*through* God&quot; (see Acts 17.28).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is in this sense that I ask how, in Latin, to express those prepositional relationships between God and the universe. In other words, which of the following would be the correct way to say, in formulations similar to *creatio ex nihilo* &amp; *creatio ex deo*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;creation [with]in God&quot; or &quot;creation in[side] God&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;creation through God&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would they be, respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *creatio intra deo* or *creatio introrsum deo*?&#xD;&#xA;2. *creatio per deo* or *creatio per deum*,  &#xD;&#xA;or perhaps, rather,  &#xD;&#xA;*creatio trans deo* or *creation trans deum*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(The above are the results of my GoogleTranslations of the afore-listed expressions but my grammar is nowhere good enough for me to tell if any of these is correct and if so by how much.)&lt;/sub&gt; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1947" RevisionGUID="fe4a3df0-0305-4180-ba18-acc5d7e77ab4" CreationDate="2016-11-05T22:48:59.190" UserId="79" Text="Express buses, express trains, and express lifts &amp;mdash; and maybe some other express things &amp;mdash; are vehicles that have unusually few stops and are therefore faster than others.&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good way to express (no pun intended) this in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;For example, how to say &quot;express train&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The obvious direct translation *tramen expressum* is one option, but the participle *expressus* seems too far from the desired meaning to work.&#xD;&#xA;Of course, one could say &quot;fast train&quot; (for example *tramen celere*) but I wonder if there is something more suitable.&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer a single adjective to a long explanation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7068" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1947" RevisionGUID="fe4a3df0-0305-4180-ba18-acc5d7e77ab4" CreationDate="2016-11-05T22:48:59.190" UserId="79" Text="What is &quot;express&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7069" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1947" RevisionGUID="fe4a3df0-0305-4180-ba18-acc5d7e77ab4" CreationDate="2016-11-05T22:48:59.190" UserId="79" Text="|translation|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|word-request|technology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1948" RevisionGUID="c0136517-1d76-438f-ad81-7bb2d513d961" CreationDate="2016-11-06T00:23:06.107" UserId="79" Text="I will split this answer in two halves, for two different kinds of date expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# On November 4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The traditional Roman calendar, whose system is still in use in some festive occasions, is based on three special days in each month:&#xD;&#xA;*Kalendae* (first day of the month), *Nonae* (fifth or seventh), and *Idus* (13th or 15th).&#xD;&#xA;The later options (7 and 15 instead of 5 and 13) were used in March, May, July, and October; in the other months *Nonae* was fifth and *Idus* thirteenth.&#xD;&#xA;All these three words are plural feminines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the date falls on one of these special days, you simply put it in ablative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- on March 1 = *Kalendis Martiis*&#xD;&#xA;- on August 5 = *Nonis Augustis*&#xD;&#xA;- on October 15 = *Idibus Octobribus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of days immediately before special days, use the word *pridies* in ablative and put the special day in accusative.&#xD;&#xA;The name of the month is that of the special day, not necessarily that of the day of interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- on February 28 (29 on leap years) = *pridie Kalendas Martias*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I have some times seen *postridie* used the same way for days right after a special day.&#xD;&#xA;If this method is used, then &quot;on August 6&quot; = *postridie Nonas Augustas*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For all other days, you count days to the following special day.&#xD;&#xA;As is typical in Latin, counting is inclusive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- on October 13 = *ante diem tertium Idus Octobres*&#xD;&#xA;- on October 12 = *ante diem quartum Idus Octobres*&#xD;&#xA;- on October 17 = *ante diem sextum decimum Kalendas Novembres*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these can be abbreviated, of course:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Kal. Nov.*&#xD;&#xA;- *prid. Id. Aug.*&#xD;&#xA;- *a. d. XIV Kal. Dec.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Counting days before *Kalendae Martiae* on a leap year is a bit tricky, and I will exclude it here.&#xD;&#xA;This special case and the story behind it should be taken to a separate question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contemporary Latin, it is common write things in a more simple and modern way: &quot;on January 5&quot; is simply *die quinto mensis Ianuarii*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be abbreviated further without much risk of confusion.&#xD;&#xA;The first option I propose is to leave out *die* and *mensis*, since they can be understood implicitly, leaving us with *quinto Ianuarii*.&#xD;&#xA;Another option is to take the month name (which is an adjective in Latin) to modify the numeral or the implicit *dies*, leading to *quinto Ianuario*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A year can be added by the ablative of *annus* and an ordinal numeral: *Hic situs palam factus est Idibus Martiis anno bis millesimo sexto decimo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Today is November 4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any ancient use of phrases like &quot;today is November 4&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, *pridie* is often considered an adverb since the noun *pridies* is only found in the singular ablative form used in dates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the old system can be adapted to such expressions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- today is August 5 = *hodie sunt Nonae Augustae*&#xD;&#xA;- today is March 31 = *hodie est pridies Kalendas Apriles*&#xD;&#xA;- today is October 12 = *hodie est dies quartus ante Idus Octobres*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I stress that these are not attested (as far as I know), but I consider them to be a reasonable extension of classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Notice that *hodie* is here an adverb, not the subject in the above sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the more modern variants, the construction is simple: &quot;today is August 5&quot; = *hodie est dies quintus mensis Augusti*.&#xD;&#xA;Again, ellipsis is possible if this feels to verbose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, a year can be added in a similar fashion.&#xD;&#xA;But now genitive is more appropriate than ablative: &quot;today is December 6 of the year 1917&quot; = *hodie est dies octavus ante Idus Decembres anni millesimi nongentesimi septimi decimi*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me end with listing all the possibilities I offer for November 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On November 4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *pridie Nonas Novembres (prid. Non. Nov.)*&#xD;&#xA;- *die quarto mensis Novembris (die 4 mensis Nov.)*&#xD;&#xA;- *quarto Novembris (4 Nov.)*&#xD;&#xA;- *[die] quarto Novembri (4 Nov.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today is November 4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *hodie est pridies Nonas Novembres*&#xD;&#xA;- *hodie est dies quartus mensis Novembris*&#xD;&#xA;- *hodie est quartus Novembris*&#xD;&#xA;- *hodie est [dies] quartus November*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1949" RevisionGUID="777e9226-cd63-427a-a59a-f938044b0c2e" CreationDate="2016-11-06T00:42:33.530" UserId="79" Text="Using the traditional dates of the Roman calendar, December 31 and December 30 would be *pridie Kalendas Ianuarias* and *ante diem tertium Kalendas Ianuarias*.&#xD;&#xA;The day is expressed in relation to the first day of the next month.&#xD;&#xA;This happens for all days after *Idus*.&#xD;&#xA;For more about writing dates, see [this recent question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1943/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to include the year in my date, which year is it?&#xD;&#xA;The one of the *Kalendae Ianuariae* or the one of the day itself?&#xD;&#xA;If I want to describe my plans for the end of this year, I seem to have two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On December 31, 2016 I will sleep.  &#xD;&#xA;*Pridie Ianuarias anno 2016/2017 dormiam.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess would be 2016.&#xD;&#xA;But if I used *anni* instead of *anno* instead &amp;mdash; which I find unusual but grammatical &amp;mdash; then I would choose 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which year should I choose and why?&#xD;&#xA;Have both options been in use?&#xD;&#xA;Have grammarians or other scholars commented on this issue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7072" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1949" RevisionGUID="777e9226-cd63-427a-a59a-f938044b0c2e" CreationDate="2016-11-06T00:42:33.530" UserId="79" Text="Year in dates near the end of a year" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7073" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1949" RevisionGUID="777e9226-cd63-427a-a59a-f938044b0c2e" CreationDate="2016-11-06T00:42:33.530" UserId="79" Text="|grammar-choice|time|grammarians|calendarium|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1950" RevisionGUID="58d2c941-b70f-4479-aef0-d00068dff01f" CreationDate="2016-11-06T05:38:46.697" UserId="406" Text="*Noster* can mean &quot;one of us&quot; in a symbolic way; L&amp;S mentions that *noster eris* &quot;you will be one of us&quot; was a set expression for welcoming a deserter into the army, for instance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English opposite of this would be &quot;one of *them*&quot;, but to my understanding Latin third-person pronouns are much weaker than their English equivalents. Would *eōrum* really have this connotation? Or would another word, such as *alius* or *alter*, fit better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it differently: how best to really convey the sense of other-ness in the English expression &quot;us versus them&quot;? Not necessarily *hostēs*, but people who are most definitely **not** part of the same group as the speaker." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7075" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1950" RevisionGUID="58d2c941-b70f-4479-aef0-d00068dff01f" CreationDate="2016-11-06T05:38:46.697" UserId="406" Text="&quot;Us versus them&quot; - opposite of &quot;noster&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7076" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1950" RevisionGUID="58d2c941-b70f-4479-aef0-d00068dff01f" CreationDate="2016-11-06T05:38:46.697" UserId="406" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|vocabulary|word-request|pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1948" RevisionGUID="3d7b26d2-3ca3-454a-9276-1ec6b2eae4c1" CreationDate="2016-11-06T11:19:33.537" UserId="79" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="I will split this answer in two halves, for two different kinds of date expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# On November 4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The traditional Roman calendar, whose system is still in use in some festive occasions, is based on three special days in each month:&#xD;&#xA;*Kalendae* (first day of the month), *Nonae* (fifth or seventh), and *Idus* (13th or 15th).&#xD;&#xA;The later options (7 and 15 instead of 5 and 13) were used in March, May, July, and October; in the other months *Nonae* was fifth and *Idus* thirteenth.&#xD;&#xA;All these three words are plural feminines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the date falls on one of these special days, you simply put it in ablative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- on March 1 = *Kalendis Martiis*&#xD;&#xA;- on August 5 = *Nonis Augustis*&#xD;&#xA;- on October 15 = *Idibus Octobribus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of days immediately before special days, use the word *pridies* in ablative and put the special day in accusative.&#xD;&#xA;The name of the month is that of the special day, not necessarily that of the day of interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- on February 28 (29 on leap years) = *pridie Kalendas Martias*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I have sometimes seen *postridie* used the same way for days right after a special day.&#xD;&#xA;If this method is used, then &quot;on August 6&quot; = *postridie Nonas Augustas*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For all other days, you count days to the following special day.&#xD;&#xA;As is typical in Latin, counting is inclusive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- on October 13 = *ante diem tertium Idus Octobres*&#xD;&#xA;- on October 12 = *ante diem quartum Idus Octobres*&#xD;&#xA;- on October 17 = *ante diem sextum decimum Kalendas Novembres*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these can be abbreviated, of course:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Kal. Nov.*&#xD;&#xA;- *prid. Id. Aug.*&#xD;&#xA;- *a. d. XIV Kal. Dec.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Counting days before *Kalendae Martiae* on a leap year is a bit tricky, and I will exclude it here.&#xD;&#xA;This special case and the story behind it should be taken to a separate question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contemporary Latin, it is common write things in a more simple and modern way: &quot;on January 5&quot; is simply *die quinto mensis Ianuarii*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be abbreviated further without much risk of confusion.&#xD;&#xA;The first option I propose is to leave out *die* and *mensis*, since they can be understood implicitly, leaving us with *quinto Ianuarii*.&#xD;&#xA;Another option is to take the month name (which is an adjective in Latin) to modify the numeral or the implicit *dies*, leading to *quinto Ianuario*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A year can be added by the ablative of *annus* and an ordinal numeral: *Hic situs palam factus est Idibus Martiis anno bis millesimo sexto decimo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Today is November 4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any ancient use of phrases like &quot;today is November 4&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, *pridie* is often considered an adverb since the noun *pridies* is only found in the singular ablative form used in dates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the old system can be adapted to such expressions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- today is August 5 = *hodie sunt Nonae Augustae*&#xD;&#xA;- today is March 31 = *hodie est pridies Kalendas Apriles*&#xD;&#xA;- today is October 12 = *hodie est dies quartus ante Idus Octobres*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I stress that these are not attested (as far as I know), but I consider them to be a reasonable extension of classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Notice that *hodie* is here an adverb, not the subject in the above sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the more modern variants, the construction is simple: &quot;today is August 5&quot; = *hodie est dies quintus mensis Augusti*.&#xD;&#xA;Again, ellipsis is possible if this feels to verbose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, a year can be added in a similar fashion.&#xD;&#xA;But now genitive is more appropriate than ablative: &quot;Today is [December 6 of the year 1917](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_(Finland)).&quot; = *Hodie est dies octavus ante Idus Decembres anni millesimi nongentesimi septimi decimi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me end with listing all the possibilities I offer for November 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On November 4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *pridie Nonas Novembres (prid. Non. Nov.)*&#xD;&#xA;- *die quarto mensis Novembris (die 4 mensis Nov.)*&#xD;&#xA;- *quarto Novembris (4 Nov.)*&#xD;&#xA;- *[die] quarto Novembri (4 Nov.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today is November 4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *hodie est pridies Nonas Novembres*&#xD;&#xA;- *hodie est dies quartus mensis Novembris*&#xD;&#xA;- *hodie est quartus Novembris*&#xD;&#xA;- *hodie est [dies] quartus November*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1952" RevisionGUID="0b38b75a-b62c-4dd6-8966-7beb587914ac" CreationDate="2016-11-06T14:48:36.593" UserId="386" Text="The latin aphorism, penned by Alcaeus of Mytilene,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***in vino veritas***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;does not contain any predicate. I assume that *esse* is implied but I haven't come across any other aphorisms leaving out verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it ok to leave out the verb *esse* if it is implied?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. `Nocere facile, prodesse difficile` instead of `Nocere facile est, prodesse difficile`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you also leave out other verbs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. `Homo sum, nihil humani a me alienum` instead of `Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7081" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1952" RevisionGUID="0b38b75a-b62c-4dd6-8966-7beb587914ac" CreationDate="2016-11-06T14:48:36.593" UserId="386" Text="Why is there no predicate in &quot;in vino veritas&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7082" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1952" RevisionGUID="0b38b75a-b62c-4dd6-8966-7beb587914ac" CreationDate="2016-11-06T14:48:36.593" UserId="386" Text="|verbs|predicate|esse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1953" RevisionGUID="4d38b12b-684f-47fc-b45f-3b8d5623f613" CreationDate="2016-11-06T15:40:16.153" UserId="406" Text="Yes to the first, usually no to the second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, *esse* can almost always be dropped if the meaning is clear. This is even true when it's connected to another verb form, like in a perfect passive *captus [est]* or a passive periphrastic *delenda [est]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Linguistically, this is called *zero copula*, and also appears in e.g. Russian. Consider also English headlines, such as &quot;Event [is/was] disrupted by geese&quot; or &quot;Parliament [is] in session again&quot;. Looking through a list of Latin sayings, *esse* is omitted in several others: *amicus Plato [est], sed magis amica veritas [est]*; *ars longa [est], vita brevis [est]*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other verbs generally can't be omitted in the same way; if no verb is apparent, I automatically assume a form of *esse*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1954" RevisionGUID="af202fe9-ea2c-4545-afd5-ca58707f898f" CreationDate="2016-11-06T15:40:28.687" UserId="79" Text="I don't know if &quot;us and them&quot; had the same opposing connotation in Latin than it has in English and other modern languages.&#xD;&#xA;I think the connotation was weaker if it existed, so the point might not get across.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I might use the adjective *alienus* for outsiders.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Aut noster eris aut alienus!*  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;You will be either one of us or one of them!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1946" RevisionGUID="580cff29-b7b9-4621-869c-08b2549a0898" CreationDate="2016-11-06T15:41:18.290" UserId="235" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="For questions about Roman calendars, as well as the Latin terms we use to express them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7086" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1946" RevisionGUID="580cff29-b7b9-4621-869c-08b2549a0898" CreationDate="2016-11-06T15:41:18.290" Comment="Proposed by 235 approved by 79 edit id of 145" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7087" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1952" RevisionGUID="8e4d5a26-bea3-4f1b-9e1f-29c6b552722a" CreationDate="2016-11-06T18:11:25.073" UserId="386" Comment="edited title" Text="In vino (est?) veritas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="629" RevisionGUID="71f04deb-e8fa-4584-ab30-0de6bb3389b7" CreationDate="2016-11-06T19:11:50.257" UserId="79" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="For questions concerning the interaction and influence of Greek on Latin. This includes Greek loan words, translations, or aspects of Greek literature that was read, borrowed, and imitated by the Romans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See this meta discussion for the status of Greek:&#xD;&#xA;http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/218/79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="dae60be7-8d75-4faf-a80a-878d4c54f342" CreationDate="2016-11-06T19:11:50.257" UserId="79" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="For questions concerning the interaction and influence of Greek on Latin. Also questions about only Greek are allowed, as long as it is from classical antiquity or older but not from the New Testament." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7090" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1952" RevisionGUID="06b3d91b-33bc-46bf-9ffb-f915b45499eb" CreationDate="2016-11-06T22:13:27.537" UserId="386" Comment="edited title" Text="Why is there no predicate in &quot;in vino veritas&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1955" RevisionGUID="878668be-d072-4d51-a44b-0dff66810b45" CreationDate="2016-11-06T23:26:43.490" UserId="39" Text="[Pinkster 2015][1] mentions the following observable trends regarding the omission of esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - it is more frequent with **the 3rd person** than in the 1st or 2nd;&#xD;&#xA; - it is more frequent with **present indicative** forms;&#xD;&#xA; - it is more frequent in **simple nominal sentences** etc. (see pp. 201-204 for more details).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Stolz and Schmalz][2] add that the omission of esse is regular in proverb-like statements (&quot;Sprichwörter und Sentenzen,&quot; see para 198:a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=1RKPZSUBNaMC&amp;lpg=PR15&amp;dq=laut-und%20formenlehre%20syntax%20und%20stilistik&amp;pg=PP1#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1955" RevisionGUID="1e214da0-c17f-4793-994a-bee864bda7bd" CreationDate="2016-11-06T23:53:46.443" UserId="39" Comment="added 392 characters in body" Text="[Pinkster 2015][1] mentions the following observable trends regarding the omission of esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - it is more frequent with **the 3rd person** than in the 1st or 2nd;&#xD;&#xA; - it is more frequent with **present indicative** forms;&#xD;&#xA; - it is more frequent in **simple nominal sentences** etc. (see pp. 201-204 for more details).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Stolz and Schmalz][2] add that the omission of esse is regular in proverb-like statements (&quot;Sprichwörter und Sentenzen,&quot; see para 198:a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Rubio 2009][3] goes even further by saying that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**The absence of a copulative verb**, especially in proverbial expressions and in apodiptic statements, **is a common trend in Latin of all periods**, but in the Latin Bible this is simply the norm&quot; (p. 218; empaphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=1RKPZSUBNaMC&amp;lpg=PR15&amp;dq=laut-und%20formenlehre%20syntax%20und%20stilistik&amp;pg=PP1#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110205626/9783110205626.195/9783110205626.195.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1955" RevisionGUID="e9d7a94a-e859-4298-b41b-ba38dec024fc" CreationDate="2016-11-07T00:12:45.467" UserId="39" Comment="added 494 characters in body" Text="[Pinkster 2015][1] mentions the following observable trends regarding the omission of esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - it is more frequent with **the 3rd person** than in the 1st or 2nd;&#xD;&#xA; - it is more frequent with **present indicative** forms;&#xD;&#xA; - it is more frequent in **simple nominal sentences** etc. (see pp. 201-204 for more details).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Stolz and Schmalz][2] add that the omission of esse is regular in proverb-like statements (&quot;Sprichwörter und Sentenzen,&quot; see para 198:a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Rubio 2009][3] goes even further by saying that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**The absence of a copulative verb**, especially in proverbial expressions and in apodiptic statements, **is a common trend in Latin of all periods**, but in the Latin Bible this is simply the norm&quot; (p. 218; empaphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, [Cabrillana][4] 2007 argues that even though the ellipsis of esse and some other verbs (monstror, appareo, existo etc.) is common in the contexts mentioned above, it is &quot;not always the most frequent.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the same study][5], Cabrillana reports cases of **verbal ellipsis with verbs &quot;having а full semantic content in concrete constructions.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=1RKPZSUBNaMC&amp;lpg=PR15&amp;dq=laut-und%20formenlehre%20syntax%20und%20stilistik&amp;pg=PP1#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110205626/9783110205626.195/9783110205626.195.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://usc-es.academia.edu/Concepci%C3%B3nCabrillana&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.uam.es/proyectosinv/regula/2_1_griego.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1955" RevisionGUID="6b3b998b-4e6b-4711-8367-b41fb914c788" CreationDate="2016-11-07T00:30:19.167" UserId="39" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="[Pinkster 2015][1] mentions the following observable trends regarding the omission of esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - it is more frequent with **the 3rd person** than in the 1st or 2nd;&#xD;&#xA; - it is more frequent with **present indicative** forms;&#xD;&#xA; - it is more frequent in **simple nominal sentences** etc. (see pp. 201-204 for more details).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Stolz and Schmalz][2] add that the omission of esse is regular in proverb-like statements (&quot;Sprichwörter und Sentenzen,&quot; see para 198:a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Rubio 2009][3] goes even further by saying that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**The absence of a copulative verb**, especially in proverbial expressions and in apodiptic statements, **is a common trend in Latin of all periods**, but in the Latin Bible this is simply the norm&quot; (p. 218; empaphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, [Cabrillana][4] 2007 ([la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela][5], Spain) argues that even though the ellipsis of esse and some other verbs (monstror, appareo, existo etc.) is common in the contexts mentioned above, it is &quot;not always the most frequent.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the same study][6], Cabrillana reports cases of **verbal ellipsis with verbs &quot;having а full semantic content in concrete constructions.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=1RKPZSUBNaMC&amp;lpg=PR15&amp;dq=laut-und%20formenlehre%20syntax%20und%20stilistik&amp;pg=PP1#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110205626/9783110205626.195/9783110205626.195.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://usc-es.academia.edu/Concepci%C3%B3nCabrillana&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.uam.es/proyectosinv/regula/ccabrillana_usc.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.uam.es/proyectosinv/regula/2_1_griego.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1955" RevisionGUID="e6b99b3f-c829-4d6b-bef0-8f32ade82a6c" CreationDate="2016-11-07T04:02:04.010" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="[Pinkster 2015][1] mentions the following observable trends regarding the omission of esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - it is more frequent with **the 3rd person** than in the 1st or 2nd;&#xD;&#xA; - it is more frequent with **present indicative** forms;&#xD;&#xA; - it is more frequent in **simple nominal sentences** etc. (see pp. 201-204 for more details).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Stolz and Schmalz][2] add that the omission of esse is regular in proverb-like statements (&quot;Sprichwörter und Sentenzen,&quot; see para 198:a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Rubio 2009][3] goes even further by saying that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**The absence of a copulative verb**, especially in proverbial expressions and in apodiptic statements, **is a common trend in Latin of all periods**, but in the Latin Bible this is simply the norm&quot; (p. 218; empaphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, [Cabrillana][4] 2007 ([la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela][5], Spain) argues that even though the ellipsis of esse and some other verbs (monstror, appareo, exsto etc.) is common in the contexts mentioned above, it is &quot;not always the most frequent.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the same study][6], Cabrillana reports cases of **verbal ellipsis with verbs &quot;having а full semantic content in concrete constructions.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=1RKPZSUBNaMC&amp;lpg=PR15&amp;dq=laut-und%20formenlehre%20syntax%20und%20stilistik&amp;pg=PP1#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110205626/9783110205626.195/9783110205626.195.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://usc-es.academia.edu/Concepci%C3%B3nCabrillana&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.uam.es/proyectosinv/regula/ccabrillana_usc.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.uam.es/proyectosinv/regula/2_1_griego.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1941" RevisionGUID="2abb2c44-6b2d-4508-a4d6-5fd030ca90bd" CreationDate="2016-11-07T13:51:31.680" UserId="932" Comment="added 941 characters in body" Text="For basic mathematics, I’ve found some answers in the *[Institutiones Physicæ][1]* by Floriani Dalham, published in 1752:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1+2 = 3 would be read *unus plus duo sunt tres*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Additio est duorum, vel plurium Numerorum in unum collectio. Indicatur per signum + adjectum, id est : *plus*. (…)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Dicatur : 4+2+2+7 sunt 15   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*(Caput III, p. 26)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1-2 = -1 would be read *unus minus duo sunt minus unus*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(…) indicaturque per signum -, id est : *minus*. (…)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*(Caput IV, p. 28-29)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 7*4 is read *septies quatuor* or *quater septem*  &#xD;&#xA;**Other solutions:**  &#xD;&#xA;*tres multiplicata in quattuor* (found by *brianpck* in [Liber Mahameleth][2], or in this dictionnary: *[multiplicare numerum in se][3]*)  &#xD;&#xA;According to the Valbuena Latin-Spanish dictionnary (or Jeanneau Latine-French): *multiplicare numerum cum numero*  &#xD;&#xA;[![Valbuena's definition of multiplicare][4]][4]  &#xD;&#xA;Jeanneau: *ter multiplicati quinquaginta fiunt centum quinquaginta, Aug. : cinquante multiplié par trois font cent cinquante.* (50*3=350)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; p.33&#xD;&#xA;Note: the tables of logarithms are called *tabularum Neperianarum&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(…)multiplicando 360 cum 5 prodibit numerus 1800 (…). [p.41]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 24/3 is *24 divisum per 3* [p.40] or *24 ad 3*7&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam sicut se habet 1 ad 3, ita se habent 2 ad 6. [p. 54]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A^3 is *A exponens 3* [p. 37]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cross-multiplication is regula trium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 2&gt;3: *2 majus ad 3*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;, &gt;, =: *Signum æqualitas est =. Signum similitudinis ~. &gt; notat majus ad minus. &lt; notat minus ad majus*. [p. 75]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- sqrt(2) would be *radix quadrata duorum*. [p. 101]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin version of Wikipedia can also certainly be of some help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Calculus integralis : &lt;https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrale&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Functio : &lt;https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functio&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- [Categoria:Mathematica][5]&#xD;&#xA;- etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=dvA4AAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA120&amp;dq=Manualis%20mathematicae&amp;hl=fr&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwioq9DKhZDQAhXJkCwKHa7gBFQQ6AEIHjAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=8YK9BAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;lpg=PA39&amp;dq=decem%20septies&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=9x67PhVhly&amp;sig=rYyHCjU8asdLRQoWD5x7CJnRe5Q&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=snippet&amp;q=multiplicata%20in&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=a0supv8ceRQC&amp;pg=PA880&amp;dq=dictionnaire%20latin%20multiplier&amp;hl=fr&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiT3_vr5JbQAhVGthoKHQo1AeEQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=dictionnaire%20latin%20multiplier&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O7IxQ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Mathematica" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1941" RevisionGUID="f9c9f961-ddaa-4f8f-b900-45e4afb5804d" CreationDate="2016-11-07T15:36:01.703" UserId="932" Comment="-e" Text="For basic mathematics, I’ve found some answers in the *[Institutiones Physicæ][1]* by Floriani Dalham, published in 1752:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1+2 = 3 would be read *unus plus duo sunt tres*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Additio est duorum, vel plurium Numerorum in unum collectio. Indicatur per signum + adjectum, id est : *plus*. (…)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Dicatur : 4+2+2+7 sunt 15   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*(Caput III, p. 26)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1-2 = -1 would be read *unus minus duo sunt minus unus*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(…) indicaturque per signum -, id est : *minus*. (…)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*(Caput IV, p. 28-29)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 7*4 is read *septies quatuor* or *quater septem*  &#xD;&#xA;**Other solutions:**  &#xD;&#xA;*tres multiplicata in quattuor* (found by *brianpck* in [Liber Mahameleth][2], or in this dictionnary: *[multiplicare numerum in se][3]*)  &#xD;&#xA;According to the Valbuena Latin-Spanish dictionnary (or Jeanneau Latin-French): *multiplicare numerum cum numero*  &#xD;&#xA;[![Valbuena's definition of multiplicare][4]][4]  &#xD;&#xA;Jeanneau: *ter multiplicati quinquaginta fiunt centum quinquaginta, Aug. : cinquante multiplié par trois font cent cinquante.* (50*3=350)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; p.33&#xD;&#xA;Note: the tables of logarithms are called *tabularum Neperianarum&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(…)multiplicando 360 cum 5 prodibit numerus 1800 (…). [p.41]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 24/3 is *24 divisum per 3* [p.40] or *24 ad 3*7&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam sicut se habet 1 ad 3, ita se habent 2 ad 6. [p. 54]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A^3 is *A exponens 3* [p. 37]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cross-multiplication is regula trium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 2&gt;3: *2 majus ad 3*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;, &gt;, =: *Signum æqualitas est =. Signum similitudinis ~. &gt; notat majus ad minus. &lt; notat minus ad majus*. [p. 75]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- sqrt(2) would be *radix quadrata duorum*. [p. 101]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin version of Wikipedia can also certainly be of some help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Calculus integralis : &lt;https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrale&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Functio : &lt;https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functio&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- [Categoria:Mathematica][5]&#xD;&#xA;- etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=dvA4AAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA120&amp;dq=Manualis%20mathematicae&amp;hl=fr&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwioq9DKhZDQAhXJkCwKHa7gBFQQ6AEIHjAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=8YK9BAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;lpg=PA39&amp;dq=decem%20septies&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=9x67PhVhly&amp;sig=rYyHCjU8asdLRQoWD5x7CJnRe5Q&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=snippet&amp;q=multiplicata%20in&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=a0supv8ceRQC&amp;pg=PA880&amp;dq=dictionnaire%20latin%20multiplier&amp;hl=fr&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiT3_vr5JbQAhVGthoKHQo1AeEQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=dictionnaire%20latin%20multiplier&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O7IxQ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Mathematica" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1927" RevisionGUID="3759631f-9996-4025-8108-4b2154b3d22c" CreationDate="2016-11-07T15:49:49.667" UserId="932" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="According to the *[Handbook of Medieval Culture][1]* (Albrecht Classen, vol. 2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The first written evidence considered to be Italian rather than Latin is known as the *Placiti Cassinesi*, which are four legal documents containing vernacular testimonies in an Upper Southern dialect dated to 960-963.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text of the four *placiti* has been published in *Storia della lingua italiana*, by B. Migliorini and is available on this [collection of Italian texts][2] established by Ulrich Harsch (*[Bibliotheca Augustana][3]*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sao ko kelle terre, per kelle fini que ki contene, trenta anni le possette parte sancti Benedicti.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Capua, marzo 960)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;II&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sao cco kelle terre, per kelle fini que tebe monstrai, Pergoaldi foro, que ki contene, et trenta anni le possette.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Sessa, marzo 963)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;III&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Kella terra, per kelle fini que bobe mostrai, sancte Marie è, et trenta anni la posset parte sancte Marie.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Teano, luglio 963)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;IV&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sao cco kelle terre, per kelle fini que tebe mostrai, trenta anni le possette parte sancte Marie.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Teano, ottobre 963)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **philological analysis** of this text is available on the Italian version of Wikipedia: &lt;https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placiti_cassinesi#Analisi_filologica&gt; or in *[Vers les sources des langues romanes][4]* by Eugeen Roegiest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples of differences with Latin Language**: some forms like *cco* (from *quod*), *tebe* (*tibi*) or *bobe* (*vobis*, already betacism).  &#xD;&#xA;However, there still are latinisms such as the use of the genitive in proper nouns or the n of monstrai. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, the distinction Latin-*Italian* was clearly established during the 10th century as a monk, Gunzo of Novare, wrote in 965: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;usu nostrae vulgaris linguae, quae latinitati vicina est&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An other example, according to the *[Manuel pratique de latin médiéval][5]* by [Dag Norberg][6]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In 915, on the occasion of the coronation of King Berengar I, the senate paid him homage patrio ore, &quot;in Latin,&quot; while the people honored him nativa voce, &quot;in Italian,&quot; according to the text of a song composed a few years later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Norberg, the oaths of Capoue *mark the beginning of the history of Italian literature*. Others claim that the oldest preserved Italian text is the ***[Indovinello Veronese][7]*** (please see Tom's answer). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=Uh5pCgAAQBAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/italica/Cronologia/i_crono.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/augustana.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=K7FeNc7B3EYC&amp;lpg=PA151&amp;hl=fr&amp;pg=PA151#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://homepages.wmich.edu/~johnsorh/MedievalLatin/Norberg/ital.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/8892/ALMA_1996_54_5.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/italica/Cronologia/secolo09/Indovinello/ind_intr.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1956" RevisionGUID="628208e8-25ed-4c1f-9e66-9460a13cb932" CreationDate="2016-11-07T19:22:42.967" UserId="79" Text="In today's taxonomy animals, plants and other organisms are organized in species.&#xD;&#xA;Defining a species is [no simple task](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem) for modern biologists, but we have a fair understanding of what a species typically means.&#xD;&#xA;In case of sexual reproduction, a species is defined by means of ability to produce fertile offsprings.&#xD;&#xA;There are many different groups of species, like genus, family and kingdom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did the Romans &amp;mdash; or other ancients, for that matter &amp;mdash; have any definition of a species?&#xD;&#xA;Was it just an intuitive sense of similarity, or did someone tell what they mean by a species, genus, or other taxonomic group?&#xD;&#xA;In other words, did the Romans have any taxonomic definitions?&#xD;&#xA;Any Latin passage from the antiquity discussing this matter would be great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia is quite vague and lacks citations on the early history of the concept of [a species](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the earliest works of science, a species was simply an individual organism that represented a group of similar or nearly identical organisms. No other relationships beyond that group were implied. Aristotle used the words genus and species to mean generic and specific categories. Aristotle and other pre-Darwinian scientists took the species to be distinct and unchanging, with an &quot;essence&quot;, like the chemical elements." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1956" RevisionGUID="628208e8-25ed-4c1f-9e66-9460a13cb932" CreationDate="2016-11-07T19:22:42.967" UserId="79" Text="Did the Romans have a definition for a species of organism?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7105" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1956" RevisionGUID="628208e8-25ed-4c1f-9e66-9460a13cb932" CreationDate="2016-11-07T19:22:42.967" UserId="79" Text="|science|animals|definitions|biology|scientific-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7106" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="435" RevisionGUID="454147bf-677d-4283-b63b-343fa9628c35" CreationDate="2016-11-07T19:23:24.723" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|biology|scientific-names|animals|etymology|mythology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1957" RevisionGUID="f27e936e-aa54-4d13-9b70-ec4bafd55bec" CreationDate="2016-11-07T22:36:40.293" UserId="45" Text="Many Medieval Latin hymns, such as [&quot;Noe, Noe, psallite&quot;](http://www0.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Noe,_noe_psallite_(Jean_Mouton)) by Jean Mouton (1459-1522), use the word &quot;Noe&quot; to refer to Christ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first thought was that it is related to &quot;Noel,&quot; used in many English carols like &quot;The First Noel.&quot; [Etymonline](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=noel) gives the following explanation of &quot;Noel.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; late 14c., nowel &quot;feast of Christmas,&quot; from Old French noel &quot;the Christmas season,&quot; variant of nael, **from Latin natalis (dies) &quot;birth (day),&quot; in Church Latin in reference to the birthday of Christ, from natus**, past participle of nasci &quot;be born&quot; (Old Latin gnasci; see genus). The modern word in English, with the sense &quot;a Christmas carol&quot; (1811) probably is a separate borrowing from French. As a masc. proper name, from Old French, probably literally &quot;of or born on Christmas.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;Noe&quot; has its own apparently unrelated trajectory: it is the word used for Noah in the Vulgate (cf. [Gen 5](http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/gen006.htm)), as borne out by [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Noe#Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Borrowing from Ancient Greek Νῶε ‎(Nôe), from Hebrew נֹחַ ‎(Nōaḥ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A final (speculative) etymology that comes to my mind is that &quot;Noel&quot; is a shortening of &quot;Emmanuel,&quot; which figures in Isaiah's birth prophecy (and which is hence associated with Christmas), and that &quot;Noe&quot; is just a Latinization of &quot;Noel.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. When did &quot;Noe&quot; start occurring in the context of Christ/Christmas.&#xD;&#xA;2. What is its intended meaning and origin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7108" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1957" RevisionGUID="f27e936e-aa54-4d13-9b70-ec4bafd55bec" CreationDate="2016-11-07T22:36:40.293" UserId="45" Text="Meaning of &quot;Noe&quot; in Medieval Latin carols" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7109" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1957" RevisionGUID="f27e936e-aa54-4d13-9b70-ec4bafd55bec" CreationDate="2016-11-07T22:36:40.293" UserId="45" Text="|vocabulary|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1957" RevisionGUID="bc00ee1f-f0e3-4eaf-88e2-b788568b8f44" CreationDate="2016-11-07T22:46:14.857" UserId="45" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="Many Medieval Latin hymns, such as [&quot;Noe, Noe, psallite&quot;](http://www0.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Noe,_noe_psallite_(Jean_Mouton)) by Jean Mouton (1459-1522), use the word &quot;Noe&quot; to refer to Christ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first thought was that it is related to &quot;Noel,&quot; used in many English carols like &quot;The First Noel.&quot; [Etymonline](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=noel) gives the following explanation of &quot;Noel.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; late 14c., nowel &quot;feast of Christmas,&quot; from Old French noel &quot;the Christmas season,&quot; variant of nael, **from Latin natalis (dies) &quot;birth (day),&quot; in Church Latin in reference to the birthday of Christ, from natus**, past participle of nasci &quot;be born&quot; (Old Latin gnasci; see genus). The modern word in English, with the sense &quot;a Christmas carol&quot; (1811) probably is a separate borrowing from French. As a masc. proper name, from Old French, probably literally &quot;of or born on Christmas.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meaning doesn't seem to justify its use with reference to a *person*, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;Noe&quot; has its own apparently unrelated trajectory: it is the word used for Noah in the Vulgate (cf. [Gen 5](http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/gen006.htm)), as borne out by [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Noe#Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Borrowing from Ancient Greek Νῶε ‎(Nôe), from Hebrew נֹחַ ‎(Nōaḥ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A final (speculative) etymology that comes to my mind is that &quot;Noel&quot; is a shortening of &quot;Emmanuel,&quot; which figures in Isaiah's birth prophecy (and which is hence associated with Christmas), and that &quot;Noe&quot; is just a Latinization of &quot;Noel.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. When did &quot;Noe&quot; start occurring in the context of Christ/Christmas.&#xD;&#xA;2. What is its intended meaning and origin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1957" RevisionGUID="089e7b59-2d84-4373-af65-345cd9da0442" CreationDate="2016-11-08T01:36:19.887" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 77 characters in body" Text="Many Medieval Latin hymns, such as [&quot;Noe, Noe, psallite&quot;](http://www0.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Noe,_noe_psallite_(Jean_Mouton)) by Jean Mouton (1459-1522), use the word &quot;Noe&quot; in the context of Christmas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first thought was that it is related to &quot;Noel,&quot; used in many English carols like &quot;The First Noel.&quot; [Etymonline](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=noel) gives the following explanation of &quot;Noel.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; late 14c., nowel &quot;feast of Christmas,&quot; from Old French noel &quot;the Christmas season,&quot; variant of nael, **from Latin natalis (dies) &quot;birth (day),&quot; in Church Latin in reference to the birthday of Christ, from natus**, past participle of nasci &quot;be born&quot; (Old Latin gnasci; see genus). The modern word in English, with the sense &quot;a Christmas carol&quot; (1811) probably is a separate borrowing from French. As a masc. proper name, from Old French, probably literally &quot;of or born on Christmas.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;Noe&quot; has its own apparently unrelated trajectory: it is the word used for Noah in the Vulgate (cf. [Gen 5](http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/gen006.htm)), as borne out by [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Noe#Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Borrowing from Ancient Greek Νῶε ‎(Nôe), from Hebrew נֹחַ ‎(Nōaḥ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A final (speculative) etymology that comes to my mind is that &quot;Noel&quot; is a shortening of &quot;Emmanuel,&quot; which figures in Isaiah's birth prophecy (and which is hence associated with Christmas), and that &quot;Noe&quot; is just a Latinization of &quot;Noel.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. When did &quot;Noe&quot; start occurring in the context of Christ/Christmas.&#xD;&#xA;2. What is its intended meaning and origin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1956" RevisionGUID="bde3a7ce-5414-485b-ab13-0b9636954491" CreationDate="2016-11-08T18:09:39.427" UserId="79" Comment="Added italics to the quote." Text="In today's taxonomy animals, plants and other organisms are organized in species.&#xD;&#xA;Defining a species is [no simple task](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem) for modern biologists, but we have a fair understanding of what a species typically means.&#xD;&#xA;In case of sexual reproduction, a species is defined by means of ability to produce fertile offsprings.&#xD;&#xA;There are many different groups of species, like genus, family and kingdom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did the Romans &amp;mdash; or other ancients, for that matter &amp;mdash; have any definition of a species?&#xD;&#xA;Was it just an intuitive sense of similarity, or did someone tell what they mean by a species, genus, or other taxonomic group?&#xD;&#xA;In other words, did the Romans have any taxonomic definitions?&#xD;&#xA;Any Latin passage from the antiquity discussing this matter would be great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia is quite vague and lacks citations on the early history of the concept of [a species](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the earliest works of science, a species was simply an individual organism that represented a group of similar or nearly identical organisms. No other relationships beyond that group were implied. Aristotle used the words *genus* and *species* to mean generic and specific categories. Aristotle and other pre-Darwinian scientists took the species to be distinct and unchanging, with an &quot;essence&quot;, like the chemical elements." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1958" RevisionGUID="7ac8c6c6-9d59-4213-9da5-7d874e198149" CreationDate="2016-11-08T22:27:22.427" UserId="932" Text="As Aristotle is generally considered as the father of biology — Darwin wrote: “*Linnaeus and Cuvier have been my two gods… but they were mere school-boys to old Aristotle*.” (in a letter to W. Ogle, 1882) —, it is logical to search for such a definition in his works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Pierre Pellegrin (in particular in *Une zoologie sans espèce*, 1984), the definition isn’t the goal of Aristotle’s biology, however we can note two passages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- where Aristotle defines the genus by the resemblance:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(*[PA][1]*, 645a {{[fr][1]}}) […] Σχεδὸν δὲ τοῖς σχήμασι τῶν μορίων καὶ τοῦ σώματος ὅλου, ἐὰν ὁμοιότητα ἔχωσιν, ὥρισται τὰ γένη, οἷον τὸ τῶν ὀρνίθων γένος πρὸς αὐτὰ πέπονθε καὶ τὸ τῶν ἰχθύων καὶ τὰ μαλάκιά τε καὶ τὰ ὄστρεια. Τὰ γὰρ μόρια διαφέρουσι τούτων οὐ τῇ ἀνάλογον ὁμοιότητι, οἷον ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ ἰχθύϊ πέπονθεν ὀστοῦν πρὸς ἄκανθαν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τοῖς σωματικοῖς πάθεσιν, οἷον μεγέθει μικρότητι, μαλακότητι σκληρότητι, λειότητι τραχύτητι καὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις, ὅλως δὲ τῷ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- and where he proposes a determination of **species** from a combination of parties:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(*Politics*, [1290b25-37][2] {{[en][3]}}) [25] ὥσπερ οὖν εἰ ζῴου προῃρούμεθα λαβεῖν εἴδη, πρῶτον ἂν ἀποδιωρίζομεν ἅπερ ἀναγκαῖον πᾶν ἔχειν ζῷον (οἷον ἔνιά τε τῶν αἰσθητηρίων καὶ τὸ τῆς τροφῆς ἐργαστικὸν καὶ δεκτικόν, οἷον στόμα καὶ κοιλίαν, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις, οἷς κινεῖται μορίοις ἕκαστον αὐτῶν)· εἰ δὲ τοσαῦτα εἴη μόνον, τούτων δ᾽ εἶεν [30] διαφοραί (λέγω δ᾽ οἷον στόματός τινα πλείω γένη καὶ κοιλίας καὶ τῶν αἰσθητηρίων, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῶν κινητικῶν μορίων), ὁ τῆς συζεύξεως τῆς τούτων ἀριθμὸς ἐξ ἀνάγκης ποιήσει πλείω γένη ζῴων (οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε ταὐτὸν ζῷον ἔχειν πλείους στόματος διαφοράς, ὁμοίως δὲ οὐδ᾽ ὤτων), ὥσθ᾽ ὅταν ληφθῶσι [35] τούτων πάντες οἱ ἐνδεχόμενοι συνδυασμοί, ποιήσουσιν εἴδη ζῴου, καὶ τοσαῦτ᾽ εἴδη τοῦ ζῴου ὅσαι περ αἱ συζεύξεις τῶν ἀναγκαίων μορίων εἰσίν τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον καὶ τῶν εἰρημένων πολιτειῶν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way of defining species seems to be the one involved in the *History of Animals* (I-1, e.g. [486b22][4] {{[fr][5]}}):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…] ὁμοίως γὰρ ὥσπερ τὸ ὅλον ἔχει πρὸς τὸ ὅλον, καὶ τῶν μορίων ἔχει ἕκαστον πρὸς ἕκαστον. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It’s by the comparison and the resemblance that Aristotle seems to define species, as in PA 639a18-19 where he exposes his method. So we can assume it is very near from modern definitions of species, e.g. like that of Cuvier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The word species means *those individuals who descend from one another or from common parents and those who resemble them as much as they resemble each other.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Recherches sur les ossements fossiles de quadrupèdes* (Discours préliminaire), 1812&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[*…les individus qui descendent les uns des autres ou de parents communs et ceux qui leur ressemblent autant qu’ils se ressemblent entre eux.*], translated by F. Zachos, in *[Species Concepts in Biology][6]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;#Some interesting references&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve used the first one for this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ***[Aristote zoologue][7]***, René Lefebvre  &#xD;&#xA;A very interesting article, based on works by **D. Balme** and **P. Pellegrin**, however it’s in French.&#xD;&#xA;- *[Aristotle's Biology][8]*, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy  &#xD;&#xA;Not specifically about species definition, but interesting yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, just after having finished to write this answer, this book:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Defining Species: A Sourcebook from Antiquity to Today][9]*, John S. Wilkins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/Aristote/partieslivre1.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k378518d/f244.item.r=aristote,%20politica.zoom&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/6762/6762-h/6762-h.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/Aristote/animaux1gr.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/Aristote/animaux1.htm#14&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=dNU0DQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA26&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.buffon.cnrs.fr/etudes/pdf/aristote-zoologue.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-biology/#Bio&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=pazpr2vJxQAC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1959" RevisionGUID="cf2d458e-d771-4034-9e0c-1fb9e81d165e" CreationDate="2016-11-08T22:58:41.400" UserId="932" Text="According to [this dictionnary][1] or [this one][2], both are translated by ***prælector***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis&amp;Short gives then this definition of *prælector*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; praelector, ōris, m. id., one who reads an author to others and adds explanations, a prelector (post-class.; cf.: lector, recitator), Gell. 18, 5, 6.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Cassel's dictionary][4] proposes ***scholasticus*** as *a lecturer in the schools, teacher of rhetoric, rhetorician.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, [this dictionary][3] accepts *professor* for lecturer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=hOMTAAAAYAAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=dM0GAQAAIAAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=qZtgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PT932&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=Pz9aAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA383" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1958" RevisionGUID="1acf2f20-91a6-4c13-a949-889aac6b6e05" CreationDate="2016-11-08T23:02:08.050" UserId="932" Comment="added 420 characters in body" Text="As Aristotle is generally considered as the father of biology — Darwin wrote: “*Linnaeus and Cuvier have been my two gods… but they were mere school-boys to old Aristotle*.” (in a letter to W. Ogle, 1882) —, it is logical to search for such a definition in his works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Pierre Pellegrin (in particular in *Une zoologie sans espèce*, 1984), the definition isn’t the goal of Aristotle’s biology, however we can note two passages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- where Aristotle defines the genus by the resemblance:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(*[PA][1]*, 645a {{[fr][1]}}) […] Σχεδὸν δὲ τοῖς σχήμασι τῶν μορίων καὶ τοῦ σώματος ὅλου, ἐὰν ὁμοιότητα ἔχωσιν, ὥρισται τὰ γένη, οἷον τὸ τῶν ὀρνίθων γένος πρὸς αὐτὰ πέπονθε καὶ τὸ τῶν ἰχθύων καὶ τὰ μαλάκιά τε καὶ τὰ ὄστρεια. Τὰ γὰρ μόρια διαφέρουσι τούτων οὐ τῇ ἀνάλογον ὁμοιότητι, οἷον ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ ἰχθύϊ πέπονθεν ὀστοῦν πρὸς ἄκανθαν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τοῖς σωματικοῖς πάθεσιν, οἷον μεγέθει μικρότητι, μαλακότητι σκληρότητι, λειότητι τραχύτητι καὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις, ὅλως δὲ τῷ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- and where he proposes a determination of **species** from a combination of parties:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(*Politics*, [1290b25-37][2] {{[en][3]}}) [25] ὥσπερ οὖν εἰ ζῴου προῃρούμεθα λαβεῖν εἴδη, πρῶτον ἂν ἀποδιωρίζομεν ἅπερ ἀναγκαῖον πᾶν ἔχειν ζῷον (οἷον ἔνιά τε τῶν αἰσθητηρίων καὶ τὸ τῆς τροφῆς ἐργαστικὸν καὶ δεκτικόν, οἷον στόμα καὶ κοιλίαν, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις, οἷς κινεῖται μορίοις ἕκαστον αὐτῶν)· εἰ δὲ τοσαῦτα εἴη μόνον, τούτων δ᾽ εἶεν [30] διαφοραί (λέγω δ᾽ οἷον στόματός τινα πλείω γένη καὶ κοιλίας καὶ τῶν αἰσθητηρίων, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῶν κινητικῶν μορίων), ὁ τῆς συζεύξεως τῆς τούτων ἀριθμὸς ἐξ ἀνάγκης ποιήσει πλείω γένη ζῴων (οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε ταὐτὸν ζῷον ἔχειν πλείους στόματος διαφοράς, ὁμοίως δὲ οὐδ᾽ ὤτων), ὥσθ᾽ ὅταν ληφθῶσι [35] τούτων πάντες οἱ ἐνδεχόμενοι συνδυασμοί, ποιήσουσιν εἴδη ζῴου, καὶ τοσαῦτ᾽ εἴδη τοῦ ζῴου ὅσαι περ αἱ συζεύξεις τῶν ἀναγκαίων μορίων εἰσίν τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον καὶ τῶν εἰρημένων πολιτειῶν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way of defining species seems to be the one involved in the *History of Animals* (I-1, e.g. [486b22][4] {{[fr][5]}}):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…] ὁμοίως γὰρ ὥσπερ τὸ ὅλον ἔχει πρὸς τὸ ὅλον, καὶ τῶν μορίων ἔχει ἕκαστον πρὸς ἕκαστον. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It’s by the comparison and the resemblance that Aristotle seems to define species, as in PA 639a18-19 where he exposes his method. So we can assume it is very near from modern definitions of species, e.g. like that of Cuvier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The word species means *those individuals who descend from one another or from common parents and those who resemble them as much as they resemble each other.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Recherches sur les ossements fossiles de quadrupèdes* (Discours préliminaire), 1812&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[*…les individus qui descendent les uns des autres ou de parents communs et ceux qui leur ressemblent autant qu’ils se ressemblent entre eux.*], translated by F. Zachos, in *[Species Concepts in Biology][6]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;#Some interesting references&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve used the first one for this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ***[Aristote zoologue][7]***, René Lefebvre  &#xD;&#xA;A very interesting article, based on works by **D. Balme** and **P. Pellegrin**, however it’s in French.&#xD;&#xA;- *[Aristotle's Biology][8]*, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy  &#xD;&#xA;Not specifically about species definition, but interesting yet.&#xD;&#xA;- *[The Species Problem: A Philosophical Analysis][9]*, Richards A. Richards  &#xD;&#xA;For a discussion of the many meanings of εἶδος in Aristotle’s works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. As enmattered form (the *appearance*, the *shape of the body*, already in Homer);&#xD;&#xA;3. As principles of development and organization (this sense originated with Aristotle);&#xD;&#xA;1. A logical sense of *εἶδος*, as *logical universals*, from the Pythagoreans and Plato.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, just after having finished to write this answer, this book:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Defining Species: A Sourcebook from Antiquity to Today][10]*, John S. Wilkins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/Aristote/partieslivre1.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k378518d/f244.item.r=aristote,%20politica.zoom&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/6762/6762-h/6762-h.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/Aristote/animaux1gr.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/Aristote/animaux1.htm#14&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=dNU0DQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA26&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.buffon.cnrs.fr/etudes/pdf/aristote-zoologue.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-biology/#Bio&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=UzCB656NilUC&amp;pg=PA28&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=pazpr2vJxQAC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1958" RevisionGUID="db272730-98c6-464f-b97c-0beaed98637d" CreationDate="2016-11-09T16:27:14.377" UserId="932" Comment="trnaslates" Text="As Aristotle is generally considered as the father of biology — Darwin wrote: “*Linnaeus and Cuvier have been my two gods… but they were mere school-boys to old Aristotle*.” (in a letter to W. Ogle, 1882) —, it is logical to search for such a definition in his works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Pierre Pellegrin (in particular in *Une zoologie sans espèce*, 1984), the definition isn’t the goal of Aristotle’s biology, however we can note two passages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- where Aristotle defines the genus by the resemblance:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(*[PA][1]*, 645a {{[fr][1]}}) […] Σχεδὸν δὲ τοῖς σχήμασι τῶν μορίων καὶ τοῦ σώματος ὅλου, ἐὰν ὁμοιότητα ἔχωσιν, ὥρισται τὰ γένη, οἷον τὸ τῶν ὀρνίθων γένος πρὸς αὐτὰ πέπονθε καὶ τὸ τῶν ἰχθύων καὶ τὰ μαλάκιά τε καὶ τὰ ὄστρεια. Τὰ γὰρ μόρια διαφέρουσι τούτων οὐ τῇ ἀνάλογον ὁμοιότητι, οἷον ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ ἰχθύϊ πέπονθεν ὀστοῦν πρὸς ἄκανθαν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τοῖς σωματικοῖς πάθεσιν, οἷον μεγέθει μικρότητι, μαλακότητι σκληρότητι, λειότητι τραχύτητι καὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις, ὅλως δὲ τῷ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Translation (W. Ogle):  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*It is generally similarity in the shape of particular organs, or of the whole body, that has determined the formation of the larger groups. It is in virtue of such a similarity that Birds, Fishes, Cephalopoda, and Testacea have been made to form each a separate class. For within the limits of each such class, the parts do not differ in that they have no nearer resemblance than that of analogy-such as exists between the bone of man and the spine of fish-but differ merely in respect of such corporeal conditions as largeness smallness, softness hardness, smoothness roughness, and other similar oppositions, or, in one word, in respect of degree.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- and where he proposes a determination of **species** from a combination of parties:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(*Politics*, [1290b25-37][2] {{[en][3]}}) […] [25] ὥσπερ οὖν εἰ ζῴου προῃρούμεθα λαβεῖν εἴδη, πρῶτον ἂν ἀποδιωρίζομεν ἅπερ ἀναγκαῖον πᾶν ἔχειν ζῷον (οἷον ἔνιά τε τῶν αἰσθητηρίων καὶ τὸ τῆς τροφῆς ἐργαστικὸν καὶ δεκτικόν, οἷον στόμα καὶ κοιλίαν, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις, οἷς κινεῖται μορίοις ἕκαστον αὐτῶν)· εἰ δὲ τοσαῦτα εἴη μόνον, τούτων δ᾽ εἶεν [30] διαφοραί (λέγω δ᾽ οἷον στόματός τινα πλείω γένη καὶ κοιλίας καὶ τῶν αἰσθητηρίων, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῶν κινητικῶν μορίων), ὁ τῆς συζεύξεως τῆς τούτων ἀριθμὸς ἐξ ἀνάγκης ποιήσει πλείω γένη ζῴων (οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε ταὐτὸν ζῷον ἔχειν πλείους στόματος διαφοράς, ὁμοίως δὲ οὐδ᾽ ὤτων), ὥσθ᾽ ὅταν ληφθῶσι [35] τούτων πάντες οἱ ἐνδεχόμενοι συνδυασμοί, ποιήσουσιν εἴδη ζῴου, καὶ τοσαῦτ᾽ εἴδη τοῦ ζῴου ὅσαι περ αἱ συζεύξεις τῶν ἀναγκαίων μορίων εἰσίν τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον καὶ τῶν εἰρημένων πολιτειῶν.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Translation ([William Ellis][4]):  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*[…] thus, if we should endeavour to comprehend the different species of animals we should first of all note those parts which every animal must have, as a certain sensorium, and also what is necessary to acquire and retain food, as a mouth and a belly; besides certain parts to enable it to move from place to place. If, then, these are the only parts of an animal and there are differences between them; namely, in their various sorts of stomachs, bellies, and sensoriums: to which we must add their motive powers; the number of the combinations of all these must necessarily make up the different species of animals. For it is not possible that the same kind of animal should have any very great difference in its mouth or ears; so that when all these are collected, who happen to have these things similar in all, they make up a species of animals of which there are as many as there are of these general combinations of necessary parts.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way of defining species seems to be the one involved in the *History of Animals* (I-1, e.g. [486b22][5] {{[fr][6]}}):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…] ὁμοίως γὰρ ὥσπερ τὸ ὅλον ἔχει πρὸς τὸ ὅλον, καὶ τῶν μορίων ἔχει ἕκαστον πρὸς ἕκαστον. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Translation ([Pierre Pellegrin][7]):  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*According to the parts that each of the animals possesses, that is how they are simultaneously other and the same.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It’s by the comparison and the resemblance that Aristotle seems to define species, as in PA 639a18-19 where he exposes his method. So we can assume it is very near from modern definitions of species, e.g. like that of Cuvier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The word species means *those individuals who descend from one another or from common parents and those who resemble them as much as they resemble each other.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Recherches sur les ossements fossiles de quadrupèdes* (Discours préliminaire), 1812&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[*…les individus qui descendent les uns des autres ou de parents communs et ceux qui leur ressemblent autant qu’ils se ressemblent entre eux.*], translated by F. Zachos, in *[Species Concepts in Biology][8]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;#Some interesting references&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve used the first one for this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ***[Aristote zoologue][9]***, René Lefebvre  &#xD;&#xA;A very interesting article, based on works by **D. Balme** and **P. Pellegrin**, however it’s in French.&#xD;&#xA;- *[Aristotle's Biology][10]*, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy  &#xD;&#xA;Not specifically about species definition, but interesting yet.&#xD;&#xA;- *[The Species Problem: A Philosophical Analysis][11]*, Richards A. Richards  &#xD;&#xA;For a discussion of the many meanings of εἶδος in Aristotle’s works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. As enmattered form (the *appearance*, the *shape of the body*, already in Homer);&#xD;&#xA;3. As principles of development and organization (this sense originated with Aristotle);&#xD;&#xA;1. A logical sense of *εἶδος*, as *logical universals*, from the Pythagoreans and Plato.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, just after having finished to write this answer, this book:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Defining Species: A Sourcebook from Antiquity to Today][12]*, John S. Wilkins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/Aristote/partieslivre1.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k378518d/f244.item.r=aristote,%20politica.zoom&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/6762/6762-h/6762-h.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Politics_(Ellis)/Book_4#CHAPTER_IV&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/Aristote/animaux1gr.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/Aristote/animaux1.htm#14&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=XrVrKrt3fPYC&amp;pg=PA117&amp;dq=On%20the%20Parts%20of%20Animals%20486b22&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=dNU0DQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA26&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.buffon.cnrs.fr/etudes/pdf/aristote-zoologue.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-biology/#Bio&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=UzCB656NilUC&amp;pg=PA28&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=pazpr2vJxQAC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1960" RevisionGUID="b928e135-ea09-4a6e-adcb-c80aff3b50aa" CreationDate="2016-11-09T19:36:04.857" UserId="79" Text="Some conjunctive forms end in *-im* (and *-is, -it, -imus, -itis, -int*), but this is rare.&#xD;&#xA;The examples I recall are *sim, possim, velim, nolim, malim*, and *duim* (alternative to *dem*).&#xD;&#xA;These forms are sometimes explained to derive from an optative mood which Latin has lost and whose functions were absorbed into the conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;The grammars I have seen do not discuss the optative, perhaps because it seems to have survived in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;By this I mean that no classical Latin word seems to contrast optative and conjunctive morphologically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like know more about the optative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Did all verbs have optative forms? Were the endings always the ones I listed above?&#xD;&#xA;- Did optative and conjunctive coexist and have distinct roles and forms?&#xD;&#xA;- Do we know how the optative endings were attached to regular verbs like *amare*, *videre*, *trahere*, *capere*, and *audire*?&#xD;&#xA;- How was the optative used? I assume that it was used to express positive and negative wishes, but I am not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the question is: **What was the old optative like (if there was one)?**&#xD;&#xA;Answers don't need to be overly detailed; I can ask for further details in follow-up questions.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a big picture here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia gives a [short description of the Latin optative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optative_mood#Latin) with no citations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Likewise in Latin, the newer subjunctive is based on the Indo-European optative. With this change in Latin, several old subjunctive forms became future forms. Accordingly, the prohibitive (negative desire and prohibition) was formed with the combination of *ne* + verb form in the optative present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I mean optative forms, not the optative function of the conjunctive (*coniunctivus optativus*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7118" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1960" RevisionGUID="b928e135-ea09-4a6e-adcb-c80aff3b50aa" CreationDate="2016-11-09T19:36:04.857" UserId="79" Text="What is the optative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7119" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1960" RevisionGUID="b928e135-ea09-4a6e-adcb-c80aff3b50aa" CreationDate="2016-11-09T19:36:04.857" UserId="79" Text="|language-evolution|verbs|morphology|conjunctive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1961" RevisionGUID="81ebba62-8d27-4c73-b5c1-ce5757a2a58c" CreationDate="2016-11-10T02:09:19.603" UserId="962" Text="Rupes recta is the name given to a feature on the Moon. This feature is also known as the straight wall or straight cliff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is rupes recta the correct Latin phrase for straight wall or straight cliff?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase may have originated during the 1600s.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7123" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1961" RevisionGUID="81ebba62-8d27-4c73-b5c1-ce5757a2a58c" CreationDate="2016-11-10T02:09:19.603" UserId="962" Text="Rupes Recta, The Straight Wall, Correct Translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7124" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1961" RevisionGUID="81ebba62-8d27-4c73-b5c1-ce5757a2a58c" CreationDate="2016-11-10T02:09:19.603" UserId="962" Text="|translation|science|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1962" RevisionGUID="ee7e01b9-4dbb-4791-b982-abcf58bdfbd2" CreationDate="2016-11-10T05:40:48.503" UserId="406" Text="Yes, depending on the type of wall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Rūpēs, -is*][1] is a third-declension feminine noun derived from *rumpō* &quot;break, split&quot;. It means a rock which is split apart or has a smooth face; I've seen it translated as &quot;cliff&quot;, &quot;canyon&quot;, or just plain &quot;rock&quot; (e.g. *rūpēs Tarpeia* is &quot;the Tarpeian Rock&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Rectus, -a, -um*][2] started as the past participle of *regō* &quot;to keep straight&quot;. Eventually *rectus* became more popular than *regō*, so it's often analyzed as an independent adjective meaning &quot;straight, perpendicular, horizontal; correct, accurate, proper&quot;. Compare English &quot;rectify&quot;, &quot;correct&quot;, &quot;rectangle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the looks of it, the *Rūpēs Recta* on the moon is definitely a smooth rock face, and is definitely (kind of) straight, so the name seems appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Drupes&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Drego" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1963" RevisionGUID="8a6f5a2c-032d-4a66-9138-75f3b3b36678" CreationDate="2016-11-10T06:01:36.067" UserId="721" Text="I'd like some clarification on which cases are appropriate during the use of the word &quot;quam&quot; with comparatives. I'm teaching Jenney's First-Year Latin (1990).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Lesson 37 (page 426 of the 1990 edition), the book tries to explain the use of the comparative adjective with quam. The &quot;quam&quot; section follows the partitive genitive with comparatives/superlatives and precedes the section on ablative of degree of difference with comparatives/superlatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;quam&quot; section explains that the words on either side of the &quot;quam&quot; need to have the same case. It provides a couple of examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Nullius virginis pulchrioris quam illius memini.* (I remember no maiden more beautiful than she.)  &#xD;&#xA;2. *Regi mulo clariori quam tibi paret.* (He obeys a king much more famous than you.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first example, the verb takes a genitive object, which explains why &quot;pulchrioris&quot; and &quot;illius&quot; are both dative. In the second example, the verb takes a dative object, which explains why &quot;clariori&quot; and &quot;tibi&quot; both need to be dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Jenney text doesn't explain the format, and thus my students immediately assumed that any time &quot;quam&quot; shows up, the neighboring words will be dative or genitive. The clever ones even tried to connect the &quot;quam&quot; section with the preceding partitive genitive section, which is not appropriate in either of the given sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, my perplexation began. Not two pages later, the Lesson 37 Practices ask us to translate into Latin these two sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The book's questions:**  &#xD;&#xA;1. I am more like you than he.  &#xD;&#xA;2. I am more like you than him.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My hypothesized translations:**  &#xD;&#xA;1. Similior tu quam is sum.  &#xD;&#xA;2. Similior te quam eum sum.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suspect that the &quot;you&quot; would need to be a predicate nominative in the first sentence.  &#xD;&#xA;I would also suspect that the &quot;you&quot; in the second sentence be a predicate nominative that switches to match the &quot;eum&quot; due to the &quot;both sides of quam need to match&quot; rule.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, here are **the answer-key's translations:**  &#xD;&#xA;1. Similior tui quam ille sum.  &#xD;&#xA;2. Similior tui quam illius sum.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Why are they using the genitive? Why don't both sides of the &quot;quam&quot; agree?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7127" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1963" RevisionGUID="8a6f5a2c-032d-4a66-9138-75f3b3b36678" CreationDate="2016-11-10T06:01:36.067" UserId="721" Text="Jenney's First Year Latin, Lesson 37, comparatives with &quot;quam&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7128" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1963" RevisionGUID="8a6f5a2c-032d-4a66-9138-75f3b3b36678" CreationDate="2016-11-10T06:01:36.067" UserId="721" Text="|classical-latin|comparative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1960" RevisionGUID="cc7583a8-7d64-485c-9c05-ca64c1e6cc0f" CreationDate="2016-11-10T06:56:44.930" UserId="79" Comment="added 165 characters in body" Text="Some conjunctive forms end in *-im* (and *-is, -it, -imus, -itis, -int*), but this is rare.&#xD;&#xA;The examples I recall are *sim, possim, velim, nolim, malim*, and *duim* (alternative to *dem*).&#xD;&#xA;These forms are sometimes explained to derive from an optative mood which Latin has lost and whose functions were absorbed into the conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;The grammars I have seen do not discuss the optative, perhaps because it seems not to have survived in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;By this I mean that no classical Latin word seems to contrast optative and conjunctive morphologically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like know more about the optative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Did all verbs have optative forms? Were the endings always the ones I listed above?&#xD;&#xA;- Did optative and conjunctive coexist and have distinct roles and forms?&#xD;&#xA;- Do we know how the optative endings were attached to regular verbs like *amare*, *videre*, *trahere*, *capere*, and *audire*?&#xD;&#xA;- How was the optative used? I assume that it was used to express positive and negative wishes, but I am not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the question is: **What was the old optative like in Latin (if there was one)?**&#xD;&#xA;(If there never was an optative in Latin and it has to be traced back to PIE, then &amp;mdash; but only then &amp;mdash; I am interested in the PIE optative.)&#xD;&#xA;Answers don't need to be overly detailed; I can ask for further details in follow-up questions.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a big picture here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia gives a [short description of the Latin optative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optative_mood#Latin) with no citations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Likewise in Latin, the newer subjunctive is based on the Indo-European optative. With this change in Latin, several old subjunctive forms became future forms. Accordingly, the prohibitive (negative desire and prohibition) was formed with the combination of *ne* + verb form in the optative present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I mean optative forms, not the optative function of the conjunctive (*coniunctivus optativus*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1961" RevisionGUID="ff63e80b-9a4d-4b71-a349-22decf0ce549" CreationDate="2016-11-10T08:11:45.150" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="*Rupes recta* is the name given to a feature on the Moon. This feature is also known as the straight wall or straight cliff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is *rupes recta* the correct Latin phrase for straight wall or straight cliff?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase may have originated during the 1600s.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7131" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1961" RevisionGUID="ff63e80b-9a4d-4b71-a349-22decf0ce549" CreationDate="2016-11-10T08:11:45.150" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation|new-latin|science|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1963" RevisionGUID="07b3eca1-7a6d-4257-bdcb-fa86214eaa83" CreationDate="2016-11-10T08:14:46.690" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected a typo and added tags." Text="I'd like some clarification on which cases are appropriate during the use of the word &quot;quam&quot; with comparatives. I'm teaching Jenney's First-Year Latin (1990).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Lesson 37 (page 426 of the 1990 edition), the book tries to explain the use of the comparative adjective with quam. The &quot;quam&quot; section follows the partitive genitive with comparatives/superlatives and precedes the section on ablative of degree of difference with comparatives/superlatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;quam&quot; section explains that the words on either side of the &quot;quam&quot; need to have the same case. It provides a couple of examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Nullius virginis pulchrioris quam illius memini.* (I remember no maiden more beautiful than she.)  &#xD;&#xA;2. *Regi mulo clariori quam tibi paret.* (He obeys a king much more famous than you.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first example, the verb takes a genitive object, which explains why &quot;pulchrioris&quot; and &quot;illius&quot; are both genitive. In the second example, the verb takes a dative object, which explains why &quot;clariori&quot; and &quot;tibi&quot; both need to be dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Jenney text doesn't explain the format, and thus my students immediately assumed that any time &quot;quam&quot; shows up, the neighboring words will be dative or genitive. The clever ones even tried to connect the &quot;quam&quot; section with the preceding partitive genitive section, which is not appropriate in either of the given sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, my perplexation began. Not two pages later, the Lesson 37 Practices ask us to translate into Latin these two sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The book's questions:**  &#xD;&#xA;1. I am more like you than he.  &#xD;&#xA;2. I am more like you than him.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My hypothesized translations:**  &#xD;&#xA;1. Similior tu quam is sum.  &#xD;&#xA;2. Similior te quam eum sum.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suspect that the &quot;you&quot; would need to be a predicate nominative in the first sentence.  &#xD;&#xA;I would also suspect that the &quot;you&quot; in the second sentence be a predicate nominative that switches to match the &quot;eum&quot; due to the &quot;both sides of quam need to match&quot; rule.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, here are **the answer-key's translations:**  &#xD;&#xA;1. Similior tui quam ille sum.  &#xD;&#xA;2. Similior tui quam illius sum.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Why are they using the genitive? Why don't both sides of the &quot;quam&quot; agree?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7133" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1963" RevisionGUID="07b3eca1-7a6d-4257-bdcb-fa86214eaa83" CreationDate="2016-11-10T08:14:46.690" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected a typo and added tags." Text="|classical-latin|syntax|agreement|comparative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1958" RevisionGUID="64a73b45-f022-428f-93f0-7a79ecddf482" CreationDate="2016-11-10T12:53:25.050" UserId="932" Comment="title in prevision of further edits" Text="#Aristotle&#xD;&#xA;As Aristotle is generally considered as the father of biology — Darwin wrote: “*Linnaeus and Cuvier have been my two gods… but they were mere school-boys to old Aristotle*.” (in a letter to W. Ogle, 1882) —, it is logical to search for such a definition in his works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Pierre Pellegrin (in particular in *Une zoologie sans espèce*, 1984), the definition isn’t the goal of Aristotle’s biology, however we can note two passages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- where Aristotle defines the genus by the resemblance:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(*[PA][1]*, 645a {{[fr][1]}}) […] Σχεδὸν δὲ τοῖς σχήμασι τῶν μορίων καὶ τοῦ σώματος ὅλου, ἐὰν ὁμοιότητα ἔχωσιν, ὥρισται τὰ γένη, οἷον τὸ τῶν ὀρνίθων γένος πρὸς αὐτὰ πέπονθε καὶ τὸ τῶν ἰχθύων καὶ τὰ μαλάκιά τε καὶ τὰ ὄστρεια. Τὰ γὰρ μόρια διαφέρουσι τούτων οὐ τῇ ἀνάλογον ὁμοιότητι, οἷον ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ ἰχθύϊ πέπονθεν ὀστοῦν πρὸς ἄκανθαν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τοῖς σωματικοῖς πάθεσιν, οἷον μεγέθει μικρότητι, μαλακότητι σκληρότητι, λειότητι τραχύτητι καὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις, ὅλως δὲ τῷ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Translation (W. Ogle):  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*It is generally similarity in the shape of particular organs, or of the whole body, that has determined the formation of the larger groups. It is in virtue of such a similarity that Birds, Fishes, Cephalopoda, and Testacea have been made to form each a separate class. For within the limits of each such class, the parts do not differ in that they have no nearer resemblance than that of analogy-such as exists between the bone of man and the spine of fish-but differ merely in respect of such corporeal conditions as largeness smallness, softness hardness, smoothness roughness, and other similar oppositions, or, in one word, in respect of degree.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- and where he proposes a determination of **species** from a combination of parties:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(*Politics*, [1290b25-37][2] {{[en][3]}}) […] [25] ὥσπερ οὖν εἰ ζῴου προῃρούμεθα λαβεῖν εἴδη, πρῶτον ἂν ἀποδιωρίζομεν ἅπερ ἀναγκαῖον πᾶν ἔχειν ζῷον (οἷον ἔνιά τε τῶν αἰσθητηρίων καὶ τὸ τῆς τροφῆς ἐργαστικὸν καὶ δεκτικόν, οἷον στόμα καὶ κοιλίαν, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις, οἷς κινεῖται μορίοις ἕκαστον αὐτῶν)· εἰ δὲ τοσαῦτα εἴη μόνον, τούτων δ᾽ εἶεν [30] διαφοραί (λέγω δ᾽ οἷον στόματός τινα πλείω γένη καὶ κοιλίας καὶ τῶν αἰσθητηρίων, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῶν κινητικῶν μορίων), ὁ τῆς συζεύξεως τῆς τούτων ἀριθμὸς ἐξ ἀνάγκης ποιήσει πλείω γένη ζῴων (οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε ταὐτὸν ζῷον ἔχειν πλείους στόματος διαφοράς, ὁμοίως δὲ οὐδ᾽ ὤτων), ὥσθ᾽ ὅταν ληφθῶσι [35] τούτων πάντες οἱ ἐνδεχόμενοι συνδυασμοί, ποιήσουσιν εἴδη ζῴου, καὶ τοσαῦτ᾽ εἴδη τοῦ ζῴου ὅσαι περ αἱ συζεύξεις τῶν ἀναγκαίων μορίων εἰσίν τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον καὶ τῶν εἰρημένων πολιτειῶν.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Translation ([William Ellis][4]):  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*[…] thus, if we should endeavour to comprehend the different species of animals we should first of all note those parts which every animal must have, as a certain sensorium, and also what is necessary to acquire and retain food, as a mouth and a belly; besides certain parts to enable it to move from place to place. If, then, these are the only parts of an animal and there are differences between them; namely, in their various sorts of stomachs, bellies, and sensoriums: to which we must add their motive powers; the number of the combinations of all these must necessarily make up the different species of animals. For it is not possible that the same kind of animal should have any very great difference in its mouth or ears; so that when all these are collected, who happen to have these things similar in all, they make up a species of animals of which there are as many as there are of these general combinations of necessary parts.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way of defining species seems to be the one involved in the *History of Animals* (I-1, e.g. [486b22][5] {{[fr][6]}}):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…] ὁμοίως γὰρ ὥσπερ τὸ ὅλον ἔχει πρὸς τὸ ὅλον, καὶ τῶν μορίων ἔχει ἕκαστον πρὸς ἕκαστον. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Translation ([Pierre Pellegrin][7]):  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*According to the parts that each of the animals possesses, that is how they are simultaneously other and the same.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It’s by the comparison and the resemblance that Aristotle seems to define species, as in PA 639a18-19 where he exposes his method. So we can assume it is very near from modern definitions of species, e.g. like that of Cuvier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The word species means *those individuals who descend from one another or from common parents and those who resemble them as much as they resemble each other.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Recherches sur les ossements fossiles de quadrupèdes* (Discours préliminaire), 1812&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[*…les individus qui descendent les uns des autres ou de parents communs et ceux qui leur ressemblent autant qu’ils se ressemblent entre eux.*], translated by F. Zachos, in *[Species Concepts in Biology][8]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;##Some interesting references&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve used the first one for this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ***[Aristote zoologue][9]***, René Lefebvre  &#xD;&#xA;A very interesting article, based on works by **D. Balme** and **P. Pellegrin**, however it’s in French.&#xD;&#xA;- *[Aristotle's Biology][10]*, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy  &#xD;&#xA;Not specifically about species definition, but interesting yet.&#xD;&#xA;- *[The Species Problem: A Philosophical Analysis][11]*, Richards A. Richards  &#xD;&#xA;For a discussion of the many meanings of εἶδος in Aristotle’s works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. As enmattered form (the *appearance*, the *shape of the body*, already in Homer);&#xD;&#xA;3. As principles of development and organization (this sense originated with Aristotle);&#xD;&#xA;1. A logical sense of *εἶδος*, as *logical universals*, from the Pythagoreans and Plato.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, just after having finished to write this answer, this book:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Defining Species: A Sourcebook from Antiquity to Today][12]*, John S. Wilkins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/Aristote/partieslivre1.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k378518d/f244.item.r=aristote,%20politica.zoom&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/6762/6762-h/6762-h.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Politics_(Ellis)/Book_4#CHAPTER_IV&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/Aristote/animaux1gr.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/Aristote/animaux1.htm#14&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=XrVrKrt3fPYC&amp;pg=PA117&amp;dq=On%20the%20Parts%20of%20Animals%20486b22&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=dNU0DQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA26&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.buffon.cnrs.fr/etudes/pdf/aristote-zoologue.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-biology/#Bio&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=UzCB656NilUC&amp;pg=PA28&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=pazpr2vJxQAC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1963" RevisionGUID="773e856b-082f-4440-bd50-8f2030a995da" CreationDate="2016-11-10T14:44:33.007" UserId="45" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I'd like some clarification on which cases are appropriate during the use of the word &quot;quam&quot; with comparatives. I'm teaching Jenney's First-Year Latin (1990).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Lesson 37 (page 426 of the 1990 edition), the book tries to explain the use of the comparative adjective with quam. The &quot;quam&quot; section follows the partitive genitive with comparatives/superlatives and precedes the section on ablative of degree of difference with comparatives/superlatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;quam&quot; section explains that the words on either side of the &quot;quam&quot; need to have the same case. It provides a couple of examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Nullius virginis pulchrioris quam illius memini.* (I remember no maiden more beautiful than she.)  &#xD;&#xA;2. *Regi multo clariori quam tibi paret.* (He obeys a king much more famous than you.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first example, the verb takes a genitive object, which explains why &quot;pulchrioris&quot; and &quot;illius&quot; are both genitive. In the second example, the verb takes a dative object, which explains why &quot;clariori&quot; and &quot;tibi&quot; both need to be dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Jenney text doesn't explain the format, and thus my students immediately assumed that any time &quot;quam&quot; shows up, the neighboring words will be dative or genitive. The clever ones even tried to connect the &quot;quam&quot; section with the preceding partitive genitive section, which is not appropriate in either of the given sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, my perplexation began. Not two pages later, the Lesson 37 Practices ask us to translate into Latin these two sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The book's questions:**  &#xD;&#xA;1. I am more like you than he.  &#xD;&#xA;2. I am more like you than him.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My hypothesized translations:**  &#xD;&#xA;1. Similior tu quam is sum.  &#xD;&#xA;2. Similior te quam eum sum.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suspect that the &quot;you&quot; would need to be a predicate nominative in the first sentence.  &#xD;&#xA;I would also suspect that the &quot;you&quot; in the second sentence be a predicate nominative that switches to match the &quot;eum&quot; due to the &quot;both sides of quam need to match&quot; rule.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, here are **the answer-key's translations:**  &#xD;&#xA;1. Similior tui quam ille sum.  &#xD;&#xA;2. Similior tui quam illius sum.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Why are they using the genitive? Why don't both sides of the &quot;quam&quot; agree?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1964" RevisionGUID="ff65235b-da80-4ad6-b2ba-ca3c5a997694" CreationDate="2016-11-10T15:11:05.210" UserId="45" Text="I think I understand the root of your confusion, and the simple answer to your question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why don't both sides of the *quam* agree?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this: **They do agree.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **I am more like you than he.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One source of your confusion is that **[*similis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsimilis) usually takes the genitive** (though it can also take the dative), e.g. &quot;similis eius&quot; = &quot;similar to him.&quot; When in doubt with *quam*, you can always translate the first part first: &quot;I am more similar to you.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similior tui sum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we must translate &quot;than he.&quot; Here we have to remember the prescriptivist tendencies of Latin grammars (to which, truth be told, I can be sympathetic): &quot;he,&quot; being in the nominative, is contrasted with &quot;I,&quot; which is understood in Latin. Perhaps this will make it clearer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similior tui sum [ego] quam ille.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Removing the optional &quot;ego&quot; and rearranging the words a little bit, we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similior tui quam ille sum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...though honestly this order strikes me as more awkward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **I am more like you than him.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence, something very different is being said: &quot;I am more like you than [I am like] him.&quot; &quot;Him&quot; is opposed to &quot;you&quot; (not &quot;I&quot;), so they will both be in the genitive. We begin again with our base sentence of &quot;I am more like you&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similior tui sum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We then add &quot;quam&quot; + opposed word, which will be in the genitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similior tui quam illius sum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A **predicative nominative** occurs when you have a copula joining two nominative nouns. That's a lot of fancy jargon for a pretty simple case: &quot;Caesar est imperator.&quot; As you can see, this is different from the present case.&#xD;&#xA;2. **&quot;Both sides need to match rule&quot;**: This is not a great way of conceptualizing the rule and can lead you into trouble. The better rule is &quot;both compared (pro)nouns need to be in the same case.&quot; Consider for instance: &quot;Pulchriorem non cognosco ego quam te.&quot; As we saw above, a compared pronoun can even be left out, like &quot;ego.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Dative/Genitive**: Neighboring words will *not* always be genitive and dative, and it would be unfortunate if the book gave that impression. The previous example I gave was for accusative, and the nominative seems to be the most common of all, e.g. &quot;Stultior es quam ego.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1964" RevisionGUID="331dba1e-474e-47d1-8076-2b5056b04332" CreationDate="2016-11-10T16:16:50.457" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I think I understand the root of your confusion, and the simple answer to your question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why don't both sides of the *quam* agree?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this: **They do agree.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **I am more like you than he.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One source of your confusion is that **[*similis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsimilis) usually takes the genitive** (though it can also take the dative), e.g. &quot;similis eius&quot; = &quot;similar to him.&quot; When in doubt with *quam*, you can always translate the first part first: &quot;I am more similar to you.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similior tui sum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we must translate &quot;than he.&quot; Here we have to remember the prescriptivist tendencies of Latin grammars (to which, truth be told, I can be sympathetic): &quot;he,&quot; being in the nominative, is contrasted with &quot;I,&quot; which is understood in Latin. Perhaps this will make it clearer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similior tui sum [ego] quam ille.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Removing the optional &quot;ego&quot; and rearranging the words a little bit, we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similior tui quam ille sum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...though honestly this order strikes me as more awkward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **I am more like you than him.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence, something very different is being said: &quot;I am more like you than [I am like] him.&quot; &quot;Him&quot; is opposed to &quot;you&quot; (not &quot;I&quot;), so they will both be in the genitive. We begin again with our base sentence of &quot;I am more like you&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similior tui sum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We then add &quot;quam&quot; + opposed word, which will be in the genitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similior tui quam illius sum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A **predicative nominative** occurs when you have a copula joining two nominative nouns. That's a lot of fancy jargon for a pretty simple case: &quot;Caesar est imperator.&quot; As you can see, this is different from the present case.&#xD;&#xA;2. **&quot;Both sides need to match rule&quot;**: This is not a great way of conceptualizing the rule and can lead you into trouble. The better rule is &quot;both compared (pro)nouns need to be in the same case.&quot; Consider for instance: &quot;Pulchriorem non cognosco ego quam te.&quot; As we saw above with &quot;ego,&quot; a compared pronoun can even be left out.&#xD;&#xA;3. **Dative/Genitive**: Neighboring words will *not* always be genitive and dative, and it would be unfortunate if the book gave that impression. The previous example I gave was for accusative, and the nominative seems to be the most common of all, e.g. &quot;Fortior es quam ego.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1964" RevisionGUID="6d476bf9-3b68-46b6-aa2b-a27268a06943" CreationDate="2016-11-10T17:03:52.557" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="I think I understand the root of your confusion, and the simple answer to your question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why don't both sides of the *quam* agree?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this: **They do agree.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **I am more like you than he.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A first point is that **[*similis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsimilis) usually takes the genitive** (though it can also take the dative), e.g. &quot;similis eius&quot; = &quot;similar to him.&quot; When in doubt with *quam*, you can always translate the first part first: &quot;I am more similar to you.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similior tui sum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we must translate &quot;than he.&quot; Here we have to remember the prescriptivist tendencies of Latin grammars (to which, truth be told, I can be sympathetic): &quot;he,&quot; being in the nominative, is contrasted with &quot;I,&quot; which is understood in Latin. Perhaps this will make it clearer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similior tui sum [ego] quam ille.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Removing the optional &quot;ego&quot; and rearranging the words a little bit, we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similior tui quam ille sum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...though honestly this order strikes me as more awkward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **I am more like you than him.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence, something very different is being said: &quot;I am more like you than [I am like] him.&quot; &quot;Him&quot; is opposed to &quot;you&quot; (not &quot;I&quot;), so they will both be in the genitive. We begin again with our base sentence of &quot;I am more like you&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similior tui sum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We then add &quot;quam&quot; + opposed word, which will be in the genitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similior tui quam illius sum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A **predicative nominative** occurs when you have a copula joining two nominative nouns. That's a lot of fancy jargon for a pretty simple case: &quot;Caesar est imperator.&quot; As you can see, this is different from the present case.&#xD;&#xA;2. **&quot;Both sides need to match rule&quot;**: This is not a great way of conceptualizing the rule and can lead you into trouble. The better rule is &quot;both compared (pro)nouns need to be in the same case.&quot; Consider for instance: &quot;Pulchriorem non cognosco ego quam te.&quot; As we saw above with &quot;ego,&quot; a compared pronoun can even be left out.&#xD;&#xA;3. **Dative/Genitive**: Neighboring words will *not* always be genitive and dative, and it would be unfortunate if the book gave that impression. The previous example I gave was for accusative, and the nominative seems to be the most common of all, e.g. &quot;Fortior es quam ego.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1965" RevisionGUID="5df80a65-1b5f-467f-800b-d12bd922228e" CreationDate="2016-11-10T17:25:09.797" UserId="645" Text="The two parts of the exercise are two different statements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first holds the speaker (the subject) to be more like the addressee than someone else is. This becomes obvious if you add ‘is’ to the end of the sentence: ‘I am more like you than he is’.&#xD;&#xA;The second holds that he (the speaker) is more like the addressee than he (the speaker) is like someone else: ‘I am more like you than [I am like] him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer given by @brianpck is all perfectly correct, but I hope that the rest of this section in your textbook explains the rest of the minefield that anyone trying to translate ‘than’ must navigate. It is necessary to know the circumstances in which quam can be used : I hope that you will find the following observations useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Instead of the nominative or accusative with *quam*, the ablative of comparison is used : *Cicero erat eloquentior Hortensio*; and especially in negative sentences : *nihilo erat ipse Cyclops quam aries prudentior*.&#xD;&#xA;2. *Quam* is necessarily used where an ablative of comparison would cause ambiguity : *terra maior est quam luna* or *dico terram maiorem esse quam lunam*.&#xD;&#xA;3. If the comparison is made in attaching a negative clause to the antecedent by means of a relative pronoun, the ablative is used, never *quam* : *Punicum bellum, quo nullum maius Romani gesserunt.*&#xD;&#xA;4. *Quam* generally follows comparative adverbs, except for certain idiomatic adverbs : *spe*, *opinione*, *exspectatione*, *aequo* (these are the most common, but several others occur) : *spe omnium celerius*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1966" RevisionGUID="ab0428e6-e7ce-4258-a795-a79a7e50f5bb" CreationDate="2016-11-10T20:07:25.253" UserId="79" Text="Judging by [this dictionary entry for *hippopotamus*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2025687), the Romans knew this animal and used the name we currently use in English.&#xD;&#xA;This word has an obviously Greek origin: *hippos* is a horse and *potamos* is river.&#xD;&#xA;But is *hippopotamus* (or *-os* in a Greek version) &quot;horse-river&quot; instead of &quot;river-horse&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Surely the word should mean a horse who lives in a river rather than a river full of horses.&#xD;&#xA;Or do I make a mistake assuming that in the compound word the main word is the second part and the first part specializes it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7144" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1966" RevisionGUID="ab0428e6-e7ce-4258-a795-a79a7e50f5bb" CreationDate="2016-11-10T20:07:25.253" UserId="79" Text="Why hippopotamus instead of potamohippus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7145" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1966" RevisionGUID="ab0428e6-e7ce-4258-a795-a79a7e50f5bb" CreationDate="2016-11-10T20:07:25.253" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|greek|animals|etymology|scientific-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1967" RevisionGUID="29274b2c-d221-4cf9-bd25-0e98ba2e7f64" CreationDate="2016-11-10T20:53:18.770" UserId="45" Text="As you mention, Latin [*hippopotamus, -i*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dhippopotamus) comes from Greek [*ἱπποπόταμος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=i%28ppopo%2Ftamos&amp;la=greek&amp;can=i%28ppopo%2Ftamos0&amp;prior=hipp%C5%8Fp%C5%8Ft%C4%83mus&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=hippopotamus&amp;i=1#lexicon), which is a compound of [*ἵππος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=i%28ppos&amp;la=greek#lexicon) (*hippos* = horse) and [ποταμός](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=potamos&amp;la=greek#lexicon) (*potamos* = river). This word occurs occurs in Pliny, Discorides, and Galen (see below), but as you will see you are not the first person to notice its strange formation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule which is generally observed in English as well as in Greek is that N1 + N2 is construed as &quot;N2 of the N1.&quot; Here are some examples with ἵππος:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ἱππόδεσμα: bond (i.e. reins) of the horse&#xD;&#xA;* ἱπποδιώκτης: driver of horses&#xD;&#xA;* ἱπποκόσμια: trappings of a horse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, in some cases, two nouns together that seem to bear equal weight, as in English &quot;wolf dog&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ἱππόταυρος: horse bull&#xD;&#xA;* ἱπποκύων: horse dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(More examples [here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?lookup=i\(ppo&amp;page=2&amp;lang=greek&amp;type=start))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One explanation of this is in footnote 1, pg. 62 of [*Des origines des sciences naturelles*](https://books.google.com/books?id=MiEaAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA62&amp;lpg=PA62) by Dr. Saint-Lager, which contains a lot of useful information in French. Here is my translation of relevant parts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The word *Hippopotamus* is improperly constructed, because as a rule in words composed from Greek stems, **the principal noun should be placed after the attribute**....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As a result, **the noun *Hippopotamus* (river of the horse) should be changed to *Potamippos* (river horse).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He then includes a very interesting usage note that might explain the reason for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Moreover, ancient Greek authors like Herodotus (Histor. II, 71), Aristotle (Hist. anim. II, 1 et 7), Strabo (Geogr. XV, 1 - XVI, 4), Plutarch (Isis et Osiris XXXII et L), [etc.] **have always written this in three distinct words: ἵππος ὁ ποτάμιος.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this instance, ποτάμιος is an *adjective* in the attributive position and means, literally, a &quot;a riverly horse.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author goes on to blame this on copyists:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The incorrect spelling ἱπποπόταμος est probably the work of the copyists who have transmitted to us the *Natural History* of Pliny, the *De Materia Medica* of Dioscorides, and the *Theriake* of Galen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking in my own voice, it strikes me as unlikely that these copyists all erred together: a likely explanation is that &quot;hippos ho potamios&quot; was judged too long and shortened without proper regard for the usual construction of such compound words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note is that your suggested combination of *potamohippus* would be incorrect, since the -os ending would be dropped with a noun starting with a vowel. One such-formed word is [*λεύκιππος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=leu%2Fkippos&amp;la=greek&amp;can=leu%2Fkippos0&amp;prior=*kth/sippos#) (leukos + hippos = &quot;riding white horses&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1967" RevisionGUID="12ac510d-2c4d-4f9f-b7ac-8d619574b4a1" CreationDate="2016-11-10T21:05:23.617" UserId="45" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="As you mention, Latin [*hippopotamus, -i*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dhippopotamus) comes from Greek [*ἱπποπόταμος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=i%28ppopo%2Ftamos&amp;la=greek&amp;can=i%28ppopo%2Ftamos0&amp;prior=hipp%C5%8Fp%C5%8Ft%C4%83mus&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=hippopotamus&amp;i=1#lexicon), which is a compound of [*ἵππος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=i%28ppos&amp;la=greek#lexicon) (*hippos* = horse) and [ποταμός](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=potamos&amp;la=greek#lexicon) (*potamos* = river). This word occurs in Pliny, Discorides, and Galen (see below), but as you will see you are not the first person to notice its strange formation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule which is generally observed in Greek (just as in English) is that the attribute precedes the primary noun, i.e. &quot;N1 + N2&quot; = &quot;N2 of the N1.&quot; Here are some examples with ἵππος:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ἱππόδεσμα: bond (i.e. reins) of the horse&#xD;&#xA;* ἱπποδιώκτης: driver of horses&#xD;&#xA;* ἱπποκόσμια: trappings of a horse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, in some cases, two nouns together that seem to bear equal weight, as in English &quot;wolf dog&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ἱππόταυρος: horse bull&#xD;&#xA;* ἱπποκύων: horse dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(More examples [here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?lookup=i\(ppo&amp;page=2&amp;lang=greek&amp;type=start))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One explanation of this is in footnote 1, pg. 62 of [*Des origines des sciences naturelles*](https://books.google.com/books?id=MiEaAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA62&amp;lpg=PA62) by Dr. Saint-Lager, which contains a lot of useful information in French. Here is my translation of relevant parts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The word *Hippopotamus* is improperly constructed, because as a rule in words composed from Greek stems, **the principal noun should be placed after the attribute**....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As a result, **the noun *Hippopotamus* (river of the horse) should be changed to *Potamippos* (river horse).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He then includes a very interesting usage note that might explain the reason for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Moreover, ancient Greek authors like Herodotus (Histor. II, 71), Aristotle (Hist. anim. II, 1 et 7), Strabo (Geogr. XV, 1 - XVI, 4), Plutarch (Isis et Osiris XXXII et L), [etc.] **have always written this in three distinct words: ἵππος ὁ ποτάμιος.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this instance, ποτάμιος is an *adjective* in the attributive position and means, literally, a &quot;a riverly horse.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author goes on to blame this on copyists:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The incorrect spelling ἱπποπόταμος est probably the work of the copyists who have transmitted to us the *Natural History* of Pliny, the *De Materia Medica* of Dioscorides, and the *Theriake* of Galen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking in my own voice, it strikes me as unlikely that these copyists all erred together: a likely explanation is that &quot;hippos ho potamios&quot; was judged too long and shortened without proper regard for the usual construction of such compound words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note is that your suggested combination of *potamohippus* would be incorrect, since the -os ending would be dropped with a noun starting with a vowel. One such-formed word is [*λεύκιππος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=leu%2Fkippos&amp;la=greek&amp;can=leu%2Fkippos0&amp;prior=*kth/sippos#) (leukos + hippos = &quot;riding white horses&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1967" RevisionGUID="d8cefd38-256a-43bf-8f6f-2d58b9471012" CreationDate="2016-11-10T21:13:54.210" UserId="45" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="As you mention, Latin [*hippopotamus, -i*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dhippopotamus) comes from Greek [*ἱπποπόταμος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=i%28ppopo%2Ftamos&amp;la=greek&amp;can=i%28ppopo%2Ftamos0&amp;prior=hipp%C5%8Fp%C5%8Ft%C4%83mus&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=hippopotamus&amp;i=1#lexicon), which is a compound of [*ἵππος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=i%28ppos&amp;la=greek#lexicon) (*hippos* = horse) and [ποταμός](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=potamos&amp;la=greek#lexicon) (*potamos* = river). This word occurs in Pliny, Discorides, and Galen (see below), but as you will see you are not the first person to notice its strange formation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule which is generally observed in Greek (just as in English) is that the attribute precedes the primary noun, i.e. &quot;N1 + N2&quot; = &quot;N2 of the N1.&quot; Here are some examples with ἵππος:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ἱππόδεσμα: bond (i.e. reins) of the horse&#xD;&#xA;* ἱπποδιώκτης: driver of horses&#xD;&#xA;* ἱπποκόσμια: trappings of a horse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, in some cases, two nouns together that seem to bear equal weight, as in English &quot;wolf dog&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ἱππόταυρος: horse bull&#xD;&#xA;* ἱπποκύων: horse dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(More examples [here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?lookup=i\(ppo&amp;page=2&amp;lang=greek&amp;type=start))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One explanation of this is in footnote 1, pg. 62 of [*Des origines des sciences naturelles*](https://books.google.com/books?id=MiEaAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA62&amp;lpg=PA62) by Dr. Saint-Lager, which contains a lot of useful information in French. Here is my translation of relevant parts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The word *Hippopotamus* is improperly constructed, because as a rule in words composed from Greek stems, **the principal noun should be placed after the attribute**....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As a result, **the noun *Hippopotamus* (river of the horse) should be changed to *Potamippos* (river horse).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He then includes a very interesting usage note that might explain the reason for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Moreover, ancient Greek authors like Herodotus (Histor. II, 71), Aristotle (Hist. anim. II, 1 et 7), Strabo (Geogr. XV, 1 - XVI, 4), Plutarch (Isis et Osiris XXXII et L), [etc.] **have always written this in three distinct words: ἵππος ὁ ποτάμιος.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this instance, ποτάμιος is an *adjective* in the attributive position, so the phrase literally means &quot;a riverly horse.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The footnote goes on to blame this on copyists:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The incorrect spelling ἱπποπόταμος est probably the work of the copyists who have transmitted to us the *Natural History* of Pliny, the *De Materia Medica* of Dioscorides, and the *Theriake* of Galen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking in my own voice, it strikes me as unlikely that these copyists all erred together: a likely explanation is that &quot;hippos ho potamios&quot; was judged too long and shortened without proper regard for the usual construction of such compound words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note is that your suggested combination of *potamohippus* would be incorrect, since the -os ending would be dropped with a noun starting with a vowel. One such-formed word is [*λεύκιππος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=leu%2Fkippos&amp;la=greek&amp;can=leu%2Fkippos0&amp;prior=*kth/sippos#) (leukos + hippos = &quot;riding white horses&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1968" RevisionGUID="34bef27f-0b49-4178-9938-45003faac133" CreationDate="2016-11-11T13:21:35.613" UserId="79" Text="I have been told that *Kalendae* is the first day of a month.&#xD;&#xA;However, the Latin dates &amp;mdash; which was discussed in [this other question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1943/79) &amp;mdash; alone do not make this obvious.&#xD;&#xA;Dates are expressed by comparison to three special days every month: *Kalendae*, *Nonae*, and *Idus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on everything I know about the Roman calendar, it would make sense that *Idus* was actually the last day of a month.&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps days between *Idus* and the following *Kalendae* belong to no month at all.&#xD;&#xA;Or maybe a month consists of the three special days and other days have to be expressed in relation to these interesting days because other days belong to no month at all.&#xD;&#xA;It is not obvious that every day should be part of some month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it clearly stated somewhere in ancient literature that *Kalendae* is the first day of a month?&#xD;&#xA;Is there some ancient source describing the structure of a month in this sense?&#xD;&#xA;Evidence from inscriptions is also welcome if it sheds some light on the matter.&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be a very strong modern consensus that *Kalendae* is the first day, but I realized that I know no reason for this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7168" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1968" RevisionGUID="34bef27f-0b49-4178-9938-45003faac133" CreationDate="2016-11-11T13:21:35.613" UserId="79" Text="How do we know that Kalendae is the first day of a month?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7169" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1968" RevisionGUID="34bef27f-0b49-4178-9938-45003faac133" CreationDate="2016-11-11T13:21:35.613" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|history|time|inscription|calendarium|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1969" RevisionGUID="f440b997-233f-4fd4-88fb-f5f62a74cde2" CreationDate="2016-11-11T13:59:17.910" UserId="183" Text="First point, the meaning of the Latin dates was never forgotten but traded continously (e.g. by the Roman Catholic church) into our times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second point is that we are able to verify some dates referring to astronomical events (e.g., solar eclipses) independently. Using such methods helped in falsifying the [Phantom time hypothesis (aka *Erfundenes Mittelalter*][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1967" RevisionGUID="81925b73-b6d9-47b6-abae-51de7abbb3f2" CreationDate="2016-11-11T14:25:29.197" UserId="45" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="As you mention, Latin [*hippopotamus, -i*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dhippopotamus) comes from Greek [*ἱπποπόταμος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=i%28ppopo%2Ftamos&amp;la=greek&amp;can=i%28ppopo%2Ftamos0&amp;prior=hipp%C5%8Fp%C5%8Ft%C4%83mus&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=hippopotamus&amp;i=1#lexicon), which is a compound of [*ἵππος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=i%28ppos&amp;la=greek#lexicon) (*hippos* = horse) and [ποταμός](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=potamos&amp;la=greek#lexicon) (*potamos* = river). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In Latin**, Lewis and Short cites instances in Pomponius Mela (AD 45), Pliny (AD 79), and Ammianus Marcellinus (AD 400). **In Greek**, the LSJ includes references from Dioscorides (AD 90), Galen (AD c. 200), and Damascius (AD c. 538). As you will see you are not the first person to notice its unusual formation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule which is generally observed in Greek (just as in English) is that the attribute precedes the primary noun, i.e. &quot;N1 + N2&quot; = &quot;N2 of the N1.&quot; Here are some examples with ἵππος:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ἱππόδεσμα: bond (i.e. reins) of the horse&#xD;&#xA;* ἱπποδιώκτης: driver of horses&#xD;&#xA;* ἱπποκόσμια: trappings of a horse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, in some cases, two nouns together that seem to bear equal weight, as in English &quot;wolf dog&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ἱππόταυρος: horse bull&#xD;&#xA;* ἱπποκύων: horse dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(More examples [here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?lookup=i\(ppo&amp;page=2&amp;lang=greek&amp;type=start))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One explanation of this is in footnote 1, pg. 62 of [*Des origines des sciences naturelles*](https://books.google.com/books?id=MiEaAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA62&amp;lpg=PA62) by Dr. Saint-Lager, which contains a lot of useful information in French. Here is my translation of relevant parts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The word *Hippopotamus* is improperly constructed, because as a rule in words composed from Greek stems, **the principal noun should be placed after the attribute**....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As a result, **the noun *Hippopotamus* (river of the horse) should be changed to *Potamippos* (river horse).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He then includes a very interesting usage note that might explain the reason for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Moreover, ancient Greek authors like Herodotus (Histor. II, 71), Aristotle (Hist. anim. II, 1 et 7), Strabo (Geogr. XV, 1 - XVI, 4), Plutarch (Isis et Osiris XXXII et L), [etc.] **have always written this in three distinct words: ἵππος ὁ ποτάμιος.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this instance, ποτάμιος is an *adjective* in the attributive position, so the phrase literally means &quot;a riverly horse.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the footnote goes on to blame the copyists, a likely explanation is that &quot;hippos ho potamios&quot; was judged too long and shortened without proper regard for the usual construction of such compound words. This is certainly not a hard and fast rule, and there are several examples of compounds where the attribute is placed second, as pointed out by @sumelic and @TKR, such as *φιλόσοφος* (love-wisdom = &quot;lover of wisdom&quot;) and *ἀξιόλογος* (worth-word = &quot;worthy of mention&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note is that your suggested combination of *potamohippus* would be incorrect, since the -os ending would be dropped with a noun starting with a vowel. One such-formed word is [*λεύκιππος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=leu%2Fkippos&amp;la=greek&amp;can=leu%2Fkippos0&amp;prior=*kth/sippos#) (leukos + hippos = &quot;riding white horses&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1967" RevisionGUID="1461f845-3519-40b4-aed9-3a72ad740440" CreationDate="2016-11-11T14:32:46.837" UserId="45" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="As you mention, Latin [*hippopotamus, -i*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dhippopotamus) comes from Greek [*ἱπποπόταμος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=i%28ppopo%2Ftamos&amp;la=greek&amp;can=i%28ppopo%2Ftamos0&amp;prior=hipp%C5%8Fp%C5%8Ft%C4%83mus&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=hippopotamus&amp;i=1#lexicon), which is a compound of [*ἵππος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=i%28ppos&amp;la=greek#lexicon) (*hippos* = horse) and [ποταμός](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=potamos&amp;la=greek#lexicon) (*potamos* = river). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In Latin**, Lewis and Short cites instances in Pomponius Mela (AD 45), Pliny (AD 79), and Ammianus Marcellinus (AD 400). **In Greek**, the LSJ includes references from Dioscorides (AD 90), Galen (AD c. 200), and Damascius (AD c. 538). As you will see you are not the first person to notice its unusual formation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule which is generally observed in Greek (just as in English) is that the attribute precedes the primary noun, i.e. &quot;N1 + N2&quot; = &quot;N2 of the N1.&quot; Here are some examples with ἵππος:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ἱππόδεσμα: bond (i.e. reins) of the horse&#xD;&#xA;* ἱπποδιώκτης: driver of horses&#xD;&#xA;* ἱπποκόσμια: trappings of a horse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, in some cases, two nouns together that seem to bear equal weight, as in English &quot;wolf dog&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ἱππόταυρος: horse bull&#xD;&#xA;* ἱπποκύων: horse dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(More examples [here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?lookup=i\(ppo&amp;page=2&amp;lang=greek&amp;type=start))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One explanation of this is in footnote 1, pg. 62 of [*Des origines des sciences naturelles*](https://books.google.com/books?id=MiEaAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA62&amp;lpg=PA62) by Dr. Saint-Lager, which contains a lot of useful information in French. Here is my translation of relevant parts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The word *Hippopotamus* is improperly constructed, because as a rule in words composed from Greek stems, **the principal noun should be placed after the attribute**....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As a result, **the noun *Hippopotamus* (river of the horse) should be changed to *Potamippos* (river horse).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He then includes a very interesting usage note that might explain the reason for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Moreover, ancient Greek authors like Herodotus (Histor. II, 71), Aristotle (Hist. anim. II, 1 et 7), Strabo (Geogr. XV, 1 - XVI, 4), Plutarch (Isis et Osiris XXXII et L), [etc.] **have always written this in three distinct words: ἵππος ὁ ποτάμιος.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this instance, ποτάμιος is an *adjective* in the attributive position, so the phrase literally means &quot;a riverly horse.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the footnote goes on to blame the copyists, a likely explanation is that &quot;hippos ho potamios&quot; was judged too long and shortened without proper regard for the usual construction of such compound words. This is certainly not a hard and fast rule, and there are several examples of compounds where the attribute is placed second, as pointed out by @sumelic and @TKR, such as *φιλόσοφος* (love-wisdom = &quot;lover of wisdom&quot;) and *ἀξιόλογος* (worth-word = &quot;worthy of mention&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note is that your suggested combination of *potamohippus* would be incorrect, since the -os ending would be dropped with a noun starting with a vowel (and no hidden digamma!). One such-formed word is [*λεύκιππος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=leu%2Fkippos&amp;la=greek&amp;can=leu%2Fkippos0&amp;prior=*kth/sippos#) (leukos + hippos = &quot;riding white horses&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1970" RevisionGUID="f28fcece-e18f-4b12-ab2a-95a66a9e080e" CreationDate="2016-11-11T15:47:23.603" UserId="645" Text="In classical times the seven-day week was unknown; obviously, there could be no named days of the week to use as reference points. Months at least were of specified lengths, but the actual date was described by a clumsy method which depended on three datum points within the month itself. These points were the Kalends, Nones and Ides, which occurred in that order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dates were calculated by counting backwards from these datum points: that is to say, they were expressed as, for example, the third day before the Nones of January, the fourth day before the Ides of March, and the seventh day before the Kalends of November.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By long tradition, the Kalends were  the first day of a month. There are many ways of demonstrating this, but one of the best authorities is the poet Ovid’s poetical treatise on the Roman calendar. It was written in strict chronological order, beginning in Book I with the first of January, which he calls the Kalends of January, named after Janus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ecce tibi faustum, Germanice, nuntiat annum / inque meo primus carmine Ianus adest.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dates follow in the sequence identified first, by the Nones, secondly, by the Ides, and finally by counting back from the next Kalends — of February.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Book II begins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ianus habet finem. Cum carmine crescit et annus: / alter ut hic mensis, sic liber alter eat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves no room for doubt that the Kalends mark the first day of a month.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1971" RevisionGUID="36663c7f-b780-49bc-a7c7-5cbda353f392" CreationDate="2016-11-12T06:10:22.783" UserId="867" Text="Is it used only in the context of Christmas?&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.  When used to refer to Noah, it is clearly signposted as such: “patres nostri Noe, Abraham, Aaron, David et Jesus” from *Laudemus nunc Dominum*, Jacob Obrecht, 1457/8-1505, http://www0.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Laudemus_nunc_Dominum_(Jacob_Obrecht)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When did *noe* start occurring in the context of Christ/Christmas?&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earliest I could find is in the **1400s** (*O admirabile commercium*, Johannes Regis, Netherlandish, c. 1425 – c. 1496).  Latest, late 1500s-early 1600s (*Noe, noe*, Gregor Aichinger, German, c. 1565-1628)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is it used?&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;It does appear to be used as an interjection or exclamation much like amen or alleluia.  Evidence for this is as follows: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is typically tacked onto the end of lines much like *amen* or *alleluia*, the following being a good example (from *Pastores dicite*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pastores dicite, quidnam vidistis, et annuntiate Christi nativitatem,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; noe* / Tell us, shepherds, what did you see, and announce the birth of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Christ, noe   &#xD;&#xA;  *Infantem vidimus pannis involutum et choros angelorum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; laudantes salvatorem, noe* / We saw the infant wrapped in swaddling&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clothes and the choirs of angels praising the Saviour, noe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It sometimes even occurs as an alternative to *alleluia*: see *Pastores loquebantur*, http://www0.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Pastores_loquebantur&#xD;&#xA; - It is used in an otherwise German-language hymn, thus highlighting its sense as an interjection:  *Noe, noe*, Gregor Aichinger&#xD;&#xA; - It is always translated as *noel* in English which itself, from the early 14th century, was used as an exclamation of joy generally and more particularly to commemorate the birth of Christ (OED).  Thus, clearly *noe* has been understood also as an exclamation.&#xD;&#xA; - In *Quaeramus cum pastoribus* it is a one-word utterance of the angels and shepherds: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Angelos cum carmine et pastores dicentes: Noe* / Angels with song and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shepherds saying: Noe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is its intended meaning and origin?&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The Vulgate uses *Noe* only to refer to Noah.  All dictionaries consulted list Noah as its meaning however it is clearly not referring to Noah in these hymns (with one exception as noted above).&#xD;&#xA; - Is it a Latinised form of *noel*?  Maybe.  As mentioned previously, *noel* certainly was used as an interjection in English and French for joy generally (appearing circa **1300** in Old French; circa **1342-1400** in English (OED)) and then more particularly for marking the birth of Christ.  I think it is clear from my notes above that the use of *noe* is also as an exclamation of joy.&#xD;&#xA; - Additionally, as far as I can tell, *noel/nowell* started appearing in secular carols around the early **1400s** (see below).  Thus, *noel* (in secular, vernacular music) and *noe* (in sacred, Latin music) began to appear in Christmas songs at about the same time.   &#xD;&#xA; - There is evidence that, in French at least, *noel* was not always pronounced no-ell.  Some variations given are: *noé, nau, and nô*, with the earliest attested use of *noé* being in Rutebeuf, **1230-1285**  see: http://www.littre.org/definition/no%C3%ABl  One French carol that is still easily found online and which apparently dates from the 14th or 15th century is *Nau, nau, nau, naulet*, *nau* being *noel* in the Anjou dialect and *naulet* a diminutive – see: http://www.mamalisa.com/?t=es&amp;p=2164 and also https://archive.org/details/vieuxnolscompos01meiggoog   It is possible, therefore, that Latin *noe* is somehow echoing a pronunciation of *noel* unfamiliar to us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am certain, therefore, that *noe* is **functioning** just like *noel*. But, variant pronunciations of *noel* aside, I still have questions about its **form**.  These have led me to consider possibilities that I can’t find definitive proof for but I think are not too far-fetched (I hope!)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;My first question is, why Latinise *noel* if it is a firmly established exclamation of joy?  Neither *alleluia* nor *amen* is Latinised; as interjections, they are used in their original form so why not *noel* too?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, why, if it is Latinised, end up with something that means Noah?  Why not just use its actual Latin etymological roots and say *natus est*, for example (a phrase which, of course, does appear abundantly in Latin Christmas hymns)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## A possible answer ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - During this time period, there was tension between the Church and secular society in matters of music and liturgy.  As Huot says, “the opposition … of sacred and secular poetry and music was one of the central issues in late medieval culture” (p. 17).  &#xD;&#xA; - The Council of Trent (1545-1563), for instance, decreed that “secular expression must be avoided” in sacred music (Fellerer, 1953, p. 576) and the Council of Trent was only another in a long line of diatribes, recommendations, reforms and bans on the secular and vernacular in sacred music.  Christmas carols were seen as “unholy liturgies” (Huot, 1997, p. 17).  As early as 1272, Daniel of Paris admonished parishioners for singing them (Huot, 1997, p. 16).  See the following for more: http://www.hymnsandcarolsofchristmas.com/History/Christmas_Music_MA.htm  &#xD;&#xA; - The fear was of importing “impurity and lasciviousness” (Fellerer quoting the Council) into what should be sacred and God-focussed.  The first use of *nowell* in English is in Chaucer’s *The Franklin’s Tale* (c. 1342-1400) and involves Janus wining and dining, and “every lusty man” shouting “nowell”, which seems to encapsulate all that is impure and lascivious in secular culture in the Church’s eyes!    &#xD;&#xA; - This could explain why *noel* itself was not used in sacred music while *alleluia* and *amen* were considered biblical in origin and hence would not need to be changed. &#xD;&#xA; - *Noe* may then have been a simple solution.  It almost sounds like *noel* and can be sung in a jubilant manner, thereby recalling the joyousness of *noel* without actually using the secular word *noel*.  &#xD;&#xA; - Further, the happy coincidence that *noe* also means Noah could serve as a “teachable moment”.  Noah had long been established as a “type” for Christ (i.e. pre-figuring him) (Augustine, for example, had written extensively on this – Murdoch, 2003, pp. 98-99).  The bible itself says that “as in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days of the Son of Man” – Mat. 24:37 &amp; Luke 17:26 – an appropriate teaching at Christmas.  Further, the Hebrew meaning of Noah, depending on your etymology, means either rest or comfort (see Gen. 5:29 for the latter – “he called him Noah saying ‘he shall comfort us …’”).  Again, an entirely appropriate lesson for Christmas.  &#xD;&#xA; - Thus, perhaps *noe* is not so much a Latinised form of *noel* but rather a “Churchified” form of it?&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;References not online:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;K. G. Fellerer, trans. Moses Hadas, 1953, “Church Music and the Council of Trent” in The Musical Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 576-594.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sylvia Huot, 1997, Allegorical Play in the Old French Motet: The Sacred and the Profane in Thirteenth-Century Polyphony, Stanford University Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brian Murdoch, 2003, The Medieval Popular Bible: Expansions of Genesis in the Middle Ages, D. S. Brewer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oxford English Dictionary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin hymns consulted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *O admirabile commercium*, Johannes Regis, **c. 1425 – c. 1496**, http://www0.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/O_admirabile_commercium_(Johannes_Regis)&#xD;&#xA; 2. *Factor orbis*, Jacob Obrecht, **1457/8 –1505**, http://www0.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Factor_orbis_(Jacob_Obrecht)&#xD;&#xA; 3. *Noe*, Antoine Brumel, **c. 1460-c. 1512**, http://www0.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Noe,_noe_(Antoine_Brumel)&#xD;&#xA; 4. *Pastores loquebantur*, earliest known arrangement is early **1500s** by Jacobus Clemens non Papa, http://www0.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Pastores_loquebantur&#xD;&#xA; 5. *Quaeramus cum pastoribus*, several arrangers but earliest Jean Mouton, **1459-1522**, http://www0.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Quaeramus_cum_pastoribus_(Jean_Mouton)&#xD;&#xA; 6. *Pastores dicite*, Cristóbal de Morales, published **1546**, http://www0.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Pastores_dicite_(Crist%C3%B3bal_de_Morales)&#xD;&#xA; 7. *Hodie nobis de coelo*, Jacob Regnart, published **1575**, http://www0.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Hodie_nobis_de_coelo_(Jacob_Regnart)&#xD;&#xA; 8. *Hodie Christus natus est*, Palestrina, published **1575**, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaQhK5sjKYI&#xD;&#xA; 9. *O beatum et sacrosanctum diem*, Peter Philips, published **1612**, http://www0.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/O_beatum_et_sacrosanctum_diem_(Peter_Philips)&#xD;&#xA; 10. *Hodie Christus natus est*, Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck, **1562-1621**, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d_YGFsCamI&#xD;&#xA; 11. *Und du Betlehem*, Johann Christenius, **1565-1626**, http://www0.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Und_du_Betlehem_(Johann_Christenius)&#xD;&#xA; 12. *Noe, noe*, Gregor Aichinger, **c. 1565-1628**, http://www0.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Noe,_noe_(Gregor_Aichinger)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earliest English and French carols using *noel* I could find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *Nowel! nowel! nowel! Þer is a Babe born of a may In saluacion of us*, **c1426** (OED entry for nowell)&#xD;&#xA; 2. *Nowel, nowel, in this halle, Make merye, I prey you alle*, **c1450** (OED entry for nowell)&#xD;&#xA; 3. *Sir Christmas*, composed **ca. 1461-1477**, http://www.hymnsandcarolsofchristmas.com/Hymns_and_Carols/sir_christmas.htm&#xD;&#xA; 4. *Therefore let us alle syng nowelle … And Cryst save mery Ynglond*, **1475** (OED entry for nowell)&#xD;&#xA; 5. *Nowell sing we*, **15th century**, http://www1.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Nowell_sing_we_(Anonymous)&#xD;&#xA; 6. *They cried with a high voice, ‘Nowell!’ clappyng their hands*, **c1500** (OED entry for nowell)&#xD;&#xA; 7. *The children rynnynge in the stretes cryenge nowell for ioy*e, **c1515** (OED entry for nowell)&#xD;&#xA; 8. *Naulet, nau, nau, nau* (French), **?15th or 16th centur**y&#xD;&#xA; 9. *Chantons nolet, nolet, nolet* (French), **?16th or 17th century** &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1972" RevisionGUID="ba4a2c1d-9f5f-49a5-a9a7-750f1176c53f" CreationDate="2016-11-12T12:37:06.923" UserId="645" Text="This arises from the question by @brianpck about the meaning of ‘noe’ in the context of Christmas, which he ended with a speculation about noel/nowell being shortened from the Hebrew *emmanuel* (God is with us) — which I had heard before and am inclined to favour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am well aware that dictionaries give an etymology based on *nascor, nasci, (g)natus* and/or the adjectives *natalis* or *natalicius* Even allowing for a variant *nael* postulated by Etymonline I don't find this convincing, especially as the dictionaries that I have looked at all seem (lazily?) to use very nearly the same form of words. I wonder if someone is able to explain just how such an origin can be supported: I can’t for the life of me see how some part of nascor, etc, could turn into words for Christmas that have only the letter 'n' in common. I confess to much ignorance about vowel shifts and so on, but this seems to be stretching things a bit too far." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7179" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1972" RevisionGUID="ba4a2c1d-9f5f-49a5-a9a7-750f1176c53f" CreationDate="2016-11-12T12:37:06.923" UserId="645" Text="Does 'noel' really have its origin in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7180" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1972" RevisionGUID="ba4a2c1d-9f5f-49a5-a9a7-750f1176c53f" CreationDate="2016-11-12T12:37:06.923" UserId="645" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1973" RevisionGUID="dfc9b628-25cd-4cfb-91e1-3fae6fda7b85" CreationDate="2016-11-12T15:22:46.953" UserId="324" Text="http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/noel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Étymol. et Hist. A. Subst. masc. 1. début xiies. «fête de la nativité de Jésus-Christ» al Naël Deu (Saint Brendan, 620, éd. E. G. R. Waters); 1119 Noel (Philippe de Thaon, Comput, 53, éd. E. Mall); 1694 busche de Noel «grosse bûche que l'on mettait dans l'âtre pour toute la nuit de Noël» (Ac.); 1845 arbre de Noël (Besch.); 1855 père Noël (Sand., loc. cit.); 1949 croire au père Noël (Sartre, loc. cit.); 2. 1178 «époque où l'on célèbre Noël» (Roman de Renart, Br. XII, 13311, éd. M. Roques: Ce fu un pou devant Noel Que l'on metoit bacons en sel); 1611 à Noel au perron, à Pâques au tison (Cotgr.); 3. ca 1300 «cri de réjouissance que poussait le peuple» (Guillaume de La Villeneuve, Les Crieries du peuple, 109 ds Fabliaux et Contes, éd. E. Barbazan, II, 282); 4. 1548 «cantique chanté à l'occasion des fêtes de Noël» (Rabelais, Ancien Prologue du Quart Livre, éd. R.Marichal, p.287). B. Subst. fém. 1813 (J.-F. Rolland, Dict. mauv. lang., p.93). Du lat. natalis adj. «de naissance, relatif à la naissance», natalis dies et par substantivation natalis «jour de naissance» utilisé en lat. eccl. pour désigner la Nativité du Christ. **L'o de noël (en face de l'a. fr. nael, ital. natale, a. prov. nadal) est dû à une dissimilation des 2 a de natalis.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The bold-facing is mine)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1973" RevisionGUID="4fc2f44f-2255-4aa0-9394-440431f66cd0" CreationDate="2016-11-12T15:31:41.830" UserId="324" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/noel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Étymol. et Hist. A. Subst. masc. 1. début xiies. «fête de la nativité de Jésus-Christ» al Naël Deu (Saint Brendan, 620, éd. E. G. R. Waters); 1119 Noel (Philippe de Thaon, Comput, 53, éd. E. Mall); 1694 busche de Noel «grosse bûche que l'on mettait dans l'âtre pour toute la nuit de Noël» (Ac.); 1845 arbre de Noël (Besch.); 1855 père Noël (Sand., loc. cit.); 1949 croire au père Noël (Sartre, loc. cit.); 2. 1178 «époque où l'on célèbre Noël» (Roman de Renart, Br. XII, 13311, éd. M. Roques: Ce fu un pou devant Noel Que l'on metoit bacons en sel); 1611 à Noel au perron, à Pâques au tison (Cotgr.); 3. ca 1300 «cri de réjouissance que poussait le peuple» (Guillaume de La Villeneuve, Les Crieries du peuple, 109 ds Fabliaux et Contes, éd. E. Barbazan, II, 282); 4. 1548 «cantique chanté à l'occasion des fêtes de Noël» (Rabelais, Ancien Prologue du Quart Livre, éd. R.Marichal, p.287). B. Subst. fém. 1813 (J.-F. Rolland, Dict. mauv. lang., p.93). Du lat. natalis adj. «de naissance, relatif à la naissance», natalis dies et par substantivation natalis «jour de naissance» utilisé en lat. eccl. pour désigner la Nativité du Christ. **L'o de noël (en face de l'a. fr. nael, ital. natale, a. prov. nadal) est dû à une dissimilation des 2 a de natalis.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The bold-facing is mine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In brief: the loss of /t/ between two vowels is normal in French. Latin natalis &gt; Old French naël. The alternative form noël implies natalis &gt; *notalis, with dissimilation of a-a to o-a." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1973" RevisionGUID="3efe736f-0e59-44a6-a807-bff15a5240b6" CreationDate="2016-11-12T15:38:10.560" UserId="30" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/noel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Étymol. et Hist. A. Subst. masc. 1. début xiies. «fête de la nativité de Jésus-Christ» al Naël Deu (Saint Brendan, 620, éd. E. G. R. Waters); 1119 Noel (Philippe de Thaon, Comput, 53, éd. E. Mall); 1694 busche de Noel «grosse bûche que l'on mettait dans l'âtre pour toute la nuit de Noël» (Ac.); 1845 arbre de Noël (Besch.); 1855 père Noël (Sand., loc. cit.); 1949 croire au père Noël (Sartre, loc. cit.); 2. 1178 «époque où l'on célèbre Noël» (Roman de Renart, Br. XII, 13311, éd. M. Roques: Ce fu un pou devant Noel Que l'on metoit bacons en sel); 1611 à Noel au perron, à Pâques au tison (Cotgr.); 3. ca 1300 «cri de réjouissance que poussait le peuple» (Guillaume de La Villeneuve, Les Crieries du peuple, 109 ds Fabliaux et Contes, éd. E. Barbazan, II, 282); 4. 1548 «cantique chanté à l'occasion des fêtes de Noël» (Rabelais, Ancien Prologue du Quart Livre, éd. R.Marichal, p.287). B. Subst. fém. 1813 (J.-F. Rolland, Dict. mauv. lang., p.93). Du lat. natalis adj. «de naissance, relatif à la naissance», natalis dies et par substantivation natalis «jour de naissance» utilisé en lat. eccl. pour désigner la Nativité du Christ. **L'o de noël (en face de l'a. fr. nael, ital. natale, a. prov. nadal) est dû à une dissimilation des 2 a de natalis.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The bold-facing is mine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In brief: the loss of /t/ between two vowels is normal in French. Latin natalis &gt; Old French naël. The alternative form noël implies natalis &gt; *notalis, with dissimilation of a-a to o-a." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1973" RevisionGUID="841141e7-e519-4c1d-a055-9fa08af2079c" CreationDate="2016-11-12T15:41:00.287" UserId="324" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/noel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Étymol. et Hist. A. Subst. masc. 1. début xiies. «fête de la nativité de Jésus-Christ» al Naël Deu (Saint Brendan, 620, éd. E. G. R. Waters); 1119 Noel (Philippe de Thaon, Comput, 53, éd. E. Mall); 1694 busche de Noel «grosse bûche que l'on mettait dans l'âtre pour toute la nuit de Noël» (Ac.); 1845 arbre de Noël (Besch.); 1855 père Noël (Sand., loc. cit.); 1949 croire au père Noël (Sartre, loc. cit.); 2. 1178 «époque où l'on célèbre Noël» (Roman de Renart, Br. XII, 13311, éd. M. Roques: Ce fu un pou devant Noel Que l'on metoit bacons en sel); 1611 à Noel au perron, à Pâques au tison (Cotgr.); 3. ca 1300 «cri de réjouissance que poussait le peuple» (Guillaume de La Villeneuve, Les Crieries du peuple, 109 ds Fabliaux et Contes, éd. E. Barbazan, II, 282); 4. 1548 «cantique chanté à l'occasion des fêtes de Noël» (Rabelais, Ancien Prologue du Quart Livre, éd. R.Marichal, p.287). B. Subst. fém. 1813 (J.-F. Rolland, Dict. mauv. lang., p.93). Du lat. natalis adj. «de naissance, relatif à la naissance», natalis dies et par substantivation natalis «jour de naissance» utilisé en lat. eccl. pour désigner la Nativité du Christ. **L'o de noël (en face de l'a. fr. nael, ital. natale, a. prov. nadal) est dû à une dissimilation des 2 a de natalis.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The bold-facing is mine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In brief: the loss of /t/ between two vowels is normal in French (as in pater &gt; père). Latin natalis &gt; Old French naël. The alternative form noël implies natalis &gt; *notalis, with dissimilation of a-a to o-a." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1974" RevisionGUID="0bafeaea-8ef0-4dd1-909e-f221da8f0b40" CreationDate="2016-11-12T21:08:10.310" UserId="79" Text="We know that the final *m* was not a full consonant in classical Latin, but denoted nasalization and elongation of the preceding vowel.&#xD;&#xA;See [this](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/43/79) or [this](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1000/79) old question for more details.&#xD;&#xA;Was this effect limited to word-final position, or was an internal *m* nasalized as well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, how were *sumus*, *summus*, *amplecti*, *sumpsisti* pronounced?&#xD;&#xA;I would assume *m* had a fully consonantal nature between two vowels to avoid hiatus, but that does not rule out nasalization.&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be more freedom as the first consonant of a consonant cluster.&#xD;&#xA;For example, perhaps *summus* could be [sũ:mus] instead of the pronunciation [sum:us] I was taught.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the vowel before a consonant cluster beginning with *m* is already long (eg. *s&amp;umacr;mpsist&amp;imacr;*), which makes the combination of nasalization and elongation sound unlikely.&#xD;&#xA;The vowel before a final *m* is always short as far as I know &amp;mdash; when *m* is pronounced as a consonant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1974" RevisionGUID="0bafeaea-8ef0-4dd1-909e-f221da8f0b40" CreationDate="2016-11-12T21:08:10.310" UserId="79" Text="Was an internal m nasalized?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1974" RevisionGUID="0bafeaea-8ef0-4dd1-909e-f221da8f0b40" CreationDate="2016-11-12T21:08:10.310" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|phonetics|consonants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1975" RevisionGUID="1d9079e3-00e4-4c44-8e50-2c8cb48c1131" CreationDate="2016-11-12T22:55:55.750" UserId="978" Text="Agree that res / rem can stand for whatever the context demands.  See Horace:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rem facias, rem si possis, recte, si non quocumque modo, rem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case &quot;rem&quot; means money." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1973" RevisionGUID="170c367e-fdcf-4f98-9bcb-c4abc7ef6555" CreationDate="2016-11-12T23:35:58.277" UserId="25" Comment="Improved formatting." Text="From the etymology of [Noel (Ortolang)](http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/noel):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Étymol. et Hist. A. Subst. masc. 1. début xiies. «fête de la nativité de Jésus-Christ» al Naël Deu (Saint Brendan, 620, éd. E. G. R. Waters); 1119 Noel (Philippe de Thaon, Comput, 53, éd. E. Mall); 1694 busche de Noel «grosse bûche que l'on mettait dans l'âtre pour toute la nuit de Noël» (Ac.); 1845 arbre de Noël (Besch.); 1855 père Noël (Sand., loc. cit.); 1949 croire au père Noël (Sartre, loc. cit.); 2. 1178 «époque où l'on célèbre Noël» (Roman de Renart, Br. XII, 13311, éd. M. Roques: Ce fu un pou devant Noel Que l'on metoit bacons en sel); 1611 à Noel au perron, à Pâques au tison (Cotgr.); 3. ca 1300 «cri de réjouissance que poussait le peuple» (Guillaume de La Villeneuve, Les Crieries du peuple, 109 ds Fabliaux et Contes, éd. E. Barbazan, II, 282); 4. 1548 «cantique chanté à l'occasion des fêtes de Noël» (Rabelais, Ancien Prologue du Quart Livre, éd. R.Marichal, p.287). B. Subst. fém. 1813 (J.-F. Rolland, Dict. mauv. lang., p.93). Du lat. natalis adj. «de naissance, relatif à la naissance», natalis dies et par substantivation natalis «jour de naissance» utilisé en lat. eccl. pour désigner la Nativité du Christ. **L'o de noël (en face de l'a. fr. nael, ital. natale, a. prov. nadal) est dû à une dissimilation des 2 a de natalis.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The bold-facing is mine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In brief: the loss of /t/ between two vowels is normal in French (as in pater &gt; père). Latin natalis &gt; Old French naël. The alternative form noël implies natalis &gt; *notalis, with dissimilation of a-a to o-a." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7191" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1973" RevisionGUID="170c367e-fdcf-4f98-9bcb-c4abc7ef6555" CreationDate="2016-11-12T23:35:58.277" Comment="Proposed by 25 approved by 12 edit id of 146" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1974" RevisionGUID="6cf82a8f-54b7-4457-9b67-14c9bce0d7db" CreationDate="2016-11-13T08:40:31.627" UserId="79" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="We know that the final *m* was not a full consonant in classical Latin, but denoted nasalization and elongation of the preceding vowel.&#xD;&#xA;See [this](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/43/79) or [this](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1000/79) old question for more details.&#xD;&#xA;Was this effect limited to word-final position, or did an internal *m* nasalize the preceding vowel as well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, how were *sumus*, *summus*, *amplecti*, *sumpsisti* pronounced?&#xD;&#xA;I would assume *m* had a fully consonantal nature between two vowels to avoid hiatus, but that does not rule out nasalization.&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be more freedom as the first consonant of a consonant cluster.&#xD;&#xA;For example, perhaps *summus* could be [sũ:mus] instead of the pronunciation [sum:us] I was taught.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the vowel before a consonant cluster beginning with *m* is already long (eg. *s&amp;umacr;mpsist&amp;imacr;*), which makes the combination of nasalization and elongation sound unlikely.&#xD;&#xA;The vowel before a final *m* is always short as far as I know &amp;mdash; when *m* is pronounced as a consonant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7193" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1974" RevisionGUID="6cf82a8f-54b7-4457-9b67-14c9bce0d7db" CreationDate="2016-11-13T08:40:31.627" UserId="79" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Did an internal m nasalize the preceding vowel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1976" RevisionGUID="32305c0e-7c37-4003-b979-5d15dfa7c878" CreationDate="2016-11-13T10:02:17.980" UserId="79" Text="Today happens to be father's day in Finland, and I would like to know how to express that in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that ancient Romans did not have a father's day, so the question is about translation.&#xD;&#xA;How should I say &quot;father's day in Latin&quot; and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Dies patris* is one way to put it, but perhaps *dies patrius* would be better.&#xD;&#xA;What adjective should I use if using one is better than going with the genitive?&#xD;&#xA;Should *dies* be masculine or feminine in this use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7195" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1976" RevisionGUID="32305c0e-7c37-4003-b979-5d15dfa7c878" CreationDate="2016-11-13T10:02:17.980" UserId="79" Text="What is father's day in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7196" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1976" RevisionGUID="32305c0e-7c37-4003-b979-5d15dfa7c878" CreationDate="2016-11-13T10:02:17.980" UserId="79" Text="|translation|vocabulary|word-request|calendarium|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1977" RevisionGUID="ec60757b-c9c5-44e2-93a6-78599db9a195" CreationDate="2016-11-13T12:50:36.237" UserId="645" Text="I like to keep these things snappy and simple. *Dies patribus* — a day for fathers — expresses the spirit of the occasion and will answer in most situations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1978" RevisionGUID="eedf8fc1-f660-42b6-b2b4-edcc92fa8f4f" CreationDate="2016-11-13T13:16:17.100" UserId="61" Text="In the letter of Plinius to Tacitus about his and his mother's flight, there is the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; multi ad deos manus tollere, plures, usquam iam deos ullos aeternamque illam et novissimam noctem mundo interpretabantur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is line 36-38 in my text, but it isn't the full letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it says novissimam, which normally is translated as newest/very new, but here is translated as last. Is there a certain logic as to why novissimam can be translated as latest?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7199" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1978" RevisionGUID="eedf8fc1-f660-42b6-b2b4-edcc92fa8f4f" CreationDate="2016-11-13T13:16:17.100" UserId="61" Text="Why did romans think of novissimus as last?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7200" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1978" RevisionGUID="eedf8fc1-f660-42b6-b2b4-edcc92fa8f4f" CreationDate="2016-11-13T13:16:17.100" UserId="61" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1978" RevisionGUID="6f4ae295-a148-4592-a483-fd061319e989" CreationDate="2016-11-13T13:23:43.250" UserId="61" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="In the letter of Plinius to Tacitus about his and his mother's flight, there is the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; multi ad deos manus tollere, plures usquam iam deos ullos aeternamque illam et novissimam noctem mundo interpretabantur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is line 36-38 in my text, but it isn't the full letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it says novissimam, which normally is translated as newest/very new, but here is translated as last. Is there a certain logic as to why novissimam can be translated as latest?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1979" RevisionGUID="3d2be110-482f-4554-8dbd-ff8a93c622f8" CreationDate="2016-11-13T21:22:16.283" UserId="79" Text="I can offer an explanation, but I am unsure if the mechanism I propose is the one that produced this use.&#xD;&#xA;If others have better proof, I will be happy to see more answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the previous weekend &amp;mdash; assuming you are reading this on a weekday.&#xD;&#xA;It is the newest weekend of all the weekends there have been so far.&#xD;&#xA;It is also the last weekend so far.&#xD;&#xA;One can see &quot;newest&quot;, &quot;last&quot;, &quot;latest&quot; and &quot;previous&quot; as synonyms in this context.&#xD;&#xA;(In this context &quot;last&quot; does not mean the last of all weekends there will ever be, but in your quote &quot;last&quot; does mean the last of all nights.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Due to situations like this, one might learn to identify &quot;newest&quot; with &quot;last&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Once these words are identified, they can be used synonymously even in cases where the original reasoning makes little sense.&#xD;&#xA;My &quot;weekend story&quot; above gives no reason say that &quot;newest&quot; and &quot;last&quot; are always synonymous, but extension of an analogy beyond its original realm is not that rare.&#xD;&#xA;Since in your quote &quot;last&quot; and &quot;newest&quot; do not seem to mean the same, this kind of mechanism sounds plausible to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1978" RevisionGUID="422e7898-a197-4605-beca-4e001cb15a77" CreationDate="2016-11-13T21:24:19.500" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags and a link." Text="In the letter of Plinius to Tacitus about his and his mother's flight, there is the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; multi ad deos manus tollere, plures usquam iam deos ullos aeternamque illam et novissimam noctem mundo interpretabantur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is line 36&amp;ndash;38 in my text, but it isn't the full letter.&#xD;&#xA;This is from [Plin. Ep. 6.20.15](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0139%3Abook%3D6%3Aletter%3D20%3Asection%3D15).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it says novissimam, which normally is translated as newest/very new, but here is translated as last. Is there a certain logic as to why novissimam can be translated as latest?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7204" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1978" RevisionGUID="422e7898-a197-4605-beca-4e001cb15a77" CreationDate="2016-11-13T21:24:19.500" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags and a link." Text="Why did Romans think of novissimus as last?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7205" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1978" RevisionGUID="422e7898-a197-4605-beca-4e001cb15a77" CreationDate="2016-11-13T21:24:19.500" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags and a link." Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|etymology|plinius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1958" RevisionGUID="acd874dd-05b8-496f-9d73-908bd13278e0" CreationDate="2016-11-13T22:51:17.787" UserId="932" Comment="add a little infos about Wilkins book" Text="As Aristotle is generally considered as the father of biology — Darwin wrote: “*Linnaeus and Cuvier have been my two gods… but they were mere school-boys to old Aristotle*.” (in a letter to W. Ogle, 1882) —, it is logical to search for such a definition in his works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Pierre Pellegrin (in particular in *Une zoologie sans espèce*, 1984), the definition isn’t the goal of Aristotle’s biology, however we can note two passages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- where Aristotle defines the genus by the resemblance:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(*[PA][1]*, 645a {{[fr][1]}}) […] Σχεδὸν δὲ τοῖς σχήμασι τῶν μορίων καὶ τοῦ σώματος ὅλου, ἐὰν ὁμοιότητα ἔχωσιν, ὥρισται τὰ γένη, οἷον τὸ τῶν ὀρνίθων γένος πρὸς αὐτὰ πέπονθε καὶ τὸ τῶν ἰχθύων καὶ τὰ μαλάκιά τε καὶ τὰ ὄστρεια. Τὰ γὰρ μόρια διαφέρουσι τούτων οὐ τῇ ἀνάλογον ὁμοιότητι, οἷον ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ ἰχθύϊ πέπονθεν ὀστοῦν πρὸς ἄκανθαν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τοῖς σωματικοῖς πάθεσιν, οἷον μεγέθει μικρότητι, μαλακότητι σκληρότητι, λειότητι τραχύτητι καὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις, ὅλως δὲ τῷ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Translation (W. Ogle):  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*It is generally similarity in the shape of particular organs, or of the whole body, that has determined the formation of the larger groups. It is in virtue of such a similarity that Birds, Fishes, Cephalopoda, and Testacea have been made to form each a separate class. For within the limits of each such class, the parts do not differ in that they have no nearer resemblance than that of analogy-such as exists between the bone of man and the spine of fish-but differ merely in respect of such corporeal conditions as largeness smallness, softness hardness, smoothness roughness, and other similar oppositions, or, in one word, in respect of degree.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- and where he proposes a determination of **species** from a combination of parties:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(*Politics*, [1290b25-37][2] {{[en][3]}}) […] [25] ὥσπερ οὖν εἰ ζῴου προῃρούμεθα λαβεῖν εἴδη, πρῶτον ἂν ἀποδιωρίζομεν ἅπερ ἀναγκαῖον πᾶν ἔχειν ζῷον (οἷον ἔνιά τε τῶν αἰσθητηρίων καὶ τὸ τῆς τροφῆς ἐργαστικὸν καὶ δεκτικόν, οἷον στόμα καὶ κοιλίαν, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις, οἷς κινεῖται μορίοις ἕκαστον αὐτῶν)· εἰ δὲ τοσαῦτα εἴη μόνον, τούτων δ᾽ εἶεν [30] διαφοραί (λέγω δ᾽ οἷον στόματός τινα πλείω γένη καὶ κοιλίας καὶ τῶν αἰσθητηρίων, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῶν κινητικῶν μορίων), ὁ τῆς συζεύξεως τῆς τούτων ἀριθμὸς ἐξ ἀνάγκης ποιήσει πλείω γένη ζῴων (οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε ταὐτὸν ζῷον ἔχειν πλείους στόματος διαφοράς, ὁμοίως δὲ οὐδ᾽ ὤτων), ὥσθ᾽ ὅταν ληφθῶσι [35] τούτων πάντες οἱ ἐνδεχόμενοι συνδυασμοί, ποιήσουσιν εἴδη ζῴου, καὶ τοσαῦτ᾽ εἴδη τοῦ ζῴου ὅσαι περ αἱ συζεύξεις τῶν ἀναγκαίων μορίων εἰσίν τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον καὶ τῶν εἰρημένων πολιτειῶν.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Translation ([William Ellis][4]):  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*[…] thus, if we should endeavour to comprehend the different species of animals we should first of all note those parts which every animal must have, as a certain sensorium, and also what is necessary to acquire and retain food, as a mouth and a belly; besides certain parts to enable it to move from place to place. If, then, these are the only parts of an animal and there are differences between them; namely, in their various sorts of stomachs, bellies, and sensoriums: to which we must add their motive powers; the number of the combinations of all these must necessarily make up the different species of animals. For it is not possible that the same kind of animal should have any very great difference in its mouth or ears; so that when all these are collected, who happen to have these things similar in all, they make up a species of animals of which there are as many as there are of these general combinations of necessary parts.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way of defining species seems to be the one involved in the *History of Animals* (I-1, e.g. [486b22][5] {{[fr][6]}}):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…] ὁμοίως γὰρ ὥσπερ τὸ ὅλον ἔχει πρὸς τὸ ὅλον, καὶ τῶν μορίων ἔχει ἕκαστον πρὸς ἕκαστον. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Translation ([Pierre Pellegrin][7]):  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*According to the parts that each of the animals possesses, that is how they are simultaneously other and the same.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It’s by the comparison and the resemblance that Aristotle seems to define species, as in PA 639a18-19 where he exposes his method. So we can assume it is very near from modern definitions of species, e.g. like that of Cuvier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The word species means *those individuals who descend from one another or from common parents and those who resemble them as much as they resemble each other.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Recherches sur les ossements fossiles de quadrupèdes* (Discours préliminaire), 1812&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[*…les individus qui descendent les uns des autres ou de parents communs et ceux qui leur ressemblent autant qu’ils se ressemblent entre eux.*], translated by F. Zachos, in *[Species Concepts in Biology][8]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;##Some interesting references&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve used the first one for this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ***[Aristote zoologue][9]***, René Lefebvre  &#xD;&#xA;A very interesting article, based on works by **D. Balme** and **P. Pellegrin**, however it’s in French.&#xD;&#xA;- *[Aristotle's Biology][10]*, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy  &#xD;&#xA;Not specifically about species definition, but interesting yet.&#xD;&#xA;- *[The Species Problem: A Philosophical Analysis][11]*, Richards A. Richards  &#xD;&#xA;For a discussion of the many meanings of εἶδος in Aristotle’s works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. As enmattered form (the *appearance*, the *shape of the body*, already in Homer);&#xD;&#xA;3. As principles of development and organization (this sense originated with Aristotle);&#xD;&#xA;1. A logical sense of *εἶδος*, as *logical universals*, from the Pythagoreans and Plato.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, just after having finished to write this answer, this book:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Defining Species: A Sourcebook from Antiquity to Today][12]*, John S. Wilkins. Definitions can be found for other writers than Aristotle (the best is to read the book, partially available on Google Books, quotations aren’t very long):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Plato**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Lucretius** ([*De Rerum Natura*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/lucretius/lucretius1.shtml), I, 159-158) (Epicurus’ teaching)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Pliny the Elder**, whose *Historia Naturalia* was “*the standard educated person’s encyclopedia of the natural world from its publication to the 18th century“ and is largely based on Aristotle: see [vol. VIII, 44][13]: “… *quos percunctando quinquaginta ferme volumina illa praeclara de animalibus condidit. quae a me collecta in artum cum iis, quae ignoraverat, quaeso ut legentes boni consulant, in universis rerum naturae operibus medioque clarissimi regum omnium desiderio cura nostra breviter peregrinantes.*” — translation ([W.H.S. Jones][14]): “*To my compendium of these, with the addition of facts unknown to him, I request my readers to give a favorable reception, while making a brief excursion under our direction among the whole of the works of Nature, the central interest of the most glorious of all sovereigns.*”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Porphyry the Phoenician**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/Aristote/partieslivre1.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k378518d/f244.item.r=aristote,%20politica.zoom&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/6762/6762-h/6762-h.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Politics_(Ellis)/Book_4#CHAPTER_IV&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/Aristote/animaux1gr.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/Aristote/animaux1.htm#14&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=XrVrKrt3fPYC&amp;pg=PA117&amp;dq=On%20the%20Parts%20of%20Animals%20486b22&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=dNU0DQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA26&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.buffon.cnrs.fr/etudes/pdf/aristote-zoologue.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-biology/#Bio&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=UzCB656NilUC&amp;pg=PA28&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=pazpr2vJxQAC&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Pliny_the_Elder/8*.html#44&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.masseiana.org/pliny.htm#BOOK%20VIII" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1980" RevisionGUID="cff91ad2-16c8-48d1-8300-744345d75eb4" CreationDate="2016-11-14T02:12:27.297" UserId="78" Text="Holidays were festivals and marked by an adjectival form in the neuter plural. Based on similar festivals, it would probably be **patralia**. Compare similar examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Saturnalia, the festival of Saturnus&#xD;&#xA;* Parentalia, the festival commemorating your ancestors&#xD;&#xA;* Parilia, founding date of Rome" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7208" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1960" RevisionGUID="80357eeb-a7ac-4a55-99be-ef53a484f7d4" CreationDate="2016-11-14T12:45:03.740" UserId="986" Comment="13" />
  <row Id="7209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1958" RevisionGUID="df7153af-de38-4dc1-a8cf-5b097bf8b5b1" CreationDate="2016-11-14T13:56:44.670" UserId="932" Comment="typo" Text="As Aristotle is generally considered as the father of biology — Darwin wrote: “*Linnaeus and Cuvier have been my two gods… but they were mere school-boys to old Aristotle*.” (in a letter to W. Ogle, 1882) —, it is logical to search for such a definition in his works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Pierre Pellegrin (in particular in *Une zoologie sans espèce*, 1984), the definition isn’t the goal of Aristotle’s biology, however we can note two passages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- where Aristotle defines the genus by the resemblance:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(*[PA][1]*, 645a {{[fr][1]}}) […] Σχεδὸν δὲ τοῖς σχήμασι τῶν μορίων καὶ τοῦ σώματος ὅλου, ἐὰν ὁμοιότητα ἔχωσιν, ὥρισται τὰ γένη, οἷον τὸ τῶν ὀρνίθων γένος πρὸς αὐτὰ πέπονθε καὶ τὸ τῶν ἰχθύων καὶ τὰ μαλάκιά τε καὶ τὰ ὄστρεια. Τὰ γὰρ μόρια διαφέρουσι τούτων οὐ τῇ ἀνάλογον ὁμοιότητι, οἷον ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ ἰχθύϊ πέπονθεν ὀστοῦν πρὸς ἄκανθαν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τοῖς σωματικοῖς πάθεσιν, οἷον μεγέθει μικρότητι, μαλακότητι σκληρότητι, λειότητι τραχύτητι καὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις, ὅλως δὲ τῷ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Translation (W. Ogle):  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*It is generally similarity in the shape of particular organs, or of the whole body, that has determined the formation of the larger groups. It is in virtue of such a similarity that Birds, Fishes, Cephalopoda, and Testacea have been made to form each a separate class. For within the limits of each such class, the parts do not differ in that they have no nearer resemblance than that of analogy-such as exists between the bone of man and the spine of fish-but differ merely in respect of such corporeal conditions as largeness smallness, softness hardness, smoothness roughness, and other similar oppositions, or, in one word, in respect of degree.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- and where he proposes a determination of **species** from a combination of parties:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(*Politics*, [1290b25-37][2] {{[en][3]}}) […] [25] ὥσπερ οὖν εἰ ζῴου προῃρούμεθα λαβεῖν εἴδη, πρῶτον ἂν ἀποδιωρίζομεν ἅπερ ἀναγκαῖον πᾶν ἔχειν ζῷον (οἷον ἔνιά τε τῶν αἰσθητηρίων καὶ τὸ τῆς τροφῆς ἐργαστικὸν καὶ δεκτικόν, οἷον στόμα καὶ κοιλίαν, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις, οἷς κινεῖται μορίοις ἕκαστον αὐτῶν)· εἰ δὲ τοσαῦτα εἴη μόνον, τούτων δ᾽ εἶεν [30] διαφοραί (λέγω δ᾽ οἷον στόματός τινα πλείω γένη καὶ κοιλίας καὶ τῶν αἰσθητηρίων, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῶν κινητικῶν μορίων), ὁ τῆς συζεύξεως τῆς τούτων ἀριθμὸς ἐξ ἀνάγκης ποιήσει πλείω γένη ζῴων (οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε ταὐτὸν ζῷον ἔχειν πλείους στόματος διαφοράς, ὁμοίως δὲ οὐδ᾽ ὤτων), ὥσθ᾽ ὅταν ληφθῶσι [35] τούτων πάντες οἱ ἐνδεχόμενοι συνδυασμοί, ποιήσουσιν εἴδη ζῴου, καὶ τοσαῦτ᾽ εἴδη τοῦ ζῴου ὅσαι περ αἱ συζεύξεις τῶν ἀναγκαίων μορίων εἰσίν τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον καὶ τῶν εἰρημένων πολιτειῶν.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Translation ([William Ellis][4]):  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*[…] thus, if we should endeavour to comprehend the different species of animals we should first of all note those parts which every animal must have, as a certain sensorium, and also what is necessary to acquire and retain food, as a mouth and a belly; besides certain parts to enable it to move from place to place. If, then, these are the only parts of an animal and there are differences between them; namely, in their various sorts of stomachs, bellies, and sensoriums: to which we must add their motive powers; the number of the combinations of all these must necessarily make up the different species of animals. For it is not possible that the same kind of animal should have any very great difference in its mouth or ears; so that when all these are collected, who happen to have these things similar in all, they make up a species of animals of which there are as many as there are of these general combinations of necessary parts.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way of defining species seems to be the one involved in the *History of Animals* (I-1, e.g. [486b22][5] {{[fr][6]}}):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…] ὁμοίως γὰρ ὥσπερ τὸ ὅλον ἔχει πρὸς τὸ ὅλον, καὶ τῶν μορίων ἔχει ἕκαστον πρὸς ἕκαστον. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Translation ([Pierre Pellegrin][7]):  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*According to the parts that each of the animals possesses, that is how they are simultaneously other and the same.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It’s by the comparison and the resemblance that Aristotle seems to define species, as in PA 639a18-19 where he exposes his method. So we can assume it is very near from modern definitions of species, e.g. like that of Cuvier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The word species means *those individuals who descend from one another or from common parents and those who resemble them as much as they resemble each other.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Recherches sur les ossements fossiles de quadrupèdes* (Discours préliminaire), 1812&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[*…les individus qui descendent les uns des autres ou de parents communs et ceux qui leur ressemblent autant qu’ils se ressemblent entre eux.*], translated by F. Zachos, in *[Species Concepts in Biology][8]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;##Some interesting references&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve used the first one for this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ***[Aristote zoologue][9]***, René Lefebvre  &#xD;&#xA;A very interesting article, based on works by **D. Balme** and **P. Pellegrin**, however it’s in French.&#xD;&#xA;- *[Aristotle's Biology][10]*, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy  &#xD;&#xA;Not specifically about species definition, but interesting yet.&#xD;&#xA;- *[The Species Problem: A Philosophical Analysis][11]*, Richards A. Richards  &#xD;&#xA;For a discussion of the many meanings of εἶδος in Aristotle’s works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. As enmattered form (the *appearance*, the *shape of the body*, already in Homer);&#xD;&#xA;3. As principles of development and organization (this sense originated with Aristotle);&#xD;&#xA;1. A logical sense of *εἶδος*, as *logical universals*, from the Pythagoreans and Plato.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, just after having finished to write this answer, this book:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Defining Species: A Sourcebook from Antiquity to Today][12]*, John S. Wilkins. Definitions can be found for other writers than Aristotle (the best is to read the book, partially available on Google Books, quotations aren’t very long):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Plato**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Lucretius** ([*De Rerum Natura*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/lucretius/lucretius1.shtml), I, 159-158) (Epicurus’ teaching)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Pliny the Elder**, whose *Historia Naturalia* was “*the standard educated person’s encyclopedia of the natural world from its publication to the 18th century*“ and is largely based on Aristotle: see [vol. VIII, 44][13]: “… *quos percunctando quinquaginta ferme volumina illa praeclara de animalibus condidit. quae a me collecta in artum cum iis, quae ignoraverat, quaeso ut legentes boni consulant, in universis rerum naturae operibus medioque clarissimi regum omnium desiderio cura nostra breviter peregrinantes.*” — translation ([W.H.S. Jones][14]): “*To my compendium of these, with the addition of facts unknown to him, I request my readers to give a favorable reception, while making a brief excursion under our direction among the whole of the works of Nature, the central interest of the most glorious of all sovereigns.*”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Porphyry the Phoenician**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/Aristote/partieslivre1.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k378518d/f244.item.r=aristote,%20politica.zoom&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/6762/6762-h/6762-h.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Politics_(Ellis)/Book_4#CHAPTER_IV&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/Aristote/animaux1gr.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/Aristote/animaux1.htm#14&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=XrVrKrt3fPYC&amp;pg=PA117&amp;dq=On%20the%20Parts%20of%20Animals%20486b22&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=dNU0DQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA26&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.buffon.cnrs.fr/etudes/pdf/aristote-zoologue.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-biology/#Bio&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=UzCB656NilUC&amp;pg=PA28&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=pazpr2vJxQAC&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Pliny_the_Elder/8*.html#44&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.masseiana.org/pliny.htm#BOOK%20VIII" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1981" RevisionGUID="39af2c61-1f11-424b-a655-30d7f2f9daa5" CreationDate="2016-11-14T15:08:19.473" UserId="645" Text="The Romans denoted the year by naming the consuls (though one can see that it might have been rather awkward when the second of two consecutive days coincided with the appointment of new incumbents), until the more convenient system of *anno domini* was introduced to denote successive years from the birth of Christ, a far neater arrangement which simultaneously removed all doubt about the calendar year in which any date fell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It isn't necessary to use the Roman method of Kalends, etc. Writers in more recent centuries generally took the easy course offered by the modern system, so that New Year's Eve for this year would simply be written *XXXI* [*mensis*] *Decembri MMXVI* (though you may feel that some expression on the lines of *pridie Novum Annum MMXVI* is more elegant in your own circumstances). I suggest that where a modern form is widely approved, it's OK to use it. After all, if you are writing or speaking of modern topics for which neologisms have had to be invented, why not use this one, too?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A footnote may be of interest here: he British parliament used to date its Acts by the regnal year of the monarch, e.g. the Duchy of Lancaster Act 1812 is recorded as '1812 CHAPTER 161 52 Geo 3', it being the 52nd year of the reign of King George III — an echo of the ancients' use of, for example, *C. Pansa et A. Hirtio consulibus . . .* ]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1983" RevisionGUID="5e56f4f5-4aa1-4601-a3c7-9cb2c655acd2" CreationDate="2016-11-14T22:00:18.420" UserId="39" Text="(this is just a prelim answer so far) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are different opinions on whether vowels followed by a nasal continuant (m or n) were nasalized in Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [Sen 2015][1] claims that &quot;[v]owels preceding nasals in Latin nasalized&quot; (p. 72),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;whereas [Marotta 1999][2] argues that &quot;the evidence for postulating long nasalized vowels in Latin does not seem to be strong enough&quot; (p. 289).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, it wasn't probably phonemic, at least in Classical Latin; so it was allophonic variation and I don't see how we can seriously discuss allophonic variation in a dead language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660186.001.0001/acprof-9780199660186-chapter-3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110806793/9783110806793.285/9783110806793.285.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1984" RevisionGUID="9b909c54-c35a-4217-a2b0-ef1381f3cee2" CreationDate="2016-11-15T04:16:02.677" UserId="989" Text="&gt; Does anyone have a list of false friends for Latin vocabulary? I can't seem to find any online. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7214" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1984" RevisionGUID="9b909c54-c35a-4217-a2b0-ef1381f3cee2" CreationDate="2016-11-15T04:16:02.677" UserId="989" Text="List of false friends" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7215" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1984" RevisionGUID="9b909c54-c35a-4217-a2b0-ef1381f3cee2" CreationDate="2016-11-15T04:16:02.677" UserId="989" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1983" RevisionGUID="efc6c97b-4c6b-4433-9076-5f17ae9c006f" CreationDate="2016-11-15T04:55:56.720" UserId="39" Comment="added 403 characters in body" Text="Sampson 2009 summarizes research on nasalization of vowels in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;there is every reason for believing that in the history of  Latin significant vowel nasality, allophonic and perhaps even phonemic, may well have been found at different times, in different places, and with different sociolinguisic significance&quot; (p. 42).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Researchers don't entirely agree on its phonetic environment though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [Sen 2015][1] claims that &quot;[v]owels preceding nasals in Latin nasalized&quot; (p. 72). [Clackson 2008][2] writes that nasalized vowels in Latin were inherently long and occurred in two positions only: word-final and before a nasal+continuant (p. 77).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some dissenting voices out there. For instance, [Marotta 1999][3] argues that &quot;the evidence for postulating long nasalized vowels in Latin does not seem to be strong enough&quot; (p. 289).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660186.001.0001/acprof-9780199660186-chapter-3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-ancient-languages-of-europe/latin/243E73E9B79EF858C7EC0BDE597FFD1B&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110806793/9783110806793.285/9783110806793.285.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1983" RevisionGUID="a82a18e9-a196-48eb-980b-0ec9b8d21da9" CreationDate="2016-11-15T05:01:58.990" UserId="39" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="[Sampson 2009][1] summarizes research on nasalization of vowels in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;there is every reason for believing that in the history of  Latin significant vowel nasality, allophonic and perhaps even phonemic, may well have been found at different times, in different places, and with different sociolinguisic significance&quot; (p. 42).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Researchers don't entirely agree on its phonetic environment though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [Sen 2015][2] claims that &quot;[v]owels preceding nasals in Latin nasalized&quot; (p. 72). [Clackson 2008][3] writes that nasalized vowels in Latin were inherently long and occurred in two positions only: word-final and before a nasal+continuant (p. 77).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some dissenting voices out there. For instance, [Marotta 1999][4] argues that &quot;the evidence for postulating long nasalized vowels in Latin does not seem to be strong enough&quot; (p. 289).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/nasal-vowel-evolution-in-romance-9780198238485?cc=us&amp;lang=en&amp;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660186.001.0001/acprof-9780199660186-chapter-3&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-ancient-languages-of-europe/latin/243E73E9B79EF858C7EC0BDE597FFD1B&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110806793/9783110806793.285/9783110806793.285.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1983" RevisionGUID="783b2a81-0616-4578-97b1-f96d4e3e9f4d" CreationDate="2016-11-15T05:11:33.760" UserId="39" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="[Sampson 1999][1] summarizes research on nasalization of vowels in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;there is every reason for believing that in the history of  Latin significant vowel nasality, allophonic and perhaps even phonemic, may well have been found at different times, in different places, and with different sociolinguisic significance&quot; (p. 42).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Researchers don't entirely agree on its phonetic environment though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [Sen 2015][2] claims that &quot;[v]owels preceding nasals in Latin nasalized&quot; (p. 72). [Clackson 2008][3] writes that nasalized vowels in Latin were inherently long and occurred in two positions only: word-final and before a nasal+continuant (p. 77).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some dissenting voices out there. For instance, [Marotta 1999][4] argues that &quot;the evidence for postulating long nasalized vowels in Latin does not seem to be strong enough&quot; (p. 289).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there are no audio recordings of Classical Latin (obviously!), all we can assume is that vowels before a nasal stop were most likely nasalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/nasal-vowel-evolution-in-romance-9780198238485?cc=us&amp;lang=en&amp;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660186.001.0001/acprof-9780199660186-chapter-3&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-ancient-languages-of-europe/latin/243E73E9B79EF858C7EC0BDE597FFD1B&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110806793/9783110806793.285/9783110806793.285.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1985" RevisionGUID="7d2a7e62-8113-4eac-9537-f2a88ee9b857" CreationDate="2016-11-15T13:12:08.007" UserId="203" Text="I asked this on the HistorySE site, without much luck, so thought I'd try here. If it's inappropriate for this forum, please let me know and I'll delete it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have just been reading [this](http://www.forumromanum.org/life/johnston_2.html#60)  which is admittedly very old, and there is a statement which has me totally confused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... the master might disregard the regular form and give the freedman any name he pleased. Thus, when Cicero manumitted his slaves Tiro and Dionysius, he called the former, in strict accord with custom, Mārcus Tullius Tīrō, but to the latter he gave his own praenōmen and the nōmen of his friend Titus Pomponius Atticus, the new name being Mārcus Pompōnius Dionysius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not understand how Cicero could give his freedman the *nomen* of another. My understanding was that in formal contexts, Tiro, for example, would be *M. Tullius Tiro l M* - eg Marcus Tullius Tiro, freedman of Marcus - which would indicate a clear identity and affiliation. How would *Mārcus Pompōnius Dionysius* do this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7221" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1985" RevisionGUID="7d2a7e62-8113-4eac-9537-f2a88ee9b857" CreationDate="2016-11-15T13:12:08.007" UserId="203" Text="Confusion re the naming of Roman freedman" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7222" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1985" RevisionGUID="7d2a7e62-8113-4eac-9537-f2a88ee9b857" CreationDate="2016-11-15T13:12:08.007" UserId="203" Text="|praenmen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7223" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1985" RevisionGUID="cfc5c4bf-5734-44f4-9470-baa6c79a3d6d" CreationDate="2016-11-15T13:43:57.333" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1984" RevisionGUID="208fc721-3047-4350-a54d-3e2b7ad7ea22" CreationDate="2016-11-15T14:06:21.860" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Does anyone have a list of false friends for Latin vocabulary? I can't seem to find any online. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1985" RevisionGUID="d4ef6dcf-3bdc-4c08-93c0-2d58ddfcb5dd" CreationDate="2016-11-15T14:58:23.170" UserId="203" Comment="Added link to History SE " Text="I asked this on the HistorySE site, without much luck, so thought I'd try here. If it's inappropriate for this forum, please let me know and I'll delete it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have just been reading [this](http://www.forumromanum.org/life/johnston_2.html#60)  which is admittedly very old, and there is a statement which has me totally confused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... the master might disregard the regular form and give the freedman any name he pleased. Thus, when Cicero manumitted his slaves Tiro and Dionysius, he called the former, in strict accord with custom, Mārcus Tullius Tīrō, but to the latter he gave his own praenōmen and the nōmen of his friend Titus Pomponius Atticus, the new name being Mārcus Pompōnius Dionysius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not understand how Cicero could give his freedman the *nomen* of another. My understanding was that in formal contexts, Tiro, for example, would be *M. Tullius Tiro l M* - eg Marcus Tullius Tiro, freedman of Marcus - which would indicate a clear identity and affiliation. How would *Mārcus Pompōnius Dionysius* do this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________________________________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/33563/confusion-re-the-naming-of-roman-freedman" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1983" RevisionGUID="c041a528-10d5-48a5-b56e-363b9c6d8840" CreationDate="2016-11-15T16:28:29.143" UserId="39" Comment="added 224 characters in body" Text="[Sampson 1999][1] summarizes research on nasalization of vowels in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;there is every reason for believing that in the history of  Latin significant vowel nasality, allophonic and perhaps even phonemic, may well have been found at different times, in different places, and with different sociolinguisic significance&quot; (p. 42).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Researchers don't entirely agree on its phonetic environment though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [Sen 2015][2] claims that &quot;[v]owels preceding nasals in Latin nasalized&quot; (p. 72). [Clackson 2008][3] writes that nasalized vowels in Latin were inherently long and occurred in two positions only: word-final and before a nasal+continuant (p. 77).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some dissenting voices out there. For instance, [Marotta 1999][4] argues that &quot;the evidence for postulating long nasalized vowels in Latin does not seem to be strong enough&quot; (p. 289).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there are no audio recordings of Classical Latin (obviously!), all we can assume is that vowels before a nasal stop were most likely nasalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't worry about making a special effort to pronounce vowels nasalized before an m since it should happen automatically in such contexts. It'd be hard not to utter a nasalized vowel before a nasal consonant anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/nasal-vowel-evolution-in-romance-9780198238485?cc=us&amp;lang=en&amp;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660186.001.0001/acprof-9780199660186-chapter-3&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-ancient-languages-of-europe/latin/243E73E9B79EF858C7EC0BDE597FFD1B&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110806793/9783110806793.285/9783110806793.285.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1987" RevisionGUID="70400a4b-aa3d-4cf4-9e24-e3afd7f55b41" CreationDate="2016-11-16T12:55:50.710" UserId="992" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Could you help me please about this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;sicut heri et nudiustertius, seriatim procedere, nec eorum clitellariis dabatur saltem repere posse&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7230" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1987" RevisionGUID="70400a4b-aa3d-4cf4-9e24-e3afd7f55b41" CreationDate="2016-11-16T12:55:50.710" UserId="992" Text="about latin-english translate help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7231" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1987" RevisionGUID="70400a4b-aa3d-4cf4-9e24-e3afd7f55b41" CreationDate="2016-11-16T12:55:50.710" UserId="992" Text="|medieval-latin|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1987" RevisionGUID="18b57142-382a-4035-8d80-7cafc5593df3" CreationDate="2016-11-16T13:07:45.853" UserId="992" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Could you help me please about this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;sicut heri et nudiustertius, seriatim procedere, nec eorum clitellariis dabatur saltem repere posse&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7236" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1987" RevisionGUID="18b57142-382a-4035-8d80-7cafc5593df3" CreationDate="2016-11-16T13:07:45.853" UserId="992" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|translation|medieval-latin|history|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1987" RevisionGUID="dcaeb283-3e9d-4c13-b0a6-a44b5a0dcd13" CreationDate="2016-11-16T13:15:21.953" UserId="79" Comment="added 149 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I am a historian, and I came across a text from Bauldric of Dol, a medieval historian. This text is about the crusades. I have been unable to translate the following passage. Could someone here help me out?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sicut heri et nudiustertius, seriatim procedere, nec eorum clitellariis dabatur saltem repere posse" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7238" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1987" RevisionGUID="dcaeb283-3e9d-4c13-b0a6-a44b5a0dcd13" CreationDate="2016-11-16T13:15:21.953" UserId="79" Comment="added 149 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Translation of a passage related to the crusades" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7239" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1987" RevisionGUID="dcaeb283-3e9d-4c13-b0a6-a44b5a0dcd13" CreationDate="2016-11-16T13:15:21.953" UserId="79" Comment="added 149 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|translation|medieval-latin|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1989" RevisionGUID="3e47c319-a03f-4be6-9c81-53b2eaa0cea5" CreationDate="2016-11-16T13:30:54.550" UserId="79" Text="The word *mille* is weird.&#xD;&#xA;In singular it is &amp;mdash; or can be considered &amp;mdash; an indeclinable adjective, and the main word is declined according to the grammatical role.&#xD;&#xA;In plural it is a declinable neuter noun, and the main word is always declined in plural genitive.&#xD;&#xA;If examples are needed, do ask, but I suspect any material on Latin grammar covers this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did this weird behaviour develop?&#xD;&#xA;Was *mille* originally only a noun (or only an adjective) and it was somehow split later on?&#xD;&#xA;Or were the singular and plural originally two different words which were later analyzed to be the singular and plural of the same thing?&#xD;&#xA;Does the word have cognates that might shed light on its origins?&#xD;&#xA;Do we know what lead to the *mille/milia* we know from classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7241" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1989" RevisionGUID="3e47c319-a03f-4be6-9c81-53b2eaa0cea5" CreationDate="2016-11-16T13:30:54.550" UserId="79" Text="How did mille get so weird?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7242" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1989" RevisionGUID="3e47c319-a03f-4be6-9c81-53b2eaa0cea5" CreationDate="2016-11-16T13:30:54.550" UserId="79" Text="|language-evolution|numerals|old-latin|numbers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1987" RevisionGUID="c4603a36-1031-4ec2-9475-57193bdf1f83" CreationDate="2016-11-16T13:53:08.953" UserId="932" Comment="add a link" Text="I am a historian, and I came across a text from Bauldric of Dol, a medieval historian. This text is about the crusades. I have been unable to translate the following passage. Could someone here help me out?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sicut heri et nudiustertius, seriatim procedere, nec eorum clitellariis dabatur saltem repere posse&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *in* Bladricus Dolensis (c.1050–1130), *Historia Hierosolymitana*, [liber II][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/xfromcc.php?tabelle=Baldricus_Dolensis_cps2&amp;rumpfid=Baldricus_Dolensis_cps2,%20Historia%20Hierosolymitana,%20%20%202&amp;id=Baldricus_Dolensis_cps2,%20Historia%20Hierosolymitana,%20%20%202&amp;level=3&amp;corpus=2&amp;current_title=LIBER%20SECUNDUS." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7244" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1987" RevisionGUID="c4603a36-1031-4ec2-9475-57193bdf1f83" CreationDate="2016-11-16T13:53:08.953" Comment="Proposed by 932 approved by 79 edit id of 147" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1990" RevisionGUID="c694253d-0d71-4864-aadb-c70155aa3e4c" CreationDate="2016-11-16T14:05:27.047" UserId="993" Text="I am currently studying Latin in high school (3rd year), so I do have a mild understanding of how the language works. But I would like to know whether this translation is correct. For various reasons, I can't ask my Latin teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Hic fortissimus, primus inter pares.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hoping to mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;This most powerful (individual), the first amongst equals.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I am looking for an adjective to mean &quot;powerful&quot; as in &quot;with great authority/influential&quot;. Would you recommend any other word besides &quot;fortes&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much for all of your support." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7246" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1990" RevisionGUID="c694253d-0d71-4864-aadb-c70155aa3e4c" CreationDate="2016-11-16T14:05:27.047" UserId="993" Text="Would this translation be correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7247" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1990" RevisionGUID="c694253d-0d71-4864-aadb-c70155aa3e4c" CreationDate="2016-11-16T14:05:27.047" UserId="993" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1991" RevisionGUID="b5217146-0c33-453f-a217-fb17b3c3ccee" CreationDate="2016-11-16T14:22:37.190" UserId="45" Text="This quote is from the [*Historia Ierusalem Baldrici Dolensis Archiepiscopi*](https://books.google.com/books?id=0GpHAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PT537), Book 2 (pg. 1092 of  Migne, *Patrologia Latina*, CLXVI).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your quote is only a fragment of the relevant sentence, which is likely why you are not able to make any sense of it. Here is the full sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iter enim aggressi, gradiebantur rependo per montana, nimis aspera et scopulosa, per quae nec eorum phalanges poterant, **sicut heri et nudiustertius, seriatim procedere, nec eorum clitellariis dabatur saltem repere posse**, sed miserrime hi et illi praegravabantur, neque siquidem illis in angusto positis, aliud erat aliunde diverticulum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my translation: I have purposely separated the long sentence into shorter ones that are better adapted to English syntax.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having begun the journey, they advanced, crawling through the mountainous area, exceedingly perilous and craggy. Their battalions could not, **like yesterday and the day before, proceed in a file, nor was it possible for their pack animals even to crawl forward through this area.** Rather, they both were miserably encumbered, and there was not even an alternate route starting from elsewhere, since they were in a narrow area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two minor doubts on my part (comments welcome):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *phalanges* can be a &quot;battalion&quot; or also a &quot;pole for carrying burdens&quot; or &quot;rollers for transporting war machinery&quot; (see [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dphalangae)). It's very possible that the latter is intended.&#xD;&#xA;2. I'm not entirely certain why *siquidem* is used: I am translating it as if it were *quidem*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7249" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1990" RevisionGUID="c9feaf2e-d72d-41a9-bedf-caff3974b10c" CreationDate="2016-11-16T15:22:38.023" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1990" RevisionGUID="d6e459ca-143e-4ee8-9c8a-0d1112f0a0cf" CreationDate="2016-11-16T16:00:38.220" UserId="45" Comment="edited body" Text="I am currently studying Latin in high school (3rd year), so I do have a mild understanding of how the language works. But I would like to know whether this translation is correct. For various reasons, I can't ask my Latin teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hic fortissimus, primus inter pares.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hoping to mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This most powerful (individual), the first amongst equals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I am looking for an adjective to mean &quot;powerful&quot; as in &quot;with great authority/influential&quot;. Would you recommend any other word besides &quot;fortes&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much for all of your support." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1991" RevisionGUID="827421dc-9729-4ac7-8fab-c96546eba3d4" CreationDate="2016-11-16T16:14:55.300" UserId="45" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="This quote is from the [*Historia Ierusalem Baldrici Dolensis Archiepiscopi*](https://books.google.com/books?id=0GpHAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PT537), Book 2 (pg. 1092 of  Migne, *Patrologia Latina*, CLXVI).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your quote is only a fragment of the relevant sentence, which is likely why you are not able to make any sense of it. Here is the full sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iter enim aggressi, gradiebantur rependo per montana, nimis aspera et scopulosa, per quae nec eorum phalanges poterant, **sicut heri et nudiustertius, seriatim procedere, nec eorum clitellariis dabatur saltem repere posse**, sed miserrime hi et illi praegravabantur, neque siquidem illis in angusto positis, aliud erat aliunde diverticulum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my translation: I have purposely separated the long sentence into shorter ones that are better adapted to English syntax.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having begun the journey, they advanced, crawling through the mountainous area, which was exceedingly perilous and craggy. Their battalions could not, **like yesterday and the day before, proceed in a file, nor was it possible for their pack animals even to crawl forward** through this area. Rather, they both were miserably encumbered, and there was not even an alternate route starting from elsewhere, since they were in a narrow area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two minor doubts on my part (comments welcome):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *phalanges* can be a &quot;battalion&quot; or also a &quot;pole for carrying burdens&quot; or &quot;rollers for transporting war machinery&quot; (see [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dphalangae)). It's very possible that the latter is intended.&#xD;&#xA;2. I'm not entirely certain why *siquidem* is used: I am translating it as if it were *quidem*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1992" RevisionGUID="1328b2b6-536e-4331-9405-135e801d9080" CreationDate="2016-11-16T17:47:00.403" UserId="645" Text="I think that it is just a matter of irregular spelling, or possibly inaccurate transcription from different sources, some of which are hard to decipher, rather than anything really weird.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At Livy XXV.9 we find *Cornelius lustrum condidit : censa sunt civium capita centum quadraginta tria millia septingenta quatuor*. Livy appears to use either *milia* or millia at a whim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Editors differ in their approach to Livy (and others!). Some 'correct' everything according to their own ideas : for instance, one may allow the recorded variations in the word, while others prefer one form only. The words *septingenta* and *quatuor* can appear as  *septinginta* and *quattuor*. A brief Google search through different collections will show up this variability, though I really do not think that there is anything significant to be gained by pursuing the matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1993" RevisionGUID="fc0825fd-ea51-456a-b8ba-d58ed6e16cd8" CreationDate="2016-11-16T21:40:32.743" UserId="952" Text="For the first part of the sentence, it would be more correct to specify “this most powerful (man)” because “hic” and “fortissimus” are masculine. I have some doubts about the second part of the sentence because “pares” is an adjective and not a noun, but the author could have just left out a word (ellipsis) and implied “equal men” or something, which is pretty close to “equals”. Other than that, it looks good to me!  &#xA;&#xA;As for your second question, “potens, potentis” is a third declension adjective that is commonly used in a similar sense as what you described. I find the website [Whitaker’s Words][1] extremely helpful for finding both the Latin for English words and vice versa.   &#xA;&#xA;Good luck with the rest of your translation!&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://archives.nd.edu/words.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1992" RevisionGUID="3cfee196-4466-49d0-b401-4e19dbccb51e" CreationDate="2016-11-16T22:07:13.160" UserId="645" Comment="enhanced explanation of the basic system" Text="I think that it is just a matter of irregular spelling, or possibly inaccurate transcription from different sources, some of which are hard to decipher, rather than anything really weird.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At Livy XXV.9 we find *Cornelius lustrum condidit : censa sunt civium capita centum quadraginta tria millia septingenta quatuor*. Livy appears to use either *milia* or *millia* at a whim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Editors differ in their approach to Livy (and others!). Some 'correct' everything according to their own ideas : for instance, one may allow the recorded variations in the word, while others prefer one form only. The words *septingenta* and *quatuor* can appear as  *septinginta* and *quattuor*. A brief Google search through different collections will show up this variability, though I really do not think that there is anything significant to be gained by pursuing the matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might, in fact, ask a general question about how and why the accidence of cardinals differs. *Unus, duo* and *tres* are declinable. From *quattuor* to *centum* they are indeclinable. Hundreds upwards from *ducenti* to *nongenti* are declined as for -o and -a stems. Then comes the word in which you are interested. *Mille* (sometimes *mile*) is, as you say, usually regarded as an indeclinable adjective, but has a corresponding plural *milia* (or *millia*) which **is** declinable, as if a substantive of the third declension, similar to *maria* and *cubilia*, the plurals of *mare* and *cubile*. The fact that *mille* is thought of as an indeclinable singular adjective, while *milia* is undoubtedly a declinable plural noun is probably a fact of grammarians' usage, rather than unexplained divergent accidence : just as, in English, we have such expressions as *many thousand miles* and *many thousands of miles* — essentially the same, but used idiosyncratically — though we are content to accept either without a need to explain the reason for the difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1994" RevisionGUID="687c19ab-db79-4002-9c19-a993a33d10e2" CreationDate="2016-11-16T22:50:35.997" UserId="932" Text="According to the [Wikipedia article][1] you mentioned, this abbreviation for præ is described as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;p̄ (above) – prae, pre- (**alternatively a mark similar to -us comma above, but with a small spiral glyph**, could be used for this meaning, and is also valid above the letter q)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So your solution with `COMBINING US ABOVE U+1DD2` seems to be the right one…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. this example of the book you quoted could be typed as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![prædatus][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;p᷒datꝰ&#xD;&#xA;(With `U+A770 MODIFIER LETTER US` ꝰ for the [abbreviation us (Ꝯ)][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribal_abbreviation#Marks_with_relative_meaning&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EA%9D%AE&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://92.243.29.89/mufi.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/stream/recordinterprete00martiala#page/104/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WOXH8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1995" RevisionGUID="41f8a60e-e40d-4d7d-9dc7-49bed67a0cb4" CreationDate="2016-11-16T23:13:33.523" UserId="40" Text="The etymology of *mille* is fairly clear, with cognates in other Indo-European languages. The singular and plural are definitely from the same etymological source. The Proto-Indo-European form would have been something like *smih₂-ĝʰsl-ih₂ &quot;one thousand&quot; (the exact formation is doubtful but the roots in question, &quot;one&quot; and &quot;thousand&quot;, are not); cognates include Sanskrit *sahásram* and Greek χίλιος (from the second element only), both meaning &quot;thousand&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the syntax, I wouldn't say it's that weird. Most Latin numerals are indeclinable, so the behavior of *mille* in the singular is nothing unusual. It can actually be a noun in the singular as well, e.g. *mille passuum*, with a noun in the partitive genitive. Plural thousands like *tria milia* just follow the normal rules for numerals with nouns -- i.e. the noun declines but the numeral does not -- except that in this case the noun happens to be a numeral itself, *mille*, which is then followed by the same partitive genitive as above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1996" RevisionGUID="b5eee66a-37bb-4609-8085-e1f811e4dc4a" CreationDate="2016-11-16T23:42:36.363" UserId="40" Text="Latin as we know it never had an optative mood as distinct from the subjunctive, so this answer will be largely about Proto-Indo-European (PIE), which did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PIE had both a subjunctive mood and an optative mood, with different forms and functions. The optative was formed with the suffix *-yeh₁- ~ *-ih₁-. (The reason there are two forms is the PIE ablaut system, in which most morphemes had more than one variant showing different vowel grades.) Judging from languages that preserve a distinct optative, such as Greek and Vedic Sanskrit, the meaning of the optative seems to have had to do with potentiality and wishes: in these languages, the optative is used in meanings like &quot;may it happen!&quot; and &quot;it would (potentially) happen&quot; (often used in conditions, counterfactuals, and similar constructions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Formally, the optative is thought to underlie, partly or wholly, the Latin present subjunctive. In the first conjugation, the subjunctive suffix *-ē-* may come from PIE *-yeh₁-. The *-ā-* of the other conjugations is a longstanding unsolved problem, but some have thought it too ultimately comes from the PIE optative suffix. This may be why the Latin subjunctive has, among others, the functions of the PIE optative (viz. optative subjunctive, potential subjunctive, subjunctive in conditions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the PIE subjunctive, it was formed with the suffix *-e/o- and is thought to be continued in the *-ē-* that marks the future of the Latin 3rd-4th conjugations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At what stage between PIE and Latin was the optative/subjunctive distinction lost? Certainly before the oldest Latin, since such a distinction is not attested in any Latin text or inscription. The other Italic languages -- or at least Oscan and Umbrian, the ones about which we know the most -- also do not, to my knowledge, preserve the distinction. This would suggest that the loss may predate Proto-Italic. However, @AlexB in a comment quotes Rix as thinking that Proto-Italic still had a distinct subjunctive and optative; I assume Rix had good reasons to think so, but I don't know what they are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1996" RevisionGUID="2558f781-4e43-4b2d-84ab-0b4e7ae0ea8c" CreationDate="2016-11-17T00:57:09.160" UserId="40" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="Latin as we know it never had an optative mood as distinct from the subjunctive, so this answer will be largely about Proto-Indo-European (PIE), which did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PIE had both a subjunctive mood and an optative mood, with different forms and functions. The optative was formed with the suffix *-yeh₁- ~ *-ih₁-. (The sound written as *h₁ was probably either a glottal stop or [h]. The reason there are two forms is the PIE ablaut system, in which most morphemes had more than one variant showing different vowel grades.) Judging from languages that preserve a distinct optative, such as Greek and Vedic Sanskrit, the meaning of the optative seems to have had to do with potentiality and wishes: in these languages, the optative is used in meanings like &quot;may it happen!&quot; and &quot;it would (potentially) happen&quot; (often used in conditions, counterfactuals, and similar constructions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Formally, the optative is thought to underlie, partly or wholly, the Latin present subjunctive. In the first conjugation, the subjunctive suffix *-ē-* may come from PIE *-yeh₁-. The *-ā-* of the other conjugations is a longstanding unsolved problem, but some have thought it too ultimately comes from the PIE optative suffix. This may be why the Latin subjunctive has, among others, the functions of the PIE optative (viz. optative subjunctive, potential subjunctive, subjunctive in conditions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the PIE subjunctive, it was formed with the suffix *-e/o- and is thought to be continued in the *-ē-* that marks the future of the Latin 3rd-4th conjugations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At what stage between PIE and Latin was the optative/subjunctive distinction lost? Certainly before the oldest Latin, since such a distinction is not attested in any Latin text or inscription. The other Italic languages -- or at least Oscan and Umbrian, the ones about which we know the most -- also do not, to my knowledge, preserve the distinction. This would suggest that the loss may predate Proto-Italic. However, @AlexB in a comment quotes Rix as thinking that Proto-Italic still had a distinct subjunctive and optative; I assume Rix had good reasons to think so, but I don't know what they are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1996" RevisionGUID="382c7b35-8184-4f9f-bb65-ce205e5bb524" CreationDate="2016-11-17T02:18:03.943" UserId="40" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="Latin as we know it never had an optative mood as distinct from the subjunctive, so this answer will be largely about Proto-Indo-European (PIE), which did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PIE had both a subjunctive mood and an optative mood, with different forms and functions. The optative was formed with the suffix *-yeh₁- ~ *-ih₁-. (The sound written as *h₁ was probably either a glottal stop or [h]. The reason there are two forms is the PIE ablaut system, in which most morphemes had more than one variant showing different vowel grades.) Judging from languages that preserve a distinct optative, such as Greek and Vedic Sanskrit, the meaning of the optative seems to have had to do with potentiality and wishes: in these languages, the optative is used in meanings like &quot;may it happen!&quot; and &quot;it would (potentially) happen&quot; (often used in conditions, counterfactuals, and similar constructions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Formally, the optative is thought to underlie, partly or wholly, the Latin present subjunctive. The forms in *-im* which you cite (*sim* etc., to which can be added *faxim, dixim*) come from PIE *-ih₁-. Also, in the first conjugation, the subjunctive suffix *-ē-* may come from PIE *-yeh₁-. The *-ā-* of the other conjugations is a longstanding unsolved problem, but some have thought it too ultimately comes from the PIE optative suffix. This may be why the Latin subjunctive has, among others, the functions of the PIE optative (viz. optative subjunctive, potential subjunctive, subjunctive in conditions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the PIE subjunctive, it was formed with the suffix *-e/o- and is thought to be continued in the *-ē-* that marks the future of the Latin 3rd-4th conjugations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At what stage between PIE and Latin was the optative/subjunctive distinction lost? Certainly before the oldest Latin, since such a distinction is not attested in any Latin text or inscription. The other Italic languages -- or at least Oscan and Umbrian, the ones about which we know the most -- also do not, to my knowledge, preserve the distinction. This would suggest that the loss may predate Proto-Italic. However, @AlexB in a comment quotes Rix as thinking that Proto-Italic still had a distinct subjunctive and optative; I assume Rix had good reasons to think so, but I don't know what they are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1997" RevisionGUID="04afe7ef-aad6-4e42-a0eb-cbba51fc4314" CreationDate="2016-11-17T10:08:26.100" UserId="79" Text="I would like clarification on two related divine and legal terms: *ius sacrum* and *fas*.&#xD;&#xA;They can both be translated as &quot;divine law&quot;, but I do not think they are the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;I have an idea of what they might be, but I would like confirmation or correction of my ideas.&#xD;&#xA;Is the following paragraph &amp;mdash; which is not a quote from anyone but just my own thoughts &amp;mdash; a good description of what *ius sacrum* and *fas* meant in classical antiquity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are two words for justice, *ius* and *fas*.&#xD;&#xA;*Ius* is justice as we commonly know it: man creates laws and ensures that they are followed.&#xD;&#xA;Breaking *ius* is a matter between mortals.&#xD;&#xA;*Fas* is divine justice: gods decide what is right and they punish those who break it.&#xD;&#xA;*Fas* also describes days suitable for various affairs.&#xD;&#xA;I might call *pietas* &quot;doing what *fas* requires&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In this sense *ius* is &quot;human law&quot; and *fas* is &quot;divine law&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Of course it was in the interest of the society to avoid the wrath of gods (whether out of true spirituality or as a political tool), so people were interested in making sure *fas* was followed.&#xD;&#xA;This is what *ius sacrum* is for: it is man-made law concerning religion.&#xD;&#xA;*Fas* is &quot;law made by gods about human behaviour&quot; and *ius sacrum* is &quot;law made by humans about maintaining human&amp;ndash;god relations&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;They are &quot;divine law&quot; in very different ways." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7263" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1997" RevisionGUID="04afe7ef-aad6-4e42-a0eb-cbba51fc4314" CreationDate="2016-11-17T10:08:26.100" UserId="79" Text="Comparing ius sacrum and fas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7264" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1997" RevisionGUID="04afe7ef-aad6-4e42-a0eb-cbba51fc4314" CreationDate="2016-11-17T10:08:26.100" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|word-comparison|legal-latin|mythology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7266" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1997" RevisionGUID="b6d43dcb-635b-4358-9c05-f3b43040a3d2" CreationDate="2016-11-17T16:13:54.050" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|word-comparison|legal-latin|religio|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1998" RevisionGUID="d5a79c81-6e0d-481b-8400-e9de247790e5" CreationDate="2016-11-17T16:14:19.113" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7268" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1998" RevisionGUID="d5a79c81-6e0d-481b-8400-e9de247790e5" CreationDate="2016-11-17T16:14:19.113" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1999" RevisionGUID="2450cc74-6d9c-4aee-ba6b-ffc3b7c3bc09" CreationDate="2016-11-17T16:14:19.113" UserId="79" Text="For questions related to religion. Note that there is a separate tag for mythology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7270" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1999" RevisionGUID="2450cc74-6d9c-4aee-ba6b-ffc3b7c3bc09" CreationDate="2016-11-17T16:14:19.113" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1999" RevisionGUID="ecf51727-b81b-43e8-810c-0ac1c5638088" CreationDate="2016-11-17T21:08:20.170" UserId="932" Comment="religion +of the ancients" Text="For questions related to religion of the ancients. Note that there is a separate tag for mythology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7274" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1999" RevisionGUID="ecf51727-b81b-43e8-810c-0ac1c5638088" CreationDate="2016-11-17T21:08:20.170" Comment="Proposed by 932 approved by 79 edit id of 148" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2000" RevisionGUID="6032abd1-29de-4fa8-9df3-8a547fbd9cd6" CreationDate="2016-11-17T21:50:55.940" UserId="996" Text="What are the best latin words to describe greatness, godlike powers and something saint?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll use those words as character name for some MMORPG " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7276" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2000" RevisionGUID="6032abd1-29de-4fa8-9df3-8a547fbd9cd6" CreationDate="2016-11-17T21:50:55.940" UserId="996" Text="What're the best latin words to use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7277" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2000" RevisionGUID="6032abd1-29de-4fa8-9df3-8a547fbd9cd6" CreationDate="2016-11-17T21:50:55.940" UserId="996" Text="|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2001" RevisionGUID="68d4e44b-4ba9-4062-9d62-35374cf58825" CreationDate="2016-11-17T22:03:16.473" UserId="40" Text="This is an interesting question. A priori, one would think the imperfect would be the obvious choice here, as it's the tense generally used to denote repeated action, but actual Greek usage doesn't seem to bear that out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I searched the [Thesaurus Linguae Graecae](http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu) for uses of πολλάκις in Plato (as being a typical Attic author). Out of the first 50 hits, I counted 10 where the verb was aorist vs. only one where it was imperfect. (The other hits used other tenses.) If this sample is representative, then the aorist is much more frequent than the imperfect with πολλάκις. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semantically, this isn't actually too difficult to understand: it seems that each individual event of &quot;seeing&quot; (or whatever the verb is) is conceived of as separate and complete, and the choice of the aorist signals this, rather than the entire series of events being regarded as a unit, which would presumably lead to the imperfect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7279" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2000" RevisionGUID="58cb2761-9e2e-43fb-b198-6fe7776fa446" CreationDate="2016-11-17T22:07:20.217" UserId="12" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:45,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;brianpck&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:12,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nathaniel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2000" RevisionGUID="28dbd49e-e317-47d8-8afc-4324afed3822" CreationDate="2016-11-17T22:23:43.750" UserId="996" Comment="added 542 characters in body" Text="What are the best latin words to describe greatness, godlike powers and something saint?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll use those words as character name for some MMORPG &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for these word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Godlike Powers = Divina Potentia&#xD;&#xA; - Bull's Eye = Boves Oculos&#xD;&#xA; - lightspeed = lightspeed ??&#xD;&#xA; - Holy Judgement = Sanctus iudicium&#xD;&#xA; - Armageddon = Hermageddon &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use google translate and when I translated the words back to English, almost all the words are not match with what I want. Just similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I say in comment, I have zero experience in latin words. So even if I use dictionary, I do not know 100% sure it's the word I am looking for. So, I am asking the help from experts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2000" RevisionGUID="b9356e1e-2aa9-4c34-8525-906daa6f7cd3" CreationDate="2016-11-18T01:30:09.210" UserId="45" Comment="added 52 characters in body; edited title" Text="What are the best latin words to describe greatness, godlike powers and something holy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll use those words as character name for some MMORPG &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples, along with their translations by Google:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Godlike Powers = Divina Potentia&#xD;&#xA; - Bull's Eye = Boves Oculos&#xD;&#xA; - lightspeed = lightspeed ??&#xD;&#xA; - Holy Judgement = Sanctus iudicium&#xD;&#xA; - Armageddon = Hermageddon &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when I translated the words back to English using Google Translate, almost all the words are not match with what I want. Just similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said in my comment, I have zero experience with Latin words, so even if I use a dictionary, I am not 100% sure that it's the word I am looking for. So, I am asking for help from the experts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7282" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2000" RevisionGUID="b9356e1e-2aa9-4c34-8525-906daa6f7cd3" CreationDate="2016-11-18T01:30:09.210" UserId="45" Comment="added 52 characters in body; edited title" Text="What Latin words describe greatness, godlike powers, or holiness?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7283" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="2000" RevisionGUID="755900df-896a-420b-8f04-e96e5d27bdef" CreationDate="2016-11-18T07:43:24.200" UserId="79" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:469,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Rafael&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:45,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;brianpck&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2003" RevisionGUID="960b0507-5b3a-4b84-acb8-6558af1f7f50" CreationDate="2016-11-18T08:19:10.793" UserId="992" Text="this online site is very useful: http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7286" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="2003" RevisionGUID="de05d024-1038-42f3-bb2d-0f7f6503d716" CreationDate="2016-11-18T08:19:10.793" UserId="992" />
  <row Id="7287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2003" RevisionGUID="1375eb02-90c7-4782-a539-b06760c1c19f" CreationDate="2016-11-18T08:34:24.707" UserId="992" Comment="added 269 characters in body" Text="this online site is very useful: http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;Name of the this site is William Whitaker's Words. it is very useful, especially translate from English to Latin or latin English words. Belonging to archives.nd.edu. That means University of Notre dame archives.Please write on Google William Whitaker's words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2003" RevisionGUID="75c82bed-2c89-4506-87a4-10931b0c3be2" CreationDate="2016-11-18T08:38:36.920" UserId="992" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="this online site is very useful:http://archives.nd.edu/words.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;Name of the this site is William Whitaker's Words. it is very useful, especially translate from English to Latin or latin English words. Belonging to archives.nd.edu. That means University of Notre dame archives.Please write on Google William Whitaker's words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2003" RevisionGUID="dbd69ef7-c835-4e19-a626-c8c27e0fd317" CreationDate="2016-11-18T08:45:03.853" UserId="992" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="this online site is very useful:http://archives.nd.edu/words.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;Name of the this site is William Whitaker's Words. it is very useful, especially translate from English to Latin or latin English words. Belonging to archives.nd.edu. That means University of Notre dame archives.Please write on Google William Whitaker's words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also this site is very practical. Copy and paste your text, then you will find out all of the words one by one and truthfully." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1896" RevisionGUID="1dba2c03-4424-4878-90c8-a18a355a277e" CreationDate="2016-11-18T09:25:39.180" UserId="932" Comment="English link" Text="#Collatinus&#xD;&#xA;I highly recommand [Collatinus](http://outils.biblissima.fr/en/collatinus-web/index.php). There are a web version and a desktop version, and it's a free software (CC BY-NC).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Functionalities&#xD;&#xA;* search for lemma in several Latin dictionaries (Gaffiot, Calonghi, Lewis &amp; Short, du Cange, Georges, Valbuena)&#xD;&#xA;* flex a lemma&#xD;&#xA;* scan a Latin text&#xD;&#xA;* lemmatize a Latin text (with 7 target languages)&#xD;&#xA;* perform its morphological analysis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2004" RevisionGUID="65031cc4-881b-4de5-8759-02a46aa2249f" CreationDate="2016-11-18T11:56:09.537" UserId="79" Text="Many of us are used to using the (active present) infinitive form of a verb as a &quot;label&quot; or &quot;basic form&quot; or &quot;representative&quot; of the verb.&#xD;&#xA;By this I refer to uses like dictionary entries or grammatical statements similar to &quot;the active indicative perfect second person singular of *amare* is *amasti*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin dictionaries use *amo* instead of *amare* for these purposes.&#xD;&#xA;There was [a separate question on this issue](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/63/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What did the Romans themselves consider the basic form of a verb?&#xD;&#xA;If it was inconsistent, which methods did people use to refer to verbs in grammatical context?&#xD;&#xA;I think such a &quot;label form of a verb&quot; was used mainly by grammarians and etymologists &amp;mdash; or other writers temporarily acting as such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7295" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2004" RevisionGUID="65031cc4-881b-4de5-8759-02a46aa2249f" CreationDate="2016-11-18T11:56:09.537" UserId="79" Text="What did the Romans consider the &quot;basic&quot; form of a verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7296" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2004" RevisionGUID="65031cc4-881b-4de5-8759-02a46aa2249f" CreationDate="2016-11-18T11:56:09.537" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|verbs|infinitive|grammarians|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2005" RevisionGUID="30d4e586-bd79-418d-984c-3b2a1ac878d7" CreationDate="2016-11-18T14:31:56.747" UserId="45" Text="Marcus Terentius **Varro** (116-27 BC) wrote [*De Lingua Latina*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/varro.ll6.html), which survives in partial, corrupted form, but which provides valuable testimony on this matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Book 6, chapter 5, he speaks of &quot;derived words&quot; and uses the **first-person present active indicative** form as the &quot;basic form&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Primigenia dicuntur verba ut lego, scribo, sto, sedeo et cetera**, quae non sunt ab alio quo verbo, sed suas habent radices. Contra verba declinata sunt, quae ab alio quo oriuntur, ut **ab lego legis, legit, legam** et sic indidem hinc permulta. Quare si quis primigeniorum verborum origines ostenderit, si ea mille sunt, quingentum milium simplicium verborum causas aperuerit una; sin nullius, tamen qui ab his reliqua orta ostenderit, satis dixerit de originibus verborum, cum unde nata sint, principia erunt pauca, quae inde nata sint, innumerabilia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shortly before, he also speaks of deriving nouns from verbs, and again uses this form as the base case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cum verborum declinatuum genera sint quattuor, unum quod tempora adsignificat neque habet casus, ut **ab lego leges, lege**; alterum quod casus habet neque tempora adsignificat, ut **ab lego lectio et lector**; tertium quod habet utrunque et tempora et casus, ut **ab lego legens, lecturus**; quartum quod neutrum habet, ut **ab lego lecte ac lectissime**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another important grammatical work is the [*Institutio Oratoria*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/quintilian/quintilian.institutio1.shtml) of Quintilian (AD 35-100). There is a case where he seems to default to the third-person singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Neque has modo noverit mutationes, quas adferunt declinatio aut praepositio, **ut &quot;secat secuit&quot;, &quot;cadit excidit&quot;, &quot;caedit excidit&quot;, &quot;calcat exculcat&quot;** (et fit a &quot;lavando&quot; &quot;lotus&quot; et inde rursus &quot;inlutus&quot;, et mille alia), sed et quae rectis quoque casibus aetate transierunt. (I, 4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shortly afterwards, though, he uses the first-person as a kind of default, contrasting it with impersonal verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quaedam [verba] etiam mutantur, ut **&quot;fero&quot; in praeterito**, quaedam tertiae demum personae figura dicuntur, ut &quot;licet&quot; &quot;piget&quot;. (ibid)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This second form, in accord with Varro, seems to predominate. The next section uses the first-person in an ambiguous manner:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nam duplex [verborum] intellectus est, alter qui omnia per quae sermo nectitur significat, ut apud Horatium: &quot;verbaque provisam rem non invita sequentur&quot;; alter in quo est una pars orationis: **&quot;lego&quot; &quot;scribo&quot;** (I, 5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this certainly isn't definitive proof (nor, in my mind, is it likely to find any), I believe it's at least enough attestation that referring to a base verb by its first-person form is acceptable and precedented." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2005" RevisionGUID="03af331e-1811-417e-b901-5e6b88504979" CreationDate="2016-11-18T14:50:16.377" UserId="45" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Marcus Terentius **Varro** (116-27 BC) wrote [*De Lingua Latina*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/varro.ll6.html), which survives in partial, corrupted form, but which provides valuable testimony on this matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Book 6, chapter 5, he speaks of &quot;derived words&quot; and uses the **first-person present active indicative** form as the &quot;basic form&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Primigenia dicuntur verba ut lego, scribo, sto, sedeo et cetera**, quae non sunt ab alio quo verbo, sed suas habent radices. Contra verba declinata sunt, quae ab alio quo oriuntur, ut **ab lego legis, legit, legam** et sic indidem hinc permulta. Quare si quis primigeniorum verborum origines ostenderit, si ea mille sunt, quingentum milium simplicium verborum causas aperuerit una; sin nullius, tamen qui ab his reliqua orta ostenderit, satis dixerit de originibus verborum, cum unde nata sint, principia erunt pauca, quae inde nata sint, innumerabilia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shortly before, he also speaks of deriving nouns from verbs, and again uses this form as the base case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cum verborum declinatuum genera sint quattuor, unum quod tempora adsignificat neque habet casus, ut **ab lego leges, lege**; alterum quod casus habet neque tempora adsignificat, ut **ab lego lectio et lector**; tertium quod habet utrunque et tempora et casus, ut **ab lego legens, lecturus**; quartum quod neutrum habet, ut **ab lego lecte ac lectissime**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another important grammatical work is the [*Institutio Oratoria*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/quintilian/quintilian.institutio1.shtml) of Quintilian (AD 35-100). There is a case where he seems to default to the third-person singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Neque has modo noverit mutationes, quas adferunt declinatio aut praepositio, **ut &quot;secat secuit&quot;, &quot;cadit excidit&quot;, &quot;caedit excidit&quot;, &quot;calcat exculcat&quot;** (et fit a &quot;lavando&quot; &quot;lotus&quot; et inde rursus &quot;inlutus&quot;, et mille alia), sed et quae rectis quoque casibus aetate transierunt. (I, 4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shortly afterwards, though, he uses the first-person as a kind of default, contrasting it with impersonal verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quaedam [verba] etiam mutantur, ut **&quot;fero&quot; in praeterito**, quaedam tertiae demum personae figura dicuntur, ut &quot;licet&quot; &quot;piget&quot;. (ibid)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This second form, in accord with Varro, seems to predominate. The next section uses the first-person in an unambiguous manner:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nam duplex [verborum] intellectus est, alter qui omnia per quae sermo nectitur significat, ut apud Horatium: &quot;verbaque provisam rem non invita sequentur&quot;; alter in quo est una pars orationis: **&quot;lego&quot; &quot;scribo&quot;** (I, 5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this certainly isn't definitive proof (nor, in my mind, is it likely to find any), I believe it's at least enough attestation that referring to a base verb by its first-person form is acceptable and precedented." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2005" RevisionGUID="3e346c8d-2b55-419c-ab24-4ee38c91ff45" CreationDate="2016-11-18T15:15:45.867" UserId="45" Comment="added 249 characters in body" Text="## First person singular (*laudo*) appears to be most common&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Marcus Terentius **Varro** (116-27 BC) wrote [*De Lingua Latina*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/varro.ll6.html), which survives in partial, corrupted form, but which provides valuable testimony on this matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Book 6, chapter 5, he speaks of &quot;derived words&quot; and uses the **first-person present active indicative** form as the &quot;basic form&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Primigenia dicuntur verba ut lego, scribo, sto, sedeo et cetera**, quae non sunt ab alio quo verbo, sed suas habent radices. Contra verba declinata sunt, quae ab alio quo oriuntur, ut **ab lego legis, legit, legam** et sic indidem hinc permulta. Quare si quis primigeniorum verborum origines ostenderit, si ea mille sunt, quingentum milium simplicium verborum causas aperuerit una; sin nullius, tamen qui ab his reliqua orta ostenderit, satis dixerit de originibus verborum, cum unde nata sint, principia erunt pauca, quae inde nata sint, innumerabilia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shortly before, he also speaks of deriving nouns from verbs, and again uses this form as the base case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cum verborum declinatuum genera sint quattuor, unum quod tempora adsignificat neque habet casus, ut **ab lego leges, lege**; alterum quod casus habet neque tempora adsignificat, ut **ab lego lectio et lector**; tertium quod habet utrunque et tempora et casus, ut **ab lego legens, lecturus**; quartum quod neutrum habet, ut **ab lego lecte ac lectissime**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another important grammatical work is the [*Institutio Oratoria*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/quintilian/quintilian.institutio1.shtml) of Quintilian (AD 35-100). There is a case where he seems to default to the third-person singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Neque has modo noverit mutationes, quas adferunt declinatio aut praepositio, **ut &quot;secat secuit&quot;, &quot;cadit excidit&quot;, &quot;caedit excidit&quot;, &quot;calcat exculcat&quot;** (et fit a &quot;lavando&quot; &quot;lotus&quot; et inde rursus &quot;inlutus&quot;, et mille alia), sed et quae rectis quoque casibus aetate transierunt. (I, 4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shortly afterwards, though, he uses the first-person as a kind of default, contrasting it with impersonal verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quaedam [verba] etiam mutantur, ut **&quot;fero&quot; in praeterito**, quaedam tertiae demum personae figura dicuntur, ut &quot;licet&quot; &quot;piget&quot;. (ibid)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This second form, in accord with Varro, seems to predominate. The next section uses the first-person in an unambiguous manner:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nam duplex [verborum] intellectus est, alter qui omnia per quae sermo nectitur significat, ut apud Horatium: &quot;verbaque provisam rem non invita sequentur&quot;; alter in quo est una pars orationis: **&quot;lego&quot; &quot;scribo&quot;** (I, 5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this certainly isn't definitive proof (nor, in my mind, is it likely to find any), I believe it's at least enough attestation that referring to a base verb by its first-person form is acceptable and precedented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## ...but infinitive (*laudare*) has attestations as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the infinitive does not appear as common, it can be used as well, as demonstrated in the following passage from Quintilian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quo modo autem **&quot;quire&quot; et &quot;urgere&quot;** vel in praeterita patiendi modo vel in participia transibunt? (I, 9)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2006" RevisionGUID="eed21e46-f34e-4ad1-957e-18feebe6f68e" CreationDate="2016-11-18T16:22:50.797" UserId="79" Text="Let me comment on some of the five phrases that you tried to translate with Google.&#xD;&#xA;Google translate sometimes hits the nail on the head, but sometimes it misses altogether and sometimes it even hits the aquarium.&#xD;&#xA;Don't trust it, especially if the translation is something important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For translation problems like this one, I suggest using an online Latin dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;We have a list of them in [a dedicated question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;To translate &quot;divine&quot;, for example, translate it first from English to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;For each Latin word you get, see the English translations to get a feeling of its tone.&#xD;&#xA;To combine words grammatically, you need to decline or conjugate them correctly.&#xD;&#xA;Some online dictionaries contain useful information.&#xD;&#xA;Google translate is no good; it does translate, but there is no trusting what comes out.&#xD;&#xA;If you have found the words you like (and maybe explain why you like these words), asking for grammatical details and choices between few possible translations at this site works well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Lightspeed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, this means &quot;speed of light&quot;, and it is best to translate it this way.&#xD;&#xA;*Velocitas* is a good (yet not the only) word for &quot;speed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;light&quot; you could use *lumen* or *lux*.&#xD;&#xA;A different kind of option is *Phaebus*, which means Apollo as the god of light, or personified light if you will.&#xD;&#xA;I suggest *velocitas luminis*, but this is just a translation of the scientific term.&#xD;&#xA;It might not fit your goal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bull's eye&#xD;&#xA;Direct translation is easy: *oculus bovis*.&#xD;&#xA;However, it is not clear whether this Latin phrase has the same meaning as the English one.&#xD;&#xA;I guess it simply means the eye of a particular mammal, nothing more.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to know if there is a similar idiom in Latin, that would make a nice separate question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Divine powers&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;powers&quot; I suggest the Latin word *vis*.&#xD;&#xA;I urge you to check what it means.&#xD;&#xA;[This](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1017474) is one of the many dictionary entries on it.&#xD;&#xA;Two suitable adjectives come to mind: *divus* and *divinus*.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to find the nuance differences between them, I again recommend a new, separate question.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion for &quot;divine powers&quot; is *vis diva*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2007" RevisionGUID="e45e1eeb-6583-4776-be90-bbf2dda5b1d5" CreationDate="2016-11-18T16:43:11.673" UserId="952" Text="The 2nd Declension Neuter endings are:  &#xD;&#xA;**Singular**  &#xD;&#xA;Nom: *-um*  &#xD;&#xA;Gen: *-ī*  &#xD;&#xA;Dat: *-ō*  &#xD;&#xA;Acc: *-um*  &#xD;&#xA;Abl: *-ō*  &#xD;&#xA;**Plural**  &#xD;&#xA;Nom: *-ī*  &#xD;&#xA;Gen: *-ōrum*  &#xD;&#xA;Dat: *-īs*  &#xD;&#xA;Acc: *-ōs*  &#xD;&#xA;Abl: *-īs*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a word such as *auxilium* (meaning *help, aid*), which is 2nd declension neuter, why does the i from the base (*auxili*) get dropped in the genitive singular so that the genitive singular form would be *auxilī* instead of *auxiliī*? The base *auxili* remains for all the other forms... For example, the dative and ablative plurals are both *iudiciīs*, keeping the double *-iī* at the end of the word.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe there are some Latin authors who did write the genitive singular form with the double *-iī*, but based on everything I've learned/seen, it's typical to only have *-ī* in the genitive singular. Does this hold for both classic and modern Latin, or just one of the types?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7302" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2007" RevisionGUID="e45e1eeb-6583-4776-be90-bbf2dda5b1d5" CreationDate="2016-11-18T16:43:11.673" UserId="952" Text="Forms of 2nd Declension Neuter Nouns ending in -ium" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7303" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2007" RevisionGUID="e45e1eeb-6583-4776-be90-bbf2dda5b1d5" CreationDate="2016-11-18T16:43:11.673" UserId="952" Text="|declension|genitive|ending|second-declension|neuter|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2009" RevisionGUID="e7939b6a-3401-4772-b69d-b8924d7b965b" CreationDate="2016-11-18T17:51:20.767" UserId="406" Text="I'm going to try to explain my process in answering, to give you some resources for coming up with more names in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Also, note that I like to mark my long vowels, &quot;ā ē ī ō ū&quot;. Many people don't do this; it won't be any less correct if you remove them when writing your names. They represent a pronunciation difference which disappeared in later Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lightspeed##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of my favorite resources for English-to-Latin is [Ludwig von Döderlein's *Hand-book of Latin Synonymes*][1] [sic]. It lists the subtle meaning differences between synonyms, as well as acting as a limited thesaurus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under *citus* (fast):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CITUS; CELER; VELOX; PERNIX; PROPERUS; FESTINUS.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Citus** and **celer** denote swiftness, merely as quick motion, in opp. to _tardus_, Cic. Or. iii. 57. Sall. Cat. 15. Cic. Fin. v. 11. N. D. ii. 20. Rosc. Com. 11. Top. 44; **velox** and **pernix**, nimbleness, as bodily strength and activity, in opp. to _lentus_; **properus** and **festinus**, haste, as the will to reach a certain point in the shortest time, in opp. to _segnis_ Gell. x. 11. 2. **Citus** denotes a swift and lively motion, approaching to _vegetus_; **celer**, an eager and impetuous motion, approaching to _rapidus_. 3. **Pernicitas** is, in general, dexterity and activity in all bodily movements, in hopping, climbing, and vaulting; but **velocitas**, especially in running, flying, and swimming, and so forth. Plaut. Mil. iii. 1, 36. Clare oculis video, _pernix_ sum manibus, pedibus mobilis. Virg. Æn. iv. 180. Curt. vii. 7, 53. Equorum _velocitati_ par est hominum _pernicitas_. 4. **Properus**, **properare**, denote the haste which, from energy, sets out rapidly to reach a certain point, in opp. to _cessare_; whereas **festinus**, **festinare**, denote the haste which springs from impatience, and borders upon precipitation. (ii. 144.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From personal experience, I've also heard *velox* described as &quot;moving quickly right now&quot; and *celer* as &quot;able to move quickly&quot;, so Usain Bolt sitting on the couch would be *celer* but not *velox*. But Döderlein doesn't mention this, and actually implies the opposite; I'll ask a new question about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then under *lūmen* (light):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LUMEN; LUX.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lumen** (λευσσόμενον) is a luminous body, like φέγγος; **lux** (λευκή) a streaming mass of light, like φάος. Cic. Fin. iii. 14, 45. Ut obscuratur et offunditur _luce_ solis _lumen_ lucernæ. Curt. viii. 2, 21. Sed aditus specus accipit _lucem_; interiora nisi allato _lumine_ obscura sunt. Cic. Acad. iv. 8, 28. Si ista vera sunt, ratio omnis tollitur quasi quædam _lux lumen_que vitæ; that is, reason alone is in itself bright and light, and at the same time spreads brightness and light over life. Also, in a figurative sense, **lumen** denotes distinction, **lux** only clearness. Cicero (Man. 5.) calls Corinth, Græciæ totius _lumen_, but Rome (Catil. iv. 6.) _Lucem_ orbis terrarum; Corinth is compared to a glimmering point of light; Rome is distinguished as that city in comparison with which all other cities lie in darkness. (ii. 66.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd say *celer* (moving very quickly) and *lūx* (light itself, as opposed to a source of light) are the words you'd want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combining them unfortunately requires significant knowledge of Latin grammar; there's no easy way to do this step without being familiar with the language. In this case, I would say *Celeritās Lūcis*, literally &quot;the swiftness of the light&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Bull's Eye##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an idiom in English. *Oculus bovis* would be a literal translation, but there doesn't seem to be much precedent for using *oculus* like this. When looking for how a specific word was used, I usually put it into the [Perseus Word Study Tool][2], which then brings up the entry from Lewis and Short's Latin dictionary. (I could also search in L&amp;S directly, but the Word Study Tool has a nicer interface.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, L&amp;S lists plenty of idioms involving eyes, but none seem quite right. Most focus on seeing or perceiving, rather than precision or accuracy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest idiom I can think of is *acū tetigistī*, literally &quot;you touched it with a needle&quot; (used to mean &quot;you're exactly right&quot;). Changing the grammatical form, *Acū Tangō* is &quot;I touch it with a needle&quot;, or idiomatically &quot;I hit it precisely&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Holy Judgement##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this one I'm looking at Christian sources, since for me &quot;holy&quot; is more strongly associated with Christian religion (I'd use &quot;sacred&quot; instead if referring to classical Roman religion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *Diēs Īrae* in particular describes the Day of Judgement repeatedly, always using the words *jūdex*, *jūdicō*, *jūdicāns*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would go with *Jūdex Sacer* (the holy judge) or *Jūdicāns Sacer* (the holy judging person). Or more literally, *Jūdicium Sacrum* (the holy judgement).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Godlike Powers##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Godlike&quot; is difficult. I'm translating it here as &quot;the powers seem to come from a deity (through this mortal person)&quot;; an alternate meaning would be &quot;the person using these powers actually seems to be a deity&quot;. Let me know if this was your intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Döderlein again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; POTENTIA; POTENTATUS; POTESTAS; VIS; ROBUR.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Potentia**, **potentatus**, and **potestas** (πότνιος) denote an exterior power, which acts by means of men, and upon men; whereas **vis** and **robur** denote an interior power and strength, independent of the co-operation and good-will of others. **Potentia** denotes a merely factitious power, which can be exerted at will, like δύναμις; **potentatus**, the exterior rank of the ruler, which is acknowledged by those who are subject to him, like δυναστεία; **potestas**, a just and lawful power, with which a person is entrusted, like ἐξουσία. Tac. Ann. xiii. 19. Nihil tam fluxum est quam fama _potentiæ_ non sua _vi_ nixæ. **Vis** (ἴς) is the strength which shows itself in moving and attacking, as an ability to constrain others, like κράτος; **robur** (from ἐῤῥῶσθαι) the strength which shows itself in remaining quiet, as an ability to resist attack, and remain firm, like ῥώμη. (v. 83.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *vīs* seems like what you want. This is &quot;power&quot; in the sense of strength or force. &quot;Divine&quot; is easier, since the English word was borrowed from Latin: *dīvīnus*. Combined would give *Vīs Dīvīna*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Armageddon##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate was fairly accurate on this one. English *Armageddon* comes from Greek *Harmagedōn* from Hebrew *Har Məgiddô* &quot;Mount Megiddo&quot;. So if you wanted to refer to the actual mountain, *Harmagedōn* would be a decent translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume you want a synonym for &quot;apocalypse&quot; rather than the name of a mountain in Israel. Looking up &quot;apocalypse&quot; isn't likely to help either, though: it comes from Greek *apocalypsis*, &quot;uncovering&quot;, so the direct Latin translation would be *revēlātiō*. The modern meaning of &quot;end of the world&quot; is because the end of the world was predicted in the Book of Revelation, but it didn't have that meaning in Classical times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I don't know a good Classical term for &quot;the end of the world&quot;. To my knowledge there was no Ragnarök equivalent in Roman mythology, so the closest you could get would be a literal but artificial *Exitium Mundī* &quot;the final destruction of the world&quot;. Alternatively, you could add in a religious allusion and go with *Diēs Īrae* &quot;the day of wrath&quot; (from Zepheniah 1:15), which is a well-known term in Christianity but also has a good literal meaning. Or, if you aren't concerned about the ancient meaning, take the loanword *Apocalypsis*. (Or for additional foreign-ness, use the Greek spelling: *Ἀποκάλυψις*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33197&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2010" RevisionGUID="743b73f6-8399-41c1-a06f-3c9726f456f5" CreationDate="2016-11-18T18:22:16.300" UserId="406" Text="First, I'm slightly confused by your declension table. As Brian and Joonas have mentioned, you have a mix of masculine and neuter forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A full table of &quot;standard&quot; (post-Augustan) *-ius*/*-ium* endings would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    M SG    M PL    N SG    N PL&#xD;&#xA;NOM -ius    -iī     -ium    -ia&#xD;&#xA;GEN -iī     -iōrum  -iī     -iōrum&#xD;&#xA;DAT -iō     -iīs    -iō     -iīs&#xD;&#xA;ACC -ium    -iōs    -ium    -ia&#xD;&#xA;ABL -iō     -iīs    -iō     -iīs&#xD;&#xA;VOC -ī      -iī     -ium    -ia&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(O tempora! O mores! Why must upstanding citizens be disallowed from having proper &amp;lt;table&gt;s? Something something Catalina)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In earlier Latin, the genitive singular for both masculine and neuter was *-ī*. In other words, you would always see *auxilī* instead of *auxiliī*, and *fīlī* instead of *fīliī*. But during the Augustan period authors stopped treating *-i-* nouns specially, and this form was regularized to *-iī*. From the link below, &quot;the genitive in -iī occurs once in Virgil, and constantly in Ovid, but was probably unknown to Cicero.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For (a little bit) more information, see [Allen and Greenough section 49b][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Asmythp%3D49" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2011" RevisionGUID="0d0a1327-e76a-4fcc-83d9-e73ae0de2a0b" CreationDate="2016-11-18T18:33:02.347" UserId="406" Text="*Celer* and *vēlōx* are often treated as synonymous. I feel certain that I learned the technical distinction between them once: that *celer* was potential speed, while *vēlōx* was actual speed. So Usain Bolt sitting on the couch would be *celer* (he's capable of moving very quickly), but not *vēlōx* (he isn't moving quickly at the moment). Conversely, stones being whipped around in a hurricane would be *vēlōx* (they're going really fast) but not *celer* (it's not their natural state).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, neither Döderlein nor L&amp;S makes any mention of this. Is my memory deceiving me? Or have others heard about this distinction as well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7308" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2011" RevisionGUID="0d0a1327-e76a-4fcc-83d9-e73ae0de2a0b" CreationDate="2016-11-18T18:33:02.347" UserId="406" Text="Aut *celer* aut *vēlōx*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7309" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2011" RevisionGUID="0d0a1327-e76a-4fcc-83d9-e73ae0de2a0b" CreationDate="2016-11-18T18:33:02.347" UserId="406" Text="|meaning|word-comparison|adjective|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2007" RevisionGUID="f11c85da-5af7-451f-8378-6ee98332a9a9" CreationDate="2016-11-18T18:35:10.817" UserId="952" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The 2nd Declension Neuter endings are:  &#xD;&#xA;**Singular**  &#xD;&#xA;Nom: *-um*  &#xD;&#xA;Gen: *-ī*  &#xD;&#xA;Dat: *-ō*  &#xD;&#xA;Acc: *-um*  &#xD;&#xA;Abl: *-ō*  &#xD;&#xA;**Plural**  &#xD;&#xA;Nom: *-a*  &#xD;&#xA;Gen: *-ōrum*  &#xD;&#xA;Dat: *-īs*  &#xD;&#xA;Acc: *-a*  &#xD;&#xA;Abl: *-īs*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a word such as *auxilium* (meaning *help, aid*), which is 2nd declension neuter, why does the i from the base (*auxili*) get dropped in the genitive singular so that the genitive singular form would be *auxilī* instead of *auxiliī*? The base *auxili* remains for all the other forms... For example, the dative and ablative plurals are both *iudiciīs*, keeping the double *-iī* at the end of the word.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe there are some Latin authors who did write the genitive singular form with the double *-iī*, but based on everything I've learned/seen, it's typical to only have *-ī* in the genitive singular. Does this hold for both classic and modern Latin, or just one of the types?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2010" RevisionGUID="256d5a23-8f13-4970-86a2-448cf227d347" CreationDate="2016-11-18T18:54:29.117" UserId="406" Comment="Edit to question made one point irrelevant" Text="&lt;strike&gt;First, I'm slightly confused by your declension table. As Brian and Joonas have mentioned, you have a mix of masculine and neuter forms.&lt;/strike&gt; *(Corrected.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A full table of &quot;standard&quot; (post-Augustan) *-ius*/*-ium* endings would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    M SG    M PL    N SG    N PL&#xD;&#xA;NOM -ius    -iī     -ium    -ia&#xD;&#xA;GEN -iī     -iōrum  -iī     -iōrum&#xD;&#xA;DAT -iō     -iīs    -iō     -iīs&#xD;&#xA;ACC -ium    -iōs    -ium    -ia&#xD;&#xA;ABL -iō     -iīs    -iō     -iīs&#xD;&#xA;VOC -ī      -iī     -ium    -ia&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(O tempora! O mores! Why must upstanding citizens be disallowed from having proper &amp;lt;table&gt;s? Something something Catalina)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In earlier Latin, the genitive singular for both masculine and neuter was *-ī*. In other words, you would always see *auxilī* instead of *auxiliī*, and *fīlī* instead of *fīliī*. But during the Augustan period authors stopped treating *-i-* nouns specially, and this form was regularized to *-iī*. From the link below, &quot;the genitive in -iī occurs once in Virgil, and constantly in Ovid, but was probably unknown to Cicero.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For (a little bit) more information, see [Allen and Greenough section 49b][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Asmythp%3D49" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2012" RevisionGUID="dcdde889-90bd-4596-886a-b4889402338c" CreationDate="2016-11-18T19:26:41.187" UserId="406" Text="Many Ancient Greek jokes are preserved in the *Philogelos*, ranging from wordplay to stereotypical foreigners to utter nonsense. And certain epigrams from Lucillius and Argentarius contain excellent/horrible puns (depending who you ask), such as an especially painful one-liner on Μῆδος &quot;Median&quot; ~ μὴ δός &quot;don't give!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know puns existed in Latin; the &quot;Vesu-vinum&quot; graffiti from Pompeii has been called the earliest known advertising pun, and Plautus has a reputation for clever wordplay. But do we have records of actual jokes in Latin? I'm looking specifically for short snippets of text which are humorous on their own, like the jokes in the *Philogelos*; one-liners from Plautus would certainly qualify, but only if they don't require a full scene of context to be funny." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7313" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2012" RevisionGUID="dcdde889-90bd-4596-886a-b4889402338c" CreationDate="2016-11-18T19:26:41.187" UserId="406" Text="The lowest form of humor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7314" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2012" RevisionGUID="dcdde889-90bd-4596-886a-b4889402338c" CreationDate="2016-11-18T19:26:41.187" UserId="406" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|word-play|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2012" RevisionGUID="d05c1f3f-a47a-47fd-81fe-73ca4fb2f3c8" CreationDate="2016-11-18T19:52:44.903" UserId="406" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Many Ancient Greek jokes are preserved in the *Philogelos*, ranging from wordplay to stereotypical foreigners to utter nonsense. And certain epigrams from Lucillius and Argentarius contain excellent/horrible puns (depending who you ask), such as an especially painful one-liner on Μῆδος &quot;Median&quot; ~ μὴ δός &quot;don't give!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know puns existed in Latin; the &quot;Vesu-vinum&quot; graffiti from Pompeii has been called the earliest known advertising pun, and Plautus has a reputation for clever wordplay. But do we have records of actual puns or jokes in Latin? I'm looking specifically for short snippets of text which are humorous on their own, like the ones in the *Philogelos*; one-liners from Plautus would certainly qualify, but only if they don't require a full scene of context to be funny." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2009" RevisionGUID="3012f316-ed2c-4af1-906a-f3378e5f1c81" CreationDate="2016-11-18T20:43:35.237" UserId="406" Comment="Incorporating suggestion" Text="I'm going to try to explain my process in answering, to give you some resources for coming up with more names in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Also, note that I like to mark my long vowels, &quot;ā ē ī ō ū&quot;. Many people don't do this; it won't be any less correct if you remove them when writing your names. They represent a pronunciation difference which disappeared in later Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lightspeed##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of my favorite resources for English-to-Latin is [Ludwig von Döderlein's *Hand-book of Latin Synonymes*][1] [sic]. It lists the subtle meaning differences between synonyms, as well as acting as a limited thesaurus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under *citus* (fast):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CITUS; CELER; VELOX; PERNIX; PROPERUS; FESTINUS.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Citus** and **celer** denote swiftness, merely as quick motion, in opp. to _tardus_, Cic. Or. iii. 57. Sall. Cat. 15. Cic. Fin. v. 11. N. D. ii. 20. Rosc. Com. 11. Top. 44; **velox** and **pernix**, nimbleness, as bodily strength and activity, in opp. to _lentus_; **properus** and **festinus**, haste, as the will to reach a certain point in the shortest time, in opp. to _segnis_ Gell. x. 11. 2. **Citus** denotes a swift and lively motion, approaching to _vegetus_; **celer**, an eager and impetuous motion, approaching to _rapidus_. 3. **Pernicitas** is, in general, dexterity and activity in all bodily movements, in hopping, climbing, and vaulting; but **velocitas**, especially in running, flying, and swimming, and so forth. Plaut. Mil. iii. 1, 36. Clare oculis video, _pernix_ sum manibus, pedibus mobilis. Virg. Æn. iv. 180. Curt. vii. 7, 53. Equorum _velocitati_ par est hominum _pernicitas_. 4. **Properus**, **properare**, denote the haste which, from energy, sets out rapidly to reach a certain point, in opp. to _cessare_; whereas **festinus**, **festinare**, denote the haste which springs from impatience, and borders upon precipitation. (ii. 144.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From personal experience, I've also heard *vēlōx* described as &quot;moving quickly right now&quot; and *celer* as &quot;able to move quickly&quot;, so Usain Bolt sitting on the couch would be *celer* but not *vēlōx*. But Döderlein doesn't mention this, and actually implies the opposite; [I'll ask a new question about that][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then under *lūmen* (light):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LUMEN; LUX.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lumen** (λευσσόμενον) is a luminous body, like φέγγος; **lux** (λευκή) a streaming mass of light, like φάος. Cic. Fin. iii. 14, 45. Ut obscuratur et offunditur _luce_ solis _lumen_ lucernæ. Curt. viii. 2, 21. Sed aditus specus accipit _lucem_; interiora nisi allato _lumine_ obscura sunt. Cic. Acad. iv. 8, 28. Si ista vera sunt, ratio omnis tollitur quasi quædam _lux lumen_que vitæ; that is, reason alone is in itself bright and light, and at the same time spreads brightness and light over life. Also, in a figurative sense, **lumen** denotes distinction, **lux** only clearness. Cicero (Man. 5.) calls Corinth, Græciæ totius _lumen_, but Rome (Catil. iv. 6.) _Lucem_ orbis terrarum; Corinth is compared to a glimmering point of light; Rome is distinguished as that city in comparison with which all other cities lie in darkness. (ii. 66.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd say *celer* (moving very quickly) and *lūx* (light itself, as opposed to a source of light) are the words you'd want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combining them unfortunately requires significant knowledge of Latin grammar; there's no easy way to do this step without being familiar with the language. In this case, I would say *Celeritās Lūcis*, literally &quot;the swiftness of the light&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joonas also suggested that *vēlōx* might fit the meaning of &quot;lightspeed&quot; better: light really *can't* move slower than its maximum speed, and the 'running' meaning sounds more like what a &quot;lightspeed&quot; character would have. In this case, it would be *Vēlōcitās Lūcis*, &quot;the velocity of the light&quot;. This is also more obviously related to speed, for non-Latin-speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Bull's Eye##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an idiom in English. *Oculus bovis* would be a literal translation, but there doesn't seem to be much precedent for using *oculus* like this. When looking for how a specific word was used, I usually put it into the [Perseus Word Study Tool][3], which then brings up the entry from Lewis and Short's Latin dictionary. (I could also search in L&amp;S directly, but the Word Study Tool has a nicer interface.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, L&amp;S lists plenty of idioms involving eyes, but none seem quite right. Most focus on seeing or perceiving, rather than precision or accuracy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest idiom I can think of is *acū tetigistī*, literally &quot;you touched it with a needle&quot; (used to mean &quot;you're exactly right&quot;). Changing the grammatical form, *Acū Tangō* is &quot;I touch it with a needle&quot;, or idiomatically &quot;I hit it precisely&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Holy Judgement##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this one I'm looking at Christian sources, since for me &quot;holy&quot; is more strongly associated with Christian religion (I'd use &quot;sacred&quot; instead if referring to classical Roman religion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *Diēs Īrae* in particular describes the Day of Judgement repeatedly, always using the words *jūdex*, *jūdicō*, *jūdicāns*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would go with *Jūdex Sacer* (the holy judge) or *Jūdicāns Sacer* (the holy judging person). Or more literally, *Jūdicium Sacrum* (the holy judgement).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Godlike Powers##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Godlike&quot; is difficult. I'm translating it here as &quot;the powers seem to come from a deity (through this mortal person)&quot;; an alternate meaning would be &quot;the person using these powers actually seems to be a deity&quot;. Let me know if this was your intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Döderlein again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; POTENTIA; POTENTATUS; POTESTAS; VIS; ROBUR.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Potentia**, **potentatus**, and **potestas** (πότνιος) denote an exterior power, which acts by means of men, and upon men; whereas **vis** and **robur** denote an interior power and strength, independent of the co-operation and good-will of others. **Potentia** denotes a merely factitious power, which can be exerted at will, like δύναμις; **potentatus**, the exterior rank of the ruler, which is acknowledged by those who are subject to him, like δυναστεία; **potestas**, a just and lawful power, with which a person is entrusted, like ἐξουσία. Tac. Ann. xiii. 19. Nihil tam fluxum est quam fama _potentiæ_ non sua _vi_ nixæ. **Vis** (ἴς) is the strength which shows itself in moving and attacking, as an ability to constrain others, like κράτος; **robur** (from ἐῤῥῶσθαι) the strength which shows itself in remaining quiet, as an ability to resist attack, and remain firm, like ῥώμη. (v. 83.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *vīs* seems like what you want. This is &quot;power&quot; in the sense of strength or force. &quot;Divine&quot; is easier, since the English word was borrowed from Latin: *dīvīnus*. Combined would give *Vīs Dīvīna*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Armageddon##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate was fairly accurate on this one. English *Armageddon* comes from Greek *Harmagedōn* from Hebrew *Har Məgiddô* &quot;Mount Megiddo&quot;. So if you wanted to refer to the actual mountain, *Harmagedōn* would be a decent translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume you want a synonym for &quot;apocalypse&quot; rather than the name of a mountain in Israel. Looking up &quot;apocalypse&quot; isn't likely to help either, though: it comes from Greek *apocalypsis*, &quot;uncovering&quot;, so the direct Latin translation would be *revēlātiō*. The modern meaning of &quot;end of the world&quot; is because the end of the world was predicted in the Book of Revelation, but it didn't have that meaning in Classical times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I don't know a good Classical term for &quot;the end of the world&quot;. To my knowledge there was no Ragnarök equivalent in Roman mythology, so the closest you could get would be a literal but artificial *Exitium Mundī* &quot;the final destruction of the world&quot;. Alternatively, you could add in a religious allusion and go with *Diēs Īrae* &quot;the day of wrath&quot; (from Zepheniah 1:15), which is a well-known term in Christianity but also has a good literal meaning. Or, if you aren't concerned about the ancient meaning, take the loanword *Apocalypsis*. (Or for additional foreign-ness, use the Greek spelling: *Ἀποκάλυψις*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33197&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2011/aut-celer-aut-v%C4%93l%C5%8Dx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2000" RevisionGUID="c8defaa2-b4bf-49f5-8829-ed51c99f1958" CreationDate="2016-11-18T21:12:28.523" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body; edited tags" Text="What are the best Latin words to describe greatness, godlike powers and something holy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll use those words as character name for some MMORPG.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples, along with their translations by Google:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Godlike Powers = Divina Potentia&#xD;&#xA; - Bull's Eye = Boves Oculos&#xD;&#xA; - lightspeed = lightspeed ??&#xD;&#xA; - Holy Judgement = Sanctus iudicium&#xD;&#xA; - Armageddon = Hermageddon &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when I translated the words back to English using Google Translate, almost all the words are not match with what I want. Just similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said in my comment, I have zero experience with Latin words, so even if I use a dictionary, I am not 100% sure that it's the word I am looking for. So, I am asking for help from the experts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7318" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2000" RevisionGUID="c8defaa2-b4bf-49f5-8829-ed51c99f1958" CreationDate="2016-11-18T21:12:28.523" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2013" RevisionGUID="f2638c28-debd-4290-a8c2-11c4cbc015d8" CreationDate="2016-11-18T23:13:11.760" UserId="9" Text="&quot;[Contraction in the case forms of the Latin io- and ia stems, and of deus, is, and idem][1]&quot; by  Edgar H. Sturtevant (1902) seems to have some relevant info, although I don't know if more has been discovered since then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sturtevant starts out by summarizing the genitive forms: he says that in early Latin, substantives always used the contracted genitive forms in -i, while adjectives used -ii. Later on -ii became usual for substantives as well, although -i was still used in some proper nouns (29).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is followed by a discussion of the nominative and dative/ablative plural. Apparently, contraction probably also occurred in these for at least some words, in some time periods, but the issue is rather complicated because the contraction may have been reversed by analogy. Also, spelling variants may not have always corresponded to pronunciation variants, due to either mis-spellings (e.g. leaving out a letter) or conservative spellings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021615152" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2013" RevisionGUID="94fe3fc2-11eb-4386-a862-16115ea58328" CreationDate="2016-11-18T23:26:30.930" UserId="9" Comment="added 383 characters in body" Text="&quot;[Contraction in the case forms of the Latin io- and ia stems, and of deus, is, and idem][1]&quot; by  Edgar H. Sturtevant (1902) seems to have some relevant info, although I don't know if more has been discovered since then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sturtevant starts out by summarizing the genitive forms: he says that in early Latin, substantives always used the contracted genitive forms in *-i,* while adjectives used *-ii.* Later on *-ii* became usual for substantives as well, although *-i* was still used in some proper nouns (29*). (I haven't used macrons because Sturtevant doesn't, but it seems that these forms would have normally been pronounced *-ĭī* and *-ī* respectively. Sturtevant mentions a theory of Klotz that involves scanning &quot;filii vos&quot; in a verse from Plautus as *filĭĭ vos,* but the shortness of the final vowel of &quot;filii&quot; here is supposed to be explained by the &quot;iambic shortening law&quot;/*brevis brevians*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is followed by a discussion of the nominative and dative/ablative plural. Apparently, contraction probably also occurred in these for at least some words, in some time periods, but the issue is rather complicated because the contraction may have been reversed by analogy. Also, spelling variants may not have always corresponded to pronunciation variants, due to either mis-spellings (e.g. leaving out a letter) or conservative spellings (such as *-iei, ieis,* which Sturtevant argues could represent the pronunciations *-ī, -īs*) (34*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: for some reason I don't understand, the linked scan seems to have two systems of page numbers. I'm referencing the bottom ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021615152" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2013" RevisionGUID="18628581-f81a-4da4-9def-1f8ed86dfc30" CreationDate="2016-11-18T23:35:03.020" UserId="9" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Edgar H. Sturtevant's dissertation &quot;[Contraction in the case forms of the Latin io- and ia stems, and of deus, is, and idem][1]&quot; (1902) seems to have some relevant info, although I don't know if more has been discovered since then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sturtevant starts out by summarizing the genitive forms: he says that in early Latin, substantives always used the contracted genitive forms in *-i,* while adjectives used *-ii.* Later on *-ii* became usual for substantives as well, although *-i* was still used in some proper nouns (29*). (I haven't used macrons because Sturtevant doesn't, but it seems that these forms would have normally been pronounced *-ĭī* and *-ī* respectively. Sturtevant mentions a theory of Klotz that involves scanning &quot;filii vos&quot; in a verse from Plautus as *filĭĭ vos,* but the shortness of the final vowel of &quot;filii&quot; here is supposed to be explained by the &quot;iambic shortening law&quot;/*brevis brevians*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is followed by a discussion of the nominative and dative/ablative plural. Apparently, contraction probably also occurred in these for at least some words, in some time periods, but the issue is rather complicated because the contraction may have been reversed by analogy. Also, spelling variants may not have always corresponded to pronunciation variants, due to either mis-spellings (e.g. leaving out a letter) or conservative spellings (such as *-iei, ieis,* which Sturtevant argues could represent the pronunciations *-ī, -īs*) (34*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: for some reason I don't understand, the linked scan seems to have two systems of page numbers. I'm referencing the bottom ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021615152" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2013" RevisionGUID="f423ca3a-babd-477c-9a9f-a0420126db6a" CreationDate="2016-11-18T23:50:43.133" UserId="9" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="Edgar H. Sturtevant's dissertation &quot;[Contraction in the case forms of the Latin io- and ia stems, and of deus, is, and idem][1]&quot; (1902) seems to have some relevant info, although I don't know if more has been discovered since then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sturtevant starts out by summarizing the genitive forms: he says that in early Latin, substantives always used the contracted genitive forms in *-i,* while adjectives used *-ii.* Later on *-ii* became usual for substantives as well, although *-i* was still used in some proper nouns (29*). (I haven't used macrons because Sturtevant doesn't, but it seems that these forms would have normally been pronounced *-ĭī* and *-ī* respectively. Sturtevant mentions a theory of Klotz that involves scanning &quot;filii vos&quot; in a verse from Plautus as *filĭĭ vos,* but the shortness of the final vowel of &quot;filii&quot; here is supposed to be explained by the &quot;iambic shortening law&quot;/*brevis brevians*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is followed by a discussion of the nominative and dative/ablative plural. Apparently, contraction probably also occurred in these for at least some words, in some time periods, but the issue is rather complicated because the contraction may have been reversed by analogy. Also, spelling variants may not have always corresponded to pronunciation variants, due to either mis-spellings (e.g. leaving out a letter) or conservative spellings (such as *-iei, ieis,* which Sturtevant argues could represent the pronunciations *-ī, -īs*) (34*). The part about contraction in the nominative plural is probably only relevant for masculine nouns, since neuters get the suffix *-a,* but I'd imagine masculine and neuter nouns behaved similarly in the dative/ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: for some reason I don't understand, the linked scan seems to have two systems of page numbers. I'm referencing the bottom ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021615152" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2015" RevisionGUID="ee8f4aea-b74c-49e1-8a7a-6ceba4bae232" CreationDate="2016-11-19T03:37:34.693" UserId="1000" Text="What word in latin would be the best representation of the 'order' or 'cardinality' of a mathematical 'group' or 'set' respectively. I'm looking to translate &quot;Finite Simple Group of Order 2[/Two]&quot; into classical latin. In this context, it seems that it would mean the *size of* the set rather than the *number of elements in* it. I'm considering **magnitūdō**, **mēnsūra**, and **numerus** (just their singular nominative forms, because I don't need any hints on how to translate, but rather what word to use) as candidates, but I realise there may be a better alternative that I do not fully grasp the cultural connotations of the usage of these words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7327" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2015" RevisionGUID="ee8f4aea-b74c-49e1-8a7a-6ceba4bae232" CreationDate="2016-11-19T03:37:34.693" UserId="1000" Text="Most relevant word for numerical &quot;order&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7328" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2015" RevisionGUID="ee8f4aea-b74c-49e1-8a7a-6ceba4bae232" CreationDate="2016-11-19T03:37:34.693" UserId="1000" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2016" RevisionGUID="efcb3d06-1b52-434b-b2b6-3db712a7167e" CreationDate="2016-11-19T05:12:04.150" UserId="1001" Text="How to pronounce Mons Mensae? Could you write it in international phonetic alphabet? I think that will be [Mʌns Mensæ]... Is that right? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I intended the constellation known as Mons Mensae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7330" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2016" RevisionGUID="efcb3d06-1b52-434b-b2b6-3db712a7167e" CreationDate="2016-11-19T05:12:04.150" UserId="1001" Text="Mons Mensae pronunciation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7331" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2016" RevisionGUID="efcb3d06-1b52-434b-b2b6-3db712a7167e" CreationDate="2016-11-19T05:12:04.150" UserId="1001" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2017" RevisionGUID="1e6bc6e5-078a-4939-9ef3-cc7949e64060" CreationDate="2016-11-19T07:40:28.860" UserId="406" Text="If I understand correctly, &quot;order&quot; in this context is conventional or idiomatic: it's used at this point because it's always been used that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, I'd suggest ***ōrdō***. Not only is it a decent translation of the English (in the sense of &quot;methodical arrangement, ordering&quot;), but it'll be immediately clear to mathematicians that the &quot;order&quot; is meant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2018" RevisionGUID="4ebe83b0-2a1e-4e4f-9983-37b854964c6e" CreationDate="2016-11-19T08:28:51.410" UserId="406" Text="There are several different schemes, used in different fields.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general English use (common in the sciences), it would be /mɔnz mɛntsej/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Reconstructed Classical pronunciation (common in the classics), it would be closer to /mons mensaj/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ecclesiastic pronunciation (common in the Catholic church), something like /mons mɛnsej/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as you can see, you have more freedom with your vowels. But I don't know of any pronunciation system which would use /ʌ/ or /æ/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2019" RevisionGUID="ca95b955-621b-4185-bad5-44947c17449c" CreationDate="2016-11-19T16:36:36.460" UserId="952" Text="This is an interesting question.  &#xD;&#xA;I started searching for some indirect statement examples, but I can't find any that display the same level of ambiguity that you're describing.  &#xD;&#xA;From [Wikipedia][1]:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Dicit se amare libertatem. (&quot;He says that he loves freedom&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;Credo regem dedisse omnibus leges. (&quot;I believe that the king gave laws to everyone&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;Speras nos visuros esse permulta cras. (&quot;You hope that we shall see very many things tomorrow&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;Docuit philosophus tertium non dari. (&quot;The philosopher taught that no third possibility is given&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;Audivi imperatorem in Senatu interfectum esse. (&quot;I heard that the emperor was killed in the Senate&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [Grammatica][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Caesar dixit puerum librum portare. (&quot;Caesar said that the boy carried a book.&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;Marcus scit puerum librum portare. (&quot;Marcus knows that the boy carries a book.&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;Cornelius putat puerum librum portare. (&quot;Cornelius thinks that the boy carries a book.&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;Aurelia vidit puerum librum portare. (&quot;Aurelia saw that the boy carried a book.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the last four examples especially, where the subject of the infinitive comes before the object of the infinitive in the sentence, I believe the correct translation of the &quot;Marcum se odisse&quot; section would be &quot;Marcus hates himself&quot;. From my experience, the independent clause should be translated separately, so to speak, from the clause with the infinitive. Therefore, the &quot;se&quot; refers to Marcus and not the speaker. Thus, I do not think this sentence is truly ambiguous.  &#xD;&#xA;However, if all else fails, the context can often be very helpful for figuring out who the pronouns are really referring to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_speech&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.dl.ket.org/latinlit/grammar/grammar-d117.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2018" RevisionGUID="2d7fb39c-a18d-45b9-921e-16961aa37f77" CreationDate="2016-11-19T17:46:22.623" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="There are several different schemes, used in different fields.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general English use (common in the sciences), it would be /mɔnz mɛntsej/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Reconstructed Classical pronunciation (common in the classics), it would be closer to /mons mensaj/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ecclesiastic pronunciation (common in the Catholic church), something like /mons mɛnse/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as you can see, you have more freedom with your vowels. But I don't know of any pronunciation system which would use /ʌ/ or /æ/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2020" RevisionGUID="48f1e8b2-3c02-4811-bf93-b5579093c792" CreationDate="2016-11-19T18:13:58.943" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt; [ [Etymonline :](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=arrogance&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) ]     arrogance (n.)      &#xD;&#xA;    c. 1300, from Old French *arrogance* (12c.),      &#xD;&#xA;from Latin *arrogantia*,       &#xD;&#xA;from *arrogantem* (nominative *arrogans*) &quot;assuming, overbearing, insolent,&quot; present participle of **[2.]** *arrogare* &quot;to claim for oneself, assume,&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;**[1.]** from *ad-* &quot;to&quot; (see [ad-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ad-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + *rogare* &quot;ask, propose&quot; (see [rogation](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rogation&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please see the entitled question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How did the prefix 'ad-' cause 'rogare' (via Compounding) to be able to generate 'arrogare', from 1 to 2? What semantic notions underlie 1 and 2? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. What is the semantic role of 'ad-' here? &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7343" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2020" RevisionGUID="48f1e8b2-3c02-4811-bf93-b5579093c792" CreationDate="2016-11-19T18:13:58.943" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How did 'ad-' + 'rogare' compound to mean &lt;to claim for oneself, assume&gt;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7344" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2020" RevisionGUID="48f1e8b2-3c02-4811-bf93-b5579093c792" CreationDate="2016-11-19T18:13:58.943" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2021" RevisionGUID="9ecdf799-85a7-4f40-871f-2f3007c0c7a4" CreationDate="2016-11-19T19:12:43.927" UserDisplayName="user1002" Text="Consider the following line from the *Aeneid*, Book VI:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;nec credere quivi hunc tantum tibi me discessu ferre dolorem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context: Aeneas has traveled into the underworld, and bumps into Dido, who he infers has committed suicide because of his departure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best literal translation is: &quot;I couldn't believe this, my leaving, to bring unto you such pain,&quot; because I think that **me discessu** (for me to leave) stands in apposition with **hunc**. But I'm not sure whether supine verbs can have a subject argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, generally, can an ablative clause formed from a supine verb have nouns corresponding to the base verb's subject or object? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7346" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2021" RevisionGUID="9ecdf799-85a7-4f40-871f-2f3007c0c7a4" CreationDate="2016-11-19T19:12:43.927" UserDisplayName="user1002" Text="Can a supine verb have arguments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7347" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2021" RevisionGUID="9ecdf799-85a7-4f40-871f-2f3007c0c7a4" CreationDate="2016-11-19T19:12:43.927" UserDisplayName="user1002" Text="|verbs|vergilius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2022" RevisionGUID="87f881c7-140e-491d-802f-3f1aa11a84ca" CreationDate="2016-11-19T19:32:54.933" UserId="522" Text="There is an interesting parallel in ***acquiro,*** which (according to Smith's Latin Dictionary) comes  from **ad** plus **quaero.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***ac-quiro,*** -sivi, -situm, 3 *v, a,* ***[quaero]*** lit, *to seek in addition to,* hence *to add to, to acquire* (in addition to), with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ad* or *Gen.,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In each case ***ad ( ac-, ar- )*** has the force of &quot;to oneself.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and **rogo, rogare** !!Transf. *to ask, beg, request.*   &#xD;&#xA;Alt/ **quaero, quaerere,** to search for **.2.** *to get, procure.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that showing an interest in something implies a desire to own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2023" RevisionGUID="f565e972-e361-4f98-affb-ddb00ef79687" CreationDate="2016-11-19T19:54:02.033" UserId="986" Text="The second supine (ending with -u) can only be combined with adjectives, or with *fas* and *nefas*. A second supine verb never has an object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An ablative clause can have a noun as an object (deo *res humanas* moderante), or a noun as predicate (consulibus *certerioribus* factis). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because *me discessu* is an ablative clause, I would translate it as after I left, or because I left. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2024" RevisionGUID="eba06b0c-cdc7-4834-9d4e-74051c2cdc45" CreationDate="2016-11-19T19:56:34.360" UserId="78" Text="Looking at it, I don't think *me* is ablative; it's more likely an accusative as the subject of an indirect statement with *credere*. *Discessu* here is not a supine, but a fourth-declension noun, *discessus*.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;The translated line should actually be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nor did I believe that I in my departure would ever have caused you so much pain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Apologies for the tenses.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the grammars are clear that the ablative supine does not take an object of any kind. The *hunc* then probably goes with *tantum dolorem* in a way that can't be literally translated into English without extra words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2023" RevisionGUID="bec58a4a-9337-4335-a8b2-f0559aa605d4" CreationDate="2016-11-19T20:01:30.200" UserId="986" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="The second supine (ending with -u) can only be combined with adjectives, or with *fas* and *nefas*. Examples: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *iucundum cognitu atque auditu*&#xD;&#xA;- *nefas est dictu*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second supine verb never has an object, but it can have a subject, for example *pleraque faciliora sunt dictu quam factu*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An ablative clause can have a noun as an object (deo *res humanas* moderante), or a noun as predicate (consulibus *certerioribus* factis). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because *me discessu* is an ablative clause, I would translate it as after I left, or because I left. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1984" RevisionGUID="59dfe925-c077-482d-b57b-447ed551b50d" CreationDate="2016-11-19T20:07:38.860" UserId="78" Comment="Shortened its scope to a more acceptable level." Text="Is there a short list of the most common false friends for translating Latin into English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2024" RevisionGUID="5ae42438-65d4-47ce-b88f-fa2751a059c8" CreationDate="2016-11-19T20:27:40.507" UserId="78" Comment="added 353 characters in body" Text="Looking at it, I don't think *me* is ablative; it's more likely an accusative as the subject of an indirect statement with *credere*. *Discessu* here is not a supine, but a fourth-declension noun, *discessus*.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;The translated line should actually be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nor did I believe that I in my departure would ever have caused you so much pain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Apologies for the tenses.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the grammars are clear that the ablative supine does not take an object of any kind. The *hunc* then probably goes with *tantum dolorem* in a way that can't be literally translated into English without extra words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addendum:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I checked two nineteenth-century interlinears to see if they could shed light on it. [Hart/Osborn's](https://books.google.com/books?id=WNAWAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=171#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) is very nearly the same as mine, while [Dewey's](https://archive.org/stream/virgilsneidbooks00virg#page/286/mode/2up) differs only in the translation of *hunc*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2023" RevisionGUID="654917fa-b849-4fee-9017-2d26c437b3d9" CreationDate="2016-11-19T20:59:33.430" UserId="986" Comment="deleted 248 characters in body" Text="The second supine (ending with -u) can only be combined with adjectives, or with *fas* and *nefas*. Examples: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *iucundum cognitu atque auditu*&#xD;&#xA;- *nefas est dictu*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second supine verb never has an object, but it can have a subject, for example *pleraque faciliora sunt dictu quam factu*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7356" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2015" RevisionGUID="4985fb83-55c0-4972-97d2-fedad0ae7c50" CreationDate="2016-11-19T22:27:41.407" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|word-request|vocabulary|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7357" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2021" RevisionGUID="ba0edda6-4877-437b-9182-5eed63b436a5" CreationDate="2016-11-19T22:52:17.163" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|verbs|vergilius|aeneis|supinum|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2025" RevisionGUID="99b26c20-748a-447f-97b8-6c2ad4fa29b5" CreationDate="2016-11-19T23:11:12.837" UserId="79" Text="What would be an idiomatic way to say &quot;idiom&quot; and &quot;idiomatic&quot; in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;One could perhaps use the Greek loan word *idi&amp;omacr;ma* (neuter), but I feel there should be a more Latin way of putting it.&#xD;&#xA;I did not find classical attestations of this loan word.&#xD;&#xA;It is perfectly acceptable to use several Latin words if necessary, but a subordinate clause would feel like too heavy structure for such a thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can either coin something new and explain why it is good classical style, or provide a classical use example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7359" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2025" RevisionGUID="99b26c20-748a-447f-97b8-6c2ad4fa29b5" CreationDate="2016-11-19T23:11:12.837" UserId="79" Text="What is &quot;idiom&quot; in classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7360" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2025" RevisionGUID="99b26c20-748a-447f-97b8-6c2ad4fa29b5" CreationDate="2016-11-19T23:11:12.837" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|word-request|phrase-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2017" RevisionGUID="3da4a1d6-0de2-483a-9723-7d91ce3c522b" CreationDate="2016-11-19T23:51:50.887" UserId="406" Comment="I do know how the second declension works, I swear!" Text="If I understand correctly, &quot;order&quot; in this context is conventional or idiomatic: it's used at this point because it's always been used that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, I'd suggest ***ōrdō***. Not only is it a decent translation of the English (in the sense of &quot;methodical arrangement, ordering&quot;), but it'll be immediately clear to mathematicians that the &quot;order&quot; is meant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: As Joonas and C.M. Weimer have suggested in the comments, it may also be more idiomatic to use an ordinal number (ba-dum *tsss*). So instead of *ōrdō duō* &quot;order two&quot;, perhaps *ōrdō secundus* &quot;second order&quot;. That would make the full phrase something like *grex fīnītus simplex ōrdinis secundī* &quot;finite simple group of the second order&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1825" RevisionGUID="4356e4fe-4215-4e2e-9696-3b22855c6766" CreationDate="2016-11-20T00:13:46.473" UserId="30" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="These seem to be versions of the popular prayer &quot;Pater Noster&quot;. Here is an approximate literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  sed libera, mais delivre nous, sire, a malo, de tout mal et de cruel martire&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(Latin:) But free [us], (Middle French:) but deliver us, father, (Latin:) from evil, (Middle French:) from all evil and cruel torture.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a hybrid translation-explanation of the Latin words in French, possibly intended for those who did not know Latin, from the [13th century][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  pater noster, tu n'ies pas foulz Quar tu t'ies mis en grand repos Qui es montes haus in celis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(Latin:) our father, (M. French:) you are not insane. For you have taken great repose. [You] who are mounted high (Latin:) in the heavens.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is from the *[Patenostre de Lombardie][2]* (1379), a parody on the prayer, mocking and accusing God.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=k1LJAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA259&amp;lpg=PA259&amp;dq=sed%20libera,%20mais%20delivre%20nous,%20sire,%20a%20malo,%20de%20tout%20mal%20et%20de%20cruel%20martire&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=8AF9cUqniM&amp;sig=4hjuxKfU8pJkwvvZUy0Q7oNlv0A&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=sed%20libera%2C%20mais%20delivre%20nous%2C%20sire%2C%20a%20malo%2C%20de%20tout%20mal%20et%20de%20cruel%20martire&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=hjekPxL8B4AC&amp;pg=PT147&amp;lpg=PT147&amp;dq=pater%20noster,%20tu%20n%27ies%20pas%20foulz&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=J2CsLFHqdt&amp;sig=E4mB3kfSStO5aIqZwKWULGejtvU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=pater%20noster%2C%20tu%20n%27ies%20pas%20foulz&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1975" RevisionGUID="ab24f92e-4da4-4ae8-b327-d4096001c299" CreationDate="2016-11-20T00:16:49.427" UserId="30" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="Agree that res / rem can stand for whatever the context demands.  See Horace, *Epistles* I.I.65:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rem facias, rem si possis, recte, si non quocumque modo, rem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case &quot;rem&quot; means money." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2026" RevisionGUID="3b4a7289-26eb-4e1d-bf0a-bcb35e25918a" CreationDate="2016-11-20T01:10:12.160" UserId="9" Text="As I said in my comment, it depends on what language you're using. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this is a site about Latin, I'll start with the Latin pronunciations. The Classical Latin pronunciation was something like /moːns ˈmeːnsae̯/, phonemically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically, there are a few further details that it may be useful to know about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Many scholars believe that the evidence indicates that in Classical Latin, an /n/ was not pronounced as the consonant [n] before the sounds /s/ or /f/, but as mere nasalization on the preceding long vowel. (Vowels before &quot;nf&quot; or &quot;ns&quot; are always long as a rule in Classical Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The precise quality of /oː/ (&quot;long o&quot;) and /eː/ (&quot;long e&quot;) is only known approximately, and it probably changed slightly over time. It's clear that they were more or less [mid vowels][1]. The evidence seems to point to these vowels being realized in earlier stages of Latin with relatively open qualities such as [o̞ː] and [e̞ː], or even [ɔː] and [ɛː], since in [Old Latin][2] there was a vowel written *ei*, thought to be close-mid [eː], that contrasted with both &quot;long e&quot; and &quot;long i&quot; (by the time of Classical Latin, *ei* had merged with &quot;long i&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;However, in later stages, it seems fairly clear they were realized as [oː] and [eː] with a closer quality than the corresponding short vowels [ɔ] and [ɛ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The vowel sound represented by “ae”, which I’ve transcribed phonemically as /ae̯/, also changed over time. Originally, it was a diphthong pronounced more or less as /ai̯/ or /aɪ̯/ (and written as &quot;ai&quot;). The offglide seems to have become more open over time, so [ae̯] was probably used at some point (explaining the change in spelling). In later stages of the language, it became an long monophthong, open-mid [ɛː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So phonetically, it would probably be something like /mõ̞ːs ˈmẽ̞ːsai̯/, /mõːs ˈmẽːsae̯/ or /mõːs ˈmẽːsɛː/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not as familiar with Ecclesiastical pronunciation of Latin (which is mostly Italian-influenced), so I might get something wrong here, but it seems it would be pronounced /mɔns ˈmɛnsɛ/ in this tradition. The main thing I'm not sure about is the vowels; some varieties of Italian have a phonemic distinction between close-mid /e o/ and open-mid /ɛ ɔ/ in stressed syllables, but it seems that there is no such distinction in the Italian pronunciation of Latinate words. The vowels seem to be generally described as being pronounced as open-mid [ɛ ɔ], but in Italian at least the distinction is neutralized in unstressed syllables to close-mid [e o], so I don't know if the usual Italian pronunciation would phonetically be [mɔns ˈmɛnse].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The traditional English pronunciation would be /mɒnz mɛnsiː/. I won’t focus too much on describing dialectal and sub-phonemic variations of this since this is a site about Latin, not about English, but the most notable points of variation might be the vowel in “mons” (which would be /ɑ/ in General American English) and a possible epenthetic [t] between /n/ and /s/ (which is, like the Latin nasalized vowels, a way of avoiding the difficult-to-articulate cluster [ns]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The “restored” English pronunciation, using the usual vowel equivalences described e.g. here (http://www.txclassics.org/old/PronunciationGuide.pdf) would be /moʊns meɪnsaɪ/. However, in English-language contexts, many people use an inconsistent mix of restored pronunciation and more traditional English pronunciation, so you’re probably more likely to hear things like /mɒnz mɛnsaɪ/, /moʊnz mɛnsaɪ/ or /mɔːnz mɛnsaɪ/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin#Vowels_and_diphthongs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2026" RevisionGUID="deca1980-f2b6-4ffd-bd4b-0f58f0d631e3" CreationDate="2016-11-20T01:21:58.107" UserId="9" Comment="added 293 characters in body" Text="As I said in my comment, it depends on what language you're using. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this is a site about Latin, I'll start with the Latin pronunciations. The Classical Latin pronunciation was something like /moːns ˈmeːnsae̯/, phonemically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically, there are a few further details that it may be useful to know about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Many scholars believe that the evidence indicates that in Classical Latin, an /n/ was not pronounced as the consonant [n] before the sounds /s/ or /f/, but as mere nasalization on the preceding long vowel. (Vowels before &quot;nf&quot; or &quot;ns&quot; are always long as a rule in Classical Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The precise quality of /oː/ (&quot;long o&quot;) and /eː/ (&quot;long e&quot;) is only known approximately, and it probably changed slightly over time. It's clear that they were more or less [mid vowels][1]. The evidence seems to point to these vowels being realized in earlier stages of Latin with relatively open qualities such as [o̞ː] and [e̞ː], or even [ɔː] and [ɛː], since in [Old Latin][2] there was a vowel written *ei*, thought to be close-mid [eː], that contrasted with both &quot;long e&quot; and &quot;long i&quot; (by the time of Classical Latin, *ei* had merged with &quot;long i&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;However, in later stages, it seems fairly clear they were realized as [oː] and [eː] with a closer quality than the corresponding short vowels [ɔ] and [ɛ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The vowel sound represented by “ae”, which I’ve transcribed phonemically as /ae̯/, also changed over time. Originally, it was a diphthong pronounced more or less as /ai̯/ or /aɪ̯/ (and written as &quot;ai&quot;). The offglide seems to have become more open over time, so [ae̯] was probably used at some point (explaining the change in spelling). In later stages of the language, it became an long monophthong, open-mid [ɛː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So phonetically, it would probably be something like /mõ̞ːs ˈmẽ̞ːsai̯/, /mõːs ˈmẽːsae̯/ or /mõːs ˈmẽːsɛː/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been vague in my description of the dating of these sound changes because &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm not very familiar with the timeline of these changes&#xD;&#xA;- In some cases, even scholars are unsure&#xD;&#xA;- You haven't indicated that you're trying to emulate the pronunciation of any particular time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not as familiar with Ecclesiastical pronunciation of Latin (which is mostly Italian-influenced), so I might get something wrong here, but it seems it would be pronounced /mɔns ˈmɛnsɛ/ in this tradition. The main thing I'm not sure about is the vowels; some varieties of Italian have a phonemic distinction between close-mid /e o/ and open-mid /ɛ ɔ/ in stressed syllables, but it seems that there is no such distinction in the Italian pronunciation of Latinate words. The vowels seem to be generally described as being pronounced as open-mid [ɛ ɔ], but in Italian at least the distinction is neutralized in unstressed syllables to close-mid [e o], so I don't know if the usual Italian pronunciation would phonetically be [mɔns ˈmɛnse].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The traditional English pronunciation would be /mɒnz mɛnsiː/. I won’t focus too much on describing dialectal and sub-phonemic variations of this since this is a site about Latin, not about English, but the most notable points of variation might be the vowel in “mons” (which would be /ɑ/ in General American English) and a possible epenthetic [t] between /n/ and /s/ (which is, like the Latin nasalized vowels, a way of avoiding the difficult-to-articulate cluster [ns]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The “restored” English pronunciation, using the usual vowel equivalences described e.g. here (http://www.txclassics.org/old/PronunciationGuide.pdf) would be /moʊns meɪnsaɪ/. However, in English-language contexts, many people use an inconsistent mix of restored pronunciation and more traditional English pronunciation, so you’re probably more likely to hear things like /mɒnz mɛnsaɪ/, /moʊnz mɛnsaɪ/ or /mɔːnz mɛnsaɪ/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin#Vowels_and_diphthongs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2026" RevisionGUID="5ae1bedf-89ed-45b4-b535-5c1809ff70b5" CreationDate="2016-11-20T01:34:13.660" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="As I said in my comment, it depends on what language you're using. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this is a site about Latin, I'll start with the Latin pronunciations. The Classical Latin pronunciation was something like /moːns ˈmeːnsae̯/, phonemically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically, there are a few further details that it may be useful to know about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Many scholars believe that the evidence indicates that in Classical Latin, an /n/ was not pronounced as the consonant [n] before the sounds /s/ or /f/, but as mere nasalization on the preceding long vowel. (Vowels before &quot;nf&quot; or &quot;ns&quot; are always long as a rule in Classical Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The precise quality of /oː/ (&quot;long o&quot;) and /eː/ (&quot;long e&quot;) is only known approximately, and it probably changed slightly over time. It's clear that they were more or less [mid vowels][1]. The evidence seems to point to these vowels being realized in earlier stages of Latin with relatively open qualities such as [o̞ː] and [e̞ː], or even [ɔː] and [ɛː], since in [Old Latin][2] there was a vowel written *ei*, thought to be close-mid [eː], that contrasted with both &quot;long e&quot; and &quot;long i&quot; (by the time of Classical Latin, *ei* had merged with &quot;long i&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;However, in later stages, it seems fairly clear they were realized as [oː] and [eː] with a closer quality than the corresponding short vowels [ɔ] and [ɛ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The vowel sound represented by “ae”, which I’ve transcribed phonemically as /ae̯/, also changed over time. Originally, it was a diphthong pronounced more or less as /ai̯/ or /aɪ̯/ (and written as &quot;ai&quot;). The offglide seems to have become more open over time, so [ae̯] was probably used at some point (explaining the change in spelling). In later stages of the language, it became an long monophthong, open-mid [ɛː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So phonetically, it would probably be something like [mõ̞ːs ˈmẽ̞ːsai̯], [mõːs ˈmẽːsae̯] or [mõːs ˈmẽːsɛː]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been vague in my description of the dating of these sound changes because &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm not very familiar with the timeline of these changes&#xD;&#xA;- In some cases, even scholars are unsure&#xD;&#xA;- You haven't indicated that you're trying to emulate the pronunciation of any particular time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not as familiar with Ecclesiastical pronunciation of Latin (which is mostly Italian-influenced), so I might get something wrong here, but it seems it would be pronounced /mɔns ˈmɛnsɛ/ in this tradition. The main thing I'm not sure about is the vowels; some varieties of Italian have a phonemic distinction between close-mid /e o/ and open-mid /ɛ ɔ/ in stressed syllables, but it seems that there is no such distinction in the Italian pronunciation of Latinate words. The vowels seem to be generally described as being pronounced as open-mid [ɛ ɔ], but in Italian at least the distinction is neutralized in unstressed syllables to close-mid [e o], so I don't know if the usual Italian pronunciation would phonetically be [mɔns ˈmɛnse].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The traditional English pronunciation would be /mɒnz mɛnsiː/. I won’t focus too much on describing dialectal and sub-phonemic variations of this since this is a site about Latin, not about English, but the most notable points of variation might be the vowel in “mons” (which would be /ɑ/ in General American English) and a possible epenthetic [t] between /n/ and /s/ (which is, like the Latin nasalized vowels, a way of avoiding the difficult-to-articulate cluster [ns]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The “restored” English pronunciation, using the usual vowel equivalences described e.g. here (http://www.txclassics.org/old/PronunciationGuide.pdf) would be /moʊns meɪnsaɪ/. However, in English-language contexts, many people use an inconsistent mix of restored pronunciation and more traditional English pronunciation, so you’re probably more likely to hear things like /mɒnz mɛnsaɪ/, /moʊnz mɛnsaɪ/ or /mɔːnz mɛnsaɪ/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin#Vowels_and_diphthongs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2026" RevisionGUID="afd0d64d-7476-4241-ad2c-ca9d04280221" CreationDate="2016-11-20T01:49:45.053" UserId="9" Comment="typo" Text="As I said in my comment, it depends on what language you're using. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this is a site about Latin, I'll start with the Latin pronunciations. The Classical Latin pronunciation was something like /moːns ˈmeːnsae̯/, phonemically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically, there are a few further details that it may be useful to know about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Many scholars believe that the evidence indicates that in Classical Latin, an /n/ was not pronounced as the consonant [n] before the sounds /s/ or /f/, but as mere nasalization on the preceding long vowel. (Vowels before &quot;nf&quot; or &quot;ns&quot; are always long as a rule in Classical Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The precise quality of /oː/ (&quot;long o&quot;) and /eː/ (&quot;long e&quot;) is only known approximately, and it probably changed slightly over time. It's clear that they were more or less [mid vowels][1]. The evidence seems to point to these vowels being realized in earlier stages of Latin with relatively open qualities such as [o̞ː] and [e̞ː], or even [ɔː] and [ɛː], since in [Old Latin][2] there was a vowel written *ei*, thought to be close-mid [eː], that contrasted with both &quot;long e&quot; and &quot;long i&quot; (by the time of Classical Latin, *ei* had merged with &quot;long i&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;However, in later stages, it seems fairly clear they were realized as [oː] and [eː] with a closer quality than the corresponding short vowels [ɔ] and [ɛ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The vowel sound represented by “ae”, which I’ve transcribed phonemically as /ae̯/, also changed over time. Originally, it was a diphthong pronounced more or less as /ai̯/ or /aɪ̯/ (and written as &quot;ai&quot;). The offglide seems to have become more open over time, so [ae̯] was probably used at some point (explaining the change in spelling). In later stages of the language, it became a long monophthong, open-mid [ɛː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So phonetically, it would probably be something like [mõ̞ːs ˈmẽ̞ːsai̯], [mõːs ˈmẽːsae̯] or [mõːs ˈmẽːsɛː]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been vague in my description of the dating of these sound changes because &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm not very familiar with the timeline of these changes&#xD;&#xA;- In some cases, even scholars are unsure&#xD;&#xA;- You haven't indicated that you're trying to emulate the pronunciation of any particular time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not as familiar with Ecclesiastical pronunciation of Latin (which is mostly Italian-influenced), so I might get something wrong here, but it seems it would be pronounced /mɔns ˈmɛnsɛ/ in this tradition. The main thing I'm not sure about is the vowels; some varieties of Italian have a phonemic distinction between close-mid /e o/ and open-mid /ɛ ɔ/ in stressed syllables, but it seems that there is no such distinction in the Italian pronunciation of Latinate words. The vowels seem to be generally described as being pronounced as open-mid [ɛ ɔ], but in Italian at least the distinction is neutralized in unstressed syllables to close-mid [e o], so I don't know if the usual Italian pronunciation would phonetically be [mɔns ˈmɛnse].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The traditional English pronunciation would be /mɒnz mɛnsiː/. I won’t focus too much on describing dialectal and sub-phonemic variations of this since this is a site about Latin, not about English, but the most notable points of variation might be the vowel in “mons” (which would be /ɑ/ in General American English) and a possible epenthetic [t] between /n/ and /s/ (which is, like the Latin nasalized vowels, a way of avoiding the difficult-to-articulate cluster [ns]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The “restored” English pronunciation, using the usual vowel equivalences described e.g. here (http://www.txclassics.org/old/PronunciationGuide.pdf) would be /moʊns meɪnsaɪ/. However, in English-language contexts, many people use an inconsistent mix of restored pronunciation and more traditional English pronunciation, so you’re probably more likely to hear things like /mɒnz mɛnsaɪ/, /moʊnz mɛnsaɪ/ or /mɔːnz mɛnsaɪ/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin#Vowels_and_diphthongs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2027" RevisionGUID="45e5d886-5383-4766-a169-83f7a75262b3" CreationDate="2016-11-20T02:30:17.067" UserId="952" Text="How does one go about learning to speak Latin fluently?  &#xD;&#xA;I am considering three options.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Translation Based Method** - Doing many translations (from Latin to English) would increase my vocabulary in the process and get me comfortable with all the types of sentence structure and other nuances. Once I can translate Latin from sight without using any word dictionaries or references, I might have a better chance at speaking Latin. I could also go in the reverse direction by translating from English to Latin. &#xD;&#xA; 2. **Starting with a Writing Method** - If I try to write in Latin as much as possible, I'll hopefully get to a point where I can directly turn my thoughts into Latin writing. Then, as I get  better at translating from English to Latin in my head, I'd probably be able to speak somewhat naturally.&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Starting with a Conversational Method** - Integrating Latin sentences into conversation with other people who know Latin would help me get some direct practice and immersion. However, I'm worried this may not be effective if I just try to jump in without having enough vocabulary memorised (or if the other person doesn't have a large enough vocabulary; I do not know many people who know Latin at a high-intermediate to advanced level...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone is familiar with other effective methods, feel free to suggest those too!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7369" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2027" RevisionGUID="45e5d886-5383-4766-a169-83f7a75262b3" CreationDate="2016-11-20T02:30:17.067" UserId="952" Text="How to Practice Speaking Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7370" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2027" RevisionGUID="45e5d886-5383-4766-a169-83f7a75262b3" CreationDate="2016-11-20T02:30:17.067" UserId="952" Text="|contemporary-latin|spoken-language|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2026" RevisionGUID="0deb13d0-bd19-46fd-ba89-6cec736534c7" CreationDate="2016-11-20T06:25:48.900" UserId="9" Comment="added 498 characters in body" Text="As I said in my comment, it depends on what language you're using. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation(s)&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this is a site about Latin, I'll start with the Latin pronunciations. The Classical Latin pronunciation was something like /moːns ˈmeːnsae̯/, phonemically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically, there are a few further details that it may be useful to know about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Many scholars believe that the evidence indicates that in Classical Latin, an /n/ was not pronounced as the consonant [n] before the sounds /s/ or /f/, but as mere nasalization on the preceding long vowel. (Vowels before &quot;nf&quot; or &quot;ns&quot; are always long as a rule in Classical Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The precise quality of /oː/ (&quot;long o&quot;) and /eː/ (&quot;long e&quot;) is only known approximately, and it probably changed slightly over time. It's clear that they were more or less [mid vowels][1]. The evidence seems to point to these vowels being realized in earlier stages of Latin with relatively open qualities such as [o̞ː] and [e̞ː], or even [ɔː] and [ɛː], since in [Old Latin][2] there was a vowel written *ei*, thought to be close-mid [eː], that contrasted with both &quot;long e&quot; and &quot;long i&quot; (by the time of Classical Latin, *ei* had merged with &quot;long i&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;However, in later stages, it seems fairly clear they were realized as [oː] and [eː] with a closer quality than the corresponding short vowels [ɔ] and [ɛ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The vowel sound represented by “ae”, which I’ve transcribed phonemically as /ae̯/, also changed over time. Originally, it was a diphthong pronounced more or less as /ai̯/ or /aɪ̯/ (and written as &quot;ai&quot;). The offglide seems to have become more open over time, so [ae̯] was probably used at some point (explaining the change in spelling). In later stages of the language, it became a long monophthong, open-mid [ɛː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So phonetically, it would probably be something like [mõ̞ːs ˈmẽ̞ːsai̯], [mõːs ˈmẽːsae̯] or [mõːs ˈmẽːsɛː]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been vague in my description of the dating of these sound changes because &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm not very familiar with the timeline of these changes&#xD;&#xA;- In some cases, even scholars are unsure&#xD;&#xA;- You haven't indicated that you're trying to emulate the pronunciation of any particular time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation(s)&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not as familiar with Ecclesiastical pronunciation of Latin (which is mostly Italian-influenced), so I might get something wrong here, but it seems it would be pronounced /mɔns ˈmɛnsɛ/ in this tradition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main thing I'm not sure about is the vowels. Some varieties of Italian have a phonemic distinction between close-mid /e o/ and open-mid /ɛ ɔ/ in stressed syllables. However, it seems that there is no such distinction in the Italian pronunciation of Latinate words; or at least, I have not found any agreement about which would be used where (see the talk on this Wiktionary page: [Template talk:la-IPA][3] for an example of the confusion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most sources I've found seem to indicate that Ecclesiastical Latin only uses open-mid [ɛ ɔ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in Italian at least the distinction is neutralized in unstressed syllables to close-mid [e o], so I don't know if the usual Italian pronunciation would phonetically be [mɔns ˈmɛnse].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English pronunciations&#xD;&#xA;----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The traditional English pronunciation would be /mɒnz mɛnsiː/. I won’t focus too much on describing dialectal and sub-phonemic variations of this since this is a site about Latin, not about English, but the most notable points of variation might be the vowel in “mons” (which would be /ɑ/ in General American English) and a possible epenthetic [t] between /n/ and /s/ (which is, like the Latin nasalized vowels, a way of avoiding the difficult-to-articulate cluster [ns]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The “restored” English pronunciation, using the usual vowel equivalences described e.g. here (http://www.txclassics.org/old/PronunciationGuide.pdf) would be /moʊns meɪnsaɪ/. However, in English-language contexts, many people use an inconsistent mix of restored pronunciation and more traditional English pronunciation, so you’re probably more likely to hear things like /mɒnz mɛnsaɪ/, /moʊnz mɛnsaɪ/ or /mɔːnz mɛnsaɪ/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin#Vowels_and_diphthongs&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Template_talk:la-IPA#Ecclesiastical_fixes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1806" RevisionGUID="2d48d6b2-ca87-43ad-a0d1-845abbabc630" CreationDate="2016-11-20T11:43:42.250" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 921 characters in body" Text="The following picture references [ODO](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/consist?q=consist+in#consist__9) &amp; [Etymonline](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=consist&amp;searchmode=none). I also read [this on ELU](http://english.stackexchange.com/a/193854/50720).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Please diagnose where I have erred in 4-6.        &#xD;&#xA;What have I misunderstood in concluding  1 to mean 6 (with X and Y reversed), contrary to the dictionary's 2?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rNRjE.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7373" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1806" RevisionGUID="2d48d6b2-ca87-43ad-a0d1-845abbabc630" CreationDate="2016-11-20T11:43:42.250" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 921 characters in body" Text="How did I misunderstand the Latin 'consisto' in interpreting 'X consists in Y.'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2021" RevisionGUID="938f6d36-2437-4ef4-ae5c-d073143e931e" CreationDate="2016-11-20T11:52:49.450" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="I emended grammar, morphology, orthography, syntax, and/or ameliorated ambiguity or vagueness." Text="Consider the following line from the *Aeneid*, Book VI:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;nec credere quivi hunc tantum tibi me discessu ferre dolorem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context: Aeneas has traveled into the underworld, and bumps into Dido, who Aeneas infers has committed suicide because of his departure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best literal translation is: &quot;I couldn't believe this, my leaving, to bring unto you such pain,&quot; because I think that **me discessu** (for me to leave) stands in apposition with **hunc**. But I'm not sure whether supine verbs can have a subject argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, generally, can an ablative clause formed from a supine verb have nouns corresponding to the base verb's subject or object? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2022" RevisionGUID="23f00452-dcde-437c-8107-6c9bcd4b0a32" CreationDate="2016-11-20T13:54:27.090" UserId="522" Comment="response." Text="There is an interesting parallel in ***acquiro,*** which (according to Smith's Latin Dictionary) comes  from **ad** plus **quaero.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***ac-quiro,*** -sivi, -situm, 3 *v, a,* ***[quaero]*** lit, *to seek in addition to,* hence *to add to, to acquire* (in addition to), with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ad* or *Gen.,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In each case ***ad ( ac-, ar- )*** has the force of &quot;to oneself.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;plus **rogo, rogare** ***II*** Transfiguratively: *to ask, beg, request.*  &#xD;&#xA;or  &#xD;&#xA;plus **quaero, quaerere,** to search for **.2.** *to get, procure.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that showing an interest in something implies a desire to own. But that takes the discussion into human behaviour, away from linguistics.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2028" RevisionGUID="4466111a-3ebe-47d6-a70a-58b0d6e1a074" CreationDate="2016-11-20T15:16:14.163" UserId="1003" Text="Please could someone explain what am I missing here -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Spinoza's The Ethics, Proposition V is said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PROPOSITIO V: In rerum natura non possunt dari duæ aut plures substantiæ ejusdem naturæ sive attributi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is translated as &quot; There cannot exist in the universe two or more substances having the same nature or attribute.&quot; (Trans. R.H.M. Elwes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is - how does &quot;dari&quot; here mean &quot;exist&quot;, or is &quot;exist&quot; just added up to make that sentence more suitable for English construction - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;do&quot; is given as &#xD;&#xA;to hand over, deliver, give up, render, furnish, pay, surrender) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so &quot;dari&quot; should be &quot;to be handed over, given&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7377" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2028" RevisionGUID="4466111a-3ebe-47d6-a70a-58b0d6e1a074" CreationDate="2016-11-20T15:16:14.163" UserId="1003" Text="&quot;non possunt dari&quot; translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7378" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2028" RevisionGUID="4466111a-3ebe-47d6-a70a-58b0d6e1a074" CreationDate="2016-11-20T15:16:14.163" UserId="1003" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2028" RevisionGUID="83d4b699-6351-4700-be51-f03389b79f40" CreationDate="2016-11-20T15:59:06.433" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and added a tag." Text="Please could someone explain what I am missing here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Spinoza's The Ethics, Proposition V is said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PROPOSITIO V: In rerum natura non possunt dari duæ aut plures substantiæ ejusdem naturæ sive attributi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is translated as &quot;There cannot exist in the universe two or more substances having the same nature or attribute.&quot; (Trans. R.H.M. Elwes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: how does &quot;dari&quot; here mean &quot;exist&quot;, or is &quot;exist&quot; just added up to make that sentence more suitable for English construction so &quot;dari&quot; should be &quot;to be handed over, given&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;Do&quot; is given as to hand over, deliver, give up, render, furnish, pay, surrender.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7380" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2028" RevisionGUID="83d4b699-6351-4700-be51-f03389b79f40" CreationDate="2016-11-20T15:59:06.433" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and added a tag." Text="&quot;Non possunt dari&quot; translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7381" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2028" RevisionGUID="83d4b699-6351-4700-be51-f03389b79f40" CreationDate="2016-11-20T15:59:06.433" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and added a tag." Text="|translation|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2029" RevisionGUID="ecc4f4cd-c8da-4135-8f96-a3878bdccbef" CreationDate="2016-11-20T16:10:20.610" UserId="78" Text="English actually has this same construction! Think of it as analogous to the phrase &quot;Granted that&quot; or &quot;It is given that.&quot; It's used in philosophy as part of a hypothetical dialogue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, the &quot;giving&quot; part led to a metaphorical usage of &quot;permission.&quot; If I grant you the right to do something, I give you permission. Or allowance, etc. You can find this under II.B in [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dare&amp;la=la#lexicon).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for a less idiomatic but still accurate translation, we could do something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the nature of things (=universe, natural world), two or more substances of the same nature and attribute cannot be permitted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7383" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="2021" RevisionGUID="d823e94c-3dc0-4a51-9d62-3c5cb8374fc0" CreationDate="2016-11-20T16:57:44.710" UserId="78" Comment="Rollback to [ba0edda6-4877-437b-9182-5eed63b436a5]" Text="Consider the following line from the *Aeneid*, Book VI:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;nec credere quivi hunc tantum tibi me discessu ferre dolorem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context: Aeneas has traveled into the underworld, and bumps into Dido, who he infers has committed suicide because of his departure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best literal translation is: &quot;I couldn't believe this, my leaving, to bring unto you such pain,&quot; because I think that **me discessu** (for me to leave) stands in apposition with **hunc**. But I'm not sure whether supine verbs can have a subject argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, generally, can an ablative clause formed from a supine verb have nouns corresponding to the base verb's subject or object? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7384" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="1960" RevisionGUID="3a86a1a1-b91a-4a22-b8ed-86970ada8a01" CreationDate="2016-11-20T17:48:36.323" UserId="986" Comment="13" />
  <row Id="7385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2030" RevisionGUID="314e0186-5172-4615-b9aa-3d751e63d388" CreationDate="2016-11-20T17:56:29.590" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[deputy (n.)](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=deputy)     c. 1400, &quot;one given the full power of an officer without holding the office,&quot; from Anglo-French *deputé*,     &#xD;&#xA;noun use of past participle of Middle French *députer* &quot;appoint, assign&quot; (14c.),          &#xD;&#xA;**[3.]** from Late Latin *deputare* &quot;to destine, allot,&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;**[2.]** in classical Latin &quot;to esteem, consider, consider as,&quot; literally &quot;to cut off, prune,&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;**[1.]** from *de-* &quot;away&quot; (see [de-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=de-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + *putare* &quot;to think, count, consider,&quot; literally &quot;to cut, prune&quot; (see [pave](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pave&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This answer on Linguistics SE](http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/12417/5306) helpfully explains the  Semantic Field of 'putare'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. [Wiktionary's entry](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deputo#Latin) states the same meanings as Etymonline above: Am I correct to interpret that the prefix *de-* added nothing semantically to the semantic shift from 1 to 2: *putare* alone already means the meanings in 2? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. The entitled question concerns only 1 vs. 2 though; I do conjecture *de-* to add semantically to the Semantic Shift from 2 to 3 though, because destining or alloting something can be interpreted as cutting or pruning something, and then delegating what was cut or pruned to someone else.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7386" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2030" RevisionGUID="314e0186-5172-4615-b9aa-3d751e63d388" CreationDate="2016-11-20T17:56:29.590" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="In Classical Latin, did the prefix 'de-' in 'deputare' mean anything semantically?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7387" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2030" RevisionGUID="314e0186-5172-4615-b9aa-3d751e63d388" CreationDate="2016-11-20T17:56:29.590" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2031" RevisionGUID="c1bc749b-14c9-43d5-b0ad-0968f8427948" CreationDate="2016-11-20T18:26:24.693" UserId="1004" Text="Indeed, *possunt dari* litteraly means &quot;they may exist&quot; (&quot;they may be [a] given&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar construction still exists in Italian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; *[Può darsi][1] che...* : it is possible that...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.bab.la/dictionary/italian-english/pu%C3%B2-darsi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2032" RevisionGUID="82f34f53-8e5c-431f-986e-270135aee6a5" CreationDate="2016-11-20T18:33:39.617" UserId="1005" Text="Evan der Millner of London has a very good site called [Latinum](https://sites.google.com/site/janualinguae/) and a few [Youtube courses](https://www.youtube.com/user/evan1965) which are very good from a conversational perspective.  He bases the course on Manesca's _Serial and Oral method,_ which is a very good way to learn a language orally. He argues (and I agree with him) that languages are, first and foremost, oral phenomena and thus it is best to learn how to speak and hear rather than merely read and write." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2033" RevisionGUID="8cd7b076-3e5b-4a5f-89e9-aaaebf914897" CreationDate="2016-11-20T18:36:45.783" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[impute (v.):](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=impute&amp;searchmode=none)       &#xD;&#xA;early 15c., from Old French *imputer* (14c.)     &#xD;&#xA;and directly from Latin *imputare* &quot;to reckon, make account of, charge, ascribe,&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;from assimilated form of ***in-*** &quot;in, into&quot; (see [in-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=in-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (2)) +      &#xD;&#xA;***putare*** &quot;reckon, clear up, trim, prune, settle&quot;  from PIE _*puto-_ &quot;cut, struck,&quot; suffixed form of root _*pau-_ (2) &quot;to cut, strike, stamp&quot; (see [*pave*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pave&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[[ Wiktionary : ]](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imputo#Latin0)   Etymology[:]   &#xD;&#xA;From [in-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in-#Latin-in) +‎ [putō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/puto#Latin) ‎(“esteem, consider”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. I reckon, charge, enter into the account.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. (*figuratively*) I attribute, credit to; I impute&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This answer on Linguistics SE](http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/12417/5306) helpfully explains the  Semantic Field of 'putare'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. What are the semantic meaning and role of the prefix 'in-' here?    &#xD;&#xA;How did the compounding of 'in-' + 'putare' generate the meanings in 2?    &#xD;&#xA;How did 'in-' augment the semantic field of 'putare', to enable the semantic shift from 1 to 2?   &#xD;&#xA; What semantic notions underlie 1 and 2? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Should not 'ad-' have been the prefix instead of 'in-', for the semantic meaning of the preposition &lt;to&gt; in 2, (i.e. the meaning of someone's directing or sourcing something to someone else)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7391" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2033" RevisionGUID="8cd7b076-3e5b-4a5f-89e9-aaaebf914897" CreationDate="2016-11-20T18:36:45.783" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How did 'in-' + 'putare' compound to mean &lt;to attribute, credit to, impute&gt;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7392" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2033" RevisionGUID="8cd7b076-3e5b-4a5f-89e9-aaaebf914897" CreationDate="2016-11-20T18:36:45.783" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2020" RevisionGUID="013cc034-7e1b-4adc-b99c-35107e6f5b06" CreationDate="2016-11-20T18:38:07.610" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="&gt; [ [Etymonline :](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=arrogance&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) ]     arrogance (n.)      &#xD;&#xA;    c. 1300, from Old French *arrogance* (12c.),      &#xD;&#xA;from Latin *arrogantia*,       &#xD;&#xA;from *arrogantem* (nominative *arrogans*) &quot;assuming, overbearing, insolent,&quot; present participle of **[2.]** *arrogare* &quot;to claim for oneself, assume,&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;**[1.]** from *ad-* &quot;to&quot; (see [ad-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ad-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + *rogare* &quot;ask, propose&quot; (see [rogation](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rogation&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please see the entitled question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How did the compounding of 'ad-' + 'rogare' generate the meanings in 2?       &#xD;&#xA;How did 'ad-' augment the semantic field of 'putare', to enable the semantic shift from 1 to 2?     &#xD;&#xA; What semantic notions underlie 1 and 2? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. What are the semantic meaning and role of the prefix 'ad-' here?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2030" RevisionGUID="8141c83d-6e2c-418c-9d3c-f494ef8de6f3" CreationDate="2016-11-20T18:38:43.407" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="&gt;[deputy (n.)](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=deputy)     c. 1400, &quot;one given the full power of an officer without holding the office,&quot; from Anglo-French *deputé*,     &#xD;&#xA;noun use of past participle of Middle French *députer* &quot;appoint, assign&quot; (14c.),          &#xD;&#xA;**[3.]** from Late Latin *deputare* &quot;to destine, allot,&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;**[2.]** in classical Latin &quot;to esteem, consider, consider as,&quot; literally &quot;to cut off, prune,&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;**[1.]** from *de-* &quot;away&quot; (see [de-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=de-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + *putare* &quot;to think, count, consider,&quot; literally &quot;to cut, prune&quot; (see [pave](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pave&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This answer on Linguistics SE](http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/12417/5306) helpfully explains the  Semantic Field of 'putare'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. [Wiktionary's entry](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deputo#Latin) states the same meanings as Etymonline above: Am I correct to interpret that the prefix *de-* added nothing semantically to the semantic shift from 1 to 2: *putare* alone already means the meanings in 2? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. The entitled question concerns only 1 vs. 2 though; I do conjecture *de-* to add semantically to the Semantic Shift from 2 to 3, because destining or alloting something can be interpreted as cutting or pruning something, and then delegating what was cut or pruned to someone else.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2034" RevisionGUID="9672ff30-9c70-4764-a19d-9d1c75f35b3c" CreationDate="2016-11-20T19:47:30.147" UserId="1006" Text="[Entry on Lewis and Short's dictionary](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dde2). Here are the relevant senses, in my opinion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. _the going out, departure, removal, or separating of an object from any fixed point._&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; C. _In other relations, implying separation, departure from, etc._&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt; 1. _To designate the whole, from which a part is taken, or of which a part is separately regarded, etc.,_ from among, out of, from&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. _In composition the e becomes short before a vowel_&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; 2. Signif.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt; a. _Separation, departure, removal, taking away; off, away, down, out:_&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt; decedo, demigro, demeto, depromo, descendo, devolvo, derivo, deflecto,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt; _etc.; and trop._ dedico, denuntio; _and in a downward direction,_&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt; decido, decumbo, deprimo, demergo, delabor, defluo, demitto, desido,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt; desideo, declivis, deculco, degredior, deicio, _etc._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, the sense is &quot;down from,&quot; supposedly because the deputation is made by a magistrate transferring powers &quot;down&quot; to the deputy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2029" RevisionGUID="6501d7cc-136f-431d-984b-128e7db45461" CreationDate="2016-11-20T19:51:31.373" UserId="78" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="English actually has this same construction! Think of it as analogous to the phrase &quot;Granted that&quot; or &quot;It is given that.&quot; It's used in philosophy as part of a hypothetical dialogue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, the &quot;giving&quot; part led to a metaphorical usage of &quot;permission.&quot; If I grant you the right to do something, I give you permission. Or allowance, etc. You can find this under II.B in [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dare&amp;la=la#lexicon).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for a less idiomatic but still accurate translation, we could do something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the nature of things (=universe, natural world), two or more substances of the same nature and attribute cannot be permitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From there you can see an easy development straight to &quot;posse dari&quot; meaning &quot;can exist.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2035" RevisionGUID="eb572d8c-176f-4f64-8b86-1f5487ce9cd6" CreationDate="2016-11-20T22:22:16.340" UserId="932" Text="I’ve found some examples of classical use of *ĭdĭōma* and *ĭdĭōtismus* by some Latin grammarian (both are Greek loan word):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **ĭdĭōma, ătis, n. ( ἰδίωμα )**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *Grammatici Latini*, Flavius Sosipater Charisius, liber V, “[de idiomatibus][1]” (found *via* the Gaffiot dictionnary)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *idiomata quae sunt nostri sermonis innumerabilia |quidem debent esse.* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - [*Commentum in Horati Epodos*][2], Pomponius Porphyrio 2.39.6, 2.47.4 (found *via* [PHI][2]) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Potest autem utique accidere idioma.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hoc quoque autem ad idioma rusticae simplicitatis pertinet, hornum uinum bibere.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **ĭdĭōtismus ou -os, ī, m. ( ἰδιωτισμός )**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *Controversiæ*, L. Annæus Seneca Major, [liber II][3], 21 (found *via* the Gaffiot dictionnary and PHI)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *HISPO ROMANIVS bello idiotismo usus est: dixerunt, inquit, amici: 'eamus ad raptae patrem, hoc curemus; illud domi est.'*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Idiotismos est inter oratorias virtutes res quae raro procedit*…&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, *Institutio Oratoria* 8.3.22.2 (found *via* [PHI][4])  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Unde interim grati idiotismi †de quo†, qualis est ille apud M. Tullium: 'pusio qui cum maiore sorore cubitabat' et 'Flauius qui cornicum oculos confixit', et pro Milone illud 'heus tu Rufio', et 'Erucius Antoniaster'.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://kaali.linguist.jussieu.fr/CGL/text.jsp?topic=de%20idiomatibus,%20elocutionibus,%20differentiis%20et%20synonymis&amp;ref=379,1-470,21%20B&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=idiom&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/seneca.contr2.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=idiotism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2035" RevisionGUID="c3bf7041-2e0a-4da4-91af-26f3d8e6de81" CreationDate="2016-11-20T22:27:39.963" UserId="932" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="I’ve found some examples of classical use of *ĭdĭōma* and *ĭdĭōtismus* by some Latin grammarians (both are Greek loan word):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **ĭdĭōma, ătis, n. ( ἰδίωμα )**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *Grammatici Latini*, Flavius Sosipater Charisius, liber V, “[de idiomatibus][1]” (found *via* the [Gaffiot dictionnary][2])  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *idiomata quae sunt nostri sermonis innumerabilia |quidem debent esse.* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - [*Commentum in Horati Epodos*][3], Pomponius Porphyrio 2.39.6, 2.47.4 (found *via* [PHI][3]) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Potest autem utique accidere idioma.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hoc quoque autem ad idioma rusticae simplicitatis pertinet, hornum uinum bibere.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **ĭdĭōtismus ou -os, ī, m. ( ἰδιωτισμός )**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *Controversiæ*, L. Annæus Seneca Major, [liber II][4], 21 (found *via* the [Gaffiot dictionnary][2] and PHI)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *HISPO ROMANIVS bello idiotismo usus est: dixerunt, inquit, amici: 'eamus ad raptae patrem, hoc curemus; illud domi est.'*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Idiotismos est inter oratorias virtutes res quae raro procedit*…&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, *Institutio Oratoria* 8.3.22.2 (found *via* [PHI][5])  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Unde interim grati idiotismi †de quo†, qualis est ille apud M. Tullium: 'pusio qui cum maiore sorore cubitabat' et 'Flauius qui cornicum oculos confixit', et pro Milone illud 'heus tu Rufio', et 'Erucius Antoniaster'.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://kaali.linguist.jussieu.fr/CGL/text.jsp?topic=de%20idiomatibus,%20elocutionibus,%20differentiis%20et%20synonymis&amp;ref=379,1-470,21%20B&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gerardgreco.free.fr/spip.php?article43&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=idiom&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/seneca.contr2.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=idiotism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2036" RevisionGUID="7790af97-065c-45ce-9972-b9a4ad247d01" CreationDate="2016-11-21T05:55:32.993" UserId="39" Text="Here’s a summary of what most authoritative Latin grammars say on the genitive singular ending of –io stems (Weiss 2009/2011: 222-223; Leumann 1977: 424-425; Sihler ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Very Old Latin (6th-3rd centuries BCE), the genitive singular ending was –osio (VALESIOSIO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In Old Latin** (3rd-2nd centuries BCE), **the genitive singular ending was only –ī**, from *-ih&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt; (cf. Leumann “im Altlatein nur –ī, nicht –iī”). This ending was contracted from -iī. This contracted form can be found, for instance, in Plautus (e.g. beneficī). Note this ending is thematic. Also, in masculine nouns the contraction did not affect stress position, thus gen.sg. Valéri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, due to analogical leveling, it was restored, first in adjectives and later in nouns; so, **in Classical Latin, it was –iī** (cf. Leumann “In späterer Zeit aber gilt –iī als die richtiger Form”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such forms are found in Vergil (e.g. fluviī), Propertius (imperiī, ingeniī) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, re: auxilii - and the reliability of Latin corpora brought up here in some comments, Leumann remarks that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Für Cicero und Caesar (auxilii Gall. 1, 31, 14 usw.) ist auf die handschriftliche Überlieferung kein Verlass” - basically, we don't really know which form they used.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2036" RevisionGUID="49433808-35a7-4073-95ad-986bcd90ee92" CreationDate="2016-11-21T06:15:01.783" UserId="39" Comment="added 395 characters in body" Text="Here’s a summary of what most authoritative Latin grammars say on the genitive singular ending of –io stems (Weiss 2009/2011: 222-223; Leumann 1977: 424-425; Sihler ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Very Old Latin (6th-3rd centuries BCE), the genitive singular ending was –osio (VALESIOSIO in [Lapis Satricanus][1] or TITOIO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In Old Latin** (3rd-2nd centuries BCE), **the genitive singular ending was only –ī**, from *-ih&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt; (cf. Leumann “im Altlatein nur –ī, nicht –iī”). This ending was contracted from -iī. This contracted form can be found, for instance, in Plautus (e.g. beneficī). Note this ending is thematic. Also, in masculine nouns the contraction did not affect stress position, thus gen.sg. Valéri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Penny 2011][2] writes that &quot;the Latin evidence does not allow more than speculation about the original function and distribution of the two endings&quot; [i.e. -osio and -ī, Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, due to analogical leveling, it was restored, first in adjectives and later in nouns; so, **in Classical Latin, it was –iī** (cf. Leumann “In späterer Zeit aber gilt –iī als die richtiger Form”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such forms are found in Vergil (e.g. fluviī), Propertius (imperiī, ingeniī) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, re: auxilii - and the reliability of Latin corpora brought up here in some comments, Leumann remarks that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Für Cicero und Caesar (auxilii Gall. 1, 31, 14 usw.) ist auf die handschriftliche Überlieferung kein Verlass” - basically, we don't really know which form they used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/lapis-satricanus-e631310&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch14/summary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2036" RevisionGUID="6790583b-c11f-441b-8465-bdcb352d29c2" CreationDate="2016-11-21T06:28:30.740" UserId="39" Comment="added 165 characters in body" Text="Here’s a summary of what most authoritative Latin grammars say on the genitive singular ending of –io stems (Weiss 2009/2011: 222-223; Leumann 1977: 424-425; Sihler ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Very Old Latin (6th-3rd centuries BCE), the genitive singular ending was –osio (VALESIOSIO in [Lapis Satricanus][1] and perhaps TITOIO, see chapter 4 in [Bakkum 2009][2] for a more detailed discussion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In Old Latin** (3rd-2nd centuries BCE), **the genitive singular ending was only –ī**, from *-ih&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt; (cf. Leumann “im Altlatein nur –ī, nicht –iī”). This ending was contracted from -iī. This contracted form can be found, for instance, in Plautus (e.g. beneficī). Note this ending is thematic. Also, in masculine nouns the contraction did not affect stress position, thus gen.sg. Valéri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Penny 2011][3] writes that &quot;the Latin evidence does not allow more than speculation about the original function and distribution of the two endings&quot; [i.e. -osio and -ī, Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, due to analogical leveling, it was restored, first in adjectives and later in nouns; so, **in Classical Latin, it was –iī** (cf. Leumann “In späterer Zeit aber gilt –iī als die richtiger Form”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such forms are found in Andronicus (e.g. Saturni, uerbi), Vergil (e.g. fluviī), Propertius (imperiī, ingeniī) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, re: auxilii - and the reliability of Latin corpora brought up here in some comments, Leumann remarks that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Für Cicero und Caesar (auxilii Gall. 1, 31, 14 usw.) ist auf die handschriftliche Überlieferung kein Verlass” - basically, we don't really know which form they used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/lapis-satricanus-e631310&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_vUvIWIQMDokC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch14/summary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2036" RevisionGUID="e4e307c3-4ece-4745-9777-e94877c27447" CreationDate="2016-11-21T17:45:35.963" UserId="39" Comment="added 212 characters in body" Text="Here’s a summary of what most authoritative Latin grammars say on the genitive singular ending of –io stems (Weiss 2009/2011: 222-223; Leumann 1977: 424-425; Sihler ). For the sake of simplicity and consistency, in my answer I use the periodization of Latin as used in Weiss (which is different from, for instance,  Clackson and Horrocks).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Very Old Latin (6th-3rd centuries BCE), the genitive singular ending was –osio (VALESIOSIO in [Lapis Satricanus][1] and perhaps TITOIO, see chapter 4 in [Bakkum 2009][2] for a more detailed discussion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In Old Latin** (3rd-2nd centuries BCE), **the genitive singular ending was only –ī**, from *-ih&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt; (cf. Leumann “im Altlatein nur –ī, nicht –iī”). This ending was contracted from -iī. This contracted form can be found, for instance, in Plautus (e.g. beneficī). Note this ending is thematic. Also, in masculine nouns the contraction did not affect stress position, thus gen.sg. Valéri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Penny 2011][3] writes that &quot;the Latin evidence does not allow more than speculation about the original function and distribution of the two endings&quot; [i.e. -osio and -ī, Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, due to analogical leveling, it was restored, first in adjectives and later in nouns; so, **in Classical Latin (1st century BCE- 3rd/4th centuries CE), it was –iī** (cf. Leumann “In späterer Zeit aber gilt –iī als die richtiger Form”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such forms are found in Andronicus (e.g. Saturni, uerbi), Vergil (e.g. fluviī), Propertius (imperiī, ingeniī) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, re: auxilii - and the reliability of Latin corpora brought up here in some comments, Leumann remarks that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Für Cicero und Caesar (auxilii Gall. 1, 31, 14 usw.) ist auf die handschriftliche Überlieferung kein Verlass” - basically, we don't really know which form they used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/lapis-satricanus-e631310&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_vUvIWIQMDokC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch14/summary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2036" RevisionGUID="de516b4a-f478-436a-a7d1-e515994c52bc" CreationDate="2016-11-21T18:30:41.120" UserId="39" Comment="added 342 characters in body" Text="Here’s a summary of what most authoritative Latin grammars say on the genitive singular ending of –io stems (Weiss 2009/2011: 222-223; Leumann 1977: 424-425; Sihler ). For the sake of simplicity and consistency, in my answer I use the periodization of Latin as used in Weiss (which is different from, for instance,  Clackson and Horrocks).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Very Old Latin (6th-3rd centuries BCE), the genitive singular ending was –osio (VALESIOSIO in [Lapis Satricanus][1] and perhaps TITOIO, see chapter 4 in [Bakkum 2009][2] for a more detailed discussion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In Old Latin** (3rd-2nd centuries BCE), **the genitive singular ending was only –ī**, from *-ih&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt; (cf. Leumann “im Altlatein nur –ī, nicht –iī”). This ending was contracted from -iī. This contracted form can be found, for instance, in Plautus (e.g. beneficī). Note this ending is thematic. Also, in masculine nouns the contraction did not affect stress position, thus gen.sg. Valéri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Penny 2011][3] writes that &quot;the Latin evidence does not allow more than speculation about the original function and distribution of the two endings&quot; [i.e. -osio and -ī, Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, due to analogical leveling, it was restored, first in adjectives and later in nouns; so, **in Classical Latin (1st century BCE- 3rd/4th centuries CE), it was –iī** (cf. Leumann “In späterer Zeit aber gilt –iī als die richtiger Form”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such forms are found in Andronicus (e.g. Saturni, uerbi), Vergil (e.g. fluviī), Propertius (imperiī, ingeniī) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann also mentions that &quot;Das scheinbar regelmäßige -iī bei io-Stämmen, das schon Varro empfiehlt&quot; and Varro lived in 116-27 BC. Tronskii 1960 adds that the -ī  form was still used in the so called post-Augustan Latin (Silver Latin); he argues that Horace (i.e. Augustan) and Persius (post-Augustan) don't use the -iī genitive singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, re: auxilii - and the reliability of Latin corpora brought up here in some comments, Leumann remarks that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Für Cicero und Caesar (auxilii Gall. 1, 31, 14 usw.) ist auf die handschriftliche Überlieferung kein Verlass” - basically, we don't really know which form they used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/lapis-satricanus-e631310&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_vUvIWIQMDokC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch14/summary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2036" RevisionGUID="e5ddbd8e-2127-4d0b-a4fa-ac72d535c141" CreationDate="2016-11-21T18:49:57.003" UserId="39" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Here’s a summary of what most authoritative Latin grammars say on the genitive singular ending of –io stems (Weiss 2009/2011: 222-223; Leumann 1977: 424-425; Sihler ). For the sake of simplicity and consistency, in my answer I use the periodization of Latin as used in Weiss (which is different from, for instance,  Clackson and Horrocks or Meiser).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Very Old Latin (6th-3rd centuries BCE), the genitive singular ending was –osio (VALESIOSIO in [Lapis Satricanus][1] and perhaps TITOIO, see chapter 4 in [Bakkum 2009][2] for a more detailed discussion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In Old Latin** (3rd-2nd centuries BCE), **the genitive singular ending was only –ī**, from *-ih&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt; (cf. Leumann “im Altlatein nur –ī, nicht –iī”). This ending was contracted from -iī. This contracted form can be found, for instance, in Plautus (e.g. beneficī). Note this ending is thematic. Also, in masculine nouns the contraction did not affect stress position, thus gen.sg. Valéri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Penny 2011][3] writes that &quot;the Latin evidence does not allow more than speculation about the original function and distribution of the two endings&quot; [i.e. -osio and -ī, Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, due to analogical leveling, it was restored, first in adjectives and later in nouns; so, **in Classical Latin (1st century BCE- 3rd/4th centuries CE), it was –iī** (cf. Leumann “In späterer Zeit aber gilt –iī als die richtiger Form”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such forms are found in Andronicus (e.g. Saturni, uerbi), Vergil (e.g. fluviī), Propertius (imperiī, ingeniī) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann also mentions that &quot;Das scheinbar regelmäßige -iī bei io-Stämmen, das schon Varro empfiehlt&quot; and Varro lived in 116-27 BC. Tronskii 1960 adds that the -ī  form was still used in the so called post-Augustan Latin (Silver Latin); he argues that Horace (i.e. Augustan) and Persius (post-Augustan) don't use the -iī genitive singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, re: auxilii - and the reliability of Latin corpora brought up here in some comments, Leumann remarks that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Für Cicero und Caesar (auxilii Gall. 1, 31, 14 usw.) ist auf die handschriftliche Überlieferung kein Verlass” - basically, we don't really know which form they used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/lapis-satricanus-e631310&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_vUvIWIQMDokC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch14/summary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2036" RevisionGUID="a96eddb5-1d96-4f7b-8162-e7d0e833fdd3" CreationDate="2016-11-21T19:03:11.787" UserId="39" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="Here’s a summary of what most authoritative Latin grammars say on the genitive singular ending of –io stems (Weiss 2009/2011: 222-223; Leumann 1977: 424-425; Sihler ). For the sake of simplicity and consistency, in my answer I use the periodization of Latin as used in Weiss (which is different from, for instance,  Clackson and Horrocks or Meiser).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Very Old Latin (6th-3rd centuries BCE), the genitive singular ending was –osio (VALESIOSIO in [Lapis Satricanus][1] and perhaps TITOIO, see chapter 4 in [Bakkum 2009][2] for a more detailed discussion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In Old Latin** (3rd-2nd centuries BCE), **the genitive singular ending was only –ī**, from *-ih&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt; (cf. Leumann “im Altlatein nur –ī, nicht –iī”). This ending was contracted from -iī. This contracted form can be found, for instance, in Plautus (e.g. beneficī). Note this ending is thematic. Also, in masculine nouns the contraction did not affect stress position, thus gen.sg. Valéri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Penny 2011][3] writes that &quot;the Latin evidence does not allow more than speculation about the original function and distribution of the two endings&quot; [i.e. -osio and -ī, Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, due to analogical leveling, it was restored, first in adjectives and later in nouns; so, **in Classical Latin (1st century BCE- 3rd/4th centuries CE), it was –iī** (cf. Leumann “In späterer Zeit aber gilt –iī als die richtiger Form”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such forms are found in Andronicus (e.g. Saturni, uerbi), Vergil (e.g. fluviī), Propertius (imperiī, ingeniī) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann also mentions that &quot;Das scheinbar regelmäßige -iī bei io-Stämmen, das schon Varro empfiehlt&quot; and Varro lived in 116-27 BC. Tronskii 1960 adds that the -ī  form was still used in the so called post-Augustan Latin (Silver Latin); he argues that Horace (i.e. Augustan) and Persius (post-Augustan) don't use the -iī genitive singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Augustus' Res Gestae (1: 22) we can find &quot;magister conlegii&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, re: auxilii - and the reliability of Latin corpora brought up here in some comments, Leumann remarks that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Für Cicero und Caesar (auxilii Gall. 1, 31, 14 usw.) ist auf die handschriftliche Überlieferung kein Verlass” - basically, we don't really know which form they used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/lapis-satricanus-e631310&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_vUvIWIQMDokC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch14/summary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2036" RevisionGUID="21906095-d8aa-48ad-ad35-c7b981c3f0b7" CreationDate="2016-11-21T19:11:38.460" UserId="39" Comment="added 212 characters in body" Text="Here’s a summary of what most authoritative Latin grammars say on the genitive singular ending of –io stems (Weiss 2009/2011: 222-223; Leumann 1977: 424-425; Sihler ). For the sake of simplicity and consistency, in my answer I use the periodization of Latin as used in Weiss (which is different from, for instance,  Clackson and Horrocks or Meiser).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Very Old Latin (6th-3rd centuries BCE), the genitive singular ending was –osio (VALESIOSIO in [Lapis Satricanus][1] and perhaps TITOIO, see chapter 4 in [Bakkum 2009][2] for a more detailed discussion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In Old Latin** (3rd-2nd centuries BCE), **the genitive singular ending was only –ī**, from *-ih&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt; (cf. Leumann “im Altlatein nur –ī, nicht –iī”). This ending was contracted from -iī. This contracted form can be found, for instance, in Plautus (e.g. beneficī). Note this ending is thematic. Also, in masculine nouns the contraction did not affect stress position, thus gen.sg. Valéri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Penny 2011][3] writes that &quot;the Latin evidence does not allow more than speculation about the original function and distribution of the two endings&quot; [i.e. -osio and -ī, Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, due to analogical leveling, it was restored, first in adjectives and later in nouns; so, **in Classical Latin (1st century BCE- 3rd/4th centuries CE), it was –iī as well as -i** (cf. Leumann “In späterer Zeit aber gilt –iī als die richtiger Form” though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such forms are found in Andronicus (e.g. Saturni, uerbi), Vergil (e.g. fluviī), Propertius (imperiī, ingeniī) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann also mentions that &quot;Das scheinbar regelmäßige -iī bei io-Stämmen, das schon Varro empfiehlt&quot; and Varro lived in 116-27 BC. Tronskii 1960 adds that the -ī  form was still used in the so called post-Augustan Latin (Silver Latin); he argues that Horace (i.e. Augustan) and Persius (post-Augustan) don't use the -iī genitive singular. So, there was a lot of variation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in Augustus' Res Gestae (1: 22) we can find &quot;magister conlegii&quot; etc. The point is that all these changes did not happen overnight. Obviously, there was no decree making all Latin writers use the -iī after Augustus death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, re: auxilii - and the reliability of Latin corpora brought up here in some comments, Leumann remarks that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Für Cicero und Caesar (auxilii Gall. 1, 31, 14 usw.) ist auf die handschriftliche Überlieferung kein Verlass” - basically, we don't really know which form they used since there is no metrical evidence with Latin prose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/lapis-satricanus-e631310&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_vUvIWIQMDokC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch14/summary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2036" RevisionGUID="cd8086ca-1553-4acc-a9e5-70941736196a" CreationDate="2016-11-21T19:16:52.993" UserId="39" Comment="added 212 characters in body" Text="Here’s a summary of what most authoritative Latin grammars say on the genitive singular ending of –io stems (Weiss 2009/2011: 222-223; Leumann 1977: 424-425; Sihler ). For the sake of simplicity and consistency, in my answer I use the periodization of Latin as used in Weiss (which is different from, for instance,  Clackson and Horrocks or Meiser).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Very Old Latin (6th-3rd centuries BCE), the genitive singular ending was –osio (VALESIOSIO in [Lapis Satricanus][1] and perhaps TITOIO, see chapter 4 in [Bakkum 2009][2] for a more detailed discussion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In Old Latin** (3rd-2nd centuries BCE), **the genitive singular ending was only –ī**, from *-ih&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt; (cf. Leumann “im Altlatein nur –ī, nicht –iī”). This ending was contracted from -iī. This contracted form can be found, for instance, in Plautus (e.g. beneficī). Note this ending is thematic. Also, in masculine nouns the contraction did not affect stress position, thus gen.sg. Valéri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Penny 2011][3] writes that &quot;the Latin evidence does not allow more than speculation about the original function and distribution of the two endings&quot; [i.e. -osio and -ī, Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, due to analogical leveling, it was restored, first in adjectives and later in nouns; so, **in Classical Latin (1st century BCE- 3rd/4th centuries CE), it was –iī as well as -i** (cf. Leumann “In späterer Zeit aber gilt –iī als die richtiger Form” though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such forms are found in Andronicus (e.g. Saturni, uerbi), Vergil (e.g. fluviī), Propertius (imperiī, ingeniī) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann also mentions that &quot;Das scheinbar regelmäßige -iī bei io-Stämmen, das schon Varro empfiehlt&quot; and Varro lived in 116-27 BC. Tronskii 1960 adds that the -ī  form was still used in the so called post-Augustan Latin (Silver Latin); he argues that Horace (i.e. Augustan) and Persius (post-Augustan) don't use the -iī genitive singular. So, there was a lot of variation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in Augustus' Res Gestae (1: 22) we can find &quot;magister conlegii&quot; etc. The point is that all these changes did not happen overnight. Obviously, there was no decree making all Latin writers use the -iī after Augustus death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, re: auxilii - and the reliability of Latin corpora brought up here in some comments, Leumann remarks that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Für Cicero und Caesar (auxilii Gall. 1, 31, 14 usw.) ist auf die handschriftliche Überlieferung kein Verlass” - basically, we don't really know which form they used (at least, with poetry there is metrical evidence).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/lapis-satricanus-e631310&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_vUvIWIQMDokC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch14/summary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2037" RevisionGUID="67b715ba-fd04-4566-9c3f-5f2c4a2d552b" CreationDate="2016-11-21T19:21:27.017" UserId="79" Text="*Latinitas* could be described as high quality Latin.&#xD;&#xA;If I want to refer to the same thing for other languages, can I use nouns like *Graecitas*, *Anglicitas* or *Finnicitas*?&#xD;&#xA;(I am not sure if *Anglitas* and *Finnitas* would be better.)&#xD;&#xA;This is not something that I expect to find in Latin grammars, so let me pose the question in a different way:&#xD;&#xA;Would such derived words be understood by a sufficient amount of today's Latinists?&#xD;&#xA;That is, is the point likely to get across without further explanation?&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the answer depends on Latin proficiency of the audience; the problem is to describe this dependence in some way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, for a less amibiguously formulated question:&#xD;&#xA;Was this construction ever used productively by analogy to *Latinus &gt; Latinitas*, in any Latin literature?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7411" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2037" RevisionGUID="67b715ba-fd04-4566-9c3f-5f2c4a2d552b" CreationDate="2016-11-21T19:21:27.017" UserId="79" Text="Latinitas for other languages" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7412" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2037" RevisionGUID="67b715ba-fd04-4566-9c3f-5f2c4a2d552b" CreationDate="2016-11-21T19:21:27.017" UserId="79" Text="|example-request|adjective|derivation|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2038" RevisionGUID="80668650-60b7-4115-86a2-dd02ff713cfc" CreationDate="2016-11-21T19:35:17.947" UserId="78" Text="It's not something I've seen often, but it indeed exists. The Theodosian code has [*Graecitas*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=graecitas&amp;la=la#lexicon):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Habeat igitur audītōrium speciāliter nostrum in hīs prīmum, quōs Rōmānae ēloquentiae doctrīna commendat, ōrātōrēs quidem trēs numerō, decem vērō grammaticōs; in hīs etiam, quī fācundiā **graecitātis** pollēre nōscuntur, quīnque numerō sint sofistae et grammaticī aequē decem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore let our school specially have firstly among these (professors), whom the instruction of Roman eloquence recommends, exactly three orators in number (and) specifically ten grammarians; also among them, who are recognized to prevail in **Greek** eloquence, let there be five sophists in number and equally ten grammarians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(14.9.3, translation found on [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Graecitas))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The emphasis eloquence here parallels the Latin usage of *Latinitas*, not just the language, but excellent in the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose you could do this to other languages by analogy, but you would derive it from the adjectival form. So Anglitas and Finnitas wouldn't make sense, but Anglicitas and Finnicitas would." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2036" RevisionGUID="ec237c90-6c90-490b-b7bd-d0b5d83a5743" CreationDate="2016-11-21T20:06:32.233" UserId="39" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="Here’s a summary of what most authoritative Latin grammars say on the genitive singular ending of –io stems (Weiss 2009/2011: 222-223; Leumann 1977: 424-425; Sihler ). For the sake of simplicity and consistency, in my answer I use the periodization of Latin as used in Weiss (which is different from, for instance,  Clackson and Horrocks or Meiser). Weiss has a beautiful quote from Wright 2003, &quot;All periodizations are, of course, administrative fantasies.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Very Old Latin (6th-3rd centuries BCE), the genitive singular ending was –osio (VALESIOSIO in [Lapis Satricanus][1] and perhaps TITOIO, see chapter 4 in [Bakkum 2009][2] for a more detailed discussion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In Old Latin** (3rd-2nd centuries BCE), **the genitive singular ending was only –ī**, from *-ih&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt; (cf. Leumann “im Altlatein nur –ī, nicht –iī”). This ending was contracted from -iī. This contracted form can be found, for instance, in Plautus (e.g. beneficī). Note this ending is thematic. Also, in masculine nouns the contraction did not affect stress position, thus gen.sg. Valéri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Penny 2011][3] writes that &quot;the Latin evidence does not allow more than speculation about the original function and distribution of the two endings&quot; [i.e. -osio and -ī, Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, due to analogical leveling, it was restored, first in adjectives and later in nouns; so, **in Classical Latin (1st century BCE- 3rd/4th centuries CE), it was –iī as well as -i** (cf. Leumann “In späterer Zeit aber gilt –iī als die richtiger Form” though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such forms are found in Andronicus (e.g. Saturni, uerbi), Vergil (e.g. fluviī), Propertius (imperiī, ingeniī) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann also mentions that &quot;Das scheinbar regelmäßige -iī bei io-Stämmen, das schon Varro empfiehlt&quot; and Varro lived in 116-27 BC. Tronskii 1960 adds that the -ī  form was still used in the so called post-Augustan Latin (Silver Latin); he argues that Horace (i.e. Augustan) and Persius (post-Augustan) don't use the -iī genitive singular. So, there was a lot of variation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in Augustus' Res Gestae (1: 22) we can find &quot;magister conlegii&quot; etc. The point is that all these changes did not happen overnight. Obviously, there was no decree making all Latin writers use the -iī after Augustus death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, re: auxilii - and the reliability of Latin corpora brought up here in some comments, Leumann remarks that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Für Cicero und Caesar (auxilii Gall. 1, 31, 14 usw.) ist auf die handschriftliche Überlieferung kein Verlass” - basically, we don't really know which form they used (at least, with poetry there is metrical evidence).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/lapis-satricanus-e631310&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_vUvIWIQMDokC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch14/summary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2039" RevisionGUID="c96cb0a4-7664-4fb5-a7a6-13336e732052" CreationDate="2016-11-21T20:09:11.657" UserId="986" Text="There is some division on opinion whether it is good to practice Latin by making translations from English (or another native language), or better to translate solely from Latin authors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arguments in favour of Latin prose composition and conversation are the active learning aspect, the element of fun involved and the auditory (natural) acquisition of the language. Critics argue that it is impossible to reach the level of classical Latin as it was spoken in the times of Cicero, because we have only written sources and are incapable to reconstruct the language faithfully. As far as I know not many Universities are involved in conversational Latin and prose composition nowadays. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That aside, there are many methods available to learn conversational Latin. In the beginning of the 20th century there were many books published on Latin prose composition for schools and Universities. Some can be found on Textkit, such as [A new Latin Composition](http://cdn.textkit.net/CEB_new_latin_composition.pdf) and [Latin Prose Compostion](http://cdn.textkit.net/HCP_latin_prose_composition.pdf). The second one is based on Cicero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another method would be to join a group that practices conversational Latin. Those can be found on [meetup.com](https://www.meetup.com/topics/latin/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many resources such as audio samples, videos and apps of spoken Latin to be found on the internet, for example [here](https://sites.google.com/site/clipeusbos/resources/spoken-latin-resources)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2038" RevisionGUID="0cc0b086-1643-4499-a135-2fc82d284d6e" CreationDate="2016-11-21T20:25:16.837" UserId="78" Comment="added 194 characters in body" Text="It's not something I've seen often, but it indeed exists. The Theodosian code has [*Graecitas*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=graecitas&amp;la=la#lexicon):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Habeat igitur audītōrium speciāliter nostrum in hīs prīmum, quōs Rōmānae ēloquentiae doctrīna commendat, ōrātōrēs quidem trēs numerō, decem vērō grammaticōs; in hīs etiam, quī fācundiā **graecitātis** pollēre nōscuntur, quīnque numerō sint sofistae et grammaticī aequē decem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore let our school specially have firstly among these (professors), whom the instruction of Roman eloquence recommends, exactly three orators in number (and) specifically ten grammarians; also among them, who are recognized to prevail in **Greek** eloquence, let there be five sophists in number and equally ten grammarians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(14.9.3, translation found on [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Graecitas))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The emphasis eloquence here parallels the Latin usage of *Latinitas*, not just the language, but excellent in the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found *Hebraeicitas* in this [eighteenth-century German book](https://books.google.com/books?id=C19MAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA840&amp;lpg=PA840&amp;dq=&quot;hebraeicitas&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are late, but I can't see anyhting wrong with doing this with other languages by analogy, but you would derive it from the adjectival form. So Anglitas and Finnitas wouldn't make sense, but Anglicitas and Finnicitas would." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2036" RevisionGUID="b794fae8-57de-404e-90b0-2cafeda78802" CreationDate="2016-11-22T01:18:47.470" UserId="39" Comment="added 224 characters in body" Text="Here’s a summary of what most authoritative Latin grammars say on the genitive singular ending of –io stems (Weiss 2009/2011: 222-223; Leumann 1977: 424-425; Sihler ). For the sake of simplicity and consistency, in my answer I use the periodization of Latin as used in Weiss (which is different from, for instance,  Clackson and Horrocks or Meiser). Weiss has a beautiful quote from Wright 2003, &quot;All periodizations are, of course, administrative fantasies.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Very Old Latin (6th-3rd centuries BCE), the genitive singular ending was –osio (VALESIOSIO in [Lapis Satricanus][1] and perhaps TITOIO, see chapter 4 in [Bakkum 2009][2] for a more detailed discussion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In Old Latin** (3rd-2nd centuries BCE), **the genitive singular ending was only –ī**, from *-ih&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt; (cf. Leumann “im Altlatein nur –ī, nicht –iī”). This ending was contracted from -iī. This contracted form can be found, for instance, in Plautus (e.g. beneficī). Note this ending is thematic. Also, in masculine nouns the contraction did not affect stress position, thus gen.sg. Valéri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Penny 2011][3] writes that &quot;the Latin evidence does not allow more than speculation about the original function and distribution of the two endings&quot; [i.e. -osio and -ī, Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, due to analogical leveling, it was restored, first in adjectives and later in nouns; so, **in Classical Latin (1st century BCE- 3rd/4th centuries CE), it was –iī as well as -i** (cf. Leumann “In späterer Zeit aber gilt –iī als die richtiger Form” though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such forms are found in Andronicus (e.g. Saturni, uerbi), Vergil (e.g. fluviī), Propertius (imperiī, ingeniī) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann also mentions that &quot;Das scheinbar regelmäßige -iī bei io-Stämmen, das schon Varro empfiehlt&quot; and Varro lived in 116-27 BC. Tronskii 1960 adds that the -ī  form was still used in the so called post-Augustan Latin (Silver Latin); he argues that Horace (i.e. Augustan) and Persius (post-Augustan) don't use the -iī genitive singular. So, there was a lot of variation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in Augustus' Res Gestae (1: 22) we can find &quot;magister conlegii&quot; etc. The point is that all these changes did not happen overnight. Obviously, there was no decree making all Latin writers use the -iī after Augustus death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, re: auxilii - and the reliability of Latin corpora brought up here in some comments, Leumann remarks that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Für Cicero und Caesar (auxilii Gall. 1, 31, 14 usw.) ist auf die handschriftliche Überlieferung kein Verlass” - basically, we don't really know which form they used (at least, with poetry there is metrical evidence).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will add results of my corpus research later. For instance, I searched LASLA for Gr.Cat: Noun, Gr.Sub.Cat: 2nd decl., Case: Genitive, Number: Singular and it returned 16438 results - which I have to analyze manually now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/lapis-satricanus-e631310&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_vUvIWIQMDokC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch14/summary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2040" RevisionGUID="6eb68db4-8825-45e9-b3ba-649f68739854" CreationDate="2016-11-22T07:18:21.733" UserId="79" Text="In Star Wars movies &amp;mdash; and other media &amp;mdash; there is an important concept called [the Force](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Force_(Star_Wars)).&#xD;&#xA;It is a magical energy field surrounding everything and giving special abilities for those who master its use.&#xD;&#xA;(I assume many already know what it is, and I hope this description is adequate for the purposes of this question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What would be a good Latin translation of &quot;the Force&quot; and why?**&#xD;&#xA;The [Vicipaedia article on the movie series](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars) uses *Numen*, but the article does not look like high quality Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Is *Numen* good, or would *Vis* or something else be better?&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any Star Wars material in Latin, be it movie subtitles, comics or anything else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7422" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2040" RevisionGUID="6eb68db4-8825-45e9-b3ba-649f68739854" CreationDate="2016-11-22T07:18:21.733" UserId="79" Text="How to translate &quot;the Force&quot; from Star Wars?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7423" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2040" RevisionGUID="6eb68db4-8825-45e9-b3ba-649f68739854" CreationDate="2016-11-22T07:18:21.733" UserId="79" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|contemporary-latin|word-request|technology|mythology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2041" RevisionGUID="13ab880b-c9fc-40a0-b073-e53391870851" CreationDate="2016-11-22T07:57:03.200" UserId="1004" Text="A few comments about pre-requisites to teaching students to speak Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Accent**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the difficulty to reconstitute the accents of Ancient Latin, the question of &quot;what should be the correct accent&quot; should not a subject of concern (English teachers do not worry that accents of the 16th century were markedly different from those of today, even when their students are being request to read Shakespeare).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, the **accent** used to speak Latin should not be important, as long as it remains understandable to another speaker (e.g. as when a foreign langue students choses between American or British accents). We could consider that we have a &quot;received pronunciation&quot; and leave it at that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By contrast, the various accents used to speak Latin in recent times might even constitute a fun subject for students. For style used by the Finnish Radio, [here are world news in Latin, &quot;Nuntii Latini&quot;][1] (lots of fun to listen to). Besides, that could give subjects of conversation for students!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Use as Active Language**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin has remained a very active &quot;educated&quot; language (used in a context of [diglossia][2]) actively used throughout the Middle Ages up to recent times, both in written texts and speech.  It would be a pity not to introduce students to the immense corpus of very interesting material (scientific, philosophical, religious) written in Latin during the Middle Ages and Modern Times. Since it was a common language, it gives students access to material from a vast number of countries which would have been inaccessible to them if they had been written in the vulgar language of that country. A well known text is the [ascension of Mount Ventoux in France by Francesco Petrarca][3] (1336). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, the fact that beside the lofty poems and philosophical texts by &quot;litterary stars&quot; such as Cicero or Virgil there are many mundane sources (letters, court minutes, etc.), could &quot;de-sacralize&quot; the language and show that it can be used correctly even by less expert persons. For further study, there should be many dialogues (whether literary or transcriptions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arguably, this would not teach to speak, but at least, it would show how people used the language in mundane situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vocabulary**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A key part of teaching any spoken language would be to provide [glossaries for daily situations][4] (it would be hard to have a conversation today if we couldn't name a car, a [computer][5], etc.). Hence students should be taught how to call them, as well as names of places. A student of *[Angelopolis][6]* might thrilled to learn that his region has been so instrumental in popularizing *pelilculae cinematographicae* and *computatra*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://areena.yle.fi/1-1931339&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diglossia&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.petrarch.petersadlon.com/read_letters.html?s=_f_04_01.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latinlexicon.org/latinitas_recens_latine.php&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.obta.uw.edu.pl/~draco/docs/voccomp.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelopolis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2041" RevisionGUID="b4d0593e-4b62-45d2-8262-c9fbb4824baa" CreationDate="2016-11-22T08:04:35.763" UserId="1004" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="A few comments about pre-requisites to teaching students to speak Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Accent**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the difficulty to reconstitute the accents of Ancient Latin, the question of &quot;what should be the correct accent&quot; should not a subject of concern (English teachers do not worry that accents of the 16th century were markedly different from those of today, even when their students are being request to read Shakespeare).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, the **accent** used to speak Latin should not be important, as long as it remains understandable to another speaker (e.g. as when a foreign langue students choses between American or British accents). We could consider that we have a &quot;received pronunciation&quot; and leave it at that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By contrast, the various accents used to speak Latin in recent times might even constitute a fun subject for students. For style used by the Finnish Radio, [here are world news in Latin, &quot;Nuntii Latini&quot;][1] (lots of fun to listen to). Besides, that could give subjects of conversation for students!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Use as Active Language**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin has remained a very active &quot;educated&quot; language (used in a context of [diglossia][2]) actively used throughout the Middle Ages up to recent times, both in written texts and speech.  It would be a pity not to introduce students to the immense corpus of very interesting material (scientific, philosophical, religious) written in Latin during the Middle Ages and Modern Times. Since it was a common language, it gives students access to material from a vast number of countries which would have been inaccessible to them if they had been written in the vulgar language of that country. A well known text is the [ascension of Mount Ventoux in France by Francesco Petrarca][3] (1336). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, the fact that beside the lofty poems and philosophical texts by &quot;litterary stars&quot; such as Cicero or Virgil there are many mundane sources (letters, court minutes, etc.), could &quot;de-sacralize&quot; the language and show that it can be used correctly even by less expert persons. For further study, there should be many dialogues (whether literary or transcriptions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arguably, this would not teach to speak, but at least, it would show how people used the language in mundane situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vocabulary**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Omnia dici possunt Latine*. A key part of teaching any spoken language would be to provide [glossaries for daily situations][4] (it would be hard to have a conversation today if we couldn't name a car, a [computer][5], etc.). Hence students should be taught how to call them, as well as names of places. A student of *[Angelopolis][6]* might thrilled to learn that his region has been so instrumental in popularizing *pelilculae cinematographicae* and *computatra*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://areena.yle.fi/1-1931339&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diglossia&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.petrarch.petersadlon.com/read_letters.html?s=_f_04_01.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latinlexicon.org/links.php&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.obta.uw.edu.pl/~draco/docs/voccomp.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelopolis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2042" RevisionGUID="b888515e-9f24-4564-a9fc-c6768d3fe666" CreationDate="2016-11-22T11:30:26.340" UserId="1010" Text="QSD: I believe it represents 'Quis ut Deus' which translates in Latin as: Who is like God." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2043" RevisionGUID="082086fd-743a-49f9-ba44-e6075834194a" CreationDate="2016-11-22T14:40:50.837" UserId="78" Text="*Numen* isn't the best without either ignoring the &quot;all around us&quot; aspect or resorting to some discredited twentieth century arguments about the word. Still, as a means of personal power in a Jedi, I can see it being used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what is most commonly used is indeed *vis*, which was standard at least back in 2000. For the full phrase, *Vis vobiscum* (or in the singular *Vis tecum*) has plenty of Google hits, some with and some without *sit*. (The *sit* here is poor Latinitas based on a literal translation of the English.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some places where it's found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Soma's Dictionary of Latin Quotations, Maxims, and Phrases](https://books.google.com/books?id=BIxyWH0FKgYC&amp;pg=PT565&amp;lpg=PT565&amp;dq=%22vis+tecum%22+star+wars&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=pJAJz-R_s5&amp;sig=IEBHQ60mt8uJ70lWawE54p3OMzo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjUsdr9yrzQAhVSzWMKHXobA0o4ChDoAQgrMAY#v=onepage&amp;q=%22vis%20tecum%22%20star%20wars&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;- [Latin Discussion](http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/may-the-force-be-with-you.20937/) (see especially post #11)&#xD;&#xA;- [Jon Stewart rally](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=584119)&#xD;&#xA;- [Some crazy Scientologist site](https://everythingisdianetics.wordpress.com/2016/01/03/vis-vobiscum-in-aeternam/)&#xD;&#xA;- [Crap Tumblr posts](http://interretialia.tumblr.com/post/25024177906/sit-vis-tecum-may-the-force-be-with-you-from)&#xD;&#xA;- [An SVR discussion](http://www.societasviaromana.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=9301&amp;sid=bfcc23ae4a2e6b14c3afb43502855ec0#p9301)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, phrases with *numen tecum/numen vobiscum* are much, much less frequently used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2042" RevisionGUID="e9cad725-8228-4168-a679-a1de3d7c0dbb" CreationDate="2016-11-22T15:35:27.593" UserId="45" Comment="added 215 characters in body" Text="QSD: I believe it represents [*Quis ut Deus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_ut_Deus%3F) which translates into English as: &quot;Who is like God?&quot; It is a Latin translation of the Hebrew name &quot;Michael,&quot; even though it does not appear directly in the Vulgate, and can also be rendered as, &quot;Quis Sicut Deus.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2043" RevisionGUID="97c97ebb-65f0-4174-b8c3-438dea2dbaa8" CreationDate="2016-11-22T17:17:26.000" UserId="78" Comment="added 345 characters in body" Text="*Numen* isn't the best without either ignoring the &quot;all around us&quot; aspect or resorting to some discredited twentieth century arguments about the word. Still, as a means of personal power in a Jedi, I can see it being used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what is most commonly used is indeed *vis*, which was standard at least back in 2000. For the full phrase, *Vis vobiscum* (or in the singular *Vis tecum*) has plenty of Google hits, some with and some without *sit*. (The *sit* here is poor Latinitas based on a literal translation of the English.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some places where it's found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Soma's Dictionary of Latin Quotations, Maxims, and Phrases](https://books.google.com/books?id=BIxyWH0FKgYC&amp;pg=PT565&amp;lpg=PT565&amp;dq=%22vis+tecum%22+star+wars&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=pJAJz-R_s5&amp;sig=IEBHQ60mt8uJ70lWawE54p3OMzo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjUsdr9yrzQAhVSzWMKHXobA0o4ChDoAQgrMAY#v=onepage&amp;q=%22vis%20tecum%22%20star%20wars&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;- [Latin Discussion](http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/may-the-force-be-with-you.20937/) (see especially post #11)&#xD;&#xA;- [Jon Stewart rally](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=584119)&#xD;&#xA;- [Some crazy Scientologist site](https://everythingisdianetics.wordpress.com/2016/01/03/vis-vobiscum-in-aeternam/)&#xD;&#xA;- [Crap Tumblr posts](http://interretialia.tumblr.com/post/25024177906/sit-vis-tecum-may-the-force-be-with-you-from)&#xD;&#xA;- [An SVR discussion](http://www.societasviaromana.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=9301&amp;sid=bfcc23ae4a2e6b14c3afb43502855ec0#p9301)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, phrases with *numen tecum/numen vobiscum* are much, much less frequently used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, there is no &quot;right way&quot; of translating it, since even in English &quot;The Force&quot; wouldn't have made sense in 1977. It's a fictional term that deliberately repurposes a common word for a new, specific sense. On that note, *vis* or *numen* could work, but we should default to what is commonly used, and that is the former." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2044" RevisionGUID="0fa263cb-ec54-450c-b9db-0bd4333b62c5" CreationDate="2016-11-22T19:39:26.257" UserId="934" Text="As I understand it, both ***ergo*** and ***itaque*** mean therefore, thus, so, accordingly, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When should one be preferred over the other? Does it depend on context, or do they mean slightly different things?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7433" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2044" RevisionGUID="0fa263cb-ec54-450c-b9db-0bd4333b62c5" CreationDate="2016-11-22T19:39:26.257" UserId="934" Text="ergo vs. itaque" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7434" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2044" RevisionGUID="0fa263cb-ec54-450c-b9db-0bd4333b62c5" CreationDate="2016-11-22T19:39:26.257" UserId="934" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7435" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2044" RevisionGUID="3160f6a7-1c66-4ce5-9c05-6d229ee5a3ef" CreationDate="2016-11-22T19:44:12.967" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|word-comparison|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2045" RevisionGUID="5879a505-8ad4-4c2d-b083-45cee5c6ce4d" CreationDate="2016-11-22T20:27:20.540" UserId="1003" Text="Please how to understand 'unde' in the last sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;SCHOLIUM II: Non dubito quin omnibus qui de rebus confuse judicant nec res per primas suas causas noscere consueverunt, difficile sit demonstrationem 7 propositionis concipere; nimirum quia non distinguunt inter modificationes substantiarum et ipsas substantias neque sciunt quomodo res producuntur. Unde fit ut principium quod res naturales habere vident, substantiis affingant; &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is taken from Spinoza's The Ethics and the translation by R.H.M. Elwes is following : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...hence they may attribute to substances the beginning which they observe in natural objects.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so &quot;ut principium substantiis affingant&quot; - &quot;they may attribute the beginning&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;quod res naturales habere vident&quot; - &quot;which they observe in natural objects&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unde, adv. - 1)from which place, whence &#xD;&#xA;             2) it replaces sometimes connection of a, de, ex with relative pronoun (taken from my dictionary) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it mean in that sentence &quot;hence&quot; or does it has some other meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;fit (facio) - I am not sure where it should belong in that sentence, either, perhaps it belongs to &quot;principium&quot; ? So &quot;fit principium&quot; would be &quot;made beginning&quot;?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7437" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2045" RevisionGUID="5879a505-8ad4-4c2d-b083-45cee5c6ce4d" CreationDate="2016-11-22T20:27:20.540" UserId="1003" Text="'Unde' meaning in this context" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7438" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2045" RevisionGUID="5879a505-8ad4-4c2d-b083-45cee5c6ce4d" CreationDate="2016-11-22T20:27:20.540" UserId="1003" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2045" RevisionGUID="217c3358-9d3d-444f-ab61-98de7bd5838d" CreationDate="2016-11-22T20:54:03.030" UserId="45" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="I would like to know how to understand *unde* in the last sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SCHOLIUM II: Non dubito quin omnibus qui de rebus confuse judicant nec res per primas suas causas noscere consueverunt, difficile sit demonstrationem propositionis concipere; nimirum quia non distinguunt inter modificationes substantiarum et ipsas substantias neque sciunt quomodo res producuntur. **Unde fit ut principium quod res naturales habere vident, substantiis affingant.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is taken from Spinoza's *Ethics* and the translation by R.H.M. Elwes is the following: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...hence they may attribute to substances the beginning which they observe in natural objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *ut principium substantiis affingant* = &quot;they may attribute the beginning&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* *quod res naturales habere vident* = &quot;which they observe in natural objects&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unde, adv.  &#xD;&#xA;1. from which place, whence   &#xD;&#xA;2. it replaces sometimes connection of a, de, ex with relative pronoun (taken from my dictionary) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it mean in that sentence &quot;hence&quot; or does it has some other meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*fit (facio)* - I am not sure where it should belong in that sentence, either, perhaps it belongs to &quot;principium&quot; ? So &quot;fit principium&quot; would be &quot;made beginning&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7440" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1806" RevisionGUID="e41f5067-84d5-42f1-933b-6ba8daf9f4f5" CreationDate="2016-11-22T21:51:04.737" UserId="79" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2046" RevisionGUID="74198a15-1392-464c-8b62-e7cdfdfc9712" CreationDate="2016-11-22T21:54:37.050" UserId="986" Text="*Itaque* and *ergo* are both classified as consecutive and conclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A simple distinction would be to state that *ergo* has a logical meaning, and *itaque* a consequential meaning in a wider (narratological) context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until Livius almost all occurences of *itaque* were used at the beginning of a sentence, it is seldom found in second position and never after a relative pronoun. Therefore you can als conclude that the enclitic *-que* has not lost its meaning. &#xD;&#xA;This supports the idea that is has a function in a wider context, i.e. it introduces a fact that is clear on the basis of the preceding. It can also pick up the main thread of a storyline. &#xD;&#xA;The distinction is not always that clear though, because itaque can also have an adverbial meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another argument for a distinct meaning is the use of the combination of *itaque ergo* in Livius (*AUC* I.25). This might indicate that those particles belong (or at least belonged) to different categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took most of this from chapter 10 of [*On Latin Adverbs*](https://books.google.nl/books?id=jBOkcI_BErsC&amp;pg=PA159&amp;lpg=PA159&amp;dq=%22itaque+ergo%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=AaDoj5TilV&amp;sig=9nzUBWkhcQmJMaLDyUuPJ-dxlS0&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwihrsX8or3QAhWEHsAKHVSjCYoQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22itaque%20ergo%22&amp;f=false), by Harm Pinkster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious if there is any other recent study available on the particles itaque and ergo. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2047" RevisionGUID="c08dfdc7-76a4-46b9-920a-db86a3bc49f3" CreationDate="2016-11-22T21:55:00.573" UserId="78" Text="**UNDE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They actually mean the same thing. You can say whence or hence. The only problem you run into is the awkwardness of the Latin period in translation. Instead of keeping it one long sentence and having *unde* function as a relative, &quot;from which point (=whence) they...&quot; or &quot;Hence, they...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think in English the difference between the two in simple relative clauses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I saw the boy, who was walking to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I saw the boy. He was walking to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**FIT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not entirely sure on this one, but perhaps he's post-positioning the *ut*, giving the phrase *ut fit*, meaning &quot;as usual.&quot; If that were the case, it would be polemical (which fits the rest of the context), &quot;*As usual*, they attribute...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin has no problem with stacking things up front that would sound clumsy in English, so perhaps that's why the translator chose to leave it out?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2046" RevisionGUID="dad313fe-01ec-41d9-aac0-6c6eb3e1badc" CreationDate="2016-11-22T22:01:51.113" UserId="986" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="*Itaque* and *ergo* are both classified as consecutive and conclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A simple distinction would be to state that *ergo* has a logical meaning, and *itaque* a consequential meaning in a wider (narratological) context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until Livius almost all occurences of *itaque* were used at the beginning of a sentence, it is seldom found in second position and never after a relative pronoun. Therefore you can als conclude that the enclitic *-que* has not lost its meaning. &#xD;&#xA;This supports the idea that is has a function in a wider context, i.e. it introduces a fact that is clear on the basis of the preceding. It can also pick up the main thread of a storyline. &#xD;&#xA;The distinction is not always that clear though, because *itaque* can also have an adverbial meaning, for example: *eodem te rediturum dixeras itaque fecisti.*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another argument for a distinct meaning is the use of the combination of *itaque ergo* in Livy (*AUC* I.25). This might indicate that those particles belong (or at least belonged) to different categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took most of this from chapter 10 of [*On Latin Adverbs*](https://books.google.nl/books?id=jBOkcI_BErsC&amp;pg=PA159&amp;lpg=PA159&amp;dq=%22itaque+ergo%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=AaDoj5TilV&amp;sig=9nzUBWkhcQmJMaLDyUuPJ-dxlS0&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwihrsX8or3QAhWEHsAKHVSjCYoQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22itaque%20ergo%22&amp;f=false), by Harm Pinkster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious if there is any other recent study available on the particles *itaque* and *ergo*. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2046" RevisionGUID="30e92bec-3da3-4fa6-9d55-587ee4ba3a57" CreationDate="2016-11-22T22:07:56.383" UserId="986" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="*Itaque* and *ergo* are both classified as consecutive and conclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A simple distinction would be to state that *ergo* has a logical meaning, and *itaque* a consequential meaning in a wider (narratological) context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until Livius almost all occurences of *itaque* were used at the beginning of a sentence, it is seldom found in second position and never after a relative pronoun. Therefore you can als conclude that the enclitic *-que* has not lost its meaning. &#xD;&#xA;This supports the idea that is has a function in a wider context, i.e. it introduces a fact that is clear on the basis of the preceding. It can also pick up the main thread of a storyline. &#xD;&#xA;The distinction is not always that clear though, because *itaque* can also have an adverbial meaning, for example: *eodem te rediturum dixeras itaque fecisti.*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another argument for a distinct meaning is the use of the combination of *itaque ergo* in Livy (*AUC* I.25). This might indicate that those particles belong (or at least belonged) to different categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took most of this from chapter 10 of [*On Latin Adverbs*](https://books.google.nl/books?id=jBOkcI_BErsC&amp;pg=PA159&amp;lpg=PA159&amp;dq=%22itaque+ergo%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=AaDoj5TilV&amp;sig=9nzUBWkhcQmJMaLDyUuPJ-dxlS0&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwihrsX8or3QAhWEHsAKHVSjCYoQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22itaque%20ergo%22&amp;f=false), by Harm Pinkster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious if there is any other recent study available on the particles *itaque* and *ergo*. Traditional grammars and dictionaries do not always reach very much depth on the subject of particles, because there was not much narratology involved and it was much harder to do word frequency research in a large corpus of Latin authors without computers and databases.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2046" RevisionGUID="0a9225f4-7142-471d-92fd-92c2e01bc343" CreationDate="2016-11-22T22:27:16.567" UserId="986" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="*Itaque* and *ergo* are both classified as consecutive and conclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A simple distinction would be to state that *ergo* has a logical meaning, and *itaque* a consequential meaning in a wider (narratological) context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worthwhile to search for the occurences of *itaque* in [*AUC*.XXI](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/livy/liv.21.shtml). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nunquam ingenium idem ad res diversissimas, parendum atque imparandum, habilius fuit. **Itaque** haud facile discerneres utrum imperatori an exercitui carior esset*. Here you can see the consecutive, conclusive meaning that can be translated as *therefore*. At the start of chapter 30, *itaque* is used in a broader context. In chapter 29 is explained that Hannibal's soldier are lacking courage and are fearful. In chapter 30 is described how Hannibal encourages his soldiers. A consequence of the situation that is explained in chapter 29 and introduced by *itaque*. *Ergo* can be used in this way in some cases, but we don't see it often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until Livy almost all occurences of *itaque* were used at the beginning of a sentence, it is seldom found in second position and never after a relative pronoun. Therefore you can als conclude that the enclitic *-que* has not lost its meaning. &#xD;&#xA;This supports the idea that is has a function in a wider context, i.e. it introduces a fact that is clear on the basis of the preceding. It can also pick up the main thread of a storyline. &#xD;&#xA;The distinction is not always that clear though, because *itaque* can also have an adverbial meaning, for example: *eodem te rediturum dixeras itaque fecisti.*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another argument for a distinct meaning is the use of the combination of *itaque ergo* in Livy (*AUC* I.25). This might indicate that those particles belong (or at least belonged) to different categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took most of this from chapter 10 of [*On Latin Adverbs*](https://books.google.nl/books?id=jBOkcI_BErsC&amp;pg=PA159&amp;lpg=PA159&amp;dq=%22itaque+ergo%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=AaDoj5TilV&amp;sig=9nzUBWkhcQmJMaLDyUuPJ-dxlS0&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwihrsX8or3QAhWEHsAKHVSjCYoQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22itaque%20ergo%22&amp;f=false), by Harm Pinkster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious if there is any other recent study available on the particles *itaque* and *ergo*. Traditional grammars and dictionaries do not always reach very much depth on the subject of particles, because there was not much narratology involved and it was much harder to do word frequency research in a large corpus of Latin authors without computers and databases.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2048" RevisionGUID="97636a5b-0231-4e40-b442-a8c7bc53293a" CreationDate="2016-11-22T23:19:17.123" UserId="40" Text="A very literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whence it comes that the beginning which they see natural things possess, they attach to substances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more natural translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is why they ascribe to substances the same beginning that the see natural things possess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Unde* is strictly speaking a relative meaning &quot;whence, from which place&quot;. But Latin often begins sentences with relative pronouns that are really just a way of connecting back to the previous sentence. Such relatives are usually better translated as if they were demonstratives: in this case, &quot;hence / from here&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *fit ut* is a common expression meaning &quot;it happens that, it comes to be the case that&quot;. The clause following the *ut* in such cases is called a &quot;substantive *ut*-clause&quot;, since it fulfills the role of a noun in the sentence -- here, it as if the entire clause beginning *ut* is the subject of *fit* (since it describes what &quot;becomes&quot; or comes to be the case). Substantive *ut*-clauses take a subjunctive verb, which explains the form of *affingant*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7447" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="2047" RevisionGUID="48c5c2ee-dfea-4285-b5d0-7a8f0c8b7223" CreationDate="2016-11-22T23:28:28.483" UserId="78" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2049" RevisionGUID="214ce6b5-d247-4f8f-8084-9ba02c53aec4" CreationDate="2016-11-22T23:42:34.363" UserId="952" Text="All of the affirmative singular imperatives of regular verbs are formed by dropping the *-re* from the second principal part.  &#xD;&#xA;Why is it that, in the 3rd conjugation only, the affirmative plural imperative drops the *-ere* from the second principal part and then adds *-ite* instead of just dropping the *-re* and adding *-te* like in the other conjugations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7449" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2049" RevisionGUID="214ce6b5-d247-4f8f-8084-9ba02c53aec4" CreationDate="2016-11-22T23:42:34.363" UserId="952" Text="Why is there an exception when forming 3rd conjugation imperatives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7450" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2049" RevisionGUID="214ce6b5-d247-4f8f-8084-9ba02c53aec4" CreationDate="2016-11-22T23:42:34.363" UserId="952" Text="|verbs|conjugation|imperative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2050" RevisionGUID="37bafc82-6477-4315-a4a2-b96979796adc" CreationDate="2016-11-23T02:11:01.257" UserId="1011" Text="I'm interested to know the difference between c and k and q, and why x exists if it's just ks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7452" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2050" RevisionGUID="37bafc82-6477-4315-a4a2-b96979796adc" CreationDate="2016-11-23T02:11:01.257" UserId="1011" Text="Where can I hear the original pronunciation of the Latin alphabet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7453" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2050" RevisionGUID="37bafc82-6477-4315-a4a2-b96979796adc" CreationDate="2016-11-23T02:11:01.257" UserId="1011" Text="|pronunciation|alphabet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2051" RevisionGUID="27298c85-c453-42d9-962f-dafd1179de76" CreationDate="2016-11-23T02:15:45.170" UserId="9" Text="I believe this is due to vowel reduction. Latin vowel reduction is complicated and there seem to be various processes involved; however, a common pattern is vowels turning to /i/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Syllable and Segment in Latin,* by Ranjan Sen (2015), describes a process called &quot;[Archaic Latin vowel reduction][1]&quot; whereby short vowels in internal (non-initial) open syllables were generally reduced to /i/. In internal open syllables before /r/, however, the reduced vowel became /e/ instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what the original vowel was in third-conjugation verbs, but it seems like we would get this pattern no matter what it was. It seems to come from the Proto-Indo-European [thematic vowel][2].&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=1VTCBwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA80&amp;lpg=PA80&amp;dq=Latin%20vowel%20reduction&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ZWsyUWxsZM&amp;sig=FYvfZNv1EvETxEo_Tpq7L07FDj8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwihgJeD5b3QAhWIrlQKHTJiB24Q6AEIYjAL#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20vowel%20reduction&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_vowel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2052" RevisionGUID="44353a05-6be4-4053-b741-ea69815ddc87" CreationDate="2016-11-23T02:23:21.253" UserId="40" Text="This has to do with the verbal conjugation system of Proto-Indo-European (PIE), the ancestor language of Latin. The Latin third conjugation is largely descended from so-called &quot;thematic&quot; PIE verbs. Thematic verbs are those which have a vowel, either *e* or *o*, between the verb root and the ending; this is known as the &quot;thematic vowel&quot;. In this case, the vowel was *e*, so the 2pl. imperative would have ended in *-e-te*. This *e* later changed into Latin *i* by the regular sound change of &quot;vowel reduction&quot;, in which basically all short vowels in non-initial open syllables changed into *e*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not only the *i* of *-ite* that is descended from the PIE thematic vowel, but also the *i* that shows up elsewhere in the third conjugation present forms: *ag-i-s, ag-i-t*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The other three conjugations, too, mostly continue PIE thematic verbs, but in those conjugations the thematic vowel eventually merged into the long vowel of the verb stem.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2051" RevisionGUID="c5221dec-34fc-4bae-9567-f2da16a37aa9" CreationDate="2016-11-23T02:23:48.900" UserId="9" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="I believe this is due to vowel reduction. Latin vowel reduction is complicated and there seem to be various processes involved; however, a common pattern is vowels turning to /i/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Syllable and Segment in Latin,* by Ranjan Sen (2015), describes a process called &quot;[Archaic Latin vowel reduction][1]&quot; whereby short vowels in internal (non-initial) open syllables were generally reduced to /i/. In internal open syllables before /r/, however, the reduced vowel became /e/ instead. This explains the difference between -ite and -ere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what the original vowel was in third-conjugation verbs, but it seems like we would get this pattern no matter what it was. It seems to come from the Proto-Indo-European &quot;thematic vowel&quot; (for example, see this page on the [Allen and Greenough][3] website) which apparently could be -e- or -o-.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=1VTCBwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA80&amp;lpg=PA80&amp;dq=Latin%20vowel%20reduction&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ZWsyUWxsZM&amp;sig=FYvfZNv1EvETxEo_Tpq7L07FDj8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwihgJeD5b3QAhWIrlQKHTJiB24Q6AEIYjAL#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20vowel%20reduction&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.174.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2051" RevisionGUID="0db0f14c-2880-4cc9-b737-d3286bb0c2f0" CreationDate="2016-11-23T02:30:06.853" UserId="9" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="I believe this is due to vowel reduction. Latin vowel reduction is complicated and there seem to be various processes involved; however, a common pattern is vowels turning to /i/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Syllable and Segment in Latin,* by Ranjan Sen (2015), describes a process called &quot;[Archaic Latin vowel reduction][1]&quot; whereby short vowels in internal (not initial or final) open syllables were generally reduced to /i/. In internal open syllables before /r/, however, the reduced vowel became /e/ instead. This explains the difference between -ite and -ere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what the original vowel was in third-conjugation verbs, but it seems like we would get this pattern no matter what it was. It seems to come from the Proto-Indo-European &quot;thematic vowel&quot; (for example, see this page from [Allen and Greenough][3]) which apparently could be -e- or -o-.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=1VTCBwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA80&amp;lpg=PA80&amp;dq=Latin%20vowel%20reduction&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ZWsyUWxsZM&amp;sig=FYvfZNv1EvETxEo_Tpq7L07FDj8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwihgJeD5b3QAhWIrlQKHTJiB24Q6AEIYjAL#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20vowel%20reduction&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/present-stem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2051" RevisionGUID="153fd46f-f8b3-4255-9750-93cd5198ae0a" CreationDate="2016-11-23T02:38:11.147" UserId="9" Comment="added 227 characters in body" Text="I believe this is due to vowel reduction. Latin vowel reduction is complicated and there seem to be various processes involved; however, a common pattern is vowels turning to /i/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Syllable and Segment in Latin,* by Ranjan Sen (2015), describes a process called &quot;[Archaic Latin vowel reduction][1]&quot; whereby short vowels in internal (not initial or final) open syllables were generally all merged to a reduced vowel which became /i/ in Classical Latin. In internal open syllables before /r/, however, the reduced vowel became /e/ instead. This explains the difference between *-**i**te* and *-**e**re.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what the original vowel was in third-conjugation verbs, but it seems like we would get this pattern no matter what it was. It seems to come from the Proto-Indo-European &quot;thematic vowel&quot; (for example, see this page from [Allen and Greenough][3]) which apparently could be -e- or -o-. I don't understand the details of its distribution; however, the -u- that appears in Latin verbs of the third declension before nasals in closed syllables (e.g. in third-person plural *-**u**nt*) seems to descend from PIE -o-.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=1VTCBwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA80&amp;lpg=PA80&amp;dq=Latin%20vowel%20reduction&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ZWsyUWxsZM&amp;sig=FYvfZNv1EvETxEo_Tpq7L07FDj8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwihgJeD5b3QAhWIrlQKHTJiB24Q6AEIYjAL#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20vowel%20reduction&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/present-stem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2048" RevisionGUID="36062ec3-d4cf-4deb-b463-aa21e0976d6b" CreationDate="2016-11-23T03:50:44.040" UserId="40" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="A very literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whence it comes that the beginning which they see natural things possess, they attach to substances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more natural translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is why they ascribe to substances the same beginning that they see natural things possess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Unde* is strictly speaking a relative meaning &quot;whence, from which place&quot;. But Latin often begins sentences with relative pronouns that are really just a way of connecting back to the previous sentence. Such relatives are usually better translated as if they were demonstratives: in this case, &quot;hence / from here&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *fit ut* is a common expression meaning &quot;it happens that, it comes to be the case that&quot;. The clause following the *ut* in such cases is called a &quot;substantive *ut*-clause&quot;, since it fulfills the role of a noun in the sentence -- here, it's as if the entire clause beginning *ut* is the subject of *fit* (since it describes what &quot;becomes&quot; or comes to be the case). Substantive *ut*-clauses take a subjunctive verb, which explains the form of *affingant*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2050" RevisionGUID="588cfd65-b652-420e-9800-546cffe6aa94" CreationDate="2016-11-23T07:43:09.060" UserId="79" Comment="added 225 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Is there a difference between the pronunciation of *c*, *k* and *q* in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;If they are all the same, why have three different letters for the same sound?&#xD;&#xA;Also, if *x* is pronounced just like *ks*, why have a separate letter for it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;PRESERVING THE ORIGINAL FOR EASY EDITING LATER:&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested to know the difference between c and k and q, and why x exists if it's just ks.&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7462" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2050" RevisionGUID="588cfd65-b652-420e-9800-546cffe6aa94" CreationDate="2016-11-23T07:43:09.060" UserId="79" Comment="added 225 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|alphabet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2053" RevisionGUID="7ff080cc-c8be-4920-b246-fe8b4fb5389e" CreationDate="2016-11-23T08:21:41.570" UserId="79" Text="The word *vis* does not have singular genitive and dative forms.&#xD;&#xA;This makes it difficult to use *vis*.&#xD;&#xA;(I was reminded of this difficulty by [this Star Wars question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2040/79).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you suggest methods of working around the missing forms of *vis* when writing Latin?&#xD;&#xA;What should I do when syntax seems to require genitive or dative?&#xD;&#xA;The easiest way would be to use a substitute word for these cases or to coin new forms for *vis*, but both feel like a disservice to legibility and style.&#xD;&#xA;I am open to any suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For concrete examples, you can consider replacing *robur* with *vis* in the following sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Terror roboris magnus erat apud senatores.*&#xD;&#xA;2. *Haud multum roboris remanet.*&#xD;&#xA;3. *Vir quidam roboris nuclearis peritus acroasem praeparaverat.*&#xD;&#xA;4. *Marcum miseret roboris mei.*&#xD;&#xA;5. *Roboris Marci causa abire constitui.*&#xD;&#xA;6. *Haec potio magica robori meo prodest.*&#xD;&#xA;7. *Caesar non pietati sed robori vivebat.*&#xD;&#xA;8. *Voluntas robori dissimilis est.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7464" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2053" RevisionGUID="7ff080cc-c8be-4920-b246-fe8b4fb5389e" CreationDate="2016-11-23T08:21:41.570" UserId="79" Text="How to work around the missing cases of vis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7465" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2053" RevisionGUID="7ff080cc-c8be-4920-b246-fe8b4fb5389e" CreationDate="2016-11-23T08:21:41.570" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|syntax|genitive|dative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7466" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2045" RevisionGUID="c00c1563-5bf8-49a8-9de1-2b656baccf39" CreationDate="2016-11-23T08:51:34.287" UserId="1003" Comment="improved headline" Text="'Unde' and 'fit ut' meaning in this context" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2054" RevisionGUID="7cf5ec01-541f-4e3f-9cf6-453ca4eddbe3" CreationDate="2016-11-23T10:41:56.593" UserId="932" Text="Singular genitive and dative forms of *vis* exist but are very rare, according to the Gaffiot, which provides some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![vis in Gaffiot][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or in Calonghi:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it may be possible to use those forms when needed (*vis* and *vi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TnLkl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2adCm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1BWk8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2055" RevisionGUID="c25b8c54-99e2-4c33-bfb1-63b222f7a692" CreationDate="2016-11-23T12:36:58.227" UserId="932" Text="#Wikipedia's answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article *[Latin Alphabet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet)* of Wikipedia gives an answer to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the Latin alphabet is believed to be founded on the *Cumæ alphabet* (7th century). The Archaic Latin and Old Latin alphabets have then the letters , , and , corresponding to C, K and Q.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The letter ⟨C⟩ was the western form of the Greek gamma, but it was used for the sounds /ɡ/ and /k/ alike, possibly under the influence of Etruscan, which might have lacked any voiced plosives. Later, probably during the 3rd century BC, the letter ⟨Z⟩ — unneeded to write Latin properly — was replaced with the new letter ⟨G⟩, a ⟨C⟩ modified with a small vertical stroke, which took its place in the alphabet. From then on, ⟨G⟩ represented the voiced plosive /ɡ/, while ⟨C⟩ was generally reserved for the voiceless plosive /k/. The letter ⟨K⟩ was used only rarely, in a small number of words such as Kalendae, often interchangeably with ⟨C⟩.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More details are also given in the article for the letter Q:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In the earliest Latin inscriptions, the letters C, K and Q **were all used to represent the two sounds /k/ and /ɡ/**, which were not differentiated in writing. Of these, Q was used before a rounded vowel (e.g. ⟨EQO⟩ 'ego'), K before /a/, and C elsewhere. Later, the use of C (and its variant G) replaced most usages of K and Q: Q survived only to represent /k/ when immediately followed by a /w/ sound. The Etruscans used Q in conjunction with V to represent /kʷ/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in the article for the letter K:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(…) Of these, Q was used to represent /k/ or /g/ before a rounded vowel, K before /a/, and C elsewhere. Later, the use of C and its variant G replaced most usages of K and Q. K survived only in a few fossilized forms such as Kalendae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the sound /ks/ of X, in the article for the letter X:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Ancient Greek, 'Χ' and 'Ψ' were among several variants of the same letter, used originally for /kʰ/ and later, in western areas such as Arcadia, as a simplification of the digraph 'ΧΣ' for /ks/. In the end, more conservative eastern forms became the standard of Classical Greek, and thus 'Χ' (Chi) stands for /kʰ/ (later /x/). However, the Etruscans had taken over 'Χ' from western Greek, and it therefore stands for /ks/ in Etruscan and Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The letter 'Χ' ~ 'Ψ' for /kʰ/ was a Greek addition to the alphabet, placed after the Semitic letters along with phi 'Φ' for /pʰ/. (The variant 'Ψ' later replaced the digraph 'ΦΣ' for /ps/; omega was a later addition).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2055" RevisionGUID="0625cd81-9c01-4fd4-b28e-1ab8adc45d46" CreationDate="2016-11-23T12:53:54.207" UserId="932" Comment="added 307 characters in body" Text="#Wikipedia's answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article *[Latin Alphabet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet)* of Wikipedia gives an answer to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the Latin alphabet is believed to be founded on the *Cumæ alphabet* (7th century). The Archaic Latin and Old Latin alphabets have then the letters , , and , corresponding to C, K and Q.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first, the letter C was used to note the sound /k/ and /g/, because the Etruscans didn't had the sound /g/ so they use gamma for /k/. Later the letter G replaced it. The letter K is rare (Kalendæ…). Q is a variant of /k/ before /u/, coming from the greek koppa, and only conserved in QV (*qui* != *cui*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The letter ⟨C⟩ was the western form of the Greek gamma, but it was used for the sounds /ɡ/ and /k/ alike, possibly under the influence of Etruscan, which might have lacked any voiced plosives. Later, probably during the 3rd century BC, the letter ⟨Z⟩ — unneeded to write Latin properly — was replaced with the new letter ⟨G⟩, a ⟨C⟩ modified with a small vertical stroke, which took its place in the alphabet. From then on, ⟨G⟩ represented the voiced plosive /ɡ/, while ⟨C⟩ was generally reserved for the voiceless plosive /k/. The letter ⟨K⟩ was used only rarely, in a small number of words such as Kalendae, often interchangeably with ⟨C⟩.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More details are also given in the article for the letter Q:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In the earliest Latin inscriptions, the letters C, K and Q were all used to represent the two sounds /k/ and /ɡ/, which were not differentiated in writing. Of these, Q was used before a rounded vowel (e.g. ⟨EQO⟩ 'ego'), K before /a/, and C elsewhere. Later, the use of C (and its variant G) replaced most usages of K and Q: Q survived only to represent /k/ when immediately followed by a /w/ sound. The Etruscans used Q in conjunction with V to represent /kʷ/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in the article for the letter K:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(…) Of these, Q was used to represent /k/ or /g/ before a rounded vowel, K before /a/, and C elsewhere. Later, the use of C and its variant G replaced most usages of K and Q. K survived only in a few fossilized forms such as Kalendae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the sound /ks/ of X, in the article for the letter X:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Ancient Greek, 'Χ' and 'Ψ' were among several variants of the same letter, used originally for /kʰ/ and later, in western areas such as Arcadia, as a simplification of the digraph 'ΧΣ' for /ks/. In the end, more conservative eastern forms became the standard of Classical Greek, and thus 'Χ' (Chi) stands for /kʰ/ (later /x/). However, the Etruscans had taken over 'Χ' from western Greek, and it therefore stands for /ks/ in Etruscan and Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The letter 'Χ' ~ 'Ψ' for /kʰ/ was a Greek addition to the alphabet, placed after the Semitic letters along with phi 'Φ' for /pʰ/. (The variant 'Ψ' later replaced the digraph 'ΦΣ' for /ps/; omega was a later addition).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2056" RevisionGUID="a4e8dbd6-c9ac-42ed-8fcf-cab5381676c1" CreationDate="2016-11-23T20:24:36.290" UserId="45" Text="[Lewis &amp; Short defines](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Djus2) *jus, juris* with a number of concepts that are related but distinct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that which is binding or obligatory; that which is binding by its nature, right, justice, duty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am particularly interested in two concepts here: that of a *right* and that of a *duty*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using layman's terms, I could think of the two as almost opposites: a *duty* is what others expect of me, and a *right* is what I can expect from others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One simpler way of asking the question is the following: Can I use *jus* to translate the following English sentences? If so, how do I maintain the important distinction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I have the right to speak.&#xD;&#xA;* I have the duty to speak." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7472" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2056" RevisionGUID="a4e8dbd6-c9ac-42ed-8fcf-cab5381676c1" CreationDate="2016-11-23T20:24:36.290" UserId="45" Text="How does &quot;jus&quot; distinguish between &quot;duty&quot; and &quot;right&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7473" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2056" RevisionGUID="a4e8dbd6-c9ac-42ed-8fcf-cab5381676c1" CreationDate="2016-11-23T20:24:36.290" UserId="45" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7475" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2056" RevisionGUID="1e001412-d4d9-4bfc-8bd3-fab460243745" CreationDate="2016-11-23T20:55:33.657" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags." Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|legal-latin|definitions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2057" RevisionGUID="f3993d68-065e-4573-b39c-cf0964a6ba57" CreationDate="2016-11-23T22:00:31.740" UserId="78" Text="The normal word for &quot;duty&quot; in Latin isn't *ius*, but *officium*, and it's well attested for this meaning from Plautus to Suetonius (and later), in prose and poetry alike. Cicero's *De Officiis* is always translated as *On Duties*. Might be easier to just post the Lewis &amp; Short definition in full:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. In gen., an obligatory service, an obligation, duty, function, part, office (so most freq. in prose and poetry of all periods): “nulla vitae pars neque publicis neque privatis neque forensibus neque domesticis in rebus, neque si tecum agas quid, neque, si cum altero contrahas, vacare oflicio potest: in eoque et colendo sita vitae est honestas omnis et in neglegendo turpitudo, etc.,” Cic. Off. 1, 2, 4 sq.: perfectum officium rectum opinor vocemus, quod Graeci κατόρθωμα: hoc autem commune καθῆκον vocant, id. ib. 1, 3, 8; “an id doles, quia illi suum officium non colunt, quom tu tuum facis?” Plaut. Stich. 1, 1, 34; id. ib. 1, 1, 39; id. Pers. 4, 4, 66: “meminisse officium suum,” to remember one's duty, id. Trin. 3, 2, 71.—Also, subject., a sense of duty: “si quis aegre ferat nihil in se esse virtutis, nihil officii, etc.,” Cic. Tusc. 4, 28, 61: “quicquid in eum judicii officiique contuleris,” id. Fam. 10, 1 fin.: “intellegere, utrum apud eos pudor atque officium an timor valeret,” Caes. B. G. 1, 40, 14: “suum facere,” to do one's duty, Ter. Ad. 1, 1, 44: “omnibus officiis amicitiae servatis,” observe all the obligations of friendship, Cic. Fam. 5, 17, 3: “exsequi,” id. Att. 3, 15, 4: “fungi officio,” id. Fam. 3, 8, 3: “satisfacere officio,” to perform, id. Div. in Caecil. 14, 47: “officium suum deserere,” to disregard one's duty, not perform it, id. Off. 1, 9, 28: “discedere ab officio,” id. ib. 1, 10, 32: “deesse officio suo,” id. Fam. 7, 3, 1: “officii duxit,” considered it his duty, Suet. Tib. 11.—Of animals: “canes funguntur officiis luporum,” act the part of, Auct. Her. 4, 34, 46.—Of things: “neque pes neque mens satis suum officium facit,” Ter. Eun. 4, 5, 3: officium corporis, the function or property of a body, Lucr. 1, 336 and 362.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ius*, on the other hand, doesn't really mean &quot;duty&quot;, and although L&amp;S says so, they don't give very many examples of it. It rather means &quot;right&quot; or &quot;law.&quot; When Cicero talks about natural or divine laws, the sort of &quot;laws&quot; that all people should follow regardless of human laws, he speaks of *ius*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that sense, it's a &quot;duty&quot; in that we must obey it. It's not really &quot;duty&quot; in the sense of &quot;civic duty&quot; or &quot;duties of the magistrate&quot;, both of which would use *officium* instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2058" RevisionGUID="ecbf7cde-9cd1-414a-8178-b93c65de89f3" CreationDate="2016-11-24T00:15:33.623" UserId="75" Text="In *Novum Lexicon Graeco-Latinum in Novum Testamentum*, Johann Friedrich Schleusner wrote the following entry on the Greek word νεόφυτος.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Novum Lexicon Graeco-Latinum in Novum Testamentum, Vol. 2, p. 174][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his entry, he uses two abbreviations, “h.e.” and “h.l.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the meaning of those two abbreviations? (I’m guessing that “h.e.” stands for “hic est.”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; p. [174][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schleusner, Johann Friedrich. [*Novum Lexicon Graeco-Latinum in Novum Testamentum.*][3] Vol. 2. Leipzig: Weidmann, 1792.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XeNNx.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=dhVUAAAAcAAJ&amp;lpg=PA174&amp;ots=G42bTPOH27&amp;dq=%CE%BD%CE%B5%E1%BD%B9%CF%86%CF%85%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BD%201%20tim.%203%3B6%20metaphor&amp;pg=PA174#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=true&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=dhVUAAAAcAAJ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7478" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2058" RevisionGUID="ecbf7cde-9cd1-414a-8178-b93c65de89f3" CreationDate="2016-11-24T00:15:33.623" UserId="75" Text="What is the meaning of the abbreviations “h.e.” and “h.l.”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7479" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2058" RevisionGUID="ecbf7cde-9cd1-414a-8178-b93c65de89f3" CreationDate="2016-11-24T00:15:33.623" UserId="75" Text="|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2059" RevisionGUID="0f88412c-190b-4dcd-9f02-747ed8decd5a" CreationDate="2016-11-24T00:23:42.897" UserId="324" Text="h.e. = hoc est&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ad h.l. = ad hunc locum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="e1eca3e1-a98b-45ba-a728-e96610bc5787" CreationDate="2016-11-24T04:48:40.660" UserId="235" Text="In phrases like, *we wish to be attacked by as few enemies as possible*, εθελομεν προσβαλλεσθαι υφ' οτι ολιγιστων πολεμιων, is it correct to leave out the definite article before ολιγιστων πολεμιων? I ask because, in English, it would be nonsensical to place a definite article inside the phrase *as few enemies as possible*. It would seem my English-speaking prejudices carry over. But in a sense it does seem logical. The word &quot;few&quot; (ολιγιστων) seems to take the place of the definite article, in the same way that the indefinite adjectives τις and τι would.&#xA;&#xA;Unfortunately I have found it necessary to omit all diacritical marks, as I have no access to my computer and am typing this on my cell phone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7482" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="e1eca3e1-a98b-45ba-a728-e96610bc5787" CreationDate="2016-11-24T04:48:40.660" UserId="235" Text="Should the Greek definite article accompany adjectives like ολίγιστος?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7483" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="e1eca3e1-a98b-45ba-a728-e96610bc5787" CreationDate="2016-11-24T04:48:40.660" UserId="235" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="f7875e06-f846-411a-966c-d2b81a56a33e" CreationDate="2016-11-24T05:02:20.803" UserId="235" Comment="added 575 characters in body; deleted 170 characters in body; edited title" Text="In phrases like, *we wish to be attacked by as few enemies as possible*, εθελομεν προσβαλλεσθαι υφ' οτι ολιγιστων πολεμιων, is it correct to leave out the definite article before ολιγιστων πολεμιων? I ask because, in English, it would be nonsensical to place a definite article inside the phrase *as few enemies as possible*. It would seem my English-speaking prejudices carry over. But in a sense it does seem logical. The word &quot;few&quot; (ολιγιστων) seems to take the place of the definite article, in the same way that the indefinite adjectives τις and τι would.&#xA;&#xA;Unfortunately I have found it necessary to omit all diacritical marks, as I have no access to my computer and am typing this on my cell phone.&#xA;&#xA;**Update**&#xA;&#xA;It just occurred to me that maybe the adverb οτι is the deciding factor. In the sentence, *they have the fewest enemies*, εχουσι τους ολιγιστους πολεμιους, the definite article does seem fitting. So perhaps my question was mis-worded. In that case, when a noun comes inside a οτι phrase (the adverb strengthening a superlative, not the conjunction), should that noun have a definite article?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7485" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="f7875e06-f846-411a-966c-d2b81a56a33e" CreationDate="2016-11-24T05:02:20.803" UserId="235" Comment="added 575 characters in body; deleted 170 characters in body; edited title" Text="Should the Greek definite article follow the adverb οτι?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7486" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="1d5ae848-a36e-483e-8ffa-29a4f46465cd" CreationDate="2016-11-24T05:07:51.880" UserId="235" Comment="edited title; deleted 405 characters in body" Text="Should the Greek definite article be omitted in this phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="1d5ae848-a36e-483e-8ffa-29a4f46465cd" CreationDate="2016-11-24T05:07:51.880" UserId="235" Comment="edited title; deleted 405 characters in body" Text="In phrases like, *we wish to be attacked by as few enemies as possible*, εθελομεν προσβαλλεσθαι υφ' οτι ολιγιστων πολεμιων, is it correct to leave out the definite article before ολιγιστων πολεμιων? I ask because, in English, it would be nonsensical to place a definite article inside the phrase *as few enemies as possible*. It would seem my English-speaking prejudices carry over. But in a sense it does seem logical. The word &quot;few&quot; (ολιγιστων) seems to take the place of the definite article, in the same way that the indefinite adjectives τις and τι would.&#xA;&#xA;Unfortunately I have found it necessary to omit all diacritical marks, as I have no access to my computer and am typing this on my cell phone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="cadec904-5b48-4bc6-88a9-8eaa976b0f50" CreationDate="2016-11-24T05:15:59.947" UserId="235" Comment="added 421 characters in body; deleted 75 characters in body" Text="In phrases like, *we wish to be attacked by as few enemies as possible*, εθελομεν προσβαλλεσθαι υφ' οτι ολιγιστων πολεμιων, is it correct to leave out the definite article before ολιγιστων πολεμιων? I ask because, in English, it would be nonsensical to place a definite article inside the phrase *as few enemies as possible*. It would seem my English-speaking prejudices carry over. But in a sense it does seem logical. The word &quot;few&quot; (ολιγιστων) seems to take the place of the definite article, in the same way that the indefinite adjectives τις and τι would.&#xA;&#xA;Unfortunately I have found it necessary to omit all diacritical marks, as I have no access to my computer and am typing this on my cell phone.&#xA;&#xA;**Update**&#xA;&#xA;I'm not sure what feature of this phrase makes the inclusion of a definite article seem awkward. I suspect it might be the adverb οτι. If we constructed a new sentence without οτι, e.g. *They have the fewest enemies*, εχουσι τους ολιγιστους πολεμιους, it feels correct to include the definite article. Eager to have others weigh in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="dc339dcb-5fd0-466f-8c88-5e35e5cb11e1" CreationDate="2016-11-24T05:39:24.793" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body; added 8 characters in body; added 1 character in body; deleted 53 characters in body; added 1 character in body; deleted 283 characters in body" Text="In phrases like, *we wish to be attacked by as few enemies as possible*, εθελομεν προσβαλλεσθαι υφ' οτι ολιγιστων πολεμιων, is it correct to leave out the definite article after οτι? I ask because, in English, it would be grammatically wrong to place a definite article inside the phrase *as few enemies as possible*. This omission also appears to be logical. The word &quot;few&quot; (ολιγιστων) seems to take the place of the definite article, in the same way that the indefinite adjectives τις and τι would. If the omission is correct, is it due to the οτι construction?&#xA;&#xA;Unfortunately, I have found it necessary to omit all diacritical marks, as I have no access to my computer and am typing this on my cell phone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="107e2afc-8cad-4a49-9630-5d9fe26efcd4" CreationDate="2016-11-24T05:47:30.287" UserId="235" Comment="added 100 characters in body; deleted 73 characters in body; deleted 19 characters in body; added 10 characters in body; added 1 character in body; deleted 1 character in body" Text="In phrases like, *we wish to be attacked by as few enemies as possible*, εθελομεν προσβαλλεσθαι υφ' οτι ολιγιστων πολεμιων, is it correct to leave out the definite article after οτι? I ask because, in English, it would be grammatically wrong to place a definite article inside the phrase *as few enemies as possible*. This omission also appears to be logical. The word &quot;few&quot; (ολιγιστων) seems to take the place of the definite article, in the same way that the indefinite adjectives τις and τι would. If the omission is correct, is it due to the οτι construction?&#xA;&#xA;Speaking of omissions, I have omitted accents and breathing marks. This is because I am typing the question on my cell phone, as I have no access to my computer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="84f5ac5d-6cb6-4362-aacf-034c63f716b2" CreationDate="2016-11-24T06:12:29.537" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 52 characters in body" Text="In phrases like, *we wish to be attacked by as few enemies as possible*, εθελομεν προσβαλλεσθαι υφ' οτι ολιγιστων πολεμιων, is it correct to leave out the definite article after οτι? I ask because, in English, it would be grammatically wrong to place a definite article inside the phrase *as few enemies as possible*. The word &quot;few&quot; (ολιγιστων) seems to take the place of the definite article, in the same way that the indefinite adjectives τις and τι would. If the omission is correct, is it due to the οτι construction?&#xA;&#xA;Unfortunately, I had to omit accents and breathing marks since I have no access to my computer right now, and am typing the question on my cell phone. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7492" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="0aec4cc2-8711-4468-a1ec-42bf8ce109df" CreationDate="2016-11-24T07:27:59.103" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|articles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2061" RevisionGUID="498ca35a-1bc4-4b1f-ba2f-35ade6f5686b" CreationDate="2016-11-24T08:07:02.940" UserId="79" Text="The ablative and genitive of quality (*ablativus qualitatis* and *genetivus qualitatis*) are similar.&#xD;&#xA;One can describe a high mountain as *mons magna altitudine* or *mons magnae altitudinis*.&#xD;&#xA;Is there any difference between ablative and genitive in such use?&#xD;&#xA;Should different cases be used in different situations, or are they completely interchangeacle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might be related to [the difference between the ablative and genitive of price](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1897/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7494" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2061" RevisionGUID="498ca35a-1bc4-4b1f-ba2f-35ade6f5686b" CreationDate="2016-11-24T08:07:02.940" UserId="79" Text="Comparing ablative and genitive of quality" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7495" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2061" RevisionGUID="498ca35a-1bc4-4b1f-ba2f-35ade6f5686b" CreationDate="2016-11-24T08:07:02.940" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|genitive|ablative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2062" RevisionGUID="f346ab27-0c30-4568-9ed9-1860dac1bebf" CreationDate="2016-11-24T16:38:28.837" UserId="1003" Text="What could be the meaning of **hercle** in this context, Please? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Si quis ergo diceret se claram et distinctam hoc est veram ideam substantiæ habere et nihilominus dubitare num talis substantia existat, idem **hercle** esset ac si diceret se veram habere ideam et nihilominus dubitare num falsa sit (ut satis attendenti sit manifestum); (Spinoza's Ethics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Therefore, for a person to say that he has a clear and distinct - that is, a true - idea of a substance, but that he is not sure whether such substance exists, would be the same as if he said that he had a true idea, but was not sure whether or no it was false (a little consideration will make this plain).&quot; (trans. R.H.M. Elwes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it mean something like 'as silly as' (in this context)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7501" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2062" RevisionGUID="f346ab27-0c30-4568-9ed9-1860dac1bebf" CreationDate="2016-11-24T16:38:28.837" UserId="1003" Text="'idem hercle esset' meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7502" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2062" RevisionGUID="f346ab27-0c30-4568-9ed9-1860dac1bebf" CreationDate="2016-11-24T16:38:28.837" UserId="1003" Text="|translation|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2063" RevisionGUID="fa7636e0-f2ff-431a-953c-b68332fddb38" CreationDate="2016-11-24T16:44:04.843" UserId="645" Text="I think that this is largely a question of style, and the appropriateness of such expressions depends also on context. At its simplest, it might be *mons altissimus*: a very high mountain. A strict pedant might well stress that it is in fact the mountain that is large and, if this be judged by height, insist on *magnus mons altitudine*, rather than *mons magnae altitudinis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context is important to word order in this sort of thing. It may be more suitable, for instance, to distinguish between 'a mountain that is very high', *mons altissimus* and 'the highest mountain', *altissimus mons*, discarding all consideration of a complex epithet. This is the kind of thing with which teachers years ago of Latin prose composition used to tease and torture their pupils (I speak here from bitter experience!), though it at least taught them to analyse very carefully exactly what they were trying to express." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2064" RevisionGUID="b5b73d2e-749e-4057-9f21-2b3f1565bd97" CreationDate="2016-11-24T16:51:22.637" UserId="324" Text="&quot;By Hercules!&quot; &quot;Indeed!&quot; - Common in classical and post-classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DHercules" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2065" RevisionGUID="04f57284-5b3c-475f-af58-83f752e34bf9" CreationDate="2016-11-25T09:04:47.383" UserId="79" Text="If a book is easy to write, I might say *liber facilis est scriptu*.&#xD;&#xA;Here the supine ablative *scriptu* is an ablative of respect (*ablativus respectus*).&#xD;&#xA;If I want to be more specific about my writing, I could say *librum stilo scribo* instead of just *librum scribo*.&#xD;&#xA;But can I use an instrument with the supine ablative as well and say *liber facilis est stilo scriptu*?&#xD;&#xA;I do not recall ever seeing such a thing, and it feels a bit weird.&#xD;&#xA;I think it is grammatical, but I want confirmation.&#xD;&#xA;Are there examples of such use in literature or is this discussed in some grammar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7511" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2065" RevisionGUID="04f57284-5b3c-475f-af58-83f752e34bf9" CreationDate="2016-11-25T09:04:47.383" UserId="79" Text="Can I use an instrument with the supine ablative of respect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7512" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2065" RevisionGUID="04f57284-5b3c-475f-af58-83f752e34bf9" CreationDate="2016-11-25T09:04:47.383" UserId="79" Text="|grammar-choice|ablative|ablativus-instrumenti|supinum|ablativus-respectus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7513" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1088" RevisionGUID="cbe7c6d3-da69-478d-b364-047c2639f7d4" CreationDate="2016-11-25T09:18:20.220" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|greek|ablative|accusative|ablativus-respectus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2066" RevisionGUID="eb5bb119-5e5e-434f-ac13-9ef4cfd13863" CreationDate="2016-11-25T09:18:50.300" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7515" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2066" RevisionGUID="eb5bb119-5e5e-434f-ac13-9ef4cfd13863" CreationDate="2016-11-25T09:18:50.300" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2067" RevisionGUID="4ad7fe42-ed61-407f-b53e-0c183ef1e460" CreationDate="2016-11-25T09:18:50.300" UserId="79" Text="For questions about the ablative of respect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7517" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2067" RevisionGUID="4ad7fe42-ed61-407f-b53e-0c183ef1e460" CreationDate="2016-11-25T09:18:50.300" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2068" RevisionGUID="ada0cc85-a585-4fe5-9d98-f4f2fdce3fe4" CreationDate="2016-11-25T12:48:13.490" UserId="324" Text="http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.53:9:58.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ὅ τι (or ὅτι) is combined with a superlative adverb or a superlative adjective to mean “as X as possible”. In both cases it seems that it is never used with a definite article (see the quotations in L/S). In the case of the adverbial usage this makes sense, and the adjectival usage is perhaps by analogy with the former.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2068" RevisionGUID="7b8a4284-db79-4b16-a4bb-7751a8d4eddd" CreationDate="2016-11-25T13:00:18.713" UserId="324" Comment="edited body" Text="http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.53:9:58.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ὅ τι (or ὅτι) is combined with a superlative adverb or a superlative adjective to mean “as X as possible”. In both cases it seems that it is never used with a definite article (see the quotations in LSJ). In the case of the adverbial usage this makes sense, and the adjectival usage is perhaps by analogy with the former.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2069" RevisionGUID="24ffc21f-7b55-48a7-baef-e1c2c31bbb73" CreationDate="2016-11-25T15:10:08.893" UserId="645" Text="To find the singular forms of *vis* is, I believe, fairly rare though perfectly valid. The more prevalent way of 'working round' is to use the plural, usually interpreted as 'strength', etc., though in either a physical or moral sense. The plural is found in all cases — except, of course, the vocative — and any good dictionary will give examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might consider alternatives such as *potestas* and *potentia*, though care is needed to ensure that either is exactly apposite to the case in hand, rather as English speakers must choose precisely between *puissance* and *pouvoir* in French.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder where you found your concrete examples using [*robur*], some of which have unusual syntax; are they, perhaps, your own constructions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2070" RevisionGUID="b79c36e0-99e2-4577-9b0e-def2884ee5a0" CreationDate="2016-11-25T20:28:29.170" UserId="992" Text="what does this sentence mean?can anybody help?thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;omnibus dehiscens offendiculum: &#xD;&#xA;The narrowest road prevent/hinder to all men&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7522" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2070" RevisionGUID="b79c36e0-99e2-4577-9b0e-def2884ee5a0" CreationDate="2016-11-25T20:28:29.170" UserId="992" Text="omnibus dehiscens offendiculum what does this sentence mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7523" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2070" RevisionGUID="b79c36e0-99e2-4577-9b0e-def2884ee5a0" CreationDate="2016-11-25T20:28:29.170" UserId="992" Text="|classical-latin|medieval-latin|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2070" RevisionGUID="c623e02b-7985-45ce-ab9e-e06fe18b55e5" CreationDate="2016-11-25T20:53:08.963" UserId="992" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;This sentence from Baldricus Dolensis (c.1050–1130), Historia Hierosolymitana, what does this sentence mean?can anybody help?thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;omnibus dehiscens offendiculum: &#xD;&#xA;The narrowest road prevent/hinder to all men&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2070" RevisionGUID="4a969808-4368-4fe9-980e-6593e4437358" CreationDate="2016-11-25T20:57:05.350" UserId="992" Comment="deleted 46 characters in body" Text="	&#xD;&#xA;This sentence from Baldricus Dolensis (c.1050–1130), Historia Hierosolymitana, what does this sentence mean?can anybody help?thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;omnibus dehiscens offendiculum: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2070" RevisionGUID="3f0444b1-aa84-44eb-bc7f-0cefccffad0e" CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:01:25.563" UserId="992" Comment="added 303 characters in body" Text="	&#xD;&#xA;This sentence from Baldricus Dolensis (c.1050–1130), Historia Hierosolymitana, what does this sentence mean?can anybody help?thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;omnibus dehiscens offendiculum: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Qui præ nimia tristitia, strictim complosis manibus et stridentes dentibus ingemiscebant. Labebantur equi in immane præcipitium, et trames artissimus pepererat/præparabat ***omnibus dehiscens offendiculum.*** &#xD;&#xA;Multi vel equis, vel clitellariis, cum rebus superpositis, illic amissis, pauperati sunt. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2071" RevisionGUID="183c9a7b-4d59-4014-a969-134fb86d34c4" CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:25:22.630" UserId="79" Text="Let me translate sentence by sentence.&#xD;&#xA;Second opinions (and answers) are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Qui præ nimia tristitia, strictim complosis manibus et stridentes dentibus ingemiscebant.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; They groaned because of too much grief, clapping their hands tightly and creaking their teeth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may or may not be idiomatic English, but I hope the message is clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Labebantur equi in immane præcipitium, et trames artissimus pepererat/præparabat omnibus dehiscens offendiculum.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horses fell down an enormous cliff and the [artissimus?] path created a wide obstacle for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds like a problem at a mountain path.&#xD;&#xA;Horses fall down and a part of the path collapses, leaving a wide gap in the path.&#xD;&#xA;[*Offendiculum*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2040206) means an obstacle, and in this context I think it is more likely to be a hole than a block on the road.&#xD;&#xA;*Dehiscens* is the present participle of [*dehiscere*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2015984), &quot;to open up&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Either the path opens up and produces the obstacle, or the obstacle produced by the path opens up.&#xD;&#xA;I cannot tell for sure whether *dehiscens* modifies *trames* or *offendiculum*.&#xD;&#xA;It does not really make a big difference for translation or interpretation, though.&#xD;&#xA;I could not find the (superlative, I assume) adjective *artissimus* means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Multi vel equis, vel clitellariis, cum rebus superpositis, illic amissis, pauperati sunt.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Many lost horses or pack-saddles and the things on them and were thus impoverished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People's possessions fell down and were lost.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if it means short term possessions like travel gear or long term possessions if they were traveling with all they got.&#xD;&#xA;As with the previous sentences, more context would help me find the most suitable translation, but this level of accuracy might be enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context, I might translate the key phrase *omnibus dehiscens offendiculum* as &quot;a gaping obstacle for everyone&quot; or something in that direction.&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps even &quot;a hole in the path that no one could pass&quot;, depending on how you want to use the translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2070" RevisionGUID="2eda84f1-14ad-42c1-ac89-db7778e316fa" CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:27:53.110" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted." Text="I came across this phrase in *Historia Hierosolymitana* by Baldricus Dolensis (c. 1050&amp;ndash;1130): omnibus dehiscens offendiculum. What does this sentence mean? I would appreciate any help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is more context in case it helps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qui præ nimia tristitia, strictim complosis manibus et stridentes dentibus ingemiscebant. Labebantur equi in immane præcipitium, et trames artissimus pepererat/præparabat ***omnibus dehiscens offendiculum.*** &#xD;&#xA;Multi vel equis, vel clitellariis, cum rebus superpositis, illic amissis, pauperati sunt. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7529" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2070" RevisionGUID="2eda84f1-14ad-42c1-ac89-db7778e316fa" CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:27:53.110" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted." Text="What does &quot;omnibus dehiscens offendiculum&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2071" RevisionGUID="ce55887e-7f6f-4e18-8a4e-39fd2b915f87" CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:33:52.570" UserId="79" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="Let me translate sentence by sentence.&#xD;&#xA;Second opinions (and answers) are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Qui præ nimia tristitia, strictim complosis manibus et stridentes dentibus ingemiscebant.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; They groaned because of too much grief, clapping their hands tightly and creaking their teeth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may or may not be idiomatic English, but I hope the message is clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Labebantur equi in immane præcipitium, et trames artissimus pepererat/præparabat omnibus dehiscens offendiculum.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horses fell down an enormous cliff and the [artissimus?] path created a wide obstacle for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds like a problem at a mountain path.&#xD;&#xA;Horses fall down and a part of the path collapses, leaving a wide gap in the path.&#xD;&#xA;[*Offendiculum*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2040206) means an obstacle, and in this context I think it is more likely to be a hole than a block on the road.&#xD;&#xA;*Dehiscens* is the present participle of [*dehiscere*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2015984), &quot;to open up&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Either the path opens up and produces the obstacle, or the obstacle produced by the path opens up.&#xD;&#xA;I cannot tell for sure whether *dehiscens* modifies *trames* or *offendiculum*.&#xD;&#xA;It does not really make a big difference for translation or interpretation, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could not find the (superlative, I assume) adjective *artissimus* means.&#xD;&#xA;(EDIT:)&#xD;&#xA;I suspect it is *altissimus*, meaning that the path is high up in the mountain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Multi vel equis, vel clitellariis, cum rebus superpositis, illic amissis, pauperati sunt.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Many lost horses or pack-saddles and the things on them and were thus impoverished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People's possessions fell down and were lost.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if it means short term possessions like travel gear or long term possessions if they were traveling with all they got.&#xD;&#xA;As with the previous sentences, more context would help me find the most suitable translation, but this level of accuracy might be enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context, I might translate the key phrase *omnibus dehiscens offendiculum* as &quot;a gaping obstacle for everyone&quot; or something in that direction.&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps even &quot;a hole in the path that no one could pass&quot;, depending on how you want to use the translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2071" RevisionGUID="abdb68f7-83fc-448b-a6fa-c871a10e3747" CreationDate="2016-11-25T21:37:19.133" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 165 characters in body" Text="Let me translate sentence by sentence.&#xD;&#xA;Second opinions (and answers) are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Qui præ nimia tristitia, strictim complosis manibus et stridentes dentibus ingemiscebant.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; They groaned because of too much grief, clapping their hands tightly and creaking their teeth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may or may not be idiomatic English, but I hope the message is clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Labebantur equi in immane præcipitium, et trames artissimus pepererat/præparabat omnibus dehiscens offendiculum.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horses fell down an enormous cliff and the extremely narrow path created a wide obstacle for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds like a problem at a mountain path.&#xD;&#xA;Horses fall down and a part of the path collapses, leaving a wide gap in the path.&#xD;&#xA;[*Offendiculum*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2040206) means an obstacle, and in this context I think it is more likely to be a hole than a block on the road.&#xD;&#xA;*Dehiscens* is the present participle of [*dehiscere*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2015984), &quot;to open up&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Either the path opens up and produces the obstacle, or the obstacle produced by the path opens up.&#xD;&#xA;I cannot tell for sure whether *dehiscens* modifies *trames* or *offendiculum*.&#xD;&#xA;It does not really make a big difference for translation or interpretation, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Multi vel equis, vel clitellariis, cum rebus superpositis, illic amissis, pauperati sunt.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Many lost horses or pack-saddles and the things on them and were thus impoverished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People's possessions fell down and were lost.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if it means short term possessions like travel gear or long term possessions if they were traveling with all they got.&#xD;&#xA;As with the previous sentences, more context would help me find the most suitable translation, but this level of accuracy might be enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context, I might translate the key phrase *omnibus dehiscens offendiculum* as &quot;a gaping obstacle for everyone&quot; or something in that direction.&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps even &quot;a hole in the path that no one could pass&quot;, depending on how you want to use the translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7533" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="1806" RevisionGUID="0fe5a439-32e6-4901-90dd-75211cb19d83" CreationDate="2016-11-26T00:19:27.097" UserId="-1" Comment="Scheduled: RemoveDeadQuestions" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2072" RevisionGUID="61edf490-bd3b-4712-a729-6d1dda5b082c" CreationDate="2016-11-26T04:31:45.010" UserId="1018" Text="Just wondering if there is an accepted opposite of this term, maybe something like 'generalis generis'? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7535" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2072" RevisionGUID="61edf490-bd3b-4712-a729-6d1dda5b082c" CreationDate="2016-11-26T04:31:45.010" UserId="1018" Text="What is the opposite of 'sui generis'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7536" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2072" RevisionGUID="61edf490-bd3b-4712-a729-6d1dda5b082c" CreationDate="2016-11-26T04:31:45.010" UserId="1018" Text="|vocabulary|legal-latin|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2073" RevisionGUID="3ee75a56-4a46-4798-8192-768b1a84f886" CreationDate="2016-11-26T13:32:27.927" UserId="932" Text="While I was reading *La révolution industrielle au Moyen Âge* (*The Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages*) by Jean Gimpel, I’ve read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In the old texts, James of Saint George is called the *machoun*, or sometimes *machinator*, sometimes also *ingeniator*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(p.114 of the French edition)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And later:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The expression *ingeniator* was generally reserved for architects who specialized in building military installations.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(p. 115, *ibid.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Machoun seems to be old French as I’ve found the expression “Mestre Jakes de Seint Jorge le Machoun”.  &#xD;&#xA;Traupman translates *engineer* by *machinator*. It seems that in most languages the term for *engineer* derives from French *ingénieur* which derives from Latin *ingeniator* (En. *engineer*, Ge. *Ingenieur*, Sp. *ingeniero*, It. *ingegnere*…).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you know other Latin words for *engineer*? When possible, providing an history of the use of those words would be perfect.  &#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7538" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2073" RevisionGUID="3ee75a56-4a46-4798-8192-768b1a84f886" CreationDate="2016-11-26T13:32:27.927" UserId="932" Text="Latin words for “engineer”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7539" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2073" RevisionGUID="3ee75a56-4a46-4798-8192-768b1a84f886" CreationDate="2016-11-26T13:32:27.927" UserId="932" Text="|contemporary-latin|medieval-latin|new-latin|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2074" RevisionGUID="4477d713-4d1a-4bc5-872d-e4932a23858b" CreationDate="2016-11-26T14:47:35.970" UserId="986" Text="Besides *machinator*, I found two words for *engineer* in classical Latin that are primarily directed towards the devising of buildings and fortifications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [aedificator](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daedificator) A builder, derived from *aedes* (house, temple)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [munitor](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmunitor) An engineer of fortifications, derived from *moenia* (walls).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An [architectus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Darchitectus), besides being an architect, could also represent someone who actually is making something as a master-builder. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I still think *machinator* covers the meaning of a modern engineer best, because it describes a maker and inventor of machines, for example weaponry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    inventor ac machinator bellicorum tormentorum (Liv. 24, 34)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or stages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    machinatores, qui pegmata per se surgentia excogitant (Sen. Ep. 88, 19)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see in the first example, *inventor* can also be used for someone who invents something physical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2075" RevisionGUID="ff46768a-2b67-4429-bc37-1eaeb5c2d752" CreationDate="2016-11-26T15:07:14.520" UserId="1003" Text="This is taken from Spinoza's Ethics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;notandum est&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Iƒ veram **uniuscujusque** rei definitionem nihil involvere neque exprimere præter rei definitæ naturam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I can see, it is Adjective in Genitive and should mean unique, only one of the kind etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot to find anything in my dictionary except  'unus,a,um' : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it comes from unusquisque, if there exists a word like that? Or perhaps certain words, like  'unus'  and  'quis'  here can be casually written together, without breaking any rules ?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7542" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2075" RevisionGUID="ff46768a-2b67-4429-bc37-1eaeb5c2d752" CreationDate="2016-11-26T15:07:14.520" UserId="1003" Text="What is the Nominative of 'uniuscuiusque'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7543" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2075" RevisionGUID="ff46768a-2b67-4429-bc37-1eaeb5c2d752" CreationDate="2016-11-26T15:07:14.520" UserId="1003" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|new-latin|adjective|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2076" RevisionGUID="e33d6cd7-b143-435e-a3a6-58615bcf3af5" CreationDate="2016-11-26T15:28:53.297" UserId="645" Text="Yes, it's *unusquisque*. Both parts *unus* and *quis* are declined, always in the same case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a compound pronoun meaning 'each single one'. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2077" RevisionGUID="5ed5b437-cbe3-4a71-9b14-f5ff6cde90c1" CreationDate="2016-11-26T16:12:11.703" UserId="79" Text="How to swear in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I am not looking for vocabulary, but syntax.&#xD;&#xA;Did the Romans only swear using interjections, or did could swearing be used within a sentence?&#xD;&#xA;There are several ways to swear in the middle of a sentence to emphasize something:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For X's sake, come already!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Xing door would not open and I spent the whole Xing night outside.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; What the X is wrong with you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Replace X with a suitable word. I hope I need not list examples.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Finnish the syntax is different.&#xD;&#xA;In English you can use &quot;Xing&quot; as an emphasizing particle, but in Finnish it would be &quot;X's&quot; instead.&#xD;&#xA;In these languages these seem to be the prevalent ways to swear within a sentence &amp;mdash; in my experience at least.&#xD;&#xA;The important point is that these two ways are different, so swearing is syntactically different in English and Finnish.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know other languages well enough to comment.&#xD;&#xA;What is the syntax like in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the syntax of swearing in Latin is discussed somewhere, a reference with some examples would make a good answer.&#xD;&#xA;Examples and analysis of swearing are also welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Swearing is typically not considered good style, so written evidence may not remain.&#xD;&#xA;I prefer the classical period, but any Latin era is fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7546" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2077" RevisionGUID="5ed5b437-cbe3-4a71-9b14-f5ff6cde90c1" CreationDate="2016-11-26T16:12:11.703" UserId="79" Text="The syntax of swearing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7547" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2077" RevisionGUID="5ed5b437-cbe3-4a71-9b14-f5ff6cde90c1" CreationDate="2016-11-26T16:12:11.703" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|syntax|resource-request|profanity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2078" RevisionGUID="cb9a4df8-9ea1-4809-8e0a-7a1e5552a5bb" CreationDate="2016-11-26T17:24:11.930" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[ [Wiktionary :](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/impero#Latin) ]   Etymology&#xD;&#xA;  From [in-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in-#Latin-in) +‎ [parō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paro#Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. (with dative) I command, give orders to&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2.  I rule, govern&#xD;&#xA;&gt;         &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3. I demand, impose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because the 3 definitions above matches the meaning that one prepares (i.e. parat) TO or TOWARDS something, should not 'ad'- have been the apter prefix? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do the 3 definitions above match the meaning of preparing IN someone/something? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7549" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2078" RevisionGUID="cb9a4df8-9ea1-4809-8e0a-7a1e5552a5bb" CreationDate="2016-11-26T17:24:11.930" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Why was 'imperō' prefixed with 'in-' and not 'ad-'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7550" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2078" RevisionGUID="cb9a4df8-9ea1-4809-8e0a-7a1e5552a5bb" CreationDate="2016-11-26T17:24:11.930" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="0a86b9f2-7466-4357-966f-2c182998de27" CreationDate="2016-11-26T17:39:52.020" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 153 characters in body" Text="In phrases like, *we wish to be attacked by as few enemies as possible*, ἐθέλομεν προσβάλλεσθαι ὑφ' ὅτι ολιγίστων πολεμίων, is it correct to leave out the definite article after ὅτι? I ask because, in English, it would be grammatically wrong to place a definite article inside the phrase *as few enemies as possible*. The word &quot;few&quot; (ολιγίστων) seems to take the place of the definite article, in the same way that the indefinite adjectives τις and τι would. If the omission is correct, is it due to the οτι construction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2079" RevisionGUID="d95fb17c-19db-4755-88c2-cab6d39ece9f" CreationDate="2016-11-26T17:44:36.730" UserId="645" Text="There is an amusing little book called X-treme Latin, by Henry Beard. It is billed as 'Lingua Latina Extrema, all the Latin you need to know for surviving the 21st century'. It is published in the UK by Headline. If you really want the authentic syntax, this will demonstrate how it ought to be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or if, of course, you want the authentic Roman, you will probably have to restrict yourself to swearing oaths by Jupiter (*pro Iuppiter* or *pro Iove*), Hercules (*mehercule*, *hercle* etc) or by Castor (*ecastor!*) for a woman or Pollux (*edepol!*) for a man; and so on. For expressly bad language, rather than oaths, it's quite legitimate to use an appropriate indecency — though you will, I think, find examples still (in the words of Edward Gibbon, who no doubt came across a few while writing his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire) 'cloaked in the decency of a learned language' without a translation to your vernacular." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2079" RevisionGUID="453f2a33-6a12-4e50-8192-6a07a595651d" CreationDate="2016-11-26T18:15:41.860" UserId="932" Comment="google books link" Text="There is an amusing little book called [X-treme Latin][1], by Henry Beard. It is billed as 'Lingua Latina Extrema, all the Latin you need to know for surviving the 21st century'. It is published in the UK by Headline. If you really want the authentic syntax, this will demonstrate how it ought to be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or if, of course, you want the authentic Roman, you will probably have to restrict yourself to swearing oaths by Jupiter (*pro Iuppiter* or *pro Iove*), Hercules (*mehercule*, *hercle* etc) or by Castor (*ecastor!*) for a woman or Pollux (*edepol!*) for a man; and so on. For expressly bad language, rather than oaths, it's quite legitimate to use an appropriate indecency — though you will, I think, find examples still (in the words of Edward Gibbon, who no doubt came across a few while writing his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire) 'cloaked in the decency of a learned language' without a translation to your vernacular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=v-5BPbPfzBAC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7554" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2079" RevisionGUID="453f2a33-6a12-4e50-8192-6a07a595651d" CreationDate="2016-11-26T18:15:41.860" Comment="Proposed by 932 approved by 79 edit id of 149" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="67b749c4-fc73-4046-bfe6-d43d6755a937" CreationDate="2016-11-26T20:31:11.383" UserId="235" Comment="edited body" Text="In phrases like, *we wish to be attacked by as few enemies as possible*, ἐθέλομεν προσβάλλεσθαι ὑφ' ὅτι ὀλιγίστων πολεμίων, is it correct to leave out the definite article after ὅτι? I ask because, in English, it would be grammatically wrong to place a definite article inside the phrase *as few enemies as possible*. The word &quot;few&quot; (ὀλιγίστων) seems to take the place of the definite article, in the same way that the indefinite adjectives τις and τι would. If the omission is correct, is it due to the οτι construction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2078" RevisionGUID="07160c10-2b52-4d94-8b7c-a666bbf99a57" CreationDate="2016-11-26T20:36:10.840" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags and slightly reformatted." Text="&gt;[ [Wiktionary:](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/impero#Latin) ]   Etymology&#xD;&#xA;  From [in-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in-#Latin-in) +‎ [parō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paro#Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. (with dative) I command, give orders to&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.  I rule, govern&#xD;&#xA;&gt;         &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. I demand, impose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because the 3 definitions above matches the meaning that one prepares (i.e. parat) TO or TOWARDS something, should not 'ad'- have been the apter prefix? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do the 3 definitions above match the meaning of preparing IN someone/something? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7557" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2078" RevisionGUID="07160c10-2b52-4d94-8b7c-a666bbf99a57" CreationDate="2016-11-26T20:36:10.840" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags and slightly reformatted." Text="|vocabulary|etymology|prefix|compound-verb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="1f6546dd-cfad-4e77-bc6c-ee1af9e9a52f" CreationDate="2016-11-27T08:19:36.920" UserId="235" Comment="edited body" Text="In phrases like, *we wish to be attacked by as few enemies as possible*, ἐθέλομεν προσβάλλεσθαι ὑφ' ὅτι ὀλιγίστων πολεμίων, is it correct to leave out the definite article after ὅτι? I ask because, in English, it would be grammatically wrong to place a definite article inside the phrase *as few enemies as possible*. The word &quot;few&quot; (ὀλιγίστων) seems to take the place of the definite article, in the same way that the indefinite adjectives τις and τι would. If the omission is correct, is it due to the ὅτι construction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7561" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="1f6546dd-cfad-4e77-bc6c-ee1af9e9a52f" CreationDate="2016-11-27T08:19:36.920" UserId="235" Comment="edited body" Text="Should the Greek definite article be omitted in a ὅτι phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2080" RevisionGUID="b63a8e6e-6d36-44f5-bdf2-11205665328a" CreationDate="2016-11-27T11:14:59.537" UserId="79" Text="Latin mottos have been popular in Europe for centuries, but I have never seen anything comparable to a motto from the Roman era.&#xD;&#xA;**When did first Latin mottos appear?**&#xD;&#xA;(Examples of individual early mottos make nice partial answers, if you have such.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer depends on what one means by a motto.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *candida pro causa ense candido* is a motto but *senatus populusque Romanus* is not.&#xD;&#xA;I like the definition given in [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motto):&#xD;&#xA;A motto (derived from the Latin *muttum*, 'mutter', by way of Italian *motto*, 'word', 'sentence') is a maxim, a phrase meant to formally summarize the general motivation or intention of an individual, family, social group or organization." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7563" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2080" RevisionGUID="b63a8e6e-6d36-44f5-bdf2-11205665328a" CreationDate="2016-11-27T11:14:59.537" UserId="79" Text="When did Latin mottos first appear?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7564" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2080" RevisionGUID="b63a8e6e-6d36-44f5-bdf2-11205665328a" CreationDate="2016-11-27T11:14:59.537" UserId="79" Text="|language-evolution|history|phrase-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2081" RevisionGUID="5153f804-6500-4d74-9c74-1386510eeb28" CreationDate="2016-11-27T12:43:47.583" UserId="828" Text="The cases are derived from the parts (and meaning) of the word, not vice versa. Furthermore &quot;impero&quot; can have accusative-like component as well, referring to what is being commanded, albeit this is typically a verb. So to distinguish, the target of the command is probably considered the &quot;beneficiary&quot; of the verb, hence dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to why it is *im-* + *parare* that evolved into the meaning of commanding (and not *ad-* or something else), I can only say that historical semantics is pretty goofy sometimes and we have plenty of similar strange examples in Czech. The metaphor probably comes from some *parare* meaning primarily &quot;prepare&quot;, but also by extension &quot;arrange&quot;, &quot;contrive&quot; etc. *Im-parare* may have originated putting this purpose to do something into somebody." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2082" RevisionGUID="0a311279-88c1-41bf-8dd3-93122f1a1cbd" CreationDate="2016-11-27T13:04:16.903" UserId="828" Text="In Czech, we have the word &quot;ještě&quot; with the same two primary meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) (not) yet (ještě tu není - il n'est pas encore ici - he is still&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not here)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) again (ještě jednou - encore une fois - one more time)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3) even more (je ještě větší - il est encore plus grand - he is even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; taller)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The underlying meaning is some sort of continuation - &quot;he is still not here&quot; means that the condition of the person not being here continues. &quot;one more time&quot; also implies continuing what happened. &quot;Even more&quot; again continues some sort of a scale or progression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually English &quot;yet&quot; has fairly similar meanings too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) He has not come yet.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) The workers went to the factory early and are striking yet.‎&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3) K-2 is yet higher than this.‎&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course not all of these meanings were likely to be present in the original hinc-ad-horam, however it is unlikely there was no word with similar meaning in late Latin / early French (something from latin *usque* come to mind, preserved in French *jusque* &lt; *inde usque*), with which the new formation become synonymous and whose other meanings it might have easily adopted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2082" RevisionGUID="72631c43-b3aa-4dc5-bfa5-5bd2bcca1031" CreationDate="2016-11-27T13:12:50.257" UserId="828" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="In Czech, we have the word &quot;ještě&quot; with the same two primary meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) (not) yet (ještě tu není - il n'est pas encore ici - he is still&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not here)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) again (ještě jednou - encore une fois - one more time)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3) even more (je ještě větší - il est encore plus grand - he is even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; taller)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The underlying meaning is some sort of continuation - &quot;he is still not here&quot; means that the condition of the person not being here continues. &quot;one more time&quot; also implies continuing what happened. &quot;Even more&quot; again continues some sort of a scale or progression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually English &quot;yet&quot; has fairly similar meanings too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) He has not come yet.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) The workers went to the factory early and are striking yet.‎&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3) K-2 is yet higher than this.‎&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course not all of these meanings were likely to be present in the original hinc-ad-horam, however it is unlikely there was no word with similar meaning in late Latin / early French (something from Latin, e.g. *usque* comes to mind, preserved in French *jusque* &lt; *inde usque* - btw. also a cognate of Czech *ještě*), with which the new formation become synonymous and whose other meanings it might have easily adopted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2082" RevisionGUID="5553dcf6-a854-4332-bde1-e1db1b2b7043" CreationDate="2016-11-27T15:41:21.960" UserId="828" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In Czech, we have the word &quot;ještě&quot; with the same three primary meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) (not) yet (ještě tu není - il n'est pas encore ici - he is still&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not here)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) again (ještě jednou - encore une fois - one more time)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3) even more (je ještě větší - il est encore plus grand - he is even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; taller)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The underlying meaning is some sort of continuation - &quot;he is still not here&quot; means that the condition of the person not being here continues. &quot;one more time&quot; also implies continuing what happened. &quot;Even more&quot; again continues some sort of a scale or progression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually English &quot;yet&quot; has fairly similar meanings too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) He has not come yet.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) The workers went to the factory early and are striking yet.‎&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3) K-2 is yet higher than this.‎&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course not all of these meanings were likely to be present in the original hinc-ad-horam, however it is unlikely there was no word with similar meaning in late Latin / early French (something from Latin, e.g. *usque* comes to mind, preserved in French *jusque* &lt; *inde usque* - btw. also a cognate of Czech *ještě*), with which the new formation become synonymous and whose other meanings it might have easily adopted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2081" RevisionGUID="7ae7c25a-d19c-4fc4-9e82-74cbdd922620" CreationDate="2016-11-27T20:48:22.940" UserId="136" Comment="minor grammar fix, deleted word &quot;some&quot; before parare in second paragraph 3rd line" Text="The cases are derived from the parts (and meaning) of the word, not vice versa. Furthermore &quot;impero&quot; can have accusative-like component as well, referring to what is being commanded, albeit this is typically a verb. So to distinguish, the target of the command is probably considered the &quot;beneficiary&quot; of the verb, hence dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to why it is *im-* + *parare* that evolved into the meaning of commanding (and not *ad-* or something else), I can only say that historical semantics are pretty goofy sometimes and we have plenty of similar strange examples in Czech. The metaphor probably comes from *parare* meaning primarily &quot;prepare&quot;, but also by extension &quot;arrange&quot;, &quot;contrive&quot; etc. *Im-parare* may have originated putting this purpose to do something into somebody." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7570" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2081" RevisionGUID="7ae7c25a-d19c-4fc4-9e82-74cbdd922620" CreationDate="2016-11-27T20:48:22.940" Comment="Proposed by 136 approved by 828 edit id of 150" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7571" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="2083" RevisionGUID="cdc4a548-bcc1-4f19-aa7f-577ebb59bfb3" CreationDate="2016-11-27T23:29:05.013" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/20322/how-did-the-romans-pronounce-roman-numerals" />
  <row Id="7572" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="2084" RevisionGUID="8c9b976f-f393-4788-9ec3-e21bcb0fe0a6" CreationDate="2016-11-27T23:29:05.013" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/20322/how-did-the-romans-pronounce-roman-numerals/20324#20324" />
  <row Id="7573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2084" RevisionGUID="fc4f1236-30a2-4da3-9950-d7289e62b011" CreationDate="2016-11-26T11:52:30.480" UserDisplayName="Luís Henrique" Text="43 in Latin is *quadraginta et tres*. There is no relation between the names of numbers and the numeric notation system, in which it would be XLIII. The closest thing to what you seem to be imagining is that they called 19 *undeviginti*, &quot;one from twenty&quot;. But then they called 18 *duodeviginti*. &quot;two from twenty&quot;, even though they didn't write it IIXX.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary for Roman numerals][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_cardinal_numerals" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2083" RevisionGUID="38492d8a-77c8-4c6f-95ae-ff7b920612e7" CreationDate="2016-11-26T02:40:54.463" UserId="1024" UserDisplayName="Silhalnor" Text="As I understand it, their notation (subtractive notation?) is quite hard and/or tedious to work with even for its natives. In fact, many numbers are *themselves* math problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did they speak of their arcane numerology to one another? They presumably did not speak in positional notation—if math truly is easier that way—or else they'd have adopted it in writing as well. Further, they surely did not simply speak the symbols aloud one at a time. *We* do not pronounce &quot;1300&quot; as &quot;one, three, zero, zero.&quot; Instead, we say &quot;one-thousand and three-hundred.&quot; Or alternatively, &quot;thirteen-hundred.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how did Romans pronounce, say, the number 43? Surely it was not some equivalent to &quot;ten, ten, one, one, one, fifty&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7575" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2083" RevisionGUID="38492d8a-77c8-4c6f-95ae-ff7b920612e7" CreationDate="2016-11-26T02:40:54.463" UserId="1024" UserDisplayName="Silhalnor" Text="How did the Romans pronounce roman numerals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7576" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2083" RevisionGUID="38492d8a-77c8-4c6f-95ae-ff7b920612e7" CreationDate="2016-11-26T02:40:54.463" UserId="1024" UserDisplayName="Silhalnor" Text="|pronunciation|numbers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2083" RevisionGUID="46b30a84-5a81-4d37-8190-4951a60a39ac" CreationDate="2016-11-28T06:35:20.910" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="As I understand it, their notation (subtractive notation?) is quite hard and tedious to work with even for its natives. In fact, many numbers are *themselves* math problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did they speak of their arcane numerology to one another? They presumably did not speak in positional notation—if math truly is easier that way—or else they'd have adopted it in writing as well. Further, they surely did not simply speak the symbols aloud one at a time. *We* do not pronounce &quot;1300&quot; as &quot;one, three, zero, zero.&quot; Instead, we say &quot;one-thousand and three-hundred.&quot; Or alternatively, &quot;thirteen-hundred.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how did Romans pronounce, say, the number 43? Surely it was not some equivalent to &quot;ten, ten, one, one, one, fifty&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7578" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2083" RevisionGUID="46b30a84-5a81-4d37-8190-4951a60a39ac" CreationDate="2016-11-28T06:35:20.910" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|numbers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2085" RevisionGUID="23257f94-8ad2-41fa-80d8-0605d789b526" CreationDate="2016-11-28T07:09:05.850" UserId="79" Text="As pointed out a comment by Eleshar, the Roman numeral system is more flexible than many sources let you believe.&#xD;&#xA;However, the rigid system usually taught in schools actually **does** have positional notation of sorts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, 43 is XLIII, or 40+3 is XL+III.&#xD;&#xA;The decimal in the first position is fully expressed before moving to the next one.&#xD;&#xA;For example, 1994 = 1000+900+90+4 = M+CM+XC+IV = MCMXCIV.&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, this is not fully positional notation since a varying number of symbols (from zero to three) is used to express each decimal.&#xD;&#xA;However, after playing with Roman numerals for a while you will learn to recognize quickly where the decimal changes.&#xD;&#xA;In reality the Romans used many variants, and not all of them had this positional property.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Roman **words for numbers** were no less sophisticated than the modern English ones.&#xD;&#xA;Actually quite the opposite; Latin had (and still has!) four kinds of numerals for different uses whereas English has two or three.&#xD;&#xA;For number one, the words are *unus*, *primus*, *semel*, and *singuli*.&#xD;&#xA;In English these are &quot;one&quot;, &quot;first&quot;, &quot;once&quot; and &quot;one at a time&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(Not all numbers have the third version in English; you have to say &quot;ten times&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;Observe also that the Roman numeral words do follow the decimal system.&#xD;&#xA;Roman oral numerals were hardly &quot;arcane numerology&quot; &amp;mdash; or if they were, so are the English ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Roman **symbols for numbers** were clumsier than our modern ones, but they have little to do with how the numbers were pronounced.&#xD;&#xA;It is worth observing that the Romans did not have separate symbols for numbers like we do, but they used letters from their alphabet.&#xD;&#xA;(For large numbers they used some additional symbols, but let me not digress.)&#xD;&#xA;Had they had separate symbols, I believe they would have come up with a simpler system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2085" RevisionGUID="96be74db-05e5-4d63-a73e-3eb205a1acfb" CreationDate="2016-11-28T15:41:19.050" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="As Eleshar pointed out in a comment, the Roman numeral system is more flexible than many sources let you believe.&#xD;&#xA;However, the rigid system usually taught in schools actually **does** have a kind of positional notation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, 43 is XLIII, or 40+3 is XL+III.&#xD;&#xA;The decimal in the first position is fully expressed before moving to the next one.&#xD;&#xA;For example, 1994 = 1000+900+90+4 = M+CM+XC+IV = MCMXCIV.&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, this is not fully positional notation since a varying number of symbols (from zero to three) is used to express each decimal.&#xD;&#xA;However, after playing with Roman numerals for a while you will learn to recognize quickly where the decimal changes.&#xD;&#xA;In reality the Romans used many variants, and not all of them had this positional property.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Roman **words for numbers** were no less sophisticated than the modern English ones.&#xD;&#xA;Actually quite the opposite; Latin had (and still has!) four kinds of numerals for different uses whereas English has two or three.&#xD;&#xA;For number one, the words are *unus*, *primus*, *semel*, and *singuli*.&#xD;&#xA;In English these are &quot;one&quot;, &quot;first&quot;, &quot;once&quot; and &quot;one at a time&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(Not all numbers have the third version in English; you have to say &quot;ten times&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;Observe also that the Roman numeral words do follow the decimal system.&#xD;&#xA;Roman oral numerals were hardly &quot;arcane numerology&quot; &amp;mdash; or if they were, so are the English ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Roman **symbols for numbers** were clumsier than our modern ones, but they have little to do with how the numbers were pronounced.&#xD;&#xA;It is worth observing that the Romans did not have separate symbols for numbers like we do, but they used letters from their alphabet.&#xD;&#xA;(For large numbers they used some additional symbols, but let me not digress.)&#xD;&#xA;Had they had separate symbols, I believe they would have come up with a simpler system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2086" RevisionGUID="ffe21658-afbd-40fa-bd72-01919c8d8796" CreationDate="2016-11-28T17:59:21.527" UserId="522" Text="*Greek influence:*  &#xD;&#xA;**Ars longa: Vita brevis;** 'Life so short: the craft so long to learn.' modernised from Chaucer's English, is a Latin translation from Hippocrates: and two other Greek mottos are widely known: 'Know thyself;' and 'Not too much.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was only one genuine Aesop's fable: &quot;A dumb slave was accused of eating expensive food,a gift to his owner. He vomited into a bucket; and without words proved his innocence.&quot; But there were many 'Aesop's fables' (right up to Lafontaine's French version) and they all traditionally ended with a motto.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Latin originals:*  &#xD;&#xA;**Carpe diem** certainly became a motto: 'Grab your opportunity.' Whether Horace (Odes 1,2,8) thought of it as a motto, or, if not, when it became a motto, who knows?  &#xD;&#xA;The same applies to the many other quotations from The Odes, and Satires; Petit Larousse has a good collection in the pink pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fugit irreparabile tempus** is Virgil, Georgics. 'Time flies and cannot be recovered,'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2086" RevisionGUID="2a3049a6-3822-487b-be60-9281257f5d53" CreationDate="2016-11-28T18:12:54.097" UserId="522" Comment="aded Cato example" Text="*Greek influence:*  &#xD;&#xA;**Ars longa: Vita brevis;** 'Life so short: the craft so long to learn.' modernised from Chaucer's English, is a Latin translation from Hippocrates: and two other Greek mottos are widely known: 'Know thyself;' and 'Not too much.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was only one genuine Aesop's fable: &quot;A dumb slave was accused of eating expensive food,a gift to his owner. He vomited into a bucket; and without words proved his innocence.&quot; But there were many 'Aesop's fables' (right up to Lafontaine's French version) and they all traditionally ended with a motto.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Latin originals:*  &#xD;&#xA;**Carpe diem** certainly became a motto: 'Grab your opportunity.' Whether Horace (Odes 1,2,8) thought of it as a motto, or, if not, when it became a motto, who knows?  &#xD;&#xA;The same applies to the many other quotations from The Odes, and Satires; Petit Larousse has a good collection in the pink pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fugit irreparabile tempus** is Virgil, Georgics. 'Time flies and cannot be recovered,'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Delenda est Carthago,** 'Carthage must be destroyed' was deliberately used as a motto, *une ide'e fixe,* added to every sort of debate in the Senate, by the elder Cato according to Florus (Hist Rom 2.13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2080" RevisionGUID="f2910716-efe8-432c-97fc-f23d05209ad7" CreationDate="2016-11-28T19:53:28.780" UserId="79" Comment="added 417 characters in body; edited title" Text="Latin mottos have been popular in Europe for centuries, but I have never seen anything comparable to a motto from the Roman era.&#xD;&#xA;**When did first Latin mottos appear?**&#xD;&#xA;(Examples of individual early mottos make nice partial answers, if you have such.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer depends on what one means by a motto.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *candida pro causa ense candido* is a motto but *senatus populusque Romanus* is not.&#xD;&#xA;I like the definition given in [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motto):&#xD;&#xA;A motto (derived from the Latin *muttum*, 'mutter', by way of Italian *motto*, 'word', 'sentence') is a maxim, a phrase meant to formally summarize the general motivation or intention of an individual, family, social group or organization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An insightful quote is not necessarily a motto.&#xD;&#xA;A phrase becomes a motto when some person or institution adopts it as their motto.&#xD;&#xA;To describe a motto well, one needs to give the motto itself and tell whose motto it is.&#xD;&#xA;My example motto above was from C. G. E. Mannerheim, but I resist the urge to go into Finnish history for details.&#xD;&#xA;I could rephrase the question:&#xD;&#xA;When did someone first take a Latin motto?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7587" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2080" RevisionGUID="f2910716-efe8-432c-97fc-f23d05209ad7" CreationDate="2016-11-28T19:53:28.780" UserId="79" Comment="added 417 characters in body; edited title" Text="When did Latin mottoes first appear?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2087" RevisionGUID="d1cdd530-de10-4532-8d77-4ef24feebdae" CreationDate="2016-11-28T20:15:49.737" UserId="79" Text="I know several ways to derive nouns from adjectives:&#xD;&#xA;*audax &gt; audacia*,&#xD;&#xA;*laetus &gt; laetitia*,&#xD;&#xA;*pius &gt; pietas*,&#xD;&#xA;*magnus &gt; magnitudo*.&#xD;&#xA;Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Are there any rules that govern which one of *-ia*, *-itia*, *-tas* and *-tudo* to pick?**&#xD;&#xA;- If it is somewhat random, are there some tendencies or rules of thumb?&#xD;&#xA;- Are several options possible in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;- Are there classes of adjectives that systematically use some kind of derivative?&#xD;&#xA;(It seems that the present participle uses *-ia* exclusively, but I know no other examples.)&#xD;&#xA;- Are there some restrictions?&#xD;&#xA;(For example: some kind of adjective can never take *-tas*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am under the impression that there is no difference in meaning between *-ia*, *-itia*, *-tas* and *-tudo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example problem to illustrate what I am after:&#xD;&#xA;I could start from the adjective *iucundus* and form *iucundia*, *iucunditia*, *iucunditas* and *iucunditudo*.&#xD;&#xA;The only attested one, as far as I know, is *iucunditas*.&#xD;&#xA;Why this and not one of the others?&#xD;&#xA;(My question is not about *iucundus*, but about rules that would help in situations like this.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7589" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2087" RevisionGUID="d1cdd530-de10-4532-8d77-4ef24feebdae" CreationDate="2016-11-28T20:15:49.737" UserId="79" Text="How to derive nouns from adjectives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7590" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2087" RevisionGUID="d1cdd530-de10-4532-8d77-4ef24feebdae" CreationDate="2016-11-28T20:15:49.737" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|adjective|derivation|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2083" RevisionGUID="2cb4eb4e-a650-4819-bca1-cbe90eb2d363" CreationDate="2016-11-28T20:56:03.833" UserId="1024" Comment="Corrected Typo: An extra '10' at the end." Text="As I understand it, their notation (subtractive notation?) is quite hard and tedious to work with even for its natives. In fact, many numbers are *themselves* math problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did they speak of their arcane numerology to one another? They presumably did not speak in positional notation—if math truly is easier that way—or else they'd have adopted it in writing as well. Further, they surely did not simply speak the symbols aloud one at a time. *We* do not pronounce &quot;1300&quot; as &quot;one, three, zero, zero.&quot; Instead, we say &quot;one-thousand and three-hundred.&quot; Or alternatively, &quot;thirteen-hundred.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how did Romans pronounce, say, the number 43? Surely it was not some equivalent to &quot;ten, one, one, one, fifty&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2088" RevisionGUID="111cfe4d-d888-4858-ad34-58ebcc3c4088" CreationDate="2016-11-28T22:19:58.773" UserId="235" Text="I'm having a hard time translating this phrase from Caesar's *De Bello Gallico*. I understand, from doing a bit of research, that *probat illis* introduces indirect speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perfacile factu esse illis probat conata perficere, propterea quod ipse suae civitatis imperium obtenturus esset: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (De Bello Gallico, Book I, Chapter III, Section V)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I have, &quot;he proved to them that completing these efforts was done very easily&quot;. But why is *factu* in its peculiar form? I would expect a past participle, *factum*, which would agree with the case, gender and number of the infinitive *perficere*. I don't understand the *-u* ending of *factu*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7593" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2088" RevisionGUID="111cfe4d-d888-4858-ad34-58ebcc3c4088" CreationDate="2016-11-28T22:19:58.773" UserId="235" Text="How to translate the phrase &quot;perfacile factu esse&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7594" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2088" RevisionGUID="111cfe4d-d888-4858-ad34-58ebcc3c4088" CreationDate="2016-11-28T22:19:58.773" UserId="235" Text="|conjugation|participle|gaius-iulius-caesar|bellum-gallicum|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7595" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2088" RevisionGUID="51a9b19e-f530-4c74-b00e-ec2b2c93505f" CreationDate="2016-11-28T22:26:09.633" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|conjugation|grammar-identification|participle|gaius-iulius-caesar|bellum-gallicum|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2089" RevisionGUID="261852dd-e6ad-4acd-b778-d33467a45b56" CreationDate="2016-11-28T22:28:03.153" UserId="78" Text="There are several options indeed (more than you listed!), and there are some basic rules, although you'll almost always find exceptions. Common usage changes, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of this can be found under [Gildersleeve §181](https://archive.org/stream/gildersleeveslat00gilduoft#page/124/mode/2up) or [Allen &amp; Greenough §238–241](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-181.html). Indeed, it's so large of a topic that it makes little sense to spell it all out here, especially when there are many exceptions. We have full doublets with zero difference in meaning, such as *duritia* and *durities*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of observations, though. *-tudo* sounded archaic, was an early abstract ending, and eventually disappeared before it hit Italian (with few exceptions).**[1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Present participles take *-ntia*, though as M. A. Stewart mentions, it &quot;never expresses the motion or action of a material object...but mental action, or a quality, condition, or state.&quot; He gives the example of *venio*: we never see *venientia*, but rather *ventio*. This makes the *-tio* slightly more concrete than *-tia*.**[2]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*-tura*, missing from your list, was for technical abstract nouns, like *architectura* or *sciptura*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter word actually might be a good point to illustrate the differences. We have *scriptio*, *scriptus* (4th decl. noun), and *scriptura*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *scriptio* can refer to writing, to the art of writing, or to something that was written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *scriptus* refers to one who writes (i.e. a scribe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. *scriptura* refers to a composition, and from it official documents that were written down (which is how we've come to categorize the Bible as &quot;scripture&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=6cTRAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA130&#xD;&#xA;   [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=6cTRAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA135" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2090" RevisionGUID="6d0658db-33ae-423b-9fa4-e42493711b91" CreationDate="2016-11-28T22:31:32.587" UserId="78" Text="*Perfacile factu* is a set phrase meaning &quot;easy to do.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rearranging it to meet English syntax we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Probat illis perficere conata esse perfacile factu.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;He proves to them that to complete these efforts is easy to do.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2091" RevisionGUID="76640477-ef81-4ce7-ad54-27f1434d371d" CreationDate="2016-11-28T22:37:09.110" UserId="79" Text="Your translation &quot;he proved to them that completing these efforts was done very easily&quot; is good.&#xD;&#xA;To express such things in Latin the supine is a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;The supine ablative (like *factu*) is an ablative of respect.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*Hoc responsum facile est scriptu.*  &#xD;&#xA;= This answer is easy with respect to writing.  &#xD;&#xA;= This answer is easy to write." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2090" RevisionGUID="057cab72-80cf-434d-a15e-0039b58a4b64" CreationDate="2016-11-28T22:37:30.600" UserId="78" Comment="added 309 characters in body" Text="*Perfacile factu* means &quot;easy to do.&quot; *Factu* is a supine, and this construction—supines coming off of an adjective—is pretty much where you will always see its ablative form. Other common examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Mirabile dictu*, &quot;Amazing to say&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;* *Difficilis latu*, &quot;Difficult to bear&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;* *Optimum factu*, &quot;Best [thing] to do;&#xD;&#xA;* *Nefas dictu*, &quot;Unlawful to say&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, rearranging the sentence to meet English syntax we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Probat illis perficere conata esse perfacile factu.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;He proves to them that to complete these efforts is easy to do.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2091" RevisionGUID="6d7e3b70-066f-409f-83c0-8406fbbc9b95" CreationDate="2016-11-28T22:42:26.337" UserId="79" Comment="added 480 characters in body" Text="Your translation &quot;he proved to them that completing these efforts was done very easily&quot; is good.&#xD;&#xA;To express such things in Latin the supine is a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;The supine ablative (like *factu*) is an ablative of respect.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*Hoc responsum facile est scriptu.*  &#xD;&#xA;= This answer is easy with respect to writing.  &#xD;&#xA;= This answer is easy to write.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If something (this answer) has a property (easy) regarding the action of some verb (to write), the usual Latin choice is to use an adjective with the supine ablative.&#xD;&#xA;In your example, if I drop the ACI structure, we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*Perficere perfacile est factu*.  &#xD;&#xA;= Completing is easy with respect to doing.  &#xD;&#xA;= It is easy to complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially *perfacile factu* means &quot;easy to do&quot;, but it is better to understand the structure than to learn it as an isolated phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2091" RevisionGUID="1d8d5e5f-ebca-4e78-a9c9-37633f3ba1bf" CreationDate="2016-11-28T22:50:34.340" UserId="79" Comment="added 487 characters in body" Text="Your translation &quot;he proved to them that completing these efforts was done very easily&quot; is good.&#xD;&#xA;To express such things in Latin the supine is a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;The supine ablative (like *factu*) is an ablative of respect.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*Hoc responsum facile est scriptu.*  &#xD;&#xA;= This answer is easy with respect to writing.  &#xD;&#xA;= This answer is easy to write.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If something (this answer) has a property (easy) regarding the action of some verb (to write), the usual Latin choice is to use an adjective with the supine ablative.&#xD;&#xA;In your example, if I drop the ACI structure, we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*Perficere perfacile est factu*.  &#xD;&#xA;= Completing is easy with respect to doing.  &#xD;&#xA;= It is easy to complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially *perfacile factu* means &quot;easy to do&quot;, but it is better to understand the structure than to learn it as an isolated phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the supine is not the same thing as the (passive) perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;The participle has first and second declension endings, whereas the supine is fourth declension.&#xD;&#xA;The supine is formed from the same stem &amp;mdash; at least a stem that looks exactly the same &amp;mdash; as the participle, and it is important to be able to distinguish between the two.&#xD;&#xA;For the ablative it is easy, but the supine accusative looks exactly like a participle.&#xD;&#xA;The supine has no other cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2089" RevisionGUID="99d8e87b-c6ca-402e-8024-539a341b8cb0" CreationDate="2016-11-28T23:13:31.730" UserId="78" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="There are several options indeed (more than you listed!), and there are some basic rules, although you'll almost always find exceptions. Common usage changes, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of this can be found under [Gildersleeve §181](https://archive.org/stream/gildersleeveslat00gilduoft#page/124/mode/2up) or [Allen &amp; Greenough §238–241](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-181.html). Indeed, it's so large of a topic that it makes little sense to spell it all out here, especially when there are many exceptions. We have full doublets with zero difference in meaning, such as *duritia* and *durities*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of observations, though. *-tudo* sounded archaic, was an early abstract ending, and eventually disappeared before it hit Italian (with few exceptions).**[1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Present participles take *-ntia*, though as M. A. Stewart mentions, it &quot;never expresses the motion or action of a material object...but mental action, or a quality, condition, or state.&quot; He gives the example of *venio*: we never see *venientia*, but rather *ventio*. This makes the *-tio* slightly more concrete than *-tia*.**[2]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*-tura*, missing from your list, was for technical abstract nouns, like *architectura* or *sciptura*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter word actually might be a good point to illustrate the differences. We have *scriptio*, *scriptus* (4th decl. noun), and *scriptura*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *scriptio* can refer to writing, to the art of writing, or to something that was written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *scriptus* refers to the office of one who writes (i.e. a scribe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. *scriptura* refers to a composition, and from it official documents that were written down (which is how we've come to categorize the Bible as &quot;scripture&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=6cTRAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA130&#xD;&#xA;   [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=6cTRAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA135" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1792" RevisionGUID="57570d15-210c-4a6c-8ba0-38532b4550ee" CreationDate="2016-11-29T03:54:59.470" UserId="78" Comment="Typo: should be *papa* and not *pappa*" Text="I was reading a text from Hans H. Øberg, and I saw in the text the following sentences: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Noli dicere 'tatam' et 'mammam', Iuliola! Ea nomina a te audire nolumus. Ita loquuntur parvuli infantes, nec sermo infantium te decet. 'Patrem' et 'matrem' dicere oportet!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those sentences told me that 'tata' was the definition of 'father'. But didn't Roman children call their father ''papa'? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, why did they say tata instead of papa?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no, where does the name 'papa' come from?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2092" RevisionGUID="652ab499-75c6-4094-ab62-f268d86714ce" CreationDate="2016-11-29T04:01:14.077" UserId="78" Text="Yes, children *did* call their fathers *papa*, though it was not as common as *tata* was, at least we think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both names are inherited from Indo-European [as you can see](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/papa) and are even present in English: cf. paw or papa (also the origin of grampa) and dad or daddy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Etymonline](http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=papa), though, says that in English *papa* comes via French:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **papa** n. &quot;father,&quot; 1680s, from French *papa*, from Latin *papa*, originally a child's word, similar to Greek *pappa* (vocative) &quot;o father,&quot; *pappas* &quot;father,&quot; *pappos* &quot;grandfather.&quot; The native word is *daddy*; first use of papa was in courtly speech, as a continental affectation, not used by common folk until late 18c.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For completeness' sake:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **dad** n. recorded from c. 1500, but probably much older, from child's speech, nearly universal and probably prehistoric (compare Welsh *tad*, Irish *daid*, Czech, Latin, Greek *tata*, Lithuanian *tete*, Sanskrit *tatah*, all of the same meaning)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7605" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1162" RevisionGUID="8c1d0047-5185-4a07-8caf-b2798b67d8cc" CreationDate="2016-11-29T04:02:23.717" UserId="78" Comment="tags" Text="|translation|etymology|italian|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2093" RevisionGUID="6cce1e44-7770-43ce-a4ab-846ee96a6fb7" CreationDate="2016-11-29T04:13:45.420" UserId="78" Text="For playing a musical instrument, Latin uses *ludere*. See II. under Lewis and Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. Trop.&#xD;&#xA;A. *To sport, play with any thing, to practise as a pastime, amuse one's self with* anything: “illa ipsa ludens conjeci in communes locos, Cic. Par. prooem.: Prima Syracosio dignata est ludere versu Nostra ... Thalia,” Verg. E. 6, 1.—Esp., to play on an instrument of music, *to make* or *compose music* or *song*: “ludere quae vellem calamo permisit agresti,” Verg. E. 1, 10: “talia fumosi luduntur mense Decembri,” Ov. Tr. 2, 491: “quod tenerae cantent, lusit tua musa, puellae,” id. Am. 3, 1, 27: “coloni Versibus incomptis ludunt,” Verg. G. 2, 386: “carmina pastorum,” id. ib. 4, 565; Suet. Ner. 3: “si quid vacui sub umbra Lusimus tecum,” Hor. C. 1, 22, 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were it a real word, *clavilizo* would be more &quot;to turn *X* into a piano* or *to do the piano thing*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since *facere* and *agere* are mentioned, I might as well mention their possible analogies. E.g., you might have an analogy with *facere histrionem* as found in Plautus, *Amphitruo* 89–90:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quid? admirati estis? quasi vero novom &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nunc proferatur, Iovem facere histrioniam;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last three words are to be translated as &quot;Jupiter plays an actor.&quot; That's not quite the same as &quot;playing a piano&quot;, though, since this is more &quot;playing a part&quot; than making an object work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that case, the better word is *agere*; to drive a cart&quot; is *agere raedam* (as all you Ecce Romani folk learned), which I feel is better analogy for the piano.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for playing the piano or doing any sport or amusement, stick with *ludere*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2094" RevisionGUID="2bfda573-3377-4f26-a434-454571ac2062" CreationDate="2016-11-29T04:27:31.760" UserId="78" Text="Depending on what exactly you're writing about, Cicero's lost poem offers a nice translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De Temporibus Suis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On His Own [Life &amp;] Times&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was composed after Cicero returned to exile and was meant to exult the man for his triumph over it, as well as his achievements over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has the effect of referencing a real work in Latin, so you have authentic Latin, but where the English still technically means what you want it to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could even think of it as Title: Subtitle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De Temporibus Suis: A Life, Mine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2074" RevisionGUID="4c62de74-a101-44b8-950e-4bb3150efdd4" CreationDate="2016-11-29T14:29:34.530" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Besides *machinator*, I found two words for *engineer* in classical Latin that are primarily directed towards the devising of buildings and fortifications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [aedificator](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daedificator) A builder, derived from *aedes* (house, temple)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [munitor](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmunitor) An engineer of fortifications, derived from *moenia* (walls).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An [architectus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Darchitectus), besides being an architect, could also represent someone who actually is making something as a master-builder. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I still think *machinator* covers the meaning of a modern engineer best, because it describes a maker and inventor of machines, for example weaponry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inventor ac machinator bellicorum tormentorum (Liv. 24, 34)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or stages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; machinatores, qui pegmata per se surgentia excogitant (Sen. Ep. 88, 19)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see in the first example, *inventor* can also be used for someone who invents something physical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2095" RevisionGUID="e2857be3-b53e-42aa-a5a0-0fe5db3c09f4" CreationDate="2016-11-29T15:54:46.850" UserId="1001" Text="How to pronounce 'Via Galactea'? Could you write it in international phonetic alphabet? I have no time to study for it. And there are no students to study latin in my country, not no mention other Asian countries. If you give me any help, it will be very useful to me. Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7610" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2095" RevisionGUID="e2857be3-b53e-42aa-a5a0-0fe5db3c09f4" CreationDate="2016-11-29T15:54:46.850" UserId="1001" Text="pronunciation of 'Via Galactea'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7611" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2095" RevisionGUID="e2857be3-b53e-42aa-a5a0-0fe5db3c09f4" CreationDate="2016-11-29T15:54:46.850" UserId="1001" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2096" RevisionGUID="6de10de8-a5d8-4d42-9486-63b9275768e3" CreationDate="2016-11-29T16:23:46.807" UserId="406" Text="So first of all, *galactea* isn't native Latin (the *galact-* root is Greek, but I'd expect the Greek form to be something like *galactica*). It sounds like you're trying to translate &quot;Milky Way&quot;; the Latin for that would be *[via] lactea*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin's been pronounced a LOT of different ways. No matter how you say it, there's sure to be someone who considers it correct. But since you mention being in Asia, most likely you want Reconstructed Classical or Ecclesiastic (church) pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reconstructed would be something like `/ˈwia ˈlaktea/`.  &#xD;&#xA;Ecclesiastic would be closer to `/ˈvia lakˈtea/`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2090" RevisionGUID="88cb3218-5cc0-490f-b99c-4c3a73fd1162" CreationDate="2016-11-29T16:55:14.903" UserId="78" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="*Perfacile factu* means &quot;easy to do.&quot; *Factu* is a supine, and this construction—supines coming off of certain adjectives—is pretty much where you will always see its ablative form. Other common examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Mirabile dictu*, &quot;Amazing to say&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;* *Difficilis latu*, &quot;Difficult to bear&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;* *Optimum factu*, &quot;Best [thing] to do;&#xD;&#xA;* *Nefas dictu*, &quot;Unlawful to say&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, rearranging the sentence to meet English syntax we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Probat illis perficere conata esse perfacile factu.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;He proves to them that to complete these efforts is easy to do.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2095" RevisionGUID="e3154655-18c5-4670-ac32-3471fefba9df" CreationDate="2016-11-29T17:40:51.770" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 191 characters in body" Text="How to pronounce 'Via Galactea'? Could you write it in international phonetic alphabet? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2097" RevisionGUID="a604cb1c-92be-4d4b-82b3-4e5988007b0c" CreationDate="2016-11-30T02:11:19.330" UserId="235" Text="There actually already is an [apparo][1] (ad + paro). The prefix ad- was assimilated and the 'd' turned into a 'p'. The word *apparo* means to prepare or provide. It's likely an intensified form of *paro*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As C.M. Weiner said, [in-][2] has an accusative sense which means *to* or *into*. There are many compound verbs prefixed by *in* which carry this sense. Two examples are *ingredior* (&quot;go into&quot;) and *infero (&quot;bring to&quot;)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another expanation for the meaning of *impero*. Compound verbs often take a dative, and the meaning of this dative is often related to the prefix. If we translate *in-* as &quot;to&quot;, then *impero tibi* means &quot;I give a command *to* you&quot;. See how the preposition &quot;to&quot; in the English translation conveys the sense of the prefix? Another example would be *absum tibi*, &quot;I am absent *from* you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#apparo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#in" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2097" RevisionGUID="502ca6c8-7ea3-4bab-a2dc-65d302b53874" CreationDate="2016-11-30T02:20:34.137" UserId="235" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="There actually is an [apparo][1] (ad + paro). The prefix ad- was assimilated and the 'd' turned into a 'p'. The word *apparo* means to prepare or provide. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As C.M. Weiner said, [in-][2] has an accusative sense which means *to* or *into*. There are many compound verbs prefixed by *in* which carry this sense, such as *ingredior* and *infero*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another explanation for the meaning of *impero*. Compound verbs often take a dative, and the meaning of this dative is often related to the prefix. If we translate *in-* as &quot;to&quot;, then *impero tibi* means &quot;I give a command *to* you&quot;. See how the preposition &quot;to&quot; in the English translation conveys the sense of the prefix? Another example would be *absum tibi*, &quot;I am absent *from* you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#apparo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#in" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2097" RevisionGUID="e7056e5e-0da8-4a6b-90df-cf594030c615" CreationDate="2016-11-30T02:25:35.560" UserId="235" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="There actually is an [apparo][1] (ad + paro). The prefix ad- was assimilated and the 'd' turned into a 'p'. The word *apparo* means to prepare or provide. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As C.M. Weiner commented, [in-][2] has an accusative sense which means *to* or *into*. There are many compound verbs prefixed by *in* which carry this sense, such as *ingredior*, *infero*, and *ineo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another explanation for the meaning of *impero*. Compound verbs often take a dative, and the meaning of this dative is often related to the prefix. If we translate *in-* as &quot;to&quot;, then *impero tibi* means &quot;I give a command *to* you&quot;. See how the preposition &quot;to&quot; in the English translation conveys the sense of the prefix? Another example would be *absum tibi*, &quot;I am absent *from* you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#apparo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#in" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2097" RevisionGUID="049cbf45-d07c-4704-bcf3-165953377186" CreationDate="2016-11-30T02:41:48.313" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="There actually is an [apparo][1] (ad + paro). The prefix ad- was assimilated and the 'd' turned into a 'p'. The word *apparo* means to prepare or provide. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As C.M. Weiner commented, [in-][2] has an accusative sense which means *to* or *into*. There are many compound verbs prefixed by *in* which carry this sense, such as *ingredior*, *infero*, and *ineo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another explanation for the meaning of *impero*. Compound verbs often take a dative, and the meaning of this dative is often related to the prefix. Considero *impero tibi*, which means &quot;I give a command to you&quot;. See how the preposition &quot;to&quot; in the English translation conveys the sense of the prefix? Another example would be *absum tibi*, &quot;I am absent *from* you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, considering the accusative sense of *in-*, the meaning of *impero* is quite logical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#apparo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#in" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2097" RevisionGUID="d34038d5-f3d8-4a41-b5b4-6b76b7b9d111" CreationDate="2016-11-30T02:48:22.197" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="There actually is an [apparo][1] (ad + paro). The prefix ad- was assimilated and the 'd' turned into a 'p'. The word *apparo* means to prepare or provide. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As C.M. Weiner commented, [in-][2] has an accusative sense which means *to* or *into*. There are many compound verbs prefixed by *in* which carry this sense, such as *ingredior*, *infero*, and *ineo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another explanation for the meaning of *impero*. Compound verbs often take a dative, and the meaning of this dative is often related to the prefix. Considero *impero tibi*, which means &quot;I give a command to you&quot;. See how the preposition &quot;to&quot; in the English translation conveys the sense of the prefix? Another example would be *absum tibi*, &quot;I am absent *from* you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, considering the accusative sense of *in-*, the meaning of impero is quite logical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#apparo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#in" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2097" RevisionGUID="c4d15e66-ad6d-4b14-aa06-10baad668c31" CreationDate="2016-11-30T03:39:31.807" UserId="78" Comment="edited body" Text="There actually is an [apparo][1] (ad + paro). The prefix ad- was assimilated and the 'd' turned into a 'p'. The word *apparo* means to prepare or provide. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As C.M. Weimer commented, [in-][2] has an accusative sense which means *to* or *into*. There are many compound verbs prefixed by *in* which carry this sense, such as *ingredior*, *infero*, and *ineo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another explanation for the meaning of *impero*. Compound verbs often take a dative, and the meaning of this dative is often related to the prefix. Considero *impero tibi*, which means &quot;I give a command to you&quot;. See how the preposition &quot;to&quot; in the English translation conveys the sense of the prefix? Another example would be *absum tibi*, &quot;I am absent *from* you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, considering the accusative sense of *in-*, the meaning of impero is quite logical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#apparo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#in" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2098" RevisionGUID="7eba90ec-1c86-425c-a2d1-8a1a880383ea" CreationDate="2016-11-30T10:40:24.080" UserId="79" Text="Some Greek loan words in Latin use Greek declension.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I recall seeing *Aeneida* and *Aeneidos* instead of the regular Latin declension *Aeneidem* and *Aeneidis*.&#xD;&#xA;Some elements of Greek inflection were thus borrowed, at least for names.&#xD;&#xA;But did classical (or later) Latin borrow any inflection from languages other than Greek?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course Latin inherited inflection for all kinds of words from Proto-Italic and Proto-Indo-European, but inheritance is not what I am after.&#xD;&#xA;My question concerns borrowing foreign inflection elements in a way similar to the Greek example I gave above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7623" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2098" RevisionGUID="7eba90ec-1c86-425c-a2d1-8a1a880383ea" CreationDate="2016-11-30T10:40:24.080" UserId="79" Text="Did the Romans borrow any inflection from other languages than Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7624" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2098" RevisionGUID="7eba90ec-1c86-425c-a2d1-8a1a880383ea" CreationDate="2016-11-30T10:40:24.080" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|language-evolution|declension|conjugation|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2099" RevisionGUID="750b482f-5842-4f83-8e5c-e4a3f8e5b545" CreationDate="2016-11-30T11:02:04.463" UserId="183" Text="There are some Hebrew plurals in Latin, e.g. [Seraphim][1] and Cherubim, with rarely used Hebrew singulars. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraphim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2099" RevisionGUID="f6a0016e-d5d2-4be2-a852-0ae29f5ccbad" CreationDate="2016-11-30T12:49:48.490" UserId="183" Comment="Added singular forms" Text="There are some Hebrew plurals in Latin, e.g. [Seraphim][1] and Cherubim, with rarely used Hebrew singulars (Seraph and Cherub). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraphim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2096" RevisionGUID="1f6fb053-0ed8-4a66-b43d-cbe4274ac335" CreationDate="2016-11-30T16:51:28.590" UserId="406" Comment="edited body" Text="So first of all, *galactea* isn't native Latin (the *galact-* root is Greek, but I'd expect the Greek form to be something like *galactica*). It sounds like you're trying to translate &quot;Milky Way&quot;; the Latin for that would be *[via] lactea*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin's been pronounced a LOT of different ways. No matter how you say it, there's sure to be someone who considers it correct. But since you mention being in Asia, most likely you want Reconstructed Classical or Ecclesiastic (church) pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reconstructed would be something like `/ˈwia ˈlaktea/`.  &#xD;&#xA;Ecclesiastic would be closer to `/ˈvia ˈlaktea/`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2100" RevisionGUID="57e9d046-cfc4-4a08-a017-d15fc64c1791" CreationDate="2016-11-30T21:45:07.367" UserId="1003" Text="At hæc causa (per notam II et III) non potest in ipsa natura humana contineri quandoquidem vera hominis definitio numerum vicenarium non involvit adeoque (per notam IV) causa cur hi viginti homines existunt et consequenter cur unusquisque existit, debet necessario **extra** unumquemque dari et propterea absolute concludendum omne id cujus naturæ plura individua existere possunt, debere necessario ut existant causam externam habere. (Spinoza's Ethics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;... Consequently, the cause for the existence of these twenty men, and, consequently, of each of them, must necessarily be sought externally to each individual. &quot; (translated by R.H. M. Elwes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**'Extra'** is followed here by Accusative, but I am not sure does it mean it is used here as Proposition or not? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge Latin Grammar **'Extra'** as preposition could be *Without, outside of, beside*; rarely in the sense of **sine**; occasionally in sense of **praeter**, *except*.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7629" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2100" RevisionGUID="57e9d046-cfc4-4a08-a017-d15fc64c1791" CreationDate="2016-11-30T21:45:07.367" UserId="1003" Text="is 'extra' here adverb or preposition?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7630" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2100" RevisionGUID="57e9d046-cfc4-4a08-a017-d15fc64c1791" CreationDate="2016-11-30T21:45:07.367" UserId="1003" Text="|translation|vocabulary|meaning|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2100" RevisionGUID="3d57dcc5-4b33-44df-9b2e-f98871bfc9d9" CreationDate="2016-11-30T21:57:45.230" UserId="45" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="&gt; At hæc causa (per notam II et III) non potest in ipsa natura humana contineri quandoquidem vera hominis definitio numerum vicenarium non involvit adeoque (per notam IV) causa cur hi viginti homines existunt et consequenter cur unusquisque existit, debet necessario **extra** unumquemque dari et propterea absolute concludendum omne id cujus naturæ plura individua existere possunt, debere necessario ut existant causam externam habere. (Spinoza's Ethics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;... Consequently, the cause for the existence of these twenty men, and, consequently, of each of them, must necessarily be sought externally to each individual. &quot; (translated by R.H. M. Elwes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Extra* is followed here by the accusative, but I am not sure whether this means it is being used as a preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge's *Latin Grammar* says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Extra* as preposition could be *Without, outside of, beside*; rarely in the sense of **sine**; occasionally in sense of **praeter**, *except*.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7632" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2100" RevisionGUID="61d90ede-ad69-4a56-862d-4ce233bc351e" CreationDate="2016-11-30T22:23:29.673" UserId="932" Comment="majuscule title" Text="Is 'extra' here adverb or preposition?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7633" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2100" RevisionGUID="61d90ede-ad69-4a56-862d-4ce233bc351e" CreationDate="2016-11-30T22:23:29.673" Comment="Proposed by 932 approved by 1003 edit id of 151" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2101" RevisionGUID="5b204b58-c8c5-4f8c-8a04-fed1800af925" CreationDate="2016-11-30T22:32:48.013" UserId="45" Text="You are correct that *extra* is a preposition here. Although it can be an adverb, it has a clear object here that would not make syntactical sense otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular argument follows Spinoza's earlier assertion that a cause must either &quot;be contained&quot; in a thing's nature or be given &quot;outside of&quot; that thing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; denique notandum hanc causam propter quam aliqua res existit, vel debere contineri in ipsa natura et definitione rei existentis (nimirum quod ad ipsius naturam pertinet existere) vel **debere extra ipsam dari**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finally it should be noted that this cause due to which something exists, either must be contained in the very nature and definition of that existing thing (namely that it pertains to that thing's nature to exist) or **must be given outside of the thing**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think it is worth translating the line immediately preceding your quote, which introduces the point of his whole &quot;twenty men&quot; example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; His positis sequitur quod si in natura certus aliquis numerus individuorum existat, debeat necessario dari causa cur illa individua et cur non plura nec pauciora existunt. Si exempli gratia in rerum natura 20 homines existant...non satis erit...causam naturæ humanæ in genere ostendere sed insuper necesse erit causam ostendere cur non plures nec pauciores quam 20 existant quandoquidem (per III notam) uniuscujusque debet necessario dari causa cur existat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having granted these things, it follows that if in a nature some certain number of individuals exists, a cause must necessarily be given why those individuals, neither more nor less, exist. If for example, in the nature of things there exist twenty men, it will not be enough to show the cause of human nature in general (*in genere* = *in its genus*) but in addition it will be necessary to show the reason why neither more nor less than twenty exist, since the cause of the existence of each single one must necessarily be given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this line of reasoning, Spinoza's train of reasoning of reasoning ni your quoted passage becomes easier to follow: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But this cause (through notes 2 and 3) cannot be contained in human nature itself, since the true definition of man does not include the number twenty and thus the reason why these twenty men exist and consequently why each exists, must necessarily be given **outside of each individual**, and as a result it must be concluded absolutely that everything whose nature admits of many existing individuals must necessarily have an external cause for its existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfectly transparent, no? No wonder Jeeves loved Spioza :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7635" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2100" RevisionGUID="011e70c9-88e9-4726-bdbf-566a5349af3a" CreationDate="2016-11-30T22:38:41.780" UserId="45" Comment="edited title" Text="Is 'extra' an adverb or preposition here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2101" RevisionGUID="39dff0c3-a523-49b7-8dea-a9e32857f886" CreationDate="2016-11-30T22:47:19.537" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="You are correct that *extra* is a preposition here. Although it can be an adverb, it has a clear object here that would not make syntactical sense otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular argument follows Spinoza's earlier assertion that a cause must either &quot;be contained&quot; in a thing's nature or be given &quot;outside of&quot; that thing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; denique notandum hanc causam propter quam aliqua res existit, vel debere contineri in ipsa natura et definitione rei existentis (nimirum quod ad ipsius naturam pertinet existere) vel **debere extra ipsam dari**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finally it should be noted that this cause due to which something exists, either must be contained in the very nature and definition of that existing thing (namely that it pertains to that thing's nature to exist) or **must be given outside of the thing**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think it is worth translating the line immediately preceding your quote, which introduces the point of his whole &quot;twenty men&quot; example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; His positis sequitur quod si in natura certus aliquis numerus individuorum existat, debeat necessario dari causa cur illa individua et cur non plura nec pauciora existunt. Si exempli gratia in rerum natura 20 homines existant...non satis erit...causam naturæ humanæ in genere ostendere sed insuper necesse erit causam ostendere cur non plures nec pauciores quam 20 existant quandoquidem (per III notam) uniuscujusque debet necessario dari causa cur existat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having granted these things, it follows that if in a nature some certain number of individuals exists, a cause must necessarily be given why those individuals, neither more nor less, exist. If for example, in the nature of things there exist twenty men, it will not be enough to show the cause of human nature in general (*in genere* = *in its genus*) but in addition it will be necessary to show the reason why neither more nor less than twenty exist, since the cause of the existence of each single one must necessarily be given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this line of reasoning, Spinoza's train of reasoning in your quoted passage becomes easier to follow: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But this cause (through notes 2 and 3) cannot be contained in human nature itself, since the true definition of man does not include the number twenty and thus the reason why these twenty men exist and consequently why each exists, must necessarily be given **outside of each individual**, and as a result it must be concluded absolutely that everything whose nature admits of many existing individuals must necessarily have an external cause for its existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfectly transparent, no? No wonder Jeeves loved Spioza :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2102" RevisionGUID="20c2d006-e217-46ec-a9fc-5cdb4b600995" CreationDate="2016-12-01T03:07:13.400" UserId="952" Text="The English word &quot;book&quot; has many potential Latin translations, such as *liber*,&#xD;&#xA;*monumentum*, *carta*, *codex*, and *volumen*.  &#xD;&#xA;If, in this context, the book refers to a textbook or collection of stories, what would be the most accurate Latin word to use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7638" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2102" RevisionGUID="20c2d006-e217-46ec-a9fc-5cdb4b600995" CreationDate="2016-12-01T03:07:13.400" UserId="952" Text="Most accurate Latin word for &quot;book&quot; based on context" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7639" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2102" RevisionGUID="20c2d006-e217-46ec-a9fc-5cdb4b600995" CreationDate="2016-12-01T03:07:13.400" UserId="952" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2103" RevisionGUID="6a29a1d2-ab8f-4e65-9aaa-a0de36f9afef" CreationDate="2016-12-01T04:10:08.803" UserId="1031" Text="Δύο φίλοι τη οδώ τη εις την χώραν έσπευδον.=&#xD;&#xA;Δύο φίλοι έσπευδον τη οδώ τη (αγούση)εις την χώραν.=  αγούση&lt;άγω= οδηγώ=lead&#xD;&#xA;Δύο φίλοι πήγαιναν βιαστικά δια μέσω της οδού ,που οδηγούσε στη χώρα.= &#xD;&#xA;Δύο φίλοι περπατούσαν βιαστικά στο δρόμο για τη χώρα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two friends were hurrying in the street to the city.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Τhe word &quot;χώρα&quot; originally means &quot;region&quot;,but later &quot;city or village&quot;&#xD;&#xA;σπεύδω&gt;speed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2104" RevisionGUID="3e49b121-64cb-4644-856f-6fbcd09e8806" CreationDate="2016-12-01T06:09:20.287" UserId="78" Text="*Liber* is that Latin word for book, and my first inclination is to go there. However, further context is needed to make an actual decision. Other options include *libellum* and *codex*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Monumentum* is most wrong. A book can be a monument, but not all monuments are books, and so likewise not all *monumenta* are *libri*. If you're refering to the Horace quote *monumenta rerum gestarum*, yes they're written down, but they're memorials of deeds. It's a metaphor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Charta* and *codex* refer to the thing a book is written upon. It refers to the material. So a book of Cicero, a *liber Ciceronis* can be written on *chartae* or placed in a *codex*. However, collections of works in book-form are often called a *codex*, so depending on what exactly you're describing, this might be the best word after all. As a solid example, a collection of laws published by Theodosius is called the *Codex Theodosianus*. Bibles were often written on *codices*, so that you have e.g. *Codex Sinaiticus*, an ancient codex upon which the New Testament was written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Volumen*, too, can mean that, though of the options, it's the closest to *liber*. However, it might help to remember the etymological role of the word. It comes from *volvere* &quot;to roll&quot;, and referred originally to rolled up papyri. In that sense, since a work was usually on multiple papyri, it refers to a part of a full work, similar to the word &quot;volume&quot; today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be fair, *liber* can mean all these things, too. A work of Cicero's, let's say the *De Natura Deorum*, would have been described as being *in libris tribus* &quot;in three books&quot;. But as L&amp;S note, it's most commonly used as a single work, either in singular or in plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *libellum* refers to a little book, and is what Catullus used to describe his short collection of poems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2103" RevisionGUID="0da53e2a-2169-4729-ac13-35ec8257e769" CreationDate="2016-12-01T09:20:07.440" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted slightly." Text="Δύο φίλοι τη οδώ τη εις την χώραν έσπευδον.=  &#xD;&#xA;Δύο φίλοι έσπευδον τη οδώ τη (αγούση)εις την χώραν.=  αγούση&lt;άγω= οδηγώ=lead  &#xD;&#xA;Δύο φίλοι πήγαιναν βιαστικά δια μέσω της οδού ,που οδηγούσε στη χώρα.=  &#xD;&#xA;Δύο φίλοι περπατούσαν βιαστικά στο δρόμο για τη χώρα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two friends were hurrying in the street to the city.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Τhe word &quot;χώρα&quot; originally means &quot;region&quot;,but later &quot;city or village&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;σπεύδω&gt;speed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2102" RevisionGUID="ac9f0505-e2e1-4d47-a0ed-def752360fb3" CreationDate="2016-12-01T09:26:43.013" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags and edited title. Feel free to re-edit." Text="The English word &quot;book&quot; has many potential Latin translations, such as *liber*,&#xD;&#xA;*monumentum*, *carta*, *codex*, and *volumen*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, in this context, the book refers to a textbook or collection of stories, what would be the most accurate Latin word to use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7644" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2102" RevisionGUID="ac9f0505-e2e1-4d47-a0ed-def752360fb3" CreationDate="2016-12-01T09:26:43.013" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags and edited title. Feel free to re-edit." Text="Most accurate Latin word for &quot;book&quot; in this context" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7645" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2102" RevisionGUID="ac9f0505-e2e1-4d47-a0ed-def752360fb3" CreationDate="2016-12-01T09:26:43.013" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags and edited title. Feel free to re-edit." Text="|english-to-latin-translation|word-comparison|vocabulary|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2105" RevisionGUID="1526a379-80e5-4273-914f-7efcf5943f0f" CreationDate="2016-12-01T10:10:27.673" UserId="79" Text="The Roman year included many festive occasions.&#xD;&#xA;In today's world it is customary to wish merry Christmas, happy Easter, and other such things.&#xD;&#xA;Did the Romans do the same during their own festivals, celebrations or vacations?&#xD;&#xA;If they did, how did they do that?&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see examples from ancient literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that I am not asking how to wish a merry Christmas in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I know how to do that, but I am not sure how the ancient Romans would have done that.&#xD;&#xA;This question is similar to [the one about wishing a good birthday](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1836/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7647" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2105" RevisionGUID="1526a379-80e5-4273-914f-7efcf5943f0f" CreationDate="2016-12-01T10:10:27.673" UserId="79" Text="How did the Romans wish happy holidays?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7648" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2105" RevisionGUID="1526a379-80e5-4273-914f-7efcf5943f0f" CreationDate="2016-12-01T10:10:27.673" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|roman-culture|saying|calendarium|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2106" RevisionGUID="c99f96a6-4d36-4de7-8363-ddbaf8f9ac7a" CreationDate="2016-12-01T18:45:22.963" UserId="78" Text="They did to a certain extent. I'm not aware of general holiday greetings, but at least for Saturnalia, they used the phrase *Io, Saturnalia!* Compare Martial 11.2.5:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Clamant ecce mei 'Io Saturnialia' versus &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et licet et sub te praeside, Nerva, libet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Brumalia, they would greet each other with *vives annos*,**[1]** although it's uncertain how early this was greeting was used, since record of it is from late antiquity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=xE22CgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA208&amp;lpg=PA208&amp;#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2107" RevisionGUID="2ec773d9-f324-432c-a608-684578dc0690" CreationDate="2016-12-01T18:56:51.643" UserId="645" Text="The College of British Arms, dating from the 15th century, records mottos in various languages (e.g. *Ich Dien*, for the Princes of Wales, *Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense* on the Royal Arms, *Semper Eadem* on the Arms of Elizabeth I of England), though mainly they were in Latin and specially composed to touch on some such desirable quality in the family as valour, fortitude, wisdom, etc. Mottos claimed to be earlier tend to be a bit doubtful, with many being obviously fake (one claimed for my wife's family, supposed to date from William I, is so awful as barely to qualify as Latin). I can only speculate that, before the conquest, we should need to look at descriptions or paintings of military or religious banners, where we would need to be quite careful about accepting them as genuine evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The  option that I prefer for defining a motto is *a maxim to live or act by*, and I suggest that a motto in Latin is either an adaptation of a classical quotation, or a purpose-formed phrase. The question is to find out when and how this came about or, if you like, came to be formalised. However, to answer your question **When did first Latin mottos appear?**  the earliest genuine mottos that I can trace are the two attributed to Eton College that I have already given in a comment (*Floreat Etona* / * Esto perpetua*). The inscriptions on *hastae* said to have been used by legionaries to identify their weapons after a battle (from memory, in passages by Plutarch and Livy), sometimes called mottos,  do not really qualify for, although they may have been the earliest recorded in Latin, they were no more than their commander's name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly, various well-known phrases from classical sources have been used in Britain from the Norman  Conquest up to the present. The edge of the current English £1 coin has *DECUS ET TUTAMEN* (Aeneid V.202). *Mens sana in corpore sano* (Juv. Sat.X.356) is often used (especially in novels) as the underlying principle on which English public (viz. private!) schools were founded and run, and may qualify as a motto; Horace's *O dulce et decorum est pro patria mori* has been used as a motto to urge soldiers to their duty (see the famously bitter WW1 poem of Wilfred Owen, *Dulce et Decorum Est*). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2106" RevisionGUID="47f42957-436c-4188-bd4f-a9e92d91583b" CreationDate="2016-12-01T20:15:15.173" UserId="78" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="They did to a certain extent. I'm not aware of general holiday greetings, but at least for Saturnalia, they used the phrase *Io, Saturnalia!* Compare Martial 11.2.5:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Clamant ecce mei 'Io Saturnialia' versus &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et licet et sub te praeside, Nerva, libet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Brumalia, they would greet each other with *vives annos*,**[1]** although it's uncertain how early this was greeting was used, since record of its use is from late antiquity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=xE22CgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA208&amp;lpg=PA208&amp;#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2110" RevisionGUID="d2b2c93b-2aca-479d-927b-ad286fd24724" CreationDate="2016-12-02T18:38:32.117" UserId="1036" Text="I'm a very new Latin learner - I'm using Lingua Latina as my primary text to become fluent in reading (with the 'college' supplement and other texts for additional clarification).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm on chapter 6 (line number 20), and there is a sentence that I can not quite figure out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iulius ab oppido ad villam suam it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text is describing our hero Iulius (male) as traveling along Roman roads from the town to his villa. But I'm not sure I understand why 'suam' is there in the feminine form? Is it not HIS villa?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for the help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7663" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2110" RevisionGUID="d2b2c93b-2aca-479d-927b-ad286fd24724" CreationDate="2016-12-02T18:38:32.117" UserId="1036" Text="Why is suus in the accusative feminine singular in this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7664" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2110" RevisionGUID="d2b2c93b-2aca-479d-927b-ad286fd24724" CreationDate="2016-12-02T18:38:32.117" UserId="1036" Text="|declension|pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2110" RevisionGUID="e1fe1548-a534-4433-ae07-34680e17788c" CreationDate="2016-12-02T18:47:37.680" UserId="45" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I'm a very new Latin learner - I'm using *Lingua Latina* as my primary text to become fluent in reading (with the 'college' supplement and other texts for additional clarification).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm on chapter 6 (line number 20), and there is a sentence that I can not quite figure out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iulius ab oppido ad villam suam it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text is describing our hero Iulius (male) as traveling along Roman roads from the town to his villa. But I'm not sure I understand why 'suam' is there in the feminine form? Is it not HIS villa?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for the help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2111" RevisionGUID="274734de-1d84-4d21-aa0e-07d56a7df013" CreationDate="2016-12-02T18:58:13.997" UserId="1036" Text="And a little more research shows the answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The choice of gender is determined by the noun possessed, and not by the gender of the person who possesses the object.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is HIS villa, but the possessed noun is feminine, ergo the form of the pronoun is feminine. Got it! I must have missed that bit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to all that look. I for one really appreciate this resource and all the great answers!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2112" RevisionGUID="5f4a49c6-12ed-429b-922c-452a6e5f4ef1" CreationDate="2016-12-02T18:59:25.033" UserId="992" Text="I came across this phrase in Historia Hierosolymitana by Baldricus Dolensis (c. 1050–1130):  What does these two sentences mean? I would appreciate any help.Thank you so much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Hæc igitur illico non ingratanter Christianis patuit.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Quippe ibi nullus, etiam inermis, esse poterat exoccupatus. Unica eis erat, nec sine formidine, cura de suis conducendis corporibus.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Here is more context in case it helps**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Venerunt quoque ad Cæsaream Cappadociæ  quae ad solum usque diruta erat; ruinae tamen utcunque subsistentes, quanta fuerit illa Caesarea testabantur.  Inde digressi, pedem direxerunt ad aliam civitatem pulchram et uberæ glebæ opimam, Plastenciam/Plastentiam, quam Turci paulo ante tribus obsederant ebdomadibus. Quæ, quoniam erat inexpugnabilis, a Turcis nullatenus potuit expugnari. ***Hæc igitur illico non ingratanter Christianis patuit.*** Hanc quodam Petrus de Alphia, petitam ab optimatibus, indifficulter obtinuit, ad tuendam et expugnandam terram, &lt;in fidelitate&gt; Sancti Sepulchri et Christianitatis. Auditum  est in illa expeditione quod Turci qui civitatem obsederant haud longe præirent exercitum,si qua possent eis nocituri. Boamundus autem, negotiorum militarium vir industrius, de suis quos voluit accitis militibus, eos curiose insecutus est, si forte sicubi posset illos invenire et lædere. Nihil tamen profecit, quoniam eos invenire non potuit. Ventum est deinceps ad Coxon, nobilem et copiosam civitatem, quam alumni loci illius cum fratribus suis Christianis libenter reddiderunt. Ibi tribus diebus fatigatus pausavit exercitus.” “Iter etenim aggressi, gradiebantur rependo per montana nimis aspera et scopulosa, per quæ nec eorum phalanges poterant, sicut heri et nudiustertius, seriatim procedere, nec eorum clitellariis dabatur saltem repere posse, sed miserrime hi et illi prægravabantur et præcipitabantur. Neque siquidem illis in angusto positis, aliud erat aliunde diverticulum.  Collidebantur ergo et conquassabantur laborantes et deficientes per viam inviam.  Qui præ nimia tristitia, strictim complosis manibus et stridentes dentibus ingemiscebant. Labebantur equi in immane præcipitium, et trames artissimus pepererat/præparabat omnibus dehiscens offendiculum. Multi vel equis, vel clitellariis, cum rebus superpositis, illic amissis, pauperati sunt.  Alii pro vili preciolo venditabant, vel ancilia, vel loricas,vel galeas; alii procul a se iactitabant.&#xD;&#xA;***Quippe ibi nullus, etiam inermis, esse poterat exoccupatus. Unica eis erat, nec sine formidine, cura de suis conducendis corporibus***. Postquam illas calamitosas vix evaserunt angustias, ad quamdam diverterunt civitatem,quæ vocatur Marasim. Convenæ autem civitatis illius copiosum illis detulerunt mercatum. Ibi autem aliquantisper demorati, donec quantumlibet recrearentur, dominum sustinebant.” " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7668" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2112" RevisionGUID="5f4a49c6-12ed-429b-922c-452a6e5f4ef1" CreationDate="2016-12-02T18:59:25.033" UserId="992" Text="What does &quot;Hæc igitur illico non ingratanter Christianis patuit&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7669" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2112" RevisionGUID="5f4a49c6-12ed-429b-922c-452a6e5f4ef1" CreationDate="2016-12-02T18:59:25.033" UserId="992" Text="|classical-latin|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2113" RevisionGUID="edbd178e-4928-4276-8843-592270a55659" CreationDate="2016-12-02T19:07:23.737" UserId="45" Text="This is a really common stumbling block for those approaching Latin from the background of a language like English, so it merits a careful step-by-step explanation. I'll break my response into two steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Adjectives agree in case, number, and gender with the noun they modify.&#xD;&#xA;2. *Suus, -a, -um* is an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adjectives agree with their nouns&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's start by looking at a simple adjective that doesn't have the &quot;baggage&quot; of an antecedent, like *suus*. I'll take *bonus* (&quot;good&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples of *bonus* used with nouns. I will purposely use nouns from the 1st and 2nd declensions to avoid confusion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Filius bonus** ad villam it. - *The **good son** goes to the villa.*&#xD;&#xA;2. Filius ad **villam bonam** it. - *The son goes to the **good villa.***&#xD;&#xA;3. Filius **domini boni** ad villam it. - *The son **of the good lord** goes to the villa.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this, and all other cases, the adjective *bonus* agrees in case, number, and gender with the noun it modifies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## *Suus* is an adjective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here comes the tricky part: *suus, -a, -um* functions as a **completely normal adjective**, just like *bonus*. Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Filius **dominum suum** amat - *The son loves **his lord**.*&#xD;&#xA;2. Filia **dominum suum** amat. - *The daughter loves **her (!) lord**.*&#xD;&#xA;3. Dominus **filias suas** amat. - *The lord loves **his daughters.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the point: the **case ending is determined by the thing possessed, not the possessor**. The possessor is indicated by the choice of personal pronoun. If its reflexive 3rd person, it will be *suus*. If it's first-person singular, it will be *meus*; 1st-person plural, *noster*; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully that clears it up a little. Note that this is the exact same as in many other Romance languages, e.g. French: &quot;Il aime sa fille.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2112" RevisionGUID="8eec17af-d610-4c50-9a04-d2d75021c3bc" CreationDate="2016-12-02T19:09:22.843" UserId="992" Comment="added 561 characters in body" Text="I came across this phrase in Historia Hierosolymitana by Baldricus Dolensis (c. 1050–1130):  What does these two sentences mean? I would appreciate any help.Thank you so much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Hæc igitur illico non ingratanter Christianis patuit.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Quippe ibi nullus, etiam inermis, esse poterat exoccupatus. Unica eis erat, nec sine formidine, cura de suis conducendis corporibus.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Here is more context in case it helps**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Venerunt quoque ad Cæsaream Cappadociæ  quae ad solum usque diruta erat; ruinae tamen utcunque subsistentes, quanta fuerit illa Caesarea testabantur.  Inde digressi, pedem direxerunt ad aliam civitatem pulchram et uberæ glebæ opimam, Plastenciam/Plastentiam, quam Turci paulo ante tribus obsederant ebdomadibus. Quæ, quoniam erat inexpugnabilis, a Turcis nullatenus potuit expugnari. ***Hæc igitur illico non ingratanter Christianis patuit.*** Hanc quodam Petrus de Alphia, petitam ab optimatibus, indifficulter obtinuit, ad tuendam et expugnandam terram, &lt;in fidelitate&gt; Sancti Sepulchri et Christianitatis. Auditum  est in illa expeditione quod Turci qui civitatem obsederant haud longe præirent exercitum,si qua possent eis nocituri. Boamundus autem, negotiorum militarium vir industrius, de suis quos voluit accitis militibus, eos curiose insecutus est, si forte sicubi posset illos invenire et lædere. Nihil tamen profecit, quoniam eos invenire non potuit. Ventum est deinceps ad Coxon, nobilem et copiosam civitatem, quam alumni loci illius cum fratribus suis Christianis libenter reddiderunt. Ibi tribus diebus fatigatus pausavit exercitus.” “Iter etenim aggressi, gradiebantur rependo per montana nimis aspera et scopulosa, per quæ nec eorum phalanges poterant, sicut heri et nudiustertius, seriatim procedere, nec eorum clitellariis dabatur saltem repere posse, sed miserrime hi et illi prægravabantur et præcipitabantur. Neque siquidem illis in angusto positis, aliud erat aliunde diverticulum.  Collidebantur ergo et conquassabantur laborantes et deficientes per viam inviam.  Qui præ nimia tristitia, strictim complosis manibus et stridentes dentibus ingemiscebant. Labebantur equi in immane præcipitium, et trames artissimus pepererat/præparabat omnibus dehiscens offendiculum. Multi vel equis, vel clitellariis, cum rebus superpositis, illic amissis, pauperati sunt.  Alii pro vili preciolo venditabant, vel ancilia, vel loricas,vel galeas; alii procul a se iactitabant.&#xD;&#xA;***Quippe ibi nullus, etiam inermis, esse poterat exoccupatus. Unica eis erat, nec sine formidine, cura de suis conducendis corporibus***. Postquam illas calamitosas vix evaserunt angustias, ad quamdam diverterunt civitatem,quæ vocatur Marasim. Convenæ autem civitatis illius copiosum illis detulerunt mercatum. Ibi autem aliquantisper demorati, donec quantumlibet recrearentur, dominum sustinebant.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;igitur:  &#xD;&#xA;then, therefore&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;illico: &#xD;&#xA;immediately; on the spot, in that very place&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ingratanter: I did not find anything&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;conducendis:           &#xD;&#xA;conduco, conducere, conduxi, conductus &#xD;&#xA;be of advantage/profitable/expedient; be proper/fitting/concerned with; tend to&#xD;&#xA;conduco, conducere, conduxi, conductus:  &#xD;&#xA;draw/bring together, collect, assemble; unite/join; cause to curdle/coagulate;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;corpus, corporis:  &#xD;&#xA;body; person, self; virility; flesh; corpse; trunk; frame(work); collection/sum&#xD;&#xA;substantial/material/concrete object/body&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2114" RevisionGUID="5802ddaa-1b7a-431a-8d3e-7c5346d99256" CreationDate="2016-12-02T19:35:55.863" UserId="45" Text="The context is definitely helpful for figuring these out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hæc igitur illico non ingratanter Christianis patuit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baldric was just speaking about &quot;they&quot; (crusaders, presumably) came first to Caesarea in Cappadocia (*Caesarea Cappadociae*), which was laid in ruins, and then continued to Plastencia, which was unsuccessfully besieged by the Turks for three weeks and then left behind. Thus, when the crusaders arrived:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It therefore immediately and joyfully opened up [its gates] to the Christians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some possible sources of confusion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Haec* is refers to the city itself, which is feminine.&#xD;&#xA;2. *Non ingratanter* does not have an entry in L&amp;S. *ingratanter* does not appear in classical literature, but it appears in several [medieval works](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=ingratanter). *Gratanter* has some [silver age attestations in the *Historiae Augustae*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=gratanter). It's meaning is pretty clear, though: [*grator*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgrator) (as in *congratulate*) means &quot;to manifest joy&quot;, so *gratanter* would mean &quot;joyfully.&quot; *Non ingratanter* is an example of litotes: &quot;not without joy&quot; = &quot;with joy.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. *Patuit* literally means to &quot;be open,&quot; and it is used with the dative (*christianis*) to indicate what it is open to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quippe ibi nullus, etiam inermis, esse poterat exoccupatus. Unica eis erat, nec sine formidine, cura de suis conducendis corporibus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, Baldric was just explaining how the army was casting aside or selling away for nothing everything that was hindering it in its march through a difficult mountain pass, including shields, helmets, and other armor. Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For in that place, no one, even unarmed, could be without occupation. They only fearfully had one goal, which was to lead on their own bodies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tough spots:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *exoccupatus* does not appear in classical literature, but it has an entry in L&amp;S as &quot;unoccupied.&quot; It grows more common in later Latin.&#xD;&#xA;2. *eis...cura*: *cura est mihi de X* means &quot;I am concerned/worried about X,&quot; and is a fairly common construction.&#xD;&#xA;3. *nec sine*: another litotes: read as *with* or, in my translation, *fearfully*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2112" RevisionGUID="11bf3808-905e-49ff-98a4-f60b69f2945f" CreationDate="2016-12-02T19:39:24.493" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 271 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I came across this phrase in *Historia Hierosolymitana* by Baldricus Dolensis (c. 1050–1130):  What does these two sentences mean? I would appreciate any help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hæc igitur illico non ingratanter Christianis patuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quippe ibi nullus, etiam inermis, esse poterat exoccupatus. Unica eis erat, nec sine formidine, cura de suis conducendis corporibus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is more context in case it helps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Venerunt quoque ad Cæsaream Cappadociæ  quae ad solum usque diruta erat; ruinae tamen utcunque subsistentes, quanta fuerit illa Caesarea testabantur.  Inde digressi, pedem direxerunt ad aliam civitatem pulchram et uberæ glebæ opimam, Plastenciam/Plastentiam, quam Turci paulo ante tribus obsederant ebdomadibus. Quæ, quoniam erat inexpugnabilis, a Turcis nullatenus potuit expugnari. ***Hæc igitur illico non ingratanter Christianis patuit.*** Hanc quodam Petrus de Alphia, petitam ab optimatibus, indifficulter obtinuit, ad tuendam et expugnandam terram, &lt;in fidelitate&gt; Sancti Sepulchri et Christianitatis. Auditum  est in illa expeditione quod Turci qui civitatem obsederant haud longe præirent exercitum,si qua possent eis nocituri. Boamundus autem, negotiorum militarium vir industrius, de suis quos voluit accitis militibus, eos curiose insecutus est, si forte sicubi posset illos invenire et lædere. Nihil tamen profecit, quoniam eos invenire non potuit. Ventum est deinceps ad Coxon, nobilem et copiosam civitatem, quam alumni loci illius cum fratribus suis Christianis libenter reddiderunt. Ibi tribus diebus fatigatus pausavit exercitus.” “Iter etenim aggressi, gradiebantur rependo per montana nimis aspera et scopulosa, per quæ nec eorum phalanges poterant, sicut heri et nudiustertius, seriatim procedere, nec eorum clitellariis dabatur saltem repere posse, sed miserrime hi et illi prægravabantur et præcipitabantur. Neque siquidem illis in angusto positis, aliud erat aliunde diverticulum.  Collidebantur ergo et conquassabantur laborantes et deficientes per viam inviam.  Qui præ nimia tristitia, strictim complosis manibus et stridentes dentibus ingemiscebant. Labebantur equi in immane præcipitium, et trames artissimus pepererat/præparabat omnibus dehiscens offendiculum. Multi vel equis, vel clitellariis, cum rebus superpositis, illic amissis, pauperati sunt.  Alii pro vili preciolo venditabant, vel ancilia, vel loricas,vel galeas; alii procul a se iactitabant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Quippe ibi nullus, etiam inermis, esse poterat exoccupatus. Unica eis erat, nec sine formidine, cura de suis conducendis corporibus***. Postquam illas calamitosas vix evaserunt angustias, ad quamdam diverterunt civitatem,quæ vocatur Marasim. Convenæ autem civitatis illius copiosum illis detulerunt mercatum. Ibi autem aliquantisper demorati, donec quantumlibet recrearentur, dominum sustinebant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Difficult words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **ingratanter**: I did not find anything&#xD;&#xA;* **conducendis: conduco, conducere, conduxi, conductus**: be of advantage/profitable/expedient; be proper/fitting/concerned with; tend to;&#xD;&#xA;draw/bring together, collect, assemble; unite/join; cause to curdle/coagulate;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7674" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2112" RevisionGUID="11bf3808-905e-49ff-98a4-f60b69f2945f" CreationDate="2016-12-02T19:39:24.493" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 271 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2114" RevisionGUID="8b7c98b8-59fe-479f-b679-2834b5aa86d0" CreationDate="2016-12-02T19:41:46.663" UserId="45" Comment="added 212 characters in body" Text="The context is definitely helpful for figuring these out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hæc igitur illico non ingratanter Christianis patuit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baldric was just speaking about &quot;they&quot; (crusaders, presumably) came first to Caesarea in Cappadocia (*Caesarea Cappadociae*), which was laid in ruins, and then continued to Plastencia, which was unsuccessfully besieged by the Turks for three weeks and then left behind. Thus, when the crusaders arrived:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It therefore immediately and joyfully opened up [its gates] to the Christians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some possible sources of confusion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Haec* is refers to the city itself, which is feminine.&#xD;&#xA;2. *Non ingratanter* does not have an entry in L&amp;S. *ingratanter* does not appear in classical literature, but it appears in several [medieval works](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=ingratanter). *Gratanter* has some [silver age attestations in the *Historiae Augustae*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=gratanter). It's meaning is pretty clear, though: [*grator*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgrator) (as in *congratulate*) means &quot;to manifest joy&quot;, so *gratanter* would mean &quot;joyfully.&quot; *Non ingratanter* is an example of litotes: &quot;not without joy&quot; = &quot;with joy.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. *Patuit* literally means to &quot;be open,&quot; and it is used with the dative (*christianis*) to indicate what it is open to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quippe ibi nullus, etiam inermis, esse poterat exoccupatus. Unica eis erat, nec sine formidine, cura de suis conducendis corporibus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, Baldric was just explaining how the army was casting aside or selling away for nothing everything that was hindering it in its march through a difficult mountain pass, including shields, helmets, and other armor. Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For in that place, no one, even unarmed, could be without occupation. They only fearfully had one goal, which was to lead on their own bodies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tough spots:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *exoccupatus* does not appear in classical literature, but it has an entry in L&amp;S as &quot;unoccupied.&quot; It grows more common in later Latin.&#xD;&#xA;2. *eis...cura*: *cura est mihi de X* means &quot;I am concerned/worried about X,&quot; and is a fairly common construction.&#xD;&#xA;3. *nec sine*: another litotes: read as *with* or, in my translation, *fearfully*.&#xD;&#xA;4. *conducendis* comes from *conduco* and in this case means &quot;bringing/leading along&quot;: I suspect that this sense is medieval, and it conforms to the evolution of the word meaning, e.g. modern French *conduire*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2114" RevisionGUID="28c0b2b4-b249-4991-9692-7e6ddb54d27a" CreationDate="2016-12-02T19:49:41.953" UserId="45" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="The context is definitely helpful for figuring these out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hæc igitur illico non ingratanter Christianis patuit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baldric was just speaking about &quot;they&quot; (crusaders, presumably) came first to Caesarea in Cappadocia (*Caesarea Cappadociae*), which was laid in ruins, and then continued to Plastencia, which was unsuccessfully besieged by the Turks for three weeks and then left behind. Thus, when the crusaders arrived:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It therefore immediately and joyfully opened up [its gates] to the Christians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some possible sources of confusion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Haec* refers to the city itself, which is feminine.&#xD;&#xA;* *Non ingratanter* does not have an entry in L&amp;S. *ingratanter* does not appear in classical literature, but it appears in several [medieval works](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=ingratanter). *Gratanter* has some [silver age attestations in the *Historiae Augustae*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=gratanter). It's meaning is pretty clear, though: [*grator*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgrator) (as in *congratulate*) means &quot;to manifest joy&quot;, so *gratanter* would mean &quot;joyfully.&quot; *Non ingratanter* is an example of litotes: &quot;not without joy&quot; = &quot;with joy.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* *Patuit* literally means to &quot;be open,&quot; and it is used with the dative (*christianis*) to indicate what it is open to. In the context of a city, this probably refers to the gates, as I indicated in the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quippe ibi nullus, etiam inermis, esse poterat exoccupatus. Unica eis erat, nec sine formidine, cura de suis conducendis corporibus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, Baldric was just explaining how the army was casting aside or selling away for nothing everything that was hindering it in its march through a difficult mountain pass, including shields, helmets, and other armor. Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For in that place, no one, even unarmed, could be without occupation. They only fearfully had one goal, which was to lead on their own bodies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tough spots:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *exoccupatus* does not appear in classical literature, but it has an entry in L&amp;S as &quot;unoccupied.&quot; It grows more common in later Latin.&#xD;&#xA;* *eis...cura*: *cura est mihi de X* means &quot;I am concerned/worried about X,&quot; and is a fairly common construction.&#xD;&#xA;* *nec sine*: another litotes: read as *with* or, in my translation, *fearfully*.&#xD;&#xA;* *conducendis* comes from *conduco* and in this case means &quot;bringing/leading along&quot;: I suspect that this sense is medieval, and it conforms to the evolution of the word meaning, e.g. modern French *conduire*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7677" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2110" RevisionGUID="e75cd5e1-322a-481d-abdc-aeee146853db" CreationDate="2016-12-02T23:53:57.643" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|declension|pronouns|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2080" RevisionGUID="aa7542c9-579e-4037-8be0-fb31617fa4bc" CreationDate="2016-12-03T11:36:28.680" UserId="79" Comment="added 189 characters in body" Text="Latin mottos have been popular in Europe for centuries, but I have never seen anything comparable to a motto from the Roman era.&#xD;&#xA;**When did first Latin mottos appear?**&#xD;&#xA;(Examples of individual early mottos make nice partial answers, if you have such.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer depends on what one means by a motto.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *candida pro causa ense candido* is a motto but *senatus populusque Romanus* is not.&#xD;&#xA;I like the definition given in [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motto):&#xD;&#xA;A motto (derived from the Latin *muttum*, 'mutter', by way of Italian *motto*, 'word', 'sentence') is a maxim, a phrase meant to formally summarize the general motivation or intention of an individual, family, social group or organization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An insightful quote is not necessarily a motto.&#xD;&#xA;A phrase becomes a motto when some person or institution adopts it as their motto.&#xD;&#xA;To describe a motto well, one needs to give the motto itself and tell whose motto it is.&#xD;&#xA;My example motto above was from C. G. E. Mannerheim, but I resist the urge to go into Finnish history for details.&#xD;&#xA;I could rephrase the question:&#xD;&#xA;When did someone first take a Latin motto?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:&#xD;&#xA;I have accepted an answer.&#xD;&#xA;More answers are still welcome, and if someone has an earlier motto or a better explanation to offer, I am (as always) willing to accept a new answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7680" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="275" RevisionGUID="a2124866-1677-495a-8dda-0d54b31f891b" CreationDate="2016-12-03T12:18:20.877" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|meaning|reference-request|color|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2116" RevisionGUID="814349ea-2bc0-4da4-8f9a-75e6de5c303a" CreationDate="2016-12-03T12:19:13.340" UserId="79" Text="The classical Latin word for a rainbow seems to be *Iris* (*Iris* or *Iridis*, f.).&#xD;&#xA;Did the Romans ever list or otherwise discuss the colors of the rainbow in extant literature?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked about [colors in classical Latin](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/275/79) earlier, and I got a nice answer.&#xD;&#xA;The matter is complicated.&#xD;&#xA;I just realized that rainbows look the same now as they did two millennia ago, so if the Romans named the colors of the rainbow, then we could be exactly sure about those colors and see them as they did." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7682" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2116" RevisionGUID="814349ea-2bc0-4da4-8f9a-75e6de5c303a" CreationDate="2016-12-03T12:19:13.340" UserId="79" Text="Colors of the rainbow" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7683" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2116" RevisionGUID="814349ea-2bc0-4da4-8f9a-75e6de5c303a" CreationDate="2016-12-03T12:19:13.340" UserId="79" Text="|meaning|science|reference-request|color|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2117" RevisionGUID="c30e36dd-355f-460a-8cfb-d4b1449b6aa3" CreationDate="2016-12-03T15:17:32.920" UserId="645" Text="According to H.H. Scullard (*Festivals &amp; Ceremonies of the Roman Republic* (Thames &amp; Hudson, 1981), there were at the end of the Republic 66 official festival or ceremonial occasions, occupying 136 days in all; the practical extent to which these were observed is doubtful. This did not include such special occasions as triumphs, ovations and funeral games. In all the wealth of detailed information that Scullard gives, there is nothing much about the behaviour of anyone but the celebrants. Other eminent authorities, including W. Warde Fowler, *Social Life at Rome in the Age of Cicero* and J.P.V.D. Balsdon, *Life &amp; Leisure in Ancient Rome* are full of detail on all aspects of the actual activities but, willing as they are to quote oral sentiments in conversation, they notice no kind of greeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are known greetings, usually beginning with the exclamation *Io!*, and the normal greeting *salve!* may well have sufficed for much of the time, but, with something like a third of the year devoted to these occasions, it's hard to believe that many were exciting enough to warrant an especially enthusiastic greeting. The near-complete absence from dictionaries of exhortations to enjoy something appears to back this up.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2118" RevisionGUID="7d97c846-6b71-4a8c-997f-0a39cff7a95a" CreationDate="2016-12-03T16:16:18.880" UserId="45" Text="Consider the following sentence (a little contrived, but you can imagine a better example...):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do you like their friends? -I only like her friends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The obvious word-for-word translation does not preserve this distinction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Diligisne amicos eorum? -Modo eius amicos diligo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern languages deal with this ambiguity in various ways, e.g. French:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tu aimes bien leurs amis ? -J'aime bien seulement ses amis **à elle**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: **Does Latin have a similar way to indicate the gender of the antecedent of such pronouns as *eius* when it is ambiguous?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7686" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2118" RevisionGUID="7d97c846-6b71-4a8c-997f-0a39cff7a95a" CreationDate="2016-12-03T16:16:18.880" UserId="45" Text="How to indicate gender of ambiguous pronoun antecedent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7687" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2118" RevisionGUID="7d97c846-6b71-4a8c-997f-0a39cff7a95a" CreationDate="2016-12-03T16:16:18.880" UserId="45" Text="|syntax|pronouns|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2119" RevisionGUID="ca7ffc43-0908-478a-8a5f-c2c343b1999b" CreationDate="2016-12-03T21:26:10.660" UserId="78" Text="Since a rainbow is a gradient, there's still no way of knowing which hue a color word refers to. At best we can approximate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earl Anderson's [*Folk-Taxonomies in Early English*](https://books.google.com/books?id=rYT8MPFl_egC&amp;pg=PA74#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) has a good discussion if it (citing (Dronke 1974](http://www.worldcat.org/title/tradition-and-innovation-in-medieval-western-color-imagery/oclc/8373647)), along with this neat chart:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Table 12 - Names of rainbow colors by Greek and Roman authors][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c0D83.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2119" RevisionGUID="3cd472df-4363-4a48-a97a-f551c501692c" CreationDate="2016-12-03T21:40:37.557" UserId="78" Comment="added 550 characters in body" Text="Since a rainbow is a gradient, there's still no way of knowing which hue a color word refers to. At best we can approximate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earl Anderson's [*Folk-Taxonomies in Early English*](https://books.google.com/books?id=rYT8MPFl_egC&amp;pg=PA74#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) has a good discussion if it (citing [Dronke 1974](http://www.worldcat.org/title/tradition-and-innovation-in-medieval-western-color-imagery/oclc/8373647)), along with this neat chart:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Table 12 - Names of rainbow colors by Greek and Roman authors][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are quite a few butcherings of the Greek, so I recommend you jump straight to Edmund Veckenstedt's [*Geschichte der griechischen Farbenlehre*](https://books.google.com/books?id=3YU6AQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA20#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false). I'm actually not sure how he got what he got! Aristotle's last term was actually ἁλουργόν and not αλονρλεσ/αλουρλεσ, and it's ξανθόν and not ζανδον, κυανοῦν and not χυανουν. I don't know how well your German is, but I can help with anything you might have trouble with, that is, if you're interested in the Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c0D83.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2120" RevisionGUID="e18627e4-d512-4416-a034-ad000574454a" CreationDate="2016-12-03T22:31:45.763" UserId="79" Text="I don't think it can be expressed as conveniently as in English, but there are some ways.&#xD;&#xA;Singular genitives in Latin pronouns tend not to make a difference between genders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The easiest way around without more context is to use a relative clause:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Modo eos amicos, quas ea habet, diligo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Using a name or a noun also makes it very clear, but the choice of words depends on contest:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Modo puellae amicos diligo.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Modo Mariae amicos diligo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. In some cases you might be able to rely on the order of introduction:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ecce puer et puella. Diligisne amicos eorum?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp;ndash; Modo huius amicos diligo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In this last example I would read *hius* as &quot;her&quot; and *illius* or *eius* as &quot;his&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. If you are not afraid of changing the meaning a little, more avenues open:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Eosdem amicos diligo atque ea.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;I like the same friends she does.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2121" RevisionGUID="718d1542-f4bf-428c-8431-b91e0c721a1c" CreationDate="2016-12-04T11:15:15.683" UserId="79" Text="Cicero has produced quite a lot of Latin prose in what is considered excellent style.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to find ways to demonstrate briefly what Cicero's style is all about.&#xD;&#xA;**If you had to demonstrate Cicero's prose style with one sentence from his works, what would it be and why? How does it reflect his style?**&#xD;&#xA;Such examples with explanations could easily be given to students or the general public to give an idea of what makes Cicero special.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer, give a sentence (or at most two if they are short) from Cicero and explain what makes it so characteristic of his style.&#xD;&#xA;Please give also a precise citation to make the passage easy to find online corpora and in various translations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is originally from [this meta discussion](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/229/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2121" RevisionGUID="718d1542-f4bf-428c-8431-b91e0c721a1c" CreationDate="2016-12-04T11:15:15.683" UserId="79" Text="Descriptive example of Cicero's style" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2121" RevisionGUID="718d1542-f4bf-428c-8431-b91e0c721a1c" CreationDate="2016-12-04T11:15:15.683" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|cicero|passage-request|soft-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2122" RevisionGUID="90ce0c55-efae-4b5b-979b-99064180eb26" CreationDate="2016-12-04T12:16:33.760" UserId="645" Text="There is always a possibility of ambiguity when using the genitive singular of pronouns (which, incidentally, never refer to the subject of the sentence). Consequently, there's a natural temptation to look for an equivalent in Latin that doesn't actually exist, as you are doing here. The simple answer is to use an unambiguous noun as in, for example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*An te iuvat eorum amicos? — Immo, iuvat amicos puellae novisse tantum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are in a particularly discursive mood, there's nothing at all wrong in qualifying your response in some kind of subordinate clause, but it is as well to bear in mind that discourse tended to be more terse and pithy when oral than when written, and to choose your approach appropriately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2123" RevisionGUID="b901709c-9d60-483c-9fbc-7ddedb31db61" CreationDate="2016-12-04T16:01:59.473" UserId="645" Text="*Hic enim dies vobis, patres conscripti, inluxit, haec potestas data est, ut, quantum virtutis, quantum constantiae, quantum gravitatis in huius ordinis consilio esset, populo Romano declarare possetis*. — Cicero Phil. V, 2 *init*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question sent me straight to the Philippics. Brutus, after reading this, commenting in this letter to  Cicero, thought it worthy indeed of the title Philippic (borrowed from Demosthenes) which its writer had facetiously given to the series:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*iam concedo ut vel Philippici vocentur, quod tu quadam epistula iocans scripsisti.* — Cic. ad Brut II, V.3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is Cicero at his most stirringly patriotic. It has the orotundity characteristic seen in his best forensic speeches, yet does not (to me, at any rate) seem contrived. Although it was not delivered in speech, it positively rolls off the tongue when spoken aloud.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2123" RevisionGUID="7fdf8eeb-cdeb-40d9-b97c-776640d15928" CreationDate="2016-12-04T17:33:53.443" UserId="645" Comment="word amended" Text="*Hic enim dies vobis, patres conscripti, inluxit, haec potestas data est, ut, quantum virtutis, quantum constantiae, quantum gravitatis in huius ordinis consilio esset, populo Romano declarare possetis*. — Cicero Phil. V, 2 *init*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question sent me straight to the Philippics. Brutus, after reading this, commenting in this letter to  Cicero, thought it worthy indeed of the title Philippic (borrowed from Demosthenes) which its writer had facetiously given to the series:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*iam concedo ut vel Philippici vocentur, quod tu quadam epistula iocans scripsisti.* — Cic. ad Brut II, V.3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is Cicero at his most stirringly patriotic. It has the orotundity characteristically seen in his best forensic speeches, yet does not (to me, at any rate) seem contrived. Although it was not delivered in speech, it positively rolls off the tongue when spoken aloud.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="702" RevisionGUID="29d00d33-a286-43e6-a68b-f84c87664458" CreationDate="2016-12-04T19:08:05.377" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="Reading [the etymology of fiend](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=fiend) propelled me to read Univ. Texas's page on the PIE etymon [&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; pē(i)-, pī-  &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; 'to hurt, scold, shame'](http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/X/P1460.html), whose Semantic Fields are stated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;to Harm, Injure, Damage; Shame (n).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under this PIE etymon, I saw the Latin adverb *paene* listed; but per  [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paene), it does not connote or denote any negativity or injure or shame. So why was *paene* assigned to this PIE etymon? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7700" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="702" RevisionGUID="29d00d33-a286-43e6-a68b-f84c87664458" CreationDate="2016-12-04T19:08:05.377" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="What semantic notions underlie 'paene' to the PIE root 'pē(i)-' (to hurt, scold, shame)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2124" RevisionGUID="5eaffbc5-cdcf-4d7c-aeff-bad00e12bcdc" CreationDate="2016-12-04T19:30:32.970" UserId="40" Text="The first example that comes to my mind is the beginning of the Second Catilinarian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tandem aliquando, Quirites, L. Catilinam furentem audacia, scelus anhelantem, pestem patriae nefarie molientem, vobis atque huic urbi ferrum flammamque minitantem, ex urbe vel eiecimus, vel emisimus, vel ipsum egredientem verbis prosecuti sumus. Abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C. D. Yonge's translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  At length, O Romans, we have dismissed from the city, or driven out, or, when he was departing of his own accord, we have pursued with words, Lucius Catiline, mad with audacity, breathing wickedness, impiously planning mischief to his country, threatening fire and sword to you and to this city. He is gone, he has departed, he has disappeared, he has rushed out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero packs a lot of rhetorical devices and effects into these two sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - chiasmus: *furentem audacia, scelus anhelantem*&#xD;&#xA; - coordinated lists whose members increase in length: *furentem audacia, scelus anhelantem, pestem patriae nefarie molientem, vobis atque huic urbi ferrum flammamque minitantem*; *vel eiecimus, vel emisimus, vel ipsum egredientem verbis prosecuti sumus*&#xD;&#xA; - a vivid metaphor in *scelus anhelantem*: Catiline is so evil he actually breathes crime&#xD;&#xA; - alliteration: *pestem patriae*, *ferrum flammamque*&#xD;&#xA; - assonant pairs of verbs that differ only by one syllable: *eiecimus / emisimus*, *evasit / erupit*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, perhaps the most striking feature of this passage is the contrast between the syntactically complex, periodic first sentence and the extremely simple and punchy second sentence, which consists of just four verbs in a row. Cicero pretty much defines the Latin periodic style, but he was also a master of variety and could intersperse complex and simple structures to great effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2122" RevisionGUID="603fab86-f762-4dc8-8b85-6fb715f2f2c9" CreationDate="2016-12-04T19:42:22.423" UserId="645" Comment="moved infinitive to first part" Text="There is always a possibility of ambiguity when using the genitive singular of pronouns (which, incidentally, never refer to the subject of the sentence). Consequently, there's a natural temptation to look for an equivalent in Latin that doesn't actually exist, as you are doing here. The simple answer is to use an unambiguous noun as in, for example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*An te iuvat eorum amicos novisse? — Immo, iuvat amicos puellae tantum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are in a particularly discursive mood, there's nothing at all wrong in qualifying your response in some kind of subordinate clause, but it is as well to bear in mind that discourse tended to be more terse and pithy when oral than when written, and to choose your approach appropriately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2125" RevisionGUID="d2d02821-315a-4609-8a2d-f73dc6034433" CreationDate="2016-12-04T19:54:54.920" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Reading [the etymology of 'contrive'](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=contrive&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) elicited the entitled question, where I lazily omit some links. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My conjecture: A figure of speech had to be found or imagined from the literal meaning, before it standardised in the lexicon after which finding or imagination was no longer needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ [Etymology of French verb 'trouver](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trouver#Etymology) : ]  &#xD;&#xA; From Old French *trover, truver*,     &#xD;&#xA;from Vulgar Latin _*tropāre_, present active infinitive of _*tropō_,      &#xD;&#xA;from Latin [*tropus*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tropus#Latin); confer [trope](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trope).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ [Latin noun 'tropus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tropus#Etymologyy) : ]  &#xD;&#xA;###Etymology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;From Ancient Greek [τρόπος](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%84%CF%81%CF%8C%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%82#Ancient_Greek) ‎(trópos, “a turn, way, manner, style, a trope or figure of speech, a mode in music, a mode or mood in logic”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###[Definitions] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. a figurative use of a word, a trope (postAug. for trānslātiō,&#xD;&#xA;    verbōrum immūtātiō)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;       &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. a way of singing, a song&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3.  a flaccid member with an excess of skin, unrelated to a circumcision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7704" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2125" RevisionGUID="d2d02821-315a-4609-8a2d-f73dc6034433" CreationDate="2016-12-04T19:54:54.920" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What semantic notions underlie the Latin 'tropus' with the notion of &lt;find&gt;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7705" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2125" RevisionGUID="d2d02821-315a-4609-8a2d-f73dc6034433" CreationDate="2016-12-04T19:54:54.920" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|greek|french|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2119" RevisionGUID="95ee4e41-30c6-44b7-a87d-d2771458006b" CreationDate="2016-12-04T20:26:15.223" UserId="78" Comment="added 377 characters in body" Text="Since a rainbow is a gradient, there's still no way of knowing which hue a color word refers to. At best we can approximate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earl Anderson's [*Folk-Taxonomies in Early English*](https://books.google.com/books?id=rYT8MPFl_egC&amp;pg=PA74#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) has a good discussion if it (citing [Dronke 1974](http://www.worldcat.org/title/tradition-and-innovation-in-medieval-western-color-imagery/oclc/8373647)), along with this neat chart:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Table 12 - Names of rainbow colors by Greek and Roman authors][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are quite a few butcherings of the Greek, so I recommend you jump straight to Edmund Veckenstedt's [*Geschichte der griechischen Farbenlehre*](https://books.google.com/books?id=3YU6AQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA20#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false). I'm actually not sure how he got what he got! Aristotle's last term was actually ἁλουργόν and not αλονρλεσ/αλουρλεσ, and it's ξανθόν and not ζανδον, κυανοῦν and not χυανουν. I don't know how well your German is, but I can help with anything you might have trouble with, that is, if you're interested in the Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Links to Latin sources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Seneca](http://www.loebclassics.com/view/seneca_younger-natural_questions/1971/pb_LCL450.41.xml)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Lucretius](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0131%3Abook%3D4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Bede](https://books.google.com/books?id=YQjHoQAZKX0C&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q=rainbow&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c0D83.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2126" RevisionGUID="de6d4d13-82ef-446c-bcc1-cbe5de5f5563" CreationDate="2016-12-04T21:12:20.093" UserId="132" Text="According to [Wiktionnaire](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/trouver#.C3.89tymologie), the Vulgar Latin verb *tropare* could mean not only interpreting a song, but also **composing** a song or poem. The association of the word with songs remains in words like *troubadour*. From there, it generalized to **inventing** something, then to **discovering** something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[“Interpreting language variation and change” by Kevin Tuite, collected in *Language, culture, and society: key topics in linguistic anthropology* (2006)](https://books.google.fr/books?id=ZWl2-SAKa08C&amp;pg=PA239&amp;lpg=PA239&amp;dq=%22tropare%22+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=FZ8TzTc7Ml&amp;sig=GJ56kupeDGIXLy30g-YXJRrYD3I&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=%22tropare%22%20Latin&amp;f=false) has a section on the word, with further references. The [verb](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Latin/tropo) is not attested in writing, but has been [reconstructed](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Reconstructed_terms) from known words and known patterns of sound changes in Romance languages (mostly French and Occitan). Another word based on the same root, *contropare*, is attested in 6th Century Italy, meaning “compare”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The etymology of *trouver* does remain disputed, so it's quite possible that the answer to this question is that there is no connection! Tuite presents a history of this dispute and concludes that “no etymology of *trouver/trobar* has as yet gained the universal accceptance of experts”. The *tropare* hypothesis is primarily the work of [Gaston Paris](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaston_Paris). He rejected an earlier hypothesis by [Friedrich Diez](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Christian_Diez) (later elaborated upon by [Hugo Schuchardt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Schuchardt)) who thought the French word *trouver* came from [*turbo*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/turbo), meaning to disturb something; the meaning would then have evolved towards finding something (as a result of disturbing the place where that thing is). This hypothesis is corroborated by the fact that several other Romance languages have a word for *find* that evolved from words that would apply to finding game during hunting of fishing, and by the fact that *trouver* meant a chance encounter in Old French (according to the etymology section of the [*Trésor de la langue française*](http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/trouver)) before it generalized to finding the object of a search, but Paris rejected it because the changes from *turbo* to *trobar* (which is attested in many Romance languages around the North-West Mediterranean) would be very unusual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several other hypotheses beyond these two. [Albert Kluyver](https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Kluyver_(spr%C3%A5kvetare)) [analyzed](http://www.persee.fr/doc/roma_0035-8029_1909_num_38_149_5057) the known forms *contropare* and *adtropare* as well as the Ancient Greek *τρόπος* and proposed a different semantic evolution: from ruse (attested for *τρόπος*), to making up a ruse or lie, to inventing, to discovering. This meaning explains *contrive* from *contropare* rather well. [Julián Ribera y Tarragó](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juli%C3%A1n_Ribera) suggested a completely different origin, from an Arabic word *taraba* meaning to sing; this directly explains *troubadour*, and *trobar/trouver* would have followed the same evolution compose → invent → discover that I mentioned earlier. [Maria Rosa Menocal in *The Arabic Role in Medieval Literary History: A Forgotten Heritage*](https://books.google.fr/books?id=zp1syHAHVM0C&amp;pg=PR11&amp;lpg=PR11&amp;dq=Arabic+taraba&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=dfr9uqRPeY&amp;sig=btjNpzW_POtnuSOZnMw8RYOzZqI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=Arabic%20taraba&amp;f=false) analyzes this hypothesis and concludes that it is plausible on both phonological and semantic grounds, and more likely than the *tropare* and *turbo* hypotheses, but was unfairly disdained by 19th and 20th century Romance language scholars because they did not admit Arabic etymons readily.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2119" RevisionGUID="28e8e8dd-3d9b-4721-a3a7-51fcb357c9e6" CreationDate="2016-12-04T22:08:43.833" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 104 characters in body" Text="Since a rainbow is a gradient, there's still no way of knowing which hue a color word refers to. At best we can approximate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earl Anderson's [*Folk-Taxonomies in Early English*](https://books.google.com/books?id=rYT8MPFl_egC&amp;pg=PA74#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) has a good discussion if it (citing [Dronke 1974](http://www.worldcat.org/title/tradition-and-innovation-in-medieval-western-color-imagery/oclc/8373647)), along with this neat chart:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Table 12 - Names of rainbow colors by Greek and Roman authors][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are quite a few butcherings of the Greek, so I recommend you jump straight to Edmund Veckenstedt's [*Geschichte der griechischen Farbenlehre*](https://books.google.com/books?id=3YU6AQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA20#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false). I'm actually not sure how he got what he got! Aristotle's last term was actually ἁλουργόν and not αλονρλεσ/αλουρλεσ, and it's ξανθόν and not ζανδον, κυανοῦν and not χυανουν. I don't know how well your German is, but I can help with anything you might have trouble with, that is, if you're interested in the Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Links to Latin sources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Seneca](http://www.loebclassics.com/view/seneca_younger-natural_questions/1971/pb_LCL450.41.xml)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Bede](https://books.google.com/books?id=YQjHoQAZKX0C&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q=rainbow&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c0D83.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2127" RevisionGUID="8ab913f3-f21f-4e32-8a87-2dd5ce2d2387" CreationDate="2016-12-05T03:53:35.940" UserId="985" Text="Because this etymology means that *paene* would be related to *paenitet* (as, indeed, the *Oxford Latin Dictionary* indicates it is), I should think that the connection is something along these lines: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one thing is 'almost' another thing, it falls short of that thing in some essential quality, the full possession of which would make it wholly that thing; therefore, it's 'damaged' or 'causes dissatisfaction' (one of the definitions of paenitet in *OLD*) *vis-à-vis* that thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2128" RevisionGUID="49920272-d8ba-4792-ba91-c81b108cc0fb" CreationDate="2016-12-05T07:01:27.753" UserId="79" Text="Consider this example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ecce Marcus et Gaius. Hic canit, ille auscultat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here are Marcus and Gaius. The latter sings, the former listens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When there are two or more things one could refer to, *hic* often means &quot;the latter&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The first of two can then be referred to with *ille* or *is* unless I am mistaken.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure which one of *ille* and *is* is better here or whether there is a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference between *is* and *ille* in references like this?&#xD;&#xA;In case of two (here Marcus and Gaius), can either one refer to Marcus?&#xD;&#xA;If there were three people, what would *is* and *ille* refer to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the usual latter/former pair is *hic/ille*, but I am unsure of the role of *is*.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure it has any role like this at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This came up when I wrote an answer to [a pronoun ambiguity question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2118/79) yesterday." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7711" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2128" RevisionGUID="49920272-d8ba-4792-ba91-c81b108cc0fb" CreationDate="2016-12-05T07:01:27.753" UserId="79" Text="Reference with hic, is and ille" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7712" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2128" RevisionGUID="49920272-d8ba-4792-ba91-c81b108cc0fb" CreationDate="2016-12-05T07:01:27.753" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|syntax|pronouns|demonstrative-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2128" RevisionGUID="860ebda0-a30c-4fcb-b7b5-36a3c67d9a2d" CreationDate="2016-12-05T18:15:36.000" UserId="79" Comment="added 192 characters in body" Text="Consider this example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ecce Marcus et Gaius. Hic canit, ille auscultat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here are Marcus and Gaius. The latter sings, the former listens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When there are two or more things one could refer to, *hic* often means &quot;the latter&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The first of two can then be referred to with *ille* or *is* unless I am mistaken, but *ille* seems to be at least more common.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--I am not sure which one of *ille* and *is* is better here or whether there is a difference.--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference between *is* and *ille* in references like this?&#xD;&#xA;That is, can I use *is* instead of *ille* here, or would it mean something else?&#xD;&#xA;In case of two (here Marcus and Gaius), would *is* refer to Marcus or Gaius, our would it not refer clearly to either one?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--If there were three people, what would *is* and *ille* refer to?--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the usual latter/former pair is *hic/ille*, but I am unsure of the role of *is*.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure it has any role like this at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This came up when I wrote an answer to [a pronoun ambiguity question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2118/79) yesterday." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2129" RevisionGUID="24d3075a-8a70-427f-8f85-6f2f08f96841" CreationDate="2016-12-05T20:57:12.657" UserId="1000" Text="I am attempting to translate a text from english to latin, and am unsure how to translate the word from when it is used in the context of a verb. An example would be: &quot;I took from him...&quot;; another example would be &quot;I learned many things from her.&quot; I know that one of the translations of *dē* is *from*, but was unsure if this is a specific class of usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank You." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7715" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2129" RevisionGUID="24d3075a-8a70-427f-8f85-6f2f08f96841" CreationDate="2016-12-05T20:57:12.657" UserId="1000" Text="Concerning the Verbal &quot;From&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7716" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2129" RevisionGUID="24d3075a-8a70-427f-8f85-6f2f08f96841" CreationDate="2016-12-05T20:57:12.657" UserId="1000" Text="|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2130" RevisionGUID="7f77fd8b-9bb2-46f7-af4d-a876ab25c0e6" CreationDate="2016-12-05T23:03:53.383" UserId="78" Text="They're all different uses! Different verbs will have different constructions, and you cannot, as a rule, ever do a one-to-one correspondence based on English's idioms. Take &quot;take away,&quot; for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You actually have a couple of options depending on the thing you're taking away. Some words add on *ex* to the beginning of a verbalized noun, like *exanimare* &quot;to take the life away from [someone]&quot; i.e. &quot;to kill.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a synonym for deprive, you have *orbare* (to take away parents/children/etc. from someone) or *spoliare* (to take spoils away from a conquered people). Others are *adimere* or *privare*, too! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nouns associated with the verbs change, too. Some, like *privare*, have the item removed in the ablative and the person from which in the accusative. (Sort of like the way &quot;strip&quot; would work: You strip me of my possessions = You took my possessions from me.) *Eripere*, as another example, has the items taken away in accusative and the person from which they are taken be in ablative with the preposition *ex*. Caesar, for example, writes *ereptum* ***ex manibus*** *hostium* &quot;taken away/snatched **from the hands** of the enemies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without knowing what you want to say, it will be difficult to say for sure how to say it in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1872" RevisionGUID="229f72f5-0038-4e6d-a46b-616a02c0a017" CreationDate="2016-12-06T01:15:05.873" UserId="-1" Comment="I come from ELU with news of an update!" Text="This is a bit cheeky, but I'm trying to find out the meaning of what may be an 18th century abbreviation of a Latin phrase (for an answer to a [question](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/354909/abbreviation-in-a-business-letter) in EL&amp;U.SE). Since I have no Latin, I've been fumbling around a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The abbreviation is *qsd* (with a macron over the s). The context is a business letter between two brothers (which I do not have). I could find no ready interpretation online. Without going through all my researches, I eventually came up with &quot;quod sine dictum&quot; (that without mentioning), i.e. &quot;keep your mouth shut&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it sound  reasonable, and if so, have I got the Latin (and translation) right? I couldn't decline a Latin verb if you threatened to string my up by my testes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acknowledgements will be given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, feel free to provide your own answer. I'm sure that the denizens of EL&amp;U will be grateful for any assistance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/w0wRt.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In transcribing a business letter written in 1776, I keep finding an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparent abbreviation, 'qsd' with a line over the s, e.g &quot;this to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qsd my brother.&quot; The letters are hand-written by William Phelps in London to James Morrissey in Madeira and concern the shipping of wine and other commodities between England and Madeira. William, his brother Joseph and James M were in partnership. I have screenshots of the word in context but don't know how to attach them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7719" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1872" RevisionGUID="229f72f5-0038-4e6d-a46b-616a02c0a017" CreationDate="2016-12-06T01:15:05.873" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 931 edit id of 152" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2131" RevisionGUID="894b787d-6b03-4e22-9ef6-1315135f5348" CreationDate="2016-12-06T07:55:16.430" UserId="235" Text="I'm having trouble with this short passage from Thucydides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; παραστήτω δέ τινι καὶ τόδε, πολύ τε ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμετέρας αὐτῶν εἶναι καὶ πρὸς γῇ οὐδεμιᾷ φιλίᾳ, ἥντινα μὴ αὐτοὶ μαχόμενοι κτήσεσθε. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Peloponnesian War, 6.68.3][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what I have so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Consider this, we are both much away from our own land and near no friendly land, except what you yourselves will win from fighting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this might be more or less correct, but it's really the details that stump me. On these details I have a few questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What are the syntactic functions of τινι καὶ in the first clause? &#xD;&#xA;2. How should I translate εἶναι? I assume that it's an infinitive according to indirect speech, but how should I decide what person and number to give in my translation? I arbitrarily chose &quot;we&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;3. I parsed πολύ as an adverb, meaning &quot;much&quot;. Now, I thought that Greek adverbs are typically placed next to the word they modify. Accordingly, I would expect it to be placed next to the infinitive εἶναι. But since this is not the case, I'm not entirely sure what πολύ modifies. Is it possible that it modifies the entire phrase, ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμετέρας αὐτῶν εἶναι? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Thuc.%206.68.3&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0199" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7721" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2131" RevisionGUID="894b787d-6b03-4e22-9ef6-1315135f5348" CreationDate="2016-12-06T07:55:16.430" UserId="235" Text="A few questions on a sentence from Thucydides' Peloponnesian War" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7722" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2131" RevisionGUID="894b787d-6b03-4e22-9ef6-1315135f5348" CreationDate="2016-12-06T07:55:16.430" UserId="235" Text="|greek|adverb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7723" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2131" RevisionGUID="4020294e-7a05-40a3-9640-192ab4b6604e" CreationDate="2016-12-06T08:08:14.527" UserId="235" Comment="edited title" Text="A few questions on a sentence from Thucydides (Peloponnesian War 6.68)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7724" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2129" RevisionGUID="9999b05c-621f-4071-9f3b-9ea8e4ffe165" CreationDate="2016-12-06T09:16:35.410" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|preposition|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2132" RevisionGUID="b187392a-d439-4d07-b5f8-26474b5f168a" CreationDate="2016-12-06T10:08:38.540" UserId="79" Text="The word *locus* is masculine in the singular, but it can be masculine or neuter in the plural.&#xD;&#xA;Geographical places are *loca*, but places in a text are *loci*.&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, this is the only Latin word with such behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know where this &quot;double plural&quot; comes from?&#xD;&#xA;Was it always there in the written Latin we know?&#xD;&#xA;Is there a similar situation in related languages (Italic, Greek, PIE, or something) that could shed some light on the problem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7726" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2132" RevisionGUID="b187392a-d439-4d07-b5f8-26474b5f168a" CreationDate="2016-12-06T10:08:38.540" UserId="79" Text="Where do the plurals of locus come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7727" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2132" RevisionGUID="b187392a-d439-4d07-b5f8-26474b5f168a" CreationDate="2016-12-06T10:08:38.540" UserId="79" Text="|language-evolution|gender|plural|neuter|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2133" RevisionGUID="5b3c15ea-c46b-4f23-b6f3-9e4237ec6ed6" CreationDate="2016-12-06T15:47:16.160" UserId="45" Text="You're right that there are some tricky sections in this passage, but your translation captures the sense very well. Concerning your questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 1. What are the syntactic functions of τινι καὶ in the first clause?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;τινι and καὶ should not be construed together. We rather have two separate parts here: **παραστήτω δέ τινι** and **καὶ τόδε**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. [**παρίστημι**](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=parasth%2Ftw&amp;la=greek&amp;can=parasth%2Ftw0&amp;prior=]&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0199:book=6:chapter=68:section=3&amp;i=1#lexicon) + X (dat.) + Y (acc.) means &quot;I set Y before X's mind.&quot; In this case, παραστήτω is a 3rd person singular aorist imperative, and [**τις**](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dtis) is an (enclitic) indefinite pronoun that uses a special usage (II.2 in the LSJ): &quot;any one concerned, every one,&quot; like Latin *quisque*. Consider the following phrase from the *Iliad*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εὖ μέν τις δόρυ θηξάσθω (Il.2.382) = &quot;Let **everyone** sharpen his spear well.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**παραστήτω δέ τινι** thus means &quot;Let it be present in everyone's mind.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for **καὶ τόδε**, καὶ is used adverbially to mean &quot;also.&quot; A translation of this whole part would be: &quot;Let this also be present in everyone's mind....&quot; (Of course, τόδε is not the subject in Greek, but this is a more fluid English translation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 2. How should I translate εἶναι?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you note, the subject of the infinitive is understood as the &quot;everyone&quot; to whom he is addressing himself. The prior ἡμετέρας αὐτῶν (where the genitive plural &quot;αὐτῶν&quot; is added to the possessive adjective to emphasize the fact that it is *reflexive*) justifies the choice of ἡμᾶς as the understood accusative subject, i.e. &quot;Let each of us remember that we...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 3. The function of πολύ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;πολύ is indeed an adverb: it is paired with the prepositional phrase that follows: ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμετέρας αὐτῶν, and thus means &quot;far from our own land.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A complete translation, very similar to yours and a little more literal, would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And let each man bear in mind that we are far from our own land and close to no friendly territory, unless we ourselves make it so by fighting.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2133" RevisionGUID="19ae7f9d-d7c5-426a-b462-1a791c33befa" CreationDate="2016-12-06T17:02:23.590" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="You're right that there are some tricky sections in this passage, but your translation captures the sense very well. Concerning your questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 1. What are the syntactic functions of τινι καὶ in the first clause?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;τινι and καὶ should not be construed together. We rather have two separate parts here: **παραστήτω δέ τινι** and **καὶ τόδε**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**παρίστημι**](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=parasth%2Ftw&amp;la=greek&amp;can=parasth%2Ftw0&amp;prior=]&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0199:book=6:chapter=68:section=3&amp;i=1#lexicon) + X (dat.) + Y (acc.) means &quot;I set Y before X's mind.&quot; In this case, παραστήτω is a 3rd person singular aorist imperative, and [**τις**](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dtis) is an (enclitic) indefinite pronoun that uses a special usage (II.2 in the LSJ): &quot;any one concerned, every one,&quot; like Latin *quisque*. Consider the following phrase from the *Iliad*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εὖ μέν τις δόρυ θηξάσθω (Il.2.382) = &quot;Let **everyone** sharpen his spear well.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**παραστήτω δέ τινι** thus means &quot;Let it be present in everyone's mind.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for **καὶ τόδε**, καὶ is used adverbially to mean &quot;also.&quot; A translation of this whole part would be: &quot;Let this also be present in everyone's mind....&quot; (Of course, τόδε is not the subject in Greek, but this is a more fluid English translation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 2. How should I translate εἶναι?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you note, the subject of the infinitive is understood as the &quot;everyone&quot; to whom he is addressing himself. The prior ἡμετέρας αὐτῶν (where the genitive plural &quot;αὐτῶν&quot; is added to the possessive adjective to emphasize the fact that it is *reflexive*) justifies the choice of ἡμᾶς as the understood accusative subject, i.e. &quot;Let each of us remember that we...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 3. The function of πολύ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;πολύ is indeed an adverb: it is paired with the prepositional phrase that follows: ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμετέρας αὐτῶν, and thus means &quot;far from our own land.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A complete translation, very similar to yours and a little more literal, would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And let each man bear in mind that we are far from our own land and close to no friendly territory, unless we ourselves make it so by fighting.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1806" RevisionGUID="dc457ac6-88c2-4367-9597-7db610ffd8e6" CreationDate="2016-12-06T17:09:53.810" UserId="79" Comment="Reformulated the question based on meta discussion: http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/227/79" Text="I am trying to understand the English phrase &quot;X consists in Y&quot; with help of and in comparison to the Latin verb *consistere*.&#xD;&#xA;In English &quot;X consists in Y&quot; means &quot;X contains Y&quot;, but from the Latin point of view it seems to mean &quot;Y contains X&quot;, and I would like to understand why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a simple example, milk consists in vitamin B12, meaning that milk contains the vitamin.&#xD;&#xA;However, starting from the Latin verb *consistere*, it seems that 'to consist' means 'to stand in'.&#xD;&#xA;This would make the example &quot;milk consists in vitamin B12&quot; say that vitamin B12 contains milk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What explains this difference?&#xD;&#xA;Is there a semantic difference between the English &quot;consist&quot; and the Latin *consistere*?&#xD;&#xA;I suspect some kind of semantic or syntactic shift is behind this difference.&#xD;&#xA;Could someone explain it to me?&#xD;&#xA;If there is no well-documented source for this, I am happy to receive good explanations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second interpretation motivated by Latin makes &quot;X consists in Y&quot; into &quot;Y contains X&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is clearly wrong, but I don't understand where I have made a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;Where is the problem here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is [a related post on ELU](http://english.stackexchange.com/a/193854/50720), and I also read the entries in [ODO](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/consist?q=consist+in#consist__9) and [Etymonline](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=consist&amp;searchmode=none).&#xD;&#xA;However, none of them answer my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize that there are several questions here, but they are tightly interwoven and I would be happy to receive a good answer to any of them.&#xD;&#xA;If you think the question should be clarified or narrowed down, let me know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7731" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1806" RevisionGUID="dc457ac6-88c2-4367-9597-7db610ffd8e6" CreationDate="2016-12-06T17:09:53.810" UserId="79" Comment="Reformulated the question based on meta discussion: http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/227/79" Text="How did I misunderstand the Latin 'consisto' in interpreting 'X consists in Y'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7732" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1806" RevisionGUID="dc457ac6-88c2-4367-9597-7db610ffd8e6" CreationDate="2016-12-06T17:09:53.810" UserId="79" Comment="Reformulated the question based on meta discussion: http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/227/79" Text="|etymology|verbs|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7733" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="1806" RevisionGUID="1b9bcef9-2ee5-42cf-9235-a383560ab843" CreationDate="2016-12-06T17:10:05.673" UserId="79" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7734" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="1806" RevisionGUID="17196ef4-0ebe-496d-9d48-d3b3a1b93799" CreationDate="2016-12-06T17:10:22.223" UserId="79" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:37,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Canada - Area 51 Proposal&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2134" RevisionGUID="4a41ff67-60a9-4803-b920-fe801ba0d2e8" CreationDate="2016-12-06T18:31:04.537" UserId="40" Text="As usual, to answer this question we need to step into our comparative linguistics-fueled time machine and go back to Proto-Indo-European times, so we can see what function the ending *-a*, which we know as a neuter plural ending, had in PIE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In PIE, this ending *-a* (or rather *-(e)h₂) did not form plurals, but [collectives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_noun). A collective refers to a group of objects, but is conceptualized as being a single thing, and for grammatical purposes is generally treated as a singular noun; this was probably the case in PIE, and is why in Greek, for example, neuter plural nouns in *-a* still take singular verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PIE collectives seem to have been used most often with inanimate, i.e. neuter, nouns -- in fact, neuter nouns don't seem to have had a normal plural (at least not in the nominative/accusative), so the collective form more or less stood in for a plural. This is why in Latin and other languages, *-a* came to be a specifically neuter ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the collective could also be formed from animates, i.e. masculine and feminine nouns. *Locus* is one such example: of its two plurals, *locī* continues the PIE plural, while *loca* continues the PIE collective. It actually isn't the only such noun in Latin: there's *iocus* &quot;joke&quot;, pl. *ioca*, and *carbasus* &quot;sail&quot;, pl. *carbasa*. And there's at least one case in which the collective was reinterpreted as a feminine singular: *pila* &quot;ball&quot;, which seems to have originally been the collective of *pilus* &quot;hair&quot; (meaning &quot;mass or ball of hair&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(By the way, another heterogeneous noun with a similar story behind it is *frēnum* &quot;rein&quot;, pl. *frēnī*. In this case the Latin masculine plural ending continues what was in PIE terms not a plural at all, but a neuter dual.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2135" RevisionGUID="03f68e9e-041b-4a26-adad-5c4d5ea8e4cd" CreationDate="2016-12-06T19:32:30.540" UserId="406" Text="To my understanding, Latin doesn't have a dual number at all. The adjectives *duo* &quot;two&quot; and *ambō* &quot;both&quot; have some special forms derived from the PIE dual (-*ō*, -*ābus*, -*ōbus*), but are considered irregular rather than part of any real pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, from an answer to [an unrelated question][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By the way, another heterogeneous noun with a similar story behind it is frēnum &quot;rein&quot;, pl. frēnī. In this case the Latin masculine plural ending continues what was in PIE terms not a plural at all, but a neuter dual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This points to another trace of the dual number which I hadn't heard about before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other irregularities or fossilized forms in Latin which derive from the dual number in PIE or Proto-Italic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2132/where-do-the-plurals-of-locus-come-from" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7738" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2135" RevisionGUID="03f68e9e-041b-4a26-adad-5c4d5ea8e4cd" CreationDate="2016-12-06T19:32:30.540" UserId="406" Text="Remnants of the dual number" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7739" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2135" RevisionGUID="03f68e9e-041b-4a26-adad-5c4d5ea8e4cd" CreationDate="2016-12-06T19:32:30.540" UserId="406" Text="|etymologia|declension|numbers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7740" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2135" RevisionGUID="550e77a8-6506-42f3-bc47-ce7bc021fa8c" CreationDate="2016-12-06T19:44:51.340" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|language-evolution|declension|numbers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2136" RevisionGUID="2d3a05ad-ad4d-415b-990a-679ee3bcaf81" CreationDate="2016-12-06T20:18:30.180" UserId="40" Text="The -ī of *vīgintī* &quot;20&quot; is originally a dual ending, the same one as in *frēnī* (PIE *-ih₁). This is why the ending of *vīgintī* is different from that of the other tens (*trīgintā* etc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2137" RevisionGUID="9ba729a6-a172-44a6-bb60-72c1ceaa056c" CreationDate="2016-12-06T21:42:17.003" UserId="986" Text="According to W.M. Lindsay [The Latin Language: An Historical Account of Latin Sounds, Stems, and Flexions](https://books.google.nl/books?id=zEBHglB7zOIC&amp;pg=PA253&amp;lpg=PA253#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) (p. 253), *octo* could also be a dual in form, with the sense of 'two sets of four'. He sees a comparison with *ambo* and *duo* because of the ending ō-sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't get why it would mean 'two sets of four' though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2138" RevisionGUID="92ce4afa-4927-4bd1-acc2-a9d91fa8d816" CreationDate="2016-12-06T23:40:12.847" UserId="75" Text="The following is the [Latin text][1] from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), Prologue, Chapter 1, Section 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Ut haec vocatio in toto resonaret orbe, Christus Apostolos misit, quos elegerat, **illis Evangelii nuntiandi praebens mandatum**: « Euntes ergo docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, docentes eos servare omnia, quaecumque mandavi vobis. Et ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi » (Mt 28,19-20). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have translated the initial portion of that passage as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So that this calling would resonate in the entire earth, Christ sent the apostles whom he had chosen, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware that there is an [English translation][2], but it’s not absolutely accurate, and I am interested in translating the Latin text myself. Based on the following verse (Matt. 28:19-20), I can assume what the text would be understood as, but that is not what I am looking for. I’d like to understand the grammar and syntax. From my parsing on Perseus, it seems like a mish-mash of participles and gerundives (except for the words *illis* and *Evangelii*). Is that right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/prologue_lt.htm#I.%20Vita%20hominis%20%E2%80%93%20Deum%20cognoscere%20Illumque%20amare&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2.HTM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7745" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2138" RevisionGUID="92ce4afa-4927-4bd1-acc2-a9d91fa8d816" CreationDate="2016-12-06T23:40:12.847" UserId="75" Text="Understanding the grammar: «illis Evangelii nuntiandi praebens mandatum»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7746" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2138" RevisionGUID="92ce4afa-4927-4bd1-acc2-a9d91fa8d816" CreationDate="2016-12-06T23:40:12.847" UserId="75" Text="|translation|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2139" RevisionGUID="17be37e3-0057-423d-a0f8-174ca08ec88f" CreationDate="2016-12-07T00:55:02.563" UserId="30" Text="&gt; Christus Apostolos misit ... illis Evangelii nuntiandi praebens mandatum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Praebens* is a participle modifying *Christus*: &quot;Christ sent the apostles ... **giving**...&quot;. All the other words you marked depend on *praebens*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dative *illis* is the recipient of *praebens*: &quot;giving **them**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The neuter past participle *mandatum* is used as a noun and is the object of *praebens*: &quot;giving them **a mandate**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive construction *Evangelii nuntiandi* is a genitive depending on *mandatum*: &quot;the mandate **to announce the Gospel**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Christ sent out Apostles...giving them a mandate to announce the Gospel&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2139" RevisionGUID="e0c5e5b2-0c1b-4fec-b71c-c2043d3527ff" CreationDate="2016-12-07T01:52:28.520" UserId="30" Comment="added 764 characters in body" Text="&gt; Christus Apostolos misit ... illis Evangelii nuntiandi praebens mandatum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Praebens* is a participle modifying *Christus*: &quot;Christ sent the apostles ... **giving**...&quot;. All the other words you marked depend on *praebens*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dative *illis* is the recipient of *praebens*: &quot;giving **them**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The neuter past participle *mandatum* is used as a noun and is the object of *praebens*: &quot;giving them **a mandate**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive construction *Evangelii nuntiandi* is a genitive depending on *mandatum*: &quot;the mandate **to announce the Gospel**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most literally, it would be &quot;the mandate of the Gospel that is to be announced&quot;: a gerundive is an adjective, so it must normally modify a noun (henceforth &quot;x&quot;), which is why it is translated most literally as &quot;x (that is) to be done&quot; or &quot;the to-be-done x&quot;. And a gerundive is passive, which is why x is literally &quot;to be done&quot; (and not &quot;doing&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, a gerund construction would be *mandatum nuntiandi Evangelium*, where *Evangelium* is in the accusative because it is the object of the gerund. That would be most literally translated as &quot;the mandate of announcing the Gospel&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At any rate, the standard, slightly more liberal translation of similar gerund constructions and gerundive constructions alike is &quot;the mandate to announce the Gospel&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Christ sent out Apostles...giving them a mandate to announce the Gospel&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2134" RevisionGUID="0e9560cc-ade2-4269-826d-e9e869b0e45a" CreationDate="2016-12-07T03:11:59.633" UserId="40" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body" Text="As usual, to answer this question we need to step into our comparative linguistics-fueled time machine and go back to Proto-Indo-European times, so we can see what function the ending *-a*, which we know as a neuter plural ending, had in PIE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In PIE, this ending *-a* (or rather *-(e)h₂) did not form plurals, but [collectives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_noun). A collective refers to a group of objects, but is conceptualized as being a single thing, and for grammatical purposes is generally treated as a singular noun; this was probably the case in PIE, and is why in Greek, for example, neuter plural nouns in *-a* still take singular verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PIE collectives seem to have been used most often with neuter nouns -- in fact, neuter nouns don't seem to have had a normal plural (at least not in the nominative/accusative), so the collective form more or less stood in for a plural. This is why in Latin and other languages, *-a* came to be a specifically neuter ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the collective could also be formed from masculine and feminine nouns. *Locus* is one such example: of its two plurals, *locī* continues the PIE plural, while *loca* continues the PIE collective. It actually isn't the only such noun in Latin: there's *iocus* &quot;joke&quot;, pl. *ioca*, and *carbasus* &quot;sail&quot;, pl. *carbasa*. And there's at least one case in which the collective was reinterpreted as a feminine singular: *pila* &quot;ball&quot;, which seems to have originally been the collective of *pilus* &quot;hair&quot; (meaning &quot;mass or ball of hair&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(By the way, another heterogeneous noun with a similar story behind it is *frēnum* &quot;rein&quot;, pl. *frēnī*. In this case the Latin masculine plural ending continues what was in PIE terms not a plural at all, but a neuter dual.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2140" RevisionGUID="f886968b-ea6c-439b-a0da-46a8948adbc1" CreationDate="2016-12-07T03:51:38.833" UserId="78" Text="You may be able to find *noun&lt;sub&gt;a&lt;/sub&gt;*...*noun&lt;sub&gt;b&lt;/sub&gt;*, *is&lt;sub&gt;b&lt;/sub&gt;*...*sed ille&lt;sub&gt;a&lt;/sub&gt;*, but that's an unusual pairing, and you'd probably want to read it more literally, i.e. &quot;he did X, but the former/latter did Y.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common pairing is *noun&lt;sub&gt;a&lt;/sub&gt;*...*noun&lt;sub&gt;b&lt;/sub&gt;*, *hic&lt;sub&gt;b&lt;/sub&gt;*...*ille&lt;sub&gt;a&lt;/sub&gt;*. Allen &amp; Greenough §297 have this to say about *is* in this usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Is** is a weaker demonstrative than the others and is especially common as a personal pronoun. It does not denote any special object, but refers to one just mentioned, or to be afterwards explained by a relative. **Often it is merely a correlative to the relative *qui***. [Emphasis mine.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They give an example of this usage (from Att. ii. 1. 1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *venut mihi obviam tuus puer, is mihi litteras abs te reddidit* | your boy met me, [and] he delivered to me a letter from you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, this isn't quite the same usage or strenght A glance through Gildersleeve and Lodge doesn't even hint that *is* could be used in place of *hic*/*ille*. Your best bet is to stick with the standard construction unless you're familiar enough with *why* there might be an exception (and my gut is telling me it's rather colloquial)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2141" RevisionGUID="7f3b7d00-cce8-426e-b639-38a925ec7919" CreationDate="2016-12-07T04:15:39.347" UserId="75" Text="I’ve yet another question on the CCC. (I did find another instance of the gerundive—I believe with a preceding *ad* indicating purpose—and Cerebrus’ instruction certainly helped me translating that.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Latin][1] text of the CCC, Prologue, Ch. 1, Sec. 3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Illi qui, Deo iuvante, hanc vocationem Christi acceperunt eique libere responderunt, impulsi sunt et ipsi Christi amore ad Bonum Nuntium ubique terrarum proclamandum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is translated by the Vatican into [English][2] as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Those who with God’s help have welcomed Christ’s call and freely responded to it are urged on by love of Christ to proclaim the Good News everywhere in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question regards the phrase «*[impulsi sunt et] ipsi Christi amore*». Is it more accurately translated as “by the love **of** Christ” (*per Vaticanus*) or “[are impelled] by the love **in** Christ [himself]” (*per me*)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, is the *et* functioning as equivalent to the English “also”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My proposed translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Those who, with the help of God, have accepted this calling of Christ and responded to it freely, are impelled by the love in Christ himself to proclaim the Good News everywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/prologue_lt.htm#I.%20Vita%20hominis%20%E2%80%93%20Deum%20cognoscere%20Illumque%20amare&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2.HTM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7754" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2141" RevisionGUID="7f3b7d00-cce8-426e-b639-38a925ec7919" CreationDate="2016-12-07T04:15:39.347" UserId="75" Text="Translation: «impulsi sunt et ipsi Christi amore»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7755" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2141" RevisionGUID="7f3b7d00-cce8-426e-b639-38a925ec7919" CreationDate="2016-12-07T04:15:39.347" UserId="75" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2141" RevisionGUID="b240e524-e9ec-4e19-8749-1444639fa007" CreationDate="2016-12-07T04:20:43.327" UserId="75" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="I’ve yet another question on the CCC. (I did find another instance of the gerundive—I believe with a preceding *ad* indicating purpose—and Cerebrus’ instruction certainly helped me translating that.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Latin][1] text of the CCC, Prologue, Ch. 1, Sec. 3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Illi qui, Deo iuvante, hanc vocationem Christi acceperunt eique libere responderunt, impulsi sunt et ipsi Christi amore ad Bonum Nuntium ubique terrarum proclamandum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is translated by the Vatican into [English][2] as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Those who with God’s help have welcomed Christ’s call and freely responded to it are urged on by love of Christ to proclaim the Good News everywhere in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question regards the phrase «*[impulsi sunt et] ipsi Christi amore*». Is it more accurately translated as “by the love **of** Christ” (*per Vaticanus*) or “[are impelled] by the love **in** Christ [himself]” (*per me*)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, is the *et* functioning as equivalent to the English “also”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My proposed translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Those who, with the help of God, have accepted this calling of Christ and responded to it freely, are impelled by the love in Christ himself to proclaim the Good News everywhere in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/prologue_lt.htm#I.%20Vita%20hominis%20%E2%80%93%20Deum%20cognoscere%20Illumque%20amare&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2.HTM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2141" RevisionGUID="f2153a8a-1739-4ea1-b662-2adfd71d4660" CreationDate="2016-12-07T04:27:41.633" UserId="75" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="I’ve yet another question on the CCC. (I did find another instance of the gerundive—I believe with a preceding *ad* indicating purpose—and Cerebrus’ instruction certainly helped me translating that.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Latin][1] text of the CCC, Prologue, Ch. 1, Sec. 3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Illi qui, Deo iuvante, hanc vocationem Christi acceperunt eique libere responderunt, impulsi sunt et ipsi Christi amore ad Bonum Nuntium ubique terrarum proclamandum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is translated by the Vatican into [English][2] as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Those who with God’s help have welcomed Christ’s call and freely responded to it are urged on by love of Christ to proclaim the Good News everywhere in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question regards the phrase «*[impulsi sunt et] ipsi Christi amore*». Is it more accurately translated as “[are urged on] by the love **of** Christ” (*per Vaticanus*) or “[are impelled] by the love **in** Christ [himself]” (*per me*)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Question concerns the bolded word.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, is the *et* functioning as equivalent to the English “also”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My proposed translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Those who, with the help of God, have accepted this calling of Christ and responded to it freely, are impelled by the love in Christ himself to proclaim the Good News everywhere in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/prologue_lt.htm#I.%20Vita%20hominis%20%E2%80%93%20Deum%20cognoscere%20Illumque%20amare&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2.HTM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2142" RevisionGUID="68dce664-78ac-4b28-970c-5dc46485e0aa" CreationDate="2016-12-07T04:36:22.077" UserDisplayName="user1002" Text="Here is a line from *Aeneid* 6:563, along with my gloss of the parts of speech and the formal inflectional categories and proposed free translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`nulli    fas    casto      sceleratum insistere limen`&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; `n.sg.dat n.nom  adj.sg.dat adj.acc    v.inf     n.acc `&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Divine will [is for] no pure [soul] to tread on the wicked threshold.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I am understanding the syntax of it is that there is a verbless matrix clause whose subject is *fas*, which is complemented by a subordinate clause (*[nulli casto]S [insistere]V [sceleratum limen]O*). The subordinate clause's subject takes dative case, and its main verb takes the infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![sentence diagram][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, should I be understanding this as a type of copula construction where the verb is omitted? (i.e., read *fas* to be the subject of an implied *est*, and the subordinate clause to be the complement of *est*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, are there other subordinating constructions where the embedded clause has a dative subject and infinitive main verb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eNSM5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7759" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2142" RevisionGUID="68dce664-78ac-4b28-970c-5dc46485e0aa" CreationDate="2016-12-07T04:36:22.077" UserDisplayName="user1002" Text="A type of subordinating construction governing the dative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7760" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2142" RevisionGUID="68dce664-78ac-4b28-970c-5dc46485e0aa" CreationDate="2016-12-07T04:36:22.077" UserDisplayName="user1002" Text="|aeneis|subordinate-clause|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2143" RevisionGUID="2d07a0c8-ce28-49c8-a0a1-f4b28f4a3dc3" CreationDate="2016-12-07T04:54:49.963" UserId="78" Text="This is the big question! Genitives can be either subjective or objective, and sometimes it's impossible to know which one a genitive is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subjective genitives are the subject of the genitive. If this were a subjective genitive, it would mean more &quot;Christ's love&quot;, i.e. the love that Christ has and gives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Objective genitives are the object of the genitive. (Very creative terminology, I know!) For this case, &quot;the love of Christ&quot; doesn't mean the love that Christ has, but the love someone else has *for* Christ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's actually a parallel famous debate in Paul's letters. What does Paul mean when he says πίστις Χριστοῦ (pistis Christou = fides Christi = &quot;faith of Christ&quot;? Is he talking about how faithful Christ was, or does he refer to his and his contemporaries' faithfulness to Christ? It's a major distinction!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, it cannot be resolved so easily. There are some tendencies, such as in objective genitive constructions, the genitive usually precedes the object, but there is no hard and fast rule. You can mostly figure it out from context, but debates can, and do, rage on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say here, because *Christi* is first, it probably means &quot;Christ's love,&quot; but as with plenty of instances in Latin, speakers might have had both meanings in mind when writing it, a purposeful ambiguity that exists in the language. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2144" RevisionGUID="dfe249a4-2007-4462-8a5a-63a5acbcb587" CreationDate="2016-12-07T05:22:44.513" UserId="30" Text="Yes, I would by all means supply *est*. The phrase *fas est* is a fixed combination either introducing an a.c.i. or governing a complementary/supplementary infinitive plus the latter's arguments. The *est* can be omitted, as in similar constructions. I would analyse this *fas est* as having a primary dative complement *nulli casto* and a infinitival phrase as a secondary complement. Within that phrase, *sceleratum limen* is then the object of the infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct me if I'm wrong, but your diagram looks like how some modern Anglo-Saxon linguists would analyse the English *for* construction. Perhaps that is possible, but I would rather not group *nulli casto* with the infinitival phrase, or it would be like &quot;[stepping on a wicked threshold for no chaste man] is proper&quot;. But it should be read as &quot;[stepping on a wicked threshold] is proper [for no chaste man]&quot;. I have marked the arguments of *fas est* with square brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In yet other words: the dative cannot be a complement of *insistere*, because that would not make sense: *insistere* doesn't take a dative. It must be a complement to *fas est*, expressing the person for whom the action expresses in the infinitival phrase would be improper." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2145" RevisionGUID="ff1e7b3f-c635-4484-9fe1-197a2d171fee" CreationDate="2016-12-07T06:23:02.990" UserId="118" Text="Phrasal verbs&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, here is an important difference between Latin and English syntax. In English, a preposition often combines with a verb to change its meaning. For example, &quot;I picked up the Christmas-tree ornament&quot; means that I bought it or otherwise took possession of it. &quot;I picked out the Christmas-tree ornament&quot; means that I selected the ornament from among many, after careful consideration. &quot;I picked a Christmas ornament&quot; means that I selected one, without implying thoughtful rejection of many alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A common way to analyze English phrases like &quot;pick up&quot; and &quot;pick out&quot; is to say that the phrase as a whole has a meaning, which cannot be derived from the individual words. Hence &quot;pick up&quot; and &quot;pick out&quot; are called _phrasal verbs._ The phrase is the indivisible unit of meaning rather than the individual words. That makes the theory neat and pristine, but it's not the whole truth. More properly,* these phrases make analogies with other phrases in complex and messy ways. The preposition is often chosen to eliminate an ambiguity or to block an unwanted interpretation. For example, &quot;I picked a Christmas-tree ornament&quot;, it would mean only that I selected one, not necessarily with thoughtful rejection of alternatives. Adding &quot;out&quot; evokes the core meaning of &quot;out&quot;, suggesting emerging &quot;out from&quot; something else. It also makes an analogy with other &quot;_verb_-out&quot; phrases, as in &quot;I **worked out** a solution&quot;, &quot;His car **spun out** on the ice&quot;, &quot;I need to **clean out** my desk&quot;, where &quot;out&quot; indicates thoroughness and completion, which the verb alone would not suggest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, as in the Romance languages, prepositions usually don't work that way. Each preposition has a meaning of its own, independent of the rest of the sentence. In Latin, &quot;in&quot; just means &quot;in&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Latin does commonly use prepositions as prefixes on verbs to achieve similar effects. **Consisto** is itself an example. **Sisto** means &quot;I stand&quot;, and has senses including appearing (&quot;standing&quot;) in court. **Con-** is the prefix form of the preposition **cum**, meaning &quot;together&quot;. In prefixes, the &quot;together&quot; meaning is often extended to make **con-** an intensifier. People call upon the intensifier meaning when they say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Consistam** in horto. (I stopped and lingered a while in the garden).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you meant that you stood a while in court, but not as a defendant or witness, &quot;Consistam in basilica&quot; might help rule out the courtroom interpretation (this example is only a guess).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid calls upon both the &quot;together&quot; and intensifier meanings of **con-** when he says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ter frigore **constitit** Hister (the Hister river froze three times)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;literally &quot;thrice by cold the Hister 'stood-together' [or 'set'].&quot; This sense where &quot;standing together&quot; = &quot;congealing together&quot; will reappear in what follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It turns out, though, that **consisto** _does_ get its meaning clarified or modified by prepositions in a somewhat English-like way—not enough to make linguists say that Latin has phrasal verbs, but enough that you can see the similarity. Lucretius famously says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnis per se natura duabus **constitit in** rebus; nam corpora sunt et inane. (All nature was/is **made of** two things; namely, they are bodies and the void.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preposition **in** helps clarify that the kind of &quot;standing together&quot; being talked about here is being made of certain elements or parts. This is a reasonable way to exploit the broad, ordinary meaning of **in** in Latin, but **consistere in** is something of a fixed phrase for this meaning. The preposition **ex**, as in &quot;Societas **constitit e** pluribus hominibus&quot; (society was **formed out of** many people), which corresponds somewhat to English &quot;made out of&quot; or &quot;made from&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consists of/in&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, &quot;Milk consists in vitamin B12&quot; doesn't mean that milk contains B12. In fact, as I read that sentence, I can't tell what it means. Here's why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_A_ consists of _B_&quot; means that _A_ is made of _B_ throughout—just like **consistere in** in Latin. The Latin sense of &quot;they are standing stably together, forming _A_&quot; seems to live on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_A_ consists in _B_&quot; is quite vague in English. It usually means that _B_ is the essence or most important aspect of _A._ I think **in** here is best understood primarily as a way to suggest a different interpretation than **of** would suggest, where the details depend heavily on context. To illustrate, here is a sentence from an [old legal book](https://books.google.com/books?id=i-Q3AAAAIAAJ&amp;q=%22amendment+consists+in%22&amp;dq=%22amendment+consists+in%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjhkIqChOHQAhWJSyYKHQ_dCL84ChDoAQhKMAg):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The amendment **consists in** the substitution of the word &quot;eighteen&quot; for &quot;twenty-five&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author is summarize the amendment—reducing it to its essence. An amendment consists _of_ words: it's made of words. So, saying that the amendment &quot;consists of&quot; a substitution is slightly odd, though it certainly can be done, if you want the reader to think of an amendment not as words but as an action. But in this example, &quot;consists in&quot; avoids the &quot;is composed of&quot; meaning and emphasizes that what follows is the main idea, the important thing to know about the amendment, from which minor details have been omitted. (Also, in older writing, &quot;consist in&quot; and &quot;consist of&quot; overlap much more; there was not such a clear distinction as today.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you say &quot;_A_ consists of _B_&quot;, you mean that there is nothing more to _A_ than _B; A_ is to _B_ as a [roux](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roux&amp;oldid=749399995#Types) is to flour, water, and lard. &quot;_A_ consists in _B_&quot; is what you resort to when you want to avoid that strong meaning completeness, but you still want to say that, in a way, even though there is more to _A_ than _B, B_ still captures the whole of _A_ by stating its essence or what is most important about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's why I can't understand what &quot;Milk consists in vitamin B12&quot; means. Indeed milk doesn't simply consist _of_ vitamin B12; we all know that milk contains many more chemical compounds than just B12. But what special role of vitamin B12 in milk do you have in mind? My mind gives up this search very quickly and concludes that the sentence must be a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a more typical [example](https://books.google.com/books?id=55dhpPtPigAC&amp;pg=PA55&amp;lpg=PA55&amp;dq=%22plot+consists+in%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=YwkfH1XzlL&amp;sig=a1Bz1BM73i0voG3DBGmYXWYgM1M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjqpIDEs-HQAhWLy4MKHYRYBbgQ6AEIMDAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22plot%20consists%20in%22&amp;f=false) of &quot;consists in&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The plot **consists in** resolving a nest of conflicts arising Hamlet's father's death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You _could_ say **consists of** here, but **consists in** helps confirm that what follows is meant only as a summary in the most abstract terms. Of course the plot consists _of_ a very specific sequence of events, some of which relate more and some less directly to this structural aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears to me, in my admittedly amateur-level understanding, that the English senses of &quot;consist&quot; are remarkably similar to the Latin ones. There are two main differences: in English, the pronouns that compete to disambiguate the common senses are different; and most of the Latin senses have dropped out of contemporary English, such as &quot;I agree&quot;, &quot;I'm not changing my mind&quot;, &quot;I continue&quot;, &quot;I stand still, hold my position, refuse to yield&quot;, &quot;I stop and linger&quot;, and &quot;I depend on&quot;, leaving the sense of &quot;I congeal&quot; echoing most strongly in the various senses of English &quot;consist&quot;.  English &quot;consist&quot; always takes an indirect object with &quot;of&quot; or &quot;in&quot;, though, so &quot;consist&quot; is not a synonym for &quot;congeal&quot;, and unlike in Latin, the congealing is already completed and is usually metaphorical. (But see the [OED](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/39642?redirectedFrom=consist#eid) for obsolete English senses of &quot;consist&quot;. Most of Latin senses are represented.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dictionary definitions might define &quot;consists of&quot; or &quot;consists in&quot; as &quot;contains&quot;, but that just goes to show why you can't trust dictionary definitions. The word &quot;consist&quot; does not evoke the notion of enclosure or containment. You really have to follow the way that metaphors get extended and clarified in real examples of usage. The &quot;congealing&quot; sense is also echoed in, and reinforced by &quot;consistency&quot; when applied to substances, as in &quot;The dough has a firm consistency&quot;. It's implied that the dough's firmness is the same everywhere. Even logical consistency draws upon this notion of the same stuff &quot;holding together&quot; throughout: a story is &quot;consistent&quot; if it contains no internal contradictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the Latin verb **consisto** carries a hazy mish-mash of meanings centered around conceptually blending hazy notions of standing and holding together. A listener must use common sense and context to understand how the hazy senses are supposed to, er, congeal into a specific sense in any one sentence. English &quot;consist of&quot; and &quot;consist in&quot; are more narrowly focused on the elements that &quot;stand as one&quot; to form a thing or substance distinct from those elements individually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt;Please note that what I'm saying here is not the consensus among linguists.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2145" RevisionGUID="9ae30f4e-25a4-417f-83f5-ed2e22c42bf5" CreationDate="2016-12-07T06:34:22.923" UserId="118" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Phrasal verbs&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, here is an important difference between Latin and English syntax. In English, a preposition often combines with a verb to change its meaning. For example, &quot;I picked up the Christmas-tree ornament&quot; means that I bought it or otherwise took possession of it. &quot;I picked out the Christmas-tree ornament&quot; means that I selected the ornament from among many, after careful consideration. &quot;I picked a Christmas ornament&quot; means that I selected one, without implying thoughtful rejection of many alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A common way to analyze English phrases like &quot;pick up&quot; and &quot;pick out&quot; is to say that the phrase as a whole has a meaning, which cannot be derived from the individual words. Hence &quot;pick up&quot; and &quot;pick out&quot; are called _phrasal verbs._ The phrase is the indivisible unit of meaning rather than the individual words. That makes the theory neat and pristine, but it's not the whole truth. More properly,* these phrases make analogies with other phrases in complex and messy ways. The preposition is often chosen to eliminate an ambiguity or to block an unwanted interpretation. For example, &quot;I picked a Christmas-tree ornament&quot;, it would mean only that I selected one, not necessarily with thoughtful rejection of alternatives. Adding &quot;out&quot; evokes the core meaning of &quot;out&quot;, suggesting emerging &quot;out from&quot; something else. It also makes an analogy with other &quot;_verb_-out&quot; phrases, as in &quot;I **worked out** a solution&quot;, &quot;His car **spun out** on the ice&quot;, &quot;I need to **clean out** my desk&quot;, where &quot;out&quot; indicates thoroughness and completion, which the verb alone would not suggest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, as in the Romance languages, prepositions usually don't work that way. Each preposition has a meaning of its own, independent of the rest of the sentence. In Latin, &quot;in&quot; just means &quot;in&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Latin does commonly use prepositions as prefixes on verbs to achieve similar effects. **Consisto** is itself an example. **Sisto** means &quot;I stand&quot;, and has senses including appearing (&quot;standing&quot;) in court. **Con-** is the prefix form of the preposition **cum**, meaning &quot;together&quot;. In prefixes, the &quot;together&quot; meaning is often extended to make **con-** an intensifier. People call upon the intensifier meaning when they say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Consistam** in horto. (I stopped and lingered a while in the garden).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you meant that you stood a while in court, but not as a defendant or witness, &quot;Consistam in basilica&quot; might help rule out the courtroom interpretation (this example is only a guess).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid calls upon both the &quot;together&quot; and intensifier meanings of **con-** when he says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ter frigore **constitit** Hister (the Hister river froze three times)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;literally &quot;thrice by cold the Hister 'stood-together' [or 'set'].&quot; This sense where &quot;standing together&quot; = &quot;congealing together&quot; will reappear in what follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It turns out, though, that **consisto** _does_ get its meaning clarified or modified by prepositions in a somewhat English-like way—not enough to make linguists say that Latin has phrasal verbs, but enough that you can see the similarity. Lucretius famously says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnis per se natura duabus **constitit in** rebus; nam corpora sunt et inane. (All nature was/is **made of** two things; namely, they are bodies and the void.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preposition **in** helps clarify that the kind of &quot;standing together&quot; being talked about here is being made of certain elements or parts. This is a reasonable way to exploit the broad, ordinary meaning of **in** in Latin, but **consistere in** is something of a fixed phrase for this meaning. The preposition **ex**, as in &quot;Societas **constitit e** pluribus hominibus&quot; (society was **formed out of** many people), which corresponds somewhat to English &quot;made out of&quot; or &quot;made from&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consists of/in&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, &quot;Milk consists in vitamin B12&quot; doesn't mean that milk contains B12. In fact, as I read that sentence, I can't tell what it means. Here's why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_A_ consists **of** _B_&quot; means that _A_ is made of _B_ throughout—just like **consistere in** in Latin. The Latin sense of &quot;they are standing stably together, forming _A_&quot; seems to live on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_A_ consists **in** _B_&quot; is quite vague in English. It usually means that _B_ is the essence or most important aspect of _A._ I think **in** here is best understood primarily as a way to suggest a different interpretation than **of** would suggest, where the details depend heavily on context. To illustrate, here is a sentence from an [old legal book](https://books.google.com/books?id=i-Q3AAAAIAAJ&amp;q=%22amendment+consists+in%22&amp;dq=%22amendment+consists+in%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjhkIqChOHQAhWJSyYKHQ_dCL84ChDoAQhKMAg):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The amendment **consists in** the substitution of the word &quot;eighteen&quot; for &quot;twenty-five&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author is summarize the amendment—reducing it to its essence. An amendment consists _of_ words: it's made of words. So, saying that the amendment &quot;consists of&quot; a substitution is slightly odd, though it certainly can be done, if you want the reader to think of an amendment not as words but as an action. But in this example, &quot;consists in&quot; avoids the &quot;is composed of&quot; meaning and emphasizes that what follows is the main idea, the important thing to know about the amendment, from which minor details have been omitted. (Also, in older writing, &quot;consist in&quot; and &quot;consist of&quot; overlap much more; there was not such a clear distinction as today.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you say &quot;_A_ consists of _B_&quot;, you mean that there is nothing more to _A_ than _B; A_ is to _B_ as a [roux](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roux&amp;oldid=749399995#Types) is to flour, water, and lard. &quot;_A_ consists in _B_&quot; is what you resort to when you want to avoid that strong meaning of completeness, but you still want to say that, in a way, even though there is more to _A_ than _B, B_ still captures the whole of _A_ by stating its essence or what is most important about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's why I can't understand what &quot;Milk consists in vitamin B12&quot; means. Indeed milk doesn't simply consist _of_ vitamin B12; we all know that milk contains many more chemical compounds than just B12. But what special role of vitamin B12 in milk do you have in mind? My mind gives up this search very quickly and concludes that the sentence must be a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a more typical [example](https://books.google.com/books?id=55dhpPtPigAC&amp;pg=PA55&amp;lpg=PA55&amp;dq=%22plot+consists+in%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=YwkfH1XzlL&amp;sig=a1Bz1BM73i0voG3DBGmYXWYgM1M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjqpIDEs-HQAhWLy4MKHYRYBbgQ6AEIMDAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22plot%20consists%20in%22&amp;f=false) of &quot;consists in&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The plot **consists in** resolving a nest of conflicts arising Hamlet's father's death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You _could_ say **consists of** here, but **consists in** helps confirm that what follows is meant only as a summary in the most abstract terms. Of course the plot consists _of_ a very specific sequence of events, some of which relate more and some less directly to this structural aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears to me, in my admittedly amateur-level understanding, that the English senses of &quot;consist&quot; are remarkably similar to the Latin ones. There are two main differences: in English, the pronouns that compete to disambiguate the common senses are different; and most of the Latin senses have dropped out of contemporary English, such as &quot;I agree&quot;, &quot;I'm not changing my mind&quot;, &quot;I continue&quot;, &quot;I stand still, hold my position, refuse to yield&quot;, &quot;I stop and linger&quot;, and &quot;I depend on&quot;, leaving the sense of &quot;I congeal&quot; echoing most strongly in the various senses of English &quot;consist&quot;.  English &quot;consist&quot; always takes an indirect object with &quot;of&quot; or &quot;in&quot;, though, so &quot;consist&quot; is not a synonym for &quot;congeal&quot;, and unlike in Latin, the congealing is already completed and is usually metaphorical. (But see the [OED](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/39642?redirectedFrom=consist#eid) for obsolete English senses of &quot;consist&quot;. Most of Latin senses are represented.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dictionary definitions might define &quot;consists of&quot; or &quot;consists in&quot; as &quot;contains&quot;, but that just goes to show why you can't trust dictionary definitions. The word &quot;consist&quot; does not evoke the notion of enclosure or containment. You really have to follow the way that metaphors get extended and clarified in real examples of usage. The &quot;congealing&quot; sense is also echoed in, and reinforced by &quot;consistency&quot; when applied to substances, as in &quot;The dough has a firm consistency&quot;. It's implied that the dough's firmness is the same everywhere. Even logical consistency draws upon this notion of the same stuff &quot;holding together&quot; throughout: a story is &quot;consistent&quot; if it contains no internal contradictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the Latin verb **consisto** carries a mish-mash of meanings centered around conceptually blending hazy notions of standing and holding together. A listener must use common sense and context to understand how the hazy senses are supposed to, er, congeal into a specific sense in any one sentence. English &quot;consist of&quot; and &quot;consist in&quot; are more narrowly focused on the elements that &quot;stand as one&quot; to form a thing or substance distinct from those elements individually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt;Please note that what I'm saying here is not the consensus among linguists.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2145" RevisionGUID="e06b3280-0b21-4578-af16-6035259bd22b" CreationDate="2016-12-07T06:42:09.133" UserId="118" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Phrasal verbs&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, here is an important difference between Latin and English syntax. In English, a preposition often combines with a verb to change its meaning. For example, &quot;I picked up the Christmas-tree ornament&quot; means that I bought it or otherwise took possession of it. &quot;I picked out the Christmas-tree ornament&quot; means that I selected the ornament from among many, after careful consideration. &quot;I picked a Christmas ornament&quot; means that I selected one, without implying thoughtful rejection of many alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A common way to analyze English phrases like &quot;pick up&quot; and &quot;pick out&quot; is to say that the phrase as a whole has a meaning, which cannot be derived from the individual words. Hence &quot;pick up&quot; and &quot;pick out&quot; are called _phrasal verbs._ The phrase is the indivisible unit of meaning rather than the individual words. That makes the theory neat and pristine, but it's not the whole truth. More properly,* these phrases make analogies with other phrases in complex and messy ways. The preposition is often chosen to eliminate an ambiguity or to block an unwanted interpretation. For example, &quot;I picked a Christmas-tree ornament&quot;, it would mean only that I selected one, not necessarily with thoughtful rejection of alternatives. Adding &quot;out&quot; evokes the core meaning of &quot;out&quot;, suggesting emerging &quot;out from&quot; something else. It also makes an analogy with other &quot;_verb_-out&quot; phrases, as in &quot;I **worked out** a solution&quot;, &quot;His car **spun out** on the ice&quot;, &quot;I need to **clean out** my desk&quot;, where &quot;out&quot; indicates thoroughness and completion, which the verb alone would not suggest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, as in the Romance languages, prepositions usually don't work that way. Each preposition has a meaning of its own, independent of the rest of the sentence. In Latin, &quot;in&quot; just means &quot;in&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Latin does commonly use prepositions as prefixes on verbs to achieve similar effects. **Consisto** is itself an example. **Sisto** means &quot;I stand&quot;, and has senses including appearing (&quot;standing&quot;) in court. **Con-** is the prefix form of the preposition **cum**, meaning &quot;together&quot;. In prefixes, the &quot;together&quot; meaning is often extended to make **con-** an intensifier. People call upon the intensifier meaning when they say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Consistam** in horto. (I stopped and lingered a while in the garden).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you meant that you stood a while in court, but not as a defendant or witness, &quot;Consistam in basilica&quot; might help rule out the courtroom interpretation (this example is only a guess).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid calls upon both the &quot;together&quot; and intensifier meanings of **con-** when he says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ter frigore **constitit** Hister (the Hister river froze three times)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;literally &quot;thrice by cold the Hister 'stood-together' [or 'set'].&quot; This sense where &quot;standing together&quot; = &quot;congealing together&quot; will reappear in what follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It turns out, though, that **consisto** _does_ get its meaning clarified or modified by prepositions in a somewhat English-like way—not enough to make linguists say that Latin has phrasal verbs, but enough that you can see the similarity. Lucretius famously says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnis per se natura duabus **constitit in** rebus; nam corpora sunt et inane. (All nature was/is **made of** two things; namely, they are bodies and the void.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preposition **in** helps clarify that the kind of &quot;standing together&quot; being talked about here is being made of certain elements or parts. This is a reasonable way to exploit the broad, ordinary meaning of **in** in Latin, but **consistere in** is something of a fixed phrase for this meaning. The preposition **ex**, as in &quot;Societas **constitit e** pluribus hominibus&quot; (society was **formed out of** many people), which corresponds somewhat to English &quot;made out of&quot; or &quot;made from&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consists of/in&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, &quot;Milk consists in vitamin B12&quot; doesn't mean that milk contains B12. In fact, as I read that sentence, I can't tell what it means. Here's why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_A_ consists **of** _B_&quot; means that _A_ is made of _B_ throughout—just like **consistere in** in Latin. The Latin sense of &quot;they are standing stably together, forming _A_&quot; seems to live on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_A_ consists **in** _B_&quot; is quite vague in English. It usually means that _B_ is the essence or most important aspect of _A._ I think **in** here is best understood primarily as a way to suggest a different interpretation than **of** would suggest, where the details depend heavily on context. To illustrate, here is a sentence from an [old legal book](https://books.google.com/books?id=i-Q3AAAAIAAJ&amp;q=%22amendment+consists+in%22&amp;dq=%22amendment+consists+in%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjhkIqChOHQAhWJSyYKHQ_dCL84ChDoAQhKMAg):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The amendment **consists in** the substitution of the word &quot;eighteen&quot; for &quot;twenty-five&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author is summarize the amendment—reducing it to its essence. An amendment consists _of_ words: it's made of words. So, saying that the amendment &quot;consists of&quot; a substitution is slightly odd, though it certainly can be done, if you want the reader to think of an amendment not as words but as an action. But in this example, &quot;consists in&quot; avoids the &quot;is composed of&quot; meaning and emphasizes that what follows is the main idea, the important thing to know about the amendment, from which minor details have been omitted. (Also, in older writing, &quot;consist in&quot; and &quot;consist of&quot; overlap much more; there was not such a clear distinction as today.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you say &quot;_A_ consists of _B_&quot;, you mean that there is nothing more to _A_ than _B; A_ is to _B_ as a [roux](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roux&amp;oldid=749399995#Types) is to flour, water, and lard. &quot;_A_ consists in _B_&quot; is what you resort to when you want to avoid that strong meaning of completeness, but you still want to say that, in a way, even though there is more to _A_ than _B, B_ still captures the whole of _A_ by stating its essence or what is most important about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's why I can't understand what &quot;Milk consists in vitamin B12&quot; means. Indeed milk doesn't simply consist _of_ vitamin B12; we all know that milk contains many more chemical compounds than just B12. But what special role of vitamin B12 in milk do you have in mind? My mind gives up this search very quickly and concludes that the sentence must be a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a more typical [example](https://books.google.com/books?id=55dhpPtPigAC&amp;pg=PA55&amp;lpg=PA55&amp;dq=%22plot+consists+in%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=YwkfH1XzlL&amp;sig=a1Bz1BM73i0voG3DBGmYXWYgM1M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjqpIDEs-HQAhWLy4MKHYRYBbgQ6AEIMDAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22plot%20consists%20in%22&amp;f=false) of &quot;consists in&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The plot **consists in** resolving a nest of conflicts arising from Hamlet's father's death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You _could_ say **consists of** here, but **consists in** helps confirm that what follows is meant only as a summary in the most abstract terms. Of course the plot consists _of_ a very specific sequence of events, some of which relate more and some less directly to this structural aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears to me, in my admittedly amateur-level understanding, that the English senses of &quot;consist&quot; are remarkably similar to the Latin ones. There are two main differences: in English, the pronouns that compete to disambiguate the common senses are different; and most of the Latin senses have dropped out of contemporary English, such as &quot;I agree&quot;, &quot;I'm not changing my mind&quot;, &quot;I continue&quot;, &quot;I stand still, hold my position, refuse to yield&quot;, &quot;I stop and linger&quot;, and &quot;I depend on&quot;, leaving the sense of &quot;I congeal&quot; echoing most strongly in the various senses of English &quot;consist&quot;.  English &quot;consist&quot; always takes an indirect object with &quot;of&quot; or &quot;in&quot;, though, so &quot;consist&quot; is not a synonym for &quot;congeal&quot;, and unlike in Latin, the congealing is already completed and is usually metaphorical. (But see the [OED](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/39642?redirectedFrom=consist#eid) for obsolete English senses of &quot;consist&quot;. Most of Latin senses are represented.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dictionary definitions might define &quot;consists of&quot; or &quot;consists in&quot; as &quot;contains&quot;, but that just goes to show why you can't trust dictionary definitions. The word &quot;consist&quot; does not evoke the notion of enclosure or containment. You really have to follow the way that metaphors get extended and clarified in real examples of usage. The &quot;congealing&quot; sense is also echoed in, and reinforced by &quot;consistency&quot; when applied to substances, as in &quot;The dough has a firm consistency&quot;. It's implied that the dough's firmness is the same everywhere. Even logical consistency draws upon this notion of the same stuff &quot;holding together&quot; throughout: a story is &quot;consistent&quot; if it contains no internal contradictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the Latin verb **consisto** carries a mish-mash of meanings centered around conceptually blending hazy notions of standing and holding together. A listener must use common sense and context to understand how the hazy senses are supposed to, er, congeal into a specific sense in any one sentence. English &quot;consist of&quot; and &quot;consist in&quot; are more narrowly focused on the elements that &quot;stand as one&quot; to form a thing or substance distinct from those elements individually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt;Please note that what I'm saying here is not the consensus among linguists.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7766" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2142" RevisionGUID="26541c74-8567-450d-aafb-c3dc860da1b5" CreationDate="2016-12-07T08:37:09.230" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vergilius|aeneis|subordinate-clause|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2146" RevisionGUID="b8791496-e700-4123-8085-357740574c7a" CreationDate="2016-12-07T08:38:47.087" UserId="118" Text="Consider this a supplement to @[brianpck's](http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/45/brianpck) answer. This is an explanation of _why_ making the possessive pronoun agree with the thing possessed and not the possessor makes sense in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Agreement&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, as in all languages, we are mainly concerned with linking things we are talking about with concepts that describe them. This happens in two ways: asserting a claim about something, and narrowing down what you're referring to by combining it with another concept. A sentence asserts some predicate of its subject: &quot;Mārcus ridet&quot; asserts of Marcus, the subject, that he is laughing, the predicate. In &quot;Fīlius improbus rīdet&quot;, **improbus** distinguishes one son from the other. To understand a sentence, we have to know which modifier goes with which modified thing. This is the job of grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, we mostly depend on word order to link a modifier with what it modifies, but in Latin this is done mainly by grammatical _agreement_ between them. In this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Iūlius** ex hortō **silēns** vēnit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**silēns**, in the nominative case, agrees with **Iūlius**. So, it means &quot;Julius, silent, came out of the garden.&quot; In this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iūlius ex **hortō silēnte** vēnit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**silēnte**, in the ablative case, agrees with **hortō**. So, it means &quot;Julius came out of the silent garden.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To &quot;get&quot; Latin, you have to train yourself to track grammatical agreement until eventually it becomes unconscious. It takes a while, but notice that English exploits grammatical agreement, too, so you already have some experience with this approach. Notice the difference between &quot;John and Stephen met Henry after he was sentenced&quot; and &quot;John and Stephen met Henry after they were sentenced.&quot; Grammatical agreement in English is mostly limited to subjects agreeing in number and person with their verbs, and pronouns agree in number and case with their antecedents. In Latin, nouns also agree with their adjectives, in number, case, and gender. These are things that you _use_ for clarity and expressiveness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possessive pronouns&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a possessive pronoun—a modifier—agreed not with the thing possessed but with the possessor, it would throw grammatical agreement into confusion. That's probably hard to believe if you're confused now, but here's why it would result in more confusion. What happens if the possessor and the thing possessed have different cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iūlius mihi clāvēs **suārum** lectīcārum dedit. (Julius gave me the keys to his sedans.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we tried to change the grammar so the possessive pronoun agreed with the possessor, what would **suārum** change to? **Iūlius** is singular, nominative, and masculine, so **suus** would be needed to agree with it. But **lectīcārum** is plural, genitive, and feminine, requiring **suarum**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are you going to do? The only reasonable way, which doesn't suffer constantly from internal contradictions, is to make the possessive pronoun agree with the thing it modifies—the thing possessed—in all three ways: number, case, and gender. If you're constantly tracking grammatical agreement in order to follow a sentence, agreeing with the possessor would feel like a bizarre exception—a confusing inconsistency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is particularly important when using non-standard word order to make a point or shift emphasis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iūlius mihi clāvēs lectīcārum dedit **suārum**. (Julius gave me the keys to _his_ sedans.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nōn Aemiliae Iūlius mihi clāves lectīcārum dedit sed **suās**. (It wasn't Emily's keys to the sedans that Julius gave me, but his.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Se&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Here's one other clue that helps: the possessive pronouns in **[suus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/suus#Latin)** are adjectival forms of the reflexive pronoun **[se](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/se#Latin)**, which means &quot;himself, herself, itself&quot;. If you let the _s_ remind you of **se**, you'll be in the Latin groove even without thinking about what should modify what. _Of course_ **suam** in &quot;villam suam&quot; refers to Iulius: he's the subject of the verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2145" RevisionGUID="6bc5919c-dc40-4beb-a01f-d7984d550ab5" CreationDate="2016-12-07T08:40:38.577" UserId="118" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Phrasal verbs&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, here is an important difference between Latin and English syntax. In English, a preposition often combines with a verb to change its meaning. For example, &quot;I picked up the Christmas-tree ornament&quot; means that I bought it or otherwise took possession of it. &quot;I picked out the Christmas-tree ornament&quot; means that I selected the ornament from among many, after careful consideration. &quot;I picked a Christmas ornament&quot; means that I selected one, without implying thoughtful rejection of many alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A common way to analyze English phrases like &quot;pick up&quot; and &quot;pick out&quot; is to say that the phrase as a whole has a meaning, which cannot be derived from the individual words. Hence &quot;pick up&quot; and &quot;pick out&quot; are called _phrasal verbs._ The phrase is the indivisible unit of meaning rather than the individual words. That makes the theory neat and pristine, but it's not the whole truth. More properly,* these phrases make analogies with other phrases in complex and messy ways. The preposition is often chosen to eliminate an ambiguity or to block an unwanted interpretation. For example, &quot;I picked a Christmas-tree ornament&quot;, it would mean only that I selected one, not necessarily with thoughtful rejection of alternatives. Adding &quot;out&quot; evokes the core meaning of &quot;out&quot;, suggesting emerging &quot;out from&quot; something else. It also makes an analogy with other &quot;_verb_-out&quot; phrases, as in &quot;I **worked out** a solution&quot;, &quot;His car **spun out** on the ice&quot;, &quot;I need to **clean out** my desk&quot;, where &quot;out&quot; indicates thoroughness and completion, which the verb alone would not suggest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, as in the Romance languages, prepositions usually don't work that way. Each preposition has a meaning of its own, independent of the rest of the sentence. In Latin, &quot;in&quot; just means &quot;in&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Latin does commonly use prepositions as prefixes on verbs to achieve similar effects. **Consisto** is itself an example. **Sisto** means &quot;I stand&quot;, and has senses including appearing (&quot;standing&quot;) in court. **Con-** is the prefix form of the preposition **cum**, meaning &quot;together&quot;. In prefixes, the &quot;together&quot; meaning is often extended to make **con-** an intensifier. People call upon the intensifier meaning when they say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Consistam** in horto. (I stopped and lingered a while in the garden).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you meant that you stood a while in court, but not as a defendant or witness, &quot;Consistam in basilica&quot; might help rule out the courtroom interpretation (this example is only a guess).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid calls upon both the &quot;together&quot; and intensifier meanings of **con-** when he says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ter frigore **constitit** Hister (the Hister river froze three times)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;literally &quot;thrice by cold the Hister 'stood-together' [or 'set'].&quot; This sense where &quot;standing together&quot; = &quot;congealing together&quot; will reappear in what follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It turns out, though, that **consisto** _does_ get its meaning clarified or modified by prepositions in a somewhat English-like way—not enough to make linguists say that Latin has phrasal verbs, but enough that you can see the similarity. Lucretius famously says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnis per se natura duabus **constitit in** rebus; nam corpora sunt et inane. (All nature was/is **made of** two things; namely, they are bodies and the void.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preposition **in** helps clarify that the kind of &quot;standing together&quot; being talked about here is being made of certain elements or parts. This is a reasonable way to exploit the broad, ordinary meaning of **in** in Latin, but **consistere in** is something of a fixed phrase for this meaning. The preposition **ex**, as in &quot;Societas **constitit e** pluribus hominibus&quot; (society was **formed out of** many people), which corresponds somewhat to English &quot;made out of&quot; or &quot;made from&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consists of/in&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, &quot;Milk consists in vitamin B12&quot; doesn't mean that milk contains B12. In fact, as I read that sentence, I can't tell what it means. Here's why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_A_ consists **of** _B_&quot; means that _A_ is made of _B_ throughout—just like **consistere in** in Latin. The Latin sense of &quot;they are standing stably together, forming _A_&quot; seems to live on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_A_ consists **in** _B_&quot; is quite vague in English. It usually means that _B_ is the essence or most important aspect of _A._ I think **in** here is best understood primarily as a way to suggest a different interpretation than **of** would suggest, where the details depend heavily on context. To illustrate, here is a sentence from an [old legal book](https://books.google.com/books?id=i-Q3AAAAIAAJ&amp;q=%22amendment+consists+in%22&amp;dq=%22amendment+consists+in%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjhkIqChOHQAhWJSyYKHQ_dCL84ChDoAQhKMAg):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The amendment **consists in** the substitution of the word &quot;eighteen&quot; for &quot;twenty-five&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author is summarizing the amendment—reducing it to its essence. An amendment consists _of_ words: it's made of words. So, saying that the amendment &quot;consists of&quot; a substitution is slightly odd, though it certainly can be done, if you want the reader to think of an amendment not as words but as an action. But in this example, &quot;consists in&quot; avoids the &quot;is composed of&quot; meaning and emphasizes that what follows is the main idea, the important thing to know about the amendment, from which minor details have been omitted. (Also, in older writing, &quot;consist in&quot; and &quot;consist of&quot; overlap much more; there was not such a clear distinction as today.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you say &quot;_A_ consists of _B_&quot;, you mean that there is nothing more to _A_ than _B; A_ is to _B_ as a [roux](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roux&amp;oldid=749399995#Types) is to flour, water, and lard. &quot;_A_ consists in _B_&quot; is what you resort to when you want to avoid that strong meaning of completeness, but you still want to say that, in a way, even though there is more to _A_ than _B, B_ still captures the whole of _A_ by stating its essence or what is most important about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's why I can't understand what &quot;Milk consists in vitamin B12&quot; means. Indeed milk doesn't simply consist _of_ vitamin B12; we all know that milk contains many more chemical compounds than just B12. But what special role of vitamin B12 in milk do you have in mind? My mind gives up this search very quickly and concludes that the sentence must be a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a more typical [example](https://books.google.com/books?id=55dhpPtPigAC&amp;pg=PA55&amp;lpg=PA55&amp;dq=%22plot+consists+in%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=YwkfH1XzlL&amp;sig=a1Bz1BM73i0voG3DBGmYXWYgM1M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjqpIDEs-HQAhWLy4MKHYRYBbgQ6AEIMDAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22plot%20consists%20in%22&amp;f=false) of &quot;consists in&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The plot **consists in** resolving a nest of conflicts arising from Hamlet's father's death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You _could_ say **consists of** here, but **consists in** helps confirm that what follows is meant only as a summary in the most abstract terms. Of course the plot consists _of_ a very specific sequence of events, some of which relate more and some less directly to this structural aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears to me, in my admittedly amateur-level understanding, that the English senses of &quot;consist&quot; are remarkably similar to the Latin ones. There are two main differences: in English, the pronouns that compete to disambiguate the common senses are different; and most of the Latin senses have dropped out of contemporary English, such as &quot;I agree&quot;, &quot;I'm not changing my mind&quot;, &quot;I continue&quot;, &quot;I stand still, hold my position, refuse to yield&quot;, &quot;I stop and linger&quot;, and &quot;I depend on&quot;, leaving the sense of &quot;I congeal&quot; echoing most strongly in the various senses of English &quot;consist&quot;.  English &quot;consist&quot; always takes an indirect object with &quot;of&quot; or &quot;in&quot;, though, so &quot;consist&quot; is not a synonym for &quot;congeal&quot;, and unlike in Latin, the congealing is already completed and is usually metaphorical. (But see the [OED](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/39642?redirectedFrom=consist#eid) for obsolete English senses of &quot;consist&quot;. Most of Latin senses are represented.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dictionary definitions might define &quot;consists of&quot; or &quot;consists in&quot; as &quot;contains&quot;, but that just goes to show why you can't trust dictionary definitions. The word &quot;consist&quot; does not evoke the notion of enclosure or containment. You really have to follow the way that metaphors get extended and clarified in real examples of usage. The &quot;congealing&quot; sense is also echoed in, and reinforced by &quot;consistency&quot; when applied to substances, as in &quot;The dough has a firm consistency&quot;. It's implied that the dough's firmness is the same everywhere. Even logical consistency draws upon this notion of the same stuff &quot;holding together&quot; throughout: a story is &quot;consistent&quot; if it contains no internal contradictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the Latin verb **consisto** carries a mish-mash of meanings centered around conceptually blending hazy notions of standing and holding together. A listener must use common sense and context to understand how the hazy senses are supposed to, er, congeal into a specific sense in any one sentence. English &quot;consist of&quot; and &quot;consist in&quot; are more narrowly focused on the elements that &quot;stand as one&quot; to form a thing or substance distinct from those elements individually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt;Please note that what I'm saying here is not the consensus among linguists.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2145" RevisionGUID="3c79ddcd-52f9-42d2-bdac-4c44b0df26fe" CreationDate="2016-12-07T09:01:03.500" UserId="118" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="Phrasal verbs&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, here is an important difference between Latin and English syntax. In English, a preposition often combines with a verb to change its meaning. For example, &quot;I picked up the Christmas-tree ornament&quot; means that I bought it or otherwise took possession of it. &quot;I picked out the Christmas-tree ornament&quot; means that I selected the ornament from among many, after careful consideration. &quot;I picked a Christmas ornament&quot; means that I selected one, without implying thoughtful rejection of many alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A common way to analyze English phrases like &quot;pick up&quot; and &quot;pick out&quot; is to say that the phrase as a whole has a meaning, which cannot be derived from the individual words. Hence &quot;pick up&quot; and &quot;pick out&quot; are called _phrasal verbs._ The phrase is the indivisible unit of meaning rather than the individual words. That makes the theory neat and pristine, but it's not the whole truth. More properly,* these phrases make analogies with other phrases in complex and messy ways. The preposition is often chosen to eliminate an ambiguity or to block an unwanted interpretation. For example, &quot;I picked a Christmas-tree ornament&quot;, it would mean only that I selected one, not necessarily with thoughtful rejection of alternatives. Adding &quot;out&quot; evokes the core meaning of &quot;out&quot;, suggesting emerging &quot;out from&quot; something else. It also makes an analogy with other &quot;_verb_-out&quot; phrases, as in &quot;I **worked out** a solution&quot;, &quot;His car **spun out** on the ice&quot;, &quot;I need to **clean out** my desk&quot;, where &quot;out&quot; indicates thoroughness and completion, which the verb alone would not suggest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, as in the Romance languages, prepositions usually don't work that way. Each preposition has a meaning of its own, independent of the rest of the sentence. In Latin, &quot;in&quot; just means &quot;in&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Latin does commonly use prepositions as prefixes on verbs to achieve similar effects. **Consisto** is itself an example. **Sisto** means &quot;I stand&quot;, and has senses including appearing (&quot;standing&quot;) in court. **Con-** is the prefix form of the preposition **cum**, meaning &quot;together&quot;. In prefixes, the &quot;together&quot; meaning is often extended to make **con-** an intensifier. People call upon the intensifier meaning when they say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Consistam** in horto. (I stopped and lingered a while in the garden).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you meant that you stood a while in court, but not as a defendant or witness, &quot;Consistam in basilica&quot; might help rule out the courtroom interpretation (this example is only a guess).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid calls upon both the &quot;together&quot; and intensifier meanings of **con-** when he says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ter frigore **constitit** Hister (the Hister river froze three times)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;literally &quot;thrice by cold the Hister 'stood-together' [or 'set'].&quot; This sense where &quot;standing together&quot; = &quot;congealing together&quot; will reappear in what follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It turns out, though, that **consisto** _does_ get its meaning clarified or modified by prepositions in a somewhat English-like way—not enough to make linguists say that Latin has phrasal verbs, but enough that you can see the similarity. Lucretius famously says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnis per se natura duabus **constitit in** rebus; nam corpora sunt et inane. (All nature was/is **made of** two things; namely, they are bodies and the void.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preposition **in** helps clarify that the kind of &quot;standing together&quot; being talked about here is being made of certain elements or parts. This is a reasonable way to exploit the broad, ordinary meaning of **in** in Latin, but **consistere in** is something of a fixed phrase for this meaning. The preposition **ex**, as in &quot;Societas **constitit e** pluribus hominibus&quot; (society was **formed out of** many people), combines with _consistere_ to produce a meaning similar to English &quot;made out of&quot; or &quot;made from&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consists of/in&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, &quot;Milk consists in vitamin B12&quot; doesn't mean that milk contains B12. In fact, as I read that sentence, I can't tell what it means. Here's why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_A_ consists **of** _B_&quot; means that _A_ is made of _B_ throughout—just like **consistere in** in Latin. The Latin sense of &quot;they are standing stably together, forming _A_&quot; seems to live on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_A_ consists **in** _B_&quot; is quite vague in English. It usually means that _B_ is the essence or most important aspect of _A._ I think **in** here is best understood primarily as a way to suggest a different interpretation than **of** would suggest, where the details depend heavily on context. To illustrate, here is a sentence from an [old legal book](https://books.google.com/books?id=i-Q3AAAAIAAJ&amp;q=%22amendment+consists+in%22&amp;dq=%22amendment+consists+in%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjhkIqChOHQAhWJSyYKHQ_dCL84ChDoAQhKMAg):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The amendment **consists in** the substitution of the word &quot;eighteen&quot; for &quot;twenty-five&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author is summarizing the amendment—reducing it to its essence. An amendment consists _of_ words: it's made of words. So, saying that the amendment &quot;consists of&quot; a substitution is slightly odd, though it certainly can be done, if you want the reader to think of an amendment not as words but as an action. But in this example, &quot;consists in&quot; avoids the &quot;is composed of&quot; meaning and emphasizes that what follows is the main idea, the important thing to know about the amendment, from which minor details have been omitted. (Also, in older writing, &quot;consist in&quot; and &quot;consist of&quot; overlap much more; there was not such a clear distinction as today.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you say &quot;_A_ consists of _B_&quot;, you mean that there is nothing more to _A_ than _B; A_ is to _B_ as a [roux](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roux&amp;oldid=749399995#Types) is to flour, water, and lard. &quot;_A_ consists in _B_&quot; is what you resort to when you want to avoid that strong meaning of completeness, but you still want to say that, in a way, even though there is more to _A_ than _B, B_ still captures the whole of _A_ by stating its essence or what is most important about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's why I can't understand what &quot;Milk consists in vitamin B12&quot; means. Indeed milk doesn't simply consist _of_ vitamin B12; we all know that milk contains many more chemical compounds than just B12. But what special role of vitamin B12 in milk do you have in mind? My mind gives up this search very quickly and concludes that the sentence must be a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a more typical [example](https://books.google.com/books?id=55dhpPtPigAC&amp;pg=PA55&amp;lpg=PA55&amp;dq=%22plot+consists+in%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=YwkfH1XzlL&amp;sig=a1Bz1BM73i0voG3DBGmYXWYgM1M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjqpIDEs-HQAhWLy4MKHYRYBbgQ6AEIMDAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22plot%20consists%20in%22&amp;f=false) of &quot;consists in&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The plot **consists in** resolving a nest of conflicts arising from Hamlet's father's death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You _could_ say **consists of** here, but **consists in** helps confirm that what follows is meant only as a summary in the most abstract terms. Of course the plot consists _of_ a very specific sequence of events, some of which relate more and some less directly to this structural aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears to me, in my admittedly amateur-level understanding, that the English senses of &quot;consist&quot; are remarkably similar to the Latin ones. There are two main differences: in English, the pronouns that compete to disambiguate the common senses are different; and most of the Latin senses have dropped out of contemporary English, such as &quot;I agree&quot;, &quot;I'm not changing my mind&quot;, &quot;I continue&quot;, &quot;I stand still, hold my position, refuse to yield&quot;, &quot;I stop and linger&quot;, and &quot;I depend on&quot;, leaving the sense of &quot;I congeal&quot; echoing most strongly in the various senses of English &quot;consist&quot;.  English &quot;consist&quot; always takes an indirect object with &quot;of&quot; or &quot;in&quot;, though, so &quot;consist&quot; is not a synonym for &quot;congeal&quot;, and unlike in Latin, the congealing is already completed and is usually metaphorical. (But see the [OED](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/39642?redirectedFrom=consist#eid) for obsolete English senses of &quot;consist&quot;. Most of Latin senses are represented.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dictionary definitions might define &quot;consists of&quot; or &quot;consists in&quot; as &quot;contains&quot;, but that just goes to show why you can't trust dictionary definitions. The word &quot;consist&quot; does not evoke the notion of enclosure or containment. You really have to follow the way that metaphors get extended and clarified in real examples of usage. The &quot;congealing&quot; sense is also echoed in, and reinforced by &quot;consistency&quot; when applied to substances, as in &quot;The dough has a firm consistency&quot;. It's implied that the dough's firmness is the same everywhere. Even logical consistency draws upon this notion of the same stuff &quot;holding together&quot; throughout: a story is &quot;consistent&quot; if it contains no internal contradictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the Latin verb **consisto** carries a mish-mash of meanings centered around conceptually blending hazy notions of standing and holding together. A listener must use common sense and context to understand how the hazy senses are supposed to, er, congeal into a specific sense in any one sentence. English &quot;consist of&quot; and &quot;consist in&quot; are more narrowly focused on the elements that &quot;stand as one&quot; to form a thing or substance distinct from those elements individually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt;Please note that what I'm saying here is not the consensus among linguists.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2145" RevisionGUID="942cdd1b-b08b-450a-89a3-c2a954796415" CreationDate="2016-12-07T09:27:09.487" UserId="118" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Phrasal verbs&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, here is an important difference between Latin and English syntax. In English, a preposition often combines with a verb to change its meaning. For example, &quot;I picked up the Christmas-tree ornament&quot; means that I bought it or otherwise took possession of it. &quot;I picked out the Christmas-tree ornament&quot; means that I selected the ornament from among many, after careful consideration. &quot;I picked a Christmas ornament&quot; means that I selected one, without implying thoughtful rejection of many alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A common way to analyze English phrases like &quot;pick up&quot; and &quot;pick out&quot; is to say that the phrase as a whole has a meaning, which cannot be derived from the individual words. Hence &quot;pick up&quot; and &quot;pick out&quot; are called _phrasal verbs._ The phrase is the indivisible unit of meaning rather than the individual words. That makes the theory neat and pristine, but it's not the whole truth. More properly,* these phrases make analogies with other phrases in complex and messy ways. The preposition is often chosen to eliminate an ambiguity or to block an unwanted interpretation. For example, &quot;I picked a Christmas-tree ornament&quot;, it would mean only that I selected one, not necessarily with thoughtful rejection of alternatives. Adding &quot;out&quot; evokes the core meaning of &quot;out&quot;, suggesting emerging &quot;out from&quot; something else. It also makes an analogy with other &quot;_verb_-out&quot; phrases, as in &quot;I **worked out** a solution&quot;, &quot;His car **spun out** on the ice&quot;, &quot;I need to **clean out** my desk&quot;, where &quot;out&quot; indicates thoroughness and completion, which the verb alone would not suggest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, as in the Romance languages, prepositions usually don't work that way. Each preposition has a meaning of its own, independent of the rest of the sentence. In Latin, &quot;in&quot; just means &quot;in&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Latin does commonly use prepositions as prefixes on verbs to achieve similar effects. **Consisto** is itself an example. **Sisto** means &quot;I stand&quot;, and has senses including appearing (&quot;standing&quot;) in court. **Con-** is the prefix form of the preposition **cum**, meaning &quot;together&quot;. In prefixes, the &quot;together&quot; meaning is often extended to make **con-** an intensifier. People call upon the intensifier meaning when they say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Consistam** in horto. (I stopped and lingered a while in the garden).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you meant that you stood a while in court, but not as a defendant or witness, &quot;Consistam in basilica&quot; might help rule out the courtroom interpretation (this example is only a guess).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid calls upon both the &quot;together&quot; and intensifier meanings of **con-** when he says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ter frigore **constitit** Hister (the Hister river froze three times)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;literally &quot;thrice by cold the Hister 'stood-together' [or 'set'].&quot; This sense where &quot;standing together&quot; = &quot;congealing together&quot; will reappear in what follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It turns out, though, that **consisto** _does_ get its meaning clarified or modified by prepositions in a somewhat English-like way—not enough to make linguists say that Latin has phrasal verbs, but enough that you can see the similarity. Lucretius famously says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnis per se natura duabus **constitit in** rebus; nam corpora sunt et inane. (All nature was/is **made of** two things; namely, they are bodies and the void.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preposition **in** helps clarify that the kind of &quot;standing together&quot; being talked about here is being made of certain elements or parts. This is a reasonable way to exploit the broad, ordinary meaning of **in** in Latin, but **consistere in** is something of a fixed phrase for this meaning. The preposition **ex**, as in &quot;Societas **constitit e** pluribus hominibus&quot; (society was **formed out of** many people), combines with _consistere_ to produce a meaning similar to English &quot;made out of&quot; or &quot;made from&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consists of/in&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, &quot;Milk consists in vitamin B12&quot; doesn't mean that milk contains B12. In fact, as I read that sentence, I can't tell what it means. Here's why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_A_ consists **of** _B_&quot; means that _A_ is made of _B_ throughout—just like **consistere in** in Latin. The Latin sense of &quot;they are standing stably together, forming _A_&quot; seems to live on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_A_ consists **in** _B_&quot; is quite vague in English. It usually means that _B_ is the essence or most important aspect of _A._ I think **in** here is best understood primarily as a way to suggest a different interpretation than **of** would suggest, where the details depend heavily on context. To illustrate, here is a sentence from an [old legal book](https://books.google.com/books?id=i-Q3AAAAIAAJ&amp;q=%22amendment+consists+in%22&amp;dq=%22amendment+consists+in%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjhkIqChOHQAhWJSyYKHQ_dCL84ChDoAQhKMAg):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The amendment **consists in** the substitution of the word &quot;eighteen&quot; for &quot;twenty-five&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author is summarizing the amendment—reducing it to its essence. An amendment consists _of_ words: it's made of words. So, saying that the amendment &quot;consists of&quot; a substitution is slightly odd, though it certainly can be done, if you want the reader to think of an amendment not as words but as an action. But in this example, &quot;consists in&quot; avoids the &quot;is composed of&quot; meaning and emphasizes that what follows is the main idea, the important thing to know about the amendment, from which minor details have been omitted. (Also, in older writing, &quot;consist in&quot; and &quot;consist of&quot; overlap much more; there was not such a clear distinction as today.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you say &quot;_A_ consists of _B_&quot;, you mean that there is nothing more to _A_ than _B; A_ is to _B_ as a [roux](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roux&amp;oldid=749399995#Types) is to flour, water, and lard. &quot;_A_ consists in _B_&quot; is what you resort to when you want to avoid that strong meaning of completeness, but you still want to say that, in a way, even though there is more to _A_ than _B, B_ still captures the whole of _A_ by stating its essence or what is most important about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's why I can't understand what &quot;Milk consists in vitamin B12&quot; means. Indeed milk doesn't simply consist _of_ vitamin B12; we all know that milk contains many more chemical compounds than just B12. But what special role of vitamin B12 in milk do you have in mind? My mind gives up this search very quickly and concludes that the sentence must be a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a more typical [example](https://books.google.com/books?id=55dhpPtPigAC&amp;pg=PA55&amp;lpg=PA55&amp;dq=%22plot+consists+in%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=YwkfH1XzlL&amp;sig=a1Bz1BM73i0voG3DBGmYXWYgM1M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjqpIDEs-HQAhWLy4MKHYRYBbgQ6AEIMDAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22plot%20consists%20in%22&amp;f=false) of &quot;consists in&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The plot **consists in** resolving a nest of conflicts arising from Hamlet's father's death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You _could_ say **consists of** here, but **consists in** helps confirm that what follows is meant only as a summary in the most abstract terms. Of course the plot consists _of_ a very specific sequence of events, some of which relate more and some less directly to this structural aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears to me, in my admittedly amateur-level understanding, that the English senses of &quot;consist&quot; are remarkably similar to the Latin ones. There are two main differences: in English, the pronouns that compete to disambiguate the common senses are different; and most of the Latin senses have dropped out of contemporary English, such as &quot;I agree&quot;, &quot;I'm not changing my mind&quot;, &quot;I continue&quot;, &quot;I stand still, hold my position, refuse to yield&quot;, &quot;I stop and linger&quot;, and &quot;I depend on&quot;, leaving the sense of &quot;I congeal&quot; echoing most strongly in the various senses of English &quot;consist&quot;.  English &quot;consist&quot; always takes an indirect object with &quot;of&quot; or &quot;in&quot;, though, so &quot;consist&quot; is not a synonym for &quot;congeal&quot;, and unlike in Latin, the congealing is already completed and is usually metaphorical. (But see the [OED](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/39642?redirectedFrom=consist#eid) for obsolete English senses of &quot;consist&quot;. Most of the Latin senses are represented.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dictionary definitions might define &quot;consists of&quot; or &quot;consists in&quot; as &quot;contains&quot;, but that just goes to show why you can't trust dictionary definitions. The word &quot;consist&quot; does not evoke the notion of enclosure or containment. You really have to follow the way that metaphors get extended and clarified in real examples of usage. The &quot;congealing&quot; sense is also echoed in, and reinforced by &quot;consistency&quot; when applied to substances, as in &quot;The dough has a firm consistency&quot;. It's implied that the dough's firmness is the same everywhere. Even logical consistency draws upon this notion of the same stuff &quot;holding together&quot; throughout: a story is &quot;consistent&quot; if it contains no internal contradictions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the Latin verb **consisto** carries a mish-mash of meanings centered around conceptually blending hazy notions of standing and holding together. A listener must use common sense and context to understand how the hazy senses are supposed to, er, congeal into a specific sense in any one sentence. English &quot;consist of&quot; and &quot;consist in&quot; are more narrowly focused on the elements that &quot;stand as one&quot; to form a thing or substance distinct from those elements individually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt;Please note that what I'm saying here is not the consensus among linguists.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2147" RevisionGUID="56225dd4-80c7-40ef-abce-c000853aceac" CreationDate="2016-12-07T11:29:10.717" UserId="932" Text="In addition to Cerberus' answer, I would rather make the following slicing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*fas [est] nulli casto*  &#xD;&#xA;*insistere limen sceleratum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, it is very common to omit *esse* in Latin: e.g. some lines before your quotation you can read *Quæ scelerum facies?* (*What shapes of crime are here?* v. 560)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2141" RevisionGUID="522879bf-f1ac-4fec-8023-f6b607d0084e" CreationDate="2016-12-07T12:13:54.500" UserId="183" Comment="Explicated the abbreviation CCC, added new tag" Text="I’ve yet another question on the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). (I did find another instance of the gerundive—I believe with a preceding *ad* indicating purpose—and Cerebrus’ instruction certainly helped me translating that.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Latin][1] text of the CCC, Prologue, Ch. 1, Sec. 3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Illi qui, Deo iuvante, hanc vocationem Christi acceperunt eique libere responderunt, impulsi sunt et ipsi Christi amore ad Bonum Nuntium ubique terrarum proclamandum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is translated by the Vatican into [English][2] as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Those who with God’s help have welcomed Christ’s call and freely responded to it are urged on by love of Christ to proclaim the Good News everywhere in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question regards the phrase «*[impulsi sunt et] ipsi Christi amore*». Is it more accurately translated as “[are urged on] by the love **of** Christ” (*per Vaticanus*) or “[are impelled] by the love **in** Christ [himself]” (*per me*)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Question concerns the bolded word.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, is the *et* functioning as equivalent to the English “also”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My proposed translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Those who, with the help of God, have accepted this calling of Christ and responded to it freely, are impelled by the love in Christ himself to proclaim the Good News everywhere in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/prologue_lt.htm#I.%20Vita%20hominis%20%E2%80%93%20Deum%20cognoscere%20Illumque%20amare&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2.HTM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7775" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2141" RevisionGUID="522879bf-f1ac-4fec-8023-f6b607d0084e" CreationDate="2016-12-07T12:13:54.500" UserId="183" Comment="Explicated the abbreviation CCC, added new tag" Text="|translation|catechism-catholic-church|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7776" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2141" RevisionGUID="522879bf-f1ac-4fec-8023-f6b607d0084e" CreationDate="2016-12-07T12:13:54.500" Comment="Proposed by 183 approved by 79 edit id of 153" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7777" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2138" RevisionGUID="fcba8df3-4999-483d-80bf-583e0fab4b7c" CreationDate="2016-12-07T12:14:01.673" UserId="183" Comment="added one (no longer new) tag" Text="|translation|grammar-identification|catechism-catholic-church|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7778" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2138" RevisionGUID="fcba8df3-4999-483d-80bf-583e0fab4b7c" CreationDate="2016-12-07T12:14:01.673" Comment="Proposed by 183 approved by 79 edit id of 154" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2148" RevisionGUID="98db269c-4da9-4c8e-99d1-4195db50d418" CreationDate="2016-12-07T12:48:24.523" UserId="932" Text="&gt;*celer* was potential speed (…) but not *vēlōx*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A counterexample can be found in Cæsar's *Commentarii de bello Gallico*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Genus hoc erat pugnae, quo se Germani exercuerant: equitum milia erant VI, totidem numero **pedites velocissimi** ac fortissimi, quos ex omni copia singuli singulos suae salutis causa delegerant (…)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Commentarii de bello Gallico*, I, 48&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, *celer* and *velox* haven't exactly the same meaning, as explained in this book I've just found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Celer vs velox 1][1]][1]  &#xD;&#xA;[![Celer vs velox 2][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*In* Dumesnil, *[Latin Synonyms with Their Different Significations and Examples Taken from the Best Latin Authors][3]*, 1809&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hulEQ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q5Rqz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=9YkSAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA138" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2138" RevisionGUID="05ef78b7-688e-41b4-a404-4ad10556926a" CreationDate="2016-12-07T13:28:38.817" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and slightly reformatted." Text="The following is the [Latin text][1] from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), Prologue, Chapter 1, Section 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Ut haec vocatio in toto resonaret orbe, Christus Apostolos misit, quos elegerat, **illis Evangelii nuntiandi praebens mandatum**: « Euntes ergo docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, docentes eos servare omnia, quaecumque mandavi vobis. Et ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi » (Mt 28,19&amp;ndash;20). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have translated the initial portion of that passage as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So that this calling would resonate in the entire earth, Christ sent the apostles whom he had chosen, &amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware that there is an [English translation][2], but it’s not absolutely accurate, and I am interested in translating the Latin text myself. Based on the following verse (Matt. 28:19&amp;ndash;20), I can assume what the text would be understood as, but that is not what I am looking for. I’d like to understand the grammar and syntax. From my parsing on Perseus, it seems like a mish-mash of participles and gerundives (except for the words *illis* and *Evangelii*). Is that right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/prologue_lt.htm#I.%20Vita%20hominis%20%E2%80%93%20Deum%20cognoscere%20Illumque%20amare&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2.HTM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7781" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2138" RevisionGUID="05ef78b7-688e-41b4-a404-4ad10556926a" CreationDate="2016-12-07T13:28:38.817" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and slightly reformatted." Text="|translation|christianity|grammar-identification|catechism-catholic-church|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2141" RevisionGUID="d0892cfe-bd97-45b8-9254-3867f2ebdd49" CreationDate="2016-12-07T13:29:57.227" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and slightly reformatted." Text="I’ve yet another question on the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). (I did find another instance of the gerundive—I believe with a preceding *ad* indicating purpose—and Cerebrus’ instruction certainly helped me translating that.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Latin][1] text of the CCC, Prologue, Ch. 1, Sec. 3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Illi qui, Deo iuvante, hanc vocationem Christi acceperunt eique libere responderunt, impulsi sunt et ipsi Christi amore ad Bonum Nuntium ubique terrarum proclamandum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is translated by the Vatican into [English][2] as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Those who with God’s help have welcomed Christ’s call and freely responded to it are urged on by love of Christ to proclaim the Good News everywhere in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question regards the phrase «*[impulsi sunt et] ipsi Christi amore*». Is it more accurately translated as “[are urged on] by the love **of** Christ” (*per Vaticanus*) or “[are impelled] by the love **in** Christ [himself]” (*per me*)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question concerns the bolded word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, is the *et* functioning as equivalent to the English “also”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My proposed translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Those who, with the help of God, have accepted this calling of Christ and responded to it freely, are impelled by the love in Christ himself to proclaim the Good News everywhere in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/prologue_lt.htm#I.%20Vita%20hominis%20%E2%80%93%20Deum%20cognoscere%20Illumque%20amare&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2.HTM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7783" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2141" RevisionGUID="d0892cfe-bd97-45b8-9254-3867f2ebdd49" CreationDate="2016-12-07T13:29:57.227" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and slightly reformatted." Text="|translation|christianity|catechism-catholic-church|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2149" RevisionGUID="948b8e88-c50e-4af6-b214-ef77a9074b9f" CreationDate="2016-12-07T14:30:17.047" UserId="79" Text="Classical Latin has the word [*moderator*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2036469), which refers to someone who manages, rules, governs, directs, or moderates.&#xD;&#xA;I assume it does not refer to all kinds of managers, governors and such.&#xD;&#xA;I also assume a moderator in Rome did not listen to all discussions in the various forums and make sure they stay on the respective topics.&#xD;&#xA;(I know it would make no sense.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What did the word *moderator* mean for the Romans?&#xD;&#xA;I am not convinced that mere listed translations will capture the spirit of the word, so I would like to see a better description.&#xD;&#xA;What kinds of people could be referred to as *moderatores*?&#xD;&#xA;Is there some kind of management or leadership that is outside the area of a *moderator*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7785" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2149" RevisionGUID="948b8e88-c50e-4af6-b214-ef77a9074b9f" CreationDate="2016-12-07T14:30:17.047" UserId="79" Text="What does a moderator do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7786" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2149" RevisionGUID="948b8e88-c50e-4af6-b214-ef77a9074b9f" CreationDate="2016-12-07T14:30:17.047" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2150" RevisionGUID="77a59799-9b89-4640-bf41-d47a056e39b2" CreationDate="2016-12-07T15:19:21.567" UserId="645" Text="I think that *moderator* had no very specific meaning beyond the one for the context in which a particular  example might be found. Would the word *controller* make a more comprehensive translation? Contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, it can replace any one or other of your five given examples, to which you might also add *restrainer*: in other words, *moderator* could provide a decent alternative to *gubernator*, *curator*, *dux*, *administrator* and so on, more or less at the writer's whim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid uses it, for example, for a handler of tools or instruments (Meta. VIII.856), or animals (Meta. IV, 245), where in each instance he may have rejected, say, *actor* to satisfy either metre or style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea that a *moderator* did as you choose not to assume, by regulating discussions in the Forum, etc. — and there you have another possibility in *regulator* —though I can scarcely believe that such a busybody would have been given much shrift!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2140" RevisionGUID="b3f61007-c756-4966-af1d-ac65557a11bc" CreationDate="2016-12-07T16:01:48.637" UserId="45" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="You may be able to find *noun&lt;sub&gt;a&lt;/sub&gt;*...*noun&lt;sub&gt;b&lt;/sub&gt;*, *is&lt;sub&gt;b&lt;/sub&gt;*...*sed ille&lt;sub&gt;a&lt;/sub&gt;*, but that's an unusual pairing, and you'd probably want to read it more literally, i.e. &quot;he did X, but the former/latter did Y.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common pairing is *noun&lt;sub&gt;a&lt;/sub&gt;*...*noun&lt;sub&gt;b&lt;/sub&gt;*, *hic&lt;sub&gt;b&lt;/sub&gt;*...*ille&lt;sub&gt;a&lt;/sub&gt;*. Allen &amp; Greenough §297 have this to say about *is* in this usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Is** is a weaker demonstrative than the others and is especially common as a personal pronoun. It does not denote any special object, but refers to one just mentioned, or to be afterwards explained by a relative. **Often it is merely a correlative to the relative *qui***. [Emphasis mine.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They give an example of this usage (from Att. ii. 1. 1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *venit mihi obviam tuus puer, is mihi litteras abs te reddidit* | your boy met me, [and] he delivered to me a letter from you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, this isn't quite the same usage or strength. A glance through Gildersleeve and Lodge doesn't even hint that *is* could be used in place of *hic*/*ille*. Your best bet is to stick with the standard construction unless you're familiar enough with *why* there might be an exception (and my gut is telling me it's rather colloquial)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2151" RevisionGUID="e43e1457-1736-4dcf-aca4-af19cf07e823" CreationDate="2016-12-07T19:02:39.630" UserId="469" Text="The [Via dei Fori Imperiali][1] was built at the iniciative of Mussolini. At the time it caused some controversy about the care for archaeologic and sacred Catholic sites, as well as the displacement of residents on _&quot;one of the most densely populated areas&quot;_ of the Urbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among the ancient sites affected, there were the four _fora_ that give the _via_ its modern name: those of (Julius) Caesar, Augustus (Octavian), Nerva and Trajan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The statues are four and honor each of the Emperors. They were erected during the XX century and are bronze reproductions of ancient statues. Below each one there are Latin inscriptions with the name and a title. (See photos and a little more context in [this Italian language site][2].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the inscriptions start with a big &quot;SPQR&quot; and end with two lines: &quot;ANNO XI / A FASCIBUS RENOVATIS&quot;. (Which seemingly has to do with [_fascist time reckoning_][3]. Only Julius says &quot;ANNO X&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The variable part of them is as follows: (I linked the Emperor's name to high-resolution pictures.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. C·[IVLIO CAESARI][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  DICT·PERPETVO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. IMP·CAESARI·DIVIT·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [AVGVSTO][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  PATRI·PATRIAE·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. IMP·CAESARI·NERVAE·F·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [TRAIANO][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  OPTIMO PRINCIPI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. IMP·CAESARI·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [NERVAE][7]·AUG·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_dei_Fori_Imperiali&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.annazelli.com/statue-degli-imperatori-romani-a-via-dei-fori-imperiali-roma.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.romaspqr.it/ROMA/Statue/St._giulio_Cesare_-_Fori_Imperiali.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Statue_of_Roman_Emperor_Augustus%2C_Via_dei_Fori_Imperiali.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Statue_of_Roman_Emperor_Traianus%2C_Via_dei_Fori_Imperiali.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Statue_of_Roman_Emperor_Nerva%2C_Via_dei_Fori_Imperiali.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1806" RevisionGUID="7ea8c48d-66f9-42ce-8cc1-17aab5f13956" CreationDate="2016-12-08T15:30:53.977" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 454 characters in body" Text="I am trying to understand the English phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;X consists in Y&quot; with help of and in comparison to the Latin verb *consistere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, 1 means &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;X contains Y&quot;, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but from the Latin point of view 1 seems to mean &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Y contains X&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 is clearly wrong, but I don't understand where I have erred.&#xD;&#xA;Where is the problem here? I wish to understand why. Consider 4 as a simple example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Milk consists in vitamin B12.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. milk contains the vitamin.&#xD;&#xA;However, the meaning of the Latin verb *consistere* (i.e. 'to consist' means 'to stand in') would make 4 mean that:    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. vitamin B12 contains milk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What explains this difference, behind which I suspect some kind of semantic or syntactic shift?&#xD;&#xA;Do the English &quot;consist&quot; and the Latin *consistere* differ semantically?&#xD;&#xA;Even if there is no well-documented source, I welcome good explanations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [A related post on ELU](http://english.stackexchange.com/a/193854/50720), and the entries in [ODO](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/consist?q=consist+in#consist__9) and [Etymonline](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=consist&amp;searchmode=none) all do not answer my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2152" RevisionGUID="0e3bf183-6756-4f4a-8c2a-0e3ca2f9e73f" CreationDate="2016-12-08T19:26:41.260" UserId="79" Text="The enclitic *-que* in the words *neque* and *atque* can be shortened to produce *nec* and *ac*.&#xD;&#xA;Are there other instances where *-que* can turn into *-c*?&#xD;&#xA;Can this be productive, or can it only happen in very special cases?&#xD;&#xA;(Bonus question: Are there examples where scansion suggests that *-que* must be read as *-c*?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that *ac* is only used before consonants in classical Latin, whereas *atque*, *nec* and *neque* could be used anywhere, but this is irrelevant here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7798" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2152" RevisionGUID="0e3bf183-6756-4f4a-8c2a-0e3ca2f9e73f" CreationDate="2016-12-08T19:26:41.260" UserId="79" Text="Can -c replace -que in general?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7799" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2152" RevisionGUID="0e3bf183-6756-4f4a-8c2a-0e3ca2f9e73f" CreationDate="2016-12-08T19:26:41.260" UserId="79" Text="|grammar-choice|conjunction|enclitic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2153" RevisionGUID="c1a6404b-44c7-4f9f-9c18-5dd75dc376a4" CreationDate="2016-12-09T04:09:38.083" UserId="952" Text="Line 184 of Vergil's *Aeneid*, Book IV, begins as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nocte volat caelī mediō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this be translated as &quot;*She of the sky flies in the middle of the night*&quot;, or &quot;*At night she flies in the middle of the sky*&quot;? I remember learning that &quot;*medius, media, medium*&quot; is an agreeing adjective meaning &quot;middle of&quot; which does not take the genitive. However, the latter translation I came up with seems to flow better.  &#xD;&#xA;Additionally, are there any other ways to distinguish nouns in the same case when there are such ambiguities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7802" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2153" RevisionGUID="c1a6404b-44c7-4f9f-9c18-5dd75dc376a4" CreationDate="2016-12-09T04:09:38.083" UserId="952" Text="Translating &quot;Nocte volat caelī mediō&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7803" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2153" RevisionGUID="c1a6404b-44c7-4f9f-9c18-5dd75dc376a4" CreationDate="2016-12-09T04:09:38.083" UserId="952" Text="|translation|genitive|noun|vergilius|aeneis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2154" RevisionGUID="e1fd551e-6c39-4b91-83fe-9345e32e240b" CreationDate="2016-12-09T05:32:17.713" UserId="78" Text="As an adjective, indeed, *medius*, -*a*, -*um* does not take a genitive. However, there is a noun, the substantive *medium*, -*i*, which also means &quot;middle&quot; or &quot;midst.&quot; Referring to a physical space, it's fairly common during the Augustan era and later, and, yes, it can take a genitive. Compare this passage of Livy 37.13.10:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  insidiis medio ferme viae positis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with traps laid closely in the middle of the road&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So your second translation is closer, but it's still not quite there. It would help to look at the next word: *terraeque*. The *medio* here isn't what we think of as &quot;the middle of the sky,&quot; but rather the space between &quot;heaven&quot; and earth (i.e. *aer*/*ἀήρ*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So an even more literal translation would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; She flies by night between heaven and earth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet still this isn't the best translation, because it's not our idiom, but at least it gets across what the grammar and words are doing in the passage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2155" RevisionGUID="fba507fb-f2b4-4ee6-b375-c7ccea0bea86" CreationDate="2016-12-09T09:24:59.843" UserId="79" Text="Consider the words *s&amp;umacr;s* and *su&amp;#x306;u&amp;#x306;s*.&#xD;&#xA;The former has one long *u*, the latter has two short ones in two syllables.&#xD;&#xA;For another similar pair with a different vowel, consider *&amp;imacr;mus* and *i&amp;#x306;i&amp;#x306;mus*.&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how easy it was for the Romans to confuse a long vowel with two short ones of the same quality, like *&amp;umacr;* vs. *u&amp;#x306;u&amp;#x306;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make the question more concrete, I would like to know (some of) the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are there examples of word plays with *&amp;umacr;/u&amp;#x306;u&amp;#x306;* or other such combinations? I can imagine how confusing *s&amp;umacr;s* and *su&amp;#x306;u&amp;#x306;s* could make a decent joke.&#xD;&#xA;- Are there misspellings that indicate that it might have been difficult to make the distinction?&#xD;&#xA;- Is the distinction considered by ancient grammarians?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7806" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2155" RevisionGUID="fba507fb-f2b4-4ee6-b375-c7ccea0bea86" CreationDate="2016-12-09T09:24:59.843" UserId="79" Text="Did the Romans confuse a long vowel with two short ones?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7807" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2155" RevisionGUID="fba507fb-f2b4-4ee6-b375-c7ccea0bea86" CreationDate="2016-12-09T09:24:59.843" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|vowel-quantity|grammarians|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2156" RevisionGUID="2898c849-ac57-4675-8590-0a8dec8c2af2" CreationDate="2016-12-09T17:27:08.990" UserId="45" Text="Though it is true that a *moderator* is a rough equivalent of similar &quot;governing&quot; words like *dux, curator,* or *arbiter*, there is an important nuance that should be kept in mind when using it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An important clue comes from its provenance: it is a verbal noun derived from [*moderor, -ari*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmoderor), which has a specific literal meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I. Lit.**:  moderate, mitigate, restrain, allay, temper, qualify&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This literal meaning obviously comes from [*modus, -i*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmodus):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A measure which is not to be exceeded, a bound, limit, end, restriction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is only in light of this literal meaning that the &quot;governing&quot; meaning came to be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **II. Transf.**: to manage, regulate, rule, guide, govern, direct&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My contention is that *many* uses (though certainly not all) carry the important nuance of *limitation* or *restraint*: if I am correct, a *moderator militum* is more concerned with making sure they do not step out of line, rather than leading them in a charge, as a *dux* or *imperator* might be. One good example where *moderator* is appropriate but other words are not is from Ovid, who is describing a horrible sickness and then remarks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non stratum, non ulla pati velamina possunt,  &#xD;&#xA;dura sed in terra ponunt praecordia; nec fit  &#xD;&#xA;corpus humo gelidum, sed humus de corpore fervet.  &#xD;&#xA;**Nec moderator adest**, inque ipsos saeva medentes  &#xD;&#xA;erumpit clades... (Ov *Meta* 7:558-562)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They cannot bear any coverlet or sheets,  &#xD;&#xA;but instead place their bodies on the hard earth; nor does their body  &#xD;&#xA;cool down in contact with the ground, but the ground heats up from their body.  &#xD;&#xA;**Nor is there any one to provide relief**, since the raging illness  &#xD;&#xA;has infected the healers themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. There is no specific public or private function referred to by *moderator*.&#xD;&#xA;2. A *moderator* is one provides a *modus* to something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  a. This can be **figurative**, in which case its meaning isn't much different from other &quot;governing&quot; words, or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  b. This can be **literal**, in which case it specifically refers to *restraint* (*moderator libidinis*) or limitation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2158" RevisionGUID="14d75899-693a-4d28-8bd4-95ad357f1afc" CreationDate="2016-12-10T18:48:39.477" UserId="324" Text="sūs has a long vowel, but the other cases (suis etc.) have a short vowel in the stem, so I suppose the genitive plural suum would look and sound just like the acc. sing. m. and nom./acc. s. n. of suus. But otherwise sūs and suus sound quite different." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2159" RevisionGUID="37964e2d-0a08-40c7-8974-ba314912c342" CreationDate="2016-12-10T21:16:22.557" UserId="40" Text="Well, there is some fairly simple evidence that a sequence of two identical short vowels could in some cases be treated as equivalent to a single long vowel, namely that the former can contract into the latter: e.g. *ĭĭt* ~ *īt*, *nĭhĭl* ~ *nīl*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not necessarily imply that the pronunciations were identical, of course, but it does show that the two could be easily conflated. That said, it's not clear if this was a generally productive process: for example, I don't know of any cases where *suus* is written or scanned as a monosyllable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2155" RevisionGUID="3028af0d-fa29-4ef9-9651-6063258b11af" CreationDate="2016-12-11T12:54:41.723" UserId="79" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="Consider the words *s&amp;umacr;s* and *su&amp;#x306;u&amp;#x306;s*.&#xD;&#xA;The former has one long *u*, the latter has two short ones in two syllables.&#xD;&#xA;For another similar pair with a different vowel, consider *&amp;imacr;mus* and *i&amp;#x306;i&amp;#x306;mus*.&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how easy it was for the Romans to confuse a long vowel with two short ones of the same quality, like *&amp;umacr;* vs. *u&amp;#x306;u&amp;#x306;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make the question more concrete, I would like to know (some of) the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are there examples of word plays with *&amp;umacr;/u&amp;#x306;u&amp;#x306;* or other such combinations? I can imagine how confusing *s&amp;umacr;s* and *su&amp;#x306;u&amp;#x306;s* could make a decent joke.&#xD;&#xA;- Are there misspellings that indicate that it might have been difficult to make the distinction?&#xD;&#xA;- Is the distinction considered by ancient grammarians?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me personally it is much easier to confuse *&amp;umacr;* with *u&amp;#x306;u&amp;#x306;* than with *u&amp;#x306;*, although I can distinguish all three." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7818" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2152" RevisionGUID="f46a6b64-9df1-40d4-9502-53b1d5f57809" CreationDate="2016-12-11T12:55:55.420" UserId="79" Comment="edited title" Text="Can -c replace -que in other words than atque and neque?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2160" RevisionGUID="5516701f-fd9c-4f30-acfb-69c2991518c2" CreationDate="2016-12-11T14:18:30.300" UserId="79" Text="I have seen several accounts of ancient poetic meters, but it just occurred to me that none of them discussed the origin of the information.&#xD;&#xA;Where does our knowledge of the ancient poetic meters come from?&#xD;&#xA;Was the theory explained by ancient grammarians or other theorists, or was the system analyzed and reconstructed later from the poems themselves?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer is different for different meters or the situation is otherwise complicated, an overview would be great.&#xD;&#xA;Currently I find the big picture more interesting than the specifics since I know almost nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know how to read or compose in elegiac couplet or Sapphic stanza, for example, but I do not know how this information reached our era." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7820" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2160" RevisionGUID="5516701f-fd9c-4f30-acfb-69c2991518c2" CreationDate="2016-12-11T14:18:30.300" UserId="79" Text="Where does our knowledge of the ancient poetic meters come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7821" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2160" RevisionGUID="5516701f-fd9c-4f30-acfb-69c2991518c2" CreationDate="2016-12-11T14:18:30.300" UserId="79" Text="|poetry|scansion|soft-question|metre|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2161" RevisionGUID="d49b87b5-1df9-466b-92bb-ff06dfea41a5" CreationDate="2016-12-11T17:25:34.713" UserId="78" Text="We know that meter existed because Aristotle in his *Poetics* flatly tells us so. Moreover, we have quite a bit of testimony from ancient grammarians like Quintilian and Victorinus, whose work [on meters](http://kaali.linguist.jussieu.fr/CGL/text.jsp?topic=de%20syllabis%20(etiam%20metrica%20ratione)&amp;ref=90,12-95,28%20M) is most informative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also have poets' own words about their, such as Catullus mentioning his *hendecasyllabi* or Ovid writing aobut how Cupid stole a beat from epic poetry. The testimony here though is huge and varied, but it aligns with what the later grammarians were saying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, many (most?) manuscripts of poetry preserved line division. You can see how clear that is from this manuscript of the *Iliad* before. The regular line division allowed scholars to note the patterns of long and shorts and match it to descriptions of ancient testimony. From there we just &quot;worked it out,&quot; for which there are still minor disputes today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Venetus A Iliad I][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://historyofinformation.com/images/venetus_a_folio_12r.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2156" RevisionGUID="820d35ce-6b85-49db-be9c-436323b7a815" CreationDate="2016-12-11T18:38:10.633" UserId="45" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Though it is true that a *moderator* is a rough equivalent of similar &quot;governing&quot; words like *dux, curator,* or *arbiter*, there is an important nuance that should be kept in mind when using it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An important clue comes from its provenance: it is a verbal noun derived from [*moderor, -ari*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmoderor), which has a specific literal meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I. Lit.**:  moderate, mitigate, restrain, allay, temper, qualify&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This literal meaning obviously comes from [*modus, -i*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmodus):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A measure which is not to be exceeded, a bound, limit, end, restriction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is only in light of this literal meaning that the &quot;governing&quot; meaning came to be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **II. Transf.**: to manage, regulate, rule, guide, govern, direct&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My contention is that *many* uses (though certainly not all) carry the important nuance of *limitation* or *restraint*: if I am correct, a *moderator militum* is more concerned with making sure they do not step out of line, rather than leading them in a charge, as a *dux* or *imperator* might be. One good example where *moderator* is appropriate but other words are not is from Ovid, who is describing a horrible sickness and then remarks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non stratum, non ulla pati velamina possunt,  &#xD;&#xA;dura sed in terra ponunt praecordia; nec fit  &#xD;&#xA;corpus humo gelidum, sed humus de corpore fervet.  &#xD;&#xA;**Nec moderator adest**, inque ipsos saeva medentes  &#xD;&#xA;erumpit clades... (Ov *Meta* 7:558-562)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They cannot bear any coverlet or sheets,  &#xD;&#xA;but instead place their bodies on the hard earth; nor does their body  &#xD;&#xA;cool down in contact with the ground, but the ground heats up from their body.  &#xD;&#xA;**Nor is there any one to provide relief**, since the raging illness  &#xD;&#xA;has infected the healers themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. There is no specific public or private function referred to by *moderator*.&#xD;&#xA;2. A *moderator* is one who provides a *modus* to something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  a. This can be **figurative**, in which case its meaning isn't much different from other &quot;governing&quot; words, or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  b. This can be **literal**, in which case it specifically refers to *restraint* (*moderator libidinis*) or limitation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2161" RevisionGUID="629bbfea-2306-4b6e-b1cb-45fe519560e6" CreationDate="2016-12-11T18:58:00.967" UserId="78" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="We know that meter existed because Aristotle in his *Poetics* flatly tells us so. Moreover, we have quite a bit of testimony from ancient grammarians like Quintilian and Victorinus, whose work [on meters](http://kaali.linguist.jussieu.fr/CGL/text.jsp?topic=de%20syllabis%20(etiam%20metrica%20ratione)&amp;ref=90,12-95,28%20M) is most informative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also have poets' own words about their meters, such as Catullus mentioning his *hendecasyllabi* or Ovid writing aobut how Cupid stole a beat from epic poetry. The testimony here though is huge and varied, but it aligns with what the later grammarians were saying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, many (most?) manuscripts of poetry preserved line division. You can see how clear that is from this manuscript of the *Iliad* before. The regular line division allowed scholars to note the patterns of long and shorts and match it to descriptions of ancient testimony. From there we just &quot;worked it out,&quot; for which there are still minor disputes today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Venetus A Iliad I][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://historyofinformation.com/images/venetus_a_folio_12r.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2134" RevisionGUID="f6ee5b65-0e6d-4d5a-b5f4-e089bc568a23" CreationDate="2016-12-12T02:05:08.243" UserId="40" Comment="added 201 characters in body" Text="As usual, to answer this question we need to step into our comparative linguistics-fueled time machine and go back to Proto-Indo-European times, so we can see what function the ending *-a*, which we know as a neuter plural ending, had in PIE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In PIE, this ending *-a* (or rather *-(e)h₂) did not form plurals, but [collectives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_noun). A collective refers to a group of objects, but is conceptualized as being a single thing, and for grammatical purposes is generally treated as a singular noun; this was probably the case in PIE, and is why in Greek, for example, neuter plural nouns in *-a* still take singular verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PIE collectives seem to have been used most often with neuter nouns -- in fact, neuter nouns don't seem to have had a normal plural (at least not in the nominative/accusative), so the collective form more or less stood in for a plural. This is why in Latin and other languages, *-a* came to be a specifically neuter ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the collective could also be formed from masculine and feminine nouns. *Locus* is one such example: of its two plurals, *locī* continues the PIE plural, while *loca* continues the PIE collective. Lewis and Short describe the difference in meaning as follows: &quot;plur. loci, single places; loca, places connected with each other, a region&quot; -- where the plural vs. collective meanings are clear. *Locus* actually isn't the only such noun in Latin: there's *iocus* &quot;joke&quot;, pl. *ioca*, and *carbasus* &quot;sail&quot;, pl. *carbasa*. And there's at least one case in which the collective was reinterpreted as a feminine singular: *pila* &quot;ball&quot;, which seems to have originally been the collective of *pilus* &quot;hair&quot; (meaning &quot;mass or ball of hair&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(By the way, another heterogeneous noun with a similar story behind it is *frēnum* &quot;rein&quot;, pl. *frēnī*. In this case the Latin masculine plural ending continues what was in PIE terms not a plural at all, but a neuter dual.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2162" RevisionGUID="51fd70d2-0146-497f-8742-d788c7f53eaf" CreationDate="2016-12-12T13:02:01.657" UserId="1049" Text="I wish to translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Repurposes and depends on production of...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word for word, the following represents my current effort:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Redivisus (&quot;Recycle&quot; but not specifically &quot;Recycles&quot; as required.) OR Regeneret (Regenerates) OR Recreare (Recreates).    &#xD;&#xA; 2. et (and)&#xD;&#xA; 3. dependet (depends on)&#xD;&#xA; 4. productio (production)&#xD;&#xA; 5. of... (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By &quot;repurpose&quot; I simply mean to say &quot;Makes a new use of&quot; or &quot;Reuses&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7829" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2162" RevisionGUID="51fd70d2-0146-497f-8742-d788c7f53eaf" CreationDate="2016-12-12T13:02:01.657" UserId="1049" Text="Translating &quot;Repurposes and depends on production of...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7830" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2162" RevisionGUID="51fd70d2-0146-497f-8742-d788c7f53eaf" CreationDate="2016-12-12T13:02:01.657" UserId="1049" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2162" RevisionGUID="e451775e-76df-485b-ab54-40da73ccca29" CreationDate="2016-12-12T13:09:29.460" UserId="1049" Comment="Spelling" Text="I wish to translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Repurposes and depends on production of...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word for word, the following represents my current effort:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Redivivus (&quot;Recycle&quot; but not specifically &quot;Recycles&quot; as required.) OR Regeneret (Regenerates) OR Recreare (Recreates).    &#xD;&#xA; 2. et (and)&#xD;&#xA; 3. dependet (depends on)&#xD;&#xA; 4. productio (production)&#xD;&#xA; 5. of... (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By &quot;repurpose&quot; I simply mean to say &quot;Makes a new use of&quot; or &quot;Reuses&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2163" RevisionGUID="70e4b77b-34e2-42dc-a2ba-7cabf7c3a1df" CreationDate="2016-12-12T14:18:28.210" UserId="645" Text="A little difficult without knowing exactly what you want to describe, but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Finem repetit novum atque de proferendo* (foll. by genitive) *pendet*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, [*an objective it seeks* [that is] *new and from the bringing forth* [of . . . ] *depends upon*.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2162" RevisionGUID="08f3cc28-a3c6-4cd5-9de5-daa12da3c6c4" CreationDate="2016-12-12T17:20:09.767" UserId="1049" Comment="Provided requested context." Text="I wish to translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Repurposes and depends on production of...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word for word, the following represents my current effort:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Redivivus (&quot;Recycle&quot; but not specifically &quot;Recycles&quot; as required.) OR Regeneret (Regenerates) OR Recreare (Recreates).    &#xD;&#xA; 2. et (and)&#xD;&#xA; 3. dependet (depends on)&#xD;&#xA; 4. productio (production)&#xD;&#xA; 5. of... (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By &quot;repurpose&quot; I simply mean to say &quot;Makes a new use of&quot; or &quot;Reuses&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context&#xD;&#xA;=======&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new sales operation being established in Madrid will ***repurpose*** the tangible assets and human resources of the older administrative operation based in Florence to the end that the former becomes ***dependent on the production*** of the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific phrase I'm translating will be used as an intermediary between flow-chart items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Flow-chart example][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The repurposing is prerequisite to production dependency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cCQYm.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2162" RevisionGUID="bf4b7fd4-354c-4ee6-91cd-e9ff2e9ebcae" CreationDate="2016-12-12T17:24:59.977" UserId="1049" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="I wish to translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Repurposes and depends on production of...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word for word, the following represents my current effort:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Redivivus (&quot;Recycle&quot; but not specifically &quot;Recycles&quot; as required.) OR Regeneret (Regenerates) OR Recreare (Recreates).    &#xD;&#xA; 2. et (and)&#xD;&#xA; 3. dependet (depends on)&#xD;&#xA; 4. productio (production)&#xD;&#xA; 5. of... (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By &quot;repurpose&quot; I simply mean to say &quot;Makes a new use of&quot; or &quot;Reuses&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context&#xD;&#xA;=======&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sentence example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The new sales operation being established in Madrid will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***repurpose*** the tangible assets and human resources of the older administrative operation based in Florence to the end that the former&#xD;&#xA;&gt; becomes ***dependent on the production*** of the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific phrase I'm translating will be used as an intermediary between flow-chart items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Flow-chart example][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The repurposing is prerequisite to production dependency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cCQYm.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2164" RevisionGUID="7a789c06-eb7c-4b9e-8caa-7c6a6e222d4b" CreationDate="2016-12-12T18:25:23.707" UserId="45" Text="It appears that this kind of substitution of -c for -que is only present in these two conjunctions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* atque: ac  &#xD;&#xA;* neque: nec&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is difficult to prove a negative, and I am willing to be corrected, but one fairly convincing inductive line of reasoning would be to choose similar words (i.e. conjunctions with &quot;que&quot;) and check if a similar substitution is attested. Here's a list of such words from a brief search:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. cumque&#xD;&#xA;2. itaque (not really a conjunction, but I'll include it)&#xD;&#xA;3. namque&#xD;&#xA;4. sicutque (one attestation in Siculus, *Eclogae* 6.46)&#xD;&#xA;5. utque&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of the corresponding pairs (*cunc*, *itac*, *nanc*, *sicuc*, *uc*) occurs in a classical corpus, even though some (especially *at*/*ut*) seem pretty exact equivalents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: **this substitution does not appear to occur in any other words except *ac* and *nec***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2164" RevisionGUID="09058ef8-3573-4551-af37-7e75912b4661" CreationDate="2016-12-12T18:36:22.770" UserId="45" Comment="added 1271 characters in body" Text="I wrote a longish post attempting a negative answer, and as a last precaution consulted a list of [all Latin words ending in -c](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=c&amp;lang=la). *One* word stuck out to me like a sore thumb, and further research indicates that it may, in fact, be a contraction of -que to -c:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [dōnĕc](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddonec): conj. [shortened from ante- and post-class. form dōnĭcum , from old dative doni (dioni; for root, etc., v. dies) and conj. cum.... **—In the Inscr. of Orell. 4370 DONIQVIES is i. q. DONIQUE IS, and donique = donicum**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears, thus, that at least some authors saw *donec* as a contraction of *donique*. This helps with the parsing of Lucretius, *De Rerum Natura*, 2: 1116&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...ignem ignes procudunt aetheraque aether,  &#xD;&#xA;**donique** ad extremum crescendi perfica finem   &#xD;&#xA;omnia perduxit rerum natura creatrix; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leonard's translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...and fires, as on a forge,  &#xD;&#xA;Beat out new fire; and ether forges ether;  &#xD;&#xA;Till nature, author and ender of the world,  &#xD;&#xA;Hath led all things to extreme bound of growth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will include my other answer, since I believe it otherwise helps shed some light on this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that this kind of substitution of -c for -que is only present in these two conjunctions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* atque: ac  &#xD;&#xA;* neque: nec&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is difficult to prove a negative, and I am willing to be corrected, but one fairly convincing inductive line of reasoning would be to choose similar words (i.e. conjunctions with &quot;que&quot;) and check if a similar substitution is attested. Here's a list of such words from a brief search:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. cumque&#xD;&#xA;2. itaque (not really a conjunction, but I'll include it)&#xD;&#xA;3. namque&#xD;&#xA;4. sicutque (one attestation in Siculus, *Eclogae* 6.46)&#xD;&#xA;5. utque&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of the corresponding pairs (*cunc*, *itac*, *nanc*, *sicuc*, *uc*) occurs in a classical corpus, even though some (especially *at*/*ut*) seem pretty exact equivalents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: **this substitution does not appear to occur in any other words except *ac* and *nec***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2164" RevisionGUID="a3196951-5942-4155-a665-556408d89bc3" CreationDate="2016-12-12T18:43:16.587" UserId="45" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="I wrote a longish post attempting a negative answer, and as a last precaution consulted a list of [all Latin words ending in -c](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=c&amp;lang=la). *One* word stuck out to me like a sore thumb, and further research indicates that it may, in fact, be a contraction of -que to -c:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [dōnĕc](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddonec): conj. [shortened from ante- and post-class. form dōnĭcum , from old dative doni (dioni; for root, etc., v. dies) and conj. cum.... **—In the Inscr. of Orell. 4370 DONIQVIES is i. q. DONIQUE IS, and donique = donicum**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears, thus, that at least some authors saw *donec* as a contraction of *donique*. This helps with the parsing of Lucretius, *De Rerum Natura*, 2: 1116&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...ignem ignes procudunt aetheraque aether,  &#xD;&#xA;**donique** ad extremum crescendi perfica finem   &#xD;&#xA;omnia perduxit rerum natura creatrix; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leonard's translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...and fires, as on a forge,  &#xD;&#xA;Beat out new fire; and ether forges ether;  &#xD;&#xA;Till nature, author and ender of the world,  &#xD;&#xA;Hath led all things to extreme bound of growth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will include my other answer, since I believe it otherwise helps shed some light on this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that this kind of substitution of -c for -que is only present in these two conjunctions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* atque: ac  &#xD;&#xA;* neque: nec&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is difficult to prove a negative, and I am willing to be corrected, but one fairly convincing inductive line of reasoning would be to choose similar words (i.e. conjunctions with &quot;que&quot;) and check if a similar substitution is attested. Here's a list of such words from a brief search:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. cumque&#xD;&#xA;2. itaque (not really a conjunction, but I'll include it)&#xD;&#xA;3. namque&#xD;&#xA;4. sicutque (one attestation in Siculus, *Eclogae* 6.46)&#xD;&#xA;5. utque&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of the corresponding pairs (*cunc*, *itac*, *nanc*, *sicuc*, *uc*) occurs in a classical corpus, even though some (especially *at*/*ut*) seem pretty exact equivalents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: **this substitution does not appear to occur in any other words except *ac* and *nec* (EDIT) and *donec***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2163" RevisionGUID="bbe5e066-cf06-4f00-af08-b4d762e35717" CreationDate="2016-12-12T19:50:15.520" UserId="645" Comment="edited in light of questioner's further clarification" Text="A little difficult without knowing exactly what you want to describe, but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Finem repetit novum atque de proferendo* (foll. by genitive) *pendet*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, [*an objective it seeks* [that is] *new and from the bringing forth* [of . . . ] *depends upon*.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[edit] However, with your refinement of the problem it doesn't now seem that *production* is the word you want: would *resources* be better? If so, I suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quo plus alter finem repetit novum, eo plus de subsidio alterius pendet.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[So far as the one seeks a new purpose, by just so much does it depend on the other's assistance]. *Subsidium* is 'help that can be relied on', rather than simply 'help' (which is *auxilium*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2165" RevisionGUID="fbea64f1-5d5d-457d-980d-04692bfd3ab6" CreationDate="2016-12-13T13:20:11.403" UserId="952" Text="&gt;Tandem pauca refert: &quot;Ego te, quae plpurima fando enumerare vales, numquam, regina, negabo promiteram, nec me meminiesse pigebit Elissae dum memor ipse mei, dum spiritus hos regit artus. (333-336)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have come up with two translations for this passage, but I'm not sure which is better/more accurate. They are both a little rough in terms of overall flow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Version 1: *Finally he carries back such things: &quot;I, queen, never will refuse you having deserved many things which you are strong to recount, nor will it displease Dido to remember me when I am mindful of me, when my spirit directs these bodies.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Version 2: *At last he brings back a few words: &quot;I will not deny, never, that you have deserved the many things which you are able to enumerate by speaking, nor will it displease me to remember Elissa while I myself and mindful of myself, while my spirit rules these limbs.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would greatly appreciate any insight on these translations, or a more correct version if anyone knows a better one!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7845" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2165" RevisionGUID="fbea64f1-5d5d-457d-980d-04692bfd3ab6" CreationDate="2016-12-13T13:20:11.403" UserId="952" Text="Translation of Lines 333-336 of Vergil's Aeneid Book 4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7846" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2165" RevisionGUID="fbea64f1-5d5d-457d-980d-04692bfd3ab6" CreationDate="2016-12-13T13:20:11.403" UserId="952" Text="|translation|aeneis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2165" RevisionGUID="3580e52c-08fb-4837-83b8-abc23ac9ac8f" CreationDate="2016-12-13T15:01:02.013" UserId="45" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="&gt;Tandem pauca refert: &quot;Ego te, quae plurima fando  &#xD;&#xA;enumerare vales, numquam, regina, negabo  &#xD;&#xA;promeritam, nec me meminiesse pigebit Elissae  &#xD;&#xA;dum memor ipse mei, dum spiritus hos regit artus. (4:333-336)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have come up with two translations for this passage, but I'm not sure which is better/more accurate. They are both a little rough in terms of overall flow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Version 1: *Finally he carries back such things: &quot;I, queen, never will refuse you having deserved many things which you are strong to recount, nor will it displease Dido to remember me when I am mindful of me, when my spirit directs these bodies.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Version 2: *At last he brings back a few words: &quot;I will not deny, never, that you have deserved the many things which you are able to enumerate by speaking, nor will it displease me to remember Elissa while I myself and mindful of myself, while my spirit rules these limbs.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would greatly appreciate any insight on these translations, or a more correct version if anyone knows a better one!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2166" RevisionGUID="9354fb31-cfc2-4e6f-b1e9-1357e466feeb" CreationDate="2016-12-13T15:27:52.720" UserId="645" Text="You might enjoy Dryden's famous — but magnificently erratic — translation, completed in 1697 :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*. . . and thus at length replies, / &quot;Fair Queen, you never can enough repeat / Your boundless favours, or I own my debt, / Nor can my mind forget Eliza's* (!) *name, / While vital breath inspires this mortal frame. / . . .*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole translation tends to be eccentric, but it's splendid as poetry in its own right — never mind Virgil! [My edition was published by Pennsylvania State University in 1989, ISBN 0-271-00651-X]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2167" RevisionGUID="b6ced2b2-a912-421b-8332-80d7f6e8b4d9" CreationDate="2016-12-13T15:32:27.233" UserId="45" Text="Your second translation is pretty close to the mark. Let's go through the translation step by step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us first recall to mind the context: Dido has just finished a long harange (4:305-330) excoriating Aeneas for attempting to leave her in secret. Aeneas is grieved and silent, and then...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tandem pauca refert &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **At last he spoke these few words**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although you are right that [*refero*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Drefero) literally means &quot;bring back&quot;, it has a poetic meaning in this context: &quot;to say in return, to rejoin, answer, reply (syn. respondeo).&quot; In fact, this is one of the example passages for this meaning quoted in the L&amp;S entry!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego te, quae plurima fando enumerare vales, numquam, regina, negabo promeritam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I will never deny that you are deserving of those things which you able to enumerate in your long speech.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is tricky: [*promeritam*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dpromereor) means to &quot;deserve, be worthy&quot; and, as seen in the entry for [*mereo*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=mereor&amp;la=la&amp;can=mereor0&amp;prior=pr%C5%8D&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=promereor&amp;i=1#lexicon), can take the accusative. It is likely an echo of a previous line from Dido's speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; si bene quid de te merui... (4:317)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is she worthy of? The answer is in a relative clause: *[omnia] quae enumerate vales* (&quot;everything which you are able to enumerate&quot;) *plurima fando* (lit. &quot;by saying many things&quot; = &quot;in your long speech&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nec me meminisse pigebit Elissae dum memor ipse mei, dum spiritus hos regit artus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **nor will I ever tire of remembering Elissa as long as I am mindful of my own self, as long as my spirit governs these limbs.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*piget*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=p%C4%ADget&amp;la=la&amp;can=p%C4%ADget0&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=piget&amp;i=1#lexicon) is used as an impersonal verb: &quot;it will not burden/trouble me...&quot; *Elissae* is in the genitive, since it is the object of *memini*, and poetically refers to Dido in the third person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *dum* clauses are poetic ways of saying *dum vivo*, &quot;as long as I live.&quot; The point is that Aeneas will sooner forget himself or die rather than forget her." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2167" RevisionGUID="59f347e0-16b3-4697-a22d-48f69a9f01c8" CreationDate="2016-12-13T15:39:40.280" UserId="45" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Your second translation is pretty close to the mark. Let's go through the translation step by step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us first recall to mind the context: Dido has just finished a long harangue (4:305-330) excoriating Aeneas for attempting to leave her in secret. Aeneas is grieved and silent, and then...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tandem pauca refert &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **At last he spoke these few words**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although you are right that [*refero*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Drefero) literally means &quot;bring back&quot;, it has a poetic meaning in this context: &quot;to say in return, to rejoin, answer, reply (syn. respondeo).&quot; In fact, this is one of the example passages for this meaning quoted in the L&amp;S entry!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego te, quae plurima fando enumerare vales, numquam, regina, negabo promeritam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I will never deny that you are deserving of those things which you able to enumerate in your long speech.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is tricky: [*promeritam*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dpromereor) means to &quot;deserve, be worthy&quot; and, as seen in the entry for [*mereo*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=mereor&amp;la=la&amp;can=mereor0&amp;prior=pr%C5%8D&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=promereor&amp;i=1#lexicon), can take the accusative. It is likely an echo of a previous line from Dido's speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; si bene quid de te merui... (4:317)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is she worthy of? The answer is in a relative clause: *[omnia] quae enumerate vales* (&quot;everything which you are able to enumerate&quot;) *plurima fando* (lit. &quot;by saying many things&quot; = &quot;in your long speech&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nec me meminisse pigebit Elissae dum memor ipse mei, dum spiritus hos regit artus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **nor will I ever tire of remembering Elissa as long as I am mindful of my own self, as long as my spirit governs these limbs.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*piget*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=p%C4%ADget&amp;la=la&amp;can=p%C4%ADget0&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=piget&amp;i=1#lexicon) is used as an impersonal verb: &quot;it will not burden/trouble me...&quot; *Elissae* is in the genitive, since it is the object of *memini*, and poetically refers to Dido in the third person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *dum* clauses are poetic ways of saying *dum vivo*, &quot;as long as I live.&quot; The point is that Aeneas will sooner forget himself or die rather than forget her." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2168" RevisionGUID="35a0167b-79f0-46b8-9a28-fe91c2a3de56" CreationDate="2016-12-13T15:55:28.973" UserId="79" Text="In English and many other languages &quot;bonus&quot; means roughly &quot;extra&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;You can earn bonus points as a frequent flyer or you can answer a bonus question in a game show.&#xD;&#xA;But the Latin adjective *bonus* means &quot;good&quot; (and some related things), but it does not seem to have the sense of &quot;extra&quot; or &quot;additional&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The online etymologies I could find say that the English word &quot;bonus&quot; comes from this Latin adjective but they do not explain how this happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When and how did the word &quot;bonus&quot; acquire this extra meaning?&#xD;&#xA;Did it happen in Latin or some other language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a reliable source in etymology states that we are unsure, that is a sufficient answer.&#xD;&#xA;I just think there should be some reason behind this, perhaps an individual event or example from which it spread." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7852" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2168" RevisionGUID="35a0167b-79f0-46b8-9a28-fe91c2a3de56" CreationDate="2016-12-13T15:55:28.973" UserId="79" Text="When and how did &quot;bonus&quot; get to mean &quot;extra&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7853" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2168" RevisionGUID="35a0167b-79f0-46b8-9a28-fe91c2a3de56" CreationDate="2016-12-13T15:55:28.973" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2169" RevisionGUID="aeebb42e-edde-4654-b5b9-f7a44269e6c5" CreationDate="2016-12-13T16:19:21.817" UserId="78" Text="I think this one is pretty simple. If you purchase something, and you get what you bought *plus* a little extra, isn't that *a good thing*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the specific history, according to [Etymonline](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=bonus&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) and *Oxford English Dictionary*, it originated in the Stock Exchange as slang:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (From *OED*) An ignorant or jocular application of Latin bonus ‘good (man)’, probably intended to signify a boon, ‘a good thing’ (bonum). Probably originally Stock Exchange slang&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might [notice](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bonus) that in the UK, it can also mean &quot;an extra dividend or issue paid to the shareholders of a company.&quot; It likely, on account of the bad grammar, was jocular at first, too, and then became normalized—same thing with the word *OK*. The *OED* lists this as their earliest attestation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1785   C. Macklin Man of World iii. 37   Got my snack of the cloathing..the contracts, the lottery teeckets, and aw the poleetical bonusses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The spelling here doesn't indicate the lack of a formalized spelling system, but rather imitates pretentious yet uneducated speech, since it's found in the mouth of one Sir Pertinax Macsycophant. (There may be a gibe at Scottish pronunciation in there, too, but I'm not expert in this literature.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2165" RevisionGUID="bc151592-39be-402c-9839-e015ffc8b904" CreationDate="2016-12-13T17:22:11.663" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt;Tandem pauca refert: &quot;Ego te, quae plurima fando  &#xD;&#xA;enumerare vales, numquam, regina, negabo  &#xD;&#xA;promeritam, nec me meminisse pigebit Elissae  &#xD;&#xA;dum memor ipse mei, dum spiritus hos regit artus. (4:333-336)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have come up with two translations for this passage, but I'm not sure which is better/more accurate. They are both a little rough in terms of overall flow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Version 1: *Finally he carries back such things: &quot;I, queen, never will refuse you having deserved many things which you are strong to recount, nor will it displease Dido to remember me when I am mindful of me, when my spirit directs these bodies.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Version 2: *At last he brings back a few words: &quot;I will not deny, never, that you have deserved the many things which you are able to enumerate by speaking, nor will it displease me to remember Elissa while I myself and mindful of myself, while my spirit rules these limbs.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would greatly appreciate any insight on these translations, or a more correct version if anyone knows a better one!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2167" RevisionGUID="b9d4fddf-c3b1-4326-be90-dc2ab7e0a043" CreationDate="2016-12-13T18:05:18.787" UserId="45" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Your second translation is pretty close to the mark. Let's go through the translation step by step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us first recall to mind the context: Dido has just finished a long harangue (4:305-330) excoriating Aeneas for attempting to leave her in secret. Aeneas is grieved and silent, and then...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tandem pauca refert &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **At last he spoke these few words**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although you are right that [*refero*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Drefero) literally means &quot;bring back&quot;, it has a poetic meaning in this context: &quot;to say in return, to rejoin, answer, reply (syn. respondeo).&quot; In fact, this is one of the example passages for this meaning quoted in the L&amp;S entry!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego te, quae plurima fando enumerare vales, numquam, regina, negabo promeritam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I will never deny that you, o queen, are deserving of those things which you able to enumerate in your long speech.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is tricky: [*promeritam*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dpromereor) means to &quot;deserve, be worthy&quot; and, as seen in the entry for [*mereo*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=mereor&amp;la=la&amp;can=mereor0&amp;prior=pr%C5%8D&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=promereor&amp;i=1#lexicon), can take the accusative. It is likely an echo of a previous line from Dido's speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; si bene quid de te merui... (4:317)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is she worthy of? The answer is in a relative clause: *[omnia] quae enumerate vales* (&quot;everything which you are able to enumerate&quot;) *plurima fando* (lit. &quot;by saying many things&quot; = &quot;in your long speech&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nec me meminisse pigebit Elissae dum memor ipse mei, dum spiritus hos regit artus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **nor will I ever tire of remembering Elissa as long as I am mindful of my own self, as long as my spirit governs these limbs.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*piget*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=p%C4%ADget&amp;la=la&amp;can=p%C4%ADget0&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=piget&amp;i=1#lexicon) is used as an impersonal verb: &quot;it will not burden/trouble me...&quot; *Elissae* is in the genitive, since it is the object of *memini*, and poetically refers to Dido in the third person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *dum* clauses are poetic ways of saying *dum vivo*, &quot;as long as I live.&quot; The point is that Aeneas will sooner forget himself or die rather than forget her." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2167" RevisionGUID="b7962c78-06df-4d3c-ba0b-80e9f2659c28" CreationDate="2016-12-13T18:12:22.063" UserId="45" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Your second translation is pretty close to the mark. Let's go through the translation step by step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us first recall to mind the context: Dido has just finished a long harangue (4:305-330) excoriating Aeneas for attempting to leave her in secret. Aeneas is grieved and silent, and then...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tandem pauca refert &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **At last he spoke these few words**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although you are right that [*refero*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Drefero) literally means &quot;bring back&quot;, it has a poetic meaning in this context: &quot;to say in return, to rejoin, answer, reply (syn. respondeo).&quot; In fact, this is one of the example passages for this meaning quoted in the L&amp;S entry!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego te, quae plurima fando enumerare vales, numquam, regina, negabo promeritam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I will never deny that you, o queen, are deserving of those things which you are able to detail in your long speech.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is tricky: [*promeritam*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dpromereor) means to &quot;deserve, be worthy&quot; and, as seen in the entry for [*mereo*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=mereor&amp;la=la&amp;can=mereor0&amp;prior=pr%C5%8D&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=promereor&amp;i=1#lexicon), can take the accusative. It is likely an echo of a previous line from Dido's speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; si bene quid de te merui... (4:317)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is she worthy of? The answer is in a relative clause: *[omnia] quae enumerate vales* (&quot;everything which you are able to enumerate&quot;) *plurima fando* (lit. &quot;by saying many things&quot; = &quot;in your long speech&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nec me meminisse pigebit Elissae dum memor ipse mei, dum spiritus hos regit artus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **nor will I ever tire of remembering Elissa as long as I am mindful of my own self, as long as my spirit governs these limbs.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*piget*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=p%C4%ADget&amp;la=la&amp;can=p%C4%ADget0&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=piget&amp;i=1#lexicon) is used as an impersonal verb: &quot;it will not burden/trouble me...&quot; *Elissae* is in the genitive, since it is the object of *memini*, and poetically refers to Dido in the third person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *dum* clauses are poetic ways of saying *dum vivo*, &quot;as long as I live.&quot; The point is that Aeneas will sooner forget himself or die rather than forget her." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="891" RevisionGUID="a04a21b1-e2f1-427d-9872-4af8b490fdee" CreationDate="2016-12-13T21:40:15.697" UserId="79" Comment="added 20 characters in body; edited tags" Text="One can derive nouns from verbs by attaching *-us* or *-io* to the perfect participle stem.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *movere* gives rise to *motus* (fourth declension) and *motio*.&#xD;&#xA;The meanings of these derived words are quite close to each other.&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between *-us* and *-io*?&#xD;&#xA;I am not looking for a comparison of *motus* and *motio*, but a broader view of the difference of these to suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;I understand that a general rule will probably have exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my understanding of the difference (which I would like to have corrected or verified):&#xD;&#xA;The suffix *-io* produces a noun for the general phenomenon related to the verb, whereas *-us* gives a single instance of the phenomenon or action.&#xD;&#xA;For instance, *motio* means motion in general (the fact that things move, ability to move) where as *motus* means a more concrete single movement or gesture.&#xD;&#xA;This division is not strict, however, and both suffixes can mean both things, but this is the general difference in tone.&#xD;&#xA;(Do not take this paragraph for a fact. These are just my thoughts that lack justification. The descriptions of *motio* and *motus* are supposed to illustrate my general point, not be accurate translations of these words.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7860" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="891" RevisionGUID="a04a21b1-e2f1-427d-9872-4af8b490fdee" CreationDate="2016-12-13T21:40:15.697" UserId="79" Comment="added 20 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|derivation|suffixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2170" RevisionGUID="725382c5-1998-434f-b545-a0ff936c557b" CreationDate="2016-12-14T13:37:36.433" UserId="1054" Text="I have a phrase and I'm concerned with grammar, which one would be more proper;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;et ego non curae&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;et ego non curo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phrase meaning would be &quot;I dont care&quot; like in &quot;I dont give a f***&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please assist :) and thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7862" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2170" RevisionGUID="725382c5-1998-434f-b545-a0ff936c557b" CreationDate="2016-12-14T13:37:36.433" UserId="1054" Text="Phrase grammar, curae or curo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7863" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2170" RevisionGUID="725382c5-1998-434f-b545-a0ff936c557b" CreationDate="2016-12-14T13:37:36.433" UserId="1054" Text="|translation|new-latin|phrase-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2171" RevisionGUID="dababb3b-1a6d-498f-a2ba-3315cdfb8fa1" CreationDate="2016-12-14T14:01:11.430" UserId="952" Text="The main difference in your phrases is that &quot;curae&quot; is a noun and &quot;curo&quot; is a verb. Therefore, *et ego non curae* is not exactly a complete phrase because there is no verb.  &#xD;&#xA;*et ego non curo* is correct and means &quot;I don't care&quot;, but you could also say *et ego non curam do*, which means &quot;I don't give a care&quot;. It just depends whether you want to use a verb or noun to translate care.  &#xD;&#xA;Additionally, you don't directly have to include *ego* because that is indicated by the verb ending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2172" RevisionGUID="2f172383-3417-466d-bcf3-fe7a33a93c90" CreationDate="2016-12-14T14:10:18.897" UserId="78" Text="A great little phrase used was *flocci non facio*, rendered by the Victorians as &quot;I care not a straw for&quot; but really means something closer to &quot;I don't give a rat's ass.&quot; It was used by both Cicero (*Att*. 13.50.3) as well as Plautus (all over the place) and Terence (*Eun*. 3.1.21), so it's clearly a common and idiomatic phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2170" RevisionGUID="febb3bb2-575a-45be-b864-ee24203a65b9" CreationDate="2016-12-14T14:52:08.373" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 54 characters in body" Text="I have a phrase and I'm concerned with grammar. Which one would be more proper?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et ego non curae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et ego non curo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phrase meaning would be &quot;I don't care.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2173" RevisionGUID="c5877d26-ff0a-4c34-a216-799bbf8c58f2" CreationDate="2016-12-14T15:22:19.590" UserId="45" Text="The standard way of saying &quot;I care for X&quot; in Latin is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; X (nominative) mihi est curae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De X (ablative) mihi est curae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a so-called *double dative* construction, and literally means &quot;X is a concern to me&quot; or &quot;It is a concern to me about X.&quot; The proper way of saying &quot;I don't care [about that]&quot; is thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Mihi non est curae** [de hoc].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some other options, mostly from my favorite Latin playwright. My translations are literal, but you could easily use some version of &quot;don't care&quot; instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ista non curo.** (Cicero, *Epistulae ad Atticum* 13.23.3.9)  &#xD;&#xA;*I don't care about these things.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Istuc quidem edepol nihil est.** (Plautus, *Miles Gloriosus* 1.1)  &#xD;&#xA;*That is absolutely nothing.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Tu [hoc] hau magni péndis.** (Plautus, *Pseudolus* 1.1)  &#xD;&#xA;*You really don't think that is worth much.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quod dixi flocci existumat.** (Plautus, *Mostellaria* 1.1)  &#xD;&#xA;*He doesn't give a straw for what I said.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the context, the following can also be a way of &quot;not caring&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Nugas blatis / garris** (Plautus, *Curculio* 3.1, 5.1)  &#xD;&#xA;*You're spewing nonsense.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quin tu is in malam crucem?** (Plautus, *Curculio* 5.2)  &#xD;&#xA;*Why don't you go to hell?* (lit. &quot;a bad cross&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2174" RevisionGUID="9189ee86-da93-41c7-9605-a82a6b4b96cd" CreationDate="2016-12-14T19:59:29.293" UserId="79" Text="I would like to know how many people understand Latin fluently.&#xD;&#xA;To that end, I would like to find research or statistics concerning Latin proficiency.&#xD;&#xA;I am not asking how many people have studied Latin, but how many people are actually capable of using Latin &amp;mdash; taking Latin courses in school does not imply that one can actually read and understand Latin decades&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; later.&#xD;&#xA;I could only find guesses on the internet, but nothing substantial to support any claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course there are many ways to define fluency in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I chose not to define it on purpose, since I am willing to accept almost any definition used in a reliable source.&#xD;&#xA;I allow both reading and listening comprehension.&#xD;&#xA;One possible threshold leads to this formulation of the question:&#xD;&#xA;How many people can completely or almost completely understand&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; the Nuntii Latini news broadcast&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; when listening to it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is acceptable if one can only give lower and upper bounds, as long as they are well justified.&#xD;&#xA;If I see evidence that, say, at least a hundred thousand and at most a million people are fluent in Latin, that's fine.&#xD;&#xA;Narrower bounds are always better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not asking anyone here to try and estimate the number of fluent Latinists.&#xD;&#xA;I am asking for sources of written and reliable information.&#xD;&#xA;If there are many such sources, reliability and narrow bounds are my selection criteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone suggest where I could find such information?&#xD;&#xA;I can make the question more specific if needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Or months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Preferably both content and grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The latest news can be found [here](http://areena.yle.fi/1-1931339)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7870" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2174" RevisionGUID="9189ee86-da93-41c7-9605-a82a6b4b96cd" CreationDate="2016-12-14T19:59:29.293" UserId="79" Text="Research or other reliable statistics about Latin proficiency today" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7871" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2174" RevisionGUID="9189ee86-da93-41c7-9605-a82a6b4b96cd" CreationDate="2016-12-14T19:59:29.293" UserId="79" Text="|contemporary-latin|resource-request|soft-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2175" RevisionGUID="ca3e8fa3-c6a6-4c03-a758-d311e3fcd8a0" CreationDate="2016-12-15T00:23:19.980" UserId="1055" Text="I have a friend who amazingly makes whatever she wants to have happen in life, happen—regardless of how impossible the feat may seem. I want to work out a translation for her own slogan, something similar to &quot;I do what I want.&quot; Figure out this Latin translation has led me down a path of wanting to understand what are the parts involved in making this work, properly, grammatically in Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Here is my question (one that can be answered**): Take this phrase &quot;Facio quod volo&quot; which I came up with after much deliberation and playing with translation software. Then software tells me that this is saying that in fact translates to &quot;I do what I want,&quot; but am I missing something? Is it backwards? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specifically, what is the difference between &quot;Quid me vis facere&quot; and &quot;Facio quod volo&quot;? Do either of them even remotely resemble a properly written phrase? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7873" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2175" RevisionGUID="ca3e8fa3-c6a6-4c03-a758-d311e3fcd8a0" CreationDate="2016-12-15T00:23:19.980" UserId="1055" Text="I do what I want VS Quid me vis facere VS Facio quod volo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7874" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2175" RevisionGUID="ca3e8fa3-c6a6-4c03-a758-d311e3fcd8a0" CreationDate="2016-12-15T00:23:19.980" UserId="1055" Text="|translation|meaning|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2176" RevisionGUID="803cda58-8789-486f-ab1e-74b885ab2f62" CreationDate="2016-12-15T00:56:25.027" UserId="136" Text="The latter of those translations is correct. You could also use *ago* instead of *facio*, as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ago/Facio quod volo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we were to break down the former translation, it would mean something like &quot;What do you want to make me(?),&quot; which is not what you are looking for. *Facio quod volo* literally translates to &quot;I do that which I want,&quot; which is what you are looking for. Please let me know if you have any more questions on grammar and such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2176" RevisionGUID="ce9040ae-7f6b-4fb2-bf44-f420501b1234" CreationDate="2016-12-15T03:04:57.993" UserId="136" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The latter of those translations is correct. You could also use *ago*, instead of *facio*, as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ago/Facio quod volo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we were to break down the former translation, it would mean something like &quot;What do you want to make me(?),&quot; which is not what you are looking for. *Facio quod volo* literally translates to &quot;I do that which I want,&quot; which is what you are looking for. Please let me know if you have any more questions on grammar and such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2177" RevisionGUID="8ba7bea5-b1cb-4f06-b5cb-96a6bda724a5" CreationDate="2016-12-15T11:35:02.420" UserId="170" Text="Are there conventional expressions in Latin to strengthen the question, showing total surprise or perplexity? How do you say, for example, &quot;What the heck...?&quot; or &quot;Why on earth...?&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7880" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2177" RevisionGUID="8ba7bea5-b1cb-4f06-b5cb-96a6bda724a5" CreationDate="2016-12-15T11:35:02.420" UserId="170" Text="How to emphasize questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7881" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2177" RevisionGUID="8ba7bea5-b1cb-4f06-b5cb-96a6bda724a5" CreationDate="2016-12-15T11:35:02.420" UserId="170" Text="|phrase-request|interrogative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2178" RevisionGUID="6e7ca65e-0e42-420e-bab6-9ef2542dde35" CreationDate="2016-12-15T14:44:25.307" UserId="45" Text="It's often difficult to match idioms exactly between languages, but in at least one case you mention Latin has an almost exact equivalent: **Ubi terrarum...?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non edepol nunc **ubi terrarum** sim scio (Plautus, *Amphitruo* 336)  &#xD;&#xA;*Now I don't have a clue **where on earth** I am.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid istúc est? aut **ubi** istúc est **terrarum** loci? (Plautus, *Asinaria* 32)  &#xD;&#xA;*What is this? And **where on earth** is this place*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, it is also possible to pair adverbs (**Quid nunc? Quid iam?** -What now? **Cur edepol, mehercle?** -Why in heaven's name?) or insults (**Quid, insane, rogites...? Quid, verbero?**) to the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2179" RevisionGUID="afe20d82-aacb-4c78-b92b-a0a319722594" CreationDate="2016-12-15T15:10:04.080" UserId="45" Text="I would venture to suggest an emendation of your first option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Facio quod **velim.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, to amend the order in a way that sounds more fluent to my ear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quod velim facio.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that *velim* is in the **subjunctive**. Why? Because the relative clause is not talking about &quot;this thing that I want,&quot; but rather &quot;whatever I want.&quot; The difference is subtle, but Latin cares about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some nearly equivalent examples from the gold standard of Latin prosody:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...datque eam libertatem ut **quod velint faciant** (Cicero, *Pro Plancio* 16.4)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *...and it gives [them] the freedom to **do what they want**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I was going to crop the following passage but it was too good...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Locus autem communis in eius malitiam, qui non modo rerum, verum etiam verborum potestatem sibi arrogare conatus et **faciat, quod velit**, et id, quod fecerit, quo velit nomine appellet. (Cicero, *De Inventione* 2.55.9)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *There is, however, a common thread in his evildoing: trying to usurp power not only over things but also over words, **he does what he wants** and calls what he has done by whatever name he pleases.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a contrast, here is an example with the indicative, which is talking about &quot;this particular thing that I want to do&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Acanthio: Quid vis faciam? Charinus. Tun? **id quod volo**. (Plautus, *Mercator* 158)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ac: What do you want me to do? Ch: **What I want.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, they are talking about a specific action: Charinus is not telling Acanthio that he must do, from henceforwrad, &quot;whatever he wants.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2180" RevisionGUID="a708c35a-997c-4244-9b60-a98c16f61d21" CreationDate="2016-12-15T19:22:21.033" UserId="40" Text="One way of expressing surprise is to add the word *nam* to a question, which seems to add a sense of &quot;... and I really have no idea what the answer is&quot;. [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnam) (section III of the entry) describe this use of *nam* as &quot;expressing wonder or emotion in the questioner&quot;. *Nam* often follows the interrogative pronoun *quis* and is written together as one word, [*quisnam*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquisnam), which can be translated as e.g. &quot;who in the world?&quot; or &quot;I wonder who?&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quidnam id est?   &#xD;&#xA;*What in the world is that? I wonder what that is?*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7888" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2177" RevisionGUID="015c8386-0898-4cfa-8bb1-4737017a11ef" CreationDate="2016-12-15T21:00:12.630" UserId="12" Comment="edited title" Text="How do I express total surprise or perplexity when asking a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2181" RevisionGUID="e5802c1f-1529-48f5-bdb6-72d5bc8bb372" CreationDate="2016-12-15T21:39:40.430" UserId="235" Text="In my textbook, there's a chapter on conditional relative clauses, in which it explains how relative pronouns and adverbs, especially when they are indefinite, can form the protasis of a conditional statement.&#xA;&#xA;For example,&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Whoever has a sword and shield should help protect the wall.&#xA;&#xA;In the above example, &quot;whoever&quot; is an indefinite relative pronoun. The protasis consists of &quot;whoever has a sword and shield&quot;; the apodosis, of &quot;should help protect the wall&quot;. &#xA;&#xA;But what about relative adjectives? Can a relative adjective describing the subject of a clause also give that clause conditional force?&#xA;&#xA;For example,&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Take whichever swords are at at hand; we shall need to protect the wall.&#xA;&#xA;This is a re-wording of an exercise in the very same chapter of my textbook. I feel like it may be a curveball. I'm inclined to say that this sentence does *not* have any conditional statements, but I would like to make sure. My reasoning is simple: My textbook said that relative pronouns and adverbs can form a protasis, but it said nothing about relative adjectives.&#xA;&#xA;However, if I were to construe a condition in the above example, I would call &quot;whichever swords are at hand&quot; the protasis, and the imperative &quot;Take&quot; the apodosis.&#xA;&#xA;Interested in your feedback!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7890" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2181" RevisionGUID="e5802c1f-1529-48f5-bdb6-72d5bc8bb372" CreationDate="2016-12-15T21:39:40.430" UserId="235" Text="Can a relative adjective begin a conditional statement in Attic Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7891" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2181" RevisionGUID="e5802c1f-1529-48f5-bdb6-72d5bc8bb372" CreationDate="2016-12-15T21:39:40.430" UserId="235" Text="|greek|relative-pronouns|conditions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2181" RevisionGUID="49298a5e-05c0-4b77-af58-1c5bc038fd35" CreationDate="2016-12-15T22:10:58.007" UserId="235" Comment="added 9 characters in body; deleted 521 characters in body; added 12 characters in body; added 234 characters in body; added 1 character in body" Text="In my textbook, there's a chapter on conditional relative clauses, in which it explains how relative pronouns and adverbs, especially when they are indefinite, can form the protasis of a conditional statement.&#xA;&#xA;For example,&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Whoever has a sword and shield should help protect the wall.&#xA;&#xA;In the above example, &quot;whoever&quot; is an indefinite relative pronoun. The protasis consists of &quot;whoever has a sword and shield&quot;; the apodosis, of &quot;should help protect the wall&quot;. &#xA;&#xA;But what about relative adjectives? Can a relative adjective describing the subject (or object) of a clause also give that clause conditional force?&#xA;&#xA;For example,&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Take whichever swords are at at hand; we shall need whichever arms you may find. &#xA;&#xA;Are there conditions in the above example?&#xA;&#xA;I ask because, as far as I know, what technically qualifies as a condition often requires certain particles, or moods of the main verb. It would therefore affect the way I compose the above example in Greek.&#xA;&#xA;Thanks for any feedback." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2181" RevisionGUID="4de794c4-d7ff-441c-84e7-55c336bd3965" CreationDate="2016-12-15T22:25:32.297" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body; deleted 10 characters in body; added 4 characters in body" Text="In my textbook, there's a chapter on conditional relative clauses, in which it explains how relative pronouns and adverbs, especially when they are indefinite, can form the protasis of a conditional statement.&#xA;&#xA;For example,&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Whoever has a sword and shield should help protect the wall.&#xA;&#xA;In the above example, &quot;whoever&quot; is an indefinite relative pronoun. The protasis consists of &quot;whoever has a sword and shield&quot;; the apodosis, of &quot;should help protect the wall&quot;. &#xA;&#xA;But what about relative adjectives? Can a relative adjective describing the subject (or object) of a clause also give that clause conditional force?&#xA;&#xA;For example,&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Take whichever swords are at at hand; we shall need whichever arms you may find. &#xA;&#xA;Are there conditions in the above example?&#xA;&#xA;I ask because, as far as I know, what technically qualifies as a condition often requires certain particles or moods. It would thus affect the way I compose the above example in Greek.&#xA;&#xA;I appreciate any feedback." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2181" RevisionGUID="625d2a69-f72e-477f-b4a8-00e49cce7bcd" CreationDate="2016-12-15T22:39:49.443" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="In my textbook, there's a chapter on conditional relative clauses, in which it explains how relative pronouns and adverbs, especially when they are indefinite, can form the protasis of a conditional statement.&#xA;&#xA;For example,&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Whoever has a sword and shield should help protect the wall.&#xA;&#xA;In the above example, &quot;whoever&quot; is an indefinite relative pronoun. The protasis consists of &quot;whoever has a sword and shield&quot;; the apodosis, of &quot;should help protect the wall&quot;. &#xA;&#xA;But what about relative adjectives? Can a relative adjective describing the subject (or object) of a clause also give that clause conditional force?&#xA;&#xA;For example,&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Take whichever swords are at at hand; we shall need whichever arms you may find. &#xA;&#xA;Are there conditions in the above example?&#xA;&#xA;I ask because, as far as I know, what qualifies as a condition often requires certain particles or moods. It would thus affect the way I compose the above example in Greek.&#xA;&#xA;I appreciate any feedback." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2182" RevisionGUID="7b3bd363-ef03-417d-95da-bbc2fac095f4" CreationDate="2016-12-16T00:51:14.930" UserId="40" Text="Yes, the construction is the same whether the relative is modifying a noun (relative adjective) or not (relative pronoun). The latter type is more frequent, but there are examples of the former, e.g. this from [Smyth](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth+grammar+2565&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὥστ᾽ ἀποφύγοις ἂν ἥντιν᾽ ἂν βούλῃ δίκην  &#xD;&#xA; &quot;so that you can get off in any suit you please” (Ar. Nub. 1151)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2183" RevisionGUID="cdb0dbac-79fc-4d4f-9fad-59768d4fb608" CreationDate="2016-12-16T17:17:20.170" UserId="574" Text="I was reading the book `Lingua Latina, Per Se Illustrata from Hans H. Ørberg`, and I often saw scenes in which persons were angry. In the book, the writer doesn't use any swear words or something to that effect. Did the ancient Romans use any swear words and if yes, could anyone give an example of a Latin swear word? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7903" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2183" RevisionGUID="cdb0dbac-79fc-4d4f-9fad-59768d4fb608" CreationDate="2016-12-16T17:17:20.170" UserId="574" Text="Did the Romans use any swearwords?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7904" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2183" RevisionGUID="cdb0dbac-79fc-4d4f-9fad-59768d4fb608" CreationDate="2016-12-16T17:17:20.170" UserId="574" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|roman-culture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2184" RevisionGUID="2731937f-177c-4069-b64e-903ec287c439" CreationDate="2016-12-16T17:26:06.347" UserId="78" Text="Yes, they used swear words *all the time*! There's actually a whole book on the subject, [The Latin Sexual Vocabulary](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801841062/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0801841062&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=ephorus-20&amp;linkId=da270158ea9916bd0c9add5522992857) by J. N. Adams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the most famous swear line is Catullus 16. Catullus was a Roman living in the first century BCE, and so was a contemporary of Cicero and Caesar. Here are the first four lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aureli pathice et cinaede Furi,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui me ex versiculis meis putastis,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod sunt molliculi, parum pudicum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be vulgarly translated so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will fuck you in the ass and in the mouth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cocksucking Aurelius and Butt-boy Furius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You who think that I, because my verses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are a little soft, have no shame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read the whole poem on Rudy Negenborn's site: [Catullus 16](http://rudy.negenborn.net/catullus/text2/e16.htm)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2184" RevisionGUID="a53d1f26-bdad-40a1-a1b8-a54a064da9c9" CreationDate="2016-12-16T17:34:55.040" UserId="78" Comment="added 180 characters in body" Text="Yes, they used swear words *all the time*! There's actually a whole book on the subject, [The Latin Sexual Vocabulary](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801841062/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0801841062&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=ephorus-20&amp;linkId=da270158ea9916bd0c9add5522992857) by J. N. Adams. *Cinaedus*, *Mentula*, and *Cunnus* are perhaps the most common and dirtiest insults. You can see on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_profanity) a larger list, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the most famous swear line is Catullus 16. Catullus was a Roman living in the first century BCE, and so was a contemporary of Cicero and Caesar. Here are the first four lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aureli pathice et cinaede Furi,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui me ex versiculis meis putastis,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod sunt molliculi, parum pudicum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be vulgarly translated so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will fuck you in the ass and in the mouth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cocksucking Aurelius and Butt-boy Furius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You who think that I, because my verses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are a little soft, have no shame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read the whole poem on Rudy Negenborn's site: [Catullus 16](http://rudy.negenborn.net/catullus/text2/e16.htm)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2185" RevisionGUID="86419bde-3e33-40b5-8f12-a597900f6027" CreationDate="2016-12-16T18:15:42.440" UserId="952" Text="Hogwarts, the School of Witchcraft and Wizardry in the *Harry Potter* books, has the following Latin motto: *Draco dormiens numquam titillandus*. Most online sources translate this as &quot;Never tickle a sleeping dragon&quot;. However, it occurred to me that, since *titillandus* is a future passive participle, it should not necessarily be translated as the main verb. Additionally, *draco* and *dormiens* are both masculine, so I don't think they should be translated as the nominative subject.&#xD;&#xA;I have come up with a couple of potential translations:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A sleeping dragon never to be tickled.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not flow very well in English however, so I was thinking that perhaps *est* was omitted from the motto. On the basis that *est* should have been included, *titillandus est* would then be a passive periphrastic. As a result, we could then say&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A sleeping dragon is never to be tickled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A sleeping dragon must never be tickled. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though &quot;never tickle a sleeping dragon&quot; still preserves the meaning, I believe that the other translations I propose are more accurate with respect to the Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know if anyone can think of other potential translations that I am missing. Furthermore, can the active equivalents of intended passive phrases as such be considered equally legitimate? Are there any other historical or modern examples of this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7908" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2185" RevisionGUID="86419bde-3e33-40b5-8f12-a597900f6027" CreationDate="2016-12-16T18:15:42.440" UserId="952" Text="Hogwarts Motto from J.K. Rowling's *Harry Potter* series" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7909" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2185" RevisionGUID="86419bde-3e33-40b5-8f12-a597900f6027" CreationDate="2016-12-16T18:15:42.440" UserId="952" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|phrase|passive-voice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7910" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2183" RevisionGUID="651d3dda-0108-4079-94da-22b7c2c68089" CreationDate="2016-12-16T18:20:20.303" UserId="574" Comment="edited title" Text="Did the Romans use any swear words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2183" RevisionGUID="7df1825c-0d7a-4f2b-9e04-ffecb4a239cd" CreationDate="2016-12-16T19:21:44.833" UserId="31" Comment="Proofreading" Text="I was reading the book *Lingua Latina, Per Se Illustrata* by Hans H. Ørberg, and I often saw scenes in which persons were angry. In the book, the writer doesn't use any swear words or anything to that effect. Did the ancient Romans use any swear words and, if so, could anyone give an example of a Latin swear word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7912" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2183" RevisionGUID="7df1825c-0d7a-4f2b-9e04-ffecb4a239cd" CreationDate="2016-12-16T19:21:44.833" Comment="Proposed by 31 approved by 522, 469 edit id of 155" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2186" RevisionGUID="9f97506a-f1f0-42ee-8b7f-bb44dcf4d140" CreationDate="2016-12-16T19:58:24.020" UserId="78" Text="You're right that it's a gerundive of obligation, and thus requires a form of *esse*. However, it doesn't have to be expressed. Tacitus *Annals* 1.29 contains two without *esse*, though they're in indirect statements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; certatum inde sententiis, cum alii opperiendos legatos atque interim comitate permulcendum militem censerent, alii fortioribus remediis agendum: nihil in vulgo modicum; terrere ni paveant, ubi pertimuerint inpune contemni: dum superstitio urgeat, adiciendos ex duce metus sublatis seditionis auctoribus. promptum ad asperiora ingenium Druso erat: vocatos Vibulenum et Percennium interfici iubet. tradunt plerique intra tabernaculum ducis obrutos, alii corpora extra vallum abiecta ostentui.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [commentary](https://books.google.com/books?id=RmboCwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA120&amp;lpg=PA120) agrees with this position." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2187" RevisionGUID="bd2ea5e7-ad90-447a-8f5a-af09b3e0ef4b" CreationDate="2016-12-16T21:22:48.017" UserId="230" Text="So I have the following sentence which I have to translate into Latin :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The farmer gives his daughtet water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The parts which I found easy : Agricola ... aquam dat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how to express &quot;his&quot; because I never really learned it at this point. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My book gives : Agricola filiae aquam dat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody explain me what is happening ? Wouldn't this translate to  : The farmer of the daughter gives water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7917" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2187" RevisionGUID="bd2ea5e7-ad90-447a-8f5a-af09b3e0ef4b" CreationDate="2016-12-16T21:22:48.017" UserId="230" Text="Expressing the relationship &quot;his&quot; in latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7918" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2187" RevisionGUID="bd2ea5e7-ad90-447a-8f5a-af09b3e0ef4b" CreationDate="2016-12-16T21:22:48.017" UserId="230" Text="|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2188" RevisionGUID="ade18e0e-15ea-42e6-b446-01cdce4aaab5" CreationDate="2016-12-16T21:33:16.270" UserId="79" Text="The word *filiae* can be either genitive or dative; the two cases look alike in the singular of the first declension.&#xD;&#xA;If you read it as a genitive, then *filiae* is indeed &quot;of the daughter&quot; and this translation is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Agricola filiae aquam dat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The farmer of the daughter gives water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read it as a dative, then *filiae* means &quot;to the girl&quot;, leading to a different translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Agricola filiae aquam dat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The farmer gives water to the daughter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are both equally correct readings of the Latin sentence.&#xD;&#xA;Only context determines which is correct.&#xD;&#xA;The second one makes more sense here; &quot;farmer of the daughter&quot; sounds unusual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your book the intended translation is the second one I give.&#xD;&#xA;But it does not specify the relation of the farmer and the daughter at all.&#xD;&#xA;You can add a &quot;his&quot;, but Latin behaves very differently to English here.&#xD;&#xA;The word *suus* is an adjective modifying the daughter, not a genitive of the farmer.&#xD;&#xA;It has to have the same number, gender and case than the daughter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus the most natural translation would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The farmer gives his daughter water.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Agricola filiae suae aquam dat.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2187" RevisionGUID="d58ee478-7750-4110-973e-a3804c519eb9" CreationDate="2016-12-16T21:35:39.803" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags and slightly reformatted." Text="So I have the following sentence which I have to translate into Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The farmer gives his daughter water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The parts which I found easy: *Agricola ... aquam dat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how to express &quot;his&quot; because I never really learned it at this point. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My book gives: *Agricola filiae aquam dat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody explain me what is happening? Wouldn't this translate to: The farmer of the daughter gives water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7921" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2187" RevisionGUID="d58ee478-7750-4110-973e-a3804c519eb9" CreationDate="2016-12-16T21:35:39.803" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags and slightly reformatted." Text="|english-to-latin-translation|pronouns|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2188" RevisionGUID="a7ab0261-9852-4f4f-ba5d-bb3d9da19b0f" CreationDate="2016-12-16T21:38:53.593" UserId="79" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="The word *filiae* can be either genitive or dative; the two cases look alike in the singular of the first declension.&#xD;&#xA;If you read it as a genitive, then *filiae* is indeed &quot;of the daughter&quot; and this translation is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Agricola filiae aquam dat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The farmer of the daughter gives water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read it as a dative, then *filiae* means &quot;to the girl&quot;, leading to a different translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Agricola filiae aquam dat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The farmer gives water to the daughter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are both equally correct readings of the Latin sentence.&#xD;&#xA;Only context determines which is correct.&#xD;&#xA;The second one makes more sense here; &quot;farmer of the daughter&quot; sounds unusual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your book the intended translation is the second one I give.&#xD;&#xA;But it does not specify the relation of the farmer and the daughter at all.&#xD;&#xA;You can add a &quot;his&quot;, but Latin behaves very differently to English here.&#xD;&#xA;The word *suus* is an adjective modifying the daughter, not a genitive of the farmer.&#xD;&#xA;It has to have the same number, gender and case than the daughter.&#xD;&#xA;[This earlier question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2110/79) and its answers might be a useful read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus the most natural translation would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The farmer gives his daughter water.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Agricola filiae suae aquam dat.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2189" RevisionGUID="47a8e5b8-38e5-41c3-88a0-f806d3d5aff3" CreationDate="2016-12-16T22:49:28.600" UserId="406" Text="The general word for &quot;his&quot; (or &quot;hers&quot;, or &quot;its&quot;, or &quot;theirs&quot;) in Latin is *eius*. This is the genitive singular of *is/ea/id*, &quot;he/she/it&quot;. Those are three separate words, but conveniently they all share a genitive singular form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I wouldn't use *eius* in this case, when the farmer has already been mentioned in the sentence. Because Latin uses reflexive pronouns slightly differently than English does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, a reflexive pronoun (like &quot;himself&quot;, &quot;myself&quot;, &quot;themselves&quot;) can occur for any person, but only in the accusative. In Latin, reflexives appear only in the third person (there's no equivalent to &quot;myself&quot;: just use &quot;me&quot;). But they can appear in any case besides the nominative, and there are even *possessive reflexives*, sort of like English &quot;his own&quot; or &quot;belonging to himself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one of the instances where a possessive reflexive is exactly what you want, since the farmer's also the subject of the verb. The word for this is *suus, sua, suum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You decline it pretty much like a normal adjective. But there's yet another catch: in English, the gender of a possessive is the gender of the possessor (*he* gave it to *his* daughter). But in Latin, the gender of a possessive is the gender of *the thing being possessed*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you might see *suus fīlius* &quot;his son&quot;, or *suus fīlius* &quot;her son&quot;, but **NOT** *_sua fīlius_. The son is masculine, so *suus* must be masculine, no matter whose son it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, you would want *suæ fīliæ*, &quot;his own daughter&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does look very much like a genitive singular (&quot;...of his own daughter&quot;). But for first-declension nouns, the genitive singular and dative singular are both marked by *-æ*, and you need context to know which. Since in this case you have the verb *dāre*, which requires a dative somewhere, it's reasonably certain that *fīliæ* is dative rather than genitive. The *suæ* also makes this clear, since &quot;the farmer of his own daughter&quot; sounds very wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And now that we've told you all of this...you don't always need it. Latin is much more forgiving of leaving off pronouns than English is. Just as *fīliæ* on its own could be translated as &quot;a daughter&quot; or &quot;the daughter&quot;, it could also be translated as &quot;his daughter&quot;, with a *suæ* just implied. That's what the book's answer does: it's most likely that the farmer is giving water to his own daughter, rather than someone else's, so there's no need to say it explicitly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2190" RevisionGUID="4f4ae156-23b4-493c-96a2-ab57ef13e0ba" CreationDate="2016-12-17T02:50:05.747" UserId="1063" Text="Here I have two words: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;verto, vertere, verti, versum (versus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vertor, verti, versus sum, - (I assume it's depondent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They both mean turn according to the Cambridge Latin Course Book V, but a quick search on wikitionary of vertor says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;first-person singular present passive indicative of vertō&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know whether &quot;vertor&quot; actually exists, and if so, why it does and it's difference to &quot;verto&quot;? Thanks for your help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7935" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2190" RevisionGUID="4f4ae156-23b4-493c-96a2-ab57ef13e0ba" CreationDate="2016-12-17T02:50:05.747" UserId="1063" Text="verto and vertor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7936" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2190" RevisionGUID="4f4ae156-23b4-493c-96a2-ab57ef13e0ba" CreationDate="2016-12-17T02:50:05.747" UserId="1063" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7937" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2190" RevisionGUID="1770ece7-6689-4cf6-b0ef-8ff54e7e59d1" CreationDate="2016-12-17T04:39:45.843" UserId="1063" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2184" RevisionGUID="67d25acc-1541-48b5-84f4-ec41c902469d" CreationDate="2016-12-17T05:12:54.707" UserId="78" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="Yes, they used swear words *all the time*! There's actually a whole book on the subject, [The Latin Sexual Vocabulary](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801841062/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0801841062&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=ephorus-20&amp;linkId=da270158ea9916bd0c9add5522992857) by J. N. Adams. *Cinaedus* (the bad slang for a passive homosexual male), *mentula* (dick), and *cunnus* (cunt) are perhaps the most common and dirtiest insults. You can see on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_profanity) a larger list, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's actually a nice little poem—Catullus 16—containing a quite a few of these swear words, two powerful ones in the first line. Catullus was a Roman living in the first century BCE, and so was a contemporary of Cicero and Caesar. Here are the first four lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aureli pathice et cinaede Furi,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui me ex versiculis meis putastis,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod sunt molliculi, parum pudicum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be vulgarly translated so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will fuck you in the ass and in the mouth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cocksucking Aurelius and Butt-boy Furius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You who think that I, because my verses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are a little soft, have no shame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read the whole poem on Rudy Negenborn's site: [Catullus 16](http://rudy.negenborn.net/catullus/text2/e16.htm)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2191" RevisionGUID="e396b985-6b38-4e1f-b295-22ae7dd2a302" CreationDate="2016-12-17T11:40:59.210" UserId="78" Text="There is no separate *vertor*; they're the same word. However, it's not truly passive. *Verto* in the passive can have a middle sense, i.e. where you are the actor doing the action to yourself. The OLD spells it out clearly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. (pass. in middle sense, cf. *uersor*) To go to and fro, move about (in a place). **b** (of affairs, etc.) to be involved (in difficulties). **b** to be active, occupy oneself (in a sphere). **d** (usu. leg. of factors) to be involved (in a case)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2193" RevisionGUID="7bd1e80a-3972-434c-8f79-9160421b509d" CreationDate="2016-12-17T19:55:21.383" UserId="79" Text="Can I use a gerundive like I would use an adjective as in the following example?&#xD;&#xA;It sounds fine to me, but I am somewhat suspicious; my intuition has failed before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Infans lavandus clamabat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The child that was supposed to take bath cried.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Urbs nobis capienda militiam novam paraverat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The city which we were supposed to capture had acquired a new army.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of use would make perfect sense to me.&#xD;&#xA;Participles can be used this way &amp;mdash; often, at least &amp;mdash; and I do not see the gerundive as any less of an adjective than a participle.&#xD;&#xA;However, my grammar does not mention this kind of use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My grammar (Tuomo Pekkanen's *Ars grammatica*) has a title &quot;Gerundive as attribute&quot;, but in all examples of the section the gerundive is used together with a noun modified by it &amp;mdash; semantically an object.&#xD;&#xA;These are his examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *spes urbis capiendae* (also gerund *urbem capiendi* is possible)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *in libertatem defendendam*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *legibus scribendis* (also gerund *leges scribendo* is possible)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *libro legendo*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7946" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2193" RevisionGUID="7bd1e80a-3972-434c-8f79-9160421b509d" CreationDate="2016-12-17T19:55:21.383" UserId="79" Text="Can the gerundive be used like and adjective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7947" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2193" RevisionGUID="7bd1e80a-3972-434c-8f79-9160421b509d" CreationDate="2016-12-17T19:55:21.383" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|syntax|adjective|gerundive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2194" RevisionGUID="d8148609-6e91-464c-b7ee-19157994b88e" CreationDate="2016-12-17T20:02:26.997" UserId="40" Text="Certainly. [Allen and Greenough sec. 500](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-500.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The gerundive is sometimes used, like the present and perfect participles, in simple agreement with a noun:—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *fortem et cōnservandum virum* (Mil. 104), a brave man, and worthy to be preserved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*gravis iniūria facta est et nōn ferend*a (Flacc. 84), a grave and intolerable wrong has been done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1209" RevisionGUID="bf8c92dc-ae70-41b6-9c30-86a1b5900bc4" CreationDate="2016-12-17T20:38:51.250" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and some explanation." Text="I would like to understand how Rome transformed from republic to empire from the point of view of Latin language.&#xD;&#xA;I think I already have a sufficient understanding of Roman history to understand the political transformation, but I realized that I know almost nothing about how this transform was described by contemporaries in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the Roman Republic become the Roman Empire, was there any change in how Romans referred to their country?&#xD;&#xA;An obvious first guess is that in the republic era it was called *res publica Romana* and later on *imperium Romanum*.&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems likely to me that *res publica* simply meant &quot;state&quot;, republic or not, and *imperium* meant something like &quot;command&quot;, &quot;realm&quot; or &quot;authority&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In this reading *res publica Romana* would mean the state of Rome from a political point of view and *imperium Romanum* the area under Rome's control.&#xD;&#xA;Evolving *res publica* and *imperium* into today's concepts of &quot;republic&quot; and &quot;empire&quot; can well be a later development.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To understand this issue, I would like to know an answer to these (interwoven) questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What were the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire called in classical Latin when one wanted to make a distinction? My dictionary translates &quot;republic&quot; and &quot;empire&quot; as *libera res publica* and *imperium*, respectively, but I don't think this is the whole story.&#xD;&#xA;- Did the way Romans referred to their state change when the republic became an empire?&#xD;&#xA;- What did *res publica Romana* and *imperium Romanum* (and perhaps *senatus populusque Romanus*) exactly refer to? Was their use limited to some eras?&#xD;&#xA;- Is there an ancient Latin text discussing a change in the name of the state due to the republic turning into an empire?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The transition was slow: the first stages of what we today know as the empire was seen as continuation of the republic.&#xD;&#xA;But the Romans must have realized that their republic was not the way it used to be before the principate turned into the dominate.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how the process was reflected in references to the state in the extant literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer this question, it is not necessary to answer every single question listed above &amp;mdash; although I would be happy to see a thorough answer.&#xD;&#xA;I hope the list conveys the problem I want to have cleared up.&#xD;&#xA;Due to the somewhat broad nature of the question I want to explicitly encourage partial answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7950" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1209" RevisionGUID="bf8c92dc-ae70-41b6-9c30-86a1b5900bc4" CreationDate="2016-12-17T20:38:51.250" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and some explanation." Text="|classical-latin|history|politics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2195" RevisionGUID="c8420aeb-f85f-4bbf-aaec-418104c27d2e" CreationDate="2016-12-17T22:06:47.247" UserId="574" Text="Quid me vis facere litteraly means: &quot;What do you want me to do?&quot;. This isn't the  slogan you are looking for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Facio quod volo_  litteraly means: &quot;I do that which I want&quot;. The sentence you were looking for, but if you're looking in ancient latin, the use of Facio isn't 100% right. You could better use the verb _agere_ then _facere_. The difference of the meaning between those two is, [as quoted from Reddit:][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agere: acting, as part of some continued behaviour; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; facere: do or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effect, of some singular, countable or determinative act. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The difference can be illustrated by looking at phrases such as navem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agere &quot;to steer a ship&quot; (an atelic, continued activity) as opposed to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fidem facere &quot;evince&quot; (a telic and singular act). An iter can either&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be factum or actum (iter facere or iter agere), and Cicero uses both,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the distinction accords with the difference between completing a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; march and simply marching. As for the different between aio and dico,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maybe someone can correct me, but I think the two primary differences&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are: aio often (although not always or even usually) introduces direct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; speech, which dico doesn't aio means to affirm, assent, confirm, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agree to something (and is often opposed to nego). dico just means to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; speak (L&amp;S say &quot;speak in order to inform&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it's even better to replace the verb _volo_ with _velim_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a slogan (where you want to use it for), is the best translation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ago quod velim!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/27fty9/specifics_word_use/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="737" RevisionGUID="b0e432de-6d41-4979-8470-9286974cde77" CreationDate="2016-12-17T22:13:08.650" UserId="79" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="&lt;b&gt;Latin Language Stack Exchange&lt;/b&gt; is a question and answer site for linguists, teachers, and students wanting to discuss the finer points of the Latin language. It is built and run &lt;i&gt;by you&lt;/i&gt; as part of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Stack Exchange&lt;/a&gt; network of Q&amp;amp;A sites. With your help, we are working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about Latin language. We also allow questions about Ancient Greek; see below for details. &lt;i&gt;Si Anglice non intellegis et hoc situ uti vis, vide &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/168/79&quot;&gt;hanc paginam Latine scriptam&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/i&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="738" RevisionGUID="0f6cade9-25d8-414d-8f24-a1753d70fb70" CreationDate="2016-12-17T22:15:03.970" UserId="79" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Specific issues with Latin, such as with grammar, vocabulary or pronunciation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;History and culture when there is a close relation to the Latin language&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Latin literature&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Real problems or questions that you’ve encountered&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;We also allow questions about Greek up to the end of classical antiquity, but exclude New Testament Greek." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="741" RevisionGUID="3aba06d2-17e3-4947-a6b9-9ebf94acdd98" CreationDate="2016-12-17T22:19:28.860" UserId="79" Comment="Moderator edits article" Text="&lt;p&gt;The site is for questions about the Latin language throughout its history. We welcome questions about all aspects of Latin language, its relation to other languages and also cultural and historical questions that are strongly related to Latin. The site is aimed for experts and students in the field. The site is not a translation service or a homework help center.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have a look around to get an idea what kinds of questions are welcome here. Possible topics include but may not be limited to the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Latin grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;etymology and relations to other languages&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;interpretation of difficult passages and works of literature in Latin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;history and culture when directly about or when there is a strong connection to the Latin language&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;requests of examples in literature for uses of certain words or structures&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, questions of the following kinds should generally not be asked here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;translation requests or etymological queries that show no serious research effort using readily available online sources&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;requests for homework help unless they show significant attempt to solve the problems without outside help (for guidance, see: &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/143/12&quot;&gt;How can I ask a translation or homework question?&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions may be asked and answered in English or Latin, preferably with an English summary if in Latin. If you are not fluent in either language, post your question in your language of preference and provide a rough translation to English or Latin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also allow questions about Greek up to the end of classical antiquity, but exclude New Testament Greek. Similarly, questions about small italic languages closely related to Latin are allowed. However, questions should not be asked in these languages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;/search&quot;&gt;look around&lt;/a&gt; to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to &lt;a href=&quot;/helpcenter/self-answer&quot;&gt;ask and answer your own question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your question is not specifically on-topic for $SiteName, it may be on topic for another Stack Exchange site. If no site currently exists that will accept your question, you may &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/faq&quot;&gt;commit to&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76974/how-can-i-propose-a-new-site&quot;&gt;propose&lt;/a&gt; a new site at &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Area 51&lt;/a&gt;, the place where new Stack Exchange communities are democratically created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2196" RevisionGUID="b8df7549-f0ba-41e5-bc57-f98d72c06b26" CreationDate="2016-12-17T22:46:58.330" UserId="79" Text="One could also read the entire motto as a description of the school:&#xD;&#xA;maybe Hogwarts is &quot;a sleeping dragon which should not be tickled&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I am not familiar enough with the school to tell if this is a sensible interpretation, but it strikes me as a reasonable option.&#xD;&#xA;In this reading the motto is not an instruction for students but a description of the school.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked [a separate question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2193/79) about such uses of gerundive to make sure that this interpretation is indeed grammatical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2197" RevisionGUID="432ac915-7366-4649-b707-d90ecea6255f" CreationDate="2016-12-18T04:46:33.947" UserId="1063" Text="The Cambridge Latin Course Dictionary lists the words&#xD;&#xA;*pauci, paucae, pauca*&#xD;&#xA;which I assume are adjectives, and it is defined as &quot;few, a few&quot;. I cannot find this listing in the same form on wikitionary, which instead defines it as an adjective *paucus, pauca, paucum* meaning *few, little*. Now, this in itself is strange, but then I searched up the term in Latdict (online dictionary) and it came up with this: *paucus, pauci (noun)* with a definition of *&quot;a few&quot;* and masculine. Latdict also supplied another noun on the same search, (this time neuter), *paucum, pauci* meaning &quot;only a small/an indefinite number of/few things (pl.), a few words/points&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What I want to know is whether there are multiple words, or these are the same words except with different forms, and what the correct (actual) forms of these words are.** Thank you for your help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Search on Latdict: http://latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/pauci)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Search on Wikitionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paucus#Latin)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7959" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2197" RevisionGUID="432ac915-7366-4649-b707-d90ecea6255f" CreationDate="2016-12-18T04:46:33.947" UserId="1063" Text="Part(s) of speech of words and correct listing forms of &quot;pauci, paucae, pauca&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7960" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2197" RevisionGUID="432ac915-7366-4649-b707-d90ecea6255f" CreationDate="2016-12-18T04:46:33.947" UserId="1063" Text="|vocabulary|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2198" RevisionGUID="f25cb3a1-cf01-4219-8561-510864a92c42" CreationDate="2016-12-18T05:01:33.737" UserId="78" Text="These are the same words, **but in plural**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Paucus* is the masculine nominative singular, *pauci* either the genitive singular (when listed *paucus*, *pauci*) or nominative plural (when beginning with it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, you have *pauca*, and *paucae*, *paucae* in the same position except feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For neuter, same cases, you have *paucum*, *pauci*, and *pauca*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason why *pauci*, *paucae*, *pauca* was listed separately is that it means &quot;few&quot; or &quot;a few&quot; in the plural, whereas in the singular it means &quot;little (of)&quot; or &quot;few (of)&quot;. The meanings are pretty distinct, but the forms themselves are all based off a single adjectival stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A better dictionary tool to use is the [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=paucus&amp;la=la#lexicon) on Perseus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2199" RevisionGUID="212a946c-325f-43bb-9ac0-549bbeaee400" CreationDate="2016-12-18T10:21:47.310" UserId="645" Text="I don't think that you will find much in Latin during the period of change that discusses the transformation. There are clues to opinion, as you might expect, but the change was more accidental than deliberate — like so much in the preceding history. To deal with your second question from another standpoint, I'd like to offer a second, different kind of answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though there's a lot of available evidence (and it increases daily) for many aspects of life in the period best understood — say, a couple of hundred years or so from 146 BC — the mentality of the citizens inferior in status to the equestrian class  is still hard to comprehend (and we learn little and slowly to improve on this). During that time, to the consternation of patrician traditionalists, new and corrupting religious practices were introduced to Rome. Marius changed public attitudes to the State by beginning recruitment from the lowest class. Settlements were reached with the Italian neighbours. Civil wars (especially that of AD 69) led to an influx of new blood to the governing class (as evidenced by the disappearance of old, and the rise of new names to public view). The system of governorships changed, and with it the titles used for them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all my years of studying the Romans I have constantly found that the more thoughtful commentators in modern times point to the same problem: that it is just about impossible to imagine the total reality of everyday life, almost anywhere in the Roman sphere of influence — let alone to deduce what went on in the citizens' minds about the system by which they were governed. Still the great prize of citizenship underlay everything, binding the true Roman to the Urbs, to his patria, whatever name he gave it. Originally, because it had depended on a peculiar, innate acceptance of the traditional Roman animist belief  in their 'contract' with the gods (of consultation rather than worship), citizenship had been extended only grudgingly by the Republic to newcomers to Roman hegemony, but the attitude persisted: Juvenal, for instance, writes of the Orontes pouring its filth into the Tiber.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was anyone in all this period able to say to himself something as concrete as 'the Republic is becoming an Imperial State'? Perhaps those in positions with power to impose such a change might; these would surely include Caesar, who recognised that the old system could not continue, and Vespasian, the non-patrician first to formally introduce the new order.  Others would, I suppose, come to accept that monarchy was going to be the solution, anathema to a Roman as it remained: but not for many years, nor by any deliberate act, would the name Republic be discarded.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2199" RevisionGUID="d21f6824-825b-40e5-b5dc-4dcb24402dfe" CreationDate="2016-12-18T11:33:14.640" UserId="645" Comment="small sp. change" Text="I don't think that you will find much in Latin during the period of change that discusses the transformation. There are clues to opinion, as you might expect, but the change was more accidental than deliberate — like so much in the preceding history. To deal with your second question from another standpoint, I'd like to offer a second, different kind of answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though there's a lot of available evidence (and it increases daily) for many aspects of life in the period best understood — say, a couple of hundred years or so from 146 BC — the mentality of the citizens inferior in status to the equestrian class  is still hard to comprehend (and we learn little and slowly to improve on this). During that time, to the consternation of patrician traditionalists, new and corrupting religious practices were introduced to Rome. Marius changed public attitudes to the State by beginning recruitment from the lowest class. Settlements were reached with the Italian neighbours. Civil wars (especially that of AD 69) led to an influx of new blood to the governing class (as evidenced by the disappearance of old, and the rise of new names to public view). The system of governorships changed, and with it the titles used for them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all my years of studying the Romans I have constantly found that the more thoughtful commentators in modern times point to the same problem: that it is just about impossible to imagine the total reality of everyday life, almost anywhere in the Roman sphere of influence — let alone to deduce what went on in the citizens' minds about the system by which they were governed. Still the great prize of citizenship lay under everything, binding the true Roman to the Urbs, to his patria, whatever name he gave it. Originally, because it had depended on a peculiar, innate acceptance of the traditional Roman animist belief  in their 'contract' with the gods (of consultation rather than worship), citizenship had been extended only grudgingly by the Republic to newcomers to Roman hegemony, but the attitude persisted: Juvenal, for instance, writes of the Orontes pouring its filth into the Tiber.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was anyone in all this period able to say to himself something as concrete as 'the Republic is becoming an Imperial State'? Perhaps those in positions with power to impose such a change might; these would surely include Caesar, who recognised that the old system could not continue, and Vespasian, the non-patrician first to formally introduce the new order.  Others would, I suppose, come to accept that monarchy was going to be the solution, anathema to a Roman as it remained: but not for many years, nor by any deliberate act, would the name Republic be discarded.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2184" RevisionGUID="785f7fde-ffc1-47fe-b795-a9f28034d6f8" CreationDate="2016-12-18T13:37:27.613" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 65 characters in body" Text="Yes, they used swear words *all the time*! There's actually a whole book on the subject, [The Latin Sexual Vocabulary](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) by J. N. Adams. *Cinaedus* (the bad slang for a passive homosexual male), *mentula* (dick), and *cunnus* (cunt) are perhaps the most common and dirtiest insults. You can see on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_profanity) a larger list, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's actually a nice little poem—Catullus 16—containing a quite a few of these swear words, two powerful ones in the first line. Catullus was a Roman living in the first century BCE, and so was a contemporary of Cicero and Caesar. Here are the first four lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aureli pathice et cinaede Furi,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui me ex versiculis meis putastis,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod sunt molliculi, parum pudicum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be vulgarly translated so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will fuck you in the ass and in the mouth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cocksucking Aurelius and Butt-boy Furius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You who think that I, because my verses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are a little soft, have no shame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read the whole poem on Rudy Negenborn's site: [Catullus 16](http://rudy.negenborn.net/catullus/text2/e16.htm)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2179" RevisionGUID="ef0d7fa0-359e-4b28-a5da-0beeb64b733f" CreationDate="2016-12-18T19:27:13.390" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I would venture to suggest an emendation of your first option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Facio quod **velim.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, to amend the order in a way that sounds more fluent to my ear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quod velim facio.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that *velim* is in the **subjunctive**. Why? Because the relative clause is not talking about &quot;this thing that I want,&quot; but rather &quot;whatever I want.&quot; The difference is subtle, but Latin cares about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some nearly equivalent examples from the gold standard of Latin prose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...datque eam libertatem ut **quod velint faciant** (Cicero, *Pro Plancio* 16.4)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *...and it gives [them] the freedom to **do what they want**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I was going to crop the following passage but it was too good...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Locus autem communis in eius malitiam, qui non modo rerum, verum etiam verborum potestatem sibi arrogare conatus et **faciat, quod velit**, et id, quod fecerit, quo velit nomine appellet. (Cicero, *De Inventione* 2.55.9)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *There is, however, a common thread in his evildoing: trying to usurp power not only over things but also over words, **he does what he wants** and calls what he has done by whatever name he pleases.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a contrast, here is an example with the indicative, which is talking about &quot;this particular thing that I want to do&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Acanthio: Quid vis faciam? Charinus. Tun? **id quod volo**. (Plautus, *Mercator* 158)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ac: What do you want me to do? Ch: **What I want.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, they are talking about a specific action: Charinus is not telling Acanthio that he must do, from henceforwrad, &quot;whatever he wants.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2200" RevisionGUID="af16ea91-c857-4a92-a4f9-0bfc5a2732d3" CreationDate="2016-12-18T22:13:38.460" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7973" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2200" RevisionGUID="af16ea91-c857-4a92-a4f9-0bfc5a2732d3" CreationDate="2016-12-18T22:13:38.460" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2201" RevisionGUID="718f9583-11de-422b-9d37-6ffc8cd137f8" CreationDate="2016-12-18T22:13:38.460" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="For questions about interrogative words, such as 'quis' (who), 'cur' (why), and 'quando' (when)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7975" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2201" RevisionGUID="718f9583-11de-422b-9d37-6ffc8cd137f8" CreationDate="2016-12-18T22:13:38.460" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7976" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="418" RevisionGUID="e25e2e0e-4bed-4010-96a4-10d488762486" CreationDate="2016-12-18T22:15:06.817" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|pronouns|interrogative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7977" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1502" RevisionGUID="6f89f2b3-1b9b-4f4e-87e2-808b533ea9f7" CreationDate="2016-12-18T22:17:20.750" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|word-comparison|interrogative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2195" RevisionGUID="8a2152fa-9f30-472b-81a8-3c9ea148a69e" CreationDate="2016-12-18T23:25:37.973" UserId="574" Comment="improved answer" Text="Quid me vis facere litteraly means: &quot;What do you want me to do?&quot;. This isn't the  slogan you are looking for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Facio quod volo_  litteraly means: &quot;I do that which I want&quot;. The sentence you were looking for, but if you're looking in ancient latin, the use of Facio isn't 100% right. You could better use the verb _agere_ then _facere_. The difference of the meaning between those two is, [as quoted from Reddit:][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agere: acting, as part of some continued behaviour; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; facere: do or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effect, of some singular, countable or determinative act. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The difference can be illustrated by looking at phrases such as navem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agere &quot;to steer a ship&quot; (an atelic, continued activity) as opposed to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fidem facere &quot;evince&quot; (a telic and singular act). An iter can either&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be factum or actum (iter facere or iter agere), and Cicero uses both,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the distinction accords with the difference between completing a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; march and simply marching. As for the different between aio and dico,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maybe someone can correct me, but I think the two primary differences&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are: aio often (although not always or even usually) introduces direct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; speech, which dico doesn't aio means to affirm, assent, confirm, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agree to something (and is often opposed to nego). dico just means to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; speak (L&amp;S say &quot;speak in order to inform&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it's even better to replace the verb _volo_ with _velim_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it should be better to replace _quod_ with _(sic)ut_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a slogan (where you want to use it for), is the best translation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ago ut velim!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/27fty9/specifics_word_use/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2202" RevisionGUID="1c57a1e2-58a7-4328-9302-77a694c97141" CreationDate="2016-12-19T11:36:31.820" UserId="992" Text="This paragraph belongs to William of Tyre.William is an important historian about the Crusades. William's work translated to English magnificently. But I want to examine this sentence: **paucis exceptis qui in praesidio civitatis morabantur, caeteros pro libero detractantes arbitrio.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;THANK YOU&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole Sentence:&#xD;&#xA;Interea dum circa partes Edessanas trans Euphratem dominus ita desudat Balduinus, major exercitus, ut praemissum est, per abrupta montium et vallium devexa, Maresiam usque pervenerat. Erat autem praedicta civitas Christianos habens habitatores, **paucis exceptis qui in praesidio civitatis morabantur, caeteros pro *libero detractantes arbitrio.*** Hi vero audito nostrorum adventu, perterriti, clam aufugerant, urbem solis fidelibus relinquentes; ad quam postquam Deo devotus pervenit exercitus, ante urbis moenia, in pascuis virentibus castrametati sunt, violentiam inferri civibus omnino prohibentes. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7984" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2202" RevisionGUID="1c57a1e2-58a7-4328-9302-77a694c97141" CreationDate="2016-12-19T11:36:31.820" UserId="992" Text="paucis exceptis qui in praesidio civitatis morabantur, caeteros pro libero detractantes arbitrio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7985" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2202" RevisionGUID="1c57a1e2-58a7-4328-9302-77a694c97141" CreationDate="2016-12-19T11:36:31.820" UserId="992" Text="|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2203" RevisionGUID="bbb84573-005c-4c30-ae4d-23732f723abb" CreationDate="2016-12-19T14:22:22.447" UserId="645" Text="A too-strict attempt to apply the codified grammatical rules from a text-book can make translation into Latin more difficult than it need be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*FROM* a Latin text the intention is (except in trivial cases) already there, and the translation should become obvious on reading. On the other hand, for putting a short phrase *INTO* Latin the actual context matters more than earlier answers/comments are allowing. This is evident from the emotional nuances which can be put into the English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	 — I want to do this		   hoc facere volo&#xD;&#xA;	 — I should like to do this	   hoc facere velim&#xD;&#xA;	 — I am going to do this	   hoc faciam&#xD;&#xA;	 — I shall do this		       faciam hoc&#xD;&#xA;	 — Let him do what he wants	   faciat quicquid vult&#xD;&#xA;	 — I shall do what I want	   faciam quod volo&#xD;&#xA;	 — I shall do what I choose	   faciam quod voluero&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In independent sentences the subjunctive in Latin can include shades of meaning to support the use of the *would*, *could*, *might* etc. of English. Other nuances may be indicated by word order as in, for instance, *velim hoc facere*, where the verb is strengthened by its position: *I should certainly like to do this*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2203" RevisionGUID="45881635-f34f-4d56-8c45-f00997071251" CreationDate="2016-12-19T16:45:19.500" UserId="645" Comment="added 3 paras. at suggestion of L. Peters" Text="A too-strict attempt to apply the codified grammatical rules from a text-book can make translation into Latin more difficult than it need be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*FROM* a Latin text the intention is (except in trivial cases) already there, and the translation should become obvious on reading. On the other hand, for putting a short phrase *INTO* Latin the actual context matters more than earlier answers/comments are allowing. This is evident from the emotional nuances which can be put into the English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	 — I want to do this		   hoc facere volo&#xD;&#xA;	 — I should like to do this	   hoc facere velim&#xD;&#xA;	 — I am going to do this	   hoc faciam&#xD;&#xA;	 — I shall do this		       faciam hoc&#xD;&#xA;	 — Let him do what he wants	   faciat quicquid vult&#xD;&#xA;	 — I shall do what I want	   faciam quod volo&#xD;&#xA;	 — I shall do what I choose	   faciam quod voluero&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In independent sentences the subjunctive in Latin can include shades of meaning to support the use of the *would*, *could*, *might* etc. of English. Other nuances may be indicated by word order as in, for instance, *velim hoc facere*, where the verb is strengthened by its position: *I should certainly like to do this*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the original question, *facio quod volo* is correctly and simply *I do what I want*. *Quid me vis facere* is a simple question, as in C. M. Weimer's comment: *what do you want me to do?*, which with a subjunctive becomes more polite *quid me facere velis?*, *what would you like me to do?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other possibilities and constructions are endless and depend on the circumstances, especially if the proposed action be included, e.g. *what would you like me to have done?* or *is there something that you would like him to do?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the use of *agere* and *facere*, the former tends to mean *get/have something done*, or *cause an action*, whereas the latter more often implies something done by the subject." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2202" RevisionGUID="337ac63d-3ed2-42da-8526-19b7882acf70" CreationDate="2016-12-19T18:08:10.957" UserId="992" Comment="added 541 characters in body" Text="This paragraph belongs to William of Tyre.William is an important historian about the Crusades. William's work translated to English magnificently. But I want to examine this sentence: **paucis exceptis qui in praesidio civitatis morabantur, caeteros pro libero detractantes arbitrio.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;especially &quot; Erat autem praedicta civitas Christianos habens habitatores, paucis exceptis qui in praesidio civitatis morabantur, caeteros pro libero detractantes arbitrio.&quot; this sentence translate from Latin to English: With a few exceptions, the inhabitants of this city were Christians. The infidels were in possession of the citadel, however, treated the rest of population according to **THEİR OWN GOOD PLEASURE**. Question: Have the same meaning especially &quot;**their own good pleasure&quot; with &quot;pro libero detractantes arbitrio**&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;THANK YOU&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole Sentence:&#xD;&#xA;Interea dum circa partes Edessanas trans Euphratem dominus ita desudat Balduinus, major exercitus, ut praemissum est, per abrupta montium et vallium devexa, Maresiam usque pervenerat. Erat autem praedicta civitas Christianos habens habitatores, **paucis exceptis qui in praesidio civitatis morabantur, caeteros pro *libero detractantes arbitrio.*** Hi vero audito nostrorum adventu, perterriti, clam aufugerant, urbem solis fidelibus relinquentes; ad quam postquam Deo devotus pervenit exercitus, ante urbis moenia, in pascuis virentibus castrametati sunt, violentiam inferri civibus omnino prohibentes. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2204" RevisionGUID="064ee8b9-170d-4325-b2cf-cbdbfc5fb2c2" CreationDate="2016-12-19T22:05:31.870" UserId="1003" Text="Here is a really complicated sentence, I am trying to understand how to translate it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Nam cum posse existere potentia sit, sequitur quo plus realitatis alicujus rei naturæ competit eo plus virium a se habere ut existat adeoque Ens absolute infinitum sive Deum infinitam absolute potentiam existendi a se habere, qui propterea absolute existit**.(Spinoza, Ethics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*For, as the potentiality of existence is a power, it follows that, in proportion as reality increases in the nature of a thing, so also will it increase its strength for existence. Therefore a being absolutely infinite, such as God, has from himself an absolutely infinite power of existence, and hence he does absolutely exist*. (R.H.M.Elwes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first part I understand -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cum + Subjunctive - *Nam cum posse existere potentia* (f.Nom.) *sit*, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it follows that - *sequitur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;now comes that part which I found difficult -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;quo plus realitatis alicuius rei naturae competit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so what is subject for  *competit*, if it is *potentia*, then it would be *qua*? *Plus* is followed by Partitive Genitive and more Genitives here - so  should I translate it 'more reality of some nature of a thing'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*competo* - 2. Of other things, to agree or coincide with something, to answer to it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next comes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;eo plus virium  - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;again Partitive Genitive , so ' more strength to, of,  something', again it is unclear what is the subject, should be the same as for '*quo*' but what is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a se habere ut existat (ut + Sub.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'it could (have something to)  exist from itself' -does it belong to the first half of the sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your help!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7994" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2204" RevisionGUID="064ee8b9-170d-4325-b2cf-cbdbfc5fb2c2" CreationDate="2016-12-19T22:05:31.870" UserId="1003" Text="'...quo plus..., eo plus ... ' translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7995" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2204" RevisionGUID="064ee8b9-170d-4325-b2cf-cbdbfc5fb2c2" CreationDate="2016-12-19T22:05:31.870" UserId="1003" Text="|translation|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2205" RevisionGUID="b0e00c93-3f4b-415f-80dd-8a1a59f8b8e9" CreationDate="2016-12-20T08:10:56.580" UserId="79" Text="The first thing to observe here is the *quo&amp;ndash;eo* structure.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quo magis edo, eo laetior sum.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The more I eat, the happier I am.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *quo plus&amp;hellip;eo plus* means &quot;the more&amp;hellip;the more&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In the translation you quote this is rendered as &quot;as reality increases, so also will increase&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;These *quo* and *eo* are neuter ablatives, but it might be better to see the pair as a fixed phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second confusing thing is the use of partitive genitives.&#xD;&#xA;Here *plus realitatis* means &quot;more reality&quot; and *plus virium* is &quot;more strength&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The subject of *competit* is *plus realitatis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand correctly, *naturae* is dative, not genitive.&#xD;&#xA;The basic idea is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Realitas naturae competit.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reality meets (or increases in) nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many other structures, but expanding around this short phrase helps make sense of *quo plus realitatis alicujus rei naturæ competit*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find the passage *eo plus virium a se habere ut existat* confusing, so my interpretation may be off.&#xD;&#xA;Here *ut existat* is a final *ut* clause &quot;so that he may exist&quot;, and it is best paired with *vires*.&#xD;&#xA;I read *plus virium ut existat* as &quot;more strength to exist&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The source of the strength is the entity under discussion, the strength comes from it (*a se*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The infinitive sounds weird to me.&#xD;&#xA;I would read the first half of your passage like this, simplifying or rewording into different versions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nam cum posse existere potentia sit, sequitur quo plus realitatis alicujus rei naturæ competit eo plus virium a se habet ut existat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Potentia est posse existere. Itaque, quo plus realitatis naturae competit, eo plus virium habet. Vires habet, ut existat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Si existere potest, potentiam habet. Realitas naturae competit, et vires habet. Vires habet, ut existat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would therefore translate this part as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ability to exist is a power. Therefore it follows: the more reality there is in the nature of some thing, the more strength it has to exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This agrees more or less with the translation you have.&#xD;&#xA;Do ask if something needs more explanation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2204" RevisionGUID="407e179b-fe91-413f-bde9-362b9718be04" CreationDate="2016-12-20T08:12:00.790" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Here is a really complicated sentence, I am trying to understand how to translate it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Nam cum posse existere potentia sit, sequitur quo plus realitatis alicujus rei naturæ competit eo plus virium a se habere ut existat adeoque Ens absolute infinitum sive Deum infinitam absolute potentiam existendi a se habere, qui propterea absolute existit**.(Spinoza, Ethics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*For, as the potentiality of existence is a power, it follows that, in proportion as reality increases in the nature of a thing, so also will it increase its strength for existence. Therefore a being absolutely infinite, such as God, has from himself an absolutely infinite power of existence, and hence he does absolutely exist*. (R.H.M.Elwes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first part I understand -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cum + Subjunctive - *Nam cum posse existere potentia* (f.Nom.) *sit*, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it follows that - *sequitur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;now comes that part which I found difficult -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;quo plus realitatis alicuius rei naturae competit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so what is subject for  *competit*, if it is *potentia*, then it would be *qua*? *Plus* is followed by Partitive Genitive and more Genitives here - so  should I translate it 'more reality of some nature of a thing'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*competo* - 2. Of other things, to agree or coincide with something, to answer to it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next comes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;eo plus virium  - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;again Partitive Genitive , so ' more strength to, of,  something', again it is unclear what is the subject, should be the same as for '*quo*' but what is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a se habere ut existat (ut + Sub.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'it could (have something to)  exist from itself' -does it belong to the first half of the sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your help!&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7999" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2204" RevisionGUID="407e179b-fe91-413f-bde9-362b9718be04" CreationDate="2016-12-20T08:12:00.790" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation|new-latin|spinoza|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8000" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2075" RevisionGUID="b3c71385-e271-4a2f-a6ae-53dfbf52c9b1" CreationDate="2016-12-20T08:52:37.647" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|new-latin|adjective|spinoza|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8001" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2028" RevisionGUID="cd699db6-60e1-4bbf-9c82-f57640e99f19" CreationDate="2016-12-20T08:53:08.603" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|new-latin|spinoza|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2202" RevisionGUID="19289179-d651-444f-be48-8dd2cd30a2db" CreationDate="2016-12-20T10:16:25.317" UserId="992" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="This paragraph belongs to William of Tyre.William is an important historian about the Crusades. William's work translated to English magnificently. But I want to examine this sentence: **paucis exceptis qui in praesidio civitatis morabantur, caeteros pro libero detractantes arbitrio.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;**in this sentence &quot;their own good pleasure&quot; what is the meaning of? positive or negative means? thank you for your help –**&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;especially &quot; Erat autem praedicta civitas Christianos habens habitatores, paucis exceptis qui in praesidio civitatis morabantur, caeteros pro libero detractantes arbitrio.&quot; this sentence translate from Latin to English: With a few exceptions, the inhabitants of this city were Christians. The infidels were in possession of the citadel, however, treated the rest of population according to **THEİR OWN GOOD PLEASURE**. Question: Have the same meaning especially &quot;**their own good pleasure&quot; with &quot;pro libero detractantes arbitrio**&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;THANK YOU&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole Sentence:&#xD;&#xA;Interea dum circa partes Edessanas trans Euphratem dominus ita desudat Balduinus, major exercitus, ut praemissum est, per abrupta montium et vallium devexa, Maresiam usque pervenerat. Erat autem praedicta civitas Christianos habens habitatores, **paucis exceptis qui in praesidio civitatis morabantur, caeteros pro *libero detractantes arbitrio.*** Hi vero audito nostrorum adventu, perterriti, clam aufugerant, urbem solis fidelibus relinquentes; ad quam postquam Deo devotus pervenit exercitus, ante urbis moenia, in pascuis virentibus castrametati sunt, violentiam inferri civibus omnino prohibentes. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2206" RevisionGUID="c3345b90-2cfa-495b-809b-8d2ffd79b30f" CreationDate="2016-12-20T15:17:27.247" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8004" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2206" RevisionGUID="c3345b90-2cfa-495b-809b-8d2ffd79b30f" CreationDate="2016-12-20T15:17:27.247" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2207" RevisionGUID="aa919e65-0420-42e8-86d2-261949263de7" CreationDate="2016-12-20T15:17:27.247" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8006" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2207" RevisionGUID="aa919e65-0420-42e8-86d2-261949263de7" CreationDate="2016-12-20T15:17:27.247" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2208" RevisionGUID="c5370c3b-bc2f-48b2-af80-9f2c4b518d7f" CreationDate="2016-12-20T17:37:47.460" UserId="45" Text="My question was inspired by the phrase in [this question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2185/hogwarts-motto-from-j-k-rowlings-harry-potter-series):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; draco dormiens numquam titillandus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...where *titillo* presumably refers to the action of &quot;tickling.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this use of *titillo* attested? [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtitillo) gives that as one of the English definitions, but all of the examples I can find correspond to the figurative English meaning of &quot;tickle,&quot; i.e. &quot;titillate.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot find [a single classical example](http://latin.packhum.org/search) where this word is used to describe the literal action, which leads me to doubt whether the above phrase would have provoked a strange reaction in a Roman.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there any justification for the use of *titillo* outside of its figurative sense of &quot;titillate&quot;?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8008" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2208" RevisionGUID="c5370c3b-bc2f-48b2-af80-9f2c4b518d7f" CreationDate="2016-12-20T17:37:47.460" UserId="45" Text="Can &quot;titillo&quot; refer to the literal action of tickling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8009" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2208" RevisionGUID="c5370c3b-bc2f-48b2-af80-9f2c4b518d7f" CreationDate="2016-12-20T17:37:47.460" UserId="45" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2209" RevisionGUID="d3c40106-fe94-4e80-b033-0a4653293043" CreationDate="2016-12-20T19:37:35.420" UserId="1077" Text="&quot;Fumo&quot; means &quot;I smoke, steam or fume&quot;. But is there a word which indicates a thinner smoke or fume rises from me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for a word that incense could say about itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8011" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2209" RevisionGUID="d3c40106-fe94-4e80-b033-0a4653293043" CreationDate="2016-12-20T19:37:35.420" UserId="1077" Text="Word for &quot;fumo&quot; but less thick, thin smoke" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8012" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2209" RevisionGUID="d3c40106-fe94-4e80-b033-0a4653293043" CreationDate="2016-12-20T19:37:35.420" UserId="1077" Text="|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8013" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2209" RevisionGUID="e92cacd8-9004-4041-bfa0-672ef9317b25" CreationDate="2016-12-20T20:07:31.413" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags." Text="|verbs|word-request|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2210" RevisionGUID="f82b4558-59ec-4e24-a45c-389d84f95e57" CreationDate="2016-12-20T20:13:16.740" UserId="79" Text="This may not be perfect, but consider the verb [*vaporo*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2062090) as an alternative to *fumo*.&#xD;&#xA;Comparing the underlying nouns [*vapor*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2062083) and [*fumus*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2023404) suggests that it is in the right direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One option to consider is using an adjective or an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;I think [*tenuis*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2059045) is a suitable word for &quot;thin&quot; in the context of smoke.&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding adverb is [*tenuiter*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2059044), &quot;thinly&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes me suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tenuiter fumo*. &amp;mdash; I smoke thinly.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tenuis fumo*. &amp;mdash; I am thin (masculine or feminine) and I smoke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use *vaporo* together with *tenuis*, but for some reason that sounds a bit off to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2211" RevisionGUID="c393ab24-2b06-4524-826c-5bce280cb985" CreationDate="2016-12-20T20:13:45.270" UserId="45" Text="[*Fumo, -are*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfumo) is a general word for something that is causing smoke or steam. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot find a specialized word that refers to &quot;thin smoke,&quot; but one alternative for incense is [*cremo, -are*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcremo) (&quot;to burn, consume by fire&quot;), which can be used in the passive for something that is being consumed. Here is an example of this usage in a traditional blessing of incense in the Roman Rite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ab illo benedicaris, in cuius honore **cremaberis**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *May you be blessed by him in whose honor you will be burned.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Incensum crematur* seems to evoke the idea you are looking for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2212" RevisionGUID="33662fa1-a88b-44b9-a25b-a3d603c71fc1" CreationDate="2016-12-20T20:32:32.550" UserId="645" Text="Smith's gives examples, both figurative and physical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;titillo, -avi, -atum I *v.a. to tickle, titillate* : sensus, Lucr. 2, 429 ; Cic. Fin. I, II 39 ; carnem Tert. Pud. 22 *med*. : multitudinis levitatem voluptate quasi titillantes Cic. Off. 2, 18, 63  **ll** Fig. : ne vos titillet Gloria Hor. S. 2, 3, 179 : femina nulla prorsus invidia titillata, Mart. Cap. 2, 42.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;titillus, i, m., [titillo] *a tickling* : Cod. Theod. 8, 5, 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Rowling uses her bits of &quot;Latin&quot; purely for effect — really, I think, hardly intended as more than nonce-words or expressions. I don't feel that we can expect to get much of an insight from it into anything very serious, can we?]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2213" RevisionGUID="3cff90ed-ce69-406e-8173-0ffacb2aedac" CreationDate="2016-12-20T21:55:00.590" UserId="78" Text="So, I learned something new about English today. I began to jump on your question from an etymological angle, pointing out the origin of *to tickle* when, to my surprise, I discovered the original meaning of *tickle* was physical, at least according to [Etymonline](http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=tickle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you look at the development, you'll see a figurative use &quot;tickle&quot; used to translate the Latin &quot;titillare&quot; from the 14th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Meaning &quot;to excite agreeably&quot; (late 14c.) is a translation of Latin titillare. Meaning &quot;to poke or touch so as to excite laughter&quot; is from early 15c.; figurative sense of &quot;to excite, amuse&quot; is attested from 1680s. To tickle (one's) fancy is from 1640s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the meaning I thought Rowling meant her Latin to mean, and if I were to see the English today, I would not automatically assume it meant put their fingers to its underbelly, but sort of &quot;excite/arouse,&quot; since the consequences are dire even if the dragon is &quot;agreeable.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2214" RevisionGUID="80d47adc-6e43-4718-af41-277ca393729a" CreationDate="2016-12-20T22:03:59.177" UserId="79" Text="The adjective *fessus* (wearied, tired, fatigued, worn out, weak, feeble, infirm) sounds and looks like it could well be a participle.&#xD;&#xA;If there is a verb, I would assume it to mean something in the direction of &quot;to weaken&quot; or &quot;to burden&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Is there such a verb, or has there ever been one?&#xD;&#xA;I found no suitable verb starting with *fed-* or *fet-*.&#xD;&#xA;The meanings and conjugations of *fetare* and *fetere* do not match.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *fendere* could be suitable, but it seems to survive only in compounds (*offendere*, *defendere*), and the past participle seems to be *fensus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that proving non-existence is hard.&#xD;&#xA;If you think there is no such verb, it is perfectly acceptable if you argue why." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8020" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2214" RevisionGUID="80d47adc-6e43-4718-af41-277ca393729a" CreationDate="2016-12-20T22:03:59.177" UserId="79" Text="Is fessus a participle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8021" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2214" RevisionGUID="80d47adc-6e43-4718-af41-277ca393729a" CreationDate="2016-12-20T22:03:59.177" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|adjective|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2215" RevisionGUID="25e81af1-df67-458c-ad3e-a63daf097668" CreationDate="2016-12-20T22:23:56.557" UserId="45" Text="It is a characteristic of a certain kind of academic writing (or amateurish misconceptions thereof) to join prepositions by conjunctions with only one object. Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The realization of the good of all **in and through** the act of each is the social ideal. (*Practical Ethics*, William DeWitt Hyde)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the common idiom: [&quot;in and of itself&quot;](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/in-and-of-itself).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are there any examples in classical literature of two prepositions being joined by a conjunction with the same object?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, I am not interested in cases like &quot;per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A word search for [&quot;in et&quot;](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23in+et%23) (with word boundaries) shows only result where &quot;in&quot; is treated as a noun, i.e. &quot;the word *in*.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8023" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2215" RevisionGUID="25e81af1-df67-458c-ad3e-a63daf097668" CreationDate="2016-12-20T22:23:56.557" UserId="45" Text="Can conjunctions be used to join prepositions with the same object?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8024" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2215" RevisionGUID="25e81af1-df67-458c-ad3e-a63daf097668" CreationDate="2016-12-20T22:23:56.557" UserId="45" Text="|classical-latin|preposition|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2216" RevisionGUID="62a8ba7a-86b4-4857-beb2-fa4601c469e5" CreationDate="2016-12-20T22:41:26.770" UserId="867" Text="**Is there any justification for the use of titillo outside of its figurative sense of &quot;titillate&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I think so.  See Pliny the Elder, *Natural History*, book XI, 77:198&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *in eadem praecipua hilaritatis sedes, quod **titillatu** maxime&#xD;&#xA;&gt; intellegitur alarum ad quas subit, non aliubi tenuiore humana cute&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ideoque scabendi dulcedine ibi proxima.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In it [the diaphragm] also is the chief seat of merriment, a fact that is gathered&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chiefly from **tickling** the arm-pits to which it rises, as nowhere else&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is the human skin thinner, and consequently the pleasure of scratching&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is closest there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2217" RevisionGUID="c4a048bc-d89a-44dd-a408-d768eb4de2af" CreationDate="2016-12-20T22:47:25.747" UserId="235" Text="Suppose we were to translate the English sentence into Attic Greek or Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do not fight your brother, lest you, who are smaller than him, be hurt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see how the relative clause, &quot;who are smaller than him&quot;, is nested inside a purpose clause. That purpose clause begins with the conjunction *lest*, and we know that the passive verb &quot;be hurt&quot; should be in the subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what mood should the verb of the relative clause be? I am tempted to say it should take the indicative mood, as it's indicating a simple fact. But I'm not sure about this, and would love to get your feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, I would like to know whether the answer would be the same in both Attic Greek and Latin. Are the rules governing this scenario any different between these languages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8027" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2217" RevisionGUID="c4a048bc-d89a-44dd-a408-d768eb4de2af" CreationDate="2016-12-20T22:47:25.747" UserId="235" Text="What mood should the verb of a relative clause within a purpose clause be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8028" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2217" RevisionGUID="c4a048bc-d89a-44dd-a408-d768eb4de2af" CreationDate="2016-12-20T22:47:25.747" UserId="235" Text="|greek|conjunctive|relative-clause|purpose-clause|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2218" RevisionGUID="eb589a54-a98b-4777-8fe5-561c814ce05d" CreationDate="2016-12-20T23:13:56.250" UserId="40" Text="Not a single word, but a relevant passage from Ovid *Metamorphoses* 1.569-72:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...per quae Peneos ab imo  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; effusus Pindo spumosis volvitur undis,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; deiectuque gravi tenues agitantia fumos  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; nubila conducit...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...through which Peneus, flowing out from the base of Pindus, rolls with foamy waves, and in its heavy descent gathers clouds that stir up thin mists...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2217" RevisionGUID="1629d366-d76e-4150-8993-2403e630a685" CreationDate="2016-12-20T23:22:34.683" UserId="235" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="Suppose we were to translate the English sentence into Attic Greek or Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do not fight your brother, lest you, who are smaller than him, be hurt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see how the relative clause, &quot;who are smaller than him&quot;, is nested inside a purpose clause. That purpose clause begins with the conjunction *lest*, and we know that the passive verb &quot;be hurt&quot; should be in the subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what mood should the verb of the relative clause be? I am tempted to say it should take the indicative mood, as it's indicating a simple fact. Is this correct? Furthermore, would the answer be the same in both Greek and Latin? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are my Greek and Latin translations. One style point I'm a little unsure about is whether the verb of the relative clause should be placed at the beginning or end of its clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Noli pugnare tuο fratri ne tu qui es parvior quam is noceris. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; μὴ μάχου τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου ἵνα μὴ σὺ ὅς εἶ μικρότερος ἢ αὐτὸς βλάπτῃ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2219" RevisionGUID="5eaa6b76-bb12-4337-8a1d-a5f61a866534" CreationDate="2016-12-21T03:10:58.620" UserId="406" Text="##Maybe.##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a verb *fatīscō, fatīscere, —, ???*, meaning to fall apart or collapse. (Sometimes it also acts like a deponent verb, *fatīscor, fatīscī*, with the same meaning.) But it's practically nonexistent in the past tense, and doesn't have a proper perfect system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Fessus* **could** be considered a perfect participle for *fatīscō*, with the inchoative *-isc-* removed and a vowel change. But there isn't much evidence for this except the similar meanings; I haven't found any ancient authors mentioning that they were the same verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the verb *fatīgō* &quot;to tire out&quot; and the adverb *affatim* &quot;considered to be enough&quot;, which **could** come from a noun *_fatis_ meaning something like &quot;tiredness&quot;. But no such noun is attested anywhere. Servius's *Commentary on the Aeneid* mentions _*fatim_ once, but other than that only the derived forms survive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2220" RevisionGUID="e8664c5d-2f6b-47c7-942e-726c684f20ff" CreationDate="2016-12-21T03:30:50.083" UserId="40" Text="Indicative seems to be correct for both languages. It's true that Latin has a so-called &quot;subjunctive by attraction&quot;, whereby a verb in a subordinate clause that depends on a subjunctive will itself be subjunctive; but that probably wouldn't apply here. Gildersleeve and Lodge ([sec. 629](https://books.google.com/books?id=Vh0PAAAAYAAJ&amp;q=629#v=snippet&amp;q=629&amp;f=false)) give examples of the construction, but in all of them there is something semantically &quot;subjunctive-y&quot; about the action, e.g. it's generic or nonfactual, and they go on to say that the indicative is used &quot;of individual facts&quot;, which should describe your example. Greek has no subjunctive by attraction, so indicative is the only choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of unrelated points about your translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Latin, the verb *noceo* takes a dative object. This means it can't be normally passivized (except as an impersonal passive), since there's no direct accusative object. Personal passives of *noceo* are not completely unheard of, but [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnoceo) call them &quot;very rare&quot;. If you want to use *noceo*, you'd have to work around this by using an active construction, e.g. *ne tibi noceat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Greek, τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου &quot;your brother&quot; is here reflexive, so the normal possessive would be τῷ σεαυτοῦ ἀδελφῷ. Smyth ([sec. 1199d](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth+grammar+1199&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007)) says the reflexive use of σου is rare. Second, this sidesteps your original question, but the idiomatic way of expressing the &quot;who are smaller than him&quot; clause would be with a participle: μικρότερος ὢν αὐτοῦ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8033" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2100" RevisionGUID="26c9c011-1943-4c40-8594-b4a089689543" CreationDate="2016-12-21T09:28:25.530" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|vocabulary|meaning|preposition|spinoza|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2062" RevisionGUID="6bd5d5b6-4200-47d1-a298-ad81fa8ecdb0" CreationDate="2016-12-21T09:28:50.217" UserId="79" Comment="Slightly edited and added a tag." Text="What could be the meaning of **hercle** in this context, Please? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si quis ergo diceret se claram et distinctam hoc est veram ideam substantiæ habere et nihilominus dubitare num talis substantia existat, idem **hercle** esset ac si diceret se veram habere ideam et nihilominus dubitare num falsa sit (ut satis attendenti sit manifestum); (Spinoza's Ethics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Therefore, for a person to say that he has a clear and distinct - that is, a true - idea of a substance, but that he is not sure whether such substance exists, would be the same as if he said that he had a true idea, but was not sure whether or no it was false (a little consideration will make this plain).&quot; (trans. R.H.M. Elwes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it mean something like 'as silly as' (in this context)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8035" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2062" RevisionGUID="6bd5d5b6-4200-47d1-a298-ad81fa8ecdb0" CreationDate="2016-12-21T09:28:50.217" UserId="79" Comment="Slightly edited and added a tag." Text="|translation|new-latin|spinoza|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8036" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2045" RevisionGUID="69323832-6785-4361-b93c-c84ba0d87db8" CreationDate="2016-12-21T09:29:20.927" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|spinoza|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2221" RevisionGUID="e9cb8589-8759-4e41-86f9-78f0e271ba25" CreationDate="2016-12-21T20:13:22.460" UserId="1080" Text="Are you willing to take a look at my efforts at translating 6 words from English to Latin? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here goes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mankind evolves: Homines evolvant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;God disappoints: Deus frustrat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reason refutes: Ratio refellat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts? How'd I do? I'm open to corrections." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8039" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2221" RevisionGUID="e9cb8589-8759-4e41-86f9-78f0e271ba25" CreationDate="2016-12-21T20:13:22.460" UserId="1080" Text="Translating &quot;mankind evolves&quot; and two other two-word phrases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8040" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2221" RevisionGUID="e9cb8589-8759-4e41-86f9-78f0e271ba25" CreationDate="2016-12-21T20:13:22.460" UserId="1080" Text="|conjugation|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2222" RevisionGUID="341e0939-69e0-4d3b-9d12-442d738acc26" CreationDate="2016-12-21T20:39:01.717" UserId="952" Text="For the first one, you could also go with *mundus* for &quot;mankind&quot;, since *homines* generally refers to a large group of people as opposed to an entity. *Evolvant* means &quot;roll out&quot; or &quot;unfold&quot;, so I think *confirmant* (&quot;strengthens&quot; or &quot;develops&quot;), *adveniunt* (&quot;arrive at&quot; or &quot;reach&quot;), or *augescunt* (&quot;grow&quot; or prosper&quot; may better suit your translation. It all depends on the specific type of &quot;evolution&quot; you are talking about (ex: intellectual, physical, etc).&#xD;&#xA;Also note that if you choose to go with *mundus*, you need a singular ending (*-t*) on the verb.  &#xD;&#xA;The second one looks good!  &#xD;&#xA;In the third phrase, alternate translations for &quot;reason&quot; are *mens* and *argumentum*, but *ratio* is perfectly acceptable too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this was helpful!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2207" RevisionGUID="6233f4c7-c143-48be-80ac-428627b27945" CreationDate="2016-12-21T21:09:13.140" UserId="183" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="For questions about the Latin language as used by the philosopher Spinoza." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8043" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2207" RevisionGUID="6233f4c7-c143-48be-80ac-428627b27945" CreationDate="2016-12-21T21:09:13.140" Comment="Proposed by 183 approved by 78, 79 edit id of 157" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2221" RevisionGUID="63d22817-1e31-493a-895c-1cd930e9abd0" CreationDate="2016-12-21T21:10:09.543" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and reformatted slightly." Text="Are you willing to take a look at my efforts at translating 6 words from English to Latin? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here goes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mankind evolves: Homines evolvant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;God disappoints: Deus frustrat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reason refutes: Ratio refellat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts? How did I do? I'm open to corrections." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8045" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2221" RevisionGUID="63d22817-1e31-493a-895c-1cd930e9abd0" CreationDate="2016-12-21T21:10:09.543" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and reformatted slightly." Text="|translation|conjugation|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2223" RevisionGUID="91fa8c31-243f-45a2-b0d2-b4323c299129" CreationDate="2016-12-21T21:45:03.863" UserId="79" Text="The verb *evolvere* means to &quot;roll out&quot;, &quot;develop&quot; or &quot;evolve&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you write *homines evolvunt*, I interpret it as &quot;people develop [something]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If mankind is the thing being developed rather than the one guiding the development, I would use passive.&#xD;&#xA;To me, at least, *homines evolvuntur* means &quot;people are developed&quot; or &quot;people evolve&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *evolvere* is third conjugation, so I would read *homines evolvant* (which is conjunctive instead of indicative) as &quot;may people develop [something]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Homines* means &quot;people&quot;, not really &quot;mankind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;*Genus humanum* would be more appropriate for &quot;mankind&quot; or &quot;human race&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Note that it is singular, whereas *homines* is plural.&#xD;&#xA;Thus I suggest: ***Genus humanum evolvitur.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second phrase is trickier.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure how to use the verbs *frustrare* and *frustrari*.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I suggest [*fallere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfallo), which is more severe than to &quot;disappoint&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It also has this meaning, but it takes a step in the direction of deception, cheating, and dishonesty.&#xD;&#xA;If this tone is acceptable, I suggest: ***Deus fallit.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the third phrase *ratio* sounds like a suitable word.&#xD;&#xA;[*Refellere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=refello&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) and [*refutare*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=refuto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) are good verbs.&#xD;&#xA;These are of the third and first conjugation, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;Your *refellat* is conjunctive, and I assume that would give the wrong tone.&#xD;&#xA;Using these, I suggest: ***Ratio refutat.***&#xD;&#xA;Or: ***Ratio refellit.***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2224" RevisionGUID="31400239-aa83-4a55-b440-72c379921bd7" CreationDate="2016-12-22T06:56:19.317" UserId="230" Text="So I have the following to translate :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coronas pulchras filia mea parva portat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the book answer is : My little daughter carries beautiful wreaghts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what I initially thought : The little daughter carries my beautiful wreaths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is, is there a way to know where &quot;mea&quot; exactly goes ? Context of the sentence ? The fact that &quot;mea&quot; is closer to filia and parva than it is to coronas-pulchras ?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8048" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2224" RevisionGUID="31400239-aa83-4a55-b440-72c379921bd7" CreationDate="2016-12-22T06:56:19.317" UserId="230" Text="A question in regards of possessive pronouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8049" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2224" RevisionGUID="31400239-aa83-4a55-b440-72c379921bd7" CreationDate="2016-12-22T06:56:19.317" UserId="230" Text="|specific-words|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2225" RevisionGUID="f15339e7-6088-40f8-a611-99332ee0df0d" CreationDate="2016-12-22T11:05:02.860" UserId="1079" Text="Where I come from, we have an ironic saying about love, it could be translated into english as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Love is warming, but coal is coal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Or perhaps less literally as &quot;_Love is heartwarming, but coal will always be coal._&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to translate that into latin. So far I've come up with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Amor calefacit, sed carbo est carbo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Amor calefaciēbat, sed carbo erat carbo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm really uncertain whether the present or imperfect is appropriate, and also my latin sucks and it's probably all wrong. Would someone be so kind as to improve on my attempt? I'd probably prefer plain &amp; simple translation over eloquent / poetic ones... Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8051" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2225" RevisionGUID="f15339e7-6088-40f8-a611-99332ee0df0d" CreationDate="2016-12-22T11:05:02.860" UserId="1079" Text="Saying about love in latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8052" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2225" RevisionGUID="f15339e7-6088-40f8-a611-99332ee0df0d" CreationDate="2016-12-22T11:05:02.860" UserId="1079" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2225" RevisionGUID="b463e052-5349-46bd-a736-0ac406e6fa0d" CreationDate="2016-12-22T14:28:51.670" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 53 characters in body; edited title" Text="Where I come from, we have an ironic saying about love, it could be translated into English as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Love is warming, but coal is coal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Or perhaps less literally as &quot;_Love is heartwarming, but coal will always be coal._&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to translate that into Latin. So far I've come up with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Amor calefacit, sed carbo est carbo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Amor calefaciēbat, sed carbo erat carbo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm really uncertain whether the present or imperfect is appropriate. Would someone be so kind as to improve on my attempt? I'd probably prefer a plain and simple translation over eloquent / poetic ones. Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8054" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2225" RevisionGUID="b463e052-5349-46bd-a736-0ac406e6fa0d" CreationDate="2016-12-22T14:28:51.670" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 53 characters in body; edited title" Text="Translating a saying about love into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2224" RevisionGUID="8cefa9f0-c30a-4fe0-94e9-446d1e0b2291" CreationDate="2016-12-22T14:39:23.447" UserId="45" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="So I have the following to translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Coronas pulchras filia mea parva portat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the book answer is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My little daughter carries beautiful wreaths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what I initially thought: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The little daughter carries my beautiful wreaths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is, is there a way to know where &quot;mea&quot; exactly goes? Context of the sentence? The fact that &quot;mea&quot; is closer to *filia* and *parva* than it is to *coronas*-*pulchras*?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8056" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2224" RevisionGUID="8cefa9f0-c30a-4fe0-94e9-446d1e0b2291" CreationDate="2016-12-22T14:39:23.447" UserId="45" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="|grammar-choice|pronouns|agreement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2226" RevisionGUID="dfa68f26-3c8b-46cc-8870-b135a55e6284" CreationDate="2016-12-22T14:44:24.263" UserId="952" Text="Adjectives always agree with the noun they are modifying in case, gender, and number. Since *mea* is the nominative feminine singular form of *meus, mea, meum* (&quot;my&quot; or &quot;mine&quot;), it goes with *filia* and *parva* which are also in the nominative feminine singular. *Mea* thus could not go with *coronas pulchras*, which is in the accusative feminine plural form. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2227" RevisionGUID="cce4bda0-b03a-44d8-bf0b-89edf70ef5bb" CreationDate="2016-12-22T14:46:06.363" UserId="45" Text="In Latin, an adjective always agrees with the (pro)noun it modifies in **gender, number, and case**. Since Latin is inflected, position is not an important deciding factor, though it can be relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's first parse the two nouns in your sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *coronas*: **feminine, plural, accusative**&#xD;&#xA;* *filia*: **feminine, singular, nominative**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that's left to do is find out which noun each adjective agrees with. In this case it is very easy, since *pulcher, -chri*, *parvus*, and *meus* are all 1st and 2nd declension adjectives and thus have the same endings as the above nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *pulchras* ends in -as and agrees with *coronas*.&#xD;&#xA;* *mea* and *parva* end in -a and agree with *filia*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8059" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2224" RevisionGUID="45c15626-1b0f-4613-8c9f-c1a1ee014e03" CreationDate="2016-12-22T14:53:19.067" UserId="45" Comment="edited title" Text="A question regarding the agreement of possessive pronouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2222" RevisionGUID="5fc129e6-cdc1-4998-b555-1b39d0ac96b8" CreationDate="2016-12-22T16:45:07.560" UserId="952" Comment="removed erroneous information, added information about conjugation rules" Text="For the first one, you could also go with *mundus* for &quot;mankind&quot;, since *homines* generally refers to a large group of people as opposed to an entity.  &#xD;&#xA;EDIT: *Evolvant* comes from *evolvo*, which is a third conjugation verb. Thus, *evolvant* is in the subjunctive mood as opposed to the indicative, *evolvunt*, which you should be using here.  &#xD;&#xA;*Evolvo* means &quot;roll out&quot; or &quot;unfold&quot;, so I think *adveniunt* (&quot;arrive at&quot; or &quot;reach&quot;), or *augescunt* (&quot;grow&quot; or prosper&quot; may better suit your translation. It all depends on the specific type of &quot;evolution&quot; you are talking about (ex: intellectual, physical, etc).&#xD;&#xA;Also note that if you choose to go with *mundus*, you need a singular ending (*-t*) on the verb.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one looks good! &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In the third phrase, alternate translations for &quot;reason&quot; are *mens* and *argumentum*, but *ratio* is perfectly acceptable too.  &#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Again, mind the conjugation. *Refellat* is the 3rd person active subjunctive of the word *refello*, so you should use *refellit* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Just a general note about verb conjugations:  &#xD;&#xA;Conjugations are determined by looking at the **2nd principal part** of the verb.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st conjugation verbs end with *-āre*. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*amō, am**āre**, amāvī, amātum* = love, like  &#xD;&#xA;*dō, d**āre**, dedī, datum* = give&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2nd conjugation verbs end with *-ēre*. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*videō, vid**ēre**, vidī, visum* = see, look at  &#xD;&#xA;*doceō, doc**ēre**, docuī, doctum* = to teach&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;3rd conjugation verbs end with *-ere*.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*dicō, dic**ere**, dixī, dictum* = say, speak  &#xD;&#xA;*cadō, cad**ere**, cecidī, casum* = fall&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4th conjugation verbs end with *-īre*.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*dormiō, dorm**īre**, dormīvī, dormītum* = sleep, rest  &#xD;&#xA;*veniō, ven**īre**, venī, ventum* = come&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The present stem of a verb is found by dropping the *-re* from the 2nd principal part for 1st and 2nd conjugation verbs, and by dropping the *-ō* from the 1st principal part for 3rd and 4th conjugation verbs. Once you obtain the stem, you can then add on the appropriate endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this was helpful!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2228" RevisionGUID="381392b6-50c9-4948-a1a0-037d02017250" CreationDate="2016-12-22T22:11:31.683" UserId="79" Text="The dictionaries I have checked give translations for both *plus* and *magis*, and they seem to have a different tone.&#xD;&#xA;However, I have found no comparison between the two.&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between these two adverbs?&#xD;&#xA;When is one correct and the other one wrong?&#xD;&#xA;Are there cases where they both work and mean the same thing?&#xD;&#xA;Or cases where both are grammatical but the meaning is different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8066" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2228" RevisionGUID="381392b6-50c9-4948-a1a0-037d02017250" CreationDate="2016-12-22T22:11:31.683" UserId="79" Text="What is the difference between plus and magis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8067" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2228" RevisionGUID="381392b6-50c9-4948-a1a0-037d02017250" CreationDate="2016-12-22T22:11:31.683" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-comparison|adverb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2229" RevisionGUID="20de0f2a-7cc1-4e96-a729-75a4e1befbca" CreationDate="2016-12-23T00:36:50.243" UserId="1085" Text="It means remember that you must die, remember that you are mortal. That you are human. The full phrase from the epic was &quot;look behind you, remember you must die&quot; that you are not anything more than a man and today may be the day you might die... because everyone must die (battle scene)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2230" RevisionGUID="5bd84ad3-872e-4cbd-8dc4-106e48444f55" CreationDate="2016-12-23T02:37:41.077" UserId="40" Text="The famous phrase *memento mori* (the subject of [this question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/89/what-does-memento-mori-actually-mean)) means something like &quot;remember that you will die, remember you are mortal&quot;. But this use of the infinitive seems odd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Memini* is often used with an infinitive, but (as per [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmemini)) these uses fall into two classes: (a) &quot;remember that (a thing happened)&quot;, and (b) &quot;remember to do something, be sure to... do not fail to...&quot;. *Memento mori* falls into neither class. It's certainly not (a), but it isn't really (b) either -- the meaning isn't &quot;Don't forget to die!&quot;. For the sense of &quot;remember that something will happen&quot;, one would have expected an accusative with future infinitive: *Memento te moriturum esse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this just a quirk of this single phrase? But if so, how would Latin speakers have known to interpret it correctly? It seems like there ought to be comparable uses of the infinitive, either with *memini* or with other verbs. Are there such comparable uses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8071" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2230" RevisionGUID="5bd84ad3-872e-4cbd-8dc4-106e48444f55" CreationDate="2016-12-23T02:37:41.077" UserId="40" Text="Parallels for the infinitive in &quot;memento mori&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8072" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2230" RevisionGUID="5bd84ad3-872e-4cbd-8dc4-106e48444f55" CreationDate="2016-12-23T02:37:41.077" UserId="40" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2231" RevisionGUID="242285e5-c043-4d6f-bc2f-c35c83c0f359" CreationDate="2016-12-23T04:53:30.567" UserId="230" Text="So I recently learned the first declension nouns concept and my list of new vocabularies to learn suddenly changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words were usually presented as : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sagitta, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pecunia,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, they indicate the following :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;casa, -ae, fem,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cena, -ae, fem,&#xD;&#xA;etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The -ae is what I assume the nominative plural ? Of what use is this indication ? I feel like there's something I'm missing here ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8074" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2231" RevisionGUID="242285e5-c043-4d6f-bc2f-c35c83c0f359" CreationDate="2016-12-23T04:53:30.567" UserId="230" Text="A question in regards of the presentation of new nouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8075" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2231" RevisionGUID="242285e5-c043-4d6f-bc2f-c35c83c0f359" CreationDate="2016-12-23T04:53:30.567" UserId="230" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2232" RevisionGUID="ff72e730-9fd1-44ee-a41c-5b43b2bf5fed" CreationDate="2016-12-23T05:53:34.437" UserId="75" Text="the -ae is the case ending for the first declension, feminine gender noun declined in the genitive case, singular number. However, in the case of first declenion, feminine gender nouns (e.g., *casa*, *cena*), the -ae also applies to the nominative (and vocative) case, plural number declension, as well as the dative case, singular number declension.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; But, the textbook is likely providing the -ae case to indicate the case ending for the genitive case, singular number declension. It is the same pattern used with Greek. For example, note Joseph Henry Thayer’s entry on the noun χάρις:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; See Wiktionary for a table of the declensions for [*cena*][2] and [*casa*][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nMtWI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cena#Latin &quot;cena&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/casa#Latin &quot;casa&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2232" RevisionGUID="13d0c744-e157-4c6b-96aa-308fee236600" CreationDate="2016-12-23T06:00:02.467" UserId="75" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="The -ae is the case ending for the first declension, feminine gender noun declined in the genitive case, singular number. However, in the case of first declenion, feminine gender nouns (e.g., *casa*, *cena*), -ae is also the case ending for nouns declined in the nominative (and vocative) case, plural number declension, as well as the dative case, singular number declension.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; But, the textbook is likely providing -ae to indicate the case ending for the genitive case, singular number declension.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; It is the same pattern used with Greek. For example, note Joseph Henry Thayer’s entry on the noun χάρις:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(editing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; See Wiktionary for a table of the declensions for [*cena*][2] and [*casa*][3].&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nMtWI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cena#Latin &quot;cena&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/casa#Latin &quot;casa&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2232" RevisionGUID="c1b95d71-334c-413e-93d8-b75e6bb0f9ef" CreationDate="2016-12-23T07:41:59.413" UserId="75" Comment="added 1874 characters in body" Text="The -ae is the [case ending][1] for the first declension, feminine gender noun declined in the genitive case, singular number. However, in the case of first declension, feminine gender nouns (e.g., *casa*, *cena*), -ae is also the case ending for the nominative (and vocative) case, plural number declension, as well as the dative case, singular number declension. For example, see Wiktionary’s declension table for *cena*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Wiktionary, declension table for the Latin noun cena][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You’re probably asking, “If they are identical, how do I possibly determine if a word is functioning as the nominative, or genitive...etc.?” The answer is: context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite -ae occurring as the case ending for at least four of the declensions for the first declension, feminine noun, the textbook is likely providing -ae to indicate the case ending for the **genitive case, singular number** declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You’re probably asking, “What is so special about the genitive case, singular number?” By removing the case ending from that particular declension, a word’s base or stem can be determined. For example, removing -ae from *cenae* yields the base/stem *cen-*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You’re probably asking, “Well, I could have just removed the -a from *cena* and determined the stem!” True, but both the NomSg and GenSg are provided so that the stem can be definitively determined, since there are some words whose NomSg stem appears different than the GenSg stem. For example, the noun *ager*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Wiktionary, declension table for the Latin noun ager][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we only considered the NomSg declension, we might suppose that the stem is *ag-*, but the GenSg declension *agri* helps us to understand that the actual stem is *agr-*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In lexicons, word entries are sorted by lexical forms or lemmas. For nouns, the lexical form is the noun declined in the nominative case, singular number. However, the editor will also include the case ending for the genitive case, singular number declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, *Harper’s Latin Dictionary* on the word *cena*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Harper’s Latin Dictionary, p. 310, cena][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the editor includes the genitive [case], singular [number] case ending (ae).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is the same pattern used with Greek. For example, note Joseph Henry Thayer’s entry on the noun χάρις:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, χάρις][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There, too, the case ending for the genitive case, singular number declension is included, which helps determine the nouns actual stem. In the case of χάρις, it is actually χάριτ-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/case_ending &quot;Wiktionary: &quot;case ending&quot;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BNIIW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2iJBt.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FXx6L.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nMtWI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2233" RevisionGUID="c1e291e0-18ad-4ac7-8ea3-ea225d8f4bbd" CreationDate="2016-12-23T07:45:03.977" UserId="9" Text="It's the genitive case. The use is that if you know the nominative singular form, genitive singular form, and the gender of a regularly inflected Latin noun, you can predict all of its other forms. These are the &quot;[principal parts][1]&quot; of a regular Latin noun. (Some nouns have irregularities in their inflection that require more description, like the irregular first-declension noun *dea* &quot;goddess&quot; which has the ablative plural *deābus.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being given the genitive does seem a bit useless for nouns that end in &quot;a&quot; in the nominative, since nearly all of these are regularly inflected according to the first declension. (There are certain Greek loanwords that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the nominative singular but that belong to other declension classes and/or genders, such as *problēma, problēmatis* n.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But being given the genitive is frequently necessary to be able to inflect nouns of the third declension, where nominative forms often don't contain enough information to determine the other forms. (For example: the nominative plural of *lapis* is *lapidēs,* while the nominative plural of *mīles* is *mīlitēs*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://amchslatin.weebly.com/nouns.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2233" RevisionGUID="71b46a78-bd07-41a2-97ff-d0e923a883b2" CreationDate="2016-12-23T07:53:30.967" UserId="9" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="It's the genitive case. The use is that if you know the nominative singular form, genitive singular form, and the gender of a regularly inflected Latin noun, you can predict all of its other forms. These are the &quot;[principal parts][1]&quot; of a regular Latin noun. (Some nouns have irregularities in their inflection that require more description, like the irregular first-declension noun *dea* &quot;goddess&quot; which has the ablative plural *deābus.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being given the genitive does seem a bit useless for nouns that end in &quot;a&quot; in the nominative singular, since nearly all of these are regularly inflected according to the first declension. (There are certain Greek loanwords that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the nominative singular but that belong to other declension classes and/or genders, such as *problēma, problēmatis* n.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But being given the genitive is frequently necessary to be able to inflect nouns of the [third declension][2], where nominative singular forms often don't contain enough information to determine the other forms. For example, the nominative plural of *rēmex* is *rēmigēs,* while the nominative plural of *caudex* is *caudicēs.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://amchslatin.weebly.com/nouns.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect28" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2234" RevisionGUID="f4543f6e-76cd-47af-97a8-9d7bf04b9b5a" CreationDate="2016-12-23T13:55:22.440" UserId="645" Text="*Magis* is a comparative adverb (of *magnopere*?) meaning in higher degree, as seen in such expressions as *magis magisque*, more and more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Plus* is the comparative of the adjective *multus*, much, and usually refers to quantity, when it's used as if it were a neuter noun, as in *plus plusque*, more and more [of something]. It's also, of course, the comparative of *multum*, the adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each is used mainly to form comparatives for adjectives and adverbs that have none of their own, but not I think exclusively so. I was taught (a long time ago, since when fashions may well have changed) that they could be applied in the comparison of adjectives and adverbs instead of using a regular form : that is, that usage in prose composition can legitimately be subjective, style thus being allowed a part in the choice, especially where the writer is trying for an elegant effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that this is sufficient to answer your concluding queries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2235" RevisionGUID="d3fd3835-469b-4c7e-ab29-87c90c1b4301" CreationDate="2016-12-23T14:38:22.667" UserId="45" Text="The second form is the **genitive singular.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above answers address the substance of your question, but I wanted to add as a supplementary answer something that doesn't appear to be explicitly stated elsewhere: **The genitive singular is the only form that is *unique and uniform* for each declension.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Unique**: No other declension has the same genitive singular ending.&#xD;&#xA;* **Uniform**: Every noun within the declension has the same ending. (The dative singular is *almost* uniform, except for cases like *cornu*...and maybe others.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that **if I know the genitive singular, I know the declension of a word.** This is why dictionaries and learning textbooks include this second form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a chart of the genitive singular for each declension:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. First declension: **-ae**&#xD;&#xA;2. Second declension: **-i**&#xD;&#xA;3. Third declension: **-is**&#xD;&#xA;4. Fourth declension: **-us**&#xD;&#xA;5. Fifth declension: **-ei**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combined with knowledge of the gender of the noun and the nominative singular (necessary for 3rd declension nouns), I can form all the inflections of (almost) any Latin noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are two examples where this second entry is necessary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Senatus*: Alone, I might be tempted to think this was a 2nd declension noun declined like *senatus, senati, etc.* I need the genitive singular, i.e. *senatus, -us* to realize it is **4th declension**.&#xD;&#xA;* *Aries*: It is unclear if this is a 5th declension noun or not. When I see *aries, -etis*, though, I realize it is **3rd declension**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2236" RevisionGUID="1f3bb4ec-d607-407f-a21a-8335d95ce811" CreationDate="2016-12-23T16:31:19.410" UserId="45" Text="I agree that the construction is a little irregular at first, especially since the English translation favors the future: &quot;Remember that you will die.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are clearly dealing with the first sense of the phrase that you mention (&quot;remember that X&quot; or &quot;bear X in mind&quot;) rather than the second (&quot;remember to X&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are two examples of a construction more like what you would expect, using the future active participle with an (understood) *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tu quotiens aliquid conabere, vita, **memento**  	&#xD;&#xA;  **venturum** paucis **me** tibi Luciferis. (Propertius, *Elegiae* 2.19.27-28)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed iam nunc **memento non defuturam mihi constantiam**.... (Pliny, *Epistulae* 5.1.4.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, I would venture to call this use of the present a [gnomic present](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect259):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Used to denote a general truth, i.e. something true not merely in the present but at all times&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps an immediate future expressed in the present tense, as in the below quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; primitur, interdum etiam sine uoluntate prorumpit. Ex eiusmodi casibus, ut tardius quam ex capitis, sic tamen **intra triduum homo moritur**. (Celsus, *De Medicina* 8.14.2.7)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is thus not too difficult to understand the phrase in this light: **memento mori** becomes: **memento te mori** or **memento hominem mori** and can be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remember that man dies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remember that you die.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remember that you will die soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of two reasons why **memento mori** was favored:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The alternative lacks the punch of the original phrase: **memento moriturum** is ambiguous (&quot;remember the man who is about to die?&quot;), so it would have to be amended to something like **memento te moriturum [esse]**. &#xD;&#xA;* Traditionally, an object symbolizing death (like a skull) is depicted as conveying this truth: the understood &quot;us&quot; (&quot;remember that you, like me, die&quot;) is obscured by the future tense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2237" RevisionGUID="6bd59589-57c2-42bb-a651-e90bffda99eb" CreationDate="2016-12-23T16:33:28.557" UserId="1087" Text="I'm trying to decipher the text in a paragraph from an old Latin book (De facultatibus partium animalium, Basileae, 1544) and it's very difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my result of the firs line and I would like to know if it's correct or not (then according to that line I will be able to do it with the rest of this the paragraph) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pupae caro cft aufrera, &amp; in pulucre citis eft uirtus iuuatiuk cotra&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xcLTH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8085" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2237" RevisionGUID="6bd59589-57c2-42bb-a651-e90bffda99eb" CreationDate="2016-12-23T16:33:28.557" UserId="1087" Text="Deciphering Latin words from a very old book (printed in 1544)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8086" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2237" RevisionGUID="6bd59589-57c2-42bb-a651-e90bffda99eb" CreationDate="2016-12-23T16:33:28.557" UserId="1087" Text="|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2238" RevisionGUID="7bcb4420-3ac8-4dce-9012-12c7e3d39a1b" CreationDate="2016-12-23T16:55:34.590" UserId="45" Text="[Here is a better photocopy of the text in question from Google Books.](https://books.google.com/books?id=8BNCAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=RA18-PT25)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text in question is talking about a [hoopoe](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoopoe) (Latin: *upupa, -ae*], which is a type of bird.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the first sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Upupae caro est austera, et in pulvere eius est virtus iuvativa contra morsum cancri, decollatur et scinditur et fit ex eis emplastrum super locum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rought translation: (Comments welcome...the Latin is a little strange.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The flesh of the hoopoe is harsh[-tasting], there is a healing power when it is ground up against crab bites: The head is removed, it is cut in two, and from these parts a bandage can be made over the place of the bite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lingua upupae suspensa super obliviosum reducit ad memoriam ea, quae oblitus est. Quando suffumigatur quis cum penna eius, expelluntur vermes. Si suspendatur oculus eius supra leprosum, cessat lepra. Corium upupae positum super eum qui patitur dolorem capitis, sedat dolorem. Dixerunt, si suspendatur dens hominis et ala upupae dextra, et suspendatur capiti hominis dormientis, non excitabitur, donec auferatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few comments about your attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You forgot the big initial &quot;U.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* In most documents printed at this time, &quot;s&quot; was printed almost like an &quot;f&quot; without the cross. In addition, it is often combined by ligature to the next letter, as in &quot;st.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* A line over a vowel (as in cotra) indicates an omitted *n* or *m*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest of your errors probably are unavoidable without some knowledge of Latin vocabulary, especially in a low resolution copy like yours. &quot;Iuvativa&quot; would definitely be hard to guess if you didn't already know it was a word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2231" RevisionGUID="d4ea0494-7caf-4e41-bf71-c14a8b6b0224" CreationDate="2016-12-23T17:42:55.390" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited title" Text="So I recently learned the first declension nouns concept and my list of new vocabularies to learn suddenly changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words were usually presented as: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* sagitta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* pecunia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, they indicate the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* casa, -ae, fem&#xD;&#xA;* cena, -ae, fem,&#xD;&#xA;* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the -ae is nominative plural? Of what use is this indication? I feel like there's something I'm missing here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8089" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2231" RevisionGUID="d4ea0494-7caf-4e41-bf71-c14a8b6b0224" CreationDate="2016-12-23T17:42:55.390" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why do Latin nouns (like cena, -ae) include two forms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8091" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2237" RevisionGUID="cf8391c1-08fe-4fe8-83b9-1c023083c480" CreationDate="2016-12-23T17:52:09.347" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|medieval-latin|orthography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2228" RevisionGUID="81319a61-983a-4048-8e46-f6445df3363d" CreationDate="2016-12-23T17:55:11.780" UserId="79" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="The dictionaries I have checked give translations for both *plus* and *magis*, and they seem to have a different tone.&#xD;&#xA;However, I have found no comparison between the two.&#xD;&#xA;They both mean &quot;more&quot; one way or another.&#xA;I know *plus* is also a comparative adjective but I am interested in the adverbial use.&#xA;What is the difference between these two adverbs?&#xD;&#xA;When is one correct and the other one wrong?&#xD;&#xA;Are there cases where they both work and mean the same thing?&#xD;&#xA;Or cases where both are grammatical but the meaning is different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2238" RevisionGUID="7634ad52-fecf-46e1-86f6-b935d2b8824d" CreationDate="2016-12-23T18:04:36.933" UserId="45" Comment="added 204 characters in body" Text="[Here is a better photocopy of the text in question from Google Books](https://books.google.com/books?id=8BNCAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=RA18-PT25)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a pseudo-medical discussion of the healing properties of a [hoopoe](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoopoe) (Latin: *upupa, -ae*], which is a type of bird. I am not familiar with the source text, but it definitely straddles the domain of quackery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the first sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Upupae caro est austera, et in pulvere eius est virtus iuvativa contra morsum cancri, decollatur et scinditur et fit ex eis emplastrum super locum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rough translation: (Comments welcome...the Latin is a little strange.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The flesh of the hoopoe is harsh[-tasting], and it has a healing power against crab bites when it is ground up into powder: The head is removed, it is cut in two, and from these parts a bandage can be made over the place of the bite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lingua upupae suspensa super obliviosum reducit ad memoriam ea, quae oblitus est. Quando suffumigatur quis cum penna eius, expelluntur vermes. Si suspendatur oculus eius supra leprosum, cessat lepra. Corium upupae positum super eum qui patitur dolorem capitis, sedat dolorem. Dixerunt, si suspendatur dens hominis et ala upupae dextra, et suspendatur capiti hominis dormientis, non excitabitur, donec auferatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll resist providing a translation for now, but suffice it to say that it is &quot;rich.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few comments about your attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You forgot the big initial &quot;U.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* In most documents printed at this time, &quot;s&quot; was printed almost like an &quot;f&quot; without the cross. In addition, it is often combined by ligature to the next letter, as in &quot;st.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* A line over a vowel (as in cotra) indicates an omitted *n* or *m*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest of your errors probably are unavoidable without some knowledge of Latin vocabulary, especially in a low resolution copy like yours. &quot;Iuvativa&quot; would definitely be hard to guess if you didn't already know it was a word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2239" RevisionGUID="47c3b36c-abd1-4a99-a5df-7e886f9143b1" CreationDate="2016-12-23T19:30:18.127" UserId="235" Text="I'm curious to know what the difference is between *fessus* and *defessus*. Is *de-* simply acting as an intensifying prefix? Suppose I were tired at the end of night, and wanted to go to sleep. Would I say *sum defessus* or *sum fessus*? Or suppose an athlete, after running a long race, was exhausted at the end. Which would be the right choice here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, which is more common in the Classical Latin corpus? Do authors choose to use one over the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2239" RevisionGUID="47c3b36c-abd1-4a99-a5df-7e886f9143b1" CreationDate="2016-12-23T19:30:18.127" UserId="235" Text="What's the difference between fessus and defessus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2239" RevisionGUID="47c3b36c-abd1-4a99-a5df-7e886f9143b1" CreationDate="2016-12-23T19:30:18.127" UserId="235" Text="|meaning|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8104" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2138" RevisionGUID="c0180771-80c9-4cc5-9e65-3c76e445746c" CreationDate="2016-12-23T19:37:19.863" UserId="75" Comment="14" />
  <row Id="8105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2239" RevisionGUID="07cf1f17-c505-4956-bac5-e295da482a3d" CreationDate="2016-12-23T19:38:00.883" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="I'm curious to know what the difference is between *fessus* and *defessus*. Is *de-* simply acting as an intensifying prefix? Suppose I were tired at the end of night, and wanted to go to sleep. Would I say *sum defessus* or *sum fessus*? Or suppose an athlete, after running a long race, was exhausted at the end. Which would be the right choice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, which is more common in Latin literature? Do authors tend to choose one over the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2240" RevisionGUID="e16c1634-e055-4227-97c4-67f3cc2863f7" CreationDate="2016-12-23T20:59:35.837" UserId="45" Text="## Usage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short glosses [*fessus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfessus) as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wearied, tired, fatigued; worn out, weak, feeble, infirm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It lists *defessus* (which is the past participle of [*dēfĕtiscor*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddefetiscor) as a synonym. It has a similar meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to become tired or wearied; to grow weary, faint; to be exhausted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, this isn't helpful. Our breakthrough comes, though, when we realize that [*de-*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=d%C4%93&amp;la=la&amp;can=d%C4%930&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=de1&amp;i=1#lexicon) can function as an *intensifying prefix*, as in L&amp;S II.2.c., which includes many examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **With reference to the terminus of the action:** defero, defigo, demitto, etc.; **hence also trop., with reference to the extent of the action, to the uttermost, to exhaustion, throughout**: debacchor, debello, dedolo, delino, delibuo, etc.: defatigo, delaboro, delasso, etc.; **hence freq. a mere strengthening of the fundamental idea, = valde, thoroughly, much:** demiror, demitigo, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is almost certainly in this sense that *defessus* indicates a more thorough exhaustion than *fessus*. This is confirmed by the [*Copious and Critical Latin-English Dictionary*](https://books.google.com/books?id=-qpFAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA368&amp;lpg=PA368&amp;dq=fessus+defessus):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Defessus**: entirely exhausted **so as to be obliged to give up**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This aspect of &quot;giving up&quot; appears in other comparative works as well (such as [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=pWQZAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA292&amp;lpg=PA292&amp;dq=fessus+defessus)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's impossible to speak of rules, here, but the nuance appears to be something like the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Defessus sum quaeritando.** --*I am tired of looking [so I am stopping].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Fessus sum quaeritando.** --*I am tired of looking.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples don't include this &quot;stopping&quot; nuance, in which case you are safe to assume that it just is intensitive, e.g. &quot;I am *very* tired&quot; or &quot;I am exhausted.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Frequency&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both forms are listed as frequent in classical Latin, though *fessus* is about five times more frequent. This is a difference between *common* and *extremely common*, and both are easily understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *defessus*: [132 matches in the Packhum Corpus](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23defess)&#xD;&#xA;* *fessus*: [640 matches in the Packhum Corpus](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23fess)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2241" RevisionGUID="193df2d9-a044-4751-8098-9cff18a31f1b" CreationDate="2016-12-23T23:16:02.013" UserId="235" Text="Some time ago, my friend shared with me a word from Ancient Greek that signifies an interesting concept. The concept is knowing when it is okay to break rules. Unfortunately, I quickly forgot the word that he mentioned, but I thought that maybe you guys could help me find it. Is anyone here familiar with this concept, and with any Ancient Greek words that name this concept? Does a similar word or concept exist in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8109" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2241" RevisionGUID="193df2d9-a044-4751-8098-9cff18a31f1b" CreationDate="2016-12-23T23:16:02.013" UserId="235" Text="What Ancient Greek word or idea signifies a knowledge of when to break the rules?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8110" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2241" RevisionGUID="193df2d9-a044-4751-8098-9cff18a31f1b" CreationDate="2016-12-23T23:16:02.013" UserId="235" Text="|greek|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2241" RevisionGUID="9b7d5b90-71bc-45f3-997c-976f96c36acb" CreationDate="2016-12-23T23:23:19.787" UserId="235" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="Some time ago, my friend shared with me a word from Ancient Greek that signifies an interesting concept. The concept is knowing when it is okay to break rules. Unfortunately, I quickly forgot the word that he mentioned, but I thought that maybe you guys could help me find it. Is anyone here familiar with this concept, and with any Ancient Greek words that name this concept? Does a similar word or concept exist in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, the concept is not about condoning immoral actions, but rather, when breaking the rules is the right thing to do, or the wisest course of action. The rules I'm referring to could either be laws, norms, or your own habits or customs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2242" RevisionGUID="eb272a7d-2794-41d6-9175-83891dbb25db" CreationDate="2016-12-23T23:48:22.553" UserId="75" Text="In English, I would say that you are describing something such as “prudence” or “discretion.” Dictionary.com (citing *Random House Dictionary*) defines “discretion” as “the power or right to decide or act according to one’s own judgment; freedom of judgment or choice.” An equivalent Greek word could be [φρόνις][1] or maybe [σωφροσύνη][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%CF%86%CF%81%CF%8C%CE%BD%CE%B9%CF%82&amp;la=greek%20%22%22 &quot;φρόνις&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%CF%83%CF%89%CF%86%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%83%CF%8D%CE%BD%CE%B7&amp;la=greek%20%22%22 &quot;σωφροσύνη&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2242" RevisionGUID="ee2a8592-e58e-4bcf-afe5-3f2f58e41029" CreationDate="2016-12-24T00:00:14.630" UserId="75" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="In English, I would say that you are describing something such as “prudence” or “discretion.” Dictionary.com (citing *Random House Dictionary*) defines “discretion” as “the power or right to decide or act according to one’s own judgment; freedom of judgment or choice.” An equivalent Greek word could be [φρόνις][1], maybe [σωφροσύνη][2], or perhaps even σοφία (commonly translated as “wisdom”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%CF%86%CF%81%CF%8C%CE%BD%CE%B9%CF%82&amp;la=greek%20%22%22 &quot;φρόνις&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%CF%83%CF%89%CF%86%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%83%CF%8D%CE%BD%CE%B7&amp;la=greek%20%22%22 &quot;σωφροσύνη&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2242" RevisionGUID="a5afd71a-5ca8-4fb4-afa8-882a913ed53f" CreationDate="2016-12-24T00:30:11.780" UserId="75" Comment="added 778 characters in body" Text="After a bit more research, I think the word you are looking for is φρόνησις. According to [Wikipedia][1],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Phronesis (Ancient Greek: φρόνησις, phronēsis) is a Greek word for a type of wisdom or intelligence. It is more specifically a type of wisdom relevant to practical things, requiring an ability to discern how or why to act virtuously and encourage practical virtue, excellence of character, in others. Phronesis was a common topic of discussion in ancient Greek philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Book 6 of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle distinguishes between two intellectual virtues which are sometimes translated as &quot;wisdom&quot;: sophia and phronesis... Phronesis also combines a capability of rational thinking, with a type of knowledge. On the one hand it requires the capability to rationally consider actions which can deliver desired effects. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Phronesis is concerned with particulars, because it is concerned with how to act in particular situations. One can learn the principles of action, but applying them in the real world, in situations one could not have foreseen, requires experience of the world. For example, if one knows that one should be honest, one might act in certain situations in ways that cause pain and offense; knowing how to apply honesty in balance with other considerations and in specific contexts requires experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phronesis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2243" RevisionGUID="2ca373c8-2ee0-4fbe-a0ef-0c5206476f2f" CreationDate="2016-12-24T03:29:56.887" UserId="1063" Text="Here I have the depondent word&#xD;&#xA;[persequor, persequi, persecutus sum, persecutum]. Following standard depondent rules, I am able to form the following (Apparently these active participles are active in both form and meaning)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Present Active participle: persequire -&gt;persequins &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Future passive participle: persequire -&gt; persequindus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfect Passive participle: persectum -&gt; persectus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Future Active Participle: persectum -&gt; persecturus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have used the presumed infinitive and the presumed perfect passive participles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, objectively all the above are wrong and I cannot find them listed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions is **where I went wrong in the above and is it possible to form case-specific, gender specific, tense specific participles from the principle parts of a depondent verb in the same way done with standard verbs**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8116" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2243" RevisionGUID="2ca373c8-2ee0-4fbe-a0ef-0c5206476f2f" CreationDate="2016-12-24T03:29:56.887" UserId="1063" Text="Formation of case-specific and gender-specific participles from depondent verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8117" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2243" RevisionGUID="2ca373c8-2ee0-4fbe-a0ef-0c5206476f2f" CreationDate="2016-12-24T03:29:56.887" UserId="1063" Text="|grammar-identification|deponent-verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8118" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2243" RevisionGUID="8cc1ac85-6b6e-4135-8aa6-e38cbb48552e" CreationDate="2016-12-24T03:38:20.793" UserId="1063" Comment="edited title" Text="Formation of participles from depondent verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8119" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="877" RevisionGUID="11a2eb0a-2240-473a-8c98-878274b84690" CreationDate="2016-12-24T03:39:31.670" UserId="45" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:45,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;brianpck&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2243" RevisionGUID="1293fef6-92b2-48b4-a205-8a88819259c8" CreationDate="2016-12-24T03:47:52.470" UserId="1063" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="Here I have the depondent word&#xD;&#xA;[persequor, persequi, persecutus sum, persecutum]. Following standard depondent rules, I am able to form the following (Apparently these active participles are active in both form and meaning)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Present Active participle: persequire -&gt;persequins &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Future passive participle: persequire -&gt; persequindus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfect Passive participle: persectum -&gt; persectus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Future Active Participle: persectum -&gt; persecturus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have used the presumed infinitive and the presumed perfect passive participles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, objectively all the above are wrong and I cannot find them listed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions is **where I went wrong in the above and is it possible to form case-specific, gender specific, tense specific participles from the principle parts of a depondent verb in the same way done with standard verbs**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your help&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I just realised that the stem should be persequ-, but persequns is still incorrect for the Present Active Participle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2237" RevisionGUID="0a254841-7611-4a67-a77b-feae0b124bc4" CreationDate="2016-12-24T03:52:24.073" UserId="1087" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I'm trying to decipher the text in a paragraph from an old Latin book (De facultatibus partium animalium, Basileae, 1544) and it's very difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my result of the first line and I would like to know if it's correct or not (then according to that line I will be able to do it with the rest of this the paragraph) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pupae caro cft aufrera, &amp; in pulucre citis eft uirtus iuuatiuk cotra&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xcLTH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2246" RevisionGUID="99b05e5e-e9d9-4434-9285-fa2232145b50" CreationDate="2016-12-24T05:36:50.747" UserId="30" Text="The present stem is *persequ-*: this can be found by removing *-or* from the end of the first person active singular *persequor*. It is a consonant stem, which gets an *-e-* in present participles: *persequens*. The same applies to the gerundive: *persequendus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The supine stem is *persecut-*: this can be found by removing *-um* from the end of the supine *persecutum*. The past participle is *persecutus*, supine stem + *-us*. The same applies to the future participle: *persecuturus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Participles are adjectives, and they can be declined like other adjectives for gender, number, and case. Participles from deponent verbs are no different, except that the past participle has an active meaning (and sometimes a present-stem-like temporal reference: ask another question if you want to know more about that). The gerundive (which I would not call a participle) is the only form of a deponent verb that can have a passive meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2247" RevisionGUID="27d5ab64-a793-4c14-bf3e-8dd734cc2ca1" CreationDate="2016-12-24T06:37:20.370" UserId="30" Text="*According to their own good pleasure* should mean &quot;arbitrarily&quot;, without heeding any specific rules. Usually, that is bad, and people are treated unfairly, without respect for any laws or moral rules. *Pro libero arbitrio* should mean &quot;according to free judgement&quot; if you translate it literally, so the translation makes sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2248" RevisionGUID="e1133bb0-05c0-4a8f-889c-5c992e226c81" CreationDate="2016-12-24T15:47:03.140" UserId="78" Text="I'm not sure about rule breaking in particular, but when I think of &quot;right time&quot; to do things, the word that first pops up in my head is **καιρός**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, we often just make the word &quot;time,&quot; though it's clearly distinct from the method of hour- and minute-keeping. Our &quot;it's the time for giving&quot; is expressed in their καιρός δόσιος. When the Scythians came with &quot;timely advice&quot;, Herodotus characterized it as &quot;ἐς καιρὸν.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't think of a particular example, but I can imagine a scenario in which someone says that it's the &quot;time to break rules&quot; using καιρός as the translation of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the ordinary word for &quot;time&quot; is χρόνος." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2249" RevisionGUID="da162249-8cec-4deb-95c6-362b2f603831" CreationDate="2016-12-24T15:56:36.973" UserDisplayName="user1052" Text="The translation and its grammar is per se correct but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Amor calefacit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doesn't mean that a characteristic of &quot;love&quot; is &quot;being warm&quot;, it means that &quot;Love(subject) warms (something)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Amor calefaciēbat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally means &quot;Love(subject) warmed (something). (And just a tip, don't use the accents in the middle of the word because it's a grammar error, you will find them in books just to help you reading words)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I would say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Amor calidus (est), sed carbo carbo est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer the word &quot;calidus&quot; (as in &quot;calidarium&quot;, a typical bath with hot water, or you can use &quot;fervens, -entis&quot; if you want to express something really hot and passionate) and its past participle because it's a better translation for &quot;Love is warming&quot;. Using this verb tense you will express the word &quot;warm&quot; as an adjective to &quot;love&quot; (look for &quot;past participle as adjective&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;Moreover I would reverse &quot;carbo est carbo&quot; with &quot;carbo carbo est&quot; because it's more correct in written Latin to put the verb at the end of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for any English mistake! And ask if you need something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2250" RevisionGUID="1ad5dbc0-21db-44ef-a21e-2e7d85c54986" CreationDate="2016-12-24T16:27:30.583" UserId="645" Text="Perhaps *Carbo calefacit tantum,nos tamen urit amor* (after Virg. Ecl. 2, 68).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coal merely warms us, but love consumes with fire." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2251" RevisionGUID="3bda8209-d4aa-4f49-a75f-186cb8216584" CreationDate="2016-12-24T20:14:57.223" UserId="79" Text="There is a verb for being warm: *calere*.&#xA;Using it, I would write:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; *Amor calet, est carbo carbo.*  &#xA;Love is warm, coal is coal.&#xA;&#xA;Chiastic word order often works nicely in such phrases of comparison.&#xA;&#xA;As mentioned in another answer, *calefacere* does not refer to the state of being warm (*calere* does!) but to the action of warming something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2252" RevisionGUID="eb0207ba-d0b7-48c9-902a-a269ddea121c" CreationDate="2016-12-24T20:43:33.437" UserId="79" Text="The Latin adverbs *plus* and *minus* mean &quot;more&quot; and &quot;less&quot;.&#xA;They are also neuter compatative adjectives.&#xA;In all languages I know these two words are used for mathematical the operations of addition and subtraction when reading formulas out loud.&#xA;I guess it was also so in Latin at some point.&#xA;&#xA;When did these words acquire this meaning?&#xA;Do we know if it happened first in Latin or in some other language?&#xA;What is known about how and why these Latin adverbs were chosen for this purpose?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8136" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2252" RevisionGUID="eb0207ba-d0b7-48c9-902a-a269ddea121c" CreationDate="2016-12-24T20:43:33.437" UserId="79" Text="When did plus and minus start to mean mathematical operations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8137" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2252" RevisionGUID="eb0207ba-d0b7-48c9-902a-a269ddea121c" CreationDate="2016-12-24T20:43:33.437" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|adverb|mathematics|comparative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8138" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2138" RevisionGUID="240f6823-dbd4-41b0-9a00-39c7a2ff781c" CreationDate="2016-12-24T21:38:39.423" UserId="75" Comment="14" />
  <row Id="8139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2253" RevisionGUID="20677969-a87d-4f64-b39c-e615f8febd8f" CreationDate="2016-12-24T23:07:06.480" UserId="324" Text="The following extract from the Oxford English Dictionary, art. &quot;plus&quot;, is perhaps of interest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The prepositional use (sense A. 1), from which all the other English&#xD;&#xA;&gt; uses developed, did not exist in Latin of any period. It probably&#xD;&#xA;&gt; originated in the commercial language of the Middle Ages (see&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discussion at minus prep., n., adv., and adj.). The signs + and −&#xD;&#xA;&gt; occur for the first time in print in J. Widmann Behende vnd Hubsche&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rechenung auff allen Kauffmanschafft (1489), a treatise on commercial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; arithmetic; but while Widmann refers to the latter as minus , the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; former is said to stand for mer (i.e. mehr ): ‘was − ist, das ist&#xD;&#xA;&gt; minus, und das + ist das mer’. So far as is known, English examples of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plus do not occur as early as those of minus .&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In a somewhat different sense, Latin plus and minus had been employed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in 1202 by Leonardo Pisano (also known as Leonardo Fibonacci) for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; excess and deficiency in the results of the two suppositions in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rule of Double Position (see position n. 2); see further M. Cantor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vorlesungen über Geschichte der Mathematik (ed. 2, 1899) II. 230–1.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As to the origin of the symbol +, the most likely is that it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; originated as one of the MS abbreviations of the Latin et ‘and’ (see&#xD;&#xA;&gt; F. Cajori Hist. Math. Notations (1928) I. iii. 229–39).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Instances of the written word (as opposed to the symbol) are rare&#xD;&#xA;&gt; before the 17th cent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article &quot;minus&quot; says more or less the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2254" RevisionGUID="4b3e03b6-c700-4e0b-8084-b6cb0c0f1a2a" CreationDate="2016-12-25T06:05:21.940" UserId="235" Text="If you wanted to translate the sentence, &quot;I want to leave the room&quot;, from English to Latin, how would you do it?&#xA;&#xA;I'm not sure which words to choose for &quot;leave&quot; and &quot;room&quot;. I made a few guesses as to each. For &quot;leave&quot;, I entertained *exeo* and *discedo*, but then I realized the first is intransitive, and I'm not sure about the second. For &quot;room&quot;, I found the word *cubiculum*, but then I realized it only means bedroom. Instead, I'm looking for a word which describes any generic room inside a house.&#xA;&#xA;Thus I'm only sure of the first word I would like to use.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Volo     _______       _______&#xA;&#xA;Appreciate any feedback!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8142" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2254" RevisionGUID="4b3e03b6-c700-4e0b-8084-b6cb0c0f1a2a" CreationDate="2016-12-25T06:05:21.940" UserId="235" Text="How do you say, &quot;I want to leave the room&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8143" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2254" RevisionGUID="4b3e03b6-c700-4e0b-8084-b6cb0c0f1a2a" CreationDate="2016-12-25T06:05:21.940" UserId="235" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|word-request|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2254" RevisionGUID="546b0eb5-8dce-4f4b-990d-0eea0cd1782c" CreationDate="2016-12-25T06:12:26.823" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; added 1 character in body" Text="If you wanted to translate the sentence, &quot;I want to leave the room&quot;, from English to Latin, how would you do it?&#xA;&#xA;I'm not sure which words to choose for &quot;leave&quot; and &quot;room&quot;. I made a few guesses as to each. For &quot;leave&quot;, I entertained *exeo* and *discedo*, but then I realized the first is intransitive, and the second might be too. For &quot;room&quot;, I found the word *cubiculum*, but then I realized it only means bedroom. Instead, I'm looking for a word which describes any generic room inside a house.&#xA;&#xA;Thus, I'm only sure of the first word I would like to use.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Volo     _______       _______&#xA;&#xA;Appreciate any feedback!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2255" RevisionGUID="71c25b97-2565-49eb-ab35-b5b52e5b5e60" CreationDate="2016-12-25T07:10:19.143" UserId="645" Text="There are several words for 'room', depending on size, purpose and location, but the most familiar is *cella*, though it's mostly a smaller and more personal place than the others. To leave a room, the usual verb is *excedo*, followed by an accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Cellam excedere volo* would be all right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2256" RevisionGUID="70868a35-da7d-4e93-b63c-5cbbb558c6ae" CreationDate="2016-12-25T09:45:12.107" UserId="79" Text="I would prefer to put *volo* in the end.&#xA;Intransitivity is no problem; you can say *ex hac re exeo*.&#xA;You can use a preposition even when the verb has a prefix.&#xA;&#xA;I think *exeo* is good, but the choice depends on the intended nuance.&#xA;If you want to walk out, I suggest *egredior*.&#xA;&#xA;There are many words for a room, and again more context would determine the optimal choice.&#xA;My typical choice for a generic room is *conclave*.&#xA;&#xA;I suggest thus:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; *E conclavi egredi volo.*&#xA;&#xA;I'm not sure if the ablative should be *conclavi* or *conclave*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2257" RevisionGUID="f8e947dc-9084-425a-b77d-0860100957af" CreationDate="2016-12-26T06:44:39.157" UserId="230" Text="So I just learned about adjectives needing to agree with their nouns in gender. If I understood correctly, an adjective that is considered to be feminine will be known because of the kind of declination that is has, right ? That's how someone will guess at its gender ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody clarrify this to me ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8149" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2257" RevisionGUID="f8e947dc-9084-425a-b77d-0860100957af" CreationDate="2016-12-26T06:44:39.157" UserId="230" Text="How are adjectives shown to agree in gender with a noun?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8150" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2257" RevisionGUID="f8e947dc-9084-425a-b77d-0860100957af" CreationDate="2016-12-26T06:44:39.157" UserId="230" Text="|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2258" RevisionGUID="a1585a2b-a796-4a7b-a79c-d3f5d87c34b1" CreationDate="2016-12-26T13:33:56.327" UserId="828" Text="Adjetives declines pretty similarly to typical nouns (with a few notable exceptions in consonant stem declensions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun declension principles are generally this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a-stems:** in vast majority of cases, these are **feminines**; there are however few exceptions, where an a-stem noun is a masculine (*poeta*, *agricola*, etc.) - some of these exceptions come from Greek, some are native.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**o-stems - -us ending:** in overwhelmingly  vast majority of cases, these are **masculines**, with few exceptions that are feminines (*hodus*, *methodus*) - I am not aware of any that do not come from Greek (also do not confuse with u-stems ending with -us, these can be both M/F but decline very differently)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**o-stems - -um ending:** these are always neuters (unless they are masculines in accusative case that you interpret incorrectly, hahaha).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adjectives follow these principles, they just do not have any exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: servus *bonus*, agricola *bonus*, iudex *bonus*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; F: femina *bona*, methodus *bona*, arx *bona*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that adjectives do not have exceptional cases and they have to agree with the gender of the noun (for feminine noun, regardless of its declension type, the adjective will always assume its feminine form), when you read a text that contains noun + adjective, you can often determine the gender of the noun based on the adjective (again, unless it is in a case whose ending does not distinguish this fully, like dative/ablative plural).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, then you have also consonant stem adjectives that decline like third declension nouns and here, you will typically not be able to distinguish the gender except for specific cases and specific adjectives, but that is more advanced stuff when you learn Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2258" RevisionGUID="3a0ec74b-9341-4c94-a797-2912b35ca778" CreationDate="2016-12-26T13:39:19.757" UserId="828" Comment="added 189 characters in body" Text="Adjetives declines pretty similarly to typical nouns (with a few notable exceptions in consonant stem declensions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **noun declension** principles are generally this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a-stems:** in vast majority of cases, these are **feminines**; there are however few exceptions, where an a-stem noun is a masculine (*poeta*, *agricola*, etc.) - some of these exceptions come from Greek, some are native.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**o-stems - -us ending:** in overwhelmingly  vast majority of cases, these are **masculines**, with few exceptions that are feminines (*hodus*, *methodus*) - I am not aware of any that do not come from Greek (also do not confuse with u-stems ending with -us, these can be both M/F but decline very differently)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**o-stems - -um ending:** these are always neuters (unless they are masculines in accusative case that you interpret incorrectly, hahaha).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Adjectives** follow these principles during declension, they just do not have any exceptions. Also take note that an adjective can (and in most cases does) have the 3 different forms for the three genders (-a, -us, -um) because they do not have intrinsic gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: servus *bonus*, agricola *bonus*, iudex *bonus*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; F: femina *bona*, methodus *bona*, arx *bona*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that adjectives do not have exceptional cases and they have to agree with the gender of the noun (for feminine noun, regardless of its declension type, the adjective will always assume its feminine form), when you read a text that contains noun + adjective, you can often determine the gender of the noun based on the adjective (again, unless it is in a case whose ending does not distinguish this fully, like dative/ablative plural).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, then you have also consonant stem adjectives that decline like third declension nouns and here, you will typically not be able to distinguish the gender except for specific cases and specific adjectives, but that is more advanced stuff when you learn Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2257" RevisionGUID="44cc1779-7de0-4568-a24d-b5de5038f722" CreationDate="2016-12-26T19:40:40.127" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="So I just learned about adjectives needing to agree with their nouns in gender. If I understood correctly, an adjective that is considered to be feminine will be known because of the kind of declination that is has, right? That's how someone will guess at its gender?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody clarify this to me? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8154" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2257" RevisionGUID="44cc1779-7de0-4568-a24d-b5de5038f722" CreationDate="2016-12-26T19:40:40.127" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-identification|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2259" RevisionGUID="5fde25a0-2530-4bf7-bcaa-c9404ac2701f" CreationDate="2016-12-26T20:36:20.930" UserId="79" Text="There are some traditional songs that are very repetitive and involve counting up or down.&#xD;&#xA;The only English example I know is &quot;99 bottles of beer&quot;, and I know two in Finnish: &quot;the elephant march&quot; (elefanttimarssi) and &quot;three crows&quot; (kolme varista), where on counts elephants up from one or crows down from three.&#xD;&#xA;There must be numerous examples out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there similar songs or poems in Latin where you count up or down?&#xD;&#xA;Classical metric poetry is not flexible for things like this, but songs or poems from later eras could do it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8165" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2259" RevisionGUID="5fde25a0-2530-4bf7-bcaa-c9404ac2701f" CreationDate="2016-12-26T20:36:20.930" UserId="79" Text="A counting poem or song" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8166" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2259" RevisionGUID="5fde25a0-2530-4bf7-bcaa-c9404ac2701f" CreationDate="2016-12-26T20:36:20.930" UserId="79" Text="|numbers|numerals|music|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2260" RevisionGUID="ef54d2fa-53d5-4f28-90eb-547bf7c37305" CreationDate="2016-12-26T20:41:56.137" UserId="253" Text="You are probably looking for the words ἐπιείκεια and γνώμη. The former word is often translated &quot;equity&quot; and is described by Aristotle in *Nicomachean Ethics*, bk. 6, ch. 10 as a sort of correction to a universal rule or law that is in keeping with the spirit of the law.  Plato had discussed a case in which the law might need correction in his *Republic* when talking about whether it is just to return someone's sword if that person has gone insane.  This is a paradigmatic case calling for equity. In *Nicomachean Ethics*, bk. 7, ch. 11, Aristotle describes γνώμη as the intellectual capacity helping one to make equitable judgments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin authors such as Cicero were clearly aware of this notion. For instance, he states that you should not return the sword to the insane person in [*De Officiis*, bk. 3, n. 95][1]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si gladium quis apud te sana mente deposuerit, repetat insaniens, reddere peccatum sit, officium non reddere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the recovery of Aristotle in the Latin west in Medieval times, these issues were again discussed by Aristotle's scholastic followers such as Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas notes that the term ἐπιείκεια corresponds to the Latin word *aequitas* in the following passage from his [*Summa*, II-II, q. 120][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; . . . Et ad hoc ordinatur epieikeia, quae apud nos dicitur aequitas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aquinas also discusses γνώμη but does not indicate a Latin equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/off3.shtml#95&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/SS/SS120.html#SSQ120OUTP1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2261" RevisionGUID="75cbe14a-85f0-49d3-acc6-faadac83c3b8" CreationDate="2016-12-27T05:53:07.367" UserId="235" Text="In the Vulgate bible, I encountered the sentence,&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Eritque Israel in proverbium, et in fabulam cunctis populis.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; And Israel will be a proverb, and a story for all people.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; (1 Kings 9:7)&#xA;&#xA;I'm curious to know if this construction with &quot;in&quot; is common. Personally, I don't see a need for the preposition, and am unsure why the nouns &quot;proverbium&quot; and &quot;fabulam&quot; are not put in the nominative. &#xA;&#xA;Furthermore, I'm interested to know how common the adjective &quot;cunctus&quot; is. Is there any difference between &quot;cunctus&quot; and &quot;omnis&quot;? Why choose one over the other?&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8170" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2261" RevisionGUID="75cbe14a-85f0-49d3-acc6-faadac83c3b8" CreationDate="2016-12-27T05:53:07.367" UserId="235" Text="What's the logic behind &quot;eritque Israel in proverbium&quot; (Vulgate bible)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8171" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2261" RevisionGUID="75cbe14a-85f0-49d3-acc6-faadac83c3b8" CreationDate="2016-12-27T05:53:07.367" UserId="235" Text="|syntax|vulgata|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2262" RevisionGUID="511663d3-779f-4c98-8ba3-ccf94e315e65" CreationDate="2016-12-27T07:26:01.390" UserId="40" Text="There are a lot of Hebraisms in Latin and Greek translations of the Old Testament, and I'm guessing this is one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Hebrew reads *vehaya Yisrael le-mashal u-le-shnina be-khol ha-amim*, literally &quot;and Israel will be to/for a proverb and to/for a story in all the nations&quot;. The Latin *in* seems to be an over-literal translation of the Hebrew preposition *le*. The odd thing is that this Hebrew usage actually has a close Latin parallel in the &quot;double dative&quot; construction, so one might have expected that to be used here: *erit proverbio omnibus populis*. Why this was not chosen, I don't know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2263" RevisionGUID="ddfab2d3-683e-4786-bb40-41db4e916d0d" CreationDate="2016-12-27T10:53:32.263" UserId="1003" Text="How to understand a meaning of the infinitive 'habere' here, is it here as a subject (The Infinitive as a Subject, Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge, page 275)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nam cum posse existere potentia sit, sequitur quo plus realitatis alicujus rei naturæ competit *eo plus virium a se* **habere** *ut existat* adeoque Ens absolute infinitum sive Deum infinitam absolute potentiam existendi a se habere, qui propterea absolute existit.  (Spinoza, Ethics)&lt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For, as the potentiality of existence is a power, it follows that, in proportion as reality increases in the nature of a thing, so also will it increase its strength for existence. Therefore a being absolutely infinite, such as God, has from himself an absolutely infinite power of existence, and hence he does absolutely exist. (R.H.M.Elwes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;eo plus virium a se **habere** ut existat &lt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;..., more strength from itself (it would) possess in order to exist,..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8174" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2263" RevisionGUID="ddfab2d3-683e-4786-bb40-41db4e916d0d" CreationDate="2016-12-27T10:53:32.263" UserId="1003" Text="Infinitive ' habere ' usage in this sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8175" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2263" RevisionGUID="ddfab2d3-683e-4786-bb40-41db4e916d0d" CreationDate="2016-12-27T10:53:32.263" UserId="1003" Text="|grammar-choice|new-latin|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2264" RevisionGUID="5954f7e6-074a-4326-bf3e-24b3c1747bc8" CreationDate="2016-12-27T12:09:25.417" UserId="645" Text="The extended context in the Vulgate is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*. . . et templum quod sanctificavi nomini meo, projiciam a conspectu meo, eritque Israel in proverbium, et in fabulam cunctis populis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the Vulgate was, and is, regarded as a remarkable and even brilliant work of translation, the result is not always infallible, and the Latin not always exactly classical. Dare I suggest that the insertion of *vertum* (in agreement with *templum* and completing the future perfect *erit vertum*) after *proverbium* would make the intention more obvious? Using the Revised Version in English of 1898, this becomes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[then will I cut off Irael out of the land which I have given them:] and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall ***be turned into*** a proverb and a by word among all peoples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Cunctus* differs little from *omnis*. It may be a little stronger through indicating [objects] in unison, all together, etc. rather than simply 'all' — just as in English we might say for emphasis 'the whole lot together' instead of just 'all of them'.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2265" RevisionGUID="8b45cf8f-4459-44cf-8fe0-6f5511559cb7" CreationDate="2016-12-27T12:39:18.760" UserId="1003" Text="I take it is an adverb, perhaps? Encountered this in new Latin, more precisely in Spinoza's Ethics. It is translated as 'only', but it is not in my dictionary, so I would like to know what is the exact meaning. Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;...*quia assueti sunt eas **solummodo** res contemplari quæ a causis externis fiunt*...,  &lt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8179" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2265" RevisionGUID="8b45cf8f-4459-44cf-8fe0-6f5511559cb7" CreationDate="2016-12-27T12:39:18.760" UserId="1003" Text="What is the exact translation of 'solummodo'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8180" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2265" RevisionGUID="8b45cf8f-4459-44cf-8fe0-6f5511559cb7" CreationDate="2016-12-27T12:39:18.760" UserId="1003" Text="|translation|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2266" RevisionGUID="a39f03d3-7182-44b7-a4c7-113c8b3755dc" CreationDate="2016-12-27T13:01:13.890" UserId="1098" Text="A fantastic read if you're aimed down that rabbit hole would be Guy Deutscher, Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages, New York 2010&#xD;&#xA;He quotes &quot;Lyons, J. 1999. Vocabulary of color with particular reference to ancient Greek and classical Latin. In The language of color in the Mediterranean, ed. A. Borg, 38–75. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A major theme throughout the book would be the perception of color as mirrored in language. Starting with ancient Greek and what appears to be their surprisingly limited vocabulary for describing colors (anything from sea to oxen to violets are referred to as &quot;wine-dark&quot; by Homer) he follows the evolution of languages and describes an oddly recurring pattern of which colors are referred to by name prior to others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2266" RevisionGUID="8390c124-0d88-4515-a931-d9f0f6611af7" CreationDate="2016-12-27T13:11:07.320" UserId="1098" Comment="Example added" Text="A fantastic read if you're aimed down that rabbit hole would be Guy Deutscher, Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages, New York 2010.&#xD;&#xA;He quotes &quot;Lyons, J. 1999. Vocabulary of color with particular reference to ancient Greek and classical Latin. In The language of color in the Mediterranean, ed. A. Borg, 38–75. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A major theme throughout the book would be the perception of color as mirrored in language. Starting with ancient Greek and Latin and what appears to be their surprisingly limited vocabulary for describing colors (anything from sea to oxen to violets are referred to as &quot;wine-dark&quot; by Homer) Deutscher follows the evolution of languages and describes an oddly recurring pattern of which colors are referred to by name prior to others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deutscher shows that the assignation of a language to a well-known and named primary color is highly dependant on cultural background. One of the examples that are easily imagined are those of shades of turquoise - while some people would classify a certain shade as &quot;green&quot;, those of a different sociocultural (and linguistic) background would insist on the same color swatch being &quot;blue&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2264" RevisionGUID="e0d3fc1b-38b2-4bd6-b486-8daaa278def1" CreationDate="2016-12-27T15:14:51.967" UserId="645" Comment="sp. corr." Text="The extended context in the Vulgate is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*. . . et templum quod sanctificavi nomini meo, projiciam a conspectu meo, eritque Israel in proverbium, et in fabulam cunctis populis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the Vulgate was, and is, regarded as a remarkable and even brilliant work of translation, the result is not always infallible, and the Latin not always exactly classical. Dare I suggest that the insertion of *vertum* (in agreement with *templum* and completing the future perfect *erit vertum*) after *proverbium* would make the intention more obvious? Using the Revised Version in English of 1898, this becomes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them:] and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall ***be turned into*** a proverb and a by word among all peoples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Cunctus* differs little from *omnis*. It may be a little stronger through indicating [objects] in unison, all together, etc. rather than simply 'all' — just as in English we might say for emphasis 'the whole lot together' instead of just 'all of them'.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2267" RevisionGUID="48ae18ac-9bf9-4c61-a19e-33340039afae" CreationDate="2016-12-27T16:11:08.533" UserId="78" Text="You can find it under the *solus* dictionary entry in [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=solum&amp;la=la#lexicon):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Strengthened by modo, and joined with it in one word, **sōlummŏdo** (only late Lat., for the true reading, Plin. 34, 8, 19, § 92, is unam tantum, Jan. Detlef.; “whereas tantummodo is class.): de exercitore solummodo Praetor sentit,” Dig. 4, 9, 1, § 2: “pretii solummodo fieri aestimationem,” ib. 9, 2, 23, § 1; 11, 5, 1, § 3; 28, 5, 1, § 1; Quint. Decl. 247; Tert. Res. Carn. 26; Hier. Ep. 12.—" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2267" RevisionGUID="e0357845-d340-4a8d-82e4-80fe5e7acc9d" CreationDate="2016-12-27T16:36:21.803" UserId="78" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="You can find it under the *solus* dictionary entry in [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=solum&amp;la=la#lexicon):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Strengthened by modo, and joined with it in one word, **sōlummŏdo** (only late Lat., for the true reading, Plin. 34, 8, 19, § 92, is unam tantum, Jan. Detlef.; “whereas tantummodo is class.): de exercitore solummodo Praetor sentit,” Dig. 4, 9, 1, § 2: “pretii solummodo fieri aestimationem,” ib. 9, 2, 23, § 1; 11, 5, 1, § 3; 28, 5, 1, § 1; Quint. Decl. 247; Tert. Res. Carn. 26; Hier. Ep. 12.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it means &quot;only&quot;, it's just a stronger version of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2268" RevisionGUID="100af413-7a54-4885-9649-0238530a0a2f" CreationDate="2016-12-27T18:58:33.107" UserId="985" Text="_Accusativum cum infinitivo_ triggered by _sequitur_, though the accusative has been ellipsed: 'it follows that it has...'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This use falls under definition 7 of *sequor* in the *Oxford Latin Dictionary*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7 To follow from (a premiss), follow logically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Attestations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (_w. acc. and inf._) nec si omne enuntiatum aut uerum aut falsum est, ~quitur ilico esse causas immutabilis .. quae .. Cic. _Fat._ 28; Lucr. 3.665." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2262" RevisionGUID="b2c5ccec-9253-440a-afcc-3382367e956d" CreationDate="2016-12-27T19:35:32.103" UserId="40" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="There are a lot of Hebraisms in Latin and Greek translations of the Old Testament, and I'm guessing this is one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Hebrew reads (diacritics omitted) *we-haya Yisrael le-mashal u-le-shnina be-khol ha-`amim*, literally &quot;and Israel will be to/for a proverb and to/for a story in all the nations&quot;. The Latin *in* seems to be an over-literal translation of the Hebrew preposition *le*. The odd thing is that this Hebrew usage actually has a close Latin parallel in the &quot;double dative&quot; construction, so one might have expected that to be used here: *erit proverbio omnibus populis*. Why this was not chosen, I don't know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2269" RevisionGUID="8c9c601b-f6a3-4b6c-8e6a-14fd2c10b772" CreationDate="2016-12-27T19:45:29.640" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8191" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2269" RevisionGUID="8c9c601b-f6a3-4b6c-8e6a-14fd2c10b772" CreationDate="2016-12-27T19:45:29.640" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2270" RevisionGUID="1b3c772f-2eb6-45e8-8323-5614e548c59c" CreationDate="2016-12-27T19:45:29.640" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8193" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2270" RevisionGUID="1b3c772f-2eb6-45e8-8323-5614e548c59c" CreationDate="2016-12-27T19:45:29.640" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8194" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2265" RevisionGUID="938d61d0-5cb8-4cef-8a09-be77e054e744" CreationDate="2016-12-27T20:25:21.087" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|vocabulary|new-latin|adverb|spinoza|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8195" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2263" RevisionGUID="a639f5e0-1831-4ef5-8fba-0d98e87e3947" CreationDate="2016-12-27T20:26:41.577" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|new-latin|grammar-identification|spinoza|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2271" RevisionGUID="9e17b508-321b-4d8c-8016-eae368190c01" CreationDate="2016-12-27T20:52:43.400" UserId="75" Text="In Hebrew, we often find the verb הָיָה (*hayah*) followed by the preposition ל prefixed to a noun used to indicate that **something became something** (i.q. Latin *est factum quiddam in quiddam*).&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the verb הָיָה, Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius wrote,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Gesenius, הָיָה, p. 221][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in Gen. 2:7, it is written: וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה—“and Adam became a living soul.” Since the preposition ל is commonly translated as “into,”&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; we English readers may wish to translate the phrase into English as “and Adam became into a living soul,” but of course, we need to accept that it is a Hebrew idiom that does not require such a literal translation into English. The idea is simply that Adam became a living soul. As you might expect, Jerome translated the Hebrew into Latin as *et factus est homo **in** animam viventem*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, Jerome did not always maintain the same rigid syntax elsewhere. For example, the infamous «καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο» of John 1:14 (“and the Word became flesh”) he translated into Latin as *et Verbum caro factum est* rather than *et Verbum in carnem factum est*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, rather than interpreting the Latin as “something became something” (essentially middle voice), it would be acceptable to interpret it as “something was made into something” (passive voice), and that may be what Jerome had in mind when he translated those phrases into Latin with the inclusion of the preposition *in*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gesenius, Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm. [*Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures.*][2] Trans. Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux. London: Bagster, 1860.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; p. [221][3]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; p. [422][4], ל, (A) (3)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZRQih.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=E80OAAAAQAAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=E80OAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PR221#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=true&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=E80OAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PR422#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=true" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2272" RevisionGUID="b43a9a39-90b7-4bbe-94fa-17e8c67c21a0" CreationDate="2016-12-27T21:25:20.030" UserId="79" Text="I would like to find a good Latin word for &quot;living room&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I know some options, but my list might not be complete and I am not sure what is the best choice.&#xD;&#xA;It may well be that different words are needed for different kinds of living rooms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you translate &quot;living room&quot; to Latin and why?&#xD;&#xA;Would you use the same word (or longer phrase) for all kinds of living rooms, or are different words better in different situations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are my suggestions with some commentary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Conclave*: This is a good overall word for &quot;room&quot;. It has the tone of &quot;something that can be locked up&quot;. I think it is a good general word for &quot;room&quot;, but it alone does not mean &quot;living room&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- *Atrium*: Has the meaning of &quot;main room&quot;, but also the tone of &quot;entrance&quot;. If many other rooms are accessed through the living room, I would be tempted to use this word.&#xD;&#xA;- *Aula*: Sounds overly grandiose. Feels more like &quot;inner court&quot; than &quot;living room&quot; to me.&#xD;&#xA;- *Cella*: Sounds more like &quot;chamber&quot; or &quot;small room&quot; than &quot;living room&quot; to me. Could work with an added adjective.&#xD;&#xA;- *Habitatio*: This means &quot;dwelling&quot;. It comes from the verb *habitare*, which conveys the meaning of a &quot;living room&quot; nicely. This is the translation suggested in my Finnish&amp;ndash;Latin&amp;ndash;Finnish dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;- Adjectives: Perhaps it would be best to use an adjective. We use two words in English, too. Something like *conclave habitativum* surely gets the point across, but something sounds fishy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question arose in connection with my answer to [this earlier question about leaving a room](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2254/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8198" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2272" RevisionGUID="b43a9a39-90b7-4bbe-94fa-17e8c67c21a0" CreationDate="2016-12-27T21:25:20.030" UserId="79" Text="What is &quot;living room&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8199" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2272" RevisionGUID="b43a9a39-90b7-4bbe-94fa-17e8c67c21a0" CreationDate="2016-12-27T21:25:20.030" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|architecture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2273" RevisionGUID="71645ee0-2ab0-4a2d-9cd3-e4b54f678faf" CreationDate="2016-12-28T13:20:24.643" UserId="645" Text="Since classical sources usually refer only to the dwellings of the upper classes and better-off citizens, our knowledge is restricted to the terms in common use there. In either *domus* or *villa* there are one or two choices for 'living room'. After the defeat of Corinth in 146 BC, the Romans took much of value (in all senses) from the Greeks, including architectural ideas and terms, among which are words for various rooms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want the room where family members go for relaxation or where women foregather for their own pursuits (such as spinning and weaving), *oecus* is not a bad choice (adopted from Greek οίκος). It was often spacious and might be used for dining if the house did not contain a room (otherwise a *triclinium* or *coenatio*) dedicated to the purpose. An *exedra* was a room used for conversation and social gatherings and may also be appropriate, as may also *camera*, which in a *domus* is a room with a vaulted ceiling. There is also *diaeta*, a suite of rooms reserved to particular users for their own purposes, which might serve as 'living room'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We depend for such words on deduction from a variety of texts, observation from buildings of known function and speculation on archaeological finds." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2270" RevisionGUID="1eb081e1-1269-4f7f-9628-c5236c70c50a" CreationDate="2016-12-28T18:18:35.317" UserId="840" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="Questions related to strategies, methods or techniques for learning Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8202" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2270" RevisionGUID="1eb081e1-1269-4f7f-9628-c5236c70c50a" CreationDate="2016-12-28T18:18:35.317" Comment="Proposed by 840 approved by 12 edit id of 161" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2271" RevisionGUID="a41707c2-17bd-49ab-8ca0-6882e27428ff" CreationDate="2016-12-29T00:49:44.620" UserId="75" Comment="added 281 characters in body" Text="In Hebrew, we often find the verb הָיָה (*hāyâ*) followed by the preposition ל prefixed to a noun used to indicate that **something was made into something** (i.q. Latin *est factum quiddam in quiddam*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the verb הָיָה, Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius wrote,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Gesenius, הָיָה, p. 221][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in [Gen. 2:7][2], it is written: וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה (*wayhî hāʾādām lĕnepeš ḥayyâ*)—“and Adam became a living soul.” Since the preposition ל is commonly translated as “into,”&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; we English readers may wish to translate the phrase into English as “and Adam became **into** a living soul,” but of course, we need to accept that it is a Hebrew idiom that does not require such a literal translation into English. The idea is simply that Adam became a living soul. As you might expect, Jerome translated the Hebrew into Latin as *et factus est homo **in** animam viventem*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, Jerome did not always maintain the same rigid syntax elsewhere. For example, in his translation of [Num. 26:10][3], he translated the Hebrew וַיִּהְיוּ לְנֵס (*wayyihyû lĕnēs*) into Latin as *et factum est grande miraculum*, thus omitting the preposition *in*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, rather than interpreting the Latin as “something became something” (essentially middle voice), it would be acceptable to interpret it as “something was made **into** something” (passive voice), and that may be what Jerome had in mind when he translated those phrases into Latin with the inclusion of the preposition *in*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gesenius, Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm. [*Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures.*][4] Trans. Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux. London: Bagster, 1860.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; p. [221][5]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; p. [422][6], ל, (A) (3)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZRQih.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis2:7&amp;version=WLC;VULGATE;KJV &quot;Gen. 2:7, WLC, Vul, KJV&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers26:10&amp;version=WLC;VULGATE;KJV &quot;Num. 26:10, WLC, Vul, KJV&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=E80OAAAAQAAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?id=E80OAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PR221#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=true&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=E80OAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PR422#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=true" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2274" RevisionGUID="1794daea-37ea-489f-ad58-f565e6badcc2" CreationDate="2016-12-29T02:10:46.193" UserId="235" Text="On its [December 23rd broadcast,][1] Nuntii Latini had this to say about Angela Merkel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Angela Merkel, cancellaria foederalis Germaniae, se una cum propinquis et amicis eorum, qui strage Berolinensi mortui erant, dolere dixit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had difficulty translating this, at first, but then I realized that &quot;se&quot; can be nothing other than the object of &quot;dixit&quot;. In fact, I think it probably qualifies as an *accusitivus cum infinitivo*, where &quot;se&quot; is in the accusative and &quot;dolere&quot; is the accompanying infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I produced the following translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Angela Merkel, Federal Chancellor of Germany, declared herself one to grieve with the friends and neighbors of those who had been killed in the Berlin massacre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to know whether this is a correct and idiomatic translation. Furthermore, is the construction &quot;se una cum [...] dolere dixit&quot; a classical idiom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://areena.yle.fi/1-3790762?autoplay=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8208" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2274" RevisionGUID="1794daea-37ea-489f-ad58-f565e6badcc2" CreationDate="2016-12-29T02:10:46.193" UserId="235" Text="Unsure about my translation of &quot;se una cum propinquis et amicis eorum ... dolere dixit&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8209" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2274" RevisionGUID="1794daea-37ea-489f-ad58-f565e6badcc2" CreationDate="2016-12-29T02:10:46.193" UserId="235" Text="|idiom|accusativus-cum-infinitivo|nuntii-latini|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2274" RevisionGUID="fcfeb669-0284-47bf-8de9-0bed1b3638b7" CreationDate="2016-12-29T02:25:57.590" UserId="235" Comment="added 199 characters in body" Text="On its [December 23rd broadcast,][1] Nuntii Latini had this to say about Angela Merkel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Angela Merkel, cancellaria foederalis Germaniae, se una cum propinquis et amicis eorum, qui strage Berolinensi mortui erant, dolere dixit. Se nolle Germanos metu malitiae deprimi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had difficulty translating this, at first, but then I realized that the two sentences are probably using an *accusativus cum infinitivo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Angela Merkel, Federal Chancellor of Germany, said she is one to grieve with the friends and neighbors of those who had been killed in the Berlin massacre. [She said] she did not want Germans to be depressed by fear of evil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I first wanted to know if I'm correct in assuming that the &quot;dixit&quot; in the first sentence is implied in the second. But I'm also curious if my overall translation is correct. I feel like there may have been places where I could have translated it more idiomatically. For example, &quot;said she is one to grieve&quot; makes me a little doubtful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, is the construction &quot;se una cum [...] dolere dixit&quot; a classical idiom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://areena.yle.fi/1-3790762?autoplay=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2274" RevisionGUID="452ae9ee-f65b-4cce-9ed8-4875b4aa97ee" CreationDate="2016-12-29T02:33:32.527" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 38 characters in body" Text="On its [December 23rd broadcast,][1] Nuntii Latini had this to say about Angela Merkel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Angela Merkel, cancellaria foederalis Germaniae, se una cum propinquis et amicis eorum, qui strage Berolinensi mortui erant, dolere dixit. Se nolle Germanos metu malitiae deprimi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had difficulty translating this, at first, but then I realized that the two sentences are probably using an *accusativus cum infinitivo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Angela Merkel, Federal Chancellor of Germany, said she is one to grieve with the friends and neighbors of those who had been killed in the Berlin massacre. [She said] she did not want Germans to be depressed by fear of evil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I first wanted to know if I'm correct in assuming that the &quot;dixit&quot; in the first sentence is implied in the second. Is this kind of omission common? I'm also curious whether my overall translation is correct. I feel like there may have been places where I could have been more idiomatic. For example, I'm not too comfortable with my phrasing &quot;said she is one to grieve with [...]&quot;. This is the question I put in the title, and perhaps it's my main source of discomfort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://areena.yle.fi/1-3790762?autoplay=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8212" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="2248" RevisionGUID="37e98b64-c535-4edc-9b7f-8eb1b35cf586" CreationDate="2016-12-29T03:07:55.973" UserId="78" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2275" RevisionGUID="dcec375f-03fb-44b0-97c1-5f1a9f081e33" CreationDate="2016-12-29T03:27:06.653" UserId="40" Text="The only thing you're missing is *ūnā*, which here is an adverb meaning &quot;together&quot;. See [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=unus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), part C of the entry. As for the second sentence, yes, in a multi-sentence passage of indirect discourse it's normal for the accusative and infinitive construction to continue throughout, without a repeated verb of speaking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2276" RevisionGUID="87d58970-85ff-4ee7-9c12-c6eeded4d63b" CreationDate="2016-12-29T04:36:38.467" UserId="230" Text="I have the following sentence : Quis lata in silva habitat ? Diana, lunae clarae pulchra dea, lata in silva habitat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I initially thought : &quot;Quis lata in silva habitat ?&quot; Lata, the adjective, because it's separated from the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;lunae clarae&quot; because it's a genitive that is put before &quot;pulchra dea&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;pulchra&quot; because it's an adjective that is put before the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and finally the second &quot;lata&quot; for the same reason as the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to my key : the first &quot;lata&quot; is not emphasized and neither is &quot;lunae clarae&quot; but the rest is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there something I'm missing here ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8215" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2276" RevisionGUID="87d58970-85ff-4ee7-9c12-c6eeded4d63b" CreationDate="2016-12-29T04:36:38.467" UserId="230" Text="Showing which words are emphatic in a latin sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8216" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2276" RevisionGUID="87d58970-85ff-4ee7-9c12-c6eeded4d63b" CreationDate="2016-12-29T04:36:38.467" UserId="230" Text="|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8217" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="877" RevisionGUID="7ce58714-5821-4937-8d61-b79d37f54a6d" CreationDate="2016-12-29T05:11:29.873" UserId="45" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:45,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;brianpck&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2277" RevisionGUID="bc35646c-7e64-4bdc-95ba-959a8806866a" CreationDate="2016-12-29T07:33:16.613" UserId="235" Text="This is actually a [continuation of my last question.][1] The following sentence is a little tricky, and I feel I may have missed a thing or two. I appreciate any feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &quot;Etiam hac hora difficillima&quot;, inquit, &quot;nobis vis invenienda est talem vitam vivendi, qualem eam esse volumus, scilicet liberam et apertam&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Nuntii Latini (12/23/2016)][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &quot;Even on this difficult hour,&quot; she says, &quot;the strength must be found by us to live life such as we want it to be, namely, open and free.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to get your opinion on some liberties that I took. First, I understand &quot;vivendi&quot; to be a gerund in the genitive, in which case a more literal translation would be &quot;the strength must be found by us **of** living life such as we want it to be&quot;. Is it okay to render this as &quot;to live&quot; as opposed to &quot;of living&quot;? Is it common to do so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, the &quot;talem...qualem&quot; pair was a little confusing. I thought about translating &quot;talem vitam&quot; as &quot;such a life&quot;, instead of what I ended up doing, &quot;life such&quot;. The former sounds like a more literal translation. After all, doesn't &quot;talem&quot; have to modify &quot;vitam&quot;? The latter, however, sounds more idiomatic in English. Which would you choose here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2274/unsure-about-my-translation-of-se-una-cum-propinquis-et-amicis-eorum-dolere&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://areena.yle.fi/1-3790762?autoplay=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8219" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2277" RevisionGUID="bc35646c-7e64-4bdc-95ba-959a8806866a" CreationDate="2016-12-29T07:33:16.613" UserId="235" Text="Am I grasping this gerund correctly? and also the talem...qualem pair?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8220" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2277" RevisionGUID="bc35646c-7e64-4bdc-95ba-959a8806866a" CreationDate="2016-12-29T07:33:16.613" UserId="235" Text="|translation|gerund|nuntii-latini|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2278" RevisionGUID="59abc223-ce5f-45f6-aa77-8d07fb556399" CreationDate="2016-12-29T11:28:00.303" UserId="1003" Text="In this line in Ovid Metamorphoses Book III. 505, is ***fratri*** put in the Dative because *' of the person **in whose honour,** or interest, or advantage or for whose pleasure, an action takes place, or the reverse (Dativus Commodi et Incommodi):*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... planxere sorores &#xD;&#xA;naides et sectos **fratri** posuere capillos,&#xD;&#xA;planxerunt dryades;&lt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translated as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*His naiad-sisters beat their breasts and shore their locks in sign of grief for their dear brother;* (F.J. Miller)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8222" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2278" RevisionGUID="59abc223-ce5f-45f6-aa77-8d07fb556399" CreationDate="2016-12-29T11:28:00.303" UserId="1003" Text="Dative of Personal Interest?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8223" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2278" RevisionGUID="59abc223-ce5f-45f6-aa77-8d07fb556399" CreationDate="2016-12-29T11:28:00.303" UserId="1003" Text="|grammar-choice|grammar-identification|ovidius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2279" RevisionGUID="e4d7330e-9815-407e-829f-2734c1bff924" CreationDate="2016-12-29T12:12:27.517" UserId="30" Text="I think your translation is very good and you have taken no unnecessary liberties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only bit of information that is missing is the superlative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other small improvement could be made by translating dative + gerundive + form of *esse* as &quot;we must find&quot;, which is, I believe, the standard translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2280" RevisionGUID="5283eb66-2191-47e1-866c-50a26795e128" CreationDate="2016-12-29T12:27:09.460" UserId="1003" Text="Here is a line in Ovid which I find confusing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;quo postquam subiit, nympharum tradidit uni   &#xD;&#xA;armigerae iaculum pharetramque arcusque retentos,  &#xD;&#xA;**altera depositae subiecit bracchia pallae,**  &#xD;&#xA;vincla duae pedibus demunt;&lt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is translated as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*On this day, having come to the grotto,&#xD;&#xA;she gives to the keeping of her armour-bearer among her nymphs her hunting spear, her quiver, and her unstrung bow; another takes on her arm the robe she has laid by; two unbind her sandals from her feet.* (F.J.Miller)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So who is the subject, Diana or nymph? 'Depositae pallae' is I think, dative - laid aside robe; If 'Altera' is in nominative then it would mean a nymph, so the subject would be that nymph; 'bracchia'(n. Pl) I thought to be in accusative - so if the subiecit (subicio) would mean to throw,construed with acc. and dat., then Diana would be the subject? &#xD;&#xA;Lewis &amp; Short gives  under subicio the same line from Ovid, 'bracchia pallae' - it doesn't make any sense for me as it would be to throw, lay, place &quot;arms to, on the robes&quot; The opposite, &quot;pallam bracchiis&quot; would make be more logical?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8226" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2280" RevisionGUID="5283eb66-2191-47e1-866c-50a26795e128" CreationDate="2016-12-29T12:27:09.460" UserId="1003" Text="'Subiecit' meaning in Ovid Metamorphoses III 167?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8227" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2280" RevisionGUID="5283eb66-2191-47e1-866c-50a26795e128" CreationDate="2016-12-29T12:27:09.460" UserId="1003" Text="|grammar-choice|grammar-identification|ovidius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2281" RevisionGUID="7392b9f5-c4dc-4fd0-bdf9-1988b70b8d99" CreationDate="2016-12-29T13:45:19.283" UserId="30" Text="The subject is *altera [nympha]*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; another [nymph] threw her arms under the cast-off robe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *subicio* is normally used with a nominative (the thrower), an accusative (the thing thrown), and a dative (that under which the accusative is thrown). In this case, arms are thrown under robes. You translate *subicio* as &quot;throw to/on&quot;, but the prefix *sub-* normally indicates &quot;under&quot;. As you say, it can be throwing, laying, or placing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2280" RevisionGUID="38a588af-cdba-4552-a363-6020f062dd23" CreationDate="2016-12-29T13:50:33.957" UserId="1003" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Here is a line in Ovid which I find confusing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;quo postquam subiit, nympharum tradidit uni   &#xD;&#xA;armigerae iaculum pharetramque arcusque retentos,  &#xD;&#xA;**altera depositae subiecit bracchia pallae,**  &#xD;&#xA;vincla duae pedibus demunt;&lt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is translated as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*On this day, having come to the grotto,&#xD;&#xA;she gives to the keeping of her armour-bearer among her nymphs her hunting spear, her quiver, and her unstrung bow; another takes on her arm the robe she has laid by; two unbind her sandals from her feet.* (F.J.Miller)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So who is the subject, Diana or nymph? 'Depositae pallae' is I think, dative - laid aside robe; If 'Altera' is in nominative then it would mean a nymph, so the subject would be that nymph; 'bracchia'(n. Pl) I thought to be in accusative - so if the subiecit (subicio) would mean to throw,construed with acc. and dat., then Diana would be the subject? &#xD;&#xA;Lewis &amp; Short gives  under subicio the same line from Ovid, 'bracchia pallae' - it doesn't make any sense for me as it would be to throw, lay, place &quot;arms to, on the robes&quot; The opposite, &quot;pallam bracchiis&quot; would look more logical?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2282" RevisionGUID="015524dd-fedb-4ef9-9572-70ed8785a18c" CreationDate="2016-12-29T13:56:03.157" UserId="30" Text="Yes, that sounds correct. It could be argued that the dativus commodi is the most common use of the dative, and it can be translated in various ways. In this sentence, *in honour of their brother* is good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8231" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2278" RevisionGUID="af13c552-25b5-41f9-8e27-4bd8fbb54725" CreationDate="2016-12-29T14:08:06.863" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|grammar-identification|ovidius|metamorphoses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2280" RevisionGUID="b200688a-165d-47e2-957c-a45b332a77ba" CreationDate="2016-12-29T14:10:54.413" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and reformatted slightly." Text="Here is a line in Ovid which I find confusing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;quo postquam subiit, nympharum tradidit uni   &#xD;&#xA;armigerae iaculum pharetramque arcusque retentos,  &#xD;&#xA;**altera depositae subiecit bracchia pallae,**  &#xD;&#xA;vincla duae pedibus demunt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is translated as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*On this day, having come to the grotto,&#xD;&#xA;she gives to the keeping of her armour-bearer among her nymphs her hunting spear, her quiver, and her unstrung bow; another takes on her arm the robe she has laid by; two unbind her sandals from her feet.* (F.J.Miller)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So who is the subject, Diana or nymph? 'Depositae pallae' is I think, dative &amp;mdash; laid aside robe; If 'Altera' is in nominative then it would mean a nymph, so the subject would be that nymph; 'bracchia' (n. Pl) I thought to be in accusative &amp;mdash; so if the subiecit (subicio) would mean to throw,construed with acc. and dat., then Diana would be the subject? &#xD;&#xA;Lewis &amp; Short gives  under subicio the same line from Ovid, 'bracchia pallae' &amp;mdash; it doesn't make any sense for me as it would be to throw, lay, place &quot;arms to, on the robes&quot; The opposite, &quot;pallam bracchiis&quot; would look more logical?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8233" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2280" RevisionGUID="b200688a-165d-47e2-957c-a45b332a77ba" CreationDate="2016-12-29T14:10:54.413" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and reformatted slightly." Text="|grammar-choice|grammar-identification|ovidius|metamorphoses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2283" RevisionGUID="a6a96302-8528-4410-a80a-a8ca7c5c78f4" CreationDate="2016-12-29T14:37:35.640" UserId="79" Text="When researching for the [living room question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2272/79) and the question that inspired it, I came across some dictionary definitions of [*aula*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2005594) and [*atrium*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2005327).&#xD;&#xA;*Aula* is a Greek thing and *atrium* is Roman, but otherwise they seem very similar to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there are architectural differences between Greece and Rome.&#xD;&#xA;**What is the difference between *aula* and *atrium*?**&#xD;&#xA;I have found no comparison of the two anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;**Would the Romans use the word *atrium* for something the Greeks would call *aula* and vice versa?**&#xD;&#xA;I get the impression that *atrium* is the Roman-style word for an inner court or a hall, and *aula* is a Greek-style word for the same purpose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8235" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2283" RevisionGUID="a6a96302-8528-4410-a80a-a8ca7c5c78f4" CreationDate="2016-12-29T14:37:35.640" UserId="79" Text="What is the difference between aula and atrium?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8236" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2283" RevisionGUID="a6a96302-8528-4410-a80a-a8ca7c5c78f4" CreationDate="2016-12-29T14:37:35.640" UserId="79" Text="|word-comparison|greek|architecture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2284" RevisionGUID="b514cd9d-5411-4c7d-a747-9ec40c095aa1" CreationDate="2016-12-29T15:24:55.133" UserId="1003" Text="There is a line in Ovid Metamorphoses II 519, which I don't understand at all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Juno's complaint)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;'quaeritis, aetheriis quare regina deorum  &#xD;&#xA;sedibus huc adsim? pro me tenet altera caelum!  &#xD;&#xA;mentior, obscurum nisi nox cum fecerit orbem,  &#xD;&#xA;nuper honoratas summo, mea vulnera, caelo            &#xD;&#xA;videritis stellas illic, ubi circulus axem  &#xD;&#xA;ultimus extremum spatioque brevissimus ambit.  &#xD;&#xA;et vero quisquam Iunonem laedere nolit  &#xD;&#xA;offensamque tremat, **quae prosum sola nocendo**?  &#xD;&#xA;o ego quantum egi! quam vasta potentia nostra est!&lt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nocendo is gerundive from 'noceo' - to do harm, inflict injury, hurt ;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; prosum is a verb 'to be useful, be of use, do good, benefit, profit, serve' ; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This line is translated as *' who do but help where I would harm?*' (F.J.Miller)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive (passive adjective) would be then 'to be harmful towards something, (requiring, needing, must be harmed) and should usually have the agent in the dative - here perhaps ' sola'?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And 'quae' can be f.nom, f.Pl.nom,or n.Pl. nom, acc. - what or who (as it cannot be Iuppiter?) does it refer to, I do not know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume 'prosum' is then  - she is saying 'I do good' .... &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8238" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2284" RevisionGUID="b514cd9d-5411-4c7d-a747-9ec40c095aa1" CreationDate="2016-12-29T15:24:55.133" UserId="1003" Text="How to understand 'quae prosum sola nocendo'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8239" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2284" RevisionGUID="b514cd9d-5411-4c7d-a747-9ec40c095aa1" CreationDate="2016-12-29T15:24:55.133" UserId="1003" Text="|translation|grammar-identification|ovidius|metamorphoses|gerundive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8240" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2278" RevisionGUID="302dd277-8eee-4dfa-a5d1-fd15ce4c9881" CreationDate="2016-12-29T16:16:38.107" UserId="1003" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|grammar-identification|ovidius|metamorphoses|dative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2285" RevisionGUID="ca251202-fa9c-40ff-9008-c8e93d23372c" CreationDate="2016-12-29T18:14:17.783" UserId="985" Text="_Nocendo_ is a gerund (noun) here, not a gerundive (adjective). Therefore, it's active in meaning. It's ablative to show the means by which Juno does good. _Quae_ is f. nom. sing. and refers to _Iunonem_, who is the 'I' of the relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...I who alone do good by doing harm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that _sola_ couldn't be the object of _nocendo_ (or the agent, because _nocendo_, as a gerund, isn't passive in meaning), because it's not dative; the form would have to be _soli_. In this case, _nocendo_ is being used 'absolutely' – that is, without an object; she's talking about doing harm in general.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2286" RevisionGUID="04b21ae9-dc3a-4de2-8ec8-fab2dc46ff58" CreationDate="2016-12-29T19:58:20.263" UserId="985" Text="Some variations in word arrangement are a matter of style and don't necessarily affect emphasis. Although textbooks may present some ideal arrangement of words and suggest that any deviation causes the words that are out of their 'proper' place to beome emphatic, the reality is much more nuanced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, although _lata_ is separated from _silva_, the arrangment adjective–preposition–noun is quite common when the object of a preposition is modified by an adjective. Therefore, the adjective may not gain any particular emphasis from the arrangement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, although _lunae clarae_ seems to be in an unusual position, because textbooks often teach that genitives belong after the noun that they depend on, some authors (e.g., Caesar) routinely put genitives in front. So again, the phrase doesn't necessarily gain any special emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, because, in general, adjectives can go either before or after the noun, the use of one position instead of the other doesn't necessarily lend emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to ask yourself what, if anything, would be gained from emphasizing _lata_ or _lunae clarae_ or _pulchra_. In your sentences, the answer is 'Not much.' However, context is important too. For example, if the surrounding text made it clear that there were both a wide forest and a narrow forest, the position of _lata_ could, in that context, give the word more emphasis, especially perhaps if the author doesn't typically use the adjective–preposition–noun arrangement. Likewise, especially if the author more usually puts genitives after the noun that they depend on, the position of _lunae clarae_ could be a way of, e.g., drawing attention to Diana's role as moon goddess as opposed to goddess of the hunt (which is the role that we might expect here, given that she's being said to live in the forest).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I see it, the emphatic words in your example are _quis_ in the first sentence and _Diana_ in the second. It's no coincidence that each is the first word in its sentence. In general, the first place(s) that I look for emphasis in a Latin sentence are the first word and – especially if it's something other than a finite verb – the last. Based on meaning, emphasis on these 2 words makes sense in your example. After all, as the interrogative word in a question, _quis_ really is the crux of its sentence; and, as the word that directly answers the question, _Diana_ is the crux of its sentence too.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2287" RevisionGUID="27e229bc-68e9-4e17-930c-a223ef3d898f" CreationDate="2016-12-29T21:15:03.713" UserId="79" Text="There is nothing wrong with your translation.&#xD;&#xA;The word *quoque* refers to the word preceding it.&#xD;&#xA;If you write *ego quoque*, you say &quot;also others, but me too&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Since this was the intended meaning &amp;mdash; correct me if I am wrong! &amp;mdash; your translation is perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Placing *quoque* differently produces other meanings.&#xD;&#xA;Here are three versions with overly emphatic translations to make the distinction clear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ego quoque Latīnē scrībere possum.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Others can write in Latin, and so can I.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ego Latīnē quoque scrībere possum.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can write in several languages, and that includes Latin, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ego Latīnē scrībere quoque possum.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can speak Latin, and I can also write in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2288" RevisionGUID="9eb35c3a-b82b-4e1b-9532-ebde37e0e989" CreationDate="2016-12-29T21:34:47.390" UserId="79" Text="When both prepositions are used with accusative, the difference is not large.&#xD;&#xA;Compare these two dictionary entries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [super (with acc.)](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1016010)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. [of place] over, above, on the top of, upon, on&#xD;&#xA;2. [of place] above, beyond&#xD;&#xA;3. [of time] during, at&#xD;&#xA;4. [of measure] over, above, beyond, in addition to&#xD;&#xA;5. [figuratively] of official position, over, in charge of&#xD;&#xA;6. [in the phrase, super omnia] above all, before all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [supra (with acc.)](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1016104)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. [of place] above, over&#xD;&#xA;2. [in the phrase supra caput] close, clinging, burdening, oppressing&#xD;&#xA;3. [of geographical position] above, beyond&#xD;&#xA;4. [figuratively] of time, before&#xD;&#xA;5. [of number] over, above, beyond, more than&#xD;&#xA;6. [of quality or degree] above, beyond, superior to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Follow the links for more detail.&#xD;&#xA;There are some differences, but the overall spirit is the same.&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I see no hint of one meaning position and the other meaning movement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was for accusative use only, and I will not try to discuss the difference between accusative and ablative uses of *super*.&#xD;&#xA;That accusative describes motion and ablative describes position is a useful rule of thumb, but it is better to treat is as a tendency than a rule.&#xD;&#xA;This rule works well for *in*, but it does not really describe the meanings of *e(x)* and *prope*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2276" RevisionGUID="1f96372a-f17a-4585-a2cc-9a4d6e3be6fa" CreationDate="2016-12-29T21:36:50.213" UserId="230" Comment="added 415 characters in body" Text="I have the following sentence : Quis lata in silva habitat ? Diana, lunae clarae pulchra dea, lata in silva habitat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I initially thought : &quot;Quis lata in silva habitat ?&quot; Lata, the adjective, because it's separated from the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;lunae clarae&quot; because it's a genitive that is put before &quot;pulchra dea&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;pulchra&quot; because it's an adjective that is put before the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and finally the second &quot;lata&quot; for the same reason as the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to my key : the first &quot;lata&quot; is not emphasized and neither is &quot;lunae clarae&quot; but the rest is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there something I'm missing here ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit :  my exercice is asking to show which parts of the sentence are considered to be emphatic, as in that the normal word order of the latin sentence : subject what is in between verb is changed to create a stylistic effect. Not sure if it makes sense said this way. For example, we usually put the adjective after the noun but if we wanted to put emphasis on the adjective we would switch it before the noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2289" RevisionGUID="6fc53997-e08b-4c69-af0b-90f12a237412" CreationDate="2016-12-29T22:03:29.683" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8249" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2289" RevisionGUID="6fc53997-e08b-4c69-af0b-90f12a237412" CreationDate="2016-12-29T22:03:29.683" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2290" RevisionGUID="5a5743e6-f4cc-427b-a82d-41ddd114f6c6" CreationDate="2016-12-29T22:03:29.683" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8251" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2290" RevisionGUID="5a5743e6-f4cc-427b-a82d-41ddd114f6c6" CreationDate="2016-12-29T22:03:29.683" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2288" RevisionGUID="19359d56-beac-4e63-8399-35706630733e" CreationDate="2016-12-30T10:51:52.000" UserId="79" Comment="added 376 characters in body" Text="When both prepositions are used with accusative, the difference is not large.&#xD;&#xA;Compare these two dictionary entries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [super (with acc.)](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1016010)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. [of place] over, above, on the top of, upon, on&#xD;&#xA;2. [of place] above, beyond&#xD;&#xA;3. [of time] during, at&#xD;&#xA;4. [of measure] over, above, beyond, in addition to&#xD;&#xA;5. [figuratively] of official position, over, in charge of&#xD;&#xA;6. [in the phrase, super omnia] above all, before all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [supra (with acc.)](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1016104)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. [of place] above, over&#xD;&#xA;2. [in the phrase supra caput] close, clinging, burdening, oppressing&#xD;&#xA;3. [of geographical position] above, beyond&#xD;&#xA;4. [figuratively] of time, before&#xD;&#xA;5. [of number] over, above, beyond, more than&#xD;&#xA;6. [of quality or degree] above, beyond, superior to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Follow the links for more detail.&#xD;&#xA;You can also check the entries in L&amp;S, although they are harder to decipher: [*super*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DS%3Aentry+group%3D91%3Aentry%3Dsuper2) and [*supra*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DS%3Aentry+group%3D99%3Aentry%3Dsupra).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some differences, but the overall spirit is the same.&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I see no hint of one meaning position and the other meaning movement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was for accusative use only, and I will not try to discuss the difference between accusative and ablative uses of *super*.&#xD;&#xA;That accusative describes motion and ablative describes position is a useful rule of thumb, but it is better to treat is as a tendency than a rule.&#xD;&#xA;This rule works well for *in*, but it does not really describe the meanings of *e(x)* and *prope*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2291" RevisionGUID="879a0d40-ecd1-46d2-ae2e-1e23e4bad427" CreationDate="2016-12-30T11:21:23.807" UserId="645" Text="The *atrium* was a central, and most important part of the Roman *domus*, built as a kind of courtyard. It had an inwardly-sloping roof with a central gap  — the *impluvium*, into which rainwater drained before falling into a cistern (which, confusingly, was also called *impluvium*). Vitruvius (vi, 3) is a major source for the various designs, etc., of *atrium*, which he also refers to as *cavum aedium*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *aula* is less easily defined. Though in origin it was a court in the front of a Greek house. It doesn't seem to have been anything at Rome as important to a house as the *atrium* itself, but was possibly some part of it (Horace Ep. I, 1, 87). The word seems just as likely to have been used for 'court' in all the English senses of the noun, (e.g. Tacitus Hist. I, 13, *end*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2292" RevisionGUID="ae2e7d46-d276-4a30-af2c-3f219bb595cb" CreationDate="2016-12-30T12:41:48.463" UserId="79" Text="When reading [Lewis and Short online](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.04.0059)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, I have occasional trouble figuring out what the various abbreviations mean.&#xD;&#xA;This includes authors and their works, but, more importantly to me, also other abbreviations.&#xD;&#xA;At least this particular version does not seem to have any kind of preface, list of abbreviations or any such supporting material.&#xD;&#xA;I believe many of the abbreviations are the same in many other dictionaries, so a list is likely to helpful outside L&amp;S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, where can I find a list of abbreviations for L&amp;S?&#xD;&#xA;Lists for other similar dictionaries are also welcome, although my main interest is in L&amp;S.&#xD;&#xA;The list can be a webpage, a scan or transcription from a printed version, or anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Also other online versions of the same dictionary are available.&#xD;&#xA;See the [dictionary question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8256" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2292" RevisionGUID="ae2e7d46-d276-4a30-af2c-3f219bb595cb" CreationDate="2016-12-30T12:41:48.463" UserId="79" Text="Abbreviations in Latin dictionaries, especially Lewis and Short" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8257" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2292" RevisionGUID="ae2e7d46-d276-4a30-af2c-3f219bb595cb" CreationDate="2016-12-30T12:41:48.463" UserId="79" Text="|resource-request|abbreviations|dictionary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2293" RevisionGUID="ba5af26b-3f85-4e84-a11d-a305b1267a3e" CreationDate="2016-12-30T12:47:34.410" UserId="30" Text="You can find the abbreviations for Lewis &amp; Short in the Latin Lexicon 'Numen' online:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://latinlexicon.org/LNS_abbreviations.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First you will find the abbreviations of ancient authors and their works; then those of commonly used words and signs; last a catalogue of modern authors and their works referred to in the dictionary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2293" RevisionGUID="5be64dde-3036-48a1-a777-98b32a211745" CreationDate="2016-12-30T12:55:32.023" UserId="30" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="You can find the abbreviations for Lewis &amp; Short in the Latin Lexicon 'Numen' online:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://latinlexicon.org/LNS_abbreviations.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First you will find the abbreviations of ancient authors and their works; then those of commonly used words and signs; last a catalogue of modern authors and their works referred to in the dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the abbreviations for Liddell, Scott, Jones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Afrontmatter%3D5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2293" RevisionGUID="7ffff90e-8fb4-4e19-91d7-1848d17bde30" CreationDate="2016-12-30T13:02:02.823" UserId="30" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="You can find the abbreviations for Lewis &amp; Short in the Latin Lexicon 'Numen' online:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://latinlexicon.org/LNS_abbreviations.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First you will find the abbreviations of ancient authors and their works; then those of commonly used words and signs; last a catalogue of modern authors and their works referred to in the dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the abbreviations for Liddell, Scott, Jones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Afrontmatter%3D5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://www.thesaurus.badw-muenchen.de/en/user-tools/abbreviations.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2293" RevisionGUID="33be60d3-6d34-4f94-a29f-9581efc577bf" CreationDate="2016-12-30T13:14:15.977" UserId="30" Comment="added 245 characters in body" Text="You can find the abbreviations for Lewis &amp; Short in the Latin Lexicon 'Numen' online:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://latinlexicon.org/LNS_abbreviations.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First you will find the abbreviations of ancient authors and their works; then those of commonly used words and signs; last a catalogue of modern authors and their works referred to in the dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the abbreviations for Liddell, Scott, Jones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Afrontmatter%3D5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://www.thesaurus.badw-muenchen.de/en/user-tools/abbreviations.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Oxford Latin Dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://www.oxfordscholarlyeditions.com/page/guide-to-the-dictionary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you will find general abbreviations and signs. Abbreviations of authors and their works are under the link &quot;abbreviations&quot; on the left." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2290" RevisionGUID="dc24a22d-9650-4259-a50a-42571fe658f4" CreationDate="2016-12-30T13:20:38.860" UserId="840" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="Questions related to aspects of Latin as used in poetry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8263" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2290" RevisionGUID="dc24a22d-9650-4259-a50a-42571fe658f4" CreationDate="2016-12-30T13:20:38.860" Comment="Proposed by 840 approved by 12 edit id of 162" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2291" RevisionGUID="79e20d06-ae9e-479f-8182-1b17b89abd64" CreationDate="2016-12-30T15:13:23.143" UserId="645" Comment="punct." Text="The *atrium* was a central, and most important part of the Roman *domus*, built as a kind of courtyard. It had an inwardly-sloping roof with a central gap  — the *impluvium*, into which rainwater drained before falling into a cistern (which, confusingly, was also called *impluvium*). Vitruvius (vi, 3) is a major source for the various designs, etc., of *atrium*, which he also refers to as *cavum aedium*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *aula* is less easily defined. Though in origin it was a court in the front of a Greek house, it doesn't seem to have been anything at Rome as important to a house as the *atrium* itself, but was possibly some part of it (Horace Ep. I, 1, 87). The word seems just as likely to have been used for 'court' in all the English senses of the noun, (e.g. Tacitus Hist. I, 13, *end*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2294" RevisionGUID="aa4e3a54-d7f3-49bb-9ae7-652218e7787b" CreationDate="2016-12-30T17:27:48.250" UserId="124" Text="For my high school English class, which is a translation &quot;workshop,&quot; we're all expected to give class-long, individual sessions focusing around a translation we've performed from whatever language we choose to English. The piece/excerpt we choose can be literally anything (about 2-3 pages in length when translated), but most people so far have been doing poetry or short stories where the workshopping part of class focuses around trying to improve shaping of phrases or tweaking little details to augment the meaning or effect on the reader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin's my main foreign language (I'm in a post-AP class, so I feel confident taking a crack at pretty much any text) and I was brainstorming what to translate, but I'm a bit sick of golden-age poetry and historical prose. Instead, I was thinking of doing something completely different and trying some [New Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Latin), maybe some sort of scientific text like Isaac Newton's [Principia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophiæ_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica) or Copernicus' [On the Revolution of the Heavenly Sphere's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_revolutionibus_orbium_coelestium). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are: exactly how different are texts like these to what I've done so far (e.g. Pliny, Virgil, Caesar, Cicero, Ovid), and would scientific texts in general be able to make for an interesting discussion about translational nuances (i.e. would they be workshop-able)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8268" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2294" RevisionGUID="aa4e3a54-d7f3-49bb-9ae7-652218e7787b" CreationDate="2016-12-30T17:27:48.250" UserId="124" Text="Translating Scientific Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8269" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2294" RevisionGUID="aa4e3a54-d7f3-49bb-9ae7-652218e7787b" CreationDate="2016-12-30T17:27:48.250" UserId="124" Text="|new-latin|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2294" RevisionGUID="4076cb50-a74d-420a-8012-d936a65ccad9" CreationDate="2016-12-30T17:31:05.677" UserId="79" Comment="Removed an apostrophe and added tags. Feel free to retag!" Text="For my high school English class, which is a translation &quot;workshop,&quot; we're all expected to give class-long, individual sessions focusing around a translation we've performed from whatever language we choose to English. The piece/excerpt we choose can be literally anything (about 2-3 pages in length when translated), but most people so far have been doing poetry or short stories where the workshopping part of class focuses around trying to improve shaping of phrases or tweaking little details to augment the meaning or effect on the reader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin's my main foreign language (I'm in a post-AP class, so I feel confident taking a crack at pretty much any text) and I was brainstorming what to translate, but I'm a bit sick of golden-age poetry and historical prose. Instead, I was thinking of doing something completely different and trying some [New Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Latin), maybe some sort of scientific text like Isaac Newton's [Principia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophiæ_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica) or Copernicus' [On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_revolutionibus_orbium_coelestium). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are: exactly how different are texts like these to what I've done so far (e.g. Pliny, Virgil, Caesar, Cicero, Ovid), and would scientific texts in general be able to make for an interesting discussion about translational nuances (i.e. would they be workshop-able)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8271" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2294" RevisionGUID="4076cb50-a74d-420a-8012-d936a65ccad9" CreationDate="2016-12-30T17:31:05.677" UserId="79" Comment="Removed an apostrophe and added tags. Feel free to retag!" Text="|translation|new-latin|science|academic-latin|soft-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2295" RevisionGUID="9aa14ee6-5854-4a25-9fa0-c50cf97b624b" CreationDate="2016-12-30T19:56:17.247" UserId="75" Text="A digitized version of *Harper’s Latin Dictionary: A New Latin Dictionary founded on the Translation of Freund’s Latin-German Lexicon* (a.k.a. *Lewis &amp; Short Lexicon*) is also available at [Internet Archive][1], albeit not as easily searchable as an HTML webpage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The beginning of the lexicon includes the:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - “Orthographical Index” on pages [v–vi][2], &#xD;&#xA; - “Abbreviations Used in Referring to Ancient Authors and Their Works” on pages [vii–xi][3],&#xD;&#xA; -  “Catalogue of Editions of Ancient Authors, Books of Reference, etc.” on p. [xii–xiii][4], and&#xD;&#xA; - “Other Abbreviations, Signs, etc.” on p. [xiv][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis, Charlton T.; Short, Charles. [*Harper’s Latin Dictionary: A New Latin Dictionary Founded on the Translation of Freund’s Latin-German Lexicon.*][6] New York: American Book, 1879.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/stream/harperslatindict00lewi&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/stream/harperslatindict00lewi#page/n12/mode/1up&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/stream/harperslatindict00lewi#page/n14/mode/1up&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/stream/harperslatindict00lewi#page/n19/mode/1up&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://archive.org/stream/harperslatindict00lewi#page/n21/mode/1up&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://archive.org/details/harperslatindict00lewi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2296" RevisionGUID="2b0938ab-aba6-49b5-b35b-03caf413d0ea" CreationDate="2016-12-30T22:21:48.970" UserId="1109" Text="I want to use a motto &quot;always seize the future&quot;. Does &quot;capere semper in posterum&quot; make sense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8278" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2296" RevisionGUID="2b0938ab-aba6-49b5-b35b-03caf413d0ea" CreationDate="2016-12-30T22:21:48.970" UserId="1109" Text="Does this Latin make sense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8279" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2296" RevisionGUID="2b0938ab-aba6-49b5-b35b-03caf413d0ea" CreationDate="2016-12-30T22:21:48.970" UserId="1109" Text="|classical-latin|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2297" RevisionGUID="2e40ab69-d2a1-4a02-a473-ddca05acc027" CreationDate="2016-12-30T23:04:33.243" UserId="79" Text="Google Translate is notoriously bad with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;It seems to have little understanding of Latin grammar.&#xD;&#xA;If you only want single words, you are much better off using an [online Latin dictionary of your choice](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;I do not know an online service (or any computerized tool) that translates Latin reliably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin phrase *capere semper in posterum* means roughly &quot;to always take from this point on&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It makes little sense.&#xD;&#xA;(This is the default answer to &quot;does this result from Google translate make sense&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I suggest *semper futurum carpito*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I will expand tomorrow. I will have to go now.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2298" RevisionGUID="3dc763bd-83cc-4ab3-95e9-5697b51d7b1f" CreationDate="2016-12-31T03:17:36.380" UserId="75" Text="I would suggest *semper carpe futūra*. Here, *futura* (*futūra*) is a participle conjugated in the present tense and active voice, declined in the neuter gender, **plural number**, and **accusative case**. (The verb *carpo* takes an object in the accusative case.) I chose *futūra* because the idea is not simply enjoying or “seizing” abstract and intangible time (singular number), but rather, enjoying the things to come in the future (plural number)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2298" RevisionGUID="246d1fa5-a3e7-493a-bcc9-9d7954bc4866" CreationDate="2016-12-31T03:24:32.913" UserId="75" Comment="added 269 characters in body" Text="I would suggest *semper carpe futūra*. Here, *futura* (*futūra*) is a participle conjugated in the present tense and active voice, declined in the neuter gender, **plural number**, and **accusative case**. (The verb *carpo* takes an object in the accusative case.) I chose *futūra* because the idea is not simply enjoying or “seizing” abstract and intangible time (singular number), but rather, enjoying the things to come in the future (plural number).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In regards to the original suggestion, *capere semper in posterum*, *capere* [sic] (*carpere*) is the infinitive mood conjugation of *carpo*, hence it means “to seize.” You need *carpo* conjugated in the 2nd person, active voice, and imperative mood, hence *carpe*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2298" RevisionGUID="f8818564-efb3-45b3-b572-081890d01e90" CreationDate="2016-12-31T03:53:28.107" UserId="75" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="I would suggest *semper carpe futūra*. Here, *futura* (*futūra*) is a participle conjugated in the present tense and active voice, declined in the neuter gender, **plural number**, and **accusative case**. (The verb *carpo* takes an object in the accusative case.) I chose *futūra* because the idea is not simply enjoying or “seizing” abstract and intangible time (singular number), but rather, enjoying the things to come in the future (plural number).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In regards to the original suggestion, *capere semper in posterum*, *capere* [sic] (*carpere*) is the infinitive mood conjugation of *carpo*, hence it means “to seize.” You need *carpo* conjugated in the 2nd person, active voice, and imperative mood, hence *carpe*. You are commanding or urging someone to “Always seize the future!” (i.e., the things to come in the future), hence the imperative mood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2298" RevisionGUID="0509cd3a-02cb-44f2-b02a-0ab24b3a2385" CreationDate="2016-12-31T04:20:30.253" UserId="75" Comment="deleted 67 characters in body" Text="I would suggest *semper carpe futūra*. Here, *futura* (*futūra*) is a participle conjugated in the present tense and active voice, declined in the neuter gender, plural number, and accusative case. I chose *futūra* because the idea is not simply enjoying or “seizing” abstract and intangible time (singular number), but rather, enjoying the things to come in the future (plural number).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In regards to the original suggestion, *capere semper in posterum*, *capere* [sic] (*carpere*) is the infinitive mood conjugation of *carpo*, hence it means “to seize.” You need *carpo* conjugated in the 2nd person, active voice, and imperative mood, hence *carpe*. You are commanding or urging someone to “Always seize the future!” (i.e., the things to come in the future), hence the imperative mood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2298" RevisionGUID="7ba289f5-8421-4a9f-ae1d-29a8fd59c50a" CreationDate="2016-12-31T05:23:31.800" UserId="75" Comment="deleted 418 characters in body" Text="I would suggest *semper carpe futūra*. Here, *futura* (*futūra*) is a participle conjugated in the present tense and active voice, declined in the neuter gender, plural number, and accusative case. I chose *futūra* because the idea is not simply enjoying abstract and intangible time (singular number), but rather, enjoying the things to come in the future (plural number). I was initially under the impression that you typed *capere* rather than *carpere* as a typo, but Draconis has educated me that *capere* is indeed a verb. In any case, most people are familiar with the phrase *Carpe diem* (as opposed to *Cape diem*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2297" RevisionGUID="57b48593-dc55-4f2c-8225-5ff801415376" CreationDate="2016-12-31T11:21:10.290" UserId="79" Comment="added 986 characters in body" Text="Google Translate is notoriously bad with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;It seems to have little understanding of Latin grammar.&#xD;&#xA;If you only want single words, you are much better off using an [online Latin dictionary of your choice](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;I do not know an online service (or any computerized tool) that translates Latin reliably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin phrase *capere semper in posterum* means roughly &quot;to always take from this point on&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It makes little sense.&#xD;&#xA;(This is the default answer to &quot;does this result from Google translate make sense&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I suggest ***semper futura carpito***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good translation for &quot;to seize&quot; in your context is *carpere*.&#xD;&#xA;I chose the future imperative *carpito* instead of the present *carpe* (which would also be fine) to give it a more festive feel.&#xD;&#xA;If you want it to be more mundane, use *carpe*.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if everyone agrees with my sense of nuance here.&#xD;&#xA;These imperatives are singular; if you want plural, use *carpitote* or *carpite* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no good Latin noun for &quot;future&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I chose the participle *futurus* which can be seen as the adjective &quot;future&quot; &amp;mdash; and the etymological source of the English word.&#xD;&#xA;There are two choices: the neuter singular *futurum* and the neuter plural *futura*.&#xD;&#xA;The singular means roughly &quot;the thing in future&quot;, treating future as one.&#xD;&#xA;The plural means roughly &quot;the things in future&quot;, treating future as a series of things.&#xD;&#xA;The plural sounds more idiomatic to me, and I think the nuance of the singular *futurum* would be less appropriate for this use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *semper* is simply a good translation for &quot;always&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2288" RevisionGUID="c2615702-8ec7-4aa8-8ff4-ca4f127283b6" CreationDate="2016-12-31T11:26:20.777" UserId="79" Comment="added 225 characters in body" Text="When both prepositions are used with accusative, the difference is not large.&#xD;&#xA;Compare these two dictionary entries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [super (with acc.)](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1016010)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. [of place] over, above, on the top of, upon, on&#xD;&#xA;2. [of place] above, beyond&#xD;&#xA;3. [of time] during, at&#xD;&#xA;4. [of measure] over, above, beyond, in addition to&#xD;&#xA;5. [figuratively] of official position, over, in charge of&#xD;&#xA;6. [in the phrase, super omnia] above all, before all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [supra (with acc.)](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1016104)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. [of place] above, over&#xD;&#xA;2. [in the phrase supra caput] close, clinging, burdening, oppressing&#xD;&#xA;3. [of geographical position] above, beyond&#xD;&#xA;4. [figuratively] of time, before&#xD;&#xA;5. [of number] over, above, beyond, more than&#xD;&#xA;6. [of quality or degree] above, beyond, superior to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Follow the links for more detail.&#xD;&#xA;You can also check the entries in L&amp;S, although they are harder to decipher: [*super*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DS%3Aentry+group%3D91%3Aentry%3Dsuper2) and [*supra*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DS%3Aentry+group%3D99%3Aentry%3Dsupra).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some differences, but the overall spirit is the same.&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I see no hint of one meaning position and the other meaning movement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one difference in general tone (thanks TKR!):&#xD;&#xA;*supra* is only &quot;over, above (and not touching)&quot; while *super* can also be &quot;on top of, resting on&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;That is, *super* has a broader meaning, allowing direct contact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was for accusative use only, and I will not try to discuss the difference between accusative and ablative uses of *super*.&#xD;&#xA;That accusative describes motion and ablative describes position is a useful rule of thumb, but it is better to treat is as a tendency than a rule.&#xD;&#xA;This rule works well for *in*, but it does not really describe the meanings of *e(x)* and *prope*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2296" RevisionGUID="793dada0-57fe-453f-809f-947658a9a75f" CreationDate="2016-12-31T11:58:54.803" UserId="79" Comment="Added details from comments." Text="I want to use a motto &quot;always seize the future&quot; as a company slogan. Does &quot;capere semper in posterum&quot; make sense?&#xD;&#xA;I got it from Google Translate and based on Spanish-English translations from that site, I trust it for single words but not always for phrases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2297" RevisionGUID="cdfb7825-65c5-4a8c-a19d-e943d9fb4bda" CreationDate="2016-12-31T12:16:51.087" UserId="79" Comment="added 243 characters in body" Text="Google Translate is notoriously bad with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;It seems to have little understanding of Latin grammar.&#xD;&#xA;If you only want single words, you are much better off using an [online Latin dictionary of your choice](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;I do not know an online service (or any computerized tool) that translates Latin reliably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin phrase *capere semper in posterum* means roughly &quot;to always take from this point on&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It makes little sense.&#xD;&#xA;(This is the default answer to &quot;does this result from Google translate make sense?&quot; in my experience.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I suggest ***semper futura carpito***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good translation for &quot;to seize&quot; in your context is *carpere*.&#xD;&#xA;I chose the future imperative *carpito* instead of the present *carpe* (which would also be fine) to give it a more festive feel.&#xD;&#xA;If you want it to be more mundane, use *carpe*.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if everyone agrees with my sense of nuance here.&#xD;&#xA;These imperatives are singular; if you want plural, use *carpitote* or *carpite* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no good Latin noun for &quot;future&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I chose the participle *futurus* which can be seen as the adjective &quot;future&quot; &amp;mdash; and the etymological source of the English word.&#xD;&#xA;There are two choices: the neuter singular *futurum* and the neuter plural *futura*.&#xD;&#xA;The singular means roughly &quot;the thing in future&quot;, treating future as one.&#xD;&#xA;The plural means roughly &quot;the things in future&quot;, treating future as a series of things.&#xD;&#xA;The plural sounds more idiomatic to me, and I think the nuance of the singular *futurum* would be less appropriate for this use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *semper* is simply a good translation for &quot;always&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is up to you to make the choices *futurum/futura* and *carpe/carpito/carpite/carpitote* if you are after a different nuance.&#xD;&#xA;Also the word order is relatively free in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is what I find most fitting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2299" RevisionGUID="c7e814c9-454d-44b1-a76a-5f1a60efb6cc" CreationDate="2016-12-31T16:12:25.300" UserId="68" Text="I wonder whether we aren't all overthinking this, and the answers your teacher expects aren't &quot;quis&quot; and &quot;Diana.&quot; The first word in the sentence in Latin is most frequently the one that receives emphasis, after all, and the fact that this would be an example of perfectly ordinary Latin word order doesn't mean there isn't emphasis in perfectly ordinary Latin word order. The fact that the core of the question is &quot;Quis?&quot; and the core of the answer &quot;Diana,&quot; along with the fact that you say you're not up to reading texts yet, makes me think something simple and straightforward may be what's called for here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2300" RevisionGUID="3ead73db-30f4-40d2-89dc-e234159c8cc8" CreationDate="2016-12-31T17:00:15.100" UserId="79" Text="What word was used in the ancient Rome to describe the time &amp;mdash; and festivities if any &amp;mdash; when one year ends and another begins?&#xD;&#xA;The literal translation of &quot;new year&quot;, *annus novus*, can be suitable for modern use, but I do not think it was the ancient choice of words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for an event that was considered to mark or celebrate the change of a year, not an event that took place then by chance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please indicate when the named time period was.&#xD;&#xA;The year can be considered to start from the beginning of January or March, and I want to avoid ambiguity between the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest hit I could find in the [Wikipedia list of Roman festivals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_festivals) is *Feriae Marti*, but there are very few details so I cannot be sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8314" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2300" RevisionGUID="3ead73db-30f4-40d2-89dc-e234159c8cc8" CreationDate="2016-12-31T17:00:15.100" UserId="79" Text="What did the Romans call the New Year?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8315" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2300" RevisionGUID="3ead73db-30f4-40d2-89dc-e234159c8cc8" CreationDate="2016-12-31T17:00:15.100" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|time|calendarium|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2301" RevisionGUID="1eb9e991-6d12-4604-af0d-ad1272915b7a" CreationDate="2016-12-31T20:29:38.907" UserId="235" Text="[I recently requested a word from Greek which means, &quot;knowing when to break the rules&quot;.][1] The question I asked generated a lot of fine responses, but unfortunately it could not remind me of the original word that I had heard from my friend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even more recently, I asked my friend which word he had used, and he replied with *epikaria* or *epicharia*. However, we are both having a hard time finding this word in any dictionary. It does, interestingly enough, show up on Google searches. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is anyone here familiar with the word *epikaria* or *epicharia*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2241/what-ancient-greek-word-or-idea-signifies-a-knowledge-of-when-to-break-the-rules" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8320" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2301" RevisionGUID="1eb9e991-6d12-4604-af0d-ad1272915b7a" CreationDate="2016-12-31T20:29:38.907" UserId="235" Text="Are you familiar with the Greek word epicharia or epikaria?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8321" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2301" RevisionGUID="1eb9e991-6d12-4604-af0d-ad1272915b7a" CreationDate="2016-12-31T20:29:38.907" UserId="235" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8322" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2301" RevisionGUID="797f99b2-32f1-44a9-8ff7-5fd60ccbf013" CreationDate="2016-12-31T21:47:26.967" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2302" RevisionGUID="c401d34b-717b-4f8e-a03e-63a53d7297ed" CreationDate="2016-12-31T21:50:57.617" UserId="645" Text="The best indication is Ovid's *Fasti, I, 63 et seqq.*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ecce tibi faustum, Germanice, nuntiat annum / Inque meo primus carmine Ianus adest. / Iane biceps, anni tacite labentis origo, / solus de superis qui tua terga vides / . . .*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The festival itself was Kalendae Ianuariae, the very day which we call New Year's Day. Earlier, at *Fasti I.39*, Ovid explains that the first month had at first been that of Mars and the second of Venus, chosen and named by Quirinus (sc. Romulus), but that Numa had prefixed two months, the first being that of Ianus. So, if Ovid had it right — and I've never seen any argument about it — this had been the situation right from the Regal Period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From 153 BC onwards, the consuls took office on the Kalends of January, which gives a special status to the date. Suetonius at Cal. 42 has *strenas ineunte anno recipere*, indicating a religious significance by giving some physical token.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Feriae Marti* is simply 'Festivals of Mars', which in March (the Kalends apart), were Equirria (14th),Agonalia (17th) and Tubilustrium (23rd). As for *novus annus,* it does have a classical antecedent where Ovid has this at Fasti, I, 149:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;dic, age, frigoribus quare novus incipit annus, / qui melius per ver incipiendus erat.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2303" RevisionGUID="6298749e-22ce-4f9f-9794-63838fd3445b" CreationDate="2016-12-31T22:45:27.353" UserId="406" Text="###Could the word have been ἐπίκαιρα (epícaera)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the neuter plural of the adjective ἐπίκαιρος (epícaerus, second declension two-termination). It could also potentially be an adverbial form, though I'd expect ἐπίκαιρον instead for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This adjective means either &quot;at just the right time&quot;, &quot;for only a certain time&quot;, or in medicine, &quot;very serious&quot;. It comes from the noun καιρός meaning &quot;the right time&quot;, suggested in a (now sadly deleted) answer to the other question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the closest word I can think of which pertains to timing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2302" RevisionGUID="952da256-43f1-4059-bcf6-7a26c4b2b927" CreationDate="2017-01-01T06:34:48.120" UserId="645" Comment="sp. " Text="The best indication is Ovid's *Fasti, I, 63 et seqq.*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ecce tibi faustum, Germanice, nuntiat annum / Inque meo primus carmine Ianus adest. / Iane biceps, anni tacite labentis origo, / solus de superis qui tua terga vides / . . .*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The festival itself was Kalendae Ianuariae, the very day which we call New Year's Day. Earlier, at *Fasti I.39*, Ovid explains that the first month had at first been that of Mars and the second of Venus, chosen and named by Quirinus (sc. Romulus), but that Numa had prefixed two months, the first being that of Ianus. So, if Ovid had it right — and I've never seen any argument about it — this had been the situation right from the Regal Period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From 153 BC onwards, the consuls took office on the Kalends of January, which gives a special status to the date. Suetonius at Cal. 42 has *strenas ineunte anno recipere*, indicating a religious significance by giving some physical token.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Feriae Marti* is simply 'Festivals for Mars', which in March (the Kalends apart), were Equirria (14th),Agonalia (17th) and Tubilustrium (23rd). As for *novus annus,* it does have a classical antecedent where Ovid has this at Fasti, I, 149:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;dic, age, frigoribus quare novus incipit annus, / qui melius per ver incipiendus erat.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2232" RevisionGUID="75e4021a-0bcd-4591-bb70-9274a0a3a54a" CreationDate="2017-01-01T07:39:30.887" UserId="75" Comment="deleted 1734 characters in body" Text="The first form, e.g., *cena*, is the lemma or lexical form. This is the form you use when looking up words in a dictionary or lexicon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second form is the lemma declined in the genitive case, singular number. In this instance, it is *cenae*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robert J. Henle wrote,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;All Latin nouns are divided into five main groups called declensions, and in these groups we have a model which shows us the proper endings to use. All we have to find about a new noun is this: What declension does it belong to? This we can tell from the Latin case called the GENITIVE. The GENITIVE SINGULAR always tells to what declension a noun belongs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the genitive singular declension is important because by removing the case ending, we can determine the word’s stem. For example, the case ending for the first declension noun in the genitive case, singular number is *-ae*. By removing that, we can determine the stem, which is *cen-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Henle, Robert J. *Latin: First Year.* Chicago: Loyola Press, 1958.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; p. 5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2305" RevisionGUID="a1b9b2c5-56f0-46de-838b-e4c63fa6c195" CreationDate="2017-01-01T10:59:03.953" UserId="522" Text="Had you considered Adelard of Bath? &#xD;&#xA;His translation of Euclid (from Arabic) and his treatise on the Astrolabe (written for William II) are both significant.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Various questions&quot; is a bit long-winded but pithy compared to Newton.&#xD;&#xA;His book on falconry is based on observation and best practice and was addressed to High-school students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would not have to battle with the Abstract nouns of Newton, Copernicus. &#xD;&#xA;The 12th century renaissance was profound, dynamic, dramatic, accessible. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2306" RevisionGUID="d813ab12-d0c0-44c1-a3ba-128c9141ae64" CreationDate="2017-01-01T11:30:31.893" UserId="79" Text="I saw a nice show of *aurora borealis* (or northern lights) last night, during the last two hours of 2016.&#xD;&#xA;Such shows are more common up north, and should be a rare occurrence in the Mediterranean.&#xD;&#xA;This makes me wonder:&#xD;&#xA;Are there Roman accounts of the *aurora borealis*?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--If not, when was the first Latin account written?--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to be able to describe my observations in good classical Latin, and drawing from ancient authors sounds like the way to start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora#Historical_theories.2C_superstition_and_mythology) mentions that Seneca wrote about it, but there is no precise citation; it is in *Naturales Quaestiones*.&#xD;&#xA;Greeks are also mentioned, and of them Pytheas is cited more precisely, Aristotle only by name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that there are ancient Roman accounts, and I believe there are not too many of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8336" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2306" RevisionGUID="d813ab12-d0c0-44c1-a3ba-128c9141ae64" CreationDate="2017-01-01T11:30:31.893" UserId="79" Text="Descriptions of aurora borealis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8337" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2306" RevisionGUID="d813ab12-d0c0-44c1-a3ba-128c9141ae64" CreationDate="2017-01-01T11:30:31.893" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|science|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2307" RevisionGUID="78e7451c-7bbb-4097-bc30-1533d493b452" CreationDate="2017-01-01T14:20:12.913" UserId="68" Text="An easy way to think about it (I offer this as a brief addition to Brian's excellent answer above) is that *fessus* means &quot;tired&quot; and *defessus*, as TKR suggests, means &quot;tired out.&quot; Latin verbs with prefixes often match English verbs with prepositions. (*Monstro* v. *demonstro* = &quot;show&quot; v. &quot;point out,&quot; etc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2308" RevisionGUID="63fee33c-5819-41f6-b160-4e2e0ac83780" CreationDate="2017-01-01T14:26:01.973" UserId="68" Text="In addition to Brian's excellent and thorough answer, I'll point out that it's a future imperative here, rather than a present imperative, which gives it a flavor not just of &quot;remember&quot; but of &quot;always remember!&quot; &quot;Always remember to die!&quot; is nonsensical, and &quot;Always remember that you died!&quot; would require a perfect infinitive. This leaves only &quot;Always remember that you will die.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2309" RevisionGUID="188b84ce-1bd7-46e2-8ff2-388af1ae8c0c" CreationDate="2017-01-01T19:37:52.020" UserId="68" Text="L&amp;S gives the noun *nidor, -oris*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  m. cf. Gr. κνίσσα for κνιδια, a vapor, steam, smell, from any thing boiled, roasted, burned, etc.: *nidoris odores*, Lucr 6, 987: *galbaneus*, Verg. G. 3, 415: *pinguescant madidi laeto nidore Penates*, Mart. 7, 27, 5; Plin. 24, 15, 85, § 135: *nocturnumque recens exstinctum lumen ubi acri Nidore offendit nares*, Lucr. 6, 792: *ganearum nidor atque fumus*, Cic. Pis. 6, 13: *foedus quidam nidor ex adustā plumā*, Liv. 38, 7; Plin. 13, 1, 1, § 2: *captus nidore culinae*, Juv. 5, 162: *nidor e culinā*, said of a slave who hangs constantly about the kitchen, a fume of the kitchen, kitchen-companion, Plaut. Most. 1, 1, 5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that seems like a possible option, especially as it also has the associated verb *nidoro, -are*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though I also feel like there's got to be a reference to burning incense somewhere in the centuries of Church Latin. Unfortunately, I don't know that corpus—but to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if the verb the Church uses were *fumo*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2310" RevisionGUID="bcd45ca2-053f-4f9d-b8d4-31feef180644" CreationDate="2017-01-02T00:47:51.923" UserId="230" Text="Cui Galba agricola fabulam novam narrat ? Filiabus dominae clarae fabulam novam narrat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer : To whom does Galba, the farmer, tell the new story ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How was I supposed to guess that &quot;Galba&quot; and &quot;the farmer&quot; were supposed to be written the way that they are ? I wrote this :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To whom does the farmer Galba tell a new story ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that the first translation makes the English more ok then the second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the second part of sentence :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Filiabus dominae clarae fabulam novam narrat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;answer : He tells the new story to the daughters of the famous lady.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The part that got me stuck is &quot;filiabus&quot; I have no idea where the &quot;bus&quot; part comes from since I don't remember ever seeing somethign like this at this point. Any explanation on this part would be helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8352" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2310" RevisionGUID="bcd45ca2-053f-4f9d-b8d4-31feef180644" CreationDate="2017-01-02T00:47:51.923" UserId="230" Text="Having problem translating these two sentences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8353" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2310" RevisionGUID="bcd45ca2-053f-4f9d-b8d4-31feef180644" CreationDate="2017-01-02T00:47:51.923" UserId="230" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2311" RevisionGUID="849baec0-3316-408c-89e1-f30ed13c8b82" CreationDate="2017-01-02T01:21:01.493" UserId="406" Text="For the first part: the two are equivalent. I like &quot;the farmer Galba&quot; better, but either is correct; it's just a matter of style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the second part: this is one of the few really weird things in the first declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you know, the usual dative and ablative plural ending is *-īs* in the first declension. This would give the form *fīliīs*. But *-īs* is also the dative/ablative plural ending in the **second** declension. So *fīliīs* could also be a form of *fīlius*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in this one specific circumstance—when a first-declension noun has the same stem as a second-declension noun—the dative and ablative plural ending becomes *-ābus* instead. So you see *fīliābus*, *deābus*, and a very few others that I can't think of right now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2312" RevisionGUID="a71c1b6d-e568-44e9-9c65-cb8e307bfb8e" CreationDate="2017-01-02T02:01:46.220" UserId="406" Text="The best search terms I've found are *trabs, -is* and *chasma, -atis*. Literally meaning a wooden beam, *trabs* was applied by both Pliny and Seneca to something which *might* be the aurora (though L&amp;S say it was probably a meteor).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny's *Natural History* II.26-7:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Emicant et trabes simili modo, quas δοκους vocant [...] fit et caeli ipsius hiatus, quod vocant chasma, fit et sanguinea species et, quo nihil terribilius mortalium timori est, incendium ad terras cadens inde...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trans:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The *trabēs*, which they call *δοκοι*, shine in the same way [...] Sometimes a rift is made in the sky itself, which they call *chasma*, and and from there a flame arises with blood-red appearance, which mortals fear more than anything else, descending toward the earth...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Seneca QN VII.4.3 onward mentions the *trabēs* as well and I'll post the relevant section as soon as I can access Perseus again. QN I.14.? also describes the *chasmata*. Sorry about the delay; I'm posting while travelling...]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2313" RevisionGUID="4f186949-7de1-4af0-9cc9-ba1903536003" CreationDate="2017-01-02T04:21:04.103" UserId="235" Text="I know that *cena* means dinner, *prandium* means lunch, and *ientaculum* means breakfast. But how do you say &quot;I'm having dinner&quot; (or lunch, or breakfast)? I can think of a few ideas, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Habeo cenam. Habeo prandium. Habeo ientaculum. &#xD;&#xA; - Edo cenam. Edo prandium. Edo ientaculum. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;But I really have no clue what is correct and idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, how would you say &quot;I'm having a snack&quot;, or &quot;I'm eating dessert&quot;? I recently read that *merenda* is the word for a snack, and *secunda mensa* is the word for dessert. But I wouldn't know what verb or expression to use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8363" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2313" RevisionGUID="4f186949-7de1-4af0-9cc9-ba1903536003" CreationDate="2017-01-02T04:21:04.103" UserId="235" Text="How do you say &quot;I'm having dinner/lunch/breakfast&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8364" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2313" RevisionGUID="4f186949-7de1-4af0-9cc9-ba1903536003" CreationDate="2017-01-02T04:21:04.103" UserId="235" Text="|word-request|vocabulary|phrase-request|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2314" RevisionGUID="ae3dbc75-aa06-4f30-b6d8-e2d3c33d65e4" CreationDate="2017-01-02T05:42:46.813" UserId="235" Text="In the Vulgate Bible, I came across this sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vivit Dominus Deus Israel, in cuius conspectu sto, si erit annis his ros et pluvia, nisi iuxta oris mei verba.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [As] the Lord God of Israel lives, in whose sight I stand, there will not be dew and rain these years, unless according to the words of my mouth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 Kings 17:1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation makes sense, but I don't understand the si...nisi construction. I know the basics of conditionals, but I haven't seen these two words used in combination before. Could anyone explain? Also, where do we get the &quot;not&quot; adverb in the clause, &quot;there will not be dew and rain&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8366" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2314" RevisionGUID="ae3dbc75-aa06-4f30-b6d8-e2d3c33d65e4" CreationDate="2017-01-02T05:42:46.813" UserId="235" Text="What does a &quot;si&quot; clause followed by a &quot;nisi&quot; clause mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8367" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2314" RevisionGUID="ae3dbc75-aa06-4f30-b6d8-e2d3c33d65e4" CreationDate="2017-01-02T05:42:46.813" UserId="235" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|vulgata|conditions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2315" RevisionGUID="162f14de-1b29-40d0-a13e-ec06af8bdbc0" CreationDate="2017-01-02T09:01:24.960" UserId="79" Text="Some meals have their own verbs: *cenare*, *prandere*, and others if I forget something.&#xD;&#xA;If you are having dinner or lunch, say *ceno* or *prandeo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All things edible do not have their own verbs &amp;mdash; nor do I think one should derive a new verb for every food item.&#xD;&#xA;The crucial question is to find the best verb for these purposes.&#xD;&#xA;I propose *sumere*.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *consumere* is also possible, but it may be too intense, unless you &quot;eat up&quot; or &quot;devour&quot; your meal.&#xD;&#xA;These verbs work for both foods and drinks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *edere* is also good.&#xD;&#xA;I would probably use *edere* or *sumere*, depending on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *habere* is incorrect here.&#xD;&#xA;If you say *cenam habeo*, I think you are in possession of a dinner.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you brought takeaway with you but you it is still in the fridge?&#xD;&#xA;The English phrase &quot;to have a meal&quot; is misleading here, and I don't think it works in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2316" RevisionGUID="db5e7052-d3a9-4cb9-b880-5642e31d0eae" CreationDate="2017-01-02T09:10:06.037" UserId="78" Text="It doesn't make any sense because it's not a Latin construction. The Latin appears to be a translation of the Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εἰ ἔσται τὰ ἔτη ταῦτα δρόσος καὶ ὑετὸς ὅτι εἰ μὴ διὰ στόματος λόγου μου.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is in turn is a rather literal &quot;translation&quot; of the Hebrew:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; אִם־יִהְיֶה הַשָּׁנִים הָאֵלֶּה טַל וּמָטָר כִּי אִם־לְפִי דְבָרִי&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll notice the parallel construction: εἰ...εἰ μὴ || אִם...אִם&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Hebrew, אִם is a conjunction that covers a [range of meanings](http://biblehub.com/hebrew/518.htm), and of course it (and Hebrew in general) doesn't work the same as Latin, Greek, or English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2317" RevisionGUID="56240b0e-2748-40ac-be32-388a88a8902f" CreationDate="2017-01-02T09:17:48.447" UserId="1003" Text="This is conditional sentence, and 'si' is the sign of the conditional here; 'Si', (if) with 'nisi' (unless) , the negative ni- refers to the principal clause, which is thus denied, if the conditional clause is accepted; (Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2317" RevisionGUID="5c3656cd-d8f2-49b3-b8a6-51268b04f428" CreationDate="2017-01-02T09:49:20.860" UserId="1003" Comment="added 300 characters in body" Text="This is conditional sentence, and 'si' is the sign of the conditional here; 'Si', (if) with 'nisi' (unless) , the negative ni- refers to the principal clause, which is thus denied, if the conditional clause is accepted; (Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge)&#xD;&#xA;There is also said, the negative of 'si' is 'si non' or 'nisi'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mind there are no similar examples given so it must be as C. M. Weimer said, 'not a Latin construction'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2305" RevisionGUID="b1b1e15a-0760-4242-aaac-8964d564f08b" CreationDate="2017-01-02T12:05:31.017" UserId="522" Comment="Online texts" Text="Had you considered Adelard of Bath? &#xD;&#xA;His translation of Euclid (from Arabic) and his treatise on the Astrolabe (written for William II) are both significant.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Various questions&quot; is a bit long-winded but pithy compared to Newton.&#xD;&#xA;His book on falconry is based on observation and best practice and was addressed to High-school students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would not have to battle with the Abstract nouns of Newton, Copernicus. &#xD;&#xA;The 12th century renaissance was profound, dynamic, dramatic, accessible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I have only found facsimile texts on line (with abbreviations and sigla [*i* over *g* =igitur};though the writing was unfussy at this date) but I shall keep looking.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMIN.ASP?Size=mid&amp;IllID=7195&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMIN.ASP?Size=mid&amp;IllID=7378&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMINBig.ASP?size=big&amp;IllID=7379&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BL the British library; The Wellcome Foundation; and especially the University of Toronto have helpful websitesfor independent students.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2318" RevisionGUID="18c02557-5fe7-4307-9ba6-ce449f885389" CreationDate="2017-01-02T12:45:36.137" UserId="1003" Text="I wonder is *'rigido rostro'* here in dative or ablative? Under &quot;Dative and verbs compounded with prepositions&quot; (Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge) it is said, that &quot; Many verbs compounded with the prepositions ad, ante, **con,** in, inter, ob, (post), prae, sub, and super, take the Dative, especially in moral relations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Dative is found, as a rule, only when these verbs are used in transferred sense. In **poetry** and later prose the Dative is extended even to the local signification.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;..., alteraque alterius rigido concrescere rostro ora  videt ...&lt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid Metamorphoses V 673&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;each saw another's face stiffening into a hard beak,..(F.J. Miller)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Altera (each; f.nom.) alterius ( of other, f.gen) rigido (stiff,hard adj. dat?) concrescere (to grow together, stiffen harden, inf.) rostro (rostrum - a beak;n.dat.?) ora (os - the mouth; n.acc.) videt (pres.ind.act.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or could it be ablative after all? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8374" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2318" RevisionGUID="18c02557-5fe7-4307-9ba6-ce449f885389" CreationDate="2017-01-02T12:45:36.137" UserId="1003" Text="Does 'concrescere' take dative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8375" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2318" RevisionGUID="18c02557-5fe7-4307-9ba6-ce449f885389" CreationDate="2017-01-02T12:45:36.137" UserId="1003" Text="|grammar-choice|grammar-identification|ovidius|metamorphoses|dative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2319" RevisionGUID="0a965638-638d-4c35-bb51-1596d32ab1e0" CreationDate="2017-01-02T15:38:00.107" UserId="1003" Text="In my dictionary *enuntio* is first conjugation verb, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*enuntio, avi, are* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now in Spinoza there came up this word - 'enunciatum', which is said to be (source - Wictionary) coming from *enuntio*, as alternative form of *'enuntiatus'*, Perfect passive participle of ēnuntiō.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't noticed such a changes before, is it common in new Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8377" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2319" RevisionGUID="0a965638-638d-4c35-bb51-1596d32ab1e0" CreationDate="2017-01-02T15:38:00.107" UserId="1003" Text="Why is perfect passive parciple from 'enuntio' - 'enunciatus'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8378" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2319" RevisionGUID="0a965638-638d-4c35-bb51-1596d32ab1e0" CreationDate="2017-01-02T15:38:00.107" UserId="1003" Text="|etymology|new-latin|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8379" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2319" RevisionGUID="d8c25366-6f5d-4c36-b74c-e9fe70d956d7" CreationDate="2017-01-02T15:46:00.763" UserId="1003" Comment="improved headline" Text="Why is perfect passive participle from 'enuntio' - 'enunciatus'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2320" RevisionGUID="6cb57e17-cf5c-4be6-9c4d-7c2b601aee14" CreationDate="2017-01-02T17:15:04.590" UserId="68" Text="I suggest contacting the folks at various organs and organizations. Jason Pedicone at Paideia, somebody at the Vivarium Novum, Terence Tunberg, the ALF, Reginald Foster, Gaius Licoppe, Roberto Carfagni, etc. I'm not sure any of them will be able to give you bounds on either side, but I'd bet that all of them together might give you a decent idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2321" RevisionGUID="69233370-4f35-4e53-ae0d-3327369aab2a" CreationDate="2017-01-02T17:15:20.913" UserId="952" Text="It appears that *concrescere*, meaning &quot;thicken&quot; or &quot;condense&quot;, is an intransitive verb, meaning that it will not take an accusative direct object. Most intransitive verbs take dative indirect objects, which represent the object that a certain action is directed at. Thus, *rigido rostro* would be in the dative.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only verbs that I can think of which take the ablative are the PUFF-V deponents: *potior* (&quot;get possession of&quot;), *utor* (&quot;use&quot;), *fruor* (&quot;enjoy&quot;), *fungor* (&quot;perform&quot;), and *vescor* (&quot;feed upon&quot;). If you would like some further reading on verbs that take the ablative case and other uses for the ablative, this [PDF from The Latin Library][1] may be of use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/ablative3.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2322" RevisionGUID="be861f7a-11fb-4722-8164-db0b4e737648" CreationDate="2017-01-02T18:02:59.857" UserId="78" Text="This is very common, in fact. In Medieval and later Latin, both C and T before I and E (and thus also AE and OE) softened the dentals (probably into /ts/ but perhaps even /tʃ/, English's &quot;ch&quot; sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This then led a number of places where in Latin there was a T to turn into a C, such as *racio* for *ratio* or *vicium* for *vitium*, leading to the derivative *vice*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the changes are detailed under Medieval Latin orthography guides, such as [Mantello &amp; Rigg's](https://books.google.com/books?id=Bb32Th4WAK0C&amp;pg=PA79#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2320" RevisionGUID="0fc446da-7f87-4c05-b919-6ee0183b8f4b" CreationDate="2017-01-02T19:52:15.447" UserId="68" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="I suggest contacting the folks at various organs and organizations. Jason Pedicone at Paideia, somebody at the Vivarium Novum, Terence Tunberg, Nancy Llewellyn, the ALF, Reginald Foster, Gaius Licoppe, Roberto Carfagni, etc. I'm not sure any of them will be able to give you bounds on either side, but I'd bet that all of them together might give you a decent idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2323" RevisionGUID="221c8d07-2bb0-447b-a454-ffbf16a170aa" CreationDate="2017-01-02T21:55:27.660" UserId="985" Text="I found this in an [online version of Plater &amp; White's _A grammar of the Vulgate_][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In emphatic speech, especially in adjurations, si = a negative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some of the attestations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'semel iuraui in sancto meo, si Dauid mentiar' (=I will not lie unto David) Ps. 89. 34 (88. 36), 'si introibunt in requiem meam' (= they shall not enter into my rest)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is true, the function of the _Vivit Dominus Deus Israel_ is to frame the speech as an oath. That's what the translation is trying to convey by adding an 'As' at the beginning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Plater and White entry goes on to give an explanation for this behavior:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This si is not really a negative. The 'not' comes from a suppressed clause, 'if... (then my oath will be in vain', which in the case of God it cannot be).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://archive.org/details/AGrammarOfTheVulgateByPlaterAndWhite" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2324" RevisionGUID="434ae2f7-7e7f-417f-a747-13759fa5a5e4" CreationDate="2017-01-02T22:50:09.467" UserId="79" Text="I ended up studying this poem last year:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ybQ56.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a congratulatory poem in a dissertation at the Academy of Turku from 1759.&#xD;&#xA;It is on page 4 of the [full dissertation](http://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/110144).&#xD;&#xA;I also [published](http://users.jyu.fi/~jojapeil/pub/bridges-lexell.pdf) an English translation of the poem in hexameter, together with an analysis (with J. Stén).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question concerns orthographic details.&#xD;&#xA;There are two versions of the letter S, a normal one (&quot;short S&quot;) used in word-final positions and a &quot;long S&quot; used in other positions.&#xD;&#xA;I do not know if the names &quot;short&quot; and &quot;long&quot; are standard, but I hope the intention is clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;This rule seems pretty obvious, and it parallels the Greek use of two sigmas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are two points that I want clarification for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. On the first line: *Cum modo diSjectis&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;2. On line 19: *LEXELL aSSiduos inter&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is the S in *disjectis* short?&#xD;&#xA;I assume it is because it is the final letter of the prefix *dis-*, and therefore considered word-final.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that prefixes should end in a short S, the first S in *assiduos* should be short.&#xD;&#xA;Why is it long?&#xD;&#xA;Is it because of &quot;attraction&quot; by the adjacent S which starts *siduos* is therefore long?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side question:&#xD;&#xA;Is this consistent with typographical conventions of the era?&#xD;&#xA;Are these two points exceptional, or is this something to be expected in general?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8394" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2324" RevisionGUID="434ae2f7-7e7f-417f-a747-13759fa5a5e4" CreationDate="2017-01-02T22:50:09.467" UserId="79" Text="On two types of S in a text from 1759" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8395" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2324" RevisionGUID="434ae2f7-7e7f-417f-a747-13759fa5a5e4" CreationDate="2017-01-02T22:50:09.467" UserId="79" Text="|new-latin|alphabet|orthography|typography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2325" RevisionGUID="836fd27e-2292-4e82-a7d0-e64823e1eae2" CreationDate="2017-01-03T00:19:08.770" UserId="68" Text="I've started reading Johann Schweighäuser's 1822 translation into Latin of Herodotus' *Histories*, and already the first sentence is giving me some trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek, which I can puzzle my way through just about half of, reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ἡροδότου Ἁλικαρνησσέος ἱστορίης ἀπόδεξις ἥδε, ὡς μήτε τὰ γενόμενα ἐξ ἀνθρώπων τῷ χρόνῳ ἐξίτηλα γένηται, μήτε ἔργα μεγάλα τε καὶ θωμαστά, τὰμὲν Ἕλλησι τὰ δὲ βαρβάροισι ἀποδεχθέντα, ἀκλεᾶ γένηται, τά τε ἄλλα καὶδι᾽ ἣν αἰτίην ἐπολέμησαν ἀλλήλοισι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tom Holland's English translation of the passage reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These are the researches of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, which he publishes in the hope of thereby preserving from decay the remembrance of what men have done, and of preventing the great and wonderful actions of the Greeks and the Barbarians from losing their due meed of glory; and withal to put on record what were their grounds of feuds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schweighäuser's version reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Herodotus Halicarnasseus, quæ **quum cæteris de rebus, tum de caussa** bellorum Græcos inter Barbaresque gestorum, perquirendo cognovit, ea his libris consignata in publicum edit; ne, quæ ab hominibus gesta sunt, progressu temporis oblivione deleantur, neve præclara mirabiliaque facta, quæ vel a Græcis edita sunt vel a Barbaris, sua laude fraudentur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My fairly literal translation of the Latin is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Herodotus of Halicarnassus publishes the things (set down in these books) which he recognized in researching as much into the cause of the wars waged between the Greeks and the barbarians as into other matters, lest the acts of men be wiped out into oblivion by the passage of time, or lest the wondrous and most famous deeds performed by the Greeks or the barbarians be cheated of their praise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having trouble with &quot;quæ quum cæteris de rebus, tum de caussa,&quot; for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) My understanding is that the *cum X, tum Y* generally means &quot;as much Y as X.&quot; But there's nothing like that in the English or, as far as I can tell, in the Greek.  &#xD;&#xA;2) There's nothing like &quot;into other matters&quot; in the English or, as far as I can tell, in the Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's going on with this phrase? (My Greek is *very* rudimentary, so if there's a discussion of the Greek in your answer, I'd love it if you transferred the explanation to the English.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8397" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2325" RevisionGUID="836fd27e-2292-4e82-a7d0-e64823e1eae2" CreationDate="2017-01-03T00:19:08.770" UserId="68" Text="cum/tum and the Latin version of Herodotus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8398" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2325" RevisionGUID="836fd27e-2292-4e82-a7d0-e64823e1eae2" CreationDate="2017-01-03T00:19:08.770" UserId="68" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2326" RevisionGUID="42d66ad3-b0ea-450c-8559-2c3fd6da8aef" CreationDate="2017-01-03T02:02:14.933" UserId="985" Text="_Cum...tum_ can also just be a way of saying 'not only...but also (instead of _non solum/tantum...sed etiam_) or, as here, since it corresponds to τε...καί in the Greek, 'both...and' (instead of _et...et_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Into other matters' (_ceteris de rebus_) corresponds to τά...ἄλλα in the Greek; in Holland's English, it looks as though 'withal' is meant to cover _ceteris de rebus_ and also the _cum...tum_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2325" RevisionGUID="2a7a0f72-a5c5-40f6-a683-16306a1d9f94" CreationDate="2017-01-03T02:07:31.770" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I've started reading Johann Schweighäuser's 1822 translation into Latin of Herodotus' *Histories*, and already the first sentence is giving me some trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek, which I can puzzle my way through just about half of, reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ἡροδότου Ἁλικαρνησσέος ἱστορίης ἀπόδεξις ἥδε, ὡς μήτε τὰ γενόμενα ἐξ ἀνθρώπων τῷ χρόνῳ ἐξίτηλα γένηται, μήτε ἔργα μεγάλα τε καὶ θωμαστά, τὰ μὲν Ἕλλησι τὰ δὲ βαρβάροισι ἀποδεχθέντα, ἀκλεᾶ γένηται, τά τε ἄλλα καὶ δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίην ἐπολέμησαν ἀλλήλοισι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest English translation of the passage reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These are the researches of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, which he publishes in the hope of thereby preserving from decay the remembrance of what men have done, and of preventing the great and wonderful actions of the Greeks and the Barbarians from losing their due meed of glory; and withal to put on record what were their grounds of feuds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schweighäuser's version reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Herodotus Halicarnasseus, quæ **quum cæteris de rebus, tum de caussa** bellorum Græcos inter Barbaresque gestorum, perquirendo cognovit, ea his libris consignata in publicum edit; ne, quæ ab hominibus gesta sunt, progressu temporis oblivione deleantur, neve præclara mirabiliaque facta, quæ vel a Græcis edita sunt vel a Barbaris, sua laude fraudentur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My fairly literal translation of the Latin is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Herodotus of Halicarnassus publishes the things (set down in these books) which he recognized in researching as much into the cause of the wars waged between the Greeks and the barbarians as into other matters, lest the acts of men be wiped out into oblivion by the passage of time, or lest the wondrous and most famous deeds performed by the Greeks or the barbarians be cheated of their praise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having trouble with &quot;quæ quum cæteris de rebus, tum de caussa,&quot; for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) My understanding is that the *cum X, tum Y* generally means &quot;as much Y as X.&quot; But there's nothing like that in the English or, as far as I can tell, in the Greek.  &#xD;&#xA;2) There's nothing like &quot;into other matters&quot; in the English or, as far as I can tell, in the Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's going on with this phrase? (My Greek is *very* rudimentary, so if there's a discussion of the Greek in your answer, I'd love it if you transferred the explanation to the English.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2325" RevisionGUID="7dee991d-575b-4bb5-be6a-05642a7906fb" CreationDate="2017-01-03T02:19:26.383" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="I've started reading Johann Schweighäuser's 1822 translation into Latin of Herodotus' *Histories*, and already the first sentence is giving me some trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek, which I can puzzle my way through just about half of, reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ἡροδότου Ἁλικαρνησσέος ἱστορίης ἀπόδεξις ἥδε, ὡς μήτε τὰ γενόμενα ἐξ ἀνθρώπων τῷ χρόνῳ ἐξίτηλα γένηται, μήτε ἔργα μεγάλα τε καὶ θωμαστά, τὰ μὲν Ἕλλησι τὰ δὲ βαρβάροισι ἀποδεχθέντα, ἀκλεᾶ γένηται, τά τε ἄλλα καὶ δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίην ἐπολέμησαν ἀλλήλοισι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One English translation of the passage reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These are the researches of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, which he publishes in the hope of thereby preserving from decay the remembrance of what men have done, and of preventing the great and wonderful actions of the Greeks and the Barbarians from losing their due meed of glory; and withal to put on record what were their grounds of feuds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another, more recent translation (Tom Holland's) reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Herodotus, from Halicarnassus, here displays his enquiries, that human achievement may be spared the ravages of time, and that everything great and astounding, and all the glory of those exploits which served to display Greeks and barbarians alike to such effect, be kept alive—and additionally, and most importantly, to give the reason they went to war.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schweighäuser's version reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Herodotus Halicarnasseus, quæ **quum cæteris de rebus, tum de caussa** bellorum Græcos inter Barbaresque gestorum, perquirendo cognovit, ea his libris consignata in publicum edit; ne, quæ ab hominibus gesta sunt, progressu temporis oblivione deleantur, neve præclara mirabiliaque facta, quæ vel a Græcis edita sunt vel a Barbaris, sua laude fraudentur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My fairly literal translation of the Latin is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Herodotus of Halicarnassus publishes the things (set down in these books) which he recognized in researching as much into the cause of the wars waged between the Greeks and the barbarians as into other matters, lest the acts of men be wiped out into oblivion by the passage of time, or lest the wondrous and most famous deeds performed by the Greeks or the barbarians be cheated of their praise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having trouble with &quot;quæ quum cæteris de rebus, tum de caussa,&quot; for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) My understanding is that the *cum X, tum Y* generally means &quot;as much Y as X.&quot; But there's nothing like that in the English or, as far as I can tell, in the Greek.  &#xD;&#xA;2) There's nothing like &quot;into other matters&quot; in the English or, as far as I can tell, in the Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's going on with this phrase? (My Greek is *very* rudimentary, so if there's a discussion of the Greek in your answer, I'd love it if you transferred the explanation to the English.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2326" RevisionGUID="6ffe2db5-bd13-473d-abc7-0350c38ac286" CreationDate="2017-01-03T02:26:14.117" UserId="985" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="_Cum...tum_ can also just be a way of saying 'not only...but also (instead of _non solum/tantum...sed etiam_) or, as here, since it corresponds to τε...καί in the Greek, 'both...and' (instead of _et...et_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Into other matters' (_ceteris de rebus_) corresponds to τά...ἄλλα in the Greek; in the English, it looks as though 'withal' is meant to cover _ceteris de rebus_ and also the _cum...tum_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2327" RevisionGUID="ac8933f3-994a-40b4-a288-4b466010f6dd" CreationDate="2017-01-03T07:18:41.080" UserId="75" Text="In *Latin Grammar*, Robert J. Henle wrote,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Accent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. a. In words of two syllables the accent is on the first.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;vía; béllum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. b. In words of more than two syllables, if the second last syllable is long it is accented; otherwise the accent is on the third last syllable.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;vidḗrunt; ágmĭne&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any exceptions to these rules? (I’m assuming that Latinized forms of foreign words will be the exception, but I am not certain.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Henle, Robert J. *Latin Grammar.* Chicago: Loyola Press, 1958.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; p. 2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8415" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2327" RevisionGUID="ac8933f3-994a-40b4-a288-4b466010f6dd" CreationDate="2017-01-03T07:18:41.080" UserId="75" Text="Rules of syllabification" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8416" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2327" RevisionGUID="ac8933f3-994a-40b4-a288-4b466010f6dd" CreationDate="2017-01-03T07:18:41.080" UserId="75" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2324" RevisionGUID="d27724b4-b38b-4de5-92bd-965803da4056" CreationDate="2017-01-03T14:14:13.277" UserId="79" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="I ended up studying this poem last year:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ybQ56.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a congratulatory poem in a dissertation at the Academy of Turku from 1759.&#xD;&#xA;It is on page 4 of the [full dissertation](http://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/110144).&#xD;&#xA;I also [published](http://users.jyu.fi/~jojapeil/pub/bridges-lexell.pdf) an English translation of the poem in hexameter, together with an analysis (with J. Stén).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question concerns orthographic details.&#xD;&#xA;There are two versions of the letter S, a normal one (&quot;short S&quot;) used in word-final positions and a &quot;long S&quot; used in other positions.&#xD;&#xA;I do not know if the names &quot;short&quot; and &quot;long&quot; are standard, but I hope the intention is clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;(It turns out &quot;long S&quot; is the standard name, and the normal short one is &quot;round&quot; or &quot;terminal&quot;; see comments.)&#xD;&#xA;This rule seems pretty obvious, and it parallels the Greek use of two sigmas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are two points that I want clarification for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. On the first line: *Cum modo di**S**jectis&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;2. On line 19: *LEXELL a**SS**iduos inter&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is the S in *disjectis* short?&#xD;&#xA;I assume it is because it is the final letter of the prefix *dis-*, and therefore considered word-final.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that prefixes should end in a short S, the first S in *assiduos* should be short.&#xD;&#xA;Why is it long?&#xD;&#xA;Is it because of &quot;attraction&quot; by the adjacent S which starts *siduos* is therefore long?&#xD;&#xA;Or is *as-* not realized to be a prefix?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side question:&#xD;&#xA;Is this consistent with typographical conventions of the era?&#xD;&#xA;Are these two points exceptional, or is this something to be expected in general?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2328" RevisionGUID="27789ead-9ed4-4afb-b248-f47735f72d07" CreationDate="2017-01-03T15:10:08.203" UserId="45" Text="You are right that *cum...tum* can be correlated to mean something like &quot;as...so,&quot; but by extension this can be used for &quot;X and especially Y.&quot; In fact, the description of this usage corresponds pretty exactly to what [Lewis and Short describes in meaning (3)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtum):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3 As correlative with a preceding cum, introducing particular after a universal or a stronger or more important assertion after a weaker or less important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.b. Clauses with the same predicate, which is placed after the first clause (always with indic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples. Note that you could translate into English using &quot;as X, so Y&quot; or &quot;while X, Y,&quot; but I will use &quot;X and/but especially Y.&quot; Note that L&amp;S indicates that &quot;*tum* is frequently strengthened,&quot; as is the case with *maxime&quot; below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum omnium rerum simulatio est vitiosa, tum amicitiae repugnat maxime. (Cic. Lael. 25, 91)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Deceit in all things is wrong, but deceit in friendship is especially repugnant.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; luxuria cum omni aetati turpis tum senectuti foedissima est. (Cic. Off. 1, 34, 123)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Lust is shameful in every time of life, but is especially ugly in old age.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &quot;quum cæteris de rebus, tum de caussa bellorum&quot; corresponds pretty closely to the above usage: &quot;concerning other things, but especially concerning the cause of the wars....&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a decent translation of the Greek, where &quot;τά ἄλλα&quot; (abbreviated as τἆλλα, but in this case separated by τε) means &quot;all else.&quot; It is even used adverbially to mean &quot;for the rest.&quot; In this case, Herodotus is just indicating that he wants to talk about &quot;all aspects&quot; of why there was a war but *especially&quot; &quot;for what cause.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[These textual notes](http://courses.missouristate.edu/ECarawan/HdtI1.htm) translate &quot;τά τε ἄλλα καὶ&quot; literally as &quot;the rest and...&quot; and, more idiomatically, as &quot;especially on what account.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It strikes me as a little generous to translate &quot;τά τε ἄλλα καὶ&quot; as *cum ceteris de rebus, tum...&quot;, since &quot;τἄλλα&quot; doesn't have a significant semantic contribution in the original. In either case, it's a sin of unnecessary verbosity, not corruption of meaning.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2325" RevisionGUID="d5e7a4ce-c790-4557-b27b-cf524239021b" CreationDate="2017-01-03T16:29:19.280" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="I've started reading Johann Schweighäuser's 1822 translation into Latin of Herodotus' *Histories*, and already the first sentence is giving me some trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek, which I can puzzle my way through just about half of, reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ἡροδότου Ἁλικαρνησσέος ἱστορίης ἀπόδεξις ἥδε, ὡς μήτε τὰ γενόμενα ἐξ ἀνθρώπων τῷ χρόνῳ ἐξίτηλα γένηται, μήτε ἔργα μεγάλα τε καὶ θωμαστά, τὰ μὲν Ἕλλησι τὰ δὲ βαρβάροισι ἀποδεχθέντα, ἀκλεᾶ γένηται, τά τε ἄλλα καὶ δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίην ἐπολέμησαν ἀλλήλοισι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One English translation of the passage reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These are the researches of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, which he publishes in the hope of thereby preserving from decay the remembrance of what men have done, and of preventing the great and wonderful actions of the Greeks and the Barbarians from losing their due meed of glory; and withal to put on record what were their grounds of feuds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another, more recent translation (Tom Holland's) reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Herodotus, from Halicarnassus, here displays his enquiries, that human achievement may be spared the ravages of time, and that everything great and astounding, and all the glory of those exploits which served to display Greeks and barbarians alike to such effect, be kept alive—and additionally, and most importantly, to give the reason they went to war.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schweighäuser's version reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Herodotus Halicarnasseus, quæ **quum cæteris de rebus, tum de caussa** bellorum Græcos inter Barbarosque gestorum, perquirendo cognovit, ea his libris consignata in publicum edit; ne, quæ ab hominibus gesta sunt, progressu temporis oblivione deleantur, neve præclara mirabiliaque facta, quæ vel a Græcis edita sunt vel a Barbaris, sua laude fraudentur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My fairly literal translation of the Latin is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Herodotus of Halicarnassus publishes the things (set down in these books) which he recognized in researching as much into the cause of the wars waged between the Greeks and the barbarians as into other matters, lest the acts of men be wiped out into oblivion by the passage of time, or lest the wondrous and most famous deeds performed by the Greeks or the barbarians be cheated of their praise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having trouble with &quot;quæ quum cæteris de rebus, tum de caussa,&quot; for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) My understanding is that the *cum X, tum Y* generally means &quot;as much Y as X.&quot; But there's nothing like that in the English or, as far as I can tell, in the Greek.  &#xD;&#xA;2) There's nothing like &quot;into other matters&quot; in the English or, as far as I can tell, in the Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's going on with this phrase? (My Greek is *very* rudimentary, so if there's a discussion of the Greek in your answer, I'd love it if you transferred the explanation to the English.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2312" RevisionGUID="6ecb396c-011c-4e59-843b-b1c4a106a0bb" CreationDate="2017-01-03T16:55:56.527" UserId="406" Comment="added 1737 characters in body" Text="The best search terms I've found are *trabs, -is* and *chasma, -atis*. Literally meaning a wooden beam, *trabs* was applied by both Pliny and Seneca to something which *might* be the aurora (though L&amp;S say it was probably a meteor).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny's *Natural History* II.26-7:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Emicant et trabes simili modo, quas δοκους vocant [...] fit et caeli ipsius hiatus, quod vocant chasma, fit et sanguinea species et, quo nihil terribilius mortalium timori est, incendium ad terras cadens inde...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trans:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The *trabēs*, which they call *δοκοι*, shine in the same way [...] Sometimes a rift is made in the sky itself, which they call *chasma*, and and from there a flame arises with blood-red appearance, which mortals fear more than anything else, descending toward the earth...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca defines *chasmata* in his *Natural Questions* I.14.1-2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...aliquando ardores sunt, hi nonnumquam fixi et haerentes nonnumquam uolubiles. Horum plura genera conspiciuntur: sunt bothyni, cum uelut corona cingente introrsus ingens caeli recessus est similis effossae in orbem specus; sunt pithiae, cum magnitudo uasti rotundique ignis dolio similis uel fertur uel uno loco flagrat; sunt chasmata, cum aliquod spatium caeli desedit et flammam uelut dehiscens in abdito ostentat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Colores quoque horum omnium plurimi sunt: quidam ruboris acerrimi, quidam euanidae ac leuis flammae, quidam candidae lucis, quidam micantes, quidam aequaliter et sine eruptionibus aut radiis fului...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trans:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...from time to time there are also glowing lights; these are sometimes static and held in place, sometimes whirling around. Multiple types of these are seen. There are *bothynī*, when within an encircling halo (*) is a great indentation in the sky, like a ditch that's been dug in a circle; there are *pithiæ*, when a huge round mass of fire, like a *dōlium* (†), is carried past or burns in a single place; there are *chasmata*, when some particular area of the sky sinks back and sends out flames, as though tearing open something that had been buried.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The colors of all these things are also quite numerous: some have an incredibly dazzling redness, some a frail and weak flame, some a resplendent white glow, some are flickering, some have a uniformly deep gold color without beams or rays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (*) According to L&amp;S, Seneca uses *corōna* for Greek *ἅλως* earlier in the QN when talking about the sun, so &quot;halo&quot; seems appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (†) A type of wine jar, presumably different from *urna* or *amphora* in some very relevant way...but I have no idea how.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Seneca QN VII.4.3 onward mentions the *trabēs* as well and I'll post the relevant section as soon as I can access Perseus again. Sorry about the delay; I'm posting while travelling...]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2312" RevisionGUID="71f2a739-a462-4083-b082-349ce0856e5f" CreationDate="2017-01-03T17:46:27.893" UserId="406" Comment="added 2696 characters in body" Text="The best search terms I've found are *trabs, -is* and *chasma, -atis*. Literally meaning a wooden beam, *trabs* was applied by both Pliny and Seneca to something which *might* be the aurora (though L&amp;S say it was probably a meteor).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny's *Natural History* II.26-7:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Emicant et trabes simili modo, quas δοκους vocant [...] fit et caeli ipsius hiatus, quod vocant chasma, fit et sanguinea species et, quo nihil terribilius mortalium timori est, incendium ad terras cadens inde...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trans:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The *trabēs*, which they call *δοκοι*, shine in the same way [...] Sometimes a rift is made in the sky itself, which they call *chasma*, and and from there a flame arises with blood-red appearance, which mortals fear more than anything else, descending toward the earth...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca defines *chasmata* in his *Natural Questions* I.14.1-2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...aliquando ardores sunt, hi nonnumquam fixi et haerentes nonnumquam uolubiles. Horum plura genera conspiciuntur: sunt bothyni, cum uelut corona cingente introrsus ingens caeli recessus est similis effossae in orbem specus; sunt pithiae, cum magnitudo uasti rotundique ignis dolio similis uel fertur uel uno loco flagrat; sunt chasmata, cum aliquod spatium caeli desedit et flammam uelut dehiscens in abdito ostentat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Colores quoque horum omnium plurimi sunt: quidam ruboris acerrimi, quidam euanidae ac leuis flammae, quidam candidae lucis, quidam micantes, quidam aequaliter et sine eruptionibus aut radiis fului...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trans:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...from time to time there are also glowing lights; these are sometimes static and held in place, sometimes whirling around. Multiple types of these are seen. There are *bothynī*, when within an encircling halo (*) is a great indentation in the sky, like a ditch that's been dug in a circle; there are *pithiæ*, when a huge round mass of fire, like a *dōlium* (†), is carried past or burns in a single place; there are *chasmata*, when some particular area of the sky sinks back and sends out flames, as though tearing open something that had been buried.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The colors of all these things are also quite numerous: some have an incredibly dazzling redness, some a frail and weak flame, some a resplendent white glow, some are flickering, some have a uniformly deep gold color without beams or rays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (*) According to L&amp;S, Seneca uses *corōna* for Greek *ἅλως* earlier in the QN when talking about the sun, so &quot;halo&quot; seems appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (†) A type of wine jar, presumably different from *urna* or *amphora* in some very relevant way...but I have no idea how.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca talks about *trabēs* in book VII.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VII.4.3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Trabes vero et faces, quae nullo alio inter se quam magnitudine distant [...] praebe[n]t speciem ignis extenti...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Indeed, *trabēs* and *facēs* (torches), which are distinguished by nothing except their size [...] show the appearance of a stretched-out fire [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The excised passages describe Epigenes's theories about *trabēs* being formed from humid tornadoes, which are fascinating but not relevant to the question at hand. Seneca goes on to refute it in various ways, pointing out that *trabēs* unlike tornadoes do not destroy people's houses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In VII.5.3-4 he then specifically distinguishes them from comets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Charmander quoque, in eo libro quem de cometis a composuit, ait Anaxagorae uisum grande insolitumque caelo lumen magnitudine amplae trabis, et id per multos dies fulsisse. Talem effigiem ignis longi fuisse Callisthenes tradit, antequam Burin et Helicen mare absconderet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aristoteles ait non trabem illam sed cometen fuisse; ceterum ob nimium ardorem non apparuisse sparsum ignem, sed procedente tempore, cum iam minus flagraret, redditam suam cometis faciem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Charmander also, in his book on comets, said that a large and unusual light was seen in the sky by Anaxagoras, the size of a full *trabs*, and that it shone for multiple full days. Callisthenes relates such an image of a line of fire right before the sea covered Buris and Helice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aristotle said that this had not been a *trabs*, but a comet; its fire had not seemed scattered because it was simply too bright, but as time went on, once it was shining less, it regained the usual look of a comet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the &quot;scattering&quot; of the fire is what distinguishes a *trabs* from a comet. In this passage, the *trabs* could also be a meteor, since I find it much easier to imagine a meteor and a comet looking similar than an aurora and a comet. But that raises the question of how Aristotle could have distinguished them with the naked eye; I'll leave that to someone more knowledgeable in ancient astronomy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VII.5.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Trabes enim flammam aequalem habent nec ullo loco intermissam aut languidam, in ultimis uero partibus coactam, qualem fuisse in illa de qua modo rettuli Callisthenes tradit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For *trabēs* have an even flame, not faint or broken at any point, but indeed gathered together at the edges, just like the one Callisthenes reported in the [book] I spoke of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This part sounds strange describing an aurora. I've never seen one myself, but in images they do often seem to be &quot;broken&quot; in various places? However, it's not clear whether Seneca has ever seen the aurora himself; he may simply be repeating others' descriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general I would prefer the words *chasma* or the post-classical *aurōra* over *trabs*, given the amount of uncertainty in its meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8431" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2327" RevisionGUID="932412cb-2949-4dc8-99d2-12a27fd26b3e" CreationDate="2017-01-03T20:06:36.537" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[600],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:45,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;brianpck&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="8432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2330" RevisionGUID="b6e02615-34fc-4588-8bd8-87ed09272fdb" CreationDate="2017-01-03T20:40:38.477" UserId="68" Text="I think all Brian's suggestions are wonderful. I'd just add one more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **In interrete, canis ab homine non discernitur.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On the internet, a dog can't be told apart from a man./On the internet, you can't tell a dog from a man.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8434" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1233" RevisionGUID="5b038f0d-e75f-45bb-9e4c-097d9c3f721f" CreationDate="2017-01-03T21:26:09.757" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2331" RevisionGUID="25a6e78e-8266-4a2e-b978-058a975cc1ad" CreationDate="2017-01-04T04:45:17.220" UserId="230" Text="I have the following sentence : Clara est insula Sicilia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I initially thought : Sicily is a famous island (which doesn't seem to make sense considering how the sentence is set up, but who knows... that's the best I got)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to my surprise, this is the real answe : The island of Sicily is famous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, the only time where I can express &quot;of&quot; is by using a genitive. What is going on here ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8439" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2331" RevisionGUID="25a6e78e-8266-4a2e-b978-058a975cc1ad" CreationDate="2017-01-04T04:45:17.220" UserId="230" Text="Expressing a possession relationship without the genitive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8440" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2331" RevisionGUID="25a6e78e-8266-4a2e-b978-058a975cc1ad" CreationDate="2017-01-04T04:45:17.220" UserId="230" Text="|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2332" RevisionGUID="89cc7a24-21fd-46e8-886f-1dac15512d2b" CreationDate="2017-01-04T05:46:36.293" UserId="75" Text="Based on the Latin text provided, *Sicilia* (“Sicily”) would be in apposition with *insula* (“island”), and both would be declined in the same case—in this case, nominative. *Clara* (“famous”) would be the predicate adjective (or subject complement) of the subject *insula*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation would be, “The island Sicily is famous.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This idea could also be expressed by means of a genitive (a.k.a. “appositive genitive”), *viz.*, *Clara est insula Siciliae.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yrqkA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2333" RevisionGUID="b64fb6f4-b99e-4d69-a3bc-90f2472bc6e0" CreationDate="2017-01-04T05:53:48.403" UserId="406" Text="You are correct. In this case, the &quot;of&quot; is simply an English idiom. &quot;The island of Sicily&quot; and &quot;the island Sicily&quot; and even &quot;Sicily the island&quot; are all different ways to get the same meaning; the first just sounds more natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Of* can have quite a few different meanings in English, some of which don't align well with the Latin genitive. One good test is to see whether one object is actually possessed by another: &quot;the island of Sicily&quot; would use a genitive *insula Siciliæ* if, say, some wealthy person named Sicily had purchased an island, making it &quot;Sicily's island&quot;. But if that's not your intended meaning, then you would put *insula* and *Sicilia* in &quot;apposition&quot;, using the same case for both of them (like how *clara* is in the same case as well)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2334" RevisionGUID="ca5fe995-bb3f-4138-b9e1-903d4d809ad3" CreationDate="2017-01-04T05:54:19.570" UserId="985" Text="A genitive would indicate a relationship of dependency or subordination  between the genitive noun and the other noun. But the island _is_ Sicily. There's no dependency; the two nouns are just different terms for the same thing. Latin doesn't typically use a genitive for expressions such as 'the island of Sicily' or 'the city of Rome.' Instead, it tends to treat the two nouns as noun + appositive, much as it would for phrases such as 'the consul Cicero', where 'the consul' and 'Cicero' refer to the same person. To say _insula Siciliae_ would, in general, be as strange in Latin as to say 'the consul of Cicero' in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: I've added all the qualifiers in the above, because I have occasionally seen the genitive used; but I think it has mostly been in poetry, or maybe in Tacitus or Pliny the Younger.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2332" RevisionGUID="2cee493c-653f-4c3d-86a8-c5a8b55d5d55" CreationDate="2017-01-04T06:24:18.193" UserId="75" Comment="added 272 characters in body" Text="Based on the Latin text provided, *Sicilia* (“Sicily”) would be in apposition with *insula* (“island”), and both would be declined in the same case—in this case, nominative. *Clara* (“famous”) would be the predicate adjective (or subject complement) of the subject *insula*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation would be, “The island Sicily is famous.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This idea could also be expressed by means of a genitive (a.k.a. “appositive genitive”), *viz.*, *Clara est insula Siciliae.* One such example of this “appositive genitive” is found in Jerome’s Latin translation of [Acts 8:5][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Philippus autem descendens in **civitatem Samariae** praedicabat illis Christum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yrqkA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.blueletterbible.org/vul/act/8/5/s_1026005" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2330" RevisionGUID="26e7e36d-8d29-4bd7-a94a-68ce75e3c76d" CreationDate="2017-01-04T13:42:54.253" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="I think all Brian's suggestions are wonderful. I'd just add one more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **In interrete, canis ab homine non discernitur.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On the internet, a dog isn't told apart from a man./On the internet, you can't tell a dog from a man.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2335" RevisionGUID="c0819ae6-12bd-49a5-baff-4ed781b90541" CreationDate="2017-01-04T14:18:59.670" UserId="324" Text="Different languages (even closely related ones) have different ways of say “the town/island/country by the name of NN.” Some use a straightforward apposition between the two nouns (“urbs Roma”, “die Stadt Berlin”); some use a quasi-possessive phrase (“the city of London”, “la ville de Paris”); some actually put the place name in the genitive case (Arabic “madīnatu Baghdāda”). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simpliciter has called our attention to the Vulgate of Acts 8:5 with the rather non-Latin looking “Philippus autem descendens in civitatem Samariae”, which in fact is a literal translation of Φίλιππος δὲ κατελθὼν εἰς πόλιν τῆς Σαμαρείας. Samaria is at least originally the name of a region, not a city, so εἰς πόλιν τῆς Σαμαρείας could be taken to mean “to the (principal) town of the (land) Samaria”. It seems that the Greek text was understood thus by the translator of the Syriac Bible: ܦ݂ܺܝܠܺܝܦ݁ܳܘܣ ܕ݁ܶܝܢ ܢܚܶܬ݂ ܠܶܗ ܠܰܡܕ݂ܺܝܢ݈ܬ݁ܳܐ ܕ݁ܫܳܡܪܳܝܶܐ “Phillip descended to the town of the Samaritans (plural ethnonym)”. If the author intended to say “to the town (called) Samaria” he would not be saying it in very good Greek.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2332" RevisionGUID="0db29043-b768-4942-9ff2-7b1129ea5d18" CreationDate="2017-01-04T15:20:37.967" UserId="75" Comment="added 1010 characters in body" Text="Based on the Latin text provided, *Sicilia* (“Sicily”) would be in apposition with *insula* (“island”), and both would be declined in the same case—in this case, nominative. *Clara* (“famous”) would be the predicate adjective (or subject complement) of the subject *insula*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation would be, “The island Sicily is famous.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This idea could also be expressed by means of a genitive (a.k.a. “appositive genitive”), *viz.*, *Clara est insula Siciliae.* One such example of this “appositive genitive” is found in Jerome’s Latin translation of [Acts 8:5][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Philippus autem descendens in **civitatem Samariae** praedicabat illis Christum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: @fdb does raise a plausible objection regarding “the city of Samaria.” However, the appositive genitive does occur elsewhere in classical Latin. For example, in *Aeneid* of P. Vergilius Maro:&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Hic tamen ille **urbem Patavi** sedesque locavit Teucrorum...*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nevertheless, here he settled **the city of Patavium**&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; and the seats of the Teucrians&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, such a construction is rare, and as others have stated, it is more common to encounter the city and the name of the city in simple apposition (rather than in a genitive of apposition).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Book 1, Line 247 (p. [87][3])&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; or “Padua”&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; or “Trojans”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Virgil. [*The Bucolics, Georgics, and Aeneid of Virgil: with English Notes.*][4] Ed.  Moore, Edward. Boston: Sanborn, 1857.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yrqkA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.blueletterbible.org/vul/act/8/5/s_1026005&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=chhKAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA87#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=true&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=chhKAAAAYAAJ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2332" RevisionGUID="fae34b5a-d030-4c7c-82ca-020c00b9700e" CreationDate="2017-01-04T15:27:15.523" UserId="75" Comment="added 1010 characters in body" Text="Based on the Latin text provided, *Sicilia* (“Sicily”) would be in apposition with *insula* (“island”), and both would be declined in the same case—in this case, nominative. *Clara* (“famous”) would be the predicate adjective (or subject complement) of the subject *insula*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation would be, “The island Sicily is famous.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This idea could also be expressed by means of a genitive (a.k.a. “appositive genitive”), *viz.*, *Clara est insula Siciliae.* One such example of this “appositive genitive” is found in Jerome’s Latin translation of [Acts 8:5][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Philippus autem descendens in **civitatem Samariae** praedicabat illis Christum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: @fdb does raise a plausible objection regarding “the city of Samaria.” However, the appositive genitive does occur elsewhere in classical Latin. For example, in *Aeneid* of P. Vergilius Maro:&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Hic tamen ille **urbem Patavi** sedesque locavit Teucrorum...*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nevertheless, here he settled **the city of Patavium**&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; and the seats of the Teucrians&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Patavi* is the genitive declension of *Patavium*. If *urbem* were in simple apposition, we would expect *Patavium*, which is also declined in the accusative declension like *urbem*, rather than the genitive *Patavi*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, such a construction is rare, and as others have stated, it is more common to encounter the city and the name of the city in simple apposition (rather than in a genitive of apposition).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Book 1, Line 247 (p. [87][3])&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; or “Padua”&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; or “Trojans”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Virgil. [*The Bucolics, Georgics, and Aeneid of Virgil: with English Notes.*][4] Ed.  Moore, Edward. Boston: Sanborn, 1857.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yrqkA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.blueletterbible.org/vul/act/8/5/s_1026005&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=chhKAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA87#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=true&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=chhKAAAAYAAJ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2331" RevisionGUID="ee527afc-3ee3-41a1-94fb-43483d39deee" CreationDate="2017-01-04T18:03:32.367" UserId="45" Comment="added 18 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have the following sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Clara est insula Sicilia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I initially thought: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sicily is a famous island&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This doesn't seem to make sense considering how the sentence is set up, but who knows... that's the best I got.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to my surprise, this is the real answer: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The island of Sicily is famous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, the only time where I can express &quot;of&quot; is by using a genitive. What is going on here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8451" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2331" RevisionGUID="ee527afc-3ee3-41a1-94fb-43483d39deee" CreationDate="2017-01-04T18:03:32.367" UserId="45" Comment="added 18 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2276" RevisionGUID="edfd26fd-ff6b-4ecd-8d28-2131026856e0" CreationDate="2017-01-04T18:08:24.323" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body" Text="I have the following sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quis lata in silva habitat? Diana, lunae clarae pulchra dea, lata in silva habitat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I initially thought these words were emphatic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Lata*, the adjective, because it's separated from the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *lunae clarae*, because it's a genitive that is put before *pulchra dea*&#xD;&#xA;* *pulchra*, because it's an adjective that is put before the noun.&#xD;&#xA;* Finally, the second *lata* for the same reason as the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to my key: the first *lata* is not emphasized and neither is *lunae clarae*, but the rest is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there something I'm missing here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** My exercise is asking to show which parts of the sentence are considered to be emphatic, as in that the normal word order of the Latin sentence is changed to create a stylistic effect. Not sure if it makes sense said this way. For example, we usually put the adjective after the noun but if we wanted to put emphasis on the adjective we would switch it before the noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2332" RevisionGUID="9e52db24-3a2c-4f5d-955c-9bf87977b420" CreationDate="2017-01-04T20:04:05.723" UserId="75" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Based on the Latin text provided, *Sicilia* (“Sicily”) would be in apposition with *insula* (“island”), and both would be declined in the same case—in this case, nominative. *Clara* (“famous”) would be the predicate adjective (or subject complement) of the subject *insula*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation would be, “The island Sicily is famous.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This idea could also be expressed by means of a genitive (a.k.a. “appositive genitive”), *viz.*, *Clara est insula Siciliae.* One such example of this “appositive genitive” is found in Jerome’s Latin translation of [Acts 8:5][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Philippus autem descendens in **civitatem Samariae** praedicabat illis Christum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: @fdb does raise a plausible objection regarding “the city of Samaria.” However, the appositive genitive does occur elsewhere in classical Latin. For example, in *Aeneid* of P. Vergilius Maro:&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Hic tamen ille **urbem Patavi** sedesque locavit Teucrorum...*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nevertheless, here he settled **the city of Patavium**&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; and the seats of the Teucrians&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Patavi* is the genitive declension of *Patavium*. If *urbem* were in simple apposition, we would expect *Patavium*, which is also declined in the accusative declension like *urbem*, rather than the genitive *Patavi*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, such a construction is rare, and as others have stated, it is more common to encounter the city and the name of the city in simple apposition (rather than in a genitive of apposition).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Virgil. [*The Bucolics, Georgics, and Aeneid of Virgil: with English Notes.*][3] Ed.  Moore, Edward. Boston: Sanborn, 1857.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Book 1, Line 247 (p. [87][4])&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; or “Padua”&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; or “Trojans”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yrqkA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.blueletterbible.org/vul/act/8/5/s_1026005&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=chhKAAAAYAAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=chhKAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA87#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=true" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2336" RevisionGUID="c5d8442a-d5f1-4440-ad70-1884deff61e9" CreationDate="2017-01-04T22:34:58.203" UserId="1003" Text="Here is a small problem with *'credo'*, there is an example in my dictionary saying that *'crede mihi* (dat.)' means *'believe me'*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge gives *credere* under *Dative with Intransitive verbs - &quot;The Indirect Object is put in the Dative vith many Intranitive verbs of Advantage or Disadvantage, Yielding and resisting, Pleasure and Displeasure, Bidding and Forbidding*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; When I look now this sentence in Spinoza,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nam quandoquidem ejus essentia omnem imperfectionem secludit absolutamque perfectionem involvit, eo ipso omnem causam dubitandi de ipsius existentia tollit summamque de eadem certitudinem dat, **quod mediocriter attendenti perspicuum fore credo.&lt;** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;..., quod (that) mediocriter (moderately) attendenti (Pr. part. dat.) perspicuum (acc. adj.) fore (Fut. inf.) credo (here as Verba Declarandi, takes inf. and acc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Attendenti' looks to be dative, but could it be here in dative not because of the first, *&quot;Dative with intransitive verbs&quot;* but because of *Dative with Transitive verbs - &quot;The Indirect Object is put in the Dative with Transitive verbs, which already have a Direct object in the Accusative. Translation to, for, from.* &quot; (Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge) ? Is it possible that one verb can be intransitive and transitive in the same time, depending of the exact meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When translated &quot;I believe that it would be clear **to** moderately attentive&quot;  - which sounds reasonable in English, but when looking at that first example given, 'crede mihi' then I would think *'quod perspicuum*' should be in Dative instead of '*attendenti* ' ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8455" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2336" RevisionGUID="c5d8442a-d5f1-4440-ad70-1884deff61e9" CreationDate="2017-01-04T22:34:58.203" UserId="1003" Text="'Credo' with dative problem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8456" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2336" RevisionGUID="c5d8442a-d5f1-4440-ad70-1884deff61e9" CreationDate="2017-01-04T22:34:58.203" UserId="1003" Text="|verbs|grammar-identification|dative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2337" RevisionGUID="044684af-815e-467b-8fdd-977ed059ed70" CreationDate="2017-01-04T22:51:09.613" UserId="985" Text="Gildersleeve and Lodge call this _Dativus Iudicantis_, Dative of the person judging. It's specifying from whose perspective the statement is _perspicuum_: 'clear *to* (from the perspective of) the person who pays even moderate attention'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in this example, the dative isn't the object of _credo_ at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2338" RevisionGUID="19f64ffc-1dce-47ff-bca8-44a0912b678f" CreationDate="2017-01-05T00:51:40.377" UserId="1124" Text="pacis puella, *I found somewhere this meant &quot;for my family I live&quot;, I used it, but now I can't find anything close to these words? Help&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8466" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2338" RevisionGUID="19f64ffc-1dce-47ff-bca8-44a0912b678f" CreationDate="2017-01-05T00:51:40.377" UserId="1124" Text="need translation of latin quote, pacis puella" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8467" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2338" RevisionGUID="19f64ffc-1dce-47ff-bca8-44a0912b678f" CreationDate="2017-01-05T00:51:40.377" UserId="1124" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2339" RevisionGUID="44c024d7-10dd-4d19-9c20-0d4f15837383" CreationDate="2017-01-05T01:29:08.433" UserId="406" Text="*Pacis puella* literally means &quot;girl of peace&quot;; I have no idea how that could be translated as living for one's family. As Christianus mentioned in a comment, better translations of that motto have been posted at [this other question][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/954/how-to-say-i-live-for-my-family-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2340" RevisionGUID="73cf7e6b-7cee-4f24-aa64-3fec31ce72d4" CreationDate="2017-01-05T03:20:01.410" UserId="952" Text="Lines 405-407 of Vergil's Aeneid, Book 6, are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Si te nulla movet tantae pietatis imago,  &#xD;&#xA;at ramum hunc&quot; (aperit ramum qui veste latebat)  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;agnoscas.&quot; Tumida ex ira tum corda residunt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context: Aeneas and the priestess are trying to cross the river to the Underworld, but living bodies are not permitted to cross. Thus, they present Charon with a the golden branch which allows them to enter the Underworld&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;if no such great image of piety moves you,  &#xD;&#xA;but this bough&quot; (she reveals the bough which was hiding in her clothing)  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;you should recognise.&quot; Then the hearts swollen from anger settle;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After reading my translation over a few times, I came to wonder whether my translation of the section in parenthesis is actually correct. Could it be *&quot;she reveals the bough which **she** was hiding in her clothing&quot;*, or is the subject of *latebat* the bough as I currently have it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8474" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2340" RevisionGUID="73cf7e6b-7cee-4f24-aa64-3fec31ce72d4" CreationDate="2017-01-05T03:20:01.410" UserId="952" Text="Potentially Ambiguous Subject for a Verb in the Aeneid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8475" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2340" RevisionGUID="73cf7e6b-7cee-4f24-aa64-3fec31ce72d4" CreationDate="2017-01-05T03:20:01.410" UserId="952" Text="|translation|aeneis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2341" RevisionGUID="99886a71-52e2-40a0-bb59-486138cee443" CreationDate="2017-01-05T04:32:16.637" UserId="985" Text="Grammatically, the subject must be the bough, because _qui_, the relative pronoun that refers to _ramum_, is nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the clause 'which she was hiding', 'which' is the direct object; so the relative pronoun would have to be accusative (_quem_). In addition, the verb would have to be transitive, which _lateo_ isn't; it doesn't take a direct object (except in some relatively uncommon instances where it means 'to escape the notice of' or 'to be hidden _from_').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, if you're not aiming for a strictly literal translation, I think you'd be perfectly justified in translating as 'which she was hiding.' After all, the bough was unlikely to have snuck into her clothing on its own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2340" RevisionGUID="506e712c-6731-4cd4-948a-11ab803f94e6" CreationDate="2017-01-05T04:40:21.153" UserId="952" Comment="edited body" Text="Lines 405-407 of Vergil's Aeneid, Book 6, are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Si te nulla movet tantae pietatis imago,  &#xD;&#xA;at ramum hunc&quot; (aperit ramum qui veste latebat)  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;agnoscas.&quot; Tumida ex ira tum corda residunt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context: Aeneas and the priestess are trying to cross the river to the Underworld, but living bodies are not permitted to cross. Thus, they present Charon with a the golden branch which allows them to enter the Underworld&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;if no image of such great piety moves you,  &#xD;&#xA;but this bough&quot; (she reveals the bough which was hiding in her clothing)  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;you should recognise.&quot; Then the hearts swollen from anger settle;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After reading my translation over a few times, I came to wonder whether my translation of the section in parenthesis is actually correct. Could it be *&quot;she reveals the bough which **she** was hiding in her clothing&quot;*, or is the subject of *latebat* the bough as I currently have it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2337" RevisionGUID="5572da6d-5428-4217-963e-431c44ce3fac" CreationDate="2017-01-05T04:45:01.387" UserId="985" Comment="added 774 characters in body" Text="Gildersleeve and Lodge call this _Dativus Iudicantis_, Dative of the person judging. It's specifying from whose perspective the statement is _perspicuum_: 'clear *to* (from the perspective of) the person who pays even moderate attention'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in this example, the dative isn't the object of _credo_ at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** As to the question of whether it's possible for a verb to be used transitively and intransitively at the same time, the answer is yes, and _credo_ is a verb that can do this (though not in this Spinoza passage). For example, in colloquial English, _omnia tibi credo_, would mean something like 'I believe (or 'trust') you in all matters' or 'I believe (or 'trust') everything you tell me' or 'I take your word in all matters.' It's a conflation of two separate constructions: the intransitive _tibi credo_ ('I trust you') and the transitive _omnia credo_ ('I believe everything'). I just recently ran across an example in Seneca's tragedy _Thyestes_ (line 295): _cui tanta credet?_ The commentary that I'm using points to other instances in Plautus and Ovid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2342" RevisionGUID="893b204d-50e9-4c29-80d1-8a50fee456cf" CreationDate="2017-01-05T05:17:22.917" UserId="78" Text="English is unhelpful here, as &quot;hide&quot; can be transitive or intransitive. However, the verb *lateo, latere* is intransitive. It doesn't mean *to hide something*, but rather *to lie hidden* or *to be hidden*. It's intransitive, and thus does not take a direct object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want the verb *to hide* as in *to conceal*, you'd want to use instead something like *celo, celare* or perhaps *contego, contegere*, words where the subject hides *something*, not *be hidden*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2343" RevisionGUID="24c490f7-3233-4983-8cd2-0052b996b827" CreationDate="2017-01-05T18:52:32.923" UserId="952" Text="In reading through Book VI of Vergil's Aeneid, I came across the following line:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**851** tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this is translated as &quot;*you, Roman, remember to rule the people with authority*&quot;, where *memento* is a future imperative. Evidently, **future imperatives are used when the command is given for some point in the future**. This got me thinking about the situations in which future imperatives could be used.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It makes sense for affirmative future imperatives to exist, because you could give someone instructions to do something for a later date. However, it seems that negative future imperatives would not really be necessary  because you could just avoid giving any order or give a negative present imperative (I figure, chances are, if you don't want someone to do something today, you wouldn't want them to do it tomorrow).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Here are my questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Do negative future imperatives exist?&#xD;&#xA; 2. If so, what are some examples? (preferably from the Classical Latin works, but anything is fine)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Would this construction be favoured over using a negative subjunctive or *non* with a periphrastic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8481" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2343" RevisionGUID="24c490f7-3233-4983-8cd2-0052b996b827" CreationDate="2017-01-05T18:52:32.923" UserId="952" Text="Negative Future Imperatives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8482" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2343" RevisionGUID="24c490f7-3233-4983-8cd2-0052b996b827" CreationDate="2017-01-05T18:52:32.923" UserId="952" Text="|aeneis|imperative|future-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2344" RevisionGUID="8fa84d8b-34c8-4c32-88e6-f8983f790e84" CreationDate="2017-01-05T19:10:42.880" UserId="79" Text="Negative future imperatives do indeed exist.&#xD;&#xA;A great many can be found in the [laws of twelve tables](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/12tables.html).&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hominem mortuum in urbe ne sepelito*  &#xD;&#xA;Do not bury a dead person in the city&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--A dead person shall not be buried in the city--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging by these examples, the syntax is simply *ne* + future imperative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if *memento* should be semantically treated as a future imperative.&#xD;&#xA;It is a future imperative by form, yes, but the verb *meminisse* is irregular and this is the only imperative it has.&#xD;&#xA;I do not know to what extent *memento(te)* has the sense of a future imperative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the impression that the future imperative adds a festive or pompous tone to a command.&#xD;&#xA;I would use the future imperative in grandiose orders like &quot;go forth and serve your people&quot; but probably not in mundane orders regarding the future like &quot;bring me an apple tomorrow&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;My idiosyncrasies are no indication of good classical style, so take this bit with a grain of salt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2345" RevisionGUID="a6cda3f2-4145-4956-82c7-7b173a440a85" CreationDate="2017-01-05T21:57:24.703" UserId="79" Text="The verb *meminisse* is irregular.&#xD;&#xA;It has only the active perfect system (*memini, meministi, meminit&amp;hellip;*) and the imperatives *memento* and *mementote*.&#xD;&#xA;These imperatives are future imperatives by form, and I would like to know if they are future by meaning, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regular verbs have present and future imperatives (eg. *ama(te)* and *amato(te)*) and there is a semantic difference between the two.&#xD;&#xA;**Is *memento(te)* semantically present or future imperative?**&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps it is both or we cannot tell.&#xD;&#xA;I do not recall ever seeing a discussion about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperative *memento* came up in two questions recently:&#xD;&#xA;[Negative Future Imperatives](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2343/79) and [Parallels for the infinitive in “memento mori”?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2230/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8485" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2345" RevisionGUID="a6cda3f2-4145-4956-82c7-7b173a440a85" CreationDate="2017-01-05T21:57:24.703" UserId="79" Text="Is memento(te) semantically a future imperative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8486" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2345" RevisionGUID="a6cda3f2-4145-4956-82c7-7b173a440a85" CreationDate="2017-01-05T21:57:24.703" UserId="79" Text="|semantics|imperative|irregular-words|future-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2344" RevisionGUID="2ed06488-c885-4009-9f95-462fdf257474" CreationDate="2017-01-05T21:58:23.447" UserId="79" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="Negative future imperatives do indeed exist.&#xD;&#xA;A great many can be found in the [laws of twelve tables](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/12tables.html).&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hominem mortuum in urbe ne sepelito*  &#xD;&#xA;Do not bury a dead person in the city&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--A dead person shall not be buried in the city--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging by these examples, the syntax is simply *ne* + future imperative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if *memento* should be semantically treated as a future imperative.&#xD;&#xA;It is a future imperative by form, yes, but the verb *meminisse* is irregular and this is the only imperative it has.&#xD;&#xA;I do not know to what extent *memento(te)* has the sense of a future imperative.&#xD;&#xA;(I asked a [separate question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2345/79) about this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the impression that the future imperative adds a festive or pompous tone to a command.&#xD;&#xA;I would use the future imperative in grandiose orders like &quot;go forth and serve your people&quot; but probably not in mundane orders regarding the future like &quot;bring me an apple tomorrow&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;My idiosyncrasies are no indication of good classical style, so take this bit with a grain of salt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2347" RevisionGUID="6fa7ac2a-522f-4fe3-a944-858176b58358" CreationDate="2017-01-06T13:53:58.413" UserId="68" Text="I've gotten a couple Latin translations of Herodotus, and I'm trying to figure out which one has better Latinity. I'm confident they're both grammatically correct, but which one is stylistically better? (I have my suspicions, but I'll keep them quiet, lest I bias the vote.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I'm not asking for which is the better/more accurate *translation*—I just want to know about the Latin style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Version 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![translation 1][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Version 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![translation 2][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9G7xK.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tiLWd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8496" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2347" RevisionGUID="6fa7ac2a-522f-4fe3-a944-858176b58358" CreationDate="2017-01-06T13:53:58.413" UserId="68" Text="which of these two translations is in better Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8497" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2347" RevisionGUID="6fa7ac2a-522f-4fe3-a944-858176b58358" CreationDate="2017-01-06T13:53:58.413" UserId="68" Text="|translation|greek|style|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2345" RevisionGUID="f41ce2ec-04e3-48c5-b5e6-7bfc520aa9b2" CreationDate="2017-01-06T15:02:31.870" UserId="79" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="The verb *meminisse* is irregular.&#xD;&#xA;It has only the active perfect system (*memini, meministi, meminit&amp;hellip;*) and the imperatives *memento* and *mementote*.&#xD;&#xA;These imperatives are future imperatives by form, and I would like to know if they are future by meaning, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regular verbs have present and future imperatives (eg. *ama(te)* and *amato(te)*) and there is a semantic difference between the two.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *meminisse* has only one type of imperative, which is of future form.&#xD;&#xA;**Is *memento(te)* semantically present or future imperative?**&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps it is both or we cannot tell.&#xD;&#xA;I do not recall ever seeing a discussion about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperative *memento* came up in two questions recently:&#xD;&#xA;[Negative Future Imperatives](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2343/79) and [Parallels for the infinitive in “memento mori”?](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2230/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2338" RevisionGUID="553a936e-bf86-4628-8f9b-65fe88eec97d" CreationDate="2017-01-06T15:07:19.913" UserId="932" Comment="typo + syntaxe" Text="*Pacis puella*: I found somewhere this meant &quot;*for my family I live*&quot;, I used it, but now I can't find anything close to these words. Help.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8500" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2338" RevisionGUID="553a936e-bf86-4628-8f9b-65fe88eec97d" CreationDate="2017-01-06T15:07:19.913" Comment="Proposed by 932 approved by 79 edit id of 163" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2347" RevisionGUID="b0d8116a-4a9e-450e-b579-85f1e180032e" CreationDate="2017-01-06T16:19:30.700" UserId="68" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="I've gotten a couple Latin translations of Herodotus, and I'm trying to figure out which one has better Latinity. I'm confident they're both grammatically correct, but which one is stylistically better? (I have my suspicions, but I'll keep them quiet, lest I bias the vote.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I'm not asking for which is the better/more accurate *translation*—I just want to know about the Latin style. I'd rather read one that's less true to Herodotus but has elegant Latin than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Version 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![translation 1][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Version 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![translation 2][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9G7xK.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tiLWd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2347" RevisionGUID="58626f22-3157-4f59-a86a-ffcfbc934b4a" CreationDate="2017-01-06T16:26:51.837" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="I've gotten a couple Latin translations of Herodotus, and I'm trying to figure out which one has better Latinity. I'm confident they're both grammatically correct, but which one is stylistically better? (I have my suspicions, but I'll keep them quiet, lest I bias the vote.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I'm not asking for which is the better/more accurate *translation*—I just want to know about the Latin style. I'd rather read one that's less true to Herodotus but has elegant Latin than the reverse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Version 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![translation 1][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Version 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![translation 2][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9G7xK.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tiLWd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2348" RevisionGUID="009a1ca9-c004-4749-bf3e-c9f409009d0f" CreationDate="2017-01-06T18:20:04.327" UserId="324" Text="mementō is formed from the reduplicated perfect stem (IE *me-mn-), not from the present stem (IE *men-). Thus, morphologically it is a perfect imperative, not a future imperative, which is always formed from the present stem. The IE imperative ending *-tōd has various different usages in the daughter languages: Greek -τω forms the 3rd sing. present imperative, -σατω the 3rd sing. aorist imperative. memini is a perfect-present (perfect in form, but present in meaning), so there is no reason not to regard mementō as a perfect imperative in form, but present imperative in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2348" RevisionGUID="4a48623b-1536-4d7f-b957-cc78204352b0" CreationDate="2017-01-07T01:07:02.150" UserId="324" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="mementō is formed from the reduplicated perfect stem (IE *me-mn-), not from the present stem (IE *men-). Thus, morphologically it is a perfect imperative, not a future imperative; the latter is always formed from the present stem. The IE imperative ending *-tōd has various different usages in the daughter languages: Greek -τω forms the 3rd sing. present imperative, -σατω the 3rd sing. aorist imperative. memini is a perfect-present (perfect in form, but present in meaning), so there is no reason not to regard mementō as a perfect imperative in form, but present imperative in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2349" RevisionGUID="555d3a0c-adf5-4dea-95e6-e4ac3b07de5e" CreationDate="2017-01-07T20:00:04.377" UserId="79" Text="I learned from [this previous question about the semantics of *memento(te)*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2345/79) that *memento(te)* is not morphologically a future imperative.&#xD;&#xA;It turned to be a perfect imperative (semantically present), as it was formed from the perfect stem.&#xD;&#xA;I had previously thought of *-to* as a future imperative ending exclusively.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how unique *memento(te)* is in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other examples of perfect imperatives than *memento(te)*?&#xD;&#xA;Or are there any other examples if imperatives ending in *-to(te)* than the usual future imperatives, perfect or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such forms are not found in conjugation tables &amp;mdash; or they have magically evaded my sight &amp;mdash; but there might be some rare occurrences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8510" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2349" RevisionGUID="555d3a0c-adf5-4dea-95e6-e4ac3b07de5e" CreationDate="2017-01-07T20:00:04.377" UserId="79" Text="Are there other perfect imperatives than memento?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8511" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2349" RevisionGUID="555d3a0c-adf5-4dea-95e6-e4ac3b07de5e" CreationDate="2017-01-07T20:00:04.377" UserId="79" Text="|example-request|verbs|imperative|irregular-words|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2350" RevisionGUID="21406d3f-3340-4d22-abdf-45750d7711f4" CreationDate="2017-01-07T22:09:38.703" UserId="645" Text="I can't start from the Greek original but, as a translated piece, the first of these seems a bit mechanical, and I prefer the second for style (it's a little shorter, too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you would like a more detailed explanation, I'd be happy to edit it into this answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2352" RevisionGUID="48258eda-73c6-4619-8164-73b9bd491f43" CreationDate="2017-01-08T10:43:23.857" UserId="79" Text="We had [a question about punctuation in classical Latin](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/33/79) and it received some great answers.&#xD;&#xA;It left me with one question, though:&#xD;&#xA;Are there ancient guides or descriptions of punctuation?&#xD;&#xA;I am not looking for modern analyses of inscriptions or other documents, but passages or remarks by the Romans on the topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8517" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2352" RevisionGUID="48258eda-73c6-4619-8164-73b9bd491f43" CreationDate="2017-01-08T10:43:23.857" UserId="79" Text="Ancient guides or descriptions of punctiation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8518" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2352" RevisionGUID="48258eda-73c6-4619-8164-73b9bd491f43" CreationDate="2017-01-08T10:43:23.857" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|passage-request|punctuation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8520" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2338" RevisionGUID="0cfe2064-abcc-4904-a52c-5ac531645ca5" CreationDate="2017-01-08T10:56:24.557" UserId="79" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:45,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;brianpck&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:68,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joel Derfner&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:952,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Sapphira&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8521" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2352" RevisionGUID="2f7b61f0-f45f-4365-97ef-6c591f1ae1b5" CreationDate="2017-01-08T11:00:20.567" UserId="79" Comment="edited title" Text="Ancient guides or descriptions of punctuation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2353" RevisionGUID="c6758dea-8eae-45e9-a2e2-91b2377f1b7f" CreationDate="2017-01-08T15:04:31.773" UserId="45" Text="Since I learned Latin using ecclesiastical pronunciation, I have a general interest in the shift from the classical pronunciation of &quot;v&quot; as /w/ to /v/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is more focused though: I am interested in finding out **at what point Greek transcriptions of Latin names began using &quot;β&quot; instead of &quot;ου&quot; to transcribe Latin's consonantal &quot;v&quot;.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cursory research reveals two close examples which use a different approach:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Josephus (AD 37-100), in [*Jewish Antiquities* 15](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0145%3Abook%3D15%3Asection%3D345), transcribes &quot;Varro&quot; as &quot;Οὐάρρωνος.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* Plutarch (AD 45-120), in his [*Life of Caesar* 5](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0130%3Achapter%3D5), transcribes &quot;Vetus/eri&quot; as &quot;Βέτερι.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something tells me, though, that Plutarch usually transcribes in the other way. I also recall that later works from Constantinople almost always use &quot;β.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware that there will not be a sharp dividing line, but I am interested in knowing if there are **any guidelines about time and place that will help me to predict which way a Greek text will transcribe this sound.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8537" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2353" RevisionGUID="c6758dea-8eae-45e9-a2e2-91b2377f1b7f" CreationDate="2017-01-08T15:04:31.773" UserId="45" Text="When did consonantal &quot;v&quot; start being transcribed as &quot;β&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8538" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2353" RevisionGUID="c6758dea-8eae-45e9-a2e2-91b2377f1b7f" CreationDate="2017-01-08T15:04:31.773" UserId="45" Text="|greek|alphabet|phonetics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2354" RevisionGUID="2447260c-b2f0-45a5-b560-49ebe9770999" CreationDate="2017-01-08T16:38:02.920" UserId="235" Text="I would like to say &quot;I am eating in the grocery store&quot;, and so far I have come up with &quot;edo in foro&quot; and &quot;edo in emporio&quot;. But I'm not sure if either of these would be the best fit. What word would you use to describe a modern-day grocery store? On a related topic, what is the Latin equivalent of the Greek αγορά? I assume that if I were to ask the same question of Attic Greek, αγορά would be the clear choice. Please correct me if I am wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8540" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2354" RevisionGUID="2447260c-b2f0-45a5-b560-49ebe9770999" CreationDate="2017-01-08T16:38:02.920" UserId="235" Text="What Latin word could I use to refer to a grocery store?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8541" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2354" RevisionGUID="2447260c-b2f0-45a5-b560-49ebe9770999" CreationDate="2017-01-08T16:38:02.920" UserId="235" Text="|classical-latin|greek|word-request|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2355" RevisionGUID="62bf2a01-6902-457f-84a2-0561cdae073b" CreationDate="2017-01-08T16:57:45.897" UserId="68" Text="The word to use is probably *macellum*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; macellum, i (macellus, i, m., Mart. 10, 96, 9), n. root μαχ-; cf. Gr. μάχομαι, to fight; cf. μάχαιρα, μάχη, and *mactāre*; prop. butcher's stall, shambles; hence, transf., meat-market, provision-market (where flesh, fish, and vegetables were sold). Lit.: *venio ad macellum, rogito pisces*, Plaut. Aul. 2, 8, 3: *apud emporium atque in macello*, id. Am. 4, 1, 4: *nostin' porticum apud macellum hac deorsum?* Ter. Ad. 4, 2, 34: *excandefacere annonam macelli*, Varr. R. R. 3, 2, 16; cf.: *putarem annonam in macello cariorem fore*, Cic. Div. 2, 27, 59: *barathrum macelli*, Hor. Ep. 1, 15, 31: *quae est ista laus, quae possit e macello peti?* Cic. Fin. 2, 15, 50: *dispositis circa macellum custodibus*, Suet. Caes. 43: *cetariorum*, Varr. R. R. 3, 17, 7: *ad ipsum introitum exspectare macelli*, Juv. 11, 10: *retibus adsiduis penitus scrutante macello proxima*, id. 5, 95.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —In masc.: *conturbator macellus*, Mart. 10, 96, 9.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —Plur.: *fercula nullis ornata macellis*, Juv. 11, 64.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —* Transf., meat: *arcessitur inde macellum*, Manil. 5, 370.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, to go grocery shopping would probably be *obsono*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obsōnō āvī, ātus, āre, o)ywne/w, to buy provisions, cater, purvey: *cum fide*, T.: *Vix drachumis est obsonatum decem*, T.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —To feast, treat, furnish an entertainment: *de meo*, T.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —To provide, prepare: *ambulando famem*, get an appetite." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2347" RevisionGUID="6416bca7-f24d-45d3-969a-491ebd61a096" CreationDate="2017-01-08T22:35:19.007" UserId="68" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I've gotten a couple Latin translations of Herodotus, and I'm trying to figure out which one has better Latinity. I'm confident they're both grammatically correct, but which one is stylistically better? (I have my suspicions, but I'll keep them quiet, lest I bias the vote.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I'm not asking for which is the better/more accurate *translation*—I just want to know about the Latin style. I'd rather read one that's less true to Herodotus but has more elegant Latin than the reverse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Version 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![translation 1][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Version 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![translation 2][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9G7xK.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tiLWd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2356" RevisionGUID="00167b3e-8b89-420b-a9c6-dfbb0e07e0ec" CreationDate="2017-01-08T22:58:17.193" UserId="40" Text="Sturtevant, *The Pronunciation of Greek and Latin*, p. 88, has a relevant passage, though he doesn't go into details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since Attic and Hellenistic Greek had no such sound as Classical Lat. *v*, namely [w], a substitution was necessary and the choice lay between ου and β. For a long time the former was preferred; but as [β] became a more and more frequent pronunciation of *v*, the digraph ου became less and less appropriate to represent it. This may be the whole explanation of the increasing preference for β which, **by the second or third century A.D.**, led to its regular use as the substitute for Lat. *v*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2357" RevisionGUID="ba30237a-0105-4baa-a15f-b6dd59204426" CreationDate="2017-01-08T23:24:32.857" UserId="406" Text="The perfect imperative is effectively extinct in Latin. I have never seen it with a perfect meaning, and in fact did not realize that *mementō* was based on a perfect stem until fdb pointed it out (though in retrospect the reduplication and perfect endings are a pretty good clue).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best place to look for evidence would be defective verbs, which might not have a present imperative available to replace the perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three Latin verb roots which use perfect forms with a present meaning: *meminī*, *ōdī*, and *coepī*. Of these, only *meminī* seems to be attested in the imperative; forms _*coeptō(te)_ and _*ōsō(te)_ might be expected, but aren't mentioned in L&amp;S. A corpus search is confounded by the past participles and substantives *coeptus* and *ōsus*, which *meminī* lacks; all instances I have found are from these rather than the imperative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other defective verbs are similarly unenlightening. *Āiō* and *inquam* for instance have regular present imperatives, and no attested perfect stems to work from." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2358" RevisionGUID="a73a8f30-e751-4f0d-a045-c388a86b92d9" CreationDate="2017-01-08T23:35:53.617" UserId="324" Text="More to the point: the usual school pronunciation of Latin in Germany and (if I am not mistaken) in the Netherlands is that ci + vowel and ti + vowel are both realised as /ts/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2358" RevisionGUID="2c60fa40-cd64-4d27-a3d2-6ecf661fce3f" CreationDate="2017-01-08T23:50:43.203" UserId="324" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="More to the point: the usual school pronunciation of Latin in Germany and (if I am not mistaken) in the Netherlands is that ci + vowel and ti + vowel are both realised as /tsi/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2358" RevisionGUID="a22228a7-7fa0-4c27-8021-79f2588025c1" CreationDate="2017-01-09T00:25:26.117" UserId="324" Comment="deleted 65 characters in body" Text="The usual school pronunciation of Latin in Germany is that ci + vowel and ti + vowel are both realised as /tsi/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2360" RevisionGUID="60b9877e-4918-421a-a7b2-7bfbef86f821" CreationDate="2017-01-09T01:57:33.900" UserId="75" Text="According to BlueLetterBible, the Latin Vulgate translation of Matthew 26:49 states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![BlueLetterBible, Matt. 26:49, Vulgate][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek text from the Textus Receptus states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;ΜΘʹ&lt;/sup&gt; καὶ εὐθέως προσελθὼν τῷ Ἰησοῦ εἶπεν **Χαῖρε** ῥαββί καὶ κατεφίλησεν αὐτόν &lt;sup&gt;TR, 1550&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assumed the Latin translation of Χαῖρε to be *Ave*, but what is *Have*? Is that a typo?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QhuJn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8553" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2360" RevisionGUID="60b9877e-4918-421a-a7b2-7bfbef86f821" CreationDate="2017-01-09T01:57:33.900" UserId="75" Text="The Latin word “Have” rather than “Ave” as a translation of the Greek word Χαῖρε?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8554" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2360" RevisionGUID="60b9877e-4918-421a-a7b2-7bfbef86f821" CreationDate="2017-01-09T01:57:33.900" UserId="75" Text="|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2361" RevisionGUID="bb53ea7a-0d19-49df-9091-15cbebb77d75" CreationDate="2017-01-09T02:13:46.057" UserId="40" Text="It's an alternate form of *[ave](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daveo2)*; the L&amp;S entry gives a couple of examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Presumably this form arose through [hypercorrection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercorrection): since *h* was generally not pronounced in popular speech, confusion easily arose about which words did and did not contain it. Catullus [makes fun of a certain Arrius](http://www.vroma.org/~hwalker/VRomaCatullus/084.html) who inserted *h*'s where they weren't needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1664" RevisionGUID="5a86b47f-1609-42df-a1d0-c1a83a561d3e" CreationDate="2017-01-09T02:51:26.950" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="To expand on Joonas's answer, I think he is 100% correct that *mirata* is elliptical; ***est* is left out** but must be assumed in order to translate the sentence. The structure is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuno **despexit** in Argos&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et **mirata [est]** nebulas volucres fecisse faciem noctis&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nec **sensit** [nebulas] remitti tellure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have three parallel main clauses here, separated by the coördinating conjunctions *et* and *nec*. Within the second clause, there is an accusative with infinitive that depends on / is governed by the verb *mirata*; the third clause* also contains an a.c.i., depending on *sensit*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;In your quotation, *est* must have been left out. The coördinating conjunction *et* forces us to read it as something that is parallel with what came before it; because it cannot be parallel with a single noun or a noun group, or whatever, that came before *et*, it must be parallel with the entire clause before it (*Iuno aspexit...*), which means that it must itself also be a full clause with a finite verb (*mirata est...*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An English aequivalent would be thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;s&gt;Juno looked down and amazed that ...&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems clear that *was* must be supplied, or the two parts cannot be properly read together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there had been no *et*, then the opposite would have obtained:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Iuno despexit in Argos&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *mirata nebulas volucres fecisse faciem noctis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English aequivalent would be thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Juno looked down, amazed that ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The participle would have had to be dependent on the previous clause, and one (full) clause can only depend on another clause (= be subordinate to it) if it is introduced with a subordinating conjunction or a relative pronoun, which is absent here. It follows that *mirata* could not have been a full clause, and the whole phrase would have been just a participial phrase (a participle with some arguments), just as in the English example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;As to whether participles can govern infinitives and indirect speech, the answer is yes. **A participle is both an adjective and a verb** at the same time. Externally, it is an adjective, since it must normally agree with a noun or pronoun (although those can be implicit—but that is also the case with adjectives). That's why participles have the same endings as adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *laudo canem mordentem* = I praise the biting dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *curo canem vulneratum* = I care for the wounded dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Internally, however, it is a verb, which means that it can often have the same arguments that any other verb can—arguments that depend on it / are governed by it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *laudo canem mordentem inimicos* = I praise a dog biting enemies / that bites enemies (a direct object normally occurs only with verbs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *curo canem vulneratum ab inimico* = I care for a dog wounded by an enemy / that is wounded by an enemy (*ab* &quot;by&quot; normally occurs only with verbs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *mirata* can govern an a.c.i. just like any other verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;*) By &quot;clause&quot; I always mean a full clause, i.e. a finite verb with its dependencies—the conventional meaning of the word *clause* as something closed off and complete." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2355" RevisionGUID="d2cac006-a7dd-4b6d-aab8-d27c063467a8" CreationDate="2017-01-09T05:42:07.167" UserId="68" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="The word to use is probably *macellum*. Lewis &amp; Short offers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; macellum, i (macellus, i, m., Mart. 10, 96, 9), n. root μαχ-; cf. Gr. μάχομαι, to fight; cf. μάχαιρα, μάχη, and *mactāre*; prop. butcher's stall, shambles; hence, transf., meat-market, provision-market (where flesh, fish, and vegetables were sold). Lit.: *venio ad macellum, rogito pisces*, Plaut. Aul. 2, 8, 3: *apud emporium atque in macello*, id. Am. 4, 1, 4: *nostin' porticum apud macellum hac deorsum?* Ter. Ad. 4, 2, 34: *excandefacere annonam macelli*, Varr. R. R. 3, 2, 16; cf.: *putarem annonam in macello cariorem fore*, Cic. Div. 2, 27, 59: *barathrum macelli*, Hor. Ep. 1, 15, 31: *quae est ista laus, quae possit e macello peti?* Cic. Fin. 2, 15, 50: *dispositis circa macellum custodibus*, Suet. Caes. 43: *cetariorum*, Varr. R. R. 3, 17, 7: *ad ipsum introitum exspectare macelli*, Juv. 11, 10: *retibus adsiduis penitus scrutante macello proxima*, id. 5, 95.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —In masc.: *conturbator macellus*, Mart. 10, 96, 9.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —Plur.: *fercula nullis ornata macellis*, Juv. 11, 64.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —* Transf., meat: *arcessitur inde macellum*, Manil. 5, 370.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, to go grocery shopping would probably be *obsono*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obsōnō āvī, ātus, āre, o)ywne/w, to buy provisions, cater, purvey: *cum fide*, T.: *Vix drachumis est obsonatum decem*, T.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —To feast, treat, furnish an entertainment: *de meo*, T.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —To provide, prepare: *ambulando famem*, get an appetite." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2362" RevisionGUID="7c43f04b-f8ea-40ee-9a90-5f07a66183df" CreationDate="2017-01-09T11:34:09.743" UserId="79" Text="If someone is in good health, one can say that they are as fit as a flea (or fiddle) in English or as healthy as a billy goat (&quot;terve kuin pukki&quot;) in Finnish.&#xD;&#xA;What would be a similar idiom in Latin, indicating excellent health?&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer an animal comparison if there is one, and in any case something more colorful than *optimae valetudinis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(To make this easier to find, let me repeat the key question in Finnish: Miten sanotaan &quot;terve kuin pukki&quot; latinaksi?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8563" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2362" RevisionGUID="7c43f04b-f8ea-40ee-9a90-5f07a66183df" CreationDate="2017-01-09T11:34:09.743" UserId="79" Text="As fit as an animal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8564" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2362" RevisionGUID="7c43f04b-f8ea-40ee-9a90-5f07a66183df" CreationDate="2017-01-09T11:34:09.743" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|phrase-request|animals|finnish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2363" RevisionGUID="c7660c13-a484-471d-bdf2-d409b19fa738" CreationDate="2017-01-09T21:44:54.570" UserId="45" Text="I am trying to find more examples, but for the present I can add one to the exhibit. It is likely that this is *not* an established idiom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [Plauti *Fragmenta*](https://books.google.com/books?id=qCBVAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA1742):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quasi lupus ab armis valeo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The footnote of the above edition glosses this irregular use of *ab* as specifying *how* the speaker is strong, i.e. &quot;**I am as strong as a wolf in my shoulders.**&quot; (N.B. [*armus, -i*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Darmus) = shoulder.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This almost definitely refers to *strength and ferocity* rather than *health*. Compare to other usages with the same animal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quasi lúpus esuriens ille metui ne in me faceret impetum. (Plautus, *Captivi* 912)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2364" RevisionGUID="162c6185-339f-407d-92d6-ae6fbeaa4162" CreationDate="2017-01-10T01:07:08.183" UserId="75" Text="The Greek text of the Textus Receptus (1550) states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;ΚΒʹ&lt;/sup&gt; δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ **πίστεως** Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς πάντας καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς **πιστεύοντας** οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή &lt;sup&gt;TR, 1550&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which Jerome translated into Latin as,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;XXII&lt;/sup&gt; iustitia autem Dei per fidem Iesu Christi super omnes qui credunt non enim est distinctio &lt;sup&gt;Vul&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, it would be acceptable to translate διὰ πίστεως as “by [the] **faith** of” and τοὺς πιστεύοντας as “those who have **faith**,” thus emphasizing the similarity in the Greek stem πιστ-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I noticed that Jerome translated πίστεως into Latin as *fidem*, from the lemma *fidēs*, but using a different root altogether, he translated τοὺς πιστεύοντας into Latin as *qui **credunt***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than *crēdunt* from the lemma *crēdō*, why didn’t Jerome instead use *fīdunt* from the lemma *fīdo*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8572" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2364" RevisionGUID="162c6185-339f-407d-92d6-ae6fbeaa4162" CreationDate="2017-01-10T01:07:08.183" UserId="75" Text="In Romans 3:22, why did Jerome prefer to use crēdunt rather than fīdunt?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8573" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2364" RevisionGUID="162c6185-339f-407d-92d6-ae6fbeaa4162" CreationDate="2017-01-10T01:07:08.183" UserId="75" Text="|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2365" RevisionGUID="9729b8b1-ccdd-472a-a84c-fffb818508d8" CreationDate="2017-01-10T02:14:15.237" UserId="78" Text="You can't really get into the mind of a particular author, and I do not believe Jerome ever commented on this point, but a couple notes should suffice. First, Jerome is writing for the common person, and it doesn't seem as if *fidere* is all that common a word. You can see for yourself how common *[credere](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=credo&amp;la=la#lexicon)* is compared to *[fidere](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=fido&amp;la=la#lexicon)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not just this passage, it's most of the passages in the Vulgate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, good translation practice both then and today did and does not adhere to the idea that related words must be translated using the same root. While Jerome is fairly literal much of the time, the Latin would be incomprehensible if it strictly translated &quot;literally&quot; the Greek/Hebrew." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2366" RevisionGUID="73463654-6716-4a74-bd27-2852b10f329d" CreationDate="2017-01-10T02:25:01.317" UserId="45" Text="All translation involves some form of (hopefully minimized) loss and (hopefully undistracting) gain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, though, the choice is clear, for a very simple reason: **[*fido*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfido) is not a good translation of [*πιστεύω*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpisteu%2Fw), when it simply means &quot;believe.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek *πιστεύω* has a range of meanings, including &quot;trust,&quot; &quot;believe,&quot; and &quot;entrust,&quot; which are captured more or less by two Latin verbs: *credo* captures all of these meanings, while *fido* only captures a small part. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My (inexhaustive) look at a parallel text seems to show that the same Latin words were always used to translate these related &quot;faith&quot; words from Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *πίστις* =&gt; fides&#xD;&#xA;* *πιστός* =&gt; fidelis&#xD;&#xA;* *πιστεύω* =&gt; credere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth noting that *credere* was originally a financially term, and that a *creditum* was a &quot;loan.&quot; Although it is the only appropriate translation for * πιστεύω*, it was necessary to hearken to *fides/elis* for the corresponding Greek terms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jerome uses *confido* either to translate &quot;θαρσεῖτε&quot; (Jn 16:33) or &quot;πείθεσθαί&quot; (Rom 14:14), which unlike *πιστεύω* does not include the &quot;believe&quot; meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2366" RevisionGUID="605aaa72-e69b-41db-863e-aa4b048eea92" CreationDate="2017-01-10T02:51:35.010" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 55 characters in body" Text="All translation involves some form of (hopefully minimized) loss and (hopefully undistracting) gain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, though, the choice is clear, for a very simple reason: **[*fido*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfido) is not a good translation of [*πιστεύω*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpisteu%2Fw), when it simply means &quot;believe.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek *πιστεύω* has a range of meanings, including &quot;trust,&quot; &quot;believe,&quot; and &quot;entrust&quot;: *credo* captures all of these meanings, while *fido* only captures a small part. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My (inexhaustive) look at a parallel text seems to show that the same Latin words were always used to translate these related &quot;pist-&quot; words from Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *πίστις* =&gt; fides&#xD;&#xA;* *πιστός* =&gt; fidelis&#xD;&#xA;* *πιστεύω* =&gt; credere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth noting that *credere* was originally a financial term, and that a *creditum* was a &quot;loan.&quot; Although it is the only appropriate translation for *πιστεύω*, it was necessary to hearken to *fides/elis* for the corresponding Greek terms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jerome uses *confido* either to translate &quot;θαρσεῖτε&quot; (Jn 16:33) or &quot;πείθεσθαί&quot; (Rom 14:14), which unlike *πιστεύω* does not include the &quot;believe&quot; meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2367" RevisionGUID="f736fea8-e27d-4c0d-a78a-2fd85bf75988" CreationDate="2017-01-10T03:00:02.610" UserId="68" Text="Say my friend is supposed to meet me, but she's late, and I think it's because she was reading, I might say, &quot;She must have been reading.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to express this in Latin other than something like *Veri similiter legebat* or *Eam puto legisse*? If so, what is it? Surely not *Legisse debet*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8582" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2367" RevisionGUID="f736fea8-e27d-4c0d-a78a-2fd85bf75988" CreationDate="2017-01-10T03:00:02.610" UserId="68" Text="Is there a Latin construction for &quot;she must be&quot; as in &quot;I bet she is&quot;/&quot;She probably is&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8583" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2367" RevisionGUID="f736fea8-e27d-4c0d-a78a-2fd85bf75988" CreationDate="2017-01-10T03:00:02.610" UserId="68" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2368" RevisionGUID="fd74c2d0-a852-4cc3-bbf1-d1ca9f008f58" CreationDate="2017-01-10T05:28:11.137" UserId="40" Text="Actually, verbs translatable as &quot;must&quot;, such as *debet*, *necesse est* and particularly *oportet*, do often express this type of [epistemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_modality) (as opposed to [deontic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontic_modality)) meaning in Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [book chapter](https://books.google.com/books?id=301Z90W3gOUC&amp;lpg=PA199&amp;ots=Mo2p7eMrE9&amp;dq=epistemic%20modality%20latin&amp;pg=PA193#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) on &quot;Mood and Modality&quot; by Elisabetta Magni contains a large number of examples, as well as some statistics on the frequency of such usages for different verbs. Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *hasce aedis esse **oportet**, Demaenetus ubi dicitur habitare* &quot;This must be the house where D. is said to live&quot; (Plaut. *Asin.* 381-2)  &#xD;&#xA; - *hic nescio quid boni **debet** esse* &quot;There must be something good here&quot; (Petron. 33.8.3)  &#xD;&#xA; - *quando quidem totis mortalibus adsimulata ipsa quoque ex aliis **debent** constare elementis* &quot;since they resemble all mankind, they too must consist of other elements&quot; (Lucr. 2.980-1)  &#xD;&#xA; - *sed magnum nescioquid **necessest** evenissse* &quot;but something  of consequence must have happened&quot; (Ter. *Hec.* 304)&#xD;&#xA; - *haud longe abesse **oportet*** &quot;he must not be far away&quot; (Plaut. *Amph.* 322)&#xD;&#xA; - *prodigum te fuisse **oportet** in adulescentia* &quot;you must have been a spendthrift in your youth&quot; (Plaut. *Amph.* 1031)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8585" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2364" RevisionGUID="28eda030-af7c-4d3e-865c-6e2ede4288bb" CreationDate="2017-01-10T09:12:49.440" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|greek|vulgata|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2369" RevisionGUID="59009bb2-f414-4369-ba8d-a152306674f6" CreationDate="2017-01-10T15:29:00.650" UserId="79" Text="The conjugation tables of irregular Latin verbs that I have seen do not give any imperative forms for the verb *velle*.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *nolle* has the imperative forms *noli* and *nolite*, and they are fairly common.&#xD;&#xA;I found no hits for the forms *voli*, *volite* and *velite* in a corpus search, and all hits for *veli* seem to be from the noun *velum*.&#xD;&#xA;Have the imperative forms of *velle* ever been used in Latin of any era?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, what are they?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some rare cases where one might want to use such imperatives.&#xD;&#xA;I heard a nice speech in Finnish in December, and it made use of similar imperatives at a key point.&#xD;&#xA;To get an idea of how the situation, consider the following fictive speech excerpt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I could ask you to serve your country.&#xD;&#xA;But I will not.&#xD;&#xA;The most important thing is not that you always succeed or that you even try in every single situation, but that you always want to do the best for your country.&#xD;&#xA;Have the desire to serve your country!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I used &quot;Have the desire&quot; since &quot;want&quot; as an imperative sounds fishy.&#xD;&#xA;I would really like to use the imperative of &quot;want&quot; here in English, too, but my question is about Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not asking how to work around the seemingly missing imperatives.&#xD;&#xA;I am asking whether they are really missing.&#xD;&#xA;Do ask for details if the question is not clear enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8596" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2369" RevisionGUID="59009bb2-f414-4369-ba8d-a152306674f6" CreationDate="2017-01-10T15:29:00.650" UserId="79" Text="What is the imperative of velle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8597" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2369" RevisionGUID="59009bb2-f414-4369-ba8d-a152306674f6" CreationDate="2017-01-10T15:29:00.650" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|verbs|conjugation|irregular-words|imperative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2368" RevisionGUID="3c06958f-6ca0-4ae8-8759-4b7efc96a8b0" CreationDate="2017-01-10T18:16:41.713" UserId="40" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Actually, verbs translatable as &quot;must&quot;, such as *debet*, *necesse est* and particularly *oportet*, do often express this type of [epistemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_modality) (as opposed to [deontic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontic_modality)) meaning in Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [book chapter](https://books.google.com/books?id=301Z90W3gOUC&amp;lpg=PA199&amp;ots=Mo2p7eMrE9&amp;dq=epistemic%20modality%20latin&amp;pg=PA193#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) on &quot;Mood and Modality&quot; by Elisabetta Magni contains a large number of examples, as well as some statistics on the frequency of such usages for different verbs. Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *hasce aedis esse **oportet**, Demaenetus ubi dicitur habitare* &quot;This must be the house where D. is said to live&quot; (Plaut. *Asin.* 381-2)  &#xD;&#xA; - *hic nescio quid boni **debet** esse* &quot;There must be something good here&quot; (Petron. 33.8.3)  &#xD;&#xA; - *quando quidem totis mortalibus adsimulata ipsa quoque ex aliis **debent** constare elementis* &quot;since they resemble all mankind, they too must consist of other elements&quot; (Lucr. 2.980-1)  &#xD;&#xA; - *sed magnum nescioquid **necessest** evenisse* &quot;but something  of consequence must have happened&quot; (Ter. *Hec.* 304)&#xD;&#xA; - *haud longe abesse **oportet*** &quot;he must not be far away&quot; (Plaut. *Amph.* 322)&#xD;&#xA; - *prodigum te fuisse **oportet** in adulescentia* &quot;you must have been a spendthrift in your youth&quot; (Plaut. *Amph.* 1031)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2370" RevisionGUID="b2f985cd-311f-438f-9620-832ce2e6540e" CreationDate="2017-01-10T18:54:49.120" UserId="79" Text="This is what Adolf V. Streng (*Latinan kielioppi*, 5th edition, 1936) says in §161.2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finnish: Toisen tahi kolmannen asteen konjunktiivinen sivulause mukautuu predikaattinsa tempuksen puolesta sitä lähinnä hallitsevan sivulauseen mukaan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Free translation: A conjunctive subordinate clause of second or third order adapts to the closest governing clause with respect to its tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Examples (no citation given):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;1. Nescio, quid causae fuerit, cur nullas ad me litteras dares.&#xD;&#xA;2. Quid tibi placeat, pergratum erit, si ad me scripseris.&#xD;&#xA;3. Gratias ago Pisoni, qui non, quid efficere posset in re publica, cogitavit, sed quid ipse facere deberet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By higher order subordinate clauses he means clauses subordinate to a subordinate clause &amp;mdash; exactly what the original post was about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Streng is to be believed, **the tense of a subordinate clause depends on the immediate governing clause according to *consecutio temporum***.&#xD;&#xA;This also answers the example situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Wrong: *Nescio, an scripseris necne, ubi sis.*  &#xD;&#xA;Right: *Nescio, an scripseris necne, ubi esses.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8603" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="c10d5b3d-2d9a-4d07-b54e-c9ca442c8deb" CreationDate="2017-01-10T19:06:18.207" UserId="79" Comment="15" />
  <row Id="8606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2371" RevisionGUID="d73c5e4f-e009-4bd1-942b-286ff4b98468" CreationDate="2017-01-10T20:59:22.853" UserId="45" Text="I read through Ron Conte's blog post and find it sloppy and unscholarly. He makes the (correct) point that &quot;Fr. Z's proposed translation sounds literal and stinted&quot; and, almost in the same words, says, &quot;...so use my translation even though it makes no grammatical sense, because I have translated many things.&quot; It does not help that his proposed translation is just as awkward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will argue for the ablative gerund. I think there is one compelling justification for this in the **oratorical structure of Bede's sentence.** I will use line breaks to emphasize this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum,  &#xD;&#xA;et quia miserando atque eligendo vidit,  &#xD;&#xA;ait illi, ‘Sequere me’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key second part answers the question: *how* did Jesus see the publican? The repetition of *vidit* with two ablatives answers this question. If Bede wanted to revisit the first part by describing &quot;what kind of man&quot; the publican was, it would not make sense to repeat *vidit*. If the intention is to modify *publicanum*, there is no amount of verbal prevarication and translation credentials that can justify the use of the ablative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also add that any possible interpretation of these words as a dative gerundive and modifying *illi* ignores the rhetorical balance of the sentence, since the *quia* clause forms a distinct entity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ablative gerund with a verb is a frequent construction. Here is one easy example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; simul illorum calamitatem **commemorando augere nolo** quibus liberos coniugesque suas integras ab istius petulantia conservare non licitum est.(Cicero, *In Verrem* 1.1.14.12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what are these two gerunds saying? Let's look at two similar usages of the ablative gerund in classical literature:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Miserando**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tu quidem, Cn. Corneli, macte uirtute esto; sed caue, frustra **miserando** exiguum tempus e manibus hostium euadendi **absumas**. (Livius, *Ab Urbe Condita* 37.17.7.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *...be wary lest you lost the small time you have to escape from the hands of the enemy with pointless sorrowing.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Eligendo**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam adulans populus Romanus Octaviano tria obtulit nomina, utrum vellet Quirinus, an Caesar, an Augustus vocari. ille ne unum **eligendo** partem **laederet** quae aliud offerre cupiebat, diverso tempore omnibus usus est... (Maurus Servius Honoratus, *In Vergilii Aeneidos Libros* 1.292.26)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...*lest he, by choosing one [name], should offend the part that wished to offer the other...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enlightened by these examples, we can come up with a literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jesus saw the publican,  &#xD;&#xA;  and, because he saw him by means of his pitying and choosing,  &#xD;&#xA;he said to him, &quot;Follow me.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A better translation, inspired by [this article](http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2013/pope-s-episcopal-motto-comes-from-homily-by-english-doctor-of-church.cfm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jesus saw the publican, but because he saw through the eyes of his mercy and election, he said to him, &quot;Follow me.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I admit that the present nominative participle seems more natural here, but Bede's point appears to be that &quot;Jesus only saw them because of his great mercy and plans for that person.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2369" RevisionGUID="0176a544-2be4-4644-a416-fa4c9f0ab347" CreationDate="2017-01-10T22:20:50.317" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 195 characters in body" Text="The conjugation tables of irregular Latin verbs that I have seen do not give any imperative forms for the verb *velle*.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *nolle* has the imperative forms *noli* and *nolite*, and they are fairly common.&#xD;&#xA;I found no hits for the forms *voli*, *volite* and *velite* in a corpus search, and all hits for *veli* seem to be from the noun *velum*.&#xD;&#xA;Have the imperative forms of *velle* ever been used in Latin of any era?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, what are they?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some rare cases where one might want to use such imperatives.&#xD;&#xA;I heard a nice speech in Finnish in December, and it made use of similar imperatives at a key point.&#xD;&#xA;To get an idea of how the situation, consider the following fictive speech excerpt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I could ask you to serve your country.&#xD;&#xA;But I will not.&#xD;&#xA;The most important thing is not that you always succeed or that you even try in every single situation, but that you always want to do the best for your country.&#xD;&#xA;Want to serve your country!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not asking how to work around the seemingly missing imperatives.&#xD;&#xA;I am asking whether they are really missing.&#xD;&#xA;Do ask for details if the question is not clear enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2371" RevisionGUID="e997073f-015d-450d-9270-d84b8fa8fd94" CreationDate="2017-01-10T23:02:31.173" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 49 characters in body" Text="I read through Ron Conte's blog post and find it sloppy and unscholarly. He makes the (correct) point that &quot;Fr. Z's proposed translation sounds literal and stinted&quot; and, almost in the same words, says, &quot;...so use my translation even though it makes no grammatical sense, because I have translated many things.&quot; It does not help that his proposed translation is just as awkward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will argue for the ablative gerund. I think there is one compelling justification for this in the **oratorical structure of Bede's sentence.** I will use line breaks to emphasize this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum,  &#xD;&#xA;et quia miserando atque eligendo vidit,  &#xD;&#xA;ait illi, ‘Sequere me’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key second part answers the question: *how* did Jesus see the publican? The repetition of *vidit* with two ablatives answers this question. If Bede wanted to revisit the first part by describing &quot;what kind of man&quot; the publican was, it would not make sense to repeat *vidit*. If the intention is to modify *publicanum*, there is no amount of verbal prevarication and translation credentials that can justify the use of the ablative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also add that any possible interpretation of these words as a dative gerundive and modifying *illi* ignores the rhetorical balance of the sentence, since the *quia* clause forms a distinct entity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ablative gerund with a verb is a frequent construction. Here is one easy example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; simul illorum calamitatem **commemorando augere nolo** quibus liberos coniugesque suas integras ab istius petulantia conservare non licitum est.(Cicero, *In Verrem* 1.1.14.12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what are these two gerunds saying? Let's look at two similar usages of the ablative gerund in classical literature:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Miserando**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tu quidem, Cn. Corneli, macte uirtute esto; sed caue, frustra **miserando** exiguum tempus e manibus hostium euadendi **absumas**. (Livius, *Ab Urbe Condita* 37.17.7.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *...be wary lest you lost the small time you have to escape from the hands of the enemy with pointless sorrowing.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Eligendo**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam adulans populus Romanus Octaviano tria obtulit nomina, utrum vellet Quirinus, an Caesar, an Augustus vocari. ille ne unum **eligendo** partem **laederet** quae aliud offerre cupiebat, diverso tempore omnibus usus est... (Maurus Servius Honoratus, *In Vergilii Aeneidos Libros* 1.292.26)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...*lest he, by choosing one [name], should offend the part that wished to offer the other...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enlightened by these examples, we can come up with a literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jesus saw the publican,  &#xD;&#xA;  and, because he saw him by means of his pitying and choosing,  &#xD;&#xA;he said to him, &quot;Follow me.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A freer translation that still captures the ablative of means and assumes a kind of [hendiadys](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendiadys):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jesus saw the publican, but because he saw him in light of his merciful plan, he said to him, &quot;Follow me.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I admit that the present nominative participle seems more natural here, but Bede's point appears to be that &quot;Jesus only saw them because of his great mercy and plans for that person.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2372" RevisionGUID="049e6dc7-ec53-4411-8313-dabed39b811c" CreationDate="2017-01-10T23:06:52.763" UserId="1131" Text="How would one say &quot;freedom through strength&quot; in latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vis means strength and libertas is liberty/freedom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So would one say vis libertas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8610" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2372" RevisionGUID="049e6dc7-ec53-4411-8313-dabed39b811c" CreationDate="2017-01-10T23:06:52.763" UserId="1131" Text="Latin for &quot;Freedom through strength&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8611" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2372" RevisionGUID="049e6dc7-ec53-4411-8313-dabed39b811c" CreationDate="2017-01-10T23:06:52.763" UserId="1131" Text="|coniugatio|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2373" RevisionGUID="f38c55a7-bc9f-488b-8c6d-72e218ce6b37" CreationDate="2017-01-10T23:22:11.967" UserId="78" Text="It *was* **vel**. From the LSJ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; old imperative of *volo* properly, &quot;will, choose, take your choice;&quot; &quot;hence.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot use it for your purpose, of course. In years of reading everything from Andronicus to Augustine, I've yet to see an alternative imperative of *velle*, and no grammar mentions one, either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2374" RevisionGUID="f6b33e03-31ec-4905-a4b1-2e64505751f6" CreationDate="2017-01-11T00:49:36.043" UserId="78" Text="I think you forgot the &quot;through&quot; in there. It's generally not a good idea to translate from one language to another word-for-word, as languages in general don't work that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say the best way to translate the phrase wouldn't be &quot;through&quot;, but &quot;from&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Libertas ex vi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gives the visual impression of liberty made possible out of [the use of/the ability to make use of] force or strength.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other possibilities include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Libertas ex viribus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is making *vis* plural, which is when it's most often used of physical strength.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also possibly do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Libertas ex virtute&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Virtus* doesn't really mean our modern &quot;virtue&quot;, but rather encapsulates all the qualities that make up a good man, which include not only strength, but moral excellence and courage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8615" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2372" RevisionGUID="eccbc0c2-659b-46ef-ad08-869a466bc023" CreationDate="2017-01-11T00:49:57.900" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2375" RevisionGUID="046efc33-e14f-49e6-9f94-489fef189844" CreationDate="2017-01-11T07:11:55.120" UserId="79" Text="I asked yesterday [about the imperative of *velle*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2369/79), and it turned out that there is only an old imperative that should no longer be used.&#xD;&#xA;If the most obvious option is not available, how should I give an order to want?&#xD;&#xA;A phrase or two with a classical use example would be great.&#xD;&#xA;It can be just an imperative if that is the idiomatic choice, but I do not know which verb to pick if *velle* is not available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A use example was given in the linked question, but I will give another one here.&#xD;&#xA;In the following case I would like use the imperative of *velle*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do you want to build a welfare state?&#xD;&#xA;Want to share!  &#xD;&#xA;(The point being that willingness to share is the key to a welfare state.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8620" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2375" RevisionGUID="046efc33-e14f-49e6-9f94-489fef189844" CreationDate="2017-01-11T07:11:55.120" UserId="79" Text="How to order someone to want something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8621" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2375" RevisionGUID="046efc33-e14f-49e6-9f94-489fef189844" CreationDate="2017-01-11T07:11:55.120" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|phrase-request|imperative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2369" RevisionGUID="6c5ea56f-6edf-4ed2-9d46-d1e54b33bd9d" CreationDate="2017-01-11T07:12:38.457" UserId="79" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="The conjugation tables of irregular Latin verbs that I have seen do not give any imperative forms for the verb *velle*.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *nolle* has the imperative forms *noli* and *nolite*, and they are fairly common.&#xD;&#xA;I found no hits for the forms *voli*, *volite* and *velite* in a corpus search, and all hits for *veli* seem to be from the noun *velum*.&#xD;&#xA;Have the imperative forms of *velle* ever been used in Latin of any era?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, what are they?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some rare cases where one might want to use such imperatives.&#xD;&#xA;I heard a nice speech in Finnish in December, and it made use of similar imperatives at a key point.&#xD;&#xA;To get an idea of how the situation, consider the following fictive speech excerpt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I could ask you to serve your country.&#xD;&#xA;But I will not.&#xD;&#xA;The most important thing is not that you always succeed or that you even try in every single situation, but that you always want to do the best for your country.&#xD;&#xA;Want to serve your country!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not asking how to work around the seemingly missing imperatives; that is covered in [another question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2375/79).&#xD;&#xA;I am asking whether they are really missing.&#xD;&#xA;Do ask for details if the question is not clear enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2375" RevisionGUID="1c452579-ee21-4cc3-9eb5-4364a23d65e9" CreationDate="2017-01-11T13:44:28.463" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 27 characters in body" Text="I asked yesterday [about the imperative of *velle*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2369/79), and it turned out that does not really have an imperative.&#xD;&#xA;If the most obvious option is not available, how should I give an order to want?&#xD;&#xA;A phrase or two with a classical use example would be great.&#xD;&#xA;It can be just an imperative if that is the idiomatic choice, but I do not know which verb to pick if *velle* is not available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A use example was given in the linked question, but I will give another one here.&#xD;&#xA;In the following case I would like use the imperative of *velle*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do you want to build a welfare state?&#xD;&#xA;Want to share!  &#xD;&#xA;(The point being that willingness to share is the key to a welfare state.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2373" RevisionGUID="6e3eb3d2-5bab-4584-af5b-d84a2d3d6f8d" CreationDate="2017-01-11T13:53:14.107" UserId="78" Comment="Clarifying" Text="It *was* **vel**. From the LSJ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; old imperative of *volo* properly, &quot;will, choose, take your choice;&quot; &quot;hence.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot use it for your purpose, of course. This is merely its origin, but not its function.* In years of reading everything from Andronicus to Augustine, I've yet to see a real imperative of *velle*, and no grammar mentions one, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;*See comments by fdb on de Vaan's etymology, where he disputes this origin in favor of a 2nd sing.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2376" RevisionGUID="de1ba5a0-2012-4da4-9e40-6a97f35f11aa" CreationDate="2017-01-11T14:10:11.923" UserId="78" Text="That case is weird. If you want to build a welfare state, you do not need to *want* to share, but only *to share*. Depending on the author, you'd see either an indirect command or hortatory subjunctive urging them to share, or even an if-clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you want to build a welfare state, it is necessary to share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you absolutely needed an imperative here, there are several you could use (from the LSJ):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *desiderare* &quot;to long for, greatly wish for, to desire something not possessed;&quot; &#xD;&#xA;* *cupire* &quot;to long for a thing, to desire, wish (designating a natural, involuntary inclination, or an unbridled or passionate desire, while *velle* indicates an energetic will, and *optare* a deliberate wish or choice;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* *gestire* &quot;Transf., to desire eagerly or passionately, to long for&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2377" RevisionGUID="db4add44-b20f-49e0-bed6-0f2e520b331c" CreationDate="2017-01-11T14:14:04.630" UserId="645" Text="I would prefer *tibi oportet communicare*, without using *velle*: 'it behoves you to share'. Or you could instead use the gerundive of velle (if you accept its existence, which I'm personally a bit doubtful of): *Communicare est tibi volendum.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2375" RevisionGUID="7130b944-b407-41c5-be95-4f841803cd91" CreationDate="2017-01-11T14:15:41.940" UserId="79" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="I asked yesterday [about the imperative of *velle*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2369/79), and it turned out that does not really have an imperative.&#xD;&#xA;If the most obvious option is not available, how should I give an order to want?&#xD;&#xA;A phrase or two with a classical use example would be great.&#xD;&#xA;It can be just an imperative if that is the idiomatic choice, but I do not know which verb to pick if *velle* is not available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A use example was given in the linked question, but I will give another one here.&#xD;&#xA;In the following case I would like use the imperative of *velle*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do you want to build a welfare state?&#xD;&#xA;Want to share!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that willingness to share is the key to a welfare state, more so than sharing itself.&#xD;&#xA;I do not mean that I really think this way; this is just to give an example situation where one might want to order someone to want something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2376" RevisionGUID="6a46cec6-22d0-43e5-8b94-c75a958d81ce" CreationDate="2017-01-11T14:24:09.987" UserId="78" Comment="added 163 characters in body" Text="That case is weird. If you want to build a welfare state, you do not need to *want* to share, but only *to share*. Depending on the author, you'd see either an indirect command or hortatory subjunctive urging them to share, or even an if-clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you want to build a welfare state, it is necessary to share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you absolutely needed an imperative here, there are several you could use (from the LSJ):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *desiderare* &quot;to long for, greatly wish for, to desire something not possessed&quot; (the LSJ entry lists more synonyms, too, if you want to go around digging); &#xD;&#xA;* *cupire* &quot;to long for a thing, to desire, wish (designating a natural, involuntary inclination, or an unbridled or passionate desire, while *velle* indicates an energetic will, and *optare* a deliberate wish or choice;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* *gestire* &quot;Transf., to desire eagerly or passionately, to long for&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All four too can take a complementary infinitive, which should satisfy your example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2371" RevisionGUID="7a83512b-5b1a-4ce3-98b0-2b7dbe8a5fe6" CreationDate="2017-01-11T15:31:38.183" UserId="45" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="I read through Ron Conte's blog post and find it sloppy and unscholarly. He makes the (correct) point that Fr. Z's proposed translation sounds literal and stinted and, almost in the same words, asks us to use his translation even though it makes no grammatical sense, because he has translated many things. It does not help that his proposed translation is just as awkward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will argue for the ablative gerund. I think there is one compelling justification for this in the **oratorical structure of Bede's sentence.** I will use line breaks to emphasize this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum,  &#xD;&#xA;et quia miserando atque eligendo vidit,  &#xD;&#xA;ait illi, ‘Sequere me’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key second part answers the question: *how* did Jesus see the publican? The repetition of *vidit* with two ablatives answers this question. If Bede wanted to revisit the first part by describing &quot;what kind of man&quot; the publican was, it would not make sense to repeat *vidit*. If the intention is to modify *publicanum*, there is no amount of verbal prevarication and translation credentials that can justify the use of the ablative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also add that any possible interpretation of these words as a dative gerundive and modifying *illi* ignores the rhetorical balance of the sentence, since the *quia* clause forms a distinct entity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ablative gerund with a verb is a frequent construction. Here is one easy example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; simul illorum calamitatem **commemorando augere nolo** quibus liberos coniugesque suas integras ab istius petulantia conservare non licitum est.(Cicero, *In Verrem* 1.1.14.12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what are these two gerunds saying? Let's look at two similar usages of the ablative gerund in classical literature:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Miserando**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tu quidem, Cn. Corneli, macte uirtute esto; sed caue, frustra **miserando** exiguum tempus e manibus hostium euadendi **absumas**. (Livius, *Ab Urbe Condita* 37.17.7.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *...be wary lest you waste the small time you have to escape from the hands of the enemy with pointless sorrowing.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Eligendo**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam adulans populus Romanus Octaviano tria obtulit nomina, utrum vellet Quirinus, an Caesar, an Augustus vocari. ille ne unum **eligendo** partem **laederet** quae aliud offerre cupiebat, diverso tempore omnibus usus est... (Maurus Servius Honoratus, *In Vergilii Aeneidos Libros* 1.292.26)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...*lest he, by choosing one [name], should offend the part that wished to offer the other...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enlightened by these examples, we can come up with a literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jesus saw the publican,  &#xD;&#xA;  and, because he saw him by means of his pitying and choosing,  &#xD;&#xA;he said to him, &quot;Follow me.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A freer translation that still captures the ablative of means and assumes a kind of [hendiadys](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendiadys):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jesus saw the publican, but because he saw him in light of his merciful plan, he said to him, &quot;Follow me.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I admit that the present participle (modifying &quot;Jesus&quot;) seems more natural to me here, but Bede's point appears to be that &quot;Jesus only saw him because of his great mercy and plans for that person&quot;--as if he did not see him with his physical eyes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2378" RevisionGUID="634bbd99-81be-437d-a942-cc0e4f551c06" CreationDate="2017-01-11T16:18:28.740" UserId="45" Text="I have not been able to find any attested forms of an imperative for *velle* (see linked question) or *cupio* (*cupi, cupite, cupito, cupitote*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expanding to other synonyms, though, you quickly find alternatives that preserve the structure (and perhaps strangeness) of your example sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ***desiderare***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid ergo est? Vide quomodo quisque illorum tulerit et, si fortes fuerunt, ipsorum illos animo **desidera**. (Seneca iunior, *Dialogi* 9.16.2.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *See how each of them endured his fate, and if they endured it bravely, long in your heart for courage as great as theirs.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm a little confused by the syntax of *ipsorum illos*: this is a public-domain translation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Liberi atque incolumes **desiderate** patriam; immo desiderate, dum patria est, dum ciues eius estis. (Livius, *Ab Urbe Condita* 22.60.15.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Long for your country, you who are free and unharmed; indeed, long for it, while it is still your country, while you are still its citizens.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that *desidero* can take a noun or AcI, but not a standalone infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ***optare***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Huc ergo cogitationes tuae tendant, hoc cura, **hoc opta**, omnia alia vota deo remissurus, ut contentus sis temet ipso et ex te nascentibus bonis. (Seneca iunior, *Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium* 20.8.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Let your thoughts attend only to this, care and **wish for this one thing**, consigning all other desires to god, that you be content with your own self and the good things that bring about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This imperative usage of *optare* is relatively common, but also does not take the infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In light of this, one possible translation of your sentence is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Hoc opta(te), ut compartiatur!**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2376" RevisionGUID="dabecc5f-c8e9-4a0e-b8e3-3d190ea73090" CreationDate="2017-01-11T17:02:22.520" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 180 characters in body" Text="That case is weird. If you want to build a welfare state, you do not need to *want* to share, but only *to share*. Depending on the author, you'd see either an indirect command or hortatory subjunctive urging them to share, or even an if-clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you want to build a welfare state, it is necessary to share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you absolutely needed an imperative here, there are several you could use (from the LSJ):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *desiderare* &quot;to long for, greatly wish for, to desire something not possessed&quot; (the LSJ entry lists more synonyms, too, if you want to go around digging); &#xD;&#xA;* *optare* a deliberate wish or choice;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* *gestire* &quot;Transf., to desire eagerly or passionately, to long for&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three too can take a complementary infinitive, which should satisfy your example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2376" RevisionGUID="b24f406d-df14-4ccb-a08a-eb812926767c" CreationDate="2017-01-11T17:13:45.677" UserId="78" Comment="Fixed typos and minor errors, clarified a few things." Text="That case is weird. If you want to build a welfare state, you do not need to *want* to share, but only *to share*. Depending on the author, you'd see either an indirect command or hortatory subjunctive urging them to share, or even an if-clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you want to build a welfare state, it is necessary to share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you absolutely needed an imperative here, there are several you could use (from the LSJ):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *desiderare* &quot;to long for, greatly wish for, to desire something not possessed&quot; (the LSJ entry lists more synonyms, too, if you want to go around digging); &#xD;&#xA;* *optare* &quot;to choose or select&quot; - sense in &quot;choose to do something&quot; = &quot;want to do something&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* *gestire* &quot;Transf., to desire eagerly or passionately, to long for&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* *cupere* &quot;to long for a thing, to desire, wish (designating a natural, involuntary inclination, or an unbridled or passionate desire, while volo indicates an energetic will, and opto a deliberate wish or choice&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All four too can take a complementary infinitive, which should satisfy your example, though for *opta(te)* and *cupi(te)*, an *ut* clause is more normal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2376" RevisionGUID="cb79bf71-741c-49ac-ba0d-fcf81b0a97b2" CreationDate="2017-01-11T17:24:04.863" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 246 characters in body" Text="That case is weird. If you want to build a welfare state, you do not need to *want* to share, but only *to share*. Depending on the author, you'd see either an indirect command or hortatory subjunctive urging them to share, or even an if-clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you want to build a welfare state, it is necessary to share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you absolutely needed an imperative here, there are several you could use (from the LSJ):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *desiderare* &quot;to long for, greatly wish for, to desire something not possessed&quot; (the LSJ entry lists more synonyms, too, if you want to go around digging); &#xD;&#xA;* *optare* &quot;to choose or select&quot; - sense in &quot;choose to do something&quot; = &quot;want to do something&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* *gestire* &quot;Transf., to desire eagerly or passionately, to long for&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three can take a complementary infinitive, which should satisfy your example, though an *ut* clause is more normal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2379" RevisionGUID="3f0a0541-965f-42da-9714-0ddd6eee3ab7" CreationDate="2017-01-11T17:44:34.757" UserId="45" Text="While researching an answer for [this question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2375/how-to-order-someone-to-want-something), I came across the following passage from Seneca. The bolded part, particularly &quot;illos&quot;, left me with some doubts about the sentence syntax:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et quid sibi quisque tunc speret, cum uideat pessima optimos pati? Quid ergo est? **Vide quomodo quisque illorum tulerit et, si fortes fuerunt, ipsorum illos animo desidera**, si muliebriter et ignaue perierunt, nihil periit. (Seneca iunior, *Dialogi* 9.16.1-2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This translation](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_Peace_of_Mind) runs as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What, too, can a good man hope to obtain when he sees the best of men meeting with the worst fates. **Well, but see how each of them endured his fate, and if they endured it bravely, long in your heart for courage as great as theirs**; if they died in a womanish and cowardly manner, nothing was lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Granted that the translation is free, I still am having trouble justifying it. &quot;Ipsorum animo&quot; appears to be modifying &quot;desidera,&quot; i.e. &quot;Desire with the [same] spirit as these,&quot; but &quot;illos&quot; does not make much sense: &quot;illa&quot; (referring back to &quot;pessima&quot;) seems a better choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **what is the proper parsing and translation of this sentence?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8638" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2379" RevisionGUID="3f0a0541-965f-42da-9714-0ddd6eee3ab7" CreationDate="2017-01-11T17:44:34.757" UserId="45" Text="What does &quot;illos&quot; refer to in this passage from Seneca?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8639" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2379" RevisionGUID="3f0a0541-965f-42da-9714-0ddd6eee3ab7" CreationDate="2017-01-11T17:44:34.757" UserId="45" Text="|translation|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2380" RevisionGUID="c422f8b8-45b5-4a11-9bc7-f01604aad0ba" CreationDate="2017-01-11T20:17:23.673" UserId="79" Text="What if *ipsorum* is a partitive genitive?&#xD;&#xA;In this reading *ipsorum illos* means roughly &quot;those of them&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The relevant part could be parsed as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Vide quomodo quisque illorum tulerit et, si fortes fuerunt, ipsorum illos animo desidera.*  &#xD;&#xA;See how each of them endured his fate, and if some endured it bravely, long for those of them in your heart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reading gives a strong contrast between those that endured their fate bravely and those who did so cowardly.&#xD;&#xA;Such a contrast fits very well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I do not understand is why these pronouns were chosen.&#xD;&#xA;I would find *illorum ipsos* more suitable for this purpose, and I might go with entirely different pronouns if I were to write that sentence in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Despite this problem, this is the only reasonable reading I could come up with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2381" RevisionGUID="191e4998-a6b8-482a-b5a5-4b421e52e670" CreationDate="2017-01-11T20:22:28.890" UserId="45" Text="The [second book of the *Saturnalia*](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Macrobius/Saturnalia/2*.html) of [Macrobius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrobius) (5th century AD) is a kind of anthology of Roman jokes, attributed to various famous people. Here are some selections from it, with a short summary below each.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Hannibal and the King of Antioch**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ostendebat [rex] Antiochus in campo copias ingentes quas bellum populo Romano facturus conparaverat, convertebatque exercitum insignibus argenteis et aureis florentem: inducebat etiam currus cum falcibus et elephantos cum turribus equitatumque frenis et ephippiis, monilibus ac faleris praefulgentem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Atque ibi rex contemplatione tanti et tam ornati exercitus gloriabundus Hannibalem aspicit et: **Putasne, inquit, satis esse Romanis haec omnia?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tunc Poenus [i.e. Hannibal] eludens ignaviam inbelliamque militum eius pretiose armatorum: **Plane, inquit, satis esse credo Romanis haec, etsi avarissimi sunt.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary: The king of Antioch shows Hannibal a richly arrayed army and asks if this is &quot;enough for the Romans.&quot; Hannibal responds, &quot;Of course, this [plunder] should be enough even for the most greedy among them.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **&quot;The Sacrifice&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sacrificium apud veteres fuit quod vocabatur propter viam. In eo mos erat ut, si quid ex epulis superfuisset, igne consumeretur. Hinc Catonis iocus est. Namque Albidium quendam, qui bona sua comedisset et novissime domum quae ei reliqua erat incendio perdidisset, **propter viam fecisse dicebat: quod comesse non potuerit, id combussisse.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The joke is about a sacrifice &quot;for the road&quot; by which whatever food that was not eaten is burned. Cato joked that a certain Albidius, who wasted all his money and then lost his home in a fire, did so &quot;for the road,&quot; because he burned what he could not eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **The Artist's Children**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apud L. Mallium, qui optimus pictor Romae habebatur, Servilius Geminus forte coenabat: cumque filios eius deformes vidisset: Non similiter, inquit, Malli, fingis et pingis. Et Mallius: **In tenebris enim fingo, inquit, luce pingo.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully no explanation necessary :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above link contains many more of the same kind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2379" RevisionGUID="53ceb840-a4b6-49a1-a2e3-ef565455b8d7" CreationDate="2017-01-11T20:28:46.463" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="While researching an answer for [this question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2375/how-to-order-someone-to-want-something), I came across the following passage from Seneca. The bolded part, particularly &quot;illos&quot;, left me with some doubts about the sentence syntax:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et quid sibi quisque tunc speret, cum uideat pessima optimos pati? Quid ergo est? **Vide quomodo quisque illorum tulerit et, si fortes fuerunt, ipsorum illos animo desidera**, si muliebriter et ignaue perierunt, nihil periit. (Seneca iunior, *Dialogi* 9.16.1&amp;ndash;2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This translation](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_Peace_of_Mind) runs as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What, too, can a good man hope to obtain when he sees the best of men meeting with the worst fates. **Well, but see how each of them endured his fate, and if they endured it bravely, long in your heart for courage as great as theirs**; if they died in a womanish and cowardly manner, nothing was lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Granted that the translation is free, I still am having trouble justifying it. &quot;Ipsorum animo&quot; appears to be modifying &quot;desidera,&quot; i.e. &quot;Desire with the [same] spirit as these,&quot; but &quot;illos&quot; does not make much sense: &quot;illa&quot; (referring back to &quot;pessima&quot;) seems a better choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **what is the proper parsing and translation of this sentence?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8644" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2379" RevisionGUID="53ceb840-a4b6-49a1-a2e3-ef565455b8d7" CreationDate="2017-01-11T20:28:46.463" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|classical-latin|translation|grammar-identification|seneca-iunior|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2382" RevisionGUID="85c5905a-fcba-40bb-82b7-edee96137e4e" CreationDate="2017-01-11T22:16:31.147" UserId="985" Text="I would translate literally as 'Feel the loss of those men with [not 'in'] the attitude/frame of mind/spirit/courage of those men themselves' and take this as a compressed way of saying, 'Show the same attitude/frame of mind/spirit/courage in your feeling of loss for those men as they themselves showed [in death, I presume, based on _perierunt_ in the next clause].' However, I haven't looked at the surrounding sentence to see whether this reading works in context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At any rate, the translation from wikisource doesn't seem to be supported by the grammar, unless it's following an alternate reading in the manuscripts (_animos_ instead of _animo_). Unfortunately, I don't have a text for this that includes an _apparatus criticus_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2383" RevisionGUID="11a3117c-d80a-4d9b-ae13-bad168237c73" CreationDate="2017-01-12T01:15:55.123" UserId="75" Text="Quid est differentia inter «opus est» et «necesse est»? Exempli gratia,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*&quot;emas non quod **opus est**, sed quod **necesse est**; quod non **opus est**, asse earum est,&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoque «opus est» scriptum est in *Symbolum Apostolorum*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia **opus est**, ut teneat catholicam fidem:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tenet «opus est» eandem significationem in duo?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Miserere mei!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Seneca. [*Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales.*][1] Letter 94, Section 27.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:2007.01.0080:letter=94" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8647" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2383" RevisionGUID="11a3117c-d80a-4d9b-ae13-bad168237c73" CreationDate="2017-01-12T01:15:55.123" UserId="75" Text="Quid est differentia inter «opus est» et «necesse est»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8648" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2383" RevisionGUID="11a3117c-d80a-4d9b-ae13-bad168237c73" CreationDate="2017-01-12T01:15:55.123" UserId="75" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2384" RevisionGUID="8256fbaa-542b-45f3-a4c0-74de45f3deff" CreationDate="2017-01-12T02:13:02.760" UserId="112" Text="Well, my understanding is that the difference is pretty much like between &quot;need&quot; and &quot;necessary&quot;, so it's not that much of a difference actually, but &#xD;&#xA;&quot;necesse est&quot; is a bit stronger. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2385" RevisionGUID="4a1f6f10-5e9f-41b0-8abb-f1505d26ac11" CreationDate="2017-01-12T03:14:24.833" UserId="1133" Text="Is there a way to ascertain whether a third declension noun ending in *-r* in the nominative and *-ris* in the genitive is *r*-stem or *s*-stem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BACKGROUND**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the *s* in some *s*-stem words have entirely given way to *r*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes it is possible to find out that this has happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, for *honor* [Wiktionary][1] lists *honos* as an alternative form; so you can guess that it was *s*-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For *victor*, [Wiktionary][2] gives the etymology of *vic-* + *-tor*; so you think this was *r*-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for *luror*, I don't find in [Wiktionary][3] anything I would want to go on (just that the word is related to *χλωρός* and *helvus‎*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some reliable way to ascertain whether an apparently *r*-stem noun is in truth (or originally) *s*-stem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I for example assume that an apparently *r*-stem word is in fact *r*-stem unless I find some contrary indication?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/honor#Alternative_forms_2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/victor#Etymology_2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/luror#Etymology" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8655" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2385" RevisionGUID="4a1f6f10-5e9f-41b0-8abb-f1505d26ac11" CreationDate="2017-01-12T03:14:24.833" UserId="1133" Text="How can you ascertain whether an apparently r-stem noun is actually s-stem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8656" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2385" RevisionGUID="4a1f6f10-5e9f-41b0-8abb-f1505d26ac11" CreationDate="2017-01-12T03:14:24.833" UserId="1133" Text="|third-declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2385" RevisionGUID="91d5b781-5502-4ef5-b1c1-50517c3af39d" CreationDate="2017-01-12T03:19:35.500" UserId="1133" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Is there a way to ascertain whether a third declension noun ending in *-r* in the nominative and *-ris* in the genitive is *r*-stem or *s*-stem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BACKGROUND**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the *s* in some *s*-stem words has entirely given way to *r*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes it is possible to find out that this has happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, for *honor* [Wiktionary][1] lists *honos* as an alternative form; so you can guess that it was *s*-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For *victor*, [Wiktionary][2] gives the etymology of *vic-* + *-tor*; so you think this was *r*-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for *luror*, I don't find in [Wiktionary][3] anything I would want to go on (just that the word is related to *χλωρός* and *helvus‎*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some reliable way to ascertain whether an apparently *r*-stem noun is in truth (or originally) *s*-stem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I for example assume that an apparently *r*-stem word is in fact *r*-stem unless I find some contrary indication?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/honor#Alternative_forms_2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/victor#Etymology_2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/luror#Etymology" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2380" RevisionGUID="18383578-7860-40d8-9235-4dda137f6a8c" CreationDate="2017-01-12T06:52:44.120" UserId="79" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="What if *ipsorum* is a partitive genitive?&#xD;&#xA;In this reading *ipsorum illos* means roughly &quot;those of them&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The relevant part could be parsed as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Vide quomodo quisque illorum tulerit et, si fortes fuerunt, ipsorum illos animo desidera.*  &#xD;&#xA;See how each of them endured his fate, and if some endured it bravely, long for those of them in your heart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reading gives a strong contrast between those that endured their fate bravely and those who did so cowardly.&#xD;&#xA;Such a contrast fits very well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I do not understand is why these pronouns were chosen.&#xD;&#xA;I would find *illorum ipsos* more suitable for this purpose, and I might go with entirely different pronouns if I were to write that sentence in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Despite this problem, this is the best reading I could come up with.&#xA;&#xA;In any case, **I think *illos* refers to those *optimi* that *fortes fuerunt*.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2386" RevisionGUID="965588f7-3340-41b6-97f1-01e61189341e" CreationDate="2017-01-12T07:06:23.107" UserId="1071" Text="I came across this expression in the book: *The Invisible Man*, (H.G.Wells)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Griffin *contra mundum*...with a vengeance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my *very* basic knowledge of Latin (I'm a Bio. student) I take it that *contra mundum* literally translates to &quot;Against the World&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a couple of years back, I recall chancing across another expression on some Wikipedia (I don't rightly remember, but I think it was about some doctor who worked at a Nazi concentration camp), where this man describes the concentration camp to a colleague as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Anum mundi*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the corresponding Wikipedia translation was &quot;Anus of the world&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I conducted a cursory search online, and from what I gather, both *mundum* and *mundi* mean the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, two questions here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q1: Do *mundi* and *mundum* really mean the same thing, i.e- &quot;World&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q2: Even if they *do* mean the same, can they be *used* in the same circumstances? For example, would there be anything wrong in me using the hybrids: *Contra mundi* or *Anum mundum*?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mentioned the sources (*Contra mundum*: Britain, 1890s; and *Anum mundi*: Germany, 1940s) just in case that may yield a clue...of sorts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8660" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2386" RevisionGUID="965588f7-3340-41b6-97f1-01e61189341e" CreationDate="2017-01-12T07:06:23.107" UserId="1071" Text="Do *Mundi* and *Mundum* mean different things?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8661" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2386" RevisionGUID="965588f7-3340-41b6-97f1-01e61189341e" CreationDate="2017-01-12T07:06:23.107" UserId="1071" Text="|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2386" RevisionGUID="6790a4b9-0219-4363-82e0-23ccbaefd457" CreationDate="2017-01-12T07:24:38.763" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="I came across this expression in the book: *The Invisible Man*, (H.G. Wells)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Griffin *contra mundum*...with a vengeance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my *very* basic knowledge of Latin (I'm a Bio. student) I take it that *contra mundum* literally translates to &quot;Against the World&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a couple of years back, I recall chancing across another expression on some Wikipedia (I don't rightly remember, but I think it was about some doctor who worked at a Nazi concentration camp), where this man describes the concentration camp to a colleague as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Anum mundi*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the corresponding Wikipedia translation was &quot;Anus of the world&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I conducted a cursory search online, and from what I gather, both *mundum* and *mundi* mean the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, two questions here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q1: Do *mundi* and *mundum* really mean the same thing, i.e- &quot;World&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q2: Even if they *do* mean the same, can they be *used* in the same circumstances? For example, would there be anything wrong in me using the hybrids: *Contra mundi* or *Anum mundum*?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mentioned the sources (*Contra mundum*: Britain, 1890s; and *Anum mundi*: Germany, 1940s) just in case that may yield a clue...of sorts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8663" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2386" RevisionGUID="6790a4b9-0219-4363-82e0-23ccbaefd457" CreationDate="2017-01-12T07:24:38.763" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2387" RevisionGUID="c3edd02c-e38b-446e-b6ca-d0793646e87a" CreationDate="2017-01-12T07:33:06.360" UserId="78" Text="These are the exact same word, and yes both mean &quot;world&quot; but no you cannot substitute them for each other. Latin is a fully inflexional language, which means that the words have endings which change depending on their grammatical use. You can compare *mundum* and *mundi* to *whom* and *whose*. You wouldn't say, &quot;This is me ball&quot; (well, not in Standard English, at least, but if you want to sound like a pirate...) nor would you say &quot;Give my the ball.&quot; This is what we call &quot;declension.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, *mundum* is the accusative form of *mundus* (the *I* analogue from the above analogies). You use it with the direct object or with certain prepositions (like *contra*). Meanwhile, *mundi* in this case is genitive, which is the case used for possession. It's why we translate it as &quot;of the world&quot; not just &quot;the world.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar to English pronouns (or other languages like German, Icelandic, Russian, or Greek), you indeed cannot replace them willy-nilly. Because they encode the grammar along with the meaning, you'd end up with nonsense if you tried." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8665" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2386" RevisionGUID="493fee09-7214-4bea-95a2-aa07b912affc" CreationDate="2017-01-12T07:33:21.020" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|word-comparison|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2388" RevisionGUID="dac12fc0-06c7-4b3c-9b2f-42f3b6b4b28e" CreationDate="2017-01-12T07:33:26.873" UserId="79" Text="The Latin word used for &quot;world&quot; here is *mundus*.&#xA;This word has several forms (singular/plural):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; &#xA;nominative: *mundus/mundi*  &#xA;accusative: *mundum/mundos*  &#xA;genitive: *mundi/mundorum*  &#xA;dative: *mundo/mundis*  &#xA;ablative: *mundo/mundis*&#xA;&#xA;The five grammatical cases are used in different contexts and they are rarely interchangeable.&#xA;Two examples:&#xA;&quot;Of the world&quot; requires the singular genitive *mundi*.&#xA;The preposition *contra* requires that the following word is in accusative.&#xA;Thus the only way to say &quot;against the world&quot; with these words is *contra mundum*.&#xA;&#xA;Changing the case changes meaning:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; &#xA;*Anum mundi video.* &amp;mdash; I see the ass of the world.  &#xA;*Anum mundum video.* &amp;mdash; I see the world and I think it is an ass.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2388" RevisionGUID="e378d629-96a0-45a5-a5f4-d2300ca482e7" CreationDate="2017-01-12T08:14:22.503" UserId="79" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="The Latin word used for &quot;world&quot; here is *mundus*.&#xD;&#xA;This word has several forms (singular/plural):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;nominative: *mundus/mundi*  &#xD;&#xA;accusative: *mundum/mundos*  &#xD;&#xA;genitive: *mundi/mundorum*  &#xD;&#xA;dative: *mundo/mundis*  &#xD;&#xA;ablative: *mundo/mundis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The five grammatical cases are used in different contexts and they are rarely interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;Two examples:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Of the world&quot; requires the singular genitive *mundi*.&#xD;&#xA;The preposition *contra* requires that the following word is in accusative.&#xD;&#xA;Thus the only way to say &quot;against the world&quot; with these words is *contra mundum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Changing the case changes meaning (and sometimes removes meaning altogether):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*Anum mundi video.* &amp;mdash; I see the anus of the world.  &#xD;&#xA;*Anum mundum video.* &amp;mdash; I see the world and I think it is an anus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact translation of the second one depends on context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2389" RevisionGUID="47161636-2a9b-4e55-b6e0-c539dc3ea902" CreationDate="2017-01-12T10:56:40.497" UserId="324" Text="The general rule is that in Latin etymological s becomes r between two vowels. Thus nom. honos, but gen. honoris (but also nom. honor by analogy to the other cases). Words like honestus confirm that this is indeed an s-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2390" RevisionGUID="29fb71e6-7767-466f-a942-ad0eadc55e79" CreationDate="2017-01-12T14:27:45.443" UserId="68" Text="One translation of the Seneca letter you refer to begins to suggest a difference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Moreover, the precepts which are given are of great weight in themselves, whether they be woven into the fabric of song, or condensed into prose proverbs, like the famous Wisdom of Cato, &quot;Buy not what you need, but what you must have. That which you do not need, is dear even at a farthing.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I interpret this, *opus esse* refers to the need for something in order to accomplish something else (&quot;to become a successful politician, you need a lot of friends&quot;), while *necesse esse* refers to things you actually can't do without (&quot;to live, you need food and water&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ramshorn's *Latin Synonyms* supports this interpretation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Opus est*, it is wanted, it is necessary, because a want, as requisite or indispensable for the obtaining of some end or object. . . . *Necesse est*, it is absolutely necessary, of unchanging necessity found in natural causes, something which cannot possibly be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this interpretation, the sentence from the *Symbolum Apostolorum* correctly uses *opus est* instead of *necesse est*: &quot;Whoever *wants to be saved* needs above all to hold the Catholic faith.&quot; But holding the Catholic faith isn't something you can't do without; there are lots of people who don't do that and yet go on breathing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8675" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2383" RevisionGUID="4d015e11-3f3a-4d2c-bb3f-7e0fd3bcc2f6" CreationDate="2017-01-12T14:31:30.057" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|meaning|seneca-iunior|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2386" RevisionGUID="36393f73-6a11-4bc8-9281-5a91a883793f" CreationDate="2017-01-12T15:24:59.237" UserId="1071" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I came across this expression in the book: *The Invisible Man*, (H.G. Wells)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Griffin *contra mundum*...with a vengeance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my *very* basic knowledge of Latin (I'm a Bio. student) I take it that *contra mundum* literally translates to &quot;Against the World&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a couple of years back, I recall chancing across another expression on some Wikipedia article (I don't rightly remember, but I think it was about some doctor who worked at a Nazi concentration camp), where this man describes the concentration camp to a colleague as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Anum mundi*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the corresponding Wikipedia translation was &quot;Anus of the world&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I conducted a cursory search online, and from what I gather, both *mundum* and *mundi* mean the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, two questions here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q1: Do *mundi* and *mundum* really mean the same thing, i.e- &quot;World&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q2: Even if they *do* mean the same, can they be *used* in the same circumstances? For example, would there be anything wrong in me using the hybrids: *Contra mundi* or *Anum mundum*?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mentioned the sources (*Contra mundum*: Britain, 1890s; and *Anum mundi*: Germany, 1940s) just in case that may yield a clue...of sorts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2391" RevisionGUID="7be64002-a9d5-4ea1-bd55-9ba5969a9349" CreationDate="2017-01-12T17:16:11.290" UserId="30" Text="I would translate the grammatical word *casus* (whence English *case*) as &quot;a fall&quot;. And, indeed, the German word is *Fall*, Dutch *naamval* (&quot;name fall&quot;). Why is this word used for the grammatical function of nouns?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Romans already used *casus* thus. But its connotations were &quot;occurrence&quot; and &quot;accident&quot; (which happens to be cognate with *case*), which do not seem related in meaning at all to the grammatical sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There must be some kind of metaphor at work. During my studies, we were told to imagine the *casus rectus* (undeclined or nominative form) as a stick or line standing up straight, the *obliquus* as slanted at an angle. Indeed, the verb *declino* was also used by the Romans to mean &quot;1. slant down; 2. decline grammatically&quot;. English *inflect* also fits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can understand this metaphor, but it seems somewhat odd. Why would a grammatical function be standing up?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, it seems to conflict with *casus* as a metaphorical fall. A fall is downwards, and how does a slanted fall work—let alone a leaning (&quot;declined&quot;) fall?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe there is a conexion between Greek κλίνω and *declino*, as the former is also used for grammatical declension. The same applies to ὀρθός &quot;rectus&quot; and πτῶσις &quot;case&quot;, which apple the same mataphors. Is the Latin just a loan translation? In that case, how did Greek come up with falling and leaning at the same time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8678" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2391" RevisionGUID="7be64002-a9d5-4ea1-bd55-9ba5969a9349" CreationDate="2017-01-12T17:16:11.290" UserId="30" Text="Why do we call a case a casus? And why rectus, obliquus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8679" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2391" RevisionGUID="7be64002-a9d5-4ea1-bd55-9ba5969a9349" CreationDate="2017-01-12T17:16:11.290" UserId="30" Text="|greek|declension|grammarians|terminology|nominativus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2381" RevisionGUID="72402f6c-ee32-46b7-a49c-70bd68e64040" CreationDate="2017-01-12T17:38:06.143" UserId="45" Comment="added 289 characters in body" Text="The [second book of the *Saturnalia*](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Macrobius/Saturnalia/2*.html) of [Macrobius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrobius) (5th century AD) is a kind of anthology of Roman jokes, attributed to various famous people. Here are some selections from it, with a short summary below each.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Hannibal and the King of Antioch**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ostendebat [rex] Antiochus in campo copias ingentes quas bellum populo Romano facturus conparaverat, convertebatque exercitum insignibus argenteis et aureis florentem: inducebat etiam currus cum falcibus et elephantos cum turribus equitatumque frenis et ephippiis, monilibus ac faleris praefulgentem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Atque ibi rex contemplatione tanti et tam ornati exercitus gloriabundus Hannibalem aspicit et: **Putasne, inquit, satis esse Romanis haec omnia?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tunc Poenus [i.e. Hannibal] eludens ignaviam inbelliamque militum eius pretiose armatorum: **Plane, inquit, satis esse credo Romanis haec, etsi avarissimi sunt.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary: The king of Antioch shows Hannibal a richly arrayed army and asks if this is &quot;enough for the Romans.&quot; Hannibal responds, &quot;Of course, this [plunder] should be enough even for the most greedy among them.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **&quot;The Sacrifice&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sacrificium apud veteres fuit quod vocabatur propter viam. In eo mos erat ut, si quid ex epulis superfuisset, igne consumeretur. Hinc Catonis iocus est. Namque Albidium quendam, qui bona sua comedisset et novissime domum quae ei reliqua erat incendio perdidisset, **propter viam fecisse dicebat: quod comesse non potuerit, id combussisse.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The joke is about a sacrifice &quot;for the road&quot; by which whatever food that was not eaten is burned. Cato joked that a certain Albidius, who wasted all his money and then lost his home in a fire, did so &quot;for the road,&quot; because he burned what he could not eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **The Artist's Children**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apud L. Mallium, qui optimus pictor Romae habebatur, Servilius Geminus forte coenabat: cumque filios eius deformes vidisset: Non similiter, inquit, Malli, fingis et pingis. Et Mallius: **In tenebris enim fingo, inquit, luce pingo.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully no explanation necessary :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Old Wine**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M. Cicero, cum apud Damasippum coenaret et ille mediocri vino posito diceret: Bibite Falernum hoc, annorum quadraginta est: **Bene, inquit, aetatem fert**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When Cicero is served a bad wine that is said to be aged &quot;40 years,&quot; he quips: &quot;It doesn't show its age.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above link contains many more of the same kind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2392" RevisionGUID="17932a33-e3ce-4f5d-b631-25574aea756e" CreationDate="2017-01-12T17:46:09.607" UserId="406" Text="##Look at older forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(See the end of this post for a tl;dr.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, consider the third-declension noun *lār, laris* (&quot;home spirit&quot;). In Classical Latin this seems to be a standard R-stem noun: *lār, laris, larī, larem, lare...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in some very archaic Latin (such as the *Carmen Arvale*), the nominative plural is given as *lases*. This could mean that it used to be an S-stem *lās, lasis* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does that make sense? There are a set of standard sound changes which happened between the Old Latin of Plautus and Cato, and the Classical Latin of Cicero and Vergil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - S became R in between vowels&#xD;&#xA; - - Compare *flōris* (formerly *_flōsis_) against *flōs*&#xD;&#xA; - - (More precisely, S became a Z sound between vowels. Later on, the Z sound became something like the American R; even later, that turned into the trilled Italian R.)&#xD;&#xA; - VO *usually* became VE&#xD;&#xA; - - Compare *vester* against *vōs*&#xD;&#xA; - DV became B&#xD;&#xA; - - Hence *duellum* (&gt; &quot;duel&quot;) became *bellum*, and *duis* (from *duo*) became *bis*&#xD;&#xA; - - *Duo* was used commonly enough to escape this change, just like it preserved the dual endings which otherwise died out.&#xD;&#xA; - OS and OM at the end of a word became US and UM&#xD;&#xA; - - Compare *tempus* (earlier *_tempos_) with *temporis* (earlier *_temposis_)&#xD;&#xA; - - Or compare the Latin second-declension endings with the Greek ones&#xD;&#xA; - And many others...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, following these backward is not a trivial process. (Though it is very very interesting.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##This is almost never necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin regularized forms much more than Greek did. In Attic Greek especially, inflections often don't make sense unless you know the underlying forms. But in Latin, these irregularities were smoothed out over time: *lār* and *honor* became normal R-stem nouns; *flōs* and *tempus* are normal R-stems except for the nominative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you know the nominative singular, which is sometimes unusual, and the genitive singular, which never is (because the ending starts with a vowel), you know everything you need to decline the noun properly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2393" RevisionGUID="c47181c5-9a38-446c-b23d-23b22d594018" CreationDate="2017-01-12T18:30:21.090" UserId="45" Text="It appears that you are correct that a *casus* is seen as a kind of metaphor for a noun &quot;falling into place.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Maurus Servius Honoratus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurus_Servius_Honoratus) (4-5th century AD) has an important quote that makes two points that bear on your question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Casus plerique quattuor esse dicunt, auferentes nominativum et vocativum, qui similis est nominativo. ideo autem auferunt nominativum, quoniam, cum **casus sit dictus ab eo, quod faciat nomen cadere**, nominativus e contrario rectum nomen ostendit. (Honoratus, *Commentarius in Artem Donati* 433)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Many say that there are four cases, leaving out the nominative and vocative, which is similar to the nominative. The reason they leave out the nominative is that, because **&quot;case&quot; is said from the fact that it makes a noun &quot;fall,&quot;** the nominative instead shows the noun &quot;upright.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The unexpected point is that the *casus rectus* is often not seen as an actual *casus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This idea does not begin with Honoratus: [Varro](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Terentius_Varro) (116 - 27 BC) makes the same point in less explicit terms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Propter eorum qui dicunt usum declinati casus, uti is qui de altero diceret, distinguere posset, cum vocaret, cum daret, cum accusaret, sic alia eiusdem modi discrimina, quae nos et Graecos ad declinandum duxerunt. **Sine controversia sunt obliqui, qui nascuntur a recto: unde rectus an sit casus sunt qui quaerant.** (Varro, *Lingua Latina* 8.6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cases are declared based on the use of those who are speaking, so that one who is speaking of another can distinguish when he is speaking, giving, accusing, or other distinctions of the same kind which have lead us and the Greeks to declining.  **The oblique [cases], which arise from the &quot;upright&quot; [case], are uncontroversial: but there are some who wonder whether the &quot;upright&quot; is actually a case.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your specific questions about the imagery of &quot;falling&quot; and &quot;slanting&quot; are difficult to address individually, but here's a stab at making some sense of the process based on the above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A noun has a &quot;archetype&quot; nominative form, called the *rectus*&#xD;&#xA;2. Other forms are *derived* from this and hence are called *obliqui*, i.e. &quot;indirect.&quot; I see no reason to assume a &quot;slanted&quot; imagery when &quot;indirect&quot; is a commonly accepted meaning of *obliquus*.&#xD;&#xA;3. These derivations were seen as a kind of &quot;falling&quot; from the right form, hence *casus*&#xD;&#xA;4. The term *casus* then began to apply to all forms indiscriminately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2392" RevisionGUID="6c845889-1e4d-4fdd-aabc-8e06de7fe95a" CreationDate="2017-01-12T19:12:59.400" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="##Look at older forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(See the end of this post for a tl;dr.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, consider the third-declension noun *lār, laris* (&quot;home spirit&quot;). In Classical Latin this seems to be a standard R-stem noun: *lār, laris, larī, larem, lare...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in some very archaic Latin (such as the *Carmen Arvale*), the nominative plural is given as *lases*. This could mean that it used to be an S-stem *lās, lasis* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does that make sense? There are a set of standard sound changes which happened between the Old Latin of Plautus and Cato, and the Classical Latin of Cicero and Vergil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - S became R in between vowels&#xD;&#xA;  - Compare *flōris* (formerly *_flōsis_) against *flōs*&#xD;&#xA;  - (More precisely, S became a Z sound between vowels. Later on, the Z sound became something like the American R; even later, that turned into the trilled Italian R.)&#xD;&#xA; - VO *usually* became VE&#xD;&#xA;  - Compare *vester* against *vōs*&#xD;&#xA; - DV became B&#xD;&#xA;  - Hence *duellum* (&gt; &quot;duel&quot;) became *bellum*, and *duis* (from *duo*) became *bis*&#xD;&#xA;  - *Duo* was used commonly enough to escape this change, just like it preserved the dual endings which otherwise died out.&#xD;&#xA; - OS and OM at the end of a word became US and UM&#xD;&#xA;  - Compare *tempus* (earlier *_tempos_) with *temporis* (earlier *_temposis_)&#xD;&#xA;  - Or compare the Latin second-declension endings with the Greek ones&#xD;&#xA; - And many others...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, following these backward is not a trivial process. (Though it is very very interesting.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##This is almost never necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin regularized forms much more than Greek did. In Attic Greek especially, inflections often don't make sense unless you know the underlying forms. But in Latin, these irregularities were smoothed out over time: *lār* and *honor* became normal R-stem nouns; *flōs* and *tempus* are normal R-stems except for the nominative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you know the nominative singular, which is sometimes unusual, and the genitive singular, which never is (because the ending starts with a vowel), you know everything you need to decline the noun properly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2394" RevisionGUID="da65d3fe-8a37-4009-bfc4-8b0cb1c2a0bc" CreationDate="2017-01-13T03:19:45.033" UserId="641" Text="(I am posting my previous comment here in part because I hope this will help, in some small way, to get this site past the beta stage. However, I do not think my comments deserve a bounty.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fr. Z seems correct to me: the ablative gerund, which can come close to being a mere present participle, usually expresses an ablative of means or cause (or is used after comparatives, or after certain prepositions). These gerunds are grammatically connected to the verb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I agree with brianpck: there does not seem to be any good reason to treat them as anything but ablative gerunds (of means). I don't know Ron Conte, but it strikes me that his 'translation' requires an understanding of Bede's skills as a 'Latinist' that is manifestly untrue and unfair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bede seems to suggest that the manner in which Jesus sees is one where he (naturally/inherently) exercises his mercy and election. It connects the idea of mercy and election more strongly to the verb than if Jesus were simply merciful and choosy (*et quia Iesus, miserans et eligens, aid illi, 'Sequere me'*). Thus, similar to brianpck, I take Bede to mean that Jesus saw him through the lens -- 'by means of' -- of exercising mercy and election. The rest of us simply don't have that power. (I've often said my eyesight is not what I wished it was....) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2395" RevisionGUID="f72aeade-ec1e-4548-b8af-d70eb0858e22" CreationDate="2017-01-13T17:20:40.537" UserId="39" Text="Here's a short answer so far - no one knows. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Brandenburg 2013][1] writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In non-technical contexts, ptôsis refers among other things to the ‘falling of dice’ (Pl. Resp. 10,604c6; Aristot. Eth. Eud. 9,1247a21-23). In the grammatical terminology it refers to the forms of nominal declension. This, however, renders the metaphor of falling unintelligible, because it is far from obvious in what sense the cases are falling and, if they do, where they are falling from. **It is this question that has inspired a lively discussion among the different currents of ancient grammar.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See Brandenburg 2013 and Thorp 1989 for a thorough discussion why we can't answer this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/case-ptosis-ancient-theories-of-COM_00000051" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2395" RevisionGUID="dcf447fd-1eac-4bb8-bbbe-c441f7a07a40" CreationDate="2017-01-13T17:26:45.860" UserId="39" Comment="added 662 characters in body" Text="Here's a short answer so far - no one knows. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Brandenburg 2013][1] writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In non-technical contexts, ptôsis refers among other things to the ‘falling of dice’ (Pl. Resp. 10,604c6; Aristot. Eth. Eud. 9,1247a21-23). In the grammatical terminology it refers to the forms of nominal declension. This, however, renders the metaphor of falling unintelligible, because it is far from obvious in what sense the cases are falling and, if they do, where they are falling from. **It is this question that has inspired a lively discussion among the different currents of ancient grammar.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or [Thorp 1989][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It seems likely that the language about verticality and obliquity was&#xD;&#xA;introduced, about a hundred years after Aristotle, by the Stoic scholar&#xD;&#xA;Chrysippus. **One can only speculate about what he had in mind with this&#xD;&#xA;language.** It may be that he hadn't very much in mind: even in antiquity he had&#xD;&#xA;the reputation of an absurdly prolific writer, and of one who was so full of things to say that he hadn't time to settle his technical language very carefully.&#xD;&#xA;If this is right, then Chrysippus did what that boy in my first day of Latin did: he pressed a metaphor. Moreover, he pressed it clumsily. And he started a lot of&#xD;&#xA;trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See Brandenburg 2013 and Thorp 1989 for a thorough discussion why we can't answer this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/case-ptosis-ancient-theories-of-COM_00000051&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://collections.mun.ca/cdm/compoundobject/collection/classjour/id/20207/rec/95" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2395" RevisionGUID="ec310912-0cdd-4716-888c-57146a62d2ab" CreationDate="2017-01-13T17:43:18.937" UserId="39" Comment="added 216 characters in body" Text="Here's a short answer so far - no one knows. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Brandenburg 2013][1] writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In non-technical contexts, ptôsis refers among other things to the ‘falling of dice’ (Pl. Resp. 10,604c6; Aristot. Eth. Eud. 9,1247a21-23). In the grammatical terminology it refers to the forms of nominal declension. This, however, renders the metaphor of falling unintelligible, because it is far from obvious in what sense the cases are falling and, if they do, where they are falling from. **It is this question that has inspired a lively discussion among the different currents of ancient grammar.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or [Thorp 1989][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It seems likely that the language about verticality and obliquity was&#xD;&#xA;introduced, about a hundred years after Aristotle, by the Stoic scholar&#xD;&#xA;Chrysippus. **One can only speculate about what he had in mind with this&#xD;&#xA;language.** It may be that he hadn't very much in mind: even in antiquity he had&#xD;&#xA;the reputation of an absurdly prolific writer, and of one who was so full of things to say that he hadn't time to settle his technical language very carefully.&#xD;&#xA;If this is right, then Chrysippus did what that boy in my first day of Latin did: he pressed a metaphor. Moreover, he pressed it clumsily. And he started a lot of&#xD;&#xA;trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See Brandenburg 2013 and Thorp 1989 for a thorough discussion why we can't answer this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fragments from Chrysippus can be found [here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/case-ptosis-ancient-theories-of-COM_00000051&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://collections.mun.ca/cdm/compoundobject/collection/classjour/id/20207/rec/95&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=ikjZAAAAMAAJ&amp;lpg=PR67&amp;ots=epvnpodMzx&amp;dq=Die%20Fragmente%20zur%20Dialektik%20der%20Stoiker%2C&amp;pg=PA172#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2395" RevisionGUID="9a250dad-145b-4aad-8548-e293e045464b" CreationDate="2017-01-13T19:02:08.043" UserId="39" Comment="added 256 characters in body" Text="Here's a short answer so far - no one knows. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Brandenburg 2013][1] writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In non-technical contexts, ptôsis refers among other things to the ‘falling of dice’ (Pl. Resp. 10,604c6; Aristot. Eth. Eud. 9,1247a21-23). In the grammatical terminology it refers to the forms of nominal declension. This, however, renders the metaphor of falling unintelligible, because it is far from obvious in what sense the cases are falling and, if they do, where they are falling from. **It is this question that has inspired a lively discussion among the different currents of ancient grammar.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or [Thorp 1989][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It seems likely that the language about verticality and obliquity was&#xD;&#xA;introduced, about a hundred years after Aristotle, by the Stoic scholar&#xD;&#xA;Chrysippus. **One can only speculate about what he had in mind with this&#xD;&#xA;language.** It may be that he hadn't very much in mind: even in antiquity he had&#xD;&#xA;the reputation of an absurdly prolific writer, and of one who was so full of things to say that he hadn't time to settle his technical language very carefully.&#xD;&#xA;If this is right, then Chrysippus did what that boy in my first day of Latin did: he pressed a metaphor. Moreover, he pressed it clumsily. And he started a lot of&#xD;&#xA;trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See Brandenburg 2013 and Thorp 1989 for a thorough discussion why we can't answer this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fragments from Chrysippus can be found [here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A very useful dictionary entry [πτῶσις][4] in Montanari - note sense B. *gramm*. **inflection, modification of a word**, from which a word or a different form originates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/case-ptosis-ancient-theories-of-COM_00000051&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://collections.mun.ca/cdm/compoundobject/collection/classjour/id/20207/rec/95&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=ikjZAAAAMAAJ&amp;lpg=PR67&amp;ots=epvnpodMzx&amp;dq=Die%20Fragmente%20zur%20Dialektik%20der%20Stoiker%2C&amp;pg=PA172#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=montanari&amp;id=103407" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2396" RevisionGUID="aa9e4a83-e9a3-4b61-8912-856c2206bc3a" CreationDate="2017-01-13T21:51:41.997" UserId="79" Text="Does scansion ever require a synizesis like *u&amp;#x306;u&amp;#x306;* &gt; *&amp;umacr;* or with *u* replaced by another vowel?&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if this should be called synizesis when the two joined vowels have the same quality, but I hope my intention is clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;Here is an artificial example of a hexameter verse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Est suus cuique viro canis et bene doctus amicus.*  &#xD;&#xA;Every man has his dog and a well educated friend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be able to read this as hexameter, one is forced to make the synizesis *u&amp;#x306;u&amp;#x306;* &gt; *&amp;umacr;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was [a question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2155/79) about confusion between *u&amp;#x306;u&amp;#x306;* and *&amp;umacr;*, but this one is about synizesis instead.&#xD;&#xA;An answer to the linked question mentions *i&amp;#x306;i&amp;#x306;t* &gt; *&amp;imacr;t*.&#xD;&#xA;If someone can provide a line where *&amp;imacr;t* is used and *i&amp;#x306;i&amp;#x306;t* would invalidate the metric, that would make a nice answer, although I prefer spelling with two vowels if possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8700" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2396" RevisionGUID="aa9e4a83-e9a3-4b61-8912-856c2206bc3a" CreationDate="2017-01-13T21:51:41.997" UserId="79" Text="Does scansion ever require synizesis of two similar vowels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8701" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2396" RevisionGUID="aa9e4a83-e9a3-4b61-8912-856c2206bc3a" CreationDate="2017-01-13T21:51:41.997" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|poetry|scansion|synizesis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2397" RevisionGUID="60b7844f-d0c4-4206-ba0a-eb28496e41ed" CreationDate="2017-01-13T22:26:16.867" UserId="985" Text="Here's are an example from Lucan's _Bellum civile_ (8.321) where _īt_ is used and _ĭĭt_ would break the meter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nomen abit aut unde redi maiore triumpho? (8.321)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form _abiit_ would produce three short syllabus in a row." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2397" RevisionGUID="1117efe0-718a-45c6-b010-818d1ca2d15a" CreationDate="2017-01-13T22:40:51.873" UserId="985" Comment="Corrected grammar" Text="Here's an example from Lucan's _Bellum civile_ (8.321) where _īt_ is used and _ĭĭt_ would break the meter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nomen abit aut unde redi maiore triumpho? (8.321)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form _abiit_ would produce three short syllabus in a row." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2398" RevisionGUID="4acc6101-484d-4911-afcd-a84f3cbf6dd2" CreationDate="2017-01-14T13:06:55.013" UserId="1148" Text="The word &quot;sŭŭs&quot; is always counted as a sequence of two distinct vowels in latin hexameter, as you can see, for example, in Verg. *georg.* 4,190:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In noctem, fessosque sopōr sŭŭs ōccŭpăt artus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in Ov. *ars* 2,643:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nēc sŭŭs Andromedae color est obiectus ab illo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and in  Ov. *met.* 2,186, which has sŭūs just like your verse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Frēnă sŭūs rector, quam dis uotisque reliquit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, however, the sequence &quot;ēst sŭūs cuique&quot; (where -ūs is long as a closed syllable because of the following cuique) will result in a cretic (— ∪ —), a metrical sequance that is inadmissible inside the pattern of the hexameter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can make some searches using the database of http://www.mqdq.it, which is very useful in this sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2398" RevisionGUID="ec56546e-72bf-4682-90dd-e45e06bf1cc5" CreationDate="2017-01-14T14:51:33.850" UserId="1148" Comment="added 120 characters in body" Text="The word &quot;sŭŭs&quot; is always counted as a sequence of two distinct vowels in latin hexameter, as you can see, for example, in Verg. *georg.* 4,190:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In noctem, fessosque sopōr sŭŭs ōccŭpăt artus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in Ov. *ars* 2,643:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nēc sŭŭs Andromedae color est obiectus ab illo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and in  Ov. *met.* 2,186, which has sŭūs just like your verse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Frēnă sŭūs rector, quam dis uotisque reliquit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, however, the sequence &quot;ēst sŭūs cuique&quot; (where -ūs is long as a closed syllable because of the following cuique) will result in a cretic (— ∪ —), a metrical sequance that is inadmissible inside the pattern of the hexameter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can make some searches using the database of http://www.mqdq.it, which is very useful in this sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even more accurate is the search engine of http://www.pedecerto.eu/ricerca/forma, which shows the metrical patterns." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2399" RevisionGUID="490c35ae-7ae7-4b45-ad40-0b3b8627049c" CreationDate="2017-01-14T16:07:47.660" UserId="1148" Text="If we have a subordinate clause depending on superordinate conjunctive clause, we must consider the tense of the conjunctive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A) present or perfect &quot;logic&quot; (assimilable to a present), it should be used the tenses prescripted by the *consecutio temporum* of the **primary times**, like in Sen. *ep.* 32,1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sic vive tamquam quid facias auditurus sim*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(B) conjunctive imperfect, pluperfect or perfect &quot;past&quot; (optative or concessive), and then we should use the tenses prescripted by the *consecutio temporum* of the **historical times**, like in Cic. *Att.* 1,5,2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *testis erit tibi ipsa, quantae mihi curae fuerit, ut Quinti fratris&#xD;&#xA;&gt; animus in eam esset is, qui esse deberet*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could find information on the tenses prescripted by the *consecutio temporum* of the subordinate clauses in almost all latin syntax reference works, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - E. Woodcock, *A New Latin Syntax*, Bristol 1959, pp. 98-108;  &#xD;&#xA; - A. Ernout - F. Thomas, *Syntaxe latine*, Paris 1964, pp. 547-554; &#xD;&#xA; - J.B. Hofmann - A. Szantyr, *Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik*, München 1972, pp- 393-402; &#xD;&#xA; - A. Traina - T. Bertotti, *Sintassi normativa della lingua latina*, Bologna 1985, pp. 345-354). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2400" RevisionGUID="3af975e0-f172-4bee-9bcc-8c9ebeeefc24" CreationDate="2017-01-14T16:17:07.483" UserId="1148" Text="For a detailed account of that subject you can see the first two chapter of the book [A Cultural History of Humour. From Antiquity to the Present Day][1], ed. by Jan Bremmer and Hermann Roodenburg, (Wiley: London, 1997), that are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Jokes, Jokers and Jokebooks in Ancient Greek Culture*, by Jan Bremmer;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Cicero, Plautus and Roman Laughter*, by Fritz Graf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0745618804.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2399" RevisionGUID="5a28234f-6b60-427d-927d-1d0ac1ec93e3" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:30:42.003" UserId="1148" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="If we have a subordinate clause depending on superordinate conjunctive clause, we must consider the tense of the conjunctive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A) present or perfect &quot;logic&quot; (assimilable to a present), it should be used the tenses prescripted by the *consecutio temporum* of the **primary times**, like in Sen. *ep.* 32,1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sic vive tamquam quid facias auditurus sim*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(B) conjunctive imperfect, pluperfect or perfect &quot;past&quot; (optative or concessive), and then we should use the tenses prescripted by the *consecutio temporum* of the **historical times**, like in Cic. *Att.* 1,5,2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *testis erit tibi ipsa, quantae mihi curae fuerit, ut Quinti fratris&#xD;&#xA;&gt; animus in eam esset is, qui esse deberet*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could find information on the tenses prescripted by the *consecutio temporum* of the subordinate clauses in almost all latin syntax reference works, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - E. Woodcock, *A New Latin Syntax*, Bristol 1959, pp. 98-108;  &#xD;&#xA; - A. Ernout - F. Thomas, *Syntaxe latine*, Paris 1964, pp. 547-554; &#xD;&#xA; - J.B. Hofmann - A. Szantyr, *Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik*, München 1972, pp- 393-402; &#xD;&#xA; - A. Traina - T. Bertotti, *Sintassi normativa della lingua latina*, Bologna 1985, pp. 345-354. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2401" RevisionGUID="fc478ff8-a7d8-4067-9c7d-7a51493d63f9" CreationDate="2017-01-14T20:00:26.120" UserId="79" Text="If a person is tall, which adjectives can I use?&#xD;&#xA;Which one of them is most common in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The most suitable-looking adjectives I know are *altus*, *procerus* and *longus*, but I found no clear indication as to which ones can be used to describe people.&#xD;&#xA;For example, if my friend is two meters tall, which adjectives work if I say *amicus meus duobus metris altus/procerus/longus/&amp;hellip; est*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8711" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2401" RevisionGUID="fc478ff8-a7d8-4067-9c7d-7a51493d63f9" CreationDate="2017-01-14T20:00:26.120" UserId="79" Text="Which adjective to use for tallness of people?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8712" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2401" RevisionGUID="fc478ff8-a7d8-4067-9c7d-7a51493d63f9" CreationDate="2017-01-14T20:00:26.120" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|adjective|word-choice|mensura|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2402" RevisionGUID="58aec1fc-b53e-4447-9447-0c95e1dce468" CreationDate="2017-01-14T21:03:32.913" UserId="985" Text="All three of those adjectives are used of persons in classical Latin, in both prose and poetry. (In my own reading, though, I'm accustomed to seeing _altus_ and _procerus_ much more often in this context than _longus_.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Definitions and attestations are from _Oxford Latin Dictionary_.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**altus:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1** Having great extension upwards, lofty, tall  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... (_of persons or animals_) tanta vis inerat in verbis...ut altior fieres (Cic. _Fin._ 2.51); cunctis altior ibat Anchises (Verg. _A._ 8.162); altior illis ipsa dea est (Ov. _Met._ 3.181) ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**longus:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **3** (usu. of persons) Having (great) upward extent, tall  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... longus an brevis...sit (homo) (Cic. _Inv._ 1.35); Quintia...candida, longa, recta est (Catul. 86.1); (Ov. _Am._ 5.3.8); qui mendacio staturam adiuvant longioresque quam sunt, videri volunt (Sen. _Ep._ 111.3) ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**procerus:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1**...**b** (of persons) tall  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... **b** forti nubet procera Corano filia Nasicae (Hor. _S._ 2.5.64); procera corpora, promissae...comae (Liv. 38.17.3) ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the specification of measurement, the entries for both _altus_ and _longus_ show examples that use an accusative, genitive, and ablative; however, none of those examples involve persons – unless you count artistic representations of human/divine forms, for which only the entry for _altus_ provides examples, and only for accusative and ablative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Accusative:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lysippi Iuppiter...quadraginta cubita altus (Lucil. 526) ... signum septem pedes altum (Liv. 8.10.12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ablative:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; colossus altus pedibus XC (Hyg. _Fab._ 223.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, for your example, it seems to me as though you'd be justified in saying either _amicus meus duobus metris altus est_ or _amicus meus duo metra altus est_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that the reason _OLD_ doesn't provide examples that involve persons is that the Romans themselves would tend not to be too concerned about the precise measurement of persons, because this info wouldn't have very much practical value, as opposed to, say, the exact height of city wall, rampart, or other fortification if you're on military campaign, or the exact height of a column if you're constructing a building, monument, or aqueduct. The exact height of a horse would have some practical value too. Instead, for persons, they would use generalizations such as 'tall'/'too tall'/'very tall' or 'short'/'too short'/'very short,' and leave it at that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2401" RevisionGUID="3ded6352-4df2-430e-8ab3-50fe197b7463" CreationDate="2017-01-14T21:18:57.190" UserId="79" Comment="Changed to accusative as originally intended." Text="If a person is tall, which adjectives can I use?&#xD;&#xA;Which one of them is most common in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The most suitable-looking adjectives I know are *altus*, *procerus* and *longus*, but I found no clear indication as to which ones can be used to describe people.&#xD;&#xA;For example, if my friend is two meters tall, which adjectives work if I say *amicus meus duo metra altus/procerus/longus/&amp;hellip; est*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2398" RevisionGUID="fd9a45c1-e217-4405-993d-f25d2f4a69ac" CreationDate="2017-01-14T22:02:45.280" UserId="1148" Comment="edited body" Text="The word &quot;sŭŭs&quot; is always counted as a sequence of two distinct vowels in latin hexameter, as you can see, for example, in Verg. *georg.* 4,190:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In noctem, fessosque sopōr sŭŭs ōccŭpăt artus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in Ov. *ars* 2,643:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nēc sŭŭs Andromedae color est obiectus ab illo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and in  Ov. *met.* 2,186, which has sŭūs just like your verse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Frēnă sŭūs rector, quam dis uotisque reliquit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, however, the sequence &quot;ēst sŭūs cuique&quot; (where -ūs is long as a closed syllable because of the following cuique) will result in a cretic (— ∪ —), a metrical sequence that is inadmissible inside the pattern of the hexameter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can make some searches using the database of http://www.mqdq.it, which is very useful in this sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even more accurate is the search engine of http://www.pedecerto.eu/ricerca/forma, which shows the metrical patterns." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2403" RevisionGUID="e971f680-b572-4d86-9051-a2c389ccdd90" CreationDate="2017-01-15T09:06:21.387" UserId="79" Text="In English one can write either of these to indicate a length difference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcus is taller than Gaius by a head.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcus is a head taller than Gaius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for an idiomatic way to translate &quot;by a head&quot; in this context.&#xD;&#xA;I found good adjectives for &quot;tall&quot; in [my previous question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2401/79).&#xD;&#xA;A simple start is to drop the measure and write simply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus procerior est quam Gaius.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus Gaio procerior est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To indicate by how much someone is taller than someone else, one should use an ablative of measure (*ablativus mensurae*).&#xD;&#xA;That is, *tribus metris longior* and *chiliogrammate gravius* are the correct ways to say &quot;three meters longer&quot; or &quot;a kilogram heavier&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In this case, this approach leads me to these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus capite procerior est quam Gaius.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus Gaio capite procerior est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if these would be parsed correctly and especially if this would be idiomatic classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;One could read *capite* as an ablative of respect (*ablativus respectus*), leading to the interpretation that Marcus has a taller head than Gaius.&#xD;&#xA;This is now what I want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps one could clarify &quot;by a head&quot; to &quot;by the length/height of a head&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I could use *mensura* or *altitudo* to produce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus mensura capitis procerior est quam Gaius.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus Gaio altitudine capitis procerior est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my best guess.&#xD;&#xA;**How should I translate &quot;by a head&quot; in this context?**&#xD;&#xA;I prefer classical Latin, but I do not require it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8718" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2403" RevisionGUID="e971f680-b572-4d86-9051-a2c389ccdd90" CreationDate="2017-01-15T09:06:21.387" UserId="79" Text="Translating &quot;taller by a head&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8719" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2403" RevisionGUID="e971f680-b572-4d86-9051-a2c389ccdd90" CreationDate="2017-01-15T09:06:21.387" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|translation|idiom|measurement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8720" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2403" RevisionGUID="b9c0867f-af27-4b5a-a9b5-40c302f5332a" CreationDate="2017-01-15T10:54:43.403" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|translation|idiom|mensura|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2403" RevisionGUID="b9c0867f-af27-4b5a-a9b5-40c302f5332a" CreationDate="2017-01-15T10:54:43.403" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="In English one can write either of these to indicate a length difference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcus is taller than Gaius by a head.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcus is a head taller than Gaius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for an idiomatic way to translate &quot;by a head&quot; in this context.&#xD;&#xA;I found good adjectives for &quot;tall&quot; in [my previous question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2401/79).&#xD;&#xA;A simple start is to drop the measure and write simply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus procerior est quam Gaius.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus Gaio procerior est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To indicate by how much someone is taller than someone else, one should use an ablative of measure (*ablativus mensurae*).&#xD;&#xA;That is, *tribus metris longior* and *chiliogrammate gravius* are the correct ways to say &quot;three meters longer&quot; or &quot;a kilogram heavier&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In this case, this approach leads me to these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus capite procerior est quam Gaius.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus Gaio capite procerior est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if these would be parsed correctly and especially if this would be idiomatic classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;One could read *capite* as an ablative of respect (*ablativus respectus*), leading to the interpretation that Marcus has a taller head than Gaius.&#xD;&#xA;This is not what I want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps one could clarify &quot;by a head&quot; to &quot;by the length/height of a head&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I could use *mensura* or *altitudo* to produce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus mensura capitis procerior est quam Gaius.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus Gaio altitudine capitis procerior est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my best guess.&#xD;&#xA;**How should I translate &quot;by a head&quot; in this context?**&#xD;&#xA;I prefer classical Latin, but I do not require it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2404" RevisionGUID="8c5f4a7c-af9a-451a-abc9-d1d3e4d93349" CreationDate="2017-01-15T11:33:09.727" UserId="1149" Text="&quot;Laudant quae sciunt,vituperant quae ignorant;laudare a bonis et vituperari a malis unun atque idem est&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8723" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2404" RevisionGUID="8c5f4a7c-af9a-451a-abc9-d1d3e4d93349" CreationDate="2017-01-15T11:33:09.727" UserId="1149" Text="What is the meaning of this quote by Marco Tulio Cicero?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8724" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2404" RevisionGUID="8c5f4a7c-af9a-451a-abc9-d1d3e4d93349" CreationDate="2017-01-15T11:33:09.727" UserId="1149" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2404" RevisionGUID="9185cf14-1da0-4988-bcde-ded6459e0c88" CreationDate="2017-01-15T12:09:33.750" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="&quot;Laudant quae sciunt, vituperant quae ignorant; laudare a bonis et vituperari a malis unun atque idem est&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8726" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2404" RevisionGUID="9185cf14-1da0-4988-bcde-ded6459e0c88" CreationDate="2017-01-15T12:09:33.750" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|classical-latin|translation|cicero|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2405" RevisionGUID="c3bb2e58-a203-4821-95d6-6b5e4a398c4f" CreationDate="2017-01-15T14:10:05.857" UserId="30" Text="&gt; Laudant quae sciunt, vituperant quae ignorant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Those who know [something] praise [it], those who don't know [it] censure [it]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a quotation from Christian church father Tertullian's *[Apologeticus adversus Gentes][1]*, not Cicero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Laudari a bonis et vituperari a malis unum atque idem est&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Being praised by the good and being censured by the wicked is one and the same&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The good&quot; should be understood as &quot;good people&quot;. This part is not from Turtullian, and I can't find a specific source; it must have been written latter by someone else, as an extension of Tertullian's words. Note that your quotation contained two spelling errors, which I have corrected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.monumenta.ch/latein/text.php?tabelle=Tertullianus&amp;rumpfid=Tertullianus,%20Apologeticus%20adversus%20Gentes,%20%20%2003&amp;level=3&amp;domain=&amp;lang=1&amp;id=&amp;hilite_id=&amp;links=&amp;inframe=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2406" RevisionGUID="6b01d35d-7ed0-450b-97f2-de5e3e8de313" CreationDate="2017-01-15T14:23:05.620" UserId="1148" Text="The first part of your quotation is not from Cicero, but from the *Apologeticus Adversos Gentes pro Christianis* ([3,2][1]) by Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240 AD):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Laudant quae sciunt, vituperant quae ignorant*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;They praise what they know, they blame what they are ignorant of&quot; (transl. by [T.H. Bindley][2]).&#xD;&#xA;It refers to those who blindly blame the christians not even knowing their lives and thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part of your quotation (which you transcripted wrongly) is a typical *sententia* commonly ascribed to the *de officis* of Cicero (as you can see in this [collection of latin proverbs and quotes][4]), which really echoes a concept often expressed by Cicero, but reformulated to a new thick form at some moment by a late *excerptor* (see, for instance, what wrotes [Francesco Villardi][5] in 1932).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *laudari a bonis et vituperari a malis unum atque idem est*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means &quot;to be praised from the honests and to be blamed from the wicked it's the same identical thing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some passages from Cicero's works (where *laudo* and *vitupero* are often juxtaposed) that could have inspired this phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Philippicae* 6,16: *Malui viginti diebus post sententiam meam laudari ab omnibus quam a paucis hodie vituperari* &quot;I thought it better that my motion be praised by everyone in twenty days'time than blamed by a few today&quot; (trad by [G. Manuwald][3]);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - De oratore 2,35: *quis vituperare improbos asperius, quis laudare bonos ornatius?* (Who is more harsh in blaming the wicked, who is more graceful in praise the honests?&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - De republica 4,12: *veteribus displicuisse  Romanis vel laudari quemquam in scaena vivum hominem vel vituperari* &quot;Ancient Romans do not like to praise or blame a living man on the stage&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.monumenta.ch/latein/text.php?tabelle=Tertullianus&amp;rumpfid=Tertullianus,%20Apologeticus%20adversus%20Gentes,%20%20%2003&amp;level=3&amp;domain=&amp;lang=1&amp;id=&amp;hilite_id=&amp;satz=&amp;string=&amp;links=&amp;inframe=1&amp;hide_apparatus=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/bindley_apol/bindley_apol.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.it/books?id=nKpvpKeOx44C&amp;pg=PA242&amp;lpg=PA242&amp;dq=Malui%20viginti%20diebus%20post%20sententiam%20meam&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ZHSXcK88mB&amp;sig=fQ263PjxdtjVbLy1P_0Z2P4_Qtg&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi0xKSkqsTRAhWrB8AKHfLiDokQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Malui%20viginti%20diebus%20post%20sententiam%20meam&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.it/books?id=hjiMpXCMCvsC&amp;pg=PA336&amp;lpg=PA336&amp;dq=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=cUZdsXGSZZ&amp;sig=-eatcxPNp85Yf-MB3AYaE6ySMFo&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjphebrpsTRAhXqI8AKHc6hAgMQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.it/books?id=zeJlAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GhmzzzcD2y&amp;sig=o9vz5TarLm6GcEmS4aunze4C4zk&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjphebrpsTRAhXqI8AKHc6hAgMQ6AEINjAG#v=onepage&amp;q=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="fbe5b8b9-f0be-4930-8e04-4f1acb0c655a" CreationDate="2017-01-15T14:58:50.853" UserId="30" Comment="added 388 characters in body" Text="I believe there are no exceptions to this rule. That's what I have always read, and I have never encountered any, neither in Greek nor in Latin, nor even in German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an hypothesis about the cause of this phenomenon. Neuter words were historically limited to inanimate objects or things that cannot act. In a basic sentence, it was rarely or never the neuter thing that acted, and therefore you didn't need case to distinguish between agent and patient/theme (between &quot;acting&quot; and &quot;being acted upon&quot;). So, if you just have a transitive verb and a neuter word, there is only one possibility: the neuter thing is acted upon. With an intransitive verb, there is no object, so it is even less necessary. So semantics make case redundant for neuter words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This hypothesis is inspired by our knowledge of [ergative–absolutive languages][1], in which the 'subject' of an 'intransitive' verb and the 'object' of a 'transitive' verb take the same case (the absolutive case), as opposed to the 'subject' of a 'transitive' verb (ergative case, from *ergon* &quot;work, deed, action&quot;, related to *work*). In other words, the primary complement of a verb is the thing that does not act; and only some verbs have a secondary complement, which is a thing that acts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This contrasts with nominative–accusative languages, such as the main European languages, in which the subject of an intransitive verb takes the nominative, but the object of a transitive verb takes the accusative case. Our primary complement is the subject, which often acts; and only some verbs have a secondary complement, the direct object.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course this is an hypothesis, so take it with a grain of salt. But it's the only one I've ever heard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergative%E2%80%93absolutive_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2407" RevisionGUID="48834508-d9b4-49d6-b60f-aebd39260fd4" CreationDate="2017-01-15T15:03:13.097" UserId="645" Text="You need to say taller not 'by a head', but 'by a neck'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid, Met. 3.181: . . . *collo tenus supereminet omnes*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid has the same expression *collo tenus* in Met. 2.275, where the adjacent text is doubtful, but the meaning clearly the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2390" RevisionGUID="b934e098-f973-467c-bba7-864166c6f569" CreationDate="2017-01-15T15:09:13.840" UserId="68" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="One translation of the Seneca letter you refer to begins to suggest a difference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Moreover, the precepts which are given are of great weight in themselves, whether they be woven into the fabric of song, or condensed into prose proverbs, like the famous Wisdom of Cato, &quot;Buy not what you need, but what you must have. That which you do not need, is dear even at a farthing.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I interpret this, *opus esse* refers to the need for something in order to accomplish something else (&quot;to become a successful politician, you need a lot of friends&quot;), while *necesse esse* refers to things you actually can't do without (&quot;living beings need food and water&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ramshorn's *Latin Synonyms* supports this interpretation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Opus est*, it is wanted, it is necessary, because a want, as requisite or indispensable for the obtaining of some end or object. . . . *Necesse est*, it is absolutely necessary, of unchanging necessity found in natural causes, something which cannot possibly be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this interpretation, the sentence from the *Symbolum Apostolorum* correctly uses *opus est* instead of *necesse est*: &quot;Whoever *wants to be saved* needs above all to hold the Catholic faith.&quot; But holding the Catholic faith isn't something you can't do without; there are lots of people who don't do that and yet go on breathing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2408" RevisionGUID="655b3ed5-2086-40b3-ae37-e5f39b445589" CreationDate="2017-01-15T15:25:15.980" UserId="1148" Text="For the construction of a phrase it is good praxis to look at what classical authors (especially Cicero) did. I dont't found a comparative use of adjective *procerus*. However, the phrase &quot;to be taller&quot; could be expressed with *altitudine superare* (see, for instance, Liv. 30,10,13: *altitudine aliquantum onerariae superabant* and 43,19,9: *[Perseus] altitudine muros superaret*) or *maior altitudine* (see Plin. *nat.* 8,95,1: *maior altitudine in eodem Nilo belua hippopotamius*).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this way, translating &quot;By a head&quot; with *capite* couldn't be interpreted by no means as an *ablativus limitationis*. Following the precedent examples and Cic. *nat. deor.* 2,92 (*sol multis partibus maior atque amplior quam terra universa est*), your phrase should then better be translated with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus capite Gaium altitudine superat*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus capite maior quam Gaius altitudine est*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2406" RevisionGUID="f86769c3-63df-4fcd-96a5-8c7b89bf097b" CreationDate="2017-01-15T15:34:47.383" UserId="1148" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="The first part of your quotation is not from Cicero, but from the *Apologeticus Adversos Gentes pro Christianis* ([3,2][1]) by Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240 AD):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Laudant quae sciunt, vituperant quae ignorant*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;They praise what they know, they blame what they are ignorant of&quot; (transl. by [T.H. Bindley][2]).&#xD;&#xA;It refers to those who blindly blame the christians not even knowing their lives and thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part of your quotation (which you transcripted wrongly) is a typical *sententia* commonly and wrongly ascribed to the *de officis* of Cicero (as you can see in the book [*5000 Proberbi e motti latini*][3] by L. De Mauri [Milano : Hoepli 1990]), which really echoes a concept often expressed by Cicero, but reformulated to a new thick form at some moment by a late *excerptor* (see, for instance, what wrotes [Francesco Villardi][4] in 1932).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *laudari a bonis et vituperari a malis unum atque idem est*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means &quot;Being praised by the good and being censured by the wicked is one and the same&quot; (transl. by [Cerberus][5]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some passages from Cicero's works (where *laudo* and *vitupero* are often juxtaposed) that could have inspired this phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Philippicae* 6,16: *Malui viginti diebus post sententiam meam laudari ab omnibus quam a paucis hodie vituperari* &quot;I thought it better that my motion be praised by everyone in twenty days'time than blamed by a few today&quot; (trad by [G. Manuwald][6]);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - De oratore 2,35: *quis vituperare improbos asperius, quis laudare bonos ornatius?* (Who is more harsh in blaming the wicked, who is more graceful in praise the honests?&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - De republica 4,12: *veteribus displicuisse  Romanis vel laudari quemquam in scaena vivum hominem vel vituperari* &quot;Ancient Romans do not like to praise or blame a living man on the stage&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.monumenta.ch/latein/text.php?tabelle=Tertullianus&amp;rumpfid=Tertullianus,%20Apologeticus%20adversus%20Gentes,%20%20%2003&amp;level=3&amp;domain=&amp;lang=1&amp;id=&amp;hilite_id=&amp;satz=&amp;string=&amp;links=&amp;inframe=1&amp;hide_apparatus=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/bindley_apol/bindley_apol.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.it/books?id=hjiMpXCMCvsC&amp;pg=PA336&amp;lpg=PA336&amp;dq=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=cUZdsXGSZZ&amp;sig=-eatcxPNp85Yf-MB3AYaE6ySMFo&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjphebrpsTRAhXqI8AKHc6hAgMQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.it/books?id=zeJlAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GhmzzzcD2y&amp;sig=o9vz5TarLm6GcEmS4aunze4C4zk&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjphebrpsTRAhXqI8AKHc6hAgMQ6AEINjAG#v=onepage&amp;q=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/30/cerberus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.it/books?id=nKpvpKeOx44C&amp;pg=PA242&amp;lpg=PA242&amp;dq=Malui%20viginti%20diebus%20post%20sententiam%20meam&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ZHSXcK88mB&amp;sig=fQ263PjxdtjVbLy1P_0Z2P4_Qtg&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi0xKSkqsTRAhWrB8AKHfLiDokQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Malui%20viginti%20diebus%20post%20sententiam%20meam&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2406" RevisionGUID="77be9006-060a-4a84-9055-023c32d8271b" CreationDate="2017-01-15T15:41:19.867" UserId="1148" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="The first part of your quotation is not from Cicero, but from the *Apologeticus Adversos Gentes pro Christianis* ([3,2][1]) by Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240 AD):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Laudant quae sciunt, vituperant quae ignorant*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;They praise what they know, they blame what they are ignorant of&quot; (transl. by [T.H. Bindley][2]).&#xD;&#xA;It refers to those who blindly blame the christians not even knowing their lives and thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part of your quotation (which you transcripted wrongly) is a typical *sententia* commonly and wrongly ascribed to the *de officis* of Cicero (as you can see in the book [*5000 Proberbi e motti latini*][3] by L. De Mauri [Milano : Hoepli 1990], which is not scientifically reliable), which really echoes a concept often expressed by Cicero, but reformulated to a new thick form at some moment by a late *excerptor* (see, for instance, what wrotes [Francesco Villardi][4] in 1932).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *laudari a bonis et vituperari a malis unum atque idem est*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means &quot;Being praised by the good and being censured by the wicked is one and the same&quot; (transl. by [Cerberus][5]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some passages from Cicero's works (where *laudo* and *vitupero* are often juxtaposed) that could have inspired this phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Philippicae* 6,16: *Malui viginti diebus post sententiam meam laudari ab omnibus quam a paucis hodie vituperari* &quot;I thought it better that my motion be praised by everyone in twenty days'time than blamed by a few today&quot; (trad by [G. Manuwald][6]);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - De oratore 2,35: *quis vituperare improbos asperius, quis laudare bonos ornatius?* (Who is more harsh in blaming the wicked, who is more graceful in praise the honests?&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - De republica 4,12: *veteribus displicuisse  Romanis vel laudari quemquam in scaena vivum hominem vel vituperari* &quot;Ancient Romans do not like to praise or blame a living man on the stage&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.monumenta.ch/latein/text.php?tabelle=Tertullianus&amp;rumpfid=Tertullianus,%20Apologeticus%20adversus%20Gentes,%20%20%2003&amp;level=3&amp;domain=&amp;lang=1&amp;id=&amp;hilite_id=&amp;satz=&amp;string=&amp;links=&amp;inframe=1&amp;hide_apparatus=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/bindley_apol/bindley_apol.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.it/books?id=hjiMpXCMCvsC&amp;pg=PA336&amp;lpg=PA336&amp;dq=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=cUZdsXGSZZ&amp;sig=-eatcxPNp85Yf-MB3AYaE6ySMFo&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjphebrpsTRAhXqI8AKHc6hAgMQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.it/books?id=zeJlAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GhmzzzcD2y&amp;sig=o9vz5TarLm6GcEmS4aunze4C4zk&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjphebrpsTRAhXqI8AKHc6hAgMQ6AEINjAG#v=onepage&amp;q=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/30/cerberus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.it/books?id=nKpvpKeOx44C&amp;pg=PA242&amp;lpg=PA242&amp;dq=Malui%20viginti%20diebus%20post%20sententiam%20meam&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ZHSXcK88mB&amp;sig=fQ263PjxdtjVbLy1P_0Z2P4_Qtg&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi0xKSkqsTRAhWrB8AKHfLiDokQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Malui%20viginti%20diebus%20post%20sententiam%20meam&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2409" RevisionGUID="875309a0-4d60-4cf7-8e07-347e522358e7" CreationDate="2017-01-15T15:55:27.667" UserId="1150" Text="Quod sine die, a legal term, literally &quot;which without a day&quot;, meaning there will be no day set to appear in court. In other words, to hold harmless; will not pursue the matter further, legally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2404" RevisionGUID="399cad11-6f0a-4c58-998e-174ed19d9904" CreationDate="2017-01-15T16:58:52.130" UserId="79" Comment="Added content from comments." Text="I came across this quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Laudant quae sciunt, vituperant quae ignorant; laudare a bonis et vituperari a malis unun atque idem est&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was attributed to Cicero, but [it seems](http://latin.dechile.net/?Ciceron=1) that this attribution is wrong or the phrase does not exist at all.&#xD;&#xA;Is this quote real?&#xD;&#xA;Where does it come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, what does it mean?&#xD;&#xA;I [tried Google Translate](https://translate.google.com/#auto/en/Laudant%20quae%20sciunt%2C%20vituperant%20quae%20ignorant%3B%20laudare%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis%20unun%20atque%20idem%20est), but the result is gibberish." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="52434142-a4cc-46c9-b9b5-3bf372f83da4" CreationDate="2017-01-15T22:36:02.577" UserId="118" Comment="added 237 characters in body" Text="There seem to be two schools of thought about the meaning of the motto on Pope Francis's coat of arms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; miserando atque eligendo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These words are taken from the [21st homily of the Venerable Bede](https://books.google.com/books?id=MYZPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA221&amp;dq=bede+homilies+%22miserando+atque+eligendo%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj_lO7xmsXRAhXk6oMKHeL4DeQQuwUIIjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=bede%20homilies%20%22miserando%20atque%20eligendo%22&amp;f=false), describing Jesus's first meeting with Matthew:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum, et quia miserando atque eligendo vidit, ait illi, ‘Sequere me’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One school of thought, represented by [Fr. Z](http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/03/what-does-the-popes-motto-really-say-the-latin-motto-explained/), says that the phrase has two ablative gerunds and describes Jesus's way of seeing: &quot;by showing compassion and by choosing.&quot; Fr. Z would translate the sentence &quot;Jesus, therefore, saw the publican, and because he saw by having mercy and by choosing, He said to him, ‘Follow me.'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ron Conte](https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/more-on-the-papal-motto-miserando-atque-eligendo/), representing the other school of thought, says that's a literal, word-by-word translation that misses the meaning, as such an approach to translation often does. Conte would translate the motto &quot;pitiable yet chosen&quot;, and the whole sentence&#xD;&#xA;“Then Jesus saw the publican, and because he saw [him to be] pitiable and yet elect, he said to him: Follow me.” Most commonly, the motto is translated &quot;lowly but chosen.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My problem with Fr. Z's interpretation is that it doesn't make sense. What does it mean to &quot;see by choosing&quot;? My problem with Ron Conte's interpretation is that I don't understand the grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Miserando_ and _eligendo_ appear to be ablatives describing _vidit_. Or perhaps there are some elided words and the sentence should be understood like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum, et quia [eum] miserando atque eligendo [esse] vidit, ait illi, ‘Sequere me’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I still don't understand that. What does it mean to use an ablative gerund as a predicate like that? Why not a gerundive, like _eum miserandum atque eligendum esse vidit_? Does the fact that _miseror_ can also be understood as a deponent verb play a role here? Might these actually be dative gerunds?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2406" RevisionGUID="e4b05855-9762-47ea-8706-4aff675aedcd" CreationDate="2017-01-15T23:14:53.187" UserId="1148" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited body" Text="The first part of your quotation is not from Cicero, but from the *Apologeticus Adversos Gentes pro Christianis* ([3,2][1]) by Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240 AD):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Laudant quae sciunt, vituperant quae ignorant*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;They praise what they know, they blame what they are ignorant of&quot; (transl. by [T.H. Bindley][2]).&#xD;&#xA;It refers to those who blindly blame the christians not even knowing their lives and thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part of your quotation (which you transcripted wrongly) is a typical *sententia* commonly and wrongly ascribed to the *de officis* of Cicero (as you can see in the book [*5000 Proverbi e motti latini*][3] by L. De Mauri [Milano : Hoepli 1990], which is not scientifically reliable), which really echoes a concept often expressed by Cicero, but reformulated to a new thick form at some moment by a late *excerptor* (see, for instance, what wrotes [Francesco Villardi][4] in 1932).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *laudari a bonis et vituperari a malis unum atque idem est*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means &quot;Being praised by the good and being censured by the wicked is one and the same&quot; (transl. by [Cerberus][5]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some passages from Cicero's works (where *laudo* and *vitupero* are often juxtaposed) that could have inspired this phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Philippicae* 6,16: *Malui viginti diebus post sententiam meam laudari ab omnibus quam a paucis hodie vituperari* &quot;I thought it better that my motion be praised by everyone in twenty days'time than blamed by a few today&quot; (trad by [G. Manuwald][6]);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *De oratore* 2,35: *quis vituperare improbos asperius, quis laudare bonos ornatius?* (Who is more harsh in blaming the wicked, who is more graceful in praise the honests?&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *De republica* 4,12: *veteribus displicuisse  Romanis vel laudari quemquam in scaena vivum hominem vel vituperari* &quot;Ancient Romans do not like to praise or blame a living man on the stage&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.monumenta.ch/latein/text.php?tabelle=Tertullianus&amp;rumpfid=Tertullianus,%20Apologeticus%20adversus%20Gentes,%20%20%2003&amp;level=3&amp;domain=&amp;lang=1&amp;id=&amp;hilite_id=&amp;satz=&amp;string=&amp;links=&amp;inframe=1&amp;hide_apparatus=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/bindley_apol/bindley_apol.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.it/books?id=hjiMpXCMCvsC&amp;pg=PA336&amp;lpg=PA336&amp;dq=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=cUZdsXGSZZ&amp;sig=-eatcxPNp85Yf-MB3AYaE6ySMFo&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjphebrpsTRAhXqI8AKHc6hAgMQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.it/books?id=zeJlAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GhmzzzcD2y&amp;sig=o9vz5TarLm6GcEmS4aunze4C4zk&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjphebrpsTRAhXqI8AKHc6hAgMQ6AEINjAG#v=onepage&amp;q=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/30/cerberus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.it/books?id=nKpvpKeOx44C&amp;pg=PA242&amp;lpg=PA242&amp;dq=Malui%20viginti%20diebus%20post%20sententiam%20meam&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ZHSXcK88mB&amp;sig=fQ263PjxdtjVbLy1P_0Z2P4_Qtg&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi0xKSkqsTRAhWrB8AKHfLiDokQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Malui%20viginti%20diebus%20post%20sententiam%20meam&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2410" RevisionGUID="c329afaf-16ae-4de2-a14f-a31d4fb1876f" CreationDate="2017-01-16T00:27:19.613" UserId="1152" Text="I am not sure how to translate &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Augustus affirm&amp;amacr;vit gen&amp;umacr;s suum ab Iove ortum esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can logically conclude that this much of the sentence is correct...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Augustus affirmed that ...    from Jupiter had arisen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; gen&amp;umacr;s can only be genitive singular, and suum can only be accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I try to put this together the only way to put this together is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Augustus affirmed that his knee had arisen from Jupiter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is if this is actually the correct translation, then why didn't the author use gen&amp;umacr; instead of gen&amp;umacr;s?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8746" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2410" RevisionGUID="c329afaf-16ae-4de2-a14f-a31d4fb1876f" CreationDate="2017-01-16T00:27:19.613" UserId="1152" Text="Unnecessary genitive being used with 'suum'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8747" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2410" RevisionGUID="c329afaf-16ae-4de2-a14f-a31d4fb1876f" CreationDate="2017-01-16T00:27:19.613" UserId="1152" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2404" RevisionGUID="c8bd8fce-aa94-40a0-81bc-83c081a30e16" CreationDate="2017-01-16T00:40:25.820" UserId="31" Comment="Correct Cicero's name" Text="I came across this quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Laudant quae sciunt, vituperant quae ignorant; laudare a bonis et vituperari a malis unun atque idem est.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was attributed to Cicero, but [it seems](http://latin.dechile.net/?Ciceron=1) that this attribution is wrong or the phrase does not exist at all.&#xD;&#xA;Is this quote real?&#xD;&#xA;Where does it come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, what does it mean?&#xD;&#xA;I [tried Google Translate](https://translate.google.com/#auto/en/Laudant%20quae%20sciunt%2C%20vituperant%20quae%20ignorant%3B%20laudare%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis%20unun%20atque%20idem%20est), but the result is gibberish." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8749" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2404" RevisionGUID="c8bd8fce-aa94-40a0-81bc-83c081a30e16" CreationDate="2017-01-16T00:40:25.820" UserId="31" Comment="Correct Cicero's name" Text="What is the meaning of this quote by Marcus Tullius Cicero?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8750" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2404" RevisionGUID="c8bd8fce-aa94-40a0-81bc-83c081a30e16" CreationDate="2017-01-16T00:40:25.820" Comment="Proposed by 31 approved by 136, 406 edit id of 164" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2411" RevisionGUID="a044c41a-f345-4672-8af5-5721e1da9a98" CreationDate="2017-01-16T01:11:10.083" UserId="45" Text="You are confusing [*gĕnu, -ūs*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgenu) (&quot;knee&quot;) and [*gĕnus, -ĕris*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgenus1) (&quot;origin, lineage, stock&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter is a 3rd declension neuter noun, so the accusative singular is the same as the nominative singular. Hence, to fill in the blank:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Augustus affirmed that his lineage had arisen from Jupiter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2412" RevisionGUID="8c22a074-fb2a-4a62-9444-b86fa68af6ab" CreationDate="2017-01-16T01:24:05.490" UserId="45" Text="Anyone who has read the Scholastics, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, are familiar with the basic structure of an *articulus*: ([Here's an example.](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/sth2022.html))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Objections (&quot;videtur quod...&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;2. Quote from authority (&quot;sed contra est...&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;3. Corpus (&quot;respondeo dicendum quod...&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;4. Response to objections (&quot;ad primum ergo dicendum quod....&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious about the proper parsing of &quot;respondeo dicendum quod.&quot; Although it's not surprising to see *quod* used to begin indirect discourse, I'm especially curious about *dicendum*. What exactly is it? Here are some possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It is an accusative gerund, the object of *respondeo*.&#xD;&#xA;2. It is a neuter singular nominative impersonal gerundive, i.e. *dicendum est quod*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither makes a whole ton of sense to my mind, although it's pretty obvious what a translation should look like. In fact, many translations seem to translate as if it were an ablative, e.g. &quot;I respond by saying that...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8753" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2412" RevisionGUID="8c22a074-fb2a-4a62-9444-b86fa68af6ab" CreationDate="2017-01-16T01:24:05.490" UserId="45" Text="Proper parsing of &quot;respondeo dicendum quod&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8754" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2412" RevisionGUID="8c22a074-fb2a-4a62-9444-b86fa68af6ab" CreationDate="2017-01-16T01:24:05.490" UserId="45" Text="|medieval-latin|grammar-identification|aquinas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2413" RevisionGUID="f16e980a-593b-476e-984e-7d36b5bf3734" CreationDate="2017-01-16T07:59:05.283" UserId="235" Text="Let's say you want to translate the following English sentence to Attic Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We believed that they were good friends, for whithersoever this one went, that one also went.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first clause calls for indirect discourse with an *accusativus cum infinitivo*. The latter part, beginning with the conjunction &quot;for&quot;, calls for a conditional relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; αὐτοὺς ἐνομίσαμεν τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς φίλους εἶναι, ὁπόθεν γὰρ ὁ μὲν ἔρχεται, ὁ δέ καὶ ἔρχεται.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel like my above translation is mostly correct, but there are a few points that leave me unsure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς φίλους a correct way of describing good friends?&#xD;&#xA;    Would the adjective καλοὺς be a better choice here?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is my choice of tenses correct? I put the main verb ἐνομίσαμεν in the aorist tense, whereas the following verbs are in the present tense, since they are contemporaneous with the main verb.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Should ἔρχεται be repeated twice, the way that &quot;went&quot; is repeated twice in the English sentence? Or is it better style to write it once? If so, where would it go, after μὲν or after δέ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope it's okay to fit three questions into one. The third serves as my title question, although I am interested to hear your feedback on all three.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8758" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2413" RevisionGUID="f16e980a-593b-476e-984e-7d36b5bf3734" CreationDate="2017-01-16T07:59:05.283" UserId="235" Text="If a ὁ μὲν ... ὁ δέ construction has the same verb twice, should you omit it once?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8759" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2413" RevisionGUID="f16e980a-593b-476e-984e-7d36b5bf3734" CreationDate="2017-01-16T07:59:05.283" UserId="235" Text="|greek|word-choice|style|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2414" RevisionGUID="69c3b72d-9ec7-4138-9ac2-b9d1ce7f150a" CreationDate="2017-01-16T08:41:25.593" UserId="235" Text="I have read a few excellent threads from this forum on punctuation in classical Latin. The first concerns [what punctuation they used][1], the second concerns [ancient descriptions of punctuation][2], and the third concerns the [progression from scriptio continua to consistent word spacing][3]. I feel like these questions cover the *how* and the *when*, but I would also like to know the *why*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know some reasons why Roman authors never felt a need for word spacing. Is it because writing was always read aloud, and word spacing has more to do with silent reading? Or would it have been so much trouble, that they did not feel it was practical? Or, would the spacing have been irregular, and as a consequence, detract from the aesthetics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a nutshell, do you think that the reasons were mostly practical, aesthetic, or simply that word spacing wouldn't have done much to improve the experience of reading aloud? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/33/what-punctuation-was-used-in-classical-latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2352/ancient-guides-or-descriptions-of-punctuation&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/222/when-did-scriptio-continua-and-interpuncts-give-way-to-spaces-between-words-in-l/450#450" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2414" RevisionGUID="69c3b72d-9ec7-4138-9ac2-b9d1ce7f150a" CreationDate="2017-01-16T08:41:25.593" UserId="235" Text="Why did Roman authors never feel a need for word spacing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8764" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2414" RevisionGUID="69c3b72d-9ec7-4138-9ac2-b9d1ce7f150a" CreationDate="2017-01-16T08:41:25.593" UserId="235" Text="|classical-latin|punctuation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8766" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2413" RevisionGUID="f9513ec2-c89a-4da8-8239-d8cac021f924" CreationDate="2017-01-16T08:54:39.467" UserId="235" Comment="edited title" Text="Should you repeat the same verb twice in a ὁ μὲν ... ὁ δέ construction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2415" RevisionGUID="5fced26e-30a4-4e6b-ab49-9aac6c32fe73" CreationDate="2017-01-16T09:09:30.087" UserId="79" Text="Consider the sentence &quot;Marcus spoke as a manager&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Imagine that Marcus was speaking at a company event, and he gave his speech as a manager, not as a coworker &amp;mdash; as a representative of the company, not his private self.&#xD;&#xA;To emphasize this aspect, one might say &quot;Marcus spoke in the capacity of manager&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if I master the English idiom perfectly, but I hope my point gets across.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I would like to be able to add this emphasis in Latin, too.&#xD;&#xA;The best starting point would be an apposition, I believe:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus dux locutus est.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcus spoke as a manager.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Dux* might not be a good translation for &quot;manager&quot;, but that is irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;But how to form a more emphatic version?&#xD;&#xA;I imagine some of these might work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus in/e munere ducis locutus est.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus in/ex officio ducis locutus est.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer classical Latin if attested examples are available." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8768" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2415" RevisionGUID="5fced26e-30a4-4e6b-ab49-9aac6c32fe73" CreationDate="2017-01-16T09:09:30.087" UserId="79" Text="How to say &quot;as&quot; emphatically?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8769" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2415" RevisionGUID="5fced26e-30a4-4e6b-ab49-9aac6c32fe73" CreationDate="2017-01-16T09:09:30.087" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|idiom|particle|emphasis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2415" RevisionGUID="b540357e-2015-4976-a2e9-44f10d5ea75e" CreationDate="2017-01-16T10:08:52.923" UserId="79" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Consider the sentence &quot;Marcus spoke as a manager&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Imagine that Marcus was speaking at a company event, and he gave his speech as a manager, not as a coworker &amp;mdash; as a representative of the company, not his private self.&#xD;&#xA;To emphasize this aspect, one might say &quot;Marcus spoke in the capacity (or role) of manager&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if I master the English idiom perfectly, but I hope my point gets across.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I would like to be able to add this emphasis in Latin, too.&#xD;&#xA;The best starting point would be an apposition, I believe:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus dux locutus est.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcus spoke as a manager.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Dux* might not be a good translation for &quot;manager&quot;, but that is irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;But how to form a more emphatic version?&#xD;&#xA;I imagine some of these might work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus in/e munere ducis locutus est.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus in/ex officio ducis locutus est.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer classical Latin if attested examples are available." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2416" RevisionGUID="13d8a3ea-fb35-4c94-ad36-6e2dd96b2570" CreationDate="2017-01-16T10:15:48.823" UserId="1148" Text="First of all, the use of the **accusative gerund**  without praeposition isnt' verifiable with certainty until medieval latin (*LG* II § 203 p. 377), despite AALTO pp. 82-85 quotes some passages of archaic texts which could attest this use (for example Pl. *Asin.* 338: *iam devorandum censes*; Ter Phor. 457: *ego amplius deliberandum censeo*; CIL I 2 1759 pontem peilas faciendum coiravere).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the contrary, suppose a **neuter singular nominative impersonal gerundive** should be excluded as it don't suit for the case we are examining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We then should take into account the possibility of a **predicative gerundive**, a construction attested for a large number of verbs (such as *do, adduco, peto, rogo, concedo, defero, denoto, mitto, relinquo, suscipio, trado* and, most of all, *habeo*) in classical authors, although used by medieval authors only (mainly Alexander of Hales, Bonaventura and St. Thomas) with the verbs *respondeo* and *dico*  (vd. *LG* II § 202 [p. 372]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of this construction are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ter. *Phorm.* 365: *agrum ... colendum habebat*;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Varro *rust.* 1,13,2: *multi ... habent ... importandum*;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sen. *contr.* 2,7,1: *confitendum habeo ... me ... &lt;a&gt;fuisse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We could add that in Italian the phrase &quot;*rispondo dicendo che*&quot; is a sort of syntactical unit used in [prose][1] as in [every day in every day language][2], and in that case the verb *dicendo* is predicative of *rispondo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would consider the verb *dicendum* a **predicative gerundive of *quod*** rather than an accusative gerund object of *respondeo* or a neuter singular nominative impersonal gerundive which .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bibliography:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  M. Leumann - J.B. Hofmann  A. Szantyr, *Lateinische Grammatik*, München 1972-1979 (LG).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - P. Aalto, *Untersuchungen über das lateinische Gerundium und Gerundivum*, Helsinki 1949 (AALTO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.it/books?id=5VTe_CAmf-4C&amp;pg=PA78&amp;lpg=PA78&amp;dq=rispondo%20dicendo%20che&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2AVUcLvwt7&amp;sig=FogN6QU9XFddSAJy5tY8wedPiMI&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiu0caKr8bRAhXGbRQKHbGKBoUQ6AEIQTAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=rispondo%20dicendo%20che&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://palermo.gds.it/2015/02/08/salvini-a-palermo-orlando-rispondo-dicendo-che-la-nostra-e-citta-cosmopolita_309336/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2417" RevisionGUID="7f35e35e-968e-4c26-9952-f8deb3d95ed6" CreationDate="2017-01-16T12:19:22.987" UserId="1148" Text="1. First of all you need to **eliminate the article τοὺς**, as ἀγαθοὺς is a predicative adjective with nominal value (&quot;we believed that they were good friends&quot; and not &quot;We believed that they were **the** good friends&quot;); then, given that &quot;good&quot; in that sense means &quot;true&quot; or &quot;loyal&quot;, the correct way to translate is with the adjective **ἐσθλός** (e.g. S. *OT* 611: φίλον γὰρ ἐσθλὸν ἐκβαλεῖν ἴσον λέγω / καὶ τὸν παρ’ αὑτῷ βίοτον, ὃν πλεῖστον φιλεῖ);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The correct way to translate &quot;for whithersoever this one went&quot; is with **ὅπου and the subjuntctive**, as in Pl. *Euthyph.* 11c: οὐκ ἐθέλει μένειν ὅπου ἄν τις αὐτὰ θῇ, and in order to correctly render the contemporaneity with the main verb you should use the **aorist subjuntctive**. It is also better to use ἕτερος ... ἄλλος to distiguish the two men rather than the colourless ὁ μὲν ... ὁ δὲ. Furthermore I wouldn't recommend μὲν and δὲ here, as these particles canonically are used to express antithesis (vd. J. D. Denniston - K. J. Dover, *The Greek Particles*, Oxford 1954, pp. 369-374), but a single δέ could better connect the two clauses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You could vary the second clause using a verb like ἥκω (&quot;arrive in a place&quot;) using imperfect to give the sense of reiteration of the action, in combination with ἔνθα (&quot;here&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the resulting phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; αὐτοὺς ἐνομίσαμεν ἐσθλοὺς φίλους εἶναι· ὅπου ἂν ἕτερος γὰρ ἔλθῃ, ἔνθα ὁ δ'&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἄλλος ἴσως ἧκε.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2403" RevisionGUID="7246823b-f2ed-4d49-b9ac-35692591884e" CreationDate="2017-01-16T14:00:09.527" UserId="645" Comment="'length' is used only idiomatically in Eng. for 'height, e.g. 'measured his length along the ground'." Text="In English one can write either of these to indicate a height difference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcus is taller than Gaius by a head.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcus is a head taller than Gaius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for an idiomatic way to translate &quot;by a head&quot; in this context.&#xD;&#xA;I found good adjectives for &quot;tall&quot; in [my previous question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2401/79).&#xD;&#xA;A simple start is to drop the measure and write simply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus procerior est quam Gaius.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus Gaio procerior est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To indicate by how much someone is taller than someone else, one should use an ablative of measure (*ablativus mensurae*).&#xD;&#xA;That is, *tribus metris longior* and *chiliogrammate gravius* are the correct ways to say &quot;three meters longer&quot; or &quot;a kilogram heavier&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In this case, this approach leads me to these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus capite procerior est quam Gaius.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus Gaio capite procerior est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if these would be parsed correctly and especially if this would be idiomatic classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;One could read *capite* as an ablative of respect (*ablativus respectus*), leading to the interpretation that Marcus has a taller head than Gaius.&#xD;&#xA;This is not what I want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps one could clarify &quot;by a head&quot; to &quot;by the length/height of a head&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I could use *mensura* or *altitudo* to produce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus mensura capitis procerior est quam Gaius.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus Gaio altitudine capitis procerior est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my best guess.&#xD;&#xA;**How should I translate &quot;by a head&quot; in this context?**&#xD;&#xA;I prefer classical Latin, but I do not require it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2417" RevisionGUID="8c7acce7-7a04-4a17-92e4-87e67ce4d7cc" CreationDate="2017-01-16T14:52:08.980" UserId="1148" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="1. First of all you need to **eliminate the article τοὺς**, as ἀγαθοὺς is a predicative adjective with nominal value (&quot;we believed that they were good friends&quot; and not &quot;We believed that they were **the** good friends&quot;); then, given that &quot;good&quot; in that sense means &quot;true&quot; or &quot;loyal&quot;, the correct way to translate is with the adjective **ἐσθλός** (e.g. S. *OT* 611: φίλον γὰρ ἐσθλὸν ἐκβαλεῖν ἴσον λέγω / καὶ τὸν παρ’ αὑτῷ βίοτον, ὃν πλεῖστον φιλεῖ);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The correct way to translate &quot;for whithersoever this one went&quot; is with **ὅπου and the subjuntctive**, as in Pl. *Euthyph.* 11c: οὐκ ἐθέλει μένειν ὅπου ἄν τις αὐτὰ θῇ, and in order to correctly render the contemporaneity with the main verb you should use the **aorist subjuntctive**. It is also better to use ἕτερος ... ἄλλος to distiguish the two men rather than the colourless ὁ μὲν ... ὁ δὲ. Furthermore I wouldn't recommend μέν and δέ here, as these particles are canonically used to express antithesis (vd. J. D. Denniston - K. J. Dover, *The Greek Particles*, Oxford 1954, pp. 369-374), but a single δέ could better connect the two clauses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You could vary the second clause using a verb like ἥκω (&quot;arrive in a place&quot;) using imperfect to give the sense of reiteration of the action, in combination with a dimostrative adverb like ἔνθα (&quot;here&quot;) and the modal adverb ἴσως to better render &quot;also&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the resulting phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; αὐτοὺς ἐνομίσαμεν ἐσθλοὺς φίλους εἶναι· ὅπου ἂν ἕτερος γὰρ ἔλθῃ, ἔνθα δ' ὁ &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἄλλος ἴσως ἧκε.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2417" RevisionGUID="931c5428-040c-48c3-b137-2296d1640aa1" CreationDate="2017-01-16T15:13:43.443" UserId="1148" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="1. First of all you need to **eliminate the article τοὺς**, as ἀγαθοὺς is a predicative adjective with nominal value (&quot;we believed that they were good friends&quot; and not &quot;We believed that they were **the** good friends&quot;); then, given that &quot;good&quot; in that sense means &quot;true&quot; or &quot;loyal&quot;, the correct way to translate is with the adjective **ἐσθλός** (e.g. S. *OT* 611: φίλον γὰρ ἐσθλὸν ἐκβαλεῖν ἴσον λέγω / καὶ τὸν παρ’ αὑτῷ βίοτον, ὃν πλεῖστον φιλεῖ);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The correct way to translate &quot;for whithersoever this one went&quot; is with **ὅπου and the subjuntctive**, as in Pl. *Euthyph.* 11c: οὐκ ἐθέλει μένειν ὅπου ἄν τις αὐτὰ θῇ, and in order to correctly render the contemporaneity with the main verb you should use the **aorist subjuntctive**. It is also better to use ἕτερος ... ἄλλος to distiguish the two men rather than the colourless ὁ μὲν ... ὁ δὲ. Furthermore I wouldn't recommend μέν and δέ here, as these particles are canonically used to express antithesis (vd. J. D. Denniston - K. J. Dover, *The Greek Particles*, Oxford 1954, pp. 369-374), but a single δέ could better fit to connect the two clauses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You could vary the second clause using a verb like ἥκω (&quot;arrive in a place&quot;) using imperfect to give the sense of reiteration of the action, in combination with a dimostrative adverb like ἔνθα (&quot;here&quot;) and the modal adverb ἴσως to better render &quot;also&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the resulting phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; αὐτοὺς ἐνομίσαμεν ἐσθλοὺς φίλους εἶναι· ὅπου ἂν ἕτερος γὰρ ἔλθῃ, ἔνθα δ' ὁ &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἄλλος ἴσως ἧκε.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2418" RevisionGUID="5389dbd5-112a-4f6d-9350-bb9e4ae79c07" CreationDate="2017-01-16T15:15:04.997" UserId="45" Text="A common and classically attested way of saying &quot;to perform the role of X&quot; is ***munere X fungi***, where &quot;X&quot; is an adjective or genitive noun. Here is an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **fungar enim iam interpretis munere**, ne quis me putet fingere. (Cicero, *Tusculanae Disputationes*, 3.41)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I will now play the role of an interpreter, lest anyone accuse me of making things up.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that *vice X fungi* is also a common expression, with an important difference in meaning: it means to &quot;assume the role of another&quot; outside the normal course of things.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My proposed translation of your sentence is thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Marcus, munere ducis fungens, locutus est.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did a quick corpus search and think a short *caveat* is in order: the present participle of *fungens* is not very common, probably because it is deponent. Here is one clear attested example though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Datames **militare munus fungens** primum, qualis esset, aperuit in bello, quod rex	aduersus Cadusios gessit. (Cornelius Nepos, *Vitae Dat.*, 1.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a final note, I recommend *praepositus* or *praefectus* as better translations of &quot;manager&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2419" RevisionGUID="8b926d0a-da53-4ab6-981e-074430c8563c" CreationDate="2017-01-16T15:35:21.903" UserId="45" Text="I was recently doing a translation of a phrase like the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can see everything without blinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here was my briefly considered attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnia sine nictatione videre vales.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was relieved that *nictatio* has some attested forms, but it led me to consider: is there a standard way (i.e. without major recasting) to translate this kind of construction while still using a verb? I can think of a few phrases where this would be useful, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He spoke without looking around him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course I could recast:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Loquebatur nec circumspiciebat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Loquebatur oculos servans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: **Is there a Latin construction for &quot;without X-ing&quot; that doesn't require significant recasting of the sentence?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8779" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2419" RevisionGUID="8b926d0a-da53-4ab6-981e-074430c8563c" CreationDate="2017-01-16T15:35:21.903" UserId="45" Text="Approaches to translating &quot;without + verb&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8780" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2419" RevisionGUID="8b926d0a-da53-4ab6-981e-074430c8563c" CreationDate="2017-01-16T15:35:21.903" UserId="45" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2420" RevisionGUID="32f3eafd-bdc9-48b6-8b29-870f07cb2861" CreationDate="2017-01-16T16:41:10.303" UserId="1148" Text="The only attested use of gerund of *nicto* which I found is from the s. 10 p.C., by a certain Eugenius Vulgarius (*Monumenta Germaniae Historica Poetae Latini Medii Aevi* 4/1, Berlin 1899, p. 414): *Delectae plebi tradit nictando iuvamen*.&#xD;&#xA;So we shall not intend this construction as the &quot;standard way&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I would rather translate with a modal ablative or, if you want to retain the verb, with an ablative absolute, though I don't found anything in that sense from Latin authors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Omnia immotis palpebris videre vales*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Omnia firmis palpebris videre vales*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Omnia immobilibus palpebris videre vales* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Omnia stantibus palpebris videre vales* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Omnia palpebris non coeuntibus videre vales* (cfr. Plin. nat. 23,49,3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Omnia palpebris quietis videre vales*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use either *superciliis* or *ciliis* instead of *palpebris*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2421" RevisionGUID="162b2564-4757-4a7b-af2c-05729123b12a" CreationDate="2017-01-16T17:36:29.867" UserId="645" Text="I should like to extend @brianpck's answer by providing two further suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A neat way to express this is by using *qua*, as in these examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Ad hoc stipatum tribunal, atque etiam ex superiore basilicae parte qua feminae qua viri et audiendi — quod difficile — et — quod facile — visendi studio imminebant.* [Pl. Sec. ep.6, 33]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *nam gladiatoribus qua dominus qua aduocati sibilis conscissi* [Cic. Att. 2, 19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You might also consider *in statu*. The best-known example is *in statu pupillari*, widely used at Cambridge University, while old wills use a similar construction. *In* or *ex statu procuratoris* might serve.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2421" RevisionGUID="24fb3bbf-cc39-4cbb-8489-20154acc4518" CreationDate="2017-01-16T17:41:50.033" UserId="645" Comment="ex. added" Text="I should like to extend @brianpck's answer by providing two further suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1**. A neat way to express this is by using *qua*, as in these examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; — *Ad hoc stipatum tribunal, atque etiam ex superiore basilicae parte qua feminae qua viri et audiendi — quod difficile — et — quod facile — visendi studio imminebant.* [Pl. Sec. ep.6, 33]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; — *nam gladiatoribus qua dominus qua aduocati sibilis conscissi* [Cic. Att. 2, 19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As in *Marcus qua procuratore locutus est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2**. You might also consider using *in statu*. The best-known example is *in statu pupillari*, widely used at Cambridge University, while old wills use a similar construction. *In* or *ex statu procuratoris* might serve.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2422" RevisionGUID="302b9b7c-a091-4551-8926-5e93cc1b0d66" CreationDate="2017-01-16T18:12:36.073" UserId="985" Text="I suggest that simple word order would also do the trick here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Marcus locutus est dux_ [or _procurator_ or whatever]_._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2423" RevisionGUID="859fa478-c921-4abf-aa62-ce4cabd41a88" CreationDate="2017-01-16T18:31:34.210" UserId="40" Text="There are several unrelated grammatical points here, which I'll take in the order in which they occur in your Greek sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Position of αὐτούς. The pronoun αὐτ- in its non-emphatic third-person use (as opposed to its emphatic use meaning &quot;himself&quot; etc.) acts basically as a postpositive: it does not stand first in a sentence, nor in a smaller prosodic unit. Its most natural position here is right after the verb.&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;We believed&quot; is about an ongoing state rather than a punctual or bounded event, so aorist is better than imperfect here.&#xD;&#xA; 3. τούς is wrong because it's not &quot;we believed them to be *the* good friends&quot;: no need for a definite article here.&#xD;&#xA; 4. ὁπόθεν means &quot;whence, from where&quot;. What you need is ὅποι or ἔνθα, &quot;whither, to where&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 5. A μέν ... δέ construction is impossible here because one of the clauses is subordinate to the other. Clauses coordinated by μέν ... δέ need to be syntactically parallel. This means you need something other than ὁ μέν ... ὁ δέ for &quot;the one ... the other&quot;. You could go with e.g. οὗτος ... ἐκεῖνος, but since we're talking about two people, the idiomatic choice is ὁ ἕτερος ... ὁ ἕτερος.&#xD;&#xA; 6. You're right that a conditional (a.k.a. indefinite) relative clause is needed here. But the correct type is a past general clause, which has an optative in the protasis and a past indicative in the apodosis.&#xD;&#xA; 7. καί meaning &quot;also&quot; or &quot;even&quot; always immediately precedes what it modifies, so it should not precede the verb but &quot;that one&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 8. For your question about repeating the verb, this is a question of style, but my sense is that most prose authors would avoid this particular repetition by using a synonym the second time. There is actually a fairly close passage in [Plato's *Phaedo* (60b-c)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.+Phaedo+60&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0169): Socrates says ᾧ ἂν τὸ ἕτερον παραγένηται ἐπακολουθεῖ ὕστερον καὶ τὸ ἕτερον &quot;whenever one of the two (sc. pleasure and pain) comes to someone, the other follows later too&quot;, using two different verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting it all together, we might get something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἐνομίζομεν αὐτοὺς φίλους εἶναι ἀγαθούς· ὅποι γὰρ ὁ ἕτερος ἔλθοι, ἀεὶ ἐπηκολούθει καὶ ὁ ἕτερος." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2423" RevisionGUID="3ebe1d3b-a002-4b96-aa3c-ff8e297c7811" CreationDate="2017-01-16T18:54:52.213" UserId="40" Comment="added 321 characters in body" Text="There are several unrelated grammatical points here, which I'll take in the order in which they occur in your Greek sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Position of αὐτούς. The pronoun αὐτ- in its non-emphatic third-person use (as opposed to its emphatic use meaning &quot;himself&quot; etc.) acts basically as a postpositive: it does not stand first in a sentence, nor in a smaller prosodic unit. Its most natural position here is right after the verb.&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;We believed&quot; is about an ongoing state rather than a punctual or bounded event, so aorist is better than imperfect here.&#xD;&#xA; 3. τούς is wrong because it's not &quot;we believed them to be *the* good friends&quot;: no need for a definite article here.&#xD;&#xA; 4. The choice of ἀγαθός seems fine to me. There are parallels, e.g. [Xenophon, *Memorabilia* 2.4](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Xen.+Mem.+2.4&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0207):  ὡς πάντων κτημάτων κράτιστον ἂν εἴη φίλος σαφὴς καὶ ἀγαθός &quot;that of all possessions the best is a sincere, good friend&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 5. ὁπόθεν means &quot;whence, from where&quot;. What you need is ὅποι or ἔνθα, &quot;whither, to where&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 6. A μέν ... δέ construction is impossible here because one of the clauses is subordinate to the other. Clauses coordinated by μέν ... δέ need to be syntactically parallel. This means you need something other than ὁ μέν ... ὁ δέ for &quot;the one ... the other&quot;. You could go with e.g. οὗτος ... ἐκεῖνος, but since we're talking about two people, the idiomatic choice is ὁ ἕτερος ... ὁ ἕτερος.&#xD;&#xA; 7. You're right that a conditional (a.k.a. indefinite) relative clause is needed here. But the correct type is a past general clause, which has an optative in the protasis and a past indicative in the apodosis.&#xD;&#xA; 8. καί meaning &quot;also&quot; or &quot;even&quot; always immediately precedes what it modifies, so it should not precede the verb but &quot;that one&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 9. For your question about repeating the verb, this is a question of style, but my sense is that most prose authors would avoid this particular repetition by using a synonym the second time. There is actually a fairly close passage in [Plato's *Phaedo* (60b-c)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.+Phaedo+60&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0169): Socrates says ᾧ ἂν τὸ ἕτερον παραγένηται ἐπακολουθεῖ ὕστερον καὶ τὸ ἕτερον &quot;whenever one of the two (sc. pleasure and pain) comes to someone, the other follows later too&quot;, using two different verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting it all together, we might get something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἐνομίζομεν αὐτοὺς φίλους εἶναι ἀγαθούς· ὅποι γὰρ ὁ ἕτερος ἔλθοι, ἀεὶ ἐπηκολούθει καὶ ὁ ἕτερος." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2423" RevisionGUID="b6523822-23a8-41e5-99c4-9e92a89e76c6" CreationDate="2017-01-16T19:19:17.787" UserId="40" Comment="edited body" Text="There are several unrelated grammatical points here, which I'll take in the order in which they occur in your Greek sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Position of αὐτούς. The pronoun αὐτ- in its non-emphatic third-person use (as opposed to its emphatic use meaning &quot;himself&quot; etc.) acts basically as a postpositive: it does not stand first in a sentence, nor in a smaller prosodic unit. Its most natural position here is right after the verb.&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;We believed&quot; is about an ongoing state rather than a punctual or bounded event, so imperfect is better than aorist here.&#xD;&#xA; 3. τούς is wrong because it's not &quot;we believed them to be *the* good friends&quot;: no need for a definite article here.&#xD;&#xA; 4. The choice of ἀγαθός seems fine to me. There are parallels, e.g. [Xenophon, *Memorabilia* 2.4](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Xen.+Mem.+2.4&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0207):  ὡς πάντων κτημάτων κράτιστον ἂν εἴη φίλος σαφὴς καὶ ἀγαθός &quot;that of all possessions the best is a sincere, good friend&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 5. ὁπόθεν means &quot;whence, from where&quot;. What you need is ὅποι or ἔνθα, &quot;whither, to where&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 6. A μέν ... δέ construction is impossible here because one of the clauses is subordinate to the other. Clauses coordinated by μέν ... δέ need to be syntactically parallel. This means you need something other than ὁ μέν ... ὁ δέ for &quot;the one ... the other&quot;. You could go with e.g. οὗτος ... ἐκεῖνος, but since we're talking about two people, the idiomatic choice is ὁ ἕτερος ... ὁ ἕτερος.&#xD;&#xA; 7. You're right that a conditional (a.k.a. indefinite) relative clause is needed here. But the correct type is a past general clause, which has an optative in the protasis and a past indicative in the apodosis.&#xD;&#xA; 8. καί meaning &quot;also&quot; or &quot;even&quot; always immediately precedes what it modifies, so it should not precede the verb but &quot;that one&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 9. For your question about repeating the verb, this is a question of style, but my sense is that most prose authors would avoid this particular repetition by using a synonym the second time. There is actually a fairly close passage in [Plato's *Phaedo* (60b-c)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.+Phaedo+60&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0169): Socrates says ᾧ ἂν τὸ ἕτερον παραγένηται ἐπακολουθεῖ ὕστερον καὶ τὸ ἕτερον &quot;whenever one of the two (sc. pleasure and pain) comes to someone, the other follows later too&quot;, using two different verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting it all together, we might get something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἐνομίζομεν αὐτοὺς φίλους εἶναι ἀγαθούς· ὅποι γὰρ ὁ ἕτερος ἔλθοι, ἀεὶ ἐπηκολούθει καὶ ὁ ἕτερος." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2424" RevisionGUID="203f6174-5844-45d6-9698-59d4db1ba076" CreationDate="2017-01-16T19:34:37.840" UserId="1156" Text="I've been reading some Latin of the 17th and 18th centuries and am wondering if it is possible for there to be &quot;double diminutives.&quot; As I understand it, the word &quot;cerebellum&quot; (Oxford Latin = &quot;brain&quot;) is a diminutive of &quot;cerebrum&quot; (also &quot;brain&quot;). But I've found an 18th-century author who coins the term &quot;cerebellula.&quot; I know that &quot;-ula&quot; is another diminutive ending, so I'm wondering if it really might be the case that &quot;cerebellula&quot; is a double diminutive, and if there's any classic/medieval/Renaissance Latin precedent for this move." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8790" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2424" RevisionGUID="203f6174-5844-45d6-9698-59d4db1ba076" CreationDate="2017-01-16T19:34:37.840" UserId="1156" Text="Can there be double diminutives in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8791" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2424" RevisionGUID="203f6174-5844-45d6-9698-59d4db1ba076" CreationDate="2017-01-16T19:34:37.840" UserId="1156" Text="|medieval-latin|scientific-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2421" RevisionGUID="b289833e-fce7-4c16-9738-e11bb621d08c" CreationDate="2017-01-16T19:41:49.023" UserId="645" Comment="correction to case: procurator" Text="I should like to extend @brianpck's answer by providing two further suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1**. A neat way to express this is by using *qua*, as in these examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; — *Ad hoc stipatum tribunal, atque etiam ex superiore basilicae parte qua feminae qua viri et audiendi — quod difficile — et — quod facile — visendi studio imminebant.* [Pl. Sec. ep.6, 33]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; — *nam gladiatoribus qua dominus qua aduocati sibilis conscissi* [Cic. Att. 2, 19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As in *Marcus qua procurator locutus est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2**. You might also consider using *in statu*. The best-known example is *in statu pupillari*, widely used at Cambridge University, while old wills use a similar construction. *In* or *ex statu procuratoris* might serve.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2425" RevisionGUID="a714bda7-8525-4b37-ad79-b98b6b04ac4f" CreationDate="2017-01-16T19:44:42.470" UserId="40" Text="Another option (in addition to the several excellent ones in answers so far) is to use *(in) loco* + gen., as in the phrase *in loco parentis* &quot;as a parent, in the position of a parent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlocus) (part IID of the entry) give a number of examples of this usage, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - “in uxoris loco habere,” Ter. Heaut. 1, 1, 52: &quot;to consider as a wife&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - “in liberum loco esse,” Cic. de Or. 2, 49, 200: &quot;to be in the position of sons&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - “hostium loco esse,” Liv. 2, 4, 7: &quot;to be in the position of an enemy&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you could say e.g. *Marcus ducis loco locutus est*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2426" RevisionGUID="9b4690c5-ab87-4ccd-a911-38ab876ceded" CreationDate="2017-01-16T19:58:23.417" UserId="985" Text="If the main clause contains a negative, a subordinate clause introduced by _quin_ and containing a subjunctive may be equivalent to 'without —ing.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nullum adhuc intermisi diem quin aliquid ad te litterarum darem, 'Up to now, I've let not a single day pass without dropping you some sort of letter.' (Cic. _Att._ 7.15.1)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2416" RevisionGUID="3c1e6333-a2ce-4ef7-9aee-2f68f4324166" CreationDate="2017-01-16T20:02:35.147" UserId="1148" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="First of all, the use of the **accusative gerund**  without praeposition isnt' verifiable with certainty until medieval latin (*LG* II § 203 p. 377), despite AALTO pp. 82-85 quotes some passages of archaic texts which could attest this use (for example Pl. *Asin.* 338: *iam devorandum censes*; Ter Phor. 457: *ego amplius deliberandum censeo*; CIL I 2 1759 pontem peilas faciendum coiravere).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the contrary, suppose a **neuter singular nominative impersonal gerundive** should be excluded as it don't suit for the case we are examining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We then should take into account the possibility of a **predicative gerundive**, a construction attested for a large number of verbs (such as *do, adduco, peto, rogo, concedo, defero, denoto, mitto, relinquo, suscipio, trado* and, most of all, *habeo*) in classical authors, although used by medieval authors only (mainly Alexander of Hales, Bonaventura and St. Thomas) with the verbs *respondeo* and *dico*  (vd. *LG* II § 202 [p. 372]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of this construction are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ter. *Phorm.* 365: *agrum ... colendum habebat*;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Varro *rust.* 1,13,2: *multi ... habent ... importandum*;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sen. *contr.* 2,7,1: *confitendum habeo ... me ... &lt;a&gt;fuisse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We could add that in Italian the phrase &quot;*rispondo dicendo che*&quot; is a sort of syntactical unit used in [prose][1] as in [every day language][2], and in that case the verb *dicendo* is predicative of *rispondo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would consider the verb *dicendum* a **predicative gerundive of *quod*** rather than an accusative gerund object of *respondeo* or a neuter singular nominative impersonal gerundive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bibliography:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  M. Leumann - J.B. Hofmann  A. Szantyr, *Lateinische Grammatik*, München 1972-1979 (LG).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - P. Aalto, *Untersuchungen über das lateinische Gerundium und Gerundivum*, Helsinki 1949 (AALTO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.it/books?id=5VTe_CAmf-4C&amp;pg=PA78&amp;lpg=PA78&amp;dq=rispondo%20dicendo%20che&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2AVUcLvwt7&amp;sig=FogN6QU9XFddSAJy5tY8wedPiMI&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiu0caKr8bRAhXGbRQKHbGKBoUQ6AEIQTAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=rispondo%20dicendo%20che&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://palermo.gds.it/2015/02/08/salvini-a-palermo-orlando-rispondo-dicendo-che-la-nostra-e-citta-cosmopolita_309336/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2427" RevisionGUID="437984ab-0a22-41db-94fe-937d1b38198b" CreationDate="2017-01-16T20:04:11.250" UserId="45" Text="There certainly are double diminutives in Latin. Here are some examples explicitly indicated in Lewis and Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*agellulus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dagellulus) &lt; *agellus &lt; ager*&#xD;&#xA;* [*ancillula*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dancillula) &lt; *ancilla &lt; ancula* (Yes, *ancilla* is a diminutive!)&#xD;&#xA;* [*arcellula*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Darcellula) &lt; *arcella &lt; arca*&#xD;&#xA;* [*asellulus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dasellulus*) &lt; *asellus &lt; asinus*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2428" RevisionGUID="6b7d128a-93c3-46cb-92eb-c5607f63272b" CreationDate="2017-01-16T20:04:13.303" UserId="9" Text="I found a few other examples from a search on [Perseus][1] of Lewis and Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [arcellula][2] &lt; arcella &lt; arca&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a very little box, Diom. p. 313 P.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [lamellula][3] &lt; [lamella][4] &lt; lamina&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a small plate of metal: “glebulas emi, lamellulas paravi,” Petr. 57, 6.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [asellulus][5] &lt; [asellus][6] &lt; asinus&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a small, young ass, Arn. 3, p. 109.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [lapillulus][7] &lt; [lapillus][8] &lt; lapis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a very little stone, gravel-stone (late Lat.), Sol. 10, 12.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [libellulus][9] &lt; libellus &lt; liber&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a very little book (post-class.), Mart. Cap. 3, § 289.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [cultellulus][10] &lt; [cultellus][11] &lt; culter&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a little knife, Sol. 38.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [agellulus][12] &lt; [agellus][13] &lt; ager&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a very small field, Symm. Ep. 2, 30.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were also other possible examples that I omitted because they were not as clear to me. Unfortunately, I do not have the expertise to explain how these were used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/search&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Darcellula&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlamellula&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=lamella&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dasellulus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=asellus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlapillulus&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=lapillus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlibellulus&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcultellulus&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=cultellus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dagellulus&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=agellus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2426" RevisionGUID="66650e83-0a2f-4805-aa7a-57d7154421eb" CreationDate="2017-01-16T20:04:16.870" UserId="985" Comment="added 889 characters in body" Text="If the main clause contains a negative, a subordinate clause introduced by _quin_ and containing a subjunctive may be equivalent to 'without —ing.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nullum adhuc intermisi diem quin aliquid ad te litterarum darem, 'Up to now, I've let not a single day pass without dropping you some sort of letter.' (Cic. _Att._ 7.15.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** As another example, there's this lovely bit from the _In Vatinium_ (39):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod si ipse, qui te suae dignitatis augendae causa, periculo tuo, nullo suo delicto, ferri praecipitem est facile passus, tamen te omni honore indignissimum iudicat, si te vicini, si adfines, si tribules ita oderunt ut repulsam tuam triumphum suum duxerint, si **nemo aspicit quin ingemescat, nemo mentionem facit quin exsecretur**, si vitant, fugiunt, audire de te nolunt, cum viderunt, tamquam auspicium malum detestantur, si cognati respuunt, tribules exsecrantur, vicini metuunt, adfines erubescunt, strumae denique ab ore improbo demigrarunt et aliis iam se locis conlocarunt, si es odium publicum populi, senatus, universorum hominum rusticanorum,—quid est quam ob rem praeturam potius exoptes quam mortem, praesertim cum popularem te velis esse neque ulla re populo gratius facere possis? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8801" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="2427" RevisionGUID="17099915-c325-408e-adaf-d64b9634024f" CreationDate="2017-01-16T20:04:29.500" UserId="45" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:45,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;brianpck&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2428" RevisionGUID="89d7512c-f5ec-4fa3-b20f-52db6c7ef247" CreationDate="2017-01-16T20:07:31.847" UserId="9" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="I found a few other examples from a search on [Perseus][1] of Lewis and Short (I looked for words ending in &quot;llula&quot;, &quot;llulus&quot; and &quot;llulum&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [arcellula][2] &lt; arcella &lt; arca&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a very little box, Diom. p. 313 P.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [lamellula][3] &lt; [lamella][4] &lt; lamina&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a small plate of metal: “glebulas emi, lamellulas paravi,” Petr. 57, 6.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [asellulus][5] &lt; [asellus][6] &lt; asinus&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  a small, young ass, Arn. 3, p. 109.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [lapillulus][7] &lt; [lapillus][8] &lt; lapis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a very little stone, gravel-stone (late Lat.), Sol. 10, 12.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [libellulus][9] &lt; libellus &lt; liber&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a very little book (post-class.), Mart. Cap. 3, § 289.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [cultellulus][10] &lt; [cultellus][11] &lt; culter&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a little knife, Sol. 38.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [agellulus][12] &lt; [agellus][13] &lt; ager&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a very small field, Symm. Ep. 2, 30.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were also other possible examples that I omitted because they were not as clear to me. Unfortunately, I do not have the expertise to explain how these were used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/search&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Darcellula&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlamellula&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=lamella&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dasellulus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=asellus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlapillulus&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=lapillus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlibellulus&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcultellulus&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=cultellus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dagellulus&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=agellus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2424" RevisionGUID="2843fccf-8e69-420c-b342-4d1fff9f4f51" CreationDate="2017-01-16T20:11:40.147" UserId="1156" Comment="Make clear my own translation of my example, and make the question clearer." Text="I've been reading some Latin of the 17th and 18th centuries and am wondering if it is possible for there to be &quot;double diminutives.&quot; As I understand it, the word &quot;cerebellum&quot; (Oxford Latin = &quot;brain&quot;) is a diminutive of &quot;cerebrum&quot; (also &quot;brain&quot;). But I've found an 18th-century author who coins the term &quot;cerebellula.&quot; I know that &quot;-ula&quot; is another diminutive ending, so I'm wondering if it really might be the case that &quot;cerebellula&quot; is a double diminutive, meaning &quot;little little brain&quot; or &quot;tiny brain.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this possible, and is there any classic/medieval/Renaissance Latin precedent for this move?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2429" RevisionGUID="967f332d-5099-4203-b1e5-7452b24c52a0" CreationDate="2017-01-16T21:58:15.833" UserId="645" Text="It's reasonable to postulate the existence of such songs at Rome, but is it likely that authentic examples would survive from classical times? The structure of Republican society would not have helped with their dissemination beyond their places of origin, and I doubt that there would be much incentive to preserve such ephemera in permanent form — though we might expect to find some graffito or other at Pompeii, say, one of these days, in the course of practical archaeology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There are indeed English counting songs, but they won't help at all. They include Twelve Green Bottles, One Man Went to Mow, and Twelve Days of Christmas (the last a useful demonstration of the binomial theorem for the mathematically inclined).]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2416" RevisionGUID="93ccf570-c645-4cc8-925d-08c9ecaedc05" CreationDate="2017-01-16T23:40:25.620" UserId="1148" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="First of all, the use of the **accusative gerund**  without praeposition isnt' verifiable with certainty until medieval latin (*LG* II § 203 p. 377), despite AALTO pp. 82-85 quotes some passages of archaic texts which could attest this use (for example Pl. *Asin.* 338: *iam devorandum censes*; Ter Phor. 457: *ego amplius deliberandum censeo*; CIL I 2 1759 pontem peilas faciendum coiravere).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the contrary, suppose a **neuter singular nominative impersonal gerundive** should be excluded as it don't suit for the case we are examining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We then should take into account the possibility of a **predicative gerundive**, a construction attested for a large number of verbs (such as *do, adduco, peto, rogo, concedo, defero, denoto, mitto, relinquo, suscipio, trado* and, most of all, *habeo*) in classical authors, although used by medieval authors only (mainly Alexander of Hales, Bonaventura and St. Thomas) with the verbs *respondeo* and *dico*  (vd. *LG* II § 202 [p. 372]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of this construction are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ter. *Phorm.* 365: *agrum ... colendum habebat*;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Varro *rust.* 1,13,2: *multi ... habent ... importandum*;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sen. *contr.* 2,7,1: *confitendum habeo ... me ... &lt;a&gt;fuisse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We could add that in Italian the phrase &quot;*rispondo dicendo che*&quot; is a sort of syntactical unit used in [prose][1] as in [every day language][2], and in that case the verb *dicendo* is predicative of *rispondo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would consider the verb *dicendum* a **predicative gerundive of *respondeo*** rather than an accusative gerund object of *respondeo* or a neuter singular nominative impersonal gerundive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bibliography:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  M. Leumann - J.B. Hofmann  A. Szantyr, *Lateinische Grammatik*, München 1972-1979 (LG).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - P. Aalto, *Untersuchungen über das lateinische Gerundium und Gerundivum*, Helsinki 1949 (AALTO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.it/books?id=5VTe_CAmf-4C&amp;pg=PA78&amp;lpg=PA78&amp;dq=rispondo%20dicendo%20che&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2AVUcLvwt7&amp;sig=FogN6QU9XFddSAJy5tY8wedPiMI&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiu0caKr8bRAhXGbRQKHbGKBoUQ6AEIQTAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=rispondo%20dicendo%20che&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://palermo.gds.it/2015/02/08/salvini-a-palermo-orlando-rispondo-dicendo-che-la-nostra-e-citta-cosmopolita_309336/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2406" RevisionGUID="e1603501-ccc9-427a-8530-914dad915822" CreationDate="2017-01-16T23:49:50.033" UserId="1148" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="The first part of your quotation is not from Cicero, but from the *Apologeticus Adversos Gentes pro Christianis* ([3,2][1]) by Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240 AD):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Laudant quae sciunt, vituperant quae ignorant*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;They praise what they know, they blame what they are ignorant of&quot; (transl. by [T.H. Bindley][2]).&#xD;&#xA;It refers to those who blindly blame the christians not even knowing their lives and thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part of your quotation (which you transcripted wrongly) is a typical *sententia* commonly and wrongly ascribed to the *de officis* of Cicero (as you can see for example in the book [*5000 Proverbi e motti latini*][3] by L. De Mauri [Milano : Hoepli 1990], which is not scientifically reliable),  really echoing a concept often expressed by Cicero itself but reformulated to a new thick form at some moment by a late *excerptor* (see, for instance, what wrote [Francesco Villardi][4] in 1932).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *laudari a bonis et vituperari a malis unum atque idem est*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means &quot;Being praised by the good and being censured by the wicked is one and the same&quot; (transl. by [Cerberus][5]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some passages from Cicero's works (where *laudo* and *vitupero* are often juxtaposed) that could have inspired this phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Philippicae* 6,16: *Malui viginti diebus post sententiam meam laudari ab omnibus quam a paucis hodie vituperari* &quot;I thought it better that my motion be praised by everyone in twenty days'time than blamed by a few today&quot; (transl. by [G. Manuwald][6]);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *De oratore* 2,35: *quis vituperare improbos asperius, quis laudare bonos ornatius?* &quot;Who is more harsh in blaming the wicked, who is more graceful in praise the honests?&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *De republica* 4,12: *veteribus displicuisse  Romanis vel laudari quemquam in scaena vivum hominem vel vituperari* &quot;Ancient Romans do not like to praise or blame a living man on the stage&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.monumenta.ch/latein/text.php?tabelle=Tertullianus&amp;rumpfid=Tertullianus,%20Apologeticus%20adversus%20Gentes,%20%20%2003&amp;level=3&amp;domain=&amp;lang=1&amp;id=&amp;hilite_id=&amp;satz=&amp;string=&amp;links=&amp;inframe=1&amp;hide_apparatus=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/bindley_apol/bindley_apol.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.it/books?id=hjiMpXCMCvsC&amp;pg=PA336&amp;lpg=PA336&amp;dq=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=cUZdsXGSZZ&amp;sig=-eatcxPNp85Yf-MB3AYaE6ySMFo&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjphebrpsTRAhXqI8AKHc6hAgMQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.it/books?id=zeJlAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GhmzzzcD2y&amp;sig=o9vz5TarLm6GcEmS4aunze4C4zk&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjphebrpsTRAhXqI8AKHc6hAgMQ6AEINjAG#v=onepage&amp;q=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/users/30/cerberus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.it/books?id=nKpvpKeOx44C&amp;pg=PA242&amp;lpg=PA242&amp;dq=Malui%20viginti%20diebus%20post%20sententiam%20meam&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ZHSXcK88mB&amp;sig=fQ263PjxdtjVbLy1P_0Z2P4_Qtg&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi0xKSkqsTRAhWrB8AKHfLiDokQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Malui%20viginti%20diebus%20post%20sententiam%20meam&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2430" RevisionGUID="2c55418e-b439-4a69-8ed9-05c82ae07cee" CreationDate="2017-01-17T01:32:27.080" UserId="921" Text="I was helping a friend earlier with an English-to-Latin translation and we started talking about the prepositions &quot;a(b)&quot; and &quot;e(x)&quot;, which lose their consonant if the following word begins with one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this got me thinking about the phrase &quot;ex nihilo,&quot; as in the belief that the world was created from nothing. Why isn't the phrase &quot;e nihilo&quot; instead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8808" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2430" RevisionGUID="2c55418e-b439-4a69-8ed9-05c82ae07cee" CreationDate="2017-01-17T01:32:27.080" UserId="921" Text="Why &quot;ex nihilo&quot; instead of &quot;e nihilo&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8809" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2430" RevisionGUID="2c55418e-b439-4a69-8ed9-05c82ae07cee" CreationDate="2017-01-17T01:32:27.080" UserId="921" Text="|pronunciation|preposition|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2431" RevisionGUID="916f0b86-26ee-4b92-8368-4950ecb0fff7" CreationDate="2017-01-17T01:46:46.830" UserId="78" Text="That's actually not a rule. *ab* and *ex* *can* lose their consonant, but in fact it's far more common for them not to. Check out Lewis and Short's entries on them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ex/e&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ex* always before vowels, and elsewhere more frequent than *e*; e. g. in Cic. *Rep*. *e* occurs 19 times, but *ex* 61 times, before consonants—but no rule can be given for the usage; cf., e.g., *ex* and *e* together: “qui ex corporum vinculis tamquam e carcere evolaverunt,” Cic. *Rep*. 6, 14. But certain expressions have almost constantly the same form, as *ex parte*, *ex sententia*, *ex senatus consulto*, *ex lege*, *ex tempore*, etc.; but *e regione*, *e re nata*, *e vestigio*, *e medio*, and *e republica* used adverbially.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ab/a* is more complicated, but you even see archaicisms like *abs te* very frequently. Same thing applies - *a* is less frequently utilized than *ab* before consonants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2430" RevisionGUID="d1d996cd-fb27-446c-84e6-5fd1d64cafe9" CreationDate="2017-01-17T02:08:49.003" UserId="921" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="I was helping a friend earlier with an English-to-Latin translation and we started talking about the prepositions &quot;a(b)&quot; and &quot;e(x)&quot;, which lose their consonant if the following word begins with one [or so I thought!].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this got me thinking about the phrase &quot;ex nihilo,&quot; as in the belief that the world was created from nothing. Why isn't the phrase &quot;e nihilo&quot; instead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2432" RevisionGUID="b5ba9627-33c7-4003-80cf-d83e03073ef0" CreationDate="2017-01-17T07:22:33.107" UserId="867" Text="The first thing to note when looking at passages and remarks by Romans about “punctuation” is that it is not always clear at first glance whether they are discussing elements of oral delivery or written marks in a text.  “Punctuation” or *pungere*, after all, simply means to puncture or create a gap which can apply equally to oral or written discourse.  There is, of course, overlap as written punctuation can be a guide to the oral delivery of the text.  Indeed, most references to punctuation that I have found are in treatises on oratory.  Yet the main concern of these writers is that true eloquence should not need written punctuation.  The rhythm of the prose and its delivery by a skilled orator should make such aids superfluous. &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;Thus, while Quintilian writes at length about *commas*, *colons*, and *periods*, he is in fact discussing the pauses and rhythm of speech.  Cicero, too, is typically concerned with elegant oratory rather than punctuation of a text.  So, when he speaks of *interpuncta*, he is often speaking of pauses between words (*interpuncta verborum* De Oratore III.XLVI.181), pauses between ideas (*interpuncta argumentorum* De Oratore II.XLI.177), or pauses in which to catch one’s breath (*interpuncta intervalla, morae respirationesque* Orator XVI.53).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, Seneca’s use of *interpungere* clearly refers to written punctuation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nos etiam cum **scribimus** **interpungere** adsuevimus* / but we [Romans as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; opposed to Greeks] even when **writing** have become accustomed to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **punctuation** (Epistles, XL.11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is interesting because Seneca's argument is that Romans have need of punctuation precisely because of the way they speak, revealing again that overlap between the spoken and the written word.  This overlap, therefore, must account for why the same terms are used (confusingly) to describe the form of both the spoken and the written text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When Cicero refers to written punctuation, it is disparagingly and he explicitly contrasts the &quot;natural&quot; pauses (*interpunctas*) of the orator's speech with the written prompts of a copyist (*notis librariorum*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *interspirationis enim, non defatigationis nostrae neque **librariorum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; notis** sed verborum et sententiarum modo **interpunctas clausulas** in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; orationibus esse voluerunt* / for they wanted a pause for breathing not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because we were tired or because of the **copyists’ marks** but because of the **pointed/distinct endings** of words and sentences  (De&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Oratore III.XLIV.173)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His comment, mentioned above, about the *interductu librari* (Orator LXVIII.228) conveys the same contempt for written punctuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A passage in Quintilian is often interpreted by scholars as alluding to the marking up of texts in order to help young boys learn how best to read them aloud: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *superest lectio: in qua puer ut sciat ubi suspendere spiritum debeat,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **quo loco versum distinguere**, ubi cludatur sensus …* / reading remains [to be discussed]: in this a boy in order to know where he ought to take a breath, **at which place to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; divide the verse**, where the sense ends ... (Institutio Oratoria 1.8.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Distinguere* certainly does mean to separate, divide, or to mark the pauses in a discourse ([Lewis &amp; Short][1]) but it isn’t clear to me that Quintilian is speaking here of written punctuation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this use of *distinguere* is definitely used by Suetonius to refer to written punctuation.  Here he describes Marcus Valerius Probus' hobby of writing in copies of texts: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *multaque exemplaria contracta emendare ac **distinguere** et annotare&#xD;&#xA;&gt; curavit* / after gathering many copies, he gave his attention to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; correcting and **punctuating** and annotating them (Lives of Illustrious&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Men: On Grammarians XXIV)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while I couldn't find any extended discussion of punctuation in the works of Roman authors, I think we can at least establish that written punctuation was not a routine addition to texts but that the concept of punctuation existed.  Further, when punctuation was added, it was to mimic or facilitate the oral production of a text.  This probably explains why the terminologies are the same.  I think we can also see that there was resistance to what was perceived as a &quot;crutch&quot; for orators.  The arguments of Cicero and Quintilian support the argument of A. W. Hodgman (&quot;Latin equivalents of punctuation marks&quot; - summarised here: [punctuation in classical Latin][2] ) that the very structure of Latin words and sentences &quot;has very clear equivalents for some of our punctuation marks&quot;.      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=distinguere&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/33/what-punctuation-was-used-in-classical-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2432" RevisionGUID="6cd666b3-4069-47f6-9f47-0ce57d72ce21" CreationDate="2017-01-17T07:30:57.243" UserId="867" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="The first thing to note when looking at passages and remarks by Romans about “punctuation” is that it is not always clear at first glance whether they are discussing elements of oral delivery or written marks in a text.  “Punctuation” or *pungere*, after all, simply means to puncture or create a gap which can apply equally to oral or written discourse.  There is, of course, overlap as written punctuation can be a guide to the oral delivery of the text.  Indeed, most references to punctuation that I have found are in treatises on oratory.  Yet the main concern of these writers is that true eloquence should not need written punctuation.  The rhythm of the prose and its delivery by a skilled orator should make such aids superfluous. &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;Thus, while Quintilian writes at length about *commas*, *colons*, and *periods*, he is in fact discussing the pauses and rhythm of speech.  Cicero, too, is typically concerned with elegant oratory rather than punctuation of a text.  So, when he speaks of *interpuncta*, he is often speaking of pauses between words (*interpuncta verborum* De Oratore III.XLVI.181), pauses between ideas (*interpuncta argumentorum* De Oratore II.XLI.177), or pauses in which to catch one’s breath (*interpuncta intervalla, morae respirationesque* Orator XVI.53).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, Seneca’s use of *interpungere* clearly refers to written punctuation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nos etiam cum **scribimus** **interpungere** adsuevimus* / but we [Romans as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; opposed to Greeks] even when **writing** have become accustomed to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **punctuation** (Epistles, XL.11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is interesting because Seneca's argument is that Romans have need of punctuation precisely because of the way they speak, revealing again that overlap between the spoken and the written word.  This overlap, therefore, must account for why the same terms are used (confusingly) to describe the form of both the spoken and the written text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When Cicero refers to written punctuation, it is disparagingly and he explicitly contrasts the &quot;natural&quot; pauses (*interpunctas*) of the orator's speech with the written prompts of a copyist (*notis librariorum*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *interspirationis enim, non defatigationis nostrae neque **librariorum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; notis** sed verborum et sententiarum modo **interpunctas clausulas** in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; orationibus esse voluerunt* / for they wanted a pause for breathing not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because we were tired or because of the **copyists’ marks** but because of the **pointed/distinct endings** of words and sentences  (De&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Oratore III.XLIV.173)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His comment, mentioned above, about the *interductu librari* (Orator LXVIII.228) conveys the same contempt for written punctuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A passage in Quintilian is often interpreted by scholars as alluding to the marking up of texts in order to help young boys learn how best to read them aloud: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *superest lectio: in qua puer ut sciat ubi suspendere spiritum debeat,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **quo loco versum distinguere**, ubi cludatur sensus …* / reading remains [to be discussed]: in this a boy in order to know where he ought to take a breath, **at which place to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; divide the verse**, where the sense ends ... (Institutio Oratoria 1.8.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Distinguere* certainly does mean to separate, divide, or to mark the pauses in a discourse ([Lewis &amp; Short][1]) but it isn’t clear to me that Quintilian is speaking here of written punctuation as the passage seems to be discussing reading aloud.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this use of *distinguere* is definitely used by Suetonius to refer to written punctuation.  Here he describes Marcus Valerius Probus' hobby of writing in copies of texts: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *multaque exemplaria contracta emendare ac **distinguere** et annotare&#xD;&#xA;&gt; curavit* / after gathering many copies, he gave his attention to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; correcting and **punctuating** and annotating them (Lives of Illustrious&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Men: On Grammarians XXIV)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while I couldn't find any extended discussion of punctuation in the works of Roman authors, I think we can at least establish that written punctuation was not a routine addition to texts but that the concept of punctuation existed.  Further, when punctuation was added, it was to mimic or facilitate the oral production of a text.  This probably explains why the terminologies are the same.  I think we can also see that there was resistance to what was perceived as a &quot;crutch&quot; for orators.  The arguments of Cicero and Quintilian support the argument of A. W. Hodgman (&quot;Latin equivalents of punctuation marks&quot; - summarised here: [punctuation in classical Latin][2] ) that the very structure of Latin words and sentences &quot;has very clear equivalents for some of our punctuation marks&quot; making punctuation marks unnecessary (in the eyes of some).      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=distinguere&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/33/what-punctuation-was-used-in-classical-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2431" RevisionGUID="ac4e5e4a-5757-4e11-8307-6dabe83fc6f9" CreationDate="2017-01-17T19:05:04.090" UserId="78" Comment="added 508 characters in body" Text="That's actually not a rule. *ab* and *ex* *can* lose their consonant, but in fact it's far more common for them not to. Check out Lewis and Short's entries on them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ex/e&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ex* always before vowels, and elsewhere more frequent than *e*; e. g. in Cic. *Rep*. *e* occurs 19 times, but *ex* 61 times, before consonants—but no rule can be given for the usage; cf., e.g., *ex* and *e* together: “qui ex corporum vinculis tamquam e carcere evolaverunt,” Cic. *Rep*. 6, 14. But certain expressions have almost constantly the same form, as *ex parte*, *ex sententia*, *ex senatus consulto*, *ex lege*, *ex tempore*, etc.; but *e regione*, *e re nata*, *e vestigio*, *e medio*, and *e republica* used adverbially.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ab/a* is more complicated, but you even see archaicisms like *abs te* very frequently. Same thing applies, though: *a* is used less often than *ab* before consonants. Nathaniel [in another thread](http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1250/78) posted the relevant part of Lewis and Short concerning when you use *ab* and *a*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ab] has become the principal form and the one most generally used through all periods—and indeed the only one used before all vowels and h; here and there also before some consonants, particularly l, n, r, and s; rarely before c, j, d, t; and almost never before the labials p, b, f, v, or before m.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Worth reading other posts in that thread, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2417" RevisionGUID="08d1d427-df06-4e9c-bd5e-9832613f8f3a" CreationDate="2017-01-17T20:44:39.267" UserId="1148" Comment="changed ὅπου ἂν ἕτερος γὰρ  ἔλθῃ with  ὅπου γὰρ ἂν ἕτερος ἔλθῃ as suggested (see comment)" Text="1. First of all you need to **eliminate the article τοὺς**, as ἀγαθοὺς is a predicative adjective with nominal value (&quot;we believed that they were good friends&quot; and not &quot;We believed that they were **the** good friends&quot;); then, given that &quot;good&quot; in that sense means &quot;true&quot; or &quot;loyal&quot;, the correct way to translate is with the adjective **ἐσθλός** (e.g. S. *OT* 611: φίλον γὰρ ἐσθλὸν ἐκβαλεῖν ἴσον λέγω / καὶ τὸν παρ’ αὑτῷ βίοτον, ὃν πλεῖστον φιλεῖ);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The correct way to translate &quot;for whithersoever this one went&quot; is with **ὅπου and the subjuntctive**, as in Pl. *Euthyph.* 11c: οὐκ ἐθέλει μένειν ὅπου ἄν τις αὐτὰ θῇ, and in order to correctly render the contemporaneity with the main verb you should use the **aorist subjuntctive**. It is also better to use ἕτερος ... ἄλλος to distiguish the two men rather than the colourless ὁ μὲν ... ὁ δὲ. Furthermore I wouldn't recommend μέν and δέ here, as these particles are canonically used to express antithesis (vd. J. D. Denniston - K. J. Dover, *The Greek Particles*, Oxford 1954, pp. 369-374), but a single δέ could better fit to connect the two clauses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You could vary the second clause using a verb like ἥκω (&quot;arrive in a place&quot;) using imperfect to give the sense of reiteration of the action, in combination with a dimostrative adverb like ἔνθα (&quot;here&quot;) and the modal adverb ἴσως to better render &quot;also&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the resulting phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; αὐτοὺς ἐνομίσαμεν ἐσθλοὺς φίλους εἶναι· ὅπου γὰρ ἂν ἕτερος ἔλθῃ, ἔνθα δ' ὁ &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἄλλος ἴσως ἧκε.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8826" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="9142ddfd-1103-4ae5-954b-cb4ee85be51c" CreationDate="2017-01-17T22:18:10.410" UserId="79" Comment="15" />
  <row Id="8828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2417" RevisionGUID="8ea4fa6d-ec8c-46d4-8917-8ba1018238df" CreationDate="2017-01-17T23:35:31.013" UserId="1148" Comment="added 852 characters in body" Text="1. First of all you need to **eliminate the article τοὺς**, as ἀγαθοὺς is a predicative adjective with nominal value (&quot;we believed that they were good friends&quot; and not &quot;We believed that they were **the** good friends&quot;); then, given that &quot;good&quot; in that sense means &quot;true&quot; or &quot;loyal&quot;, the correct way to translate is with the adjective **ἐσθλός** (e.g. S. *OT* 611: φίλον γὰρ ἐσθλὸν ἐκβαλεῖν ἴσον λέγω / καὶ τὸν παρ’ αὑτῷ βίοτον, ὃν πλεῖστον φιλεῖ);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The correct way to translate &quot;for whithersoever this one went&quot; is with **ὅπου and the subjuntctive**, as in Pl. *Euthyph.* 11c: οὐκ ἐθέλει μένειν ὅπου ἄν τις αὐτὰ θῇ, and in order to correctly render the contemporaneity with the main verb you should use the **aorist subjuntctive**. It is also better to use ἕτερος ... ἄλλος to distiguish the two men rather than the colourless ὁ μὲν ... ὁ δὲ. Furthermore I wouldn't recommend μέν and δέ here, as these particles are canonically used to express antithesis (vd. J. D. Denniston - K. J. Dover, *The Greek Particles*, Oxford 1954, pp. 369-374), but a single δέ could better fit to connect the two clauses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You could vary the second clause using a verb like ἥκω (&quot;arrive in a place&quot;) using imperfect to give the sense of reiteration of the action, in combination with a dimostrative adverb like ἔνθα (&quot;here&quot;) and the modal adverb ἴσως to better render &quot;also&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the resulting phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; αὐτοὺς ἐνομίσαμεν ἐσθλοὺς φίλους εἶναι· ὅπου γὰρ ἂν ἕτερος ἔλθῃ, ἔνθα δ' ὁ &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἄλλος ἴσως ἧκε.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: I found that expressions like πιστὸς φίλος or πιστὸς ἑταῖρος express better the sense of &quot;good friend&quot;. Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - X. *Cyr.* 8,7,13: ἀλλ’ οἱ πιστοὶ φίλοι σκῆπτρον βασιλεῦσιν ἀληθέστατον καὶ ἀσφαλέστατον&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Pl. *Phaedr.* 233d: οὔτ’ ἂν πιστοὺς φίλους ἐκεκτήμεθα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hom. *Il.* 17,589: σὸν δ’ ἔκτανε πιστὸν ἑταῖρον&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Thgn. 1,644-645: Παύρους κηδεμόνας πιστοὺς εὕροις κεν ἑταίρους / κείμενος ἐν μεγάλῃ θυμὸν ἀμηχανίῃ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think that ὅποι suggested by TKZ could better express the directional sense of the phrase, as well as the imperfect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the word order I propose to follow the example of Lys. 18,26,4: ἄνδρας ἀρίστους ἐνομίζετ’ εἶναι τοὺς ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἀποθνῄσκοντας.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the reformulated phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; πιστοὺς φίλους ἐνομίζομεν εἶναι αὐτοὺς· ὅποι γὰρ ἂν ἕτερος ἔλθοι, ἔνθα&#xD;&#xA;&gt; δ' ὁ ἄλλος ἴσως ἧκε.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2423" RevisionGUID="bffe1146-aa7e-4e71-9802-1d62ba79fa1d" CreationDate="2017-01-18T00:10:29.033" UserId="40" Comment="added 568 characters in body" Text="There are several unrelated grammatical points here, which I'll take in the order in which they occur in your Greek sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Position of αὐτούς. The pronoun αὐτ- in its non-emphatic third-person use (as opposed to its emphatic use meaning &quot;himself&quot; etc.) acts basically as a postpositive: it does not stand first in a sentence, nor in a smaller prosodic unit. Its most natural position here is right after the verb.&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;We believed&quot; is about an ongoing state rather than a punctual or bounded event, so imperfect is better than aorist here.&#xD;&#xA; 3. τούς is wrong because it's not &quot;we believed them to be *the* good friends&quot;: no need for a definite article here.&#xD;&#xA; 4. The choice of ἀγαθός seems fine to me. There are parallels, e.g. [Xenophon, *Memorabilia* 2.4](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Xen.+Mem.+2.4&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0207):  ὡς πάντων κτημάτων κράτιστον ἂν εἴη φίλος σαφὴς καὶ ἀγαθός &quot;that of all possessions the best is a sincere, good friend&quot;. ΕΤΑ: Alessio suggests in a comment that this may mean &quot;good&quot; in a moral sense rather than &quot;intimate&quot;, which may well be right -- this kind of thing is hard to verify without a corpus search. His suggestion of πιστός could work, though that is more about &quot;trustworthiness&quot; specifically than &quot;intimacy&quot; (likewise βέβαιος, which is another possibility). Another option is ἐπιτήδειος, which when applied to people can mean &quot;close, intimate&quot;. In my translation below I used the superlative of this adjective, but obviously there are lots of ways you could go here.&#xD;&#xA; 5. ὁπόθεν means &quot;whence, from where&quot;. What you need is ὅποι or ἔνθα, &quot;whither, to where&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 6. A μέν ... δέ construction is impossible here because one of the clauses is subordinate to the other. Clauses coordinated by μέν ... δέ need to be syntactically parallel. This means you need something other than ὁ μέν ... ὁ δέ for &quot;the one ... the other&quot;. You could go with e.g. οὗτος ... ἐκεῖνος, but since we're talking about two people, the idiomatic choice is ὁ ἕτερος ... ὁ ἕτερος.&#xD;&#xA; 7. You're right that a conditional (a.k.a. indefinite) relative clause is needed here. But the correct type is a past general clause, which has an optative in the protasis and a past indicative in the apodosis.&#xD;&#xA; 8. καί meaning &quot;also&quot; or &quot;even&quot; always immediately precedes what it modifies, so it should not precede the verb but &quot;that one&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 9. For your question about repeating the verb, this is a question of style, but my sense is that most prose authors would avoid this particular repetition by using a synonym the second time. There is actually a fairly close passage in [Plato's *Phaedo* (60b-c)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.+Phaedo+60&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0169): Socrates says ᾧ ἂν τὸ ἕτερον παραγένηται ἐπακολουθεῖ ὕστερον καὶ τὸ ἕτερον &quot;whenever one of the two (sc. pleasure and pain) comes to someone, the other follows later too&quot;, using two different verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting it all together, we might get something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἐνομίζομεν αὐτοὺς φίλους εἶναι ἐπιτηδειοτάτους· ὅποι γὰρ ὁ ἕτερος ἔλθοι, ἀεὶ ἐπηκολούθει καὶ ὁ ἕτερος." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2433" RevisionGUID="81a227a3-321b-4686-8379-a067e73e0afb" CreationDate="2017-01-18T02:01:54.393" UserId="30" Text="&gt;*DRN* 2.393: *aut quia ni mirum maioribus est elementis /&#xD;&#xA;aut magis hamatis **inter se perque** plicatis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is somewhat dubious. It could be analysed as an adverb. I think the problem is that prepositions and adverbs are not entirely separate in Latin/Greek, and I think *in* in your example could be analysed as an adverb as well, if we should ignore traditional terminology for English momentarily and analyse it with the same lack of separation in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Aeneid* 4.671: *Karthago aut antiqua Tyros, flammaeque furentes / culmina **perque hominum uoluantur perque deorum**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might call this simple ellipsis, because only the head of the object of the two prepositions is absent after the second preposition—but, then, isn't what you're after really ellipsis of a prepositional object?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cicero, *Rhet. Her.* [sp.], 4.68.16: *Id fieri poterit, si, quae **ante et post et in ipsa re** facta erunt, conprehendemus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the same applies as in my quotation from Lucretius above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Varro, *Res Rusticae*, 1.35.2.5: *dum in xv diebus **ante et post brumam**, ut pleraque, ne facias.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this one is incontrovertible [strange how we spell this word with a -t-, incidentally]. It seems necessary to interpret *ante* as *ante brumam*, or it wouldn't make sense to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8831" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1265" RevisionGUID="b3235327-d6ef-4124-b1f9-67d756306e21" CreationDate="2017-01-18T02:20:53.377" UserId="79" Comment="16" />
  <row Id="8832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1265" RevisionGUID="7f380330-a361-4fd9-aa99-8095845097df" CreationDate="2017-01-18T02:21:58.257" UserId="79" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="I asked yesterday about [the difference between causal clauses and causal relative clauses](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1261/79), and I was surprised by a comment:&#xD;&#xA;apparently there is a difference between causal *cum* clauses and causal *quia* clauses.&#xD;&#xA;I had not heard of any such difference, so I was left puzzled.&#xD;&#xA;**What is the difference between *cum*, *quia* and *quod* in causal clauses?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course *cum* always requires conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;With *quia* and *quod* one uses indicative, unless there is some special reason for conjunctive &amp;mdash; the cause is an opinion rather than fact or the clause is subordinate to *oratio obliqua*.&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that *quia* and *quod* are equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To formulate the question in terms of a concrete example, what is the difference between these sentences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Amicus meus exire nolebat, cum nimis plueret.*&#xD;&#xA;2. *Amicus meus exire nolebat, quia/quod nimis pluebat.*&#xD;&#xA;3. *Amicus meus exire nolebat, quia/quod nimis plueret.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2 the prohibiting amount of rain is expressed as a fact, in 3 as the friend's opinion.&#xD;&#xA;In 1 this distinction is not made, but otherwise I see no difference between 1 and 2/3.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference?&#xD;&#xA;If there is, what is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2434" RevisionGUID="cde99ad4-0d50-4348-adf4-b554ec244c26" CreationDate="2017-01-18T02:42:22.913" UserId="79" Text="I just stumbled upon [an old meta question](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/21/79) about the name of [our chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm), and a comment gave me the impression that the classical spelling would be *conloquium* rather than *colloquium*.&#xD;&#xA;(Let me ignore capitalization and comparing U and V in this question.)&#xD;&#xA;In cases like this, are both NL and LL used in classical Latin, or is one preferred over the other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do we know?&#xD;&#xA;It seems likely to me that later copyists would have changed such spelling details, so classical choices would only be visible in inscriptions &amp;mdash; but this is only my guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have evidence for other similar cases of assimilation and can argue that NL/LL should behave the same, that is perfectly acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;The main interest of this question is more focused, but more general arguments are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;Notice that this question is about spelling, not pronunciation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8834" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2434" RevisionGUID="cde99ad4-0d50-4348-adf4-b554ec244c26" CreationDate="2017-01-18T02:42:22.913" UserId="79" Text="NL and LL in Classical Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8835" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2434" RevisionGUID="cde99ad4-0d50-4348-adf4-b554ec244c26" CreationDate="2017-01-18T02:42:22.913" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|orthography|consonants|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2435" RevisionGUID="b066be14-5c15-41f1-9bb8-08cfd7ba75b2" CreationDate="2017-01-18T06:00:25.890" UserId="78" Text="Check out the Epigraphic Database Heidelberg. It thankfully allows you to search words, which will allow you to look at deeper results. From a cursory search, though it seems that conl- is earlier, but by the Augustan Age, both were frequently used.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* For [conl](http://edh-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/inschrift/erweiterteSuche?hd_nr=&amp;tm_nr=&amp;land=&amp;fo_antik=&amp;fo_modern=&amp;fundstelle=&amp;region=&amp;compFundjahr=eq&amp;fundjahr=&amp;aufbewahrung=&amp;inschriftgattung=&amp;sprache=&amp;inschrifttraeger=&amp;compHoehe=eq&amp;hoehe=&amp;compBreite=eq&amp;breite=&amp;compTiefe=eq&amp;tiefe=&amp;bh=&amp;palSchreibtechnik=&amp;dat_tag=&amp;dat_monat=&amp;dat_jahr_a=&amp;dat_jahr_e=&amp;hist_periode=&amp;religion=&amp;literatur=&amp;kommentar=&amp;p_name=&amp;p_praenomen=&amp;p_nomen=&amp;p_cognomen=&amp;p_supernomen=&amp;p_tribus=&amp;p_origo=&amp;p_geschlecht=&amp;p_status=&amp;compJahre=eq&amp;p_lJahre=&amp;compMonate=eq&amp;p_lMonate=&amp;compTage=eq&amp;p_lTage=&amp;compStunden=eq&amp;p_lStunden=&amp;atext1=conl&amp;bool=AND&amp;atext2=&amp;sort=dat_jahr_a&amp;anzahl=20): note that Sulla's inscription in Delos has *conlegia* and *conlata*. It's early and frequent, even when coll- is also used.&#xD;&#xA;* For [coll](http://edh-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/inschrift/erweiterteSuche?hd_nr=&amp;tm_nr=&amp;land=&amp;fo_antik=&amp;fo_modern=&amp;fundstelle=&amp;region=&amp;compFundjahr=eq&amp;fundjahr=&amp;aufbewahrung=&amp;inschriftgattung=&amp;sprache=&amp;inschrifttraeger=&amp;compHoehe=eq&amp;hoehe=&amp;compBreite=eq&amp;breite=&amp;compTiefe=eq&amp;tiefe=&amp;bh=&amp;palSchreibtechnik=&amp;dat_tag=&amp;dat_monat=&amp;dat_jahr_a=&amp;dat_jahr_e=&amp;hist_periode=&amp;religion=&amp;literatur=&amp;kommentar=&amp;p_name=&amp;p_praenomen=&amp;p_nomen=&amp;p_cognomen=&amp;p_supernomen=&amp;p_tribus=&amp;p_origo=&amp;p_geschlecht=&amp;p_status=&amp;compJahre=eq&amp;p_lJahre=&amp;compMonate=eq&amp;p_lMonate=&amp;compTage=eq&amp;p_lTage=&amp;compStunden=eq&amp;p_lStunden=&amp;atext1=coll&amp;bool=AND&amp;atext2=&amp;sort=dat_jahr_a&amp;anzahl=20): Aside from *Collina* and *colle* (neither of which were formed from *cum* + root; see de Vaan p. 124-125), you have what seems to be *Collegium* in an inscription in the late Republic/early Empire and a definite attestation in 17 BCE. From there you see it freely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2435" RevisionGUID="610115fb-6902-4498-a7ad-71170ff0523a" CreationDate="2017-01-18T06:13:01.303" UserId="78" Comment="added 1564 characters in body" Text="Check out the Epigraphic Database Heidelberg. It thankfully allows you to search words, which will allow you to look at deeper results. From a cursory search, though it seems that conl- is earlier, but by the Augustan Age, both were frequently used.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* For [conl](http://edh-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/inschrift/erweiterteSuche?hd_nr=&amp;tm_nr=&amp;land=&amp;fo_antik=&amp;fo_modern=&amp;fundstelle=&amp;region=&amp;compFundjahr=eq&amp;fundjahr=&amp;aufbewahrung=&amp;inschriftgattung=&amp;sprache=&amp;inschrifttraeger=&amp;compHoehe=eq&amp;hoehe=&amp;compBreite=eq&amp;breite=&amp;compTiefe=eq&amp;tiefe=&amp;bh=&amp;palSchreibtechnik=&amp;dat_tag=&amp;dat_monat=&amp;dat_jahr_a=&amp;dat_jahr_e=&amp;hist_periode=&amp;religion=&amp;literatur=&amp;kommentar=&amp;p_name=&amp;p_praenomen=&amp;p_nomen=&amp;p_cognomen=&amp;p_supernomen=&amp;p_tribus=&amp;p_origo=&amp;p_geschlecht=&amp;p_status=&amp;compJahre=eq&amp;p_lJahre=&amp;compMonate=eq&amp;p_lMonate=&amp;compTage=eq&amp;p_lTage=&amp;compStunden=eq&amp;p_lStunden=&amp;atext1=conl&amp;bool=AND&amp;atext2=&amp;sort=dat_jahr_a&amp;anzahl=20): note that Sulla's inscription in Delos has *conlegia* and *conlata*. It's early and frequent, even when coll- is also used.&#xD;&#xA;* For [coll](http://edh-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/inschrift/erweiterteSuche?hd_nr=&amp;tm_nr=&amp;land=&amp;fo_antik=&amp;fo_modern=&amp;fundstelle=&amp;region=&amp;compFundjahr=eq&amp;fundjahr=&amp;aufbewahrung=&amp;inschriftgattung=&amp;sprache=&amp;inschrifttraeger=&amp;compHoehe=eq&amp;hoehe=&amp;compBreite=eq&amp;breite=&amp;compTiefe=eq&amp;tiefe=&amp;bh=&amp;palSchreibtechnik=&amp;dat_tag=&amp;dat_monat=&amp;dat_jahr_a=&amp;dat_jahr_e=&amp;hist_periode=&amp;religion=&amp;literatur=&amp;kommentar=&amp;p_name=&amp;p_praenomen=&amp;p_nomen=&amp;p_cognomen=&amp;p_supernomen=&amp;p_tribus=&amp;p_origo=&amp;p_geschlecht=&amp;p_status=&amp;compJahre=eq&amp;p_lJahre=&amp;compMonate=eq&amp;p_lMonate=&amp;compTage=eq&amp;p_lTage=&amp;compStunden=eq&amp;p_lStunden=&amp;atext1=coll&amp;bool=AND&amp;atext2=&amp;sort=dat_jahr_a&amp;anzahl=20): Aside from *Collina* and *colle* (neither of which were formed from *cum* + root; see de Vaan p. 124-125), you have what seems to be *Collegium* in an inscription in the late Republic/early Empire and a definite attestation in 17 BCE. From there you see it freely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Decided to take a look at inl-/ill-, too, and same thing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [inl-](http://edh-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/inschrift/erweiterteSuche?hd_nr=&amp;tm_nr=&amp;land=&amp;fo_antik=&amp;fo_modern=&amp;fundstelle=&amp;region=&amp;compFundjahr=eq&amp;fundjahr=&amp;aufbewahrung=&amp;inschriftgattung=&amp;sprache=&amp;inschrifttraeger=&amp;compHoehe=eq&amp;hoehe=&amp;compBreite=eq&amp;breite=&amp;compTiefe=eq&amp;tiefe=&amp;bh=&amp;palSchreibtechnik=&amp;dat_tag=&amp;dat_monat=&amp;dat_jahr_a=&amp;dat_jahr_e=&amp;hist_periode=&amp;religion=&amp;literatur=&amp;kommentar=&amp;p_name=&amp;p_praenomen=&amp;p_nomen=&amp;p_cognomen=&amp;p_supernomen=&amp;p_tribus=&amp;p_origo=&amp;p_geschlecht=&amp;p_status=&amp;compJahre=eq&amp;p_lJahre=&amp;compMonate=eq&amp;p_lMonate=&amp;compTage=eq&amp;p_lTage=&amp;compStunden=eq&amp;p_lStunden=&amp;atext1=inl&amp;bool=AND&amp;atext2=&amp;sort=dat_jahr_a&amp;anzahl=20): Early, frequent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [ill-](http://edh-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/inschrift/erweiterteSuche?hd_nr=&amp;tm_nr=&amp;land=&amp;fo_antik=&amp;fo_modern=&amp;fundstelle=&amp;region=&amp;compFundjahr=eq&amp;fundjahr=&amp;aufbewahrung=&amp;inschriftgattung=&amp;sprache=&amp;inschrifttraeger=&amp;compHoehe=eq&amp;hoehe=&amp;compBreite=eq&amp;breite=&amp;compTiefe=eq&amp;tiefe=&amp;bh=&amp;palSchreibtechnik=&amp;dat_tag=&amp;dat_monat=&amp;dat_jahr_a=&amp;dat_jahr_e=&amp;hist_periode=&amp;religion=&amp;literatur=&amp;kommentar=&amp;p_name=&amp;p_praenomen=&amp;p_nomen=&amp;p_cognomen=&amp;p_supernomen=&amp;p_tribus=&amp;p_origo=&amp;p_geschlecht=&amp;p_status=&amp;compJahre=eq&amp;p_lJahre=&amp;compMonate=eq&amp;p_lMonate=&amp;compTage=eq&amp;p_lTage=&amp;compStunden=eq&amp;p_lStunden=&amp;atext1=ill&amp;bool=AND&amp;atext2=&amp;sort=dat_jahr_a&amp;anzahl=20&amp;start=20): First one I found was from post-Augustan Spain. Very infrequent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further searches show that *conloquium* is attested relatively early, but you don't get *colloquium* until 226 CE." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2436" RevisionGUID="31f9623a-602a-4639-a6d4-26bf0ae4a4e7" CreationDate="2017-01-18T06:15:38.883" UserId="235" Text="I have noticed in both Greek and Latin that sometimes a verb shares the same root as its object or modifier. This construction looks funny to me as an English speaker, as we don't often encounter this occurrence in English. One example that comes to mind from my Greek textbook is ἁμαρτάνω used with ἁμαρτία. I can point to more examples, however, from the Vulgate. Here are some instances I found in the Book of Jonah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et **timuerunt viri timore** magno Dominum: et immolaverunt hostias Domino, et **voverunt vota**. [(Jonah 1:16)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the men feared Lord with a great fear, and sacrificed victims to the Lord, and made vows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Surge, et vade in Niniven, civitatem magnam, et **prædica in ea prædicationem** quam ego loquor ad te. [(Jonah 3:2)][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rise, and go to Nineveh, the great city, and preach in it the preaching which I speak to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et **afflictus est Jonas afflictione magna**, et iratus est: [(Jonah 4:1)][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Jonah was afflicted with a great affliction, and was angry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to know, is there a name for this? Is it found in Classical Latin as well as the Vulgate? And can you think of any reasons why it's common in Greek and Latin, but not in English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/jon001.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/jon003.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/jon004.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8841" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2436" RevisionGUID="31f9623a-602a-4639-a6d4-26bf0ae4a4e7" CreationDate="2017-01-18T06:15:38.883" UserId="235" Text="What's it called when a verb shares the same root as its object or modifier?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8842" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2436" RevisionGUID="31f9623a-602a-4639-a6d4-26bf0ae4a4e7" CreationDate="2017-01-18T06:15:38.883" UserId="235" Text="|greek|grammar-identification|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8843" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2434" RevisionGUID="10bb2a43-0872-4106-a97f-4ce8011a3f0d" CreationDate="2017-01-18T06:17:37.123" UserId="78" Comment="Clarifying that you're not talking about New or Late Latin." Text="-NL- and -LL- in Classical Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8844" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2436" RevisionGUID="b9be8571-ca1d-4084-9c62-0222a0357f76" CreationDate="2017-01-18T06:22:37.700" UserId="235" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|greek|grammar-identification|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2437" RevisionGUID="43011e56-c2ea-485d-b8ab-3623255da31a" CreationDate="2017-01-18T06:50:49.230" UserId="985" Text="When a verb and direct object are involved, the accusative is often referred to as a _cognate accusative_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more general term, which would also cover your _afflictus...afflictione_ example, is _figura etymologica_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2437" RevisionGUID="c9689834-80bd-49d2-a948-2323060f47d5" CreationDate="2017-01-18T07:07:54.873" UserId="985" Comment="Added examples" Text="When a verb and direct object are involved, the accusative is often referred to as a _cognate accusative_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more general term, which would also cover your _afflictus...afflictione_ example, is _figura etymologica_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are quite common in classical Latin – for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tutiorem **vitam** **vivere** (Cic. _Verr._ 2.118)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cura ut valeas meque **ames** **amore** illo tuo singulari (Cic. _Fam._ 15.20.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **odissem** te **odio** Vatiniano (Catul. 14.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bella res est **mori** sua **morte** (Sen. _Ep._ 69.6)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2437" RevisionGUID="33d8fb45-66a5-4d7f-9b02-bb552585e1f7" CreationDate="2017-01-18T07:52:16.217" UserId="985" Comment="added 517 characters in body" Text="When a verb and direct object are involved, the accusative is often referred to as a _cognate accusative_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more general term, which would also cover your _afflictus...afflictione_ example, is _figura etymologica_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are quite common in classical Latin – for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tutiorem **vitam** **vivere** (Cic. _Verr._ 2.118)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cura ut valeas meque **ames** **amore** illo tuo singulari (Cic. _Fam._ 15.20.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **odissem** te **odio** Vatiniano (Catul. 14.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bella res est **mori** sua **morte** (Sen. _Ep._ 69.6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** As for English, there are some very common examples in everyday speech: people often speak about living their life, singing a song, giving a gift, seeing the sights, etc. I'm sure there must be examples in English-language literature too, but I can't think of any right now. The best I can do is this, my favorite example of _figura etymologica_ in English, from an episode of _The Simpsons_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Come, family. Sit in the snow with Daddy and let us all bask in television's warm glowing warming glow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2438" RevisionGUID="8a112c8a-044b-4fc4-a014-8505e10a3994" CreationDate="2017-01-18T08:00:22.323" UserId="867" Text="*This answer has been percolating in my head for a couple of months now.  Given that there haven't been any other attempts to answer it, I've posted it but realise it's limitations in providing a clear answer to your question.  It also does not speak at all to the question of Jansenism.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a great question but one that, unfortunately, has no simple (or short!) answer.  Frustratingly, little appears to be written specifically about Latin in science but perhaps we can extrapolate from what is written about Latin in other areas.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;The twin problems of declining use and declining literacy are a chicken-or-egg question.  However, my reading on the topic (see references below) suggests that, initially at least, Latin fell out of favour not so much because of a decrease in Latin literacy but rather because of an explicit desire to replace Latin with the vernacular.  That said, there is a pronounced geographical variance in the rate of the decline of Latin which can’t always be neatly explained.  This would indeed seem to be linked to a rise in political power and nationalism but there are also issues of expression and fluidity at stake as well.  Even so, science was the last bastion for Latin, resisting widespread use of vernacular until quite late.  Gauss, as an example, continued publishing in Latin into the 19th century.  Other areas of activity, writing and thought, however, had already abandoned Latin. &#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;Latin had already started to lose ground in other spheres quite early for purely pragmatic reasons; vernacular language was simply more accessible and egalitarian.  By the 13th century, for instance, Latin was no longer being used in commerce anywhere.  Later in western Europe, Latin was no longer being used in government (e.g. the Ordinance of Villiers-Cotterêts in 1539 in France gave up all Latin in government), the law (e.g. the Statute of Pleading in 1362 in England ordained that court proceedings should be in English), or local administration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this wasn’t happening everywhere in Europe.  Eastern Europe, as an example, retained Latin as the language of officialdom for much longer.  Hungary, for instance, encompassed speakers of Hungarian, German, Czech, Romanian and Croatian.  Thus, Latin was useful as a neutral lingua franca.  It wasn’t until 1790 that it was replaced with German.  Latin in this situation then was a practicality.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, Dutch philosophers such as Spinoza or Huygens continued to publish in Latin simply because few people outside of the Netherlands spoke Dutch.  Scandinavian scholars too published in Latin up until the late 19th century for the same reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This geographical variance is instructive.  Latin’s decline was fastest in centres of political and cultural innovation; slowest on the peripheries.  This suggests that Latin became outmoded or at least unsuitable for **a new cultural climate**.  It also supports the thesis that Latin literacy itself didn’t decline (well, not at first).  If it had, why would smaller, less influential countries continue to publish in it?  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;The French, in particular, sought to elevate the status of French above that of Latin, Greek *and* other vernaculars.  This can be linked to a rise in French **patriotism** from the 1650s which itself is linked to growing **political power**.  This is when we start to see French replacing Latin as a language of diplomacy.  But more than a political or patriotic choice, the use of vernacular could be used as a **statement of principles**. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Consider the example of Descartes who published *Discours de la méthode* in French in 1637.  This was subsequently *translated into Latin* but not until 1656.  This was a deliberate choice due to Descartes’ desire to distance himself from the scholastics and to be understood by “even children and women”.  The link between one’s political stance and language is even more obvious in Hobbes.   His *De Cive* of 1650 was originally published in Latin but quickly translated into English.  *Leviathan* (1651), however, was published in English and only translated into Latin in 1658.  This is because Hobbes was explicitly writing for an English post-Civil War audience.  His message: that all legitimate political power must be &quot;representative&quot; and based on the consent of the people.  This surely is a message to be given in the people’s own language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For similar reasons of **accessibility**, Luther (in 1522) and Tynedale (in 1525) had already translated the Bible into German and English respectively.  Speaking of his translation, Luther said “we are removing impediments and difficulties so that other people may read it without hindrance.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, Latin increasingly came to be thought of as **a language of the past and of imitation**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural, spontaneous, nuanced expression in Latin was difficult.    Even as early as the 17th century, Latin was seen as an ossified means of expression and subsequently fell out of favour for new, creative literary output.  The last era of creative literary output in Latin in England, for example, was ca. 1530-1640, with vernacular literature replacing it.  In fact, in England, Latin never really had a strong hold on the market.  As early as the late 1500s, Latin works only accounted for 10% of publications.  In France, by 1764 Latin titles accounted for less than 5% of publications.  And in Germany, by 1681, German books outnumbered Latin ones. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In France, defenders of Latin were seen as snobbish, unpatriotic, uncreative, cowardly and hidebound.  The following verse by Desmarets written in 1675 illustrates this (quoted in Argaud):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *Amans trop obstinez de la langue Latine,  Qui toujours attachez sur les mesmes écrits,  Ne s’éloignent jamais de leur vielle routine ; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qui n’aspirant qu’au rang d’imitateurs,  Ne peuvent s’élever plus haut&#xD;&#xA;&gt; que leurs Autheurs.  Pauvres imitateurs, ne faites point les braves …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Lovers who persist too much with the Latin language,  Who always stick to the same writings,  Are never far from their old routine; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Who, aspiring only to the rank of imitators,  Can’t elevate themselves&#xD;&#xA;&gt; any higher than their Authors.  Poor imitators, don’t pretend to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; brave …  (caveat: my own translation!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These same constraints must have also been felt in the **sciences**.  Why it held on for so long, I can only speculate.  Tradition may be one reason, prestige and perhaps even credibility another.  Apparently, Gauss published in Latin “not from internationalist sentiments but at the demands of his publishers” [quoted here][1].  Perhaps too there was an idea that universal ideas should be able to be expressed in a universal language.  For Pike, writing in 1918, Latin was abandoned as an international scientific language because it was simply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; felt to be **a restraint upon untrammeled expression of thought**. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; classicists did all they could to assist its disuse by insisting upon&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the employment of a Ciceronian diction which science had outgrown.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nothing is so restive under restraint as the expression of creative&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thought … Modern thought expresses itself naturally in languages of an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; analytic, not in those of a synthetic, character. It takes long and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; severe training to accustom the modern man to express himself readily&#xD;&#xA;&gt; through the synthetic medium of Latin. (p. 53)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, perhaps Latin became less and less a useful medium for expressing increasingly complex ideas.  It did, however, retain its hold in the “descriptive sciences” – astronomy, geology, palaeontology, medicine, zoology, botany – precisely because of its strict precision which is tailor-made for taxonomic labels.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;REFERENCES:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Evelyne Argaud, ‘Les enjeux des représentations des langues savantes et vulgaires en France et en Europe aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles.  Affirmer des prééminences et construire une hiérarchisation’, *Documents pour l’histoire du français langue étrangère ou seconde*, vol. 23, 2009 (mise en ligne 2011). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nicholas Ostler, *Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin*, Harper Collins, London, 2007.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joseph B. Pike, ‘Can Latin be Revived as an International Scientific Language?’, in *The Classical Journal*, vol. 14, no. 1, October 1918, pp. 48-55.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1372/what-is-the-history-of-scientific-latin?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2438" RevisionGUID="77502f0a-2030-45b2-ba09-52e25daf9243" CreationDate="2017-01-18T08:13:57.010" UserId="867" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="*This answer has been percolating in my head for a couple of months now.  Given that there haven't been any other attempts to answer it, I've posted it but realise its limitations in providing a clear answer to your question.  It also does not speak at all to the question of Jansenism.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a great question but one that, unfortunately, has no simple (or short!) answer.  Frustratingly, little appears to be written specifically about Latin in science but perhaps we can extrapolate from what is written about Latin in other areas.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;The twin problems of declining use and declining literacy are a chicken-or-egg question.  However, my reading on the topic (see references below) suggests that, initially at least, Latin fell out of favour not so much because of a decrease in Latin literacy but rather because of an explicit desire to replace Latin with the vernacular.  That said, there is a pronounced geographical variance in the rate of the decline of Latin which can’t always be neatly explained.  This would indeed seem to be linked to a rise in political power and nationalism but there are also issues of expression and fluidity at stake as well.  Even so, science was the last bastion for Latin, resisting widespread use of vernacular until quite late.  Gauss, as an example, continued publishing in Latin into the 19th century.  Other areas of activity, writing and thought, however, had already abandoned Latin. &#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;Latin had already started to lose ground in other spheres quite early for purely pragmatic reasons; vernacular language was simply more accessible and egalitarian.  By the 13th century, for instance, Latin was no longer being used in commerce anywhere.  Later in western Europe, Latin was no longer being used in government (e.g. the Ordinance of Villiers-Cotterêts in 1539 in France gave up all Latin in government), the law (e.g. the Statute of Pleading in 1362 in England ordained that court proceedings should be in English), or local administration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this wasn’t happening everywhere in Europe.  Eastern Europe, as an example, retained Latin as the language of officialdom for much longer.  Hungary, for instance, encompassed speakers of Hungarian, German, Czech, Romanian and Croatian.  Thus, Latin was useful as a neutral lingua franca.  It wasn’t until 1790 that it was replaced with German.  Latin in this situation then was a practicality.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, Dutch philosophers such as Spinoza or Huygens continued to publish in Latin simply because few people outside of the Netherlands spoke Dutch.  Scandinavian scholars too published in Latin up until the late 19th century for the same reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This geographical variance is instructive.  Latin’s decline was fastest in centres of political and cultural innovation; slowest on the peripheries.  This suggests that Latin became outmoded or at least unsuitable for **a new cultural climate**.  It also supports the thesis that Latin literacy itself didn’t decline (well, not at first).  If it had, why would smaller, less influential countries continue to publish in it?  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;The French, in particular, sought to elevate the status of French above that of Latin, Greek *and* other vernaculars.  This can be linked to a rise in French **patriotism** from the 1650s which itself is linked to growing **political power**.  This is when we start to see French replacing Latin as a language of diplomacy.  But more than a political or patriotic choice, the use of vernacular could be used as a **statement of principles**. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Consider the example of Descartes who published *Discours de la méthode* in French in 1637.  This was subsequently *translated into Latin* but not until 1656.  This was a deliberate choice due to Descartes’ desire to distance himself from the scholastics and to be understood by “even children and women”.  The link between one’s political stance and language is even more obvious in Hobbes.   His *De Cive* of 1650 was originally published in Latin but quickly translated into English.  *Leviathan* (1651), however, was published in English and only translated into Latin in 1658.  This is because Hobbes was explicitly writing for an English post-Civil War audience.  His message: that all legitimate political power must be &quot;representative&quot; and based on the consent of the people.  This surely is a message to be given in the people’s own language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For similar reasons of **accessibility**, Luther (in 1522) and Tynedale (in 1525) had already translated the Bible into German and English respectively.  Speaking of his translation, Luther said “we are removing impediments and difficulties so that other people may read it without hindrance.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, Latin increasingly came to be thought of as **a language of the past and of imitation**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural, spontaneous, nuanced expression in Latin was difficult.    Even as early as the 17th century, Latin was seen as an ossified means of expression and subsequently fell out of favour for new, creative literary output.  The last era of creative literary output in Latin in England, for example, was ca. 1530-1640, with vernacular literature replacing it.  In fact, in England, Latin never really had a strong hold on the market.  As early as the late 1500s, Latin works only accounted for 10% of publications.  In France, by 1764 Latin titles accounted for less than 5% of publications.  And in Germany, by 1681, German books outnumbered Latin ones. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In France, defenders of Latin were seen as snobbish, unpatriotic, uncreative, cowardly and hidebound.  The following verse by Desmarets written in 1675 illustrates this (quoted in Argaud):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *Amans trop obstinez de la langue Latine,  Qui toujours attachez sur les mesmes écrits,  Ne s’éloignent jamais de leur vielle routine ; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qui n’aspirant qu’au rang d’imitateurs,  Ne peuvent s’élever plus haut&#xD;&#xA;&gt; que leurs Autheurs.  Pauvres imitateurs, ne faites point les braves …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Lovers who persist too much with the Latin language,  Who always stick to the same writings,  Are never far from their old routine; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Who, aspiring only to the rank of imitators,  Can’t elevate themselves&#xD;&#xA;&gt; any higher than their Authors.  Poor imitators, don’t pretend to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; brave …  (caveat: my own translation!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These same constraints must have also been felt in the **sciences**.  Why it held on for so long, I can only speculate.  Tradition may be one reason, prestige and perhaps even credibility another.  Apparently, Gauss published in Latin “not from internationalist sentiments but at the demands of his publishers” [quoted here][1].  Perhaps too there was an idea that universal ideas should be able to be expressed in a universal language.  For Pike, writing in 1918, Latin was abandoned as an international scientific language because it was simply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; felt to be **a restraint upon untrammeled expression of thought**. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; classicists did all they could to assist its disuse by insisting upon&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the employment of a Ciceronian diction which science had outgrown.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nothing is so restive under restraint as the expression of creative&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thought … Modern thought expresses itself naturally in languages of an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; analytic, not in those of a synthetic, character. It takes long and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; severe training to accustom the modern man to express himself readily&#xD;&#xA;&gt; through the synthetic medium of Latin. (p. 53)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, perhaps Latin became less and less a useful medium for expressing increasingly complex ideas.  It did, however, retain its hold in the “descriptive sciences” – astronomy, geology, palaeontology, medicine, zoology, botany – precisely because of its strict precision which is tailor-made for taxonomic labels.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;REFERENCES:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Evelyne Argaud, ‘Les enjeux des représentations des langues savantes et vulgaires en France et en Europe aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles.  Affirmer des prééminences et construire une hiérarchisation’, *Documents pour l’histoire du français langue étrangère ou seconde*, vol. 23, 2009 (mise en ligne 2011). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nicholas Ostler, *Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin*, Harper Collins, London, 2007.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joseph B. Pike, ‘Can Latin be Revived as an International Scientific Language?’, in *The Classical Journal*, vol. 14, no. 1, October 1918, pp. 48-55.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1372/what-is-the-history-of-scientific-latin?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2439" RevisionGUID="97332efe-03ba-46c1-91e5-96f62388896f" CreationDate="2017-01-18T08:15:47.657" UserId="75" Text="For *dicendum*, it would be necessary to supply the ellipsis *est*, yielding *dicendum est*, a passive periphrastic phrase. Altogether, the phrase *respondeo dicendum quod* would thus be translated into English as, “I respond: it must be said that...” Therefore, I would say *dicendum* is parsed as a neuter gender, singular number, nominative case, gerundive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aquinas elsewhere uses the entire phrase «Respondeo dicendum **est** quod». &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(bad example, editing in progress)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2439" RevisionGUID="af1b9ff4-cf56-444c-8d72-25a55c5ae02c" CreationDate="2017-01-18T08:27:07.627" UserId="75" Comment="added 337 characters in body" Text="For *dicendum*, it would be necessary to supply the ellipsis *est*, yielding *dicendum est*, a passive periphrastic phrase. Altogether, the phrase *respondeo dicendum quod* would thus be translated into English as, “I respond: it must be said that...” Therefore, I would say *dicendum* is parsed as a neuter gender, singular number, nominative case, gerundive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other works, Aquinas uses the entire phrase «Respondeo dicendum **est** quod» quite frequently.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I searched for the phrase «respondeo dicendum est quod» in the [Corpus Thomisticum search tool][2], and it found “159 cases in 108 places.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MqaK4.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/it/index.age" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2440" RevisionGUID="5037f0ee-63d7-4539-becd-832112825d2b" CreationDate="2017-01-18T09:52:42.850" UserId="324" Text="This sort of figura etymologica is common in classical Latin and classical Greek, but even more so in Semitic languages (such as Hebrew and Arabic), where it has (among other things) the function of intensifying a statement. A good example is in Genesis 2:17 where מֹות תָּמוּת is rendered as θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε and morte morieris, all literally “you shall die a death (or: by a death)”. As you point out, this does not work in English. Thus, the KJV paraphrases it as: “thou shalt surely die”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2440" RevisionGUID="2ab9e59a-ca67-4d0e-932e-7f535afffc6e" CreationDate="2017-01-18T09:57:43.847" UserId="324" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="This sort of figura etymologica is common in classical Latin and classical Greek, but even more so in Semitic languages (such as Hebrew and Arabic), where it has (among other things) the function of intensifying a statement. A good example is in Genesis 2:17 where מֹות תָּמוּת is rendered as θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε and morte morieris, all literally “you shall die a death (or: by a death)”. As you point out, this does not work very well in English. Thus, the KJV paraphrases it as: “thou shalt surely die”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2438" RevisionGUID="d1766417-3648-4d5c-8db2-9a007694def4" CreationDate="2017-01-18T10:45:49.337" UserId="932" Comment="add links" Text="*This answer has been percolating in my head for a couple of months now.  Given that there haven't been any other attempts to answer it, I've posted it but realise its limitations in providing a clear answer to your question.  It also does not speak at all to the question of Jansenism.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a great question but one that, unfortunately, has no simple (or short!) answer.  Frustratingly, little appears to be written specifically about Latin in science but perhaps we can extrapolate from what is written about Latin in other areas.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;The twin problems of declining use and declining literacy are a chicken-or-egg question.  However, my reading on the topic (see references below) suggests that, initially at least, Latin fell out of favour not so much because of a decrease in Latin literacy but rather because of an explicit desire to replace Latin with the vernacular.  That said, there is a pronounced geographical variance in the rate of the decline of Latin which can’t always be neatly explained.  This would indeed seem to be linked to a rise in political power and nationalism but there are also issues of expression and fluidity at stake as well.  Even so, science was the last bastion for Latin, resisting widespread use of vernacular until quite late.  Gauss, as an example, continued publishing in Latin into the 19th century.  Other areas of activity, writing and thought, however, had already abandoned Latin. &#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;Latin had already started to lose ground in other spheres quite early for purely pragmatic reasons; vernacular language was simply more accessible and egalitarian.  By the 13th century, for instance, Latin was no longer being used in commerce anywhere.  Later in western Europe, Latin was no longer being used in government (e.g. the Ordinance of Villiers-Cotterêts in 1539 in France gave up all Latin in government), the law (e.g. the Statute of Pleading in 1362 in England ordained that court proceedings should be in English), or local administration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this wasn’t happening everywhere in Europe.  Eastern Europe, as an example, retained Latin as the language of officialdom for much longer.  Hungary, for instance, encompassed speakers of Hungarian, German, Czech, Romanian and Croatian.  Thus, Latin was useful as a neutral lingua franca.  It wasn’t until 1790 that it was replaced with German.  Latin in this situation then was a practicality.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, Dutch philosophers such as Spinoza or Huygens continued to publish in Latin simply because few people outside of the Netherlands spoke Dutch.  Scandinavian scholars too published in Latin up until the late 19th century for the same reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This geographical variance is instructive.  Latin’s decline was fastest in centres of political and cultural innovation; slowest on the peripheries.  This suggests that Latin became outmoded or at least unsuitable for **a new cultural climate**.  It also supports the thesis that Latin literacy itself didn’t decline (well, not at first).  If it had, why would smaller, less influential countries continue to publish in it?  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;The French, in particular, sought to elevate the status of French above that of Latin, Greek *and* other vernaculars.  This can be linked to a rise in French **patriotism** from the 1650s which itself is linked to growing **political power**.  This is when we start to see French replacing Latin as a language of diplomacy.  But more than a political or patriotic choice, the use of vernacular could be used as a **statement of principles**. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Consider the example of Descartes who published *Discours de la méthode* in French in 1637.  This was subsequently *translated into Latin* but not until 1656.  This was a deliberate choice due to Descartes’ desire to distance himself from the scholastics and to be understood by “even children and women”.  The link between one’s political stance and language is even more obvious in Hobbes.   His *De Cive* of 1650 was originally published in Latin but quickly translated into English.  *Leviathan* (1651), however, was published in English and only translated into Latin in 1658.  This is because Hobbes was explicitly writing for an English post-Civil War audience.  His message: that all legitimate political power must be &quot;representative&quot; and based on the consent of the people.  This surely is a message to be given in the people’s own language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For similar reasons of **accessibility**, Luther (in 1522) and Tynedale (in 1525) had already translated the Bible into German and English respectively.  Speaking of his translation, Luther said “we are removing impediments and difficulties so that other people may read it without hindrance.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, Latin increasingly came to be thought of as **a language of the past and of imitation**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural, spontaneous, nuanced expression in Latin was difficult.    Even as early as the 17th century, Latin was seen as an ossified means of expression and subsequently fell out of favour for new, creative literary output.  The last era of creative literary output in Latin in England, for example, was ca. 1530-1640, with vernacular literature replacing it.  In fact, in England, Latin never really had a strong hold on the market.  As early as the late 1500s, Latin works only accounted for 10% of publications.  In France, by 1764 Latin titles accounted for less than 5% of publications.  And in Germany, by 1681, German books outnumbered Latin ones. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In France, defenders of Latin were seen as snobbish, unpatriotic, uncreative, cowardly and hidebound.  The following verse by Desmarets written in 1675 illustrates this (quoted in Argaud):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *Amans trop obstinez de la langue Latine,  Qui toujours attachez sur les mesmes écrits,  Ne s’éloignent jamais de leur vielle routine ; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qui n’aspirant qu’au rang d’imitateurs,  Ne peuvent s’élever plus haut&#xD;&#xA;&gt; que leurs Autheurs.  Pauvres imitateurs, ne faites point les braves …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Lovers who persist too much with the Latin language,  Who always stick to the same writings,  Are never far from their old routine; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Who, aspiring only to the rank of imitators,  Can’t elevate themselves&#xD;&#xA;&gt; any higher than their Authors.  Poor imitators, don’t pretend to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; brave …  (caveat: my own translation!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These same constraints must have also been felt in the **sciences**.  Why it held on for so long, I can only speculate.  Tradition may be one reason, prestige and perhaps even credibility another.  Apparently, Gauss published in Latin “not from internationalist sentiments but at the demands of his publishers” [quoted here][1].  Perhaps too there was an idea that universal ideas should be able to be expressed in a universal language.  For Pike, writing in 1918, Latin was abandoned as an international scientific language because it was simply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; felt to be **a restraint upon untrammeled expression of thought**. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; classicists did all they could to assist its disuse by insisting upon&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the employment of a Ciceronian diction which science had outgrown.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nothing is so restive under restraint as the expression of creative&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thought … Modern thought expresses itself naturally in languages of an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; analytic, not in those of a synthetic, character. It takes long and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; severe training to accustom the modern man to express himself readily&#xD;&#xA;&gt; through the synthetic medium of Latin. (p. 53)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, perhaps Latin became less and less a useful medium for expressing increasingly complex ideas.  It did, however, retain its hold in the “descriptive sciences” – astronomy, geology, palaeontology, medicine, zoology, botany – precisely because of its strict precision which is tailor-made for taxonomic labels.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;REFERENCES:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Evelyne Argaud, ‘Les enjeux des représentations des langues savantes et vulgaires en France et en Europe aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles.  Affirmer des prééminences et construire une hiérarchisation’, *Documents pour l’histoire du français langue étrangère ou seconde*, [vol. 23][2], 2009 (mise en ligne 2011). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nicholas Ostler, *[Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin][3]*, Harper Collins, London, 2007.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joseph B. Pike, ‘Can Latin be Revived as an International Scientific Language?’, in *The Classical Journal*, [vol. 14, no. 1][4], October 1918, pp. 48-55.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1372/what-is-the-history-of-scientific-latin?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://dhfles.revues.org/815&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=uACEKyHg670C&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/details/jstor-3288192" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2441" RevisionGUID="2064bee1-6e40-4570-90ff-9f5838662ef9" CreationDate="2017-01-18T12:45:10.657" UserId="45" Text="In Greek, it is very common to chain preposition prefixes at the beginning of a verb, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [συν-εκ-βαίνω](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=sunek&amp;lang=greek): &quot;go out together&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* [ἀντι-κατα-δύνω](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da\)ntikatadu%2Fnw): &quot;set over against&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* [περι-εκ-χέομαι](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dperiekxe%2Fomai): &quot;flow out all around&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And many more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, though, I cannot easily think of many examples of this. The most obvious examples (such as [*condescendo*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcondescendo)) are only attested in Ecclesiastical Latin, and (at least in this case) this is just a direct translation of [*συγκαταβαίνω*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dsugkatabai%2Fnw), the theological idea of &quot;condescension&quot; developed by the Greek fathers. It is telling that this verb only appears in an effort to translate a *technical theological term*, rather than the normal usage of the Greek verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three related questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is this construction common in Latin? (Hey, I could just be totally overlooking something...)&#xD;&#xA;2. Assuming not, are there classical examples of verbs formed in this way?&#xD;&#xA;3. Bonus: Do any Roman writers/grammarians remark on this difference between Greek and Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8857" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2441" RevisionGUID="2064bee1-6e40-4570-90ff-9f5838662ef9" CreationDate="2017-01-18T12:45:10.657" UserId="45" Text="Prefix chaining in Latin verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8858" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2441" RevisionGUID="2064bee1-6e40-4570-90ff-9f5838662ef9" CreationDate="2017-01-18T12:45:10.657" UserId="45" Text="|classical-latin|greek|preposition|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2442" RevisionGUID="e309b0cd-4def-4401-aa2c-a0c77a105080" CreationDate="2017-01-18T13:19:19.840" UserId="952" Text="If I am interpreting this question correctly, I do believe that there are a few examples of this. &#xD;&#xA;From Book I of Vergil's *Aeneid*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**586** Vix ea fatus erat, cum *circumfusa* repente &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**587** scindit se nubes et in aethera purgat apertum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**588** Restitit Aeneas claraque in luce refulsit, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**589** os umerosque deo similis; namque ipsa decoram&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**590** caesariem nato genetrix lumenque iuventae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**591** purpureum et laetos oculis adflarat honores:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**592** quale manus addunt ebori decus, aut ubi flavo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**593** argentum Pariusve lapis *circumdatur* auro.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we see the words *circumfusa*, from *circumfundo, circumfundere, circumfudi, circumfusus* meaning &quot;pour around&quot; and *circumdatur*, from *circumdo, circumdare, circumdedi, circumdatus* meaning &quot;surround&quot; or &quot;envelop&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other example I can think of off the top of my head would be [*concresco*][1], which was referenced in a question earlier this month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a helpful list on the [Tuft's website][2] with many different compound verbs; examples of verbs with preposition prefixes are about halfway down the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2318/does-concrescere-take-dative&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Apart%3D1%3Asection%3D31" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2443" RevisionGUID="a4ea13e6-5b57-48be-ae3f-69fca1ceea02" CreationDate="2017-01-18T13:26:45.720" UserId="45" Text="Although the idea of idolatry has been present for a long time, I believe St. Paul is the first to use the term [*εἰδωλολατρία*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dei\)dwlolatri%2Fa), e.g. Gal 5:20. (Corrections welcome!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two surprises come when we look at the Vulgate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. εἰδωλολατρία is translated as &quot;idolorum servitus&quot; (Gal 5:20) or &quot;idolorum cultura&quot; (1 Cor 10:14)&#xD;&#xA;2. But: &quot;idolatria&quot; is used at least twice, to translate the Greek &quot;κατείδωλον&quot; (Acts 17:16) and &quot;θεραφιν&quot; (1 Sam 15:23, LXX) (which, I found out after some digging, is just a transliteration of Hebrew וּתְרָפִ֖ים (uterafim) = &quot;household idol&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although there are a *lot* of good questions that this cursory look bring up (many of which would probably find a better home at Bible Hermeneutics), I will only ask one: **Why was εἰδωλολατρία transcribed as *idolatria* rather than *idololatria*?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8862" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2443" RevisionGUID="a4ea13e6-5b57-48be-ae3f-69fca1ceea02" CreationDate="2017-01-18T13:26:45.720" UserId="45" Text="Why &quot;idolatria&quot; instead of &quot;idololatria&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8863" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2443" RevisionGUID="a4ea13e6-5b57-48be-ae3f-69fca1ceea02" CreationDate="2017-01-18T13:26:45.720" UserId="45" Text="|translation|vocabulary|greek|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2441" RevisionGUID="b10d4b7c-34e8-4ee0-9536-23a81ccdee39" CreationDate="2017-01-18T13:29:16.170" UserId="45" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="In Greek, it is very common to chain more than one prepositional prefix at the beginning of a verb, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [συν-εκ-βαίνω](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=sunek&amp;lang=greek): &quot;go out together&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* [ἀντι-κατα-δύνω](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da\)ntikatadu%2Fnw): &quot;set over against&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* [περι-εκ-χέομαι](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dperiekxe%2Fomai): &quot;flow out all around&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And many more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, though, I cannot easily think of many examples of verbs beginning with two prepositions. The most obvious examples (such as [*condescendo*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcondescendo)) are only attested in Ecclesiastical Latin, and (at least in this case) this is just a direct translation of [*συγκαταβαίνω*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dsugkatabai%2Fnw), the theological idea of &quot;condescension&quot; developed by the Greek fathers. It is telling that this verb only appears in an effort to translate a *technical theological term*, rather than the normal usage of the Greek verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three related questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is this construction common in Latin? (Hey, I could just be totally overlooking something...)&#xD;&#xA;2. Assuming not, are there at least some classical examples of verbs formed in this way?&#xD;&#xA;3. Bonus: Do any Roman writers/grammarians remark on this difference between Greek and Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2440" RevisionGUID="05373efb-b686-4afa-a923-fdd7efb86aea" CreationDate="2017-01-18T14:17:37.920" UserId="324" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="This sort of figura etymologica is common in classical Latin and classical Greek, but even more so in Semitic languages (such as Hebrew and Arabic), where it has (among other things) the function of intensifying a statement. A good example is in Genesis 2:17 where מֹות תָּמוּת is rendered as θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε and morte morieris, all literally “you shall die a death (or: by a death)”. As you point out, this does not work very well in English. Thus, the KJV paraphrases it as: “thou shalt surely die”, where &quot;surely&quot; brings out the intensifying force of the figura." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2440" RevisionGUID="262e32ea-e227-404f-b153-ccf31a223d0d" CreationDate="2017-01-18T14:23:12.237" UserId="324" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="This sort of figura etymologica is common in classical Latin and classical Greek, but even more so in Semitic languages (such as Hebrew and Arabic), where it has (among other things) the function of intensifying a statement. A good example is in Genesis 2:17 where מֹות תָּמוּת (*mōϑ tāmūϑ*) is rendered as θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε and morte morieris, all literally “you shall die a death (or: by a death)”. As you point out, this does not work very well in English. Thus, the KJV paraphrases it as: “thou shalt surely die”, where &quot;surely&quot; brings out the intensifying force of the figura." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2444" RevisionGUID="68d3835b-0e7a-4e3b-9151-6d66b62040c1" CreationDate="2017-01-18T14:41:47.350" UserId="324" Text="The uncontracted &quot;idololatria&quot; is used by Tertullian, and by Jerome in his commentary on Isaiah (if we can trust the copyists and editors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Didololatria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Idolatria&quot; is common in Christian Latin (though it does not have an entry in L/S) and is continued by English “idolatry” and similar words in other modern languages. It is an example of haplology (as opposed to mere haplography). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2445" RevisionGUID="4ebb5bb7-b73e-4986-add7-359fc1974db5" CreationDate="2017-01-18T15:48:29.137" UserId="1148" Text="For what I know, the double prefixation beginning with ***per-*** is the most productive (I quote only a few examples):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *perincertus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[per+ in + certus] (Sall. apud. Gell. 18,4,4: *perincertum stolidior an vanior*);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *perindignus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [per + in + dignus] (Suet. *Tib.* 50, 2: *tulit etiam perindigne actum in senatu*);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *perincommodus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [per + in + commodus]  (Liv. 37,41,2: *eadem perincommoda regiis erant*; Cic. *epist.* 1,17,2: *sed accidit perincommode quod eum nusquam vidisti*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *persubhorresco*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [per + sub + horresco] (Sisenna fr. 104 Peter [Non. 6,449 M.] *subito mare persubhorrescere caecos que fluctus in se prouoluere leniter occepit*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix **dis-** is even productive in that sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *disconvenio* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[dis + con+ venio] (e.g. Hor. *epist.* 1,1,99: *vitae disconvenit ordine toto*;  1,14,18 *eo disconvenit inter meque et te*; Vitr. 4,3,1 *disconvenientes in his symmetriae*; Frontin. *grom.* 4,4 Thulin: *quidquid ex agro disconuenit*) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples for **other prefixes**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *disconduco* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[dis + con + duco] (Plaut. *Trin.* 930: *sed nil disconducit huic rei*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *condeliquesco* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[con + de + liquesco] (Cat. *Agr.* 23,6  *uti resina condeliquescat*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *circumobruo* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[circum + ob + ruo] (Plin. 19,83: *alterna folia circumobruere*) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *antepraecursor* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ante + prae + cursor] (Tert. *Bapt.* 6: *Ioannes antepraecursor*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *condesertor* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[con + de + sertor] (Tert. *Carn.* 1: *condesertor eius Valentinus*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) I woulds say that is rather uncommon, very rare in comparison to ancient Greek;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) There are however a good number of evidences in classical Latin;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) Difficult but interesting question: as far as I know I would say no, but I have to check some texts:  I intend to answer later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2445" RevisionGUID="5718f0af-8259-4608-add0-c999118f902b" CreationDate="2017-01-18T16:58:53.913" UserId="1148" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="For what I know, the double prefixation beginning with ***per-*** is the most productive (I quote only a few examples):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *perincertus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[per+ in + certus] (Sall. apud. Gell. 18,4,4: *perincertum stolidior an vanior*);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *perindignus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [per + in + dignus] (Suet. *Tib.* 50, 2: *tulit etiam perindigne actum in senatu*);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *perincommodus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [per + in + commodus]  (Liv. 37,41,2: *eadem perincommoda regiis erant*; Cic. *epist.* 1,17,2: *sed accidit perincommode quod eum nusquam vidisti*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *persubhorresco*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [per + sub + horresco] (Sisenna fr. 104 Peter [Non. 6,449 M.] *subito mare persubhorrescere caecos que fluctus in se prouoluere leniter occepit*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix **dis-** is even productive in that sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *disconvenio* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[dis + con+ venio] (e.g. Hor. *epist.* 1,1,99: *vitae disconvenit ordine toto*;  1,14,18 *eo disconvenit inter meque et te*; Vitr. 4,3,1 *disconvenientes in his symmetriae*; Frontin. *grom.* 4,4 Thulin: *quidquid ex agro disconuenit*) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *disconduco* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[dis + con + duco] (Plaut. *Trin.* 930: *sed nil disconducit huic rei*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples for **other prefixes**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *condeliquesco* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[con + de + liquesco] (Cat. *Agr.* 23,6  *uti resina condeliquescat*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *circumobruo* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[circum + ob + ruo] (Plin. 19,83: *alterna folia circumobruere*) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *antepraecursor* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ante + prae + cursor] (Tert. *Bapt.* 6: *Ioannes antepraecursor*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *condesertor* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[con + de + sertor] (Tert. *Carn.* 1: *condesertor eius Valentinus*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) I woulds say that is rather uncommon, very rare in comparison to ancient Greek;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) There are however a good number of evidences in classical Latin;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) Difficult but interesting question: as far as I know I would say no, but I have to check some texts:  I intend to answer later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2445" RevisionGUID="fcc14d2b-47a0-433b-9db8-8351fd67ed27" CreationDate="2017-01-18T17:44:06.097" UserId="1148" Comment="added 265 characters in body" Text="For what I know, the double prefixation beginning with ***per-*** is the most productive (I quote only a few examples):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *perincertus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[per+ in + certus] (Sall. apud. Gell. 18,4,4: *perincertum stolidior an vanior*);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *perindignus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [per + in + dignus] (Suet. *Tib.* 50, 2: *tulit etiam perindigne actum in senatu*);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *perincommodus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [per + in + commodus]  (Liv. 37,41,2: *eadem perincommoda regiis erant*; Cic. *epist.* 1,17,2: *sed accidit perincommode quod eum nusquam vidisti*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *persubhorresco*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [per + sub + horresco] (Sisenna fr. 104 Peter [Non. 6,449 M.] *subito mare persubhorrescere caecos que fluctus in se prouoluere leniter occepit*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix **dis-** is even productive in that sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *disconvenio* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[dis + con+ venio] (e.g. Hor. *epist.* 1,1,99: *vitae disconvenit ordine toto*;  1,14,18 *eo disconvenit inter meque et te*; Vitr. 4,3,1 *disconvenientes in his symmetriae*; Frontin. *grom.* 4,4 Thulin: *quidquid ex agro disconuenit*) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *disconduco* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[dis + con + duco] (Plaut. *Trin.* 930: *sed nil disconducit huic rei*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples for **other prefixes**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *condeliquesco* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[con + de + liquesco] (Cat. *Agr.* 23,6  *uti resina condeliquescat*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *circumobruo* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[circum + ob + ruo] (Plin. 19,83: *alterna folia circumobruere*) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *antepraecursor* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ante + prae + cursor] (Tert. *Bapt.* 6: *Ioannes antepraecursor*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *condesertor* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[con + de + sertor] (Tert. *Carn.* 1: *condesertor eius Valentinus*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) I woulds say that is rather uncommon, very rare in comparison to ancient Greek;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) There are however a good number of evidences in classical Latin;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) Difficult but interesting question: as far as I know I would say no, but I have to check some texts:  I intend to answer later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples can be found in Dana Dinu, [*Prefix Derivation in Latin*][1], &quot;[SCOL][2]&quot;  1-2, 2012, pp. 125-136.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cis01.central.ucv.ro/revista_scol/site_ro/2012/lexicologie/dinu.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://cis01.central.ucv.ro/revista_scol/arhiva.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2439" RevisionGUID="b49d5fa3-93f4-4350-81a6-96f21bb23a95" CreationDate="2017-01-18T18:10:19.740" UserId="75" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="For *dicendum*, it would be necessary to supply the ellipsis *est*, yielding *dicendum est*, a passive periphrastic construction. Altogether, the phrase *respondeo dicendum quod* would thus be translated into English as, “I respond: it must be said that...” Therefore, I would say *dicendum* is parsed as a neuter gender, singular number, nominative case, gerundive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other works, Aquinas uses the entire phrase «Respondeo dicendum **est** quod» quite frequently.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I searched for the phrase «respondeo dicendum est quod» in the [Corpus Thomisticum search tool][2], and it found “159 cases in 108 places.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MqaK4.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/it/index.age" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2446" RevisionGUID="bc8540eb-7966-40d0-b1ea-97acec0240d9" CreationDate="2017-01-18T20:43:01.117" UserId="1141" Text="These are just denominative verbs and are quite common. From Allen &amp; Greenough 258 (q.v.): &quot;Verbs were formed in Latin from almost every from of noun-stem and adjective-stem.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2447" RevisionGUID="6d5a88a1-70eb-40f2-aaf6-5a372048aad9" CreationDate="2017-01-19T04:15:08.273" UserId="79" Text="I recently left [an unnecessary comment](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2443/why-idolatria-instead-of-idololatria/2444?noredirect=1#comment6220_2444) because I could not resist telling a bad joke.&#xD;&#xA;That made me wonder: **What would be a good (classical) Latin word for a bad quality joke?**&#xD;&#xA;The joke can be any kind of short joke, wordplay or similar, but it has to be of terrible quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is entirely possible that there is no single word for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;A suggestion or two with an explanation of how they fit the bill would be great.&#xD;&#xA;For those who know Finnish, I am more or less looking for a translation of &quot;puujalkavitsi&quot; (literally &quot;peg leg joke&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;I do not know of a comparable expression in English; I would simply say that a joke or pun is terrible or corny.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(To make this easier to find, let me repeat the key question in Finnish: Miten sanotaan &quot;puujalkavitsi&quot; latinaksi?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8883" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2447" RevisionGUID="6d5a88a1-70eb-40f2-aaf6-5a372048aad9" CreationDate="2017-01-19T04:15:08.273" UserId="79" Text="A word for bad quality joke" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8884" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2447" RevisionGUID="6d5a88a1-70eb-40f2-aaf6-5a372048aad9" CreationDate="2017-01-19T04:15:08.273" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|word-request|finnish|word-play|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2448" RevisionGUID="b4f6f98c-f724-458e-a999-7dbc075c6802" CreationDate="2017-01-19T11:54:11.460" UserId="1148" Text="Following Cic. *de orat.* 2,218, I could think of two words describing this particular *verborum lusus* for which you are asking about: *cum duo genera sint facetiarum, alterum aequabiliter in omni sermone fusum, alterum peracutum et breve, illa a veteribus superior **cavillatio,** haec altera **dicacitas** nominata est*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first word, ***cavillatio*** (from *cavilla* [or *cavillum*], which in some cases means &quot;double sense&quot;: Plaut. *Aul.* 638 *aufer cavillam, non ego nunc nugas ago*; Apul. *met.* 1,7 *allubentia proclivis est sermonis et ioci et scitum et cavillum et iam dicacitas tinnula*;  is often referred in the sens of *irrisio, iocus* and, for quote an example, is intended as a &quot;bad joke&quot; addressed to a roman knight by the emperor Tiberius in Suet. *Tib.* 57: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nec multo post in senatu Pompeio cuidam equiti R. quiddam perneganti, dum uincula minatur, affirmauit fore **ut ex Pompeio Pompeianus fieret**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **acerba cauillatione** simul hominis nomen incessens ueteremque partium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fortunam*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second word, ***dicacitas***, comes from ***dicax***, which means &quot;quick-witted&quot;, &quot;witty&quot;, and is mainly used to define the *mordaciter dicta* of the rhetors (e.g. Quint. *inst.* 6,3,42 : *in narrando ... Cicero consistere facetias putat, dictationem in iaciendo*), I only found an example of  the sense you mean in Aug. *op. imperf.* 5,15:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *de ferramentis agricolarum ad impraegnandas feminas adhibendis, quae tibi  **festivissima dicacitate** sonare videbantur, cum vanitate ineptissima dicerentur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where Augustine alludes to a coarse pun made by Julianus blaming him for the inappropriate comparison. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - O. Burger, *ThlL* III, 1908, s.v. &quot;*cavillatio*&quot;, coll. 647-648;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A. Gudeman, *ThlL* V 1, 1912, s.v. &quot;*dicacitas*&quot;, col. 957." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2448" RevisionGUID="c76f1d70-870b-4266-9c29-271d3d986f51" CreationDate="2017-01-19T12:51:14.580" UserId="1148" Comment="added 3 characters in body; deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Following Cic. *de orat.* 2,218, I would think about two words describing this particular *verborum lusus* for which you are asking for: *cum duo genera sint facetiarum, alterum aequabiliter in omni sermone fusum, alterum peracutum et breve, illa a veteribus superior **cavillatio,** haec altera **dicacitas** nominata est*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first word, ***cavillatio*** (from *cavilla* [or *cavillum*], which in some cases means &quot;double sense&quot;: Plaut. *Aul.* 638 *aufer cavillam, non ego nunc nugas ago*; Apul. *met.* 1,7 *allubentia proclivis est sermonis et ioci et scitum et cavillum et iam dicacitas tinnula*;  is often referred in the sens of *irrisio, iocus* and, for quote an example, is intended as a &quot;bad joke&quot; addressed to a roman knight by the emperor Tiberius in Suet. *Tib.* 57: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nec multo post in senatu Pompeio cuidam equiti R. quiddam perneganti, dum uincula minatur, affirmauit fore **ut ex Pompeio Pompeianus fieret**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **acerba cauillatione** simul hominis nomen incessens ueteremque partium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fortunam*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second word, ***dicacitas***, comes from ***dicax***, which means &quot;quick-witted&quot;, &quot;witty&quot;, and is mainly used to define the *mordaciter dicta* of the rhetors (e.g. Quint. *inst.* 6,3,42 : *in narrando ... Cicero consistere facetias putat, dictationem in iaciendo*), I only found an example of  the sense you mean in Aug. *op. imperf.* 5,15:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *de ferramentis agricolarum ad impraegnandas feminas adhibendis, quae tibi  **festivissima dicacitate** sonare videbantur, cum vanitate ineptissima dicerentur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where Augustine alludes to a coarse pun made by Julianus blaming him for the inappropriate comparison. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - O. Burger, *ThlL* III, 1908, s.v. &quot;*cavillatio*&quot;, coll. 647-648;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A. Gudeman, *ThlL* V 1, 1912, s.v. &quot;*dicacitas*&quot;, col. 957." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2449" RevisionGUID="77c8bf57-f07f-402f-a444-674252111605" CreationDate="2017-01-19T12:56:16.810" UserId="867" Text="***Frigidus*** can be used to describe any kind of speech that seems flat and lifeless, whether it was an attempt at humour or not.  But here we see it being applied specifically to bad jokes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Haec aut **frigida** sunt, aut tum **salsa**, cum aliud est exspectatum*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; These [jokes] either **fall flat**, or are **funny** only when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; something else was expected.    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cicero, *De Oratore*, 2.64.260&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this quote, Cicero explicitly contrasts *frigidus* with *salsu*s, an adjective often used in a metaphorical sense for funny or witty.  As an example of this, Cicero says elsewhere that he found much that was funny and witty among the Greeks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Inveni autem ridicula et salsa multa Graecorum*  &#xD;&#xA;*De Oratore*, 2.217&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suetonius also uses *frigidus* to describe Claudius’ jokes which are both bad and far-fetched:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ad hilaritatem homines provocaret … immixtis interdum **frigidis** et **arcessitis** iocis*    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; calling the men to merriment … now and then mixing in **bad** and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **far-fetched** jokes    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Lives of the Caesars – Claudius*, 5.21.7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While Quintilian warns the would-be orator to avoid jokes that rely on word-play as they are often bad, even if sometimes acceptable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Fiunt et adiecta et detracta adspiratione et divisis coniunctisque&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbis similiter saepius **frigida**, aliquando tamen recipienda*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similar jokes made by adding or removing an aspirate or dividing and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; joining words are often **bad**, although sometimes acceptable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Orator’s Education*, 6.3.55&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2447" RevisionGUID="e6b560f7-0572-4d73-9ede-cb6d196768de" CreationDate="2017-01-19T13:07:17.473" UserId="79" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="I recently left [an unnecessary comment](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2443/why-idolatria-instead-of-idololatria/2444?noredirect=1#comment6220_2444) because I could not resist telling a bad joke.&#xD;&#xA;That made me wonder: **What would be a good (classical) Latin word for a bad quality joke?**&#xD;&#xA;The joke can be any kind of short joke, wordplay or similar, but it has to be of terrible quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is entirely possible that there is no single word for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;A suggestion or two with an explanation of how they fit the bill would be great.&#xD;&#xA;For those who know Finnish, I am more or less looking for a translation of &quot;puujalkavitsi&quot; (literally &quot;peg leg joke&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;I do not know of a comparable expression in English; I would simply say that a joke or pun is terrible or corny.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for an idiomatic expression for a bad joke, preferably in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(To make this easier to find, let me repeat the key question in Finnish: Miten sanotaan &quot;puujalkavitsi&quot; latinaksi?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2449" RevisionGUID="c27d8a15-f3b9-40d7-8c26-cadc2cfa14d6" CreationDate="2017-01-19T13:11:57.680" UserId="867" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="***Frigidus*** / cold can be used metaphorically to describe any kind of speech that seems flat and lifeless, whether it was an attempt at humour or not.  But here we see it being applied specifically to bad jokes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Haec aut **frigida** sunt, aut tum **salsa**, cum aliud est exspectatum*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; These [jokes] either **fall flat**, or are **funny** only when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; something else was expected.    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cicero, *De Oratore*, 2.64.260&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this quote, Cicero explicitly contrasts *frigidus* with *salsu*s / salty, an adjective often used in a metaphorical sense for funny or witty.  As an example of this, Cicero says elsewhere that he found much that was funny and witty among the Greeks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Inveni autem ridicula et salsa multa Graecorum*  &#xD;&#xA;*De Oratore*, 2.217&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suetonius also uses *frigidus* to describe Claudius’ jokes which are both bad and far-fetched:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ad hilaritatem homines provocaret … immixtis interdum **frigidis** et **arcessitis** iocis*    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; calling the men to merriment … now and then mixing in **bad** and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **far-fetched** jokes    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Lives of the Caesars – Claudius*, 5.21.7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While Quintilian warns the would-be orator to avoid jokes that rely on word-play as they are often bad, even if sometimes acceptable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Fiunt et adiecta et detracta adspiratione et divisis coniunctisque&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbis similiter saepius **frigida**, aliquando tamen recipienda*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similar jokes made by adding or removing an aspirate or dividing and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; joining words are often **bad**, although sometimes acceptable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Orator’s Education*, 6.3.55&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2450" RevisionGUID="323eed6c-761c-4334-9ee6-72c1873d7283" CreationDate="2017-01-19T17:48:35.777" UserId="645" Text="The best answer that I can give is to adapt the notes I made years ago during instruction in prose composition [which I am doing by inserting comments in square brackets].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ADVERBIAL CLAUSES — CAUSAL&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *cum* has a whole list of meanings, as conjunction, preposition and adverb. The form *quum* is often found instead of *cum*, and these two are more or less interchangeable as  causal particles — that is, to introduce causal clauses — both being found throughout classical texts. The form seen is often that preferred by the redactor [which may be an obstacle when a *corpus* is consulted to deduce a trend, or a rule based on frequency].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [A little contrary to what the question says] The verb following *cum* is *normally in the subjunctive* : but there are a few exceptions —  the indicative can be used when the action of the verb is future or present (e.g. after a few 'verbs of emotion' such as *laudo, doleo, gaudeo*). Note that in adverbial clauses that are NOT causal but temporal, introduced by *cum* = 'when', the indicative is legitimately used in various situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [For each of the words in question] **English from Latin** is chosen to suit the style of the translator: *since, as, because, seeing that, for the reason that* etc. For **doing into Latin**, on the other hand, *Quia* and *quod* can, like *cum*, be used to translate any of these and, like *cum*, are used with the subjunctive — with indicative ONLY if the reason is given with certainty:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*advenerunt quod cibum susciperent*  **but**  *advenerunt quod cibo egebant* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Since causal clauses are syntactically adverbial, the introductory particle can refer to a reason shown in the main clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*cibo egebant, idcirco advenerunt quia cibum susciperent*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.To conclude : When used as logical conjunctions, the differences between *cum,* *quod* and *quia* are minimal. The latter is most often used by the subject of the principal clause in expressing an opinion and is therefore considered rather more emphatic : such usage is not obligatory. The differences hardly show in a good, idiomatic translation from Latin to English : such difficulty as occurs lies in the opposite case, of choosing the most suitable word of Latin to suit an English original. Here, too, teasing out the niceties of difference is a somewhat arid pursuit, for there may be many ways of saying the same thing in English on these occasions, just as in Latin : in the end, it comes down to personal style and preference. In that connection we should remember that not only clarity, but also elegance is desirable in a Latin prose that aspires to high quality.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2451" RevisionGUID="66faaa98-f6e0-4d9d-a683-17174041cb95" CreationDate="2017-01-19T22:01:17.080" UserId="1171" Text="Dear members of the latin stackexchange forum,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen the phrase &quot;Dubitando ad veritatem pervenimus.&quot; attributed to Cicero in some websites and books, some of them claiming to find it in *De officiis* (for instance *Diccionario Akal Del Refranero Latino*, by Jesús Cantera Ortiz de Urbina), or in *Tusculanae disputationes* (for instance  http://docplayer.fr/2531153-Dubitando-dubitando-ad-veritatem-pervenimus-cicero-tusculanae-1-30-73-petite-revue-d-histoire-revisionniste.html). However, I searched the online versions of these available on thelatinlibrary.com and could not find the phrase. Moreover, from what I understand from http://tribuletes.blogspot.fr/2011/12/un-parentesis.html it seems not clear wether it really is from Cicero (although I know very little Italian so I may have misunderstood.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: Is there some degree of certainty that Cicero actually said or wrote it? If yes, does someone know in which of his works I could find it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8893" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2451" RevisionGUID="66faaa98-f6e0-4d9d-a683-17174041cb95" CreationDate="2017-01-19T22:01:17.080" UserId="1171" Text="Did Cicero say or write &quot;dubitando ad veritatem pervenimus&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8894" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2451" RevisionGUID="66faaa98-f6e0-4d9d-a683-17174041cb95" CreationDate="2017-01-19T22:01:17.080" UserId="1171" Text="|cicero|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2452" RevisionGUID="40771f5b-c068-4889-a4ac-9d2338123415" CreationDate="2017-01-19T22:19:04.990" UserId="78" Text="[No.](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ver+~+%23dub+~+%23perven) However, it likely is a boiled-down version of Abelard's [saying](http://audiolatinproverbs.blogspot.com/2007/05/dubium-sapientiae-initium.html) in the *Sic et Non*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dubitando quippe ad inquisitionem venimus; inquirendo veritatem percipimus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;By doubting indeed we come to the inquiry; and by inquiring, we perceive the truth.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you'll note from the comments of the above link, you'll see a reference to Cicero Tusc. Disp. 1.30.73. It's not there, but there is a similar sentiment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Loeb translation provided)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Itaque dubitans, circumspectans, haesitans, multa adversa reverens tamquam in rate in mari immenso nostra vehitur oratio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And so doubting, watching, wavering, fearing many an adverse chance, our argument is drive as if on a skiff in a boundless sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a similar sentiment, but it's by no means the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8896" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2451" RevisionGUID="33301f29-18f7-44d0-a769-f4d55180febf" CreationDate="2017-01-19T22:19:49.120" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags" Text="|saying|cicero|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2451" RevisionGUID="f0dac521-a9c9-4f96-8128-8624bed29c51" CreationDate="2017-01-20T03:13:20.513" UserId="79" Comment="Slight reformatting." Text="Dear members of the Latin Stack Exchange forum,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen the phrase &quot;Dubitando ad veritatem pervenimus.&quot; attributed to Cicero in some websites and books, some of them claiming to find it in *De officiis* (for instance *Diccionario Akal Del Refranero Latino*, by Jesús Cantera Ortiz de Urbina), or in *Tusculanae disputationes* (for instance  http://docplayer.fr/2531153-Dubitando-dubitando-ad-veritatem-pervenimus-cicero-tusculanae-1-30-73-petite-revue-d-histoire-revisionniste.html). However, I searched the online versions of these available on thelatinlibrary.com and could not find the phrase. Moreover, from what I understand from http://tribuletes.blogspot.fr/2011/12/un-parentesis.html it seems not clear whether it really is from Cicero (although I know very little Italian so I may have misunderstood.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: Is there some degree of certainty that Cicero actually said or wrote it? If yes, does someone know in which of his works I could find it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2453" RevisionGUID="d1154794-4a3d-42c0-8d8b-d67afb62d2bf" CreationDate="2017-01-20T03:41:52.327" UserId="79" Text="Qua voce Latina tradidi potest vox Anglica &quot;application&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Non de theoria adhibenda ago, sed de programmatis telephonulorum (sive telephonorum mobilium) vel computatrorum.&#xD;&#xA;Nescio an &quot;applicatio&quot;, e quo vox illa Anglica orta est, aptum sit.&#xD;&#xA;Quibus vocibus uteris, si hanc rem Latine describere debes, et quare?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8902" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2453" RevisionGUID="d1154794-4a3d-42c0-8d8b-d67afb62d2bf" CreationDate="2017-01-20T03:41:52.327" UserId="79" Text="Quo modo dicitur &quot;application&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8903" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2453" RevisionGUID="d1154794-4a3d-42c0-8d8b-d67afb62d2bf" CreationDate="2017-01-20T03:41:52.327" UserId="79" Text="|contemporary-latin|word-request|technology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2454" RevisionGUID="d0af5915-afb0-4c43-9561-2efe8a29754e" CreationDate="2017-01-20T05:12:27.633" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt; [ [Etymonline :](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=indulge) ]    [...]   &#xD;&#xA;_refringere_ &quot;to break up,&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;from _re-_ &quot;back&quot; (see [re-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=re-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + comb. form of _frangere_ &quot;to break&quot; (see [fraction](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraction&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/refringo#Latin) : ] **Etymology**    &#xD;&#xA;From [re-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/re-#Latin) +‎ [frangō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/frango#Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. I [break](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/break) up or open&#xD;&#xA;2.  (physics) I [refract](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/refract)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin prefix  « re- » does not mean the preposition (and not particle) 'up' in 'break up':    &#xD;&#xA;so what semantic notions underlie  « re- » with 'up'? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8905" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2454" RevisionGUID="d0af5915-afb0-4c43-9561-2efe8a29754e" CreationDate="2017-01-20T05:12:27.633" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Why was rēfringō prefixed with « re- »?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8906" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2454" RevisionGUID="d0af5915-afb0-4c43-9561-2efe8a29754e" CreationDate="2017-01-20T05:12:27.633" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|affixes|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2453" RevisionGUID="b0d2357c-f4ea-4a56-8222-13b423f0e81e" CreationDate="2017-01-20T05:14:47.570" UserId="79" Comment="Descripsi, cur haec duo rogata dissimilia essent." Text="Qua voce Latina tradidi potest vox Anglica &quot;application&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Non de theoria adhibenda ago, sed de programmatis telephonulorum (sive telephonorum mobilium) vel computatrorum.&#xD;&#xA;Nescio an &quot;applicatio&quot;, e quo vox illa Anglica orta est, aptum sit.&#xD;&#xA;Quibus vocibus uteris, si hanc rem Latine describere debes, et quare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Hoc rogatum](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/196/79) verbum &quot;to program&quot; sive &quot;to code&quot; petit.&#xD;&#xA;Dissimile mihi videtur vocem &quot;application&quot; Latine reddere, quamvis haec res forsitan connexus inter se habent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2455" RevisionGUID="7ef81d65-5e7e-4168-87db-6e840069b63d" CreationDate="2017-01-20T09:26:01.900" UserId="235" Text="In Attic Greek, where is it appropriate to find βλέπω instead of ὁράω, and vice versa? Do the verbs have different connotations, or different shades of meaning? As far as I know, they both mean &quot;to see&quot;, and I'm curious when you would expect to find one instead of the other. Or, when composing Attic Greek, when should you use one instead of the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8909" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2455" RevisionGUID="7ef81d65-5e7e-4168-87db-6e840069b63d" CreationDate="2017-01-20T09:26:01.900" UserId="235" Text="When to use βλέπω versus ὁράω?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8910" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2455" RevisionGUID="7ef81d65-5e7e-4168-87db-6e840069b63d" CreationDate="2017-01-20T09:26:01.900" UserId="235" Text="|vocabulary|greek|word-comparison|word-choice|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2456" RevisionGUID="4d9f5d3d-3ee2-4524-abe2-891c69f85bb1" CreationDate="2017-01-20T13:20:44.297" UserId="1148" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The absolute meaning of βλέπω is &quot;**to see**&quot;, &quot;**have the power of sight**&quot; (opposed to τυφλός εἰμι, cfr. LSJ ad l.): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; S. *OT* 302-303: πόλιν μέν, εἰ καὶ μὴ βλέπεις, φρονεῖς δ' ὅμως / οἵᾳ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; νόσῳ σύνεστιν;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; S. *OC* 73: τίς πρὸς ἀνδρὸς μὴ βλέποντος ἄρκεσις;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ar. *Pl.* 15: οἱ γὰρ βλέποντες τοῖς τυφλοῖς ἡγούμεθα;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a broad sense, βλέπω could also mean &quot;**look**&quot;, &quot;**look to**&quot; or &quot;**look for**&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A. *Pers.* 801-802: ἐς τὰ νῦν πεπραγμένα βλέψαντα;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thuc. 7,71,3: οἱ δ' ἐπὶ τὸ ἡσσώμενον βλέψαντες;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sol. 11,8 εἰς ἔργον οὐδὲν γιγνόμενον βλέπετε (rely on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ὁράω is used either with the abstract meaning of &quot;**see**&quot;, &quot;**look**&quot;, or, more specifically, in a translate sense with the meaning of &quot;**be aware of**&quot; (and, metaphorically, &quot;**discern**&quot;, &quot;**perceive**&quot;, as attests the well-known perfect οἶδα, &quot;I see with the mind's eye, i.e. I know&quot; [cfr. LSJ ad l.]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few examples of these two different meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arist. *Po.* 1460a 14: ὸ μὴ ὁρᾶν εἰς τὸν πράττοντα;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thuc. 2,93,4: ἀκρωτήριον τὸ πρὸς Μέγαρα ὁρῶν;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hom. *Il.* 2,799: ἀλλ' οὔ πω τοιόνδε τοσόνδέ τε λαὸν ὄπωπα;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pl. *R.* 327c: ὁρᾷς οὖν ἡμᾶς, ἔφη, ὅσοι ἐσμέν;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A. *Ag.* 1623: οὐχ ὁρᾷς ὁρῶν τάδε (combining the two meanings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the specifications which concern the general (i.e. not the particular cases) understanding of the two verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2456" RevisionGUID="67a938f8-e42b-4d92-81d2-aa6850879a55" CreationDate="2017-01-20T14:09:20.953" UserId="1148" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;1. The absolute meaning of βλέπω is &quot;**to see**&quot;, &quot;**have the power of sight**&quot; (opposed to τυφλός εἰμι, cfr. LSJ ad l.): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; S. *OT* 302-303: πόλιν μέν, εἰ καὶ μὴ βλέπεις, φρονεῖς δ' ὅμως / οἵᾳ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; νόσῳ σύνεστιν;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; S. *OC* 73: τίς πρὸς ἀνδρὸς μὴ βλέποντος ἄρκεσις;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ar. *Pl.* 15: οἱ γὰρ βλέποντες τοῖς τυφλοῖς ἡγούμεθα;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a broad sense, βλέπω could also mean &quot;**look**&quot;, &quot;**look to**&quot; or &quot;**look for**&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A. *Pers.* 801-802: ἐς τὰ νῦν πεπραγμένα βλέψαντα;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thuc. 7,71,3: οἱ δ' ἐπὶ τὸ ἡσσώμενον βλέψαντες;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sol. 11,8 εἰς ἔργον οὐδὲν γιγνόμενον βλέπετε (rely on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ὁράω is used either with the abstract meaning of &quot;**see**&quot;, &quot;**look**&quot;, or, more specifically, in a translate sense with the meaning of &quot;**be aware of**&quot; (and, metaphorically, &quot;**discern**&quot;, &quot;**perceive**&quot;, as attests the well-known perfect οἶδα, &quot;I see with the mind's eye, i.e. I know&quot; [cfr. LSJ ad l.]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few examples of these two different meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arist. *Po.* 1460a 14: τὸ μὴ ὁρᾶν εἰς τὸν πράττοντα;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thuc. 2,93,4: ἀκρωτήριον τὸ πρὸς Μέγαρα ὁρῶν;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hom. *Il.* 2,799: ἀλλ' οὔ πω τοιόνδε τοσόνδέ τε λαὸν ὄπωπα;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pl. *R.* 327c: ὁρᾷς οὖν ἡμᾶς, ἔφη, ὅσοι ἐσμέν;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A. *Ag.* 1623: οὐχ ὁρᾷς ὁρῶν τάδε (combining the two meanings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the specifications which concern the general (i.e. not the particular cases) understanding of the two verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2457" RevisionGUID="14da2a61-ba99-4c41-b1b7-cb89f9568d9d" CreationDate="2017-01-20T19:38:38.590" UserId="45" Text="As a supplement to the accepted answer, there is actually a passage in which **Cicero expresses a contradictory opinion.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context is that Simonides, who was asked to explain &quot;quale sit deus,&quot; said he would respond in one day. As each day ended, though, he would ask for another day, explaining, &quot;Quanto diutius considero tanto mihi spes videtur obscurior.&quot; Cicero comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed Simoniden arbitror...quia multa venirent in mentem acuta atque subtilia,	**dubitantem** quid eorum esset verissimum **desperasse omnem veritatem**. (Cicero, *De Natura Deorum* 1.60-61)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I believe that Simonides, as his mind considered many deep and subtle possibilities, **despaired of finding any truth because he doubted** which of these things was truest.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2458" RevisionGUID="e8090359-cbd2-43e8-a0c0-c1319587fd11" CreationDate="2017-01-21T01:37:39.707" UserId="79" Text="When I was composing [this question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2453/79) yesterday, I wanted to ask this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which words would you suggest me to use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to do it using *hortari* and an *ut*-clause.&#xD;&#xA;I was looking for a question form of this statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You suggest that I use these words.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Me hortaris, ut his vocibus utar.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to convert this into a question?&#xD;&#xA;I was unable to do so, so I worked around it, but I would still like to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without the suggestion the conversion would be easy: *his vobibus utor* becomes *quibus vocibus utor?* (&quot;which words do I use?&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;But replacing the pronoun *his* with an interrogative sounds awfully fishy if it happens in a subordinate clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Me hortaris, ut quibus vocibus utar?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could break the subordinate clause and bring *quibus* to a position where it sounds like an interrogative pronoun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quibus vocibus me hortaris, ut utar?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not sound perfect either, and it is prone to misinterpretation.&#xD;&#xA;The instrumental ablative *quibus vocibus* is supposed to modify *utar*, not *hortaris*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there examples of questions like this in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps an example of this exact structure does not exist, but hopefully something that would help composing this question by analogy.&#xD;&#xA;If such questions are nowhere to be found, I am prepared to conclude that there is no grammatical way to structure a question from my starting point.&#xD;&#xA;In that case I would like suggestions for asking my question in good classical Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8915" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2458" RevisionGUID="e8090359-cbd2-43e8-a0c0-c1319587fd11" CreationDate="2017-01-21T01:37:39.707" UserId="79" Text="Composing a question with hortari and an ut-clause" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8916" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2458" RevisionGUID="e8090359-cbd2-43e8-a0c0-c1319587fd11" CreationDate="2017-01-21T01:37:39.707" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|syntax|interrogative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2451" RevisionGUID="5c251a41-7aab-418f-b4e1-79b8364e64ea" CreationDate="2017-01-21T01:38:04.300" UserId="75" Comment="Not necessary to include such a salutation in a question." Text="I have seen the phrase &quot;Dubitando ad veritatem pervenimus.&quot; attributed to Cicero in some websites and books, some of them claiming to find it in *De officiis* (for instance *Diccionario Akal Del Refranero Latino*, by Jesús Cantera Ortiz de Urbina), or in *Tusculanae disputationes* (for instance  http://docplayer.fr/2531153-Dubitando-dubitando-ad-veritatem-pervenimus-cicero-tusculanae-1-30-73-petite-revue-d-histoire-revisionniste.html). However, I searched the online versions of these available on thelatinlibrary.com and could not find the phrase. Moreover, from what I understand from http://tribuletes.blogspot.fr/2011/12/un-parentesis.html it seems not clear whether it really is from Cicero (although I know very little Italian so I may have misunderstood.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: Is there some degree of certainty that Cicero actually said or wrote it? If yes, does someone know in which of his works I could find it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8918" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2451" RevisionGUID="5c251a41-7aab-418f-b4e1-79b8364e64ea" CreationDate="2017-01-21T01:38:04.300" Comment="Proposed by 75 approved by 79 edit id of 165" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2459" RevisionGUID="ab6c4e8b-b126-4152-95a7-95a826bd3f6d" CreationDate="2017-01-21T02:46:51.170" UserId="40" Text="I think your last sentence is grammatically correct. The general question is whether it's possible to raise an interrogative out of an *ut* clause, and there are examples of this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid vis ut curem? ([Plautus](https://books.google.com/books?id=4-UNAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA741&amp;lpg=PA741&amp;dq=%22quid+vis+ut%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=U9iKaaOUca&amp;sig=-jcwtCfuxSfqp2nUIL5gxDcnt6M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjF5PyWmdLRAhXnsVQKHXt7B3o4FBDoAQgeMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=%22quid%20vis%20ut%22&amp;f=false))  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid vis ut faciam? ([Vulgate](http://www.biblestudytools.com/vul/2-kings/4-2.html))  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid iubes ut faciam, domina? ([Patrologia Latina](http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/xfromcc.php?tabelle=Ioannes_Italus_cps2&amp;rumpfid=Ioannes_Italus_cps2,%20Vita%20S.%20Odonis,%20%20%20%20p42&amp;id=Ioannes_Italus_cps2,%20Vita%20S.%20Odonis,%20%20%20%20p42,%20%20%20%20%2025&amp;level=99&amp;level9798=&amp;satz=25&amp;hilite_id=Ioannes_Italus_cps2,%20Vita%20S.%20Odonis,%20%20%20%20p42,%20%20%20%20%2025&amp;string=DOMINA&amp;binary=&amp;corpus=2&amp;target=&amp;lang=0&amp;home=&amp;von=suchergebnis&amp;hide_apparatus=1&amp;inframe=1&amp;jumpto=25#25))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably more classical examples could be found, but this is a hard thing to search for. But these examples have the same structure as yours; the difference of case (*quid* vs. *quibus vocibus*) or verb (*hortor* vs. the verbs above) is not likely to be important, I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This of course doesn't necessarily mean that your sentence is the idiomatic way a Latin speaker would have expressed this -- my sense is that some simpler structure would have been preferred, like something along the lines of *Quibus verbis mihi utendum est tua sententia?* -- but it seems to be correct. (The possible ambiguity doesn't seem to me to be a serious issue because taking the ablative with *hortaris* would leave *utar* without an object.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2460" RevisionGUID="22feb45b-2de6-414a-9b04-cd00959fff3c" CreationDate="2017-01-21T19:02:48.343" UserId="645" Text="I would try to find something that a Roman might have used, and think you would get a more satisfying translation by re-phrasing the English to *suggest what words I should use*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Vox* for 'word' is legitimate, but a little too fancy for my taste in this situation; and isn't *hortor*, meaning 'urge strongly', a pretty strong word for 'suggest'? There are examples which suggest that *subiicio* is a more appropriate verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*id quod olim dictum est subiice*    Ter. Phaed. 2, 3, 30&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. . . *Maeandrius quasi ministrator aderat subiciens quid in suos civis civitatemque, si vellem, dicerem.*    Cic.  pro Flacc. 22,53&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest something like *verba subiice quibus utar*, or (more politely/pompously, but something to roll nicely off the tongue!) *subiice quae verba sint mihi utendae*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2460" RevisionGUID="66306bf4-80a3-4c73-9e98-722391904bc0" CreationDate="2017-01-21T19:58:37.370" UserId="645" Comment="removed last e from utendae" Text="I would try to find something that a Roman might have used, and think you would get a more satisfying translation by re-phrasing the English to *suggest what words I should use*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Vox* for 'word' is legitimate, but a little too fancy for my taste in this situation; and isn't *hortor*, meaning 'urge strongly', a pretty strong word for 'suggest'? There are examples which suggest that *subiicio* is a more appropriate verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*id quod olim dictum est subiice*    Ter. Phaed. 2, 3, 30&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. . . *Maeandrius quasi ministrator aderat subiciens quid in suos civis civitatemque, si vellem, dicerem.*    Cic.  pro Flacc. 22,53&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest something like *verba subiice quibus utar*, or (more politely/pompously, but something to roll nicely off the tongue!) *subiice quae verba sint mihi utenda*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2461" RevisionGUID="30e156e3-2eb6-4b70-bb4f-885b813d772e" CreationDate="2017-01-21T22:00:27.713" UserId="40" Text="This is only a partial answer and in need of further substantiation, but I'll post it for what's it's worth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, as to the difference between *quod* and *quia*. Though these are often treated as interchangeable, and both can take either the indicative or the subjunctive depending on whether the reason stated is the writer's or is ascribed to someone else, there may be a difference in usage. [Allen and Greenough 540](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-540.html) state: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Note 1— *Quod* introduces either a fact or a statement, and accordingly takes either the Indicative or the Subjunctive. *Quia* regularly introduces a fact; hence it rarely takes the Subjunctive. *Quoniam*, inasmuch as, since, when now, now that, has reference to motives, excuses, justifications, and the like and takes the Indicative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, it seems that *quia* and *quoniam* rarely express a reason ascribed to someone else, but normally state a reason that the writer vouches for, while *quod* has no such restriction. That said, it would be good to see other corroboration or a more detailed discussion of this difference. Woodcock's *New Latin Syntax* does not, as far as I can find, mention it; I wouldn't be surprised if the *Oxford Latin Syntax* has something to say about the question (the [table of contents](https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA1397&amp;ots=hQomzTl8ay&amp;dq=oxford%20latin%20syntax%20causal%20clauses&amp;pg=PR16#v=snippet&amp;q=reason%20clauses&amp;f=false) suggests it might), but I don't have access to it at the moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to causal *cum* clauses. My comment which prompted your question wasn't meant to suggest that these are clearly distinct from *quod* or *quia* clauses, only that they shouldn't be assumed *a priori* to be synonymous. &quot;Cause&quot; is [a notoriously non-unitary concept](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes), and true synonymy in language is rare. So-called &quot;causal&quot; *cum* clauses are not really a clearly distinguishable subset of subjunctive *cum* clauses generally, which are normally about describing the circumstances under which something happened; thus Woodcock (p. 192): &quot;Both the causal and concessive (adversative) uses of *cum* are really branches of the generic or descriptive use&quot;. The difference between a circumstance with explanatory value and a cause in a stricter or more logical sense is not easy to define, but possibly some such distinction can be drawn between *cum* clauses and *quod/quia* clauses. In terms of English equivalents, a translation like &quot;seeing as&quot; (as opposed to &quot;because&quot;) can express the former and is often suitable for *cum* clauses, less so for *quod/quia* clauses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2462" RevisionGUID="bafb80bd-6b27-4a9a-85a9-ad6ff01c8b53" CreationDate="2017-01-22T05:23:30.327" UserId="79" Text="Some time ago I asked [about the missing imperative of *velle*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2369/79).&#xD;&#xA;The answer indicated an old imperative (or indicative) second person singular form, *vel*, and that this word became a conjunction.&#xD;&#xA;I am familiar with the verb *velle* and conjunction *vel*, but the connection between them is not entirely clear.&#xD;&#xA;(It had never even occurred to me that the two words might be related.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone explain how *velle* gave rise to *vel*?&#xD;&#xA;What benefit is there in viewing *vel* as a verb form?&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if I can formulate a sensible question, but I would like to understand the relation between *velle* and *vel* better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8925" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2462" RevisionGUID="bafb80bd-6b27-4a9a-85a9-ad6ff01c8b53" CreationDate="2017-01-22T05:23:30.327" UserId="79" Text="How did velle give rise to vel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8926" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2462" RevisionGUID="bafb80bd-6b27-4a9a-85a9-ad6ff01c8b53" CreationDate="2017-01-22T05:23:30.327" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|verbs|conjunction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2463" RevisionGUID="4babce35-cfd4-4524-a29b-55da079f453e" CreationDate="2017-01-22T08:24:07.970" UserId="867" Text="**General description of a Greek αυλη:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An *αυλη* could refer to a courtyard in front of the house or a courtyard, open to the sky, within the house, around which rooms were located.  This courtyard was surrounded on all four sides with colonnades, creating a peristyle.  These were used for exercise mainly but occasionally meals were eaten here.  The household altar of Zeus was also located in the *αυλη*. &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;**General description of a Roman atrium:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Roman *atrium* was the first main room into which guests entered from the front door.  In early Roman houses, the *atrium* was the only room.  As wealth increased, so did the number of rooms, all of which led off the *atrium* but the *atrium* remained the most important room.  It was open to the sky, allowing rainwater to collect in the *impluvium*.  The household gods, the *Lares*, were kept here, as were the wax portraits of family ancestors, and the *lectus genialis*.  Its main and most important function was to receive clients and guests.  As such, *atria* could be very elaborate and were an important part of displaying and maintaining status.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;**Similarities between a Greek αυλη and a Roman atrium:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Open to the sky.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   Rooms were located off this centralised space.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   Religious icons were kept here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Differences between a Greek αυλη and a Roman atrium:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *αυλη* seems to have always been a courtyard at heart, that is to say, an outdoor area.  In contrast, the *atrium* was always a room (in early houses, the only room). &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The *αυλη* was surrounded on four sides with colonnades creating a peristyle or cloister which was used for exercise.  Indeed, Vitruvius appears to use *aula* and *peristylium* synonymously (6.7.4).  The *[Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities][1]* similarly notes that *αυλη* was “also used by later writers as equivalent to *περιστύλιον*”, citing Pollux (who wrote in 2nd cent. AD).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, Vitruvius distinguishes between *peristylium* and *atrium* in the Roman house (6.5.2 – see below).  For Vitruvius, therefore, neither *αυλη* nor *aula* are the same as *atrium*.  The *atrium* had columns, no doubt to support the roof, but I have found no evidence that they were employed to create a colonnade nor that the *atrium* was used for exercise.  Rather, the *atrium* appears to be a much more enclosed space than the *αυλη*.  I’m not sure just how open to the sky each space was.  It seems that the *αυλη* was entirely open while the atrium had *an* opening, the *compluvium*, to allow rainwater to run into the *impluvium*. &#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;The *atrium* was first and foremost a room for receiving clients/guests.  A crowded *atrium* signified great social and political success (*frequens atrium* – Seneca, *Epistles*, 76.12); an empty one, failure (*atrium vacuum* – Seneca, *Epistles*, 22.9).  I have not come across *aula* (in Latin) being used in this way, to denote a room in which one’s social status hangs in the balance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vitruvius goes so far as to say that those in the lower classes do not need an *atrium* since they don’t receive clients (but rather are clients) (6.5.1).  On the other hand, those of the highest rank have need of lofty *atria*:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *faciunda sunt vestibula regalia, alta atria et peristylia amplissima*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6.5.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note again Vitruvius’ distinction between *atrium* and *peristylium*, the latter of which he sees as synonymous with *aula*.  Later, he clarifies that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *hospites advenientes **non** in peristylia sed in ea hospitalia&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recipiantur* / arriving guests are **not** received in the peristylia but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the guest accommodation (6.7.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the **function** of the *aula* and the *atrium* are not at all the same.  In very early Greek houses, the *αυλη* was a courtyard you would pass through on your way to the *δωμα* or *μεγαρον*, the great hall.  This reinforces the idea that the *αυλη* was not the main reception room in the Greek house ([see this diagram of Odysseus' palace][2]).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Vitruvius wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *atriis graeci quia non utuntur, neque aedificiant …* / not using atria,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Greeks do not build like us … (6.7.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;**But how did the Romans use the (Latin) terms aula and atrium?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By far the most common use of *aula* in Latin is to mean court, as in the sense of a ruler’s entourage and household, or simply a palace.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, the Romans did sometimes use *aula* to mean a forecourt, usually where animals were kept, for instance a barking dog in Horace (*Epistles*, 1.2.66) and sheep in Propertius (3.13.39).  Thus, this use equates with one Greek sense of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, it is hard to be 100% certain that *aula* was used synonymously with *atrium*.  As noted above, Vitruvius doesn’t use *aula* and *atrium* interchangeably as he clearly sees the two terms as describing two quite different spaces, different in form and function.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Horace’s use of *aula* (in *Epistles*, 1.1.87) is clearly being used as a synonym with *atrium*.  I say this because of the reference to the *lectus genialis*, the marriage bed which was kept in the *atrium* (unoccupied!), opposite the front door ([lectus][3]).&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Another possible synonymous use of *aula* with *atrium* is in Juvenal (*Satires*, 1.5) where he advises someone not to have children lest they divert his attentions from his patron:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nullus tibi parvulus aula luserit Aeneas* / don’t have a little Aeneas&#xD;&#xA;&gt; playing in the *aula*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[which is actually a reference to Dido’s lament:&#xD;&#xA;*si quis mihi parvulus aula luderet Aeneas* /&#xD;&#xA;if in my *aula* a baby Aeneas were playing (*Aeneid*, 4:328)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Juvenal (and Dido) may mean the *atrium* or the *aula* proper, a peristyle or they could just as easily mean the forecourt.  The problem is that, when translating, you could equally insert hall/atrium/courtyard and still make perfect sense without ever knowing for sure what the original intention was. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Having said that, it seems to me that when it is important to the understanding of the sentence, *atrium* is used.  For example, the biting remarks of Seneca about the gap between appearances and reality relies on the reader understanding that he is talking about the atrium and its function as a marker of status:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *non facit nobilem atrium plenum fumosis imaginibus* / an atrium full of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; busts grimy with smoke do not make a nobleman (*Epistles* 44.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Or again in Juvenal: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tota licet veteres exornent undique cerae atria, nobilitas sola est&#xD;&#xA;&gt; atque unica virtus* / you may decorate your entire atrium everywhere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with ancient wax portraits but the one and only nobility is excellence&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of character (*Satires*, 8.19).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in Horace: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *cur invidendis postibus et novo sublime ritu moliar atrium?* / why&#xD;&#xA;&gt; should I go to all the effort to build envy-inducing doorposts and a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; towering atrium? (*Odes*, 3.1.45-46)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don’t think that in any of these examples the full force of the author’s point would be felt if they had used *aula*.  This is, in my opinion, because the perceived **functions** of the *aula/αυλη* and the *atrium* were different even if over time all three terms came to suggest the **form** of a central hall-like space.  Only the distinctly Roman atrium and its peculiarly Roman function as reception room could be used here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0063%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DD%3Aentry%3Ddomus-cn&amp;force=y&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/image?img=Perseus:image:1999.04.0063.fig10658&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0063%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DL%3Aentry%20group%3D1%3Aentry%3Dlectus-cn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2463" RevisionGUID="2d9a5e25-3f23-47ce-8a70-15078088d4e9" CreationDate="2017-01-22T08:29:20.133" UserId="867" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="**General description of a Greek αυλη:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An *αυλη* could refer to a courtyard in front of the house or a courtyard, open to the sky, within the house, around which rooms were located.  This courtyard was surrounded on all four sides with colonnades, creating a peristyle.  These were used for exercise mainly but occasionally meals were eaten here.  The household altar of Zeus was also located in the *αυλη*. &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;**General description of a Roman atrium:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Roman *atrium* was the first main room into which guests entered from the front door.  In early Roman houses, the *atrium* was the only room.  As wealth increased, so did the number of rooms, all of which led off the *atrium* but the *atrium* remained the most important room.  It was open to the sky, allowing rainwater to collect in the *impluvium*.  The household gods, the *Lares*, were kept here, as were the wax portraits of family ancestors, and the *lectus genialis*.  Its main and most important function was to receive clients and guests.  As such, *atria* could be very elaborate and were an important part of displaying and maintaining status.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;**Similarities between a Greek αυλη and a Roman atrium:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Open to the sky.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   Rooms were located off this centralised space.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   Religious icons were kept here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Differences between a Greek αυλη and a Roman atrium:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *αυλη* seems to have always been a courtyard at heart, that is to say, an outdoor area.  In contrast, the *atrium* was always a room (in early houses, the only room). &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The *αυλη* was surrounded on four sides with colonnades creating a peristyle or cloister which was used for exercise.  Indeed, Vitruvius appears to use *aula* and *peristylium* synonymously (6.7.4).  The *[Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities][1]* similarly notes that *αυλη* was “also used by later writers as equivalent to *περιστύλιον*”, citing Pollux (who wrote in 2nd cent. AD).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, Vitruvius distinguishes between *peristylium* and *atrium* in the Roman house (6.5.2 – see below).  For Vitruvius, therefore, neither *αυλη* nor *aula* are the same as *atrium*.  The *atrium* had columns, no doubt to support the roof, but I have found no evidence that they were employed to create a colonnade nor that the *atrium* was used for exercise.  Rather, the *atrium* appears to be a much more enclosed space than the *αυλη*.  I’m not sure just how open to the sky each space was.  It seems that the *αυλη* was entirely open while the atrium had *an* opening, the *compluvium*, to allow rainwater to run into the *impluvium*. &#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;The *atrium* was first and foremost a room for receiving clients/guests.  A crowded *atrium* signified great social and political success (*frequens atrium* – Seneca, *Epistles*, 76.12); an empty one, failure (*atrium vacuum* – Seneca, *Epistles*, 22.9).  I have not come across *aula* (in Latin) being used in this way, to denote a room in which one’s social status hangs in the balance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vitruvius goes so far as to say that those in the lower classes do not need an *atrium* since they don’t receive clients (but rather are clients) (6.5.1).  On the other hand, those of the highest rank have need of lofty *atria*:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *faciunda sunt vestibula regalia, alta atria et peristylia amplissima*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6.5.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note again Vitruvius’ distinction between *atrium* and *peristylium*, the latter of which he sees as synonymous with *aula*.  Later, he clarifies that in the Greek house:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *hospites advenientes **non** in peristylia sed in ea hospitalia&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recipiantur* / arriving guests are **not** received in the peristylia but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the guest accommodation (6.7.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the **function** of the *aula* and the *atrium* are not at all the same.  In very early Greek houses, the *αυλη* was a courtyard you would pass through on your way to the *δωμα* or *μεγαρον*, the great hall.  This reinforces the idea that the *αυλη* was not the main reception room in the Greek house ([see this diagram of Odysseus' palace][2]).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Vitruvius wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *atriis graeci quia non utuntur, neque aedificiant …* / not using atria,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Greeks do not build like us … (6.7.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;**But how did the Romans use the (Latin) terms aula and atrium?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By far the most common use of *aula* in Latin is to mean court, as in the sense of a ruler’s entourage and household, or simply a palace.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, the Romans did sometimes use *aula* to mean a forecourt, usually where animals were kept, for instance a barking dog in Horace (*Epistles*, 1.2.66) and sheep in Propertius (3.13.39).  Thus, this use equates with one Greek sense of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, it is hard to be 100% certain that *aula* was used synonymously with *atrium*.  As noted above, Vitruvius doesn’t use *aula* and *atrium* interchangeably as he clearly sees the two terms as describing two quite different spaces, different in form and function.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Horace’s use of *aula* (in *Epistles*, 1.1.87) is clearly being used as a synonym with *atrium*.  I say this because of the reference to the *lectus genialis*, the marriage bed which was kept in the *atrium* (unoccupied!), opposite the front door ([lectus][3]).&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Another possible synonymous use of *aula* with *atrium* is in Juvenal (*Satires*, 1.5) where he advises someone not to have children lest they divert his attentions from his patron:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nullus tibi parvulus aula luserit Aeneas* / don’t have a little Aeneas&#xD;&#xA;&gt; playing in the *aula*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[which is actually a reference to Dido’s lament:&#xD;&#xA;*si quis mihi parvulus aula luderet Aeneas* /&#xD;&#xA;if in my *aula* a baby Aeneas were playing (*Aeneid*, 4:328)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Juvenal (and Dido) may mean the *atrium* or the *aula* proper, a peristyle or they could just as easily mean the forecourt.  The problem is that, when translating, you could equally insert hall/atrium/courtyard and still make perfect sense without ever knowing for sure what the original intention was. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Having said that, it seems to me that when it is important to the understanding of the sentence, *atrium* is used.  For example, the biting remarks of Seneca about the gap between appearances and reality relies on the reader understanding that he is talking about the atrium and its function as a marker of status:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *non facit nobilem atrium plenum fumosis imaginibus* / an atrium full of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; busts grimy with smoke do not make a nobleman (*Epistles* 44.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Or again in Juvenal: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tota licet veteres exornent undique cerae atria, nobilitas sola est&#xD;&#xA;&gt; atque unica virtus* / you may decorate your entire atrium everywhere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with ancient wax portraits but the one and only nobility is excellence&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of character (*Satires*, 8.19).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in Horace: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *cur invidendis postibus et novo sublime ritu moliar atrium?* / why&#xD;&#xA;&gt; should I go to all the effort to build envy-inducing doorposts and a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; towering atrium? (*Odes*, 3.1.45-46)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don’t think that in any of these examples the full force of the author’s point would be felt if they had used *aula*.  This is, in my opinion, because the perceived **functions** of the *aula/αυλη* and the *atrium* were different even if over time all three terms came to suggest the **form** of a central hall-like space.  Only the distinctly Roman atrium and its peculiarly Roman function as reception room could be used here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0063%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DD%3Aentry%3Ddomus-cn&amp;force=y&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/image?img=Perseus:image:1999.04.0063.fig10658&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0063%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DL%3Aentry%20group%3D1%3Aentry%3Dlectus-cn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2464" RevisionGUID="5050942c-5b79-451d-8eea-1ceeed34203d" CreationDate="2017-01-22T17:03:41.927" UserId="1148" Text="The interpretation of the origin of *vel* from a second person indicative of *volo* is proved by the comparison with the Umbrian heris - heris,  2. pers. from *herio = *volo* (Hofmann – Szantyr p. 501). You can compare even the new Greek θέλεις - θέλεις, which has the same meaning of *volo* and in that case could be translated with &quot;either - or&quot; (Thumb, p. 173). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The origin from an old imperative of *volo* is formally and semantically impossible (Jacobsohn, p. 344), and the form &quot;vel&quot; could derive from *vell &lt; *vels due to proclisis (Jacobsohn, p. 348). For other hypothesis, see Walde – Hoffmann p. 743.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The semantic development started from an **interrogative** form&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;do you want?&quot; &quot;if you want&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plaut. *Aul.* 452: *etiam intro duce, si vis, vel gregem venalium*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic. *Planc.* 79: *agitur studium tuum vel&#xD;&#xA;etiam, si vis, existimatio, laus aedilitatis*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic. *Tusc.* 3,18: *qui sit frugi igitur vel, si mavis, moderatus et temperans*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Catull. 55,21: *vel, si vis, licet obseres palatum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then it became gradually widespread into the **disjunctive** form (&quot;or if you want&quot;, &quot;if you prefer&quot;): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plaut. *Pseud.* 31: *lege vel tabellas redde*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plaut. *Poen.* 1382: *utrum vis est, vel leno vel Lycus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bibliography:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;J.B. Hofmann – A. Szantyr, *Lateinische Syntax und Stylistik*, München 1972.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;H. Jacobsohn, *Got. Ōgs, Lat. Vel*, &quot;KZ&quot; 45, 1913, pp. 342-348.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. Thumb, *Handbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprache*, Straßburg 1910.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. Walde – J.B. Hoffmann, *Lateinisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch*, II, Heidelberg, 1954.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2465" RevisionGUID="1e6d082b-400d-4e13-be5d-cee5b5595faa" CreationDate="2017-01-22T23:19:59.663" UserId="118" Text="How would you translate &quot;alternative facts&quot; into Latin, in the sense used infamously today by Kellyanne Conway?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first thought is _res ad libitum_ but that too strongly suggests making up facts willy-nilly to support one's desired conclusion. Of course, that _is_ Conway's meaning, but the subtlety is putting that meaning one obvious step away from the literal meaning. A good translation should literally mean &quot;other possible personal choices of what is real&quot;. It should not make sense, but superficially it should appear to make sense, but not in a way that would fool anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand _alternatus,_ it won't work because it means only choosing from or jumping between two or a small number of alternatives (like &quot;alternate&quot; in English)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8932" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2465" RevisionGUID="1e6d082b-400d-4e13-be5d-cee5b5595faa" CreationDate="2017-01-22T23:19:59.663" UserId="118" Text="Quomodo in Latinum vertitur &quot;alternative facts&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8933" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2465" RevisionGUID="1e6d082b-400d-4e13-be5d-cee5b5595faa" CreationDate="2017-01-22T23:19:59.663" UserId="118" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|rhetoric|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2466" RevisionGUID="dddbb328-7c01-4f80-a756-859d1885c68a" CreationDate="2017-01-23T02:24:11.227" UserId="79" Text="Before a consonant on can use either version of the prepositions *e/ex*.&#xD;&#xA;Both seem to appear in prefixes as well, but *ex-* is often assimilated.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that, for example, words beginning with F take *ex-*: *efficere*, *efferre*, *effundere*&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, words beginning with L take *e-*: *eligere*, *elevare*, *eloqui*&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;My examples are verbs, but the pattern does not seem to be restricted to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This little observation suggests that some consonants (like L) require the prefix *e-* while others (like F) require *ex-*.&#xD;&#xA;Which ones take *e-* and which ones *ex-*?&#xD;&#xA;Are there perhaps consonants that can take either one?&#xD;&#xA;Is there an easy way to memorize or understand the division to two consonant types?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8935" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2466" RevisionGUID="dddbb328-7c01-4f80-a756-859d1885c68a" CreationDate="2017-01-23T02:24:11.227" UserId="79" Text="Choosing between the prefixes e- and ex-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8936" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2466" RevisionGUID="dddbb328-7c01-4f80-a756-859d1885c68a" CreationDate="2017-01-23T02:24:11.227" UserId="79" Text="|grammar-choice|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2464" RevisionGUID="74bc95ea-881f-4018-825d-8887bbba36f6" CreationDate="2017-01-23T09:50:33.790" UserId="1148" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="The interpretation of the origin of *vel* from a second person indicative of *volo* is proved by the comparison with the Umbrian &quot;heris - heris&quot;,  2. pers. from *herio = *volo* (Hofmann – Szantyr p. 501). You can compare even the modern Greek &quot;θέλεις - θέλεις&quot; or the Italian &quot;vuoi - vuoi&quot;, which have the same meaning of the second person indicative of *volo* and in that case could be translated with &quot;either - or&quot; (Thumb, p. 173). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The origin from an old imperative of *volo* is formally and semantically impossible (Jacobsohn, p. 344), and it is more likely that the form &quot;vel&quot; derives from *vell &lt; *vels due to proclisis (Jacobsohn, p. 348). For other hypothesis, see Walde – Hoffmann p. 743.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The semantic development started from an **interrogative** form&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;do you want?&quot; &quot;if you want&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plaut. *Aul.* 452: *etiam intro duce, si vis, vel gregem venalium*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic. *Planc.* 79: *agitur studium tuum vel&#xD;&#xA;etiam, si vis, existimatio, laus aedilitatis*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic. *Tusc.* 3,18: *qui sit frugi igitur vel, si mavis, moderatus et temperans*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Catull. 55,21: *vel, si vis, licet obseres palatum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then it became gradually widespread into the **disjunctive** form (&quot;or if you want&quot;, &quot;if you prefer&quot;): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plaut. *Pseud.* 31: *lege vel tabellas redde*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plaut. *Poen.* 1382: *utrum vis est, vel leno vel Lycus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His connection with *volo* is thus expressed by the possibility of choice between the two terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bibliography:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;J.B. Hofmann – A. Szantyr, *Lateinische Syntax und Stylistik*, München 1972.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;H. Jacobsohn, *Got. Ōgs, Lat. Vel*, &quot;KZ&quot; 45, 1913, pp. 342-348.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. Thumb, *Handbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprache*, Straßburg 1910.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. Walde – J.B. Hoffmann, *Lateinisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch*, II, Heidelberg, 1954.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2460" RevisionGUID="254f87b8-4543-4832-bf95-6a8eeec5a198" CreationDate="2017-01-23T11:14:58.820" UserId="645" Comment="edited in response to comments" Text="I would try to find something that a Roman might have used, and think you would get a more satisfying translation by re-phrasing the English to *suggest what words I should use*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Vox* for 'word' is legitimate, but a little too fancy for my taste in this situation; and isn't *hortor*, meaning 'urge strongly', a pretty strong word for 'suggest'? There are examples which suggest that *subiicio* is a more appropriate verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*id quod olim dictum est subiice*    Ter. Phaed. 2, 3, 30&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. . . *Maeandrius quasi ministrator aderat subiciens quid in suos civis civitatemque, si vellem, dicerem.*    Cic.  pro Flacc. 22,53&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest something like *verba subiice quibus utar*, or (more politely/pompously, but something to roll nicely off the tongue!) *subiice quae verba sint mihi utenda*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In response to objections in comments** on the second of these suggestions : it is true that the verb *utor* is intransitive and cannot be passivized, but it is also a fact that the gerundive is already passive. In the second suggestion, *utendam* is a gerundive, purely adjectival, passive in meaning, 'fit to be used'. Here it is predicatively used as a a verbal adjective, formed from the verb *utor*, certainly, but having no verbal function it can be used without the ablative case. In fact all intransitive verbs that take an ablative are deponent, but their gerundives are used as if the verb were transitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two examples from Plautus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*filiam utendam mihi da. /Numquam edepol cuiquam utendam dedi.* Persa 1, 3  ( l.127)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*nam ego quidem meos oculos habeo nec rogo utendos foris*  Mil. 2, 3    (l.347)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and one (using *fruor*) from Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*etiam apud maiores nostros iustitiae fruendae causa videntur* . . .    Off. 2, 41&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2467" RevisionGUID="ecc1de42-a885-4599-9c8a-0d25df7648c5" CreationDate="2017-01-23T23:34:10.760" UserId="79" Text="I suggest ***veritas varia***.&#xD;&#xA;This is perhaps not a perfect match to the English phrase, but I see some good sides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It sounds nice. The alliteration makes it sound as if the two words belonged together.&#xD;&#xA;- *Veritas* is a reasonably good translation for &quot;facts&quot; or &quot;truth&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- *Varia* describes something that changes. The facts are not additional &amp;mdash; it is not a question of learning more. The truth may vary from time to time or from person to person.&#xD;&#xA;- It sounds sensible and innocent at first glance, but it quickly reveals its true meaning, especially in proper context. It does not directly comment whether the facts are correct. I believe this was a key goal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest difference to the English phrase in my opinion is that *varia* does not have the flavor of choice &quot;alternative&quot; does.&#xD;&#xA;The facts just happen to be different for different people (and in different situations), not necessarily because people have chosen different facts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2468" RevisionGUID="6069e027-9a55-4bc6-b5fa-7c5be19f8b7c" CreationDate="2017-01-23T23:35:43.903" UserId="406" Text="I was recently linked to [this post on False Cognates][1], discussing different verb classes in Latin, Greek, and Germanic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One part caught my eye:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin verbs of all conjugations are borrowed easily (in several different ways, as I shall describe) but Greek verbs aren’t even borrowed into Latin unless they contain the suffix -ίζω. I have not yet found a counterexample to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had never really thought about this before, but I can't think of any Greek→Latin or Greek→English borrowings without -ίζω either. Given how productive -ίζω's descendants are in English, and how often Greek noun and adjective roots were borrowed for science and medicine, I would have expected other Greek verbs to show up as well. But not a single one comes to mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any attested instances of Ancient Greek verbs without -ίζω being borrowed into either Latin or English? If not, are there any sources (Ancient or Modern) discussing this lack in greater detail?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(NB: I'm interested in verbs borrowed *as verbs*, without noun-forming suffixes added. For instance &quot;miasma&quot; is derived from the Greek verb *μιαίνω*, but only exists in English and Latin as a noun: there is no verb *_miaenāre_ or *&quot;mienate&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://false-cognates.tumblr.com/post/134966926998/when-a-pie-verb-becomes-proto-germanic-what" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8944" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2468" RevisionGUID="6069e027-9a55-4bc6-b5fa-7c5be19f8b7c" CreationDate="2017-01-23T23:35:43.903" UserId="406" Text="Borrowing Greek verbs without -ίζω" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8945" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2468" RevisionGUID="6069e027-9a55-4bc6-b5fa-7c5be19f8b7c" CreationDate="2017-01-23T23:35:43.903" UserId="406" Text="|etymology|greek|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2465" RevisionGUID="1e23d111-80b4-4e11-a9a9-3b01ef3da5c1" CreationDate="2017-01-23T23:43:41.893" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="How would you translate &quot;alternative facts&quot; into Latin, in the sense used infamously today by Kellyanne Conway?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first thought is _res ad libitum_ but that too strongly suggests making up facts willy-nilly to support one's desired conclusion. Of course, that _is_ Conway's meaning, but the subtlety is putting that meaning one obvious step away from the literal meaning. A good translation should literally mean &quot;other possible personal choices of what is real&quot;. It should not make sense, but superficially it should appear to make sense, but not in a way that would fool anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand _alternatus,_ it won't work because it means only choosing from or jumping between two or a small number of alternatives (like &quot;alternate&quot; in English).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8947" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2465" RevisionGUID="1e23d111-80b4-4e11-a9a9-3b01ef3da5c1" CreationDate="2017-01-23T23:43:41.893" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|english-to-latin-translation|phrase-request|rhetoric|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2469" RevisionGUID="315902b2-3fa4-45fb-b504-13707c693dcc" CreationDate="2017-01-24T02:29:52.250" UserId="985" Text="Two common ways of saying 'fact' are _res ipsa_ and _res vera_, and _Lewis &amp; Short_ tells me that the opposite of _res vera_ is _res ficta_. So, for the plural 'alternative facts,' I suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ _res aliae atque ipsae_ ('things other than/different from facts themselves'), which allows for some nice elisions – it somehow seems appropriate that things would be hidden or obscured in the term&#xD;&#xA;+ _res aliae quam verae_ ('things other than/different from true facts')&#xD;&#xA;+ _res nec verae nec fictae_ ('things neither true facts nor lies')&#xD;&#xA;+ _res [verae/ipsae] alterae_ ('a second set of facts')&#xD;&#xA;+ On the model of _ambiguam...Salamina_ in Horace _Odes_ I.7.29, where _L&amp;S_ notes that _ambiguam_ = _alteram_ ('a second Salamis [such as would cause uncertainty/confusion in those who look at a map or hear the city mentioned]'), _res [verae/ipsae] ambiguae_ ('a second set of facts [such as would cause uncertainty/confusion in those who look at the video/photographic/etc. evidence]')" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8950" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="1265" RevisionGUID="17a361af-5024-47ac-a2c9-89d0ff6e3f88" CreationDate="2017-01-24T03:31:44.747" UserId="79" Comment="16" />
  <row Id="8951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2470" RevisionGUID="cddb7480-f0cd-4618-918b-99b59dfdc02f" CreationDate="2017-01-24T05:21:21.563" UserId="79" Text="Suppose that my friend asks me if I want to see a movie, and that I have no strong opinion.&#xD;&#xA;I do not particularly want to go, but I do not not want to go, either.&#xD;&#xA;I am not trying to please my friend by letting him decide; I just have no opinion on whether to go or not.&#xD;&#xA;How can I express such a lack of opinion or desire in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not looking for anything too elaborate, but just a simple response like &quot;either way&quot; or &quot;whatever&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It does not have to be as simple as my examples, but something that would feel fluent in everyday speech.&#xD;&#xA;(These English phrases may not be a perfect fit, but that is beside the point.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might say something like *nec volo nec nolo* or pehraps *quidquid vis*.&#xD;&#xA;These should be understandable, but I would like to know if there are good idioms for this purpose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8952" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2470" RevisionGUID="cddb7480-f0cd-4618-918b-99b59dfdc02f" CreationDate="2017-01-24T05:21:21.563" UserId="79" Text="Expressing lack of opinion of a binary question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8953" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2470" RevisionGUID="cddb7480-f0cd-4618-918b-99b59dfdc02f" CreationDate="2017-01-24T05:21:21.563" UserId="79" Text="|phrase-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2464" RevisionGUID="b4e2f252-e0ea-402c-a276-5059503a3795" CreationDate="2017-01-24T08:31:37.253" UserId="1148" Comment="edited body" Text="The interpretation of the origin of *vel* from a second person indicative of *volo* is proved by the comparison with the Umbrian &quot;heris - heris&quot;,  2. pers. from *herio = *volo* (Hofmann – Szantyr p. 501). You can compare even the modern Greek &quot;θέλεις - θέλεις&quot; or the Italian &quot;vuoi - vuoi&quot;, which have the same meaning of the second person indicative of *volo* and in that case could be translated with &quot;either - or&quot; (Thumb, p. 173). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The origin from an old imperative of *volo* is formally and semantically impossible (Jacobsohn, p. 344), and it is more likely that the form &quot;vel&quot; derives from *vell &lt; *vels due to proclisis (Jacobsohn, p. 348). For other hypothesis, see Walde – Hoffmann p. 743.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The semantic development started from an **interrogative** form&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;do you want?&quot; &quot;if you want&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plaut. *Aul.* 452: *etiam intro duce, si vis, vel gregem venalium*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic. *Planc.* 79: *agitur studium tuum vel&#xD;&#xA;etiam, si vis, existimatio, laus aedilitatis*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic. *Tusc.* 3,18: *qui sit frugi igitur vel, si mavis, moderatus et temperans*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Catull. 55,21: *vel, si vis, licet obseres palatum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then it became gradually widespread into the **disjunctive** form (&quot;or if you want&quot;, &quot;if you prefer&quot;): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plaut. *Pseud.* 31: *lege vel tabellas redde*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plaut. *Poen.* 1382: *utrum vis est, vel leno vel Lycus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His connection with *volo* is thus expressed by the possibility of choice between the two terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bibliography:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;J.B. Hofmann – A. Szantyr, *Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik*, München 1972.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;H. Jacobsohn, *Got. Ōgs, Lat. Vel*, &quot;KZ&quot; 45, 1913, pp. 342-348.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. Thumb, *Handbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprache*, Straßburg 1910.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. Walde – J.B. Hoffmann, *Lateinisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch*, II, Heidelberg, 1954.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2471" RevisionGUID="0b79fd23-50bf-466b-aebc-df47aac8e2d1" CreationDate="2017-01-24T18:57:42.810" UserId="45" Text="Since your question requests verbs not in -izo brought into *either* Latin or English, my question will focus on the former. My brute force approach was to search for verbs in the Perseus dictionary which contain Greek giveaway letters (e.g. y, ch, and th) and then to use common sense to filter them. I have tried to limit myself to verbs with classical examples (excluding, for example, *syncopo* and *lyo*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (de/per-)bacchor: to celebrate the festival of Bacchus&#xD;&#xA;* chălo: to slacken, let down&#xD;&#xA;* contechnor: to devise plots, contrive tricks&#xD;&#xA;* eunūcho: to make a eunuch of, to unman&#xD;&#xA;* (re-)gȳro: to turn round in a circle, wheel round&#xD;&#xA;* lympho: I. To water, dilute with water, II. To drive out of one's senses, to distract with fear, to make mad&#xD;&#xA;* māchĭnor: to contrive skilfully, to devise, design, frame, invent&#xD;&#xA;* moechor: to commit adultery&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of two English verbs formed from the supine stem of Latin verbs in the above list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* machinate&#xD;&#xA;* gyrate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am still not entirely sure that I understand the OP's criteria: please clarify in the comments if any or all of these don't qualify." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2472" RevisionGUID="2e385d66-557b-45c3-8001-d9496db95508" CreationDate="2017-01-25T01:39:58.300" UserId="235" Text="In the sentence, 'Honor your old teacher', should the noun be definite or indefinite? I'm tempted to say definite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τίμᾱ τὸν παλαίον διδάσκαλον σου.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the one doubt I have is that there is no definite article 'the' in the English. I think this reveals that I have a less-than-perfect understanding of definite and indefinite nouns. Would 'your old teacher' be definite, because the noun is referring to a specific person? Is it more a matter of specificity, than whether the article 'the' is used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8957" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2472" RevisionGUID="2e385d66-557b-45c3-8001-d9496db95508" CreationDate="2017-01-25T01:39:58.300" UserId="235" Text="In the sentence, 'Honor your old teacher', should the noun be definite or indefinite? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8958" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2472" RevisionGUID="2e385d66-557b-45c3-8001-d9496db95508" CreationDate="2017-01-25T01:39:58.300" UserId="235" Text="|greek|articles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2473" RevisionGUID="1e20cd5e-f373-4c38-8a54-b10ab3167db2" CreationDate="2017-01-25T02:19:02.397" UserId="406" Text="##I would say, definite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek uses definite articles somewhat differently than English does. In English, the definite article is used before a definite noun, **unless** the noun is proper or modified by a pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;the tent&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;my tent&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;that tent&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Socrates&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek, the definite article is used before definite nouns, **even if** the noun is proper or modified by a pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ἡ σκηνή&#xD;&#xA; - **ἡ ἐμή** σκηνή&#xD;&#xA; - **ἐκείνη ἡ** σκηνή&#xD;&#xA; - **ὁ** Σοκράτης&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your situation, it sounds like there's one particular teacher who deserves to be honored: you're not just honoring every teacher you happen across. This is a perfect place to use the definite article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek definite article can also function as a non-emphatic possessive. So *ἡ σκηνή* could also mean **his** tent, or **your** tent, or **their** tent, and so on. So in your example you could get away without using a possessive pronoun: *ὁ παλαίος διδάσκαλος* in this context would clearly refer to **your** teacher, rather than someone else's. But adding *σός* puts considerably more emphasis on that fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're interested, [this page][1] provides more information on the semantics of the definite article. It's a very interesting and complicated topic; many papers have been written about the connotations of *θεός* versus *ὁ θεός* in John 1:1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://inthesaltshaker.com/drills/article.htm#SemFunc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2473" RevisionGUID="810509f9-88c4-4293-b956-28c08324af28" CreationDate="2017-01-25T04:10:36.557" UserId="406" Comment="added 345 characters in body" Text="##I would say, definite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek uses definite articles somewhat differently than English does. In English, the definite article is used before a definite noun, **unless** the noun is proper or modified by a pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;the tent&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;my tent&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;that tent&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Socrates&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek, the definite article is used before definite nouns, **even if** the noun is proper or modified by a pronoun, or **any** nouns which don't change their form (to show their case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ἡ σκηνή&#xD;&#xA; - **ἡ ἐμὴ** σκηνή&#xD;&#xA; - **ἐκείνη ἡ** σκηνή&#xD;&#xA; - **ὁ** Σωκράτης (*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your situation, it sounds like there's one particular teacher who deserves to be honored: you're not just honoring every teacher you happen across. This is a perfect place to use the definite article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek definite article can also function as a non-emphatic possessive. So *ἡ σκηνή* could also mean **his** tent, or **your** tent, or **their** tent, and so on. So in your example you could get away without using a possessive pronoun: *ὁ παλαιὸς διδάσκαλος* in this context would clearly refer to **your** teacher, rather than someone else's. But adding *σός* puts considerably more emphasis on that fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're interested, [this page][1] provides more information on the semantics of the definite article. It's a very interesting and complicated topic; many papers have been written about the connotations of *θεός* versus *ὁ θεός* in John 1:1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) With proper names, the definite article isn't mandatory. It's used generally for people who would be recognized immediately such as Socrates (if I mention &quot;Socrates&quot; you probably won't ask &quot;which one?&quot;), or people who have been mentioned earlier in the conversation. [The aforementioned link][1] has more information on this as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://inthesaltshaker.com/drills/article.htm#SemFunc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2474" RevisionGUID="bac0ce03-0ca6-4fca-a1e7-8219b85fa969" CreationDate="2017-01-25T07:08:35.433" UserId="235" Text="I think I have the basic sense of this line. But there are a few technical details which stump me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; δόξαι τ᾽ ἂν αὐτὴ [θεωρίᾱ] μόνη δι᾽ αὑτὴν ἀγαπᾶσθαι (Nic. Eth. 1177b.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll notice that I put θεωρίᾱ in brackets. That's because my textbook adapts this passage, and it chooses to use the word θεωρίᾱ instead of αὐτὴ. I'm going to translate this line as if θεωρίᾱ were there instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And contemplation alone seems to be loved for its own sake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said before, I think my translation is correct. But did I translate δόξαι correctly? I parsed it as a third-person singular aorist optative, specifically, a potential optative with ἂν. But the tricky thing about δοκέω is that it can take many meanings: it can be impersonal, it can mean &quot;think&quot;, etc. You certainly have to think about which seems good to you when confronted with δοκέω." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8963" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2474" RevisionGUID="bac0ce03-0ca6-4fca-a1e7-8219b85fa969" CreationDate="2017-01-25T07:08:35.433" UserId="235" Text="Can you help me with a line from Nicomachean Ethics? (1177b.1)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8964" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2474" RevisionGUID="bac0ce03-0ca6-4fca-a1e7-8219b85fa969" CreationDate="2017-01-25T07:08:35.433" UserId="235" Text="|translation|vocabulary|greek|aristotle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2475" RevisionGUID="b571d57f-83e6-479a-b73a-ed0c9ed4e28e" CreationDate="2017-01-25T07:57:36.710" UserId="75" Text="Rackham translates it as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also the activity of contemplation may be held to be the only activity that is loved for its own sake:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek text again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;δόξαι τ᾽ ἂν αὐτὴ μόνη δι᾽ αὑτὴν ἀγαπᾶσθαι·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than θεωρία, I believe the referent of the pronoun αὐτὴ is instead θεωρητικὴ,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; which itself is shorthand for «ἡ θεωρητικὴ ἐνέργεια»—the contemplative activity. Also, «δόξαι ἂν» may be best translated as “it would seem.” Therefore,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It would also seem that [the contemplative activity] alone is loved for its own sake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; [1177a, Line 15][1]: ὅτι δ᾽ ἐστὶ θεωρητική, εἴρηται.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0053%3Abekker%20page%3D1177a%3Abekker%20line%3D15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2476" RevisionGUID="99e23dbf-1692-40a5-805b-f5affba723a0" CreationDate="2017-01-25T16:42:12.383" UserId="406" Text="(Inspired by the comments on [this answer][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive of obligation is a wonderful little idiom in Latin, as in Cato's famous mantra&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Carthāgō dēlenda est* &quot;Carthage must be destroyed&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, *dēleō* is a normal transitive verb meaning &quot;destroy&quot;. So if Cato ever achieved his goal, we could write normal passive sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Carthāgō dēlitur* &quot;Carthage is being destroyed&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Carthāgō dēlēta est* &quot;Carthage was destroyed&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what happens when the verb involved is not so simple?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, *patior* is deponent, but can still take an accusative object:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Caesar patitur aliquid* &quot;Caesar endured something&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I wanted to make a gerundive of obligation from *patior*, would it mean &quot;X must endure&quot; or &quot;X must be endured&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar problems arise with verbs which take weird cases: *reminīscor* with the genitive, *faveo* with the dative, *fruor* with the ablative. Could I use gerundives to say that something &quot;must be recalled&quot;, &quot;must be favored&quot;, or &quot;must be enjoyed&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus: do these verbs act differently with regard to regular *gerundives* versus specifically *gerundives of obligation*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2460/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8967" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2476" RevisionGUID="99e23dbf-1692-40a5-805b-f5affba723a0" CreationDate="2017-01-25T16:42:12.383" UserId="406" Text="Intransitive Gerundives of Obligation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8968" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2476" RevisionGUID="99e23dbf-1692-40a5-805b-f5affba723a0" CreationDate="2017-01-25T16:42:12.383" UserId="406" Text="|verbs|passive-voice|gerundive|deponent-verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2477" RevisionGUID="a22ec5ef-f818-4322-b57f-26eb9280f272" CreationDate="2017-01-25T17:47:13.830" UserId="45" Text="Before we understand the gerundive of a deponent verb, we need to first understand the *particples of deponent verbs*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Participles of Deponent Verbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deponent verbs are often described as verbs with &quot;passive forms but active meanings.&quot; While this generally holds true, it ignores a crucial about participles: **deponents have participles in both voices!** (See [Allen &amp; Greenborough, ch. 190](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-190.html))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, ***patior**:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Present Active**: *patiens*, &quot;suffering&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* **Future Active**: *passurus*, &quot;about to suffer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* **Perfect Passive**: *passus*, &quot;having suffered&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* **Future Passive**: *patiendus*, &quot;to be suffered&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there are some perfect passive participles that have a passive meaning. Allen &amp; Greenborough give the examples of *mercatus* (&quot;bought&quot;) and *adeptus* (&quot;gained,&quot; though it *also* can be active: &quot;having gained&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Gerundive of Deponent Verbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive of deponent verbs is **passive in form and in meaning**. The gerundive of obligation is thus used **the same as its active counterparts**. Allen &amp; Greenborough (op. cit.) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; d. The gerundive, being passive in meaning, is found only in transitive verbs, or intransitive verbs used impersonally:—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * hōc cōnfitendum est, this must be acknowledged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * moriendum est omnibus, all must die.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ambiguity arises, though, when we consider that the last impersonal construction can be used for all gerundives, deponent or not, to signify an obligation with an &quot;active&quot; meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the same problem as with non-deponent verbs. Cicero offers a great example that uses the gerundive in both ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sentio, iudices, moderandum mihi esse iam orationi meae fugiendamque vestram satietatem. (Cicero, *In Verrem* 2.3.103)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Judges, I sense that **I should limit my speech [in length] and that your satiety [with my speaking] should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note how the gerundive of *moderor* is used impersonally of *mihi* to indicate an &quot;active&quot; obligation: &quot;**I must moderate**&quot; where as the gerundive of *fugio* agrees with a noun for a &quot;passive&quot; obligation: &quot;**X must be avoided**&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Your sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, if I want to say &quot;X must be endured,&quot; I can freely use &quot;X&quot; as the subject of the sentence: &quot;Hoc patiendum est.&quot; Enter Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ideo fortiter **omne patiendum est** quia non, ut putamus, incidunt cuncta sed ueniunt. (Seneca iunior, Dialogi 1.5.7.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to say &quot;X must endure Y,&quot; I have to rearrange so that Y is the subject and X is in the dative: &quot;Hoc patiendum est mihi.&quot; Enter Seneca:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dicentur tibi ista, si operae pretium habebit perseverantia, **si nihil indignum bono viro faciendum patiendumve erit**; alioqui sordido se et contumelioso labore non conteret nec in negotiis erit negotii causa. (Seneca iunior, Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium 22.8)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2478" RevisionGUID="f3e0d8b4-af2a-4e9c-b0cf-35c3fb723999" CreationDate="2017-01-25T18:54:35.700" UserId="45" Text="Latin has a great pronoun for binary situations: *uter* (negative: *neuter*). Although your question specifically asks about &quot;not caring,&quot; I will show these pronouns used for three situations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I want both equally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Phil. Amandone exorarier vis ted an osculando?  &#xD;&#xA;Lib. Enim véro **utrumque.** (Plautus, *Asinaria* 687-688)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Phil. Do you wish to be begged with love or with kisses?  &#xD;&#xA; Lib. Indeed, [I'd like] both!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I hate both equally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ples. ...opta ocius:  &#xD;&#xA;rapi te obtorto collo mavis an trahi?  &#xD;&#xA;utrum vis opta, dum licet. Labr. **Neutrum volo.** (Plautus, *Rudens* 853-854)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ples. ...choose quickly:  &#xD;&#xA;Would you prefer to be seized or dragged by your twisted neck?  &#xD;&#xA;Choose either, while you can. Labr. **I want neither.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. It doesn't matter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Vtrumlibet elige**; alterum incredibile est, alterum nefarium, et ante hoc tempus utrumque inauditum. (Cicero, *Pro Quinctio* 80.6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Choose either.**; The one option is incredible, the other is criminal, and before this time both were unheard of.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this last word really captures the idea of &quot;whatever&quot; when faced with two options: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quid mavis? -**Utrumlibet!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that it isn't a terribly common word,  and I'm sure there are other, perhaps more idiomatic ways of conveying the same thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2478" RevisionGUID="d72856b3-d2f1-4f4e-bd8d-e5f051ba9381" CreationDate="2017-01-25T19:10:47.267" UserId="45" Comment="added 305 characters in body" Text="Latin has a great pronoun for binary situations: *uter* (negative: *neuter*). Although your question specifically asks about &quot;not caring,&quot; I will show these pronouns used for three situations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I want both equally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Phil. Amandone exorarier vis ted an osculando?  &#xD;&#xA;Lib. Enim véro **utrumque.** (Plautus, *Asinaria* 687-688)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Phil. Do you wish to be begged with love or with kisses?  &#xD;&#xA; Lib. Indeed, [I'd like] both!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I hate both equally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ples. ...opta ocius:  &#xD;&#xA;rapi te obtorto collo mavis an trahi?  &#xD;&#xA;utrum vis opta, dum licet. Labr. **Neutrum volo.** (Plautus, *Rudens* 853-854)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ples. ...choose quickly:  &#xD;&#xA;Would you prefer to be seized or dragged by your twisted neck?  &#xD;&#xA;Choose either, while you can. Labr. **I want neither.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. It doesn't matter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Utrumvis*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Mihi utrumvis satis est** et tum hoc tum illud probabilius videtur nec praeterea quicquam probabile. (Cicero, *De Officiis* 3.33)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Either is satisfactory to me**: both this and that seem fairly probable, and beyond them there isn't any probable alternative.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Utrumlibet*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Vtrumlibet elige**; alterum incredibile est, alterum nefarium, et ante hoc tempus utrumque inauditum. (Cicero, *Pro Quinctio* 80.6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Choose either.**; The one option is incredible, the other is criminal, and before this time both were unheard of.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this last word really captures the idea of &quot;whatever&quot; when faced with two options: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quid mavis? -**Utrumlibet!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that it isn't a terribly common word,  and I'm sure there are other, perhaps more idiomatic ways of conveying the same thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2476" RevisionGUID="2bcaba93-fefc-4c6a-99ad-4e047d111995" CreationDate="2017-01-25T19:10:51.037" UserId="406" Comment="edited body" Text="(Inspired by the comments on [this answer][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive of obligation is a wonderful little idiom in Latin, as in Cato's famous mantra&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Carthāgō dēlenda est* &quot;Carthage must be destroyed&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, *dēleō* is a normal transitive verb meaning &quot;destroy&quot;. So if Cato ever achieved his goal, we could write normal passive sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Carthāgō dēlētur* &quot;Carthage is being destroyed&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Carthāgō dēlēta est* &quot;Carthage was destroyed&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what happens when the verb involved is not so simple?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, *patior* is deponent, but can still take an accusative object:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Caesar patitur aliquid* &quot;Caesar endured something&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I wanted to make a gerundive of obligation from *patior*, would it mean &quot;X must endure&quot; or &quot;X must be endured&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus: do these verbs act differently with regard to regular *gerundives* versus specifically *gerundives of obligation*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2460/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2479" RevisionGUID="3ac7b111-6e95-4210-8247-785ccd644996" CreationDate="2017-01-25T19:13:55.667" UserId="1178" Text="I'm not completely sure if this is the correct place to ask this, but let's try. Many thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to invent a term for an average per equal amount of (sorted) data. With that I mean the average for the first N number of measurements, and then the average of the next N measurements, and so on. If it's not entirely clear what I mean by this, that's not such a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm looking for an adjective to specify the average that is derived from Latin. Something analogous to equidistant or equipotential. But with the part after &quot;equi-&quot; refering to the amount or number (in &quot;equal amount of data/number of datapoints&quot;). Does something like that exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, if it doesn't, I would like to invent something. But not being a Latin expert, I don't really know which Latin word would fit best, and I'm not sure if I combine them correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some ideas I had had for the second part:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**copia**&quot;. This could then become &quot;**equicopian**&quot;? Or ... ?&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**quantitas**&quot;. I don't really know how this would be used.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**continent**&quot;. As in containing, cfr. &quot;equidistant&quot;. This would become &quot;**equicontinent**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps greek might be better, using &quot;iso-&quot;? Perhaps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**mer**&quot; . This would become &quot;**isonomerous**&quot;. This exists in biology, so it might be confusing.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**posotis**&quot;. Would become &quot;**isoposotic**&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8974" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2479" RevisionGUID="3ac7b111-6e95-4210-8247-785ccd644996" CreationDate="2017-01-25T19:13:55.667" UserId="1178" Text="English adjective derived from Latin for &quot;per equal amount of datapoints&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8975" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2479" RevisionGUID="3ac7b111-6e95-4210-8247-785ccd644996" CreationDate="2017-01-25T19:13:55.667" UserId="1178" Text="|adjective|derivation|science|scientific-names|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2477" RevisionGUID="5a7e84dc-106c-416e-be70-b3fbad1bac7d" CreationDate="2017-01-25T19:15:23.953" UserId="45" Comment="added 177 characters in body" Text="Before we understand the gerundive of a deponent verb, we need to first understand the *particples of deponent verbs*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Participles of Deponent Verbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deponent verbs are often described as verbs with &quot;passive forms but active meanings.&quot; While this generally holds true, it ignores a crucial extra step: **deponents have participles in both voices!** (See [Allen &amp; Greenborough, ch. 190](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-190.html))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, ***patior**:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Present Active**: *patiens*, &quot;suffering&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* **Future Active**: *passurus*, &quot;about to suffer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* **Perfect Passive**: *passus*, &quot;having suffered&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* **Future Passive**: *patiendus*, &quot;to be suffered&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there are some perfect passive participles that have a passive meaning. Allen &amp; Greenborough give the examples of *mercatus* (&quot;bought&quot;) and *adeptus* (&quot;gained,&quot; though it *also* can be active: &quot;having gained&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Gerundive of Deponent Verbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive of deponent verbs is **passive in form and in meaning**. The gerundive of obligation is thus used **the same as its active counterparts**. Allen &amp; Greenborough (op. cit.) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; d. The gerundive, being passive in meaning, is found only in transitive verbs, or intransitive verbs used impersonally:—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * hōc cōnfitendum est, this must be acknowledged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * moriendum est omnibus, all must die.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ambiguity arises, though, when we consider that the last impersonal construction can be used for all gerundives, deponent or not, to signify an obligation with an &quot;active&quot; meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the same problem as with non-deponent verbs. Cicero offers a great example that uses the gerundive in both ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sentio, iudices, moderandum mihi esse iam orationi meae fugiendamque vestram satietatem. (Cicero, *In Verrem* 2.3.103)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Judges, I sense that **I should limit my speech [in length] and that your satiety [with my speaking] should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note how the gerundive of *moderor* is used impersonally of *mihi* to indicate an &quot;active&quot; obligation: &quot;**I must moderate**&quot; where as the gerundive of *fugio* agrees with a noun for a &quot;passive&quot; obligation: &quot;**X must be avoided**&quot;. This is merely a difference in translation, though, and the underlying construction is the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Your sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, if I want to say &quot;X must be endured,&quot; I can freely use &quot;X&quot; as the subject of the sentence: &quot;Hoc patiendum est.&quot; Enter Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ideo fortiter **omne patiendum est** quia non, ut putamus, incidunt cuncta sed ueniunt. (Seneca iunior, Dialogi 1.5.7.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to say &quot;X must endure Y,&quot; I have to rearrange so that Y is the subject and X is in the dative: &quot;Hoc patiendum est mihi.&quot; Enter Seneca:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dicentur tibi ista, si operae pretium habebit perseverantia, **si nihil indignum bono viro faciendum patiendumve erit**; alioqui sordido se et contumelioso labore non conteret nec in negotiis erit negotii causa. (Seneca iunior, Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium 22.8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no case where &quot;Hoc patiendum est&quot; can be construed as &quot;This should suffer.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2480" RevisionGUID="79ccd4e4-1aa7-412f-b3bc-84343ef906bc" CreationDate="2017-01-25T19:28:22.030" UserId="406" Text="(Split off from [my previous question][1] about gerundives of deponent verbs.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a transitive verb, it's fairly simple to convert a sentence from active to passive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; X-nom VERB-active Y-acc = Y-nom VERB-passive [ā] X-abl&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; egō canō virum = vir canitur ā mē  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I speak of the man = the man is spoken of by me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But not all verbs take an accusative object. *Reminīscor* &quot;recall&quot; takes a genitive, *faveō* &quot;favor&quot; dative, and *fruor* &quot;enjoy&quot; the ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally I just wouldn't use these verbs in the passive: many of them are already deponent, after all. But as mentioned in the previous question, certain constructions (like the gerundive of obligation) don't have an active equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How are these constructions used with such verbs? Could I use gerundives to say that something &quot;must be recalled&quot;, &quot;must be favored&quot;, or &quot;must be enjoyed&quot;, for instance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2476/intransitive-gerundives-of-obligation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8978" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2480" RevisionGUID="79ccd4e4-1aa7-412f-b3bc-84343ef906bc" CreationDate="2017-01-25T19:28:22.030" UserId="406" Text="Passives Without Accusatives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8979" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2480" RevisionGUID="79ccd4e4-1aa7-412f-b3bc-84343ef906bc" CreationDate="2017-01-25T19:28:22.030" UserId="406" Text="|verbs|passive-voice|gerundives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8980" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2476" RevisionGUID="60dd8812-8f29-4489-94de-2c5348382c1c" CreationDate="2017-01-25T19:32:19.437" UserId="45" Comment="edited title" Text="How do i use gerundives of obligation for deponent verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8981" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2476" RevisionGUID="c55ad50c-a1b7-48f0-8237-5015af58152d" CreationDate="2017-01-25T19:32:49.417" UserId="406" Comment="edited title" Text="How do I use gerundives of obligation for deponent verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2481" RevisionGUID="2110b3da-817a-4962-9561-e5b4935c5ec7" CreationDate="2017-01-25T19:51:25.580" UserId="30" Text="Normally, when you passive a verb in Latin, the following happens:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Subject becomes *a(b(s))* + ablative.&#xD;&#xA;- Direct object becomes subject.&#xD;&#xA;- All other constituents remain unchanged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that a direct object is only that object which is directly governed by a verb (so without prepositions) and which is in the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Parco Ciceroni.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ciceroni parcitur a me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No problem here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Utor lege Iuliā in Ciceronem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This cannot be passivised, because the present forms of a deponent are already in the passive form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Utendum est mihi lege Iuliā in Ciceronem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not aequivalent to the passive of the sentence above, but at least the constituents can be transformed in a somewhat similar way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The ablative complement of the verb remains in the ablative.&#xD;&#xA;- The prepositional phrase remains the same.&#xD;&#xA;- The agent, which can now no longer be the subject, turns from an (implicit) nominative into a dative, as gerunds require.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there are always exceptions, as can probably found in less formal letters and e.g. comedy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that Greek and English work differently: in those languages, the secondary complement can be turned into the subject when you passivise a verb, even when it was not a direct object. E.g. *I was taught many things*. Dutch works more like Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2481" RevisionGUID="25d44f82-b6f4-4d6e-9b61-c38a44ee5eb9" CreationDate="2017-01-25T20:05:50.517" UserId="30" Comment="added 275 characters in body" Text="Normally, when you passive a verb in Latin, the following happens:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Subject becomes *a(b(s))* + ablative.&#xD;&#xA;- Direct object becomes subject.&#xD;&#xA;- All other constituents remain unchanged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that a direct object is only that object which is directly governed by a verb (so without prepositions) and which is in the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Parco Ciceroni.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ciceroni parcitur a me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No problem here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Parcendum est Ciceroni a me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, the subject turns into a dative if you turn a verb into a gerundive + form of *esse*. But I believe *a(b(s))* is used with a gerund if there already was another a dative present, in order to avoid confusion between two datives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Utor lege Iuliā in Ciceronem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This cannot be passivised, because the present forms of a deponent are already in the passive form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Utendum est mihi lege Iuliā in Ciceronem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not aequivalent to the passive of the sentence above, but at least the constituents can be transformed in a somewhat similar way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The ablative complement of the verb remains in the ablative.&#xD;&#xA;- The prepositional phrase remains the same.&#xD;&#xA;- The agent, which can now no longer be the subject, turns from an (implicit) nominative into a dative, as gerunds require.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there are always exceptions, as can probably found in less formal letters and e.g. comedy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that Greek and English work differently: in those languages, the secondary complement can be turned into the subject when you passivise a verb, even when it was not a direct object. E.g. *I was taught many things*. Dutch works more like Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Itur in Italiam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It was gone to Italy&quot; → &quot;People/they/etc. went to Italy.&quot; This is an impersonal passive, which is difficult to translate literally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eundum est in Italiam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;They/someone/etc. must go to Italy.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2479" RevisionGUID="7e8ffa35-9c03-4705-a581-e5617cc30943" CreationDate="2017-01-25T20:07:09.637" UserId="1178" Comment="added 221 characters in body" Text="I'm not completely sure if this is the correct place to ask this, but let's try. Many thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to invent a term for an average per equal amount of (sorted) data. With that I mean the average for the first N number of measurements, and then the average of the next N measurements, and so on. If it's not entirely clear what I mean by this, that's not such a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm looking for an adjective to specify the average that is derived from Latin. Something analogous to equidistant or equipotential. But with the part after &quot;equi-&quot; refering to the amount or number (in &quot;equal amount of data/number of datapoints&quot;). Does something like that exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, if it doesn't, I would like to invent something. But not being a Latin expert, I don't really know which Latin word would fit best, and I'm not sure if I combine them correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some ideas I had had for the second part:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**copia**&quot;. This could then become &quot;**equicopian**&quot;? Or ... ?&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**quantitas**&quot;. I don't really know how this would be used.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**continent**&quot;. As in containing, cfr. &quot;equidistant&quot;. This would become &quot;**equicontinent**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps greek might be better, using &quot;iso-&quot;? Perhaps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**mer**&quot; . This would become &quot;**isonomerous**&quot;. This exists in biology, so it might be confusing.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**posotis**&quot;. Would become &quot;**isoposotic**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: To be more precise, I should say that my data consists of a variable _y_ which is dependent on a variable _x_. I want to order my data according to _x_, and then take the average (as explained above) of _y_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2483" RevisionGUID="9fb9a1e8-9789-4ff8-ae94-7ca4fa04a5e8" CreationDate="2017-01-25T20:53:21.967" UserId="406" Text="I'm not entirely sure if I understand your meaning, so please comment if this isn't what you're looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it sounds like you want a word meaning *the average of each group of data, divided by quantiles of the domain*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Cerberus about using *quant-* as the root, meaning (roughly) &quot;amount&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*-il-* is still the best I've come across for dividing into equal parts, giving *quantil-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In mathematics, the prefix *co-* is generally used for a counterpart to something else: domain and codomain, sine and cosine, kernel and cokernel. So *coquantil-*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then finally, something to turn it into a noun or an adjective. This is the tricky part. Plenty of these survived from Latin into English, but not all of them are useful for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *coquantile*&#xD;&#xA; - *coquantility*&#xD;&#xA; - *coquantilian*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so on...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of all of these, *coquantilian* sounds the most pleasing to me. It's not perfect: *-ian* is usually used on names, which this is not. But it sounds better as a *de novo* term than &quot;coquantility&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2484" RevisionGUID="51c0b2d2-438e-49a7-b2fc-e92c0c5a29b0" CreationDate="2017-01-25T22:10:18.253" UserId="1148" Text="I would call it an **isoplethic** or **homoplethic** average measurement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a Greek compound formed of ἴσος (&quot;same&quot;, &quot;equal&quot;) and πλῆθος (which usually mean &quot;big quantity&quot;, but could be used more specifically with the  meaning of &quot;quantity&quot;, &quot;amount&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the term &quot;isoposotic&quot; that you suggested is not attested as a compund in ancient Greek, while the adjective ἰσοπληθής is used in the same way you look at: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thuc. 6,37,1: ὁπλίτας ἰσοπλήθεις τοῖς ἡμετέροις &quot;hoplites in the same&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quantity as ours&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Xen. *Cyr.* 2,9,7: σχεδὸν δὲ καὶ οἱ ἱππεῖς ἦσαν ἑκατέρων ἰσοπληθεῖς&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;the knights of both sides were almost the same in number&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term is also used by ancient mathematicians like Euclides and Pappus. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While &quot;[isopleth][1]&quot; already exists, I think that &quot;isoplethic&quot; shouldnt' create confusion (but you could mix up Latin and Greek and invent the term &quot;**equiplethic**&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/isopleth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8990" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2480" RevisionGUID="ae5a890d-bd9a-4845-89e2-c291dfd81698" CreationDate="2017-01-26T03:44:37.620" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|verbs|syntax|passive-voice|gerundive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2485" RevisionGUID="852981ba-f27e-4518-b562-9bcf419d659b" CreationDate="2017-01-26T04:44:26.613" UserId="79" Text="If I understand correctly, you want to divide your data into equally large sets and calculate an average for each set.&#xD;&#xA;Equally large sets are often called *equinumerous*.&#xD;&#xA;Finite sets with the same number of elements are equinumerous, but the concept becomes more complicated for infinite sets.&#xD;&#xA;All the definitions using bijections or cardinals or any other tool will have the correct intuitive meaning when applied to finite sets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alessio's suggestion of *isoplethic* or *homoplethic* is also good.&#xD;&#xA;It can be useful to use a new word if you want to define something that is not equivalent with a previously named and known concept.&#xD;&#xA;Giving a new name to an old thing is rarely a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest a different approach to naming the concept, though.&#xD;&#xA;You divide your data into equally large chunks.&#xD;&#xA;Such division can be called *equipartition(ing)*.&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer to include this sense of dividing into equally large sets; speaking only of equally large (*equinumerous*, *isoplethic*, or whatever you want to call it) conveys the setting only partially.&#xD;&#xA;The prefix *equi-* is of Latin origin (*aequi-* in Latin) and the Latin verb *partire* means sharing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could say that equipartitioning a set means partitioning it into equinumerous subsets.&#xD;&#xA;In practical situations I believe equinumerous means &quot;of almost the same size&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You cannot equipartition a set of million datapoints into 17 subsets, but the difference between 58823 and 58824 points is hardly going to be of practical relevance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that you are calculation ***equipartitioned averages***.&#xD;&#xA;For example, you could say that you calculate 17 equipartitioned averages from your million data points.&#xD;&#xA;The best choice may depend on your audience, but I would understand this expression pretty easily &amp;mdash; the name would remind me of the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;Constructing a new concept out of existing terms makes it easier to grasp.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I should add that I give this opinion in the capacity of mathematician and physicist; the Latinist in me only confirms that the word has a Latin origin.&#xD;&#xA;Would this be good for your purposes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2479" RevisionGUID="fbd30bb3-9008-4d85-b11b-ee216c021c40" CreationDate="2017-01-26T04:46:17.507" UserId="79" Comment="Changed a tag; &quot;scientific-names&quot; is meant for taxonomic (biological) uses." Text="I'm not completely sure if this is the correct place to ask this, but let's try. Many thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to invent a term for an average per equal amount of (sorted) data. With that I mean the average for the first N number of measurements, and then the average of the next N measurements, and so on. If it's not entirely clear what I mean by this, that's not such a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm looking for an adjective to specify the average that is derived from Latin. Something analogous to equidistant or equipotential. But with the part after &quot;equi-&quot; refering to the amount or number (in &quot;equal amount of data/number of datapoints&quot;). Does something like that exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, if it doesn't, I would like to invent something. But not being a Latin expert, I don't really know which Latin word would fit best, and I'm not sure if I combine them correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some ideas I had had for the second part:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**copia**&quot;. This could then become &quot;**equicopian**&quot;? Or &amp;hellip;?&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**quantitas**&quot;. I don't really know how this would be used.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**continent**&quot;. As in containing, cfr. &quot;equidistant&quot;. This would become &quot;**equicontinent**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps greek might be better, using &quot;iso-&quot;? Perhaps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**mer**&quot; . This would become &quot;**isonomerous**&quot;. This exists in biology, so it might be confusing.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**posotis**&quot;. Would become &quot;**isoposotic**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: To be more precise, I should say that my data consists of a variable _y_ which is dependent on a variable _x_. I want to order my data according to _x_, and then take the average (as explained above) of _y_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8993" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2479" RevisionGUID="fbd30bb3-9008-4d85-b11b-ee216c021c40" CreationDate="2017-01-26T04:46:17.507" UserId="79" Comment="Changed a tag; &quot;scientific-names&quot; is meant for taxonomic (biological) uses." Text="|adjective|derivation|science|mathematics|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2486" RevisionGUID="c250324f-f465-4ef7-8a3e-7625baed8428" CreationDate="2017-01-26T05:07:36.010" UserId="79" Text="The pronouns *quivis* and *quilibet* both mean &quot;anyone&quot;, and *utervis* and *uterlibet* both mean &quot;either one&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The suffixes *-vis* and *-libet* seem to have a pretty similar effect.&#xD;&#xA;(I am not sure if there are other pronouns than *qui* and *uter* that can take both of these suffixes.)&#xD;&#xA;Is there any difference between the two, or are they completely interchangeable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8995" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2486" RevisionGUID="c250324f-f465-4ef7-8a3e-7625baed8428" CreationDate="2017-01-26T05:07:36.010" UserId="79" Text="Is there a difference between -vis and -libet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8996" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2486" RevisionGUID="c250324f-f465-4ef7-8a3e-7625baed8428" CreationDate="2017-01-26T05:07:36.010" UserId="79" Text="|word-comparison|pronouns|suffixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2475" RevisionGUID="83812d22-54e1-42d1-9868-a3aee8a67d03" CreationDate="2017-01-26T07:05:18.687" UserId="75" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Rackham translates it as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also the activity of contemplation may be held to be the only activity that is loved for its own sake:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek text again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;δόξαι τ᾽ ἂν αὐτὴ μόνη δι᾽ αὑτὴν ἀγαπᾶσθαι·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than θεωρία, I believe the referent of the pronoun αὐτὴ is instead θεωρητικὴ,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; which itself is shorthand for «ἡ θεωρητικὴ ἐνέργεια»—the contemplative activity. Also, «δόξαι ἂν» may be best translated as “it would seem.” Therefore,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It would also seem that [the contemplative activity] alone is to be loved for its own sake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; [1177a, Line 15][1]: ὅτι δ᾽ ἐστὶ θεωρητική, εἴρηται.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0053%3Abekker%20page%3D1177a%3Abekker%20line%3D15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2460" RevisionGUID="22357112-19d8-4bcc-a600-971a32d4f30c" CreationDate="2017-01-26T07:56:29.120" UserId="645" Comment="expansion of response" Text="I would try to find something that a Roman might have used, and think you would get a more satisfying translation by re-phrasing the English to *suggest what words I should use*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Vox* for 'word' is legitimate, but a little too fancy for my taste in this situation; and isn't *hortor*, meaning 'urge strongly', a pretty strong word for 'suggest'? There are examples which suggest that *subiicio* is a more appropriate verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*id quod olim dictum est subiice*    Ter. Phaed. 2, 3, 30&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. . . *Maeandrius quasi ministrator aderat subiciens quid in suos civis civitatemque, si vellem, dicerem.*    Cic.  pro Flacc. 22,53&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest something like *verba subiice quibus utar*, or (more politely/pompously, but something to roll nicely off the tongue!) *subiice quae verba sint mihi utenda*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In response to objections in comments** on the second of these suggestions : it is true that the verb *utor* is intransitive and cannot be passivized, but it is also a fact that the gerundive is already passive. In the second suggestion, *utendam* is a gerundive, purely adjectival, passive in meaning, 'fit to be used'. Here it is predicatively used as a a verbal adjective, formed from the verb *utor*, certainly, but having no verbal function it can be used without the ablative case. In fact all intransitive verbs that take an ablative are deponent, but their gerundives are used as if the verb were transitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two examples from Plautus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*filiam utendam mihi da. /Numquam edepol cuiquam utendam dedi.* Persa 1, 3  ( l.127)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*nam ego quidem meos oculos habeo nec rogo utendos foris*  Mil. 2, 3    (l.347)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and one (using *fruor*) from Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*etiam apud maiores nostros iustitiae fruendae causa videntur* . . .    Off. 2, 41&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Later] Nevertheless, it has been pointed out in further comment (*q.v.*) that the use of *esse* in the construction I proposed is not known. It would be better, therefore, to avoid the relative  and simply write *subiice verba mihi utenda*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2475" RevisionGUID="346d1507-3d49-472d-9eb1-b1e6fce06c8e" CreationDate="2017-01-26T08:03:25.710" UserId="75" Comment="added 1242 characters in body" Text="Rackham translates it as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also the activity of contemplation may be held to be the only activity that is loved for its own sake:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek text again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;δόξαι τ᾽ ἂν αὐτὴ μόνη δι᾽ αὑτὴν ἀγαπᾶσθαι·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to William Watson Goodwin,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Δοκέω in the meaning *I seem* (*videor*) usually has the personal construction, as in English; as οὗτος δοκεῖ εἶναι, *he seems to be*. When an infinitive with ἄν follows a personal verb like δοκέω, this must be translated by an impersonal construction, to suit the English idiom: thus, δοκεῖ τις ἂν ἔχειν τοῦτο must be translated *it seems that some one would have this*, although τις is the subject of δοκεῖ, since we cannot use *would* with our infinitive to translate ἔχειν ἄν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, rather than θεωρία, I believe the referent of the pronoun αὐτὴ is instead θεωρητικὴ,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; which itself is shorthand for «ἡ θεωρητικὴ ἐνέργεια»—the contemplative activity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After review of Goodwin’s passage, I would edit my translations as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also, it would seem that [the contemplative activity] alone would be loved for its own sake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My edit connects the particle ἂν with the following passive infinitive ἀγαπᾶσθαι rather than with the preceding optative δόξαι (which is how I translated it initially), but I employ “would” twice, first as the natural translation of the optative δόξαι (i.e., “it would seem”), and second as the translation of the particle ἂν preceding the infinitive (i.e., “would be loved”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Goodwin, William Watson. [*Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb.*][1] 7th ed. Boston: Ginn, 1879.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; p. [303][2], §754&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; [1177a, Line 15][3]: ὅτι δ᾽ ἐστὶ θεωρητική, εἴρηται.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=mwwBAAAAYAAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=f3OxAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA303#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=true&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0053%3Abekker%20page%3D1177a%3Abekker%20line%3D15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2487" RevisionGUID="a62436be-bfea-4580-9a3a-7a1d310b9a85" CreationDate="2017-01-26T08:34:27.190" UserId="1182" Text="Why do so many forms of this name exist?&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While modern usage prefers to translate names to an original or etymological form, it was once a more common practice to Latinize names with little change other than moving it into a declension.  Thus, many forms of the name exist because [the name is found in many forms](http://www.behindthename.com/name/wilhelm/tree) across the languages of Europe.  (This in turn is likely because of the name's unusual sounds/spellings like *w* and *h*.  Compare something more straightforward like 'Bern[h]ardus'.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those following the simple Latinization rule would make an Italian Guglielmo into *Guglielmus*, a German Wilhelm *Wilhelmus*, a Spanish Guillermo *Guillermus*, etc.; with dialect variations and non-standardized spelling, the number of forms thus produced might become arbitrarily high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those not following that rule would presumably fall back on whatever form they were familiar with or believed was correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are all the spellings equivalent, or should they be considered different names?&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;This question is a bit complicated, as the concept of considering related names 'equivalent' is very much dependent on the culture doing the deciding.  For example, it used to be more common that a person's name would be translated depending on *whatever* language they were being talked about in; someone who was Guillermo in Spanish might be called Wilhelm in German—those names might be considered equivalent in a way they wouldn't be today.  (Nowadays we only expect this practice for nobility: Pope Francis is François in French, Francesco in Italian, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, you'll want to apply Postel's law: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others.  You should be prepared for authors to be inconsistent on what form is used; you should be prepared for authors to prefer a particular spelling for all names related to William; you should be prepared for authors to [try and] respect whatever spelling was normally used by or for any given historical person—but in producing your own Latin it's probably better to treat them all as different names.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are they all considered &quot;correct&quot; spellings for the modern period?&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;Probably not.  Some forms are markedly unusual — [Vicipaedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulielmus) lists people called *Golielmus*, *Vilelmus*, and *Willielmus*; while they may be acceptable when referring to the historical persons to whom they were applied, these forms should probably not be considered correct when applied to modern persons who did not choose them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;correct&quot; spelling(s) to use when translating the name of a modern person are going to depend on your editor or community.  Vicipaedia likes *Gulielmus*; Carolus Egger's book apparently gives *Villelmus* as its chief equivalent with nods to Gulielmus and *Guillelmus*; the etymology might even support *Wilhelmus*, if you're not afraid of using a W in Latin.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2485" RevisionGUID="7799e389-ad15-47df-be66-0900a984f98b" CreationDate="2017-01-26T18:15:55.693" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected typo." Text="If I understand correctly, you want to divide your data into equally large sets and calculate an average for each set.&#xD;&#xA;Equally large sets are often called *equinumerous*.&#xD;&#xA;Finite sets with the same number of elements are equinumerous, but the concept becomes more complicated for infinite sets.&#xD;&#xA;All the definitions using bijections or cardinals or any other tool will have the correct intuitive meaning when applied to finite sets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alessio's suggestion of *isoplethic* or *homoplethic* is also good.&#xD;&#xA;It can be useful to use a new word if you want to define something that is not equivalent with a previously named and known concept.&#xD;&#xA;Giving a new name to an old thing is rarely a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest a different approach to naming the concept, though.&#xD;&#xA;You divide your data into equally large chunks.&#xD;&#xA;Such division can be called *equipartition(ing)*.&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer to include this sense of dividing into equally large sets; speaking only of equally large (*equinumerous*, *isoplethic*, or whatever you want to call it) conveys the setting only partially.&#xD;&#xA;The prefix *equi-* is of Latin origin (*aequi-* in Latin) and the Latin verb *partire* means sharing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could say that equipartitioning a set means partitioning it into equinumerous subsets.&#xD;&#xA;In practical situations I believe equinumerous means &quot;of almost the same size&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You cannot equipartition a set of million datapoints into 17 subsets, but the difference between 58823 and 58824 points is hardly going to be of practical relevance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that you are calculating ***equipartitioned averages***.&#xD;&#xA;For example, you could say that you calculate 17 equipartitioned averages from your million data points.&#xD;&#xA;The best choice may depend on your audience, but I would understand this expression pretty easily &amp;mdash; the name would remind me of the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;Constructing a new concept out of existing terms makes it easier to grasp.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I should add that I give this opinion in the capacity of mathematician and physicist; the Latinist in me only confirms that the word has a Latin origin.&#xD;&#xA;Would this be good for your purposes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2488" RevisionGUID="dff98b84-2eb5-41e5-a7d3-aa51f5e7e27f" CreationDate="2017-01-27T05:56:47.043" UserId="79" Text="I recently said [this](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35032208#35032208) in our [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ita crediderim, sed certus non sum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A brief discussion ensued about my choice of tense.&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to express hesitation, and my gut feeling says that the perfect conjunctive is best for that.&#xD;&#xA;I was far from being sure, and I wanted the verb to reflect that.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to have more than my intuition behind this:&#xD;&#xA;**What difference is there in tone between the present and perfect conjunctive when used in such a situation?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9003" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2488" RevisionGUID="dff98b84-2eb5-41e5-a7d3-aa51f5e7e27f" CreationDate="2017-01-27T05:56:47.043" UserId="79" Text="What is the difference between present and perfect conjunctive in hesitation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9004" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2488" RevisionGUID="dff98b84-2eb5-41e5-a7d3-aa51f5e7e27f" CreationDate="2017-01-27T05:56:47.043" UserId="79" Text="|grammar-choice|nuance|conjunctive|perfect-tense|tenses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2483" RevisionGUID="546f0cc1-c3d4-45e0-9865-d11f920b975b" CreationDate="2017-01-27T14:42:00.590" UserId="406" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I'm not entirely sure if I understand your meaning, so please comment if this isn't what you're looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it sounds like you want a word meaning *the average of each group of data, divided by quantiles of the domain*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Cerberus about using *quant-* as the root, meaning (roughly) &quot;amount&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*-il-* is still the best I've come across for dividing into equal parts, giving *quantil-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In mathematics, the prefix *co-* is generally used for a counterpart to something else: domain and codomain, sine and cosine, kernel and cokernel. So *co-quantil-*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then finally, something to turn it into a noun or an adjective. This is the tricky part. Plenty of these survived from Latin into English, but not all of them are useful for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *co-quantile*&#xD;&#xA; - *co-quantility*&#xD;&#xA; - *co-quantilian*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so on...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of all of these, *co-quantilian* sounds the most pleasing to me. It's not perfect: *-ian* is usually used on names, which this is not. But it sounds better as a *de novo* term than &quot;co-quantility&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2489" RevisionGUID="6ab0d082-d7a7-4db7-804d-136a12a5bf46" CreationDate="2017-01-27T15:09:23.223" UserId="1184" Text="I am trying to translate a verse from &quot;Brutal Love&quot; by Green Day. I only have one semester of Latin. I tried to translate it using wiktionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Old toys&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This plastic heart&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Loners and fools are tearing me apart&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here comes trouble&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The univited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Senia Crepundia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hoc Plasticum cor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Mē sōlitārī et stultī sēparātim discrepunt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hīc molestia venit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ultrō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what I have so far. I am just wondering if my translation is alright." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9008" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2489" RevisionGUID="6ab0d082-d7a7-4db7-804d-136a12a5bf46" CreationDate="2017-01-27T15:09:23.223" UserId="1184" Text="Any suggestions for translating a verse from an American Song" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9009" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2489" RevisionGUID="6ab0d082-d7a7-4db7-804d-136a12a5bf46" CreationDate="2017-01-27T15:09:23.223" UserId="1184" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2489" RevisionGUID="f1987be0-9c08-4f00-a63a-faff867f4e73" CreationDate="2017-01-27T15:42:23.180" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and added a tag." Text="I am trying to translate a verse from &quot;Brutal Love&quot; by Green Day. I only have one semester of Latin. I tried to translate it using wiktionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Old toys  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This plastic heart  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Loners and fools are tearing me apart  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here comes trouble  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The uninvited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Senia Crepundia  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hoc Plasticum cor  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Mē sōlitārī et stultī sēparātim discrepunt  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hīc molestia venit  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ultrō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what I have so far. I am just wondering if my translation is alright." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9011" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2489" RevisionGUID="f1987be0-9c08-4f00-a63a-faff867f4e73" CreationDate="2017-01-27T15:42:23.180" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and added a tag." Text="|translation|songs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2490" RevisionGUID="1912fa41-0bda-4c67-8ef4-23015c49f4f2" CreationDate="2017-01-27T16:42:54.857" UserId="645" Text="I think you are trying too hard to achieve your objective, by using both a verb in subjunctive mood and a separate (and pleonastic) expression of uncertainty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key to a good translation here is to begin at the uncertainty, which you need express only once : in other words, decide on a single way to do it. I would prefer something as simple as *Hoc credo, sed incerte*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, in answer to your direct question, the difference is merely temporal. If you were to change the verb to, say, *opinor*, which is less definite than *credo*, uncertainty would be introduced with the verb still in the indicative : *Sic opinor incerte*, or *Incertus ita opinor*, etc., while you might refer to the past with *Ita opinabar, sed incerte*, or even *Hoc suspicabar tantum*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2491" RevisionGUID="e5961381-4d6a-4197-900e-b07f42a6d87f" CreationDate="2017-01-27T19:53:47.000" UserId="406" Text="The key to a good translation is getting not just the literal meaning, but the sense of the words across. So I'm going to skip over fairly unambiguous words like &quot;this&quot; and &quot;heart&quot;, as well as the grammar, and just focus on the more interesting words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Old&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Senia* doesn't feel quite right. To me, *senex* describes a person, not an object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Old&quot; is a word which can have a lot of different connotations, and Latin doesn't have a single word covering all of them. In these sorts of situations I turn to Döderlein's *Handbook of Latin Synonymes*, which is available from the Internet Archive. It explains:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ANTIQUUS; PRISCUS; VETUS; VETUSTUS; VETERNUS; PRISTINUS.** 1. **Antiquum** and **priscum** denote the age that formerly existed, and is now no more, in opp. to _novum_, like παλαιός; **vetus** and **vetustum** (from ἔτος), what has existed for a long time, and has no longer any share in the disadvantages or advantages of youth, in opp. to _recens_, like γέρων, γεραιός, γερούσιος. Hence **antiquus homo** is a man who existed in ancient times; **vetus**, an old man. **Antiqui scriptores** means the classics, inasmuch as the age in which they flourished has long been past; **veteres**, inasmuch as they have lived and influenced manhood for 2000 years. Cic. Verr. i. 21. Vereor ne hæc nimis _antiqua_ et jam obsoleta videantur: compare with Orat. i. 37. Ut illi _vetus_ atque usitata exceptio daretur. 2. **Vetus** refers only to length of time, and denotes age, sometimes as a subject of praise, sometimes as a reproach; **vetustus** refers to the superiority of age, inasmuch as that which is of long standing is at the same time stronger, more worthy of honor, more approved of, than that which is new, in opp. to _novicius_; lastly, **veternus** refers to the disadvantages of age, inasmuch as, after many years’ use, a thing becomes worn out, or, through long existence, weak and spiritless. Moreover, **veternus**, in the writers of the golden age, is only admitted as a substantive, **veternum**, as lethargy; **vetus** regularly supplies its place, and denotes more frequently the weakness than the strength of age. Tac. Ann. xi. 14 and 15. _Veterrimis_ Græcorum, and _vetustissima_ Italiæ disciplina. 3. **Antiquus** denotes age only in relation to time, as a former age in opp. to the present; **priscus** (from πάρος), as a solemn word, with the qualifying accessory notion of a former age worthy of honor, and a sacred primitive age, like ἀρχαῖος, in opp. to the fashion of the day. 4. **Antiquus** and **priscus** denote a time long past; **pristinus**, generally, denotes only a time that is past, like πρότερος. (iv. 83.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is quite a mouthful! But I'm guessing you want &quot;old&quot; in the sense of &quot;used up, worn out&quot;. So according to Döderlein, you should go with *veternus* or *vetus* here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Toys&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *crepundia* is a rattle, either the thing given to an infant or a musical instrument like a maraca. Metaphorically, it refers to early childhood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin doesn't really have a great word for &quot;toys&quot;. Not knowing any further context, I'd actually suggest a word for &quot;tools&quot; might be more appropriate here; the metaphor of tools being used until they wore out would be easy to draw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Plastic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Plasticus* doesn't usually mean &quot;plastic&quot; the way we use it today: after all, the Romans didn't have synthetic polymers. It meant &quot;having to do with sculpture&quot;, from *plastēs* &quot;shaper&quot;, from the Greek verb for &quot;shape&quot;. Modern &quot;plastic&quot; got its name because it could be easily molded into shapes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't sound like the narrator's heart is easily sculpted: if I understand right, &quot;plastic&quot; here implies &quot;made of cheap materials intended for short-term use&quot;. The closest ancient material I can think of is clay, fragile and disposable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Tearing me apart&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Discrepō* is a very polite and peaceful word compared with the violent English. It's much closer to &quot;disagree&quot; than &quot;tear apart&quot;. I would go with something like *dīscindō*, *dīruō*, *rēscindō*...Latin has no shortage of words for this. And *sēparātim* to me sounds like each of the loners and fools is attacking you individually rather than as a group; I don't think you'll need a separate adverb for &quot;apart&quot; if you choose the right verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Trouble&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Molestia* is again a very mild word. It sounds like these people are going to annoy you by talking loudly in the next room when you're trying to concentrate. It sounds like you want a more severe difficulty, *onus* is a good word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;Here comes trouble&quot; is also an idiom in English so it sounds odd translated literally. But adapting that is a stylistic decision, and I don't know a good equivalent, so I'll leave that for others.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Uninvited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would use a metaphor here. When you invite someone to your house, and that guest brings others with him (intentionally or not), the uninvited followers are called *umbrae* &quot;shadows&quot; in Latin. An *umbra* can also be a ghost or a portent, and in that context *onus* above can also mean something terrible that's fated to happen to you because of a prophecy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2492" RevisionGUID="e0934b39-d23c-4f20-b57e-85a7fad16b14" CreationDate="2017-01-27T20:15:10.657" UserId="79" Text="I like the suggestions Draconis gave, and I have some ideas to add.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Uninvited:&#xD;&#xA;When trouble comes uninvited, it comes against your will.&#xD;&#xA;This is conveyed well with an absolute ablative *me invito*.&#xD;&#xA;(The word *ultro* seems weird. I am not sure what you were aiming at with it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Apart:&#xD;&#xA;I would not use any Latin adverb to translate &quot;apart&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;(*Separatim* means individually or one at a time.)&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I would look for a verb that means &quot;to tear apart&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There are many, many possible verbs with different nuance to them.&#xD;&#xA;Draconis' suggestions are good.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps *distruere* would also work.&#xD;&#xA;You could ask a separate question about the best choice of verb in this situation, if you can elaborate on what you want to mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Here comes:&#xD;&#xA;The English phrase &quot;here comes&quot; is an idiom, and the corresponding Latin phrase *hic venit* does not really exist as far as I know.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you could just say &quot;trouble comes&quot; or something to the effect of &quot;look, trouble comes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I would use *en* or *ecce* for &quot;here&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Maybe *ecce molestia advenit*?&#xD;&#xA;Also *ecce onus meum* (&quot;here is my burden&quot;) might work, but the absolute ablative sounds fishy without a proper verb in the preceding verse.&#xD;&#xA;Depends again on the nuance you are after." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2493" RevisionGUID="de76eaa1-f6d9-4887-a495-71d8e56737e1" CreationDate="2017-01-28T05:37:29.730" UserId="79" Text="In classical Latin, what is the best adverb for describing approximate numbers?&#xD;&#xA;If several work well, are there any differences?&#xD;&#xA;I mean saying things like &quot;I have about ten euros&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I would translate that as *decem fere eurones habeo*.&#xD;&#xA;My preference is *fere*, but there are other words in the same direction (*ferme, circa, prope, quasi, iuxta, paene*) and I do not know if there is a typical classical idiom." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9016" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2493" RevisionGUID="de76eaa1-f6d9-4887-a495-71d8e56737e1" CreationDate="2017-01-28T05:37:29.730" UserId="79" Text="Adverb for approximate numbers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9017" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2493" RevisionGUID="de76eaa1-f6d9-4887-a495-71d8e56737e1" CreationDate="2017-01-28T05:37:29.730" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|word-choice|adverb|numbers|numerals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2494" RevisionGUID="06a1bdee-1eca-4ae8-9dfe-a1227c88a0f7" CreationDate="2017-01-28T05:50:16.500" UserId="78" Text="You've already hit upon all the words I would use except *ad* as a preposition. For example, Cicero uses [ad quadriginta natus esse](https://archive.org/stream/copiouscriticale00smit#page/2/mode/2up/search/about) as a synonym for *fere*. But in general, *circa* and *circiter* both work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my ears, *paene* would mean &quot;almost, but not quite&quot; rather than &quot;around that neighborhood.&quot; Others are all general idioms for &quot;approximately.&quot; I wouldn't, for example, use *paene decem* if you *might* have 11 euros. That word, with some unusual exceptions, seems more to mean &quot;just about&quot; rather than &quot;about.&quot; See the L&amp;S entry on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9019" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2486" RevisionGUID="49f77984-1591-474a-a841-a21efd5e1c0d" CreationDate="2017-01-28T06:02:58.123" UserId="79" Comment="17" />
  <row Id="9020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2495" RevisionGUID="b9f902cb-ad9c-4b6e-a9e5-88e8bcd35bdf" CreationDate="2017-01-28T06:24:48.017" UserId="78" Text="They are completely interchangeable. I'll write a fuller account soon. However, I should note that in English, the literal translations would also be nigh indistinguishable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whichever you like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whichever you want&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No practical difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2496" RevisionGUID="68e4e6da-90f9-44fc-88bd-78bedf15ea77" CreationDate="2017-01-28T12:41:28.467" UserId="60" Text="Is there a Latin idiom, preferably one that was in currency in the classical period, that expresses the speaker's suspicion that something pertinent is being maliciously concealed from him?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For concreteness, in English the idiom might be, &quot;I smell a rat&quot; or &quot;something about this smells fishy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably a direct translation is not going to work; for instance to translate this into French we might say &quot;*y avoir anguille sous roche*&quot; (literally, &quot;there's an eel under the rock&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did have a look through Perseus for words like &quot;fishy&quot; and &quot;rat&quot;, but it seems that none of the famous translators of Latin literature wanted to use such a base idiom." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9022" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2496" RevisionGUID="68e4e6da-90f9-44fc-88bd-78bedf15ea77" CreationDate="2017-01-28T12:41:28.467" UserId="60" Text="In search of a Latin idiom expressing suspicion, i.e., a translation of &quot;I smell a rat&quot; or &quot;something smells fishy&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9023" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2496" RevisionGUID="68e4e6da-90f9-44fc-88bd-78bedf15ea77" CreationDate="2017-01-28T12:41:28.467" UserId="60" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2497" RevisionGUID="4706c705-1671-488a-b458-b11e47ee2bde" CreationDate="2017-01-28T15:03:25.347" UserId="522" Text="**sŭbŏleo, -ēre**  (‘sub’ = a hint, a trace) to catch a whiff, to suspect. Plautus twice **:** referring to a wife, and later to the man under suspicion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly the idiomatic answer is to refer to a well known example of suspicion: &#xD;&#xA;Hippolytus or Cassandra;&#xD;&#xA;or to this or another Fable.&#xD;&#xA;http://mythfolklore.net/aesopica/phaedrus/310.htm  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Piscosus,** fishy, is no use in this case. It means that [the river] is brim full of fish&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2498" RevisionGUID="b9731088-3993-422c-a3eb-a1b513bd9fdb" CreationDate="2017-01-28T19:03:57.357" UserId="235" Text="In this short passage by Ovid, the pronoun &quot;quam&quot; seems to be used as a third person pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Inachus unus abest imoque reconditus antro    &#xD;&#xA;fletibus auget aquas natamque miserrimus Io    &#xD;&#xA;luget ut amissam. Nescit, vitane fruatur,    &#xD;&#xA;an sit apud manes; sed **quam** non invenit usquam,   &#xD;&#xA;esse putat nusquam atque animo peiora veretur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Inachus alone is absent, hidden deep within a cave, increasing the waters with his tears and, most miserable, mourning his daughter Io as lost. He does not know whether she enjoys life, or is among the shades; but [since] he has not found her anywhere, he thinks **her** to be nowhere, and dreads worse things in his mind. (Metamorphoses I.583-7)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that I treated &quot;quam&quot; as a third person pronoun, translating it as &quot;her&quot;. I have a few questions about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Am I correct in doing so? (&quot;quam&quot; = &quot;her&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is the relative pronoun commonly used as a third person pronoun, in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Do you think that Ovid may have preferred &quot;quam&quot; to &quot;illam&quot; because of its consonance with &quot;usquam&quot; and &quot;nusquam&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9026" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2498" RevisionGUID="b9731088-3993-422c-a3eb-a1b513bd9fdb" CreationDate="2017-01-28T19:03:57.357" UserId="235" Text="Is a relative pronoun commonly used as a third person pronoun? (Metamorphoses I.583-587)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9027" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2498" RevisionGUID="b9731088-3993-422c-a3eb-a1b513bd9fdb" CreationDate="2017-01-28T19:03:57.357" UserId="235" Text="|classical-latin|pronouns|ovidius|metamorphoses|relative-pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2499" RevisionGUID="738ff057-f496-4370-b623-4e81a1d02280" CreationDate="2017-01-28T20:09:22.303" UserId="30" Text="Yes, this is fairly common, and you have translated it correctly. The Dutch term is *relatieve aansluiting* (I have forgotten the Latin term), when a relative pronoun is used where we would expect a demonstrative or personal pronoun. We were taught to translate such forms of *qui* as if it said *et/at ille/hic*, as it fits the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The distinction between relative, demonstrative/personal, possessive, and interrogative 3rd-person pronouns is relatively recent, such that e.g. Homer still often uses what is to us the article as a relative pronoun, and the relative as a possessive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, too, the relative pronoun developed relatively recently (probably around late prehistory), out of a demonstrative or interrogative *qui*. At first this *qui* was always used interrogatively, or demonstratively with some subordinating or similar conjunction or particle, but then later it came be used alone as a subordinating pronoun (relative pronoun).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The construction used by Ovid is probably a remnant of that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2499" RevisionGUID="431bc860-b5a9-44ed-8cf9-b7d215a045f8" CreationDate="2017-01-28T20:37:04.347" UserId="30" Comment="added 223 characters in body" Text="Yes, this is fairly common, and you have translated it correctly. The Dutch term is *relatieve aansluiting* (I have forgotten the Latin term), when a relative pronoun is used where we would expect a demonstrative or personal pronoun. We were taught to translate such forms of *qui* as if it said *et/at ille/hic*, as it fits the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The distinction between relative, demonstrative/personal, possessive, and interrogative 3rd-person pronouns is relatively recent, such that e.g. Homer still often uses what is to us the article as a relative pronoun, and the relative as a possessive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, too, the relative pronoun developed relatively recently (probably around late prehistory), out of a demonstrative or interrogative *qui*. At first this *qui* was always used interrogatively, or demonstratively with some subordinating or similar conjunction or particle, but then later it came be used alone as a subordinating pronoun (relative pronoun).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The construction used by Ovid is probably a remnant of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In German, the phaenomenon is called *relativ(isch)er Anschluß*. You may find more information in Kühner–Stegmann, *Ausführliche Grammanik der lateinischen Sprache* (1914), second volume, part 2, paragraph 197 (p. 319). (When the Germans call something ausführlich, you know it is twice that.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2500" RevisionGUID="53435059-cb7d-4515-ab46-6234084667da" CreationDate="2017-01-28T20:46:34.987" UserId="235" Text="In this passage from the Metamorphoses, Juno just descended from heaven onto earth to spy the whereabouts of her husband. Jupiter, having foreseen his wife's arrival, changes Io into a heifer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; speciem Saturnia vaccae,    &#xD;&#xA;quamquam invita, probat nec non, et cuius et unde   &#xD;&#xA;quove sit armento, veri quasi nescia quaerit.    &#xD;&#xA;(Metamorphoses 1:612-614)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having some trouble with this passage. Here's my best shot at a translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Juno (Saturnia), although unwilling, approves the appearance of the cow, and asks  to whom, and from where, and to which herd it belongs, as if not knowing the truth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the details which stump me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What on earth should I make of the phrase &quot;nec non&quot;? I kind of just glossed over that.&#xD;&#xA;2. Is quove just quo with an enclitic -ve? Are -ve and -que equivalent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate any feedback, including any other improvements I could make." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9032" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2500" RevisionGUID="53435059-cb7d-4515-ab46-6234084667da" CreationDate="2017-01-28T20:46:34.987" UserId="235" Text="What does the phrase &quot;nec non&quot; mean? (Metamorphoses I.612-614)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9033" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2500" RevisionGUID="53435059-cb7d-4515-ab46-6234084667da" CreationDate="2017-01-28T20:46:34.987" UserId="235" Text="|classical-latin|meaning|ovidius|metamorphoses|enclitic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2501" RevisionGUID="4a0a3881-a9c3-441d-91a9-aa81315c059a" CreationDate="2017-01-28T22:16:35.923" UserId="30" Text="*[Necnon][1]* can be written as two words, &quot;and not not&quot;; it has a positive meaning because of the double negative. It can be translated as *and* with an appropriate adverb, such as *and yet, and in fact*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The enclitic *-ve* works just like *-que*, except that it means &quot;or&quot; rather than &quot;and&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=necnon&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2502" RevisionGUID="5666fc04-d929-46e7-9608-6f7358d40b15" CreationDate="2017-01-28T22:56:58.560" UserId="40" Text="*Quam* here is being used as a normal relative, and could not be replaced with *illam*, since the relative clause *quam non invenit umquam* is the object of the verb *esse* in the main clause. A literal translation is: &quot;[the one] whom (*quam*) he does not find anywhere, he believes to be nowhere&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2499" RevisionGUID="53e7ac79-2359-4948-a0d3-b1ca9f0e9459" CreationDate="2017-01-28T23:09:16.190" UserId="30" Comment="added 356 characters in body" Text="In this case, it is a normal relative use of *qui*, but with the antecedent (like *[eam] quam*) included in the relative pronoun. You could translate it literally as &quot;but he thinks [her] *whom he does not find anywhere* to be nowhere&quot;, relative clause in italics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Although it doesn't apply here, using *qui* as a demonstrative/personal pronoun is not uncommon. The Dutch term is *relatieve aansluiting* (I have forgotten the Latin term), when a relative pronoun is used where we would expect a demonstrative or personal pronoun. We were taught to translate such forms of *qui* as if it said *et/at ille/hic*, as it fits the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The distinction between relative, demonstrative/personal, possessive, and interrogative 3rd-person pronouns is relatively recent, such that e.g. Homer still often uses what is to us the article as a relative pronoun, and the relative as a possessive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, too, the relative pronoun developed relatively recently (probably around late prehistory), out of a demonstrative or interrogative *qui*. At first this *qui* was always used interrogatively, or demonstratively with some subordinating or similar conjunction or particle, but then later it came be used alone as a subordinating pronoun (relative pronoun).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The construction used by Ovid is probably a remnant of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In German, the phaenomenon is called *relativ(isch)er Anschluß*. You may find more information in Kühner–Stegmann, *Ausführliche Grammanik der lateinischen Sprache* (1914), second volume, part 2, paragraph 197 (p. 319). (When the Germans call something ausführlich, you know it is twice that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English term is *connective relative clause*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2502" RevisionGUID="169745ae-9896-4730-9854-4b425ff06c70" CreationDate="2017-01-28T23:17:43.863" UserId="40" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="*Quam* here is being used as a normal relative, and could not be replaced with *illam*, since the relative clause *quam non invenit umquam* is the accusative subject of the verb *esse* in the accusative and infinitive construction introduced by *putat* in the main clause. A literal translation is: &quot;[the one] whom (*quam*) he does not find anywhere, he believes to be nowhere&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2503" RevisionGUID="6c5373ee-06de-480b-9e5e-354e1fc75784" CreationDate="2017-01-29T14:01:44.753" UserId="1190" Text="I am trying to translate one quote from Estee Lauder, that goes as following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have never dreamed about success. I worked for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translator returned this result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Numquam viderat elit. Et fecerunt pro ea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you consider the last sentence to be grammatically and stylistically correct? If not, please suggest how you would re-phrase it, ideally with a bit of an explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9039" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2503" RevisionGUID="6c5373ee-06de-480b-9e5e-354e1fc75784" CreationDate="2017-01-29T14:01:44.753" UserId="1190" Text="Help translating a phrase from English to Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9040" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2503" RevisionGUID="6c5373ee-06de-480b-9e5e-354e1fc75784" CreationDate="2017-01-29T14:01:44.753" UserId="1190" Text="|translation|style|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2504" RevisionGUID="85847926-9784-404b-bb09-e4d311141601" CreationDate="2017-01-29T16:50:09.997" UserId="78" Text="It's not even close. Of the words, only *numquam* is the right word. As good as Google Translate is for other languages, it's not good at all for Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick and dirty translation would go something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De propseris numquam somniavi; immo eo laboravi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have some options for &quot;success,&quot; but I think *prospera* works nicely in the phrase here. However, I should note it's post-Augustan in its usage. I don't know if that matters to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Somniare* is your best bet with &quot;to dream,&quot; and can even mean &quot;to daydream,&quot; as in English. When you dream about a thing, rather than of the thing, Latin often puts that into *de* + the ablative, which is what I did there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Immo* here is working like a &quot;nay&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I did not...; nay, I did...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *laborare* means &quot;to toil&quot; or &quot;to labor,&quot; and while you could have used a verb that meant &quot;to strive for,&quot; to really emphasize the difficulty in &quot;working for it,&quot; I chose this verb. Its object would go into the dative, so that's the simple *eo*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2504" RevisionGUID="6bb8745f-b958-4757-acda-7b102049258b" CreationDate="2017-01-29T17:33:33.523" UserId="406" Comment="Changed a typo in the Latin, because OP might not notice." Text="It's not even close. Of the words, only *numquam* is the right word. As good as Google Translate is for other languages, it's not good at all for Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick and dirty translation would go something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De prosperis numquam somniavi; immo eo laboravi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have some options for &quot;success,&quot; but I think *prospera* works nicely in the phrase here. However, I should note it's post-Augustan in its usage. I don't know if that matters to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Somniare* is your best bet with &quot;to dream,&quot; and can even mean &quot;to daydream,&quot; as in English. When you dream about a thing, rather than of the thing, Latin often puts that into *de* + the ablative, which is what I did there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Immo* here is working like a &quot;nay&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I did not...; nay, I did...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *laborare* means &quot;to toil&quot; or &quot;to labor,&quot; and while you could have used a verb that meant &quot;to strive for,&quot; to really emphasize the difficulty in &quot;working for it,&quot; I chose this verb. Its object would go into the dative, so that's the simple *eo*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2505" RevisionGUID="85f6af6a-7e75-47eb-8a30-33a773556fdf" CreationDate="2017-01-29T21:19:44.250" UserId="235" Text="The first clause of the *Metamorphoses* goes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas / corpora; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My mind inclines me to speak of bodies changed into new forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an English speaker, this all seems backward. Why isn't &quot;corpora&quot; used as the object of &quot;dicere&quot;, and &quot;formas&quot; as the object of &quot;in&quot;? This is the more logical choice for an English speaker learning Latin. Would it have been the more logical choice for a Roman during Ovid's time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the Romans have shared my confusion? Or is just my bias as an English speaker?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9044" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2505" RevisionGUID="85f6af6a-7e75-47eb-8a30-33a773556fdf" CreationDate="2017-01-29T21:19:44.250" UserId="235" Text="Why is &quot;formas&quot; used for bodies and &quot;corpora&quot; for forms? (Metamorphoses 1.1.1)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9045" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2505" RevisionGUID="85f6af6a-7e75-47eb-8a30-33a773556fdf" CreationDate="2017-01-29T21:19:44.250" UserId="235" Text="|classical-latin|word-comparison|ovidius|word-choice|metamorphoses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2505" RevisionGUID="407c91e1-1d4c-41da-bd1e-4d78ca353b30" CreationDate="2017-01-29T21:25:19.057" UserId="235" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="The first clause of the *Metamorphoses* goes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas / corpora; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My mind inclines me to speak of bodies changed into new forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an English speaker, this all seems backward. Why isn't &quot;corpora&quot; used as the object of &quot;dicere&quot;, and &quot;formas&quot; as the object of &quot;in&quot;? This is the more logical choice for an English speaker learning Latin. Would it have been the more logical choice for a Roman during Ovid's time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the Romans have shared my confusion? Or do I misunderstand the primary sense and connotations of these words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2505" RevisionGUID="9c3729f5-e054-4fcc-9e9f-4e6b8817e94e" CreationDate="2017-01-29T21:27:50.800" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 78 characters in body" Text="The first clause of the *Metamorphoses* goes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas / corpora; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My mind inclines me to speak of bodies changed into new forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an English speaker, this seems backward. Why isn't &quot;corpora&quot; used as the object of &quot;dicere&quot;, and &quot;formas&quot; as the object of &quot;in&quot;? This is the more logical choice for an English speaker learning Latin. Would the Romans have shared my confusion? Or do I misunderstand the primary sense and connotations of these words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2506" RevisionGUID="1c438f76-9dc3-498a-a570-7fb333a069bf" CreationDate="2017-01-29T22:25:11.077" UserId="40" Text="You're parsing the line correctly -- a more literal translation would be &quot;...to speak of forms changed into new bodies&quot;. Doesn't it come to the same thing? Io's form was changed into the new body of a cow, or her body was changed into the new form of a cow. Maybe the latter sounds a bit more natural, but I wouldn't say the former is backward. And of course with Ovid you can never rule out the possibility that he's being playful -- beginning a poem about change, maybe he decided to change his wording around from the more expected form into a new body..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2504" RevisionGUID="203f2795-bbe9-42bb-afad-a00696d1c43a" CreationDate="2017-01-30T00:42:48.133" UserId="78" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="It's not even close. Of the words, only *numquam* is the right word. As good as Google Translate is for other languages, it's not good at all for Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick and dirty translation would go something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De prosperis numquam somniavi; immo eis laboravi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have some options for &quot;success,&quot; but I think *prospera* works nicely in the phrase here. However, I should note it's post-Augustan in its usage. I don't know if that matters to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Somniare* is your best bet with &quot;to dream,&quot; and can even mean &quot;to daydream,&quot; as in English. When you dream about a thing, rather than of the thing, Latin often puts that into *de* + the ablative, which is what I did there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Immo* here is working like a &quot;nay&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I did not...; nay, I did...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *laborare* means &quot;to toil&quot; or &quot;to labor,&quot; and while you could have used a verb that meant &quot;to strive for,&quot; to really emphasize the difficulty in &quot;working for it,&quot; I chose this verb. Its object would go into the dative, so that's the simple *eis* (plural to go with *prospera*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2507" RevisionGUID="52fde7f0-4a04-48ae-9cd7-908ad82bfe1c" CreationDate="2017-01-30T01:44:56.177" UserId="118" Text="How would you render:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If Trump bombs us into the Middle Ages, we'll all need to know Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm posting an answer of my own, in hope of constructive criticism (or confirmation that I hit the Latin groove)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9051" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2507" RevisionGUID="52fde7f0-4a04-48ae-9cd7-908ad82bfe1c" CreationDate="2017-01-30T01:44:56.177" UserId="118" Text="Has a new practical reason to learn Latin emerged?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9052" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2507" RevisionGUID="52fde7f0-4a04-48ae-9cd7-908ad82bfe1c" CreationDate="2017-01-30T01:44:56.177" UserId="118" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2508" RevisionGUID="a999ebca-b075-4360-9a02-3d8c7ceccd33" CreationDate="2017-01-30T01:46:27.747" UserId="118" Text="&gt; Si Trumpus nos bombet in Medium Aevum, nobis omni sit opus linguam Latinam noscere.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2509" RevisionGUID="a41ba06b-3117-4d9d-8c20-7101519b85c6" CreationDate="2017-01-30T15:17:07.420" UserId="1195" Text="I'm trying to find the most valid translation for &quot;I make, therefore I am&quot;. The closest I've seen is &quot;ego creo ergo sum&quot; But have also seen just &quot;creo ergo sum&quot;. Also seen many places stating that &quot;Facio ergo sum&quot; was correct but google translate seems to think that's actually &quot;I do, therefore I am&quot;&#xD;&#xA;So, is the beginning &quot;ego&quot; required? Would it be possible for someone to translate &quot;[text]&quot; into Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Contextually, just going for a modification of the Descarte &quot;I think, therefore I am&quot; thing. For which google translate is fine with &quot;Cogito ergo sum&quot; without the beginning &quot;ego&quot; and it still includes the &quot;I&quot; at the start...&#xD;&#xA;Planning to use with some PR material for a Maker Faire&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9056" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2509" RevisionGUID="a41ba06b-3117-4d9d-8c20-7101519b85c6" CreationDate="2017-01-30T15:17:07.420" UserId="1195" Text="I make/create therefore I am" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9057" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2509" RevisionGUID="a41ba06b-3117-4d9d-8c20-7101519b85c6" CreationDate="2017-01-30T15:17:07.420" UserId="1195" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2510" RevisionGUID="d5f4ed52-e021-43e2-b60e-f7d545fc13e2" CreationDate="2017-01-30T15:30:40.403" UserId="645" Text="*While facio* can also mean 'do' (cf. French *faire*, German *machen*), *Facio ergo sum* is perfectly correct. *Ego* is only used for emphasis or for distinguishing the speaker from others and is unnecessary here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Creo* is possible for *facio*, but in practice its effect is very little different." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2510" RevisionGUID="00d7a37a-e0e0-4102-8eb3-d1ab730aa3ba" CreationDate="2017-01-30T15:46:01.950" UserId="645" Comment="punct." Text="While *facio* can also mean 'do' (cf. French *faire*, German *machen*), *Facio ergo sum* is perfectly correct. *Ego* is only used for emphasis or for distinguishing the speaker from others and is unnecessary here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Creo* is possible for *facio*, but in practice its effect is very little different." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2511" RevisionGUID="660d1686-02a4-432b-9977-38fe2075fb5b" CreationDate="2017-01-30T16:33:04.870" UserId="406" Text="As Tom Cotton said, *faciō ergō sum* is a perfectly good translation of the English. Google Translate for Latin is very unreliable and often makes mistakes even for single words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, personal pronouns like &quot;I&quot; can often be left out. You could add an *egō* onto the beginning, which would be quite emphatic: ***I*** make, therefore ***I*** am. Or you could leave it off, which is more neutral. Neither is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Faciō* can indeed mean &quot;I do&quot;, but can also mean &quot;I make&quot;. It's one of the most general-purpose verbs in Latin with dozens of different uses, much like English &quot;make&quot;: you can &quot;make money&quot;, &quot;make do&quot;, &quot;make your way home&quot;, and so on. But on its own, without any further context, its primary meaning is &quot;turn raw materials into something useful&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Creō* is closer to &quot;create&quot; or &quot;beget&quot; than &quot;make&quot;. While *faciō* refers to a transition from raw material to finished product, *creō* is more focused on the end result: *creō* is also used for electing a public official, divine creation, and (poetically) giving birth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a Maker Faire, I like *faciō* better (though again *creō* would not be wrong: &quot;I create, therefore I am&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2512" RevisionGUID="02255588-9479-4a6c-a38e-7888efe68e4f" CreationDate="2017-01-30T18:48:39.277" UserId="406" Text="For the sake of comparison, here's a different rendering. Wherever possible I tried to make a different decision from yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sī Trumps bombīs nōs ad saeculum prīscum (re)premet, omnibus Latine loquī necesse erit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin conditionals are interesting, because the grammar expresses more information than in English. If the condition will happen in the future, the mood of the verbs indicates how &quot;vivid&quot; the condition is. I used a &quot;future more vivid&quot; (indicative) construction here to show that this concern is pressing and important—hopefully not because it is likely to happen in reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since &quot;Trump&quot; ends in a consonant, and apparently comes from a consonant-stem in German, I treated it like a consonant-stem noun *Trumps, Trumpis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be no attested Latin verb for &quot;to bomb [something] back to [something]&quot;, despite rigorous searching. So I used the verb *premō* &quot;to crush, to force down&quot;, with the preposition *ad* &quot;to&quot;. Given the meaning it would make sense to put *re-* in front of the verb, but *_repremō_ isn't attested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the instrument by which we are being forced back, *bombīs* is ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Classical Latin, *prīscus* refers to &quot;the old times&quot;, when heroes were real heroes and kings were real kings: the long-ago age during which history and legend are somewhat mixed. For instance, *prīsca Latīnitas* is the Latin spoken before Classical times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Saeculum* can mean a century as in 100 years, but can also mean an indefinitely long span of time, or more generally an &quot;age&quot; (golden age, iron age, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to have something different, I used an impersonal construction for &quot;need&quot;: *necesse erit omnibus* &quot;it will be necessary for everyone...&quot; Since *nōs* appears earlier in the sentence I left off *nobis* here. And rather than &quot;know the Latin tongue&quot;, which sounds slightly awkward, I used literally &quot;speak Latin-ly&quot; (*Latine loquī*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2511" RevisionGUID="424a3f4a-03e6-4d30-8419-5be41be31724" CreationDate="2017-01-30T18:50:41.093" UserId="406" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="As Tom Cotton said, *faciō ergō sum* is a perfectly good translation of the English. Google Translate for Latin is very unreliable and often makes mistakes even for single words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, personal pronouns like &quot;I&quot; can often be left out. You could add an *egō* onto the beginning, which would be quite emphatic: ***I*** make, therefore ***I*** am. Or you could leave it off, which is more neutral. Neither is incorrect. (Notably, Descartes leaves it off; the emphasis is on the *thinking*, not on *him*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Faciō* can indeed mean &quot;I do&quot;, but can also mean &quot;I make&quot;. It's one of the most general-purpose verbs in Latin with dozens of different uses, much like English &quot;make&quot;: you can &quot;make money&quot;, &quot;make do&quot;, &quot;make your way home&quot;, and so on. But on its own, without any further context, its primary meaning is &quot;turn raw materials into something useful&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Creō* is closer to &quot;create&quot; or &quot;beget&quot; than &quot;make&quot;. While *faciō* refers to a transition from raw material to finished product, *creō* is more focused on the end result: *creō* is also used for electing a public official, divine creation, and (poetically) giving birth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a Maker Faire, I like *faciō* better (though again *creō* would not be wrong: &quot;I create, therefore I am&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2513" RevisionGUID="a295e2c0-9951-4ec7-be81-a4f93b9d8874" CreationDate="2017-01-30T21:00:32.143" UserId="1200" Text="Hello all you Latin buffs out there! I need a bit of help with a translation from English into Latin: Rochester Catholic Schools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would **Rochester Catholic Schools** be properly translated into Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your help is very much appreciated, thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9064" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2513" RevisionGUID="a295e2c0-9951-4ec7-be81-a4f93b9d8874" CreationDate="2017-01-30T21:00:32.143" UserId="1200" Text="Translation: English into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9065" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2513" RevisionGUID="a295e2c0-9951-4ec7-be81-a4f93b9d8874" CreationDate="2017-01-30T21:00:32.143" UserId="1200" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|ecclesiastical-latin|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2514" RevisionGUID="40af7502-1ba7-4963-8149-35bbdfe8891e" CreationDate="2017-01-30T21:23:35.260" UserId="952" Text="Welcome to the site!  &#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Catholic Schools&quot; portion of the phrase could be translated as *Catholicae scholae*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there isn't a specific word for Rochester in Latin, so you may want to check out this article on [Latinisation][1] for a quick overview.  &#xD;&#xA;In this situation, the Latin word for Rochester would have to go into either the **genitive** if you want the phrase to mean &quot;Catholic schools of Rochester&quot; or **locative** if you want the phrase to mean &quot;Catholic schools in Rochester&quot;. However, we would first need to get over the hurdle of Latinising the proper noun &quot;Rochester&quot;. Does anyone else have more experience with Latinising words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latinisation_of_names" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2515" RevisionGUID="b4c65a50-1d74-4b32-83cd-1916f934812f" CreationDate="2017-01-30T21:36:11.227" UserId="645" Text="The most general words for 'school' are *ludus* and *schola*, the latter usually being reserved for more advanced students. (You might also like *academia*, but it really refers to a place for philosophical discussion, rather than instruction.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a choice of adjectival name for Rochester : *Durobrivensis* (from the oldest name, something like 'Durobrivae'), or *Roffensis* (more modern). The latter derives from an old corrupted version of a name that arose before the time of Bede, although there isn't any evidence of a Roman fort to justify the *-c(h)ester* ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice, then, is between *Ludus Catholicus Durobrivensis*, *Schola Catholica Durobrivensis*, or the same pair but using *Roffensis* for *Durobrivensis*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2515" RevisionGUID="512bbeca-805d-4996-bf8d-3934c9b2998f" CreationDate="2017-01-30T21:42:20.213" UserId="645" Comment="pluralised" Text="The most general words for 'school' are *ludus* and *schola*, the latter usually being reserved for more advanced students. (You might also like *academia*, but it really refers to a place for philosophical discussion, rather than instruction.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a choice of adjectival name for Rochester : *Durobrivensis* (from the oldest name, something like 'Durobrivae'), or *Roffensis* (more modern). The latter derives from an old corrupted version of a name that arose before the time of Bede, although there isn't any evidence of a Roman fort to justify the *-c(h)ester* ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice, then, is between *Ludi Catholici Durobrivenses*, *Scholae Catholicae Durobrivenses*, or the same pair but using *Roffenses* for *Durobrivenses*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2512" RevisionGUID="0fa92389-faa8-40ff-bde2-5e3cbd12846f" CreationDate="2017-01-30T21:50:53.000" UserId="406" Comment="added 312 characters in body" Text="For the sake of comparison, here's a different rendering. Wherever possible I tried to make a different decision from yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sī Trumps bombīs nōs ad saeculum prīscum (re)premet, omnibus Latine loquī necesse erit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin conditionals are interesting, because the grammar expresses more information than in English. If the condition will happen in the future, the mood of the verbs indicates how &quot;vivid&quot; the condition is. I used a &quot;future more vivid&quot; (indicative) construction here to show that this concern is pressing and important—hopefully not because it is likely to happen in reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since &quot;Trump&quot; ends in a consonant, and apparently comes from a consonant-stem in German, I treated it like a consonant-stem noun *Trumps, Trumpis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be no attested Latin verb for &quot;to bomb [something] back to [something]&quot;, despite rigorous searching. So I used the verb *premō* &quot;to crush, to force down&quot;, with the preposition *ad* &quot;to&quot;. Given the meaning it would make sense to put *re-* in front of the verb, but *_repremō_ isn't attested. As the instrument by which we are being forced back, *bombīs* is ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most difficult phrase to translate, since there's no Classical equivalent: another option (per Tom Cotton) is *rētrōrsus* &quot;backward&quot; with a form of *agō* &quot;drive&quot;; yet another (per Morgan's lexicon, via brianpck) is to use *pyrobolus* for &quot;bombs&quot; with a form of *dēiciō* &quot;hurl [something] down onto&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Classical Latin, *prīscus* refers to &quot;the old times&quot;, when heroes were real heroes and kings were real kings: the long-ago age during which history and legend are somewhat mixed. For instance, *prīsca Latīnitas* is the Latin spoken before Classical times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Saeculum* can mean a century as in 100 years, but can also mean an indefinitely long span of time, or more generally an &quot;age&quot; (golden age, iron age, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to have something different, I used an impersonal construction for &quot;need&quot;: *necesse erit omnibus* &quot;it will be necessary for everyone...&quot; Since *nōs* appears earlier in the sentence I left off *nobis* here. And rather than &quot;know the Latin tongue&quot;, which sounds slightly awkward, I used literally &quot;speak Latin-ly&quot; (*Latine loquī*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2516" RevisionGUID="167f98c3-3cb8-492d-8bfd-51644bf5fa48" CreationDate="2017-01-30T22:33:28.093" UserId="1195" Text="Asked the inverse of this [here](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2509/i-make-create-therefore-i-am) but when I thought about it I preferred the opposite sentiment. Not that one exists because they make things but that they make things because they exist, as in there is no other choice. It is a compulsion of existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, would there be a proper translation that would make sense for &quot;I exist, therefore I make&quot;? (So the inverse of &quot;Facio Ergo Sum&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9071" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2516" RevisionGUID="167f98c3-3cb8-492d-8bfd-51644bf5fa48" CreationDate="2017-01-30T22:33:28.093" UserId="1195" Text="Tranlastion: I exist, therefore I make" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9072" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2516" RevisionGUID="167f98c3-3cb8-492d-8bfd-51644bf5fa48" CreationDate="2017-01-30T22:33:28.093" UserId="1195" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2517" RevisionGUID="3e9aa8d5-99a2-4f06-9147-8348f993f550" CreationDate="2017-01-30T23:05:36.770" UserId="1201" Text="I have an old silver jewellery box, in the bottom left hand corner is an arm holding a spear, with a banner underneath, with the words&#xD;&#xA;REM ORUINE PANDO&#xD;&#xA;The I in ORUINE could possibly be an L, hard to tell.&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if anyone could tell me what it means? Is it even Latin??&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9074" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2517" RevisionGUID="3e9aa8d5-99a2-4f06-9147-8348f993f550" CreationDate="2017-01-30T23:05:36.770" UserId="1201" Text="What is the meaning of &quot;REM ORUINE PANDO&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9075" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2517" RevisionGUID="3e9aa8d5-99a2-4f06-9147-8348f993f550" CreationDate="2017-01-30T23:05:36.770" UserId="1201" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2518" RevisionGUID="9ca2e08d-d7f9-40af-9f5d-739ef013e164" CreationDate="2017-01-30T23:17:07.923" UserId="324" Text="Presumably (as far as one can presume anything without an image of the object in question) it says “rem ordine pando”, a quotation from Vergil’s Aeneid 3:179." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2519" RevisionGUID="2cede137-f5b8-4fec-8985-06664bcff948" CreationDate="2017-01-30T23:19:25.873" UserId="78" Text="That &quot;U&quot; is probably a &quot;D&quot;: *rem ordine pando*. This is a quote from Vergil's *Aeneid* 3.179 and means &quot;I explained the whole thing [i.e. the whole story] in order.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2517" RevisionGUID="637a564a-c840-45ad-a7c7-f58f7f49ef8f" CreationDate="2017-01-30T23:20:24.793" UserId="78" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have an old silver jewellery box, in the bottom left hand corner is an arm holding a spear, with a banner underneath, with the words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; REM ORUINE PANDO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The I in ORUINE could possibly be an L, hard to tell.&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if anyone could tell me what it means? Is it even Latin??&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9079" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2517" RevisionGUID="637a564a-c840-45ad-a7c7-f58f7f49ef8f" CreationDate="2017-01-30T23:20:24.793" UserId="78" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2512" RevisionGUID="d004d5b7-ed74-4c78-be16-ba77e3e85092" CreationDate="2017-01-30T23:41:56.360" UserId="406" Comment="added 195 characters in body" Text="For the sake of comparison, here's a different rendering. Wherever possible I tried to make a different decision from yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sī Trumps bombīs nōs ad saecula prīsca premet, omnibus Latine loquī necesse erit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin conditionals are interesting, because the grammar expresses more information than in English. If the condition will happen in the future, the mood of the verbs indicates how &quot;vivid&quot; the condition is. I used a &quot;future more vivid&quot; (indicative) construction here to show that this concern is pressing and important—hopefully not because it is likely to happen in reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since &quot;Trump&quot; ends in a consonant, and apparently comes from a consonant-stem in German, I treated it like a consonant-stem noun *Trumps, Trumpis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be no attested Latin verb for &quot;to bomb [something] back to [something]&quot;, despite rigorous searching. So I used the verb *premō* &quot;to crush, to force down&quot;, with the preposition *ad* &quot;to&quot;. &lt;s&gt;Given the meaning it would make sense to put *re-* in front of the verb, but *_repremō_ isn't attested.&lt;/s&gt; *See comments.* As the instrument by which we are being forced back, *bombīs* is ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most difficult phrase to translate, since there's no Classical equivalent: another option (per Tom Cotton) is *rētrōrsus* &quot;backward&quot; with a form of *agō* &quot;drive&quot;; yet another (per Morgan's lexicon, via brianpck) is to use *pyrobolus* for &quot;bombs&quot; with a form of *dēiciō* &quot;hurl [something] down onto&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Classical Latin, *prīscus* refers to &quot;the old times&quot;, when heroes were real heroes and kings were real kings: the long-ago age during which history and legend are somewhat mixed. For instance, *prīsca Latīnitas* is the Latin spoken before Classical times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Saeculum* can mean a century as in 100 years, but can also mean an indefinitely long span of time, or more generally an &quot;age&quot; (golden age, iron age, etc). I'm using it in the plural here, per Joonas Ilmavirta's suggestion, to indicate that we might be sent to anywhere in a long time period rather than to a single specific instant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to have something different, I used an impersonal construction for &quot;need&quot;: *necesse erit omnibus* &quot;it will be necessary for everyone...&quot; Since *nōs* appears earlier in the sentence I left off *nobis* here. And rather than &quot;know the Latin tongue&quot;, which sounds slightly awkward, I used literally &quot;speak Latin-ly&quot; (*Latine loquī*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2520" RevisionGUID="527d5149-d34a-49a5-afba-d463f090f495" CreationDate="2017-01-31T02:15:01.787" UserId="1152" Text="It is not clear to me why in the translation of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Phaeselus ille quem videtis, hospites, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ait fuisse navium celerrimus,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; neque ullius natantis impetum trabis &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; nequisse praeterire, sive palmulis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; opus foret volare sive linteo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could not translate celerrimus as a a noun, i.e. Phaeselus, whom you guests all saw, said that the quickest of the ships...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I do this the rest of the sentence works out gramatically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the quickest ships, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;neither of any (value) swimming by the trunk, nor was it passing using the paddles through the linen as it would have wanted to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some rule against this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9082" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2520" RevisionGUID="527d5149-d34a-49a5-afba-d463f090f495" CreationDate="2017-01-31T02:15:01.787" UserId="1152" Text="Using an adjective as a noun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9083" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2520" RevisionGUID="527d5149-d34a-49a5-afba-d463f090f495" CreationDate="2017-01-31T02:15:01.787" UserId="1152" Text="|classical-latin|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2521" RevisionGUID="aff74351-6ac1-4a51-bf5c-fa1725d15bf8" CreationDate="2017-01-31T03:46:23.010" UserId="1202" Text="I've been slowly trying to teach myself Latin with the help of [this site][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've gone past the parts where it talks about first, second, third etc declension nouns, and it all seems quite arbitrary as to whether a given noun will be first declension or second declension or etc. In essence, my question is *what is it about a first declension noun that makes it a first declension noun rather than a second or third or etc?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example of the sort of insights which I'm looking for (which may or may not be true): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;First declension nouns are all *masculine* whereas second declension nouns are all *feminine* and third declension nouns are all *neuter*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;First declension nouns are all plural, whereas second declensions nouns are all singular and third declension nouns have no number&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also asking this question with regards to the verb conjugations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What is the pattern?* Why is a first declension noun a first declension noun? What is it about a first conjugation verb that makes it first conjugation rather than second conjugation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does it actually tell me if I know the conjugation of a verb or the declension of a noun? What information do I get? What do I actually learn about the word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is it actually just arbitrary?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/Latin/beginners/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9085" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2521" RevisionGUID="aff74351-6ac1-4a51-bf5c-fa1725d15bf8" CreationDate="2017-01-31T03:46:23.010" UserId="1202" Text="What is the significance of the different declensions and conjugations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9086" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2521" RevisionGUID="aff74351-6ac1-4a51-bf5c-fa1725d15bf8" CreationDate="2017-01-31T03:46:23.010" UserId="1202" Text="|declension|grammar-identification|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2520" RevisionGUID="52779eda-2ccd-4649-948d-c3f92a9bf5df" CreationDate="2017-01-31T04:16:32.400" UserId="1152" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="It is not clear to me why in the translation of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Phaeselus ille quem videtis, hospites, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ait fuisse navium celerrimus,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; neque ullius natantis impetum trabis &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; nequisse praeterire, sive palmulis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; opus foret volare sive linteo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could not translate celerrimus as a a noun, i.e. Phaeselus, whom you guests all saw, said that the quickest of the ships...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I do this the rest of the sentence works out gramatically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the quickest of the ships, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;neither of any (value) swimming by the trunk, nor was it passing using the paddles through the linen as it would have wanted to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some rule against this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9088" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2520" RevisionGUID="52779eda-2ccd-4649-948d-c3f92a9bf5df" CreationDate="2017-01-31T04:16:32.400" UserId="1152" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Alternative translation of poem 4 from catullus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2522" RevisionGUID="0b223ad5-53cc-4bce-93c6-8e13857ab892" CreationDate="2017-01-31T04:36:04.060" UserId="952" Text="I don't know if this is specifically the answer you are looking for, but I can explain the different case endings for nouns and verb forms.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Let's start off with nouns.**   &#xD;&#xA;Nouns in the first declension are typically feminine, with the exception of the Latin words for poet (*poeta, poetae*) and farmer (*agricola, agricolae*). I do believe that there is one other, but it is slipping my mind at the present moment. Here is a chart of endings for the first declension. (Please excuse my inability to format proper tables...)  &#xD;&#xA;**Singular**  &#xD;&#xA;Nom *-a*  &#xD;&#xA;Gen *-ae*  &#xD;&#xA;Dat *-ae*  &#xD;&#xA;Acc *-am*  &#xD;&#xA;Abl *-ā*  &#xD;&#xA;**Plural**  &#xD;&#xA;Nom *-ae*  &#xD;&#xA;Gen *-ārum*  &#xD;&#xA;Dat *-īs*  &#xD;&#xA;Acc *-ās*  &#xD;&#xA;Abl *-īs*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nouns in the second declension are masculine and neuter. The case endings are slightly different between the two declensions, so I have noted the neuter variations in parentheses.  &#xD;&#xA;**Singular**  &#xD;&#xA;Nom *-us (-um)*  &#xD;&#xA;Gen *-ī*  &#xD;&#xA;Dat *-ō*  &#xD;&#xA;Acc *-um*  &#xD;&#xA;Abl *-ō*  &#xD;&#xA;**Plural**  &#xD;&#xA;Nom *-ī*  &#xD;&#xA;Gen *-ōrum*  &#xD;&#xA;Dat *-īs*  &#xD;&#xA;Acc *-ōs*  &#xD;&#xA;Abl *-īs*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nouns in the third declension can be masculine, feminine, common (can be either masculine or feminine), or neuter. Again, the neuter variations are in parentheses.  &#xD;&#xA;**Singular**  &#xD;&#xA;Nom *-varies*  &#xD;&#xA;Gen *-is*  &#xD;&#xA;Dat *-ī*  &#xD;&#xA;Acc *-em (matches nominative)*  &#xD;&#xA;Abl *-e*  &#xD;&#xA;**Plural**  &#xD;&#xA;Nom *-ēs*  &#xD;&#xA;Gen *-um*  &#xD;&#xA;Dat *-ībus*  &#xD;&#xA;Acc *-ēs*  &#xD;&#xA;Abl *-ībus*   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a 4th declension which contains mostly masculine nouns, and a 5th declension which is all feminine save for the word for &quot;day&quot; which is *diēs*. I can explain these if you would like, but they are generally less common than the aforementioned three declensions.  &#xD;&#xA;You may also be wondering about the cases. I'll give a brief explanation below, as I do not know how much you have investigated about this particular area. Keep in mind that this does not cover all the particular uses for each case, but it should give you a relatively useful foundation.  &#xD;&#xA;**Nominative (nom)**: the subject of the sentence  (ex: the **cat** chases the mouse)  &#xD;&#xA;**Genitive (gen)**: typically indicates possession (the thief took the **queen's** crown)  &#xD;&#xA;**Dative (dat)**: used for reference and as an indirect object with the words &quot;to&quot; or &quot;for&quot; (ex: she gives to the **charity**)  &#xD;&#xA;**Accusative (acc)**: the direct object of the sentence (ex: the cat chases the **mouse**)  &#xD;&#xA;**Ablative (abl)**: used in various prepositional phrases (ex: the cavalry on the **bridge** was marching with the **king**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Now for verbs!**   &#xD;&#xA;There are 4 conjugations of verbs, creatively named first, second, third (of which third-io is a sub-conjugation), and fourth.  &#xD;&#xA;You can see [examples of the different conjugations][1] in one of my previous answers, as I don't want to make this answer too lengthy.  &#xD;&#xA;However, I did not include examples of 3rd-io verbs in that answer, so here are a couple:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*capio, capere, cepi, captum * = seize, capture  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*facio, facere, feci, factum* = do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your last few questions from a general standpoint, noun declensions and verb conjugations allow you to make all the different forms for words so that they can be used in various purposes.  &#xD;&#xA;I hope this explanation helps, let me know if you would lie any clarification or additional information!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2221/translating-mankind-evolves-and-two-other-two-word-phrases/2222#2222" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2523" RevisionGUID="d8d35097-8a31-4506-8dcd-4658d3aaf79a" CreationDate="2017-01-31T05:19:19.187" UserId="982" Text="How is the name Priapus pronounced in Classical Latin? I don't know if the primary stress is on the first syllable (Pri) or the penultimate (ap)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9091" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2523" RevisionGUID="d8d35097-8a31-4506-8dcd-4658d3aaf79a" CreationDate="2017-01-31T05:19:19.187" UserId="982" Text="Pronunciation of &quot;Priapus&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9092" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2523" RevisionGUID="d8d35097-8a31-4506-8dcd-4658d3aaf79a" CreationDate="2017-01-31T05:19:19.187" UserId="982" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2524" RevisionGUID="f42864f4-202e-4585-b9b1-7ddacd05e646" CreationDate="2017-01-31T05:39:40.140" UserId="40" Text="The *a* of *Priāpus* is [long](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DPriapus1), which means that by Latin stress rules, the stress is on the penult." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2525" RevisionGUID="b3a7cc04-2c2b-439c-b436-93c4936b8a28" CreationDate="2017-01-31T05:56:08.943" UserId="406" Text="##It's pretty much arbitrary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some standard patterns: first-declension nouns tend to be feminine, second-declension masculine/neuter, third-declension abstract concepts, fourth-declension collectives and states, fifth-declension feminine. But there's an exception to each and every one of these rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically speaking, the declensions derived from different types of Proto-Indo-European nouns. Nouns with stems ending in *a* became the first declension, *o* the second, *i* or a consonant the third, *u* the fourth, and *e* the fifth. Hence these vowels appearing in the declension tables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there was no real pattern to this, unfortunately. Just like how there's no shared meaning between words starting with the letter *M*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over time, more patterns developed as the language was regularized. This helped somewhat and created the general rules I mentioned above. But in the process irregular nouns like *dies* were forced into the existing categories, breaking these patterns, and commonly-used nouns stubbornly clung to their existing forms. So you still see words like *paterfamilias*, from an old first-declension genitive ending *-as* that died out everywhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same is generally true of verb conjugations. But this time there was no categorization at all in PIE: in some cases, each principal part was actually a different verb entirely (compare *ferō, ferre, tulī, latus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin regularized the verbs **far** more than other languages did: in Ancient Greek most verbs can't be fit into any &quot;conjugation&quot; at all, and just have to be learned through their principal parts. The common endings like *-ō, -āre, -āvī, -ātus* developed as the system was simplified and made more regular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, a word's declension or conjugation tells you nothing except how to inflect it properly. Which is quite important, and even has effects in English: cactus → cacti is second-declension, while circus → circuses is fourth. But there's no deeper meaning to be revealed by comparing the meanings of words within a particular category: they're just as arbitrary as the Latin genders are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2523" RevisionGUID="b0460457-9273-4222-87b6-b0d654c7790a" CreationDate="2017-01-31T09:08:43.640" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags." Text="How is the name *Priapus* pronounced in Classical Latin? I don't know if the primary stress is on the first syllable (Pri) or the penultimate (ap)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9097" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2523" RevisionGUID="b0460457-9273-4222-87b6-b0d654c7790a" CreationDate="2017-01-31T09:08:43.640" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags." Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2520" RevisionGUID="873e3ab3-146e-4db1-a5db-6700d788af4b" CreationDate="2017-01-31T09:23:48.213" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged." Text="It is not clear to me why in the translation of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Phaeselus ille quem videtis, hospites,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ait fuisse navium celerrimus,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; neque ullius natantis impetum trabis  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; nequisse praeterire, sive palmulis  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; opus foret volare sive linteo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could not translate *celerrimus* as a a noun, i.e. Phaeselus, whom you guests all saw, said that the quickest of the ships...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I do this the rest of the sentence works out grammatically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Phaeselus, whom you guests all saw, said that the quickest of the ships  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; neither of any (value) swimming by the trunk, nor was it passing using the paddles through the linen as it would have wanted to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some rule against this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9099" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2520" RevisionGUID="873e3ab3-146e-4db1-a5db-6700d788af4b" CreationDate="2017-01-31T09:23:48.213" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged." Text="Alternative translation of poem 4 from Catullus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9100" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2520" RevisionGUID="873e3ab3-146e-4db1-a5db-6700d788af4b" CreationDate="2017-01-31T09:23:48.213" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged." Text="|classical-latin|translation|poetry|catullus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2526" RevisionGUID="3d379f1b-398a-46d3-bf0f-4989d992e6cc" CreationDate="2017-01-31T11:32:28.270" UserId="645" Text="It appears as if *celerrimus* is adjectival, in apposition to *phaselus*, but it's often argued that this is a mistake of transcription : that it should in fact have been *celerrimum*, as the accusative to follow the infinitive *fuisse*. After *neque*, a further acc. + inf. follows *fuisse* in *impetum . . . nequisse praeterire*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Phaselus* was a kind of long bean-pod, and here it is used to represent the shape of the hull of Catullus's boat ; *trabs* is a beam of timber and a metaphor for any kind of rival that might try its speed against it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*That yacht which you see, passers-by, claims to have been the fastest of ships, and that the onrush of any timber afloat could not overtake, whether it had to fly along by oars or by canvas.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2527" RevisionGUID="a6e5d4d0-6598-4147-956c-f8882ff5a0bb" CreationDate="2017-01-31T12:59:40.540" UserId="45" Text="You are correct that *celerrimus* can and should be translated as a noun. Allen &amp; Greenough has a section dedicated to [Adjectives used substantively](http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.288.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't make it explicit in your question, but it is possible that the real source of confusion is that *celerrimus* has two expected characteristics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It is nominative, although the surrounding structure is **accusative** + infinnitive.&#xD;&#xA;2. It is masculine, although *navis* is feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;expected&quot; construction would read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Phasellus...ait [se] fuisse navium **celerrimam**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The vessel said that she was the fastest of ships.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noting that this expected accusative occurs in the next phrase!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Phasellus ait] ... ullius natantis **impetum** trabis nequisse praeterire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[The vessel said] that the advance of any other floating plank could not pass it by.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first possible explanation, that this is a transcription error, is given in the other answer. I am not familiar with the manuscript tradition, so I cannot speculate on how likely this is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Another explanation** is that this is an imitation of a Greek construction: **attraction in case** (and, in this case, gender as well).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what Merrill has to say about this passage, along with two examples from Horace:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *celerrimus*: an instance of so-called **attraction in case**, more common in Greek than in Latin, but **not so rare in the Augustan age** (especially in Ovid) and later; cf. Hor. Ep. 1.7.22 “vir bonus et sapiens dignis ait esse paratus.” The adjective here is also **attracted from the gender of navium into that of phasellus**; cf. Hor. S. 1.9.4 “dulcissime rerum.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your translation attempt, you seem to have most of the vocabulary (though you skip *impetum* and *opus* and mistake *volare* [fly] for *velle* [want]), but I have a general piece of advice: Try to step back and view the sentence as a whole before translating individual components. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Catullus is writing poetry and likes to mix words together for pleasing effect, but this means that a &quot;word by word&quot; translation without an eye to the overarching idea is inevitably going to fail. The &quot;litmus test&quot; at the end of a translation should *first* be: does this make any sense? (As far as I know, Romans didn't compose post-modernist poetry :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are three things that I would try to notice in this passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *ullius natantis impetum trabis*: every word except *impetum* is in the genitive, so we know that we should put them together and it is likely that they modify *impetum*.&#xD;&#xA;2. *sive palmulis...sive linteo*: *sive* is used in parallel constructions: in this case, it is followed by an ablative. This means it is likely that these two ablatives are serving the same purpose, i.e. means: &quot;either by oars or by linen (=sail).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. *opus foret*: This is an idiomatic construction. You can find in a dictionary that *opus est + infinitive* means &quot;it is necessary to X.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck with the rest of Catullus! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2522" RevisionGUID="57542ed9-9cca-40ea-9f61-3bbf0bd77ccb" CreationDate="2017-01-31T13:27:13.937" UserId="952" Comment="added information" Text="I don't know if this is specifically the answer you are looking for, but I can explain the different case endings for nouns and verb forms.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Let's start off with nouns.**   &#xD;&#xA;Nouns in the first declension are typically feminine, with the exception of the Latin words for poet (*poeta, poetae*) and farmer (*agricola, agricolae*). I do believe that there is one other, but it is slipping my mind at the present moment. Here is a chart of endings for the first declension. (Please excuse my inability to format proper tables...)  &#xD;&#xA;**Singular**  &#xD;&#xA;Nom *-a*  &#xD;&#xA;Gen *-ae*  &#xD;&#xA;Dat *-ae*  &#xD;&#xA;Acc *-am*  &#xD;&#xA;Abl *-ā*  &#xD;&#xA;**Plural**  &#xD;&#xA;Nom *-ae*  &#xD;&#xA;Gen *-ārum*  &#xD;&#xA;Dat *-īs*  &#xD;&#xA;Acc *-ās*  &#xD;&#xA;Abl *-īs*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nouns in the second declension are masculine and neuter. The case endings are slightly different between the two declensions, so I have noted the neuter variations in parentheses.  &#xD;&#xA;**Singular**  &#xD;&#xA;Nom *-us (-um)*  &#xD;&#xA;Gen *-ī*  &#xD;&#xA;Dat *-ō*  &#xD;&#xA;Acc *-um*  &#xD;&#xA;Abl *-ō*  &#xD;&#xA;**Plural**  &#xD;&#xA;Nom *-ī (-a)*  &#xD;&#xA;Gen *-ōrum*  &#xD;&#xA;Dat *-īs*  &#xD;&#xA;Acc *-ōs (-a)*  &#xD;&#xA;Abl *-īs*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nouns in the third declension can be masculine, feminine, common (can be either masculine or feminine), or neuter. Again, the neuter variations are in parentheses.  &#xD;&#xA;**Singular**  &#xD;&#xA;Nom *-varies*  &#xD;&#xA;Gen *-is*  &#xD;&#xA;Dat *-ī*  &#xD;&#xA;Acc *-em (matches nominative)*  &#xD;&#xA;Abl *-e*  &#xD;&#xA;**Plural**  &#xD;&#xA;Nom *-ēs (-a)*  &#xD;&#xA;Gen *-um*  &#xD;&#xA;Dat *-ībus*  &#xD;&#xA;Acc *-ēs (-a)*  &#xD;&#xA;Abl *-ībus*   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a 4th declension which contains mostly masculine nouns, and a 5th declension which is all feminine save for the word for &quot;day&quot; which is *diēs*. I can explain these if you would like, but they are generally less common than the aforementioned three declensions.  &#xD;&#xA;You may also be wondering about the cases. I'll give a brief explanation below, as I do not know how much you have investigated about this particular area. Keep in mind that this does not cover all the particular uses for each case, but it should give you a relatively useful foundation.  &#xD;&#xA;**Nominative (nom)**: the subject of the sentence  (ex: the **cat** chases the mouse)  &#xD;&#xA;**Genitive (gen)**: typically indicates possession (the thief took the **queen's** crown)  &#xD;&#xA;**Dative (dat)**: used for reference and as an indirect object with the words &quot;to&quot; or &quot;for&quot; (ex: she gives to the **charity**)  &#xD;&#xA;**Accusative (acc)**: the direct object of the sentence (ex: the cat chases the **mouse**)  &#xD;&#xA;**Ablative (abl)**: used in various prepositional phrases (ex: the cavalry on the **bridge** was marching with the **king**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Now for verbs!**   &#xD;&#xA;There are 4 conjugations of verbs, creatively named first, second, third (of which third-io is a sub-conjugation), and fourth.  &#xD;&#xA;You can see [examples of the different conjugations][1] in one of my previous answers, as I don't want to make this answer too lengthy.  &#xD;&#xA;However, I did not include examples of 3rd-io verbs in that answer, so here are a couple:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*capio, capere, cepi, captum* = seize, capture  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*facio, facere, feci, factum* = do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your last few questions from a general standpoint, noun declensions and verb conjugations allow you to make all the different forms for words so that they can be used in various purposes.  &#xD;&#xA;I hope this explanation helps, let me know if you would like any clarification or additional information!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2221/translating-mankind-evolves-and-two-other-two-word-phrases/2222#2222" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2513" RevisionGUID="ab0abd01-ac24-44c1-9703-68f4534aff6f" CreationDate="2017-01-31T13:50:20.020" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body; edited title" Text="I need a bit of help with translating the following phrase from English into Latin: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rochester Catholic Schools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would **Rochester Catholic Schools** be properly translated into Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your help is very much appreciated, thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9105" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2513" RevisionGUID="ab0abd01-ac24-44c1-9703-68f4534aff6f" CreationDate="2017-01-31T13:50:20.020" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to translate &quot;Rochester Catholic Schools&quot; into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9106" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2516" RevisionGUID="2a45802c-4720-41ec-8fbd-a3865f3c4488" CreationDate="2017-01-31T13:50:50.140" UserId="45" Comment="edited title" Text="Translation: I exist, therefore I make" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2528" RevisionGUID="789e1ef6-fcf3-4477-9b87-e27a31f15852" CreationDate="2017-01-31T14:29:24.763" UserId="79" Text="I would call the pronoun *iste* a second person demonstrative pronoun, meaning roughly &quot;that thing near you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It can also have a pejorative tone, implying that the speaker does not approve of the thing.&#xD;&#xA;I am not confident in my ability to render idiomatic examples in English; let me know if I need to elaborate on this tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the adverbs *istuc*, *istic*, and *istinc* derived from *iste* also have such a tone, or do they only mean &quot;to/in/from where you are&quot; without any judgement of the place?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9108" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2528" RevisionGUID="789e1ef6-fcf3-4477-9b87-e27a31f15852" CreationDate="2017-01-31T14:29:24.763" UserId="79" Text="Do adverbs derived from iste have a pejorative tone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9109" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2528" RevisionGUID="789e1ef6-fcf3-4477-9b87-e27a31f15852" CreationDate="2017-01-31T14:29:24.763" UserId="79" Text="|nuance|pronouns|derivation|adverb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2529" RevisionGUID="3e5f68b6-6a46-4ba7-bec0-070d75e1d12e" CreationDate="2017-01-31T15:20:19.943" UserId="79" Text="In general, you can translate &quot;I X, therefore I Y&quot; into Latin as *X ergo Y* (with &#xD;&#xA;appropriate conjugation of the verbs).&#xD;&#xA;Even more so if you want a reference to [Renatus Cartesius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes).&#xD;&#xA;The only remaining question is to find appropriate translations for the verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As discussed in the [previous question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2509/79), &quot;I am&quot; is well translated by *sum* and &quot;I make&quot; by *facio*.&#xD;&#xA;Thus *sum ergo facio* is a good translation in the specific case you ask about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can easily construct similar phrases with other verbs.&#xD;&#xA;Many dictionaries list verbs with just the right form (present active indicative first person singular), so you only need to find the verbs that fit your needs.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to explore different options, I suggest you start by entering an English verb of your choice to some [online Latin dictionary](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) and then look at the translations from Latin to English from each candidate on your list of Latin verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2528" RevisionGUID="5bb95dd0-95f7-4344-9443-229cfc47e239" CreationDate="2017-01-31T16:47:47.600" UserId="79" Comment="added 348 characters in body" Text="I would call the pronoun *iste* a &quot;second person demonstrative pronoun&quot;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, meaning roughly &quot;that thing near you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It can also have a pejorative tone, implying that the speaker does not approve of the thing.&#xD;&#xA;I am not confident in my ability to render idiomatic examples in English; let me know if I need to elaborate on this tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the adverbs *istuc*, *istic*, and *istinc* derived from *iste* also have such a tone, or do they only mean &quot;to/in/from where you are&quot; without any judgement of the place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I mean this in the same sense as *hic* is a &quot;first person demonstrative pronoun&quot;; *hic* refers to something close to or possessed by the speaker but not to the speaker.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, *iste* does not refer to the addressee, but something close to them.&#xD;&#xA;This meaning is not always strong, but quite often it is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2516" RevisionGUID="acc109bd-5a71-4f80-992d-5bc7fe13d706" CreationDate="2017-01-31T16:50:07.240" UserId="79" Comment="Minor reformatting." Text="Asked the inverse of this [here](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2509/i-make-create-therefore-i-am) but when I thought about it I preferred the opposite sentiment. Not that one exists because they make things but that they make things because they exist, as in there is no other choice. It is a compulsion of existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, would there be a proper translation that would make sense for &quot;I exist, therefore I make&quot;? (So the inverse of &quot;Facio Ergo Sum&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2525" RevisionGUID="966d4b6c-f998-461c-9a0b-e8f8efb6b072" CreationDate="2017-01-31T17:02:34.530" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="##It's pretty much arbitrary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some standard patterns: first-declension nouns tend to be feminine, second-declension masculine/neuter, third-declension abstract concepts, fourth-declension collectives and states, fifth-declension feminine. But there's an exception to each and every one of these rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically speaking, the declensions derived from different types of Proto-Indo-European nouns. Nouns with stems ending in *a* became the first declension, *o* the second, *i* or a consonant the third, *u* the fourth, and *e* the fifth. Hence these vowels appearing in the declension tables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there was no real pattern to this, unfortunately. Just like how there's no shared meaning between words starting with the letter *M*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over time, more patterns developed as the language was regularized. This helped somewhat and created the general rules I mentioned above. But in the process irregular nouns like *dies* were forced into the existing categories, breaking these patterns, and commonly-used nouns stubbornly clung to their existing forms. So you still see words like *paterfamilias*, from an old first-declension genitive ending *-as* that died out everywhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same is generally true of verb conjugations. But this time there was no categorization at all in PIE: in some cases, each principal part was actually a different verb entirely (compare *ferō, ferre, tulī, latus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin regularized the verbs **far** more than other languages did: in Ancient Greek most verbs can't be fit into any &quot;conjugation&quot; at all, and just have to be learned through their principal parts. The common endings like *-ō, -āre, -āvī, -ātus* developed as the system was simplified and made more regular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, a word's declension or conjugation tells you nothing except how to inflect it properly. Which is quite important, and even has effects in English: cactus → cacti pluralizes like a second-declension Latin noun. But there's no deeper meaning to be revealed by comparing the meanings of words within a particular category: they're just as arbitrary as the Latin genders are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2530" RevisionGUID="94bdc967-dbd6-45c7-bb43-6ac3ed7166d2" CreationDate="2017-01-31T19:39:39.790" UserId="1209" Text="Rochester is also a diocese, and so the Catholic schools would be part of Rochester as a diocese rather than as a city (the diocese will encompass more communities than the actual city). All dioceses have an official Latin name given by the Vatican when they are erected (established). Rochester's is *Dioecesis Roffensis* ([see the reference][1]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Roffensis* is genitive (&quot;Diocese of Rochester&quot;), so &quot;Catholic Schools of Rochester&quot; (which is what the phrase means structurally as Latin does not use nouns as adjectives like we can in English) would be *Scholae Catholicae Roffensis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/droch.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2522" RevisionGUID="f1f2755f-5d37-4117-a606-6422ced03fab" CreationDate="2017-01-31T20:46:21.360" UserId="-1" Comment="Formatted as a table as it was clear from the OP's comment that they would have preferred a table. I think I copied everything correctly, but would be good if somebody could check." Text="I don't know if this is specifically the answer you are looking for, but I can explain the different case endings for nouns and verb forms.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Let's start off with nouns.**   &#xD;&#xA;Nouns in the first declension are typically feminine, with the exception of the Latin words for poet (*poeta, poetae*) and farmer (*agricola, agricolae*). I do believe that there is one other, but it is slipping my mind at the present moment. Here is a chart of endings for the first declension.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     |  &lt;b&gt;Singular&lt;/b&gt;  |  &lt;b&gt; Plural &lt;/b&gt; |&#xD;&#xA;-----|------------|-----------|&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Nom&lt;/b&gt; |     -a     |    -ae    |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Gen&lt;/b&gt; |     -ae    |   -ārum   |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Dat&lt;/b&gt; |     -ae    |    -īs    |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Acc&lt;/b&gt; |     -am    |    -ās    |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Abl&lt;/b&gt; |     -ā     |    -īs    |&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nouns in the second declension are masculine and neuter. The case endings are slightly different between the two declensions, so I have noted the neuter variations in parentheses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     |  &lt;b&gt;Singular&lt;/b&gt;  |  &lt;b&gt; Plural &lt;/b&gt; |&#xD;&#xA;-----|------------|-----------|&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Nom&lt;/b&gt; | -us (-um)  |   -ī (-a) |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Gen&lt;/b&gt; |    -ī      |   -ōrum   |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Dat&lt;/b&gt; |    -ō      |    -īs    |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Acc&lt;/b&gt; |    -um     |  -ōs (-a) |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Abl&lt;/b&gt; |    -ō      |    -īs    |&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nouns in the third declension can be masculine, feminine, common (can be either masculine or feminine), or neuter. Again, the neuter variations are in parentheses.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     |  &lt;b&gt;Singular&lt;/b&gt;  |  &lt;b&gt; Plural &lt;/b&gt; |&#xD;&#xA;-----|------------|-----------|&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Nom&lt;/b&gt; |  (varies)  |  -ēs (-a) |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Gen&lt;/b&gt; |     -is    |    -um    |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Dat&lt;/b&gt; |     -ī     |   -ībus   |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Acc&lt;/b&gt; |     -em&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;   |  -ēs (-a) |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Abl&lt;/b&gt; |     -e     |   -ībus   |&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1 Matches nominative&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a 4th declension which contains mostly masculine nouns, and a 5th declension which is all feminine save for the word for &quot;day&quot; which is *diēs*. I can explain these if you would like, but they are generally less common than the aforementioned three declensions.  &#xD;&#xA;You may also be wondering about the cases. I'll give a brief explanation below, as I do not know how much you have investigated about this particular area. Keep in mind that this does not cover all the particular uses for each case, but it should give you a relatively useful foundation.  &#xD;&#xA;**Nominative (nom)**: the subject of the sentence  (ex: the **cat** chases the mouse)  &#xD;&#xA;**Genitive (gen)**: typically indicates possession (the thief took the **queen's** crown)  &#xD;&#xA;**Dative (dat)**: used for reference and as an indirect object with the words &quot;to&quot; or &quot;for&quot; (ex: she gives to the **charity**)  &#xD;&#xA;**Accusative (acc)**: the direct object of the sentence (ex: the cat chases the **mouse**)  &#xD;&#xA;**Ablative (abl)**: used in various prepositional phrases (ex: the cavalry on the **bridge** was marching with the **king**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Now for verbs!**   &#xD;&#xA;There are 4 conjugations of verbs, creatively named first, second, third (of which third-io is a sub-conjugation), and fourth.  &#xD;&#xA;You can see [examples of the different conjugations][1] in one of my previous answers, as I don't want to make this answer too lengthy.  &#xD;&#xA;However, I did not include examples of 3rd-io verbs in that answer, so here are a couple:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*capio, capere, cepi, captum* = seize, capture  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*facio, facere, feci, factum* = do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your last few questions from a general standpoint, noun declensions and verb conjugations allow you to make all the different forms for words so that they can be used in various purposes.  &#xD;&#xA;I hope this explanation helps, let me know if you would like any clarification or additional information!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2221/translating-mankind-evolves-and-two-other-two-word-phrases/2222#2222" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9116" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2522" RevisionGUID="f1f2755f-5d37-4117-a606-6422ced03fab" CreationDate="2017-01-31T20:46:21.360" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 406, -1 edit id of 166" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2522" RevisionGUID="a29f1f5d-4088-411b-b596-4985c24d9c1e" CreationDate="2017-01-31T20:46:21.360" UserId="79" Comment="Checked and polished a suggested edit." Text="I don't know if this is specifically the answer you are looking for, but I can explain the different case endings for nouns and verb forms.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Let's start off with nouns.**   &#xD;&#xA;Nouns in the first declension are typically feminine, with the exception of the Latin words for poet (*poeta, poetae*) and farmer (*agricola, agricolae*). I do believe that there is one other, but it is slipping my mind at the present moment. Here is a chart of endings for the first declension.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     |  &lt;b&gt;Singular&lt;/b&gt;  |  &lt;b&gt; Plural &lt;/b&gt; |&#xD;&#xA;-----|------------|-----------|&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Nom&lt;/b&gt; |     -a     |    -ae    |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Gen&lt;/b&gt; |     -ae    |   -ārum   |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Dat&lt;/b&gt; |     -ae    |    -īs    |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Acc&lt;/b&gt; |     -am    |    -ās    |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Abl&lt;/b&gt; |     -ā     |    -īs    |&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nouns in the second declension are masculine and neuter. The case endings are slightly different between the two declensions, so I have noted the neuter variations in parentheses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     |  &lt;b&gt;Singular&lt;/b&gt;  |  &lt;b&gt; Plural &lt;/b&gt; |&#xD;&#xA;-----|------------|-----------|&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Nom&lt;/b&gt; | -us (-um)  |   -ī (-a) |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Gen&lt;/b&gt; |    -ī      |   -ōrum   |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Dat&lt;/b&gt; |    -ō      |    -īs    |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Acc&lt;/b&gt; |    -um     |  -ōs (-a) |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Abl&lt;/b&gt; |    -ō      |    -īs    |&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nouns in the third declension can be masculine, feminine, common (can be either masculine or feminine), or neuter. Again, the neuter variations are in parentheses.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     |  &lt;b&gt;Singular&lt;/b&gt;  |  &lt;b&gt; Plural &lt;/b&gt; |&#xD;&#xA;-----|------------|-----------|&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Nom&lt;/b&gt; |  (varies)  |  -ēs (-a) |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Gen&lt;/b&gt; |     -is    |    -um    |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Dat&lt;/b&gt; |     -ī     |   -ībus   |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Acc&lt;/b&gt; |     -em (&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;)|  -ēs (-a) |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Abl&lt;/b&gt; |     -e     |   -ībus   |&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Matches nominative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a 4th declension which contains mostly masculine nouns, and a 5th declension which is all feminine save for the word for &quot;day&quot; which is *diēs*. I can explain these if you would like, but they are generally less common than the aforementioned three declensions.  &#xD;&#xA;You may also be wondering about the cases. I'll give a brief explanation below, as I do not know how much you have investigated about this particular area. Keep in mind that this does not cover all the particular uses for each case, but it should give you a relatively useful foundation.  &#xD;&#xA;**Nominative (nom)**: the subject of the sentence  (ex: the **cat** chases the mouse)  &#xD;&#xA;**Genitive (gen)**: typically indicates possession (the thief took the **queen's** crown)  &#xD;&#xA;**Dative (dat)**: used for reference and as an indirect object with the words &quot;to&quot; or &quot;for&quot; (ex: she gives to the **charity**)  &#xD;&#xA;**Accusative (acc)**: the direct object of the sentence (ex: the cat chases the **mouse**)  &#xD;&#xA;**Ablative (abl)**: used in various prepositional phrases (ex: the cavalry on the **bridge** was marching with the **king**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Now for verbs!**   &#xD;&#xA;There are 4 conjugations of verbs, creatively named first, second, third (of which third-io is a sub-conjugation), and fourth.  &#xD;&#xA;You can see [examples of the different conjugations][1] in one of my previous answers, as I don't want to make this answer too lengthy.  &#xD;&#xA;However, I did not include examples of 3rd-io verbs in that answer, so here are a couple:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*capio, capere, cepi, captum* = seize, capture  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*facio, facere, feci, factum* = do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your last few questions from a general standpoint, noun declensions and verb conjugations allow you to make all the different forms for words so that they can be used in various purposes.  &#xD;&#xA;I hope this explanation helps, let me know if you would like any clarification or additional information!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2221/translating-mankind-evolves-and-two-other-two-word-phrases/2222#2222" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2531" RevisionGUID="69dde82f-d42b-4ba2-8274-5c55ab34cf44" CreationDate="2017-01-31T20:47:33.123" UserId="45" Text="As a first point, I should mention how exactly *istic* is derived from *iste*: it is *iste* + [*-ce*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dce). This -ce is an &quot;inseparable strengthening demonstrative particle,&quot; and is found in other words like *huiusce, tunc, nunc,* or *hocce*. (See also [*Formenlehre der lateinischen sprache*, pg. 211ff](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=F40NAAAAIAAJ), which gives many examples of usage and some irregular formations.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the -ce is an emphatic form, it seems reasonable to expect it to have the same pejorative nuance when the occasion demands. *Iste* and *istic* occur with enormous frequency in Plautus and Terence, given their use in 2nd person situations--they also appear much more often in letters than in formal addresses or writings. Here are two examples that should demonstrate the point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod scribis Terentiam de obsignatoribus mei testamenti loqui, primum tibi persuade **me istaec non curare** neque esse quicquam aut parvae curae aut novae loci. (Cicero, *Epistulae ad Atticum* 12.18a)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and (Caelius to Cicero):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Illud nunc a te peto, si eris, ut spero, otiosus, aliquod ad nos, ut intellegamus nos tibi curae esse, σύνταγμα conscribas. '**qui tibi istuc**' inquis '**in mentem venit**, homini non inepto?' (Cicero, *Epistulae ad Familiares* 8.3.3)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2532" RevisionGUID="228bff1b-ee27-493a-8572-6081b8d8de07" CreationDate="2017-01-31T21:42:09.927" UserId="235" Text="[Wiktionary says][1] that the Italian verb &quot;andare&quot; might come from suppletion of &quot;vadere&quot; with another Latin verb. But it goes on to say that another possibility is the dissimilation of &quot;ambulare&quot;. I think it gives even more possibilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anyone verify and perhaps elaborate on these possibilities? I do not know very much about phonological changes, and terms such as suppletion and dissimilation. If anyone could give a compelling story or two on how &quot;andare&quot; came to be, it would be much appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/andare#Italian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9120" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2532" RevisionGUID="228bff1b-ee27-493a-8572-6081b8d8de07" CreationDate="2017-01-31T21:42:09.927" UserId="235" Text="Do we know which Latin word the Italian term &quot;andante&quot; comes from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9121" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2532" RevisionGUID="228bff1b-ee27-493a-8572-6081b8d8de07" CreationDate="2017-01-31T21:42:09.927" UserId="235" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9122" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2532" RevisionGUID="d8b6ed7b-4974-4593-b784-df5ca0558370" CreationDate="2017-01-31T22:20:03.920" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|italian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2533" RevisionGUID="ffdc542d-4b0f-494e-a68d-d88f05318ef0" CreationDate="2017-01-31T23:04:08.477" UserId="78" Text="I generally trust [Etymonline](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=andante) more than Wiktionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; musical direction, &quot;moderately slow,&quot; 1742, from Italian andante, literally &quot;walking,&quot; present participle of andare &quot;to go,&quot; from Vulgar Latin ambitare (source of Spanish andar &quot;to go&quot;), from Latin ambitus, past participle of ambire &quot;to go round, go about,&quot; from amb- &quot;around&quot; (see ambi-) + ire &quot;go&quot; (see ion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2364" RevisionGUID="4a599f46-ac72-44fb-ba1d-40e7c6c49b9f" CreationDate="2017-02-01T05:23:51.470" UserId="75" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="The Greek text of the Textus Receptus (1550) states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;ΚΒʹ&lt;/sup&gt; δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ **πίστεως** Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς πάντας καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς **πιστεύοντας** οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή &lt;sup&gt;TR, 1550&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which Jerome translated into Latin as,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;XXII&lt;/sup&gt; iustitia autem Dei per **fidem** Iesu Christi super omnes qui **credunt** non enim est distinctio &lt;sup&gt;Vul&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, it would be acceptable to translate διὰ πίστεως as “by [the] **faith** of” and τοὺς πιστεύοντας as “those who have **faith**,” thus emphasizing the similarity in the Greek stem πιστ-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I noticed that Jerome translated πίστεως into Latin as *fidem*, from the lemma *fidēs*, but using a different root altogether, he translated τοὺς πιστεύοντας into Latin as *qui **credunt***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than *crēdunt* from the lemma *crēdō*, why didn’t Jerome instead use *fīdunt* from the lemma *fīdo*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2534" RevisionGUID="10b21a70-a7a4-4443-a1b2-835a18b58703" CreationDate="2017-02-01T11:06:28.137" UserId="79" Text="I am looking for a Latin adjective &amp;mdash; or several adjectives if no single one is enough &amp;mdash; meaning &quot;main&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I might want to talk about a main building or the main idea of a theory.&#xD;&#xA;The only suitable adjective I know is *principalis*, but is this the best choice and are there other words I should know?&#xD;&#xA;Fore example, *aedificium principale* sounds fine, but I don't know if this is the best choice.&#xD;&#xA;In some languages one can use the noun &quot;head&quot; in this meaning (German &quot;haupt-&quot; and Finnish &quot;pää-&quot;, for example), but the corresponding Latin adjective *capitalis* seems inappropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9130" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2534" RevisionGUID="10b21a70-a7a4-4443-a1b2-835a18b58703" CreationDate="2017-02-01T11:06:28.137" UserId="79" Text="How to translate &quot;main&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9131" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2534" RevisionGUID="10b21a70-a7a4-4443-a1b2-835a18b58703" CreationDate="2017-02-01T11:06:28.137" UserId="79" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|adjective|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2535" RevisionGUID="ad8faabc-0efe-4621-aee5-b0b703b740b3" CreationDate="2017-02-01T16:02:48.357" UserId="645" Text="There isn't much beyond the words you have indicated, which are already satisfactory, but I assume that you would like a bit more scope for expression, for which both *superus* in its degrees of comparison and *caput* can be useful in working round the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The simple adjective *superus* indicates a higher position, as in *pars supera*, 'the part above', or 'the upper part' etc, while Its comparative *superior* can be used to describe condition, number or quantity. By manipulating the context, either can suggest 'main'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The superlative, formally *superrimus*, is more familiar in its shortened form *summus* (and *superus* is also found, though I believe its use is more often poetical). It expresses the highest, most exalted, topmost and so on and it is also better translated in some circumstances as 'main'. In particular, *summus* is used substantively as in *summa* (sc. res) the main point, and adjectivally as in *summa rerum* (though the usage may exist, I have never seen *summarum rerum*). *Salus respublicae summa lex* is a common legal dictum, 'the main law is [that of] the safety of the state'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. As for *caput*, Livy, for example, has *capita coniurationis* for 'the main conspirators'  [Liv. 10, 1 *capitaque coniurationis eius quaestione ab consulibus ex senatus consulto habita virgis caesi ac securi percussi*]. The phrase *caput itinerorum* occurs in various itinerararies, for instance *Augusta Vindelicorum veluti Caput itinerum in itinerario Antonini.* *Caput litterarum* and *caput rerum* also occur. The usage is easily adapted to other situations, e.g. *caput aedificiorum*, the main building.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2535" RevisionGUID="9ca2a5dc-2167-49f4-a2b4-64d9bbb2e41b" CreationDate="2017-02-01T16:37:08.983" UserId="645" Comment="corr.sp." Text="There isn't much beyond the words you have indicated, which are already satisfactory, but I assume that you would like a bit more scope for expression, for which both *superus* in its degrees of comparison and *caput* can be useful in working round the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The simple adjective *superus* indicates a higher position, as in *pars supera*, 'the part above', or 'the upper part' etc, while Its comparative *superior* can be used to describe condition, number or quantity. By manipulating the context, either can suggest 'main'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The superlative, formally *superrimus*, is more familiar in its shortened form *summus* (and *superus* is also found, though I believe its use is more often poetical). It expresses the highest, most exalted, topmost and so on and it is also better translated in some circumstances as 'main'. In particular, *summus* is used substantively as in *summa* (sc. res) the main point, and adjectivally as in *summa rerum* (though the usage may exist, I have never seen *summarum rerum*). *Salus respublicae summa lex* is a common legal dictum, 'the main law is [that of] the safety of the state'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. As for *caput*, Livy, for example, has *capita coniurationis* for 'the main conspirators'  [Liv. 10, 1 *capitaque coniurationis eius quaestione ab consulibus ex senatus consulto habita virgis caesi ac securi percussi*]. The phrase *caput itinerorum* occurs in various itineraries, for instance *Augusta Vindelicorum veluti Caput itinerum in itinerario Antonini.* *Caput litterarum* and *caput rerum* also occur. The usage is easily adapted to other situations, e.g. *caput aedificiorum*, the main building.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2495" RevisionGUID="da579783-1f1f-465c-83be-d3faec9698d7" CreationDate="2017-02-01T21:41:45.860" UserId="78" Comment="added 346 characters in body" Text="They're fairly interchangeable. Gildersleeve and Lodge even lump them together. Even in English, the literal translations would also be nigh indistinguishable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whichever you like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whichever you want&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some grammars will sometimes add little nuances. [Smith](https://books.google.com/books?id=-vMsAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA37#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), for example, says that *quivis* is more deliberate than *quilibet*, where the latter has more of a force of &quot;anyone at all, but [*quivis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquivis) can mean the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2536" RevisionGUID="df034a51-7094-4348-9b96-d29fb592e6fd" CreationDate="2017-02-02T02:38:24.303" UserId="45" Text="There is a notable set of pronouns that use -d for the neuter nominative and accusative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* iste &gt; istud&#xD;&#xA;* ille &gt; illud&#xD;&#xA;* quis &gt; quid&#xD;&#xA;* is &gt; id&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other pronouns do not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* hic &gt; hoc&#xD;&#xA;* ipse &gt; ipsum (though L&amp;S lists once instance of ipsud)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is more in the realm of linguistics: **Is there a reason why (only?) these pronouns use -d for the neuter?** The answer may be as simple as pointing to the PIE derivative, though I'm also curious why this -d does not occur in neuter nouns of the second and (I believe) third declension." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9136" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2536" RevisionGUID="df034a51-7094-4348-9b96-d29fb592e6fd" CreationDate="2017-02-02T02:38:24.303" UserId="45" Text="Why is -d used instead of -m for most neuter pronouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9137" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2536" RevisionGUID="df034a51-7094-4348-9b96-d29fb592e6fd" CreationDate="2017-02-02T02:38:24.303" UserId="45" Text="|pronouns|ending|neuter|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2535" RevisionGUID="1cf49823-29b4-4905-83d3-84529fa6a912" CreationDate="2017-02-02T06:44:31.380" UserId="645" Comment="sp. corr." Text="There isn't much beyond the words you have indicated, which are already satisfactory, but I assume that you would like a bit more scope for expression, for which both *superus* in its degrees of comparison and *caput* can be useful in working round the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The simple adjective *superus* indicates a higher position, as in *pars supera*, 'the part above', or 'the upper part' etc, while Its comparative *superior* can be used to describe condition, number or quantity. By manipulating the context, either can suggest 'main'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The superlative, formally *superrimus*, is more familiar in its shortened form *summus* (and *superus* is also found, though I believe its use is more often poetical). It expresses the highest, most exalted, topmost and so on and it is also better translated in some circumstances as 'main'. In particular, *summus* is used substantively as in *summa* (sc. res) the main point, and adjectivally as in *summa rerum* (though the usage may exist, I have never seen *summarum rerum*). *Salus respublicae summa lex* is a common legal dictum, 'the main law is [that of] the safety of the state'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. As for *caput*, Livy, for example, has *capita coniurationis* for 'the main conspirators'  [Liv. 10, 1 *capitaque coniurationis eius quaestione ab consulibus ex senatus consulto habita virgis caesi ac securi percussi*]. The phrase *caput itinerum* occurs in various itineraries, for instance *Augusta Vindelicorum veluti Caput itinerum in itinerario Antonini.* *Caput litterarum* and *caput rerum* also occur. The usage is easily adapted to other situations, e.g. *caput aedificiorum*, the main building.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2537" RevisionGUID="30b8e6be-a451-4e3d-9603-028929e03990" CreationDate="2017-02-02T07:08:25.027" UserId="40" Text="There isn't really an answer to the &quot;why&quot; question beyond the fact that in Proto-Indo-European, some of the case endings for pronouns were different from those for nouns, for unknown reasons. Among these is the nom./acc. sg. neuter ending, which was *-d instead of *-m. This is clear from cognates in other languages, e.g. Sanskrit neuter demonstrative *tad*, neuter relative *yad*, etc. (The Greek cognates of these two forms are τό, ὅ, which also descend from *-d, since final stops were lost in Greek.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another specifically pronominal case ending, by the way, is the masculine plural *-oi, which in Latin (and in Greek) spread from pronouns to nouns, giving the familiar second-declension ending *-ī.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ipsum* is presumably analogical on the nominal declension. *Hoc* actually did once contain the *-d: it's from *hod-ce, and in fact seems to have been pronounced *hocc*, which is why it scans long in verse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2538" RevisionGUID="8377d162-ec2f-44ab-a100-b99faeb36ba0" CreationDate="2017-02-02T10:01:01.900" UserId="79" Text="I learned from TKR's answer to [this question about neuter endings](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2536/79) that the neuter pronoun *hoc* is pronounced like *hocc*, causing it to be scanned long despite having a short vowel.&#xD;&#xA;I had never heard of this before, but I want to understand better.&#xD;&#xA;This leads me to some questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Can you provide a couple of examples of nominative or accusative *hoc* followed by a vowel and scanned long?&#xD;&#xA;- Are there examples in classical poetry that treat *hoc* normally, scanning it short before a vowel?&#xD;&#xA;- Are there other words that unexpectedly scan long always or often? I suspect the suffix *-ce* might lead to this effect. This question includes other forms of the same pronoun, especially the masculine *hic*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9141" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2538" RevisionGUID="8377d162-ec2f-44ab-a100-b99faeb36ba0" CreationDate="2017-02-02T10:01:01.900" UserId="79" Text="Words that unexpectedly but consistently scan long" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9142" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2538" RevisionGUID="8377d162-ec2f-44ab-a100-b99faeb36ba0" CreationDate="2017-02-02T10:01:01.900" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|poetry|scansion|metre|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2539" RevisionGUID="caffcebc-f9ea-4362-8cf9-efff471af7e9" CreationDate="2017-02-02T11:48:03.297" UserId="324" Text="The most probable theory is that andare comes from Latin ambulare, probably through the military command ambulate “forwards!”, whence Italian andate and also French allez.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/aller&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2531" RevisionGUID="2af769c0-c0e2-47ef-9cc0-a37c3067bbbf" CreationDate="2017-02-02T15:22:42.397" UserId="45" Comment="added 223 characters in body" Text="(**Caveat lector**: This &quot;answer&quot; was based on a misreading of the question and addresses the pejorative force of the **pronoun** *istic*, not the adverb. I will leave for now because it is tangentially related.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a first point, I should mention how exactly *istic* is derived from *iste*: it is *iste* + [*-ce*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dce). This -ce is an &quot;inseparable strengthening demonstrative particle,&quot; and is found in other words like *huiusce, tunc, nunc,* or *hocce*. (See also [*Formenlehre der lateinischen sprache*, pg. 211ff](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=F40NAAAAIAAJ), which gives many examples of usage and some irregular formations.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the -ce is an emphatic form, it seems reasonable to expect it to have the same pejorative nuance when the occasion demands. *Iste* and *istic* occur with enormous frequency in Plautus and Terence, given their use in 2nd person situations--they also appear much more often in letters than in formal addresses or writings. Here are two examples that should demonstrate the point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod scribis Terentiam de obsignatoribus mei testamenti loqui, primum tibi persuade **me istaec non curare** neque esse quicquam aut parvae curae aut novae loci. (Cicero, *Epistulae ad Atticum* 12.18a)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and (Caelius to Cicero):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Illud nunc a te peto, si eris, ut spero, otiosus, aliquod ad nos, ut intellegamus nos tibi curae esse, σύνταγμα conscribas. '**qui tibi istuc**' inquis '**in mentem venit**, homini non inepto?' (Cicero, *Epistulae ad Familiares* 8.3.3)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2540" RevisionGUID="2ba7fd18-6fe6-41df-959f-5a11a50997c0" CreationDate="2017-02-02T16:31:32.723" UserId="1218" Text="This question came up recently in my choir: how should we pronounce “*mihi*”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence is from a psalm:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quia fecit mihi magna qui potens est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We’ve encountered it in two Magnificats, the first one (*Magnificat Primi Toni*) by Spaniard Tomás Luis de Victoria written circa 1600, the second one by Estonian Arvo Pärt, written in the 80s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We’re from France, so we were naturally inclined to pronounce it [mi'i]; some people said they were previously asked (in other choir) to say [miki]. The internet was of little help: some indicates that it might actually be [mihi]. Little to no sources on the various arguments though, except the Liber Usualis which is apparently in favor of [miki].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how should we pronounce “*mihi*”? How was it be pronounced in Victoria’s Spain? How is it pronounced in modern ecclesiastical Latin (which would make more sense for Pärt’s *Magnificat*)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9146" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2540" RevisionGUID="2ba7fd18-6fe6-41df-959f-5a11a50997c0" CreationDate="2017-02-02T16:31:32.723" UserId="1218" Text="How to pronounce “mihi” in a Magnificat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9147" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2540" RevisionGUID="2ba7fd18-6fe6-41df-959f-5a11a50997c0" CreationDate="2017-02-02T16:31:32.723" UserId="1218" Text="|pronunciation|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2541" RevisionGUID="c356c8dd-023c-4426-8f55-9d2a45ce3933" CreationDate="2017-02-02T16:51:32.173" UserId="406" Text="As you've discovered, there's not a good universal standard for pronouncing Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Classical Pronunciation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This probably isn't what you want, but it's what all the others are derived from. The *h* is pronounced like in English: /ˈmi.hi/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Spanish Pronunciation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Spanish pronunciation of Latin, /h/ generally disappeared, leaving /ˈmi.i/. (Though see below.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Ecclesiastic (Italian) Pronunciation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Italian pronunciation, /h/ disappeared as well. But in two specific words, *mihi* and *nihil*, it was replaced with /k/ to avoid ambiguity. This is what the *Liber Usualis* recommends: /ˈmi.ki/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last pronunciation spread into other areas as well, including Spain, though I'm uncertain about when this happened. (Notably some Medieval sources spell the word *michi*, implying that it was pretty early.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2542" RevisionGUID="79f3db3e-1339-47eb-ad0d-3d8ff880d399" CreationDate="2017-02-02T17:34:17.977" UserId="68" Text="FWIW, Pope Francis spoke about this recently (in [an article translated into English by five independent experts][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;I always felt my motto, Miserando atque Eligendo [By Having Mercy and by Choosing Him], was very true for me.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The motto is taken from the Homilies of Bede the Venerable, who writes in his comments on the Gospel story of the calling of Matthew: “Jesus saw a publican, and since he looked at him with feelings of love and chose him, he said to him, ‘Follow me.’” The pope adds: “I think the Latin gerund miserando is impossible to translate in both Italian and Spanish. I like to translate it with another gerund that does not exist: misericordiando [“mercy-ing”].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2013/09/30/big-heart-open-god-interview-pope-francis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2543" RevisionGUID="b9ff1c1d-f74e-4229-85d2-078cc27de766" CreationDate="2017-02-02T20:21:28.617" UserId="79" Text="I went through all Latin consonants.&#xD;&#xA;All consonants seem to prefer only one of *e-* and *ex-*.&#xD;&#xA;I have only listed one example per consonant.&#xD;&#xA;There are no (or only few and rare) verbs starting with X or Z.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix *e-*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- B: *(e)bibere*&#xD;&#xA;- D: *(e)ducere*&#xD;&#xA;- G&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;: *(e)gerere*&#xD;&#xA;- I&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;: *(e)iurare, eicere &lt; iacere*&#xD;&#xA;- L: *(e)loqui*&#xD;&#xA;- M&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;: *(e)mergere*&#xD;&#xA;- N: *(e)numerare*&#xD;&#xA;- R&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;: *(e)rumpere*&#xD;&#xA;- V&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;: *(e)vertere*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix *ex-*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- C: *(ex)cedere*&#xD;&#xA;- F: *(ef)ferre*&#xD;&#xA;- P: *(ex)pellere*&#xD;&#xA;- Q: *exquirere &lt; quaerere*&#xD;&#xA;- S&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;: *(ex)secare*&#xD;&#xA;- T: *(ex)tollere*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S mentions *exgurgitare* as a synonym of *egurgitare*.&#xD;&#xA;I found no other such verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I only included the consonantal I (or J).&#xD;&#xA;For vocalic I the prefix is *ex-*: *ire &gt; exire*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S mentions *exmovere* as a synonym of *emovere*.&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise *e-* is always used before M.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S mentions *exradicare* as a synonym of *eradicare*.&#xD;&#xA;There is also a rare *exrogare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I only included the consonantal V.&#xD;&#xA;For vocalic U (or V) the prefix is *ex-*: *urere &gt; exurere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The *exs-* can become *ex-*; consider *existere &lt; sistere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion:&#xD;&#xA;**Voiced consonants take the prefix *e-*, unvoiced *ex-*.&#xD;&#xA;There are very few exceptions.**&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea why this is the way it is, other than it sounds more natural this way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2544" RevisionGUID="e0abe24d-79f2-4509-ac7b-18114f986b82" CreationDate="2017-02-02T22:31:49.323" UserId="79" Text="Tuomo Pekkanen's *Ars Grammatica* (A Latin grammar in Finnish) mentions (§113.3) that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The perfect conjunctive is used as a present time *coniunctivus potentialis* in the same meaning as the present conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best example he gives is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hoc sine ulla dubitatione confirmaverim.*&#xD;&#xA;&amp;mdash;&#xD;&#xA;I might confirm this without any hesitation.&#xD;&#xA;(Cicero's *Brutus*, 25)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very close to the phrase used in the question.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would say that **there is no difference between present and perfect conjunctive in this use**.&#xD;&#xA;There appears to be no temporal difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The perfect conjunctive is quite rare in main clauses.&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in negative orders (*ne timueris!*) or as a concession or wish about the past.&#xD;&#xA;(Concession: *Fueris prudens, pius non fuisti.* Wish: *Sit ita factum!*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2545" RevisionGUID="74548f82-046d-47a6-bc71-c6655cb41941" CreationDate="2017-02-03T00:25:17.270" UserId="40" Text="Pinkster in the [Oxford Latin Syntax](https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;dq=oxford%20latin%20syntax&amp;pg=PA171#v=onepage&amp;q=%22if%20the%20vast%20majority%22&amp;f=false) (pp. 492ff.) discusses this question, but finds no clear answer. He considers three explanations: (a) there is a difference in meaning, specifically a difference of aspect; (b) the perfect subjunctive in potential clauses is a Graecism due largely to Cicero; (c) there is a pragmatic difference in that perfect subjunctive forms are &quot;milder or less direct&quot;. However, Pinkster dismisses all three possibilities saying there is little evidence for any of them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Woodcock (p. 90) is rather unclear on the issue: he says that &quot;there is no observable distinction in sense between the present and the perfect tenses&quot;, but in the very next sentence seems to describe such a difference by continuing &quot;The latter is 'aoristic' and usually refers to the future&quot;. The second part of this contradicts Pinkster, who says there is no difference &quot;with respect to the temporal value&quot;. The first part (&quot;aoristic&quot;) lines up with Pinkster's rejected explanation (a), the aspectual difference (which, for what it's worth, was my own initial guess about this question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure there are other sources that discuss this question, but these at least are rather inconclusive. Anyone in search of a thesis topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2543" RevisionGUID="cbfe6b4e-03b0-4d30-a015-bd6616418964" CreationDate="2017-02-03T09:31:23.057" UserId="79" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="I went through all Latin consonants.&#xD;&#xA;All consonants seem to prefer only one of *e-* and *ex-*.&#xD;&#xA;I have only listed one example per consonant.&#xD;&#xA;There are no (or only few and rare) verbs starting with X or Z.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix *e-*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- B: *(e)bibere*&#xD;&#xA;- D: *(e)ducere*&#xD;&#xA;- G&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;: *(e)gerere*&#xD;&#xA;- I&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;: *(e)iurare, eicere &lt; iacere*&#xD;&#xA;- L: *(e)loqui*&#xD;&#xA;- M&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;: *(e)mergere*&#xD;&#xA;- N: *(e)numerare*&#xD;&#xA;- R&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;: *(e)rumpere*&#xD;&#xA;- V&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;: *(e)vertere*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix *ex-*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- C: *(ex)cedere*&#xD;&#xA;- F: *(ef)ferre*&#xD;&#xA;- P: *(ex)pellere*&#xD;&#xA;- Q: *exquirere &lt; quaerere*&#xD;&#xA;- S&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;: *(ex)secare*&#xD;&#xA;- T: *(ex)tollere*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S mentions *exgurgitare* as a synonym of *egurgitare*.&#xD;&#xA;I found no other such verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I only included the consonantal I (or J).&#xD;&#xA;For vocalic I the prefix is *ex-*: *ire &gt; exire*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S mentions *exmovere* as a synonym of *emovere*.&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise *e-* is always used before M.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S mentions *exradicare* as a synonym of *eradicare*.&#xD;&#xA;There is also a rare *exrogare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I only included the consonantal V.&#xD;&#xA;For vocalic U (or V) the prefix is *ex-*: *urere &gt; exurere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The *exs-* can become *ex-*; consider *existere &lt; sistere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion:&#xD;&#xA;**Voiced consonants take the prefix *e-*, unvoiced ones take *ex-*.&#xD;&#xA;There are very few exceptions.**&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea why this is the way it is, other than it sounds more natural this way.&#xD;&#xA;See TKR's comment below for an explanation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2544" RevisionGUID="f7b51bea-f388-4fbe-9f7f-6bc17fa5613d" CreationDate="2017-02-03T09:48:25.723" UserId="79" Comment="added 271 characters in body" Text="Tuomo Pekkanen's *Ars Grammatica* (A Latin grammar in Finnish) mentions (§113.3) that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The perfect conjunctive is used as a present time *coniunctivus potentialis* in the same meaning as the present conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best example he gives is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hoc sine ulla dubitatione confirmaverim.*&#xD;&#xA;&amp;mdash;&#xD;&#xA;I might confirm this without any hesitation.&#xD;&#xA;(Cicero's *Brutus*, 25)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very close to the phrase used in the question.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would say that **there is no difference between present and perfect conjunctive in this use**.&#xD;&#xA;There appears to be no temporal difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My gut feeling is that the perfect conjunctive conveys a stronger message of uncertainty, but there seems to be nothing to back this up.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that it is unknown whether there is any difference; see TKR's answer for a nice summary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The perfect conjunctive is quite rare in main clauses.&#xD;&#xA;According to the cited grammar, it can be used in negative orders (*ne timueris!*) or as a concession or wish about the past.&#xD;&#xA;(Concession: *Fueris prudens, pius non fuisti.* Wish: *Sit ita factum!*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9158" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2486" RevisionGUID="ef25d54c-ef24-4c19-ad66-e68514c43902" CreationDate="2017-02-03T11:35:43.793" UserId="79" Comment="17" />
  <row Id="9160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2546" RevisionGUID="56411f4b-3360-45b0-8163-052556a827ca" CreationDate="2017-02-03T15:45:18.973" UserId="1219" Text="Came across this post wondering about Italian word &quot;immondizia&quot; meaning &quot;garbage&quot; with origin from Latin &quot;im&quot; (&quot;without&quot;) + &quot;mundus&quot; (&quot;clean&quot; or &quot;elegant&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Mundus&quot; reminded me of Lithuanian &quot;mandagus&quot; (&quot;polite&quot;). Of course, being polite is nice and elegant and worldly. If you add the prefix &quot;ne&quot; (meaning &quot;not&quot;, similar to &quot;without&quot;) you get &quot;nemandagus&quot;, or &quot;impolite&quot;.  Garbage is certainly impolite!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2350" RevisionGUID="c8145639-991a-4204-854f-81abaad55a5b" CreationDate="2017-02-03T17:44:00.973" UserId="645" Comment="expanded answer" Text="I can't start from the Greek original but, as a translated piece, the first of these seems a bit mechanical, and I prefer the second for style (it's a little shorter, too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This edit has been a long time in coming, but for what it's worth:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An opinion on &quot;the quality of the Latin&quot; must take into account various ideas of what that might mean. A principal idea that used to be taught (and may be still) is that good classical prose seldom allowed a change of subject within a whole period — such changes, if felt to be unavoidable, perhaps being made by the use of colons or semi-colons. Other points included careful consideration of the word order, including how emphasis might be introduced and ambiguity avoided. Some consistency in the style of syntax was always looked for (this, which generated whole books on prose composition, would require too long a passage of explanation to give here). And simplicity was held to be desirable, to preclude the difficulty in construing that is always to be avoided : for example, a complex series of adverbial clauses within a single period was seldom a good idea. Based on these inculcated principles, my initial instinct on reading through these pieces was to prefer (A).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a more considered analysis, I thought I might do well to use as a guide Rawlinson's 1858 translation from the Greek, direct into English. To identify separate subjects for each period, I began by arbitrarily editing the matter into eight 'propositions', as follows (ideally, I would have expected eight sentences to correspond roughly to these) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i) Persians say Phoenicians began the quarrel.  (ii) Phoenicians migrated from Red to Mediterranean Sea (where they remain).  (iii) At once, they began long mercantile voyages with wares from Egypt and Assyria.  (iv) They traded with *inter alia* Argos, principal city of (now) Hellas. (v) Business was almost complete after 5-6 days there.  (vi) Women having approached, including Io, daughter of Inachus, they were set upon by Phoenicians.  (vii)  Most escaped but some, including Io , were carried off to Egypt, instigating the quarrel. (viii) The Persian version differs widely from the Phoenician. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each of your translators makes a different 'grouping' of the propositions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— Schweighäuser (S) has five sentences, of in all 157 words. S1 (*11 words*) comprises proposition (i) only; S2 (*41*) has (ii), (iii), (iv) and part of (v). S3 (*16*) has the end of (v). S4 (*44*) has (vi) and (vii). S5 (*45*) has only (viii);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— The alternative (A) has four sentences, in all 132 words. A1 (*45 words*) comprises propositions (i), (ii) and (iii). A2 (*12*) has, (iv), (v) and (vi), A3 (*37*)has (vii). A4 (*38*), like S5, has only (viii).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have long forgotten what little Greek I ever learned, and can't comment on the original text of Herodotus and how well it is matched by the Latin.  All things considered, I think that neither amounts to what is called 'fine writing' and certainly does not suggest the so-called golden age; but in spite of violating the principles (as both do )that I suggested above — except that of brevity in the case of (A) — Schweighäuser's text seems noticeably more clumsy.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2547" RevisionGUID="aa97926b-6e60-43b1-b5ce-8ac45daaee00" CreationDate="2017-02-03T18:37:05.897" UserId="75" Text="In *De Civitate Dei*, Augustine of Hippo wrote,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Quis non hic Christum, quem praedicamus et in quem credimus, quamlibet sit tardus, agnoscat, **cum audiat Deum**, cuius sedes est in saecula saeculorum, et unctum a Deo, utique sicut unguit Deus, non visibili, sed spiritali atque intellegibili chrismate? Quis enim tam rudis est in hac religione vel tam surdus adversus eius famam longe lateque diffusam, ut Christum a chrismate, hoc est ab unctione appellatum esse non noverit?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I translate as,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Who here, however slow he may be, does not recognize Christ whom we preach, and in whom we believe, **when hears [that he is] God**, whose throne is for ever and ever, and [he is] anointed by God, as God indeed anoints, not with a visible, but with a spiritual and even intelligible chrism (chrismate)? For who is so ignorant in this religion, or so deaf to its far and wide-spread fame, that he has not known that Christ (*Christum*) is named from chrism (*chrismate*), this is, from anointing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question concerns the phrase *cum audiat Deum*. I recognize this to be the preposition *cum* followed by a verb conjugated in the subjunctive mood, active voice, 3rd person, singular number, from the lemma *audio*, followed by a noun declined in the accusative case. Because I do not believe this should be translated as “when he hears God,” I reviewed Lewis &amp; Short’s entry for the verb *audio* and noted the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;D. To hear thus and thus, i. e. **to be named** or styled somehow (as in Gr. ἀκούω; and in Engl. to hear, as Milton: Or hear'st thou rather pure ethereal stream, P. L. III. 7); and with bene or male (as in Gr. καλῶς or κακῶς ἀκούειν; cf. Milton: For which Britain hears ill abroad, Areop.; and Spenser: If old Aveugles sonnes so evil hear, F. Q. I. 5, 23), to be in good or bad repute, to be praised or blamed, to have a good or bad character: “benedictis si certāsset, audīsset bene (Bene audire est bene dici, laudari, Don.),” Ter. Phorm. prol. 20: “tu recte vivis, si curas esse quod audis,” Hor. Ep. 1, 16, 17: “rexque paterque Audisti coram,” id. ib. 1, 7, 38; so id. S. 2, 6, 20; Ter. Hec. 4, 2, 24; id. Phorm. 2, 3, 12; Cic. Att. 6, 1; id. Fin. 3, 17, 57; id. Leg. 1, 19; Nep. Dion, 7, 3: “Ille, qui jejunus a quibusdam et aridus habetur, non aliter ab ipsis inimicis male audire quam nimiis floribus et ingenii afluentia potuit,” Quint. 12, 10, 13 al.—In a play upon words: erat surdaster M. Crassus; “sed aliud molestius quod male audiebat,” Cic. Tusc. 5, 40, 116; so, “minus commode: quod illorum culpā se minus commode audire arbitrarentur,” Cic. Verr. 2, 3, 58.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could *cum audiat Deum* be translated as “when he is named ‘God’”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; *De Civitate Dei* (“On the City of God”), Book 17, Ch. 16, p. [238][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sancti Aurelii Augustini Episcopi. [*De Civitate Dei, Libri XXII.*][2] Vol. 2. Lipsiae: Teubneri, 1877.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=mjgMkMoNWJoC&amp;pg=PA238#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=true&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=mjgMkMoNWJoC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9163" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2547" RevisionGUID="aa97926b-6e60-43b1-b5ce-8ac45daaee00" CreationDate="2017-02-03T18:37:05.897" UserId="75" Text="Augustine, De Civitate Dei, Book XVII, Ch. XVI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9164" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2547" RevisionGUID="aa97926b-6e60-43b1-b5ce-8ac45daaee00" CreationDate="2017-02-03T18:37:05.897" UserId="75" Text="|translation|augustinus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2547" RevisionGUID="a461a76b-8782-4a4b-af39-31c09eb65537" CreationDate="2017-02-03T18:46:42.217" UserId="75" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="In *De Civitate Dei*, Augustine of Hippo wrote,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Quis non hic Christum, quem praedicamus et in quem credimus, quamlibet sit tardus, agnoscat, **cum audiat Deum**, cuius sedes est in saecula saeculorum, et unctum a Deo, utique sicut unguit Deus, non visibili, sed spiritali atque intellegibili chrismate? Quis enim tam rudis est in hac religione vel tam surdus adversus eius famam longe lateque diffusam, ut Christum a chrismate, hoc est ab unctione appellatum esse non noverit?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I translate as,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Who here, however slow he may be, does not recognize Christ whom we preach, and in whom we believe, **when he hears [that he is] God**, whose throne is for ever and ever, and [he is] anointed by God, as God indeed anoints, not with a visible, but with a spiritual and even intelligible chrism (chrismate)? For who is so ignorant in this religion, or so deaf to its far and wide-spread fame, that he has not known that Christ (*Christum*) is named from chrism (*chrismate*), this is, from anointing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question concerns the phrase *cum audiat Deum*. I recognize this to be the preposition *cum* followed by a verb conjugated in the subjunctive mood, active voice, 3rd person, singular number, from the lemma *audio*, followed by a noun declined in the accusative case. Because I do not believe this should be translated as “when he hears God” (before researching Lewis &amp; Short, my initial translation was “when he hears [that he is] God”), I reviewed Lewis &amp; Short’s entry for the verb *audio* and noted the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;D. To hear thus and thus, i. e. **to be named** or styled somehow (as in Gr. ἀκούω; and in Engl. to hear, as Milton: Or hear'st thou rather pure ethereal stream, P. L. III. 7); and with bene or male (as in Gr. καλῶς or κακῶς ἀκούειν; cf. Milton: For which Britain hears ill abroad, Areop.; and Spenser: If old Aveugles sonnes so evil hear, F. Q. I. 5, 23), to be in good or bad repute, to be praised or blamed, to have a good or bad character: “benedictis si certāsset, audīsset bene (Bene audire est bene dici, laudari, Don.),” Ter. Phorm. prol. 20: “tu recte vivis, si curas esse quod audis,” Hor. Ep. 1, 16, 17: “rexque paterque Audisti coram,” id. ib. 1, 7, 38; so id. S. 2, 6, 20; Ter. Hec. 4, 2, 24; id. Phorm. 2, 3, 12; Cic. Att. 6, 1; id. Fin. 3, 17, 57; id. Leg. 1, 19; Nep. Dion, 7, 3: “Ille, qui jejunus a quibusdam et aridus habetur, non aliter ab ipsis inimicis male audire quam nimiis floribus et ingenii afluentia potuit,” Quint. 12, 10, 13 al.—In a play upon words: erat surdaster M. Crassus; “sed aliud molestius quod male audiebat,” Cic. Tusc. 5, 40, 116; so, “minus commode: quod illorum culpā se minus commode audire arbitrarentur,” Cic. Verr. 2, 3, 58.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could *cum audiat Deum* be translated as “when he is named ‘God’”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; *De Civitate Dei* (“On the City of God”), Book 17, Ch. 16, p. [238][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sancti Aurelii Augustini Episcopi. [*De Civitate Dei, Libri XXII.*][2] Vol. 2. Lipsiae: Teubneri, 1877.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=mjgMkMoNWJoC&amp;pg=PA238#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=true&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=mjgMkMoNWJoC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2548" RevisionGUID="ab94810e-c5fa-41a0-9587-3bf661a0e9ba" CreationDate="2017-02-03T19:20:44.087" UserId="45" Text="I think you may be overthinking this a bit: this particular meaning of *audire* is idiomatic, but derives pretty directly from the base meaning. I think the bolding of the L&amp;S entry gives somewhat the wrong idea of the construction, as if one could say: &quot;Audio Brianus&quot; = &quot;*I am named Brian.*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By far the most common usage of this idiom is with an adverb, particularly *bene* and *male*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ab inimicis male audio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I have a bad reputation among my enemies.* (Lit: *I hear badly from my enemies.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples given in Lewis and Short very rarely cite a usage without an adverb. Here are two I found, though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tu recte vivis, si curas esse quod audis. (Hor. Ep. 1:16)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *You live uprightly, if you take care to be what others say of you.* (Lit: *...be what you hear.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, however, that this meaning is so established that it can be used with the *nominative*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Saepe uerecundum laudasti rexque paterque  &#xD;&#xA;audisti coram nec uerbo parcius absens; (Hor. Ep. 1:7)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *You have often praised me as modest, and you have heard me  &#xD;&#xA;call you king and father in your presence, nor am I more sparing in my words in your absence.*  &#xD;&#xA;(Lit: *You have heard king and father*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The subject of the *audio* is the one who is &quot;regarded as X&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. In the case of a noun, nominative is (*probably*) more appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's look at your example sentence, which I will pare down to its essential structure:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quis Christum non agnoscat, cum audiat Deum?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two reasons, based on the above two observations, why I believe your proposed translation will not work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ***Deus* should probably be nominative.**&#xD;&#xA;2. More important: **the subject of *audiat* would be *Christus*, which does not make sense.** Obviously, the *quis* who *agnoscat* is not God, so we have to assume that the subject becomes *Christus*. All of a sudden, *cum* is not restrictive but *explanatory* (pardon the non-technical terms). The translation becomes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Who does not acknowledge Christ, since [Christ] is known as God?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Augustine's point is obviously dependent on the subject of the first clause (*quis*) hearing something. Using Ockham's razor and the above observations, it is much simpler to supply an (often excised) *esse* and translate as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quis Christum non agnoscat, cum audiat [eum esse] Deum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2547" RevisionGUID="a9941fcf-ad1f-4575-a5ad-4893c7a8730b" CreationDate="2017-02-03T19:25:34.007" UserId="75" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="In *De Civitate Dei*, Augustine of Hippo wrote,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Quis non hic Christum, quem praedicamus et in quem credimus, quamlibet sit tardus, agnoscat, **cum audiat Deum**, cuius sedes est in saecula saeculorum, et unctum a Deo, utique sicut unguit Deus, non visibili, sed spiritali atque intellegibili chrismate? Quis enim tam rudis est in hac religione vel tam surdus adversus eius famam longe lateque diffusam, ut Christum a chrismate, hoc est ab unctione appellatum esse non noverit?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I translate as,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Who here, however slow he may be, does not recognize Christ whom we preach, and in whom we believe, **when he hears [that he is] God**, whose throne is for ever and ever, and [he is] anointed by God, as God indeed anoints, not with a visible, but with a spiritual and even intelligible chrism (chrismate)? For who is so ignorant in this religion, or so deaf to its far and wide-spread fame, that he has not known that Christ (*Christum*) is named from chrism (*chrismate*), this is, from anointing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question concerns the phrase *cum audiat Deum*. I recognize this to be the preposition *cum* followed by a verb conjugated in the subjunctive mood, active voice, 3rd person, singular number, from the lemma *audio*, followed by a noun declined in the accusative case. Because I do not believe this should be translated as “when he hears God” (before researching Lewis &amp; Short, my initial translation was “when he hears [that he is] God”), I reviewed Lewis &amp; Short’s entry for the verb *audio* and noted the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;D. To hear thus and thus, i. e. **to be named** or styled somehow (as in Gr. ἀκούω; and in Engl. to hear, as Milton: Or hear'st thou rather pure ethereal stream, P. L. III. 7); and with bene or male (as in Gr. καλῶς or κακῶς ἀκούειν; cf. Milton: For which Britain hears ill abroad, Areop.; and Spenser: If old Aveugles sonnes so evil hear, F. Q. I. 5, 23), to be in good or bad repute, to be praised or blamed, to have a good or bad character: “benedictis si certāsset, audīsset bene (Bene audire est bene dici, laudari, Don.),” Ter. Phorm. prol. 20: “tu recte vivis, si curas esse quod audis,” Hor. Ep. 1, 16, 17: “rexque paterque Audisti coram,” id. ib. 1, 7, 38; so id. S. 2, 6, 20; Ter. Hec. 4, 2, 24; id. Phorm. 2, 3, 12; Cic. Att. 6, 1; id. Fin. 3, 17, 57; id. Leg. 1, 19; Nep. Dion, 7, 3: “Ille, qui jejunus a quibusdam et aridus habetur, non aliter ab ipsis inimicis male audire quam nimiis floribus et ingenii afluentia potuit,” Quint. 12, 10, 13 al.—In a play upon words: erat surdaster M. Crassus; “sed aliud molestius quod male audiebat,” Cic. Tusc. 5, 40, 116; so, “minus commode: quod illorum culpā se minus commode audire arbitrarentur,” Cic. Verr. 2, 3, 58.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could *cum audiat Deum* be translated as “when he is named ‘God’”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sancti Aurelii Augustini Episcopi. [*De Civitate Dei, Libri XXII.*][2] Vol. 2. Lipsiae: Teubneri, 1877.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; *De Civitate Dei* (“On the City of God”), Book 17, Ch. 16, p. [238][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=mjgMkMoNWJoC&amp;pg=PA238#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=true&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=mjgMkMoNWJoC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2549" RevisionGUID="1bdbeec7-9ba9-4907-9ab8-74a11d505a30" CreationDate="2017-02-03T20:55:48.703" UserId="79" Text="There were some good suggestions in the comments, and I want to record them here to give them more visibility.&#xD;&#xA;If anyone wants to elaborate on any of them, feel free to add a separate answer.&#xD;&#xA;I made this answer community wiki so that I get no reputation (I didn't do anything!) and anyone can edit easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some possible translations for &quot;main&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *principalis*&#xD;&#xA;- *primus*&#xD;&#xA;- *princeps*&#xD;&#xA;- *praecipuus*&#xD;&#xA;- the prefix *archi-*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9169" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="2549" RevisionGUID="f533c11f-8973-4a53-bde6-065be4f76fd3" CreationDate="2017-02-03T20:55:48.703" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="9170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2550" RevisionGUID="96eb7d86-80c8-4017-a80b-c5f818791321" CreationDate="2017-02-04T02:34:23.573" UserId="1222" Text="How would one translate &quot;argumentum ab invidia ductum&quot; into English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9171" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2550" RevisionGUID="96eb7d86-80c8-4017-a80b-c5f818791321" CreationDate="2017-02-04T02:34:23.573" UserId="1222" Text="what does the Latin phrase &quot;argumentum ab invidia ductum&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9172" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2550" RevisionGUID="96eb7d86-80c8-4017-a80b-c5f818791321" CreationDate="2017-02-04T02:34:23.573" UserId="1222" Text="|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9173" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2550" RevisionGUID="1db135b8-b8ee-4461-99ca-b9d6d150c238" CreationDate="2017-02-04T16:29:05.817" UserId="79" Comment="Added tag." Text="What does the Latin phrase &quot;argumentum ab invidia ductum&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9174" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2550" RevisionGUID="1db135b8-b8ee-4461-99ca-b9d6d150c238" CreationDate="2017-02-04T16:29:05.817" UserId="79" Comment="Added tag." Text="|translation|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2551" RevisionGUID="f434ceec-e7f2-4e60-9511-f07851c9888e" CreationDate="2017-02-04T17:37:08.003" UserId="79" Text="It means &quot;an argument derived from envy&quot;.&#xA;It is a matter of taste whether you want to use &quot;derived from&quot;, &quot;due to&quot;, or something else.&#xA;&#xA;*Argumentum* means an argument.&#xA;*Ab invidia* means &quot;from envy&quot;.&#xA;The verb *ducere* means &quot;to lead&quot;, and *ductum* is the passive perfect participle.&#xA;You can see this in two ways: either the author leads their argument from the direction of envy, or the argument is lead by envy itself (and envy is a grammatical agent).&#xA;I see no real semantic difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2552" RevisionGUID="1a2875aa-7ef3-47e3-a918-1444050efeb4" CreationDate="2017-02-04T20:40:03.940" UserId="406" Text="An *argūmentum* is an argument: not in the sense of two people exchanging words, but a specific point that someone brings up during a debate. It can also mean the topic of a speech or the plot of a story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ab* is &quot;from&quot;, a convenient preposition. With a passive verb form like *ductum* it means &quot;by&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Invidiā* is dislike aimed at a specific person, which can range from envy to prejudice to spite to hatred. In fact it's a distant ancestor of the English word &quot;envy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *ductum* modifies *argūmentum* (hence the matching endings), and means &quot;led&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the full meaning is &quot;a logical argument which has been led by jealousy&quot;. For instance, if a politician suggests changing a law simply because they don't want their opponent to benefit from it, the suggestion would be an *argūmentum ab invidiā ductum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2551" RevisionGUID="b6816568-f38e-4503-a27f-6b0b1ed62337" CreationDate="2017-02-04T21:24:59.023" UserId="79" Comment="added 277 characters in body" Text="It means &quot;an argument derived from envy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is a matter of taste whether you want to use &quot;derived from&quot;, &quot;due to&quot;, or something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Argumentum*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2004411) means an argument.&#xD;&#xA;*Ab [invidia](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2030481)* means &quot;from envy&quot; or &quot;by envy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The verb [*ducere*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2018374) means &quot;to lead&quot;, and *ductum* is the passive perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;You can see this in two ways: either the author leads their argument from the direction of envy, or the argument is led by envy itself (and envy is a grammatical agent).&#xD;&#xA;I see no real semantic difference between the two interpretations.&#xD;&#xA;See the linked dictionary entries for more detailed translations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2553" RevisionGUID="d2390bb6-1a6f-4333-a3de-f1f601b74631" CreationDate="2017-02-04T22:02:47.687" UserId="79" Text="My dictionary translates &quot;homesickness&quot; as *nostalgia* or *desiderium loci natalis*, but the dictionary gives no source or era information.&#xD;&#xA;Both of these are understandable, but I haven't found classical examples of their use.&#xD;&#xA;**Are there examples in classical Latin literature where homesickness is mentioned, using these or other words?**&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how the Romans would express this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homesickness can arise on different time scales.&#xD;&#xA;For example, this is relatively short scale: &quot;I've been travelling for a week, and I really want to get back where I live.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;This is much longer scale: &quot;I've lived here for two decades. I wish I could move back to where I spent my childhood summers.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Any time scale is fine for me; I should be able to adapt the ideas to any situation if I just have an attested classical starting point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9179" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2553" RevisionGUID="d2390bb6-1a6f-4333-a3de-f1f601b74631" CreationDate="2017-02-04T22:02:47.687" UserId="79" Text="Classical example of homesickness" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9180" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2553" RevisionGUID="d2390bb6-1a6f-4333-a3de-f1f601b74631" CreationDate="2017-02-04T22:02:47.687" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2554" RevisionGUID="65c6ba1a-3257-4313-8025-0feaa54273ab" CreationDate="2017-02-04T23:54:32.370" UserId="985" Text="Ovid, _Metamorphoses_ 8.184:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Daedalus interea Creten longumque perosus  &#xD;&#xA;exilium **tactusque loci natalis amore**  &#xD;&#xA;clausus erat pelago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This bit from Cicero, _Pro Ligario_ 3 may count too. _OLD_ includes this passage among the attestations for definition 4 of _domus_, 'The country, towm, etc., of one's residence or birth, home; an (inhabited country).'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ligarius **domum spectans, ad suos redire cupiens**, nullo se implicari negotio passus est." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2555" RevisionGUID="2f5cccd5-0636-48cb-82a5-d1f0f670893d" CreationDate="2017-02-05T01:47:00.097" UserId="1224" Text="I don't understand how *quisque* and *quique* are different. How can a pronoun referring to all people be singular or plural? In which situations would one use either of these?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9185" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2555" RevisionGUID="2f5cccd5-0636-48cb-82a5-d1f0f670893d" CreationDate="2017-02-05T01:47:00.097" UserId="1224" Text="How can &quot;everyone&quot; be singular or plural?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9186" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2555" RevisionGUID="2f5cccd5-0636-48cb-82a5-d1f0f670893d" CreationDate="2017-02-05T01:47:00.097" UserId="1224" Text="|classical-latin|pronouns|plural|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2556" RevisionGUID="d7fef7ee-a524-4bbe-9dd3-36ab1da6d4c8" CreationDate="2017-02-05T02:02:53.000" UserId="1224" Text="You could use the adjective *constans* to mean consistent and steady. Alternatively, one could use *liquidus*. It primarily means liquid, but it can also be interpreted as flowing or without interruption. There's even *fluentus*, which is the Medieval Latin word for flowing, but mostly describes water. I hope this was useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2556" RevisionGUID="0b90d760-b20e-4587-984d-244c16bb4f5f" CreationDate="2017-02-05T02:25:14.783" UserId="1224" Comment="I edited this because I accidently used the masculine endings for the adjectives rather than neuter, to describe a vehicle." Text="You could use the adjective *constans* to mean consistent and steady. Alternatively, one could use *liquidum*. It primarily means liquid, but it can also be interpreted as flowing or without interruption. There's even *fluentum*, which is the Medieval Latin word for flowing, but mostly describes water. Personally, I would say *vehiculum constans*. I hope this was useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2552" RevisionGUID="400b7929-d205-4a89-9fe5-97b3de34528e" CreationDate="2017-02-05T04:31:12.757" UserId="406" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="An *argūmentum* is an argument: not in the sense of two people exchanging words, but a specific point that someone brings up during a debate. It can also mean the topic of a speech or the plot of a story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ab* is &quot;from&quot;, a convenient preposition. With a passive verb form like *ductum* it can also mean &quot;by&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Invidiā* is dislike aimed at a specific person, which can range from envy to prejudice to spite to hatred. In fact it's a distant ancestor of the English word &quot;envy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *ductum* modifies *argūmentum* (hence the matching endings), and means &quot;led&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the full meaning is &quot;a logical argument which has been led by jealousy&quot;. For instance, if a politician suggests changing a law simply because they don't want their opponent to benefit from it, the suggestion would be an *argūmentum ab invidiā ductum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2557" RevisionGUID="0bbf65a9-0df8-4f63-ad44-875d1c22bb61" CreationDate="2017-02-05T05:13:42.917" UserId="406" Text="While trying to answer an etymological question, I was looking through several different online resources about Etruscan vocabulary. Annoyingly, although these resources use *mostly* the same transcription system, there are a few significant differences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, some sources use «th ph kh» for   , while others use Greek «θ φ χ» (sometimes substituting Latin «þ» and «x»). And some seem to mix the two styles: Wikipedia &quot;Etruscan language&quot; mentions both *zilaχ* and *zilath* as words for &quot;praetor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a source uses both digraphs and Greek letters for the Etruscan aspirates, is there a reason for this? For instance, do inscriptions distinguish between  «θ» and  «th»? (If so, are there theories on what the distinction could mean phonologically?) Or is it just inconsistent editorial preference, like macrons on Latin vowels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9191" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2557" RevisionGUID="0bbf65a9-0df8-4f63-ad44-875d1c22bb61" CreationDate="2017-02-05T05:13:42.917" UserId="406" Text="Are θ/þ/th distinct in Etruscan transcription?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9192" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2557" RevisionGUID="0bbf65a9-0df8-4f63-ad44-875d1c22bb61" CreationDate="2017-02-05T05:13:42.917" UserId="406" Text="|alphabet|orthography|etruscan|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2558" RevisionGUID="ffc3f913-a11e-4ccd-acb1-6f1722a4b095" CreationDate="2017-02-05T07:06:02.790" UserId="867" Text="Nostalgia is definitely a modern word.  It was first coined by Johannes Hofer in 1688 in his *Dissertatio Medica de Nostalgia*.  About devising the word, he wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;(from *[Nostalgia: Origins and Ends of an Unenlightened Disease][2]*, by Helmut Illbruck, p. 5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the construction of *desiderium* + gen. of the object longed for + a verb that describes how the longing manifested itself is amply attested to in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Parmeno, a slave, runs into Philotis, a courtesan recently returned to Athens after an unhappy sojourn in Corinth:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Edepol, te **desiderium** **Athenarium** arbitror, Philotium, **cepisse** saepe et&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tu tuom consilium contempisse*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; By Pollux, I suppose a longing for Athens often took hold of you, Philotis, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you regretted your decision [to leave]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Terence, *Hecyra* (*The Mother-in-Law*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, John Barsby (2001) translates this as: I expect you were often homesick …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, writing to Caelius Rufus in Rome:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Mirum me **desiderium** **tenet urbis**, incredibile **meorum** atque in primus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **tui**, satietas autem provinciae*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; An extraordinary longing for the city (Rome) grips me, more than you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would believe, for my family and especially for you, I have had enough&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the provinces&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cicero, *Epistulae*, 90 (2.11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Horace speaking to a bailiff who now works and resides in the country but pines for the excitement of the city:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Fornix tibi et uncta popina **incutiunt urbis** **desiderium***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The brothel and greasy cook shop excites in you a longing for the city&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace, *Epistulae*, 1.14.22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, of course, Ovid, whose *Tristia* is nothing if not an extended treatise on the soul-destroying nature of nostalgia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Roma **domus**que **subit** **desiderium**que **locorum**, quicquid et amissa restat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in urbe mei*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rome, my home, and a longing for its places steals into my thoughts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and whatever remains of me in the city I have lost&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ovid, *Tristia*, 3.2.21-22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DZJxl.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=tlmihfXbud8C&amp;pg=PA10&amp;lpg=PA10&amp;dq=ovid%20nostalgia&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=kHqKrBDaBy&amp;sig=Y3BBZzZn3qFW9HHFAJ-EiFs0M8U&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwic9cmB3vfRAhUE2LwKHVwNAGkQ6AEIHDAB#v=snippet&amp;q=dissertatio&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2558" RevisionGUID="994701ea-6751-49e8-bd78-c11aa9d37bb3" CreationDate="2017-02-05T07:12:51.403" UserId="867" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Nostalgia is definitely a modern word.  It was first coined by Johannes Hofer in 1688 in his *Dissertatio Medica de Nostalgia*.  About devising the word, he wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;(from *[Nostalgia: Origins and Ends of an Unenlightened Disease][2]*, by Helmut Illbruck, p. 5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the construction of *desiderium* + gen. of the object longed for + a verb that describes how the longing manifested itself is amply attested to in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Parmeno, a slave, runs into Philotis, a courtesan recently returned to Athens after an unhappy sojourn in Corinth:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Edepol, te **desiderium** **Athenarium** arbitror, Philotium, **cepisse** saepe et&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tu tuom consilium contempisse*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; By Pollux, I suppose a longing for Athens often took hold of you, Philotis, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you regretted your decision [to leave]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Terence, *Hecyra* (*The Mother-in-Law*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, John Barsby (2001) translates this as: I expect you were often homesick …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, writing to Caelius Rufus in Rome:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Mirum me **desiderium** **tenet urbis**, incredibile **meorum** atque in primus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **tui**, satietas autem provinciae*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; An extraordinary longing for the city (Rome) grips me, more than you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would believe, for my family and especially for you, I have had enough&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the provinces&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cicero, *Epistulae*, 90 (2.11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Horace speaking to a bailiff who now works and resides in the country but pines for the excitement of the city:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Fornix tibi et uncta popina **incutiunt urbis** **desiderium***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The brothel and greasy cook shop excites in you a longing for the city&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace, *Epistulae*, 1.14.22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, of course, Ovid, whose *Tristia* is nothing if not an extended treatise on the soul-destroying nature of homesickness:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Roma **domus**que **subit** **desiderium**que **locorum**, quicquid et amissa restat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in urbe mei*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rome, my home, and a longing for its places steals into my thoughts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and whatever remains of me in the city I have lost&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ovid, *Tristia*, 3.2.21-22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DZJxl.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=tlmihfXbud8C&amp;pg=PA10&amp;lpg=PA10&amp;dq=ovid%20nostalgia&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=kHqKrBDaBy&amp;sig=Y3BBZzZn3qFW9HHFAJ-EiFs0M8U&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwic9cmB3vfRAhUE2LwKHVwNAGkQ6AEIHDAB#v=snippet&amp;q=dissertatio&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2559" RevisionGUID="e65a36df-2de7-4005-a170-994d41c48033" CreationDate="2017-02-05T09:14:16.767" UserId="1224" Text="I've seen &quot;progressio&quot; used as a part in a story which progresses the plot, but is there a word for a moment with action and conflict that determines the outcome of the story, or a crucial time for a character to make a decision? Any related terms are welcome, preferably in Classical Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9196" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2559" RevisionGUID="e65a36df-2de7-4005-a170-994d41c48033" CreationDate="2017-02-05T09:14:16.767" UserId="1224" Text="What is the climax of a story called?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9197" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2559" RevisionGUID="e65a36df-2de7-4005-a170-994d41c48033" CreationDate="2017-02-05T09:14:16.767" UserId="1224" Text="|classical-latin|translation|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2560" RevisionGUID="6e5b54d7-4f7e-465c-be8c-d5edd31c37d6" CreationDate="2017-02-05T10:04:15.380" UserId="645" Text="The word you are looking for is *gradatio, -onis, (f.)*, the Latin equivalent of *κλιμαξ*, used by Cicero, for example, *de Or.* 3, 54, 207,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Est etiam gradatio quaedam et conversio et verborum concinna transgressio et contrarium et dissolutum et declinatio etc. . .*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2561" RevisionGUID="5c1b2152-67b2-433c-814b-0eb9c8e7d495" CreationDate="2017-02-05T17:50:33.510" UserId="952" Text="*Hodie* is a Latin adverb meaning &quot;today&quot; or &quot;at the present time&quot;. I am rather curious as to how this word developed.  &#xD;&#xA;Was it originally a compound of *hōc* and *diē*, which would be translated as &quot;on this day&quot;? That's the only theory I have so far; are there perhaps any definitive pieces of evidence on this topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9201" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2561" RevisionGUID="5c1b2152-67b2-433c-814b-0eb9c8e7d495" CreationDate="2017-02-05T17:50:33.510" UserId="952" Text="Origins of the word &quot;hodie&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9202" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2561" RevisionGUID="5c1b2152-67b2-433c-814b-0eb9c8e7d495" CreationDate="2017-02-05T17:50:33.510" UserId="952" Text="|translation|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2562" RevisionGUID="9edab374-9fbc-4b14-935d-b281338249af" CreationDate="2017-02-05T18:08:57.240" UserId="78" Text="That's exactly right (though as a contraction), as a look at [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=hodie&amp;la=la#lexicon) would have told you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; hŏdĭē , adv. contr. from hoc die, on this day,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English *[today](http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=today)* actually developed in the same way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; today (adv.) Old English *todæge*, *to dæge* &quot;on (this) day,&quot; from *to* &quot;at, on&quot; + *dæge*, dative of *dæg* &quot;day.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2562" RevisionGUID="43c78539-aa57-413f-bbcb-e5b1247096cc" CreationDate="2017-02-05T18:52:08.997" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="That's exactly right (though as a contraction), as a look at [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=hodie&amp;la=la#lexicon) shows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; hŏdĭē , adv. contr. from hoc die, on this day,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English *[today](http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=today)* actually developed in the same way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; today (adv.) Old English *todæge*, *to dæge* &quot;on (this) day,&quot; from *to* &quot;at, on&quot; + *dæge*, dative of *dæg* &quot;day.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2563" RevisionGUID="7ced6733-7733-480d-8325-fb4113db1160" CreationDate="2017-02-05T19:43:56.160" UserId="1226" Text="I would like to learn Latin, starting from scratch. That is to say, **I do not know anything at all about Latin**. Which book would be a good one to start with?&#xA;&#xA;Thanks a lot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9207" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2563" RevisionGUID="7ced6733-7733-480d-8325-fb4113db1160" CreationDate="2017-02-05T19:43:56.160" UserId="1226" Text="Learning latin, good books at beginner's level" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9208" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2563" RevisionGUID="7ced6733-7733-480d-8325-fb4113db1160" CreationDate="2017-02-05T19:43:56.160" UserId="1226" Text="|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2564" RevisionGUID="83a76fde-3dd5-4450-b4eb-575c694525cd" CreationDate="2017-02-05T20:26:38.067" UserId="324" Text="As is often the case with things that seem obvious, the explanation of hodiē as a contraction of hōc + diē is actually problematic and hotly contested. One theory is that is from the bare stem *ho-. Another that is from the old abl. sing. *hōd *diēd (with secondary shift of -ōdd- to -od-). The former seems to me more straightforward. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2565" RevisionGUID="dd256ea9-1a0f-42b4-9962-578b171e62ef" CreationDate="2017-02-05T20:32:58.257" UserId="183" Text="Is Numidius an Antique Roman name (probably a *nomen gentilis*) or is it spurious and caused by corruption of other names?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I have found so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The name Ummidius (that is clearly and unmistakably attested) can be corrupted to Numidius&#xD;&#xA; - There also is a name Numisius that is easily mistyped (on a modern keyboard) as Numidius&#xD;&#xA; - There is a cognomen Numidicus (for victories against the NUmidians).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9211" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2565" RevisionGUID="dd256ea9-1a0f-42b4-9962-578b171e62ef" CreationDate="2017-02-05T20:32:58.257" UserId="183" Text="Is *Numidius* an Antique Roman name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9212" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2565" RevisionGUID="dd256ea9-1a0f-42b4-9962-578b171e62ef" CreationDate="2017-02-05T20:32:58.257" UserId="183" Text="|classical-latin|names|roman-culture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2565" RevisionGUID="456380cf-c248-46ac-9ca5-65412ff4ddd6" CreationDate="2017-02-05T20:38:14.777" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Is Numidius an Ancient Roman name (probably a *nomen gentilis*) or is it spurious and caused by corruption of other names?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I have found so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The name Ummidius (that is clearly and unmistakably attested) can be corrupted to Numidius&#xD;&#xA; - There also is a name Numisius that is easily mistyped (on a modern keyboard) as Numidius&#xD;&#xA; - There is a cognomen Numidicus (for victories against the Numidians).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9214" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2565" RevisionGUID="456380cf-c248-46ac-9ca5-65412ff4ddd6" CreationDate="2017-02-05T20:38:14.777" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Is *Numidius* an Ancient Roman name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2566" RevisionGUID="6a3df914-f2ee-4f26-84da-9b07a1b7550f" CreationDate="2017-02-05T20:47:50.257" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9216" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2566" RevisionGUID="6a3df914-f2ee-4f26-84da-9b07a1b7550f" CreationDate="2017-02-05T20:47:50.257" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2567" RevisionGUID="a6f7a60b-04c1-4515-99a3-d860f3723dd2" CreationDate="2017-02-05T20:47:50.257" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9218" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2567" RevisionGUID="a6f7a60b-04c1-4515-99a3-d860f3723dd2" CreationDate="2017-02-05T20:47:50.257" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2564" RevisionGUID="72b9b38b-4fe8-43af-9ee7-ca6782603a34" CreationDate="2017-02-05T21:32:59.080" UserId="324" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="As is often the case with things that seem obvious, the explanation of hodiē as a contraction of hōc + diē is actually problematic and hotly contested. One theory is that is from the bare stem *ho-. Another that is from the old abl. sing. *hōd *diēd (with secondary shift of -ōdd- to -od-). The former seems to me more straightforward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS. Lewis and Short (1879) is hardly the last word on Latin etymology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2568" RevisionGUID="a7a4378b-94bf-4d16-a7da-934a99ae237a" CreationDate="2017-02-05T21:47:39.317" UserId="1224" Text="There are several noticeable differences between Latins, but I think that the most important would be the vocabulary and punctuation. Rather than using *sum* and *eram*, in Medieval Latin, one might use *fui* and *fueram*. New Latin and even Renaissance Latin adopted many words from Old French, Greek, and similar languages, like *systema* and *nostalgia*. Sentence spacing also came about in the fifteenth century, as well as an even earlier example of paragraphs in the Lyon Table." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2567" RevisionGUID="0253667e-97aa-4615-97fd-b6a528bcee74" CreationDate="2017-02-05T21:57:17.197" UserId="183" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="For questions about personal names (Ancient and Modern) in the Latin language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9223" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2567" RevisionGUID="0253667e-97aa-4615-97fd-b6a528bcee74" CreationDate="2017-02-05T21:57:17.197" Comment="Proposed by 183 approved by 79 edit id of 167" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2571" RevisionGUID="a66628cf-8b13-4674-9bd2-201ba627674e" CreationDate="2017-02-06T00:10:33.903" UserId="78" Text="Are you thinking of **Numidicus**? There was famously [Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus](https://books.google.com/books?id=bVWcAQAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;pg=PA259#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; son of Clavus and brother of Delmaticus. Elected consul in 109 BC to finish the war against Jugurtha, he won two battles and stormed several towns, with the help of his legates C. Marius and P. Rutilius Fufus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numidicus is his agnomen, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were people named [Numidius](https://books.google.com/books?id=e3DYAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA62&amp;lpg=PA62#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), but if my hunch is correct, I think you're thinking of the former." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2571" RevisionGUID="8b582ade-1c0b-4ac5-8cca-c7570f438953" CreationDate="2017-02-06T02:19:30.977" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 350 characters in body" Text="[Edited because I didn't read the full opening post at first.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were people named [Numidius](https://books.google.com/books?id=e3DYAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA62&amp;lpg=PA62#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), but Numidicus as an agnomen (not cognomen) was attached to a very famous Roman politician, so I would bet that you were actually thinking of him." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9236" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="2562" RevisionGUID="fdccbac7-655b-4980-bceb-fe54b2979421" CreationDate="2017-02-06T05:25:09.593" UserId="78" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2564" RevisionGUID="089abb19-4c94-49e1-944f-67ffc6d2ba08" CreationDate="2017-02-06T08:06:04.410" UserId="324" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="As is often the case with things that seem obvious, the explanation of hodiē as a contraction of hōc + diē is actually problematic and hotly contested. One theory is that it is from the bare stem *ho-. Another that is from the old abl. sing. *hōd *diēd (with secondary shift of -ōdd- to -od-). The former seems to me more straightforward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS. Lewis and Short (1879) is hardly the last word on Latin etymology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9239" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2563" RevisionGUID="63ab7a66-34cf-487d-b0bf-1e0b4847562c" CreationDate="2017-02-06T14:02:46.727" UserId="12" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[957],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:12,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nathaniel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2572" RevisionGUID="b24c3d24-c8af-479b-8fb5-720860ee85b0" CreationDate="2017-02-06T15:29:45.320" UserId="45" Text="[David Morgan's lexicon](http://www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com/faculty-pages/patrick-owens/lexicon/adumbratio/index.aspx) (warning: big file) suggests [*citatus, -a, -um*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcito2) for &quot;express&quot; in this context. His suggestions for &quot;express train&quot; are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tramen* citatum, hamaxostichus* citatus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The * indicates that it is a modern word found after AD 1400. I won't comment on which is better, since that's not really the OP's question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some sample uses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *citato equo* = &quot;at full gallop&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *citatum agmen* = &quot;rapidly marching column&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *citate* (adv.) = &quot;speedily&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2573" RevisionGUID="d9854dfc-569a-4597-9f4f-1e31bac95915" CreationDate="2017-02-06T17:16:12.250" UserId="1224" Text="From the book *Rebilius Crusoe* by Francis William Newman, the term *aurea mala*, or *golden apples* is used to describe oranges. Did any of the Latins have an actual name for this fruit, or was it simply something like *fructus aureum*? Were any of the modern scientific terms for oranges used, such as *citrus aurantium*, *citrus bergamia risso*, *poncirus trifoliata*, or *citrus reticulata*, or many even just *citrus*, to refer to any fruit of the genus? Surely, across the vast Roman Empire that once spread all over Europe and in parts of Africa, with a powerful navy, would have discovered these." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9243" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2573" RevisionGUID="d9854dfc-569a-4597-9f4f-1e31bac95915" CreationDate="2017-02-06T17:16:12.250" UserId="1224" Text="What are oranges in Classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9244" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2573" RevisionGUID="d9854dfc-569a-4597-9f4f-1e31bac95915" CreationDate="2017-02-06T17:16:12.250" UserId="1224" Text="|classical-latin|word-request|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9245" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2573" RevisionGUID="18ff6ceb-80f3-4628-91d9-13b24fbc131e" CreationDate="2017-02-06T17:34:00.417" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|word-request|word-choice|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2574" RevisionGUID="cac6a269-66d9-456c-950a-7387fe7c0cfb" CreationDate="2017-02-06T18:47:00.513" UserId="406" Text="*As the other answer was deleted, I'll post the traditional explanation here.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The simplest explanation is exactly as you suggested: *hōc* &quot;this&quot; + *diē* &quot;day&quot;, in the ablative of time-when. This is what my old Latin textbook said, as well as Lewis and Short's dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **hŏdĭē**, adv. contr. from hoc die, on this day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very similar derivations have happened in other languages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - English &quot;today&quot; &lt; Old English *tō* &quot;at&quot; + &quot;day&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - German *heute* &quot;today&quot; &lt; Old High German *_hiu tagu_ &quot;this day&quot; (cf *Tag*)&#xD;&#xA; - Dutch *vandaag* &quot;today&quot; &lt; *van* &quot;of&quot; + *daag* &quot;day&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Attic Greek *τήμερον* &quot;today&quot; &lt; *_kyā-_ &quot;this&quot; (possibly the root of Latin *cis*) + *ἡμέρα* &quot;day&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Latin has similar words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *prīdiē* &quot;on the day before&quot; &lt; Old Latin *pri* &quot;before&quot; (root of *prior*) + *diē*&#xD;&#xA; - *postrīdiē* &quot;on the day after&quot; &lt; *posterō* + *diē*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In comments on the other answer, brianpck provided some additional evidence. A fragment of Varro ([number 11 here][1]) mentions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...et cum hodie dicimus, nihil aliud quam hoc die intelligitur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(My translation:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...and when we say &quot;today&quot;, no other meaning except &quot;on this day&quot; is understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a more modern and scholarly source, who probably did significantly more research than Varro, [this article][2] argues for the same etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/varro.frag.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=SIoNAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA23&amp;lpg=PA23" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2575" RevisionGUID="19de0b1a-b7aa-41ed-9796-bd24418f360f" CreationDate="2017-02-06T21:09:20.660" UserId="79" Text="Tacitus mentions the people *Fenni* in *Germania* ([46](http://thelatinlibrary.com/tacitus/tac.ger.shtml#46)), and this people lived somewhere near modern Finland.&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in the etymology of this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know where Tacitus got the word *Fennus*?&#xD;&#xA;Is this a first appearance, or does it have written predecessors?&#xD;&#xA;Is the word believed to have been borrowed from some other language?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, do we know which one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The origin of the English word [Finn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finns#Etymology) is also unclear, and it is not at all clear to me if it is related to Tacitus' word.&#xD;&#xA;The Finnish word for Finland or Finns is unrelated, but also of unclear meaning or origin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9248" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2575" RevisionGUID="19de0b1a-b7aa-41ed-9796-bd24418f360f" CreationDate="2017-02-06T21:09:20.660" UserId="79" Text="Etymology of &quot;Fenni&quot; in Tacitus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9249" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2575" RevisionGUID="19de0b1a-b7aa-41ed-9796-bd24418f360f" CreationDate="2017-02-06T21:09:20.660" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|etymology|place-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2576" RevisionGUID="95410c43-756f-427a-b588-c8764cce4879" CreationDate="2017-02-07T00:58:05.647" UserId="932" Text="According to Quicherat’s *French-English dictionary*, you can say `malum aureum` or `aurantium` for translating `orange`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interessant discussion about the *Citrus Aurantium* can be found in [this book](https://books.google.fr/books?id=MTwbAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PR103#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) (in French). According to the author, the oranges were called `mala aurea` or `mala Hesperidum` by the Ancients and `aurentia` during the Middle Age.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. Eclogues III, 71 and VI, 61. Or PHI : [mala aurea](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=mala+aurea).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(in *Flora virgiliana, seu  catalogus plantarum in Virgilii operibus occurentium*, A. L. A. Fée, 1823)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2577" RevisionGUID="d7721ab3-2675-4b1f-904e-09f9ef0797ba" CreationDate="2017-02-07T01:18:54.980" UserId="1224" Text="I know that there exist many Ecclesiastical Latin and Medieval translations kept by professors and most catholic churches, but I decided, just to test my vocabulary, to translate John 3:16 into Classical. I need an alternative point of view on my rough translation so that any more experienced learners of Latin can show my mistakes and explain the proper terminology or grammar. Any tips or suggestions are welcome; thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;*Quia Deus mundum amabat quod filium Unum et solum offerabat, uti quisquis in eum non intereabit sed viverabunt sempiterne*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9255" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2577" RevisionGUID="d7721ab3-2675-4b1f-904e-09f9ef0797ba" CreationDate="2017-02-07T01:18:54.980" UserId="1224" Text="John 3:16 In Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9256" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2577" RevisionGUID="d7721ab3-2675-4b1f-904e-09f9ef0797ba" CreationDate="2017-02-07T01:18:54.980" UserId="1224" Text="|classical-latin|translation|christianity|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2577" RevisionGUID="a81d7e28-53b5-4de3-a206-1f72e0042b71" CreationDate="2017-02-07T01:20:47.973" UserId="78" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I know that there exist many Ecclesiastical Latin and Medieval translations kept by professors and most catholic churches, but I decided, just to test my vocabulary, to translate John 3:16 into Classical. I need an alternative point of view on my rough translation so that any more experienced learners of Latin can show my mistakes and explain the proper terminology or grammar. Any tips or suggestions are welcome; thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quia Deus mundum amabat quod filium Unum et solum offerabat, uti quisquis in eum non intereabit sed viverabunt sempiterne*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2578" RevisionGUID="3ecb4c9f-5028-45d0-9a3c-8bbd1b1d0207" CreationDate="2017-02-07T03:24:56.657" UserId="235" Text="The verse John 3:16 makes use of two grammatical topics which are important in both Greek and Latin: a **result clause** and a **purpose clause**. According to this, the verse can be logically divided in two. I will first treat your handling of the result clause ('For God so loved the world, that he gave his only son') and then, if I find time, I will edit this answer and add a part about the purpose clause ('so that all who believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life'). Furthermore, I will reproduce the Greek and use that to verify my claim. (Reproducing the Vulgate might only spoil the attempt.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον. ([Nestle-Aland John 3:16][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first part (οὕτως γὰρ...ονογενῆ ἔδωκεν) is called a result clause. The Greek word οὕτως ('so') is a demonstrative which often introduces a result clause, and ὥστε ('that') is a conjunction that often follows. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Result clauses also exist in Latin, but you form them differently. Instead of using 'quod', as you do in your translation, you should be using 'ut'. The verb following 'ut' should be placed in the subjunctive. You can read more about Latin result clauses online, [such as here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within this result clause, there are a few details I would like to address. These details concern your translation of the English words 'For', 'so', and 'that'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding 'For' (γὰρ), I suspected that 'Quia' was not best. I consulted the Vulgate, and found that it uses 'enim' instead. This is probably the best translation of the Greek particle γὰρ. It makes sense to translate a particle with a particle, so you might want to research the subject of postpositive particles. 'Enim' is a frequent one in Latin, especially the Vulgate. So is 'autem'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A postpositive particle is normally placed after the first word of a sentence, so it becomes the second word. It would benefit you to consider briefly how these particles can give a sense of punctuation, in a language where there often was no punctuation. When you reach an 'enim' or an 'autem', then it's reasonable to guess that it's the second word in a new sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might also want a Latin word which captures the demonstrative adverb, 'so'. ('For god **so** loved the world.') I consulted the Vulgate and 'sic' is a good choice here. You could also use 'tam' or 'ita'. These words correspond to the Greek adverb οὕτως. You can verify this information about demonstratives in result clauses [in the same source I linked to earlier][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, for the first part, we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sic enim Deus mundum amabat ut filium unum et solum offeret...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word 'offeret' is the imperfect subjunctive, since, if you remember, we have to use the subjunctive mood in the 'ut' part of the result clause. However, I think a better verb might substitute for 'offero'. I checked the Vulgate and it uses what I suspect: dare. I will leave it to you to translate this verb (do, dare) to the correct tense and mood, if you choose. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That covers the first part of the verse: the **result clause**. The second part is the **purpose clause**, which requires a second use of the conjunction 'ut'. I will post the first part of my answer for now, and if I have time, I may edit this answer and add the second part, about the purpose clause. Hope this helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online/text/bibeltext/lesen/stelle/53/30001/39999/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/UtClauses.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2579" RevisionGUID="99b14a43-dabe-4ac3-acab-eec2d3ee11ca" CreationDate="2017-02-07T05:13:39.423" UserId="777" Text="Latin does indeed think about number slightly different than we do in English--or Latin reflects subtleties of reference in a slightly different way. *Quisque* is the indefinite pronoun, masculine nominative singular. *Quique* is the indefinite pronoun, masculine nominative plural. *Quisque* clearly means &quot;every [single] one&quot; or  &quot;each one.&quot; *Quique* has the same meaning, but distributed across a group: &quot;every [single] one [of this group],&quot; or &quot;each one [of this group].&quot; Does that make sense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2578" RevisionGUID="694c9afe-301c-4dac-9968-82cdc32f3941" CreationDate="2017-02-07T07:13:37.060" UserId="235" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="The verse John 3:16 makes use of two grammatical topics which are important in both Greek and Latin: a **result clause** and a **purpose clause**. According to this, the verse can be logically divided in two. I will first treat your handling of the result clause ('For God so loved the world, that he gave his only son') and then, if I find time, I will edit this answer and add a part about the purpose clause ('so that all who believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life'). Furthermore, I will reproduce the Greek and use that to verify my claim. (Reproducing the Vulgate might only spoil the attempt.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον. ([Nestle-Aland John 3:16][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first part (οὕτως γὰρ...ονογενῆ ἔδωκεν) is called a result clause. The Greek word οὕτως ('so') is a demonstrative which often introduces a result clause, and ὥστε ('that') is a conjunction that often follows. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Result clauses also exist in Latin, but you form them differently. Instead of using 'quod', as you do in your translation, you should be using 'ut'. The verb following 'ut' should be placed in the subjunctive. You can read more about Latin result clauses online, [such as here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within this result clause, there are a few details I would like to address. These details concern your translation of the English words 'For', 'so', and 'that'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding 'For' (γὰρ), I suspected that 'Quia' was not best. I consulted the Vulgate, and found that it uses 'enim' instead. This is probably the best translation of the Greek particle γὰρ. It makes sense to translate a particle with a particle, so you might want to research the subject of postpositive particles. 'Enim' is a frequent one in Latin, especially the Vulgate. So is 'autem'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A postpositive particle is normally placed after the first word of a sentence, so it becomes the second word. It would benefit you to consider briefly how these particles can give a sense of punctuation, in a language where there often was no punctuation. When you reach an 'enim' or an 'autem', then it's reasonable to guess that it's the second word in a new sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might also want a Latin word which captures the demonstrative adverb, 'so'. ('For god **so** loved the world.') I consulted the Vulgate and 'sic' is a good choice here. You could also use 'tam' or 'ita'. These words correspond to the Greek adverb οὕτως. You can verify this information about demonstratives in result clauses [in the same source I linked to earlier][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, for the first part, we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sic enim Deus mundum amabat ut filium unum et solum offeret...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word 'offeret' is the imperfect subjunctive, since, if you remember, we have to use the subjunctive mood in the 'ut' part of the result clause. However, I think a better verb might substitute for 'offero'. I checked the Vulgate and it uses what I suspect: dare. I will leave it to you to translate this verb (do, dare) to the correct tense and mood, if you choose. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That covers the first part of the verse: the **result clause**. The second part is the **purpose clause**, which requires a second use of the conjunction 'ut'. I will post the first part of my answer for now, and if I have time, I may edit this answer and add the second part, about the purpose clause. Hope this helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online/text/bibeltext/lesen/stelle/53/30001/39999/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/UtClauses.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2580" RevisionGUID="4e847894-8134-47ef-9e99-cae517f7f391" CreationDate="2017-02-07T11:06:16.427" UserId="79" Text="There is an idiomatic way to respond to someone sneezing in many languages, and [Wikipedia has a list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responses_to_sneezing).&#xD;&#xA;Latin is not included.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a canonical Latin reaction to someone sneezing?&#xD;&#xA;Any era of Latin is fine.&#xD;&#xA;I could always use a translation from some other language (eg. *saluti!*, &quot;for health!&quot;), but I'd like to know an idiom already exists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9265" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2580" RevisionGUID="4e847894-8134-47ef-9e99-cae517f7f391" CreationDate="2017-02-07T11:06:16.427" UserId="79" Text="How to respond to sneezing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9266" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2580" RevisionGUID="4e847894-8134-47ef-9e99-cae517f7f391" CreationDate="2017-02-07T11:06:16.427" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|phrase-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2576" RevisionGUID="f85c1cc6-38fb-41a7-a62c-ecfc656cc76b" CreationDate="2017-02-07T12:07:34.623" UserId="932" Comment="edited body" Text="According to Quicherat’s *French-English dictionary*, you can say `malum aureum` or `aurantium` for translating `orange`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting discussion about the *Citrus Aurantium* can be found in [this book](https://books.google.fr/books?id=MTwbAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PR103#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) (in French). According to the author, the oranges were called `mala aurea` or `mala Hesperidum` by the Ancients and `aurentia` during the Middle Age.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. Eclogues III, 71 and VI, 61. Or PHI : [mala aurea](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=mala+aurea).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(in *Flora virgiliana, seu  catalogus plantarum in Virgilii operibus occurentium*, A. L. A. Fée, 1823)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2576" RevisionGUID="0337a4a0-3029-4852-b20d-dfc781c95883" CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:03:33.353" UserId="932" Comment="added 177 characters in body" Text="According to Quicherat’s *French-English dictionary*, you can say `malum aureum` or `aurantium` for translating `orange`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting discussion about the *Citrus Aurantium* can be found in [this book](https://books.google.fr/books?id=MTwbAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PR103#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) (in French). According to the author, the oranges were called `mala aurea` or `mala Hesperidum` by the Ancients and `aurentia` during the Middle Age.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quod potui, puero silvestri ex arbore lecta        70  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;aurea mala decem misi; cras altera mittam.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Eclogues* III, 71 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Tum canit Hesperidum miratam mala puellam;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Eclogues* VI, 61&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or in PHI : [mala aurea](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=mala+aurea).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(in *Flora virgiliana, seu  catalogus plantarum in Virgilii operibus occurentium*, A. L. A. Fée, 1823)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2581" RevisionGUID="2f66028f-790a-454e-8bdd-dd952c550a6e" CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:11:32.533" UserId="12" Text="Interestingly, this practice does appear to go back to the Romans.  Wilson D. Wallis, [&quot;The Romance and the Tragedy of Sneezing&quot;](https://www.jstor.org/stable/6847) (1919), writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Petronius, Apuleius and Pliny tells us of the Roman custom of saluting one who has sneezed [...] The Roman salutation was &quot;Salve!&quot; equivalent to our &quot;May you have health!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently another option was to use *salvere iubet*, as indicated in the  [*Satyricon*](https://archive.org/stream/L015PetroniusSatyriconSenecaApolocyntosis/L015-Petronius%20Satyricon%3ASeneca%20Apolocyntosis#page/n221/mode/2up):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dum haec ego iam credenti persuadeo, Giton collectione spiritus plenus ter continuo ita sternutavit, ut grabatum concuteret.  Ad quem motum Eumolpus conversus salvere Gitona iubet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;I was just inducing him to believe me, when Giton burst with holding his breath, and all at once sneezed three times so that he shook the bed.  Eumolpus turned round at the noise, and said &quot;Good day, Giton.&quot;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More recently, in *Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency*, John Traupman translates the English &quot;bless you,&quot; specifically after a sneeze, as &quot;salvē *or* salūtem.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2581" RevisionGUID="f4bfb6da-f76d-4ac5-8d80-0a3bb1f2b288" CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:29:30.840" UserId="12" Comment="update per comment" Text="Interestingly, this practice does appear to go back to the Romans.  Wilson D. Wallis, [&quot;The Romance and the Tragedy of Sneezing&quot;](https://www.jstor.org/stable/6847) (1919), writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Petronius, Apuleius and Pliny tells us of the Roman custom of saluting one who has sneezed [...] The Roman salutation was &quot;Salve!&quot; equivalent to our &quot;May you have health!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An indirect form of this, *salvere iubet*, is used accordingly in the  [*Satyricon*](https://archive.org/stream/L015PetroniusSatyriconSenecaApolocyntosis/L015-Petronius%20Satyricon%3ASeneca%20Apolocyntosis#page/n221/mode/2up):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dum haec ego iam credenti persuadeo, Giton collectione spiritus plenus ter continuo ita sternutavit, ut grabatum concuteret.  Ad quem motum Eumolpus conversus salvere Gitona iubet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;I was just inducing him to believe me, when Giton burst with holding his breath, and all at once sneezed three times so that he shook the bed.  Eumolpus turned round at the noise, and said &quot;Good day, Giton.&quot;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More recently, in *Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency*, John Traupman translates the English &quot;bless you,&quot; specifically after a sneeze, as &quot;salvē *or* salūtem.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2560" RevisionGUID="a5b75a71-bb4a-4515-89e7-36704c6fb14a" CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:34:05.650" UserId="645" Comment="Further explanation of proposal" Text="The word you are looking for is *gradatio, -onis, (f.)*, the Latin equivalent of *κλιμαξ*, used by Cicero, for example, *de Or.* 3, 54, 207,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Est etiam gradatio quaedam et conversio et verborum concinna transgressio et contrarium et dissolutum et declinatio etc. . .*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[EDIT]  This use of *gradatio* has been deprecated in comments. An alternative has yet to be put forward, possibly because none is known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any modern translation into Latin almost inevitably has deviations from classical usage — something which is often not fully appreciated. For example, a change of  subject as the sentence proceeds may occur more often than a pedant might consider strictly proper. It has also to be recognised that style is one thing, and idiom another, and that it is sometimes necessary in some way to transform both — as in the present case, when a deficiency of vocabulary has to be remedied. In some such cases an existing word can be used, if the translator feels that it can be adapted sensibly. In the end, a successful translation has to be a compromise between accuracy and readability. Vitruvius uses *gradatio* for a series of (stone) tiers. Cicero, in the absence of a precise Latin term, adapts the physical idea—'steps' in the most literal sense —  to a rhetorical use. I have proposed adapting *gradatio* to the result of a sequence of occurences, or what can be called in ordinary language a 'climax'. I repeat what I replied to one of the comments : if a more convincing suggestion were to be put forward, I should accept it enthusiastically.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2582" RevisionGUID="22b30e8c-4780-4383-a39d-9c475d2282bc" CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:37:39.760" UserId="1224" Text="I have seen that *miles* can be used for a footsoldier, but does *eques* or *equester* refer to a knight on horseback? Are there ant Classical examples of this? Are there any dictionaries that specifically define these terms as a *horseman* or *rider*? I'm sure there are plenty of Medieval and Renaissance words, but any from before?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9274" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2582" RevisionGUID="22b30e8c-4780-4383-a39d-9c475d2282bc" CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:37:39.760" UserId="1224" Text="What do you call a horseman?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9275" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2582" RevisionGUID="22b30e8c-4780-4383-a39d-9c475d2282bc" CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:37:39.760" UserId="1224" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2583" RevisionGUID="51814f0b-d270-4ca3-b8a5-4bc015531196" CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:51:37.733" UserId="78" Text="Yes, [eques](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=eques&amp;la=la#lexicon) absolutely can mean knight:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. In partic.&#xD;&#xA;A. **In milit. lang., a horse-soldier, trooper; opp. pedes, a foot-soldier, Caes. B. G. 1, 15, 3 (twice);** 1, 18 fin.; 1, 23, 2 et saep.; “opp. pedites,” id. ib. 1, 48, 5; 2, 24, 1; 4, 33, 3 et saep.; “opp. viri or homines, for pedites,” Liv. 21, 27; 9, 19: equites singulares Augusti, v. singularis.—&#xD;&#xA;2. **Meton. or collect., horse-soldiers, cavalry: “plurimum in Aetolis equitibus praesidii fuit: is longe tum optimus eques in Graecia erat,” Liv. 33, 7 fin.;** 2, 20; 8, 38; Suet. Galb. 12; Flor. 2, 6, 13; Tac. A. 3, 46; 12, 29; id. H. 2, 89.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Equites* as a social class comes after the meaning of *eques* as a knight/horseman.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2584" RevisionGUID="ec6c68a9-32a0-44da-b5fe-32625ab6993a" CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:52:43.083" UserId="79" Text="The Lewis and Short entry for [*eques*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=eques&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) gives several classical use examples in the sense of &quot;rider&quot; or &quot;horseman&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;See [Caesar's *De Bello Gallico* 1.15](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0002:book=1:chapter=15&amp;highlight=equitibus%2Cequitum), for example.&#xD;&#xA;A foot soldier is [*pedes*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=pedes&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) (gen. *peditis*), whereas *miles* means a soldier in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Eques* also means an individual from the class of knights.&#xD;&#xA;In this context it refers more to a position in the society than fighting on horseback." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9278" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2582" RevisionGUID="191b4f7f-51ee-4816-aff8-3e8959bde2f2" CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:55:25.247" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|word-comparison|warfare|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9279" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2582" RevisionGUID="12141545-10aa-4d86-aa3c-415f7791c7e1" CreationDate="2017-02-07T15:14:40.037" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|word-comparison|military|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9280" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="d65a9b4f-73c1-42a0-8944-a4eba429ff99" CreationDate="2017-02-07T15:15:02.833" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|translation|idiom|weapons|military|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2585" RevisionGUID="e4d2ee6b-dcd4-4492-962f-2ec7e61abe93" CreationDate="2017-02-07T22:12:14.367" UserId="1148" Text="There are various epigraphical references of ***Numidius*** as a *nomen*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *CIL* VIII 23074 (Ain Batria): *Aurelius Numidius P[3]nsi[3]*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *CIL* X 3824 (Capua): *Cn(aeum) Numidium / Astragalum*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *CIL* XIV 3627 (Tivoli): *C(aius) Numidius Qua/dratus* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ILCV* 297 (Santa Maria Capua Vetere): *Murrius / Numidius*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *PanDeser* 64 (Berenice): *C(aius) Numidius Eros*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *CIL* VIII 5301 (Calama) is used as a *praenomen* (*Numidius Marius*), while  *ILAlg* I 2071 (Madauros) records it as a *cognomen* of *Q(uintus) Domitius Numidius*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most famous person to which has been attributed the *cognomen* ***Numidicus*** was [Q. Metellus Numidicus][1] (cfr. e.g. Cic. *Brut.* 135; Vell. 2,9,1; Val. Max. 3,8,4; Gell. 15,14,1), who fought against Jugurtha in Numidia from 109 a.C. (see also *CIL* VI 40942 [Rome] *Q(uintus) Caec[ilius L(uci) f(ilius) Metellus] / [Numidicus]*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other epigraphical references of that *cognomen* are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *CIL* VIII 15667 (Kaussat): *P(ublius) Larci/us Numidicus*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *CIL* VIII 16104 (El Kef): *T(itus) Largius / Numidicus*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *CIL* VIII 25660 (Chemtou): *L(ucius) Iulius / Numidicus*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *IScM* V 00270 (Isaccea): *Mar]cianu[s] / [3] Cassius Numidicus*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *RMD* IV 223 (?): *Ti(berius) Claudius Numidicus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintus_Caecilius_Metellus_Numidicus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2586" RevisionGUID="5a70d1a3-b632-4869-a7a7-fd4f695fbb6a" CreationDate="2017-02-08T06:09:53.613" UserId="1235" Text="On [this website](http://www.online-literature.com/samuel-johnson/3205/) there is an excerpt from Samuel Johnson's Lives of the Poets, quoting Samuel Garth (who was later to become personal physician to King George I) in his address to the Royal College of Physicians of London.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In 1697, Garth spoke that which is now called the Harveian oration; which the authors of the Biographia mention with more praise than the passage quoted in their notes will fully justify. Garth, speaking of the mischiefs done by quacks, has these expressions: &quot;Non tamen telis vulnerat ista agyrtarum colluvies, sed theriaca quadam magis perniciosa; non pyrio, sed pulvere nescio quo exotico certat; non globulis plumbeis, sed pilulis aeque lethalibus interficit.&quot; This was certainly thought fine by the author, and is still admired by his biographer. In October, 1702, he became one of the censors of the college.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is to be expected, Johnson does not translate the Latin quote. Can someone help me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've made a feeble attempt to do it myself, but didn't get past looking up most of the words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Non tamen telis vulnerat ista agyrtarum colluvies, sed theriaca&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    telum - weapon&#xD;&#xA;    vulnerat - he wounds&#xD;&#xA;    ista - that (near) or that (disparaging)&#xD;&#xA;    agyrtarum - ?&#xD;&#xA;    colluvies - effluvium; medley, hotchpotch (from &quot;colluo&quot; - to rinse)&#xD;&#xA;    theriaca - theriac&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quadam magis perniciosa; non pyrio, sed pulvere nescio quo exotico&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    quadam - someone, something (fem abl. sing)&#xD;&#xA;    perniciosa - pernicious&#xD;&#xA;    pyrio - (dat or abl of pyrius) fiery&#xD;&#xA;    pulvere - (abl. sing) dust&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; certat; non globulis plumbeis, sed pilulis aeque lethalibus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    certat - he disputes, competes, fights&#xD;&#xA;    globulis - (dat or abl. pl of globulus) (dim of globus) a globule&#xD;&#xA;    plumbeis - (dat or abl pl of plumbea) a ball of lead&#xD;&#xA;    pilulis - (dat or abl pl of pilula) a pill&#xD;&#xA;    aeque - just as much&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interficit.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    interficit - he kills&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2586" RevisionGUID="5a70d1a3-b632-4869-a7a7-fd4f695fbb6a" CreationDate="2017-02-08T06:09:53.613" UserId="1235" Text="Translation of Samuel Garth's Harveian oration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9288" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2586" RevisionGUID="5a70d1a3-b632-4869-a7a7-fd4f695fbb6a" CreationDate="2017-02-08T06:09:53.613" UserId="1235" Text="|history|poetry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2587" RevisionGUID="a449b2f3-814d-48f4-aa52-ea7629b84437" CreationDate="2017-02-08T07:56:32.640" UserId="985" Text="There are a couple of Greek loan words here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ _agyrta_(?) (ἀγύρτης), vagabond&#xD;&#xA;+ _theriaca_ (θηριακή [sc. ἀντίδοτος]), antidote against a poisonous bite (e.g., snake bite)&#xD;&#xA;+ _pyrium_ (πύρινον [sc. φάρμακον]), fiery drug, probably arsenic (according to LSJ)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, I think you've got most of the words. In context, _pulvus_ probably just means 'powder,' and _colluvies_ is a bit stronger than what you've found – more like '(collective) cesspool.' I think the _globulis plumbeis_ must refer to bullets or buckshot or the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject throughout is _ista agyrtarum colluvies_, and the sentence is a series of statements in the form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'it's not by using _x_ (noun denoting some 'normal' method of doing harm) that it (the _agyrtarum colluvies_) does _y_ (verb denoting harm), but by using _z_ (noun denoting a treatment used by a quack doctor).'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, the quacks don't use spears, poison, or bullets to wound, best, or kill, but their antidotes, powders, and pills." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2577" RevisionGUID="6ec9fc9d-d512-463c-9678-2de48471ed19" CreationDate="2017-02-08T14:38:04.033" UserId="1224" Comment="stuffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff" Text="I know that there exist many Ecclesiastical Latin and Medieval translations kept by professors and most catholic churches, but I decided, just to test my vocabulary, to translate John 3:16 into Classical. I need an alternative point of view on my rough translation so that any more experienced learners of Latin can show my mistakes and explain the proper terminology or grammar. Any tips or suggestions are welcome; thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quia Deus mundum amabat quod filium unum et solum offerabat, uti quisquis in eum non intereabit sed viverabunt sempiterne*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2588" RevisionGUID="221b5c4a-4c52-43fc-8ea6-0a96fac50475" CreationDate="2017-02-08T14:55:22.840" UserId="45" Text="After reading the comments in [this question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2577/john-316-in-latin), I wanted to clarify whether a certain proposed usage of *tam* is appropriate. In it, *tam* was proposed an emphatic alternative with *sic* to be correlated with *ut*, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tam enim eam amabam ut omnia ei darem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;For I loved her so much that I gave her everything.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If this was not the proposed construction, please let me know!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: **Can *tam* be correlated with *ut* in this way?** Seeing *tam* used &quot;alone&quot; with a verb strikes me as strange: I am used to seeing it used with an adjective or adverb (&quot;tam bonus sum&quot;) or correlated with *quam*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9295" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2588" RevisionGUID="221b5c4a-4c52-43fc-8ea6-0a96fac50475" CreationDate="2017-02-08T14:55:22.840" UserId="45" Text="Can &quot;tam&quot; be correlated with &quot;ut&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9296" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2588" RevisionGUID="221b5c4a-4c52-43fc-8ea6-0a96fac50475" CreationDate="2017-02-08T14:55:22.840" UserId="45" Text="|vocabulary|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2588" RevisionGUID="ffef5691-13e8-4961-ae11-3388ed401c37" CreationDate="2017-02-08T15:32:40.343" UserId="45" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="After reading the comments in [this question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2577/john-316-in-latin), I wanted to clarify whether a certain proposed usage of *tam* is appropriate. In it, *tam* was proposed as an emphatic alternative to *sic*, when correlated with *ut*, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tam enim eam amabam ut omnia ei darem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;For I loved her so much that I gave her everything.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If this was not the proposed construction, please let me know!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: **Can *tam* be correlated with *ut* in this way?** Seeing *tam* used &quot;alone&quot; with a verb strikes me as strange: I am used to seeing it used with an adjective or adverb (&quot;tam bonus sum&quot;) and/or correlated with *quam*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2589" RevisionGUID="c0abae1c-d636-435a-8bbe-64d7340ece24" CreationDate="2017-02-08T17:47:38.990" UserId="992" Text="How will I know  the proper name (especially city  name) about latin declension?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for example city of Marash in Turkey: this city's name has placed in medieval Latin sources  &quot;Marasim, Mariscum, Marasiam, Maresiam,Maresc,Maresch, Maresch, Marafim...&quot;&#xD;&#xA; What will I do? what is nominative form this city of name in Latin language?&#xD;&#xA; Thank you for your help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9299" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2589" RevisionGUID="c0abae1c-d636-435a-8bbe-64d7340ece24" CreationDate="2017-02-08T17:47:38.990" UserId="992" Text="the proper name (especially city name) about latin declension" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9300" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2589" RevisionGUID="c0abae1c-d636-435a-8bbe-64d7340ece24" CreationDate="2017-02-08T17:47:38.990" UserId="992" Text="|classical-latin|medieval-latin|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2590" RevisionGUID="4a59b23c-eb1a-4c8d-82a7-492349e3e8cc" CreationDate="2017-02-08T18:40:52.173" UserId="574" Text="I wanted to make a kind of western-style WANTED-poster in Latin, and I got a few questions about it. My questions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- how did the romans say **WANTED** on a poster? &#xD;&#xA;     - I was doubting between the words **voluit** (own translation) and **quis** (translation via translation site)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How did the Romans call their valuta? &#xD;&#xA;    - I know there were different coins like _as_ and _denarius_, but per example like we say: _it costs **7$**_, did they have a sign to express their coin? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How did they say something like _Dead or Alive_?&#xD;&#xA;   - I ended up with a translation like **Mortuus an vivus** and a translation site ended up with **Mortuus sive vivus**. Is one of those translations correct or not? If no, what should be the correct translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every answer is appreciated, even if it's only an answer on one of the questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9303" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2590" RevisionGUID="4a59b23c-eb1a-4c8d-82a7-492349e3e8cc" CreationDate="2017-02-08T18:40:52.173" UserId="574" Text="How did the Romans call their valuta?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9304" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2590" RevisionGUID="4a59b23c-eb1a-4c8d-82a7-492349e3e8cc" CreationDate="2017-02-08T18:40:52.173" UserId="574" Text="|translation|roman-culture|money|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2590" RevisionGUID="4b0422bb-29fd-4e4e-bc8b-a0095b2b1ff8" CreationDate="2017-02-08T18:58:55.323" UserId="45" Comment="corrected Dutch false friend &quot;valuta&quot; for &quot;currency&quot;" Text="I wanted to make a kind of western-style WANTED-poster in Latin, and I got a few questions about it. My questions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- how did the romans say **WANTED** on a poster? &#xD;&#xA;     - I was doubting between the words **voluit** (own translation) and **quis** (translation via translation site)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How did the Romans call their currency? &#xD;&#xA;    - I know there were different coins like _as_ and _denarius_, but for example like we say: _it costs **$7**_, did they have a sign to express their coin? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How did they say something like _Dead or Alive_?&#xD;&#xA;   - I ended up with a translation like **Mortuus an vivus** and a translation site ended up with **Mortuus sive vivus**. Is one of those translations correct or not? If no, what should be the correct translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every answer is appreciated, even if it's only an answer on one of the questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9306" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2590" RevisionGUID="4b0422bb-29fd-4e4e-bc8b-a0095b2b1ff8" CreationDate="2017-02-08T18:58:55.323" UserId="45" Comment="corrected Dutch false friend &quot;valuta&quot; for &quot;currency&quot;" Text="How did the Romans call their currency?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2591" RevisionGUID="51c6b0c8-075d-4346-88ad-88b7aa02b502" CreationDate="2017-02-08T20:05:15.103" UserId="406" Text="##Question 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't go with &quot;wanted&quot; per se, but *fugitīvus* (literally &quot;runaway&quot;). This comes from *fugiō* &quot;to flee&quot; and referred to rebellious slaves and military deserters. Presumably this &quot;wanted&quot; person is evading pursuit in a similar manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Question 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They did indeed! The Romans used different symbols for the different values of currency, like our £ versus $ versus ¢. The relationships between them fluctuated over time, but for most of the Classical period the *dēnārius* was the most common unit. Its symbol was .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *as*  &#xD;&#xA; - *dupondius*  &#xD;&#xA; - *sēstertius*  &#xD;&#xA; - *quīnārius*  &#xD;&#xA; - *dēnārius*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pattern here is fairly simple: the Roman numeral in *assēs*, with a line through it. So  is worth X (ten) *assēs*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Question 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'll come back to this one)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2591" RevisionGUID="591de682-6987-414a-9795-8fb64b959023" CreationDate="2017-02-08T20:13:39.093" UserId="406" Comment="added 423 characters in body" Text="##Question 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't go with &quot;wanted&quot; per se, but *fugitīvus* (literally &quot;runaway&quot;). This comes from *fugiō* &quot;to flee&quot; and referred to rebellious slaves and military deserters. Presumably this &quot;wanted&quot; person is evading pursuit in a similar manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Question 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They did indeed! The Romans used different symbols for the different values of currency, like our £ versus $ versus ¢. The relationships between them fluctuated over time, but for most of the Classical period the *dēnārius* was the most common coin, and also the largest to have its symbol in Unicode: .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *as*  &#xD;&#xA; - *dupondius*  &#xD;&#xA; - *sēstertius*  &#xD;&#xA; - *quīnārius*  &#xD;&#xA; - *dēnārius*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pattern here is fairly simple: the Roman numeral with a line through it. So  was originally worth X (that is, ten) *assēs*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Question 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few different &quot;or&quot;s in Latin: primarily *aut*, *vel*, and *-ve*. More info on them is available [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, it sounds like you don't care whether they're dead or alive, either one is perfectly acceptable. So I'd use *X vel Y*, or the even weaker enclitic form, *X-ve Y-ve*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/40/whats-the-difference-between-vel-aut-ve-et-cetera" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2592" RevisionGUID="e9d3e8bc-392c-47a1-a5a9-a5a0ba51534f" CreationDate="2017-02-08T20:21:22.297" UserId="406" Text="There were generally three options for foreign names in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The name had a Latin-like ending on it already. If it ended in *-a*, for instance, it would probably be treated as a first-declension feminine.&#xD;&#xA;2. The name was given a new Latin ending, and declined appropriately. *Mariscum* for instance was given the second-declension neuter ending *-um*.&#xD;&#xA;3. The name was left as-is in every case. This notably happened with *Jerusalem*, which is *Jerusalem* in the nominative, genitive, dative...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally dislike the third option, since it disguises the case of the noun. And &quot;-ash&quot; doesn't sound like any standard Latin nominative. So I'd go with the second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use the medieval names, you could use *Mariscum, -ī*, or *Maresc, -escis*, or any of the others you listed. Or you could come up with your own version, like *Marasia, -æ*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2593" RevisionGUID="0d997eff-4cda-4add-b5e2-62c168a17682" CreationDate="2017-02-08T20:24:58.460" UserId="1148" Text="Use this site: https://pleiades.stoa.org/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is a great tool for information about ancient names of cities and places. It gives detailed and scientifically approved coordinates of places, informations about their names and further bibliographical references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the city of [Marʿaš][1] with all the informations about his names along the ages. As you can see, they changes through the centuries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Caesarea Germanice (30 BC - AD 300)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;Germanicia (30 BC - AD 300)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Germanikeia (30 BC - AD 640)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Germanikeia (140 BC - AD 1307)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Germanikeia Kaisareia (30 BC - AD 226)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA; K. Maraş (AD 1918 - AD 2000)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Kahramanmaraş (AD 1918 - AD 2000)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Marasch (Attested dates needed)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Maraş (1750 BC - AD 2000)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Maraš (1200 BC - 1199 BC)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA; Mariscum (AD 1081 - AD 1291)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Marqasi (1200 BC - 330 BC)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Marʿaš (1200 BC - AD 1922)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Marʿaš (1200 BC - AD 1922)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://pleiades.stoa.org/places/658474" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2593" RevisionGUID="09bc3c8d-324b-4afb-b2bb-468085d11b32" CreationDate="2017-02-08T20:32:57.277" UserId="1148" Comment="added 230 characters in body" Text="Use this site: https://pleiades.stoa.org/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is a great tool for information about ancient names of cities and places. It gives detailed and scientifically approved coordinates of places, informations about their names and further bibliographical references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the city of [Marʿaš][1] with all the informations about his names along the ages. As you can see, they changes through the centuries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Caesarea Germanice (30 BC - AD 300)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;Germanicia (30 BC - AD 300)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Germanikeia (30 BC - AD 640)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Germanikeia (140 BC - AD 1307)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Germanikeia Kaisareia (30 BC - AD 226)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA; K. Maraş (AD 1918 - AD 2000)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Kahramanmaraş (AD 1918 - AD 2000)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Marasch (Attested dates needed)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Maraş (1750 BC - AD 2000)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Maraš (1200 BC - 1199 BC)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA; Mariscum (AD 1081 - AD 1291)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Marqasi (1200 BC - 330 BC)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Marʿaš (1200 BC - AD 1922)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Marʿaš (1200 BC - AD 1922)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ancient nominatives of the **latin** names are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) *Caesarea Germanice*  (1st declension)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) *Germanicia* (1st declension)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while  *Mariscum* is the nominative (2nd declension) of the medieval latin name of the city.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://pleiades.stoa.org/places/658474" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2594" RevisionGUID="eb0a30e5-b455-486d-bbec-e44525a3abaa" CreationDate="2017-02-08T21:09:45.123" UserId="79" Text="I am looking for a word, verb or noun, to describe reading a list of names out loud to figure out who is present.&#xD;&#xA;The Finnish word is &quot;nimenhuuto&quot;, and it seems that the English phrase seems to be &quot;roll call&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(Correct me if I'm wrong!)&#xD;&#xA;Is there a Latin phrase for this purpose?&#xD;&#xA;I assume *enumeratio/enuntiatio nominum* would get the point across, but is there a better choice of words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9313" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2594" RevisionGUID="eb0a30e5-b455-486d-bbec-e44525a3abaa" CreationDate="2017-02-08T21:09:45.123" UserId="79" Text="What is a &quot;roll call&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9314" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2594" RevisionGUID="eb0a30e5-b455-486d-bbec-e44525a3abaa" CreationDate="2017-02-08T21:09:45.123" UserId="79" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|word-choice|phrase|finnish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2589" RevisionGUID="fb41d3b3-e8c2-4069-b03f-647c16f6c781" CreationDate="2017-02-08T21:16:23.033" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and added a tag." Text="How can I figure out the Latin declension of a proper name, especially a city name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, consider the city of Marash in Turkey.&#xD;&#xA;It appears in various forms in medieval Latin sources: *Marasim, Mariscum, Marasiam, Maresiam, Maresc, Maresch, Maresch, Marafim&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;What is the nominative of the city name?&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to find it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;How will I know  the proper name (especially city  name) about latin declension?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for example city of Marash in Turkey: this city's name has placed in medieval Latin sources  &quot;Marasim, Mariscum, Marasiam, Maresiam,Maresc,Maresch, Maresch, Marafim...&quot;&#xD;&#xA; What will I do? what is nominative form this city of name in Latin language?&#xD;&#xA; Thank you for your help&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9316" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2589" RevisionGUID="fb41d3b3-e8c2-4069-b03f-647c16f6c781" CreationDate="2017-02-08T21:16:23.033" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and added a tag." Text="|classical-latin|medieval-latin|declension|place-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9317" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2589" RevisionGUID="fb41d3b3-e8c2-4069-b03f-647c16f6c781" CreationDate="2017-02-08T21:16:23.033" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and added a tag." Text="Latin declension of a proper name, especially a city name" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2595" RevisionGUID="14c676fd-0309-4598-8557-49c07b252ad8" CreationDate="2017-02-08T22:22:20.357" UserId="45" Text="A [*delectus, -us*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddelectus2) (also: *dilectus*) usually refers to a kind of choosing or military levy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ibi cognoscit de Clodii caede [de] senatusque consulto certior factus, ut omnes iuniores Italiae coniurarent, delectum tota provincia habere instituit. (Caes. *Gal.* 7.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;There he receives intelligence of the death of Clodius; and, being informed of the decree of the senate, [to the effect] that all the youth of Italy should take the military oath, he determined to hold a levy throughout the entire province. (tr. McDevitte)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it can also have the sense of a roll-call: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ceteri centuriones remissa appellatione ad dilectum oboedienter responderunt. (Liv 42.35)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;The other centurions abandoned their appeal and answered to the roll-call without demur. (tr. Roberts)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility with mostly post-classical examples is [*catalogus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=catalogus&amp;la=la#Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=catalogus-contents), &quot;a list of names.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Erasmus uses *catalogus* in his [*Colloquia*, &quot;Euntes in Ludum Literarium&quot;](https://books.google.com/books?id=yzoLQBZMzb8C&amp;pg=PA76) for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sylvius: Cur adeo curris, Joannes?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Joannes: Cur lepus, ut ajunt, pro carnibus?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sy: Quid hoc proverbii est?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jo: Quia nisi adfuero in tempore **ante recitatum catalogum**, actum est de pelle mea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;...Because unless I am there in time before **the roll is called**, my hide will be in danger!&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2593" RevisionGUID="d7b35028-5b57-4f48-902c-02c2be3fc50f" CreationDate="2017-02-08T22:26:50.193" UserId="1148" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Use this site: https://pleiades.stoa.org/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a great tool which provides data about ancient names of cities and places. It gives scientifically approved coordinates of places, detailed informations about their names and further bibliographical references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the city of [Marʿaš][1] with all the names along the ages. As you can see, they changes through the centuries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Caesarea Germanice (30 BC - AD 300)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;Germanicia (30 BC - AD 300)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Germanikeia (30 BC - AD 640)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Germanikeia (140 BC - AD 1307)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Germanikeia Kaisareia (30 BC - AD 226)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA; K. Maraş (AD 1918 - AD 2000)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Kahramanmaraş (AD 1918 - AD 2000)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Marasch (Attested dates needed)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Maraş (1750 BC - AD 2000)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Maraš (1200 BC - 1199 BC)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA; Mariscum (AD 1081 - AD 1291)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Marqasi (1200 BC - 330 BC)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Marʿaš (1200 BC - AD 1922)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Marʿaš (1200 BC - AD 1922)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ancient nominatives of the **latin** names are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) *Caesarea Germanice*  (1st declension)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) *Germanicia* (1st declension)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while  *Mariscum* is the nominative (2nd declension) of the medieval latin name of the city.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://pleiades.stoa.org/places/658474" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2596" RevisionGUID="bd2b9df0-826a-467b-9dc2-8e64ff63110a" CreationDate="2017-02-08T23:44:50.107" UserId="1148" Text="Yes, ***tam* can be correlated with *ut***. Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plaut. *Rud.* 756-757: *ni erit **tam** sincerum, **ut** quivis dicat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ampullarius / optimum esse operi faciundo corium* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ter. *Hec.* 108-109: *numquam **tam** dices commode **ut** tergum meum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; / tuam in fidem committam*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caes. *Gall.* 1,44,9: *non se **tam** barbarum neque tam imperitum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; esse rerum **ut** non sciret ...*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic. *Arch.* 17: *quis **tam** animo agresti fuit **ut** non&#xD;&#xA;&gt; commoveretur?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Liv. 5,51,4: *tamen **tam** euidens numen hac tempestate rebus adfuit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Romanis **ut** omnem neglegentiam diuini cultus exemptam hominibus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; putem*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sen. *nat.* 1,15,5: *caelum ardere uisum, cuius nonnumquam **tam**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sublimis ardor est **ut** inter sidera ipsa uideatur*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tac. *ann.* 4,11: *neque quisquam scriptor **tam** infensus extitit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ut** Tiberio obiectaret*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuv. 8,211: *quis **tam** / perditus **ut** dubitet Senecam praeferre&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Neroni?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2593" RevisionGUID="b2a2a6d2-bb66-4f16-b1bc-48e5adbd8c98" CreationDate="2017-02-09T00:40:39.843" UserId="1148" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="You could use this site: https://pleiades.stoa.org/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a great tool which provides data about ancient names of cities and places. It gives scientifically approved coordinates of places, detailed informations about their names and further bibliographical references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the city of [Marʿaš][1] with all the names along the ages. As you can see, they changes through the centuries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Caesarea Germanice (30 BC - AD 300)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;Germanicia (30 BC - AD 300)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Germanikeia (30 BC - AD 640)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Germanikeia (140 BC - AD 1307)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Germanikeia Kaisareia (30 BC - AD 226)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA; K. Maraş (AD 1918 - AD 2000)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Kahramanmaraş (AD 1918 - AD 2000)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Marasch (Attested dates needed)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Maraş (1750 BC - AD 2000)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Maraš (1200 BC - 1199 BC)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA; Mariscum (AD 1081 - AD 1291)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Marqasi (1200 BC - 330 BC)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Marʿaš (1200 BC - AD 1922)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;Marʿaš (1200 BC - AD 1922)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ancient nominatives of the **latin** names are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) *Caesarea Germanice*  (1st declension)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) *Germanicia* (1st declension)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while  *Mariscum* is the nominative (2nd declension) of the medieval latin name of the city.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://pleiades.stoa.org/places/658474" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9326" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2588" RevisionGUID="54872eec-5768-485f-9f81-5a380f1b012f" CreationDate="2017-02-09T00:58:01.253" UserId="45" Comment="edited title" Text="Can &quot;tam&quot; be correlated by itself with &quot;ut&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2587" RevisionGUID="108e3e4f-d11a-4e12-b87f-062ce25ab524" CreationDate="2017-02-09T05:58:59.940" UserId="985" Comment="As requested, provided full translation (to replace summary)" Text="There are a couple of Greek loan words here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ _agyrta_(?) (ἀγύρτης), vagabond&#xD;&#xA;+ _theriaca_ (θηριακή [sc. ἀντίδοτος]), antidote against a poisonous bite (e.g., snake bite)&#xD;&#xA;+ _pyrium_ (πύρινον [sc. φάρμακον]), fiery drug, probably arsenic (according to LSJ)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, I think you've got most of the words. In context, _pulvus_ probably just means 'powder,' and _colluvies_ is a bit stronger than what you've found – more like '(collective) cesspool.' I think the _globulis plumbeis_ must refer to bullets or buckshot or the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject throughout is _ista agyrtarum colluvies_, and the sentence is a series of statements in the form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'it's not by using _x_ (noun denoting some 'normal' method of doing harm) that it (the _agyrtarum colluvies_) does _y_ (verb denoting harm), but by using _z_ (noun denoting a treatment used by a quack doctor).'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nevertheless, it's not by spears that that cesspool of vagabonds wounds, but by some (kind of) antidote/theriac that's (even) more deadly; it's not by arsenic but by some exotic powder or other that it fights; it's not by lead shot but by equally lethal pills that it kills." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2597" RevisionGUID="dee446c8-67d9-4b69-96f2-3887dee0b902" CreationDate="2017-02-09T14:49:34.880" UserId="45" Text="Any beginning beginning Latin learner discovers that English &quot;man&quot; has two translations: *homo*, when referring to a man as opposed to another species, and *vir*, when referring to a man as opposed to a woman.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious about how well this distinction works, though. For instance, consider the following line from Plautus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homo hic ebrius est, ut opinor. (*Amphitruo*, 574)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;This man is drunk, I think.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my mind--perhaps because of the *hic*--this could **only** refer to a male. The following two contrived sentences, though, strike me as incorrect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Helena homo est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hae mulieres homines sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: **Are there are any cases where *homo* alone refers to a single woman or where *homines* refers to a group of just women?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9330" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2597" RevisionGUID="dee446c8-67d9-4b69-96f2-3887dee0b902" CreationDate="2017-02-09T14:49:34.880" UserId="45" Text="Examples of &quot;homo&quot; used for a woman" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9331" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2597" RevisionGUID="dee446c8-67d9-4b69-96f2-3887dee0b902" CreationDate="2017-02-09T14:49:34.880" UserId="45" Text="|vocabulary|word-usage|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="27577712-5b85-473a-9cf7-47d8462ea8de" CreationDate="2017-02-09T15:21:14.020" UserId="1224" Comment="Corrected grammar and capitalization" Text="I like reading medieval travel literature and I want to translate a short text (one chapter or two) from medieval Latin into English to improve my translation skills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, most medieval travel literature is written in vernacular languages (e.g. English, French or Italian), not Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only medieval work I know written in Latin is the journey of William Rubruck. Are there any similar works? Where can I find them on the Internet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9333" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="27577712-5b85-473a-9cf7-47d8462ea8de" CreationDate="2017-02-09T15:21:14.020" Comment="Proposed by 1224 approved by 136, 1148 edit id of 168" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2598" RevisionGUID="5e23fab6-53bf-40d4-9549-8c875ce6ae66" CreationDate="2017-02-09T15:28:41.723" UserId="78" Text="In the Plautus passage, it has to be a man because of not only *hic*, but also *ebrius*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S's entry for *homo* lists several examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of females: mater, cujus ea stultitia est, ut eam nemo hominem appellare possit,” Cic. Clu. 70, 199: “quae (Io) bos ex homine est,” Ov. F. 5, 620; Juv. 6, 284: “dulcissimum ab hominis camelinum lac,” Plin. 28, 9, 33, § 123: homines feminae (opp. mares homines), Aug. Civ. Dei, 3, 3.—" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2599" RevisionGUID="cf7e765c-ae90-4638-9fc1-fe97fef03af3" CreationDate="2017-02-09T16:07:02.210" UserId="645" Text="*Genus hominum*, is the race of (all) mankind. *Homo* is a common noun, but its meaning is restricted in the same kind of way as 'woman' in English : that is to say, in the way that all ladies are women, but not all women are ladies (!), all *mulieres* are *homines*, but not all *homines* are *mulieres*. Everything else follows, and I'm sure that your instinct is correct; though I think the point is to narrow to be worth the effort of chasing down examples to show that *homo/homines* is ever used to refer to a woman/women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole, splendid denunciation from Cicero *pro Clu. 70, 199* may interest and even amuse you. My interpretation is that the lady (or woman!) being attacked isn't worth of the name of human :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*At quae mater? Quam caecam crudelitate et scelere ferri videtis; cuius cupiditatem nulla umquam turpitudo retardavit; quae vitiis animi in deterrimas partes iura hominum convertit omnia;* **cuius ea stultitia est ut eam nemo hominem, ea vis ut nemo feminam, ea crudelitas ut nemo matrem appellare possit**.* Atque etiam nomina necessitudinum, non solum naturae nomen et iura mutavit, uxor generi, noverca filii, filiae pelex; eo iam denique adducta est ut sibi praeter formam nihil ad similitudinem hominis reservarit.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2599" RevisionGUID="37695012-fe5b-4218-9a0e-b3a36e713840" CreationDate="2017-02-09T16:32:31.270" UserId="645" Comment="sp &amp; punc." Text="*Genus hominum* is the race of (all) mankind. *Homo* is a common noun, but its meaning is restricted in the same kind of way as 'woman' in English : that is to say, in the way that all ladies are women, but not all women are ladies (!), all *mulieres* are *homines*, but not all *homines* are *mulieres*. Everything else follows, and I'm sure that your instinct is correct; though I think the point is too narrow to be worth the effort of chasing down examples to show that *homo/homines* is ever used to refer to a woman/women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole, splendid denunciation from Cicero *pro Clu. 70, 199* may interest and even amuse you. My interpretation is that the lady (or woman!) being attacked isn't worth of the name of human :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*At quae mater? Quam caecam crudelitate et scelere ferri videtis; cuius cupiditatem nulla umquam turpitudo retardavit; quae vitiis animi in deterrimas partes iura hominum convertit omnia;* **cuius ea stultitia est ut eam nemo hominem, ea vis ut nemo feminam, ea crudelitas ut nemo matrem appellare possit**.* Atque etiam nomina necessitudinum, non solum naturae nomen et iura mutavit, uxor generi, noverca filii, filiae pelex; eo iam denique adducta est ut sibi praeter formam nihil ad similitudinem hominis reservarit.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2597" RevisionGUID="afc98c0d-be7c-4720-8f20-3a850fbf10ba" CreationDate="2017-02-09T16:42:01.873" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="Any beginning Latin learner discovers that English &quot;man&quot; has two translations: *homo*, when referring to a man as opposed to another species, and *vir*, when referring to a man as opposed to a woman.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious about how well this distinction works, though. For instance, consider the following line from Plautus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homo hic ebrius est, ut opinor. (*Amphitruo*, 574)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;This man is drunk, I think.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my mind--perhaps because of the *hic*--this could **only** refer to a male. The following two contrived sentences, though, strike me as incorrect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Helena homo est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hae mulieres homines sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: **Are there are any cases where *homo* alone refers to a single woman or where *homines* refers to a group of just women?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2599" RevisionGUID="4c7de9b6-6e12-47fd-98a5-c4ef3dab6f14" CreationDate="2017-02-09T16:57:17.583" UserId="645" Comment="edited body" Text="*Genus hominum* is the race of (all) mankind. *Homo* is a common noun, but its meaning is restricted in the same kind of way as 'woman' in English : that is to say, in the way that all ladies are women, but not all women are ladies (!), all *mulieres* are *homines*, but not all *homines* are *mulieres*. Everything else follows, and I'm sure that your instinct is correct; though I think the point is too narrow to be worth the effort of chasing down examples to show that *homo/homines* is ever used to refer to a woman/women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole, splendid denunciation from Cicero *pro Clu. 70, 199* may interest and even amuse you. My interpretation is that the lady (or woman!) being attacked isn't worth of the name of human :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*At quae mater? Quam caecam crudelitate et scelere ferri videtis; cuius cupiditatem nulla umquam turpitudo retardavit; quae vitiis animi in deterrimas partes iura hominum convertit omnia;* **cuius ea stultitia est ut eam nemo hominem, ea vis ut nemo feminam, ea crudelitas ut nemo matrem appellare possit**. *Atque etiam nomina necessitudinum, non solum naturae nomen et iura mutavit, uxor generi, noverca filii, filiae pelex; eo iam denique adducta est ut sibi praeter formam nihil ad similitudinem hominis reservarit.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2600" RevisionGUID="ee46e60e-325b-4e5a-989c-24c6349dd6c3" CreationDate="2017-02-09T16:59:06.107" UserId="79" Text="Is there a Latin expression for a single parent?&#xD;&#xA;By single parent I mean the only (present) parent of a child, and I don't want to comment on the reason the other biological parent is not there.&#xD;&#xA;Was there any fixed phrase for this in classical Latin, or was it explained in different words each time it was needed?&#xD;&#xA;I don't think being left alone with a child or children was unheard of in the Roman society; there must have been single fathers and mothers, and not only due to deaths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might use *solus* or *viduus* (together with *parens*, *pater*, or *mater*).&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if *viduus* would imply that the other parent is dead.&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, I would like an expression that does not assume that.&#xD;&#xA;But if there is a good expression for a widow parent, I would like hear it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9341" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2600" RevisionGUID="ee46e60e-325b-4e5a-989c-24c6349dd6c3" CreationDate="2017-02-09T16:59:06.107" UserId="79" Text="What is a single parent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9342" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2600" RevisionGUID="ee46e60e-325b-4e5a-989c-24c6349dd6c3" CreationDate="2017-02-09T16:59:06.107" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|translation|idiom|familia|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2601" RevisionGUID="2561741e-92a8-46f2-96da-491f9fe029a1" CreationDate="2017-02-09T17:03:09.190" UserId="1239" Text="I'd like to know how best to translate &quot;the conclusion follows from the premises&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;'Conclusio sequitur ex premissis', 'sequitur conclusio ex premissis', or something else entirely?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9344" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2601" RevisionGUID="2561741e-92a8-46f2-96da-491f9fe029a1" CreationDate="2017-02-09T17:03:09.190" UserId="1239" Text="'Conclusio sequitur ex premissis' or 'sequitur conclusio ex premissis'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9345" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2601" RevisionGUID="2561741e-92a8-46f2-96da-491f9fe029a1" CreationDate="2017-02-09T17:03:09.190" UserId="1239" Text="|translation|history|logic|philosophy-terms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2602" RevisionGUID="cee4b080-f7f1-4c14-9d38-54d9711e384c" CreationDate="2017-02-09T17:50:34.383" UserId="235" Text="I'm working on this line from Xenophon, and I'm having a little trouble with the second clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἄξιον δὲ τοῦ Λυκούργου καὶ τόδε ἀγασθῆναι, τὸ κατεργάσασθαι ἐν τῇ πόλει αἱρετώτερον εἶναι τὸν καλὸν θάνατον ἀντὶ τοῦ αἰσχροῦ βίου:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ([Xenophon Const. Lac. 9.1][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And this [deed] of Lycurgus is also deserving to be admired, accomplishing in the city that a noble death is preferable to a disgraceful life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it peculiar that &quot;ἐν τῇ πόλει αἱρετώτερον εἶναι τὸν καλὸν θάνατον ἀντὶ τοῦ αἰσχροῦ βίου&quot; is not placed inside the articular infinitive—between the article and the infinitive κατεργάσασθαι. Why is this? I thought that the subjects, objects, and modifies of an articular infinitive were to be placed inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, why do we get εἶναι, and not ἐστὶ? Is the verb following an articular infinitive supposed to be an infinitive? I wasn't aware of such a rule. Or is it that the first clause somehow introduces indirect statement? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to these questions, I welcome any improvements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0209%3Atext%3DConst.%20Lac.%3Achapter%3D9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9347" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2602" RevisionGUID="cee4b080-f7f1-4c14-9d38-54d9711e384c" CreationDate="2017-02-09T17:50:34.383" UserId="235" Text="How to translate this line from Xenophon? (Const. Lac. 9.1)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9348" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2602" RevisionGUID="cee4b080-f7f1-4c14-9d38-54d9711e384c" CreationDate="2017-02-09T17:50:34.383" UserId="235" Text="|greek|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2591" RevisionGUID="c43c400a-17da-480e-8d75-6bf8a98dbd82" CreationDate="2017-02-09T18:05:25.337" UserId="406" Comment="added 195 characters in body" Text="##Question 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't go with &quot;wanted&quot; per se, but *fugitīvus* (literally &quot;runaway&quot;). This comes from *fugiō* &quot;to flee&quot; and referred to rebellious slaves and military deserters. Presumably this &quot;wanted&quot; person is evading pursuit in a similar manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tom Cotton has also suggested *captandus* (or *captanda* for a woman), literally something like &quot;needs to be captured&quot;. This is closer to the English meaning and sounds more elegant in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Question 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They did indeed! The Romans used different symbols for the different values of currency, like our £ versus $ versus ¢. The relationships between them fluctuated over time, but for most of the Classical period the *dēnārius* was the most common coin, and also the largest to have its symbol in Unicode: .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *as*  &#xD;&#xA; - *dupondius*  &#xD;&#xA; - *sēstertius*  &#xD;&#xA; - *quīnārius*  &#xD;&#xA; - *dēnārius*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pattern here is fairly simple: the Roman numeral with a line through it. So  was originally worth X (that is, ten) *assēs*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Question 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few different &quot;or&quot;s in Latin: primarily *aut*, *vel*, and *-ve*. More info on them is available [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, it sounds like you don't care whether they're dead or alive, either one is perfectly acceptable. So I'd use *X vel Y*, or the even weaker enclitic form, *X-ve Y-ve*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/40/whats-the-difference-between-vel-aut-ve-et-cetera" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2603" RevisionGUID="3f3e7101-66fd-4bd8-b506-b0cfbba263f0" CreationDate="2017-02-09T18:12:04.283" UserId="30" Text="Where did you read that the constituents of an articular infinitive need to be between the article and the infinitive? I would say they need to belong to the infinitive and be subordinate to it (and not to something else), but their location is no more limited than the modifiers of other nouns (i.e. than the elements of other noun groups). Otherwise, this sentence would be harder to parse: you'd only know you were inside an infinitival construction after you had read all the constituents, which is tiring; you wouldn't know what e.g. the ἐν τῇ πόλει  phrase was dependent upon until the very end. Lastly, Greek is generally fairly free with respect to word order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would ἐστὶ work? Then there would have to be a full subordinate clause, which is only possible after a conjunction or relative pronoun, which is absent here. It is simply an a.c.i., whence your *accomplishing ... **that***, and whence εἶναι and all the accusatives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2604" RevisionGUID="33438c9c-7eef-4829-9cf1-ae7ec0bd713d" CreationDate="2017-02-09T18:37:00.550" UserId="1148" Text="I give some real examples taken from medieval latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ex his praemissis haec sequitur conclusio* (Saint Lawrence of Brindisi)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sequitur ex praemissis ista conclusio* (Ockham)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *haec / ista conclusio sequitur ex praemissis* (Ockham)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ex praedictis praemissis sequitur ista conclusio* (Ockham)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *conclusio sequitur ex talibus praemissis* (Ockham)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sequitur conclusio ex praemissis* (Bacon, Ockham)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that the correct word is ***praemissis*** and not *premissis*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2599" RevisionGUID="e9fe4ae4-aa9a-47cc-a779-039e2a5bf0dc" CreationDate="2017-02-09T19:49:17.700" UserId="645" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="*Genus hominum* is the race of (all) mankind. *Homo* is a common noun, but its meaning is restricted in the same kind of way as 'woman' in English : that is to say, in the way that all ladies are women, but not all women are ladies (!), all *mulieres* are *homines*, but not all *homines* are *mulieres*. Everything else follows, and I'm sure that your instinct is correct; though I think the point is too narrow to be worth the effort of chasing down examples to show that *homo/homines* is ever used to refer to a woman/women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole, splendid denunciation from Cicero *pro Clu. 70, 199* may interest and even amuse you. My interpretation is that the lady (or woman!) being attacked isn't worthy of the name of human :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*At quae mater? Quam caecam crudelitate et scelere ferri videtis; cuius cupiditatem nulla umquam turpitudo retardavit; quae vitiis animi in deterrimas partes iura hominum convertit omnia;* **cuius ea stultitia est ut eam nemo hominem, ea vis ut nemo feminam, ea crudelitas ut nemo matrem appellare possit**. *Atque etiam nomina necessitudinum, non solum naturae nomen et iura mutavit, uxor generi, noverca filii, filiae pelex; eo iam denique adducta est ut sibi praeter formam nihil ad similitudinem hominis reservarit.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2605" RevisionGUID="0444a67b-64f4-4d04-bf29-5d2590d496e0" CreationDate="2017-02-09T22:05:34.500" UserId="1241" Text="&gt; Are there are any cases where homo alone refers to a single woman or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; where homines refers to a group of just women?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no latin specialist, though i remember something, but I know several other languages.&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally and historically the word for man is applied to mankind (even in english)&#xD;&#xA;Thus group of men are derived from the stam of man/mankind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to answer your question, I think to avoid misunderstandings it's a clear NO, they didn't mix concepts when possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; femina - feminae , mulier - muliebris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are common concepts for a woman, and a group of women.&#xD;&#xA;It thus may be in a philosophical discussion you could find references using hominus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies for example in spanish:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; El hombre = mankind &amp; the man, la mujer = the woman, hombres = a group of men, mujeres = a group of women&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, to spice it up, there are exceptions: For example when a group of people is integrated by men and one or more women, there it could be possible that the term homines could be used. at least in spanish for simplicity's sake most people would refer to such a group as &quot;un grupo de hombres&quot; and thus implicitly including 0 to several female in this group, nowadays it probably would be specified &quot;un grupo de hombres y dos mujeres&quot;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Male centered world view, I think, gave us this legacy.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2587" RevisionGUID="1baedbdd-0b5f-48a0-be55-aa8093665dcf" CreationDate="2017-02-09T23:29:37.730" UserId="985" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="There are a couple of Greek loan words here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ _agyrta_(?) (ἀγύρτης), vagabond&#xD;&#xA;+ _theriaca_ (θηριακή [sc. ἀντίδοτος]), antidote against a poisonous bite (e.g., snake bite)&#xD;&#xA;+ _pyrium_ (πύρινον [sc. φάρμακον]), fiery drug, probably arsenic (according to LSJ)  &#xD;&#xA;**Update:** More likely, I think, especially given the context, _pyrio_ = _pulvere pyrio_, 'gunpowder'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, I think you've got most of the words. In context, _pulvus_ probably just means 'powder,' and _colluvies_ is a bit stronger than what you've found – more like '(collective) cesspool.' I think the _globulis plumbeis_ must refer to bullets or buckshot or the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject throughout is _ista agyrtarum colluvies_, and the sentence is a series of statements in the form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'it's not by using _x_ (noun denoting some 'normal' method of doing harm) that it (the _agyrtarum colluvies_) does _y_ (verb denoting harm), but by using _z_ (noun denoting a treatment used by a quack doctor).'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nevertheless, it's not by spears that that cesspool of vagabonds wounds, but by some (kind of) antidote/theriac that's (even) more deadly; it's not by gunpowder but by some exotic powder or other that it fights; it's not by lead shot but by equally lethal pills that it kills." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2608" RevisionGUID="3d855ab9-613a-4434-8234-06db70235bcb" CreationDate="2017-02-10T00:56:49.143" UserId="235" Text="I'm working on an exercise where I translate this Greek sentence to English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; οὐ θαυμάσῃ εἰ θεός τις φανεῖται ἀπὸ τῆς μηχανῆς;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Won't you be amazed if some god will appear from the machine?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [Greek Word Study Tool on Perseus][1], there are three possible parsings of θαυμάσῃ. It could be future middle indicative, aorist active subjunctive, or aorist middle subjunctive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the adverb οὐ always imply that the verb is indicative? Does this fact alone rule out the subjunctive parsings?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I feel like this would be more idiomatic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Won't you be amazed if some god appears from the machine?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it okay to translate a verb in the future tense this way? (&quot;appears&quot; as opposed to &quot;will appear&quot;). Is this a difference between Greek and English, where, in English, a present tense verb in a subordinate clause can have future meaning, provided that the main verb is in the future tense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=qauma%2Fsh%7C&amp;la=greek&amp;can=qauma%2Fsh%7C0&amp;prior=de%5C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9361" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2608" RevisionGUID="3d855ab9-613a-4434-8234-06db70235bcb" CreationDate="2017-02-10T00:56:49.143" UserId="235" Text="Can a subjunctive verb ever be modified by οὐ? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9362" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2608" RevisionGUID="3d855ab9-613a-4434-8234-06db70235bcb" CreationDate="2017-02-10T00:56:49.143" UserId="235" Text="|translation|greek|conjunctive|future-tense|tenses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9363" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2602" RevisionGUID="52066b91-1c5c-4e35-ad95-3cd6acf979a0" CreationDate="2017-02-10T01:00:13.023" UserId="235" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|greek|syntax|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2609" RevisionGUID="834064da-8eed-463b-95a9-2860a4adf815" CreationDate="2017-02-10T01:28:36.127" UserId="40" Text="A subjunctive is practically never negated with οὐ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only systematic exception I can find -- and even this is rare -- is in Homer, where the use of the subjunctive is somewhat different from Attic; some subjunctives in Homer are more or less synonymous with future forms, and [these are negated with οὐ][1]. But this doesn't happen in Attic. The main uses of independent subjunctives are the hortatory, the prohibitive, and the deliberative, and they are all negated with μή; so are the subordinate subjunctives (final clause, protasis of conditional, etc.) (There's also μὴ οὐ, which can appear with a subordinate subjunctive, but that's obviously not the case here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the form in your sentence is definitely future middle 2sg. Even if there was no negation, this would be the obvious choice as there seems no reason for a subjunctive in this sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your second question, which is really about English rather than Greek -- yes, idiomatic English is &quot;if some god appears&quot; despite the future sense. English conditional protases generally use the present form for future reference, which is just an illogical quirk of English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, what textbook is this sentence from? I must say I would take issue with the use of εἰ + future indicative (the so-called &quot;emotional future&quot; or &quot;future most vivid&quot; type of condition) unless there's some good reason for it in the context. This type of condition has a specific pragmatic nuance and is not generally appropriate for ordinary future conditions, especially in the third person. I'd have expected ἐάν + subjunctive (or else εἰ + optative, with optative and ἄν in the main clause).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth%20grammar%201810&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2610" RevisionGUID="7fb836b6-1c9c-4497-834f-3d8afc413029" CreationDate="2017-02-10T01:30:07.103" UserId="30" Text="I don't believe it is possible. A quick scan of the article in Liddell Scott Jones gave only this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. with subj. in fut. sense, only in Ep., “οὐ γάρ τίς με βίῃ γε ἑκὼν ἀέκοντα δίηται” 7.197; “οὐκ ἄν τοι χραίς μῃ κίθαρις” 3.54, cf. 11.387. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, θαυμάσῃ can only be indicative in Doric dialects, according to your own link from Perseus. I've never seen such an indicative future, that I remember. In an exercise, I think you can be certain it was intended as a subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think the exercise really intended μὴ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, the future in the conditional clause seems odd, especially in combination with a subjunctive in the main clause. I would not expect this combination in an exercise (but I can't be 100% sure)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2611" RevisionGUID="59489318-b238-4dec-998b-92ca2e0fecc4" CreationDate="2017-02-10T01:33:49.753" UserId="406" Text="##Pretty much never.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LSJ's entry on *οὐ* mentions *οὐ* + subjunctive only once:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...with subj[unctive] in fut[ure] sense, only in Ep[ic], “οὐ γάρ τίς με βίῃ γε ἑκὼν ἀέκοντα δίηται” 7.197; “οὐκ ἄν τοι χραίς μῃ κίθαρις” 3.54, cf. 11.387.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To elaborate: he subjunctive mood in Epic can have a meaning closer to the Classical future tense. When this happens, and the subjunctive verb expresses something relatively definite, it will take *οὐ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There can also be some weirdness in negative fear clauses][1], since they're already using *μὴ* for a different purpose. But this is an edge case which doesn't often happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anywhere else, the subjunctive should take *μὴ*, as it expresses a possibility rather than a reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Wow, two other answers saying the same thing while I was typing! I really need to get faster at this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0007:id=s2221" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2611" RevisionGUID="244df41d-44f7-4b0a-8fe1-3de1847a8459" CreationDate="2017-02-10T01:38:54.327" UserId="406" Comment="added 177 characters in body" Text="##Pretty much never.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LSJ's entry on *οὐ* mentions *οὐ* + subjunctive only once:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...with subj[unctive] in fut[ure] sense, only in Ep[ic], “οὐ γάρ τίς με βίῃ γε ἑκὼν ἀέκοντα δίηται” 7.197; “οὐκ ἄν τοι χραίς μῃ κίθαρις” 3.54, cf. 11.387.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To elaborate: he subjunctive mood in Epic can have a meaning closer to the Classical future tense. When this happens, and the subjunctive verb expresses something relatively definite, it will take *οὐ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There can also be some weirdness in negative fear clauses][1], since they're already using *μὴ* for a different purpose. But this is an edge case which doesn't often happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anywhere else, the subjunctive should take *μὴ*, as it expresses a possibility rather than a reality. [More detail is available in Smyth][2] if you want to go down that rabbit hole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Wow, two other answers saying the same thing while I was typing! I really need to get faster at this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0007:id=s2221&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0007:part=4:chapter=59" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2610" RevisionGUID="5dee9188-f768-4c6a-bc93-7f3ac49ce933" CreationDate="2017-02-10T03:55:25.530" UserId="30" Comment="added 536 characters in body" Text="I don't believe it is possible. A quick scan of the article in Liddell Scott Jones gave only this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. with subj. in fut. sense, only in Ep., “οὐ γάρ τίς με βίῃ γε ἑκὼν ἀέκοντα δίηται” 7.197; “οὐκ ἄν τοι χραίς μῃ κίθαρις” 3.54, cf. 11.387. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, θαυμάσῃ is not normally indicative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ῃ ... is usually given as the proper spelling in the texts of the tragic poets, whereas ει is printed in the texts of prose and comedy. ... -ει is sometimes called Attic and Ionic in contrast to -ῃ of the other dialects, including the Koiné. — [Smyth][1] (thanks to TKR above for the link)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an exercise, I think it must have been intended as a subjunctive. At first glance, I think all [instances in the Perseus corpus of θαυμάσῃ][2] in Attic or Ionic prose look like subjunctives. Note that tragedy conventionally uses Doric forms in the chorus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think the exercise really intended μὴ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, the future in the conditional clause seems odd, especially in combination with a subjunctive in the main clause. I would not expect this combination in an exercise (but I can't be 100% sure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0007:id=s628&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?all_words=qauma/sh%7C&amp;phrase=&amp;documents=&amp;page=1&amp;exclude_words=&amp;target=greek&amp;any_words=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1041" RevisionGUID="fdd6b107-cf77-461e-9e8a-3086d7faeef4" CreationDate="2017-02-10T04:08:36.153" UserId="30" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I get [zero results for the locative *Lesbi*][1] in the HP corpus (the results appear to be all genitives), but I find [a handful of *in Lesbo*][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies to a [locative *Euboeae*][3], in favour of [*in Euboea*][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [locative *Rhodi*][5], on the other hand, is common, commoner than [*in Rhodo*][6], which seems to be limited to Plinius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rhodus did contain [several major settlements in Antiquity][7], but the capital was Rhodus from ca. 408 BC. So it appears that the Wikipaedian rule is wrong; your first rule (a) is wrong too, since the island contained more than one major settlement; but your second rule (b) may be true, the island and its capital sharing a name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one thing to consider: perhaps every time that the locative is used, the city of Rhodus is intended, not the island, since the city is the most likely place for people to be located, especially Roman travellers or generals. If so, we may never find out. It is not easy to find a passage where we are certain that the island is meant and not the city.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was easy to find several examples of the locative *Cretae*, so I'm afraid even uncontestedly 'large' islands can have the locative case. Below a few examples, found through the [HP corpus][8]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed ne illud quidem pertinet ad agricolas, quando et in qua regione primum natae sunt, utrum in Thessalia sub Aristaeo, an in insula Cea, ut scribit Euhemerus, an Erechthei temporibus in monte Hymetio, ut Eu&amp;lt;p&gt;hronius, an **Cretae** Saturni temporibus, ut Nicander; ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Columella, *De Re Rustica* 9.2.4.4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Loeb translation][9]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;But it does not even concern husbandmen when and in what country bees first came into existence, whether in Thessaly under Aristaeus, or in the island of Cea, as Euhemerus writes, or on Mount Hymettus in the time of Erechtheus, as Euthronius says, or **in Crete** in the time of Saturn, as Nicander says.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not a genitive here, because it is &quot;the times of Saturn&quot;, and &quot;the times of Saturn of Crete&quot; does not make sense: bees may have come into existence *in* or *on* Crete, so it is a locative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ... Non haec tibi litora suasit&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Delius aut **Cretae** iussit considere Apollo. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Vergilius, *Aeneis* 3.162.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Translation by M. Wifstrand Schiebe (2009)][10]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Not these the shores the Delian Apollo counselled, not **in Crete** did&#xD;&#xA;he bid you settle.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Consido* does not take a dative [according to Lewis &amp; Short][11], so it can't be a dative. Perhaps *aut [litora] Cretae* could be reconstructed, but I think the locative makes much more sense, if only because a poet is expected to take liberties with rules of grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non magis quam quid ita siluestres capreas **Cretae** genitas tantopere dilexerit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —  Valerius Maximus, *Facta et Dicta Memorabilia* 1.8(ext).18.7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Loeb translation][12]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Why does Nature favour the wild goats born **on Crete** so much?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The participle *genitas* &quot;born&quot; requires a modifier: the goats have to be born in some way or somewhere. *Silvestres* is too far back, and only *Cretae* seems to be able to fulfil that role. Perhaps *genitus* can be constructed with a dative, &quot;born to Crete&quot;; but I believe words like *natus* normally express the origin of birth in an ablative. [Lewis &amp; Short][13] mention the ablative for the origin of *genitus*, and also give examples with *a* and *e*, as expected. They don't mention a dative. So I don't think a dative is possible. The same applies a fortiori to a genitive. A locative seems by far the best reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=Lesbi%23&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=in%20Lesbo%23&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=Euboeae%23&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=in%20Euboea%23&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=Rhodi%23&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23in%20Rhodo%23&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Graecia_Vetus_Map_of_Ancient_Greece.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23Cretae%23&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.loebclassics.com/view/columella-agriculture/1941/pb_LCL407.431.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-85AM_jT5l4J:www2.lingfil.uu.se/klassiska/personal/MWS%2520Discrepancy.pdf%20&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=nl&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=consido&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&amp;id=LqAtAwAAQBAJ&amp;q=Cretae#v=onepage&amp;q=Crete&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=gigno&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="799" RevisionGUID="edba3678-5204-477d-aa00-66141848cbb5" CreationDate="2017-02-10T04:19:55.130" UserId="30" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="I believe all of those options are possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*This paragraph is partly wrong; I should correct it sometime. The rest should be correct.* The vocative on *-e* only came to Latin relatively late, although it had become the standard by the classical age. In older Latin, the nominative *-us* functioned as the vocative—i.e. Latin had no separate vocative at first, for all other forms of the vocative were and always remained identical to those of the nominative, like *femina*, *pater*, etc. Perhaps it was borrowed from the Greek vocative on *-e* of the same declension as in Latin?]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *-e* was still not used, or not often used, with certain specific words, like *deus*, whose vocative remained *deus* throughout the classical age and beyond, I believe, probably because *dee* looked and sounded odd. Ritter, through [Eden (in his commentary on Aeneid VIII.77)][1], says that the vocative *popule* did not occur before Quintilian, but that is not quite true, unless there are textual errors in [Ovid and Cicero][2], which seems very unlikely. But *popule* does seem to be rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it makes the most sense to say that it was possible for classical authors to use the nominative where one would expect a vocative, both in Greek and in Latin, although it was uncommon to do so.  I suspect it was mostly used in poetry or high oratory, and in ancient texts. Perhaps some instances could be explained away as appositions to an unmentioned nominative subject, but I believe others cannot (see below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At any rate, in those examples that could be explained away, the construction is such that the author might have used either a vocative or a nominative; for I believe basically any noun (substantive or adjective) that refers to the same thing as the subject of a verb in the second person can be written in the vocative in Latin. Does it really make any difference whether we translate Horace's *laudas insanus/insane trilibrem mullum* as &quot;you, being insane, praise a three-pound mullet&quot;, or &quot;you, o insane one, praise a three-pound mullet&quot;? Isn't the meaning always the same?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We may get the impression that the Romans consistently used the nominative when it was an apposition and the vocative when it was an address, but that is only because we add commas around a vocative but not around a nominative, and either case is normally possible when the verb is in the second person. Can you guess which case Horace really used in the example above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Priscianus][3] describes the phaenomenon thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; omnia autem pronomina, quae uocari possunt, similem habent nominatiuo uocatiuum excepto mi pro mee. nec mirum, cum etiam (0208) nomina pleraque apud Latinos, ut diximus, eosdem habent nominatiuos et uocatiuos. **Atticis quoque mos est nominatiuos pro uocatiuis proferre.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homerus: « **ἠέλιός** θ᾽ ὃς πάντ᾽ ἐφορᾷς καὶ πάντ᾽ ἐπακούεις.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quem secutus Virgilius in VIII:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *corniger Hesperidum **fluuius** regnator aquarum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fluuius pro fluuie dixit, et Lucanus in II:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *degener o **populus**, uix saecula longa decorum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sic meruisse uiris*, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pro popule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Priscianus says the nominative could be used instead of the vocative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example he gives from Lucanus has &quot;o&quot; and couldn't be taken as appositive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full quotation from Virgil that Priscianus mentions is as follows, from Aeneid VIII.77:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quo te cumque lacus miserantem incommoda nostra&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fonte tenet, quocumque solo pulcherrimus exis, 75&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  semper honore meo, semper celebrabere donis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corniger Hesperidum **fluvius** regnator aquarum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Loeb translation][4] is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;In whatever spring your water contains you as you pity our travails, from whatever soil you flow forth in all your beauty, ever with my offerings, ever with my gifts, you will be graced, horned stream, lord of Hesperian waters.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose you could see this as appositive, but I'd rather see it as a free choice between nominative and vocative, especially in poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Servius, too, mentions the possibility of a nominativus pro vocativo, in his [commentary on Aeneid XI.464][5]. The passage from the Aeneid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *“tu, Voluse, armari Volscorum edice maniplis,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *duc” ait “et Rutulos. equitem **Messapus** in armis,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et cum fratre Coras latis diffundite campis.* 465&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; His commentary: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot; 'Messapus' autem ut diceret, vitavit ὁμοιοτέλευτον: nam vitiosum erat 'Voluse' 'edice' 'Messape'. ergo 'Messapus' aut antiquus vocativus est, ut 'Hesperidum **fluvius** regnator aquarum', item 'socer arma **Latinus** habeto': aut certe nominativus est pro vocativo. quamquam possit etiam nominativus esse, ut sit 'Messapus et Coras equitem diffundite' pro 'diffundant': melior tamen est sensus superior. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He first offers the possibility that archaic vocatives on *-us* existed, like *fluvius* and *Latinus* in his examples. His second suggestion is that it may be a nominativus pro vocativo. His third suggestion is that there is an error in the text, but he says the &quot;interpretation above&quot; (&quot;sensus superior&quot;) is the better one; this suggests that a nominativus pro vocativo and an archaic vocative more or less amount to the same thing (the &quot;interpretation above&quot;) phrased in two different ways, which would make sense and would agree with Priscian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Servius's second example, Aeneas is speaking in the presence of Latinus, but he is speaking in the third person (*habeto*): &quot;Latinus, my father-in-law, is to keep the sword&quot; ([Loeb translation][6]). This example does not seem relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A relevant example from Livius:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *audi, inquit, Iuppiter, audi pater patrate populi Albani, audi tu, **populus** Albanus* (Livius, *Ab Urbe Condita* I.24.7)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Listen, he said, Jupiter, listen, pater patratus of the Alban people, listen you, the Alban people.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though some interpretors would want to explain this as an appositive,  it seems to be a classic example of a situation in which one would use a vocative. *Populus Albanus* is parallel with *Iuppiter* and *pater patrate* (a certain official), which has the vocative ending *-e*. It may be so that the priest is addressing the Alban People in the incarnation of some dignitary or leader, but then that official still *is* the Alban people, so a vocative would by all means be appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Horatius, *Odes* I.2.43:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sive mutata iuvenem figura*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *ales in terris imitaris almae*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ***filius** Maiae patiens vocari*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *Caesaris ultor*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Or you, o winged son of kindly Maia, if you take on the shape of a young man on earth and are willing to be called Caesar’s avenger&quot; ([Loeb translation][7]). The speaker is exhorting Mercurius. You could explain it away, but why would you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=B7cfAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA44&amp;lpg=PA44&amp;dq=Audi%20tu,%20**populus**%20Albanus*&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Dv0woeKNcP&amp;sig=EqtzVMrz80skSqibKh8GgBMoxKc&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwizhaKH6LLMAhUJNxQKHdtQAt4Q6AEIIDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=Audi%20tu%2C%20**populus**%20Albanus*&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23popule%23&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=pMcc5jKgKvIC&amp;pg=PA295&amp;lpg=PA295&amp;dq=degener%20o%20populus,%20uix%20saecula%20longa%20decorum&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=VzRKZNyuBE&amp;sig=BeleipE_rnwc1N1CmI6jMNMGH1g&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj9t9fBy7LMAhXJ7BQKHXPBD6IQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=degener%20o%20populus%2C%20uix%20saecula%20longa%20decorum&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/virgil-aeneid/1916/pb_LCL064.65.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.monumenta.ch/latein/text.php?tabelle=Servius&amp;rumpfid=Servius,%20in%20Vergilii%20Aeneidos%20Commentarius,%2011,%20%20464&amp;nf=1&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/virgil-aeneid/1916/pb_LCL064.315.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/horace-odes/2004/pb_LCL033.29.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2612" RevisionGUID="ed10f6cd-ac72-473a-a281-f5f67921bcc8" CreationDate="2017-02-10T07:43:44.010" UserId="79" Text="I am puzzled about the syntactical role of *ecce* and *en*.&#xD;&#xA;I feel comfortable using them with nouns (*ecce camelopardalis meus*, &quot;here is my giraffe&quot; or &quot;look, my giraffe&quot;), and I would like to know if they are compatible with verbs.&#xD;&#xA;For example, if I want to say &quot;Behold, the lion eats!&quot;, which one should I pick:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Verb in personal form: *Ecce leo edit!*&#xD;&#xA;- Participle: *Ecce leo edens!*&#xD;&#xA;- Or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This came up when I tried to answer [this question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2489/79) and translate &quot;here comes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I realized that I don't know how to combine verbs with *ecce* or *en*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9374" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2612" RevisionGUID="ed10f6cd-ac72-473a-a281-f5f67921bcc8" CreationDate="2017-02-10T07:43:44.010" UserId="79" Text="Combining verbs with ecce or en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9375" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2612" RevisionGUID="ed10f6cd-ac72-473a-a281-f5f67921bcc8" CreationDate="2017-02-10T07:43:44.010" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|verbs|syntax|particle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2613" RevisionGUID="12d3ed38-d44d-46a7-9c14-07ed0d5c540e" CreationDate="2017-02-10T09:17:29.463" UserId="985" Text="Both _ecce_ and _en_ can be used with verbs/whole clauses in addition to nouns, to draw attention to some fact rather than an object. So, both _ecce_ [or _en_] _leo edit_ and _ecce_ [_en_] _leo edens_ (or _ecce_ [_en_] _leonem edentem_) would work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For _ecce_ used in this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ecce, Apollo...imperat ut ego illic oculos exuram (Plautus, _Men._ 840)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discubitum noctu ut imus, ecce ad me advenit mulier (Plautus, _Mer._ 100)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; commodum cubueram et ecce Fotis mea...proximat (Apuleius, _Met._ 2.16)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For _en_ used in this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; revocate, Quirites.... en, revocant! (Ovid, _Am._ 3.2.75)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fabulam...ad auris vestras adferre decrevi, et en occipio (Apuleius, _Met._ 9.14)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; haec dum stupentes quaerimus, totum en mare immugit (Seneca, _Phaed._ 1025)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For _en_ and _ecce_ used together (!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; en ecce...prosiluit...Iocasta (Seneca, _Oed._ 1004)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(All attestations are from _OLD_.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2591" RevisionGUID="54594055-6986-4a80-a022-3b1868484d09" CreationDate="2017-02-10T16:37:54.280" UserId="406" Comment="added 149 characters in body" Text="##Question 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't go with &quot;wanted&quot; per se, but *fugitīvus* (literally &quot;runaway&quot;). This comes from *fugiō* &quot;to flee&quot; and referred to rebellious slaves and military deserters. Presumably this &quot;wanted&quot; person is evading pursuit in a similar manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tom Cotton has also suggested *captandus* (or *captanda* for a woman), literally something like &quot;needs to be captured&quot;. This is closer to the English meaning and sounds more elegant in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Question 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They did indeed! The Romans used different symbols for the different values of currency, like our £ versus $ versus ¢. The relationships between them fluctuated over time, but for most of the Classical period the *dēnārius* was the most common coin, and also the largest to have its symbol in Unicode: .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *as*  &#xD;&#xA; - *dupondius*  &#xD;&#xA; - *sēstertius*  &#xD;&#xA; - *quīnārius*  &#xD;&#xA; - *dēnārius*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If those Unicode symbols don't show up, here's an image.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![image version of the above][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pattern here is fairly simple: the Roman numeral with a line through it. So  was originally worth X (that is, ten) *assēs*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Question 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few different &quot;or&quot;s in Latin: primarily *aut*, *vel*, and *-ve*. More info on them is available [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, it sounds like you don't care whether they're dead or alive, either one is perfectly acceptable. So I'd use *X vel Y*, or the even weaker enclitic form, *X-ve Y-ve*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EGmOK.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/40/whats-the-difference-between-vel-aut-ve-et-cetera" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2616" RevisionGUID="7432be26-12b6-4e2c-8775-da2207354f7e" CreationDate="2017-02-10T18:19:43.403" UserId="39" Text="Gender assignment in Latin is an issue too complex to cover in one post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I follow Greville Corbett (e.g. Corbett 1991) in maintaining **the difference between common nouns** (grammatical gender varies between feminine or masculine, depending on the biological sex of the referent) **and epicene nouns** (grammatical gender is fixed and not determined by the biological sex of the referent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tronskii 1960 (2001 ed.) writes that *auctor* and *heres* were originally used as epicene nouns but later started being used as common nouns. *Homo* was used as an epicene noun (p. 317)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2616" RevisionGUID="9e60fdda-4c94-4f97-ad6c-7c6ba85a99d5" CreationDate="2017-02-10T18:27:29.343" UserId="39" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Gender assignment in Latin is an issue too complex to cover in one post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I follow Greville Corbett (e.g. Corbett 1991) in maintaining **the difference between common nouns** (grammatical gender varies between feminine or masculine, depending on the biological sex of the referent) **and epicene nouns** (grammatical gender is fixed and cannot be overwritten by the biological sex of the referent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tronskii 1960 (2001 ed.) writes that *auctor* and *heres* were originally used as epicene nouns but later started being used as common nouns. *Homo* was used as an epicene noun (p. 317)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2616" RevisionGUID="ebfe508f-21b3-414a-88a9-e766e13ea27c" CreationDate="2017-02-10T18:49:31.977" UserId="39" Comment="added 247 characters in body" Text="Gender assignment in Latin is an issue too complex to cover in one post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I follow Greville Corbett (e.g. Corbett 1991) in maintaining **the difference between common nouns** (grammatical gender varies between feminine or masculine, depending on the biological sex of the referent) **and epicene nouns** (grammatical gender is fixed and cannot be overwritten by the biological sex of the referent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tronskii 1960 (2001 ed.) writes that *auctor* and *heres* were originally used as epicene nouns but later started being used as common nouns. *Homo* was used as an epicene noun (p. 317).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the idiomatic, actual use of *homo* in Latin, here's an illustrative entry from Dickey 2002 (&quot;Latin forms of address: From Plautus to Apuleius&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q3Y8J.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2616" RevisionGUID="36c241ab-4553-4b89-82a8-441a7085c3c7" CreationDate="2017-02-10T18:55:16.913" UserId="39" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="Gender assignment in Latin is an issue too complex to cover in one post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I follow Greville Corbett (e.g. Corbett 1991) in maintaining **the difference between common nouns** (grammatical gender varies between feminine or masculine, depending on the biological sex of the referent) **and epicene nouns** (grammatical gender is fixed and cannot be overwritten by the biological sex of the referent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tronskii 1960 (2001 ed.) writes that *auctor* and *heres* were originally used as epicene nouns but later started being used as common nouns. *Homo* was used as an epicene noun (p. 317).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the idiomatic, actual use of *homo* in Latin **as a form of address**, here's an illustrative entry from Dickey 2002 (&quot;Latin forms of address: From Plautus to Apuleius&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q3Y8J.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2597" RevisionGUID="2612d49c-f2a6-41fd-badd-4f59ec29dceb" CreationDate="2017-02-10T19:22:21.397" UserId="45" Comment="added 628 characters in body" Text="Any beginning Latin learner discovers that English &quot;man&quot; has two translations: *homo*, when referring to a man as opposed to another species, and *vir*, when referring to a man as opposed to a woman.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious about how well this distinction works, though. For instance, consider the following line from Plautus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homo hic ebrius est, ut opinor. (*Amphitruo*, 574)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;This man is drunk, I think.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my mind--perhaps because of the *hic*--this could **only** refer to a male. The following two contrived sentences, though, strike me as incorrect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Helena homo est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hae mulieres homines sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: **Are there are any cases where *homo* alone refers to a single woman or where *homines* refers to a group of just women?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Addendum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To add some clarity about my question, I am primarily curious about the word *homo* itself: whether it can refer to an individual woman. Here's a [Corpus search for &quot;homo es[t]&quot;](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=homo+es): I wonder if any of the 94 results refer to a woman, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iulia, homo es!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming this is possible, a second interesting question (addressed by many of the below answers) is whether this *homo* is epicene (always masculine, regardless of who it refers to) or if it is common (masculine or feminine, depending on who it refers to). In other words, should I write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iulia, homo es bonus!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iulia, homo es bona!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2617" RevisionGUID="3cae4b4e-9649-43d5-b63f-fa652bc0c561" CreationDate="2017-02-10T20:15:52.217" UserId="1246" Text="I'm wondering what is that ligature:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest on the [Wikipedia's list of ligatures][2] would be &quot;qp&quot; but it doesn't look exactly like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KSAhN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typographic_ligature" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9392" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2617" RevisionGUID="3cae4b4e-9649-43d5-b63f-fa652bc0c561" CreationDate="2017-02-10T20:15:52.217" UserId="1246" Text="Latin ligature &quot;qz&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9393" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2617" RevisionGUID="3cae4b4e-9649-43d5-b63f-fa652bc0c561" CreationDate="2017-02-10T20:15:52.217" UserId="1246" Text="|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9394" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2617" RevisionGUID="4bbda8b1-8583-4088-847e-d29e236fb4d6" CreationDate="2017-02-10T20:30:00.123" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|spelling|typography|ligatures|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2618" RevisionGUID="fa15106c-db83-4833-9fd1-d51598f79aec" CreationDate="2017-02-10T20:31:27.457" UserId="1148" Text="I would say that is a common abbreviation for &quot;*-que*&quot;. Maybe you could find useful Cappelli's [Dizionario di Abbreviature latine][1]. Take a look [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.hist.msu.ru/Departments/Medieval/Cappelli/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.hist.msu.ru/Departments/Medieval/Cappelli/CPLLI300.HTM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2619" RevisionGUID="2c3f6f4b-3ffe-4a51-a64a-c3c48c368bba" CreationDate="2017-02-10T20:32:04.150" UserId="79" Text="It must be *que*.&#xD;&#xA;The particle *-que* is very common in Latin, and it is no surprise it has it's own symbol.&#xD;&#xA;For example *suumque* is the same as *et suum* and means &quot;and his own&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The excerpt you have is a fragment, and the exact translation depends on more context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2618" RevisionGUID="fe75af5b-2788-46b1-8431-18439a8f2a84" CreationDate="2017-02-10T20:34:12.117" UserId="1148" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="I would say that is a common abbreviation for &quot;*-que*&quot;. Maybe you could find useful Cappelli's [Dizionario di Abbreviature latine][1]. Take a look [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the phrase with the soluted words: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *silensq(ue) sisto tuumq(ue)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.hist.msu.ru/Departments/Medieval/Cappelli/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.hist.msu.ru/Departments/Medieval/Cappelli/CPLLI300.HTM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9398" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1384" RevisionGUID="f1957d62-f3ca-4877-8a55-cb51f41b8959" CreationDate="2017-02-10T20:44:37.270" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|new-latin|orthography|spelling|ligatures|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2618" RevisionGUID="6dd3f63d-f7df-43c2-bef4-97cef5a462d1" CreationDate="2017-02-10T21:12:43.000" UserId="1148" Comment="added 140 characters in body" Text="I would say that is a common abbreviation for &quot;*-que*&quot;. Maybe you could find useful Cappelli's [Dizionario di Abbreviature latine][1]. Take a look [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the phrase with the soluted words: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *silensq(ue) sisto tuumq(ue)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would add that this is not a ligature but an **abbreviation**, while -st- of the word *sisto* could be properly defined as a ligature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.hist.msu.ru/Departments/Medieval/Cappelli/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.hist.msu.ru/Departments/Medieval/Cappelli/CPLLI300.HTM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2589" RevisionGUID="1a095888-3028-4c43-a26f-59da537d24dd" CreationDate="2017-02-10T22:53:20.853" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="How can I figure out the Latin declension of a proper name, especially a city name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, consider the city of Marash in Turkey.&#xD;&#xA;It appears in various forms in medieval Latin sources: *Marasim, Mariscum, Marasiam, Maresiam, Maresc, Maresch, Marafim&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;What is the nominative of the city name?&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to find it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;How will I know  the proper name (especially city  name) about latin declension?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for example city of Marash in Turkey: this city's name has placed in medieval Latin sources  &quot;Marasim, Mariscum, Marasiam, Maresiam,Maresc,Maresch, Maresch, Marafim...&quot;&#xD;&#xA; What will I do? what is nominative form this city of name in Latin language?&#xD;&#xA; Thank you for your help&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2620" RevisionGUID="9b0fbd18-81f9-4ff1-aab0-b8223eb4141c" CreationDate="2017-02-10T23:30:43.060" UserId="1239" Text="Is it correct to say, &quot;*Additionem in prima, secunda, et tertia syllogismi*&quot;? I'm trying my very best to say, &quot;The addition of the first, second, and third syllogisms.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9403" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2620" RevisionGUID="9b0fbd18-81f9-4ff1-aab0-b8223eb4141c" CreationDate="2017-02-10T23:30:43.060" UserId="1239" Text="Is it correct to say, &quot;Additionem in prima, secunda, et tertia syllogismi&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9404" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2620" RevisionGUID="9b0fbd18-81f9-4ff1-aab0-b8223eb4141c" CreationDate="2017-02-10T23:30:43.060" UserId="1239" Text="|translation|history|logic|philosophy-terms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2621" RevisionGUID="63bdfbf7-730e-45dc-9127-d204a1fc1108" CreationDate="2017-02-10T23:46:57.120" UserId="1148" Text="*Hoc* is always scanned long in classical poetry, because it is the same as *hocc (from *hocce &lt; *hodce). I give only a couple of examples, but you can check by yourself using http://www.pedecerto.eu/ricerca/forma. It is the same for the other words formed with the intensifying particle -ce, like *istuc* (from *istucce &lt; *istudce) or *illuc* (from *illucce &lt; *illudce) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lucil. *sat.* 1032: ***hoc** etiam accipe quod dico: nam pertinet ad&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rem*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Verg. *ecl.* 1,539: *Quod genus **hoc** hominum? quaeue hunc tam barbara&#xD;&#xA;&gt; morem*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning other words which present the same gemination phenomenon, there are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - words from -rr, like ***cor*** (from *cord), which is scanned long by archaic authors only (e.g. Plaut. *Pers.* 802 [quaternary cataleptic anapest] ***cor** uritur, caput ne ardescat*, but already in Lucil. sat. 516 is scanned short: *vera putant, credunt signis **cor** inesse in aenis*), or ***ter*** (from *terr, cfr. the compound *terruncius*); &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - words from -ss (from the assimilation of the dental conosonant of the stem and the -s of the first person nominative singular desinence), like ***miles, compos, dives, eques, hospes, impos*** et similia, or in ***es*** (second person singular of *sum*, from *ess), cfr. e.g. Plaut. *Aul.* 528 (iambic senarius): ***miles** impransus astat, aes censet dari*; Plaut. *Cas.* 817 (iambic senarius): ***sospes** iter incipe hoc, uti viro tuo*; but already in Ennius these syllables are scanned short (e.g. *ann.* 269: *spernitur orator bonus, horridus **miles** amatur*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vd. M. Leumann, *Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre*, München 1977, pp. 220-221; S. Boldrini, *La prosodia e la metrica dei Romani*, Roma 1992, pp. 50-51." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2622" RevisionGUID="7211263a-6f45-498f-9658-892eeec01681" CreationDate="2017-02-11T00:23:57.837" UserId="1148" Text="Given that *syllogismus* is masculine, and to indicate anything over which you exercise an activity you have to use *in* + ablative, if I have correctly understand what you mean, the correctly translation could be: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *additionem in primo, secundo, et tertio syllogismo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which however means &quot;the addition **over** the first, second, and third syllogism&quot; (to add something to the first, second, and third syllogisms, which are different).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise you can use the genitive without praeposition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *additionem primi, secundi, et tertii syllogismi*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which more specifically means &quot;the addition **of** the first, second, and third syllogisms&quot; (three different syllogysms are summed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase *additionem in prima, secunda, et tertia syllogismi*, infer that something is elided (probably the word *pars*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *additionem in prima, secunda, et tertia (parte) syllogismi*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means: &quot;the addition **over** the first, second, and third **part** of the syllogisms&quot; (to add something in the first, second and third part of the same syllogism)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="793" RevisionGUID="2886cce1-50bb-4af4-8a91-e2e8d593d0a7" CreationDate="2017-02-11T00:26:21.560" UserId="40" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In *Latin Prose Composition* by John Arbuthnot Nairn (Cambridge UP, 1926; p. 5 of &quot;Versions&quot; section), I find the following as a translation of Shakespeare's &quot;Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Populus Romanus Quiritium, amicique et cives mei, benigne me attenteque audiatis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct Latin? It seems to me that *Populus Romanus Quiritium* needs to be vocative. But Nairn was an eminent Latinist and I have not so far found any other errors in his book, and it's a little hard to believe that he would have made such an elementary blunder. I've searched for the phrase *Populus Romanus Quiritium* but have not been able to find it used in direct address (while on the other hand Cicero [uses][1] *popule Romane* in the vocative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any possible justification for the nominatives here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.packhum.org/loc/474/75/1/2301-2308@1#1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2508" RevisionGUID="ba9dd45a-b51d-461a-bff3-c66e4100bc6a" CreationDate="2017-02-11T00:34:28.930" UserId="118" Comment="added 1314 characters in body" Text="&gt; Si Trumpus nos bombet in Medium Aevum, nobis omni sit opus linguam Latinam noscere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commentary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * I coined a verb **bombare**, from Italian _bomba_ (from Latin **bombus**, a &quot;boom&quot;), although now that I look it up, I see that the Italian verb is **bombardare**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * I put **bombare** into the present subjunctive, since it describes the protasis of a hypothetical scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * I'm thinking that the object of **bombare** should naturally be the victim, not the bomb. I suppose the victim could be in the dative case, but the accusative seems right because I want to suggest that **nos** are being &quot;pushed&quot; **in Medium Aevum**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Dative **nobis** because it's our need; we're the ones with a stake in this **opus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Dative **omni** (should be **omnibus** as TKR commented) to emphasize that it's _all_ of us. I'm thinking that **omnino** would be wrong here because it's an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Present subjunctive **sit** because I'm thinking that the apodosis of this hypothetical situation should still be subjunctive, and a result should have the same tense as the protasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * The two-word phrase **linguam Latinam** only because nearly everything I read shies away from the single-word **Latinum**. I understand **Latinus** to be heard primarily be an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Noscere** for knowing a language, since I understand this verb to suggest close aquaintance, familiarity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2508" RevisionGUID="6670cf51-1c78-4edb-aae7-aca1153d785a" CreationDate="2017-02-11T00:41:52.407" UserId="118" Comment="added 1314 characters in body" Text="&gt; Si Trumpus nos bombet in Medium Aevum, nobis omni sit opus linguam Latinam noscere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commentary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * I chose **Trumpus** to drag _Trump_ into Latin somewhat roughly, to avoid **triumphus**, and hopefully to sound a bit ridiculous. To English ears, it evokes the somewhat undignified word _rumpus._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * I coined a verb **bombare**, from Italian _bomba_ (from Latin **bombus**, a &quot;boom&quot;), although now that I look it up, I see that the Italian verb is **bombardare**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * I put **bombare** into the present subjunctive, since it describes the protasis of a hypothetical scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * I'm thinking that the object of **bombare** should naturally be the victim, not the bomb. I suppose the victim could be in the dative case, but the accusative seems right because I want to suggest that **nos** are being &quot;pushed&quot; **in Medium Aevum**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Dative **nobis** because it's our need; we're the ones with a stake in this **opus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Dative **omni** (should be **omnibus** as TKR commented) to emphasize that it's _all_ of us. I'm thinking that **omnino** would be wrong here because it's an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Present subjunctive **sit** because I'm thinking that the apodosis of this hypothetical situation should still be subjunctive, and a result should have the same tense as the protasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * The two-word phrase **linguam Latinam** only because nearly everything I read shies away from the single-word **Latinum**. I understand **Latinus** to be heard primarily be an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Noscere** for knowing a language, since I understand this verb to suggest close aquaintance, familiarity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2508" RevisionGUID="66913725-05c5-4109-819e-b71cfbb7b215" CreationDate="2017-02-11T00:48:42.183" UserId="118" Comment="added 1314 characters in body" Text="&gt; Si Trumpus nos bombet in Medium Aevum, nobis omni sit opus linguam Latinam noscere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commentary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * I chose **Trumpus** to drag _Trump_ into Latin somewhat roughly, to avoid **triumphus**, and hopefully to sound a bit ridiculous. To English ears, it evokes the somewhat undignified word _rumpus._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * I coined a verb **bombare**, from Italian _bomba_ (from Latin **bombus**, a &quot;boom&quot;), although now that I look it up, I see that the Italian verb is **bombardare**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * I put **bombare** into the present subjunctive, since it describes the protasis of a hypothetical scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * I'm thinking that the object of **bombare** should naturally be the victim, not the bomb. I suppose the victim could be in the dative case, but the accusative seems right because I want to suggest that **nos** are being &quot;pushed&quot; **in Medium Aevum**. I'm imagining that if **bombare** has realy currency, it does _not_ normally suggest causing the victim to move from one place to another—and certainly not from one time to another. I'm intending this to be a somewhat jarring or unusual use of the verb (as it is in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Dative **nobis** because it's our need; we're the ones with a stake in this **opus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Dative **omni** (should be **omnibus** as TKR commented) to emphasize that it's _all_ of us. I'm thinking that **omnino** would be wrong here because it's an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Present subjunctive **sit** because I'm thinking that the apodosis of this hypothetical situation should still be subjunctive, and a result should have the same tense as the protasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * The two-word phrase **linguam Latinam** only because nearly everything I read shies away from the single-word **Latinum**. I understand **Latinus** to be heard primarily be an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Noscere** for knowing a language, since I understand this verb to suggest close aquaintance, familiarity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2508" RevisionGUID="f8ad3da0-6cbd-4051-8d18-8299d544dee5" CreationDate="2017-02-11T00:53:58.827" UserId="118" Comment="added 1314 characters in body" Text="&gt; Si Trumpus nos bombet in Medium Aevum, nobis omni sit opus linguam Latinam noscere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commentary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * I chose **Trumpus** to drag _Trump_ into Latin somewhat roughly, to avoid **triumphus**, and hopefully to sound a bit ridiculous. To English ears, it evokes the somewhat undignified word _rumpus._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * I coined a verb **bombare**, from Italian _bomba_ (from Latin **bombus**, a &quot;boom&quot;), although now that I look it up, I see that the Italian verb is **bombardare**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * I put **bombare** into the present subjunctive, since it describes the protasis of a hypothetical scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * I'm thinking that the object of **bombare** should naturally be the victim, not the bomb. I suppose the victim could be in the dative case, but the accusative seems right because I want to suggest that **nos** are being &quot;pushed&quot; **in Medium Aevum**. I'm imagining that if **bombare** has realy currency, it does _not_ normally suggest causing the victim to move from one place to another—and certainly not from one time to another. I'm intending this to be a somewhat jarring or unusual use of the verb (as it is in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Medium Aevum** since Latin was still in common use then, and to suggest misery, famine, feudalism, loss of civilization, and a loss of knowledge, which I think is amusing since knowing Latin today is pretty esoteric knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Dative **nobis** because it's our need; we're the ones with a stake in this **opus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Dative **omni** (should be **omnibus** as TKR commented) to emphasize that it's _all_ of us. I'm thinking that **omnino** would be wrong here because it's an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Present subjunctive **sit** because I'm thinking that the apodosis of this hypothetical situation should still be subjunctive, and a result should have the same tense as the protasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * The two-word phrase **linguam Latinam** only because nearly everything I read shies away from the single-word **Latinum**. I understand **Latinus** to be heard primarily be an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Noscere** for knowing a language, since I understand this verb to suggest close aquaintance, familiarity. I considered **Latine loqui** but for some reason I rejected it. Right now, though, I can't see why." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2508" RevisionGUID="f6fa7014-c2cd-4850-858a-fc9ce524160f" CreationDate="2017-02-11T01:06:28.393" UserId="118" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="&gt; Si Trumpus nos bombet in Medium Aevum, nobis omni sit opus linguam Latinam noscere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commentary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * I chose **Trumpus** to drag _Trump_ into Latin somewhat roughly, to avoid **triumphus**, and hopefully to sound a bit ridiculous. To English ears, it evokes the somewhat undignified word _rumpus._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * I coined a verb **bombare**, from Italian _bomba_ (from Latin **bombus**, a &quot;boom&quot;), although now that I look it up, I see that the Italian verb is **bombardare**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * I put **bombare** into the present subjunctive, since it describes the protasis of a hypothetical scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * I'm thinking that the object of **bombare** should naturally be the victim, not the bomb. I suppose the victim could be in the dative case, but the accusative seems right because I want to suggest that **nos** are being &quot;pushed&quot; **in Medium Aevum**. I'm imagining that if **bombare** has realy currency, it does _not_ normally suggest causing the victim to move from one place to another—and certainly not from one time to another. I'm intending this to be a somewhat jarring or unusual use of the verb (as it is in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Medium Aevum** since Latin was still in common use then, and to suggest misery, famine, feudalism, loss of civilization, and a loss of knowledge, which I think is amusing since knowing Latin today is pretty esoteric knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Dative **nobis** because it's our need; we're the ones with a stake in this **opus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Dative **omni** (should be **omnibus** as TKR commented) to emphasize that it's _all_ of us. I'm thinking that **omnino** would be wrong here because it's an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Present subjunctive **sit** because I'm thinking that the apodosis of this hypothetical situation should still be subjunctive, and a result should have the same tense as the protasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * I chose **opus** over **necesse** on the hypothesis that **opus** more concretely indicates a practical need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * The two-word phrase **linguam Latinam** only because nearly everything I read shies away from the single-word **Latinum**. I understand **Latinus** to be heard primarily be an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Noscere** for knowing a language, since I understand this verb to suggest close aquaintance, familiarity. I considered **Latine loqui** but for some reason I rejected it. Right now, though, I can't see why." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2623" RevisionGUID="922e842a-cb3c-40e5-bd35-3cced588bf40" CreationDate="2017-02-11T01:34:48.357" UserId="118" Text="How would you translate this famous English sentence into Latin? I don't think I've come across the Latin grammatical conventions to express this kind of causal relation between the protasis and apodosis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll post an answer of my own, in hope of constructive criticism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9416" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2623" RevisionGUID="922e842a-cb3c-40e5-bd35-3cced588bf40" CreationDate="2017-02-11T01:34:48.357" UserId="118" Text="Sufficient condition for hypothetical result" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9417" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2623" RevisionGUID="922e842a-cb3c-40e5-bd35-3cced588bf40" CreationDate="2017-02-11T01:34:48.357" UserId="118" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2624" RevisionGUID="d24309d7-677d-40c2-a7dd-22f7a9cc3f30" CreationDate="2017-02-11T02:10:08.690" UserId="118" Text="&gt; Ut malum praevaleat, satis est non magis quam homines probos nihil facere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've usually seen **satis est ut** in constructions where the point is to say &quot;It is enough to do _X._&quot; I really don't want to say &quot;Doing evil is enough&quot; or lead a listener down a grammatical garden path that suggests that. So I'm not sure about **ut** here. Or does **ut** come across ironically, amplifying the meaning, since normally it would indicate an intended result?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a variation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod mali vincant, non magis quam nihil faciant homines probi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I actually think **quod** is wrong here, but I dug through some grammatical stuff and couldn't settle it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if it's comprehensible to make a subjunctive clause the object of **non magis quam**, but there it is. I find **quam** the single most confusing word in Latin. The infinitive seems more natural to me, but that might only be because I have a lot more experience with acc+inf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is a chiasmus, trying to put emphasis on the contrast between **probi** and **mali** by delaying it until the end. I'm thinking that contrasting **improbi** and **probi** would sound lame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking here that **non magis quam** is clear enough to drop **satis est**, and omitting the main verb even adds some bite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I went through a lot of possibilities for a noun for &quot;evil&quot;, and none seemed to suggest a force in the world—bad, power-seeking, destructive people in the world. After all that, I'm thinking that the adjective **malum** might actually fit best. Without a noun, I'm think that the adjective means &quot;evil in the world&quot; or, in the plural, &quot;evil men&quot;. Hopefully it's not misread or misheard as **mālum** or the other senses of **mali**, which would make the sentence ridiculous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Triumpho** is of course another option for the first verb, but I'm thinking that in Latin it suggests the triumphal procession rather than the victory. I'm thinking that **praevaleo** suggests getting the edge, the upper hand, taking over—which would be perfect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9419" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2623" RevisionGUID="27604fc0-6444-4ac3-afa0-b0be95023034" CreationDate="2017-02-11T02:14:45.130" UserId="118" Comment="edited title" Text="Lamentably sufficient condition for hypothetical result" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2625" RevisionGUID="b371d8ab-e61a-4f14-99f4-69b7a3066fc0" CreationDate="2017-02-11T02:36:19.527" UserId="1224" Text="Upon watching Evan der Millner's video on the pronunciation of *v* as a consonant in Classical Latin, I wondered about the origins of some other words. How did English words like *vocal*, *vision*, and *victory* come to be pronounced with a modern *v* unlike *wine, wall,* and *worm*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9421" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2625" RevisionGUID="b371d8ab-e61a-4f14-99f4-69b7a3066fc0" CreationDate="2017-02-11T02:36:19.527" UserId="1224" Text="Why do some words from Latin have an English V and others not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9422" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2625" RevisionGUID="b371d8ab-e61a-4f14-99f4-69b7a3066fc0" CreationDate="2017-02-11T02:36:19.527" UserId="1224" Text="|classical-latin|etymology|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9424" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2623" RevisionGUID="6540a146-8cba-4cd6-8bf6-3211745060d7" CreationDate="2017-02-11T03:15:57.680" UserId="118" Comment="edited title" Text="Happily necessary condition for lamentable hypothetical result" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2626" RevisionGUID="517cdd41-919d-49ef-b9fc-acfb228906ff" CreationDate="2017-02-11T03:30:44.973" UserId="985" Text="I'd do something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; malum ut superet, unum hoc necesse est, cessare homines bonos." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2627" RevisionGUID="e28a923a-f5b4-4180-852c-cd2b6fbcd89d" CreationDate="2017-02-11T04:41:05.480" UserId="9" Text="##&quot;Worm&quot; has /w/ because it isn't from Latin##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Worm* is not from Latin at all. It's a native English word *cognate* to &#xD;&#xA;Latin *vermis*; each language inherited its own form of the word from the common ancestor of English and Latin (Proto-Indo-European), which is supposed to have had a word *\*[wr̥mis][3]* with [w] and a syllabic &quot;r&quot;. This is different from borrowing because it means *worm* was subject to all of the sound changes between Proto-Indo-European and English, but none of the sound changes between Proto-Indo-European and Latin. The /w/ &gt; /v/ law is a Latin change, not an English change, so it never applied to &quot;worm&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Native English words don't start with /v/##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, English does not natively have word-initial /v/ at all (well, there are a handful of words with initial /v/ from Germanic /f/ due to dialect mixing, like *vixen* and *vat,* but they are not regular inherited words). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Old English, the sound [v] only existed word-medially; it is thought to have been in what is called &quot;complementary distribution&quot; with the voiceless equivalent [f]. This means that for any given environment, only one of these sounds was possible. The standard phonological analysis of this fact treats Old English [v] as a predictable variant of a single &quot;phoneme&quot; /f/. (Diachronically, old English /f/ generally developed from either proto-Germanic /f/ or proto-Germanic /b/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Middle English, the law of complementary distribution for [f] and [v] was lost, leading to the establishment of a new phoneme /v/. It is thought that an important factor in this was influence from Romance languages such as French which had developed word-initial /v/. English has a lot of loans from French that start with /v/, such as &quot;very&quot;. (There were also some native developments that helped establish the phonemic distinction between /f/ and /v/, such as the loss of word-final schwa.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Loans from Latin with /v/ are either from French, or are modern loans##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Loans from Latin with the /v/ sound like *vocal, vision,* and *victory* either came through French (or other related Romance languages), or are even more recent modern learned loans (made after English had an established /v/ phoneme and a tradition of using it for &quot;v&quot; in Latin words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Loans from Latin with /w/ are old loans into Germanic##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Wine][1]* and *[wall][2]* are old loans taken into the ancestor of English when it still didn't have a /v/ sound. (In fact, the borrowing of &quot;wine&quot; seems to predate the split of the extant Germanic languages, and that of &quot;wall&quot; also apparently predates at least some splits between Germanic languages.) At this time, /w/ was evidently felt to be the closest equivalent to the Latin consonant (which might also have been closer to /w/ at this time period, perhaps something like [β]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=wine&amp;allowed_in_frame=0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=wall&amp;allowed_in_frame=0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/wr%CC%A5mis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2626" RevisionGUID="e1e6a86f-eabc-4513-918a-0c2f029183d0" CreationDate="2017-02-11T05:13:20.413" UserId="985" Comment="Added feedback" Text="I'd do something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; malum ut superet, unum hoc necesse est, cessare homines bonos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for a critique of your versions (since you asked):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ You're absolutely right to avoid _triumpho_, for the reason that you gave.&#xD;&#xA;+ For the first version specifically, and your notes about it:&#xD;&#xA;  + The conclusion of the _satis est_ clause is _(ut) homines probi nihil faciant_, not _ut malum praevaleat_. The clause _ut malum praevaleat_ is a purpose (adverbial) clause, whereas _satis est_ needs a noun/noun clause to define what's 'enough.' Here, it's enough **that good men do nothing**.&#xD;&#xA;  + I believe (but could be mistaken) that _praevaleo_ means more 'to **have** the upper hand' than 'to **gain** the upper hand,' which, I agree with you, is the sense that's required here. If this is the case, the form of _vinco_ in your second version is preferable.&#xD;&#xA;  + _satis est non magis quam_ just doesn't work. At the very least, I think that you'd have to change _non magis_ to something like _nihil aliud_ and move it in front of _satis_ (though _nihil aliud satis est quam_ still doesn't feel quite right to me). You might even consider whether _satis est_ needs anything of this sort at all: _satis est (ut) nihil faciant homines probi_ works perfectly well and gains force from its directness.&#xD;&#xA;+ For the second version:&#xD;&#xA;  + _quod_ might work – but to introduce the **second** subordinate clause (_nihil faciant homines probi_, the noun clause that defines what's 'enough'), not the first. That first clause really does want to be a purpose construction. (Note: I haven't checked whether there are any ancient examples of _satis est_ + _quod_.)&#xD;&#xA;  + I don't think you can get away with leaving out _satis est_ here. For ellipsis to work, the left-out words have to readily supplied from context or common sense.&#xD;&#xA;  + See above for _non magis quam_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2627" RevisionGUID="ed7ea85a-4ddc-4043-bf22-0263436f8058" CreationDate="2017-02-11T06:56:16.160" UserId="9" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="##&quot;Worm&quot; has /w/ because it isn't from Latin##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Worm* is not from Latin at all. It's a native English word *cognate* to &#xD;&#xA;Latin *vermis*; each language inherited its own form of the word from the common ancestor of English and Latin (Proto-Indo-European), which is supposed to have had a word *\*[wr̥mis][3]* with [w] and a syllabic &quot;r&quot;. This is different from borrowing because it means *worm* was subject to all of the sound changes between Proto-Indo-European and English, but none of the sound changes between Proto-Indo-European and Latin. The /w/ &gt; /v/ law is a Latin change, not an English change, so it never applied to &quot;worm&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Native English words don't start with /v/##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, English does not natively have word-initial /v/ at all (well, there are a handful of words with initial /v/ from Germanic /f/ due to dialect mixing, like *vixen* and *vat,* but they are not regular inherited words). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Old English, the sound [v] only existed word-medially between voiced sounds; it is thought to have been in what is called &quot;complementary distribution&quot; with the voiceless equivalent [f]. This means that for any given environment, only one of these sounds was possible. The standard phonological analysis of this fact treats Old English [v] as a predictable variant of a single &quot;phoneme&quot; /f/. (Diachronically, old English /f/ generally developed from either proto-Germanic /f/ or proto-Germanic /b/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Middle English, the law of complementary distribution for [f] and [v] was lost, leading to the establishment of a new phoneme /v/. It is thought that an important factor in this was influence from Romance languages such as French which had developed word-initial /v/. English has a lot of loans from French that start with /v/, such as &quot;very&quot;. (There were also some native developments that helped establish the phonemic distinction between /f/ and /v/, such as the loss of word-final schwa.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Loans from Latin with /v/ are either from French, or are modern loans##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Loans from Latin with the /v/ sound like *vocal, vision,* and *victory* either came through French (or other related Romance languages), or are even more recent modern learned loans (made after English had an established /v/ phoneme and a tradition of using it for &quot;v&quot; in Latin words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Loans from Latin with /w/ are old loans into Germanic##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Wine][1]* and *[wall][2]* are old loans taken into the ancestor of English when it still didn't have a /v/ sound. (In fact, the borrowing of &quot;wine&quot; seems to predate the split of the extant Germanic languages, and that of &quot;wall&quot; also apparently predates at least some splits between Germanic languages.) At this time, /w/ was evidently felt to be the closest equivalent to the Latin consonant (which might also have been closer to /w/ at this time period, perhaps something like [β]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=wine&amp;allowed_in_frame=0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=wall&amp;allowed_in_frame=0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/wr%CC%A5mis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2605" RevisionGUID="55387def-712a-489f-a302-b7f5b7f58010" CreationDate="2017-02-11T10:00:25.280" UserId="1224" Comment="I corrected capitalization and punctuation." Text="&gt; Are there are any cases where homo alone refers to a single woman or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; where homines refers to a group of just women?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no Latin specialist, though i remember something, but I know several other languages.&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally and historically, the word for man is applied to mankind (even in English).&#xD;&#xA;Thus group of men are derived from the stam of man/mankind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to answer your question, I think to avoid misunderstandings it's a clear NO, they didn't mix concepts when possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; femina - feminae , mulier - muliebris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are common concepts for a woman, and a group of women.&#xD;&#xA;It thus may be in a philosophical discussion you could find references using hominus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies for example in Spanish:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; El hombre = mankind &amp; the man, la mujer = the woman, hombres = a group of men, mujeres = a group of women&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, to spice it up, there are exceptions: For example when a group of people is integrated by men and one or more women, there it could be possible that the term homines could be used. At least in Spanish, for simplicity's sake, most people would refer to such a group as &quot;un grupo de hombres&quot;, and thus implicitly including 0 to several female in this group, nowadays it probably would be specified &quot;un grupo de hombres y dos mujeres&quot;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A male-centered world view, I think, gave us this legacy.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9431" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2605" RevisionGUID="55387def-712a-489f-a302-b7f5b7f58010" CreationDate="2017-02-11T10:00:25.280" Comment="Proposed by 1224 approved by 522, 1148 edit id of 169" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="321" RevisionGUID="58c823ae-7297-42a4-a70d-d33af8894df9" CreationDate="2017-02-11T10:35:19.567" UserId="1148" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="&lt;sub&gt; [This question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/234/37) inspired the following: I should verify whether the prefix really means something. I quoted the French version of Wiktionary because the [English version](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/aperio#la) does not state the Latin etymons (only the PIE etymons).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [operīre](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/operio#Latin)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; De l’indo-européen commun _*u̯er-_ [1] (« couvrir » → voir [*veru*](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/veru#la)) avec le préfixe [*op-*](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/ob-#la),    &#xD;&#xA;plutôt qu'un dérivé [2] de [*pario*](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/pario#la).&#xD;&#xA;Voyez son antonyme [*aperio*](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/aperio#la)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="bd49038d-abea-4050-b1d7-11303e0867aa" CreationDate="2017-02-11T10:38:47.007" UserId="1148" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Latin makes use of *macrons* (small lines above letters) to indicate a different pronunciation for that letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Exactly what should the *macron* indicate about the pronunciation of the letter?&#xD;&#xA;- Does the macron affect the sound of the containing word in any place other than the letter concerned?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm particularly interested in the latter - while I have a general idea of the impact a *macron* has on a letter, I'm unsure whether it has any wider impacts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2445" RevisionGUID="3fd82f02-6bc9-4c18-b2d8-cb29fce416fb" CreationDate="2017-02-11T10:45:25.380" UserId="1148" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="For what I know, the double prefixation beginning with ***per-*** is the most productive (I quote only a few examples):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *perincertus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[per+ in + certus] (Sall. *hist.* 4,1,2  [Gell. 18,4,4]: *perincertum stolidior an vanior*);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *perindignus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [per + in + dignus] (Suet. *Tib.* 50, 2: *tulit etiam perindigne actum in senatu*);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *perincommodus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [per + in + commodus]  (Liv. 37,41,2: *eadem perincommoda regiis erant*; Cic. *epist.* 1,17,2: *sed accidit perincommode quod eum nusquam vidisti*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *persubhorresco*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [per + sub + horresco] (Sisenna fr. 104 Peter [Non. 6,449 M.] *subito mare persubhorrescere caecos que fluctus in se prouoluere leniter occepit*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix **dis-** is even productive in that sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *disconvenio* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[dis + con+ venio] (e.g. Hor. *epist.* 1,1,99: *vitae disconvenit ordine toto*;  1,14,18 *eo disconvenit inter meque et te*; Vitr. 4,3,1 *disconvenientes in his symmetriae*; Frontin. *grom.* 4,4 Thulin: *quidquid ex agro disconuenit*) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *disconduco* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[dis + con + duco] (Plaut. *Trin.* 930: *sed nil disconducit huic rei*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples for **other prefixes**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *condeliquesco* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[con + de + liquesco] (Cat. *agr.* 23,6  *uti resina condeliquescat*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *circumobruo* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[circum + ob + ruo] (Plin. 19,83: *alterna folia circumobruere*) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *antepraecursor* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ante + prae + cursor] (Tert. *Bapt.* 6: *Ioannes antepraecursor*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *condesertor* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[con + de + sertor] (Tert. *carn.* 1: *condesertor eius Valentinus*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) I woulds say that is rather uncommon, very rare in comparison to ancient Greek;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) There are however a good number of evidences in classical Latin;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) Difficult but interesting question: as far as I know I would say no, but I have to check some texts:  I intend to answer later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples can be found in Dana Dinu, [*Prefix Derivation in Latin*][1], &quot;[SCOL][2]&quot;  1-2, 2012, pp. 125-136.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cis01.central.ucv.ro/revista_scol/site_ro/2012/lexicologie/dinu.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://cis01.central.ucv.ro/revista_scol/arhiva.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2628" RevisionGUID="0078bca2-b3ab-43b3-af9f-e057a62809f6" CreationDate="2017-02-11T11:26:44.317" UserId="79" Text="There are many Latin words for relatives: father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, uncle, aunt, cousin&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;Different languages have slightly different sets of words for relatives and some words don't point at a unique kind of relative.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the English &quot;uncle&quot; can mean a father's brother or a mother's brother and the Finnish &quot;k&amp;auml;ly&quot; means a spouse's sister or a brother's wife.&#xD;&#xA;I don't exactly know what family words exist in Latin, apart from the most common ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I would like to have a complete list of Latin words for relatives.**&#xD;&#xA;It can be in the form of a family tree or simply as a list with written explanations.&#xD;&#xA;Where can I find such a list?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going through a dictionary and trying to compile such a list would be tedious, since I don't know what to look for.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore it would make a huge difference to have a list.&#xD;&#xA;Even a list without translations would do; I can check the meanings in a dictionary once I know what to look for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list I found on [this page](http://www.dl.ket.org/latin1/things/optional/famtree_project.htm) looks good, but I don't know if anything is missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- Copied the table here in case of link rot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Immediate Relative / English // Paternal Relative / English // Maternal Relative / English&#xD;&#xA;mater, matris, f. / mother // patruus, -i, m. / uncle // avunculus, -i, m. / uncle&#xD;&#xA;pater, patris, m. / father // amita, amitae, f. / aunt // matertera, -ae, f./ aunt&#xD;&#xA;soror, sororis, f. / sister // patruelis, -is, m. / male cousin // sobrinus, -i, m. / male cousin&#xD;&#xA;frater, fratris, m. / brother // patruelis, -is, f. / female cousin // sobrina, -ae, f. / female cousin&#xD;&#xA;avia, -ae, f. / grandmother // noverca, -ae, f. / step-mother // vitricus, -i, m. / stepfather&#xD;&#xA;avus, -i, m. / grandfather // novercae filius, m. / step-brother // vitrici filius, m. / step-brother&#xD;&#xA;proavia, -ae, f. / great-grandmother // novercae filia, f. / step-sister // vitrici filia, f. / step-sister&#xD;&#xA;proavus, -i, m. / great-grandfather&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9436" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2628" RevisionGUID="0078bca2-b3ab-43b3-af9f-e057a62809f6" CreationDate="2017-02-11T11:26:44.317" UserId="79" Text="A complete family tree" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9437" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2628" RevisionGUID="0078bca2-b3ab-43b3-af9f-e057a62809f6" CreationDate="2017-02-11T11:26:44.317" UserId="79" Text="|translation|resource-request|familia|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2629" RevisionGUID="9a1d3101-cab7-451e-8d2f-c139e4f5e73d" CreationDate="2017-02-11T11:36:48.877" UserId="1148" Text="The prefix op- originated ob- (e.g. *obsto* from *opsto), and is visible in *operio* (&lt; *op-u̯eri̯ō) and *oportet*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb derives from PIE *su̯er-, which means  &quot;to close, cover&quot; or &quot;to guard, save&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that *aperio* (&lt; *ap-u̯eri̯ō), which means &quot;to open&quot;, is formed with the prefix ap-, &quot;**from, out**&quot; (ancient Greek ἀπό), and at the opposite op- means **at, by, around, round about, all around** (ancient Greek ἐπί), in the case of *operio* the prefix could denote that the object is completely closed or enclosed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further references see the digital edition of the [Indo-European Etymological Dictionary][1] of Pokorny-Lubotsky (use the &quot;find&quot; function of the browser and search &quot;aperi&quot; or &quot;operi&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dnghu.org/indoeuropean.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9439" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="321" RevisionGUID="2ed57712-7890-4150-a585-8255d0b92d24" CreationDate="2017-02-11T11:45:22.863" UserId="1148" Comment="edited tags" Text="|etymology|affixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2630" RevisionGUID="24fdccbd-696c-45bb-8bad-7f0f057b77f9" CreationDate="2017-02-11T12:11:15.993" UserId="79" Text="I would like to suggest something lighter, as the suggestions so far feel a bit too heavy to my taste.&#xD;&#xA;The key step to me was to replace &quot;doing nothing&quot; with a noun.&#xD;&#xA;(I realize that you might see this as a non-answer, as my solution for translating your sentence structure to Latin is to not use this structure at all.)&#xD;&#xA;The most compact translation I could come up with is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nullo nisi ignavia proborum vincit improbum.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The evil wins only through the laziness of good men.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The instrumental ablative gives a different tone than what you were after.&#xD;&#xA;If this tone does not feel suitable, I suggest adding and *opus est* structure.&#xD;&#xA;I still like the *nihil nisi* phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nullo nisi ignavia proborum opus est, ut vincat improbum.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nothing but the laziness of good men is needed for evil to win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can adjust the translation by choosing other words.&#xD;&#xA;I was not sure if I should use *otium*, *socordia*, or *sopor* instead of *ignavia*.&#xD;&#xA;I prefer using *improbum* for &quot;evil&quot;, not because it is the best translation in itself, but because it contrasts with *proborum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2631" RevisionGUID="57ba476b-43f7-4c7c-8a29-d6befbcbf2fa" CreationDate="2017-02-11T13:48:53.680" UserId="1249" Text="I was reading Orberg's Lingua Latina per se Ilustrata and I found the following sentences: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Marcus et Quīntus sunt dūo filiī. [...] In familia Rõmāna tres līberī sunt.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I deduce both words mean &quot;children&quot;, but where would I use one or another? (I looked up at some dictionaries but didn't explained the difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9445" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2631" RevisionGUID="57ba476b-43f7-4c7c-8a29-d6befbcbf2fa" CreationDate="2017-02-11T13:48:53.680" UserId="1249" Text="Difference between filiī and liberī" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9446" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2631" RevisionGUID="57ba476b-43f7-4c7c-8a29-d6befbcbf2fa" CreationDate="2017-02-11T13:48:53.680" UserId="1249" Text="|syntax|synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9447" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2623" RevisionGUID="a112d699-3b48-48d2-bd53-782831fbea84" CreationDate="2017-02-11T14:11:45.000" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|english-to-latin-translation|grammar-choice|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2632" RevisionGUID="7081ffd9-7a19-4519-a2b9-ca2e3e68c0f7" CreationDate="2017-02-11T15:41:57.647" UserId="645" Text="Each new paragraph shows a new generation (g  means 'great'). Enclosures within (brackets) indicate the maternal side :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tritavus = tritavia *g.g.g.g.grandfather, mother*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;atavus=atavia   *g.g.g.grandfather, mother*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;patruus maximus *g.grand uncle* — amita maxima *aunt* — abavus *grandfather(=abavia — avunculus maximus *g.grand uncle* — matertera maxima *aunt*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;patruus maior *g.g.grand uncle* — amita maior *aunt* — proavus *grandfather(=proavia — avunculus maior *g.g.grand uncle* — matertera maior *aunt*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;patruus magnus *g.grand uncle* — amita magna *aunt* — avus *grandfather(=avia — avunculus magnus *g.grand uncle* — matertera magna *aunt*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;patruus *uncle* — amita *aunt* — pater *father*=(mater *mother — avunculus *uncle* — matertera *aunt*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;frater *or* levir *brother/wife’s brother-in-law* — soror *sister* — MARITUS=(UXOR — uxoris frater *husband’s brother-in-law — uxoris soror *or* glos*husband’s sister-in-law*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;filius *son* = nurus *daughter-in-law — filia *daughter* =gener *son-in-law*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 1. Contemporary with pater=mater are prosocer *father-in-law* and prosocerus *mother-in-law*. The parents of these two are also known by the same terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 2. Cousins, whether the children of patruus/amita or avunculus/matertera are *consobrinus* and *consobrina*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 3. The grandchildren of MARITUS=UXOR are *nepos* and *neptis*, whose respective spouses are *pronurus* and *progener*. Their great-grandchildren are *pronepos* and *proneptis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 4. There are no special terms for nephews and nieces who are described as filius/filia or fratris/sororis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there is an extra set to cover step-relations. If you think they are useful to you, or you would like them simply for the sake of completeness, they are *novercus*, stepmother and *vitricus*, stepfather. The step-children are *privignus* and *privigna*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2633" RevisionGUID="af72d7df-4f26-4679-879a-7fd1678cbe5d" CreationDate="2017-02-11T15:56:37.473" UserId="1955" Text="***Filius, i*** means &quot;son&quot;&#xD;&#xA;***Liberi*** (masc. plur.) means &quot;children&quot; and more precisely children of free people, i.e. not slaves. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This family has 2 sons but 3 children. There probably is a daughter around somewhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2634" RevisionGUID="73be12d6-a784-434f-85db-ee13b00711cb" CreationDate="2017-02-11T15:57:09.327" UserId="45" Text="To pile on to the suggestions so far, here is a possibility that radically alters the structure of the sentence but hopefully captures some of Latin's epigrammatic power:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Victoria malorum, desidia bonorum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or perhaps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In bonorum desidia, malorum victoria." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2630" RevisionGUID="cb57b3e8-eba7-4908-92e8-3ca736565dd4" CreationDate="2017-02-11T15:57:44.310" UserId="79" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="I would like to suggest something lighter, as the suggestions so far feel a bit too heavy to my taste.&#xD;&#xA;The key step to me was to replace &quot;doing nothing&quot; with a noun.&#xD;&#xA;(I realize that you might see this as a non-answer, as my solution for translating your sentence structure to Latin is to not use this structure at all.)&#xD;&#xA;The most compact translation I could come up with is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nulla re nisi ignavia proborum vincit improbum.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The evil wins only through the laziness of good men.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The instrumental ablative gives a different tone than what you were after.&#xD;&#xA;If this tone does not feel suitable, I suggest adding and *opus est* structure.&#xD;&#xA;I still like the *nihil nisi* phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nulla re nisi ignavia proborum opus est, ut vincat improbum.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nothing but the laziness of good men is needed for evil to win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can adjust the translation by choosing other words.&#xD;&#xA;I was not sure if I should use *otium*, *socordia*, or *sopor* instead of *ignavia*.&#xD;&#xA;I prefer using *improbum* for &quot;evil&quot;, not because it is the best translation in itself, but because it contrasts with *proborum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I originally had *nullo* (as an ablative of *nihil* or *nullum*), but I changed to *nulla re* for clarity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9455" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2631" RevisionGUID="c44c4f4d-4187-4f86-9c5a-ce536b50f612" CreationDate="2017-02-11T16:06:17.783" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags.; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|word-comparison|syntax|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2635" RevisionGUID="be206960-0589-4cd6-8a82-2551cb053a53" CreationDate="2017-02-11T16:12:26.627" UserId="645" Text="As in @Brianpck's suggestion, a Roman would have been more concise. I'd have put it as *Quo minus agunt boni, eo plus floret malum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2632" RevisionGUID="3641d847-668d-4605-a26a-f61708eec3a4" CreationDate="2017-02-11T16:16:58.623" UserId="645" Comment="minor corrections" Text="Each new paragraph shows a new generation (g  means 'great'). Enclosures within (brackets) indicate the maternal side :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tritavus = tritavia *g.g.g.g.grandfather, mother*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;atavus=atavia   *g.g.g.grandfather, mother*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;patruus maximus *g.grand uncle* — amita maxima *aunt* — abavus *grandfather(=abavia — avunculus maximus *g.grand uncle* — matertera maxima *aunt*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;patruus maior *g.g.grand uncle* — amita maior *aunt* — proavus *grandfather(=proavia — avunculus maior *g.g.grand uncle* — matertera maior *aunt*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;patruus magnus *g.grand uncle* — amita magna *aunt* — avus *grandfather(=avia — avunculus magnus *g.grand uncle* — matertera magna *aunt*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;patruus *uncle* — amita *aunt* — pater *father*=(mater *mother — avunculus *uncle* — matertera *aunt*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;frater *or* levir *brother/wife’s brother-in-law* — soror *sister* — MARITUS=(UXOR — uxoris frater *husband’s brother-in-law — uxoris soror *or* glos*husband’s sister-in-law*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;filius *son* = nurus *daughter-in-law — filia *daughter* =gener *son-in-law*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 1. Contemporary with pater=mater are prosocer *father-in-law* and prosocerus *mother-in-law*. Confusingly, the parents of these two are also known by the same terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 2. Cousins, whether the children of patruus/amita or avunculus/matertera are *consobrinus* and *consobrina*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 3. The grandchildren of MARITUS=UXOR are *nepos* and *neptis*, whose respective spouses are *pronurus* and *progener*. Their great-grandchildren are *pronepos* and *proneptis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 4. There are no special terms for nephews and nieces who are described as filius/filia of fratris/sororis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there is an extra set to cover step-relations. If you think they are useful to you, or you would like them simply for the sake of completeness, they are *novercus*, stepmother and *vitricus*, stepfather. The step-children are *privignus* and *privigna*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2635" RevisionGUID="dbd8d4f8-04f3-497e-9c1d-6642d49b8021" CreationDate="2017-02-11T16:17:48.977" UserId="645" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="As in @Brianpck's suggestion, a Roman would have been more direct, more concise. I'd have put it as *Quo minus agunt boni, eo plus floret malum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2636" RevisionGUID="ca96c2c6-1158-48f2-b657-b90c9be5fe1a" CreationDate="2017-02-11T18:23:06.350" UserId="45" Text="Erasmus has a complete list of *vocabula affinitatum* (&quot;words for in-laws&quot;) in his [*Colloquia*](https://books.google.com/books?id=yzoLQBZMzb8C&amp;pg=PA40). This is post-classical, but Erasmus's Latin rivals that of Cicero. This definitely has some overlap with the previous answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Maritus**: husband  &#xD;&#xA;**Uxor**: wife  &#xD;&#xA;**Socer**: father-in-law (wife's father)  &#xD;&#xA;**Socrus**: mother-in-law (wife's mother)  &#xD;&#xA;**Gener**: son-in-law (daughter's husband)  &#xD;&#xA;**Nurus**: daughter-in-law (son's wife)  &#xD;&#xA;**Levir**: brother-in-law (husband's brother) - &quot;Levir dicitur ab uxore ut Helena Hecto rem levirum vocat quod esset nupta Paridi&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;**Glos**: sister-in-law (husband's sister)    &#xD;&#xA;**Fratria**: sister-in-law (brother's wife)  &#xD;&#xA;**Vitricus**: step-father (mother's husband)  &#xD;&#xA;**Noverca**: step-mother (father's wife)  &#xD;&#xA;**Privignus**:  step-son (wife or husband's son)    &#xD;&#xA;**Privigna**: step-daughter (wife or husband's daughter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conspicuously absent are words for &quot;wife's brother,&quot; &quot;wife's sister,&quot; &quot;sister's husband,&quot; and possibly more. I made no effort to verify these words, but I'll try to look into this further when I have time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And going a bit further, he also gives some less legitimate *affinitates*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Rivalis**: wife's lover  &#xD;&#xA;**Pellex**: husband's lover (&quot;ut Thraso rivalis est Phaedriae et Europe pellex est Junoni&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2630" RevisionGUID="d10b46bc-4af6-4d5b-ade5-03986c193fdd" CreationDate="2017-02-11T19:07:29.580" UserId="79" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="I would like to suggest something lighter, as the suggestions so far feel a bit too heavy to my taste.&#xD;&#xA;The key step to me was to replace &quot;doing nothing&quot; with a noun.&#xD;&#xA;(I realize that you might see this as a non-answer, as my solution for translating your sentence structure to Latin is to not use this structure at all.)&#xD;&#xA;The most compact translation I could come up with is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nulla re nisi ignavia proborum vincit improbum.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The evil wins only through the laziness of good men.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The instrumental ablative gives a different tone than what you were after.&#xD;&#xA;If this tone does not feel suitable, I suggest adding and *opus est* structure.&#xD;&#xA;I still like the *nihil nisi* phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nulla re nisi ignavia proborum opus est, ut vincat improbum.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nothing but the laziness of good men is needed for evil to win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can adjust the translation by choosing other words.&#xD;&#xA;I was not sure if I should use *otium*, *socordia*, or *sopor* instead of *ignavia*.&#xD;&#xA;I prefer using *improbum* for &quot;evil&quot;, not because it is the best translation in itself, but because it contrasts with *proborum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I originally had *nullo* (as an ablative of *nihil* or *nullum*), but I changed to *nulla re* for clarity.&#xD;&#xA;One could also use the ablative *nihilo*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17" RevisionGUID="4e877f5f-c897-4f41-b37e-4cb1bccfef45" CreationDate="2017-02-11T19:42:02.267" UserId="9" Comment="added 1073 characters in body" Text="In general, the whole purpose of using macrons is to clearly indicate pronunciation, so they're usually pretty straightforward. (Macrons were not used classically, although there were some older devices used for indicating vowel length such as the [apex][1] and &quot;i longa&quot; a taller I.) However, it's true that they can indicate several aspects of pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contrastive Vowel Quantity (i.e. Length)&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macrons primarily indicate that the modified vowel is long. Literally, that is: it's held for a more extended period of time than a regular, short vowel. Vowel length was what is called phonemic in Classical Latin, which means that there were pairs of words for which the only difference in pronunciation was the length of some vowel: for example, *liber* &quot;book&quot; vs. *līber* &quot;free.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that at one point, duration may have been the only difference between long and short vowels. In the International Phonetic Alphabet, we transcribe vowel length with a triangular colon ː after the vowel; so we could say that the early Classical Latin pronunciation of the vowels we spell *a ā e ē i ī o ō u ū* would be /a aː e eː i iː o oː u uː/. We don't know for sure the precise phonetic quality of these vowels. Andrea Calabrese has proposed that they were [ɑ ɑː ɛ ɛː i iː ɔ ɔː u uː] ([*On the Evolution of the Short High Vowels of Latin into Romance*][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowel Quality&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is known is that at some point between Classical and Vulgar Latin, the corresponding long and short vowels also became distinguished in quality. (Calabrese mentions Allen and Sturtevant as linguists who reconstruct these quality distinctions back to the Classical Latin stage.) The non-low vowels (all but a aː) clearly show distinct qualities for short vs. long in some of the Romance languages descended from Vulgar Latin, which causes us to  reconstruct something like [a aː ɛ eː ɪ iː ɔ oː ʊ uː]. I believe I've read some accounts that also reconstruct a difference in quality for short a and long a along the lines of [ɐ aː], but I don't know what evidence this is based on. It's also not clear if short unstressed i between a consonant and a vowel (which in Romance normally developed to some kind of glide, or palatalized the preceding consonant and was lost entirely) was ever pronounced as [ɪ]; it may have been something like [i] or [ij] all the way up until it lost its syllabicity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Vulgar Latin is also believed to have had long [ɛː], but as the realization of *ae* rather than of *ē.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Metrical Weight (which is not the same as real vowel quality)&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that sometimes when dealing with poetry or old dictionaries, you might see macrons used (or misused) just to mark heavy syllables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, a syllable is &quot;heavy&quot; if it has a long vowel, or ends in a consonant, or both. Heavy syllables are relevant to rules of word stress and poetic scansion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Syllables that end in a consonant can have either long or short vowels; in either case they are heavy because they end with a consonant. There is a confusing old tradition of referrring to the vowels in such syllables as being &quot;long by position&quot;, but they aren't necessarily actual long vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the vowel in such syllables has a &quot;[hidden quantity][3],&quot; so be careful in situations like this and try to check several sources that distinguish between short and long in closed syllables to see if they agree on the length of the vowel. We cannot reconstruct vowel length here based on metrical evidence, but we sometimes can based on inscriptions that use the apex, vowel quality in descended Romance words, or descriptions of ancient grammarians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, it's fairly obvious if a syllable ends in a consonant in Latin, but there are a few tricky cases where a single letter may represent a double consonant (which is always divided between two syllables for metrical purposes). In particular, the consonants *j* and *z* are not written double, but generally represent double consonants in Latin, so a vowel preceding either of these will have hidden quantity (and might be written with a macron even if the vowel is short, to indicate that the syllable is heavy). I actually just found an apparent example of this in a recent question (http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14/when-is-an-i-not-an-i): apparently the word most dictionaries write as *māiŏr* was, according to the linguist W. Sidney Allen, actually pronounced as /majjor/ with *short* &quot;a,&quot; but a long /jj/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also some cases where it seems word-final consonants in Latin were pronounced long, and you may see this written as a macron on the preceding vowel. According to *[The Latin Language: A Historical Outline of Its Sounds, Inflections, and Syntax][4],* by Charles Edwin Bennett (1907), a long final consonant may have occured in some words where original *-s* was assimilated to a preceding *s, l,* or *r* (as in [*far, farris*][5], possibly pronounced /farr, farris/). Another case where this is believed to have occured is *hoc* (sometimes written *hōc*) which Bennett says was pronounced /hokk/ and not /hoːk/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Automatic (but real) Quantity&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another related point of pronunciation: macrons are generally always used on vowels that occur in the combinations Vnf and Vns (where &quot;V&quot; stands for any vowel). Although this means there is no contrast here between short and long, it does appear that these vowels were phonetically long (*[The Latin Language: A Historical Outline of Its Sounds, Inflections, and Syntax][6],* by Charles Edwin Bennett). In languages descended from Latin, the consonantal /n/ sound was actually regularly dropped from Vns clusters (example: Italian *[isola][7]* &lt; Latin *īnsula*). However, when &quot;ns&quot; occured due to a prefix ending in &quot;n&quot; coming before a stem starting with &quot;s&quot;, analogical retention or restoration of /n/ in Romance languages is common. And since pretty much all instances of &quot;nf&quot; in Latin are due to prefixation, I don't actually know of any word in a Romance language that has denasalized a Latin &quot;nf&quot; cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't remember if there is any consensus on if a nasal consonant was phonetically present in these sequences in Latin. In any case, it is believed that in classical times the preceding vowel in such words was pronounced with nasalization, so sequences like *īnf* would still have contrasted with sequences like *īf* in Classical Latin even if the consonant /n/ was already elided: it would be [ı̃ːf] vs. [iːf]. (If a nasal consonant was present, it was likely assimilated to the [labiodental][8] articulation of the following /f/, giving the pronunciation [ı̃ːɱf].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect evidence for other pronunciation features&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, a macron doesn't affect the pronunciation of any other sound directly. But knowing that a vowel is long may help you apply the regular Latin stress rule, whereby a word is stressed on the second-to-last syllable if it is heavy (contains a long vowel or diphthong or ends in a consonant) and on the third-to-last if the the second-to-last is light (contains a short vowel and doesn't end with a consonant). In addition, as jwodder pointed out in a [comment][9], a macron on either vowel in a sequence like *ae, oe, au, eu* tells you that the two vowels are pronounced separately rather than as a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_(diacritic)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=o9wpGIF0JWcC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA63&amp;dq=%22Latin%22%20vowel%20quality%20e%20o%20advanced%20tongue%20root&amp;ots=ND1tWjhtE5&amp;sig=SwcVUHalU_QmM6ZMBER2nw7Fzxg#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zJEQAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA34&amp;lpg=PA34&amp;dq=hidden%20quantity&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GOCpxL3sp7&amp;sig=GOCXZHN762CFUSUgqlIJYRkw7hY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi-nrOlx47LAhVCkYMKHekGDTIQ6AEIMDAD#v=onepage&amp;q=hidden%20quantity&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=N1RfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA118&amp;lpg=PA118&amp;dq=latin%20rhotacism%20farr&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zJZyIcVRGn&amp;sig=18BkOGKVlju5YnjaxJJd189tbMs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjMvMePlrrMAhWHloMKHSeQB_IQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20rhotacism%20farr&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/810/9&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=N1RfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA40&amp;lpg=PA40&amp;dq=Latin%20quantity%20before%20ns&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zJYCJcYXCm&amp;sig=_2DOx92MQseKIE_fkhkVLjmDltY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjTudCVyI7LAhWrtIMKHc4pDzYQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20quantity%20before%20ns&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/isola#Italian&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labiodental_nasal&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5/what-effect-should-a-macron-have-on-the-sound-of-a-letter-and-its-word#comment15_5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2631" RevisionGUID="1b7507d5-ec54-430f-8e9c-33f1f7acfd33" CreationDate="2017-02-11T20:13:20.720" UserId="1249" Comment="Added missing parentheses." Text="I was reading Orberg's Lingua Latina per se Ilustrata and I found the following sentences: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Marcus et Quīntus sunt dūo filiī. [...] In familia Rõmāna tres līberī sunt.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I deduce both words mean &quot;children&quot;, but where would I use one or another? (I looked up at some dictionaries but didn't explained the difference)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2632" RevisionGUID="b2c97168-ab4b-4ba5-b3b1-d92d1dc18e3e" CreationDate="2017-02-11T21:30:23.660" UserId="645" Comment="errors corrected on socer/prosocer,m etc" Text="Each new paragraph shows a new generation (g  means 'great'). Enclosures within (brackets) indicate the maternal side :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tritavus = tritavia *g.g.g.g.grandfather, mother*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;atavus=atavia   *g.g.g.grandfather, mother*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;patruus maximus *g.grand uncle* — amita maxima *aunt* — abavus *grandfather(=abavia — avunculus maximus *g.grand uncle* — matertera maxima *aunt*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;patruus maior *g.g.grand uncle* — amita maior *aunt* — proavus *grandfather(=proavia — avunculus maior *g.g.grand uncle* — matertera maior *aunt*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;patruus magnus *g.grand uncle* — amita magna *aunt* — avus *grandfather(=avia — avunculus magnus *g.grand uncle* — matertera magna *aunt*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;patruus *uncle* — amita *aunt* — pater *father*=(mater *mother — avunculus *uncle* — matertera *aunt*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;frater *or* levir *brother/wife’s brother-in-law* — soror *sister* — MARITUS=(UXOR — uxoris frater *husband’s brother-in-law — uxoris soror *or* glos*husband’s sister-in-law*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;filius *son* = nurus *daughter-in-law — filia *daughter* =gener *son-in-law*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 1. Contemporary with pater=mater are socer *father-in-law* and socerus *mother-in-law*. The parents of these two are prosocer and prosocerus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 2. Cousins, whether the children of patruus/amita or avunculus/matertera are *consobrinus* and *consobrina*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 3. The grandchildren of MARITUS=UXOR are *nepos* and *neptis*, whose respective spouses are *pronurus* and *progener*. Their great-grandchildren are *pronepos* and *proneptis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 4. There are no special terms for nephews and nieces who are described as filius/filia of fratris/sororis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there is an extra set to cover step-relations. If you think they are useful to you, or you would like them simply for the sake of completeness, they are *novercus*, stepmother and *vitricus*, stepfather. The step-children are *privignus* and *privigna*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2634" RevisionGUID="5f055be5-e4ff-459e-b2f4-f41b80505268" CreationDate="2017-02-11T22:03:19.790" UserId="45" Comment="edited body" Text="To pile on to the suggestions so far, here is a possibility that radically alters the structure of the sentence but hopefully captures some of Latin's epigrammatic power:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Desidia bonorum, victoria malorum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or perhaps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In bonorum desidia, malorum victoria." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2618" RevisionGUID="73d0fff0-afbe-4c93-b2a4-8abc73d78afc" CreationDate="2017-02-12T01:05:40.467" UserId="1148" Comment="added 52 characters in body; deleted 1 character in body" Text="I would say that is a common abbreviation for &quot;*-que*&quot;. Maybe you could find useful Cappelli's [Dizionario di Abbreviature latine][1] (a very detailed repertory of latin abbreviations). Take a look [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the phrase with the soluted words: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *silensq(ue) sisto tuumq(ue)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would add that this is not a ligature but an **abbreviation**, while -st- of the word *sisto* could be properly defined as a ligature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.hist.msu.ru/Departments/Medieval/Cappelli/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.hist.msu.ru/Departments/Medieval/Cappelli/CPLLI300.HTM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2637" RevisionGUID="f7d10d96-b680-497b-afee-22cacc9dbacc" CreationDate="2017-02-12T02:24:58.360" UserId="235" Text="I am translating this sentence from English to classical Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is great danger that the students may harm themselves by not taking care of themselves. Let us decide how to help them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; μέγας κίνδῡνος ἐστὶ μὴ οἱ μαθηταὶ ἑαυτοὺς βλάπτωσιν τῷ ἑαυτῶν μὴ ἐπιμελεῖσθαι. βουλευόντων ὅπως αὐτοὺς ὠφελήσομεν. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wasn't sure how to handle the phrase &quot;by not taking care of themselves&quot;. Is it correct to use an articular infinitive in the dative? The logic is that the infinitive serves as a dative of means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related note, is the articular infinitive equivalent to the Latin gerund? I found myself wondering this recently. I think so—I wouldn't see why not—but I wanted to make sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would welcome any other improvements to the translation. Appreciate any help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9468" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2637" RevisionGUID="f7d10d96-b680-497b-afee-22cacc9dbacc" CreationDate="2017-02-12T02:24:58.360" UserId="235" Text="Can the articular infinitive be a dative of means? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9469" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2637" RevisionGUID="f7d10d96-b680-497b-afee-22cacc9dbacc" CreationDate="2017-02-12T02:24:58.360" UserId="235" Text="|translation|greek|syntax|dative|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2637" RevisionGUID="8639f38f-1b51-49bf-871d-eef16622ca05" CreationDate="2017-02-12T02:40:17.637" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="I am translating this sentence from English to classical Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is great danger that the students may harm themselves by not taking care of themselves. Let us decide how to help them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; μέγας κίνδῡνος ἐστὶ μὴ οἱ μαθηταὶ ἑαυτοὺς βλάπτωσιν τῷ ἑαυτῶν μὴ ἐπιμελεῖσθαι. βουλευόντων ὅπως αὐτοὺς ὠφελήσομεν. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wasn't sure how to handle the phrase &quot;by not taking care of themselves&quot;. Is it correct to use an articular infinitive as a dative of means? Are there other ways of conveying it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related note, is the articular infinitive equivalent to the Latin gerund? I found myself wondering this recently. I think so—I wouldn't see why not—but I wanted to make sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would welcome any other improvements to the translation. Appreciate any help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2578" RevisionGUID="ea828e60-c8f8-4d02-ac84-6ecdfed361f9" CreationDate="2017-02-12T02:53:17.713" UserId="235" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The verse John 3:16 makes use of two grammatical topics which are important in both Greek and Latin: a **result clause** and a **purpose clause**. According to this, the verse can be logically divided in two. I will first treat your handling of the result clause ('For God so loved the world, that he gave his only son') and then, if I find time, I will edit this answer and add a part about the purpose clause ('so that all who believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life'). Furthermore, I will reproduce the Greek and use that to verify my claim. (Reproducing the Vulgate might only spoil the attempt.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον. ([Nestle-Aland John 3:16][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first part (οὕτως γὰρ...ονογενῆ ἔδωκεν) is called a result clause. The Greek word οὕτως ('so') is a demonstrative which often introduces a result clause, and ὥστε ('that') is a conjunction that often follows. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Result clauses also exist in Latin, but you form them differently. Instead of using 'quod', as you do in your translation, you should be using 'ut'. The verb following 'ut' should be placed in the subjunctive. You can read more about Latin result clauses online, [such as here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within this result clause, there are a few details I would like to address. These details concern your translation of the English words 'For', 'so', and 'that'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding 'For' (γὰρ), I suspected that 'Quia' was not best. I consulted the Vulgate, and found that it uses 'enim' instead. This is probably the best translation of the Greek particle γὰρ. It makes sense to translate a particle with a particle, so you might want to research the subject of postpositive particles. 'Enim' is a frequent one in Latin, especially the Vulgate. So is 'autem'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A postpositive particle is normally placed after the first word of a sentence, so it becomes the second word. It would benefit you to consider briefly how these particles can give a sense of punctuation, in a language where there often was no punctuation. When you reach an 'enim' or an 'autem', then it's reasonable to guess that it's the second word in a new sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might also want a Latin word which captures the demonstrative adverb, 'so'. ('For god **so** loved the world.') I consulted the Vulgate and 'sic' is a good choice here. You could also use 'tam' or 'ita'. These words correspond to the Greek adverb οὕτως. You can verify this information about demonstratives in result clauses [in the same source I linked to earlier][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, for the first part, we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sic enim Deus mundum amabat ut filium unum et solum offerret...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word 'offeret' is the imperfect subjunctive, since, if you remember, we have to use the subjunctive mood in the 'ut' part of the result clause. However, I think a better verb might substitute for 'offero'. I checked the Vulgate and it uses what I suspect: dare. I will leave it to you to translate this verb (do, dare) to the correct tense and mood, if you choose. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That covers the first part of the verse: the **result clause**. The second part is the **purpose clause**, which requires a second use of the conjunction 'ut'. I will post the first part of my answer for now, and if I have time, I may edit this answer and add the second part, about the purpose clause. Hope this helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online/text/bibeltext/lesen/stelle/53/30001/39999/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/UtClauses.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2638" RevisionGUID="f78befc7-0b4f-483d-82d1-60052878cbd0" CreationDate="2017-02-12T04:16:11.480" UserId="40" Text="The articular infinitive can be used as a dative of means, e.g. (from [Smyth sec. 2033](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth+grammar+2033&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; οὐδενὶ τῶν πάντων πλέον κεκράτηκε Φίλιππος ἢ τῷ πρότερος πρὸς τοῖς πράγμασι γίγνεσθαι Philip has conquered us by nothing so much as by being beforehand in his operations (Demosthenes 8.11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, it would be simpler and more natural in your sentence to instead use a participial phrase agreeing with οἱ μαθηταὶ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of other comments: κίνδυνός ἐστι (note extra acute because of the following enclitic, which is unaccented); and βουλευόντων is 3pl. where you need a 1pl. form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2638" RevisionGUID="fc7f812c-234f-4ebc-87c0-e4f37d80d154" CreationDate="2017-02-12T06:18:11.267" UserId="40" Comment="edited body" Text="The articular infinitive can be used as a dative of means, e.g. (from [Smyth sec. 2033](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth+grammar+2033&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; οὐδενὶ τῶν πάντων πλέον κεκράτηκε Φίλιππος ἢ τῷ πρότερος πρὸς τοῖς πράγμασι γίγνεσθαι Philip has conquered us by nothing so much as by being beforehand in his operations (Demosthenes 8.11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, it would be simpler and more natural in your sentence to instead use a participial phrase agreeing with οἱ μαθηταί.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of other comments: κίνδυνός ἐστι (note extra acute because of the following enclitic, which is unaccented); and βουλευόντων is 3pl. where you need a 1pl. form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2578" RevisionGUID="35a2d40d-dc83-49b1-ab48-c77fa78166d1" CreationDate="2017-02-12T06:25:43.410" UserId="235" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The verse John 3:16 makes use of two grammatical topics which are important in both Greek and Latin: a **result clause** and a **purpose clause**. According to this, the verse can be logically divided in two. I will first treat your handling of the result clause ('For God so loved the world, that he gave his only son') and then, if I find time, I will edit this answer and add a part about the purpose clause ('so that all who believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life'). Furthermore, I will reproduce the Greek and use that to verify my claim. (Reproducing the Vulgate might only spoil the attempt.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον. ([Nestle-Aland John 3:16][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first part (οὕτως γὰρ...ονογενῆ ἔδωκεν) is called a result clause. The Greek word οὕτως ('so') is a demonstrative which often introduces a result clause, and ὥστε ('that') is a conjunction that often follows. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Result clauses also exist in Latin, but you form them differently. Instead of using 'quod', as you do in your translation, you should be using 'ut'. The verb following 'ut' should be placed in the subjunctive. You can read more about Latin result clauses online, [such as here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within this result clause, there are a few details I would like to address. These details concern your translation of the English words 'For', 'so', and 'that'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding 'For' (γὰρ), I suspected that 'Quia' was not best. I consulted the Vulgate, and found that it uses 'enim' instead. This is probably the best translation of the Greek particle γὰρ. It makes sense to translate a particle with a particle, so you might want to research the subject of postpositive particles. 'Enim' is a frequent one in Latin, especially the Vulgate. So is 'autem'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A postpositive particle is normally placed after the first word of a sentence, so it becomes the second word. It would benefit you to consider briefly how these particles can give a sense of punctuation, in a language where there often was no punctuation. When you reach an 'enim' or an 'autem', then it's reasonable to guess that it's the second word in a new sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might also want a Latin word which captures the demonstrative adverb, 'so'. ('For god **so** loved the world.') I consulted the Vulgate and 'sic' is a good choice here. You could also use 'tam' or 'ita'. These words correspond to the Greek adverb οὕτως. You can verify this information about demonstratives in result clauses [in the same source I linked to earlier][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, for the first part, we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sic enim Deus mundum amabat ut filium unum et solum offerret...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word 'offerret' is the imperfect subjunctive, since, if you remember, we have to use the subjunctive mood in the 'ut' part of the result clause. However, I think a better verb might substitute for 'offero'. I checked the Vulgate and it uses what I suspect: dare. I will leave it to you to translate this verb (do, dare) to the correct tense and mood, if you choose. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That covers the first part of the verse: the **result clause**. The second part is the **purpose clause**, which requires a second use of the conjunction 'ut'. I will post the first part of my answer for now, and if I have time, I may edit this answer and add the second part, about the purpose clause. Hope this helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online/text/bibeltext/lesen/stelle/53/30001/39999/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/UtClauses.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2625" RevisionGUID="0b70c82a-b693-4759-9a65-239f8b922639" CreationDate="2017-02-12T09:06:49.193" UserId="1224" Comment="deleted 152 characters in body" Text="How did English words like *vocal*, *vision*, and *victory* come to be pronounced with a modern *v* unlike *wine, wall,* and *worm*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2605" RevisionGUID="cb819593-8c84-43df-88b5-da5709071699" CreationDate="2017-02-12T17:30:36.787" UserId="1241" Comment="added 1041 characters in body" Text="&gt; Are there are any cases where homo alone refers to a single woman or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; where homines refers to a group of just women?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no Latin specialist, though i remember something, but I know several other languages.&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally and historically, the word for man is applied to mankind (even in English).&#xD;&#xA;Thus group of men are derived from the stam of man/mankind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to answer your question, I think to avoid misunderstandings it's a clear NO, they didn't mix concepts when possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Iulia bonus homo est &lt;&lt; this is correct, Iulia is a good person&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Iulia bona homo est  &lt;&lt; this is wrong, homo needs to be handled as grammatical male, though you can use it for a female&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;EDIT: [Whereas, however, ἄνθρωπος (anthropos in greek) really is a common noun, being used freely to refer specifically to both men and women, homo is rarely, if ever, feminine other than in grammar books.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: even though homo is handled as a grammatical male, a female can be part of it. In this sense it is to be seen as an epicene. It is declined and adjectivized as male, but can be used for female subjects.&#xD;&#xA;Now: turning your question around: It would be gramatically correct to use homo when refering to one woman or a group of women, BUT ONLY if the feminine gender would be clear out of the context... otherwise i would recommend the use of femina or mulier as much more appropriate choice to avoid misunderstanding and to be clear what gender your are referring to...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; femina - feminae , mulier - muliebris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are common concepts for a woman, and a group of women.&#xD;&#xA;It thus may be in a philosophical discussion you could find references using hominus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies for example in Spanish:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; El hombre = mankind &amp; the man, la mujer = the woman, hombres = a group of men, mujeres = a group of women&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, to spice it up, there are exceptions: For example when a group of people is integrated by men and one or more women, there it could be possible that the term homines could be used. At least in Spanish, for simplicity's sake, most people would refer to such a group as &quot;un grupo de hombres&quot;, and thus implicitly including 0 to several female in this group, nowadays it probably would be specified &quot;un grupo de hombres y dos mujeres&quot;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A male-centered world view, I think, gave us this legacy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jcmckeown.com/fch8.php&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2639" RevisionGUID="05f2ce57-e9f3-4ad3-a4f5-b422606c1d88" CreationDate="2017-02-12T17:32:54.683" UserId="79" Text="This issue came up in an answer and comments to [this earlier question about comparing *liberi* and *filii*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2631/79), and I think it's important enough to be treated in a separate question.&#xD;&#xA;Also, the answer to this one is not really crucial for the other question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does *liberi* only refer to free children?&#xD;&#xA;It would make sense since this word for children looks a lot like the adjective &quot;free&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But this could be coincidental, or the connection could have been lost.&#xD;&#xA;What are the most important reasons to believe one way or another, or to believe that it is not or cannot be known?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9482" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2639" RevisionGUID="05f2ce57-e9f3-4ad3-a4f5-b422606c1d88" CreationDate="2017-02-12T17:32:54.683" UserId="79" Text="Does liberi only refer to free children?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9483" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2639" RevisionGUID="05f2ce57-e9f3-4ad3-a4f5-b422606c1d88" CreationDate="2017-02-12T17:32:54.683" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|meaning|roman-culture|familia|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2605" RevisionGUID="afd1c8b3-edc6-4c25-9867-0311fb9943d1" CreationDate="2017-02-12T17:36:54.430" UserId="1241" Comment="added 1041 characters in body" Text="&gt; Are there are any cases where homo alone refers to a single woman or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; where homines refers to a group of just women?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no Latin specialist, though i remember something, but I know several other languages.&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally and historically, the word for man is applied to mankind (even in English).&#xD;&#xA;Thus group of men are derived from the stam of man/mankind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to answer your question, I think to avoid misunderstandings it's a clear NO, they didn't mix concepts when possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Iulia bonus homo est &lt;&lt; this is correct, Iulia is a good person&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Iulia&quot; (Iulia) &quot;bonus homo&quot; (a good person) &quot;est&quot; (is)&#xD;&#xA;    see &quot;bonus homo&quot; as an expression as a whole, a composed adjective with it's own gender, and who's gender does not adapt to the subjective in the phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Iulia bona homo est  &lt;&lt; this is wrong, homo needs to be handled as grammatical male, &#xD;&#xA;    though you can use it for a female&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;EDIT: [Whereas, however, ἄνθρωπος (anthropos in greek) really is a common noun, being used freely to refer specifically to both men and women, homo is rarely, if ever, feminine other than in grammar books.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: even though homo is handled as a grammatical male, a female can be part of it. In this sense it is to be seen as an epicene. It is declined and adjectivized as male, but can be used for female subjects.&#xD;&#xA;Now: turning your question around: It would be gramatically correct to use homo when refering to one woman or a group of women, BUT ONLY if the feminine gender would be clear out of the context... otherwise i would recommend the use of femina or mulier as much more appropriate choice to avoid misunderstanding and to be clear what gender your are referring to...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; femina - feminae , mulier - muliebris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are common concepts for a woman, and a group of women.&#xD;&#xA;It thus may be in a philosophical discussion you could find references using hominus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies for example in Spanish:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; El hombre = mankind &amp; the man, la mujer = the woman, hombres = a group of men, mujeres = a group of women&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, to spice it up, there are exceptions: For example when a group of people is integrated by men and one or more women, there it could be possible that the term homines could be used. At least in Spanish, for simplicity's sake, most people would refer to such a group as &quot;un grupo de hombres&quot;, and thus implicitly including 0 to several female in this group, nowadays it probably would be specified &quot;un grupo de hombres y dos mujeres&quot;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A male-centered world view, I think, gave us this legacy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jcmckeown.com/fch8.php&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2640" RevisionGUID="717b6c46-f6a7-4855-9d3a-3bfff6a72aaf" CreationDate="2017-02-12T17:41:45.717" UserId="1955" Text="Yes, `liberi` means free children. `Pueri` is the generic word. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2605" RevisionGUID="d15987c4-4fee-4358-8673-85a1faf10dd9" CreationDate="2017-02-12T17:44:49.737" UserId="1241" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; Are there are any cases where homo alone refers to a single woman or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; where homines refers to a group of just women?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no Latin specialist, though i remember something, and I know several other languages.&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally and historically, the word for man is applied to mankind (even in English).&#xD;&#xA;Thus group of men are derived from the stam of man/mankind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to answer your question, I think to avoid misunderstandings it's a clear NO, they didn't mix concepts when possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Iulia bonus homo est &lt;&lt; this is correct, Iulia is a good person&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Iulia&quot; (Iulia) &quot;bonus homo&quot; (a good person) &quot;est&quot; (is)&#xD;&#xA;    see &quot;bonus homo&quot; as an expression as a whole, a composed adjective with it's own gender, and who's gender does not adapt to the subjective in the phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Iulia bona homo est  &lt;&lt; this is wrong, homo needs to be handled as grammatical male, &#xD;&#xA;    though you can use it for a female&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;EDIT: [Whereas, however, ἄνθρωπος (anthropos in greek) really is a common noun, being used freely to refer specifically to both men and women, homo is rarely, if ever, feminine other than in grammar books.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: even though homo is handled as a grammatical male, a female can be part of it. In this sense it is to be seen as an epicene. It is declined and adjectivized as male, but can be used for female subjects.&#xD;&#xA;Now: turning your question around: It would be gramatically correct to use homo when refering to one woman or a group of women, BUT ONLY if the feminine gender would be clearly understandable within the context... otherwise i would recommend the use of femina or mulier as much more appropriate choice to avoid misunderstanding and to be clear what gender your are referring to...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; femina - feminae , mulier - muliebris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are common concepts for a woman, and a group of women.&#xD;&#xA;It thus may be in a philosophical discussion you could find references using hominus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies for example in Spanish:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; El hombre = mankind &amp; the man, la mujer = the woman, hombres = a group of men, mujeres = a group of women&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, to spice it up, there are exceptions: For example when a group of people is integrated by men and one or more women, there it could be possible that the term homines could be used. At least in Spanish, for simplicity's sake, most people would refer to such a group as &quot;un grupo de hombres&quot;, and thus implicitly including 0 to several female in this group, nowadays it probably would be specified &quot;un grupo de hombres y dos mujeres&quot;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A male-centered world view, I think, gave us this legacy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jcmckeown.com/fch8.php&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2605" RevisionGUID="5d1ff781-a46c-45a9-b947-db418bb9679a" CreationDate="2017-02-12T17:58:42.753" UserId="1241" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="&gt; Are there are any cases where homo alone refers to a single woman or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; where homines refers to a group of just women?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no Latin specialist, though i remember something, and I know several other languages.&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally and historically, the word for man is applied to mankind (even in English).&#xD;&#xA;Thus group of men are derived from the stam of man/mankind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to answer your question, I think to avoid misunderstandings it's a clear NO, they didn't mix concepts when possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Iulia bonus homo est &lt;&lt; this is correct, Iulia is a good person&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Iulia&quot; (Iulia - substantive) &quot;bonus homo&quot; (a good person - adjective) &quot;est&quot; (is - verb)&#xD;&#xA;    see &quot;bonus homo&quot; as an expression as a whole, a composed adjective with it's own gender, and who's gender does not adapt to the subjective in the phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Iulia bona homo est  &lt;&lt; this is wrong, homo needs to be handled as grammatical male, &#xD;&#xA;    though you can use it for a female&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;EDIT: [Whereas, however, ἄνθρωπος (anthropos in greek) really is a common noun, being used freely to refer specifically to both men and women, homo is rarely, if ever, feminine other than in grammar books.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: even though homo is handled as a grammatical male, a female can be part of it. In this sense it is to be seen as an epicene. It is declined and adjectivized as male, but can be used as an adjective for female subjects.&#xD;&#xA;Now: turning your question around: It would be gramatically correct to use homo when refering to one woman or a group of women, BUT ONLY if the feminine gender would be clearly understandable within the context... otherwise i would recommend the use of femina or mulier as much more appropriate choice to avoid misunderstanding and to be clear what gender your are referring to...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; femina - feminae , mulier - muliebris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are common concepts for a woman, and a group of women.&#xD;&#xA;It thus may be in a philosophical discussion you could find references using homo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies for example in Spanish:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; El hombre = mankind &amp; the man, la mujer = the woman, hombres = a group of men, mujeres = a group of women&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, to spice it up, there are exceptions: For example when a group of people is integrated by men and one or more women, there it could be possible that the term homines could be used. At least in Spanish, for simplicity's sake, most people would refer to such a group as &quot;un grupo de hombres&quot;, and thus implicitly including 0 to several female in this group, nowadays it probably would be specified &quot;un grupo de hombres y dos mujeres&quot;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A male-centered world view, I think, gave us this legacy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jcmckeown.com/fch8.php&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2641" RevisionGUID="324c6905-f7a9-4b0d-921d-5d7a0d8dc526" CreationDate="2017-02-12T19:31:04.563" UserId="324" Text="It is generally accepted that liberi “children” is the same word as liber “free, not slave”. So, etymologically liberi are “free-born offspring of either sex”. But it is an error to assume that the semantic scope of any given word is fully determined by its etymology. Roman authors use liberi to mean “children” without necessarily commenting on their legal status. Lewis and Short adduce, among other passages, the very early writer Plautus as referring to liberi oves “young sheep” (“liberis orbas oves,” Plaut. Capt. 4, 2, 3). It is thus reasonable to assume that liberi as a general term for “offspring” is inherited from Italic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dliber2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2642" RevisionGUID="3fdd2635-d3f2-4584-8771-53e559a0b2c8" CreationDate="2017-02-13T06:02:34.937" UserId="39" Text="And here's a visual representation of a Roman family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/THjYj.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2643" RevisionGUID="6e2cf02b-9b14-4037-a0ff-faa081f5db3e" CreationDate="2017-02-13T06:17:31.370" UserId="39" Text="from [Wiedemann 1989/2014][1] (will add more later)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.routledge.com/Adults-and-Children-in-the-Roman-Empire-Routledge-Revivals/Wiedemann/p/book/9780415749671&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z7MLG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2643" RevisionGUID="07962ab8-92f8-4f5a-95b4-e5380fca6f25" CreationDate="2017-02-13T14:02:06.703" UserId="79" Comment="Added transcription." Text="From [Wiedemann 1989/2014][1] (will add more later):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The most common word, *liberi*, is associated with the concept of *libertas*, 'freedom', not in our western liberal sense of being independent of others, but in the sense of being a member of the (free) community; it is philologically cognate with the Greek word for freedom, *eleutheria*, but also with the German word for 'people', *Leute*. The *liberi* were on the one hand those junior members of a household who were free, as opposed to the slaves, *servi*; and on the other hand a collective group of free-born Roman boys and girls, contrasted with adults of citizen status. They were the future citizen community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The other common word for child *puer*, refers to the junior members of the family or household; in the classical period, the same word is used for the free-born children of the *paterfamilias*, and for his slaves, whatever their age.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.routledge.com/Adults-and-Children-in-the-Roman-Empire-Routledge-Revivals/Wiedemann/p/book/9780415749671&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z7MLG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2619" RevisionGUID="5e3d4544-94af-436e-a415-56c4c29a5a97" CreationDate="2017-02-13T14:20:30.533" UserId="79" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="It must be *que*.&#xD;&#xA;The conjunction *-que* is very common in Latin, and it is no surprise it has it's own symbol.&#xD;&#xA;For example *suumque* is ([almost](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1/79)) the same as *et suum* and means &quot;and his own&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The excerpt you have is a fragment, and the exact translation depends on more context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2107" RevisionGUID="dd4d1071-c053-4808-8b3d-e18ce403d00b" CreationDate="2017-02-13T14:46:54.847" UserId="645" Comment="italicised" Text="The College of British Arms, dating from the 15th century, records mottos in various languages (e.g. *Ich Dien*, for the Princes of Wales, *Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense* on the Royal Arms, *Semper Eadem* on the Arms of Elizabeth I of England), though mainly they were in Latin and specially composed to touch on some such desirable quality in the family as valour, fortitude, wisdom, etc. Mottos claimed to be earlier tend to be a bit doubtful, with many being obviously fake (one claimed for my wife's family, supposed to date from William I, is so awful as barely to qualify as Latin). I can only speculate that, before the conquest, we should need to look at descriptions or paintings of military or religious banners, where we would need to be quite careful about accepting them as genuine evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The  option that I prefer for defining a motto is *a maxim to live or act by*, and I suggest that a motto in Latin is either an adaptation of a classical quotation, or a purpose-formed phrase. The question is to find out when and how this came about or, if you like, came to be formalised. However, to answer your question **When did first Latin mottos appear?**  the earliest genuine mottos that I can trace are the two attributed to Eton College that I have already given in a comment (*Floreat Etona* / *Esto perpetua*). The inscriptions on *hastae* said to have been used by legionaries to identify their weapons after a battle (from memory, in passages by Plutarch and Livy), sometimes called mottos,  do not really qualify for, although they may have been the earliest recorded in Latin, they were no more than their commander's name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly, various well-known phrases from classical sources have been used in Britain from the Norman  Conquest up to the present. The edge of the current English £1 coin has *DECUS ET TUTAMEN* (Aeneid V.202). *Mens sana in corpore sano* (Juv. Sat.X.356) is often used (especially in novels) as the underlying principle on which English public (viz. private!) schools were founded and run, and may qualify as a motto; Horace's *O dulce et decorum est pro patria mori* has been used as a motto to urge soldiers to their duty (see the famously bitter WW1 poem of Wilfred Owen, *Dulce et Decorum Est*). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2568" RevisionGUID="ecc3aab8-a8b7-4ab7-af66-9acd61273d4b" CreationDate="2017-02-13T15:21:07.677" UserId="1224" Comment="I added a link labeled &quot;punctuation&quot; that leads to a question that may provide further explanation" Text="There are several noticeable differences between Latins, but I think that the most important would be the vocabulary and [punctuation][1]. Rather than using *sum* and *eram*, in Medieval Latin, one might use *fui* and *fueram*. New Latin and even Renaissance Latin adopted many words from Old French, Greek, and similar languages, like *systema* and *nostalgia*. Sentence spacing also came about in the fifteenth century, as well as an even earlier example of paragraphs in the Lyon Table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/33/what-punctuation-was-used-in-classical-latin?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2643" RevisionGUID="4a44436e-515e-4478-997d-77581e7018c6" CreationDate="2017-02-13T16:39:59.727" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body" Text="From [Wiedemann 1989/2014][1] (will add more later):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The most common word, *liberi*, is associated with the concept of *libertas*, 'freedom', not in our western liberal sense of being independent of others, but in the sense of being a member of the (free) community; it is philologically cognate with the Greek word for freedom, *eleutheria*, but also with the German word for 'people', *Leute*. The *liberi* were on the one hand those junior members of a household who were free, as opposed to the slaves, *servi*; and on the other hand a collective group of free-born Roman boys and girls, contrasted with adults of citizen status. They were the future citizen community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The other common word for child *puer*, refers to the junior members of the family or household; in the classical period, the same word is used for the free-born children of the *paterfamilias*, and for his slaves, whatever their age.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.routledge.com/Adults-and-Children-in-the-Roman-Empire-Routledge-Revivals/Wiedemann/p/book/9780415749671&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z7MLG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2642" RevisionGUID="1cd3d366-f903-4638-af09-b41da09f24f7" CreationDate="2017-02-13T16:48:24.697" UserId="39" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="And here's a visual representation of a Roman family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see the words PATER, VXOR, and F (filius).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/THjYj.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2643" RevisionGUID="8b5d87dc-913d-4d4a-8be8-019019319abd" CreationDate="2017-02-13T17:07:57.323" UserId="39" Comment="added 227 characters in body" Text="From [Wiedemann 1989/2014][1] (will add more later):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The most common word, *liberi*, is associated with the concept of *libertas*, 'freedom', not in our western liberal sense of being independent of others, but in the sense of being a member of the (free) community; it is philologically cognate with the Greek word for freedom, *eleutheria*, but also with the German word for 'people', *Leute*. The *liberi* were on the one hand those junior members of a household who were free, as opposed to the slaves, *servi*; and on the other hand a collective group of free-born Roman boys and girls, contrasted with adults of citizen status. They were the future citizen community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The other common word for child *puer*, refers to the junior members of the family or household; in the classical period, the same word is used for the free-born children of the *paterfamilias*, and for his slaves, whatever their age.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, for example, the inscription on the reverse side of a Roman coin (69 AD) can be found [here.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.routledge.com/Adults-and-Children-in-the-Roman-Empire-Routledge-Revivals/Wiedemann/p/book/9780415749671&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/aureus-with-bust-of-vitellius-162127&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bsd6s.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2643" RevisionGUID="afc89fd9-57d7-4c3e-a99e-71d764e46063" CreationDate="2017-02-13T17:44:50.017" UserId="39" Comment="added 786 characters in body" Text="From [Wiedemann 1989/2014][1] (will add more later):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The most common word, *liberi*, is associated with the concept of *libertas*, 'freedom', not in our western liberal sense of being independent of others, but in the sense of being a member of the (free) community; it is philologically cognate with the Greek word for freedom, *eleutheria*, but also with the German word for 'people', *Leute*. The *liberi* were on the one hand those junior members of a household who were free, as opposed to the slaves, *servi*; and on the other hand a collective group of free-born Roman boys and girls, contrasted with adults of citizen status. They were the future citizen community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The other common word for child *puer*, refers to the junior members of the family or household; in the classical period, the same word is used for the free-born children of the *paterfamilias*, and for his slaves, whatever their age.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OLD says: *liberi* &quot;sons and daughters, children (in connection with their parents.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no expert in Roman law but it seems to me *liberi* quite often implied legal descent and hence inheritance rights, cf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;At parentes, si pergunt **liberi** errare, bonis exheredant&quot; (Gellius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or the very phrase [**liberi naturales**][2] (legitimized children in concubinatus, who could become legitimi in the absence of other legitimate children and their mother must have been free-born).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some epigraphic examples: the inscription on the reverse side of a Roman coin (69 AD) can be found [here.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Archaic Latin inscriptions the original diphthong can be seen, e.g. [LEIBEREIS][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.routledge.com/Adults-and-Children-in-the-Roman-Empire-Routledge-Revivals/Wiedemann/p/book/9780415749671&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/naturales-liberi-e817580?s.num&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/aureus-with-bust-of-vitellius-162127&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bsd6s.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epi_einzel.php?s_sprache=en&amp;p_belegstelle=CIL%2001,%2001531" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2643" RevisionGUID="870ba38a-1976-4aac-b113-9b84129f0d2c" CreationDate="2017-02-13T18:19:51.700" UserId="39" Comment="added 648 characters in body" Text="From [Wiedemann 1989/2014][1] (will add more later):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The most common word, *liberi*, is associated with the concept of *libertas*, 'freedom', not in our western liberal sense of being independent of others, but in the sense of being a member of the (free) community; it is philologically cognate with the Greek word for freedom, *eleutheria*, but also with the German word for 'people', *Leute*. The *liberi* were on the one hand those junior members of a household who were free, as opposed to the slaves, *servi*; and on the other hand a collective group of free-born Roman boys and girls, contrasted with adults of citizen status. They were the future citizen community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The other common word for child *puer*, refers to the junior members of the family or household; in the classical period, the same word is used for the free-born children of the *paterfamilias*, and for his slaves, whatever their age.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OLD says: *liberi* &quot;sons and daughters, children (in connection with their parents.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no expert in Roman law but it seems to me *liberi* quite often implied legal descent and hence inheritance rights, cf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;At parentes, si pergunt **liberi** errare, bonis exheredant&quot; (Gellius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or the very phrase [**liberi naturales**][2] (legitimized children in concubinatus, who could become legitimi in the absence of other legitimate children and their mother must have been free-born).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Senatus consultum de Asclepiade Clazomenio sociisque* we read the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“... whatever inheritances have come to them or **their children** by chance, / these are to fully hold, possess and enjoy; whatever lawsuits they, **their children**, their descendants or their wives may bring against another person, or / if other persons bring lawsuits against them, **their children**, their descendants or their wives, these men, their children, &lt;their descendants&gt; or their wives are to have the right of choice …” [English translation by Andrea Raggi; [Raggi 2001\]&#xD;&#xA;][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some epigraphic examples: the inscription on the reverse side of a Roman coin (69 AD) can be found [here.][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Archaic Latin inscriptions the original diphthong can be seen, e.g. [LEIBEREIS][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.routledge.com/Adults-and-Children-in-the-Roman-Empire-Routledge-Revivals/Wiedemann/p/book/9780415749671&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/naturales-liberi-e817580?s.num&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WrnAe.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.academia.edu/23250673/Senatus_consultum_de_Asclepiade_Clazomenio_sociisque&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/aureus-with-bust-of-vitellius-162127&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bsd6s.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epi_einzel.php?s_sprache=en&amp;p_belegstelle=CIL%2001,%2001531" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2643" RevisionGUID="5b849dff-8f13-4897-9494-b3aa9795cc03" CreationDate="2017-02-13T18:36:21.240" UserId="39" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="From [Wiedemann 1989/2014][1] (will add more later):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The most common word, *liberi*, is associated with the concept of *libertas*, 'freedom', not in our western liberal sense of being independent of others, but in the sense of being a member of the (free) community; it is philologically cognate with the Greek word for freedom, *eleutheria*, but also with the German word for 'people', *Leute*. The *liberi* were on the one hand those junior members of a household who were free, as opposed to the slaves, *servi*; and on the other hand a collective group of free-born Roman boys and girls, contrasted with adults of citizen status. They were the future citizen community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The other common word for child *puer*, refers to the junior members of the family or household; in the classical period, the same word is used for the free-born children of the *paterfamilias*, and for his slaves, whatever their age.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OLD says: *liberi* &quot;sons and daughters, children (in connection with their parents.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no expert in Roman law but it seems to me *liberi* quite often implied legal descent and hence inheritance rights, cf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;At parentes, si pergunt **liberi** errare, bonis exheredant&quot; (Gellius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or the very phrase [**liberi naturales**][2] (legitimized children in concubinatus, who could become legitimi in the absence of other legitimate children and their mother must have been free-born).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Senatus consultum de Asclepiade Clazomenio sociisque* (78 BC) we read the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“... whatever inheritances have come to them or **their children** by chance, / these are to fully hold, possess and enjoy; whatever lawsuits they, **their children**, their descendants or their wives may bring against another person, or / if other persons bring lawsuits against them, **their children**, their descendants or their wives, these men, their children, &lt;their descendants&gt; or their wives are to have the right of choice …” [English translation by Andrea Raggi; [Raggi 2001\]&#xD;&#xA;][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some epigraphic examples: the inscription on the reverse side of a Roman coin (69 AD) can be found [here.][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Archaic Latin inscriptions the original diphthong can be seen, e.g. [LEIBEREIS][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.routledge.com/Adults-and-Children-in-the-Roman-Empire-Routledge-Revivals/Wiedemann/p/book/9780415749671&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/naturales-liberi-e817580?s.num&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WrnAe.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.academia.edu/23250673/Senatus_consultum_de_Asclepiade_Clazomenio_sociisque&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/aureus-with-bust-of-vitellius-162127&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bsd6s.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epi_einzel.php?s_sprache=en&amp;p_belegstelle=CIL%2001,%2001531" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2643" RevisionGUID="c095622f-f1dc-4a59-b589-f8c829bd4266" CreationDate="2017-02-13T18:42:47.417" UserId="39" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="From [Wiedemann 1989/2014][1] (will add more later):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The most common word, *liberi*, is associated with the concept of *libertas*, 'freedom', not in our western liberal sense of being independent of others, but in the sense of being a member of the (free) community; it is philologically cognate with the Greek word for freedom, *eleutheria*, but also with the German word for 'people', *Leute*. The *liberi* were on the one hand those junior members of a household who were free, as opposed to the slaves, *servi*; and on the other hand a collective group of free-born Roman boys and girls, contrasted with adults of citizen status. They were the future citizen community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The other common word for child *puer*, refers to the junior members of the family or household; in the classical period, the same word is used for the free-born children of the *paterfamilias*, and for his slaves, whatever their age.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OLD says: *liberi* &quot;sons and daughters, children (in connection with their parents.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no expert in Roman law but it seems to me *liberi* quite often implied legal descent and hence inheritance rights, cf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;At parentes, si pergunt **liberi** errare, bonis exheredant&quot; (Gellius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or the very phrase [**liberi naturales**][2] (legitimized children in concubinatus, who could become legitimi in the absence of other legitimate children and their mother must have been free-born).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Senatus consultum de Asclepiade Clazomenio sociisque* (78 BC) we read the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“... whatever inheritances have come to them or **their children** by chance, / these are to fully hold, possess and enjoy; whatever lawsuits they, **their children**, their descendants or their wives may bring against another person, or / if other persons bring lawsuits against them, **their children**, their descendants or their wives, these men, their children, &lt;their descendants&gt; or their wives are to have the right of choice …” [English translation by Andrea Raggi; [Raggi 2001\]&#xD;&#xA;][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some epigraphic examples: the inscription on the reverse side of a Roman coin (69 AD) can be found [here.][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Archaic Latin inscriptions traces of the original diphthong can be seen, e.g. [LEIBEREIS][7] (oi &gt; ei, cf. Weiss 2009/2011, pp. 102-103)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.routledge.com/Adults-and-Children-in-the-Roman-Empire-Routledge-Revivals/Wiedemann/p/book/9780415749671&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/naturales-liberi-e817580?s.num&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WrnAe.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.academia.edu/23250673/Senatus_consultum_de_Asclepiade_Clazomenio_sociisque&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/aureus-with-bust-of-vitellius-162127&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bsd6s.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epi_einzel.php?s_sprache=en&amp;p_belegstelle=CIL%2001,%2001531" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2643" RevisionGUID="045deeca-9b38-4d2c-813b-32d197d31272" CreationDate="2017-02-13T18:58:51.903" UserId="39" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="From [Wiedemann 1989/2014][1] (will add more later):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The most common word, *liberi*, is associated with the concept of *libertas*, 'freedom', not in our western liberal sense of being independent of others, but in the sense of being a member of the (free) community; it is philologically cognate with the Greek word for freedom, *eleutheria*, but also with the German word for 'people', *Leute*. The *liberi* were on the one hand those junior members of a household who were free, as opposed to the slaves, *servi*; and on the other hand a collective group of free-born Roman boys and girls, contrasted with adults of citizen status. They were the future citizen community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The other common word for child *puer*, refers to the junior members of the family or household; in the classical period, the same word is used for the free-born children of the *paterfamilias*, and for his slaves, whatever their age.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OLD says: *liberi* &quot;sons and daughters, children (in connection with their parents.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no expert in Roman law but it seems to me *liberi* quite often implied legal descent and hence inheritance rights, cf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;At parentes, si pergunt **liberi** errare, bonis exheredant&quot; (Gellius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or the very phrase [**liberi naturales**][2] (legitimized children in concubinatus, who could become legitimi in the absence of other legitimate children and their mother must have been free-born),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or the famous law, **Ius trium liberorum**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Senatus consultum de Asclepiade Clazomenio sociisque* (78 BC) we read the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“... whatever inheritances have come to them or **their children** by chance, / these are to fully hold, possess and enjoy; whatever lawsuits they, **their children**, their descendants or their wives may bring against another person, or / if other persons bring lawsuits against them, **their children**, their descendants or their wives, these men, their children, &lt;their descendants&gt; or their wives are to have the right of choice …” [English translation by Andrea Raggi; [Raggi 2001\]&#xD;&#xA;][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some epigraphic examples: the inscription on the reverse side of a Roman coin (69 AD) can be found [here.][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Archaic Latin inscriptions traces of the original diphthong can be seen, e.g. [LEIBEREIS][7] (oi &gt; ei, cf. Weiss 2009/2011, pp. 102-103)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.routledge.com/Adults-and-Children-in-the-Roman-Empire-Routledge-Revivals/Wiedemann/p/book/9780415749671&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/naturales-liberi-e817580?s.num&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WrnAe.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.academia.edu/23250673/Senatus_consultum_de_Asclepiade_Clazomenio_sociisque&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/aureus-with-bust-of-vitellius-162127&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bsd6s.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epi_einzel.php?s_sprache=en&amp;p_belegstelle=CIL%2001,%2001531" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2644" RevisionGUID="008abee9-8622-430f-bc63-c0c73557be0e" CreationDate="2017-02-13T19:00:11.823" UserId="39" Text="Incidentally, starting with Augustus, **having three children was honorable** and gave men &quot;certain political advantages&quot;, whereas having less than three children &quot;restricted a man's ability to accept inheritances and legacies&quot; ([Edmondson 2015][1]: 576). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See more on **ius trium liberorum** in [Wikipedia][2]  or in Edmondson 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195336467.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195336467-e-026&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_trium_liberorum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="295" RevisionGUID="ee7202f7-d7cf-49dc-8a36-338ec65467c7" CreationDate="2017-02-13T19:02:33.897" UserId="79" Comment="Cum verbo &quot;uti&quot; utimur casu ablativo." Text="Quando vocabulum **a fortiori** (sive _[a fortiore](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/133/118)_) ortum est ut nomen artis legis logicæve? In quo opere scripto primum apparuit?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Volo intellegere eius rationem originis verificareque verbum elisum &quot;**ratione**&quot; esse. Notionem in duobus auctoribus antiquis inveni, _[Rhetorica ad Herennium](https://archive.org/stream/adcherenniumdera00capluoft#page/292/mode/2up)_ IV.18 et _[Topica](https://archive.org/stream/oratorbrutustopi00cice#page/382/mode/2up)_ Ciceronis 4.23, sed illa locutionibus dissimilibus utuntur, e.g. &quot;Quod in re maiore valet, valeat in minore.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9509" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="295" RevisionGUID="ee7202f7-d7cf-49dc-8a36-338ec65467c7" CreationDate="2017-02-13T19:02:33.897" UserId="79" Comment="Cum verbo &quot;uti&quot; utimur casu ablativo." Text="|history|phrase|legal-latin|logic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9510" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="295" RevisionGUID="84def83b-323e-4ce9-bab8-778d49585b5e" CreationDate="2017-02-13T19:04:25.403" UserId="79" Comment="18" />
  <row Id="9511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2643" RevisionGUID="fd5efbf2-9c63-4904-ac49-1bdb79af0f1f" CreationDate="2017-02-13T19:09:21.123" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 39 characters in body" Text="From [Wiedemann 1989/2014][1] (will add more later):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The most common word, *liberi*, is associated with the concept of *libertas*, 'freedom', not in our western liberal sense of being independent of others, but in the sense of being a member of the (free) community; it is philologically cognate with the Greek word for freedom, *eleutheria*, but also with the German word for 'people', *Leute*. The *liberi* were on the one hand those junior members of a household who were free, as opposed to the slaves, *servi*; and on the other hand a collective group of free-born Roman boys and girls, contrasted with adults of citizen status. They were the future citizen community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The other common word for child *puer*, refers to the junior members of the family or household; in the classical period, the same word is used for the free-born children of the *paterfamilias*, and for his slaves, whatever their age.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OLD says: *liberi* &quot;sons and daughters, children (in connection with their parents.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no expert in Roman law but it seems to me *liberi* quite often implied legal descent and hence inheritance rights, cf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;At parentes, si pergunt **liberi** errare, bonis exheredant&quot; (Gellius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or the very phrase [**liberi naturales**][2] (legitimized children in concubinatus, who could become legitimi in the absence of other legitimate children and their mother must have been free-born),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or the famous law, **Ius trium liberorum**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Senatus consultum de Asclepiade Clazomenio sociisque* (78 BC) we read the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“... whatever inheritances have come to them or **their children** by chance, / these are to fully hold, possess and enjoy; whatever lawsuits they, **their children**, their descendants or their wives may bring against another person, or / if other persons bring lawsuits against them, **their children**, their descendants or their wives, these men, their children, &lt;their descendants&gt; or their wives are to have the right of choice …” [English translation by Andrea Raggi; [Raggi 2001\]&#xD;&#xA;][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some epigraphic examples: the inscription on the reverse side of a Roman coin (69 AD) can be found [here.][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Archaic Latin inscriptions traces of the original diphthong can be seen, e.g. [LEIBEREIS][7] (oi &gt; ei, cf. Weiss 2009/2011, pp. 102-103)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.routledge.com/Adults-and-Children-in-the-Roman-Empire-Routledge-Revivals/Wiedemann/p/book/9780415749671&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/naturales-liberi-e817580?s.num&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WrnAe.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.academia.edu/23250673/Senatus_consultum_de_Asclepiade_Clazomenio_sociisque&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/aureus-with-bust-of-vitellius-162127&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bsd6s.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epi_einzel.php?s_sprache=en&amp;p_belegstelle=CIL%2001,%2001531" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2645" RevisionGUID="48ec94e7-1dc8-41ad-8b45-7213d5fac062" CreationDate="2017-02-13T19:34:23.790" UserId="1088" Text="I know that *nihil* is an irregular noun, being undeclinable and used only in the nominative and accusative cases. I know that *nihilum* is a more regular 2nd-declension neuter word, with all the usual endings in all the usual cases. And I know both mean “nothing.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some kind of distinction between the two? Is there a reason to prefer *nihil* or *nihilum* when talking about “nothing” in a nominative or accusative case, or is it purely stylistic? If there is a distinction, would it be proper to substitute a declension of *nihilum* for *nihil* when using the word in a non-nominative, non-accusative case? Or if there is no distinction besides stylistic, what was the classical style when handling these two words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9513" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2645" RevisionGUID="48ec94e7-1dc8-41ad-8b45-7213d5fac062" CreationDate="2017-02-13T19:34:23.790" UserId="1088" Text="Usage of nihil and nihilum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9514" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2645" RevisionGUID="48ec94e7-1dc8-41ad-8b45-7213d5fac062" CreationDate="2017-02-13T19:34:23.790" UserId="1088" Text="|classical-latin|style|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2645" RevisionGUID="fc10cfc7-4755-414c-842c-a08b1c746a7f" CreationDate="2017-02-13T19:39:43.633" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="I know that *nihil* is an irregular noun, being undeclinable and used only in the nominative and accusative cases. I know that *nihilum* is a more regular 2nd-declension neuter word, with all the usual endings in all the usual cases. And I know both mean “nothing.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some kind of distinction between the two? Is there a reason to prefer *nihil* or *nihilum* when talking about “nothing” in a nominative or accusative case, or is it purely stylistic? If there is a distinction, would it be proper to substitute a declension of *nihilum* for *nihil* when using the word in a non-nominative, non-accusative case? Or if there is no distinction besides stylistic, what was the classical style when handling these two words?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9516" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2645" RevisionGUID="fc10cfc7-4755-414c-842c-a08b1c746a7f" CreationDate="2017-02-13T19:39:43.633" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|word-comparison|style|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2646" RevisionGUID="86789705-9bde-498f-bf64-82673edad8cd" CreationDate="2017-02-13T20:04:04.423" UserId="79" Text="I would like to understand the Latin participle *differens* and compare it to the English adjective &quot;different&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The verb [*differre*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2017194) means roughly &quot;to carry apart&quot;, but [Lewis Elementary](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1004735) also lists &quot;to be different&quot; among the translations.&#xD;&#xA;With this meaning it seems that *differens* can mean &quot;different&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I got the feeling that the meanings of *differens* and &quot;different&quot; overlap, but neither includes the other.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that if I want to say &quot;different&quot;, I should probably try some other word than *differens* first, like *dissimilis*.&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct, or should I look at it some other way?&#xD;&#xA;How would you compare *differens* and &quot;different&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9518" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2646" RevisionGUID="86789705-9bde-498f-bf64-82673edad8cd" CreationDate="2017-02-13T20:04:04.423" UserId="79" Text="Is differens different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9519" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2646" RevisionGUID="86789705-9bde-498f-bf64-82673edad8cd" CreationDate="2017-02-13T20:04:04.423" UserId="79" Text="|translation|vocabulary|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2647" RevisionGUID="148b4639-489d-4b0a-8e16-6152d070c834" CreationDate="2017-02-14T07:35:20.170" UserId="645" Text="The distinction between *nihil* and *nihilum* is a very fine one which, no doubt, the Romans learned to apply instinctively. It causes hardly any difficulty in translating from Latin, but in writing idiomatic Latin it does need some care.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nihil** (or *nil*) is an indeclinable substantive having, very simply and without qualification, the pure sense of 'nothing', or 'not anything'. 'Nothing', referring to nothing else, is absolute and can only have a singular meaning. *Nihil* isn't used for any other purpose. However, it is equivalent to *nulla res*, which can be used in those slightly awkward cases where an inflection is necessary because of its position in a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nihilum**, also substantive, conveys a sense of quality, 'nothing**ness**', or 'non-existence'. Like *nihil* it is necessarily singular, but it can take an inflection acording to use. This explains its use in, for example, conveying the idea of 'worthlessness', as in *nihili facere*, where it is a genitive of value (*sc.* 'of nothing at all'). In the ablative it occurs as *ex nihilo*, 'from/out of nothing' ; in familiar adverbial usages such as *nihilominus, nihilo magis* ; and to indicate value, as in *non nihilo aestimare* ('not worth nothing', 'at any rate,worth something' etc.).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2648" RevisionGUID="37e10a9a-5766-4318-9caa-2f7c46c5aa6d" CreationDate="2017-02-14T16:10:24.107" UserId="45" Text="In honor of the day (at least in the US): what specific differences can we point to in the usage of *amo* and *diligo*, as well as their corresponding nouns *amor* and *dilectio*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short indicates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *amo* means &quot;to like, to love (ἐράω, φιλέω) both in the higher and the lower sense...while *diligere* (ἀγαπῶ) designates esteem, regard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there **general guidelines about when each word is appropriate?** The most effective way to do this might be to show what you *can't* say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some specific questions, as a spur to a more general answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If a husband says to his wife, &quot;Diligo te, uxo,&quot; is that considered cold?&#xD;&#xA;2. Are there classical examples of the two words being opposed to each other? Is it possible to have *amor* without *dilectio*? Is there an easy Latin translation of &quot;I like you, but I don't love you&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;3. Is there a way to specifically distinguish sexual love from love of friendship--since L&amp;S seems to treat *amare* as a substitute for both ἐράω and φιλέω?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus points for addressing other words, like *caritas*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2648" RevisionGUID="37e10a9a-5766-4318-9caa-2f7c46c5aa6d" CreationDate="2017-02-14T16:10:24.107" UserId="45" Text="What's the difference between amare and diligere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2648" RevisionGUID="37e10a9a-5766-4318-9caa-2f7c46c5aa6d" CreationDate="2017-02-14T16:10:24.107" UserId="45" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|word-comparison|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2649" RevisionGUID="c012806a-6be9-439f-915c-f8de7031d9f2" CreationDate="2017-02-14T16:21:20.620" UserId="1257" Text="Yes, in my opinion that is correct. While differens is sometimes used as different, the literal translation of different is dissimilis (which is reflected in other latin-derived languages). Generally differens is used as &quot;superior&quot; or &quot;excellent&quot;, in the sense that it is set apart from everything else for that reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2650" RevisionGUID="b8fe119b-9f52-4770-9669-1d06cd668bfb" CreationDate="2017-02-14T16:56:20.843" UserId="1259" Text="I am new to learning Latin, and I read on some random latin site the &quot;ob&quot; means &quot;on account of&quot; or &quot;because of&quot;.  But, I thought the &quot;propter&quot; meant &quot;on account of&quot;.  Is there a difference in meaning that I don't understand?  Are they just redundant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9527" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2650" RevisionGUID="b8fe119b-9f52-4770-9669-1d06cd668bfb" CreationDate="2017-02-14T16:56:20.843" UserId="1259" Text="What is the difference between Ob and Propter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9528" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2650" RevisionGUID="b8fe119b-9f52-4770-9669-1d06cd668bfb" CreationDate="2017-02-14T16:56:20.843" UserId="1259" Text="|preposition|differences|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2648" RevisionGUID="d5813c2d-3dc7-4123-a49b-22154fc7e59b" CreationDate="2017-02-14T17:47:03.617" UserId="45" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In honor of the day (at least in the US): what specific differences can we point to in the usage of *amo* and *diligo*, as well as their corresponding nouns *amor* and *dilectio*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short indicates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *amo* means &quot;to like, to love (ἐράω, φιλέω) both in the higher and the lower sense...while *diligere* (ἀγαπῶ) designates esteem, regard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there **general guidelines about when each word is appropriate?** The most effective way to do this might be to show what you *can't* say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some specific questions, as a spur to a more general answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If a husband says to his wife, &quot;Diligo te, uxor,&quot; is that considered cold?&#xD;&#xA;2. Are there classical examples of the two words being opposed to each other? Is it possible to have *amor* without *dilectio*? Is there an easy Latin translation of &quot;I like you, but I don't love you&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;3. Is there a way to specifically distinguish sexual love from love of friendship--since L&amp;S seems to treat *amare* as a substitute for both ἐράω and φιλέω?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus points for addressing other words, like *caritas*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2651" RevisionGUID="6cf6f6a0-9e04-4e61-be42-aa401a4c75f3" CreationDate="2017-02-14T18:27:04.183" UserId="727" Text="I've looked up the translation of &quot;Take Credit, Assign Blame&quot; (a pseudo-motto for managers) and I got 'Sume fidem, culpam dare', and then later I found 'Tolle fidem, culpam dare'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this faux-motto convey the attitude of someone who takes credit for successes and assigns blame to underlings when things fail?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9531" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2651" RevisionGUID="6cf6f6a0-9e04-4e61-be42-aa401a4c75f3" CreationDate="2017-02-14T18:27:04.183" UserId="727" Text="Does Tolle fidem, culpam dare convey the correct meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9532" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2651" RevisionGUID="6cf6f6a0-9e04-4e61-be42-aa401a4c75f3" CreationDate="2017-02-14T18:27:04.183" UserId="727" Text="|translation|saying|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2652" RevisionGUID="e21ee047-9fd9-42a9-b656-eeb5a9038071" CreationDate="2017-02-14T19:55:01.457" UserId="12" Text="The causal meaning of these two prepositions developed separately, so the history of their usage is a bit complex.  But in Classical Latin and after, while some authors used the two interchangeably, *ob* became more and more limited to literary language, while *propter* was used in popular language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Origins&#xD;&#xA;Silvia Luraghi's paper [&quot;Prepositions in Cause expressions&quot;](https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/joll.2005.9.issue-2/joll.2005.9.2.609/joll.2005.9.2.609.xml) traces the development of prepositions used to describe cause, like *ob* and *propter*.  She first describes the difference in original meaning between the two – *propter* spatially means &quot;nearby,&quot; so it comes to refer to cause through the idea that &quot;a cause and its effect are contiguous.&quot;  She gives this example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *abduce me hinc ab hac quantum potest, quam **propter** tantum damnum feci et flagiti*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;take me hence away from her as soon as you can, **on whose account** I have incurred so much loss and guilt&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Bac. 1032).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, *ob* originally means &quot;in front of.&quot;  So if an observer is trying to look at a landmark, but there is an obstacle in between them, his view of the landmark is &quot;exchanged&quot; for the obstacle, and this is how the word is ultimately connected to cause.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *men piacularem oportet fieri **ob** stultitiam tuam, ut meum tergum tuae stultitiae subdas succidaneum?*  &#xD;&#xA;	“is it proper that I should be the atonement **for** your folly, so as for you to substitute my back as the scapegoat for your folly?”  &#xD;&#xA;	(Pl. Ep. 139-140).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we see that the two words have different origins.  But what about usage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#History of usage&#xD;&#xA;In Early Latin, Luraghi finds that *ob* (109 occurrences) is more frequent than *propter* (49 occurrences), but in examination of Plautus, she finds &quot;the onset of a development that took *ob* to be limited to idioms.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This trend continues, she argues, in Classical Latin.  She summarizes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The distribution of *ob* and *propter* is of special interest. In certain authors, the two prepositions seem to be equivalent. However, interchangeability of *ob* and *propter* is a comparatively late phenomenon, and may have never been a feature of the spoken language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She cites Löfsted, who finds that in post-classical times *propter* was the popular word and *ob* the literary word.  But she argues that evidence for this distinction already exists in Classical Latin.  She notes that many classical authors show a distinct preference for one word or the other; for example, Tacitus rarely used *propter*, perhaps indicating that he felt *ob* was more suitable for literary works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others used the two fairly evenly – Cicero has *ob* 744 times and *propter* 885 times, though 60% of his usages of *ob* are in conjunction with *rem* or *causam*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Late Latin, she points to the absence of *ob* in non-literary texts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non-literary texts offer evidence for the disappearance of *ob*, which only occurs 3 times in the *Mulomedicina Chironis*, and does not occur at all in the *Peregrinatio Aetheriae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For today's Latin student, perhaps it's simplest to call the two words synonyms – [Bennett's Latin Grammar (§141)](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect141) translates them identically.  Keep in mind that *ob* often goes with *rem* and *causam* ([Gildersleeve and Lodge (§416)](https://books.google.com/books?id=UU0BIAbE0SIC&amp;pg=PA270)), and may sound more &quot;literary.&quot;  But if Cicero used both, you certainly can too!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2650" RevisionGUID="d8e7e661-3ef3-47ea-84ad-807c4b92b574" CreationDate="2017-02-14T21:24:45.613" UserId="12" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am new to learning Latin, and I read on some random Latin site that &quot;ob&quot; means &quot;on account of&quot; or &quot;because of&quot;.  But, I thought that &quot;propter&quot; meant &quot;on account of&quot;.  Is there a difference in meaning that I don't understand?  Are they just redundant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9536" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2650" RevisionGUID="d8e7e661-3ef3-47ea-84ad-807c4b92b574" CreationDate="2017-02-14T21:24:45.613" UserId="12" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|word-comparison|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2653" RevisionGUID="028b2ad0-d37d-427e-9e2d-3c87caf9d264" CreationDate="2017-02-14T21:34:47.283" UserId="79" Text="The ancient Romans had many festivals, but did any of them celebrate friendship or love?&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia mentions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine%27s_Day#Lupercalia) similarity to *Lupercalia*, but I consider love to be very different from fertility.&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking if there was a Roman festival (fully or partially) devoted to emotions between people; the ability to breed is irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there was no such festival, do we know what the Romans would have called such a thing?&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good name?&#xD;&#xA;The best word I could think of is *Amicalia*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9538" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2653" RevisionGUID="028b2ad0-d37d-427e-9e2d-3c87caf9d264" CreationDate="2017-02-14T21:34:47.283" UserId="79" Text="Did the Romans have a Valentine's day?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9539" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2653" RevisionGUID="028b2ad0-d37d-427e-9e2d-3c87caf9d264" CreationDate="2017-02-14T21:34:47.283" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|roman-culture|calendarium|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2654" RevisionGUID="1d6ccfde-303a-4135-8cb4-bb1af3935141" CreationDate="2017-02-15T00:29:51.653" UserId="1239" Text="Modus Barbara, Modus Celarent, and Modus Darii are names of valid syllogisms in the medieval taxonomy of valid syllogisms. I'm wondering how to say: &quot;Moduses Barbara, Celarent, and Darii.&quot; As far as I'm capable, &quot;Modi Barbara, Celarent, et Darii&quot; is all that I can come up with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9541" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2654" RevisionGUID="1d6ccfde-303a-4135-8cb4-bb1af3935141" CreationDate="2017-02-15T00:29:51.653" UserId="1239" Text="Modus Barbara, Modus Celarent, et Modus Darii: (Modi Barbara, Celarent, et Darii)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9542" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2654" RevisionGUID="1d6ccfde-303a-4135-8cb4-bb1af3935141" CreationDate="2017-02-15T00:29:51.653" UserId="1239" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|medieval-latin|history|logic|philosophy-terms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2631" RevisionGUID="38bc512a-15b2-4704-a9d4-23c0d92501f2" CreationDate="2017-02-15T02:29:00.800" UserId="1249" Comment="Added update." Text="I was reading Orberg's Lingua Latina per se Ilustrata and I found the following sentences: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *Marcus et Quīntus sunt dūo filiī. [...] In familia Rõmāna tres līberī sunt.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I deduce both words mean &quot;children&quot;, but where would I use one or another? (I looked up at some dictionaries but didn't explained the difference).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** This question has led to some kind of debate whether liberī is only applied to children that are born-free. [See it][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2639/does-liberi-only-refer-to-free-children" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2653" RevisionGUID="801a78c6-816f-4c97-8c42-4b9f8dccb7ce" CreationDate="2017-02-15T09:58:49.107" UserId="79" Comment="added 311 characters in body" Text="The ancient Romans had many festivals, but did any of them celebrate friendship or love?&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia mentions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine%27s_Day#Lupercalia) similarity to *Lupercalia*, but I consider love to be very different from fertility.&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking if there was a Roman festival (fully or partially) devoted to emotions between people; the ability to breed is irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there was no such festival, do we know what the Romans would have called such a thing?&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good name?&#xD;&#xA;The best word I could think of is *Amicalia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of Valentine's day varies between countries.&#xD;&#xA;In the English speaking world it is mainly a day of erotic or romantic love, whereas in Finland it is a day of friendship.&#xD;&#xA;Any kind of &quot;Roman Valentine's day&quot; would make a good answer; it can be anything promoting warm feelings between individuals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2647" RevisionGUID="bb33fc4c-3818-458b-ada0-c23a10085d20" CreationDate="2017-02-15T10:13:02.877" UserId="645" Comment="examples incl." Text="The distinction between *nihil* and *nihilum* is a very fine one which, no doubt, the Romans learned to apply instinctively. It causes hardly any difficulty in translating from Latin, but in writing idiomatic Latin it does need some care.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nihil** (or *nil*) is an indeclinable substantive having, very simply and without qualification, the pure sense of 'nothing', or 'not anything'. 'Nothing', referring to nothing else, is absolute and can only have a singular meaning. *Nihil* isn't used for any other purpose. However, it is equivalent to *nulla res*, which can be used in those slightly awkward cases where an inflection is necessary because of its position in a sentence — Smith &amp; Hall's 'Copious &amp; Critical Dictionary' gives examples of this, e.g. Nepot. XXI. 2 (end), *nullius rei [NOT nihili] _cupidus, nisi imperii*, and Cic. Brut. 216, *nulla re una magis oratorem commendari quam verborum splendore et copia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nihilum**, also substantive, conveys a sense of quality, 'nothing**ness**', or 'non-existence'. Like *nihil* it is necessarily singular, but it can take an inflection acording to use. This explains its use in, for example, conveying the idea of 'worthlessness', as in *nihili facere*, where it is a genitive of value (*sc.* 'of nothing at all'). In the ablative it occurs as *ex nihilo*, 'from/out of nothing' ; in familiar adverbial usages such as *nihilominus, nihilo magis* ; and to indicate value, as in *non nihilo aestimare* ('not worth nothing', 'at any rate,worth something' etc.).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2655" RevisionGUID="08f13e15-0c84-47a7-9db9-75ba48b46fa4" CreationDate="2017-02-15T13:24:05.107" UserId="12" Text="On the first page of *Lingua Latina per se Illustrata*, students review a map of the Roman Empire, which is marked with the names of three continents and several smaller regions.  The borders of the continents, however, are not shown, leading to some ambiguity regarding the actual extent of each one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays the borders between Asia and Europe/Africa are well defined.  As we might expect, Orberg in his text indicates that Greece is in Europe, Syria and Arabia in Asia, and Egypt in Africa.  But is that actually how authors of Classical Latin understood the geography of Asia?  More specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is Orberg correct that Arabia and Syria were considered part of Asia?&#xD;&#xA; - Did Asia also include modern-day Turkey?&#xD;&#xA; - Were any parts of Greece considered to be in Asia, like Crete, Rhodes, or Lesbos?&#xD;&#xA; - Was any part of modern-day Egypt part of Asia?&#xD;&#xA; - Was there disagreement on these points?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware from [L&amp;S](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.0:3917.lewisandshort) that the word *Asia* can have different senses; here I'm interested in how its broad sense, as a continent, was understood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9549" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2655" RevisionGUID="08f13e15-0c84-47a7-9db9-75ba48b46fa4" CreationDate="2017-02-15T13:24:05.107" UserId="12" Text="In Classical Latin, what was the geographic extent of &quot;Asia&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9550" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2655" RevisionGUID="08f13e15-0c84-47a7-9db9-75ba48b46fa4" CreationDate="2017-02-15T13:24:05.107" UserId="12" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2656" RevisionGUID="19e8d6cc-2623-4899-939d-f723f731e08b" CreationDate="2017-02-15T13:45:18.720" UserId="78" Text="The full range of meanings of Asia is already found in Herodotus. In fact, Herodotus notes that there are three continents: Europe, Asia, and Libya (=Africa), though he didn't particularly like the model himself. Asia, then was everything to the east of the Nile and Hellespont, and so included Persia, India, and the Asian steppes (see e.g. Herodotus 4.44, where he explicitly locates the Persian Empire and India in &quot;the greater part of Asia.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It likely [originally meant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia#Etymology) *Anatolia*, though the etymology is contended. It did however continue to primarily mean that. In 129, Pergamum was renamed *Asia* when it became a Roman province.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get to your specific points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Yes, Arabia and Syria would have been considered part of Asia.&#xD;&#xA;2. Yes, it included all of Turkey (except Istanbul).&#xD;&#xA;3. The Greeks who lived on the Anatolian mainland and nearby islands could be called Asiatic Greeks.&#xD;&#xA;4. Cyprus, maybe?&#xD;&#xA;5. Not really with regards to Europe v. Asia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2656" RevisionGUID="50476fd9-3f52-45fa-8e41-49c75ca7b434" CreationDate="2017-02-15T14:30:04.220" UserId="324" Comment="edited body" Text="The full range of meanings of Asia is already found in Herodotus. In fact, Herodotus notes that there are three continents: Europe, Asia, and Libya (=Africa), though he didn't particularly like the model himself. Asia, then was everything to the east of the Nile and Hellespont, and so included Persia, India, and the Asian steppes (see e.g. Herodotus 4.44, where he explicitly locates the Persian Empire and India in &quot;the greater part of Asia.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It likely [originally meant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia#Etymology) *Anatolia*, though the etymology is contested. It did however continue to primarily mean that. In 129, Pergamum was renamed *Asia* when it became a Roman province.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get to your specific points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Yes, Arabia and Syria would have been considered part of Asia.&#xD;&#xA;2. Yes, it included all of Turkey (except Istanbul).&#xD;&#xA;3. The Greeks who lived on the Anatolian mainland and nearby islands could be called Asiatic Greeks.&#xD;&#xA;4. Cyprus, maybe?&#xD;&#xA;5. Not really with regards to Europe v. Asia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2657" RevisionGUID="7b03d975-bc8f-4d50-9c97-3641a44ab6c0" CreationDate="2017-02-15T15:09:41.050" UserId="45" Text="For those unfamiliar with this terminology, this question refers to medieval mnemonic names for syllogisms, mostly drawn from Aristotelian logic. All valid syllogisms, along with their names, are available [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The names &quot;Barbara,&quot; &quot;Celarent,&quot; and &quot;Darii&quot; (as well as the fourth first figure mood which you seem to have left out: &quot;Ferio&quot;) are obviously indeclinable, since their vowels refer to the four types of propositions: A, E, I, and O (universal/particular affirmation/negation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to translate your phrase as-is, the best option is to add the terms after *modi*. I found one precedent for this construction in a [logic manual](https://books.google.com/books?id=mrJfAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA306):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non minus contorta vulgo est argumentandi ratio, si syllogismi tertiae figurae, qui sunt **in modis Disamis atque Bocardo** ad primam figuram reducuntur. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore think your translation is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Modi Barbara, Celarent, et Darii**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a little awkward. If you can reword, it might be easier to understand if you separated them out a little:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hi sunt modi primae figurae: Barbara, Celarent, Darii, et Ferio. Modus Barbara est...etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2657" RevisionGUID="0af8032b-d3a7-4197-a869-40b86cf48629" CreationDate="2017-02-15T15:14:56.710" UserId="45" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="For those unfamiliar with this terminology, this question refers to medieval mnemonic names for syllogisms, mostly drawn from Aristotelian logic. All valid syllogisms, along with their names, are available [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The names &quot;Barbara,&quot; &quot;Celarent,&quot; and &quot;Darii&quot; (as well as the fourth first figure mood which you seem to have left out: &quot;Ferio&quot;) are obviously indeclinable, since their vowels refer to the four types of propositions: A, E, I, and O (universal/particular affirmation/negation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to translate your phrase as-is, you are correct to add the terms in apposition after *modi*. I found one precedent for this construction in a [logic manual](https://books.google.com/books?id=mrJfAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA306):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non minus contorta vulgo est argumentandi ratio, si syllogismi tertiae figurae, qui sunt **in modis Disamis atque Bocardo** ad primam figuram reducuntur. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore think your translation is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Modi Barbara, Celarent, et Darii**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a little awkward. If you can reword, it might be easier to understand if you separated them out a little:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hi sunt modi primae figurae: Barbara, Celarent, Darii, et Ferio. Modus Barbara est...etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2658" RevisionGUID="076cf299-901e-45ce-b918-5019b4eb77a1" CreationDate="2017-02-15T19:30:56.727" UserId="39" Text="A picture is worth a thousand words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, we can look it up in [Brill's Historical Atlas of the Ancient World][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at [The world through the eyes of ancient authors][2]. Unfortunately, the maps are copyrighted, so I can't upload them here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I might add some text later though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/brill-s-new-pauly-supplements-i-3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly-supplements-i-3/the-world-through-the-eyes-of-ancient-authors-BNPA004" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2659" RevisionGUID="0222847b-4049-4615-ad29-d600510e0024" CreationDate="2017-02-15T20:47:59.617" UserId="79" Text="To write non-integer numbers in the decimal system (without fractions), one needs a decimal mark.&#xD;&#xA;In English one uses the decimal point, but in many other languages one uses a comma instead.&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has a [whole article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_mark) about different decimal marks and where each type is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When writing large numbers, it is useful to group digits, typically in groups of three.&#xD;&#xA;Conventions vary again:&#xD;&#xA;Some would write a million as 1,000,000, some as 1.000.000, others as 1&amp;nbsp;000&amp;nbsp;000, and also 1'000'000 is in use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The decimal and grouping marks typically depend on language.&#xD;&#xA;**What are these marks for contemporary Latin?**&#xD;&#xA;Is there any uniform practice or guideline, or is it inconsistent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9559" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2659" RevisionGUID="0222847b-4049-4615-ad29-d600510e0024" CreationDate="2017-02-15T20:47:59.617" UserId="79" Text="What are the decimal and grouping marks in modern Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9560" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2659" RevisionGUID="0222847b-4049-4615-ad29-d600510e0024" CreationDate="2017-02-15T20:47:59.617" UserId="79" Text="|contemporary-latin|orthography|numbers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2656" RevisionGUID="661cd512-3888-4b0c-b97d-46e116ca6561" CreationDate="2017-02-15T20:55:52.933" UserId="78" Comment="added 185 characters in body" Text="The full range of meanings of Asia is already found in Herodotus. In fact, Herodotus notes that there are three continents: Europe, Asia, and Libya (=Africa), though he didn't particularly like the model himself. Asia, then was everything to the east of the Nile and Hellespont, and so included Persia, India, and the Asian steppes (see e.g. Herodotus 4.44, where he explicitly locates the Persian Empire and India in &quot;the greater part of Asia.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It likely [originally meant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia#Etymology) *Anatolia*, though the etymology is contested. It did however continue to primarily mean that. In 129, Pergamum was renamed *Asia* when it became a Roman province.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get to your specific points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Yes, Arabia and Syria would have been considered part of Asia.&#xD;&#xA;2. Yes, it included all of Turkey (except Istanbul).&#xD;&#xA;3. The Greeks who lived on the Anatolian mainland and nearby islands could be called Asiatic Greeks.&#xD;&#xA;4. Some claimed the east of the Nile to be Asian (see [Herodotus 4.45](http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh4040.htm)).&#xD;&#xA;5. Yes, and see the link above for Herodotus' viewpoint. Others abound, though most of Herodotus' predecessors are lost to time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2660" RevisionGUID="5016ef34-d299-400a-aff1-7b1b7b6202d8" CreationDate="2017-02-16T11:36:54.600" UserId="1263" Text="I'd like to ask experts in Greek to verify a translation from this mosaic from Jerash&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Mosaic fragment][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is a cropped and rotated version of [an original image from here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lord the God *the* Holy *of* Kosmas and *of* Damianos. Have mercy on the way *(path)* of Dagisteon *(Dagisteos)* and receive this offering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vcoZf.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jarash_-_4140195717.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9564" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2660" RevisionGUID="5016ef34-d299-400a-aff1-7b1b7b6202d8" CreationDate="2017-02-16T11:36:54.600" UserId="1263" Text="Is this translation from Ancient Greek correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9565" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2660" RevisionGUID="5016ef34-d299-400a-aff1-7b1b7b6202d8" CreationDate="2017-02-16T11:36:54.600" UserId="1263" Text="|translation|greek|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2656" RevisionGUID="dc384c42-449e-4871-b872-c54ad0e3785c" CreationDate="2017-02-16T12:36:54.023" UserId="1091" Comment="East Thrace is the proper name for European Turkey" Text="The full range of meanings of Asia is already found in Herodotus. In fact, Herodotus notes that there are three continents: Europe, Asia, and Libya (=Africa), though he didn't particularly like the model himself. Asia, then was everything to the east of the Nile and Hellespont, and so included Persia, India, and the Asian steppes (see e.g. Herodotus 4.44, where he explicitly locates the Persian Empire and India in &quot;the greater part of Asia.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It likely [originally meant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia#Etymology) *Anatolia*, though the etymology is contested. It did however continue to primarily mean that. In 129, Pergamum was renamed *Asia* when it became a Roman province.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get to your specific points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Yes, Arabia and Syria would have been considered part of Asia.&#xD;&#xA;2. Yes, it included all of Turkey (except East Thrace, the European part of Turkey including Istanbul).&#xD;&#xA;3. The Greeks who lived on the Anatolian mainland and nearby islands could be called Asiatic Greeks.&#xD;&#xA;4. Some claimed the east of the Nile to be Asian (see [Herodotus 4.45](http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh4040.htm)).&#xD;&#xA;5. Yes, and see the link above for Herodotus' viewpoint. Others abound, though most of Herodotus' predecessors are lost to time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9567" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2656" RevisionGUID="dc384c42-449e-4871-b872-c54ad0e3785c" CreationDate="2017-02-16T12:36:54.023" Comment="Proposed by 1091 approved by 136, 79 edit id of 170" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2631" RevisionGUID="965320cf-e31a-4404-9325-11b46e342b85" CreationDate="2017-02-16T12:51:49.970" UserId="1148" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I was reading Orberg's *Lingua Latina per se Illustrata* and I found the following sentences: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *Marcus et Quīntus sunt dūo filiī. [...] In familia Rõmāna tres līberī sunt.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I deduce both words mean &quot;children&quot;, but where would I use one or another? (I looked up at some dictionaries but didn't explained the difference).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** This question has led to some kind of debate whether liberī is only applied to children that are born-free. [See it][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2639/does-liberi-only-refer-to-free-children" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2661" RevisionGUID="bd458955-c95f-4d57-b72e-7e8b49f17a29" CreationDate="2017-02-16T14:43:01.303" UserId="78" Text="It wouldn't be very idiomatic. In fact, *sume fidem* and *tolle fidem* could both mean &quot;abolish trust.&quot; I wouldn't go that route.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A major mistake new learners of Latin (and any foreign language) make is to go for a one-to-one translation. Languages however have their own traditions and idiomatic expressions. For these expressions, I'd offer the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Te laude aliosque culpa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Praise yourself and blame others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only is it more idiomatic, but in Latin *laus* and *culpa* are often seen as antonyms. Horace, for example, writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Laudatur ab his, culpatur ab illis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He is praised by some, condemned by others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be a more ancient aphorism, you'd probably even see it filled out a bit, though that wouldn't be necessary for a modern motto. Regardless, it could look something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vincens te laude; victus alios culpa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In conquering praise yourself; but, when conquered, blame others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just can't see Caesar saying that, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2662" RevisionGUID="f616b3d3-8450-4935-ac80-a2c282208eac" CreationDate="2017-02-16T14:43:51.860" UserId="45" Text="Your translation is close!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A letter for letter transcription of the image would be the following (except there is a line over &quot;ΘΣ&quot; in the second line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;          ΚΥΡΙΕ&#xD;&#xA;        ΟΘΣΤΟΥΑΓΙȢ&#xD;&#xA;      ΚΟΣΜΑϏΔΑΜΙΑΝΟὙ&#xD;&#xA;    ΕΛΕΗΣΟΝΤΟΝTRIΒΟΥΝΟΝ&#xD;&#xA;      ΔΑΓΙΣΘΕΟΝΚΑΙΠΡΟΣ&#xD;&#xA;        ΔΕΧΕΤΗΝΑΥΤΟΥ&#xD;&#xA;          ΠΡΟΣΦΟ&#xD;&#xA;           ΡΑΝ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Κύριε, ὁ θεὸς τοῦ ἁγίου Κοσμὰ καὶ Δαμιανοῦ, ἐλέησον τὸν τριβούνον Δαγισθεὸν καὶ προσδέχε (?) τὴν αὐτοῦ προσφοράν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I am pretty horrible with accents, so some of the above may be off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation becomes straightforward now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O Lord, God of saint[s] Cosmas and Damian, have mercy on the tribune Dagistheos and receive his offering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The one word that does not make sense in the above transcription is &quot;προσδέχε&quot;. I think it should be &quot;προσδέχου,&quot; since it is deponent, but I can't think of a way to justify that. It's possible that the letter I transcribed as &quot;Χ&quot; is some kind of ligature/abbreviation.&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;ΘΣ&quot; (with a line) is an abbreviation for &quot;θεὸς&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Ȣ&quot; is a ligature for &quot;ου&quot;&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;Ϗ&quot; alone is an abbreviation for &quot;καὶ&quot; (not abbreviated consistently, for spacing reasons)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2663" RevisionGUID="ff0165f1-f747-4739-8eeb-766d136b548f" CreationDate="2017-02-16T14:47:37.733" UserId="522" Text="&gt; ┼   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; KYPIE  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; OΘΣTOYAΓΙΟΥ  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ΚΟCΜΑ·Κ·ΔΑΜΙΑΝΟΥ  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ΕΛΕΗΣΟΝΤΡΙΒΟΥΝΟΝ  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ΔΑΓΙΣΘΕΟΝΚΑΙΠΡΟΣ  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ΔΕΞΕΤΗΝΑΥΤΟΥ  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ΠΡΟΣΦΟ  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ΡΑΝ  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ξ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The symbol at the end of line two is a (genitive) OY digraph.  The 'K' as you show is KAI.  TPIBOYNON is probably the loan word Tribunus from Latin; the long 'u' has been transliterated as 'ou'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ┼  KYPIE O ΘEOΣ TOY AΓΙΟΥ ΚΟCΜΑ·ΚAI·ΔΑΜΙΑΝΟΥ  ΕΛΕΗΣΟΝ ΤΡΙΒΟΥΝΟΝ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ΔΑΓΙΣΘΕΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΠΡΟΣΔΕΞΕΤΗΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΠΡΟΣΦΟΡΑΝ Ξ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O Lord, the God of Saint Cosmas and Damian, have mercy on Tribune Dagistheon, and accept his offering. Ξ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2662" RevisionGUID="07f1ffc0-40d9-45fc-ab1c-2f38230a02cb" CreationDate="2017-02-16T15:00:57.447" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="Your translation is close!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A letter for letter transcription of the image would be the following (except there is a line over &quot;ΘΣ&quot; in the second line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;          ΚΥΡΙΕ&#xD;&#xA;        ΟΘΣΤΟΥΑΓΙȢ&#xD;&#xA;      ΚΟΣΜΑϏΔΑΜΙΑΝΟὙ&#xD;&#xA;    ΕΛΕΗΣΟΝΤΟΝTRIΒΟΥΝΟΝ&#xD;&#xA;      ΔΑΓΙΣΘΕΟΝΚΑΙΠΡΟΣ&#xD;&#xA;        ΔΕΞΕΤΗΝΑΥΤΟΥ&#xD;&#xA;          ΠΡΟΣΦΟ&#xD;&#xA;           ΡΑΝ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Κύριε, ὁ θεὸς τοῦ ἁγίου Κοσμὰ καὶ Δαμιανοῦ, ἐλέησον τὸν τριβούνον Δαγισθεὸν καὶ προσδέξε (?) τὴν αὐτοῦ προσφοράν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I am pretty horrible with accents, so some of the above may be off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation becomes straightforward now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O Lord, God of saint[s] Cosmas and Damian, have mercy on the tribune Dagistheos and receive his offering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The one word that does not make sense in the above transcription is &quot;προσδέξε&quot;. I think it should be &quot;προσδέξαι,&quot; since it is deponent, but I can't think of a way to justify that. I originally transcribed as chi, but I think @Hugh is correct that it is xi.&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;ΘΣ&quot; (with a line) is an abbreviation for &quot;θεὸς&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Ȣ&quot; is a ligature for &quot;ου&quot;&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;Ϗ&quot; alone is an abbreviation for &quot;καὶ&quot; (not abbreviated consistently, for spacing reasons)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2662" RevisionGUID="01f0e796-2295-42b0-ac17-fa10d8a64561" CreationDate="2017-02-16T15:06:15.777" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="Your translation is close!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A letter for letter transcription of the image would be the following (except there is a line over &quot;ΘΣ&quot; in the second line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;          ΚΥΡΙΕ&#xD;&#xA;        ΟΘΣΤΟΥΑΓΙȢ&#xD;&#xA;      ΚΟΣΜΑϏΔΑΜΙΑΝΟὙ&#xD;&#xA;    ΕΛΕΗΣΟΝΤΟΝTRIΒΟΥΝΟΝ&#xD;&#xA;      ΔΑΓΙΣΘΕΟΝΚΑΙΠΡΟΣ&#xD;&#xA;        ΔΕΞΕΤΗΝΑΥΤΟΥ&#xD;&#xA;          ΠΡΟΣΦΟ&#xD;&#xA;           ΡΑΝ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Κύριε, ὁ θεὸς τοῦ ἁγίου Κοσμὰ καὶ Δαμιανοῦ, ἐλέησον τὸν τριβούνον Δαγισθεὸν καὶ προσδέξε (?) τὴν αὐτοῦ προσφοράν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I am pretty horrible with accents, so some of the above may be off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation becomes straightforward now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O Lord, God of saint[s] Cosmas and Damian, have mercy on the tribune Dagistheos and receive his offering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The one word that does not make sense in the above transcription is &quot;προσδέξε&quot;. I think it should be &quot;προσδέξαι,&quot; since it is deponent, but I can't think of a way to justify that. I originally transcribed as chi, but I think @Hugh is correct that it is xi.&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;ΘΣ&quot; (with a line) is an abbreviation for &quot;θεὸς&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Ȣ&quot; is a ligature for &quot;ου&quot;&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;Ϗ&quot; alone is an abbreviation for &quot;καὶ&quot; (not abbreviated consistently, for spacing reasons)&#xD;&#xA;5. The author uses a so-called &quot;lunate sigma&quot; (like our &quot;C&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2664" RevisionGUID="66e73db8-f7d4-455d-ba03-4c602afb18ab" CreationDate="2017-02-16T15:16:13.670" UserId="45" Text="Here's another suggestion that reworks your sentence a bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Serva lauream; divide culpam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This literally means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Keep the [victor's] garland; divide the blame." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1379" RevisionGUID="c3ce819a-5745-4034-a018-a32be1448b0c" CreationDate="2017-02-16T15:44:15.630" UserId="576" Comment="added Peano's Latino sine flexione" Text="#19&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; Century Scientific Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example:&#xD;&#xA;##Gauss&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From G. Waldo Dunnington's 2004 biography of Gauss, [*Carl Friedrich Gauss: Titan of Science*][1], p. 37-8:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;… Of unusual interest is the part which Meyerhoff⁶ took in this book [*sc.* Gauss's most important mathematical work: the *Disquisitiones arithmeticæ*]—the correction of the Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;⁶Johann Heinrich Jakob Meyerhoff (1770-1812) became in 1794 collaborator, and in 1802 director, of the gymnasium in Holzminden. He was thoroughly grounded and trained in the ancient and modern languages. As a Göttingen student he had won a golden prize medal for a Latin dissertationon the Phoenicians. Yet mathematics was rather foreign to him.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The above is striking enough, if one considers how little Gauss needed to mistrust his own proficiency in this respect. According to Moritz Cantor, Gauss wrote a classical Latin, giving rise to the expression that Cicero, if he could understand the mathematics of it, would have censured nothing in the Gaussian Latinity, except perhaps several customary incorrect modes of expression which Gauss used purposely. But it was Latin just the same and therefore attractive and stimulating to only a narrow circle of readers. Referring to Meyerhoff's work, Gauss wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Of course I understand that it cannot be an especially attractive work for Mr. Meyerhoff, since he does not seem to be sufficiently acquainted with mathematics, in order to look on it just as reading. Thus the word *algorithmus* was unknown to him. Only on a single point must I take the liberty of disagreeing with him. I well know that *si* with the subjunctive is not good Latin; but modern mathematicians seem to have made for themselves the rule of constantly using the subjunctive in hypotheses and definitions; I do not remember an example of the opposite, and in [Huyghens][2], who according to my notion writes the most elegant Latin and whom I purposely, therefore, have imitated, I find the subjunctive continually in these cases. I open at random and find *Opera*, p. 156, *Quodsi fuerit*; p. 157, *Si sit, si fiat, si agitetur*; p. 158, *si suspendatur*; pp. 188 *seqq.* are examples by the dozen. Therefore, since in this instance the desire to be a genuine Roman would be only purism (which as far as I am concerned would be less allowable, because I am well minded not to be so in any case) and the thing is not at all absurd in itself, I went with the current. I hope Mr. M. will not take offense at me. What was incomprehensible to him in the *accedere possunt*, p. 5, I have not been able able to guess; I have therefore let it stand. The passage p. 7, which previously ran thus: *Si numeri decadice expressi figuræ singulæ sine respectu loci quem occupant addantur*, Mr. M. misunderstood, because he probably didn't know that *figuræ* means numbers; he took *numeri* for the nominative plural and *figuræ* for the dative singular and on that account suggested to me that *singulus* is not wrong; but just for this reason a mathematician will probably not construe it incorrectly, chiefly because it doesn't make sense; nevertheless I have now arranged the words somewhat differently by this time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, Gauss seems to have worked with a *mathematical Latin* based on classical Latin. Gauss also wasn't afraid to innovate the Latin. It seemed to be a truly living language to him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gauss's *Dictionary of Scientific Biography* entry][3] says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He published in Latin not from internationalist sentiments but at the demands of his publishers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#20 &lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; Century Scientific Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Peano&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Interlingua][4], or [*Latino sine flexione*][5], is a 20&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; century variant of Latin invented by the Italian mathematician and logician [Giuseppe Peano][6]. He intended it to be a language to foster international scientific communication. It is Latin but without inflection (or without &quot;grammar,&quot; as Peano called it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Peano’s mathematical logic and his ideography for mathematics were his response to Leibniz’ dream of a “universal characteristic,” whereas Interlingua was to be the modern substitute for medieval Latin, that is, an international language for scholars, especially scientists. Peano’s proposal for an “interlingua” was _latino sine flexione_ (“Latin without grammar”), which he published in 1903. He believed that there already existed an international scientific vocabulary, principally of Latin origin; and he tried to select the form of each word which would be most readily recognized by those whose native language was either English or a Romance language. He thought that the best grammar was no grammar, and he demonstrated how easily grammatical structure may be eliminated . His research led him to two areas: one was the algebra of grammar, and the other was philology. The latter preoccupation resulted most notably in [_Vocabulario commune ad latino-italiano-français-english-deutsch_][7] (1915), a greatly expanded version of an earlier publication (1909). This second edition contains some 14,000 entries and gives for each the form to be adopted in Interlingua, the classic Latin form, and its version in Italian, French, English, and German (and sometimes in other languages), with indications of synonyms, derivatives, and other items of information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;([source](https://isidore.co/misc/Physics%20papers%20and%20books/Biography/Peano__Giuseppe.PDF))&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic rules of *Latino sine fliexione* are, *inter alia* ([*ibid.*][7]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. Omni vocabulo de Interlingua es latino.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. Interlingua non habe grammatica.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3. Inter synonymos latino, nos elige vocabulos internationale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/53933110&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Christiaan_Huygens.aspx#1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Carl_Friedrich_Gauss.aspx#1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlingua&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35803&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Peano.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://wikisource.org/wiki/Vocabulario_commune_ad_latino-italiano-fran%C3%A7ais-English-deutsch_pro_usu_de_interlinguistas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2661" RevisionGUID="da2904c6-5333-4c73-bb3d-f8f2dce4ea02" CreationDate="2017-02-16T17:21:10.577" UserId="78" Comment="edited body" Text="It wouldn't be very idiomatic. In fact, *sume fidem* and *tolle fidem* could both mean &quot;abolish trust.&quot; I wouldn't go that route.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A major mistake new learners of Latin (and any foreign language) make is to go for a one-to-one translation. Languages however have their own traditions and idiomatic expressions. For these expressions, I'd offer the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Te lauda aliosque culpa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Praise yourself and blame others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only is it more idiomatic, but in Latin *laus* and *culpa* are often seen as antonyms. Horace, for example, writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Laudatur ab his, culpatur ab illis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He is praised by some, condemned by others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be a more ancient aphorism, you'd probably even see it filled out a bit, though that wouldn't be necessary for a modern motto. Regardless, it could look something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vincens te laude; victus alios culpa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In conquering praise yourself; but, when conquered, blame others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just can't see Caesar saying that, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2661" RevisionGUID="b1593ad0-1224-47b1-b969-9a166ebca406" CreationDate="2017-02-16T18:29:11.440" UserId="45" Comment="edited body" Text="It wouldn't be very idiomatic. In fact, *sume fidem* and *tolle fidem* could both mean &quot;abolish trust.&quot; I wouldn't go that route.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A major mistake new learners of Latin (and any foreign language) make is to go for a one-to-one translation. Languages however have their own traditions and idiomatic expressions. For these expressions, I'd offer the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Te lauda aliosque culpa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Praise yourself and blame others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only is it more idiomatic, but in Latin *laus* and *culpa* are often seen as antonyms. Horace, for example, writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Laudatur ab his, culpatur ab illis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He is praised by some, condemned by others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be a more ancient aphorism, you'd probably even see it filled out a bit, though that wouldn't be necessary for a modern motto. Regardless, it could look something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vincens te lauda; victus alios culpa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In conquering praise yourself; but, when conquered, blame others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just can't see Caesar saying that, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2666" RevisionGUID="b27ce224-5b82-4c22-b31c-c3063027325f" CreationDate="2017-02-16T20:42:45.380" UserId="645" Text="A suggestion modelled from Cic.Philipp. II. 11,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Laudes accipe sed onera alios*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2667" RevisionGUID="0dbfb3b2-4428-4dac-b112-dccbad002470" CreationDate="2017-02-16T21:12:59.163" UserId="522" Text="I have two transcription problems in a glossed Genesis from southern France. The topic is the double Creation of Man narrative. The first problem is caused by the similarity of u m n v in the script.[![[quunum]][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;What is the meaning of [quunum] ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ALCUINus . Quattuor modis operatur deus./ **Primo** in uerbo **.ii.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inmateria informi .Vn. [quunum] e/ternum creavit omnia simul **.tertio.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; per opera .vi. diebus varias distinx creaturas **.quarto.** ex&#xD;&#xA;&gt; primordialibus / seminibus, non incognitae oriuntur naturae&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [fz?sz?n/v?ot/r?e] saepius / ne pereant reformantur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;God operates in four modes. **First,** in the Word. **.ii.** in unformed material .The One. [quunum] eternal/eternity has created all things simultaneously **.thirdly.** through works in .six. days he distinguished various creatures. **.Fourthly.** from primordial seeds, there arose natures not unknown [fz?sz?n/v?ot/r?e] quite often are formed again so that they do not perish.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6i4wS.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QCEjg.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9585" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2667" RevisionGUID="0dbfb3b2-4428-4dac-b112-dccbad002470" CreationDate="2017-02-16T21:12:59.163" UserId="522" Text="M N U V confusion in textura" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9586" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2667" RevisionGUID="0dbfb3b2-4428-4dac-b112-dccbad002470" CreationDate="2017-02-16T21:12:59.163" UserId="522" Text="|textura|mnuv|transliteration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2668" RevisionGUID="153c50b5-907d-4a82-b818-d03bc9751988" CreationDate="2017-02-16T21:31:59.320" UserId="522" Text="Two problems in a glosserd Genesis from southern France. The topic is the double narrative of the Creation of Man.&#xD;&#xA;This problem is [another][1] siglum / abbreviation using **‘z’**. In this case it is not  shorthand for ‘-que.’ But what is this cluster of letters near the end of the fifth line and what does it mean, please.  **[fz?sz?n/v?ot/r?e]**  &#xD;&#xA;[![ [fz?sz?n/v?ot/r?e]][2]][2]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ALCUINus . Quattuor modis operatur deus./ Primo in uerbo .ii.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inmateria informi .Vn. . [quunum] e/ternum creavit omnia simul&#xD;&#xA;&gt; .tertio. per opera .vi. diebus varias distinx creaturas .quarto. ex&#xD;&#xA;&gt; primordialibus / seminibus, non incognitae oriuntur naturae&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **[fz?sz?n/v?ot/r?e]** saepius / ne pereant reformantur.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![ALCUIN gloss Genesis][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*My translation so far:*  God operates in four modes. First, in the Word. .ii. in unformed material .The One. [quunum] eternal/eternity created all things simultaneously .thirdly. through works in .six. days he distinguished various creatures. .Fourthly. from primordial seeds, there arose natures not unknown **[fz?sz?n/v?ot/r?e]** quite often are formed again so that they do not perish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2617/latin-ligature-qz&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XJnce.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nadfU.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9588" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2668" RevisionGUID="153c50b5-907d-4a82-b818-d03bc9751988" CreationDate="2017-02-16T21:31:59.320" UserId="522" Text="Another ‘z’ siglum/abbreviation (not= ‘-que’)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9589" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2668" RevisionGUID="153c50b5-907d-4a82-b818-d03bc9751988" CreationDate="2017-02-16T21:31:59.320" UserId="522" Text="|abbreviations|textura|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9590" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2668" RevisionGUID="a1651665-4bc3-4897-b28e-ab82d950b7c2" CreationDate="2017-02-16T21:34:07.860" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|abbreviations|typography|textura|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2669" RevisionGUID="ae9276fb-9f6e-47ce-a08f-31d5de7f47fd" CreationDate="2017-02-16T21:58:43.180" UserId="78" Text="It's *sed*. Search for *sed* [here](http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/docs/dox/latabbrs.html). Other books I've seen say the same thing (such as [this PDF](https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/1821/47cappelli.pdf?sequence=3))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2670" RevisionGUID="197ce449-1e3a-4e2c-8f66-47fd7533d861" CreationDate="2017-02-16T21:58:57.520" UserId="30" Text="Here is my transcription. I've edited a couple of words. The semicolon / z-like mark can be used for *et/ed* as well, as here. Abbreviations in square brackets. There is one word I'm not sure about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) Alcuinis . Quattuor modis op[er]atur deus.  &#xD;&#xA;2) Primo in u[er]bo .ii. in mat[er]ia informi .V[?erti?]. qui viv[it] in e-  &#xD;&#xA;3) ternum creavit om[n]ia simul .tercio. p[e]r op[e]ra .vi. dier[um] va-  &#xD;&#xA;4) rias distinx[it] creaturas .quarto. ex primordialibus  &#xD;&#xA;5) seminib[us], non incognite oriuntur naturae s[ed] note sepius  &#xD;&#xA;6) ne p[er]eant reformant[ur]. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2670" RevisionGUID="07284c93-b667-47f2-9b60-fbafd00c301c" CreationDate="2017-02-16T22:05:24.997" UserId="30" Comment="edited body" Text="Here is my transcription. I've edited a couple of words. The semicolon / z-like mark can be used for *et/ed* as well, as here. Abbreviations in square brackets. There is one word I'm not sure about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) Alcuinis . Quattuor modis op[er]atur deus.  &#xD;&#xA;2) Primo in u[er]bo .ii. in mat[er]ia informi .V[?erti?]. qui viv[it] in e-  &#xD;&#xA;3) ternum creavit om[n]ia simul .tercio. p[er] op[er]a .vi. dier[um] va-  &#xD;&#xA;4) rias distinx[it] creaturas .quarto. ex primordialibus  &#xD;&#xA;5) seminib[us], non incognite oriuntur naturae s[ed] note sepius  &#xD;&#xA;6) ne p[er]eant reformant[ur]. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2670" RevisionGUID="7d464c82-8e3e-449c-90f4-2de4a8675110" CreationDate="2017-02-16T22:11:41.260" UserId="30" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Here is my transcription. I've edited a couple of words. The semicolon / z-like mark can be used for *et/ed* as well, as here. Abbreviations in square brackets. There is one word I'm not sure about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) Alcuinis . Quattuor modis op[er]atur deus.  &#xD;&#xA;2) Primo in u[er]bo .ii. in mat[er]ia informi .V[?erti/nus?]. qui viv[it] in e-  &#xD;&#xA;3) ternum creavit om[n]ia simul .tercio. p[er] op[er]a .vi. dier[um] va-  &#xD;&#xA;4) rias distinx[it] creaturas .quarto. ex primordialibus  &#xD;&#xA;5) seminib[us], non incognite oriuntur naturae s[ed] note sepius  &#xD;&#xA;6) ne p[er]eant reformant[ur]. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2670" RevisionGUID="9e72f58f-2d22-4a12-8292-8f2c31d72247" CreationDate="2017-02-16T22:17:37.653" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 45 characters in body" Text="[**Update**: determined the last uncertain word.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my transcription. I've edited a couple of words. The semicolon / z-like mark can be used for *et/ed* as well, as here. Abbreviations in square brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) Alcuinis . Quattuor modis op[er]atur deus.  &#xD;&#xA;2) Primo in u[er]bo .ii. in mat[er]ia informi .Un[de]. qui viv[it] in e-  &#xD;&#xA;3) ternum creavit om[n]ia simul .tercio. p[er] op[er]a .vi. dier[um] va-  &#xD;&#xA;4) rias distinx[it] creaturas .quarto. ex primordialibus  &#xD;&#xA;5) seminib[us], non incognite oriuntur naturae s[ed] note sepius  &#xD;&#xA;6) ne p[er]eant reformant[ur]. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="42c99fe1-d56e-40f5-9752-8076ff93116a" CreationDate="2017-02-16T22:23:47.393" UserId="79" Text="What would be a good Latin word for &quot;menu&quot; in the sense of a list of foods and drinks in a restaurant?&#xD;&#xA;My dictionary suggests *index ciborum*, and another option would be to replace *index* with *tabula*.&#xD;&#xA;Is there some widespread translation that would be a good choice?&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if my dictionary offers and *ad hoc* translation or something that is actually in use.&#xD;&#xA;Bonus points a classical or other early expression for a menu." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9597" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="42c99fe1-d56e-40f5-9752-8076ff93116a" CreationDate="2017-02-16T22:23:47.393" UserId="79" Text="What is &quot;menu&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9598" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="42c99fe1-d56e-40f5-9752-8076ff93116a" CreationDate="2017-02-16T22:23:47.393" UserId="79" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|vocabulary|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2672" RevisionGUID="b76eeeef-2ec0-4c60-b741-ec44d4ed5a9c" CreationDate="2017-02-16T22:24:05.640" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9600" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2672" RevisionGUID="b76eeeef-2ec0-4c60-b741-ec44d4ed5a9c" CreationDate="2017-02-16T22:24:05.640" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2673" RevisionGUID="d3b5fd40-e810-4140-99b3-1efe167cd4db" CreationDate="2017-02-16T22:24:05.640" UserId="79" Text="For questions about food." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9602" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2673" RevisionGUID="d3b5fd40-e810-4140-99b3-1efe167cd4db" CreationDate="2017-02-16T22:24:05.640" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2662" RevisionGUID="d8f52d58-8c9a-4737-9b4a-3cd3ba2259e8" CreationDate="2017-02-16T22:24:39.827" UserId="1148" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Your translation is close!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A letter for letter transcription of the image would be the following (except there is a line over &quot;ΘΣ&quot; in the second line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;          ΚΥΡΙΕ&#xD;&#xA;        ΟΘΣΤΟΥΑΓΙȢ&#xD;&#xA;      ΚΟΣΜΑϏΔΑΜΙΑΝΟὙ&#xD;&#xA;    ΕΛΕΗΣΟΝΤΟΝTRIΒΟΥΝΟΝ&#xD;&#xA;      ΔΑΓΙΣΘΕΟΝΚΑΙΠΡΟΣ&#xD;&#xA;        ΔΕΞΕΤΗΝΑΥΤΟΥ&#xD;&#xA;          ΠΡΟΣΦΟ&#xD;&#xA;           ΡΑΝ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Κύριε ὁ θ(εὸ)ς τοῦ ἁγίου Κοσμᾶ κ(αὶ) Δαμιανοῦ, ἐλέησον τὸν τριβοῦνον Δαγισθε͂ον καὶ πρόσδεξε τὴν αὐτοῦ προσφοράν. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I am pretty horrible with accents, so some of the above may be off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation becomes straightforward now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O Lord, God of saint[s] Cosmas and Damian, have mercy on the tribune Dagistheos and receive his offering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The one word that does not make sense in the above transcription is &quot;προσδέξε&quot;. I think it should be &quot;προσδέξαι,&quot; since it is deponent, but I can't think of a way to justify that. I originally transcribed as chi, but I think @Hugh is correct that it is xi.&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;ΘΣ&quot; (with a line) is an abbreviation for &quot;θεὸς&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Ȣ&quot; is a ligature for &quot;ου&quot;&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;Ϗ&quot; alone is an abbreviation for &quot;καὶ&quot; (not abbreviated consistently, for spacing reasons)&#xD;&#xA;5. The author uses a so-called &quot;lunate sigma&quot; (like our &quot;C&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9604" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="e016ca81-89a6-4d5c-92df-b69d831153c5" CreationDate="2017-02-16T22:26:49.013" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2674" RevisionGUID="815abcca-68ca-4805-bd71-f011250c3739" CreationDate="2017-02-16T22:30:56.303" UserId="30" Text="It says *Vn~*, so vn with a general mark of abbreviation. This mark normally stands for *-de* if it is written above an *-n* at the end of a word (provided that *-de* fits), so it must be *unde* here, &quot;whence&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per [this suggestion][1], I'll post a link to the [full transcription][2] of the passage in this other answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35488722#35488722&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/another-z-siglum-abbreviation-not-que" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9606" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2667" RevisionGUID="373cd22a-605c-4031-ad4b-929ff95e5772" CreationDate="2017-02-16T22:57:15.050" UserId="30" Comment="edited tags" Text="|textura|mnuv|transliteration|paleography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9607" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2668" RevisionGUID="ed8910a5-b257-4a69-997e-a1ec3a1d37c2" CreationDate="2017-02-16T22:57:40.380" UserId="30" Comment="edited tags" Text="|abbreviations|textura|paleography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9608" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="2658" RevisionGUID="e14b3ef7-ad25-484d-bd6e-0bce4f346de4" CreationDate="2017-02-17T02:16:07.177" UserId="39" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9609" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="2658" RevisionGUID="0ff4dece-23e6-4569-845e-a66f9c15ebd4" CreationDate="2017-02-17T02:16:17.107" UserId="39" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2674" RevisionGUID="9389b0a1-bbc6-4db8-baef-f678c2bcc048" CreationDate="2017-02-17T02:55:41.417" UserId="30" Comment="added 655 characters in body" Text="It says *Vn~*, so vn with a general mark of abbreviation. This mark normally stands for *-de* if it is written above an *-n* at the end of a word (provided that *-de* fits), so it must be *unde* here, &quot;whence&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found an 18th-century print edition of the *Sententiae* of Petrus Lombardus that has a similar use of *unde* with partly the same text, and introducing the same quotation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Secundo, in materia informi quatuor elementorum, de nihilo creando : **unde**, Qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Petrus Lombardus, *Sententiae*, Book II, Distinctio XII, [final paragraph][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per [this suggestion][2], I'll post a link to the [full transcription][3] of the passage in this other answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=7g5bAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA214&amp;lpg=PA214&amp;dq=in%20materia%20informi%20Unde%20qui%20vivit&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=wrTiUqQMlE&amp;sig=M4-hK_W0OZz3CAQPKvRdsXaYhXQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=in%20materia%20informi%20Unde%20qui%20vivit&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35488722#35488722&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/another-z-siglum-abbreviation-not-que" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2670" RevisionGUID="3e4eecba-9170-4698-9a7e-3b80898aea4f" CreationDate="2017-02-17T03:02:47.087" UserId="30" Comment="added 902 characters in body" Text="Here is my transcription. I've edited a couple of words. The semicolon / z-like mark can be used for *et/ed* as well, as here. Abbreviations in square brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) Alcuinis . Quattuor modis op[er]atur deus.  &#xD;&#xA;2) Primo in u[er]bo .ii. in mat[er]ia informi .Un[de]. qui viv[it] in e-  &#xD;&#xA;3) ternum creavit om[n]ia simul .tercio. p[er] op[er]a .vi. dier[um] va-  &#xD;&#xA;4) rias distinx[it] creaturas .quarto. ex primordialibus  &#xD;&#xA;5) seminib[us], non incognite oriuntur naturae s[ed] note sepius  &#xD;&#xA;6) ne p[er]eant reformant[ur].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison, a very similar text can be found in the *Sententiae* of Petrus Lombardus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quatuor enim modis, ut ait Alcuinus super Genesim operatur Deus. Primo in verbo , omnia disponendo : Secundo, in materia informi quatuor elementorum, de nihilo creando : unde, Qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul. Omnia, scilicet, elementa : vel omnia corpora materialiter simul creavit. Tertio , per opera sex dierum varias distinxit creaturas. Quarto, ex primordialibus seminibus non incognitae oriuntur naturae , **sed** notae saepius reformantur , ne pereant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Petrus Lombardus, *Sententiae*, Book II, Distinctio XII, [final paragraph][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=7g5bAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA214&amp;lpg=PA214&amp;dq=in%20materia%20informi%20Unde%20qui%20vivit&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=wrTiUqQMlE&amp;sig=M4-hK_W0OZz3CAQPKvRdsXaYhXQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=in%20materia%20informi%20Unde%20qui%20vivit&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2667" RevisionGUID="cd2c3d42-5967-420d-addd-ebd2d0e8ee3c" CreationDate="2017-02-17T03:04:11.517" UserId="522" Comment="developments and sources" Text="I have two transcription problems in a glossed Genesis from southern France. The topic is the double Creation of Man narrative. The first problem is caused by the similarity of u m n v in the script.[![[quunum]][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;What is the meaning of [quunum] ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ALCUINus . Quattuor modis operatur deus./ **Primo** in uerbo **.ii.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inmateria informi .Vn. [quunum] e/ternum creavit omnia simul **.tertio.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; per opera .vi. diebus varias distinx creaturas **.quarto.** ex&#xD;&#xA;&gt; primordialibus / seminibus, non incognitae oriuntur naturae&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [fz?sz?n/v?ot/r?e] saepius / ne pereant reformantur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;God operates in four modes. **First,** in the Word. **.ii.** in unformed material .The One. [quunum] eternal/eternity has created all things simultaneously **.thirdly.** through works in .six. days he distinguished various creatures. **.Fourthly.** from primordial seeds, there arose natures not unknown [fz?sz?n/v?ot/r?e] quite often are formed again so that they do not perish.&#xD;&#xA;[![Text from Glossed Genesis][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Developments. The editor who brought these texts together in the 12th century shortened **this** paragrah by Alcuin. (thanks Cerberus) This confirms &quot;sed notae&quot; in the previous question, and the reading here &quot;qui vivit in eternum.&quot;  unknown natures do not arise, but 'previously known [natures]fairly often are re-formed...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Alcuin source material.***  Quot modis est operatio divina? Quatuor. Primo, quod in verbi [Dei] dispensatione omnia aeterna sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Secundo, quod in materia informi 'qui vivit in aeternum, creavit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; simul.' Tertio, quod per opera dierum sex varias distinxit creaturas.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quarto, quod ex primordialibus seminibus non incognitae oriuntur&#xD;&#xA;&gt; naturae, sed notae saepius, ne pereant, reformantur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6i4wS.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QCEjg.jpg&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9613" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2667" RevisionGUID="71f0e7cf-5e4f-4f95-9630-59476968b375" CreationDate="2017-02-17T03:18:43.047" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|typography|textura|paleography|transliteration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2667" RevisionGUID="7b061039-31e7-4574-a04e-b04466242dd9" CreationDate="2017-02-17T03:22:52.093" UserId="522" Comment="Bible (Sirach)quote" Text="I have two transcription problems in a glossed Genesis from southern France. The topic is the double Creation of Man narrative. The first problem is caused by the similarity of u m n v in the script.[![[quunum]][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;What is the meaning of [quunum] ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ALCUINus . Quattuor modis operatur deus./ **Primo** in uerbo **.ii.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inmateria informi .Vn. [quunum] e/ternum creavit omnia simul **.tertio.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; per opera .vi. diebus varias distinx creaturas **.quarto.** ex&#xD;&#xA;&gt; primordialibus / seminibus, non incognitae oriuntur naturae&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [fz?sz?n/v?ot/r?e] saepius / ne pereant reformantur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;God operates in four modes. **First,** in the Word. **.ii.** in unformed material .The One. [quunum] eternal/eternity has created all things simultaneously **.thirdly.** through works in .six. days he distinguished various creatures. **.Fourthly.** from primordial seeds, there arose natures not unknown [fz?sz?n/v?ot/r?e] quite often are formed again so that they do not perish.&#xD;&#xA;[![Text from Glossed Genesis][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Developments. The editor who brought these texts together in the 12th century shortened **this** paragrah by Alcuin. (thanks Cerberus) This confirms &quot;sed notae&quot; in the previous question, and the reading here &quot;qui vivit in eternum.&quot;  unknown natures do not arise, but 'previously known [natures]fairly often are re-formed...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Alcuin source material.***  Quot modis est operatio divina? Quatuor. Primo, quod in verbi [Dei] dispensatione omnia aeterna sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Secundo, quod in materia informi 'qui vivit in aeternum, creavit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; simul.' Tertio, quod per opera dierum sex varias distinxit creaturas.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quarto, quod ex primordialibus seminibus non incognitae oriuntur&#xD;&#xA;&gt; naturae, sed notae saepius, ne pereant, reformantur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this paragraph the short quotation is from Ecclus 18:1 = Sirach (Douay-Rheims 1899 American)18:1 He that liveth for ever created all things together.  (credit ref: brianpck)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6i4wS.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QCEjg.jpg&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9615" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2667" RevisionGUID="7b061039-31e7-4574-a04e-b04466242dd9" CreationDate="2017-02-17T03:22:52.093" UserId="522" Comment="Bible (Sirach)quote" Text="|typography|textura|paleography|transliteration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9616" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2668" RevisionGUID="a35342d3-e924-468f-b504-696377916913" CreationDate="2017-02-17T03:33:38.453" UserId="522" Comment="Title errors" Text="Medieval siglum/abbreviation: &quot;z&quot; symbol" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2675" RevisionGUID="22638bde-35a3-4e9d-9294-106bbaab23a8" CreationDate="2017-02-17T06:18:35.710" UserId="1267" Text="Salvete, omnes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I studied Latin in college, but it has been a few years since I was immersed in it. I'm trying to wrangle a translation for the motto of an American Air Force search &amp; rescue unit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;These things I do, so that others may live.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Haec facio, ut alios... (?)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pretty straightforward in English, but now I think I'm remembering that Latin has no future subjunctive mood. &quot;I do X, so that Y may happen in the future.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you render this verb indicating future purpose?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9618" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2675" RevisionGUID="22638bde-35a3-4e9d-9294-106bbaab23a8" CreationDate="2017-02-17T06:18:35.710" UserId="1267" Text="&quot;..so that others may live&quot;, future subjunctive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9619" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2675" RevisionGUID="22638bde-35a3-4e9d-9294-106bbaab23a8" CreationDate="2017-02-17T06:18:35.710" UserId="1267" Text="|conjunctive|purpose-clause|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2676" RevisionGUID="9025dee5-02e6-4a15-ab28-d7807666e465" CreationDate="2017-02-17T06:53:43.687" UserId="78" Text="This is a simple purpose clause, and so you'll want to the present subjective, *ut alii vivant*. (Note that you'll want to turn the accusative *alios* into the nominative *alii* since it's the subject of the purpose clause.) There's already a future aspect to the subjunctive present, so there's no need for further differentiation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, take a look at this PDF from the Latin Library [here](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/UtClauses.pdf)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2660" RevisionGUID="a36dd57f-1586-4dd1-b01a-742320886623" CreationDate="2017-02-17T10:44:40.397" UserId="1263" Comment="New facts from comments" Text="I'd like to ask experts in Greek to verify a translation from this mosaic from Jerash&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Mosaic fragment][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is a cropped and rotated version of [an original image from here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lord the God *the* Holy *of* Kosmas and *of* Damianos. Have mercy on the way *(path)* of Dagisteon *(Dagisteos)* and receive this offering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to @Alessio I've managed to reach the [book][3] which has this iscription commented on page 246. The authors call **Dagistheus** mentioned above as &quot;one of Justinian's less successful generals&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vcoZf.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jarash_-_4140195717.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89058842857;view=1up;seq=288;size=150" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2662" RevisionGUID="59bbfa77-e8b2-4d5e-aa77-af3f865dc3f0" CreationDate="2017-02-17T13:39:49.160" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 211 characters in body" Text="Your translation is close!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a letter for letter transcription of the image, except there is a line over &quot;ΘΣ&quot; in the second line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;          ΚΥΡΙΕ&#xD;&#xA;        ΟΘΣΤΟΥΑΓΙȢ&#xD;&#xA;      ΚΟΣΜΑϏΔΑΜΙΑΝΟὙ&#xD;&#xA;    ΕΛΕΗΣΟΝΤΟΝΤΡΙΒΟΥΝΟΝ&#xD;&#xA;      ΔΑΓΙΣΘΕΟΝΚΑΙΠΡΟΣ&#xD;&#xA;        ΔΕΞΕΤΗΝΑΥΤΟΥ&#xD;&#xA;          ΠΡΟΣΦΟ&#xD;&#xA;           ΡΑΝ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Κύριε ὁ θ(εὸ)ς τοῦ ἁγίου Κοσμᾶ κ(αὶ) Δαμιανοῦ, ἐλέησον τὸν τριβοῦνον Δαγισθε͂ον καὶ πρόσδεξε τὴν αὐτοῦ προσφοράν. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation becomes straightforward now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O Lord, God of saint[s] Cosmas and Damian, have mercy on the tribune Dagistheos and receive his offering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. As noted in the comments, &quot;πρόσδεξε&quot; is probably a form of &quot;προσδέξαι.&quot; This form is attested in later Greek, particularly in the Middle East.&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;ΘΣ&quot; (with a line) is an abbreviation for &quot;θεὸς&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Ȣ&quot; is a ligature for &quot;ου&quot;&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;Ϗ&quot; alone is an abbreviation for &quot;καὶ&quot; (not abbreviated consistently, for spacing reasons)&#xD;&#xA;5. The author uses a so-called &quot;lunate sigma&quot; (like our &quot;C&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2675" RevisionGUID="41077168-3549-425a-920e-694621a402b5" CreationDate="2017-02-17T13:45:40.873" UserId="45" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="Salvete, omnes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I studied Latin in college, but it has been a few years since I was immersed in it. I'm trying to wrangle a translation for the motto of an American Air Force search &amp; rescue unit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These things I do, so that others may live.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Haec facio, ut alios... (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pretty straightforward in English, but now I think I'm remembering that Latin has no future subjunctive mood. &quot;I do X, so that Y may happen in the future.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you render this verb indicating future purpose?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2676" RevisionGUID="1d866042-0e05-4f53-9a3f-7e67b51e0d75" CreationDate="2017-02-17T15:12:13.073" UserId="78" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="This is a simple purpose clause, and so you'll want to the present subjective, *ut alii vivant*. (Note that you'll want to turn the accusative *alios* into the nominative *alii* since it's the subject of the purpose clause.) There's already a future aspect to the subjunctive present, so there's no need for further differentiation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, check out Allen and Greenough [§ 531.1](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-531.html), with the example given:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ab arātrō abdūxērunt Cincinnātum, ut dictātor esset* (*Fin*. 2.12), they brought Cincinnatus from the plough that he might be dictator." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2677" RevisionGUID="41827df6-3287-4fa5-b054-2cffc95b305a" CreationDate="2017-02-17T16:43:08.333" UserId="1269" Text="I want to translate the following French quote from Paul Valéry :&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Je ne suis pas toujours d'accord avec moi-même.&#xA;&#xA;Which roughly translates into :&#xA;&#xA;&gt; I don't always agree with myself. &#xA;&#xA;I want it to be as short as possible. So I thought the best way would be to omit the subject and to use *ego* in the accusative case, which seems to be *me*&#xA;&#xA;That would be something like :&#xA;&gt; Non semper me conveniunt&#xA;&#xA;Is that correct ? Is it understandable ? Is it a nice form ?&#xA;&#xA;Thanks very much. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9629" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2677" RevisionGUID="41827df6-3287-4fa5-b054-2cffc95b305a" CreationDate="2017-02-17T16:43:08.333" UserId="1269" Text="When I am the subject and the direct object of a phrase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9630" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2677" RevisionGUID="41827df6-3287-4fa5-b054-2cffc95b305a" CreationDate="2017-02-17T16:43:08.333" UserId="1269" Text="|translation|syntax|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2677" RevisionGUID="f2aa8e76-dde2-46a6-9da5-8ee1b8675a74" CreationDate="2017-02-17T16:53:50.223" UserId="79" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I want to translate the following French quote from Paul Valéry :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Je ne suis pas toujours d'accord avec moi-même.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which roughly translates into :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't always agree with myself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want it to be as short as possible. So I thought the best way would be to omit the subject and to use *ego* in the accusative case, which seems to be *me*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would be something like :&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non semper me conveniunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that correct ? Is it understandable ? Is it a nice form ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks very much. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9632" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2677" RevisionGUID="f2aa8e76-dde2-46a6-9da5-8ee1b8675a74" CreationDate="2017-02-17T16:53:50.223" UserId="79" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation|syntax|declension|french|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2678" RevisionGUID="12f8241d-a925-4b56-8db4-e2f4e8941c39" CreationDate="2017-02-17T16:57:32.357" UserId="79" Text="I suggest this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Non semper mihi ipsi consentio.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do not always agree with myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also use *assentio(r)* instead of *consentio*.&#xD;&#xA;To compare the two, you can check an [online Latin dictionary of your preference](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In cases like this I would use *me ipsum / mihi ipsi / &amp;hellip;* (depending on the needed case) for &quot;myself&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2679" RevisionGUID="660e0af6-ed30-4e4f-9606-b47fb4172e30" CreationDate="2017-02-17T17:09:30.937" UserId="645" Text="The shortest that I can think of is *Aliquando a me dissentio*, 'sometimes I disagree with myself.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2680" RevisionGUID="bac5293d-5c69-44c4-bdad-d72e6da3b877" CreationDate="2017-02-17T17:43:52.527" UserId="12" Text="In the first chapter of *Lingua Latina per se Ilustrata*, there are a series of sentences used to teach the usage of two adjectives, *magnus* and *parvus*.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nīlus fluvius magnus est.  Tiberis nōn est fluvius magnus, Tiberis fluvius parvus est. (22–23)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sicilia īnsula magna est.  Melita est īnsula parva. (29)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context for these sentences is a map that clearly shows the relative *sizes* of islands, and the relative *lengths* of rivers.  Thus it seems that here *parvus* and *magnus* are being used to communicate both ideas.  But in English, a &quot;big river&quot; to me is one that is primarily wide or deep, not so much long.  Similarly a &quot;small river&quot; is usually easy to cross, but not necessarily short.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question, then, is, do *parvus* and *magnus* strongly indicate the *length* of a river?  Are they suitable adjectives when clarity in this sense is needed? Or for the elimination of ambiguity is it necessary to use other adjectives, like *longus* and *brevis*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My dictionaries don't help me much: Traupman begins his entry on *parvus* with &quot;small, little, puny; short; young,&quot; but on the same word Cassell doesn't mention &quot;short&quot; except in relation to time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9636" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2680" RevisionGUID="bac5293d-5c69-44c4-bdad-d72e6da3b877" CreationDate="2017-02-17T17:43:52.527" UserId="12" Text="Are &quot;parvus&quot; and &quot;magnus&quot; the best adjectives to describe the length of a river?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9637" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2680" RevisionGUID="bac5293d-5c69-44c4-bdad-d72e6da3b877" CreationDate="2017-02-17T17:43:52.527" UserId="12" Text="|vocabulary|adjective|word-choice|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2681" RevisionGUID="7ceee24a-c2fe-4937-b099-9deb210a9694" CreationDate="2017-02-17T18:11:50.537" UserId="45" Text="Since your central question seems to be about the general case (&quot;How do I translate reflexive first person&quot;), here is a more general answer that builds on the above suggestions: **A simple *me* is all that is necessary, but there are ways to emphasize the reflexive pronoun if you wish.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. One way, given by Joonas, is to use *ipse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - You can append *ipsum* after *me*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Ergo ista, inquit Crassus, quae habes a me, non reprehendo, **ne me ipsum inrideam.** (Cicero, *De Oratore* 3.47)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt;sup&gt;Crassus said: &quot;Therefore I do not blame you for those things which you have received from me, **lest I make a mockery of myself.**&quot;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - You can also use *ipse*, agreeing with the understood *ego*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; sed non egeo medicina, **me ipse consolor** (Cicero, *Laelius de Amicitia* 10.10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt;sup&gt;But I have no need of medicine: **I can comfort myself.**&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You can also use an emphatic *-met* at the end of the pronoun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; neque, ita me di ament, **credebam primo mihimet** Sosiae,  &#xD;&#xA;donec Sosia illic egomet fecit sibi uti crederem. (Plautus, *Amphitruo* II.i)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt;sup&gt;Nor, by all that is good and holy, **did I believe myself**, Sosia, at first  &#xD;&#xA;until Sosia made it so that I believed him.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (It's difficult to translate this passage out of its context: Mercury takes on the appearance of Sosia, a slave, and manages to convince Sosia that he is the real Sosia: I recommend the play!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You can just use *me* alone if you don't feel a need to emphasize the reflexivity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ubi ille ábiit, **ego me deorsum duco** de arbore. (Plautus, *Aulularia* IV.viii)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt;sup&gt;When he left, **I let myself down** from the tree.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that Latin only has a special reflexive pronoun for the third-person: you can use *me* regardless of the subject. In fact, all the &quot;emphatic methods&quot; above could be used just as easily if it was *not* reflexive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your actual quote, my translation agrees substantially with Joonas's, though *adsentior* sounds better to my ear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non semper mihi adsentior.  &#xD;&#xA;Non semper mihimet adsentior.  &#xD;&#xA;Non semper mihi ipse adsentior.  &#xD;&#xA;Non semper mihi ipsi adsentior." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2682" RevisionGUID="c3195c3c-d3de-4292-bdbe-4b966923fd21" CreationDate="2017-02-18T05:00:51.360" UserId="235" Text="I'm reading a passage from Plato's Republic which was adapted by my textbook author. The passage is taken from Book 5, 451d-452b. I have some questions about the use of verbal adjectives in this sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Καὶ ταῖς γυναιξὶ ταύτᾱς τὰς τέχνᾱς καὶ τὰ περὶ τὸν πόλεμον ἀποδοτέον καὶ χρηστέον κατὰ ταὐτά. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that the verbal adjectives ἀποδοτέον and χρηστέον are impersonal, for the very reason that they don't agree with any subject. Impersonal verbal adjectives can often be translated like a gerund. My textbook taught me that, in these constructions, the subject is often put in the dative. But it doesn't make sense for γυναιξὶ to be the subject of ἀποδοτέον. The women aren't the ones doing the assigning, but rather, being assigned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this reason, I have a hard time translating the verbal adjectives according to the rules taught me in my textbook. If they are truly impersonal, then how do you translate them? &quot;It is necessary to assign these arts to the women...&quot; Or would there be an implied &quot;we&quot;, as in, &quot;We must assign these arts to the women...&quot; I ended up devising a translation that makes sense to me, logically, but does not fit any rules of grammar I can think of. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the female guardians must be assigned these arts and the things around war and must be used for the same tasks as the male guardians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should point out that there are parts of my translation which are contextual, such as the last phrase, &quot;same tasks as the male guardians&quot;. My textbook actually gave that to me in a hint. I think I am mostly concerned about the verbal adjectives: whether they are impersonal, and if so, how to translate them. But I would welcome any other tips as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: Here is the original sentence from Plato. Might help you in helping me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; καὶ ταῖς γυναιξὶν ἄρα τούτω τὼ τέχνα καὶ τὰ περὶ τὸν πόλεμον ἀποδοτέον καὶ χρηστέον κατὰ ταὐτά. ([Plat. Repub. 5.452a][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0167%3Abook%3D5%3Asection%3D452a" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9641" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2682" RevisionGUID="c3195c3c-d3de-4292-bdbe-4b966923fd21" CreationDate="2017-02-18T05:00:51.360" UserId="235" Text="How do you translate these verbal adjectives? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9642" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2682" RevisionGUID="c3195c3c-d3de-4292-bdbe-4b966923fd21" CreationDate="2017-02-18T05:00:51.360" UserId="235" Text="|translation|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2682" RevisionGUID="8693114b-1c46-487a-87fc-e71b36165ba4" CreationDate="2017-02-18T05:09:56.740" UserId="235" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="I'm reading a passage from Plato's Republic which was adapted by my textbook author. I have some questions about the use of verbal adjectives in this sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Καὶ ταῖς γυναιξὶ ταύτᾱς τὰς τέχνᾱς καὶ τὰ περὶ τὸν πόλεμον ἀποδοτέον καὶ χρηστέον κατὰ ταὐτά. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, my questions are on this adapted version, but in case you find it helpful, I will also provide the original from which it was adapted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; καὶ ταῖς γυναιξὶν ἄρα τούτω τὼ τέχνα καὶ τὰ περὶ τὸν πόλεμον ἀποδοτέον καὶ χρηστέον κατὰ ταὐτά. ([Plat. Repub. 5.452a][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am so stumped when it comes to these verbal adjectives, that all I can really provide is my reasoning, as well as my rough translation. Here goes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that the verbal adjectives ἀποδοτέον and χρηστέον are impersonal, for the very reason that they don't agree with any subject. Impersonal verbal adjectives can often be translated like a gerund. My textbook taught me that, in these constructions, the subject is often put in the dative. But it doesn't make sense for γυναιξὶ to be the subject of ἀποδοτέον. The women aren't the ones doing the assigning, but rather, being assigned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this reason, I have a hard time translating the verbal adjectives according to the rules taught me in my textbook. If they are truly impersonal, then how do you translate them? &quot;It is necessary to assign these arts to the women...&quot; Or would there be an implied &quot;we&quot;, as in, &quot;We must assign these arts to the women...&quot; I ended up devising a translation that makes sense to me, logically, but does not fit any rules of grammar I can think of. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the female guardians must be assigned these arts and the things around war, and must be used for the same tasks as the male guardians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0167%3Abook%3D5%3Asection%3D452a" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2682" RevisionGUID="87535bcd-4f5a-4a24-95ea-cd87eba659d8" CreationDate="2017-02-18T05:18:44.727" UserId="235" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="I'm reading a passage from Plato's Republic which was adapted by my textbook author. I have some questions about the use of verbal adjectives in this sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Καὶ ταῖς γυναιξὶ ταύτᾱς τὰς τέχνᾱς καὶ τὰ περὶ τὸν πόλεμον ἀποδοτέον καὶ χρηστέον κατὰ ταὐτά. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, my questions are on this adapted version, but in case you find it helpful, I will also provide the original from which it was adapted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; καὶ ταῖς γυναιξὶν ἄρα τούτω τὼ τέχνα καὶ τὰ περὶ τὸν πόλεμον ἀποδοτέον καὶ χρηστέον κατὰ ταὐτά. ([Plat. Repub. 5.452a][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just looked at the English translation on Perseus, and see that they used the pronoun &quot;we&quot; to translate the verbal adjectives. I am basing this rough translation of my adapted passage on the English translation from Perseus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And we must assign these arts to the women, and the offices of war, and employ them in the same way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But my textbook never mentioned that impersonal verbal adjectives can have an implied subject such as &quot;we&quot;. Is that's what is happening here? Is the subject of the verbal adjectives implied, and can we infer that the subject is &quot;we&quot;? Is this a common occurrence with verbal adjectives—implied subjects such as &quot;we&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is my main question, but I would also welcome any other tips you could give me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0167%3Abook%3D5%3Asection%3D452a" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2682" RevisionGUID="e893d848-c51f-4fa1-a59a-68241ffda154" CreationDate="2017-02-18T05:24:39.583" UserId="235" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="I'm reading a passage from Plato's Republic which was adapted by my textbook author. I have some questions about the use of verbal adjectives in this sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Καὶ ταῖς γυναιξὶ ταύτᾱς τὰς τέχνᾱς καὶ τὰ περὶ τὸν πόλεμον ἀποδοτέον καὶ χρηστέον κατὰ ταὐτά. (adapted version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; καὶ ταῖς γυναιξὶν ἄρα τούτω τὼ τέχνα καὶ τὰ περὶ τὸν πόλεμον ἀποδοτέον καὶ χρηστέον κατὰ ταὐτά. ([Plat. Repub. 5.452a][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just looked at the English translation on Perseus, and see that they used the pronoun &quot;we&quot; to translate the verbal adjectives. Following their choice makes it easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And we must assign these arts to the women, and the offices of war, and employ them in the same way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Easy... except that my textbook never mentions the fact that they can have an implied subject. Could anyone explain how this works? Can verbal adjectives have an implied subject when they are impersonal? Is it only when they are impersonal? Do you derive the subject from context (in this case, &quot;we&quot;, since it makes sense contextually)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verbal adjectives are so complicated, because on the one hand they are passive, but often you translate them actively... and then there's this other business with an implied subject!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0167%3Abook%3D5%3Asection%3D452a" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2682" RevisionGUID="9ce1c15c-fe84-4cb6-b9ec-604724f697e4" CreationDate="2017-02-18T08:56:19.537" UserId="235" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I'm reading a passage from Plato's Republic which was adapted by my textbook author. I have some questions about the use of verbal adjectives in this sentence (ἀποδοτέον and χρηστέον).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Καὶ ταῖς γυναιξὶ ταύτᾱς τὰς τέχνᾱς καὶ τὰ περὶ τὸν πόλεμον ἀποδοτέον καὶ χρηστέον κατὰ ταὐτά. (adapted version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; καὶ ταῖς γυναιξὶν ἄρα τούτω τὼ τέχνα καὶ τὰ περὶ τὸν πόλεμον ἀποδοτέον καὶ χρηστέον κατὰ ταὐτά. ([Plat. Repub. 5.452a][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just looked at the English translation on Perseus, and see that they used the pronoun &quot;we&quot; to translate the verbal adjectives. Following their choice makes it easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And we must assign these arts to the women, and the offices of war, and employ them in the same way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Easy... except that my textbook never mentions the fact that they can have an implied subject. Could anyone explain how this works? Can verbal adjectives have an implied subject when they are impersonal? Is it only when they are impersonal? Do you derive the subject from context (in this case, &quot;we&quot;, since it makes sense contextually)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verbal adjectives are so complicated, because on the one hand they are passive, but often you translate them actively... and then there's this other business with an implied subject!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0167%3Abook%3D5%3Asection%3D452a" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2683" RevisionGUID="165483ae-3f56-4b98-8c6a-190575d2e773" CreationDate="2017-02-18T14:04:39.987" UserId="30" Text="As you say, one can explicate an implied agent from passive verbs based on context. The most literal (but probably unusable) translation would be &quot;there is to be assigned&quot;. Usually the impersonal pronoun *one* can be used to make it somewhat more palpable. Whenever context supplies enough information that we know who or what is supposed to do the assigning, we can use a more specific pronoun, such as, in this case, *we*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This applies to other Indo-European languages as well. *Message to all students: the premises must be vacated before 10 PM* → you must vacate. Etc. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2684" RevisionGUID="a7ef7007-05b1-4fbc-96bb-4c7a20c0faa0" CreationDate="2017-02-18T15:29:53.920" UserId="645" Text="The same adjectives can be used for a river as for a road or path. The usual words for 'broad' and 'narrow' are *latus* and *angustus*, and for 'long' and 'short' are *longus* and *brevis*. *Flumen magnum* and *flumen parvum* mean pretty much what they do in English, a 'big/great river' and a 'small/minor river'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Various editions of the *Gradus ad Parnassum* (by Pyper, or Angel &amp; Wintle, etc.) that were once used in teaching the composition of Latin verse (not to be confused with those for counterpoint in music ! ) are still available in print, giving lists of epithets for the several words for 'river', but as far as I can see they do not give any that are specifically for dimensions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2658" RevisionGUID="274a9d11-c18f-42d7-9a33-5bb5eb6b45e3" CreationDate="2017-02-18T23:18:33.307" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body" Text="A picture is worth a thousand words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, we can look it up in [Brill's Historical Atlas of the Ancient World][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at [The world through the eyes of ancient authors][2]. Unfortunately, the maps are copyrighted, so I can't upload them here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/brill-s-new-pauly-supplements-i-3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly-supplements-i-3/the-world-through-the-eyes-of-ancient-authors-BNPA004" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2658" RevisionGUID="cbee958a-1b9d-426e-b80f-fc02ee072847" CreationDate="2017-02-19T03:35:23.073" UserId="39" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="A picture is worth a thousand words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, we can look it up in [Brill's Historical Atlas of the Ancient World][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at [The world through the eyes of ancient authors][2]. Unfortunately, the maps are copyrighted, so I can't upload them here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'll keep my post, despite some recent downvotes, for those who are genuinely interested in Classical Studies and not afraid to go to the library).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/brill-s-new-pauly-supplements-i-3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly-supplements-i-3/the-world-through-the-eyes-of-ancient-authors-BNPA004" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2662" RevisionGUID="c15e0fed-67c7-4d47-b7fb-82e07aef0aea" CreationDate="2017-02-19T03:52:58.410" UserId="40" Comment="Δαγίσθεον accent corrected" Text="Your translation is close!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a letter for letter transcription of the image, except there is a line over &quot;ΘΣ&quot; in the second line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;          ΚΥΡΙΕ&#xD;&#xA;        ΟΘΣΤΟΥΑΓΙȢ&#xD;&#xA;      ΚΟΣΜΑϏΔΑΜΙΑΝΟὙ&#xD;&#xA;    ΕΛΕΗΣΟΝΤΟΝΤΡΙΒΟΥΝΟΝ&#xD;&#xA;      ΔΑΓΙΣΘΕΟΝΚΑΙΠΡΟΣ&#xD;&#xA;        ΔΕΞΕΤΗΝΑΥΤΟΥ&#xD;&#xA;          ΠΡΟΣΦΟ&#xD;&#xA;           ΡΑΝ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Κύριε ὁ θ(εὸ)ς τοῦ ἁγίου Κοσμᾶ κ(αὶ) Δαμιανοῦ, ἐλέησον τὸν τριβοῦνον Δαγίσθεον καὶ πρόσδεξε τὴν αὐτοῦ προσφοράν. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation becomes straightforward now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O Lord, God of saint[s] Cosmas and Damian, have mercy on the tribune Dagistheos and receive his offering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. As noted in the comments, &quot;πρόσδεξε&quot; is probably a form of &quot;προσδέξαι.&quot; This form is attested in later Greek, particularly in the Middle East.&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;ΘΣ&quot; (with a line) is an abbreviation for &quot;θεὸς&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Ȣ&quot; is a ligature for &quot;ου&quot;&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;Ϗ&quot; alone is an abbreviation for &quot;καὶ&quot; (not abbreviated consistently, for spacing reasons)&#xD;&#xA;5. The author uses a so-called &quot;lunate sigma&quot; (like our &quot;C&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1379" RevisionGUID="a616d7bd-e3e8-44a1-83f5-5d527d08d0c1" CreationDate="2017-02-19T05:16:40.993" UserId="576" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="#19&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; Century Scientific Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example:&#xD;&#xA;##Gauss&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From G. Waldo Dunnington's 2004 biography of Gauss, [*Carl Friedrich Gauss: Titan of Science*][1], p. 37-8:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;… Of unusual interest is the part which Meyerhoff⁶ took in this book [*sc.* Gauss's most important mathematical work: the *Disquisitiones arithmeticæ*]—the correction of the Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;⁶Johann Heinrich Jakob Meyerhoff (1770-1812) became in 1794 collaborator, and in 1802 director, of the gymnasium in Holzminden. He was thoroughly grounded and trained in the ancient and modern languages. As a Göttingen student he had won a golden prize medal for a Latin dissertationon the Phoenicians. Yet mathematics was rather foreign to him.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The above is striking enough, if one considers how little Gauss needed to mistrust his own proficiency in this respect. According to Moritz Cantor, Gauss wrote a classical Latin, giving rise to the expression that Cicero, if he could understand the mathematics of it, would have censured nothing in the Gaussian Latinity, except perhaps several customary incorrect modes of expression which Gauss used purposely. But it was Latin just the same and therefore attractive and stimulating to only a narrow circle of readers. Referring to Meyerhoff's work, Gauss wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Of course I understand that it cannot be an especially attractive work for Mr. Meyerhoff, since he does not seem to be sufficiently acquainted with mathematics, in order to look on it just as reading. Thus the word *algorithmus* was unknown to him. Only on a single point must I take the liberty of disagreeing with him. I well know that *si* with the subjunctive is not good Latin; but modern mathematicians seem to have made for themselves the rule of constantly using the subjunctive in hypotheses and definitions; I do not remember an example of the opposite, and in [Huyghens][2], who according to my notion writes the most elegant Latin and whom I purposely, therefore, have imitated, I find the subjunctive continually in these cases. I open at random and find *Opera*, p. 156, *Quodsi fuerit*; p. 157, *Si sit, si fiat, si agitetur*; p. 158, *si suspendatur*; pp. 188 *seqq.* are examples by the dozen. Therefore, since in this instance the desire to be a genuine Roman would be only purism (which as far as I am concerned would be less allowable, because I am well minded not to be so in any case) and the thing is not at all absurd in itself, I went with the current. I hope Mr. M. will not take offense at me. What was incomprehensible to him in the *accedere possunt*, p. 5, I have not been able able to guess; I have therefore let it stand. The passage p. 7, which previously ran thus: *Si numeri decadice expressi figuræ singulæ sine respectu loci quem occupant addantur*, Mr. M. misunderstood, because he probably didn't know that *figuræ* means numbers; he took *numeri* for the nominative plural and *figuræ* for the dative singular and on that account suggested to me that *singulus* is not wrong; but just for this reason a mathematician will probably not construe it incorrectly, chiefly because it doesn't make sense; nevertheless I have now arranged the words somewhat differently by this time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, Gauss seems to have worked with a *mathematical Latin* based on classical Latin. Gauss also wasn't afraid to innovate the Latin. It seemed to be a truly living language to him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gauss's *Dictionary of Scientific Biography* entry][3] says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He published in Latin not from internationalist sentiments but at the demands of his publishers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#20&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; Century Scientific Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Peano&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Interlingua][4], or [*Latino sine flexione*][5], is a 20&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; century variant of Latin invented by the Italian mathematician and logician [Giuseppe Peano][6]. He intended it to be a language to foster international scientific communication. It is Latin but without inflection (or without &quot;grammar,&quot; as Peano called it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Peano’s mathematical logic and his ideography for mathematics were his response to Leibniz’ dream of a “universal characteristic,” whereas Interlingua was to be the modern substitute for medieval Latin, that is, an international language for scholars, especially scientists. Peano’s proposal for an “interlingua” was _latino sine flexione_ (“Latin without grammar”), which he published in 1903. He believed that there already existed an international scientific vocabulary, principally of Latin origin; and he tried to select the form of each word which would be most readily recognized by those whose native language was either English or a Romance language. He thought that the best grammar was no grammar, and he demonstrated how easily grammatical structure may be eliminated . His research led him to two areas: one was the algebra of grammar, and the other was philology. The latter preoccupation resulted most notably in [_Vocabulario commune ad latino-italiano-français-english-deutsch_][7] (1915), a greatly expanded version of an earlier publication (1909). This second edition contains some 14,000 entries and gives for each the form to be adopted in Interlingua, the classic Latin form, and its version in Italian, French, English, and German (and sometimes in other languages), with indications of synonyms, derivatives, and other items of information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;([source](https://isidore.co/misc/Physics%20papers%20and%20books/Biography/Peano__Giuseppe.PDF))&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic rules of *Latino sine fliexione* are, *inter alia* ([*ibid.*][7]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. Omni vocabulo de Interlingua es latino.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. Interlingua non habe grammatica.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3. Inter synonymos latino, nos elige vocabulos internationale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/53933110&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Christiaan_Huygens.aspx#1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Carl_Friedrich_Gauss.aspx#1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlingua&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35803&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Peano.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://wikisource.org/wiki/Vocabulario_commune_ad_latino-italiano-fran%C3%A7ais-English-deutsch_pro_usu_de_interlinguistas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2685" RevisionGUID="fd09692e-ccd8-4986-a7ac-b8503a99233a" CreationDate="2017-02-19T09:33:44.917" UserId="867" Text="**Why did Roman authors never feel a need for word spacing?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting question because the Romans certainly accepted the notion of word division, at least until about 100 AD, at which point Romans adopted *scriptio continua* in imitation of the Greeks, a move that at least one scholar has called a “[deplorable regression][1]”.  This word division had been marked chiefly via *[interpuncta][2]*, a system probably inherited from the Etruscans, but not spaces between words.  So, to rephrase your question a little: if you’re going to have word division, why use dots and not spaces?  After all, if “punctuation” or *pungere* means to puncture or to create a gap, why not insert a literal gap in the text?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, Romans had gaps in their speech.  Cicero, for instance, when writing about oratory, often refers to pauses between words (*interpuncta verborum* De Oratore III.XLVI.181), pauses between ideas (interpuncta argumentorum De Oratore II.XLI.177), and pauses in which to catch one’s breath (*interpuncta intervalla, morae respirationesque* Orator XVI.53).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But [Saenger][3] suggests that Romans’ reliance on reading aloud made indicating these pauses visually with spaces in the text redundant.  And while the lack of spaces may have made comprehension difficult, he argues that reading was confined to a small, elite group and thus there was no incentive to make reading easier.  Indeed, your ability to decipher a text may have been a marker of your belonging to that elite group.&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;**Reading with your ears, not your eyes**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at Latin sources, I can certainly find a lot of evidence of how essential hearing a text was to the understanding of it.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;For example, Quintilian insists that a text needs to be heard by his students in order for their eyes to make sense of it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *… et hercule **praelectio** quae in hoc adhibetur ut facile atque distincte pueri scripta **oculis** sequantur …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; … and indeed **reading aloud**, which is to be employed, so that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; boys can easily and clearly follow the writing **with their eyes** … &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian, *Institutio Oratoria*, 2.5.4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero repeatedly claims that the ear is the best judge of good writing.  One example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *… ut qui vellet **auribus ipsis** quid numerosum*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; … so that he who will may judge by the ear alone what is rhythmical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cicero, *Orator*, LXVII.226&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And elsewhere, he writes that a period should be arranged ‘so as to satisfy the ear’ (*ut et auris impleat*) Cicero, *Orator*, LXVI.221&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, rearranging the words and therefore the rhythm of a text may keep the sense intact but this is not the point, Cicero argues.  It is a practice ‘with which I disagree. “But the words are the same, the meaning is the same” [you say].  That satisfies the mind, not the ears …’ &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *… a quo dissentio. “At eadem verba, eadem sententia”.  Animo istus satis est, **auribus non satis** …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cicero, *Orator*, LXIII.215&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, Quintilian on the difficulty of keeping voice and eyes on the same page (as it were) when reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *… et quod difficillimum est, dividenda intentio animi **ut aliud voce aliud oculis agatur***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; … and most difficult of all, dividing the attention of the mind, so&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the voice does one thing, the eyes another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian, *Institutio Oratoria*, 1.1.34&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saenger would argue that it’s only when reading becomes a contemplative, private and silent act that spaces start to appear because this is easier and quicker to comprehend in one’s head.  Certainly, [many studies][4] have shown that inserting spaces into text improves reading speed, even in languages that do not normally use spaces ([including Thai][5]).  However, making reading easy and quick was never the aim for Roman authors.  Reading wasn’t private, it wasn’t about quiet time or for quickly searching for information, all of which is a very modern understanding of the function of reading.    &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Instead, the lack of punctuation at time of publication and, indeed, the lack of spaces, meant that all texts needed intense preparation before they could be read with any ease and certainly before they could be read aloud.  [Parkes][6] notes that reading aloud at first sight would have been “unusual and unexpected”.  This is why the *praelectio* was such a feature of Roman reading and also why texts were marked up by copyists (the *notis librariorum* Cicero disliked so much), even when *interpuncta* were common.  It also led to confusion, especially once *scriptio continua* was embraced.  Even [grammarians][7] could not agree on meaning due to differing opinions about word division.  Does *Aeneid* 2.798 read *collectam ex Ilio pubem*/a people gathered from Troy or *collectam exilio pubem*/a people gathered for exile?  Is it *conspicit ursus*/a bear sees or *conspicitur sus*/a sow is seen?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I would argue that Romans did feel a need for “word spacing” insofar as they needed help in discerning the pauses, breaks and gaps between words, ideas and sentences.  We have evidence that once the text had been heard, many Romans felt compelled to mark their texts with [annotations][8] that approximated what they had heard.  However, perhaps because of the reliance on oral/aural cues in reading, it never seemed to occur to them to represent these *intervalla* visually by inserting literal gaps into text. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, the concept of spacing text was used in one particular context: [texts][9] aimed at those learning Latin in the 3rd to 7th centuries AD, a period during which *scriptio continua* was in vogue.  A combination of spaces, columns and/or various punctuation symbols were routinely used to make absolutely clear to the (typically Greek) student where one word ended and another began, or to indicate groups of words that formed a grammatical unit, or to separate *lemmata* from glosses.  Of course, this could use up a lot space and in some cases where space was at a premium, such as in a trilingual text, the words would be run together.  But then another less spacious form of word division was employed.  It seems a strange irony that Latin gave up word division to mimic Greek *scriptio continua* but then had to employ word division so that Greeks could learn Latin!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=e7aRMnnRMUcC&amp;pg=PA94&amp;source=gbs_toc_r&amp;cad=4#v=snippet&amp;q=deplorable&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/33/what-punctuation-was-used-in-classical-latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Space_Between_Words.html?id=w3vZaFoaa3EC&amp;redir_esc=y&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698901001328&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/2122/1/Cogsci%2797-thai.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=QCaoDQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT37&amp;lpg=PT37&amp;dq=Antiquity:%20Aids%20for%20Inexperienced%20Readers%20and%20the%20Prehistory%20of%20Punctuation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=h0n6c6s2wY&amp;sig=OcU4LHFeXBSV3eo5QMq8NueZLHA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwichMqf6JjSAhWFUbwKHcJbAvkQ6AEILDAE#v=snippet&amp;q=at%20first%20sight&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=QCaoDQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT37&amp;lpg=PT37&amp;dq=Antiquity:%20Aids%20for%20Inexperienced%20Readers%20and%20the%20Prehistory%20of%20Punctuation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=h0n6c6s2wY&amp;sig=OcU4LHFeXBSV3eo5QMq8NueZLHA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwichMqf6JjSAhWFUbwKHcJbAvkQ6AEILDAE#v=snippet&amp;q=servius&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2352/ancient-guides-or-descriptions-of-punctuation/2432#2432&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.academia.edu/31485366/Word_division_in_bilingual_texts_2017_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1948" RevisionGUID="96fc399b-2959-446f-863a-3c0748ff788d" CreationDate="2017-02-19T15:11:40.963" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected a typo." Text="I will split this answer in two halves, for two different kinds of date expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# On November 4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The traditional Roman calendar, whose system is still in use in some festive occasions, is based on three special days in each month:&#xD;&#xA;*Kalendae* (first day of the month), *Nonae* (fifth or seventh), and *Idus* (13th or 15th).&#xD;&#xA;The later options (7 and 15 instead of 5 and 13) were used in March, May, July, and October; in the other months *Nonae* was fifth and *Idus* thirteenth.&#xD;&#xA;All these three words are plural feminines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the date falls on one of these special days, you simply put it in ablative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- on March 1 = *Kalendis Martiis*&#xD;&#xA;- on August 5 = *Nonis Augustis*&#xD;&#xA;- on October 15 = *Idibus Octobribus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of days immediately before special days, use the word *pridies* in ablative and put the special day in accusative.&#xD;&#xA;The name of the month is that of the special day, not necessarily that of the day of interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- on February 28 (29 on leap years) = *pridie Kalendas Martias*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I have sometimes seen *postridie* used the same way for days right after a special day.&#xD;&#xA;If this method is used, then &quot;on August 6&quot; = *postridie Nonas Augustas*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For all other days, you count days to the following special day.&#xD;&#xA;As is typical in Latin, counting is inclusive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- on October 13 = *ante diem tertium Idus Octobres*&#xD;&#xA;- on October 12 = *ante diem quartum Idus Octobres*&#xD;&#xA;- on October 17 = *ante diem sextum decimum Kalendas Novembres*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these can be abbreviated, of course:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Kal. Nov.*&#xD;&#xA;- *prid. Id. Aug.*&#xD;&#xA;- *a. d. XIV Kal. Dec.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Counting days before *Kalendae Martiae* on a leap year is a bit tricky, and I will exclude it here.&#xD;&#xA;This special case and the story behind it should be taken to a separate question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contemporary Latin, it is common write things in a more simple and modern way: &quot;on January 5&quot; is simply *die quinto mensis Ianuarii*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be abbreviated further without much risk of confusion.&#xD;&#xA;The first option I propose is to leave out *die* and *mensis*, since they can be understood implicitly, leaving us with *quinto Ianuarii*.&#xD;&#xA;Another option is to take the month name (which is an adjective in Latin) to modify the numeral or the implicit *dies*, leading to *quinto Ianuario*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A year can be added by the ablative of *annus* and an ordinal numeral: *Hic situs palam factus est Idibus Martiis anno bis millesimo sexto decimo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Today is November 4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any ancient use of phrases like &quot;today is November 4&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, *pridie* is often considered an adverb since the noun *pridies* is only found in the singular ablative form used in dates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the old system can be adapted to such expressions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- today is August 5 = *hodie sunt Nonae Augustae*&#xD;&#xA;- today is March 31 = *hodie est pridies Kalendas Apriles*&#xD;&#xA;- today is October 12 = *hodie est dies quartus ante Idus Octobres*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I stress that these are not attested (as far as I know), but I consider them to be a reasonable extension of classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Notice that *hodie* is here an adverb, not the subject in the above sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the more modern variants, the construction is simple: &quot;today is August 5&quot; = *hodie est dies quintus mensis Augusti*.&#xD;&#xA;Again, ellipsis is possible if this feels too verbose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A year can be added like in the &quot;on November 4&quot; case.&#xD;&#xA;But now genitive is more appropriate than ablative: &quot;Today is [December 6 of the year 1917](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_(Finland)).&quot; = *Hodie est dies octavus ante Idus Decembres anni millesimi nongentesimi septimi decimi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me end with listing all the possibilities I offer for November 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On November 4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *pridie Nonas Novembres (prid. Non. Nov.)*&#xD;&#xA;- *die quarto mensis Novembris (die 4 mensis Nov.)*&#xD;&#xA;- *quarto Novembris (4 Nov.)*&#xD;&#xA;- *[die] quarto Novembri (4 Nov.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today is November 4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *hodie est pridies Nonas Novembres*&#xD;&#xA;- *hodie est dies quartus mensis Novembris*&#xD;&#xA;- *hodie est quartus Novembris*&#xD;&#xA;- *hodie est [dies] quartus November*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2685" RevisionGUID="c26cbeb7-2492-4585-82ac-87d1b242e77a" CreationDate="2017-02-19T18:23:37.103" UserId="40" Comment="corrected &quot;istus&quot;" Text="**Why did Roman authors never feel a need for word spacing?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting question because the Romans certainly accepted the notion of word division, at least until about 100 AD, at which point Romans adopted *scriptio continua* in imitation of the Greeks, a move that at least one scholar has called a “[deplorable regression][1]”.  This word division had been marked chiefly via *[interpuncta][2]*, a system probably inherited from the Etruscans, but not spaces between words.  So, to rephrase your question a little: if you’re going to have word division, why use dots and not spaces?  After all, if “punctuation” or *pungere* means to puncture or to create a gap, why not insert a literal gap in the text?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, Romans had gaps in their speech.  Cicero, for instance, when writing about oratory, often refers to pauses between words (*interpuncta verborum* De Oratore III.XLVI.181), pauses between ideas (interpuncta argumentorum De Oratore II.XLI.177), and pauses in which to catch one’s breath (*interpuncta intervalla, morae respirationesque* Orator XVI.53).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But [Saenger][3] suggests that Romans’ reliance on reading aloud made indicating these pauses visually with spaces in the text redundant.  And while the lack of spaces may have made comprehension difficult, he argues that reading was confined to a small, elite group and thus there was no incentive to make reading easier.  Indeed, your ability to decipher a text may have been a marker of your belonging to that elite group.&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;**Reading with your ears, not your eyes**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at Latin sources, I can certainly find a lot of evidence of how essential hearing a text was to the understanding of it.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;For example, Quintilian insists that a text needs to be heard by his students in order for their eyes to make sense of it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *… et hercule **praelectio** quae in hoc adhibetur ut facile atque distincte pueri scripta **oculis** sequantur …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; … and indeed **reading aloud**, which is to be employed, so that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; boys can easily and clearly follow the writing **with their eyes** … &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian, *Institutio Oratoria*, 2.5.4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero repeatedly claims that the ear is the best judge of good writing.  One example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *… ut qui vellet **auribus ipsis** quid numerosum*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; … so that he who will may judge by the ear alone what is rhythmical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cicero, *Orator*, LXVII.226&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And elsewhere, he writes that a period should be arranged ‘so as to satisfy the ear’ (*ut et auris impleat*) Cicero, *Orator*, LXVI.221&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, rearranging the words and therefore the rhythm of a text may keep the sense intact but this is not the point, Cicero argues.  It is a practice ‘with which I disagree. “But the words are the same, the meaning is the same” [you say].  That satisfies the mind, not the ears …’ &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *… a quo dissentio. “At eadem verba, eadem sententia”.  Animo istud satis est, **auribus non satis** …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cicero, *Orator*, LXIII.215&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, Quintilian on the difficulty of keeping voice and eyes on the same page (as it were) when reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *… et quod difficillimum est, dividenda intentio animi **ut aliud voce aliud oculis agatur***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; … and most difficult of all, dividing the attention of the mind, so&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the voice does one thing, the eyes another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian, *Institutio Oratoria*, 1.1.34&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saenger would argue that it’s only when reading becomes a contemplative, private and silent act that spaces start to appear because this is easier and quicker to comprehend in one’s head.  Certainly, [many studies][4] have shown that inserting spaces into text improves reading speed, even in languages that do not normally use spaces ([including Thai][5]).  However, making reading easy and quick was never the aim for Roman authors.  Reading wasn’t private, it wasn’t about quiet time or for quickly searching for information, all of which is a very modern understanding of the function of reading.    &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Instead, the lack of punctuation at time of publication and, indeed, the lack of spaces, meant that all texts needed intense preparation before they could be read with any ease and certainly before they could be read aloud.  [Parkes][6] notes that reading aloud at first sight would have been “unusual and unexpected”.  This is why the *praelectio* was such a feature of Roman reading and also why texts were marked up by copyists (the *notis librariorum* Cicero disliked so much), even when *interpuncta* were common.  It also led to confusion, especially once *scriptio continua* was embraced.  Even [grammarians][7] could not agree on meaning due to differing opinions about word division.  Does *Aeneid* 2.798 read *collectam ex Ilio pubem*/a people gathered from Troy or *collectam exilio pubem*/a people gathered for exile?  Is it *conspicit ursus*/a bear sees or *conspicitur sus*/a sow is seen?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I would argue that Romans did feel a need for “word spacing” insofar as they needed help in discerning the pauses, breaks and gaps between words, ideas and sentences.  We have evidence that once the text had been heard, many Romans felt compelled to mark their texts with [annotations][8] that approximated what they had heard.  However, perhaps because of the reliance on oral/aural cues in reading, it never seemed to occur to them to represent these *intervalla* visually by inserting literal gaps into text. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, the concept of spacing text was used in one particular context: [texts][9] aimed at those learning Latin in the 3rd to 7th centuries AD, a period during which *scriptio continua* was in vogue.  A combination of spaces, columns and/or various punctuation symbols were routinely used to make absolutely clear to the (typically Greek) student where one word ended and another began, or to indicate groups of words that formed a grammatical unit, or to separate *lemmata* from glosses.  Of course, this could use up a lot space and in some cases where space was at a premium, such as in a trilingual text, the words would be run together.  But then another less spacious form of word division was employed.  It seems a strange irony that Latin gave up word division to mimic Greek *scriptio continua* but then had to employ word division so that Greeks could learn Latin!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=e7aRMnnRMUcC&amp;pg=PA94&amp;source=gbs_toc_r&amp;cad=4#v=snippet&amp;q=deplorable&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/33/what-punctuation-was-used-in-classical-latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Space_Between_Words.html?id=w3vZaFoaa3EC&amp;redir_esc=y&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698901001328&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/2122/1/Cogsci%2797-thai.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=QCaoDQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT37&amp;lpg=PT37&amp;dq=Antiquity:%20Aids%20for%20Inexperienced%20Readers%20and%20the%20Prehistory%20of%20Punctuation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=h0n6c6s2wY&amp;sig=OcU4LHFeXBSV3eo5QMq8NueZLHA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwichMqf6JjSAhWFUbwKHcJbAvkQ6AEILDAE#v=snippet&amp;q=at%20first%20sight&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=QCaoDQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT37&amp;lpg=PT37&amp;dq=Antiquity:%20Aids%20for%20Inexperienced%20Readers%20and%20the%20Prehistory%20of%20Punctuation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=h0n6c6s2wY&amp;sig=OcU4LHFeXBSV3eo5QMq8NueZLHA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwichMqf6JjSAhWFUbwKHcJbAvkQ6AEILDAE#v=snippet&amp;q=servius&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2352/ancient-guides-or-descriptions-of-punctuation/2432#2432&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.academia.edu/31485366/Word_division_in_bilingual_texts_2017_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="295" RevisionGUID="868ff9ce-c796-40df-8fea-d9c1d4d12e88" CreationDate="2017-02-19T20:11:59.623" UserId="79" Comment="Elisionem vocis &quot;ratione&quot; explicavi." Text="Quando vocabulum **a fortiori** (sive _[a fortiore](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/133/118)_) ortum est ut nomen artis legis logicæve? In quo opere scripto primum apparuit?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Volo intellegere eius rationem originis verificareque verbum elisum &quot;**ratione**&quot; esse. (Vocabulum *a fortiore* enim idem significat ac *a ratione fortiore*.) Notionem in duobus auctoribus antiquis inveni, _[Rhetorica ad Herennium](https://archive.org/stream/adcherenniumdera00capluoft#page/292/mode/2up)_ IV.18 et _[Topica](https://archive.org/stream/oratorbrutustopi00cice#page/382/mode/2up)_ Ciceronis 4.23, sed illa locutionibus dissimilibus utuntur, e.g. &quot;Quod in re maiore valet, valeat in minore.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2686" RevisionGUID="19f0f2a6-7fd2-4a75-b95e-e1d377dbf53c" CreationDate="2017-02-19T21:47:34.107" UserId="79" Text="The phrase &quot;it remains to&quot; is pretty common in mathematics.&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in other contexts as well, but let me restrict my question to the abstract realm for concreteness.&#xD;&#xA;For example, this would not be an unusual phrasing of a proof:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To show that *f* is a continuous linear operator *A &amp;rarr; B*, we need to show that *f(a)&amp;isin;B* for every *a&amp;isin;A*, that *f* is linear, and that *||f(a)||&amp;leq;C||a||* for some *C*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Take any *a&amp;isin;A*. Now *f(a)&amp;isin;B* because&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Linearity is an elementary observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It now remains to show the continuity estimate. To this end, let&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should I phrase &quot;It now remains to show&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The best thing I could come up with is *Nunc remanet, ut demonstremus* with an object noun or with an *accusativus cum infinitivo*.&#xD;&#xA;Is this the best way to go?&#xD;&#xA;Are there other options I should have in mind?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus question:&#xD;&#xA;How did those the mathematicians who wrote in Latin express this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9667" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2686" RevisionGUID="19f0f2a6-7fd2-4a75-b95e-e1d377dbf53c" CreationDate="2017-02-19T21:47:34.107" UserId="79" Text="Phrasing &quot;it remains to&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9668" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2686" RevisionGUID="19f0f2a6-7fd2-4a75-b95e-e1d377dbf53c" CreationDate="2017-02-19T21:47:34.107" UserId="79" Text="|syntax|mathematics|logic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2687" RevisionGUID="f2256af9-4e94-4a76-984c-6ca1045052e0" CreationDate="2017-02-19T23:24:36.653" UserId="1249" Text="Reading LLPSI, I made a list of the proper nouns with macrons in the first lesson of the first chapter:&#xD;&#xA;## CAPITVLVM PRIMVM ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Rōma&#xD;&#xA; - Eurōpa&#xD;&#xA; - Germānia&#xD;&#xA; - Hispānia&#xD;&#xA; - Āfrica&#xD;&#xA; - Nīlus&#xD;&#xA; - Rhēnus&#xD;&#xA; - Dānuvius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;We encounter with **Italia** and **Eurōpa**. But why Europa has a macron but Italia does not? Or why is **Dānuvius** but not **Tiberis**? I know some people recommend to just skip macrons for easyness but if I am going to learn Latin, I want to learn it properly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9670" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2687" RevisionGUID="f2256af9-4e94-4a76-984c-6ca1045052e0" CreationDate="2017-02-19T23:24:36.653" UserId="1249" Text="On Macrons and Vowels" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9671" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2687" RevisionGUID="f2256af9-4e94-4a76-984c-6ca1045052e0" CreationDate="2017-02-19T23:24:36.653" UserId="1249" Text="|orthography|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2631" RevisionGUID="2b8a44e0-0f0b-4782-8bd2-eb5953a34c79" CreationDate="2017-02-19T23:46:21.040" UserId="1249" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I was reading Orberg's *Lingua Latina per se Illustrata* and I found the following sentences: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcus et Quīntus sunt dūo filiī. [...] In familia Rõmāna tres līberī sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I deduce both words mean &quot;children&quot;, but where would I use one or another? (I looked up at some dictionaries but didn't explained the difference).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** This question has led to some kind of debate whether liberī is only applied to children that are born-free. [See it][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2639/does-liberi-only-refer-to-free-children" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2687" RevisionGUID="bd82a995-143e-4690-8415-27b85dd2efed" CreationDate="2017-02-19T23:51:19.303" UserId="1249" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="Reading LLPSI, I made a list of the proper nouns with macrons in the first lesson of the first chapter:&#xD;&#xA;## CAPITVLVM PRIMVM ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Rōma&#xD;&#xA; - Eurōpa&#xD;&#xA; - Germānia&#xD;&#xA; - Hispānia&#xD;&#xA; - Āfrica&#xD;&#xA; - Nīlus&#xD;&#xA; - Rhēnus&#xD;&#xA; - Dānuvius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;We encounter with **Italia** and **Eurōpa**. But why Europa has a macron but Italia does not? Or why is **Dānuvius** but not **Tiberis**? I know some people recommend to just skip macrons for easyness but if I am going to learn Latin, I want to learn it properly since I'm a complete beginner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2688" RevisionGUID="ccc64280-01e7-442c-9b9c-c32fbc86534b" CreationDate="2017-02-19T23:56:55.617" UserId="985" Text="The impersonal verb _superest_ is regularly used for 'it remains (to)'/'all that remains is (to)': either _superest ut_ + subjunctive, or _quod superest_ with, especially, a jussive subjunctive as an appositive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _superest ut ad extremas partes corporis ueniam, quae articulis inter se conseruntur_ (Celsus, _De medicina_ 4.29.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _superest ut promissis deus adnuat tandemque me hac sollicitudine exsoluat._ (Pliny the Younger 1.22.11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _quod superest, elaboratur in hoc a me, sicut tibi sensi placere._ (Cicero, _Ad Atticum_ 5.10.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you could say something like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Superest ut demonstrem...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod superest, demonstretur..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2688" RevisionGUID="76733f2c-ac7e-4935-970e-a8d3371b397c" CreationDate="2017-02-20T02:19:48.330" UserId="985" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body" Text="The impersonal verb _superest_ is regularly used for 'it remains (to)'/'all that remains is (to)': either _superest ut_ + subjunctive, or _quod superest_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _superest ut ad extremas partes corporis ueniam, quae articulis inter se conseruntur_ (Celsus, _De medicina_ 4.29.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _superest ut promissis deus adnuat tandemque me hac sollicitudine exsoluat._ (Pliny the Younger 1.22.11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _quod superest, scribe, quaeso, quam accuratissime (iam enim extrema sunt) quid placeat, quid censeas._ (Cicero, _Ad Atticum_ 9.19.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you could say something like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Superest ut demonstrem...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod superest, demonstretur..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2687" RevisionGUID="80217c32-7db5-4867-b0b1-d9bfe154054c" CreationDate="2017-02-20T03:16:10.050" UserId="1249" Comment="Added a missing macron." Text="Reading LLPSI, I made a list of the proper nouns with macrons in the first lesson of the first chapter:&#xD;&#xA;## CAPITVLVM PRĪMVM ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Rōma&#xD;&#xA; - Eurōpa&#xD;&#xA; - Germānia&#xD;&#xA; - Hispānia&#xD;&#xA; - Āfrica&#xD;&#xA; - Nīlus&#xD;&#xA; - Rhēnus&#xD;&#xA; - Dānuvius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;We encounter with **Italia** and **Eurōpa**. But why Europa has a macron but Italia does not? Or why is **Dānuvius** but not **Tiberis**? I know some people recommend to just skip macrons for easyness but if I am going to learn Latin, I want to learn it properly since I'm a complete beginner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2689" RevisionGUID="2b1d12be-1d7e-4452-9eec-00564711fade" CreationDate="2017-02-20T05:35:38.843" UserId="40" Text="Latin vowels can be short or long, and a macron is a sign that a vowel is long. *Rōma* has a macron over the O because the O in that word happens to be a long vowel. None of the vowels in *Tiberis* have a macron because all three vowels happen to be short. There's no particular reason why a given vowel is long or short, other than the history of the specific word: it's just part of the word, and has to be memorized separately for each word. (A word can have more than one macron in it, by the way, since any vowel can be long or short; all your examples have exactly one, but that's just a coincidence.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2690" RevisionGUID="aebdeafc-bf25-48eb-b2ea-fcaca6662588" CreationDate="2017-02-20T06:48:11.330" UserId="645" Text="Why not simply say *restat demonstrare*, or restat ut demonstremus? It was good enough for Cicero, e.g. *restat ut summa negligentia tibi obstiterit*. (Quint. XII, end)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2690" RevisionGUID="d8b8ce5f-9515-41a0-a7fd-b9964afa3898" CreationDate="2017-02-20T07:00:18.270" UserId="645" Comment="added Newton quotation" Text="Why not simply say *restat demonstrare*, or restat ut demonstremus? It was good enough for Cicero, e.g. *restat ut summa negligentia tibi obstiterit*. (Quint. XII, end).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In more recent Latin, you might be further reassured by finding yourself in the company of Newton, (e.g. in Princ. Prop. III): *Restat igitur ut vis illa, quæ ad Terram spectat, sit reciprocè ut D2; id quod etiam plenius constabit, conferendo hanc vim cum vi gravitatis, ut fit in Propositione sequente.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2691" RevisionGUID="a74ef1f7-c1dc-41f2-bae2-aed034b3e7c0" CreationDate="2017-02-20T12:27:42.887" UserId="645" Text="I was surprised a few days ago to find myself in an argument with a reputable historian about the Romans' use of dogs in war, which I dismissed as a fantasy — or possibly a mere misunderstanding of Antony's soliloquy in (Shakespeare's) 'Julius Caesar', where he says *Cry Havoc! and let slip the dogs of war.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only genuine/original reference that I can find is in Vegetius IV.27, where he describes the use of guard dogs, trained to bark at the surreptitious approach of an enemy. Other internet searches have turned up nothing but simple assertions that dogs were trained for, and used, in war, and there are even illustrations — but no actual evidence. I already knew about the *canis molossus*, a kind of mastiff which is surely historical, but no reference that I can trace suggests its use in warfare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole thing seems unlikely, but perhaps I am wrong to reject it. Is there anywhere a source in support of the Romans' use of dogs in war?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9681" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2691" RevisionGUID="a74ef1f7-c1dc-41f2-bae2-aed034b3e7c0" CreationDate="2017-02-20T12:27:42.887" UserId="645" Text="Did the Romans use war-dogs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9682" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2691" RevisionGUID="a74ef1f7-c1dc-41f2-bae2-aed034b3e7c0" CreationDate="2017-02-20T12:27:42.887" UserId="645" Text="|example-request|resource-request|military|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2692" RevisionGUID="87ecf377-6646-4436-8085-cdface6920fd" CreationDate="2017-02-20T20:38:31.773" UserId="992" Text="I am trying to translate from Bartolf of Nangis, Gesta Francorum expugnantium Iherusalem. This sentence is below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&quot;Quo viso, ignorantes quid esset, Deo se commitentes, inde ad oppidum quod Marescum dicitur profecti sunt, ubi mora et quiete tribus diebus facta, versus Antiocham, Syria urbem quam maximam.&quot;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The sentence that I made translate :..... They moved to toward city of Marash and rested there for 3 days,then they were on the road to Antioch which is the biggest center of Syria?  it is true or false or what? Could someone examine this sentence, please? &#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9684" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2692" RevisionGUID="87ecf377-6646-4436-8085-cdface6920fd" CreationDate="2017-02-20T20:38:31.773" UserId="992" Text="Quo viso, ignorantes quid esset, Deo se commitentes, inde ad oppidum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9685" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2692" RevisionGUID="87ecf377-6646-4436-8085-cdface6920fd" CreationDate="2017-02-20T20:38:31.773" UserId="992" Text="|classical-latin|translation|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2693" RevisionGUID="a39d3cac-de10-4f11-b6cf-d643d5c65557" CreationDate="2017-02-20T21:35:06.950" UserId="79" Text="Waving one's hands can mean avoiding details or drawing attention away from a lie of an unsupported part of an argument or story.&#xD;&#xA;There is an entire [Wikipedia article on the topic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving) if you want more detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how to wave hands in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;More precisely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Does any direct translation of waving hands (like *manus iactare*) have an idiomatic non-literal meaning?&#xD;&#xA;- What would be a good way to express hand-waving in classical Latin? Is there a verb, noun, or other phrase that captures the idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9687" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2693" RevisionGUID="a39d3cac-de10-4f11-b6cf-d643d5c65557" CreationDate="2017-02-20T21:35:06.950" UserId="79" Text="Waving hands classically" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9688" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2693" RevisionGUID="a39d3cac-de10-4f11-b6cf-d643d5c65557" CreationDate="2017-02-20T21:35:06.950" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2694" RevisionGUID="9fbdc803-04fb-4889-8416-aa75eb55b6d8" CreationDate="2017-02-20T21:54:07.970" UserId="79" Text="My guess is that the people described in the sentence saw a divine omen of some kind.&#xD;&#xA;The sentence starts with an absolute ablative *quo viso*, &quot;that thing having been seen&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In more fluent English it is best adapted to the subject of the sentence: &quot;Having seen that thing, they&amp;hellip;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the people had seen something.&#xD;&#xA;They were *ignorantes*, ignoring, of the fact indicated by a short indirect question: *quid esset*.&#xD;&#xA;That is, they ignored or did not know what it was that they saw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to *ignorantes*, they were *comitentes* (one M in classical Latin), &quot;accompanying&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;They accompanied themselves (*se*) to the God (*Deo*).&#xD;&#xA;That is, they were in the company of the God.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting the beginning of the sentence together, the had seen something, they didn't know what it was, and the God was among them.&#xD;&#xA;This is why I guess that some sort of divine sign was shown to them, but, as often happens, they could not recognize it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your translation starts from this point.&#xD;&#xA;It is good, but I want to clarify some points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- They went towards &quot;a city (which is) called Marescum&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- They made a pause and rest (*mora et quies*, again an absolute ablative).&#xD;&#xA;- The superlative *maximam* does not mean that it was the biggest city; especially with *quam* it means that the city was very large, but no comparison is implied.&#xD;&#xA;- I assume it is *Syriae*, not *Syria*, since I cannot parse a nominative or an ablative here, and a genitive would make sense (and you translate it as a genitive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more natural English, I prefer to split the sentence in two.&#xD;&#xA;Combining all this, I would translate your sentence as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; After seeing it but not knowing what it was, they, accompanying the God, set out towards a city called Marescum/Marash.&#xD;&#xA;After pausing there to rest for three days, they continued towards Antioch, a very large city of Syria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might be able to offer a better translation for the start if I knew what they had seen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2692" RevisionGUID="fae89e8e-2966-463b-8929-44ced85593b1" CreationDate="2017-02-20T21:55:44.367" UserId="79" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I am trying to translate from Bartolf of Nangis, Gesta Francorum expugnantium Iherusalem. This sentence is below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&quot;Quo viso, ignorantes quid esset, Deo se commitentes, inde ad oppidum quod Marescum dicitur profecti sunt, ubi mora et quiete tribus diebus facta, versus Antiocham, Syria urbem quam maximam.&quot;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The sentence that I made translate: &quot;... They moved to toward city of Marash and rested there for 3 days,then they were on the road to Antioch which is the biggest center of Syria?&quot; Is this a correct translation or not? Could someone examine this sentence, please? &#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2695" RevisionGUID="95c6de57-fceb-431f-b170-2f4922bed3ac" CreationDate="2017-02-21T00:32:23.763" UserId="45" Text="Joonas did the bulk of the work showing the proper translation of this phrase, but there's one important piece missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase, as quoted, struck me as elliptical and strange, since there is no main verb with &quot;versus Antiocham.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did a little digging and discovered, sure enough, that you are missing the last part of this sentence. Here is the omitted main verb, along with the preceding sentence for context, taken from [*Recueil des historiens des croisades*](https://books.google.com/books?id=uedPAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PT572&amp;lpg=PT572), pg. 572:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quumque ad urbem Eracleam pervenissent, viderunt signum in coelo nimio splendore in modum ensis, cuspide versus orientem protento.** Quo viso, ignorantes quid esset, Deo se committentes, inde ad oppidum quod Marescum dicitur profecti sunt, ubi mora et quiete tribus diebus facta, versus Antiochiam Syriæ urbem quam maximam **iter direxerunt.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **And when they had arrived at the city of Heraclea, they saw with great brightness a sign in the sky in the form of a sword, with its tip extended toward the west.** Upon seeing this, not knowing what it was and committing themselves to God, they set out from there to a town that is called Marescum. Then, after staying and resting for three days, **they directed their march** to Antioch, a very large city in Syria." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2695" RevisionGUID="5e209cc8-5a4b-44eb-a86e-a0f4fab0c486" CreationDate="2017-02-21T00:49:57.490" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Joonas did the bulk of the work showing the proper translation of this phrase, but there's one important piece missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase, as quoted, struck me as elliptical and strange, since there is no main verb with &quot;versus Antiocham.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did a little digging and discovered, sure enough, that you are missing the last part of this sentence. Here is the omitted main verb, along with the preceding sentence for context, taken from [*Recueil des historiens des croisades*](https://books.google.com/books?id=uedPAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PT572&amp;lpg=PT572), pg. 572:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quumque ad urbem Eracleam pervenissent, viderunt signum in coelo nimio splendore in modum ensis, cuspide versus orientem protento.** Quo viso, ignorantes quid esset, Deo se committentes, inde ad oppidum quod Marescum dicitur profecti sunt, ubi mora et quiete tribus diebus facta, versus Antiochiam Syriæ urbem quam maximam **iter direxerunt.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **And when they had arrived at the city of Heraclea, they saw with great brightness a sign in the sky in the form of a sword, with its tip extended toward the west.** Upon seeing this, not knowing what it was and committing themselves to God, they set out from there to a town that is called Marescum. Then, after staying and resting for three days, **they directed their march** to Antioch, the largest city in Syria." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2696" RevisionGUID="b252310e-d745-4ae2-b458-a807a157a382" CreationDate="2017-02-21T02:09:47.767" UserId="1274" Text="I would like to know how to translate cogemur. I saw that it is the first-person plural future passive indicative cogo. But cogo translates as 'force' to me in google translate. So that doesn't seem to make much sense as a verb. Being strong? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2696" RevisionGUID="b252310e-d745-4ae2-b458-a807a157a382" CreationDate="2017-02-21T02:09:47.767" UserId="1274" Text="How to interpret cogemur" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2696" RevisionGUID="b252310e-d745-4ae2-b458-a807a157a382" CreationDate="2017-02-21T02:09:47.767" UserId="1274" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2697" RevisionGUID="22b7d732-d701-42f9-a63b-0aa32e37e67d" CreationDate="2017-02-21T02:33:45.107" UserId="40" Text="*Cogo* has various meanings, including &quot;to force&quot; in the sense of &quot;compel, make someone do something&quot;; it can also mean &quot;to gather or collect&quot;. A precise translation will depend on the context, but in the first-person plural future passive indicative, *cogemur* might mean &quot;we will be forced / compelled / constrained&quot;, or possibly &quot;we will be gathered / collected / mustered&quot;. If you have a sentence in which the word occurs, we'll be able to tell you more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2694" RevisionGUID="c40bf717-872c-4665-9bc3-f98cf6d7c02c" CreationDate="2017-02-21T07:09:12.823" UserId="79" Comment="added 595 characters in body" Text="My guess is that the people described in the sentence saw a divine omen of some kind.&#xD;&#xA;The sentence starts with an absolute ablative *quo viso*, &quot;that thing having been seen&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In more fluent English it is best adapted to the subject of the sentence: &quot;Having seen that thing, they&amp;hellip;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the people had seen something.&#xD;&#xA;They were *ignorantes*, ignoring, of the fact indicated by a short indirect question: *quid esset*.&#xD;&#xA;That is, they ignored or did not know what it was that they saw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to *ignorantes*, they were *committentes* (two Ts in classical Latin), &quot;committing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;They committed themselves (*se*) to the God (*Deo*).&#xD;&#xA;I don't know the most idiomatic English phrasing in this situation, but they entrusted themselves in God's hands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting the beginning of the sentence together, the had seen something, they didn't know what it was, and they trusted the God.&#xD;&#xA;Your translation starts from this point.&#xD;&#xA;It is good, but I want to clarify some points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- They went towards &quot;a city (which is) called Marescum&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- They made a pause and rest (*mora et quies*, again an absolute ablative).&#xD;&#xA;- The superlative *maximam* does not mean that it was the biggest city; especially with *quam* it means that the city was very large, but no comparison is implied. One could read *urbs quam maxima* as &quot;largest possible city&quot;, but &quot;an extremely large city&quot; sounds much more likely to me. (See comments for a discussion.)&#xD;&#xA;- I assume it is *Syriae*, not *Syria*, since I cannot parse a nominative or an ablative here, and a genitive would make sense (and you translate it as a genitive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more natural English, I prefer to split the sentence in two.&#xD;&#xA;Combining all this, I would translate your sentence as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; After seeing it but not knowing what it was, they, leaving themselves in God's hands, set out [from there] towards a city called Marescum/Marash.&#xD;&#xA;After pausing there to rest for three days, they continued towards Antioch, a very large city of Syria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assumed that the predicate *profecti sunt* is implied to cover also *versus Antiocham*.&#xD;&#xA;For fluency, I translated this (implicit) second occurrence with &quot;they continued&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I might be able to offer a better translation for the start if I knew what they had seen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a worse alternative (mis)reading that I did originally.&#xD;&#xA;I include it here for completeness.&#xD;&#xA;If you read *commitentes* as *comitantes*, then the people were &quot;accompanying&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;They accompanied themselves (*se*) to the God (*Deo*).&#xD;&#xA;That is, they were in the company of the God." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2696" RevisionGUID="f8aff1fb-c4c4-4904-b9a2-ad111a8a2953" CreationDate="2017-02-21T07:21:14.790" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and reformatted slightly." Text="I would like to know how to translate *cogemur*. I saw that it is the first-person plural future passive indicative *cogo*. But *cogo* translates as 'force' to me in Google Translate. So that doesn't seem to make much sense as a verb. Being strong? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9699" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2696" RevisionGUID="f8aff1fb-c4c4-4904-b9a2-ad111a8a2953" CreationDate="2017-02-21T07:21:14.790" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and reformatted slightly." Text="|translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2698" RevisionGUID="716d0e78-5aeb-4800-9473-e152284b7ae3" CreationDate="2017-02-21T09:49:28.260" UserId="867" Text="I think that both *index* and *tabula ciborum* work as calques but I can’t find any evidence for either in classical sources.  Indeed, I can’t find any information about whether there even were menus at *tabernae/popinae/cauponae*.  My understanding is that the foods were simply on display.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;I also can’t find any evidence for *tabella cibariorum* but I did find a *wonderful* parallel in Greek: *γραμματειδιον*, also a diminutive, meaning little writing tablet.  Moreover, it is clearly being used to describe a menu, or at the least, a list of the food to be served, albeit at a dinner party:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Οτι εθος ην εν τοις δειπνοις τῳ εστιατορι κατακλιθεντι προδιδοσθαι&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **γραμματειδιον** τι περιεχον των παρεσκευασμενων, εφ ῳ ειδεναι ο τι&#xD;&#xA;&gt; μελλει οψον φερειν ο μαγειρος.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It was the custom at dinner parties for the host to be offered a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **little writing tablet** with a list of the foods prepared when he lay&#xD;&#xA;&gt; down, so that he would know what food the cook was going to bring in.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Athenaeus, *The Learned Banqueters*, 2.49d (please excuse the lack of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accents and breathings – it just takes too long to type them all in!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Latin suggestion is also from the dinner-party scene: *fercula*.  A *ferculum* was a tray used for carrying things, including meals and the plural, *fercula*, became a metonym for courses (of a meal). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Fercula** nunc audi …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now listen to the **courses** [I’m going to serve] …&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Juvenal, *Satires*, 11.64&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *multaque de magna superessent **fercula** cena*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and many **courses** left over from the great dinner&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace, *Satires*, 2.6.24&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Martial, complaining about his host at a dinner party who recited his own poems …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *… dum **fercula** prima morantur*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; … while the first **course** awaits&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Martial, *Epigrams*, 3.50.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sequens **ferculum** fuit scriblita frigida*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the next **course** was a cold tart&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Petronius, *Satyricon*, 66&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *cenam ternis **ferculis** aut cum abundantissime senis praebebat*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; he served dinner with three **courses** or six at his most lavish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suetonius, *Lives of the Caesars: Augustus*, LXXIV&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *fercula*/courses could stand alone for “menu”.  Or you could follow the Greek precedent and combine it with *tabella* to give *tabella ferculorum*/a little tablet of courses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2699" RevisionGUID="8187e6c1-fbee-4187-8a26-81529bed8d7a" CreationDate="2017-02-21T15:02:10.067" UserId="522" Text="Quintilian, whose students were hoping to make it in the professional world, is very conventional. He tells them to avoid too many jokes, cut down on the metaphors, and certainly none of that tricksy Greek word play with clever-clever hidden meaning.  So he tells his students to avoid any sort of arm-waving.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Gestio, gestire, gestivi*** or ***gestii,*** old imperfect ***gestibant.***  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2.** Figurative, rambling, and digression.  Quintilian 10, 5,15.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for Ovid, Livy, Cicero **gestio** is just enthusiastic  body language. If you want to talk about silly arm-waving, that would be... &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Gesticulor, -atus*** to gesticulate, to mime, to make pantomime gestures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice the derisory diminutive **-cul-** (cf. scacula)&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2695" RevisionGUID="6039adb7-4aa0-45a7-b5de-0f104c8d1157" CreationDate="2017-02-21T16:52:52.117" UserId="45" Comment="edited body" Text="Joonas did the bulk of the work showing the proper translation of this phrase, but there's one important piece missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase, as quoted, struck me as elliptical and strange, since there is no main verb with &quot;versus Antiocham.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did a little digging and discovered, sure enough, that you are missing the last part of this sentence. Here is the omitted main verb, along with the preceding sentence for context, taken from [*Recueil des historiens des croisades*](https://books.google.com/books?id=uedPAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PT572&amp;lpg=PT572), pg. 572:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quumque ad urbem Eracleam pervenissent, viderunt signum in coelo nimio splendore in modum ensis, cuspide versus orientem protento.** Quo viso, ignorantes quid esset, Deo se committentes, inde ad oppidum quod Marescum dicitur profecti sunt, ubi mora et quiete tribus diebus facta, versus Antiochiam Syriæ urbem quam maximam **iter direxerunt.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **And when they had arrived at the city of Heraclea, they saw with great brightness a sign in the sky in the form of a sword, with its tip extended toward the east.** Upon seeing this, not knowing what it was and committing themselves to God, they set out from there to a town that is called Marescum. Then, after staying and resting for three days, **they directed their march** to Antioch, the largest city in Syria." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9704" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="295" RevisionGUID="e4f1af2a-5478-4aa3-947a-4ed1a076018a" CreationDate="2017-02-21T21:08:54.513" UserId="-1" Comment="18" />
  <row Id="9705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2700" RevisionGUID="320f59a3-a410-4354-9ba3-07551738e9a5" CreationDate="2017-02-21T21:28:39.070" UserId="79" Text="What would be a good Latin translation of a &quot;star&quot;, a famous actor, musician or other such person?&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a good translation for modern use, but of course an attested ancient choice of words would be great if available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of Latin words for a star, and of course using one of them is an option.&#xD;&#xA;I think that the neuter words *astrum* and *sidus* are not suitable for this use.&#xD;&#xA;*Stella* sounds much better.&#xD;&#xA;There is also the Greek loan *aster*.&#xD;&#xA;A Greek loan adds a posh tone &amp;mdash; in my ears at least &amp;mdash; which I find appropriate for this use.&#xD;&#xA;My own suggestion is to use *aster* for male stars and *stella* for females, to match the genders of the nouns.&#xD;&#xA;But are there other options that I should be aware of?&#xD;&#xA;What translation would you suggest and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9706" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2700" RevisionGUID="320f59a3-a410-4354-9ba3-07551738e9a5" CreationDate="2017-02-21T21:28:39.070" UserId="79" Text="Translating &quot;star&quot; (actor, musician, or similar)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9707" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2700" RevisionGUID="320f59a3-a410-4354-9ba3-07551738e9a5" CreationDate="2017-02-21T21:28:39.070" UserId="79" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2701" RevisionGUID="cba3b5e9-d1f4-4c3d-b669-cbf576d7b7d1" CreationDate="2017-02-21T22:06:05.640" UserId="235" Text="Socrates and Glaucon were talking in the [Latin.SE chat room][1], and among other things, such as what is the most just city, how should men and women be brought up, and whether there should be specific guardians of this center of learning, this Nova Roma, they were at a loss on how to translate the idiom &quot;I see&quot; into proper Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Glaucon*: What do you think is the best qualification [for being a moderator]? Being responsible? Having good judgment? Being active?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Socrates*: Caring about the site. Being friendly and helpful to new and old users. Being cooperative. Giving room for regular users to use and moderate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And some amount of activity. An absent mod is not useful. But you don't have to spend hours every day. The mods don't work here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Glaucon*: Video. (Or would there be a better way to say, I see?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you say &quot;I see&quot; in this colloquial sense? Is there a word or phrase in classical Latin to translate this natural English idiom? Are there many choices? Is there a best?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9709" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2701" RevisionGUID="cba3b5e9-d1f4-4c3d-b669-cbf576d7b7d1" CreationDate="2017-02-21T22:06:05.640" UserId="235" Text="How do you translate the idiom, I see?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9710" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2701" RevisionGUID="cba3b5e9-d1f4-4c3d-b669-cbf576d7b7d1" CreationDate="2017-02-21T22:06:05.640" UserId="235" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|word-request|phrase-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2702" RevisionGUID="539a66fc-76bf-48fc-afa2-912d83c0ca4f" CreationDate="2017-02-21T22:51:01.257" UserId="235" Text="I'm translating another sentence from Plato's Republic, and I'm a little confused about why ἐδόθη (3rd sg aorist passive indicative) is not plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; μουσικὴ μὴν ἐκείνοις γε καὶ γυμναστικὴ ἐδόθη.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ναί.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Plato's Republic, Book 5, section 452a][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shouldn't it be ἐδόθησαν? Or am I wrong to impose my biases from English grammar, where two nouns connected by &quot;and&quot; require a plural verb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also wanted to compare my translation with one I found on Perseus. Here is my translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Indeed, music and athletics were given to the men, at any rate.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Yes.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one on Perseus is far more liberal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Now music together with gymnastic was the training we gave the men.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Yes.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [An English translation from 1969][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't understand where the 1969 translation gets the meaning of &quot;together with&quot;. Is it just an addition that makes it sound better in English? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, why doesn't this translation capture the sense of γε, meaning, &quot;at any rate&quot; or &quot;at least&quot;? Why doesn't it capture the sense of μὴν, meaning, &quot;indeed&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked a lot of questions here, but I think the most important is the title question, and any improvements you might make on my translation. Grateful for any feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0167%3Abook%3D5%3Asection%3D452a&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0168%3Abook%3D5%3Asection%3D452a" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9712" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2702" RevisionGUID="539a66fc-76bf-48fc-afa2-912d83c0ca4f" CreationDate="2017-02-21T22:51:01.257" UserId="235" Text="Do singular nouns connected by &quot;and&quot; require a plural verb? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9713" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2702" RevisionGUID="539a66fc-76bf-48fc-afa2-912d83c0ca4f" CreationDate="2017-02-21T22:51:01.257" UserId="235" Text="|translation|greek|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2699" RevisionGUID="a926263a-3e29-48d9-8c64-4488d3080c7d" CreationDate="2017-02-21T22:51:12.243" UserId="522" Comment="link to Franz Graf pdf" Text="Quintilian, whose students were hoping to make it in the professional world, is very conventional. He tells them to avoid too many jokes, cut down on the metaphors, and certainly none of that tricksy Greek word play with clever-clever hidden meaning.  So he tells his students to avoid any sort of arm-waving.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Gestio, gestire, gestivi*** or ***gestii,*** old imperfect ***gestibant.***  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2.** Figurative, rambling, and digression.  Quintilian 10, 5,15.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for Ovid, Livy, Cicero **gestio** is just enthusiastic  body language. If you want to talk about silly arm-waving, that would be... &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Gesticulor, -atus*** to gesticulate, to mime, to make pantomime gestures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice the derisory diminutive **-cul-** (cf. scacula) (medieval, rare, a military page')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apologies for an over personal, opinionated view. Fritz Graf offers a fuller, more balanced view in **[this pdf][1]** which has a section on Quintilian.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/3346043/BremmerH2.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2699" RevisionGUID="fabe38de-49c3-4088-9304-85d337f144fe" CreationDate="2017-02-21T23:03:07.357" UserId="522" Comment="deleted 78 characters in body" Text="Quintilian, whose students were hoping to make it in the professional world, is very conventional. He tells them to avoid too many jokes, cut down on the metaphors, and certainly none of that tricksy Greek word play with clever-clever hidden meaning.  So he tells his students to avoid any sort of arm-waving.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Gestio, gestire, gestivi*** or ***gestii,*** old imperfect ***gestibant.***  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2.** Figurative, rambling, and digression.  Quintilian 10, 5,15.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for Ovid, Livy, Cicero **gestio** is just enthusiastic  body language. If you want to talk about silly arm-waving, that would be... &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Gesticulor, -atus*** to gesticulate, to mime, to make pantomime gestures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice the derisory diminutive **-cul-** (cf. scacula) (medieval, rare, a military page')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apologies for an over personal, opinionated view. Fritz Graf offers a fuller, more balanced view in a pdf which has a section on Quintilian.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2699" RevisionGUID="341e809f-92e8-458a-8b29-01aa740341db" CreationDate="2017-02-22T04:12:16.920" UserId="522" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Quintilian, whose students were hoping to make it in the professional world, is very conventional. He tells them to avoid too many jokes, cut down on the metaphors, and certainly none of that tricksy Greek word play with clever-clever hidden meaning.  So he tells his students to avoid any sort of arm-waving.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Gestio, gestire, gestivi*** or ***gestii,*** old imperfect ***gestibant.***  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2.** Figurative, rambling, and digression.  Quintilian 10, 5,15.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for Ovid, Livy, Cicero **gestio** is just enthusiastic  body language. If you want to talk about silly arm-waving, that would be... &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Gesticulor, -atus*** to gesticulate, to mime, to make pantomime gestures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice the derisory diminutive **-cul-** (cf. cacula, -ae *m.* rare, a military page')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apologies for an over personal, opinionated view. Fritz Graf offers a fuller, more balanced view in a pdf which has a section on Quintilian.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2703" RevisionGUID="5cd27e4c-56d7-401b-813a-13c91cc394fa" CreationDate="2017-02-22T05:27:21.940" UserId="1152" Text="In Catullus 1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iam tum, cum ausus es unus Italorum omne aevum tribus explicare cartis dotis,  &gt;Iuppiter, et laboriosis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the only ways to justify 'omne' is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) you dared as one 'out of all' of the Latin's to explain the time in three scrlls&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) make omne agree with cartis dotis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the only options that make grammatical sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on what Catullus is trying to say, it makes sense to make omne agree with aevum, even though it doesn't. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is omne in ablative?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9718" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2703" RevisionGUID="5cd27e4c-56d7-401b-813a-13c91cc394fa" CreationDate="2017-02-22T05:27:21.940" UserId="1152" Text="Why is omne ablative in catullus 1?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9719" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2703" RevisionGUID="5cd27e4c-56d7-401b-813a-13c91cc394fa" CreationDate="2017-02-22T05:27:21.940" UserId="1152" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|catullus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2704" RevisionGUID="15cae835-e5cb-4fe0-8a79-55c697a3171a" CreationDate="2017-02-22T05:30:35.033" UserId="985" Text="It's a regular neuter accusative singular form, modifying _aevum_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...you alone of the Italians ventured to unroll all of time..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2704" RevisionGUID="d67c1698-71df-432d-8f00-dc454c90a870" CreationDate="2017-02-22T05:45:34.010" UserId="985" Comment="added 594 characters in body" Text="It's a regular neuter accusative singular form, modifying _aevum_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...you alone of the Italians ventured to unroll all of time...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ablative singular form would be _omnī_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Alone (out) of all the Italians' would be something like _unus ex omnibus Italis_ or _unus omnium Italorum_. An ablative singular wouldn't work here (even if the form were ablative singular); and, although we say in English 'all _of_ the Italians,' Latin tends not to use a genitive with words like _omnis_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'All three learned scrolls' would be _omnibus tribus cartis doctis_. Again, an ablative singular wouldn't work, because there's no way to make it agree with the rest of the phrase (_tribus cartis doctis_), which is ablative plural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2705" RevisionGUID="f8f9ee1a-ebb9-4b1c-94ca-31619843dc04" CreationDate="2017-02-22T07:03:29.700" UserId="235" Text="I was a little stumped, here, when I came across the feminine relative pronoun ᾗ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἴσως δή, εἶπον, παρὰ τὸ ἔθος γελοῖα ἂν φαίνοιτο πολλὰ περὶ τὰ νῦν&#xD;&#xA;&gt; λεγόμενα, εἰ πράξεται ᾗ λέγεται.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; καὶ μάλα, ἔφη.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Plato's Republic, Book 5, section 452a][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's how I translated the passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Perhaps then,&quot; I said, &quot;being contrary to custom, many things related to what we're saying should seem ridiculous, if they will be done according to what is said.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Yes,&quot; he said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I'm unsure as to why ᾗ is in the feminine singular. Is this an arbitrary choice? Or is there a logic to it? For several reasons, I would expect the neuter instead of the feminine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, why the dative case? Nominative makes more sense to me. Is there a better way to translate the dative than the one I gave?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the best translation would be, &quot;if what is said will be done&quot;, but this would be more liberal, and I wanted to understand how the nuts and bolts worked first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0167%3Abook%3D5%3Asection%3D452a" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9724" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2705" RevisionGUID="f8f9ee1a-ebb9-4b1c-94ca-31619843dc04" CreationDate="2017-02-22T07:03:29.700" UserId="235" Text="Why is the relative pronoun put in the dative case? why feminine? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9725" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2705" RevisionGUID="f8f9ee1a-ebb9-4b1c-94ca-31619843dc04" CreationDate="2017-02-22T07:03:29.700" UserId="235" Text="|translation|greek|grammar-identification|relative-pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2701" RevisionGUID="4617ea39-3a31-4775-98ac-8db5ec51e5b5" CreationDate="2017-02-22T07:27:48.733" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 132 characters in body" Text="Socrates and Glaucon were talking in the [Latin.SE chat room][1], and among other things, such as what is the most just city, how should men and women be brought up, and whether there should be specific guardians of this center of learning, this Nova Roma, they were at a loss on how to translate the idiom &quot;I see&quot; into proper Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Glaucon*: What do you think is the best qualification [for being a moderator]? Being responsible? Having good judgment? Being active?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Socrates*: Caring about the site. Being friendly and helpful to new and old users. Being cooperative. Giving room for regular users to use and moderate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Glaucon*: I see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you say &quot;I see&quot; in this colloquial sense? Is there a word or phrase in classical Latin to translate this natural English idiom? Are there many choices? Is there a best?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2706" RevisionGUID="351b1e1e-ab13-49b3-a0dd-4a057bb13869" CreationDate="2017-02-22T08:41:26.233" UserId="985" Text="This is an adverbial use of the relative and has its own entry in LSJ. It's used in comparative clauses, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LSJ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ᾗ**, dat. sg. fem. of relat. Pron. ὅς, ἥ, ὅ, in adverb. sense ... II. of Manner, _how_, _as_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Smyth (§2463):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Comparative clauses of quality or manner are introduced by ὡς _as_, ὥσπερ, καθάπερ _just as_, ὅπως, ᾗ, ὅπῃ, ᾗπερ _as_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2707" RevisionGUID="c255e2c9-4908-40bc-87fe-f7aee120b447" CreationDate="2017-02-22T09:42:54.153" UserId="645" Text="Transforming idiom can often be troublesome, but *video* is probably all right here : there are references to such idiomatic use in most good dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may, however, prefer *capio*. *Capere* is also used classically to mean 'understand', 'agree', etc. (e.g. Cic. *Nat. D. I. 49* . . . *et ad deos adfluat, cum maximis voluptatibus in eas imagines mentem intentam infixamque nostram intellegentiam capere, quae sit et beata natura et aeterna*.) It has an added attraction in that the modern Italian *capisco* seems to have exactly the meaning you are looking for.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2707" RevisionGUID="80d67158-4bff-42eb-91f8-98c72c6c3977" CreationDate="2017-02-22T10:22:23.663" UserId="645" Comment="added example" Text="Transforming idiom can often be troublesome, but *video* is probably all right here : there are references to such idiomatic use in most good dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may, however, prefer *capio*. *Capere* is also used classically to mean 'understand', 'agree', etc. (e.g. Cic. *Nat. D. I. 49* . . . *et ad deos adfluat, cum maximis voluptatibus in eas imagines mentem intentam infixamque nostram intellegentiam capere, quae sit et beata natura et aeterna*.) It has an added attraction in that the modern Italian *capisco* seems to have exactly the meaning you are looking for. In English, too, we can say 'I take the point', which you might translate as *haec capio*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2708" RevisionGUID="ec5a4cc0-76f6-4e40-aca6-bd8de5919bdf" CreationDate="2017-02-22T14:44:22.847" UserId="1152" Text="In catullus 1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quare habe tibi quidquid hoc libelli, qualecumque, quod, o patrona virgo, plus uno maneat perene saeclo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure what libelli is doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without it, I would put hoc in the subjunctive clause and translate as...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, have for yourself, whatever, of whatever kind, so that , to the patrona virgo, this endures more than one generation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9731" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2708" RevisionGUID="ec5a4cc0-76f6-4e40-aca6-bd8de5919bdf" CreationDate="2017-02-22T14:44:22.847" UserId="1152" Text="What is libelli doing in Catullus 1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9732" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2708" RevisionGUID="ec5a4cc0-76f6-4e40-aca6-bd8de5919bdf" CreationDate="2017-02-22T14:44:22.847" UserId="1152" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2708" RevisionGUID="71507b67-0b77-4655-a7cd-c08f8f42c04d" CreationDate="2017-02-22T14:47:07.600" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and reformatted." Text="In Catullus 1 we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quare habe tibi quidquid hoc libelli, qualecumque, quod, o patrona virgo, plus uno maneat perene saeclo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure what *libelli* is doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without it, I would put *hoc* in the subjunctive clause and translate as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hence, have for yourself, whatever, of whatever kind, so that, to the patrona virgo, this endures more than one generation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9734" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2708" RevisionGUID="71507b67-0b77-4655-a7cd-c08f8f42c04d" CreationDate="2017-02-22T14:47:07.600" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and reformatted." Text="|classical-latin|catullus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2709" RevisionGUID="023e6185-4d71-46d0-8824-5f134c158e0b" CreationDate="2017-02-22T15:20:45.623" UserId="45" Text="*Libelli* is in the [**genitive of quantity**](http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/Grammar/Syntax/Syntax-Cases-Genitive.html), used after a noun of quantity to specify &quot;of what.&quot; In addition to strict quantities like *libra* (&quot;pound&quot;), Latin uses this genitive with indefinite quantities, often &quot;substantivized adjectives or pronouns in accusative or nominative,&quot; e.g. *quid*, *multum*, *plus*, *nihil*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A classic example of this construction is: &quot;Quid novi?&quot; = &quot;What's new?&quot; (lit.: &quot;What of new?&quot;) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example from Cicero that uses *quidquid*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **quicquid malefici, sceleris, caedis** erit, proprium id Rosciorum esse debebit. (Cic. Rosc. Am. 42, 122)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;**Whatever evildoing, crime, or violence** there is, the Roscii surely will have a hand in it.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a translation broken up into parts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quare, habe tibi* - &quot;Therefore, please accept...&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quidquid hoc libelli* - &quot;...whatever book this is...&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *qualecumque* - &quot;...as it is.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2703" RevisionGUID="5f39ab03-9d47-4c51-8e8f-ba9ab30d6c37" CreationDate="2017-02-22T15:34:03.910" UserId="45" Comment="added 30 characters in body; edited title" Text="In Catullus 1, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iam tum, cum ausus es unus Italorum   &#xD;&#xA;omne aevum tribus explicare chartis  &#xD;&#xA;doctis, Iuppiter, et laboriosis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only ways to justify 'omne' are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You dared as one 'out of all' of the Latins to explain the time in three scrolls.&#xD;&#xA;2. Make 'omne' agree with 'chartis doctis'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the only options that make grammatical sense to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on what Catullus is trying to say, it makes sense to make 'omne' agree with 'aevum', even though it doesn't. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is 'omne' in the ablative?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9737" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2703" RevisionGUID="5f39ab03-9d47-4c51-8e8f-ba9ab30d6c37" CreationDate="2017-02-22T15:34:03.910" UserId="45" Comment="added 30 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why is omne ablative in Catullus 1?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2708" RevisionGUID="3f166b01-2560-45a5-8317-b5198a8c0c96" CreationDate="2017-02-22T15:37:32.147" UserId="45" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="In Catullus 1 we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quare habe tibi quidquid hoc libelli,  &#xD;&#xA;qualecumque, quod, o patrona virgo,  &#xD;&#xA;plus uno maneat perenne saeclo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure what *libelli* is doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without it, I would put *hoc* in the subjunctive clause and translate as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hence, have for yourself, whatever, of whatever kind, so that, to the patrona virgo, this endures more than one generation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2710" RevisionGUID="c1f66c79-0047-4f18-bb82-d6430ac9b745" CreationDate="2017-02-22T19:08:57.453" UserId="79" Text="What would be a good classical Latin word for &quot;idiot&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;The Latin word *idiota* seems to refer to an uneducated layman, whereas the English &quot;idiot&quot; means someone of low intelligence.&#xD;&#xA;That is, the Latin word refers to low education (uncultivated) but the English one refers to low mental ability (non-cultivable).&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps *bardus*, *infacetus*, or *baro* would work, but I am unsure.&#xD;&#xA;What would you suggest and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9743" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2710" RevisionGUID="c1f66c79-0047-4f18-bb82-d6430ac9b745" CreationDate="2017-02-22T19:08:57.453" UserId="79" Text="Translating &quot;idiot&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9744" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2710" RevisionGUID="c1f66c79-0047-4f18-bb82-d6430ac9b745" CreationDate="2017-02-22T19:08:57.453" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2712" RevisionGUID="5c4da690-0271-438d-b2fc-b21bf545305b" CreationDate="2017-02-22T19:45:52.680" UserId="75" Text="It seems that *stolidus* was used for both meanings, the former “uncultivated” and the latter “non-cultivable.” According to Lewis &amp; Short,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I. Unmovable; and hence, slow, coarse, uncultivated, rude (class.; cf.: fatuus, insipiens, stupidus, stultus, insulsus).—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;B. Lit.: stolidum genus Aeacidarum Bellipotentes sunt magi' quam sapientipotentes, Enn. ap. Cic. Div. 2, 56, 116 (Ann. v. 187 Vahl.): “nam vi depugnare sues stolidi soliti sunt,” id. ib. 2, 56, 116 (Ann. v. 109 id.).—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;II. Dull, senseless, slow of mind, obtuse, stupid, stolid: “mī stolido,” Plaut. Capt. 3, 4, 123: “stulti, stolidi, fatui, fungi, bardi, blenni, buccones,” Plaut. Bacch. 5, 1, 2: “quid, stolide, clamas?” id. Aul. 3, 2, 1; id. Ep. 3, 3, 40; id. Bacch. 3, 6, 19: “vix tandem sensi stolidus,” Ter. And. 3, 1, 12: indocti stolidique, * Hor. Ep. 2, 1, 184: Lentulus perincertum stolidior an vanior, Sall. ap. Gell. 18, 4, 4 (H. 4, 35 Dietsch): “dux ipse inter stolidissimos,” Liv. 22, 28, 9: “o vatum stolidissime, falleris,” Ov. M. 13, 774.—Of the Stoics, Lucr. 1, 641; 1, 1068.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis, Charlton T.; Short, Charles. [*Harper’s Latin Dictionary: A New Latin Dictionary Founded on the Translation of Freund’s Latin-German Lexicon.*][1] New York: American Book, 1879.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; p. [1763][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/harperslatindict00lewi&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/stream/harperslatindict00lewi#page/1762/mode/2up" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2713" RevisionGUID="327907f9-c1cd-494b-b219-3d49ea7f6d55" CreationDate="2017-02-22T19:54:24.420" UserId="45" Text="Plautus offers a colorful list of synonyms which all roughly translate as &quot;idiot&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quicúmque ubi ubi sunt, quí fuerunt quiqué futuri sunt pósthac  &#xD;&#xA;**stultí, stolidi, fatuí, fungi, bardí, blenni, buccónes,**  &#xD;&#xA;solús ego omnis longe ántideo  &#xD;&#xA;stultítia et moribus índoctis. (Pl *Bacch* 5.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Riley's translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whoever there are in any place whatsoever, whoever have been, and whoever shall be, in time to come, **fools, blockheads, idiots, dolts, sots, oafs, lubbers**, I singly by far exceed them all in folly and absurd ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The footnote explains *blennus* and *bucco*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Blennus&quot; means, properly, &quot;dirty-nosed,&quot; and thence &quot;a driveller,&quot; &quot;an idiot.&quot; &quot;Bucco&quot; was &quot;one who had large puffed-out cheeks,&quot; which was considered to be the mark of a blockhead or foot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short glosses *fungus* as an extension of the primary meaning of &quot;mushroom&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A soft-pated fellow, a dolt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it links *bardus* to the same root as *gravis*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stupid, dull of apprehension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other words (*stultus*, *stolidus*, and *fatuus*) should be a part of your working insult vocabulary already :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2643" RevisionGUID="0dc2638f-6831-4ee9-a61e-d18ae2497729" CreationDate="2017-02-22T19:58:12.923" UserId="39" Comment="added 214 characters in body" Text="The OLD says: *liberi* &quot;sons and daughters, children (in connection with their parents).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, it is important to remember that, as [Osgood 2011][1] puts it,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;... **it was of great concern to determine the legal status of any children born**: Romans guarded citizenship rights jealously&quot; (p. 76; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no expert in Roman law but it seems to me *liberi* quite often implied legal descent and hence inheritance rights, cf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;At parentes, si pergunt **liberi** errare, bonis exheredant&quot; (Gellius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or the very phrase [**liberi naturales**][3] (legitimized children in concubinatus, who could become legitimi in the absence of other legitimate children and their mother must have been free-born),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or the famous law, **Ius trium liberorum**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Senatus consultum de Asclepiade Clazomenio sociisque* (78 BC) we read the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“... whatever inheritances have come to them or **their children** by chance, / these are to fully hold, possess and enjoy; whatever lawsuits they, **their children**, their descendants or their wives may bring against another person, or / if other persons bring lawsuits against them, **their children**, their descendants or their wives, these men, their children, &lt;their descendants&gt; or their wives are to have the right of choice …” [English translation by Andrea Raggi; [Raggi 2001\]&#xD;&#xA;][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In pre-classical Latin inscriptions traces of the original diphthong can be seen, e.g. [LEIBEREIS][7] (oi &gt; ei, cf. Weiss 2009/2011, pp. 102-103).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiedemann 1989/2014][2] summarizes it nicely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The most common word, *liberi*, is associated with the concept of *libertas*, 'freedom', not in our western liberal sense of being independent of others, but in the sense of being a member of the (free) community; it is philologically cognate with the Greek word for freedom, *eleutheria*, but also with the German word for 'people', *Leute*. The *liberi* were on the one hand those junior members of a household who were free, as opposed to the slaves, *servi*; and on the other hand a collective group of free-born Roman boys and girls, contrasted with adults of citizen status. They were the future citizen community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The other common word for child *puer*, refers to the junior members of the family or household; in the classical period, the same word is used for the free-born children of the *paterfamilias*, and for his slaves, whatever their age.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188004-e-3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.routledge.com/Adults-and-Children-in-the-Roman-Empire-Routledge-Revivals/Wiedemann/p/book/9780415749671&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/naturales-liberi-e817580?s.num&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WrnAe.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.academia.edu/23250673/Senatus_consultum_de_Asclepiade_Clazomenio_sociisque&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/aureus-with-bust-of-vitellius-162127&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epi_einzel.php?s_sprache=en&amp;p_belegstelle=CIL%2001,%2001531" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2714" RevisionGUID="4e656b0a-3382-4abc-8018-bdac1c37702a" CreationDate="2017-02-22T22:26:53.510" UserId="235" Text="I have a few questions about this passage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τοῦτο μὲν τοίνυν ἓν ὥσπερ κῦμα φῶμεν διαφεύγειν τοῦ γυναικείου πέρι&#xD;&#xA;&gt; νόμου λέγοντες, ὥστε μὴ παντάπασι κατακλυσθῆναι τιθέντας ὡς δεῖ κοινῇ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; πάντα ἐπιτηδεύειν τούς τε φύλακας ἡμῖν καὶ τὰς φυλακίδας, ἀλλά πῃ τὸν&#xD;&#xA;&gt; λόγον αὐτὸν αὑτῷ ὁμολογεῖσθαι ὡς δυνατά τε καὶ ὠφέλιμα λέγει;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Plato's Republic, Book 5, section 457b-457c][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my take:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then, what might we say to escape this one wave of criticism, concerning the law having to do with women, so that we are not wholly overwhelmed making a claim that it is necessary for the male guardians and the female guardians to pursue everything in common, but that in some way the very argument agrees with itself, as what it proposes is both possible and useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a little baffled by the participle λέγοντες. What's it doing here? It's not necessary for introducing the subsequent result clause. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm equally perplexed by the inclusion of ἡμῖν, in the phrase, τούς τε φύλακας ἡμῖν καὶ τὰς φυλακίδας. I don't understand the function of ἡμῖν. Could anyone explain?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0167%3Abook%3D5%3Asection%3D457b" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9754" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2714" RevisionGUID="4e656b0a-3382-4abc-8018-bdac1c37702a" CreationDate="2017-02-22T22:26:53.510" UserId="235" Text="What is this participle λέγοντες doing? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9755" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2714" RevisionGUID="4e656b0a-3382-4abc-8018-bdac1c37702a" CreationDate="2017-02-22T22:26:53.510" UserId="235" Text="|translation|greek|pronomina|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2715" RevisionGUID="c70615cd-5ab7-44cd-98b5-fbf9adbb15c6" CreationDate="2017-02-23T02:30:08.913" UserId="136" Text="While doing some independent translating, I came upon a sentence structure which I am having difficulty putting into Latin. The structure is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; into and out of the X of Y&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or, more generally,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; into and out of the X&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in this situation, it is natural for one to think that one could use _in_ and _ex_ for this construction. However, these prepositions take different grammatical cases, the accusative and ablative, respectively. We are now faced with the conundrum of what case should be used. Currently, I am translating the sentence as such, with X having been replaced by the word _culina_, and Y having been replaced by _domus_, for demonstration purposes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in culinam et e culinā domūs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Macrons only used for differentiation between grammatical cases.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this be a correct translation of &quot;into and out of the kitchen of the house&quot;? Or, is there another, more correct way to translate this construction? In general, is there a rule for declining nouns that have more than one preposition (which each take a different case)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2715" RevisionGUID="c70615cd-5ab7-44cd-98b5-fbf9adbb15c6" CreationDate="2017-02-23T02:30:08.913" UserId="136" Text="Can a noun have more than one preposition?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2715" RevisionGUID="c70615cd-5ab7-44cd-98b5-fbf9adbb15c6" CreationDate="2017-02-23T02:30:08.913" UserId="136" Text="|grammar-choice|declension|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2716" RevisionGUID="8adb9951-1a14-4aca-85c5-263e445501bb" CreationDate="2017-02-23T02:40:25.103" UserId="30" Text="Your translation is correct. I, too, would repeat the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned in [this other question][1], it is very rare to find a noun governed by two prepositions. And I was unable to find such a construction where the two prepositions should have introduced two *different* cases; so perhaps that just never occurred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it did, I suspect the Romans would have used the case demanded by the preposition closest to the noun, considering that they regularly do the same thing with agreement (I think it's usually *stulta est puella aut puer quemcumque heri hic videbam*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2215/can-conjunctions-be-used-to-join-prepositions-with-the-same-object" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2717" RevisionGUID="53e778db-d81c-44e5-aae1-6c1b9f57460d" CreationDate="2017-02-23T05:02:57.587" UserId="1239" Text="If &quot;ex nihilo nihil fit&quot; means &quot;out of nothing comes nothing&quot; then how would one say &quot;out of nothing comes something&quot;? The best I can come up with is &quot;ex quidem nihil fit.&quot; Is that translation correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9761" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2717" RevisionGUID="53e778db-d81c-44e5-aae1-6c1b9f57460d" CreationDate="2017-02-23T05:02:57.587" UserId="1239" Text="Out of nothing comes something (Ex quidem nihil fit?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9762" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2717" RevisionGUID="53e778db-d81c-44e5-aae1-6c1b9f57460d" CreationDate="2017-02-23T05:02:57.587" UserId="1239" Text="|translation|history|philosophy-terms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2718" RevisionGUID="19513da7-1fe4-4f8c-9925-c1968f962352" CreationDate="2017-02-23T05:22:14.090" UserId="235" Text="I think quidem is wrong here, as it is an adverb. You can confirm this on the [Lewis and Short dictionary][1]. Also, you need to keep the ablative phrase &quot;ex nihilo&quot; (you changed it to &quot;ex quidem&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would use this phrase: quid ex nihilo fit. I'm opting for the word &quot;quid&quot; to mean &quot;something&quot;, but there might be better choices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another use of quid, in this sense, would be quid pro quo - &quot;something for something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquidem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2719" RevisionGUID="f3a0d4ab-0c57-4e87-bcf5-087ea45ec03e" CreationDate="2017-02-23T06:03:04.167" UserId="79" Text="I would use the word *nonnihil*, &quot;not nothing&quot; or &quot;something&quot;.&#xA;It also makes the comparison to the original phrase clear.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; *Ex nihilo nonnihil fit.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2718" RevisionGUID="16a99cfb-2bca-4abb-b095-1918bcf4a6d7" CreationDate="2017-02-23T06:08:40.290" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 86 characters in body" Text="I think quidem is wrong here, as it is an adverb. You can confirm this on the [Lewis and Short dictionary][1]. Also, you need to keep the ablative phrase &quot;ex nihilo&quot; (you changed it to &quot;ex quidem&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would use this phrase: aliquid ex nihilo fit. I'm using the word &quot;aliquid&quot; to mean &quot;something&quot;, but there might be better choices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquidem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2720" RevisionGUID="306de790-52db-41c7-9134-a1880e301f38" CreationDate="2017-02-23T09:54:00.943" UserId="1133" Text="When a stress falls on a long vowel or a diphthong as in, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;dīcō (IPA /ˈdiː.koː/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;coepiō (IPA: /ˈkoe̯.pi.oː/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;should I think that the emphasis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. falls on the first mora,&#xD;&#xA; 2. falls on the second mora,&#xD;&#xA; 3. is evenly distributed between the two, or&#xD;&#xA; 4. can do one of them or something else, but it depends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BACKGROUND**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to make sure that I am not overlooking some distinction similar to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;λύων vs. λῦον&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9767" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2720" RevisionGUID="306de790-52db-41c7-9134-a1880e301f38" CreationDate="2017-02-23T09:54:00.943" UserId="1133" Text="Which mora of a stressed long vowel or diphthong bears the emphasis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9768" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2720" RevisionGUID="306de790-52db-41c7-9134-a1880e301f38" CreationDate="2017-02-23T09:54:00.943" UserId="1133" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2720" RevisionGUID="cfaad6a9-0a91-48b7-9f9c-3ba7098bee9c" CreationDate="2017-02-23T11:08:46.727" UserId="79" Comment="added 54 characters in body; edited tags" Text="When a stress falls on a long vowel or a diphthong as in, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;dīcō (IPA /ˈdiː.koː/)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;coepiō (IPA: /ˈkoe̯.pi.oː/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;should I think that the emphasis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. falls on the first mora,&#xD;&#xA; 2. falls on the second mora,&#xD;&#xA; 3. is evenly distributed between the two, or&#xD;&#xA; 4. can do one of them or something else, but it depends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one of these is the case in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BACKGROUND**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to make sure that I am not overlooking some distinction similar to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;λύων vs. λῦον&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9770" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2720" RevisionGUID="cfaad6a9-0a91-48b7-9f9c-3ba7098bee9c" CreationDate="2017-02-23T11:08:46.727" UserId="79" Comment="added 54 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2721" RevisionGUID="264d4657-3048-4c6e-9f24-b2ba1b9e6c5c" CreationDate="2017-02-23T11:57:48.767" UserId="645" Text="With Pliny's well-known *ex Africa semper aliquid novi in mind*, is there any real need for a verb here? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would use *ex nihilo aliquid*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2721" RevisionGUID="3bcbb235-8621-4b9f-9657-5738aa8fc634" CreationDate="2017-02-23T13:54:31.697" UserId="645" Comment="edited body" Text="With Pliny's well-known *ex Africa semper aliquid novi* in mind, is there any real need for a verb here? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would use *ex nihilo aliquid*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2722" RevisionGUID="b4b17cef-04aa-4703-bfc2-a03f9f457adc" CreationDate="2017-02-23T17:26:09.650" UserId="45" Text="1. ***λέγοντες*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It makes sense to construe as one unit the following phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; τοῦ γυναικείου πέρι νόμου λέγοντες&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **[We who are] speaking about the law concerning women**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is the subject of the sentence: I construe *φῶμεν* as a hortatory subjunctive and *ὥσπερ* as a way to &quot;apologize&quot; for the image of a wave. We thus get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; τοῦτο μὲν τοίνυν ἓν ὥσπερ κῦμα φῶμεν διαφεύγειν τοῦ γυναικείου πέρι νόμου λέγοντες..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Speaking about the law concerning women, let us therefore say that we escape this one wave, as it were...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Interesting note from Adams: the present *διαφεύγειν* (&quot;that we escape&quot;) is &quot;less presumptuous&quot; than the aorist *διαφυγεῖν* (&quot;that we escaped&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ***ἡμῖν***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It appears that this *ἡμῖν* is just the dative of possession, i.e. *φύλακας ἡμετέρας*. In fact, a nearly identical construction occurs earlier in the same book:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; οἰησόμεθα δεῖν τὰ αὐτὰ ἐπιτηδεύειν τούς τε φύλακας ἡμῖν καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας αὐτῶν. (454ε)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Further search reveals that this appears to be a kind of stock phrase, &quot;guards to us,&quot; as you can see by doing a Google exact text search. Here's another example from Lucian of Samosata:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ταῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, ὦ Ἀνάχαρσι, ἃ τοὺς νέους ἡμεῖς ἀσκοῦμεν οἰόμενοι φύλακας ἡμῖν τῆς πόλεως ἀγαθοὺς γενέσθαι (Luc. *Anach.* 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt;sup&gt;These are the things, O Anacharsis, in which we train our young people, intending that they become good guardians of the city for us.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation of the whole passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Speaking about the law concerning women, let us therefore say that we escape this one wave, as it were, since we have not been wholly overwhelmed when we made the claim that all our male and female guardians should pursue everything in common, but somehow the argument's internal consistency declares that these things are possible and helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9779" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2714" RevisionGUID="c4c53e62-a50f-43a2-ae8e-52874d621eba" CreationDate="2017-02-23T18:38:08.457" UserId="235" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|greek|pronomina|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2723" RevisionGUID="cdeb4170-6946-496d-b955-dbab7ce9e28b" CreationDate="2017-02-23T20:19:01.977" UserId="235" Text="Well, I think this is the last question I have from my present reading. I have mostly teased out the meaning of this passage, but there is just one word that confuses me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ἤδη οὖν καὶ αὐτὸς μαλθακίζομαι, καὶ ἐκεῖνα μὲν ἐπιθῡμῶ ἀναβαλέσθαι καὶ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὕστερον σκέψασθαι ᾗ δυνατά, νῦν δ᾽ ὡς δυνατῶν ὄντων θεὶς σκέψομαι, ἄν&#xD;&#xA;&gt; μοι παρῑῇς, **πῶς** διατάξουσιν αὐτὰ οἱ ἄρχοντες γιγνόμενα, καὶ ὅτι πάντων&#xD;&#xA;&gt; συμφορώτατα ἂν εἴη πρᾱχθέντα τῇ τε πόλει καὶ τοῖς φύλαξιν. ταῦτα&#xD;&#xA;&gt; πειράσομαι σὺν σοὶ πρότερα σκοπεῖσθαι, ὕστερα δ᾽ ἐκεῖνα, εἴπερ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; παρῑεῖς.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ἀλλὰ παρίημι, ἔφη, καὶ σκόπει.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Plato's Republic, Book 5, section 458b][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My take:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;And therefore I myself have become lazy, and desire to postpone those&#xD;&#xA;&gt; things and examine later their feasibility, but now, making the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assumption that they are possible, I will, if you allow me, inquire&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **how** the archons will arrange these things as they happen, and that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they are done most advantageously of all for both the city and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; guards. I will try to examine these former things with you, and then&#xD;&#xA;&gt; those later things, if you will allow it.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;I do allow it,&quot; he said, &quot;proceed with the inquiry.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am confused about the word πῶς (in bold), which is either the direct interrogative adverb (&quot;how?&quot;) or the enclitic adverb (&quot;somehow&quot;). Wouldn't you expect ὅπως instead of πῶς? I thought that πῶς was only used, in the definite sense, in direct questions, and that ὅπως should be used in contexts like this. What are your thoughts? Does the choice of πῶς make sense to you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0167%3Abook%3D5%3Asection%3D458b" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2723" RevisionGUID="cdeb4170-6946-496d-b955-dbab7ce9e28b" CreationDate="2017-02-23T20:19:01.977" UserId="235" Text="Why is it πῶς and not ὅπως? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2723" RevisionGUID="cdeb4170-6946-496d-b955-dbab7ce9e28b" CreationDate="2017-02-23T20:19:01.977" UserId="235" Text="|translation|vocabulary|greek|plato|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9783" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2714" RevisionGUID="85826352-ff17-4d6f-8e26-19f63fa185a8" CreationDate="2017-02-23T20:19:28.407" UserId="235" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|greek|participle|plato|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9784" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2705" RevisionGUID="9a632024-fe0f-4d26-9c6a-3b1e515f9d24" CreationDate="2017-02-23T20:19:42.963" UserId="235" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|greek|grammar-identification|relative-pronouns|plato|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2718" RevisionGUID="14c5e7cc-325d-44db-85a3-a51996732f5d" CreationDate="2017-02-23T20:20:05.207" UserId="235" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I think quidem is wrong here, as it is an adverb. You can confirm this on the [Lewis and Short dictionary][1]. Also, you need to keep the ablative phrase &quot;ex nihilo&quot; (you changed it to &quot;ex quidem&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would use this phrase: **aliquid ex nihilo fit**. I'm using the word &quot;aliquid&quot; to mean &quot;something&quot;, but there might be better choices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquidem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9786" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2702" RevisionGUID="7137eace-c4df-4c7d-a208-8d8cf05a68ad" CreationDate="2017-02-23T20:20:31.563" UserId="235" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|greek|verbs|plato|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9787" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2682" RevisionGUID="eace1bbc-aae3-495f-8340-5e9172553007" CreationDate="2017-02-23T20:20:51.050" UserId="235" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|greek|plato|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2723" RevisionGUID="a9260714-f2ee-4e9c-98b4-ce64442adfbf" CreationDate="2017-02-23T20:30:16.147" UserId="235" Comment="edited body" Text="Well, I think this is the last question I have from my present reading. I have mostly teased out the meaning of this passage, but there is just one word (in bold) that confuses me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ἤδη οὖν καὶ αὐτὸς μαλθακίζομαι, καὶ ἐκεῖνα μὲν ἐπιθῡμῶ ἀναβαλέσθαι καὶ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὕστερον σκέψασθαι ᾗ δυνατά, νῦν δ᾽ ὡς δυνατῶν ὄντων θεὶς σκέψομαι, ἄν&#xD;&#xA;&gt; μοι παρῑῇς, **πῶς** διατάξουσιν αὐτὰ οἱ ἄρχοντες γιγνόμενα, καὶ ὅτι πάντων&#xD;&#xA;&gt; συμφορώτατα ἂν εἴη πρᾱχθέντα τῇ τε πόλει καὶ τοῖς φύλαξιν. ταῦτα&#xD;&#xA;&gt; πειράσομαι σὺν σοὶ πρότερα σκοπεῖσθαι, ὕστερα δ᾽ ἐκεῖνα, εἴπερ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; παρῑεῖς.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ἀλλὰ παρίημι, ἔφη, καὶ σκόπει.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Plato's Republic, Book 5, section 458b][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My take:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;And therefore I myself have become lazy, and desire to postpone those&#xD;&#xA;&gt; things and examine later their feasibility, but now, making the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assumption that they are possible, I will, if you allow me, inquire&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **how** the archons will arrange these things as they happen, and that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they are done most advantageously of all for both the city and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; guards. I will try to examine these former things with you, and then&#xD;&#xA;&gt; those later things, if you will allow it.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;I do allow it,&quot; he said, &quot;proceed with the inquiry.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am confused about the word πῶς, which is either the direct interrogative adverb (&quot;how?&quot;) or the enclitic adverb (&quot;somehow&quot;). Wouldn't you expect ὅπως instead of πῶς? I thought that πῶς was only used, in the definite sense, in direct questions, and that ὅπως should be used in contexts like this. What are your thoughts? Does the choice of πῶς make sense to you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0167%3Abook%3D5%3Asection%3D458b" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2724" RevisionGUID="12610be0-e7b5-4a1a-a93a-e83269beecd1" CreationDate="2017-02-23T21:06:33.040" UserId="1148" Text="πῶς is widely attested as an alternative for ὅπως in indirect interrogative clauses. Here are some examples of this use with the verb σκέπτομαι:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Isocr. 1,35: σκόπει πρῶτον πῶς τὰ ἑαυτοῦ διῴκησεν&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - And. 124,2: σκέψασθε πῶς γέγονε, καὶ πῶς ἐποιήσατ’ αὐτόν&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Xen. *mem.* 2,1,16: σκεψώμεθα δὲ καὶ τοῦτο, πῶς οἱ δεσπόται τοῖς τοιούτοις οἰκέταις χρῶνται&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Pl. *Prot.* 360e: σκέψασθαι βουλόμενος πῶς ποτ’ ἔχει τὰ περὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς καὶ τί ποτ’ ἐστὶν αὐτό, ἡ ἀρετή&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - [Dem.] 35,54,2: σκοπεῖτε δέ, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, πῶς οὐκ ἀδικεῖσθε&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Arist. *EN* 1123a: σκοπῶν πῶς ἂν ἐλάχιστον ἀναλώσαι&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Aristid. *or.* 9,12 L.-B.:  φέρε δὴ κἀκεῖνο σκέψασθε πῶς αὖ πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἶχον κατ’ ἐκείνους τοὺς χρόνους οἱ Ὀλύνθιοι&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other examples with different verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - A. *Eum.* 677: ἄγγειλον ἡμῖν πῶς τὸ πρᾶγμ᾽ ἠγωνίσω&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Xen. *mem.* 1,2,36: μένω δ᾽ ἀκοῦσαι πῶς ἀγὼν κριθήσεται&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ar. *eq.* 614: πῶς δὲ νῦν βλέπει οὐκ οἴδαμεν" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2725" RevisionGUID="e0146c7f-c493-4121-964e-396f095e6de0" CreationDate="2017-02-23T21:38:47.967" UserId="79" Text="Sometimes people are warned of slippery surfaces with signs saying &quot;slippery when wet&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how to phrase such a sign in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Translating a full sentence is easier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;This road is slippery when it is wet.  &#xD;&#xA;*Haec via lubrica est quando madidus est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might not be perfect, but I think it works.&#xD;&#xA;(Feedback is welcome.)&#xD;&#xA;The thing I have trouble with is squeezing this into a more concise form suitable for a sign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English one would write &quot;slippery when wet&quot;, and in Finnish (directly translated to English) &quot;slippery as wet&quot;, and I guess other languages have other constructions.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I see no obvious choice of structure in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like many Latin adjectives, *madidus* has a corresponding verb: *madere*.&#xD;&#xA;Using that, I would write *lubricus madens*.&#xD;&#xA;**Is this a good way to phrase it, or is there something better?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also like to know how to do this for adjectives without a verb.&#xD;&#xA;**How can I translate short expressions of the form &quot;&amp;lt;adjective&amp;gt; when &amp;lt;adjective&amp;gt;&quot; if there is no corresponding verb?**&#xD;&#xA;I don't know a suitable structure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9791" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2725" RevisionGUID="e0146c7f-c493-4121-964e-396f095e6de0" CreationDate="2017-02-23T21:38:47.967" UserId="79" Text="Slippery when wet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9792" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2725" RevisionGUID="e0146c7f-c493-4121-964e-396f095e6de0" CreationDate="2017-02-23T21:38:47.967" UserId="79" Text="|syntax|adjective|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2725" RevisionGUID="7442f476-45d0-42e1-9134-4034bb8dd57c" CreationDate="2017-02-24T08:19:51.873" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Sometimes people are warned of slippery surfaces with signs saying &quot;slippery when wet&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how to phrase such a sign in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Translating a full sentence is easier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;This road is slippery when it is wet.  &#xD;&#xA;*Haec via lubrica est quando madida est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might not be perfect, but I think it works.&#xD;&#xA;(Feedback is welcome.)&#xD;&#xA;The thing I have trouble with is squeezing this into a more concise form suitable for a sign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English one would write &quot;slippery when wet&quot;, and in Finnish (directly translated to English) &quot;slippery as wet&quot;, and I guess other languages have other constructions.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I see no obvious choice of structure in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like many Latin adjectives, *madidus* has a corresponding verb: *madere*.&#xD;&#xA;Using that, I would write *lubricus madens*.&#xD;&#xA;**Is this a good way to phrase it, or is there something better?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also like to know how to do this for adjectives without a verb.&#xD;&#xA;**How can I translate short expressions of the form &quot;&amp;lt;adjective&amp;gt; when &amp;lt;adjective&amp;gt;&quot; if there is no corresponding verb?**&#xD;&#xA;I don't know a suitable structure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2726" RevisionGUID="f85cc87a-e858-4bcb-a07f-e567bbdb410f" CreationDate="2017-02-24T08:34:46.477" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9797" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2726" RevisionGUID="f85cc87a-e858-4bcb-a07f-e567bbdb410f" CreationDate="2017-02-24T08:34:46.477" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2727" RevisionGUID="231365e0-09f7-41b0-bc4e-bfd1fa76b035" CreationDate="2017-02-24T08:34:46.477" UserId="79" Text="For questions about the Etruscan language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9799" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2727" RevisionGUID="231365e0-09f7-41b0-bc4e-bfd1fa76b035" CreationDate="2017-02-24T08:34:46.477" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2728" RevisionGUID="3fb58692-d48a-4dca-b5ea-cf6b4bbf7087" CreationDate="2017-02-24T09:09:43.410" UserId="867" Text="Apparently, two or more subjects **can** occur with a singular verb, with the verb understood to be agreeing with the nearest or most important subject (Smyth 963 &amp; 966 (c)).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps this is what is happening here?  Perhaps Socrates is wishing to draw attention to the athletic training in particular.  He certainly does proceed to play on the apparent absurdity of women training at the *gymnasia*, so it is possible that he adumbrates this by emphasising it in this sentence. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;*Και* doesn’t have to be limited to a straight conjunction.  It could also be adverbial, meaning *also, even*.  Further, Smyth notes that adverbial *και* “stresses an important idea; usually the idea set forth in the word that follows” (2881).  A translation could, therefore, be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Musical [training] was given to the men, also athletic [training]. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (This could be what the 1969 translation was getting at with “together&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Musical [training] was given to the men, even athletic [training]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Plato’s subtext: just think about where I’m going with this – women&#xD;&#xA;&gt; receiving athletic training!].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Μην* can be translated *yet, however* while *γε* could simply be *indeed*.  With these tweaks, the sentence possibly reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yet musical [training] was given to the men, indeed even athletic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [training] [Plato’s subtext: just think about where I’m going with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this – women receiving athletic training!].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2729" RevisionGUID="cb45f5f7-8323-4285-a4d4-398cecb94296" CreationDate="2017-02-24T14:06:14.187" UserId="1224" Text="If I want to use a term to describe someone who walks on foot rather than riding in a vehicle, which should I choose? I noticed that *pedester* could refer to any people who walk rather than riding a horse, and the opposite is *equester*, but are there any words that directly mean a person outside of a vehicle? Or does *pedester* apply to both?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9802" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2729" RevisionGUID="cb45f5f7-8323-4285-a4d4-398cecb94296" CreationDate="2017-02-24T14:06:14.187" UserId="1224" Text="Pedestrians as Opposed to Riders of Vehicles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9803" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2729" RevisionGUID="cb45f5f7-8323-4285-a4d4-398cecb94296" CreationDate="2017-02-24T14:06:14.187" UserId="1224" Text="|classical-latin|word-comparison|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2730" RevisionGUID="41c91c67-e60a-4f44-8f4c-94d70674c60d" CreationDate="2017-02-24T14:51:19.297" UserId="645" Text="*Pedester* applies to anyone on foot : surely, that already means someone outside a vehicle who is proceeding (or even standing still) on foot? If you really needed to make the distinction of 'not riding in a vehicle', you might make up a nonce-word, e.g. *extravehicularius*. This would be easily understood. You could even extend this principle to define the vehicle which they aren't in : *extracarrucaria*, *extracarpentaria*, and so on (here feminine, because these refer to carriages used by women)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2731" RevisionGUID="97c44acd-35d6-4507-9c6d-627362291737" CreationDate="2017-02-24T15:57:22.893" UserId="1133" Text="In terms of stress, what should I do with a long segment anterior to the stressed syllable of a long word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;comperiē**bā**tur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--where I have emboldened the stressed syllable as I understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 'anterior long segment' would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;comperiē-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing I can imagine doing is to reapply the regular rules, giving myself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;com**pe**riē-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting them back together I would get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;com**pe**riē**bā**tur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something of this sort would tell me what to do when I try to pronounce a long word, and I find that consistent pronunciation really helps with retention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer depends on it, I am interested in learning classical Latin for the present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9808" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2731" RevisionGUID="97c44acd-35d6-4507-9c6d-627362291737" CreationDate="2017-02-24T15:57:22.893" UserId="1133" Text="How to place a second stress on a long word" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9809" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2731" RevisionGUID="97c44acd-35d6-4507-9c6d-627362291737" CreationDate="2017-02-24T15:57:22.893" UserId="1133" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2732" RevisionGUID="c832f499-2066-44a7-9332-d02d16d5fa3c" CreationDate="2017-02-24T17:20:39.783" UserId="645" Text="There are various practical systems of pronunciation — in the UK we find the versions of Oxford, of Westminster School, the  Roman Catholic Church and so on. As far as I know, none is really considered a reliable guide to that used in ancient Rome. Various scholarly books written on the subject (as well as others more fanciful and speculative), even where they rely on remarks by the ancient authorities, have led to no general agreement on pronunciation, only to a number of conventional rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A clue to this conundrum may well lie in classical prosody, where syllable quantities — that is, the lengths as they are heard when spoken — take the place of the stressed sounds that are more familiar to a modern European ear. It was, presumably, just as easy at Rome 2,000 years ago to recognize and distinguish Latin poetical metres as it is difficult for us now, when we do not specially develop the appropriate listening habit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, this doesn't give a specific answer to your question, but it may, I hope, illustrate the kind of thing that confronts anyone beginning classical Latin. Don't let the initial difficulty put you off — and remember the pleasure that everyone here gets from our mutual interest!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2731" RevisionGUID="6593f093-0621-4ed8-ba3a-42f93d189d02" CreationDate="2017-02-24T20:01:45.023" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In terms of stress, what should I do with a long segment anterior to the stressed syllable of a long word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;comperiē**bā**tur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--where I have emboldened the stressed syllable as I understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 'anterior long segment' would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;comperiē-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing I can imagine doing is to reapply the regular rules, giving myself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;com**pe**riē-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting them back together I would get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;com**pe**riē**bā**tur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something of this sort would tell me what to do when I try to pronounce a long word, and I find that consistent pronunciation really helps with retention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer depends on it, I am interested in learning classical Latin for the present." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9816" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2731" RevisionGUID="6593f093-0621-4ed8-ba3a-42f93d189d02" CreationDate="2017-02-24T20:01:45.023" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|pronunciation|stress|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9817" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2648" RevisionGUID="c89086bc-a2e1-4e16-af95-defc626858ec" CreationDate="2017-02-24T20:12:42.147" UserId="45" Comment="19" />
  <row Id="9818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2733" RevisionGUID="12f86195-75fc-4d3f-9b77-9e551043788f" CreationDate="2017-02-24T20:21:06.967" UserId="45" Text="Perhaps this is the site you are remembering?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.teach-and-learn-latin.org/learn-to-read-latin.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has a lot of &quot;noise,&quot; but it has interactive games for the different chapters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2734" RevisionGUID="89bc8558-a06d-4454-906d-553ca50e1ca0" CreationDate="2017-02-24T20:23:24.530" UserId="40" Text="Your main question has been well answered by Penelope and in the article linked by brianpck: when there is a coordination of more than one subject, the verb can agree with the entire coordination or just with the nearest member. So I'll address your other questions, about particles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, a general point about translating Greek particles: don't get too wedded to one-to-one translations, like thinking that γε always has to be translated as &quot;at any rate&quot;. Particles are too nuanced and context-sensitive for such an approach to work, especially as in many cases the English translations that are traditionally offered are themselves rather vacuous: e.g. you may have been told that μήν is to be translated &quot;indeed&quot;, but what does the English word *indeed* actually mean outside a specific context? Not to mention that the same *indeed* also gets offered up as a translation of δή or γε, which have completely different functions from μήν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look first at the γε in ἐκείνοις γε. The function of γε is most often as follows: it picks out one entity out of a set of possible entities in the discourse, and says that the current predication should only be assumed to hold of that particular entity; it may or may not hold for the others, but γε is noncommittal on that point. The entity γε picks out is the word immediately preceding. So in this case, ἐκείνοις γε means that the predication &quot;we have given music and athletics to X&quot; should at this point only be assumed to hold when X = ἐκείνοις, that is, &quot;the men in the ideal state&quot;. This is because Socrates has not yet discussed the tasks of women; he's going to go on to say that the same predication should be extended to the women too, but that hasn't happened yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now for μήν, which is more complicated. I recommend the discussion in Denniston's *Greek Particles* (both for μήν specifically and for other particles). A few relevant points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In Attic prose μήν usually occurs with a negative, as in οὐ μήν; the positive use, however, is typical of Plato's later works.&#xD;&#xA; - (This is not in Denniston, but is my sense of the basic function of μήν.) What μήν often does is to mark a statement as something that the speaker is certain of and is willing to fight for, so to speak -- that is, even if you, the hearer, don't agree, I'm prepared to argue for the truth of the μήν statement. In this it's different from δή, which usually assumes the hearer agrees with or shares the attitude being expressed.&#xD;&#xA; - Out of this basic function (this is now Denniston's &quot;progressive&quot; use) arises a use of μήν to introduce a new point in an argument, but one which is based on another point that was already made and settled. This arises from the previous function because the speaker is expressing certainty about the previously settled point, which he is now going to use as a foundation for a new argument. A translation like &quot;well&quot; or &quot;now&quot; will often work -- the Perseus translator chose the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Finally, I have to disagree with Penelope's suggestion that καί in this sentence may be the adverbial καί meaning &quot;also&quot; or &quot;even&quot; -- it can only be a connective &quot;and&quot;, conjoining the two nominatives; syntactically the sentence cannot do without a coordinator at that point.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2734" RevisionGUID="44288907-3df3-40ac-9740-6dbafe3204f9" CreationDate="2017-02-24T20:30:04.857" UserId="40" Comment="added 296 characters in body" Text="Your main question has been well answered by Penelope and in the article linked by brianpck: when there is a coordination of more than one subject, the verb can agree with the entire coordination or just with the nearest member. So I'll address your other questions, about particles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, a general point about translating Greek particles: don't get too wedded to one-to-one translations, like thinking that γε always has to be translated as &quot;at any rate&quot;. Particles are too nuanced and context-sensitive for such an approach to work, especially as in many cases the English translations that are traditionally offered are themselves rather vacuous: e.g. you may have been told that μήν is to be translated &quot;indeed&quot;, but what does the English word *indeed* actually mean outside a specific context? Not to mention that the same *indeed* also gets offered up as a translation of δή or γε, which have completely different functions from μήν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look first at the γε in ἐκείνοις γε. The function of γε is most often as follows: it picks out one entity out of a set of possible entities in the discourse, and says that the current predication should only be assumed to hold of that particular entity; it may or may not hold for the others, but γε is noncommittal on that point. The entity γε picks out is the word immediately preceding. So in this case, ἐκείνοις γε means that the predication &quot;we have given music and athletics to X&quot; should at this point only be assumed to hold when X = ἐκείνοις, that is, &quot;the men in the ideal state&quot;. This is because Socrates has not yet discussed the tasks of women; he's going to go on to say that the same predication should be extended to the women too, but that hasn't happened yet. In terms of translation, &quot;at any rate&quot; gets the point across but is a little cumbersome; more naturally in English one would express this type of meaning with intonational emphasis and possibly fronting the phrase to the beginning of the clause: &quot;Now, to the *men*, we gave athletics and music.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now for μήν, which is more complicated. I recommend the discussion in Denniston's *Greek Particles* (both for μήν specifically and for other particles). A few relevant points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In Attic prose μήν usually occurs with a negative, as in οὐ μήν; the positive use, however, is typical of Plato's later works.&#xD;&#xA; - (This is not in Denniston, but is my sense of the basic function of μήν.) What μήν often does is to mark a statement as something that the speaker is certain of and is willing to fight for, so to speak -- that is, even if you, the hearer, don't agree, I'm prepared to argue for the truth of the μήν statement. In this it's different from δή, which usually assumes the hearer agrees with or shares the attitude being expressed.&#xD;&#xA; - Out of this basic function (this is now Denniston's &quot;progressive&quot; use) arises a use of μήν to introduce a new point in an argument, but one which is based on another point that was already made and settled. This arises from the previous function because the speaker is expressing certainty about the previously settled point, which he is now going to use as a foundation for a new argument. A translation like &quot;well&quot; or &quot;now&quot; will often work -- the Perseus translator chose the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Finally, I have to disagree with Penelope's suggestion that καί in this sentence may be the adverbial καί meaning &quot;also&quot; or &quot;even&quot; -- it can only be a connective &quot;and&quot;, conjoining the two nominatives; syntactically the sentence cannot do without a coordinator at that point.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2735" RevisionGUID="0b880306-865c-42eb-80ff-21950a57c866" CreationDate="2017-02-24T21:50:00.120" UserId="136" Text="Oftentimes on warning signs, or signs of any type really, a short phrase will be used. These phrases, such as &quot;slippery when wet,&quot; are incomplete sentences, so translating them can be a bit tricky. In actuality, these phrases are actually parts of longer, complete sentences, so if one can translate that sentence, and then isolate the part that is actually used, a decent translation can be found. For the example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Slippery when wet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;one can assume the context of the phrase, and thus the complete sentence is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This surface is slippery when it is wet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is possible to translate with relative ease.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Haec cutis est **lubrica cum madida** sit._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bolded part of this phrase is the translation of the original warning, and can thus be isolated and used in its stead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _lubrica cum madida_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used _cum_ here because the _&quot;cum madida sit&quot;_ explains why the surface is slippery, making this a causal _cum_ clause. There may be other methods of translation (you suggest quando) that can also work. All one has to do is isolate those words that correlate to the English, as long as the meaning is reasonably preserved.&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;Now, I did not pull this method out of thin air. Oftentimes, the reverse process is used for translating Latin phrases into English. Take the Latin motto of the U.S. state of West Virginia, _Montani semper liberi_. In English, we say the translation is &quot;Mountaineers are always free.&quot; The Latin leaves out the form of _esse_, which is quite common in Latin poetry as well. So leaving out extraneous words that are easily implied is not at all unprecedented, and it makes sense to use that logic here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2734" RevisionGUID="7f14d4be-5554-4982-b152-e6bbab8780ab" CreationDate="2017-02-24T21:56:42.993" UserId="40" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Your main question has been well answered by Penelope and in the article linked by brianpck: when there is a coordination of more than one subject, the verb can agree with the entire coordination or just with the nearest member. So I'll address your other questions, about particles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, a general point about translating Greek particles: don't get too wedded to one-to-one translations, like thinking that γε always has to be translated as &quot;at any rate&quot;. Particles are too nuanced and context-sensitive for such an approach to work, especially as in many cases the English translations that are traditionally offered are themselves rather vacuous: e.g. you may have been told that μήν is to be translated &quot;indeed&quot;, but what does the English word *indeed* actually mean outside a specific context? Not to mention that the same *indeed* also gets offered up as a translation of δή or γε, which have completely different functions from μήν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look first at the γε in ἐκείνοις γε. The function of γε is most often as follows: it picks out one entity out of a set of possible entities in the discourse, and says that the current predication should only be assumed to hold of that particular entity; it may or may not hold for the others -- γε is noncommittal on that point. The entity γε picks out is the word immediately preceding. So in this case, ἐκείνοις γε means that the predication &quot;we have given music and athletics to X&quot; should at this point only be assumed to hold when X = ἐκείνοις, that is, &quot;the men in the ideal state&quot;. This is because Socrates has not yet discussed the tasks of women; he's going to go on to say that the same predication should be extended to the women too, but that hasn't happened yet. In terms of translation, &quot;at any rate&quot; gets the point across but is a little cumbersome; more naturally in English one would express this type of meaning with intonational emphasis and possibly fronting the phrase to the beginning of the clause: &quot;Now, to the *men*, we gave athletics and music.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now for μήν, which is more complicated. I recommend the discussion in Denniston's *Greek Particles* (both for μήν specifically and for other particles). A few relevant points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In Attic prose μήν usually occurs with a negative, as in οὐ μήν; the positive use, however, is typical of Plato's later works.&#xD;&#xA; - (This is not in Denniston, but is my sense of the basic function of μήν.) What μήν often does is to mark a statement as something that the speaker is certain of and is willing to fight for, so to speak -- that is, even if you, the hearer, don't agree, I'm prepared to argue for the truth of the μήν statement. In this it's different from δή, which usually assumes the hearer agrees with or shares the attitude being expressed.&#xD;&#xA; - Out of this basic function (this is now Denniston's &quot;progressive&quot; use) arises a use of μήν to introduce a new point in an argument, but one which is based on another point that was already made and settled. This arises from the previous function because the speaker is expressing certainty about the previously settled point, which he is now going to use as a foundation for a new argument. A translation like &quot;well&quot; or &quot;now&quot; will often work -- the Perseus translator chose the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Finally, I have to disagree with Penelope's suggestion that καί in this sentence may be the adverbial καί meaning &quot;also&quot; or &quot;even&quot; -- it can only be a connective &quot;and&quot;, conjoining the two nominatives; syntactically the sentence cannot do without a coordinator at that point.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2736" RevisionGUID="143dc984-b052-44e9-829a-5d8648f0f0c1" CreationDate="2017-02-24T23:04:12.660" UserId="79" Text="I will start with my comments.&#xD;&#xA;Quotations follow after the line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you wrote, *diligere* is about esteem, *amare* is about passion.&#xD;&#xA;With this in mind, I would not consider *diligere* colder than *amare*.&#xD;&#xA;A husband can love his wife in an erotic way (*amare*) and he should probably let her know about that, but it is also important that he values her as a person and is proud to share his life with a good human being (*diligere*).&#xD;&#xA;Both feelings are important to the relationship, and both have their appropriate times, but I don't see *diligere* as a lesser form of love.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, I would say that there can be *amor* without *dilectio* and vice versa.&#xD;&#xA;Suppose a woman lives with a man whom she finds very interesting and is proud to help him with his important career, but she feels no physical attraction.&#xD;&#xA;There is *dilectio* without *amor*.&#xD;&#xA;Suppose the same woman has a physically attractive lover who always makes her laugh and feel good but who doesn't do anything valuable with his life.&#xD;&#xA;The *amor* can be fierce, but there might not be any *dilectio*.&#xD;&#xA;However, I would argue that true and deep *amor* (whatever that means) requires *dilectio*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you ask me whether there can be feeling A without feeling B, the answer is almost always yes, as long as A and B are not exactly identical. But this has nothing to do with Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Amare* indeed refers to all kinds of love.&#xD;&#xA;To refer to sexual love as opposed to love between friends, I would consider words like *calor*, *cupido*, *cupiditas*, *ardor*, and *libido*.&#xD;&#xA;These are all nouns; I don't know a good verb for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything so far is based on my interpretation of these two words based on dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S compares the two verbs in [the entry *amo*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=amo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, &quot;Amare in ccntr. with diligere, as stronger, more affectionate&quot;, but on the other hand &quot;But diligere, as indicative of esteem, is more emph. than amare, which denotes an instinctive or affectionate love&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several examples of the two verbs used in the same context.&#xD;&#xA;It is surprisingly common in Cicero, many of which are not mentioned in the linked dictionary entry.&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Cic. Amic. 100](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0040%3Asection%3D100):&#xD;&#xA;&amp;hellip; exardescit sive amor sive amicitia; utrumque enim ductum est ab amando, **Amare autem nihil est aliud nisi eum ipsum diligere quem ames**, nulla indigentia, nulla utilitate quaesita. quae tamen ipsa ecflorescit ex amicitia, etiam si tu eam minus secutus sis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Falconer's translation](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0041%3Asection%3D100):&#xD;&#xA;&amp;hellip; love or friendship leaps into flame; for both words are derived from a word meaning “to love.” But **love is nothing other than the great esteem and affection felt for him who inspires that sentiment**, and it is not sought because of material need or for the sake of material gain. Nevertheless even this blossoms forth from friendship, although you did not make it your aim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I read this correctly, Cicero says that to love is to esteem highly.&#xD;&#xA;(I would rather say that deep love requires esteem, but I don't want to challenge Cicero's statement here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example of the two verbs used together:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Cic. ad Brut. 1.1.1](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.02.0007):&#xD;&#xA;Clodius [&amp;hellip;] valde me diligit vel, ut ἐμφατικώτερον dicam, valde me amat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My rough translation:&#xD;&#xA;Clodius thinks highly of me, or, to put it more emphatically, he really loves me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gives the impression that *amare* is stronger than *diligere*.&#xD;&#xA;I think *diligere* means roughly the same thing in this quote and the previous one, but *amare* does not.&#xD;&#xA;Here it looks more like &quot;to like a lot&quot; than &quot;to feel love&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(Compare &quot;I love ice cream!&quot; with &quot;I love you!&quot; to see the same effect in English.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same comparison also appears in [a letter of his](http://thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/fam13.shtml#47): *eum a me non diligi solum, verum etiam amari*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Cic. Ver. 2.4.51](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0012%3Atext%3DVer.%3Aactio%3D2%3Abook%3D4%3Asection%3D51):&#xD;&#xA;Homo nobilis, qui a suis amari et diligi vellet&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Yonge's translation](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.%20Ver.%202.4.51&amp;lang=original):&#xD;&#xA;That noble man, as one who wished to be loved and esteemed by his fellow citizens&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage indicates that *amare* and *diligere* are complementary instead of one containing the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have only looked at Cicero, and the meaning and especially the difference of *amare* and *diligere* is depends much on context.&#xD;&#xA;There is an overall tendency for *amare* to mean love and *diligere* esteem, but this is only a rule of thumb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;Comparison of these two verbs in Cicero alone is a broad subject and worth separate study.&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;Cic. Fam. 13.29&#xD;&#xA;http://thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/fam13.shtml#29&#xD;&#xA;ab his initiis noster in te amor profectus auxit paternam necessitudinem et eo magis, quod intellexi, ut primum per aetatem iudicium facere potueris, quanti quisque tibi faciendus esset, me a te in primis coeptum esse observari, coli, diligi&#xD;&#xA;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0022%3Atext%3DF%3Abook%3D13%3Aletter%3D29&#xD;&#xA;Starting from that origin my personal affection enhanced the ancestral friendship, and the more so that I perceived, as soon as your time of life admitted of your forming an independent judgment as to the value you should attach to this or that person, that I at once began to receive from you marks of respect, regard, and affection.&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2731" RevisionGUID="62d40946-5d89-41bd-91d0-b971b3f96d39" CreationDate="2017-02-25T02:19:49.330" UserId="1133" Comment="added 253 characters in body" Text="In terms of stress, what should I do with a long segment anterior to the stressed syllable of a long word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;comperiē**bā**tur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--where I have emboldened the stressed syllable as I understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 'anterior long segment' would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;comperiē-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing I can imagine doing is to reapply the regular rules, giving myself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;com**pe**riē-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting them back together I would get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;com**pe**riē**bā**tur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something of this sort would tell me what to do when I try to pronounce a long word, and I find that consistent pronunciation really helps with retention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer depends on it, I am interested in learning classical Latin for the present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to add that I don't need the 'right' answer necessarily.  Any consistent system to get me started would be much better than what I do currently, which is to go, 'Oh no, a long one again.  Com - pe - ri - eeeee - **baaaa** - tur?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2737" RevisionGUID="de297253-b82e-460e-b34a-f8de54097550" CreationDate="2017-02-25T04:11:40.423" UserId="1284" Text="There is an awesome quote in the brilliant book Le Petit Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry that is commonly translated to english as &quot;what is essential is invisible to the eye&quot; or simple &quot;the essential is invisible to the eyes&quot;. I'm trying to translate it to latin for a birthday card and the best that I could was &quot;quod est per se invisibilis oculum&quot;. It is right? Does anyone suggest a better translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2737" RevisionGUID="de297253-b82e-460e-b34a-f8de54097550" CreationDate="2017-02-25T04:11:40.423" UserId="1284" Text="Le Petit Prince Translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2737" RevisionGUID="de297253-b82e-460e-b34a-f8de54097550" CreationDate="2017-02-25T04:11:40.423" UserId="1284" Text="|translation|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2738" RevisionGUID="bb32a301-a132-460e-adbb-894686fb342d" CreationDate="2017-02-25T04:23:00.503" UserId="1239" Text="I want to know how to say &quot;Eleatic arguments&quot; as well as how to say &quot;Eleatistic arguments&quot;. Right now, all I can come up with for the former is &quot;argumenta Eleatica&quot;, and I have no clue about the latter. Thanks in advance for your help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9829" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2738" RevisionGUID="bb32a301-a132-460e-adbb-894686fb342d" CreationDate="2017-02-25T04:23:00.503" UserId="1239" Text="Eleatic arguments (argumenta Eleatica)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9830" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2738" RevisionGUID="bb32a301-a132-460e-adbb-894686fb342d" CreationDate="2017-02-25T04:23:00.503" UserId="1239" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|history|philosophy-terms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2740" RevisionGUID="49a5edc4-ccf5-48cb-bde1-0bbf3ddc87ae" CreationDate="2017-02-25T05:11:07.807" UserId="985" Text="A Latin translation of _Le petit prince_ has been published: _Regulus, vel Pueri soli sapiunt_, trans. Auguste Haury (Paris: Fernand Hazan, editeur, 1961). In it, the line is translated as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quae plurimi sunt, oculis cerni non possunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ('What is worth the most cannot be seen with the eyes.')" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2741" RevisionGUID="0f3ce829-1ff0-4128-83f0-42588a10d812" CreationDate="2017-02-25T06:16:29.897" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&lt;sub&gt;Source: Hurley, Patrick J. *A Concise Introduction to Logic* (2014 12 ed, but ∃ [2017 13 ed](https://www.amazon.com/Concise-Introduction-Logic-Patrick-Hurley/dp/1305958098/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1488002035&amp;sr=1-2)). p. 92 Middle. &lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  The previous section of this chapter explored the cognitive meaning of language in&#xD;&#xA;general. The cognitive meaning of terms comprises two kinds: intensional and extensional. The **intensional meaning**, or **intension**, consists of the qualities or attributes&#xD;&#xA;that the term *connotes*, and the **extensional meaning**, or **extension**, consists of the&#xD;&#xA;members of the class that the term *denotes*. For example, the intensional meaning of&#xD;&#xA;the term “cat” consists of the attributes of being furry, of having four legs, of moving&#xD;&#xA;in a certain way, of emitting certain sounds, and so on, while the extensional meaning&#xD;&#xA;consists of cats themselves—all the cats in the universe. The term connotes the attributes and denotes the cats.   &#xD;&#xA;  The intensional meaning of a term is otherwise known as the **connotation**, and the&#xD;&#xA;extensional meaning is known as the **denotation**. *Intension* and *extension* are roughly&#xD;&#xA;equivalent to the more modern terms *sense* and *reference*, respectively. Also, note that&#xD;&#xA;logic uses the terms *connotation* and *denotation* differently from the way they are used&#xD;&#xA;in grammar. In grammar, *connotation* refers to the subtle nuances of a word, whereas&#xD;&#xA;*denotation* refers to the word’s direct and specific meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not understand the word choice of **intension** and **extension** for the logical concepts above, but suspect etymology to be able to explain the choices? To save space, I reference for only **intension** to save space because **extension** (with the same root) differs only in prefix.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ [ Etymonline  ](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=intension) : ]    &#xD;&#xA;c. 1600, &quot;action of stretching;  increase of degree or force,&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;from Latin *intensionem/intentionem* (nominative *intensio/intentio*) &quot;a stretching, straining,&quot; figuratively &quot;exertion, effort,&quot; noun of action     &#xD;&#xA;from past participle stem of *intendere* in its literal sense of &quot;stretch out, strain&quot; (see [intend](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=intend&amp;allowed_in_frame=0), and compare [intention](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=intention&amp;allowed_in_frame=0), which has the figurative sense). [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ [OED](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/97473?redirectedFrom=intension#eid) : ]        **Etymology:** &lt; Latin *intensiōn-em* stretching, straining, noun of action from *intendĕre* to stretch: see [intend n.](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/97441#eid220110), [intense adj.](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/97466#eid224758), and compare [intention n.](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/97492#eid229279), which is etymologically a doublet of this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intension) : ]    From Latin [intēnsiō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intensio#Latin) ‎(“straining, effort; intensifying”), from [intēnsus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intensus#Latin) ‎(“stretched”), perfect passive participle of [intendō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intendo#Latin) ‎(“strain or stretch toward”)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9834" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2741" RevisionGUID="0f3ce829-1ff0-4128-83f0-42588a10d812" CreationDate="2017-02-25T06:16:29.897" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What semantic notions underlie 'intēnsiō' and 'extensiō' with the logical meanings of 'intension' and 'extension'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9835" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2741" RevisionGUID="0f3ce829-1ff0-4128-83f0-42588a10d812" CreationDate="2017-02-25T06:16:29.897" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|philosophy-terms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2742" RevisionGUID="b62935b0-15bc-4272-975d-1c7fbd5b9b57" CreationDate="2017-02-25T06:27:18.693" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&lt;sub&gt;Source: Hurley, Patrick J. *A Concise Introduction to Logic* (2014 12 ed, but ∃ [2017 13 ed](https://www.amazon.com/Concise-Introduction-Logic-Patrick-Hurley/dp/1305958098/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1488002035&amp;sr=1-2)). p. 92 Middle. &lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  The previous section of this chapter explored the cognitive meaning of language in&#xD;&#xA;general. The cognitive meaning of terms comprises two kinds: intensional and extensional. The **intensional meaning**, or **intension**, consists of the qualities or attributes&#xD;&#xA;that the term *connotes*, and the **extensional meaning**, or **extension**, consists of the&#xD;&#xA;members of the class that the term *denotes*. For example, the intensional meaning of&#xD;&#xA;the term “cat” consists of the attributes of being furry, of having four legs, of moving&#xD;&#xA;in a certain way, of emitting certain sounds, and so on, while the extensional meaning&#xD;&#xA;consists of cats themselves—all the cats in the universe. The term connotes the attributes and denotes the cats.   &#xD;&#xA;  The intensional meaning of a term is otherwise known as the **connotation**, and the&#xD;&#xA;extensional meaning is known as the **denotation**. *Intension* and *extension* are roughly&#xD;&#xA;equivalent to the more modern terms *sense* and *reference*, respectively. Also, note that&#xD;&#xA;logic uses the terms *connotation* and *denotation* differently from the way they are used&#xD;&#xA;in grammar. In grammar, *connotation* refers to the subtle nuances of a word, whereas&#xD;&#xA;*denotation* refers to the word’s direct and specific meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not understand the word choices of **con/de-notation**. Because **con/de-notation** share the same root and differ only in prefix, I conjecture this difference in prefixes to distinguish the logical concepts above. To save space, I link to the references; but tell me if I should reproduce them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymonline for [connote](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=connote&amp;allowed_in_frame=0), [connotation](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=connotation&amp;allowed_in_frame=0), [denote](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=denote&amp;allowed_in_frame=0), [denotation](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=denotation).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OED for [connote](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/39390?redirectedFrom=connote#eid), [connotation](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/39386?redirectedFrom=connotation#eid), [denote](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/50010?redirectedFrom=denote#eid), [denotation](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/50007?redirectedFrom=denotation#eid).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary for [connote](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/connote), [connotation](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/connotation), [denote](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/denote), [denotation](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/denotation). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2742" RevisionGUID="b62935b0-15bc-4272-975d-1c7fbd5b9b57" CreationDate="2017-02-25T06:27:18.693" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What semantic notions underlie the prefixes 'con-' and 'de-' (+ notare) with the logical concepts of 'con/de-notation'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9838" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2742" RevisionGUID="b62935b0-15bc-4272-975d-1c7fbd5b9b57" CreationDate="2017-02-25T06:27:18.693" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|philosophy-terms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2741" RevisionGUID="19ed7dea-4e2b-46ef-9b7a-bde0376b2bdd" CreationDate="2017-02-25T06:29:58.213" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body" Text="&lt;sub&gt;Source: Hurley, Patrick J. *A Concise Introduction to Logic* (2014 12 ed, but ∃ [2017 13 ed](https://www.amazon.com/Concise-Introduction-Logic-Patrick-Hurley/dp/1305958098/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1488002035&amp;sr=1-2)). p. 92 Middle. &lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  The previous section of this chapter explored the cognitive meaning of language in&#xD;&#xA;general. The cognitive meaning of terms comprises two kinds: intensional and extensional. The **intensional meaning**, or **intension**, consists of the qualities or attributes&#xD;&#xA;that the term *connotes*, and the **extensional meaning**, or **extension**, consists of the&#xD;&#xA;members of the class that the term *denotes*. For example, the intensional meaning of&#xD;&#xA;the term “cat” consists of the attributes of being furry, of having four legs, of moving&#xD;&#xA;in a certain way, of emitting certain sounds, and so on, while the extensional meaning&#xD;&#xA;consists of cats themselves—all the cats in the universe. The term connotes the attributes and denotes the cats.   &#xD;&#xA;  The intensional meaning of a term is otherwise known as the **connotation**, and the&#xD;&#xA;extensional meaning is known as the **denotation**. *Intension* and *extension* are roughly&#xD;&#xA;equivalent to the more modern terms *sense* and *reference*, respectively. Also, note that&#xD;&#xA;logic uses the terms *connotation* and *denotation* differently from the way they are used&#xD;&#xA;in grammar. In grammar, *connotation* refers to the subtle nuances of a word, whereas&#xD;&#xA;*denotation* refers to the word’s direct and specific meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not understand the word choices of **in/ex-tension**. Because **in/ex-tension** share the same root and differ only in prefix, I conjecture this difference in prefixes to distinguish the logical concepts above.  To save space, I reference for only **intension**..  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ [ Etymonline  ](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=intension) : ]    &#xD;&#xA;c. 1600, &quot;action of stretching;  increase of degree or force,&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;from Latin *intensionem/intentionem* (nominative *intensio/intentio*) &quot;a stretching, straining,&quot; figuratively &quot;exertion, effort,&quot; noun of action     &#xD;&#xA;from past participle stem of *intendere* in its literal sense of &quot;stretch out, strain&quot; (see [intend](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=intend&amp;allowed_in_frame=0), and compare [intention](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=intention&amp;allowed_in_frame=0), which has the figurative sense). [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ [OED](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/97473?redirectedFrom=intension#eid) : ]        **Etymology:** &lt; Latin *intensiōn-em* stretching, straining, noun of action from *intendĕre* to stretch: see [intend n.](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/97441#eid220110), [intense adj.](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/97466#eid224758), and compare [intention n.](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/97492#eid229279), which is etymologically a doublet of this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intension) : ]    From Latin [intēnsiō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intensio#Latin) ‎(“straining, effort; intensifying”), from [intēnsus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intensus#Latin) ‎(“stretched”), perfect passive participle of [intendō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intendo#Latin) ‎(“strain or stretch toward”)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9840" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2741" RevisionGUID="19ed7dea-4e2b-46ef-9b7a-bde0376b2bdd" CreationDate="2017-02-25T06:29:58.213" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body" Text="What semantic notions underlie the prefixes 'in-' and 'ex-' (+ tēnsiō ) with the logical concepts of 'in/ex-tensionion'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9841" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2715" RevisionGUID="30f48405-ddb3-4de9-8e8f-31e724c3c894" CreationDate="2017-02-25T15:52:30.413" UserId="79" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2215],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9842" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2741" RevisionGUID="53079594-eda5-40a1-8a53-a02eda5339b4" CreationDate="2017-02-26T21:19:18.170" UserId="778" Comment="Fixed slight grammar error on title (tensionion-&gt;tension)" Text="What semantic notions underlie the prefixes 'in-' and 'ex-' (+ tēnsiō ) with the logical concepts of 'in/ex-tension'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9843" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2741" RevisionGUID="53079594-eda5-40a1-8a53-a02eda5339b4" CreationDate="2017-02-26T21:19:18.170" Comment="Proposed by 778 approved by 1148, 406 edit id of 171" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2743" RevisionGUID="62c56c19-cd4d-49a4-b90f-99c1927de54b" CreationDate="2017-02-26T22:06:17.030" UserId="79" Text="The Greek word *Christos* (Χριστός) and the Hebrew word *Messiah* (many similar words exist in related languages, and I don't claim to make an accurate transliteration of any of them) are titles used of Jesus, and they both mean &quot;anointed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It occurred to me that I have never heard a similar title in Latin &amp;mdash; apart from Latinized versions of these two foreign words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is twofold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Was a title of similar literal meaning and of Latin origin ever used of Jesus? If yes, what was it or what were they?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. What would be a good classical Latin translation of &quot;anointed&quot; in a context like this? It may or may not be an actual title used, so I this question is not trivially equivalent with the previous one. I found some candidates, but I can't judge which would be most appropriate: *unctus*, *litus*, *illitus*, *circumlitus*, *delibutus*. If I had to guess, I would go with *unctus*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9845" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2743" RevisionGUID="62c56c19-cd4d-49a4-b90f-99c1927de54b" CreationDate="2017-02-26T22:06:17.030" UserId="79" Text="Christ or Messiah in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9846" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2743" RevisionGUID="62c56c19-cd4d-49a4-b90f-99c1927de54b" CreationDate="2017-02-26T22:06:17.030" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|translation|word-request|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2744" RevisionGUID="bac04adf-9233-4f94-9b49-9d86b4a5a3d4" CreationDate="2017-02-26T22:30:35.443" UserId="78" Text="You never see it with respect to Jesus because it became a proper name by the time it reached Rome. Your intuition on which word to go with, though, is correct. Just compare Samuel anointed Saul in 1 Sam 10:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tulit autem Samuhel lenticulam olei et effudit super caput eius et deosculatus eum ait ecce unxit te Dominus super hereditatem suam in principem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see the various places where *unctus* is used [here](https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?search=unctus+unctum+uncto+uncti&amp;version=VULGATE&amp;searchtype=any&amp;language1=la)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2643" RevisionGUID="d1e8c95e-a937-4024-a299-b7ad777fb950" CreationDate="2017-02-27T04:42:10.093" UserId="39" Comment="added 265 characters in body" Text="The OLD says: *liberi* &quot;sons and daughters, children (in connection with their parents).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, it is important to remember that, as [Osgood 2011][1] puts it,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;... **it was of great concern to determine the legal status of any children born**: Romans guarded citizenship rights jealously&quot; (p. 76; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no expert in Roman law but it seems to me *liberi* quite often implied legal descent and hence inheritance rights, cf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;At parentes, si pergunt **liberi** errare, bonis exheredant&quot; (Gellius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or the very phrase [**liberi naturales**][2] (legitimized children in concubinatus, who could become legitimi in the absence of other legitimate children and their mother must have been free-born),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or the famous law, **Ius trium liberorum**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Senatus consultum de Asclepiade Clazomenio sociisque* (78 BC) we read the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“... whatever inheritances have come to them or **their children** by chance, / these are to fully hold, possess and enjoy; whatever lawsuits they, **their children**, their descendants or their wives may bring against another person, or / if other persons bring lawsuits against them, **their children**, their descendants or their wives, these men, their children, &lt;their descendants&gt; or their wives are to have the right of choice …” [English translation by Andrea Raggi; [Raggi 2001\]&#xD;&#xA;][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In pre-classical Latin inscriptions traces of the original diphthong can be seen, e.g. [LEIBEREIS][5] (oi &gt; ei, cf. Weiss 2009/2011, pp. 102-103).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiedemann 1989/2014][6] summarizes it nicely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The most common word, *liberi*, is associated with the concept of *libertas*, 'freedom', not in our western liberal sense of being independent of others, but in the sense of being a member of the (free) community; it is philologically cognate with the Greek word for freedom, *eleutheria*, but also with the German word for 'people', *Leute*. The *liberi* were on the one hand those junior members of a household who were free, as opposed to the slaves, *servi*; and on the other hand a collective group of free-born Roman boys and girls, contrasted with adults of citizen status. They were the future citizen community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The other common word for child *puer*, refers to the junior members of the family or household; in the classical period, the same word is used for the free-born children of the *paterfamilias*, and for his slaves, whatever their age.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[TLL][7] (Thesaurus linguae Latinae) confirms this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188004-e-3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/naturales-liberi-e817580?s.num&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WrnAe.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.academia.edu/23250673/Senatus_consultum_de_Asclepiade_Clazomenio_sociisque&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epi_einzel.php?s_sprache=en&amp;p_belegstelle=CIL%2001,%2001531&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.routledge.com/Adults-and-Children-in-the-Roman-Empire-Routledge-Revivals/Wiedemann/p/book/9780415749671&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/TLL/7-2-09/7_2_9_liberi_v2007.xml?&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UJhQK.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bRCXJ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2745" RevisionGUID="74d10994-8784-438d-9cd4-83bc5a562c55" CreationDate="2017-02-27T07:30:07.133" UserId="79" Text="Is the Latin word *oleum* (&quot;oil&quot;) related to *oliva* (&quot;olive&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two words look similar, but *oleum* does not look like a regular derivative to me.&#xD;&#xA;Many dictionaries mention that *oleum* means &quot;oil&quot; or &quot;olive oil&quot;, but that could be just because olive oil was the most common oil in antiquity.&#xD;&#xA;Another option that comes to mind is that *oleum* comes from *olere* due to its smell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=oleum&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) does not discuss etymology within Latin, but links to a Greek word.&#xD;&#xA;In Greek the similarity is more obvious (*ἔλαιον=oleum* and *ἔλαιος=oliva*), but it is not clear if *oleum* and *oliva* were borrowed from Greek separately, if *oleum* was derived from *oliva* in Latin, or if something else happened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9851" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2745" RevisionGUID="74d10994-8784-438d-9cd4-83bc5a562c55" CreationDate="2017-02-27T07:30:07.133" UserId="79" Text="Is there oil without olives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9852" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2745" RevisionGUID="74d10994-8784-438d-9cd4-83bc5a562c55" CreationDate="2017-02-27T07:30:07.133" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|etymology|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2747" RevisionGUID="d6e32c64-e052-4b1b-bfbd-257197c6bf03" CreationDate="2017-02-27T15:14:52.953" UserId="45" Text="I agree with the above answer that no Latin translation of &quot;Χριστός&quot; was regularly used in a devotional context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a more explicitly worded Christian source from Isidore of Seville (c. 560 - 636) that translates the name as *Unctus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Multis etiam modis Christus appellari in scripturis invenitur divinis. Nam ipse Dei Patris Unigenitus filius, dum esset aequalis Patri, propter salutem nostram formam servi accepit. Proinde quaedam nomina in illo ex divinitatis substantia, quaedam ex dispensatione susceptae humanitatis adsumpta sunt. **Christus namque a chrismate est appellatus, hoc est unctus.** Praeceptum enim fuerat Iudaeis ut sacrum conficerent unguentum, quo perungui possent hi qui vocabantur ad sacerdotium vel ad regnum: et sicut nunc regibus indumentum purpurae insigne est regiae dignitatis, sic illis unctio sacri unguenti nomen ac potestatem regiam conferebat; et inde Christi dicti a chrismate, quod est unctio. Nam chrisma Graece, Latine unctio nuncupatur, quae etiam Domino nomen adcommodavit facta spiritalis, quia Spiritu unctus est a Deo Patre, sicut in Actibus Act. 4, 27: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; 'Collecti sunt enim in hac civitate adversus sanctum Filium tuum, quem unxisti': &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non utique oleo visibili, sed gratiae dono, quod visibili significatur unguento. Non est autem Salvatoris proprium nomen Christus, sed communis nuncupatio potestatis. Dum enim dicitur Christus, commune dignitatis nomen est; dum Iesus Christus, proprium est vocabulum Salvatoris. Christi autem nomen nusquam alibi omnino nec in aliqua gente fuit, nisi tantum in illo regno ubi Christus prophetabatur, et unde venturus erat. **Messias autem Hebraice dicitur, Graece Christus, Latina autem locutione unctus.** (Isidorus, *Etymologiae*, 7.2)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2748" RevisionGUID="e92a29f5-4051-4c8a-947c-f4b5a0e8adc6" CreationDate="2017-02-28T03:49:58.687" UserId="39" Text="The current **communis opinio** is both Latin words oleum and oliva were borrowed from Greek, which, in its turn, are of Pre-Greek origin (Beekes 2009/2016); cf. Miller 2014 &quot;there are cultural and phonological reasons for thinking Latin borrowed it from Greek&quot; (p. 31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller 2014 writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Since Attic-Ionic lost /w/ prehistorically, Greek words borrowed into Latin&#xD;&#xA;with v /w/ are either from a West Greek (Doric) dialect, or possibly early enough&#xD;&#xA;to have been Mycenaean loans&quot; (p.31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oleum &lt; Gk. *olaiwom &lt; Gk. *olēwom &lt; Gk. *élaiwon (Miller 2014)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oliva &lt; Gk. *élaiwa (Beekes 2009/2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2749" RevisionGUID="8d5bb95c-7bd3-4199-8e46-b5c8efc6a898" CreationDate="2017-02-28T04:05:06.730" UserId="1239" Text="I want to say, &quot;Ergo, something comes from nothing and nothing comes from nothing.&quot; Is it correct to translate this as: &quot;Ergo, ex nihilo aliquid et ex nihilo nihil fit&quot;? I'm aware that &quot;ex nihilo aliquid&quot; means &quot;something out of nothing&quot; and that &quot;ex nihilo nihil fit&quot; means &quot;nothing out of nothing&quot;. Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9865" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2749" RevisionGUID="8d5bb95c-7bd3-4199-8e46-b5c8efc6a898" CreationDate="2017-02-28T04:05:06.730" UserId="1239" Text="Ergo, ex nihilo aliquid et ex nihilo nihil fit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9866" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2749" RevisionGUID="8d5bb95c-7bd3-4199-8e46-b5c8efc6a898" CreationDate="2017-02-28T04:05:06.730" UserId="1239" Text="|translation|history|philosophy-terms|logic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2748" RevisionGUID="ce15a4ad-220a-4b0c-84ac-57c6c6daa0a8" CreationDate="2017-02-28T04:06:49.090" UserId="39" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="The current **communis opinio** is both Latin words oleum and oliva were borrowed from Greek, which, in its turn, are of Pre-Greek origin (e.g. Beekes 2009/2016, Ernout &amp; Meillet 2001); cf. Miller 2014 &quot;there are cultural and phonological reasons for thinking Latin borrowed it from Greek&quot; (p. 31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller 2014 writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Since Attic-Ionic lost /w/ prehistorically, Greek words borrowed into Latin&#xD;&#xA;with v /w/ are either from a West Greek (Doric) dialect, or possibly early enough&#xD;&#xA;to have been Mycenaean loans&quot; (p.31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oleum &lt; Gk. *olaiwom &lt; Gk. *olēwom &lt; Gk. *élaiwon (Miller 2014)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oliva &lt; Gk. *élaiwa (Beekes 2009/2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2748" RevisionGUID="0aa4cd5b-5d83-4421-99c7-db44e596f194" CreationDate="2017-02-28T04:29:42.180" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="The current **communis opinio** is both Latin words oleum and oliva were borrowed from Greek, which, in its turn, are of Pre-Greek origin (e.g. Beekes 2009/2016, Ernout &amp; Meillet 2001); cf. Miller 2014 &quot;there are cultural and phonological reasons for thinking Latin borrowed it from Greek&quot; (p. 31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller 2014 writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Since Attic-Ionic lost /w/ prehistorically, Greek words borrowed into Latin&#xD;&#xA;with v /w/ are either from a West Greek (Doric) dialect, or possibly early enough&#xD;&#xA;to have been Mycenaean loans&quot; (p.31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oleum &lt; *olēwom &lt; *olaiwom &lt; Gk. *élaiwon (Miller 2014)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oliva &lt; Gk. *elaíwā (Beekes 2009/2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2750" RevisionGUID="352343b6-3710-40f9-ad4f-ed48ae7b1d53" CreationDate="2017-02-28T05:31:31.807" UserId="78" Text="Your translation is correct and proper." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2748" RevisionGUID="5700d4cd-cff5-48ee-8031-c5df2fefc130" CreationDate="2017-02-28T05:55:58.973" UserId="39" Comment="added 650 characters in body" Text="The current **communis opinio** is both Latin words oleum and oliva were borrowed from Greek, which, in its turn, are of Pre-Greek origin (e.g. Beekes 2009/2016, Ernout &amp; Meillet 2001); cf. Miller 2014 &quot;there are cultural and phonological reasons for thinking Latin borrowed it from Greek&quot; (p. 31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller 2014 writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Since Attic-Ionic lost /w/ prehistorically, Greek words borrowed into Latin&#xD;&#xA;with v /w/ are either from a West Greek (Doric) dialect, or possibly early enough&#xD;&#xA;to have been Mycenaean loans&quot; (p.31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oleum &lt; *olēwom &lt; *olaiwom &lt; Gk. *élaiwon (Miller 2014)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oliva &lt; Gk. *elaíwā (Beekes 2009/2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for a possible Etruscan intermediary hypothesis suggested by TKR (was it borrowed directly from Greek or via Etruscan?), this is highly speculative. As Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011 write,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;All languages of central Italy participate in borrowing words for material artefacts from Greek. **Often we may be unable to tell whether a word came directly from Greek or via the medium of another language**: Greek *kulίkʰna 'cup' borrowed as Latin *culigna*, Etruscan *culicna*, Oscan *culchina*/*culcfna*&quot; (p. 46; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information we will need to look it up in De Simone 1968-1970 and Watmough 1997 - and I will.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2751" RevisionGUID="d4b69da4-be15-481f-93a3-1b6e7532029e" CreationDate="2017-02-28T09:17:21.070" UserId="79" Text="I heard [a song](https://libera.org.uk/music/libera-cd/) using the phrase *jubilate Deo*, and it seems that this phrase appears in [a psalm](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0060%3Abook%3DPsalms%3Achapter%3D99%3Averse%3D2) as well.&#xD;&#xA;I assume the *Deo/Domino* is a dative.&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the [L&amp;S entry for *jubilare*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=jubilo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) also mentions the accusative usage *me jubilat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it seems that I can use *jubilare* with accusative or dative.&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between the two cases?&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps *Marcum iubilo* would mean &quot;I call out to Marcus&quot; and *Marco iubilo* &quot;I shout in joy for Marcus&quot; &amp;mdash; I would like to have more than my guess.&#xD;&#xA;I haven't managed to find a comparison, and the cited dictionary makes no explicit mention of cases whatsoever." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9872" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2751" RevisionGUID="d4b69da4-be15-481f-93a3-1b6e7532029e" CreationDate="2017-02-28T09:17:21.070" UserId="79" Text="Using cases with jubilare" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9873" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2751" RevisionGUID="d4b69da4-be15-481f-93a3-1b6e7532029e" CreationDate="2017-02-28T09:17:21.070" UserId="79" Text="|grammar-choice|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2752" RevisionGUID="f19aac42-8abe-4214-88e7-ccd2e4da20f6" CreationDate="2017-02-28T10:33:34.773" UserId="645" Text="*Jubilate Deo* is the opening to Psalm 100 :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Jubilate Deo omnis terra! Quia veniet tibi salvator!(bis) Montes et colles humiliabuntur Et erit in die illa lux magna, Ecce veniet in nubibus coeli*. . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's usually translated as 'Rejoice in the Lord, all ye Lands!', and there is a well-known English hymn, called 'The Old Hundredth', which has 'All people that on Earth do dwell / Sing to the Lord with cheerful voice . . .'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think in the present case that you might regard *Deo* as either ablative ('Rejoice in') or dative (sing / shout out to), just as you wish. The accusative is also used in the sense of 'hail', or 'call out to', for which Smith's Latin-English gives an example, *jubilare aliquem*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2753" RevisionGUID="d0889722-8018-40c9-bee5-76fc439cc202" CreationDate="2017-02-28T14:25:58.333" UserId="45" Text="I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that this is a calque from the Septuagint translation of the Psalms. [*Iubilare*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23iubil) is very rare (by my count, less than 10 occurrences) and does not have any attested uses with the dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek, however, is quite clear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **᾿Αλαλάξατε τῷ κυρίῳ**, πᾶσα ἡ γῆ (Ps 99 (100): 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*ἀλαλάζω*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da\)lala%2Fzw) can be used with the accusative (*what* they are shouting about) or dative (*to whom* they raise a cry): the latter usage is seen in the *Anabasis*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἐπαιάνισαν καὶ ἡ σάλπιγξ ἐφθέγξατο, ἅμα τε **τῷ Ἐνυαλίῳ ἠλέλιξαν**. (Xen *Ana* 5.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Then, they sang and the trumpet sounded, and at the same time **they raised a shout to Enyalius.**&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One fact worth noting is that the Psalms, which were such an integral part of the liturgy, were firmly engrained in the minds of early Latin-speaking Christians before Jerome undertook his translation. As a result, the Vulgate follows the *Vetus Latina* very closely, often with somewhat confusing results. The *Vetus Latina* (if I am not mistaken) used the Septuagint as its primary source text, so it seems reasonable that they copied the Greek syntax above with the most plausible substitute for *ἀλαλάζω*: *iubilo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pius XII commissioned an updated translation of the psalms that follows the Hebrew with less awkward syntax. Its translation is slightly different:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exsultate Domino, omnes terrae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Exsulto*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dexsulto), as seen in the linked L&amp;S entry, often takes the ablative (alone or with *in*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: *iubilo* + dat./abl. is not classically attested and may just be a Latin calque on a Greek construction, though it is readily understood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2753" RevisionGUID="880019b4-c12c-4a22-99fc-ca18af8d55b0" CreationDate="2017-02-28T14:38:34.343" UserId="45" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that this is a calque from the Septuagint translation of the Psalms. [*Iubilare*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23iubil) is very rare (by my count, less than 10 occurrences) and does not have any attested uses with the dative or ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek, however, is quite clear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **᾿Αλαλάξατε τῷ κυρίῳ**, πᾶσα ἡ γῆ (Ps 99 (100): 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*ἀλαλάζω*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da\)lala%2Fzw) can be used with the accusative (*what* they are shouting about) or dative (*to whom* they raise a cry): the latter usage is seen in the *Anabasis*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἐπαιάνισαν καὶ ἡ σάλπιγξ ἐφθέγξατο, ἅμα τε **τῷ Ἐνυαλίῳ ἠλέλιξαν**. (Xen *Ana* 5.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Then, they sang and the trumpet sounded, and at the same time **they raised a shout to Enyalius.**&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One fact worth noting is that the Psalms, which were such an integral part of the liturgy, were firmly engrained in the minds of early Latin-speaking Christians before Jerome undertook his translation. As a result, the Vulgate follows the *Vetus Latina* very closely, often with somewhat confusing results. The *Vetus Latina* (if I am not mistaken) used the Septuagint as its primary source text, so it seems reasonable that they copied the Greek syntax above with the most plausible substitute for *ἀλαλάζω*: *iubilo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pius XII commissioned an updated translation of the psalms that follows the Hebrew with less awkward syntax. Its translation is slightly different:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exsultate Domino, omnes terrae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Exsulto*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dexsulto), as seen in the linked L&amp;S entry, often takes the ablative (alone or with *in*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: ***iubilo* + dat./abl. is not classically attested and may just be a Latin calque on a Greek construction**, though it is readily understood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2754" RevisionGUID="5b741874-0f2e-4cbd-b51c-87e2fb3bb701" CreationDate="2017-02-28T20:56:24.593" UserId="45" Text="I think there is a simple explanation for these two meanings: [*noto, -are*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnoto), the base word, means &quot;to signify, indicate, denote.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Denoto**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The prefix [*de-*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dde2) can mean many things, such as &quot;down&quot; or &quot;ending.&quot; In this case, however, it simply strenghtens the idea, as noted in L&amp;S II.2.c.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; With reference to the terminus of the action; with reference to the extent of the action, to the uttermost, to exhaustion, through. out; **hence freq. a mere strengthening of the fundamental idea, = valde, thoroughly, much**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *Denoto* thus refers to the action of &quot;signifying something.&quot; It really is not much different from *noto*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Connoto**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The prefix [*com-/con-*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcum1) most frequently signifies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; A being or bringing together of several objects&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *Connoto* (which does not have classical examples) refers to the act of &quot;signifying *along with* something else.&quot; A **connotation** refers to all the ideas/things/emotions that &quot;go along with&quot; something. Although the object does not *mean* these things, its meaning &quot;carries along with it&quot; that extra baggage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2755" RevisionGUID="9e70c368-f012-4e5f-9607-d0182726f144" CreationDate="2017-02-28T21:10:04.433" UserId="45" Text="&quot;Eleatica&quot; indeed seems to be the correct way to refer to the &quot;Eleatic school,&quot; founded by Parmenides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This book](https://books.google.com/books?id=bZSadbNlnTgC&amp;pg=PA62) includes on pg. 62 a section titled, *De Secta Eleatica*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I can find no written examples in medieval or modern Latin of *eleatistica* (by which I presume you mean &quot;Eleatic-imitating&quot;), I think a convincing analogy can be made with the more common terms &quot;Hellenic&quot; (*hellenica*) and &quot;Hellenistic&quot; (*hellenistica*). The same transformation yields *eleatistica*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You thus have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Argumenta eleatica&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Argumenta eleatistica" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2754" RevisionGUID="fc3adad2-9337-48bc-82aa-ea025a2108a2" CreationDate="2017-02-28T21:12:29.037" UserId="45" Comment="added 239 characters in body" Text="I think there is a simple explanation for these two meanings: [*noto, -are*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnoto), the base word, means &quot;to signify, indicate, denote.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Denoto**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The prefix [*de-*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dde2) can mean many things, such as &quot;down&quot; or &quot;ending.&quot; In this case, however, it simply strenghtens the idea, as noted in L&amp;S II.2.c.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; With reference to the terminus of the action; with reference to the extent of the action, to the uttermost, to exhaustion, through. out; **hence freq. a mere strengthening of the fundamental idea, = valde, thoroughly, much**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *Denoto* thus refers to the action of &quot;signifying something.&quot; It really is not much different from *noto*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Connoto**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The prefix [*com-/con-*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcum1) most frequently signifies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; A being or bringing together of several objects&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *Connoto* (which does not have classical examples) refers to the act of &quot;signifying *along with* something else.&quot; A **connotation** refers to all the ideas/things/emotions that &quot;go along with&quot; something. Although the object does not *mean* these things, its meaning &quot;carries along with it&quot; that extra baggage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general comment about this kind of question: tracking down the reason behind certain meanings is not really a deductive exercise. Nuances of meaning are crystallized by usage--guided, of course, by meaning but not determined by them. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2756" RevisionGUID="c2d831ab-2020-4352-a92a-5a4c0559062a" CreationDate="2017-02-28T22:03:07.530" UserId="45" Text="Here are a few historical facts that most amateur ancient historians are aware of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The Romans began speaking Latin.&#xD;&#xA;* After the conquest of Alexander the Great, Greek became a &quot;lingua franca&quot; in the extensive territories of his conquests, though Rome wasn't much affected by this.&#xD;&#xA;* Rome proceeded to conquer Greece and surrounding territories: Greek was studied and spoken as a language of cultivation by many Romans, including Cicero. It is even quoted in plays by Plautus.&#xD;&#xA;* By the time of Christianity's spread, Greek was well-enough understood that Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans in Greek and Clement of Rome (1st c., 4th pope) wrote his epistle in Greek.&#xD;&#xA;* This &quot;trend&quot; seems to continue: Marcus Aurelius wrote his *Meditations* in Greek.&#xD;&#xA;* Eventually, Latin seems to regain prominence in Rome itself, while Greek becomes the language of the Eastern Roman Empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This collection of loose &quot;facts&quot; lacks cohesion in my mind. Some questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Was Greek every spoken in the streets of Rome in a non-ghettoized way? Would your average free-born Roman grow up bilingual?&#xD;&#xA;2. Was there ever a movement to exclude Greek as &quot;foreign&quot; or shun Latin as &quot;uncivilized&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;3. Am I mistaken in my perception that Greek &quot;took over&quot; Rome for a few centuries and then seemed to recede back?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to suggest ways to narrow down this question in the comments, if this is ridiculously broad. Although I'm interested in movements throughout the empire, I chose Rome as the primary focus for this question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9882" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2756" RevisionGUID="c2d831ab-2020-4352-a92a-5a4c0559062a" CreationDate="2017-02-28T22:03:07.530" UserId="45" Text="When and how much did Romans speak Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9883" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2756" RevisionGUID="c2d831ab-2020-4352-a92a-5a4c0559062a" CreationDate="2017-02-28T22:03:07.530" UserId="45" Text="|greek|history|spoken-language|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2756" RevisionGUID="5f5f279b-75ad-4086-9883-02a081602558" CreationDate="2017-02-28T22:10:29.813" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Here are a few historical facts that most amateur ancient historians are aware of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The Romans began speaking Latin.&#xD;&#xA;* After the conquest of Alexander the Great, Greek became a &quot;lingua franca&quot; in the extensive territories of his conquests, though Rome wasn't much affected by this.&#xD;&#xA;* Rome proceeded to conquer Greece and surrounding territories: Greek was studied and spoken as a language of cultivation by many Romans, including Cicero. It is even quoted in plays by Plautus.&#xD;&#xA;* By the time of Christianity's spread, Greek was well-enough understood that Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans in Greek and Clement of Rome (1st c., 4th pope) wrote his epistle in Greek.&#xD;&#xA;* This &quot;trend&quot; seems to continue: Marcus Aurelius wrote his *Meditations* in Greek.&#xD;&#xA;* Eventually, Latin seems to regain prominence in Rome itself, while Greek becomes the language of the Eastern Roman Empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This collection of loose &quot;facts&quot; lacks cohesion in my mind. Some questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Was Greek ever spoken in the streets of Rome in a non-ghettoized way? Would your average free-born Roman grow up bilingual?&#xD;&#xA;2. Was there ever a movement to exclude Greek as &quot;foreign&quot; or shun Latin as &quot;uncivilized&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;3. Am I mistaken in my perception that Greek &quot;took over&quot; Rome for a few centuries and then seemed to recede back?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to suggest ways to narrow down this question in the comments, if this is ridiculously broad. Although I'm interested in movements throughout the empire, I chose Rome as the primary focus for this question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2748" RevisionGUID="4087128d-e8e4-419a-b35d-e1d8a62f7889" CreationDate="2017-03-01T01:39:19.487" UserId="39" Comment="added 239 characters in body" Text="The current **communis opinio** is both Latin words oleum and oliva were borrowed from Greek, which, in its turn, are of Pre-Greek origin (e.g. Beekes 2009/2016, Ernout &amp; Meillet 2001); cf. Miller 2014 &quot;there are cultural and phonological reasons for thinking Latin borrowed it from Greek&quot; (p. 31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller 2014 writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Since Attic-Ionic lost /w/ prehistorically, Greek words borrowed into Latin&#xD;&#xA;with v /w/ are either from a West Greek (Doric) dialect, or possibly early enough&#xD;&#xA;to have been Mycenaean loans&quot; (p.31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oleum &lt; *olēwom &lt; *eleiwom &lt; Gk. *élaiwon (Miller 2014)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oliva &lt; Gk. *elaíwā (Beekes 2009/2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the sound changes above are well-known and described in any historical Latin grammar worth reading, e.g. Weiss 2009/2011 (the first book I grabbed from my bookshelves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *e &gt; o/_ɫ (p. 139);&#xD;&#xA; - *ei &gt; *ẹ̄ &gt; e (p. 143) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for a possible Etruscan intermediary hypothesis suggested by TKR (was it borrowed directly from Greek or via Etruscan?), this is highly speculative. As Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011 write,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;All languages of central Italy participate in borrowing words for material artefacts from Greek. **Often we may be unable to tell whether a word came directly from Greek or via the medium of another language**: Greek *kulίkʰna 'cup' borrowed as Latin *culigna*, Etruscan *culicna*, Oscan *culchina*/*culcfna*&quot; (p. 46; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information we will need to look it up in De Simone 1968-1970 and Watmough 1997 - and I will.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2748" RevisionGUID="44dcfe38-c713-498d-8ed0-41df8683f59d" CreationDate="2017-03-01T01:47:58.127" UserId="39" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="The current **communis opinio** is both Latin words oleum and oliva were borrowed from Greek, which, in its turn, are of Pre-Greek origin (e.g. Beekes 2009/2016, Ernout &amp; Meillet 2001); cf. Miller 2014 &quot;there are cultural and phonological reasons for thinking Latin borrowed it from Greek&quot; (p. 31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller 2014 writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Since Attic-Ionic lost /w/ prehistorically, Greek words borrowed into Latin&#xD;&#xA;with v /w/ are either from a West Greek (Doric) dialect, or possibly early enough&#xD;&#xA;to have been Mycenaean loans&quot; (p.31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oleum &lt; *olēwom &lt; *eleiwom &lt; Gk. *élaiwon (Miller 2014)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oliva &lt; Gk. *elaíwā (Beekes 2009/2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the sound changes above are well-known and described in any historical Latin grammar worth reading, e.g. Weiss 2009/2011 (the first book I grabbed from my bookshelves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *e &gt; o/_ɫ (p. 139);&#xD;&#xA; - ai &gt; ei;&#xD;&#xA; - *ei &gt; *ẹ̄ &gt; e (p. 143) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for a possible Etruscan intermediary hypothesis suggested by TKR (was it borrowed directly from Greek or via Etruscan?), this is highly speculative. As Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011 write,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;All languages of central Italy participate in borrowing words for material artefacts from Greek. **Often we may be unable to tell whether a word came directly from Greek or via the medium of another language**: Greek *kulίkʰna 'cup' borrowed as Latin *culigna*, Etruscan *culicna*, Oscan *culchina*/*culcfna*&quot; (p. 46; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information we will need to look it up in De Simone 1968-1970 and Watmough 1997 - and I will.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2748" RevisionGUID="56c9689f-3231-4389-b15e-7c7272338c69" CreationDate="2017-03-01T01:53:28.380" UserId="39" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="The current **communis opinio** is both Latin words oleum and oliva were borrowed from Greek, which, in its turn, are of Pre-Greek origin (e.g. Beekes 2009/2016, Ernout &amp; Meillet 2001); cf. Miller 2014 &quot;there are cultural and phonological reasons for thinking Latin borrowed it from Greek&quot; (p. 31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller 2014 writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Since Attic-Ionic lost /w/ prehistorically, Greek words borrowed into Latin&#xD;&#xA;with v /w/ are either from a West Greek (Doric) dialect, or possibly early enough&#xD;&#xA;to have been Mycenaean loans&quot; (p.31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oleum &lt; *olēwom &lt; *eleiwom &lt; Gk. *élaiwon (Miller 2014)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oliva &lt; Gk. *elaíwā (Beekes 2009/2016)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the sound changes above are well-known and described in any historical Latin grammar worth reading, e.g. Weiss 2009/2011 (the first book I grabbed from my bookshelves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *e &gt; o/_ɫ (p. 139);&#xD;&#xA; - ai &gt; ei;&#xD;&#xA; - *ei &gt; *ẹ̄ &gt; e (p. 143) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for a possible Etruscan intermediary hypothesis suggested by TKR (was it borrowed directly from Greek or via Etruscan?), this is highly speculative. As Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011 write,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;All languages of central Italy participate in borrowing words for material artefacts from Greek. **Often we may be unable to tell whether a word came directly from Greek or via the medium of another language**: Greek *kulίkʰna 'cup' borrowed as Latin *culigna*, Etruscan *culicna*, Oscan *culchina*/*culcfna*&quot; (p. 46; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information we will need to look it up in De Simone 1968-1970 and Watmough 1997 - and I will. I encourage you to read these books too!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2748" RevisionGUID="4c4b04fb-d6d0-4f0f-a3a4-c341d6aa6b5e" CreationDate="2017-03-01T02:00:44.830" UserId="39" Comment="added 192 characters in body" Text="The current **communis opinio** is both Latin words oleum and oliva were borrowed from Greek, which, in its turn, are of Pre-Greek origin (e.g. [Beekes 2009/2016][1], Ernout &amp; Meillet 2001); cf. Miller 2014 &quot;there are cultural and phonological reasons for thinking Latin borrowed it from Greek&quot; (p. 31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller 2014 writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Since Attic-Ionic lost /w/ prehistorically, Greek words borrowed into Latin&#xD;&#xA;with v /w/ are either from a West Greek (Doric) dialect, or possibly early enough&#xD;&#xA;to have been Mycenaean loans&quot; (p.31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oleum &lt; *olēwom &lt; *eleiwom &lt; Gk. *élaiwon (Miller 2014), cf. [ἐλαιόω][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oliva &lt; Gk. *elaíwā ([Beekes 2009/2016][1]),cf. [ἐλαία][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the sound changes above are well-known and described in any historical Latin grammar worth reading, e.g. Weiss 2009/2011 (the first book I grabbed from my bookshelves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *e &gt; o/_ɫ (p. 139);&#xD;&#xA; - ai &gt; ei;&#xD;&#xA; - *ei &gt; *ẹ̄ &gt; e (p. 143) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for a possible Etruscan intermediary hypothesis suggested by TKR (was it borrowed directly from Greek or via Etruscan?), this is highly speculative. As Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011 write,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;All languages of central Italy participate in borrowing words for material artefacts from Greek. **Often we may be unable to tell whether a word came directly from Greek or via the medium of another language**: Greek *kulίkʰna 'cup' borrowed as Latin *culigna*, Etruscan *culicna*, Oscan *culchina*/*culcfna*&quot; (p. 46; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information we will need to look it up in De Simone 1968-1970 and Watmough 1997 - and I will. I encourage you to read these books too!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=greek&amp;id=gr2172&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=montanari&amp;id=37896&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=montanari&amp;id=37815" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2748" RevisionGUID="e03d4a0b-c88c-4544-ba98-cc8788f91209" CreationDate="2017-03-01T02:10:20.500" UserId="39" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="The current **communis opinio** is both Latin words oleum and oliva were borrowed from Greek, which, in its turn, are of Pre-Greek origin (e.g. [Beekes 2009/2016][1], Ernout &amp; Meillet 2001); cf. [Miller 2014][2] &quot;there are cultural and phonological reasons for thinking Latin borrowed it from Greek&quot; (p. 31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Miller 2014][2] writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Since Attic-Ionic lost /w/ prehistorically, Greek words borrowed into Latin&#xD;&#xA;with v /w/ are either from a West Greek (Doric) dialect, or possibly early enough&#xD;&#xA;to have been Mycenaean loans&quot; (p.31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oleum &lt; *olēwom &lt; *eleiwom &lt; Gk. *élaiwon (Miller 2014), cf. [ἐλαιόω][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oliva &lt; Gk. *elaíwā ([Beekes 2009/2016][1]),cf. [ἐλαία][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the sound changes above are well-known and described in any historical Latin grammar worth reading, e.g. Weiss 2009/2011 (the first book I grabbed from my bookshelves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *e &gt; o/_ɫ (p. 139);&#xD;&#xA; - ai &gt; ei;&#xD;&#xA; - *ei &gt; *ẹ̄ &gt; e (p. 143) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for a possible Etruscan intermediary hypothesis suggested by TKR (was it borrowed directly from Greek or via Etruscan?), this is highly speculative. As Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011 write,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;All languages of central Italy participate in borrowing words for material artefacts from Greek. **Often we may be unable to tell whether a word came directly from Greek or via the medium of another language**: Greek *kulίkʰna 'cup' borrowed as Latin *culigna*, Etruscan *culicna*, Oscan *culchina*/*culcfna*&quot; (p. 46; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information we will need to look it up in De Simone 1968-1970 and Watmough 1997 - and I will. I encourage you to read these books too!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=greek&amp;id=gr2172&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9781614512950/9781614512950.25/9781614512950.25.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=montanari&amp;id=37896&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=montanari&amp;id=37815" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2748" RevisionGUID="d7ed0674-64b2-4954-85b9-a7eeb36efbb7" CreationDate="2017-03-01T03:10:24.577" UserId="39" Comment="edited body" Text="The current **communis opinio** is both Latin words oleum and oliva were borrowed from Greek, which, in its turn, are of Pre-Greek origin (e.g. [Beekes 2009/2016][1], Ernout &amp; Meillet 2001); cf. [Miller 2014][2] &quot;there are cultural and phonological reasons for thinking Latin borrowed it from Greek&quot; (p. 31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Miller 2014][2] writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Since Attic-Ionic lost /w/ prehistorically, Greek words borrowed into Latin&#xD;&#xA;with v /w/ are either from a West Greek (Doric) dialect, or possibly early enough&#xD;&#xA;to have been Mycenaean loans&quot; (p.31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oleum &lt; *olēwom &lt; *eleiwom &lt; Gk. *élaiwon (Miller 2014), cf. [ἔλαιον][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oliva &lt; Gk. *elaíwā ([Beekes 2009/2016][1]),cf. [ἐλαία][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the sound changes above are well-known and described in any historical Latin grammar worth reading, e.g. Weiss 2009/2011 (the first book I grabbed from my bookshelves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *e &gt; o/_ɫ (p. 139);&#xD;&#xA; - ai &gt; ei;&#xD;&#xA; - *ei &gt; *ẹ̄ &gt; e (p. 143) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for a possible Etruscan intermediary hypothesis suggested by TKR (was it borrowed directly from Greek or via Etruscan?), this is highly speculative. As Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011 write,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;All languages of central Italy participate in borrowing words for material artefacts from Greek. **Often we may be unable to tell whether a word came directly from Greek or via the medium of another language**: Greek *kulίkʰna 'cup' borrowed as Latin *culigna*, Etruscan *culicna*, Oscan *culchina*/*culcfna*&quot; (p. 46; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information we will need to look it up in De Simone 1968-1970 and Watmough 1997 - and I will. I encourage you to read these books too!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=greek&amp;id=gr2172&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9781614512950/9781614512950.25/9781614512950.25.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=montanari&amp;id=37852&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=montanari&amp;id=37815" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2748" RevisionGUID="b5d03fc6-5e19-4900-905b-6c1d4c7a4fb6" CreationDate="2017-03-01T03:41:58.123" UserId="39" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="The current **communis opinio** is both Latin words oleum and oliva were borrowed from Greek, which, in its turn, are of Pre-Greek origin (e.g. [Beekes 2009/2016][1], Ernout &amp; Meillet 2001); cf. [Miller 2014][2] &quot;there are cultural and phonological reasons for thinking Latin borrowed it from Greek&quot; (p. 31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Miller 2014][2] writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Since Attic-Ionic lost /w/ prehistorically, Greek words borrowed into Latin&#xD;&#xA;with v /w/ are either from a West Greek (Doric) dialect, or possibly early enough&#xD;&#xA;to have been Mycenaean loans&quot; (p.31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oleum &lt; *olēwom &lt; *eleiwom &lt; Gk. *élaiwon (Miller 2014), cf. [ἔλαιον][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oliva &lt; Gk. *elaíwā ([Beekes 2009/2016][1]),cf. [ἐλαία][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the sound changes above are well-known and described in any historical Latin grammar worth reading, e.g. Weiss 2009/2011 (the first book I grabbed from my bookshelves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *e &gt; o/_ɫ (p. 139);&#xD;&#xA; - ai &gt; ei &gt; e (&gt; i) (a-weakening, Weiss tells us, precedes monophthongization, p. 120);&#xD;&#xA; - *ei &gt; *ẹ̄ &gt; e (p. 143) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for a possible Etruscan intermediary hypothesis suggested by TKR (was it borrowed directly from Greek or via Etruscan?), this is highly speculative. As Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011 write,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;All languages of central Italy participate in borrowing words for material artefacts from Greek. **Often we may be unable to tell whether a word came directly from Greek or via the medium of another language**: Greek *kulίkʰna 'cup' borrowed as Latin *culigna*, Etruscan *culicna*, Oscan *culchina*/*culcfna*&quot; (p. 46; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information we will need to look it up in De Simone 1968-1970 and Watmough 1997 - and I will. I encourage you to read these books too!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=greek&amp;id=gr2172&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9781614512950/9781614512950.25/9781614512950.25.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=montanari&amp;id=37852&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=montanari&amp;id=37815" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2748" RevisionGUID="82895c82-f5dc-4c40-bc25-446a8b6e3bc4" CreationDate="2017-03-01T05:30:40.167" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="The current **communis opinio** is both Latin words oleum and oliva were borrowed from Greek, which, in its turn, are of Pre-Greek origin (e.g. [Beekes 2009/2016][1], Ernout &amp; Meillet 2001); cf. [Miller 2014][2] &quot;there are cultural and phonological reasons for thinking Latin borrowed it from Greek&quot; (p. 31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Miller 2014][2] writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Since Attic-Ionic lost /w/ prehistorically, Greek words borrowed into Latin&#xD;&#xA;with v /w/ are either from a West Greek (Doric) dialect, or possibly early enough&#xD;&#xA;to have been Mycenaean loans&quot; (p.31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oleum &lt; *olēwom &lt; *eleiwom &lt; Gk. *élaiwon (Miller 2014), cf. ἔλαιον&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oliva &lt; Gk. *elaíwā ([Beekes 2009/2016][1]),cf. ἐλαία&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the sound changes above are well-known and described in any historical Latin grammar worth reading, e.g. Weiss 2009/2011 (the first book I grabbed from my bookshelves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *e &gt; o/_ɫ (p. 139);&#xD;&#xA; - ai &gt; ei &gt; e (&gt; i) (a-weakening, Weiss tells us, precedes monophthongization, p. 120);&#xD;&#xA; - *ei &gt; *ẹ̄ &gt; e (p. 143) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for a possible Etruscan intermediary hypothesis suggested by TKR (was it borrowed directly from Greek or via Etruscan?), this is highly speculative. As Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011 write,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;All languages of central Italy participate in borrowing words for material artefacts from Greek. **Often we may be unable to tell whether a word came directly from Greek or via the medium of another language**: Greek *kulίkʰna 'cup' borrowed as Latin *culigna*, Etruscan *culicna*, Oscan *culchina*/*culcfna*&quot; (p. 46; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information we will need to look it up in De Simone 1968-1970 and Watmough 1997 - and I will. I encourage you to read these books too!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=greek&amp;id=gr2172&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9781614512950/9781614512950.25/9781614512950.25.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=montanari&amp;id=37852&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=montanari&amp;id=37815" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9897" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2648" RevisionGUID="36362d8b-0013-43ad-8aef-443665263ab4" CreationDate="2017-03-01T19:54:46.483" UserId="45" Comment="19" />
  <row Id="9898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2757" RevisionGUID="afff2645-4092-4f2e-bd12-20c270ec0527" CreationDate="2017-03-01T20:47:34.260" UserId="952" Text="The Latin word for &quot;report&quot; is *refero, referre, rettuli, relatus*. At first, I thought that *rettuli*, with 2 t's, was a typo, but it actually appears that *retuli*, with just 1 t, is the uncommon form in comparison.   &#xD;&#xA;This seems rather strange to me, because most of the compounds of *fero* do not seem to double the t. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*defero, deferre, detuli, delatus*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*effero, efferre, extuli, elatus*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*offero, offerre, obtuli, oblatus*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*infero, inferre, intuli, illatus*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is *refero* an exception? Additionally, what instances are there of Latin writers using the more uncommon form of *retuli* instead of *rettuli*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9899" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2757" RevisionGUID="afff2645-4092-4f2e-bd12-20c270ec0527" CreationDate="2017-03-01T20:47:34.260" UserId="952" Text="3rd Principal Part of *refero*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9900" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2757" RevisionGUID="afff2645-4092-4f2e-bd12-20c270ec0527" CreationDate="2017-03-01T20:47:34.260" UserId="952" Text="|verbs|irregular-words|compound-verb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2758" RevisionGUID="fdbfff2f-650e-4601-89aa-d597a0556558" CreationDate="2017-03-01T21:36:51.977" UserId="79" Text="In mathematical literature &quot;if and only if&quot; (sometimes abbreviated as &quot;iff&quot;) is a relatively common phrase.&#xD;&#xA;Saying &quot;A if and only if B&quot; means that A and B are equivalent logical statements.&#xD;&#xA;This is equivalent to but less clumsy than saying &quot;A if B and A only if B&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is convenient to have conjunctions to say &quot;A is implied by B&quot; (if), &quot;A implies B&quot; (only if) and &quot;A is equivalent to B&quot; (if and only if).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that this conjunction or phrase appears in Latin, too.&#xD;&#xA;To my surprise, I found no trace of it in [this text of Gauss](http://thelatinlibrary.com/gauss.html).&#xD;&#xA;When, if ever, did this phrase appear in Latin mathematical literature?&#xD;&#xA;And more importantly, what is this phrase in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I could translate it as *si et solum si*, but I would like to know what was actually used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Partial answers and non-mathematical contexts are also welcome if you have any insight to share." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9902" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2758" RevisionGUID="fdbfff2f-650e-4601-89aa-d597a0556558" CreationDate="2017-03-01T21:36:51.977" UserId="79" Text="&quot;If and only if&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9903" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2758" RevisionGUID="fdbfff2f-650e-4601-89aa-d597a0556558" CreationDate="2017-03-01T21:36:51.977" UserId="79" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|conjunction|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2759" RevisionGUID="aa85cd0f-7297-4b2f-9b8b-bed4c1d4fd1c" CreationDate="2017-03-01T23:09:46.310" UserId="406" Text="The prefix *re-* also appears as *red-*, an older form which mostly disappeared along with other final *-d*s (personal *med*, preposition *extrad*, imperative *estod*, ablative *marid*...). You can see this *d* in forms like *red-īre* and *red-dere*, and remnants of it in *religiō/relligiō* and *redūcō/rēdūcō* (assimilation and compensatory lengthening).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While most *-d*s disappeared, some words (like your *rettulī*) kept their older forms...sometimes. As L&amp;S put it, [&quot;\[t\]he orthography and quantity of words compounded with *re* are in general somewhat arbitrary, especially in the ante- and post-class\[ical\] poets&quot;][1]. So while *rettulī* was the most common form, [*retulī* and *rētulī* were by no means unheard of][2] especially in Pliny, and Lucretius also used forms like *rellatus*/*rēlatus* (showing the *-d* in the fourth stem).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DR%3Aentry%20group%3D4%3Aentry%3Dre1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=retul" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2760" RevisionGUID="95092602-5b23-4325-96c6-0cb10565e9c5" CreationDate="2017-03-01T23:53:06.527" UserId="40" Text="As @cnread's comment indicates, the geminate *t* of *rettuli* is thought to be a remnant of Indo-European perfect reduplication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Proto-Indo-European perfect tense was formed with reduplication of the first consonant of the root; a few Latin perfects still do this, e.g. *cecidi, peperi, cucurri*. *Rettuli* would then come from an older form *re-tetuli*; the short *e*, which would have been unaccented in early Latin (in which accent was on the initial syllable), was lost by syncope and the two *t*'s fell together. The same explanation accounts for other such forms, e.g. *reccidi, repperi*. (The geminate *d* of the present *reddo* is probably due to the same phenomenon, except that in this case the reduplication was a present-stem formant rather than a perfect marker, cf. Greek δί-δωμι.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2761" RevisionGUID="d6ec1623-5f5b-4fc8-8478-db2daa7baa85" CreationDate="2017-03-02T01:42:58.323" UserId="406" Text="Searching through Glen Gordon's [database of attested Etruscan word forms][1], I haven't found any instances of transcribed *th* (tau + eta), even as variants or hapaxes. This leads me to believe that it's just Wikipedia's inconsistent editing again, occasionally substituting digraphs for non-Latin letters without rhyme or reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sites.google.com/site/paleoglot/Home/09417289.xml?attredirects=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2762" RevisionGUID="25ae2dd3-fb56-438b-81a9-55d612006582" CreationDate="2017-03-02T01:58:46.870" UserId="406" Text="I would go with Latin *medi(o)-* or Greek *meso-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Medi-* comes from Latin *medius* meaning &quot;in the middle, moderate, indifferent&quot;. It's also the root of &quot;medium&quot; and &quot;medial&quot;; as a prefix, the first usage that comes to mind is the Greek *mediopassive voice* (i.e. a combination of the middle voice and the passive voice).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Meso-* comes from the Greek *μέσος*, cognate to *medius*, also meaning &quot;in between, moderate,&quot; etc. In English it's mostly used in place names (Mesopotamia, Mesoamerica) and scientific terms (meso-compounds in chemistry are neither right- nor left-handed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of these are also related to the English &quot;mid-&quot; as in &quot;midpoint&quot; and &quot;midway&quot;, which is the least technical and most easily understood of the three." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2763" RevisionGUID="2a0be6eb-902e-4e00-8c23-e6693a54f59f" CreationDate="2017-03-02T05:01:48.030" UserId="78" Text="Came across this [single line](https://books.google.com/books?id=a9QIAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA169#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) in the Poetae Latini Minores (author uncertain):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sic fugiens, dux, zelotypos quam Karus haberis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation I see floating around the internet is odd, though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus fleeing, O leader, you are regarded with jealousy like Karus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making that work would take some loosening of the grammar. My guess is that there might have been an error in the manuscript, but I can't think of what it would be changed to, not yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking around led me to [a few more here](http://www.archimedes-lab.org/latin.html) and [one from here](https://books.google.com/books?id=sZbgAAAAMAAJ&amp;focus=searchwithinvolume&amp;q=ymnizat), but they're dubious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one I mentioned apparently [has already been offered](https://books.google.com/books?id=5h9mAAAAMAAJ&amp;q=Sic+fugiens,+dux,+zelotypos+quam+Karus+haberis) as a Latin version of &quot;Quick brown fox...&quot;, too. One thing these don't do is distinguish between the consonantal and vocalic i, nor would they u/v, except as part of qu." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2764" RevisionGUID="aa5ca865-b2a0-463d-82a9-0ea9bc457c81" CreationDate="2017-03-02T07:01:19.163" UserId="1239" Text="*Caeteris paribus* means &quot;all else being equal&quot; yet, terminologically, also stands in for &quot;all else being (held) constant&quot;. I'm interested in knowing actually how to say &quot;all else being constant&quot; and/or &quot;all else being held constant&quot; in a way that bears resemblance to *caeteris paribus*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9910" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2764" RevisionGUID="aa5ca865-b2a0-463d-82a9-0ea9bc457c81" CreationDate="2017-03-02T07:01:19.163" UserId="1239" Text="Caeteris paribus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9911" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2764" RevisionGUID="aa5ca865-b2a0-463d-82a9-0ea9bc457c81" CreationDate="2017-03-02T07:01:19.163" UserId="1239" Text="|translation|history|philosophy-terms|logic|terminology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2764" RevisionGUID="1f99e37b-b657-4fba-be5d-5995d605d93c" CreationDate="2017-03-02T07:06:41.050" UserId="1239" Comment="deleted 55 characters in body" Text="*Caeteris paribus* means &quot;all else being equal&quot; yet, terminologically, also stands in for &quot;all else unchanged&quot;. I'm interested in knowing actually how to say &quot;all else unchanged&quot; in a way that bears resemblance to *caeteris paribus*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2765" RevisionGUID="16e4563e-2a4d-4ac4-bd40-98da6c24f09c" CreationDate="2017-03-02T14:31:34.143" UserId="1224" Text="Is it possible to use something similar to the English suffix &quot;-able&quot; to show that the action described can be done by someone or something? If not, what phrases do you suggest to use in its place?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9914" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2765" RevisionGUID="16e4563e-2a4d-4ac4-bd40-98da6c24f09c" CreationDate="2017-03-02T14:31:34.143" UserId="1224" Text="How To Say &quot;-able&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9915" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2765" RevisionGUID="16e4563e-2a4d-4ac4-bd40-98da6c24f09c" CreationDate="2017-03-02T14:31:34.143" UserId="1224" Text="|classical-latin|word-request|adjective|conjugation|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2766" RevisionGUID="e674312f-8003-49e7-bc33-119ccc453403" CreationDate="2017-03-02T15:19:55.510" UserId="45" Text="The third part of Descartes's *Principia Philosophiae* (pg. 78 of [this edition](https://books.google.com/books?id=rr2M1H7FDYoC&amp;pg=RA2-PA78)) contains a more literal translation of &quot;all things unchanged&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si autem **caeteris immutatis**, contingat ut minuatur illa vis...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I only found 150 G-hits for this phrase: I highly recommend the (almost) exactly equivalent and far more prevalent *ceteris paribus*. If you are writing in English, I would especially discourage using *caeteris immutatis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, note that *ceteris* (without an *a*) is a much more common spelling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2767" RevisionGUID="7b1474f5-4866-4c80-82c0-7e16a4959f96" CreationDate="2017-03-02T15:52:08.580" UserId="45" Text="The English suffix &quot;-able&quot; (&quot;-ible&quot;) comes directly from Latin &quot;-abilis&quot; (&quot;-ibilis&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A search for [Latin words ending in *-bilis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=bilis&amp;lang=la) returns **737 results**, of which the first few are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *abominabilis*&#xD;&#xA;* *accensibilis*&#xD;&#xA;* *acceptabilis*&#xD;&#xA;* *accessibilis*&#xD;&#xA;* *accusabilis*&#xD;&#xA;* *adfabilis*&#xD;&#xA;* *adibilis*&#xD;&#xA;* *adjutabilis*&#xD;&#xA;* *admirabilis*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2767" RevisionGUID="7edebc31-e99e-4221-b624-55ca928693d4" CreationDate="2017-03-02T15:57:12.190" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="The English suffix &quot;-able/-ible&quot; comes directly from Latin *-abilis/-ibilis*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A search for [Latin words ending in *-bilis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=bilis&amp;lang=la) returns **737 results**, of which the first few are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *abominabilis*&#xD;&#xA;* *accensibilis*&#xD;&#xA;* *acceptabilis*&#xD;&#xA;* *accessibilis*&#xD;&#xA;* *accusabilis*&#xD;&#xA;* *adfabilis*&#xD;&#xA;* *adibilis*&#xD;&#xA;* *adjutabilis*&#xD;&#xA;* *admirabilis*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2768" RevisionGUID="1d24d572-32a2-4b88-8767-e86cb4d0126b" CreationDate="2017-03-02T17:46:41.867" UserId="406" Text="As brianpck mentioned, the English suffix &quot;-able&quot; is borrowed from Latin. The rules for applying it in Latin are more transparent than the English alteration between &quot;-able&quot; and &quot;-ible&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the present stem of the verb ends in *-b*, attach *-ilis*: *hab-* &gt; *habilis*, *nūb* &gt; *nūbilis* &gt; nubile.&#xD;&#xA;  - These would originally have been *habibilis* and *nūbibilis*; the *-bibi-* was reduced to *-bi-* by haplogy.&#xD;&#xA; - If the present stem ends in a vowel (including *v* and *j*), add *-bilis*: *mov-* &gt; *mōbilis* &gt; mobile&#xD;&#xA;  - This can cause diphthongs to contract (ov → ō), since they're followed by a consonant&#xD;&#xA;  - Usually vowel-stem verbs are obvious, but some are trickier; the stem of *fleō* is *fle-* rather than *fl-* (and thus it becomes *flēbilis*)&#xD;&#xA; - If the verb is first-conjugation, attach *-ābilis* to the present stem: *am-* &gt; *amābilis*, *dūr-* &gt; *dūrābilis* &gt; durable.&#xD;&#xA; - Otherwise, attach *-ibilis*...&#xD;&#xA;  - If the fourth principal part ends with *-tus*, or there is no fourth part, use the present stem: *crēd-* &gt; *crēdibilis* &gt; credible, *poss-* &gt; *possibilis* &gt; possible&#xD;&#xA;  - Otherwise, use the supine stem: *rīd-* &gt; *rīsibilis* &gt; risible, *vid-* &gt; *vīsibilis* &gt; visible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the resulting adjectives are regular two-termination thirds: *-ilis*, *-ilis*, *-ile*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also a few exceptions to these rules: for instance, *stō, stāre* &gt; *stăbilis* rather than *_stābilis_. But *_stābilis_ would still be easily understood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2768" RevisionGUID="e92e1d5c-5c0d-4e7f-8185-58940aaf8a0d" CreationDate="2017-03-02T17:55:39.360" UserId="406" Comment="added 506 characters in body" Text="As brianpck mentioned, the English suffix &quot;-able&quot; is borrowed from Latin. The rules for applying it in Latin are more transparent than the English alteration between &quot;-able&quot; and &quot;-ible&quot;. *EDIT: And are actually even easier, now that I think about it.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - First, choose your stem.&#xD;&#xA;  - If the verb has a fourth principal part (supine) ending in *-tus*, remove the *-tus* and use that stem: *amō, amātus* &gt; *amā-*&#xD;&#xA;  - If it has a fourth principal part not ending in *-tus*, add an *-i* and use that stem: *rideō, rīsus* &gt; *rīsi-*&#xD;&#xA;  - Otherwise (e.g. *posse*), use the present infinitive stem (*poss-*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If this stem already ends in *-bi*, attach *-lis*: *habi-* &gt; *habilis*, *nūbi* &gt; *nūbilis* &gt; nubile.&#xD;&#xA;  - These would originally have been *habibilis* and *nūbibilis*; the *-bibi-* was reduced to *-bi-* by haplogy.&#xD;&#xA; - Otherwise, attach *-bilis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the resulting adjectives are regular two-termination thirds: *-ilis*, *-ilis*, *-ile*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My previous, overly complicated, explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &lt;s&gt;If the present stem ends in a vowel (including *v* and *j*), add *-bilis*: *mov-* &gt; *mōbilis* &gt; mobile&#xD;&#xA;  - This can cause diphthongs to contract (ov → ō), since they're followed by a consonant&#xD;&#xA;  - Usually vowel-stem verbs are obvious, but some are trickier; the stem of *fleō* is *fle-* rather than *fl-* (and thus it becomes *flēbilis*)&#xD;&#xA; - If the verb is first-conjugation, attach *-ābilis* to the present stem: *am-* &gt; *amābilis*, *dūr-* &gt; *dūrābilis* &gt; durable.&#xD;&#xA; - Otherwise, attach *-ibilis*...&#xD;&#xA;  - If the fourth principal part ends with *-tus*, or there is no fourth part, use the present stem: *crēd-* &gt; *crēdibilis* &gt; credible, *poss-* &gt; *possibilis* &gt; possible&#xD;&#xA;  - Otherwise, use the supine stem: *rīd-* &gt; *rīsibilis* &gt; risible, *vid-* &gt; *vīsibilis* &gt; visible&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt;There are also a few exceptions to these rules: for instance, *stō, stāre* &gt; *stăbilis* rather than *_stābilis_. But *_stābilis_ would still be easily understood.&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The more complicated rules worked, but there's no reason to memorize them if you already know the supine stem. Using the supine also eliminates &quot;irregularities&quot; like *stăbilis* from *stō, stătus* and *flēbilis* from *fleō, flētus*.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2315" RevisionGUID="39a61667-9370-4c64-98ee-23895aaae394" CreationDate="2017-03-02T19:02:58.490" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Some meals have their own verbs: *cenare*, *prandere*, and others if I forget something.&#xD;&#xA;If you are having dinner or lunch, say *ceno* or *prandeo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All things edible do not have their own verbs &amp;mdash; nor do I think one should derive a new verb for every food item.&#xD;&#xA;The crucial question is to find the best verb for these purposes.&#xD;&#xA;I propose *sumere*.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *consumere* is also possible, but it may be too intense, unless you &quot;eat up&quot; or &quot;devour&quot; your meal.&#xD;&#xA;These verbs work for both foods and drinks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *edere* is also good.&#xD;&#xA;I would probably use *edere* or *sumere*, depending on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *habere* is incorrect here.&#xD;&#xA;If you say *cenam habeo*, I think you are in possession of a dinner.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you brought takeaway with you but it's still in the fridge?&#xD;&#xA;The English phrase &quot;to have a meal&quot; is misleading here, and I don't think it works in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2769" RevisionGUID="e2bbe5e4-69ab-430a-a535-247f861317bd" CreationDate="2017-03-02T20:55:41.377" UserId="645" Text="This might have been better as a comment, but I think it worth an answer to link generally to other answers and comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The University of British Columbia publishes an excellent introduction to this general kind of thing for both Latin and Greek at  https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/greeklatinroots/front-matter/preface/, where the linked page has a table of further linked contents. Chapter 5 is on 'Turning Latin Nouns into Adjectives', within which para. 34 discusses adjective-forming suffixes in English, while 35 and onwards give examples of endings and their derivation (including -*ilis*, -*arius* and -*osus*.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2770" RevisionGUID="d78ee996-4de7-4a45-9b31-e83a93ba440d" CreationDate="2017-03-02T22:24:09.420" UserId="79" Text="Were questions in classical Latin ever indicated by anything other than the meanings of the words and the context?&#xD;&#xA;That is, was there a &quot;question mark&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Here a &quot;question mark&quot; can mean some form of punctuation, but it could be any kind of signal.&#xD;&#xA;For a silly example, one could indicate a question by increasing the size of letters towards the end of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read the question [&quot;What punctuation was used in Classical Latin?&quot;](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/33/79) and I know the modern question mark is younger.&#xD;&#xA;I am under the impression that a question would normally not be marked in any way, but was this always the case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9926" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2770" RevisionGUID="d78ee996-4de7-4a45-9b31-e83a93ba440d" CreationDate="2017-03-02T22:24:09.420" UserId="79" Text="Did the Romans have a &quot;question mark&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9927" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2770" RevisionGUID="d78ee996-4de7-4a45-9b31-e83a93ba440d" CreationDate="2017-03-02T22:24:09.420" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|orthography|punctuation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2771" RevisionGUID="de8b93bf-9b08-4933-8716-1bb5b742c5b3" CreationDate="2017-03-02T22:47:48.410" UserId="1298" Text="I'm considering getting a tattoo with the phrase &quot;Always Truth&quot; or &quot;Always the Truth&quot; in Latin, but I'm not 100% how to translate it, because I don't really understand Latin noun declension. My first guess was &quot;Semper Veritas,&quot; and based on Semper Fidus and Semper Fidelis, I'm guessing that's correct, though Fidus and Fidelis are adjectives and Veritas is a noun, so I'm not sure if that makes a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, Google Translate indicates the correct translation is &quot;Semper Veritatem,&quot; though I know better than to assume that Google Translate always knows best, particularly as I suppose this is grammatically more of a sentence fragment than a proper sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9929" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2771" RevisionGUID="de8b93bf-9b08-4933-8716-1bb5b742c5b3" CreationDate="2017-03-02T22:47:48.410" UserId="1298" Text="Semper Veritas, Semper Veritatem, or something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9930" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2771" RevisionGUID="de8b93bf-9b08-4933-8716-1bb5b742c5b3" CreationDate="2017-03-02T22:47:48.410" UserId="1298" Text="|phrase-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2772" RevisionGUID="a6f5bc52-5a02-47d5-b55a-275e7617dae4" CreationDate="2017-03-02T23:09:46.587" UserId="78" Text="If you want something along the lines of *semper fidelis*, I'd suggest a simple *semper verus* &quot;always true&quot;, which has the benefit of meaning more than just the literal truth (i.e. loyal, genuine, etc). If you want something a bit fancier, you could go with *semer honestus*. Not only would *honestus* indicate &quot;truthfulness&quot;, but in fact mostly &quot;uprightness.&quot; It says more about your character.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you mean it in the sense of &quot;I always want/am looking for the truth,&quot; i.e. what's real instead of what's fake, then yes, *semper veritas* is perfectly fine and good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2772" RevisionGUID="c043e188-55a8-4a96-a968-6577c6a93a62" CreationDate="2017-03-03T02:13:28.483" UserId="136" Comment="Changed potential misspelling of word from &quot;semer&quot; to &quot;semper&quot;" Text="If you want something along the lines of *semper fidelis*, I'd suggest a simple *semper verus* &quot;always true&quot;, which has the benefit of meaning more than just the literal truth (i.e. loyal, genuine, etc). If you want something a bit fancier, you could go with *semper honestus*. Not only would *honestus* indicate &quot;truthfulness&quot;, but in fact mostly &quot;uprightness.&quot; It says more about your character.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you mean it in the sense of &quot;I always want/am looking for the truth,&quot; i.e. what's real instead of what's fake, then yes, *semper veritas* is perfectly fine and good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2773" RevisionGUID="78221053-f15f-4e34-8533-d5b47e67659f" CreationDate="2017-03-03T04:54:06.150" UserId="1299" Text="Facere is the base word meaning &quot;to make&quot;. Conjugated to the first person present gives you &quot;facio&quot; meaning &quot;I make&quot;. So &quot;facio ergo sum&quot; is the term you want." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2774" RevisionGUID="876de103-aee7-468a-8d69-b1c06f5e8ab9" CreationDate="2017-03-03T06:36:28.657" UserId="1235" Text="In Jonathan Swift's &quot;A Tale of a Tub&quot;, at the end of section X there is a Latin quote which I'm having trouble translating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A cujus lacrymis humecta prodit substantia, à risu lucida, à tristitiâ solida, &amp; à timore mobilis,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    a - of, from&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    cujus - gen - &quot;whose&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    lachrymis - abl pl - tears&#xD;&#xA;    humecta - fem nom or abl. - wet&#xD;&#xA;    prodit - he gives, brings forth&#xD;&#xA;    substantia - fem nom or abl - substance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    risu - abl. - mockery or laughter&#xD;&#xA;    lucida - fem sing. or abl - shiny, bright, lucid&#xD;&#xA;    tristitia - fem sing or abl - sorrow, melancholy&#xD;&#xA;    solida - fem sing or abl or neut accus. pl. - solid&#xD;&#xA;    mobilis - masc/fem sing nom or gen - moveable, loose, pliant&#xD;&#xA;    timore - abl sing of timor - fear, dread&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is 'prodo' one of those verbs whose object takes the dative or ablative case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope someone can help me translate this, it doesn't make much sense at the moment. Just to embarrass myself, here's an attempt: &quot;Whose wet substance bears tears, whose clear [substance bears] laughter, whose solid [substance bears] sorrow, whose loose [substance bears] fear?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds weird to put the second word in each pair in the nominative case, but if they are ablative then &quot;mobilis&quot; doesn't fit...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9936" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2774" RevisionGUID="876de103-aee7-468a-8d69-b1c06f5e8ab9" CreationDate="2017-03-03T06:36:28.657" UserId="1235" Text="Tale of a Tub - &quot;A cujus lacrymis humecta prodit substantia&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9937" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2774" RevisionGUID="876de103-aee7-468a-8d69-b1c06f5e8ab9" CreationDate="2017-03-03T06:36:28.657" UserId="1235" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2770" RevisionGUID="5b8061e5-c7c3-4b49-8c0a-2869bf99d8ac" CreationDate="2017-03-03T07:20:36.553" UserId="79" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="Were questions in classical Latin ever indicated by anything other than the meanings of the words&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and the context?&#xD;&#xA;That is, was there a &quot;question mark&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Here a &quot;question mark&quot; can mean some form of punctuation, but it could be any kind of signal.&#xD;&#xA;For a silly example, one could indicate a question by increasing the size of letters towards the end of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read the question [&quot;What punctuation was used in Classical Latin?&quot;](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/33/79) and I know the modern question mark is younger.&#xD;&#xA;I am under the impression that a question would normally not be marked in any way, but was this always the case?&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;This excludes question words like *quare*, *quis*, and *-ne*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2770" RevisionGUID="bcc171ae-5964-4ab3-a479-2845a4524e12" CreationDate="2017-03-03T09:22:51.220" UserId="79" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Were questions in written classical Latin ever indicated by anything other than the meanings of the words&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and the context?&#xD;&#xA;That is, was there a &quot;question mark&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Here a &quot;question mark&quot; can mean some form of punctuation, but it could be any kind of signal.&#xD;&#xA;For a silly example, one could indicate a question by increasing the size of letters towards the end of the question.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for non-verbal signals used in writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read the question [&quot;What punctuation was used in Classical Latin?&quot;](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/33/79) and I know the modern question mark is younger.&#xD;&#xA;I am under the impression that a question would normally not be marked in any way, but was this always the case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This excludes question words like *quare*, *quis*, and *-ne*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2775" RevisionGUID="e60704a6-cd67-49aa-8fb3-cecd4e77b346" CreationDate="2017-03-03T09:28:15.180" UserId="1289" Text="I'm writing this Latin verse parser/scanner, and all is fine and dandy until I load up Ov. Met. V. This book features the following verse in my [source text](http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lsante01/Ovidius/ovi_me05.html), which is usually very good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    adgnovitque deam 'ne' c 'longius ibitis!' inquit; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My parser balks at this because it is not designed to handle `c`, a 'syllable' without a vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found other versions of the text online, by Googling [&quot;adgnovitque deam&quot;](https://www.google.com/search?q=adgnovitque+deam) and [&quot;agnovitque deam&quot;](https://www.google.com/search?q=agnovitque+deam), which represent a more sensible version (also, it scans properly !):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    agnovitque deam 'nec longius ibitis!' inquit; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to solve my original question, which was 'what does this even mean and how is this pronounced', but I'm confused as to why multiple reputed online resources would feature the `'ne' c` version at all. Can this make sense, or is it just an OCR artifact or typo that was copied around by some of the available online resources ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm basically looking for a decent explanation and/or someone with access to an annotated text, preferably something like a dusty old Loeb or OCT book, which might shed some light on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9942" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2775" RevisionGUID="e60704a6-cd67-49aa-8fb3-cecd4e77b346" CreationDate="2017-03-03T09:28:15.180" UserId="1289" Text="What's the deal with Ov. Met. V, 414" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9943" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2775" RevisionGUID="e60704a6-cd67-49aa-8fb3-cecd4e77b346" CreationDate="2017-03-03T09:28:15.180" UserId="1289" Text="|ovidius|scansion|metre|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2776" RevisionGUID="97cccb4c-1826-48d0-b352-42a0183c3db9" CreationDate="2017-03-03T09:39:49.270" UserId="79" Text="The C is a *-que*.&#xD;&#xA;It is quite common to abbreviate *neque* (= *ne+que*) as *nec*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see two ways to parse that verse and interpret the C:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. And he noticed the goddess and said: &quot;Don't go further!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. And he noticed the goddess, said: &quot;And don't go further!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is in the position of &quot;and&quot;, which is the *-c* of *nec*.&#xD;&#xA;In the second option the &quot;and&quot; is inside the quote, so it makes sense to punctuate it that way.&#xD;&#xA;In the first option it is not, so it makes sense to pull it out of the quotation.&#xD;&#xA;This is problematic in Latin because the &quot;and&quot; is a suffix *-c*, leading to that awkward separate C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as we know, Ovidius did not use any such punctuation, so the quotation marks are a more recent addition to aid modern readers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2775" RevisionGUID="93d9aa71-2ce8-453f-9b84-520be2c7b258" CreationDate="2017-03-03T09:40:32.153" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm writing this Latin verse parser/scanner, and all is fine and dandy until I load up Ov. Met. V. This book features the following verse in my [source text](http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lsante01/Ovidius/ovi_me05.html), which is usually very good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    adgnovitque deam 'ne' c 'longius ibitis!' inquit; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My parser balks at this because it is not designed to handle `c`, a 'syllable' without a vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found other versions of the text online, by Googling [&quot;adgnovitque deam&quot;](https://www.google.com/search?q=adgnovitque+deam) and [&quot;agnovitque deam&quot;](https://www.google.com/search?q=agnovitque+deam), which represent a more sensible version (also, it scans properly!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    agnovitque deam 'nec longius ibitis!' inquit; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to solve my original question, which was 'what does this even mean and how is this pronounced', but I'm confused as to why multiple reputed online resources would feature the `'ne' c` version at all. Can this make sense, or is it just an OCR artifact or typo that was copied around by some of the available online resources?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm basically looking for a decent explanation and/or someone with access to an annotated text, preferably something like a dusty old Loeb or OCT book, which might shed some light on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9946" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2775" RevisionGUID="93d9aa71-2ce8-453f-9b84-520be2c7b258" CreationDate="2017-03-03T09:40:32.153" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|orthography|ovidius|scansion|metre|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2777" RevisionGUID="3b3afe82-5fdb-4cd6-97d1-3fea26d95b01" CreationDate="2017-03-03T09:45:23.790" UserId="91" Text="Nope, not weird at all.  Latin is much more free about&#xD;&#xA;reusing parts of sentences and replacing one or two key words.  As &#xD;&#xA;for the nominative coming second,  notice that the order of the &#xD;&#xA;words is the same in each part.  That is, the *a*+abl comes before &#xD;&#xA;the nominative in the sentence *a &#xD;&#xA;cuius lacrymis prodit humecta substantia*, so the same is true of &#xD;&#xA;the other pieces pieces.  Thus in terms of the overall structure, &#xD;&#xA;your translation is exactly right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems most likely that the word used here, rather than&#xD;&#xA;*prodo*, is *prodeo*,&#xD;&#xA;the compound of *pro*-foreward and *eo, ire*-to go (the *d* is just&#xD;&#xA;to sound good).  Thus, 'the substance goes forth'.  Moreover, the&#xD;&#xA;*cuius*, being between the preposition *a* and its object&#xD;&#xA;*lacryimis*, is dependent on the *lacrymis*, so 'From whose tears does&#xD;&#xA;the wet substance go forth?'.  And the rest of it follows:&#xD;&#xA;'From whose tears does the wet substance come forth? From whose&#xD;&#xA;laugh, the bright? From whose sadness, the solid? From whose fear,&#xD;&#xA;the mobile?', standing for 'From whose tears does the wet substance&#xD;&#xA;come forth? From whose laugh does the bright substance come forth? By&#xD;&#xA;whose sadness does the solid substance come forth? From whose fear&#xD;&#xA;does the mobile substance come forth?'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's what the Latin says literally, at least.  I'm not familiar with &#xD;&#xA;the context, so I don't know about a better translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2776" RevisionGUID="b814fc31-7490-4292-b056-d404514bc841" CreationDate="2017-03-03T11:08:21.607" UserId="79" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="The C is a *-que*.&#xD;&#xA;It is quite common to abbreviate *neque* (= *ne+que*) as *nec*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see two ways to parse that verse and interpret the C:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. And he noticed the goddess and said: &quot;Don't go further!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. And he noticed the goddess, said: &quot;And don't go further!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I didn't read around that verse, so the translation may not be optimal. But that's beside the point.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is in the position of &quot;and&quot;, which is the *-c* of *nec*.&#xD;&#xA;In the second option the &quot;and&quot; is inside the quote, so it makes sense to punctuate it that way.&#xD;&#xA;In the first option it is not, so it makes sense to pull it out of the quotation.&#xD;&#xA;This is problematic in Latin because the &quot;and&quot; is a suffix *-c*, leading to that awkward separate C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as we know, Ovidius did not use any such punctuation, so the quotation marks are a more recent addition to aid modern readers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2778" RevisionGUID="5e3f4e91-165c-42a5-97c7-f08241aa124d" CreationDate="2017-03-03T11:25:02.403" UserId="1301" Text="Is &quot;Genius sine demonstratione&quot; a proper translation of &quot;Genius without verification/proof&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;It's basically a German phrase (&quot;Genie ohne Nachweis&quot;) that was used to describe Ludwig Wittgensteins nephew Paul Wittgenstein. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9950" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2778" RevisionGUID="5e3f4e91-165c-42a5-97c7-f08241aa124d" CreationDate="2017-03-03T11:25:02.403" UserId="1301" Text="&quot;Genius without verification/proof&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9951" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2778" RevisionGUID="5e3f4e91-165c-42a5-97c7-f08241aa124d" CreationDate="2017-03-03T11:25:02.403" UserId="1301" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2778" RevisionGUID="7b944a81-f456-4a88-94ad-e31be8716497" CreationDate="2017-03-03T11:53:11.547" UserId="1301" Comment="improved question" Text="Is &quot;Ingenium sine demonstratione&quot; a proper translation of &quot;Genius without verification/proof&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;It's basically a German phrase (&quot;Genie ohne Nachweis&quot;) that was used to describe Ludwig Wittgensteins nephew Paul Wittgenstein. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found _homo &lt;-minis&gt; m summi ingenii_ as a translation for _Genius_ at [PONS](http://de.pons.com/%C3%BCbersetzung?q=Genie&amp;l=dela&amp;in=&amp;lf=de)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found _ingenium_ at [dict.cc](https://dela.dict.cc/?s=Genie)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are translations from German to Latin. Second one seems more appropriate to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can I say _Ingenium sine demonstratione_? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2780" RevisionGUID="d7650ac3-422d-476c-9d74-e9a2430e2bfd" CreationDate="2017-03-03T15:05:20.050" UserId="45" Text="I was recently writing in Latin and had the misfortune of getting an English construction in my head that I had a difficult time fitting into a Latin thought pattern:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will probably be there soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ended up settling on something pretty different:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Credo me mox adfuturum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though this works, for the most part, it does not quite preserve the full sense of the English phrase. Here are some other example sentences I am interested in translating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are you coming with me? --**Probably**.  &#xD;&#xA;It is **probable** that he won't come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but I cannot think of an adverb/adjective that can be idiomatically used in these cases. The adjective [*probabilis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dprobabilis) is one possibility, but it has a wide scope, and it appears that *one* of its usageshas been narrowed to the current English meaning. I tend to think that &quot;probabile est&quot; is far less common--and far less specific--than English &quot;it is probable.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the best Latin word or idiom to express that something is &quot;likely&quot; or &quot;probable&quot;?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9957" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2780" RevisionGUID="d7650ac3-422d-476c-9d74-e9a2430e2bfd" CreationDate="2017-03-03T15:05:20.050" UserId="45" Text="How do I say that something will &quot;probably&quot; happen in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9958" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2780" RevisionGUID="d7650ac3-422d-476c-9d74-e9a2430e2bfd" CreationDate="2017-03-03T15:05:20.050" UserId="45" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2781" RevisionGUID="667fb3da-afa4-4b26-99ec-9b6e882202d9" CreationDate="2017-03-03T15:31:47.817" UserId="79" Text="The enclitic particle *-ne* can be used to form a binary (yes/no) question.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how attaching it to different words changes the meaning of the question.&#xD;&#xA;I have a clear idea of how it should behave, but that may well be because this is exactly how the Finnish enclitic -ko/-k&amp;ouml; works, so I want confirmation from someone without a Finn's bias.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The question concerns the word *-ne* is attached to.**&#xD;&#xA;For example, consider these questions related to *Gaius cum Marco loquitur*:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. ***Loquitur**ne Gaius cum Marco?* &amp;mdash; Does Gaius **speak** with Marcus? (The question is whether speaking takes place.)&#xD;&#xA;2. ***Gaius**ne loquitur cum Marco?* &amp;mdash; Is **Gaius** the one who speaks with Marcus? (The question is whether Gaius is the one who speaks.)&#xD;&#xA;3. *Cum **Marco**ne loquitur Gaius?* &amp;mdash; Is **Marcus** the one Gaius speaks with? (The question is whether Marcus is the one spoken to.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(For some reason I prefer to put the word with *-ne* towards the beginning of the sentence.)&#xD;&#xA;It is most common to attach *-ne* to the predicate, and it does change the meaning to put it elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;Here is another set of examples:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4. ***Legis**ne librum bonum?* &amp;mdash; Are you **reading** a good book?&#xD;&#xA;5. ***Bonum**ne librum legis?* &amp;mdash; Is the book you are reading **good**? Or maybe: Are you reading a **good** (with emphasis) book?&#xD;&#xA;6. ***Librum**ne bonum legis?* &amp;mdash; I don't seem to be able to parse this as naturally. Perhaps: Are you reading a good **book** (emphatically, as opposed to wathing a good movie)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9960" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2781" RevisionGUID="667fb3da-afa4-4b26-99ec-9b6e882202d9" CreationDate="2017-03-03T15:31:47.817" UserId="79" Text="Where to put the enclitic -ne?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9961" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2781" RevisionGUID="667fb3da-afa4-4b26-99ec-9b6e882202d9" CreationDate="2017-03-03T15:31:47.817" UserId="79" Text="|conjunction|enclitic|interrogative|particle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2780" RevisionGUID="26a3f12a-4e48-4af6-bb4c-5d9499e6660b" CreationDate="2017-03-03T16:08:25.750" UserId="45" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I was recently writing in Latin and had the misfortune of getting an English construction in my head that I had a difficult time fitting into a Latin thought pattern:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will probably be there soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ended up settling on something pretty different:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Credo me mox adfuturum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though this works, for the most part, it does not quite preserve the full sense of the English phrase. Here are some other example sentences I am interested in translating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are you coming with me? --**Probably**.  &#xD;&#xA;It is **probable** that he won't come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but I cannot think of an adverb/adjective that can be idiomatically used in these cases. The adjective [*probabilis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dprobabilis) is one possibility, but it has a wide scope, and it appears that *one* of its usages has been narrowed to the current English meaning. I tend to think that &quot;probabile est&quot; is far less common--and far less specific--than English &quot;it is probable.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the best Latin word or idiom to express that something is &quot;likely&quot; or &quot;probable&quot;?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2782" RevisionGUID="5a5c7a4a-757a-49f5-8316-2619ffb07022" CreationDate="2017-03-03T16:55:39.763" UserId="645" Text="Smith's English-Latin lists a few alternatives, all sourced, under *probably*, which suffice in most circumstances. In summary,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. With probability but not certainty : *probabiliter* ; *cum quadam verisimilitudine*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. By circumlocution : *veri simile est*; *haud scio an*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not put forward by Smith are such approaches as *nescio quin . . . '*, which I take to imply something like '[in my opinion] very likely' : perhaps indicating a less definite probability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2770" RevisionGUID="4b585f23-1902-4e3b-9e94-6bd6feefcba6" CreationDate="2017-03-03T17:52:53.863" UserId="79" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Were questions in written classical Latin ever indicated by anything other than the meanings of the words&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and the context?&#xD;&#xA;That is, was there a &quot;question mark&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Here a &quot;question mark&quot; can mean some form of punctuation, but it could be any kind of signal.&#xD;&#xA;For a silly example, one could indicate a question by increasing the size of letters towards the end of the question.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for non-verbal signals used in writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read the question [&quot;What punctuation was used in Classical Latin?&quot;](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/33/79) and I know the modern question mark is younger.&#xD;&#xA;I am under the impression that a question would normally not be marked in any way, but was this always the case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This excludes question words like *quare*, *quis*, *num*, and *-ne*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2778" RevisionGUID="14798ac2-6188-4dd6-a98d-19039604bf69" CreationDate="2017-03-03T18:05:41.347" UserId="1301" Comment="added information about the term" Text="Is &quot;Ingenium sine demonstratione&quot; a proper translation of &quot;Genius without verification/proof&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;It's basically a German phrase (&quot;Genie ohne Nachweis&quot;) that was used to describe Ludwig Wittgensteins nephew Paul Wittgenstein. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found _homo &lt;-minis&gt; m summi ingenii_ as a translation for _Genius_ at [PONS](http://de.pons.com/%C3%BCbersetzung?q=Genie&amp;l=dela&amp;in=&amp;lf=de)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found _ingenium_ at [dict.cc](https://dela.dict.cc/?s=Genie)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are translations from German to Latin. Second one seems more appropriate to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can I say _Ingenium sine demonstratione_? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Unfortunately - as said in a comment by brianpck - there are no google results corresponding to either the English _&quot;Genius without proof&quot;_ or _&quot;Genie ohne Nachweis&quot;_. And I know this is not the place for the English language matters and of course not the German language.&#xD;&#xA;_&quot;Genie ohne Nachweis&quot;_ is used in an Austrian book written by [Thomas Bernhard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bernhard) who wanted to tell about his friend Paul Wittgenstein (Ludwig Wittgenstein's nephew) that he as well was a true genius. But unlike his uncle Ludwig (who wrote the famous _Tractatus logico-philosophicus_) and his father Paul (who was a one-handed pianist and composed a lot of classical piano music) the young Paul  Wittgenstein (who was a very good friend of Thomas Bernhard - they met in a hospital) neither wrote nor composed or did anything to proof that he is as talented and gifted as his relatives.&#xD;&#xA;So cynically the only proof of Wittgenstein's genius per se is Bernhards mention in the book ([Wittgenstein's nephew](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein%27s_Nephew)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And because I think it's a beautiful proof of Bernhards friendship with Paul and out of pure curiosity I wanted to know what the Latin equivalent for the term _Genius without proof_ is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2783" RevisionGUID="ab4f5f43-c5d0-4245-9cbd-a279a1b8d8b4" CreationDate="2017-03-03T18:40:28.503" UserId="1289" Text="It might be a bit of a stretch, but have you considered using the *potentialis* ? Then it just becomes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mox adsim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm expecting some reservations from you on this one, because I'm not 100% convinced either. It seems to me that the focus is put on *being there*, not on being there *soon*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the construction is better suited to the last example sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non veniat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2774" RevisionGUID="b29cfec1-45b9-47fd-8edb-3b16e6013c06" CreationDate="2017-03-03T20:24:34.970" UserId="1235" Comment="add context" Text="In Jonathan Swift's &quot;A Tale of a Tub&quot;, at the end of section X there is a Latin quote which I'm having trouble translating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A cujus lacrymis humecta prodit substantia, à risu lucida, à tristitiâ solida, &amp; à timore mobilis,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    a - of, from&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    cujus - gen - &quot;whose&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    lachrymis - abl pl - tears&#xD;&#xA;    humecta - fem nom or abl. - wet&#xD;&#xA;    prodit - he gives, brings forth&#xD;&#xA;    substantia - fem nom or abl - substance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    risu - abl. - mockery or laughter&#xD;&#xA;    lucida - fem sing. or abl - shiny, bright, lucid&#xD;&#xA;    tristitia - fem sing or abl - sorrow, melancholy&#xD;&#xA;    solida - fem sing or abl or neut accus. pl. - solid&#xD;&#xA;    mobilis - masc/fem sing nom or gen - moveable, loose, pliant&#xD;&#xA;    timore - abl sing of timor - fear, dread&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is 'prodo' one of those verbs whose object takes the dative or ablative case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope someone can help me translate this, it doesn't make much sense at the moment. Just to embarrass myself, here's an attempt: &quot;Whose wet substance bears tears, whose clear [substance bears] laughter, whose solid [substance bears] sorrow, whose loose [substance bears] fear?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds weird to put the second word in each pair in the nominative case, but if they are ablative then &quot;mobilis&quot; doesn't fit...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: The context of the Latin is &quot;But then he must beware of Bythus and Sigè and be sure not to forget the qualities of Acamoth: A cujus lacrymis humecta prodit substantia, à risu lucida, à tristitiâ solida, &amp; à timore mobilis [...]&quot;. I believe that Bythus and Sigè and Acamoth are Gnostic spiritual powers. I'm not sure why Swift is invoking them here, but the rest of the book is largely a satire on religion.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2784" RevisionGUID="8349c7a5-1074-4f3e-9097-8ca355790f02" CreationDate="2017-03-03T20:37:47.710" UserId="75" Text="Another possibility is the adverb *fortasse* (and *fortassis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Lewis &amp; Short on the Latin word *fortasse*,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;fortassē (also fortassis , but rarely, and not in Caes.; Plaut. As. 2, 4, 86; id. Bacch. 4, 4, 20; Cic. Clu. 52, 144 Klotz, B. and K.; 71, 201 B. and K.; Hor. S. 1, 4, 131; 2, 7, 40; Plin. 2, 20, 18, § 82; 27, 12, 77, § 102; Traj. ap. Plin. Ep. 10, 63; Dig. 7, 1, 12, § 5; 11, 7, 14, § 9), adv. forte an; cf.: forsan, fortan, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I.perhaps, peradventure, **probably**, possibly: “nescis tu fortasse, apud nos facinus quod natum est novum,” Plaut. Mil. 2, 3, 10: “dicam me hercule, et contemnar a te fortasse, cum tu, etc.,” Cic. Rep. 1, 19; 2, 34: “in quo (genere) esse videbuntur fortasse angustiae,” id. ib. 3, 33: “fortasse dices: Quid ergo?” id. Div. in Caecil. 12, 40: “requiretur fortasse nunc, quemadmodum, etc.,” id. de Imp. Pomp. 9, 22: “quaeret fortassis quispiam, displiceatur mihi, etc.,” id. Clu. 52, 144: “fortasse dixerit quispiam,” id. de Sen. 3, 8 (for which: “forsitan quispiam dixerit,” id. Off. 3, 6, 29): “sed haec longiora fortasse fuerunt quam necesse, fuit,” id. Fam. 6, 1, 7; cf. id. ib. 7, 3 fin.: “sustines enim non parvam exspectationem imitandae industriae nostrae, magnam honorum, nonnullam fortasse nominis,” id. Off. 3, 2, 6: “poterimus fortasse dicere,” id. Or. 5, 19: “quod tamen fortasse non nollem,” id. Fam. 2, 16, 2; cf.: “L. Lucullus, qui tamen aliqua ex parte iis incommodis mederi fortasse potuisset, etc.,” id. de Imp. Pomp. 9, 26: “puerum, inquies, et fortasse fatuum,” id. Att. 6, 6, 2; cf.: “otioso et loquaci et fortasse docto atque erudito,” id. de Or. 1, 22, 102.—With sed: “praeclaram illam quidem fortasse, sed a vita hominum abhorrentem,” Cic. Rep. 2, 11; cf.: “Marso fortasse, sed Romano facillimus,” id. Div. 2, 33, 70; 2, 22, 50; id. Tusc. 1, 13, 30.—With nisi (for nisi forte): “tu hoc: alius fortasse, quod in animadversione poenaque durior, nisi fortasse utrumque tu,” id. ad Brut. 1, 15, 3.—With sed tamen, Plaut. As. 2, 4, 86; Cic. Rep. 2, 33; id. Off. 3, 21, 82; id. Sest. 5, 12.—With verum tamen, Cic. Verr. 1, 12, 35; id. Arch. 11, 28. —With quidem: “id nos fortasse non perfecimus, conati quidem saepissime sumus,” Cic. Or. 62, 210; so id. Tusc. 2, 17, 41: “res enim fortasse verae, certe graves,” id. Fin. 4, 3, 7.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;b. In Plaut. and Ter. ellipt., like fors, with a subject-clause: “fortasse te illum mirari cocum, Quod venit atque haec attulit,” it may be that, perhaps, Plaut. Merc. 4, 4, 42; id. As. 1, 1, 24; id. Ep. 2, 2, 111; id. Poen. 5, 2, 44; id. Truc. 3, 2, 12; Ter. Hec. 3, 1, 33; cf.: sic Plautus: Fortasse ted amare suspicarier. Nam veteres infinitivo modo adjungebant fortasse, Don. Ter. 1, 1; cf. ellipt. use: Q. unum illud mihi videris imitari, orationis genus. M. Velle fortasse; “quis enim id potest imitari?” Cic. Leg. 2, 7, 17.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;c. Ironically (cf. forte, 2, a. β and Gr. ἴσως): Ch. Prorsum nihil intellego. Sy. Hui, tardus es. Ch. Fortasse, Ter. Heaut. 4, 5, 29: “sed ego fortasse vaticinor, et haec omnia meliores habebunt exitus ... eos ego fortasse nunc imitor,” Cic. Fam. 2, 16, 6; Plaut. As. 2, 4, 90.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;d. In designating numbers, about (in Cic. usually placed after the numeral): “elegit ex multis Isocratis libris triginta fortasse versus Hieronymus,” Cic. Or. 56, 190: “Q. Pompeius biennio quam nos fortasse major,” id. Brut. 68, 240: “HS. D. milia fortasse,” Cic. Verr. 2, 3, 50, § 118: “fuimus una horas duas fortasse,” id. Att. 7, 4, 2: “fortasse circiter triennium,” Plaut. Mil. 2, 3, 79: “mercaris agrum, fortasse trecentis, aut etiam supra, nummorum milibus emptum,” Hor. Ep. 2, 2, 164.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis, Charlton T.; Short, Charles. [*Harper’s Latin Dictionary: A New Latin Dictionary Founded on the Translation of Freund’s Latin-German Lexicon.*][1] New York: American Book, 1879.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; p. [771–772][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/harperslatindict00lewi&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/stream/harperslatindict00lewi#page/771/mode/1up" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2785" RevisionGUID="b44c01fc-de5e-48c4-b90d-9cee05916745" CreationDate="2017-03-03T21:46:57.367" UserId="235" Text="&gt; ἑαυτοῦ δὲ προσελθόντος εἰπεῖν ὅτι δέοι αὐτὸν ἄγγελον ἀνθρώποις&#xD;&#xA;&gt; γενέσθαι τῶν ἐκεῖ καὶ διακελεύοιντό οἱ ἀκούειν τε καὶ θεᾶσθαι πάντα τὰ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἐν τῷ τόπῳ.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (My translation) And when Er approached, [the judges] said that there was need for him to be a messenger to men of the things in the world beyond, and they ordered him to both hear and behold all things in this place. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Plat. Rep. 10.614d][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am confused about two things in this passage. The first, why is the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτοῦ used as the subject of the genitive absolute, ἑαυτοῦ δὲ προσελθόντος? I thought that reflexive pronouns could *never* be subjects, and would have expected to see αὐτοῦ in its place. I translated ἑαυτοῦ as &quot;Er&quot;, since that is the name of the character, but my literal translation would be &quot;he&quot;, as in, &quot;when he approached&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, I am confused about the phrase διακελεύοιντό οἱ. I assume that οἱ is being used as a demonstrative pronoun, staying true to its roots, so I would translate it as &quot;these [judges]&quot;, or even just, &quot;the judges&quot;. Am I correct about this? That said, I was half expecting to see the verb διακελεύοιντό be infinitive, not finite, since earlier we have εἰπεῖν (of which the judges are also the subject) take the infinitive. Why exactly is διακελεύοιντό finite and εἰπεῖν infinitive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a guess... εἰπεῖν is part of an (implied) indirect statement, of which διακελεύοιντό is not a part? My textbook hints that there are a lot of indirect statements in this passage, where ἔφη is often implied. In which case, the below translation might be more literal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And [he said] that when he approached, the judges said that there was need for him to be a messenger to men of the things in the world beyond, and the judges ordered him to both hear and behold all things in this place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0167%3Abook%3D10%3Asection%3D614d" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9973" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2785" RevisionGUID="b44c01fc-de5e-48c4-b90d-9cee05916745" CreationDate="2017-03-03T21:46:57.367" UserId="235" Text="Why is a reflexive pronoun the subject of this genitive absolute?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9974" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2785" RevisionGUID="b44c01fc-de5e-48c4-b90d-9cee05916745" CreationDate="2017-03-03T21:46:57.367" UserId="235" Text="|translation|plato|reflexive-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2786" RevisionGUID="dfd04a4e-8c21-4752-be8a-7ea20280b8b3" CreationDate="2017-03-03T22:06:42.120" UserId="39" Text="A brief comment re: geminate vs. non-geminate perfect forms of refero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/P0fOX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9976" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2785" RevisionGUID="9b5eefbe-ab55-47de-bcc9-a0c4a12dae6b" CreationDate="2017-03-03T22:11:02.707" UserId="40" Comment="added &quot;Greek&quot; to title" Text="Why is a reflexive pronoun the subject of this genitive absolute? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2787" RevisionGUID="61df4445-1a07-41da-9482-9f2f9f0a71d1" CreationDate="2017-03-03T22:28:59.740" UserId="40" Text="1. ἑαυτοῦ: this is reflexive because it's referring all the way back to the subject of the verb of speech that introduced this whole passage of indirect discourse. It's an &quot;indirect reflexive&quot;: see the discussion in [Smyth 1225ff](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth+grammar+1225&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. οἱ: this is not the nom. pl. of the definite article, but the enclitic dat. sg. of the third-person pronoun, &quot;(to) him&quot;. The way to tell is that there is no noun accompanying with it; with few exceptions (e.g. οἱ μέν ... οἱ δέ), when οἱ is the definite article you will always see a noun following it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. διακελεύοιντο: this is the trickiest part of this question; my tentative explanation is as follows. You're perfectly right that we would expect an infinitive διακελεύεσθαι, just like εἰπεῖν with which it is coordinated. What seems to have happened is that the verb got drawn into the construction of δέοι: that is, Plato had just used an optative form and automatically extended the same construction to this verb, even though grammatically it's doing something different. (Maybe the immediately following infinitives ἀκούειν τε καὶ θεᾶσθαι also deterred him from using an infinitive here.) This is anacoluthon, but of a type that's not infrequent in languages generally: cf. English sentences like *The reason for his complaints are as follows* -- strictly ungrammatical, but a commonly encountered type -- where the verb has been drawn into the plural because of a preceding plural noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2787" RevisionGUID="5d376177-c33e-4adf-9bf7-ee57db8f4c73" CreationDate="2017-03-03T22:40:59.073" UserId="40" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="1. ἑαυτοῦ: this is reflexive because it's referring all the way back to the subject of the verb of speech that introduced this whole passage of indirect discourse. It's an &quot;indirect reflexive&quot;: see the discussion in [Smyth 1225ff](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth+grammar+1225&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. οἱ: this is not the nom. pl. of the definite article, but the enclitic dat. sg. of the third-person pronoun, &quot;(to) him&quot;. The way to tell is that there is no noun accompanying with it; with few exceptions (e.g. οἱ μέν ... οἱ δέ), when οἱ is the definite article you will always see a noun following it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. διακελεύοιντο: this is the trickiest part of this question; my tentative explanation is as follows. You're perfectly right that we would expect an infinitive διακελεύεσθαι, just like εἰπεῖν with which it is coordinated. What seems to have happened is that the verb got drawn into the construction of δέοι: that is, Plato had just used an optative form and automatically extended the same construction to this verb, even though grammatically it's doing something different. (Maybe the immediately following infinitives ἀκούειν τε καὶ θεᾶσθαι also deterred him from using an infinitive here.) This would presumably have been aided (or even caused) by the fact that optatives can be used in this way in indirect statement, even though in this case a different construction had been originally chosen. This is anacoluthon, but of a type that's not infrequent in languages generally: cf. English sentences like *The reason for his complaints are as follows* -- strictly ungrammatical, but a commonly encountered type -- where the verb has been drawn into the plural because of a preceding plural noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2788" RevisionGUID="10b8452d-fad6-402d-b2bf-a3e2dde96e55" CreationDate="2017-03-03T23:00:00.283" UserId="45" Text="In Greek, past tenses are formed with &quot;augmentation,&quot; e.g. present -&gt; imperfect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* λῡ́ω &gt; ἔλῡον&#xD;&#xA;* εὑρῐ́σκω &gt; ηὕρῐσκον&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we know that the Latin perfect tense sometimes [preserves Greek reduplication](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/606/which-verbs-have-reduplicated-perfect-stems), I am also curious to know **whether this temporal augment is preserved in certain past tense Latin verbs**. One potential example immediately comes to mind: *ago &gt; egi*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming there is such a pattern, **is there any rule we can point to by which some Latin perfect stems are reduplicated, others are augmented, and the rest are formed according to the normal rules?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9980" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2788" RevisionGUID="10b8452d-fad6-402d-b2bf-a3e2dde96e55" CreationDate="2017-03-03T23:00:00.283" UserId="45" Text="Do any Latin verbs use a temporal augment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9981" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2788" RevisionGUID="10b8452d-fad6-402d-b2bf-a3e2dde96e55" CreationDate="2017-03-03T23:00:00.283" UserId="45" Text="|etymology|greek|verbs|perfect-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2788" RevisionGUID="f50dcb52-57bc-4d77-9ff1-34ca111162b6" CreationDate="2017-03-03T23:05:08.460" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 81 characters in body" Text="In Greek, past tenses are formed with &quot;augmentation,&quot; e.g. present -&gt; imperfect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* λῡ́ω &gt; ἔλῡον&#xD;&#xA;* εὑρῐ́σκω &gt; ηὕρῐσκον&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we know that certain Latin verbs [preserve perfect reduplication](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/606/which-verbs-have-reduplicated-perfect-stems), I wonder: **do any Latin verbs also preserve a temporal augment**? One potential example immediately comes to mind: *ago &gt; egi*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, **is there any rule we can point to by which some Latin perfect stems are reduplicated, others are augmented, and the rest are formed according to the normal rules?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2789" RevisionGUID="33c1fa74-c449-4954-9a92-ce4f029d7353" CreationDate="2017-03-03T23:28:03.070" UserId="469" Text="According to [scholars][1], the earliest written sign ever argued to play the role of an interrogation mark comes from a VI century Syriac manuscript, and passed later into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My intuition is that, in this case too, *necessity is the mother of invention*. Especially in antiquity, it is not very likely that a mark there was no special need for made it into mainstream Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For yes/no questions Latin regularly adds particles (e.g. _-ne_, _num_), and open questions usually require relatives (*quid*, *quando*, *cur*). Even word order change in some. There is no ambiguity in such questions, and hence no need to distinguish any further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is hard to tell whether Romans used a different intonation for questions. (Judging from Romance languages, it seems likely, though.) If they did, maybe it was possible to word a question just as an affirmative sentence, but then again, it was easier to re-word the sentence in written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/syriac-double-dot-worlds-earliest-question-mark/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2790" RevisionGUID="6e45bef4-9161-4940-9683-53761e5652f4" CreationDate="2017-03-04T00:00:00.437" UserId="40" Text="First, it's not at all clear that Proto-Indo-European used the augment (temporal or syllabic): it's found in Greek, Indo-Iranian, Armenian, and Phrygian, but not in the other languages, so most likely it was not an obligatory marker of the imperfect and aorist in PIE, if it was used at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Latin, as far I know, there's no evidence it ever used an augment. (I should maybe say &quot;almost no evidence&quot; because I have a vague memory that there is an archaic inscription in some Italic language which has been argued to contain an augment, but I can't remember the details at the moment, and that interpretation is contested.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The explanation of *ēgī*, and other perfects with long *ē*, is a debated subject; no one to my knowledge has proposed that *ēgī* contains an augment, if only because this would divorce it from other such verbs where the *ē* is not initial (e.g. *lēgī*, *rēgī*), and it would be preferable to have a single account of the entire class. (In any case, there is no Attic-Ionic-style change of *ā* to *ē* in Latin, so a temporal augment would not yield *ēgī*.) The theory given in Weiss (2009:413) is that these reflect PIE imperfects of the so-called &quot;Narten class&quot; verbs: these are verbs that show a different ablaut pattern from normal PIE verbs, including a lengthened grade where other verbs have a full grade; in the imperfect, this means such verbs had a long *ē*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2791" RevisionGUID="9ae13c3b-e8bd-4938-8063-cdcf5e96a165" CreationDate="2017-03-04T00:06:44.083" UserId="243" Text="What is the best way of translating 'at sea'? For example, &quot;The sailors fought bravely at sea&quot;. The translation 'in mari' seems the closest to  me, as opposed to the literal 'ad mare' and treatment like a locative with just 'mari'. Is 'in mari' the best/most common way of translating it? Does there exist an idiomatic expression for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9986" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2791" RevisionGUID="9ae13c3b-e8bd-4938-8063-cdcf5e96a165" CreationDate="2017-03-04T00:06:44.083" UserId="243" Text="Best translation for 'at sea'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9987" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2791" RevisionGUID="9ae13c3b-e8bd-4938-8063-cdcf5e96a165" CreationDate="2017-03-04T00:06:44.083" UserId="243" Text="|idiom|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2792" RevisionGUID="50292e2b-12de-4476-a1b6-b69b3618aa82" CreationDate="2017-03-04T00:06:54.380" UserId="1289" Text="This is essentially a partial answer, but you're asking two questions so maybe someone else can provide the other half. I can only reply to your first question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to be exceedingly rare, if it occurs at all. The only other possible occurrence I could think of, and I wouldn't have thought about it if you hadn't mentioned *ăgo &gt; ēgi*, is *ĕmere &gt; ēmi*. But this train of thought is compromised by such cases as *facere &gt; feci*, where a similar phenomenon occurs in Inlaut. You're basically stuck looking for irregular root forms (without prefixes !) of verbs that start with a vowel, and I am inclined to conclude that your initial premise of *ăgo &gt; ēgi* as an augmented root is essentially incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason why I can see *e-* augmentation not staying a language feature in Latin, if it was inherited from PIE, is the verbal prefix *ex-*, which becomes *e-* before most consonants. This would introduce huge ambiguity between a lexical shift in meaning, and a grammatical one. I don't know any other languages from antiquity, so I'm not sure whether there is a similar prefix in other languages that might invalidate this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I don't believe there is augmentation in Latin, part of your last question is moot in this answer. But I can't seriously reply to the rest of it because I don't remember any rules why some words would get reduplication and why some wouldn't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2792" RevisionGUID="c684e5c4-b788-4224-983c-a4f90a71ac3d" CreationDate="2017-03-04T00:13:24.383" UserId="1289" Comment="added example of Inlaut vowel shift" Text="This is essentially a partial answer, but you're asking two questions so maybe someone else can provide the other half. I can only reply to your first question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to be exceedingly rare, if it occurs at all. The only other possible occurrence I could think of, and I wouldn't have thought about it if you hadn't mentioned *ăgo &gt; ēgi*, is *ĕmere &gt; ēmi*. But this train of thought is compromised by such cases as *făcere &gt; fēci* or *vĕnire &gt; vēni*, where a similar phenomenon occurs in Inlaut. You're basically stuck looking for irregular root forms (without prefixes !) of verbs that start with a vowel, and I am inclined to conclude that your initial premise of *ăgo &gt; ēgi* as an augmented root is essentially incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason why I can see *e-* augmentation not staying a language feature in Latin, if it was inherited from PIE, is the verbal prefix *ex-*, which becomes *e-* before most consonants. This would introduce huge ambiguity between a lexical shift in meaning, and a grammatical one. I don't know any other languages from antiquity, so I'm not sure whether there is a similar prefix in other languages that might invalidate this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I don't believe there is augmentation in Latin, part of your last question is moot in this answer. But I can't seriously reply to the rest of it because I don't remember any rules why some words would get reduplication and why some wouldn't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2790" RevisionGUID="d8f5f4ad-e97f-4aca-90d4-89e5af5b1072" CreationDate="2017-03-04T00:14:42.080" UserId="40" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="First, it's not at all clear that Proto-Indo-European used the augment (temporal or syllabic): it's found in Greek, Indo-Iranian, Armenian, and Phrygian, but not in the other languages, so most likely it was not an obligatory marker of the imperfect and aorist in PIE, if it was used at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Latin, as far I know, there's no evidence it ever used an augment. (I should maybe say &quot;almost no evidence&quot; because I have a vague memory that there is an archaic inscription in some Italic language which has been argued to contain an augment, but I can't remember the details at the moment, and that interpretation is contested.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The explanation of *ēgī*, and other perfects with long *ē*, is a debated subject; no one to my knowledge has proposed that *ēgī* contains an augment, if only because this would divorce it from other such verbs where the *ē* is not initial (e.g. *lēgī*, *sur-rēgī*), and it would be preferable to have a single account of the entire class. (In any case, there is no Attic-Ionic-style change of *ā* to *ē* in Latin, so a temporal augment would not yield *ēgī*.) The theory given in Weiss (2009:413) is that these reflect PIE imperfects of the so-called &quot;Narten class&quot; verbs: these are verbs that show a different ablaut pattern from normal PIE verbs, including a lengthened grade where other verbs have a full grade; in the imperfect, this means such verbs had a long *ē*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2793" RevisionGUID="f4953a7b-d2b4-4ed9-aa16-772316120255" CreationDate="2017-03-04T01:09:28.810" UserId="952" Text="In this situation, you are basically selecting between different types of place constructions. From *Review Latin Grammar*:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I believe that the best choice for your purposes would be *in mari*, because the sentence is describing a **place where**. Also note how the locative would not be used because *mare* is not one of the listed &quot;special&quot; forms (right column).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WQgrn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2790" RevisionGUID="2f9c26b8-6535-40c5-becd-70400d7e3d5c" CreationDate="2017-03-04T01:43:40.050" UserId="40" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="First, it's not at all clear that Proto-Indo-European used the augment (temporal or syllabic): it's found in Greek, Indo-Iranian, Armenian, and Phrygian, but not in the other languages, so most likely it was not an obligatory marker of the imperfect and aorist in PIE, if it was used at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Latin, as far I know, there's no evidence it ever used an augment. (I should maybe say &quot;almost no evidence&quot; because I have a vague memory that there is an archaic inscription in some Italic language which has been argued to contain an augment, but I can't remember the details at the moment, and that interpretation is contested.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The explanation of *ēgī*, and other perfects with long *ē*, is a debated subject; no one to my knowledge has proposed that *ēgī* contains an augment, partly because this would divorce it from other such verbs where the *ē* is not initial (e.g. *lēgī*, *sur-rēgī*), and it would be preferable to have a unified account of the entire class. (In any case, there is no Attic-Ionic-style change of *ā* to *ē* in Latin, so a temporal augment would not yield *ēgī*.) The theory given in Weiss (2009:413) is that these reflect PIE imperfects of the so-called &quot;Narten class&quot; verbs: these are verbs that show a different ablaut pattern from normal PIE verbs, including a lengthened grade where other verbs have a full grade; in the imperfect, this means such verbs had a long *ē*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2793" RevisionGUID="c0a559b7-7f41-40e8-a2da-2b0e51a62594" CreationDate="2017-03-04T01:44:22.047" UserId="952" Comment="clarified ambiguity" Text="In this situation, you are basically selecting between different types of place constructions. From *Review Latin Grammar*:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I believe that the best choice for your purposes would be *in mari*, because the sentence is describing a **place where**. Also note how the locative would not be used for the specific place construction in this context because *mare* is not one of the listed &quot;special&quot; forms (right column).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WQgrn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2794" RevisionGUID="f4a0466f-9a2a-474a-8751-fc976a42ab9a" CreationDate="2017-03-04T01:53:36.810" UserId="40" Text="Textbooks tell us that the only common (in the sense of not proper) nouns that have a locative case are *rūs* &quot;countryside&quot; and *domus* &quot;home&quot;. However, I'm familiar with two expressions that use coordinated nouns in the locative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *domī mīlitiaeque* &quot;at home and on campaign&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *terrā marīque* &quot;by land and by sea&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I only recall seeing the locative forms *mīlitiae, terrā, marī* as part of those fixed expressions, not by themselves. Are they ever used by themselves? Do classical authors use *mīlitiae* for &quot;on campaign&quot; outside of the phrase *domī mīlitiaeque*, etc.?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Prompted by [this question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2791/best-translation-for-at-sea).)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9995" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2794" RevisionGUID="f4a0466f-9a2a-474a-8751-fc976a42ab9a" CreationDate="2017-03-04T01:53:36.810" UserId="40" Text="Do the locatives militiae, terrā, marī occur by themselves?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9996" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2794" RevisionGUID="f4a0466f-9a2a-474a-8751-fc976a42ab9a" CreationDate="2017-03-04T01:53:36.810" UserId="40" Text="|syntax|morphology|locative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2787" RevisionGUID="e4340780-cd67-4e2c-bd40-f975858a2479" CreationDate="2017-03-04T01:54:47.693" UserId="40" Comment="added 177 characters in body" Text="1. ἑαυτοῦ: this is reflexive because it's referring all the way back to the subject of the verb of speech that introduced this whole passage of indirect discourse. It's an &quot;indirect reflexive&quot;: see the discussion in [Smyth 1225ff](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth+grammar+1225&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. οἱ: this is not the nom. pl. of the definite article, but the enclitic dat. sg. of the third-person pronoun, &quot;(to) him&quot;. The way to tell is that there is no noun accompanying with it; with few exceptions (e.g. οἱ μέν ... οἱ δέ), when οἱ is the definite article you will always see a noun following it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. διακελεύοιντο: this is the trickiest part of this question; my tentative explanation is as follows. You're perfectly right that we would expect an infinitive διακελεύεσθαι, just like εἰπεῖν with which it is coordinated. What seems to have happened is that the verb got drawn into the construction of δέοι: that is, Plato had just used an optative form and automatically extended the same construction to this verb, even though grammatically it's doing something different. (Maybe the immediately following infinitives ἀκούειν τε καὶ θεᾶσθαι also deterred him from using an infinitive here.) This would presumably have been aided (or even caused) by the fact that optatives can be used in this way in indirect statement, even though in this case a different construction had been originally chosen: Plato is nesting one indirect statement inside another, and seems to be using the form appropriate to the outer statement instead of the one appropriate to the inner statement. This is anacoluthon, but of a type that's not infrequent in languages generally: cf. English sentences like *The reason for his complaints are as follows* -- strictly ungrammatical, but a commonly encountered type -- where the verb has been drawn into the plural because of a preceding plural noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2795" RevisionGUID="f2119208-4fe9-4634-a8c4-94d2173758f1" CreationDate="2017-03-04T02:24:43.173" UserId="75" Text="It seems *in mari* would be a suitable translation of the English “at sea.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, M. Tullius Cicero wrote,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*vix in ipsis tectis et oppidis frigus infirma valetudine vitatur, nedum **in mari** et via sit facile abesse ab iniuria temporis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which Evelyn Shuckburgh translated into English as,&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Even in houses and towns it is difficult to avoid cold when one is unwell, to say nothing of escaping the inclemency of the weather **at sea** and on the road.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;M. Tullius Cicero. *Epistulae ad Familiares.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;M. Tullius Cicero. [*The Letters of Cicero.*][1] Trans. Shuckburgh, Evelyn. Vol. 2.  London: Bell, 1905. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Book 16, Letter 8, Section 2&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; p. [256][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=89U4AQAAMAAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=89U4AQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA256#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=true" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9999" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2785" RevisionGUID="554d6002-4821-4e6c-a916-363b6eadb4cb" CreationDate="2017-03-04T02:25:44.667" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|greek|plato|reflexive-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2795" RevisionGUID="fe5edf80-ef34-4d19-a30f-8edfaded71e5" CreationDate="2017-03-04T02:33:14.773" UserId="75" Comment="added 370 characters in body" Text="It seems *in mari* would be a suitable translation of the English “at sea.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, M. Tullius Cicero wrote,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*vix in ipsis tectis et oppidis frigus infirma valetudine vitatur, nedum **in mari** et via sit facile abesse ab iniuria temporis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which Evelyn Shuckburgh translated into English as,&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Even in houses and towns it is difficult to avoid cold when one is unwell, to say nothing of escaping the inclemency of the weather **at sea** and on the road.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;M. Tullius Cicero. [*The Correspondence of M. Tullius Cicero, Arranged according to Its Chronological Order.*][1] Ed. Purser, Louis Claude; Tyrrell, Robert Yelverton. Vol. 4. London: Longmans, 1894.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;M. Tullius Cicero. [*The Letters of Cicero.*][2] Trans. Shuckburgh, Evelyn. Vol. 2.  London: Bell, 1905. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Book 16, Letter 8, Section 2, p. [32–33][3] (Latin text)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Book 16, Letter 8, Section 2, p. [256][4] (English translation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Rq5LAQAAMAAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=89U4AQAAMAAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Rq5LAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA32#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=true&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=89U4AQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA256#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=true" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2796" RevisionGUID="cc8ccbec-35fc-4047-a1c8-92b67d383fb1" CreationDate="2017-03-04T03:50:08.163" UserId="1133" Text="Does anyone know where I could find a complete version of Hutchinson's Latin translation of Xenophon's Anabasis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A partial version is linked below.  (The box at the top lists the available sections.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.gottwein.de/Grie/xenophon/anab1_01.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Internet resources would be best, but information on hard copy (publisher, year of publication, etc.) would also be appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know that a complete version exists.  It is possible that the link above links all that has been translated.  Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10003" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2796" RevisionGUID="cc8ccbec-35fc-4047-a1c8-92b67d383fb1" CreationDate="2017-03-04T03:50:08.163" UserId="1133" Text="Hutchinson's Latin translation of Xenophon's Anabasis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10004" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2796" RevisionGUID="cc8ccbec-35fc-4047-a1c8-92b67d383fb1" CreationDate="2017-03-04T03:50:08.163" UserId="1133" Text="|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2777" RevisionGUID="6aa53598-da20-490a-ae5a-8582c81c5351" CreationDate="2017-03-04T03:52:33.650" UserId="91" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="Nope, not weird at all.  Latin is much more free about&#xD;&#xA;reusing parts of sentences and replacing one or two key words.  As &#xD;&#xA;for the nominative coming second,  notice that the order of the &#xD;&#xA;words is the same in each part.  That is, the *a*+abl comes before &#xD;&#xA;the nominative in the sentence *a &#xD;&#xA;cuius lacrymis prodit humecta substantia*, so the same is true of &#xD;&#xA;the other pieces pieces.  Thus in terms of the overall structure, &#xD;&#xA;your translation is exactly right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems most likely that the word used here, rather than&#xD;&#xA;*prodo*, is *prodeo*,&#xD;&#xA;the compound of *pro*-foreward and *eo, ire*-to go (the *d* is just&#xD;&#xA;to sound good).  Thus, 'the substance goes forth'.  Moreover, the&#xD;&#xA;*cuius*, being between the preposition *a* and its object&#xD;&#xA;*lacryimis*, is dependent on the *lacrymis*, so 'From whose tears &#xD;&#xA;the wet substance goes forth'.  And the rest of it follows:&#xD;&#xA;'From whose tears the wet substance comes forth, from whose&#xD;&#xA;laugh, the bright, from whose sadness, the solid, from whose fear,&#xD;&#xA;the mobile', standing for 'From whose tears the wet substance&#xD;&#xA;comes forth, from whose laugh the bright substance comes forth, from &#xD;&#xA;whose sadness the solid substance comes forth, from whose fear the &#xD;&#xA;mobile substance comes forth'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's what the Latin says literally, at least.  I'm not familiar with &#xD;&#xA;the context, so I don't know about a better translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2797" RevisionGUID="15141cce-b4fa-48de-bd8c-4b2229b8037e" CreationDate="2017-03-04T03:55:25.783" UserId="78" Text="[Here you go.](https://archive.org/stream/xenophntoskyrou02hutcgoog#page/n6/mode/2up) Internet Archive is a treasury full of old gems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They [also have](https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Xenophon%2C%20Thomas%20Hutchinson%22) several versions of the *Cyropedia*, too, if you're interested." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2640" RevisionGUID="e5f2100c-4abe-44e2-9378-ad13454a8bea" CreationDate="2017-03-04T10:50:15.810" UserId="79" Comment="Added the explanation from the comment." Text="Yes, *liberi* means free children. *Pueri* is the generic word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gaffiot quotes namely Cicero: *liber, qui de matre libera, liber est*. The same Gaffiot, under *liberi* gives an even more restrictive definition of free boys (not girls)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2798" RevisionGUID="57528707-4e34-43e7-b620-a25e7d40eceb" CreationDate="2017-03-04T14:01:24.243" UserId="1306" Text="I noticed that many online places where Latin could be spoken are dead (unlike the language itself).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where can I practice Latin online? Is there any chat or forum that is really active?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10009" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2798" RevisionGUID="57528707-4e34-43e7-b620-a25e7d40eceb" CreationDate="2017-03-04T14:01:24.243" UserId="1306" Text="What is the largest online Latin speaking community?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10010" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2798" RevisionGUID="57528707-4e34-43e7-b620-a25e7d40eceb" CreationDate="2017-03-04T14:01:24.243" UserId="1306" Text="|roman-culture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2789" RevisionGUID="dcd43d21-b264-4880-9145-4f7ef4b45cb3" CreationDate="2017-03-04T14:38:55.653" UserId="136" Comment="fixed syntax to allow the sentence to flow better" Text="According to [scholars][1], the earliest written sign ever argued to play the role of an interrogation mark comes from a VI century Syriac manuscript, and passed later into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My intuition is that, in this case too, *necessity is the mother of invention*. Especially in antiquity, it is not very likely that a mark for which there was no special need made it into mainstream Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For yes/no questions Latin regularly adds particles (e.g. _-ne_, _num_), and open questions usually require relatives (*quid*, *quando*, *cur*). Even word order change in some. There is no ambiguity in such questions, and hence no need to distinguish any further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is hard to tell whether Romans used a different intonation for questions. (Judging from Romance languages, it seems likely, though.) If they did, maybe it was possible to word a question just as an affirmative sentence, but then again, it was easier to re-word the sentence in written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/syriac-double-dot-worlds-earliest-question-mark/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2799" RevisionGUID="e640aa9c-95bc-469f-926c-935e86587a31" CreationDate="2017-03-04T19:53:29.563" UserId="235" Text="I want to say in Latin, &quot;How long have you been a dog? I have been a dog four or five years now.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how do I form the interrogative phrase, &quot;How long?&quot; My first inclination was to use the phrase &quot;quantus tempus&quot;, somehow, but I'm pretty sure this is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you translate my first two examples into Latin? It would be interesting to learn more about how to ask a question regarding time or duration. I know that Greek uses the accusative, dative, and genitive cases to express different aspects of time. Does Latin have an accusative of duration? This would be necessary for translating my second example (i.e. four or five years now)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10013" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2799" RevisionGUID="e640aa9c-95bc-469f-926c-935e86587a31" CreationDate="2017-03-04T19:53:29.563" UserId="235" Text="How would you say, &quot;How long have you been a X?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10014" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2799" RevisionGUID="e640aa9c-95bc-469f-926c-935e86587a31" CreationDate="2017-03-04T19:53:29.563" UserId="235" Text="|classical-latin|time|interrogative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2800" RevisionGUID="319ac66b-dc4a-4ffb-bd92-a267fcdbcf3c" CreationDate="2017-03-04T20:35:48.433" UserId="985" Text="'For how long' can be rendered _quamdiu_ (or _quam diu_). In this case, because an ongoing state is described, I'd use a present tense verb. For the answer, the accusative of duration does indeed exist in Latin and will work just fine here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quam diu canis es? quartum iam annum canis sum\*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* According to Gildersleeve and Lodge (§336), 'In giving definite numbers with **iam**, **iam diu**, **iam dudum**, _etc._, the Latin often employs the ordinal where the English prefers the cardinal.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2801" RevisionGUID="e1ddfa6a-09e3-401e-855d-21ed3af0117c" CreationDate="2017-03-04T20:37:21.320" UserId="79" Text="I suggest that you take a look at [this old question about similar structures](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1108/79).&#xD;&#xA;The conclusion was that present tense is the way to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin has an adverb *diu*, meaning roughly &quot;for a long time&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I would ask &quot;how long?&quot; as *quam diu?* instead of using the word *tempus*.&#xD;&#xA;If you do use *tempus*, remember that it's a neuter (not *quantus tempus*).&#xD;&#xA;Lengths of time are usually indicated with the accusative and the ablative doesn't fit your dog example, so one option would be the accusative *quantum tempus*.&#xD;&#xA;But *quam diu* sounds far more idiomatic to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I'd suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;How long have you been a dog?&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;*Quam diu canis es?*  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;I have been a dog four or five years now.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;Canis sum iam quattuor aut quinque annos." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2800" RevisionGUID="2b698e21-d08c-46cb-b7a2-67c32fa59e34" CreationDate="2017-03-04T20:55:38.367" UserId="985" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="'For how long' can be rendered _quamdiu_ (or _quam diu_). In this case, because an ongoing state is described, I'd use a present tense verb. For the answer, the accusative of duration does indeed exist in Latin and will work just fine here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quam diu canis es? quartum quintumve iam annum canis sum\*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* According to Gildersleeve and Lodge (§336), 'In giving definite numbers with **iam**, **iam diu**, **iam dudum**, _etc._, the Latin often employs the ordinal where the English prefers the cardinal.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2800" RevisionGUID="02622c2c-0784-4083-a5c9-4b293edd0966" CreationDate="2017-03-04T21:05:46.640" UserId="985" Comment="edited body" Text="'For how long' can be rendered _quamdiu_ (or _quam diu_). In this case, because an ongoing state is described, I'd use a present tense verb. For the answer, the accusative of duration does indeed exist in Latin and will work just fine here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quam diu canis es? quartum quintumve\* iam annum canis sum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* According to Gildersleeve and Lodge (§336), 'In giving definite numbers with **iam**, **iam diu**, **iam dudum**, _etc._, the Latin often employs the ordinal where the English prefers the cardinal.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2802" RevisionGUID="ef399673-7d58-4618-858e-bf362c21dc34" CreationDate="2017-03-04T23:51:55.240" UserId="235" Text="There were three maxims carved into the Temple of Apollo at Delphi:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. γνῶθι σεαυτόν (know thyself)&#xD;&#xA; 2. μηδέν ἄγαν (nothing in excess)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Ἐγγύα πάρα δ'ἄτη (a pledge comes from folly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two maxims make sense to me grammatically. But I have many questions about the grammar of the third. I will list my questions in bullet-point to make them more readable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What dialect is this in? Attic? Doric?&#xD;&#xA; - A cursory search shows that Ἐγγύα comes from [ἐγγύη][1]. Is this a first-declension noun? If so, why the -α ending?&#xD;&#xA; - Why is πάρα accented on the penultimate syllable instead of the ultima?  &#xD;&#xA; - Why is there a contracted δε? &#xD;&#xA; - Why is ἄτη in the nominative case? I would have expected the dative or genitive: παρὰ ἄτῃ or παρὰ ἄτης.&#xD;&#xA; - Is there an implied ἐστὶν? i.e. &quot;a pledge is from folly&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it likely that my sources are inaccurate. I will list my sources in case this is so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi#Temple_of_Apollo&#xD;&#xA; - https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-three-Delphi-precepts-How-are-they-to-be-interpreted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would much appreciate any corrections in either my Greek, or my translation and comprehension of the Greek. I suspect there might be problems with both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://fts.edu/hopper/morph?redirect=true&amp;lang=greek&amp;lookup=e)ggu/h" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10020" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2802" RevisionGUID="ef399673-7d58-4618-858e-bf362c21dc34" CreationDate="2017-03-04T23:51:55.240" UserId="235" Text="The three maxims at the Temple of Apollo (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10021" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2802" RevisionGUID="ef399673-7d58-4618-858e-bf362c21dc34" CreationDate="2017-03-04T23:51:55.240" UserId="235" Text="|translation|greek|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2802" RevisionGUID="c24f5f51-342a-410f-918e-0e1a29ff493a" CreationDate="2017-03-04T23:57:09.323" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body" Text="There were three maxims carved into the Temple of Apollo at Delphi:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. γνῶθι σεαυτόν (know thyself)&#xD;&#xA; 2. μηδέν ἄγαν (nothing in excess)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Ἐγγύα πάρα δ'ἄτη (a pledge comes from folly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two maxims make sense to me grammatically. But I have many questions about the grammar of the third. I will list my questions in bullet-point to make them more readable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What dialect is this? Attic? Doric?&#xD;&#xA; - A cursory search shows that Ἐγγύα comes from [ἐγγύη][1]. Is this a first-declension noun? If so, why the -α ending?&#xD;&#xA; - Why is πάρα accented on the penultimate syllable instead of the ultima?  &#xD;&#xA; - Why is there a contracted δε? &#xD;&#xA; - Why is ἄτη in the nominative case? παρά does not govern the nominative.&#xD;&#xA; - Is there an implied ἐστὶν? i.e. &quot;a pledge is from folly&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it likely that my sources are inaccurate. I will list my sources in case this is so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi#Temple_of_Apollo&#xD;&#xA; - https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-three-Delphi-precepts-How-are-they-to-be-interpreted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would much appreciate any corrections in either my Greek, or my translation and comprehension of the Greek. I suspect there might be problems with both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope I have not *inundated* you... to use an aptly Latin word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://fts.edu/hopper/morph?redirect=true&amp;lang=greek&amp;lookup=e)ggu/h" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2803" RevisionGUID="82f70adc-76ed-462d-9e1b-77e5229c5f72" CreationDate="2017-03-05T00:11:38.627" UserId="1304" Text="* ___terrā:___ Was used stand-alone by Cicero [here:](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/plancio.shtml#96) _Brundisium terrā petere_ ”to head towards Brindisi by land.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ___marī:___ According to F. Calonghi, _Dizionario latino-italiano_, 3th ed., 1969, was used stand-alone by Cornelius Nepos with the meaning “by sea”. Unfortunately, without precise reference. However, see Cicero’s quotation below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ___militiae:___ According to L. Castiglioni - S. Mariotti, _Vocabolario della lingua latina_, 4th ed., 2007, was used stand-alone by Cicero with the meaning ”in wartime”. Again, no precise reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both expressions that you mention are not fixed: you get very many examples of variations like _militiae domique,_ _et mari et terra,_ _mari terraque,_ _aut mari aut terra._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically, neither _terrā_ nor _marī_ are locatives. They are regular ablatives: _terra_'s locative, if it existed, should be _terrae;_ _mare_ does have an ablative _mare_ used by Lucretius, Ovidius and other poets but you get zillions of examples of _in mari, a mari, de mari,_ and there is no doubt about which form is the preferred one. So _terrā_ and _marī_ belong in the list of locative ablatives, together with _dextrā, laevā_ (on the right, left), _speciē_ (under the pretext), _linguā_ (in the language) and so on. They are closely related to ablatives of manner, and in fact they seem not to refer to a _location_ (at land, at sea) but to a _manner of displacement_ (by land, by sea). Locatives like _domī_ or _rurī_ are never used together with adjectives, while, e.g. Cicero writes [here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0010:text=Man.:chapter=11&amp;highlight=mari): _cum aut hieme aut referto praedonum mari navigaret_ (sailing either in winter or through a pirate-infested sea) with ablatives without preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I would like to point out that it is possible that the meaning of _terrā marīque_ evolved from the simple coordinated use of both components. I have the example of Italian, where _per mare e per terra_ has become just an imaginative way of saying “everywhere” (much like “over land and sea”), while _per terra_ alone has become “on the floor” and in the modern language you have to say _via terra_ to get the original meaning of “by land”. Therefore I would suggest that a precise analysis be done before translating such variations as _et mari et terra,_ which might have the original meaning of “both by sea and by land”, in contrast to _terra marique_ which might have a “diluted” meaning. Each occurrence might be different." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2804" RevisionGUID="38ba577e-0fd9-4096-b4ea-f874bb53a7ab" CreationDate="2017-03-05T00:24:12.807" UserId="1304" Text="_Vir summi numquam demonstrati ingenii_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, _ingenium_ would also work as a metaphor, but _vir ... ingenii_ is a set phrase. _Demonstrō_ is perfect for the concept of _Nachweis._ _Sine demonstratione_ sounds (at least to my ears) very modern, late medieval or Renaissance: in older times a more concrete wording, such as “never proven” would be preferred. But that’s a matter of personal taste." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2807" RevisionGUID="0768076f-b2e5-41a9-a402-e386ef31bf22" CreationDate="2017-03-05T01:39:12.777" UserId="40" Text="Ἐγγύα πάρα δ' ἄτη appears to have been a proverb; it is [apparently quoted](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0176%3Atext%3DCharm.%3Asection%3D165a#note3) (see fn. 3) in a fragment of Cratinus, an Attic comic playwright, and also in a fragment of [Thales](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?p.9:16.LSJ) (scroll down to ἄτη II.2) in the Doric form ἐγγύα, πάρα δ' ἄτα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is two separate clauses, hence the δέ. Lamb, in the first page linked above, translates it as “A pledge, and thereupon perdition&quot;, which preserves the structure closely. Ἐγγύα [may be][1] an alternate nominative form of the noun ἐγγύη: there are [a number of first-declension nouns ending in -ύα](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=ua&amp;lang=greek) in Attic, sometimes with an alternant in -ύη. But it could also be taken as an imperative of the verb [ἐγγυάω][2] &quot;make a pledge&quot;; Erasmus, in his [collection of proverbs](http://jvpoll.home.xs4all.nl/back/Web/erasmusa.htm) (scroll down to line 116), seems to have understood it thus, since he translates the phrase into Latin as *Sponde, sed praesto est iactura*, with an initial imperative. The latter seems more likely to me, since a verb is needed in the clause and supplying ἐστι won't work in terms of the meaning. In the clause, though, a form of &quot;to be&quot; is definitely to be supplied. πάρα is adverbial, or (which comes to the same thing) to be understood with the implied copula as πάρεστι: &quot;folly/recklessness/ruin/etc. is/will be present&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De)ggu%2Fh&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De)ggua%2Fw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2807" RevisionGUID="2a929416-cb1f-44ef-aacd-1918e3ef2913" CreationDate="2017-03-05T01:47:41.380" UserId="40" Comment="added 253 characters in body" Text="Ἐγγύα πάρα δ' ἄτη appears to have been a proverb; it is [apparently quoted](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0176%3Atext%3DCharm.%3Asection%3D165a#note3) (see fn. 3) in a fragment of Cratinus, an Attic comic playwright, and also in a fragment of [Thales](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?p.9:16.LSJ) (scroll down to ἄτη II.2) in the Doric form ἐγγύα, πάρα δ' ἄτα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is two separate clauses, hence the δέ. This is how we know that πάρα is not governing ἐγγύα (even if it could govern a nominative, which it can't) -- if it were, there would be no connecting δέ since we would have just a single clause, and anyway δέ could not stand in that position. Lamb, in the first page linked above, translates the saying as “A pledge, and thereupon perdition&quot;, which preserves the structure closely. Ἐγγύα [may be][1] an alternate nominative form of the noun ἐγγύη: there are [a number of first-declension nouns ending in -ύα](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=ua&amp;lang=greek) in Attic, sometimes with an alternant in -ύη. But it could also be taken as an imperative of the verb [ἐγγυάω][2] &quot;make a pledge&quot;; Erasmus, in his [collection of proverbs](http://jvpoll.home.xs4all.nl/back/Web/erasmusa.htm) (scroll down to line 116), seems to have understood it thus, since he translates the phrase into Latin as *Sponde, sed praesto est iactura*, with an initial imperative. The latter seems more likely to me, since a verb is needed in the clause and supplying ἐστι won't work in terms of the meaning. In the second clause, though, a form of &quot;to be&quot; is definitely to be supplied. πάρα is adverbial, or (which comes to the same thing) to be understood with the implied copula as πάρεστι: &quot;folly/recklessness/ruin/etc. is/will be present&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De)ggu%2Fh&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De)ggua%2Fw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2808" RevisionGUID="0cff9a1d-1815-485b-a0bc-6ff22cd47f45" CreationDate="2017-03-05T01:50:28.023" UserId="1305" Text="I'm writing a story in which I want to use a [correctly-formed, binomial][1] (*Genus species*) Latin name for a fictitious species of vampire bat. I want the name to mean &quot;teeth of death&quot;, or something very similar, perhaps using &quot;deadly&quot;. Since I'm going to refer to the thing later as *G. species*, or by just using the species part of the binomial name, I'd like to have &quot;teeth&quot; and &quot;death&quot; in the second part of the binomial. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I originally had *Necrodontinae ecaudata* (*ecaudata* was just a filler that I took from some other bat-species I'd seen). I've since learned that my name has at least three problems! First, *N. ecaudata* hides the &quot;necro&quot; part I want to emphasize. Second, I don't know if my translation makes sense. Last of all, I don't know enough Latin to know if I've obeyed the rules about case, agreement, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I, or could I, use? I should say I'm not averse to mixing [Greek and Latin][2] (as Raymond Dart did with [Australopithecus][3]) to keep &quot;necro&quot; rather than something based on &quot;mort&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_nomenclature#Derivation_of_binomial_names&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_and_Greek_words_commonly_used_in_systematic_names&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_africanus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10032" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2808" RevisionGUID="0cff9a1d-1815-485b-a0bc-6ff22cd47f45" CreationDate="2017-03-05T01:50:28.023" UserId="1305" Text="How can I construct a correctly formed fictitious-species name" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10033" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2808" RevisionGUID="0cff9a1d-1815-485b-a0bc-6ff22cd47f45" CreationDate="2017-03-05T01:50:28.023" UserId="1305" Text="|scientific-names|biology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2807" RevisionGUID="7c2d24b2-51ed-4d69-ba67-f2481314aaa2" CreationDate="2017-03-05T02:00:08.697" UserId="40" Comment="added 622 characters in body" Text="Ἐγγύα πάρα δ' ἄτη appears to have been a proverb; it is [apparently quoted](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0176%3Atext%3DCharm.%3Asection%3D165a#note3) (see fn. 3) in a fragment of Cratinus, an Attic comic playwright, and also in a fragment of [Thales](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?p.9:16.LSJ) (scroll down to ἄτη II.2) in the Doric form ἐγγύα, πάρα δ' ἄτα. The form as you quote it is Attic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is two separate clauses, hence the δέ. This is how we know that πάρα is not governing ἐγγύα (even if it could govern a nominative, which it can't) -- if it were, there would be no connecting δέ since we would have just a single clause, and anyway δέ could not stand in that position. Lamb, in the first page linked above, translates the saying as “A pledge, and thereupon perdition&quot;, which preserves the structure closely. Ἐγγύα [may be][1] an alternate nominative form of the noun ἐγγύη: there are [a number of first-declension nouns ending in -ύα](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=ua&amp;lang=greek) in Attic, sometimes with an alternant in -ύη. But it could also be taken as an imperative of the verb [ἐγγυάω][2] &quot;make a pledge&quot;; Erasmus, in his [collection of proverbs](http://jvpoll.home.xs4all.nl/back/Web/erasmusa.htm) (scroll down to line 116), seems to have understood it thus, since he translates the phrase into Latin as *Sponde, sed praesto est iactura*, with an initial imperative. The latter seems more likely to me, since a verb is needed in the clause and supplying ἐστι won't work in terms of the meaning. In the second clause, though, a form of &quot;to be&quot; is definitely to be supplied. πάρα is adverbial, or (which comes to the same thing) to be understood with the implied copula as πάρεστι: &quot;folly/recklessness/ruin/etc. is/will be present&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more specific thoughts about what exactly ἐγγύα refers to are given in a footnote in the *Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum* [link](https://books.google.com/books?id=OUMOAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA394#v=onepage&amp;q=%CF%80%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%AC&amp;f=false) provided by C. M. Weiner: apparently, one interpretation of this in antiquity was that the &quot;pledge&quot; was specifically one of marriage, which the proverb was cautioning against (γάμον ἀπαγορεύειν); but others thought that this made no sense because human life could not survive without marriage, and it was a warning against entering into legal contracts about property and money (περὶ χρημάτων).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De)ggu%2Fh&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De)ggua%2Fw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2808" RevisionGUID="ba4287af-6887-4b42-abe8-6e63cc22aa27" CreationDate="2017-03-05T02:08:43.000" UserId="1305" Comment="Additional information about name shortening." Text="I'm writing a story in which I want to use a [correctly-formed, binomial][1] (*Genus species*) Latin name for a fictitious species of vampire bat. I want the name to mean &quot;teeth of death&quot;, or something very similar, perhaps using &quot;deadly&quot;. Since I'm going to refer to the thing later as *G. species*, or by just using the species part of the binomial name, I'd like to have &quot;teeth&quot; and &quot;death&quot; in the second part of the binomial. When I say I might want to talk about the species-name on its own, I mean in the same way that people talk of &quot;Neanderthal&quot; to mean [Homo neanderthalensis][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I originally had *Necrodontinae ecaudata* (*ecaudata* was just a filler that I took from some other bat-species I'd seen). I've since learned that my name has at least three problems! First, *N. ecaudata* hides the &quot;necro&quot; part I want to emphasize. Second, I don't know if my translation makes sense. Last of all, I don't know enough Latin to know if I've obeyed the rules about case, agreement, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I, or could I, use? I should say I'm not averse to mixing [Greek and Latin][3] (as Raymond Dart did with [Australopithecus][4]) to keep &quot;necro&quot; rather than something based on &quot;mort&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_nomenclature#Derivation_of_binomial_names&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Classification&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_and_Greek_words_commonly_used_in_systematic_names&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_africanus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2807" RevisionGUID="6264ca1c-c202-4297-b84b-c87ef8a99c7f" CreationDate="2017-03-05T02:11:59.410" UserId="40" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="Ἐγγύα πάρα δ' ἄτη appears to have been a proverb; it is [apparently quoted](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0176%3Atext%3DCharm.%3Asection%3D165a#note3) (see fn. 3) in a fragment of Cratinus, an Attic comic playwright (though Cratinus's version seems to have been different, ἑγγύα δ' ἄτας θυγάτηρ &quot;a pledge is the daughter of recklessness&quot;), and also in a fragment of [Thales](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?p.9:16.LSJ) (scroll down to ἄτη II.2) in the Doric form ἐγγύα, πάρα δ' ἄτα. The form as you quote it is Attic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is two separate clauses, hence the δέ. This is how we know that πάρα is not governing ἐγγύα (even if it could govern a nominative, which it can't) -- if it were, there would be no connecting δέ since we would have just a single clause, and anyway δέ could not stand in that position. Lamb, in the first page linked above, translates the saying as “A pledge, and thereupon perdition&quot;, which preserves the structure closely. Ἐγγύα [may be][1] an alternate nominative form of the noun ἐγγύη: there are [a number of first-declension nouns ending in -ύα](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=ua&amp;lang=greek) in Attic, sometimes with an alternant in -ύη. But it could also be taken as an imperative of the verb [ἐγγυάω][2] &quot;make a pledge&quot;; Erasmus, in his [collection of proverbs](http://jvpoll.home.xs4all.nl/back/Web/erasmusa.htm) (scroll down to line 116), seems to have understood it thus, since he translates the phrase into Latin as *Sponde, sed praesto est iactura*, with an initial imperative. The latter seems more likely to me, since a verb is needed in the clause and supplying ἐστι won't work in terms of the meaning. In the second clause, though, a form of &quot;to be&quot; is definitely to be supplied. πάρα is adverbial, or (which comes to the same thing) to be understood with the implied copula as πάρεστι: &quot;folly/recklessness/ruin/etc. is/will be present&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more specific thoughts about what exactly ἐγγύα refers to are given in a footnote in the *Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum* [link](https://books.google.com/books?id=OUMOAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA394#v=onepage&amp;q=%CF%80%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%AC&amp;f=false) provided by C. M. Weiner: apparently, one interpretation of this in antiquity was that the &quot;pledge&quot; was specifically one of marriage, which the proverb was cautioning against (γάμον ἀπαγορεύειν); but others thought that this made no sense because human life could not survive without marriage, and it was a warning against entering into legal contracts about property and money (περὶ χρημάτων).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De)ggu%2Fh&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De)ggua%2Fw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2807" RevisionGUID="3f3004fa-e695-4a72-88c0-d2503b4a3bff" CreationDate="2017-03-05T02:13:46.600" UserId="78" Comment="edited body" Text="Ἐγγύα πάρα δ' ἄτη appears to have been a proverb; it is [apparently quoted](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0176%3Atext%3DCharm.%3Asection%3D165a#note3) (see fn. 3) in a fragment of Cratinus, an Attic comic playwright (though Cratinus's version seems to have been different, ἑγγύα δ' ἄτας θυγάτηρ &quot;a pledge is the daughter of recklessness&quot;), and also in a fragment of [Thales](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?p.9:16.LSJ) (scroll down to ἄτη II.2) in the Doric form ἐγγύα, πάρα δ' ἄτα. The form as you quote it is Attic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is two separate clauses, hence the δέ. This is how we know that πάρα is not governing ἐγγύα (even if it could govern a nominative, which it can't) -- if it were, there would be no connecting δέ since we would have just a single clause, and anyway δέ could not stand in that position. Lamb, in the first page linked above, translates the saying as “A pledge, and thereupon perdition&quot;, which preserves the structure closely. Ἐγγύα [may be][1] an alternate nominative form of the noun ἐγγύη: there are [a number of first-declension nouns ending in -ύα](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=ua&amp;lang=greek) in Attic, sometimes with an alternant in -ύη. But it could also be taken as an imperative of the verb [ἐγγυάω][2] &quot;make a pledge&quot;; Erasmus, in his [collection of proverbs](http://jvpoll.home.xs4all.nl/back/Web/erasmusa.htm) (scroll down to line 116), seems to have understood it thus, since he translates the phrase into Latin as *Sponde, sed praesto est iactura*, with an initial imperative. The latter seems more likely to me, since a verb is needed in the clause and supplying ἐστι won't work in terms of the meaning. In the second clause, though, a form of &quot;to be&quot; is definitely to be supplied. πάρα is adverbial, or (which comes to the same thing) to be understood with the implied copula as πάρεστι: &quot;folly/recklessness/ruin/etc. is/will be present&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more specific thoughts about what exactly ἐγγύα refers to are given in a footnote in the *Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum* [link](https://books.google.com/books?id=OUMOAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA394#v=onepage&amp;q=%CF%80%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%AC&amp;f=false) provided by C. M. Weimer: apparently, one interpretation of this in antiquity was that the &quot;pledge&quot; was specifically one of marriage, which the proverb was cautioning against (γάμον ἀπαγορεύειν); but others thought that this made no sense because human life could not survive without marriage, and it was a warning against entering into legal contracts about property and money (περὶ χρημάτων).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De)ggu%2Fh&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De)ggua%2Fw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2807" RevisionGUID="bcc226ec-6c15-4d14-8250-2b0ac4a519a2" CreationDate="2017-03-05T02:17:06.103" UserId="40" Comment="deleted 41 characters in body" Text="Ἐγγύα πάρα δ' ἄτη appears to have been a proverb; it is [apparently quoted](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0176%3Atext%3DCharm.%3Asection%3D165a#note3) (see fn. 3) in a fragment of Cratinus, an Attic comic playwright (though Cratinus's version seems to have been different, ἑγγύα δ' ἄτας θυγάτηρ &quot;a pledge is the daughter of recklessness&quot;), and also in a fragment of [Thales](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?p.9:16.LSJ) (scroll down to ἄτη II.2) in the Doric form ἐγγύα, πάρα δ' ἄτα. The form as you quote it is Attic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is two separate clauses, hence the δέ. This is how we know that πάρα is not governing ἐγγύα (even if it could govern a nominative, which it can't) -- if it were, there would be no connecting δέ since we would have just a single clause, and anyway δέ could not stand in that position. Lamb, in the first page linked above, translates the saying as “A pledge, and thereupon perdition&quot;, which preserves the structure closely. Ἐγγύα [is probably][1] an alternate nominative form of the noun ἐγγύη: there are [a number of first-declension nouns ending in -ύα](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=ua&amp;lang=greek) in Attic, sometimes with an alternant in -ύη; and Plato (in the Charmides passage linked above) actually has the form ἐγγύη. But ἐγγύα could also be taken as an imperative of the verb [ἐγγυάω][2] &quot;make a pledge&quot;; Erasmus, in his [collection of proverbs](http://jvpoll.home.xs4all.nl/back/Web/erasmusa.htm) (scroll down to line 116), seems to have understood it thus, since he translates the phrase into Latin as *Sponde, sed praesto est iactura*, with an initial imperative. In the second clause, in any case, a form of &quot;to be&quot; is definitely to be supplied. πάρα is adverbial, or (which comes to the same thing) to be understood with the implied copula as πάρεστι: &quot;folly/recklessness/ruin/etc. is/will be present&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more specific thoughts about what exactly ἐγγύα refers to are given in a footnote in the *Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum* [link](https://books.google.com/books?id=OUMOAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA394#v=onepage&amp;q=%CF%80%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%AC&amp;f=false) provided by C. M. Weimer: apparently, one interpretation of this in antiquity was that the &quot;pledge&quot; was specifically one of marriage, which the proverb was cautioning against (γάμον ἀπαγορεύειν); but others thought that this made no sense because human life could not survive without marriage, and it was a warning against entering into legal contracts about property and money (περὶ χρημάτων).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De)ggu%2Fh&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De)ggua%2Fw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2809" RevisionGUID="e73ee272-a1fa-4af9-96e2-6336c10b1b6a" CreationDate="2017-03-05T03:10:32.150" UserId="78" Text="For the genus, you'd want it to end in -don, like the [Iguanodon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iguanodon). Necro- though doesn't mean &quot;deadly', but &quot;dead.&quot; Were I a biologist having seen this, I'd think &quot;dead-tooth bat&quot; and presume it had a non-functional tooth or something. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For deadly, you have a few options. You could do *thanatodon* &quot;death-tooth&quot;, or perhaps &quot;olethriodon&quot; &quot;deadly-tooth.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other ideas along the lines of &quot;harm&quot; rather than &quot;death&quot; might be *cacodon* &quot;evil-toothed&quot; or *blabodon*/*blaberodon*, but honestly that would make me think of Slobodan Milošević.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your genus name is the most identifying feature of a species group. Think *Homo* or *Iguanodon*. I would stick with that, and maybe add *sapiens* if they're human-like." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2802" RevisionGUID="9bbba5c8-a793-4aab-ba17-3b5cf8b59e42" CreationDate="2017-03-05T03:24:28.383" UserId="40" Comment="edited body" Text="There were three maxims carved into the Temple of Apollo at Delphi:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. γνῶθι σεαυτόν (know thyself)&#xD;&#xA; 2. μηδὲν ἄγαν (nothing in excess)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Ἐγγύα πάρα δ'ἄτη (a pledge comes from folly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two maxims make sense to me grammatically. But I have many questions about the grammar of the third. I will list my questions in bullet-point to make them more readable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What dialect is this? Attic? Doric?&#xD;&#xA; - A cursory search shows that Ἐγγύα comes from [ἐγγύη][1]. Is this a first-declension noun? If so, why the -α ending?&#xD;&#xA; - Why is πάρα accented on the penultimate syllable instead of the ultima?  &#xD;&#xA; - Why is there a contracted δε? &#xD;&#xA; - Why is ἄτη in the nominative case? παρά does not govern the nominative.&#xD;&#xA; - Is there an implied ἐστὶν? i.e. &quot;a pledge is from folly&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it likely that my sources are inaccurate. I will list my sources in case this is so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi#Temple_of_Apollo&#xD;&#xA; - https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-three-Delphi-precepts-How-are-they-to-be-interpreted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would much appreciate any corrections in either my Greek, or my translation and comprehension of the Greek. I suspect there might be problems with both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope I have not *inundated* you... to use an aptly Latin word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://fts.edu/hopper/morph?redirect=true&amp;lang=greek&amp;lookup=e)ggu/h" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2807" RevisionGUID="1b15fdc7-6e98-4455-866b-0d9b86eac23e" CreationDate="2017-03-05T03:45:55.937" UserId="40" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="Ἐγγύα πάρα δ' ἄτη appears to have been a proverb; it is [apparently quoted](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0176%3Atext%3DCharm.%3Asection%3D165a#note3) (see fn. 3) in a fragment of Cratinus, an Attic comic playwright (though Cratinus's version seems to have been different, ἑγγύα δ' ἄτας θυγάτηρ &quot;a pledge is the daughter of recklessness&quot;), and also in a fragment of [Thales](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?p.9:16.LSJ) (scroll down to ἄτη II.2) in the Doric form ἐγγύα, πάρα δ' ἄτα. The form as you quote it is Attic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is two separate clauses, hence the δέ. This is how we know that πάρα is not governing ἐγγύα (even if it could govern a nominative, which it can't) -- if it were, there would be no connecting δέ since we would have just a single clause, and anyway δέ could not stand in that position. Lamb, in the first page linked above, translates the saying as “A pledge, and thereupon perdition&quot;, which preserves the structure closely. Ἐγγύα [is probably][1] an alternate nominative form of the noun ἐγγύη: there are [a number of first-declension nouns ending in -ύα](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=ua&amp;lang=greek) in Attic (not all the words on this list are first declension, but several are), sometimes with an alternant in -ύη; and Plato (in the Charmides passage linked above) actually has the form ἐγγύη. But ἐγγύα could also be taken as an imperative of the verb [ἐγγυάω][2] &quot;make a pledge&quot;; Erasmus, in his [collection of proverbs](http://jvpoll.home.xs4all.nl/back/Web/erasmusa.htm) (scroll down to line 116), seems to have understood it thus, since he translates the phrase into Latin as *Sponde, sed praesto est iactura*, with an initial imperative. In the second clause, in any case, a form of &quot;to be&quot; is definitely to be supplied. πάρα is adverbial, or (which comes to the same thing) to be understood with the implied copula as πάρεστι: &quot;folly/recklessness/ruin/etc. is/will be present&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more specific thoughts about what exactly ἐγγύα refers to are given in a footnote in the *Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum* [link](https://books.google.com/books?id=OUMOAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA394#v=onepage&amp;q=%CF%80%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%AC&amp;f=false) provided by C. M. Weimer: apparently, one interpretation of this in antiquity was that the &quot;pledge&quot; was specifically one of marriage, which the proverb was cautioning against (γάμον ἀπαγορεύειν); but others thought that this made no sense because human life could not survive without marriage, and it was a warning against entering into legal contracts about property and money (περὶ χρημάτων).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De)ggu%2Fh&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De)ggua%2Fw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2804" RevisionGUID="db5a3651-9e14-4a1c-bebd-25cfaecd8f4e" CreationDate="2017-03-05T10:56:38.747" UserId="1304" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="_Vir summi numquam demonstrati ingenii_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, _ingenium_ would also work as a metaphor, but _vir ... ingenii_ is a set phrase. _Demonstrō_ is perfect for the concept of _Nachweis._ _Sine demonstratione_ sounds (at least to my ears) very modern, late medieval or Renaissance: in older times a more concrete wording, such as “never proven” would have been preferred. But that’s a matter of personal taste." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2803" RevisionGUID="78aa4167-401f-4d3a-afff-8c15719a809c" CreationDate="2017-03-05T11:01:42.963" UserId="1304" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="* ___terrā:___ Was used stand-alone by Cicero [here:](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/plancio.shtml#96) _Brundisium terrā petere_ ”to head towards Brindisi by land.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ___marī:___ According to F. Calonghi, _Dizionario latino-italiano_, 3th ed., 1969, was used stand-alone by Cornelius Nepos with the meaning “by sea”. Unfortunately, without precise reference. However, see Cicero’s quotation below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ___militiae:___ According to L. Castiglioni - S. Mariotti, _Vocabolario della lingua latina_, 4th ed., 2007, was used stand-alone by Cicero with the meaning ”in wartime”. Again, no precise reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither expression that you mention is fixed: you get very many examples of variations like _militiae domique,_ _et mari et terra,_ _mari terraque,_ _aut mari aut terra._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically, neither _terrā_ nor _marī_ are locatives. They are regular ablatives: _terra_'s locative, if it existed, should be _terrae;_ _mare_ does have an ablative _mare_ used by Lucretius, Ovidius and other poets but you get zillions of examples of _in mari, a mari, de mari,_ and there is no doubt about which form is the preferred one. So _terrā_ and _marī_ belong in the list of locative ablatives, together with _dextrā, laevā_ (on the right, left), _speciē_ (under the pretext), _linguā_ (in the language) and so on. They are closely related to ablatives of manner, and in fact they seem not to refer to a _location_ (at land, at sea) but to a _manner of displacement_ (by land, by sea). Locatives like _domī_ or _rurī_ are never used together with adjectives, while, e.g. Cicero writes [here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0010:text=Man.:chapter=11&amp;highlight=mari): _cum aut hieme aut referto praedonum mari navigaret_ (sailing either in winter or through a pirate-infested sea) with ablatives without preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I would like to point out that it is possible that the meaning of _terrā marīque_ evolved from the simple coordinated use of both components. I have the example of Italian, where _per mare e per terra_ has become just an imaginative way of saying “everywhere” (much like “over land and sea”), while _per terra_ alone has become “on the floor” and in the modern language you have to say _via terra_ to get the original meaning of “by land”. Therefore I would suggest that a precise analysis be done before translating such variations as _et mari et terra,_ which might have the original meaning of “both by sea and by land”, in contrast to _terra marique_ which might have a “diluted” meaning. Each occurrence might be different." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="902b9a9e-acfe-4a4d-9013-7027d1685473" CreationDate="2017-03-05T13:07:17.907" UserId="79" Text="Is there a Latin idiom for food that is cooked just right (not too much, not too little), similar to the popular Italian phrase &quot;al dente&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;I doubt the literal translation *denti* makes any sense.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps something like *apte coctus* would work, but I would like to know if there is any attested &amp;mdash; or even better, common &amp;mdash; phrase for this.&#xD;&#xA;Maybe Apicius has something suitable&amp;hellip;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10047" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="902b9a9e-acfe-4a4d-9013-7027d1685473" CreationDate="2017-03-05T13:07:17.907" UserId="79" Text="Preparing food &quot;al dente&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10048" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="902b9a9e-acfe-4a4d-9013-7027d1685473" CreationDate="2017-03-05T13:07:17.907" UserId="79" Text="|translation|idiom|phrase-request|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="85124f67-f0b7-4a39-a6ac-08bf7f9cc0c7" CreationDate="2017-03-05T13:14:03.140" UserId="79" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="Is there a Latin idiom for food that is cooked just right (not too much, not too little), similar to the popular Italian phrase &quot;al dente&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;I doubt the literal translation *denti* makes any sense.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps something like *apte coctus* would work, but I would like to know if there is any attested &amp;mdash; or even better, common &amp;mdash; phrase for this.&#xD;&#xA;Maybe Apicius has something suitable, but I am not familiar with the work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2803" RevisionGUID="b27e489b-69e8-44d2-8db6-13bfbf273f42" CreationDate="2017-03-05T13:23:05.280" UserId="1304" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="* ___terrā:___ Was used stand-alone by Cicero [here:](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/plancio.shtml#96) _Brundisium terrā petere_ ”to head towards Brindisi by land.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ___marī:___ According to F. Calonghi, _Dizionario latino-italiano_, 3th ed., 1969, was used stand-alone by Cornelius Nepos with the meaning “by sea”. Unfortunately, without precise reference. However, see Cicero’s quotation below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ___militiae:___ According to L. Castiglioni - S. Mariotti, _Vocabolario della lingua latina_, 4th ed., 2007, was used stand-alone by Cicero with the meaning ”in wartime”. Again, no precise reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither expression that you mention is fixed: you get very many examples of variations like _militiae domique,_ _et mari et terra,_ _mari terraque,_ _aut mari aut terra._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically, neither _terrā_ nor _marī_ are locatives. They are regular ablatives: _terra_'s locative, if it existed, should be _terrae;_ _mare_ does have an ablative _mare_ used by Lucretius, Ovidius and other poets but you get zillions of examples of _in mari, a mari, de mari,_ and there is no doubt about which form is the preferred one. So _terrā_ and _marī_ belong in the list of locative ablatives, together with _dextrā, laevā_ (on the right, left), _speciē_ (under the pretext), _linguā_ (in the language) and so on. They are closely related to ablatives of manner, and in fact they seem not to refer to a _location_ (at land, at sea) but to a _manner of displacement_ (by land, by sea). Locatives like _domī_ or _rurī_ are never used together with adjectives (_domī meae_ et sim. being an exception); on the contrary, Cicero writes for instance [here:](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0010:text=Man.:chapter=11&amp;highlight=mari): _cum aut hieme aut referto praedonum mari navigaret_ (sailing either in winter or through a pirate-infested sea) with ablatives without preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I would like to point out that it is possible that the meaning of _terrā marīque_ evolved from the simple coordinated use of both components. I have the example of Italian, where _per mare e per terra_ has become just an imaginative way of saying “everywhere” (much like “over land and sea”), while _per terra_ alone has become “on the floor” and in the modern language you have to say _via terra_ to get the original meaning of “by land”. Therefore I would suggest that a precise analysis be done before translating such variations as _et mari et terra,_ which might have the original meaning of “both by sea and by land”, in contrast to _terra marique_ which might have a “diluted” meaning. Each occurrence might be different." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2803" RevisionGUID="d99577ae-fa23-4507-983c-332d5d6d578d" CreationDate="2017-03-05T14:04:20.967" UserId="1304" Comment="added 787 characters in body" Text="* ___terrā:___ Was used stand-alone by Cicero [here:](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/plancio.shtml#96) _Brundisium terrā petere_ ”to head towards Brindisi by land.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ___marī:___ According to F. Calonghi, _Dizionario latino-italiano_, 3th ed., 1969, was used stand-alone by Cornelius Nepos with the meaning “by sea”. Unfortunately, without precise reference. However, see Cicero’s quotation below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ___militiae:___ According to L. Castiglioni - S. Mariotti, _Vocabolario della lingua latina_, 4th ed., 2007, was used stand-alone by Cicero with the meaning ”in wartime”. Again, no precise reference, but see edit below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither expression that you mention is fixed: you get very many examples of variations like _militiae domique,_ _et mari et terra,_ _mari terraque,_ _aut mari aut terra._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically, neither _terrā_ nor _marī_ are locatives. They are regular ablatives: _terra_'s locative, if it existed, should be _terrae;_ _mare_ does have an ablative _mare_ used by Lucretius, Ovidius and other poets but you get zillions of examples of _in mari, a mari, de mari,_ and there is no doubt about which form is the preferred one. So _terrā_ and _marī_ belong in the list of locative ablatives, together with _dextrā, laevā_ (on the right, left), _speciē_ (under the pretext), _linguā_ (in the language) and so on. They are closely related to ablatives of manner, and in fact they seem not to refer to a _location_ (at land, at sea) but to a _manner of displacement_ (by land, by sea). Locatives like _domī_ or _rurī_ are never used together with adjectives (_domī meae_ et sim. being an exception); on the contrary, Cicero writes for instance [here:](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0010:text=Man.:chapter=11&amp;highlight=mari): _cum aut hieme aut referto praedonum mari navigaret_ (sailing either in winter or through a pirate-infested sea) with ablatives without preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I would like to point out that it is possible that the meaning of _terrā marīque_ evolved from the simple coordinated use of both components. I have the example of Italian, where _per mare e per terra_ has become just an imaginative way of saying “everywhere” (much like “over land and sea”), while _per terra_ alone has become “on the floor” and in the modern language you have to say _via terra_ to get the original meaning of “by land”. Therefore I would suggest that a precise analysis be done before translating such variations as _et mari et terra,_ which might have the original meaning of “both by sea and by land”, in contrast to _terra marique_ which might have a “diluted” meaning. Each occurrence might be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___Edit:___ &#xD;&#xA;[Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmilitia) say: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Gen._ militiae, _in military service, or on a campaign, in the field;_ freq. in phrase: domi militiaeque, __...__ —Also without domi, Cic. Leg. 3, 3, 6; Sall. J. 84, 2; Tac. H. 2, 5.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but Cicero’s and Tacitus’ occurrences are not convincing at all, and I hope that Castiglioni-Mariotti’s ghost reference is not one of them. OTOH, [_Sall. Jug. 84_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Sal.%20Jug.%2084.2&amp;lang=original) is peculiar, showing a locative contrasting with an ablative of means: _plerosque militiae, paucos fama cognitos,_ i.e. “most [of them] known [to him] by actual service, some few only by report”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="486a5151-1394-4d9e-b535-4d4a7f2811ef" CreationDate="2017-03-05T17:20:51.253" UserId="79" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="Is there a Latin idiom for food that is cooked just right (not too much, not too little), similar to the popular Italian phrase &quot;al dente&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;I doubt the literal translation *denti* or *ad dentem* makes any sense.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps something like *apte coctus* would work, but I would like to know if there is any attested &amp;mdash; or even better, common &amp;mdash; phrase for this.&#xD;&#xA;Maybe Apicius has something suitable, but I am not familiar with the work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2794" RevisionGUID="c631211f-e19b-47dc-89bd-c15ed86b4010" CreationDate="2017-03-05T17:30:57.220" UserId="40" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="Textbooks tell us that the only common (in the sense of not proper) nouns that have a locative case are *rūs* &quot;countryside&quot; and *domus* &quot;home&quot;. However, I'm familiar with two expressions that use coordinated nouns in the locative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *domī mīlitiaeque* &quot;at home and on campaign&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *terrā marīque* &quot;by land and by sea&quot; (ETA: I shouldn't have referred to these as locatives -- the first is clearly ablative and the second probably likewise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I only recall seeing the locative forms *mīlitiae, terrā, marī* as part of those fixed expressions, not by themselves. Are they ever used by themselves? Do classical authors use *mīlitiae* for &quot;on campaign&quot; outside of the phrase *domī mīlitiaeque*, etc.?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Prompted by [this question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2791/best-translation-for-at-sea).)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="fe7f5d73-d788-4219-902b-b476840dace1" CreationDate="2017-03-05T17:33:46.930" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Is there a Latin idiom for food that is cooked just right (not too much, not too little), similar to the popular Italian phrase &quot;al dente&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;I doubt the direct translation *denti* or *ad dentem* makes any sense.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps something like *apte coctus* would work, but I would like to know if there is any attested &amp;mdash; or even better, common &amp;mdash; phrase for this.&#xD;&#xA;Maybe Apicius has something suitable, but I am not familiar with the work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2811" RevisionGUID="1660fc3e-66f2-4ba5-a636-2181fce18625" CreationDate="2017-03-05T17:57:45.483" UserId="645" Text="Pliny NH XV has *palati gratia*. It's not exactly *al dente*, of course, but at least it indicates that taste was referred to the palate, rather than the teeth:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*oleum ipsum sale vindicatur a pinguitudinis vitio. cortice oleae conciso odorem accipit. medicatio alias ut vino; **palati gratia** nulla est nec tam numerosa differentia: tribus ut plurimum bonitatibus distat. odor in tenui argutior, et is tamen etiam in optimo brevis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the absence of anything better, I think you might justifiably use *dentium gratia*, though I'd personally prefer your *ad dentem*. Or you might get a bit nearer with *ad morsum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2786" RevisionGUID="c7b987f2-e59d-46da-9d10-8c219297b00a" CreationDate="2017-03-05T19:37:57.600" UserId="39" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="A brief comment re: geminate vs. non-geminate perfect forms of refero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ByLHD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/P0fOX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2812" RevisionGUID="c3e42c58-c4fe-4c8f-a8ec-a11d8bb9237d" CreationDate="2017-03-05T21:48:25.717" UserId="40" Text="(This is more of a reference request than a question, since I'm looking for a more detailed discussion than is normal for an SE answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek adjectives for &quot;good&quot; and &quot;bad&quot; each have several irregular comparative and superlative forms from different stems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;better&quot;: ἀμείνων, βελτίων, κρείττων, λῴων&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;best&quot;: ἄριστος, βέλτιστος, κράτιστος, λῷστος&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;worse&quot;: κακίων, χείρων, ἥττων&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;worst&quot;: κάκιστος, χείριστος&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This isn't a complete list -- there are some rarer forms I'm omitting.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Smyth (319) has a short discussion of the semantic differences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀμείνων, ἄριστος express aptitude, capacity or worth (able, brave, excellent); βελτίων, βέλτιστος, a moral idea (virtuous); κρείττων, κράτιστος, force and superiority (strong) (ἥττων is the opposite of κρείττων); λῴων means more desirable, more agreeable (ὦ λῷστε my good friend); κακίων, κάκιστος express moral perversity, cowardice; χείρων, χείριστος, insufficiency, lack of a quality (less good) (worthless, good for nothing is φαῦλος).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is useful as far as it goes -- but that's not very far. It's very terse and doesn't give examples, and it doesn't discuss the meanings of these forms when describing different kinds of referents (e.g. how does the meaning of βελτίων differ when applied to a person than to a thing?) Also, it says nothing of genre or period, but the usage of e.g. Homer and Plato are presumably different. So I'm looking for a fuller examination of some or all of these forms, with examples of their usage in Greek authors. Does anyone know of such a discussion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10059" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2812" RevisionGUID="c3e42c58-c4fe-4c8f-a8ec-a11d8bb9237d" CreationDate="2017-03-05T21:48:25.717" UserId="40" Text="Semantic differences between Greek comparatives/superlatives of &quot;good&quot;, &quot;bad&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10060" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2812" RevisionGUID="c3e42c58-c4fe-4c8f-a8ec-a11d8bb9237d" CreationDate="2017-03-05T21:48:25.717" UserId="40" Text="|greek|semantics|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2813" RevisionGUID="b4826446-9d65-4f0e-a0ad-164228711fc4" CreationDate="2017-03-05T21:50:41.793" UserId="203" Text="I seem to remember reading that *iuvenis* referred to someone roughly between 15 and 30. However, my Collins Latin Dictionary states it refers to someone between 30 and 45. Since a man could serve as praetor or consul at around the 40 year old mark, this seems highly unlikely. Even today, I doubt if a 44 year old would be considered &quot;young&quot;, except perhaps by an octogenarian! Have Collins got it wrong? Sorry if this is a bit basic, so is my Latin at present. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10062" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2813" RevisionGUID="b4826446-9d65-4f0e-a0ad-164228711fc4" CreationDate="2017-03-05T21:50:41.793" UserId="203" Text="Meaning of *iuvenis*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10063" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2813" RevisionGUID="b4826446-9d65-4f0e-a0ad-164228711fc4" CreationDate="2017-03-05T21:50:41.793" UserId="203" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2814" RevisionGUID="ee0e37a4-0c8e-4168-9ebf-435e02e5966b" CreationDate="2017-03-05T22:00:00.567" UserId="406" Text="From Lewis and Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Subst.: **jŭvĕnis**, is, comm., *one who is in the flower of his or her age* (mostly of persons older than adolescentes and younger than seniores, i.e. between twenty and forty years)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis' *Elementary Latin Dictionary* says the same:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As subst m. and f *one in the flower of age, a young person, youth* (i.e. between twenty and forty years)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the only two I've found which mention specific ages, but other dictionaries imply an age closer to 20 than 40 as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2815" RevisionGUID="b3bfc039-8f77-4320-8d61-f5b14499f0c8" CreationDate="2017-03-05T23:43:40.827" UserId="274" Text="I need the Latin for &quot;I Discover&quot; - as in &quot;I learn new things, by gathering information about it and/or trying it myself (by trial and error)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've looked for it in several online dictionaries, but several different suggestions shows, and I don't know which one would fit the best.  Nor am I entirely sure which ending to give the verb for &quot;**I** discover&quot;...  Finally, perhaps there is another verb that better fits what I'm describing, than any of the ones suggested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I got pretty much more or less the same from all dictionaries I tred, I'll here quote for the one at Notre Dame, since it had such dense format:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;reperio, reperire, repperi, repertus  V  TRANS     3 4  TRANS   [XXXAO]  &#xD;&#xA;discover, learn; light on; find/obtain/get; find out/to be, get to know; invent;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;conperio, conperire, conperi, conpertus  V  TRANS     3 4  TRANS   [XXXAO]  &#xD;&#xA;learn/discover/find (by investigation); verify/know for certain; find guilty;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;comperio, comperire, comperi, compertus  V  TRANS     3 4  TRANS   [XXXAO]  &#xD;&#xA;learn/discover/find (by investigation); verify/know for certain; find guilty;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;repperio, repperire, repperi, reppertus  V  TRANS     3 4  TRANS   [XXXAO]  &#xD;&#xA;discover, learn; light on; find/obtain/get; find out/to be, get to know; invent;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;invenio, invenire, inveni, inventus  V     3 4 [XXXAX]  &#xD;&#xA;come upon; discover, find; invent, contrive; reach, manage to get;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;profero, proferre, protuli, prolatus  V     3 2 [XXXAX]  &#xD;&#xA;bring forward; advance; defer; discover; mention;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First off, what is the difference between &quot;co**n**perio&quot; and &quot;co**m**perio&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I guess I'd want one with &quot;learn&quot;... but since I'll be gathering information and learn by trying myself, I suppose I'd want one of them including &quot;by investigation&quot; - ie. conperio/comperio...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10066" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2815" RevisionGUID="b3bfc039-8f77-4320-8d61-f5b14499f0c8" CreationDate="2017-03-05T23:43:40.827" UserId="274" Text="What would &quot;I Discover&quot; be in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10067" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2815" RevisionGUID="b3bfc039-8f77-4320-8d61-f5b14499f0c8" CreationDate="2017-03-05T23:43:40.827" UserId="274" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|word-request|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2816" RevisionGUID="47bf39eb-3cc3-42f4-a905-f0d4841b327b" CreationDate="2017-03-06T02:36:28.243" UserId="78" Text="*Conperio* and *comperio* are just variant spellings, and the same with *reperio* and *repperio*. The &quot;normal&quot; words though are *comperio* and *reperio*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the word I've come across the most for &quot;I discover&quot; is *invenio*, so that's the one I would go with. It's also the most neutral and obvious choice, as some of the other ones could potentially mean other things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2817" RevisionGUID="c849f774-50fa-44c0-a307-9ce1a6ca46c5" CreationDate="2017-03-06T03:49:04.260" UserId="30" Text="A *iuvenis* was probably between the ages of the earliest adulthood and early forties, although the word could also be used more casually for anyone who was &quot;youngish&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Oxford Latin Dictionary (1968) has the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A young man, youth (technically, any adult male up to the age of 45)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not entirely sure what they mean by *technically*, but presumably the Romans made a distinction between casual use (any youngish man) and more precise or even legal use. Unfortunately, no source is mentioned, nor is one obvious from the quotations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis &amp; Short say this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one who is in the flower of his or her age (mostly of persons older than *adolescentes* and younger than *seniores*, i. e. between twenty and forty years), a young person, a young man, a young woman&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They do not mention any source either, but they seem less positive about the specific limits than the Oxford does. In addition, I think a iuvenis is normally a man; women are probably far less frequently so called." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2818" RevisionGUID="f4554353-062a-4250-af2e-77a4d867f118" CreationDate="2017-03-06T05:29:08.793" UserId="78" Text="Others pointed out the dictionary definition of *iuvenis*, but it would help to have a solid example. In Livy book 21.50, Ti. Sempronius met with Hiero at Syracuse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; statum deinde insulae et Carthaginiensium conata exposuit pollicitusque est, quo animo priore bello populum Romanum **iuvenis** adiuvisset, eo **senem** adiuturum; frumentum vestimentaque sese legionibus consulis sociisque navalibus gratis praeliturum; grande periculum Lilybaeo maritimisque civitatibus esse, et quibusdam volentibus novas res fore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He then described conditions in the island and the attempts made by the Carthaginians, and promised that with the same spirit with which, in his youth, he had helped the Roman People in the former war he would help them now, as an old man, and would furnish corn and clothing gratis to the legions of the consul and the naval allies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't know exactly when Hiero was born, but it was at least 307. The war in which he was talking about was in 264, when, according to Dio Cassius (fr. Vat. 57) and Zonarius (8.6), he helped the Romans to the chagrin of the Carthaginians during the First Punic War. This would have made him a forty-three year old *iuvenis*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2820" RevisionGUID="f97ef513-ad66-49a3-a472-b081265ad868" CreationDate="2017-03-06T09:15:26.200" UserId="1133" Text="I am trying to fit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ᾰ̓κήκοᾰ (active indicative perfect of ᾰ̓κούω, first person singular)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to the model of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;λέλῠκᾰ (active indicative perfect of λῡ́ω, first person singular),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;wherein the word breaks down to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;λέ-λῠ-κ-ᾰ, or&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;reduplication - stem - tense suffix - personal ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please let me know if I got that terminology wrong already.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Am I right to do it as follows?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;ᾰ̓κ-ήκο-ᾰ, or&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;reduplication - stem - [no tense suffix] - personal ending&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; To get that far, I relied on Mastronarde's *Introduction to Attic Greek*, which states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Is there any basis to think that the original reduplication was of the initial vowel and consonant *and* the second vowel?  The idea would be that, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;ᾰ̓κο-ᾰκο-ᾰ → ᾰ̓κ-ήκο-ᾰ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Actual attested earlier forms of the ᾰ̓κο-ᾰκο-ᾰ sort would be the best kind of answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Another good answer would give a word that began with a vowel - consonant - consonant sequence, but received an Attic reduplication with the 'lengthening' of the second vowel (which would, as it were, refute the theory being proposed).  Note that all four of Mastronarde's examples begin with a V-C-V sequence (tempting one to the theory).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BACKGROUND**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, the theory seems to represent my mind's trying to reduce the number of primitive devices (already too many).  Reduplication of some number of initial letters (up to three) seems like fewer such devices than reduplication or reduplication plus lengthening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/H2mKt.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10077" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2820" RevisionGUID="f97ef513-ad66-49a3-a472-b081265ad868" CreationDate="2017-03-06T09:15:26.200" UserId="1133" Text="Did 'ᾰ̓κ-ήκο-ᾰ' perhaps come from 'ᾰ̓κο-ᾰκο-ᾰ'? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10078" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2820" RevisionGUID="f97ef513-ad66-49a3-a472-b081265ad868" CreationDate="2017-03-06T09:15:26.200" UserId="1133" Text="|etymology|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2811" RevisionGUID="b3faeb3f-2ef8-4772-a78a-bc49ac74d759" CreationDate="2017-03-06T13:37:02.117" UserId="12" Comment="quote formatting" Text="Pliny NH XV has *palati gratia*. It's not exactly *al dente*, of course, but at least it indicates that taste was referred to the palate, rather than the teeth:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *oleum ipsum sale vindicatur a pinguitudinis vitio. cortice oleae conciso odorem accipit. medicatio alias ut vino; **palati gratia** nulla est nec tam numerosa differentia: tribus ut plurimum bonitatibus distat. odor in tenui argutior, et is tamen etiam in optimo brevis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the absence of anything better, I think you might justifiably use *dentium gratia*, though I'd personally prefer your *ad dentem*. Or you might get a bit nearer with *ad morsum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2818" RevisionGUID="98f4ca45-2fc2-486a-b568-d403a2d48d19" CreationDate="2017-03-06T20:01:38.477" UserId="78" Comment="added 239 characters in body" Text="Others pointed out the dictionary definition of *iuvenis*, but it would help to have a solid example. In Livy book 21.50, Ti. Sempronius met with Hiero at Syracuse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; statum deinde insulae et Carthaginiensium conata exposuit pollicitusque est, quo animo priore bello populum Romanum **iuvenis** adiuvisset, eo **senem** adiuturum; frumentum vestimentaque sese legionibus consulis sociisque navalibus gratis praeliturum; grande periculum Lilybaeo maritimisque civitatibus esse, et quibusdam volentibus novas res fore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He then described conditions in the island and the attempts made by the Carthaginians, and promised that with the same spirit with which, in his youth, he had helped the Roman People in the former war he would help them now, as an old man, and would furnish corn and clothing gratis to the legions of the consul and the naval allies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't know exactly when Hiero was born, but it was at least 307. The war in which he was talking about was in 264, when, according to Dio Cassius (fr. Vat. 57) and Zonarius (8.6), he helped the Romans to the chagrin of the Carthaginians during the First Punic War. This would have made him a forty-three year old *iuvenis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Livy ([24.4](http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Livy24.html#livy.hist.24.4)) also knew how old he was, as he said he was 90 when he died in 215. Even if he was off a few years, that still puts him in or near the 40s as a *iuvenis*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2821" RevisionGUID="12c1f564-b1f1-4e61-83b7-8d84f11ed47e" CreationDate="2017-03-06T21:48:44.263" UserId="79" Text="This is not a full answer, but I can't resist giving it.&#xD;&#xA;If you can specify your question, you are likely to get more specific answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The online Latin community I suggest is **this site**.&#xD;&#xA;As you have no doubt noticed, our main working language is English and the user interface is in English, but using Latin to ask and answer questions is always allowed.&#xD;&#xA;If you browse through the questions on this site, you will come across some Latin ones &amp;mdash; but admittedly only a small fraction.&#xD;&#xA;And beware: this site is not for free form discussion, but for questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site also has a part for more free discussion: [our chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm).&#xD;&#xA;Participating requires [earning some reputation on this main site](http://latin.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/chat), but you have already passed that threshold with this question.&#xD;&#xA;Again, the chat is mostly English, but Latin is more frequent there than elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;And all users there know Latin, more or less, so feel free to drop in and say hi in Latin anytime.&#xD;&#xA;The chat activity level varies greatly, because only a small number of users are active chatters.&#xD;&#xA;Don't be afraid to write if no one is there; someone entering the room and writing something is how discussions usually start." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2822" RevisionGUID="4d96a442-b9d7-40a6-af57-63f003bf4ccc" CreationDate="2017-03-06T22:20:43.737" UserId="1314" Text="For complicated reasons pertaining to a word puzzle I'm making, I want a latin sentence starting with &quot;J&quot; and ending with &quot;AM&quot;. I want it to basically say &quot;juveinile delinquincy is caused by drinking lead-filled water.&quot; So far I have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;juvenis delinquitur per plumbo aquam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10086" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2822" RevisionGUID="4d96a442-b9d7-40a6-af57-63f003bf4ccc" CreationDate="2017-03-06T22:20:43.737" UserId="1314" Text="Non Latin speaker trying and failing to use google translate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10087" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2822" RevisionGUID="4d96a442-b9d7-40a6-af57-63f003bf4ccc" CreationDate="2017-03-06T22:20:43.737" UserId="1314" Text="|translation|accusativus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2749" RevisionGUID="0e9f6d3c-7948-41b3-a7ee-5df62e19aa39" CreationDate="2017-03-06T22:25:48.333" UserId="1290" Comment="Removed thank you " Text="I want to say, &quot;Ergo, something comes from nothing and nothing comes from nothing.&quot; Is it correct to translate this as: &quot;Ergo, ex nihilo aliquid et ex nihilo nihil fit&quot;? I'm aware that &quot;ex nihilo aliquid&quot; means &quot;something out of nothing&quot; and that &quot;ex nihilo nihil fit&quot; means &quot;nothing out of nothing&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10089" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2749" RevisionGUID="0e9f6d3c-7948-41b3-a7ee-5df62e19aa39" CreationDate="2017-03-06T22:25:48.333" Comment="Proposed by 1290 approved by 79 edit id of 172" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2823" RevisionGUID="06470bd2-84e3-4926-a01a-203e0970d48b" CreationDate="2017-03-06T22:56:37.653" UserId="1304" Text="Your idea is correct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lewis-Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dne2) is not terribly clear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;added in a direct question, as an interrogation mark, to the first or principal word of the clause&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but, if you know German, [Georges](http://www.zeno.org/Georges-1913/A/ne+%5B3%5D) is much clearer: _-n(e)_ is attached to the focus of the question, therefore _mostly_ at the beginning of the sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question completely, a quotation from [Terentius, Phormio, v.851](http://www.mqdq.it/public/testo/testo/ordinata/pf253897) is very interesting: _Sed isne est, quem quaero an non?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It shows _-ne_ attached to the word asked about, instead of the verb: _is it he?_&#xD;&#xA;* It is an example of what can precede the _ne_-marked word in direct questions: connectives and such stuff, not real constituents.&#xD;&#xA;* It reminds us that  alternatives can be introduces by _an;_ sometimes _-ne_ is repeated instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read on at the Georges link, you see that, when used as a conjunction in indirect questions, _-ne_ can be attached to words in whatever position; however this is not the case for direct questions. In particular, I have strong doubts about your _cum Marcone:_ I couldn't find a single example of a prepositional phrase Prep+Noun+ne, and I would say it is impossible: the forms justified by the extant corpus are _Nonne cum Marco?_ (confirmation expected) or _Num cum Marco?_ (denial expected).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Mecumne loqueris?_ does work and is OK with me, even if I could find it only in modern exercise books, but here _-cum_ works as a suffix, almost a case ending, and it is a construction closer to _mihine_ than to the PP above. Possibly even _magnone cum gaudio_ could work, but I couldn't find any examples. I don't know what prevents enclitics to be attached to nouns _after_ prepositions: but I'd bet the same holds for _-que_ and _-ve_ as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A difference with Finnish (I think: please correct me if I'm wrong) is that _-ko/-kö_ is used exclusively and obligatorily in yes/no questions, while _-ne_ is not obligatory (at least in later periods) and can sometimes (rarely) be attached to interrogative adverbs and pronouns: see the above links for examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2824" RevisionGUID="4213e1ba-0ce0-4f4d-92f5-d58794077418" CreationDate="2017-03-06T23:06:28.370" UserId="78" Text="Might I offer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuvenes delinquent quod bibant in qua fluit plumbum aquam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's funky with its syntax, but it works. It translates to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Youth are failing because they drink water in which flows lead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another suggestion is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuvenes delinquent quod bibant aquam plumbeam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with this one is that *aqua plumbea* would mean &quot;water made of lead,&quot; not really &quot;water with lead in it.&quot; However, if you're deliberately trying to be enigmatic, it might work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2822" RevisionGUID="b0717ee4-e1d4-4589-abf4-d40bb6386df8" CreationDate="2017-03-06T23:30:39.717" UserId="45" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited title" Text="For complicated reasons pertaining to a word puzzle I'm making, I want a Latin sentence starting with &quot;J&quot; and ending with &quot;AM&quot;. I want it to basically say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Juvenile delinquency is caused by drinking lead-filled water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; juvenis delinquitur per plumbo aquam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10094" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2822" RevisionGUID="b0717ee4-e1d4-4589-abf4-d40bb6386df8" CreationDate="2017-03-06T23:30:39.717" UserId="45" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is a Latin phrase beginning with &quot;j&quot; and ending with &quot;am&quot; with this meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10095" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2822" RevisionGUID="b0717ee4-e1d4-4589-abf4-d40bb6386df8" CreationDate="2017-03-06T23:30:39.717" UserId="45" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited title" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2824" RevisionGUID="b6ec807d-0714-41f3-83f7-bc9cfa8e0ea3" CreationDate="2017-03-06T23:30:49.800" UserId="78" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="Might I offer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuvenes delinquunt quod bibunt in qua fluit plumbum aquam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's funky with its syntax, but it works. It translates to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Youth are failing because they drink water in which flows lead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another suggestion is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuvenes delinquunt quod bibunt aquam plumbeam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with this one is that *aqua plumbea* would mean &quot;water made of lead,&quot; not really &quot;water with lead in it.&quot; However, if you're deliberately trying to be enigmatic, it might work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I wrote *iuvenes*, you can easily use *juvenes*, though writing *j* or consonantal *i* isn't terribly fashionable anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's also take a look at what you wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; juvenis delinquitur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, *juvenis* would indicate a single young person, so you'd want the plural, *juvenes*. *Delinquitur* is not only singular, it's passive, which would mean that one youth is being drunk." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2823" RevisionGUID="4aa4b5fb-fa6a-48e6-9236-228235180966" CreationDate="2017-03-06T23:41:14.790" UserId="1304" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Your idea is correct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lewis-Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dne2) is not terribly clear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;added in a direct question, as an interrogation mark, to the first or principal word of the clause&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but, if you know German, [Georges](http://www.zeno.org/Georges-1913/A/ne+%5B3%5D) is much clearer: _-n(e)_ is attached to the focus of the question, therefore _mostly_ at the beginning of the sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question completely, a quotation from [Terentius, Phormio, v.851](http://www.mqdq.it/public/testo/testo/ordinata/pf253897) is very interesting: _Sed isne est, quem quaero an non?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It shows _-ne_ attached to the word asked about, instead of the verb: _is it he?_&#xD;&#xA;* It is an example of what can precede the _ne_-marked word in direct questions: connectives and such stuff, not real constituents.&#xD;&#xA;* It reminds us that  alternatives can be introduced by _an;_ sometimes _-ne_ is repeated instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read on at the Georges link, you see that, when used as a conjunction in indirect questions, _-ne_ can be attached to words in whatever position; however this is not the case for direct questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I have strong doubts about your _cum Marcone:_ I couldn't find a single example of a prepositional phrase Prep+Noun+ne, and I would say it is impossible: the forms justified by the extant corpus are _Nonne cum Marco?_ (confirmation expected) or _Num cum Marco?_ (denial expected).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Mecumne loqueris?_ does work and is OK with me, even if I could find it only in modern exercise books, but here _-cum_ works as a suffix, almost a case ending, and it is a construction closer to _mihine_ than to the PP above. Possibly even _magnone cum gaudio_ could work, but I couldn't find any examples. I don't know what prevents enclitics to be attached to nouns _after_ prepositions: but I'd bet the same holds for _-que_ and _-ve_ as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A difference with Finnish (I think: please correct me if I'm wrong) is that _-ko/-kö_ is used exclusively and obligatorily in yes/no questions, while _-ne_ is not obligatory (at least in later periods) and can sometimes (rarely) be attached to interrogative adverbs and pronouns: see the above links for examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2825" RevisionGUID="52863ff5-25e3-4bf4-b32b-2db68f15d315" CreationDate="2017-03-07T00:04:53.720" UserId="40" Text="Unfortunately -- or fortunately, depending on your point of view -- &quot;Attic reduplication&quot; is one of the many irregular areas of Greek morphology which can only be understood by going back to Proto-Indo-European. Here's a short version of the answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PIE *h₂ke-h₂kows-h₂e &gt; akākowsa &gt; akākowa &gt; akēkoa&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a perfect form of the root *h₂kews- &quot;hear&quot; (which actually also gives us the English verb *hear*!). The rule for perfect formation in PIE was to place the root in the pattern Ce-CoC-, where Ce- reduplicates the initial consonant of the root, and add the perfect endings. But, each of those C's can stand for more than one consonant: if the root began with two consonants, as here *h₂k, both of those were reduplicated, hence *h₂ke-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now apply the following regular sound changes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Initial *h₂ before a consonant &gt; a&#xD;&#xA; - *h₂e &gt; a&#xD;&#xA; - *eh₂ &gt; ā &gt; Attic-Ionic η&#xD;&#xA; - intervocalic *s is lost&#xD;&#xA; - intervocalic *w* is lost (in Attic-Ionic and many other dialects)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... and you get ἀκήκοα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that there is actually some debate about the etymology of this particular verb, but the above seems to be the majority opinion.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The explanation for other such verbs, like those in Mastronarde's table, is similar, except with different laryngeals: *h₁ for verbs with ε/η, *h₃ for verbs with ο/ω." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2826" RevisionGUID="1bda3403-340c-4d34-a4a7-5abc56c19b21" CreationDate="2017-03-07T01:52:00.097" UserId="78" Text="Apicius regularly gives the word *mollis* for &quot;cooked until soft&quot;, such as in 3.2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; polypodium in tepidam mittes. ubi mollierit, rades, et minutum cum pipere et cumino trito in patinam ferventem mittes et uteris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Parboil polypody root so as to soften them, cut them into small pieces, season with ground pepper and cumin, arrange in a baking dish, finish on the fire and serve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that, I would actually offer the suggestion of *mollis fere* or *paene mollis*, &quot;almost soft,&quot; as an appropriate description since, especially since, as brianpck points out, talking about teeth here would be anachronistic and a forced idiom." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2827" RevisionGUID="6db84506-fd98-437c-951e-933b7daf000e" CreationDate="2017-03-07T04:04:54.667" UserId="1239" Text="How to say &quot;the principle of explosion&quot;? Would it be *principium crepitum*? The principle of explosion usually is understood to mean ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet, yet I'm very curious as to how to say &quot;principle of explosion&quot; in Latin. Would it be *principium crepitum*? Warmest regards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2827" RevisionGUID="6db84506-fd98-437c-951e-933b7daf000e" CreationDate="2017-03-07T04:04:54.667" UserId="1239" Text="Principium crepitum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2827" RevisionGUID="6db84506-fd98-437c-951e-933b7daf000e" CreationDate="2017-03-07T04:04:54.667" UserId="1239" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|philosophy-terms|logic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2827" RevisionGUID="b5c06029-f4a1-4082-a90c-0cf926fd1420" CreationDate="2017-03-07T04:40:15.813" UserId="1239" Comment="improved formatting" Text="How to say &quot;the principle of explosion&quot;? Would it be *principium crepitum*? The principle of explosion usually is understood to mean *ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet*, yet I'm very curious as to how to translate/say &quot;principle of explosion&quot; into/in Latin. Would it be *principium crepitum*? Warmest regards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10105" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2827" RevisionGUID="ff9b3bb7-25c3-4a76-a902-a270456f7991" CreationDate="2017-03-07T07:10:11.393" UserId="75" Comment="changed title to reflect the question" Text="How do you translate “the principle of explosion” into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10106" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2827" RevisionGUID="ff9b3bb7-25c3-4a76-a902-a270456f7991" CreationDate="2017-03-07T07:10:11.393" Comment="Proposed by 75 approved by 79 edit id of 173" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2828" RevisionGUID="b193e34f-90f5-4dc9-92fb-ebe0945806a3" CreationDate="2017-03-07T10:47:10.467" UserId="324" Text="Discussions of proto-Indo-European, and especially those postulating multiple laryngeals, are best when copiously peppered with words like “perhaps”, “possibly”, “hypothesis”. The so-called Attic reduplication is a highly contested matter and there is no consensus about its origin. What one needs to mention in any case is that, unlike the regular reduplication of the type le-lu-ka (which is well known in Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, Gothic and other languages), the “Attic” reduplication is specific to Greek and is thus likely to be a Greek innovation, not an inheritance from IE. Also, that in Sanskrit, and mostly also in Greek, roots beginning with a consonant cluster reduplicate only the first consonant of the cluster (type: ke-kleia). This is the problem with the proposed proto-form *h₂ke-h₂kows-h₂e." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2828" RevisionGUID="d3d918e3-903b-4b46-977b-143f9cec9052" CreationDate="2017-03-07T10:59:36.647" UserId="324" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Discussions of proto-Indo-European, and especially those postulating multiple laryngeals, are best when copiously peppered with words like “perhaps”, “possibly”, “hypothesis”. The so-called Attic reduplication is a highly contested matter and there is no consensus about its origin. What one needs to mention in any case is that, unlike the regular reduplication of the type le-lu-ka (which is well known in Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, Gothic and other languages), the “Attic” reduplication is specific to Greek and is thus likely to be a Greek innovation, not an inheritance from IE. Also, that in Sanskrit, and mostly also in Greek, roots beginning with a consonant cluster reduplicate only the first consonant of the cluster (type: ke-kleia; *si- &gt; hi-stāmi). This is the problem with the proposed proto-form *h₂ke-h₂kows-h₂e.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2781" RevisionGUID="a0a32b6c-acba-4a00-bb6d-62552e69a6fa" CreationDate="2017-03-07T11:03:50.777" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The enclitic particle *-ne* can be used to form a binary (yes/no) question.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how attaching it to different words changes the meaning of the question.&#xD;&#xA;I have a clear idea of how it should behave, but that may well be because this is exactly how the Finnish enclitic *-ko/-k&amp;ouml;* works, so I want confirmation from someone without a Finn's bias.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The question concerns the word *-ne* is attached to.**&#xD;&#xA;For example, consider these questions related to *Gaius cum Marco loquitur*:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. ***Loquitur**ne Gaius cum Marco?* &amp;mdash; Does Gaius **speak** with Marcus? (The question is whether speaking takes place.)&#xD;&#xA;2. ***Gaius**ne loquitur cum Marco?* &amp;mdash; Is **Gaius** the one who speaks with Marcus? (The question is whether Gaius is the one who speaks.)&#xD;&#xA;3. *Cum **Marco**ne loquitur Gaius?* &amp;mdash; Is **Marcus** the one Gaius speaks with? (The question is whether Marcus is the one spoken to.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(For some reason I prefer to put the word with *-ne* towards the beginning of the sentence.)&#xD;&#xA;It is most common to attach *-ne* to the predicate, and it does change the meaning to put it elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;Here is another set of examples:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4. ***Legis**ne librum bonum?* &amp;mdash; Are you **reading** a good book?&#xD;&#xA;5. ***Bonum**ne librum legis?* &amp;mdash; Is the book you are reading **good**? Or maybe: Are you reading a **good** (with emphasis) book?&#xD;&#xA;6. ***Librum**ne bonum legis?* &amp;mdash; I don't seem to be able to parse this as naturally. Perhaps: Are you reading a good **book** (emphatically, as opposed to watching a good movie)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2568" RevisionGUID="96422a94-eebd-423d-b019-aaad220a6260" CreationDate="2017-03-07T14:15:54.163" UserId="1224" Comment="I added more information to my previous answer." Text="There are several noticeable differences between Latins, but I think that the most important would be the vocabulary and [punctuation][1]. Rather than using *sum* and *eram*, in Medieval Latin, one might use *fui* and *fueram*. New Latin and even Renaissance Latin adopted many words from Old French, Greek, and similar languages, like *systema* and *nostalgia*. Sentence spacing also came about in the fifteenth century, as well as an even earlier example of paragraphs in the Lyon Table.&#xD;&#xA;(EDIT)&#xD;&#xA;Also pay attention to spellings. If *caelum* is spelled &quot;*coelum*&quot;, the text comes from Medieval times, but I have seen alternate spellings like this as far as 1658, when *Orbis Sensualium Pictus* was published.&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, note that inscriptions from at least 150 AD confuse or simply incorrectly spell words by [interchanging &quot;f&quot; and &quot;ph.&quot;][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/33/what-punctuation-was-used-in-classical-latin?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/649/when-did-ph-start-to-be-pronounced-like-f" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2829" RevisionGUID="cb2a7a80-46e2-464b-b56a-da08f25242b9" CreationDate="2017-03-07T14:44:03.527" UserId="1224" Text="I've noticed that many Latin verbs can be turned into nouns (like the English *do* and *doer*). But, what's the process of this in Latin? I can find some terms in dictionaries, but most don't seem to have entries for such a thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10113" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2829" RevisionGUID="cb2a7a80-46e2-464b-b56a-da08f25242b9" CreationDate="2017-03-07T14:44:03.527" UserId="1224" Text="How does one show that a person or thing is the performer of an action?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10114" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2829" RevisionGUID="cb2a7a80-46e2-464b-b56a-da08f25242b9" CreationDate="2017-03-07T14:44:03.527" UserId="1224" Text="|classical-latin|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2830" RevisionGUID="16416c1a-12be-4f1a-a564-f20678fb5099" CreationDate="2017-03-07T15:01:42.977" UserId="78" Text="Assuming we're in a codified state (from the tags), there are two primary ways. The first is use the present participle as a substantive. (Note the [usage](https://books.google.com/books?id=L23fBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA192&amp;lpg=PA192&amp;#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).) Be careful, though, because in the ablative the ending is an *e* instead of an *i* when it's used this way. This works for both men and women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other way is to take the fourth principle part (i.e. either the perfect passive participle or the supine*, drop the ending, and add *or* to it. For example, take the word *servo*, *servare*, &quot;to save.&quot; The fourth principle part is *servatus*, which would give is *servator*, &quot;savior.&quot; The feminine form would be *servatrix*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2830" RevisionGUID="a0e1c036-07d7-4d83-ac10-6f6796fa856c" CreationDate="2017-03-07T15:08:37.780" UserId="469" Comment="edited body" Text="Assuming we're in a codified state (from the tags), there are two primary ways. The first is use the present participle as a substantive. (Note the [usage](https://books.google.com/books?id=L23fBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA192&amp;lpg=PA192&amp;#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).) Be careful, though, because in the ablative the ending is an *e* instead of an *i* when it's used this way. This works for both men and women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other way is to take the fourth principal part (i.e. either the perfect passive participle or the supine*, drop the ending, and add *or* to it. For example, take the word *servo*, *servare*, &quot;to save.&quot; The fourth principle part is *servatus*, which would give is *servator*, &quot;savior.&quot; The feminine form would be *servatrix*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10118" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2829" RevisionGUID="241c0755-9e5c-4360-9f72-055bfc6cf52c" CreationDate="2017-03-07T15:29:50.543" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|word-request|derivation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10119" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2829" RevisionGUID="66c5089a-9943-4e7f-99e2-ef19268e57ae" CreationDate="2017-03-07T16:24:49.487" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|derivation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2830" RevisionGUID="100b25af-eba0-46f6-8a36-1e7572a0f90a" CreationDate="2017-03-07T16:31:09.100" UserId="78" Comment="added 217 characters in body" Text="Assuming we're in a codified state (from the tags), there are two primary ways. The first is use the present participle as a substantive. E.g. Cic. [*Div*. 68.141](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0042%3Abook%3D2%3Asection%3D141) (from [G-L § 437](https://books.google.com/books?id=jo1iAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA285#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nihil est magnum somnianti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nothing is great to a dreamer (= to one dreaming)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be careful, though, because in the ablative singular the ending is an *e* instead of an *i* when it's used this way. This works for both the masculine and feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other way is to take the fourth principal part (i.e. either the perfect passive participal or the supine*, drop the ending, and add *or* to it. For example, take the word *servo*, *servare*, &quot;to save.&quot; The fourth principal part is *servatus*, which would give is *servator*, &quot;savior.&quot; The feminine form would be *servatrix*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2830" RevisionGUID="7d176a04-9c62-4aca-86bc-4d72128a76a6" CreationDate="2017-03-07T19:13:09.440" UserId="78" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="Assuming we're in a codified state (from the tags), there are two primary ways. The first is use the present participle as a substantive. E.g. Cic. [*Div*. 68.141](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0042%3Abook%3D2%3Asection%3D141) (from [G-L § 437](https://books.google.com/books?id=jo1iAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA285#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nihil est magnum somnianti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nothing is great to a dreamer (= to one dreaming)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be careful, though, because in the ablative singular the ending is an *e* instead of an *i* when it's used this way. This works for both the masculine and feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other way is to take the fourth principal part (i.e. either the perfect passive participal or the supine*, drop the ending, and add *or* to it. For example, take the word *servo*, *servare*, &quot;to save.&quot; The fourth principal part is *servatus*, which would give is *servator*, &quot;savior.&quot; The feminine form would be *servatrix*. For neuter nouns, the ending is -trum, which is how we get words like *rostrum* (from *rodere*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2831" RevisionGUID="02738d52-e4a7-4480-98e7-c966518bd114" CreationDate="2017-03-07T21:06:23.150" UserId="1239" Text="How to say, &quot;Many are not one?&quot; Is it: *pluribus non paribus unum*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10124" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2831" RevisionGUID="02738d52-e4a7-4480-98e7-c966518bd114" CreationDate="2017-03-07T21:06:23.150" UserId="1239" Text="How to say, &quot;Many are not one?&quot; Pluribus non paribus unum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10125" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2831" RevisionGUID="02738d52-e4a7-4480-98e7-c966518bd114" CreationDate="2017-03-07T21:06:23.150" UserId="1239" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|philosophy-terms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2825" RevisionGUID="16593f1b-8023-4e3c-a769-ca83a655f220" CreationDate="2017-03-07T23:08:40.287" UserId="40" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately -- or fortunately, depending on your point of view -- &quot;Attic reduplication&quot; is one of the many irregular areas of Greek morphology which can only be understood by going back to Proto-Indo-European. Here's a short version of the answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PIE *h₂ke-h₂kows-h₂e &gt; akākowsa &gt; akākowa &gt; akēkoa&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a perfect form of the root *h₂kews- &quot;hear&quot; (which actually also gives us the English verb *hear*!). The rule for perfect formation in PIE was to place the root in the pattern Ce-CoC-, where Ce- reduplicates the initial consonant of the root, and add the perfect endings. But, each of those C's can stand for more than one consonant: if the root began with two consonants, as here *h₂k, both of those could be reduplicated, hence *h₂ke-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now apply the following regular sound changes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Initial *h₂ before a consonant &gt; a&#xD;&#xA; - *h₂e &gt; a&#xD;&#xA; - *eh₂ &gt; ā &gt; Attic-Ionic η&#xD;&#xA; - intervocalic *s is lost&#xD;&#xA; - intervocalic *w* is lost (in Attic-Ionic and many other dialects)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... and you get ἀκήκοα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that there is actually some debate about the etymology of this particular verb, but the above seems to be the majority opinion.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The explanation for other such verbs, like those in Mastronarde's table, is similar, except with different laryngeals: *h₁ for verbs with ε/η, *h₃ for verbs with ο/ω." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2825" RevisionGUID="f00d6a29-a49d-4ac9-82b9-f27cdba80c8a" CreationDate="2017-03-07T23:55:12.757" UserId="40" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately -- or fortunately, depending on your point of view -- &quot;Attic reduplication&quot; is one of the many irregular areas of Greek morphology which can only be understood by going back to Proto-Indo-European. Here's a short version of the answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PIE *h₂ke-h₂kows-h₂e &gt; akākowsa &gt; akākowa &gt; akēkoa&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a perfect form of the root *h₂kews- &quot;hear&quot; (which actually also gives us the English verb *hear*!). The rule for perfect formation in PIE was to place the root in the pattern Ce-CoC-, where Ce- reduplicates the initial consonant of the root, and add the perfect endings. But, each of those C's can stand for more than one consonant: if the root began with two consonants, as here *h₂k, both of those could be reduplicated, hence *h₂ke-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now apply the following regular sound changes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Initial *h₂ before a consonant &gt; a&#xD;&#xA; - *h₂e &gt; a&#xD;&#xA; - *eh₂ &gt; ā &gt; Attic-Ionic η&#xD;&#xA; - intervocalic *s is lost&#xD;&#xA; - intervocalic *w* is lost (in Attic-Ionic and many other dialects)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... and you get ἀκήκοα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that there is some debate both about the etymology of this particular verb and the origin of Attic reduplication generally, but the above seems to be the majority opinion.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The explanation for other such verbs, like those in Mastronarde's table, is similar, except with different laryngeals: *h₁ for verbs with ε/η, *h₃ for verbs with ο/ω." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2832" RevisionGUID="5b1d0a21-1a64-409b-ae73-39c0ed201998" CreationDate="2017-03-08T01:03:03.793" UserId="39" Text="In Berger 2012 doctoral dissertation we can find the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xc1MS.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2833" RevisionGUID="6f06efe2-86ea-4f7d-8e6c-a27f0c996b18" CreationDate="2017-03-08T14:39:35.543" UserId="1316" Text="First off, the _actual_ principle was usually called _**ex falso quodlibet**_ or _**ex contradictione quodlibet**_ in Latin philosophy literature. That said, if you want a literal translation of &quot;principle of explosion,&quot; _crepitus_ is probably not a good word for it. [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcrepitus) translate _crepitus_ as &quot;a rattling, creaking, clattering, clashing, rustling, a noise, etc.,&quot; but _particularly_ it is used for &quot;a breaking wind with noise,&quot; that is, a loud fart, so a Roman might hear _principium crepiti_ as &quot;the principle of farting,&quot; which is not at all what you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, the &quot;explosion&quot; in the &quot;principle of explosion&quot; is not a _literal_ explosion, but explosion as a metaphor for boundless multiplication of consequences, so something like _copia_ or _abundantia_ for &quot;abundance&quot; would probably communicate the intent better than something like _explosio_, _detonatio_ or _deflagratio_. So _*principium abundantiae_ might be a rough approximation, though definitely not something that would be understood by a philosopher." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2833" RevisionGUID="18fb37a9-d5a8-4bd3-8c0f-db8b34a4628e" CreationDate="2017-03-08T15:22:12.837" UserId="45" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="First off, the _actual_ principle was usually called _**ex falso quodlibet**_ or _**ex contradictione quodlibet**_ in Latin philosophy literature. That said, if you want a literal translation of &quot;principle of explosion,&quot; _crepitus_ is probably not a good word for it. [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcrepitus) translate _crepitus_ as &quot;a rattling, creaking, clattering, clashing, rustling, a noise, etc.,&quot; but _particularly_ it is used for &quot;a breaking wind with noise,&quot; that is, a loud fart, so a Roman might hear _principium crepit&amp;umacr;s_ as &quot;the principle of farting,&quot; which is not at all what you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, the &quot;explosion&quot; in the &quot;principle of explosion&quot; is not a _literal_ explosion, but explosion as a metaphor for boundless multiplication of consequences, so something like _copia_ or _abundantia_ for &quot;abundance&quot; would probably communicate the intent better than something like _explosio_, _detonatio_ or _deflagratio_. So _*principium abundantiae_ might be a rough approximation, though definitely not something that would be understood by a philosopher." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2834" RevisionGUID="97b80350-ba03-4a91-add8-ae0e7a8f021e" CreationDate="2017-03-08T16:25:09.527" UserId="1304" Text="“The principle of explosion” is a modern metaphor. In the time when Latin had a significant population of native speakers, nobody would have used it. In any way you decide to express it in Latin, you have to force a new meaning on old words. You could play the game of trying to guess what would be an ancient Roman's choice of words if he were suddenly teleported to our times; another option is to use the Latin words as they are used today, after centuries of ininterrupted usage and evolution. What keeps Latin alive, in my opinion, others might differ, is the huge amount of Latin vocabulary in many languages of the world. If in the course of time the meaning of _explosio_ has come to encompass what we are dealing with here, accept it and say _principium explosionis._ Your contemporaries will understand you, and you have nobody else to talk to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2834" RevisionGUID="6467b47d-2460-4a40-9d2d-b9584b629505" CreationDate="2017-03-08T16:34:29.573" UserId="1304" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="“The principle of explosion” is a modern metaphor. In the time when Latin had a significant population of native speakers, nobody would have used it. In any way you decide to express it in Latin, you have to force a new meaning on old words. You could play the game of trying to guess what an ancient Roman's choice of words would be if he were suddenly teleported to our times; another option is to use the Latin words as they are used today, after centuries of ininterrupted usage and evolution. What keeps Latin alive, in my opinion, others might differ, is the huge amount of Latin vocabulary in many languages of the world. If, in the course of time, the meaning of _explosio_ has come to encompass what we are dealing with here, accept it and say _principium explosionis._ Your contemporaries will understand you, and you have nobody else to talk to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2835" RevisionGUID="6bbf1505-e1e7-4c7e-b4d8-ef0f57a3081f" CreationDate="2017-03-08T18:34:42.627" UserId="469" Text="The sentence has more than one possible meaning in English that might slightly alter the way you may want to translate it into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose that you want to put emphasis in something like the fact that a group of individuals usually lacks the complete unity of a single organism/person/entity. This seems an obvious meaning for the sentence, especially judging from the [tag:philosophy-terms] flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible (mostly word-by-word) translation that fits this sense is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Plures non sunt unum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Many** in this context may be translated as [*plures*, *multi*][1] or to a lesser extent, [*plurimi*][1]. These are plurals. Plures may be both masculine or feminine, while the others are masculine-only.&#xD;&#xA; - Note that *pluribus* is a derivative of *plures* that does not fit here. In Latin, the ending of nouns gives grammatical context: while plures may be used as the subject of a sentence or as complement of copulative sentences (e.g. after the verb to be), pluribus has to be linked to a preposition (as in *e pluribus unum*) or the indirect object of a different verb.&#xD;&#xA; - The verb **to be** can be omitted in Latin, it just sounds better to me not to in this case. (But I can't see an error in writing *plures non unum*.)&#xD;&#xA; - You could also alter the sentence order: *plures non unum sunt*.&#xD;&#xA; - I translated **one** as [*unum*][2], which is neuter in gender. I preferred this assuming that *one* refers to the philosophical concept of [*a unity*][3], as opposed to *one single person*. Unlike unum, the neuter version of plures (plura) or multi (multa) would make it sound as *many things* instead of *many people*. In Latin you would only use pl. feminine (multae) if the many are all women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmultus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_they_all_may_be_one&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://philpapers.org/rec/SVOEEU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2835" RevisionGUID="8a47976f-df35-42fb-bc76-e99135842109" CreationDate="2017-03-08T18:47:35.827" UserId="469" Comment="added 406 characters in body" Text="The sentence has more than one possible meaning in English that might slightly alter the way you may want to translate it into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose that you want to put emphasis in something like the fact that a group of individuals usually lacks the complete unity of a single organism/person/entity. This seems an obvious meaning for the sentence, especially judging from the [tag:philosophy-terms] flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible (mostly word-by-word) translation that fits this sense is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Plures non sunt unum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Many** in this context may be translated as [*plures*, *multi*][1] or to a lesser extent, [*plurimi*][1]. These are plurals. Plures may be both masculine or feminine, while the others are masculine-only.&#xD;&#xA; - Note that *pluribus* is a derivative of *plures* that does not fit here. In Latin, the ending of nouns gives grammatical context: while plures may be used as the subject of a sentence or as complement of copulative sentences (e.g. after the verb to be), pluribus has to be linked to a preposition (as in *e pluribus unum*) or be the indirect object of a verb.&#xD;&#xA; - The verb **to be** can be omitted in Latin, it just sounds better to me not to in this case. (But I can't see an error in writing *plures non unum*.)&#xD;&#xA; - You could also alter the sentence order: *plures non unum sunt*.&#xD;&#xA; - I translated **one** as [*unum*][2], which is neuter in gender. I preferred this assuming that *one* refers to the philosophical concept of [*a unity*][3], as opposed to *one single person*. Unlike unum, the neuter version of plures (plura) or multi (multa) would make it sound as *many things* instead of *many people*. In Latin you would only use pl. feminine (multae) if the many are all women.&#xD;&#xA; - I chose not to add [*pares*][4] or [*aequales*][5] (meaning *equal to*, e.g. *plures non sunt pares/aequales uno*, *plures non pares uno*), since that emphasis was not in the original English sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmultus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_they_all_may_be_one&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://philpapers.org/rec/SVOEEU&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpar&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daequalis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2836" RevisionGUID="08410c62-4b66-4526-a652-d8b1ada69cab" CreationDate="2017-03-08T21:16:43.763" UserId="79" Text="I saw a TV documentary today which claimed that salmon was named in Latin by Julius Caesar.&#xD;&#xA;It was a side remark, but the narrator elaborated that he saw this fish in Gaul and gave it its name due to its leaps.&#xD;&#xA;However, I did not manage to find anything to support this claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;Do we know if *salmo* is connected to *salire*?&#xD;&#xA;The derivative looks unusual to me, and I can't think of any other similar pair in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Did Caesar even discuss salmons in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;Is there any truth to the story, or should I dismiss it as folk etymology?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case anyone is interested, it was mentioned around 10:54&amp;ndash;11:14 in [this Finnish documentary](http://areena.yle.fi/1-563684).&#xD;&#xA;(It can only be viewed from within Finland, and it is in Finnish.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10138" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2836" RevisionGUID="08410c62-4b66-4526-a652-d8b1ada69cab" CreationDate="2017-03-08T21:16:43.763" UserId="79" Text="On Julius Caesar and salmon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10139" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2836" RevisionGUID="08410c62-4b66-4526-a652-d8b1ada69cab" CreationDate="2017-03-08T21:16:43.763" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|gaius-iulius-caesar|scientific-names|biology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2837" RevisionGUID="2e689c2f-d930-44cd-aa89-57bcc0d09cb7" CreationDate="2017-03-08T23:46:04.847" UserId="324" Text="The derivation from salire is probably a folk etymology, especially since it does not explain the second syllable of salmo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walde, Latein. Etym. Wb., says that salmo, and also salar “trout”, are borrowed from Celtic, the Celtic source being cognate with Latin saliva, though this too does not explain the final -mo(n). Note however the hydronym Salmona, a tributary of the Mosel.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, the new etymological dictionary by de Vaan has no entry for these words, presumably because the author also believes that they are loan words (and hence not admitted to his dictionary).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2837" RevisionGUID="6df04de7-702e-4ef4-889b-8dd621ed5830" CreationDate="2017-03-08T23:52:04.583" UserId="324" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="The derivation from salire is probably a folk etymology, especially since it does not explain the second syllable of salmo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walde, Latein. Etym. Wb., says that salmo, and also salar “trout”, are borrowed from Celtic, comparing Old Irish selige “turtle”, the Celtic source being cognate with Latin saliva, though this too does not explain the final -mo(n). Note however the hydronym Salmona, a tributary of the Mosel.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, the new etymological dictionary by de Vaan has no entry for these words, presumably because the author also believes that they are loan words (and hence not admitted to his dictionary).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2837" RevisionGUID="f9aa5a08-56ef-4828-8337-c888c7a2f09a" CreationDate="2017-03-09T00:25:23.787" UserId="324" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="The derivation from salire is probably a folk etymology, especially since it does not explain the second syllable of salmo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walde, Latein. Etym. Wb., says that salmo, and also salar “trout”, are borrowed from Celtic, comparing Old Irish selige “turtle”, the Celtic source being cognate with Latin saliva, though this too does not explain the final -mo(n). Note however the hydronym Salmona (modern Salm), a tributary of the Mosel.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, the new etymological dictionary by de Vaan has no entry for these words, presumably because the author also believes that they are loan words (and hence not admitted to his dictionary).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2838" RevisionGUID="488b5390-7fcb-4fe3-8a37-3d2daf5f9e17" CreationDate="2017-03-09T12:05:07.083" UserId="645" Text="I think the phrase *neque aliter* would fit. as in *si, neque aliter fieri potest*. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Neque aliter* has plenty of precedents, easily found by googling, including some classical (e.g. in Cic. *pro Sest*. 97), though not in the exact sense you are looking for. I'm fairly sure that I came across it some years ago while translating KF Gauss's disquisition on capillary action, but it would take rather a long time to find the precise reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example from his *Arithmeticorum Liber Secundus, (Propositio 26a, 171 Propositae cuiuspiam quantitatis radicem cubicam extrahere)* which isn't exactly what you are asking for, but may give you the confidence to use it :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Itaque deinceps: nam maior numerus distinctius partes exprimit, quia numerosior; neque aliter geometrico puncto accedere licet propter incommensurabilitatem quaesitae radicis in nullum numerum cadentis.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2839" RevisionGUID="7b1ba75b-edfa-4e98-8a1a-f30455875263" CreationDate="2017-03-09T18:40:42.340" UserId="1224" Text="When reading [this question's answer][1], I saw the phrase *recte admones* translated as &quot;you do well to remind me&quot;. But, doesn't that mean &quot;you remind directly&quot;? I don't understand how this phrase was translated or what the intended phrase was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1126/what-is-slipped-my-mind-in-latin/1128#1128" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10147" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2839" RevisionGUID="7b1ba75b-edfa-4e98-8a1a-f30455875263" CreationDate="2017-03-09T18:40:42.340" UserId="1224" Text="How does &quot;recte admones&quot; mean &quot;you do well to remind me&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10148" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2839" RevisionGUID="7b1ba75b-edfa-4e98-8a1a-f30455875263" CreationDate="2017-03-09T18:40:42.340" UserId="1224" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2840" RevisionGUID="37c70934-763a-44d5-b3bc-50b34bd61fe6" CreationDate="2017-03-09T19:00:17.297" UserId="78" Text="*Recte* far more often means &quot;rightly.&quot; As Lewis &amp; Short puts it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Trop., rightly, correctly, properly, duly, suitably, well, advantageously, accurately (very freq. in all periods and styles):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They then cite a huge paragraph of examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest is just idiom. It does indeed mean &quot;you rightly remind me,&quot; especially given the rest of the context, which are little figures one could use when something ostensibly spontaneous is brought to attention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="339" RevisionGUID="0b8189f3-9a58-49cf-a863-a86792e0db36" CreationDate="2017-03-09T20:41:26.597" UserId="45" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="After reading the quoted passage in context (no, I did not read the whole letter), I think you are missing a key sentence that introduces this whole &quot;videbis&quot; trope: It occurs towards the end of the previous page. After describing a peaceful place outside the city, Petrarch says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; . . .Illic tandem in terra depositus ad dexteram me videbis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *There at last, having disembarked on dry land, you shall see me to your right.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*caveat lector*: this and below are my quick translations: please correct in the comments)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subsequent &quot;videbis&quot; repetition all seem to understand &quot;me&quot; as the object. Thus, in the next sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Videbis autem [me] modicis, sed umbrosis hortulis, angustoque contentum hospitio sed quod tanti hospitis adventu factum putes angustius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *You shall see [me] contented with moderate but shady little gardens and a narrow dwelling--one which you may think even narrower at the coming of such an important guest.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Me&quot; (Petrarch) is indisputably understood along with &quot;contentum.&quot; The rest of the passage, which transitions directly into what you quoted earlier, makes perfect sense as it paints Petrarch in this blissful pastoral scene.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;quem desideras&quot; seems to refer to himself. Ignoring the larger context of this correspondence, I can only surmise, but such language is fairly typical of effusive friendly correspondences of this nature: something like &quot;you shall see me, whom you so much desire to be with, etc.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, Petrarch is vicariously tempting his friend by this portrait of how content he himself is. I think your reasons for supposing that what is meant is &quot;You will find yourself X'ing&quot; are not terribly cogent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I see no reason why &quot;solace&quot; should not refer to Petrarch himself, who uses this as his retreat.&#xD;&#xA;2. The dwelling described by Petrarch is &quot;Sorgia&quot; (probably modern-day &quot;Sorgues&quot;), which is quite close to Avignon. Petrarch could very well have had his own interest in avoiding the *curia*, just as much as his correspondent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a scattered answer, in outline: feel free to comment so I can make it point more specifically to your questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2841" RevisionGUID="80cef699-9c43-46bc-9c70-9e663d5ffb7d" CreationDate="2017-03-09T21:41:46.660" UserId="79" Text="I previously asked [about indicating a question in writing](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2770/79), and I got interested in how questions were recognized in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;To know if a question mark would be used after a question, one should probably know whether or not such sentences were recognized in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;When did grammarians first recognize a question as a type of a sentence?&#xD;&#xA;Was it discussed from the very beginning of grammatical literature, or was such classification of sentences a later development?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in Latin, but if there is something relevant in Greek literature, feel free to share it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10153" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2841" RevisionGUID="80cef699-9c43-46bc-9c70-9e663d5ffb7d" CreationDate="2017-03-09T21:41:46.660" UserId="79" Text="When did the grammarians first recognize a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10154" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2841" RevisionGUID="80cef699-9c43-46bc-9c70-9e663d5ffb7d" CreationDate="2017-03-09T21:41:46.660" UserId="79" Text="|syntax|grammarians|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2842" RevisionGUID="eb80cba6-f4b6-45d6-8f11-14ecdf26aa0d" CreationDate="2017-03-09T22:15:00.793" UserId="235" Text="I would like to exclaim in Latin, &quot;how morbid!&quot; This came up because just recently I read something morbid. But how would I say this? I am guessing that this is possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quam morbidus!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when I made this guess, I wasn't sure which gender to assign the adjective. Is there a rule about which gender to assign the adjective in simple exclamations like these?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have thought about this question a bit, and I think it might depend on the referent. If the implication is, &quot;How morbid (you are)!&quot; then it makes sense to assign the gender of the person being referred to. But if the implication is &quot;How morbid (that is)!&quot; then perhaps it should be neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look forward to hearing your thoughts. Also, if &quot;morbidus&quot; is not the best adjective to use, feel free to suggest a better one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10156" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2842" RevisionGUID="eb80cba6-f4b6-45d6-8f11-14ecdf26aa0d" CreationDate="2017-03-09T22:15:00.793" UserId="235" Text="How would you translate the exclamation, &quot;How morbid!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10157" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2842" RevisionGUID="eb80cba6-f4b6-45d6-8f11-14ecdf26aa0d" CreationDate="2017-03-09T22:15:00.793" UserId="235" Text="|adjective|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2843" RevisionGUID="4675f7a9-aba5-49c9-a333-97dc63bf0257" CreationDate="2017-03-09T23:04:48.860" UserId="91" Text="*Umbra* means both (1) a literal shadow and (2) a ghost of a dead person (as well as everything in between).  The OLD gives several (1-6) senses in technical detail relating strictly to (1).  Moreover *umbrosus* is defined without explicit reference to meaning (2).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I see an *umbr-* word, I have always assumed some degree of (2) in the word, however it is used.  A *nemus umbrosum* is dark with thick trees, but necessarily also the kind of place an *umbra*(2) might be found.  Am I wrong in bringing up this connotation? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10159" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2843" RevisionGUID="4675f7a9-aba5-49c9-a333-97dc63bf0257" CreationDate="2017-03-09T23:04:48.860" UserId="91" Text="Meaning of 'umbra'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10160" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2843" RevisionGUID="4675f7a9-aba5-49c9-a333-97dc63bf0257" CreationDate="2017-03-09T23:04:48.860" UserId="91" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="116" RevisionGUID="bedcfd37-04cc-475a-8e61-a57a886b0c0e" CreationDate="2017-03-10T01:59:29.323" UserId="30" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="The ablative absolute does not require a participle. It can be a noun and an adjective, as you say, or two nouns (*Caesare duce urbem cepimus*), or even an adjective and an accusative with infinitive (most probably, see the end of this post).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is a &quot;verb-like&quot; aspect to the construction that makes you want to add &quot;being&quot; if there is no participle. The reason for this probably lies in the fact that the ablative absolute is a so-called **dominant construction**, where semantics and syntax are slightly out of tune: semantically, there is a kind of '**oblique predicate**' (with a 'subject' and its 'predicate'), even though syntactically there are just two nominals in the ablative. And for there to be a predicate, you need a kind of verb in your translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is called dominant because the participle in a dominant construction is normally translated more prominently than a mere (attributive) participle: it is translated as a finite verb (or a noun). Otherwise our translation would fail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Legione dispersa victi sumus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you translated this as &quot;with the dispersed legion, we were defeated&quot;, that would sound wrong, because the participle is translated attributively. English has a trick where you can make an adjective or participle predicate-like by placing it after its 'subject': &quot;with the legion dispersed, we were defeated&quot;. That works, because the participle is translated predicatively. The standard translation would be &quot;after the legion was dispersed, we were defeated&quot;. This &quot;the legion was dispersed&quot; is a full predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesare duce urbem cepimus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With our leader Caesar, we captured the city&quot;. That is grammatical, but it is not what the Latin intended, if only because *with* is usually rendered as *cum* when followed by a person. It should be &quot;with Caesar as our leader, we captured the city&quot;. The word *as* (rightfully) introduces a predicate-like aspect to our translation: one of the things we want to say is that Caesar was our leader. That is a fact that the Latin is stating separately by means of the ablative absolute, supporting the 'main clause' *urbem cepimus*. You could also translate it as &quot;because Caesar was our leader, we captured the city&quot; (optional causal link), with a full predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Other examples of dominant and predicative constructions are the **gerundive construction**, the so-called **dominant participle** (of which you could say the ablative absolute with a participle  is a sub-species), the **dominant substantive apposition** (of which the ablative absolute without a participle is a sub-species), and even the ordinary **copula with subject complement**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Floribus carpendis Eurydice mordetur a serpente.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;During/with the flowers to pick, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent.&quot; That's not right. The **gerundive construction** should be translated dominantly, where the adjectival/attributive gerundive is translated as a substantive noun or even as a finite verb: &quot;during the picking of flowers, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent&quot;, or &quot;when she was picking flowers, Eurydice was bitten by a serpent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Latin alternative is the **gerund construction**, which is normal, not 'dominant', because a gerund is a kind of noun, which is already fairly dominant: as such it is not translated as more dominant than a noun normally is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Flores carpendo Eurydice mordetur a serpente.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;During the flowers-picking, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar occisus senatores placuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The dead Caesar pleased the senators.&quot; That kind of works, because a **dominant participle construction** also happens to be possible in English in certain cases. But what we're really saying is this: &quot;Caesar's death pleased the senators&quot;. A substantive noun is stronger than a mere attributive participle. Or, even more dominantly: &quot;the fact that Caesar died pleased the senators&quot;. What we're really not trying to say is &quot;Caesar (who had died) pleased the senators&quot;. The brackets express low degree of dominance, since the words are thereby separated from the main sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar primus Romam advenit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The first Caesar arrived in Rome&quot;: it seems clear that this is not what was intended. &quot;Caesar arrived in Rome first&quot;: this predicative translation is correct, where the **predicative adjective** is translated almost like a subject complement or an adverb of manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar victor Romam advenit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The victor Caesar arrived in Rome.&quot; This is perhaps acceptable, but what the author probably intended was the predicative translation &quot;Caesar arrived in Rome as (the) victor&quot;. The word *as* clarifies that it is to be understood predicatively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar fortis est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a **plain copula with a subject complement**. An attributive translation would be absurd: &quot;the brave Caesar is&quot;. This is the simplest kind of predicative construction, equally common in other Indo-European languages, and we must translate it predicatively, so as a copula with subject complement: &quot;Caesar is brave&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;N.B. There is one kind of ablative absolute that interests me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Audito Agrippinam a filio suo necatam esse tota in urbe populus luxerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;When it had been heard that Agrippina had been murdered by her son, the people mourned throughout the city.&quot; The participle in the ablative is the neuter *audito*; the 'noun' belonging to the ablative absolute is the entire accusative with infinitive, *Agrippinam a filio suo necatam esse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is possible in Latin, and I believe it is used when you need an accusative with infinitive but the verb of saying or hearing or thinking etc. cannot be made to agree with an existing word in the sentence. This may happen when the hearing happened before the main clause, because then you need a past participle, and past participles cannot be made to agree with an agent (because they're passive). The person who hears cannot be made to agree in number, case and gender with the past participle *auditus*, so it has to be used absolutely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2844" RevisionGUID="ec51d9f6-e5c6-4360-9894-9d02ec0d6adf" CreationDate="2017-03-10T03:27:47.153" UserId="1000" Text="Simple question really: *Noli quaerere quid vobis tua patria facere potest, sed quid facere tuae patriae poter.* Does this say &quot;Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10163" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2844" RevisionGUID="ec51d9f6-e5c6-4360-9894-9d02ec0d6adf" CreationDate="2017-03-10T03:27:47.153" UserId="1000" Text="Does this say what I think it does? Correctly? President Kennedy Quote" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10164" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2844" RevisionGUID="ec51d9f6-e5c6-4360-9894-9d02ec0d6adf" CreationDate="2017-03-10T03:27:47.153" UserId="1000" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2844" RevisionGUID="25c3c6ff-4f97-4aa1-aeb2-908ff80345fe" CreationDate="2017-03-10T03:37:21.983" UserId="136" Comment="edited body" Text="Simple question really: *Noli quaerere quid vobis tua patria facere potest, sed quid facere tuae patriae potes.* Does this say &quot;Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="17f30ac6-5237-48e0-8556-747164751c82" CreationDate="2017-03-10T03:38:06.640" UserId="235" Text="I think it is correct. But since you use the plural pronoun &quot;vobis&quot;, you may want &quot;potes&quot; and &quot;noli&quot; to be plural as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is one alternative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nolite quaerere quid vobis tua patria facere potest, sed quid facere tuae patriae potestis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vos#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="a1e87a70-36e7-416b-aac6-22db147b69e6" CreationDate="2017-03-10T03:44:09.957" UserId="235" Comment="added 180 characters in body" Text="I think it is correct. My only suggestion is to be more consistent with singular and plural. Either using &quot;nolite&quot; and &quot;potestis&quot; along with &quot;vobis&quot;, or substituting &quot;tibi&quot; for &quot;vobis&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a version with plural verbs and plural pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nolite quaerere quid vobis tua patria facere potest, sed quid facere tuae patriae potestis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, singular verbs and singular pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Noli quaerere quid tibi tua patria facere potest, sed quid facere tuae patriae potes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is only a suggestion, because it might just be nitpicking. I think that yours might be fine as is. I would probably choose your version, or the second version that I gave." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="cedf0d77-9e48-40bc-a6f8-d93ce05a677c" CreationDate="2017-03-10T03:53:49.487" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 164 characters in body" Text="I think it is correct. My only suggestion is to be more consistent with singular and plural. Either using &quot;nolite&quot; and &quot;potestis&quot; along with &quot;vobis&quot;, or substituting &quot;tibi&quot; for &quot;vobis&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a version with singular verbs and singular pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Noli quaerere quid facere tibi tua patria potest, sed quid facere tuae patriae potes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I might be nitpicking. Yours might be even better!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your reading of the sentence is correct. &quot;Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="6bcee7a9-ed0c-41aa-b958-bed1e6f07ad2" CreationDate="2017-03-10T03:55:21.060" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 164 characters in body" Text="I think it is correct. My only suggestion is to be more consistent with singular and plural. Either using &quot;nolite&quot; and &quot;potestis&quot; along with &quot;vobis&quot;, or substituting &quot;tibi&quot; for &quot;vobis&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a version with plural verbs and plural pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nolite quaerere quid facere vobis tua patria potest, sed quid facere tuae patriae potestis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your reading of the sentence is correct. &quot;Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="1cd3ce47-a5b6-4ee7-a0a7-3de5ea0ee167" CreationDate="2017-03-10T04:24:55.697" UserId="235" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I think it is correct. My only suggestion is to be more consistent with singular and plural. Either using &quot;nolite&quot; and &quot;potestis&quot; along with &quot;vobis&quot;, or substituting &quot;tibi&quot; for &quot;vobis&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a version with plural verbs and plural pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nolite quaerere quid facere vobis vestra patria potest, sed quid facere vestrae patriae potestis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your reading of the sentence is correct. &quot;Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="42522a0a-90c1-4cc3-8f0d-9d39abb0e318" CreationDate="2017-03-10T04:32:19.903" UserId="235" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="@cnread correctly points out that the verbs inside the indirect questions must be subjunctive. The two instances of &quot;quid&quot; introduce indirect questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also made the verbs and pronouns plural. I think this is more consistent with your use of &quot;vobis&quot;, and perhaps with the original Kennedy quote as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my revised version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nolite quaerere quid facere vobis vestra patria possit, sed quid facere vestrae patriae possitis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the other part, your reading is correct. &quot;Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2841" RevisionGUID="86202df7-91f3-4a36-af9d-b47a2cc43bf8" CreationDate="2017-03-10T07:55:44.377" UserId="79" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="I previously asked [about indicating a question in writing](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2770/79), and I got interested in how questions were recognized in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;To know if a question mark would be used after a question, one should probably know whether or not such sentences were recognized in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;Certainly the concept of a question was known to the Romans, but I want to know whether they made a formal distinction between a declarative and interrogative sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When did grammarians first recognize a question as a type of a sentence?&#xD;&#xA;Was it discussed from the very beginning of grammatical literature, or was such classification of sentences a later development?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in Latin, but if there is something relevant in Greek literature, feel free to share it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2846" RevisionGUID="7d5384c7-f31e-46cb-838f-50a3a46e78d2" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:40:44.587" UserId="79" Text="Having read [the recent meta discussion](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/263/79) concerning the tag [tag:vocabulary] and remembering that [we prefer to have our tags in Latin](http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/80/79), I started to wonder how one might translate the word &quot;vocabulary&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good translation and why?&#xD;&#xA;I want to translate it in the context of tagging on this site.&#xD;&#xA;That is, if someone wants to learn Latin vocabulary, how could they describe their desire in Latin using a word or phrase that means &quot;vocabulary&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The obvious choice is *vocabularium* and it would make sense as a derivative, but it's not in Lewis and Short.&#xD;&#xA;A similar word, [*glossarium*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DG%3Aentry+group%3D11%3Aentry%3Dglossarium), can be found, but it seems to have an unsuitable nuance: [*glossa*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DG%3Aentry+group%3D11%3Aentry%3Dglossa) means &quot;an obsolete or foreign word that requires explanation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;My current preference is *vocabularium* (cf. [*vocabulum*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DV%3Aentry+group%3D25%3Aentry%3Dvocabulum) in L&amp;S), but I'm not at all convinced that this is the optimal choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10174" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2846" RevisionGUID="7d5384c7-f31e-46cb-838f-50a3a46e78d2" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:40:44.587" UserId="79" Text="What is &quot;vocabulary&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10175" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2846" RevisionGUID="7d5384c7-f31e-46cb-838f-50a3a46e78d2" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:40:44.587" UserId="79" Text="|translation|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2847" RevisionGUID="0f9d6019-f862-4e19-b5ac-285207db40ea" CreationDate="2017-03-10T11:33:00.967" UserId="645" Text="The word 'vocabulary' is derived from *vocabulum*, meaning a word specific to some particular thing, as distinct from *verbum*, which is the word in general, and *dictum*, the spoken word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero (*de Oratore* 3.XXXI.125) clearly uses *copia verborum* to mean 'vocabulary':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*rerum copia verborum copiam gignit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2848" RevisionGUID="434cbce6-070f-4223-bcae-bf8ede3fc6d9" CreationDate="2017-03-10T14:38:32.293" UserId="78" Text="I think the tag should remain in English for clarity's sake. Phrases like *copiae verborum* means more &quot;one's personal vocabulary&quot; rather than a discussion of, dare I say, specific words. &quot;Vocabulary&quot; for our sense, for the tag's sense, isn't really that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were we to go ahead and have a Latin word for it, *index verborum* would be understood. Other Romans chose Greek words, like *glossarium* (Gell. 18.7), *thesaurus* (Plin. praef. § 17), or *onomasticon*. I think *glossarium* or *onomasticon* would work best, with the former having a nice visual metaphor: as glossaries were used to &quot;translate&quot; obscure Latin words, so we here explain Latin words that a user might not understand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="0f64032c-3dba-4c5a-839c-0159e6b4021d" CreationDate="2017-03-10T17:53:44.023" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="@cnread correctly points out that the verbs inside the indirect questions must be subjunctive. The two instances of &quot;quid&quot; introduce indirect questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also made the verbs plural. I think this is more consistent with your use of &quot;vobis&quot;, and perhaps with the original Kennedy quote as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my revised version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nolite quaerere quid facere vobis vestra patria possit, sed quid facere vestrae patriae possitis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the other part, your reading is correct. &quot;Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10181" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2842" RevisionGUID="ed356eb5-6b58-4ad7-8566-18b9f18e79d0" CreationDate="2017-03-10T19:50:36.797" UserId="235" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|adjective|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10182" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1943" RevisionGUID="e43171c4-c06d-413c-96af-e4fb5a073222" CreationDate="2017-03-10T21:28:57.190" UserId="12" Comment="21" />
  <row Id="10183" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="675" RevisionGUID="46d205a5-c664-41df-b0ce-293a25484741" CreationDate="2017-03-10T21:30:05.400" UserId="12" Comment="22" />
  <row Id="10184" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1966" RevisionGUID="8fa5e633-eee3-42ff-b700-e0be8b32a56e" CreationDate="2017-03-10T21:40:47.483" UserId="79" Comment="23" />
  <row Id="10185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="eebbcbe7-939a-4ed3-b7a4-760b23c9e9b9" CreationDate="2017-03-10T21:59:01.127" UserId="235" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="@cnread correctly points out that the verbs inside the indirect questions must be subjunctive. The two instances of &quot;quid&quot; introduce indirect questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also made the verbs plural. I think this is more consistent with your use of &quot;vobis&quot;, and perhaps with the original Kennedy quote as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my revised version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nolite quaerere quid facere pro vobis vestra patria possit, sed quid facere pro vestra patria possitis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the other part, your reading is correct. &quot;Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="2cb4d9cf-675b-4efc-a834-0a3f91fa01e5" CreationDate="2017-03-10T22:10:31.843" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="@cnread correctly points out that the verbs inside the indirect questions must be subjunctive. The two instances of &quot;quid&quot; introduce indirect questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also made the verbs plural. I think this is more consistent with your use of &quot;vobis&quot;, and perhaps with the original Kennedy quote as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a revised version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nolite quaerere quid facere pro vobis vestra patria possit, sed quid facere pro vestra patria possitis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the other part, your reading is correct. &quot;Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2849" RevisionGUID="dba7551a-d981-4f18-952c-125844cff427" CreationDate="2017-03-10T23:44:48.460" UserId="235" Text="Inspired by [this question,][1] I'm interested to know what is the best Attic Greek word for &quot;vocabulary&quot;. I thought about θησαυρός, but I'm not sure this is best. I feel like there may also be a word based on γλῶσσα, but there are so many words formed from this root that I wouldn't know where to start. Similarly, I wouldn't be surprised to find a word meaning &quot;vocabulary&quot; based on λόγος.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I pose the question to you: Which Attic Greek word is best suited to mean &quot;vocabulary&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2846/what-is-vocabulary-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10188" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2849" RevisionGUID="dba7551a-d981-4f18-952c-125844cff427" CreationDate="2017-03-10T23:44:48.460" UserId="235" Text="What is &quot;vocabulary&quot; in Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10189" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2849" RevisionGUID="dba7551a-d981-4f18-952c-125844cff427" CreationDate="2017-03-10T23:44:48.460" UserId="235" Text="|translation|vocabulary|greek|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2850" RevisionGUID="a013bae7-d5b8-4e24-b1eb-dc24d41da488" CreationDate="2017-03-11T00:14:31.313" UserId="78" Text="I think thinking about it in relation to the English word might be helpful. We also have an underworld connotation to the word &quot;shade.&quot; *Shades of Stalin!* And yet, though that exists, we never make that connection when we talk about the &quot;pleasant shade of a tree.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in slang, kids started using &quot;throwing shade&quot; at someone, i.e. putting them down/insulting them. There too both shadows and ghosts are entirely absent from that usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, it's possible for a Latin author to make a pun, like your *nemus umbrosum* example, but it's definitely not necessary to always think there's a pun, especially since meaning (2) is not the primary meaning, but a developed, metaphorical meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What helps solidify disassociating the two is the near (total?) absence of prose uses of *umbrae* as &quot;ghosts.&quot; At least [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=umbra&amp;la=la#lexicon) note that it was poetical and made its way into prose rather late. The closest you get (looking at the OLD now) is Cic. *Rab*. *Post*. 41, but that's even closer to the English &quot;shadow&quot; than the dead *umbra*, in that he's not literally dead. Livy appears to be the earliest prose use of it as a synonym for *manes*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these seems to me to suggest reading the two meanings in the opposite way. It's not so much that a shady place is good for ghosts, but that ghosts are shadowy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2851" RevisionGUID="f100741c-38e3-4a64-bd03-ca259674072c" CreationDate="2017-03-11T01:10:40.877" UserId="40" Text="I'm not sure if you're asking for alternative translations or just want to know if your translation is correct, but if the former, here's a looser, but I think more idiomatic, version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non quid patria tibi sed quid tu patriae prosis consulendum est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is using *prosum* + dat. &quot;be of service to&quot; to capture the &quot;do for&quot; of the English, and instead of an imperative &quot;ask&quot; I used the gerundive *consulendum est* &quot;it is to be considered, one should consider&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="31d59a43-e781-404f-92c2-c86814e0d5cd" CreationDate="2017-03-11T01:15:04.850" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="@cnread correctly points out that the verbs inside the indirect questions must be subjunctive. The two instances of &quot;quid&quot; introduce indirect questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also made the verbs plural. I think this is more consistent with your use of &quot;vobis&quot;, and perhaps with the original Kennedy quote as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a revised version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nolite quaerere quid facere pro vobis patria possit, sed quid facere pro patria vos possitis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the other part, your reading is correct. &quot;Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10193" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="2588" RevisionGUID="6a4ab534-185a-4551-8a07-9d2bcc937695" CreationDate="2017-03-11T01:22:01.247" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="10194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2852" RevisionGUID="d063ca21-6668-47a0-bc5d-c5fc173b76fb" CreationDate="2017-03-11T01:27:41.210" UserId="40" Text="Your guesses are very close: Greek terms for &quot;vocabulary&quot; or &quot;glossary&quot; are λέξεις and γλῶσσαι (both nominative plurals).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On [λέξις](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dle%2Fcis), LSJ says:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gramm., a word peculiar in form or signification: hence λέξεις is the older term for a glossary, Ῥοδιακαὶ λέξεις a glossary of Rhodian phrases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and on [γλῶσσα](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=glw%3Dssa&amp;la=greek&amp;can=glw%3Dssa0&amp;prior=le/ceis#lexicon):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obsolete or foreign word, which needs explanation, Arist. Rh.1410b12, Po.1457b4, Plu.2.406f: hence Γλῶσσαι, title of works by Philemon and others&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lexicon of grammatical terms in Eleanor Dickey's *Ancient Greek Scholarship* implies something similar, defining γλῶσσα as &quot;dialect, language, obsolete or dialectal word&quot; and λέξις as &quot;word, phrase, speech, diction, style, peculiar word (hence λέξεις 'glossary'), text of an author (as opposed to commentary)&quot;. So it seems that of the two, insofar as there was a difference in usage, λέξεις may have been the more general term for &quot;vocabulary&quot;, and γλῶσσαι a more specific term for vocabulary consisting of obscure words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2853" RevisionGUID="d6fba9af-80c2-4393-aea8-f42db39e342e" CreationDate="2017-03-11T03:05:08.583" UserId="40" Text="A possible construction (I think more likely than *quam*) would be the accusative of exclamation ([Allen and Greenough 397d](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-397.html)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O morbidum!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is assuming a neuter (or masculine) referent. But you could add a specific noun, e.g. *O morbidam fabulam* &quot;What a morbid story!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably there are better choices than *morbidus*, which L&amp;S [call](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmorbidus) &quot;rare and only ante-class. and post-Aug.&quot;, but I'm not sure what they are (especially without more context)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2854" RevisionGUID="baf2c93b-c0af-4ebc-89cf-a6e629157c30" CreationDate="2017-03-11T03:25:58.893" UserId="40" Text="I think the simplest choice is just the neuter plural *verba*. There's no reason to stick too closely to the English *vocabulary* and look for a singular noun with a collective meaning, which doesn't seem to exist in Latin. Questions tagged with [tag:vocabulary] are those that are about (specific) words, as distinct from grammar etc., so in the context of the site, if you're asking such a question, you are asking about *verba*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2855" RevisionGUID="08aa6ebf-9ec7-4c17-8c98-22008dcf01d7" CreationDate="2017-03-11T13:26:34.000" UserId="324" Text="What about &quot;lexicon&quot; as per:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;λεξικόν (sc. βιβλίον), = λέξεις (v. λέξις 11.3), AB1094, Phot. tit. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2856" RevisionGUID="278e563f-6c2a-4bbc-aa00-2ee21220aaba" CreationDate="2017-03-11T20:01:55.007" UserId="243" Text="I'm enquiring about the translation of this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I ordered the soldier, who was walking in the garden, to collect flowers&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using 'imperare' as the verb to order, my question is whether 'walking' should go into the subjunctive or indicative, i.e. 'ambulabat', or 'ambularet'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand, 'soldier' is the subject of the indirect command clause in Latin, which would suggest the subjunctive, but it's also the indirect object in the main clause, which would be the indicative. My guess would have been indicative, but the exercise I'm doing gives the answer as subjunctive. Which one is right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10200" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2856" RevisionGUID="278e563f-6c2a-4bbc-aa00-2ee21220aaba" CreationDate="2017-03-11T20:01:55.007" UserId="243" Text="Using subjunctive in relative clause linked to indirect command" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10201" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2856" RevisionGUID="278e563f-6c2a-4bbc-aa00-2ee21220aaba" CreationDate="2017-03-11T20:01:55.007" UserId="243" Text="|translation|conjunctive|relative-clause|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2857" RevisionGUID="d6ad261f-9b26-4467-ba82-5959bdd59cb7" CreationDate="2017-03-11T20:17:11.957" UserId="1224" Text="With a specified subject or object, it's easy to say &quot;this&quot; or &quot;that.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This picture is of my dream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Haec pictura somnii mei est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what if the noun being described is not present?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quid ... est?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a noun is not specified, how is a demonstrative declined? If this is possible, are there any Classical examples? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10203" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2857" RevisionGUID="d6ad261f-9b26-4467-ba82-5959bdd59cb7" CreationDate="2017-03-11T20:17:11.957" UserId="1224" Text="What gender would &quot;this&quot; or &quot;that&quot; be in if there is no subject to describe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10204" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2857" RevisionGUID="d6ad261f-9b26-4467-ba82-5959bdd59cb7" CreationDate="2017-03-11T20:17:11.957" UserId="1224" Text="|classical-latin|declension|demonstrative-adjective|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2858" RevisionGUID="9a2785e3-2a71-4565-a29a-edade497dbf2" CreationDate="2017-03-11T20:23:49.167" UserId="78" Text="In your sentence, I do not see an indirect object. Do you mean something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic sentence structure can broken down into three component parts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *imperavi*, &quot;I ordered&quot; - main clause, indicative&#xD;&#xA;2. *ut miles flores conligat*, &quot;the soldier to collect flowers&quot; - indirect command, subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;3. *qui in horto ambulet* - relative clause *inside* the indirect command, also subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last should be subjunctive because the antecedent of the relative is inside a subjunctive clause (the indirect command). Check out Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge [§628](https://books.google.com/books?id=jo1iAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA402&amp;lpg=PA402#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) for other examples. That said, you can and will see it in the indicative in there as well, and the next section in G&amp;L has some examples of that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2858" RevisionGUID="17cc11ea-3806-4944-aa64-8fcec314576e" CreationDate="2017-03-11T20:31:40.857" UserId="78" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="In your sentence, I do not see an indirect object. Do you mean something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic sentence structure can broken down into three component parts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *imperavi*, &quot;I ordered&quot; - main clause, indicative&#xD;&#xA;2. *ut miles flores conligeret*, &quot;the soldier to collect flowers&quot; - indirect command, subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;3. *qui in horto ambularet* - relative clause *inside* the indirect command, also subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last should be subjunctive because the antecedent of the relative is inside a subjunctive clause (the indirect command). Check out Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge [§628](https://books.google.com/books?id=jo1iAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA402&amp;lpg=PA402#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) for other examples. That said, you can and will see it in the indicative in there as well, and the next section in G&amp;L has some examples of that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2856" RevisionGUID="c583d4fe-c287-48fa-bbae-d67b82f33425" CreationDate="2017-03-11T20:44:14.357" UserId="243" Comment="Added translation" Text="I'm enquiring about the translation of this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I ordered the soldier, who was walking in the garden, to collect flowers&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using 'imperare' as the verb to order, my question is whether 'walking' should go into the subjunctive or indicative, i.e. 'ambulabat', or 'ambularet', thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Militi imperavi, qui in horto ambularet/ambulabat, ut flores colligeret.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand, 'soldier' is the subject of the indirect command clause in Latin, which would suggest the subjunctive, but it's also the indirect object in the main clause, which would be the indicative. My guess would have been indicative, but the exercise I'm doing gives the answer as subjunctive. Which one is right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2858" RevisionGUID="d4c4b2bd-b096-4b26-a6b0-d7ef0bfc46df" CreationDate="2017-03-11T20:51:18.797" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 212 characters in body" Text="The basic sentence structure can broken down into three component parts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *imperavi militi*, &quot;I ordered&quot; - main clause, indicative&#xD;&#xA;2. *ut flores conligeret*, &quot;the soldier to collect flowers&quot; - indirect command, subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;3. *qui in horto ambularet* - relative clause *inside* the indirect command, also subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inside the *ut flores conligeret* is another subject, the subject of the verb. It's off that subject that I presume your exercise is leaning toward subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I'm looking for examples that correlate perfectly with your question. That may take some time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2858" RevisionGUID="86f47edf-3561-4baf-a39b-58ff8f7fee24" CreationDate="2017-03-11T21:03:17.140" UserId="78" Comment="added 459 characters in body" Text="The basic sentence structure can broken down into three component parts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *imperavi militi*, &quot;I ordered&quot; - main clause, indicative&#xD;&#xA;2. *ut flores conligeret*, &quot;the soldier to collect flowers&quot; - indirect command, subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;3. *qui in horto ambularet* - relative clause *inside* the indirect command, also subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inside the *ut flores conligeret* is another subject, the subject of the verb. It's off that subject that I presume your exercise is leaning toward subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we look at some similar examples, we find in Caesar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Senatus censuit, uti, quicumque Galliam provinciam obtineret, Aeduos defenderet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not *imperare*, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, if you look at Gildersleeve and Lodge [§628](https://books.google.com/books?id=jo1iAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA402&amp;lpg=PA402#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) at the end, you find examples where it does not go into subjunctive. I think here could be one of those parts, if you so wished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also use a different verb (like *censeo*) that doesn't introduce the ambiguity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2858" RevisionGUID="ef54c985-6de4-4961-b48b-c9d2d9c45fed" CreationDate="2017-03-11T21:28:36.230" UserId="78" Comment="added 599 characters in body" Text="The basic sentence structure can broken down into three component parts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *imperavi militi*, &quot;I ordered&quot; - main clause, indicative&#xD;&#xA;2. *ut flores conligeret*, &quot;the soldier to collect flowers&quot; - indirect command, subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;3. *qui in horto ambulabat/ambularet* - relative clause *inside* the indirect command, also subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inside the *ut flores conligeret* is another subject, the subject of the verb. It's off that subject that I presume your exercise is leaning toward subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if we look at some similar examples, we find in Caesar the indicative here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; L. Domitio Ap. Claudio consulibus discedens ab hibernis Caesar in Italiam, ut quotannis facere consuerat,	**legatis imperat quos legionibus praefecerat**, uti quam plurimas possent hieme naves aedificandas veteresque reficiendas curarent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lucius Domitius and Appius Claudius being consuls [54 B.C.], Caesar, when departing from his winter quarters into Italy, as he had been accustomed to do yearly, **commands the lieutenants whom he appointed over the legions** to take care that during the winter as many ships as possible should be built, and the old repaired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, if you look at Gildersleeve and Lodge [§628](https://books.google.com/books?id=jo1iAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA402&amp;lpg=PA402#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) at the end, you find examples where it does not go into subjunctive. I think here could be one of those parts, if you so wished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also use a different verb (like *censeo*) that doesn't introduce the ambiguity, or, if you're intent on keeping *imperare*, turn the relative clause into a participle: *militi in horto ambulanti ut...*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2859" RevisionGUID="76a2930e-708d-42e2-9bcb-84ed71158f64" CreationDate="2017-03-11T21:59:23.880" UserId="235" Text="To complete your example, it would be,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid est hoc? *What is this?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because &quot;what&quot; is neuter, whereas &quot;who&quot; could be masculine or feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The demonstratives (*hic*, *ille*, *iste*, and *is*) can be used as either pronouns or adjectives. You can read about their paradigms on [section 146][1] of Allen and Greenough, and their uses on [section 296][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When demonstratives are used as substantives, which is the scenario you speak of, the gender and number are determined by context. Allen and Greenough give some examples from Caesar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sī obsidēs ab **eīs** dentur (Bellum Gallicum 1.14)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if hostages should be given by them &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the above example, Caesar is at war, so it's only natural that &quot;them&quot; refers to male soldiers. Thus it makes sense that the plural masculine is used. However, this sadly does not make a difference, since the plural is equivalent in masc./fem./neut. for the ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Hī** sunt extrā prōvinciam trāns Rhodanum prīmī. (Bellum Gallicum 1.10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These (men/people) are the first (inhabitants) from the province across the Rhone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Above, the masculine plural is used. The demonstrative pronoun *Hi* refers to men, or men and women. When you are referring to men and women it is common to use the masculine plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ille** minimum propter adulescentiam posset (Bellum Gallicum 1.20)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He could do little on account of his youth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Above, the demonstrative *ille* is used more like a personal pronoun. It means &quot;he&quot;. This use of the demonstrative as personal is quite common. You can think of it as, *that (man) = he*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, let's look at a famous Latin phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ad hoc (&quot;for this&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase *ad hoc* uses the neuter pronoun because it refers to a thing, task, or purpose, as opposed to a person. This idea of a thing or task is often expressed by the neuter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that's clear. Gender and number are determined by context, in the case where demonstratives are used substantively. Sometimes there is an implied noun, such as one expressed in the previous sentence or clause, and then the demonstrative will get its gender and number from the implied noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/demonstrative-pronouns-paradigms&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/demonstrative-pronouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2825" RevisionGUID="d14b10f7-7e7c-426f-ad27-89928ba21bb4" CreationDate="2017-03-11T23:56:25.453" UserId="40" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately -- or fortunately, depending on your point of view -- &quot;Attic reduplication&quot; is one of the many irregular areas of Greek morphology which can only be understood by going back to Proto-Indo-European. Here's a short version of the probable answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PIE *h₂ke-h₂kows-h₂e &gt; akākowsa &gt; akākowa &gt; akēkoa&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a perfect form of the root *h₂kews- &quot;hear&quot; (which actually also gives us the English verb *hear*!). The rule for perfect formation in PIE was to place the root in the pattern Ce-CoC-, where Ce- reduplicates the initial consonant of the root, and add the perfect endings. But, each of those C's can stand for more than one consonant: if the root began with two consonants, as here *h₂k, both of those could be reduplicated, hence *h₂ke-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now apply the following regular sound changes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Initial *h₂ before a consonant &gt; a&#xD;&#xA; - *h₂e &gt; a&#xD;&#xA; - *eh₂ &gt; ā &gt; Attic-Ionic η&#xD;&#xA; - intervocalic *s is lost&#xD;&#xA; - intervocalic *w* is lost (in Attic-Ionic and many other dialects)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... and you get ἀκήκοα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that there is some debate both about the etymology of this particular verb and the origin of Attic reduplication generally, but the above seems to be the majority opinion.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The explanation for other such verbs, like those in Mastronarde's table, is similar, except with different laryngeals: *h₁ for verbs with ε/η, *h₃ for verbs with ο/ω." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2859" RevisionGUID="f5146c1d-ed99-45e0-8376-aaea7107f1da" CreationDate="2017-03-12T01:52:41.497" UserId="235" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="To complete your example, it would be,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid est hoc? *What is this?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because &quot;what&quot; is neuter, whereas &quot;who&quot; could be masculine or feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The demonstratives (*hic*, *ille*, *iste*, and *is*) can be used as either pronouns or adjectives. You can read about their paradigms on [section 146][1] of Allen and Greenough, and their uses on [section 296][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When demonstratives are used as substantives, which is the scenario you speak of, the gender and number are determined by context. Allen and Greenough give some examples from Caesar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sī obsidēs ab **eīs** dentur (Bellum Gallicum 1.14)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if hostages should be given by them &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the above example, Caesar is at war, so it's only natural that &quot;them&quot; refers to male soldiers. Thus it makes sense that the plural masculine is used. However, this sadly does not make a difference, since the plural is equivalent in masc./fem./neut. for the ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Hī** sunt extrā prōvinciam trāns Rhodanum prīmī. (Bellum Gallicum 1.10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These (men/people) are the first (inhabitants) beyond the province across the Rhone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Above, the masculine plural is used. The demonstrative pronoun *Hi* refers to men, or men and women. When you are referring to men and women it is common to use the masculine plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ille** minimum propter adulescentiam posset (Bellum Gallicum 1.20)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He could do little on account of his youth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Above, the demonstrative *ille* is used more like a personal pronoun. It means &quot;he&quot;. This use of the demonstrative as personal is quite common. You can think of it as, *that (man) = he*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, let's look at a famous Latin phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ad hoc (&quot;for this&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase *ad hoc* uses the neuter pronoun because it refers to a thing, task, or purpose, as opposed to a person. This idea of a thing or task is often expressed by the neuter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that's clear. Gender and number are determined by context, in the case where demonstratives are used substantively. Sometimes there is an implied noun, such as one expressed in the previous sentence or clause, and then the demonstrative will get its gender and number from the implied noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/demonstrative-pronouns-paradigms&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/demonstrative-pronouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2860" RevisionGUID="2a52d710-2eef-4850-8c7f-1a8615f2f6bb" CreationDate="2017-03-12T02:49:56.173" UserId="406" Text="Suppose I'd like to invoke a deity for mild profanity: the equivalent of &quot;yes, by Zeus!&quot; or &quot;no, by Zeus!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that in Attic, *μά* + accusative was fairly neutral; a simple *μὰ τὸν Δία*, possibly augmented by other particles for nuance, would serve my purposes. But what if I want a stronger or more emphatic (or florid) oath? Or what if I would like to swear in a dialect other than Attic? What other options do I have?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(E.g. *νή*, *ναὶ μά*, other more interesting alternatives)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10215" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2860" RevisionGUID="2a52d710-2eef-4850-8c7f-1a8615f2f6bb" CreationDate="2017-03-12T02:49:56.173" UserId="406" Text="How to swear by a god?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10216" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2860" RevisionGUID="2a52d710-2eef-4850-8c7f-1a8615f2f6bb" CreationDate="2017-03-12T02:49:56.173" UserId="406" Text="|greek|particle|religio|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2861" RevisionGUID="59f19b28-3922-4891-a464-78447d4cbf09" CreationDate="2017-03-12T19:19:08.370" UserId="79" Text="This answer only concerns Latin; I will leave Greek to others.&#xD;&#xA;Vocative is not the way to go here.&#xD;&#xA;It is used for addressing the god, not for such exclamations.&#xD;&#xA;(At least I have never seen it in such use.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would swear using *pro* and a nominative.&#xD;&#xA;*Pro dolor!*&#xD;&#xA;*Pro Iuppiter!*&#xD;&#xA;See, for example, [these search results for the second phrase](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=pro+iuppiter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is *per* with accusative, but I am hesitant to use it alone and it does have a different tone.&#xD;&#xA;Plautus &amp;mdash; in at least *Menaechmi*, *Miles Gloriosus*, and *Amphitruo* &amp;mdash; uses the expression *per Iovem (ad)iuro*, &quot;I swear by Iuppiter&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You can drop the verb to get &quot;by Iuppiter!&quot;, *per Iovem!*.&#xD;&#xA;I found no attestations of this without a verb, but it would make sense to me as an elliptic exclamation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to swear by Hercules, there is a separate word: *meherc(u)le*.&#xD;&#xA;Repeat the linked search for these words to find examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2862" RevisionGUID="f3f6d898-0ac2-4c82-a14b-2eb9724b21ee" CreationDate="2017-03-12T19:50:05.790" UserId="79" Text="The word *verbum* means &quot;word&quot;, but I want to find out whether it can also have the more specific meaning &quot;verb&quot; (as opposed to other kinds of words).&#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short does not list &quot;verb&quot; among translations of *verbum*, but one of my dictionaries does.&#xD;&#xA;What is more important than dictionary entries, Varro uses *verbum* clearly in the sense of &quot;verb&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De his Aristoteles orationis duas partes esse dicit: vocabula et verba, ut 'homo' et 'equus', et 'legit' et 'currit'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cum de his nomen sit primum (prius enim nomen est quam verbum temporale et reliqua posterius quam nomen et verbum), prima igitur nomina: quare de eorum declinatione quam de verborum ante dicam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Varro, [De lingua Latina 8](http://thelatinlibrary.com/varro.ll8.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One English translation can be found [here](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/varro-latin_language/1938/pb_LCL334.381.xml).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how often verbum* means &quot;verb&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;**Is this meaning restricted to Varro?**&#xD;&#xA;**Do other classical or later authors use it in this sense?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some backstory:&#xD;&#xA;I asked about translating the word [&quot;vocabulary&quot;](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2846/79) for the purpose of tagging, and some of the suggestions involved the word *verbum*.&#xD;&#xA;I dislike the idea of using it for tagging, as it is so prone to misunderstanding.&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not it means &quot;verb&quot; in Latin, it is close to the verb word in many languages.&#xD;&#xA;And to some extent at least it does also mean &quot;verb&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of this question is to find what that extent is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Years ago I was in contact with an elderly Finnish Latinist who was regarded as one of the most fluent Latinists to have ever lived in Finland.&#xD;&#xA;One time he read a letter I had brought him out loud (as the email had not made it to him), and he corrected one word as he read:&#xD;&#xA;I had used *verbum* to mean &quot;word&quot;, but he corrected it to *vox*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, let me remark that no Latin word seems to mean &quot;word&quot; without some added nuance.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that *verbum* is among the best general translations, but is not a perfect match with the English &quot;word&quot;, either.&#xD;&#xA;But usually one of *verbum*, *vox*, *vocabulum*, *glossa*, or *dictum* will do the trick.&#xD;&#xA;(And perhaps I'm still missing a word or two.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10220" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2862" RevisionGUID="f3f6d898-0ac2-4c82-a14b-2eb9724b21ee" CreationDate="2017-03-12T19:50:05.790" UserId="79" Text="Does verbum also mean verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10221" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2862" RevisionGUID="f3f6d898-0ac2-4c82-a14b-2eb9724b21ee" CreationDate="2017-03-12T19:50:05.790" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|verbs|grammarians|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2862" RevisionGUID="1b80eb5d-c33d-4583-ae78-7407982e13c4" CreationDate="2017-03-12T19:55:17.493" UserId="79" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="The word *verbum* means &quot;word&quot;, but I want to find out whether it can also have the more specific meaning &quot;verb&quot; (as opposed to other kinds of words).&#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short does not list &quot;verb&quot; among translations of *verbum*, but one of my dictionaries does.&#xD;&#xA;What is more important than dictionary entries, Varro uses *verbum* clearly in the sense of &quot;verb&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De his Aristoteles orationis duas partes esse dicit: vocabula et verba, ut 'homo' et 'equus', et 'legit' et 'currit'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cum de his nomen sit primum (prius enim nomen est quam verbum temporale et reliqua posterius quam nomen et verbum), prima igitur nomina: quare de eorum declinatione quam de verborum ante dicam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Varro, [De lingua Latina 8](http://thelatinlibrary.com/varro.ll8.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One English translation can be found [here](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/varro-latin_language/1938/pb_LCL334.381.xml).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how often verbum* means &quot;verb&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;**Is this meaning restricted to Varro?**&#xD;&#xA;**Do other classical or later authors use it in this sense?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some backstory (feel free to skip):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked about translating the word [&quot;vocabulary&quot;](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2846/79) for the purpose of tagging, and some of the suggestions involved the word *verbum*.&#xD;&#xA;I dislike the idea of using it for tagging, as it is so prone to misunderstanding.&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not it means &quot;verb&quot; in Latin, it is close to the verb word in many languages.&#xD;&#xA;And to some extent at least it does also mean &quot;verb&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of this question is to find what that extent is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Years ago I was in contact with an elderly Finnish Latinist who was regarded as one of the most fluent Latinists to have ever lived in Finland.&#xD;&#xA;One time he read a letter I had brought him out loud (as the email had not made it to him), and he corrected one word as he read:&#xD;&#xA;I had used *verbum* to mean &quot;word&quot;, but he corrected it to *vox*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, let me remark that no Latin word seems to mean &quot;word&quot; without some added nuance.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that *verbum* is among the best general translations, but is not a perfect match with the English &quot;word&quot;, either.&#xD;&#xA;But usually one of *verbum*, *vox*, *vocabulum*, *glossa*, or *dictum* will do the trick.&#xD;&#xA;(And perhaps I'm still missing a word or two.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2860" RevisionGUID="db71e103-eff5-4e36-b102-1cf1d7f3be76" CreationDate="2017-03-12T20:45:38.260" UserId="79" Comment="Lifted Latin to the body and tags from the comments." Text="Suppose I'd like to invoke a deity for mild profanity: the equivalent of &quot;yes, by Zeus!&quot; or &quot;no, by Zeus!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that in Attic, *μά* + accusative was fairly neutral; a simple *μὰ τὸν Δία*, possibly augmented by other particles for nuance, would serve my purposes. But what if I want a stronger or more emphatic (or florid) oath? Or what if I would like to swear in a dialect other than Attic? What other options do I have?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(E.g. *νή*, *ναὶ μά*, other more interesting alternatives)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm primarily asking about Greek, though Latin would be good to know as well. (To my understanding in Latin you just use the vocative of their name?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10224" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2860" RevisionGUID="db71e103-eff5-4e36-b102-1cf1d7f3be76" CreationDate="2017-03-12T20:45:38.260" UserId="79" Comment="Lifted Latin to the body and tags from the comments." Text="|classical-latin|greek|particle|religio|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2861" RevisionGUID="1da02f44-75d8-4508-8641-ee34d8db57c1" CreationDate="2017-03-12T21:17:07.510" UserId="79" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="This answer only concerns Latin; I will leave Greek to others.&#xD;&#xA;Vocative is not the way to go here.&#xD;&#xA;It is used for addressing the god, not for such exclamations.&#xD;&#xA;(At least I have never seen it in such use.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would swear using *pro* and a nominative.&#xD;&#xA;*Pro dolor!*&#xD;&#xA;*Pro Iuppiter!*&#xD;&#xA;See, for example, [these search results for the second phrase](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=pro+iuppiter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is *per* with accusative, but I am hesitant to use it alone and it does have a different tone.&#xD;&#xA;Plautus &amp;mdash; in at least *Menaechmi*, *Miles Gloriosus*, and *Amphitruo* &amp;mdash; uses the expression *per Iovem (ad)iuro*, &quot;I swear by Iuppiter&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You can drop the verb to get &quot;by Iuppiter!&quot;, *per Iovem!*.&#xD;&#xA;I found no attestations of this without a verb, but it would make sense to me as an elliptic exclamation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to swear by Hercules, there is a separate word: *meherc(u)le*.&#xD;&#xA;Repeat the linked search for these words to find examples.&#xD;&#xA;There are also separate words for Castor and Pollux as TKR reminded: *ecastor* and *edepol*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2863" RevisionGUID="81ca7dad-536b-409e-9296-d9ff32c96597" CreationDate="2017-03-13T01:39:07.583" UserId="1324" Text="From the genitive 'Delphōrum', it seems to belong to the second declension. But is it used as a singular or a plural?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10227" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2863" RevisionGUID="81ca7dad-536b-409e-9296-d9ff32c96597" CreationDate="2017-03-13T01:39:07.583" UserId="1324" Text="Is 'Delphī' a second declension word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10228" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2863" RevisionGUID="81ca7dad-536b-409e-9296-d9ff32c96597" CreationDate="2017-03-13T01:39:07.583" UserId="1324" Text="|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2864" RevisionGUID="99fd7b7c-6f54-4482-ad7c-13e006918b17" CreationDate="2017-03-13T02:08:52.407" UserId="235" Text="It is indeed a second declension word. It is used in the plural. You can confirm this on the Lewis and Short dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Delphi , orum, m., Δελφοί,][1] &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I.the famous city of the oracle of Apollo in Phocis, now Kastri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Understandably, the word comes from Greek, being a Greek city and all. The Greek word, Δελφοί, is also used in the plural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Δελφοί , ῶν, οἱ,][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A.Delphi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the Romans probably used the plural because the Greeks did themselves. This is true of many Greek cities. Ἀθῆναι &gt; Athenae &gt; Athens. Θῆβαι &gt; Thebae &gt; Thebes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DDelphi&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=*delfoi%2F&amp;la=greek&amp;can=*delfoi%2F0&amp;prior=Delphi#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2861" RevisionGUID="cb4c299f-616d-4870-9083-f4dccae44f7a" CreationDate="2017-03-13T06:49:05.413" UserId="79" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="This answer only concerns Latin; I will leave Greek to others.&#xD;&#xA;Vocative is not the way to go here.&#xD;&#xA;It is used for addressing the god, not for such exclamations.&#xD;&#xA;(At least I have never seen it in such use.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would swear using *pro* (or *proh*) and a nominative.&#xD;&#xA;*Pro dolor!*&#xD;&#xA;*Pro Iuppiter!*&#xD;&#xA;See, for example, [these search results for the second phrase](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=pro+iuppiter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is *per* with accusative, but I am hesitant to use it alone and it does have a different tone.&#xD;&#xA;Plautus &amp;mdash; in at least *Menaechmi*, *Miles Gloriosus*, and *Amphitruo* &amp;mdash; uses the expression *per Iovem (ad)iuro*, &quot;I swear by Iuppiter&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You can drop the verb to get &quot;by Iuppiter!&quot;, *per Iovem!*.&#xD;&#xA;I found no attestations of this without a verb, but it would make sense to me as an elliptic exclamation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to swear by Hercules, there is a separate word: *meherc(u)le*.&#xD;&#xA;Repeat the linked search for these words to find examples.&#xD;&#xA;There are also separate words for Castor and Pollux as TKR reminded: *ecastor* and *edepol*.&#xD;&#xA;Another similar fixed phrase, suggested by C. M. Weimer, is *(pro) di immortales*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10232" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2863" RevisionGUID="8c9e394e-9437-4822-9389-b581baeb3461" CreationDate="2017-03-13T06:53:17.040" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|declension|noun|place-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10233" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2741" RevisionGUID="5c2d6982-feb1-4eb4-96e4-9d6a32a815e5" CreationDate="2017-03-13T07:31:17.063" UserId="79" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:406,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Draconis&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1224,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Middle School Historian&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2865" RevisionGUID="80dfd6e7-33d7-4f49-9348-b3d87c7fc056" CreationDate="2017-03-13T08:00:42.037" UserId="79" Text="I am interested in translating the word &quot;then&quot; in logical statements like this: &quot;If a number is prime, then it is squarefree.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;In common language one would not use a &quot;then&quot; at all, but in mathematics (including logic) it is very common to emphasize the consequence with a &quot;then&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This logical &quot;then&quot; is not temporal but causal, and I have never seen it in ancient sources at all.&#xD;&#xA;I have not found this sense of &quot;then&quot; in Latin dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good translation of this &quot;then&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Was there a fixed phrase in the mathematical Latin of, say, 18th and 19th century?&#xD;&#xA;My intuition is to translate &quot;if&amp;ndash;then&quot; with *si&amp;ndash;deinde*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that Gauss does not use a &quot;then&quot; at all in [this example](http://thelatinlibrary.com/gauss.html).&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that the logical &quot;then&quot; was introduced after Latin went out of fashion in mathematics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10235" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2865" RevisionGUID="80dfd6e7-33d7-4f49-9348-b3d87c7fc056" CreationDate="2017-03-13T08:00:42.037" UserId="79" Text="The logical &quot;then&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10236" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2865" RevisionGUID="80dfd6e7-33d7-4f49-9348-b3d87c7fc056" CreationDate="2017-03-13T08:00:42.037" UserId="79" Text="|translation|conjunction|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2556" RevisionGUID="de35ec1e-334b-4ee3-b511-334dbe9b971f" CreationDate="2017-03-13T14:12:22.593" UserId="1224" Comment="I, well, kind of did some...things." Text="You could use the adjective *constans* to mean consistent and continuing. Alternatively, one could use *liquidus*. It primarily means liquid, but it can also be interpreted as flowing or without interruption. There's even *fluentus*, which is the Medieval Latin word for flowing, but mostly describes water. Personally, I would say *vehiculum constans* or *continuing vehicle*. I hope this was useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2866" RevisionGUID="c7b4d55f-c286-4eaf-80a8-752a551baea5" CreationDate="2017-03-13T19:17:30.187" UserId="235" Text="I have a very good guess about how to say &quot;perhaps&quot; or &quot;maybe&quot;. But I suspect there are several ways of saying it, with varying degrees of certainty. I wanted to get a better idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [fortasse][1] (also fortassis , but rarely, and not in Caes.; [...])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I.perhaps, peradventure, probably, possibly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is *fortasse* the best word to say &quot;maybe&quot; or &quot;perhaps&quot;? &#xD;&#xA; - Are *fortasse* and *fortassis* interchangeable? &#xD;&#xA; - What's the difference between *forte* and *fortasse*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=fortasse&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10246" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2866" RevisionGUID="c7b4d55f-c286-4eaf-80a8-752a551baea5" CreationDate="2017-03-13T19:17:30.187" UserId="235" Text="How do you say &quot;perhaps&quot; or &quot;maybe&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10247" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2866" RevisionGUID="c7b4d55f-c286-4eaf-80a8-752a551baea5" CreationDate="2017-03-13T19:17:30.187" UserId="235" Text="|word-comparison|word-choice|adverb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2867" RevisionGUID="3b4ebf3e-451f-48aa-90bb-a79573661c3e" CreationDate="2017-03-13T19:26:46.333" UserId="1224" Text="This may seem like a lame question without much thought, and it really is, but did any (mainly Classical because we're all brainwashed into believing that this is the optimal stage of Latin, but other ages accepted,) authors use words that sound alike to make a joke about their relationship? If this is too broad, and there are far too many notable examples available, feel free to flag or vote to close it. In an example, please include a brief explanation of the context and like words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10249" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2867" RevisionGUID="3b4ebf3e-451f-48aa-90bb-a79573661c3e" CreationDate="2017-03-13T19:26:46.333" UserId="1224" Text="Are there Latin puns?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10250" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2867" RevisionGUID="3b4ebf3e-451f-48aa-90bb-a79573661c3e" CreationDate="2017-03-13T19:26:46.333" UserId="1224" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2866" RevisionGUID="edea7abe-c3f8-4b12-9ccd-cf07365c6e84" CreationDate="2017-03-13T19:43:49.983" UserId="235" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="I have a very good guess about how to say &quot;perhaps&quot; or &quot;maybe&quot;. But I suspect there are several ways of saying it, with varying degrees of certainty. I wanted to get a better idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [fortasse][1] (also fortassis , but rarely, and not in Caes.; [...])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I.perhaps, peradventure, probably, possibly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is *fortasse* the best word to say &quot;maybe&quot; or &quot;perhaps&quot;? &#xD;&#xA; - Are *fortasse* and *fortassis* interchangeable? &#xD;&#xA; - What's the difference between *forte*, *fortisan*, and *fortasse*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=fortasse&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2866" RevisionGUID="299b0911-55e6-4a87-8974-976edfcbdc30" CreationDate="2017-03-13T19:47:01.150" UserId="78" Comment="edited body" Text="I have a very good guess about how to say &quot;perhaps&quot; or &quot;maybe&quot;. But I suspect there are several ways of saying it, with varying degrees of certainty. I wanted to get a better idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [fortasse][1] (also fortassis , but rarely, and not in Caes.; [...])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I.perhaps, peradventure, probably, possibly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is *fortasse* the best word to say &quot;maybe&quot; or &quot;perhaps&quot;? &#xD;&#xA; - Are *fortasse* and *fortassis* interchangeable? &#xD;&#xA; - What's the difference between *forte*, *forsitan*, and *fortasse*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=fortasse&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2868" RevisionGUID="e64b9f7f-6188-4589-b075-fb70daa7ece3" CreationDate="2017-03-13T19:54:30.263" UserId="645" Text="*forte* (from *fors*, *fortis*, chance, luck etc.) simply means 'by chance'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*fortasse* (sometimes fortassis) is a contraction from *forte an sit*, 'as it might chance to be', usually translated as 'perhaps', 'as it may be' etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also found are *fors sit an* (often as one word) and its contraction *forsan*; and occasionally *forsit* (from *fors sit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Larger Latin-English dictionaries (almost invariably based on Freund's original Latin-German) all give examples of usage. The best choice for English into Latin is no more than a matter of style." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2869" RevisionGUID="817ade62-cb4b-4442-bdad-c013fc81c638" CreationDate="2017-03-14T03:15:45.557" UserId="1133" Text="I have noticed that active aorist infinitives ending in 'αι' may be accented in three different ways in Attic Greek, as follows (all from wiktionary.org):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- As if the final 'αι' were short:  κώλῡσαι, σιώπησαι.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- As if the final 'αι' were long:  ἁρπᾰ́ξαι, δῐδᾰ́ξαι, ὀρέξαι, ὀλέσαι.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- A third way:  ᾰ̓κοῦσαι, βουλεῦσαι, δεῖξαι, διῶξαι, ἐθελῆσαι, ἐρωτῆσαι, καθευδῆσαι, παιδεῦσαι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is there some principle or pattern that will tell me which way a given verb will go?  (I don't know that I have a large enough sample above from which generalizations can be hazarded.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. When the word is accented as if the final 'αι' were long, am I safe to conclude that 'αι' is indeed long?  Or can it be a short ultima with an accented penult?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. How can I account for the 'third way'?  If I thought the ultima were short, I would expect the accent to fall on the antepenult.  If I thought the ultima long, I would want an accute accent on the penult.  The 'third way' does not fit either of these patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Is there any other kind of word that is accented as in the 'third way'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BACKGROUND**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware that the final 'αι' can be consistently long or short in certain positions.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- short at the end of middle-passive indicative present third person singular (e.g. 'βουλεύεται') and&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- long at the end of active optative aorist third person singular (e.g. 'βουλεύσαι') .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10256" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2869" RevisionGUID="817ade62-cb4b-4442-bdad-c013fc81c638" CreationDate="2017-03-14T03:15:45.557" UserId="1133" Text="Different ways to accent active aorist infinitives ending in 'αι' (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10257" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2869" RevisionGUID="817ade62-cb4b-4442-bdad-c013fc81c638" CreationDate="2017-03-14T03:15:45.557" UserId="1133" Text="|greek|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2870" RevisionGUID="75180c5e-b0c6-4781-b61b-82c36af9cd8e" CreationDate="2017-03-14T04:07:39.333" UserId="40" Text="Wiktionary is simply wrong if it says that κώλυσαι, σιώπησαι are infinitives: they can only be aorist middle imperatives. The aorist active infinitives are κωλῦσαι, σιωπῆσαι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [this helpful handout](https://classics.uchicago.edu/files/sai.pdf) by Helma Dik, which explains the principles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The aorist middle imperative has the usual recessive accentuation.&#xD;&#xA; - The aorist active infinitive is always accented on the penult; this means that if the penult has a long vowel or diphthong, it gets a circumflex, otherwise an acute. The accentuation is unusual in that most verb forms have recessive accent, but this is an exception. Another is second aorist active participles, e.g. λαβών.&#xD;&#xA; - The aorist active optative has long -αι (as you mention) and the usual recessive accentuation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2871" RevisionGUID="6ba2626b-8f36-4196-9637-94c0b82e0423" CreationDate="2017-03-14T08:07:48.923" UserId="1289" Text="The question can obviously never be answered completely, but the basic answer is of course yes. Puns are all around us, everywhere we go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the examples I remember best, from class, is the rather grim wordplay in Apuleius, Met. VIII, 6 when a bride-to-be finds her future husband murdered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    invita remansit in vita&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;translatable as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    she remained, unwillingly, alive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10260" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1944" RevisionGUID="3af4e632-f0e9-4d67-a320-3c563572a6e0" CreationDate="2017-03-14T08:32:35.317" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|greek|verbs|syntax|aorist|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2869" RevisionGUID="28e60852-b4b3-4726-abf7-7868d8a14ac8" CreationDate="2017-03-14T08:33:41.567" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have noticed that active aorist infinitives ending in 'αι' may be accented in three different ways in Attic Greek, as follows (all from wiktionary.org):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- As if the final 'αι' were short:  κώλῡσαι, σιώπησαι.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- As if the final 'αι' were long:  ἁρπᾰ́ξαι, δῐδᾰ́ξαι, ὀρέξαι, ὀλέσαι.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- A third way:  ᾰ̓κοῦσαι, βουλεῦσαι, δεῖξαι, διῶξαι, ἐθελῆσαι, ἐρωτῆσαι, καθευδῆσαι, παιδεῦσαι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# QUESTION&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is there some principle or pattern that will tell me which way a given verb will go?  (I don't know that I have a large enough sample above from which generalizations can be hazarded.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. When the word is accented as if the final 'αι' were long, am I safe to conclude that 'αι' is indeed long?  Or can it be a short ultima with an accented penult?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. How can I account for the 'third way'?  If I thought the ultima were short, I would expect the accent to fall on the antepenult.  If I thought the ultima long, I would want an accute accent on the penult.  The 'third way' does not fit either of these patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Is there any other kind of word that is accented as in the 'third way'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# BACKGROUND&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware that the final 'αι' can be consistently long or short in certain positions.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- short at the end of middle-passive indicative present third person singular (e.g. 'βουλεύεται') and&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- long at the end of active optative aorist third person singular (e.g. 'βουλεύσαι') .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10262" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2869" RevisionGUID="28e60852-b4b3-4726-abf7-7868d8a14ac8" CreationDate="2017-03-14T08:33:41.567" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|greek|pronunciation|aorist|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10263" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2867" RevisionGUID="bdf77090-de25-4337-bb63-78f2ca89a227" CreationDate="2017-03-14T12:59:35.490" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2012],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="10264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2871" RevisionGUID="47c9cb58-fd2a-435d-898e-6e53922d888b" CreationDate="2017-03-14T13:03:23.063" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="The question can obviously never be answered completely, but the basic answer is of course yes. Puns are all around us, everywhere we go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the examples I remember best, from class, is the rather grim wordplay in Apuleius, Met. VIII, 6 when a bride-to-be finds her future husband murdered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invita remansit in vita&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;translatable as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; she remained, unwillingly, alive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10270" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="2871" RevisionGUID="dfce79bc-55b1-4666-8dbe-120551177f21" CreationDate="2017-03-14T14:16:03.593" UserId="1289" />
  <row Id="10272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2865" RevisionGUID="355c1b3a-e818-4b54-846e-de701a26b7b1" CreationDate="2017-03-14T16:00:29.460" UserId="79" Comment="Tried to clarify" Text="I am interested in translating the word &quot;then&quot; in logical statements like this: &quot;If a number is prime, then it is squarefree.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Or maybe better: &quot;If *x* is even and *x+y* is odd, then *y* is odd.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;In common language one would not use a &quot;then&quot; at all, but in mathematics (including logic) it is very common to emphasize the consequence with a &quot;then&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This logical &quot;then&quot; is not temporal but causal, and I have never seen it in ancient sources at all.&#xD;&#xA;I have not found this sense of &quot;then&quot; in Latin dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good translation of this &quot;then&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Was there a fixed phrase in the mathematical Latin of, say, 18th and 19th century?&#xD;&#xA;My intuition is to translate &quot;if&amp;ndash;then&quot; with *si&amp;ndash;deinde*.&#xD;&#xA;I want something that works within a sentence, so that the &quot;then&quot; does not start a stand-alone sentence, but just a consequence clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that Gauss does not use a &quot;then&quot; at all in [this example](http://thelatinlibrary.com/gauss.html).&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that the logical &quot;then&quot; was introduced after Latin went out of fashion in mathematics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2873" RevisionGUID="0b7a07e0-c1ab-4d9c-bed9-5ca1f759c590" CreationDate="2017-03-14T17:45:35.863" UserId="30" Text="I came across this Mycenaen word when Iwas trapped in a Wikipaedia chain:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the verbal augment is almost entirely absent from Mycenaean Greek with only one known exception, , a-pe-do-ke (PY Fr 1184), but even that appears elsewhere without the augment, as , a-pu-do-ke (KN Od 681). — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenaean_Greek&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I presume this is the third person singular imperfect from *ἀποδοκέω*, &quot;it seemed good no to...&quot;. Perhaps ἀπο and Latin *a(b(s))* in *aufero* etc. are related. Is there any conexion at all between the Mycenaean u and the Latin u here? My guess would be coincidence, and *a(b(s))* and ἀπο might not be related at all (I believe ὐπό is related, at least), but who knows?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10274" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2873" RevisionGUID="0b7a07e0-c1ab-4d9c-bed9-5ca1f759c590" CreationDate="2017-03-14T17:45:35.863" UserId="30" Text="Could the u in e.g. aufero be related to the u in Mycenaean a-pu-do-ke?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10275" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2873" RevisionGUID="0b7a07e0-c1ab-4d9c-bed9-5ca1f759c590" CreationDate="2017-03-14T17:45:35.863" UserId="30" Text="|etymology|greek|mycenaean|vowel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2870" RevisionGUID="7b4c887b-fc97-4575-be28-38f2b3707bde" CreationDate="2017-03-14T19:55:01.600" UserId="40" Comment="added last paragraph" Text="Wiktionary is simply wrong if it says that κώλυσαι, σιώπησαι are infinitives: they can only be aorist middle imperatives. The aorist active infinitives are κωλῦσαι, σιωπῆσαι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [this helpful handout](https://classics.uchicago.edu/files/sai.pdf) by Helma Dik, which explains the principles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The aorist middle imperative has the usual recessive accentuation.&#xD;&#xA; - The aorist active infinitive is always accented on the penult; this means that if the penult has a long vowel or diphthong, it gets a circumflex, otherwise an acute.&#xD;&#xA; - The aorist active optative has long -αι (as you mention) and the usual recessive accentuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The accentuation of the aorist infinitive may seem unusual, but it's really only finite verb forms that regularly have recessive accent, not infinitives and participles: many of the latter have their own peculiar accentuation, viz. the types λελυκέναι, λελύσθαι, λυθῆναι, λαβεῖν, λαβών, λυθείς, λελυκώς, λελυμένος." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2873" RevisionGUID="850ae8df-c9e1-4f8a-8d27-2557e34e0dd5" CreationDate="2017-03-14T20:26:17.670" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="I came across this Mycenaen word when Iwas trapped in a Wikipaedia chain:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the verbal augment is almost entirely absent from Mycenaean Greek with only one known exception, , a-pe-do-ke (PY Fr 1184), but even that appears elsewhere without the augment, as , a-pu-do-ke (KN Od 681). — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenaean_Greek&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I presume this is the third person singular aorist from *ἀποδίδωμι*, &quot;he gave&quot;. Perhaps ἀπο and Latin *a(b(s))* in *aufero* etc. are related. Is there any conexion at all between the Mycenaean u and the Latin u here? My guess would be coincidence, and *a(b(s))* and ἀπο might not be related at all (I believe ὐπό is related, at least), but who knows?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2874" RevisionGUID="cd521be3-d278-4fe5-af61-5ace3114e268" CreationDate="2017-03-14T20:27:21.830" UserId="40" Text="The υ of ἀπύ (also attested in Arcado-Cypriot, which is the most conservative group of Greek dialects and often shows similarities with Mycenaean) is a secondary development within the Greek dialects, and not inherited from Indo-European. This is shown by many cognates which reflect *o*, e.g. Hitt. *appā*, Skt. *apa*, Russ. *po*. So it's unlikely to be related to anything in Latin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2875" RevisionGUID="6bedd306-9b09-4445-8693-bb3b921950e6" CreationDate="2017-03-14T21:08:55.663" UserId="1329" Text="I'm writing a poem, and I want to close each part with a Latin phrase.  The one I'm talking about now is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**non serm ab rex regum ergo nos sponte nostrum resurget**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using various online resources, I have crafted this phrase, which I believe to be fairly legible, but I know google translate can't be trusted 100%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's supposed to mean, &quot;No word from the King of Kings, therefore we will resurrect on our own accord.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mainly concerned that I might be putting the words in the wrong order in order to maintain the iambic and the ending -get, which is a rhymed syllable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you can find anything wrong with it, I'd like to hear about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is no uppercase or punctuation, because I didn't want to add something that shouldn't be there, and I saw no punctuation or capitalization in the Latin Bible, so I figured it was normal to write Latin in this way.  If that's not necessarily true, I'd like to know that, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10281" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2875" RevisionGUID="6bedd306-9b09-4445-8693-bb3b921950e6" CreationDate="2017-03-14T21:08:55.663" UserId="1329" Text="Does this Latin Phrase Make Sense Grammatically?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10282" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2875" RevisionGUID="6bedd306-9b09-4445-8693-bb3b921950e6" CreationDate="2017-03-14T21:08:55.663" UserId="1329" Text="|meaning|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="3be35c8f-49d2-4550-84fe-71757e268bef" CreationDate="2017-03-14T21:28:57.800" UserId="235" Text="For starters, *serm* should be *sermo* (*serm* is not a word, which you can [confirm on L&amp;S][1]). Also, *rex* should be ablative (in its current form it is nominative). Making it ablative would give us *rege*. Furthermore, the verb *resurget* is presently third person singular. But since the subject is &quot;we&quot;, it should be first plural, giving us *resurgemus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making these changes, we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non sermo ab rege regum ergo nos sponde resurgemus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No word from the king of kings, therefore we will resurrect on our own accord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is close to what you want, but we'll see how other users respond to my suggestion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=serm&amp;la=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="d3a954a7-3da6-48fb-92f9-9f5864c721a2" CreationDate="2017-03-14T21:44:19.010" UserId="235" Comment="added 195 characters in body" Text="For starters, *serm* should be *sermo* (*serm* is not a word, which you can [confirm on L&amp;S][1]). Also, *rex* should be ablative (in its current form it is nominative). Making it ablative would give us *rege*. Furthermore, the verb *resurget* is presently third person singular. But since the subject is &quot;we&quot;, it should be first plural, giving us *resurgemus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making these changes, we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non sermo ab rege regum ergo nos sponde resurgemus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No word from the king of kings, therefore we will resurrect on our own accord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is close to what you want, but we'll see how other users respond to my suggestion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just noticed that you want to end the sentence with -get. I'm afraid this is very hard, as long as the subject of the clause is &quot;we&quot;: there are no inflections for &quot;we&quot; that end with -get. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=serm&amp;la=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2874" RevisionGUID="f47ea7f3-e565-4f2f-8ba0-e89f33878d61" CreationDate="2017-03-14T21:53:36.107" UserId="40" Comment="added last paragraph" Text="The υ of ἀπύ (also attested in Arcado-Cypriot, which is the most conservative group of Greek dialects and often shows similarities with Mycenaean) is a secondary development within the Greek dialects, and not inherited from Indo-European. This is shown by many cognates which reflect *o*, e.g. Hitt. *appā*, Skt. *apa*, Russ. *po*. So it's unlikely to be related to anything in Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The change of *ab-* to *au-*, if that's what it is, seems to be a Latin- (or Italic-?) specific sound change before *f*: *au-fero, au-fugio*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2878" RevisionGUID="241aeb2b-0d74-46cf-b1e6-89473cefe08d" CreationDate="2017-03-14T21:55:44.497" UserId="1331" Text="Per Intellectum, Vis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would you fix? Trying to come up with a theme / catchphrase for a family event. I want to signify respect for education, the scientific method and observation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10290" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2878" RevisionGUID="241aeb2b-0d74-46cf-b1e6-89473cefe08d" CreationDate="2017-03-14T21:55:44.497" UserId="1331" Text="Try to come up with a phrase for &quot;Through Intellect, Strength&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10291" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2878" RevisionGUID="241aeb2b-0d74-46cf-b1e6-89473cefe08d" CreationDate="2017-03-14T21:55:44.497" UserId="1331" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2873" RevisionGUID="eeb347d7-4cae-4203-974d-ea9f131f10d2" CreationDate="2017-03-14T22:05:38.477" UserId="30" Comment="added 194 characters in body" Text="I came across this Mycenaen word when Iwas trapped in a Wikipaedia chain:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the verbal augment is almost entirely absent from Mycenaean Greek with only one known exception, , a-pe-do-ke (PY Fr 1184), but even that appears elsewhere without the augment, as , a-pu-do-ke (KN Od 681). — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenaean_Greek&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I presume this is the third person singular aorist from *ἀποδίδωμι*, &quot;he gave&quot;. Perhaps ἀπο and Latin *a(b(s))* in *aufero* etc. are related. Is there any conexion at all between the Mycenaean u and the Latin u here? My guess would be coincidence, and *a(b(s))* and ἀπο might not be related at all (I believe ὐπό is related, at least), but who knows?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I see Linear B in Firefox, although I now see that they won't show up in Chrome. Do you have a Linear B font installed? You could get the Aegean fonts here: http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2873" RevisionGUID="4091b4ec-40da-4194-9c0d-c2b0bc65269c" CreationDate="2017-03-14T22:14:55.660" UserId="30" Comment="edited body" Text="I came across this Mycenaen word when Iwas trapped in a Wikipaedia chain:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the verbal augment is almost entirely absent from Mycenaean Greek with only one known exception, , a-pe-do-ke (PY Fr 1184), but even that appears elsewhere without the augment, as , a-pu-do-ke (KN Od 681). — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenaean_Greek&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I presume this is the third person singular aorist from *ἀποδίδωμι*, &quot;he gave&quot;. Perhaps ἀπο and Latin *a(b(s))* in *aufero* etc. are related. Is there any conexion at all between the Mycenaean u and the Latin u here? My guess would be coincidence, and *a(b(s))* and ἀπο might not be related at all (I believe ὑπό is related, at least), but who knows?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I see Linear B in Firefox, although I now see that they won't show up in Chrome. Do you have a Linear B font installed? You could get the Aegean fonts here: http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="b2154d6a-9bdd-4934-bd04-01924a5ead6e" CreationDate="2017-03-14T22:41:53.127" UserId="235" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="For starters, *serm* should be *sermo* (*serm* is not a word, which you can [confirm on L&amp;S][1]). Also, *rex* should be ablative (in its current form it is nominative). Making it ablative would give us *rege*. Furthermore, the verb *resurget* is presently third person singular. But since the subject is &quot;we&quot;, it should be first plural, giving us *resurgemus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making these changes, we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non verbum ab rege regum ergo nos sponde resurgemus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No word from the king of kings, therefore we will resurrect on our own accord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is close to what you want, but we'll see how other users respond to my suggestion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just noticed that you want to end the sentence with -get. I'm afraid this is very hard, as long as the subject of the clause is &quot;we&quot;: there are no inflections for &quot;we&quot; that end with -get. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=serm&amp;la=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="1f38fb1d-7417-4449-9461-b70007123df6" CreationDate="2017-03-14T22:49:39.520" UserId="235" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="For starters, *serm* should be *sermo* (*serm* is not a word, which you can [confirm on L&amp;S][1]). Also, *rex* should be ablative (in its current form it is nominative). Making it ablative would give us *rege*. Furthermore, the verb *resurget* is presently third person singular. But since the subject is &quot;we&quot;, it should be first plural, giving us *resurgemus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making these changes, we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nullum verbum ab rege regum ergo nos sponde resurgemus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No word from the king of kings, therefore we will resurrect on our own accord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is close to what you want, but we'll see how other users respond to my suggestion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just noticed that you want to end the sentence with -get. I'm afraid this is very hard, as long as the subject of the clause is &quot;we&quot;: there are no inflections for &quot;we&quot; that end with -get. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=serm&amp;la=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="66e14998-c2d6-47eb-8070-8db36a8bff6c" CreationDate="2017-03-14T22:50:37.630" UserId="235" Comment="edited body" Text="For starters, *serm* should be *sermo* (*serm* is not a word, which you can [confirm on L&amp;S][1]). Also, *rex* should be ablative (in its current form it is nominative). Making it ablative would give us *rege*. Furthermore, the verb *resurget* is presently third person singular. But since the subject is &quot;we&quot;, it should be first plural, giving us *resurgemus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making these changes, we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nullum verbum ab rege regum ergo nos sponte resurgemus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No word from the king of kings, therefore we will resurrect on our own accord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is close to what you want, but we'll see how other users respond to my suggestion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just noticed that you want to end the sentence with -get. I'm afraid this is very hard, as long as the subject of the clause is &quot;we&quot;: there are no inflections for &quot;we&quot; that end with -get. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=serm&amp;la=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="6fdd8e79-bf21-479c-87a7-01725f629c77" CreationDate="2017-03-14T22:59:54.193" UserId="235" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="For starters, *serm* should be *sermo* (*serm* is not a word, which you can [confirm on L&amp;S][1]). But *verbum* is probably better than *sermo*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, *rex* should either be ablative with &quot;ab&quot; or accusative with &quot;apud&quot;. For now I choose the latter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *resurget* is third person singular. But since the subject is &quot;we&quot;, it should be first plural, giving us *resurgemus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making these changes, we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nullum verbum apud regem regum ergo nos sponte resurgemus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No word from the king of kings, therefore we will resurrect on our own accord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is close to what you want, but we'll see how other users respond to my suggestion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just noticed that you want to end the sentence with -get. I'm afraid this is very hard, as long as the subject of the clause is &quot;we&quot;: there are no inflections for &quot;we&quot; that end with -get. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=serm&amp;la=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="c7161ea6-4bdd-4a8a-bcc0-98353ece6770" CreationDate="2017-03-14T23:18:52.863" UserId="235" Comment="added 380 characters in body" Text="For starters, *serm* should be *sermo* (*serm* is not a word, which you can [confirm on L&amp;S][1]). But *verbum* is probably better than *sermo*. I think that *Nullum verbum* or *Non ullum verbum* convey the sense of &quot;no word&quot;, cf. [Ecclesiastes 42:20][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, *rex* should not be nominative. There is precedent for it being put in the ablative with a(b), cf. [Jeremiah 26:1][3], [Jeremiah 34:1][4] and [1 Kings 1:27][5]. But it could also be put in the genitive, cf. [Judges 3:20][6]. I choose the ablative since it seems to be more attested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *resurget* is third person singular. But since the subject is &quot;we&quot;, it should be first plural, giving us *resurgemus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making these changes, we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nullum verbum a rege regum ergo nos sponte resurgemus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No word from the king of kings, therefore we will resurrect on our own accord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is close to what you want, but we'll see how other users respond to my suggestion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just noticed that you want to end the sentence with -get. I'm afraid this is very hard, as long as the subject of the clause is &quot;we&quot;: there are no inflections for &quot;we&quot; that end with -get. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=serm&amp;la=la&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=26&amp;ch=42&amp;l=20#x&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=28&amp;ch=26&amp;l=1#x&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=28&amp;ch=34&amp;l=1#x&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=11&amp;ch=1&amp;l=27#x&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=7&amp;ch=3&amp;l=20#x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="36e4dad2-d544-4e9c-9de6-da346273db80" CreationDate="2017-03-14T23:24:59.150" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 50 characters in body" Text="For starters, *serm* should be *sermo* (*serm* is not a word, which you can [confirm on L&amp;S][1]). But *verbum* is probably better than *sermo*. I think that *Nullum verbum* or *Non ullum verbum* convey the sense of &quot;no word&quot;, cf. [Ecclesiastes 42:20][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, *rex* should not be nominative. There is precedent for it being put in the ablative with a(b), cf. [Jeremiah 26:1][3], [Jeremiah 34:1][4] and [1 Kings 1:27][5]. But it could also be put in the genitive, cf. [Judges 3:20][6]. I chose the ablative since it seems more attested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject of the second clause is &quot;we&quot;, so the verb should be *resurgemus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making these changes, we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nullum verbum a rege regum ergo nos sponte resurgemus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No word from the king of kings, therefore we will resurrect on our own accord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just noticed that you want to end the sentence with -get. I'm afraid this is very hard, as long as the subject of the clause is &quot;we&quot;: there are no inflections for &quot;we&quot; that end with -get. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=serm&amp;la=la&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=26&amp;ch=42&amp;l=20#x&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=28&amp;ch=26&amp;l=1#x&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=28&amp;ch=34&amp;l=1#x&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=11&amp;ch=1&amp;l=27#x&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=7&amp;ch=3&amp;l=20#x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2879" RevisionGUID="471e2461-9164-4182-98e5-94b0c251084a" CreationDate="2017-03-14T23:25:57.323" UserId="91" Text="The phrase *ab rex* needs to be *ab rege* in the ablative.  The word *resurget* is not conjugated correctly: its subject is *nos,* which is first person plural, so we would need *resurgemus.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming that you want iambs in the stress accent.  (Classical Latin bases the primary meter on vowel length.)  This isn't actually going to be possible without fudging something, because the accent on a two syllable word in Latin is never on the last syllable, so you can't end a line with an accent-iamb ending with *-get*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non regum ab rege dicta ergo nobis sponte resurgetur.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gives you the last stressed syllable being the one that rhymes, which seems like the best option to me (though I don't know much about rhyming).  I switched it to a passive construction, so it would be literally ``there is a resurrection among us,'' which is a fairly common construction.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a word ends in a vowel and the next begins with a vowel, they become one sound, and the first one gets dropped.  Note also that *um* counts as vowel at the end of the word, and *h*-vowel counts as a vowel at the start of the word.  Thus *regum ab* is pronounced *reg ab* and *rege habemus* as *reg habemus*.  (If you're paying attention, you'll notice that we need *dicta ergo* to be four syllables for the meter.  That's just because I don't have a better way to do it.  A hiatus between clauses shouldn't be too jarring I think.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then this gets pronounced: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non **reg** ab **re**ge **dic**ta **er**go **no**bis **spon**te&#xD;&#xA;resur**get**ur.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="fcb6b457-333b-414b-879a-58bd5a0261ad" CreationDate="2017-03-14T23:30:56.207" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 50 characters in body" Text="For starters, *serm* should be *sermo* (*serm* is not a word, which you can [confirm on L&amp;S][1]). But *verbum* is probably better than *sermo*. I think that *Nullum verbum* or *Non ullum verbum* convey the sense of &quot;no word&quot;, cf. [Ecclesiastes 42:20][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, *rex* should not be nominative. There is precedent for it being put in the ablative with a(b), cf. [Jeremiah 26:1][3] and [Jeremiah 34:1][4]. But it could also be put in the genitive, cf. [Judges 3:20][6]. I chose the ablative since it seems more attested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject of the second clause is &quot;we&quot;, so the verb should be *resurgemus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making these changes, we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nullum verbum a rege regum ergo nos sponte resurgemus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No word from the king of kings, therefore we will resurrect on our own accord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=serm&amp;la=la&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=26&amp;ch=42&amp;l=20#x&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=28&amp;ch=26&amp;l=1#x&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=28&amp;ch=34&amp;l=1#x&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=11&amp;ch=1&amp;l=27#x&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=7&amp;ch=3&amp;l=20#x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2880" RevisionGUID="5a73592a-772b-42c6-95b7-e1316d3820b9" CreationDate="2017-03-14T23:47:51.460" UserId="78" Text="*Intellectus* means &quot;understanding.&quot; I think it's a fine enough phrase, but personally I'd go with something a bit more idiomatic. You could do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Vis per mentem*, &quot;strength through the mind&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Mens* is often used as metonymy for the &quot;intellect.&quot; Cf. Juvenal's *mens sana in corpore sano*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also do something like *in scientia* or *in eruditione*, though they don't sound as snappy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More problematic is *vis*, which is most often physical strength or even violence. For a more general strength, you could do something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *fortior per mentem*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here *fortior* means &quot;stronger&quot;, and the phrase would correlate the use of *mens* with becoming *fortis*, &quot;strong.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you're thinking about political strength (which, I suspect, you're not, since it's for a family event), you could substitute *vis* for *potestas*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, though, I'd rest with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Fortior per mentem*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2880" RevisionGUID="214042d7-b800-4071-a0da-b2d8e640009d" CreationDate="2017-03-14T23:50:23.043" UserId="78" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="*Intellectus* means &quot;understanding.&quot; I think it's a fine enough phrase, but personally I'd go with something a bit more idiomatic. You could do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Vis per mentem*, &quot;strength through the mind&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Mens* is often used as metonymy for the &quot;intellect.&quot; Cf. Juvenal's *mens sana in corpore sano*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also do something like *in scientia* or *in eruditione*, though they don't sound as snappy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More problematic is *vis*, which is most often physical strength or even violence. For a more general strength, you could do something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *fortior per mentem*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here *fortior* means &quot;stronger&quot;, and the phrase would correlate the use of *mens* with becoming *fortis*, &quot;strong.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you're thinking about political strength (which, I suspect, you're not, since it's for a family event), you could substitute *potestas* for *vis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, though, I'd rest with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Fortior per mentem*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even then context matters, as it could, literally, mean &quot;stronger throughout the mind,&quot; though I myself kind of like the double meaning there.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2881" RevisionGUID="51b94b97-2744-439b-813f-ac70aacb65ae" CreationDate="2017-03-15T01:01:23.117" UserId="78" Text="The OLD provides several examples of *verba* meaning &quot;verb&quot; (as opposed to *vocabulum* or *nomen*, &quot;noun.&quot; Aside from two instances in Varro:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hor.*Ars* 235; nec a ~is modo, sed ab nominibus quoque deriuata sunt quaedam, ut a Cicerone 'sullaturit' Quint. *Inst*. 8.3.32; in ~is...sermonis uis est 9.4.26; Vel.gram.in *G*.*L*.7.57; ut pro ~is habentibus patiendi figuram agentia ponerent Gel.18.12.1." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2881" RevisionGUID="1a281913-515a-453d-9d53-3c7b791cf7ea" CreationDate="2017-03-15T01:15:24.003" UserId="78" Comment="added 331 characters in body" Text="The *OLD* provides several examples of *verba* meaning &quot;verb&quot; (as opposed to *vocabulum* or *nomen*, &quot;noun.&quot; Aside from two instances in Varro:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hor.*Ars* 235; nec a ~is modo, sed ab nominibus quoque deriuata sunt quaedam, ut a Cicerone 'sullaturit' Quint. *Inst*. 8.3.32; in ~is...sermonis uis est 9.4.26; Vel.gram.in *G*.*L*.7.57; ut pro ~is habentibus patiendi figuram agentia ponerent Gel.18.12.1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, Lewis &amp; Short does indeed give the definition of &quot;verb&quot; for *verbum* under II.C. I quote in full:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; C. In gram., a verb: “Aristoteles orationis duas partes esse dicit, vocabula et verba, ut homo et equus, et legit et currit, etc.,” Varr. *L*. *L*. 8, § 11 sq. Müll.; 9, § 95; 10, § 77 al.; Cic. *de Or*. 3, 49, 191.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Cicero and Varro to Aulus Gellius is at least 200 years, and Velius Longus provides an imperial grammarian locus for its use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2875" RevisionGUID="5c0de7c7-017c-4717-aa3e-b6c5fee8dbda" CreationDate="2017-03-15T02:09:11.513" UserId="1329" Comment="more info" Text="I'm writing a poem, and I want to close each part with a Latin phrase.  The one I'm talking about now is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**non serm ab rex regum ergo nos sponte nostrum resurget**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using various online resources, I have crafted this phrase, which I believe to be fairly legible, but I know google translate can't be trusted 100%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's supposed to mean, &quot;No word from the King of Kings, therefore we will resurrect on our own accord.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mainly concerned that I might be putting the words in the wrong order in order to maintain the iambic and the ending -get, which is a rhymed syllable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you can find anything wrong with it, I'd like to hear about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is no uppercase or punctuation, because I didn't want to add something that shouldn't be there, and I saw no punctuation or capitalization in the Latin Bible, so I figured it was normal to write Latin in this way.  If that's not necessarily true, I'd like to know that, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I'll give the poem some context so it will be easier to help me.  Rhyme pattern is A A B at the end of each line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        '    '     '    '   '&#xD;&#xA;    in girum imus nocte et consum-&#xD;&#xA;    '    '         '       '     '&#xD;&#xA;    imur igni non serm ab rex regum&#xD;&#xA;       '       '     '       '    '&#xD;&#xA;    ergo nos sponte nostrum resurget&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is how I was emphasizing the lines, though clearly some of it was wrong.  And you can even see I let the iambic slide a little bit around 'consumimur igni', but that goes with the territory of forcing a non-iambic quote into iambic.  I'd like to make the final, original latin line as iambic as possible, but that is looking harder and harder to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was said that 2+ syllable latin generally never ends on a stressed syllable.  I will go ahead and just make that not a problem right now, by saying we don't have to uphold the ending -get rhyme.  The thing it rhymes with is original content that can far more easily be changed to suit the needs I will require by nailing the latin portion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I do need to nail the 'regum' at the end of that middle line, even though its accented incorrectly, because that's gonna be my only chance to fit the palindrome quote into the stanza.  Unless you can think of another word that ends with an 'oom' or 'um' sound, which is also relevant and can be better crafted to fit the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going from the answer's I've already received, what about something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ...&#xD;&#xA;    '    '     '   '       '  &#xD;&#xA;    imur igni hei rege ab regum&#xD;&#xA;         '     '      '     '     '&#xD;&#xA;    non sermo nobis sponte bingo bang&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where the bingo bang part is a placeholder for your own latin-inclined creative ideas.  I'd like it to end on a stressed syllable, and I'd like it to use the verb resurget but that's not as important as the stressed final syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used 'hei' as a single syllable interjection to sort of salvage some iambic, and make it seem more conversational than we just got off-by-1 somewhere and couldn't stop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to be creative and even destructive if you think you've got a good idea for my situation.&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2882" RevisionGUID="22d69d90-a092-45af-a0e4-c92dd0cee9f7" CreationDate="2017-03-15T02:57:17.827" UserId="1333" Text="I am trying to write an essay and would like to use a saying for &quot;Because Event B during Event A, Event B is related/caused by Event A.&quot; I recall hearing both quotes but am having trouble differentiating them. Keep in mind, I have almost no prior latin experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10311" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2882" RevisionGUID="22d69d90-a092-45af-a0e4-c92dd0cee9f7" CreationDate="2017-03-15T02:57:17.827" UserId="1333" Text="Post hoc ergo propter ho vs Cum hoc ergo proctor hoc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10312" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2882" RevisionGUID="22d69d90-a092-45af-a0e4-c92dd0cee9f7" CreationDate="2017-03-15T02:57:17.827" UserId="1333" Text="|differences|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2883" RevisionGUID="41b3a736-4615-46ba-b0b8-f4f970d16355" CreationDate="2017-03-15T03:14:01.970" UserId="78" Text="You're close. The one you're looking for, and he more common one, I think, is *post hoc ergo propter hoc*, sometimes just &quot;post hoc fallacy.&quot; It's translated to, &quot;After this therefore because of this.&quot; It's used when someone tries to establish causality even when there is no real evidence to support it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other one is *cum hoc ergo propter hoc*, which actually I've not heard of in Latin. It is translated as, &quot;With this therefore because of this.&quot; The typical thing I hear is &quot;correlation does not equal causation. The fallacy here is that just because two things correlate, they might not be related at all, as [Spurious Correlations](http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations) so brilliantly shows." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2883" RevisionGUID="862a7f6d-ee79-4727-923b-6fcaa0bddeb4" CreationDate="2017-03-15T03:20:10.547" UserId="78" Comment="added 620 characters in body" Text="The more common one, I think, is *post hoc ergo propter hoc*, sometimes just &quot;post hoc fallacy.&quot; It's translated to, &quot;After this therefore because of this.&quot; It's used when someone tries to establish causality even when there is no real evidence to support it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other one is *cum hoc ergo propter hoc*, which actually I've not heard of in Latin. It is translated as, &quot;With this therefore because of this.&quot; The typical thing I hear is &quot;correlation does not equal causation. The fallacy here is that just because two things correlate, they might not be related at all, as [Spurious Correlations](http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations) so brilliantly shows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're very similar, but differ on viewpoint orientation. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I switched from whole milk to 2% and my child scored an A on their last test after making C's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be *post hoc fallacy*. It states that switching from 2% caused this one event. It does not posit a relationship between intake of milk and grades, though. The act of switching did that. For any child who switches to 2%, you should imagine an immediate grade boost on the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The more 2% milk my child drinks, the smarter he becomes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This falls under the &quot;correlation != causation&quot; problem, since a relationship between drinking 2% and getting better grades is posited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're charting this (no time to chart right now, sorry), the increase of 2% and the child's IQ would both increase or decrease together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For post hoc fallacy, you should see a flat line (or so) until the act of switching to 2%, where then you should see a spike.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that clarifies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2850" RevisionGUID="99a35a00-19d2-4cf7-9f82-756c6a886a8c" CreationDate="2017-03-15T03:26:05.797" UserId="78" Comment="added 1165 characters in body" Text="I think thinking about it in relation to the English word might be helpful. We also have an underworld connotation to the word &quot;shade.&quot; *Shades of Stalin!* And yet, though that exists, we never make that connection when we talk about the &quot;pleasant shade of a tree.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in slang, kids started using &quot;throwing shade&quot; at someone, i.e. putting them down/insulting them. There too both shadows and ghosts are entirely absent from that usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, it's possible for a Latin author to make a pun, like your *nemus umbrosum* example, but it's definitely not necessary to always think there's a pun, especially since meaning (2) is not the primary meaning, but a developed, metaphorical meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What helps solidify disassociating the two is the near (total?) absence of prose uses of *umbrae* as &quot;ghosts.&quot; At least [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=umbra&amp;la=la#lexicon) note that it was poetical and made its way into prose rather late. The closest you get (looking at the OLD now) is [Cic. *Rab*. *Post*. 41](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0020%3Atext%3DRab.+Post.%3Asection%3D41), but that's even closer to the English &quot;shadow&quot; than the dead *umbra*, in that he's not literally dead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But if, O judges, you wish to know the truth,—if the liberality of Caius Caesar, which is very great to every one, had not been quite incredible towards my client, we should long since have ceased to have Postumus among us in the forum. He, by himself, took upon himself the burden of many of Postumus's friends; and those responsibilities, which during the prosperity of Postumus many of his friends supported by dividing them, now that he is unfortunate, Caesar supports the whole of. **You see, O judges, the shadow and phantom of a Roman knight preserved by the assistance and good faith of one single friend.** Nothing can be taken from him except this image of his former dignity, and that Caesar by himself preserves and maintains. And that, even amid his greatest distresses, is still to be attributed to him in an eminent degree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Livy (40.56.9) appears to be the earliest prose use of it as a synonym for *manes*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But he was more sick in mind than in body. He was a prey to gloomy fears and sleeplessness; again and again the form and shade of his innocent murdered son threw him into violent agitation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these seems to me to suggest reading the two meanings in the opposite way. It's not so much that a shady place is good for ghosts, but that ghosts are shadowy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10316" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2882" RevisionGUID="e6097ddc-6032-42eb-9d31-a279ee609235" CreationDate="2017-03-15T04:31:00.067" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and corrected typos in title. Feel free to re-edit." Text="Post hoc ergo propter hoc vs Cum hoc ergo propter hoc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10317" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2882" RevisionGUID="e6097ddc-6032-42eb-9d31-a279ee609235" CreationDate="2017-03-15T04:31:00.067" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and corrected typos in title. Feel free to re-edit." Text="|translation|philosophy-terms|differences|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="681" RevisionGUID="f37a3491-35bc-44fe-b524-7975a9d8cf74" CreationDate="2017-03-15T12:12:52.460" UserId="78" Comment="added 247 characters in body; edited title" Text="&gt;[ [Adverb   **adhūc** :](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/adhuc) ]   **Etymology**    &#xD;&#xA;[ad](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad) &quot;*to*&quot; + [hūc](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/huc) &quot;*here*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. so far, thus far, hitherto, still    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. [2.1] again; [2.2] furthermore; [2.3] moreover; [2.4] besides *(used in scholastic debates to introduce an additional point in one's argument)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. [3.1] even as, [3.2] while still&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please pardon my laziness; I have not linked the English adverbs above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did Compounding of [ad](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad) &quot;*to*&quot; +  [hūc](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/huc) &quot;*here*&quot; generate the meanings in 2.1, 3.1, 3.2? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My conjecture: I can imagine two Roman arguers, one of whom points to an argument at some specific location (i.e. 'here') on some writing tool (e.g. wax tablet, piece of wood, papyrus), to which (i.e. to 'here') the other arguer adds more writing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10319" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="681" RevisionGUID="f37a3491-35bc-44fe-b524-7975a9d8cf74" CreationDate="2017-03-15T12:12:52.460" UserId="78" Comment="added 247 characters in body; edited title" Text="How did 'ad' + 'hūc' compound to get it's meanings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2884" RevisionGUID="52c9e66e-034d-4ca7-b6c8-6c6eab309a3e" CreationDate="2017-03-15T12:42:25.713" UserId="78" Text="Contemporary Latin does not have a single body issuing punctuation guidelines. Therefore, what's used is typically defined by the writer's own country's conventions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a large number (no pun intended) of modern Latin writers use Roman numerals. Ephemeris is a good example of both principles. Some articles ([like this one](http://ephemeris.alcuinus.net/scientiae.php)) use 9.000 for the American 9,000, but others ([like this other one](http://ephemeris.alcuinus.net/medicina.php)) uses only Roman numerals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found that with really large numbers Arabic numerals are used instead of Roman ones, because writing 10&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; in Roman numerals isn't that easy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2839" RevisionGUID="307f92d1-1d76-4d64-8345-b028fd0a60a8" CreationDate="2017-03-15T13:23:58.073" UserId="1224" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="When reading [this question's accepted answer][1] about phrases for forgetting, I saw the phrase *recte admones* translated as &quot;you do well to remind me&quot;. But, doesn't that mean &quot;you remind directly&quot;? I don't understand how this phrase was translated or what the intended phrase was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1126/what-is-slipped-my-mind-in-latin/1128#1128" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10323" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="972" RevisionGUID="02c36b01-7f3e-4a6e-99af-a6d556f25e6e" CreationDate="2017-03-15T14:02:23.603" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2885" RevisionGUID="21b085f7-9c44-41a0-af6f-666430d9774f" CreationDate="2017-03-15T14:27:29.507" UserId="645" Text="There are ways in Latin of expressing less-than-completeness, but I'm intrigued by the strange-ish (!) and allegedly related etymologies given in English dictionaries for these two endings, which are claimed to be derived from Latin and earlier sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently came upon the phrase 'a goodish way', for which I used the comparative *longius*, in the (alternative) sense of 'rather' or 'somewhat'. Almost immediately afterwards the word 'yellowish' occurred, and for this there is an adjective *fulvaster*. And today I have come upon *novellaster*, 'newish' or 'rather new'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has all set me reflecting that *-ish* is a useful modifier for English adjectives, and that in French *-âtre* has a similar use in, for example, *verdâtre*, 'greenish' (though I do not think it so freely used as our English *-ish*). The *-aster* ending is seen in the English 'poetaster' in the same sense while, Chambers' Dictionary attributes the same ending in 'disaster' (via French) to — I quote — [O Fr . . . . from *des* (L *dis-*) with evil sense, and *astre* a star, destiny, from L *astrum, Gr *astron* star].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I've found the above examples, I don't remember any rule for modifying Latin nouns and adjectives in analogous ways — except that, in some cases, the prefix *-sub* can be used as in, for instance, *subruber* and *subraucus*. The whole business seems quite haphazard. It would be very convenient if there were a proper rule : is there any such? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10325" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2885" RevisionGUID="21b085f7-9c44-41a0-af6f-666430d9774f" CreationDate="2017-03-15T14:27:29.507" UserId="645" Text="Translating -ish and -aster endings" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10326" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2885" RevisionGUID="21b085f7-9c44-41a0-af6f-666430d9774f" CreationDate="2017-03-15T14:27:29.507" UserId="645" Text="|vocabulary|etymolgy|accidence|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2873" RevisionGUID="69fe9e5e-e583-4a4e-ad1b-eaae3cc1a010" CreationDate="2017-03-15T17:34:48.263" UserId="30" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="I came across this Mycenaen word when Iwas trapped in a Wikipaedia chain:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the verbal augment is almost entirely absent from Mycenaean Greek with only one known exception, [![enter image description here][1]][1] (), a-pe-do-ke (PY Fr 1184), but even that appears elsewhere without the augment, as [![enter image description here][2]][2] (), a-pu-do-ke (KN Od 681). — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenaean_Greek&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I presume this is the third person singular aorist from *ἀποδίδωμι*, &quot;he gave&quot;. Perhaps ἀπο and Latin *a(b(s))* in *aufero* etc. are related. Is there any conexion at all between the Mycenaean u and the Latin u here? My guess would be coincidence, and *a(b(s))* and ἀπο might not be related at all (I believe ὑπό is related, at least), but who knows?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I see Linear B in Firefox, although I now see that they won't show up in Chrome. Do you have a Linear B font installed? You could get the Aegean fonts here: http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/slpoj.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ERr6E.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2886" RevisionGUID="fdb2d87e-1e5a-464f-89c5-b6baec1db789" CreationDate="2017-03-15T18:23:47.760" UserId="1304" Text="The _ad-_ in _adhuc_ adds nothing to its meaning. _Huc_ alone means “to here, hither(to)” (just as _illuc_ means “to there, thither, far from both speaker and addressed party”. There is _istuc_ to, which means “to where you are”). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Lewis &amp; Short entry for _huc_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dhuc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the meaning of _huc_ alone began “watering down” to the point that it was even used almost like a preposition (see the example at the above link: _commigravit huc viciniae_ “immigrated into this neighborhood”), _ad-_ was added as a strengthening, especially to emphasize the whole extent of the motion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Lewis &amp; Short entry for _adhuc_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=adhuc&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To fully clarify the first point in your list, one should add that it is normal for spatial adverbs to be used for time too: “to here” becomes “up to now” and “so far” very easily (notice that in English too, “far” has a basic spatial meaning, but I have just used it for time.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’d like to add that the most basic word that means ”now” in modern Italian, is _adesso_ which comes from _ad ipsum,_ a colloquial form which replaced _adhuc_ when most _h*c_ demonstratives fell into disuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand why the second meaning &#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. [2.1] again; [2.2] furthermore; [2.3] moreover; [2.4] besides (used in scholastic debates to introduce an additional point in one's argument)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;makes you wonder: the basic meaning of ”further(more)” in English is that of a departing motion, not the approaching motion of _adhuc,_ and this might be confusing. However, you have to remember that _ad-_ means also “&lt;strong&gt;ad&lt;/strong&gt;dition”, and this is what we have here: not “to this (place)” but “in addition to this (fact)”. It is not a later development, this meaning of addition was there from the beginning: already Plautus has _addam minam adhuc_ (Plaut. Truc. 5, 18)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a later development, of course, is its use as a filler in speeches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to number 3:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. [3.1] even as, [3.2] while still&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since _adhuc_ encompasses the whole (possibly metaphorical) interval being traversed, a meaning of “duration” is a natural development too: “still”, ”while still”, ”while yet”, “as yet” are explained in this way. And “even as” is explained either as an evolution from the meaning “to the point that“, or as a contrastive usage which is also present in the English “while”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading both linked entries in Lewis &amp; Short will give you more insight." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2887" RevisionGUID="069681d6-3420-4e30-bdd1-ba2e4eb54f1f" CreationDate="2017-03-15T18:35:02.563" UserId="235" Text="I would like to say, &quot;I am a grumpy dog,&quot; since I did not get my proper sleep last night. I have a few guesses about &quot;grumpy&quot;, but these are only guesses. I looked up &quot;grumpy&quot; on Whitaker's words and found nothing. I looked up [&quot;irritable&quot;][1] and found *stomachosus* as well as *acriculus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stomachosus canis sum. / Acriculus canis sum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to know if either of these words are *le mot juste*. If not, what would you suggest?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?english=irritable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10330" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2887" RevisionGUID="069681d6-3420-4e30-bdd1-ba2e4eb54f1f" CreationDate="2017-03-15T18:35:02.563" UserId="235" Text="How do you say &quot;grumpy&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10331" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2887" RevisionGUID="069681d6-3420-4e30-bdd1-ba2e4eb54f1f" CreationDate="2017-03-15T18:35:02.563" UserId="235" Text="|translation|vocabulary|word-request|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2888" RevisionGUID="840830b0-c0da-4926-a12d-46b4c117e64a" CreationDate="2017-03-15T18:52:55.330" UserId="78" Text="There's nothing wrong with *stomachosus*, though it is not a very common word. Smith recommends, besides *stomachosus*, *difficilis*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. In partic., of character, hard to manage or to please, obstinate, captious, morose, surly: “difficiles ac morosi,” Cic. Or. 29 fin.; “moderati nec difficiles nec inhumani senes,” Cic. de Sen. 3, 7: “sunt morosi et anxii et iracundi et difficiles senes,” id. ib. 18, 65&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That last reference also gives us *iracundus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I.irascible, irritable, passionate, choleric, angry, ireful, easily provoked (class.): “iratus potest non esse iracundus: iracundus non potest aliquando iratus non esse, Sen. de Ira, 1, 4, 1 (al. om. non before potest): ut non tantum iratus sit sapiens, sed iracundus,” id. ib. 2, 6, 3: “sunt morosi et anxii et iracundi senes,” Cic. de Sen. 18, 65: “iracundum esse in aliquem,” id. Planc. 26, 63: “adversus hostes,” Just. 7, 6, 15: “quemadmodum posset leniri, Sen. de Ira, 1, 1, 1: tale non est ira, sed quasi ira,” id. ib. 1, 2, 6: “leones,” Ov. M. 15, 86: “mens,” Lucr. 3, 296.—Comp.: “iracundior est paulo,” Hor. S. 1, 3, 29.—Sup.: iracundissimus, Sen. de Ira, 2, 6, 4; 2, 15, 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Acriculus* is [*only* found](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=acricul) in Cicero's *Tusculanae Disputationes*, so personally I'd stay away from it, especially with *iracundus* paralleling *grumpy* so neatly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2886" RevisionGUID="81c34c84-d366-45a3-b688-3940a38d489a" CreationDate="2017-03-15T19:24:26.657" UserId="1304" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The _ad-_ in _adhuc_ adds nothing to its meaning. _Huc_ alone means “to here, hither(to)” (just as _illuc_ means “to there, thither, far from both speaker and addressed party”. There is _istuc_ too, which means “to where you are”). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Lewis &amp; Short entry for _huc_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dhuc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the meaning of _huc_ alone began “watering down” to the point that it was even used almost like a preposition (see the example at the above link: _commigravit huc viciniae_ “moved into this neighborhood”), _ad-_ was added as a strengthening, especially to emphasize the whole extent of the motion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Lewis &amp; Short entry for _adhuc_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=adhuc&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To fully clarify the first point in your list, one should add that it is normal for spatial adverbs to be used for time too: “to here” becomes “up to now” and “so far” very easily (notice that in English too, “far” has a basic spatial meaning, but I have just used it for time.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’d like to add that the most basic word that means ”now” in modern Italian, is _adesso_ which comes from _ad ipsum,_ a colloquial form which replaced _adhuc_ when most _h*c_ demonstratives fell into disuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand why the second meaning &#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. [2.1] again; [2.2] furthermore; [2.3] moreover; [2.4] besides (used in scholastic debates to introduce an additional point in one's argument)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;makes you wonder: the basic meaning of ”further(more)” in English is that of a departing motion, not the approaching motion of _adhuc,_ and this might be confusing. However, you have to remember that _ad-_ means also “&lt;strong&gt;ad&lt;/strong&gt;dition”, and this is what we have here: not “to this (place)” but “in addition to this (fact)”. It is not a later development, this meaning of addition was there from the beginning: already Plautus has _addam minam adhuc_ (Plaut. Truc. 5, 18)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a later development, of course, is its use as a filler in speeches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to number 3:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. [3.1] even as, [3.2] while still&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since _adhuc_ encompasses the whole (possibly metaphorical) interval being traversed, a meaning of “duration” is a natural development too: “still”, ”while still”, ”while yet”, “as yet” are explained in this way. And “even as” is explained either as an evolution from the meaning “to the point that“, or as a contrastive usage which is also present in the English “while”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading both linked entries in Lewis &amp; Short will give you more insight." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2886" RevisionGUID="e1130d35-ffb1-4cc7-871a-fa3e007c0ee1" CreationDate="2017-03-15T19:30:33.473" UserId="1304" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The _ad-_ in _adhuc_ adds nothing to its meaning. _Huc_ alone means “to here, hither(to)” (just as _illuc_ means “to there, thither, far from both speaker and addressed party”. There is _istuc_ too, which means “to where you are”). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Lewis &amp; Short entry for _huc_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dhuc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the meaning of _huc_ alone began watering down to the point that it was even used almost like a preposition (see the example at the above link: _commigravit huc viciniae_ “moved into this neighborhood”), _ad-_ was added as a strengthening, especially to emphasize the whole extent of the motion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Lewis &amp; Short entry for _adhuc_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=adhuc&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To fully clarify the first point in your list, one should add that it is normal for spatial adverbs to be used for time too: “to here” becomes “up to now” and “so far” very easily (notice that in English too, “far” has a basic spatial meaning, but I have just used it for time.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’d like to add that the most basic word that means “now” in modern Italian, is _adesso_ which comes from _ad ipsum,_ a colloquial form which replaced _adhuc_ when most _h*c_ demonstratives fell into disuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand why the second meaning &#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. [2.1] again; [2.2] furthermore; [2.3] moreover; [2.4] besides (used in scholastic debates to introduce an additional point in one's argument)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;makes you wonder: the basic meaning of “further(more)” in English is that of a departing motion, not the approaching motion of _adhuc,_ and this might be confusing. However, you have to remember that _ad-_ means also “&lt;strong&gt;ad&lt;/strong&gt;dition”, and this is what we have here: not “to this (place)” but “in addition to this (fact)”. It is not a later development, this meaning of addition was there from the beginning: already Plautus has _addam minam adhuc_ (Plaut. Truc. 5, 18)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a later development, of course, is its use as a filler in speeches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to number 3:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. [3.1] even as, [3.2] while still&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since _adhuc_ encompasses the whole (possibly metaphorical) interval being traversed, a meaning of “duration” is a natural development too: “still”, “while still”, “while yet”, “as yet” are explained in this way. And “even as” is explained either as an evolution from the meaning “to the point that”, or as a contrastive usage which is also present in the English “while”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading both linked entries in Lewis &amp; Short will give you more insight." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2886" RevisionGUID="df6cccd2-4fb3-4502-b3f0-fff379c8f356" CreationDate="2017-03-15T20:52:46.780" UserId="1304" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="The _ad-_ in _adhuc_ adds nothing to its meaning. _Huc_ alone means “to here, hither(to)” (just as _illuc_ means “to there, thither, far from both speaker and addressed party”. There is _istuc_ too, which means “to where you are”). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Lewis &amp; Short entry for _huc_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dhuc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the meaning of _huc_ alone began watering down to the point that it was even used almost like a preposition (see the example at the above link: _commigravit huc viciniae_ “moved into this neighborhood”), _ad-_ was added as a strengthening, especially to emphasize the whole extent of the motion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Lewis &amp; Short entry for _adhuc_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=adhuc&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To fully clarify the first point in your list, one should add that it is normal for spatial adverbs to be used for time too: “to here” becomes “up to now” and “so far” very easily (notice that in English too, “far” has a basic spatial meaning, but I have just used it for time.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’d like to add that the most basic word that means “now” in modern Italian, _adesso,_ comes from _ad ipsum,_ a colloquial form which replaced _adhuc_ when most _h*c_ demonstratives fell into disuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand why the second meaning &#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. [2.1] again; [2.2] furthermore; [2.3] moreover; [2.4] besides (used in scholastic debates to introduce an additional point in one's argument)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;makes you wonder: the basic meaning of “further(more)” in English is that of a departing motion, not the approaching motion of _adhuc,_ and this might be confusing. However, you have to remember that _ad-_ means also “&lt;strong&gt;ad&lt;/strong&gt;dition”, and this is what we have here: not “to this (place)” but “in addition to this (fact)”. It is not a later development, this meaning of addition was there from the beginning: already Plautus has _addam minam adhuc_ (Plaut. Truc. 5, 18)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a later development, of course, is its use as a filler in speeches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to number 3:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. [3.1] even as, [3.2] while still&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since _adhuc_ encompasses the whole (possibly metaphorical) interval being traversed, a meaning of “duration” is a natural development too: “still”, “while still”, “while yet”, “as yet” are explained in this way. And “even as” is explained either as an evolution from the meaning “to the point that”, or as a contrastive usage which is also present in the English “while”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading both linked entries in Lewis &amp; Short will give you more insight." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2889" RevisionGUID="434a45bb-2222-4e7b-b472-db587fc28095" CreationDate="2017-03-15T21:23:16.550" UserId="952" Text="I'm struggling with translating a line from Book 4, Chapter 35 from Caesar's *De Bello Gallico*. Here is the Latin portion (bolded) with context.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Caesar, etsi idem quod superioribus diebus acciderat fore videbat, ut, si essent hostes pulsi, celeritate periculum effugerent, **tamen nactus equites circiter XXX**, quos Commius Atrebas, de quo ante dictum est, secum transportaverat, legiones in acie pro castris constituit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, I have this part translated as &quot;nevertheless with around 30 horsemen obtained&quot;, but I don't think &quot;with&quot; is correct to use as there is no ablative here. Any thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10337" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2889" RevisionGUID="434a45bb-2222-4e7b-b472-db587fc28095" CreationDate="2017-03-15T21:23:16.550" UserId="952" Text="Translation of a Line from Caesar's De Bello Gallico" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10338" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2889" RevisionGUID="434a45bb-2222-4e7b-b472-db587fc28095" CreationDate="2017-03-15T21:23:16.550" UserId="952" Text="|translation|gaius-iulius-caesar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2890" RevisionGUID="561a4504-bd1f-4df3-81aa-0a12ea1aa374" CreationDate="2017-03-15T22:39:59.747" UserId="78" Text="As TKR pointed out, *malo malo* works. I think you might have a difficult time finding them, because they're actually abundant. Getting several to stack is where the fun is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example about how easy this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amor amor | I, Love, am loved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Servo servo | I serve in the manner of a slave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eo eo | I am going there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rege rege | Rule by means of a king!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Laude laude | Praise by praise!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the real challenge is getting more than two." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2891" RevisionGUID="96672143-4670-4b5c-8eeb-413f76bcb627" CreationDate="2017-03-15T23:14:39.873" UserId="1334" Text="I want to riff off the famous saying &quot;those about to die salute you&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to wikipedia the original is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ave, Imperator, morituri te salutant&quot; (&quot;Hail, Emperor, those who are about to die salute you&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to change it to &quot;Hail, Project Manager, those who are about to sprint salute you&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best I could come up with is:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ave, Vilicus Operis, concitī te salutant&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it seems totally wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone have a better translation? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10341" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2891" RevisionGUID="96672143-4670-4b5c-8eeb-413f76bcb627" CreationDate="2017-03-15T23:14:39.873" UserId="1334" Text="Help with translating &quot;For those about to die, we salute you&quot; ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10342" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2891" RevisionGUID="96672143-4670-4b5c-8eeb-413f76bcb627" CreationDate="2017-03-15T23:14:39.873" UserId="1334" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2892" RevisionGUID="6b0c287a-b956-4171-823b-7c4ef7c36d10" CreationDate="2017-03-15T23:39:26.557" UserId="45" Text="You have the vocabulary, but there's one small piece of grammar that you need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nactus* is the perfect &quot;passive&quot; participle of [*nanciscor*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnanciscor), meaning &quot;get, obtain, receive.&quot; However, we need to recall that the **perfect passive participle of a deponent verb has an *active* meaning.** *Hortatus* (from *hortor*) means &quot;having encouraged,&quot; *not* &quot;having been encouraged.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nactus* thus means &quot;having obtained.&quot; Otherwise, it functions as a normal participle and agrees with *Caesar*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A full, literal translation of your passage is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar, even though he saw that the same thing that had happened in previous days would come to be, that, if the enemy were beaten, they would flee away from danger through speed, **nevertheless having collected about 30 horsemen**, whom Commis Atrebas, who was mentioned previously, had brought along with him, drew up the legions in a battle line in front of the camp." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2892" RevisionGUID="2c4dd6ec-f8de-47f6-bf10-a4f1769853c3" CreationDate="2017-03-15T23:45:15.450" UserId="45" Comment="added 417 characters in body" Text="You have the vocabulary, but there's one small piece of grammar that you need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nactus* is the perfect &quot;passive&quot; participle of [*nanciscor*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnanciscor), meaning &quot;get, obtain, receive.&quot; However, we need to recall that the **perfect passive participle of a deponent verb has an *active* meaning.** *Hortatus* (from *hortor*) means &quot;having encouraged,&quot; *not* &quot;having been encouraged.&quot; This may seem obvious, but in fact the formation and meaning of deponent participles isn't as intuitive as you would think:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Participle     Form        Meaning     &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;    hortans        Active      Active      encouraging&#xD;&#xA;    hortatus       Passive     Active      having encouraged&#xD;&#xA;    hortaturus     Active      Active      about to encourage&#xD;&#xA;    hortandus      Passive     Passive     to be encouraged&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nactus* thus means &quot;having obtained.&quot; Otherwise, it functions as a normal participle and agrees with *Caesar*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A full, literal translation of your passage is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar, even though he saw that the same thing that had happened in previous days would come to be, that, if the enemy were beaten, they would flee away from danger through speed, **nevertheless having collected about 30 horsemen**, whom Commis Atrebas, who was mentioned previously, had brought along with him, drew up the legions in a battle line in front of the camp." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2893" RevisionGUID="c9b9a103-20ed-46ba-aefc-5c31bf5370e6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T01:01:52.470" UserId="30" Text="The Cypriote Syllabary resembles the syllabary script Linear B quite a bit, and both scripts were used to write a form of Greek. The Cypriote Syllabary was deciphered in the 1870s; why did it take until the 1950s for Linear B to be deciphered?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Various symbols bear a likeness, and similar words were found in inscriptions, too. An example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Compare Linear B [![enter image description here][1]][1] () (a-to-ro-qo) to Cypriot [![enter image description here][2]][2] () (a-to-ro-po-se), both forms of standard ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) &quot;human&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidental, it seems that this particular Cypriote inscription was written right to left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VFQ5h.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9KUUQ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10347" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2893" RevisionGUID="c9b9a103-20ed-46ba-aefc-5c31bf5370e6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T01:01:52.470" UserId="30" Text="Why was Linear B only deciphered 70 years after the Cypriote Syllabary?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10348" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2893" RevisionGUID="c9b9a103-20ed-46ba-aefc-5c31bf5370e6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T01:01:52.470" UserId="30" Text="|mycenaean|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2893" RevisionGUID="22a018d8-fea2-44e9-8bc4-8bed3b0258bb" CreationDate="2017-03-16T01:08:30.470" UserId="30" Comment="added 244 characters in body" Text="The Cypriote Syllabary resembles the syllabary script Linear B quite a bit, and both scripts were used to write a form of Greek. The Cypriote Syllabary was deciphered in the 1870s, according to Wikipaedia; why did it take until the 1950s for Linear B to be deciphered?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Various symbols bear a likeness, and similar words were found in inscriptions, too. The Cypriote Syllabary looks a little bit easier. But Linear B should have been a bit easier because its Cypriote niece had already been deciphered. An example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Compare Linear B [![enter image description here][1]][1] () (a-to-ro-qo) to Cypriot [![enter image description here][2]][2] () (a-to-ro-po-se), both forms of standard ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) &quot;human&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, it seems that this particular Cypriote inscription was written right to left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was it because fewer inscriptions were known for Linear B? Or was there some other factor?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VFQ5h.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9KUUQ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10350" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="681" RevisionGUID="72998a9a-4042-4237-ae62-5d28022392b7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T01:27:04.187" UserId="45" Comment="edited title" Text="How did 'ad' + 'hūc' compound to get its meanings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2894" RevisionGUID="f74fe037-890f-45c9-8905-91b7f9ad8698" CreationDate="2017-03-16T01:38:33.393" UserId="522" Text="Quintilian told his students to watch out for ambiguity where two words could be heard as one. Medieval writers seem to have enjoyed such word-play.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other examples like these either written or pictured? &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Ab eo abeo*** I go from there.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***In clino inclino*** I lean forward in bed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10352" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2894" RevisionGUID="f74fe037-890f-45c9-8905-91b7f9ad8698" CreationDate="2017-03-16T01:38:33.393" UserId="522" Text="Ab eo abeo ; In clino inclino Are there other jingles of this form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10353" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2894" RevisionGUID="f74fe037-890f-45c9-8905-91b7f9ad8698" CreationDate="2017-03-16T01:38:33.393" UserId="522" Text="|ambiguity|grammarians|word-play|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2895" RevisionGUID="f70088b5-f710-4d54-8a30-c65615bf3b99" CreationDate="2017-03-16T01:53:23.803" UserId="40" Text="This question is discussed in John Chadwick's *The Decipherment of Linear B*; I'll summarize what seem to be the most important factors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the reason that the Cypriot syllabary was deciphered so early was that, by good fortune, there existed both bilingual inscriptions (in Greek/Cypriot and Phoenician) and biscriptal ones (in Cypriot and alphabetic Greek). Such inscriptions are a holy grail for decipherers -- cf. the Rosetta Stone -- but there are none for Linear B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, the similarity between the two scripts isn't actually that great. Chadwick lists only seven signs which are closely similar (including the *to* in the ἄνθρωπος words you cite), but goes on to say that &quot;about three-quarters of the signs could only be equated by pure guesswork, and we now know that most of the guesses were wrong&quot;. Comparison with the Cypriot syllabary was indeed one of the main approaches to try to decipher Linear B, but it didn't go very far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, the graphic principles of the two scripts happen to be different in an importantly misleading way, which the two spellings of ἄνθρωπος illustrate. Namely, syllabic scripts with signs representing CV sequences have trouble writing a consonant that isn't followed by a vowel, like the final -s of ἄνθρωπος. In the Cypriot syllabary, the solution to this problem is to add a dummy vowel, as in this case *-se*. In Linear B, the &quot;solution&quot; is simply to ignore such consonants altogether and leave them out of the spelling. Now, this is where the partial similarity of the two syllabaries was actually unfavorable to decipherment. This is because this particular sign *se* happens to be one of the seven that are identical or very similar in both scripts. Now, if Linear B is Greek, and if it operates by the same principles as Cypriot, then since very many Greek words end in -s, one would expect to find very many Linear B words ending in *-se*, but this is not the case. This seemed like a very strong argument against the idea that Linear B was Greek, since scholars had no way of knowing that the two scripts had different rules for writing final consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a more abstract but very important factor was the academic-sociological one of scholarly groupthink, so to speak. The dominant idea about the civilization that used Linear B, ever since Arthur Evans discovered the first tablets at Knossos in 1900, was that it was the civilization of the King Minos of Greek mythology, the non-Greek Cretan ruler who according to the legends had once subjugated Athens. Evans wasn't completely wrong, of course, because we now think that the related, yet undeciphered Linear A was indeed the writing of this &quot;Minoan&quot; civilization; he assumed that Linear A and Linear B were variant scripts used to write the same, non-Greek language. (This was all the more natural because until 1939, there were no known Linear B tablets from the Greek mainland, but only from Crete.) Evans' prestige was immense, so much so that Michael Ventris, who would in 1952 prove that Linear B was Greek, wrote in an article in 1940 that &quot;the theory that Minoan [meaning both Linear scripts] could be Greek is based of course upon a deliberate disregard for historical plausibility&quot;. Even after Ventris's successful decipherment, it was some years before the last holdouts shook off the *idée fixe* that the Bronze Age Greeks simply could not have had writing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2881" RevisionGUID="ea53414e-b6ea-434e-8bb5-6f909676fc86" CreationDate="2017-03-16T02:05:51.537" UserId="78" Comment="added 174 characters in body" Text="The *OLD* provides several examples of *verba* meaning &quot;verb&quot; (as opposed to *vocabulum* or *nomen*, &quot;noun.&quot; Aside from two instances in Varro:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hor.*Ars* 235; nec a ~is modo, sed ab nominibus quoque deriuata sunt quaedam, ut a Cicerone 'sullaturit' Quint. *Inst*. 8.3.32; in ~is...sermonis uis est 9.4.26; Vel.gram.in *G*.*L*.7.57; ut pro ~is habentibus patiendi figuram agentia ponerent Gel.18.12.1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, Lewis &amp; Short does indeed give the definition of &quot;verb&quot; for *verbum* under II.C. I quote in full:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; C. In gram., a verb: “Aristoteles orationis duas partes esse dicit, vocabula et verba, ut homo et equus, et legit et currit, etc.,” Varr. *L*. *L*. 8, § 11 sq. Müll.; 9, § 95; 10, § 77 al.; Cic. *de Or*. 3, 49, 191.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Cicero and Varro to Aulus Gellius is at least 200 years, and Velius Longus provides an imperial grammarian locus for its use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, it also just means &quot;word,&quot; too, such as when Cicero referred to *mentula* as *id verbum* (Ad Fam. 9.22.2; though he other times used *nomen* to refer to a noun)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2895" RevisionGUID="c987d564-4889-4b47-a76c-fb18ee06c366" CreationDate="2017-03-16T02:10:47.073" UserId="40" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="This question is discussed in John Chadwick's *The Decipherment of Linear B*; I'll summarize what seem to be the most important factors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the reason that the Cypriot syllabary was deciphered so early was that, by good fortune, there existed both bilingual inscriptions (in Greek/Cypriot and Phoenician) and biscriptal ones (in Cypriot and alphabetic Greek). Such inscriptions are a holy grail for decipherers -- cf. the Rosetta Stone -- but there are none for Linear B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, the similarity between the two scripts isn't actually that great. Chadwick lists only seven signs which are closely similar (including the *to* in the ἄνθρωπος words you cite), but goes on to say that &quot;about three-quarters of the signs could only be equated by pure guesswork, and we now know that most of the guesses were wrong&quot;. Comparison with the Cypriot syllabary was indeed one of the main approaches to try to decipher Linear B, but it didn't go very far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, the graphic principles of the two scripts happen to be different in an importantly misleading way, which the two spellings of ἄνθρωπος illustrate. Namely, syllabic scripts with signs representing CV sequences have trouble writing a consonant that isn't followed by a vowel, like the final -s of ἄνθρωπος. In the Cypriot syllabary, the solution to this problem is to add a dummy vowel, as in this case *-se*. In Linear B, the &quot;solution&quot; is simply to ignore final consonants altogether and leave them out of the spelling. Now, this is where the partial similarity of the two syllabaries was actually unfavorable to decipherment. This is because this particular sign *se* happens to be one of the seven that are identical or very similar in both scripts. Now, if Linear B is Greek, and if it operates by the same principles as Cypriot, then since very many Greek words end in -s, one would expect to find very many Linear B words ending in *-se*, but this is not the case. This seemed like a very strong argument against the idea that Linear B was Greek, since scholars had no way of knowing that the two scripts had different rules for writing final consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a more abstract but very important factor was the academic-sociological one of scholarly groupthink, so to speak. The dominant idea about the civilization that used Linear B, ever since Arthur Evans discovered the first tablets at Knossos in 1900, was that it was the civilization of the King Minos of Greek mythology, the non-Greek Cretan ruler who according to the legends had once subjugated Athens. Evans wasn't completely wrong, of course, because we now think that the related, yet undeciphered Linear A was indeed the writing of this &quot;Minoan&quot; civilization; he assumed that Linear A and Linear B were variant scripts used to write the same, non-Greek language. (This was all the more natural because until 1939, there were no known Linear B tablets from the Greek mainland, but only from Crete.) Evans' prestige was immense, so much so that Michael Ventris, who would in 1952 prove that Linear B was Greek, wrote in an article in 1940 that &quot;the theory that Minoan [meaning both Linear scripts] could be Greek is based of course upon a deliberate disregard for historical plausibility&quot;. Even after Ventris's successful decipherment, it was some years before the last holdouts shook off the *idée fixe* that the Bronze Age Greeks simply could not have had writing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2896" RevisionGUID="94580896-7b5a-4b48-89a5-33aa94dbd572" CreationDate="2017-03-16T02:47:14.043" UserId="1329" Text="**sic este mei memores hec illac**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to use it in a poem.  It needs to be 10 syllables and the end has to rhyme with 'attack.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a good way to say 'So remember me this way' ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10358" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2896" RevisionGUID="94580896-7b5a-4b48-89a5-33aa94dbd572" CreationDate="2017-03-16T02:47:14.043" UserId="1329" Text="Is this a good way to say 'So remember me this way'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10359" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2896" RevisionGUID="94580896-7b5a-4b48-89a5-33aa94dbd572" CreationDate="2017-03-16T02:47:14.043" UserId="1329" Text="|translation|grammar-choice|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2897" RevisionGUID="3d729b9f-1cf9-4473-84a0-fe2daaa83ff9" CreationDate="2017-03-16T07:08:28.707" UserId="1304" Text="Well, [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtam) (way down the page) rule this possibility out: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; III. As demonstr. adv. of intensity, correlative with ut, that, and its equivalents (qui, quin); so only with adjj. and advv. (not with verbs). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other answers have shown uses of this with adjectives and adverbs, and it is easy (e.g. in the same L&amp;S entry) to find examples of _tam_ alone with verbs but without consecutive _ut._ However, it seems that what you are looking for (_tam_ + verb + _ut_) is not attested. Of course, L&amp;S might have overlooked some obscure passage, or some long-lost attestation might have been discovered in the last decades, but I’d bet against it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Latin used in the Renaissance and later, it is very unlikely to find a counterexample there; the traditional teaching is/was that you don’t use _tam_ with verbs alone, without adjectives or adverbs: “Plautus could, you cannot” would say my late teacher." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10361" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1157" RevisionGUID="fabc9b8b-a894-49c0-8940-98e43f12dc4d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T07:08:55.843" UserId="79" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[681],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1224,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Middle School Historian&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:45,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;brianpck&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10362" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1156" RevisionGUID="3060d0ee-2bfa-440e-a7c2-dbb0fc4c6518" CreationDate="2017-03-16T07:09:30.597" UserId="79" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[681],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1224,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Middle School Historian&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:45,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;brianpck&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2896" RevisionGUID="433ceed4-abdd-4cb8-a7ad-a35327f26953" CreationDate="2017-03-16T07:26:04.793" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="**sic este mei memores hec illac**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to use it in a poem.  It needs to be 10 syllables and the end has to rhyme with 'attack.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a good way to say 'So remember me this way'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10364" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2896" RevisionGUID="433ceed4-abdd-4cb8-a7ad-a35327f26953" CreationDate="2017-03-16T07:26:04.793" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|translation|grammar-choice|meaning|poetry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2898" RevisionGUID="4622d44a-7b61-4f59-b306-0bf2eb3a4a3d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T07:47:07.050" UserId="79" Text="Unfortunately I don't have a good translation to offer, so this is not a full answer.&#xD;&#xA;This is more of a commentary that didn't fit in the comment box.&#xD;&#xA;In prose I would translate your phrase as *sic mementote mei*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your verse is mostly grammatical, but unfortunately it does not have ten syllables (it has eleven) nor does it rhyme with the English word &quot;attack&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I do not quite understand the function of *h(a?)ec illac*.&#xD;&#xA;The adverb *illac* means &quot;along this road&quot; more concretely than the English &quot;that way&quot; does.&#xD;&#xA;Since you are not describing physical movement, something like *hoc modo* would be better &amp;mdash; but on the other hand, *sic* already conveys the &quot;this way&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Classical Latin does not have the vowel sound that appears in &quot;attack&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Instead of /æ/, *illac* has an /a/ (like in &quot;bath&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;Rhyming Latin with &quot;attack&quot; is difficult, and I'm not sure if anything would be satisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About syllables:&#xD;&#xA;In classical Latin *me&amp;#x306;-&amp;imacr;* has two syllables, one short and one long.&#xD;&#xA;(Synizesis is always possible, though.)&#xD;&#xA;There is no elision in this verse, so all syllables are pronounced.&#xD;&#xA;Classical poetry was based on a length pattern instead of a stress pattern, but of course you don't need to follow classical style in your poem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2899" RevisionGUID="45275e78-b20e-45f2-a23e-a4124433ff35" CreationDate="2017-03-16T08:07:54.117" UserId="1289" Text="In my first year of Latin in high school, we read a much simplified version of [Querolus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Querolus), about a very grumpy old man and his pot o' gold. It turns out to be post-classical, probably 5th century, but it tries to use classical vocabulary and style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `Querolus` itself translates more directly to something like &quot;the complainer&quot;, but it's quite close to what you seem to need (although it's a substantive). If you read the [source text](http://digiliblt.lett.unipmn.it/xtf/view?query=;brand=default;docId=dlt000432/dlt000432.xml;), then maybe there will be some interesting synonyms there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2898" RevisionGUID="1a642c34-1818-4d6d-8870-7066def5bb25" CreationDate="2017-03-16T08:58:01.117" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="Unfortunately I don't have a good translation to offer, so this is not a full answer.&#xD;&#xA;This is more of a commentary that didn't fit in the comment box.&#xD;&#xA;In prose I would translate your phrase as *sic mementote mei*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your verse is mostly grammatical, but unfortunately it does not have ten syllables (it has eleven) nor does it rhyme with the English word &quot;attack&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I do not quite understand the function of *h(a?)ec illac*.&#xD;&#xA;The adverb *illac* means &quot;along this road&quot; more concretely than the English &quot;that way&quot; does.&#xD;&#xA;Since you are not describing physical movement, something like *hoc modo* would be better &amp;mdash; but on the other hand, *sic* already conveys the &quot;this way&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Classical Latin does not have the vowel sound that appears in &quot;attack&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Instead of /æ/, *illac* has an /a/ (like in &quot;luck&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;Rhyming Latin with &quot;attack&quot; is difficult, and I'm not sure if anything would be satisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About syllables:&#xD;&#xA;In classical Latin *me&amp;#x306;-&amp;imacr;* has two syllables, one short and one long.&#xD;&#xA;(Synizesis is always possible, though.)&#xD;&#xA;There is no elision in this verse, so all syllables are pronounced.&#xD;&#xA;Classical poetry was based on a length pattern instead of a stress pattern, but of course you don't need to follow classical style in your poem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2900" RevisionGUID="c1c4addf-e25e-4fd5-906c-72c92962c197" CreationDate="2017-03-16T14:12:38.840" UserId="79" Text="The usual Latin diminutive suffix is *-ulus* (or *-ula* or *-ulum*).&#xD;&#xA;However, it sometimes appears as *-olus*, like in *filiolus*, *aculeolus*, *petiolus*, and *bestiola*.&#xD;&#xA;(And perhaps Venezuela, *Venetiola*, is a small Venice.)&#xD;&#xA;**When is *-olus* used instead of *-ulus*?**&#xD;&#xA;It seems that a vowel is followed by *-olus* and a consonant by *-ulus*, but I have not seen this rule explicitly stated.&#xD;&#xA;Does some grammar describe the choice of the diminutive suffix?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10372" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2900" RevisionGUID="c1c4addf-e25e-4fd5-906c-72c92962c197" CreationDate="2017-03-16T14:12:38.840" UserId="79" Text="Variations on the diminutive: -olus and -ulus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10373" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2900" RevisionGUID="c1c4addf-e25e-4fd5-906c-72c92962c197" CreationDate="2017-03-16T14:12:38.840" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|derivation|spelling|diminutive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2900" RevisionGUID="7744f203-42ea-4838-90b6-7f30a4fa2412" CreationDate="2017-03-16T14:20:17.220" UserId="79" Comment="added 473 characters in body" Text="The usual Latin diminutive suffix is *-ulus* (or *-ula* or *-ulum*).&#xD;&#xA;However, it sometimes appears as *-olus*, like in *filiolus*, *aculeolus*, *petiolus*, and *bestiola*.&#xD;&#xA;(And perhaps Venezuela, *Venetiola*, is a small Venice.)&#xD;&#xA;**When is *-olus* used instead of *-ulus*?**&#xD;&#xA;It seems that a vowel is followed by *-olus* and a consonant by *-ulus*, but I have not seen this rule explicitly stated.&#xD;&#xA;Does some grammar describe the choice of the diminutive suffix?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background:&#xD;&#xA;I read recently about a children's parliament (which promotes children's ideas and teaches them the basics of democracy), and I wondered what I would call it in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I thought a diminutive of *curia* would be a nice translation.&#xD;&#xA;Trying to attach *-ula* to *curia* produced *curiola*, as my intuition immediately rejected *curiula*.&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that I have no idea why I thought so.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would like to know how the vowel (o/u) is determined." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2901" RevisionGUID="7d158498-b8d0-4cb9-96eb-5a73137b5176" CreationDate="2017-03-16T14:20:22.743" UserId="78" Text="I think the *operis* is unnecessary, but *vilicus* is subversively delightful. It means &quot;overseer,&quot; and was often used for the slave who oversaw the field-working slaves. (Ecce Romani folk would remember Davus, the *vilicus Cornelii qui Getam verberat*.) I really like the connotation there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main issue is *concieo* is its transitive properties. I think you're better off with a word like *festinare* or *properare*, both meaning &quot;to hurry [yourself]&quot;. The former has a nice Latin proverb that would complement it: *festina lente*, &quot;hurry slowly.&quot; Essentially, do whatever you're doing as fast as you can, but not so fast that you are making mistakes doing so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would give you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ave Vilice, festinaturi te salutant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2901" RevisionGUID="15e3e2ca-0e58-4b02-b7c0-f13a5f09ac7e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T14:31:32.993" UserId="78" Comment="added 365 characters in body" Text="I think the *operis* is unnecessary, but *vilicus* is subversively delightful. It means &quot;overseer,&quot; and was often used for the slave who oversaw the field-working slaves. (Ecce Romani folk would remember Davus, the *vilicus Cornelii qui Getam verberat*.) I really like the connotation there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main issue is *concieo* is its transitive properties. I think you're better off with a word like *festinare* or *properare*, both meaning &quot;to hurry [yourself]&quot;. The former has a nice Latin proverb that would complement it: *festina lente*, &quot;hurry slowly.&quot; Essentially, do whatever you're doing as fast as you can, but not so fast that you are making mistakes doing so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would give you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ave Vilice, festinaturi te salutant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I should mention, since you have it in your original, that for 2nd declension nouns ending in -us, the vocative (i.e. when they are being addressed) ending is -e, not -us. If it's -ius, then it ends in -i. *Imperator* doesn't follow that pattern, so it doesn't change, but *vilicus* does, so that's why you have to have *ave vilice* and not *ave vilicus*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2885" RevisionGUID="40411249-819f-4695-8ae5-29f8a5c10585" CreationDate="2017-03-16T14:38:01.790" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and made small edits." Text="There are ways in Latin of expressing less-than-completeness, but I'm intrigued by the strange-ish (!) and allegedly related etymologies given in English dictionaries for these two endings, which are claimed to be derived from Latin and earlier sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently came upon the phrase 'a goodish way', for which I used the comparative *longius*, in the (alternative) sense of 'rather' or 'somewhat'. Almost immediately afterwards the word 'yellowish' occurred, and for this there is an adjective *fulvaster*. And today I have come upon *novellaster*, 'newish' or 'rather new'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has all set me reflecting that *-ish* is a useful modifier for English adjectives, and that in French *-âtre* has a similar use in, for example, *verdâtre*, 'greenish' (though I do not think it so freely used as our English *-ish*). The *-aster* ending is seen in the English 'poetaster' in the same sense while, Chambers' Dictionary attributes the same ending in 'disaster' (via French) to — I quote — [O Fr . . . . from *des* (L *dis-*) with evil sense, and *astre* a star, destiny, from L *astrum, Gr *astron* star].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I've found the above examples, I don't remember any rule for modifying Latin nouns and adjectives in analogous ways — except that, in some cases, the prefix *sub-* can be used as in, for instance, *subruber* and *subraucus*. The whole business seems quite haphazard. It would be very convenient if there were a proper rule: is there any such? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10378" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2885" RevisionGUID="40411249-819f-4695-8ae5-29f8a5c10585" CreationDate="2017-03-16T14:38:01.790" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and made small edits." Text="|vocabulary|derivation|etymolgy|accidence|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2902" RevisionGUID="dbbe899d-a5ce-4e21-a5a4-531070f83f5b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T14:41:39.703" UserId="79" Text="I don't think there is anything quite like the English -ish in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The closest thing I know is the diminutive.&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples of diminutive adjectives where the diminutive means lesser extent instead of smaller size:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*acutulus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=acutulus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) from *acutus*&#xD;&#xA;- [*astutulus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dastutulus) from *astutus*&#xD;&#xA;- [*audaculus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daudaculus) from *audax*&#xD;&#xA;- [*curiosulus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcuriosulus) from *curiosus*&#xD;&#xA;- [*dulciculus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddulciculus) from *dulcis*&#xD;&#xA;- [*duriusculus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dduriusculus) from *durus*&#xD;&#xA;- [*eruditulus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Deruditulus) from *eruditus*&#xD;&#xA;- [*fericulus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfericulus) from *ferus*&#xD;&#xA;- [*fessulus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfessulus) from *fessus*&#xD;&#xA;- [*floridulus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfloridulus) from *floridus*&#xD;&#xA;- [*frigidulus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfrigidulus) from *frigidus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The diminutive is mostly translated as &quot;somewhat&quot; in the linked dictionary entries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?lang=la&amp;page=5&amp;type=end&amp;lookup=ulus&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such adjectives are not very common, but still common enough to see a pattern and feel confident about using the suffix productively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to exactly form the diminutive is another question (and worth separate questions), but it is often fairly simple.&#xD;&#xA;I asked about [one aspect of forming diminutives](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2900/79) just a moment ago." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2758" RevisionGUID="203b5d35-cdca-42b8-8c72-7b68ce2a9c36" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:14:21.723" UserId="79" Comment="Added some commentary." Text="In mathematical literature &quot;if and only if&quot; (sometimes abbreviated as &quot;iff&quot;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;) is a relatively common phrase.&#xD;&#xA;Saying &quot;A if and only if B&quot; means that A and B are equivalent logical statements.&#xD;&#xA;This is equivalent to but less clumsy than saying &quot;A if B and A only if B&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is convenient to have conjunctions to say &quot;A is implied by B&quot; (if), &quot;A implies B&quot; (only if) and &quot;A is equivalent to B&quot; (if and only if).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that this conjunction or phrase appears in Latin, too.&#xD;&#xA;To my surprise, I found no trace of it in [this text of Gauss](http://thelatinlibrary.com/gauss.html).&#xD;&#xA;When, if ever, did this phrase appear in Latin mathematical literature?&#xD;&#xA;And more importantly, what is this phrase in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I could translate it as *si et solum si*, but I would like to know what was actually used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Partial answers and non-mathematical contexts are also welcome if you have any insight to share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The English abbreviation is &quot;iff&quot; (&lt; if), the Finnish one is &quot;joss&quot; (&lt; jos), the Italian one is &quot;ssi&quot; (&lt; si), the Spanish one is &quot;sse&quot; (&lt; se), the Swedish one is &quot;omm&quot; (&lt; om), and so forth.&#xD;&#xA;By analogy, I would abbreviate the thing in Latin as *ssi*.&#xD;&#xA;But this question is about the fuller and more formal version." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10381" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="1943" RevisionGUID="addb7848-41df-40b1-a5c5-9759de80841c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:19:47.413" UserId="12" Comment="21" />
  <row Id="10382" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="1966" RevisionGUID="1e948bce-57ae-4509-a0b3-71947a0db55e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:19:56.347" UserId="79" Comment="23" />
  <row Id="10383" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="675" RevisionGUID="4fe830a2-8222-4b3a-91cb-24c3bb337c51" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:20:15.133" UserId="12" Comment="22" />
  <row Id="10384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2903" RevisionGUID="be321204-f1e1-4c40-ae17-f875956350bd" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:43:57.530" UserId="45" Text="A word search confirms that ***-olus* is used instead of *-ulus* after a vowel.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [Perseus search for words ending in -olus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?lang=la&amp;type=end&amp;page=1&amp;lookup=olus) reveals (among a few false positives, like *malevolus*) that every diminutive form follows a vowel. A similar search for -[vowel]ulus, such as [-iulus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=iulus&amp;lang=la), only returns false positives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is confirmed in [Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar](http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.243.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Diminutives] are formed by means of the suffixes -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **-ulus (-a, -um), -olus (after a vowel)**, -culus, -ellus, -illus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2904" RevisionGUID="653767f9-6806-43e1-8f66-4e58cbe933b6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:21:46.683" UserId="45" Text="I am phrasing the question as an absolute though I am well aware that the answer could be &quot;we don't know&quot; or &quot;depends on your pronunciation.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I often hear church choirs pronounce *miserere* with a voiced &quot;s,&quot; much like English /z/. The same goes for words like *visio, occasio*, and (even) *causa*. Perhaps since I take most of my pronunciation cues from Spanish, I tend to pronounce all these words with an unvoiced /s/ sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Do we know, or have a good guess, about how this was pronounced classically?&#xD;&#xA;* Are there established pronunciations that have rules about when and when not to voice &quot;s&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10386" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2904" RevisionGUID="653767f9-6806-43e1-8f66-4e58cbe933b6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:21:46.683" UserId="45" Text="Is &quot;s&quot; between two vowels voiced or unvoiced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10387" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2904" RevisionGUID="653767f9-6806-43e1-8f66-4e58cbe933b6" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:21:46.683" UserId="45" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="600" RevisionGUID="6532ee98-a36c-4b20-934b-955ba3366a86" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:43:57.703" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Do the Latin stress rules (antepenultimate if penultimate is light, penultimate if heavy) have any known exceptions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, what are the exceptions, and what evidence is there in the grammatical canon or in literature or poetry for them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Following a consensus on [Latin Meta.SE](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/159/reposting-latin-questions-from-linguistics-se-which-could-be-answered-better-her), I'm reposting [this question from Linguistics.SE](http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/1954/latin-stress-rules-exceptions) here, as I believe the classics community may be better able to support their answer with quotations and historical context.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="659" RevisionGUID="bff059ca-f1f3-4ebe-9467-9e5032a44440" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:43:57.703" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, the spelling DVCITIS was absolutely valid in the Roman Republic and early Empire. The introduction of the letter U allowed people to mark the difference between the sound used as a consonant (sounding like our letter w) and the sound used as a vowel (sounding like our oo). I don't know when folks started using U, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, there are different approaches to spelling Latin today, too. I prefer to alternate between v/u and j/i for consonantal/vocalic sounds. Church Latinists tend to do this as well. Most other folks seem to be to alternate v/u for consonantal/vocalic V but to use i for consonantal and vocalic I. I've encountered a number of texts printed in the last several years, however, that use only U and I for both consonantal and vocalic sounds; I'll admit to finding this a little annoying to read, but it could be that I'm used to alternating V/U.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the time of Cicero, Cæsar, and their compatriots, yes, the C would have been pronounced like K. The change to a CH sound occurred some time between 300 and 700 CE; you can read more about it and the other phonological changes from classical to medieval Latin [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The addition of the macron to the U in later years isn't really a spelling change; it's more a visual aide to let readers less familiar with the vocabulary know what vowels are long. So in classical Rome, you might for example find misspelled graffiti that read DVVCITIS, doubling the length of the vowel. No one who actually spoke Latin as a native tongue would require macrons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Romans did on occasion mark long vowels, but they did it differently, with what we think of today as the French *accent aigu*; you can read [this meta post][2] for a more detailed discussion. However, they usually did this only to mark vowels that, if left unmarked, might cause the words to mean different things (for example, the word *anus* means both &quot;anus&quot; and &quot;old woman,&quot; so if there was any risk of confusion you might want to avoid it by marking the vowel). However, the use of apices isn't widespread these days, and if this is meant for a general audience I'd advise against it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd say you should go with either *DVCITIS* or *DUCITIS*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/156-classical-vs-ecclesiastical-latin-part-1.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/93/should-we-standardize-macrons-for-long-vowels-or-allow-users-to-mark-long-vowels" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="742" RevisionGUID="7b7b2ade-e786-4c46-935b-78e399b0cc52" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:43:57.703" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was thinking about expanding our [help page in Latin](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/168/79), and I realized I don't know a good expression for &quot;user account&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;user&quot; can be reasonably translated as *usor*, but &quot;account&quot; is harder.&#xD;&#xA;The words that I have found (*ratio*, *computum*, *codex*) seem to miss the point and are prone to misunderstandings.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a good expression for &quot;account&quot; or &quot;user account&quot; in Latin that is easy to understand and preferably already in use?&#xD;&#xA;My best guess now is *[logarion](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2033306) usoris*, but I doubt that is recognized widely enough to be useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="250299dd-1668-46b1-b99b-1b5b911bfd97" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:43:57.703" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="What good **online** Latin dictionaries do you know?&#xD;&#xA;What are their benefits and drawbacks?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Please give only one dictionary per answer.**&#xD;&#xA;If you have many dictionaries to suggest, give multiple answers &amp;mdash; but read the other answers to avoid duplicating answers.&#xD;&#xA;This way people can vote on individual dictionaries, causing the best ones to rise up and the worst ones to sink down, so that we can easily find the most loved dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;If there are many dictionaries listed in an answer, it's hard to link the answer score to the quality of each listed dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Note about resource questions:**  &#xD;&#xA;Broad resource questions like this are generally **not** allowed on this site.&#xD;&#xA;The community chooses a select few to avoid an overflow of questions of this kind.&#xD;&#xA;If you have an opinion on what resource questions should be asked next, post a suggestion in [this meta post](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) or vote the existing ones.&#xD;&#xA;The ones to be asked will be chosen from that list according to their number of votes.&#xD;&#xA;If you have ideas about listing resources on this site in general, you can contribute to [this meta discussion](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/177/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In particular, if you would like to ask a similar resource request question, do **not** just ask it, but post a suggestion in the [mentioned meta post](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="957" RevisionGUID="b925c017-a56b-49ff-94f9-c59371ba2b7e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:43:57.703" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="What good widely available courses (e.g. textbooks, online classes) are there for people who wish to learn (or continue to learn) Latin on their own?&#xD;&#xA;What are their benefits and drawbacks?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Please give only one course per answer.**&#xD;&#xA;If you have many courses to suggest, give multiple answers—but read the other answers to avoid duplicating answers.&#xD;&#xA;This way people can vote on individual courses, causing the best ones to rise up and the worst ones to sink down, so that we can easily find the most loved courses.&#xD;&#xA;If there are many courses listed in an answer, it's hard to link the answer score to the quality of each listed course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Note about resource questions:**  &#xD;&#xA;Broad resource questions like this are generally **not** allowed on this site.&#xD;&#xA;The community chooses a select few to avoid an overflow of questions of this kind.&#xD;&#xA;If you have an opinion on what resource questions should be asked next, post a suggestion in [this meta post](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) or vote on the existing ones.&#xD;&#xA;The ones to be asked will be chosen from that list according to their number of votes.&#xD;&#xA;If you have ideas about listing resources on this site in general, you can contribute to [this meta discussion](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/177/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In particular, if you would like to ask a similar resource request question, do **not** just ask it, but post a suggestion in the [mentioned meta post](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1498" RevisionGUID="1f8cc08b-aaba-4eb9-aead-c4fba290105c" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:43:57.703" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Macrons are mainly pronunciation guides, telling which vowels are pronounced long.&#xD;&#xA;In some cases they can resolve ambiguities, when two words only differ by the length a vowel.&#xD;&#xA;Using them is not necessary, and I would personally consider it better style not to use macrons when writing in Latin, unless there is a special reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macrons were not used in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;See [this separate question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1440/79) for the arrival of the macron.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also point out that there also a sign to indicate short vowels: the breve.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the absence of a macron does not make it sufficiently clear that a vowel is short.&#xD;&#xA;For example, we had recently a question about [*p&amp;omacr;pulus* and *po&amp;#x306;pulus*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1316/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your main question seems to be how to know when vowels are short and when they are long.&#xD;&#xA;The answer is simply that you have to learn the lengths when you learn the vowels.&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;man&quot; is *vi&amp;#x306;r*, not *vi&amp;#x304;r*.&#xD;&#xA;The singular genitive ending of the first declension is *-i&amp;#x304;*, not *-i&amp;#x306;*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore &quot;man's&quot; is *vi&amp;#x306;ri&amp;#x304;*.&#xD;&#xA;To get the lengths right, it is not enough to know that the word is *vir* and the ending is *-i*, and there are no simple rules that would allow you to efficiently guess where to put macrons in a given Latin word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you progress in studying Latin, you will develop some intuition to the lengths.&#xD;&#xA;But it does not come without work, and I can offer no shortcut.&#xD;&#xA;This has the unfortunate consequence that if you have already learned many Latin words and endings without paying attention to lengths and you now want to learn where to put macrons, you have to relearn all vowels to get the lengths right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In short:&#xD;&#xA;How do you know where to place macrons?&#xD;&#xA;You learn it case by case.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have instructions for producing a [macron](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/172/79) or a [breve](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2/79) on our meta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1834" RevisionGUID="5621c303-bbb9-430a-a1ae-41b7cd2199e4" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:43:57.703" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="*Machina* is indeed a good translation for &quot;machine&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In plural it is *machinae*, so this translation is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to be careful with the English word &quot;people&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you refer to a people (where &quot;people&quot; is singular), the Latin word is *populus*.&#xD;&#xA;(The word *populo* is the singular dative or ablative of this word. Such inflected forms are not a good choice here in my opinion.)&#xD;&#xA;If you refer to to humans (where &quot;people&quot; is plural), the Latin word is *homines*.&#xD;&#xA;A single human is *homo*, and the plural is *homines*.&#xD;&#xA;In the context you give *homines* would be a better choice.&#xD;&#xA;If one network is for humans and the other for machines, then *populus* would be too grandiose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, Google Translate is very unreliable with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to translate single words, I suggest using any of [several online Latin dictionaries](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;After finding a list possible translations of your English word, I suggest also looking at the translations from Latin to English for each option; this can provide good insight to choosing the most suitable translation.&#xD;&#xA;If you have trouble finding the correct form, you can ask for help here.&#xD;&#xA;We also have [a guide for asking translation questions](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/143/79) at our meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Added from comments:**&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say &quot;**for** people/humans&quot;, then it is *hominibus*, and similarly &quot;**for** machines&quot; is *machinis*. In Latin one uses the dative case instead of a preposition here. But when it's used as a name, the context makes the intention clear, so I would say *homines* and *hominibus* work equally well. Just use *machinae/homines* or *machinis/hominibus* without mixing the two options, for consistency." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1854" RevisionGUID="834db7ee-2ad7-44f4-bbf1-72b10e092672" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:43:57.703" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Suppose I want to search for a certain word, expression or structure in the Latin literature.&#xD;&#xA;What **online** tools can I use for such purposes?&#xD;&#xA;Where can I find a large collection of Latin texts in easily searchable form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To describe the source or tool, please answer at least these questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How is the corpus limited? (Is it only classical Latin, for example?)&#xD;&#xA;- What kinds of searches can be made?&#xD;&#xA;- How can I link to a specific passage that I want to cite?&#xD;&#xA;- Is it connected to some other tools (like a dictionary or a full text translation) that make usage easier?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do not need to limit your description to answering these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Please give only one corpus per answer.**&#xD;&#xA;If you have many suggestions, give multiple answers &amp;mdash; but read the other answers to avoid duplicates.&#xD;&#xA;This way people can vote on individual corpora, causing the best ones to rise up and the worst ones to sink down, so that we can easily find the most loved dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Note about resource questions:**  &#xD;&#xA;Broad resource questions like this are generally **not** allowed on this site.&#xD;&#xA;The community chooses a select few to avoid an overflow of questions of this kind.&#xD;&#xA;If you have an opinion on what resource questions should be asked next, post a suggestion in [this meta post](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) or vote the existing ones.&#xD;&#xA;The ones to be asked will be chosen from that list according to their number of votes.&#xD;&#xA;If you have ideas about listing resources on this site in general, you can contribute to [this meta discussion](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/177/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In particular, if you would like to ask a similar resource request question, do **not** just ask it, but post a suggestion in the [mentioned meta post](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2121" RevisionGUID="b6341b0e-3f50-49ab-a4b5-04649eb51e99" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:43:57.703" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Cicero has produced quite a lot of Latin prose in what is considered excellent style.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to find ways to demonstrate briefly what Cicero's style is all about.&#xD;&#xA;**If you had to demonstrate Cicero's prose style with one sentence from his works, what would it be and why? How does it reflect his style?**&#xD;&#xA;Such examples with explanations could easily be given to students or the general public to give an idea of what makes Cicero special.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer, give a sentence (or at most two if they are short) from Cicero and explain what makes it so characteristic of his style.&#xD;&#xA;Please give also a precise citation to make the passage easy to find online corpora and in various translations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is originally from [this meta discussion](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/229/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2434" RevisionGUID="16ca0784-d94d-42b2-bd83-364eaaee0877" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:43:57.703" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I just stumbled upon [an old meta question](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/21/79) about the name of [our chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm), and a comment gave me the impression that the classical spelling would be *conloquium* rather than *colloquium*.&#xD;&#xA;(Let me ignore capitalization and comparing U and V in this question.)&#xD;&#xA;In cases like this, are both NL and LL used in classical Latin, or is one preferred over the other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do we know?&#xD;&#xA;It seems likely to me that later copyists would have changed such spelling details, so classical choices would only be visible in inscriptions &amp;mdash; but this is only my guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have evidence for other similar cases of assimilation and can argue that NL/LL should behave the same, that is perfectly acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;The main interest of this question is more focused, but more general arguments are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;Notice that this question is about spelling, not pronunciation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2846" RevisionGUID="a8e585a4-ffab-47c2-95b2-41493eb8933d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:43:57.703" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Having read [the recent meta discussion](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/263/79) concerning the tag [tag:vocabulary] and remembering that [we prefer to have our tags in Latin](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/80/79), I started to wonder how one might translate the word &quot;vocabulary&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good translation and why?&#xD;&#xA;I want to translate it in the context of tagging on this site.&#xD;&#xA;That is, if someone wants to learn Latin vocabulary, how could they describe their desire in Latin using a word or phrase that means &quot;vocabulary&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The obvious choice is *vocabularium* and it would make sense as a derivative, but it's not in Lewis and Short.&#xD;&#xA;A similar word, [*glossarium*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DG%3Aentry+group%3D11%3Aentry%3Dglossarium), can be found, but it seems to have an unsuitable nuance: [*glossa*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DG%3Aentry+group%3D11%3Aentry%3Dglossa) means &quot;an obsolete or foreign word that requires explanation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;My current preference is *vocabularium* (cf. [*vocabulum*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DV%3Aentry+group%3D25%3Aentry%3Dvocabulum) in L&amp;S), but I'm not at all convinced that this is the optimal choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2901" RevisionGUID="4602ead1-e3af-48f9-b09d-16bb1b2d3425" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:56:37.670" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="I think the *operis* is unnecessary, but *vilicus* is subversively delightful. It means &quot;overseer,&quot; and was often used for the slave who oversaw the field-working slaves. (Ecce Romani folk would remember Davus, the *vilicus Cornelii qui Getam verberat*.) I really like the connotation there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main issue is *concieo* is that it's transitive. I think you're better off with a word like *festinare* or *properare*, both meaning &quot;to hurry [yourself]&quot;. The former has a nice Latin proverb that would complement it: *festina lente*, &quot;hurry slowly.&quot; Essentially, do whatever you're doing as fast as you can, but not so fast that you are making mistakes doing so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would give you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ave Vilice, festinaturi te salutant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I should mention, since you have it in your original, that for 2nd declension nouns ending in -us, the vocative (i.e. when they are being addressed) ending is -e, not -us. If it's -ius, then it ends in -i. *Imperator* doesn't follow that pattern, so it doesn't change, but *vilicus* does, so that's why you have to have *ave vilice* and not *ave vilicus*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2905" RevisionGUID="410eb0f9-a0fd-4e99-80e2-5a6225992b10" CreationDate="2017-03-16T17:26:42.343" UserId="183" Text="Classically, there were (probably) only unvoiced s's. Preclassically, there were voiced /z/ segments in Latin, even written with the letter Z (at that time the 6th letter of the alphabet, where now the G sits). Those /z/ segments were shifted to /r/ (a process called rhotacism) and traces of that process are left in irregular declination patterns like honos, honoris (later regularised to honor, honoris).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter Z was officially removed from the Latin alphabet in the 3rd century BCE, because it was not needed at that time. It was some centuries re-introduced at the end of the alphabet to write Greek loanwords. It wasn't used for native Latin words at that time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2906" RevisionGUID="1b5c59c7-6503-49dd-962d-ae3d342ecc88" CreationDate="2017-03-16T17:57:53.427" UserId="1339" Text="In the Latin version of Kyrie Eliason, the name Jesus is rendered as &quot;Domine Fili unigenite Jesu Christe.&quot;...However, in the Latin Vulgate, the name of Jesus is rendered as &quot;Iesus&quot;. What IS the name of Jesus Christ in Latin? Why the difference? Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10407" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2906" RevisionGUID="1b5c59c7-6503-49dd-962d-ae3d342ecc88" CreationDate="2017-03-16T17:57:53.427" UserId="1339" Text="What is the difference between Iesus and Jesu (latin for Jesus Christ)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10408" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2906" RevisionGUID="1b5c59c7-6503-49dd-962d-ae3d342ecc88" CreationDate="2017-03-16T17:57:53.427" UserId="1339" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2907" RevisionGUID="4e771a71-f6ad-47d6-8e2e-da3be014dff7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T18:03:42.807" UserId="235" Text="The phrase you quote, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Domine Fili unigenite Jesu Christe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has words in the vocative case. The vocative case is used for address. That is,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O Lord, only begotten son, Jesus Christ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The particle *O* underscores this fact, that the phrase is in the form of address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, Iesus is in the nominative case. The nominative case is used for the subject of a sentence. So when Jesus is the subject of a sentence, the Latin word Iesus will be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, Iesus and Iesu are different inflections of the same Latin word. They each have different functions in a sentence. Iesus can be the subject of a sentence, whereas Iesu (in the vocative) indicates an address. It's worth pointing out that Iesu can also be the genitive, dative, or ablative case, but we won't go into that now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="623" RevisionGUID="71eba38f-757b-4b98-b4aa-f488613017ff" CreationDate="2017-03-16T18:04:29.740" UserId="78" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="'Why' isn't usually a good question for these types of things, because the answer is often &quot;just because.&quot; The Greek isn't typical, but it does have a parallel with o-contracted words like νοῦς, περίπλους, or (neuter) κανοῦν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Nominative	Ἰησοῦς         νοῦς&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive	Ἰησοῦ          νοῦ&#xD;&#xA;    Dative	    Ἰησοῖ/Ἰησοῦ    νῷ&#xD;&#xA;    Accusative	Ἰησοῦν         νοῦν&#xD;&#xA;    Vocative	Ἰησοῦ          νοῦ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only part that looks odd is the dative, but that actually has a [close precedent elsewhere](https://books.google.com/books?id=AMc1WQAnRTkC&amp;pg=PA45&amp;dq=koine+dative#v=onepage&amp;q=koine%20dative&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Greek papyri there is widespread confusion of ε and η and ο and ω reflecting a loss of phonemic distinctions of quantity in koine Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it's not unheard of for Semitic names to come in irregular in the Septuagint (Μωυσῆς).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why Latin would have stuck with the Greek, well, they tended to. Plenty of names that are indeclinable in the LXX or NT were likewise left without endings in the Latin translations. Sacred scripture also adds a familiarity and conservatism to language that makes it nigh impervious to some forms of change, which is why English contains Hebraisms (e.g. [[2]](http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/and-so-it-came-to-pass.2520005/); see [[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebraism#Hebrew_etymologies)). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2908" RevisionGUID="04657b94-ab4e-40c8-9b67-4560f03cc0ce" CreationDate="2017-03-16T18:05:29.833" UserId="78" Text="Ancient Latin had no separate letter for the the vowel I and the consonant Y (J in German). They were both written as I. In Medieval Latin, though, a development took place that differentiated between the vowel I (written as I, i) and the consonant I (now written as J, j).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no difference, then, between Iesus and Jesus in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jesu/Iesu, though, is different. Latin words had different endings depending on how they were used in a sentence. You can see from [this page](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Iesus) all the different endings for Jesus. Depending on how you use it, Jesu can be a genitive (of Jesus, Jesus'), dative (to/for Jesus), ablative (with/by/in Jesus), or vocative, (Jesus!)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2906" RevisionGUID="a3aa794e-9ea5-4037-829b-9d65e91e6ab5" CreationDate="2017-03-16T18:07:04.583" UserId="469" Comment="edited body" Text="In the Latin version of Kyrie Eleison, the name Jesus is rendered as &quot;Domine Fili unigenite Jesu Christe.&quot;...However, in the Latin Vulgate, the name of Jesus is rendered as &quot;Iesus&quot;. What IS the name of Jesus Christ in Latin? Why the difference? Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2907" RevisionGUID="f7f522aa-5562-4b2b-8fdb-35ee5ccc5cf3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T18:15:26.433" UserId="235" Comment="added 717 characters in body" Text="The phrase you quote has words in the vocative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Domine Fili unigenite Jesu Christe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vocative case is used for address. That is,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O Lord, only begotten son, Jesus Christ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The particle *O* underscores this fact, that the phrase is in the form of address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, Iesus is in the nominative case. The nominative case is used for the subject of a sentence. So when Jesus is the subject of a sentence, the Latin word Iesus (or Jesus) will be used. An example of this would be,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cum ergo natus esset Jesus in Bethlehem Juda in diebus Herodis regis, ecce magi ab oriente venerunt Jerosolymam,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When Jesus therefore was born in Bethlehem of Juda, in the days of king Herod, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Matthew 2:1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the nominative form is used, because Jesus is the subject of the clause. *When Jesus therefore was born in Bethlehem...* I should mention that Jesus and Iesus are the same Latin word, it just depends on the edition of the Vulgate. Over time, the Latin *I* was sometimes replaced with *J*. So when you see *Iesus* or *Jesus* in Latin writing, know that it is unquestionably the nominative case. But when you see *Iesu*, it can either be vocative, dative, genitive, or ablative. Context helps you decide. In this case, *Domine* is unquestionably vocative, so we know that *Iesu* is as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=47&amp;ch=2&amp;l=1#x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2906" RevisionGUID="4ab15f69-4b87-41bb-b581-7c23e2405f00" CreationDate="2017-03-16T18:19:17.720" UserId="45" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="In the Latin version of the *Gloria*, the name Jesus is rendered as &quot;Domine Fili unigenite Jesu Christe&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in the Latin Vulgate, the name of Jesus is rendered as &quot;Iesus&quot;. What is the name of Jesus Christ in Latin? Why the difference? Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10415" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2906" RevisionGUID="4ab15f69-4b87-41bb-b581-7c23e2405f00" CreationDate="2017-03-16T18:19:17.720" UserId="45" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What is the difference between Iesus and Jesu" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10416" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2906" RevisionGUID="4ab15f69-4b87-41bb-b581-7c23e2405f00" CreationDate="2017-03-16T18:19:17.720" UserId="45" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|vocabulary|declension|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2909" RevisionGUID="3a5c6b22-af99-406e-903c-1ddb8112d255" CreationDate="2017-03-16T19:04:51.297" UserId="12" Text="The other answers are great, but let me try to show it in a slightly different way.  In Latin, the word *Jesus* or *Iesus* (more on that later) has several different forms, as shown in a declension table [like this one](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Iesus), reproduced below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       Case         Form&#xD;&#xA;       nominative	Iēsus&#xD;&#xA;       genitive	    Iēsū&#xD;&#xA;       dative   	Iēsū&#xD;&#xA;       accusative	Iēsum&#xD;&#xA;       ablative	    Iēsū&#xD;&#xA;       vocative  	Iēsū&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These forms – Iēsus, Iēsū, Iēsum – are different ways of saying &quot;Jesus,&quot; according to their grammatical function in a sentence.  In English we do this to pronouns (like the difference between *he*, *his*, and *him*), but in Latin it's done to regular nouns too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference in the first letter, on the other hand, is a separate matter.  The [Classical Latin alphabet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet#Classical_Latin_alphabet) had no *J*.  The letter *I* served as both a vowel and a consonant.  As time went on, *J* was introduced and a distinction arose between *I* and *J*, with *I* representing the vowel and *J* representing the consonant.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus for practical purposes *Jesus* and *Iesus* are completely equivalent in Latin.  And in English, where we'd say &quot;Jesus,&quot; depending on the function of the word in the sentence, Latin authors would write *Jesus*, *Jesu*, or *Jesum* (or, alternatively, *Iesus*, *Iesu*, or *Iesum*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10420" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2906" RevisionGUID="4f75c840-d0b6-4e43-86c1-861dbd280762" CreationDate="2017-03-16T19:05:14.460" UserId="12" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the difference between Iesus and Jesu?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2910" RevisionGUID="212fe126-9c52-4ea9-af53-576aa45eed44" CreationDate="2017-03-16T19:59:13.217" UserId="40" Text="Two reasons for thinking that intervocalic S was voiceless in Classical Latin are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Such S's originate from geminate [ss] (since single [s] was rhotacized, see jknappen's answer), and in fact we know that as late as the early Imperial period they could still be written SS, e.g. *caussa*. Such spellings are attested in inscriptions and mentioned by grammarians, e.g. Quintilian, who says (Inst. Orat. 1.7.20) that Cicero and Vergil spelled such words with SS. This suggests that the geminate pronunciation -- which presumably was always voiceless -- may still have been used at that period.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Evidence from Romance languages: in Spanish, Romanian, and south Italian dialects intervocalic S is still voiceless to this day. Since voicing followed by devoicing is highly unlikely, S was presumably voiceless in the Latin ancestral to these languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, voicing of intervocalic fricatives is very common cross-linguistically, so it wouldn't be surprising if it occurred sporadically or even regularly in some varieties of Latin -- there must have been plenty of phonetic variation across the vast stretch of time and space in which Latin was spoken -- but it seems not to have been a feature of the standard language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2910" RevisionGUID="ceba0ab5-1312-48e7-b405-237421fcb4e7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T20:30:18.630" UserId="40" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Two reasons for thinking that intervocalic S was voiceless in Classical Latin are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Such S's originate from geminate [ss] (since single [s] was rhotacized, see jknappen's answer), and in fact we know that as late as the early Imperial period they could still be written SS, e.g. *caussa*. Such spellings are attested in inscriptions and mentioned by grammarians, e.g. Quintilian, who says (Inst. Orat. 1.7.20) that Cicero and Vergil spelled such words with SS. This suggests that the geminate pronunciation -- which presumably was always voiceless -- may still have been used at that period.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Evidence from Romance languages: in Spanish, Romanian, and south Italian dialects intervocalic S is still voiceless to this day. Since voicing followed by devoicing is highly unlikely, S was presumably voiceless in the varieties of Latin ancestral to these languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, voicing of intervocalic fricatives is very common cross-linguistically, so it wouldn't be surprising if it occurred sporadically or even regularly in some varieties of Latin -- there must have been plenty of phonetic variation across the vast stretch of time and space in which Latin was spoken -- but it seems not to have been a feature of the standard language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2910" RevisionGUID="8317ded0-ec12-452d-8033-c09c5a9544e8" CreationDate="2017-03-16T20:33:22.433" UserId="40" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="Two reasons for thinking that intervocalic S was voiceless in Classical Latin are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Such S's originate from geminate [ss] (since single [s] was rhotacized, see jknappen's answer), and in fact we know that as late as the early Imperial period they could still be written SS, e.g. *caussa*. Such spellings are attested in inscriptions and mentioned by grammarians, e.g. Quintilian, who says (Inst. Orat. 1.7.20) that Cicero and Vergil spelled such words with SS. This suggests that the geminate pronunciation -- which presumably was always voiceless -- may still have been used at that period.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Evidence from Romance languages: in Romanian and in south Italian dialects intervocalic S is still voiceless to this day. Since voicing followed by devoicing is unlikely (though not impossible -- as sumelic points out in a comment, this in fact happened in Spanish), S was presumably voiceless in the varieties of Latin ancestral to these languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, voicing of intervocalic fricatives is very common cross-linguistically, so it wouldn't be surprising if it occurred sporadically or even regularly in some varieties of Latin -- there must have been plenty of phonetic variation across the vast stretch of time and space in which Latin was spoken -- but it seems not to have been a feature of the standard language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2911" RevisionGUID="823b72a7-e53d-41b3-81ba-bea8839890aa" CreationDate="2017-03-17T00:01:27.863" UserId="78" Text="Allen in *Vox Latin* (pp.35-36) is pretty clear on this: they were unvoiced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But it is most important to note that, unlike the English *s*, it stands for a *voiceless* consonant in all positions; it is not voiced between vowels or at word-end as in English *roses* (phonetically [rouziz]). Thus Latin *causae* is to be pronounced *cow-sigh*, NOT *cow's eye*. There are admittedly tendencies to voicing intervocalic *s* in the Romance languages, but these are of late origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He gives evidence for this, including pointing out that in Greek transcriptions, the Latin intervocalic *s* is always transliterated with a sigma, not a zeta, even though zeta* had the sound of [z] in the Roman period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning what jknappen wrote, Allen continues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In very early times intervocalic *s* had **generally** developed to voice [z], but this sound was not maintained in Latin and was changed to *r* (cf. Latin genitive plural *-arum* beside Sanskrit *-asam* and Oscan *-azum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(emphasis mine)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Cf. Jane Stuart-Smith's *Phonetics and Philology*, p. 52.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while intervocalic *s* in Old Latin was pronounced like our English *z*, it was still written as *s*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to when in Romance languages it changed, after the third century, for sure, since Gothic still borrowed Caesar as Kaisar. It seems actually rather late considering [not all Italian languages](https://books.google.com/books?id=L3p9DAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA210) have a voiced intervocalic *s* where others do (look at the *casa/cazo* example)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2912" RevisionGUID="ab34e45a-5a8e-4e6b-9548-ccd749fa8241" CreationDate="2017-03-17T00:12:29.267" UserId="78" Text="Seeing [this question](http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/17637/are-there-ancient-greek-words-descended-from-sumerian) made me curious if there's an already-compiled list of words of ANE origin, hopefully excluding all those borrowed from the Hebrew Bible or other Hebrew/Aramaic works through translation. Also welcome would be more unusual borrowings (Chinese, Sanskrit, Berber, non-IE European languages).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could, separately, search [de Vaan](http://www.brill.com/etymological-dictionary-latin) and [Beekes](http://www.brill.com/etymological-dictionary-greek-2-vols), but that would be time consuming, and I'm hoping that something already exists. Also, no Bernal, please." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10427" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2912" RevisionGUID="ab34e45a-5a8e-4e6b-9548-ccd749fa8241" CreationDate="2017-03-17T00:12:29.267" UserId="78" Text="Greek &amp; Latin words from ANE languages excluding Biblical Hebrew" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10428" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2912" RevisionGUID="ab34e45a-5a8e-4e6b-9548-ccd749fa8241" CreationDate="2017-03-17T00:12:29.267" UserId="78" Text="|etymology|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2912" RevisionGUID="0e938ee8-0a9e-424e-a1d0-47d67a77839a" CreationDate="2017-03-17T00:27:54.143" UserId="78" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="Seeing [this question](http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/17637/are-there-ancient-greek-words-descended-from-sumerian) made me curious if there's an already-compiled list of words of ANE origin, hopefully excluding all those borrowed from the Hebrew Bible or other Hebrew/Aramaic works through translation (though I'm not picky if they're included, too). Also welcome would be more unusual borrowings (Chinese, Sanskrit, Berber, non-IE European languages).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could, separately, search [de Vaan](http://www.brill.com/etymological-dictionary-latin) and [Beekes](http://www.brill.com/etymological-dictionary-greek-2-vols), but that would be time consuming, and I'm hoping that something already exists. Also, no Bernal, please." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2913" RevisionGUID="6906c8ad-5af0-45c5-b089-3cc897cbd5e4" CreationDate="2017-03-17T01:30:17.750" UserId="1341" Text="Dark project, as in a secret project.  I know tenebris means dark, but I'm having trouble finding the word for &quot;project&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10431" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2913" RevisionGUID="6906c8ad-5af0-45c5-b089-3cc897cbd5e4" CreationDate="2017-03-17T01:30:17.750" UserId="1341" Text="How would you say &quot;dark project&quot; in latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10432" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2913" RevisionGUID="6906c8ad-5af0-45c5-b089-3cc897cbd5e4" CreationDate="2017-03-17T01:30:17.750" UserId="1341" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2882" RevisionGUID="1f8baf7c-054d-4bb6-9e8a-dba64e4f4123" CreationDate="2017-03-17T01:41:21.463" UserId="1333" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I am trying to write an essay and would like to use a saying for &quot;Because Event B is during Event A, Event B is related/caused by Event A.&quot; I recall hearing both quotes but am having trouble differentiating them. Keep in mind, I have almost no prior latin experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2915" RevisionGUID="ce6f7d5d-a4f2-4d62-ba94-00752092df7b" CreationDate="2017-03-17T02:01:30.443" UserId="78" Text="I would suggest *opus arcanum* meaning &quot;secret task/secret work.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some abridged definitions from Lewis &amp; Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A. In gen., work, labor (cf.: “labor, ars, opera); B. Esp.&#xD;&#xA;1. Work, art, workmanship&#xD;&#xA;2. Of agricultural labor&#xD;&#xA;4. Of literary labor&#xD;&#xA;II. Transf., a work that has been done or made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arcanum (neuter to match the gender of *opus*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. Hidden, concealed, secret, private (class., although very rare in Cic.) — “Esp., in the lang. of religion, of things sacred and incommunicable; “and of secret, mysterious usages: sacra,”; B. Spec., a sacred secret, a mystery" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2913" RevisionGUID="34f2708b-5e2a-4132-8bd9-92cbc9dc79b3" CreationDate="2017-03-17T03:14:42.290" UserId="75" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="How would you translate “dark project” into Latin, as in a secret project? I know *tenebris* means dark, but I’m having trouble finding the word for “project.”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10439" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2913" RevisionGUID="34f2708b-5e2a-4132-8bd9-92cbc9dc79b3" CreationDate="2017-03-17T03:14:42.290" UserId="75" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="How would you translate “dark project” into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10440" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2913" RevisionGUID="34f2708b-5e2a-4132-8bd9-92cbc9dc79b3" CreationDate="2017-03-17T03:14:42.290" Comment="Proposed by 75 approved by 78, 30 edit id of 174" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2911" RevisionGUID="f24d0807-83c1-493b-b293-bb8272ae2e72" CreationDate="2017-03-17T04:53:58.277" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Allen in *Vox Latin* (pp.35-36) is pretty clear on this: they were unvoiced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But it is most important to note that, unlike the English *s*, it stands for a *voiceless* consonant in all positions; it is not voiced between vowels or at word-end as in English *roses* (phonetically [rouziz]). Thus Latin *causae* is to be pronounced *cow-sigh*, NOT *cow's eye*. There are admittedly tendencies to voicing intervocalic *s* in the Romance languages, but these are of late origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He gives evidence for this, including pointing out that in Greek transcriptions, the Latin intervocalic *s* is always transliterated with a sigma, not a zeta, even though zeta had the sound of [z] in the Roman period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning what jknappen wrote, Allen continues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In very early times intervocalic *s* had **generally** developed to voice [z], but this sound was not maintained in Latin and was changed to *r* (cf. Latin genitive plural *-arum* beside Sanskrit *-asam* and Oscan *-azum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(emphasis mine)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Cf. Jane Stuart-Smith's *Phonetics and Philology*, p. 52.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while intervocalic *s* in Old Latin was pronounced like our English *z*, it was still written as *s*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to when in Romance languages it changed, after the third century, for sure, since Gothic still borrowed Caesar as Kaisar. It seems actually rather late considering [not all Italian languages](https://books.google.com/books?id=L3p9DAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA210) have a voiced intervocalic *s* where others do (look at the *casa/cazo* example)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2093" RevisionGUID="573f8b21-f427-4eeb-84ff-77aff320a0bf" CreationDate="2017-03-17T05:47:26.657" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body" Text="For playing a musical instrument, Latin uses *ludere*. See II. under Lewis and Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. Trop.&#xD;&#xA;A. *To sport, play with any thing, to practise as a pastime, amuse one's self with* anything: “illa ipsa ludens conjeci in communes locos, Cic. Par. prooem.: Prima Syracosio dignata est ludere versu Nostra ... Thalia,” Verg. E. 6, 1.—**Esp., to play on an instrument of music, *to make* or *compose music* or *song***: “ludere quae vellem calamo permisit agresti,” Verg. E. 1, 10: “talia fumosi luduntur mense Decembri,” Ov. Tr. 2, 491: “quod tenerae cantent, lusit tua musa, puellae,” id. Am. 3, 1, 27: “coloni Versibus incomptis ludunt,” Verg. G. 2, 386: “carmina pastorum,” id. ib. 4, 565; Suet. Ner. 3: “si quid vacui sub umbra Lusimus tecum,” Hor. C. 1, 22, 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were it a real word, *clavilizo* would be more &quot;to turn *X* into a piano* or *to do the piano thing*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since *facere* and *agere* are mentioned, I might as well mention their possible analogies. E.g., you might have an analogy with *facere histrionem* as found in Plautus, *Amphitruo* 89–90:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quid? admirati estis? quasi vero novom &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nunc proferatur, Iovem facere histrioniam;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last three words are to be translated as &quot;Jupiter plays an actor.&quot; That's not quite the same as &quot;playing a piano&quot;, though, since this is more &quot;playing a part&quot; than making an object work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that case, the better word is *agere*; to drive a cart&quot; is *agere raedam*, which I feel is better analogy for the piano.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for playing the piano or doing any sport or amusement, stick with *ludere*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2911" RevisionGUID="e2d627ee-1e50-4356-8ebb-fb60da93e55b" CreationDate="2017-03-17T06:16:03.210" UserId="79" Comment="Typo." Text="Allen in *Vox Latina* (pp. 35&amp;ndash;36) is pretty clear on this: they were unvoiced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But it is most important to note that, unlike the English *s*, it stands for a *voiceless* consonant in all positions; it is not voiced between vowels or at word-end as in English *roses* (phonetically [rouziz]). Thus Latin *causae* is to be pronounced *cow-sigh*, NOT *cow's eye*. There are admittedly tendencies to voicing intervocalic *s* in the Romance languages, but these are of late origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He gives evidence for this, including pointing out that in Greek transcriptions, the Latin intervocalic *s* is always transliterated with a sigma, not a zeta, even though zeta had the sound of [z] in the Roman period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning what jknappen wrote, Allen continues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In very early times intervocalic *s* had **generally** developed to voice [z], but this sound was not maintained in Latin and was changed to *r* (cf. Latin genitive plural *-arum* beside Sanskrit *-asam* and Oscan *-azum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(emphasis mine)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Cf. Jane Stuart-Smith's *Phonetics and Philology*, p. 52.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while intervocalic *s* in Old Latin was pronounced like our English *z*, it was still written as *s*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to when in Romance languages it changed, after the third century, for sure, since Gothic still borrowed Caesar as Kaisar. It seems actually rather late considering [not all Italian languages](https://books.google.com/books?id=L3p9DAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA210) have a voiced intervocalic *s* where others do (look at the *casa/cazo* example)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2916" RevisionGUID="79936adc-f231-4af1-98f5-2ee7335a7640" CreationDate="2017-03-17T06:41:14.753" UserId="79" Text="I was recently reminded (by [this question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2904/79)) that intervocalic single *-s-* turned into *-r-* by rhotacism, and later new instances of intervocalic *-s-* were produced from *-ss-*.&#xD;&#xA;If the vowel preceding *-ss-* is short, then the transition *-ss-&gt;-s-* transforms the syllable from long to short (heavy to light).&#xD;&#xA;This is significant especially for metric poetry.&#xD;&#xA;I would expect this shortening to be compensated by elongating the preceding vowel.&#xD;&#xA;Although many *-s-* are preceded by a long vowel, there some examples of a short vowel followed by a single *-s-*: *posui*, *casa*, *asinus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any examples where compensation is known to have happened?&#xD;&#xA;Or is the intervocalic transition *-ss-&gt;-s-* something that was allowed to freely change syllable length (weight)?&#xD;&#xA;Are the words I listed (and others like them) somehow exceptional while most words did have compensation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10445" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2916" RevisionGUID="79936adc-f231-4af1-98f5-2ee7335a7640" CreationDate="2017-03-17T06:41:14.753" UserId="79" Text="Vowel compensation for intervocalic -ss- &gt; -s-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10446" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2916" RevisionGUID="79936adc-f231-4af1-98f5-2ee7335a7640" CreationDate="2017-03-17T06:41:14.753" UserId="79" Text="|pronunciation|language-evolution|phonetics|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2917" RevisionGUID="2ee1dd24-e800-44d3-8880-b810e2941343" CreationDate="2017-03-17T08:38:32.127" UserId="1289" Text="The general tendency was to dissolve a geminate **ss** in writing, and also presumably in speech, only after a long vowel or diphthong. If this weren't the case, then there would be virtually no instances where **ss** still occurred in text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“There are several processes at work in Latin which simplify geminates to single consonants. The most important of these is the simplification which takes place after long vowels. This simplification is clearly based on syllable patterns; for example, the heavy syllable provided by the long root vowel of Lachmann’s Law forms like *cāsus* ‘fallen’ (&lt; cad+tos) allows the simplification of the putative intermediate form *cās-sus. This process contrasts with that seen in forms such as *missus* ‘sent’, where the root vowel is short and the syllable weight is preserved by the geminate” (Baldi, P., *The Foundations of Latin.* Berlin – New York 1999: 298)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So no, this intervocalic transition did not allow to freely change syllable weight. This would be exceptional anyway: Latin is very 'aware' of its moraic structure and will not allow random morae to disappear or resurface without a general rule, such as Brevis Brevians (iambic shortening).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no specific ideas for the examples you've given, but there may be multiple reasons why the rhotacism didn't occur as you expect. The word may be a loanword that is more recent than the period of productive rhotacism, or Brevis Brevians may actually occur after degemination, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary on *asinus*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/asinus):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Recent loanword, as shown by intact intervocalic -s- which otherwise rhotacized to -r- in native words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="84807270-67d0-4e35-9f3b-b95d6c31c93f" CreationDate="2017-03-17T12:14:13.783" UserId="1344" Text="It is a name I encountered on several occasions, last time when hearing of a lost silent movie of this name by F.W.Murnau.&#xA;&#xA;What is the meaning of the *as* ending in Satanas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10449" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="84807270-67d0-4e35-9f3b-b95d6c31c93f" CreationDate="2017-03-17T12:14:13.783" UserId="1344" Text="What is meaning of Satanas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10450" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="84807270-67d0-4e35-9f3b-b95d6c31c93f" CreationDate="2017-03-17T12:14:13.783" UserId="1344" Text="|meaning|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2919" RevisionGUID="7bebe74b-4557-4241-a98d-e0c3ddf79983" CreationDate="2017-03-17T12:54:02.413" UserId="469" Text="It came to Latin from Hebrew ([שָּׂטָן][1] *satan*), through Greek ([Σατανᾶς][2] *satanas*) and means *enemy*, *adversary*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [Judaism and Christianity][3], it is also one of the names given to the devil, a supernatural creature that lead a rebelion against God and one of the main instigators of evil in the World.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The -as ending is purely grammatical. As can be seen, it was added in ancient Greek as a common ending of nouns in that language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7854.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://biblehub.com/greek/4567.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2920" RevisionGUID="7b955741-82bb-4601-989b-907974046056" CreationDate="2017-03-17T12:54:35.507" UserId="324" Text="The best place to look is: É. Masson, Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec, Paris 1967. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="7a35c48f-1b5a-4792-bb7e-8d2af0dd09cf" CreationDate="2017-03-17T13:41:26.840" UserId="45" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="*Satanas* is a name I have encountered on several occasions, such as when hearing of a lost silent movie of this name by F. W. Murnau.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the meaning of the *as* ending in *Satanas*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10455" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="7a35c48f-1b5a-4792-bb7e-8d2af0dd09cf" CreationDate="2017-03-17T13:41:26.840" UserId="45" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What is the meaning of Satanas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10456" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="7a35c48f-1b5a-4792-bb7e-8d2af0dd09cf" CreationDate="2017-03-17T13:41:26.840" UserId="45" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|meaning|names|ending|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="1abf80a9-9cb8-4654-91c8-618f790139ec" CreationDate="2017-03-17T13:58:33.427" UserId="45" Text="Anyone who has read Cicero's famous line,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quo usque tandem, Catalina, abutere patientia nostra?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...knows that the 2nd person singular passive personal ending &quot;-ris&quot; is often changed to &quot;-re&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* laudaris &gt; laudare&#xD;&#xA;* hortaberis &gt; hortabere&#xD;&#xA;* mittaris &gt; mittare&#xD;&#xA;* audireris &gt; audirere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these--*especially* &quot;mittare&quot;--sound pretty strange to me. Others seem natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have two related questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Are there rules or guidelines, beyond obvious metrical constraints, about when to use either form?&#xD;&#xA;* Do we have information about the relative frequency of -ris vs. -re?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10458" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="1abf80a9-9cb8-4654-91c8-618f790139ec" CreationDate="2017-03-17T13:58:33.427" UserId="45" Text="When to use -ris vs. -re as a passive verbal ending" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10459" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="1abf80a9-9cb8-4654-91c8-618f790139ec" CreationDate="2017-03-17T13:58:33.427" UserId="45" Text="|verbs|passive-voice|contraction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2912" RevisionGUID="39f83a13-4629-4a9b-a5a8-fcc04794ec4b" CreationDate="2017-03-17T15:01:56.353" UserId="78" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Seeing [this question](http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/17637/are-there-ancient-greek-words-descended-from-sumerian) made me curious if there's an already-compiled list of words of Ancient Near Eastern origin, hopefully excluding all those borrowed from the Hebrew Bible or other Hebrew/Aramaic works through translation (though I'm not picky if they're included, too). Also welcome would be more unusual borrowings (Chinese, Sanskrit, Berber, non-IE European languages).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could, separately, search [de Vaan](http://www.brill.com/etymological-dictionary-latin) and [Beekes](http://www.brill.com/etymological-dictionary-greek-2-vols), but that would be time consuming, and I'm hoping that something already exists. Also, no Bernal, please." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2920" RevisionGUID="8e223560-3c7c-416c-b248-3248d9df8e92" CreationDate="2017-03-17T15:36:14.073" UserId="324" Comment="added 149 characters in body" Text="The classic work is: É. Masson, Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec, Paris 1967. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now also this: https://www.academia.edu/5020261/Les_emprunts_s%C3%A9mitiques_en_grec_ancien_%C3%A9tude_m%C3%A9thodologique_et_exemples_myc%C3%A9niens&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2922" RevisionGUID="9453c1a0-a0c6-4e55-93cc-ff66346fc364" CreationDate="2017-03-17T16:12:43.583" UserId="78" Text="I don't have precise figures for frequency, but G&amp;L §1301b say that it is very common in earlier prose, less common in later:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the second Singular, passive, in all tenses of the Present stem, the ending **-re** is much more common in early Latin than **-ris,** and is regular in Cic. except in the Pr. Indic., where he prefers **-ris** on account of confusion with Pr. Inf., admitting **-re** only in deponents, and then but rarely.  In general, in the Pr. Indic. **-re** is rare in the first and second conjugations, more rare in the third, and never found in the fourth, in prose authors.  Post-Ciceronian prose writers, *e.g.*, Livy, Tacitus, prefer **-ris,** even in the other tenses of the Present stem.  The poets use **-ris** or **-re** to suit metre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those unfamiliar with G&amp;L's terminology, by &quot;Present tenses&quot; they mean all tenses formed from the present stem: for *amare*, that's *am(a)-* and not *amav-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For general advice on Latin composition, *amabare* is fine, but *amare* could cause confusion, so *amaris* is preferred." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2922" RevisionGUID="7ca182d8-6b82-411f-b6f4-63aa55d4d536" CreationDate="2017-03-17T16:20:09.943" UserId="78" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="I don't have precise figures for frequency, but G&amp;L §1301b say that it is very common in earlier prose, less common in later:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the second Singular, passive, in all tenses of the Present stem, the ending **-re** is much more common in early Latin than **-ris,** and is regular in Cic. except in the Pr. Indic., where he prefers **-ris** on account of confusion with Pr. Inf., admitting **-re** only in deponents, and then but rarely.  In general, in the Pr. Indic. **-re** is rare in the first and second conjugations, more rare in the third, and never found in the fourth, in prose authors.  Post-Ciceronian prose writers, *e.g.*, Livy, Tacitus, prefer **-ris,** even in the other tenses of the Present stem.  The poets use **-ris** or **-re** to suit metre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those unfamiliar with G&amp;L's terminology, by &quot;Present tenses&quot; they mean all tenses formed from the present stem: for *amare*, that's *am(a)-* and not *amav-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For general advice on Latin composition, *amabare* is fine, but *amare* could cause confusion, so *amaris* is preferred. Note that even [*amere*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=amere) has been used in poetry, and although [*mittare*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=mittare) has not, *admittare* and *transmittare* have." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="123" RevisionGUID="22b0a97e-ad2b-44e6-9976-758df78731ed" CreationDate="2017-03-17T17:01:42.823" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 41 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&quot;Et tu, Brute?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Julius Caesar's last words; according to William Shakespeare's play of the same name. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be a difference of opinion regarding the exact translation and thus, too, perhaps, the true meaning of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the exact, literal translation of the aforementioned phrase? What are other, possible meanings?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to also include your own interpretation, if you wish to do so.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10467" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="123" RevisionGUID="22b0a97e-ad2b-44e6-9976-758df78731ed" CreationDate="2017-03-17T17:01:42.823" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 41 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10470" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="123" RevisionGUID="5e493db6-19aa-44b9-aaf1-d00c0a6f5253" CreationDate="2017-03-17T18:07:47.027" UserId="79" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:45,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;brianpck&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1224,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Middle School Historian&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:985,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;cnread&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="320" RevisionGUID="84998603-905a-476e-bd62-213acccd61d8" CreationDate="2017-03-17T19:44:30.233" UserId="79" Comment="Edited to include information from comments." Text="I'm working on a short elocution piece that will involve quoting Luther's 86th thesis in the original Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cur Papa, cuius opes hodie sunt opulentissimis Crassis crassiores, non de suis pecuniis magis quam pauperum fidelium struit unam tantummodo Basilicam sancti Petri?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the pronunciation of this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for the way Luther would have pronounced it, but other relevant (and consistent) pronunciation options are also welcome.&#xD;&#xA;I think I can pronounce some of the words: *Cur*, *Papa*, *Crassis*, *crassiores*, *fidelium*, *Basilicam*, *sancti*, *Petri*.&#xD;&#xA;Since I am missing most of the words, a complete pronunciation guide for this one sentence would be great." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10472" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="320" RevisionGUID="84998603-905a-476e-bd62-213acccd61d8" CreationDate="2017-03-17T19:44:30.233" UserId="79" Comment="Edited to include information from comments." Text="|pronunciation|new-latin|christianity|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10473" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="320" RevisionGUID="39338007-4448-403b-8f92-deca93d5a131" CreationDate="2017-03-17T19:44:42.277" UserId="79" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="130" RevisionGUID="70e76590-84e7-47b8-863f-a2cef43e8ad2" CreationDate="2017-03-17T20:17:58.277" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="In Plinius I encountered: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Confitentes iterum ac tertio interrogavi **supplicium minatus**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is *supplicium* some sort of accusativus belonging to *minatus*, which comes from deponens *minor*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a form is passive then I would expect that the &quot;accused&quot; has taken his place as the subject already. But then suddenly another &quot;accused&quot; shows up. Somehow that bothers me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10475" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="130" RevisionGUID="70e76590-84e7-47b8-863f-a2cef43e8ad2" CreationDate="2017-03-17T20:17:58.277" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|classical-latin|verbs|accusative|deponent-verbs|plinius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2923" RevisionGUID="39ad085d-26b7-4526-9d64-d4aae5ec5aef" CreationDate="2017-03-18T05:18:58.153" UserId="235" Text="I recently read [this interesting question][1] in which Joonas provides a very instructive answer. It still left me, however, with some questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Confitentes iterum ac tertio interrogavi supplicium minatus;&quot; ([Plin. Ep. 10.96][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [They were] confessing again, and on the third  time I interrogated them having threatened punishment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, is my translation correct? I want to make sure we're on the same page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, I notice that *minatus* is active in meaning, despite it being a perfect passive participle. This is consistent with Allen and Greenough [&amp;sect;190a.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the perfect participles of deponent verbs active in meaning? I would think so, from the above evidence. However, I am confused by &amp;sect;190b from A&amp;G.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [190b.][3] The perfect participle generally has an active sense, but in verbs otherwise deponent it is often passive: as, mercátus, bought; adeptus, gained (or having gained).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that this point only holds true for deponent verbs, correct? (That the perfect participle generally has an active sense.) But then it goes on to say that for verbs *otherwise deponent* it is often passive. What does *otherwise deponent* mean? How can you tell whether the perfect participle will be active or passive in meaning, for a deponent verb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/130/can-a-verbum-deponens-go-along-with-an-accusativus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plin.%20Ep.%2010.96&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0139&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.190.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10477" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2923" RevisionGUID="39ad085d-26b7-4526-9d64-d4aae5ec5aef" CreationDate="2017-03-18T05:18:58.153" UserId="235" Text="Is the perfect participle in deponent verbs active or passive in meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10478" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2923" RevisionGUID="39ad085d-26b7-4526-9d64-d4aae5ec5aef" CreationDate="2017-03-18T05:18:58.153" UserId="235" Text="|classical-latin|translation|participle|deponent-verbs|plinius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2890" RevisionGUID="4d96e750-7ea2-4a15-aa3b-bacb5ec8b415" CreationDate="2017-03-18T13:28:19.777" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 38 characters in body" Text="As TKR pointed out, *malo malo* works. I think you might have a difficult time finding them, because they're actually abundant. Getting several to stack is where the fun is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example about how easy this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amor amor | I, Love, am loved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Servo servo | I serve in the manner of a slave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eo eo | I am going there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rege rege | Rule by means of a king&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the real challenge is getting more than two." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2924" RevisionGUID="50696e96-a9a7-4f60-a79e-54e1fcbbd702" CreationDate="2017-03-18T13:48:32.317" UserId="1304" Text="&gt; [190b.](http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.190.html) The perfect participle generally has an active sense, but in verbs otherwise deponent it is often passive: as, mercátus, bought; adeptus, gained (or having gained).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I read it (with the help of some other paper grammars) this means: “Perfect participles of deponent verbs generally have an active sense. However, there are deponent verbs which follow all other rules, but have a perfect participle which can (also or only) have a passive meaning. Such verbs are an exception, but they are not uncommon.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good dictionaries will list those participles either as separate entries or as separate sections of the main entry. For instance, see _mercatus_ at the end of [_mercor_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=mercor) in L&amp;S." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2890" RevisionGUID="d9d63933-9080-49d5-bcbb-1f864c0c470c" CreationDate="2017-03-18T13:49:56.743" UserId="78" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="As TKR pointed out, *malo malo* works. I think you might have a difficult time finding them, because they're actually abundant. Getting several to stack is where the fun is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example about how easy this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amor amor | I, Love, am loved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Servo servo | I serve in the manner of a slave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eo eo | I am going there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rege rege | Rule by means of a king&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Laudes laudes | You should praise the praises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the real challenge is getting more than two." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2890" RevisionGUID="f36f80a8-a1c0-4d55-a9fa-abd594003b62" CreationDate="2017-03-18T21:17:39.780" UserId="78" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="As TKR pointed out, *malo malo* works. I think you might have a difficult time finding them, because they're actually abundant. Getting several to stack is where the fun is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example about how easy this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amor amor | I, Love, am loved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Servas servas | You keep the slave women safe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Servo servo | I protect from the slave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eo eo | I am going there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rege rege | Rule by means of a king&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Laudes laudes | You should praise the praises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the real challenge is getting more than two." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2925" RevisionGUID="0a8e8c5b-36b2-42a3-b997-a7ae57d0c472" CreationDate="2017-03-18T22:27:22.117" UserId="79" Text="I would like to compare the two adjectives *niveus* and *nivosus* derived from *nix*, &quot;snow&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;My prior understanding of these words was that *niveus* is &quot;snow-white&quot; and *nivosus* is &quot;snowy&quot;, but [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=niveus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) tells me that also *niveus* means &quot;snowy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that *niveus* means that there is snow without commenting on the amount, whereas *nivosus* means that there is a lot of snow.&#xD;&#xA;Is this guess correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does some dictionary offer a comparison of these two adjectives?&#xD;&#xA;Is there some example (artificial if original ones are not available) that contrasts *niveus* and *nivosus*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10486" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2925" RevisionGUID="0a8e8c5b-36b2-42a3-b997-a7ae57d0c472" CreationDate="2017-03-18T22:27:22.117" UserId="79" Text="Niveus and nivosus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10487" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2925" RevisionGUID="0a8e8c5b-36b2-42a3-b997-a7ae57d0c472" CreationDate="2017-03-18T22:27:22.117" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-comparison|adjective|derivation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2926" RevisionGUID="48bcece9-7f88-483c-bfa9-5cab3e76e99e" CreationDate="2017-03-18T22:42:14.647" UserId="1348" Text="How could you say in latin the following sentences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He reads more books than his friend (comparative applied to countable things)&#xD;&#xA;He is the one that has more books&#xD;&#xA;He eats more sugar than his friend (applied to uncountable things)&#xD;&#xA;He reads more than his friend (applied to an action)&#xD;&#xA;He is the one who reads the most&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also, how could say the same sentences above, but with fewer books, less sugar, reads less and reads the least, respectively?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10489" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2926" RevisionGUID="48bcece9-7f88-483c-bfa9-5cab3e76e99e" CreationDate="2017-03-18T22:42:14.647" UserId="1348" Text="Comparative applied to things other than adjectives or adverbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10490" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2926" RevisionGUID="48bcece9-7f88-483c-bfa9-5cab3e76e99e" CreationDate="2017-03-18T22:42:14.647" UserId="1348" Text="|comparative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2927" RevisionGUID="f8789ba8-d246-4db9-a1ed-89ebf030a68e" CreationDate="2017-03-18T22:43:13.313" UserId="78" Text="In general, the -*osus* ending indicates plenty. *Lacrimosa* isn't just &quot;teary-eyed,&quot; but weepy. Same with *nivosa*. *Niveus* is often used with mountains to describe the snow-topped peaks, and from the quality of snow (i.e. whiteness), it is used to describe things in English we'd describe as &quot;snow-white&quot; - teeth, milk, togas, fleece (as in the old nursery rhyme). *Nivosa*, on the other hand, is used to describe places where there is a lot of snow - northern climates (Scythia is given as an example in L&amp;S), wintry storms. You wouldn't describe your teeth as *nivosus* without some humorous characterization: face full of snow, perhaps, on account of a snowball." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2928" RevisionGUID="b10cdde7-5b60-4967-85fd-885adc60a641" CreationDate="2017-03-18T23:05:18.523" UserId="235" Text="You can use the same construction in all three sentences. This construction is: the comparative adjective *plus* (plural: *plures, plura*), which means &quot;more&quot;, combined with *quam* (&quot;than&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Plures libros quam suus amicus leget. (He reads more books than his friend.)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Hic est qui plures libros habet. (He is the one who has more books.)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Plus saccharum quam suus amicus edit. (He eats more sugar than his friend.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nota bene - The two things being compared are put in the same case. In sentences #1 and #3, the subject &quot;He&quot; would be in the nominative, thus &quot;suus amicus&quot; follows suit. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2928" RevisionGUID="27fdaf9a-6e1f-400d-8bab-b344d9384a34" CreationDate="2017-03-18T23:13:30.807" UserId="235" Comment="added 218 characters in body" Text="There are two constructions you may use. The first is this. The comparative adjective *plus* (plural: *plures, plura*), which means &quot;more&quot;, combined with *quam* (&quot;than&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Plures libros quam suus amicus legit. (He reads more books than his friend.)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Hic est qui plures libros habet. (He is the one who has more books.)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Plus saccharum quam suus amicus edit. (He eats more sugar than his friend.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two things being compared are put in the same case. In sentences #1 and #3, the subject &quot;He&quot; would be in the nominative, thus &quot;suus amicus&quot; follows suit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also use another construction: the ablative of comparison. This is what sentences #1 and #3 would look like using the ablative of comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Plures libros suo amico legit.&#xD;&#xA; - Plus saccharum suo amico edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read about both constructions in [sections 406-407 of Allen and Greenough.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/ablative-comparison&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/ablative-comparison" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2928" RevisionGUID="646c821f-9b6b-4a37-a51d-07a69184d58d" CreationDate="2017-03-18T23:21:07.727" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 104 characters in body" Text="There are two constructions you may use. The first is this. The comparative adjective *plus* (plural: *plures, plura*), which means &quot;more&quot;, combined with *quam* (&quot;than&quot;).  The two things being compared are put in the same case. In the first and third sentences, the subject &quot;He&quot; would be in the nominative, thus &quot;suus amicus&quot; follows suit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Plures libros quam suus amicus legit. (He reads more books than his friend.)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Hic est qui plures libros habet. (He is the one who has more books.)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Plus saccharum quam suus amicus edit. (He eats more sugar than his friend.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also use the ablative of comparison. In this construction you omit *quam*. This is what sentences #1 and #3 would look like using the ablative of comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Plures libros suo amico legit.&#xD;&#xA; - Plus saccharum suo amico edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read about both constructions in [sections 406-407 of Allen and Greenough.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/ablative-comparison" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2928" RevisionGUID="0cc3eb87-471b-4f69-b6fb-9a0ae5633ea0" CreationDate="2017-03-18T23:29:36.690" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 104 characters in body" Text="There are two constructions you may use. The first is this. The comparative adjective *plus* (plural: *plures, plura*), which means &quot;more&quot;, combined with *quam* (&quot;than&quot;).  The two things being compared are put in the same case. In the first, third, and fourth sentences, the subject &quot;He&quot; would be in the nominative, thus &quot;suus amicus&quot; follows suit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last two sentences, I use *magis* and *maxime* instead of *plus*, since we need an adverb instead of an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Plures libros quam suus amicus legit. (He reads more books than his friend.)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Hic est qui plures libros habet. (He is the one who has more books.)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Plus saccharum quam suus amicus edit. (He eats more sugar than his friend.)&#xD;&#xA; 4. Magis quam suus amicus legit. (He reads more than his friend.)&#xD;&#xA; 5. Hic est qui maxime legit. (He is the one who reads the most.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also use the ablative of comparison. In this construction you omit *quam*. This is what the *quam*-based sentences would look like using the ablative of comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Plures libros suo amico legit.&#xD;&#xA; - Plus saccharum suo amico edit.&#xD;&#xA; - Magis suo amico legit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read about both constructions in [sections 406-407 of Allen and Greenough.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/ablative-comparison" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2929" RevisionGUID="30478ee0-5277-4169-9a0d-8246f16cd1ac" CreationDate="2017-03-18T23:53:15.977" UserId="118" Text="Verbi infinitivi nomina sunt&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;I started to &quot;get&quot; infinitives when I understood that they're [nouns](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/Infinitives.pdf). It's called an [infinitive](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/finio#Latin) because it's not &quot;bound&quot;, i.e. tied to, a time—hence it doesn't make a claim, which is what verbs do. Instead, the infinitive carries the meaning of a verb abstractly. It's a name for that meaning—in other words, a _nomen,_ a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genus et numerus&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Just like any other noun, an infinitive even has gender and number. It's neuter and singular, which an adjective must agree with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Errare **humanum** est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Objectum est subjectum&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Infinitives are different from ordinary nouns in that they can take objects and adverbs just like verbs, and they can take an accusative noun as their subject, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hodie necesse est **te solum ambulare**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since an infinitive doesn't make a claim about its subject, it doesn't agree in number with its subject. (It's neuter and singular regardless.) When an infinitive has a subject, it's just abstractly denoting &quot;the subject doing that action&quot; without claiming anything about it. The claiming is done by the real verb of the sentence, in this case **est**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking an accusative noun as a subject enables the infinitive to operate on the object of another verb, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iulia **Marcum discedere** vidit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The object of **vidit** is **Marcum**, but the infinitive extends it so the sentence claims that Julia saw _the act of_ Marcus leaving. The act of Marcus leaving is named rather than asserted directly as it would be in **Marcus discedit**, which has a tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus the infinitive enables verbs to chain together to form compound verbs without subordinating conjunctions or relative pronouns, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Desine** fata deum **flecti sperare** precando. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Discrimina a gerundiis&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Gerunds provide the function of the infinitive in oblique cases, and they lack the infinitive's ability to take another verb's object as their subject. In the previous example, **precando** isn't part of the chain of verbs: it functions as an adverbial phrase modifying the compound action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English gerunds work differently: they somewhat blurrily overlap with infinitives and participles, participating in _ad hoc_ rules about how each specific verb can chain with others. For example, **stop** can only chain to a gerund, but **hope** can only chain to a to-infinitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Stop hoping to bend** the will of the gods by praying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's nothing comparable to those rules in Latin. In many cases, the gerund and infinitive are equivalent, as in &quot;Seeing is believing&quot; and &quot;To see is to believe.&quot; But the phrasal nature of English grammar creates strange complexities, which is why &quot;Being is being perceived&quot; and &quot;Being is to be perceived&quot; don't work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A role of English gerunds comparable to their role in Latin is to serve as objects of prepositions, e.g. **by praying** and **precando**. Also in both languages, if you want to give a gerund a subject, you need to put the subject in the genitive case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2929" RevisionGUID="040f0f05-f4b4-4446-93db-fc6353cda5ad" CreationDate="2017-03-19T00:06:33.887" UserId="118" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Verbi infinitivi nomina sunt&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;I started to &quot;get&quot; infinitives when I understood that they're [nouns](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/Infinitives.pdf). It's called an [infinitive](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/finio#Latin) because it's not &quot;bound&quot;, i.e. tied to, a time—hence it doesn't make a claim, which is what verbs do. Instead, the infinitive carries the meaning of a verb abstractly. It's a name for that meaning—in other words, a _nomen,_ a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genus et numerus&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Just like any other noun, an infinitive even has gender and number. It's neuter and singular, which an adjective must agree with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Errare **humanum** est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Objectum est subjectum&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Infinitives are different from ordinary nouns in that they can take objects and adverbs just like verbs, and they can take an accusative noun as their subject, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hodie necesse est **te solum ambulare**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since an infinitive doesn't make a claim about its subject, it doesn't agree in number with its subject. (It's neuter and singular regardless.) When an infinitive has a subject, it's just abstractly denoting &quot;the subject doing that action&quot; without claiming anything about it. The claiming is done by the real verb of the sentence, in this case **est**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking an accusative noun as a subject enables the infinitive to operate on the object of another verb, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iulia **Marcum discedere** vidit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The object of **vidit** is **Marcum**, but the infinitive extends it so the sentence claims that Julia saw _the act of_ Marcus leaving. The act of Marcus leaving is named rather than asserted directly as it would be in **Marcus discedit**, which has a tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus the infinitive enables verbs to chain together to form compound verbs without subordinating conjunctions or relative pronouns, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Desine** fata deum **flecti sperare** precando. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Discrimina a gerundiis&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Gerunds provide the function of the infinitive in oblique cases, and they lack the infinitive's ability to take another verb's object as their subject. In the previous example, **precando** isn't part of the chain of verbs: it functions as an adverbial phrase modifying the compound action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English gerunds work differently: they somewhat blurrily overlap with infinitives and participles, participating in _ad hoc_ rules about how each specific verb can chain with others. For example, **stop** can only chain to a gerund, but **hope** can only chain to a to-infinitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Stop hoping to bend** the will of the gods by praying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's nothing comparable to those rules in Latin. In many cases, the gerund and infinitive are equivalent in English, as in &quot;Seeing is believing&quot; and &quot;To see is to believe.&quot; But the phrasal nature of English grammar creates strange complexities, which is why &quot;Being is being perceived&quot; and &quot;Being is to be perceived&quot; don't work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A role of English gerunds comparable to their role in Latin is to serve as nouns in prepositional or adverbial phrases, e.g. **by praying** = **precando**. Also in both languages, if you want to give a gerund a subject, you need to put the subject in the genitive case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2926" RevisionGUID="5af9bb12-4fbc-4539-b9db-0585c95dba9f" CreationDate="2017-03-19T00:23:58.197" UserId="31" Comment="Bulletted sentences" Text="How would you say the following sentences in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* He reads more books than his friend. (comparative applied to countable things)&#xD;&#xA;* He is the one that has more books.&#xD;&#xA;* He eats more sugar than his friend. (applied to uncountable things)&#xD;&#xA;* He reads more than his friend. (applied to an action)&#xD;&#xA;* He is the one who reads the most.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, how would one say the same sentences, but with fewer books, less sugar, reads less, and reads the least, respectively?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10506" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2926" RevisionGUID="5af9bb12-4fbc-4539-b9db-0585c95dba9f" CreationDate="2017-03-19T00:23:58.197" Comment="Proposed by 31 approved by 1348 edit id of 175" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2929" RevisionGUID="29878a8c-d74c-4b7a-aa75-d674c125bde8" CreationDate="2017-03-19T07:56:03.720" UserId="118" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="Verbi infinitivi nomina sunt&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;I started to &quot;get&quot; infinitives when I understood that they're [nouns](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/Infinitives.pdf). It's called an [infinitive](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/finio#Latin) because it's not &quot;bound&quot;, i.e. tied to, a time—hence it doesn't make a claim, which is what verbs do. Instead, the infinitive carries the meaning of a verb abstractly. It's a name for that meaning—in other words, a _nomen,_ a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aliud est **velle**, aliud **posse**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genus et numerus&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Just like any other noun, an infinitive even has gender and number. It's neuter and singular, which an adjective must agree with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Errare **humanum** est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Objectum est subjectum&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Infinitives are different from ordinary nouns in that they can take objects and adverbs just like verbs, and they can take an accusative noun as their subject, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hodie necesse est **te solum ambulare**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since an infinitive doesn't make a claim about its subject, it doesn't agree in number with its subject. (It's neuter and singular regardless.) When an infinitive has a subject, it's just abstractly denoting &quot;the subject doing that action&quot; without claiming anything about it. The claiming is done by the real verb of the sentence, in this case **est**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking an accusative noun as a subject enables the infinitive to operate on the object of another verb, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iulia **Marcum discedere** vidit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The object of **vidit** is **Marcum**, but the infinitive extends it so the sentence claims that Julia saw _the act of_ Marcus leaving. The act of Marcus leaving is named rather than asserted directly as it would be in **Marcus discedit**, which has a tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus the infinitive enables verbs to chain together to form compound verbs without subordinating conjunctions or relative pronouns, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Desine** fata deum **flecti sperare** precando. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Discrimina a gerundiis&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Gerunds provide the function of the infinitive in oblique cases, and they lack the infinitive's ability to take another verb's object as their subject. In the previous example, **precando** isn't part of the chain of verbs: it functions as an adverbial phrase modifying the compound action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English gerunds work differently: they somewhat blurrily overlap with infinitives and participles, participating in _ad hoc_ rules about how each specific verb can chain with others. For example, **stop** can only chain to a gerund, but **hope** can only chain to a to-infinitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Stop hoping to bend** the will of the gods by praying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's nothing comparable to those rules in Latin. In many cases, the gerund and infinitive are equivalent in English, as in &quot;Seeing is believing&quot; and &quot;To see is to believe.&quot; But the phrasal nature of English grammar creates strange complexities, which is why &quot;Being is being perceived&quot; and &quot;Being is to be perceived&quot; don't work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A role of English gerunds comparable to their role in Latin is to serve as nouns in prepositional or adverbial phrases, e.g. **by praying** = **precando**. Also in both languages, if you want to give a gerund a subject, you need to put the subject in the genitive case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="997" RevisionGUID="187878eb-2bcc-4a78-9ead-3e9a7275d5af" CreationDate="2017-03-19T09:46:06.713" UserId="307" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In computer software, we have a &quot;watchdog&quot; process, which makes sure that the other software is running correctly and has not crashed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which, of course, leads to an obvious question, and I will like to know how to ask in Latin `&quot;but, who will watch the watchdog?&quot;` (Juvenal seems to have forgotten that one :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2930" RevisionGUID="f3f7d4e2-63e1-4c02-ab9d-cd2aa873f832" CreationDate="2017-03-19T14:31:49.527" UserId="1304" Text="The only such sentence that is used “in the wild”, according to my knowledge, is ___soli soli soli___ It consists of the two datives of _solus_ and _sol_ followed by the genitive of _solum._ The meaning (a bit stretched) is “to the only Sun of the Earth.” You can read it on several sundials in Italy, France and possibly other countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZXgTn.jpg&quot; title=&quot;Soli soli soli&quot; /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is in Nanteuil, France (you’ll also notice the Roman numerals _I_ to _XII_ and _MM_ for the year when it was built.) I got the photo from&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[http://michel.lalos.free.fr/cadrans_solaires/autres_depts/deux_sevres/cs_deux_sevres_niort.html](http://michel.lalos.free.fr/cadrans_solaires/autres_depts/deux_sevres/cs_deux_sevres_niort.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I couldn’t find attestations earlier than the 19th century. I suppose it is more ancient. Several sources I have seen (including on paper) link this motto to Napoleon, who with usual modesty would have thought of himself as the “only Sun”, but I couldn’t isolate a single, reliable reference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2930" RevisionGUID="c9ecee37-2220-4647-bff5-dcf64e136ad3" CreationDate="2017-03-19T18:55:57.200" UserId="1304" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The only such sentence that is used “in the wild”, according to my knowledge, is ___soli soli soli.___ It consists of the two datives of _solus_ and _sol_ followed by the genitive of _solum._ The meaning (a bit stretched) is “to the only Sun of the Earth.” You can read it on several sundials in Italy, France and possibly other countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZXgTn.jpg&quot; title=&quot;Soli soli soli&quot; /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is in Nanteuil, France (you’ll also notice the Roman numerals _I_ to _XII_ and _MM_ for the year when it was built.) I got the photo from&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[http://michel.lalos.free.fr/cadrans_solaires/autres_depts/deux_sevres/cs_deux_sevres_niort.html](http://michel.lalos.free.fr/cadrans_solaires/autres_depts/deux_sevres/cs_deux_sevres_niort.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I couldn’t find attestations earlier than the 19th century. I suspect the motto is more ancient. Several sources I have seen (including on paper) link it to Napoleon, who with his usual modesty would have thought of himself as the “only Sun”, but I couldn’t isolate a single, reliable reference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2929" RevisionGUID="42840fa5-c6ca-4934-b9a6-3368c8cea9a1" CreationDate="2017-03-19T19:08:47.177" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="Verbi infinitivi nomina sunt&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;I started to &quot;get&quot; infinitives when I understood that they're [nouns](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/Infinitives.pdf). It's called an [infinitive](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/finio#Latin) because it's not &quot;bound&quot;, i.e. tied to, a time—hence it doesn't make a claim, which is what verbs do. Instead, the infinitive carries the meaning of a verb abstractly. It's a name for that meaning—in other words, a _nomen,_ a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aliud est **velle**, aliud **posse**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genus et numerus&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Just like any other noun, an infinitive even has gender and number. It's neuter and singular, which an adjective must agree with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Errare **humanum** est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Objectum est subjectum&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Infinitives are different from ordinary nouns in that they can take objects and adverbs just like verbs, and they can take an accusative noun as their subject, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hodie necesse est **te solum ambulare**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since an infinitive doesn't make a claim about its subject, it doesn't agree in number with its subject. (It's neuter and singular regardless.) When an infinitive has a subject, it's just abstractly denoting &quot;the subject doing that action&quot; without claiming anything about it. The claiming is done by the real verb of the sentence, in this case **est**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking an accusative noun as a subject enables the infinitive to operate on the object of another verb, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iulia **Marcum discedere** vidit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The object of **vidit** is **Marcum**, but the infinitive extends it so the sentence claims that Julia saw _the act of_ Marcus leaving. The act of Marcus leaving is named rather than asserted directly as it would be in **Marcus discedit**, which has a tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus the infinitive enables verbs to chain together to form compound verbs without subordinating conjunctions or relative pronouns, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Desine** fata deum **flecti sperare** precando. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Discrimina a gerundiis&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Gerunds provide the function of the infinitive in oblique cases, but they lack the infinitive's ability to take another verb's object as their subject. In the previous example, **precando** isn't part of the chain of verbs: it functions as an adverbial phrase modifying the compound action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English gerunds work differently: they somewhat blurrily overlap with infinitives and participles, participating in _ad hoc_ rules about how each specific verb can chain with others. For example, **stop** can only chain to a gerund, but **hope** can only chain to a to-infinitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Stop hoping to bend** the will of the gods by praying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's nothing comparable to those rules in Latin. In many cases, the gerund and infinitive are equivalent in English, as in &quot;Seeing is believing&quot; and &quot;To see is to believe.&quot; But the phrasal nature of English grammar creates strange complexities, which is why &quot;Being is being perceived&quot; and &quot;Being is to be perceived&quot; don't work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A role of English gerunds comparable to their role in Latin is to serve as nouns in prepositional or adverbial phrases, e.g. **by praying** = **precando**. Also in both languages, if you want to give a gerund a subject, you need to put the subject in the genitive case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2931" RevisionGUID="a0524bf0-3c0a-4ace-b18a-c8071009d4dd" CreationDate="2017-03-20T19:09:20.597" UserId="1355" Text="The French equivalent is &quot;Mettre sa peau sur la Table&quot; or &quot;Put your Skin on the Table&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;Basically this aphorism is explained under the Hammurabi Code in handling risks: If an engineer had to build a bridge then he should sleep under it for a certain period.&#xA;&#xA;I checked Plato's Republic and couldn't find something close.&#xA;&#xA;Any help is much appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10519" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2931" RevisionGUID="a0524bf0-3c0a-4ace-b18a-c8071009d4dd" CreationDate="2017-03-20T19:09:20.597" UserId="1355" Text="What's the Greek equivalent of &quot;Skin in the Game&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10520" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2931" RevisionGUID="a0524bf0-3c0a-4ace-b18a-c8071009d4dd" CreationDate="2017-03-20T19:09:20.597" UserId="1355" Text="|greek|idiom|contemporary-latin|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="745" RevisionGUID="583a73c4-541a-41b3-adce-43f0d3e3231a" CreationDate="2017-03-20T21:19:05.690" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="I know the Romans did derive verbs from nouns (*laudare*, *finire*, *lucere*&amp;hellip;), but did they ever derive verbs from names?&#xD;&#xA;The Greeks did, for example forming *homerizein* (ὁ&amp;mu;&amp;eta;&amp;rho;ί&amp;zeta;&amp;epsilon;&amp;iota;&amp;nu;) from *Homeros*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that *-izare*, borrowed from Greek, was used (productively) in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;However, I have never seen it attached to a name in classical context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the verb *latinizare* is easy to understand, but would a word like this ever have been used by classical authors?&#xD;&#xA;(There are of course longer ways around this word, like *ad linguam Latinam adaptare*.)&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer answers from the Augustan era or earlier, but later ones are also interesting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2932" RevisionGUID="620ee025-0d53-4d22-8ba0-bd03512dc742" CreationDate="2017-03-20T22:29:30.263" UserId="79" Text="I stumbled upon a Latin grammar from 1916 today, and it mentions that *nemo* comes from *ne* and an old version of *homo*, namely *hemo*.&#xA;Is this theory considered valid these days?&#xA;What support is there for this earlier form of *homo* beside the first vowel of *nemo*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2932" RevisionGUID="620ee025-0d53-4d22-8ba0-bd03512dc742" CreationDate="2017-03-20T22:29:30.263" UserId="79" Text="Homo from hemo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2932" RevisionGUID="620ee025-0d53-4d22-8ba0-bd03512dc742" CreationDate="2017-03-20T22:29:30.263" UserId="79" Text="|language-evolution|vowel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2933" RevisionGUID="3c605a55-e6c2-4764-b0ef-e0e52896503d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T22:42:45.420" UserId="78" Text="Yes, this is still considered valid. The proto-Italic word is reconstructed as *\*χem-ō*, *χe/om-on-m*. de Vaan has the best summary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/L6JYi.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2934" RevisionGUID="7baf858f-748e-4275-abd3-0c91c236c990" CreationDate="2017-03-20T23:30:22.647" UserId="1356" Text="I am learning Latin. I have bought a grammar book, which is not that great. My professor is using words like adversative conjunction, comparative, conditional and so on. I can't find any long list over these types online. Can you help me? Here is what I have gotten till now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conjunctions can be seperated into hypotaxis and parataxis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hypotaxis: (connecting) introducing a subordinate clause&#xD;&#xA; - Parataxis: connecting to independent clause&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subcategories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Copulative/Additive&#xD;&#xA; - Adversative&#xD;&#xA; - Explicative&#xD;&#xA; - Final&#xD;&#xA; - Causal&#xD;&#xA; - Comparative&#xD;&#xA; - Conditional&#xD;&#xA; - Consecutive&#xD;&#xA; - Consessive&#xD;&#xA; - Temporal&#xD;&#xA; - Modal&#xD;&#xA; - Lokal&#xD;&#xA; - Disjunctive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need help to get the whole list, what each of the terms mean and which Latin words/sentences are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10527" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2934" RevisionGUID="7baf858f-748e-4275-abd3-0c91c236c990" CreationDate="2017-03-20T23:30:22.647" UserId="1356" Text="A list of the categories and subcategories of the Latin conjunctions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10528" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2934" RevisionGUID="7baf858f-748e-4275-abd3-0c91c236c990" CreationDate="2017-03-20T23:30:22.647" UserId="1356" Text="|conjunction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2935" RevisionGUID="205f210c-cf57-4021-add2-65c066d74026" CreationDate="2017-03-21T02:32:22.627" UserId="30" Text="Odyssey A 56 goes thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; αἰεὶ δὲ μαλακοῖσι καὶ αἱμυλίοισι λόγοισιν&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it difficult to scan this verse. The word μᾰλᾰκός has two short syllables, which must be preceded by a long one; and yet δὲ cannot possibly be long. Or can it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the beginning of the verse, αἰεὶ, must be two long syllables, which must be followed by a long syllable, and yet it is δὲ that follows." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10535" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2935" RevisionGUID="205f210c-cf57-4021-add2-65c066d74026" CreationDate="2017-03-21T02:32:22.627" UserId="30" Text="How should Odyssey A 56 be scanned?: αἰεὶ δὲ μαλακοῖσι καὶ αἱμυλίοισι λόγοισιν" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10536" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2935" RevisionGUID="205f210c-cf57-4021-add2-65c066d74026" CreationDate="2017-03-21T02:32:22.627" UserId="30" Text="|greek|metre|homer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2935" RevisionGUID="b58e4320-da98-4920-8338-694bed2ad079" CreationDate="2017-03-21T02:57:45.447" UserId="30" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="[Odyssey A 56][1] goes thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; αἰεὶ δὲ μαλακοῖσι καὶ αἱμυλίοισι λόγοισιν&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it difficult to scan this verse. The word μᾰλᾰκός has two short syllables, which must be preceded by a long one; and yet δὲ cannot possibly be long. Or can it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the beginning of the verse, αἰεὶ, must be two long syllables, which must be followed by a long syllable, and yet it is δὲ that follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0012,002:1:67&amp;lang=original" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2936" RevisionGUID="83b4c632-071c-4ffe-976e-9b9069457763" CreationDate="2017-03-21T03:22:22.547" UserId="40" Text="There is a little-known rule of epic scansion in which, optionally, a word-initial sonorant (the nasals μ ν and the liquids ρ λ) may cause a preceding short vowel to scan long. Here's another example, *Odyssey* 18.399:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; μνηστῆρες δ᾽ ὁμάδησαν ἀνὰ μέγαρα σκιόεντα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- where the second syllable of ἀνά scans long because of the following μ-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The explanation for this seems to be that some such words once began with an additional s- (sm- etc.), which was later lost. But the phenomenon is not limited to words that historically had s- (and those that did do not consistently show it), so it seems to have been expanded into a license to lengthen certain syllables when metrically necessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2937" RevisionGUID="858e798c-dabd-4b6e-a42d-f4d970d707db" CreationDate="2017-03-21T03:40:23.307" UserId="30" Text="Here is the stub of an answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copulative/Additive: connects two clauses without indicating any specific kind of relation between them: *et*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adversative: indicates opposition: *sed*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explicative: explicates elaborates on the previous clause: *quod/ut* &quot;that&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Final: indicates a purpose or end: *ut*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Causal: indicates a cause: *quia, quoniam, quod* &quot;because&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparative: indicates what the preceding is compared with: *quam* &quot;than&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conditional: indicates a condition: *si*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consecutive: indicates a result that was not specifically intended: *ut*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consessive: indicates a concession: *quamquam, quamvis, etsi, ut/cum* &quot;although&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Temporal: indicates a time at which the main clause happens: *ut/cum/ubi* &quot;when&quot;, *postquam*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modal: probably indicates circumstances or methods, but I can't think of what those would be. Perhaps *ut* &quot;as&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Local: indicates a location: *ubi* &quot;where*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disjunctive: separates two possibilities: *aut* &quot;or&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no necessary or complete list of different  kinds of conjunctions: any categorisation is a choice. But most of the terms above are indeed fairly commonly used for conjunctions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2937" RevisionGUID="9e2044e1-d926-4737-910a-270360237359" CreationDate="2017-03-21T03:45:46.647" UserId="30" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="Here is the stub of an answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Copulative/Additive: connects two clauses without indicating any specific kind of relation between them: *et*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adversative: indicates opposition: *sed*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explicative: explicates elaborates on the previous clause: *quod/ut* &quot;that&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Final: indicates a purpose or end: *ut*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Causal: indicates a cause: *quia, quoniam, quod* &quot;because&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparative: indicates what the preceding is compared with: *quam* &quot;than&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conditional: indicates a condition: *si*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consecutive: indicates a result that was not specifically intended: *ut*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consessive: indicates a concession: *quamquam, quamvis, etsi, ut/cum* &quot;although&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Temporal: indicates a time at/after/before which the main clause happens: *ut/cum/ubi* &quot;when&quot;, *postquam, priusquam*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modal: probably indicates circumstances or methods, but I can't think of what those would be. Perhaps *ut* &quot;as&quot;, but one might as well call that comparative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Local: indicates a location: *ubi* &quot;where*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disjunctive: separates two possibilities: *aut* &quot;or&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no necessary or complete list of different  kinds of conjunctions: any categorisation is a choice. But most of the terms above are indeed fairly commonly used for conjunctions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2937" RevisionGUID="1ea662e0-2a16-468e-a6fd-927b147822ef" CreationDate="2017-03-21T03:54:49.997" UserId="30" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="Here is the stub of an answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Copulative/Additive**: connects two clauses without indicating any specific kind of relation between them: *et*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Adversative**: indicates opposition: *sed*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Explicative**: explicates elaborates on the previous clause: *quod/ut* &quot;that&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Final**: indicates a purpose or end: *ut, ne*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Causal**: indicates a cause: *nam&quot; &quot;for&quot;, quia, quoniam, quod* &quot;because&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Comparative**: indicates what the preceding is compared with: *quam* &quot;than&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conditional**: indicates a condition: *si*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Consecutive**: indicates a result that was not specifically intended: *ut*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Consessive**: indicates a concession: *quamquam, quamvis, etsi, ut/cum* &quot;although&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Temporal**: indicates a time at/after/before which the main clause happens: *ut/cum/ubi* &quot;when&quot;, *postquam, priusquam, antequam, dum, donec*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Modal**: probably indicates circumstances or methods, but I can't think of what those would be. Perhaps *(sic)ut* &quot;(such) as&quot;, but one might as well call that comparative. Or *prout* &quot;to the extent that&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Local**: indicates a location: *ubi* &quot;where*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Disjunctive**: separates two possibilities: *sive, aut*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Interrogative**: introduces the content of a question: *utrum, an*. Or perhaps others would have this fall under &quot;explicative&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no necessary or complete list of different  kinds of conjunctions: any categorisation is a choice. But most of the terms above are indeed fairly commonly used for conjunctions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2938" RevisionGUID="1ce7255f-9a7b-414f-8ba8-d9d86b9c1e96" CreationDate="2017-03-21T04:12:18.417" UserId="40" Text="I'm not sure there is an equivalent phrasal idiom in Greek, but the verb [συγκινδυνεύω](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dsugkinduneu%2Fw) &quot;run a risk together with someone&quot; can be used to express this idea; here's an example from Plato's *Philebus* (29a):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; βούλει δῆτά τι καὶ ἡμεῖς τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν ὁμολογούμενον συμφήσωμεν ὡς ταῦθ᾽ οὕτως ἔχει, καὶ μὴ μόνον οἰώμεθα δεῖν τἀλλότρια ἄνευ κινδύνου λέγειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ **συγκινδυνεύωμεν** καὶ μετέχωμεν τοῦ ψόγου, ὅταν ἀνὴρ δεινὸς φῇ ταῦτα μὴ οὕτως ἀλλ᾽ ἀτάκτως ἔχειν;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Harold Fowler's translation: &quot;Do you, then, think we should assent to this and agree in the doctrine of our predecessors, not merely intending to repeat the words of others, with no risk to ourselves, but ready to **share with them in the risk** and the blame, if any clever man declares that this world is not thus ordered, but is without order?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2931" RevisionGUID="11f6e684-60a6-4314-85c7-0b90b43ecdcc" CreationDate="2017-03-21T05:51:54.830" UserId="78" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The French equivalent is &quot;Mettre sa peau sur la Table&quot; or &quot;Put your Skin on the Table&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically this aphorism is explained under the Hammurabi Code in handling risks: If an engineer had to build a bridge then he should sleep under it for a certain period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I checked Plato's Republic and couldn't find something close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help is much appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10544" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2931" RevisionGUID="11f6e684-60a6-4314-85c7-0b90b43ecdcc" CreationDate="2017-03-21T05:51:54.830" UserId="78" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|greek|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2939" RevisionGUID="4463dcd7-f2e1-4050-808f-c3a24e7db962" CreationDate="2017-03-21T06:13:10.890" UserId="522" Text="[Warning: I am subject to error; and grammar/ syntax is subject to fashion. Terminology and taxonomy will vary in older grammars.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PARATAXIS  &#xD;&#xA;**Copulative:**  Felis abest et mures ludunt.&#xD;&#xA;Felis abest, porro mures ludunt.  &#xD;&#xA;**Adversative:** [But] Felis abest, mures tamen non ludunt. Felis abest, sed mures non laetare coeperunt.  &#xD;&#xA;*In paratactic clauses modality is independent of the conjunction.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HYPOTAXIS  &#xD;&#xA;**Comparative:** [The more...the more]Quam saepius felis abest, magis mures laetuntur.  &#xD;&#xA;**Explicative:** [Because] Quod felis abest, mures ludunt.  &#xD;&#xA;**Ablative absolute:** Fele absente, mures ludunt. (literally &quot;The cat being away, ...&quot; can be translated as causal, temporal, or conditional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**modal hypotaxis**  &#xD;&#xA;Some conjunctions  *Ut,* *cum,* *Si, nisi,* can take the subjunctive:   &#xD;&#xA;[When] **Cum** felis abest, mures ludunt (temporal) **but**  &#xD;&#xA;[Since] **Cum** felis absit (modal) mures ludunt.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;[As] **Ut** felis aberat, mures ludere coeperunt. (temporal) **but**  &#xD;&#xA;(modal)&#xD;&#xA;Felis abivit, [so that] **ut** mures luderent.(final)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conditional (factual) **Si** felis abest, mures ludunt. **but**  &#xD;&#xA;(modal)&#xD;&#xA;(hypothetical) [If] **Si** felis abesset, mures [would] luderent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The hypotactic list  omits  Indirect Speech, and Indirect Questions, both of which have indicative and modal variants. Lokal syntax can be treated with  Indirect Questions.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2939" RevisionGUID="fb9aaa8a-ebc8-4a7f-be6b-4ea3309d18ca" CreationDate="2017-03-21T06:27:37.353" UserId="522" Comment="add &quot;Participles&quot;" Text="[Warning: I am subject to error; and grammar/ syntax is subject to fashion. Terminology and taxonomy will vary in older grammars.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PARATAXIS  &#xD;&#xA;**Copulative:**  Felis abest et mures ludunt.&#xD;&#xA;Felis abest, porro mures ludunt.  &#xD;&#xA;**Adversative:** [But] Felis abest, mures tamen non ludunt. Felis abest, sed mures non laetare coeperunt.  &#xD;&#xA;*In paratactic clauses modality is independent of the conjunction.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HYPOTAXIS  &#xD;&#xA;**Comparative:** [The more...the more]Quam saepius felis abest, magis mures laetuntur.  &#xD;&#xA;**Explicative:** [Because] Quod felis abest, mures ludunt.  &#xD;&#xA;**Participle, nominative:** Felis absens ignoravit mures ludere.  &#xD;&#xA;**Participle: Ablative absolute:** Fele absente, mures ludunt. (literally &quot;The cat being away, ...&quot; can be translated as causal, temporal, or conditional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**modal hypotaxis**  &#xD;&#xA;Some conjunctions  *Ut,* *cum,* *Si, nisi,* can take the subjunctive:   &#xD;&#xA;[When] **Cum** felis abest, mures ludunt (temporal) **but**  &#xD;&#xA;[Since] **Cum** felis absit (modal) mures ludunt.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;[As] **Ut** felis aberat, mures ludere coeperunt. (temporal) **but**  &#xD;&#xA;(modal)&#xD;&#xA;Felis abivit, [so that] **ut** mures luderent.(final)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conditional (factual) **Si** felis abest, mures ludunt. **but**  &#xD;&#xA;(modal)&#xD;&#xA;(hypothetical) [If] **Si** felis abesset, mures [would] luderent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The hypotactic list  omits  Indirect Speech, and Indirect Questions, both of which have indicative and modal variants. Lokal syntax can be treated with  Indirect Questions.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10549" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="2940" RevisionGUID="b7b44b6b-b946-4a64-8686-41b263e26b3e" CreationDate="2017-03-21T08:42:06.997" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/379371/in-the-sentence-glory-is-better-than-fame-is-fame-a-predicate-nominative" />
  <row Id="10550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2940" RevisionGUID="e5ff32e6-e952-402d-b905-d1a6e8489eca" CreationDate="2017-03-21T02:46:56.317" UserId="1358" UserDisplayName="Blue1ite" Text="With the intent of translating this sentence to Latin, what case is the word &quot;fame&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10551" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2940" RevisionGUID="e5ff32e6-e952-402d-b905-d1a6e8489eca" CreationDate="2017-03-21T02:46:56.317" UserId="1358" UserDisplayName="Blue1ite" Text="In the sentence &quot;Glory is better than fame&quot;, is &quot;fame&quot; a predicate nominative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10552" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2940" RevisionGUID="e5ff32e6-e952-402d-b905-d1a6e8489eca" CreationDate="2017-03-21T02:46:56.317" UserId="1358" UserDisplayName="Blue1ite" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2941" RevisionGUID="9c352f8c-2169-4ccf-91c4-6f938f8c1428" CreationDate="2017-03-21T11:53:59.980" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10554" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2941" RevisionGUID="9c352f8c-2169-4ccf-91c4-6f938f8c1428" CreationDate="2017-03-21T11:53:59.980" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2942" RevisionGUID="8e50f97c-4b44-4ea7-90b4-6315feadcca3" CreationDate="2017-03-21T11:53:59.980" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10556" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2942" RevisionGUID="8e50f97c-4b44-4ea7-90b4-6315feadcca3" CreationDate="2017-03-21T11:53:59.980" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2943" RevisionGUID="afdbe430-ddd2-4295-99fd-bed9368ff5e5" CreationDate="2017-03-21T11:55:30.117" UserId="79" Text="How can I translate sentences like &quot;poverty leads to hunger&quot; to Latin?&#xD;&#xA;There are several possible verbs for leading, and my first choice is *ducere*, but I am not sure if it can be used in this sense.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I could simply say *paupertas in famem ducit*, but I'm far from confident.&#xD;&#xA;This would work if I added an object *hominem* (&quot;poverty leads a man to hunger&quot;), but I really want to avoid using an object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are cases when there is no clear object or I do not want indicate what the object is.&#xD;&#xA;If possible, I would like a structure that also works for &quot;the series of events led to her birth&quot; or &quot;heavy rain does not lead to drought&quot; or &quot;careless driving leads to sorrow&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If it is better to use different phrases for these different examples, what Latin phrases should I have in mind when trying to translate &quot;leads to&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10558" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2943" RevisionGUID="afdbe430-ddd2-4295-99fd-bed9368ff5e5" CreationDate="2017-03-21T11:55:30.117" UserId="79" Text="Translating &quot;something leads to something&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10559" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2943" RevisionGUID="afdbe430-ddd2-4295-99fd-bed9368ff5e5" CreationDate="2017-03-21T11:55:30.117" UserId="79" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|idiom|phrase-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2942" RevisionGUID="2daf9a4e-d231-44d1-b0d1-9eb84005c663" CreationDate="2017-03-21T12:04:10.027" UserId="321" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="Relating to the works of, or the use of language by, Homer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10561" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2942" RevisionGUID="2daf9a4e-d231-44d1-b0d1-9eb84005c663" CreationDate="2017-03-21T12:04:10.027" Comment="Proposed by 321 approved by 79 edit id of 176" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10562" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2940" RevisionGUID="6b7a3cd0-802e-4334-833a-cefeb892f16e" CreationDate="2017-03-21T12:57:59.990" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags" Text="|comparative|case|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2944" RevisionGUID="06a40a73-001b-47c1-a9a8-c1405dd7e9df" CreationDate="2017-03-21T14:02:44.100" UserId="45" Text="In your title you ask if &quot;fame&quot; is a predicate nominative, and the answer to that question is **no**. A predicate nominative involves the linking of a noun with the subject via a copula (usually a form of &quot;to be&quot; or &quot;to become&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the body of your question, I suspect that your real question is what case would best be used to translate *fame*. The answer is that you have two options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Same case as compared noun = nominative**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Gloria melior est quam fama.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Ablative of comparison**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Gloria fam&amp;amacr; melior est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two are both equally valid, though the ablative is often avoided in cases where ambiguity could arise. In this particular case, I would probably favor the first option because my ear isn't sensitive enough to vowel quantity to intuitively understand the second when spoken." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2937" RevisionGUID="bf200f10-0cd3-49b4-b24e-e507475d573a" CreationDate="2017-03-21T14:07:16.480" UserId="30" Comment="added 214 characters in body" Text="Here is the stub of an answer. Many conjunctions can be used in two or more different ways. And I've only given an example for each category, not an exhaustive list. But this should be enough for you to be able to categorise other conjunctions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Copulative/Additive**: connects two clauses without indicating any specific kind of relation between them: *et*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Adversative**: indicates opposition: *sed*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Explicative**: explicates or elaborates on the previous clause: *quod/ut* &quot;that&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Final**: indicates a purpose or end: *ut, ne*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Causal**: indicates a cause: *nam&quot; &quot;for&quot;, quia, quoniam, quod* &quot;because&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Comparative**: indicates what the preceding is compared with: *quam* &quot;than&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conditional**: indicates a condition: *si*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Consecutive**: indicates a result that was not specifically intended: *ut*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Concessive**: indicates a concession: *quamquam, quamvis, etsi, ut/cum* &quot;although&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Temporal**: indicates a time at/after/before which the main clause happens: *ut/cum/ubi* &quot;when&quot;, *postquam, priusquam, antequam, dum, donec*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Modal**: probably indicates circumstances or methods, but I can't think of what those would be. Perhaps *(sic)ut* &quot;(such) as&quot;, but one might as well call that comparative. Or *prout* &quot;to the extent that&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Local**: indicates a location: *ubi* &quot;where*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Disjunctive**: separates two possibilities: *sive, aut*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Interrogative**: introduces the content of a question: *utrum, an*. Or perhaps others would have this fall under &quot;explicative&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no necessary or complete list of different  kinds of conjunctions: any categorisation is a choice. But most of the terms above are indeed fairly commonly used for conjunctions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2934" RevisionGUID="197f27fb-ffbc-4fc7-98e1-c5b1e33783a0" CreationDate="2017-03-21T17:36:54.883" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="I am learning Latin. I have bought a grammar book, which is not that great. My professor is using words like adversative conjunction, comparative, conditional and so on. I can't find any long list over these types online. Can you help me? Here is what I have gotten till now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conjunctions can be seperated into hypotaxis and parataxis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hypotaxis: (connecting) introducing a subordinate clause&#xD;&#xA; - Parataxis: connecting to independent clause&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subcategories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Copulative/Additive&#xD;&#xA; - Adversative&#xD;&#xA; - Explicative&#xD;&#xA; - Final&#xD;&#xA; - Causal&#xD;&#xA; - Comparative&#xD;&#xA; - Conditional&#xD;&#xA; - Consecutive&#xD;&#xA; - Concessive&#xD;&#xA; - Temporal&#xD;&#xA; - Modal&#xD;&#xA; - Local&#xD;&#xA; - Disjunctive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need help to get the whole list, what each of the terms mean and which Latin words/sentences are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2945" RevisionGUID="b32e0782-1a0b-45fd-a51e-2328a95c9cb4" CreationDate="2017-03-21T18:52:12.677" UserId="469" Text="Browsing L&amp;S I came to the entry on the verb [*sequor*][1], meaning II.B.4, that reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In logical conclusions, *to follow, ensue*; with *subject-clause*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;especially with *ut*. And it cites a pretty clean example from Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Si** hoc enuntiatum: &quot;Veniet in Tusculanum Hortensius&quot; verum non est, **sequitur, ut** falsum sit.” ([Cic. Fat. 28][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several other examples from classical times may be found with this construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsequor&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0035%3Asection%3D28" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10567" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="328" RevisionGUID="9a738300-a490-4d43-9ad1-10c92efd7a94" CreationDate="2017-03-21T20:25:44.227" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="329" RevisionGUID="d2b8f271-9fa1-4537-bed3-805c10f4b61f" CreationDate="2017-03-21T20:35:11.877" UserId="78" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="For all things English to Latin, the best place to go is *Smith's Copious and Critical English - Latin Dictionary*. To get the phrase, you'd have to look under **night**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *to have a good night*, bene quiescere, Plin. Ep. 3, 16, 4 : as an exclamation, *good night!* bene valeas et quiescas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tibullus *Elegiae* 2.4.49 includes *placide* with it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et 'bene' discedens dicet 'placideque quiescas.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And leaving he will say, 'May you rest well and peacefully.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That must have been somewhat common, because Fronto has it, but it cannot quite mean 'good night' in the English sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed post diem natalem	tuum, si me amas, nox quae sequitur fac iam placide quiescas sine ullius instantis officii cogitatione. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Loeb translates it thus: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But if you love me, pass the coming night in peace and quiet without &#xD;&#xA;attending to any business however pressing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oddly, the Loeb skips out *post...tuum*, which means 'after your birthday.' The *placide quiescas* doesn't quite mean 'have a good night', but perhaps 'may you sleep soundly' isn't so far off, and the meaning of it could be altered slightly with *fac* thrown in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For wishing someone off to sleep as they depart from you, *vale* simply suffices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also introduce some variation of *adv/adj + dormire*. The Priapea (62.1a) preserves these lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; securi dormite, canes: custodiet hortum / cum sibi dilecta Sirius Erigone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Securi dormite* means &quot;sleep soundly.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2945" RevisionGUID="e013dc1b-8b00-4656-85f6-ecfac6dbca7f" CreationDate="2017-03-21T20:35:59.000" UserId="469" Comment="added 2236 characters in body" Text="### Option 1: *sequitur, ut*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Browsing L&amp;S I came to the entry on the verb [*sequor*][1], meaning II.B.4, that reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In logical conclusions, *to follow, ensue*; with *subject-clause*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;especially with *ut*. And it cites a pretty clean example from Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Si** hoc enuntiatum: &quot;Veniet in Tusculanum Hortensius&quot; verum non est, **sequitur, ut** falsum sit.” ([Cic. Fat. 28][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several other examples from classical times may be found with this construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Option 2: *ergo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ergo*** seems to me like the most natural choice (one word, no comma needed.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[L&amp;S][3], lists at least two examples of meanings where *ergo* introduces the consequence in conditional clauses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Consequently, therefore* (...) with **si**, cum, quia, etc.: “ergo ego **nisi** peperissem, Roma non oppugnaretur,” [Liv. 2.40][4].8; &quot;Ergo **quia** sum tangere ausus, haud causificor quin eam ego habeam potissimum.&quot; [Pl. Aul. 4.10][5].25&#xD;&#xA;- With imperatives and future, *then*: “ergo, si sapis, mussitabis,” [Pl. Mil. 2.5][6].66.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More explicitly, in modern scientific literature, Newton uses *ergo* as well as [*dein*][7] (e.g. in his famous Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, [sect. I][8].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, Newton himself i) builds many conditional clauses starting with *si* and using a comma as the only link to the consequent, and ii) uses *ergo* alone to introduce stand-alone sentences as consequence of the reasoning in the previous ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Option 3: dein and other phrasal forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Newton also uses **dein** (see [L&amp;S entry for dein][7]) in the same context, and apparently more smoothly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also worth mentioning what Tom and Hugh noted: *deinde* (long for *dein*) and additional phrases like **necesse est**. In fact, I also found Newton using **dico quod** as the link in the *Principia* ([Sect. III][9]. Prop. XIV. Theor. VI.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsequor&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0035%3Asection%3D28&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dergo&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0169%3Abook%3D2%3Achapter%3D40&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0032%3Aact%3D4%3Ascene%3D10&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0041%3Aact%3D2%3Ascene%3D5&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddein&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Philosophiae_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica_-_SECT._I._DE_Methodo_rationum_primarum_%26_ultima_rum.&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Philosophiae_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica_-_SECT._III._De_motu_corporum_in_Conicis_sectionibus_eccentri_cis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2945" RevisionGUID="dd9be386-702e-40d7-b75a-18b2afdef332" CreationDate="2017-03-21T23:44:57.023" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="### Option 1: *sequitur, ut*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Browsing L&amp;S I came to the entry on the verb [*sequor*][1], meaning II.B.4, that reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In logical conclusions, *to follow, ensue*; with *subject-clause*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;especially with *ut*. And it cites a pretty clean example from Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Si** hoc enuntiatum: &quot;Veniet in Tusculanum Hortensius&quot; verum non est, **sequitur, ut** falsum sit.” ([Cic. Fat. 28][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several other examples from classical times may be found with this construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Option 2: *ergo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ergo*** seems to me like the most natural choice (one word, no comma needed.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[L&amp;S][3], lists at least two examples of meanings where *ergo* introduces the consequence in conditional clauses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Consequently, therefore* (...) with **si**, cum, quia, etc.: “ergo ego **nisi** peperissem, Roma non oppugnaretur,” [Liv. 2.40][4].8; &quot;Ergo **quia** sum tangere ausus, haud causificor quin eam ego habeam potissimum.&quot; [Pl. Aul. 4.10][5].25&#xD;&#xA;- With imperatives and future, *then*: “ergo, si sapis, mussitabis,” [Pl. Mil. 2.5][6].66.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More explicitly, in modern scientific literature, Newton uses *ergo* (e.g. in his famous Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, [sect. I][8].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, Newton himself i) builds many conditional clauses starting with *si* and using a comma as the only link to the consequent, and ii) uses *ergo* alone to introduce stand-alone sentences as consequence of the reasoning in the previous ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Option 3: dein and other phrasal forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Newton also uses **dein** (see [L&amp;S entry for dein][7]) in the same context, and apparently more smoothly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also worth mentioning what Tom and Hugh noted: *deinde* (long for *dein*) and additional phrases like **necesse est**. In fact, I also found Newton using **dico quod** as the link in the *Principia* ([Sect. III][9]. Prop. XIV. Theor. VI.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsequor&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0035%3Asection%3D28&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dergo&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0169%3Abook%3D2%3Achapter%3D40&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0032%3Aact%3D4%3Ascene%3D10&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0041%3Aact%3D2%3Ascene%3D5&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddein&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Philosophiae_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica_-_SECT._I._DE_Methodo_rationum_primarum_%26_ultima_rum.&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Philosophiae_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica_-_SECT._III._De_motu_corporum_in_Conicis_sectionibus_eccentri_cis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2946" RevisionGUID="fee9e189-4b87-46eb-a638-424623eecf15" CreationDate="2017-03-21T23:47:45.517" UserId="1304" Text="I think it is worth mentioning in this context that a modern notation like&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_p_ ⇒ _q_&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which we read in English either as _p implies q_ or _if p &lt;strong&gt;then&lt;/strong&gt; q,_ can be read in Latin as _ex p, (sequitur) q_ with an optional _sequitur,_ along the lines of [_ex falso, (sequitur) quodlibet_](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion). In most examples of _si p sequitur q,_  _p_ is a proposition; when it is not, _ex_ + Abl. can be used. It is a spatial metaphor, of course, but it works much better than its English counterparts _from_ and _out of._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2947" RevisionGUID="993f1279-4e61-499d-a8c1-5262aaf26ec2" CreationDate="2017-03-22T12:09:59.787" UserId="645" Text="This extract from the novel 'Three Men in a Boat' refers to Job 5.7 : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This world is only a probation, and man was born to trouble as the sparks fly upward.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hoped to quote the source, expecting to find it in the Vulgate, — but it's not so simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Vulgate (AD 382): *homo ad laborem nascitur et avis ad volatum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. KJV (1611): *Man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Luther (1545): *Sondern der Mensch wird zu unglück geborn / wie die Vögel schweben empor zufliegen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Gute nachricht Bibel (2017): *Aus seinem eigenen Wesen kommt das Leid, so wie der Funkenwirbel aus dem Feuer.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. bibleenligne.com (2017): *car l'homme est né pour la misère, comme les étincelles s'élèvent pour voler.* [lit. *les fils de la flamme*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It isn't difficult to put into Latin (*homo nascitur ad laborem sicut scintilla ad volatum*), but **Can anyone direct me to a Latin original for the King James version**, with sparks instead of the bird of  Jerome *et al*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10575" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2947" RevisionGUID="993f1279-4e61-499d-a8c1-5262aaf26ec2" CreationDate="2017-03-22T12:09:59.787" UserId="645" Text="Job 5.7 in the King James version" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10576" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2947" RevisionGUID="993f1279-4e61-499d-a8c1-5262aaf26ec2" CreationDate="2017-03-22T12:09:59.787" UserId="645" Text="|translation|word-choice|ecclesiastical|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2947" RevisionGUID="c0f050ac-c390-4ce5-bdbb-ad4808e696f7" CreationDate="2017-03-22T12:14:13.837" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="This extract from the novel 'Three Men in a Boat' refers to Job 5.7: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This world is only a probation, and man was born to trouble as the sparks fly upward.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hoped to quote the source, expecting to find it in the Vulgate, — but it's not so simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Vulgate (AD 382): *homo ad laborem nascitur et avis ad volatum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. KJV (1611): *Man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Luther (1545): *Sondern der Mensch wird zu unglück geborn / wie die Vögel schweben empor zufliegen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Gute nachricht Bibel (2017): *Aus seinem eigenen Wesen kommt das Leid, so wie der Funkenwirbel aus dem Feuer.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. bibleenligne.com (2017): *car l'homme est né pour la misère, comme les étincelles s'élèvent pour voler.* [lit. *les fils de la flamme*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It isn't difficult to put into Latin (*homo nascitur ad laborem sicut scintilla ad volatum*), but **Can anyone direct me to a Latin original for the King James version**, with sparks instead of the bird of  Jerome *et al*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10578" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2947" RevisionGUID="c0f050ac-c390-4ce5-bdbb-ad4808e696f7" CreationDate="2017-03-22T12:14:13.837" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|translation|word-choice|christianity|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2947" RevisionGUID="690b4a41-e5f7-46b7-bab0-02a823daf3bf" CreationDate="2017-03-22T12:46:23.887" UserId="645" Comment="extended question" Text="This extract from the novel 'Three Men in a Boat' refers to Job 5.7: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This world is only a probation, and man was born to trouble as the sparks fly upward.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hoped to quote the source, expecting to find it in the Vulgate, — but it's not so simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Vulgate (AD 382): *homo ad laborem nascitur et avis ad volatum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. KJV (1611): *Man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Luther (1545): *Sondern der Mensch wird zu unglück geborn / wie die Vögel schweben empor zufliegen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Gute nachricht Bibel (2017): *Aus seinem eigenen Wesen kommt das Leid, so wie der Funkenwirbel aus dem Feuer.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. bibleenligne.com (2017): *car l'homme est né pour la misère, comme les étincelles s'élèvent pour voler.* [lit. *les fils de la flamme*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It isn't difficult to put into Latin (*homo nascitur ad laborem sicut scintilla ad volatum*), but **Can anyone direct me to a Latin original for the King James version**, with sparks instead of the bird of  Jerome *et al* or explain why the difference came about?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2948" RevisionGUID="0f44d7e4-15f3-4807-ab2a-eb1881ea13ef" CreationDate="2017-03-22T19:21:38.470" UserId="79" Text="Some Latin nouns are common gender: their grammatical gender varies depending whether they refer to a male or a female (human or other animal).&#xD;&#xA;This is mentioned in many Latin grammars (including [Allen and Greenough](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-034.html)), and examples are often listed.&#xD;&#xA;However, I have never seen any proof in grammars that any of the listed words really behave this way.&#xD;&#xA;I don't really doubt that common gender nouns exist; I just found myself unable to very convincingly argue that they are a real thing in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To remedy this, I would like a couple of example words (two is enough), each word with two example passages from classical literature: one where it is feminine and another one where it is masculine.&#xD;&#xA;It would be great if the examples would be relatively simple and, most importantly, gender-wise unambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;Which example words and which passages would you suggest to demonstrate the existence of common gender nouns?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was inspired by [an earlier question about feminine *homo*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2597/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10581" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2948" RevisionGUID="0f44d7e4-15f3-4807-ab2a-eb1881ea13ef" CreationDate="2017-03-22T19:21:38.470" UserId="79" Text="Good examples of common gender nouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10582" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2948" RevisionGUID="0f44d7e4-15f3-4807-ab2a-eb1881ea13ef" CreationDate="2017-03-22T19:21:38.470" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|noun|passage-request|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2949" RevisionGUID="6a67be36-6aad-4ca1-b5d4-8bc4f232642b" CreationDate="2017-03-22T21:05:51.343" UserId="406" Text="How would one best translate the English idiom &quot;to be known for&quot;, as in &quot;he is known for defeating the Gauls&quot;? This came up when discussing uses of the gerund, but in English the idiom also works with a non-verbal noun, as in &quot;he is known for his strength&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The obvious solution is a literal translation, with the passive of *scīre*, but the English feels too idiomatic for that. Another option would be an adjective like *clarus*, but I'd like to know if there's an idiom or commonly used expression for this.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10584" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2949" RevisionGUID="6a67be36-6aad-4ca1-b5d4-8bc4f232642b" CreationDate="2017-03-22T21:05:51.343" UserId="406" Text="He is known for...?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10585" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2949" RevisionGUID="6a67be36-6aad-4ca1-b5d4-8bc4f232642b" CreationDate="2017-03-22T21:05:51.343" UserId="406" Text="|translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2950" RevisionGUID="3cbd1314-d6be-4f1e-b711-9248492b10cc" CreationDate="2017-03-22T21:52:53.857" UserId="1360" Text="Is &quot;vulgo voces&quot; an expression with a particular meaning? I have encountered it in an early 18th century text. The full text is: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Equidem vulgo voces Thermometrum &amp; Thermoscopium pro synonymis habentur. Nos tamen has voces sedulo distinguimus, ne imposterum (quod vulgo fieri solet) pro iisdem habeamus instrumenta prorsus diversa, nec porro observationes confundamus, factaque hac confusione conclusiones erroneas ex iisdem deducamus.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could I translate it as? &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Indeed, usually the words thermometer &amp; thermoscope are synonymous. We nevertheless carefully distinguish these words, lest hereafter (which commonly happens) for the same words we have altogether different instruments, and  furthermore confuse observations and because of this confusion draw erroneous conclusions from them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10587" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2950" RevisionGUID="3cbd1314-d6be-4f1e-b711-9248492b10cc" CreationDate="2017-03-22T21:52:53.857" UserId="1360" Text="Meaning of &quot;vulgo voces&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10588" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2950" RevisionGUID="3cbd1314-d6be-4f1e-b711-9248492b10cc" CreationDate="2017-03-22T21:52:53.857" UserId="1360" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2951" RevisionGUID="2d2fe8c9-13aa-4603-a38d-ca27eb2e622b" CreationDate="2017-03-22T22:44:11.337" UserId="78" Text="This is not a set phrase, and they do not go together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Voces* here are &quot;words,&quot; specifically *Thermometrum &amp; Thermoscopium*. *Vox* is commonly used as &quot;word&quot; or &quot;noun&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Vulgus*, on the other hand, is the Latin word for &quot;the common people.&quot; *Volgo* is an ablative of that with the force of an adverb. It could &quot;literally&quot; be translated along the lines of &quot;with the people,&quot; but with a metaphorical sense, was extended to &quot;generally.&quot; Lewis &amp; Short gives several ways of translating it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; prop. among the multitude; hence, in gen., *before every body*, *before all the world*, *generally*, *universally*, *everywhere*, *all over*, *commonly*, *openly*, *publicly*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translator is translating it here as &quot;usually,&quot; which is synonymous with &quot;in general.&quot; So: &quot;In general (*vulgo*) the words (*voces*).&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10590" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2950" RevisionGUID="d3c80691-2fa9-4485-b247-9d573c69d979" CreationDate="2017-03-22T22:50:22.967" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10591" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2949" RevisionGUID="0db7d3ed-6812-4698-bed6-146a23c3ef6e" CreationDate="2017-03-22T22:50:33.887" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2952" RevisionGUID="e490cdae-d8e5-4382-b648-6b018b7d8f4f" CreationDate="2017-03-23T01:09:50.003" UserId="1304" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;he is known for defeating the Gauls&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___victoriā belli gallici praeclarus est___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[___Clarus___](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dclarus) or [___praeclarus___](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=praeclarus&amp;highlight=praeclarus)&#xD;&#xA;are the way to go. There are a zillion examples. _Notus_ is really still only the participle of _nosco,_ without the connotation of _to be known for._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An ablative is the most common case, but other constructions exist: e.g. genitive: _T. Livius, eloquentiae ac fidei praeclarus in primis,_ (Tac. A. 4, 34); or _in_ + Abl. _multi praeclari in philosophiā et nobiles,_ (Cic. de Or. 1, 11, 46)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for translating “for defeating the Gauls” with _victoriā belli gallici,_ it is a matter of taste. Latin privileges _nomina actionis_ in such constructions, and e.g. Suetonius wrote _in victoriā belli civilis_ (Suet. Caes. 75), “when he won the civil war.”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2952" RevisionGUID="4a4ea9d3-1d72-4c04-aeeb-03b7ba675993" CreationDate="2017-03-23T01:17:25.940" UserId="1304" Comment="added 328 characters in body" Text="&gt;&quot;he is known for defeating the Gauls&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___victoriā belli gallici praeclarus est___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[___Clarus___](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dclarus) or [___praeclarus___](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=praeclarus&amp;highlight=praeclarus)&#xD;&#xA;are the way to go, especially in a good sense. There are a zillion examples. _Notus_ is really still only the participle of _nosco,_ without the connotation of _to be known for._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An ablative is the most common case, but other constructions exist: e.g. genitive: _T. Livius, eloquentiae ac fidei praeclarus in primis,_ (Tac. A. 4, 34); or _in_ + Abl. _multi praeclari in philosophiā et nobiles,_ (Cic. de Or. 1, 11, 46)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for translating “for defeating the Gauls” with _victoriā belli gallici,_ it is a matter of taste. Latin privileges _nomina actionis_ in such constructions, and e.g. Suetonius wrote _in victoriā belli civilis_ (Suet. Caes. 75), “when he won the civil war.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[___Famōsus___](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfamosus) is also an option, also with ablative, but it is used much more in a bad sense _(infamous)_ than in a good one. In present-day Italian it’s only used in a good sense, and it’s a _famosus_ false friend." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2953" RevisionGUID="6f7e930c-9864-488f-b2be-84126d3a4193" CreationDate="2017-03-23T04:00:06.857" UserId="406" Text="I was asked recently how to translate &quot;a wise decision&quot; (as either the act of deciding, or the result) into Latin. &quot;Wisdom&quot; could perhaps be the Greek loanword *sophia* or the native Latin *sapientia*; a decision might be a *consilium* or an *arbitrium*. But can a *consilium* actually be *sapiens* or have *sapientia*? How do I indicate that the decision was made wisely/by a wise person, rather than that the *consilium* itself *sapit*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10595" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2953" RevisionGUID="6f7e930c-9864-488f-b2be-84126d3a4193" CreationDate="2017-03-23T04:00:06.857" UserId="406" Text="Can decisions be wise?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10596" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2953" RevisionGUID="6f7e930c-9864-488f-b2be-84126d3a4193" CreationDate="2017-03-23T04:00:06.857" UserId="406" Text="|translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2955" RevisionGUID="3143a05a-2095-4185-86ce-76a495f115f5" CreationDate="2017-03-23T04:31:18.627" UserId="406" Text="##Bōs, bovis, m/f##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the usual type of common-gender noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the feminine, it means &quot;cow&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Livy 1.7.6:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Inde cum **actae boves** quaedam ad desiderium, ut fit, relictarum mugissent, reddita inclusarum ex spelunca boum vox Herculem convertit.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Heinemann trans)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **As the cattle were being driven off**, some of them lowed, as usually happens, missing those which had been left behind. They were answered with a low by the cattle shut up in the cave, and this made Hercules turn back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the masculine, it means &quot;bull&quot; or &quot;ox&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Livy 25.12.13:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alterum senatus consultum factum est ut decemuiri sacrum Graeco ritu facerent hisce hostiis, Apollini **boue aurato** et capris duabus albis auratis, Latonae **boue femina aurata**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Heinemann trans)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A second decree was passed, that &quot;the decemviri should perform sacrifice in the Grecian mode, and with the following victims: to Apollo, **with a gilded ox**, and two white goats gilded; to Latona, **with a gilded heifer**.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The masculine is considered &quot;default&quot; unless otherwise specified, hence the explicit addition of *femina* in the second passage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2956" RevisionGUID="0efc9735-e898-43f6-b922-3df8a44f7004" CreationDate="2017-03-23T13:25:55.517" UserId="469" Text="***Sapiens consilium*** is attested by Seneca ([Ben. 4.34.4][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Non mutat **sapiens** **consilium** omnibus his manentibus, quae erant, cum sumeret; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In later times, it is also attested in XX century Ecclesiastical Latin by St. John XXIII  ([Humanae Salutis][2], 14):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priusquam argumenta in Concilio pertractanda statueremus, ante omnia *prudens* et **sapiens** rogavimus **consilium** Patres Cardinales, universi catholici orbis Episcopos, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I also underline _prudens_ for what it's worth.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;In a side comment, the Vulgate (post-classical) has an example of _sapienter respondere_ ([Mc 12][3], 34), which may serve as an argument for _sapiens responsum_ (although not exactly a decision, another example of an action by a man considered itself wise):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Iesus autem videns quod **sapienter** **respondisset** dixit illi non es longe a regno Dei&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0023%3Abook%3D4%3Achapter%3D34%3Asection%3D4&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/la/apost_constitutions/1961/documents/hf_j-xxiii_apc_19611225_humanae-salutis.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0060:book=Mark:chapter=12&amp;highlight=sapienter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2956" RevisionGUID="7bc45d12-da54-4f6b-a770-1301a039e367" CreationDate="2017-03-23T14:45:01.810" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 163 characters in body" Text="So far I have only found it attested in XX century Ecclesiastical Latin by St. John XXIII  ([Humanae Salutis][2], 14):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priusquam argumenta in Concilio pertractanda statueremus, ante omnia *prudens* et **sapiens** rogavimus **consilium** Patres Cardinales, universi catholici orbis Episcopos, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I also underline _prudens_ for what it's worth.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;In a side comment, the Vulgate (post-classical) has an example of _sapienter respondere_ ([Mc 12][3], 34), which may serve as an argument for _sapiens responsum_ (although not exactly a decision, another example of an action by a man considered itself wise):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Iesus autem videns quod **sapienter** **respondisset** dixit illi non es longe a regno Dei&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0023%3Abook%3D4%3Achapter%3D34%3Asection%3D4&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/la/apost_constitutions/1961/documents/hf_j-xxiii_apc_19611225_humanae-salutis.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0060:book=Mark:chapter=12&amp;highlight=sapienter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2958" RevisionGUID="437354a1-1af1-42a4-8925-00e82e974f88" CreationDate="2017-03-23T15:36:37.967" UserId="406" Text="##Canis, canis, m/f##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the archetypal common-gender noun, referring to a male or female dog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vergil, *Georgics* 1.469&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempore quamquam illo tellus quoque et aequora ponti / **obscenaeque canes** inportunaeque volucres / signa dabant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Trans.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At that particular time even the Earth itself, and the calm sea, and **sinister dogs** and ominous birds were giving signs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Horace, *Epodes* 12.6&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...quam **canis acer** ubi lateat sus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Trans.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...like a **perceptive dog** [knows] where the sow might be hiding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2959" RevisionGUID="7dd8c260-7899-4a2e-b425-7333030c87ed" CreationDate="2017-03-23T16:19:01.780" UserId="45" Text="*Bos*, given in the previous answer, is a great example. Here are a few more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *fur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ***fures** estis **ambae.*** (Plaut. Poen. 5, 4, 67)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *M. Carbo condemnatus, **fur magnus**, e Sicilia...* (Cic. Fam. 9, 21, 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *ales*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *nocte deae Nocti **cristatus caeditur ales*** (Ov. F. 1, 455)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Lambere quae turpes prohibet tua prandia muscas,  &#xD;&#xA;**Alitis eximiae** cauda superba fuit.* (Mart. 14, 67)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *auctor*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Two great examples with separate genders in the same running passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Dixit, et ut leges captis **iustissimus auctor**  &#xD;&#xA;hostibus imposuit, classis retinacula solvi  &#xD;&#xA;iussit et aeratas impelli remige puppes.   &#xD;&#xA;Scylla freto postquam deductas nare carinas  &#xD;&#xA;105nec praestare ducem sceleris sibi praemia vidit,  &#xD;&#xA;consumptis precibus violentam transit in iram,  &#xD;&#xA;intendensque manus, passis furibunda capillis,  &#xD;&#xA;“quo fugis” exclamat, “meritorum **auctore relicta**,  &#xD;&#xA;o patriae praelate meae, praelate parenti?”* (Ov. Met. 8.101-109)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *civis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *num igitur aut fundos factos Veliensis, aut sacerdotem **illam civem Romanam** factam non esse, aut foedus et a senatu et a populo Romano violatum arbitramur?* (Cic. Balb. 24.55)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More words: I won't include examples but can vouch that each has at least one citation in both genders in L&amp;S:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *canis*&#xD;&#xA;- *comes*&#xD;&#xA;- *coniunx*&#xD;&#xA;- *consors*&#xD;&#xA;- *custos*&#xD;&#xA;- *exsul*&#xD;&#xA;- *grus*&#xD;&#xA;- *heres*&#xD;&#xA;- *hostis*&#xD;&#xA;- *interpres*&#xD;&#xA;- *iuvenis*&#xD;&#xA;- *limax*&#xD;&#xA;- *municeps*&#xD;&#xA;- *nepos* (with female referents: also later examples with explicit feminine modifier)&#xD;&#xA;- *pumilio*&#xD;&#xA;- *quadrupes*&#xD;&#xA;- *sodalis*&#xD;&#xA;- *sus* (both genders found in Varro)&#xD;&#xA;- *testis*&#xD;&#xA;- *tigris*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...And I'm sure there are many more, but I restricted this list to only words that I could explicitly verify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some cases where a noun has &quot;different&quot; genders, but more with regard to etymological circumstances or time period rather than the thing referred to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* aer&#xD;&#xA;* dies&#xD;&#xA;* cinis&#xD;&#xA;* corbis&#xD;&#xA;* cupido&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and many more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2960" RevisionGUID="06de44e5-1426-4621-8e3a-7c31da871250" CreationDate="2017-03-23T16:56:15.660" UserId="645" Text="This has given me a sharp admonition about the care needed in transforming idiom when translating. I'm always at pains to emphasise this when helping anyone with a rendition into Latin, and have many times discussed the degree of liberty that is allowable : for instance, is it legitimate to use *ad aram ducere* instead of the more authentic *in matrimonium*? (it is, according to an eminent English Latinist, but not everyone agrees).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had almost forgotten that the same kind of problem awaits translators from other languages — and not only into English, but also into Latin from other languages, as the question and the subsequent comments well illustrates. This has been a useful reminder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2956" RevisionGUID="d01674de-76d4-41c5-be68-c31a6fd597bd" CreationDate="2017-03-23T17:43:33.310" UserId="469" Comment="Added example offered by brianpck" Text="**Consilium sapiens** is attested by Ovid ([Met. 13][1].433):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Polymestoris illic&#xD;&#xA;regia dives erat, cui te commisit alendum&#xD;&#xA;clam, Polydore, pater Phrygiisque removit ab armis,&#xD;&#xA;**consilium sapiens**, sceleris nisi praemia magnas&#xD;&#xA;adiecisset opes, animi inritamen avari&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Thanks brianpck for pointing out my mistake in a previous example, and offering this one as an alternative)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A later example is attested in XX century Ecclesiastical Latin by St. John XXIII  ([Humanae Salutis][2], 14):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priusquam argumenta in Concilio pertractanda statueremus, ante omnia *prudens* et **sapiens** rogavimus **consilium** Patres Cardinales, universi catholici orbis Episcopos, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I also underline _prudens_ for what it's worth.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;In a side comment, the Vulgate (post-classical) has an example of _sapienter respondere_ ([Mc 12][3], 34), which may serve as an argument for _sapiens responsum_ (although not exactly a decision, another example of an action by a man considered itself wise, or, as pointed out in the comments, a *transferred epithet*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Iesus autem videns quod **sapienter** **respondisset** dixit illi non es longe a regno Dei&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0029%3Abook%3D13%3Acard%3D399&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/la/apost_constitutions/1961/documents/hf_j-xxiii_apc_19611225_humanae-salutis.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0060:book=Mark:chapter=12&amp;highlight=sapienter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2956" RevisionGUID="3c696918-0067-4bfa-b803-8f93e38d45e9" CreationDate="2017-03-23T17:46:02.953" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 50 characters in body" Text="**Consilium sapiens** is attested by Ovid ([Met. 13][1].433):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Polymestoris illic  &#xD;&#xA;regia dives erat, cui te commisit alendum  &#xD;&#xA;clam, Polydore, pater Phrygiisque removit ab armis,  &#xD;&#xA;**consilium sapiens**, sceleris nisi praemia magnas  &#xD;&#xA;adiecisset opes, animi inritamen avari&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Thanks brianpck for pointing out my mistake in a previous example, and offering this one as an alternative)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A later example is attested in XX century Ecclesiastical Latin by St. John XXIII  ([Humanae Salutis][2], 14):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priusquam argumenta in Concilio pertractanda statueremus, ante omnia *prudens* et **sapiens** rogavimus **consilium** Patres Cardinales, universi catholici orbis Episcopos, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I also underline _prudens_ for what it's worth.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;In a side comment, the Vulgate (post-classical) has an example of _sapienter respondere_ ([Mc 12][3], 34), which may serve as an argument for _sapiens responsum_ (although not exactly a decision, another example of an action by a man considered itself wise, or, as pointed out in the comments, a transferred epithet):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Iesus autem videns quod **sapienter** **respondisset** dixit illi non es longe a regno Dei&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0029%3Abook%3D13%3Acard%3D399&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/la/apost_constitutions/1961/documents/hf_j-xxiii_apc_19611225_humanae-salutis.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0060:book=Mark:chapter=12&amp;highlight=sapienter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2961" RevisionGUID="dad3adfb-ec62-4b1b-8f2b-1067ea1e1b31" CreationDate="2017-03-24T11:00:58.883" UserId="1367" Text="I'm given to understand that &quot;memento mori&quot; literally translates to &quot;remember dying,&quot; which is in turn frequently taken to mean &quot;remember that you will die.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone also interpret it to mean &quot;remember that you CAN die&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the usual context is one where the one being exhorted is being warned about their inevitable mortality. Could the same phrase also be used in a completely different context where one is being reminded that death is an option (e.g. an escape from suffering)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, what would the proper formulation be for the second meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For the record, this is for a literary work, and not a moral question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10611" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2961" RevisionGUID="dad3adfb-ec62-4b1b-8f2b-1067ea1e1b31" CreationDate="2017-03-24T11:00:58.883" UserId="1367" Text="Variable Interpretation of Memento Mori" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10612" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2961" RevisionGUID="dad3adfb-ec62-4b1b-8f2b-1067ea1e1b31" CreationDate="2017-03-24T11:00:58.883" UserId="1367" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2962" RevisionGUID="c4087e3c-c2d3-405e-8372-61b25abe3126" CreationDate="2017-03-24T13:52:22.350" UserId="79" Text="The original phrase *memento mori* is somewhat confusing.&#xD;&#xA;People often intuitively read it as &quot;remember dying&quot; or &quot;remember to die&quot;, not so much as &quot;remember that you will die&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This confusion has been discussed before at this site, for example [here](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2230/79) and [here](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/89/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can form the new phrase with the same structure for the sake of analogy.&#xD;&#xA;I would go with *memento mori posse* or *memento posse mori*.&#xD;&#xA;(The second one scans well if you are into hexameter.)&#xD;&#xA;The common Latin verb for being able to is *posse*, and it's used with an infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding simple structure is *mori potes*, &quot;you can die&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you can also use an *accusativus cum infinitivo* (ACI) structure with *meminisse*.&#xD;&#xA;This would lead to *memento te posse mori*, &quot;remember that you can die&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This would be clearer, but the parallel to the original is weaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One option is to use *licere* instead of *posse*, if the question is more about being allowed to than being able to.&#xD;&#xA;This is a good option when death would be a relief from suffering.&#xD;&#xA;The simple version would be *(tibi) mori licet*, &quot;you are allowed to die&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This can be combined with *memento* with an ACI: *memento (tibi) mori licere*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2963" RevisionGUID="122101a6-339d-4a48-aff3-1985b828231f" CreationDate="2017-03-25T05:45:34.030" UserId="1371" Text="A quote by John Owen:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; *Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.*&#xA;&#xA;I was wondering if you could tell me the difference between mutantur and mutamur?&#xA;Thank you! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10617" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2963" RevisionGUID="122101a6-339d-4a48-aff3-1985b828231f" CreationDate="2017-03-25T05:45:34.030" UserId="1371" Text="What's the difference between mutantur and mutamur?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10618" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2963" RevisionGUID="122101a6-339d-4a48-aff3-1985b828231f" CreationDate="2017-03-25T05:45:34.030" UserId="1371" Text="|classical-latin|translation|old-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2964" RevisionGUID="659019bb-3ebf-4c68-89a4-a593d73d8458" CreationDate="2017-03-25T08:24:15.203" UserId="75" Text="Both are conjugated in the present tense, passive voice, and indicative mood, from the same verb: *muto*. The difference is that *mutamur* is conjugated in the 1st person (plural) (“we change”), while *mutantur* is conjugated in the 3rd person (plural) (“times change”). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Owen is quoting a [well-known Latin adage][1] meaning, “Times change, and we change with them.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora_mutantur" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2963" RevisionGUID="2577d097-c38a-413b-be3f-0a4cebe3fd44" CreationDate="2017-03-25T08:36:47.060" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="A quote by John Owen:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; *Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.*&#xA;&#xA;I was wondering if you could tell me the difference between *mutantur* and *mutamur*?&#xA;Thank you! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10621" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2963" RevisionGUID="2577d097-c38a-413b-be3f-0a4cebe3fd44" CreationDate="2017-03-25T08:36:47.060" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|translation|grammar-identification|old-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2965" RevisionGUID="29591fa6-3b97-4f26-9f79-7d80cffc4201" CreationDate="2017-03-25T10:28:06.590" UserId="79" Text="I have studied Latin, but in none of the courses I have taken has there been discussion about any progress in understanding Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I do believe &amp;mdash; and hope &amp;mdash; that classically oriented scholarly activities have produced new insights in the last century, but I am not aware of any such developments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the biggest single step we have taken or the most important new insight we have gained in understanding the classical Latin language after the year 1900?**&#xD;&#xA;This is a matter of opinion to some extent, but I would like to know what Latinists have achieved and why those achievements are considered important.&#xD;&#xA;There are books and [scientific articles](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1515/79) about Latin, but it is very difficult and time consuming for a non-expert to locate important new ideas and figure out if there is a consensus behind them.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for something that is supported by a broad consensus or is even considered a fact, not hotly contested theories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I probably would enjoy a summary of all developments, I believe this question is more focused when I ask for the single most important development.&#xD;&#xA;This question type is somewhat experimental; let me know if you have comments about its broadness and suitability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10623" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2965" RevisionGUID="29591fa6-3b97-4f26-9f79-7d80cffc4201" CreationDate="2017-03-25T10:28:06.590" UserId="79" Text="What have we learned about Latin in the last century?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10624" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2965" RevisionGUID="29591fa6-3b97-4f26-9f79-7d80cffc4201" CreationDate="2017-03-25T10:28:06.590" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|resource-request|soft-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1532" RevisionGUID="2c04a8bf-ae85-4b83-a18d-5359ba39f1d2" CreationDate="2017-03-25T13:55:21.817" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="Do we have any cases where the Romans intentionally conjugated a noun or adjective into a verb? This is common in English and other modern languages, so I'm assuming it is a natural concept. However, it seems that the Romans didn't often think of their grammar, as there do not appear to be native words for verb, noun, etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10626" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1532" RevisionGUID="2c04a8bf-ae85-4b83-a18d-5359ba39f1d2" CreationDate="2017-03-25T13:55:21.817" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|classical-latin|verbs|derivation|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2966" RevisionGUID="06b0ee0a-112e-4423-bc19-2b9f60344c1c" CreationDate="2017-03-25T16:24:16.560" UserId="1372" Text="It is always difficult to make such kind of charts. I think, the best thing has been done on Latin over last decades was to start studying it from a more linguistic point of view. By linguistic approach a mean, among other things, the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Studying Latin within its linguistic environment, i.e. that of the Old Italic languages (Faliscan, Umbrian, Oscan etc.): textual data are richer than before, we have a better idea of the dialectal zones within the Italic linguistic area. For example, the authenticity of the Fibula Praenestina has been recently [proved][1].&#xD;&#xA; - Studying non classical periods of Latin; thus, we understand better some historical details of the Archaic Latin (such as that of Ennius, [one example][2]); we have studied the Vulgar Latin of the Pompeian graffiti, a good source of information about the evolutive processes that were happening on the edge of the Romance era (see [here][3]).&#xD;&#xA; - Making sense of what ancient Roman grammarians were saying about their own language. Thus, some obscurities have been nicely explained; see, for example, [this brilliant explanation][4] of the meaning of Nigidius' term *casus interrogandi*. The linguistic analysis of the *Appendix Probi* is another famous example in such respect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A disclaimers: I am a linguist, not a philologists, so most probably I am missing many important discoveries made in Latin philology proper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/1290713/Scientists_declare_the_Fibula_Prenestina_and_its_inscription_to_be_genuine_beyond_any_reasonable_doubt_&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.academia.edu/3644027/Sulla_prosodia_di_do_in_Ennio_ann._576_V2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.it/books?id=aH1fAAAAMAAJ&amp;q=isbn:2252023600&amp;dq=isbn:2252023600&amp;hl=la&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiRkMayiPLSAhWClxoKHbXqArQQ6AEIGTAA&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://scholar.google.it/citations?view_op=view_citation&amp;hl=it&amp;user=tEdT5gMAAAAJ&amp;cstart=20&amp;pagesize=80&amp;authuser=3&amp;citation_for_view=tEdT5gMAAAAJ:eQOLeE2rZwMC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2966" RevisionGUID="cce98b7a-0c26-420e-8733-a628bb8f64f6" CreationDate="2017-03-25T16:51:34.877" UserId="45" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="It is always difficult to make this kind of charts. I think that the best thing that has been done on Latin over the last decades was to start studying it from a more linguistic point of view. By linguistic approach I mean, among other things, the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Studying Latin within its linguistic environment, i.e. that of the Old Italic languages (Faliscan, Umbrian, Oscan etc.): textual data are richer than before, and we have a better idea of the dialectal zones within the Italic linguistic area. For example, the authenticity of the Fibula Praenestina has been recently [proven][1].&#xD;&#xA; - Studying non-classical periods of Latin; thus, we understand better some historical details of Archaic Latin (such as that of Ennius, [one example][2]); we have studied the Vulgar Latin of the Pompeian graffiti, a good source of information about the evolutive processes that were happening on the edge of the Romance era (see [here][3]).&#xD;&#xA; - Making sense of what ancient Roman grammarians were saying about their own language. Thus, some obscurities have been nicely explained; see, for example, [this brilliant explanation][4] of the meaning of Nigidius' term *casus interrogandi*. The linguistic analysis of the *Appendix Probi* is another famous example in this respect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A disclaimer: I am a linguist, not a philologist, so most probably I am missing many important discoveries made in Latin philology proper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/1290713/Scientists_declare_the_Fibula_Prenestina_and_its_inscription_to_be_genuine_beyond_any_reasonable_doubt_&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.academia.edu/3644027/Sulla_prosodia_di_do_in_Ennio_ann._576_V2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.it/books?id=aH1fAAAAMAAJ&amp;q=isbn:2252023600&amp;dq=isbn:2252023600&amp;hl=la&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiRkMayiPLSAhWClxoKHbXqArQQ6AEIGTAA&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://scholar.google.it/citations?view_op=view_citation&amp;hl=it&amp;user=tEdT5gMAAAAJ&amp;cstart=20&amp;pagesize=80&amp;authuser=3&amp;citation_for_view=tEdT5gMAAAAJ:eQOLeE2rZwMC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2967" RevisionGUID="6e07ffc3-5208-4a01-8c4e-e0a5dbd67c52" CreationDate="2017-03-25T18:38:18.857" UserId="1343" Text="In the course of trying to construct an accurate diminutive form of the word *abdomen* - which for the record is Latin in origin (in the form *abdōmen*), having been borrowed by English via Middle French - for use as the name of a fictional anatomical structure, I've discovered that the Latin language has multiple suffixes for making diminutives. The ones that I've found so far are *-culus*, *-ellus*, *-illus*, *-lus*, *-olus*, *-ullus*, and *-unculus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what determines which of these suffixes I can/should use for creating a particular diminutive? And what would the correct diminutive of *abdomen* be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10631" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2967" RevisionGUID="6e07ffc3-5208-4a01-8c4e-e0a5dbd67c52" CreationDate="2017-03-25T18:38:18.857" UserId="1343" Text="Constructing Latin diminutives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10632" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2967" RevisionGUID="6e07ffc3-5208-4a01-8c4e-e0a5dbd67c52" CreationDate="2017-03-25T18:38:18.857" UserId="1343" Text="|new-latin|derivation|suffixes|diminutive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2968" RevisionGUID="b1813589-193d-4120-8e7e-09bb2789a59c" CreationDate="2017-03-25T18:42:24.237" UserId="1373" Text="Plausible deniability in english is **_a condition in which a subject can safely and believeably deny knowledge of any particular truth that may exist so as to shield the subject from any responsibility associated through the knowledge of such truth_**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a word or phrase in Latin that would adequately convey this meaning? Ideally it should be a single word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10634" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2968" RevisionGUID="b1813589-193d-4120-8e7e-09bb2789a59c" CreationDate="2017-03-25T18:42:24.237" UserId="1373" Text="Is there a latin word for 'plausible deniability'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10635" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2968" RevisionGUID="b1813589-193d-4120-8e7e-09bb2789a59c" CreationDate="2017-03-25T18:42:24.237" UserId="1373" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|word-request|word-comparison|word-choice|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2969" RevisionGUID="3f6c03fd-d819-4436-9597-38477f050040" CreationDate="2017-03-25T20:19:43.907" UserId="985" Text="On the model of _homō_, _hominis_ (stem = _homin_), the recorded diminutives of which are _homullus_ (&lt; _homōnlus_) and _homunculus_, I'd guess _abdōmullus_ or _abdōmunculus_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The topic of suffixes for various types of nouns is covered in, e.g., §181 of Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge, _Latin Grammar_. Diminutive suffixes are covered in §181.12. As the example of _homō_ shows, there are sometimes multiple possibilities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2969" RevisionGUID="55332743-2f7d-4305-a437-db083a11fa12" CreationDate="2017-03-25T20:26:52.250" UserId="985" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="On the model of _homō_, _hominis_ (stem = _homin_), the recorded diminutives of which are _homullus_ (&lt; _homōnlus_) and _homunculus_, I'd guess _abdōmullus_ or _abdōmunculus_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The topic of suffixes for various types of words is covered in, e.g., §176 ff. of Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge, _Latin Grammar_. Diminutive suffixes are covered in §181.12. As the example of _homō_ shows, there are sometimes multiple possibilities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="57bb59e7-e02e-4b7e-9e81-d8dd007018cf" CreationDate="2017-03-25T22:58:49.220" UserId="9" Text="[brianpck's answer][1] to *[Variations on the diminutive: -olus and -ulus][2]* contained a link to a page from [Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar][3] that I consulted to try to answer this question. It says diminutives &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These diminutive endings are all formed by adding *-lus* to various stems. [...] *-culus* comes from -lus added to adjectives in *-cus* formed from stems in *n-* and *s-*: as, *iuven-cus, Aurun-cus* (cf. *Aurunculeius*), *prís-cus,* whence the *cu* becomes a part of the termination, and the whole ending (*-culus*) is used elsewhere, but mostly with *n-* and *s-* stems, in accordance with its origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I believe diminutives used as nouns usually retained the gender of the original noun, which for *abdomen* is neuter. Based on that, it seems to me that something ending in *-nculum* would be most regular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea what vowel should be used before the *n*: *abdominculum,* *abdomunculum* or even *abdomenculum.*  cnread's answer mentions *homunculus,* which has &quot;-uncul-,&quot; but Allen and Greenough mention *juvenculus,* which has &quot;-encul-&quot;. I found no examples of diminutives with &quot;-incul-,&quot; but the stem of *abdomen* used in inflected forms is *abdomin-.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2903/9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2900/variations-on-the-diminutive-olus-and-ulus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://%20http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.243.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="f3c4b326-2b0e-4a7e-a88e-701366c8b7e1" CreationDate="2017-03-25T23:11:16.817" UserId="9" Comment="added 538 characters in body" Text="[brianpck's answer][1] to *[Variations on the diminutive: -olus and -ulus][2]* contained a link to a page from [Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar][3] that I consulted to try to answer this question. It says diminutives &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These diminutive endings are all formed by adding *-lus* to various stems. [...] *-culus* comes from -lus added to adjectives in *-cus* formed from stems in *n-* and *s-*: as, *iuven-cus, Aurun-cus* (cf. *Aurunculeius*), *prís-cus,* whence the *cu* becomes a part of the termination, and the whole ending (*-culus*) is used elsewhere, but mostly with *n-* and *s-* stems, in accordance with its origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I believe diminutives used as nouns usually retain the gender of the original noun, which for *abdomen* is neuter. Based on that, it seems to me that something ending in *-nculum* would be most regular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea what vowel should be used before the *n*: *abdominculum,* *abdomunculum* or even *abdomenculum.*  cnread's answer mentions *homunculus,* which has &quot;-uncul-,&quot; but Allen and Greenough mention *juvenculus,* which has &quot;-encul-&quot;. I found no examples of diminutives with &quot;-incul-,&quot; but the stem of *abdomen* used in inflected forms is *abdomin-.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any strictly analogous cases.&#xD;&#xA;All of the Latin nouns that I could find that end in *-en* in the nominative and *-inis* in the genitive seem to have an &quot;m&quot; before this. Wiktionary indicates that many of them have a &quot;noun-forming suffix [*-men*][4]&quot; and lists a number of them; I searched on Perseus for words starting with the stems up to the &quot;m&quot; of around 10 of them (like &quot;agm,&quot; &quot;germ,&quot; &quot;carm&quot;) but I wasn't able to find any diminutive forms with their own entries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2903/9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2900/variations-on-the-diminutive-olus-and-ulus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://%20http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.243.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-men#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="8131209a-a4e5-497c-b7cc-14d10369ab05" CreationDate="2017-03-25T23:31:24.520" UserId="9" Comment="added 1163 characters in body" Text="I think *abdomunculum* would be the most regular diminutive of *abdomen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[brianpck's answer][1] to *[Variations on the diminutive: -olus and -ulus][2]* contained a link to a page from [Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar][3] that I consulted to try to answer this question. It says diminutives &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These diminutive endings are all formed by adding *-lus* to various stems. [...] *-culus* comes from -lus added to adjectives in *-cus* formed from stems in *n-* and *s-*: as, *iuven-cus, Aurun-cus* (cf. *Aurunculeius*), *prís-cus,* whence the *cu* becomes a part of the termination, and the whole ending (*-culus*) is used elsewhere, but mostly with *n-* and *s-* stems, in accordance with its origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the rules given in *[The Formation of Latin&#xD;&#xA;Diminutives of Nouns and Adjectives][4],* compiled by Ian Andreas Miller, regular diminutive nouns derived from third-declension nouns retain the gender of the original noun, which for *abdomen* is neuter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these sources, it seems to me that something ending in *-nculum* would be most regular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller also indicates that stems ending *-in-* regularly change the vowel and have *-un-* before *-culus/-culum/-cula.* cnread's answer mentions *homunculus,* which shows this pattern. There is an interesting note about the history of this formation saying that the *u* is analogical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The *-uncul-* formation in these diminutives was originally created by adding *-culā-, -culo-* to stems in *-on-,* where the *-o-* became *-u-* by phonetic change (cf. *hunc,* earlier *honc*). Some original stems in *-nō-* (*-on-*) later became stems in *-in-* (e.g. *homin-,* earlier *homon-* or *homōn-*) with nominative singular endings in *-ō,* and through the power of analogy the *-uncul-* formation was used with other stems in *-in-* (e.g. *pecten,* stem *pectin-*) and stems in *-n-* with nominative singular forms in *-o* (e.g. *caro,* stem *carn-*) even if they do not actually have stems in *-in-* or *-on-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, *[pectunculus][5]* from *pecten* is the only other example I can find of a diminutive of a noun ending in *-en* in the nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the other Latin nouns that I could find that end in *-en* in the nominative and *-inis* in the genitive seem to have an &quot;m&quot; before this. Wiktionary indicates that many of them have a &quot;noun-forming suffix [*-men*][6]&quot; and lists a number of them; I searched on Perseus for words starting with the stems up to the &quot;m&quot; of around 10 of them (like &quot;agm,&quot; &quot;germ,&quot; &quot;carm&quot;) but I wasn't able to find any diminutive forms with their own entries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2903/9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2900/variations-on-the-diminutive-olus-and-ulus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://%20http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.243.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://diesgaudii.genvid.com/latin/diminutives/diminutives.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=pectunculus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-men#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="6b371504-2e0e-4a2d-9552-c5afccbde8e2" CreationDate="2017-03-25T23:36:27.847" UserId="9" Comment="added 1163 characters in body" Text="I think *abdomunculum* would be the most regular diminutive of *abdomen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[brianpck's answer][1] to *[Variations on the diminutive: -olus and -ulus][2]* contained a link to a page from [Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar][3] that I consulted to try to answer this question. It says diminutives &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These diminutive endings are all formed by adding *-lus* to various stems. [...] *-culus* comes from -lus added to adjectives in *-cus* formed from stems in *n-* and *s-*: as, *iuven-cus, Aurun-cus* (cf. *Aurunculeius*), *prís-cus,* whence the *cu* becomes a part of the termination, and the whole ending (*-culus*) is used elsewhere, but mostly with *n-* and *s-* stems, in accordance with its origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the rules given in *[The Formation of Latin&#xD;&#xA;Diminutives of Nouns and Adjectives][4],* compiled by Ian Andreas Miller, regular diminutive nouns derived from third-declension nouns retain the gender of the original noun, which for *abdomen* is neuter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these sources, it seems to me that something ending in *-nculum* would be most regular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller also indicates that stems ending *-in-* regularly change the vowel and have *-un-* before *-culus/-culum/-cula.* cnread's answer mentions *homunculus,* which shows this pattern. There is an interesting note in Miller about the history of this formation saying that the *u* is analogical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The *-uncul-* formation in these diminutives was originally created by adding *-culā-, -culo-* to stems in *-on-,* where the *-o-* became *-u-* by phonetic change (cf. *hunc,* earlier *honc*). Some original stems in *-nō-* (*-on-*) later became stems in *-in-* (e.g. *homin-,* earlier *homon-* or *homōn-*) with nominative singular endings in *-ō,* and through the power of analogy the *-uncul-* formation was used with other stems in *-in-* (e.g. *pecten,* stem *pectin-*) and stems in *-n-* with nominative singular forms in *-o* (e.g. *caro,* stem *carn-*) even if they do not actually have stems in *-in-* or *-on-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, *[pectunculus][5]* from *pecten* is the only other example I can find of a diminutive of a noun ending in *-en* in the nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the other Latin nouns that I could find that end in *-en* in the nominative and *-inis* in the genitive seem to have an &quot;m&quot; before this. Wiktionary indicates that many of them have a &quot;noun-forming suffix [*-men*][6]&quot; and lists a number of them; I searched on Perseus for words starting with the stems up to the &quot;m&quot; of around 10 of them (like &quot;agm,&quot; &quot;germ,&quot; &quot;carm&quot;) but I wasn't able to find any diminutive forms with their own entries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2903/9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2900/variations-on-the-diminutive-olus-and-ulus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://%20http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.243.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://diesgaudii.genvid.com/latin/diminutives/diminutives.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=pectunculus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-men#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="fed6d0f3-bbb7-4c0a-bd81-1b084ba9a7a2" CreationDate="2017-03-25T23:42:33.367" UserId="9" Comment="added 1163 characters in body" Text="I think *abdomunculum* would be the most regular diminutive of *abdomen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[brianpck's answer][1] to *[Variations on the diminutive: -olus and -ulus][2]* contained a link to a page from [Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar][3] that I consulted to try to answer this question. It says diminutives &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These diminutive endings are all formed by adding *-lus* to various stems. [...] *-culus* comes from -lus added to adjectives in *-cus* formed from stems in *n-* and *s-*: as, *iuven-cus, Aurun-cus* (cf. *Aurunculeius*), *prís-cus,* whence the *cu* becomes a part of the termination, and the whole ending (*-culus*) is used elsewhere, but mostly with *n-* and *s-* stems, in accordance with its origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the rules given in *[The Formation of Latin&#xD;&#xA;Diminutives of Nouns and Adjectives][4],* compiled by Ian Andreas Miller, regular diminutive nouns derived from third-declension nouns retain the gender of the original noun, which for *abdomen* is neuter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these sources, it seems to me that something ending in *-nculum* would be most regular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller also indicates that stems ending *-in-* regularly change the vowel and have *-un-* before *-culus/-culum/-cula.* cnread's answer mentions *homunculus,* which shows this pattern. There is an interesting note in Miller about the history of this formation saying that the *u* is analogical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The *-uncul-* formation in these diminutives was originally created by adding *-culā-, -culo-* to stems in *-on-,* where the *-o-* became *-u-* by phonetic change (cf. *hunc,* earlier *honc*). Some original stems in *-nō-* (*-on-*) later became stems in *-in-* (e.g. *homin-,* earlier *homon-* or *homōn-*) with nominative singular endings in *-ō,* and through the power of analogy the *-uncul-* formation was used with other stems in *-in-* (e.g. *pecten,* stem *pectin-*) and stems in *-n-* with nominative singular forms in *-o* (e.g. *caro,* stem *carn-*) even if they do not actually have stems in *-in-* or *-on-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, *[pectunculus][5]* from *pecten* is the only other example I can find of a diminutive of a noun ending in *-en* in the nominative. It is masculine, but so is the original noun *pecten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Perseus search turns up some other [nouns ending in *-unculum][6],* but none of those results is derived from a third-declension ending in *-en, -inis.* Most Latin nouns that end in *-en* in the nominative and *-inis* in the genitive seem to have an &quot;m&quot; before this and are neuter. Wiktionary indicates that many of them have a &quot;noun-forming suffix [*-men*][7]&quot; and lists a number of them; I searched on Perseus for words starting with the stems up to the &quot;m&quot; of around 10 of them (like &quot;agm,&quot; &quot;germ,&quot; &quot;carm&quot;) but I wasn't able to find any diminutive forms with their own entries. Another neuter third-declension with another consonant before *-en,* *-inis* is *gluten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2903/9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2900/variations-on-the-diminutive-olus-and-ulus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://%20http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.243.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://diesgaudii.genvid.com/latin/diminutives/diminutives.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=pectunculus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=unculum&amp;lang=la&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-men#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="3a2c390f-959d-4120-b907-bf2743e0a920" CreationDate="2017-03-25T23:57:01.640" UserId="9" Comment="added 201 characters in body" Text="I think *abdomunculum* would be the most regular diminutive of *abdomen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[brianpck's answer][1] to *[Variations on the diminutive: -olus and -ulus][2]* contained a link to a page from [Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar][3] that I consulted to try to answer this question. It says diminutives &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These diminutive endings are all formed by adding *-lus* to various stems. [...] *-culus* comes from -lus added to adjectives in *-cus* formed from stems in *n-* and *s-*: as, *iuven-cus, Aurun-cus* (cf. *Aurunculeius*), *prís-cus,* whence the *cu* becomes a part of the termination, and the whole ending (*-culus*) is used elsewhere, but mostly with *n-* and *s-* stems, in accordance with its origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the rules given in *[The Formation of Latin&#xD;&#xA;Diminutives of Nouns and Adjectives][4],* compiled by Ian Andreas Miller, regular diminutive nouns derived from third-declension nouns retain the gender of the original noun, which for *abdomen* is neuter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these sources, it seems to me that something ending in *-nculum* would be most regular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller also indicates that stems ending *-in-* regularly change the vowel and have *-un-* before *-culus/-culum/-cula.* cnread's answer mentions *homunculus,* which shows this pattern. There is an interesting note in Miller about the history of this formation saying that the *u* is analogical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The *-uncul-* formation in these diminutives was originally created by adding *-culā-, -culo-* to stems in *-on-,* where the *-o-* became *-u-* by phonetic change (cf. *hunc,* earlier *honc*). Some original stems in *-nō-* (*-on-*) later became stems in *-in-* (e.g. *homin-,* earlier *homon-* or *homōn-*) with nominative singular endings in *-ō,* and through the power of analogy the *-uncul-* formation was used with other stems in *-in-* (e.g. *pecten,* stem *pectin-*) and stems in *-n-* with nominative singular forms in *-o* (e.g. *caro,* stem *carn-*) even if they do not actually have stems in *-in-* or *-on-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since most nouns ending in *-ō* in the nominative are masculine or feminine, there seem to be more derived diminutive nouns in Latin that end in *-unculus* than there are that end in *-unculum.* A Perseus search turns up some other [nouns ending in *-unculum][6],* but none of those results seems to be derived from a third-declension noun with a stem ending in -in-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, *[pectunculus][5]* from *pecten* is actually the only example I have seen of a diminutive from a noun ending in *-en, -inis.* It is masculine, but so is the original noun *pecten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most Latin nouns that end in *-en* in the nominative and *-inis* in the genitive seem to have an &quot;m&quot; before this and are neuter. Wiktionary indicates that many of them have a &quot;noun-forming suffix [*-men*][7]&quot; and lists a number of them; I searched on Perseus for words starting with the stems up to the &quot;m&quot; of around 10 of them (like &quot;agm,&quot; &quot;germ,&quot; &quot;carm&quot;) but I wasn't able to find any diminutive forms with their own entries. Another neuter third-declension with another consonant before *-en,* *-inis* is *gluten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2903/9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2900/variations-on-the-diminutive-olus-and-ulus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://%20http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.243.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://diesgaudii.genvid.com/latin/diminutives/diminutives.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=pectunculus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=unculum&amp;lang=la&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-men#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="374e88e0-f13a-4322-9586-0e32d7fc1d02" CreationDate="2017-03-26T00:02:06.657" UserId="9" Comment="added 201 characters in body" Text="I think *abdomunculum* would be the most regular diminutive of *abdomen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[brianpck's answer][1] to *[Variations on the diminutive: -olus and -ulus][2]* contained a link to a page from [Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar][3] that I consulted to try to answer this question. It says diminutives &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These diminutive endings are all formed by adding *-lus* to various stems. [...] *-culus* comes from -lus added to adjectives in *-cus* formed from stems in *n-* and *s-*: as, *iuven-cus, Aurun-cus* (cf. *Aurunculeius*), *prís-cus,* whence the *cu* becomes a part of the termination, and the whole ending (*-culus*) is used elsewhere, but mostly with *n-* and *s-* stems, in accordance with its origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the rules given in *[The Formation of Latin&#xD;&#xA;Diminutives of Nouns and Adjectives][4],* compiled by Ian Andreas Miller, regular diminutive nouns derived from third-declension nouns retain the gender of the original noun, which for *abdomen* is neuter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these sources, it seems to me that something ending in *-nculum* would be most regular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller also indicates that stems ending *-in-* regularly change the vowel and have *-un-* before *-culus/-culum/-cula.* cnread's answer mentions *homunculus,* which shows this pattern. There is an interesting note in Miller about the history of this formation saying that the *u* is analogical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The *-uncul-* formation in these diminutives was originally created by adding *-culā-, -culo-* to stems in *-on-,* where the *-o-* became *-u-* by phonetic change (cf. *hunc,* earlier *honc*). Some original stems in *-nō-* (*-on-*) later became stems in *-in-* (e.g. *homin-,* earlier *homon-* or *homōn-*) with nominative singular endings in *-ō,* and through the power of analogy the *-uncul-* formation was used with other stems in *-in-* (e.g. *pecten,* stem *pectin-*) and stems in *-n-* with nominative singular forms in *-o* (e.g. *caro,* stem *carn-*) even if they do not actually have stems in *-in-* or *-on-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not entirely certain about recommending *-unculum* rather than *-unculus* as in cnread's answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Abdomunculum* would follow the generally applicable gender-matching rule. However, there are exceptions to this rule; Miller mentions *rana* &gt; *ranunculus.*&#xD;&#xA;And since most nouns ending in *-ō* in the nominative are masculine or feminine,  *-unculus* and  *uncula* seem to be much more established as suffixes for derived diminutive nouns in Latin than *-unculum.* A Perseus search does turn up some existing [nouns ending in *-unculum][6],* but none of those results seems to be derived from a third-declension noun with a stem ending in *-in-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, *[pectunculus][5]* from *pecten* is actually the only example I have seen of a diminutive from a noun ending in *-en, -inis.* It is masculine, but so is the original noun *pecten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most Latin nouns that end in *-en* in the nominative and *-inis* in the genitive seem to have an &quot;m&quot; before this and are neuter. Wiktionary indicates that many of them have a &quot;noun-forming suffix [*-men*][7]&quot; and lists a number of them; I searched on Perseus for words starting with the stems up to the &quot;m&quot; of around 10 of them (like &quot;agm,&quot; &quot;germ,&quot; &quot;carm&quot;) but I wasn't able to find any diminutive forms with their own entries. Another neuter third-declension with another consonant before *-en,* *-inis* is *gluten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2903/9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2900/variations-on-the-diminutive-olus-and-ulus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://%20http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.243.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://diesgaudii.genvid.com/latin/diminutives/diminutives.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=pectunculus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=unculum&amp;lang=la&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-men#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2969" RevisionGUID="ffe75f5b-163a-423d-9efd-93a8929b91c2" CreationDate="2017-03-26T01:39:12.490" UserId="985" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="On the model of _homō_, _hominis_ (stem = _homin_), the recorded diminutives of which are _homullus_ (&lt; _homōnlus_) and _homunculus_, I'd guess _abdōmullum_ or _abdōmunculum_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The topic of suffixes for various types of words is covered in, e.g., §176 ff. of Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge, _Latin Grammar_. Diminutive suffixes are covered in §181.12. As the example of _homō_ shows, there are sometimes multiple possibilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Update: As sumelic has pointed out, _abdōmen_ is neuter (I admit that I didn't bother checking), and I suspect that this is a case where the diminutive would follow the gender of the base noun, so I've changed the gender of the two forms above.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2969" RevisionGUID="a0d28bf5-de91-43eb-b914-ba42e06bbb3e" CreationDate="2017-03-26T01:48:04.927" UserId="985" Comment="deleted 200 characters in body" Text="On the model of _homō_, _hominis_ (stem = _homin_), the recorded diminutives of which are _homullus_ (&lt; _homōnlus_) and _homunculus_, I'd guess _abdōmullus_ or _abdōmunculus_ (update: or maybe _abdōmullum_ or _abdōmunculum_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The topic of suffixes for various types of words is covered in, e.g., §176 ff. of Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge, _Latin Grammar_. Diminutive suffixes are covered in §181.12. As the example of _homō_ shows, there are sometimes multiple possibilities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2971" RevisionGUID="21a17364-15d1-4b5a-b9d5-580d8e1fcb54" CreationDate="2017-03-26T04:34:30.057" UserId="230" Text="Just like that, how exactly was Latin taught in Western Europe ? Which method was used ? Which pronunciation ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10649" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2971" RevisionGUID="21a17364-15d1-4b5a-b9d5-580d8e1fcb54" CreationDate="2017-03-26T04:34:30.057" UserId="230" Text="How was Latin taught in Western Europe in the 17 th century?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10650" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2971" RevisionGUID="21a17364-15d1-4b5a-b9d5-580d8e1fcb54" CreationDate="2017-03-26T04:34:30.057" UserId="230" Text="|classical-latin|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2971" RevisionGUID="a8e27a41-74f3-4565-954f-6fdf647db69f" CreationDate="2017-03-26T12:20:47.393" UserId="12" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Just like that, how exactly was Latin taught in Western Europe? Which method was used? Which pronunciation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10653" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2971" RevisionGUID="a8e27a41-74f3-4565-954f-6fdf647db69f" CreationDate="2017-03-26T12:20:47.393" UserId="12" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How was Latin taught in Western Europe in the 17th century?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10654" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2971" RevisionGUID="a8e27a41-74f3-4565-954f-6fdf647db69f" CreationDate="2017-03-26T12:20:47.393" UserId="12" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|classical-latin|history|pedagogy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2972" RevisionGUID="6058ec20-cdf4-45b8-8e69-9839395decf9" CreationDate="2017-03-26T12:41:33.297" UserId="79" Text="I had to wake up before before 3 am this morning (on a Sunday!), and I had to worry about the start of daylight saving time.&#xD;&#xA;(It always starts on the last Sunday of March in Europe. Other areas have other conventions.)&#xD;&#xA;This left me wondering, among other things, about expressing times when DST ends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the last Sunday of October comes and clocks are turned back one hour at 4 am in Finland, how can I refer to the times from 3 to 4 am that occur twice?&#xD;&#xA;It would be great if there is a canonical expression, but I am open to any suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have two ideas for distinguishing the two instances of 4 am:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *hora quarta* and *hora bis quarta* (by analogy to the second instance of a day on leap years marked by *bis*)&#xD;&#xA;- *hora quarta temporis aestivi/hiemalis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one is unambiguous but feels a bit heavy.&#xD;&#xA;The first one sounds more idiomatic to me, but the plain *hora quarta* is ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps one could contrast the *bis* with a *semel*?&#xD;&#xA;**How would you make the distinction in Latin and why?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am using the modern convention where *horae* are counted from midnight and noon, not the Roman one.&#xD;&#xA;Whichever convention you prefer, the question remains: how to remove ambiguity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should add that although I ask only about Latin, I don't know a canonical pair of distinctive expressions in any language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10656" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2972" RevisionGUID="6058ec20-cdf4-45b8-8e69-9839395decf9" CreationDate="2017-03-26T12:41:33.297" UserId="79" Text="Times at the end of daylight saving" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10657" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2972" RevisionGUID="6058ec20-cdf4-45b8-8e69-9839395decf9" CreationDate="2017-03-26T12:41:33.297" UserId="79" Text="|contemporary-latin|phrase-request|time|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1860" RevisionGUID="211c9f41-236f-462c-a18a-1aadae6efced" CreationDate="2017-03-26T13:28:03.847" UserId="79" Comment="added 159 characters in body" Text="Judging by dictionaries and grammars, we seem to know the length of almost every vowel in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;For word-final vowels and those followed by a single consonant, the length can be figured out from metric poetry.&#xD;&#xA;Not all words can be found in all forms in extant poetry, but the corpus is large enough to establish a significant portion of all vowel quantities.&#xD;&#xA;But if there are more than one consonants after the vowel, the syllable is always long &amp;mdash; or heavy if you prefer that nomenclature &amp;mdash; and the length of the vowel itself is metrically irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;How do we know the lengths of such vowels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10659" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1860" RevisionGUID="4750fdf2-f37b-46d3-b648-4e2dc00e98e8" CreationDate="2017-03-26T13:29:59.073" UserId="79" Comment="24" />
  <row Id="10661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2973" RevisionGUID="81e5dc6e-bad1-43d5-b683-14c3ba5d80b8" CreationDate="2017-03-26T18:27:07.167" UserId="78" Text="I'm surprised *appropinquo* (sometimes spelled *adpropinquo*) hasn't been mentioned yet. Caesar (*Bellum Civile* 3.9) also uses this one, and to my ears, it better fits what is being said in the show.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; jamque hiems adpropinquabat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At that point winter was approaching...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can envision Romans, worried about the coming winter, saying &quot;Hiems appropinquat.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Visually, if you imagine winter to be a person, you could see that person approaching you, but they're not yet there. Meanwhile, *subesse* means more &quot;at hand,&quot; where that person is standing near you but hasn't yet begun to speak; perhaps that person is just nearby. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, *nox appropinquat* would mean late afternoon, while *nox subest* would mean twilight: the sun has just set, but it's still somewhat light out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes sense if we look at a few parallel passages. Livy (3.34) and Cicero both talk about the time relative to the day of the *comitia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A rumour was then spread that two tables were wanting; on the addition of which a body, as it were, of the whole Roman law might be completed. The expectation of this, as the day of election approached, created a desire to appoint decemvirs again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; volgatur deinde rumor duas deesse tabulas quibus adiectis absolvi posse velut corpus omnis Romani iuris. ea exspectatio, cum **dies comitiorum adpropinquaret**, desiderium decemviros iterum creandi fecit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The election was fast approaching, but it had not yet *arrived*. Meanwhile, Cicero's parallel (*Pro Milone* 42) using *subesse* shows a more immediate closeness with less movement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; especially, O judges, when the day of contest for the greatest distinction of the state, and the day of the comitia, was at hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; praesertim, iudices, cum honoris amplissimi contentio et dies comitiorum subesset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The event being described as occurring when the *comitia* were being called together, not days before, as they were in the Livy passage. Though voting hadn't taken place it, the nearness of it was already established and not coming into nearness. It was *at hand*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes sense even etymologically. The root implies non-movement: *esse* is simply a form of &quot;to be.&quot; When Caesar (BG 1.25) expressed the relationship of a town to a mountain, he used *subesse*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tandem vulneribus defessi et pedem referre et, quod mons suberit circiter mille passuum spatio, eo se recipere coeperunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At length, worn out with wounds, they began to give way, and, as there was in the neighborhood a mountain about a mile off, to betake themselves thither.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mountain isn't moving closer to them, but rather is described as close (only a mile off). If anyone were to be moving, it would be the soldiers, and the word to use here (of the two) would have been *approprinquare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can again visualize the way the word works by comparing it to other *esse* words. Below I put TU et EGO together to show the relationship of the verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. TUEGO (adesse)&#xD;&#xA;2. TU  EGO (subesse)&#xD;&#xA;3. TU&#xD;&#xA;     EGO (subesse)&#xD;&#xA;4. TU                               EGO (abesse)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;To put all this back into winter, bearing in mind that language can be imprecise, and bearing in mind that descriptions can be exaggerated (so I'm not saying necessarily that *hiems subest* is wrong!), but were I to hear *hiems subest*, I would imagine December already, on the eve of winter, whereas I would use *hiems appropinquat* to describe the action of winter approaching, though it still be fall. This could be late October when the chilly north wind blows or November when frost begins to appear. In either case, signs are present that winter is approaching, but not yet here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="5647771b-ae2e-4cba-9baf-4f2672d7dea6" CreationDate="2017-03-26T20:54:18.470" UserId="9" Comment="added 1634 characters in body" Text="I think *abdomunculum* would be the most regular diminutive of *abdomen.* But it's a bit hard to tell because there seem to be few existing diminutives formed on nouns with the same morphological form as *abdomen, abdominis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[brianpck's answer][1] to *[Variations on the diminutive: -olus and -ulus][2]* contained a link to a page from [Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar][3] that I consulted to try to answer this question. It says diminutives &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These diminutive endings are all formed by adding *-lus* to various stems. [...] *-culus* comes from -lus added to adjectives in *-cus* formed from stems in *n-* and *s-*: as, *iuven-cus, Aurun-cus* (cf. *Aurunculeius*), *prís-cus,* whence the *cu* becomes a part of the termination, and the whole ending (*-culus*) is used elsewhere, but mostly with *n-* and *s-* stems, in accordance with its origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the rules given in *[The Formation of Latin&#xD;&#xA;Diminutives of Nouns and Adjectives][4],* compiled by Ian Andreas Miller, regular diminutive nouns derived from third-declension nouns retain the gender of the original noun, which for *abdomen* is neuter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these sources, it seems to me that something ending in *-nculum* would be most regular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller also indicates that stems ending *-in-* regularly change the vowel and have *-un-* before *-culus/-culum/-cula.* cnread's answer mentions *homunculus,* which shows this pattern. There is an interesting note in Miller about the history of this formation saying that the *u* is analogical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The *-uncul-* formation in these diminutives was originally created by adding *-culā-, -culo-* to stems in *-on-,* where the *-o-* became *-u-* by phonetic change (cf. *hunc,* earlier *honc*). Some original stems in *-nō-* (*-on-*) later became stems in *-in-* (e.g. *homin-,* earlier *homon-* or *homōn-*) with nominative singular endings in *-ō,* and through the power of analogy the *-uncul-* formation was used with other stems in *-in-* (e.g. *pecten,* stem *pectin-*) and stems in *-n-* with nominative singular forms in *-o* (e.g. *caro,* stem *carn-*) even if they do not actually have stems in *-in-* or *-on-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not entirely certain about recommending *-unculum* rather than *-unculus* as in cnread's answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Abdomunculum* would follow the generally applicable gender-matching rule. However, there are exceptions to this rule; Miller mentions *rana* &gt; *ranunculus.*&#xD;&#xA;And since most nouns ending in *-ō* in the nominative are masculine or feminine,  *-unculus* and  *uncula* seem to be much more established as suffixes for derived diminutive nouns in Latin than *-unculum.* A Perseus search does turn up some existing [nouns ending in *-unculum][5],* but none of those results seems to be derived from a third-declension noun with a stem ending in *-in-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there are certainly diminutives ending in *-culum* with something else before it; for example, *[corpusculum][6].* So perhaps the scarcity of words ending in *-unculum* specifically is just coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, *[pectunculus][7]* from *pecten* is actually the only example I have seen of a diminutive from a noun ending in *-en, -inis.* It is masculine, but so is the original noun *pecten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most Latin nouns that end in *-en* in the nominative and *-inis* in the genitive seem to have an &quot;m&quot; before this and are neuter. Wiktionary indicates that many of them have a &quot;noun-forming suffix [*-men*][8]&quot; and lists a number of them; I searched on Perseus for words starting with the stems up to the &quot;m&quot; of around 10 of them (like &quot;agm,&quot; &quot;germ,&quot; &quot;carm&quot;) but I wasn't able to find any diminutive forms with their own entries. Another neuter third-declension with another consonant before *-en,* *-inis* is *gluten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other possibly relevant sources I found that I have not yet got a chance to look through:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Word Formation in the Roman Sermo Plebeius,* by Frederic Taber Cooper (1895) -- has a section on &quot;Diminutives&quot; starting on [page 164][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cooper cites some articles by &quot;Paucker,&quot; one of which had a title that sounded like it might be helpful: &quot;Deminutive mit d. Suffix -c-ulus, a, um&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Zeitschr. f. d. oesterr. Gymn. XXVII, p. 273-284. (=&quot;Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien&quot;) I looked though a [Google Books result][10] related to this, and found a long list of words with the suffix &quot;-uncul-&quot; that contained many ending in &quot;-uncula&quot; and &quot;-unculus&quot; but none that I could see ending in &quot;-unculum&quot; aside from those already mentioned that are indexed by Perseus and have entries in Lewis &amp; Short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2903/9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2900/variations-on-the-diminutive-olus-and-ulus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://%20http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.243.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://diesgaudii.genvid.com/latin/diminutives/diminutives.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=unculum&amp;lang=la&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=corpusculum&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=pectunculus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-men#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=724PAAAAYAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;output=reader&amp;hl=en&amp;pg=GBS.PA164&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cY0NAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA597&amp;lpg=PA597&amp;dq=Paucker%20%22Deminutive%22%20mit%20Suffix%20-c-ulus,%20a,%20um%20%22ZEITSCHRIFT%20f%C3%BCr%20die%20%C3%B6sterreichischen%20GYMNASIEN%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QNovpHHp0X&amp;sig=bxKBq0FqnimxK1ZSAc1QuVpX270&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj5i-7rhPXSAhUI1GMKHTH9AIcQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Paucker%20%22Deminutive%22%20mit%20Suffix%20-c-ulus%2C%20a%2C%20um%20%22ZEITSCHRIFT%20f%C3%BCr%20die%20%C3%B6sterreichischen%20GYMNASIEN%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="3c9c4219-b720-4632-b5f3-fd237ad1ffb2" CreationDate="2017-03-26T21:04:29.770" UserId="9" Comment="added 1634 characters in body" Text="I think *abdomunculum* would be the most regular diminutive of *abdomen.* But it seems a bit difficult to me to give a clear answer because the rules about &quot;proper&quot; diminutive suffixes are often based on the form and gender of the original noun, and I know of no existing diminutives formed on nouns with precisely the same morphological form and gender as *abdomen, abdominis*. If you get it &quot;wrong,&quot; you may at least be able to take some comfort from the knowledge that Romans even criticized one another sometimes for using supposedly malformed diminutives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Abdomen, abdominis* is a neuter noun of the third declension, of the &quot;consonant stem&quot; sub-declension class, ending in the consonant &quot;n&quot; specifically. My impression is that any of these features might be relevant to the formation of the diminutive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[brianpck's answer][1] to *[Variations on the diminutive: -olus and -ulus][2]* contained a link to a page from [Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar][3] that I consulted to try to answer this question. It says diminutives &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These diminutive endings are all formed by adding *-lus* to various stems. [...] *-culus* comes from -lus added to adjectives in *-cus* formed from stems in *n-* and *s-*: as, *iuven-cus, Aurun-cus* (cf. *Aurunculeius*), *prís-cus,* whence the *cu* becomes a part of the termination, and the whole ending (*-culus*) is used elsewhere, but mostly with *n-* and *s-* stems, in accordance with its origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the rules given in *[The Formation of Latin&#xD;&#xA;Diminutives of Nouns and Adjectives][4],* compiled by Ian Andreas Miller, regular diminutive nouns derived from third-declension nouns retain the gender of the original noun, which for *abdomen* is neuter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these sources, it seems to me that something ending in *-nculum* would be most regular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller further indicates that stems ending *-in-* regularly change the vowel and have *-un-* before *-culus/-culum/-cula.* cnread's answer mentions *homunculus,* which shows this pattern. There is an interesting note in Miller about the history of this formation saying that the *u* is analogical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The *-uncul-* formation in these diminutives was originally created by adding *-culā-, -culo-* to stems in *-on-,* where the *-o-* became *-u-* by phonetic change (cf. *hunc,* earlier *honc*). Some original stems in *-nō-* (*-on-*) later became stems in *-in-* (e.g. *homin-,* earlier *homon-* or *homōn-*) with nominative singular endings in *-ō,* and through the power of analogy the *-uncul-* formation was used with other stems in *-in-* (e.g. *pecten,* stem *pectin-*) and stems in *-n-* with nominative singular forms in *-o* (e.g. *caro,* stem *carn-*) even if they do not actually have stems in *-in-* or *-on-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not entirely certain about recommending *-unculum* rather than *-unculus* as in cnread's answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Abdomunculum* would follow the generally applicable gender-matching rule. However, there are exceptions to this rule; Miller mentions *rana* &gt; *ranunculus.*&#xD;&#xA;And since most nouns ending in *-ō* in the nominative are masculine or feminine,  *-unculus* and  *uncula* seem to be much more established in Latin as suffixes for deriving diminutive nouns from third-declension n-stems than *-unculum.* A Perseus search does turn up some existing [nouns ending in *-unculum][5],* but none of those results seems to be derived from a third-declension noun with a stem ending in *-in-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there are certainly diminutives ending in *-culum* with something else before it; for example, *[corpusculum][6].* So perhaps the scarcity of words ending in *-unculum* specifically is just coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, *[pectunculus][7]* from *pecten* is actually the only example I have seen of a diminutive from a noun ending in *-en, -inis.* It is masculine, but so is the original noun *pecten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most Latin nouns that end in *-en* in the nominative and *-inis* in the genitive seem to have an &quot;m&quot; before this and are neuter. Wiktionary indicates that many of them have a &quot;noun-forming suffix [*-men*][8]&quot; and lists a number of them; I searched on Perseus for words starting with the stems up to the &quot;m&quot; of around 10 of them (like &quot;agm,&quot; &quot;germ,&quot; &quot;carm&quot;) but I wasn't able to find any diminutive forms with their own entries. Another neuter third-declension with another consonant before *-en,* *-inis* is *gluten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other possibly relevant sources I found that I have not yet got a chance to look through:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Word Formation in the Roman Sermo Plebeius,* by Frederic Taber Cooper (1895) -- has a section on &quot;Diminutives&quot; starting on [page 164][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cooper cites some articles by &quot;Paucker,&quot; one of which had a title that sounded like it might be helpful: &quot;Deminutive mit d. Suffix -c-ulus, a, um&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Zeitschr. f. d. oesterr. Gymn. XXVII, p. 273-284. (=&quot;Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien&quot;) I looked though a [Google Books result][10] related to this, and found a long list of words with the suffix &quot;-uncul-&quot; that contained many ending in &quot;-uncula&quot; and &quot;-unculus&quot; but none that I could see ending in &quot;-unculum&quot; aside from those already mentioned that are indexed by Perseus and have entries in Lewis &amp; Short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2903/9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2900/variations-on-the-diminutive-olus-and-ulus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://%20http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.243.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://diesgaudii.genvid.com/latin/diminutives/diminutives.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=unculum&amp;lang=la&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=corpusculum&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=pectunculus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-men#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=724PAAAAYAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;output=reader&amp;hl=en&amp;pg=GBS.PA164&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cY0NAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA597&amp;lpg=PA597&amp;dq=Paucker%20%22Deminutive%22%20mit%20Suffix%20-c-ulus,%20a,%20um%20%22ZEITSCHRIFT%20f%C3%BCr%20die%20%C3%B6sterreichischen%20GYMNASIEN%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QNovpHHp0X&amp;sig=bxKBq0FqnimxK1ZSAc1QuVpX270&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj5i-7rhPXSAhUI1GMKHTH9AIcQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Paucker%20%22Deminutive%22%20mit%20Suffix%20-c-ulus%2C%20a%2C%20um%20%22ZEITSCHRIFT%20f%C3%BCr%20die%20%C3%B6sterreichischen%20GYMNASIEN%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="a0085764-dbbc-4f4c-9518-9657fc8b5055" CreationDate="2017-03-26T21:09:33.300" UserId="9" Comment="added 1634 characters in body" Text="I think *abdomunculum* would be the most regular diminutive of *abdomen.* But it seems a bit difficult to me to give a clear answer because the rules about &quot;proper&quot; diminutive suffixes are often based on the form and gender of the original noun, and I know of no existing diminutives formed on nouns with precisely the same morphological form and gender as *abdomen, abdominis*. If you get it &quot;wrong,&quot; you may at least be able to take some comfort from the knowledge that Romans even criticized one another sometimes for using supposedly malformed diminutives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Abdomen, abdominis* is a neuter noun of the third declension, of the &quot;consonant stem&quot; sub-declension class, with a stem ending in the consonant &quot;n&quot; specifically. My impression is that any of these features might be relevant to the formation of the diminutive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[brianpck's answer][1] to *[Variations on the diminutive: -olus and -ulus][2]* contained a link to a page from [Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar][3] that I consulted to try to answer this question. It says diminutives &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These diminutive endings are all formed by adding *-lus* to various stems. [...] *-culus* comes from -lus added to adjectives in *-cus* formed from stems in *n-* and *s-*: as, *iuven-cus, Aurun-cus* (cf. *Aurunculeius*), *prís-cus,* whence the *cu* becomes a part of the termination, and the whole ending (*-culus*) is used elsewhere, but mostly with *n-* and *s-* stems, in accordance with its origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the rules given in *[The Formation of Latin&#xD;&#xA;Diminutives of Nouns and Adjectives][4],* compiled by Ian Andreas Miller, regular diminutive nouns derived from third-declension nouns retain the gender of the original noun, which for *abdomen* is neuter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these sources, it seems to me that something ending in *-nculum* would be most regular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller further indicates that stems ending *-in-* regularly change the vowel and have *-un-* before *-culus/-culum/-cula.* cnread's answer mentions *homunculus,* which shows this pattern. There is an interesting note in Miller about the history of this formation saying that the *u* is analogical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The *-uncul-* formation in these diminutives was originally created by adding *-culā-, -culo-* to stems in *-on-,* where the *-o-* became *-u-* by phonetic change (cf. *hunc,* earlier *honc*). Some original stems in *-nō-* (*-on-*) later became stems in *-in-* (e.g. *homin-,* earlier *homon-* or *homōn-*) with nominative singular endings in *-ō,* and through the power of analogy the *-uncul-* formation was used with other stems in *-in-* (e.g. *pecten,* stem *pectin-*) and stems in *-n-* with nominative singular forms in *-o* (e.g. *caro,* stem *carn-*) even if they do not actually have stems in *-in-* or *-on-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not entirely certain about recommending *-unculum* rather than *-unculus* as in cnread's answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Abdomunculum* would follow the generally applicable gender-matching rule. However, there are exceptions to this rule; Miller mentions *rana* &gt; *ranunculus.*&#xD;&#xA;And since most nouns ending in *-ō* in the nominative are masculine or feminine,  *-unculus* and  *uncula* seem to be much more established in Latin as suffixes for deriving diminutive nouns from third-declension n-stems than *-unculum.* A Perseus search does turn up some existing [nouns ending in *-unculum][5],* but none of those results seems to be derived from a third-declension noun with a stem ending in *-in-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there are certainly diminutives ending in *-culum* with something else before it; for example, *[corpusculum][6],* from the third-declension neuter noun *corpus.* So perhaps the scarcity of words ending in *-un-culum* specifically is just coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, *[pectunculus][7]* from *pecten* is actually the only example I have seen of a diminutive from a noun ending in *-en, -inis.* It is masculine, but so is the original noun *pecten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most Latin nouns that end in *-en* in the nominative and *-inis* in the genitive seem to have an &quot;m&quot; before this and are neuter. Wiktionary indicates that many of them have a &quot;noun-forming suffix [*-men*][8]&quot; and lists a number of them; I searched on Perseus for words starting with the stems up to the &quot;m&quot; of around 10 of them (like &quot;agm,&quot; &quot;germ,&quot; &quot;carm&quot;) but I wasn't able to find any diminutive forms with their own entries. Another neuter third-declension with another consonant before *-en,* *-inis* is *gluten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other possibly relevant sources I found that I have not yet got a chance to look through:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Word Formation in the Roman Sermo Plebeius,* by Frederic Taber Cooper (1895) -- has a section on &quot;Diminutives&quot; starting on [page 164][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cooper cites some articles by &quot;Paucker,&quot; one of which had a title that sounded like it might be helpful: &quot;Deminutive mit d. Suffix -c-ulus, a, um&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Zeitschr. f. d. oesterr. Gymn. XXVII, p. 273-284. (=&quot;Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien&quot;) I looked though a [Google Books result][10] related to this, and found a long list of words with the suffix &quot;-uncul-&quot; that contained many ending in &quot;-uncula&quot; and &quot;-unculus&quot; but none that I could see ending in &quot;-unculum&quot; aside from those already mentioned that are indexed by Perseus and have entries in Lewis &amp; Short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2903/9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2900/variations-on-the-diminutive-olus-and-ulus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://%20http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.243.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://diesgaudii.genvid.com/latin/diminutives/diminutives.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=unculum&amp;lang=la&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=corpusculum&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=pectunculus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-men#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=724PAAAAYAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;output=reader&amp;hl=en&amp;pg=GBS.PA164&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cY0NAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA597&amp;lpg=PA597&amp;dq=Paucker%20%22Deminutive%22%20mit%20Suffix%20-c-ulus,%20a,%20um%20%22ZEITSCHRIFT%20f%C3%BCr%20die%20%C3%B6sterreichischen%20GYMNASIEN%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QNovpHHp0X&amp;sig=bxKBq0FqnimxK1ZSAc1QuVpX270&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj5i-7rhPXSAhUI1GMKHTH9AIcQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Paucker%20%22Deminutive%22%20mit%20Suffix%20-c-ulus%2C%20a%2C%20um%20%22ZEITSCHRIFT%20f%C3%BCr%20die%20%C3%B6sterreichischen%20GYMNASIEN%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2964" RevisionGUID="85319b73-f602-4734-92a2-cc5f84a18ab3" CreationDate="2017-03-26T21:12:36.517" UserId="75" Comment="added 1300 characters in body" Text="Both are conjugated in the present tense, passive voice, and indicative mood, from the same verb: *muto*. The difference is that *mutamur* is conjugated in the 1st person (plural) (“we change”), while *mutantur* is conjugated in the 3rd person (plural) (“times change”). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Owen is quoting a [well-known Latin adage][1] meaning, “Times change, and we change with them.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With respect to the passive voice being translated into English in the active voice—for example, “times change” rather than “times are changed”—Latin often declines verbs in the passive voice which are to be understood as intransitive. Of course, when translated into English, the intransitive verb is translated in the active voice without a direct object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Transitive verb in active voice: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Ostium aperit homo.*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The man opens the door.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Transitive verb in passive voice: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Aperitur ostium ab homine.*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The door is opened by the man.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Intransitive verb: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Aperitur ostium.*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The door opens. (literally, “The door is opened.”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, we are not to understand *mutamur* as “we are changed”—truly passive as though some (unnamed) agent is changing us—but rather, the subject (“we”) is doing the action (change) to itself. In Koine Greek, this would be best demonstrated by the middle voice, but Latin lacks such a voice. Instead, it can use the passive voice without an object in the ablative. If the verb was to be understood as transitive, we would encounter an object declined in the ablative, indicating the agent (e.g., “[by] the man”) acting upon (e.g., “is opened”) the subject of the sentence (e.g., “the door”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora_mutantur" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2974" RevisionGUID="576cda9c-dc1a-41b2-a927-28c1d0820e7f" CreationDate="2017-03-27T14:25:34.240" UserId="45" Text="Lewis and Short lists [275 words ending in *-mentum*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=mentum&amp;lang=la), many of which have come into English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- argumentum&#xD;&#xA;- augmentum&#xD;&#xA;- documentum&#xD;&#xA;- fragmentum&#xD;&#xA;- pigmentum&#xD;&#xA;- segmentum&#xD;&#xA;- etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary (cited as an example, not as an authority) says that it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; derived from the Latin suffix -menta in collective nouns like armenta (“herd, flock”). Latin -menta from Proto-Indo-European *-mn̥teh₂ (*-mn̥ + *-teh₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This confuses me because &quot;collective nouns&quot; hardly seems to describe the majority of these words. I know almost nothing about PIE, so the root words above don't help illuminate the meaning for me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One pet theory that occurred to me is that perhaps there is a relationship between -mentum and the Greek middle/passive participle ending: -μενον (-menon). It's far-fetched, but works in at least a few cases, e.g. *argumentum = quod arguitur, fragmentum = quod frangitur, documentum = quod docetur, etc.* (Disclaimer: words selectively chosen to support my theory.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone provide an overview of **what kinds of words generally use the -mentum suffix**, and also comment on **whether it adds a predictable meaning to its root word**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10667" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2974" RevisionGUID="576cda9c-dc1a-41b2-a927-28c1d0820e7f" CreationDate="2017-03-27T14:25:34.240" UserId="45" Text="What does the suffix -mentum add to a word's meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10668" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2974" RevisionGUID="576cda9c-dc1a-41b2-a927-28c1d0820e7f" CreationDate="2017-03-27T14:25:34.240" UserId="45" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|suffixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2972" RevisionGUID="5432ab39-2873-40cf-a249-5bd3afbee884" CreationDate="2017-03-27T14:34:47.523" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="I had to wake up before 3 am this morning (on a Sunday!), and I had to worry about the start of daylight saving time.&#xD;&#xA;(It always starts on the last Sunday of March in Europe. Other areas have other conventions.)&#xD;&#xA;This left me wondering, among other things, about expressing times when DST ends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the last Sunday of October comes and clocks are turned back one hour at 4 am in Finland, how can I refer to the times from 3 to 4 am that occur twice?&#xD;&#xA;It would be great if there is a canonical expression, but I am open to any suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have two ideas for distinguishing the two instances of 4 am:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *hora quarta* and *hora bis quarta* (by analogy to the second instance of a day on leap years marked by *bis*)&#xD;&#xA;- *hora quarta temporis aestivi/hiemalis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one is unambiguous but feels a bit heavy.&#xD;&#xA;The first one sounds more idiomatic to me, but the plain *hora quarta* is ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps one could contrast the *bis* with a *semel*?&#xD;&#xA;**How would you make the distinction in Latin and why?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am using the modern convention where *horae* are counted from midnight and noon, not the Roman one.&#xD;&#xA;Whichever convention you prefer, the question remains: how to remove ambiguity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should add that although I ask only about Latin, I don't know a canonical pair of distinctive expressions in any language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2975" RevisionGUID="1fac07cc-e4b4-47f9-bc44-a1b7085db647" CreationDate="2017-03-28T01:20:32.963" UserId="172" Text="According to Miller (2006: 76, 78), the endings *-men* and *-mentum* form a deverbal (with one exception) noun with the semantics of **means, instrument** or **result** of action of the verb. Relevant quotations are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**§3.4 _-men_ [...] **‘means, instrument, result’**  &#xD;&#xA;While *-men* is formally and functionally related to *-mentum* (LG i § 326), the&#xD;&#xA;latter will be treated separately for reasons stated in §3.5. [...] Of the two, *-men* has ceased to be productive since its main function was taken over by *-mentum*. Most *-men* derivatives have full grade of the root, but a few have zero grade as well; see *-mentum* below and Schumacher (2000: 114 f.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**§3.5 _-men-tum_ [...] ‘means, instrument, result’**  &#xD;&#xA;Historically, *-mentum* is sometimes considered an enlargement of *-men* of&#xD;&#xA;Indo-European date (LG i. 371). As mentioned in §3.4, numerous doublets&#xD;&#xA;existed, such as *reg-i-men/reg-i-mentum* ‘rule’. Syntactically, however, *-mentum* shares more with Greek *-μα-/-ματ*, from [PIE] *-mn̥-*(*-mn̥-t-*)&#xD;&#xA;(IEL 209), than with L&amp;lt;atin&amp;gt; *-men* (Sandoz 1994: 328). Apart from rare deadjectivals, such as rudimentum [...] (&amp;lt;from&amp;gt; *rudis* [...]’), most of the examples are deverbal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize and provide exact answers to the questions, the ending (I would rather not call it the suffix) *-mentum*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. mostly used to transform verbs, and a few specific adjectives&#xD;&#xA; 1. into a noun capturing the semantic category of either *instrument* or *result* of the verb's action&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Adding references and expanding, edit in progress)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2975" RevisionGUID="f37857e8-e69e-4925-9fa4-0288e256d8da" CreationDate="2017-03-28T01:48:23.513" UserId="172" Comment="added 1651 characters in body" Text="According to Miller (2006: 76, 78), the endings *-men* and *-mentum* form a deverbal (with one exception) noun with the semantics of **means, instrument** or **result** of action of the verb. Relevant quotations are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**§3.4 _-men_ [...] **‘means, instrument, result’**  &#xD;&#xA;While *-men* is formally and functionally related to *-mentum* (LG i.§326), the&#xD;&#xA;latter will be treated separately for reasons stated in §3.5. [...] Of the two, *-men* has ceased to be productive since its main function was taken over by *-mentum*. Most *-men* derivatives have full grade of the root, but a few have zero grade as well; see *-mentum* below and Schumacher (2000: 114 f.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**§3.5 _-men-tum_ [...] ‘means, instrument, result’**  &#xD;&#xA;Historically, *-mentum* is sometimes considered an enlargement of *-men* of&#xD;&#xA;Indo-European date (LG i.§371). As mentioned in §3.4, numerous doublets&#xD;&#xA;existed, such as *reg-i-men/reg-i-mentum* ‘rule’. Syntactically, however, *-mentum* shares more with Greek *-μα-/-ματ*, from &amp;lt;PIE&amp;gt; *-mn̥-*(*-mn̥-t-*)&#xD;&#xA;(IEL 209), than with L&amp;lt;atin&amp;gt; *-men* (Sandoz 1994: 328). Apart from rare deadjectivals, such as rudimentum [...] (&amp;lt;from&amp;gt; *rudis* [...]’), most of the examples are deverbal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize and provide exact answers to the questions, the ending (I would rather not call it the suffix) *-mentum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. mostly used to transform verbs, and a few specific adjectives&#xD;&#xA; 1. into a noun capturing the semantic category of either *instrument* or *result* of the verb's action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking of your “pet theory,” I would not call incorrect right off the bat. While it does not align *morphologically* with the state of PIE affairs in Latin, it has its merit: your examples *quod arguitur, quod frangitur, quod docetur* are essentially periphrases for the (missing) middle participle. Then, *semantically* the Latin paradigm *quod X* is close enough in its semantics to that of instrument or result of action. This is not so much a straightforward theory, but rather a way of roughly delineating the semantics of the ending *-mentum*. The *quod* construct is fuzzier, however: Is *quod pingetur* something being dyed (more of the passive sense), or something being applied as a dye (more of the middle sense)? *pigmentum* is the instrument, an aligns more with the middle sense of the *quod* construction, while *quod pingetur* out of context would be less specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also notable that the doublets that Miller is speaking about (*fragmen-fragmentum, documen-documentum*, perhaps no less than 100 of these) are not observed of &quot;older&quot; nouns, contnuously traced back to the proto language (such as *nomen, germen, semen, stamen, vimen, omen*)--there is no e. g. _*nomentum_. This is a clear illustration of the fact that the ending *-mentum* was productive in Latin, while *-men* was not, and many of the *-men* words were probably back formations from their *-mentum* counterparts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller, Gary D (2006) Latin Suffixal Derivatives in English and their Indo-European Ancestry. Oxford  &#xD;&#xA;LG = Manu Leumann et. al. (1977) Lateinische Grammatik, Munich: Beck.  &#xD;&#xA;IEL = Meier-Brugger (2003) Indo-European Linguistics, Walter de Gruyter.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2976" RevisionGUID="d2cbde1b-7f40-424c-afd8-900d061afec6" CreationDate="2017-03-28T03:51:48.883" UserId="952" Text="I am currently having trouble working through a line from Caesar's *De Bello Gallico*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cottae quidem atque eorum, qui dissentirent, consilium quem habere exitum?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, I have this as &quot;Indeed what result was the advice of Cotta and of those who disagreed?&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;However, this does not seem quite correct to me. Any suggestions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10674" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2976" RevisionGUID="d2cbde1b-7f40-424c-afd8-900d061afec6" CreationDate="2017-03-28T03:51:48.883" UserId="952" Text="Translation of a Line from Caesar's De Bello Gallico 5.29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10675" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2976" RevisionGUID="d2cbde1b-7f40-424c-afd8-900d061afec6" CreationDate="2017-03-28T03:51:48.883" UserId="952" Text="|translation|gaius-iulius-caesar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2977" RevisionGUID="1950d589-1391-409c-b3b2-ab7f523dd851" CreationDate="2017-03-28T04:24:22.433" UserId="30" Text="This is part of an accusativus cum infinitivo, indirect speech depending on a previous finite verb. What makes it difficult to translate is the direct question converted into an a.c.i. Your translation is close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Indeed, that the advice of Cotta—and of those who disagreed—had what result?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could translate it somewhat more liberally and convert the a.c.i. into direct speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Indeed, what result would the advice have of Cotta and of those who disagreed ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2975" RevisionGUID="bb3f537f-718c-4fdc-87c2-4b66326b1358" CreationDate="2017-03-28T04:35:47.373" UserId="30" Comment="I presume the e in &quot;pingetur&quot; was a typo." Text="According to Miller (2006: 76, 78), the endings *-men* and *-mentum* form a deverbal (with one exception) noun with the semantics of **means, instrument** or **result** of action of the verb. Relevant quotations are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**§3.4 _-men_ [...] ‘means, instrument, result’**  &#xD;&#xA;While *-men* is formally and functionally related to *-mentum* (LG i.§326), the&#xD;&#xA;latter will be treated separately for reasons stated in §3.5. [...] Of the two, *-men* has ceased to be productive since its main function was taken over by *-mentum*. Most *-men* derivatives have full grade of the root, but a few have zero grade as well; see *-mentum* below and Schumacher (2000: 114 f.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**§3.5 _-men-tum_ [...] ‘means, instrument, result’**  &#xD;&#xA;Historically, *-mentum* is sometimes considered an enlargement of *-men* of&#xD;&#xA;Indo-European date (LG i.§371). As mentioned in §3.4, numerous doublets&#xD;&#xA;existed, such as *reg-i-men/reg-i-mentum* ‘rule’. Syntactically, however, *-mentum* shares more with Greek *-μα-/-ματ*, from &amp;lt;PIE&amp;gt; *-mn̥-*(*-mn̥-t-*)&#xD;&#xA;(IEL 209), than with L&amp;lt;atin&amp;gt; *-men* (Sandoz 1994: 328). Apart from rare deadjectivals, such as rudimentum [...] (&amp;lt;from&amp;gt; *rudis* [...]’), most of the examples are deverbal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize and provide exact answers to the questions, the ending (I would rather not call it the suffix) *-mentum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. mostly used to transform verbs, and a few specific adjectives&#xD;&#xA; 1. into a noun capturing the semantic category of either *instrument* or *result* of the verb's action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking of your “pet theory,” I would not call it incorrect right off the bat. While it does not align *morphologically* with the state of PIE affairs in Latin, it has its merit: your examples *quod arguitur, quod frangitur, quod docetur* are essentially periphrases for the (missing) middle participle. Then, *semantically* the Latin paradigm *quod X* is close enough in its semantics to that of instrument or result of action. This is not so much a straightforward theory, but rather a way of roughly delineating the semantics of the ending *-mentum*. The *quod* construct is fuzzier, however: Is *quod pingitur* something being dyed (more of the passive sense), or something being applied as a dye (more of the middle sense)? *Pigmentum* is the instrument, an aligns more with the middle sense of the *quod* construction, while *quod pingitur* out of context would be less specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also notable that the doublets that Miller is speaking about (*fragmen-fragmentum, documen-documentum*, perhaps no less than 100 of these) are not observed of &quot;older&quot; nouns, continuously traced back to the proto-language (such as *nomen, germen, semen, stamen, vimen, omen*)—there is no e. g. _*nomentum_. This is a clear illustration of the fact that the ending *-mentum* was productive in Latin, while *-men* was not, and many of the *-men* words were probably back formations from their *-mentum* counterparts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller, Gary D (2006) Latin Suffixal Derivatives in English and their Indo-European Ancestry. Oxford  &#xD;&#xA;LG = Manu Leumann et. al. (1977) Lateinische Grammatik, Munich: Beck.  &#xD;&#xA;IEL = Meier-Brugger (2003) Indo-European Linguistics, Walter de Gruyter.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2977" RevisionGUID="8c7c8118-2a4d-4334-b458-f6d31dba80d8" CreationDate="2017-03-28T04:39:04.427" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="This is part of an accusativus cum infinitivo, indirect speech depending on a previous finite verb. What makes it difficult to translate is the direct question converted into an a.c.i. Your translation is close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Indeed, that the advice of Cotta—and of those who disagreed—had what result?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could translate it more liberally and convert the a.c.i. into direct speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The advice of Cotta, indeed, and of those who disagreed—what result would it have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2978" RevisionGUID="dcf7c7c5-cfbd-420d-89d9-97774bd5b340" CreationDate="2017-03-28T07:01:59.333" UserId="79" Text="I do not recall ever seeing *esse* in any form used with active present participles (like *faciens*).&#xD;&#xA;One could imagine something similar to the English distinction between &quot;he does&quot; and &quot;he is doing&quot; in Latin: *facit* &amp;ne; *faciens est*.&#xD;&#xA;I do not claim that one could use *faciens est* like &quot;he is doing&quot;; I just guess that if *faciens est* can be used at all, it might have a roughly similar meaning.&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps it would simply be a synonymous alternative to *facit*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Was *esse* ever used with active present participles in Latin? If yes, how did it differ from a plain indicative (eg. *dicens sum* vs. *dico*)?**&#xD;&#xA;If you think such use never existed, please explain why you think so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10680" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2978" RevisionGUID="dcf7c7c5-cfbd-420d-89d9-97774bd5b340" CreationDate="2017-03-28T07:01:59.333" UserId="79" Text="Can esse be used with a present participle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10681" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2978" RevisionGUID="dcf7c7c5-cfbd-420d-89d9-97774bd5b340" CreationDate="2017-03-28T07:01:59.333" UserId="79" Text="|syntax|participle|esse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2979" RevisionGUID="49d5484c-bffc-47a8-929d-a1c4ca11397c" CreationDate="2017-03-28T07:57:31.207" UserId="1289" Text="My first instinct was that this is, at the very least, not common in Latin, and should only happen with participles that are basically adjectives and have lost some of their verbal semantics, like *sapiens* or *patiens*. The reason I think that is that a present participle is perfectly capable of standing on its own in Latin, it doesn't need an actual conjugated form to accompany it and signal its verbal status.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I'm a corpus guy, and I'd love to be able to just query for this kind of thing. But since I'm not exactly there yet with my scanning engine, I have looked for nominative participles + esse in raw data by just going over part of my verse corpus manually for a minute or two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two results seem to corroborate my intuitive hypothesis (which are fancy words for &quot;hunch&quot;). The last ones, if properly read, seem to be examples of what you're looking for. So yes, it does occur sporadically, but the question remains how much of the verbal meaning is left over. Are these adjectivized verbs, or adjectives derived from verbs ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nostra nocens anima est. ego te, miseranda, peremi, (Ov. Met. IV, 110)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verticibusque frequens erat atque inpervius amnis. (Ov. Met. IX, 106)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non poteram, longi patiens erat ille laboris. (Ov. Met. V, 611)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conveniens Venus est annis temeraria nostris. (Ov. Met. IX, 553)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2979" RevisionGUID="9880bc15-f56f-45a8-b15f-2153869ae7a7" CreationDate="2017-03-28T08:23:40.600" UserId="1289" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="My first instinct was that this is, at the very least, not common in Latin, and should only happen with participles that are basically adjectives and have lost some of their verbal semantics, like *sapiens* or *patiens*. The reason I think that, is that a present participle is perfectly capable of standing on its own in Latin, it doesn't need an actual conjugated form to accompany it and signal its verbal status.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I'm a corpus guy, and I'd love to be able to just query for this kind of thing. But since I'm not exactly there yet with my scanning engine, I have looked for nominative participles + esse in raw data by just going over part of my verse corpus manually for a minute or two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two results seem to corroborate my intuitive hypothesis (which are fancy words for &quot;hunch&quot;). The last ones, if properly read, seem to be examples of what you're looking for. So yes, it does occur sporadically, but the question remains how much of the verbal meaning is left over. Are these adjectivized verbs, or adjectives derived from verbs ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nostra nocens anima est. ego te, miseranda, peremi, (Ov. Met. IV, 110)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verticibusque frequens erat atque inpervius amnis. (Ov. Met. IX, 106)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non poteram, longi patiens erat ille laboris. (Ov. Met. V, 611)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conveniens Venus est annis temeraria nostris. (Ov. Met. IX, 553)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2980" RevisionGUID="10c68027-2b72-4746-ac5b-8c417c4b24be" CreationDate="2017-03-28T13:58:00.220" UserId="1224" Text="After reading [this question][1], I wondered what I could do to some names vital to my translation of D. Gray-Man, a recent project. Some names are fine, such as Allen becoming Alenus, Moa easily remaining already feminine and declinable, and various online sources claiming some link to the names of Charles and Carolus. However, the names of many main characters are indeclinable and hard to convert without sounding a bit repetitive (like &quot;Komuius, Sumanus, Tykius&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Are these acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;2. Are there better translations?&#xD;&#xA;3. Is Carolus a correct conversion or simply a similar name for &quot;name Romanizers?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the names that I've had trouble with, followed by my attempted translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Count Krory - *? Kroryus/Crorius*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Millennium Earl - *Comes Annorum Millium*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lenalee Lee - *Lenalia Lee (I don't know how to translate this and be similar to the original enough for one to infer.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Komui Lee - *Komuis/Comuis Lee*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mana Walker - *Manaus Valcer/Ambulator (masculine)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eliade - *Eliada*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Road Kamelot - *Roada Camelota???*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tyki Mikk - *Ticis Miccis (sounds like a joke spell)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Valcer* certainly sounds better than the hilariously literal *ambulator*. Anyway, some assistance in the naming of these characters is appreciated, even if they're still an annoying mystery. Ah, but who cares? When has Stack Exchange never answered my foolish questions with the limitless knowledge of people who actually went to schools for this language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The importance of this translation is due to the ability to decline these rather than act like some Spanish historian and change the letters, adding in some prepositions, and calling it a day. I need to be able to accurately convert those names so that my retelling feels less like generic TV subtitles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes and Stuff:&#xD;&#xA;-I've confirmed that Tyki is pronounced as *tee-kee*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/473/general-principles-for-translating-non-latin-names-into-latin?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10686" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2980" RevisionGUID="10c68027-2b72-4746-ac5b-8c417c4b24be" CreationDate="2017-03-28T13:58:00.220" UserId="1224" Text="Is it acceptable to translate these names in this manner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10687" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2980" RevisionGUID="10c68027-2b72-4746-ac5b-8c417c4b24be" CreationDate="2017-03-28T13:58:00.220" UserId="1224" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2968" RevisionGUID="9ebf2da1-0743-4a26-896d-8945beb0fafe" CreationDate="2017-03-28T14:50:46.743" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Plausible deniability in English is **a condition in which a subject can safely and believably deny knowledge of any particular truth that may exist so as to shield the subject from any responsibility associated with the knowledge of such truth**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a word or phrase in Latin that would adequately convey this meaning? Ideally it should be a single word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2981" RevisionGUID="a8aee590-9e09-431f-ab66-c5ab37c74e14" CreationDate="2017-03-28T16:01:25.197" UserId="78" Text="A couple quick observations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Millennium* is a New Latin word, so I don't know why you wouldn't just use that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin word for Camelot is *Camuladonum*, so you could do &quot;Via Camuladonum&quot; (assuming Camuladonum works like the name of the road rather than &quot;a road in Camelot&quot; or &quot;the road to Camelot&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Count&quot; is *comes*, but I think you must know that as you translated &quot;Earl&quot; as *comes*, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The standard in ancient Latin, with very few exceptions, was to transliterate to a normal-sounding name. *Valcer* is acceptable. In Neo-Latin, you sometimes have individuals taking a Latin equivalent. Johannes von Königsberg, for example, took the name de Monteregio (and later concerning his works he was called *Regiomontanus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eliade is clearly from Elias, Eliadis, so go with Elias for that one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good translation today doesn't necessarily try to mess with names except to make them conform to rules of pronunciation or to assimilate to related names when they sound similar enough. So the Russian Александр is often spelled &quot;Alexander&quot;, when, if you were to transliterate it letter-by-letter, you'd get &quot;Aleksandr.&quot; But I can't imagine these days translating 毛泽东 as anything but Mao Zedong (excepting only the archaic Mao Tse-tung). Can you imagine calling him Meow Seadong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, try not to make them too &quot;Latin&quot;. What's wrong with *Mana Valcer*, for example? Mana is a fine phonetically, though perhaps it could use an S (compare the name of Sulla in Greek: Σύλλας)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10690" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2980" RevisionGUID="ca215d5c-7d12-4d76-8f4c-203847c0cbfa" CreationDate="2017-03-28T16:02:13.327" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|names|phonetics|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2982" RevisionGUID="68ab5730-5a17-4b35-a93c-d6f0e976dced" CreationDate="2017-03-28T18:58:19.337" UserId="1369" Text="The question posted is analogous to the other one: how do you distinguish the sixth hour of the morning with the sixth hour of the afternoon? In English, two expressions in Latin are used: _ante meridiem_ and _post meridiem_. So I don't see any difficulty in using the second form. If it's too long, abbreviate it, like we do with AM and PM...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: _hora quarta T.H. (tempore hiemale)_ and _hora quarta T.A. (tempore aestivo)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, _aestivus/hiemalis_ can qualify _hora_ directly: _hora quarta aestiva_ and _hora quarta hiemale_. I guess that could be considered &quot;sufficiently&quot; brief for everyday use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2982" RevisionGUID="7de7bb83-e8a9-45ba-af64-0736cc0061ae" CreationDate="2017-03-28T19:23:39.857" UserId="1369" Comment="Corrected the ablative of _hiemalis_" Text="The question posted is analogous to the other one: how do you distinguish the sixth hour of the morning with the sixth hour of the afternoon? In English, two expressions in Latin are used: _ante meridiem_ and _post meridiem_. So I don't see any difficulty in using the second form. If it's too long, abbreviate it, like we do with AM and PM...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: _hora quarta T.H. (tempore hiemali)_ and _hora quarta T.A. (tempore aestivo)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, _aestivus/hiemalis_ can qualify _hora_ directly: _hora quarta aestiva_ and _hora quarta hiemali_. I guess that could be considered &quot;sufficiently&quot; brief for everyday use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2983" RevisionGUID="e320c359-75b4-4785-ac48-c0e0f930b03e" CreationDate="2017-03-29T04:54:36.353" UserId="1381" Text="I'm working on a project that may use one or more Latin phrases that refer directly to a US state or its nickname, but I'm having difficulty interpreting which translation of the word &quot;state&quot; would be best for each of these situations or if they are interchangeable.  From what I understand, *civitas* refers to the social body, the constituency, or the community of citizens while *res publica* tends to be more about the government and authority, but can refer to the geographic boundaries (which also makes me question whether it should be the translation of *land*).  I guess my question is if *res publica* were used in the translation of *The State of Minnesota*, would it then be used in the translations for *The Gopher State*, *The North Star State*, and *The State of Hockey*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other names/nicknames that I am looking to translate are as follows.  I may consider prepending them with *From* as in *From the State of Minnesota*.  Any assistance would be appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The State of Minnesota&#xD;&#xA; - The Gopher State&#xD;&#xA; - The North Star State&#xD;&#xA; - The State of Hockey&#xD;&#xA; - The Land of 10,000 Lakes&#xD;&#xA; - The State of Texas&#xD;&#xA; - The Lone Star State&#xD;&#xA; - The Friendship State&#xD;&#xA; - The State of Illinois&#xD;&#xA; - The Prairie State&#xD;&#xA; - The Corn State&#xD;&#xA; - The Land of Lincoln&#xD;&#xA; - The State of California&#xD;&#xA; - The Golden State&#xD;&#xA; - The El Dorado State" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2983" RevisionGUID="e320c359-75b4-4785-ac48-c0e0f930b03e" CreationDate="2017-03-29T04:54:36.353" UserId="1381" Text="Correct translation(s) of &quot;state&quot; when referring to a US state by name or nickname" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2983" RevisionGUID="e320c359-75b4-4785-ac48-c0e0f930b03e" CreationDate="2017-03-29T04:54:36.353" UserId="1381" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|word-comparison|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2984" RevisionGUID="7c4b2b9c-e0b2-422c-a7a6-fbe4ac8da801" CreationDate="2017-03-29T11:13:42.687" UserId="324" Text="The Great Seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is inscribed with the words Sigillum Reipublicae Massachusettensis. I wonder whether the other states are also worthy of the title “Res publica”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2985" RevisionGUID="02e900a9-a669-41b5-bd74-f7a928b22ad1" CreationDate="2017-03-29T14:58:33.340" UserId="645" Text="The best word for an American 'State' is probably *regio*, which was used by Caesar, Cicero and others to mean a district, territory, region or any kind of delineated area of unified influence. As in Caesar's day the *Provincia* was divided into regions which were inhabited by and named after Gallic tribes, so might the American *Respublica* also be constituted.&#xD;&#xA;The Dakotas are obvious examples which could fall easily into such a system, while 'DC' might be *Regio Columbana*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2986" RevisionGUID="b4838025-5e19-4648-b1ce-76b0c2f88b33" CreationDate="2017-03-29T16:18:18.743" UserId="469" Text="According to latinists way better than me, an option to translate **state** as in *United States* is **civitas**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. is called *Civitates Foederatae Americae* in a number of (obviously modern) Latin texts, with possible word order variations. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Glass, F. (2007). A Life Of George Washington, In Latin Prose. (J. N. Reynolds, Ed.). Kessinger Publishing, LLC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(edit in progress)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2986" RevisionGUID="285e3374-2148-4c9b-bd47-718e81046b04" CreationDate="2017-03-29T16:31:45.330" UserId="469" Comment="added 653 characters in body" Text="According to latinists way better than me, an option to translate **state** as in *United States* is **civitas, -atis**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. is called *Civitates Foederatae Americae* in a number of (obviously modern) Latin texts, with possible word order variations. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Glass, F. (2007). [A Life Of George Washington, In Latin Prose. p. 170][1] (J. N. Reynolds, Ed.). Originally written in **1842**.&#xD;&#xA; - Traupman, J. C. (2006). [Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency][2] (4 edition), p. 202. Wauconda, Ill. Originally written in 1997&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another alternative is the one used by Pope Saint Pius X in 1908, **status, -us**: (*status foederati americae*) in his apostolic letter [*Quae Rei*][3], written in **1908**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(edit in progress)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/stream/alifegeorgewash04glasgoog#page/n178/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=UOcRPumgVTsC&amp;pg=PP2&amp;source=gbs_selected_pages&amp;cad=3#v=onepage&amp;q=foederat&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/la/apost_letters/documents/hf_p-x_apl_19080927_quae-rei.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2986" RevisionGUID="8f92ccd5-5287-44ba-a407-cc2d521a3e40" CreationDate="2017-03-29T17:00:58.793" UserId="469" Comment="added 1538 characters in body" Text="According to latinists way better than me, an option to translate **state** as in *United States* is **civitas, -atis**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. is called *Civitates Foederatae Americae* in a number of (obviously modern) Latin texts, with possible word order variations. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Glass, F. (2007). [A Life Of George Washington, In Latin Prose. p. 170][1] (J. N. Reynolds, Ed.). Originally written in **1842**.&#xD;&#xA; - Traupman, J. C. (2006). [Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency][2] (4 edition), p. 202. Wauconda, Ill. Originally written in 1997&#xD;&#xA; - [Current news][3] by Vatican Radio.&#xD;&#xA; - The well known all-Latin news source [Nuntii Latini][4] from Finland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has also been called *Americanae* Civitates Foederatae (still using *Civitas*) in the XIX century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another alternative is the one used by Pope Saint Pius X in 1908, **status, -us**: (*status foederati americae*) in his apostolic letter [*Quae Rei*][5], written in **1908**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, two good sources for Latin toponyms that have been actually used are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Catholic dioceses. Since Latin has been (and still is) the official language of the Catholic Church, they are given Latin names. Most of them have been continually in use from the beginning, meaning it is the closest you can get to Classical (if the place name existed, or whenever it started to be used). [Catholic Hierarchy][6] is a privately-maintained site that lists all dioceses and has links to a lot of info about them, including their Latin names. (At times, diocese names match state names, like e.g. [New York][7].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Vicipaedia][8] (indirectly and with caution). Although not very reliable in general, many articles follow a standard that proper nouns should cite actual, attested, good-quality Latin sources. Following these sources you can get to actual latinists using the names. (I did that to help me write this answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/stream/alifegeorgewash04glasgoog#page/n178/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=UOcRPumgVTsC&amp;pg=PP2&amp;source=gbs_selected_pages&amp;cad=3#v=onepage&amp;q=foederat&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://de.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/01/31/nuntii_latini/1289486&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/search?q=nuntii%20latini%20civitates%20foederatae&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8#safe=active&amp;q=nuntii%20latini%20civitates%20foederatae%20americae%20site:yle.fi&amp;*&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/la/apost_letters/documents/hf_p-x_apl_19080927_quae-rei.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dnewy.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civitates_Foederatae_Americae" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2986" RevisionGUID="3ab8200e-fa16-4e8d-b668-2a14d52fd372" CreationDate="2017-03-29T17:14:14.243" UserId="469" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="According to latinists way better than me, an option to translate **state** as in *United States* is **civitas, -atis**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. is called *Civitates Foederatae Americae* in a number of (obviously modern) Latin texts, with possible word order variations. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Glass, F. (2007). [A Life Of George Washington, In Latin Prose. p. 170][1] (J. N. Reynolds, Ed.). Originally written in **1842**.&#xD;&#xA; - Traupman, J. C. (2006). [Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency][2] (4 edition), p. 202. Wauconda, Ill. Originally written in 1997&#xD;&#xA; - [Current news][3] by Vatican Radio.&#xD;&#xA; - The well known all-Latin news source [Nuntii Latini][4] from Finland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has also been called *Americanae* Civitates Foederatae (still using *Civitas*) in the XIX century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another alternative is the one used by Pope Saint Pius X in 1908, **status, -us**: (*status foederati americae*) in his apostolic letter [*Quae Rei*][5], written in **1908**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, two good sources for Latin toponyms that have been actually used are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Catholic dioceses. Since Latin has been (and still is) the official language of the Catholic Church, they are given Latin names. Most of them have been continually in use from the beginning, meaning it is the closest you can get to Classical (if the place name existed by that time, or whenever it started to be used). [Catholic Hierarchy][6] is a privately-maintained site that lists all dioceses and has links to a lot of info about them, including their Latin names. (At times, diocese names match state names, like e.g. [New York][7].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Vicipaedia][8] (indirectly and with caution). Although not very reliable in general, many articles follow a standard that proper nouns should cite actual, attested, good-quality Latin sources. Following these sources you can get to actual latinists using the names. (I did that to help me write this answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/stream/alifegeorgewash04glasgoog#page/n178/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=UOcRPumgVTsC&amp;pg=PP2&amp;source=gbs_selected_pages&amp;cad=3#v=onepage&amp;q=foederat&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://de.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/01/31/nuntii_latini/1289486&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/search?q=nuntii%20latini%20civitates%20foederatae&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8#safe=active&amp;q=nuntii%20latini%20civitates%20foederatae%20americae%20site:yle.fi&amp;*&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/la/apost_letters/documents/hf_p-x_apl_19080927_quae-rei.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dnewy.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civitates_Foederatae_Americae" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2987" RevisionGUID="736196f3-f1b3-4381-8173-6afe9eb048b3" CreationDate="2017-03-29T17:57:49.350" UserId="469" Text="[**Curriculum vitae**][1] (often abbreviated CV) is a common Latin locution present in a high number of languages, including English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, as in other languages, how to pluralize these foreign locutions is a common problem. In some cases, the *naturalized* (i.e. English) plural is Ok, in others it is not. But most of the time, following the plural in the original language is a good alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A google search for the [plural of CV][2] seems to suggest there are two alternatives (*curricula vitae* and *curricula vitarum*), although [Wikipedia][3] says there is debate on which of them is more correct than the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question is: **What is the plural in Latin for *Curriculum Vitae***?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curriculum_vitae&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=plural%20of%20curriculum%20vitae&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curriculum_vitae#Etymology.2C_spellings_and_pronunciation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10706" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2987" RevisionGUID="736196f3-f1b3-4381-8173-6afe9eb048b3" CreationDate="2017-03-29T17:57:49.350" UserId="469" Text="Latin plural of Curriculum Vitae?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10707" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2987" RevisionGUID="736196f3-f1b3-4381-8173-6afe9eb048b3" CreationDate="2017-03-29T17:57:49.350" UserId="469" Text="|etymologia|grammar-choice|example-request|phrase-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2988" RevisionGUID="1e0ba98b-7548-416e-a229-24a15cb384cf" CreationDate="2017-03-29T18:20:05.370" UserId="1224" Text="Rather than editing user637's answer, I decided to make my own. I'm sure you've died waiting, so here we go.&#xD;&#xA;With information from the comments and general knowledge which I possess, &quot;I&quot; was used in antiquity (until 1478) to represent both the consonant and the vowel. &quot;J&quot; just kind of popped out of nowhere in some Middle High German text to distinguish the two letters. To prevent simply restating someone's added information, read Jon's comment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the preference of J, in modern Latin studies, it is usually replaced with the original I. However hard to find, there are little bits of information across the Internet (as far as Google will take you through results mostly about Latin America) available to confirm that until the nineteen-eighties or so, J was significantly more present in schools and printing. In some Latin terms being introduced to speakers of languages which never use I as a consonant, a J is often provided. If you want further information on the opinions of these letters, I suggest asking some of those who know more about this, such as the [awesome people] [1] on this site. You can also [search for yourself] [2] on Google. From what I've read, it appears as if &quot;I&quot; were more common in Medieval Latin. The reason I brought up modern sources is that, rarely, texts originally inscribed with one letter might be changed to the other in digital conversions and reprints.&#xD;&#xA;So, here's my answer, take it or leave it. I hope you could use something from this, but as far as my research-spree went, it's a mystery. Oh, and Latin texts by Old English speakers might be unclear in reading, as the English alphabet at the time was strictly for knowing how to pronounce their written language. This is why one word can have many spellings. What if the Modern English &quot;spelling&quot; could be &quot;speling,&quot; &quot;spehling,&quot; or anything else? For sounding out, a J or Y was certainly more common in such scripts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, hopefully, you survived that. To sum it all up, I don't really know, and you should listen to people who actually know about this. *Were* this somewhat helpful, well... okay, I'd do a few things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Firstly, I'd question your health.&#xD;&#xA; - Then, I might start to back away.&#xD;&#xA; - Lastly, I'd say thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/users&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;rlz=1CAASUJ_enUS735US735&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;safe=active&amp;ssui=on#q=latin+i+and+j+preferences&amp;safe=strict&amp;ssui=on&amp;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2985" RevisionGUID="823cd0f4-0229-44ba-95c6-23dcc6df0f57" CreationDate="2017-03-29T19:06:53.000" UserId="645" Comment="added 1388 characters in body" Text="The best word for an American 'State' is probably *regio*, which was used by Caesar, Cicero and others to mean a district, territory, region or any kind of delineated area of unified influence. As in Caesar's day the *Provincia* was divided into regions which were inhabited by and named after Gallic tribes, so might the American *Respublica* also be constituted.&#xD;&#xA;The Dakotas are obvious examples which could fall easily into such a system, while 'DC' might be *Regio Columbana*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few other words for which a case might be made in special circumstances, but which I can't really see as 'state' in the way you intend: *terra, tellus, solum*, and possibly *rus, ager*. Like *patria*, these are best used in the sense of 'native soil', and so on — as I would understand it, indicating a personal attachment rather than a constitutional entity. As far as I can see, that leaves *regio* (which I have already put forward), *pagus, provincia* and *civitas*, for each of which a respectable case can be made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of *civitas* in your required sense is certainly legitimate, but is basically an adoption of a word that began by meaning 'citizenship', was later extended to 'the body of citizens' and was famously used by St Augustine in his *Civitas Dei*, variously translated as 'City of God', 'Estate of God' etc. leading to the usage in modern Latin for 'state'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Pagus* I would say was too localised a term (though Caesar uses it pretty much as a synonym for *regio*), the home of some particular group and not appropriate for a (federal) American state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Provincia* was the origin of the name Provence, but came to be used for any part of the Empire subject to an appointed governor (*proconsul, procurator* etc.). It may carry too many overtones of earlier colonial status to be acceptable in the USA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which leaves us, again, with *regio*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2989" RevisionGUID="d8ea21a1-17a6-476d-907a-7f6a9e04fd03" CreationDate="2017-03-29T20:28:34.447" UserId="78" Text="It's the former, *curricula vitae*. As the article linked in Wikipedia points out, *vitarum* would indicate that there are multiple lives mentioned per each *curriculum*. However, *vitae* as a genitive is describing the type of *curriculum*, and *curriculum* itself is the object that needs to be singular or plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't so confusing if you plug it back into English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Racetrack of life.&#xD;&#xA;Racetracks of life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Life is singular!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin tends to go even further, though, in making singular where even English would have a plural. So when the Gallic tribes were entreating the help of Caesar, the Sequani instead had &quot;their head lowered&quot; -- multiple people, one head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Animadvertit Caesar unos ex omnibus Sequanos nihil earum rerum facere quas ceteri facerent sed **tristes capite demisso** terram intueri. (BG 1.32)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2982" RevisionGUID="dd668f1d-86c1-4bab-82da-0f1ce0a8fd5e" CreationDate="2017-03-29T20:33:46.693" UserId="1369" Comment="Add a part about use of initialisms and a paragraph on the _Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis_." Text="The question posted is analogous to the other one: how do you distinguish the sixth hour of the morning with the sixth hour of the afternoon? In English, two expressions in Latin are used: _ante meridiem_ and _post meridiem_. So I don't see any difficulty in using the second form. If it's too long, abbreviate it, like we do with AM and PM... Although it might be good to write it out longhand in the first occurrence in a text with the initialism in brackets, and then just the initialism in subsequent uses, since it is definitely not standard in any sense of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: _hora quarta tempore hiemali (TH)_ and _hora quarta tempore aestivo (TA)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, _aestivus/hiemalis_ can qualify _hora_ directly: _hora quarta aestiva_ and _hora quarta hiemali_. I guess that could be considered &quot;sufficiently&quot; brief for everyday use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I have managed to find out [this](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/rc_latinitas_20040601_lexicon_it.html#1) excerpt of the Vatican-published _Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis_, which contains the term _hora legitima_ as a translation of the Italian [_ora legale_,](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ora_legale) which is used in that country to stand for the US &quot;Daylight Saving Time.&quot; Whether this is better than _hora aestiva/tempus aestivum_ is probably a matter of taste, but I feel that using _hora legitima_ will cause anyone who's not an Italian to scratch their heads." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10713" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2987" RevisionGUID="587cdda4-21cb-425f-917d-5158e7311cab" CreationDate="2017-03-29T22:57:45.223" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|example-request|case|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="125" RevisionGUID="1a9df497-d9bb-4720-995d-d87ea7a5e6e8" CreationDate="2017-03-30T02:28:11.950" UserId="124" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Well, without too much knowledge of any deeper, ulterior meanings to the phrase, I can certainly provide and analyze the literal translation for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And you, Brutus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *et* → a simple conjunction&#xD;&#xA;- *tu* → vocative, singular case of the second-person pronoun&#xD;&#xA;- *Brute* → vocative, singular case of the proper noun *Brutus* (2nd declension).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternative, fairly literal translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Even you, Brutus?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You too, Brutus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2990" RevisionGUID="bb01d526-77a9-4794-989c-99aca79e6bea" CreationDate="2017-03-30T04:31:18.443" UserId="1239" Text="I'm curious as to how to say &quot;interrogative mood&quot; in Latin. Is it *modus interrogativum*? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10717" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2990" RevisionGUID="bb01d526-77a9-4794-989c-99aca79e6bea" CreationDate="2017-03-30T04:31:18.443" UserId="1239" Text="How to say &quot;interrogative mood&quot;? Is it &quot;modus interrogativum&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10718" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2990" RevisionGUID="bb01d526-77a9-4794-989c-99aca79e6bea" CreationDate="2017-03-30T04:31:18.443" UserId="1239" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|grammarians|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2991" RevisionGUID="8f56dee1-19d0-451b-b1c8-f32debe96757" CreationDate="2017-03-30T04:45:20.993" UserId="78" Text="Were it such a thing, it would be *modus interrogativus*, since *modus* is masculine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2992" RevisionGUID="4801f9ad-3af2-4243-af75-5b6a8521dc21" CreationDate="2017-03-30T07:02:54.210" UserId="235" Text="The verb εὔχομαι means &quot;to pray&quot;, and it shows up before the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) as προσεύχεσθε. I was curious to learn more about this word, so of course I looked it up in Wiktionary, and found this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From Proto-Indo-European *h₁wegʷʰ-. Cognates include Sanskrit ओहते&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (óhate), वाघत् (vāghat), Avestan  (aoǰaite), Old&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Armenian գոգեմ (gogem) and Latin voveō.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [εὔχομαι][1] • (eúkhomai)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to pray, offer prayers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was surprised to find the Latin word *voveo* listed as a cognate. Could someone explain how these two words share similar descent? Unfortunately, I do not know how to read IE asterisk notation (is there a more appropriate name for this?) so I request that you go easy on me :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B5%E1%BD%94%CF%87%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9#Ancient_Greek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10721" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2992" RevisionGUID="4801f9ad-3af2-4243-af75-5b6a8521dc21" CreationDate="2017-03-30T07:02:54.210" UserId="235" Text="How are εὔχομαι and voveo cognates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10722" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2992" RevisionGUID="4801f9ad-3af2-4243-af75-5b6a8521dc21" CreationDate="2017-03-30T07:02:54.210" UserId="235" Text="|etymology|greek|proto-indo-european|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2979" RevisionGUID="b8241d4e-ddf1-474c-85e9-349a9c968a0d" CreationDate="2017-03-30T09:14:55.427" UserId="1289" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="My first instinct was that this is, at the very least, not common in classical Latin, and should only happen with participles that are basically adjectives and have lost some of their verbal semantics, like *sapiens* or *patiens*. The reason I think that, is that a present participle is perfectly capable of standing on its own in Latin, it doesn't need an actual conjugated form to accompany it and signal its verbal status.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I'm a corpus guy, and I'd love to be able to just query for this kind of thing. But since I'm not exactly there yet with my scanning engine, I have looked for nominative participles + esse in raw data by just going over part of my verse corpus manually for a minute or two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two results seem to corroborate my intuitive hypothesis (which are fancy words for &quot;hunch&quot;). The last ones, if properly read, seem to be examples of what you're looking for. So yes, it does occur sporadically, but the question remains how much of the verbal meaning is left over. Are these adjectivized verbs, or adjectives derived from verbs ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nostra nocens anima est. ego te, miseranda, peremi, (Ov. Met. IV, 110)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verticibusque frequens erat atque inpervius amnis. (Ov. Met. IX, 106)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non poteram, longi patiens erat ille laboris. (Ov. Met. V, 611)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conveniens Venus est annis temeraria nostris. (Ov. Met. IX, 553)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2993" RevisionGUID="2177f48f-3caf-4302-a49c-f0e3b419657f" CreationDate="2017-03-30T13:17:25.257" UserId="1224" Text="Before I knew much of any Latin, I watched the lyrics to Keith Massey's cover of Hello and studied the lyrics. Then, I didn't understand how *tu* could be *tibi* and *ego* can be *me*. In fact, I think the only things I was sure of at this point were pronunciation and a few infinitives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, now I understand most of the lyrics; they'd helped me to practice phrases and cases swiftly. Yet, I still remained confused at this one excerpt from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tibi dicere me paenitere pro omnibus quae feci&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since, I have translated it literally. (They differ slightly from the original lyrics a times.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to tell you to forgive me for everything which I have done&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, why *quae*? This is clearly the neuter, plural, and accusative form of *quis*. But, wouldn't that mean *what*? I don't understand. A search on a relatively specific and thorough dictionary site (Wiktionary) retrieves only data about *who* and *what*. I would use Cassel's, but I left my copy at home. So, any ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10725" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2993" RevisionGUID="2177f48f-3caf-4302-a49c-f0e3b419657f" CreationDate="2017-03-30T13:17:25.257" UserId="1224" Text="Can &quot;Quae&quot; Be &quot;Which&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10726" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2993" RevisionGUID="2177f48f-3caf-4302-a49c-f0e3b419657f" CreationDate="2017-03-30T13:17:25.257" UserId="1224" Text="|translation|word-request|definitions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2994" RevisionGUID="7624a620-0258-424d-9c32-8e0dc8b4c011" CreationDate="2017-03-30T14:15:24.360" UserId="45" Text="## Criticism of Latin Translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, a brief criticism of the Latin text that you are using as a source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Expressing purpose**: The English of the song is a purpose clause, i.e. &quot;in order to tell you...&quot; Though later Latin can use an infinitive for this, it is more standard to use *ut* + subjunctive. See [my answer to another question about purpose clauses](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1425/how-do-you-show-an-infinitive-for-reason/1426#1426) for other options. I did a brief Google search, and it looks like the prevailing Latin translation actually says &quot;[ut tibi narrarem](http://lyricstranslate.com/en/hello-salve.html).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* **Sorry &quot;for&quot; something**: Based on my ear and the options in [Lewis and Short](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1425/how-do-you-show-an-infinitive-for-reason/1426#1426), I have never seen *me paenitet pro* + ablative to mean &quot;I am sorry for X.&quot; Genitive is far more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a stylistic observation, I would also change &quot;omnium quae feci&quot; (=for everything I have done) to &quot;meorum factorum&quot; (=for my deeds), in the mold of Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; me tamen meorum factorum atque consiliorum numquam, patres conscripti, paenitebit. (Cic. *In Catalinam IV* 20.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My proposed translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tibi ut dicam me paenitere meorum factorum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So much for a &quot;brief&quot; criticism!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Your English translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your translation is spot on except for one thing: *aliquem paenitere...* does not mean &quot;forgive someone&quot; but rather &quot;cause sorrow to someone.&quot; *Me paenitet* is the standard way of saying &quot;I am sorry&quot; (lit: &quot;it pains me&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why *quae*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This part of the Latin is perfectly good, though I like my proposed translation above better. You are thinking of [*quis, quis, quid*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquis1), which is an **interrogative pronoun** meaning &quot;who, what.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, it is using the very similar [*qui, quae, quod*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dqui1), which is a **relative pronoun**, translated to English as &quot;who, which, that.&quot; The relative pronoun agrees in gender and number with its &quot;antecedent&quot; (the word it is &quot;standing in&quot; for) and changes its case based on context. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homo quem vides improbus est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;The man *whom* you see is bad.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English uses &quot;which&quot; when the antecedent is neuter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bellum quod geris iniustum est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;The war which you are waging is unjust.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read more about relative clauses [here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Apart%3D2%3Asection%3D4%3Asubsection%3D5%3Asmythp%3D303)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2995" RevisionGUID="3291529e-0b08-44a8-a5fc-0a39396845b7" CreationDate="2017-03-30T15:20:59.093" UserId="1369" Text="Suetonius, in his work _Vita Divi Iuli_, reports the last words of Caesar being Greek καὶ σὺ τέκνον; which is the original source of Shakespeare's line, translated into Latin fairly literally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the conjunction καὶ becomes its equivalent _et_;&#xD;&#xA;* the pronoun σὺ becomes its equivalent _tu_,&#xD;&#xA;* [τέκνον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dte%2Fknon) &quot;child&quot; is replaced by M. Iunius Brutus's own _cognomen_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative Latin translation, familiar to readers of _Astérix_, is the similar _Tu quoque, fili_: here τέκνον is translated by the equivalent _filius_, but the conjunction _et_ &quot;and, too&quot; becomes _quoque_ &quot;as well, too, even.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the meaning is simple: Caesar was chastising Brutus for being among the conspirators, that he expected better from him. &quot;Even you, son?&quot; or &quot;You, too, Brutus?&quot; are standard renderings in English. Because of the simplicity of the phrase, it is rather straightforward to interpret and difficult to ascribe variant readings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2983" RevisionGUID="d0870b18-ba39-498b-baa2-3039a34c8df5" CreationDate="2017-03-30T16:23:06.443" UserId="1381" Comment="Adding first translation attempt" Text="I'm working on a project that may use one or more Latin phrases that refer directly to a US state or its nickname, but I'm having difficulty interpreting which translation of the word &quot;state&quot; would be best for each of these situations or if they are interchangeable.  From what I understand, *civitas* refers to the social body, the constituency, or the community of citizens while *res publica* tends to be more about the government and authority, but can refer to the geographic boundaries (which also makes me question whether it should be the translation of *land*).  I guess my question is if *res publica* were used in the translation of *The State of Minnesota*, would it then be used in the translations for *The Gopher State*, *The North Star State*, and *The State of Hockey*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other names/nicknames that I am looking to translate are as follows.  I may consider prepending them with *From* as in *From the State of Minnesota*.  Any assistance would be appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The State of Minnesota&#xD;&#xA; - The Gopher State&#xD;&#xA; - The North Star State&#xD;&#xA; - The State of Hockey&#xD;&#xA; - The Land of 10,000 Lakes&#xD;&#xA; - The State of Texas&#xD;&#xA; - The Lone Star State&#xD;&#xA; - The Friendship State&#xD;&#xA; - The State of Illinois&#xD;&#xA; - The Prairie State&#xD;&#xA; - The Corn State&#xD;&#xA; - The Land of Lincoln&#xD;&#xA; - The State of California&#xD;&#xA; - The Golden State&#xD;&#xA; - The El Dorado State&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE #1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to input below and from friends, here is my first pass on the translations.  A couple of notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A couple of the non-Latin words I couldn't figure out the appropriate declension or word order for, mainly *thomomys* and *El Dorado*, so those probably are wrong.&#xD;&#xA; - I couldn't find a word for *gopher*.  I'm guessing this is because this is a New World rodent, so I used the genus from the scientific name for the northern pocket gopher, Thomomys talpoides, though that has more Greek roots.&#xD;&#xA; - For *land*, I ended up choosing between *terra* and *tellus*.  It seemed to me that *terra* is more about geography while *tellus* is more about a community and selected them for *The Land of 10,000 Lakes* and *The Land of Lincoln* respectively.&#xD;&#xA; - As far as *10,000*, I wasn't sure if that should be written out as the words *decem millium* or the Roman Numeral X-bar.  Vicipaedia had it as words, so that's how I have it below.&#xD;&#xA; - For *corn*, it's unclear whether that's referring specifically to the crop or farming of cereal crops in general, so I put a couple of different words below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The State of Minnesota  &#xD;&#xA;civitas Minnesotae  &#xD;&#xA;ex civitate Minnesotae  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Gopher State  &#xD;&#xA;civitas thomomys  &#xD;&#xA;ex civitate thomomys  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The North Star State  &#xD;&#xA;civitas stellae septentrionalis  &#xD;&#xA;ex civitate stellae septentrionalis  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The State of Hockey  &#xD;&#xA;civitas pilamallei super glaciem  &#xD;&#xA;ex civitate pilamallei super glaciem  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Land of 10,000 Lakes  &#xD;&#xA;terra decem millium lacuum  &#xD;&#xA;ex terra decem millium lacuum  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The State of Texas  &#xD;&#xA;civitas Texiae  &#xD;&#xA;ex civitate Texiae  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lone Star State  &#xD;&#xA;civitas solae stellae  &#xD;&#xA;ex civitate solae stellae  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Friendship State  &#xD;&#xA;civitas amicitiae  &#xD;&#xA;ex civitate amicitiae  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The State of Illinois  &#xD;&#xA;civitas Illinoesiae  &#xD;&#xA;ex civitate Illinoesiae  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Prairie State  &#xD;&#xA;civitas prati  &#xD;&#xA;ex civitate prati  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Corn State  &#xD;&#xA;civitas frumenti/frugis/grani  &#xD;&#xA;ex civitate frumenti/frugis/grani  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Land of Lincoln  &#xD;&#xA;tellus Lincolnii  &#xD;&#xA;ex tellure Lincolnii  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The State of California  &#xD;&#xA;civitas Californiae  &#xD;&#xA;ex civitate Californiae  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Golden State  &#xD;&#xA;civitas aurea  &#xD;&#xA;ex civitate aurea  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The El Dorado State  &#xD;&#xA;civitas El Dorado  &#xD;&#xA;ex civitate El Dorado  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2996" RevisionGUID="dfd5618e-4c58-456e-973a-da3baac25620" CreationDate="2017-03-30T16:40:07.387" UserId="406" Text="The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form listed is __*h₁wegʷʰ-__ &quot;to promise, vow, praise&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *h₁* is a &quot;laryngeal consonant&quot;, so-called because we don't know what else to call it. The most common theory is that there were three consonants that acted similarly, and since nobody knew what they were, they were written as *h* with a subscript. *h₁* was most likely either like Latin *h*, or a glottal stop.&#xD;&#xA; - *w* is a &quot;consonantal *u*&quot;, like Latin *v*.&#xD;&#xA; - *e* is a short vowel probably like Latin *e*.&#xD;&#xA; - *gʷʰ* is the weirdest one. The standard reconstruction of PIE involves voiced aspirated consonants, but these are not particularly common, and this analysis leads to several other very strange features (such as the lack of a *b* sound). Other theories have been put forth but they have their own flaws. So in the standard theory, *gʷʰ* is like Latin *qu*, but voiced and aspirated.&#xD;&#xA; - And the hyphen at the end means this is just a stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One particular form of this verb was the causative, __*h₁wogʷʰ-éye-__.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - The *e* became an *o*, which is a common though not entirely understood occurrence in PIE: consider Greek *leg-ō* and *log-os*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This led to a Proto-Italic form __*wogʷ-e-ō__.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - The laryngeal disappeared entirely, which they tend to do.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - The *gʷʰ* lost its aspiration, which regularly happened in Italic.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *-ō* was a standard verb ending, as seen in Greek and Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And this became Latin __vov-eō__.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *gʷ* became plain *w*, written as *v* in Latin. This was again a regular process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another form of this verb was __*h₁ewgʰ-__.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - The *e* and *w* switched places, a not-unheard-of process called metathesis.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Then the *gʷʰ* lost its *ʷ* when right next to the *w*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - *I believe this is the Boukolos Rule?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This became __eukʰ-__ in Hellenic.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - The laryngeal vanished as usual.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Greek kept the aspiration distinctions that Latin lost, but removed voicing from aspirated consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - The consonant *w* became the vowel *u*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Greek, this was written __eúkhomai (εὔχομαι)__.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *-o-mai* is simply a thematic vowel + personal ending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2996" RevisionGUID="36418aa0-463d-4fde-bc71-bf9c5c08a62c" CreationDate="2017-03-30T16:53:12.797" UserId="406" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form listed is __*h₁wegʷʰ-__ &quot;to promise, vow, praise&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *h₁* is a &quot;laryngeal consonant&quot;, so-called because we don't know what else to call it. The most common theory is that there were three consonants that acted similarly, and since nobody knew what they were, they were written as *h* with a subscript. *h₁* was most likely either like Latin *h*, or a glottal stop.&#xD;&#xA; - *w* is a &quot;consonantal *u*&quot;, like Latin *v*.&#xD;&#xA; - *e* is a short vowel probably like Latin *e*.&#xD;&#xA; - *gʷʰ* is the weirdest one. The standard reconstruction of PIE involves voiced aspirated consonants, but these are not particularly common, and this analysis leads to several other very strange features (such as the lack of a *b* sound). Other theories have been put forth but they have their own flaws. So in the standard theory, *gʷʰ* is like Latin *qu*, but voiced and aspirated.&#xD;&#xA; - And the hyphen at the end means this is just a stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Using quote boxes to separate the Greek and Latin derivations from this stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One particular form of this verb was the causative, __*h₁wogʷʰ-éye-__.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - The *e* became an *o*, which is a common though not entirely understood occurrence in PIE: consider Greek *leg-ō* and *log-os*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This led to a Proto-Italic form __*wogʷ-e-ō__.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - The laryngeal disappeared entirely, which they tend to do.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - The *gʷʰ* lost its aspiration, which regularly happened in Italic.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *-ō* was a standard verb ending, as seen in Greek and Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And this became Latin __vov-eō__.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *gʷ* became plain *w*, written as *v* in Latin. This was again a regular process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another form of this verb was __*h₁ewgʰ-__.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - The *e* and *w* switched places, a not-unheard-of process called metathesis.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Then the *gʷʰ* lost its *ʷ* when right next to the *w*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - *I believe this is the Boukolos Rule?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This became __eukʰ-__ in Hellenic.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - The laryngeal vanished as usual.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Greek kept the aspiration distinctions that Latin lost, but removed voicing from aspirated consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - The consonant *w* became the vowel *u*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Greek, this was written __eúkhomai (εὔχομαι)__.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *-o-mai* is simply a thematic vowel + personal ending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2996" RevisionGUID="abc3bdb2-fe82-450a-b873-e3ff5eed2d22" CreationDate="2017-03-30T17:02:25.917" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 100 characters in body" Text="The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form listed is __*h₁wegʷʰ-__ &quot;to promise, vow, praise&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *h₁* is a &quot;laryngeal consonant&quot;, so-called because we don't know what else to call it. The most common theory is that there were three consonants that acted similarly, and since nobody knew what they were, they were written as *h* with a subscript. *h₁* was most likely either like Latin *h*, or a glottal stop.&#xD;&#xA; - *w* is a &quot;consonantal *u*&quot;, like Latin *v*.&#xD;&#xA; - *e* is a short vowel probably like Latin *e*.&#xD;&#xA; - *gʷʰ* is the weirdest one. The standard reconstruction of PIE involves voiced aspirated consonants, but these are not particularly common, and this analysis leads to several other very strange features (such as the lack of a *b* sound). Other theories have been put forth but they have their own flaws. So in the standard theory, *gʷʰ* is like Latin *qu*, but voiced and aspirated.&#xD;&#xA; - And the hyphen at the end means this is just a stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Latin derivation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One particular form of this verb was the causative, __*h₁wogʷʰ-éye-__.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The *e* became an *o*, which is a common though not entirely understood occurrence in PIE: consider Greek *leg-ō* and *log-os*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This led to a Proto-Italic form __*wogʷ-e-ō__.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The laryngeal disappeared entirely, which they tend to do.&#xD;&#xA; - The *gʷʰ* lost its aspiration, which regularly happened in Italic.&#xD;&#xA; - *-ō* was a standard verb ending, as seen in Greek and Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this became Latin __vov-eō__.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *gʷ* became plain *w*, written as *v* in Latin. This was again a regular process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Greek derivation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another form of this verb was __*h₁ewgʰ-__.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The *e* and *w* switched places, a not-unheard-of process called metathesis.&#xD;&#xA; - Then the *gʷʰ* lost its *ʷ* when right next to the *w*.&#xD;&#xA;  - *I believe this is the Boukolos Rule?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This became __eukʰ-__ in Hellenic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The laryngeal vanished as usual.&#xD;&#xA; - Greek kept the aspiration distinctions that Latin lost, but removed voicing from aspirated consonants.&#xD;&#xA; - The consonant *w* became the vowel *u*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek, this was written __eúkhomai (εὔχομαι)__.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *-o-mai* is simply a thematic vowel + personal ending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2997" RevisionGUID="5c04fa4f-660c-4f71-9c8b-37c5ed6b7cd6" CreationDate="2017-03-30T17:41:16.607" UserId="45" Text="I agree with C. M. Weimer's response and have found three authors who use *curricula vitae* in their writings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Cicero&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ante Socratem Democritum Anaxagoram Empedoclem omnes paene veteres, qui nihil cognosci nihil percipi nihil sciri posse dixerunt, angustos sensus imbecillos animos brevia **curricula vitae** et ut Democritus in profundo veritatem esse demersam.... (Cicero *Academica* 44.5-10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt;sup&gt;Before Socrates, Democritus, Anaxagoras, and Empedocles almost all the old [philosophers] said that nothing could be understood, perceived, or known, that senses are narrow, souls are feeble, and **life's courses** are short, and  that, as Democritus said, the truth is deeply submerged.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Marcus Cornelius Fronto (2nd c. AD)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; adulescentiae iuventuti prolixa **vitae curricula** data sunt. (Fronto, *Ad Amicos Epistulae* 2.7.19.14)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt;sup&gt;Long **stretches of life** are given to young adulthood and youth.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Zeno of Verona (4th c. AD)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; in ultimis **uitae curriculis** Sarrae uterum filius aperuit (Zeno of Verona, *Tractatus* 1.59.1.9)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt;sup&gt;In the **last stages of life** a son opened the womb of Sarah.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that examples (2) and (3) are not especially cogent because they appear to referring to one life. In this case, a *curriculum* is not a &quot;full course&quot; of a life, but a particular &quot;stretch&quot; of that course. (Remember, the analogy is to a racetrack.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero's example, though, clearly refers to multiple &quot;life courses,&quot; and should be taken as the model. I found no examples of plural *curricula* paired with plural *vitarum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For reference, [here is a link to the corpus search](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23curricul+~+%23vit&amp;first=11) that I used.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2997" RevisionGUID="a14795e5-1c64-4815-ab09-518e6e716176" CreationDate="2017-03-30T17:59:45.563" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="I agree with C. M. Weimer's response and have found three authors who use *curricula vitae* in their writings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Cicero&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ante Socratem Democritum Anaxagoram Empedoclem omnes paene veteres, qui nihil cognosci nihil percipi nihil sciri posse dixerunt, angustos sensus imbecillos animos brevia **curricula vitae** et ut Democritus in profundo veritatem esse demersam.... (Cicero *Academica* 44.5-10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt;sup&gt;Before Socrates, Democritus, Anaxagoras, and Empedocles almost all the old [philosophers] said that nothing could be understood, perceived, or known, that senses are narrow, souls are feeble, and **life's courses** are short, and  that, as Democritus said, the truth is deeply submerged.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Marcus Cornelius Fronto (2nd c. AD)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; adulescentiae iuventuti prolixa **vitae curricula** data sunt. (Fronto, *Ad Amicos Epistulae* 2.7.19.14)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt;sup&gt;Long **stretches of life** are given to young adulthood and youth.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Zeno of Verona (4th c. AD)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; in ultimis **uitae curriculis** Sarrae uterum filius aperuit (Zeno of Verona, *Tractatus* 1.59.1.9)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt;sup&gt;In the **last stages of life** a son opened the womb of Sarah.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that examples (2) and (3) are not especially cogent because they are referring to one life. In this case, a *curriculum* is not a &quot;full course&quot; of a life, but a particular &quot;stretch&quot; of that course. (Remember, the analogy is to a racetrack.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero's example, though, clearly refers to multiple &quot;life courses,&quot; and should be taken as the model. I found no examples of plural *curricula* paired with plural *vitarum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For reference, [here is a link to the corpus search](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23curricul+~+%23vit&amp;first=11) that I used.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2996" RevisionGUID="5ce7c4a0-79d0-4317-a5f7-ef2911d7fae2" CreationDate="2017-03-30T19:05:48.263" UserId="406" Comment="Adding info" Text="The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form listed is __*h₁wegʷʰ-__ &quot;to promise, vow, praise&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *h₁* is a &quot;laryngeal consonant&quot;, so-called because we don't know what else to call it. The most common theory is that there were three consonants that acted similarly, and since nobody knew what they were, they were written as *h* with a subscript. *h₁* was most likely either like Latin *h*, or a glottal stop.&#xD;&#xA; - *w* is a &quot;consonantal *u*&quot;, like Latin *v*.&#xD;&#xA; - *e* is a short vowel probably like Latin *e*.&#xD;&#xA; - *gʷʰ* is the weirdest one. The standard reconstruction of PIE involves voiced aspirated consonants, but these are not particularly common, and this analysis leads to several other very strange features (such as the lack of a *b* sound). Other theories have been put forth but they have their own flaws. So in the standard theory, *gʷʰ* is like Latin *qu*, but voiced and aspirated.&#xD;&#xA; - And the hyphen at the end means this is just a stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Latin derivation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One particular form of this verb was the causative, __*h₁wogʷʰ-éye-__.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The *e* became an *o*, which is a common though not entirely understood occurrence in PIE: consider Greek *leg-ō* and *log-os*. It's generally called Ablaut because it was first noted by German linguists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This led to a Proto-Italic form __*wogʷ-e-ō__.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The laryngeal disappeared entirely, which they tend to do.&#xD;&#xA; - The *gʷʰ* lost its aspiration, which regularly happened in Italic.&#xD;&#xA; - *-ō* was a standard verb ending, as seen in Greek and Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this became Latin __vov-eō__.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *gʷ* became plain *w*, written as *v* in Latin. This was again a regular process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Greek derivation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another form of this verb was __*h₁ewgʰ-__.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The *e* and *w* switched places, a not-unheard-of process called metathesis.&#xD;&#xA; - Then the *gʷʰ* lost its *ʷ* when right next to the *w*.&#xD;&#xA;  - This is called the Boukolos Rule, because the first example discovered was Greek _βουκόλος_ = _boukólos_ &lt; _*gʷou-kolos_ &lt; _*gʷou-kʷolos_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This became __eukʰ-__ in Hellenic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The laryngeal vanished as usual.&#xD;&#xA; - Greek kept the aspiration distinctions that Latin lost, but removed voicing from aspirated consonants.&#xD;&#xA; - The consonant *w* became the vowel *u*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek, this was written __eúkhomai (εὔχομαι)__.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *-o-mai* is simply a thematic vowel + personal ending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2998" RevisionGUID="4d13d943-f3c4-47c3-b684-0994192c71b3" CreationDate="2017-03-30T19:24:52.907" UserId="1385" Text="I am working on an art project that I would like to collect the hundreds of different transliterations of 「中文」 zhōng wén in Mandarin Chinese. (Pronunciation available here: https://translate.google.com/#zh-CN/de/中文)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I transliterate zhōng wén in Latin? (For example, &quot;zhong wen&quot; would be the closest pronunciation in English.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10740" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2998" RevisionGUID="4d13d943-f3c4-47c3-b684-0994192c71b3" CreationDate="2017-03-30T19:24:52.907" UserId="1385" Text="How to transliterate 中文 in Mandarin pronunciation to Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10741" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2998" RevisionGUID="4d13d943-f3c4-47c3-b684-0994192c71b3" CreationDate="2017-03-30T19:24:52.907" UserId="1385" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1942" RevisionGUID="0505beed-c971-4581-b9ab-36c4d609daca" CreationDate="2017-03-30T19:30:20.053" UserId="1224" Comment="Fixed grammar, word choice, and capitalization" Text="Whereas the Latin language was used by almost every scientist until the 18th century, this is a fact that since then the use of Latin in scientific publication has fastly decreased: the best example of it is Newton, who wrote in Latin at the beginning of his career and in English at the end of it. Though the Wikipedia article on [`New Latin`](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Latin&amp;oldid=745912714#Decline) gives some interesting details on the subject, I remain unsatisfied by the explanation given (not very long nor very well-argued).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would like to know what reasons for that extinction have been given by scholars, historians, or what you will. In particular, can we make a link between that evolution and the controversy around the abbey of Port-Royal (the so-called *jansenism*)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your answers!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10743" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1942" RevisionGUID="0505beed-c971-4581-b9ab-36c4d609daca" CreationDate="2017-03-30T19:30:20.053" Comment="Proposed by 1224 approved by 469, 12 edit id of 177" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2999" RevisionGUID="0e6601b3-a5b5-4887-b855-4627e09dcaa4" CreationDate="2017-03-30T19:35:48.547" UserId="78" Text="Actually *zhong wen* isn't the closest in English. Though that is the official transliteration, Pinyin wasn't created solely from English pronunciation. In English, it would be *jong wen.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, Latin does not have the *zh* (*ch* in Wade-Giles, the *j* I listed above) sound, nor the ʃ (*sh*) sound, so any attempts would be an approximate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without trying to &quot;Latinize&quot; it, just pure representation, I'd offer: ZONGVEN." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10745" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2998" RevisionGUID="3503e9c0-457c-4cc2-90a4-9278de1cd641" CreationDate="2017-03-30T19:38:12.733" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|pronunciation|transliteration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3000" RevisionGUID="1d3eb19d-a1a6-4e8d-9594-30998f3eadbe" CreationDate="2017-03-30T19:48:40.813" UserId="94" Text="In [another 17th century ecclesiastical Latin book I'm reading](https://books.google.com/books?id=uTdRAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA6#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), *Creaturae ad Poenitentiam Dispositio*, the author speaks of someone who goes &quot;over the top&quot; in humility, claiming to be the worst of the worst, worse than Judas Iscariot, worse than Lucifer. He says of the pastor or spiritual advisor of such a person:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Utinam, etiam in conferta turba clamet, ut impudentissimum canem de ecclesia ostiarii pellant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which I translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If only he would cry out [the comma seems oddly placed here], even in a packed crowd, that they throw this most impudent dog from the church of the door.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely this should read &quot;from the door of the church&quot;? Or am I missing something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10747" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3000" RevisionGUID="1d3eb19d-a1a6-4e8d-9594-30998f3eadbe" CreationDate="2017-03-30T19:48:40.813" UserId="94" Text="Is my Latin translation wrong, or is the original wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10748" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3000" RevisionGUID="1d3eb19d-a1a6-4e8d-9594-30998f3eadbe" CreationDate="2017-03-30T19:48:40.813" UserId="94" Text="|translation|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3001" RevisionGUID="45bd063c-056b-4bd8-841c-1d4b024ed75c" CreationDate="2017-03-30T19:55:52.087" UserId="79" Text="*Ostiarii* is not a singular genitive but a plural nominative.&#xD;&#xA;It is the subject of *pellant*.&#xD;&#xA;The door keepers (*ostiarii*) are supposed to throw the dog out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subordinate concessive clause is in the middle of the main clause, and separated by commas from both sides.&#xD;&#xA;It does not look unusual to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3001" RevisionGUID="12c88e25-8a34-4b55-a6a4-875e0d53dced" CreationDate="2017-03-30T20:06:54.087" UserId="79" Comment="added 470 characters in body" Text="*Ostiarii* is not a singular genitive but a plural nominative.&#xD;&#xA;It is the subject of *pellant*.&#xD;&#xA;The door keepers (*ostiarii*) are supposed to throw the dog out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of ways to parse the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;In both ways I found something (the comma or the *ut*) is out of place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The subordinate concessive clause is in the middle of the main clause, and separated by commas from both sides.&#xD;&#xA;The main clause is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Utinam impudentissimum canem de ecclesia ostiarii pellant.*  &#xD;&#xA;If only the door keepers threw the impudent dog out of the church.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The main clause is the wish *Utinam etiam in conferta turba clamet* followed by an *ut* clause.&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be the way you read it and I agree that it makes more sense, but the comma indeed seems out of place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big difference between the two readings is that the two clauses have opposite roles (governing vs. subordinate)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3003" RevisionGUID="4860e406-79b5-43a7-a3b0-b96a219351ce" CreationDate="2017-03-30T20:48:07.903" UserId="79" Text="The purpose of motion can be expressed in several ways.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I would consider the following essentially equivalent (did I forget something?):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Ille me salutatum Romam venit.*&#xD;&#xA;2. *Ille me salutaturus Romam venit.*&#xD;&#xA;3. *Ille Romam venit, ut me salutaret.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in comparing these options, especially the first two.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference in meaning or nuance?&#xD;&#xA;Or is the supine perhaps preferred with verbs of motion even if there is no difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10754" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3003" RevisionGUID="4860e406-79b5-43a7-a3b0-b96a219351ce" CreationDate="2017-03-30T20:48:07.903" UserId="79" Text="Is there a difference between the future participle and the supine accusative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10755" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3003" RevisionGUID="4860e406-79b5-43a7-a3b0-b96a219351ce" CreationDate="2017-03-30T20:48:07.903" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|syntax|nuance|supinum|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2999" RevisionGUID="7f0e7ab3-f8f4-459e-b99b-da904805e6ea" CreationDate="2017-03-30T21:03:30.740" UserId="78" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Actually *zhong wen* isn't the closest in English. Though that is the official transliteration, Pinyin wasn't created solely from English pronunciation. In English, it would be *jong wen.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, Classical Latin does not have the *zh* (*ch* in Wade-Giles, the *j* I listed above) sound, nor the ʃ (*sh*) sound, so any attempts would be an approximate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without trying to &quot;Latinize&quot; it, just pure representation, I'd offer: ZONGVEN." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3000" RevisionGUID="0d9ea6b1-4af4-45ae-aaf4-4b3e30ac7157" CreationDate="2017-03-30T21:48:43.313" UserId="94" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="In [another 17th century ecclesiastical Latin book I'm reading](https://books.google.com/books?id=uTdRAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA6#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), *Creaturae ad Poenitentiam Dispositio*, the author speaks of someone who goes &quot;over the top&quot; in humility, claiming to be the worst of the worst, worse than Judas Iscariot, worse than Lucifer. He says of the pastor or spiritual advisor of such a person:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Utinam, etiam in conferta turba clamet, ut impudentissimum hunc canem de ecclesia ostiarii pellant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which I translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If only he would cry out [the comma seems oddly placed here], even in a packed crowd, that they throw this most impudent dog from the church of the door.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely this should read &quot;from the door of the church&quot;? Or am I missing something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3004" RevisionGUID="5a608e31-130e-421a-b965-2b00d1aed8e9" CreationDate="2017-03-30T22:43:43.213" UserId="406" Text="Chinese contains many sounds without Latin equivalents. These include (Pinyin) *zh* and *ng*, and the tones. So it comes down to how you'll approximate those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *zh* is /ʈʂ/, a retroflex affricate. Latin didn't have any affricates at all pronounced in that area of the mouth; while /ks/ and /ps/ were allowed, */ts/ couldn't occur in Classical Latin. So a Roman might have transcribed it as *TS*, or possibly as *D*, *T*, or simply *S*.&#xD;&#xA; - *ong* is /ʊŋ/. While /ŋ/ doesn't occur on its own in Classical Latin, /ʊ/ does: a short *U*.&#xD;&#xA;  - The closest equivalent for /ŋ/ is probably a simple *N*.&#xD;&#xA; - *wen* is /wən/. The closest thing to a schwa in Latin was probably the unstressed *I/U* in *OPT[I/U]MUS*, which Claudius tried to add a new letter for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a Roman might transcribe this as *TSUN VIN*, *SUN VUN*, *TUN VIN*, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3005" RevisionGUID="4353df3e-f34c-42e6-982a-416c6f41f013" CreationDate="2017-03-30T23:00:18.460" UserId="1202" Text="(I understand that questions about Greek are on topic here, apologies if this doesn't cover koine Greek)&#xA;&#xA;I'm wondering how to translate the following:&#xA;&#xA;Ό του Χριστου σταυρος φιλος ανθρωποις&#xA;&#xA;My translation is&#xA;&#xA;The cross of Christ is the love of men.&#xA;&#xA;But I hesitate to say I'm correct because I can't see the word for &quot;is&quot; (εστιν) anywhere in the Greek. Also the sentence just sounds silly in general.&#xA;&#xA;If my translation is correct, why is it that i can get away without writing &quot;εστιν&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10761" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3005" RevisionGUID="4353df3e-f34c-42e6-982a-416c6f41f013" CreationDate="2017-03-30T23:00:18.460" UserId="1202" Text="Is my translation correct (Koine Greek silly sentence)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10762" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3005" RevisionGUID="4353df3e-f34c-42e6-982a-416c6f41f013" CreationDate="2017-03-30T23:00:18.460" UserId="1202" Text="|translation|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3006" RevisionGUID="80a17541-d10f-42ae-ae90-622fca9a4d8f" CreationDate="2017-03-30T23:19:43.447" UserId="235" Text="Yes, you can leave out the verb &quot;to be&quot; in both Latin and Greek. But I would translate the sentence this way.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The cross of Christ is dear to men.&#xA;&#xA;The word φίλος can be an adjective meaning &quot;dear&quot;, or a substantive meaning &quot;friend&quot;. It does not mean &quot;love&quot;, however. That would be φιλία. &#xA;&#xA;I translated the sentence literally. You could also make a case for the dative of possession. But that would require a substantive use of φίλος. To me it makes more sense as an adjective meaning &quot;dear&quot;, but that's just me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3006" RevisionGUID="0d1e31be-520a-4e98-bb00-ef1b2092385f" CreationDate="2017-03-30T23:27:03.250" UserId="235" Comment="added 93 characters in body; deleted 224 characters in body" Text="Yes, you can leave out the verb &quot;to be&quot; in both Latin and Greek. But I would translate the sentence this way.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The cross of Christ is dear to men.&#xA;&#xA;The word φίλος can be an adjective meaning &quot;dear&quot;, or a substantive meaning &quot;friend&quot;. It does not mean &quot;love&quot;, however. That would be φιλία. &#xA;&#xA;You could also translate φίλος as &quot;beloved&quot;, e.g.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The cross of Christ is beloved by men." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3006" RevisionGUID="8e4b6a00-c70d-4b0a-bb37-95040962c73c" CreationDate="2017-03-30T23:33:21.713" UserId="235" Comment="added 73 characters in body; added 117 characters in body; deleted 3 characters in body; deleted 52 characters in body; deleted 52 characters in body" Text="Yes, you can leave out the verb &quot;to be&quot; in both Latin and Greek. But I have one issue with your translation. &#xA;&#xA;φίλος is not a noun meaning &quot;love&quot;. It is either an adjective meaning &quot;dear&quot; (or &quot;beloved&quot;) or a substantive meaning &quot;friend&quot;. The noun meaning &quot;love&quot; would be φιλία. (Keep in mind there are many words for love, each having its own nuance.)&#xA;&#xA;There's more than one way to translate it, but this would be my preference.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The cross of Christ is dear to men." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3006" RevisionGUID="fd02630f-fc30-4768-8dc5-e8fc4a79f926" CreationDate="2017-03-30T23:49:32.310" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; added 3 characters in body" Text="Indeed, you can leave out the verb &quot;to be&quot; in both Latin and Greek. But I have one issue with your translation. &#xA;&#xA;φίλος is not a noun meaning &quot;love&quot;. It is either an adjective meaning &quot;dear&quot; (or &quot;beloved&quot;) or a substantive meaning &quot;friend&quot;. The noun meaning &quot;love&quot; would be φιλία. (Keep in mind there are many words for love, each having its own nuance.)&#xA;&#xA;There's more than one way to translate it, but I might go with this.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The cross of Christ is dear to men." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3005" RevisionGUID="8a7aa027-91bf-4b90-8a94-ca2098d68065" CreationDate="2017-03-31T01:30:15.280" UserId="45" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="(I understand that questions about Greek are on topic here, apologies if this doesn't cover Koine Greek.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering how to translate the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ό του Χριστου σταυρος φιλος ανθρωποις&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The cross of Christ is the love of men.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I hesitate to say I'm correct because I can't see the word for &quot;is&quot; (εστιν) anywhere in the Greek. Also the sentence just sounds silly in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my translation is correct, why is it that I can get away without writing &quot;εστιν&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3007" RevisionGUID="1d5a11d2-c8d3-4847-9005-b86b162091ff" CreationDate="2017-03-31T07:55:43.827" UserId="645" Text="Yes, there certainly is a difference, which is that between adjective and noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several ways to express a purpose. Beginning your sentence with *Romam venit*, you might use the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. . . . *me salutatum* — the supine accusative (used like an infinitive after a verb of motion)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. . . . *ut me salutaret* — final clause with *ut* + subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. . . . *qui me salutaret* — relative with subjunctive (to indicate either purpose or consequence)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. . . . *ad me salutandum* — gerundive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. . . . *mei salutandi causa* — gerund*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But: the future participle *salutaturus*  can only qualify the subject of the main verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*me salutaturus Romam venit* — the future participle (expressing intention to follow the action of the main verb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice, as ever, depends on the context and the writer's personal preference.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3003" RevisionGUID="e7d05ff6-b72c-4793-aa9d-d51155ab9f33" CreationDate="2017-03-31T08:38:47.647" UserId="79" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="The purpose of motion can be expressed in several ways.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I would consider the following essentially equivalent (did I forget something?):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Ille me salutatum Romam venit.*&#xD;&#xA;2. *Ille me salutaturus Romam venit.*&#xD;&#xA;3. *Ille Romam venit, ut me salutaret.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in comparing these options, especially the first two.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference in meaning or nuance?&#xD;&#xA;Or is the supine perhaps preferred with verbs of motion even if there is no difference?&#xD;&#xA;I know there is a difference in syntax; the question is about differences in meaning between the sentences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3008" RevisionGUID="27ab7679-ee1a-447f-a4b5-b133e67d0e73" CreationDate="2017-03-31T09:51:10.423" UserId="1388" Text="What about *αρνησικυρία?* (pr. arnisikiria) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, apologies, I speak only modern Greek. But it might be of some help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Αρνησικυρία formally means veto, but I've heard it being used as the refusal of an authority to accept a law or conviction; authorities being able to do so more easily than individuals, of course. So it's not exactly &quot;when it's okay to break the rules&quot;, it's more &quot;I openly declare that I will not accept the legal decision&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I got the hint from your other question [here][1] which is the continuation of the present one :) *-κυρία* refers to either κυριαρχία (dominion) or κύρωση (sanction). Άρνηση is refusal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2301/are-you-familiar-with-the-greek-word-epicharia-or-epikaria" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3009" RevisionGUID="917d65f7-e392-4492-9013-20b64d3fd1e1" CreationDate="2017-03-31T10:03:35.870" UserId="1388" Text="Short answer: No :) I'm a native Greek speaker with some knowledge of ancient Greek and neither epicharia nor epikaria rings a bell, while Google doesn't return anything that can lead to associations. (Epicharia seems to be the name of a saint, but its form can easily be recognized as, precisely, a constructed name.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long answer: Please see my answer [to the original question][1]. It's quite probable that the second part in your friend's word is actually -κυρία, which is found in many words and has legal significance. So I suggested αρνησικυρία. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Thinking aloud: επικυριαρχία or επικύρωση would be closer to the OP but they have the opposite meaning. Επικυρία sounds phonetically correct, but it doesn't seem to be an actual word; all its Google results are actually about επικουρία, assistance.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2241/what-ancient-greek-word-or-idea-signifies-a-knowledge-of-when-to-break-the-rules" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2993" RevisionGUID="2b58f215-7f13-4f41-886a-f1dbf2b53e89" CreationDate="2017-03-31T13:16:30.453" UserId="1224" Comment="Fixed typos and stuff" Text="Before I knew much of any Latin, I watched the lyrics to Keith Massey's cover of Hello and studied the lyrics. Then, I didn't understand how *tu* could be *tibi* and *ego* can be *me*. In fact, I think the only things I was sure of at this point were pronunciation and a few infinitives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I now understand most of the lyrics; they'd helped me to practice phrases and cases swiftly. Yet, I still remained confused at this one excerpt from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tibi dicere me paenitere pro omnibus quae feci&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since, I have translated it literally. (They differ slightly from the original lyrics at times.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to tell you to forgive me for everything which I have done&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, why *quae*? This is clearly the neuter, plural, and accusative form of *quis*. But, wouldn't that mean *what*? I don't understand. A search on a relatively specific and thorough dictionary site (Wiktionary) retrieves only data about *who* and *what*. I would use Cassell's, but I left my copy at home. So, any ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10775" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="2248" RevisionGUID="842a2eec-b6e1-41ad-9ce6-0ed1a78c9688" CreationDate="2017-03-31T14:20:31.280" UserId="78" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3007" RevisionGUID="6fdf5638-76db-4e90-9194-228e95a79367" CreationDate="2017-03-31T16:03:33.487" UserId="645" Comment="correction to example of fut. part." Text="Yes, there certainly is a difference, which is that between adjective and noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several ways to express a purpose. Beginning your sentence with *Romam venit*, you might use the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. . . . *me salutatum* — the supine accusative (used like an infinitive after a verb of motion)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. . . . *ut me salutaret* — final clause with *ut* + subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. . . . *qui me salutaret* — relative with subjunctive (to indicate either purpose or consequence)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. . . . *ad me salutandum* — gerundive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. . . . *mei salutandi causa* — gerund*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in the OP example the future participle *salutaturus*  can only qualify the subject of the main verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*me salutaturus Romam venit* — the future participle (expressing intention to follow the action of the main verb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice, as ever, depends on the context and the writer's personal preference.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3010" RevisionGUID="dabfd694-73e6-44c9-b2b2-142c6588bb83" CreationDate="2017-03-31T17:12:09.197" UserId="985" Text="The main difference between the supine and the future participle, as I see it, is that the supine is unambiguous about its expression of purpose, whereas the future participle allows for a wide range of meanings, of which purpose/intention is one. Allen &amp; Greenough (§499) give this summary of the range of meanings (with examples):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Likelihood or certainty (so translated as, e.g., 'about to,' 'likely to,' and even 'destined to,')&#xD;&#xA;+ Purpose, intention, or readiness ('in order to,' 'intending to,' 'ready to')&#xD;&#xA;+ Apodosis ('then' clause of a condition)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the idea of purpose may have to be teased out from, e.g., the idea of likelihood – or both ideas may conceivably be active at the same time, I suppose. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, as Allen &amp; Greenough note (§498), the use of the future participle for anything except the future periphrastic (with a form of _sum_) is rarely found except in 'poets and later writers.' So genre and period are also factors in the choice between supine and future participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A particular author's personal style would also be a factor. Although A&amp;G use Pliny as an example only for the last usage (_dedit mihi quantum maximum potuit, **daturus** amplius si potuisset_ [Ep. 3.21.6], 'he gave me as much as e could, ready to give me more if he had been able,' where _daturus_ is equivalent to _dedisset_), they could easily have cited passages from his letters for the others too. It was from reading Pliny that I gained a true appreciation for the expressive potential of the future participle, and I associate them strongly with his prose style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And obviously, the supine can't be used unless there's a verb of motion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3011" RevisionGUID="5e1522bc-a86b-4dac-8f10-0c6d87123f87" CreationDate="2017-03-31T22:28:15.740" UserId="1386" Text="The general rule for distinguishing a question in Latin is the suffix &quot;-ne&quot;. For example, LicetNE mihi ire ad latrinam roughly translates to Permission for me to go to the bathroom? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3012" RevisionGUID="79b8fdf0-48f3-4525-a808-b5d88c00c5a4" CreationDate="2017-03-31T22:37:36.673" UserId="1386" Text="Latin was typically the language of the educated (those who could read and write). It wasn't until after the Middle Ages, that textbooks, such as those about medicine and maps, were written in the language of the common people. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3013" RevisionGUID="4244030c-5ebf-4d3b-94b7-02f485fe4da0" CreationDate="2017-04-01T00:45:13.970" UserId="39" Text="In the history of linguistics, **Protagoras** (5th century BCE) is assumed to be the first scholar ever who classified sentences into sentence types. Naturally, we don't have any textual evidence except [Diogenes Laertius][1] who says the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  διεῖλέ τε τὸν λόγον πρῶτος εἰς τέτταρα, εὐχωλήν, ἐρώτησιν, ἀπόκρισιν, ἐντολήν: 8 [54] ῾οἱ &lt;:&gt;ὲ εἰς ἑπτά, διήγησιν, ἐρώτησιν, ἀπόκρισιν, ἐντολήν, ἀπαγγελίαν, εὐχωλήν, κλῆσιν̓, οὓς καὶ πυθμένας εἶπε λόγων. Ἀλκιδάμας δὲ τέτταρας λόγους φησί, φάσιν, ἀπόφασιν, ἐρώτησιν, προσαγόρευσιν. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0257%3Abook%3D9%3Achapter%3D8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;He was the first to mark off the parts of discourse into four, namely, wish, question, answer, command; others divide into seven parts, narration, question, answer, command, rehearsal, wish, summoning ; these he called the basic forms of speech. Alcidamas made discourse fourfold, affirmation, negation, question, address.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0258%3Abook%3D9%3Achapter%3D8#noteb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3014" RevisionGUID="3c20b351-9029-4a43-8f03-5068a8155464" CreationDate="2017-04-01T20:06:36.040" UserId="1393" Text="Firstly, I hope this question is within the scope of this exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that the character '&amp;' predates its English name &quot;ampersand&quot;. I have read that the name 'ampersand' had &quot;entered common English usage by 1837&quot;[\[1\]][1] but the symbol itself is much older, originating as a ligature of the letters &quot;et&quot; which means &quot;and&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, how long has the **character** '&amp;' (**not** the ligature for et) been used to denote the conjunction word &quot;and&quot;? I cannot find a good source that tells when the shift from the ligature to its own symbol happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a book written in Latin and published in 1691 that uses the character in this way: http://digitale.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/vd17/content/pageview/7936102&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this usage of the symbol predate even the 17th century? Do we know of the first recorded use of '&amp;' to represent the conjunction word &quot;and&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampersand" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10784" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3014" RevisionGUID="3c20b351-9029-4a43-8f03-5068a8155464" CreationDate="2017-04-01T20:06:36.040" UserId="1393" Text="When did the ligature for 'et' switch to the character '&amp;'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10785" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3014" RevisionGUID="3c20b351-9029-4a43-8f03-5068a8155464" CreationDate="2017-04-01T20:06:36.040" UserId="1393" Text="|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10786" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="1860" RevisionGUID="4bf14f71-828c-42dd-9f29-2a1056ed2baf" CreationDate="2017-04-01T23:01:35.913" UserId="79" Comment="24" />
  <row Id="10788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3015" RevisionGUID="c7e8856c-809f-41e4-a100-f5957847e501" CreationDate="2017-04-02T01:01:12.737" UserId="985" Text="From Keith Houston, _Shady characters: the secret life of punctuation, symbols &amp; other typographical marks_ (Norton, 2013), 64–5:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the Tironian _et_ was Tiro's brainchild, the ampersand was an orphan: its creator is not known, and the closest it comes to a parent is the anonymous first-century graffiti artist who scrawled it hastily across a Pompeian wall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On [his blog][1], on which the book is based, Houston includes [this image][2] of one page from typographer Jan Tschich­old's _For­m­en­wand­lun­gen der &amp;-Zeichen_, which shows the example from Pompeii (\#1), and also one from an 8th-century Merovingian document (\#13) that's unmistakably an ampersand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Houston goes on (69) to ascribe the introduction of 'the most regular and recognizable ampersand' to the development of roman type in the mid-15th century, when 'refugees from Johannes Gutenberg's hometown of Mainz first brought the technology of printing to Italy [and] created type that matched the prevailing local handwriting,' which was commonly believed to be a revival of the letterforms of ancient Rome but 'was, in fact, the much later Carolingian minuscule of the monk Alcuin.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole chapter about ampersands in Houston's book, or the whole set of 2-1/2 postings on his blog, is worth reading in full.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.shadycharacters.co.uk&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.shadycharacters.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/tschichold-ampersands-e1308409555653.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3016" RevisionGUID="d6b26726-46b7-4f09-b5e6-99693cb28346" CreationDate="2017-04-02T03:14:16.217" UserId="230" Text="I mean, it seems like pretty elementary words that can occur in different type of situations. Why wouldn't they exist ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10791" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3016" RevisionGUID="d6b26726-46b7-4f09-b5e6-99693cb28346" CreationDate="2017-04-02T03:14:16.217" UserId="230" Text="Why doesn't Latin have words for &quot;Yes&quot; and &quot;No&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10792" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3016" RevisionGUID="d6b26726-46b7-4f09-b5e6-99693cb28346" CreationDate="2017-04-02T03:14:16.217" UserId="230" Text="|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3017" RevisionGUID="a0c75a71-ba1e-4e81-9331-83721963c38d" CreationDate="2017-04-02T15:03:13.230" UserId="78" Text="English didn't use to have words for &quot;yes&quot; and &quot;no&quot; as they are precisely used today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, for example, [comes from](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=yes&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) *ge* (whence &quot;yea&quot;) +  *sie*, a subjunctive form of to be (*beon*). It literally meant &quot;It is so.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No in fact meant &quot;not ever&quot;. From [Etymonline](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=no&amp;allowed_in_frame=0):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;negative reply,&quot; early 13c., from Old English na (adv.) &quot;no, never, not at all,&quot; from ne &quot;not, no&quot; + a &quot;ever.&quot; First element from Proto-Germanic *ne (source also of Old Norse, Old Frisian, Old High German ne, Gothic ni &quot;not&quot;), from PIE root *ne &quot;no, not&quot; (see un- (1)). Second element from PIE *aiw- &quot;vital force, life, long life, eternity&quot; (see aye (adv.)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was only over time that the two words became the simple answer words meaning &quot;yes&quot; and &quot;no.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that sense, Latin certainly does have words for &quot;yes&quot; and &quot;no,&quot; they're just not so simple. In Late Latin, for example, two ways emerged in Gaul to mean yes: simple *hoc* and *hoc ille*. The former became *oc* in Occitan and the latter became *oui* in French, thus dividing Medieval French languages. (Obviously there were more and greater distinctions, but it's the one that the people picked up on, for some reason.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Classical Latin, we have a plethora of words that are used to affirm or negate other words depending on exact usage. Note though that the simplest way to affirm/negate is by repeating the verb: *&quot;Amasne?&quot; &quot;Amo!&quot; &quot;Visne?&quot; &quot;Nolo.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For affirmative words, you typically see *sic* (whence Spanish *si*), *vero*, *ita*, or *ita vero*. In more unusual cases, you'll also see *immo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sic* typically means &quot;so&quot; and wasn't the most common way, but because of its influence on the Romance languages, I see it very often online today:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. In answers, yes = the French, Italian, and Spanish si (ante - class. and rare): Ph. Phaniam relictam ais? Ge. Sic, Ter. Phorm. 2, 2, 2: De. Illa maneat? Ch. Sic, id. ib. 5, 3, 30: Ch. Sicine est sententia? Me. Sic, id. Heaut. 1, 1, 114.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ita* was a more common way. Like *sic*, it also means &quot;thus&quot; or &quot;so.&quot; It quite often is strengthened by additional adverbs, like *vero* &quot;truly&quot; (which could be &quot;yes&quot; on its own), *profecto* &quot;indeed&quot;, *prorsus* &quot;straightaway, truly&quot;, or *plane* &quot;plainly.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For negations, while I noted the most common way above, the verb doesn't always have to appear. You can have a simple *non*, cf. Cicero's Pro Roscio:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;exhereditavitne (pater filium)? Non.&quot; Cic. Rosc. Am. 19.54&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short list further examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic. Verr. 1, 7, 20; id. Ac. 2, 30, 97; id. N. D. 1, 25, 70.—（τ) In questions, non expresses surprise, and doubt of the possibility of denial (v. Madv. Gram. § “451): non sum ego servus Amphitruonis Sosia?” Plaut. Am. 1, 1, 247: “non tu scis, etc.?” id. ib. 2, 2, 71: “haec non turpe est dubitare philosophos, quae ne rustici quidem dubitant,” Cic. Off. 3, 19, 77; id. Leg. 3, 20, 47: “Quid? aviam tuam pater tuus non manifesto necavit,” id. Clu. 14, 40.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, you can also combine it with *ita*: *ita non est*: &quot;It is not so.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a very strong negation, you could use *minime!* &quot;the least!&quot; or &quot;not at all,&quot; or *numquam* &quot;never.&quot; However, that's not so different from English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Do you want to be with me?&quot; &quot;Ha! Never!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3018" RevisionGUID="8220565b-d8fb-4c49-acad-e299d4785b70" CreationDate="2017-04-02T15:21:31.097" UserId="136" Text="_In mea sententia_, this sounds like a case where a speaker of one language cannot comprehend the thought process behind the speaker of another language. Everyone has experienced it if they have come across an idiom that, when translated literally, simply doesn't make sense. However, to the people that used that idiom, it made perfect sense, as it was accompanied by the cultural context needed to understand it. As C. M. Weimer points out, every language has its own version of the affirmative and negative. In English, we use &quot;yes&quot; and &quot;no&quot; and take them to mean the same thing respectively. In Latin, however, the Romans would have used _sic_, _minime_, _et cetera_ as &quot;yes&quot; and &quot;no&quot;. But when we, English speakers, translate these words, we get definitions such as &quot;thus&quot; or &quot;in the least.&quot; It's at this point where idioms become important. Although the word itself doesn't literally mean &quot;yes&quot; or &quot;no,&quot; it was used in the same context as those words and are thus synonyms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context has always been incredibly important to our understanding of language. It is, in fact, the reason we can translate anything. Words of one language used in similar situations as words of another language can yield a translation between the two, even if the words don't mean exactly the same thing. Babies also learn language through context, by associating objects and ideas with the words used to describe them. And this, in turn, is why it is often difficult to understand foreign idioms and new languages, because our more developed brains must learn to associate new words to a new context. This becomes more difficult as we get older and the neurons associated with language become less malleable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I apologize for going on a psychological tangent there, but this idea has always been quite interesting to me. Although I do not reach a different conclusion to C. M. Weimer, I do provide some science background to this topic which may be useful to know. To summarize both of our answers: There are words that, in context, meant &quot;yes&quot; and &quot;no&quot; in Latin, even if they don't translate literally to those definitions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10798" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3016" RevisionGUID="9b1a0813-961a-49da-a921-c88d79503faf" CreationDate="2017-04-02T16:37:54.333" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3013" RevisionGUID="e9c6e3cc-53fb-4a19-a0fd-e4cd0000c229" CreationDate="2017-04-02T17:01:23.063" UserId="39" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="In the history of linguistics, [**Protagoras**][1] (5th century BCE) is assumed to be the first scholar ever who classified sentences into sentence types. Naturally, we don't have any textual evidence except [Diogenes Laertius][2] who says the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  διεῖλέ τε τὸν λόγον πρῶτος εἰς τέτταρα, εὐχωλήν, ἐρώτησιν, ἀπόκρισιν, ἐντολήν: 8 [54] ῾οἱ &lt;:&gt;ὲ εἰς ἑπτά, διήγησιν, ἐρώτησιν, ἀπόκρισιν, ἐντολήν, ἀπαγγελίαν, εὐχωλήν, κλῆσιν̓, οὓς καὶ πυθμένας εἶπε λόγων. Ἀλκιδάμας δὲ τέτταρας λόγους φησί, φάσιν, ἀπόφασιν, ἐρώτησιν, προσαγόρευσιν. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0257%3Abook%3D9%3Achapter%3D8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;He was the first to mark off the parts of discourse into four, namely, wish, question, answer, command; others divide into seven parts, narration, question, answer, command, rehearsal, wish, summoning ; these he called the basic forms of speech. Alcidamas made discourse fourfold, affirmation, negation, question, address.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783484971127/9783484971127.1109/9783484971127.1109.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0258%3Abook%3D9%3Achapter%3D8#noteb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3017" RevisionGUID="fcad2348-dabd-4b06-bb0a-f50a5ccd2da3" CreationDate="2017-04-02T17:31:01.280" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="English once did not have words for &quot;yes&quot; and &quot;no&quot; as they are precisely used today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, for example, [comes from](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=yes&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) *ge* (whence &quot;yea&quot;) +  *sie*, a subjunctive form of to be (*beon*). It literally meant &quot;It is so.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No in fact meant &quot;not ever&quot;. From [Etymonline](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=no&amp;allowed_in_frame=0):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;negative reply,&quot; early 13c., from Old English na (adv.) &quot;no, never, not at all,&quot; from ne &quot;not, no&quot; + a &quot;ever.&quot; First element from Proto-Germanic *ne (source also of Old Norse, Old Frisian, Old High German ne, Gothic ni &quot;not&quot;), from PIE root *ne &quot;no, not&quot; (see un- (1)). Second element from PIE *aiw- &quot;vital force, life, long life, eternity&quot; (see aye (adv.)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was only over time that the two words became the simple answer words meaning &quot;yes&quot; and &quot;no.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that sense, Latin certainly does have words for &quot;yes&quot; and &quot;no,&quot; they're just not so simple. In Late Latin, for example, two ways emerged in Gaul to mean yes: simple *hoc* and *hoc ille*. The former became *oc* in Occitan and the latter became *oui* in French, thus dividing Medieval French languages. (Obviously there were more and greater distinctions, but it's the one that the people picked up on, for some reason.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Classical Latin, we have a plethora of words that are used to affirm or negate questions depending on exact usage. Note though that the simplest way is by repeating the verb: *&quot;Amasne?&quot; &quot;Amo!&quot; &quot;Visne?&quot; &quot;Nolo.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For affirmative words, you typically see *ita*, *sic* (whence Spanish *si*), *vero*, or some combination. In more unusual cases, you'll also see *immo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sic* typically means &quot;so&quot; and wasn't the most common way, but because of its influence on the Romance languages, I see it very often online today. See the Lewis and Short entry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. In answers, yes = the French, Italian, and Spanish si (ante - class. and rare): Ph. Phaniam relictam ais? Ge. Sic, Ter. Phorm. 2, 2, 2: De. Illa maneat? Ch. Sic, id. ib. 5, 3, 30: Ch. Sicine est sententia? Me. Sic, id. Heaut. 1, 1, 114.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ita* was a more common way. Like *sic*, it also means &quot;thus&quot; or &quot;so.&quot; It quite often is strengthened by additional adverbs, like *vero* &quot;truly&quot; (which could be &quot;yes&quot; on its own), *profecto* &quot;indeed&quot;, *prorsus* &quot;straightaway, truly&quot;, or *plane* &quot;plainly.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For negations, while I noted the most common way above, the verb doesn't always have to appear. You can have a simple *non*, cf. Cicero's Pro Roscio:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;exhereditavitne (pater filium)? Non.&quot; Cic. Rosc. Am. 19.54&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short list further examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic. Verr. 1, 7, 20; id. Ac. 2, 30, 97; id. N. D. 1, 25, 70.—（τ) In questions, non expresses surprise, and doubt of the possibility of denial (v. Madv. Gram. § “451): non sum ego servus Amphitruonis Sosia?” Plaut. Am. 1, 1, 247: “non tu scis, etc.?” id. ib. 2, 2, 71: “haec non turpe est dubitare philosophos, quae ne rustici quidem dubitant,” Cic. Off. 3, 19, 77; id. Leg. 3, 20, 47: “Quid? aviam tuam pater tuus non manifesto necavit,” id. Clu. 14, 40.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, you can also combine it with *ita*: *ita non est*: &quot;It is not so.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a very strong negation, you could use *minime!* &quot;the least!&quot; or &quot;not at all,&quot; or *numquam* &quot;never.&quot; However, that's not so different from English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Do you want to be with me?&quot; &quot;Ha! Never!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3017" RevisionGUID="412e1b17-4cca-42ed-bc64-239ddb34f087" CreationDate="2017-04-02T19:19:49.280" UserId="12" Comment="slight correction to Spanish" Text="English once did not have words for &quot;yes&quot; and &quot;no&quot; as they are precisely used today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, for example, [comes from](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=yes&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) *ge* (whence &quot;yea&quot;) +  *sie*, a subjunctive form of to be (*beon*). It literally meant &quot;It is so.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No in fact meant &quot;not ever&quot;. From [Etymonline](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=no&amp;allowed_in_frame=0):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;negative reply,&quot; early 13c., from Old English na (adv.) &quot;no, never, not at all,&quot; from ne &quot;not, no&quot; + a &quot;ever.&quot; First element from Proto-Germanic *ne (source also of Old Norse, Old Frisian, Old High German ne, Gothic ni &quot;not&quot;), from PIE root *ne &quot;no, not&quot; (see un- (1)). Second element from PIE *aiw- &quot;vital force, life, long life, eternity&quot; (see aye (adv.)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was only over time that the two words became the simple answer words meaning &quot;yes&quot; and &quot;no.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that sense, Latin certainly does have words for &quot;yes&quot; and &quot;no,&quot; they're just not so simple. In Late Latin, for example, two ways emerged in Gaul to mean yes: simple *hoc* and *hoc ille*. The former became *oc* in Occitan and the latter became *oui* in French, thus dividing Medieval French languages. (Obviously there were more and greater distinctions, but it's the one that the people picked up on, for some reason.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Classical Latin, we have a plethora of words that are used to affirm or negate questions depending on exact usage. Note though that the simplest way is by repeating the verb: *&quot;Amasne?&quot; &quot;Amo!&quot; &quot;Visne?&quot; &quot;Nolo.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For affirmative words, you typically see *ita*, *sic* (whence Spanish *sí*), *vero*, or some combination. In more unusual cases, you'll also see *immo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sic* typically means &quot;so&quot; and wasn't the most common way, but because of its influence on the Romance languages, I see it very often online today. See the Lewis and Short entry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. In answers, yes = the French, Italian, and Spanish si (ante - class. and rare): Ph. Phaniam relictam ais? Ge. Sic, Ter. Phorm. 2, 2, 2: De. Illa maneat? Ch. Sic, id. ib. 5, 3, 30: Ch. Sicine est sententia? Me. Sic, id. Heaut. 1, 1, 114.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ita* was a more common way. Like *sic*, it also means &quot;thus&quot; or &quot;so.&quot; It quite often is strengthened by additional adverbs, like *vero* &quot;truly&quot; (which could be &quot;yes&quot; on its own), *profecto* &quot;indeed&quot;, *prorsus* &quot;straightaway, truly&quot;, or *plane* &quot;plainly.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For negations, while I noted the most common way above, the verb doesn't always have to appear. You can have a simple *non*, cf. Cicero's Pro Roscio:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;exhereditavitne (pater filium)? Non.&quot; Cic. Rosc. Am. 19.54&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short list further examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic. Verr. 1, 7, 20; id. Ac. 2, 30, 97; id. N. D. 1, 25, 70.—（τ) In questions, non expresses surprise, and doubt of the possibility of denial (v. Madv. Gram. § “451): non sum ego servus Amphitruonis Sosia?” Plaut. Am. 1, 1, 247: “non tu scis, etc.?” id. ib. 2, 2, 71: “haec non turpe est dubitare philosophos, quae ne rustici quidem dubitant,” Cic. Off. 3, 19, 77; id. Leg. 3, 20, 47: “Quid? aviam tuam pater tuus non manifesto necavit,” id. Clu. 14, 40.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, you can also combine it with *ita*: *ita non est*: &quot;It is not so.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a very strong negation, you could use *minime!* &quot;the least!&quot; or &quot;not at all,&quot; or *numquam* &quot;never.&quot; However, that's not so different from English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Do you want to be with me?&quot; &quot;Ha! Never!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3019" RevisionGUID="aad1d8a4-c90f-4dc7-964c-a49779b3a5fe" CreationDate="2017-04-02T21:33:57.493" UserId="79" Text="What would be a good Latin word for waiter or waitress in a restaurant?&#xD;&#xA;I would not call them *servus*; I find the word inappropriate when not referring to slaves.&#xD;&#xA;*Servitor/servitrix* would be more neutral, but also *minister/ministra* looks suitable.&#xD;&#xA;I also came across [*dapifer*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=dapifer&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) (from *daps*+*ferre*), and it became my favorite translation the moment I saw it despite being rare.&#xD;&#xA;Which word(s) would you suggest and why?&#xD;&#xA;Is there a canonical translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10804" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3019" RevisionGUID="aad1d8a4-c90f-4dc7-964c-a49779b3a5fe" CreationDate="2017-04-02T21:33:57.493" UserId="79" Text="A good word for waiter or waitress" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10805" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3019" RevisionGUID="aad1d8a4-c90f-4dc7-964c-a49779b3a5fe" CreationDate="2017-04-02T21:33:57.493" UserId="79" Text="|contemporary-latin|vocabulary|occupation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3020" RevisionGUID="5c701e97-3460-4c7b-84ae-b20a390e5d4a" CreationDate="2017-04-03T13:35:13.567" UserId="1369" Text="In a smaller restaurant, [_caupo_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DC%3Aentry+group%3D26%3Aentry%3Dcaupo) would be very appropriate, particularly if it's a family business. Another word which was certainly used in Antiquity was simply [_puer_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DP%3Aentry+group%3D124%3Aentry%3Dpuer) (see Sense B.2 in L&amp;S).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if we were to use a term to describe the job out of context (say, writing it in a _curriculum vitae_, for instance) I'd probably go for _dapifer_ as you wrote." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3021" RevisionGUID="e0fbc478-216f-4374-ae59-619ce8a1177e" CreationDate="2017-04-03T13:45:48.070" UserId="183" Text="I suggest [pincerna][1] (Thanks to the comment of @Hugh, I found this word in the Vulgata in the Joseph-in-prison scene.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=pincerna&amp;highlight=pincerna" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3022" RevisionGUID="02aa29a3-9095-4f6b-8f00-62ada52773b8" CreationDate="2017-04-03T15:49:49.117" UserId="183" Text="For a definitively medieval flavour I suggest another word *buticularius* (the source of the modern English word &quot;butler&quot;. The word *buticularius* is AFAIK not attested for the Classical period." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3023" RevisionGUID="a8fc532f-e721-4057-b0dd-4fbe0fb08534" CreationDate="2017-04-03T16:44:44.643" UserId="1369" Text="Modern people often underestimate how fractured the linguistic landscape of Late Mediaeval and Early Modern Europe were. Outside of _Langue d'Oïl_, very few people spoke each particular language you find in Europe. Even in England, until around the 17th Century, regional differences in spelling and vocabulary might not guarantee that a man from Manchester might read what a man from Bath might write.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this situation, it makes perfect sense to write a map in Latin, which was widely understood by the sort of person who might have enough money to buy a map, and in any event might allow the mapmaker to sell his maps to a Frenchman or a Spaniard or a Pole, if they should have the opportunity to buy one from him, not only to fellow Englishmen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3024" RevisionGUID="87426c11-a4fa-4d77-ab53-7c3f2b8092a8" CreationDate="2017-04-03T17:06:17.390" UserId="1388" Text="Another similar-sounding word with similar meaning: ἐπιορκία (pr. epiorkia). Oathbreaking, false swearing. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3025" RevisionGUID="510dbbfc-a5d8-4aa3-8a01-b0ceff6bc80c" CreationDate="2017-04-03T18:37:13.303" UserId="1224" Text="Other than *homo osseus*, are there any words for skeleton? In the sense of an enemy of in a video game or similar media, I would use *larva*, or &quot;evil spirit.&quot; But, what about a formation of bones: a model skeleton, or human/animal remains? Are there any texts which mention a skeleton (other than &quot;decaying corpse&quot; or &quot;bones&quot;) and use a certain word or phrase? Anything from any period is accepted, as I no longer care if my words were used in classical times, because, well, they exist now, so they'll work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: I checked the handy *Orbis Sensualium Pictus* but didn't find anything. I was sure I might find something in the pages detailing the internals of the human body." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10814" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3025" RevisionGUID="510dbbfc-a5d8-4aa3-8a01-b0ceff6bc80c" CreationDate="2017-04-03T18:37:13.303" UserId="1224" Text="What is a skeleton called?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10815" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3025" RevisionGUID="510dbbfc-a5d8-4aa3-8a01-b0ceff6bc80c" CreationDate="2017-04-03T18:37:13.303" UserId="1224" Text="|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3026" RevisionGUID="71a2f0ab-5efb-4d61-b555-77498bcc5437" CreationDate="2017-04-03T18:50:39.133" UserId="79" Text="Lewis &amp; Short has [*sceletus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=sceletus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), which must be etymologically related to the English &quot;sceleton&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is described as *eviscerata forma diri cadaveris*, &quot;a disemboweled form of a dreadful corpse&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding Greek word *σκελετός* means &quot;dried body&quot; or &quot;mummy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could not locate the cited passage &quot;App. Mag. pp. 313, 35, and 315, 9 sq.&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3026" RevisionGUID="3756064c-2456-4f44-968a-1d1993c5a5a9" CreationDate="2017-04-03T20:10:58.953" UserId="79" Comment="added 222 characters in body" Text="Lewis &amp; Short has [*sceletus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=sceletus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), which must be etymologically related to the English &quot;sceleton&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is described as *eviscerata forma diri cadaveris*, &quot;a disemboweled form of a dreadful corpse&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding Greek word *σκελετός* means &quot;dried body&quot; or &quot;mummy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find this word used in Apuleius, *Apologia*, sections [61](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0501%3Asection%3D61) and [63](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0501%3Asection%3D63).&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks for helping with this, cnread!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3027" RevisionGUID="5bae78f0-3531-4740-be0a-3daed7a4c27a" CreationDate="2017-04-04T05:23:33.810" UserId="721" Text="I'd like some clarification on the possible translations of &quot;to see you.&quot; I'm teaching Jenney's Second-Year Latin (1990, Prentice-Hall edition).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the introduction to Lesson 12 (page 138), the book gives a very brief and not-so-thorough list of nine Ut-Clause uses (I can write about those if needed). The following exercise that I will ask about seems to me as only marginally connected to the ut-clauses, but feel free to explain to me why I'm wrong.&#xD;&#xA;My main question relates to the Lesson's exercise E (page 144), which asks the reader to match the any possible English versions (List A) of &quot;to see you&quot; to a list of Latin options (List B) on the right. The lists are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**List A: (followed by Jenney's correct answers from List B)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. He has come to see you. **(defgh)**  &#xD;&#xA;2. He came to see you. **(defgi)**  &#xD;&#xA;3. He wants to see you. **(a)**  &#xD;&#xA;4. He wants her to see you. **(a)**  &#xD;&#xA;5. He will ask her to see you. **(h)**  &#xD;&#xA;6. He ordered her to see you. **(a, i)**  &#xD;&#xA;7. He says it is good to see you. **(a)**  &#xD;&#xA;8. He hopes to see you. **(c)**  &#xD;&#xA;9. He promised to see you. **(c)**  &#xD;&#xA;10. He is afraid to see you. **(a)**  &#xD;&#xA;11. He is sorry to see you. **(a)**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**List B:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a. tē vidēre  &#xD;&#xA;b. sē tē vidēre  &#xD;&#xA;c. sē tē vīsūrum  &#xD;&#xA;d. tē vīsum  &#xD;&#xA;e. ad tē videndum  &#xD;&#xA;f. tuī videndī gratiā  &#xD;&#xA;g. tuī videndī causā  &#xD;&#xA;h. ut tē videat  &#xD;&#xA;i. ut tē vidēret  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My attempt at explaining the answers to my students, using elimination:**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; 1.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a** is not an option: _I don't know why not._ Are infinitive phrases never used in Latin to express purpose? Only subjunctive adverbial clauses of purpose? This is only evident when the English conversational translation &quot;He has come to see you&quot; is contrasted with a more literal &quot;He has come so that he may see you.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;**b &amp; c** are not an option: They ask for a reflexive, which is not in the English sentence.  &#xD;&#xA;**d** is an option: It's a supine, used in the accusative with a verb of purpose, often translated into English phrased as an infinitive.  &#xD;&#xA;**e** is an option: It's a gerund: He has come &quot;for seeing you.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;**f** is an option: It's a gerund with objective genitive: He has come &quot;for the sake of seeing you.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;**g** is an option: It's a gerundive with genitive of possession: He has come &quot;for the reason of seeing you.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;**h** is an option: This is the literal translation that makes letter &quot;a&quot; incorrect.  &#xD;&#xA;**i** is not an option: _Why?_ Is it because the subjunctive imperfect cannot be used with &quot;He has come&quot; as opposed to &quot;He came&quot;? I think that German and Koine Greek make a tense distinction between &quot;he came&quot; (preterite/aorist) and &quot;he has come&quot; (perfect/perfect), but I didn't think that Latin did. (Side note: does German have an imperfect tense or is that included in the simple past?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; 2.  **abcdefghi** follow the same descriptions as # 1, except the tense change between &quot;h&quot; and &quot;i&quot; is somehow related to the difference between the English &quot;he came&quot; and &quot;he has come.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.  Only &quot;a&quot; acts like the infinitive phrase that List A #3 demands. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4.  Only &quot;a&quot; acts like the infinitive phrase that List A #4 demands, plus that &quot;her&quot; (eam) would be added as a subjective accusative.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5.  This is the Latin translation of an indirect command, which follow a verb of commanding, asking, or advising. That means we only have &quot;h&quot; or &quot;i&quot; left, and since the verb is future tense, the imperfect subjunctive in &quot;i&quot; cannot apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6.  This is the Latin translation of an indicative command (as seen above in #5), but since verb is perfect tense, the imperfect subjunctive in &quot;h&quot; cannot apply. _I'm not sure I understand why_ &quot;a&quot; applies to this one, but not the previous. I speculate that #6 needs an infinitive phrase to complete its verb's meaning (I think that's a property of iubeō, iubēre, iussī, iussum?), but #5 does not? Even if #5 doesn't require an infinitive phrase, why can't it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7.  _I'm not sure why this can only be &quot;a&quot;,_ but I'm assuming it has to do with the use of the impersonal in the sentence.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 8.  Although the given conversational English doesn't display it, the literal version of this English would say &quot;He hopes himself to see you.&quot; That's a simple infinitive phrase. Couldn't this be &quot;h&quot; or &quot;i&quot; and be translated into a literal English: &quot;He hopes that he may see you.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 9.  _Same as #8? Maybe if I fully understood #8, I could explain why it's distinct from #9._ I would say something about the tense of the main verb in contrast with the future infinitive.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 10.  All that's needed could be just the infinitive phrase: &quot;He fears to see you.&quot; Why couldn't this work with &quot;h&quot; and &quot;i&quot; and be a ut final clause after a verb of fearing?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 11.  _Same as #10? I don't see how it could be, since it's the main verb is not of fearing._&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would hope that Jenney's answer key would better clarify why each English &quot;to see you&quot; fits with each Latin phrase. Unfortunately, it does not. So instead I actually will get to learn and use my brain! Hooray! That's why I'm here. One student wanted to know if letter **a** would work in every scenario, but the answer key was listing only the best option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Thus, my two major questions:**    &#xD;&#xA;_1. Did I explain each answer correctly? What did I say incorrectly?_    &#xD;&#xA;_2. May the present active infinitive_ (_tē vidēre_) _be translated for each instance of the English &quot;to see you,&quot; but other scenarios are more appropriate? OR are there certain scenarios where_ _tē vidēre_ _is completely inappropriate?_  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10820" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3027" RevisionGUID="5bae78f0-3531-4740-be0a-3daed7a4c27a" CreationDate="2017-04-04T05:23:33.810" UserId="721" Text="Jenney's Second Year Latin, Lesson 12, exercise E: Ut clauses and how to translate English infinitives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10821" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3027" RevisionGUID="5bae78f0-3531-4740-be0a-3daed7a4c27a" CreationDate="2017-04-04T05:23:33.810" UserId="721" Text="|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3028" RevisionGUID="97e0c67c-737a-4c52-b6f1-09d2de664f11" CreationDate="2017-04-04T06:43:00.030" UserId="79" Text="Here are some comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1a: The infinitive cannot express purpose in Latin like it can in English. See [this earlier question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1425/79), for example.&#xD;&#xA;- 1h&amp;i: The rules of *consecutio temporum* require that a conjunctive subordinate to present or future verb is present or perfect, and one subordinate to any of the past tenses is imperfect or pluperfect. Because &quot;he has come&quot; is a past thing, h is incorrect and i correct. In *ut* clauses both present and imperfect conjunctive express present (or future) action; the only temporal difference is in the verb they are subordinate to.&#xD;&#xA;- 2: When translating to Latin, I would make no distinction between 1 and 2. If I wanted to express the difference, I would do it through choices of verbs. The list of possibilities for 1 and 2 are identical.&#xD;&#xA;- 3&amp;4: Correct.&#xD;&#xA;- 5: Your answer is correct, but keep in mind that the conjunctive is present because the governing verb is future, not because the subordinate clause happens later or at the same time as the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;- 5&amp;6: Wishes require (always?) an *ut* clause, but some orders take an *accusativus cum infinitivo* structure. This is why 6 has an a but 5 doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;- 7: Here &quot;to see you&quot; is the subject. Perhaps it helps to consider the sentence &quot;to see you is good&quot;. For this kind of construction Latin uses the infinitive. If a verb is forced to function like a noun, the infinitive is used for nominative and accusative (without prepositions).&#xD;&#xA;- 8h: This is indeed possible, but 8i is not.&#xD;&#xA;- 8&amp;9: Tenses of infinitives work differently than tenses of subordinate clauses. If the hoped action takes place later than hoping, then the infinitive is a future one, no matter when you hope.&#xD;&#xA;- 10: I'm not sure if any of the letters fit. I would phrase that in Latin as *timet, ne te videat*. If the desire is not to see, the clause should have a *ne* instead of an *ut*. Perhaps *te videre eum terret* could work, but that sounds a bit unnatural.&#xD;&#xA;- 11: I would translate this as *eum paenitet te videre*. Verbs of feeling behave a bit weirdly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can elaborate if you can tell what still confuses you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3029" RevisionGUID="b5015d2b-ed7b-4262-b644-249a4eea5f48" CreationDate="2017-04-04T13:33:02.417" UserId="1224" Text="A long while ago, I came across a few dictionary entries under *per-*, meaning &quot;very.&quot; I saw *peracer*, *perbonus*, and some others. But, I'm not sure if *per-* can be used as a prefix for any adjective. Can it? Does it only apply to certain ones? [On Wiktionary] [1], many *per-* words are listed, but not as many as its countless other adjectives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Latin_words_prefixed_with_per-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3029" RevisionGUID="b5015d2b-ed7b-4262-b644-249a4eea5f48" CreationDate="2017-04-04T13:33:02.417" UserId="1224" Text="Can &quot;per-&quot; Be Applied to Any Word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3029" RevisionGUID="b5015d2b-ed7b-4262-b644-249a4eea5f48" CreationDate="2017-04-04T13:33:02.417" UserId="1224" Text="|adjective|prefix|usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3030" RevisionGUID="c3aa3a17-9984-403f-8971-3d5883f2175e" CreationDate="2017-04-04T13:34:49.670" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10829" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3030" RevisionGUID="c3aa3a17-9984-403f-8971-3d5883f2175e" CreationDate="2017-04-04T13:34:49.670" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3031" RevisionGUID="ce4a1a13-35d9-430a-a2a4-0580030fa886" CreationDate="2017-04-04T13:34:49.670" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10831" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3031" RevisionGUID="ce4a1a13-35d9-430a-a2a4-0580030fa886" CreationDate="2017-04-04T13:34:49.670" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10832" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3029" RevisionGUID="1a9175b3-dcad-4ea0-b09c-bcf9269c47b8" CreationDate="2017-04-04T13:35:57.223" UserId="45" Comment="edited title" Text="Can &quot;per-&quot; be applied to any adjective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10834" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3027" RevisionGUID="2450850a-a6e6-4263-a728-3d9b4ee72b93" CreationDate="2017-04-04T15:37:21.470" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|grammar-choice|syntax|infinitive|subordinate-clause|ut|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3032" RevisionGUID="8f92dee9-462b-47f6-9a6d-4937498944e7" CreationDate="2017-04-04T15:48:01.360" UserId="79" Text="Our knowledge of Latin is limited, and if we want to use the language as flexibly as other languages, we need to extrapolate from what we know for sure.&#xD;&#xA;This is one of those cases.&#xD;&#xA;The prefix *per-* does not appear with all possible adjectives in extant literature from any era, but it is common enough to argue that it can be used productively.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any limitations to its use.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore my answer to your question is **yes**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give an example, we have a political party called roughly &quot;True Finns&quot; (&quot;perussuomalaiset&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;If I were to render that party name in Latin, I might call them *Perfinni*.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what to do with capitalization with prefixes in cases like this, but that should be taken to a separate question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3033" RevisionGUID="833d25d9-36da-4351-a208-c48f29796a29" CreationDate="2017-04-04T16:14:00.283" UserId="78" Text="I think it's partly common sense. For example, I can't imagine them going with indefinite adjectives, e.g. *\*peraliquis*, for which Phi database gives zero results. But would such a word even mean? How do you intensify &quot;any&quot;? It's nonsense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, any positive adjective which has a comparative or superlative form can take it no problem. It can also be placed on adverbs (same qualification) and verbs without issue. It was a very productive prefix, so even if we do not have examples of Classical usage, a Roman would still understand it, though its particular meaning would have been restricted by usage (e.g. *permaneo* means &quot;remain long&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3031" RevisionGUID="33c7fcc7-7c55-452e-8987-0e3cd536c389" CreationDate="2017-04-04T16:45:10.897" UserId="1224" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="Use this tag for questions about prefixes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10839" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3031" RevisionGUID="33c7fcc7-7c55-452e-8987-0e3cd536c389" CreationDate="2017-04-04T16:45:10.897" Comment="Proposed by 1224 approved by 522, 469 edit id of 178" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10840" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3029" RevisionGUID="cf3fa8bb-cd18-494e-af0f-21a82c496ce3" CreationDate="2017-04-04T16:54:50.240" UserId="79" Comment="Removed an overly broad tag." Text="|adjective|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3034" RevisionGUID="4fcff3d1-d6a8-4bae-a4cc-90419226d28a" CreationDate="2017-04-04T16:56:02.677" UserId="1256" Text="In Cambridge, [a pair of £1.25m homes have been spray painted with the slogan &quot;Locus in Domos Loci Populum&quot;][1], which the BBC translates as &quot;Room in the house. Local people&quot;. It is suggested in the article that the intended meaning was &quot;Local homes for local people.&quot;, which google [translates thus][2]. Prof of Classics, Mary Beard notes &quot;This is a bit hard to translate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the BBC translation correct? How should you write &quot;[There should be some] local homes for [the] local people.&quot; in Classical Latin? Google suggests something like &quot;Sit ibi locorum domos ad loci populum.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-39490537&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://translate.google.co.uk/#en/la/local%20homes%20for%20local%20people" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10842" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3034" RevisionGUID="4fcff3d1-d6a8-4bae-a4cc-90419226d28a" CreationDate="2017-04-04T16:56:02.677" UserId="1256" Text="Local homes for local people!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10843" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3034" RevisionGUID="4fcff3d1-d6a8-4bae-a4cc-90419226d28a" CreationDate="2017-04-04T16:56:02.677" UserId="1256" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3035" RevisionGUID="6ba6e834-08be-43e9-8773-6ff911a28128" CreationDate="2017-04-04T17:18:29.143" UserId="79" Text="The translation given by Google Translate is, as typical with Latin, gibberish.&#xD;&#xA;Neither the BBC translation nor the intended meaning get close to what the Latin says.&#xD;&#xA;The quoted professor is being polite; it's a bit hard to translate nonsensical text.&#xD;&#xA;I really wish people stopped relying on Google Translate in matters of any importance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trying to use similar words, I offer these translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Room in the house. Local people.&quot; &amp;mdash; *Locus in domo. Populus localis.*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Local homes for local people.&quot; &amp;mdash; *Domi/domos locales hominibus localibus.*&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;There should be some local homes for the local people.&quot; &amp;mdash; *Domos locales hominibus localibus offerre debemus.*&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate *Sit ibi locorum domos ad loci populum.* somewhere along these lines: &quot;May there be houses of places to the people of the place.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;But it is ungrammatical; with *sint domi* it would really mean what I interpret to mean, with *sit domos* I don't know how to parse it.&#xD;&#xA;Mocking Google Translate again is left as an exercise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The word [*locus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=locus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) might not be the optimal choice, but I think it can be used this way.&#xD;&#xA;The best choice of words depends on what is exactly meant: is there a room in the house, or is there room in the house?&#xD;&#xA;And I'm not sure what the added &quot;Local people.&quot; is supposed to signify&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The choice of case depends on intended nuance.&#xD;&#xA;If it means &quot;here are local homes&quot;, I would go with the nominative *domi*.&#xD;&#xA;If &quot;we offer local homes&quot;, then the accusative *domos*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin means more literally &quot;we should offer local homes for local people&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This sounds more natural to me than a more direct translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3034" RevisionGUID="4bd14b5c-cfca-4c10-8e14-4e410af1df81" CreationDate="2017-04-04T17:19:32.867" UserId="1256" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In Cambridge, [a pair of £1.25m homes have been spray painted with the slogan &quot;Locus in Domos Loci Populum&quot;][1], which the BBC translates as &quot;Room in the house. Local people&quot;. Prof of Classics, Mary Beard notes &quot;This is a bit hard to translate&quot;. It is suggested in the article that the intended meaning was &quot;Local homes for local people.&quot;, which google [translates thus][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the BBC translation correct? How should you write &quot;[There should be some] local homes for [the] local people.&quot; in Classical Latin? Google suggests something like &quot;Sit ibi locorum domos ad loci populum.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-39490537&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://translate.google.co.uk/#en/la/local%20homes%20for%20local%20people" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3036" RevisionGUID="06da12af-d897-4524-ab29-6dc8d735e0d0" CreationDate="2017-04-04T17:25:02.180" UserId="78" Text="Mary Beard is right: It's bad grammar through and through. Latin nouns and adjectives change their ending depending on how they're used grammatically (not unlike the English *who*, *whom*, *whose* or *he*, *him*, *his*). For some reason, Google Translate cannot grasp that idea, and so they should **not in any circumstance** be trusted, and probably not for a long time, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To correct it to what BBC thinks is the intended meaning, there are several options. I'd offer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Domus in hoc loco populo in hoc loco. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would means &quot;Homes in this place for people in this place.&quot; The repetition is a bit of an rhetorical flourish emphasizing the locality (*in hoc loco*). You do not need a verb, though adding one would emphasize ownership; i.e. putting a *sunt* at the end of the line would change the meaning to, &quot;Homes in this place belong to [i.e. are owned by] the people in this place.&quot; More than that, though, it's unnecessary, as it is in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3035" RevisionGUID="77cb8ac9-e538-464f-994f-fa822b5ef366" CreationDate="2017-04-04T17:31:04.397" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The translation given by Google Translate is, as typical with Latin, gibberish.&#xD;&#xA;Neither the BBC translation nor the intended meaning get close to what the Latin says.&#xD;&#xA;The quoted professor is being polite; it's a bit hard to translate nonsensical text.&#xD;&#xA;I really wish people stopped relying on Google Translate in matters of any importance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trying to use similar words, I offer these translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Room in the house. Local people.&quot; &amp;mdash; *Locus in domo. Populus localis.*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Local homes for local people.&quot; &amp;mdash; *Domus/domos locales hominibus localibus.*&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;There should be some local homes for the local people.&quot; &amp;mdash; *Domos locales hominibus localibus offerre debemus.*&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate *Sit ibi locorum domos ad loci populum.* somewhere along these lines: &quot;May there be houses of places to the people of the place.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;But it is ungrammatical; with *sint domus* it would really mean what I interpret to mean, with *sit domos* I don't know how to parse it.&#xD;&#xA;Mocking Google Translate again is left as an exercise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The word [*locus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=locus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) might not be the optimal choice, but I think it can be used this way.&#xD;&#xA;The best choice of words depends on what is exactly meant: is there a room in the house, or is there room in the house?&#xD;&#xA;And I'm not sure what the added &quot;Local people.&quot; is supposed to signify&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The choice of case depends on intended nuance.&#xD;&#xA;If it means &quot;here are local homes&quot;, I would go with the nominative *domus*.&#xD;&#xA;If &quot;we offer local homes&quot;, then the accusative *domos*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin means more literally &quot;we should offer local homes for local people&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This sounds more natural to me than a more direct translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3035" RevisionGUID="6bc82144-3709-474a-baf3-6df069e276e8" CreationDate="2017-04-04T17:35:28.427" UserId="79" Comment="added 355 characters in body" Text="The translation given by Google Translate is, as typical with Latin, gibberish.&#xD;&#xA;Neither the BBC translation nor the intended meaning get close to what the Latin says.&#xD;&#xA;The quoted professor is being polite; it's a bit hard to translate nonsensical text.&#xD;&#xA;I really wish people stopped relying on Google Translate in matters of any importance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trying to use similar words, I offer these translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Room in the house. Local people.&quot; &amp;mdash; *Locus in domo. Populus localis.*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Local homes for local people.&quot; &amp;mdash; *Domus/domos locales hominibus localibus.*&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;There should be some local homes for the local people.&quot; &amp;mdash; *Domos locales hominibus localibus offerre debemus.*&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate *Sit ibi locorum domos ad loci populum.* somewhere along these lines: &quot;May there be houses of places to the people of the place.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;But it is ungrammatical; with *sint domus* it would really mean what I interpret to mean, with *sit domos* I don't know how to parse it.&#xD;&#xA;Mocking Google Translate again is left as an exercise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As C. M. Weimer points out in the comments below, the adjective [*localis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=localis&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is not classical.&#xD;&#xA;I still think consider it correct, but if you want something more classical, replace all occurrences of *localis*, *locales*, and *localibus* by *huius loci* (&quot;of this place&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The word [*locus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=locus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) might not be the optimal choice, but I think it can be used this way.&#xD;&#xA;The best choice of words depends on what is exactly meant: is there a room in the house, or is there room in the house?&#xD;&#xA;And I'm not sure what the added &quot;Local people.&quot; is supposed to signify&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The choice of case depends on intended nuance.&#xD;&#xA;If it means &quot;here are local homes&quot;, I would go with the nominative *domus*.&#xD;&#xA;If &quot;we offer local homes&quot;, then the accusative *domos*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin means more literally &quot;we should offer local homes for local people&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This sounds more natural to me than a more direct translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3037" RevisionGUID="22aa4797-3225-4f45-b06b-a23d4e2ddaeb" CreationDate="2017-04-04T18:23:42.037" UserId="1388" Text="Although I gave another answer before and although I think that the correct answer could turn out to be &quot;επιείκια&quot;, let me add this for completeness: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Επιορκία&quot; is oath-breaking and false swearing (and sounding close to [the remembered one][1]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2301/are-you-familiar-with-the-greek-word-epicharia-or-epikaria/3024#3024" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3009" RevisionGUID="c2b41ad0-95c9-42dc-aa60-ff4b228ec681" CreationDate="2017-04-04T18:25:55.243" UserId="1388" Comment="Deleted more speculative part. " Text="Short answer: No :) I'm a native Greek speaker with some knowledge of ancient Greek and neither epicharia nor epikaria rings a bell, while Google doesn't return anything that can lead to associations. (Epicharia seems to be the name of a saint, but its form can easily be recognized as, precisely, a constructed name.) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3038" RevisionGUID="407c7725-d8a1-4bec-bd80-819a43c6c792" CreationDate="2017-04-04T22:04:42.660" UserId="79" Text="When answering [a recent question about the prefix *per-*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/3029/79), I gave an example of a national adjective (*Finnus*) with a prefix, to produce *Perfinni*.&#xD;&#xA;If I attach a prefix to an adjective that always starts with a capital letter, how do I capitalize?&#xD;&#xA;It sounds most reasonable to capitalize the first letter of the prefix.&#xD;&#xA;Other options that come to mind (*perfinni*, *perFinni*, *per-Finni*) look worse.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a convention, and if yes, what is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Capitalization was not an ancient thing, but there might be some classical adjectives of this kind.&#xD;&#xA;At least *Cisalpinus* and *Transrhenanus* come to mind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10852" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3038" RevisionGUID="407c7725-d8a1-4bec-bd80-819a43c6c792" CreationDate="2017-04-04T22:04:42.660" UserId="79" Text="Capitalization of adjectives with prefixes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10853" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3038" RevisionGUID="407c7725-d8a1-4bec-bd80-819a43c6c792" CreationDate="2017-04-04T22:04:42.660" UserId="79" Text="|adjective|orthography|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3039" RevisionGUID="3908ab57-5021-444f-a5b0-97fb579218e1" CreationDate="2017-04-05T00:12:10.773" UserId="78" Text="This comes down to editorial practice and whether it's being used as a proper name or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in Caesar's *Gallic War*, Seel capitalized both Cisalpina and Gallia, because it's Cisalpina Gallia, one place (my edition by Du Pontet has the same): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; uos ex Cisalpina Gallia consulis sacramento rogasset&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Rossbach left the C uncapitalized in his edition of the *Periochae* (same with the unknown TLL text and the presumably Paul Jal's Bude, but I don't have access to the latter at the moment):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M. Brutus, qui cisalpinam Galliam optinebat, a Cn. Pompeio occisus est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it's not used as a proper name, though, it seems to be uniformly uncapitalized, like with *pergraecari*. These all were taken from PHI:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Titus Maccius Plautus, Bacchides 813&#xD;&#xA;Nic. Propterea hoc facio, ut suadeas gnato meo&#xD;&#xA;ut pergraecetur tecum, tervenefice.&#xD;&#xA;Chrys. O stulte, stulte, nescis nunc venire te;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Titus Maccius Plautus, Mostellaria 22, 64&#xD;&#xA;corrumpe erilem ádulescentem óptumum;&#xD;&#xA;dies noctesque bibite, pergraecamini,&#xD;&#xA;amicas emite liberate, pascite&#xD;&#xA;date, si non estis. agite, porro pergite&#xD;&#xA;quoniam occepistis: bibite, pergraecamini,&#xD;&#xA;este, ecfercite vos, saginam caedite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Titus Maccius Plautus, Poenulus 603&#xD;&#xA;liberum ut commostraremus tibi locum et voluptarium,&#xD;&#xA;ubi ames, potes, pergraecere. Coll. Eu, edepol mortales malos.&#xD;&#xA;Agor. Ego enim docui. Mil. Quis te porro? Coll. Agite intro abite, Agorastocles,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcus Cornelius Fronto, fragmenta 12.1&#xD;&#xA;parentum tuorum.&#xD;&#xA;Et pergraecari potius amoenis locis quam coerceri carcere&#xD;&#xA;viderentur.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3039" RevisionGUID="3eb9e769-fa34-4e0c-bd6a-ddd3a652bfdd" CreationDate="2017-04-05T01:25:29.483" UserId="78" Comment="added 211 characters in body" Text="This comes down to editorial practice and whether it's being used as a proper name or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in Caesar's *Gallic War*, Seel capitalized both Cisalpina and Gallia, because it's Cisalpina Gallia, one place (my edition by Du Pontet has the same): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; uos ex Cisalpina Gallia consulis sacramento rogasset&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Rossbach left the C uncapitalized in his edition of the *Periochae* (same with the unknown TLL text and the presumably Paul Jal's Bude, but I don't have access to the latter at the moment):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M. Brutus, qui cisalpinam Galliam optinebat, a Cn. Pompeio occisus est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it's not used as a proper name, though, it seems to be uniformly uncapitalized, like with *pergraecari*. These all were taken from PHI:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Titus Maccius Plautus, Bacchides 813&#xD;&#xA;Nic. Propterea hoc facio, ut suadeas gnato meo&#xD;&#xA;ut pergraecetur tecum, tervenefice.&#xD;&#xA;Chrys. O stulte, stulte, nescis nunc venire te;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Titus Maccius Plautus, Mostellaria 22, 64&#xD;&#xA;corrumpe erilem ádulescentem óptumum;&#xD;&#xA;dies noctesque bibite, pergraecamini,&#xD;&#xA;amicas emite liberate, pascite&#xD;&#xA;date, si non estis. agite, porro pergite&#xD;&#xA;quoniam occepistis: bibite, pergraecamini,&#xD;&#xA;este, ecfercite vos, saginam caedite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Titus Maccius Plautus, Poenulus 603&#xD;&#xA;liberum ut commostraremus tibi locum et voluptarium,&#xD;&#xA;ubi ames, potes, pergraecere. Coll. Eu, edepol mortales malos.&#xD;&#xA;Agor. Ego enim docui. Mil. Quis te porro? Coll. Agite intro abite, Agorastocles,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcus Cornelius Fronto, fragmenta 12.1&#xD;&#xA;parentum tuorum.&#xD;&#xA;Et pergraecari potius amoenis locis quam coerceri carcere&#xD;&#xA;viderentur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Pergraecari* is a verb meaning &quot;to live like a Greek&quot; (i.e. playfully, so &quot;to revel&quot;), whose root is *Graecus*, a proper adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, I'd say put it in lower-case unless used as a substantive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3040" RevisionGUID="5cf71f2a-b9c2-4248-bcdc-b479a3534f2f" CreationDate="2017-04-05T02:17:58.630" UserId="40" Text="I want to find out how Greek expresses the protases of conditions like the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What was I to do? **If I remained in Athens** I would be killed; **if I left**, I would lose all my property.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a type of past-tense condition, but it isn't one of the usual three types discussed in grammars and textbooks. It's not an open condition (the speaker knows now whether he stayed or left); it's not a counterfactual (one of the two options must be true); and it's not a general condition (not a recurring situation). Rather, it's a kind of free indirect speech, in which we are being asked to take the viewpoint of the speaker at that moment in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the same condition were about the present, it would be easy: *If I remain in Athens I will be killed* is a straightforward future more vivid. But what happens when it's shifted into the past?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking specifically about the protasis because I feel pretty sure that the apodosis would be expressed by ἔμελλον + infinitive. There are examples of such usages in Goodwin's *Moods and Tenses* (p. 99), but unfortunate none involve a condition. Can anyone point to an example of such a condition in a Greek text (or even better, to a grammatical discussion of this type)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10858" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3040" RevisionGUID="5cf71f2a-b9c2-4248-bcdc-b479a3534f2f" CreationDate="2017-04-05T02:17:58.630" UserId="40" Text="Greek: syntax of dilemmas in the past" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10859" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3040" RevisionGUID="5cf71f2a-b9c2-4248-bcdc-b479a3534f2f" CreationDate="2017-04-05T02:17:58.630" UserId="40" Text="|greek|syntax|conditions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3041" RevisionGUID="02bcdf27-5df7-4c03-acd7-e6efe296f8d8" CreationDate="2017-04-05T03:47:32.767" UserId="79" Text="The Finnish national epic Kalevala was written in a certain poetic meter, which in some respects resembles the classical Greek and Roman meters.&#xD;&#xA;In addition to rules regarding syllable length and stress and the poetic rhythm, there is a strong tendency to place the longest words in a verse at the end and shorter ones at the beginning.&#xD;&#xA;(This together with rhythmic restrictions heavily limits the long words one can use in this meter.)&#xD;&#xA;Ending a line in a one-syllable word is considered to be outright forbidden.&#xD;&#xA;This tendency is known as &quot;viskurilaki&quot; in Finnish, and it's not limited to poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does classical Latin poetry have a similar tendency?&#xD;&#xA;Does the length of a word correlate with its location in a verse in any way?&#xD;&#xA;Is this explicitly mentioned in poetry guides or has it been studied?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I have limited this to classical Latin poetry. If the answer is different and interesting for Greek or later Latin, please leave a comment. Details should be taken to a separate question.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10861" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3041" RevisionGUID="02bcdf27-5df7-4c03-acd7-e6efe296f8d8" CreationDate="2017-04-05T03:47:32.767" UserId="79" Text="Do shorter words tend to come before longer ones in verse?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10862" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3041" RevisionGUID="02bcdf27-5df7-4c03-acd7-e6efe296f8d8" CreationDate="2017-04-05T03:47:32.767" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|poetry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3040" RevisionGUID="474a2946-af34-4a4b-bd0f-15c0e5bd653b" CreationDate="2017-04-05T04:02:25.553" UserId="40" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I want to find out how Greek expresses the protases of conditions like the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What was I to do? **If I remained in Athens** I would be killed; **if I left**, I would lose all my property.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a type of past-tense condition, but it isn't one of the usual three types discussed in grammars and textbooks. It's not an open condition (the speaker knows now whether he stayed or left); it's not a counterfactual (one of the two options must be true); and it's not a general condition (not a recurring situation). Rather, it's a kind of free indirect speech, in which we are being asked to take the viewpoint of the speaker at that moment in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the same condition were about the present, it would be easy: *If I remain in Athens I will be killed* is a straightforward future more vivid. But what happens when it's shifted into the past?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking specifically about the protasis because I feel pretty sure that the apodosis would be expressed by ἔμελλον + infinitive. There are examples of such usages in Goodwin's *Moods and Tenses* (p. 99), but unfortunately none involve a condition. Can anyone point to an example of such a condition in a Greek text (or even better, to a grammatical discussion of this type)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3042" RevisionGUID="9490d808-9082-4d05-87ac-476ebe9a7c95" CreationDate="2017-04-05T04:59:56.080" UserId="40" Text="[Free indirect discourse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_indirect_speech) is a type of narrative device which has some similarities with direct discourse and some with ordinary indirect discourse, but is different from both. Here's an English example, from Joyce's *Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The muddy streets were gay. He strode homeward, conscious of an invisible grace pervading and making light his limbs. In spite of all he had done it. He had confessed and God had pardoned him. His soul was made fair and holy once more, holy and happy. It would be beautiful to die if God so willed. It was beautiful to live in grace a life of peace and virtue and forbearance with others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two sentences are regular narration, but starting with *In spite of all he had done it*, we're in free indirect discourse. That sentence and the following ones no longer represent the narrator's thoughts but the character's; but they're neither direct discourse (*Stephen thought, &quot;In spite of all I have done it&quot;*) nor standard indirect discourse (*Stephen thought that in spite of all he had done it*). Basically, it's indirect discourse without a verb of speech or thought acting to introduce it. The grammatical transformations of indirect discourse still apply (change of tense, change of grammatical person), but there's no *he thought that..., she said that...*, or anything else to show that the narrative has switched viewpoints.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin and Greek, we're all familiar with the rules of standard indirect discourse, but I don't recall ever hearing about free indirect discourse in these languages; in fact, FID is generally thought of as a specifically modern literary device. Is there anything comparable to FID in these languages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An obvious answer might be that in Latin, indirect speech goes into the accusative and infinitive, and it's very common to find that construction without an overt verb of speech: just a sentence in ACI, where the reader is expected to mentally fill in the *they said* (there's lots of this in Caesar, Livy etc.). So if FID is defined as indirect discourse without a verb of speech, the answer is clearly yes. But this strikes me as different from what's happening in the passage above: there, nothing in the grammar signals the passage from narration into indirect discourse, as ACI does in Latin. &quot;Proper&quot; FID in Latin, if it exists, would simply continue the narrative with regular finite clauses, but with an implied change of viewpoint into the consciousness of a character. Does anything like this exist in Latin or Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10865" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3042" RevisionGUID="9490d808-9082-4d05-87ac-476ebe9a7c95" CreationDate="2017-04-05T04:59:56.080" UserId="40" Text="Are there instances of free indirect discourse in Latin or Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10866" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3042" RevisionGUID="9490d808-9082-4d05-87ac-476ebe9a7c95" CreationDate="2017-04-05T04:59:56.080" UserId="40" Text="|greek|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3043" RevisionGUID="cca714be-e5a0-467e-a618-4d2a254a9046" CreationDate="2017-04-05T06:23:46.533" UserId="9" Text="The Wikipedia page on &quot;[Dactylic hexameter][1]&quot; (¯˘͟˘ | ¯˘͟˘ | ¯˘͟˘ | ¯˘͟˘ | ¯ ˘˘ | ¯˘̱) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Like their Greek predecessors, classical Latin poets avoided a large number of word breaks at the ends of foot divisions except between the fourth and fifth, where it was encouraged. In order to preserve the rhythmic close, Latin poets avoided the placement of a single syllable or four-syllable word at the end of a line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More relevant to the Finnish pattern you mention, although less relevant to Classical Latin, is the following quotation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In the late empire, writers experimented again by adding unusual restrictions to the standard hexameter. The rhopalic verse of Ausonius is a good example; besides following the standard hexameter pattern, each word in the line is one syllable longer than the previous, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Spes, deus, aeternae stationis conciliator,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;si castis precibus veniales invigilamus,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;his, pater, oratis placabilis adstipulare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unformtunately, the relevant sections of the Wikipedia article are unsourced so it's hard for me to say how accurate this is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phenomenon of [caesura][2] also seems like it could be relevant; apparently a caesura is always located at a word break, and occurs within a foot. The &quot;principal caesura&quot; of a line usually comes in the third or fourth foot according to Joel Derfner's answer to the linked question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please downvote this answer if you have reason to believe the statements from the Wikipedia article are incorrect or if you are unsure about them. I don't want to propagate misinformation; I'm just posting this to get the ball rolling.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dactylic_hexameter&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/262/when-does-caesura-occur-in-a-dactylic-hexameter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3043" RevisionGUID="f76b631b-cfd4-4662-afa7-80b1c509b1d9" CreationDate="2017-04-05T14:45:58.840" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The Wikipedia page on &quot;[Dactylic hexameter][1]&quot; (¯˘͟˘ | ¯˘͟˘ | ¯˘͟˘ | ¯˘͟˘ | ¯ ˘˘ | ¯˘̱) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Like their Greek predecessors, classical Latin poets avoided a large number of word breaks at the ends of foot divisions except between the fourth and fifth, where it was encouraged. In order to preserve the rhythmic close, Latin poets avoided the placement of a single syllable or four-syllable word at the end of a line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More relevant to the Finnish pattern you mention, although less relevant to Classical Latin, is the following quotation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In the late empire, writers experimented again by adding unusual restrictions to the standard hexameter. The rhopalic verse of Ausonius is a good example; besides following the standard hexameter pattern, each word in the line is one syllable longer than the previous, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Spes, deus, aeternae stationis conciliator,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;si castis precibus veniales invigilamus,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;his, pater, oratis placabilis adstipulare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, the relevant sections of the Wikipedia article are unsourced so it's hard for me to say how accurate this is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phenomenon of [caesura][2] also seems like it could be relevant; apparently a caesura is always located at a word break, and occurs within a foot. The &quot;principal caesura&quot; of a line usually comes in the third or fourth foot according to Joel Derfner's answer to the linked question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please downvote this answer if you have reason to believe the statements from the Wikipedia article are incorrect or if you are unsure about them. I don't want to propagate misinformation; I'm just posting this to get the ball rolling.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dactylic_hexameter&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/262/when-does-caesura-occur-in-a-dactylic-hexameter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3044" RevisionGUID="e2c2a90e-753f-46ab-9016-0302b9ea4850" CreationDate="2017-04-05T15:30:11.807" UserId="45" Text="After doing a rudimentary corpus analysis of the Vergil's *Aeneid*, my conclusion is that **Latin verse does not show any meaningful relationship between syllable length and word position.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To test this, I wrote up a rudimentary Python program that went through the whole text of the *Aeneid* and found the syllable length of every word, grouping them by their position in the text. This is admittedly crude, but should give at least some indication of a tendency. Here are my results:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    pos     words   min     max     avg&#xD;&#xA;    0       9896    1       7       2.41&#xD;&#xA;    1       9892    1       8       2.26&#xD;&#xA;    2       9873    1       7       2.35&#xD;&#xA;    3       9853    1       7       2.36&#xD;&#xA;    4       9813    1       7       2.52&#xD;&#xA;    5       8393    1       6       2.46&#xD;&#xA;    6       4429    1       6       2.36&#xD;&#xA;    7       1310    1       4       2.23&#xD;&#xA;    8       196     1       4       2.08&#xD;&#xA;    9       20      1       3       1.75&#xD;&#xA;    10      1       3       3       3.0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `pos` = 0-indexed word position in a line (e.g. &quot;arma&quot; gets a 0, &quot;virumque&quot; gets a 1, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;* `words` = number of words in given position&#xD;&#xA;* `min` = minimum number of syllables of a word in given position&#xD;&#xA;* `max` = maximum number&#xD;&#xA;* `avg` = average syllable count in that position&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, short 1-syllable words occur ubiquitously in any position. Longer words also seem to occur uniformly, though because very long 7-syllable words are so rare, they won't occur in smaller sample sizes because of standard deviation. The average too hovers at about the same value and only changes when the sample size gets too small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N.B. I have never formally studied statistics, so I am happy to improve the metrics if someone can provide a better heuristic. I can also come up with some graphs if that would be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, as a caveat, my syllable counting program is the slip-shod work of two minutes: it works correctly for the first 10 verses of the Aeneid, but obviously a better implementation could catch more edge cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my program for reference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    import re&#xD;&#xA;    from collections import defaultdict&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    text = &quot;&quot;&quot;full text with line breaks here. I took text from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/227/227-h/227-h.htm and removed chapter headings&quot;&quot;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    text = ''.join(c for c in text if c.isalpha() or c.isspace())&#xD;&#xA;    def syllables(word):&#xD;&#xA;        return len(re.findall(r'^i[aeiou]|a[eiu]|o[ei]|[aeiouy]', word.lower())) - word.count('qu')&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    verse_lengths = defaultdict(list) &#xD;&#xA;    for verse in text.split('\n'):&#xD;&#xA;        for i, word in enumerate(verse.split()):&#xD;&#xA;            verse_lengths[i].append(syllables(word))&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;    print('{}\t{}\t{}\t{}\t{}'.format('pos', 'words', 'min', 'max', 'avg'))   &#xD;&#xA;    for pos, word_lengths in verse_lengths.items():&#xD;&#xA;        avg = round(sum(word_lengths) / len(word_lengths), 2)&#xD;&#xA;        print('{}\t{}\t{}\t{}\t{}'.format(pos, len(word_lengths), min(word_lengths), max(word_lengths), avg))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3041" RevisionGUID="aabae590-9958-48ea-8eab-7e3b81d11e8e" CreationDate="2017-04-05T15:35:11.450" UserId="79" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="The Finnish national epic Kalevala was written in a certain poetic meter, which in some respects resembles the classical Greek and Roman meters.&#xD;&#xA;In addition to rules regarding syllable length and stress and the poetic rhythm, there is a strong tendency to place the longest words (by syllable count) in a verse at the end and shorter ones at the beginning.&#xD;&#xA;(This together with rhythmic restrictions heavily limits the long words one can use in this meter.)&#xD;&#xA;Ending a line in a one-syllable word is considered to be outright forbidden.&#xD;&#xA;This tendency is known as &quot;viskurilaki&quot; in Finnish, and it's not limited to poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does classical Latin poetry have a similar tendency?&#xD;&#xA;Does the length of a word correlate with its location in a verse in any way?&#xD;&#xA;Is this explicitly mentioned in poetry guides or has it been studied?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I have limited this to classical Latin poetry. If the answer is different and interesting for Greek or later Latin, please leave a comment. Details should be taken to a separate question.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3044" RevisionGUID="3ba1377b-14d1-4042-a2df-e52ade83cb25" CreationDate="2017-04-05T15:47:08.810" UserId="45" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="After doing a rudimentary corpus analysis of the Vergil's *Aeneid*, my conclusion is that **Latin verse does not show any meaningful relationship between syllable length and word position.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To test this, I wrote up a rudimentary Python program that went through the whole text of the *Aeneid* and found the syllable length of every word, grouping them by their position in the text. This is admittedly crude, but should give at least some indication of a tendency. Here are my results:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    pos     words   min     max     avg&#xD;&#xA;    0       9896    1       7       2.41&#xD;&#xA;    1       9892    1       8       2.26&#xD;&#xA;    2       9873    1       7       2.35&#xD;&#xA;    3       9853    1       7       2.36&#xD;&#xA;    4       9813    1       7       2.52&#xD;&#xA;    5       8393    1       6       2.46&#xD;&#xA;    6       4429    1       6       2.36&#xD;&#xA;    7       1310    1       4       2.23&#xD;&#xA;    8       196     1       4       2.08&#xD;&#xA;    9       20      1       3       1.75&#xD;&#xA;    10      1       3       3       3.0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I did a quick modification to measure just the last word, and the results are nearly identical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    pos     words   min     max     avg&#xD;&#xA;    -1      9896    1       7       2.43&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `pos` = 0-indexed word position in a line (e.g. &quot;arma&quot; gets a 0, &quot;virumque&quot; gets a 1, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;* `words` = number of words in given position&#xD;&#xA;* `min` = minimum number of syllables of a word in given position&#xD;&#xA;* `max` = maximum number&#xD;&#xA;* `avg` = average syllable count in that position&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, short 1-syllable words occur ubiquitously in any position. Longer words also seem to occur uniformly, though because very long 7-syllable words are so rare, they won't occur in smaller sample sizes because of standard deviation. The average too hovers at about the same value and only changes when the sample size gets too small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N.B. I have never formally studied statistics, so I am happy to improve the metrics if someone can provide a better heuristic. I can also come up with some graphs if that would be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, as a caveat, my syllable counting program is the slip-shod work of two minutes: it works correctly for the first 10 verses of the Aeneid, but obviously a better implementation could catch more edge cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my program for reference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    import re&#xD;&#xA;    from collections import defaultdict&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    text = &quot;&quot;&quot;full text with line breaks here. I took text from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/227/227-h/227-h.htm and removed chapter headings&quot;&quot;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    text = ''.join(c for c in text if c.isalpha() or c.isspace())&#xD;&#xA;    def syllables(word):&#xD;&#xA;        return len(re.findall(r'^i[aeiou]|a[eiu]|o[ei]|[aeiouy]', word.lower())) - word.count('qu')&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    verse_lengths = defaultdict(list) &#xD;&#xA;    for verse in text.split('\n'):&#xD;&#xA;        for i, word in enumerate(verse.split()):&#xD;&#xA;            verse_lengths[i].append(syllables(word))&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;    print('{}\t{}\t{}\t{}\t{}'.format('pos', 'words', 'min', 'max', 'avg'))   &#xD;&#xA;    for pos, word_lengths in verse_lengths.items():&#xD;&#xA;        avg = round(sum(word_lengths) / len(word_lengths), 2)&#xD;&#xA;        print('{}\t{}\t{}\t{}\t{}'.format(pos, len(word_lengths), min(word_lengths), max(word_lengths), avg))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="afabd1f5-eb3d-41d8-ad2e-c68c51b26042" CreationDate="2017-04-05T18:12:50.580" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and reformatted a little." Text="From the Online Etymology Dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**[pontifex (n.)](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=pontifex&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; member of the supreme college of priests in ancient Rome, 1570s, from Latin *pontifex* &quot;high priest, chief of the priests,&quot; probably from *pont-*, stem of *pons* &quot;bridge&quot; (see [*pons*](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=pons&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + *-fex, -ficis,* root of *facere* &quot;make&quot; (see [*factitious*](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=factitious&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)). If so, the word originally meant &quot;bridge-maker,&quot; or &quot;path-maker.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Weekley points out that, **[1.]** &quot;bridge-building has always been regarded as a pious work of divine inspiration.&quot; **[2.]** Or the term may be metaphoric of bridging the earthly world and the realm of the gods. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please correct me if I erred, but [1.] and [2.] appear two separate hypotheses for the etymology. If so, then understanding 2, I ask only about 1: Why was bridge-building “regarded as a pious work of divine inspiration”? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10875" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="afabd1f5-eb3d-41d8-ad2e-c68c51b26042" CreationDate="2017-04-05T18:12:50.580" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and reformatted a little." Text="|etymology|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="81583ca1-b476-4ba3-9baa-6b2a08071999" CreationDate="2017-04-05T18:22:48.153" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and reformatted slightly." Text="We all know that *ut*, when paired with a subjunctive, is translated as &quot;in order to&quot; (purpose), &quot;to&quot; (indirect command), and, with some words, &quot;that&quot; (result/fear). However, *ut*  with an indicative means &quot;(just) as&quot;. I can't figure out how subjunctive/indicative makes that transformation. After all, subjunctive just adds a sense of &quot;maybe&quot;, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does that change &quot;just as&quot; into three other apparently different things? What underlying concept ties them all together?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, why does *ut* mean such different things when all that changes is the mood of the verb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*NB: I can understand why adding some words changes the meaning. I'm confused about why the mood has such a drastic effect.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10877" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="81583ca1-b476-4ba3-9baa-6b2a08071999" CreationDate="2017-04-05T18:22:48.153" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and reformatted slightly." Text="|classical-latin|meaning|conjunction|ut|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="305ff660-b57c-4002-977c-b5c165b4deac" CreationDate="2017-04-05T18:32:32.807" UserId="79" Comment="There was something in the first analysis. I think and hope it makes more sense now. Feel free to roll back or re-edit." Text="Ah, the joys of scansion! My understanding of the subject is solid but very basic, so I'll give you what I know, in the hope that somebody else can elaborate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Caesura in Ancient Poetry**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic unit of Latin poetry is the foot: iamb, trochee, dactyl, anapest, spondee, amphibrach. A line of dactylic hexameter is obviously made up of six dactyls (a long syllable followed by two short syllables, marked —˘ ˘ ), some of which can be replaced with spondees (two long syllables, marked ——). Take the first line of the *Æneid*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —    ˘   ˘ —       ˘      ˘  ——      ——     —  ˘    ˘    ——     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arma virumque cano, Troiæ qui primus ab oris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--COMMENT:&#xD;&#xA;old and new versions if you want to revert or compare:&#xD;&#xA; —    ˘   ˘ —       ˘      ˘  —      —— / —     —  ˘    ˘    ——     &#xD;&#xA; —    ˘   ˘ —       ˘      ˘  ——      ——     —  ˘    ˘    ——     &#xD;&#xA; Arma virumque cano, Troiæ qui primus ab oris&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you separate each foot, you come up with this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —    ˘   ˘ /—      ˘      ˘ /—    —/—   — /—  ˘     ˘  /——    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arma virumque cano, Troiæ qui primus ab oris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, as Wikipedia suggests, a caesura occurs when a word ending comes during a foot rather than at the end of one, then there are caesuras (marked ||) in every foot of this line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —    ˘ || ˘ /—     ˘ || ˘  /—|| —/—||—/  —   ˘  ||˘ / ——    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arma virumque cano, Troiæ qui primus ab oris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, usually in Latin poetry when people talk about the caesura, they mean what's called the *principal caesura*, which comes either in the third or fourth foot. In this verse it comes in the third foot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —    ˘   ˘ /—      ˘     ˘ /—|| —/—   —  /  —   ˘   ˘ /  ——    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arma virumque cano, Troiæ qui primus ab oris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are various rules (some of them slippery, some of them disputed) for whether the principal caesura usually goes in the third or fourth foot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing to know about caesuras is that they're called *strong* when they follow a long syllable and *weak* when they follow a short syllable. So in the line above, the caesura is strong. In the following line, the caesura is in the third foot and is weak:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     —  —  / —   ˘  ˘ /—   ˘ ||  ˘ /—˘  ˘ /—     ˘     ˘ /——    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Spargens humida mella soporiferumque papaver  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Virgil, *Æneid*, book 4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Caesura in Modern Poetry**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern English poetry, the caesura is much, much easier to understand. It's just when you pause while reciting a verse, often (though not always) for punctuation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is for you we speak, || not for ourselves:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (Shakespeare, *The Winter's Tale*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically that's what that sentence from Wikipedia means. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2556" RevisionGUID="aa20c326-10c7-4345-9863-2ee9797b97b9" CreationDate="2017-04-05T18:32:45.060" UserId="1224" Comment="Some stuff was done." Text="You could use the adjective *constans* to mean consistent and continuing. Alternatively, one could use *liquidus*. It primarily means liquid, but it can also be interpreted as flowing or without interruption. There's even *fluentus*, which is the Medieval Latin word for flowing, but mostly describes water. Personally, I would say *vehiculum constans* or *continuing vehicle*. I hope this was useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I also suggest *protinus*, without pause." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2301" RevisionGUID="680fcf84-269c-4dd7-bb81-4a616193efab" CreationDate="2017-04-05T18:55:12.923" UserId="45" Comment="removed subjective language from question" Text="[I recently requested a word from Greek which means, &quot;knowing when to break the rules&quot;.][1] The question I asked generated a lot of fine responses, but unfortunately it could not remind me of the original word that I had heard from my friend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even more recently, I asked my friend which word he had used, and he replied with *epikaria* or *epicharia*. However, we are both having a hard time finding this word in any dictionary. It does, interestingly enough, show up on Google searches. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Greek have the word *epikaria* or *epicharia*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2241/what-ancient-greek-word-or-idea-signifies-a-knowledge-of-when-to-break-the-rules" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10881" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2301" RevisionGUID="680fcf84-269c-4dd7-bb81-4a616193efab" CreationDate="2017-04-05T18:55:12.923" UserId="45" Comment="removed subjective language from question" Text="Is &quot;epicharia&quot; or &quot;epikaria&quot; a Greek word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10882" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="178" RevisionGUID="0f78b6ce-690e-41b7-80a9-f40829ef6d0c" CreationDate="2017-04-05T22:21:48.770" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|example-request|derivation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10883" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="178" RevisionGUID="7e14cae4-a581-48e2-9cc9-e3cbcae2f68c" CreationDate="2017-04-05T22:24:18.167" UserId="79" Comment="25" />
  <row Id="10884" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="5835d24e-4bcb-4545-998f-1e1523966342" CreationDate="2017-04-05T23:02:23.630" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3033" RevisionGUID="f343851b-96aa-447d-a0e6-618e85ec9274" CreationDate="2017-04-05T23:53:06.417" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I think it's partly common sense. For example, I can't imagine them going with indefinite adjectives, e.g. *\*peraliqui*, for which Phi database gives zero results. But would such a word even mean? How do you intensify &quot;any&quot;? It's nonsense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, any positive adjective which has a comparative or superlative form can take it no problem. It can also be placed on adverbs (same qualification) and verbs without issue. It was a very productive prefix, so even if we do not have examples of Classical usage, a Roman would still understand it, though its particular meaning would have been restricted by usage (e.g. *permaneo* means &quot;remain long&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3045" RevisionGUID="d2450ade-b505-45b5-aa1d-4c758cc7122d" CreationDate="2017-04-06T00:43:09.230" UserId="79" Text="Many modern languages seem to have informal spelling variants of some kind, which may or may not affect pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;For example, English has contractions like &quot;didn't&quot; and &quot;I've&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;These are common in informal use, both spoken and written, but they would not be used in formal situations &amp;mdash; especially in writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was there something similar in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I assume something of that kind might be preserved through inscriptions rather than literature, but I'm not sure.&#xD;&#xA;The only thing that comes to my mind is replacing *au &gt; &amp;omacr;* (eg. Claudius becoming Clodius), but I'm not sure if this really qualifies as informal spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not mean abbreviations that would also be used in formal occasions, but something more casual (whatever that might mean).&#xD;&#xA;Any kind of evidence is fine: inscriptions, contemporary remarks, or other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10887" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3045" RevisionGUID="d2450ade-b505-45b5-aa1d-4c758cc7122d" CreationDate="2017-04-06T00:43:09.230" UserId="79" Text="Were there informal spelling variants in classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10888" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3045" RevisionGUID="d2450ade-b505-45b5-aa1d-4c758cc7122d" CreationDate="2017-04-06T00:43:09.230" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|spelling|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3045" RevisionGUID="17f437e8-c191-41d5-aa2a-2bbf481f1a41" CreationDate="2017-04-06T02:05:27.840" UserId="79" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="Many modern languages seem to have informal spelling variants of some kind, which may or may not affect pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;For example, English has contractions like &quot;didn't&quot; and &quot;I've&quot; and Finnish has informal versions of personal pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;These are common in informal use, both spoken and written, but they would not be used in formal situations &amp;mdash; especially in writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was there something similar in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I assume something of that kind might be preserved through inscriptions rather than literature, but I'm not sure.&#xD;&#xA;The only thing that comes to my mind is replacing *au &gt; &amp;omacr;* (eg. Claudius becoming Clodius), but I'm not sure if this really qualifies as informal spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not mean abbreviations that would also be used in formal occasions, but something more casual (whatever that might mean).&#xD;&#xA;Any kind of evidence is fine: inscriptions, contemporary remarks, or other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3045" RevisionGUID="7abe8dd7-ff7d-40cd-8280-ec7b610a5aa9" CreationDate="2017-04-06T05:29:23.800" UserId="79" Comment="Rewrote the whole thing." Text="All modern languages I know allow expressing essentially the same thing in different ways, and sometimes there is a difference in the level of formality.&#xD;&#xA;Formality is not binary; I would not say strictly that one variant is formal and the other is informal, only that one is more formal than the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me give some examples:&#xD;&#xA;In English the contracted forms &quot;didn't&quot; and &quot;I've&quot; are more informal than &quot;did not&quot; and &quot;I have&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In Finnish many pronouns (minä, sinä, tämä, tuo, &amp;hellip;) have informal variants (mä, sä, tää, toi, &amp;hellip;) that are commonly used in speech and online discussions but are not used in printed or broadcast news.&#xD;&#xA;In mathematics logical implication symbols and quantifiers (&amp;iff;, &amp;forall;, &amp;hellip;) are often used when solving problems or teaching, but in more formal printed contexts like textbooks or articles they are typically replaced by words (if and only if, for all, &amp;hellip;).&#xD;&#xA;The point is that the same thing can be expressed in two ways and there is a difference in the level of formality between the two.&#xD;&#xA;I want to know if this phenomenon existed in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for &quot;informal spelling variants&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;With this I mean variant forms of words (or other similar variations) which are more informal than the usual version.&#xD;&#xA;I assume that if there is a difference in formality, the most typical variant is more formal; if this assumption is wrong, I would be happy to see &quot;formal spelling variants&quot; as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that there are spelling variations in Latin, for example perfect syncopation (*amavisse* &gt; *amasse*), [*-ris/-re* as a passive ending](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2921/79), and [*-nl-/-ll-* with prefixes ending in *-n*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2434/79).&#xD;&#xA;However, I am not aware of any difference in the level of formality in these variations.&#xD;&#xA;The only thing that comes to my mind is replacing *au &gt; &amp;omacr;* (eg. Claudius becoming Clodius), but I'm not sure if this really has a formality difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not mean abbreviations that would also be used in formal occasions, but something more casual (whatever that might mean).&#xD;&#xA;Any kind of evidence is fine: inscriptions, contemporary remarks, or other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were there informal spelling variants in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;That is, were there alternative ways to spell (or perhaps pronounce) words that could be considered informal?&#xD;&#xA;If such things exist, I would like to know a couple of words (or short phrases) with two alternative spellings, one of which is more formal than the other.&#xD;&#xA;The examples can also be regional (dialect difference), as long as there is a difference in formality; perhaps a spelling variant used in Hispania was considered more informal than the one used in Rome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This question went through a complete rewrite. I hope it is less unclear now. Many thanks for C. M. Weimer, brianpck, and Cerberus for the help!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3045" RevisionGUID="0670592d-8790-4cd4-91c9-5c885973a055" CreationDate="2017-04-06T06:07:08.820" UserId="79" Comment="added 388 characters in body" Text="All modern languages I know allow expressing essentially the same thing in different ways, and sometimes there is a difference in the level of formality.&#xD;&#xA;Formality is not binary; I would not say strictly that one variant is formal and the other is informal, only that one is more formal than the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me give some examples:&#xD;&#xA;In English the contracted forms &quot;didn't&quot; and &quot;I've&quot; are more informal than &quot;did not&quot; and &quot;I have&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In Finnish many pronouns (minä, sinä, tämä, tuo, &amp;hellip;) have informal variants (mä, sä, tää, toi, &amp;hellip;) that are commonly used in speech and online discussions but are not used in printed or broadcast news.&#xD;&#xA;In mathematics logical implication symbols and quantifiers (&amp;iff;, &amp;forall;, &amp;hellip;) are often used when solving problems or teaching, but in more formal printed contexts like textbooks or articles they are typically replaced by words (if and only if, for all, &amp;hellip;).&#xD;&#xA;The point is that the same thing can be expressed in two ways and there is a difference in the level of formality between the two.&#xD;&#xA;I want to know if this phenomenon existed in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for &quot;informal spelling variants&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;With this I mean variant forms of words (or other similar variations) which are more informal than the usual version.&#xD;&#xA;I assume that if there is a difference in formality, the most typical variant is more formal; if this assumption is wrong, I would be happy to see &quot;formal spelling variants&quot; as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that there are spelling variations in Latin, for example perfect syncopation (*amavisse* &gt; *amasse*), [*-ris/-re* as a passive ending](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2921/79), and [*-nl-/-ll-* with prefixes ending in *-n*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2434/79).&#xD;&#xA;However, I am not aware of any difference in the level of formality in these variations.&#xD;&#xA;The only thing that comes to my mind is replacing *au &gt; &amp;omacr;* (eg. Claudius becoming Clodius), but I'm not sure if this really has a formality difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not mean abbreviations that would also be used in formal occasions, but something more casual (whatever that might mean).&#xD;&#xA;Any kind of evidence is fine: inscriptions, contemporary remarks, or other.&#xD;&#xA;It does not matter if the sense of informality developed later, although I do prefer formality differences observed during the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;Any examples where we have a good reason to suspect informality in some sense would make good answers.&#xD;&#xA;If the informal status is uncertain (eg. is Plautus more archaic than colloquial?), examples with the appropriate caveats would be good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were there informal spelling variants in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;That is, were there alternative ways to spell (or perhaps pronounce) words that could be considered informal?&#xD;&#xA;If such things exist, I would like to know a couple of words (or short phrases) with two alternative spellings, one of which is more formal than the other.&#xD;&#xA;The examples can also be regional (dialect difference), as long as there is a difference in formality; perhaps a spelling variant used in Hispania was considered more informal than the one used in Rome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This question went through a complete rewrite. I hope it is less unclear now. Many thanks for C. M. Weimer, brianpck, and Cerberus for the help!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="26" RevisionGUID="3d79efc5-67d5-4a84-8a02-f074be8bd0a9" CreationDate="2017-04-06T13:24:49.933" UserId="25" Comment="Fixed spelling." Text="In Ecclesiastical Latin &quot;-que&quot; would be used in order to avoid to much repetition of the use of &quot;et&quot; and for drawing similarities to the original first noun in a statement, as is sometimes found various Litaniae Sanctorum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sancti Petri et Pauli, atque Andrea, ora pro nobis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this phrase we can see a similarity between Peter and Paul (Apostles of Rome) and yet at the same time another similarity between Peter and Andrew (brothers)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3047" RevisionGUID="73e91bb0-6f67-4cbe-80b0-b539087b8272" CreationDate="2017-04-06T21:09:30.570" UserId="45" Text="Here is a **potentially similar example** of a past dilemma from [Diogenes Laertius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_La%C3%ABrtius) (3rd c. AD), *Vitae Philosophorum*, in which he uses the *aorist optative* for the protasis. The surrounding clause is in direct speech, so the apodosis is in an aorist infinitive. The OP is probably in a better position to judge whether this fits the case or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; φησὶ δὲ Δημήτριος ὁ Μάγνης τραπεζίτῃ τινὶ παρακαταθέσθαι τἀργύριον, συνθέμενον, **εἰ μὲν οἱ παῖδες ἰδιῶται γένοιντο,** αὐτοῖς ἀποδοῦναι: **εἰ δὲ φιλόσοφοι**, τῷ δήμῳ διανεῖμαι. (VI.88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hicks' translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Demetrius of Magnesia tells a story that he entrusted a banker with a sum of money on condition that, **if his sons proved ordinary men** he was to pay it to them, **but, if they became philosophers,** then to distribute it among the people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3040" RevisionGUID="e45f0bf7-9bcf-4c47-b54a-5a8ed7e3b60d" CreationDate="2017-04-06T21:45:10.003" UserId="40" Comment="added 196 characters in body" Text="I want to find out how Greek expresses the protases of conditions like the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What was I to do? **If I remained in Athens** I would be killed; **if I left**, I would lose all my property.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a type of past-tense condition, but it isn't one of the usual three types discussed in grammars and textbooks. It's not an open condition (the speaker knows now whether he stayed or left); it's not a counterfactual (one of the two options must be true); and it's not a general condition (not a recurring situation). Rather, it's a kind of free indirect speech, in which we are being asked to take the viewpoint of the speaker at that moment in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the same condition were about the present, it would be easy: *If I remain in Athens I will be killed* is a straightforward future more vivid. But what happens when it's shifted into the past?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking specifically about the protasis because I feel pretty sure that the apodosis would be expressed by ἔμελλον + infinitive. There are examples of such usages in Goodwin's *Moods and Tenses* (p. 99), but unfortunately none involve a condition. Can anyone point to an example of such a condition in a Greek text (or even better, to a grammatical discussion of this type)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ETA: added a [related question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/3042/are-there-instances-of-free-indirect-discourse-in-latin-or-greek) about free indirect speech in Greek and Latin.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3048" RevisionGUID="b9999c6a-ba74-4653-b41e-b74c8c3e9c8f" CreationDate="2017-04-07T00:43:40.377" UserId="79" Text="I learned from the comment to the answer to [this old question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2466/79) that Latin has lost the consonant S before voiced consonants.&#xD;&#xA;In the linked post this was used to explain the observed pattern that the prefix *ex-* becomes *&amp;emacr;-* before voiced consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this effect work also across word boundaries?&#xD;&#xA;That is, if a word ends in S and the next word begins with a voiced consonant, does something happen to the S?&#xD;&#xA;Would it be lost in either pronunciation or spelling, or would such situations perhaps be avoided?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess (and only a guess!) is that such loss of S was no longer active by the classical era, and the Romans would not have observed any difficulty having S followed by a voiced consonant.&#xD;&#xA;A quick glance at the Aeneid shows no sign of avoiding this situation.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know if we know something about the matter.&#xD;&#xA;For example, if we have some evidence that the mentioned law became inactive at some known time or that laws of this kind do typically not work across word boundaries, that would reasonably answer my question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10899" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3048" RevisionGUID="b9999c6a-ba74-4653-b41e-b74c8c3e9c8f" CreationDate="2017-04-07T00:43:40.377" UserId="79" Text="Loss of s before voiced consonants at word boundaries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10900" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3048" RevisionGUID="b9999c6a-ba74-4653-b41e-b74c8c3e9c8f" CreationDate="2017-04-07T00:43:40.377" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|phonetics|consonants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3049" RevisionGUID="be5cb714-06dc-4f3b-bdd0-722309eecffb" CreationDate="2017-04-07T05:44:06.817" UserId="1202" Text="I'm learning koine Greek. One of the example sentences that my lecturer has dreamt up is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Τα σημεια θεου ανθρωποις εστιν;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not exactly sure how to translate this. It seems to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Are the signs of God men?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more logical sentence might be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Are the signs of God for men?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess I'm confused by the οις ending on ανθροποις. What case is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10902" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3049" RevisionGUID="be5cb714-06dc-4f3b-bdd0-722309eecffb" CreationDate="2017-04-07T05:44:06.817" UserId="1202" Text="How should this text be translated? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10903" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3049" RevisionGUID="be5cb714-06dc-4f3b-bdd0-722309eecffb" CreationDate="2017-04-07T05:44:06.817" UserId="1202" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3050" RevisionGUID="6e105115-ae38-458b-9944-6f6afc5714ab" CreationDate="2017-04-07T07:08:37.837" UserId="1289" Text="In early classical poetry, a final `/s/` did not necessarily make position in `Vs CV`. This is common enough in Plautus, especially when combined with Brevis Brevians, and seems to diminish in frequency with time. It is still present in Lucilius, and the very last instance is in Catullus. I cannot run an analysis of the frequency of voiced vs unvoiced consonants, because I don't have a scanned corpus of Plautus and because dramatic meters aren't my strong suit. All examples below are with voiced consonants or unvoiced fricatives, but of course a sample size of 5 instances is not exactly the strongest evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A senarius in Plautus, Casina 137&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sine ama|bo ted | ama|ri, meŭ̯s | festŭ̱s | dies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 consecutive hexameters in Lucilius 4.149-151 Marx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aeser|ninu̯s fu|it Flaccorum munere quidam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Samnis, | spurcu̯s ho|mo, vi|ta illa | dignu̯s lo|coque:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cum Pacideiano componitur, | optimu̯s | multo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pentameter in Catullus CXVI, 8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at fix|ŭ̱s nos|trī̱s || tu dabĭ̯s | supplici|um.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3051" RevisionGUID="b32dcaf6-b0f3-475b-a666-ae0d94915b30" CreationDate="2017-04-07T13:15:02.900" UserId="78" Text="ανθρωποις is dative plural, and indeed it often is translated into English with &quot;for,&quot; as you divined. The exact meaning will be determined by context. Other ways of putting it are &quot;Are there signs of god for men?&quot; and &quot;Do men have the signs of god?&quot; (the dative of possession/the possessor; Smyth §1476).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full paradigm for 2nd decl. nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;N. ἄνθρωπος&#xD;&#xA;G. ἀνθρώπου&#xD;&#xA;D. ἀνθρώπῳ&#xD;&#xA;A. ἄνθρωπον&#xD;&#xA;V. ἄνθρωπε&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N. ἀνθρώπω&#xD;&#xA;G. ἀνθρώποιν&#xD;&#xA;D. ἀνθρώποιν&#xD;&#xA;A. ἀνθρώπω&#xD;&#xA;V. ἀνθρώπω&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N. ἄνθρωποι&#xD;&#xA;G. ἀνθρώπων&#xD;&#xA;D. ἀνθρώποις&#xD;&#xA;A. ἀνθρώπους&#xD;&#xA;V. ἄνθρωποι&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3051" RevisionGUID="2c5c06c2-1e7a-4b90-8364-771fc1adbff8" CreationDate="2017-04-07T13:43:15.610" UserId="78" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="ανθρωποις (note the omega, not omicron, as you later wrote it) is dative plural, and indeed it is often translated into English with &quot;for,&quot; as you divined. The precise meaning will be determined by context. Other ways of putting it are, &quot;Are there signs of god for men?&quot; and, &quot;Do men have the signs of god?&quot; (the dative of possession/the possessor; Smyth §1476).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full paradigm for 2nd decl. nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;N. ἄνθρωπος&#xD;&#xA;G. ἀνθρώπου&#xD;&#xA;D. ἀνθρώπῳ&#xD;&#xA;A. ἄνθρωπον&#xD;&#xA;V. ἄνθρωπε&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N. ἀνθρώπω&#xD;&#xA;G. ἀνθρώποιν&#xD;&#xA;D. ἀνθρώποιν&#xD;&#xA;A. ἀνθρώπω&#xD;&#xA;V. ἀνθρώπω&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N. ἄνθρωποι&#xD;&#xA;G. ἀνθρώπων&#xD;&#xA;D. ἀνθρώποις&#xD;&#xA;A. ἀνθρώπους&#xD;&#xA;V. ἄνθρωποι&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2991" RevisionGUID="c9543328-04c9-431e-9105-9bd22b87a09a" CreationDate="2017-04-07T13:49:43.447" UserId="78" Comment="added 338 characters in body" Text="Were it such a thing, it would be *modus interrogativus*, since *modus* is masculine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis &amp; Short II.B.3 contains the examples for using *modus* as a classification for verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. In gram., a form of a verb, a voice or mood: “in verbo fiunt soloecismi per genera, tempora, personas, modos, etc.,” Quint. 1, 5, 41: patiendi modus (the passive voice) ... faciendi modus (the active voice), id. 9, 3, 7; cf. 1, 6, 26." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3052" RevisionGUID="ba1d402f-617b-407c-a66f-8992e84e7c10" CreationDate="2017-04-07T21:05:46.017" UserId="1289" Text="As promised before in a comment, I made a corpus analysis of whether word length, in terms of number of syllables, is correlated with position in the verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spoiler alert: it isn't. brianpck has already done a basic corpus analysis with essentially the right conclusion, but I intended to do this as thoroughly as possible in order to hone my primitive skills as a statistician (meaning: please respond to any errors I may have made), and to make good on the aforementioned promise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Input corpus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used a hexameter corpus consisting of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Vergilius, Bucolica&#xD;&#xA;* Vergilius, Aeneis&#xD;&#xA;* Ovidius, Metamorphoses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Caveats&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only verses that are scanned correctly by my [Latin verse scanning tool](http://benoitlagae.pythonanywhere.com) are taken into account. This is 94.7% of the existing corpus (21525 out of 22723 verses) as of the time of this writing. There's a whole host of reasons why a verse wouldn't be scanned correctly, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* hiatus in the verse&#xD;&#xA;* hypermetricality (elision over verse boundaries)&#xD;&#xA;* unfinished verses&#xD;&#xA;* multiple possible scans&#xD;&#xA;* non-intuitive scansions of foreign words&#xD;&#xA;* other flukes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a small number of words that just cannot be determined correctly e.g. the word VOLVI can be either bisyllabic volvi (&lt; volvere) or volui (&lt; velle). There is no way to distinguish between these forms if the vol- part is in the second half of a foot: vo̱l|vi or vo̯lu̯|i, except by leveraging dictionary or even semantic knowledge. But the occurrence of this kind of problem should be rare enough to not influence the data significantly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't check for elided syllables, so e.g. *multum ille et* in Verg. Aen. I, 3 is counted as a sequence of words of 2, 2, and 1 syllables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Data analysis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I compared the actual vs the expected word length of words in verses: this essentially normalized the data to always have an expected value of 1, in order to allow using the data set of the 4-word verses together with the 11-word ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, any word in a verse consisting of 5 words that is 15 syllables in total, has an expected syllable count of 3. A verse consisting of 10 words and 14 syllables in total will contain on average a word of 1.4 syllables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By doing the calculation (actual * number of words / number of syllables), any word in any verse has an expected normalized weight of 1, no matter how many words and how many total syllables the verse contains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My results are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	+---------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------+&#xD;&#xA;	| word position |   1   |   2   |   3   |   4   |   5   |   6   |   7   |  8   |  9   |  10  |  11  |&#xD;&#xA;	+---------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------+&#xD;&#xA;	| count         | 21525 | 21525 | 21525 | 21525 | 21456 | 18340 | 10133 | 3308 |  636 |   76 |    7 |&#xD;&#xA;	| average       |  0.95 |  0.92 |  0.97 |  0.98 |  1.03 |  1.07 |  1.12 | 1.17 | 1.20 | 1.17 | 1.43 |&#xD;&#xA;	| st dev        |  0.40 |  0.33 |  0.35 |  0.35 |  0.39 |  0.37 |  0.34 | 0.33 | 0.38 | 0.44 | 0.43 |&#xD;&#xA;	| variance      |  0.16 |  0.11 |  0.12 |  0.12 |  0.15 |  0.13 |  0.11 | 0.11 | 0.15 | 0.19 | 0.19 |&#xD;&#xA;	| # of st devs  |  0.12 |  0.25 |  0.07 |  0.07 |  0.08 |  0.19 |  0.35 | 0.52 | 0.53 | 0.38 | 0.98 |&#xD;&#xA;	+---------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------+&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +---------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------+------+-------+&#xD;&#xA;	| word position |  -1   |  -2   |  -3   |  -4   |  -5   |  -6   |  -7   |  -8  |  -9  | -10  |  -11  |&#xD;&#xA;	+---------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------+------+-------+&#xD;&#xA;	| count         | 21525 | 21525 | 21525 | 21525 | 21456 | 18340 | 10133 | 3308 |  636 |   76 |     7 |&#xD;&#xA;	| average       |  1.01 |  1.24 |  0.94 |  0.94 |  0.96 |  0.96 |  0.91 | 0.87 | 0.82 | 0.83 |  0.66 |&#xD;&#xA;	| st dev        |  0.25 |  0.37 |  0.37 |  0.33 |  0.35 |  0.39 |  0.40 | 0.39 | 0.36 | 0.37 |  0.02 |&#xD;&#xA;	| variance      |  0.06 |  0.14 |  0.14 |  0.11 |  0.13 |  0.15 |  0.16 | 0.15 | 0.13 | 0.14 |  0.00 |&#xD;&#xA;	| # of st devs  |  0.06 |  0.64 |  0.17 |  0.18 |  0.10 |  0.09 |  0.21 | 0.34 | 0.49 | 0.45 | 16.77 |&#xD;&#xA;	+---------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------+------+-------+&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;word position -1 means the last word in a verse, -2 the second to last, etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last line of every table is the most important one, because it points to how significant the difference is between actual and expected data. In order to be statistically significant, we want the value in this row to be at least 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the only place where the actual length of words deviates significantly from the expected value is the eleventh-last word in verses of 11 words long, so the first. All 11-word verses start with a monosyllable, but given that there are only 7 such instances in the entire corpus, this is negligible. If any of these 7 instances hadn't had a monosyllable as a first word, then the sigma value would've been 1.30 instead of 16.77.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All other values are not statistically significant, so no, there is no correlation between word position and word length expressed in syllables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FYI I can provide the raw data on request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10909" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="3042" RevisionGUID="a556c8c4-9eac-471d-91e3-f660558ec368" CreationDate="2017-04-07T21:13:00.043" UserId="40" Comment="26" />
  <row Id="10912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3053" RevisionGUID="b34a0726-4f14-4e95-9b5c-4f99fabf2e77" CreationDate="2017-04-08T07:38:18.493" UserId="79" Text="What is &quot;right of way&quot; (in the sense of being allowed to go first in traffic) in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Is there by any chance a classical expression for essentially the same thing?&#xD;&#xA;I would like a phrase suitable for modern traffic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forming verbal expressions like &quot;is allowed to go first&quot; is simpler, but that is not what I'm after.&#xD;&#xA;The best thing I could come up with is *libertas praeeundi*, but I would not be surprised if there is a more natural way to put it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10913" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3053" RevisionGUID="b34a0726-4f14-4e95-9b5c-4f99fabf2e77" CreationDate="2017-04-08T07:38:18.493" UserId="79" Text="What is &quot;right of way&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10914" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3053" RevisionGUID="b34a0726-4f14-4e95-9b5c-4f99fabf2e77" CreationDate="2017-04-08T07:38:18.493" UserId="79" Text="|contemporary-latin|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="57" RevisionGUID="610321ea-c61a-43c3-bbe4-48dd84ac2912" CreationDate="2017-04-08T07:43:36.667" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="What is the process for translating modern words into Latin? For example, Latin Wikipedia has entries for tablet *computatrum tabulare* and smartphone *sophophonum*. Is there any particular process for coming up with these names, or do users of contemporary Latin come up with individual translations and use it until one of these &quot;catches on&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10916" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="57" RevisionGUID="610321ea-c61a-43c3-bbe4-48dd84ac2912" CreationDate="2017-04-08T07:43:36.667" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|contemporary-latin|technology|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3054" RevisionGUID="156ff129-80ab-4a10-8396-febe2945f635" CreationDate="2017-04-08T10:51:50.167" UserId="324" Text="I stumbled across this question in the “linguistics” forum:&#xD;&#xA;http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/21560/why-does-vacuum-have-two-us-and-how-is-it-pronounced&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: If uacuus is *wak+wo- why does uacuus have three syllables, but uiuus, paruus, caluus etc. have only two? Is there a rule that says that *wu remains after sonants (including l, r) but becomes *uu otherwise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10918" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3054" RevisionGUID="156ff129-80ab-4a10-8396-febe2945f635" CreationDate="2017-04-08T10:51:50.167" UserId="324" Text="Why does uacuus have three syllables?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10919" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3054" RevisionGUID="156ff129-80ab-4a10-8396-febe2945f635" CreationDate="2017-04-08T10:51:50.167" UserId="324" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3055" RevisionGUID="427515ef-bfc4-4b15-8e08-11ad1c173277" CreationDate="2017-04-08T15:59:29.920" UserId="1410" Text="The adjective _uacuus_ is formed from the verb *uacō* (“I am empty, void”) with the help of the ‎adjective-forming suffix _-uus_. This suffix has 2 variants, the 1-syllable one and the 2-syllable one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1-syllable form *-vus* is used after vowels (*flā-vus, vī-vus*), after L (*cal-vus*), and R (*par-vus, cor-vus*), and the 2-syllable form of that suffix, *-uus* is used after all other other consonants, like in your word *vac-uus*, with the exception of QU. In this last case, the form -us is used (_multiloqu-us, obliqu-us_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4055" RevisionGUID="8a682443-014c-4ff8-a2b7-3252644f00c3" CreationDate="2017-04-08T20:43:40.557" UserId="40" Text="Alongside the prefix *ex- ~ ē-* there is the preposition *ex ~ ē*, which offers a way of testing whether the same *s*-loss occurs before a voiced consonant at a word boundary. If it consistently does, we should expect to find *ē* before voiced consonants and *ex* otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the case, as the [question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2430) linked to by sumelic shows: there are phrases like *ex nihilō, ex lege*, where *ex* appears before voiced consonants. Searching PHI for e.g. [*#ex r*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ex+r) yields a large number of results, and likewise with other voiced consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course it's possible that the effect did occur across word boundaries but not consistently -- digging deeper into the statistics of various combinations might shed some light on that. But as far as it goes, this does suggest that *s*-loss did not operate even across the weak phonological boundary that separates a preposition from its object, and therefore *a fortiori* probably did not operate across other word boundaries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4055" RevisionGUID="c33d4b89-6645-490d-8a9f-3c0e625da5fe" CreationDate="2017-04-08T20:49:56.863" UserId="40" Comment="added 255 characters in body" Text="Alongside the prefix *ex- ~ ē-* there is the preposition *ex ~ ē*, which offers a way of testing whether the same *s*-loss occurs before a voiced consonant at a word boundary. If it consistently does, we should expect to find *ē* before voiced consonants and *ex* otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the case, as the [question](http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2430) linked to by sumelic shows: there are phrases like *ex nihilō, ex lege*, where *ex* appears before voiced consonants. Searching PHI for e.g. [*#ex r*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ex+r) yields a large number of results, and likewise with other voiced consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course it's possible that the effect did occur across word boundaries but not consistently -- digging deeper into the statistics of various combinations might shed some light on that. But as far as it goes, this does suggest that *s*-loss did not operate even across the weak phonological boundary that separates a preposition from its object, and therefore *a fortiori* probably did not operate across other word boundaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(To the question implied in your last sentence, such phonological rules certainly [can operate across word boundaries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandhi), so the fact that this one apparently doesn't is not due to any kind of linguistic universal.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4056" RevisionGUID="6e4bb838-42fb-4bb2-822a-eb9c3aff6953" CreationDate="2017-04-08T23:01:11.830" UserId="993" Text="Greetings wonderful people of Latin StackExchange!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am currently studying Latin (3rd year in high school); so I do have a mild understanding of the language. I would like to know whether this translation is correct, makes sense and sounds at least a bit natural. Unfortunately, I can't ask my classroom teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have come up with this _motto_ in English, call it a _title_ or _heading_ if you'd like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All lost things, found.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (All things which had been lost, have now been found) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going by my somehow limited knowledge of Latin, and consulting the Wiktionary, I crafted this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnes perditae res, inventus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I don't know if **inveniēns** should be used here, as an active present participle, or **inventus** as a passive perfect participle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are your thoughts on this? Any other approach is warmly welcomed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11923" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4056" RevisionGUID="6e4bb838-42fb-4bb2-822a-eb9c3aff6953" CreationDate="2017-04-08T23:01:11.830" UserId="993" Text="Yet another question about translation... Four words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11924" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4056" RevisionGUID="6e4bb838-42fb-4bb2-822a-eb9c3aff6953" CreationDate="2017-04-08T23:01:11.830" UserId="993" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4057" RevisionGUID="096e97fd-b1b8-43de-af36-c909b522faf3" CreationDate="2017-04-08T23:27:39.287" UserId="78" Text="A couple things about your translation. First, *res* is too literal. &quot;All things&quot; in Latin is merely *omnia*, and thus you can fix the gender of *perditae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking of which, *perdo* doesn't mean &quot;lost&quot; as in &quot;I can't find it,&quot; but &quot;lost&quot; as in &quot;irrevocably destroyed forever.&quot; Cf. Catullus' lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Miser Catulle, desinas ineptire, / et quod vides perisse **perditum** ducas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wretched Catullus, quit acting foolish / and consider that which has vanished to be **lost** [i.e. she's never coming back!]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd offer *amittere* as a good replacement (think &quot;misplace&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, on analogy with phrases like *damnant quod non intellegunt*, I'd suggest using a relative clause for your *amittere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd offer: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnia quae amissa iam [invenio] sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, instead of giving you that final word, I think you know which is correct. Think about the form of the word *found* in English. Is it a present participle or a past passive one? It works the same in English as it does in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4058" RevisionGUID="bbac3a81-cb57-471c-ad2e-604e673f5007" CreationDate="2017-04-09T05:16:11.770" UserId="230" Text="Am i right in saying that my sentence are two sentences in a row ? Of the victories of Rome ? Is that possible ? It's the first time I see this" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11927" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4058" RevisionGUID="bbac3a81-cb57-471c-ad2e-604e673f5007" CreationDate="2017-04-09T05:16:11.770" UserId="230" Text="Victoriarum Romae - Two genitives in a row?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11928" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4058" RevisionGUID="bbac3a81-cb57-471c-ad2e-604e673f5007" CreationDate="2017-04-09T05:16:11.770" UserId="230" Text="|translation|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4059" RevisionGUID="03c59dee-293a-4352-977a-a572f5a0c24a" CreationDate="2017-04-09T05:45:26.567" UserId="79" Text="Yes, this kind of thing is possible.&#xD;&#xA;There is no limit to how many genitives you can chain.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to describe the properties &quot;of the food of a dog of a man of a city of an empire&quot;, you can translate it as *cibi canis viri urbis imperii*.&#xD;&#xA;Of course this gets silly at some point, but grammar does not limit it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Of the victories of Rome&quot; is an excellent translation of *victoriarum Romae*.&#xD;&#xA;But broader context will determine what the best translation is.&#xD;&#xA;If *Romae* is singular dative or plural nominative instead, then you need to translate it correspondingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin tends to use adjectives for things like this, so I would translate &quot;of the victories of Rome&quot; from English to Latin as *victoriarum Romanarum* (&quot;of the Roman victories&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;But the genitive is grammatical as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4060" RevisionGUID="ec80b28f-8293-4ab9-abe0-972503331c8f" CreationDate="2017-04-09T08:54:12.530" UserId="993" Text="What comes to mind when reading your question are the plural forms of **deus** in nominative and vocative: **deī**, **diī** and **dī**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, and have been taught, the latter two are considered _somehow more informal_ than the usual **deī**. You can see this in Cicero's _In Catilinam_, which is supposed to show a literary proximity between the author and divinity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O **di** immortales, ubinam gentium sumus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, from what I've heard, these forms are said to be _popular_ ways of pronouncing the word and, by word of mouth, have become informal spellings. Much like what happened to _Romulus_ that it became _Roma_, talking from the perspective of the process. Perhaps one should also take into consideration **et** and **-que**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is hardly a certified opinion, since I'm still learning Latin in high school. Please, do correct me if I am mistaken or further explain whatever it was that I tried to convey here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4061" RevisionGUID="3c29b841-0892-4532-b932-19d1724a556d" CreationDate="2017-04-09T10:10:09.193" UserId="610" Text="There is a fragment of Gospel of Matthew (in Vulgata):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (...), esurivi enim et dedistis mihi manducare, sitivi et dedistis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mihi bibere, hospes eram et collegistis me (...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: Why exactly are &quot;esurivi&quot; and &quot;sitivi&quot; used in perfect form, but &quot;hospes eram&quot; is used in imperfect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I learned, perfect is used for the activities that took place at some point in the past and they are finished by now. On the contrary, imperfect is used to indicate the ongoing processes, which I think is more suitable for above use cases and is used in &quot;hospes eram&quot;, but not in &quot;sitivi&quot; and &quot;esurivi&quot;. Why is that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11932" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4061" RevisionGUID="3c29b841-0892-4532-b932-19d1724a556d" CreationDate="2017-04-09T10:10:09.193" UserId="610" Text="Why is &quot;esurivi&quot; and &quot;sitivi&quot; used in perfect, but &quot;hospes eram&quot; in imperfect in the same context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11933" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4061" RevisionGUID="3c29b841-0892-4532-b932-19d1724a556d" CreationDate="2017-04-09T10:10:09.193" UserId="610" Text="|grammar-choice|perfect-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11934" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4061" RevisionGUID="907de0df-d83d-4861-90cb-a6efb95c64a2" CreationDate="2017-04-09T10:18:32.143" UserId="610" Comment="edited title" Text="Why are &quot;esurivi&quot; and &quot;sitivi&quot; used in perfect, but &quot;hospes eram&quot; in imperfect in the same context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4057" RevisionGUID="b768e137-1798-43f7-b0ae-af0e103f0f12" CreationDate="2017-04-09T13:26:08.890" UserId="78" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="A couple things about your translation. First, *res* is too literal. &quot;All things&quot; in Latin is merely *omnia*, and thus you can fix the gender of *perditae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking of which, *perdo* doesn't mean &quot;lost&quot; as in &quot;I can't find it,&quot; but &quot;lost&quot; as in &quot;irrevocably destroyed forever.&quot; Cf. Catullus' lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Miser Catulle, desinas ineptire, / et quod vides perisse **perditum** ducas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wretched Catullus, quit acting foolish / and consider that which has vanished to be **lost** [i.e. she's never coming back!]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd offer *amittere* as a good replacement (think &quot;misplace&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, on analogy with phrases like *damnant quod non intellegunt*, I'd suggest using a relative clause for your *amittere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd offer: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnia quae amissa iam reperta sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, *found* is a perfect passive participle, so you would keep it the same in Latin. I chose the word *reperio*, which I think captures the nuance better (with the prefix *re-* and all), but *invenio* could work, too, I suppose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4062" RevisionGUID="a9d31f9b-c306-4d40-950f-7c54e262dbd8" CreationDate="2017-04-09T15:21:23.900" UserId="324" Text="In the Greek original of Mt 25, 35-36:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ἐπείνασα γάρ, καὶ ἐδώκατέ μοι φαγεῖν, ἐδίψησα, καὶ ἐποτίσατέ με, ξένος ἤμην, καὶ συνηγάγετέ με,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;γυμνός, καὶ περιεβάλετέ με, ἠσθένησα, καὶ ἐπεσκέψασθέ με, ἐν φυλακῇ ἤμην, καὶ ἤλθετε πρός με&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;all the verbs are in the aorist tense, except for “I was”, which, in both of its occurrences, is imperfect (in post-classical form ἤμην). The Latin version translates all the aorists with the Latin perfect (historically aorist/perfect), and the one imperfect verb with the Latin imperfect. So the real question is why the author of Matthew shifts tenses for this one word. I suspect that this is because in Greek the verb “to be” does not have a real aorist, but only the suppletive ἐγενόμην, which is perhaps too heavily laden with its etymological meaning “I became” to be an entirely satisfactory way to say “I was”. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4062" RevisionGUID="05b3c280-800f-4a75-957a-895f37226df5" CreationDate="2017-04-09T15:28:27.270" UserId="324" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="In the Greek original of Mt 25, 35-36:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ἐπείνασα γάρ, καὶ ἐδώκατέ μοι φαγεῖν, ἐδίψησα, καὶ ἐποτίσατέ με, ξένος ἤμην, καὶ συνηγάγετέ με,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;γυμνός, καὶ περιεβάλετέ με, ἠσθένησα, καὶ ἐπεσκέψασθέ με, ἐν φυλακῇ ἤμην, καὶ ἤλθετε πρός με&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;all the verbs are in the aorist tense, except for “I was”, which, in both of its occurrences, is imperfect (in the post-classical form ἤμην). The Latin version translates all the aorists with the Latin perfect (historically aorist/perfect), and the one imperfect verb with the Latin imperfect. So the real question is why the author of Matthew shifts tenses for this one word. I suspect that this is because in Greek the verb “to be” does not have a real aorist, but only the suppletive ἐγενόμην, which is perhaps too heavily laden with its etymological meaning “I became” to be an entirely satisfactory way to say “I was”. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4063" RevisionGUID="da1756f2-851a-41f5-a146-8c92883d6c56" CreationDate="2017-04-09T17:34:30.450" UserId="39" Text="Yes, this is a well-known rule (see Leumann 1977: 132-133, Tronskii 1960: 101, Weiss 2009/2011: 124 and many others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss puts it this way,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**“An unstressed short vowel between a liquid and u̯ is syncopated”** (p. 124):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*salau̯os &gt; salvus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*arau̯om &gt; arvum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Leumann &quot;Postkons. lat. u̯ (v) vor Vokal aus vokal. u: vorhistorisch hinter *r l*; hinter anderen Konsonanten aus Versnot bei Daktylikern, spaeter allgemein im Vulgaerlatein&quot; (p. 132).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It occurred in the pre-literary period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Exception:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“If the vowel in the preceding syllable was long, the syncope did not occur until the post-Plautine period:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mīluus &gt; mīlvus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;lārua &gt; lārva&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*pēleu̯is &gt; pēluis &gt; pēlvis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4058" RevisionGUID="28e71d32-0af7-4a45-8fd6-55c2b7637e71" CreationDate="2017-04-09T17:36:42.740" UserId="79" Comment="added 120 characters in body" Text="I was given the exercise to translate *Victoriarum Romae* into English.&#xD;&#xA;I don't feel confident about my translation &quot;Of the victories of Rome&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I right in saying that my sentence are two sentences in a row? Is that possible? It's the first time I see this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4064" RevisionGUID="84063c40-9844-4b23-9e75-da8659c5d1ca" CreationDate="2017-04-09T17:55:28.543" UserId="40" Text="In the ancient inventory of technical terms for rhetorical effects and devices, was there a term corresponding specifically to personification, in the sense of &quot;the attribution of a personal nature or human characteristics to something nonhuman, or the representation of an abstract quality in human form&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest thing I can find is [*prosopopoiea*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopopoeia), which is somewhat different: it refers to speaking through the assumed character of someone else, and though that &quot;someone else&quot; can be a non-human or abstract entity (as in Cicero's First Catilinarian, where he speaks in the voice of the Roman Republic), it doesn't have to be. Also, personification does not necessarily involve speaking for the personified entity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Personificatio* is not in L&amp;S nor PHI, and anyway I would expect that if a term existed it would be Greek, as most such terms are. Was there such a term?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11941" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4064" RevisionGUID="84063c40-9844-4b23-9e75-da8659c5d1ca" CreationDate="2017-04-09T17:55:28.543" UserId="40" Text="Is there a rhetorical term for personification?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11942" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4064" RevisionGUID="84063c40-9844-4b23-9e75-da8659c5d1ca" CreationDate="2017-04-09T17:55:28.543" UserId="40" Text="|greek|rhetoric|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11943" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4064" RevisionGUID="057a69b4-8d64-48c0-ad70-f2751c30273f" CreationDate="2017-04-09T18:26:14.193" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|terminology|rhetoric|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4058" RevisionGUID="84f89565-6f3f-4be6-af1c-9fb2185cb6d4" CreationDate="2017-04-09T21:44:07.863" UserId="9" Comment="tried to make it make more sense; minor grammar edits" Text="I was given the exercise to translate *Victoriarum Romae* into English.&#xD;&#xA;It's not a part of some bigger text: that's all I was given. I don't feel confident about my translation, &quot;Of the victories of Rome&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I right in saying that this is two genitives in a row? Is that possible? It's the first time I have seen this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11945" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4058" RevisionGUID="84f89565-6f3f-4be6-af1c-9fb2185cb6d4" CreationDate="2017-04-09T21:44:07.863" UserId="9" Comment="tried to make it make more sense; minor grammar edits" Text="What is the proper translation of &quot;Victoriarum Romae&quot; (two genitives in a row)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4063" RevisionGUID="3dcf2009-fe02-43c4-9d32-1c0dae141022" CreationDate="2017-04-09T23:11:38.897" UserId="39" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="Yes, this is a well-known rule (see Leumann 1977: 132-133, Tronskii 1960: 101, Weiss 2009/2011: 124 and many others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss puts it this way,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**“An unstressed short vowel between a liquid and u̯ is syncopated”** (p. 124):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*sl̩h₂u̯os (or *sl̩h₂euos) &gt; *salau̯os &gt; salvus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*arau̯om &gt; arvum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Leumann &quot;Postkons. lat. u̯ (v) vor Vokal aus vokal. u: vorhistorisch hinter *r l*; hinter anderen Konsonanten aus Versnot bei Daktylikern, spaeter allgemein im Vulgaerlatein&quot; (p. 132).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It occurred in the pre-literary period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Exception:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“If the vowel in the preceding syllable was long, the syncope did not occur until the post-Plautine period:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mīluus &gt; mīlvus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;lārua &gt; lārva&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*pēleu̯is &gt; pēluis &gt; pēlvis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4065" RevisionGUID="58733345-e104-4981-9721-e8618ba86acb" CreationDate="2017-04-09T23:34:42.657" UserId="1224" Text="I was reading *Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata* to practice my fluency of understanding simple sentences. In the tenth chapter, *Bestiae et Homines* (page 69), I came across a description of eagles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Aquila est magna avis fera, quae parvas aves capit et est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I quickly translated it as that which follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;An eagle is a large and untame bird, which captures small birds and... is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought that, of course, an eagle might eat smaller birds, but why is *est* used? Can *esse* also mean *to eat*? I checked many online dictionaries, but was unable to find any alternative definitions related to the action of eating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The words used in this book are very basic, as it's for beginners. I've never discovered a word which I had to look up until now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11948" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4065" RevisionGUID="58733345-e104-4981-9721-e8618ba86acb" CreationDate="2017-04-09T23:34:42.657" UserId="1224" Text="Translation of &quot;...quae parvas aves capit et est.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11949" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4065" RevisionGUID="58733345-e104-4981-9721-e8618ba86acb" CreationDate="2017-04-09T23:34:42.657" UserId="1224" Text="|translation|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4066" RevisionGUID="dee96d9b-10f5-485c-8273-3556e2074068" CreationDate="2017-04-09T23:54:56.133" UserId="30" Text="Indeed, it means *[he] eats*; it is a contracted form. It's not very common, nor extremely rare. [Lewis &amp; Short][1] even call it &quot;very frequent&quot;, which I think is an exaggeration:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The contr. forms *es, est, estis,* etc., are very freq. in prose and poetry: &quot;est&quot;, Vergil, *Aeneid* 4, 66; 5, 683; Horace, *Satires* 2, 2, 57&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=edo%231&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4067" RevisionGUID="97d52498-7c85-4010-b6a6-7462b3ee730c" CreationDate="2017-04-10T00:11:03.977" UserId="324" Text="Lausberg’s admirable book *Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik* §425 uses „fictio personae“ and also „prosopopoeia“." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3053" RevisionGUID="f2a41b60-396e-4311-b018-a82ce4555813" CreationDate="2017-04-10T03:03:30.060" UserId="79" Comment="added 24 characters in body; edited tags" Text="What is &quot;right of way&quot; (in the sense of being allowed to go first in traffic) in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Is there by any chance an attested expression for essentially the same thing?&#xD;&#xA;I would like a phrase suitable for modern traffic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forming verbal expressions like &quot;is allowed to go first&quot; is simpler, but that is not what I'm after.&#xD;&#xA;The best thing I could come up with is *libertas praeeundi*, but I would not be surprised if there is a more natural way to put it.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps *ius vehendi*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11954" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3053" RevisionGUID="f2a41b60-396e-4311-b018-a82ce4555813" CreationDate="2017-04-10T03:03:30.060" UserId="79" Comment="added 24 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|contemporary-latin|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11955" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4065" RevisionGUID="72eb1fff-013d-4275-91be-5e1b0f039194" CreationDate="2017-04-10T03:04:30.420" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|word-request|grammar-identification|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|esse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4067" RevisionGUID="931c4d40-1660-4f29-8cf4-73bd41c49ac9" CreationDate="2017-04-10T10:32:43.330" UserId="324" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="Lausberg’s admirable book *Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik* §425 uses „fictio personae“ and also „prosopopoeia“.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the Oxford English Dictionary, &quot;personification&quot; was &quot;formed within English, by derivation&quot;. The earliest citation is from 1728." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4062" RevisionGUID="cf4c05b3-afcc-436e-9b63-e323497e4661" CreationDate="2017-04-10T13:40:24.877" UserId="45" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="In the Greek original of Mt 25, 35-36:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἐπείνασα γάρ, καὶ ἐδώκατέ μοι φαγεῖν, ἐδίψησα, καὶ ἐποτίσατέ με, ξένος ἤμην, καὶ συνηγάγετέ με,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; γυμνός, καὶ περιεβάλετέ με, ἠσθένησα, καὶ ἐπεσκέψασθέ με, ἐν φυλακῇ ἤμην, καὶ ἤλθετε πρός με&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;all the verbs are in the aorist tense, except for “I was”, which, in both of its occurrences, is imperfect (in the post-classical form ἤμην). The Latin version translates all the aorists with the Latin perfect (historically aorist/perfect), and the one imperfect verb with the Latin imperfect. So the real question is why the author of Matthew shifts tenses for this one word. I suspect that this is because in Greek the verb “to be” does not have a real aorist, but only the suppletive ἐγενόμην, which is perhaps too heavily laden with its etymological meaning “I became” to be an entirely satisfactory way to say “I was”. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4068" RevisionGUID="230908ce-a3ff-4ceb-ada2-2d3764d42a46" CreationDate="2017-04-10T15:09:24.847" UserId="645" Text="Certainly, *ius* indicates the right to take some sort of action, so I should think that either *ius itineris* or *ius transitus* would be generally suitable as a traffic instruction (and, being more direct and powerful, preferable to using *facultas*, another possibility).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the party conceding right of way,* transitum dare* (Livy 21.20 and Caesar BG 1.8) are probably all right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4068" RevisionGUID="3d850235-2162-48f5-8b22-32593020fd81" CreationDate="2017-04-10T15:50:28.687" UserId="645" Comment="corr. grammar" Text="Certainly, *ius* indicates the right to take some sort of action, so I should think that either *ius itineris* or *ius transitus* would be generally suitable as a traffic instruction (and, being more direct and powerful, preferable to using *facultas*, another possibility).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the party conceding right of way,* transitum dare* (Livy 21.20 and Caesar BG 1.8) is probably all right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4069" RevisionGUID="f5733f89-801d-4456-b213-28d3e4089989" CreationDate="2017-04-10T16:20:18.263" UserId="183" Text="Inspired by this question http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/3019/a-good-word-for-waiter-or-waitress I'd like to know what duties a *cellarius* had in antique times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The German word for waiter, *Kellner*, is a loan from *cellarius*, but it acquired its present day meaning only recently (18th century)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11961" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4069" RevisionGUID="f5733f89-801d-4456-b213-28d3e4089989" CreationDate="2017-04-10T16:20:18.263" UserId="183" Text="What did a *cellarius* do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11962" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4069" RevisionGUID="f5733f89-801d-4456-b213-28d3e4089989" CreationDate="2017-04-10T16:20:18.263" UserId="183" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|occupation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4070" RevisionGUID="a19fe530-b94b-4a0b-91f0-213cc52ef88b" CreationDate="2017-04-10T16:56:28.273" UserId="469" Text="Just to complement fdb's answer, the tense selection does not make the text grammatically wrong, but adds a nuance if read as it is written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperfect is not necessarily ongoing _now_, but was ongoing [in the past][1]. Hence the difference with perfect may be nuanced, depending on the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say, it may denote an action that has not finished. But not necessarily: it may also -and primarily- express that the action was recurrent or continued, for a period of time, before it ended. In the first case, it is analogous to English 'used to' + (verb in infinitive). In the second case, it may be seen as similar to English's past continuous was/were + (verb) + -ing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So `hospes eram` can be &quot;literally&quot; translated as _I was being a foreigner_/_I used to be a foreigner_, which in English may be better understood as _I was a foreigner for a time_ or simply as _I was a foreigner_... (_and you received me_ while I still was.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11965" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4069" RevisionGUID="11a4f5b6-823f-48d6-9c7c-158303479e22" CreationDate="2017-04-10T21:52:33.437" UserId="45" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|roman-culture|vocabulary|occupation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4063" RevisionGUID="792d1887-ebd1-4f9e-97b9-92156f70873f" CreationDate="2017-04-11T03:20:02.690" UserId="39" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="Yes, this is a well-known rule (see Leumann 1977: 132-133, Tronskii 1960: 101, Weiss 2009/2011: 124 and many others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss puts it this way,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**“An unstressed short vowel between a liquid and u̯ is syncopated”** (p. 124):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*b&lt;sup&gt;h&lt;/sup&gt;olh&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;i-u̯os &gt; *foliu̯os &gt; fulvus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*sl̩h₂u̯os (or *sl̩h₂euos) &gt; *salau̯os &gt; salvus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*arau̯om &gt; arvum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Leumann &quot;Postkons. lat. u̯ (v) vor Vokal aus vokal. u: vorhistorisch hinter *r l*; hinter anderen Konsonanten aus Versnot bei Daktylikern, spaeter allgemein im Vulgaerlatein&quot; (p. 132).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It occurred in the pre-literary period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Exception:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“If the vowel in the preceding syllable was long, the syncope did not occur until the post-Plautine period:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mīluus &gt; mīlvus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;lārua &gt; lārva&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*pēleu̯is &gt; pēluis &gt; pēlvis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4072" RevisionGUID="2f4eacf4-f791-4ba8-9d7a-1faa2700c44d" CreationDate="2017-04-11T11:37:37.460" UserId="1418" Text="If so, what Latin prefix should one use to describe the wiping out of robots? I can't say &quot;codacide&quot; can I? Automatacide?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11968" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4072" RevisionGUID="2f4eacf4-f791-4ba8-9d7a-1faa2700c44d" CreationDate="2017-04-11T11:37:37.460" UserId="1418" Text="Does the &quot;gen&quot; from &quot;genocide&quot; come from &quot;genus&quot; as in &quot;race&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11969" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4072" RevisionGUID="2f4eacf4-f791-4ba8-9d7a-1faa2700c44d" CreationDate="2017-04-11T11:37:37.460" UserId="1418" Text="|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4068" RevisionGUID="e341fe29-6146-47a0-b65d-d3b9fafa55df" CreationDate="2017-04-11T13:51:42.110" UserId="645" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="Certainly, *ius* indicates the right to take some sort of action, so I should think that either *ius itineris* ('right of route') or *ius transitus* ('right of crossing') would be generally suitable as a traffic instruction (and, being more direct and powerful, preferable to using *facultas*, another possibility).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the party conceding right of way,* transitum dare* (Livy 21.20 and Caesar BG 1.8) is probably all right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4068" RevisionGUID="ac09e7f0-e73f-4c19-bd6a-6c4fc4299d40" CreationDate="2017-04-11T14:06:16.190" UserId="45" Comment="edited body" Text="Certainly, *ius* indicates the right to take some sort of action, so I should think that either *ius itineris* ('right of route') or *ius transitus* ('right of crossing') would be generally suitable as a traffic instruction (and, being more direct and powerful, preferable to using *facultas*, another possibility).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the party conceding right of way, *transitum dare* (Livy 21.20 and Caesar BG 1.8) is probably all right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4073" RevisionGUID="af1eab2b-8d52-4b61-9e51-17f0ae951c9e" CreationDate="2017-04-11T15:22:14.580" UserId="1343" Text="For both Latin and Greek, what rules govern the formation of a compound of two words, with the second word starting with a vowel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm specifically most interested in the rules for Latin, since this question was born out of my attempts to form a compound of *rapax* and *atrox* in that order (the other way around is obvious: *atrocirapax*); the first thing that I came up with was *rapaciatrox* using the Latin interfix *-i-*, but then I remembered that in the case of *magnanimus* (the etymological root of English &quot;magnanimous&quot;), the interfix was dropped completely. Yet *rapacatrox* doesn't seem right to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, I am also interested in how it works for Greek, since some Greek words that technically start with a vowel are actually pronounced with an &quot;h&quot; sound preceding the vowel (e.g. ἁρπάζω *harpázō*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: I'm surprised that we have tags for prefixes and suffixes, but not for interfixes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11974" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4073" RevisionGUID="af1eab2b-8d52-4b61-9e51-17f0ae951c9e" CreationDate="2017-04-11T15:22:14.580" UserId="1343" Text="Forming a compound with the second word starting with a vowel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11975" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4073" RevisionGUID="af1eab2b-8d52-4b61-9e51-17f0ae951c9e" CreationDate="2017-04-11T15:22:14.580" UserId="1343" Text="|grammar-choice|vowel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4073" RevisionGUID="139c84dd-4b09-4674-b02c-164d10d238f1" CreationDate="2017-04-11T16:19:14.617" UserId="1343" Comment="Adding context for clarity." Text="For both Latin and Greek, what rules govern the formation of a compound of two words, with the second word starting with a vowel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm specifically most interested in the rules for Latin, since this question was born out of my attempts to form a specific epithet for a made-up species, via a compound of *rapax* and *atrox* in that order (the other way around is obvious: *atrocirapax*); the first thing that I came up with was *rapaciatrox* using the Latin interfix *-i-*, but then I remembered that in the case of *magnanimus* (the etymological root of English &quot;magnanimous&quot;), the interfix was dropped completely. Yet *rapacatrox* doesn't seem right to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, I am also interested in how it works for Greek, since some Greek words that technically start with a vowel are actually pronounced with an &quot;h&quot; sound preceding the vowel (e.g. ἁρπάζω *harpázō*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: I'm surprised that we have tags for prefixes and suffixes, but not for interfixes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11977" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4073" RevisionGUID="4b995a18-6ddf-4234-92e4-0c4af19469dd" CreationDate="2017-04-11T18:29:52.940" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|affixes|vowel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4074" RevisionGUID="854a0c6d-1cb9-4076-b304-21334adaba03" CreationDate="2017-04-11T19:56:44.517" UserId="45" Text="I found an Oxford doctoral dissertation, [*Modes of Reporting Speech in Latin Fictional Narrative* (Laird 1992)](https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:cf04560a-fda0-4f0b-a53f-2e11c64b7a96/datastreams/ATTACHMENT1) (PDF) that includes an extensive discussion of direct and indirect speech in the first two centuries of Latin literature. It is quite large and does a wonderful job of explaining the ambiguities inherent in such a discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He notes on pg. 61 that,&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Virgil seems to be the first extant Latin narrative poet to employ properly&#xD;&#xA;f.i.d. [free indirect discourse].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples from Latin writers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following list is selectively taken from the above article: some examples are convincing and others are dubious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Here is a pretty **unambiguous example** (based on your answer to a comment) from Vergil's *Aeneid*, in which narration turns immediately to the internal questions of Aeneas without any transitioning verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; At vero Aeneas aspectu obmutuit amens,  &#xD;&#xA;arrectaeque horrore comae et vox faucibus haesit.  &#xD;&#xA;ardet abire fuga dulcisque relinquere terras,  &#xD;&#xA;attonitus tanto monitu imperioque deorum.   &#xD;&#xA;**heu quid agat? quo nunc reginam ambire furentem  &#xD;&#xA;audeat adfatu? quae prima exordia sumat?**  &#xD;&#xA;atque animum nunc hue celerem nunc dividit illuc  &#xD;&#xA;in partisque rapit varias perque omnia versat.  &#xD;&#xA;haec alternant! potior sententia visa est:  &#xD;&#xA;Mnesthea Segestumque vocat fortemque Serestum,  &#xD;&#xA;**classem aptent taciti sociosque ad litora cogant,  &#xD;&#xA;arma parent et quae rebus sit causa novandis  &#xD;&#xA;dissimulent; sese interea, quando optima Dido  &#xD;&#xA;nesciat et tantos rumpi non speret amores,  &#xD;&#xA;temptaturam aditus et quae mollissima fandi  &#xD;&#xA;tempora, quis rebus dexter modus.** ocius omnes  &#xD;&#xA;imperio laeti parent et iussa facessunt.  &#xD;&#xA;At regina dolos (quis fallere possit amantem?)  &#xD;&#xA;praesensit... (Verg *A* 4:279-297)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Another example from Vergil that closely parallels the above example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; haud aliter Rutulo muros et castra tuenti  &#xD;&#xA;ignescunt irae, duris dolor ossibus ardet.  &#xD;&#xA;**Qua temptet ratione aditus et quae via clausos  &#xD;&#xA;excutiat Teucros vallo atque effundat in aequum?**  (ibid. 9:65-68)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Here is an example from Ovid's *Metamorphoses* that reports the feelings of Scylla. I classify this as a **dubious example**, since the introductory ablative absolute &quot;hac iudice&quot; can be seen as taking the place of a verb of speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Noverat ante alios faciem ducis Europaei,  &#xD;&#xA;plus etiam, quam nosse sat est. Hac iudice Minos,  &#xD;&#xA;seu caput abdiderat cristata casside pennis,  &#xD;&#xA;in galea **formosus erat**; seu sumpserat aere  &#xD;&#xA;fulgentem clipeum, **clipeum sumpsisse decebat.**  &#xD;&#xA;Torserat adductis hastilia lenta lacertis:  &#xD;&#xA;laudabat virgo iunctam cum viribus artem. (Ov. *M.* 8:23-29)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Another example from Flaccus's *Argonautica*, which goes from direct discourse back to narration (and then again, afterwards, to direct discourse). The bolded portion appears to be free indirect discourse, though it could also be an effusion on the narrator's part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 'tunc sequeris' ait 'quidquam aut patiere pudendum,  &#xD;&#xA;cum tibi tot mortes scelerisque brevissima tanti  &#xD;&#xA;effugia?' haec dicens, qua non velocior ulla  &#xD;&#xA;pestis erat toto nequiquam lumine lustrat  &#xD;&#xA;cunctaturque super morituraque colligit iras.  &#xD;&#xA;**o nimium iucunda dies, quam cara sub ipsa  &#xD;&#xA;morte magis**: stetit et sese mirata furentem est. (Flaccus, *Argonautica* 7:331-337)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning Greek, I found a review article, [&quot;Some Recent Work on Direct and Indirect Discourse in the Ancient Historians&quot;](http://research.ncl.ac.uk/histos/documents/2012RD02FosterDirectandIndirectDiscourse.pdf) which claims an example of free indirect discourse in the *Histories* of Polybius. However, this article, following Usher (2009), appears to use a different definition of &quot;free indirect discourse,&quot; seeing it as a loose summary of words spoken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...so ergibt sich ein dreigliedriges Schema, in dem sich mit jeder Stufe—**Schilderung durch den Erzähler,** Referat in indirekter Rede, Verwendung von direkter Rede—die Intensität der vorgenommenen Perspektivierung steigert&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will not include the cited example since it pretty clearly does not fit your definition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4074" RevisionGUID="0c7a7c0c-98e4-4650-aac2-b69a5abf8e15" CreationDate="2017-04-11T20:41:16.357" UserId="45" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="I found an Oxford doctoral dissertation, [*Modes of Reporting Speech in Latin Fictional Narrative* (Laird 1992)](https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:cf04560a-fda0-4f0b-a53f-2e11c64b7a96/datastreams/ATTACHMENT1) (PDF) that includes an extensive discussion of direct and indirect speech in the first two centuries of Latin literature. It is quite large and does a wonderful job of explaining the ambiguities inherent in this kind of classification, such as the inherent biases introduced by an editor's choice of punctuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He notes on pg. 61 that,&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Virgil seems to be the first extant Latin narrative poet to employ properly&#xD;&#xA;f.i.d. [free indirect discourse].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples from Latin writers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following list is selectively taken from the above article: some examples are convincing and others are dubious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Here is a pretty **unambiguous example** (based on your answer to a comment) from Vergil's *Aeneid*, in which narration turns immediately to the internal questions of Aeneas without any transitioning verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; At vero Aeneas aspectu obmutuit amens,  &#xD;&#xA;arrectaeque horrore comae et vox faucibus haesit.  &#xD;&#xA;ardet abire fuga dulcisque relinquere terras,  &#xD;&#xA;attonitus tanto monitu imperioque deorum.   &#xD;&#xA;**heu quid agat? quo nunc reginam ambire furentem  &#xD;&#xA;audeat adfatu? quae prima exordia sumat?**  &#xD;&#xA;atque animum nunc hue celerem nunc dividit illuc  &#xD;&#xA;in partisque rapit varias perque omnia versat.  &#xD;&#xA;haec alternant! potior sententia visa est:  &#xD;&#xA;Mnesthea Segestumque vocat fortemque Serestum,  &#xD;&#xA;**classem aptent taciti sociosque ad litora cogant,  &#xD;&#xA;arma parent et quae rebus sit causa novandis  &#xD;&#xA;dissimulent; sese interea, quando optima Dido  &#xD;&#xA;nesciat et tantos rumpi non speret amores,  &#xD;&#xA;temptaturam aditus et quae mollissima fandi  &#xD;&#xA;tempora, quis rebus dexter modus.** ocius omnes  &#xD;&#xA;imperio laeti parent et iussa facessunt.  &#xD;&#xA;At regina dolos (quis fallere possit amantem?)  &#xD;&#xA;praesensit... (Verg *A* 4:279-297)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Another example from Vergil that closely parallels the above example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; haud aliter Rutulo muros et castra tuenti  &#xD;&#xA;ignescunt irae, duris dolor ossibus ardet.  &#xD;&#xA;**Qua temptet ratione aditus et quae via clausos  &#xD;&#xA;excutiat Teucros vallo atque effundat in aequum?**  (ibid. 9:65-68)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Here is an example from Ovid's *Metamorphoses* that reports the feelings of Scylla. I classify this as a **dubious example**, since the introductory ablative absolute &quot;hac iudice&quot; can be seen as taking the place of a verb of speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Noverat ante alios faciem ducis Europaei,  &#xD;&#xA;plus etiam, quam nosse sat est. Hac iudice Minos,  &#xD;&#xA;seu caput abdiderat cristata casside pennis,  &#xD;&#xA;in galea **formosus erat**; seu sumpserat aere  &#xD;&#xA;fulgentem clipeum, **clipeum sumpsisse decebat.**  &#xD;&#xA;Torserat adductis hastilia lenta lacertis:  &#xD;&#xA;laudabat virgo iunctam cum viribus artem. (Ov. *M.* 8:23-29)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Another example from Flaccus's *Argonautica*, which goes from direct discourse back to narration (and then again, afterwards, to direct discourse). The bolded portion appears to be free indirect discourse, though it could also be an effusion on the narrator's part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 'tunc sequeris' ait 'quidquam aut patiere pudendum,  &#xD;&#xA;cum tibi tot mortes scelerisque brevissima tanti  &#xD;&#xA;effugia?' haec dicens, qua non velocior ulla  &#xD;&#xA;pestis erat toto nequiquam lumine lustrat  &#xD;&#xA;cunctaturque super morituraque colligit iras.  &#xD;&#xA;**o nimium iucunda dies, quam cara sub ipsa  &#xD;&#xA;morte magis**: stetit et sese mirata furentem est. (Flaccus, *Argonautica* 7:331-337)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning Greek, I found a review article, [&quot;Some Recent Work on Direct and Indirect Discourse in the Ancient Historians&quot;](http://research.ncl.ac.uk/histos/documents/2012RD02FosterDirectandIndirectDiscourse.pdf) which claims an example of free indirect discourse in the *Histories* of Polybius. However, this article, following Usher (2009), appears to use a different definition of &quot;free indirect discourse,&quot; seeing it as a loose summary of words spoken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...so ergibt sich ein dreigliedriges Schema, in dem sich mit jeder Stufe—**Schilderung durch den Erzähler,** Referat in indirekter Rede, Verwendung von direkter Rede—die Intensität der vorgenommenen Perspektivierung steigert&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will not include the cited example since it pretty clearly does not fit your definition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11980" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="178" RevisionGUID="c77cac42-b365-46eb-ac5e-4ff2a591bdb8" CreationDate="2017-04-12T05:23:41.120" UserId="79" Comment="25" />
  <row Id="11982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4075" RevisionGUID="9339483e-02c3-4460-b1c2-3f34074f0dad" CreationDate="2017-04-12T23:54:04.733" UserId="40" Text="In Latin, the rule is simply that the connecting *-i-* does not appear before a vowel, as in your *magn-animus*, or using a third-declension adjective (like *rapax*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *grandaevus* &quot;aged&quot; &lt; *grandi-* &quot;great&quot; + *aevum* &quot;age&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *rapacatrox* seems to be correct. The exception is that the *-i-* does appear when the first word is monosyllabic, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *triennium* &quot;three-year period&quot; &lt; *tri-* &quot;three&quot; + *annus* &quot;year&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Greek, the first of the two vowels is lost, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; αὐτάρκης &quot;self-sufficient&quot; &lt; αὐτο- &quot;self&quot; + ἀρκέω &quot;suffice&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exception is when the second word began with digamma, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; αὐτοετής &quot;in the same year&quot; &lt; αὐτο- + (ϝ)έτος &quot;year&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; φερέοικος &quot;snail&quot; &lt; φερε- &quot;carry&quot; + (ϝ)οῖκος &quot;house&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though in such cases there is sometimes contraction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀργός (long ᾱ) &quot;idle&quot; &lt; ἀ- &quot;not&quot; + (ϝ)έργος &quot;deed&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Δημῶναξ (personal name) &lt; δῆμο- &quot;people&quot; + (ϝ)άναξ &quot;lord&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the second word begins with a rough breathing, this aspirates a preceding voiceless stop:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; αὐθάδης &quot;stubborn, self-pleasing&quot; &lt; αὐτο- + ἁδ- &quot;please&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4073" RevisionGUID="74a397b4-a082-49e1-a1a8-30798616d0af" CreationDate="2017-04-13T00:55:10.557" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 90 characters in body; edited tags" Text="For both Latin and Greek, what rules govern the formation of a compound of two words, with the second word starting with a vowel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm specifically most interested in the rules for Latin, since this question was born out of my attempts to form a specific epithet for a made-up species, via a compound of *rapax* and *atrox* in that order (the other way around is obvious: *atrocirapax*); the first thing that I came up with was *rapaciatrox* using the Latin interfix *-i-*, but then I remembered that in the case of *magnanimus* (the etymological root of English &quot;magnanimous&quot;), the interfix was dropped completely. Yet *rapacatrox* doesn't seem right to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, I am also interested in how it works for Greek, since some Greek words that technically start with a vowel are actually pronounced with an &quot;h&quot; sound preceding the vowel (e.g. ἁρπάζω *harpázō*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11984" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4073" RevisionGUID="74a397b4-a082-49e1-a1a8-30798616d0af" CreationDate="2017-04-13T00:55:10.557" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 90 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|affixes|vowel|interfixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4076" RevisionGUID="417003f9-ab0c-4393-b826-399023feee3e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T01:15:21.530" UserId="79" Text="Defining &quot;language&quot; is not easy, and for many not even necessary.&#xD;&#xA;There are many aspects to this, and I'm interested in something more specific: distinguishing a language from a dialect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where did the Romans draw the line between a language and a dialect?&#xD;&#xA;Evidence can come in several different forms.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some grammarian of philosopher made the distinction.&#xD;&#xA;From a more practical point of view, I assume there are passages saying roughly &quot;these two languages are pretty similar but still two different languages&quot; or &quot;these two are actually just different dialects of the same language&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of any such mentions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing that keeps me from searching is that I don't know if there is a good distinctive pair of words like the English &quot;language&quot; and &quot;dialect&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Words like *lingua* and *sermo* seem to be loaded with many different meanings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11986" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4076" RevisionGUID="417003f9-ab0c-4393-b826-399023feee3e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T01:15:21.530" UserId="79" Text="What was a language for the Romans?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11987" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4076" RevisionGUID="417003f9-ab0c-4393-b826-399023feee3e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T01:15:21.530" UserId="79" Text="|grammarians|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4077" RevisionGUID="2362a11b-ec5f-4789-bf95-4c73a4f0278b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T05:44:11.537" UserId="78" Text="The Greeks were keenly aware of dialectal differences, and long before the Romans came on the scene, the Greeks had already categorized their dialects into three or four common groups: Ionic (with Attic a sub-group), Doric, Aeolic, and Arcadian. A great, free introduction to this is Buck's [Greek Dialects](https://books.google.com/books?id=_FxBAAAAMAAJ) (or [here](https://archive.org/details/cu31924031214822); the third edition is still under copyright).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should realize that the word *dialect* itself comes from the Greek [διάλεκτος](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dialektos&amp;la=greek#lexicon), and was used in that sense in antiquity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. speech, language, Ar.Fr.685; “καινὴν δ. λαλῶν” Antiph. 171; δ. ἀμνίου, opp. τὰ ἔνδον δράκοντος, Hermipp.3; articulate speech, language, opp. φωνή, Arist.HA535a28; “τοῦ ἀνθρώπου μία φωνή, ἀλλὰ διάλεκτοι πολλαί” Id.Pr.895a6; but also, spoken, opp. written language, D.H.Comp.11.&#xD;&#xA;2. the language of a country, Plb.1.80.6, D.S.5.6, etc.: **esp. dialect, as Ionic, Attic, etc., Diog.Bab.Stoic.3.213, D.H.Comp.3, S.E.M.1.59, Hdn.Gr.2.932; also, local word or expression, Plu.Alex.31.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That these are understood as separate dialects and not individual languages is made clear by the Panhellenic tendencies of the Greeks, most succinctly put by Herodotus 8.144.2, when an Athenian embassy was beseeching the Spartans not to make a deal with the Persians:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For there are many great reasons why we should not do this, even if we so desired; first and foremost, the burning and destruction of the adornments and temples of our gods, whom we are constrained to avenge to the utmost rather than make pacts with the perpetrator of these things, and **next the kinship of all Greeks in blood and *speech***, and the shrines of gods and the sacrifices that we have in common, and the likeness of our way of life, to all of which it would not befit the Athenians to be false.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By all accounts, the Spartans were Doric and the Athenians Attic-Ionic. The differences are stark, as anyone who has made the jump from reading Plato to reading Alcman will tell you. Yet they had a &quot;common speech,&quot; which shows a clear awareness of dialects. This is also pretty clear from the fact that authors could switch dialects at whim: Athenian tragedians wrote the choral sections in a literary Doric dialect while the rest of the play is Attic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the Romans came onto the scene, it was obvious to all parties that Latin and Greek were distinct and not dialects. Cato would rail against Roman historians writing in Greek and instead wrote his in Latin. When the grammarians wrote on Greek dialects, they discussed unusual words and forms, but for the Romans like Cicero, they had to learn a new language with new letters, and were proud of it. Talking about &quot;Greek&quot; when referring to Homer, Sappho, Pindar, Herodotus, and Plato makes them all seem, to the Romans, one distinct language comprised of dialects that did not also include Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might seem obvious to us today, but it wasn't to all the ancients. In fact, there was an idea current in the first century BCE and later that Latin was after all Greek, specifically Aeolic. This was espoused most notably by Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1,90.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Romans speak a language neither completely barbaric nor wholly Greek, but one mixed from both, of which the greater part is Aeolic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted, though, that Dionysius wasn't a grammarian, and well after comparative linguistics came on the scene, some people still claim unusual things about modern languages, from the easily confused (e.g. [Aramaic is a dialect of Hebrew](https://books.google.com/books?id=1lvO--uZ248C&amp;pg=PA317&amp;lpg=PA317&amp;dq=aramaic+a+%22dialect+of+hebrew%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=6PE1peJiWD&amp;sig=Pu29-eDZ7O2CKjNUB0tGFwNaQpY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiAoZuj2qDTAhWBRyYKHRjKBCIQ6AEIYTAM#v=snippet&amp;q=aramaic%20%22dialect%20of%20hebrew%22&amp;f=false)) to the bizarre (e.g. the idea that all Chinese languages are actually dialects because they're written using the same characters, which isn't even true at that!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a good article on the subject, check out Benjamin Stevens on [Aeolism](https://www.jstor.org/stable/30038039?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents). I've posted the abstract below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aeolism, the idea that Latin is a dialect of Greek, was a matter of debate among a wide range of authors and readers in the Roman world. Often interpreted psychoanalytically, the idea is better understood as articulating a grudging ancient awareness that languages and social groups, including seemingly distinct groups like &quot;Greeks&quot; and &quot;Romans,&quot; are in fact always &quot;mixed,&quot; and thus that identity is a matter of fluid participation in shared social practices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though Dionysius is clearly wrong, his claims still point to a clear understanding of the differences of languages and dialects. The latter, as its seen from both Dionysius' thoughts and from ancient Greek observations on their own language, are either due to mixing or just from differences over time (the Greek mythographers made the sons of [Hellen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellen) Dorus (thus Doric among the Dorians), Aeolus (Aeolic) and either Ion (Ionic), or Xuthus, whose sons were Ion and Achaeus (which seemed to be a response to the early use of the Achaean ethnonym and the confusion about how to properly divide the mixed dialects of the north Peloponnese)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4078" RevisionGUID="1af46439-2144-4f99-b937-6390cf27dd71" CreationDate="2017-04-13T08:40:25.740" UserId="235" Text="By analogy with my [previous question][1], I'm interested in how to say &quot;notes&quot; in classical Greek. The Latin equivalents that I often use are &quot;notae&quot; and &quot;annotationes&quot;. I use these when I want a Latin word to describe a section of notes, e.g. notes about a passage or translation. But what word(s) would you recommend from classical Greek?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1578/how-do-you-say-notes-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11990" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4078" RevisionGUID="1af46439-2144-4f99-b937-6390cf27dd71" CreationDate="2017-04-13T08:40:25.740" UserId="235" Text="How do you say &quot;notes&quot; in classical Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11991" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4078" RevisionGUID="1af46439-2144-4f99-b937-6390cf27dd71" CreationDate="2017-04-13T08:40:25.740" UserId="235" Text="|vocabulary|greek|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4079" RevisionGUID="35d943d5-e352-4b69-8645-4b98de22cfaf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T09:16:41.550" UserId="1426" Text="Looking through the fantastically-titled _Libro di M. Giovambattista Palatino cittadino romano : nelqual s'insegna à scriuer ogni sorte lettera, antica &amp; moderna, di qualun que natione, con le sue regole, &amp; misure, &amp; essempi : et con vn breve et vtil discorso de le cifre_ by Palatino, I notice page 100 contains a spread of the Latin Alphabet (&quot;ALPHABETICVM LATINORVM&quot;). There is something decidedly odd about the letter choice however – note that the bottom line contains two almost-identical &quot;Y&quot; forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://archive.org/stream/librodimgiovamba00pala#page/n99/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a historical reason for this? Were the letters pronounced differently?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11993" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4079" RevisionGUID="35d943d5-e352-4b69-8645-4b98de22cfaf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T09:16:41.550" UserId="1426" Text="Were there ever two &quot;Y&quot; forms in classical Greek or Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11994" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4079" RevisionGUID="35d943d5-e352-4b69-8645-4b98de22cfaf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T09:16:41.550" UserId="1426" Text="|alphabet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4080" RevisionGUID="305a9e2b-a377-4c5d-80f3-8048194cf673" CreationDate="2017-04-13T10:33:32.003" UserId="183" Text="I think that the two forms of the letter Y given on that page are purely aesthetical variations of the same character. Palatino was a typographer, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for a short time in antiquity, there were two different forms of the Y, the Y as we know it and a &quot;short Y&quot; Ⱶ instroduced be emperor Claudius and not continued after his reign, see http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/271/examples-of-the-use-of-claudian-letters-%e2%84%b2-%e2%86%83-%e2%b1%b5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4080" RevisionGUID="1df29332-4da1-45d7-a767-296ef14a1c9f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T11:37:07.917" UserId="183" Comment="sp., grammar, one sentence added about the 6 × 4 array" Text="I think that the two forms of the letter Y given on that page are purely aesthetic variations of the same character. It also makes the letter array a neat 6 × 4 array, like the Greek one on the other page of the specimen book. Palatino was a typographer, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for a short time in antiquity, there were two different forms of the Y, the Y as we know it and a &quot;short Y&quot; Ⱶ introduced be emperor Claudius and not continued after his reign, see http://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/271/examples-of-the-use-of-claudian-letters-%e2%84%b2-%e2%86%83-%e2%b1%b5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="459" RevisionGUID="0597fb0c-598c-4725-97c0-7d207ce2baec" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:22:09.580" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/" Text="In today's mathematics, two lines are said to be normal to each other if they are at a right angle (perpendicular) to each other.&#xD;&#xA;I want to know how this can be expressed in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closely related questions have been asked on mathematical SE sites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [How did “normal” come to mean “perpendicular”?](http://mathoverflow.net/q/172690/558939)&#xD;&#xA;- [Etymology of the word “normal” (perpendicular)](https://math.stackexchange.com/q/328662/166535)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What expressions are there for normality in Latin, preferably classical?&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see examples of mathematical mentions of normality, as old ones as possible.&#xD;&#xA;Looking at dictionaries gives a list of possible translations to &quot;right angle&quot;, &quot;perpendicular&quot; and &quot;normal&quot;, but it is not clear which ones could be used in mathematical context.&#xD;&#xA;(Some possible expressions: *derectus, directus, praeceps, perpendicularis, perpendicularius, perpendiculatus, cathetus, angulus rectus, angulus normalis*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be able to write mathematics reasonably fluently, it is good to know several (possibly grammatically different) ways to express the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;The accepted [MathOverflow answer](http://mathoverflow.net/a/172694/55893) gives a classical example of *angulus normalis* (straight angle), but I have not been able to find more classical expressions for perpendicularity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since my question about [finding ancient mathematical texts in Latin](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/400/79) has produced no example texts so far, I will have to accept post-classical examples.&#xD;&#xA;Some amount of geometry does appear in non-mathematical texts, so I hope to find classical examples as well.&#xD;&#xA;(Maybe I should finally start reading my Vitruvius&amp;hellip;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="b9dbd41d-9380-41b2-9b29-b6b94b3f044a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:38:16.747" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/" Text="The English abbreviation [*Ph.D.*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy) comes from the Latin for *Doctor of Philosophy*, which I understand would be either *Philosophiae Doctor* or *Doctor Philosophiae*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know word order is flexible in Latin, but I thought that the general rule was &quot;noun + modifier.&quot;  If so, *Doctor Philosophiae* would be the preferred form.  And yet the widespread usage of *Ph.D.* suggests that the opposite order, *Philosophiae Doctor*, prevailed.  Is there a grammatical reason that the latter option became the source of the *Ph.D.* abbreviation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Related question on ELU.SE: [Why PhD, and not DPh](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/278027/53711)&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="416" RevisionGUID="652e4268-f959-4652-b340-ceabe082cc58" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:38:16.747" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/" Text="I see now that some people call this a &quot;future passive participle&quot;, but it is conventionally called a gerundive. So I wouldn't think of &quot;going to be read&quot; at all if I were to translate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A sense of prediction or obligation is inherent in any gerundive. The most literal translation is as follows—by most literal I mean the one that works in most situations, especially in a neutral context, and that is the least dependent on context in general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Puer librum legendum habet. — &quot;The boy has a book to read.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, *to* + infinitive can express that something will happen or should happen. Although this English construction and the gerundive are not related, they both happen to reflect this double modality: probability (*will happen*) and desirability (*should happen*). Necessity can be a kind of desirability (&quot;this room needs to be cleaned&quot;) or a kind of probability (&quot;random DNA mutations are necessary for cancer to develop&quot;). I beg your forgiveness for quoting myself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is a complicated issue, and one that is still not fully understood by linguists, or so I believe. In short: there is a tendency in many languages for words to shift in meaning between *probability* and *desirability*. This tendency is apparently strongest in certain verbs that are used without specifying who the judge is, which includes passive verb forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — [Why do we say “was supposed to” for “should have”?](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/21852/3036)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive always has this double, shifting connotation. In some contexts one kind of modality prevails, in other contexts the other. And with dominant gerundives, such as in gerundive constructions, neither seems to prevail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Floribus capiendis* Eurydice mordetur serpente." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1090" RevisionGUID="fe0d59cf-c8a0-4693-ac06-412a6338fb3e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:38:16.747" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/" Text="Neither the Oxford Latin Dictionary nor Lewis &amp; Short mention it, but I believe *licet* can also sometimes mean **&quot;it is possible&quot;**. I distinctly remember seeing it used that way, although I have no proof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This shouldn't be surprising, because notions of &quot;desirable&quot; and &quot;possible&quot;, [the two kinds of modality, are often intertwined][1]; a word that means &quot;desirable&quot; can easily acquire a sense of &quot;possible&quot; and vice versa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then *videre licet* would mean &quot;it is possible [for you] to see...&quot;, and *scire licet* &quot;it is possible [for you] to know...&quot;. That would make sense in a sentence like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Multae feminae magnae sunt in orbi terrarum; sci[re ]licet Cleopatra(m).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;There are many great women in the world; you may know Cleopatra&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/21706/why-do-we-say-was-supposed-to-for-should-have/21852#21852" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1806" RevisionGUID="14bf0e0e-5b54-4fa6-8df0-99c09053ecb8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:38:16.747" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am trying to understand the English phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;X consists in Y&quot; with help of and in comparison to the Latin verb *consistere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, 1 means &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;X contains Y&quot;, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but from the Latin point of view 1 seems to mean &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Y contains X&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 is clearly wrong, but I don't understand where I have erred.&#xD;&#xA;Where is the problem here? I wish to understand why. Consider 4 as a simple example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Milk consists in vitamin B12.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. milk contains the vitamin.&#xD;&#xA;However, the meaning of the Latin verb *consistere* (i.e. 'to consist' means 'to stand in') would make 4 mean that:    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. vitamin B12 contains milk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What explains this difference, behind which I suspect some kind of semantic or syntactic shift?&#xD;&#xA;Do the English &quot;consist&quot; and the Latin *consistere* differ semantically?&#xD;&#xA;Even if there is no well-documented source, I welcome good explanations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [A related post on ELU](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/193854/50720), and the entries in [ODO](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/consist?q=consist+in#consist__9) and [Etymonline](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=consist&amp;searchmode=none) all do not answer my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1872" RevisionGUID="2ba20a39-8fbe-446d-9380-e8a809cab33a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:38:16.747" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a bit cheeky, but I'm trying to find out the meaning of what may be an 18th century abbreviation of a Latin phrase (for an answer to a [question](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/354909/abbreviation-in-a-business-letter) in EL&amp;U.SE). Since I have no Latin, I've been fumbling around a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The abbreviation is *qsd* (with a macron over the s). The context is a business letter between two brothers (which I do not have). I could find no ready interpretation online. Without going through all my researches, I eventually came up with &quot;quod sine dictum&quot; (that without mentioning), i.e. &quot;keep your mouth shut&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it sound  reasonable, and if so, have I got the Latin (and translation) right? I couldn't decline a Latin verb if you threatened to string my up by my testes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acknowledgements will be given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, feel free to provide your own answer. I'm sure that the denizens of EL&amp;U will be grateful for any assistance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/w0wRt.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In transcribing a business letter written in 1776, I keep finding an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparent abbreviation, 'qsd' with a line over the s, e.g &quot;this to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qsd my brother.&quot; The letters are hand-written by William Phelps in London to James Morrissey in Madeira and concern the shipping of wine and other commodities between England and Madeira. William, his brother Joseph and James M were in partnership. I have screenshots of the word in context but don't know how to attach them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1985" RevisionGUID="8b7b46cd-c0f0-46b6-a18f-31152414d24e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:47:54.017" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://history.stackexchange.com/ with https://history.stackexchange.com/" Text="I asked this on the HistorySE site, without much luck, so thought I'd try here. If it's inappropriate for this forum, please let me know and I'll delete it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have just been reading [this](http://www.forumromanum.org/life/johnston_2.html#60)  which is admittedly very old, and there is a statement which has me totally confused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... the master might disregard the regular form and give the freedman any name he pleased. Thus, when Cicero manumitted his slaves Tiro and Dionysius, he called the former, in strict accord with custom, Mārcus Tullius Tīrō, but to the latter he gave his own praenōmen and the nōmen of his friend Titus Pomponius Atticus, the new name being Mārcus Pompōnius Dionysius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not understand how Cicero could give his freedman the *nomen* of another. My understanding was that in formal contexts, Tiro, for example, would be *M. Tullius Tiro l M* - eg Marcus Tullius Tiro, freedman of Marcus - which would indicate a clear identity and affiliation. How would *Mārcus Pompōnius Dionysius* do this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________________________________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/33563/confusion-re-the-naming-of-roman-freedman" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1937" RevisionGUID="58e9d72e-9c65-47ad-9d7f-dfa3f41efebb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:50:24.573" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://matheducators.stackexchange.com/ with https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/" Text="Reading symbolic mathematical expressions out loud in any language is mainly folklore: everyone in the field knows how to do it but finding explicit written instructions is surprisingly hard.&#xD;&#xA;I have yet to find good written instructions for any language, despite asking at [Mathematics Educators SE](https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/q/7978/2074).&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how to pronounce mathematics in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly, I do not expect to find a complete treatise on the topic.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I am asking for any documents or insights whatsoever on the subject.&#xD;&#xA;Any partial answers are warmly welcome.&#xD;&#xA;For example, do we know how Newton, Euler or Gauss read formulas out loud?&#xD;&#xA;(If there is a flood of partial answers to this questions, I can make it narrower, but that does not look like a real threat.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can provide material for pronouncing mathematics in other languages than Latin, please answer the linked question at Mathematics Educators instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="637" RevisionGUID="dddda616-531e-4ce0-9cfe-9c888f703585" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:53:50.270" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://spanish.stackexchange.com/ with https://spanish.stackexchange.com/" Text="In English, the voiceless stops/plosives (*p*, *t*, *k*, &quot;hard&quot; *c*) are [aspirated](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirated_consonant), particularly when beginning a word.  That is, speakers release a burst of air when saying *pop*, *tea*, *kaluha*, or *coffee* (put your hand in front of your mouth and try it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in a Romance language like Spanish, these consonants are unaspirated: very little air is released when pronouncing them (see [Is the /p/ sound aspirated in Spanish?](https://spanish.stackexchange.com/q/14879/9309)).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to know how these voiceless plosives were pronounced in Classical Latin.  Were they aspirated?  How do we know?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="600" RevisionGUID="a79dcc85-79ed-4cb0-a33a-42ce7eee1c86" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:11.747" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/ with https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Do the Latin stress rules (antepenultimate if penultimate is light, penultimate if heavy) have any known exceptions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, what are the exceptions, and what evidence is there in the grammatical canon or in literature or poetry for them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Following a consensus on [Latin Meta.SE](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/159/reposting-latin-questions-from-linguistics-se-which-could-be-answered-better-her), I'm reposting [this question from Linguistics.SE](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/1954/latin-stress-rules-exceptions) here, as I believe the classics community may be better able to support their answer with quotations and historical context.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2030" RevisionGUID="135cfb6b-24c5-443a-9d14-fc5d6ca88648" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:11.747" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/ with https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt;[deputy (n.)](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=deputy)     c. 1400, &quot;one given the full power of an officer without holding the office,&quot; from Anglo-French *deputé*,     &#xD;&#xA;noun use of past participle of Middle French *députer* &quot;appoint, assign&quot; (14c.),          &#xD;&#xA;**[3.]** from Late Latin *deputare* &quot;to destine, allot,&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;**[2.]** in classical Latin &quot;to esteem, consider, consider as,&quot; literally &quot;to cut off, prune,&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;**[1.]** from *de-* &quot;away&quot; (see [de-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=de-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + *putare* &quot;to think, count, consider,&quot; literally &quot;to cut, prune&quot; (see [pave](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pave&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This answer on Linguistics SE](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/12417/5306) helpfully explains the  Semantic Field of 'putare'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. [Wiktionary's entry](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deputo#Latin) states the same meanings as Etymonline above: Am I correct to interpret that the prefix *de-* added nothing semantically to the semantic shift from 1 to 2: *putare* alone already means the meanings in 2? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. The entitled question concerns only 1 vs. 2 though; I do conjecture *de-* to add semantically to the Semantic Shift from 2 to 3, because destining or alloting something can be interpreted as cutting or pruning something, and then delegating what was cut or pruned to someone else.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2033" RevisionGUID="8141ad7b-083d-42d5-83a4-7698bb41d64e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:11.747" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/ with https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt;[impute (v.):](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=impute&amp;searchmode=none)       &#xD;&#xA;early 15c., from Old French *imputer* (14c.)     &#xD;&#xA;and directly from Latin *imputare* &quot;to reckon, make account of, charge, ascribe,&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;from assimilated form of ***in-*** &quot;in, into&quot; (see [in-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=in-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (2)) +      &#xD;&#xA;***putare*** &quot;reckon, clear up, trim, prune, settle&quot;  from PIE _*puto-_ &quot;cut, struck,&quot; suffixed form of root _*pau-_ (2) &quot;to cut, strike, stamp&quot; (see [*pave*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pave&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[[ Wiktionary : ]](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imputo#Latin0)   Etymology[:]   &#xD;&#xA;From [in-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in-#Latin-in) +‎ [putō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/puto#Latin) ‎(“esteem, consider”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. I reckon, charge, enter into the account.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. (*figuratively*) I attribute, credit to; I impute&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This answer on Linguistics SE](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/12417/5306) helpfully explains the  Semantic Field of 'putare'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. What are the semantic meaning and role of the prefix 'in-' here?    &#xD;&#xA;How did the compounding of 'in-' + 'putare' generate the meanings in 2?    &#xD;&#xA;How did 'in-' augment the semantic field of 'putare', to enable the semantic shift from 1 to 2?   &#xD;&#xA; What semantic notions underlie 1 and 2? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Should not 'ad-' have been the prefix instead of 'in-', for the semantic meaning of the preposition &lt;to&gt; in 2, (i.e. the meaning of someone's directing or sourcing something to someone else)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2912" RevisionGUID="9225e825-d0f9-4fd9-89d4-12881883889c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:11.747" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/ with https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Seeing [this question](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/17637/are-there-ancient-greek-words-descended-from-sumerian) made me curious if there's an already-compiled list of words of Ancient Near Eastern origin, hopefully excluding all those borrowed from the Hebrew Bible or other Hebrew/Aramaic works through translation (though I'm not picky if they're included, too). Also welcome would be more unusual borrowings (Chinese, Sanskrit, Berber, non-IE European languages).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could, separately, search [de Vaan](http://www.brill.com/etymological-dictionary-latin) and [Beekes](http://www.brill.com/etymological-dictionary-greek-2-vols), but that would be time consuming, and I'm hoping that something already exists. Also, no Bernal, please." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3054" RevisionGUID="5a5c0c0a-c755-4ee4-99c7-69eac28801c5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:11.747" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/ with https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I stumbled across this question in the “linguistics” forum:&#xD;&#xA;https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/21560/why-does-vacuum-have-two-us-and-how-is-it-pronounced&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: If uacuus is *wak+wo- why does uacuus have three syllables, but uiuus, paruus, caluus etc. have only two? Is there a rule that says that *wu remains after sonants (including l, r) but becomes *uu otherwise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="220" RevisionGUID="25233747-9e21-42a4-88df-fb5788799422" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:55:18.000" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://ell.stackexchange.com/ with https://ell.stackexchange.com/" Text="The case of a relative pronoun indicates its role inside the subordinate clause, not the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the **servōs** in the main clause are the subject of **pārent** in the subordinate clause, a nominative relative pronoun is needed: **quī**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;If that seems strange, here are three considerations that can help make it seem normal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;​1. It works the same way in [English](https://ell.stackexchange.com/q/57138/6700), although our last pronoun that works this way is fading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The cat killed the rat **who** ate the corn.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The cat killed the rat **whom** fate had chosen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;​2. Making the relative pronoun match the case in the main clause would lose information and really wouldn't make sense in practice. The relative pronoun tells you that the same noun plays a role in _two_ clauses: the main one and the subordinate one. You already know the noun's role in the main clause, because that's indicated by its case in the main clause. The only word available to indicate the noun's role in the subordinate clause is the relative pronoun, so it wouldn't make sense to make the relative pronoun duplicate the antecedent's case in the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;​3. Ultimately, only exposure and practice can really convince your brain that this is normal. So, here are some of the sentences from the chapter that illustrate the principle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Servī **quī** lectīcam portant fessī sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Saccī **quī** ā Syrō et Lēandrō portāntur magnī sunt, sed saccus **quem** Syrus portat nōn tam magnus est quam saccus **quī** ā Lēandrō portātur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is **quī** viā Latīnā venit per portam Capēnam Rōmam intrat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's Ørberg's terse explanation in the margin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; saccī **quī** ā Syrō et Lēandrō port&lt;i&gt;antur&lt;/i&gt; = saccī **quōs** Syrus et Lēander port&lt;i&gt;ant&lt;/i&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1155" RevisionGUID="463e909d-8362-4c17-bac4-7425617ddb77" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:39.880" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://french.stackexchange.com/ with https://french.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt;[ [CNRTL :](http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/encore) ]  Du lat[in] vulg[aire] _*hinc ha (c) hora_ ou _*hinc ad horam_;     &#xD;&#xA;la forme a[ncienne] fr[ançaise] *uncore*, *oncore* est due à l'infl[uence] de *onque*, _onc*_.      &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;[This thread](https://french.stackexchange.com/q/17180/1995) redirects you to the elongations of the the abbreviations used above.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ [Etymonline :](http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/encore) ]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...]   French *encore* &quot;**[3.]** still, **[4.]** yet, **[5.]** again, **[6.]** also, **[7.]** furthermore&quot; (12c.), generally explained as being from Vulgar Latin phrase    &#xD;&#xA;    **[1.]** _*hinc ad horam_ &quot;from then to this hour,&quot; or       &#xD;&#xA;**[2.]** _(in) hanc horam_ &quot;(to) this hour&quot;  [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can conceive how 1 and 2 shifted semantically to mean 3. For example, a Roman may complain about how a problem has not been resolved from then (when the problem started) to this hour: i.e. how it has STILL not been resolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what underlying semantic notions connect 1-2 to 3-7? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="f9813b03-87bd-45b6-9661-2cb6e371493c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:39.880" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://french.stackexchange.com/ with https://french.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am still trying to understand the etymology of the French adverbial ['ne que'](https://french.stackexchange.com/q/14160/1995), and so researched the Latin etymons of these two Functional Morphemes for more sapience.    &#xD;&#xA;This question concerns only the meaning in V and VII below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ [Wiktionary in French](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/que#.C3.89tymologie) :] I. (Conjonction 1) Du latin [quia](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/quia#la), qui exprime la cause.       &#xD;&#xA;II. (Conjonction 2) Du latin [quam](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/quam#la).      &#xD;&#xA;III. (Pronom relatif) Du latin [qui](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/qui#la), [quae](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/quae#la), [quod](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/quod#la) ; dans l’ancien français, *que* devint la forme atone du [cas régime](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/cas_r%C3%A9gime), sans distinction de genre ni de nombre.   &#xD;&#xA;IV. (Pronom interrogatif) Du latin [quid](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/quid#la).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]  [ V. [Adverbe 2 :](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/que#Adverbe_2) ] Personne excepté, rien excepté. Seulement. Utilisé avec [ne](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/ne#fr-part). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]  [ VI. [Etymology 1 :](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/que#Etymology_1_2) ] From Latin [quia](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quia#Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Conjunction    &#xD;&#xA;que**   [...] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[VII.] 2. (used with [*ne*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ne#French)) only   &#xD;&#xA; (n*e ... que*   parses roughly as   &quot;(do[es]) not / nothing ... other than&quot;) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somewhere is at least 1 error, because English Wiktionary classifies 'que' as a Conjunction, but French Wiktionary an adverb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyhow, which is the Latin etymon of the French *que*?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1491" RevisionGUID="5a1ea7bd-914a-4648-9be1-77631cec3f00" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:39.880" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://french.stackexchange.com/ with https://french.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is about the core meaning of *desinat in piscem* as in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Humano capiti ceruicem pictor equinam  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; iungere si uelit et uarias inducere plumas  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; undique collatis membris, ut turpiter atrum  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *desinat in piscem* mulier formosa superne,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; spectatum admissi, risum teneatis, amici?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [*Quintus Horatius Flaccus* (Horace), [The Art of Poetry: an Epistle&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the Pisos][1]]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course I understand *desino/ere* is a transitive verb meaning *to end (in)* and there's the preposition *in* and the *accusative* *piscem*, literally (I'm guessing) *end in fish*.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I would describe the image the author crafts as an example of a *type mismatch* of sorts but this is not the point. The [*Gaffiot Dictionary*][2] also refers to *Virg. En 10, 211; Sen. Ep. 92, 10; 66, 43* for the expression. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as fish are concerned, they don't necessarily strike as beautiful-looking creatures (but then again it's all a matter of perspective). There's also morphology, which might vary depending on where one lives, and often the fish is wider in the middle and ends with a smaller section before the tail, so there's a contrasting element. Otherwise I'm not clear on the eating habits of the classical authors (and it's off topic) but more importantly I'm not clear on the references they might have about fish and how this translates into Latin, into this *desinat in piscem*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In Horace's, Seneca's, and Virgil's Latin, does *desinat in piscem*&#xD;&#xA;   refer to the *end/tail/shape* of the fish, or rather its *looks* ? Is&#xD;&#xA;   that some figurative use for some *bad omen* or a *non sequitur*, or&#xD;&#xA;   just plain *bad taste* or what exactly? How and why are they using this?&#xD;&#xA; - Is there more to be said about the use/analysis of *in piscem*&#xD;&#xA;   generally, or with other verbs; anything peculiar I should know about&#xD;&#xA;   the construction *in* + *animal name* (acc.), is that a significant construction in Latin; does that provide&#xD;&#xA;   further insight about Horace's quote and if so, how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; It is said (*DHLF/Rey*) that in French, *finir en queue de poisson* (lit. *to end as/like the tail of the fish*) [coined][3] by *Honoré de Balzac* (1833) is inspired by Horace's *desinat in piscem*; some French [translations][4] of Horace's text even refer to the fish tail per se. It goes without saying that the sentence *desinat in piscem* doesn't contain the word *tail*; but that doesn't really mean anything.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Poetica_(Horace)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?p=507&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://french.stackexchange.com/q/21745&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/queue_de_poisson_queues_de_poisson/65676/citation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1655" RevisionGUID="e4c08d1a-a2f2-4065-b570-835a1876290d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:39.880" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://french.stackexchange.com/ with https://french.stackexchange.com/" Text="In the 16th century, *Robert et Antoine Lechevallier d'[Aigneaux*][1] made a famous translation of Virgil's *Aeneid* which was seemingly praised in the French world; they also translated the [*Georgics*][2] including this segment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At nebulæ magis ima petunt, campoque recumbunt;&lt;br/&gt; Solis et occasum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; servans de culmine summo&lt;br/&gt; Nequidquam seros exercet **noctua&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cantus**.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ----------&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;[ Et observant le temps que panche vers sa couche&lt;br/&gt; Le soleil&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abaissé, son nocturne **hou, hou**&lt;br/&gt; Du haut d'un toit chaumeux&#xD;&#xA;&gt; n'entonne le **Hibou**. ]&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ Virgil, *Georgics*, [Latin][4] (*Wikisource*), [translation][5] from d'Aigneaux (1582) and my quick transcription and use of bold. I, 401-403 ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually one [attributes][6] to this very translation the first [onomatopoeic][7] use of *houhou* (similar to the *oo* sound in *hoot* in English, twice) in French to represent the owl's hoot ([more][8] on *hou*, pronounced [u] in Fr.). Needless to say, *[noctua][9] [cantus][10]*, the *owl's chant* I guess, doesn't contain any onomatopoeia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In Latin, what is, and how would you write, the sequence of onomatopoeia used to represent the cry a type of bird such as the owl makes? Do we have a well-known example from the classics or from that era?&#xD;&#xA; - Could you please briefly analyze (cases, tenses, syntax) and explain&#xD;&#xA;   the *nequidquam seros exercet noctua cantus* segment; in particular, what word is *seros* and what's its function; is *exercet* a passive verb 3SG; word for word is that something like: *uselessly [seros] is done the owl's chant*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famille_d%27Aigneaux&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgics&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3czUm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Georgicon/Liber_I&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?id=SQxwDb0TUNcC&amp;dq=d'aigneaux%20virgile%20eneide&amp;hl=fr&amp;pg=PT139#v=onepage&amp;q=hou&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/houhou&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopoeia&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://french.stackexchange.com/q/22162&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?q=noctua&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?q=cantus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="646" RevisionGUID="0683289a-127b-4748-8144-412cb6bf9122" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:54.330" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://christianity.stackexchange.com/ with https://christianity.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;sup&gt;I've also answered [the cross-posted version of this question on the Christianity Stack Exchange](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/47860/21576).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During papal coronations, these words are spoken to the pope while a cloth is burned in front of him.  [Janos M. Bak interprets](https://books.google.com/books?id=m6nsnzLRPlIC&amp;pg=PA187):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pater sancte, sic transit gloria mundi* [...] is supposed to remind the pontiff of the temporality of even his power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that vein, though your literal translation is on track, perhaps a more idiomatic rendering would be &quot;worldly glories are fleeting.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a common biblical theme (see my [parallel answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/47860/21576) and passages like [James 1:9–11](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+1&amp;version=ESV) and [4:14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+4%3A14&amp;version=ESV)), but the statement is not a direct biblical quote.  Still, its language is reminiscent of the Vulgate's in several places, particularly Matthew 4:8 and 1 John 2:17.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, Matthew 4:8, where Satan tempts Christ by showing him the kingdoms of the world:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iterum adsumit eum diabolus in montem excelsum valde et ostendit ei omnia **regna mundi et gloriam eorum** ([Vulgate](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthaeus+4:8&amp;version=VULGATE))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. ([ESV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4%3A8&amp;version=ESV))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And 1 John 2:17:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **et mundus transit** et concupiscentia eius qui autem facit voluntatem Dei manet in aeternum ([Vulgate](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A17&amp;version=VULGATE))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. ([ESV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A17&amp;version=ESV))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reliance on the Vulgate, of course, makes sense, given its ubiquity in the medieval and early modern church.  If Thomas à Kempis is the originator (*o quam cito transit gloria mundi*), or even if he isn't, it's natural that this phrase, given its Christian context, would correspond in some ways to biblical language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="b1c4fa27-12ec-441a-84f7-99c2b233cb89" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:54.330" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://christianity.stackexchange.com/ with https://christianity.stackexchange.com/" Text="In Augustine's [*Confessions*, I.18](http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/latinconf/1.html), he writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et certe non est interior litterarum scientia quam scripta conscientia, id se alteri facere quod nolit pati. quam tu secretus es, habitans in excelsis in silentio, deus solus magnus, lege infatigabili spargens poenales caecitates supra inlicitas cupiditates, cum homo eloquentiae famam quaeritans ante hominem iudicem, circumstante hominum multitudine, inimicum suum odio inmanissimo insectans, vigilantissime cavet, ne per linguae errorem dicat: Inter omines, et ne per mentis furorem hominem auferat ex hominibus non cavet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key phrase for my question is translated by [Henry Chadwick](https://books.google.com/books?id=1QkigkuD_3oC&amp;pg=PA21) as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The speaker] is indifferent to the possibility that the emotional force of his mind **may bring about a man's execution**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same portion is translated a bit differently by [Edward Pusey](http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/augconf/aug01.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [He] takes no heed, lest, through the fury of his spirit, **he murder the real human being**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the difference between &quot;bring about a man's execution&quot; and &quot;murder the real human being.&quot;  This may seem inconsequential, but in Christianity, there's a teaching that hatred or anger is akin to murder (see [Matthew 5:21–22](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%205%3A21-22&amp;version=ESV;VULGATE)), which could theoretically allow Pusey's translation to be read as &quot;he *sin against* the real human being&quot; or &quot;he murder the real human being *in his heart*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question, thus, revolves around this distinction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Does the Latin text specifically indicate, or strongly imply, capital punishment as the outcome of the speaker's eloquence?  &#xD;&#xA; - Is the *physical death* of the man clearly indicated?  &#xD;&#xA; - Or is a metaphorical interpretation possible or likely?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;This question is inspired by an answer to a [question regarding Augustine's views on capital punishment](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/47118/21576).  If Chadwick unjustifiably makes the connection to capital punishment, perhaps this passage tells us nothing about Augustine's view of the practice.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="459" RevisionGUID="bfd392ff-5a7f-40cf-bfdb-f15518f74bbe" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:58:47.437" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/" Text="In today's mathematics, two lines are said to be normal to each other if they are at a right angle (perpendicular) to each other.&#xD;&#xA;I want to know how this can be expressed in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closely related questions have been asked on mathematical SE sites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [How did “normal” come to mean “perpendicular”?](https://mathoverflow.net/q/172690/558939)&#xD;&#xA;- [Etymology of the word “normal” (perpendicular)](https://math.stackexchange.com/q/328662/166535)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What expressions are there for normality in Latin, preferably classical?&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see examples of mathematical mentions of normality, as old ones as possible.&#xD;&#xA;Looking at dictionaries gives a list of possible translations to &quot;right angle&quot;, &quot;perpendicular&quot; and &quot;normal&quot;, but it is not clear which ones could be used in mathematical context.&#xD;&#xA;(Some possible expressions: *derectus, directus, praeceps, perpendicularis, perpendicularius, perpendiculatus, cathetus, angulus rectus, angulus normalis*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be able to write mathematics reasonably fluently, it is good to know several (possibly grammatically different) ways to express the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;The accepted [MathOverflow answer](https://mathoverflow.net/a/172694/55893) gives a classical example of *angulus normalis* (straight angle), but I have not been able to find more classical expressions for perpendicularity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since my question about [finding ancient mathematical texts in Latin](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/400/79) has produced no example texts so far, I will have to accept post-classical examples.&#xD;&#xA;Some amount of geometry does appear in non-mathematical texts, so I hope to find classical examples as well.&#xD;&#xA;(Maybe I should finally start reading my Vitruvius&amp;hellip;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="963" RevisionGUID="998f9bc0-907e-4131-9d70-42fb47b49586" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:00:20.033" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://mythology.stackexchange.com/ with https://mythology.stackexchange.com/" Text="I had assumed that Apollo was the sun god in the Augustan era of Rome. I still think this is true. But I read a passage in Wikipedia that made me doubt this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Hellenistic times, especially during the 3rd century BCE, as Apollo Helios he became identified among Greeks with Helios, Titan god of the sun, and his sister Artemis similarly equated with Selene, Titan goddess of the moon.[2] **In Latin texts,** on the other hand, Joseph Fontenrose declared himself unable to find any conflation of Apollo with Sol among the Augustan poets of the 1st century, not even in the conjurations of Aeneas and Latinus in Aeneid XII (161–215).[3] Apollo and Helios/Sol remained separate beings in literary and mythological texts until the 3rd century CE. [Wikipedia (Apollo)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am confident that Apollo was the god of the sun, since Charles Martin's translation of the *Metamorphoses* refers to the sun god by the names Phoebus or Phoebus Apollo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the passage seems to say that Apollo was not conflated with Sol. That would leave us with two sun gods. Or maybe an &quot;old&quot; sun god and a &quot;new&quot; sun god.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious what you guys think of this question. Was there simply an &quot;old&quot; sun god (Sol) and a newer, assimilated sun god (Apolllo)? Or is the Wikipedia passage inaccurate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Per the comments below, I've copied this question to mythology.SE.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://mythology.stackexchange.com/questions/1683/was-apollo-the-sun-god-in-augustan-rome" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="b2a43d78-83fa-4410-97a6-fafdf1938679" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:00:20.033" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://mythology.stackexchange.com/ with https://mythology.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Yes** [Phoebus Apollo][1] was the sun god during the time of [Augustine][2] at Rome!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The worship of Apollo was widespread not only in Greece but also throughout the ancient world. Shrines could be found in places from Egypt to Anatolia (now northwestern Turkey). The Romans built their first temple to Apollo (Phoebus) in 432  B  .  C  ., and he became a favorite Roman god. The Roman emperor Augustus was a devoted worshiper because the battle of Actium, in which he gained political supremacy, was fought near a temple of Apollo. - [Myths Encyclopedia.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how do we reconcile this with the Roman Cult of Mithras or the [Sol Invictus][3] of Rome?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Roman deity Mithras appears in the historical record in the late 1st century A.D., and disappears from it in the late 4th century A.D. Unlike the major mythological figures of Graeco-Roman religion, such as Jupiter and Hercules, no ancient source preserves the mythology of the god. All of our information is therefore derived from depictions on monuments, and the limited mentions of the cult in literary sources. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;The temples of Mithras were always an underground cave, featuring a relief of Mithras killing the bull. This &quot;tauroctony&quot;, as it is known today, appears in the same format everywhere, but with minor variations. Other standard themes appear in the iconography. - [The Cult of Mithras.][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Roman Emperor [Aurelian][5] made the Cult of the Invincible Sun official in the year 274 AD:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Roman gens Aurelia was associated with the cult of Sol. After his victories in the East, the Emperor Aurelian thoroughly reformed the Roman cult of Sol, elevating the sun-god to one of the premier divinities of the Empire. Where previously priests of Sol had been simply sacerdotes and tended to belong to lower ranks of Roman society, they were now pontifices and members of the new college of pontifices instituted by Aurelian. Every pontifex of Sol was a member of the senatorial elite, indicating that the priesthood of Sol was now highly prestigious. Almost all these senators held other priesthoods as well, however, and some of these other priesthoods take precedence in the inscriptions in which they are listed, suggesting that they were considered more prestigious than the priesthood of Sol. Aurelian also built a new temple for Sol, bringing the total number of temples for the god in Rome to (at least) four. He also instituted games in honor of the sun god, held every four years from AD 274 onwards. - [Sol Invictus (Wikipedia).][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Cult of Mithras thus came into being after Augustine and became obsolete in or around the 4th century AD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;([Crossposted on Mythology.SE](https://mythology.stackexchange.com/a/1685/1268))&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Am-Ar/Apollo.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=main&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelian&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://The%20Roman%20gens%20Aurelia%20was%20associated%20with%20the%20cult%20of%20Sol.[31]%20After%20his%20victories%20in%20the%20East,%20the%20Emperor%20Aurelian%20thoroughly%20reformed%20the%20Roman%20cult%20of%20Sol,%20elevating%20the%20sun-god%20to%20one%20of%20the%20premier%20divinities%20of%20the%20Empire.%20Where%20previously%20priests%20of%20Sol%20had%20been%20simply%20sacerdotes%20and%20tended%20to%20belong%20to%20lower%20ranks%20of%20Roman%20society,[32]%20they%20were%20now%20pontifices%20and%20members%20of%20the%20new%20college%20of%20pontifices%20instituted%20by%20Aurelian.%20Every%20pontifex%20of%20Sol%20was%20a%20member%20of%20the%20senatorial%20elite,%20indicating%20that%20the%20priesthood%20of%20Sol%20was%20now%20highly%20prestigious.%20Almost%20all%20these%20senators%20held%20other%20priesthoods%20as%20well,%20however,%20and%20some%20of%20these%20other%20priesthoods%20take%20precedence%20in%20the%20inscriptions%20in%20which%20they%20are%20listed,%20suggesting%20that%20they%20were%20considered%20more%20prestigious%20than%20the%20priesthood%20of%20Sol.[33]%20Aurelian%20also%20built%20a%20new%20temple%20for%20Sol,%20bringing%20the%20total%20number%20of%20temples%20for%20the%20god%20in%20Rome%20to%20(at%20least)%20four[34]%20He%20also%20instituted%20games%20in%20honor%20of%20the%20sun%20god,%20held%20every%20four%20years%20from%20AD%20274%20onwards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1766" RevisionGUID="fea6facd-ee23-43c7-878d-7461a61da7cd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.343" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Several [Latin names of modern countries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1328/79) end in *-landia* if the corresponding English name ends in *-land*:&#xD;&#xA;*Islandia*, *Nederlandia*, *Irlandia*, *Thailandia*, *Finlandia* (also *Finnia*).&#xD;&#xA;England has a much older Latin name, and it is different: *Anglia*.&#xD;&#xA;I do not know of any region name ending in *-landia* in antiquity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where does the *-landia* suffix come from?&#xD;&#xA;Is it related to Latin?&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that it is the Germanic word *land* used in names of countries and regions, adapted to Latin by adding *-ia*.&#xD;&#xA;Is there an alternative for *-landia* in more classical Latin style?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2841" RevisionGUID="dd0e4db5-9b4b-4b6b-a0c6-5de5141b45c7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.343" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I previously asked [about indicating a question in writing](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2770/79), and I got interested in how questions were recognized in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;To know if a question mark would be used after a question, one should probably know whether or not such sentences were recognized in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;Certainly the concept of a question was known to the Romans, but I want to know whether they made a formal distinction between a declarative and interrogative sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When did grammarians first recognize a question as a type of a sentence?&#xD;&#xA;Was it discussed from the very beginning of grammatical literature, or was such classification of sentences a later development?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in Latin, but if there is something relevant in Greek literature, feel free to share it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3008" RevisionGUID="6b30a12f-2cc8-49ce-913b-ba2f453124de" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.343" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="What about *αρνησικυρία?* (pr. arnisikiria) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, apologies, I speak only modern Greek. But it might be of some help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Αρνησικυρία formally means veto, but I've heard it being used as the refusal of an authority to accept a law or conviction; authorities being able to do so more easily than individuals, of course. So it's not exactly &quot;when it's okay to break the rules&quot;, it's more &quot;I openly declare that I will not accept the legal decision&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I got the hint from your other question [here][1] which is the continuation of the present one :) *-κυρία* refers to either κυριαρχία (dominion) or κύρωση (sanction). Άρνηση is refusal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2301/are-you-familiar-with-the-greek-word-epicharia-or-epikaria" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17" RevisionGUID="26e7a901-0c70-4671-b205-dadab9362eec" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="In general, the whole purpose of using macrons is to clearly indicate pronunciation, so they're usually pretty straightforward. (Macrons were not used classically, although there were some older devices used for indicating vowel length such as the [apex][1] and &quot;i longa&quot; a taller I.) However, it's true that they can indicate several aspects of pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contrastive Vowel Quantity (i.e. Length)&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macrons primarily indicate that the modified vowel is long. Literally, that is: it's held for a more extended period of time than a regular, short vowel. Vowel length was what is called phonemic in Classical Latin, which means that there were pairs of words for which the only difference in pronunciation was the length of some vowel: for example, *liber* &quot;book&quot; vs. *līber* &quot;free.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that at one point, duration may have been the only difference between long and short vowels. In the International Phonetic Alphabet, we transcribe vowel length with a triangular colon ː after the vowel; so we could say that the early Classical Latin pronunciation of the vowels we spell *a ā e ē i ī o ō u ū* would be /a aː e eː i iː o oː u uː/. We don't know for sure the precise phonetic quality of these vowels. Andrea Calabrese has proposed that they were [ɑ ɑː ɛ ɛː i iː ɔ ɔː u uː] ([*On the Evolution of the Short High Vowels of Latin into Romance*][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowel Quality&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is known is that at some point between Classical and Vulgar Latin, the corresponding long and short vowels also became distinguished in quality. (Calabrese mentions Allen and Sturtevant as linguists who reconstruct these quality distinctions back to the Classical Latin stage.) The non-low vowels (all but a aː) clearly show distinct qualities for short vs. long in some of the Romance languages descended from Vulgar Latin, which causes us to  reconstruct something like [a aː ɛ eː ɪ iː ɔ oː ʊ uː]. I believe I've read some accounts that also reconstruct a difference in quality for short a and long a along the lines of [ɐ aː], but I don't know what evidence this is based on. It's also not clear if short unstressed i between a consonant and a vowel (which in Romance normally developed to some kind of glide, or palatalized the preceding consonant and was lost entirely) was ever pronounced as [ɪ]; it may have been something like [i] or [ij] all the way up until it lost its syllabicity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Vulgar Latin is also believed to have had long [ɛː], but as the realization of *ae* rather than of *ē.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Metrical Weight (which is not the same as real vowel quality)&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that sometimes when dealing with poetry or old dictionaries, you might see macrons used (or misused) just to mark heavy syllables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, a syllable is &quot;heavy&quot; if it has a long vowel, or ends in a consonant, or both. Heavy syllables are relevant to rules of word stress and poetic scansion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Syllables that end in a consonant can have either long or short vowels; in either case they are heavy because they end with a consonant. There is a confusing old tradition of referrring to the vowels in such syllables as being &quot;long by position&quot;, but they aren't necessarily actual long vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the vowel in such syllables has a &quot;[hidden quantity][3],&quot; so be careful in situations like this and try to check several sources that distinguish between short and long in closed syllables to see if they agree on the length of the vowel. We cannot reconstruct vowel length here based on metrical evidence, but we sometimes can based on inscriptions that use the apex, vowel quality in descended Romance words, or descriptions of ancient grammarians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, it's fairly obvious if a syllable ends in a consonant in Latin, but there are a few tricky cases where a single letter may represent a double consonant (which is always divided between two syllables for metrical purposes). In particular, the consonants *j* and *z* are not written double, but generally represent double consonants in Latin, so a vowel preceding either of these will have hidden quantity (and might be written with a macron even if the vowel is short, to indicate that the syllable is heavy). I actually just found an apparent example of this in a recent question (https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14/when-is-an-i-not-an-i): apparently the word most dictionaries write as *māiŏr* was, according to the linguist W. Sidney Allen, actually pronounced as /majjor/ with *short* &quot;a,&quot; but a long /jj/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also some cases where it seems word-final consonants in Latin were pronounced long, and you may see this written as a macron on the preceding vowel. According to *[The Latin Language: A Historical Outline of Its Sounds, Inflections, and Syntax][4],* by Charles Edwin Bennett (1907), a long final consonant may have occured in some words where original *-s* was assimilated to a preceding *s, l,* or *r* (as in [*far, farris*][5], possibly pronounced /farr, farris/). Another case where this is believed to have occured is *hoc* (sometimes written *hōc*) which Bennett says was pronounced /hokk/ and not /hoːk/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Automatic (but real) Quantity&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another related point of pronunciation: macrons are generally always used on vowels that occur in the combinations Vnf and Vns (where &quot;V&quot; stands for any vowel). Although this means there is no contrast here between short and long, it does appear that these vowels were phonetically long (*[The Latin Language: A Historical Outline of Its Sounds, Inflections, and Syntax][6],* by Charles Edwin Bennett). In languages descended from Latin, the consonantal /n/ sound was actually regularly dropped from Vns clusters (example: Italian *[isola][7]* &lt; Latin *īnsula*). However, when &quot;ns&quot; occured due to a prefix ending in &quot;n&quot; coming before a stem starting with &quot;s&quot;, analogical retention or restoration of /n/ in Romance languages is common. And since pretty much all instances of &quot;nf&quot; in Latin are due to prefixation, I don't actually know of any word in a Romance language that has denasalized a Latin &quot;nf&quot; cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't remember if there is any consensus on if a nasal consonant was phonetically present in these sequences in Latin. In any case, it is believed that in classical times the preceding vowel in such words was pronounced with nasalization, so sequences like *īnf* would still have contrasted with sequences like *īf* in Classical Latin even if the consonant /n/ was already elided: it would be [ı̃ːf] vs. [iːf]. (If a nasal consonant was present, it was likely assimilated to the [labiodental][8] articulation of the following /f/, giving the pronunciation [ı̃ːɱf].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect evidence for other pronunciation features&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, a macron doesn't affect the pronunciation of any other sound directly. But knowing that a vowel is long may help you apply the regular Latin stress rule, whereby a word is stressed on the second-to-last syllable if it is heavy (contains a long vowel or diphthong or ends in a consonant) and on the third-to-last if the the second-to-last is light (contains a short vowel and doesn't end with a consonant). In addition, as jwodder pointed out in a [comment][9], a macron on either vowel in a sequence like *ae, oe, au, eu* tells you that the two vowels are pronounced separately rather than as a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_(diacritic)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=o9wpGIF0JWcC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA63&amp;dq=%22Latin%22%20vowel%20quality%20e%20o%20advanced%20tongue%20root&amp;ots=ND1tWjhtE5&amp;sig=SwcVUHalU_QmM6ZMBER2nw7Fzxg#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zJEQAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA34&amp;lpg=PA34&amp;dq=hidden%20quantity&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GOCpxL3sp7&amp;sig=GOCXZHN762CFUSUgqlIJYRkw7hY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi-nrOlx47LAhVCkYMKHekGDTIQ6AEIMDAD#v=onepage&amp;q=hidden%20quantity&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=N1RfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA118&amp;lpg=PA118&amp;dq=latin%20rhotacism%20farr&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zJZyIcVRGn&amp;sig=18BkOGKVlju5YnjaxJJd189tbMs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjMvMePlrrMAhWHloMKHSeQB_IQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20rhotacism%20farr&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/810/9&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=N1RfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA40&amp;lpg=PA40&amp;dq=Latin%20quantity%20before%20ns&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zJYCJcYXCm&amp;sig=_2DOx92MQseKIE_fkhkVLjmDltY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjTudCVyI7LAhWrtIMKHc4pDzYQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20quantity%20before%20ns&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/isola#Italian&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labiodental_nasal&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5/what-effect-should-a-macron-have-on-the-sound-of-a-letter-and-its-word#comment15_5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="71" RevisionGUID="9700460b-9273-4db4-a6b5-0d6c7ab6712f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="A standard work in this area is [*Vox Latina*](https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC), by W. Sidney Allen.  The author answers your question in his foreword, identifying 6 types of evidence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. specific statements of Latin grammarians and other authors&#xD;&#xA;regarding the pronunciation of the language; &#xD;&#xA;2. puns, plays on words, ancient etymologies, and imitations of natural sounds;&#xD;&#xA;3. the representation of Latin words in other languages;&#xD;&#xA;4. developments in the Romance languages; &#xD;&#xA;5. the spelling conventions of Latin, and particularly scribal or epigraphic&#xD;&#xA;variations; and &#xD;&#xA;6. the internal structure of the Latin language itself, including its metrical patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The evidence for some sounds, of course, will be stronger than for others:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The degree of accuracy, with which we can reconstruct the ancient pronunciation varies from sound to sound, but for the most part can be determined within quite narrow limits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Briefly, here are examples of each of these six points from Allen's work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Latin grammarians**.  Prominent rhetoricians and grammarians instructed their students in proper pronunciation.  For example, Cicero described the [pronunciation of the diagraph *ch*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/648/12), and Priscian and Velius Longus attempted to explain the [sound of the final -*m*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/935/12).&#xD;&#xA;2. **Plays on words**.  Cicero gives a frequently cited example of this, providing evidence that [*v* was pronounced as [w]](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/319/12), when he equates the sounds of *Cauneas* and *Caue ne eas*, which would only make sense if the *u* of *caue* was similar to that of *Cauneas*.&#xD;&#xA;3. **Word borrowing**.  Latin shared vocabulary with Greek and other languages, with both languages borrowing from each other.  The letters used in transcriptions of these words give clues into the Latin sounds.  For example, [evidence for *n* being pronounced as [ŋ] before certain consonants](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/539/12) comes from transcriptions from Latin to Greek and vice versa.&#xD;&#xA;4. **Romance languages**.  The development of Romance languages like Spanish from Vulgar Latin is sometimes helpful with respect to pronunciation.  For example, the [relative lack of aspiration in voiceless stops (p, t, c, qu)](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/637/12) is suggested by the lack of aspiration of these stops in Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;5. **Spelling**.  The conventions and variations of Latin spelling provide helpful pronunciation clues in a number of cases.  For example, thanks to widespread spelling confusion, we can trace changes in the [pronunciation of the *u*-consonant](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/326/12) back to the first century.  Similarly, inscriptional evidence is used to establish the [length of vowels before “gn”?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/787/12).&#xD;&#xA;6. **Structure and meter**.  The meter of Latin poetry is particularly helpful in ascertaining the lengths of vowels, such as in determining the correct pronunciation of the [names of the letters of the alphabet](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/733/12)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="548d5ee6-cfbb-4819-b01a-8d184f41b255" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Rhotacism in Latin happened because of a series of sound changes. It only affected inherited *\*s* in specific environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first step towards rhotacism is believed to have been voicing of single &quot;s&quot; to the sound [z] in certain contexts: generally, between vowels. Phonologically, this change can be seen as an assimilation of the consonant to the surrounding voiced segments. This kind of voicing assimilation is common historically; for example, it also occured between Classical Latin and many Romance languages. Double *ss* remained unvoiced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some related languages, such as Oscan, /z/ remained as such between vowels and did not undergo rhotacism. We know this because we have Oscan inscriptions written in the Latin alphabet that use the letter Z for this sound (Buck 1904). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next step of rhotacism (z &gt; r) is a little less common across languages, but we do have some other examples. The process also applied historically in Germanic; one place where you can see the result in English is *forlo**r**n,* which is historically related to the verb *lo**s**e*. Rhotacism is thought to have occured in Old Latin, and to have been complete by the 4th century BCE. In 312 BC, the letter Z was discarded  from the Latin by censor Appius Caecus Claudius (Gorman). (also see: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/34/why-are-there-no-native-latin-words-with-a-z?lq=1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result of these changes, original intervocalic *\*s* ultimately became *r* in Classical Latin. In the ancestor of Latin, *\*s* seems to have also been voiced to [z] after the voiced consonant /r/, so another related sound change is original *\*rs* to Classical Latin *rr.* One word that shows this change is [*terra*][1] &quot;earth,&quot; from Proto-Indo-European *\*ters*- ‎(“dry”). The cluster *rs* that occurs in Classical Latin is a simplification of earlier *\*rtt* or *\*rts*; this is why most words with *rs* also have *rt* in some forms or in related words (such as [*ars*][2] &quot;art,&quot; genitive *artis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two environments (between vowels and after *r*) are the main cases where Latin *r* regularly came from earlier *\*s.* There are also some words with r followed by a consonant where the *r* was originally intervocalic *\*s*, but the following vowel was lost (as in [*veternus*][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there also seem to be some words where *\*s* developed into *z* and then *r* directly before a voiced consonant; in fact, the voicing in these words seems to have occurred earlier than the intervocalic voicing. For example, Proto-Indo-European *-*sg*- seems to be the ancestor of *rg* in *[mergo][4]* &quot;to immerse, engulf&quot; and probably in *[virga][5]* &quot;twig, switch, rod&quot; (de Melo). This also applied before the semivowel *v* [w]; thanks to TKR for pointing this out in a [comment][6]. A strange example that does seem to have undergone rhotacization between Old and Classical Latin is the word *carmen,* which Lewis and Short say used to be *casmen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the sound *r* became established in certain words, their derivatives might come to have it in other environments. For example, as Joonas Ilmavirta mentions, some words such as *honor* developed final *r* instead of *s* after a vowel; it's believed this is due to the presence of *r* in other related forms (like *honoris*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Single intervocalic *s* did exist in Classical Latin; we believe it was pronounced [s]. In many words, it corresponds to inherited *\*ss* which seems to have become shortened in some environments. Other words with intervocalic *s* have been explained as borrowings from other languages, such as Greek or Italic languages such as Oscan that did not undergo rhotacism. Whatever the reason, their presence indicates that rhotacism was not active as an automatic sound change in the Classical era (Gorman).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peck summarizes the change as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Latin rhotacism is a regular law, for though there are many&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparent exceptions to it, examination shows that in most of these&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cases the s was not originally intervocalic or else that the word is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of (a) foreign or (b) late origin. [...] &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The unvoiced s first passes into the voiced s (z) and thence to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lingual r, for the position of the vocal organs in pronouncing z is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substantially the same as that required for r.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Buck, Carl Darling. 1904. [*A grammar of Oscan and Umbrian : with a collection of inscriptions and a glossary*][7]&#xD;&#xA;- de Melo, W. D. C. &quot;[Faliscan: Phonology Part 2][8]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Gorman, Kyle. &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real][9]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Peck, Harry Thurston. 1898. [*Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities*][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terra#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ars#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/veternus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mergo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/virga#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/136/rhotacism-why#comment237_146&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://archive.org/stream/grammarofoscanum00buckuoft#page/74/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://wolfgang.demelo.de/faliscan/5_phonology.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0062%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DR%3Aentry%20group%3D4%3Aentry%3Drhotacism-harpers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="159" RevisionGUID="0f1e9fa5-b4f7-46e8-bcbe-3d53a1af3992" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="As a sort of followup to https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1/11, I'd like to know if this would be considered a valid construction (in [tag:classical-latin]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arma virum navesque cano&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(modified version of [Virgil's *Aeneid*, I.1](https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Aeneis/Liber_I#0))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any examples of classical Latin authors 'stringing together' more than two objects with a single `-que` suffix? If so, is this the correct way to form it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="162" RevisionGUID="8e8f8a8b-ccdb-4f06-9585-74a80e518365" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="This was intended as a comment to [Joonas' answer][1], but it was too long and somewhat different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll explain it using my native Czech, which has both variants, similar to Latin and English fear sentence structure. These are synonyms: &quot;Bojím se, že přijde.&quot; (lit. &quot;I fear that he comes/will come.&quot;) = &quot;Bojím se, aby nepřišel.&quot; (lit. &quot;I fear **so that** he won't come.&quot;, or &quot;I fear, so I wish he won't come.&quot;). They can't be used both as synonyms in a sentence expressing positive emotion, but both structures are used for different, similar verbs. In the &quot;English&quot; structure: &quot;Doufám, že přijde.&quot; (&quot;I hope he will come.&quot;) or in the &quot;Latin&quot; one: &quot;Chci, aby přišel.&quot; (lit. &quot;I want that he comes/will come&quot;, or &quot;I want him to come&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Czech &quot;aby&quot; corresponds to Latin &quot;ut&quot; and English &quot;so that&quot; and &quot;aby ne&quot; (the negation &quot;ne&quot; is usually used as a verb's prefix in Czech: &quot;**ne**přišel&quot;) to Latin &quot;ne&quot; and English &quot;so that&quot; + negation. So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Czech &quot;Bojím se, aby nepřišel.&quot; = Latin &quot;Timeo, ne veniat.&quot; = literal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; English &quot;I fear so that he won't come.&quot; = natural English &quot;I fear he&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comes.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Czech &quot;Chci, aby nepřišel.&quot; = Latin &quot;Spero, ut veniat.&quot; = English &quot;I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hope he comes.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes I feel sorry about you poor native English speakers. So many things in other lanuages are easy and logical, but your language complicates it all by devolving too much from Latin where other European languages keep stay closer to the Latin original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/150/52" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="188" RevisionGUID="fe45928c-d8e0-4f4c-a088-28fcba8be29d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Both vowels are short and belong to two different syllables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider Vergilius's [Aeneis I.595](http://thelatinlibrary.com/vergil/aen1.shtml):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; improvisus ait: 'Coram, quem quaeritis, adsum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be able to read this as a hexameter verse, *ait* must be pronounced as two syllables, the first of which is short.&#xD;&#xA;This is not an isolated example, but I only chose to give one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the ending -it is pronounced with a short 'i' (see eg. verse 45 in the cited source), we have a good reason to believe that also the i is short.&#xD;&#xA;And since we already know that there are two syllables, the verse 142 shows that the i must be short in *ait*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rhythmic considerations alone will not tell about the exact phonetic values of the vowels.&#xD;&#xA;[This question on ancient pronunciation](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/66/79) might be a good starting point with such finer details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="222" RevisionGUID="50dea3a1-f894-434b-a062-c8d6128371a6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="From [this overview of punctuation in Classical Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/33/12), I understand that word spacing as we know it didn't really exist at that time: either an [interpunct](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpunct#Latin) was used to separate words,  [or there was no word break at all](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scriptio_continua).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do we know about the origins of word spacing (with an actual space) in Latin?   When did it become standard practice?  Did it do so on a particular medium first, or in a particular geographical area, perhaps?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="237" RevisionGUID="2410a515-5d54-4637-9f3d-3ca06e3df4de" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The easiest way to think about this--and I don't understand why it isn't in any Latin textbook I've ever seen (with the exception of [Alfonso Traina][1]'s work, almost unknown in America except to linguists, but alas I only have photocopies of sections so I can't refer to specific books)--is to think of Latin verbs with prefixes in the same way as English verbs that contain prepositions. (Despite the Gallic quality of your username your English is fluent, so I'm assuming that this will work for you.) The prefixes/prepositions don't always bring their literal meaning to the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take, for example, *mónstró* and *démónstró*. The difference between these seems baffling until you think about them as meaning, respectively, &quot;show&quot; and &quot;point out.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or take, as in [this question][2], *prémó* and *imprímó*. Again, pressing already contains the idea of &quot;against&quot; or &quot;in,&quot; so what gives? The answer becomes clearer when you think about them as &quot;press&quot; and &quot;press into (so as to stamp or leave a mark on),&quot; or perhaps more clearly &quot;press&quot; and &quot;impress on.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can get trickier when there's no verb + preposition equivalent in English, but it's not impossible: *lacrimó* is &quot;I cry,&quot; whereas *illacrimó* is &quot;I burst into tears, and *amplexor* is &quot;I hug,&quot; whereas *complexor* is &quot;I give (someone) a hug.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, taking your examples of *límitó* and *délímitó,* we have &quot;enclose (within boundaries)&quot; and &quot;mark out (boundaries so as to make them visible).&quot; The sense of *dé* isn't literally there, but neither is the sense of &quot;out&quot; in English &quot;mark out.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only came to this understanding of prefixes recently, so I'm not yet able to go through all your examples--I'm still trying to grok, for example, the nuances between *struó*, *ínstruó*, and *cónstruó*, not having read widely enough to get a strong sense of them--but as a general principle, if you think of the prefixes as slightly abstracted from their literal meanings, you can usually figure out a rough English equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_Traina&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/59/what-is-the-difference-in-meaning-or-nuance-between-prem%C5%8D-and-imprim%C5%8D-in-the/93#93" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="295" RevisionGUID="9c2486aa-a16a-4ee2-bd93-5b8811ded783" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Quando vocabulum **a fortiori** (sive _[a fortiore](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/133/118)_) ortum est ut nomen artis legis logicæve? In quo opere scripto primum apparuit?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Volo intellegere eius rationem originis verificareque verbum elisum &quot;**ratione**&quot; esse. (Vocabulum *a fortiore* enim idem significat ac *a ratione fortiore*.) Notionem in duobus auctoribus antiquis inveni, _[Rhetorica ad Herennium](https://archive.org/stream/adcherenniumdera00capluoft#page/292/mode/2up)_ IV.18 et _[Topica](https://archive.org/stream/oratorbrutustopi00cice#page/382/mode/2up)_ Ciceronis 4.23, sed illa locutionibus dissimilibus utuntur, e.g. &quot;Quod in re maiore valet, valeat in minore.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="321" RevisionGUID="7e6c4910-1e73-44ea-9056-037a271d684e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;sub&gt; [This question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/234/37) inspired the following: I should verify whether the prefix really means something. I quoted the French version of Wiktionary because the [English version](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/aperio#la) does not state the Latin etymons (only the PIE etymons).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [operīre](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/operio#Latin)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; De l’indo-européen commun _*u̯er-_ [1] (« couvrir » → voir [*veru*](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/veru#la)) avec le préfixe [*op-*](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/ob-#la),    &#xD;&#xA;plutôt qu'un dérivé [2] de [*pario*](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/pario#la).&#xD;&#xA;Voyez son antonyme [*aperio*](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/aperio#la)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="322" RevisionGUID="c2d53f00-4dae-44d8-84f2-606c9c1ae59d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;sub&gt; [This](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/234/37) inspired this question; I should verify whether the prefix really means something.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[*defallere](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=default&amp;searchmode=none)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; from Latin [*de-*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=de-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) &quot;away&quot; + *fallere* &quot;to deceive, to cheat; to put wrong, to lead astray, cause to be mistaken; to escape notice of, be concealed from&quot; (see [fail (v.)](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fail&amp;allowed_in_frame=0))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of *de-* here is unclear to me, because the semantic notion of &quot;away&quot; does not appear in the verb _*defallere_ and because Latin already had [*fallere*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fallo#Etymology_2).  So why might this prefix have been added to this word prior to entering Old French?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="323" RevisionGUID="960f8717-adbc-4269-ace5-b70f3b5f83db" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;sub&gt; [This](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/234/37) inspired this question; I should verify whether the prefix really means something.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [instruere](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=instruct&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;arrange, prepare, set in order; inform, teach,&quot; literally &quot;to build, erect,&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; from [*in-*²](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=in-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) &quot;on&quot; + *struere* &quot;to pile, build&quot; (see [structure](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=structure&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*in-* appears superfluous to me, because piling or building something must occur **on** something. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="324" RevisionGUID="dd20e8c5-14ff-49ba-815a-dcbe3b35221c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;sub&gt; [This](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/234/37) inspired this question; I should verify whether the prefix really means something.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[delimitare](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=delimit&amp;searchmode=none)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;to mark out as a boundary,&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; from [*de-*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=de-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) + *limitare*, from *limitem, limes* &quot;boundary, limit&quot; (see [limit](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=limit&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *de-* feels redundant, because it does not appear to distinguish 'delimitare' from  [limitare](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/limito#Latin) and because to limit something presumes to &quot;mark out as a boundary&quot; something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="325" RevisionGUID="cf7410b7-b663-4994-a5a1-87c508f69d9c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's well established that [the consonantal *u* (or *v*) was pronounced as [w] in Classical Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/28/12) (i.e., *w* as in *wine*).  Of course, Romance languages developed voiced fricatives out of this *u*-consonant, like the bilabial [β] (Spanish) or the labiodental [v] (Portuguese and French; *v* as in English *vine*).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did this shift begin in Latin?  If so, when?  Allen and Greenough seem to suggest that it may have existed even in the era of Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ordinary English sounds of j and v did not exist in classical Latin, but consonant u perhaps approached English v in the pronunciation of some persons. [[§5](https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA3)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is correct, who were these &quot;some persons&quot; who began pronouncing the *u*-consonant as a fricative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="362" RevisionGUID="b7bc512b-e911-4710-bfd2-3fc925a34e17" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was thrown off by a [recent question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/349/12) that talked about the &quot;conjunctive&quot; mood, which I had never heard of.  A few searches of [William Whitaker's Words](http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?english=subjunctive) reveals that both *coniunctivus* (or *conjunctivus*) and *subiunctivus* (or *subjunctivus*) are Latin translations for the English &quot;subjunctive.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference between these two Latin words?  I'd like to understand if there is a basis for preference for one or the other.  So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is there a difference in meaning?  Is one more specific than the other, perhaps more often used to identify a particular subset of usages of the subjunctive?&#xD;&#xA;- Are both attested in Classical Latin?  If so, which is more commonly used?  If not, which is older?&#xD;&#xA;- Did the terms originally refer to two different things that ultimately merged into the now unified subjunctive mood?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="403" RevisionGUID="f9e3cd99-4878-41f5-a93a-648e5afbff42" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The [first sentence](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/347/118) of the introduction to the _Systema Naturæ_ by Linnaeus is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homo **mundi** intraturus theatrum quæritur Quis sit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you tell what noun goes with **mundi**? Grammatically, two interpretations come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A man of the world about to enter a theater is asked who he is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Man about to enter the theater of the world is asked who he is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In context, the second interpretation seems clearly superior. Must you rely on sense to determine the &quot;object&quot; of a genitive, or are there grammatical clues?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put that another way, would you write the Latin any differently if you wanted the first interpretation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="406" RevisionGUID="3de24e95-5d1e-44ae-b5b3-5f735ff5a7ea" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a tricky question: given the paucity of Latin speakers and the all but nonexistence of native Latin speakers today, how does one interpret the present tense in *vivit*? Or, put another way, Augustine might have answered this question &quot;no&quot; where Plautus answered it &quot;yes&quot;—obviously language changes over time, not just in its forms (3rd person singular English &quot;hath&quot; became &quot;has&quot;) but also in its meanings (&quot;disinterested,&quot; for example, used to mean &quot;uninterested&quot; but now means &quot;neutral&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I can add, in line with [Alfonso Traina][1] (unfortunately I have only untitled photocopies of sections of his work, so I can't cite it; the ideas in this answer aren't discussed in what I've seen of his, but they pretty much directly follow from it) that the easiest way to understand Latin verbal prefixes, as I discussed in https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/234/prefixes-in-verbs-that-appear-redundant-or-meaningless-do-they-really-mean-anyt/237#237, is to think of them as analogous to English verbs that contain pronouns (&quot;sit out,&quot; &quot;shut down&quot;) or to German verbs with inseparable prepositional prefixes (oddly, the only one that's occurring to me in the moment is *auferstehen,* &quot;to be resurrected,&quot; but that's what comes of too much Bach).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our case, I'd say that the difference between &quot;monstro&quot; and &quot;demonstro&quot; is roughly analogous to the difference between &quot;show&quot; and &quot;point out.&quot; So one way of thinking about the answer is to ask whether &quot;out&quot; is dead metaphor in &quot;point out&quot;; for me it is, which would suggest that *de* in *demonstro* is as well. However, another way of looking at the question is to say that, at *some* point in the history of English, &quot;out&quot; in &quot;point out&quot; was *not* dead metaphor, which would suggest that at some point in the history of Latin or *PIE *de* in *demonstro* was not dead metaphor either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is that, since it appeals to you as a living metaphor, you think of it as one. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_Traina" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="3a5d72b1-014e-445a-9123-c0fba4e8faa4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The first verse of the first ode in [the first book of odes by Horatius](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/horace/carm1.shtml) is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Maecenas atavis edite regibus*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You Maecenas, who descend from great-great-great-grandfathers that were kings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who are these *atavi* (literally great-great-great-grandfathers) Horatius mentions?&#xD;&#xA;Does it mean some specific people or ancestry in general?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Maecenas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Maecenas), the Horatius' patron, came from a wealthy equestrian family, but describing such background as kings (*reges*) sounds tasteless to me &amp;mdash; but I may be missing a connotation of the word *rex*.&#xD;&#xA;I was unable to track his ancestry to great-great-great-grandparents, and I'm not sure Horatius could either.&#xD;&#xA;Especially since the expression is in plural (*atavis regibus* rather than *atavo rege*), I believe it refers to several ancestors in several generations.&#xD;&#xA;But it is still possible that Horatius has some specific ancestors in mind instead of his family in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know (or have good guesses) what Horatius meant by *atavi reges*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was partially inspired by [this earlier question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/294/79) about generations of grandparents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="443" RevisionGUID="9adccfbb-c60c-4ac9-bfae-cffd71e75e51" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="How was 'ng' pronounced in classical Latin and how do we know?&#xD;&#xA;I believe metric considerations strongly indicate that it was not a short consonant (/ŋ/ or other), but I can still think of two reasonable (and many unreasonable) options: /ŋg/ and /ŋ:/.&#xD;&#xA;The second option is widely used in today's Finland &amp;mdash; in all languages, not just Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek the corresponding &amp;mdash; at least roughly corresponding &amp;mdash; sound was spelled '&amp;gamma;&amp;gamma;' instead of '&amp;nu;&amp;gamma;'.&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, however, 'gg' denotes /g:/ unless I am badly mistaken.&#xD;&#xA;This makes me wonder:&#xD;&#xA;Was 'ng' pronounced any differently in Greek loanwords than in originally Latin words?&#xD;&#xA;If the pronunciations in the two languages were identical, I assume the answer is negative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please do not confuse this question with the one about [pronouncing 'gn'](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/152/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="459" RevisionGUID="e3d83d70-2fa6-4c7b-beea-ae25d7f061e6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="In today's mathematics, two lines are said to be normal to each other if they are at a right angle (perpendicular) to each other.&#xD;&#xA;I want to know how this can be expressed in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closely related questions have been asked on mathematical SE sites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [How did “normal” come to mean “perpendicular”?](https://mathoverflow.net/q/172690/558939)&#xD;&#xA;- [Etymology of the word “normal” (perpendicular)](https://math.stackexchange.com/q/328662/166535)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What expressions are there for normality in Latin, preferably classical?&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see examples of mathematical mentions of normality, as old ones as possible.&#xD;&#xA;Looking at dictionaries gives a list of possible translations to &quot;right angle&quot;, &quot;perpendicular&quot; and &quot;normal&quot;, but it is not clear which ones could be used in mathematical context.&#xD;&#xA;(Some possible expressions: *derectus, directus, praeceps, perpendicularis, perpendicularius, perpendiculatus, cathetus, angulus rectus, angulus normalis*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be able to write mathematics reasonably fluently, it is good to know several (possibly grammatically different) ways to express the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;The accepted [MathOverflow answer](https://mathoverflow.net/a/172694/55893) gives a classical example of *angulus normalis* (straight angle), but I have not been able to find more classical expressions for perpendicularity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since my question about [finding ancient mathematical texts in Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/400/79) has produced no example texts so far, I will have to accept post-classical examples.&#xD;&#xA;Some amount of geometry does appear in non-mathematical texts, so I hope to find classical examples as well.&#xD;&#xA;(Maybe I should finally start reading my Vitruvius&amp;hellip;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="79c6826f-4c53-4011-a1be-a2e544eda768" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="How, in classical Latin, did one say &quot;all the more so&quot; or otherwise indicate that a proposition harder than you're trying to prove has just been&#xD;&#xA;proven, so your proposition must be at least as certain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, we sometimes say **a fortiori** to indicate this: &quot;Unicorns&#xD;&#xA;don't exist, so, _a fortiori,_ one couldn't have bitten you.&quot; I'm researching&#xD;&#xA;the [origins of the term _a&#xD;&#xA;fortiori_](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/295/118), and so far, I have not&#xD;&#xA;found the idiom _a fortiore ratione_ in any Ancient Roman writing.  It seems&#xD;&#xA;likely, though, that people would have _some_ sort of common way of expressing&#xD;&#xA;the concept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do know of a phrase with this meaning which occurs throughout Latin&#xD;&#xA;translations of the Bible: **quanto magis**. Here are a couple examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si ergo uos cum sitis mali nostis bona data dare filiis uestris, **Quanto&#xD;&#xA;&gt; magis** pater uester de cælo dabit bona petentibus se? (Matthew 7:11, [Old&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin](https://books.google.com/books?id=8odbAAAAMAAJ&amp;lpg=PA90&amp;pg=PA90))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;i&gt;If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **how much more** shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; them that ask him? (KJV)&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Respicite uolatili a cæli, quoniam non serunt neque metunt neque congregant in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; horreo. Et pater vester cælestis alit illas. **Nonne magis uos pluris estis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; illis?** (Matthew 6:26, [Old Latin](https://books.google.com/books?id=8odbAAAAMAAJ&amp;lpg=PA7&amp;pg=PA7))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;i&gt;Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. **Are ye not much&#xD;&#xA;&gt; better than they?** (KJV)&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read, though, that &quot;how much more?&quot; is a direct translation of the Hebrew&#xD;&#xA;word אַף&#xD;&#xA;(_[af](https://books.google.com/books?id=U4btePgZO0IC&amp;pg=PA140&amp;lpg=PA140&amp;dq=%22and+how+much+more%22+bible+hebrew+rhetoric&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ir0fclcXLh&amp;sig=FmaketQE5bhaJHTxfrcS8j8mNbs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiUuP2N47LLAhVsk4MKHR5bAugQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22and%20how%20much%20more%22%20bible%20hebrew%20rhetoric&amp;f=false)_)&#xD;&#xA;or וְאַף, &quot;and how much more&quot;, commonly used in Jewish rhetoric at that time to&#xD;&#xA;indicate an _a fortiori_ argument. I can't tell if it's a Hebrew expression&#xD;&#xA;mostly limited to Bible translations, just as in English, or if it took root in&#xD;&#xA;Latin also. (Not to be confused with קַל וָחֹמֶר, _qal vachomer_, &quot;light and&#xD;&#xA;heavy&quot;, another Hebrew expression for the same kind of argument.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put this another way, how would&#xD;&#xA;[Vitruvius](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/vitruvius7.html#5.3) say,&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Plant-stalks with animal-heads don't exist, so ⎯⎯⎯⎯ one couldn't have bitten&#xD;&#xA;you&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="480" RevisionGUID="7b301dc7-6cb8-48f0-8ae6-9cc1f16f6fbd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would suggest &quot;venatio supra omnia&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There are many ways to translate &quot;above all&quot;, and what I chose is a literal one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get started with future requests, you can look at an online Latin dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;[You can find a list in our dictionary list question.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79)&#xD;&#xA;If you type in &quot;hunt&quot;, you will get several hunting-related words in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;You can read their English translations and decide which word would have the most suitable tone for your use even if you can't put words together into sentences.&#xD;&#xA;For hunting the case is pretty clear, but it's not so for all words.&#xD;&#xA;If you have some suitable words together and maybe a Google translation, you can give them in your question; sometimes such background work really helps, and most importantly it shows your own effort.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes short phrases are the hardest ones to translate well, so it might help to give several ways to express your sentence in English and explain what you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your translation request was simple enough, but I just wanted to give some advice to you (and others who end up reading this) to make things run smoothly when help is needed again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="484" RevisionGUID="847f5546-3b78-492a-9ce2-a65acd62af15" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are two main ways. The first is context; if there's no other main verb, by process of elimination, the word in question has to be. This is typically how I figure it out; I'll read the sentence taking it as an infinitive, realize there's no main verb, and go back to look at all of the candidates. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is that this specific kind is an abbreviation, so it uses the same stem as the full form -- namely, the perfect. Notice the difference between habeo, habere's infinitive and this form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Habere&#xD;&#xA;- Habuere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One rule of thumb to tell if it's the perfect stem instead of present is that present stems rarely end in -u, -v, or -x, while perfect stems often do. However, there are many exceptions to this rule -- for example, the present stems of abluere, induere, salvere, exere, and mixere, and the perfect stems of such as bibi, feci, egi, arsi, cecini.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1: Source: [C.M.Weiner](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/483/how-can-i-tell-if-ere-is-getting-substituted-for-erunt/484?noredirect=1#comment862_484 &quot;God of Latin&quot;)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="491" RevisionGUID="1de3b254-2d8b-4c33-b92c-109e19fd0f6a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="C.M. Weimer quotes Cicero's [_Orator,_ 153](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-orator/1939/pb_LCL342.427.xml), in [this answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/490/118):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How was the name of your ancestor changed from Axilla to Ala except from a desire to avoid a harsh-sounding letter? The same letter is removed by refined Latin speech from ***maxillae***, *taxilli*, *vexillum* and *pauxillum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This comes to me as quite a surprise. I had understood that _maxilla_ is a diminutive form of _māla_; see, for example, [etymonline](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=maxilla). Wouldn't dropping the _x_ undo the diminutive? If the Romans dropped the _x_, what would the result be? _Māilla?_ _Māla?_ Wouldn't this cause confusion? Aren't there already too many homonyms clashing over&lt;i&gt; [māla](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mala#Latin)?&lt;/i&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="517" RevisionGUID="057f114a-35e5-4ec0-99be-1b1e9d2a5953" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree with [C. M. Weimer's use of Etymonline](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/515/73) to date the use of the standalone phrase *vox populi* to the 16th century, and the use of *vox populi, vox dei* to earlier medieval usage. I think, however, a bit more backstory on that might be interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*A Sketch of the Life of Randolph Fairfax ... Including a Brief Account of Jackson's Celebrated Valley Campaign*](https://books.google.com/books?id=XWdLAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=inauthor:%22Philip+Slaughter%22&amp;source=gbs_navlinks_s) by Philip Slaughter and Randolph Fairfax (quite an old book, but likely no less reliable). It includes several famous uses of *vox populi* that predate the 1540s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Notes Vol 3 p 254 Notices to Correspondents. - EM. *Vox populi vox Dei* were the words chosen by Archbishop Mepham for his sermon when Edward III was called to the throne. See 'Notes and Queries' vol 1 pp 376 419 492 for further illustrations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Mepham&quot; refers to [Simon Mepeham](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Mepeham), and the mentioned Edward III is certainly [Edward III of England](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_III_of_England). This would put the date of this reference at about 1 February 1327.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The writer will, however, find that the earliest known instances of the use of the saying are by William of Malmesbury, who, speaking of Odo yielding his consent to be Archbishop of Canterbury, A.D. 920, says: '*Re Mud Proverbium, Vox, Populi Vox Dei,*' and by Walter Reynolds, Archbishop of Canterbury, who as we learn from Walsingham, took it as his text for the sermon which he preached when Edward III was called to the throne, from which the people had pulled down Edward II.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider this a somewhat interesting alternate account, because both Mepeham and [Reynolds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Reynolds) are credited differently with the use of the phrase at about the same time. &quot;Odo&quot;, by the way, almost certainly refers to [Oda of Canterbury](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oda_of_Canterbury).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is a claim mentioned of William Hamilton that states that his translation of Hesiod's *Works and Days* ends with a similar phrase (which would have been in Greek), but I can't find any evidence to suggest that he is right. If he *was* right, then this would, of course, put the origin of the phrase back another 1500 years or so, but I find it a little doubtful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it interesting that this corresponds quite well with [the English Wikipedia article on *vox populi*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox_populi#Proverbial_use), which I did not expect, despite different references being cited." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="542" RevisionGUID="0de1a309-b818-4608-a654-f61f43d595a7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think part of the issue here is that &quot;toward&quot; isn't particularly accurate as a a description of the meaning of &quot;in&quot;; &quot;into&quot; would be much more appropriate. Consider that in English you can be in a building or you can go in(to) a building. You may be interested in [this question][1] and its answers for further information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/37/what-underlying-semantic-notions-explain-the-meaning-of-against-for-the-prepos/56#56" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="545" RevisionGUID="d5bb1e80-b5a0-4f25-a907-bd10b18bf14e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'd like to offer an addition, which was originally posted as a comment but requested to be turned into an answer by OP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As explained in the other two answers, _iste_, _ille_ and _hic_ are used to refer back to the items of a previous enumeration. In that sense, &quot;the former ... the latter&quot; is a perfectly acceptable translation. However, in your example this sounds a bit formal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is nothing, but the sea and air.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The latter swollen with clouds and the former threatening with waves...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, as [C. M. Weimer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/534/278) remarks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] using &quot;the latter...the former&quot; in English actually emphasizes the abnormality of the former, while in Latin there is no such connotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, it is clear which of &quot;swollen with clouds&quot; and &quot;theathening with waves&quot; refers to &quot;sea&quot; and which one refers to &quot;air&quot;, so you could simply go with the more general &quot;_one / the other_&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is nothing, but the sea and air.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **One** swollen with clouds, **the other** threatening with waves...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This preserves the neutrality of the Latin formulation and sounds much more natural to me, at the expense of a less literal translation (which may or may not be what you are after).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could even go for an even more free interpretation, with something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is nothing but the sea, threatening with waves, and air, swollen with clouds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this is probably easiest to understand and arguably the most natural way to state it in English, it loses the [chiasmus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiasmus) from the original text." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="551" RevisionGUID="c54bd690-ea9e-4d00-ad96-b99afde9f54c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Not best of my elegiac couplets, but here goes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sic tibi rex iuvenis gracili ore piloque Kalendis  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;hac forma lyrica littera quaeque datur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Free translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Young king with simple face and hair, this is how you are given every letter through this lyrical form on the first day of the month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I never use 'j' when writing Latin, but the couplet does contain one if you are inclined to use it (*juvenis*).&#xD;&#xA;The only missing letter is 'z', but that is [not much of a Latin letter](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/34/79).&#xD;&#xA;Also, not all vowels are included in both lengths.&#xD;&#xA;If you would prefer to have a 'z' and macrons, let me know and I will see what I can do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="556" RevisionGUID="16bb0f8f-95c4-4903-9aaa-6b0aaca8f63b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="First, while *gerere* can mean &quot;to bear, carry&quot;, it also can simply mean &quot;to do*, as in the *res gestae*, not &quot;things carried,&quot; but &quot;things done.&quot; This stems from a meaning close to English usage, where we have &quot;to carry&quot; and &quot;to carry out,&quot; where the latter simply means &quot;to do.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name was chosen to connote the usage of gerunds and gerundives. Since gerunds come directly from the verb, the name gerund is used to describe how they are conceptualized. Let's take *loqui* as our example. To get from *loqui* to *loquendum*, someone would have to perform an act of *loqui*. In other words, they would have to *carry out (= do) the act of speaking*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gerundives too originate similarly, but passively and in the future. *Verba loquenda* are not &quot;carried words,&quot; but rather &quot;words to be carried out,&quot; which is equal to &quot;words to be spoken.&quot; This is also where the necessity in gerundives come from. Things that are to be done in the future yet are currently not done *must* be done. See [Cerberus](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/414/why-does-a-future-passive-participle-have-a-sense-of-necessity/416#416)' post on that for more information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="581" RevisionGUID="085e40db-12cc-45bb-b7c8-ed1705ee16b2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="This follows on from my [prior question.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm working on the name for an art project concerned with physical, emotional and psychological optimisation with a view to nurturing wholesome leadership. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like the word `duco` but read that it may refer more to the leadership of an army rather than the 'art of leadership'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the consensus on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `educo` was suggested an alternative which I understood to mean `I teach` or `I stimulate mental growth`; is this accurate? Recent comments on the prior question suggest this is more aligned with the bringing up of children rather than general teaching?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other single words that spring to mind that could be more relevant to my direction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/575/what-is-the-meaning-and-use-of-the-word-duco" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="585" RevisionGUID="5ada0f04-f3c4-4444-bf8c-ef7694189fc9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Is `duco sanitas` a grammatically correct way of saying `I lead health`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For context, I'm looking for a short but grammatically correct way of saying I lead the development of healthy minds and bodies. I'm working on the tagline for an art project concerned with physical, emotional and psychological optimisation with a view to nurturing wholesome leadership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are any other words concerned more with natural/organic health than sanitas, please let me know!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This follows on from my [prior question][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/581/does-duco-refer-to-the-art-of-leadership" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="596" RevisionGUID="d8d26027-7fcd-462b-b729-16e537c7ba15" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some Latin words end in *-que* (for example *quinque*, vocative of adjectives ending in *-quus* and imperatives like *relinque*), but I have never seen the conjunction *-que* attached to such words.&#xD;&#xA;Are there examples of having a double *-que* in this sense?&#xD;&#xA;Do grammarians or other writers suggest avoiding such combinations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not interested in pronouns where the final *-que* comes from the conjunction, but in words that coincidentally end in *-que*.&#xD;&#xA;The answers to [an earlier question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/567/79) indicate that *quinque* does not have the conjunction *-que* in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Added detail:**&#xD;&#xA;I am mostly interested in the case where both 'e's are short, that is, words ending in *-quĕquĕ* instead of *-qu&amp;emacr;quĕ*.&#xD;&#xA;The answer by brianpck below gives an example with *-qu&amp;emacr;quĕ*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="599" RevisionGUID="e6a10719-2641-46ed-9e75-cc31247f8453" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have typically encountered *quippe* with relative pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;It strengthens the relative pronoun in a way that is often best translated with something other than a relative structure.&#xD;&#xA;The word *quippe* emphasizes that the relative clause contains an explanation.&#xD;&#xA;Artificial examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Amicus meus non cantat, quippe qui ne loqui quidem potest.* &quot;My friend does not sing, for he can't even speak.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *Ille mihi auxiliari non poterat, quippe qui ipse quoque inops erat.* &quot;He could not help me, because in fact he was broke, too.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the only possible use of *quippe*, but this is the one I feel most comfortable with (and have seen most often).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note added later:**&#xD;&#xA;Is used the indicative above, but conjunctive may be preferable in relative clauses with *quippe*.&#xD;&#xA;See [this separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1252/79) about this issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="647" RevisionGUID="e63117ac-6d7e-48ee-a37e-d372821d457d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have been taught that 'th' and 'ch' were pronounced just like 't' and 'c' in classical Latin, with no aspiration.&#xD;&#xA;The answer to [this earlier question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/637/79) confirms that 't' and 'c' had indeed little or no aspiration.&#xD;&#xA;But did 'th' and 'ch' really lack aspiration as well?&#xD;&#xA;Was there any distinction between 't' and 'th' or 'c' and 'ch'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The combinations 'th' and 'ch' mostly appear in Greek loan words, but for example *pulcher* is &amp;mdash; as far as I know &amp;mdash; not a Greek loan.&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding Greek letters &amp;theta; and &amp;chi; were aspirated, and I have understood that aspiration was a way of showing of high education, not a widespread feature in Latin pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some rare cases aspiration is called for, like in [Catullus' poem to Harrius](http://thelatinlibrary.com/catullus.shtml#84).&#xD;&#xA;There one needs strong aspiration to make a difference between *commoda* and *chommoda*.&#xD;&#xA;Rare examples like this do not necessarily imply that every occurrence of 'ch' and 'th' is aspirated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="649" RevisionGUID="dde156d9-42d5-46bd-906c-2ce4330946eb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I learned from Nathaniel's answer to [my previous question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/647/79) that 'ch', 'th' and 'ph' were aspirated voiceless stops in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;In my experience many contemporary speakers of Latin pronounce 'ph' as /f/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When did 'ph' turn into a fricative?&#xD;&#xA;How do we know when this happened?&#xD;&#xA;Was this change a regional thing or did it occur simultaneously in different places?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been told that a similar development happened to the Greek &amp;phi;.&#xD;&#xA;Were these changes in Greek and Latin connected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;(If this feels like too many questions, let me know and I can split it up.)&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="a3a40f61-026f-418a-98b0-db3dfdad6bc6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="In classical poetry, if two vowels are next to each other (without a consonant in between), there are two ways to avoid the collision:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Elision removes one of the vowels when the vowels meet at a word boundary.&#xD;&#xA;- Synizesis works within a word, combining two adjacent vowels from different syllables into one syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither of these two sound changes is marked in writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My experience suggests that when possible, elision happens almost always and synizesis almost never.&#xD;&#xA;(I asked a [separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/689/79) about the frequency of synizesis.)&#xD;&#xA;It seems as if hiatus was a bigger problem between words than within a word, and this feels weird to me.&#xD;&#xA;I feel that streamlining within a word is more important than gluing words together seamlessly.&#xD;&#xA;When studying Latin poetry, I have never seen this issue addressed or even mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you explain why elision is so much more common than synizesis?&#xD;&#xA;I understand that &quot;why?&quot; is not an easy question to answer, but I hope that someone has thought and written about this issue although I have not managed to find anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me elaborate on what I mean by elision being more common than synizesis.&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks Joel Derfner for pointing out the need for clarification here.)&#xD;&#xA;I do not mean a difference in frequency per verse, but a difference in frequency per possibility.&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that if an elision is possible, there is a 98 % change for it to take place, but the corresponding probability for synizesis is more like 1 %.&#xD;&#xA;Don't quote me on the numbers, though, as I have nothing but experience (without statistics) to support them, but they should make the point clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;One can also reformulate my question this way:&#xD;&#xA;Why, when the possibility arises, does elision happen almost always and synizesis almost never?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it turns out that synizesis is not as rare as I think, an answer explaining this misconception would be fine.&#xD;&#xA;In that case I would appreciate an answer to the linked question about frequency, but an answer without actual statistics is acceptable here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="fc9de45a-9ba8-46c5-8471-d273ea275106" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Through [answers to another question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/711/12), I came across [Lewis &amp; Short's definition of *paeniteo*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpaeniteo), which begins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; paenĭtĕo (less correctly poen- )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S say that it comes from the Greek *ποινή*, which to me would suggest that *poen-* would be preferred.  So what is the basis for judging *paen-* more correct than *poen-*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="722" RevisionGUID="90de269a-f493-48e7-8608-b356bd255b82" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="In an answer to [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/716/speaking-about-an-inflected-word-in-latin/721#721), I gave examples of the word &quot;ly&quot; in Medieval Latin.  This leads me to wonder when the term entered the language and where it came from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because it resembles the article in present romance languages, my best guess is that &quot;ly&quot; is an article borrowed from the vernacular which can perhaps ultimately be traced back to the latin &quot;ille.&quot;  But I'd like to have an authoritative answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="724" RevisionGUID="2d966d53-c183-46a7-9fba-cb5c15a8c017" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The name *Iesus* has [peculiar declension](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/620/79) in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The declension of this word in every source that I have seen only gives singular forms.&#xD;&#xA;However, I can imagine situations where a plural is needed: a story might include several Jesuses.&#xD;&#xA;I have hard time believing that a plural form would never have been used in Latin literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the plural of *Iesus*?&#xD;&#xA;Where has this plural been used?&#xD;&#xA;It would be great to have all cases, but the nominative would already be interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was inspired by today's [SMBC](http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4081).&#xD;&#xA;If you click the red button below the comic, you will see a tongue-in-cheek suggestion: singular *Jesus*, plural *Jesupodes*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="768" RevisionGUID="4fd1f293-44e4-49cd-a255-7bebf72fc733" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The thesauri and dictionaries offer marvelous help with some of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adapted from Döderlein's *Hand-book of Latin Synonymes*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. *Interficere* and *perimere* are the most general expressions for **putting to death**, in whatever manner, and from whatever motive, but *interficere* as a usual, *perimere* as an old, forcible, poetical expression.&#xD;&#xA;2.  *Interimere* involves the accessory notion of privacy, as to **remove out of the way**; [Cic. Tusc. v. 20. *Dionysius alterum jussit interfici, quia viam demonstravisset interimendi sui.*]&#xD;&#xA;3. *necare*, that of injustice, or, at least, cruelty, to **murder**.  [Curt. ix. 7, 8. *Boxum protinus placuit interfici; Biconem etiam per cruciatus necari*.] &#xD;&#xA;4. *Occidere*, *jugulare*, *trucidare*, *obtruncare*, *percutere*, denote a sanguinary death-blow; *occidere* means by **cutting down**, especially the business of the soldier in honorable open battle; &#xD;&#xA;5. *jugulare*, by **cutting the throat** or neck, or rather by a skilfully-directed thrust into the collar-bone, especially the business of the bandit, after the pattern of the gladiator; &#xD;&#xA;6. *obtruncare* means to **butcher**, **massacre**, and **cut to pieces**, after the manner of the awkward murderer; [Sallust. Fr. *Cæteri vice pecorum obtruncantur*; so that you may see a mangled mass of limbs, as in the heap of slain in a battle.]&#xD;&#xA;7. *trucidare*, to **slaughter** as one would a steer, after the manner of the blood-thirsty miscreant, who, without meeting with resistance, plays the hero on the defenceless; [Tac. Hist. *Juberet interfici; offerre se corpora iræ; trucidaret*.]&#xD;&#xA;8. *percutere*, to **execute**, as a mere mechanical act, after the manner of the headsman, or other executioner of a sentence of condemnation, or, at least, of a death-warrant.  [Cic. Cat. iv. 6. and Rosc. Am. 34. *Cujus consilio occisus sit invenio; cujus manu percussus sit non invenio*.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And adapted from Smith's *Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **kill:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. *interficio* (most general term). &#xD;&#xA;2. *cædo* (to cut or beat, whether to death or not; to kill by wounds or blows). **To slay**. &#xD;&#xA;3. *neco* (by wicked and cruel means; as, assassination, poison). **To murder**. &#xD;&#xA;4. *occido* (to cut down, esp. in battle). **To slay**. &#xD;&#xA;5. *trucido* (to kill violently and ruthlessly). **To butcher**. &#xD;&#xA;6. *interimo* (to do away with, cut off). **To destroy**. &#xD;&#xA;7. *obtrunco* (to cut down, esp. in the way of murder or assassination). **To slaughter**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must say, as a spoken-Latin advocate, that, while Latin can be frustrating when you want to talk about things like a malfunctioning ATM or the difficulty one has signing up for a [user account][1], when you're as angry a person as I am it's quite useful to have so many words with which to imagine people's violent ends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/742/what-is-user-account-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="798" RevisionGUID="e05e0dbc-4b4a-4210-84ad-abfd2d61c5ac" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am uncertain when to use nominative and when vocative in an apposition related to direct address.&#xD;&#xA;This issue is easiest to describe with examples.&#xD;&#xA;I have understood that the following use is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Marce, amice bone, me audi!* &quot;Marcus, good friend, listen to me!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Marce, amicus bonus me audi!* &quot;Marcus, listen to me as a good friend!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. *Amice bone, me audi!* &quot;Good friend, listen to me!&quot; (No apposition here.)&#xD;&#xA;4. *Amicus bonus me audi!* &quot;Listen to me as a good friend!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, if I want the addressee to do something as something, I would use nominative instead of vocative.&#xD;&#xA;If I use the apposition as an address, then I would choose vocative.&#xD;&#xA;Is this use correct?&#xD;&#xA;I have not seen this properly discussed in Latin grammars.&#xD;&#xA;I would like classical examples that clearly distinguish using vocative and nominative in address like this, but also discussions from Latin grammars are most welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question arose in comments to my answer to [a question about vocative](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/793/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="800" RevisionGUID="0cf10f5b-d438-426b-90e6-e1dc541c2a27" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question has now been answered by Cerberus, though his answer was posted in regard to a different (related) [question][1]. It seems that there are examples from Livy and Lucan (at least) of the form *populus* being used as a vocative (though *popule* is also attested). So Nairn is justified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/798/how-to-use-apposition-with-vocative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="830" RevisionGUID="78515a95-e13b-45bf-9de8-88c97a5b7bdc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="A synchronic analysis: deletion of coronals before s within a syllable&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real][1],&quot; Kyle Gorman describes the deletion of /t/ in the nominative form of words like *mons, montis* as part of a larger pattern of deletion of coronal consonants which also applies to words like *pes, pedis* and *pollis, pollinis.* The main argument of the paper is that in Classical Latin, nouns with variation between *r* in some forms and and *s* in the nominative  should be analyzed according to this deletion rule, rather than according to a separate rule of intervocalic rhotacization.  So if Gorman is right, the deletion rule was still active in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He notes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The sequence [ts] (from /ts/, or /ds/ and DEVOICING) does not occur in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; word-final position (Devine and Stephens 1977:129), and its medial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; occurrences are limited to syllable contact, allowing a rule of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deletion to be stated generally (cf. Heslin 1987:142).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the following &quot;pre-/s/ deletion&quot; rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [CORONAL, +ORAL, -CONTINUANT] → ∅ / _s]&lt;sub&gt;σ&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gorman extends this rule to nouns with stems ending in *n* such as *pollis* and *sanguis* by removing the [+ORAL] specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [CORONAL, -CONTINUANT] → ∅ / _s]&lt;sub&gt;σ&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to prevent this extended rule from improperly deleting multiple consonants (such as the *n* in *mons*) Gorman proposes that the rule is &quot;non-iterative&quot; and &quot;rightward-applying&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In processing /mont-s/, the rule “sees” /t-s/, but the resulting [ns]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is not scanned by the rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the basis for his argument that forms like *mos, moris* can be analyzed using deletion of *r* before *s,* even though *r* is not deleted in the nominative forms of words with stems ending in *rt* such as *ars, artis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymological analysis&#xD;&#xA;---------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gorman's rule is clearly not based on the etymology of the words, since historically, the alternation of *s* and *r* did in fact originate from [rhotacism][2] and not from a historical process of r-deletion. (I don't know the historical origin of the nouns like *pollis* that have *n* in the stem but not in the nominative.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nonetheless, for nouns with with stems that end in -t- and -d-, the historical source of this variation seems to be similar to Gorman's synchronic rule. In some ancestor to Latin, a phonetic change occurred where word-final [ts] was eventually simplified to [s]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymological consonant stem nouns&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a paper that describes some theories about when this happened and what the intermediate steps were: &quot;[The Proto-Indo-European *-VTs# clusters and the formulation of Szemerényi’s Law][3],&quot; by Dariusz Piwowarczyk. The main example word he uses actually has &quot;d&quot; (*pod-s) but it seems that all scholars agree that underlying /ds/ was already devoiced to [ts] in PIE. There is disagreement about whether this [ts] was simplified to [s] in PIE or independently in the later branches of Indo-European.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymological i-stem nouns&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------&#xD;&#xA;[TKR][4] pointed out in the comments that Classical Latin also has many words that lose t in the nominative that come from Proto-Indo-European i-stem nouns. *Mons* and *sors* are two examples. The nominative forms of words like these seem to originate from syncope of *i*, followed by simplification of the cluster [ts] to [s]. Since this syncope was a Latin-specific development, and preceded the cluster simplification, these seem to require a Latin-specific rule at some point that changed [ts] to [s] in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/153/9&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.academia.edu/18765354/The_Proto-Indo-European_-VTs_clusters_and_the_formulation_of_Szemer%C3%A9nyi_s_Law&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/817/why-does-singular-mons-become-plural-montes#comment1720_827" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="831" RevisionGUID="22ffee81-87bc-448c-8a7d-7eaebd9d54f8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Many universities use Latin in some ceremonial occasions.&#xD;&#xA;Many academic titles in Latin are masculine but have natural feminine counterparts:&#xD;&#xA;*doctor*&amp;ndash;*doctrix*,&#xD;&#xA;*lector*&amp;ndash;*lectrix*,&#xD;&#xA;*professor*&amp;ndash;[*profestrix*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/178/79).&#xD;&#xA;**Are these feminine versions used in today's formal academic contexts?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know, for example, whether it would be appropriate to address a female lecturer as *lectrix*.&#xD;&#xA;To better understand which choice to make, I would like to know if such address is in use elsewhere; maybe precedents can help me judge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen the feminine versions in use in less formal occasions.&#xD;&#xA;For example, many Latin texts written about [an annual cultural event in my home city](http://www.athenisfinlandiae.com/) do this for many titles: *scriptrix*, *lectrix*, *protectrix*&amp;hellip;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="832" RevisionGUID="8df059fe-a7d6-4786-89d6-5e61394afb51" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I will mark this question as [tag:contemporary-latin] because there are obviously not any precise classical equivalents of the titles implied by such English honorifics as Mr (Mister or Master), Mrs (Misses), or Miss. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is somewhat related to another question about [addressing superiors in Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/493/addressing-a-superior-in-latin?rq=1), but my question here is more practical: **What is the best way of translating a sentence like &quot;Mr. Smith Goes to Washington&quot;?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="897" RevisionGUID="81ed014a-e6b1-4f3f-86af-c05b4ff1e8b6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The following constructions feel simple enough:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;You don't even move.&quot; &amp;mdash; *Ne moveris quidem.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Don't move!&quot; &amp;mdash; *Noli moveri!* or &quot;Ne motus sis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what if I want to give a negative order with &quot;even&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;That is, how to say &quot;Don't even move!&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding statement would containt *ne &amp;hellip; quidem*, but I'm not sure how to combine that with the order structure.&#xD;&#xA;Can I add the &quot;even&quot; (*quidem*) with both constructions, *noli* + infinitive and *ne* + perfect conjunctive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that I would get *Noli moveri quidem!* and *Ne motus quidem sis!* but I have never seen either of these and I wonder if they are in fact grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is related to [another question about using *quidem*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/896/79), but not quite the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="922" RevisionGUID="b3df2e91-7543-459e-9c0d-34b2749f09d7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here is a count of different verb forms for a verb like *amare*.&#xD;&#xA;Including or excluding some forms is a matter of taste, like passive imperatives which only seem common for deponent verbs.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some might also want to include comparatives or superlatives of participles.&#xD;&#xA;The point is that there are different legitimate ways to count, and this is only one.&#xD;&#xA;Declination of participles could also be considered to be outside the realm of verb forms; with little exceptions participles are just adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;I will give detailed calculations so that anyone can easily pick which forms they wish to include and end up with their own number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Active personal forms with 6 persons (60 total):&#xD;&#xA;- nominative (6 tenses)&#xD;&#xA;- conjunctive (4 tenses)&#xD;&#xA;2. Passive personal forms with 6 persons (half of the tenses use a participle and *esse*) (30 total):&#xD;&#xA;- nominative (3 tenses)&#xD;&#xA;- conjunctive (2 tenses)&#xD;&#xA;3. Personal forms with less than six persons (6 total):&#xD;&#xA;- present active imperative (2 persons)&#xD;&#xA;- future active imperative (4 persons)&#xD;&#xA;- present and future passive imperatives not used for non-deponent verbs? [See the separate question.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/62/79)&#xD;&#xA;4. Infinitives (only those that are formed without *esse* or *ire*) (3 total):&#xD;&#xA;- present active and passive&#xD;&#xA;- perfect active&#xD;&#xA;5. Supine (2 cases)&#xD;&#xA;6. Gerund (4 cases)&#xD;&#xA;7. Participles and gerundive (144):&#xD;&#xA;- gerundive (3 genders, 2 numbers, 6 cases)&#xD;&#xA;- present active participle (3 genders, 2 numbers, 6 cases)&#xD;&#xA;- future active participle (3 genders, 2 numbers, 6 cases)&#xD;&#xA;- perfect passive participle (3 genders, 2 numbers, 6 cases)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Total: 249**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from the full declension of participles and gerundive, I think one has to know all these forms to be able to reproduce any given form.&#xD;&#xA;Note that I have not listed forms like *amatus sis*, since they are composed from *esse* and a form of *amare* already on the list." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="929" RevisionGUID="d2127008-effb-446d-aaf3-8340f387e98c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Regarding the question in the title, [Lewis and Short][1] (seemingly this community's [favorite dictionary][2]) lists among the meanings of *inde* the following: *from that time*, *thenceforward*, *since*, *after that*, *thereafter*, *thereupon*, *then*. Just in case, there is the same entry on [other dictionary][3]. The same idea applies to *unde*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relative pronouns/adverbs that mark location (even with movement) can in fact mark time as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the role of *-que*, remember that it always works as a suffix to the second term in the conjunction. A valid rephrasing (at least for the sake of understanding) could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Conticuere omnes* et *intenti ora tenebant*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A plausible word-to-word translation would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They all fell silent and kept their mouths stretched&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at a couple of translations, *intenti ora tenere* is read as *pay deep attention*, *keep rapt gaze*. All of them read *inde* as *then* or a synonym of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dinde&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/867/which-online-latin-dictionaries-should-i-use-and-why&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://latin.campus.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=inde&amp;ending=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="935" RevisionGUID="7244cba9-0a71-47e5-bf35-649f0b93cdb1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The pronunciation of the letter *m* at the end of words isn't completely uniform in Classical Latin.  W. Sydney Allen, in [*Vox Latina* 30–31](https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA30), lays out the evidence for several different ways the letter impacted the pronunciation of words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In general,&quot; Allen says, *m* at the end of words marked &quot;a mere nasalization of the preceding vowel.&quot;  He cites the imprecise descriptions of Velius Longus (&quot;almost a foreign letter&quot;) and Priscian (&quot;obscurum in extremitate dictionum sonat&quot;) as evidence for this, as well as inscriptions in which the final *m* is omitted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; honc oino ploirume cosentiont...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; [*hunc unu**m** plurimi consentiunt*]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; duonoro optumo fuise uiro  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; [*bonoru**m** optimu**m** fuisse uiru**m***]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final vowel preceding an *m* may have also been lengthened, as suggested by Cato the Elder's spelling of *diem* as *diee*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another piece of evidence for *m* not being a true consonant in this position is that syllables ending in *m* are elided in poetry as if they ended in a vowel, [as Joonas's answer explains](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/80/12).  Similarly, in cases of [aphaeresis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apheresis_(linguistics)), the final *m* does not protect the syllable as other consonants would, so *scriptum est* becomes *scriptust* in inscriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, however, inscriptions and grammarians indicate that this treatment of the final *m* was not universal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where, however, a final *m* was followed by a closely connected word beginning with a stop (plosive or nasal) consonant, it seems to have been treated rather as in the interior of a word, being assimilated to the following consonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *tam durum* becomes *tan durum* in inscriptions, thanks to the *d* following the final *m* in *tam*.  And in *etiam nunc*, &quot;plenius per *n* quam per *m* enuntiatur,&quot; according to Velius Longus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the final *m* indicates nasalization, and possibly lengthening, of the final vowel, and it is not truly a consonant.  However, preceding a stop consonant in the next word, it sometimes retained its consonantal properties." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="937" RevisionGUID="65e8c5df-2957-4dc9-951e-6000bba170aa" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you want to combine *mens* and *nova* to say &quot;a new mind&quot;, the correct way is *mens nova* or *nova mens*.&#xD;&#xA;Putting the adjective after the noun is more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The singular ablative of *mens* is *mente* and that of *nova* is *nova*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *mente nova* or *nova mente* (spelled as two words!) can mean something like &quot;with a new mind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The ablative has many uses, so the interpretation is not unique.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be mentioned that *mens* is not the only possible translation for &quot;mind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You can look for other possible words in [various online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;You can the put the adjective &quot;new&quot; before or after it in the correct gender.&#xD;&#xA;Dictionaries mention which gender words are, and the masculine, feminine and neuter versions of the adjective we are using are *novus*, *nova* and *novum*.&#xD;&#xA;There might be other adjectives as well, but this has the benefit of being simple and easily recognized.&#xD;&#xA;The word *mens* is feminine, so it goes with *nova*, not *novus* or *novum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="948" RevisionGUID="1bcd2699-5422-4d78-8f36-a577c419fa13" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="As point out in the comments, *scholaris* is an adjective meaning &quot;belonging to a school&quot; or &quot;of school&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you say *opus scholare, vox scholaris*, it means &quot;work of school, voice of school&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;To me that sounds essentially opposite of what you want to say, so I would not suggest it.&#xD;&#xA;Notice in my example above that *opus* is a neuter and therefore the adjective is in the form *scholare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reach the correct tone, I strongly suggest that you pick some Latin dictionary (you can find suggestions [in this other question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79)) and find the words you wish to use.&#xD;&#xA;We can then help you use them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me give you some suggestions (see more detailed translations and more suggestions in a dictionary):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Work might be *labor* (physical work), *opus* (a piece of work), *facta* (made things), *acta* (done things) or *scripta* (written things).&#xD;&#xA;- A student might be *studens*, *studiosus* or *discipulus*.&#xD;&#xA;- A voice might be *vox* or *dicta* (said things).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use participles, just look up the verbs that are relevant (study, do, say, write, or something) and we'll figure out suitable forms for them.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *studens* comes from the verb *studere* (or *studeo* in some dictionaries), which means much more than studying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best guess now is *scripta studentium, dicta studentium* &quot;things written by students, things said by students&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I'm happy to give a better suggestion if you can comment on the tone of these words and perhaps suggest better ones (see a dictionary for both)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="965" RevisionGUID="b01e59f3-14fb-4544-9630-eb95689972b9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The word *res* alone can mean state, and especially *res publica* means that (or republic).&#xD;&#xA;Looking at meanings of *res* and *publicus*, this is not the only possible translation of *res publica*, if no context is given.&#xD;&#xA;Is there an example of *res publica* not referring to the state in classical literature?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, it sounds possible to say about different forms of violence within family: *Vexatio est res privata, caedes est res publica.* &quot;Harassing is a private thing, murder a public thing.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see examples of *res publica* meaning &quot;public thing&quot; in a way like this.&#xD;&#xA;I have been unable to locate any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was inspired by [an earlier one about translating *res*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/309/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="978" RevisionGUID="5a3305d8-38aa-4e86-8a55-d034000d6cc1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="(A tangent off [this speculative answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/976/118) to a question about a sentence containing the words **eidem suae**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the apparently redundant phrase **eidem suae** (&quot;to his/her/its own same&quot;) provide a way to indicate that the antecedent of **suae** is not the subject of the verb, as is normal for the reflexive pronoun in the dative case, but something else having a (different) reflexive relation to whatever follows **suae**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible example, from the Apostolic Letter &quot;[Quod De Beatissima](http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/la/apost_letters/documents/hf_p-xii_apl_19570330_quod-de-beatissima.html)&quot; by Pope Pius XII (1957):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Venerabilis Frater Constantinus Christianus Luna, Episcopus Zacapensis, a Nobis enixe postulavit, ut **eidem suae dioecesi**, noviter conditae nulloque Patrono adhuc concreditae, eandem Virginem a Fatima caelestem Patronam benigne eligere dignaremus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a little beyond my current skill with Latin, but here's my attempt at a translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The venerable Brother Constantine Christian Luna, Bishop of Zacapa, has strenuously asked us, for **his own** newly founded **diocese**, as yet entrusted with no Patron, that we deem worthy to kindly choose Our Lady of Fatima as Patroness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject of the relevant clause is the author, that is, the Pope. It would be silly if Luna asked the Pope to choose a Patroness for his own—the Pope's own—diocese, but that's what **suae dioecesi** would literally mean. So, I'm wondering if **eidem suae** is a way to relocate the antecedent of **suae** to where it makes sense and thus avoid a very clumsy circumlocution. And is this a common idiom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the same thing commonly occurs in another grammatical case, that would answer the question, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="989" RevisionGUID="39a11c38-42ea-4763-a601-97a75752b95e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="First, this is not specific to ecclesiastical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The same genitive is there in classical Latin as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *miserere* is used impersonally.&#xD;&#xA;It means roughly &quot;to distress&quot; or &quot;to excite pity&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *me miseret* means &quot;I am distressed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The reason of distress or the target of pity is indicated by genitive: *me miseret Marci* means &quot;I pity Marcus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb can also be used in passive voice.&#xD;&#xA;This use is personal because passive gets rid of the impersonal subject.&#xD;&#xA;Instead of *me miseret Marci* I can say *misereor Marci*.&#xD;&#xA;The verbs *miserere* and *misereri* are listed separately in many dictionaries, but it makes most sense to me to see them as one verb used in both active and passive voice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *miserere* is a passive imperative form of *miserere* &amp;mdash; or the imperative of the deponent verb *misereri* if you wish to see it that way.&#xD;&#xA;(This reminds me of [passive imperative forms of non-deponent verbs](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/62/79), which are rare but exist. It didn't occur to me before that *miserere* might count.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same construction is found with many impersonal verbs expressing feelings: *miserere*, *pigere*, *pudere*, *paenitere*, *taedere*.&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I cannot fully explain why genitive is used in cases like this.&#xD;&#xA;I see the object of pitying more as a cause than an actual object.&#xD;&#xA;It helps me to think that the ablative *causa* is intended (whether or not this really is the case):&#xD;&#xA;I might read *misereor Marci* as *misereor Marci causa*, &quot;I pity because of Marcus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not recall seeing *miserere* with dative in classical usage, but I may be mistaken.&#xD;&#xA;Using dative is not surprising, though.&#xD;&#xA;Dative is often used to indicate the entity that benefits or suffers from the action of a verb.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore verbs like *auxiliari*, *favere*, *servire* and *deesse* require dative instead of accusative.&#xD;&#xA;This idea of benefit is understandable with *miserere* as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1067" RevisionGUID="14e99beb-024a-4f94-a443-29a6b3ac70ba" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The verb *auxiliari* is used with dative to indicate the entity that benefits from the help.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *tibi auxilior* means &quot;I help you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Can use an accusative object to express how the help is given?&#xD;&#xA;For example, can I say *hoc tibi auxilior* to say &quot;I help you by/in doing this&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;If such an object is possible, what exactly does it mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen constructions like this, but they are somewhat rare, and I do not recall seeing *auxiliari* used this way.&#xD;&#xA;To give a concrete example, *minari* can take an accusative object to indicate the content of the threat.&#xD;&#xA;I previously explained in an answer to [another question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/130/79) that *hoc tibi minor* means &quot;I threaten you with this&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how broadly accusative can be used in this fashion, whence the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1078" RevisionGUID="959978c3-c104-4d69-9892-f2cb7ff693df" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="While trying to find a [Latin word for jade](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/402/118), I learned of the _[Travels of Friar Odoric of Pordenone](https://books.google.com/books?id=QRlUd8t0F50C&amp;pg=PA46),_ which occurred from 1318–1330. From my small sampling of the text, it appears to be strongly influenced by the vernacular, but it's still Medieval Latin. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Odoric_of_Pordenone&amp;oldid=718407291#Life) says that it was &quot;taken down in homely Latin by Friar William of Solagna.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1096" RevisionGUID="5975ef76-f7d3-4a2a-92a1-65caa240e318" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Your syntax is correct.&#xD;&#xA;You can combine as many genitives as you wish in a similar fashion.&#xD;&#xA;For choosing between *et* and *-que*, see [the question about that choice](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1/79).&#xD;&#xA;I think *et* is more appropriate here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To improve your translation, I would put *est* all the way at the end: *Minerva dea sapientiae et lanae est.*&#xD;&#xA;Besides being more natural word order in Latin, it helps to group the genitives together.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to keep *est* closer to *dea*, *dea est* is more natural than *est dea*.&#xD;&#xA;If you put *est* between the genitives, wool becomes a side note:&#xD;&#xA;*Minerva dea sapientiae est et lanae.*&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Minerva is the goddess of wisdom, and also of wool.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1122" RevisionGUID="79e38115-b3f7-4f60-91a1-f2f5f4063a00" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are three neuters in the second declension ending in *-us*: *virus*, *vulgus* and *pelagus*.&#xD;&#xA;(See [this previous question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1117/79) for origin and listing of such words.)&#xD;&#xA;My grammar tells me that these words are not used in the plural at all.&#xD;&#xA;I cannot believe that no one would have used these words in the plural through the millennia of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;If I want to scan my computer for viruses, describe how globalization brings the masses of different areas closer together, or sail the seven seas, I could use some plurals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the plural forms of these three words?&#xD;&#xA;Are they found in all cases?&#xD;&#xA;Are they declined in the same way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neuters ending in *-us* typically have plurals *-ora* or *-era* (e.g. *tempus&amp;ndash;tempora* and *vulnus&amp;ndash;vulneris*).&#xD;&#xA;But these are in third declension and the *-s* is part of the stem.&#xD;&#xA;For my three words *-s* is (a part of?) the nominative case ending and they follow the second declension.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the most appealing plural endings are *-a*, *-orum* and *-is*, but I have not seen these mentioned anywhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1136" RevisionGUID="b94767a1-4490-4aca-9334-c2d28f049c23" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The word *latin* comes from *latinus*, [&quot;of Latium,&quot;](https://books.google.com/books?id=xqKcAQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA515) a [region in central Italy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latium).  In this territory, around the turn of the first millennium BC, lived a tribe known as the *Latins*, and their language was the immediate predecessor of Old Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not coincidentally, Rome was founded in this region around the 8th century BC.  Other peoples were involved as well, such as the Etruscans and the Sabellians, but the dominance of the Latin language in Rome may be explained by the perception that their neighbors were uncivilized, as explained by Clackson and Horrocks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the notion that the speakers of Sabellian languages were wild and uncivilized goes back as far as the eighth century, it could help explain some of the linguistic divergences between Latin and Sabellian. A Roman desire to differentiate themselves from their neighbours may have led to their choice of linguistic forms which were not found in Sabellian, and the innovation of new linguistic features. (*Blackwell History of the Latin Language*, chapter 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rome's founding within Latium, and its dependence on the Latins, help explain why the older term (*Latin*) was retained to describe the language, rather than the newer (*Roman*).  William Cleaver Wilkinson suggests the explanation that Rome considered literature &quot;a subordinate interest&quot; compared to conquest, law, and history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the more proximate cause for why we use the word &quot;Latin&quot; today is that [this is what the Romans themselves called their language](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/466/12):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When we say Latin, we observe the custom of the Romans, who habitually so described their own language and literature.  In both cases we acknowledge the authority of Rome. ([Wilkinson, *Latin Classics*](https://books.google.com/books?id=Ra5OAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA12))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1149" RevisionGUID="ea1da85c-e987-4ac9-9299-82733ec9b5b4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="How do you scan line 621 of _De Rerum Natura_, [book VI](https://books.google.com/books?id=bVoCAAAAQAAJ&amp;lpg=PA207&amp;ots=SSnqfECpZN&amp;dq=at%20pelage%20multa%20et%20late%20substrata%20videmus&amp;pg=PA207#v=onepage&amp;q=proinde%20licet%20quamvis%20ex%20unoquoque%20loco%20sol&amp;f=false), shown in bold below?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Praeterea, magnam sol partem detrahit æstu.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quippe videmus enim vestes humore madentes&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exsiccare suis radiis ardentibu’ solem.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At pelage multa et late substrata videmus.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Proinde, licet quamvis ex unoquoque loco sol**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Humoris parvam delibet ab æquore partem;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Largiter in tanto spatio tamen auferet undis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(My amateur translation: &quot;Furthermore, the Sun draws off a large part of [the oceans' water] with its heat. Certainly we see that the Sun dries out clothes dripping with moisture with its fiery rays. And we see the many seas stretched out below [the Sun]. **So, however** small a part of the moisture **the Sun** takes from the sea **out of any one spot**, it still takes abundantly in such a space from the waves.&quot; I'm not sure of this translation; I've asked a question about it [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1150/118).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I assume that Lucretius is lengthening the first syllable of _proinde,_ I get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prōin/dē licet / quamvīs / ex ū/nōquoque / locō sōl&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That last foot is crazy. It doesn't have anything like the cadence you normally get in hexameter. Is this just a flaw in Lucretius's verse, am I mis-scanning it, or is there some hexameter custom at work here that I'm not aware of?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1163" RevisionGUID="a0283e72-f9cc-4865-97a9-e7828dddef25" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here's my understanding of the verse. (Note: I'm only a beginner with Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remember (_Memento_), O founder/maker (_conditor_) of things (_rerum_), that (_quod_) once (_olim_), you took (_sumpserīs_) the form (_formam_) of our (_nostri_) body (_corporis_) by being born (_nascendo_) from (_ab_) the sanctified (_sacratā_) womb (_alvo_) of a virgin (_virginis_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nascendo / gerund vs. gerundive&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**Nascendo** here is a gerund, not a gerundive. That is, it's functioning as a noun, not an adjective modifying some other noun. It's in the ablative case to mean that it's _by_ being born that the Maker takes on human form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gerund**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gerund in Latin is a verb functioning substantively, i.e., as a noun, in an oblique case. In the ablative case, **nascendo** means **by being born**. Notice that English has the same construction, also called &quot;gerund&quot;, in which a verb plays the role of a noun. &quot;Being born happens early in a person's life.&quot; A gerund has the active voice. For example, in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Desine fata deum flecti sperare **precando**. [Aeneid, 6.376]&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = Stop hoping to bend the will of the gods **by praying**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the person doing the praying is Aeneas, i.e., the person being addressed. Since **nascor** is a deponent verb, **nascendo** takes an active meaning even though the verb is basically passive (or at least we think of it that way in English: **to be born**, **being born**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gerundive**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive has the same form as the gerund, but a gerundive is a participle, i.e. a verb functioning as an adjective. For example, in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Karthago **delenda** est.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = Carthage must be **destroyed**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**delenda** is an adjective modifying **Karthago**. It changes case to agree with the noun that it modifies, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ceterum censeo Karthaginem **delendam** esse.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = And lastly, I say that Carthage must be **destroyed**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike the gerund, the gerundive is passive. Cato isn't recommending that Carthage do some destroying; he's recommending that Carthage _be_ destroyed. In the case of **nascendo**, though, since **nascor** is deponent and intransitive, I'm not sure there's any difference in meaning between understanding it actively or passively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there's no noun in the verse for a gerundive **nascendo** to modify, it seems unlikely that it's meant as a gerundive. It might cause some confusion that in Latin, an adjective can function substantively, and that applies to gerundives, too. For example, **mutatis mutandis**, &quot;the necessary changes having been made,&quot; or literally, &quot;the things that need to be changed, having been changed.&quot; Without a noun to modify, the gerundive means &quot;things that are to be _X_'ed.&quot; However, in the verse, I don't think it would make sense to understand **nascendo** that way; then it would mean &quot;by someone who is to be born&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I did not think any of the above through when reading the sentence. Happily, even with my fairly meager experience reading Latin, I understood it simply by analogy with sentences like the one above ending in **precando**.&#xD;&#xA;The text below mentions a couple other possibilities for how to understand **nascendo** in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other bits and pieces&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you are right that **nostri corporis** modifies **formam**. **Nostri corporis** might seem an awfully long distance from the noun that it modifies. In between them there is another genitive, even! Possibly that long distance is actually intentional bracketing of the enclosing clause rather than a compromise with meter. Seen that way, enclosing **sacrata ab alvo Virginis nascendo** inside **nostri corporis formam** might even be a way to indicate how the causal relation between the two phrases is intended to be understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think of **olim** as meaning something similar to English &quot;once upon a time&quot; or &quot;long ago&quot;, but not limited to the past, so it can also mean &quot;someday&quot;, and not limited to children's stories, so it can also mean &quot;once&quot; or &quot;one time&quot;, as in &quot;Once, I adopted a stray cat.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something I'm not completely sure of is **sumpseris**. With a short _i_, **sumpserĭs**, it's future perfect: &quot;Keep in mind that one day, you will have taken the form…&quot; With a long _i_, **sumpserīs**, it's perfect subjunctive: &quot;Remember that once, you took the form…&quot; I figure that the past tense makes more sense here, but the subjunctive mood seems strange because the event is already accomplished fact. Possibly imperative **memini** customarily governs a subjunctive verb even when referring to known fact; someone with better knowledge of Latin will have to clarify that. (See [new question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1179/118) about this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alas, I'm pretty sure that vowel quantity plays no role in medieval rhyme, so I don't think that we can use the short vowels of **corporĭs** and **virginĭs** to infer the quantity of the last vowel in **sumpseris**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding gerund vs. gerundive, perhaps one could argue that **nascendo** modifies an implied noun **te**, so the meaning is &quot;by you who are to be born&quot;. I don't think this makes sense with either reading of **sumpseris**, though. As **sumpserĭs**: &quot;Remember that thou took'st human form by thee who art to be born…&quot; As **sumpserīs**: &quot;Keep in mind that thou wilt have taken human form by  thee who art to be born…&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ablative of time?&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;I found a few English translations that treat **nascendo** as referring not to the means but the time of the Maker's taking human form. The [_Manual of Devout Prayers_](https://books.google.com/books?id=kx1lAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA84&amp;dq=%22memento+rerum+conditor%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjpw6jw5OvNAhWMTSYKHexGBPc4FBC7BQg0MAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22memento%20rerum%20conditor%22&amp;f=false) (1688), p. 84, has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Divine Creator, bear in mind,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;That thou, of our corporeal kind,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The form assumedst heretofore,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;When thee a Sacred Virgin bore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless **nascendo** is commonly used to refer to _when_ someone was born, analogous to &quot;et requievit **die septimo**&quot;, I think it needs a preposition or adverb to refer only to the time of the birth, but I thought I should mention this. The grammar might mark an important point of theology: that the Maker got human form _from_ Mary's womb, indicated by _ab._ I think that in ordinary Latin grammar, this means that the _act_ that transferred the form was the birth—hence the need for an ablative gerund." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1174" RevisionGUID="c0e5eb3d-50c5-4ddd-a93a-28e534cdc110" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The spoken Latin names of letters have been given in an answer to [another question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/732/79). I want to know how the letters were referred to in writing. What are the written Latin names of the Latin alphabet's letters? Alpha is the written name of the first Greek letter. Aleph is the written name of the first Hebrew. How did the Romans refer in writing to each alphabetic character?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1179" RevisionGUID="f5ce4d3c-cb3f-4ef9-8c24-0ea2311bb0fc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="(A tangent off of a [question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1160/118) and [comment](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1160/memento-rerum-conditor#comment2544_1163) by [David Charles](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/47/david-charles).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This verse](https://books.google.com/books?id=fjCjefY3KKsC&amp;lpg=PA7&amp;dq=%22memento%20rerum%20conditor%22%20born&amp;pg=PA7#v=onepage&amp;q=%22memento%20rerum%20conditor%22&amp;f=false) from roughly the ninth century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Memento** rerum conditor,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nostri **quod** olim corporis&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sacrata ab alvo Virginis&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nascendo formam **sumpseris**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;exhorts the creator to remember that he took human form from the womb of a virgin. Since this is taken as a known fact, why is **sumpseris** (_thou took_) in the subjunctive mood? Why not the indicative **sumpsisti**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;[A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin](https://books.google.com/books?id=rqoXOW6LmVMC&amp;lpg=PA84&amp;pg=PA216#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), by John F. Collins, §135, “Indirect Statements: Object Clauses with Subjunctives”, offers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Indirect statements in the form of object clauses introduced by **quod**, **quia**, **quoniam** ‘that’ may take the indicative; this is called the retained indicative. But the use of the subjunctive mood in such clauses emphasizes the grammatical subordination of the indirect statement:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Invēnimus quod Paulus Rōmam jam īsset.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘We discovered that Paul had already gone to Rome.’&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Crēdunt quia Chrīstus sit Dominus.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘They believed that Christ is Lord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks to [jon](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/641/jon) for [finding this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1160/memento-rerum-conditor#comment2537_1163).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Medieval Latin](https://books.google.ca/books?id=ReCp978iiA8C&amp;pg=PA48&amp;lpg=PA4&amp;hl=en#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), 2nd. ed., by Harrington and Pucci, §7.10.1, “Mood in Indirect Discourse”, says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek ὅτι is followed by the indicative. **Quia** and **quod** may be followed by either the indicative or the subjunctive; **quod** tends to take the subjunctive, **quia** the indicative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither explanation really clarifies what is meant by choosing the subjunctive mood in the verse above. It does not seem to be indirect discourse. The subjunctive with **quod** does not appear to be purely a medieval phenomenon. Jerome translates Genesis 1.4 thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et vidit Deus lucem quod **esset** bona et divisit lucem ac tenebras.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deuteronomy 15.15 has both subjunctive and indicative subordinated to the same **quod**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Memento quod** et ipse **servieris** in terra Aegypti et **liberavit** te Dominus Deus…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what's the reason for the subjunctive here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Does **memento quod** customarily take the subjunctive for some reason?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Does the indicative change the meaning or perhaps alter the shade of meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Or is the custom regarding different moods in this context so weak that the mood makes no difference here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Or is there something about the meaning of **sumo** here that calls for the subjunctive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Or (the worst hypothesis of all) is **sumpseris** ungrammatical or nonsensical, chosen only because it rhymes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you could provide other examples of the choice of indicative or subjunctive in similar or contrasting circumstances, that might be especially enlightening. What I'm really hoping to understand is: What does **memento quod sumpseris** &quot;echo&quot; in the mind of a listener?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1211" RevisionGUID="6cc253c9-de27-4897-b3ce-1a1122daf4db" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="When using a preposition in Latin, it is important to decline the word correctly.&#xD;&#xA;Prepositions require accusative or ablative, and *pro* happens to require ablative.&#xD;&#xA;The singular ablative of *pes* (foot) is *pede* and the plural one is *pedibus*.&#xD;&#xA;Thus &quot;for foot&quot; and &quot;for feet&quot; would be *pro pede* and *pro pedibus*, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;Using genitive as in *pro pedis* is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;However, correcting to *pro pede* might still be too close to the earlier name to avoid an infringement trial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using an adjective is probably a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;foot&quot; can be made singular or plural and with or without *pro* (or any other preposition).&#xD;&#xA;Just remember that also the adjective has to be in the correct case and number.&#xD;&#xA;I will not list all possible combinations &amp;mdash; if you like something and would like to have a different version of it, leave a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some adjectives you might consider using:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *pes levis/sanus/validus/dexter*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; light/healthy/strong/dexterous foot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To find more adjectives and more precise translations of the ones I chose, use any of the [online dictionaries listed in a separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;It is easiest to help if we know what you want, and browsing a dictionary for good words is something you can easily do with no knowledge of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;There rarely are exact translations of an English word to Latin (including the ones I listed above), so to get a good translation you have to look at the options and figure which has the most suitable tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;As requested in a comment below, here is a version with nouns instead of adjectives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *levitas/sanitas/validitas/dexteritas pedis*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; lightness/health/strength/dexterity of foot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the form *pes* is bugging you, you can switch to ablative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *pro pede levi/sano/valido/dextro*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; for the light/healthy/strong/dexterous foot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *pedes leves/sani/validi/dextri*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; light/healthy/strong/dexterous feet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course, these ideas can be combined.&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;for the health of the feet&quot; is *pro sanitate pedum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1216" RevisionGUID="de46c386-56fe-44f0-94ae-e21af225bad6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would translate &quot;as X as a Y&quot; with *tam X quam Y*.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly I would translate &quot;X like a Y&quot; with *X sicut Y*.&#xD;&#xA;There must be other options as well, but these come to mind.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I offer this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the land, which is called Columba because it was as holy as a pigeon.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *terra Columba appellata, quippe quae tam sancta quam columba erat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note added later:&#xD;&#xA;Depending on your style goals, you may wish to replace *erat* with *esset*.&#xD;&#xA;See [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1252/79) for choosing between indicative and conjunctive with *quippe*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1220" RevisionGUID="42ebb4ff-f9f7-43f2-be36-31c8b4f813b1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Suppose](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1210/118) there were a podiatry practice named _Pes Integer Sit._ How would you put this into a complete sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you simply treat it as indeclinable? For example, would &quot;I am going to Pes Integer Sit&quot; be _Eo Pes Integer Sit,_ or _Ad Pes Integer Sit eo_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly for a business whose name is a noun phrase in an oblique case. If the business were [named](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1210/light-feet-healthy-feet-or-other-podiatry-related-names-in-latin/1212#comment2638_1211) _Pedibus Sanis,_ would you have to avoid declining it, when, say, it was in a place in a sentence that called for the accusative or nominative case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if these are indeclinable, does that cause confusion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is a custom for choosing the case of business names, please let me know. That might (happily) render the whole question moot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1233" RevisionGUID="dda25490-4756-480c-bb20-c363d379d02b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="A [very recent question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1231/79) asks about a phrase involving a best man.&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good Latin translation of &quot;best man&quot;, the groom's assistant in a wedding?&#xD;&#xA;I don't think *vir optimus* really means this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if there was a role analogous to a best man's in ancient wedding ceremonies, but some modern style weddings must have been recorded in Latin in sufficient detail to include the best man.&#xD;&#xA;However, I have not been able to find any such translation in online dictionaries or Google." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1239" RevisionGUID="fe0e4718-5695-4e66-b5eb-3e57b83ce601" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="From discussions around my [other question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1231/79) with a colleague, we came upon &quot;praefectum prōnŭbus&quot; as 'Commander of the Wedding-Attendants' to describe with an air of rank or authority the role of the best man." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1241" RevisionGUID="fc3c5385-8d68-4d1a-bec3-d7d1bcba4274" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't know a classical Latin word for &quot;automatize&quot;, and I don't think using only classical words to say something along the lines of &quot;to turn something into a self-moving machine&quot; would do any good here.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I suggest using the verb *automatizare* for &quot;to automatize&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I do not recall ever seeing this verb, but it should be easy enough to understand, given the analogous words in other languages and the natural Latin derivation *automatum/automaton* + *-izare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;mess&quot; I suggest&#xD;&#xA;[*confusio*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2012773),&#xD;&#xA;[*turba*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2061161) or&#xD;&#xA;[*perturbatio*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2044298).&#xD;&#xA;Check the English translations of those words and choose what fits your intention.&#xD;&#xA;Or find a new word altogether; I'm not entirely satisfied with these words, but I can't think of better ones.&#xD;&#xA;We have a list of online dictionaries [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With these ingredients I suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Confusio automatizari non potest.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Disorder cannot be automatized." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1252" RevisionGUID="d4687acf-fe36-45fb-823b-0205131c6501" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="One can insert the particle *quippe* in a relative clause to give it a causal or otherwise explaining tone.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Does *quippe* require using conjunctive in the relative clause?&#xD;&#xA;If not, are there some rules for choosing between indicative and conjunctive that are special to *quippe*?&#xD;&#xA;Causal relative clauses usually have conjunctive, but I wonder if *quippe* is enough for expressing causality and the conjunctive can be omitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words can also be used to emphasize a causal nature of a relative clause: *ut*, *utpote* and *praesertim*.&#xD;&#xA;I suspect these behave like *quippe* as far as using conjunctive is concerned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After reading my grammar once again while preparing this question, I am inclined to believe that conjunctive is obligatory with *quippe* in a relative clause, but I want to have my suspicions clearly confirmed or refuted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question originated from our [chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm).&#xD;&#xA;When chatting about using three languages at the same time, I remarked:&#xD;&#xA;*Sed crediderim id facilius esse Cerbero, quippe qui tria capita habet.*&#xD;&#xA;Cerberus questioned my choice of indicative, and since I couldn't find a definitive answer elsewhere, I had to ask this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I have only ever seen *quippe* in this use.&#xD;&#xA;If you know other uses, please answer [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/598/79).&#xD;&#xA;I have explained the causal use in my answer&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; to that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I may have to update that answer depending on the answer I get here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1254" RevisionGUID="72b665ea-9c50-4618-a3a0-1dae85627586" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="This answer covers only Finland, but covers it completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin pronunciation is very uniform throughout Finland.&#xD;&#xA;Rather than describing the pronunciation in words, let me give you a sample: [Nuntii Latini](http://areena.yle.fi/1-1931339) is a Latin news broadcast from Finland, and the podcast is freely available online.&#xD;&#xA;For example, my own pronunciation is (to reasonable accuracy) exactly like the one in the news.&#xD;&#xA;This pronunciation is taught throughout Finland, with one exception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Turku 'ae' and 'oe' or pronounced as the diphthongs /ɑi/ and /oi/ whereas elsewhere they are both the long /e:/.&#xD;&#xA;[I have previously asked about the origin of this difference](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/562/79), and I still crave to understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that the general Finnish pronunciation is very close the pronunciation of early imperial era, whereas the one in Turku is more late republic.&#xD;&#xA;Both fall in the category &quot;classical&quot; in the classification of your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quick summary of the Finnish pronunciation (let me know if I forgot to address something important):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- C and G are always /k/ an /g/.&#xD;&#xA;- AE and OE are both /e:/ (or /ɑi/ and /oi/, see above).&#xD;&#xA;- Vowel length is always clearly indicated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1258" RevisionGUID="3c347edb-5b67-448d-800e-b7b98d9a29aa" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question][1] seems to assume that the Romans actually used *et cetera* as we do. But did they really? By that, I mean: did they use *et cetera* at the end of a clause or phrase, without any noun agreeing with *cetera*, to mean &quot;and so on, und so weiter, enzovoorts&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the Romans did not &quot;invent&quot; it, do we then have any idea when it began to be used in the modern way? I know it exists at least in Dutch, English, and French, but those could be borrowings from humanist Latin, for all I know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/85/are-there-any-recorded-classical-roman-abbreviations-of-et-cetera/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1265" RevisionGUID="fbc332be-eba5-4fe1-b139-10dbec288bc6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I asked yesterday about [the difference between causal clauses and causal relative clauses](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1261/79), and I was surprised by a comment:&#xD;&#xA;apparently there is a difference between causal *cum* clauses and causal *quia* clauses.&#xD;&#xA;I had not heard of any such difference, so I was left puzzled.&#xD;&#xA;**What is the difference between *cum*, *quia* and *quod* in causal clauses?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course *cum* always requires conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;With *quia* and *quod* one uses indicative, unless there is some special reason for conjunctive &amp;mdash; the cause is an opinion rather than fact or the clause is subordinate to *oratio obliqua*.&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that *quia* and *quod* are equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To formulate the question in terms of a concrete example, what is the difference between these sentences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Amicus meus exire nolebat, cum nimis plueret.*&#xD;&#xA;2. *Amicus meus exire nolebat, quia/quod nimis pluebat.*&#xD;&#xA;3. *Amicus meus exire nolebat, quia/quod nimis plueret.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2 the prohibiting amount of rain is expressed as a fact, in 3 as the friend's opinion.&#xD;&#xA;In 1 this distinction is not made, but otherwise I see no difference between 1 and 2/3.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference?&#xD;&#xA;If there is, what is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1309" RevisionGUID="c2138029-a5df-496a-8feb-9cdcd31beb60" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="A comment to an answer of [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/978/eidem-suae-a-way-to-make-the-reflexive-pronoun-refer-to-someone-other-than-th) mentions that ambiguity can arise with a reflexive pronoun when both the independent clause and the clause with the reflexive pronoun have third-person subjects. A minimal example of this kind of ambiguity is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dixit Marcum se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my reading, this could mean either that Mark hates himself or that Mark hates the speaker. (And I suppose there is also nothing to prevent this from meaning that the speaker hates Mark....)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Is this sentence truly ambiguous?** Are there perhaps rules that govern what the antecedent really is in cases like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If it is, **what options do I have to remove ambiguity?** One option that comes to mind would be to use *semetipsum* if the meaning is that Mark hates himself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1324" RevisionGUID="5c02cedb-76e5-4067-ade2-74742d607177" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="According to Wikipedia, the definition of a [government minister](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minister_(government)&amp;oldid=730119502) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A minister is a politician who holds significant public office in a national or regional government, making and implementing decisions on policies in conjunction with the other ministers. Some ministers are more senior than others, and are usually members of the government's cabinet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in many governments there are such titles as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Education minister&#xD;&#xA; - Agriculture minister&#xD;&#xA; - Foreign minister&#xD;&#xA; - Prime minister&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other jurisdictions, the title *secretary* is used as a synonym or near-synonym:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Secretary of Interior&#xD;&#xA; - Secretary of State&#xD;&#xA; - Secretary of Commerce&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question: what is a Latin word that captures this sense of the words *minister* and *secretary*?  Does a single word fully capture this type of government official?  Or must I use different words to reflect the difference between *secretary* and *minister*, or between a Secretary of State (higher level) and a Forestry minister (lower level)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've consulted Traupman's Latin-English dictionary, and it offers *administer* for &quot;minister&quot; and *administer*, *minister*, or *praefectus* for the political meaning of &quot;secretary.&quot;  Is one more suitable than others?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;This question inspired by [How to describe ministers in Latin?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1307/12)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1330" RevisionGUID="849409ea-d248-4e77-b130-370367d50922" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Update: Now with macrons!**&#xD;&#xA;(Macrons reproduced as in my source.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book *Clavis Latina II, grammatica &amp; exercitia* by Maija-Leena Kallela and Erkki Palmén (I advertised this series for self-study [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1218/79)) contains a list of many modern countries as an appendix.&#xD;&#xA;In my experience the series is well researched and reliable.&#xD;&#xA;Some countries have several spelling variants, but I don't think all options are included here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This book has only appeared in print in Finnish, so I will reproduce the appendix here in English.&#xD;&#xA;Each country is given three Latin words, in the order &quot;Finland, Finnish, Finns&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Eurōpa Septentriōnālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Finland: Finnia, Finnicus, Finnī&#xD;&#xA; - Sweden: Suētia, Suēticus, Suētī&#xD;&#xA; - Norway: Norvēgia, Norvēgicus, Norvēgī&#xD;&#xA; - Denmark: Dānia, Dānicus, Dānī&#xD;&#xA; - Iceland: Islandia, Islandiēnsis, Islandiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA;- Eurōpa Occidentālis:&#xD;&#xA; - The Netherlands: Nēderlandia, Nēderlandiēnsis, Nēderlandiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Belgium: Belgium, Belgicus, Belgae&#xD;&#xA; - Eire: Rēs Pūblica Irlandiae, Irlandiēnsis, Irlandiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Monaco: Monoecus, Monoecēnsis, Monoecēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Liechtenstein: Lichtenstenum, Lichtenstenēnsis, Lichtenstenēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Luxemburg: Luxemburgum, Luxemburgēnsis, Luxemburgēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - France: Francogallia, Francogallicus, Francogallī&#xD;&#xA; - UK: Regnum Ūnītum (Magna Britannia et Irlandia Septentriōnālis), Britannicus, Britannī&#xD;&#xA; - England: Anglia, Anglicus, Anglī&#xD;&#xA; - Scotland: Scōtia, Scōticus, Scōtī&#xD;&#xA; - Wales: Vallia, Vallicus, Vallī&#xD;&#xA;- Eurōpa Centrālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Austria: Austria, Austriacus, Austriacī&#xD;&#xA; - Latvia: Lettonia, Lettonicus, Lettonēs&#xD;&#xA; - Lithuania: Lithuānia, Lithuānicus, Lithuānī&#xD;&#xA; - Poland: Polōnia, Polōnicus, Polōnī&#xD;&#xA; - Romania: Dācorōmānia, Dācorōmānicus, Dācorōmānī&#xD;&#xA; - Germany: Germānia, Theodiscus/Germānicus, Germānī&#xD;&#xA; - Slovakia: Slovakia, Slovakus, Slovakī&#xD;&#xA; - Switzerland: Helvētia, Helvēticus, Helvētiī&#xD;&#xA; - Czech Republic: Tzechia, Tzechicus, Tzechī&#xD;&#xA; - Hungary: Hungaria, Hungaricus, Hungarī&#xD;&#xA; - Estonia: Estonia, Estonicus, Estonī&#xD;&#xA;- Eurōpa Austrālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Andorra: Andorra, Andorrēnsis, Andorrēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Albania: Albānia, Albānus, Albānī&#xD;&#xA; - Bosnia-Herzegovina: Bosnia, Bosniēnsis, Bosniēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Bulgaria: Bulgaria, Bulgaricus, Bulgarī&#xD;&#xA; - Spain: Hispānia, Hispānicus, Hispānī&#xD;&#xA; - Italy: Italia, Italicus/Italiānus, Italiānī/Italī  &#xD;&#xA;(Note that in Aeneis it is *Ītalia* for metric reasons.)&#xD;&#xA; - Yugoslavia: Iugoslavia, Iugoslavicus, Iugoslavī&#xD;&#xA; - Greece: Graecia, Graecus, Graecī&#xD;&#xA; - Croatia: Croatia, Croatus, Croatae&#xD;&#xA; - Cyprus: Cyprus, Cyprius, Cypriī&#xD;&#xA; - Macedonia: Macedonia, Macedonicus, Macedones&#xD;&#xA; - Malta: Melita, Melitēnsis, Melitēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Portugal: Portugallia, Portugallicus, Portugallī&#xD;&#xA; - San Marino: Rēs Pūblica Marīniāna, Marīniānus, Marīniānī&#xD;&#xA; - Slovenia: Slovenia, Slovenus, Slovenī&#xD;&#xA; - Turkey: Turcia, Turcicus, Turcae&#xD;&#xA; - Vatican: Cīvitās Vāticāna, Vāticānus, Vāticānī&#xD;&#xA;- Eurōpa Orientālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Moldova: Moldova, Moldovānus, Moldovānī&#xD;&#xA; - Ukraine: Ucraina, Ucrainus, Ucrainī&#xD;&#xA; - Belarus: Belorussia / Russia Alba, Belorussicus, Belorussī&#xD;&#xA; - Russia: Russia, Russicus, Russī&#xD;&#xA;- Oriēns Proxima:&#xD;&#xA; - Israel: Isrāël (gen. Isrāēlis), Isrāēlīticus, Isrāēlītae&#xD;&#xA; - Iran: Irania, Iraniānus, Iraniānī&#xD;&#xA; - Iraq: Iraquia, Iraquicus, Iraquiānī&#xD;&#xA; - Jordan: Iordānia, Iordānus, Iordānī&#xD;&#xA; - Palestine: Palaestīna, Plaestīnus, Palaestīnī&#xD;&#xA; - Saudi-Arabia: Arabia Saudiāna, Saudiānus, Saudī&#xD;&#xA; - Syria: Syria, Syriacus, Syrī&#xD;&#xA;- &amp;Amacr;frica:&#xD;&#xA; - Algeria: Algeria, Algeriānus, Algeriānī&#xD;&#xA; - Egypt: Aegyptus, Aegyptius, Aegyptiī&#xD;&#xA; - South Africa: Āfrica Austrālis, Austroāfricānus, Austroāfricānī&#xD;&#xA; - Kenia: Kenia, Keniānus, Keniānī&#xD;&#xA; - Libya: Libya, Libycus, Libyes&#xD;&#xA; - Morocco: Marochium, Marochiānus, Marochiānī&#xD;&#xA; - Namibia: Namibia, Namibiēnsis, Namibiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Sudan: Sudania, Sudaniēnsis, Sudaniēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Tanzania: Tanzania, Tanzaniēnsis, Tanzaniēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Tunisia: Tunesia, Tunesiēnsis, Tunesiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA;- Asia:&#xD;&#xA; - Afghanistan: Afganistānia, Afganistāniānus, Afganī&#xD;&#xA; - Philippines: Philippīnae, Philippīnus, Philippīnī&#xD;&#xA; - Indonesia: Indonēsia, Indonēsiānus, Indonēsiānī&#xD;&#xA; - India: India, Indicus, Indī&#xD;&#xA; - Japan: Iapōnia, Iapōnicus, Iapōniēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - China: Sīnae, Sīnēnsis, Sīnēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - (South/North) Korea: Corēa (Septentriōnālis/Austrālis), Corēānus (Septentriōnālis/Austrālis), Corēānī (Septentriōnālēs/Austrālēs)&#xD;&#xA; - Malaysia: Malaesia, Malaesiānus, Malaesiānī&#xD;&#xA; - Nepal: Nepalia, Nepaliānus, Nepaliānī&#xD;&#xA; - Pakistan: Pakistania, Pakistaniānus, Pakistaniānī&#xD;&#xA; - Sri Lanka: Sri Lanka, Srilancānus, Srilancānī&#xD;&#xA; - Thailand: Thailandia, Thailandiēnsis, Thailandiēnsēs&#xD;&#xA;- America Septentriōnālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Canada: Canada, Canadēnsis, Canadēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - US: Cīvitātēs Americae Ūnītae, Americānus, Americānī&#xD;&#xA;- America Austrālis:&#xD;&#xA; - Argentina: Argentīna, Argentīniānus, Argentīniānī&#xD;&#xA; - Bolivia: Bolivia, Boliviānus, Boliviānī&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil: Brasilia, Brasiliēnsis, Brasiliēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Chile: Chilia, Chiliēnsis, Chiliēnsēs&#xD;&#xA; - Mexico: Mexicum, Mexicānus, Mexicānī&#xD;&#xA; - Peru: Peruvia, Peruviānus, Peruviānī&#xD;&#xA; - Venezuela: Venetiola, Venetiolānus, Venetiolānī&#xD;&#xA;- Australia: Austrālia (no further details given)&#xD;&#xA;- Terra Antarctica&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if there seem to be typos, declination aid is needed or something is suspicious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two third declension plurals lack a macron in the list: *Macedones* and *Libyes*.&#xD;&#xA;This can be a typo or, as I find likely, ancient adaptations from Greek where the plural nominative ending is *-e&amp;#x306;s*.&#xD;&#xA;Also, I would expect the *-o-* in the antepenult to be long in *Lettones* and *Macedones*, but his may be a misunderstanding on my behalf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The next appendix contains a list of cities of similar length, but that is irrelevant here.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1355" RevisionGUID="97db0a23-204e-4574-af41-62bbe6604711" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Also, is it a noun or an adjective? What's the nominative?  &#xD;&#xA;[moved second question &lt;a href=&quot;https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1356/same-ending-of-mediolanensis-in-archiepiscopus-mediolanensis-and-archidioec&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;]  &#xD;&#xA;(Sorry, I'm a total n00b and checked all sorts of declension tables but I just can't figure this one out.)  &#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1363" RevisionGUID="735f7db6-60e1-4ef5-9775-5a9768c76f3d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I learned in [a recent question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1353/79) that derived nouns like *figura*, *statura* and *cultura* do not always look like the future participle but are actually formed from a different stem.&#xD;&#xA;Examples of differences: *figura/fictura*, *sta&amp;#x306;tura/st&amp;amacr;tura*, *partura/partitura*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a rule for stem formation in this derivation?&#xD;&#xA;The nouns do not (always) come from the perfect participle stem.&#xD;&#xA;That is, if I want to productively derive more such nouns, how do I do it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1364" RevisionGUID="d40f6405-cd4d-40a3-a4c8-0ba8a1e6c129" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Is there a difference in meaning between **argumentum ad** and **argumentum a**? Does the latter even have authoritative usage in Latin?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some samples that I've found, not always from authoritative works, which seem to follow an interesting pattern:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _argumentum **ad** misericordiam_: an appeal to mercy or pity, attempting to override the law or truth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _argumentum **ad** hominem_: an appeal specific to the person you're trying to persuade, i.e. telling each person a different story, hoping to get them all on your side; or, in contemporary usage, trying to get the faults of a person who advocates an idea to rub off onto the idea&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _argumentum **ad** populum_: an appeal to the people at large, i.e. arguing that the idea is popular, not that it's true (or perhaps arguing that since it's popular, it's likely true)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _argumentum **ad** baculum_: an appeal to force (&quot;the stick&quot;), i.e. convincing by threat rather than by enlightening&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _argumentum **ad** verecundiam_: an appeal to reverence; I once read _verecundia_ explained as the kind of bashfulness that you feel in the presence of something great or socially important, so that appealing to this emotion works like this: &quot;How could say such an awful thing about our church?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _argumentum **a** simili_: an appeal to similarity: since this is similar to that, the rule for that applies to this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _argumentum **a** contrario_ (or _**e** contrario_): an appeal to the contrary: since this is different from that, the rule for that doesn't apply&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _argumentum **a** coherentia_: an appeal to internal consistency: a proposal to resolve a conflict between rules that keeps the system of rules coherent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _argumentum **a** fortiori [[ratione?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/295/118)]_: an appeal to a comparable, stronger case where the result is known&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pattern appears to be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Ad** introduces something about _who_ is judging the matter: their emotions, their loyalties, their numbers, their power or lack of it—all matters that are outside the matter under consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Ab** introduces something within the _topic_: a kind of fact, a relevant factor, a relation between the present case and a known or settled case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this right? Is there an authoritative source about this? Or can you point to common usages of **argumentum** or **ad/ab** in other contexts that might serve as a precedent for the pattern above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt;Not just classical Latin.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1378" RevisionGUID="c51709af-ec51-4122-b0b0-6ba84bc463e0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="*Atque*, [according to L&amp;S][1], means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a copulative particle, *and also*, *and besides*, *and even*, *and*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Bennett's *New Latin Grammar* ch. 6 §&quot;Coordinate Conjunctions&quot;][2], &quot;*atque* is used before vowels and consonants; *ac* never before vowels, and seldom before *c*, *g*, *qu*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[L&amp;S][1] continue, saying that *atque*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;indicat[es] a close internal connection between single words or whole clauses; while *et* designates an external connection of diff. objects with each other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it seems these would make sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;mulier ***atque*** mater&lt;br&gt;(a woman *and also* a mother ← related)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;pater ***et*** arbor&lt;br&gt;(a father *and* a tree ← unrelated)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett also mentions that *-que* binds more tightly than *atque*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems this analogy would hold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[*vel* : *aut*][3] :: *atque* : *et***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;inclusive disjunction&quot; : &quot;exclusive disjunction&quot; :: &quot;inclusive conjunction&quot; : &quot;exclusive conjunction&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=atque&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15665/15665-h/15665-h.htm#sect341&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/73/576" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1390" RevisionGUID="08aba64c-3ef8-4911-ac02-50d49b1b210e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The pronouns *quicumque*, *quilibet*, *quisquis* and *quivis* have a somewhat similar meaning, roughly &quot;anyone&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;What exactly are their differences?&#xD;&#xA;The dictionary entries I have seen do not provide a clear comparison between these pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;Is there perhaps an example sentence where one can grammatically use any of these words but the meaning or tone is different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To some extent this was explained [in this question about *quisquis* and *quicumque*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/364/79), but I would like to know how the other two pronouns fit the picture." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1440" RevisionGUID="52e67ef3-3047-4b7c-a70c-57fd03baa7d8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="A macron is a diacritical mark, which, in modern Latin texts, is sometimes used to mark a long vowel: ā, ē, ī, ō, ū, ȳ.  From [Roman uses of diacritical marks](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1180/12), I understand that the ancient Romans did not use macrons (they occasionally used an apex instead).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: when were macrons first used to mark Latin text?  I'll keep it general, and not limit it to the way macrons are used today, in case they were originally used for some other purpose besides marking vowel length." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1445" RevisionGUID="89d3fc20-7b2b-4ab0-b41a-9614306efe0c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="From [this answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/804/12) and [Allen &amp; Greenough §493](https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA310), I understand that Latin does not have a perfect active participle.  But on Wiktionary, I see the following usage note in the [entry on the suffix *-vus*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-vus#Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Originally forming the perfect active participle, as in alvus ‎(“entity having nourished”), clīvus ‎(“entity having leaned”), gnāvus ‎(“having known”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not clear if this is meant to suggest that Latin had a perfect active participle at one point, or if it only existed in Proto-Indo-European.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the history of the perfect active participle in Latin?  Did Classical Latin or Old Latin ever have such a thing, or did it die out in Proto-Italic or prior?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1481" RevisionGUID="606adaa4-7a46-49c6-a14f-d4cb5e5ca164" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The gist of [Au101's answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1480/12) is confirmed by de Vaan's *Etymological Dictionary*.  First, regarding *sex*, in Proto-Italic and Proto-Indo-European, he gives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIt. &amp;#42;*seks* 'six', &amp;#42;*seks-to-* 'sixth'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIE *(s)ueks 'six', *uks-ó- 'sixth'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The PIt. form &amp;#42;*seks* has analogically dropped &amp;#42;*-w-* from &amp;#42;*sweks* by analogy with &amp;#42;*septm* 'seven'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding *sexus*, there is some question as to its origin.  He writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Secus* seems the more original formation, but it is strange that the older texts only know *sexus*.  The modern meaning of *sectiō* 'division' suggests that *sec/xus* might derive from *secāre* 'to sever', but the morphology remains unclear: does *sexus* go back to an *s*-present &amp;#42;*sek-s-* 'to cut up', or was it derived from a form &amp;#42;*sek-s-* of the putative *s*-stem underlying *secus*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He gives the Proto-Italic root of *secāre* as &amp;#42;*sekaje/o-*, and the PIE root as *sekh&lt;sub&gt;I&lt;/sub&gt;-ie/o, meaning &quot;to cut off&quot;.  For *secus*, PIt. is &amp;#42;*sekwos* and PIE is *se-kuo, meaning &quot;for/by oneself, separate.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to summarize, even in PIE, the roots of these two Latin words were different words with distinct meanings – &quot;six&quot; in the case of *sex* and &quot;separate&quot; or &quot;to cut off&quot; in the case of *sexus*.  So though they bear superficial similarities, the Latin words are etymologically unrelated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1498" RevisionGUID="92df570a-c425-42d4-9f92-5ffb3a25e06b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Macrons are mainly pronunciation guides, telling which vowels are pronounced long.&#xD;&#xA;In some cases they can resolve ambiguities, when two words only differ by the length a vowel.&#xD;&#xA;Using them is not necessary, and I would personally consider it better style not to use macrons when writing in Latin, unless there is a special reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macrons were not used in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;See [this separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1440/79) for the arrival of the macron.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also point out that there also a sign to indicate short vowels: the breve.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the absence of a macron does not make it sufficiently clear that a vowel is short.&#xD;&#xA;For example, we had recently a question about [*p&amp;omacr;pulus* and *po&amp;#x306;pulus*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1316/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your main question seems to be how to know when vowels are short and when they are long.&#xD;&#xA;The answer is simply that you have to learn the lengths when you learn the vowels.&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;man&quot; is *vi&amp;#x306;r*, not *vi&amp;#x304;r*.&#xD;&#xA;The singular genitive ending of the first declension is *-i&amp;#x304;*, not *-i&amp;#x306;*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore &quot;man's&quot; is *vi&amp;#x306;ri&amp;#x304;*.&#xD;&#xA;To get the lengths right, it is not enough to know that the word is *vir* and the ending is *-i*, and there are no simple rules that would allow you to efficiently guess where to put macrons in a given Latin word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you progress in studying Latin, you will develop some intuition to the lengths.&#xD;&#xA;But it does not come without work, and I can offer no shortcut.&#xD;&#xA;This has the unfortunate consequence that if you have already learned many Latin words and endings without paying attention to lengths and you now want to learn where to put macrons, you have to relearn all vowels to get the lengths right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In short:&#xD;&#xA;How do you know where to place macrons?&#xD;&#xA;You learn it case by case.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have instructions for producing a [macron](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/172/79) or a [breve](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2/79) on our meta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1499" RevisionGUID="c6a04680-4005-407b-aa2a-ee1a529120a6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Today in chat we spoke briefly about an earlier discussion I had had with [Cerberus](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/30/cerberus) in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;(In case you did not know, we have a [chatroom](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm) for this site.)&#xD;&#xA;I realized that I do not know how to put both *ego* and *Cerberus* in a possessive form together to refer to our discussion.&#xD;&#xA;Would *colloquium meum et Cerberi* be valid?&#xD;&#xA;These &quot;mixed possessives&quot; look weird.&#xD;&#xA;Of course I could say *colloquium inter me et Cerberum*, but what I want to know is whether one can combine possessive pronouns with genitives like this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1503" RevisionGUID="8e5851ff-b268-4527-be5a-ff01d1975816" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This][1] was cited in [the answer][2] to a recent question as the _de facto standard for Latin technology vocabulary_ by @C. M. Weimer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acording to it, the verbs _corruo_ and _collabor_ are enough for a _soft_ crash. L&amp;S cites [corruo][3] as _to fall, sink to the ground_ and with an active meaning of someone _to ruin_ sth. Meanwhile, [collabor][4] is more explicit in meaning _to fall in ruins_ (for buildings, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess as a choice to more properly mean that it was not just a matter of restarting your computer is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Computatrum meum collapsit_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.obta.uw.edu.pl/~draco/docs/voccomp.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/196/latin-word-for-code-or-program-the-verb&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcorruo&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcollabor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1511" RevisionGUID="98a00212-cc28-4c5d-a714-a3815d5cf6a6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The diagraph *ph* in Classical Latin represents an &quot;aspirated voiceless plosive,&quot; which means that it sounds like the *p* in the English word *pot* – a strong *p* sound, with aspiration (if you put your hand in front of your face, you'll feel air when you say it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ph* and its relatives *th* and *ch* were initially used primarily to transcribe Greek names and loan-words, like *Philippus* and *philtrum*, and later entered native Latin words like *triumphus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More details are available in *Vox Latina*, by W. Sydney Allen, and in [this related answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/648/12). Allen concludes his treatment of these letters by reminding us that the *ph* certainly did not sound like the *ph* in the English *photo*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is no justification for pronouncing the aspirates as fricatives—i.e. as in *photo*, *thick*, *loch*; this is admittedly the value of φ, θ, χ in Late Greek, but it had not yet developed by classical Latin times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, toward the end of the period of Classical Latin, instances of *ph* as a fricative (sounding like English *f*) do begin to appear, as described here: [When did 'ph' start to be pronounced like 'f'?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/649/12)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1540" RevisionGUID="e255b3e9-5c0e-44ef-95e5-e238d9bf1082" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I ran into this hexameter verse by Vergilius when researching [for an answer to another question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1505/79):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et vera incessu patuit dea. Ille ubi matrem*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Aeneis I.405)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way I can scan that verse is to leave a hiatus between *dea* and *ille*.&#xD;&#xA;Is this scansion correct?&#xD;&#xA;Is elision still possible across punctuation, or should it always be omitted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1544" RevisionGUID="dda90e89-0958-41c0-ba91-7916619d3e1d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I ran into this hexameter verse by Vergilius when researching [for an answer to another question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1505/79):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *exuit, et gressu gaudens incedit Iuli.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Aeneis I.690)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way I seem to able to scan this line is by taking the fifth foot to be spondee.&#xD;&#xA;In my experience this is very rare, so I am in doubt.&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia tells me that spondee in the fifth foot was almost never used by Roman poets, and rarely (5 %) by Homeros.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my scansion correct?&#xD;&#xA;Should I treat this as a highly exceptional case, or something to be expected from Vergilius?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just occurred to me, after posting the question, that perhaps *Iuli* could have three syllables: *I&amp;#x306;-&amp;umacr;-l&amp;imacr;*.&#xD;&#xA;This would save the dactyl but it sounds otherwise weird." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1553" RevisionGUID="21f372fb-3d21-4a5c-8f03-6de71111105b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Is there an etymological (and hence historical) relation between Aeneas's son Iulus and Iulius Caesar? Virgil was obviously trying to establish a conexion of blood, be it mythological, between the gens Iulia and Ilos, but is there any evidence that he did not make this up?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility is that there are three people with a similar name, the Trojan ancestor Ilos, the Alban Iulus, and the Roman gens Iulia?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What triggered this question is the fact or strong hypothesis that [*Iulus* contains three syllables][1], where the i is vocalic, whereas the first i in *Iulius* is consonantal (/j/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1544/fifth-spondee-in-aeneis-i-690" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1580" RevisionGUID="e3eee455-bdf4-4366-a660-181ef6611c1c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would like to know whether the adage above could be translated into Latin to make it sound more profound. The user [Sam K](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/136/sam-k) has suggested the following translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In interneto, nemo scit te canem esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Joonas Ilmavirta](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/79/joonas-ilmavirta) would prefer the calque *interrete* to *interneto*. Another option would be *internexus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you think of a way to improve it? It doesn't have to be verbatim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt follows. I used [wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/potes) and a [large collection of latin quotes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(full)) to assemble it, but my knowledge of latin grammar is still nil.  Do you reckon it is adequate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In internexus potes esse canis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1595" RevisionGUID="72f11cb4-9d8f-45b3-8589-38e4f1fdfaf1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="What does the word *immo* really mean and how can I use it?&#xD;&#xA;I read [this](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1007701) and [this](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dimmo) dictionary entry, and I was left confused.&#xD;&#xA;Some of the uses I can understand, but some I cannot.&#xD;&#xA;Either I do not have enough context to see what *immo* does or I cannot parse the English.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the translation &quot;nay verily&quot; (see first link above) does not reduce my confusion at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Could someone provide me with a list of possible uses of *immo* with simple examples?**&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer simplified examples focusing on how *immo* works and interacts with other words, without too many distractions.&#xD;&#xA;Linking the different uses to the dictionary entries would also help me decipher the dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;Is there perhaps a good rule of thumb for interpreting *immo*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was reminded of this problem by [this question about &quot;yes&quot; and &quot;no&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1592/79) &amp;mdash; and in particular brianpck's comment under the answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1610" RevisionGUID="b6d7ad78-e99c-47f1-9711-788aa2570b4c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The phrases *si tibi placet* and *si vobis placet* can be found in Latin literature, but they are not particularly common.&#xD;&#xA;At least superficially they correspond to the French &quot;s'il te plaît&quot; and &quot;s'il vous plaît&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The difference in frequency can be partly explained by the cultural differences in expressing politeness.&#xD;&#xA;However, I wonder if this picture is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, does the Latin *si tibi/vobis placet* mean the same thing as the French &quot;s'il te/vous plaît&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;In which cases can they be used the same way, and in which ones not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was inspired by [the one about saying &quot;please&quot; in Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1563/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1660" RevisionGUID="793d37ef-d221-48cc-9dd3-f88b8d639b6e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="First, if you say &quot;good fortune&quot;, the two words must have same case, number and gender.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *bona fortunam* is always wrong.&#xD;&#xA;(This may have been a typo, but I wanted to make sure.)&#xD;&#xA;The question is choosing between nominative (*bona fortuna*) and accusative (*bonam fortunam*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you wish something, accusative is more common than nominative.&#xD;&#xA;Think of them as parts of complete sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Bonam fortunam (tibi exopto)!* &amp;mdash; (I wish you) good fortune!&#xD;&#xA;- *Bona fortuna (tibi esto)!* &amp;mdash; (May you have) good fortune!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other options for both cases, but these should get the point across.&#xD;&#xA;If you use the nominative alone, it sounds more like the observation &quot;the fortune is good&quot; than wishing anyone anything.&#xD;&#xA;With accusative the intention is clearer and I find it more suitable anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest you also look at [this earlier question about the accusative of exclamation](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/286/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1666" RevisionGUID="2f1432c6-216b-4fe3-9066-a0e16ee1e6cc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let us start with the famous *omnia vincit amor*, &quot;love conquers/wins all&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is close to the original intention if we replace love with life: *omnia vincit vita*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word order *omnia vincit vita* makes the connection to the love phrase clear.&#xD;&#xA;Vergilius used hexameter, and for that *vita omnia vincit* is more convenient &amp;mdash; although both are possible.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps this full hexameter verse is close to what you are looking for (with prose translations):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tempore duro nunc vita omnia vincit, amice.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now in hard times life conquers everything, my friend.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nyt kovana aikana elämä voittaa kaiken, ystäväni.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These were prose translations.&#xD;&#xA;For hexameter, I offer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Life shall prevail, my friend, in times of hardship upon you.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ystävä, nyt kova aika kun on, voittaa elo kaiken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Hexameter in English is not my strongest suit.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to adress a female instead of a male, replace *amice* with *amica*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *vincit* has a double meaning: it can mean &quot;wins&quot; or &quot;conquers&quot; (from the verb *vincere*) or &quot;chains&quot; or &quot;confines&quot; (from *vincire*).&#xD;&#xA;But since both love and life both conquer and confine all, I believe this is not a problem.&#xD;&#xA;This ambiguity was treated in more detail in [a separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1311/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1675" RevisionGUID="b13807c1-b1f3-4175-933c-160da14b00ae" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The verb *sapere* can mean tasting like something or having a sense of taste.&#xD;&#xA;The latter can be understood figuratively close to &quot;to be wise or sensible&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Dictionaries list the participle *sapiens* separately, and only the figurative meaning is given in all sources I looked at.&#xD;&#xA;Why is this so?&#xD;&#xA;Are there cases where *sapiens* means something like &quot;tasty&quot; rather than &quot;smart&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Or, from a different point of view, can one interpret &amp;mdash; from a linguistic point of view &amp;mdash; the name *Homo sapiens* to mean that the [animals](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1296/79) in question are tasty instead of smart?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1768" RevisionGUID="c90c230e-afbe-429b-9d19-ce3118f303f4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a kind of extension to [the question about -*landia*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1766/79) as a proper way of forming a country's Latin name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correspondents, usually helpful, comment on my Latin syntax and, ever seeking improvement, I accept criticism gladly.  However, in translating English novels I find place-names a perennial problem. Often there is an authentic Roman source, — *Aquae Sulis*, *Eboracum*. Some places have an ancient name not bestowed by the Romans — some of which are in Bede's History, for instance — perhaps, latinised names of Saxon settlements, and so on. For fictional place-names I have usually used a simple termination (e.g. *Merytona* for Meryton in Austen's Pride and Prejudice).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have yet to find anyone objecting to any of the foregoing. A popular option when nothing else is available is to adopt the actual English as an indeclinable proper noun, but my own inclination is to form something from real Latin words, such as *Agnovicum* for Lambton, or *Mareporta* for Margate. To me these seem harmless enough, but they are the aspect of my translations that draws by far the greatest attention and, often, downright hostility. I wonder what any reader here thinks about this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1816" RevisionGUID="a418251d-70ab-4dc1-8ac6-91a340ae51ea" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I propose *Mater Terra* or *Mater Tellus*.&#xD;&#xA;See [online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) to see which word for &quot;Earth&quot; is more suitable.&#xD;&#xA;If you mean the planet as a whole, I suggest *Tellus*.&#xD;&#xA;If you mean the ground under our feet, I suggest *Terra*.&#xD;&#xA;The most suitable nuance depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin word for &quot;Earth&quot;, whatever you choose, should be in nominative.&#xD;&#xA;Here &quot;Earth&quot; behaves like a given name.&#xD;&#xA;Thus *Orbis* would be grammatically fine but I doubt it means what you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;The Latin word order is quite free and I chose to put *Mater* first because it sounded best to me.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that my intuition was wrong, as the examples in sumelic's answer demonstrate.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore ***Terra Mater*** or ***Tellus Mater*** is better.&#xD;&#xA;The word order I originally proposed is not wrong as far as I know, but it seems less idiomatic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1834" RevisionGUID="f8aae08f-9e88-4e79-984e-dba74ad46d6f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="*Machina* is indeed a good translation for &quot;machine&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In plural it is *machinae*, so this translation is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to be careful with the English word &quot;people&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you refer to a people (where &quot;people&quot; is singular), the Latin word is *populus*.&#xD;&#xA;(The word *populo* is the singular dative or ablative of this word. Such inflected forms are not a good choice here in my opinion.)&#xD;&#xA;If you refer to to humans (where &quot;people&quot; is plural), the Latin word is *homines*.&#xD;&#xA;A single human is *homo*, and the plural is *homines*.&#xD;&#xA;In the context you give *homines* would be a better choice.&#xD;&#xA;If one network is for humans and the other for machines, then *populus* would be too grandiose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, Google Translate is very unreliable with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to translate single words, I suggest using any of [several online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;After finding a list possible translations of your English word, I suggest also looking at the translations from Latin to English for each option; this can provide good insight to choosing the most suitable translation.&#xD;&#xA;If you have trouble finding the correct form, you can ask for help here.&#xD;&#xA;We also have [a guide for asking translation questions](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/143/79) at our meta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Added from comments:**&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say &quot;**for** people/humans&quot;, then it is *hominibus*, and similarly &quot;**for** machines&quot; is *machinis*. In Latin one uses the dative case instead of a preposition here. But when it's used as a name, the context makes the intention clear, so I would say *homines* and *hominibus* work equally well. Just use *machinae/homines* or *machinis/hominibus* without mixing the two options, for consistency." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1840" RevisionGUID="de5247d5-936f-4662-8a07-7b5078ab4ace" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm trying to understand a paragraph from the 1806 transcription of latin legal texts from 1331, while being proficient at neither law nor latin. An example:&#xD;&#xA;[![abbreviated latin text][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;which is from page 78 of [Placita de quo Warranto][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll come back and ask for more help when I've wrestled a bit more, but first I'm curious as to how to represent this text on the screen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw the question https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/192/do-different-truncation-signs-have-different-connotations and that led me to the Cappelli's magisterial *[The elements of abbreviation in medieval Latin paleography][3]* which has helped greatly. I also note the [Medieval Unicode Font Initiative][4] which seems to be making very slow progress. And Wikipedia's [Scribal Abbreviation][5], which gives some examples of unicode representation of common latin abbreviations. Unfortunately, some of the representations there such as p̱ or d̵ don't look much like the 1806 versions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The 1806 transcribers and typesetters have done an impressive job of representing the scribal abbreviation symbols in print. Can we do as well nowadays? If I try to type the text from the image above, complete with its abbreviation symbols, in a unicode document, is there a standard way of picking symbols and combining diacriticals to make sense? I can pick some symbols that more-or-less look like the ones from the text (like ħ or ƚ) but others (like the p with a line through the down-stroke) defeat me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: I'd like a generic unicode solution that works with any conventional text processor or displays neatly and consistently in any browser equipped with adequately complete Unicode fonts. I'm actually imagining a way of representing the abbreviated text so that it would be useful as input to a machine translation program, even if no such program yet exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a well-defined solution to this? Or haven't we got there yet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Another Update:** Following Draconis's suggestions, I have produced this version of the above text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Joħes ꝑſona eccƚie de Eversholt dat đno Regi dimidiam marcam ꝑ licencia ħenda clamandi ꝑ billam has liƀtates ſubſcriptas pⁱmo die itin...is hic nō clamat᷒&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That uses &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ꝑ U+A751 LATIN SMALL LETTER P WITH STROKE THROUGH DESCENDER &#xD;&#xA; - ħ U+0127 LATIN SMALL LETTER H WITH STROKE &#xD;&#xA; - ſ U+017F LATIN SMALL LETTER LONG S&#xD;&#xA; - ƚ U+019A LATIN SMALL LETTER L WITH BAR&#xD;&#xA; - ƀ U+0180 LATIN SMALL LETTER B WITH STROKE&#xD;&#xA; - ⁱ U+2071 SUPERSCRIPT LATIN SMALL LETTER I&#xD;&#xA; - ō U+014D LATIN SMALL LETTER O WITH MACRON&#xD;&#xA; -  ᷒ U+1DD2 COMBINING US ABOVE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have I made appropriate choices here? In particular, `nō clamat᷒`? I am guessing that (following Capelli section 4.33 and 3.3) this stands for `nota clamatus`. Is the `combining us above` character appropriate? It doesn't look much like the 1806 print.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And! How do I represent the mark in `itin...is`? Let alone, where do I find it in Capelli!&#xD;&#xA;[![itin...is][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YMnOv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2R9DAAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/1821/47cappelli.pdf?sequence=3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://folk.uib.no/hnooh/mufi/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribal_abbreviation&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lw7D5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1844" RevisionGUID="1dd69fc9-d7a6-4a10-92cf-dd9f6f0f30ce" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I will phrase my question through an example.&#xD;&#xA;Consider this sentence in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do not know whether you wrote where you are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has one governing clause (&quot;I do not know&quot;) and two indirect questions, first subordinate to the governing clause, the second subordinate the first one.&#xD;&#xA;In Latin the predicate of a subordinate conjunctive clause follows *consecutio temporum* (sequence of tenses), and the correct tense depends on that of the governing clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first question is governed by the present tense &quot;I know&quot; (*scio*) and describes an event before that of the governing clause, so I should use the perfect tense for &quot;wrote&quot; (*scripseris*).&#xD;&#xA;But which of the verbs *scio* and *scripseris* is considered to govern the second question?&#xD;&#xA;If *scio*, I should use the present tense for &quot;are&quot; (*sis*).&#xD;&#xA;If *scripseris*, then imperfect (*esses*).&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure, so I am left with two possible translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nescio, an scripseris necne, ubi sis.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nescio, an scripseris necne, ubi esses.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are both of these grammatical and good style in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, is there a difference between the two?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, if a conjunctive clause is subordinate to another conjunctive clause, what determines the tense in the &quot;lowest&quot; clause?&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer to see examples from classical literature where such nested clauses appear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clauses subordinate to a nominal form were treated [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/351/79), but the source used there does not discuss the present question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1858" RevisionGUID="c79997c0-77cb-4ae3-865f-5b7e4f7877c7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I became curious about this question as I was translating a passage written by a textbook author. The passage begins, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Poeta Ovidius fabulam de dea Latona **et** de femina Niobe narrat. *(Latin via Ovid)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see how the author moved the conjunction &quot;et&quot; outside the prepositional phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to know, in classical Latin, is it bad style to place the conjunction &quot;et&quot; within a prepositional phrase? e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Poeta Ovidius fabulam de dea Latona **et** femina Niobe narrat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  I suspect it is bad style, but I wanted to make sure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this to be an interesting contrast with the English language, where such constructions are okay. It also reminds me of a [question I asked on Greek recently][1], where we determined it is probably bad style to do so. If this is true in Latin as well, then I wonder whether this convention comes from Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1826/is-it-possible-to-use-%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9-as-both-coordinating-and-correlative-conjunctions-in-t" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1864" RevisionGUID="55111f17-12e2-41a8-b7d2-c60f19388e88" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="[The Latin Library](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com) is one possibility.&#xD;&#xA;It is very light, consisting of simple HTML pages with no unnecessary features.&#xD;&#xA;There are no additional features, just the Latin texts.&#xD;&#xA;Some might argue that also necessary features are missing, but that is always a matter of taste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The corpus has a large collection of texts which can be found following the links.&#xD;&#xA;There is no search feature.&#xD;&#xA;Because of the simple format, Google can be used efficiently.&#xD;&#xA;For example, to find whether the imperative *sunto* is actually in use, just enter `site:thelatinlibrary.com sunto` in Google.&#xD;&#xA;Also, the text is in large HTML pages, which makes searching with browser tools easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The corpus is not limited to any era.&#xD;&#xA;The only limitation seems to be Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Precise citing is also complicated.&#xD;&#xA;Suppose [I want to cite](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1858/79) I.34.1 in Caesar's *Commentarii de bello Gallico*.&#xD;&#xA;The entire first book is a single page, and linking to that one is easy.&#xD;&#xA;There are links at the top of the page, and clicking on &quot;34&quot; gives me a direct link to I.34: `http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/caesar/gall1.shtml#34`.&#xD;&#xA;There is no universally observed format for the links, so you have to either use the links or look at the source code near the desired passage for `&lt;a name=&quot;...&quot;&gt;`.&#xD;&#xA;Citing I.34 and instructing the reader to look at I.34.1 is often accurate enough, but sometimes the linked position is too far from the desired one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1871" RevisionGUID="719a25e2-ed17-47e9-9a82-073ba7b5522f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="To construct the English phrase, you first introduce a new noun 'to-be'.&#xD;&#xA;Then you take the (grammatical) expression &quot;to be X is to be Y&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You can verify with different choices of X and Y that this is a grammatically sensible phrase &amp;mdash; semantic sensibility depends on the choice.&#xD;&#xA;For example, take X = &quot;an artist&quot; and Y = &quot;free&quot; or X = &quot;a human&quot; and Y = &quot;an animal&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Now, you apply this construction with X being &quot;God&quot; and Y being the new noun 'to-be'.&#xD;&#xA;You get the phrase you mention: &quot;To be God is to be 'to-be'.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I gave detailed steps is that now we can try to follow them for Latin &amp;mdash; or any other language, for that matter.&#xD;&#xA;The noun 'to-be' would be *'esse'*.&#xD;&#xA;It is a matter of taste whether you want to include quotes or not.&#xD;&#xA;Let me keep them for clarity.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &quot;to be X is to be Y&quot; would be &quot;*esse X est esse Y*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is admittedly a little weird construction, but so is the English one.&#xD;&#xA;What makes this even more weird is that both X and Y are in the accusative&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;Again, we can test: X = *heroem* and Y = *pium* or perhaps X = *regem* and Y = *victorem*.&#xD;&#xA;The structure makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;Now we apply it with X = *Deum* and Y = *'esse'* to get a translation:&#xD;&#xA;*Esse Deum est esse 'esse'*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may or may not be the bets way to phrase the thing in Latin, but I think it is a reasonable parallel and equally grammatical with the English phrase.&#xD;&#xA;One could of course try to say something like &quot;To be God is to exist.&quot;, but that would add a different tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I first used nominative, but then I was unsure.&#xD;&#xA;I asked [a separate question about the choice of case](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1877/79), and contrary to my intuition, it seems that accusative is the way to go.&#xD;&#xA;I thank all who have commented and helped fix my intuition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1877" RevisionGUID="850146ce-bce8-443d-8362-8cdc8a71f143" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Suppose I want to say something like &quot;I like being a human&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There are undoubtedly several ways to phrase that in Latin, but I want to do it so that it the subject is &quot;to be a human&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The complete English sentence would be something like &quot;To be a human pleases me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;When translating this to Latin, should the &quot;human&quot; be nominative (*homo*) or accusative (*hominem*)?&#xD;&#xA;That is, which one of the following is better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;1. *Homo esse me delectat.*  &#xD;&#xA;2. *Hominem esse me delectat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, for another example, consider &quot;To be a Finn is to sing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I have two options, analogous to the previous ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;1. *Finnus esse est canere.*  &#xD;&#xA;2. *Finnum esse est canere.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My intuition suggests that the nominative is the way to go, but I feel very unsure.&#xD;&#xA;Comparing with *accusativus cum infinitivo* suggests that it might be the accusative instead, but then there is also the related *nominativus cum infinitivo* construction&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer to see examples in classical literature, but also discussions from grammars are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question arose in connection to [this recent question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1870/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Originally the question title mentioned &quot;subject of esse&quot;, but I corrected it to &quot;complement of esse&quot;. There is no subject. Thanks to commenters for clarifying this!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1887" RevisionGUID="cad6d0b1-ff0a-45ac-8a8e-aefa220f18ff" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="A poem from 1621 contains one ô and one â.&#xD;&#xA;The ô is the interjection *ô* and the â is in the relative pronoun *quâ*.&#xD;&#xA;No circumflexes are used elsewhere in the poem.&#xD;&#xA;Does the circumflex (or caret or however it should be called) only emphasize that the vowel is long, or does it have some other function?&#xD;&#xA;It would make some sense that the relative pronoun was *quae* instead of *qua* (neuter plural nominative instead of feminine singular ablative), but I am unsure if this would be a misinterpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are pictures of the words in question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ô and quâ](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z0JKz.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z0JKz.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My [previous question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1883/79) was about the same poem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1949" RevisionGUID="29d1138c-ef7a-48a7-aba1-0a0ca1849673" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Using the traditional dates of the Roman calendar, December 31 and December 30 would be *pridie Kalendas Ianuarias* and *ante diem tertium Kalendas Ianuarias*.&#xD;&#xA;The day is expressed in relation to the first day of the next month.&#xD;&#xA;This happens for all days after *Idus*.&#xD;&#xA;For more about writing dates, see [this recent question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1943/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to include the year in my date, which year is it?&#xD;&#xA;The one of the *Kalendae Ianuariae* or the one of the day itself?&#xD;&#xA;If I want to describe my plans for the end of this year, I seem to have two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On December 31, 2016 I will sleep.  &#xD;&#xA;*Pridie Ianuarias anno 2016/2017 dormiam.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess would be 2016.&#xD;&#xA;But if I used *anni* instead of *anno* instead &amp;mdash; which I find unusual but grammatical &amp;mdash; then I would choose 2017.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which year should I choose and why?&#xD;&#xA;Have both options been in use?&#xD;&#xA;Have grammarians or other scholars commented on this issue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1968" RevisionGUID="16c3bc95-24b3-4a7f-be85-e11d46431ab2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have been told that *Kalendae* is the first day of a month.&#xD;&#xA;However, the Latin dates &amp;mdash; which was discussed in [this other question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1943/79) &amp;mdash; alone do not make this obvious.&#xD;&#xA;Dates are expressed by comparison to three special days every month: *Kalendae*, *Nonae*, and *Idus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on everything I know about the Roman calendar, it would make sense that *Idus* was actually the last day of a month.&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps days between *Idus* and the following *Kalendae* belong to no month at all.&#xD;&#xA;Or maybe a month consists of the three special days and other days have to be expressed in relation to these interesting days because other days belong to no month at all.&#xD;&#xA;It is not obvious that every day should be part of some month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it clearly stated somewhere in ancient literature that *Kalendae* is the first day of a month?&#xD;&#xA;Is there some ancient source describing the structure of a month in this sense?&#xD;&#xA;Evidence from inscriptions is also welcome if it sheds some light on the matter.&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be a very strong modern consensus that *Kalendae* is the first day, but I realized that I know no reason for this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1974" RevisionGUID="e37e4d43-cfa7-49f3-8dbb-fa1777013596" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="We know that the final *m* was not a full consonant in classical Latin, but denoted nasalization and elongation of the preceding vowel.&#xD;&#xA;See [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/43/79) or [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1000/79) old question for more details.&#xD;&#xA;Was this effect limited to word-final position, or did an internal *m* nasalize the preceding vowel as well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, how were *sumus*, *summus*, *amplecti*, *sumpsisti* pronounced?&#xD;&#xA;I would assume *m* had a fully consonantal nature between two vowels to avoid hiatus, but that does not rule out nasalization.&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be more freedom as the first consonant of a consonant cluster.&#xD;&#xA;For example, perhaps *summus* could be [sũ:mus] instead of the pronunciation [sum:us] I was taught.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the vowel before a consonant cluster beginning with *m* is already long (eg. *s&amp;umacr;mpsist&amp;imacr;*), which makes the combination of nasalization and elongation sound unlikely.&#xD;&#xA;The vowel before a final *m* is always short as far as I know &amp;mdash; when *m* is pronounced as a consonant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2004" RevisionGUID="5fd6b695-470a-4afb-bfc3-633df03e19e0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Many of us are used to using the (active present) infinitive form of a verb as a &quot;label&quot; or &quot;basic form&quot; or &quot;representative&quot; of the verb.&#xD;&#xA;By this I refer to uses like dictionary entries or grammatical statements similar to &quot;the active indicative perfect second person singular of *amare* is *amasti*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin dictionaries use *amo* instead of *amare* for these purposes.&#xD;&#xA;There was [a separate question on this issue](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/63/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What did the Romans themselves consider the basic form of a verb?&#xD;&#xA;If it was inconsistent, which methods did people use to refer to verbs in grammatical context?&#xD;&#xA;I think such a &quot;label form of a verb&quot; was used mainly by grammarians and etymologists &amp;mdash; or other writers temporarily acting as such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2006" RevisionGUID="b8a7d271-96e6-416f-a77c-cef89b68f9d5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let me comment on some of the five phrases that you tried to translate with Google.&#xD;&#xA;Google translate sometimes hits the nail on the head, but sometimes it misses altogether and sometimes it even hits the aquarium.&#xD;&#xA;Don't trust it, especially if the translation is something important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For translation problems like this one, I suggest using an online Latin dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;We have a list of them in [a dedicated question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;To translate &quot;divine&quot;, for example, translate it first from English to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;For each Latin word you get, see the English translations to get a feeling of its tone.&#xD;&#xA;To combine words grammatically, you need to decline or conjugate them correctly.&#xD;&#xA;Some online dictionaries contain useful information.&#xD;&#xA;Google translate is no good; it does translate, but there is no trusting what comes out.&#xD;&#xA;If you have found the words you like (and maybe explain why you like these words), asking for grammatical details and choices between few possible translations at this site works well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Lightspeed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, this means &quot;speed of light&quot;, and it is best to translate it this way.&#xD;&#xA;*Velocitas* is a good (yet not the only) word for &quot;speed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;light&quot; you could use *lumen* or *lux*.&#xD;&#xA;A different kind of option is *Phaebus*, which means Apollo as the god of light, or personified light if you will.&#xD;&#xA;I suggest *velocitas luminis*, but this is just a translation of the scientific term.&#xD;&#xA;It might not fit your goal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bull's eye&#xD;&#xA;Direct translation is easy: *oculus bovis*.&#xD;&#xA;However, it is not clear whether this Latin phrase has the same meaning as the English one.&#xD;&#xA;I guess it simply means the eye of a particular mammal, nothing more.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to know if there is a similar idiom in Latin, that would make a nice separate question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Divine powers&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;powers&quot; I suggest the Latin word *vis*.&#xD;&#xA;I urge you to check what it means.&#xD;&#xA;[This](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1017474) is one of the many dictionary entries on it.&#xD;&#xA;Two suitable adjectives come to mind: *divus* and *divinus*.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to find the nuance differences between them, I again recommend a new, separate question.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion for &quot;divine powers&quot; is *vis diva*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2009" RevisionGUID="3d52c78e-a0c2-4ae2-b156-5d98d31c0a77" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm going to try to explain my process in answering, to give you some resources for coming up with more names in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Also, note that I like to mark my long vowels, &quot;ā ē ī ō ū&quot;. Many people don't do this; it won't be any less correct if you remove them when writing your names. They represent a pronunciation difference which disappeared in later Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Lightspeed##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of my favorite resources for English-to-Latin is [Ludwig von Döderlein's *Hand-book of Latin Synonymes*][1] [sic]. It lists the subtle meaning differences between synonyms, as well as acting as a limited thesaurus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under *citus* (fast):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CITUS; CELER; VELOX; PERNIX; PROPERUS; FESTINUS.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Citus** and **celer** denote swiftness, merely as quick motion, in opp. to _tardus_, Cic. Or. iii. 57. Sall. Cat. 15. Cic. Fin. v. 11. N. D. ii. 20. Rosc. Com. 11. Top. 44; **velox** and **pernix**, nimbleness, as bodily strength and activity, in opp. to _lentus_; **properus** and **festinus**, haste, as the will to reach a certain point in the shortest time, in opp. to _segnis_ Gell. x. 11. 2. **Citus** denotes a swift and lively motion, approaching to _vegetus_; **celer**, an eager and impetuous motion, approaching to _rapidus_. 3. **Pernicitas** is, in general, dexterity and activity in all bodily movements, in hopping, climbing, and vaulting; but **velocitas**, especially in running, flying, and swimming, and so forth. Plaut. Mil. iii. 1, 36. Clare oculis video, _pernix_ sum manibus, pedibus mobilis. Virg. Æn. iv. 180. Curt. vii. 7, 53. Equorum _velocitati_ par est hominum _pernicitas_. 4. **Properus**, **properare**, denote the haste which, from energy, sets out rapidly to reach a certain point, in opp. to _cessare_; whereas **festinus**, **festinare**, denote the haste which springs from impatience, and borders upon precipitation. (ii. 144.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From personal experience, I've also heard *vēlōx* described as &quot;moving quickly right now&quot; and *celer* as &quot;able to move quickly&quot;, so Usain Bolt sitting on the couch would be *celer* but not *vēlōx*. But Döderlein doesn't mention this, and actually implies the opposite; [I'll ask a new question about that][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then under *lūmen* (light):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LUMEN; LUX.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lumen** (λευσσόμενον) is a luminous body, like φέγγος; **lux** (λευκή) a streaming mass of light, like φάος. Cic. Fin. iii. 14, 45. Ut obscuratur et offunditur _luce_ solis _lumen_ lucernæ. Curt. viii. 2, 21. Sed aditus specus accipit _lucem_; interiora nisi allato _lumine_ obscura sunt. Cic. Acad. iv. 8, 28. Si ista vera sunt, ratio omnis tollitur quasi quædam _lux lumen_que vitæ; that is, reason alone is in itself bright and light, and at the same time spreads brightness and light over life. Also, in a figurative sense, **lumen** denotes distinction, **lux** only clearness. Cicero (Man. 5.) calls Corinth, Græciæ totius _lumen_, but Rome (Catil. iv. 6.) _Lucem_ orbis terrarum; Corinth is compared to a glimmering point of light; Rome is distinguished as that city in comparison with which all other cities lie in darkness. (ii. 66.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd say *celer* (moving very quickly) and *lūx* (light itself, as opposed to a source of light) are the words you'd want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combining them unfortunately requires significant knowledge of Latin grammar; there's no easy way to do this step without being familiar with the language. In this case, I would say *Celeritās Lūcis*, literally &quot;the swiftness of the light&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joonas also suggested that *vēlōx* might fit the meaning of &quot;lightspeed&quot; better: light really *can't* move slower than its maximum speed, and the 'running' meaning sounds more like what a &quot;lightspeed&quot; character would have. In this case, it would be *Vēlōcitās Lūcis*, &quot;the velocity of the light&quot;. This is also more obviously related to speed, for non-Latin-speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Bull's Eye##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an idiom in English. *Oculus bovis* would be a literal translation, but there doesn't seem to be much precedent for using *oculus* like this. When looking for how a specific word was used, I usually put it into the [Perseus Word Study Tool][3], which then brings up the entry from Lewis and Short's Latin dictionary. (I could also search in L&amp;S directly, but the Word Study Tool has a nicer interface.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, L&amp;S lists plenty of idioms involving eyes, but none seem quite right. Most focus on seeing or perceiving, rather than precision or accuracy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest idiom I can think of is *acū tetigistī*, literally &quot;you touched it with a needle&quot; (used to mean &quot;you're exactly right&quot;). Changing the grammatical form, *Acū Tangō* is &quot;I touch it with a needle&quot;, or idiomatically &quot;I hit it precisely&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Holy Judgement##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this one I'm looking at Christian sources, since for me &quot;holy&quot; is more strongly associated with Christian religion (I'd use &quot;sacred&quot; instead if referring to classical Roman religion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *Diēs Īrae* in particular describes the Day of Judgement repeatedly, always using the words *jūdex*, *jūdicō*, *jūdicāns*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would go with *Jūdex Sacer* (the holy judge) or *Jūdicāns Sacer* (the holy judging person). Or more literally, *Jūdicium Sacrum* (the holy judgement).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Godlike Powers##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Godlike&quot; is difficult. I'm translating it here as &quot;the powers seem to come from a deity (through this mortal person)&quot;; an alternate meaning would be &quot;the person using these powers actually seems to be a deity&quot;. Let me know if this was your intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Döderlein again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; POTENTIA; POTENTATUS; POTESTAS; VIS; ROBUR.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Potentia**, **potentatus**, and **potestas** (πότνιος) denote an exterior power, which acts by means of men, and upon men; whereas **vis** and **robur** denote an interior power and strength, independent of the co-operation and good-will of others. **Potentia** denotes a merely factitious power, which can be exerted at will, like δύναμις; **potentatus**, the exterior rank of the ruler, which is acknowledged by those who are subject to him, like δυναστεία; **potestas**, a just and lawful power, with which a person is entrusted, like ἐξουσία. Tac. Ann. xiii. 19. Nihil tam fluxum est quam fama _potentiæ_ non sua _vi_ nixæ. **Vis** (ἴς) is the strength which shows itself in moving and attacking, as an ability to constrain others, like κράτος; **robur** (from ἐῤῥῶσθαι) the strength which shows itself in remaining quiet, as an ability to resist attack, and remain firm, like ῥώμη. (v. 83.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *vīs* seems like what you want. This is &quot;power&quot; in the sense of strength or force. &quot;Divine&quot; is easier, since the English word was borrowed from Latin: *dīvīnus*. Combined would give *Vīs Dīvīna*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Armageddon##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate was fairly accurate on this one. English *Armageddon* comes from Greek *Harmagedōn* from Hebrew *Har Məgiddô* &quot;Mount Megiddo&quot;. So if you wanted to refer to the actual mountain, *Harmagedōn* would be a decent translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume you want a synonym for &quot;apocalypse&quot; rather than the name of a mountain in Israel. Looking up &quot;apocalypse&quot; isn't likely to help either, though: it comes from Greek *apocalypsis*, &quot;uncovering&quot;, so the direct Latin translation would be *revēlātiō*. The modern meaning of &quot;end of the world&quot; is because the end of the world was predicted in the Book of Revelation, but it didn't have that meaning in Classical times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I don't know a good Classical term for &quot;the end of the world&quot;. To my knowledge there was no Ragnarök equivalent in Roman mythology, so the closest you could get would be a literal but artificial *Exitium Mundī* &quot;the final destruction of the world&quot;. Alternatively, you could add in a religious allusion and go with *Diēs Īrae* &quot;the day of wrath&quot; (from Zepheniah 1:15), which is a well-known term in Christianity but also has a good literal meaning. Or, if you aren't concerned about the ancient meaning, take the loanword *Apocalypsis*. (Or for additional foreign-ness, use the Greek spelling: *Ἀποκάλυψις*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33197&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2011/aut-celer-aut-v%C4%93l%C5%8Dx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2053" RevisionGUID="df9accff-a7c8-4715-80a8-c74fa38bfe26" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The word *vis* does not have singular genitive and dative forms.&#xD;&#xA;This makes it difficult to use *vis*.&#xD;&#xA;(I was reminded of this difficulty by [this Star Wars question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2040/79).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you suggest methods of working around the missing forms of *vis* when writing Latin?&#xD;&#xA;What should I do when syntax seems to require genitive or dative?&#xD;&#xA;The easiest way would be to use a substitute word for these cases or to coin new forms for *vis*, but both feel like a disservice to legibility and style.&#xD;&#xA;I am open to any suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For concrete examples, you can consider replacing *robur* with *vis* in the following sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Terror roboris magnus erat apud senatores.*&#xD;&#xA;2. *Haud multum roboris remanet.*&#xD;&#xA;3. *Vir quidam roboris nuclearis peritus acroasem praeparaverat.*&#xD;&#xA;4. *Marcum miseret roboris mei.*&#xD;&#xA;5. *Roboris Marci causa abire constitui.*&#xD;&#xA;6. *Haec potio magica robori meo prodest.*&#xD;&#xA;7. *Caesar non pietati sed robori vivebat.*&#xD;&#xA;8. *Voluntas robori dissimilis est.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2061" RevisionGUID="d1005373-de79-489f-99fb-a9f9c99e41e4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The ablative and genitive of quality (*ablativus qualitatis* and *genetivus qualitatis*) are similar.&#xD;&#xA;One can describe a high mountain as *mons magna altitudine* or *mons magnae altitudinis*.&#xD;&#xA;Is there any difference between ablative and genitive in such use?&#xD;&#xA;Should different cases be used in different situations, or are they completely interchangeacle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might be related to [the difference between the ablative and genitive of price](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1897/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2105" RevisionGUID="638e0110-3375-4619-bf9e-5a94858e6ce4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The Roman year included many festive occasions.&#xD;&#xA;In today's world it is customary to wish merry Christmas, happy Easter, and other such things.&#xD;&#xA;Did the Romans do the same during their own festivals, celebrations or vacations?&#xD;&#xA;If they did, how did they do that?&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see examples from ancient literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that I am not asking how to wish a merry Christmas in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I know how to do that, but I am not sure how the ancient Romans would have done that.&#xD;&#xA;This question is similar to [the one about wishing a good birthday](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1836/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2116" RevisionGUID="540b9637-b612-4efd-a81f-00420ce3bb6a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The classical Latin word for a rainbow seems to be *Iris* (*Iris* or *Iridis*, f.).&#xD;&#xA;Did the Romans ever list or otherwise discuss the colors of the rainbow in extant literature?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked about [colors in classical Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/275/79) earlier, and I got a nice answer.&#xD;&#xA;The matter is complicated.&#xD;&#xA;I just realized that rainbows look the same now as they did two millennia ago, so if the Romans named the colors of the rainbow, then we could be exactly sure about those colors and see them as they did." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2128" RevisionGUID="e133ba63-12a5-495a-98b8-6f42d03b17e0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Consider this example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ecce Marcus et Gaius. Hic canit, ille auscultat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here are Marcus and Gaius. The latter sings, the former listens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When there are two or more things one could refer to, *hic* often means &quot;the latter&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The first of two can then be referred to with *ille* or *is* unless I am mistaken, but *ille* seems to be at least more common.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--I am not sure which one of *ille* and *is* is better here or whether there is a difference.--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference between *is* and *ille* in references like this?&#xD;&#xA;That is, can I use *is* instead of *ille* here, or would it mean something else?&#xD;&#xA;In case of two (here Marcus and Gaius), would *is* refer to Marcus or Gaius, our would it not refer clearly to either one?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--If there were three people, what would *is* and *ille* refer to?--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the usual latter/former pair is *hic/ille*, but I am unsure of the role of *is*.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure it has any role like this at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This came up when I wrote an answer to [a pronoun ambiguity question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2118/79) yesterday." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2135" RevisionGUID="f2752422-769d-46a7-9f26-9c2e224ebeab" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="To my understanding, Latin doesn't have a dual number at all. The adjectives *duo* &quot;two&quot; and *ambō* &quot;both&quot; have some special forms derived from the PIE dual (-*ō*, -*ābus*, -*ōbus*), but are considered irregular rather than part of any real pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, from an answer to [an unrelated question][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By the way, another heterogeneous noun with a similar story behind it is frēnum &quot;rein&quot;, pl. frēnī. In this case the Latin masculine plural ending continues what was in PIE terms not a plural at all, but a neuter dual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This points to another trace of the dual number which I hadn't heard about before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other irregularities or fossilized forms in Latin which derive from the dual number in PIE or Proto-Italic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2132/where-do-the-plurals-of-locus-come-from" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2146" RevisionGUID="0669bbbc-6ef7-499c-b51e-6ed50c5beedc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Consider this a supplement to @[brianpck's](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/45/brianpck) answer. This is an explanation of _why_ making the possessive pronoun agree with the thing possessed and not the possessor makes sense in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Agreement&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, as in all languages, we are mainly concerned with linking things we are talking about with concepts that describe them. This happens in two ways: asserting a claim about something, and narrowing down what you're referring to by combining it with another concept. A sentence asserts some predicate of its subject: &quot;Mārcus ridet&quot; asserts of Marcus, the subject, that he is laughing, the predicate. In &quot;Fīlius improbus rīdet&quot;, **improbus** distinguishes one son from the other. To understand a sentence, we have to know which modifier goes with which modified thing. This is the job of grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, we mostly depend on word order to link a modifier with what it modifies, but in Latin this is done mainly by grammatical _agreement_ between them. In this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Iūlius** ex hortō **silēns** vēnit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**silēns**, in the nominative case, agrees with **Iūlius**. So, it means &quot;Julius, silent, came out of the garden.&quot; In this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iūlius ex **hortō silēnte** vēnit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**silēnte**, in the ablative case, agrees with **hortō**. So, it means &quot;Julius came out of the silent garden.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To &quot;get&quot; Latin, you have to train yourself to track grammatical agreement until eventually it becomes unconscious. It takes a while, but notice that English exploits grammatical agreement, too, so you already have some experience with this approach. Notice the difference between &quot;John and Stephen met Henry after he was sentenced&quot; and &quot;John and Stephen met Henry after they were sentenced.&quot; Grammatical agreement in English is mostly limited to subjects agreeing in number and person with their verbs, and pronouns agree in number and case with their antecedents. In Latin, nouns also agree with their adjectives, in number, case, and gender. These are things that you _use_ for clarity and expressiveness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possessive pronouns&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a possessive pronoun—a modifier—agreed not with the thing possessed but with the possessor, it would throw grammatical agreement into confusion. That's probably hard to believe if you're confused now, but here's why it would result in more confusion. What happens if the possessor and the thing possessed have different cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iūlius mihi clāvēs **suārum** lectīcārum dedit. (Julius gave me the keys to his sedans.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we tried to change the grammar so the possessive pronoun agreed with the possessor, what would **suārum** change to? **Iūlius** is singular, nominative, and masculine, so **suus** would be needed to agree with it. But **lectīcārum** is plural, genitive, and feminine, requiring **suarum**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are you going to do? The only reasonable way, which doesn't suffer constantly from internal contradictions, is to make the possessive pronoun agree with the thing it modifies—the thing possessed—in all three ways: number, case, and gender. If you're constantly tracking grammatical agreement in order to follow a sentence, agreeing with the possessor would feel like a bizarre exception—a confusing inconsistency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is particularly important when using non-standard word order to make a point or shift emphasis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iūlius mihi clāvēs lectīcārum dedit **suārum**. (Julius gave me the keys to _his_ sedans.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nōn Aemiliae Iūlius mihi clāves lectīcārum dedit sed **suās**. (It wasn't Emily's keys to the sedans that Julius gave me, but his.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Se&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Here's one other clue that helps: the possessive pronouns in **[suus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/suus#Latin)** are adjectival forms of the reflexive pronoun **[se](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/se#Latin)**, which means &quot;himself, herself, itself&quot;. If you let the _s_ remind you of **se**, you'll be in the Latin groove even without thinking about what should modify what. _Of course_ **suam** in &quot;villam suam&quot; refers to Iulius: he's the subject of the verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2188" RevisionGUID="7f96812b-2704-40d8-bafd-60234f6b5499" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The word *filiae* can be either genitive or dative; the two cases look alike in the singular of the first declension.&#xD;&#xA;If you read it as a genitive, then *filiae* is indeed &quot;of the daughter&quot; and this translation is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Agricola filiae aquam dat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The farmer of the daughter gives water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read it as a dative, then *filiae* means &quot;to the girl&quot;, leading to a different translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Agricola filiae aquam dat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The farmer gives water to the daughter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are both equally correct readings of the Latin sentence.&#xD;&#xA;Only context determines which is correct.&#xD;&#xA;The second one makes more sense here; &quot;farmer of the daughter&quot; sounds unusual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your book the intended translation is the second one I give.&#xD;&#xA;But it does not specify the relation of the farmer and the daughter at all.&#xD;&#xA;You can add a &quot;his&quot;, but Latin behaves very differently to English here.&#xD;&#xA;The word *suus* is an adjective modifying the daughter, not a genitive of the farmer.&#xD;&#xA;It has to have the same number, gender and case than the daughter.&#xD;&#xA;[This earlier question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2110/79) and its answers might be a useful read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus the most natural translation would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The farmer gives his daughter water.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Agricola filiae suae aquam dat.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2196" RevisionGUID="25063238-a200-4191-b6c9-74305ae8c4b8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="One could also read the entire motto as a description of the school:&#xD;&#xA;maybe Hogwarts is &quot;a sleeping dragon which should not be tickled&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I am not familiar enough with the school to tell if this is a sensible interpretation, but it strikes me as a reasonable option.&#xD;&#xA;In this reading the motto is not an instruction for students but a description of the school.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked [a separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2193/79) about such uses of gerundive to make sure that this interpretation is indeed grammatical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2208" RevisionGUID="65b867c2-f3e4-4c0f-8817-569f3e216231" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="My question was inspired by the phrase in [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2185/hogwarts-motto-from-j-k-rowlings-harry-potter-series):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; draco dormiens numquam titillandus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...where *titillo* presumably refers to the action of &quot;tickling.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this use of *titillo* attested? [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtitillo) gives that as one of the English definitions, but all of the examples I can find correspond to the figurative English meaning of &quot;tickle,&quot; i.e. &quot;titillate.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot find [a single classical example](http://latin.packhum.org/search) where this word is used to describe the literal action, which leads me to doubt whether the above phrase would have provoked a strange reaction in a Roman.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there any justification for the use of *titillo* outside of its figurative sense of &quot;titillate&quot;?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2230" RevisionGUID="fe66d7bc-79d0-42ae-ba27-34b847fc95e4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The famous phrase *memento mori* (the subject of [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/89/what-does-memento-mori-actually-mean)) means something like &quot;remember that you will die, remember you are mortal&quot;. But this use of the infinitive seems odd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Memini* is often used with an infinitive, but (as per [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmemini)) these uses fall into two classes: (a) &quot;remember that (a thing happened)&quot;, and (b) &quot;remember to do something, be sure to... do not fail to...&quot;. *Memento mori* falls into neither class. It's certainly not (a), but it isn't really (b) either -- the meaning isn't &quot;Don't forget to die!&quot;. For the sense of &quot;remember that something will happen&quot;, one would have expected an accusative with future infinitive: *Memento te moriturum esse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this just a quirk of this single phrase? But if so, how would Latin speakers have known to interpret it correctly? It seems like there ought to be comparable uses of the infinitive, either with *memini* or with other verbs. Are there such comparable uses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2272" RevisionGUID="165dc1d4-fc65-4fbe-a9dd-3f96136b010a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would like to find a good Latin word for &quot;living room&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I know some options, but my list might not be complete and I am not sure what is the best choice.&#xD;&#xA;It may well be that different words are needed for different kinds of living rooms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you translate &quot;living room&quot; to Latin and why?&#xD;&#xA;Would you use the same word (or longer phrase) for all kinds of living rooms, or are different words better in different situations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are my suggestions with some commentary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Conclave*: This is a good overall word for &quot;room&quot;. It has the tone of &quot;something that can be locked up&quot;. I think it is a good general word for &quot;room&quot;, but it alone does not mean &quot;living room&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- *Atrium*: Has the meaning of &quot;main room&quot;, but also the tone of &quot;entrance&quot;. If many other rooms are accessed through the living room, I would be tempted to use this word.&#xD;&#xA;- *Aula*: Sounds overly grandiose. Feels more like &quot;inner court&quot; than &quot;living room&quot; to me.&#xD;&#xA;- *Cella*: Sounds more like &quot;chamber&quot; or &quot;small room&quot; than &quot;living room&quot; to me. Could work with an added adjective.&#xD;&#xA;- *Habitatio*: This means &quot;dwelling&quot;. It comes from the verb *habitare*, which conveys the meaning of a &quot;living room&quot; nicely. This is the translation suggested in my Finnish&amp;ndash;Latin&amp;ndash;Finnish dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;- Adjectives: Perhaps it would be best to use an adjective. We use two words in English, too. Something like *conclave habitativum* surely gets the point across, but something sounds fishy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question arose in connection with my answer to [this earlier question about leaving a room](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2254/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2277" RevisionGUID="a1f09776-e936-442a-9b02-2f14a8f7b39f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is actually a [continuation of my last question.][1] The following sentence is a little tricky, and I feel I may have missed a thing or two. I appreciate any feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &quot;Etiam hac hora difficillima&quot;, inquit, &quot;nobis vis invenienda est talem vitam vivendi, qualem eam esse volumus, scilicet liberam et apertam&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Nuntii Latini (12/23/2016)][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &quot;Even on this difficult hour,&quot; she says, &quot;the strength must be found by us to live life such as we want it to be, namely, open and free.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to get your opinion on some liberties that I took. First, I understand &quot;vivendi&quot; to be a gerund in the genitive, in which case a more literal translation would be &quot;the strength must be found by us **of** living life such as we want it to be&quot;. Is it okay to render this as &quot;to live&quot; as opposed to &quot;of living&quot;? Is it common to do so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, the &quot;talem...qualem&quot; pair was a little confusing. I thought about translating &quot;talem vitam&quot; as &quot;such a life&quot;, instead of what I ended up doing, &quot;life such&quot;. The former sounds like a more literal translation. After all, doesn't &quot;talem&quot; have to modify &quot;vitam&quot;? The latter, however, sounds more idiomatic in English. Which would you choose here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2274/unsure-about-my-translation-of-se-una-cum-propinquis-et-amicis-eorum-dolere&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://areena.yle.fi/1-3790762?autoplay=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2283" RevisionGUID="9ee4beae-250e-4f91-b5cf-8b0b9f5c1972" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="When researching for the [living room question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2272/79) and the question that inspired it, I came across some dictionary definitions of [*aula*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2005594) and [*atrium*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2005327).&#xD;&#xA;*Aula* is a Greek thing and *atrium* is Roman, but otherwise they seem very similar to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there are architectural differences between Greece and Rome.&#xD;&#xA;**What is the difference between *aula* and *atrium*?**&#xD;&#xA;I have found no comparison of the two anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;**Would the Romans use the word *atrium* for something the Greeks would call *aula* and vice versa?**&#xD;&#xA;I get the impression that *atrium* is the Roman-style word for an inner court or a hall, and *aula* is a Greek-style word for the same purpose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2292" RevisionGUID="2a735734-c408-496d-aeaa-1fe73f8ceff4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="When reading [Lewis and Short online](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.04.0059)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, I have occasional trouble figuring out what the various abbreviations mean.&#xD;&#xA;This includes authors and their works, but, more importantly to me, also other abbreviations.&#xD;&#xA;At least this particular version does not seem to have any kind of preface, list of abbreviations or any such supporting material.&#xD;&#xA;I believe many of the abbreviations are the same in many other dictionaries, so a list is likely to helpful outside L&amp;S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, where can I find a list of abbreviations for L&amp;S?&#xD;&#xA;Lists for other similar dictionaries are also welcome, although my main interest is in L&amp;S.&#xD;&#xA;The list can be a webpage, a scan or transcription from a printed version, or anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Also other online versions of the same dictionary are available.&#xD;&#xA;See the [dictionary question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2297" RevisionGUID="0a2848b3-4df9-4a84-88c5-9579f1866aff" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Google Translate is notoriously bad with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;It seems to have little understanding of Latin grammar.&#xD;&#xA;If you only want single words, you are much better off using an [online Latin dictionary of your choice](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;I do not know an online service (or any computerized tool) that translates Latin reliably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin phrase *capere semper in posterum* means roughly &quot;to always take from this point on&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It makes little sense.&#xD;&#xA;(This is the default answer to &quot;does this result from Google translate make sense?&quot; in my experience.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I suggest ***semper futura carpito***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good translation for &quot;to seize&quot; in your context is *carpere*.&#xD;&#xA;I chose the future imperative *carpito* instead of the present *carpe* (which would also be fine) to give it a more festive feel.&#xD;&#xA;If you want it to be more mundane, use *carpe*.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if everyone agrees with my sense of nuance here.&#xD;&#xA;These imperatives are singular; if you want plural, use *carpitote* or *carpite* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no good Latin noun for &quot;future&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I chose the participle *futurus* which can be seen as the adjective &quot;future&quot; &amp;mdash; and the etymological source of the English word.&#xD;&#xA;There are two choices: the neuter singular *futurum* and the neuter plural *futura*.&#xD;&#xA;The singular means roughly &quot;the thing in future&quot;, treating future as one.&#xD;&#xA;The plural means roughly &quot;the things in future&quot;, treating future as a series of things.&#xD;&#xA;The plural sounds more idiomatic to me, and I think the nuance of the singular *futurum* would be less appropriate for this use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *semper* is simply a good translation for &quot;always&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is up to you to make the choices *futurum/futura* and *carpe/carpito/carpite/carpitote* if you are after a different nuance.&#xD;&#xA;Also the word order is relatively free in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is what I find most fitting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2301" RevisionGUID="335ffd7c-f151-47c3-896a-9c880ceeb625" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="[I recently requested a word from Greek which means, &quot;knowing when to break the rules&quot;.][1] The question I asked generated a lot of fine responses, but unfortunately it could not remind me of the original word that I had heard from my friend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even more recently, I asked my friend which word he had used, and he replied with *epikaria* or *epicharia*. However, we are both having a hard time finding this word in any dictionary. It does, interestingly enough, show up on Google searches. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Greek have the word *epikaria* or *epicharia*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2241/what-ancient-greek-word-or-idea-signifies-a-knowledge-of-when-to-break-the-rules" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2339" RevisionGUID="99335a86-77a8-4c14-bc08-5c2663e39470" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="*Pacis puella* literally means &quot;girl of peace&quot;; I have no idea how that could be translated as living for one's family. As Christianus mentioned in a comment, better translations of that motto have been posted at [this other question][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/954/how-to-say-i-live-for-my-family-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2344" RevisionGUID="e81bf015-303c-483c-a252-cd6a53f630b9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Negative future imperatives do indeed exist.&#xD;&#xA;A great many can be found in the [laws of twelve tables](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/12tables.html).&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hominem mortuum in urbe ne sepelito*  &#xD;&#xA;Do not bury a dead person in the city&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--A dead person shall not be buried in the city--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging by these examples, the syntax is simply *ne* + future imperative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if *memento* should be semantically treated as a future imperative.&#xD;&#xA;It is a future imperative by form, yes, but the verb *meminisse* is irregular and this is the only imperative it has.&#xD;&#xA;I do not know to what extent *memento(te)* has the sense of a future imperative.&#xD;&#xA;(I asked a [separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2345/79) about this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the impression that the future imperative adds a festive or pompous tone to a command.&#xD;&#xA;I would use the future imperative in grandiose orders like &quot;go forth and serve your people&quot; but probably not in mundane orders regarding the future like &quot;bring me an apple tomorrow&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;My idiosyncrasies are no indication of good classical style, so take this bit with a grain of salt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2345" RevisionGUID="ecfa4762-47d7-4b55-b65c-7171984cfd63" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The verb *meminisse* is irregular.&#xD;&#xA;It has only the active perfect system (*memini, meministi, meminit&amp;hellip;*) and the imperatives *memento* and *mementote*.&#xD;&#xA;These imperatives are future imperatives by form, and I would like to know if they are future by meaning, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regular verbs have present and future imperatives (eg. *ama(te)* and *amato(te)*) and there is a semantic difference between the two.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *meminisse* has only one type of imperative, which is of future form.&#xD;&#xA;**Is *memento(te)* semantically present or future imperative?**&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps it is both or we cannot tell.&#xD;&#xA;I do not recall ever seeing a discussion about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperative *memento* came up in two questions recently:&#xD;&#xA;[Negative Future Imperatives](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2343/79) and [Parallels for the infinitive in “memento mori”?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2230/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2349" RevisionGUID="d0e5f8a5-29ab-4ea6-9672-761d58fd8252" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I learned from [this previous question about the semantics of *memento(te)*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2345/79) that *memento(te)* is not morphologically a future imperative.&#xD;&#xA;It turned to be a perfect imperative (semantically present), as it was formed from the perfect stem.&#xD;&#xA;I had previously thought of *-to* as a future imperative ending exclusively.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how unique *memento(te)* is in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other examples of perfect imperatives than *memento(te)*?&#xD;&#xA;Or are there any other examples if imperatives ending in *-to(te)* than the usual future imperatives, perfect or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such forms are not found in conjugation tables &amp;mdash; or they have magically evaded my sight &amp;mdash; but there might be some rare occurrences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2352" RevisionGUID="b7e1fbed-a570-4df2-ace1-a04a5d3e907d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="We had [a question about punctuation in classical Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/33/79) and it received some great answers.&#xD;&#xA;It left me with one question, though:&#xD;&#xA;Are there ancient guides or descriptions of punctuation?&#xD;&#xA;I am not looking for modern analyses of inscriptions or other documents, but passages or remarks by the Romans on the topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2369" RevisionGUID="cdd143cb-cc9e-47c1-a109-bddcd9978e07" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The conjugation tables of irregular Latin verbs that I have seen do not give any imperative forms for the verb *velle*.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *nolle* has the imperative forms *noli* and *nolite*, and they are fairly common.&#xD;&#xA;I found no hits for the forms *voli*, *volite* and *velite* in a corpus search, and all hits for *veli* seem to be from the noun *velum*.&#xD;&#xA;Have the imperative forms of *velle* ever been used in Latin of any era?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, what are they?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some rare cases where one might want to use such imperatives.&#xD;&#xA;I heard a nice speech in Finnish in December, and it made use of similar imperatives at a key point.&#xD;&#xA;To get an idea of how the situation, consider the following fictive speech excerpt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I could ask you to serve your country.&#xD;&#xA;But I will not.&#xD;&#xA;The most important thing is not that you always succeed or that you even try in every single situation, but that you always want to do the best for your country.&#xD;&#xA;Want to serve your country!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not asking how to work around the seemingly missing imperatives; that is covered in [another question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2375/79).&#xD;&#xA;I am asking whether they are really missing.&#xD;&#xA;Do ask for details if the question is not clear enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2375" RevisionGUID="c08fe5a0-a6a1-4c16-89f2-1832a52b70b3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I asked yesterday [about the imperative of *velle*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2369/79), and it turned out that does not really have an imperative.&#xD;&#xA;If the most obvious option is not available, how should I give an order to want?&#xD;&#xA;A phrase or two with a classical use example would be great.&#xD;&#xA;It can be just an imperative if that is the idiomatic choice, but I do not know which verb to pick if *velle* is not available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A use example was given in the linked question, but I will give another one here.&#xD;&#xA;In the following case I would like use the imperative of *velle*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do you want to build a welfare state?&#xD;&#xA;Want to share!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that willingness to share is the key to a welfare state, more so than sharing itself.&#xD;&#xA;I do not mean that I really think this way; this is just to give an example situation where one might want to order someone to want something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2379" RevisionGUID="743c7590-01a7-4a79-8cd8-f39c607511da" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="While researching an answer for [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2375/how-to-order-someone-to-want-something), I came across the following passage from Seneca. The bolded part, particularly &quot;illos&quot;, left me with some doubts about the sentence syntax:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et quid sibi quisque tunc speret, cum uideat pessima optimos pati? Quid ergo est? **Vide quomodo quisque illorum tulerit et, si fortes fuerunt, ipsorum illos animo desidera**, si muliebriter et ignaue perierunt, nihil periit. (Seneca iunior, *Dialogi* 9.16.1&amp;ndash;2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This translation](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_Peace_of_Mind) runs as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What, too, can a good man hope to obtain when he sees the best of men meeting with the worst fates. **Well, but see how each of them endured his fate, and if they endured it bravely, long in your heart for courage as great as theirs**; if they died in a womanish and cowardly manner, nothing was lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Granted that the translation is free, I still am having trouble justifying it. &quot;Ipsorum animo&quot; appears to be modifying &quot;desidera,&quot; i.e. &quot;Desire with the [same] spirit as these,&quot; but &quot;illos&quot; does not make much sense: &quot;illa&quot; (referring back to &quot;pessima&quot;) seems a better choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **what is the proper parsing and translation of this sentence?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2396" RevisionGUID="c880c97c-ec22-4d47-9a40-d7385b54de78" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Does scansion ever require a synizesis like *u&amp;#x306;u&amp;#x306;* &gt; *&amp;umacr;* or with *u* replaced by another vowel?&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if this should be called synizesis when the two joined vowels have the same quality, but I hope my intention is clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;Here is an artificial example of a hexameter verse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Est suus cuique viro canis et bene doctus amicus.*  &#xD;&#xA;Every man has his dog and a well educated friend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be able to read this as hexameter, one is forced to make the synizesis *u&amp;#x306;u&amp;#x306;* &gt; *&amp;umacr;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was [a question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2155/79) about confusion between *u&amp;#x306;u&amp;#x306;* and *&amp;umacr;*, but this one is about synizesis instead.&#xD;&#xA;An answer to the linked question mentions *i&amp;#x306;i&amp;#x306;t* &gt; *&amp;imacr;t*.&#xD;&#xA;If someone can provide a line where *&amp;imacr;t* is used and *i&amp;#x306;i&amp;#x306;t* would invalidate the metric, that would make a nice answer, although I prefer spelling with two vowels if possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2403" RevisionGUID="3319a9b7-b393-42a7-94eb-1c3779b3d374" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="In English one can write either of these to indicate a height difference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcus is taller than Gaius by a head.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcus is a head taller than Gaius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for an idiomatic way to translate &quot;by a head&quot; in this context.&#xD;&#xA;I found good adjectives for &quot;tall&quot; in [my previous question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2401/79).&#xD;&#xA;A simple start is to drop the measure and write simply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus procerior est quam Gaius.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus Gaio procerior est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To indicate by how much someone is taller than someone else, one should use an ablative of measure (*ablativus mensurae*).&#xD;&#xA;That is, *tribus metris longior* and *chiliogrammate gravius* are the correct ways to say &quot;three meters longer&quot; or &quot;a kilogram heavier&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In this case, this approach leads me to these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus capite procerior est quam Gaius.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus Gaio capite procerior est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if these would be parsed correctly and especially if this would be idiomatic classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;One could read *capite* as an ablative of respect (*ablativus respectus*), leading to the interpretation that Marcus has a taller head than Gaius.&#xD;&#xA;This is not what I want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps one could clarify &quot;by a head&quot; to &quot;by the length/height of a head&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I could use *mensura* or *altitudo* to produce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus mensura capitis procerior est quam Gaius.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Marcus Gaio altitudine capitis procerior est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my best guess.&#xD;&#xA;**How should I translate &quot;by a head&quot; in this context?**&#xD;&#xA;I prefer classical Latin, but I do not require it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2406" RevisionGUID="0a3386f5-1dc4-440b-97bb-5efc6eab8d66" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The first part of your quotation is not from Cicero, but from the *Apologeticus Adversos Gentes pro Christianis* ([3,2][1]) by Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240 AD):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Laudant quae sciunt, vituperant quae ignorant*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;They praise what they know, they blame what they are ignorant of&quot; (transl. by [T.H. Bindley][2]).&#xD;&#xA;It refers to those who blindly blame the christians not even knowing their lives and thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part of your quotation (which you transcripted wrongly) is a typical *sententia* commonly and wrongly ascribed to the *de officis* of Cicero (as you can see for example in the book [*5000 Proverbi e motti latini*][3] by L. De Mauri [Milano : Hoepli 1990], which is not scientifically reliable),  really echoing a concept often expressed by Cicero itself but reformulated to a new thick form at some moment by a late *excerptor* (see, for instance, what wrote [Francesco Villardi][4] in 1932).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *laudari a bonis et vituperari a malis unum atque idem est*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means &quot;Being praised by the good and being censured by the wicked is one and the same&quot; (transl. by [Cerberus][5]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some passages from Cicero's works (where *laudo* and *vitupero* are often juxtaposed) that could have inspired this phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Philippicae* 6,16: *Malui viginti diebus post sententiam meam laudari ab omnibus quam a paucis hodie vituperari* &quot;I thought it better that my motion be praised by everyone in twenty days'time than blamed by a few today&quot; (transl. by [G. Manuwald][6]);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *De oratore* 2,35: *quis vituperare improbos asperius, quis laudare bonos ornatius?* &quot;Who is more harsh in blaming the wicked, who is more graceful in praise the honests?&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *De republica* 4,12: *veteribus displicuisse  Romanis vel laudari quemquam in scaena vivum hominem vel vituperari* &quot;Ancient Romans do not like to praise or blame a living man on the stage&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.monumenta.ch/latein/text.php?tabelle=Tertullianus&amp;rumpfid=Tertullianus,%20Apologeticus%20adversus%20Gentes,%20%20%2003&amp;level=3&amp;domain=&amp;lang=1&amp;id=&amp;hilite_id=&amp;satz=&amp;string=&amp;links=&amp;inframe=1&amp;hide_apparatus=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/bindley_apol/bindley_apol.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.it/books?id=hjiMpXCMCvsC&amp;pg=PA336&amp;lpg=PA336&amp;dq=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=cUZdsXGSZZ&amp;sig=-eatcxPNp85Yf-MB3AYaE6ySMFo&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjphebrpsTRAhXqI8AKHc6hAgMQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.it/books?id=zeJlAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GhmzzzcD2y&amp;sig=o9vz5TarLm6GcEmS4aunze4C4zk&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjphebrpsTRAhXqI8AKHc6hAgMQ6AEINjAG#v=onepage&amp;q=laudari%20a%20bonis%20et%20vituperari%20a%20malis&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/30/cerberus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.it/books?id=nKpvpKeOx44C&amp;pg=PA242&amp;lpg=PA242&amp;dq=Malui%20viginti%20diebus%20post%20sententiam%20meam&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ZHSXcK88mB&amp;sig=fQ263PjxdtjVbLy1P_0Z2P4_Qtg&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi0xKSkqsTRAhWrB8AKHfLiDokQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Malui%20viginti%20diebus%20post%20sententiam%20meam&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2414" RevisionGUID="69373367-1bd6-419e-8232-203d651b9c8c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have read a few excellent threads from this forum on punctuation in classical Latin. The first concerns [what punctuation they used][1], the second concerns [ancient descriptions of punctuation][2], and the third concerns the [progression from scriptio continua to consistent word spacing][3]. I feel like these questions cover the *how* and the *when*, but I would also like to know the *why*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know some reasons why Roman authors never felt a need for word spacing. Is it because writing was always read aloud, and word spacing has more to do with silent reading? Or would it have been so much trouble, that they did not feel it was practical? Or, would the spacing have been irregular, and as a consequence, detract from the aesthetics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a nutshell, do you think that the reasons were mostly practical, aesthetic, or simply that word spacing wouldn't have done much to improve the experience of reading aloud? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/33/what-punctuation-was-used-in-classical-latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2352/ancient-guides-or-descriptions-of-punctuation&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/222/when-did-scriptio-continua-and-interpuncts-give-way-to-spaces-between-words-in-l/450#450" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2431" RevisionGUID="d0e742c9-4e41-416b-8084-a39533cb7338" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="That's actually not a rule. *ab* and *ex* *can* lose their consonant, but in fact it's far more common for them not to. Check out Lewis and Short's entries on them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ex/e&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ex* always before vowels, and elsewhere more frequent than *e*; e. g. in Cic. *Rep*. *e* occurs 19 times, but *ex* 61 times, before consonants—but no rule can be given for the usage; cf., e.g., *ex* and *e* together: “qui ex corporum vinculis tamquam e carcere evolaverunt,” Cic. *Rep*. 6, 14. But certain expressions have almost constantly the same form, as *ex parte*, *ex sententia*, *ex senatus consulto*, *ex lege*, *ex tempore*, etc.; but *e regione*, *e re nata*, *e vestigio*, *e medio*, and *e republica* used adverbially.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ab/a* is more complicated, but you even see archaicisms like *abs te* very frequently. Same thing applies, though: *a* is used less often than *ab* before consonants. Nathaniel [in another thread](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1250/78) posted the relevant part of Lewis and Short concerning when you use *ab* and *a*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ab] has become the principal form and the one most generally used through all periods—and indeed the only one used before all vowels and h; here and there also before some consonants, particularly l, n, r, and s; rarely before c, j, d, t; and almost never before the labials p, b, f, v, or before m.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Worth reading other posts in that thread, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2432" RevisionGUID="28d32da0-5fd4-419d-800b-1e41197787e2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The first thing to note when looking at passages and remarks by Romans about “punctuation” is that it is not always clear at first glance whether they are discussing elements of oral delivery or written marks in a text.  “Punctuation” or *pungere*, after all, simply means to puncture or create a gap which can apply equally to oral or written discourse.  There is, of course, overlap as written punctuation can be a guide to the oral delivery of the text.  Indeed, most references to punctuation that I have found are in treatises on oratory.  Yet the main concern of these writers is that true eloquence should not need written punctuation.  The rhythm of the prose and its delivery by a skilled orator should make such aids superfluous. &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;Thus, while Quintilian writes at length about *commas*, *colons*, and *periods*, he is in fact discussing the pauses and rhythm of speech.  Cicero, too, is typically concerned with elegant oratory rather than punctuation of a text.  So, when he speaks of *interpuncta*, he is often speaking of pauses between words (*interpuncta verborum* De Oratore III.XLVI.181), pauses between ideas (*interpuncta argumentorum* De Oratore II.XLI.177), or pauses in which to catch one’s breath (*interpuncta intervalla, morae respirationesque* Orator XVI.53).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, Seneca’s use of *interpungere* clearly refers to written punctuation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nos etiam cum **scribimus** **interpungere** adsuevimus* / but we [Romans as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; opposed to Greeks] even when **writing** have become accustomed to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **punctuation** (Epistles, XL.11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is interesting because Seneca's argument is that Romans have need of punctuation precisely because of the way they speak, revealing again that overlap between the spoken and the written word.  This overlap, therefore, must account for why the same terms are used (confusingly) to describe the form of both the spoken and the written text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When Cicero refers to written punctuation, it is disparagingly and he explicitly contrasts the &quot;natural&quot; pauses (*interpunctas*) of the orator's speech with the written prompts of a copyist (*notis librariorum*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *interspirationis enim, non defatigationis nostrae neque **librariorum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; notis** sed verborum et sententiarum modo **interpunctas clausulas** in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; orationibus esse voluerunt* / for they wanted a pause for breathing not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because we were tired or because of the **copyists’ marks** but because of the **pointed/distinct endings** of words and sentences  (De&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Oratore III.XLIV.173)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His comment, mentioned above, about the *interductu librari* (Orator LXVIII.228) conveys the same contempt for written punctuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A passage in Quintilian is often interpreted by scholars as alluding to the marking up of texts in order to help young boys learn how best to read them aloud: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *superest lectio: in qua puer ut sciat ubi suspendere spiritum debeat,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **quo loco versum distinguere**, ubi cludatur sensus …* / reading remains [to be discussed]: in this a boy in order to know where he ought to take a breath, **at which place to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; divide the verse**, where the sense ends ... (Institutio Oratoria 1.8.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Distinguere* certainly does mean to separate, divide, or to mark the pauses in a discourse ([Lewis &amp; Short][1]) but it isn’t clear to me that Quintilian is speaking here of written punctuation as the passage seems to be discussing reading aloud.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this use of *distinguere* is definitely used by Suetonius to refer to written punctuation.  Here he describes Marcus Valerius Probus' hobby of writing in copies of texts: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *multaque exemplaria contracta emendare ac **distinguere** et annotare&#xD;&#xA;&gt; curavit* / after gathering many copies, he gave his attention to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; correcting and **punctuating** and annotating them (Lives of Illustrious&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Men: On Grammarians XXIV)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while I couldn't find any extended discussion of punctuation in the works of Roman authors, I think we can at least establish that written punctuation was not a routine addition to texts but that the concept of punctuation existed.  Further, when punctuation was added, it was to mimic or facilitate the oral production of a text.  This probably explains why the terminologies are the same.  I think we can also see that there was resistance to what was perceived as a &quot;crutch&quot; for orators.  The arguments of Cicero and Quintilian support the argument of A. W. Hodgman (&quot;Latin equivalents of punctuation marks&quot; - summarised here: [punctuation in classical Latin][2] ) that the very structure of Latin words and sentences &quot;has very clear equivalents for some of our punctuation marks&quot; making punctuation marks unnecessary (in the eyes of some).      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=distinguere&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/33/what-punctuation-was-used-in-classical-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2438" RevisionGUID="ded0fe7b-bdcd-4772-89f9-1c5e97f525f9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="*This answer has been percolating in my head for a couple of months now.  Given that there haven't been any other attempts to answer it, I've posted it but realise its limitations in providing a clear answer to your question.  It also does not speak at all to the question of Jansenism.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a great question but one that, unfortunately, has no simple (or short!) answer.  Frustratingly, little appears to be written specifically about Latin in science but perhaps we can extrapolate from what is written about Latin in other areas.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;The twin problems of declining use and declining literacy are a chicken-or-egg question.  However, my reading on the topic (see references below) suggests that, initially at least, Latin fell out of favour not so much because of a decrease in Latin literacy but rather because of an explicit desire to replace Latin with the vernacular.  That said, there is a pronounced geographical variance in the rate of the decline of Latin which can’t always be neatly explained.  This would indeed seem to be linked to a rise in political power and nationalism but there are also issues of expression and fluidity at stake as well.  Even so, science was the last bastion for Latin, resisting widespread use of vernacular until quite late.  Gauss, as an example, continued publishing in Latin into the 19th century.  Other areas of activity, writing and thought, however, had already abandoned Latin. &#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;Latin had already started to lose ground in other spheres quite early for purely pragmatic reasons; vernacular language was simply more accessible and egalitarian.  By the 13th century, for instance, Latin was no longer being used in commerce anywhere.  Later in western Europe, Latin was no longer being used in government (e.g. the Ordinance of Villiers-Cotterêts in 1539 in France gave up all Latin in government), the law (e.g. the Statute of Pleading in 1362 in England ordained that court proceedings should be in English), or local administration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this wasn’t happening everywhere in Europe.  Eastern Europe, as an example, retained Latin as the language of officialdom for much longer.  Hungary, for instance, encompassed speakers of Hungarian, German, Czech, Romanian and Croatian.  Thus, Latin was useful as a neutral lingua franca.  It wasn’t until 1790 that it was replaced with German.  Latin in this situation then was a practicality.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, Dutch philosophers such as Spinoza or Huygens continued to publish in Latin simply because few people outside of the Netherlands spoke Dutch.  Scandinavian scholars too published in Latin up until the late 19th century for the same reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This geographical variance is instructive.  Latin’s decline was fastest in centres of political and cultural innovation; slowest on the peripheries.  This suggests that Latin became outmoded or at least unsuitable for **a new cultural climate**.  It also supports the thesis that Latin literacy itself didn’t decline (well, not at first).  If it had, why would smaller, less influential countries continue to publish in it?  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;The French, in particular, sought to elevate the status of French above that of Latin, Greek *and* other vernaculars.  This can be linked to a rise in French **patriotism** from the 1650s which itself is linked to growing **political power**.  This is when we start to see French replacing Latin as a language of diplomacy.  But more than a political or patriotic choice, the use of vernacular could be used as a **statement of principles**. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Consider the example of Descartes who published *Discours de la méthode* in French in 1637.  This was subsequently *translated into Latin* but not until 1656.  This was a deliberate choice due to Descartes’ desire to distance himself from the scholastics and to be understood by “even children and women”.  The link between one’s political stance and language is even more obvious in Hobbes.   His *De Cive* of 1650 was originally published in Latin but quickly translated into English.  *Leviathan* (1651), however, was published in English and only translated into Latin in 1658.  This is because Hobbes was explicitly writing for an English post-Civil War audience.  His message: that all legitimate political power must be &quot;representative&quot; and based on the consent of the people.  This surely is a message to be given in the people’s own language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For similar reasons of **accessibility**, Luther (in 1522) and Tynedale (in 1525) had already translated the Bible into German and English respectively.  Speaking of his translation, Luther said “we are removing impediments and difficulties so that other people may read it without hindrance.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, Latin increasingly came to be thought of as **a language of the past and of imitation**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural, spontaneous, nuanced expression in Latin was difficult.    Even as early as the 17th century, Latin was seen as an ossified means of expression and subsequently fell out of favour for new, creative literary output.  The last era of creative literary output in Latin in England, for example, was ca. 1530-1640, with vernacular literature replacing it.  In fact, in England, Latin never really had a strong hold on the market.  As early as the late 1500s, Latin works only accounted for 10% of publications.  In France, by 1764 Latin titles accounted for less than 5% of publications.  And in Germany, by 1681, German books outnumbered Latin ones. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In France, defenders of Latin were seen as snobbish, unpatriotic, uncreative, cowardly and hidebound.  The following verse by Desmarets written in 1675 illustrates this (quoted in Argaud):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *Amans trop obstinez de la langue Latine,  Qui toujours attachez sur les mesmes écrits,  Ne s’éloignent jamais de leur vielle routine ; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qui n’aspirant qu’au rang d’imitateurs,  Ne peuvent s’élever plus haut&#xD;&#xA;&gt; que leurs Autheurs.  Pauvres imitateurs, ne faites point les braves …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Lovers who persist too much with the Latin language,  Who always stick to the same writings,  Are never far from their old routine; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Who, aspiring only to the rank of imitators,  Can’t elevate themselves&#xD;&#xA;&gt; any higher than their Authors.  Poor imitators, don’t pretend to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; brave …  (caveat: my own translation!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These same constraints must have also been felt in the **sciences**.  Why it held on for so long, I can only speculate.  Tradition may be one reason, prestige and perhaps even credibility another.  Apparently, Gauss published in Latin “not from internationalist sentiments but at the demands of his publishers” [quoted here][1].  Perhaps too there was an idea that universal ideas should be able to be expressed in a universal language.  For Pike, writing in 1918, Latin was abandoned as an international scientific language because it was simply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; felt to be **a restraint upon untrammeled expression of thought**. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; classicists did all they could to assist its disuse by insisting upon&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the employment of a Ciceronian diction which science had outgrown.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nothing is so restive under restraint as the expression of creative&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thought … Modern thought expresses itself naturally in languages of an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; analytic, not in those of a synthetic, character. It takes long and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; severe training to accustom the modern man to express himself readily&#xD;&#xA;&gt; through the synthetic medium of Latin. (p. 53)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, perhaps Latin became less and less a useful medium for expressing increasingly complex ideas.  It did, however, retain its hold in the “descriptive sciences” – astronomy, geology, palaeontology, medicine, zoology, botany – precisely because of its strict precision which is tailor-made for taxonomic labels.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;REFERENCES:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Evelyne Argaud, ‘Les enjeux des représentations des langues savantes et vulgaires en France et en Europe aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles.  Affirmer des prééminences et construire une hiérarchisation’, *Documents pour l’histoire du français langue étrangère ou seconde*, [vol. 23][2], 2009 (mise en ligne 2011). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nicholas Ostler, *[Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin][3]*, Harper Collins, London, 2007.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joseph B. Pike, ‘Can Latin be Revived as an International Scientific Language?’, in *The Classical Journal*, [vol. 14, no. 1][4], October 1918, pp. 48-55.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1372/what-is-the-history-of-scientific-latin?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://dhfles.revues.org/815&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=uACEKyHg670C&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/details/jstor-3288192" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2442" RevisionGUID="c3152ae7-b7dc-457d-b86f-4e8186a658ee" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="If I am interpreting this question correctly, I do believe that there are a few examples of this. &#xD;&#xA;From Book I of Vergil's *Aeneid*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**586** Vix ea fatus erat, cum *circumfusa* repente &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**587** scindit se nubes et in aethera purgat apertum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**588** Restitit Aeneas claraque in luce refulsit, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**589** os umerosque deo similis; namque ipsa decoram&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**590** caesariem nato genetrix lumenque iuventae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**591** purpureum et laetos oculis adflarat honores:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**592** quale manus addunt ebori decus, aut ubi flavo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**593** argentum Pariusve lapis *circumdatur* auro.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we see the words *circumfusa*, from *circumfundo, circumfundere, circumfudi, circumfusus* meaning &quot;pour around&quot; and *circumdatur*, from *circumdo, circumdare, circumdedi, circumdatus* meaning &quot;surround&quot; or &quot;envelop&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other example I can think of off the top of my head would be [*concresco*][1], which was referenced in a question earlier this month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a helpful list on the [Tuft's website][2] with many different compound verbs; examples of verbs with preposition prefixes are about halfway down the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2318/does-concrescere-take-dative&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Apart%3D1%3Asection%3D31" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2447" RevisionGUID="e7060b26-b1fa-4fbf-a6c7-a874619a6284" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently left [an unnecessary comment](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2443/why-idolatria-instead-of-idololatria/2444?noredirect=1#comment6220_2444) because I could not resist telling a bad joke.&#xD;&#xA;That made me wonder: **What would be a good (classical) Latin word for a bad quality joke?**&#xD;&#xA;The joke can be any kind of short joke, wordplay or similar, but it has to be of terrible quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is entirely possible that there is no single word for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;A suggestion or two with an explanation of how they fit the bill would be great.&#xD;&#xA;For those who know Finnish, I am more or less looking for a translation of &quot;puujalkavitsi&quot; (literally &quot;peg leg joke&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;I do not know of a comparable expression in English; I would simply say that a joke or pun is terrible or corny.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for an idiomatic expression for a bad joke, preferably in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(To make this easier to find, let me repeat the key question in Finnish: Miten sanotaan &quot;puujalkavitsi&quot; latinaksi?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2453" RevisionGUID="f66a7ecf-65c3-4042-82e6-ea783b70db9d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Qua voce Latina tradidi potest vox Anglica &quot;application&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Non de theoria adhibenda ago, sed de programmatis telephonulorum (sive telephonorum mobilium) vel computatrorum.&#xD;&#xA;Nescio an &quot;applicatio&quot;, e quo vox illa Anglica orta est, aptum sit.&#xD;&#xA;Quibus vocibus uteris, si hanc rem Latine describere debes, et quare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Hoc rogatum](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/196/79) verbum &quot;to program&quot; sive &quot;to code&quot; petit.&#xD;&#xA;Dissimile mihi videtur vocem &quot;application&quot; Latine reddere, quamvis haec res forsitan connexus inter se habent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2458" RevisionGUID="f205fb9e-cf84-4960-ba26-c997100dabd7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="When I was composing [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2453/79) yesterday, I wanted to ask this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which words would you suggest me to use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to do it using *hortari* and an *ut*-clause.&#xD;&#xA;I was looking for a question form of this statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You suggest that I use these words.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Me hortaris, ut his vocibus utar.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to convert this into a question?&#xD;&#xA;I was unable to do so, so I worked around it, but I would still like to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without the suggestion the conversion would be easy: *his vobibus utor* becomes *quibus vocibus utor?* (&quot;which words do I use?&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;But replacing the pronoun *his* with an interrogative sounds awfully fishy if it happens in a subordinate clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Me hortaris, ut quibus vocibus utar?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could break the subordinate clause and bring *quibus* to a position where it sounds like an interrogative pronoun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quibus vocibus me hortaris, ut utar?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not sound perfect either, and it is prone to misinterpretation.&#xD;&#xA;The instrumental ablative *quibus vocibus* is supposed to modify *utar*, not *hortaris*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there examples of questions like this in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps an example of this exact structure does not exist, but hopefully something that would help composing this question by analogy.&#xD;&#xA;If such questions are nowhere to be found, I am prepared to conclude that there is no grammatical way to structure a question from my starting point.&#xD;&#xA;In that case I would like suggestions for asking my question in good classical Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2462" RevisionGUID="61a91f12-1a41-4d06-91af-cabbda44161b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some time ago I asked [about the missing imperative of *velle*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2369/79).&#xD;&#xA;The answer indicated an old imperative (or indicative) second person singular form, *vel*, and that this word became a conjunction.&#xD;&#xA;I am familiar with the verb *velle* and conjunction *vel*, but the connection between them is not entirely clear.&#xD;&#xA;(It had never even occurred to me that the two words might be related.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone explain how *velle* gave rise to *vel*?&#xD;&#xA;What benefit is there in viewing *vel* as a verb form?&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if I can formulate a sensible question, but I would like to understand the relation between *velle* and *vel* better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2476" RevisionGUID="cf7489d8-99c3-4b63-b3fb-d592be29f6bb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="(Inspired by the comments on [this answer][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive of obligation is a wonderful little idiom in Latin, as in Cato's famous mantra&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Carthāgō dēlenda est* &quot;Carthage must be destroyed&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, *dēleō* is a normal transitive verb meaning &quot;destroy&quot;. So if Cato ever achieved his goal, we could write normal passive sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Carthāgō dēlētur* &quot;Carthage is being destroyed&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Carthāgō dēlēta est* &quot;Carthage was destroyed&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what happens when the verb involved is not so simple?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, *patior* is deponent, but can still take an accusative object:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Caesar patitur aliquid* &quot;Caesar endured something&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I wanted to make a gerundive of obligation from *patior*, would it mean &quot;X must endure&quot; or &quot;X must be endured&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus: do these verbs act differently with regard to regular *gerundives* versus specifically *gerundives of obligation*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2460/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2480" RevisionGUID="122953e0-b590-41be-8527-4d5db8cb242b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="(Split off from [my previous question][1] about gerundives of deponent verbs.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a transitive verb, it's fairly simple to convert a sentence from active to passive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; X-nom VERB-active Y-acc = Y-nom VERB-passive [ā] X-abl&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; egō canō virum = vir canitur ā mē  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I speak of the man = the man is spoken of by me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But not all verbs take an accusative object. *Reminīscor* &quot;recall&quot; takes a genitive, *faveō* &quot;favor&quot; dative, and *fruor* &quot;enjoy&quot; the ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally I just wouldn't use these verbs in the passive: many of them are already deponent, after all. But as mentioned in the previous question, certain constructions (like the gerundive of obligation) don't have an active equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How are these constructions used with such verbs? Could I use gerundives to say that something &quot;must be recalled&quot;, &quot;must be favored&quot;, or &quot;must be enjoyed&quot;, for instance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2476/intransitive-gerundives-of-obligation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2516" RevisionGUID="5c72b841-1f91-4c64-9ce0-317781cc7158" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Asked the inverse of this [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2509/i-make-create-therefore-i-am) but when I thought about it I preferred the opposite sentiment. Not that one exists because they make things but that they make things because they exist, as in there is no other choice. It is a compulsion of existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, would there be a proper translation that would make sense for &quot;I exist, therefore I make&quot;? (So the inverse of &quot;Facio Ergo Sum&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2522" RevisionGUID="92cea254-3a08-48da-913c-bafc794406dc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't know if this is specifically the answer you are looking for, but I can explain the different case endings for nouns and verb forms.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Let's start off with nouns.**   &#xD;&#xA;Nouns in the first declension are typically feminine, with the exception of the Latin words for poet (*poeta, poetae*) and farmer (*agricola, agricolae*). I do believe that there is one other, but it is slipping my mind at the present moment. Here is a chart of endings for the first declension.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     |  &lt;b&gt;Singular&lt;/b&gt;  |  &lt;b&gt; Plural &lt;/b&gt; |&#xD;&#xA;-----|------------|-----------|&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Nom&lt;/b&gt; |     -a     |    -ae    |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Gen&lt;/b&gt; |     -ae    |   -ārum   |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Dat&lt;/b&gt; |     -ae    |    -īs    |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Acc&lt;/b&gt; |     -am    |    -ās    |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Abl&lt;/b&gt; |     -ā     |    -īs    |&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nouns in the second declension are masculine and neuter. The case endings are slightly different between the two declensions, so I have noted the neuter variations in parentheses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     |  &lt;b&gt;Singular&lt;/b&gt;  |  &lt;b&gt; Plural &lt;/b&gt; |&#xD;&#xA;-----|------------|-----------|&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Nom&lt;/b&gt; | -us (-um)  |   -ī (-a) |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Gen&lt;/b&gt; |    -ī      |   -ōrum   |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Dat&lt;/b&gt; |    -ō      |    -īs    |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Acc&lt;/b&gt; |    -um     |  -ōs (-a) |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Abl&lt;/b&gt; |    -ō      |    -īs    |&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nouns in the third declension can be masculine, feminine, common (can be either masculine or feminine), or neuter. Again, the neuter variations are in parentheses.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     |  &lt;b&gt;Singular&lt;/b&gt;  |  &lt;b&gt; Plural &lt;/b&gt; |&#xD;&#xA;-----|------------|-----------|&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Nom&lt;/b&gt; |  (varies)  |  -ēs (-a) |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Gen&lt;/b&gt; |     -is    |    -um    |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Dat&lt;/b&gt; |     -ī     |   -ībus   |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Acc&lt;/b&gt; |     -em (&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;)|  -ēs (-a) |&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;Abl&lt;/b&gt; |     -e     |   -ībus   |&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Matches nominative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a 4th declension which contains mostly masculine nouns, and a 5th declension which is all feminine save for the word for &quot;day&quot; which is *diēs*. I can explain these if you would like, but they are generally less common than the aforementioned three declensions.  &#xD;&#xA;You may also be wondering about the cases. I'll give a brief explanation below, as I do not know how much you have investigated about this particular area. Keep in mind that this does not cover all the particular uses for each case, but it should give you a relatively useful foundation.  &#xD;&#xA;**Nominative (nom)**: the subject of the sentence  (ex: the **cat** chases the mouse)  &#xD;&#xA;**Genitive (gen)**: typically indicates possession (the thief took the **queen's** crown)  &#xD;&#xA;**Dative (dat)**: used for reference and as an indirect object with the words &quot;to&quot; or &quot;for&quot; (ex: she gives to the **charity**)  &#xD;&#xA;**Accusative (acc)**: the direct object of the sentence (ex: the cat chases the **mouse**)  &#xD;&#xA;**Ablative (abl)**: used in various prepositional phrases (ex: the cavalry on the **bridge** was marching with the **king**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Now for verbs!**   &#xD;&#xA;There are 4 conjugations of verbs, creatively named first, second, third (of which third-io is a sub-conjugation), and fourth.  &#xD;&#xA;You can see [examples of the different conjugations][1] in one of my previous answers, as I don't want to make this answer too lengthy.  &#xD;&#xA;However, I did not include examples of 3rd-io verbs in that answer, so here are a couple:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*capio, capere, cepi, captum* = seize, capture  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*facio, facere, feci, factum* = do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your last few questions from a general standpoint, noun declensions and verb conjugations allow you to make all the different forms for words so that they can be used in various purposes.  &#xD;&#xA;I hope this explanation helps, let me know if you would like any clarification or additional information!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2221/translating-mankind-evolves-and-two-other-two-word-phrases/2222#2222" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2529" RevisionGUID="4cbb7a75-31d1-4c70-86c0-de9d2e93f474" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="In general, you can translate &quot;I X, therefore I Y&quot; into Latin as *X ergo Y* (with &#xD;&#xA;appropriate conjugation of the verbs).&#xD;&#xA;Even more so if you want a reference to [Renatus Cartesius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes).&#xD;&#xA;The only remaining question is to find appropriate translations for the verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As discussed in the [previous question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2509/79), &quot;I am&quot; is well translated by *sum* and &quot;I make&quot; by *facio*.&#xD;&#xA;Thus *sum ergo facio* is a good translation in the specific case you ask about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can easily construct similar phrases with other verbs.&#xD;&#xA;Many dictionaries list verbs with just the right form (present active indicative first person singular), so you only need to find the verbs that fit your needs.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to explore different options, I suggest you start by entering an English verb of your choice to some [online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) and then look at the translations from Latin to English from each candidate on your list of Latin verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2538" RevisionGUID="1d1e996c-79c4-46d4-966a-866f9d020463" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I learned from TKR's answer to [this question about neuter endings](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2536/79) that the neuter pronoun *hoc* is pronounced like *hocc*, causing it to be scanned long despite having a short vowel.&#xD;&#xA;I had never heard of this before, but I want to understand better.&#xD;&#xA;This leads me to some questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Can you provide a couple of examples of nominative or accusative *hoc* followed by a vowel and scanned long?&#xD;&#xA;- Are there examples in classical poetry that treat *hoc* normally, scanning it short before a vowel?&#xD;&#xA;- Are there other words that unexpectedly scan long always or often? I suspect the suffix *-ce* might lead to this effect. This question includes other forms of the same pronoun, especially the masculine *hic*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2568" RevisionGUID="a45387b1-63a4-41ab-9fb6-78e6344d1f95" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are several noticeable differences between Latins, but I think that the most important would be the vocabulary and [punctuation][1]. Rather than using *sum* and *eram*, in Medieval Latin, one might use *fui* and *fueram*. New Latin and even Renaissance Latin adopted many words from Old French, Greek, and similar languages, like *systema* and *nostalgia*. Sentence spacing also came about in the fifteenth century, as well as an even earlier example of paragraphs in the Lyon Table.&#xD;&#xA;(EDIT)&#xD;&#xA;Also pay attention to spellings. If *caelum* is spelled &quot;*coelum*&quot;, the text comes from Medieval times, but I have seen alternate spellings like this as far as 1658, when *Orbis Sensualium Pictus* was published.&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, note that inscriptions from at least 150 AD confuse or simply incorrectly spell words by [interchanging &quot;f&quot; and &quot;ph.&quot;][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/33/what-punctuation-was-used-in-classical-latin?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/649/when-did-ph-start-to-be-pronounced-like-f" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2588" RevisionGUID="f3da8121-f461-47ff-88b3-7c76667a8371" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="After reading the comments in [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2577/john-316-in-latin), I wanted to clarify whether a certain proposed usage of *tam* is appropriate. In it, *tam* was proposed as an emphatic alternative to *sic*, when correlated with *ut*, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tam enim eam amabam ut omnia ei darem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;For I loved her so much that I gave her everything.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If this was not the proposed construction, please let me know!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: **Can *tam* be correlated with *ut* in this way?** Seeing *tam* used &quot;alone&quot; with a verb strikes me as strange: I am used to seeing it used with an adjective or adverb (&quot;tam bonus sum&quot;) and/or correlated with *quam*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2591" RevisionGUID="258723b6-8f1d-49fe-b9ba-bfbc68867a3b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="##Question 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't go with &quot;wanted&quot; per se, but *fugitīvus* (literally &quot;runaway&quot;). This comes from *fugiō* &quot;to flee&quot; and referred to rebellious slaves and military deserters. Presumably this &quot;wanted&quot; person is evading pursuit in a similar manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tom Cotton has also suggested *captandus* (or *captanda* for a woman), literally something like &quot;needs to be captured&quot;. This is closer to the English meaning and sounds more elegant in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Question 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They did indeed! The Romans used different symbols for the different values of currency, like our £ versus $ versus ¢. The relationships between them fluctuated over time, but for most of the Classical period the *dēnārius* was the most common coin, and also the largest to have its symbol in Unicode: .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *as*  &#xD;&#xA; - *dupondius*  &#xD;&#xA; - *sēstertius*  &#xD;&#xA; - *quīnārius*  &#xD;&#xA; - *dēnārius*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If those Unicode symbols don't show up, here's an image.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![image version of the above][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pattern here is fairly simple: the Roman numeral with a line through it. So  was originally worth X (that is, ten) *assēs*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Question 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few different &quot;or&quot;s in Latin: primarily *aut*, *vel*, and *-ve*. More info on them is available [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, it sounds like you don't care whether they're dead or alive, either one is perfectly acceptable. So I'd use *X vel Y*, or the even weaker enclitic form, *X-ve Y-ve*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EGmOK.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/40/whats-the-difference-between-vel-aut-ve-et-cetera" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2612" RevisionGUID="959533ad-efb5-4aa8-a1ef-f779a1c9ca04" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am puzzled about the syntactical role of *ecce* and *en*.&#xD;&#xA;I feel comfortable using them with nouns (*ecce camelopardalis meus*, &quot;here is my giraffe&quot; or &quot;look, my giraffe&quot;), and I would like to know if they are compatible with verbs.&#xD;&#xA;For example, if I want to say &quot;Behold, the lion eats!&quot;, which one should I pick:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Verb in personal form: *Ecce leo edit!*&#xD;&#xA;- Participle: *Ecce leo edens!*&#xD;&#xA;- Or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This came up when I tried to answer [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2489/79) and translate &quot;here comes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I realized that I don't know how to combine verbs with *ecce* or *en*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2619" RevisionGUID="edd6ce2e-c07a-4ea9-978c-ef8d8017bf49" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="It must be *que*.&#xD;&#xA;The conjunction *-que* is very common in Latin, and it is no surprise it has it's own symbol.&#xD;&#xA;For example *suumque* is ([almost](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1/79)) the same as *et suum* and means &quot;and his own&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The excerpt you have is a fragment, and the exact translation depends on more context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2631" RevisionGUID="61eff9f7-097d-4b22-b84d-fcb9145330a1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was reading Orberg's *Lingua Latina per se Illustrata* and I found the following sentences: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcus et Quīntus sunt dūo filiī. [...] In familia Rõmāna tres līberī sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I deduce both words mean &quot;children&quot;, but where would I use one or another? (I looked up at some dictionaries but didn't explained the difference).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** This question has led to some kind of debate whether liberī is only applied to children that are born-free. [See it][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2639/does-liberi-only-refer-to-free-children" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2639" RevisionGUID="eccccc41-fd8c-4d3e-b231-d6530d35980a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="This issue came up in an answer and comments to [this earlier question about comparing *liberi* and *filii*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2631/79), and I think it's important enough to be treated in a separate question.&#xD;&#xA;Also, the answer to this one is not really crucial for the other question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does *liberi* only refer to free children?&#xD;&#xA;It would make sense since this word for children looks a lot like the adjective &quot;free&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But this could be coincidental, or the connection could have been lost.&#xD;&#xA;What are the most important reasons to believe one way or another, or to believe that it is not or cannot be known?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2668" RevisionGUID="cb4c5893-8e16-40c9-9063-705cec63f117" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Two problems in a glosserd Genesis from southern France. The topic is the double narrative of the Creation of Man.&#xD;&#xA;This problem is [another][1] siglum / abbreviation using **‘z’**. In this case it is not  shorthand for ‘-que.’ But what is this cluster of letters near the end of the fifth line and what does it mean, please.  **[fz?sz?n/v?ot/r?e]**  &#xD;&#xA;[![ [fz?sz?n/v?ot/r?e]][2]][2]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ALCUINus . Quattuor modis operatur deus./ Primo in uerbo .ii.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inmateria informi .Vn. . [quunum] e/ternum creavit omnia simul&#xD;&#xA;&gt; .tertio. per opera .vi. diebus varias distinx creaturas .quarto. ex&#xD;&#xA;&gt; primordialibus / seminibus, non incognitae oriuntur naturae&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **[fz?sz?n/v?ot/r?e]** saepius / ne pereant reformantur.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![ALCUIN gloss Genesis][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*My translation so far:*  God operates in four modes. First, in the Word. .ii. in unformed material .The One. [quunum] eternal/eternity created all things simultaneously .thirdly. through works in .six. days he distinguished various creatures. .Fourthly. from primordial seeds, there arose natures not unknown **[fz?sz?n/v?ot/r?e]** quite often are formed again so that they do not perish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2617/latin-ligature-qz&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XJnce.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nadfU.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2674" RevisionGUID="4dc0d711-392e-4fd2-8c40-8a4da1c134b5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="It says *Vn~*, so vn with a general mark of abbreviation. This mark normally stands for *-de* if it is written above an *-n* at the end of a word (provided that *-de* fits), so it must be *unde* here, &quot;whence&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found an 18th-century print edition of the *Sententiae* of Petrus Lombardus that has a similar use of *unde* with partly the same text, and introducing the same quotation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Secundo, in materia informi quatuor elementorum, de nihilo creando : **unde**, Qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Petrus Lombardus, *Sententiae*, Book II, Distinctio XII, [final paragraph][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per [this suggestion][2], I'll post a link to the [full transcription][3] of the passage in this other answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=7g5bAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA214&amp;lpg=PA214&amp;dq=in%20materia%20informi%20Unde%20qui%20vivit&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=wrTiUqQMlE&amp;sig=M4-hK_W0OZz3CAQPKvRdsXaYhXQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=in%20materia%20informi%20Unde%20qui%20vivit&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35488722#35488722&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/another-z-siglum-abbreviation-not-que" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2678" RevisionGUID="a73dbb32-dd06-4a44-9b94-0b4ef1ef03ec" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I suggest this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Non semper mihi ipsi consentio.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do not always agree with myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also use *assentio(r)* instead of *consentio*.&#xD;&#xA;To compare the two, you can check an [online Latin dictionary of your preference](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In cases like this I would use *me ipsum / mihi ipsi / &amp;hellip;* (depending on the needed case) for &quot;myself&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2685" RevisionGUID="3559f98e-01e5-4c54-b690-648fbc9ae6af" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Why did Roman authors never feel a need for word spacing?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting question because the Romans certainly accepted the notion of word division, at least until about 100 AD, at which point Romans adopted *scriptio continua* in imitation of the Greeks, a move that at least one scholar has called a “[deplorable regression][1]”.  This word division had been marked chiefly via *[interpuncta][2]*, a system probably inherited from the Etruscans, but not spaces between words.  So, to rephrase your question a little: if you’re going to have word division, why use dots and not spaces?  After all, if “punctuation” or *pungere* means to puncture or to create a gap, why not insert a literal gap in the text?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, Romans had gaps in their speech.  Cicero, for instance, when writing about oratory, often refers to pauses between words (*interpuncta verborum* De Oratore III.XLVI.181), pauses between ideas (interpuncta argumentorum De Oratore II.XLI.177), and pauses in which to catch one’s breath (*interpuncta intervalla, morae respirationesque* Orator XVI.53).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But [Saenger][3] suggests that Romans’ reliance on reading aloud made indicating these pauses visually with spaces in the text redundant.  And while the lack of spaces may have made comprehension difficult, he argues that reading was confined to a small, elite group and thus there was no incentive to make reading easier.  Indeed, your ability to decipher a text may have been a marker of your belonging to that elite group.&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;**Reading with your ears, not your eyes**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at Latin sources, I can certainly find a lot of evidence of how essential hearing a text was to the understanding of it.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;For example, Quintilian insists that a text needs to be heard by his students in order for their eyes to make sense of it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *… et hercule **praelectio** quae in hoc adhibetur ut facile atque distincte pueri scripta **oculis** sequantur …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; … and indeed **reading aloud**, which is to be employed, so that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; boys can easily and clearly follow the writing **with their eyes** … &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian, *Institutio Oratoria*, 2.5.4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero repeatedly claims that the ear is the best judge of good writing.  One example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *… ut qui vellet **auribus ipsis** quid numerosum*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; … so that he who will may judge by the ear alone what is rhythmical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cicero, *Orator*, LXVII.226&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And elsewhere, he writes that a period should be arranged ‘so as to satisfy the ear’ (*ut et auris impleat*) Cicero, *Orator*, LXVI.221&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, rearranging the words and therefore the rhythm of a text may keep the sense intact but this is not the point, Cicero argues.  It is a practice ‘with which I disagree. “But the words are the same, the meaning is the same” [you say].  That satisfies the mind, not the ears …’ &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *… a quo dissentio. “At eadem verba, eadem sententia”.  Animo istud satis est, **auribus non satis** …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cicero, *Orator*, LXIII.215&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, Quintilian on the difficulty of keeping voice and eyes on the same page (as it were) when reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *… et quod difficillimum est, dividenda intentio animi **ut aliud voce aliud oculis agatur***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; … and most difficult of all, dividing the attention of the mind, so&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the voice does one thing, the eyes another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian, *Institutio Oratoria*, 1.1.34&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saenger would argue that it’s only when reading becomes a contemplative, private and silent act that spaces start to appear because this is easier and quicker to comprehend in one’s head.  Certainly, [many studies][4] have shown that inserting spaces into text improves reading speed, even in languages that do not normally use spaces ([including Thai][5]).  However, making reading easy and quick was never the aim for Roman authors.  Reading wasn’t private, it wasn’t about quiet time or for quickly searching for information, all of which is a very modern understanding of the function of reading.    &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Instead, the lack of punctuation at time of publication and, indeed, the lack of spaces, meant that all texts needed intense preparation before they could be read with any ease and certainly before they could be read aloud.  [Parkes][6] notes that reading aloud at first sight would have been “unusual and unexpected”.  This is why the *praelectio* was such a feature of Roman reading and also why texts were marked up by copyists (the *notis librariorum* Cicero disliked so much), even when *interpuncta* were common.  It also led to confusion, especially once *scriptio continua* was embraced.  Even [grammarians][7] could not agree on meaning due to differing opinions about word division.  Does *Aeneid* 2.798 read *collectam ex Ilio pubem*/a people gathered from Troy or *collectam exilio pubem*/a people gathered for exile?  Is it *conspicit ursus*/a bear sees or *conspicitur sus*/a sow is seen?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I would argue that Romans did feel a need for “word spacing” insofar as they needed help in discerning the pauses, breaks and gaps between words, ideas and sentences.  We have evidence that once the text had been heard, many Romans felt compelled to mark their texts with [annotations][8] that approximated what they had heard.  However, perhaps because of the reliance on oral/aural cues in reading, it never seemed to occur to them to represent these *intervalla* visually by inserting literal gaps into text. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, the concept of spacing text was used in one particular context: [texts][9] aimed at those learning Latin in the 3rd to 7th centuries AD, a period during which *scriptio continua* was in vogue.  A combination of spaces, columns and/or various punctuation symbols were routinely used to make absolutely clear to the (typically Greek) student where one word ended and another began, or to indicate groups of words that formed a grammatical unit, or to separate *lemmata* from glosses.  Of course, this could use up a lot space and in some cases where space was at a premium, such as in a trilingual text, the words would be run together.  But then another less spacious form of word division was employed.  It seems a strange irony that Latin gave up word division to mimic Greek *scriptio continua* but then had to employ word division so that Greeks could learn Latin!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=e7aRMnnRMUcC&amp;pg=PA94&amp;source=gbs_toc_r&amp;cad=4#v=snippet&amp;q=deplorable&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/33/what-punctuation-was-used-in-classical-latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Space_Between_Words.html?id=w3vZaFoaa3EC&amp;redir_esc=y&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698901001328&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/2122/1/Cogsci%2797-thai.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=QCaoDQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT37&amp;lpg=PT37&amp;dq=Antiquity:%20Aids%20for%20Inexperienced%20Readers%20and%20the%20Prehistory%20of%20Punctuation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=h0n6c6s2wY&amp;sig=OcU4LHFeXBSV3eo5QMq8NueZLHA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwichMqf6JjSAhWFUbwKHcJbAvkQ6AEILDAE#v=snippet&amp;q=at%20first%20sight&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=QCaoDQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT37&amp;lpg=PT37&amp;dq=Antiquity:%20Aids%20for%20Inexperienced%20Readers%20and%20the%20Prehistory%20of%20Punctuation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=h0n6c6s2wY&amp;sig=OcU4LHFeXBSV3eo5QMq8NueZLHA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwichMqf6JjSAhWFUbwKHcJbAvkQ6AEILDAE#v=snippet&amp;q=servius&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2352/ancient-guides-or-descriptions-of-punctuation/2432#2432&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.academia.edu/31485366/Word_division_in_bilingual_texts_2017_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2716" RevisionGUID="a81b8373-ca05-4dfd-99de-2961ae1dcb55" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Your translation is correct. I, too, would repeat the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned in [this other question][1], it is very rare to find a noun governed by two prepositions. And I was unable to find such a construction where the two prepositions should have introduced two *different* cases; so perhaps that just never occurred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it did, I suspect the Romans would have used the case demanded by the preposition closest to the noun, considering that they regularly do the same thing with agreement (I think it's usually *stulta est puella aut puer quemcumque heri hic videbam*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2215/can-conjunctions-be-used-to-join-prepositions-with-the-same-object" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2770" RevisionGUID="5fb36e28-5608-43dd-a816-8b92d9bd2e92" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Were questions in written classical Latin ever indicated by anything other than the meanings of the words&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and the context?&#xD;&#xA;That is, was there a &quot;question mark&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Here a &quot;question mark&quot; can mean some form of punctuation, but it could be any kind of signal.&#xD;&#xA;For a silly example, one could indicate a question by increasing the size of letters towards the end of the question.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for non-verbal signals used in writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read the question [&quot;What punctuation was used in Classical Latin?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/33/79) and I know the modern question mark is younger.&#xD;&#xA;I am under the impression that a question would normally not be marked in any way, but was this always the case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This excludes question words like *quare*, *quis*, *num*, and *-ne*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2788" RevisionGUID="7e3001a5-7d5b-45a6-8119-f5da564509ff" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="In Greek, past tenses are formed with &quot;augmentation,&quot; e.g. present -&gt; imperfect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* λῡ́ω &gt; ἔλῡον&#xD;&#xA;* εὑρῐ́σκω &gt; ηὕρῐσκον&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we know that certain Latin verbs [preserve perfect reduplication](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/606/which-verbs-have-reduplicated-perfect-stems), I wonder: **do any Latin verbs also preserve a temporal augment**? One potential example immediately comes to mind: *ago &gt; egi*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, **is there any rule we can point to by which some Latin perfect stems are reduplicated, others are augmented, and the rest are formed according to the normal rules?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2794" RevisionGUID="e168a8e4-6cfe-4c20-8d28-9bf7dab6e489" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Textbooks tell us that the only common (in the sense of not proper) nouns that have a locative case are *rūs* &quot;countryside&quot; and *domus* &quot;home&quot;. However, I'm familiar with two expressions that use coordinated nouns in the locative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *domī mīlitiaeque* &quot;at home and on campaign&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *terrā marīque* &quot;by land and by sea&quot; (ETA: I shouldn't have referred to these as locatives -- the first is clearly ablative and the second probably likewise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I only recall seeing the locative forms *mīlitiae, terrā, marī* as part of those fixed expressions, not by themselves. Are they ever used by themselves? Do classical authors use *mīlitiae* for &quot;on campaign&quot; outside of the phrase *domī mīlitiaeque*, etc.?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Prompted by [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2791/best-translation-for-at-sea).)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2801" RevisionGUID="b0fca57d-6eea-4ba7-a6b1-7e53b90068af" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I suggest that you take a look at [this old question about similar structures](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1108/79).&#xD;&#xA;The conclusion was that present tense is the way to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin has an adverb *diu*, meaning roughly &quot;for a long time&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I would ask &quot;how long?&quot; as *quam diu?* instead of using the word *tempus*.&#xD;&#xA;If you do use *tempus*, remember that it's a neuter (not *quantus tempus*).&#xD;&#xA;Lengths of time are usually indicated with the accusative and the ablative doesn't fit your dog example, so one option would be the accusative *quantum tempus*.&#xD;&#xA;But *quam diu* sounds far more idiomatic to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I'd suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;How long have you been a dog?&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;*Quam diu canis es?*  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;I have been a dog four or five years now.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;Canis sum iam quattuor aut quinque annos." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2821" RevisionGUID="7dcfaabe-813a-49a0-aba3-ad2e524b02ea" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is not a full answer, but I can't resist giving it.&#xD;&#xA;If you can specify your question, you are likely to get more specific answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The online Latin community I suggest is **this site**.&#xD;&#xA;As you have no doubt noticed, our main working language is English and the user interface is in English, but using Latin to ask and answer questions is always allowed.&#xD;&#xA;If you browse through the questions on this site, you will come across some Latin ones &amp;mdash; but admittedly only a small fraction.&#xD;&#xA;And beware: this site is not for free form discussion, but for questions and answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site also has a part for more free discussion: [our chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm).&#xD;&#xA;Participating requires [earning some reputation on this main site](https://latin.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/chat), but you have already passed that threshold with this question.&#xD;&#xA;Again, the chat is mostly English, but Latin is more frequent there than elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;And all users there know Latin, more or less, so feel free to drop in and say hi in Latin anytime.&#xD;&#xA;The chat activity level varies greatly, because only a small number of users are active chatters.&#xD;&#xA;Don't be afraid to write if no one is there; someone entering the room and writing something is how discussions usually start." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2839" RevisionGUID="c04386bf-7c84-496d-b012-73ea3354fa39" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="When reading [this question's accepted answer][1] about phrases for forgetting, I saw the phrase *recte admones* translated as &quot;you do well to remind me&quot;. But, doesn't that mean &quot;you remind directly&quot;? I don't understand how this phrase was translated or what the intended phrase was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1126/what-is-slipped-my-mind-in-latin/1128#1128" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2849" RevisionGUID="f62c3ce0-bb94-4290-99d2-9fde1fb4f682" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Inspired by [this question,][1] I'm interested to know what is the best Attic Greek word for &quot;vocabulary&quot;. I thought about θησαυρός, but I'm not sure this is best. I feel like there may also be a word based on γλῶσσα, but there are so many words formed from this root that I wouldn't know where to start. Similarly, I wouldn't be surprised to find a word meaning &quot;vocabulary&quot; based on λόγος.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I pose the question to you: Which Attic Greek word is best suited to mean &quot;vocabulary&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2846/what-is-vocabulary-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2862" RevisionGUID="7ee539b7-20d1-4de3-b9ee-876515844f00" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The word *verbum* means &quot;word&quot;, but I want to find out whether it can also have the more specific meaning &quot;verb&quot; (as opposed to other kinds of words).&#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short does not list &quot;verb&quot; among translations of *verbum*, but one of my dictionaries does.&#xD;&#xA;What is more important than dictionary entries, Varro uses *verbum* clearly in the sense of &quot;verb&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De his Aristoteles orationis duas partes esse dicit: vocabula et verba, ut 'homo' et 'equus', et 'legit' et 'currit'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cum de his nomen sit primum (prius enim nomen est quam verbum temporale et reliqua posterius quam nomen et verbum), prima igitur nomina: quare de eorum declinatione quam de verborum ante dicam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Varro, [De lingua Latina 8](http://thelatinlibrary.com/varro.ll8.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One English translation can be found [here](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/varro-latin_language/1938/pb_LCL334.381.xml).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how often verbum* means &quot;verb&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;**Is this meaning restricted to Varro?**&#xD;&#xA;**Do other classical or later authors use it in this sense?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some backstory (feel free to skip):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked about translating the word [&quot;vocabulary&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2846/79) for the purpose of tagging, and some of the suggestions involved the word *verbum*.&#xD;&#xA;I dislike the idea of using it for tagging, as it is so prone to misunderstanding.&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not it means &quot;verb&quot; in Latin, it is close to the verb word in many languages.&#xD;&#xA;And to some extent at least it does also mean &quot;verb&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of this question is to find what that extent is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Years ago I was in contact with an elderly Finnish Latinist who was regarded as one of the most fluent Latinists to have ever lived in Finland.&#xD;&#xA;One time he read a letter I had brought him out loud (as the email had not made it to him), and he corrected one word as he read:&#xD;&#xA;I had used *verbum* to mean &quot;word&quot;, but he corrected it to *vox*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, let me remark that no Latin word seems to mean &quot;word&quot; without some added nuance.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that *verbum* is among the best general translations, but is not a perfect match with the English &quot;word&quot;, either.&#xD;&#xA;But usually one of *verbum*, *vox*, *vocabulum*, *glossa*, or *dictum* will do the trick.&#xD;&#xA;(And perhaps I'm still missing a word or two.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2902" RevisionGUID="881f4064-af8c-48e4-8a7f-21535df7e537" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't think there is anything quite like the English -ish in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The closest thing I know is the diminutive.&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples of diminutive adjectives where the diminutive means lesser extent instead of smaller size:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*acutulus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=acutulus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) from *acutus*&#xD;&#xA;- [*astutulus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dastutulus) from *astutus*&#xD;&#xA;- [*audaculus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daudaculus) from *audax*&#xD;&#xA;- [*curiosulus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcuriosulus) from *curiosus*&#xD;&#xA;- [*dulciculus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddulciculus) from *dulcis*&#xD;&#xA;- [*duriusculus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dduriusculus) from *durus*&#xD;&#xA;- [*eruditulus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Deruditulus) from *eruditus*&#xD;&#xA;- [*fericulus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfericulus) from *ferus*&#xD;&#xA;- [*fessulus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfessulus) from *fessus*&#xD;&#xA;- [*floridulus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfloridulus) from *floridus*&#xD;&#xA;- [*frigidulus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfrigidulus) from *frigidus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The diminutive is mostly translated as &quot;somewhat&quot; in the linked dictionary entries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?lang=la&amp;page=5&amp;type=end&amp;lookup=ulus&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such adjectives are not very common, but still common enough to see a pattern and feel confident about using the suffix productively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to exactly form the diminutive is another question (and worth separate questions), but it is often fairly simple.&#xD;&#xA;I asked about [one aspect of forming diminutives](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2900/79) just a moment ago." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2916" RevisionGUID="a77d841c-4421-4068-bb35-9a1e1833d36c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was recently reminded (by [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2904/79)) that intervocalic single *-s-* turned into *-r-* by rhotacism, and later new instances of intervocalic *-s-* were produced from *-ss-*.&#xD;&#xA;If the vowel preceding *-ss-* is short, then the transition *-ss-&gt;-s-* transforms the syllable from long to short (heavy to light).&#xD;&#xA;This is significant especially for metric poetry.&#xD;&#xA;I would expect this shortening to be compensated by elongating the preceding vowel.&#xD;&#xA;Although many *-s-* are preceded by a long vowel, there some examples of a short vowel followed by a single *-s-*: *posui*, *casa*, *asinus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any examples where compensation is known to have happened?&#xD;&#xA;Or is the intervocalic transition *-ss-&gt;-s-* something that was allowed to freely change syllable length (weight)?&#xD;&#xA;Are the words I listed (and others like them) somehow exceptional while most words did have compensation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2923" RevisionGUID="f209fd8d-a2f8-480c-9019-c5ffd0a68d9b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I recently read [this interesting question][1] in which Joonas provides a very instructive answer. It still left me, however, with some questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Confitentes iterum ac tertio interrogavi supplicium minatus;&quot; ([Plin. Ep. 10.96][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [They were] confessing again, and on the third  time I interrogated them having threatened punishment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, is my translation correct? I want to make sure we're on the same page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, I notice that *minatus* is active in meaning, despite it being a perfect passive participle. This is consistent with Allen and Greenough [&amp;sect;190a.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the perfect participles of deponent verbs active in meaning? I would think so, from the above evidence. However, I am confused by &amp;sect;190b from A&amp;G.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [190b.][3] The perfect participle generally has an active sense, but in verbs otherwise deponent it is often passive: as, mercátus, bought; adeptus, gained (or having gained).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that this point only holds true for deponent verbs, correct? (That the perfect participle generally has an active sense.) But then it goes on to say that for verbs *otherwise deponent* it is often passive. What does *otherwise deponent* mean? How can you tell whether the perfect participle will be active or passive in meaning, for a deponent verb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/130/can-a-verbum-deponens-go-along-with-an-accusativus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plin.%20Ep.%2010.96&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0139&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.190.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2948" RevisionGUID="f3abf8c9-dc3c-4a7c-9522-319dd5701802" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some Latin nouns are common gender: their grammatical gender varies depending whether they refer to a male or a female (human or other animal).&#xD;&#xA;This is mentioned in many Latin grammars (including [Allen and Greenough](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-034.html)), and examples are often listed.&#xD;&#xA;However, I have never seen any proof in grammars that any of the listed words really behave this way.&#xD;&#xA;I don't really doubt that common gender nouns exist; I just found myself unable to very convincingly argue that they are a real thing in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To remedy this, I would like a couple of example words (two is enough), each word with two example passages from classical literature: one where it is feminine and another one where it is masculine.&#xD;&#xA;It would be great if the examples would be relatively simple and, most importantly, gender-wise unambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;Which example words and which passages would you suggest to demonstrate the existence of common gender nouns?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was inspired by [an earlier question about feminine *homo*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2597/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2962" RevisionGUID="a5e66407-05fc-4078-89bd-7975f4e9e45c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The original phrase *memento mori* is somewhat confusing.&#xD;&#xA;People often intuitively read it as &quot;remember dying&quot; or &quot;remember to die&quot;, not so much as &quot;remember that you will die&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This confusion has been discussed before at this site, for example [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2230/79) and [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/89/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can form the new phrase with the same structure for the sake of analogy.&#xD;&#xA;I would go with *memento mori posse* or *memento posse mori*.&#xD;&#xA;(The second one scans well if you are into hexameter.)&#xD;&#xA;The common Latin verb for being able to is *posse*, and it's used with an infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding simple structure is *mori potes*, &quot;you can die&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you can also use an *accusativus cum infinitivo* (ACI) structure with *meminisse*.&#xD;&#xA;This would lead to *memento te posse mori*, &quot;remember that you can die&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This would be clearer, but the parallel to the original is weaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One option is to use *licere* instead of *posse*, if the question is more about being allowed to than being able to.&#xD;&#xA;This is a good option when death would be a relief from suffering.&#xD;&#xA;The simple version would be *(tibi) mori licet*, &quot;you are allowed to die&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This can be combined with *memento* with an ACI: *memento (tibi) mori licere*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2965" RevisionGUID="c983f86c-d108-49dc-9fb4-b22b3be652c1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I have studied Latin, but in none of the courses I have taken has there been discussion about any progress in understanding Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I do believe &amp;mdash; and hope &amp;mdash; that classically oriented scholarly activities have produced new insights in the last century, but I am not aware of any such developments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the biggest single step we have taken or the most important new insight we have gained in understanding the classical Latin language after the year 1900?**&#xD;&#xA;This is a matter of opinion to some extent, but I would like to know what Latinists have achieved and why those achievements are considered important.&#xD;&#xA;There are books and [scientific articles](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1515/79) about Latin, but it is very difficult and time consuming for a non-expert to locate important new ideas and figure out if there is a consensus behind them.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for something that is supported by a broad consensus or is even considered a fact, not hotly contested theories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I probably would enjoy a summary of all developments, I believe this question is more focused when I ask for the single most important development.&#xD;&#xA;This question type is somewhat experimental; let me know if you have comments about its broadness and suitability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="6e0f8bfe-a342-4cba-8045-2df61d49c805" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think *abdomunculum* would be the most regular diminutive of *abdomen.* But it seems a bit difficult to me to give a clear answer because the rules about &quot;proper&quot; diminutive suffixes are often based on the form and gender of the original noun, and I know of no existing diminutives formed on nouns with precisely the same morphological form and gender as *abdomen, abdominis*. If you get it &quot;wrong,&quot; you may at least be able to take some comfort from the knowledge that Romans even criticized one another sometimes for using supposedly malformed diminutives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Abdomen, abdominis* is a neuter noun of the third declension, of the &quot;consonant stem&quot; sub-declension class, with a stem ending in the consonant &quot;n&quot; specifically. My impression is that any of these features might be relevant to the formation of the diminutive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[brianpck's answer][1] to *[Variations on the diminutive: -olus and -ulus][2]* contained a link to a page from [Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar][3] that I consulted to try to answer this question. It says diminutives &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These diminutive endings are all formed by adding *-lus* to various stems. [...] *-culus* comes from -lus added to adjectives in *-cus* formed from stems in *n-* and *s-*: as, *iuven-cus, Aurun-cus* (cf. *Aurunculeius*), *prís-cus,* whence the *cu* becomes a part of the termination, and the whole ending (*-culus*) is used elsewhere, but mostly with *n-* and *s-* stems, in accordance with its origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the rules given in *[The Formation of Latin&#xD;&#xA;Diminutives of Nouns and Adjectives][4],* compiled by Ian Andreas Miller, regular diminutive nouns derived from third-declension nouns retain the gender of the original noun, which for *abdomen* is neuter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these sources, it seems to me that something ending in *-nculum* would be most regular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller further indicates that stems ending *-in-* regularly change the vowel and have *-un-* before *-culus/-culum/-cula.* cnread's answer mentions *homunculus,* which shows this pattern. There is an interesting note in Miller about the history of this formation saying that the *u* is analogical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The *-uncul-* formation in these diminutives was originally created by adding *-culā-, -culo-* to stems in *-on-,* where the *-o-* became *-u-* by phonetic change (cf. *hunc,* earlier *honc*). Some original stems in *-nō-* (*-on-*) later became stems in *-in-* (e.g. *homin-,* earlier *homon-* or *homōn-*) with nominative singular endings in *-ō,* and through the power of analogy the *-uncul-* formation was used with other stems in *-in-* (e.g. *pecten,* stem *pectin-*) and stems in *-n-* with nominative singular forms in *-o* (e.g. *caro,* stem *carn-*) even if they do not actually have stems in *-in-* or *-on-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not entirely certain about recommending *-unculum* rather than *-unculus* as in cnread's answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Abdomunculum* would follow the generally applicable gender-matching rule. However, there are exceptions to this rule; Miller mentions *rana* &gt; *ranunculus.*&#xD;&#xA;And since most nouns ending in *-ō* in the nominative are masculine or feminine,  *-unculus* and  *uncula* seem to be much more established in Latin as suffixes for deriving diminutive nouns from third-declension n-stems than *-unculum.* A Perseus search does turn up some existing [nouns ending in *-unculum][5],* but none of those results seems to be derived from a third-declension noun with a stem ending in *-in-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there are certainly diminutives ending in *-culum* with something else before it; for example, *[corpusculum][6],* from the third-declension neuter noun *corpus.* So perhaps the scarcity of words ending in *-un-culum* specifically is just coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, *[pectunculus][7]* from *pecten* is actually the only example I have seen of a diminutive from a noun ending in *-en, -inis.* It is masculine, but so is the original noun *pecten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most Latin nouns that end in *-en* in the nominative and *-inis* in the genitive seem to have an &quot;m&quot; before this and are neuter. Wiktionary indicates that many of them have a &quot;noun-forming suffix [*-men*][8]&quot; and lists a number of them; I searched on Perseus for words starting with the stems up to the &quot;m&quot; of around 10 of them (like &quot;agm,&quot; &quot;germ,&quot; &quot;carm&quot;) but I wasn't able to find any diminutive forms with their own entries. Another neuter third-declension with another consonant before *-en,* *-inis* is *gluten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other possibly relevant sources I found that I have not yet got a chance to look through:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Word Formation in the Roman Sermo Plebeius,* by Frederic Taber Cooper (1895) -- has a section on &quot;Diminutives&quot; starting on [page 164][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cooper cites some articles by &quot;Paucker,&quot; one of which had a title that sounded like it might be helpful: &quot;Deminutive mit d. Suffix -c-ulus, a, um&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Zeitschr. f. d. oesterr. Gymn. XXVII, p. 273-284. (=&quot;Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien&quot;) I looked though a [Google Books result][10] related to this, and found a long list of words with the suffix &quot;-uncul-&quot; that contained many ending in &quot;-uncula&quot; and &quot;-unculus&quot; but none that I could see ending in &quot;-unculum&quot; aside from those already mentioned that are indexed by Perseus and have entries in Lewis &amp; Short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2903/9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2900/variations-on-the-diminutive-olus-and-ulus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://%20http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.243.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://diesgaudii.genvid.com/latin/diminutives/diminutives.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=unculum&amp;lang=la&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=corpusculum&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=pectunculus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-men#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=724PAAAAYAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;output=reader&amp;hl=en&amp;pg=GBS.PA164&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cY0NAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA597&amp;lpg=PA597&amp;dq=Paucker%20%22Deminutive%22%20mit%20Suffix%20-c-ulus,%20a,%20um%20%22ZEITSCHRIFT%20f%C3%BCr%20die%20%C3%B6sterreichischen%20GYMNASIEN%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QNovpHHp0X&amp;sig=bxKBq0FqnimxK1ZSAc1QuVpX270&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj5i-7rhPXSAhUI1GMKHTH9AIcQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Paucker%20%22Deminutive%22%20mit%20Suffix%20-c-ulus%2C%20a%2C%20um%20%22ZEITSCHRIFT%20f%C3%BCr%20die%20%C3%B6sterreichischen%20GYMNASIEN%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2980" RevisionGUID="436d6df9-a150-46e4-86e7-01554b8cf1a3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="After reading [this question][1], I wondered what I could do to some names vital to my translation of D. Gray-Man, a recent project. Some names are fine, such as Allen becoming Alenus, Moa easily remaining already feminine and declinable, and various online sources claiming some link to the names of Charles and Carolus. However, the names of many main characters are indeclinable and hard to convert without sounding a bit repetitive (like &quot;Komuius, Sumanus, Tykius&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Are these acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;2. Are there better translations?&#xD;&#xA;3. Is Carolus a correct conversion or simply a similar name for &quot;name Romanizers?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the names that I've had trouble with, followed by my attempted translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Count Krory - *? Kroryus/Crorius*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Millennium Earl - *Comes Annorum Millium*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lenalee Lee - *Lenalia Lee (I don't know how to translate this and be similar to the original enough for one to infer.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Komui Lee - *Komuis/Comuis Lee*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mana Walker - *Manaus Valcer/Ambulator (masculine)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eliade - *Eliada*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Road Kamelot - *Roada Camelota???*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tyki Mikk - *Ticis Miccis (sounds like a joke spell)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Valcer* certainly sounds better than the hilariously literal *ambulator*. Anyway, some assistance in the naming of these characters is appreciated, even if they're still an annoying mystery. Ah, but who cares? When has Stack Exchange never answered my foolish questions with the limitless knowledge of people who actually went to schools for this language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The importance of this translation is due to the ability to decline these rather than act like some Spanish historian and change the letters, adding in some prepositions, and calling it a day. I need to be able to accurately convert those names so that my retelling feels less like generic TV subtitles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes and Stuff:&#xD;&#xA;-I've confirmed that Tyki is pronounced as *tee-kee*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/473/general-principles-for-translating-non-latin-names-into-latin?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2988" RevisionGUID="d0bffe85-d545-481e-856a-8ace3898d185" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Rather than editing user637's answer, I decided to make my own. I'm sure you've died waiting, so here we go.&#xD;&#xA;With information from the comments and general knowledge which I possess, &quot;I&quot; was used in antiquity (until 1478) to represent both the consonant and the vowel. &quot;J&quot; just kind of popped out of nowhere in some Middle High German text to distinguish the two letters. To prevent simply restating someone's added information, read Jon's comment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the preference of J, in modern Latin studies, it is usually replaced with the original I. However hard to find, there are little bits of information across the Internet (as far as Google will take you through results mostly about Latin America) available to confirm that until the nineteen-eighties or so, J was significantly more present in schools and printing. In some Latin terms being introduced to speakers of languages which never use I as a consonant, a J is often provided. If you want further information on the opinions of these letters, I suggest asking some of those who know more about this, such as the [awesome people] [1] on this site. You can also [search for yourself] [2] on Google. From what I've read, it appears as if &quot;I&quot; were more common in Medieval Latin. The reason I brought up modern sources is that, rarely, texts originally inscribed with one letter might be changed to the other in digital conversions and reprints.&#xD;&#xA;So, here's my answer, take it or leave it. I hope you could use something from this, but as far as my research-spree went, it's a mystery. Oh, and Latin texts by Old English speakers might be unclear in reading, as the English alphabet at the time was strictly for knowing how to pronounce their written language. This is why one word can have many spellings. What if the Modern English &quot;spelling&quot; could be &quot;speling,&quot; &quot;spehling,&quot; or anything else? For sounding out, a J or Y was certainly more common in such scripts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, hopefully, you survived that. To sum it all up, I don't really know, and you should listen to people who actually know about this. *Were* this somewhat helpful, well... okay, I'd do a few things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Firstly, I'd question your health.&#xD;&#xA; - Then, I might start to back away.&#xD;&#xA; - Lastly, I'd say thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/users&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;rlz=1CAASUJ_enUS735US735&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;safe=active&amp;ssui=on#q=latin+i+and+j+preferences&amp;safe=strict&amp;ssui=on&amp;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2994" RevisionGUID="afd6f5fb-8f10-4dfe-a76e-56d8f6d1dce5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="## Criticism of Latin Translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, a brief criticism of the Latin text that you are using as a source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Expressing purpose**: The English of the song is a purpose clause, i.e. &quot;in order to tell you...&quot; Though later Latin can use an infinitive for this, it is more standard to use *ut* + subjunctive. See [my answer to another question about purpose clauses](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1425/how-do-you-show-an-infinitive-for-reason/1426#1426) for other options. I did a brief Google search, and it looks like the prevailing Latin translation actually says &quot;[ut tibi narrarem](http://lyricstranslate.com/en/hello-salve.html).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* **Sorry &quot;for&quot; something**: Based on my ear and the options in [Lewis and Short](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1425/how-do-you-show-an-infinitive-for-reason/1426#1426), I have never seen *me paenitet pro* + ablative to mean &quot;I am sorry for X.&quot; Genitive is far more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a stylistic observation, I would also change &quot;omnium quae feci&quot; (=for everything I have done) to &quot;meorum factorum&quot; (=for my deeds), in the mold of Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; me tamen meorum factorum atque consiliorum numquam, patres conscripti, paenitebit. (Cic. *In Catalinam IV* 20.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My proposed translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tibi ut dicam me paenitere meorum factorum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So much for a &quot;brief&quot; criticism!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Your English translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your translation is spot on except for one thing: *aliquem paenitere...* does not mean &quot;forgive someone&quot; but rather &quot;cause sorrow to someone.&quot; *Me paenitet* is the standard way of saying &quot;I am sorry&quot; (lit: &quot;it pains me&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why *quae*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This part of the Latin is perfectly good, though I like my proposed translation above better. You are thinking of [*quis, quis, quid*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquis1), which is an **interrogative pronoun** meaning &quot;who, what.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, it is using the very similar [*qui, quae, quod*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dqui1), which is a **relative pronoun**, translated to English as &quot;who, which, that.&quot; The relative pronoun agrees in gender and number with its &quot;antecedent&quot; (the word it is &quot;standing in&quot; for) and changes its case based on context. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homo quem vides improbus est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;The man *whom* you see is bad.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English uses &quot;which&quot; when the antecedent is neuter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bellum quod geris iniustum est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;The war which you are waging is unjust.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read more about relative clauses [here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Apart%3D2%3Asection%3D4%3Asubsection%3D5%3Asmythp%3D303)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3028" RevisionGUID="e3c5a30a-ff7e-4c07-b01e-851aad2347b1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here are some comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1a: The infinitive cannot express purpose in Latin like it can in English. See [this earlier question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1425/79), for example.&#xD;&#xA;- 1h&amp;i: The rules of *consecutio temporum* require that a conjunctive subordinate to present or future verb is present or perfect, and one subordinate to any of the past tenses is imperfect or pluperfect. Because &quot;he has come&quot; is a past thing, h is incorrect and i correct. In *ut* clauses both present and imperfect conjunctive express present (or future) action; the only temporal difference is in the verb they are subordinate to.&#xD;&#xA;- 2: When translating to Latin, I would make no distinction between 1 and 2. If I wanted to express the difference, I would do it through choices of verbs. The list of possibilities for 1 and 2 are identical.&#xD;&#xA;- 3&amp;4: Correct.&#xD;&#xA;- 5: Your answer is correct, but keep in mind that the conjunctive is present because the governing verb is future, not because the subordinate clause happens later or at the same time as the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;- 5&amp;6: Wishes require (always?) an *ut* clause, but some orders take an *accusativus cum infinitivo* structure. This is why 6 has an a but 5 doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;- 7: Here &quot;to see you&quot; is the subject. Perhaps it helps to consider the sentence &quot;to see you is good&quot;. For this kind of construction Latin uses the infinitive. If a verb is forced to function like a noun, the infinitive is used for nominative and accusative (without prepositions).&#xD;&#xA;- 8h: This is indeed possible, but 8i is not.&#xD;&#xA;- 8&amp;9: Tenses of infinitives work differently than tenses of subordinate clauses. If the hoped action takes place later than hoping, then the infinitive is a future one, no matter when you hope.&#xD;&#xA;- 10: I'm not sure if any of the letters fit. I would phrase that in Latin as *timet, ne te videat*. If the desire is not to see, the clause should have a *ne* instead of an *ut*. Perhaps *te videre eum terret* could work, but that sounds a bit unnatural.&#xD;&#xA;- 11: I would translate this as *eum paenitet te videre*. Verbs of feeling behave a bit weirdly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can elaborate if you can tell what still confuses you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3037" RevisionGUID="76500719-0a56-4d11-8fe6-b47f4f62193f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Although I gave another answer before and although I think that the correct answer could turn out to be &quot;επιείκια&quot;, let me add this for completeness: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Επιορκία&quot; is oath-breaking and false swearing (and sounding close to [the remembered one][1]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2301/are-you-familiar-with-the-greek-word-epicharia-or-epikaria/3024#3024" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3038" RevisionGUID="f04c8278-b434-4470-9321-ca62bc48cce6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="When answering [a recent question about the prefix *per-*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/3029/79), I gave an example of a national adjective (*Finnus*) with a prefix, to produce *Perfinni*.&#xD;&#xA;If I attach a prefix to an adjective that always starts with a capital letter, how do I capitalize?&#xD;&#xA;It sounds most reasonable to capitalize the first letter of the prefix.&#xD;&#xA;Other options that come to mind (*perfinni*, *perFinni*, *per-Finni*) look worse.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a convention, and if yes, what is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Capitalization was not an ancient thing, but there might be some classical adjectives of this kind.&#xD;&#xA;At least *Cisalpinus* and *Transrhenanus* come to mind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3040" RevisionGUID="523869ca-f770-4be2-ab8d-c56987269b37" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I want to find out how Greek expresses the protases of conditions like the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What was I to do? **If I remained in Athens** I would be killed; **if I left**, I would lose all my property.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a type of past-tense condition, but it isn't one of the usual three types discussed in grammars and textbooks. It's not an open condition (the speaker knows now whether he stayed or left); it's not a counterfactual (one of the two options must be true); and it's not a general condition (not a recurring situation). Rather, it's a kind of free indirect speech, in which we are being asked to take the viewpoint of the speaker at that moment in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the same condition were about the present, it would be easy: *If I remain in Athens I will be killed* is a straightforward future more vivid. But what happens when it's shifted into the past?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking specifically about the protasis because I feel pretty sure that the apodosis would be expressed by ἔμελλον + infinitive. There are examples of such usages in Goodwin's *Moods and Tenses* (p. 99), but unfortunately none involve a condition. Can anyone point to an example of such a condition in a Greek text (or even better, to a grammatical discussion of this type)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ETA: added a [related question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/3042/are-there-instances-of-free-indirect-discourse-in-latin-or-greek) about free indirect speech in Greek and Latin.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3043" RevisionGUID="3ef8351d-bc3d-4d14-adcf-7b80a60eed4c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="The Wikipedia page on &quot;[Dactylic hexameter][1]&quot; (¯˘͟˘ | ¯˘͟˘ | ¯˘͟˘ | ¯˘͟˘ | ¯ ˘˘ | ¯˘̱) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Like their Greek predecessors, classical Latin poets avoided a large number of word breaks at the ends of foot divisions except between the fourth and fifth, where it was encouraged. In order to preserve the rhythmic close, Latin poets avoided the placement of a single syllable or four-syllable word at the end of a line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More relevant to the Finnish pattern you mention, although less relevant to Classical Latin, is the following quotation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In the late empire, writers experimented again by adding unusual restrictions to the standard hexameter. The rhopalic verse of Ausonius is a good example; besides following the standard hexameter pattern, each word in the line is one syllable longer than the previous, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Spes, deus, aeternae stationis conciliator,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;si castis precibus veniales invigilamus,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;his, pater, oratis placabilis adstipulare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, the relevant sections of the Wikipedia article are unsourced so it's hard for me to say how accurate this is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phenomenon of [caesura][2] also seems like it could be relevant; apparently a caesura is always located at a word break, and occurs within a foot. The &quot;principal caesura&quot; of a line usually comes in the third or fourth foot according to Joel Derfner's answer to the linked question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please downvote this answer if you have reason to believe the statements from the Wikipedia article are incorrect or if you are unsure about them. I don't want to propagate misinformation; I'm just posting this to get the ball rolling.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dactylic_hexameter&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/262/when-does-caesura-occur-in-a-dactylic-hexameter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3045" RevisionGUID="9310b22b-e5b4-4e87-b24e-73a15669466d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="All modern languages I know allow expressing essentially the same thing in different ways, and sometimes there is a difference in the level of formality.&#xD;&#xA;Formality is not binary; I would not say strictly that one variant is formal and the other is informal, only that one is more formal than the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me give some examples:&#xD;&#xA;In English the contracted forms &quot;didn't&quot; and &quot;I've&quot; are more informal than &quot;did not&quot; and &quot;I have&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In Finnish many pronouns (minä, sinä, tämä, tuo, &amp;hellip;) have informal variants (mä, sä, tää, toi, &amp;hellip;) that are commonly used in speech and online discussions but are not used in printed or broadcast news.&#xD;&#xA;In mathematics logical implication symbols and quantifiers (&amp;iff;, &amp;forall;, &amp;hellip;) are often used when solving problems or teaching, but in more formal printed contexts like textbooks or articles they are typically replaced by words (if and only if, for all, &amp;hellip;).&#xD;&#xA;The point is that the same thing can be expressed in two ways and there is a difference in the level of formality between the two.&#xD;&#xA;I want to know if this phenomenon existed in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for &quot;informal spelling variants&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;With this I mean variant forms of words (or other similar variations) which are more informal than the usual version.&#xD;&#xA;I assume that if there is a difference in formality, the most typical variant is more formal; if this assumption is wrong, I would be happy to see &quot;formal spelling variants&quot; as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that there are spelling variations in Latin, for example perfect syncopation (*amavisse* &gt; *amasse*), [*-ris/-re* as a passive ending](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2921/79), and [*-nl-/-ll-* with prefixes ending in *-n*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2434/79).&#xD;&#xA;However, I am not aware of any difference in the level of formality in these variations.&#xD;&#xA;The only thing that comes to my mind is replacing *au &gt; &amp;omacr;* (eg. Claudius becoming Clodius), but I'm not sure if this really has a formality difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not mean abbreviations that would also be used in formal occasions, but something more casual (whatever that might mean).&#xD;&#xA;Any kind of evidence is fine: inscriptions, contemporary remarks, or other.&#xD;&#xA;It does not matter if the sense of informality developed later, although I do prefer formality differences observed during the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;Any examples where we have a good reason to suspect informality in some sense would make good answers.&#xD;&#xA;If the informal status is uncertain (eg. is Plautus more archaic than colloquial?), examples with the appropriate caveats would be good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were there informal spelling variants in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;That is, were there alternative ways to spell (or perhaps pronounce) words that could be considered informal?&#xD;&#xA;If such things exist, I would like to know a couple of words (or short phrases) with two alternative spellings, one of which is more formal than the other.&#xD;&#xA;The examples can also be regional (dialect difference), as long as there is a difference in formality; perhaps a spelling variant used in Hispania was considered more informal than the one used in Rome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This question went through a complete rewrite. I hope it is less unclear now. Many thanks for C. M. Weimer, brianpck, and Cerberus for the help!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3048" RevisionGUID="14ee7909-7229-43cb-a209-d0fa5f45519c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I learned from the comment to the answer to [this old question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2466/79) that Latin has lost the consonant S before voiced consonants.&#xD;&#xA;In the linked post this was used to explain the observed pattern that the prefix *ex-* becomes *&amp;emacr;-* before voiced consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this effect work also across word boundaries?&#xD;&#xA;That is, if a word ends in S and the next word begins with a voiced consonant, does something happen to the S?&#xD;&#xA;Would it be lost in either pronunciation or spelling, or would such situations perhaps be avoided?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess (and only a guess!) is that such loss of S was no longer active by the classical era, and the Romans would not have observed any difficulty having S followed by a voiced consonant.&#xD;&#xA;A quick glance at the Aeneid shows no sign of avoiding this situation.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know if we know something about the matter.&#xD;&#xA;For example, if we have some evidence that the mentioned law became inactive at some known time or that laws of this kind do typically not work across word boundaries, that would reasonably answer my question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4055" RevisionGUID="e23dd5a6-8770-4964-ba2e-61607a2e0241" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Alongside the prefix *ex- ~ ē-* there is the preposition *ex ~ ē*, which offers a way of testing whether the same *s*-loss occurs before a voiced consonant at a word boundary. If it consistently does, we should expect to find *ē* before voiced consonants and *ex* otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the case, as the [question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2430) linked to by sumelic shows: there are phrases like *ex nihilō, ex lege*, where *ex* appears before voiced consonants. Searching PHI for e.g. [*#ex r*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ex+r) yields a large number of results, and likewise with other voiced consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course it's possible that the effect did occur across word boundaries but not consistently -- digging deeper into the statistics of various combinations might shed some light on that. But as far as it goes, this does suggest that *s*-loss did not operate even across the weak phonological boundary that separates a preposition from its object, and therefore *a fortiori* probably did not operate across other word boundaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(To the question implied in your last sentence, such phonological rules certainly [can operate across word boundaries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandhi), so the fact that this one apparently doesn't is not due to any kind of linguistic universal.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4069" RevisionGUID="78ea0ef9-09ca-496a-bb92-2f8a406f299d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="Inspired by this question https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/3019/a-good-word-for-waiter-or-waitress I'd like to know what duties a *cellarius* had in antique times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The German word for waiter, *Kellner*, is a loan from *cellarius*, but it acquired its present day meaning only recently (18th century)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4078" RevisionGUID="3a4282a9-2d74-4b03-88e7-334a6c3a5e6d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="By analogy with my [previous question][1], I'm interested in how to say &quot;notes&quot; in classical Greek. The Latin equivalents that I often use are &quot;notae&quot; and &quot;annotationes&quot;. I use these when I want a Latin word to describe a section of notes, e.g. notes about a passage or translation. But what word(s) would you recommend from classical Greek?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1578/how-do-you-say-notes-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4080" RevisionGUID="9c90cc3b-d353-40c5-a563-2745f546e857" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:09.833" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://latin.stackexchange.com/ with https://latin.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think that the two forms of the letter Y given on that page are purely aesthetic variations of the same character. It also makes the letter array a neat 6 × 4 array, like the Greek one on the other page of the specimen book. Palatino was a typographer, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for a short time in antiquity, there were two different forms of the Y, the Y as we know it and a &quot;short Y&quot; Ⱶ introduced be emperor Claudius and not continued after his reign, see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/271/examples-of-the-use-of-claudian-letters-%e2%84%b2-%e2%86%83-%e2%b1%b5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4081" RevisionGUID="b06aee93-787d-4b5d-81fc-508b35d3770a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:16:58.157" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12228" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4081" RevisionGUID="b06aee93-787d-4b5d-81fc-508b35d3770a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:16:58.157" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="479abccf-80bf-425e-9abe-eaf77355faf3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:16:58.157" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12230" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="479abccf-80bf-425e-9abe-eaf77355faf3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:16:58.157" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4083" RevisionGUID="6fd894a9-7931-4967-9d96-3301312c5b56" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:35:41.203" UserId="45" Text="Certain words in Latin have a special meaning in the plural, which is often translated with the English singular. One obvious example of this is *litterae, -arum*, which means, &quot;a letter.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Litteras, credo, misit alicui sicario qui Romae noverat neminem. (Cicero, *Pro S. Roscio Amerino* 76.7)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;I believe he sent a letter to some assassin who didn't know anyone in Rome.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples of this kind of word include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *bigae, -arum*: a two-horse chariot&#xD;&#xA;* *castra, -orum*: a camp&#xD;&#xA;* *hibernae, -arum*: winter quarters (plural in English too!)&#xD;&#xA;* *nūptiae, -arum*: a wedding&#xD;&#xA;* *quadrīgae, -arum*: a four-horse chariot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: **How do I explicitly refer to a certain amount of these nouns?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the following naive translations permissible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Modo unas litteras tibi misi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;I only sent you one letter.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Duo castra inter flumina posita sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Two camps were set up between the rivers.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12232" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4083" RevisionGUID="6fd894a9-7931-4967-9d96-3301312c5b56" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:35:41.203" UserId="45" Text="How do I specify how many &quot;litterae&quot; or &quot;castra&quot; there are?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12233" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4083" RevisionGUID="6fd894a9-7931-4967-9d96-3301312c5b56" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:35:41.203" UserId="45" Text="|grammar-choice|numbers|plural|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4084" RevisionGUID="b4141411-b041-4db4-871d-7ae8c50a0f4e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T15:54:52.767" UserId="645" Text="You should use a distributive. Cicero, ad Atticum, 5. 3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ibi mihi tuae litterae binae redditae sunt tertio abs te die*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This works for all such plural nouns, but you should take care over the case and gender. As with some larger cardinal numbers, it's a common mistake to forget that. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4085" RevisionGUID="c1ba3de2-ab57-472f-91c8-51faa1351b68" CreationDate="2017-04-13T16:02:01.783" UserId="78" Text="I think jknappen is right: that extra Y isn't anything but a fancy Y. A few pages back (86/87), only one Y is mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were two forms of the the Y in Greek, though. In fact, there were several. It's unfortunate that Lilian Jeffery's [*Local Scripts of Archaic Greece*](https://www.google.com/search?num=50&amp;biw=1920&amp;bih=930&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=Jeffery+Local+Scripts+of+Archaic+Greece) doesn't return a preview, but you can see a succinct chart under Cook's [*Greek Inscriptions*](https://books.google.com/books?id=Kp806ShRDh8C&amp;pg=PA8#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Epichoric Alphabet Scripts][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It wasn't until rather late that in its history that the Greek alphabet was standardized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The variation in Y meant that the Romans borrowed the letter as V and then later reborrowed the letter, to represent the Greek vowel rather than their native one, as Y.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not that this answers your specific query, but I mention it in case you stumble upon additional variations in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UtP3p.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="5c2ad54c-f7b3-4ce7-ab84-99ff4a80e7bd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T16:08:35.207" UserId="1343" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="Use this tag for questions about interfixes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12237" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4082" RevisionGUID="5c2ad54c-f7b3-4ce7-ab84-99ff4a80e7bd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T16:08:35.207" Comment="Proposed by 1343 approved by 78, 45 edit id of 179" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4086" RevisionGUID="728e9296-d422-4cca-880f-3d06637f7731" CreationDate="2017-04-13T20:21:02.713" UserId="78" Text="One way to say it ὑπόμνημα (pl. ὑπομνήματα). The word literally recalls some sort of reminder and can (and often does) mean &quot;reminder, memorial, or record.&quot; But as early as Plato it could mean &quot;notes taken on what was said&quot; (*Theaetetus 143a):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀλλ᾽ ἐγραψάμην μὲν τότ᾽ εὐθὺς οἴκαδ᾽ ἐλθὼν ὑπομνήματα, ὕστερον δὲ κατὰ σχολὴν ἀναμιμνῃσκόμενος ἔγραφον, καὶ ὁσάκις Ἀθήναζε ἀφικοίμην, ἐπανηρώτων τὸν Σωκράτη ὃ μὴ ἐμεμνήμην, καὶ δεῦρο ἐλθὼν ἐπηνορθούμην: ὥστε μοι σχεδόν τι πᾶς ὁ λόγος γέγραπται.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But I made notes at the time as soon as I reached home, then afterwards at my leisure, as I recalled things, I wrote them down, and whenever I went to Athens I used to ask Socrates about what I could not remember, and then I came here and made corrections; so that I have pretty much the whole talk written down. (transl. H. N. Fowler)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it developed, it also had come to mean both a treatise on a subject (I'm guessing which developed from the idea of writing down little notes on that topic) to commentaries on literary works. LSJ detailed the relevant passages for that in §5 a &amp; c:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. dissertations or treatises written by philosophers, rhetoricians, and artists, Archyt. ap. D.L.8.80 sq., Sotad.Com.1.35, Demetr.Lac.Herc.1014.67, Longin.44.12, D.L.4.4; of historical or geographical works, Plb.1.1.1, 1.35.6, 3.32.4, Ptol.Geog.1.6.2, etc.; of medical works, Gal.6.460,691, al. (the same work is called ὑ. and σύγγραμμα in 15.1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c. explanatory notes, commentaries, Sch.Ar.Av.1242, etc.; of the Homeric commentaries of Aristarch., Sch.Il.2.420, al.; εἰ γὰρ τὰ συγγράμματα (Aristarchus' independent treatises on Homeric questions) τῶν ὑπομνημάτων προτάττοιμεν . . Did. ap. Sch.Il.2.111; so Gal. distinguishes ὑπομνήματα (clinical notes) from συγγράμματα of Hippocrates, 16.532,543; and the συγγράμματα of Hp. from his own commentaries (ὑπομνήματα) on them, ib.811; commentary, οὕτω Θέων ἐν ὑ. τῷ εἰς Θεόκριτον Et.Gud.d. s.v. γρῖπος." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12240" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="3042" RevisionGUID="121cf6ce-7a62-4b89-b6f7-f8b89d96af58" CreationDate="2017-04-13T21:20:46.860" UserId="40" Comment="26" />
  <row Id="12241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4087" RevisionGUID="e3e14a13-9f9e-454a-9d0b-c210f91af15f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T21:26:31.330" UserId="1224" Text="If I say something can *be* changed, for example, how would I say that in Latin? Would I say *id X potest*, or is there some other construction for this? The context doesn't really matter, but it's for my *Commentarium Latinum* entry about drawing people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12242" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4087" RevisionGUID="e3e14a13-9f9e-454a-9d0b-c210f91af15f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T21:26:31.330" UserId="1224" Text="Is there a passive infinitive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12243" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4087" RevisionGUID="e3e14a13-9f9e-454a-9d0b-c210f91af15f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T21:26:31.330" UserId="1224" Text="|passive-voice|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4088" RevisionGUID="0edc58ae-8cf2-48b2-b70a-3fb90b47cc9e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T21:31:35.283" UserId="79" Text="Yes, there is a passive infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;If something can be loved, seen, pulled, or heard, you can say *amari/videri/trahi/audiri potest*.&#xD;&#xA;In the first, second, and third conjugation you just replace the final *-e* of the active infinitive with *-&amp;imacr;*.&#xD;&#xA;In the third conjugation you replace *-ere* with *-&amp;imacr;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I interpreted your question to mean that you wanted a present passive infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;The active and passive infinitives also have past and future forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4089" RevisionGUID="f11036de-b7b2-4a71-9eee-6ec1fa23a1f2" CreationDate="2017-04-14T00:25:08.367" UserId="79" Text="I have come across the term *brevis brevians* a couple of times on this site.&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately Google does not provide me with a clear definition with examples, so I am still not entire sure what it means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the sources I found, it looks like *brevis brevians* means that a long syllable can be scanned short of it follows a short syllable and the metre requires it.&#xD;&#xA;But I'm not sure if my interpretation is correct.&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it means something more, something less, or something slightly different.&#xD;&#xA;If this was covered in my metric poetry class years ago, I have completely forgotten, although I remember most of my metric theory pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone give me a definition and some examples?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12246" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4089" RevisionGUID="f11036de-b7b2-4a71-9eee-6ec1fa23a1f2" CreationDate="2017-04-14T00:25:08.367" UserId="79" Text="What exactly is brevis brevians?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12247" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4089" RevisionGUID="f11036de-b7b2-4a71-9eee-6ec1fa23a1f2" CreationDate="2017-04-14T00:25:08.367" UserId="79" Text="|poetry|terminology|metre|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4090" RevisionGUID="479e18d4-79df-40b9-a25c-e384b318e858" CreationDate="2017-04-14T00:28:48.447" UserId="1429" Text="I know that the translation of &quot;anonymous&quot; is anōnymus. However, it's a bit unclear which suffix to augment this with. I'm trying to determine the phrase &quot;Anonymity in privacy&quot; in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12249" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4090" RevisionGUID="479e18d4-79df-40b9-a25c-e384b318e858" CreationDate="2017-04-14T00:28:48.447" UserId="1429" Text="What would the correct translation of &quot;anonymity&quot; be in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12250" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4090" RevisionGUID="479e18d4-79df-40b9-a25c-e384b318e858" CreationDate="2017-04-14T00:28:48.447" UserId="1429" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4090" RevisionGUID="80333dbf-1ac7-4de1-aa45-ed6d200896af" CreationDate="2017-04-14T00:39:29.990" UserId="1429" Comment="edited body" Text="I know that the translation of &quot;anonymous&quot; is anōnymus. However, it's a bit unclear which suffix to augment this with. I'm trying to determine the phrase &quot;Privacy in anonymity&quot; in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12252" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4090" RevisionGUID="ebeb7237-870e-4537-9957-d0aba9f6de13" CreationDate="2017-04-14T00:46:55.873" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|vocabulary|derivation|suffixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4091" RevisionGUID="8b934e43-95cb-428a-9c1b-9f5ab7a1b6e5" CreationDate="2017-04-14T00:55:26.603" UserId="79" Text="There are a couple of suffices to use in cases like this.&#xD;&#xA;The most common and productive one seems to be *-itas*, so I would suggest *anonymitas* (feminine, third declension).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes also the substantivized neuter can work well.&#xD;&#xA;[Lewis Elementary](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=privatus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060) suggests that this works for &quot;privacy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would translate &quot;privacy in anonymity&quot; directly as *privatum in anonymitate*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The direct translation might not be the best one; it depends on what you want to say exactly.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps *anonymitas privata* or *res privata per anonymitatem* might be better.&#xD;&#xA;It is hard to translate slogans without context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4084" RevisionGUID="f5608913-365c-4028-8c7e-f320e46b1cfa" CreationDate="2017-04-14T01:32:56.993" UserId="45" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="You should use a distributive. Cicero, ad Atticum, 5. 3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ibi mihi tuae litterae binae redditae sunt tertio abs te die*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This works for all such plural nouns, but you should take care over the case and gender. As with some larger cardinal numbers, it's a common mistake to forget that. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4088" RevisionGUID="48ba26dc-39f7-4992-81fa-46b0390d57b4" CreationDate="2017-04-14T05:57:45.997" UserId="79" Comment="added 200 characters in body" Text="Yes, there is a passive infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;If something can be loved, seen, pulled, or heard, you can say *amari/videri/trahi/audiri potest*.&#xD;&#xA;In the first, second, and third conjugation you just replace the final *-e* of the active infinitive with *-&amp;imacr;*.&#xD;&#xA;In the third conjugation you replace *-ere* with *-&amp;imacr;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I interpreted your question to mean that you wanted a present passive infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;The active and passive infinitives also have past and future forms.&#xD;&#xA;Some of these forms require an auxiliary verb (*esse* or *iri*).&#xD;&#xA;If you want to know more about different infinitives, please consult a Latin grammar and ask a new question if something is unclear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4077" RevisionGUID="593c3d80-0132-4f2a-b794-be42ffb1503d" CreationDate="2017-04-14T12:59:58.450" UserId="78" Comment="added 870 characters in body" Text="The Greeks were keenly aware of dialectal differences, and long before the Romans came on the scene, the Greeks had already categorized their dialects into three or four common groups: Ionic (with Attic a sub-group), Doric, Aeolic, and Arcadian. A great, free introduction to this is Buck's [Greek Dialects](https://books.google.com/books?id=_FxBAAAAMAAJ) (or [here](https://archive.org/details/cu31924031214822); the third edition is still under copyright).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should realize that the word *dialect* itself comes from the Greek [διάλεκτος](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dialektos&amp;la=greek#lexicon), and was used in that sense in antiquity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. speech, language, Ar.Fr.685; “καινὴν δ. λαλῶν” Antiph. 171; δ. ἀμνίου, opp. τὰ ἔνδον δράκοντος, Hermipp.3; articulate speech, language, opp. φωνή, Arist.HA535a28; “τοῦ ἀνθρώπου μία φωνή, ἀλλὰ διάλεκτοι πολλαί” Id.Pr.895a6; but also, spoken, opp. written language, D.H.Comp.11.&#xD;&#xA;2. the language of a country, Plb.1.80.6, D.S.5.6, etc.: **esp. dialect, as Ionic, Attic, etc., Diog.Bab.Stoic.3.213, D.H.Comp.3, S.E.M.1.59, Hdn.Gr.2.932; also, local word or expression, Plu.Alex.31.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That these are understood as separate dialects and not individual languages is made clear by the Panhellenic tendencies of the Greeks, most succinctly put by Herodotus 8.144.2, when an Athenian embassy was beseeching the Spartans not to make a deal with the Persians:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For there are many great reasons why we should not do this, even if we so desired; first and foremost, the burning and destruction of the adornments and temples of our gods, whom we are constrained to avenge to the utmost rather than make pacts with the perpetrator of these things, and **next the kinship of all Greeks in blood and *speech***, and the shrines of gods and the sacrifices that we have in common, and the likeness of our way of life, to all of which it would not befit the Athenians to be false.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By all accounts, the Spartans were Doric and the Athenians Attic-Ionic. The differences are stark, as anyone who has made the jump from reading Plato to reading Alcman will tell you. Yet they had a &quot;common speech,&quot; which shows a clear awareness of dialects. This is also pretty clear from the fact that authors could switch dialects at whim: Athenian tragedians wrote the choral sections in a literary Doric dialect while the rest of the play is Attic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the Romans came onto the scene, it was obvious to all parties that Latin and Greek were distinct and not dialects. Cato would rail against Roman historians writing in Greek and instead wrote his in Latin. When the grammarians wrote on Greek dialects, they discussed unusual words and forms, but for the Romans like Cicero, they had to learn a new language with new letters, and were proud of it. Talking about &quot;Greek&quot; when referring to Homer, Sappho, Pindar, Herodotus, and Plato makes them all seem, to the Romans, one distinct language comprised of dialects that did not also include Latin. Quintilian (*Inst*. *Orat*. 12.10.34) remarks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; his ilia potentiora, quod res plurimae carent appellationibus, ut eas necesse sit transferre aut circumire; etiam in iis, quae denominata sunt, summa paupertas in eadem nos frequentissime revolvit; at illis non verborum modo, **sed linguarum etiam inter se differentium copia est**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A still stronger indication of the inferiority of Latin is to be found in the fact that there are many things which have no Latin names, so that it is necessary to express them by metaphor or periphrasis, while even in the case of things which have names, the extreme poverty of the language leads us to resort to the same practice. **On the other hand, the Greeks have not merely abundance of words, but they have also a number of different dialects** (lit. &quot;but even the language has an abundance of differences among itself&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might seem obvious to us today, but it wasn't to all the ancients. In fact, there was an idea current in the first century BCE and later that Latin was after all Greek, specifically Aeolic. This was espoused most notably by Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1.90.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Romans speak a language neither completely barbaric nor wholly Greek, but one mixed from both, of which the greater part is Aeolic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted, though, that Dionysius wasn't a grammarian, and well after comparative linguistics came on the scene, some people still claim unusual things about modern languages, from the easily confused (e.g. [Aramaic is a dialect of Hebrew](https://books.google.com/books?id=1lvO--uZ248C&amp;pg=PA317&amp;lpg=PA317&amp;dq=aramaic+a+%22dialect+of+hebrew%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=6PE1peJiWD&amp;sig=Pu29-eDZ7O2CKjNUB0tGFwNaQpY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiAoZuj2qDTAhWBRyYKHRjKBCIQ6AEIYTAM#v=snippet&amp;q=aramaic%20%22dialect%20of%20hebrew%22&amp;f=false)) to the bizarre (e.g. the idea that all Chinese languages are actually dialects because they're written using the same characters, which isn't even true at that!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a good article on the subject, check out Benjamin Stevens on [Aeolism](https://www.jstor.org/stable/30038039?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents). I've posted the abstract below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aeolism, the idea that Latin is a dialect of Greek, was a matter of debate among a wide range of authors and readers in the Roman world. Often interpreted psychoanalytically, the idea is better understood as articulating a grudging ancient awareness that languages and social groups, including seemingly distinct groups like &quot;Greeks&quot; and &quot;Romans,&quot; are in fact always &quot;mixed,&quot; and thus that identity is a matter of fluid participation in shared social practices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though Dionysius is clearly wrong, his claims still point to a clear understanding of the differences of languages and dialects. The latter, as its seen from both Dionysius' thoughts and from ancient Greek observations on their own language, are either due to mixing or just from differences over time (the Greek mythographers made the sons of [Hellen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellen) Dorus (thus Doric among the Dorians), Aeolus (Aeolic) and either Ion (Ionic), or Xuthus, whose sons were Ion and Achaeus (which seemed to be a response to the early use of the Achaean ethnonym and the confusion about how to properly divide the mixed dialects of the north Peloponnese)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4092" RevisionGUID="62048452-2c52-437c-9eb6-23c119d16a5c" CreationDate="2017-04-14T13:26:41.240" UserId="118" Text="What would be a good way to coin an English word for &quot;to make hill-shaped&quot;, so it conforms to our traditions for drawing upon classical roots?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possibility is &quot;collify&quot;, with &quot;collification&quot; for the noun, from an imaginary Latin word _collificare._ I don't think &quot;collify&quot; suggests its meaning, though. Does the Latin word **collis** appear in any English words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility is to draw upon **tumulus**, which echoes in English &quot;tumescence&quot; and &quot;tumor&quot;. There is also an English word [&quot;tumulus&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumulus), meaning a burial mound. How, in Latin, would one make a verb for &quot;to make tumulus-like&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intended context for this word is to describe modification of fitness landscapes in genetic/evolutionary algorithms to make them smoother and thus (mathematically, heuristically) easier to &quot;climb&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no Latin root works, I may have to go with Greek or else the ugly hybrid &quot;hillify&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12258" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4092" RevisionGUID="62048452-2c52-437c-9eb6-23c119d16a5c" CreationDate="2017-04-14T13:26:41.240" UserId="118" Text="Coining a word for &quot;to make hill-shaped&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12259" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4092" RevisionGUID="62048452-2c52-437c-9eb6-23c119d16a5c" CreationDate="2017-04-14T13:26:41.240" UserId="118" Text="|neologism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4092" RevisionGUID="d536e026-4ef1-46dd-ad22-a010cbffaf36" CreationDate="2017-04-14T13:41:04.340" UserId="118" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="What would be a good way to coin an English word for &quot;to make hill-shaped&quot;, so it conforms to our traditions for drawing upon classical roots?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possibility is &quot;collify&quot;, with &quot;collification&quot; for the noun, from an imaginary Latin word _collificare._ I don't think &quot;collify&quot; suggests its meaning, though. Does the Latin word **collis** appear in any English words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility is to draw upon **tumulus**, which echoes in English &quot;tumescence&quot; and &quot;tumor&quot;. There is also an English word [&quot;tumulus&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumulus), meaning a burial mound. How, in Latin, would one make a verb for &quot;to make tumulus-like&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intended context for this word is to describe modification of fitness landscapes in genetic/evolutionary algorithms to make them smoother and thus (mathematically, heuristically) easier to &quot;climb&quot;. Fitness landscapes that are very un-hill-shaped are commonly called &quot;rough&quot;, so another possible Latin root to draw upon is **lēvis**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no Latin root works, I may have to go with Greek or else the ugly hybrid &quot;hillify&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4093" RevisionGUID="4c9b40e3-70ac-442c-ae32-63cac1efad7c" CreationDate="2017-04-14T15:10:52.077" UserId="45" Text="Though this may not entirely appropriate, the first thing that came to my mind was the Vulgate's rendering of Isaiah 40:4,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; omnis vallis exaltabitur et omnis mons et collis humiliabitur et erunt prava in directa et aspera in vias planas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The KJV version (as used by H&amp;auml;ndel) translates as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These words mostly refer to *removing* height differences, not softening them. Here are some other possible words. I have included an English dictionary link and definition where available:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*lenify / lenification*](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lenify): alleviate, assuage, mitigate, soften&#xD;&#xA;* [*levigate / levigation*](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/levigation): to rub, grind, or reduce to a fine powder, as in a mortar, with or without the addition of a liquid. (From Latin *levigo / levigatio*: &quot;to make smooth, to smooth&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**However**, unless I'm really misunderstanding your use case, I think such a neologism would be pointless, since we already have from statistics the concept of data set [smoothing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoothing)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4092" RevisionGUID="d46aa1e8-344e-4651-a8f5-92af7e9e035f" CreationDate="2017-04-14T17:54:57.727" UserId="118" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="What would be a good way to coin an English word for &quot;to make hill-shaped&quot;, so it conforms to our traditions for drawing upon classical roots?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possibility is &quot;collify&quot;, with &quot;collification&quot; for the noun, from an imaginary Latin word _collificare._ I don't think &quot;collify&quot; suggests its meaning, though. Does the Latin word **collis** appear in any English words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility is to draw upon **tumulus**, which echoes in English &quot;tumescence&quot; and &quot;tumor&quot;. There is also an English word [&quot;tumulus&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumulus), meaning a burial mound. Hmm, tumuli have [exactly the shape](https://www.google.com/search?q=tumuli&amp;client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwim9-eouaTTAhXJ64MKHZfDBS8Q_AUICCgB&amp;biw=899&amp;bih=708) I want to suggest. How, in Latin, would one make a verb for &quot;to make tumulus-like&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intended context for this word is to describe modification of fitness landscapes in genetic/evolutionary algorithms to make them smoother and thus (mathematically, heuristically) easier to &quot;climb&quot;. Fitness landscapes that are very un-hill-shaped are commonly called &quot;rough&quot;, so another possible Latin root to draw upon is **lēvis**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no Latin root works, I may have to go with Greek or else the ugly hybrid &quot;hillify&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4094" RevisionGUID="56fdca60-63ec-4adb-bbf9-0d98236bb25d" CreationDate="2017-04-14T20:17:56.997" UserId="79" Text="I suggest using *clivus* or *mons* for &quot;hill&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Especially the second one is easily recognized, and I believe many English speakers would understand the verb &quot;montify&quot; (&lt; *montificare*) in context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *clivus* might not be as easily recognized, but it might still work well and it leads to natural-sounding derivatives in English.&#xD;&#xA;Starting from *clivus* or a corresponding adjective *acclivus*, one can derive *(ac)clivare* which can be rendered in English as &quot;(ac)clivate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that [&quot;acclivated&quot;](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acclivated) already exists and has a similar meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4095" RevisionGUID="a51e0ecf-c472-4e12-934c-713ab721fb88" CreationDate="2017-04-14T20:36:09.820" UserId="118" Text="[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/clivus#Latin) suggests that **clivus** is related to **clino** and **clinatus**. But it doesn't explain the connection. Is there some way that **n** in a verb becomes **v** in a related noun or adjective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary traces both words to the same PIE root, [ḱley-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱley-)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12265" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4095" RevisionGUID="a51e0ecf-c472-4e12-934c-713ab721fb88" CreationDate="2017-04-14T20:36:09.820" UserId="118" Text="Is there a connection between clivus and clinatus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12266" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4095" RevisionGUID="a51e0ecf-c472-4e12-934c-713ab721fb88" CreationDate="2017-04-14T20:36:09.820" UserId="118" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4096" RevisionGUID="4dea8f1e-4e90-4e21-8b3e-a89567bb1ea9" CreationDate="2017-04-14T21:25:02.563" UserId="1407" Text="Miller, in his translation of Seneca, makes Chaos masculine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;let Chaos re-echo the outcries of his grief.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Source: [Hercules Furens, trans. Frank Justus Miller, ~1100][1]&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to the Latin on Perseus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Resonet maesto clamore chaos&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Source: [Seneca, Hercules Furens, Rudolf Peiper, Gustav Richter, Ed., 1108-9][2]&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Perseus word study tools has [chaos][3] and [maesto][4] as either masculine *or* neuter, but [clamore][5] as masculine *only* thus my conclusion is that clamore is the reason for Miller's choice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this analysis was the subject of some disagreement.  Is there a case for a neuter Chaos in this passage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.theoi.com/Text/SenecaHerculesFurens.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0003%3Acard%3D1054&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=chaos&amp;la=la&amp;can=chaos0&amp;prior=clamore&amp;d=Perseus:text:2007.01.0003:card=1054&amp;i=1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=maesto&amp;la=la&amp;can=maesto0&amp;prior=Resonet&amp;d=Perseus:text:2007.01.0003:card=1054&amp;i=1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=clamore&amp;la=la&amp;can=clamore0&amp;prior=maesto&amp;d=Perseus:text:2007.01.0003:card=1054&amp;i=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12268" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4096" RevisionGUID="4dea8f1e-4e90-4e21-8b3e-a89567bb1ea9" CreationDate="2017-04-14T21:25:02.563" UserId="1407" Text="Is the Roman personification of chaos masculine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12269" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4096" RevisionGUID="4dea8f1e-4e90-4e21-8b3e-a89567bb1ea9" CreationDate="2017-04-14T21:25:02.563" UserId="1407" Text="|agreement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4097" RevisionGUID="47f15ef2-d8c7-4533-a368-d16f32f2c69e" CreationDate="2017-04-14T21:41:37.713" UserId="79" Text="The adjective *maesto* determines the noun *clamore* and is therefore in a masculine form.&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding neuter form is also *maesto*.&#xD;&#xA;The thing that reveals the connection to *clamore* is case: both *maesto* and *clamore* are in ablative, whereas *chaos* is nominative (the subject of the clause).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This literal translation might not be idiomatic English, but it should give an idea of how the Latin structure works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Resonet maesto clamore chaos.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; May chaos re-echo with a sorrowful cry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English preposition &quot;with&quot; corresponds to the Latin ablative in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, this passage tells nothing about the gender of *chaos*.&#xD;&#xA;It could perfectly well be masculine, feminine, or neuter.&#xD;&#xA;Other sources are needed to draw any conclusions about its gender and declension." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4098" RevisionGUID="363f902f-90a8-4655-b13a-88efaafdf4b1" CreationDate="2017-04-14T21:57:15.720" UserId="78" Text="Doubtful. In 860 of the same play, we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stat chaos densum tenebraeque turpes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chaos here is neuter (because of *densum*). Lewis and Short says that Chaos is masculine when personified as a god rather than as the underworld or the formless, primordial matter, but I don't see that in the OLD, and none of the examples they give (two from Vergil, one from Quintilian, one from Ovid, one from Hyginus) support anything grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the Hyginus passage is interesting in appearing to present Chaos as a male counterpart to Caligine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex Chao et Caligine Nox Dies Erebus Aether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from Chaos and Caligine: Night, Day, Erebus, Aether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would give some credence to the idea that Chaos was considered a masculine persona with a neuter name. Such a thing isn't entirely crazy - a talking *baculum* is still going to be neuter regardless of whether it's a male or female persona. Moreover, as mentioned in the [other Stack](https://mythology.stackexchange.com/questions/2505/is-it-lady-chaos-or-lord-chaos), Aristophanes has Chaos giving birth, so how early this masculine aspect was is doubtful, and at any rate, I don't think Lewis &amp; Short were referring to its grammatical form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4099" RevisionGUID="21acae84-a064-4c7d-bac3-b6128166ff21" CreationDate="2017-04-15T00:03:40.047" UserId="235" Text="Every now and then, I'm reminded that λαλεω means &quot;to say or speak&quot;, especially when reading the New Testament. It seems possible that λαλεω derives from the same PIE stem as λέγω through reduplication. Wiktionary, however suggests otherwise, claiming that λαλεω derives from *leh2- and λέγω from *leg-.&#xA;&#xA;Is the similar meaning of the two words a coincidence? Or is there some genetic relation? Furthermore, are there any semantic nuances between the two, e.g. cases where one is appropriate but not the other? Is λαλεω common in the Attic dialect or only in Koine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12273" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4099" RevisionGUID="21acae84-a064-4c7d-bac3-b6128166ff21" CreationDate="2017-04-15T00:03:40.047" UserId="235" Text="Are λαλεω and λέγω related?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12274" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4099" RevisionGUID="21acae84-a064-4c7d-bac3-b6128166ff21" CreationDate="2017-04-15T00:03:40.047" UserId="235" Text="|greek|word-comparison|proto-indo-european|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4099" RevisionGUID="2f1515e0-06f9-4762-a0a6-cb8212358e60" CreationDate="2017-04-15T00:11:28.913" UserId="235" Comment="added 224 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Every now and then, I'm reminded that λαλεω means &quot;to say or speak&quot;, especially when reading the New Testament. It seems possible that λαλεω derives from the same PIE stem as λέγω through reduplication. Wiktionary, however suggests otherwise, claiming that λαλεω derives from *leh2- and λέγω from *leg-.&#xA;&#xA;Is the similar meaning of the two words a coincidence? Or is there some genetic relation? Furthermore, are there any semantic nuances between the two, e.g. cases where one is appropriate but not the other? Is λαλεω common in the Attic dialect or only in Koine?&#xA;&#xA;The Latin cognates are lallo and lego, and although we find a similar meaning between lallo and λαλεω, we do not see a semantic similarity between lego and λέγω. At least not in the sense of speaking. I wonder why this is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12276" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4099" RevisionGUID="2f1515e0-06f9-4762-a0a6-cb8212358e60" CreationDate="2017-04-15T00:11:28.913" UserId="235" Comment="added 224 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|greek|word-comparison|proto-indo-european|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4099" RevisionGUID="0c19757e-1952-4753-a1a7-55d4f5e08e17" CreationDate="2017-04-15T00:32:38.880" UserId="235" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="Every now and then, I'm reminded that λαλεω means &quot;to say or speak&quot;, especially when reading the New Testament. It seems possible that λαλεω derives from the same PIE stem as λέγω through reduplication. Wiktionary, however suggests otherwise, claiming that λαλεω derives from *leh2- and λέγω from *leg-.&#xA;&#xA;Is the similar meaning of the two words a coincidence? Or is there some genetic relation? Furthermore, are there any semantic nuances between the two, e.g. cases where one is appropriate but not the other? Is λαλεω common in the Attic dialect or only in Koine?&#xA;&#xA;The Latin cognates are lallo and lego, and although we find a similar meaning between lallo and λαλεω, we do not see a semantic similarity between lego and λέγω. At least not in the sense of speaking. I wonder why this is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12278" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4099" RevisionGUID="48498dbe-6bde-4009-9c01-8cf9b849a91c" CreationDate="2017-04-15T00:58:02.933" UserId="235" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|etymology|greek|word-comparison|proto-indo-european|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4099" RevisionGUID="3229563e-fb16-4c15-bc2f-75204d819089" CreationDate="2017-04-15T02:56:19.450" UserId="235" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="Every now and then, I'm reminded that λαλέω means &quot;to say or speak&quot;, especially when reading the New Testament. It seems possible that λαλέω derives from the same PIE stem as λέγω through reduplication. Wiktionary, however suggests otherwise, claiming that λαλέω derives from *leh2- and λέγω from *leg-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the similar meaning of the two words a coincidence? Or is there some genetic relation? Furthermore, are there any semantic nuances between the two, e.g. cases where one is appropriate but not the other? Is λαλέω common in the Attic dialect or only in Koine?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin cognates are lallo and lego, and although we find a similar meaning between lallo and λαλέω, we do not see a semantic similarity between lego and λέγω. At least not in the sense of speaking. I wonder why this is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12281" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4099" RevisionGUID="3229563e-fb16-4c15-bc2f-75204d819089" CreationDate="2017-04-15T02:56:19.450" UserId="235" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="Are λαλέω and λέγω related?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4100" RevisionGUID="085510fb-8d73-4ffe-8cb0-478a0307aaa6" CreationDate="2017-04-15T03:23:54.127" UserId="40" Text="The resemblance is accidental. For one thing, there's no way to relate PIE *leǵ- and *leh₂- (if the latter is really the root of λαλέω, which is doubtful). Second, the similarity in sense is secondary. The primary meaning of *leǵ-, and of λέγω, is &quot;collect, pick out&quot;. In Greek, there was presumably a development in sense such as &quot;pick out or enumerate (facts, events) &gt; recount &gt; say&quot;. In Latin, on the other hand, the development seems to have been &quot;visually collect written characters &gt; read&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;λαλέω and *lallo* are pretty clearly onomatopoeic. As such, they could be independently coined verbs or could go back to PIE (in which case the form of the root might be *lal-, thus tentatively Beekes). The sense of [λαλέω](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlale%2Fw) in Attic is often more specific than &quot;speak&quot;, namely something like &quot;prattle&quot;, though it does sometimes mean simply &quot;talk&quot;, and becomes common in this sense in Hellenistic Greek and the Koine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4101" RevisionGUID="d3e679a2-d394-4f8b-9bb0-400e543f946a" CreationDate="2017-04-15T04:59:53.830" UserId="867" Text="My vote is for *automatocide* for the following reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) *automatos / αυτοματος* (sg), *automata / αυτοματα* (pl) is attested in ancient literature as referring to self-acting, autonomous, mechanical beings.  Some examples include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The self-opening gates of Olympus (*αυτομαται πυλαι*) in Homer, Iliad,&#xD;&#xA;   5.749 &#xD;&#xA; - The self-moving tripods Hephaestus made, referred to as *οι αυτοματοι* / the autonomous ones, in Homer, Iliad, 18.376  &#xD;&#xA; - A reference to “miraculous automatic puppets” (*τα αυτοματα των θαυματων*) in&#xD;&#xA;   Aristotle, Generation of Animals, 734b11&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the nominalised adjective *automata* is broad enough to encompass a variety of mechanical, autonomous beings (in response to Rafael’s comment about &quot;classicide&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) as an example of its use in a compound form, we have *automatopoiika / αυτοματοποιικα* from [Philo of Byzantium's][1] (fl. ca. 250 BC) engineering manual on how to build *automata*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) I know you asked for a Latin prefix but as Rafael established, the *gen-* of genocide has a Greek root so using *automato-* seems legitimate.  Also, I’m not aware of any Roman writings on robots whereas the Greeks wrote about robot-like beings quite frequently, hence the ready-made term *automata*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Admittedly weaker] alternatives from classical literature include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Mechanicide*: from the story in Polybius’ *Histories* of the robot tax-collector’s wife who crushed and pierced recalcitrant tax payers to death.  She is referred to as a machine / *μηχανη* (13.7).  Of course, this could so easily be misunderstood as killing of mechanics, so perhaps not that useful!  On the plus side, however, this is the same &quot;machine&quot; of *deus ex machina* (a Latin calque of the Greek *απο μηκανης θεος*), which post-Matrix/Ex Machina/various sci-fi and anime movies/video games, and philosopher [Gilbert Ryle's][2] “ghost in the machine”, is used as a reference to AI.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;*Chalkicide* (pronounced kalkicide): from the story of Talos, the robot who guarded Crete, in Apollonius’ *Argonautica* (4.1638-1686).  Talos is referred to as a bonze man / *χαλκειος* (4.1638).  Hence my offering of *chalkicide*.  This is clearly flawed as it looks like death to chalk!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Talicide*: in honour of poor Talos / *Ταλως* who was tragically killed in the line of duty by that witch Medea.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If I were to read *roboticide* in a book, I would know exactly what it meant and, to that end, it works.  However, *pace Pons Wörterbuch des neuen Lateins*, I don’t think *robotum* is real Latin but rather a Latinisation of the Czech word [*robotnik*][3] / a slave, itself from *robota* / slave workforce, from the verb *robtotiti* / to work.  This is from Old Slavic and doesn’t seem to have any roots in either Greek or Latin.  English adopted the word robot from the Czech author Karel Capek’s play *R.U.R. Rossum's Universal Robots*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.encyclopedia.com/science/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/philo-byzantium&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_machine&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=robot" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4072" RevisionGUID="8717dce1-3b93-4ed2-8d0c-b16642ed579d" CreationDate="2017-04-15T05:27:32.660" UserId="867" Comment="Changed title to better reflect the main question being asked.  Changed tag to better align with topic of question." Text="Does the &quot;gen&quot; from &quot;genocide&quot; come from &quot;genus&quot; as in &quot;race&quot;?  If so, what Latin prefix should one use to describe the wiping out of robots? I can't say &quot;codacide&quot; can I? Automatacide?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12286" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4072" RevisionGUID="8717dce1-3b93-4ed2-8d0c-b16642ed579d" CreationDate="2017-04-15T05:27:32.660" UserId="867" Comment="Changed title to better reflect the main question being asked.  Changed tag to better align with topic of question." Text="Latin prefix to describe the wiping out of robots" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12287" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4072" RevisionGUID="8717dce1-3b93-4ed2-8d0c-b16642ed579d" CreationDate="2017-04-15T05:27:32.660" UserId="867" Comment="Changed title to better reflect the main question being asked.  Changed tag to better align with topic of question." Text="|neologism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4101" RevisionGUID="8e9b57ac-f617-44f0-951f-7d37c6eecaa1" CreationDate="2017-04-15T05:39:29.897" UserId="867" Comment="added 525 characters in body" Text="My vote is for *automatocide* for the following reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) *automatos / αυτοματος* (sg), *automata / αυτοματα* (pl) is attested in ancient literature as referring to self-acting, autonomous, mechanical beings.  Some examples include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The self-opening gates of Olympus (*αυτομαται πυλαι*) in Homer, Iliad,&#xD;&#xA;   5.749 &#xD;&#xA; - The self-moving tripods Hephaestus made, referred to as *οι αυτοματοι* / the autonomous ones, in Homer, Iliad, 18.376  &#xD;&#xA; - A reference to “miraculous automatic puppets” (*τα αυτοματα των θαυματων*) in&#xD;&#xA;   Aristotle, Generation of Animals, 734b11&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the nominalised adjective *automata* is broad enough to encompass a variety of mechanical, autonomous beings (in response to Rafael’s comment about &quot;classicide&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) as an example of its use in a compound form, we have *automatopoiika / αυτοματοποιικα* from [Philo of Byzantium's][1] (fl. ca. 250 BC) engineering manual on how to build *automata*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) I know you asked for a Latin prefix but as Rafael established, the *gen-* of genocide has a Greek root so using *automato-* seems legitimate.  Also, I’m not aware of any Roman writings on robots whereas the Greeks wrote about robot-like beings quite frequently, hence the ready-made term *automata*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT (4) *automatum* does appear in Latin works, although very rarely.  In Petronius, it does seem to refer to an automaton or at least a clockwork toy of some sort:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *ne per parietem automatum aliquod exiret* / lest some automaton leap out of the wall (*Satyricon*, 54)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Suetonius, however, it seems to be more of an ordinary mechanical device, not intended to look or act like a human:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *si automatum ... parum cessisset* / if a device ... had worked insufficiently (*Lives of the Caesars: Claudius*, 5.34)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Admittedly weaker] alternatives from classical literature include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Mechanicide*: from the story in Polybius’ *Histories* of the robot tax-collector’s wife who crushed and pierced recalcitrant tax payers to death.  She is referred to as a machine / *μηχανη* (13.7).  Of course, this could so easily be misunderstood as killing of mechanics, so perhaps not that useful!  On the plus side, however, this is the same &quot;machine&quot; of *deus ex machina* (a Latin calque of the Greek *απο μηκανης θεος*), which post-Matrix/Ex Machina/various sci-fi and anime movies/video games, and philosopher [Gilbert Ryle's][2] “ghost in the machine”, is used as a reference to AI.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;*Chalkicide* (pronounced kalkicide): from the story of Talos, the robot who guarded Crete, in Apollonius’ *Argonautica* (4.1638-1686).  Talos is referred to as a bonze man / *χαλκειος* (4.1638).  Hence my offering of *chalkicide*.  This is clearly flawed as it looks like death to chalk!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Talicide*: in honour of poor Talos / *Ταλως* who was tragically killed in the line of duty by that witch Medea.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If I were to read *roboticide* in a book, I would know exactly what it meant and, to that end, it works.  However, *pace Pons Wörterbuch des neuen Lateins*, I don’t think *robotum* is real Latin but rather a Latinisation of the Czech word [*robotnik*][3] / a slave, itself from *robota* / slave workforce, from the verb *robtotiti* / to work.  This is from Old Slavic and doesn’t seem to have any roots in either Greek or Latin.  English adopted the word robot from the Czech author Karel Capek’s play *R.U.R. Rossum's Universal Robots*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.encyclopedia.com/science/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/philo-byzantium&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_machine&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=robot" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4101" RevisionGUID="9e8ccfe4-77ed-416e-8251-491c169a0c9c" CreationDate="2017-04-15T05:45:07.237" UserId="867" Comment="added 525 characters in body" Text="My vote is for *automatocide* for the following reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) *automatos / αυτοματος* (sg), *automata / αυτοματα* (pl) is attested in ancient literature as referring to self-acting, autonomous, mechanical beings.  Some examples include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The self-opening gates of Olympus (*αυτομαται πυλαι*) in Homer, Iliad,&#xD;&#xA;   5.749 &#xD;&#xA; - The self-moving tripods Hephaestus made, referred to as *οι αυτοματοι* / the autonomous ones, in Homer, Iliad, 18.376  &#xD;&#xA; - A reference to “miraculous automatic puppets” (*τα αυτοματα των θαυματων*) in&#xD;&#xA;   Aristotle, Generation of Animals, 734b11&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the nominalised adjective *automata* is broad enough to encompass a variety of mechanical, autonomous beings (in response to Rafael’s comment about &quot;classicide&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) as an example of its use in a compound form, we have *automatopoiika / αυτοματοποιικα* from [Philo of Byzantium's][1] (fl. ca. 250 BC) engineering manual on how to build *automata*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) I know you asked for a Latin prefix but as Rafael established, the *gen-* of genocide has a Greek root so using *automato-* seems legitimate.  Also, I’m not aware of any Roman writings on robots whereas the Greeks wrote about robot-like beings quite frequently, hence the ready-made term *automata*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT (4) *automatum* does appear in Latin works, although very rarely.  In Petronius, it does seem to refer to an automaton or at least a clockwork toy of some sort:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *ne per parietem automatum aliquod exiret* / lest some automaton leap out of the wall (*Satyricon*, 54)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Suetonius, however, it seems to be more of an ordinary mechanical device, not intended to look or act like a human:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *si automatum ... parum cessisset* / if a device ... had worked insufficiently (*Lives of the Caesars: Claudius*, 5.34)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Admittedly weaker] alternatives from classical literature could include (note: these are my own neologisms, based on the literature):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Mechanicide*: from the story in Polybius’ *Histories* of the robot tax-collector’s wife who crushed and pierced recalcitrant tax payers to death.  She is referred to as a machine / *μηχανη* (13.7).  Of course, this could so easily be misunderstood as killing of mechanics, so perhaps not that useful!  On the plus side, however, this is the same &quot;machine&quot; of *deus ex machina* (a Latin calque of the Greek *απο μηκανης θεος*), which post-Matrix/Ex Machina/various sci-fi and anime movies/video games, and philosopher [Gilbert Ryle's][2] “ghost in the machine”, is used as a reference to AI.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;*Chalkicide* (pronounced kalkicide): from the story of Talos, the robot who guarded Crete, in Apollonius’ *Argonautica* (4.1638-1686).  Talos is referred to as a bonze man / *χαλκειος* (4.1638).  Hence my offering of *chalkicide*.  This is clearly flawed as it looks like death to chalk!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Talicide*: in honour of poor Talos / *Ταλως* who was tragically killed in the line of duty by that witch Medea.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If I were to read *roboticide* in a book, I would know exactly what it meant and, to that end, it works.  However, *pace Pons Wörterbuch des neuen Lateins*, I don’t think *robotum* is real Latin but rather a Latinisation of the Czech word [*robotnik*][3] / a slave, itself from *robota* / slave workforce, from the verb *robtotiti* / to work.  This is from Old Slavic and doesn’t seem to have any roots in either Greek or Latin.  English adopted the word robot from the Czech author Karel Capek’s play *R.U.R. Rossum's Universal Robots*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.encyclopedia.com/science/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/philo-byzantium&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_machine&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=robot" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4102" RevisionGUID="e36acc96-e36d-4c30-9382-15b65e95ef85" CreationDate="2017-04-15T12:27:13.103" UserId="1432" Text="Anyone who served in the military in Iraq (and probably anyone who has done business in the Gulf) in the last 15 years is familiar with the term 'Inshallah.' I suppose it means 'God willing,' as in, &quot;I will do this thing, Inshallah.&quot; Realistically, it is used to evade responsibility while giving the listener a hope that divine intervention will allow the task at hand to be completed ([source][1]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context, I was noticing the similarity between this expression and a very different one, 'Deus Vult,' the battle cry of the crusaders after the 1095 Council at Clermont. That, I understand, translates to &quot;God wills it!&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The difference between the two is basically one of verb conjugation. As far as internet dictionaries tell me, 'vult' is the third person singular present indicative. To make it more of a question or conditional, you would want it to be in the subjunction, I think, 'velit.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Would 'Deus Velit' express the same kind of abdication of responsibility in favor of devine will that 'Inshallah' represents?** If not, what would be the correct expression? And for any correct expression, are there records of this phrase being used in the past, perhaps in the more faithful Middle Ages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.duffelblog.com/2016/06/arab-man-invents-inshallah-watch/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12291" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4102" RevisionGUID="e36acc96-e36d-4c30-9382-15b65e95ef85" CreationDate="2017-04-15T12:27:13.103" UserId="1432" Text="What is a latin version of Inshallah?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12292" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4102" RevisionGUID="e36acc96-e36d-4c30-9382-15b65e95ef85" CreationDate="2017-04-15T12:27:13.103" UserId="1432" Text="|translation|medieval-latin|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4103" RevisionGUID="4c53ffdc-249a-4787-b4cd-d435a086b374" CreationDate="2017-04-15T14:01:50.370" UserId="645" Text="*Si Deus velit* would be quite satisfactory, 'if God should wish [it]', but is, I think, neither as usual or as forceful as the more familiar ablative absolute  form *Deo volente*, 'with God willing', often abbreviated as 'DV'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On old British coinage, etc., *Dei Gratia*, by the grace of God' used to appear, later shortened to 'DG', with very similar meaning. [The full inscription included abbreviations for the phrases *Dei gratia Rex*, *Fidei Defensor* and *Indiae Imperator*, the last of which was dropped after independence was granted to India.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4104" RevisionGUID="ae9f9f50-2a31-4647-b5dc-c4fa1d33e48f" CreationDate="2017-04-15T17:01:29.757" UserId="39" Text="As we know, **the Greek word Χάος is neuter**. Here's its entry from Montanari:&#xA;&#xA;[![Montanari][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caduff 2006 describes it as &quot;which is no further reducible but nevertheless exists&quot; (Brill New's Pauly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though its etymology is not entirely clear, the communis opinio is that it is probably related to the verb χάσκω 'be open, gape wide.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, Beekes (2009/2016) speculates that &quot;an original meaning 'hole, empty space, yawning' is quite thinkable for Χάος.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of its connection to the verb χάσκω, some researchers speculated that Chaos can be seen as an essentially feminine symbol. But imho this is highly speculative and there is no clear evidence to verify this claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cDl62.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4104" RevisionGUID="dc67cbe5-6300-4177-b191-1851b7b5961c" CreationDate="2017-04-15T17:10:36.670" UserId="39" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="(a Greek perspective on Chaos)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As we know, **the Greek word Χάος is neuter**. Here's its entry from Montanari:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caduff 2006 describes it as &quot;which is no further reducible but nevertheless exists&quot; (Brill New's Pauly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though its etymology is not entirely clear, the communis opinio is that it is probably related to the verb χάσκω 'be open, gape wide.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, Beekes (2009/2016) speculates that &quot;an original meaning 'hole, empty space, yawning' is quite thinkable for Χάος.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of its connection to the verb χάσκω, some researchers speculated that Chaos can be seen as an essentially feminine symbol. But imho this is highly speculative and there is no clear evidence to verify this claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB! Not sure how to make the screenshot smaller - feel free to edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QaOpG.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4104" RevisionGUID="23e7eaae-bcc4-4fe3-abf9-cba738e59787" CreationDate="2017-04-15T17:49:10.293" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body" Text="(a Greek perspective on Chaos)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As we know, **the Greek word Χάος is neuter**. Here's its entry from Montanari:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/QaOpG.jpg&quot; width=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caduff 2006 describes it as &quot;which is no further reducible but nevertheless exists&quot; (Brill New's Pauly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though its etymology is not entirely clear, the communis opinio is that it is probably related to the verb χάσκω 'be open, gape wide.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, Beekes (2009/2016) speculates that &quot;an original meaning 'hole, empty space, yawning' is quite thinkable for Χάος.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of its connection to the verb χάσκω, some researchers speculated that Chaos can be seen as an essentially feminine symbol. But imho this is highly speculative and there is no clear evidence to verify this claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4104" RevisionGUID="57f2b73d-3c4b-4d70-80b2-1041d0e5cec9" CreationDate="2017-04-15T17:58:33.713" UserId="39" Comment="added 411 characters in body" Text="Indeed, the Greek borrowing was mostly used an a neuter noun in Latin but occasionally we see examples of chaos used as a masculine noun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quite often, we can't easily tell whether it was used as a masculine or neuter noun though. For example, Ovid writes in Metamorphoses II:299: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;si freta, si terrae pereunt, si regia caeli,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**in chaos antiquum** confundimur! eripe flammis,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;si quid adhuc superest, et rerum consule summae!”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As we know, **the Greek word Χάος is neuter**. Here's its entry from Montanari:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/QaOpG.jpg&quot; width=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caduff 2006 describes it as &quot;which is no further reducible but nevertheless exists&quot; (Brill New's Pauly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though its etymology is not entirely clear, the communis opinio is that it is probably related to the verb χάσκω 'be open, gape wide.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, Beekes (2009/2016) speculates that &quot;an original meaning 'hole, empty space, yawning' is quite thinkable for Χάος.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of its connection to the verb χάσκω, some researchers speculated that Chaos can be seen as an essentially feminine symbol. But imho this is highly speculative and there is no clear evidence to verify this claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4102" RevisionGUID="d1acad76-cb36-4051-a962-3e6a6e7dcc8c" CreationDate="2017-04-15T18:03:32.493" UserId="1432" Comment="edited body" Text="Anyone who served in the military in Iraq (and probably anyone who has done business in the Gulf) in the last 15 years is familiar with the term 'Inshallah.' I suppose it means 'God willing,' as in, &quot;I will do this thing, Inshallah.&quot; Realistically, it is used to evade responsibility while giving the listener a hope that divine intervention will allow the task at hand to be completed ([source][1]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context, I was noticing the similarity between this expression and a very different one, 'Deus Vult,' the battle cry of the crusaders after the 1095 Council at Clermont. That, I understand, translates to &quot;God wills it!&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The difference between the two is basically one of verb conjugation. As far as internet dictionaries tell me, 'vult' is the third person singular present indicative. To make it more of a question or conditional, you would want it to be in the subjunctive, I think, 'velit.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Would 'Deus Velit' express the same kind of abdication of responsibility in favor of divine will that 'Inshallah' represents?** If not, what would be the correct expression? And for any correct expression, are there records of this phrase being used in the past, perhaps in the more faithful Middle Ages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.duffelblog.com/2016/06/arab-man-invents-inshallah-watch/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4104" RevisionGUID="defab61d-c933-4b3a-9a0d-c0a62e4a43d6" CreationDate="2017-04-15T18:03:57.483" UserId="39" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="Indeed, the Greek borrowing was mostly used an a neuter noun in Latin but occasionally we see examples of chaos used as a masculine noun. To verify this, we need to look it up in TLL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quite often, we can't easily tell whether it was used as a masculine or neuter noun though. For example, Ovid writes in Metamorphoses II:299: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;si freta, si terrae pereunt, si regia caeli,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**in chaos antiquum** confundimur! eripe flammis,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;si quid adhuc superest, et rerum consule summae!”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As we know, **the Greek word Χάος is neuter**. Here's its entry from Montanari:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/QaOpG.jpg&quot; width=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caduff 2006 describes it as &quot;which is no further reducible but nevertheless exists&quot; (Brill New's Pauly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though its etymology is not entirely clear, the communis opinio is that it is probably related to the verb χάσκω 'be open, gape wide.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, Beekes (2009/2016) speculates that &quot;an original meaning 'hole, empty space, yawning' is quite thinkable for Χάος.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of its connection to the verb χάσκω, **some researchers speculated that Chaos can be seen as an essentially feminine symbol**. But imho this is highly speculative and there is no clear evidence to verify this claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4104" RevisionGUID="92dc9496-5743-4878-a541-2604eda02363" CreationDate="2017-04-15T18:38:19.123" UserId="39" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="Indeed, the Greek borrowing was mostly used an a neuter noun in Latin but occasionally we see examples of chaos used as a masculine noun (one source claims that there is only one use of chaos in Latin as a masculine noun - Vetus Latina Luca 16.26 but I couldn't verify this). We need to look it up in TLL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quite often, we can't easily tell whether it was used as a masculine or neuter noun though. For example, Ovid writes in Metamorphoses II:299: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;si freta, si terrae pereunt, si regia caeli,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**in chaos antiquum** confundimur! eripe flammis,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;si quid adhuc superest, et rerum consule summae!”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As we know, **the Greek word Χάος is neuter**. Here's its entry from Montanari:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/QaOpG.jpg&quot; width=&quot;500&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caduff 2006 describes it as &quot;which is no further reducible but nevertheless exists&quot; (Brill New's Pauly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though its etymology is not entirely clear, the communis opinio is that it is probably related to the verb χάσκω 'be open, gape wide.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, Beekes (2009/2016) speculates that &quot;an original meaning 'hole, empty space, yawning' is quite thinkable for Χάος.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of its connection to the verb χάσκω, **some researchers speculated that Chaos can be seen as an essentially feminine symbol**. But imho this is highly speculative and there is no clear evidence to verify this claim." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4106" RevisionGUID="9f9b1d41-9328-43ab-8c88-680bc887a94b" CreationDate="2017-04-15T23:25:52.910" UserId="79" Text="I got a cold, and the most irritating symptom so far is a runny nose (rhinorrhea).&#xD;&#xA;But what is &quot;runny nose&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;It can be a noun, a verb, or any kind of way to describe the situation.&#xD;&#xA;I don't think the modern medical term rhinorrhea is the kind of expression the Romans would have used, and the very direct translation *nasus currens* sounds much worse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Finnish expression means literally &quot;the nose leaks&quot;, and that might serve as a better starting point of a direct translation.&#xD;&#xA;The only good leaking verb I could find was *perfluere*, but it seems to be a verb for the fluid, not for the nose unable to contain the fluid.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *nasus perfluens* sounds wrong (my nose is not flowing anywhere), and it is a bit complicated to say *latex per nasum perfluit*.&#xD;&#xA;And I am not confident about my choice of words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you describe a runny nose in Latin, and why?&#xD;&#xA;Classical (or later) precedent is always preferred, but any suggestions are welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12305" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4106" RevisionGUID="9f9b1d41-9328-43ab-8c88-680bc887a94b" CreationDate="2017-04-15T23:25:52.910" UserId="79" Text="What is a runny nose?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12306" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4106" RevisionGUID="9f9b1d41-9328-43ab-8c88-680bc887a94b" CreationDate="2017-04-15T23:25:52.910" UserId="79" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|phrase-request|saying|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4102" RevisionGUID="a7038529-650f-4354-a4f2-066a8ea38aa5" CreationDate="2017-04-16T00:00:13.743" UserId="1432" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="From the perspective of anyone who served in the military in Iraq (and probably anyone who has done business in the Gulf) in the last 15 years is familiar with the term 'Inshallah.' I suppose it means 'God willing,' as in, &quot;I will do this thing, Inshallah.&quot; Realistically, it is used to evade responsibility while giving the listener a hope that divine intervention will allow the task at hand to be completed ([source][1]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context, I was noticing the similarity between this expression and a very different one, 'Deus Vult,' the battle cry of the crusaders after the 1095 Council at Clermont. That, I understand, translates to &quot;God wills it!&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The difference between the two is basically one of verb conjugation. As far as internet dictionaries tell me, 'vult' is the third person singular present indicative. To make it more of a question or conditional, you would want it to be in the subjunctive, I think, 'velit.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Would 'Deus Velit' express the same kind of abdication of responsibility in favor of divine will that 'Inshallah' represents?** If not, what would be the correct expression? And for any correct expression, are there records of this phrase being used in the past, perhaps in the more faithful Middle Ages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.duffelblog.com/2016/06/arab-man-invents-inshallah-watch/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4102" RevisionGUID="72b7fc7f-3921-42df-a8d2-414a8cc8309f" CreationDate="2017-04-16T00:53:45.980" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body; edited title" Text="Anyone who served in the military in Iraq (and probably anyone who has done business in the Gulf) in the last 15 years is familiar with the term 'Inshallah.' I suppose it means 'God willing,' as in, &quot;I will do this thing, Inshallah.&quot; Realistically, it is used to evade responsibility while giving the listener a hope that divine intervention will allow the task at hand to be completed ([source][1]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context, I was noticing the similarity between this expression and a very different one, 'Deus Vult,' the battle cry of the crusaders after the 1095 Council at Clermont. That, I understand, translates to &quot;God wills it!&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The difference between the two is basically one of verb conjugation. As far as internet dictionaries tell me, 'vult' is the third person singular present indicative. To make it more of a question or conditional, you would want it to be in the subjunctive, I think, 'velit.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Would 'Deus Velit' express the same kind of abdication of responsibility in favor of divine will that 'Inshallah' represents?** If not, what would be the correct expression? And for any correct expression, are there records of this phrase being used in the past, perhaps in the more faithful Middle Ages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.duffelblog.com/2016/06/arab-man-invents-inshallah-watch/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12309" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4102" RevisionGUID="72b7fc7f-3921-42df-a8d2-414a8cc8309f" CreationDate="2017-04-16T00:53:45.980" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is a Latin version of Inshallah?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4107" RevisionGUID="b064e7e1-f795-4ba3-b50d-417b0205dc15" CreationDate="2017-04-16T01:33:05.400" UserId="79" Text="If there are three people and only two candies &amp;mdash; and in other similar dire situations &amp;mdash; people sometimes choose to play some kind of game to select who is left without something or who gets to do something.&#xD;&#xA;The most well known ones are probably [rock&amp;ndash;paper&amp;ndas;scissors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock%E2%80%93paper%E2%80%93scissors) and [drawing straws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawing_straws).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did the Romans have a game or procedure for similar situations?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, what was it called?&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in this from two perspectives: the game itself and the idiom for a selection process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12311" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4107" RevisionGUID="b064e7e1-f795-4ba3-b50d-417b0205dc15" CreationDate="2017-04-16T01:33:05.400" UserId="79" Text="Did the Romans have a selection game?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12312" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4107" RevisionGUID="b064e7e1-f795-4ba3-b50d-417b0205dc15" CreationDate="2017-04-16T01:33:05.400" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|roman-culture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4108" RevisionGUID="7b03eee0-656f-4142-a049-47ef6b6480dd" CreationDate="2017-04-16T03:46:48.377" UserId="849" Text="From [Bibliander's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Bibliander) translation of the [Qur'an, surah 18, ayah 69](http://quran.com/18/69),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dixit Moyses, Deo uolente, me quilibet sustinentem, nec te in quoquam offendentem semper inuenies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a literal translation, but the verse translated here contains the words _in sha'a Allah_.  Bibliander clearly felt that _Deo uolente_ was the nearest Latin equivalent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4109" RevisionGUID="f50b48b7-f822-4a9d-9766-4a37b4860fe2" CreationDate="2017-04-16T03:51:00.147" UserId="118" Text="Secundum Isidorum,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Catarrhus** est fluor reumae iugis ex naribus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fons: [_Etymologiae_ IV.7.11](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/isidore/4.shtml)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4108" RevisionGUID="bcb4e482-1074-454b-a4b6-6d8a431bfc40" CreationDate="2017-04-16T03:56:27.030" UserId="849" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="From [Bibliander's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Bibliander) translation of the [Qur'an, surah 18, ayah 69](http://quran.com/18/69),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dixit Moyses, Deo uolente, me quilibet sustinentem, nec te in quoquam offendentem semper inuenies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a literal translation.  The original Arabic, transliterated here into a more familiar alphabet is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qala satajidunee in sha'a Allahu ṣabiran wa la a`ṣee laka amra&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bibliander clearly felt that _Deo uolente_ was the nearest Latin equivalent to the Arabic _in sha'a Allahu_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4109" RevisionGUID="ad3aec23-6dcc-4a0f-b066-8486eb809ffd" CreationDate="2017-04-16T04:06:05.417" UserId="118" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="Secundum Isidorum,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Catarrhus** est fluor reumae iugis ex naribus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fons: [_Etymologiae_ IV.7.11](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/isidore/4.shtml).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Isidorum a verbo Graeco ῥεῦμα Latine [_reuma_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rheuma#Latin) prave reddidisse puto." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4107" RevisionGUID="edab5703-bb42-40a0-a675-232a98a2e231" CreationDate="2017-04-16T06:02:54.690" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="If there are three people and only two candies &amp;mdash; and in other similar dire situations &amp;mdash; people sometimes choose to play some kind of game to select who is left without something or who gets to do something.&#xD;&#xA;The most well known ones are probably [rock&amp;ndash;paper&amp;ndash;scissors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock%E2%80%93paper%E2%80%93scissors) and [drawing straws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawing_straws).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did the Romans have a game or procedure for similar situations?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, what was it called?&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in this from two perspectives: the game itself and the idiom for a selection process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4110" RevisionGUID="23d85943-756d-4cfe-a6c6-2d3fc19331a5" CreationDate="2017-04-16T06:48:02.193" UserId="867" Text="My suggestions in bold, followed by the classical examples that inspired them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**madidus nasus / a wet nose**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *madidique infantia nasi* / and the wet noses of a child (Juvenal,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Satires, 10.199)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**fluens pituita / streaming snot**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**fluctus nasus / a streaming nose**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**nasus fluxit pituita / a nose streaming with snot**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Pituita* / slime, clammy moisture, phlegm is used to describe phlegm-like bodily discharges, often as one of the four humours.  See, for example Cicero, *Tusc. Disputations*, 4.23 (bad blood, bile and phlegm) or Horace, *Satires*, 2.75 (an overabundance of intestinal “phlegm”).&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;But it is also used to describe a “viscous, gummy moisture that exudes from trees”, which sounds just like snot to me.  Here Catullus uses it in exactly this way: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *mucusque mala pituita nasi* / mucus and bad slime from the nose&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Catullus, Poems, 23.17)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Fluere* / to flow, stream, pour is used for rivers and streams, but also of bodily fluids, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sweat: *sudore fluentia multo bracchia* (Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, 9.57)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tears:  *fluunt lacrimae* (Ovid, *Fasti*, 2.820)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;entrails: *viscera lapsa fluunt* (Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, 8.402)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;soft brains (flowing through hollow nostrils like curdled milk flowing through a pliant oaken sieve – please see a doctor if this describes your runny nose!): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *perque caves nares oculosque auresque cerebrum*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *molle fluit, veluti concretum vimine querno*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *lac solet …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, 12.435-436)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**proluvies nasi / an overflow of the nose**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*proluvies* / an inundation, discharge, overflow.  Used by Cicero (*Letters to Quintus*) to mean an actual flood but here are examples of bodily “floods”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *foedissima ventris proluvies* / foulest discharge from their stomachs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (of the Harpies in *Aeneid*, 3.216-217)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *mucosa ventris proluvies* / a flood of mucus from the stomach&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Columella, *On Agriculture*, 6.7.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**destillatio [nasi] / a dripping down [from the nose]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*destillatio* / a dripping down, distilling, running, from *destillare* / to drip or trickle down&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb can be used of any liquid that trickles down (for example sap from a tree, see Pliny, *Natural History*, 23.72).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But here, Pliny uses it to describe the outpouring of mucus after a sneeze:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *semen tritum et haustum naribus sternumenta movet et distillantiones&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quoque capitis inlitum* / the crushed seed inhaled by the nostrils&#xD;&#xA;&gt; produces sneezing and also as a liniment [it produces] a flow [of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mucus] from the head (Pliny, *Natural History*, 20.123)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Destillare* is used a lot by Celsus in *On Medicine*, for various types of dripping from the body: two examples are the drip, drip, drip of difficult-to-pass urine (2.7.13; 4.2.N); and watery eyes (6.7.A).  However, he uses *destillatio* exclusively to mean a runny-nose cold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tussis, destillatio … sternumentum* / cough, runny nose … sneezing (2.8.22)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tussis, destillatio, raucitas* / cough, runny nose, hoarseness (2.1.16)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, using *destillare*, he is describing the symptoms of a cold: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *destillat autem de capite interdum in nares ...* / moreover, there is dripping from the head sometimes into the nostrils ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *... si in nares destillavit, tenuis per has pituita profluit* / if into the nostrils it has dripped, a thin phlegm flows forth from them&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (4.5.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(note the use of *pituita* and also *profluere* – very close to your suggestion of *perfluere*.  *Profluere* is also used in this sense of snot flowing from the nose by Columella, writing of sick cattle – *pituita a naribus profluent* 6.7.4. &#xD;&#xA; So perhaps we could also use **profluens pituita**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, Pliny also uses *destillatio* to mean a “running cold” – *asperitatem fauciam et destillationes lenient cochleae* / a sore throat and running cold are relieved with snails (*Nat. Hist.*, 30.32).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, of all the suggestions, I think *destillatio [nasi]* is probably the most accurate in so far as it is attested to in medical texts, speaking specifically of colds.  However, it was enormous fun to track down all the other possibilities!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, you mentioned *rhinorrhoea*, a Greek term, and so I was interested to read Celsus’ clarification of Greek terms for colds.  First, he distinguishes between a cold where the nose runs and one where the nose is blocked.  A blocked-nose cold he calls *gravedo*, and he notes that the Greeks call this *κορυζας*.  The “running” or *destillatio*-type of cold, he says the Greeks call *κατασταγμον* (4.5.2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4111" RevisionGUID="e8234bd1-8067-4400-8eb4-93477d024f99" CreationDate="2017-04-16T08:43:39.250" UserId="235" Text="A literal translation of *status quo* would be, &quot;the state in which&quot;. I think this touches on the present-day meaning of the phrase, but I think most would agree that it does not fully capture it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested to know how *status quo* got its present-day meaning. What is the logic? The best I can think of is that there is an implied copula, e.g. *status quo sunt* = *the state in which (things) are*. But I think there is more to it than that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, Wiktionary claims that it comes from the phrase *in statu quō ante bellum erat*. Is this true? Who first wrote or popularized this phrase? And how did the specific idea of a *status quo ante bellum* lead to the more general idea of a *status quo* as we now know it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did the Romans ever use *status quo* as we use it today? Or did they only use it in the context of a war, i.e. *status quo ante bellum*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12320" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4111" RevisionGUID="e8234bd1-8067-4400-8eb4-93477d024f99" CreationDate="2017-04-16T08:43:39.250" UserId="235" Text="How did &quot;status quo&quot; get its meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12321" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4111" RevisionGUID="e8234bd1-8067-4400-8eb4-93477d024f99" CreationDate="2017-04-16T08:43:39.250" UserId="235" Text="|translation|etymology|meaning|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4113" RevisionGUID="350fbdbe-ca2f-4c98-8b25-16f07f6d020a" CreationDate="2017-04-16T16:21:55.390" UserId="78" Text="For a monotheist, Tom Cotton's answer is best; for a polytheist (like the ancient Romans), it would be in the plural, so something like [*dis volentibus*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=volentibus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way to word it, which is very similar to Tom Cotton's answer, is *si di vol-*. I found it in several places, though it doesn't seem as common as an ablative absolute:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus *Bacchides* 239:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Extexam ego illum pulchre iam, **si di volunt**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus *Poenulus* 911&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hercle qui meus conlibertus faxo eris, **si di volent**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero *In Verrem* 2.3.157.10&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fac sciat improbitatem aratorvm; ipsi svdabvnt, **si di&#xD;&#xA;volvnt**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Historiae Augustae* 45.2.5&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scriptum esset: 'illa die, illa hora ab urbe sum exiturus&#xD;&#xA;et, **si di voluerint**, in prima mansione mansurus',&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fronto *Ad M. Caesarem et Invicem* 5.58.1.4&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed venies saepe et tecum celebrabimus, **si dei volent**, omnia festa&#xD;&#xA;nostra." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4114" RevisionGUID="7931b82c-253f-46eb-a873-7ca4721298ce" CreationDate="2017-04-16T16:42:58.117" UserId="406" Text="##Casting lots (&quot;sortition&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most standard means of making a random selection was drawing lots (*sortēs*): everyone involved would put their names into a container, then one would be drawn out at random.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Aeneid* 490-2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; convenere viri deiectamque aerea sortem  &#xD;&#xA;accepit galea, et primus clamore secundo  &#xD;&#xA;Hyrtacidae ante omnis exit locus Hippocoontis  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trans:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The men gathered around and a bronze helmet gathered the lot[s] that were tossed. And first out of all of them the place of Hippocoön Hyrtacides is drawn, with applause...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Trojans here are deciding on an order for the archery contest: all the competitors put their names into a helmet, then they were drawn out one at a time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Flashing fingers (&quot;micatio&quot;, &quot;morra&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was more equivalent to &quot;rock-paper-scissors&quot; or flipping a coin, a simple game used to resolve minor disputes when necessary. Two people would count off, as in rock-paper-scissors, then simultaneously hold up a number of fingers and guess what the total would be. (A modern variant involves one player winning on odd totals, the other on even, but I haven't found classical attestation of this version.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This game was ubiquitous enough to make its way into a common proverb: *dignus est, quicum in tenebris mices* (&quot;he is an upstanding person, with whom you could play *morra* in the dark&quot;). Cicero also mentions it along with sortition in *De Officiis* 3.23: a matter can be decided randomly, *quasi sorte, aut micando*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4114" RevisionGUID="13b89203-431d-4de9-b753-412b1371403f" CreationDate="2017-04-16T19:16:50.313" UserId="406" Comment="typo" Text="##Casting lots (&quot;sortition&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most standard means of making a random selection was drawing lots (*sortēs*): everyone involved would put their names into a container, then one would be drawn out at random.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Aeneid* V.490-2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; convenere viri deiectamque aerea sortem  &#xD;&#xA;accepit galea, et primus clamore secundo  &#xD;&#xA;Hyrtacidae ante omnis exit locus Hippocoontis  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trans:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The men gathered around and a bronze helmet gathered the lot[s] that were tossed. And first out of all of them the place of Hippocoön Hyrtacides is drawn, with applause...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Trojans here are deciding on an order for the archery contest: all the competitors put their names into a helmet, then they were drawn out one at a time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Flashing fingers (&quot;micatio&quot;, &quot;morra&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was more equivalent to &quot;rock-paper-scissors&quot; or flipping a coin, a simple game used to resolve minor disputes when necessary. Two people would count off, as in rock-paper-scissors, then simultaneously hold up a number of fingers and guess what the total would be. (A modern variant involves one player winning on odd totals, the other on even, but I haven't found classical attestation of this version.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This game was ubiquitous enough to make its way into a common proverb: *dignus est, quicum in tenebris mices* (&quot;he is an upstanding person, with whom you could play *morra* in the dark&quot;). Cicero also mentions it along with sortition in *De Officiis* 3.23: a matter can be decided randomly, *quasi sorte, aut micando*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4115" RevisionGUID="37550e9d-e1be-41ea-87bc-79f8ff1e1142" CreationDate="2017-04-16T20:34:39.657" UserId="324" Text="C.M. Weimer has given an expectedly excellent answer to the Latin part of this question. Otherwise, it might be permitted to add that the Muslim usage is in response to an explicit Qur’anic injunction that one must not make any statement about the future without adding the proviso “if God wills”. This is not about “evading responsibility”. It is about the future not being predictable. Ever." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4114" RevisionGUID="ca24c350-7a78-42e3-b2bd-9ccbe57a980e" CreationDate="2017-04-16T20:37:27.147" UserId="406" Comment="added 203 characters in body" Text="##Casting lots (&quot;sortition&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most standard means of making a random selection was drawing lots (*sortēs*): everyone involved would put their names into a container, then one would be drawn out at random.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Aeneid* V.490-2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; convenere viri deiectamque aerea sortem  &#xD;&#xA;accepit galea, et primus clamore secundo  &#xD;&#xA;Hyrtacidae ante omnis exit locus Hippocoontis  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trans:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The men gathered around and a bronze helmet gathered the lot[s] that were tossed. And first out of all of them the place of Hippocoön Hyrtacides is drawn, with applause...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Trojans here are deciding on an order for the archery contest: all the competitors put their names into a helmet, then they were drawn out one at a time. Idiomatically, *sortes* &quot;lots&quot; can refer to any random chance, or to the action of Fate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Flashing fingers (&quot;micatio&quot;, Italian &quot;morra&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was more equivalent to &quot;rock-paper-scissors&quot; or flipping a coin, a simple game used to resolve minor disputes when necessary. Two people would count off, as in rock-paper-scissors, then simultaneously hold up a number of fingers and guess what the total would be. (A modern variant involves one player winning on odd totals, the other on even, but I haven't found classical attestation of this version.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This game was ubiquitous enough to make its way into a common proverb: *dignus est, quicum in tenebris mices* (&quot;he is an upstanding person, with whom you could play *morra* in the dark&quot;). Cicero also mentions it along with sortition in *De Officiis* 3.23: a matter can be decided randomly, *quasi sorte, aut micando*. (The proper term for this in Latin was *digitos micare*, &quot;to flash the fingers&quot;, or often just *micare*.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="387" RevisionGUID="68e4e599-6fe7-4f0d-95dc-354d04e01a2b" CreationDate="2017-04-16T21:38:07.747" UserId="79" Comment="added 322 characters in body" Text="The word *comperendinare* is related to the adverb *perendie* (on the day after tomorrow) and means &quot;to postpone until *perendie*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Starting from a specific word for this day, it does not sound all that weird to have a related verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, the word *cras* (tomorrow) and the related adjective *crastinus* give rise to the verb *procrastinare* (to postpone until tomorrow, to procrastinate).&#xD;&#xA;The question arises, of course, why these verbs were derived in this particular manner, but the analogy is clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Comperendinare* or *comperendinatio* is mainly a legal term.&#xD;&#xA;I cannot explain why adjournment for two days was such an important thing.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps someone else could shed light on the legal side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As pointed out in the comment, the Romans counted days inclusively.&#xD;&#xA;Tomorrow is the second day after today, and the day after tomorrow is the third day after today.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *perendie* is &quot;three days after today&quot; (most modern people would say two) and so *comperendinare* corresponds to &quot;adjourning for three days&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4116" RevisionGUID="e0b8c089-6318-4a1a-a050-e7d2c502a73d" CreationDate="2017-04-16T22:20:45.903" UserId="79" Text="It seems that the Romans also tossed coins.&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S mentions under [*caput*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=caput&amp;highlight=navia) (I.1.c):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Capita aut navia (al. navim), *heads or tails*, a play of the Roman youth in which a piece of money is thrown up, to see whether the figure-side (the head of Janus) or the reverse-side (a ship) will fall uppermost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry also cites some passages, but either the links do not work or I fail to find the phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4116" RevisionGUID="a8aa5273-44f6-4cd0-985f-17239d4285bb" CreationDate="2017-04-17T00:12:01.380" UserId="79" Comment="added 1224 characters in body" Text="It seems that the Romans also tossed coins.&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S mentions under [*caput*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=caput&amp;highlight=navia) (I.1.c):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Capita aut navia (al. navim), *heads or tails*, a play of the Roman youth in which a piece of money is thrown up, to see whether the figure-side (the head of Janus) or the reverse-side (a ship) will fall uppermost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;The entry also cites some passages, but either the links do not work or I fail to find the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passages cited in L&amp;S are not particularly helpful (Ovidius only discusses the illustrations on two sides of a coin), but there is a very relevant passage in Macrobius, [Saturnalia 1, VII.22](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Macrobius/Saturnalia/1*.html#p53) (with my rough translation):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Aes ita fuisse signatum hodieque intellegitur in aleae lusum, cum pueri denarios in sublime iactantes **capita aut navia** lusu teste vetustatis exclamant.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also nowadays we understand that money was decorated so, when in a game of chance boys throw silver coins and cry head or tails, making the game a witness of history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is room for improvement in the translation, but it should help get the point across.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The game is also mention in [this translation of *Origo gentis Romae*](http://www.roman-emperors.org/origogentis.pdf), on page 4 (pdf page 11):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whence even to this day gamblers, when a coin has been set down and covered, lay as a wager to players the option of declaring what they think is underneath, a head or a ship [*navis*], which now, commonly adulterating, they pronounce &quot;skiff&quot; [*navia*].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for pointing out these sources, Dario and C. M. Weimer!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4117" RevisionGUID="202c608f-4a65-41ac-816a-73b001e72c69" CreationDate="2017-04-17T00:29:35.350" UserId="78" Text="The earliest citation given by the Oxford English Dictionary is from 1602:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; W. Watson *Decacordon Ten Quodlibeticall Questions* 174: The seculars are but **in statu quo prius**, and cannot be in a worse then they are in at this present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase, normal Latin as it is, appears to have been turned into a noun with its present meaning in the late seventeenth/early eighteenth century, and OED gives a date of 1719 for its first attestation in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Compleat Coll. State-trials* II. 211/1: The Impeachments, Appeals, &amp;c. and the Incidents..should stand in Statu Quo; so that (as is already observed) the **Status Quo** (as to him) he again said, was to put him into a State of Liberty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OED also mentions that Augustine uses it, but since the words aren't juxtaposed and PHI doesn't have Augustine's work, it's a bit trickier to find. At any rate, I doubt the modern phrase comes from Augustine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4118" RevisionGUID="fa610fa3-f151-4013-8f75-5094bf5941cc" CreationDate="2017-04-17T01:35:10.623" UserId="522" Text="The [Legal Dictionary][1] gives only **status quo** and quotes Webster  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	The existing state or condition of a situation or circumstance. Origin 1825-1835        Latin    status quō: “state in which”&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;[pronunciation in American Legal Latin: short **a**]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two terms in English legal Latin ([source  Business Balls][2]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **status quo**:	*'situation in which'*	current situation, normality, conditions unchanged&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **status quo ante** *'situation in which was'*	situation as was/before (an event)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the second  is more correctly, in full, **in statu quo ante bellum** *'in the state it was before hostilities.*  &#xD;&#xA;In Oxford dictionaries the **a** is long *stēitŭs* which differentiates it from classical Latin &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://legaldictionary.net/status-quo/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.businessballs.com/latin-terms-phrases.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4119" RevisionGUID="7a7a387a-b61a-487b-a398-88c660dcfde1" CreationDate="2017-04-17T01:39:24.947" UserId="79" Text="L&amp;S mentions that [*abhinc*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=abhinc&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) can be used with either accusative or ablative.&#xD;&#xA;But no use guidance is given for [*posthinc*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=posthinc&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;Can I use both accusative and ablative to express the length of time, or only one?&#xD;&#xA;The Vergilius quotes given in L&amp;S do not express any period of time, but I would like to know how to say things like &quot;I will go to Rome four days from now&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Is it even possible to express the period of time with *posthinc*, or should I be using some other word?&#xD;&#xA;I prefer to use *posthinc* if possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12342" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4119" RevisionGUID="7a7a387a-b61a-487b-a398-88c660dcfde1" CreationDate="2017-04-17T01:39:24.947" UserId="79" Text="Which case to use with posthinc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12343" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4119" RevisionGUID="7a7a387a-b61a-487b-a398-88c660dcfde1" CreationDate="2017-04-17T01:39:24.947" UserId="79" Text="|grammar-choice|adverb|time|case|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4118" RevisionGUID="1cf6d17b-63b2-4843-a7b0-5ef8e3684b45" CreationDate="2017-04-17T02:06:16.407" UserId="522" Comment="correction gr. C.M.W." Text="The [Legal Dictionary][1] gives only **status quo** and quotes Webster  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	The existing state or condition of a situation or circumstance. Origin 1825-1835        Latin    status quō: “state in which”&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;[pronunciation in American Legal Latin: short **a**]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two terms in English legal Latin ([source  Business Balls][2]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **status quo**:	*'situation in which'*	current situation, normality, conditions unchanged&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **status quo ante** *'situation in which was'*	situation as was/before (an event)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the second  is more correctly, in full, **in statu quo ante, prius, ninc** *'in the state it was before, formerly, now.*  (1602)&#xD;&#xA;In Oxford dictionaries the **a** is long *stēitŭs* which differentiates it from classical Latin &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the Domesday Survey, **T.R.E.** refers to the situation/ value/ ownership before the Conquest, id est *Tempore Regis Edwardi*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://legaldictionary.net/status-quo/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.businessballs.com/latin-terms-phrases.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4118" RevisionGUID="26996498-b320-4241-805b-2e192af08cb9" CreationDate="2017-04-17T02:12:55.627" UserId="522" Comment="correction gr. C.M.W." Text="The [Legal Dictionary][1] gives only **status quo** and quotes Webster  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.	The existing state or condition of a situation or circumstance. Origin 1825-1835        Latin    status quō: “state in which”&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;[pronunciation in American Legal Latin: short **a**]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two terms in English legal Latin ([source  Business Balls][2]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **status quo**:	*'situation in which'*	current situation, normality, conditions unchanged&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **status quo ante** *'situation in which was'*	situation as was/before (an event)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the second  is variously, **in statu quo ante, prius, nunc** *'in the state it was before, formerly, now.*  (1602) and **&quot; in statu quo ante bellum&quot;** (1833)&#xD;&#xA;In Oxford dictionaries the **a** is long *stēitŭs* which differentiates it from classical Latin &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the Domesday Survey, **T.R.E.** refers to the situation/ value/ ownership before the Conquest, id est *Tempore Regis Edwardi*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://legaldictionary.net/status-quo/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.businessballs.com/latin-terms-phrases.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4110" RevisionGUID="043061da-1227-40dd-80d2-efec2d4ca569" CreationDate="2017-04-17T02:43:25.283" UserId="867" Comment="changed &quot;running cold&quot; to &quot;runny-nose cold&quot; for better consistency of terminology and clarity of argument" Text="My suggestions in bold, followed by the classical examples that inspired them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**madidus nasus / a wet nose**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *madidique infantia nasi* / and the wet noses of a child (Juvenal,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Satires, 10.199)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**fluens pituita / streaming snot**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**fluctus nasus / a streaming nose**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**nasus fluxit pituita / a nose streaming with snot**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Pituita* / slime, clammy moisture, phlegm is used to describe phlegm-like bodily discharges, often as one of the four humours.  See, for example Cicero, *Tusc. Disputations*, 4.23 (bad blood, bile and phlegm) or Horace, *Satires*, 2.75 (an overabundance of intestinal “phlegm”).&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;But it is also used to describe a “viscous, gummy moisture that exudes from trees”, which sounds just like snot to me.  Here Catullus uses it in exactly this way: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *mucusque mala pituita nasi* / mucus and bad slime from the nose&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Catullus, Poems, 23.17)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Fluere* / to flow, stream, pour is used for rivers and streams, but also of bodily fluids, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sweat: *sudore fluentia multo bracchia* (Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, 9.57)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tears:  *fluunt lacrimae* (Ovid, *Fasti*, 2.820)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;entrails: *viscera lapsa fluunt* (Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, 8.402)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;soft brains (flowing through hollow nostrils like curdled milk flowing through a pliant oaken sieve – please see a doctor if this describes your runny nose!): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *perque caves nares oculosque auresque cerebrum*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *molle fluit, veluti concretum vimine querno*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *lac solet …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, 12.435-436)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**proluvies nasi / an overflow of the nose**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*proluvies* / an inundation, discharge, overflow.  Used by Cicero (*Letters to Quintus*) to mean an actual flood but here are examples of bodily “floods”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *foedissima ventris proluvies* / foulest discharge from their stomachs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (of the Harpies in *Aeneid*, 3.216-217)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *mucosa ventris proluvies* / a flood of mucus from the stomach&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Columella, *On Agriculture*, 6.7.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**destillatio [nasi] / a dripping down [from the nose]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*destillatio* / a dripping down, distilling, running, from *destillare* / to drip or trickle down&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb can be used of any liquid that trickles down (for example sap from a tree, see Pliny, *Natural History*, 23.72).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But here, Pliny uses it to describe the outpouring of mucus after a sneeze:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *semen tritum et haustum naribus sternumenta movet et distillantiones&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quoque capitis inlitum* / the crushed seed inhaled by the nostrils&#xD;&#xA;&gt; produces sneezing and also as a liniment [it produces] a flow [of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mucus] from the head (Pliny, *Natural History*, 20.123)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Destillare* is used a lot by Celsus in *On Medicine*, for various types of dripping from the body: two examples are the drip, drip, drip of difficult-to-pass urine (2.7.13; 4.2.N); and watery eyes (6.7.A).  However, he uses *destillatio* exclusively to mean a runny-nose cold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tussis, destillatio … sternumentum* / cough, runny nose … sneezing (2.8.22)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tussis, destillatio, raucitas* / cough, runny nose, hoarseness (2.1.16)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, using *destillare*, he is describing the symptoms of a cold: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *destillat autem de capite interdum in nares ...* / moreover, there is dripping from the head sometimes into the nostrils ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *... si in nares destillavit, tenuis per has pituita profluit* / if into the nostrils it has dripped, a thin phlegm flows forth from them&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (4.5.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(note the use of *pituita* and also *profluere* – very close to your suggestion of *perfluere*.  *Profluere* is also used in this sense of snot flowing from the nose by Columella, writing of sick cattle – *pituita a naribus profluent* 6.7.4. &#xD;&#xA; So perhaps we could also use **profluens pituita**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, Pliny also uses *destillatio* to mean a “runny-nose cold” – *asperitatem fauciam et destillationes lenient cochleae* / a sore throat and runny-nose cold are relieved with snails (*Nat. Hist.*, 30.32).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, of all the suggestions, I think *destillatio [nasi]* is probably the most accurate in so far as it is attested to in medical texts, speaking specifically of colds.  However, it was enormous fun to track down all the other possibilities!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, you mentioned *rhinorrhoea*, a Greek term, and so I was interested to read Celsus’ clarification of Greek terms for colds.  First, he distinguishes between a cold where the nose runs and one where the nose is blocked.  A blocked-nose cold he calls *gravedo*, and he notes that the Greeks call this *κορυζας*.  The runny-nose or *destillatio*-type of cold, he says the Greeks call *κατασταγμον* (4.5.2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4115" RevisionGUID="ef91a285-9ea4-452b-9e7a-f0063299578b" CreationDate="2017-04-17T04:43:43.600" UserId="78" Comment="Was flagged, added the Quranic verse so as to make this a fuller, more quality answer." Text="C.M. Weimer has given an expectedly excellent answer to the Latin part of this question. Otherwise, it might be permitted to add that the Muslim usage is in response to an explicit Qur’anic injunction (18:23) that one must not make any statement about the future without adding the proviso “if God wills”. This is not about “evading responsibility”. It is about the future not being predictable. Ever." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12350" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="4102" RevisionGUID="29650072-3c52-4a97-acd4-e426dba1a874" CreationDate="2017-04-17T04:51:51.393" UserId="78" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4122" RevisionGUID="3b5fc8ed-377c-4bc2-ae1c-84b70e109b05" CreationDate="2017-04-17T05:02:39.617" UserId="118" Text="A common Christian formula is **Deo iuvante**, literally &quot;with God helping&quot;, more naturally rendered in English as &quot;with God's help&quot; or &quot;if God helps&quot;. It signifies that the condition that the matter in question will only be completed successfully if God favors it and actively cooperates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Deo juvante**, an alternate spelling, is the [national motto of Monaco](https://books.google.com/books?id=jfrWCQAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA472&amp;ots=j_o_kzpqsG&amp;dq=%22deo%20juvante%22%20monaco%20motto&amp;pg=PA472#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20juvante%22&amp;f=false) and appears on the coat of arms of its ruling family, the Grimaldis. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4122" RevisionGUID="f470555d-22fb-43d7-b425-0133a6757b89" CreationDate="2017-04-17T05:09:29.033" UserId="118" Comment="added 351 characters in body" Text="A common Christian formula is **Deo iuvante**, literally &quot;with God helping&quot;, more naturally rendered in English as &quot;with God's help&quot; or &quot;if God helps&quot;. It signifies that the condition that the matter in question will only be completed successfully if God favors it and actively cooperates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Deo iuvante** has a long history. Some historians take its use in letters around 400 A.D. as evidence that the author had converted to Christianity, as in [this book](https://books.google.com/books?id=NHgvpINWV_QC&amp;pg=PA381&amp;dq=%22deo+iuvante%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwidzJbY26rTAhVB74MKHWs1CVI4FBDoAQhIMAc#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20iuvante%22&amp;f=false).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Deo juvante**, an alternate spelling, is the [national motto of Monaco](https://books.google.com/books?id=jfrWCQAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA472&amp;ots=j_o_kzpqsG&amp;dq=%22deo%20juvante%22%20monaco%20motto&amp;pg=PA472#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20juvante%22&amp;f=false) and appears on the coat of arms of its ruling family, the Grimaldis. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4122" RevisionGUID="78ee31e6-dd31-4d09-a265-e6a1262e87d7" CreationDate="2017-04-17T05:26:49.147" UserId="118" Comment="added 351 characters in body" Text="A common Christian formula is **Deo iuvante**, literally &quot;with God helping&quot;, more naturally rendered in English as &quot;with God's help&quot; or &quot;if God helps&quot;. It signifies that the condition that the matter in question will only be completed successfully if God favors it and actively cooperates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Deo iuvante** has a long history. Some historians take its use in letters around 400 A.D. as evidence that the author had converted from paganism to Christianity, as in [this book](https://books.google.com/books?id=NHgvpINWV_QC&amp;pg=PA381&amp;dq=%22deo+iuvante%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwidzJbY26rTAhVB74MKHWs1CVI4FBDoAQhIMAc#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20iuvante%22&amp;f=false).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Deo juvante**, an alternate spelling, is the [national motto of Monaco](https://books.google.com/books?id=jfrWCQAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA472&amp;ots=j_o_kzpqsG&amp;dq=%22deo%20juvante%22%20monaco%20motto&amp;pg=PA472#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20juvante%22&amp;f=false) and appears on the coat of arms of its ruling family, the Grimaldis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage continues to the present day. A [search on Twitter](https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&amp;vertical=default&amp;q=deo%20iuvante&amp;src=typd) reveals one or two occurrences a month, sometimes stuck into sentences in other languages. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4123" RevisionGUID="0d0624ba-5ee7-48b7-9aec-a765397b108c" CreationDate="2017-04-17T05:29:23.637" UserId="867" Text="Here is the little I could glean from the literature about the actual tasks of the *cellarius*.  *Celarii* are mentioned frequently enough in texts but there is very little about their tasks, unfortunately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wine**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - dispensing wine&#xD;&#xA; - heating up the wine&#xD;&#xA; - flavouring wine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(for all of the above see: Plautus, *Miles Gloriosus*, act 3, scene 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - doctoring wine to hide disagreeable odours (see: Pliny, *Natural History*, 19.67.188)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Food**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Plautus' *Captivi*, Hegio makes Ergasilus his *cellarius* (act 4, scene 3).  Ergasilus is ecstatic about this; it means free food!  He makes a little speech that tells us that the *cellarius*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - was in charge of the food (*illic hinc abiit, mihi rem summam credidit cibarium* / he's gone away and left me in charge of the food)&#xD;&#xA; - prepared the food to some extent although not cooking as such (see below) and this doesn't include butchering as Ergasilus hopes to catch them napping (so he can eat in secret)&#xD;&#xA; - inspected the food&#xD;&#xA; - helped in tasks such as hanging the ham&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Martial 11.31, the *cellarius* seems to be preparing some sort of hors d'oeuvre - capelliana in rue leaves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Not the cook or other household slave**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted above, Ergasilus mentions butchers specifically, indicating that they are a separate type of servant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Cellarii* are also distinguished elsewhere from cooks, pastry chefs, and household servants generally (see: Seneca, *Epistles*, 122.16; Columella, *On Agriculture*, 12.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not much to go on, I'm afraid!  I include a link [here][1] to William Smith's entry on *cella*, which gives more information on the sort of things kept in cellars which may pad out our picture of the *cellarius'* job a little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0063:id=cella-cn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4122" RevisionGUID="f5ca19a2-4438-49d9-ad2a-3c44602fb9c6" CreationDate="2017-04-17T06:33:22.867" UserId="118" Comment="added 351 characters in body" Text="A common Christian formula is **Deo iuvante**, literally &quot;with God helping&quot;, more naturally rendered in English as &quot;with God's help&quot; or &quot;if God helps&quot;. It signifies that the condition that the matter in question will only be completed successfully if God favors it and actively cooperates. Google Books returns about 50,000 hits total for [_deo juvante_](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=%22deo+iuvante%22#tbm=bks&amp;q=%22deo+juvante%22) and [_deo iuvante_](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=%22deo+iuvante%22). In chronological order, here are a few that seemed interesting. (Both spellings are equivalent.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[_The Last Pagans of Rome_](https://books.google.com/books?id=NHgvpINWV_QC&amp;pg=PA381&amp;dq=%22deo+iuvante%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwidzJbY26rTAhVB74MKHWs1CVI4FBDoAQhIMAc#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20iuvante%22&amp;f=false) takes use of **deo iuvante** in letters around 400 A.D. as evidence that their authors had converted from paganism to Christianity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [national motto of Monaco](https://books.google.com/books?id=jfrWCQAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA472&amp;ots=j_o_kzpqsG&amp;dq=%22deo%20juvante%22%20monaco%20motto&amp;pg=PA472#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20juvante%22&amp;f=false) is **Deo juvante**. The phrase appears on the coat of arms of its ruling family, the Grimaldis. Apparently this dates to 1297, when François Grimaldi took control of the city by a ruse involving soldiers dressed as monks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This odd book on freemasonry](https://books.google.com/books?id=OFEzAQAAMAAJ&amp;dq=%22deo%20juvante%22&amp;pg=PA288#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20juvante%22&amp;f=false) reports records of acceptance in Latin of a high masonic degree (&quot;Supreme Master&quot;) in a long series starting in 1324 and ending in 1804, nearly all with **deo juvante**, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego Arnaldus de Braque supremum magisterium **deo juvante** acceptum habeo anno domini 1340.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Around 1427, Thomas à Kempis wrote in _The Imitation of Christ,_ [book 1, ch. 4](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/kempis/kempis1.shtml), &quot;On resisting temptations&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qui tantummodo exterius declinat, nec radicem evellit, parum proficiet, imo citius ad eum tentationes redient, et pejus sævient. Paulatim, et per patientiam cum longanimitate **Deo juvante** melius superabis, quam cum duritia et importunitate propria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One who merely avoids [temptations] outwardly, not tearing out the root, will make little progress. Indeed, the temptations will return to him more quickly, raging even worse than before. Little by little, through patience and long-suffering you will overcome them **with God's help** better than with harshness and your own crude ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage continues to the present day. A [search on Twitter](https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&amp;vertical=default&amp;q=deo%20iuvante&amp;src=typd) reveals one or two occurrences a month, sometimes stuck into sentences in other languages. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4122" RevisionGUID="24616204-8c68-4027-b4df-18d97ba9c413" CreationDate="2017-04-17T07:11:10.287" UserId="118" Comment="added 351 characters in body" Text="A common Christian formula is **Deo iuvante**, literally &quot;with God helping&quot;, more naturally rendered in English as &quot;with God's help&quot; or &quot;if God helps&quot;. It signifies that the condition that the matter in question will only be completed successfully if God favors it and actively cooperates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase has a long history. Google Books returns about 50,000 hits total for [_deo juvante_](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=%22deo+iuvante%22#tbm=bks&amp;q=%22deo+juvante%22) and [_deo iuvante_](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=%22deo+iuvante%22). [_Juvante deo_](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=%22juvante+deo%22) turns up another 12,000. (Both spellings are equivalent, and the word order doesn't matter, though it's more common to put _deo_ first.) In chronological order, here are some that seemed interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[_The Last Pagans of Rome_](https://books.google.com/books?id=NHgvpINWV_QC&amp;pg=PA381&amp;dq=%22deo+iuvante%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwidzJbY26rTAhVB74MKHWs1CVI4FBDoAQhIMAc#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20iuvante%22&amp;f=false) takes use of **deo iuvante** in letters around 400 A.D. as evidence that their authors had converted from paganism to Christianity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [national motto of Monaco](https://books.google.com/books?id=jfrWCQAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA472&amp;ots=j_o_kzpqsG&amp;dq=%22deo%20juvante%22%20monaco%20motto&amp;pg=PA472#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20juvante%22&amp;f=false) is **Deo juvante**. The phrase appears on the coat of arms of its ruling family, the Grimaldis. Apparently this dates to 1297, when François Grimaldi took control of the city by a ruse involving soldiers dressed as monks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This odd book on freemasonry](https://books.google.com/books?id=OFEzAQAAMAAJ&amp;dq=%22deo%20juvante%22&amp;pg=PA288#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20juvante%22&amp;f=false) reports records of acceptance in Latin of a high masonic degree (&quot;Supreme Master&quot;) in a long series starting in 1324 and ending in 1804, nearly all with **deo juvante**, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego Arnaldus de Braque supremum magisterium **deo juvante** acceptum habeo anno domini 1340.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Around 1427, Thomas à Kempis wrote in _The Imitation of Christ,_ [book 1, ch. 4](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/kempis/kempis1.shtml), &quot;On resisting temptations&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qui tantummodo exterius declinat, nec radicem evellit, parum proficiet, imo citius ad eum tentationes redient, et pejus sævient. Paulatim, et per patientiam cum longanimitate **Deo juvante** melius superabis, quam cum duritia et importunitate propria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One who merely avoids [temptations] outwardly, not tearing out the root, will make little progress. Indeed, the temptations will return to him more quickly, raging even worse than before. Little by little, through patience and long-suffering you will overcome them **with God's help** better than with harshness and your own crude ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This book](https://books.google.com/books?id=i4ysAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA36&amp;dq=%22deo+juvante%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjc5ILd76rTAhUm7YMKHS3UC-A4ChDoAQhGMAU#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20juvante%22&amp;f=false) reports seven Dutch cargo ships, built from 1925 to 2008, named **Deo Juvante**, as well as other ships with the comparable names **Deo Favente** (&quot;God favoring&quot;), **Deo Volente** (&quot;God Willing&quot;), **Deo Confidentes** (&quot;Trusting in God&quot;), **Deo Gratias** (&quot;Thanks be to God&quot;), **Deo Data** (&quot;Given by [or to] God&quot;), and **Deo Duce** (&quot;With God as the leader&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage continues to the present day. A [search on Twitter](https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&amp;vertical=default&amp;q=deo%20iuvante&amp;src=typd) reveals one or two occurrences a month, sometimes stuck into sentences in other languages. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4122" RevisionGUID="fa4a56df-0904-4ccd-ab9c-aaec72e7011b" CreationDate="2017-04-17T07:33:04.140" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="A common Christian formula is **Deo iuvante**, literally &quot;with God helping&quot;, more naturally rendered in English as &quot;with God's help&quot; or &quot;if God helps&quot;. It signifies that the matter in question will only be completed successfully if God favors it and actively cooperates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase has a long history. Google Books returns about 50,000 hits total for [_deo juvante_](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=%22deo+iuvante%22#tbm=bks&amp;q=%22deo+juvante%22) and [_deo iuvante_](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=%22deo+iuvante%22). [_Juvante deo_](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=%22juvante+deo%22) turns up another 12,000. (Both spellings are equivalent, and the word order doesn't matter, though it's more common to put _deo_ first.) In chronological order, here are some that seemed interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;[_The Last Pagans of Rome_](https://books.google.com/books?id=NHgvpINWV_QC&amp;pg=PA381&amp;dq=%22deo+iuvante%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwidzJbY26rTAhVB74MKHWs1CVI4FBDoAQhIMAc#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20iuvante%22&amp;f=false) takes use of **deo iuvante** in letters around 400 A.D. as evidence that their authors had converted from paganism to Christianity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [national motto of Monaco](https://books.google.com/books?id=jfrWCQAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA472&amp;ots=j_o_kzpqsG&amp;dq=%22deo%20juvante%22%20monaco%20motto&amp;pg=PA472#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20juvante%22&amp;f=false) is **Deo juvante**. The phrase appears on the coat of arms of its ruling family, the Grimaldis. Apparently this dates to 1297, when François Grimaldi took control of the city by a ruse involving soldiers dressed as monks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This odd book on freemasonry](https://books.google.com/books?id=OFEzAQAAMAAJ&amp;dq=%22deo%20juvante%22&amp;pg=PA288#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20juvante%22&amp;f=false) reports records of acceptance in Latin of a high masonic degree (&quot;Supreme Master&quot;) in a long series starting in 1324 and ending in 1804, nearly all with **deo juvante**, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego Arnaldus de Braque supremum magisterium **deo juvante** acceptum habeo anno domini 1340.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Around 1427, Thomas à Kempis wrote in _The Imitation of Christ,_ [book 1, ch. 4](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/kempis/kempis1.shtml), &quot;On resisting temptations&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qui tantummodo exterius declinat, nec radicem evellit, parum proficiet, imo citius ad eum tentationes redient, et pejus sævient. Paulatim, et per patientiam cum longanimitate **Deo juvante** melius superabis, quam cum duritia et importunitate propria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One who merely avoids [temptations] outwardly, not tearing out the root, will make little progress. Indeed, the temptations will return to him more quickly, raging even worse than before. Little by little, through patience and long-suffering you will overcome them **with God's help** better than with harshness and your own crude ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This book](https://books.google.com/books?id=i4ysAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA36&amp;dq=%22deo+juvante%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjc5ILd76rTAhUm7YMKHS3UC-A4ChDoAQhGMAU#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20juvante%22&amp;f=false) reports seven Dutch cargo ships, built from 1925 to 2008, named **Deo Juvante**, as well as other ships with the comparable names **Deo Favente** (&quot;God favoring&quot;), **Deo Volente** (&quot;God Willing&quot;), **Deo Confidentes** (&quot;Trusting in God&quot;), **Deo Gratias** (&quot;Thanks be to God&quot;), **Deo Data** (&quot;Given by [or to] God&quot;), and **Deo Duce** (&quot;With God as the leader&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage continues to the present day. A [search on Twitter](https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&amp;vertical=default&amp;q=deo%20iuvante&amp;src=typd) reveals one or two occurrences a month, sometimes stuck into sentences in other languages. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4122" RevisionGUID="9ddd1cf9-a095-4970-a780-2406cd73ab45" CreationDate="2017-04-17T09:06:05.217" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="A common Christian formula is **Deo iuvante**, literally &quot;with God helping&quot;, more naturally rendered in English as &quot;with God's help&quot; or &quot;if God helps&quot;. It signifies that the matter in question will only be completed successfully if God favors it and actively cooperates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase has a long history. Google Books returns about 50,000 hits total for [_deo juvante_](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=%22deo+iuvante%22#tbm=bks&amp;q=%22deo+juvante%22) and [_deo iuvante_](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=%22deo+iuvante%22). [_Juvante deo_](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=%22juvante+deo%22) turns up another 12,000. (Both spellings are equivalent, and the word order doesn't matter, though it's more common to put _deo_ first.) In chronological order, here are some that seemed interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;[_The Last Pagans of Rome_](https://books.google.com/books?id=NHgvpINWV_QC&amp;pg=PA381&amp;dq=%22deo+iuvante%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwidzJbY26rTAhVB74MKHWs1CVI4FBDoAQhIMAc#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20iuvante%22&amp;f=false) takes use of **deo iuvante** in letters around 400 A.D. as evidence that their authors had converted from paganism to Christianity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [national motto of Monaco](https://books.google.com/books?id=jfrWCQAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA472&amp;ots=j_o_kzpqsG&amp;dq=%22deo%20juvante%22%20monaco%20motto&amp;pg=PA472#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20juvante%22&amp;f=false) is **Deo juvante**. The phrase appears on the coat of arms of its ruling family, the Grimaldis. Apparently this dates to 1297, when François Grimaldi took control of the city by a ruse involving soldiers dressed as monks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This odd book on freemasonry](https://books.google.com/books?id=OFEzAQAAMAAJ&amp;dq=%22deo%20juvante%22&amp;pg=PA288#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20juvante%22&amp;f=false) reports records of acceptance in Latin of a high masonic degree (&quot;Supreme Master&quot;) in a long series starting in 1324 and ending in 1804, nearly all with **deo juvante**, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego Arnaldus de Braque supremum magisterium **deo juvante** acceptum habeo anno domini 1340.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Around 1427, Thomas à Kempis wrote in _The Imitation of Christ,_ [book 1, ch. 4](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/kempis/kempis1.shtml), &quot;On resisting temptations&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qui tantummodo exterius declinat, nec radicem evellit, parum proficiet, imo citius ad eum tentationes redient, et pejus sævient. Paulatim, et per patientiam cum longanimitate **Deo juvante** melius superabis, quam cum duritia et importunitate propria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One who merely avoids [temptations] outwardly, not tearing out the root, will make little progress. Indeed, the temptations will return to him more quickly and rage worse than before. Little by little, through patience and long-suffering you will overcome them **with God's help** better than with harshness and your own crude ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This book](https://books.google.com/books?id=i4ysAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA36&amp;dq=%22deo+juvante%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjc5ILd76rTAhUm7YMKHS3UC-A4ChDoAQhGMAU#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20juvante%22&amp;f=false) reports seven Dutch cargo ships, built from 1925 to 2008, named **Deo Juvante**, as well as other ships with the comparable names **Deo Favente** (&quot;God favoring&quot;), **Deo Volente** (&quot;God Willing&quot;), **Deo Confidentes** (&quot;Trusting in God&quot;), **Deo Gratias** (&quot;Thanks be to God&quot;), **Deo Data** (&quot;Given by [or to] God&quot;), and **Deo Duce** (&quot;With God as the leader&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage continues to the present day. A [search on Twitter](https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&amp;vertical=default&amp;q=deo%20iuvante&amp;src=typd) reveals one or two occurrences a month, sometimes stuck into sentences in other languages. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4122" RevisionGUID="84bb438e-bbe0-44d4-b319-37846644430a" CreationDate="2017-04-17T09:14:05.620" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="A common Christian formula is **Deo iuvante**, literally &quot;with God helping&quot;, more naturally rendered in English as &quot;with God's help&quot; or &quot;if God helps&quot;. It signifies that the matter in question will only be completed successfully if God favors it and actively cooperates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase has a long history. Google Books returns about 65,000 hits total for [_deo juvante_](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=%22deo+iuvante%22#tbm=bks&amp;q=%22deo+juvante%22), [_deo iuvante_](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=%22deo+iuvante%22), [_juvante deo_](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=%22juvante+deo%22), and [_iuvante deo_](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=%22iuvante+deo%22). (Both spellings are equivalent, and the word order doesn't matter, though it's more common to put _deo_ first.) In chronological order, here are some that seemed interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;[_The Last Pagans of Rome_](https://books.google.com/books?id=NHgvpINWV_QC&amp;pg=PA381&amp;dq=%22deo+iuvante%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwidzJbY26rTAhVB74MKHWs1CVI4FBDoAQhIMAc#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20iuvante%22&amp;f=false) takes use of **deo iuvante** in letters around 400 A.D. as evidence that their authors had converted from paganism to Christianity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [national motto of Monaco](https://books.google.com/books?id=jfrWCQAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA472&amp;ots=j_o_kzpqsG&amp;dq=%22deo%20juvante%22%20monaco%20motto&amp;pg=PA472#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20juvante%22&amp;f=false) is **Deo juvante**. The phrase appears on the coat of arms of its ruling family, the Grimaldis. Apparently this dates to 1297, when François Grimaldi took control of the city by a ruse involving soldiers dressed as monks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This odd book on freemasonry](https://books.google.com/books?id=OFEzAQAAMAAJ&amp;dq=%22deo%20juvante%22&amp;pg=PA288#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20juvante%22&amp;f=false) reports records of acceptance in Latin of a high masonic degree (&quot;Supreme Master&quot;) in a long series starting in 1324 and ending in 1804, nearly all with **deo juvante**, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego Arnaldus de Braque supremum magisterium **deo juvante** acceptum habeo anno domini 1340.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Around 1427, Thomas à Kempis wrote in _The Imitation of Christ,_ [book 1, ch. 4](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/kempis/kempis1.shtml), &quot;On resisting temptations&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qui tantummodo exterius declinat, nec radicem evellit, parum proficiet, imo citius ad eum tentationes redient, et pejus sævient. Paulatim, et per patientiam cum longanimitate **Deo juvante** melius superabis, quam cum duritia et importunitate propria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One who merely avoids [temptations] outwardly, not tearing out the root, will make little progress. Indeed, the temptations will return to him more quickly and rage worse than before. Little by little, through patience and long-suffering you will overcome them **with God's help** better than with harshness and your own crude ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This book](https://books.google.com/books?id=i4ysAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA36&amp;dq=%22deo+juvante%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjc5ILd76rTAhUm7YMKHS3UC-A4ChDoAQhGMAU#v=onepage&amp;q=%22deo%20juvante%22&amp;f=false) reports seven Dutch cargo ships, built from 1925 to 2008, named **Deo Juvante**, as well as other ships with the comparable names **Deo Favente** (&quot;God favoring&quot;), **Deo Volente** (&quot;God Willing&quot;), **Deo Confidentes** (&quot;Trusting in God&quot;), **Deo Gratias** (&quot;Thanks be to God&quot;), **Deo Data** (&quot;Given by [or to] God&quot;), and **Deo Duce** (&quot;With God as the leader&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage continues to the present day. A [search on Twitter](https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&amp;vertical=default&amp;q=deo%20iuvante&amp;src=typd) reveals one or two occurrences a month, sometimes stuck into sentences in other languages. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4124" RevisionGUID="16191d80-f273-4e7a-9bb8-f41472242e10" CreationDate="2017-04-17T13:34:50.710" UserId="78" Text="The word for 'skeleton' in Petronius' *Satryicon* is *larva*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Potantibus ergo nobis et accuratissime lautitias mirantibus **larvam argenteam** attulit **servus sic aptatam, ut articuli eius vertebraeque luxatae in omnem partem flecterentur**. Hanc cum super mensam semel iterumque abiecisset, et catenatio mobilis aliquot figuras exprimeret, Trimalchio adiecit:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Eheu nos miseros, quam totus homuncio nil est.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Sic erimus cuncti, postquam nos auferet Orcus.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ergo vivamus, dum licet esse bene.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As we drank and admired each luxury in detail, a slave brought in **a silver skeleton, made so that its limbs and spine could be moved and bent in every direction**. He put it down once or twice on the table so that the supple joints showed several attitudes, and Trimalchio said appropriately: &quot;Alas for us poor mortals, all that poor man is is nothing. So we shall all be, after the world below takes us away. Let us live then while it goes well with us.&quot; (trans. Heseltine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that t word typically means &quot;ghost&quot; or even &quot;goblin,&quot; as Lewis and Short define it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *a ghost, spectre*: “larvae stimulant virum,” Plaut. Capt. 3, 4, 66: “amator qui me et uxorem ludificatust larva,” id. Cas. 3, 4, 2; id. Aul. 4, 4, 15: cum mortuis non nisi larvas luctari, Plin. praef. H. N. § 31. — As a term of reproach, *hobgoblin, scarecrow*: “etiam loquere larŭa?” Plaut. Merc. 5, 4, 20: “nam haec quidem edepol larvarum plenast,” possessed, id. Am. 2, 2, 145.—" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4124" RevisionGUID="0ab2ea7e-2e61-4b00-87f9-0c570c0b074b" CreationDate="2017-04-17T13:56:28.893" UserId="78" Comment="added 194 characters in body" Text="The word for 'skeleton' in Petronius' *Satryicon* is indeed *larva*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Potantibus ergo nobis et accuratissime lautitias mirantibus **larvam argenteam** attulit **servus sic aptatam, ut articuli eius vertebraeque luxatae in omnem partem flecterentur**. Hanc cum super mensam semel iterumque abiecisset, et catenatio mobilis aliquot figuras exprimeret, Trimalchio adiecit:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Eheu nos miseros, quam totus homuncio nil est.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Sic erimus cuncti, postquam nos auferet Orcus.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ergo vivamus, dum licet esse bene.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As we drank and admired each luxury in detail, a slave brought in **a silver skeleton, made so that its limbs and spine could be moved and bent in every direction**. He put it down once or twice on the table so that the supple joints showed several attitudes, and Trimalchio said appropriately: &quot;Alas for us poor mortals, all that poor man is is nothing. So we shall all be, after the world below takes us away. Let us live then while it goes well with us.&quot; (trans. Heseltine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that t word typically means &quot;ghost&quot; or even &quot;goblin,&quot; as Lewis and Short define it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *a ghost, spectre*: “larvae stimulant virum,” Plaut. Capt. 3, 4, 66: “amator qui me et uxorem ludificatust larva,” id. Cas. 3, 4, 2; id. Aul. 4, 4, 15: cum mortuis non nisi larvas luctari, Plin. praef. H. N. § 31. — As a term of reproach, *hobgoblin, scarecrow*: “etiam loquere larŭa?” Plaut. Merc. 5, 4, 20: “nam haec quidem edepol larvarum plenast,” possessed, id. Am. 2, 2, 145.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, here it has to mean skeleton, model skeleton even. He's describing a put together skeleton (made of silver) that can move. To mean &quot;evil spirit&quot; here wouldn't make any sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4125" RevisionGUID="dd545583-c78c-4526-9a11-376ce6e09d8a" CreationDate="2017-04-17T14:14:14.647" UserId="45" Text="As a first note, I have been unable to find a classical work where *posthinc* is treated as one word. The two Vergil citations in the L&amp;S entry you mentioned actually have *post hinc*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **post hinc** digressus iubeo frondentia capris  &#xD;&#xA;arbuta sufficere et fluuios praebere recentis, (V. *G* 3:300-301)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **post hinc** ad nauis graditur sociosque reuisit. (V. *A* 8:546)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These really are not terribly good examples of a new grammatical form. In fact, two authorities contest this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Servius Honoratus, in his commentary to 8:546, sees it as a **pleonasm**. Evidently he was struck by the form enough that he even cites the passage from the *Georgics*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *post hinc ad naves graditvr:* **unum vacat, aut 'post', aut 'hinc'**, ut &quot;post hinc digrediens iubeo frondentia capris arbuta&quot;: tale est et illud &quot;primus ibi ante omnes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. August Engelbrecht, in his [*Untersuchungen über die sprache des Claudianus Mamertus*](https://books.google.com/books?id=AO5GAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA523&amp;lpg=PA523), pg. 102-103, construes them as two adverbs with separate functions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Das Lexikon von Forcellini bringt auch noch in seiner neuen Ausgabe zwar zwei Stellen für *posthinc* bei, die jedoch beide unbrauchbar sind.... Augenscheinlich ist an beiden Stellen *hinc* nicht mit *post* sondern mit *graditur (digressus)* zu verbinden ebenso ist Sid carm VII 435.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Indeed, Forcellini's lexicon also furnishes in its new edition two locations for *posthinc*. However, neither is applicable. Evidently, in both locations ***hinc* should not be construed with *post* but rather with *graditur/digressus***, just as in Sidonius, *Carmina 7:435*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Engelbrecht goes on to cite a passage from Servius (caveat: although I looked where he said it was, I could not find the relevant quote) that may lend credence to the one word/form theory:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Uebrigens kann die Bemerkung des Servius zur letzteren Stelle aus Vergil, &quot;Sunt qui posthinc unica uoce scribunt, sed perperam,&quot; als Beweis dienen dass zu des Grammatikers Zeiten *posthinc = postea* in Gebrauch gewesen sein muss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Incidentally, Servius's remark on this last citation from Vergil, &quot;There are some who write *posthinc* as one word, but this is incorrect,&quot; can serve as an example that *posthinc = postea* must have been in use at the time of the grammatician was writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are examples where the *hinc* cannot be construed with another verb in the sentence. Here is one example from Marcus Manilius, *Astronomica*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fortunae sors prima data est....	&#xD;&#xA;...	  &#xD;&#xA;**post hinc** militiae locus est, qua quidquid in armis	 &#xD;&#xA;quodque peregrinas inter versantibus urbes	 &#xD;&#xA;accidere assuevit titulo comprenditur uno. (3: 96-104)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the only logical rendering of *post hinc* is a single logical &quot;afterwards,&quot; like *postea.* I think that Honoratus's comment about this being pleonastic are probably applicable: it is telling that all these examples (as well as another I found from Lucretius) occur in verse, where metrical constraints allow more creative constructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your practical question about translating, &quot;I will go to Rome four days from now,&quot; I think in light of the above that *posthinc* together would not be appropriate. I would recommend either the obvious *post (prep)* + accusative or *post (adv)* + ablative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Romam post tres dies (tribus post diebus) ibo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, if you would like to emphasize the &quot;from now&quot; part, you could certainly use *hinc*, in the model of Varro, *De Lingua Latina*, 5:144,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  hinc post triginta annos oppidum alterum conditur, Alba.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...you could write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hinc post tres dies Romam ibo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course it would be very difficult to find a context where *hinc* couldn't also be construed spatially." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4125" RevisionGUID="0021396c-fa4c-40a4-8b39-1001b0b0237f" CreationDate="2017-04-17T15:18:11.017" UserId="45" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="As a first note, I have been unable to find a classical work where *posthinc* is treated as one word. The two Vergil citations in the L&amp;S entry you mentioned actually have *post hinc*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **post hinc** digressus iubeo frondentia capris  &#xD;&#xA;arbuta sufficere et fluuios praebere recentis, (V. *G* 3:300-301)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **post hinc** ad nauis graditur sociosque reuisit. (V. *A* 8:546)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These really are not terribly good examples of a new grammatical form. In fact, two authorities contest this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Servius Honoratus, in his commentary to 8:546, sees it as a **pleonasm**. Evidently he was struck by the form enough that he even recalls the passage from the *Georgics* when considering the one from the *Aeneid.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *post hinc ad naves graditvr:* **unum vacat, aut 'post', aut 'hinc'**, ut &quot;post hinc digrediens iubeo frondentia capris arbuta&quot;: tale est et illud &quot;primus ibi ante omnes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. August Engelbrecht, in his [*Untersuchungen über die sprache des Claudianus Mamertus*](https://books.google.com/books?id=AO5GAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA523&amp;lpg=PA523), pg. 102-103, construes them as two adverbs with separate functions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Das Lexikon von Forcellini bringt auch noch in seiner neuen Ausgabe zwar zwei Stellen für *posthinc* bei, die jedoch beide unbrauchbar sind.... Augenscheinlich ist an beiden Stellen *hinc* nicht mit *post* sondern mit *graditur (digressus)* zu verbinden ebenso ist Sid carm VII 435.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Indeed, Forcellini's lexicon also furnishes in its new edition two locations for *posthinc*. However, neither is applicable. Evidently, in both locations ***hinc* should not be construed with *post* but rather with *graditur/digressus***, just as in Sidonius, *Carmina 7:435*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Engelbrecht goes on to cite a passage from Servius (caveat: although I looked where he said it was, I could not find the relevant quote) that may lend credence to the one word/form theory:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Uebrigens kann die Bemerkung des Servius zur letzteren Stelle aus Vergil, &quot;Sunt qui posthinc unica uoce scribunt, sed perperam,&quot; als Beweis dienen dass zu des Grammatikers Zeiten *posthinc = postea* in Gebrauch gewesen sein muss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Incidentally, Servius's remark on this last citation from Vergil, &quot;There are some who write *posthinc* as one word, but this is incorrect,&quot; can serve as an example that *posthinc = postea* must have been in use at the time the grammatician was writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are examples where the *hinc* cannot be construed with another verb in the sentence. Here is one example from Marcus Manilius, *Astronomica*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fortunae sors prima data est....	&#xD;&#xA;...	  &#xD;&#xA;**post hinc** militiae locus est, qua quidquid in armis	 &#xD;&#xA;quodque peregrinas inter versantibus urbes	 &#xD;&#xA;accidere assuevit titulo comprenditur uno. (3: 96-104)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the only possible rendering of *post hinc* is a single logical &quot;afterwards,&quot; like *postea.* I think that Honoratus's comment about this being pleonastic is probably applicable here. It is telling that all these examples (as well as another I found from Lucretius) occur in verse, where metrical constraints allow more creative constructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your practical question about translating, &quot;I will go to Rome four days from now,&quot; I think in light of the above that *posthinc* together would not be appropriate. I would recommend either the obvious *post (prep)* + accusative or *post (adv)* + ablative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Romam post tres dies (tribus post diebus) ibo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, if you would like to emphasize the &quot;from now&quot; part, you could certainly use *hinc*, in the model of Varro, *De Lingua Latina*, 5:144,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  hinc post triginta annos oppidum alterum conditur, Alba.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...you could write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hinc post tres dies Romam ibo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course it would be very difficult to find a context where *hinc* couldn't also be construed spatially." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4126" RevisionGUID="5073334c-6693-4752-9fa0-f5aaaf656d91" CreationDate="2017-04-17T18:33:47.737" UserId="1455" Text="I'm finding that it is translated it in multiple different ways. Several sources say there is no translation at all, one translates it as &quot;attacking&quot; (google translate, yes), some translate it as &quot;cooperative&quot;, and finally several translate it as &quot;many that...&quot; or &quot;many who...&quot; as a lead in to a sentence or clause. Any input, or can it be all of the above depending on the context? I know the individual meanings of each, and am just trying to figure out the most likely meaning(s) when connected. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12372" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4126" RevisionGUID="5073334c-6693-4752-9fa0-f5aaaf656d91" CreationDate="2017-04-17T18:33:47.737" UserId="1455" Text="Multaque as a standalone word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12373" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4126" RevisionGUID="5073334c-6693-4752-9fa0-f5aaaf656d91" CreationDate="2017-04-17T18:33:47.737" UserId="1455" Text="|word-request|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4126" RevisionGUID="6993828a-da5b-4401-86f7-90ee5b4528b0" CreationDate="2017-04-17T18:50:44.640" UserId="45" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="I'm finding that *multaque* is translated in multiple different ways. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Several sources say there is no translation at all&#xD;&#xA;* One translates it as &quot;attacking&quot; (google translate, yes)&#xD;&#xA;* Some translate it as &quot;cooperative&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* Finally several translate it as &quot;many that...&quot; or &quot;many who...&quot; as a lead in to a sentence or clause. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any input, or can it be all of the above depending on the context? I know the individual meanings of each, and am just trying to figure out the most likely meaning(s) when connected. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4127" RevisionGUID="7697eca0-b938-42a0-8ce3-002e57f3d5dc" CreationDate="2017-04-17T19:02:12.563" UserId="79" Text="I am not familiar with a standalone word *multaque*.&#xD;&#xA;I believe it is *multa* and the enclitic *-que*, meaning ([roughly](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1/79)) the same as *et multa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *multa* can mean several things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [much (adjective)](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2037166)&#xD;&#xA;- [much (adverb)](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1010263)&#xD;&#xA;- [penalty](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2037071)&#xD;&#xA;- [punish (imperative)](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2037163)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without further context, I would translate *multaque* as &quot;and many&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But details of the answer depend on details of the question.&#xD;&#xA;I found no support for any sense of attacking or cooperation, but I may have missed something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4128" RevisionGUID="de0baa90-1929-4740-afea-4dd70ecdc859" CreationDate="2017-04-17T19:02:26.690" UserId="45" Text="Unfortunately, you are using an *automatic translator* instead of a dictionary. Spoiler alert: **There is not a single good automatic translator for Latin.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this kind of task, you should use a dictionary: take a look at https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/867/which-online-latin-dictionaries-should-i-use-and-why for information about which to pick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Multaque&quot; is a combination of *multa* and the enclitic *-que*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Multa* is either the feminine singular nominative (or ablative, if mult&amp;amacr;) or neuter plural nominative/accusative of the adjective [*multus, -a, -um*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmultus), which means &quot;much/many.&quot; It can also be the noun *multa*, as pointed out in Joonas's answer.&#xD;&#xA;* *-que* simply means &quot;and&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Multaque* doesn't mean anything in particular outside of its context.** It is as meaningful/meaningless as English, &quot;And much.&quot; Here is an example of it used in context, along with its translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Multaque** in ea genera ferarum nasci constat, quae reliquis in locis visa non sint... (Caesar, *De Bello Gallico* 6.25.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **And** it is well known that **many** kinds of beasts are born in it [Germany], which have not been seen in other places." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="c71eff1c-3b02-423b-bcba-b901028b3d65" CreationDate="2017-04-17T21:06:52.003" UserId="79" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="For adjectives of the first and second declension, the corresponding adverb is formed with the ending *-e*.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *pulchre* (beautifully) comes from *pulcher* (beautiful).&#xD;&#xA;Canonically this *-e* is viewed as a suffixed used to derive adverbs from adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;It is also possible to view it as a case ending, and the adverb as yet another case.&#xD;&#xA;The line between declension and deriving adverbs is not always clear&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, since many cases of a noun make the word into an adverb of some kind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did any ancient or later grammarian hold or consider this view of *-e* (or the corresponding third declension version *-iter*) as a case ending?&#xD;&#xA;Who was the first to think or propose this?&#xD;&#xA;I assume this was never a popular way to see things, but it is not an entirely unreasonable idea to have.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know when this idea came about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should add that I have never seen anyone discuss *-e* or *-iter* as case endings, but I highly doubt my idea is original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean only Latin, but all languages that have cases.&#xD;&#xA;It could be that such an idea of *-e* as a case ending was introduced to Latin grammar by analogy to some other language.&#xD;&#xA;I also recognize that there are problems in viewing *-e* as a case ending; see comments below." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4126" RevisionGUID="9e94d4f5-60ab-4597-832d-1805f3c0e95f" CreationDate="2017-04-17T21:50:28.783" UserId="79" Comment="Removed a tag and capitalized some letters." Text="I'm finding that *multaque* is translated in multiple different ways. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Several sources say there is no translation at all&#xD;&#xA;* One translates it as &quot;attacking&quot; (Google Translate, yes)&#xD;&#xA;* Some translate it as &quot;cooperative&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* Finally several translate it as &quot;many that...&quot; or &quot;many who...&quot; as a lead in to a sentence or clause. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any input, or can it be all of the above depending on the context? I know the individual meanings of each, and am just trying to figure out the most likely meaning(s) when connected. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12380" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4126" RevisionGUID="9e94d4f5-60ab-4597-832d-1805f3c0e95f" CreationDate="2017-04-17T21:50:28.783" UserId="79" Comment="Removed a tag and capitalized some letters." Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2943" RevisionGUID="ae1764bb-db30-42ad-848b-4b4cff692454" CreationDate="2017-04-17T22:05:50.307" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="How can I translate sentences like &quot;poverty leads to hunger&quot; to Latin?&#xD;&#xA;There are several possible verbs for leading, and my first choice is *ducere*, but I am not sure if it can be used in this sense.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I could simply say *inopia in famem ducit*, but I'm far from confident.&#xD;&#xA;This would work if I added an object *hominem* (&quot;poverty leads a man to hunger&quot;), but I really want to avoid using an object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are cases when there is no clear object or I do not want indicate what the object is.&#xD;&#xA;If possible, I would like a structure that also works for &quot;the series of events led to her birth&quot; or &quot;heavy rain does not lead to drought&quot; or &quot;careless driving leads to sorrow&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If it is better to use different phrases for these different examples, what Latin phrases should I have in mind when trying to translate &quot;leads to&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1567" RevisionGUID="5c0554c7-c014-4e54-ba63-9627a74ed562" CreationDate="2017-04-17T22:12:11.813" UserId="79" Comment="Expanded a little." Text="In Latin you need a verb to say &quot;please&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *quaesere* mentioned by ktm5124 is a good one, but not the only one.&#xD;&#xA;That verb is used typically only in first person singular or plural present nominative, *quaeso* or *quaesumus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some other verbs meaning &quot;ask&quot;, &quot;beg&quot;, or similar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *petere*&#xD;&#xA;- *rogare*&#xD;&#xA;- *precari*&#xD;&#xA;- *orare*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because these are verbs, you need to be more careful in using them than with the English &quot;please&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For example, choosing between *precor* and *precamur* depends on whether you speak only for yourself or as a part of a group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quaeso* or *quaesumus* is typically used similarly to &quot;please&quot;, but with other verbs you should also consider other structures to express the same thing. &#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples from my dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I ask you for help.&quot; (= &quot;Please help.&quot;) = *Te auxilium rogo.* / *A te opem peto.*&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I ask you to accept the plan.&quot; (= &quot;Please accept the plan.&quot;) = *A vobis peto, ut consilium probetis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also imply a &quot;please&quot; by using what I would call a soft order.&#xD;&#xA;Instead of saying *sede!* (&quot;sit!&quot;), you can say *fac sedeas!* (&quot;do so that you sit!&quot; or &quot;please sit!&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you need to conjugate *fac* to plural when you address several people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For idiomatic classical Latin, I think it is best not to translate &quot;please&quot; by any single word.&#xD;&#xA;*Quaeso* is good and simple, but you should also consider other ways to express the same.&#xD;&#xA;And sometimes you can just leave it out and express politeness in other ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, translations of your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Can I please have that?&quot; &amp;mdash; *Licetne mihi illud habere?* / *Permittisne mihi illud capere?*&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Please go away!&quot; &amp;mdash; *A te/vobis peto, ut abeas/abeatis!* / *Fac abeas!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also other ways, as indicated in comments and other answers.&#xD;&#xA;Let me mention some for completeness:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *sis*, as a contraction of *si vis*; it can be very similar to &quot;please&quot;, and is perhaps syntactically closer to the English &quot;please&quot; than *quaeso/quaesumus*&#xD;&#xA;- *amabo te (si)* &amp;mdash; &quot;I would be delighted (if)&quot;, literally &quot;I will love you (if)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- verbs of permission (*pati, permittere, sinere, &amp;hellip;*) can also add a tone of &quot;please&quot;, and they can be used together with the other methods" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4108" RevisionGUID="79e68ba0-3a30-40a0-8581-ecf5fdf87192" CreationDate="2017-04-17T22:14:00.217" UserId="118" Comment="Articuli comparati in litteras graviores versi." Text="From [Bibliander's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Bibliander) translation of the [Qur'an, surah 18, ayah 69](http://quran.com/18/69),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dixit Moyses, **Deo uolente**, me quilibet sustinentem, nec te in quoquam offendentem semper inuenies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a literal translation.  The original Arabic, transliterated here into a more familiar alphabet is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qala satajidunee **in sha'a Allahu** ṣabiran wa la a`ṣee laka amra&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bibliander clearly felt that _Deo uolente_ was the nearest Latin equivalent to the Arabic _in sha'a Allahu_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1317" RevisionGUID="3146c12f-5d20-43ba-9f23-3a2804fa1dbd" CreationDate="2017-04-17T22:16:46.000" UserId="79" Comment="Added adjectives." Text="There is a small difference between the people and the tree:&#xD;&#xA;vowel length.&#xD;&#xA;Indicating long vowels with a bar and short ones with a cup as usual, the masculine word is *po&amp;#x306;pu&amp;#x306;lu&amp;#x306;s* and the feminine one *p&amp;omacr;pu&amp;#x306;lu&amp;#x306;s*.&#xD;&#xA;Long vowels are indicated in many dictionaries, whereas short vowels are indicated by a lack of macron (the bar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowel lengths are typically not marked in writing, but you might want to do so to make the distinction.&#xD;&#xA;If you write *vox p&amp;omacr;puli*, it is clear that you mean the tree.&#xD;&#xA;(The O in *vox* and the final I are also long, but those lengths need no emphasis. You can use macrons for all long vowels or only when emphasis is needed.)&#xD;&#xA;If in the same text you also want to refer to the voice of the people, you might want to emphasize the shortness: *vox po&amp;#x306;puli*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To emphasize ambiguity, you could write *vox p&amp;omacr;&amp;#x306;puli*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As suggested in comments below, you could use the phrases in a metric verse to indicate vowel length.&#xD;&#xA;The rhythm typically unambiguously determines whether the O is long or short.&#xD;&#xA;Inspired by this idea, I composed this hexameter verse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Vox populi statuit sic nunc: vox populi abesto!*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The voice of the people has decided this now: the poplar shall have no voice!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The simplest way, however, is to use an adjective which indicates the gender.&#xD;&#xA;*Vox populi Romani* is the voice of the people of Rome, but *vox populi Romanae* is the voice of the Roman poplar.&#xD;&#xA;However, this distinction will only work for adjectives of declension 1/2 and fail in the third declension." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4129" RevisionGUID="5781d214-4589-4590-a665-f10e09704765" CreationDate="2017-04-18T00:08:34.223" UserId="78" Text="Recent research has shed some new light on this question. A [dissertation](https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/23426/) that came out of Rutgers in 2007 called the whole idea of *ius sacrum* into question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Johnson takes a look at the evidence behind the standard interpretation. For reference, for years everyone relied on Adolf Berger's article in the [*RE*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realencyclop%C3%A4die_der_classischen_Altertumswissenschaft) and, later, his entry in *Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law*, which I produce below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ius Sacrum. Strictly connected with *ius divinum* and *ius pontificum*. It embraces the legal principles and institutions which are connected with the relations of men to gods, with questions of cult, sacrifices, temples, consecrations, graves, and sacerdotal functions, whenever they may occur. The jurists Servius Sulpicius and Trebatius wrote on the subject of the *ius sacrum*. In oldest times the *ius sacrum* exercised a considerable influence on private law, the knowledge of legal rules and their interpretation and applicability having been a monopoloy of the priests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Problem is, the evidence behind such a reading is flimsy. I noticed this too when looking for evidence for the phrase in [PHI](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/1014/1/20/12270-12280#20):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Naturae iura sacra sunt etiam apud piratas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The sacred laws of nature are also [found] among pirates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so few references, that something like this thrown in is a dead giveaway that something is amiss. The *ius sacrum* here isn't a legal code, but simply a description of *ius*, it's really *ius naturae, quod sacrum etiam est*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Johnson goes through the rest of the passages and cannot find either a legal or literary precedent for it. Instead, he thinks scholars have been conflating the terms *ius pontificium* and *ius sacrorum*, but there too are differences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *ius sacrorum* (attested as early as Cicero, e.g. *De Domo Sup* 41.1), or, perhaps, more correctly, the *iura sacrorum*, was a body of religious law that governed a family's *sacra*, holy objects, masks, *penates*, etc. These were the items that Romans used in conjunction with offerings to the gods, establishing a relationship between the *domus* and the divine. Unless I misunderstand the argument, the *ius sacrorum* that deal with public *sacra* would fall under the domain of the pontifical college, and thus part of the *ius pontificium*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This latter *ius* is the broader one, and is encompassed by various sub-*iura* (e.g. *ius caerimoniarum*; see p. 112 for his reasons for concluding thus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*All* of this so far is a type of *ius gentium*, man-made law that governs individual nations. The Roman implementation of the *ius sacrorum* or *ius caerimoniarum* would not necessary apply to the Greeks, Carthaginians, or Gauls. This can be contrasted though with the *ius naturale*, 'natural law', those laws (*sacra* in Seneca's opinion) which the gods gave mortals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is where *fas* and *nefas* come in. You don't need to make a specific law or listen to the advice of the *pontifices* to know that cannibalism is wrong. It's not just wrong on a technical or legal level, but *morally* wrong (cf. Ov. *Met.* 585). It's a broach of human nature, and the gods will not only punish you (which can happen from carelessness), but sentence you to [an eternity of torture in the underworld](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantalus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, *nefas* is not legalistic, but rather laws were created to address issues of *fas* and *nefas*, not that they necessarily needed to do so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4130" RevisionGUID="9f31956b-3308-4c68-9613-c0e43aee3da5" CreationDate="2017-04-18T00:24:19.423" UserId="78" Text="Here are two possibilities based off your two example requests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one, &quot;poverty leads to hunger,&quot; I would turn around to use *sequi*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fames inopiam sequitur. / Hungers follows famine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's straightforward and easy to use and well attested in ancient authors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it doesn't sound right in your next example, &quot;a series of events led to her birth.&quot; It's certainly possible to do so (&quot;her birth followed all these events&quot;), but I think *adducere* might be a good way to do this. While it's primary (original) meaning was spatial (to lead *X* to *Y*) Lewis &amp; Short cover the citations for a figurative meaning well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. Fig.&#xD;&#xA;A. To bring a person or thing into a certain condition; with ad or in: “numquam animum quaesti gratiā ad malas adducam partīs,” Ter. Hec. 5, 3, 38: “rem adduci ad interregnum,” Cic. Att. 7, 9: “ad arbitrium alterius,” id. Fam. 5, 20: “ad suam auctoritatem,” id. Deiot. 10, 29: “numquam prius discessit, quam ad finem sermo esset adductus,” Nep. Ep. 3: “iambos ad umbilicum adducere,” Hor. Epod. 14, 8: “in discrimen extremum,” Cic. Phil. 6, 7; cf. Liv. 45, 8: “in summas angustias,” Cic. Quint. 5: “in invidiam falso crimine,” id. Off. 3, 20: “in necessitatem,” Liv. 8, 7: “vitam in extremum,” Tac. A. 14, 61.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To word your example to fit the structure, I'd offer something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnes eventus matrem ad gignendum adduxerunt. / All the events led her mother to give birth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What a weird thing to say, though. On second thought, I would also use *sequi* with this example!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4131" RevisionGUID="0999b935-df96-4111-a05a-73c0b9f8fe9d" CreationDate="2017-04-18T05:08:42.210" UserId="79" Text="Is there a Latin idiom for praising oneself in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;In English one can blow one's own horn, but I doubt *tuba sua ludere* is likely mean the right thing.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a colorful way to put this, not just &quot;to praise or promote oneself&quot;, but colorless suggestions are also welcome if more vivid idioms are nowhere to be found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, I would like something that could be considered an idiom &amp;mdash; attested several times in a similar meaning.&#xD;&#xA;But if there is only a single occurrence of a juicy parable in Cicero, no need to resist sharing it&amp;hellip;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12389" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4131" RevisionGUID="0999b935-df96-4111-a05a-73c0b9f8fe9d" CreationDate="2017-04-18T05:08:42.210" UserId="79" Text="Blowing one's own horn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12390" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4131" RevisionGUID="0999b935-df96-4111-a05a-73c0b9f8fe9d" CreationDate="2017-04-18T05:08:42.210" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|phrase-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4131" RevisionGUID="05bcf0c7-daaf-4a9e-8798-aaa3f78f91ab" CreationDate="2017-04-18T05:12:53.537" UserId="79" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="Is there a Latin idiom for praising oneself in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;In English one can blow one's own horn (there are variants of this saying), but I doubt *tuba sua ludere* is likely mean the right thing.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a colorful way to put this, not just &quot;to praise or promote oneself&quot;, but colorless suggestions are also welcome if more vivid idioms are nowhere to be found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, I would like something that could be considered an idiom &amp;mdash; attested several times in a similar meaning.&#xD;&#xA;But if there is only a single occurrence of a juicy parable in Cicero, no need to resist sharing it&amp;hellip;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4132" RevisionGUID="5ee09f90-cad6-4e66-a7b6-3038dd7357bb" CreationDate="2017-04-18T05:26:11.280" UserId="235" Text="I was a little surprised to find that the PIE root of do and δίδωμι is *deh₃-, not *do-. How did we get the &quot;o&quot; vowel sound from eh₃? I don't actually know how to pronounce h₃, but I'm assuming that *deh₃- rhymes with &quot;meh&quot;... correct me if I am wrong here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question popped up when I was looking up &quot;anecdote&quot; in a dictionary and reading its etymology. I saw that the word derives from ἐκ + δίδωμι (to give out, publish). The familiar root &quot;do&quot; is present. But when I looked up the origins of &quot;do&quot;, I found *deh₃-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There you have it: an anecdote about *anecdote*.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12393" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4132" RevisionGUID="5ee09f90-cad6-4e66-a7b6-3038dd7357bb" CreationDate="2017-04-18T05:26:11.280" UserId="235" Text="How do the verbs do and δίδωμι come from *deh₃-?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12394" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4132" RevisionGUID="5ee09f90-cad6-4e66-a7b6-3038dd7357bb" CreationDate="2017-04-18T05:26:11.280" UserId="235" Text="|classical-latin|etymology|greek|proto-indo-european|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4132" RevisionGUID="7954e7bb-f32e-411d-9f3e-eb0e5b4872f3" CreationDate="2017-04-18T05:43:04.040" UserId="235" Comment="added 246 characters in body" Text="I was a little surprised to find that the PIE root of do and δίδωμι is *deh₃-, not *do-. How did we get the &quot;o&quot; vowel sound from eh₃? I don't actually know how to pronounce h₃, but I'm assuming that *deh₃- rhymes with &quot;meh&quot;... correct me if I am wrong here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question popped up when I was looking up &quot;anecdote&quot; in a dictionary and reading its etymology. I saw that the word derives from ἐκ + δίδωμι (to give out, publish). The familiar root &quot;do&quot; is present. But when I looked up the origins of &quot;do&quot;, I found *deh₃-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There you have it: an anecdote about *anecdote*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might as well include a guess. My guess is this. *deh₃- became *di-deh₃-, but *di-do was considered a euphonic improvement somewhere down the line, hence δίδωμι, and, as Wiktionary suggests, the reduplication was lost in Latin, giving *do*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4132" RevisionGUID="6d2d12b2-8e81-4f03-bbf4-f430d66fb174" CreationDate="2017-04-18T05:53:30.247" UserId="235" Comment="edited body" Text="I was a little surprised to find that the PIE root of do and δίδωμι is *deh₃-, not *do-. How did we get the &quot;o&quot; vowel sound from eh₃? I don't actually know how to pronounce h₃, but I'm assuming that *deh₃- rhymes with &quot;meh&quot;... correct me if I am wrong here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question popped up when I was looking up &quot;anecdote&quot; in a dictionary and reading its etymology. I saw that the word derives from ἐκ + δίδωμι (to give out, publish). The familiar root &quot;do&quot; is present. But when I looked up the origins of &quot;do&quot;, I found *deh₃-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There you have it: an anecdote about *anecdote*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might as well include a guess. My guess is this. *deh₃- became *di-deh₃-, but *di-do was considered a euphonic improvement somewhere down the line, hence δίδωμι. And, as Wiktionary suggests, the reduplication was lost in Latin, giving *do*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4134" RevisionGUID="1c16d860-a2ce-498f-a334-ff7e922ffc5b" CreationDate="2017-04-18T06:22:08.963" UserId="78" Text="Smith gives four options. The standard option is *gloriari*. This has a long and gloried history (groan) throughout Classical Latin, and Cicero seems especially fond of it. As usual, check [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=glorior&amp;la=la#lexicon) for details on usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, *gloriari* isn't really an idiom for 'boast', but a fairly direct correspondence. One potential idiom is *se iactare*. This is a true idiom, because it could also mean to &quot;actively devote oneself&quot;. It also gave the present participle a meaning of &quot;boastful.&quot; Pliny the Younger writes (*Ep*. 3.9):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  miserat etiam epistulas Romam ad amiculam quandam, **iactantes et gloriosas**, his quidem verbis: 'Io io, liber ad te venio; iam sestertium quadragiens redegi parte vendita Baeticorum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He had also sent letters to Rome to a certain friend, **boastful and vainglorious**, with these words...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a casual idiom, this is what I would go with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iste Ionias qui se semper iactat propter viginti milia punctorum...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other options are to use *ostentare* + acc. (whence 'ostentatious'), which I would translate as &quot;to show off&quot;; or *praedicare*, but that's a very rare sense, if at all (Smith has it, L&amp;S doesn't really)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4135" RevisionGUID="b87d9d0e-8130-44a9-b453-adf41f7fda1b" CreationDate="2017-04-18T09:13:54.977" UserId="324" Text="δίδωμι “I give” and δίδομεν “we give” can be explained either by “classic” (non-laryngeal) or “modern” (laryngeal) theory. The former derives the singular from long-grade *dō- and the plural from full-grade *do-. The latter posits e-grade *deh³-, o-grade *doh³- and zero-grade *dh³-; δίδωμι is then from *di-doh³-mi, and δίδομεν from *di-dh³-men with o-colouring of the laryngeal. In either case you have to operate with an e/o ablaut.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, you are not alone in not knowing how to pronounce h³. Nobody knows how it was pronounced. It is a quasi-algebraic symbol.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4136" RevisionGUID="53bf4b46-e3f2-4a9c-8939-43e619a2f996" CreationDate="2017-04-18T11:49:56.370" UserId="1459" Text="I am a native speaker of Spanish, and a fluent speaker of English. I would like to learn Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My intuition tells me that I should study Latin using translations/books in Spanish. This is because Spanish is a much more Synthetic language than English, as Latin is. Additionally, the overlap of words between Spanish and Latin seems to be greater than that between English and Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of resources available however seem to be less in Spanish than English. The most recommended book in this forum seems to be Lingva Latina, by Hans H. Ørberg, which I can only get in English. Additionally, most of smartphone apps to learn Latin are in English (which I can use when commuting, or other spare time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which language should I use as base to learn Latin? Maybe both English and Spanish? Or is the latter not recommended? Anyone with a strong advice on this, perhaps based on personal experience?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12403" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4136" RevisionGUID="53bf4b46-e3f2-4a9c-8939-43e619a2f996" CreationDate="2017-04-18T11:49:56.370" UserId="1459" Text="Should I study Latin in English or in Spanish?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12404" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4136" RevisionGUID="53bf4b46-e3f2-4a9c-8939-43e619a2f996" CreationDate="2017-04-18T11:49:56.370" UserId="1459" Text="|english|study-strategies|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="19e0784b-280b-4501-9283-410ad90b1277" CreationDate="2017-04-18T12:16:02.487" UserId="25" Comment="Improved formatting." Text="The word &quot;Pontifex&quot; may be taken as you pointed out to be used metaphorically as the Roman high priest as a mediator between man and the gods. He would be the bridge, as it were, between this world and the next. The Pope, even to this day carries the title of the Roman Pontiff of the Latin Church, as a vestige of the ancient Roman title Pontifex.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, bridge building has been considered to be a pious work of charity down the ages. Many Catholic authors have written  on the subject of indulgence which included the building of bridges. Pope Urban II, Pope Leo X and St Thomas Aquinas have all written about the pious work of bridge building in light of indulgences. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;For a long time it had been customary for the popes to grant indulgences for buildings of public utility (e.g. bridges)&quot; - [A History of Indulgences](http://www.awakentoprayer.org/indulgence.hist.htm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Church seems to have included bridge building as a form of pious work, just like that of building a cathedral. Not only was this endeavor dangerous, but it was also seen as a necessity in order connect the vast network of pilgrim routes throughout Europe. Pilgrimages have always considered a pious work! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4137" RevisionGUID="af5f256a-2255-4ce7-8c6c-bf015d750a43" CreationDate="2017-04-18T14:20:40.477" UserId="1369" Text="_*h&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;_ is called the &quot;o-colouring laryngeal,&quot; which means that it &quot;colours&quot; (i.e., changes) a neighbouring _e_ into _*o_ or _*ō_: the former from _*h&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;o_ and the latter from _*oh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;_. See _*h&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;ewis_ &gt; _ovis_ and _*deh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;[r/n]m̥_ &gt; _dōnum_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, when _*h&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;_ (or any other laryngeal) is **not** next to an _*e_, then they yield other vowels: _*a_ in Latin, _*i_ in Sanskrit, and _*e_, _*a_ or _*o_ in Greek respectively for _*h&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;_, _*h&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;_ and _*h&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Rasmussen](https://books.google.com.br/books?id=--ssbDUSJfIC&amp;redir_esc=y) postulates _*h&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;_ to be the voiceless glottal fricative [h] (though some postulate it as the glottal stop [ʔ]) when acting as a consonant, and the unrounded central vowel [ə] when acting as the nucleus of a syllable; _*h&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;_ to be the voiceless velar fricative [x] (others postulating the pharyngeal approximant [ʕ] in a consonant role and the near open central vowel [ɐ] in a syllable nucleus; and finally _*h&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;_ to be the labialised velar fricative [ɣʷ] (though [xʷ] and [ʕʷ] also have adherents) in consonant mode and the rounded central vowel [ɵ] in a syllable nucleus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4135" RevisionGUID="d67c4fcc-a195-478d-a14c-559a32b42972" CreationDate="2017-04-18T14:41:17.110" UserId="324" Comment="deleted 59 characters in body" Text="δίδωμι “I give” and δίδομεν “we give” can be explained either by “classic” (non-laryngeal) or “modern” (laryngeal) theory. The former derives the singular from full-grade *dō- and the plural from zero-grade *də- (with secondary ə&gt;o by analogy). The latter posits full-grade *deh³- &gt; dō- and zero-grade *dh³- &gt; do; δίδωμι is then from *di-deh³-mi, and δίδομεν from *di-dh³-men.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, you are not alone in not knowing how to pronounce h³. Nobody knows how it was pronounced. It is a quasi-algebraic symbol.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4138" RevisionGUID="c74f9082-7b59-4e29-a2d0-dc64a300005d" CreationDate="2017-04-18T14:58:36.830" UserId="45" Text="*Se iactare* seems a fairly literal translation of &quot;show off.&quot; If you want a more colorful image, Ovid offers us a wonderful little phrase addressed to Galatea by Polyphemus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Saevior indomitis eadem Galatea iuvencis,	 &#xD;&#xA;durior annosa quercu, fallacior undis,	  &#xD;&#xA;lentior et salicis virgis et vitibus albis, &#xD;&#xA;his inmobilior scopulis, violentior amne,	 &#xD;&#xA;**laudato pavone superbior,** acrior igni,	 &#xD;&#xA;asperior tribulis, feta truculentior ursa,	 &#xD;&#xA;surdior aequoribus, calcato inmitior hydro.... (Ov. *M* 13:798-804)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Laudato pavone superbior** even has a great English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prouder than a praised peacock&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not quite the same as &quot;tooting one's own horn,&quot; but it definitely is a great way of conveying the image of pride!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4135" RevisionGUID="8211822d-4c63-4b98-a14a-729c4923398d" CreationDate="2017-04-18T17:24:36.477" UserId="-1" Comment="Use subscripts rather than superscripts" Text="δίδωμι “I give” and δίδομεν “we give” can be explained either by “classic” (non-laryngeal) or “modern” (laryngeal) theory. The former derives the singular from full-grade *dō- and the plural from zero-grade *də- (with secondary ə&gt;o by analogy). The latter posits full-grade *deh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;- &gt; dō- and zero-grade *dh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;- &gt; do; δίδωμι is then from *di-deh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-mi, and δίδομεν from *di-dh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-men.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, you are not alone in not knowing how to pronounce h&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;. Nobody knows how it was pronounced. It is a quasi-algebraic symbol.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12413" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4135" RevisionGUID="8211822d-4c63-4b98-a14a-729c4923398d" CreationDate="2017-04-18T17:24:36.477" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 324 edit id of 182" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4139" RevisionGUID="ef6397aa-3487-45f6-9fc0-781fb8865017" CreationDate="2017-04-18T18:18:33.703" UserId="1239" Text="I want to capture the meaning of saying, &quot;Thus, contradiction follows from the premises by circular reasoning.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm fully aware of the logical problems of the content of the statement. My concern is the translation. Is the following correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ergo, per circulus in demonstrando sequitur contradictio ex praemissa*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12415" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4139" RevisionGUID="ef6397aa-3487-45f6-9fc0-781fb8865017" CreationDate="2017-04-18T18:18:33.703" UserId="1239" Text="Ergo, per circulus in demonstrando sequitur contradictio ex praemissa" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12416" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4139" RevisionGUID="ef6397aa-3487-45f6-9fc0-781fb8865017" CreationDate="2017-04-18T18:18:33.703" UserId="1239" Text="|translation|logic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4139" RevisionGUID="721b30c5-4977-475b-8ced-c2f5a9dbad00" CreationDate="2017-04-18T19:19:30.930" UserId="45" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I want to capture the meaning of saying, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, contradiction follows from the premises by circular reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm fully aware of the logical problems of the content of the statement. My concern is the translation. Is the following correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ergo, per circulus in demonstrando sequitur contradictio ex praemissa." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4139" RevisionGUID="36637694-13de-4803-bc39-ccacc5e503e4" CreationDate="2017-04-18T20:15:56.867" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged. Cf. https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/266/79" Text="I want to capture the meaning of saying, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, contradiction follows from the premises by circular reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm fully aware of the logical problems of the content of the statement. My concern is the translation. Is the following correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ergo, per circulus in demonstrando sequitur contradictio ex praemissa.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12420" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4139" RevisionGUID="36637694-13de-4803-bc39-ccacc5e503e4" CreationDate="2017-04-18T20:15:56.867" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged. Cf. https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/266/79" Text="|logic|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4140" RevisionGUID="ee1a9068-1380-477e-ba7b-d17a496ac81d" CreationDate="2017-04-18T21:14:31.187" UserId="45" Text="&lt;sup&gt;(I'm not entirely sure that this is an appropriate question for the site: feel free to comment or start a meta discussion if you disagree.) I'm also not sure what tag(s) would be most appropriate.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, when asked about some of the practical benefits of studying Latin, I answer that a great deal of important works--particularly post-classical and medieval--are not available in modern translation. A prime example of this is [Augustine of Hippo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo) (AD 354-430), an immensely influential and prolific Christian writer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [faculty page from Georgetown](http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/augustine/textstrans.html) states that Augustine has never been fully translated into English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Augustine left behind 5,000,000 words that survive today.... **No complete English translation has ever been achieved of all his works.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will restrict this question to English translations, though I'd also be curious about any other modern language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Approximately how much of Augustine's work has been translated into English?** If possible, I would also like to see a **list of his untranslated works**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12422" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4140" RevisionGUID="ee1a9068-1380-477e-ba7b-d17a496ac81d" CreationDate="2017-04-18T21:14:31.187" UserId="45" Text="How much of Augustine's writing has been translated into English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12423" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4140" RevisionGUID="ee1a9068-1380-477e-ba7b-d17a496ac81d" CreationDate="2017-04-18T21:14:31.187" UserId="45" Text="|soft-question|augustinus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4141" RevisionGUID="9197174f-c3a6-4a09-8a9a-28609cfa5db5" CreationDate="2017-04-18T22:06:57.613" UserId="118" Text="Lately I've come to dread coming across the word **modo**. Is it going to an adverb meaning &quot;just a moment ago&quot; or &quot;only (this and nothing more)&quot;, or &quot;a way of doing something&quot;, or who knows what else—&quot;a musical measure&quot;, &quot;a unit of measurement&quot;, &quot;a grammatical mood&quot;, &quot;a boundary&quot;, or who knows what an author might dig up from the apparently limitless senses of this word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose this minuscule suffering gives me a little empathy for people undergoing the troubles of learning English, which I was just reading about, where &quot;just&quot; shares some of the adverbial meanings, but also has [an adjectival meaning](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/just#Etymology_1) related to justice--and not just &quot;just&quot; has this difficulty in English, but so do most common words, most infamously &quot;set&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But…maybe that bit of empathic suffering could help me perceive **modo** more as Roman would. Often it helps to understand a primary meaning, which people understand the secondary meanings as extensions of, appropriately modified to fit whatever they're currently talking about. Is there some common or primary meaning here, in relation to which all the others make sense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12425" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4141" RevisionGUID="9197174f-c3a6-4a09-8a9a-28609cfa5db5" CreationDate="2017-04-18T22:06:57.613" UserId="118" Text="Is there a connection between modus and (adverbial) modo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12426" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4141" RevisionGUID="9197174f-c3a6-4a09-8a9a-28609cfa5db5" CreationDate="2017-04-18T22:06:57.613" UserId="118" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4141" RevisionGUID="eea30995-4f90-4908-9e8f-314cffc2f110" CreationDate="2017-04-18T22:36:32.077" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Lately I've come to dread coming across the word **modo**. Is it going to be an adverb meaning &quot;just a moment ago&quot; or &quot;only (this and nothing more)&quot;, or a noun for &quot;a way of doing something&quot;, &quot;a musical measure&quot;, &quot;a grammatical mood&quot;, &quot;a unit of measurement&quot;, &quot;a boundary&quot;, or some sense I've never heard of from the apparently limitless meanings of this word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose this minuscule suffering gives me a little empathy for people undergoing the troubles of learning English, which I was just reading about, where &quot;just&quot; shares some of the adverbial meanings, but also has [an adjectival meaning](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/just#Etymology_1) related to justice--and not just &quot;just&quot; has this difficulty in English, but so do most common words, most infamously &quot;set&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But…maybe that bit of empathic suffering could help me perceive **modo** more as Roman would. Often it helps to understand a primary meaning, which people understand the secondary meanings as extensions of, appropriately modified to fit whatever they're currently talking about. Is there some common or primary meaning here, in relation to which all the others make sense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4142" RevisionGUID="b3e12f2b-96d5-495e-90c2-9a6a0231b6aa" CreationDate="2017-04-19T02:31:15.383" UserId="12" Text="I'm listening to lectures by theologian Douglas Kelly ([*Medieval Theology*](https://itunes.apple.com/us/course/medieval-theology-dr.-douglas/id592462344), lectures 7 and 8), in which he repeatedly pronounces the name *[Boethius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boethius)* as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - boh-EE-see-us (how it sounds to me)&#xD;&#xA; - /boʊˈiːsiəs/ (my guess at IPA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a recognized Latin pronunciation scheme in which the *th* in *Boethius* would be pronounced with an *s* sound?  Vulgar Latin?  Italian or French? Kelly is no stranger to European languages, so I wonder if he might have picked it up in a non-English setting.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It reminds me of a reverse of Spanish, in which *z* in some dialects is pronounced as *th* (θ).  But it's a far cry from Classical Latin, where [*th* represents a voiceless plosive](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/648/12), like the *t* in *top*.  So is this some pronunciation scheme I've never heard of, or just a mistake?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12430" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4142" RevisionGUID="b3e12f2b-96d5-495e-90c2-9a6a0231b6aa" CreationDate="2017-04-19T02:31:15.383" UserId="12" Text="Is pronouncing 'th' as 's' in 'Boethius' typical in any common Latin pronunciation scheme?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12431" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4142" RevisionGUID="b3e12f2b-96d5-495e-90c2-9a6a0231b6aa" CreationDate="2017-04-19T02:31:15.383" UserId="12" Text="|pronunciation|medieval-latin|consonants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4143" RevisionGUID="e6cec378-13b3-4b65-a5d7-42bd52198a83" CreationDate="2017-04-19T03:03:04.257" UserId="78" Text="It actually helps to know that the *th* was not always there. A variant of his name that was common (standard?) in Medieval and early modern texts was [Boetius](https://books.google.com/books?id=gJ61nQEACAAJ&amp;dq=boetius&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiVko2KxK_TAhXBbiYKHW-ODssQ6wEINjAD). In some texts, he's even [Boece](https://books.google.com/books?id=eaeRoNoGtAUC). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While a standard pronunciation of the former is /boʊˈiʃəs/ (&quot;bow-EE-shiss&quot;), the latter is /boʊˈis/ (&quot;bow-EES&quot;); cf. Statius (&quot;STAY-shiss&quot;) and Lucrece (&quot;loo-CREASE&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine that there must have been a tradition in some university that combined the two, and Douglas Kelly is drawing on that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4144" RevisionGUID="96a7a4c5-ed80-408d-8c06-483fe600d7c8" CreationDate="2017-04-19T04:29:39.430" UserId="39" Text="(posting my comments as an answer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*clino* is an example of what Weiss calls **&quot;nasal presents&quot;** (p. 406). In other words (very non-technically), the present form of some verbs has an infix -n-. *vinco* is another good example of this phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;v in *clivus*, on the other hand, is what happens to *u (in *uo) between vowels. There was a discussion about it here the other day (vacuus)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4145" RevisionGUID="6aad0835-4248-4b51-9ac5-14a50da7ce16" CreationDate="2017-04-19T08:18:50.473" UserId="79" Text="I have only ever been taught one Latin translation for &quot;thank you&quot;, and it is *gratias agere* (conjugated in a suitable way).&#xD;&#xA;I just checked in [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) that this is indeed an attested use of *gratia*, often with *agere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was this this the only common phrase in classical Latin to express one's gratitude?&#xD;&#xA;Are there other ways to say &quot;thank you&quot; than *gratias tibi ago* and similar variants of *gratias agere*?&#xD;&#xA;If there are several, I would like to know the most common and important ones.&#xD;&#xA;I realize that one possible answer is &quot;no, that's the only phrase&quot;; since proving negatives is hard, I will take your word for it if voting shows that the [expert opinions](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/281/79) coincide." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12438" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4145" RevisionGUID="6aad0835-4248-4b51-9ac5-14a50da7ce16" CreationDate="2017-04-19T08:18:50.473" UserId="79" Text="Saying &quot;thank you&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12439" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4145" RevisionGUID="6aad0835-4248-4b51-9ac5-14a50da7ce16" CreationDate="2017-04-19T08:18:50.473" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|politeness|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4146" RevisionGUID="be6f18fa-9bd5-42f3-a8cb-65a0e1e38901" CreationDate="2017-04-19T11:46:37.060" UserId="1459" Text="I am reading the [Exultet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exsultet), an ancient Christian chant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two lines are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Exultet iam angelica turba caelorum,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;exultent divina mysteria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the [Spanish &quot;translation&quot;](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preg%C3%B3n_pascual), these two lines are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Exulten por fin los coros de los ángeles,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Exulten las jerarquías del cielo,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of whether you know Spanish or not, notice that the &quot;Exulten&quot; (3rd person, plural, active) is the same in both lines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if I am correct, &quot;Exultet&quot; is the 3rd person, singular, active of Exultare (1st conjugation), whereas &quot;Exultent&quot; is the 3rd person, plural, active. In effect, &quot;turba&quot; is femenine, and [&quot;angelica&quot;](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/angelicus#Inflection) can only be feminine **and** single, in concordance with &quot;Exultet&quot; singular number. Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main question is, then: would a direct translation of the Latin text into Spanish use singular and plural persons respectively? So that the first line would be something like &quot;Exulta por fin el coro celestial angelical?&quot; (where &quot;angelical&quot; is (as in English) an adjective, instead of a noun, like angel) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be an indication that I should not read both text as a direct translation, but more of an adaptation, and as such, is not a very useful methodological tool to learn Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12441" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4146" RevisionGUID="be6f18fa-9bd5-42f3-a8cb-65a0e1e38901" CreationDate="2017-04-19T11:46:37.060" UserId="1459" Text="Extultet and Exultent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12442" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4146" RevisionGUID="be6f18fa-9bd5-42f3-a8cb-65a0e1e38901" CreationDate="2017-04-19T11:46:37.060" UserId="1459" Text="|verbs|plural|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4147" RevisionGUID="01a2f3ab-3dad-456d-99d6-476f0e36edb5" CreationDate="2017-04-19T12:16:41.990" UserId="78" Text="You are correct to say that this is not a 'literal' translation. *Turba* is a feminine singular noun, and *exultet* is rightly singular. I'm not sure *coro* is the right word, though. Interestingly, [*turba*](http://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=turba) made it into Spanish, but apparently with a decidedly negative connotation. In Classical Latin, *turba* also meant &quot;mob&quot;, but could be used more neutrally, such as when Cicero talks about the *turba ignotorum deorum*, the &quot;throng of unknown gods.&quot; There's still a sense that there are *too many* of them, that they're undifferentiated, that they create a clamor in their togetherness, but it's not like either Cicero or the *Exultet* are against them. Perhaps [*la multitud*](http://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=multitud) is the better word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason, I suspect, for the plural, was to emphasize that great clamor. One chorus is nice and pleasant enough, but now imagine dozens of them at once. It can be deafening, and it shows the power and majesty of the angelic host. It's not literal, so reading it won't help you understand *lingua Latina* any better, but it will help the Spanish reader picture what is going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other line is also not literal. The phrase *divina mysteria* does not mean *las jerarquías del cielo*, but instead *misterios divinos*, as you could guess, though that would be misleading, since the *mysteria* are not &quot;puzzles&quot; but rather secret religious rites. To be fully accepted within an ancient cult, you had to undergo its *mysteria*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(N.B. &quot;Cult&quot; here, from the Latin *cultus*, just means group of worshipers of a single god, and does not carry the negative connotations of the English word. It instead is the ancestor to our words such as *cultivate* and *culture*, and was used in the sense that these groups *cultivated* a relationship with a particular divinity.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Christian Latin, this usually refers to the &quot;higher intelligence of God,&quot; but that essence of &quot;religious secrets&quot; is still present. *Las jerarquías* is taking one visual image and replacing it with another, though it hopes to preserve the same idea. In the *las jerarquías del cielo*, we are shown to be beneath the highest intelligence, with its intentions and mind unknowable. Surely that's what's meant by *divina mysteria*, making *las jerarquías* a translation to capture the intent of the author without confusing readers with words that no longer mean what they used to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4146" RevisionGUID="c0212492-d67d-4371-90a8-da1160ccf990" CreationDate="2017-04-19T13:41:35.217" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am reading the [Exultet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exsultet), an ancient Christian chant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two lines are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exultet iam angelica turba caelorum,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; exultent divina mysteria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the [Spanish translation](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preg%C3%B3n_pascual), these two lines are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Exulten por fin los coros de los ángeles,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Exulten las jerarquías del cielo,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of whether you know Spanish or not, notice that the &quot;Exulten&quot; (3rd person, plural, active) is the same in both lines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if I am correct, *exultet* is the 3rd person, singular, active of *exultare* (1st conjugation), whereas *exultent* is the 3rd person, plural, active. In effect, *turba* is feminine, and [*angelica*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/angelicus#Inflection) can only be feminine **and** singular, in agreement with singular *exultet*. Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main question is, then: would a direct translation of the Latin text into Spanish use singular and plural persons respectively, so that the first line would be something like &quot;Exulta por fin el coro celestial angelical?&quot; where &quot;angelical&quot; is (as in English) an adjective, instead of a noun, like &quot;angel&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be an indication that I should not read both texts as a direct translation, but more of an adaptation, and as such, is not a very useful methodological tool to learn Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12446" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4146" RevisionGUID="c0212492-d67d-4371-90a8-da1160ccf990" CreationDate="2017-04-19T13:41:35.217" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="Exultet and Exultent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12447" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4146" RevisionGUID="ada13d6f-41f3-4b8c-883f-c18960aa9d5a" CreationDate="2017-04-19T13:51:52.747" UserId="45" Comment="edited title" Text="Is the Spanish translation of the &quot;Exultet&quot; chant literal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4148" RevisionGUID="cc339244-758c-4a2e-9413-08eba7d477bf" CreationDate="2017-04-19T13:54:42.070" UserId="1224" Text="In a common Jewish or Christian view of the world, the sky is a support for something. I don't recall much of anything about this, but I know that explains the English term *firmament*. However, did *firmamentum* ever appear before to mean the sky? Some dictionaries online suggest that the term can mean *sky* without context, but is this true? I'm guessing they were simply providing that definition to reduce confusion for translations of religious texts, but I just want to make sure. If so, could the word be used generally? I've seen the heavens called the *firmamentum* in miscellaneous non-religious, more modern texts, but when was this first assumed? Was it used by Romans? Perhaps it was popularized in scientific texts from the renaissance to 1800s?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12449" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4148" RevisionGUID="cc339244-758c-4a2e-9413-08eba7d477bf" CreationDate="2017-04-19T13:54:42.070" UserId="1224" Text="Was the term &quot;firmamentum&quot; used outside of Christian or Jewish texts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12450" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4148" RevisionGUID="cc339244-758c-4a2e-9413-08eba7d477bf" CreationDate="2017-04-19T13:54:42.070" UserId="1224" Text="|vocabulary|ecclesiastical-latin|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4148" RevisionGUID="5fd73038-a88e-4bf3-b43b-0f126fdfed52" CreationDate="2017-04-19T13:59:49.117" UserId="1224" Comment="I added another sentence, because why not?" Text="In a common Jewish or Christian view of the world, the sky is a support for something. I don't recall much of anything about this, but I know that explains the English term *firmament*. However, did *firmamentum* ever appear before to mean the sky? Some dictionaries online suggest that the term can mean *sky* without context, but is this true? I'm guessing they were simply providing that definition to reduce confusion for translations of religious texts, but I just want to make sure. If so, could the word be used generally? I've seen the heavens called the *firmamentum* in miscellaneous non-religious, more modern texts, but when was this first assumed? Was it used by Romans? Perhaps it was popularized in scientific texts from the renaissance to 1800s? I need to know a time period of its usage other than *a support*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4149" RevisionGUID="be0bc9e8-3935-41bf-8d7a-f1f7dfa739da" CreationDate="2017-04-19T16:30:26.267" UserId="1369" Text="_Firmamentum_ first shows up in the Vulgate to translate the Hebrew רָקִיעַ _raqiyaʻ_ &quot;firmament&quot; ([Strong's Hebrew #7549](http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7549.htm)), which means expanse or support, but also the mythological arch of the heavens, separating &quot;the waters above and the waters below&quot; (Gn 1:7). It's a concept that finds parallel in other Ancient Near East mythologies (Wikipedia, for instance, reports that the Babylonians thought the &quot;vault of heaven&quot; to be fashioned from [the ribs of the slain primeval goddess Tiamat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiamat#Mythology)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That word רָקִיעַ is translated in the LXX by the Greek words στερέωμα _steréōma_ &quot;support&quot;, &quot;that which furnishes a foundation&quot; ([Strong's Greek #4733](http://biblehub.com/greek/4733.htm)) and οὐρανός _ouranós_ &quot;sky&quot; ([Strong's Greek #3772](http://biblehub.com/greek/3772.htm)). The first word is translated in turn as _firmamentum_ and the second as _caelum_ in the Vulgate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, while _firmamentum_ has been used in pre-Christian writings, it was  never in the context of the arch of the heavens, which is an Ancient Near Eastern concept anyway, but generally meaning &quot;foundation&quot; (either for building, etc. or an argument)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4150" RevisionGUID="b47e4f58-28f6-4863-a41e-dd071d12cef1" CreationDate="2017-04-19T17:51:42.807" UserId="235" Text="We were discussing this in the chat room, and came up with a few possibilities. One is *gratias similiter*, but we were concerned that it might not be idiomatic. Another is *gratias tibi quoque*, which resembles the common phrase, *gratias tibi ago*, but there is no saying whether this (*gratias tibi quoque*) is even attested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think? What's the most idiomatic way of saying &quot;thanks, you too&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12455" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4150" RevisionGUID="b47e4f58-28f6-4863-a41e-dd071d12cef1" CreationDate="2017-04-19T17:51:42.807" UserId="235" Text="What's the most idiomatic way to say, &quot;thanks, you too&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12456" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4150" RevisionGUID="b47e4f58-28f6-4863-a41e-dd071d12cef1" CreationDate="2017-04-19T17:51:42.807" UserId="235" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|phrase-request|politeness|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4150" RevisionGUID="dc732468-1a0f-46b8-b4aa-0e473b68a6bf" CreationDate="2017-04-19T18:02:32.850" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 69 characters in body" Text="We were discussing this question in the chat room, and came up with the possibility, *gratias similiter*, but we are not sure whether it's idiomatic. The context is this. Let's say a co-worker says to you, &quot;Hey, you look sharp today!&quot; You might respond, &quot;Thanks, you too.&quot; How would you say this in Latin? What's the most idiomatic way of saying it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4151" RevisionGUID="bdaec978-c17c-4e51-a16f-cb05ef8c55bc" CreationDate="2017-04-19T18:49:09.147" UserId="1407" Text="&gt; “Infima est quinque errantium terraeque proxuma stella Veneris, quae Φωσφόρος Graece, Latine dicitur Lucifer, cum antegreditur solem, cum subsequitur autem Hesperos,&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Source: [M. Tullius Cicero, de Natura Deorum &#xD;&#xA;O. Plasberg, Ed.][1]&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a fair approximation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Of the five that orbit closest to earth, the star Venus, known as Phosphoros in Greek, Lucifer in Latin speech when it precedes the sun, but Hesperos if it follows the sun.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Latin is quite rusty, and was never great to begin with, so I'd welcome correction and improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0037%3Abook%3D2%3Asection%3D53" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12459" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4151" RevisionGUID="bdaec978-c17c-4e51-a16f-cb05ef8c55bc" CreationDate="2017-04-19T18:49:09.147" UserId="1407" Text="Translation of de Natura Deorum, 53" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12460" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4151" RevisionGUID="bdaec978-c17c-4e51-a16f-cb05ef8c55bc" CreationDate="2017-04-19T18:49:09.147" UserId="1407" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4146" RevisionGUID="194ebff8-d5ac-4055-a8b9-0be2d70954e4" CreationDate="2017-04-19T18:52:23.467" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am reading the [Exultet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exsultet), an ancient Christian chant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two lines are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exultet iam angelica turba caelorum,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; exultent divina mysteria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the [Spanish translation](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preg%C3%B3n_pascual), these two lines are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Exulten por fin los coros de los ángeles,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Exulten las jerarquías del cielo,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of whether you know Spanish or not, notice that the &quot;Exulten&quot; (3rd person, plural, active) is the same in both lines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if I am correct, *exultet* is the 3rd person, singular, active of *exultare* (1st conjugation), whereas *exultent* is the 3rd person, plural, active. In effect, *turba* is feminine, and [*angelica*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/angelicus#Inflection) can only be feminine **and** singular, in agreement with singular *exultet*. Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main question is, then: would a direct translation of the Latin text into Spanish use singular and plural persons respectively, so that the first line would be something like &quot;Exulta por fin el coro celestial angelical?&quot; where &quot;angelical&quot; is (as in English) an adjective, instead of a noun, like &quot;angel&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be an indication that I should not read both texts as a direct translation, but more of an adaptation, and as such, is not a very useful methodological tool to learn Latin.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12462" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4146" RevisionGUID="194ebff8-d5ac-4055-a8b9-0be2d70954e4" CreationDate="2017-04-19T18:52:23.467" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|verbs|plural|agreement|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4151" RevisionGUID="5dc0ad68-507c-425d-8970-88d2377cb51b" CreationDate="2017-04-19T19:11:22.213" UserId="1407" Comment="Got a great comment on why this isn't a great question in current form.  Attempted to improve, but it may still be problematic. :(  Suggestions on how to improve the question are welcome, as I am quite new to this Stack :)" Text="&gt; “Infima est quinque errantium terraeque proxuma stella Veneris, quae Φωσφόρος Graece, Latine dicitur Lucifer, cum antegreditur solem, cum subsequitur autem Hesperos,&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Source: [M. Tullius Cicero, de Natura Deorum &#xD;&#xA;O. Plasberg, Ed.][1]&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation feels sloppy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Of the five that orbit closest to earth, the star Venus is known as Phosphoros in Greek and Lucifer in Latin speech when it precedes the sun, but Hesperos if it follows the sun.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Latin is quite rusty (and was never great to begin with;) so I'd welcome advice on how to render this translation with greater grammatical fidelity to the original. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0037%3Abook%3D2%3Asection%3D53" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4152" RevisionGUID="36531134-a120-4175-8c58-12343a9b1156" CreationDate="2017-04-19T19:23:05.323" UserId="45" Text="Your translation is very close and only requires a few tweaks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For context, Cicero introduces this passage a little earlier: he is talking about the five *stellae errantes* (&quot;wandering stars&quot;), which he sees as a misnomer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maxume vero sunt admirabiles motus earum quinque stellarum quae falso vocantur errantes; nihil enim errat quod in omni aeternitate conservat progressus et regressus reliquosque motus constantis et ratos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But the most admirable of all are the motions of those five stars which are incorrectly called &quot;wandering&quot;; for indeed, nothing &quot;wanders&quot; which preserves for all eternity [the same] constant and calculated advances, retreats, and other motions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once we realize this, the passage becomes fairly clear: the only tricky part is the first sentence, which changes the word order a bit. If it helps, the following word arrangement might seem more natural to your ears:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stella Veneris est infima quinque errantium et proxuma terrae...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An almost literal translation, with the relative clause split in two to avoid awkward syntax:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The lowest of the five wandering [stars] and the closest to earth is the star of Venus, which is called &quot;Phosphorus&quot; in Greek. In Latin, it is called &quot;Lucifer&quot; when it precedes the sun, but &quot;Hesperos&quot; when it follows after.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12465" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4151" RevisionGUID="74303617-6cee-4904-af61-3135757e3c8d" CreationDate="2017-04-19T19:44:02.253" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|classical-latin|cicero|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4153" RevisionGUID="1e3774e7-0350-4579-890e-3579245e5302" CreationDate="2017-04-19T21:42:12.530" UserId="118" Text="&lt;sub&gt;Following up on [@brianpck's suggestion](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4151/translation-of-de-natura-deorum-53/4152?noredirect=1#comment8188_4152) in [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4151/118):&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maxume vero sunt admirabiles motus earum quinque stellarum quae falso vocantur errantes; nihil enim errat quod in omni aeternitate conservat progressus et regressus reliquosque motus **constantis** et ratos.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Source: [M. Tullius Cicero, de Natura Deorum 2.51. O. Plasberg, Ed.](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0037%3Abook%3D2%3Asection%3D51)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;why does Cicero write **constantis** rather than **constantes**? I expected **constantes** since it modifies the accusative plural **reliquos motus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This Wiktionary table](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#Third_declension_adjectives_with_three_endings) suggests that many third-declension adjectives allow both **-ēs** or **-īs** for their accusative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why and when is this legitimate? And considering that the genitive is **constantĭs**, didn't writing **constantis** confuse Roman readers, especially if they didn't mark the vowel length in **-īs**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12467" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4153" RevisionGUID="1e3774e7-0350-4579-890e-3579245e5302" CreationDate="2017-04-19T21:42:12.530" UserId="118" Text="Constantis vs. constantes et similia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12468" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4153" RevisionGUID="1e3774e7-0350-4579-890e-3579245e5302" CreationDate="2017-04-19T21:42:12.530" UserId="118" Text="|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4152" RevisionGUID="3e946546-1b60-42fb-bbf5-fb02250f3273" CreationDate="2017-04-19T21:54:51.563" UserId="45" Comment="added 247 characters in body" Text="Your translation is very close and only requires a few tweaks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For context, Cicero introduces this passage a little earlier: he is talking about the five *stellae errantes* (&quot;wandering stars&quot;), which he sees as a misnomer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maxume vero sunt admirabiles motus earum quinque stellarum quae falso vocantur errantes; nihil enim errat quod in omni aeternitate conservat progressus et regressus reliquosque motus constantis et ratos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But the most admirable of all are the motions of those five stars which are incorrectly called &quot;wandering&quot;; for indeed, nothing &quot;wanders&quot; which preserves for all eternity [the same] constant and calculated advances, retreats, and other motions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once we realize this, the passage becomes fairly clear: the only tricky part is the first sentence, which changes the word order a bit. If it helps, the following word arrangement might seem more natural to your ears:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stella Veneris est infima quinque errantium et proxuma terrae...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An almost literal translation, with the relative clause split in two to avoid awkward syntax:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The lowest of the five wandering [stars] and the closest to earth is the star of Venus, which is called &quot;Phosphorus&quot; in Greek and &quot;Lucifer&quot; in Latin, when when it precedes the sun, but &quot;Hesperos&quot; when it follows after.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As pointed out by Ben Kovitz, Cicero is not saying that &quot;Hesperos&quot; is only a Latin name. This is clear because of the chiasma of &quot;Phosphoros Graece, Latine Lucifer,&quot; which creates a single unit of comparison that is qualified by &quot;cum antegreditur.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4152" RevisionGUID="61748159-ddee-43dc-a77d-7a0b7fde9173" CreationDate="2017-04-19T22:07:11.597" UserId="45" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="Your translation is very close and only requires a few tweaks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For context, Cicero introduces this passage a little earlier: he is talking about the five *stellae errantes* (&quot;wandering stars&quot;), which he sees as a misnomer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maxume vero sunt admirabiles motus earum quinque stellarum quae falso vocantur errantes; nihil enim errat quod in omni aeternitate conservat progressus et regressus reliquosque motus constantis et ratos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But the most admirable of all are the motions of those five stars which are incorrectly called &quot;wandering&quot;; for indeed, nothing &quot;wanders&quot; which preserves for all eternity [the same] constant and calculated advances, retreats, and other motions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once we realize this, the passage becomes fairly clear: the only tricky part is the first sentence, which changes the word order a bit. If it helps, the following word arrangement might seem more natural to your ears:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stella Veneris est infima quinque errantium et proxuma terrae...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An almost literal translation, with the relative clause split in two to avoid awkward syntax:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The lowest of the five wandering [stars] and the closest to earth is the star of Venus, which is called &quot;Phosphorus&quot; in Greek and &quot;Lucifer&quot; in Latin, when it precedes the sun, but &quot;Hesperos&quot; when it follows after.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As pointed out by Ben Kovitz, Cicero is not saying that &quot;Hesperos&quot; is only a Latin name. This is clear because of the chiasma of &quot;Phosphoros Graece, Latine Lucifer,&quot; which creates a single unit of comparison that is qualified by &quot;cum antegreditur.&quot; This division is also clear from the fact that &quot;Lucifer&quot; is a literal translation of &quot;Phosphoros&quot; (= &quot;light bearer&quot;). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4154" RevisionGUID="96393ed6-d42a-4ed7-b814-923e3dee9e53" CreationDate="2017-04-20T01:09:47.383" UserId="79" Text="What would be a good Latin verb for networking?&#xD;&#xA;In Finnish one would use &quot;verkostoitua&quot; (roughly &quot;to make oneself entangled in a system of webs&quot;), and I was hoping there would be a Latin verb for the same purpose.&#xD;&#xA;Which verb would you recommend and why?&#xD;&#xA;If there is a very suitable noun, please share it, although I am mainly looking for a verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if there is good classical precedent, so I am not restricting this question to attested use in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for something that would be useful in today's world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A simple and straightforward option is *nexus facere*.&#xD;&#xA;I would like something like *nectari* better, if the derivative is right.&#xD;&#xA;(Perhaps *nectitari*?)&#xD;&#xA;For some reason passive &amp;mdash; or rather middle &amp;mdash; sounds more natural to me than active.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps one could derive something from *rete*, but I can't think of a natural way to put it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For searchability, let me repeat the main question in Finnish:&#xD;&#xA;Miten sanotaan &quot;verkostoitua&quot; latinaksi?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12474" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4154" RevisionGUID="96393ed6-d42a-4ed7-b814-923e3dee9e53" CreationDate="2017-04-20T01:09:47.383" UserId="79" Text="A verb for networking" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12475" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4154" RevisionGUID="96393ed6-d42a-4ed7-b814-923e3dee9e53" CreationDate="2017-04-20T01:09:47.383" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|verbs|derivation|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4155" RevisionGUID="7cf646e0-056a-4e3c-8f5e-5c7fc4912588" CreationDate="2017-04-20T01:20:44.257" UserId="78" Text="I'd say *cōnectere* is the verb you're looking for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I.to tie, bind, fasten, or join together, to connect, entwine, link together (class.; most freq. in part. pass. and the trop. signif.); constr. with cum, inter se, the dat., or absol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, *to connect with* is often a synonym for *to network* in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's modern usage precedent, too. The [Vocabula computatralia](http://www.obta.uw.edu.pl/~draco/docs/voccomp.html) lists a network connection as a *cōnexus* (&quot;a link between computer systems via net&quot;), and since &quot;networking&quot; with someone is &quot;adding them to your network,&quot; I see no better term than this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4144" RevisionGUID="bb569282-1a35-4c40-b2b5-0bf9c1ea3bfe" CreationDate="2017-04-20T02:01:12.847" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*clino* is an example of what Weiss calls **&quot;nasal presents&quot;** (p. 406). In other words (very non-technically), the present form of some verbs has an infix -n-. *vinco* is another good example of this phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;v in *clivus*, on the other hand, is what happens to *u (in *uo) between vowels. There was a discussion about it here the other day (vacuus)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4156" RevisionGUID="2280d49e-9ae8-4876-9c7b-d23e6757b589" CreationDate="2017-04-20T02:39:00.863" UserId="78" Text="This interaction to my ears is decidedly modern, and since most of Roman literature does not comprise colloquial dialogue, it will be hard to find exact matches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the request is very simple and overthought. The most common way to thank somebody is *gratias agere*. Though there are other ways, this is both common and commonplace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say &quot;you too!&quot; to someone, there are two common ways: *et tu* (think Caesar to Brutus) and *tu quoque*. The thing is that &quot;you too&quot; is short for &quot;you too are *X*&quot; (in this case &quot;you also look handsome!&quot;). I don't know why you would any anything further to it, like *similiter*, and *tibi quoque* is certainly wrong, since that's dative. You're not thanking the person in addition to another, in which case *gratias tibi quoque* would work (i.e. &quot;I thank you as well&quot;). At any rate, *similiter* is used by Plautus once (and *adsimiliter* once).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, this is a case of just keeping it simple." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4156" RevisionGUID="176d3800-846b-41f2-be1c-dd7e2b6ca79c" CreationDate="2017-04-20T02:59:16.100" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="This interaction to my ears is decidedly modern, and since most of Roman literature is not colloquial dialogue, it will be hard to find exact matches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the request is very simple and overthought. The most common way to thank somebody is *gratias agere*. Though there are other ways, this is both common and commonplace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say &quot;you too!&quot; to someone, there are two common ways: *et tu* (think Caesar to Brutus) and *tu quoque*. The thing is that &quot;you too&quot; is short for &quot;you too are *X*&quot; (in this case &quot;you also look handsome!&quot;). I don't know why you would any anything further to it, like *similiter*, and *tibi quoque* is certainly wrong, since that's dative. You're not thanking the person in addition to another, in which case *gratias tibi quoque* would work (i.e. &quot;I thank you as well&quot;). At any rate, *similiter* is used by Plautus once (and *adsimiliter* once).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, this is a case of just keeping it simple." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12481" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4154" RevisionGUID="ff3d013a-2b78-46f9-921f-3ee88e07a732" CreationDate="2017-04-20T07:30:50.923" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|idiom|verbs|derivation|finnish|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4157" RevisionGUID="23c62546-39af-4fe6-a71b-5c5b6b57f3be" CreationDate="2017-04-20T10:10:45.633" UserId="1459" Text="Ave, as in Ave Cesar, has the meaning of &quot;hail&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, according to [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ave#Verb_2), it is also &quot;second-person singular present imperative of aveō&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, [aveō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aveo#Latin) is a verb which means either I desire, I long for, etc, or I am well, or fare well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any historical connection between these two forms? Perhaps the &quot;hail&quot; meaning comes from some vulgar Latin form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in Spanish, Ave Cesar would be &quot;Viva Cesar&quot;, where viva comes from the Latin _vivus_, which means to live, and which vocative case is _viva_. So in Spanish it seems to be a direct connection between the expression and the verb, since &quot;Viva Cesar&quot; is basically saying &quot;long life to Caesar&quot;. Hence my question about whether a similar relation exist for the Latin word &quot;ave&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: as I am just beginning to study Latin, let me know if Wiktionary is not the best or most complete source, and you suggest another." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12483" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4157" RevisionGUID="23c62546-39af-4fe6-a71b-5c5b6b57f3be" CreationDate="2017-04-20T10:10:45.633" UserId="1459" Text="Is there any connection between the two meanings of &quot;ave&quot; as a verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12484" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4157" RevisionGUID="23c62546-39af-4fe6-a71b-5c5b6b57f3be" CreationDate="2017-04-20T10:10:45.633" UserId="1459" Text="|etymology|verbs|origin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4158" RevisionGUID="af3feb96-33db-4e82-8b4a-4d94e99c5f88" CreationDate="2017-04-20T10:26:50.580" UserId="1459" Text="It seems no country nowadays has Latin as official language, besides the Vatican. However, it seems [Italian](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-latin-idUSKCN0HV1O220141006) is the _lingua franca_ of the Vatican.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any town where Latin is commonly spoken today? Maybe by not all people, but by a &quot;decent&quot; proportion? (like a place where you could visit and speak in Latin to move around, order coffee, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe a town where signs are officially in Latin? I just have found that for a [train station](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallsend_Metro_station) in England.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If nothing of this exists, is there some ongoing project of creating such community?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: I think this question is not a duplicate of [this one](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1414/does-anyone-learn-latin-as-a-native-language)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12487" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4158" RevisionGUID="af3feb96-33db-4e82-8b4a-4d94e99c5f88" CreationDate="2017-04-20T10:26:50.580" UserId="1459" Text="Is there any country or town where Latin is spoken daily?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12488" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4158" RevisionGUID="af3feb96-33db-4e82-8b4a-4d94e99c5f88" CreationDate="2017-04-20T10:26:50.580" UserId="1459" Text="|contemporary-latin|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4159" RevisionGUID="d81d4ef9-645f-489e-8913-4071a1669c11" CreationDate="2017-04-20T13:23:51.510" UserId="1224" Text="I think a great word for this is [*contexere*] [1], meaning to weave or connect intricately, like the action of braiding. It establishes a meaning that I think is closer to networking. I'd be fine with *conectere*, though. Just my opinion... :p&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/contexo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4161" RevisionGUID="f581048c-30fe-4cc9-93bb-538b8c795baf" CreationDate="2017-04-20T19:52:06.947" UserId="1439" Text="*ave* meaning 'hail' **is** the imperative of *aveo*, as you mention; when you hail someone you are instructing them to fare well (normally we would say you are wishing them to fare well), in much the same way that in English we can use 'farewell' as a greeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consequently, if addressing multiple people you would say *avete*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12499" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1563" RevisionGUID="cc7f80a3-bc94-4e23-9309-7d1cf8931419" CreationDate="2017-04-20T20:23:04.107" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|classical-latin|vocabulary|idiom|politeness|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12500" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1563" RevisionGUID="2beea301-42f9-4fd6-8d2c-21c9b6f1940d" CreationDate="2017-04-20T21:09:44.200" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|idiom|politeness|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="176" RevisionGUID="8b515ffb-aa8f-48a3-b8de-f15eed602ad1" CreationDate="2017-04-20T21:39:21.903" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="I'm translating this sentence into Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You said that I could do anything, so I went to the strip club.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(It's for a late Valentine's card for my girlfriend.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, I have the first and second half:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dixerat ego aliquid facere potesse, ergo ivi ad stabulo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But using &quot;ergo&quot; feels wrong. Is that the right word, or does another fit the meaning better?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12502" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="176" RevisionGUID="8b515ffb-aa8f-48a3-b8de-f15eed602ad1" CreationDate="2017-04-20T21:39:21.903" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|meaning|word-choice|conjunction|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12503" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="207" RevisionGUID="6500601e-1410-4e6e-a9c2-38d61ec75942" CreationDate="2017-04-20T21:42:41.800" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="&quot;To shed blood&quot; – profundere or effundere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12504" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="207" RevisionGUID="6500601e-1410-4e6e-a9c2-38d61ec75942" CreationDate="2017-04-20T21:42:41.800" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|word-comparison|ecclesiastical-latin|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="242" RevisionGUID="6ed1ea65-791c-4cec-9c91-d05a9f08da13" CreationDate="2017-04-20T21:44:18.757" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="Apicius' *de re coquinaria* (Roman recipe book believed to have been compiled in the 4th/5th century CE) contains, in the book 3 &quot;*cepuros*&quot; on vegetables, a paragraph ([XX, recipes 115 to 121](https://archive.org/stream/ita-bnc-in2-00001189-001#page/n30/mode/2up)) entitled &quot;*sphondyli vel fonduli*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book having been copied again and again during all middle-age, alternative spellings/titles exist such as [*funduli sive sfondili*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/apicius/apicius3.shtml), [*spondyli vel fonduli, sphondyli vel funduli, spondili vel fonduli*, ...](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm#bkiii_chxx).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because these recipes are in the vegetable section, *sphondyli* is believed to refer to cow-parsnip, or parsnip according to some authors. However early in the book a recipe of scallops uses the same word to designate the scallops ([*isicia ex spondylis*](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm#r46)). Finally, according to various dictionaries, *sp*[h]*ondylus* means alternatively &quot;a kind of mushroom&quot;, &quot;a vertebra&quot;, &quot;the muscle of an oyster or another bivalve&quot; or &quot;a kind of muscle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Needless to say, I'm confused and a few questions arise from this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Are we sure (cow-)parsnips are the *sp*[h]*ondyli* meant in that [series of recipes](https://archive.org/stream/ita-bnc-in2-00001189-001#page/n30/mode/2up)? &#xD;&#xA;* What is the etymology of this word for it to have such different meanings? &#xD;&#xA;* And what does *fondul/funduli* mean? (None of the translations of *de re coquinaria* I read have tried to translate it.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12506" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="242" RevisionGUID="6ed1ea65-791c-4cec-9c91-d05a9f08da13" CreationDate="2017-04-20T21:44:18.757" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|etymology|medieval-latin|cibus|late-latin|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12508" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4157" RevisionGUID="0723e028-9689-40f9-a332-887dde2093be" CreationDate="2017-04-21T08:09:53.033" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="Is there any connection between &quot;ave&quot; (as in Ave Cesar) and &quot;aveo&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2041" RevisionGUID="29f65cbe-9999-4522-9b3a-cec5580e968f" CreationDate="2017-04-21T12:46:53.130" UserId="1004" Comment="Grammar" Text="A few comments about pre-requisites to teaching students to speak Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Accent**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the difficulty to reconstitute the accents of Ancient Latin, the question of &quot;what should be the correct accent&quot; should not a subject of concern (English teachers do not worry that accents of the 16th century were markedly different from those of today, even when their students are being requested to read Shakespeare).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, the **accent** used to speak Latin should not be important, as long as it remains understandable to another speaker (e.g. as when a foreign langue students choses between American or British accents). We could consider that we have a &quot;received pronunciation&quot; and leave it at that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By contrast, the various accents used to speak Latin in recent times might even constitute a fun subject for students. For style used by the Finnish Radio, [here are world news in Latin, &quot;Nuntii Latini&quot;][1] (lots of fun to listen to). Besides, that could give subjects of conversation for students!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Use as Active Language**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin has remained a very active &quot;educated&quot; language (used in a context of [diglossia][2]) actively used throughout the Middle Ages up to recent times, both in written texts and speech.  It would be a pity not to introduce students to the immense corpus of very interesting material (scientific, philosophical, religious) written in Latin during the Middle Ages and Modern Times. Since it was a common language, it gives students access to material from a vast number of countries which would have been inaccessible to them if they had been written in the vulgar language of that country. A well known text is the [ascension of Mount Ventoux in France by Francesco Petrarca][3] (1336). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, the fact that beside the lofty poems and philosophical texts by &quot;litterary stars&quot; such as Cicero or Virgil there are many mundane sources (letters, court minutes, etc.), could &quot;de-sacralize&quot; the language and show that it can be used correctly even by less expert persons. For further study, there should be many dialogues (whether literary or transcriptions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arguably, this would not teach to speak, but at least, it would show how people used the language in mundane situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vocabulary**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Omnia dici possunt Latine*. A key part of teaching any spoken language would be to provide [glossaries for daily situations][4] (it would be hard to have a conversation today if we couldn't name a car, a [computer][5], etc.). Hence students should be taught how to call them, as well as names of places. A student of *[Angelopolis][6]* might thrilled to learn that his region has been so instrumental in popularizing *pelilculae cinematographicae* and *computatra*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://areena.yle.fi/1-1931339&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diglossia&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.petrarch.petersadlon.com/read_letters.html?s=_f_04_01.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latinlexicon.org/links.php&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.obta.uw.edu.pl/~draco/docs/voccomp.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelopolis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12511" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="35e65761-43a9-41d7-9cef-cc7265022fb2" CreationDate="2017-04-21T13:10:03.090" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|contemporary-latin|pronouns|articles|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="282" RevisionGUID="0fcd159c-5ca2-4efd-b91c-645c577e0e97" CreationDate="2017-04-21T13:12:31.007" UserId="12" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="It's sometimes difficult to convey some meaning in such an old language as Latin. I have trouble with the word *interesting*. I've heard someone say *iucundus* in this meaning, but it's not an accurate translation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither is *attractivus* – being attractive is something else that being interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the word seems very Latin – how should we translate it? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12513" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="282" RevisionGUID="0fcd159c-5ca2-4efd-b91c-645c577e0e97" CreationDate="2017-04-21T13:12:31.007" UserId="12" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|adjective|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4162" RevisionGUID="95e079ae-dc74-4ad3-88b1-b6c3674e29e6" CreationDate="2017-04-21T13:24:22.380" UserId="1459" Text="Take a look at [this](http://www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/languages/classical/images/flash/rud/descendit.swf) animation with four frames. I think I can understand the first three, but I am struggling with the last one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third frame asks something like: &quot;What happened to these points?&quot;, to which the fourth responds, **according to my logic**, something like this: &quot;The red point remained at the top of the mountain&quot;, and &quot;The yellow point descended into the water&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the last one uses the declension (3rd persion, singular) &quot;ēbat&quot;, instead of &quot;ēbit&quot;, the past perfect form. Therefore, my interpretation above is probably incorrect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is the correct translation? I cannot figure it out, neither in English nor in Spanish (where the imperfect tense does exist). Something like &quot;The point was remaining at the top of the mountain&quot; makes little sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12515" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4162" RevisionGUID="95e079ae-dc74-4ad3-88b1-b6c3674e29e6" CreationDate="2017-04-21T13:24:22.380" UserId="1459" Text="Why is the past imperfect instead of the past perfect tense used here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12516" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4162" RevisionGUID="95e079ae-dc74-4ad3-88b1-b6c3674e29e6" CreationDate="2017-04-21T13:24:22.380" UserId="1459" Text="|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4162" RevisionGUID="0ced1a15-bedc-40be-b339-a39aac24742b" CreationDate="2017-04-21T14:40:54.867" UserId="1459" Comment="added 410 characters in body" Text="Take a look at [this](http://www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/languages/classical/images/flash/rud/descendit.swf) animation with four frames. I think I can understand the first three, but I am struggling with the last one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you cannot see the file, **the yellow point moves from the top of the mountain down to the water, whereas the red point remains at the top**. Then, the following frames appear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third Frame:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forth frame:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third frame asks something like: &quot;What happened to these points?&quot;, to which the fourth responds, **according to my logic**, something like this: &quot;The red point remained at the top of the mountain&quot;, and &quot;The yellow point descended into the water&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the last one uses the declension (3rd persion, singular) &quot;ēbat&quot;, instead of &quot;ēbit&quot;, the past perfect form. Therefore, my interpretation above is probably incorrect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is the correct translation? I cannot figure it out, neither in English nor in Spanish (where the imperfect tense does exist). Something like &quot;The point was remaining at the top of the mountain&quot; makes little sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yo1VJ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/019Kr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4163" RevisionGUID="9bee820a-bfd0-4988-8dad-1fd653578b2c" CreationDate="2017-04-21T14:57:21.267" UserId="78" Text="The *imperfect* in Latin has a continuous aspect to it. In Latin, verbs like *remanere* are conceived of as not singular actions, but continuous actions. You can't remain in one place as a singular action, because over time, you're still in that place and the action is still occurring. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare what Allen &amp; Greenough have to say on it: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Imperfect represents a present tense transferred to past time. Hence all the meanings which the Present has derived from the continuance of the action belong also to the Imperfect in reference to past time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gildersleeve has a nice example illustrating this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ipse [=Verres]...in forum venit; ardebant oculi. (Cic. Ad Verrem 62,161)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Verres *came* into the forum; his eyes *were blazing*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The blazing of his eyes didn't stop after a singular action, so it's in the imperfect. Likewise, the *punctum* in your example didn't stop remaining, but continued to do so. So while in English we would say, &quot;It remained there,&quot; in Latin the sense would be more, &quot;It continued to remain at the top of the mountain (and didn't leave).&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12519" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4162" RevisionGUID="25fbaf5b-c6f4-4c7e-93de-bae7a9db5fd9" CreationDate="2017-04-21T14:58:35.380" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags" Text="|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4162" RevisionGUID="466d0ba7-9acf-41bc-8479-944f0baede62" CreationDate="2017-04-21T15:24:46.960" UserId="1459" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="Take a look at [this](http://www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/languages/classical/images/flash/rud/descendit.swf) animation with four frames. I think I can understand the first three, but I am struggling with the last one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you cannot see the file, **the yellow point moves from the top of the mountain down to the water, whereas the red point remains at the top**. Then, the following frames appear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third Frame:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forth frame:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third frame asks something like: &quot;What happened to these points?&quot;, to which the fourth responds, **according to my logic**, something like this: &quot;The red point remained at the top of the mountain&quot;, and &quot;The yellow point descended into the water&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the last one uses the declension (3rd persion, singular) &quot;ēbat&quot;, instead of &quot;[remansit](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/remansit#Latin)&quot;, the past perfect form. Therefore, my interpretation above is probably incorrect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is the correct translation? I cannot figure it out, neither in English nor in Spanish (where the imperfect tense does exist). Something like &quot;The point was remaining at the top of the mountain&quot; makes little sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yo1VJ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/019Kr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4164" RevisionGUID="274244d3-1f5e-4460-9c4a-635b50c69809" CreationDate="2017-04-21T15:28:50.383" UserId="986" Text="Primarily when giving thanks to the gods, constructions with [grates](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgrates) were also used. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*vobis (dis) grates ago atque habeo*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See more examples by following the link to L&amp;S. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course there are many more ways to express thanks. I'm thinking about constructions in the final dative case (*dativus finalis*) such as *tibi honori est* and *tibi laudi est*. But that might be another topic. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4163" RevisionGUID="7a8a18c5-a67e-4550-a96c-593e301d5ee0" CreationDate="2017-04-21T15:53:27.683" UserId="78" Comment="added 524 characters in body" Text="The *imperfect* in Latin has a continuous aspect to it. In Latin, verbs like *remanere* are conceived of as not singular actions, but continuous actions. You can't remain in one place as a singular action, because over time, you're still in that place and the action is still occurring. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare what Allen &amp; Greenough have to say on it: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Imperfect represents a present tense transferred to past time. Hence all the meanings which the Present has derived from the continuance of the action belong also to the Imperfect in reference to past time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gildersleeve has a nice example illustrating this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ipse [=Verres]...in forum venit; ardebant oculi. (Cic. Ad Verrem 62,161)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Verres *came* into the forum; his eyes *were blazing*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The blazing of his eyes didn't stop after a singular action, so it's in the imperfect. Likewise, the *punctum* in your example didn't stop remaining, but continued to do so. So while in English we would say, &quot;It remained there,&quot; in Latin the sense would be more, &quot;It continued to remain at the top of the mountain (and didn't leave).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should add a caveat that it's not a hard and fast rule because, like all languages, Latin is a human language and abides by human rules, i.e. it's fluid, to some extent. With that said, you could use *remansit* if the action is completed, so &quot;The point remained *remansit* on the mountain for one day before descending.&quot; It's less about what's wrong, and more about what's right for this particular description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, and more importantly, the answer is in the imperfect because the question is in the imperfect! The third frame doesn't really mean &quot;what happened,&quot; but &quot;what was going on?&quot; As if the actions were continuous and not merely a snapshot of the past (to use Moreland and Fleischer's term)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4165" RevisionGUID="2bfd265b-796f-4540-b305-5da58fd378a6" CreationDate="2017-04-21T17:00:17.187" UserId="1459" Text="Maybe an alternative is &quot;si et modo si&quot;. I constructed it like a literal translation of &quot;if and only if&quot;, so not sure if it makes much sense. Yet, I found two sources using it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A mathematical [page](http://verbavaria1.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/demonstratio-curtii-friderici-go-del.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nota 3. Duo essentiae quaecumque elementi x necessarie aequivalentes sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;φ essentia elementi x (φ Ess.x) est **si et modo si** omni proprietati ψ elementi x, et necessarie y, quod si y habeat proprietatem φ, tum proprietatem ψ habet&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A Wikipedia [entry](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethica):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quamquam hoc enuntiatum, &quot;casa rubra est&quot;, verum est, **si et modo si** casa illa vere rubra est, e contra hoc enuntiatum, &quot;furari iniustum est&quot;, non ideo tantum falsum est, quod furari iniustum est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot really defend it further than this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4154" RevisionGUID="e5a81414-195c-4d3a-97ba-d10720c2f2dc" CreationDate="2017-04-21T19:35:24.363" UserId="79" Comment="added 252 characters in body" Text="What would be a good Latin verb for networking?&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean the study of computer networks, but the verb &quot;to network&quot; in the sense of making new acquaintances for business or other purpose.&#xD;&#xA;In Finnish one would use &quot;verkostoitua&quot; (roughly &quot;to make oneself entangled in a system of webs&quot;), and I was hoping there would be a Latin verb for the same purpose.&#xD;&#xA;Which verb would you recommend and why?&#xD;&#xA;If there is a very suitable noun, please share it, although I am mainly looking for a verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if there is good classical precedent, so I am not restricting this question to attested use in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for something that would be useful in today's world.&#xD;&#xA;The tone can be anything; if the word you suggest has a pejorative or some other connotation, please tell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A simple and straightforward option is *nexus facere*.&#xD;&#xA;I would like something like *nectari* better, if the derivative is right.&#xD;&#xA;(Perhaps *nectitari*?)&#xD;&#xA;For some reason passive &amp;mdash; or rather middle &amp;mdash; sounds more natural to me than active.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps one could derive something from *rete*, but I can't think of a natural way to put it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For searchability, let me repeat the main question in Finnish:&#xD;&#xA;Miten sanotaan &quot;verkostoitua&quot; latinaksi?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4159" RevisionGUID="a72c9dd3-79f1-47c8-a65a-be47c2d1f332" CreationDate="2017-04-21T19:39:51.743" UserId="1459" Comment="removed unnecessary bit" Text="I think a great word for this is [*contexere*] [1], meaning to weave or connect intricately, like the action of braiding. It establishes a meaning that I think is closer to networking. I'd be fine with *conectere*, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/contexo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12526" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4159" RevisionGUID="a72c9dd3-79f1-47c8-a65a-be47c2d1f332" CreationDate="2017-04-21T19:39:51.743" Comment="Proposed by 1459 approved by 78, 79 edit id of 183" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2758" RevisionGUID="4e9b9996-d195-49a1-9d50-aeb75035efde" CreationDate="2017-04-21T20:10:24.057" UserId="469" Comment="Spanish is si and ssi" Text="In mathematical literature &quot;if and only if&quot; (sometimes abbreviated as &quot;iff&quot;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;) is a relatively common phrase.&#xD;&#xA;Saying &quot;A if and only if B&quot; means that A and B are equivalent logical statements.&#xD;&#xA;This is equivalent to but less clumsy than saying &quot;A if B and A only if B&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is convenient to have conjunctions to say &quot;A is implied by B&quot; (if), &quot;A implies B&quot; (only if) and &quot;A is equivalent to B&quot; (if and only if).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that this conjunction or phrase appears in Latin, too.&#xD;&#xA;To my surprise, I found no trace of it in [this text of Gauss](http://thelatinlibrary.com/gauss.html).&#xD;&#xA;When, if ever, did this phrase appear in Latin mathematical literature?&#xD;&#xA;And more importantly, what is this phrase in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I could translate it as *si et solum si*, but I would like to know what was actually used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Partial answers and non-mathematical contexts are also welcome if you have any insight to share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The English abbreviation is &quot;iff&quot; (&lt; if), the Finnish one is &quot;joss&quot; (&lt; jos), the Italian one is &quot;ssi&quot; (&lt; si), the Spanish one is &quot;ssi&quot; (&lt; si), the Swedish one is &quot;omm&quot; (&lt; om), and so forth.&#xD;&#xA;By analogy, I would abbreviate the thing in Latin as *ssi*.&#xD;&#xA;But this question is about the fuller and more formal version." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2758" RevisionGUID="8600c310-1ec6-46af-b54d-817e4012536a" CreationDate="2017-04-21T20:15:41.697" UserId="79" Comment="I had mixed the Italian and Spanish versions." Text="In mathematical literature &quot;if and only if&quot; (sometimes abbreviated as &quot;iff&quot;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;) is a relatively common phrase.&#xD;&#xA;Saying &quot;A if and only if B&quot; means that A and B are equivalent logical statements.&#xD;&#xA;This is equivalent to but less clumsy than saying &quot;A if B and A only if B&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is convenient to have conjunctions to say &quot;A is implied by B&quot; (if), &quot;A implies B&quot; (only if) and &quot;A is equivalent to B&quot; (if and only if).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that this conjunction or phrase appears in Latin, too.&#xD;&#xA;To my surprise, I found no trace of it in [this text of Gauss](http://thelatinlibrary.com/gauss.html).&#xD;&#xA;When, if ever, did this phrase appear in Latin mathematical literature?&#xD;&#xA;And more importantly, what is this phrase in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I could translate it as *si et solum si*, but I would like to know what was actually used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Partial answers and non-mathematical contexts are also welcome if you have any insight to share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The English abbreviation is &quot;iff&quot; (&lt; if), the Finnish one is &quot;joss&quot; (&lt; jos), the Italian one is &quot;sse&quot; (&lt; se), the Spanish one is &quot;ssi&quot; (&lt; si), the Swedish one is &quot;omm&quot; (&lt; om), and so forth.&#xD;&#xA;By analogy, I would abbreviate the thing in Latin as *ssi*.&#xD;&#xA;But this question is about the fuller and more formal version." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12529" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2987" RevisionGUID="cd372e41-592f-406f-ae3d-7d52f934df39" CreationDate="2017-04-21T21:42:58.320" UserId="78" Comment="27" />
  <row Id="12530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4166" RevisionGUID="e2564ed0-7987-479c-bab0-d57eb2985ea4" CreationDate="2017-04-21T23:56:03.270" UserId="79" Text="Suppose I have invited some friends for dinner and I want to say something before we eat.&#xD;&#xA;But I don't want to give a long speech.&#xD;&#xA;If I do this in English, I might start my last sentence with &quot;without further ado&quot; and then invite everyone to go get some food and eat.&#xD;&#xA;The Finnish phrase I would use (&quot;pidemmittä puheitta&quot;) translates roughly to &quot;without speaking any longer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a similar phrase in Latin that indicates that the speaker wants to stop speaking and let everyone start doing what they came for?&#xD;&#xA;I am not familiar with any such phrase, and I don't quite know how to look for one in a dictionary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12531" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4166" RevisionGUID="e2564ed0-7987-479c-bab0-d57eb2985ea4" CreationDate="2017-04-21T23:56:03.270" UserId="79" Text="&quot;Without further ado&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12532" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4166" RevisionGUID="e2564ed0-7987-479c-bab0-d57eb2985ea4" CreationDate="2017-04-21T23:56:03.270" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|phrase-request|phrase|saying|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4167" RevisionGUID="444137e8-bd7b-4f8f-b13b-7d71850173b6" CreationDate="2017-04-22T00:10:22.480" UserId="79" Text="This phrase appeared in [Nuntii Latini last December](http://areena.yle.fi/1-3790762):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *In causa erant discordiae inter praesidentem et vicepraesidentem ortae.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is *vice-* a good prefix in Latin, and does it really produce the same effect as in English?&#xD;&#xA;That is, is *vicepraesidens* a good Latin translation of &quot;vice president&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Is there any precedent for using *vice-* like this?&#xD;&#xA;I had not seen it before, and it feels a little off to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12534" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4167" RevisionGUID="444137e8-bd7b-4f8f-b13b-7d71850173b6" CreationDate="2017-04-22T00:10:22.480" UserId="79" Text="Is &quot;vicepraesidens&quot; valid for &quot;vice president&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12535" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4167" RevisionGUID="444137e8-bd7b-4f8f-b13b-7d71850173b6" CreationDate="2017-04-22T00:10:22.480" UserId="79" Text="|prefix|vocabulary|occupation|nuntii-latini|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12536" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1307" RevisionGUID="da0af9ef-9104-4eff-bf19-48dd99c78fa8" CreationDate="2017-04-22T00:11:15.843" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|etymology|grammar-choice|contemporary-latin|occupation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1324" RevisionGUID="78e4a6ef-df25-4c72-ba63-30d500f55279" CreationDate="2017-04-22T00:12:27.690" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="According to Wikipedia, the definition of a [government minister](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minister_(government)&amp;oldid=730119502) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A minister is a politician who holds significant public office in a national or regional government, making and implementing decisions on policies in conjunction with the other ministers. Some ministers are more senior than others, and are usually members of the government's cabinet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in many governments there are such titles as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Education minister&#xD;&#xA; - Agriculture minister&#xD;&#xA; - Foreign minister&#xD;&#xA; - Prime minister&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other jurisdictions, the title *secretary* is used as a synonym or near-synonym:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Secretary of Interior&#xD;&#xA; - Secretary of State&#xD;&#xA; - Secretary of Commerce&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question: what is a Latin word that captures this sense of the words *minister* and *secretary*?  Does a single word fully capture this type of government official?  Or must I use different words to reflect the difference between *secretary* and *minister*, or between a Secretary of State (higher level) and a Forestry minister (lower level)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've consulted Traupman's Latin-English dictionary, and it offers *administer* for &quot;minister&quot; and *administer*, *minister*, or *praefectus* for the political meaning of &quot;secretary.&quot;  Is one more suitable than others?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;This question inspired by [How to describe ministers in Latin?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1307/12)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12538" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1324" RevisionGUID="78e4a6ef-df25-4c72-ba63-30d500f55279" CreationDate="2017-04-22T00:12:27.690" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|occupation|politics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4167" RevisionGUID="29480a97-627b-4bc9-8c74-8238face85b0" CreationDate="2017-04-22T00:20:49.493" UserId="79" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="This phrase appeared in [Nuntii Latini last December](http://areena.yle.fi/1-3790762):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *In causa erant discordiae inter praesidentem et vicepraesidentem ortae.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is *vice-* a good prefix in Latin, and does it really produce the same effect as in English?&#xD;&#xA;That is, is *vicepraesidens* a good Latin translation of &quot;vice president&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Is there any precedent for using *vice-* like this?&#xD;&#xA;I had not seen it before, and it feels a little off to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think the prefix *vice-* was used with any title in the Roman system, but perhaps it was introduced later on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4168" RevisionGUID="f3a61414-7c0e-48fb-b264-a17aa0d1acdd" CreationDate="2017-04-22T00:41:55.627" UserId="985" Text="Seneca's _Thyestes_, line 705, has _dimissa mora_ (as an ablative absolute)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4168" RevisionGUID="bf40c5d0-fb77-413e-82a5-4d0b313c1053" CreationDate="2017-04-22T01:01:57.967" UserId="985" Comment="Aded more examples" Text="Seneca's _Thyestes_, line 705, has _dimissa mora_ (as an ablative absolute).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, even better yet, sticking with Seneca, _Medea_ line 281 has _quid seris fando moras?_ (And line 54 has _has rumpe iam segnes moras_.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, _Oedipus_ line 850 has _veritas odit moras_, which could perhaps be adapted to _cenae oderunt moras_ or _daps odit moras_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4168" RevisionGUID="6f4643c4-b66d-4438-8916-3f8d861c47e9" CreationDate="2017-04-22T01:08:43.267" UserId="985" Comment="Aded more examples" Text="Seneca's _Thyestes_, line 705, has _dimissa mora_ (as an ablative absolute: 'delay having been abandoned').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, even better yet, sticking with Seneca's tragedies, _Medea_ line 281 has _quid seris fando moras?_ 'Why do you sow delays by speaking?' (And line 54 has _has rumpe iam segnes moras_, 'Now break these sluggish delays.')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, _Oedipus_ line 850 has _veritas odit moras_, 'Truth hates delays'; which could perhaps be adapted to something along the lines of _cenae oderunt moras_ or _daps odit moras_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4169" RevisionGUID="6c86a68b-b83f-48a0-bd12-bf1e3acf8219" CreationDate="2017-04-22T01:15:05.920" UserId="78" Text="It's Late Latin. From the OED:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Originally this governed a following word in the genitive, but in late Latin the tendency to use the phrase as a compound noun appears in vicequæstor (equivalent to prōquæstor of analogous origin). In medieval Latin such formations became common, as vicecomes, -consul, -decanus, -dominus, -princeps, -rector, -rex, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it mentions, *pro* was the more accepted prefix, though like *vice-* was also originally a pronoun. The noun phrase later become codified and the pronoun became a prefix. Examples: [proconsul](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DP%3Aentry+group%3D105%3Aentry%3Dproconsul), [propraetor](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DP%3Aentry+group%3D114%3Aentry%3Dpropraetor), [propraefectus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DP%3Aentry+group%3D114%3Aentry%3Dpropraefectus), [proflamen](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DP%3Aentry+group%3D107%3Aentry%3Dproflamen), [pro quaestore](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DP%3Aentry+group%3D114%3Aentry%3Dproquaestore).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any Classical Latin titles with the prefix, and Lewis and Short record none under their definition of [vicis](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DV%3Aentry+group%3D17%3Aentry%3Dvicis)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4169" RevisionGUID="8ab906f4-c056-4c14-8356-92912972227b" CreationDate="2017-04-22T01:32:26.980" UserId="78" Comment="added 445 characters in body" Text="It's Late Latin. From the OED:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Originally this governed a following word in the genitive, but in late Latin the tendency to use the phrase as a compound noun appears in vicequæstor (equivalent to prōquæstor of analogous origin). In medieval Latin such formations became common, as vicecomes, -consul, -decanus, -dominus, -princeps, -rector, -rex, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it mentions, *pro* was the more accepted prefix, though like *vice-* was also originally a pronoun. The noun phrase later become codified and the pronoun became a prefix. Examples: [proconsul](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DP%3Aentry+group%3D105%3Aentry%3Dproconsul), [propraetor](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DP%3Aentry+group%3D114%3Aentry%3Dpropraetor), [propraefectus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DP%3Aentry+group%3D114%3Aentry%3Dpropraefectus), [proflamen](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DP%3Aentry+group%3D107%3Aentry%3Dproflamen), [pro quaestore](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DP%3Aentry+group%3D114%3Aentry%3Dproquaestore).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any Classical Latin titles with the prefix, and Lewis and Short record none under their definition of [vicis](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DV%3Aentry+group%3D17%3Aentry%3Dvicis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that the modern spoken Latin community doesn't like archaicisms like using *consul* for *president*, so they opt for Anglicized words. The ancients sometimes did that, but from what I read, they mostly did not. Considering the presidency was partially modeled after the consulship, I think a rendering of it as *consul maior* and *consul minor* would have made sense to a Roman audience, even if it's somewhat inaccurate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4169" RevisionGUID="776f78a0-6113-4564-8842-64804648be55" CreationDate="2017-04-22T01:49:49.390" UserId="78" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="It's Late Latin. From the OED:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Originally this governed a following word in the genitive, but in late Latin the tendency to use the phrase as a compound noun appears in vicequæstor (equivalent to prōquæstor of analogous origin). In medieval Latin such formations became common, as vicecomes, -consul, -decanus, -dominus, -princeps, -rector, -rex, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it mentions, *pro* was the more accepted prefix, though like *vice-* was also originally a preposition. The noun phrase later become codified and the preposition became a prefix. Examples: [proconsul](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DP%3Aentry+group%3D105%3Aentry%3Dproconsul), [propraetor](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DP%3Aentry+group%3D114%3Aentry%3Dpropraetor), [propraefectus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DP%3Aentry+group%3D114%3Aentry%3Dpropraefectus), [proflamen](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DP%3Aentry+group%3D107%3Aentry%3Dproflamen), [pro quaestore](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DP%3Aentry+group%3D114%3Aentry%3Dproquaestore).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any Classical Latin titles with the prefix, and Lewis and Short record none under their definition of [vicis](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DV%3Aentry+group%3D17%3Aentry%3Dvicis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that the modern spoken Latin community doesn't like archaicisms like using *consul* for *president*, so they opt for Anglicized words. The ancients sometimes did that, but from what I read, they mostly did not. Considering the presidency was partially modeled after the consulship, I think a rendering of it as *consul maior* and *consul minor* would have made sense to a Roman audience, even if it's somewhat inaccurate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4170" RevisionGUID="22fbbeda-d78f-4b17-81f4-4a178441a9f4" CreationDate="2017-04-22T02:49:21.150" UserId="118" Text="Is **a priori** short for a longer phrase of the form **a priori _____**? If so, what is the elided substantive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;**Background, or, How I Got Confused**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm pretty sure that **a fortiori** is short for **a fortiori ratione**. I [haven't found the origin of the phrase](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/295/118), but it seems clear from usage that there is an implied noun, and that that noun is either **ratio** or a synonym. Douglas Harper [reports](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=a+priori&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) that **a priori** started c. 1300 to describe reasoning from a cause or first principle. That suggests to me that **a priori** might also have an implied noun, also obvious from usage and hence likely to be dropped—maybe a noun meaning &quot;cause&quot; or &quot;first principle&quot; or &quot;antecedent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contemporary usage is strongly influenced by Kant, who used **a priori** as a sort of adjective for knowledge deriving from the nature of the mind rather than from the objects sensed or experienced. I had gotten the impression that the elided noun might mean something like experience, so the phrase would mean &quot;**from before experience**&quot;. Today people often use the phrase to refer to things you can know before doing an experiment, either by deducing from already-established theory or just because you already found out; see e.g. [this paper](http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/full/10.1162/neco.2008.08-07-594?select23=Choose&amp;#.WPq3j0s8iUI) on designing neurophysiology experiments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that I've been learning Latin, though, it appears that **a priori** is a modifier for a substantive, like &quot;from a previous _____&quot; or &quot;from the first _____&quot;, not capable of functioning as a sort of preposition, like &quot;from before _____&quot; or &quot;from earlier than _____.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I just read this in Guyer and Woods' translation notes on the _Critique of Pure Reason_ (p. 74):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our decision [to preserve ambiguous and obscure constructions in Kant's original text wherever possible] also means that where Kant's location of the adverbial phrase &quot;**a priori**,&quot; which he always treats as a Latin bor­rowing rather than a naturalized latinate German term, is ambiguous between **an adverbial modification of a verb** and **an adjectival modifica­tion of a noun**, we have tried to leave it ambiguous, although we could not always do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So does **a priori** work like **in concreto**: as an adverbial phrase, with no implied substantive—like &quot;concretely&quot; except that **a priori** means &quot;beforely&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12547" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4170" RevisionGUID="22fbbeda-d78f-4b17-81f4-4a178441a9f4" CreationDate="2017-04-22T02:49:21.150" UserId="118" Text="Does &quot;a priori&quot; have an implied substantive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12548" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4170" RevisionGUID="22fbbeda-d78f-4b17-81f4-4a178441a9f4" CreationDate="2017-04-22T02:49:21.150" UserId="118" Text="|medieval-latin|logic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4170" RevisionGUID="16c54754-fac7-4dd6-a93f-247df6410622" CreationDate="2017-04-22T04:42:12.217" UserId="118" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="Is **a priori** short for a longer phrase of the form **a priori _____**? If so, what is the elided substantive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;**Background, or, How I Got Confused**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm pretty sure that **a fortiori** is short for **a fortiori ratione**. I [haven't found the origin of the phrase](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/295/118), but it seems clear from usage that there is an implied noun, and that that noun is either **ratio** or a synonym. Douglas Harper [reports](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=a+priori&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) that **a priori** started c. 1300 to describe reasoning from a cause or first principle. That suggests to me that **a priori** might also have an implied noun, also obvious from usage and hence likely to be dropped—maybe a noun meaning &quot;cause&quot; or &quot;first principle&quot; or &quot;antecedent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contemporary usage is strongly influenced by Kant, who used **a priori** as a sort of adjective for knowledge deriving from the nature of the mind rather than from the objects sensed or experienced. I had gotten the impression that the elided noun might mean something like experience, so the phrase would mean &quot;**from before experience**&quot;. Today people often use the phrase to refer to things you can know before doing an experiment, either by deducing from already-established theory or just because you already found out; see e.g. [this paper](http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/full/10.1162/neco.2008.08-07-594?select23=Choose&amp;#.WPq3j0s8iUI) on designing neurophysiology experiments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that I've been learning Latin, though, it appears that **a priori** is the start of a prepositional phrase that ends in a noun, like &quot;from a previous _____&quot; or &quot;from the first _____&quot;, not capable of functioning as a sort of preposition itself, like &quot;from before _____&quot; or &quot;from earlier than _____.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I just read this in Guyer and Woods' translation notes on the _Critique of Pure Reason_ (p. 74):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our decision [to preserve ambiguous and obscure constructions in Kant's original text wherever possible] also means that where Kant's location of the adverbial phrase &quot;**a priori**,&quot; which he always treats as a Latin bor­rowing rather than a naturalized latinate German term, is ambiguous between **an adverbial modification of a verb** and **an adjectival modifica­tion of a noun**, we have tried to leave it ambiguous, although we could not always do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So does **a priori** work like **in concreto**: as a prepositional phrase with no noun? On this hypothesis, as **in concreto** means &quot;concretely&quot;, **a priori** would mean &quot;beforely&quot;—except that since it's a prepositional phrase, it can modify nouns as well as verbs, i.e. serve as adjective or adverb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4168" RevisionGUID="f084e038-0804-4c34-8f97-95b980bba236" CreationDate="2017-04-22T05:41:14.377" UserId="985" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="Seneca's _Thyestes_, line 705, has _dimissa mora_ (as an ablative absolute: 'delay having been abandoned').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, even better yet, sticking with Seneca's tragedies, _Medea_ line 281 has _quid seris fando moras?_ 'Why do you sow delays by speaking?' (And line 54 has _has rumpe iam segnes moras_, 'Now break these sluggish delays.')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, _Oedipus_ line 850 has _veritas odit moras_, 'Truth hates delays'; which could perhaps be adapted to something along the lines of _cenae oderunt moras_ or _daps odit moras_ – or, better, _esuritio/fames odit moras_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4171" RevisionGUID="1afe532a-e714-478a-ac90-50c2cc82d7ed" CreationDate="2017-04-22T06:26:52.470" UserId="79" Text="Here are some scattered observations, which may or may not constitute an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; no classical examples of *a priori*, but several examples of *a priore*&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, most followed by an ablative noun.&#xD;&#xA;[Pliny](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0138:book=2:chapter=17&amp;highlight=a+priore%2C) has an *a priori* without a following noun, but there is an obvious implicit *defecto*.&#xD;&#xA;([English version here.](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book=2:chapter=10&amp;highlight=thirty))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Rule of Benedict](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/benedict.html) has several examples of *a priore*.&#xD;&#xA;In this work *prior* is practically a noun, and [this translation by Rev. Boniface Verheyen](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/benedict/rule.i.html) consistently translates it as &quot;the Superior&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is the earliest example I found of substantivization of *prior* (including *a priore*), and it is consistent throughout the work.&#xD;&#xA;The meaning is very different from the philosophical or logical *a priori*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is hardly a surprise, but [Gauss](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/gauss.html) uses *a priori* in the modern sense in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, I am not sure if there is a real difference between a substantivized adjective and an adjective used with an implicit noun.&#xD;&#xA;There is an effect on gender (eg. *res mala* and *malum*), but all genders look the same for *priore/priori*.&#xD;&#xA;It is interesting to ask how the phrase was born &amp;mdash; and I cannot give a convincing history on that &amp;mdash; but after some thought I see little point in figuring out whether it is a substantivized adjective or has an implicit noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The search was admittedly not exhaustive.&#xD;&#xA;I only looked at the texts of [The Latin Library](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In classical Latin the third declension the singular ablative ending is (almost) always *-i* for adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;In comparative (which is third declension for all adjectives) the ending is *-e*.&#xD;&#xA;And if *prior* was declined like a noun, it would get the *-e*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *a priori* with the *-i* looks like a later development.&#xD;&#xA;If it was abbreviated from a phrase used by a classical author, I would expect it in the form *a priore* instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4172" RevisionGUID="a0956a61-ec6a-44aa-a6e9-1a7c43a4b91d" CreationDate="2017-04-22T06:55:51.663" UserId="79" Text="I would use the verb [*probare*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=probo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), which means things like &quot;to test&quot;, &quot;to esteem as fit&quot;, and &quot;to approve for service&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It clearly has the tone &quot;to test in practice&quot; as opposed &quot;to esteem highly without really testing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you have build a machine and tested it in practice, I would refer to it as *machina probata*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would simply use *probare* and the participle *probatus* for things like you propose.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to emphasize that something was tested in a specific way &amp;mdash; literally or not &amp;mdash; to add more flavor, I would add an ablative of means.&#xD;&#xA;For example, to test a machine in battle is *machinam proelio probare*.&#xD;&#xA;For a slightly different tone, you can consider *in proelio* (in battle) or *per proelium* (through battle) instead of *proelio* (by battle).&#xD;&#xA;*Proelium* is not the only thing you can test with; there are options like *ignis*, *durum*, and *labor*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not encountered a Latin idiom having the same effect as &quot;tested under fire&quot;, but *igne probatus* will certainly be understandable in suitable context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4173" RevisionGUID="f265782a-c0a8-442b-b63a-8db397d197d2" CreationDate="2017-04-22T07:02:18.877" UserId="79" Text="Since there has been no other answer, let me expand my comment into an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not familiar with any technical term with a meaning opposite to *sui generis*.&#xD;&#xA;If you want an adjective of similar origin, there is [*generalis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=generalis&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;But the best Latin word I know for this is *solitus* (a form of [*solere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DS%3Aentry+group%3D51%3Aentry%3Dsoleo), see part II of the entry).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that unlike *sui generis*, both *generalis* and *solitus* are adjectives and should be declined appropriately in use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4174" RevisionGUID="c4ff3aa5-87a4-43d5-94af-16a5684370c3" CreationDate="2017-04-22T08:05:53.690" UserId="118" Text="Gauss wrote in his [Ph.D. dissertation](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/gauss.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si quis _e. g._ in art. 3, aliaque incognitarum tamquam cognita spectata, reliquas per hanc et coefficientes datos rationaliter exprimere tentat, facile inueniet, hoc esse impossibile, nullamque quantitatum incognitarum aliter quam per aequationem _m_-1&lt;sup&gt;_ti_&lt;/sup&gt; gradus determinari posse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does the &lt;sup&gt;_ti_&lt;/sup&gt; mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose the obvious answer is that it's an exponent consisting of two variables, _t_ and _i_, multipled together. But that doesn't look right. It's strange to raise 1 to an exponent, though with complex numbers that could produce a result other than 1. But, at least on a cursory look, I don't see variables _t_ and _i_ defined nearby. And I see **ti** used unitalicized and unsuperscripted, apparently as a suffix, here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Facile vero perspicitur _m′_ fore numerum formae _2&lt;sup&gt;n-1&lt;/sup&gt;i′_, designante _i′_ numerum imparem. Iam nisi _m′_ est impar, supponatur iterum, _uu+uu′+M′_ esse diuisorem ipsius _U_, patetque per similia ratiocinia _u′_ determinari per aequationem _U′_=0, vbi _U′_ sit functio (_m′_ . _m′_-1) / (1 . 2)ti gradus ipsius _u′_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it an ordinal suffix, enabling the mathematical expression to modify _gradus_? Or maybe a cardinal case suffix? If so, what else in Latin is it modeled after? All I can think of is big cardinal numbers like _ducenti, trecenti,_ etc. (and _viginti_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12557" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4174" RevisionGUID="c4ff3aa5-87a4-43d5-94af-16a5684370c3" CreationDate="2017-04-22T08:05:53.690" UserId="118" Text="Superscript/suffix &quot;ti&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12558" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4174" RevisionGUID="c4ff3aa5-87a4-43d5-94af-16a5684370c3" CreationDate="2017-04-22T08:05:53.690" UserId="118" Text="|new-latin|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4175" RevisionGUID="d30690a8-1959-40f5-9e64-236b04fccffa" CreationDate="2017-04-22T08:19:43.057" UserId="79" Text="Judging by context, it must be an ordinal number in genitive.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that Gauss would translate &quot;*n*th&quot; from English to Latin as &quot;*n*&lt;sup&gt;tus&lt;/sup&gt;&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This makes sense, given how many ordinals look: *quartus*, *quintus*, *sextus*, *septimus*.&#xD;&#xA;The genitive of *-tus* is *-ti*.&#xD;&#xA;(Alternatively, it could be *-tius* and *-ti* as a short form of *-tii*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The superindex *-ti* appears before the word *gradus*.&#xD;&#xA;Gauss' &quot;*n*&lt;sup&gt;ti&lt;/sup&gt; gradus&quot; means &quot;of *n*th degree&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;gradus&quot; is fourth declension, so recognizing the genitive is trickier.&#xD;&#xA;There are also several similar phrases with concrete numbers.&#xD;&#xA;Search the document for&#xD;&#xA;&quot;secundi gradus&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&quot;quinti superiorisue gradus&quot;, or&#xD;&#xA;&quot;primi secundiue gradus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not find examples of other cases than genitive.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps such examples could be found in other works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4174" RevisionGUID="8b9f387e-6702-49c5-8f21-7805a29b1646" CreationDate="2017-04-22T08:26:46.227" UserId="118" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="Gauss wrote in his [Ph.D. dissertation](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/gauss.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si quis _e. g._ in art. 3, aliaque incognitarum tamquam cognita spectata, reliquas per hanc et coefficientes datos rationaliter exprimere tentat, facile inueniet, hoc esse impossibile, nullamque quantitatum incognitarum aliter quam per aequationem _m_-1&lt;sup&gt;_ti_&lt;/sup&gt; gradus determinari posse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does the &lt;sup&gt;_ti_&lt;/sup&gt; mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose the obvious answer is that it's an exponent consisting of two variables, _t_ and _i_, multipled together. But that doesn't look right. It's strange to raise 1 to an exponent, though with complex numbers that could produce a result other than 1. But, at least on a cursory look, I don't see variables _t_ and _i_ defined nearby. And I see **ti** used unitalicized and unsuperscripted, apparently as a suffix, here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Facile vero perspicitur _m′_ fore numerum formae _2&lt;sup&gt;n-1&lt;/sup&gt;i′_, designante _i′_ numerum imparem. Iam nisi _m′_ est impar, supponatur iterum, _uu+uu′+M′_ esse diuisorem ipsius _U_, patetque per similia ratiocinia _u′_ determinari per aequationem _U′_=0, vbi _U′_ sit functio (_m′_ . _m′_-1) / (1 . 2)ti gradus ipsius _u′_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it an ordinal suffix, enabling the mathematical expression to modify _gradus_? Or maybe a cardinal case suffix? If so, what else in Latin is it modeled after? All I can think of is big cardinal numbers like _ducenti, trecenti,_ etc. (and _viginti_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Hunc incidi nexum sequens in [eo responso](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4171/118) Joonas Ilmavirta.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4174" RevisionGUID="a40b1f81-5ca7-40e5-be98-7af909b0c4ea" CreationDate="2017-04-22T08:36:03.973" UserId="118" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Gauss wrote in his [Ph.D. dissertation](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/gauss.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si quis _e. g._ in art. 3, aliaque incognitarum tamquam cognita spectata, reliquas per hanc et coefficientes datos rationaliter exprimere tentat, facile inueniet, hoc esse impossibile, nullamque quantitatum incognitarum aliter quam per aequationem _m_-1&lt;sup&gt;_ti_&lt;/sup&gt; gradus determinari posse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does the &lt;sup&gt;_ti_&lt;/sup&gt; mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose the obvious answer is that it's an exponent consisting of two variables, _t_ and _i_, multipled together. But that doesn't look right. It's strange to raise 1 to an exponent, though with complex numbers that could produce a result other than 1. But, at least on a cursory look, I don't see variables _t_ and _i_ defined nearby. And I see **ti** used unitalicized and unsuperscripted, apparently as a suffix, here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Facile vero perspicitur _m′_ fore numerum formae _2&lt;sup&gt;n-1&lt;/sup&gt;i′_, designante _i′_ numerum imparem. Iam nisi _m′_ est impar, supponatur iterum, _uu+uu′+M′_ esse diuisorem ipsius _U_, patetque per similia ratiocinia _u′_ determinari per aequationem _U′_=0, vbi _U′_ sit functio (_m′_ . _m′_-1) / (1 . 2)ti gradus ipsius _u′_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it an ordinal suffix, enabling the mathematical expression to modify _gradus_? Or maybe a cardinal case suffix? If so, what else in Latin is it modeled after? All I can think of is big cardinal numbers like _ducenti, trecenti,_ etc. (and _viginti_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Huic incidi nexum sequens in [hoc responso](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4171/118) Joonas Ilmavirta.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4174" RevisionGUID="317e86e9-33eb-480b-bc7f-2fa8b4cf202e" CreationDate="2017-04-22T08:44:46.060" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Gauss wrote in his [Ph.D. dissertation](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/gauss.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si quis _e. g._ in art. 3, aliaque incognitarum tamquam cognita spectata, reliquas per hanc et coefficientes datos rationaliter exprimere tentat, facile inueniet, hoc esse impossibile, nullamque quantitatum incognitarum aliter quam per aequationem _m_-1&lt;sup&gt;_ti_&lt;/sup&gt; gradus determinari posse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does the &lt;sup&gt;_ti_&lt;/sup&gt; mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose the obvious answer is that it's an exponent consisting of two variables, _t_ and _i_, multipled together. But that doesn't look right. It's strange to raise 1 to an exponent, though with complex numbers that could produce a result other than 1. But, at least on a cursory look, I don't see variables _t_ and _i_ defined nearby. And I see **ti** used unitalicized and unsuperscripted, apparently as a suffix, here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Facile vero perspicitur _m′_ fore numerum formae _2&lt;sup&gt;n-1&lt;/sup&gt;i′_, designante _i′_ numerum imparem. Iam nisi _m′_ est impar, supponatur iterum, _uu+uu′+M′_ esse diuisorem ipsius _U_, patetque per similia ratiocinia _u′_ determinari per aequationem _U′_=0, vbi _U′_ sit functio (_m′_ . _m′_-1) / (1 . 2)ti gradus ipsius _u′_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it an ordinal suffix, enabling the mathematical expression to modify _gradus_? Or maybe a cardinal case suffix? If so, what else in Latin is it modeled after? All I can think of is big cardinal numbers like _ducenti, trecenti,_ etc. (and _viginti_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Huic incidi nexum sequens in [hoc responso](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4171/118) Ionæ Ilmavirta.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4175" RevisionGUID="50242614-6915-4028-b7d5-e7336249ca4e" CreationDate="2017-04-22T09:25:31.893" UserId="79" Comment="added 801 characters in body" Text="Judging by context, it must be an ordinal number in genitive.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that Gauss would translate &quot;*n*th&quot; from English to Latin as &quot;*n*&lt;sup&gt;tus&lt;/sup&gt;&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This makes sense, given how many ordinals look: *quartus*, *quintus*, *sextus*, *septimus*.&#xD;&#xA;The genitive of *-tus* is *-ti*.&#xD;&#xA;(Alternatively, it could be *-tius* and *-ti* as a short form of *-tii*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The superindex *-ti* appears before the word *gradus*.&#xD;&#xA;Gauss' &quot;*n*&lt;sup&gt;ti&lt;/sup&gt; gradus&quot; means &quot;of *n*th degree&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;gradus&quot; is fourth declension, so recognizing the genitive is trickier.&#xD;&#xA;There are also several similar phrases with concrete numbers.&#xD;&#xA;Search the document for&#xD;&#xA;&quot;secundi gradus&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&quot;quinti superiorisue gradus&quot;, or&#xD;&#xA;&quot;primi secundiue gradus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also two examples of a similar superscript in the text in other forms (thanks for noticing, cnread!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Manifestum est, in serie aequationum &lt;em&gt;U=0&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;U&amp;prime;=0&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;U&amp;prime;&amp;prime;=0&lt;/em&gt; etc. &lt;em&gt;n&lt;sup&gt;tam&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/em&gt; fore gradus imparis adeoque radicem realem habere.&quot; &amp;mdash; It is clear that in the series of equations &lt;em&gt;U=0&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;U&amp;prime;=0&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;U&amp;prime;&amp;prime;=0&lt;/em&gt; and so on the *n*th one will be of odd degree and therefore have a real root. &amp;mdash; There is an implicit &quot;aequationem&quot; for the &lt;em&gt;n&lt;sup&gt;tam&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Ceterum palam est, axem ipsum semper duos ramos infinitos lineae primae constituere, puta primum et &lt;em&gt;m+1&lt;sup&gt;tum&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&quot; &amp;mdash; It is clear that the axis itself constitutes two infinite branches of the first curve, namely the first and the *(m+1)*st one. &amp;mdash; There is an implicit &quot;ramum&quot; for the &lt;em&gt;m+1&lt;sup&gt;tum&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/em&gt;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4175" RevisionGUID="7f583104-5c41-41cc-9b82-c6a26adb6384" CreationDate="2017-04-22T09:30:48.907" UserId="79" Comment="added 801 characters in body" Text="Judging by context, it must be an ordinal number in genitive.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that Gauss would translate &quot;*n*th&quot; from English to Latin as &quot;*n*&lt;sup&gt;tus&lt;/sup&gt;&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This makes sense, given how many ordinals look: *quartus*, *quintus*, *sextus*, *septimus*.&#xD;&#xA;The genitive of *-tus* is *-ti*.&#xD;&#xA;(Alternatively, it could be *-tius* and *-ti* as a short form of *-tii*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The superindex *-ti* appears before the word *gradus*.&#xD;&#xA;Gauss' &quot;*n*&lt;sup&gt;ti&lt;/sup&gt; gradus&quot; means &quot;of *n*th degree&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;gradus&quot; is fourth declension, so recognizing the genitive is trickier.&#xD;&#xA;There are also several similar phrases with concrete numbers.&#xD;&#xA;Search the document for&#xD;&#xA;&quot;secundi gradus&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&quot;quinti superiorisue gradus&quot;, or&#xD;&#xA;&quot;primi secundiue gradus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also two examples of a similar superscript in the text in other forms (thanks for noticing, cnread!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Manifestum est, in serie aequationum &lt;em&gt;U=0&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;U&amp;prime;=0&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;U&amp;prime;&amp;prime;=0&lt;/em&gt; etc. &lt;em&gt;n&lt;sup&gt;tam&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/em&gt; fore gradus imparis adeoque radicem realem habere.&quot; &amp;mdash; It is clear that in the series of equations &lt;em&gt;U=0&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;U&amp;prime;=0&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;U&amp;prime;&amp;prime;=0&lt;/em&gt; and so on the *n*th one will be of odd degree and therefore have a real root. &amp;mdash; There is an implicit &quot;aequationem&quot; for the &lt;em&gt;n&lt;sup&gt;tam&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Ceterum palam est, axem ipsum semper duos ramos infinitos lineae primae constituere, puta primum et &lt;em&gt;m+1&lt;sup&gt;tum&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&quot; &amp;mdash; It is clear that the axis itself constitutes two infinite branches of the first curve; consider the first and the &lt;em&gt;(m+1)&lt;/em&gt;st one. &amp;mdash; There is an implicit &quot;ramum&quot; for the &lt;em&gt;m+1&lt;sup&gt;tum&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/em&gt;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1365" RevisionGUID="aa61d82d-eb91-4cd2-b505-954d7cddbb4d" CreationDate="2017-04-22T11:30:17.877" UserId="118" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="Here are two apparent counterexamples that I think are not really counterexamples. I post them here to give people an opportunity to confirm or refute my understanding of them (I'll be grateful for either).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Argumentum **ab** auctoritate est fortissimum in lege.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One might say that an authority is outside the topic and therefore should follow the **ad** pattern. However, the authority is understood as the source of the law, not as a factor specific to the person being appealed to. Since the authority is the source of the law, it is properly the source of the decision when considered in connection with the facts of the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps we could understand all the **argumenta ab** as appeals whose _source_ is the next thing mentioned. That naturally calls for the ablative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By that token, **argumenta ad** would be appeals that &quot;target&quot; something about the person being persuaded rather than &quot;coming from&quot; the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Argumentum **a** maiore **ad** minus negative non valet; valet e converso.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one has **ad** introducing a part of the topic, certainly nothing specific to the person being appealed to. However, I am thinking that this is still not a counterexample, because **ad** is serving a different meaning: it's paired with **ab** to indicate the direction of the reasoning: &quot;from the greater to the lesser&quot;, i.e. which proposition is the premise and which is the conclusion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4175" RevisionGUID="0a778b55-d51b-4e77-a938-aa60a4acf82a" CreationDate="2017-04-22T23:42:59.607" UserId="79" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="Judging by context, it must be an ordinal number in genitive.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that Gauss would translate &quot;*n*th&quot; from English to Latin as &quot;*n*&lt;sup&gt;tus&lt;/sup&gt;&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This makes sense, given how many ordinals look: *quartus*, *quintus*, *sextus*, *septimus*.&#xD;&#xA;The genitive of *-tus* is *-ti*.&#xD;&#xA;(Alternatively, it could be *-tius* and *-ti* as a short form of *-tii*. But this is ruled out by the other two endings.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The superindex *-ti* appears before the word *gradus*.&#xD;&#xA;Gauss' &quot;*n*&lt;sup&gt;ti&lt;/sup&gt; gradus&quot; means &quot;of *n*th degree&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;gradus&quot; is fourth declension, so recognizing the genitive is trickier.&#xD;&#xA;There are also several similar phrases with concrete numbers.&#xD;&#xA;Search the document for&#xD;&#xA;&quot;secundi gradus&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&quot;quinti superiorisue gradus&quot;, or&#xD;&#xA;&quot;primi secundiue gradus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also two examples of a similar superscript in the text in other forms (thanks for noticing, cnread!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Manifestum est, in serie aequationum &lt;em&gt;U=0&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;U&amp;prime;=0&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;U&amp;prime;&amp;prime;=0&lt;/em&gt; etc. &lt;em&gt;n&lt;sup&gt;tam&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/em&gt; fore gradus imparis adeoque radicem realem habere.&quot; &amp;mdash; It is clear that in the series of equations &lt;em&gt;U=0&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;U&amp;prime;=0&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;U&amp;prime;&amp;prime;=0&lt;/em&gt; and so on the *n*th one will be of odd degree and therefore have a real root. &amp;mdash; There is an implicit &quot;aequationem&quot; for the &lt;em&gt;n&lt;sup&gt;tam&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Ceterum palam est, axem ipsum semper duos ramos infinitos lineae primae constituere, puta primum et &lt;em&gt;m+1&lt;sup&gt;tum&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&quot; &amp;mdash; It is clear that the axis itself constitutes two infinite branches of the first curve; consider the first and the &lt;em&gt;(m+1)&lt;/em&gt;st one. &amp;mdash; There is an implicit &quot;ramum&quot; for the &lt;em&gt;m+1&lt;sup&gt;tum&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/em&gt;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4177" RevisionGUID="622b3250-e58e-4bf5-8996-80d46dce3ae4" CreationDate="2017-04-23T03:09:58.023" UserId="79" Text="I came across [an Asterix](http://www.latinitatis.com/latinitas/nubecula/certamen/cert0.htm) translated into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;In [the first story page](http://www.latinitatis.com/latinitas/nubecula/certamen/cert2.htm) the village chief notices that Asterix and Obelix return from a hunt and says: *Asterix atque Obliex venatu redeunt!*&#xD;&#xA;My question concerns the word *venatu*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see two ways to parse *venatu*: it's either the supine (&quot;from hunting&quot;) or the derived noun *venatus* (&quot;from the hunt&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;I have some problems seeing a difference between the two, even if one is formally a verb form and the other a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to use a supine ablative for motion like that?&#xD;&#xA;If someone returns from doing something, can I use a verb of motion with *ab/ex/&amp;ndash;* and a supine ablative?&#xD;&#xA;If not, can I just derive the noun and use its singular ablative to achieve the same effect?&#xD;&#xA;(I would see this as practically using the supine, but it's a matter of opinion.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12570" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4177" RevisionGUID="622b3250-e58e-4bf5-8996-80d46dce3ae4" CreationDate="2017-04-23T03:09:58.023" UserId="79" Text="Can the supine ablative be used for motion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12571" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4177" RevisionGUID="622b3250-e58e-4bf5-8996-80d46dce3ae4" CreationDate="2017-04-23T03:09:58.023" UserId="79" Text="|grammar-identification|derivation|supinum|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4177" RevisionGUID="bffae83f-e754-4f51-bcd2-9faea9207d4b" CreationDate="2017-04-23T04:07:43.513" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="I came across [an Asterix](http://www.latinitatis.com/latinitas/nubecula/certamen/cert0.htm) translated into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;In [the first story page](http://www.latinitatis.com/latinitas/nubecula/certamen/cert2.htm) the village chief notices that Asterix and Obelix return from a hunt and says: *Asterix atque Obelix venatu redeunt!*&#xD;&#xA;My question concerns the word *venatu*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see two ways to parse *venatu*: it's either the supine (&quot;from hunting&quot;) or the derived noun *venatus* (&quot;from the hunt&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;I have some problems seeing a difference between the two, even if one is formally a verb form and the other a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to use a supine ablative for motion like that?&#xD;&#xA;If someone returns from doing something, can I use a verb of motion with *ab/ex/&amp;ndash;* and a supine ablative?&#xD;&#xA;If not, can I just derive the noun and use its singular ablative to achieve the same effect?&#xD;&#xA;(I would see this as practically using the supine, but it's a matter of opinion.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12573" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="1013a51d-675f-42ce-8a7d-828d423eb7e3" CreationDate="2017-04-23T04:25:50.113" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|declension|christianity|names|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2974" RevisionGUID="d9f9954e-4c8b-47aa-befc-c3cde0246753" CreationDate="2017-04-23T04:29:28.193" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="Lewis and Short lists [275 words ending in *-mentum*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=mentum&amp;lang=la), many of which have come into English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- argumentum&#xD;&#xA;- augmentum&#xD;&#xA;- documentum&#xD;&#xA;- fragmentum&#xD;&#xA;- pigmentum&#xD;&#xA;- segmentum&#xD;&#xA;- etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary (cited as an example, not as an authority) says that it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; derived from the Latin suffix -menta in collective nouns like armenta (“herd, flock”). Latin -menta from Proto-Indo-European *-mn̥teh₂ (*-mn̥ + *-teh₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This confuses me because &quot;collective nouns&quot; hardly seems to describe the majority of these words. I know almost nothing about PIE, so the root words above don't help illuminate the meaning for me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One pet theory that occurred to me is that perhaps there is a relationship between -mentum and the Greek middle/passive participle ending: -μενον (-menon). It's far-fetched, but works in at least a few cases, e.g. *argumentum = quod arguitur, fragmentum = quod frangitur, documentum = quod docetur, etc.*&#xD;&#xA;(Disclaimer: words selectively chosen to support my theory.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone provide an overview of **what kinds of words generally use the -mentum suffix**, and also comment on **whether it adds a predictable meaning to its root word**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12575" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2974" RevisionGUID="d9f9954e-4c8b-47aa-befc-c3cde0246753" CreationDate="2017-04-23T04:29:28.193" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|derivation|suffixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4178" RevisionGUID="f8e2224b-3b91-40a6-a520-0b93397a6a0a" CreationDate="2017-04-23T10:17:39.440" UserId="645" Text="I think that the straight answer to the title question is 'No'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The supine is not exactly the most frequently found verbal form. The accusative form, as far as I know, is used only to indicate the objective of the main action after verbs of motion, and the ablative (the only other case found, though it is sometimes described as dative) only to qualify an adjective (e.g. *mirabile dictu*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When cases of a noun such as *venatus* (always of 4th decl.) coincide with a supine verb-form, there may be confusion over which is intended — as you have found. The author of your example could perhaps have avoided this by choosing something else (*venatione perfecta*?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that it's often tempting to over-analyse the Latin, forgetting that a Roman, just like any other speaker of his own tongue — unless a fanatical grammarian — would seldom have hesitated in order to select a preferred grammatical form before speaking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4178" RevisionGUID="3dcffe4e-a643-4bbf-98b9-8e6299fc7497" CreationDate="2017-04-23T11:16:16.893" UserId="645" Comment="extended alternatives" Text="I think that the straight answer to the title question is 'No'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The supine is not exactly the most frequently found verbal form. The accusative form, as far as I know, is used only to indicate the objective of the main action after verbs of motion, and the ablative (the only other case found, though it is sometimes described as dative) only to qualify an adjective (e.g. *mirabile dictu*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When cases of a noun such as *venatus* (always of 4th decl.) coincide with a supine verb-form, there may be confusion over which is intended — as you have found. The author of your example could perhaps have avoided this by choosing something else (*venati*? *venatione perfecta*? — but maybe an ablative absolute isn't appropriate here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that it's often tempting to over-analyse the Latin, forgetting that a Roman, just like any other speaker of his own tongue — unless a fanatical grammarian — would seldom have hesitated in order to select a preferred grammatical form before speaking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4179" RevisionGUID="ed58d817-6663-4f3e-a4e1-8e4f2cc104f6" CreationDate="2017-04-23T13:32:04.613" UserId="1471" Text="I'm looking for a Latin phrase that means &quot;very easy&quot;, something idiomatic like &quot;It's a piece of cake&quot;, or &quot;It's like taking candy from a baby&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12579" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4179" RevisionGUID="ed58d817-6663-4f3e-a4e1-8e4f2cc104f6" CreationDate="2017-04-23T13:32:04.613" UserId="1471" Text="Phrase equivalent to It's a piece of cake" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12580" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4179" RevisionGUID="ed58d817-6663-4f3e-a4e1-8e4f2cc104f6" CreationDate="2017-04-23T13:32:04.613" UserId="1471" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4180" RevisionGUID="c806fa05-60c8-4aa2-9f8f-0afb2b0c6378" CreationDate="2017-04-23T16:51:36.667" UserId="522" Text="When my dictionary was written. it was not &quot;as easy as falling off a chair;&quot; try possibly= *sicut declinans de clino* nor even &quot;like a knife through butter;&quot; try possibly= *facile, sicut culter per butyrum.* But here is the authentic idiomatic entry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **As easy as kiss my hand,** *declive; facillime; nullo negotio* (Ainsworth)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*nullo negotio* is a business term; 'no great trouble.' The phrase is used by Cicero,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nihil esse negotii  probatur,* 'I suppose it to be a very easy matter.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Plautus,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Neque de hac re negotium est, quin male occidam;* 'In this matter all things ran smoothly to my destruction.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12582" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2987" RevisionGUID="07964aab-e89a-460a-a532-7318d4b7925a" CreationDate="2017-04-23T22:28:42.427" UserId="78" Comment="27" />
  <row Id="12583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4125" RevisionGUID="b8de9847-8739-44ff-9d6a-3cc6efe79f74" CreationDate="2017-04-23T22:38:30.570" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="As a first note, I have been unable to find a classical work where *posthinc* is treated as one word. The two Vergil citations in the L&amp;S entry you mentioned actually have *post hinc*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **post hinc** digressus iubeo frondentia capris  &#xD;&#xA;arbuta sufficere et fluuios praebere recentis, (V. *G* 3:300-301)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **post hinc** ad nauis graditur sociosque reuisit. (V. *A* 8:546)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These really are not terribly good examples of a new grammatical form. In fact, two authorities contest this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Servius Honoratus, in his commentary to 8:546, sees it as a **pleonasm**. Evidently he was struck by the form enough that he even recalls the passage from the *Georgics* when considering the one from the *Aeneid.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *post hinc ad naves graditvr:* **unum vacat, aut 'post', aut 'hinc'**, ut &quot;post hinc digrediens iubeo frondentia capris arbuta&quot;: tale est et illud &quot;primus ibi ante omnes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. August Engelbrecht, in his [*Untersuchungen über die sprache des Claudianus Mamertus*](https://books.google.com/books?id=AO5GAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA523&amp;lpg=PA523), pg. 102-103, sees them as two adverbs with separate functions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Das Lexikon von Forcellini bringt auch noch in seiner neuen Ausgabe zwar zwei Stellen für *posthinc* bei, die jedoch beide unbrauchbar sind.... Augenscheinlich ist an beiden Stellen *hinc* nicht mit *post* sondern mit *graditur (digressus)* zu verbinden ebenso ist Sid carm VII 435.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Indeed, Forcellini's lexicon also furnishes in its new edition two locations for *posthinc*. However, neither is applicable. Evidently, in both locations ***hinc* should not be construed with *post* but rather with *graditur/digressus***, just as in Sidonius, *Carmina 7:435*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Engelbrecht goes on to cite a passage from Servius (caveat: although I looked where he said it was, I could not find the relevant quote) that may lend credence to the one word/form theory:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Uebrigens kann die Bemerkung des Servius zur letzteren Stelle aus Vergil, &quot;Sunt qui posthinc unica uoce scribunt, sed perperam,&quot; als Beweis dienen dass zu des Grammatikers Zeiten *posthinc = postea* in Gebrauch gewesen sein muss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Incidentally, Servius's remark on this last citation from Vergil, &quot;There are some who write *posthinc* as one word, but this is incorrect,&quot; can serve as evidence that *posthinc = postea* must have been in use at the time the grammatician was writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are examples where the *hinc* cannot be linked with another verb in the sentence. Here is one example from Marcus Manilius, *Astronomica*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fortunae sors prima data est....	&#xD;&#xA;...	  &#xD;&#xA;**post hinc** militiae locus est, qua quidquid in armis	 &#xD;&#xA;quodque peregrinas inter versantibus urbes	 &#xD;&#xA;accidere assuevit titulo comprenditur uno. (3: 96-104)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the only possible rendering of *post hinc* is a single logical &quot;afterwards,&quot; like *postea.* I think that Honoratus's comment about this being pleonastic is probably applicable here. It is telling that all these examples (as well as another I found from Lucretius) occur in verse, where metrical constraints allow more creative constructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your practical question about translating, &quot;I will go to Rome four days from now,&quot; I think in light of the above that *posthinc* together would not be appropriate. I recommend either the obvious *post (prep)* + accusative or *post (adv)* + ablative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Romam post tres dies (tribus post diebus) ibo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, if you would like to emphasize the &quot;from now&quot; part, you could certainly use *hinc*, in the model of Varro, *De Lingua Latina*, 5:144,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  hinc post triginta annos oppidum alterum conditur, Alba.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hinc post tres dies Romam ibo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course it would be very difficult to find a context where *hinc* couldn't also be taken as a spatial adverb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12584" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1278" RevisionGUID="0f430489-c889-4875-a183-cc18f6d2239c" CreationDate="2017-04-24T00:08:07.703" UserId="30" Comment="28" />
  <row Id="12585" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2965" RevisionGUID="5b4c52e5-4dc9-4783-90aa-753c90fd62ed" CreationDate="2017-04-24T00:11:17.647" UserId="30" Comment="29" />
  <row Id="12586" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2414" RevisionGUID="6af487d9-435c-4b55-8976-7643485a41ee" CreationDate="2017-04-24T00:11:40.047" UserId="30" Comment="30" />
  <row Id="12587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4181" RevisionGUID="73e77e74-d050-4434-aa37-7b1d5b45db26" CreationDate="2017-04-24T00:35:53.613" UserId="118" Text="**Unus multorum** means &quot;one of many&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the phrase carries a meaning comparable to &quot;average Joe&quot; in English, or &quot;just one of the crowd&quot;—the opposite of the uniqueness conveyed by _sui generis._ My Latin is not that solid, so hopefully someone more knowledgeable will correct or confirm this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its most famous ancient use is probably in Horace's 9th Satire. Horace has encountered a bore while walking, and he can't get rid of him. They bump into Aristius Fuscus, a friend of Horace's. Horace tries to hint that Fuscus could save him from the bore. Fuscus, somewhat laughingly, isn't going along with it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Certe, nescio quid, secreto velle loqui te&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;aiebas mecum.&quot; &quot;Memini bene, sed meliori&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;tempore dicam: hodie tricesima sabbata, vin tu&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;curtis Iudaeis oppedere?&quot; &quot;Nulla mihi,&quot; inquam,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;&quot;religio est.&quot; &quot;At mi, sum paulo infirmior, **unus**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;**multorum**. Ignosces, alias loquar.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace: &quot;I can't remember what it was, but I'm sure you were saying you had something to tell me in private.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fuscus: &quot;I remember it well, but I'll tell you at a better time: today is Passover [specifically, a day when Jewish tradition forbids discussing business]. You wouldn't want to blow a fart at the circumcized Jews, would you?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace: &quot;I've got no worries about that.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fuscus: &quot;Well, I do. I'm not so strong-minded as you, I'm **like most people**. You'll forgive me, I'll talk at another time.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People have occasionally used **Unus multorum** as a [pseudonym](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22unus+multorum%22+pseudonym&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;gws_rd=ssl#q=%22unus+multorum%22+pseudonym&amp;tbm=bks) when they wanted to publish something anonymously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that **unus** is masculine. The feminine and neuter are **una multorum** and **unum multorum** respectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4181" RevisionGUID="07cf3b1b-c272-48d2-b68d-0c94edd7ec8e" CreationDate="2017-04-24T00:51:50.173" UserId="118" Comment="added 311 characters in body" Text="**Unus multorum** means &quot;one of many&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I gather that the phrase is comparable to &quot;average Joe&quot; in English, or &quot;just one of the crowd&quot;—the opposite of the uniqueness conveyed by _sui generis._ My Latin is not that solid; hopefully someone more knowledgeable will correct or confirm this. [This 1814 dictionary](https://books.google.com/books?id=8xNgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA812&amp;dq=%22unus+multorum%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi91c7_7bvTAhXs4IMKHelVAWwQuwUIQTAE#v=onepage&amp;q=%22unus%20multorum%22&amp;f=false) reports:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **unus multorum et de multis**, is said of one, who is not distinguished for any thing, one of the vulgar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its most famous ancient use is probably in Horace's 9th Satire. Horace has encountered a bore while walking, and he can't get rid of him. They bump into Aristius Fuscus, a friend of Horace's. Horace tries to hint that Fuscus could save him from the bore. Fuscus, somewhat laughingly, isn't going along with it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Certe, nescio quid, secreto velle loqui te&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;aiebas mecum.&quot; &quot;Memini bene, sed meliori&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;tempore dicam: hodie tricesima sabbata, vin tu&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;curtis Iudaeis oppedere?&quot; &quot;Nulla mihi,&quot; inquam,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;&quot;religio est.&quot; &quot;At mi, sum paulo infirmior, **unus**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;**multorum**. Ignosces, alias loquar.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace: &quot;I can't remember what it was, but I'm sure you were saying you had something to tell me in private.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fuscus: &quot;I remember it well, but I'll tell you at a better time: today is Passover [specifically, a day when Jewish tradition forbids discussing business]. You wouldn't want to blow a fart at the circumcized Jews, would you?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace: &quot;I've got no worries about that.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fuscus: &quot;Well, I do. I'm not so strong-minded as you, I'm **like most people**. You'll forgive me, I'll talk at another time.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People have occasionally used **Unus multorum** as a [pseudonym](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22unus+multorum%22+pseudonym&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;gws_rd=ssl#q=%22unus+multorum%22+pseudonym&amp;tbm=bks) when they wanted to publish something anonymously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that **unus** is masculine. The feminine and neuter are **una multorum** and **unum multorum** respectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="469" RevisionGUID="e37a2ffe-5e2f-44c2-9d32-ea1947889291" CreationDate="2017-04-24T01:15:43.347" UserId="78" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="All the terms you used are used by Classical authors (and then some), but there is some differentiation of terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Lingua Latina* is what the Romans called their language. If you ever see *Latina* by itself to refer to language, *lingua* is naturally implied. However, that typically wasn't the way they referred to speaking the language. Instead the adverbial form was preferred: *Latine loqui* &quot;to speak Latin&quot;. This is done not just with Latin, but all sorts of languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Acilius qui Graece scripsit historiam.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Acilius who wrote a history in Greek.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Cic. *Off*. 2.32.115; cf. *graece loqui* Cic. *Tusc*. 1.8.15&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;“loqui,” id. Tusc. 1, 8, 15&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sermo Latinus* literally should mean the *speech* of a nation, as opposed to *litterae*, which are written down, but this distinction fails to be followed in ordinary, regular usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;quae philosophi Graeco sermone tractavissent, ea Latinis litteris mandaremus&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Cic. *Fin*. 1.1.1.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly *Graeco sermone* is meant Greek language both written and spoken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Latinitas* is something else entirely. This does not refer to the language, but the art of speaking and writing the language. Whoever does not make grammatical mistakes, whose command of the language is good, that person embodies *Latinitas*. As the author of the *Rhetorica ad Herennium* 4.12.17 notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; latinitas est, quae sermonem purum conservat, ab omni vitio remotum. Vitia in sermone, quominus is latinus sit, duo possunt esse: soloecismus et barbarismus, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the emphasis on *sermonem purum* &quot;pure speech&quot;, which is *ab omni vitio remotum* &quot;removed of all vice&quot; (linguistically, that is). Also note *latinus*, which is masculine because of *sermo*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4181" RevisionGUID="fe78faf3-2027-4b67-8b29-a4d5a95fd732" CreationDate="2017-04-24T01:23:10.000" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="**Unus multorum** means &quot;one of many&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I gather that the phrase is comparable to &quot;average Joe&quot; in English, or &quot;just one of the crowd&quot;—the opposite of the uniqueness conveyed by _sui generis._ My Latin is not that solid; hopefully someone more knowledgeable will correct or confirm this. [This 1814 dictionary](https://books.google.com/books?id=8xNgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA812&amp;dq=%22unus+multorum%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi91c7_7bvTAhXs4IMKHelVAWwQuwUIQTAE#v=onepage&amp;q=%22unus%20multorum%22&amp;f=false) reports:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **unus multorum et de multis**, is said of one, who is not distinguished for any thing, one of the vulgar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People have occasionally used **Unus multorum** as a [pseudonym](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22unus+multorum%22+pseudonym&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;gws_rd=ssl#q=%22unus+multorum%22+pseudonym&amp;tbm=bks) when they wanted to publish something anonymously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its most famous ancient use is probably in Horace's 9th Satire. Horace has encountered a bore while walking, and he can't get rid of him. They bump into Aristius Fuscus, a friend of Horace's. Horace tries to hint that Fuscus could save him from the bore. Fuscus, somewhat laughingly, isn't going along with it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Certe, nescio quid, secreto velle loqui te&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;aiebas mecum.&quot; &quot;Memini bene, sed meliori&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;tempore dicam: hodie tricesima sabbata, vin tu&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;curtis Iudaeis oppedere?&quot; &quot;Nulla mihi,&quot; inquam,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;&quot;religio est.&quot; &quot;At mi, sum paulo infirmior, **unus**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;**multorum**. Ignosces, alias loquar.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace: &quot;I can't remember what it was, but I'm sure you were saying you had something to tell me in private.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fuscus: &quot;I remember it well, but I'll tell you at a better time: today is Passover [specifically, a day when Jewish tradition forbids discussing business]. You wouldn't want to blow a fart at the circumcized Jews, would you?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace: &quot;I've got no worries about that.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fuscus: &quot;Well, I do. I'm not so strong-minded as you, I'm **like most people**. You'll forgive me, I'll talk at another time.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that **unus** is masculine. The feminine and neuter are **una multorum** and **unum multorum** respectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4182" RevisionGUID="77cec553-1603-45dd-b951-9ae338dd173c" CreationDate="2017-04-24T02:32:12.180" UserId="79" Text="I asked [yesterday about the word *venatu*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4177/79).&#xD;&#xA;There was a good answer and good comments, but I want to ask a broader related question more specifically &amp;mdash; especially due to TKR's comment.&#xD;&#xA;I want to know how the supine (eg. *venatum* and *venatu*) is related to the derived fourth declension noun (eg. *venatus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are the supine and the noun related historically? If so, how? If not,&#xD;&#xA; why so?&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Is there a reason not to consider the supine just as two forms of the noun?&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- When did grammarians first make the distinction, if ever? That is, when where the supine and the noun considered as separate entities, assuming they weren't originally?&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that some common uses of the noun developed into something that was later considered independent of the noun.&#xD;&#xA;But this is just a guess without any details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I have no trouble reading *difficile dictu* (difficult to say) or *te dictum misi* (I sent you to speak) as if they had the noun *dictus*.&#xD;&#xA;I find the lack of preposition with the accusative a little odd in this reading, but only a little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Any Roman remarks on the matter would be interesting.&#xD;&#xA;But if there are two many, I can split this into a separate question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12593" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4182" RevisionGUID="77cec553-1603-45dd-b951-9ae338dd173c" CreationDate="2017-04-24T02:32:12.180" UserId="79" Text="How is the supine related to the derived fourth declension noun?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12594" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4182" RevisionGUID="77cec553-1603-45dd-b951-9ae338dd173c" CreationDate="2017-04-24T02:32:12.180" UserId="79" Text="|language-evolution|derivation|morphology|supinum|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4181" RevisionGUID="72fc5b2d-c651-4965-9b2e-08de4c191383" CreationDate="2017-04-24T08:20:58.873" UserId="118" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="**Unus multorum** means &quot;one of many&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I gather that the phrase is comparable to &quot;average Joe&quot; in English, or &quot;just one of the crowd&quot;—the opposite of the uniqueness conveyed by _sui generis._ My Latin is not that solid; hopefully someone more knowledgeable will correct or confirm this. [This 1814 dictionary](https://books.google.com/books?id=8xNgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA812&amp;dq=%22unus+multorum%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi91c7_7bvTAhXs4IMKHelVAWwQuwUIQTAE#v=onepage&amp;q=%22unus%20multorum%22&amp;f=false) reports:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **unus multorum et de multis**, is said of one, who is not distinguished for any thing, one of the vulgar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People have occasionally used **Unus multorum** as a [pseudonym](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22unus+multorum%22+pseudonym&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;gws_rd=ssl#q=%22unus+multorum%22+pseudonym&amp;tbm=bks) when they wanted to publish something anonymously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its most famous ancient use is probably in Horace's 9th Satire. Horace has encountered a bore while walking, and he can't get rid of him. They bump into Aristius Fuscus, a friend of Horace's. Horace tries to hint that Fuscus could save him from the bore. Fuscus, somewhat laughingly, isn't going along with it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Certe, nescio quid, secreto velle loqui te&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;aiebas mecum.&quot; &quot;Memini bene, sed meliori&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;tempore dicam: hodie tricesima sabbata, vin tu&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;curtis Iudaeis oppedere?&quot; &quot;Nulla mihi,&quot; inquam,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;&quot;religio est.&quot; &quot;At mi, sum paulo infirmior, **unus**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;**multorum**. Ignosces, alias loquar.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace: &quot;I can't remember what it was, but I'm sure you were saying you wanted to talk about something with me in private.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fuscus: &quot;I remember it well, but I'll tell you at a better time: today is Passover [specifically, a day when Jewish tradition forbids discussing business]. You wouldn't want to blow a fart at the circumcized Jews, would you?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace: &quot;I've got no worries about that.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fuscus: &quot;Well, I do. I'm not so strong-minded as you, I'm **like most people**. You'll forgive me, I'll talk at another time.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that **unus** is masculine. The feminine and neuter are **una multorum** and **unum multorum** respectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4181" RevisionGUID="9ea65d60-a752-4247-86da-56bc78a2523b" CreationDate="2017-04-24T08:28:38.703" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="**Unus multorum** means &quot;one of many&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I gather that the phrase is comparable to &quot;average Joe&quot; in English, or &quot;just one of the crowd&quot;—the opposite of the uniqueness conveyed by _sui generis._ My Latin is not that solid; hopefully someone more knowledgeable will correct or confirm this. [This 1814 dictionary](https://books.google.com/books?id=8xNgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA812&amp;dq=%22unus+multorum%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi91c7_7bvTAhXs4IMKHelVAWwQuwUIQTAE#v=onepage&amp;q=%22unus%20multorum%22&amp;f=false) reports:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **unus multorum et de multis**, is said of one, who is not distinguished for any thing, one of the vulgar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People have occasionally used **Unus multorum** as a [pseudonym](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22unus+multorum%22+pseudonym&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;gws_rd=ssl#q=%22unus+multorum%22+pseudonym&amp;tbm=bks) when they wanted to publish something anonymously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its most famous ancient use is probably in Horace's 9th Satire. Horace has encountered a bore while walking, and he can't get rid of him. They bump into Aristius Fuscus, a friend of Horace's. Horace tries to hint that Fuscus could save him from the bore. Fuscus, somewhat laughingly, isn't going along with it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Certe, nescio quid, secreto velle loqui te&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;aiebas mecum.&quot; &quot;Memini bene, sed meliori&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;tempore dicam: hodie tricesima sabbata, vin tu&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;curtis Iudaeis oppedere?&quot; &quot;Nulla mihi,&quot; inquam,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;&quot;religio est.&quot; &quot;At mi, sum paulo infirmior, **unus**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;**multorum**. Ignosces, alias loquar.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace: &quot;I can't remember what it was, but I'm sure you were saying you wanted to talk about something with me in private.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fuscus: &quot;I remember it well, but I'll tell you at a better time: today is Passover [specifically, a day when Jewish tradition forbids discussing business]. You wouldn't want to blow a fart at the circumcized Jews, would you?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace: &quot;I've got no worries about that.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fuscus: &quot;Well, I do. I'm not so strong-minded as you, I'm **like most people**. You'll forgive me, I'll talk some other time.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that **unus** is masculine. The feminine and neuter are **una multorum** and **unum multorum** respectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4181" RevisionGUID="d9d4d940-f17b-4e11-80d7-b852b551e791" CreationDate="2017-04-24T14:41:51.087" UserId="118" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="**Unus multorum** means &quot;one of many&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I gather that the phrase is comparable to &quot;average Joe&quot; in English, or &quot;just one of the crowd&quot;—the opposite of the uniqueness conveyed by _sui generis._ My Latin is not that solid; hopefully someone more knowledgeable will correct or confirm this. [This 1814 dictionary](https://books.google.com/books?id=8xNgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA812&amp;dq=%22unus+multorum%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi91c7_7bvTAhXs4IMKHelVAWwQuwUIQTAE#v=onepage&amp;q=%22unus%20multorum%22&amp;f=false) reports:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **unus multorum et de multis**, is said of one, who is not distinguished for any thing, one of the vulgar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People have occasionally used **Unus multorum** as a [pseudonym](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22unus+multorum%22+pseudonym&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;gws_rd=ssl#q=%22unus+multorum%22+pseudonym&amp;tbm=bks) when they wanted to publish something anonymously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its most famous ancient use is probably in Horace's 9th Satire. Horace has encountered a bore while walking, and he can't get rid of him. They bump into Aristius Fuscus, a friend of Horace's. Horace tries to hint that Fuscus could save him from the bore. Fuscus, somewhat laughingly, isn't going along with it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Certe, nescio quid, secreto velle loqui te&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;aiebas mecum.&quot; &quot;Memini bene, sed meliori&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;tempore dicam: hodie tricesima sabbata, vin tu&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;curtis Iudaeis oppedere?&quot; &quot;Nulla mihi,&quot; inquam,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;&quot;religio est.&quot; &quot;At mi, sum paulo infirmior, **unus**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;**multorum**. Ignosces, alias loquar.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace: &quot;I can't remember what it was, but I'm sure you were saying you wanted to talk about something with me in private.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fuscus: &quot;I remember it well, but I'll tell you at a better time: today is Passover [more precisely, a day when Jewish tradition forbids discussing business]. You wouldn't want to blow a fart at the circumcised Jews, would you?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace: &quot;I've got no worries about that.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fuscus: &quot;Well, I do. I'm not so strong-minded as you, I'm **like most people**. You'll forgive me, I'll talk some other time.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that **unus** is masculine. The feminine and neuter are **una multorum** and **unum multorum** respectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4183" RevisionGUID="e7507347-6aee-4a20-ba25-ed39f1691d5a" CreationDate="2017-04-24T23:12:14.313" UserId="40" Text="I'm trying to puzzle out the syntax of a passage from Dionysius of Halicarnassus' *Demosthenes* ([chapter 2](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0580%3Achapter%3D2)). Dionysius is talking about styles of speech (λέξις), and has just finished discussing the first of three styles, the &quot;high&quot; style of Thucydides and others. Moving on to the second, he says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἡ δὲ ἑτέρα λέξις ἡ λιτὴ καὶ ἀφελὴς **καὶ δοκοῦσα κατασκευήν τε καὶ ἰσχὺν τὴν πρὸς ἰδιώτην ἔχειν λόγον καὶ ὁμοιότητα** πολλοὺς μὲν ἔσχε καὶ ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας προστάτας συγγραφεῖς τε καὶ φιλοσόφους καὶ ῥήτορας. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've boldfaced the part I find puzzling. The stuff before and after it is straightforward:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The second (style of) speech, the plain and simple and ..., has had many worthy proponents, historians and philosophers and orators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about &quot;καὶ δοκοῦσα κατασκευήν τε καὶ ἰσχὺν τὴν πρὸς ἰδιώτην ἔχειν λόγον καὶ ὁμοιότητα&quot;? It's clearly meant as a third attribute of this style: the one which &quot;seems&quot; (δοκοῦσα) to... well, to do something involving &quot;artistry and power&quot; (κατασκευήν τε καὶ ἰσχὺν), &quot;to a layman&quot; (πρὸς ἰδιώτην), &quot;speech&quot; (λόγον) and &quot;similarity&quot; (ὁμοιότητα), but how to put these together?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stephen Usher, in the Loeb edition, brackets the καί of καὶ ὁμοιότητα, emending in effect to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἡ δὲ ἑτέρα λέξις ἡ λιτὴ καὶ ἀφελὴς καὶ δοκοῦσα κατασκευήν τε καὶ ἰσχὺν τὴν πρὸς ἰδιώτην ἔχειν λόγον ὁμοιότητα πολλοὺς μὲν ἔσχε καὶ ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας προστάτας συγγραφεῖς τε καὶ φιλοσόφους καὶ ῥήτορας.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His translation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The second kind of style is plain and simple. Its artistry and power seem to consist in its resemblance to the language of ordinary speech. This style had many successful exponents among the historians, the philosophers and the orators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation is syntactically quite free, and I don't understand how he gets &quot;Its artistry and power seem to consist in its resemblance to the language of ordinary speech&quot; from &quot;δοκοῦσα κατασκευήν τε καὶ ἰσχὺν τὴν πρὸς ἰδιώτην ἔχειν λόγον ὁμοιότητα&quot;. Also, Usener's Teubner edition does not bracket the καἰ or make any other emendations (or mark the passage as corrupt), so Usener must have seen a reading for the passage as it stands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12600" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4183" RevisionGUID="e7507347-6aee-4a20-ba25-ed39f1691d5a" CreationDate="2017-04-24T23:12:14.313" UserId="40" Text="Syntax of a Greek passage from Dionysius of Halicarnassus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12601" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4183" RevisionGUID="e7507347-6aee-4a20-ba25-ed39f1691d5a" CreationDate="2017-04-24T23:12:14.313" UserId="40" Text="|greek|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4184" RevisionGUID="e14d38b2-33d5-4e8d-a6a6-3fb966f4a43c" CreationDate="2017-04-24T23:58:54.300" UserId="45" Text="Great question! After some staring, I think I've realized the key to translating this passage: ***ἰδιώτην* is being used as an adjective modifying *λόγον***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This usage is confirmed by [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Di\)diw%2Fths)...citing this very passage!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A.II.3.: as Adj., ἰ. βίος private station, Pl.R.578c; **ἰ. λόγος everyday speech, D.H.Dem.2**, cf. Longin.31.2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how I would conceptualize the syntactic units:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *δοκοῦσα...ἔχειν*: seeming to have&#xD;&#xA;* *κατασκευήν τε καὶ ἰσχὺν...καὶ ὁμοιότητα*: the artistry, power, and likeness&#xD;&#xA;* *τὴν πρὸς ἰδιώτην...λόγον*: found in everyday speech&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see the *τὴν* as introducing an adjectival prepositional phrase in the attributive position: although it is singular and directly applied only to *ἰσχὺν*, it seems fairly clear (especially from *ὁμοιότητα*) that it is meant to apply to all three nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plugging this in to your translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The second (style of) speech [is] plain and simple, **seeming to have the artistry, power, and likeness characteristic of everyday speech**, [and] has had many worthy proponents, historians and philosophers and orators." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4185" RevisionGUID="7a8e5fa7-47ec-4a91-af62-eb1752f57769" CreationDate="2017-04-25T00:35:20.657" UserDisplayName="user1466" Text="*Sed haec hactenus* might be a useful phrase.  Cicero ended at least a few of his letters to Atticus with this phrase.  &quot;But enough of these things.&quot;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4186" RevisionGUID="84f295b3-93da-47f5-af43-4a01e38c6ba1" CreationDate="2017-04-25T01:25:50.427" UserDisplayName="user1466" Text="There **is** a community of Latin speakers, but its members aren't found in any one place, except for one weekend in February in New York City at Fordham University.  Latinists from around the world participate.  Lectures, classes and socializing are all done in Latin.  You can even do a class with spoken ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you want an intensive experience of spoken Latin, you might want to attend the **Living Latin in NYC** conference organized by the Paideia Institute.  The presenters are all fluent and many of the attendees are as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I attended a few years ago.  If you read Latin, you will begin to understand spoken Latin almost immediately.  It is a lot of fun, though it can be tiring. Classes are based on level of experience with spoken Latin.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.paideiainstitute.org/living_latin_in_new_york_city&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a lecture, *De iucunditate et utilitate Auli Gelii Noctium Atticarum* from that conference, probably for students who are somewhat advanced, but it helps you understand what it's like to have Latin in your ear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku2ApYHb4Ac&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4186" RevisionGUID="b723fc93-8c11-4a9e-b512-b00203a0d016" CreationDate="2017-04-25T01:48:46.093" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="edited body" Text="There **is** a community of Latin speakers, but its members aren't found in any one place, except for one weekend in February in New York City at Fordham University.  Latinists from around the world participate.  Lectures, classes and socializing are all done in Latin.  You can even take a class in spoken ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you want an immersive experience of spoken Latin, you might want to attend the **Living Latin in NYC** conference organized by the Paideia Institute.  The presenters are all fluent and many of the attendees are as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I attended a few years ago.  If you read Latin, you will begin to understand spoken Latin almost immediately.  It is a lot of fun, though it can be tiring. Classes are based on level of experience with spoken Latin.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.paideiainstitute.org/living_latin_in_new_york_city&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a lecture, *De iucunditate et utilitate Auli Gelii Noctium Atticarum* from that conference, probably for students who are somewhat advanced, but it helps you understand what it's like to have Latin in your ear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku2ApYHb4Ac&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4186" RevisionGUID="ea16f86e-9caa-4726-a474-13c5ccd5b1ee" CreationDate="2017-04-25T03:17:08.220" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="There are many immersive living Latin programs in the United States and Europe.  I am not sure about elsewhere.  These communities of teachers and learners do form places where you can experience Latin as a modern spoken language in the way that seems to interests. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The annual Living Latin in NYC conference is an example of a weekend gathering with lectures, classes and socializing all done in Latin.  You can even take a class in spoken ancient Greek.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.paideiainstitute.org/living_latin_in_new_york_city&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this, there are other organizations promoting similar experiences of speaking Latin as a modern language.  The North American listings for such events and programs can be found at the [North American Institute of Living Latin website][1]  In Europe Luigi Miraglia is well known for his programs at the [Accademia Vivarum Novum][2] in Italy, including an international summer school.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps, others will add to my answer with knowledge of these communities of Latin speakers who gather in various ways and times to learn and experience the Latin language in this deep and lively way.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.org/wordpress/events/list/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://vivariumnovum.net/en/summer-school" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4186" RevisionGUID="42984511-5879-4bff-a748-70a3a97cea98" CreationDate="2017-04-25T03:24:03.437" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="There are many immersive living Latin programs in the United States and Europe.  I am not sure about elsewhere.  These communities of teachers and learners do form places where you can experience Latin as a modern spoken language in the way that seems to interest you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The annual Living Latin in NYC conference is an example of a weekend gathering with lectures, classes and socializing all done in Latin.  You can even take a class in spoken ancient Greek. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.paideiainstitute.org/living_latin_in_new_york_city&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a lecture in Latin *De iucunditate et utilitate Auli Gelii Noctium Atticarum* from that conference to get a sense of what it's like to have Latin in your ear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku2ApYHb4Ac&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this, there are other organizations promoting similar experiences of speaking Latin as a modern language.  The North American listings for such events and programs can be found at the [North American Institute of Living Latin website][1]  In Europe Luigi Miraglia is well known for his programs at the [Accademia Vivarum Novum][2] in Italy, including an international summer school.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps, others will add to my answer with knowledge of these communities of Latin speakers who gather in various ways and times to learn and experience the Latin language in this deep and lively way.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.org/wordpress/events/list/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://vivariumnovum.net/en/summer-school" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4186" RevisionGUID="395d5d68-697c-4e98-b597-46b7ca312b6c" CreationDate="2017-04-25T04:00:40.147" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="There are many immersive living Latin programs in the United States and Europe.  I am not sure about elsewhere.  These communities of teachers and learners do form places where you can experience Latin as a modern spoken language in the way that seems to interest you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The annual Living Latin in NYC conference is an example of a weekend gathering with lectures, classes and socializing all done in Latin.  You can even take a class in spoken ancient Greek. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.paideiainstitute.org/living_latin_in_new_york_city&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a lecture in Latin *De iucunditate et utilitate Auli Gelii Noctium Atticarum* from that conference to get a sense of what it's like to have Latin in your ear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku2ApYHb4Ac&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this, there are other organizations promoting similar experiences of speaking Latin as a modern language.  The North American listings for such events and programs can be found at the [North American Institute of Living Latin website][1]  In Europe Luigi Miraglia is well known for his programs at the [Accademia Vivarum Novum][2] in Italy, including an international summer school.  Reginald Foster is well known as a major influence of many of these experts.  He teaches [a summer program][3] in Milwaukee. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps, others will add to my answer with knowledge of these communities of Latin speakers who gather in various ways and times to learn and experience the Latin language in this deep and lively way.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.org/wordpress/events/list/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://vivariumnovum.net/en/summer-school&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://thelatinlanguage.org/aestiva-mmxiv/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4187" RevisionGUID="0329e83a-3d00-4627-9781-842203c6de5a" CreationDate="2017-04-25T17:48:51.357" UserId="1477" Text="Can ire be used in this way? &quot;Iosaphatum salutem ite.&quot; (I go to Iosephat for shelter)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12611" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4187" RevisionGUID="0329e83a-3d00-4627-9781-842203c6de5a" CreationDate="2017-04-25T17:48:51.357" UserId="1477" Text="Is this correct at all: Iosaphatum salutem ite" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12612" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4187" RevisionGUID="0329e83a-3d00-4627-9781-842203c6de5a" CreationDate="2017-04-25T17:48:51.357" UserId="1477" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12613" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4187" RevisionGUID="54a72363-66f8-4d9e-a877-3a1f49304e90" CreationDate="2017-04-25T17:55:10.893" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Is &quot;ire&quot; used correctly here? &quot;Iosaphatum salutem ite.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12614" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4187" RevisionGUID="54a72363-66f8-4d9e-a877-3a1f49304e90" CreationDate="2017-04-25T17:55:10.893" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|vocabulary|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4187" RevisionGUID="54a72363-66f8-4d9e-a877-3a1f49304e90" CreationDate="2017-04-25T17:55:10.893" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Can *ire* be used in this way? &quot;Iosaphatum salutem ite.&quot; (I go to Iosephat for shelter)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4187" RevisionGUID="4d8255e9-a45e-4e61-b0b2-8217b97a21e7" CreationDate="2017-04-25T17:56:40.047" UserId="1477" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="Can *ire* be used in this way? &quot;Iosaphatum salutem ite.&quot; (I go to Iosephat for shelter). Furthermore, is the two accusatives correct? This sentence is based on a Sanskrit construction, and I do not know if Latin can do this in the way that Sanskrit can." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12617" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4187" RevisionGUID="194991ef-d4b6-4317-ac86-4168648f9073" CreationDate="2017-04-25T18:49:46.890" UserId="1477" Comment="adding information about accusatives to the tags" Text="|vocabulary|verbs|accusative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4188" RevisionGUID="4abd367f-df5f-473b-9343-e730dc0ebe07" CreationDate="2017-04-25T19:25:15.310" UserId="118" Text="&quot;I go&quot; is **eō**. _Īte_ is the plural imperative: &quot;Go, y'all!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin verbs do take two accusatives, like _dīcō,_ &quot;I say&quot;, but I haven't seen that with _īre_. Possibly you could put _salūs_ into the dative, **salūtī**, the &quot;[dative of purpose](https://books.google.com/books?id=CBsXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA237&amp;dq=%22dative+of+the+purpose+or+end%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjDoffbqcDTAhUo5IMKHcKLC-8QuwUIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22dative%20of%20the%20purpose%20or%20end%22&amp;f=false)&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iosephum saluti eo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on a quick search, I don't see _Iōsēphātum_ attested much as an accusative for _Iōsēphus._ **Iōsēphum** seems to be more standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't accept this answer. I have only a beginner's proficency in Latin. There are probably better ways to word your Latin paraphrase of &quot;Buddhaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi&quot;: different word choices that might echo the Latin tradition more poetically or more clearly. Someone with more knowledge of that tradition can probably give you a better answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4188" RevisionGUID="384bd292-4fa8-4427-bf10-dd18d14ba87a" CreationDate="2017-04-25T19:36:16.370" UserId="118" Comment="added 420 characters in body" Text="&quot;I go&quot; is **eō**. _Īte_ is the plural imperative: &quot;Go, y'all!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin verbs do take two accusatives, like _dīcō,_ &quot;I tell [person] [what I say]&quot;, but I haven't seen that with _īre_. Possibly you could put _salūs_ into the dative, **salūtī**, the &quot;[dative of purpose](https://books.google.com/books?id=CBsXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA237&amp;dq=%22dative+of+the+purpose+or+end%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjDoffbqcDTAhUo5IMKHcKLC-8QuwUIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22dative%20of%20the%20purpose%20or%20end%22&amp;f=false)&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iosephum saluti eo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on a quick search, I don't see _Iōsēphātum_ attested much as an accusative for _Iōsēphus._ **Iōsēphum** seems to be more standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't accept this answer. I have only a beginner's proficency in Latin. There are probably better ways to word a Latin paraphrase of &quot;Buddhaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi&quot;: different word choices that might echo the Latin tradition more poetically or more clearly. For example, _salūs_ might be perfect, due to its use in Christianity for &quot;salvation&quot;, but a more literal translation of [śaraṇaṃ](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/शरण#Noun_4), like [perfugium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=perfugium), might convey the meaning better. Someone with more knowledge of that tradition can probably give you a better answer. A really good answer might even illustrate the word choices with a passage or two from the Latin literature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4188" RevisionGUID="4bd6a5ce-49a8-4557-a74b-9459f552a7af" CreationDate="2017-04-25T19:44:10.277" UserId="118" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="&quot;I go&quot; is **eō**. _Īte_ is the plural imperative: &quot;Go, y'all!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin verbs do take two accusatives, like _dīcō,_ &quot;I tell [person] [what I say]&quot;, but I haven't seen that with _īre_. Possibly you could put _salūs_ into the dative, **salūtī**, the &quot;[dative of purpose](https://books.google.com/books?id=CBsXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA237&amp;dq=%22dative+of+the+purpose+or+end%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjDoffbqcDTAhUo5IMKHcKLC-8QuwUIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22dative%20of%20the%20purpose%20or%20end%22&amp;f=false)&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iosephum saluti eo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on a quick search, I don't see _Iōsēphātum_ attested much as an accusative for _Iōsēphus._ **Iōsēphum** seems to be more standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't accept this answer. I have only a beginner's proficency in Latin. There are probably better ways to word a Latin paraphrase of &quot;Buddhaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi&quot;: different word choices that might echo the Latin tradition more poetically or more clearly. For example, _salūs_ might be perfect, due to its use in Christianity for &quot;salvation&quot;, but a more literal translation of [śaraṇaṃ](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/शरण#Noun_4), like [perfugium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=perfugium), might convey the meaning better. Someone with more knowledge of that tradition can probably give you a better answer. A really good answer might even illustrate the word choices with a passage or two from the Latin literature to illustrate their connotations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4189" RevisionGUID="e6bbe6d8-3074-4c6c-b175-d390a6866358" CreationDate="2017-04-25T19:54:01.590" UserId="79" Text="I would not use a single plain accusative with *ire* in cases like this.&#xD;&#xA;I am not familiar with the name Iosephat, so I cannot comment on its declension, but it looks natural to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *ire* is mostly used intransitively.&#xD;&#xA;As in English, a preposition is needed: *ad Iosephatum ire* is &quot;to go to Iosephat&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Alterinatively, the compound verb *adire* can be used transitively, so *Iosephatum adire* means (almost) the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;The simplest way to say &quot;I go to Iosephat&quot; is *ad Iosephatum eo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate &quot;for shelter&quot; as *salutis causa* (genitive and ablative, &quot;for the reason of safety&quot;) if you want to use *salus*.&#xD;&#xA;*Salus* refers to the state of safety, not to a place.&#xD;&#xA;If you want &quot;shelter&quot; to be a physical safe place, then I would use something like *confugium*, *tectum*, or *tutum*.&#xD;&#xA;For a religious tone, also *ara* is also possible.&#xD;&#xA;Any of these words needs to be in genitive: *congugii, tecti, tuti*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I would translate you phrase as *ad Iosephatum salutis causa eo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also do other things for a different tone.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *ad Iosephatum fuga eo*, &quot;I go to Iosephat as a refugee&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4187" RevisionGUID="bf947d86-b97e-44a9-b763-ce6b336a4572" CreationDate="2017-04-25T19:57:20.760" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="Can *ire* be used in this way? &quot;Iosaphatum salutem ite.&quot; (I go to Iosephat for shelter.) Furthermore, is the two accusatives correct? This sentence is based on a Sanskrit construction, and I do not know if Latin can do this in the way that Sanskrit can." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12623" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4187" RevisionGUID="bf947d86-b97e-44a9-b763-ce6b336a4572" CreationDate="2017-04-25T19:57:20.760" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|grammar-choice|verbs|syntax|accusative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4188" RevisionGUID="7d73af73-f421-47c8-b2e5-7b664f900df4" CreationDate="2017-04-25T19:59:50.090" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 138 characters in body" Text="&quot;I go&quot; is **eō**. _Īte_ is the plural imperative: &quot;Go, y'all!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin verbs do take two accusatives, like _dīcō,_ &quot;I tell [person] [what I say]&quot;, but I haven't seen that with _īre_. Possibly you could put _salūs_ into the dative, **salūtī**, the &quot;[dative of purpose](https://books.google.com/books?id=CBsXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA237&amp;dq=%22dative+of+the+purpose+or+end%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjDoffbqcDTAhUo5IMKHcKLC-8QuwUIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22dative%20of%20the%20purpose%20or%20end%22&amp;f=false)&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iosephatum saluti eo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't accept this answer. I have only a beginner's proficency in Latin. There are probably better ways to word a Latin paraphrase of &quot;Buddhaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi&quot;: different word choices that might echo the Latin tradition more poetically or more clearly. For example, _salūs_ might be perfect, due to its use in Christianity for &quot;salvation&quot;, but a more literal translation of [śaraṇaṃ](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/शरण#Noun_4), like [perfugium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=perfugium), might convey the meaning better. Someone with more knowledge of that tradition can probably give you a better answer. A really good answer might even illustrate the word choices with a passage or two from the Latin literature to illustrate their connotations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4188" RevisionGUID="a274c97e-4cc1-4bef-b8d4-e89f3b557cb7" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:05:33.737" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="&quot;I go&quot; is **eō**. _Īte_ is the plural imperative: &quot;Go, y'all!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin verbs do take two accusatives, like _dīcō,_ &quot;I tell [person] [what I say]&quot;, but I haven't seen that with _īre_. Possibly you could put _salūs_ into the dative, **salūtī**, the &quot;[dative of purpose](https://books.google.com/books?id=CBsXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA237&amp;dq=%22dative+of+the+purpose+or+end%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjDoffbqcDTAhUo5IMKHcKLC-8QuwUIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22dative%20of%20the%20purpose%20or%20end%22&amp;f=false)&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iosaphatum saluti eo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't accept this answer. I have only a beginner's proficency in Latin. There are probably better ways to word a Latin paraphrase of &quot;Buddhaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi&quot;: different word choices that might echo the Latin tradition more poetically or more clearly. For example, _salūs_ might be perfect, due to its use in Christianity for &quot;salvation&quot;, but a more literal translation of [śaraṇaṃ](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/शरण#Noun_4), like [perfugium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=perfugium), might convey the meaning better. Someone with more knowledge of that tradition can probably give you a better answer. A really good answer might even illustrate the word choices with a passage or two from the Latin literature to illustrate their connotations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4189" RevisionGUID="6b4f245f-8a30-4d7a-9ebc-ca747650abad" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:07:50.467" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="I would not use a single plain accusative with *ire* in cases like this.&#xD;&#xA;As per Ben Kovitz's comment, I will refer to the person as Jehosaphat in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *ire* is mostly used intransitively.&#xD;&#xA;As in English, a preposition is needed: *ad Iosaphatum ire* is &quot;to go to Jehosaphat&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Alterinatively, the compound verb *adire* can be used transitively, so *Iosaphatum adire* means (almost) the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;The simplest way to say &quot;I go to Jehosaphat&quot; is *ad Iosaphatum eo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate &quot;for shelter&quot; as *salutis causa* (genitive and ablative, &quot;for the reason of safety&quot;) if you want to use *salus*.&#xD;&#xA;*Salus* refers to the state of safety, not to a place.&#xD;&#xA;If you want &quot;shelter&quot; to be a physical safe place, then I would use something like *confugium*, *tectum*, or *tutum*.&#xD;&#xA;For a religious tone, also *ara* is also possible.&#xD;&#xA;Any of these words needs to be in genitive: *congugii, tecti, tuti*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I would translate you phrase as *ad Iosaphatum salutis causa eo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also do other things for a different tone.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *ad Iosaphatum fuga eo*, &quot;I go to Jehosaphat as a refugee&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4190" RevisionGUID="1730b754-62f2-4caa-b955-5c7453542030" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:21:23.240" UserId="1477" Text="Can any verb which means &quot;to go (to somewhere)&quot; be used in a double-accusative construction? Like dīcō?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I use any particular verb for &quot;to go&quot; preceded by two accusatives and have the sentence be grammatical?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12628" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4190" RevisionGUID="1730b754-62f2-4caa-b955-5c7453542030" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:21:23.240" UserId="1477" Text="Can any verb which means &quot;to go (to somewhere)&quot; be used in a double-accusative construction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12629" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4190" RevisionGUID="1730b754-62f2-4caa-b955-5c7453542030" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:21:23.240" UserId="1477" Text="|verbs|accusative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4188" RevisionGUID="7df821e7-4351-4142-a223-da691502a1a5" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:26:59.570" UserId="118" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="&quot;I go&quot; is **eō**. _Īte_ is the plural imperative: &quot;Go, y'all!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin verbs do take [two accusatives](https://books.google.com/books?id=CBsXAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22dative%20of%20the%20purpose%20or%20end%22&amp;pg=PA244#v=onepage&amp;q=%22two%20accusatives%22&amp;f=false), like _dīcō,_ &quot;I tell [person] [what I say]&quot;, but I haven't seen that with _īre_. Possibly you could put _salūs_ into the dative, **salūtī**, the &quot;[dative of purpose](https://books.google.com/books?id=CBsXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA237&amp;dq=%22dative+of+the+purpose+or+end%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjDoffbqcDTAhUo5IMKHcKLC-8QuwUIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22dative%20of%20the%20purpose%20or%20end%22&amp;f=false)&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iosaphatum saluti eo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't accept this answer. I have only a beginner's proficency in Latin. There are probably better ways to word a Latin paraphrase of &quot;Buddhaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi&quot;: different word choices that might echo the Latin tradition more poetically or more clearly. For example, _salūs_ might be perfect, due to its use in Christianity for &quot;salvation&quot;, but a more literal translation of [śaraṇaṃ](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/शरण#Noun_4), like [perfugium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=perfugium), might convey the meaning better. Someone with more knowledge of that tradition can probably give you a better answer. A really good answer might even illustrate the word choices with a passage or two from the Latin literature to illustrate their connotations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4188" RevisionGUID="b20a78d6-4fe9-4161-9b44-b51300285065" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:53:28.610" UserId="118" Comment="added 259 characters in body" Text="&quot;I go&quot; is **eō**. _Īte_ is the plural imperative: &quot;Go, y'all!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin verbs do take [two accusatives](https://books.google.com/books?id=CBsXAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22dative%20of%20the%20purpose%20or%20end%22&amp;pg=PA244#v=onepage&amp;q=%22two%20accusatives%22&amp;f=false), like _dīcō,_ &quot;I tell [person] [what I say]&quot;, but I don't think that works with _īre_ because it doesn't naturally have two things that could serve as its object. Consequently, in this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iosaphatum salutem eo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_salūtem_ will be understood as an appositive: &quot;I go to Buddha the salvation&quot; or &quot;I go to Buddha as salvation.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly you could put _salūs_ into the dative, **salūtī**, the &quot;[dative of purpose](https://books.google.com/books?id=CBsXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA237&amp;dq=%22dative+of+the+purpose+or+end%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjDoffbqcDTAhUo5IMKHcKLC-8QuwUIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22dative%20of%20the%20purpose%20or%20end%22&amp;f=false)&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iosaphatum saluti eo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't accept this answer. I have only a beginner's proficency in Latin. There are probably better ways to word a Latin paraphrase of &quot;Buddhaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi&quot;: different word choices that might echo the Latin tradition more poetically or more clearly. For example, _salūs_ might be perfect, due to its use in Christianity for &quot;salvation&quot;, but a more literal translation of [śaraṇaṃ](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/शरण#Noun_4), like [perfugium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=perfugium), might convey the meaning better. Someone with more knowledge of that tradition can probably give you a better answer. A really good answer might even illustrate the word choices with a passage or two from the Latin literature to illustrate their connotations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4191" RevisionGUID="daef7060-3fc4-4905-abe6-35cd984081bd" CreationDate="2017-04-25T21:12:05.127" UserId="45" Text="I suspect you are referring to a specific construction, the so-called double accusative, as described, for instance, in [Bennett's New Latin Grammar #178](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect178):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some Verbs take two Accusatives, one of the Person Affected, the other of the Result Produced&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a construction only works with certain specific verbs, such as *rogo, postulo, posco, oro,* and *celo*. **If you are referring to this specific construction, the answer is no. *Ire* cannot take two accusative direct objects for the same reason that it cannot take one: it is intransitive.** (There is one &quot;cognate accusative&quot; which is a quasi-exception: see below.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answering your literal question more broadly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can I use any particular verb for &quot;to go&quot; preceded by two accusatives and have the sentence be grammatical?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is an emphatic yes! Even if we assume that you mean &quot;stand-alone accusatives&quot; (excluding an example like *apud eum eo*), here are some combinations I can imagine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Accusative of Motion + Supine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Eo Romam lusum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt;sup&gt;I go to Rome to play.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Accusative of Duration + &quot;Cognate Accusative&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Tres dies vias ibam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt;sup&gt;I went through the streets for three days.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;Vias ire&quot; means &quot;to go through the streets&quot;: it's the closest you'll get to a &quot;direct object&quot; for *ire*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other possibilities (such as an accusative in opposition) are readily imaginable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4191" RevisionGUID="6494ad38-558c-40dc-a4c0-491e0debb57c" CreationDate="2017-04-25T21:22:19.173" UserId="45" Comment="edited body" Text="I suspect you are referring to a specific construction, the so-called double accusative, as described, for instance, in [Bennett's New Latin Grammar #178](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect178):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some Verbs take two Accusatives, one of the Person Affected, the other of the Result Produced&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a construction only works with certain specific verbs, such as *rogo, postulo, posco, oro,* and *celo*. **If you are referring to this specific construction, the answer is no. *Ire* cannot take two accusative direct objects for the same reason that it cannot take one: it is intransitive.** (There is one &quot;cognate accusative&quot; which is a quasi-exception: see below.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answering your literal question more broadly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can I use any particular verb for &quot;to go&quot; preceded by two accusatives and have the sentence be grammatical?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is an emphatic yes! Even if we assume that you mean &quot;stand-alone accusatives&quot; (excluding an example like *apud eum eo*), here are some combinations I can imagine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Accusative of Motion + Supine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Eo Romam lusum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt;sup&gt;I go to Rome to play.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Accusative of Duration + &quot;Cognate Accusative&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Tres dies vias ibam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt;sup&gt;I went through the streets for three days.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;Vias ire&quot; means &quot;to go through the streets&quot;: it's the closest you'll get to a &quot;direct object&quot; for *ire*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other possibilities (such as an accusative in apposition) are readily imaginable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4192" RevisionGUID="9452cd86-c406-4f56-a186-3e753cf254b9" CreationDate="2017-04-25T21:52:27.657" UserId="118" Text="I found a [couple](https://books.google.com/books?id=2X0HAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA50&amp;dq=%22quo+nullum+majus+est%22+linnaeus&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj-56S_wcDTAhUS84MKHdKrDu8QuwUIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22quo%20nullum%20majus%20est%22%20linnaeus&amp;f=false) [books](https://books.google.com/books?id=ETAVAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tanto%20igitur%20magis%20nosse%22&amp;pg=PA295#v=onepage&amp;q=%22quo%20nullum%20majus%20est%22&amp;f=false) [that](https://books.google.com/books?id=tQktAAAAIAAJ&amp;dq=%22quo+nullum+majus+est%22+linnaeus&amp;focus=searchwithinvolume&amp;q=%22quo+nullum+majus+est%22) quote the introduction to the _Systema Naturæ_ thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tanto igitur magis nosse naturam operæ pretium, quo nullum majus est!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Linnaeus [actually wrote](https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_Ix0AAAAAQAAJ):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tanto igitur magis nosse Naturam operæ pretium, quo nullum **magis** est!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were they misquoting Linnaeus or correcting him?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is actually a Latin grammar question. I was googling for this sentence in hope of finding clues for how to parse it. I had originally misunderstood _Tanto igitur magis_ as &quot;So much greater, then, …&quot; That is, I had confused the adverb _magis_ with the adjective _maius._ Having sorted that out, I see the first _magis_ as part of the infinitive clause _magis nosse Naturam,_ &quot;to better know Nature&quot;. So now I'm thinking that the whole sentence means something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore such a great labor as to better know Nature is worthwhile, indeed nothing is more valuable!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the Latin plays on the idiom _operæ pretium est,_ it's hard to translate into English without radically rewriting it or losing something. Regardless of how to say it in English, this interpretation makes the second clause compare _nullum_ with _pretium_ (_quo_'s antecedent is _pretium_)—which seems to call for _maius,_ not _magis._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if _quo_'s antecedent is _operæ,_ then the sentence is saying that no labor is greater—which would agree with the emphasis from starting with _Tanto_ but still call (I think) for _maius._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how _do_ you parse Linnaeus's sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12635" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4192" RevisionGUID="9452cd86-c406-4f56-a186-3e753cf254b9" CreationDate="2017-04-25T21:52:27.657" UserId="118" Text="Misquoting Linnaeus or correcting him?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12636" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4192" RevisionGUID="9452cd86-c406-4f56-a186-3e753cf254b9" CreationDate="2017-04-25T21:52:27.657" UserId="118" Text="|grammar-choice|comparative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4192" RevisionGUID="20c268a6-6da7-407a-ab63-e23be279d4e9" CreationDate="2017-04-25T23:00:45.717" UserId="118" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="I found a [couple](https://books.google.com/books?id=2X0HAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA50&amp;dq=%22quo+nullum+majus+est%22+linnaeus&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj-56S_wcDTAhUS84MKHdKrDu8QuwUIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22quo%20nullum%20majus%20est%22%20linnaeus&amp;f=false) [books](https://books.google.com/books?id=ETAVAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tanto%20igitur%20magis%20nosse%22&amp;pg=PA295#v=onepage&amp;q=%22quo%20nullum%20majus%20est%22&amp;f=false) [that](https://books.google.com/books?id=tQktAAAAIAAJ&amp;dq=%22quo+nullum+majus+est%22+linnaeus&amp;focus=searchwithinvolume&amp;q=%22quo+nullum+majus+est%22) quote the introduction to the _Systema Naturæ_ thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tanto igitur magis nosse naturam operæ pretium, quo nullum majus est!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Linnaeus [actually wrote](https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_Ix0AAAAAQAAJ):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tanto igitur magis nosse Naturam operæ pretium, quo nullum **magis** est!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were they misquoting Linnaeus or correcting him?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is actually a Latin grammar question. I was googling for this sentence in hope of finding clues for how to parse it. I had originally misunderstood _Tanto igitur magis_ as &quot;So much greater, then, …&quot; That is, I had confused the adverb _magis_ with the adjective _maius._ Having sorted that out, I see the first _magis_ as part of the infinitive clause _magis nosse Naturam,_ &quot;to better know Nature&quot;. So now I'm thinking that the whole sentence means something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore such a great labor as to better know Nature is worthwhile, indeed nothing is more valuable!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the Latin plays on the idiom _operæ pretium est,_ it's hard to translate into English without radically rewriting it or losing something. Regardless of how to say it in English, this interpretation makes the second clause compare _nullum_ with _pretium_ (_quo_'s antecedent is _pretium_)—which seems to call for _maius,_ not _magis._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if _quo_'s antecedent is _operæ,_ then the sentence is saying that no labor is greater—which would agree with the emphasis from starting with _Tanto_ but still call (I think) for _maius._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or…does the choice of _magis_ vs. _maius_ disambiguate between possible comparisons?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how _do_ you parse Linnaeus's sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4193" RevisionGUID="6c7cd2d0-b43b-4cc2-94cc-d08ae4bb57f1" CreationDate="2017-04-25T23:26:14.110" UserId="79" Text="Suppose a person born and educated in Greece comes to ancient Rome.&#xD;&#xA;They have learned Latin and can converse fluently, but not at a native level.&#xD;&#xA;What kinds of wrong pronunciation, vocabulary, or structures would the Romans be likely to hear?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any ancient accounts of Greek idiosyncrasies in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I am not asking about anything borrowed from Greek to Latin, but the kinds of mistakes Greek made when speaking Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I often speak English with people of various origins, and there are often clear hints about the native language of the speaker.&#xD;&#xA;Similar hints must have existed and been observed in antiquity.&#xD;&#xA;I am mostly interested in (written accounts of) spoken language, but observations about written Latin are also welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same thing from a different point of view:&#xD;&#xA;If I were to write a story in Latin featuring a Greek character, what kinds of quirks should I add to their Latin to make them feel authentically Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12639" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4193" RevisionGUID="6c7cd2d0-b43b-4cc2-94cc-d08ae4bb57f1" CreationDate="2017-04-25T23:26:14.110" UserId="79" Text="Greek characteristics in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12640" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4193" RevisionGUID="6c7cd2d0-b43b-4cc2-94cc-d08ae4bb57f1" CreationDate="2017-04-25T23:26:14.110" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|greek|passage-request|spoken-language|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2747" RevisionGUID="e0b99eaa-0a64-4be7-a71a-71a67eb94447" CreationDate="2017-04-26T00:19:11.007" UserId="79" Comment="Rewrote the reference to the other answer." Text="I agree with C. M. Weimer's answer that no Latin translation of &quot;Χριστός&quot; was regularly used in a devotional context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a more explicitly worded Christian source from Isidore of Seville (c. 560 - 636) that translates the name as *Unctus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Multis etiam modis Christus appellari in scripturis invenitur divinis. Nam ipse Dei Patris Unigenitus filius, dum esset aequalis Patri, propter salutem nostram formam servi accepit. Proinde quaedam nomina in illo ex divinitatis substantia, quaedam ex dispensatione susceptae humanitatis adsumpta sunt. **Christus namque a chrismate est appellatus, hoc est unctus.** Praeceptum enim fuerat Iudaeis ut sacrum conficerent unguentum, quo perungui possent hi qui vocabantur ad sacerdotium vel ad regnum: et sicut nunc regibus indumentum purpurae insigne est regiae dignitatis, sic illis unctio sacri unguenti nomen ac potestatem regiam conferebat; et inde Christi dicti a chrismate, quod est unctio. Nam chrisma Graece, Latine unctio nuncupatur, quae etiam Domino nomen adcommodavit facta spiritalis, quia Spiritu unctus est a Deo Patre, sicut in Actibus Act. 4, 27: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; 'Collecti sunt enim in hac civitate adversus sanctum Filium tuum, quem unxisti': &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non utique oleo visibili, sed gratiae dono, quod visibili significatur unguento. Non est autem Salvatoris proprium nomen Christus, sed communis nuncupatio potestatis. Dum enim dicitur Christus, commune dignitatis nomen est; dum Iesus Christus, proprium est vocabulum Salvatoris. Christi autem nomen nusquam alibi omnino nec in aliqua gente fuit, nisi tantum in illo regno ubi Christus prophetabatur, et unde venturus erat. **Messias autem Hebraice dicitur, Graece Christus, Latina autem locutione unctus.** (Isidorus, *Etymologiae*, 7.2)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4188" RevisionGUID="5977d583-f4d8-4e5b-9c08-6beeb70f102d" CreationDate="2017-04-26T00:22:57.587" UserId="118" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="&quot;I go&quot; is **eō**. _Īte_ is the plural imperative: &quot;Go, y'all!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin verbs do take [two accusatives](https://books.google.com/books?id=CBsXAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22dative%20of%20the%20purpose%20or%20end%22&amp;pg=PA244#v=onepage&amp;q=%22two%20accusatives%22&amp;f=false), like _dīcō,_ &quot;I tell [person] [what I say]&quot;, or verbs of asking, like _rogō,_ &quot;I request [something] [someone].&quot; However, I don't think that works with _īre_ because it doesn't naturally have two things that could serve as its object. Consequently, in this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iosaphatum salutem eo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_salūtem_ will be understood as an appositive: &quot;I go to Buddha the salvation&quot; or &quot;I go to Buddha as salvation.&quot; This might be exactly what you're looking for even though grammatically it doesn't parallel the use of two accusatives with Sanskrit &quot;[_gacchāmi_](https://books.google.com/books?id=pj5IAQAAMAAJ&amp;lpg=PA81&amp;ots=8XMqULFns3&amp;dq=gacchāmi&amp;pg=PA27#v=onepage&amp;q=gacchāmi&amp;f=false)&quot;, which seems to work like the Latin verbs of saying and asking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Don't accept this answer. I have only a beginner's proficency in Latin. There are probably better ways to word a Latin paraphrase of &quot;Buddhaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi&quot;: different word choices that might echo the Latin tradition more poetically or more clearly. For example, _salūs_ might be perfect, due to its use in Christianity for &quot;salvation&quot;, but a more literal translation of [śaraṇaṃ](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/शरण#Noun_4), like [perfugium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=perfugium), might convey the meaning better. Someone with more knowledge of that tradition can probably give you a better answer. A really good answer might even illustrate the word choices with a passage or two from the Latin literature to illustrate their connotations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4194" RevisionGUID="f5ce3238-8a19-4b51-8455-b55e235bbf3b" CreationDate="2017-04-26T00:37:14.867" UserId="79" Text="I think I understand most Latin grammatical terms in relation to what seems to be their etymology in Latin: cases from *nominare*, *accusare*, *genus*, *dare*, *auferre*; tempora from *praesens*, *perfectum*; verbal forms from *finire*, *particeps*, *gerere*; numbers from *singuli*, *plus*.&#xD;&#xA;These are just examples; I have surely forgotten many things from my list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have trouble understanding why the supine is called *supinum*.&#xD;&#xA;It seems to be related to the adjective *supinus*, meaning &quot;backwards&quot;, &quot;retrograde&quot;, &quot;sloping&quot;, and similar things.&#xD;&#xA;There is also a related verb *supinare*.&#xD;&#xA;Why did the form of the verb get its name from this adjective?&#xD;&#xA;What is &quot;backwards&quot; about the supine?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is an explanation from ancient or modern grammarians, I would be happy to hear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12644" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4194" RevisionGUID="f5ce3238-8a19-4b51-8455-b55e235bbf3b" CreationDate="2017-04-26T00:37:14.867" UserId="79" Text="Why is the supine called &quot;supine&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12645" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4194" RevisionGUID="f5ce3238-8a19-4b51-8455-b55e235bbf3b" CreationDate="2017-04-26T00:37:14.867" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|grammarians|supinum|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4188" RevisionGUID="f59bc67c-a3c3-4d3d-a7a7-6fad9791a1ae" CreationDate="2017-04-26T00:37:42.410" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 72 characters in body" Text="&quot;I go&quot; is **eō**. _Īte_ is the plural imperative: &quot;Go, y'all!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin verbs do take [two accusatives](https://books.google.com/books?id=CBsXAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22dative%20of%20the%20purpose%20or%20end%22&amp;pg=PA244#v=onepage&amp;q=%22two%20accusatives%22&amp;f=false), like _dīcō,_ &quot;I tell [person] [what I say]&quot;, or _rogō,_ &quot;I request [someone] [what I want].&quot; However, I don't think that works with _īre_ because it doesn't naturally have two things that could serve as its object. Consequently, in this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iosaphatum salutem eo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_salūtem_ will be understood as an appositive: &quot;I go to Buddha the salvation&quot; or &quot;I go to Buddha as salvation.&quot; This might be exactly what you're looking for even though grammatically it doesn't parallel the use of two accusatives with Sanskrit &quot;[_gacchāmi_](https://books.google.com/books?id=pj5IAQAAMAAJ&amp;lpg=PA81&amp;ots=8XMqULFns3&amp;dq=gacchāmi&amp;pg=PA27#v=onepage&amp;q=gacchāmi&amp;f=false)&quot;, which seems to work like Latin _rogō._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;There are probably better ways to word a Latin paraphrase of &quot;Buddhaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi&quot;: different word choices that might echo the Latin tradition more poetically or more clearly. For example, _salūs_ might be perfect, due to its use in Christianity for &quot;salvation&quot;, but a more literal translation of [śaraṇaṃ](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/शरण#Noun_4), like [perfugium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=perfugium), might convey the meaning better. Someone with more knowledge of that tradition can probably give you a better answer. A really good answer might even illustrate the word choices with a passage or two from the Latin literature to illustrate their connotations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4188" RevisionGUID="06abc0fb-c01c-47f6-9fcc-0f3ae4f99dba" CreationDate="2017-04-26T01:02:27.553" UserId="118" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="&quot;I go&quot; is **eō**. _Īte_ is the plural imperative: &quot;Go, y'all!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin verbs do take [two accusatives](https://books.google.com/books?id=CBsXAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22dative%20of%20the%20purpose%20or%20end%22&amp;pg=PA244#v=onepage&amp;q=%22two%20accusatives%22&amp;f=false), like _dīcō,_ &quot;I tell [person] [what I say]&quot;, or _rogō,_ &quot;I request [person] [what I want].&quot; However, I don't think that works with _īre_ because it doesn't naturally have two things that could serve as its object. Consequently, in this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iosaphatum salutem eo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_salūtem_ will be understood as an appositive: &quot;I go to Buddha the salvation&quot; or &quot;I go to Buddha as salvation.&quot; This might be exactly what you're looking for even though grammatically it doesn't parallel the use of two accusatives with Sanskrit &quot;[_gacchāmi_](https://books.google.com/books?id=pj5IAQAAMAAJ&amp;lpg=PA81&amp;ots=8XMqULFns3&amp;dq=gacchāmi&amp;pg=PA27#v=onepage&amp;q=gacchāmi&amp;f=false)&quot;, which seems to work like Latin _rogō._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Going beyond your question about **īre**, there may be better ways to word a Latin paraphrase of &quot;Buddhaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi&quot;: different word choices that might echo the Latin tradition more poetically or more clearly. For example, _salūs_ might be perfect, due to its use in Christianity for &quot;salvation&quot;, but a more literal translation of [śaraṇaṃ](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/शरण#Noun_4), like [perfugium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=perfugium), might convey the meaning better. In particular, there may be a better-fitting verb, maybe something like **dēcurrō**. [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/गच्छति#Sanskrit) reports that _gacchāmi_ is cognate with Latin **veniō**, which might offer some possibilities for a translation that retains the terseness and character of the original." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4188" RevisionGUID="4e3e25d2-b14a-4af2-ac3f-9af7fe6aaa23" CreationDate="2017-04-26T01:18:48.060" UserId="118" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&quot;I go&quot; is **eō**. _Īte_ is the plural imperative: &quot;Go, y'all!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin verbs do take [two accusatives](https://books.google.com/books?id=CBsXAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22dative%20of%20the%20purpose%20or%20end%22&amp;pg=PA244#v=onepage&amp;q=%22two%20accusatives%22&amp;f=false), like _dīcō,_ &quot;I tell [person] [what I say]&quot;, or _rogō,_ &quot;I request [person] [what I want].&quot; However, I don't think that works with _īre_ because it doesn't naturally have two things that could serve as its object. Consequently, in this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iosaphatum salutem eo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_salūtem_ will be understood as an appositive: &quot;I go to Buddha the salvation&quot; or &quot;I go to Buddha as salvation.&quot; This might be exactly what you're looking for even though grammatically it doesn't parallel the use of two accusatives with Sanskrit &quot;[_gacchāmi_](https://books.google.com/books?id=pj5IAQAAMAAJ&amp;lpg=PA81&amp;ots=8XMqULFns3&amp;dq=gacchāmi&amp;pg=PA27#v=onepage&amp;q=gacchāmi&amp;f=false)&quot;, which seems to work like Latin _rogō._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Going beyond your question about **īre**, there may be better ways to word a Latin translation of &quot;Buddhaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi&quot;: different word choices that might echo the Latin tradition more poetically or more clearly. For example, _salūs_ might be perfect, due to its use in Christianity for &quot;salvation&quot;, but a more literal translation of [śaraṇaṃ](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/शरण#Noun_4), like [perfugium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=perfugium), might convey the meaning better. In particular, there may be a better-fitting verb, maybe something like **dēcurrō**. [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/गच्छति#Sanskrit) reports that _gacchāmi_ is cognate with Latin **veniō**, which might offer some possibilities for a translation that retains the terseness and character of the original." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4188" RevisionGUID="33f8ae0f-1008-42c9-a3bb-547f0a37f94a" CreationDate="2017-04-26T01:54:11.073" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="&quot;I go&quot; is **eō**. _Īte_ is the plural imperative: &quot;Go, y'all!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin verbs take [two accusatives](https://books.google.com/books?id=CBsXAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22dative%20of%20the%20purpose%20or%20end%22&amp;pg=PA244#v=onepage&amp;q=%22two%20accusatives%22&amp;f=false), like _dīcō,_ &quot;I tell [person] [what I say]&quot;, or _rogō,_ &quot;I request [person] [what I want].&quot; However, I don't think that works with _īre_ because it doesn't naturally have two things that could serve as its object. Consequently, in this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iosaphatum salutem eo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_salūtem_ will be understood as an appositive: &quot;I go to Buddha the salvation&quot; or &quot;I go to Buddha as salvation.&quot; This might be exactly what you're looking for even though grammatically it doesn't parallel the use of two accusatives with Sanskrit &quot;[_gacchāmi_](https://books.google.com/books?id=pj5IAQAAMAAJ&amp;lpg=PA81&amp;ots=8XMqULFns3&amp;dq=gacchāmi&amp;pg=PA27#v=onepage&amp;q=gacchāmi&amp;f=false)&quot;, which seems to work like Latin _rogō._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Going beyond your question about **īre**, there may be better ways to word a Latin translation of &quot;Buddhaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi&quot;: different word choices that might echo the Latin tradition more poetically or more clearly. For example, _salūs_ might be perfect, due to its use in Christianity for &quot;salvation&quot;, but a more literal translation of [śaraṇaṃ](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/शरण#Noun_4), like [perfugium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=perfugium), might convey the meaning better. In particular, there may be a better-fitting verb, maybe something like **dēcurrō**. [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/गच्छति#Sanskrit) reports that _gacchāmi_ is cognate with Latin **veniō**, which might offer some possibilities for a translation that retains the terseness and character of the original." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4193" RevisionGUID="fe324485-9286-4b96-979a-723cb6d533e7" CreationDate="2017-04-26T01:56:47.743" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="Suppose a person born and educated in Greece comes to ancient Rome.&#xD;&#xA;They have learned Latin and can converse fluently, but not at a native level.&#xD;&#xA;What kinds of wrong pronunciation, vocabulary, or structures would the Romans be likely to hear?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any ancient accounts of Greek idiosyncrasies in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I am not asking about anything borrowed from Greek to Latin, but the kinds of mistakes the Greeks made when speaking Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I often speak English with people of various origins, and there are often clear hints about the native language of the speaker.&#xD;&#xA;Similar hints must have existed and been observed in antiquity.&#xD;&#xA;I am mostly interested in (written accounts of) spoken language, but observations about written Latin are also welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same thing from a different point of view:&#xD;&#xA;If I were to write a story in Latin featuring a Greek character, what kinds of quirks should I add to their Latin to make them feel authentically Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12651" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4193" RevisionGUID="fe324485-9286-4b96-979a-723cb6d533e7" CreationDate="2017-04-26T01:56:47.743" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="What errors did the Greeks typically make in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12652" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="6a179a49-933d-4f68-8207-d1cb7de288f7" CreationDate="2017-04-26T02:23:29.043" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|single-word-translation|military|weapons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12653" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1947" RevisionGUID="fa1f9a35-748f-4051-a53e-d5ba5fb7951d" CreationDate="2017-04-26T02:24:34.680" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|contemporary-latin|technology|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12654" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="d56c2cd6-0d27-41dc-be9c-03585b583e45" CreationDate="2017-04-26T04:22:28.863" UserId="78" Comment="They're not looking for a single word..." Text="|classical-latin|idiom|military|weapons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4195" RevisionGUID="13fc7eb2-197e-45f5-a0bb-419f7688e6e1" CreationDate="2017-04-26T04:27:41.357" UserId="235" Text="I'd like to add just one point, which is, that translation seems to be the exception and not the rule. If you think of the name Jesus, it is actually a transliteration of ישוע, which (in its expanded form) means &quot;Yahweh is salvation&quot;. The Greek name Ἰησοῦς does not attempt to translate this meaning. The same is true for the name John, which in Greek is Ἰωάννης. Both are based on the Hebrew name יוהנן, which means &quot;Yahweh is gracious&quot;, and neither attempts to translate the original meaning. These are just two examples, but there are many more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that a new name appeared, Χριστός, which is not just a transliteration, may have been a political choice by early Christians. A Greek translation would appeal more to gentiles who do not know the meaning of Messiah (משיח) or take part in Jewish culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not surprised that a Latin translation of &quot;Anointed&quot; never caught on. Inventing a new name for a religious figure—Jesus Christ especially—is not a decision to be made lightly! It's one thing to transliterate, another to introduce a new word with completely different sounds (such as &quot;Unctus&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4195" RevisionGUID="fe784db1-46e0-4e91-988f-2e25205156f2" CreationDate="2017-04-26T05:18:54.503" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="I'd like to add just one point, which is, that translation seems to be the exception and not the rule. If you think of the name Jesus, it is actually a transliteration of ישוע, which (in its expanded form) means &quot;Yahweh is salvation&quot;. The Greek name Ἰησοῦς does not attempt to translate this meaning. The same is true for the name John, which in Greek is Ἰωάννης. Both are based on the Hebrew name יוהנן, which means &quot;Yahweh is gracious&quot;, and neither attempts to translate the original. These are just two examples, but there are many more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that a new name appeared, Χριστός, which is not just a transliteration, may have been a political choice by early Christians. A Greek translation would appeal more to gentiles who do not know the meaning of Messiah (משיח) or take part in Jewish culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not surprised that a Latin translation of &quot;Anointed&quot; never caught on. Inventing a new name for a religious figure—Jesus Christ especially—is not a decision to be made lightly! It's one thing to transliterate, another to introduce a new word with completely different sounds (such as &quot;Unctus&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4196" RevisionGUID="5e151a5f-7ce3-410b-ba59-14f6f42876af" CreationDate="2017-04-26T11:22:51.093" UserId="1481" Text="Do you have any idea how to learn Latin interactively? It is really mundane to just read from a book and look up words in the dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12658" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4196" RevisionGUID="5e151a5f-7ce3-410b-ba59-14f6f42876af" CreationDate="2017-04-26T11:22:51.093" UserId="1481" Text="Interactive ways to learn Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12659" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4196" RevisionGUID="5e151a5f-7ce3-410b-ba59-14f6f42876af" CreationDate="2017-04-26T11:22:51.093" UserId="1481" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4195" RevisionGUID="0dea3c6d-a902-4bd9-a787-7fa3512750cb" CreationDate="2017-04-26T14:46:53.450" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body" Text="I'd like to add just one point, which is, that translation seems to be the exception and not the rule. If you think of the name Jesus, it is actually a transliteration of יהושע, which means &quot;Yahweh is salvation&quot;. The Greek name Ἰησοῦς does not attempt to translate this meaning. The same is true for the name John, which in Greek is Ἰωάννης. Both are based on the Hebrew name יוהנן, which means &quot;Yahweh is gracious&quot;, and neither attempts to translate the original. These are just two examples, but there are many more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that a new name appeared, Χριστός, which is not just a transliteration, may have been a political choice by early Christians. A Greek translation would appeal more to gentiles who do not know the meaning of Messiah (משיח) or take part in Jewish culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not surprised that a Latin translation of &quot;Anointed&quot; never caught on. Inventing a new name for a religious figure—Jesus Christ especially—is not a decision to be made lightly! It's one thing to transliterate, another to introduce a new word with completely different sounds (such as &quot;Unctus&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4197" RevisionGUID="0257329d-ecc7-43ae-9fd1-d77eb9bbed5a" CreationDate="2017-04-26T14:56:35.083" UserId="30" Text="Here is the stub of an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were many, many Greeks in Rome around the turn of the millennium. Many of them were educated slaves, 'imported' to teach Greek to Roman children of the middle and upper classes. The language was considered an essential part of the education of an educated Roman child. It may be compared to the position of Latin in Europe and in its (former) colonies until ca. 1800. As far as we know, Caesar most probably did not say *et tu, Brute* to Brutus upon his death, but possibly *καὶ σὺ, τέκνον;* although Suetonius argues against this then common story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of an actual Greek ghetto: I think the Greeks lived all over the city. So you could probably hear some Greek in the streets. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first Greek colonies near Naples may have appeared in the second millennium BC, before the mythical date of the foundation of Rome in 753 BC. In the 8th century, there was a a wave of Greek colonisation in places like Cumae and Ischia. Major Greek towns like Naples and Cumae are about 200 km south of Rome, or 10 hours (by trireme) to 25 hours (merchant ship) away. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was much contact between Etruscans, Romans, and Greeks in Italy. The Etruscans also conquered some Greek colonies and used an adaptation of the Greek alphabet before Rome. By the fourth century BC, Rome had acquired so many territories that it practically bordered on Greece near Neapolis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Contact between the Romans and the [Greek] Cumaeans is recorded during the reign of Aristodemus [c. 550 – c. 490 BC]. Livy states that immediately prior to the war between Rome and Clusium, the Roman senate sent agents to Cumae to purchase grain in anticipation of a siege of Rome.[8] Also Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, the last legendary King of Rome, lived his life in exile with Aristodemus at Cumae after the Battle of Lake Regillus and died there in 495 BC.[9]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rome also ruled over some Greek cities by the fourth century, such as Cumae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even now there are speakers of Greek in southern Italy. It took millennia for Greek to (almost) disappear from there, see this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Why is it that Latin was more “successful” in the western part of the Empire than in the eastern part?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the Roman Republic, many complained about Greek influence on literary Latin style, as can be read in contemporary Roman literature. The Greek style of sculpture was also imported to Rome. From what I recall, traditional Romans even objected to the naked and idealised, muscular statues during the late Republic. Traditional Romans also inveighed against other Greek influences, amongst which they sometimes placed the influence of rich merchants: a good Roman was a farmer and a soldier, not a merchant. Even now, the upper classes around the world generally look down on people who have become rich through trade or business. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kaNKq.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/734/why-is-it-that-latin-was-more-successful-in-the-western-part-of-the-empire-tha" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4198" RevisionGUID="3b2704f0-32d1-4df3-9e52-bc3aa125e6e1" CreationDate="2017-04-26T14:59:53.593" UserId="522" Text="**Supine** means flat on your back, lying down, It is the final 'oblique' form; it is the extremely inflected (leaning) part of the Verb and is usually in the last column of the principal parts,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In later Grammars (that certainly includes medieval Grammars) 'oblique cases' and 'declension' are only used to describe the Voc., Acc., Gen., Dat., Abl., Loc., (X Singular, Dual and Plural) forms of nouns and adjectives. So this is a survival from old Grammars, and from old-fashioned Grammars like Quintilian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conjunction with Lewis and Short on Supine; the second half of hte solution is [Lewis and Short on **declino.**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **declino,  II B**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In the older grammarians, of every kind of inflection (declension, conjugation, comparison, derivation, etc.), Varr. L. L. 8, § 2 sq.; 10, § 11 sq.; cf. also Quint. 1, 4, 22; 1, 5, 63 al. —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DD%3Aentry%20group%3D6%3Aentry%3Ddeclino" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4197" RevisionGUID="b4b215cd-4cd6-43f2-8a4b-1c46fb565af8" CreationDate="2017-04-26T15:09:25.810" UserId="30" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="Here is the stub of an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were many, many Greeks in Rome around the turn of the millennium. Many of them were educated slaves, 'imported' to teach Greek to Roman children of the middle and upper classes. The language was considered an essential part of the education of an educated Roman child. It may be compared to the position of Latin in Europe and in its (former) colonies until ca. 1800. As far as we know, Caesar most probably did not say *et tu, Brute* to Brutus upon his death, but possibly *καὶ σὺ, τέκνον;* although Suetonius argues against this then common story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of an actual Greek ghetto: I think the Greeks lived all over the city. So you could probably hear some Greek in the streets. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first Greek colonies near Naples may have appeared in the second millennium BC, before the mythical date of the foundation of Rome in 753 BC. In the 8th century, there was a a wave of Greek colonisation in places like Cumae and Ischia. Major Greek towns like Naples and Cumae are about 200 km south of Rome, or 10 hours (by trireme) to 25 hours (merchant ship) away. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was much contact between Etruscans, Romans, and Greeks in Italy when Rome was still a smallish city-state. The Etruscans also conquered some Greek colonies and used an adaptation of the Greek alphabet before Rome, too, adopted (another) variant of the Greek alphabet. By the fourth century BC, Rome had acquired so many territories that it practically bordered on Greece near Neapolis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Contact between the Romans and the [Greek] Cumaeans is recorded during the reign of Aristodemus [c. 550 – c. 490 BC]. Livy states that immediately prior to the war between Rome and Clusium, the Roman senate sent agents to Cumae to purchase grain in anticipation of a siege of Rome.[8] Also Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, the last legendary King of Rome, lived his life in exile with Aristodemus at Cumae after the Battle of Lake Regillus and died there in 495 BC.[9]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rome also ruled over some Greek cities by the fourth century, such as Cumae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even now there are speakers of Greek in southern Italy. It took millennia for Greek to (almost) disappear from there, see this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Why is it that Latin was more “successful” in the western part of the Empire than in the eastern part?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the Roman Republic, many complained about Greek influence on literary Latin style, as can be read in contemporary Roman literature. The Greek style of sculpture was also imported to Rome. From what I recall, traditional Romans even objected to the naked and idealised, muscular statues during the late Republic. Traditional Romans also inveighed against other Greek influences, amongst which they sometimes placed the influence of rich merchants: a good Roman was a farmer and a soldier, not a merchant. Even now, the upper classes around the world generally look down on people who have become rich through trade or business. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kaNKq.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/734/why-is-it-that-latin-was-more-successful-in-the-western-part-of-the-empire-tha" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4198" RevisionGUID="c69f9e5c-17f0-4146-bb84-0dd314656e58" CreationDate="2017-04-26T15:11:45.277" UserId="522" Comment="revisions and links" Text="**Supine** means flat on your back, lying down, It is the final 'oblique' form; it is the extremely inflected (leaning) part of the Verb and is usually in the last column of the principal parts,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In later Grammars (that certainly includes medieval Grammars) 'oblique cases' and 'declension' are only used to describe the Voc., Acc., Gen., Dat., Abl., Loc., (X Singular, Dual and Plural) forms of nouns and adjectives. So this is a survival from old Grammatical thinking, and from old-fashioned Grammars like Quintilian, although the word 'supine' does not appear in the earliest Grammars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conjunction with [Lewis and Short on Supine][1] - comment by brianpck *vide supra;* the second half of the solution is [Lewis and Short on **declino.**][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **declino,  II B**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In the older grammarians, of every kind of inflection (declension, conjugation, comparison, derivation, etc.), Varr. L. L. 8, § 2 sq.; 10, § 11 sq.; cf. also Quint. 1, 4, 22; 1, 5, 63 al. —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsupinus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DD%3Aentry%20group%3D6%3Aentry%3Ddeclino" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4199" RevisionGUID="4c4db7e1-5c7c-4001-9396-fcce3a2d2fdd" CreationDate="2017-04-26T15:12:43.087" UserDisplayName="user1466" Text="&gt;    *Hiemis imminet adventus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This construction gets at the foreboding idea of the &quot;winter is&#xD;&#xA;coming&quot; from Game of Thrones. Like the original English, it has three words. As a saying, it gets your attention with its emphasis on the verb *imminet*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, this is not a classical construction. I&#xD;&#xA;adapted it from a sentence in a commentary on Vergil's Aeneid written by Maurus Servius Honoratus *ad usum Delphini* ([accessed on the Perseus Digital Library][1]). See reference below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Vel quia **hiemis imminebat adventus.***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; to explain *fessi* --Book 3, line 276 of The Aeneid:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hunc petimus fessi et parvae succedimus urbi.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maurus Servius Honoratus. In Vergilii carmina comentarii. Servii Grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii carmina commentarii; recensuerunt Georgius Thilo et Hermannus Hagen. Georgius Thilo. Leipzig. B. G. Teubner. 1881.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0053%3Abook%3D3%3Acommline%3D276&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4197" RevisionGUID="f40cdd80-8c30-4835-b36f-b52f56269fc6" CreationDate="2017-04-26T15:14:50.643" UserId="30" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="Here is the stub of an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were many, many Greeks in Rome around the turn of the millennium. Many of them were educated slaves, 'imported' to teach Greek to Roman children of the middle and upper classes. The language was considered an essential part of the education of an educated Roman child. It may be compared to the position of Latin in Europe and in its (former) colonies until ca. 1800. As far as we know, Caesar most probably did not say *et tu, Brute* to Brutus upon his death, but possibly *καὶ σὺ, τέκνον;* although Suetonius argues against this then common story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of an actual Greek ghetto: I think the Greeks lived all over the city. So you could probably hear some Greek in the streets. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first Greek colonies near Naples may have appeared in the second millennium BC, before the mythical date of the foundation of Rome in 753 BC. In the 8th century, there was a a wave of Greek colonisation all along the coasts of southern Italy, Sicily, southern France, and many other places around the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, e.g. Cumae and Ischia near the later Naples. The Greek colonies in Italy and Sicily are known collectively as *Magna Graecia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was much contact between Etruscans, Romans, and Greeks in Italy when Rome was still a smallish city-state. Major Greek towns like Naples and Cumae are about 200 km south of Rome, or 10 hours (by trireme) to 25 hours (merchant ship) away. The Etruscans also conquered some Greek colonies and used an adaptation of the Greek alphabet before Rome, too, adopted (another) variant of the Greek alphabet. By the fourth century BC, Rome had acquired so many territories that it practically bordered on Greece near Neapolis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Contact between the Romans and the [Greek] Cumaeans is recorded during the reign of Aristodemus [c. 550 – c. 490 BC]. Livy states that immediately prior to the war between Rome and Clusium, the Roman senate sent agents to Cumae to purchase grain in anticipation of a siege of Rome.[8] Also Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, the last legendary King of Rome, lived his life in exile with Aristodemus at Cumae after the Battle of Lake Regillus and died there in 495 BC.[9]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rome also ruled over some Greek cities by the fourth century, such as Cumae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even now there are speakers of Greek in southern Italy. It took millennia for Greek to (almost) disappear from there, see this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Why is it that Latin was more “successful” in the western part of the Empire than in the eastern part?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the Roman Republic, many complained about Greek influence on literary Latin style, as can be read in contemporary Roman literature. The Greek style of sculpture was also imported to Rome. From what I recall, traditional Romans even objected during the late Republic to the naked and idealised, muscular statues. Traditional Romans also inveighed against other Greek influences, amongst which they sometimes placed the influence of rich merchants: a good Roman was a farmer and a soldier, not a merchant. Even now, the upper classes around the world generally look down on people who have become rich through trade or business. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kaNKq.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/734/why-is-it-that-latin-was-more-successful-in-the-western-part-of-the-empire-tha" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4199" RevisionGUID="dd1ff53d-2f80-4083-8fc9-0c61b6d09c4b" CreationDate="2017-04-26T15:18:45.370" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="&gt;    *Hiemis imminet adventus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This construction gets at the foreboding idea of the &quot;winter is&#xD;&#xA;coming&quot; phrase used in &quot;Game of Thrones&quot;. Like the original English, it has three words. As a saying, it gets your attention with its stylish emphasis on the verb, *imminet*, framed by *hiemis* and *adventus*.  I like the other suggestions too, but wanted to add this for your consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, this is not a classical construction. I&#xD;&#xA;adapted it from a sentence in a commentary on Vergil's Aeneid written by Maurus Servius Honoratus *ad usum Delphini* ([accessed on the Perseus Digital Library][1]). See reference below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Vel quia **hiemis imminebat adventus.***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; to explain *fessi* --Book 3, line 276 of The Aeneid:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hunc petimus fessi et parvae succedimus urbi.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maurus Servius Honoratus. In Vergilii carmina comentarii. Servii Grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii carmina commentarii; recensuerunt Georgius Thilo et Hermannus Hagen. Georgius Thilo. Leipzig. B. G. Teubner. 1881.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0053%3Abook%3D3%3Acommline%3D276&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4199" RevisionGUID="b8affed4-fc14-415d-a9f2-8c6e2649176c" CreationDate="2017-04-26T16:15:25.020" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="added 173 characters in body" Text="&gt;    *Hiemis imminet adventus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This construction gets at the foreboding idea of the &quot;winter is&#xD;&#xA;coming&quot; phrase used in &quot;Game of Thrones&quot;. Like the original English, it has three words. As a saying, it gets your attention with its stylish emphasis on the verb, *imminet*, framed by *hiemis* and *adventus*.  I like the other suggestions too, but wanted to add this for your consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, this is not a classical construction. I&#xD;&#xA;adapted it from a sentence in a commentary on Vergil's Aeneid written by [Maurus Servius Honoratus][1], a grammarian of the 4th century in Rome.  ([accessed on the Perseus Digital Library][2]). See reference below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Vel quia **hiemis imminebat adventus.***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; to explain *fessi* --Book 3, line 276 of The Aeneid:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hunc petimus fessi et parvae succedimus urbi.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maurus Servius Honoratus. In Vergilii carmina comentarii. Servii Grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii carmina commentarii; recensuerunt Georgius Thilo et Hermannus Hagen. Georgius Thilo. Leipzig. B. G. Teubner. 1881.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Servius&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0053%3Abook%3D3%3Acommline%3D276" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4195" RevisionGUID="449952f0-f228-4f3b-b42e-829eae4b7fb3" CreationDate="2017-04-26T18:58:57.483" UserId="235" Comment="added 29 characters in body; added 13 characters in body; deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I'd like to add just one point, which is, that translation seems to be the exception and not the rule. If you think of the name Jesus, it is actually a transliteration of יהושע, which means &quot;Yahweh is salvation&quot;. The Greek name Ἰησοῦς does not attempt to translate this meaning. The same is true for the name John, which in Greek is Ἰωάννης. Both are based on the Hebrew name יוהנן, which means &quot;Yahweh is gracious&quot;, and neither attempts to translate the original. These are just two examples, but there are many more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that a new name appeared, Χριστός, which is not a transliteration, but rather a translation of משיח, may have been a political choice by early Christians. A Greek translation would appeal more to gentiles who do not know the meaning of Messiah, משיח &quot;anointed&quot;, or take part in Jewish culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not surprised that a Latin translation of &quot;Anointed&quot; never caught on. Inventing a new name for a religious figure—Jesus Christ especially—is not a decision to be made lightly! It's one thing to transliterate, another to introduce a new word with completely different sounds (such as &quot;Unctus&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4195" RevisionGUID="be36bea5-acdc-4849-8831-50f6c8404451" CreationDate="2017-04-26T19:04:40.130" UserId="235" Comment="edited body; deleted 11 characters in body" Text="I'd like to add just one point, which is, that translation seems to be the exception and not the rule. If you think of the name Jesus, it is actually a transliteration of יהושע, which means &quot;Yahweh is salvation&quot;. The Greek name Ἰησοῦς does not attempt to translate this meaning. The same is true for the name John, which in Greek is Ἰωάννης. Both are based on the Hebrew name יוהנן, which means &quot;Yahweh is gracious&quot;, and neither attempts to translate the original. These are just two examples, but there are many more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that a new name appeared, Χριστός, which is not a transliteration, but rather a translation of משיח, may have been a political choice by early Christians. A Greek translation would appeal more to gentiles who do not know the meaning of Messiah (משיח) or take part in Jewish culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not surprised that a Latin translation of &quot;Anointed&quot; never caught on. Inventing a new name for a religious figure—Jesus Christ especially—is not a decision to be made lightly! It's one thing to transliterate, another to introduce a new word with completely different sounds (such as &quot;Unctus&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4200" RevisionGUID="4143eaf5-bc64-445d-acad-08b378eefc76" CreationDate="2017-04-26T19:51:41.580" UserId="1459" Text="For example, if we were to take one of the most used Latin dictionaries (Lewis and Short?), and find out the **percentage of total entries that have made it one way or another into English and Spanish**, how much these percentages would be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that this is different from the reverse question, which is &quot;how many English words come from Latin?&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be some stuff around the web, but they look mostly informal (e.g. [this one](http://blog.dictionary.com/word-origins/), stating that 10% of Latin words made it directly into English). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there are more reliable sources regarding this issue? Perhaps some mathematical or computational algorithm that perform such calculation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is an important question, and which relates to [another](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4136/should-i-study-latin-in-english-or-in-spanish) I asked earlier. Since vocabulary seem to me a crucial determinant of the speed at which a new language can be learned, I would like to know this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12672" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4200" RevisionGUID="4143eaf5-bc64-445d-acad-08b378eefc76" CreationDate="2017-04-26T19:51:41.580" UserId="1459" Text="How many of Latin words became part of English and Spanish?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12673" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4200" RevisionGUID="4143eaf5-bc64-445d-acad-08b378eefc76" CreationDate="2017-04-26T19:51:41.580" UserId="1459" Text="|origin|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4200" RevisionGUID="9259ac86-e5df-48ec-8c3f-fa7b2072a952" CreationDate="2017-04-26T19:56:04.927" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="For example, if we were to take one of the most used Latin dictionaries (Lewis and Short?), and find out the **percentage of total entries that have made it one way or another into English and Spanish**, how much these percentages would be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that this is different from the reverse question, which is: &quot;How many English words come from Latin?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be some stuff around the web, but they look mostly informal (e.g. [this one](http://blog.dictionary.com/word-origins/), stating that 10% of Latin words made it directly into English). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there are more reliable sources regarding this issue? Perhaps some mathematical or computational algorithm that perform such calculation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is an important question, and which relates to [another](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4136/should-i-study-latin-in-english-or-in-spanish) I asked earlier. Since vocabulary seem to me a crucial determinant of the speed at which a new language can be learned, I would like to know this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12675" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4200" RevisionGUID="9259ac86-e5df-48ec-8c3f-fa7b2072a952" CreationDate="2017-04-26T19:56:04.927" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|etymology|english|origin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2885" RevisionGUID="db463e4a-b04c-418f-9512-d2486de9519c" CreationDate="2017-04-26T20:00:27.673" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected a spelling error in a tag and fixed a small formatting issue." Text="There are ways in Latin of expressing less-than-completeness, but I'm intrigued by the strange-ish (!) and allegedly related etymologies given in English dictionaries for these two endings, which are claimed to be derived from Latin and earlier sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently came upon the phrase 'a goodish way', for which I used the comparative *longius*, in the (alternative) sense of 'rather' or 'somewhat'. Almost immediately afterwards the word 'yellowish' occurred, and for this there is an adjective *fulvaster*. And today I have come upon *novellaster*, 'newish' or 'rather new'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has all set me reflecting that *-ish* is a useful modifier for English adjectives, and that in French *-âtre* has a similar use in, for example, *verdâtre*, 'greenish' (though I do not think it so freely used as our English *-ish*). The *-aster* ending is seen in the English 'poetaster' in the same sense while, Chambers' Dictionary attributes the same ending in 'disaster' (via French) to — I quote — [O Fr . . . . from *des* (L *dis-*) with evil sense, and *astre* a star, destiny, from L *astrum*, Gr *astron* star].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I've found the above examples, I don't remember any rule for modifying Latin nouns and adjectives in analogous ways — except that, in some cases, the prefix *sub-* can be used as in, for instance, *subruber* and *subraucus*. The whole business seems quite haphazard. It would be very convenient if there were a proper rule: is there any such? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12677" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2885" RevisionGUID="db463e4a-b04c-418f-9512-d2486de9519c" CreationDate="2017-04-26T20:00:27.673" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected a spelling error in a tag and fixed a small formatting issue." Text="|vocabulary|etymology|derivation|accidence|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12678" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="742" RevisionGUID="36625f7f-60b3-4275-87c4-32e9ae17e758" CreationDate="2017-04-27T05:29:42.663" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|technology|vocabulary|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12679" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="716046f8-eab4-4aec-9b28-4a8e0444be24" CreationDate="2017-04-27T05:30:42.650" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|idiom|phrase-request|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12680" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1296" RevisionGUID="2f950752-d640-4b81-8fe4-6c7e1c607637" CreationDate="2017-04-27T05:31:34.623" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|meaning|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12681" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1685" RevisionGUID="3a081167-7726-4837-b4ee-4069f2ca3ab0" CreationDate="2017-04-27T05:33:05.983" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|word-comparison|academic-latin|vocabulary|occupation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4201" RevisionGUID="6b55171c-92b7-4596-a299-2666f8bf75fb" CreationDate="2017-04-27T13:39:32.487" UserId="78" Text="I only tried the trial version, but Rosetta Stone has a [Latin module](http://www.rosettastone.com/learn-latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've never used Rosetta Stone, it's essentially learning through pictures and sounds rather than going through a grammar book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Rosetta Stone Latin][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pictures and words are repeated over and over again until you learn it. As I said, I only used a trial version, so I do not know how they deal tenses or other complex grammar, but it should be enough to get your foot in the door.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pHf04.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4202" RevisionGUID="9d69640c-4f31-4d1f-8e90-125efba17c8d" CreationDate="2017-04-27T15:13:18.410" UserId="1459" Text="I am trying to understand this expression. According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominus_illuminatio_mea), it is translated as &quot;The Lord is my light&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before reading this article, I thought this meant &quot;Lord illuminate me&quot;, perhaps in imperative mode. In effect, there is such verb - illuminare, and I was trying to find the specific conjugation which would tell me the mode, time, person, etc. But that seem not to exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would my original interpretation be written &quot;Dominus [illumina](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/illumina#Latin) mea&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, how to precisely differentiate among such words that are both a noun and a verb? Is it plainly obvious that a declinsion &quot;tio&quot; is not a verb? Is there another clue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12684" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4202" RevisionGUID="9d69640c-4f31-4d1f-8e90-125efba17c8d" CreationDate="2017-04-27T15:13:18.410" UserId="1459" Text="Dominus illumination mea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12685" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4202" RevisionGUID="9d69640c-4f31-4d1f-8e90-125efba17c8d" CreationDate="2017-04-27T15:13:18.410" UserId="1459" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4203" RevisionGUID="988efc2b-ee58-4299-8e2e-84876070e23b" CreationDate="2017-04-27T15:23:46.053" UserId="78" Text="Imperatives have a distinct form, and they can never end in -tio. You can have verbs that end in -tio, though, like *sentio*, but the -o ending indicates that it's first person singular. Far more often the -tio ending is used for nouns that are derived from verbs. The past passive participle ends in -tus (or -sus in some cases), and from the stem the -tio ending is added. This is similar to the Spanish -ción.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as how to translate the phrase, if you wanted to say, &quot;Lord, illuminate me,&quot; you would have to change everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one, since you're addressing the Lord, the Latin would have to be in the vocative, *domine* instead of *dominus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, you would have to say &quot;me&quot; instead of &quot;my&quot;, so *me* and not *mea*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, as you noticed, *illumina* is the imperative of *illuminare*, so you're correct on that. Putting it all together you'd get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Domine, me illumina.* Do note though that this doesn't mean &quot;make me enlightened,&quot; at least not in Classical Latin, but rather, &quot;Lord, make me illustrious,&quot; or, &quot;Lord, shine a light on me (so that others can see how good I am).&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12687" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4202" RevisionGUID="daa02f7c-7838-4bc8-bd88-ca8c74fec500" CreationDate="2017-04-27T15:24:35.680" UserId="469" Comment="edited title" Text="Dominus illuminatio mea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4204" RevisionGUID="0f2d46b1-2310-421d-bd96-b1d3e33d2639" CreationDate="2017-04-27T15:24:40.830" UserId="1459" Text="If by any chance you know Spanish, [this website](http://www.luduslitterarius.net/) is a great interactive tool. It has plenty of exercises, nicely presented, using Flash. You select the exercises, use the mouse and keyboard to interact with it, and get immediate feedback on your result, all amid a colorful platform. And free!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, this is the screen for verb conjugation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can select every type of mode and time. Even more, it adjusts the difficulty depending on your answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best though is its own version (with animation and sounds) of the [Hangman game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangman_(game)). You can see below (I lost):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/STbqS.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oGEll.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12689" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4202" RevisionGUID="925bff9c-508a-4f70-85e3-8f6479721294" CreationDate="2017-04-27T15:31:48.273" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4203" RevisionGUID="e3d78c89-7e94-4215-996e-3c5f4a53d618" CreationDate="2017-04-27T15:37:28.743" UserId="78" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Imperatives have a distinct form, and they can never end in *-tio*. You can have verbs that end in -tio, though, like *sentio*, but the -o ending indicates that it's first person singular. Far more often the *-tio* ending is used for nouns that are derived from verbs. The past passive participle ends in *-tus* (or *-sus* in some cases), and from the stem the *-tio* ending is added. This is similar to the Spanish *-ción*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as how to translate the phrase, if you wanted to say, &quot;Lord, illuminate me,&quot; you would have to change everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one, since you're addressing the Lord, the Latin would have to be in the vocative, *domine* instead of *dominus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, you would have to say &quot;me&quot; instead of &quot;my&quot;, so *me* and not *mea*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, as you noticed, *illumina* is the imperative of *illuminare*, so you're correct on that. Putting it all together you'd get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Domine, me illumina.* Do note though that this doesn't mean &quot;make me enlightened,&quot; at least not in Classical Latin, but rather, &quot;Lord, make me illustrious,&quot; or, &quot;Lord, shine a light on me (so that others can see how good I am).&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4205" RevisionGUID="bbfba9c9-81c7-41ac-8f17-f38fe05120aa" CreationDate="2017-04-27T15:39:29.267" UserId="1224" Text="Is there a term in Latin for an attack from all sides, similar to the English *gauntlet*? I need the translation to be as short-and-sweet as possible, as it's for a short title: *The Gauntlet* (that's it). A singular word for this would be much better than a multiple-term description." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12692" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4205" RevisionGUID="bbfba9c9-81c7-41ac-8f17-f38fe05120aa" CreationDate="2017-04-27T15:39:29.267" UserId="1224" Text="Attack From All Sides" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12693" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4205" RevisionGUID="bbfba9c9-81c7-41ac-8f17-f38fe05120aa" CreationDate="2017-04-27T15:39:29.267" UserId="1224" Text="|vocabulary|military|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4206" RevisionGUID="cb6bf298-39f7-4ceb-8468-60fd6a6a8a0e" CreationDate="2017-04-27T17:08:28.563" UserId="118" Text="The verb _est_ is omitted but implied. The motto is taken from the start of Psalm 27 (or 26):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dominus illuminatio mea et salus mea; quem timebo?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Dominus protector vitae meae; a quo trepidabo?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Lord is my source of light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;The Lord is the protector of my life; by whom will I be made to tremble?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Putting in the omitted *est*s:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dominus **est** illuminatio mea et salus mea; quem timebo?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Dominus **est** protector vitae meae; a quo trepidabo?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Omitting a copula verb is quite common in Latin. It's especially common in proverbs and mottos:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In vino veritas. (There is truth in wine.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Scientia potentia. (Knowledge is power.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Dulce bellum inexpertis. (War seems sweet to those who haven't experienced it.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4206" RevisionGUID="145c1d86-001b-4592-9440-ec8ca783d24f" CreationDate="2017-04-27T17:13:58.330" UserId="118" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="The verb _est_ is omitted but implied. The motto is taken from the start of Psalm 27 (or 26):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dominus illuminatio mea et salus mea; quem timebo?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Dominus protector vitae meae; a quo trepidabo?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Lord is my source of light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;The Lord is the protector of my life; by whom will I be made to tremble?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Putting in the omitted *est*s:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dominus **est** illuminatio mea et salus mea; quem timebo?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Dominus **est** protector vitae meae; a quo trepidabo?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Omitting a copula](https://books.google.com/books?id=H5UZAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA147&amp;ots=xHpz5B4cTo&amp;dq=latin%20omitted%20copula&amp;pg=PA147#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20omitted%20copula&amp;f=false) verb is quite common in Latin. It's especially common in proverbs and mottos:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In vino veritas. (There is truth in wine.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Scientia potentia. (Knowledge is power.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Dulce bellum inexpertis. (War seems sweet to those who haven't experienced it.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4206" RevisionGUID="54ff7a36-d4c9-4019-83d6-41bc20e7843d" CreationDate="2017-04-27T17:42:38.203" UserId="118" Comment="added 770 characters in body" Text="The verb _est_ is omitted but implied. The motto is taken from the start of Psalm 27 (or 26):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dominus illuminatio mea et salus mea; quem timebo?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Dominus protector vitae meae; a quo trepidabo?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Lord is my source of light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;The Lord is the protector of my life; by whom will I be made to tremble?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Putting in the omitted *est*s:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dominus **est** illuminatio mea et salus mea; quem timebo?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Dominus **est** protector vitae meae; a quo trepidabo?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Omitting a copula](https://books.google.com/books?id=H5UZAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA147&amp;ots=xHpz5B4cTo&amp;dq=latin%20omitted%20copula&amp;pg=PA147#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20omitted%20copula&amp;f=false) verb is quite common in Latin. Here's a sample from Varro, _Lingua Latina,_ V.4, explaining the etymology of _terra_ (wrongly, according to modern scholarship). I've indicated the missing copulae in the English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Terra_ dicta ab eo, ut Aelius scribit, quod teritur. Itaque _tera_ in augurum libris scripta cum R uno. Ab eo colonis locus communis qui prope oppidum relinquitur _teritorium,_ quod maxime teritur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Terra_ [_Earth_] **is** said because, as Aelius writes, it is trodden on [i.e. the root of the verb _tero_ sounds like _terra_]. And so it **is** written _tera,_ with one R, in the books of the augurs. For the same reason, the communal place near a town that is left to the farmers **is called** the _teritorium,_ because it gets trodden on the most.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Omitting the copula is especially common in proverbs and mottos:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In vino veritas. (There is truth in wine.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Scientia potentia. (Knowledge is power.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Dulce bellum inexpertis. (War seems sweet to those who haven't experienced it.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="71230eae-6d5d-453a-909d-50d828ab3324" CreationDate="2017-04-27T18:19:30.703" UserId="406" Text="In English, &quot;what if...?&quot; is a succinct way to ask what would happen if some counterfactual happened to be true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an idiomatic equivalent in Latin? The sequence of tenses gives plenty of options for expressing different types of conditionals. But is there a short and easily-understood way to turn such a conditional into a question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12698" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="71230eae-6d5d-453a-909d-50d828ab3324" CreationDate="2017-04-27T18:19:30.703" UserId="406" Text="What if...? (Interrogative conditionals)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12699" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="71230eae-6d5d-453a-909d-50d828ab3324" CreationDate="2017-04-27T18:19:30.703" UserId="406" Text="|grammar-choice|idiom|conditions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4208" RevisionGUID="86e4e5d7-9935-4d7f-87dc-2987748932d2" CreationDate="2017-04-27T18:57:29.813" UserId="79" Text="The phrase [*quid si* (hundreds of examples)](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=quid+si%23) was not at all unheard of.&#xD;&#xA;It works for both possible and impossible conditionals, and impossibility is best expressed by choosing perfect or pluperfect conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;This is what [Cicero would do](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/22/10/0/24528-24536@1#0), too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An artificial example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What if he was in Rome now?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quid si ille Romae nunc esset?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4206" RevisionGUID="ee522ea0-4c06-4d10-ab1a-5f3eb7b2490f" CreationDate="2017-04-27T19:05:07.533" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="The verb _est_ is omitted but implied. The motto is taken from the start of Psalm 27 (or 26):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dominus illuminatio mea et salus mea; quem timebo?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Dominus protector vitae meae; a quo trepidabo?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Lord is my source of light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;The Lord is the protector of my life; by whom will I be made to tremble?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Putting in the omitted *est*s:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dominus illuminatio **est** mea et salus mea; quem timebo?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Dominus protector **est** vitae meae; a quo trepidabo?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Omitting a copula](https://books.google.com/books?id=H5UZAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA147&amp;ots=xHpz5B4cTo&amp;dq=latin%20omitted%20copula&amp;pg=PA147#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20omitted%20copula&amp;f=false) verb is quite common in Latin. Here's a sample from Varro, _Lingua Latina,_ V.4, explaining the etymology of _terra_ (wrongly, according to modern scholarship). I've indicated the missing copulae in the English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Terra_ dicta ab eo, ut Aelius scribit, quod teritur. Itaque _tera_ in augurum libris scripta cum R uno. Ab eo colonis locus communis qui prope oppidum relinquitur _teritorium,_ quod maxime teritur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Terra_ [_Earth_] **is** said because, as Aelius writes, it is trodden on [i.e. the root of the verb _tero_ sounds like _terra_]. And so it **is** written _tera,_ with one R, in the books of the augurs. For the same reason, the communal place near a town that is left to the farmers **is called** the _teritorium,_ because it gets trodden on the most.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Omitting the copula is especially common in proverbs and mottos:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In vino veritas. (There is truth in wine.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Scientia potentia. (Knowledge is power.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Dulce bellum inexpertis. (War seems sweet to those who haven't experienced it.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4209" RevisionGUID="335404c9-8aac-48a0-bbb0-a52d18b85d83" CreationDate="2017-04-27T19:43:13.253" UserId="45" Text="A &quot;gauntlet&quot; (as in &quot;running the gauntlet&quot;) refers to a specific form of punishment, whereby someone goes between two rows of men while being struck at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A close Roman equivalent is the [*fustuarium*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfustuarium) ([Wikipedia Article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fustuarium)), which is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a cudgelling to death, a military punishment for desertion or other capital offences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, a gauntlet is more a form of punishment than execution, but this may still be a helpful starting point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4208" RevisionGUID="beeed31c-9b8a-4fc0-b29f-8730ecd5066d" CreationDate="2017-04-27T19:51:42.520" UserId="78" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The phrase [*quid si* (hundreds of examples)](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=quid+si%23) was not at all unheard of.&#xD;&#xA;It works for both possible and impossible conditionals, and impossibility is best expressed by choosing perfect or pluperfect conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;This is what [Cicero would do](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/22/10/0/24528-24536@1#0), too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An artificial example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What if he were in Rome now?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quid si ille Romae nunc esset?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4210" RevisionGUID="c9b9e475-fd97-4286-be1f-f084e0e574f6" CreationDate="2017-04-27T19:57:39.880" UserId="78" Text="Might I suggest *undique*. It's an adverb literally meaning &quot;from all sides,&quot; and is quite often used in military contexts, such as the example below given from Lewis and Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from all parts, sides, or places, from every quarter, on all sides, on every part, everywhere: &quot;ut **undique** uno tempore in hostes impetus fieret,&quot; Caes. *B. G.* 1, 22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4196" RevisionGUID="de2980f2-31dc-4e71-9594-134c78f1ad3f" CreationDate="2017-04-27T20:31:58.827" UserId="1459" Comment="thank you eliminated" Text="Do you have any idea how to learn Latin interactively? It is really mundane to just read from a book and look up words in the dictionary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12707" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4196" RevisionGUID="de2980f2-31dc-4e71-9594-134c78f1ad3f" CreationDate="2017-04-27T20:31:58.827" Comment="Proposed by 1459 approved by 118, 952 edit id of 184" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4211" RevisionGUID="915df8d2-fef0-40c9-a814-f2c8177a0ee9" CreationDate="2017-04-27T21:01:25.050" UserId="79" Text="I vaguely remember reading a story years ago, and it was something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A king in medieval Europe knew some Latin but made mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;I think there was something like him writing plurals like *lemmae* instead of *lemmata*; he treated Greek neuters in *-ma* as Latin feminines.&#xD;&#xA;When it was pointed out that this is wrong, he ordered Latin grammar to be changed so that he is correct.&#xD;&#xA;In an unusual act of defiance, scholars refused the king's orders and stated something to the effect of &quot;Latin grammar is above kings&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My memory is leaky, so I may remember something wrong.&#xD;&#xA;But the essence is that a king's authority was placed under Latin grammar.&#xD;&#xA;I think a neuter in *-ma* was included, so the king's idea would not have been a completely unnatural simplification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone help me relocate the story?&#xD;&#xA;I would even be happy with a different story with the same moral, if my memory does not define the story uniquely.&#xD;&#xA;The story itself can be in any language; I believe I read a Finnish translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12709" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4211" RevisionGUID="915df8d2-fef0-40c9-a814-f2c8177a0ee9" CreationDate="2017-04-27T21:01:25.050" UserId="79" Text="A story of a king that wanted to simplify Latin grammar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12710" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4211" RevisionGUID="915df8d2-fef0-40c9-a814-f2c8177a0ee9" CreationDate="2017-04-27T21:01:25.050" UserId="79" Text="|history|grammarians|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4212" RevisionGUID="904e81cc-20e2-4b21-85e8-e51efdff856e" CreationDate="2017-04-27T21:50:22.430" UserId="47" Text="Do they originate in particular dialects or languages that influenced Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the question even answerable?  With any degree of certainty?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just curious." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12712" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4212" RevisionGUID="904e81cc-20e2-4b21-85e8-e51efdff856e" CreationDate="2017-04-27T21:50:22.430" UserId="47" Text="Why does Latin have five different noun declensions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12713" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4212" RevisionGUID="904e81cc-20e2-4b21-85e8-e51efdff856e" CreationDate="2017-04-27T21:50:22.430" UserId="47" Text="|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12714" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4212" RevisionGUID="95c0ec53-5599-4b8a-881a-acd5cbe02952" CreationDate="2017-04-27T21:59:18.530" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|history|language-evolution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4213" RevisionGUID="85db29bc-de98-47fa-9517-e9e584b4a66f" CreationDate="2017-04-27T22:22:56.723" UserId="118" Text="It sounds like you're talking about this famous incident involving the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund at the Council of Constance in 1414:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …A similar anecdote is told of the German Emperor Sigismund. When presiding at the Council of Constance, he addressed the assembly in a Latin speech, exhorting them to eradicate the schism of the Hussites. 'Videte Patres,' he said, 'ut eridicetis **schismam** Hussitarum.' He was very unceremoniously called to order by a monk, who called out 'Serenissime Rex, schisma est generis neutri.' The emperor, however, without losing his presence of mind, asked the impertinent monk, 'How do you know it?' The old Bohemian schoolmaster replied, 'Alexander Gallus says so.' 'And who is Alexander Gallus?' the emperor rejoined. The monk replied, 'He was a monk.' 'Well,' said the emperor, 'and I am emperor of Rome; and my word, I trust, will be as good as the word of any monk.' No doubt the laughers were with the emperor; but for all that, _schisma_ remained a neuter, and not even an emperor could change its gender or termination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source](https://books.google.com/books?id=2DQTAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;dq=council+constance+caesar+sigismund+schisma&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj5pPfd08XTAhVk4IMKHWB6A4cQuwUIQDAF#v=onepage&amp;q=council%20constance%20caesar%20sigismund%20schisma&amp;f=false)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4214" RevisionGUID="87e05497-3905-485e-9943-bea96afabd5e" CreationDate="2017-04-27T22:30:06.290" UserId="78" Text="The declensions are historical and developed from Proto-Indo-European.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per Sihler's [*New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin*](https://books.google.com/books?id=tJh15AcIdLgC&amp;pg=PA243#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also Quiles/Lopez-Menchero's [*Grammar of Modern Indo-European*](https://books.google.com/books?id=RILAjuKkIH8C&amp;pg=PA163#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bkK5w.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iVUsx.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4213" RevisionGUID="06a8b83a-d569-4622-a749-fec8ff7f4ce9" CreationDate="2017-04-27T22:36:46.063" UserId="118" Comment="added 813 characters in body" Text="It sounds like you're talking about this famous incident involving the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund at the Council of Constance in 1414:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …A similar anecdote is told of the German Emperor Sigismund. When presiding at the Council of Constance, he addressed the assembly in a Latin speech, exhorting them to eradicate the schism of the Hussites. 'Videte Patres,' he said, 'ut eradicetis **schismam** Hussitarum.' He was very unceremoniously called to order by a monk, who called out 'Serenissime Rex, schisma est generis neutri.' The emperor, however, without losing his presence of mind, asked the impertinent monk, 'How do you know it?' The old Bohemian schoolmaster replied, 'Alexander Gallus says so.' 'And who is Alexander Gallus?' the emperor rejoined. The monk replied, 'He was a monk.' 'Well,' said the emperor, 'and I am emperor of Rome; and my word, I trust, will be as good as the word of any monk.' No doubt the laughers were with the emperor; but for all that, _schisma_ remained a neuter, and not even an emperor could change its gender or termination.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;Source: _[The Science of Language](https://books.google.com/books?id=2DQTAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;dq=council+constance+caesar+sigismund+schisma&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj5pPfd08XTAhVk4IMKHWB6A4cQuwUIQDAF#v=onepage&amp;q=council%20constance%20caesar%20sigismund%20schisma&amp;f=false) Founded on Lectures Delivered at the Royal Institution in 1861 and 1863_ by F. Max Mūller, K.M., pp. 39–40. (1899)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some versions of the story, like the one [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=1zo4AAAAMAAJ&amp;dq=council%20of%20constance%20caesar%20sigismund%20grammar&amp;pg=PA1041#v=onepage&amp;q=supra%20grammaticam&amp;f=false), Sigismund is said to have replied:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego sum Rex Romanus et supra grammaticam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The version at [Bestiara Latina](http://audiolatinproverbs.blogspot.com/2007/05/caesar-non-supra-grammaticos.html) has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A certain archbishop then rose to his feet and declared, _Caesar non supra grammaticos,_ &quot;Caesar is not superior to the grammarians.&quot; Consequently, the word _schisma_ remains neuter in gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but this sounds to me like embroidering." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4213" RevisionGUID="cf8c8f48-a4b2-49da-9d54-d586703fec35" CreationDate="2017-04-27T22:39:12.877" UserId="118" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="It sounds like you're talking about this famous incident involving the Holy Roman Emperor [Sigismund](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigismund,_Holy_Roman_Emperor#Council_of_Constance) at the Council of Constance in 1414:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …A similar anecdote is told of the German Emperor Sigismund. When presiding at the Council of Constance, he addressed the assembly in a Latin speech, exhorting them to eradicate the schism of the Hussites. 'Videte Patres,' he said, 'ut eradicetis **schismam** Hussitarum.' He was very unceremoniously called to order by a monk, who called out 'Serenissime Rex, schisma est generis neutri.' The emperor, however, without losing his presence of mind, asked the impertinent monk, 'How do you know it?' The old Bohemian schoolmaster replied, 'Alexander Gallus says so.' 'And who is Alexander Gallus?' the emperor rejoined. The monk replied, 'He was a monk.' 'Well,' said the emperor, 'and I am emperor of Rome; and my word, I trust, will be as good as the word of any monk.' No doubt the laughers were with the emperor; but for all that, _schisma_ remained a neuter, and not even an emperor could change its gender or termination.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Source: [_The Science of Language, Founded on Lectures Delivered at the Royal Institution in 1861 and 1863_](https://books.google.com/books?id=2DQTAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;dq=council+constance+caesar+sigismund+schisma&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj5pPfd08XTAhVk4IMKHWB6A4cQuwUIQDAF#v=onepage&amp;q=council%20constance%20caesar%20sigismund%20schisma&amp;f=false) by F. Max Mūller, K.M., pp. 39–40. (1899)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some versions of the story, like the one [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=1zo4AAAAMAAJ&amp;dq=council%20of%20constance%20caesar%20sigismund%20grammar&amp;pg=PA1041#v=onepage&amp;q=supra%20grammaticam&amp;f=false), Sigismund is said to have replied:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego sum Rex Romanus et supra grammaticam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The version at [Bestiara Latina](http://audiolatinproverbs.blogspot.com/2007/05/caesar-non-supra-grammaticos.html) has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A certain archbishop then rose to his feet and declared, _Caesar non supra grammaticos,_ &quot;Caesar is not superior to the grammarians.&quot; Consequently, the word _schisma_ remains neuter in gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but this sounds to me like embroidering." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4206" RevisionGUID="4ef71b04-07a6-486b-8e87-229f3f1302b6" CreationDate="2017-04-27T22:57:32.890" UserId="118" Comment="added 264 characters in body" Text="The verb _est_ is omitted but implied. The motto is taken from the start of Psalm 27 (or 26):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dominus illuminatio mea et salus mea; quem timebo?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Dominus protector vitae meae; a quo trepidabo?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Lord is my source of light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;The Lord is the protector of my life; by whom will I be made to tremble?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Putting in the omitted *est*s:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dominus illuminatio **est** mea et salus mea; quem timebo?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Dominus protector **est** vitae meae; a quo trepidabo?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Omitting a copula](https://books.google.com/books?id=H5UZAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA147&amp;ots=xHpz5B4cTo&amp;dq=latin%20omitted%20copula&amp;pg=PA147#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20omitted%20copula&amp;f=false) verb is quite common in Latin. Here's a sample from Varro, _Lingua Latina,_ V.4, proposing an etymology of the word _terra_. I've indicated the missing copulae in the English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Terra_ dicta ab eo, ut Aelius scribit, quod teritur. Itaque _tera_ in augurum libris scripta cum R uno. Ab eo colonis locus communis qui prope oppidum relinquitur _teritorium,_ quod maxime teritur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Terra_ [_Earth_] **is** said because, as Aelius writes, it is trodden on [i.e. the root of the verb _tero_ sounds like _terra_]. And so it **is** written _tera,_ with one R, in the books of the augurs. For the same reason, the communal place near a town that is left to the farmers **is called** the _teritorium,_ because it gets trodden on the most.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(Varro's etymology is mistaken according to [modern scholarship](https://books.google.com/books?id=KphVAgAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA216&amp;dq=terra%20dry%20indo-european&amp;pg=PA216#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), and he seems to have misspelled [_territorium_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/territorium#Latin).)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Omitting the copula is especially common in proverbs and mottos:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In vino veritas. (There is truth in wine.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Scientia potentia. (Knowledge is power.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Dulce bellum inexpertis. (War seems sweet to those who haven't experienced it.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;[Caesar non supra grammaticos](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4213/118). (Caesar is not above grammar.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4213" RevisionGUID="f495737b-0a46-446c-8391-7d7b9ac1700f" CreationDate="2017-04-27T23:00:12.770" UserId="118" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="It sounds like you're talking about this famous incident involving the Holy Roman Emperor [Sigismund](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigismund,_Holy_Roman_Emperor#Council_of_Constance) at the Council of Constance in 1414:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …A similar anecdote is told of the German Emperor Sigismund. When presiding at the Council of Constance, he addressed the assembly in a Latin speech, exhorting them to eradicate the schism of the Hussites. 'Videte Patres,' he said, 'ut eradicetis **schismam** Hussitarum.' He was very unceremoniously called to order by a monk, who called out 'Serenissime Rex, schisma est generis neutri.' The emperor, however, without losing his presence of mind, asked the impertinent monk, 'How do you know it?' The old Bohemian schoolmaster replied, 'Alexander Gallus says so.' 'And who is Alexander Gallus?' the emperor rejoined. The monk replied, 'He was a monk.' 'Well,' said the emperor, 'and I am emperor of Rome; and my word, I trust, will be as good as the word of any monk.' No doubt the laughers were with the emperor; but for all that, _schisma_ remained a neuter, and not even an emperor could change its gender or termination.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Source: [_The Science of Language, Founded on Lectures Delivered at the Royal Institution in 1861 and 1863_](https://books.google.com/books?id=2DQTAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;dq=council+constance+caesar+sigismund+schisma&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj5pPfd08XTAhVk4IMKHWB6A4cQuwUIQDAF#v=onepage&amp;q=council%20constance%20caesar%20sigismund%20schisma&amp;f=false) by F. Max Mūller, K.M., pp. 39–40. (1899)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some versions of the story, like the one [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=1zo4AAAAMAAJ&amp;dq=council%20of%20constance%20caesar%20sigismund%20grammar&amp;pg=PA1041#v=onepage&amp;q=supra%20grammaticam&amp;f=false), Sigismund is said to have replied:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego sum Rex Romanus et supra grammaticam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The version at [Bestiara Latina](http://audiolatinproverbs.blogspot.com/2007/05/caesar-non-supra-grammaticos.html) has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A certain archbishop then rose to his feet and declared, _Caesar non supra grammaticos,_ &quot;Caesar is not superior to the grammarians.&quot; Consequently, the word _schisma_ remains neuter in gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but this sounds to me like embroidering." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12722" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4211" RevisionGUID="93134bd4-6eda-40be-a370-3f692abc2352" CreationDate="2017-04-27T23:11:09.717" UserId="118" Comment="&quot;who&quot; is a little stronger than &quot;that&quot;" Text="A story of a king who wanted to simplify Latin grammar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4213" RevisionGUID="49f8360b-90dd-449d-a547-b6b38df3498b" CreationDate="2017-04-27T23:13:39.240" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="It sounds like you're talking about this famous incident involving the Holy Roman Emperor [Sigismund](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigismund,_Holy_Roman_Emperor#Council_of_Constance) at the Council of Constance in 1414:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …A similar anecdote is told of the German Emperor Sigismund. When presiding at the Council of Constance, he addressed the assembly in a Latin speech, exhorting them to eradicate the schism of the Hussites. 'Videte Patres,' he said, 'ut eradicetis **schismam** Hussitarum.' He was very unceremoniously called to order by a monk, who called out 'Serenissime Rex, schisma est generis neutri.' The emperor, however, without losing his presence of mind, asked the impertinent monk, 'How do you know it?' The old Bohemian schoolmaster replied, 'Alexander Gallus says so.' 'And who is Alexander Gallus?' the emperor rejoined. The monk replied, 'He was a monk.' 'Well,' said the emperor, 'and I am emperor of Rome; and my word, I trust, will be as good as the word of any monk.' No doubt the laughers were with the emperor; but for all that, _schisma_ remained a neuter, and not even an emperor could change its gender or termination.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Source: [_The Science of Language, Founded on Lectures Delivered at the Royal Institution in 1861 and 1863_](https://books.google.com/books?id=2DQTAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;dq=council+constance+caesar+sigismund+schisma&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj5pPfd08XTAhVk4IMKHWB6A4cQuwUIQDAF#v=onepage&amp;q=council%20constance%20caesar%20sigismund%20schisma&amp;f=false) by F. Max Mūller, K.M., pp. 39–40. (1899)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some versions of the story, like the one [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=1zo4AAAAMAAJ&amp;dq=council%20of%20constance%20caesar%20sigismund%20grammar&amp;pg=PA1041#v=onepage&amp;q=supra%20grammaticam&amp;f=false), Sigismund is said to have replied:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego sum Rex Romanus et supra grammaticam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The version at [Bestiara Latina](http://audiolatinproverbs.blogspot.com/2007/05/caesar-non-supra-grammaticos.html) has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A certain archbishop then rose to his feet and declared, _Caesar non supra grammaticos,_ &quot;Caesar is not superior to the grammarians.&quot; Consequently, the word _schisma_ remains neuter in gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but these sound to me like embroidering." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12724" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1044" RevisionGUID="c306b4c2-1b44-49fe-85cd-f05af2bc21c8" CreationDate="2017-04-27T23:19:59.337" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|technology|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12725" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2865" RevisionGUID="8237e2e0-4fcf-4fed-a3e5-7e4737207a63" CreationDate="2017-04-27T23:21:25.397" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|conjunction|logic|mathematics|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4215" RevisionGUID="f7d3e1ae-641f-46e2-8edd-252d15d947b2" CreationDate="2017-04-28T00:53:40.680" UserId="79" Text="The Latin word I would use for to translate &quot;philosophy&quot; is *philosophia*.&#xD;&#xA;But this is a transliteration of a Greek word.&#xD;&#xA;Is there an originally Latin word for &quot;philosophy&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;The closest word I could find is *sapientia*, but it doesn't seem to have the same nuance as *philosophia*.&#xD;&#xA;Does *philosophia* have a closer Latin equivalent than *sapientia*?&#xD;&#xA;I would assume the Romans had a word for their philosophical literature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12727" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4215" RevisionGUID="f7d3e1ae-641f-46e2-8edd-252d15d947b2" CreationDate="2017-04-28T00:53:40.680" UserId="79" Text="What is &quot;philosophy&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12728" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4215" RevisionGUID="f7d3e1ae-641f-46e2-8edd-252d15d947b2" CreationDate="2017-04-28T00:53:40.680" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|philosophy-terms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="ea53cfa3-69ba-4160-a8dc-d585e91d7459" CreationDate="2017-04-28T01:07:56.883" UserId="406" Text="The different declensions started in Proto-Indo-European. Latin regularized and simplified them, giving the five somewhat-regular patterns you're familiar with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PIE nouns came in a few different types:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Stems ending in *-eh₂&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_*h₂_ was a &quot;laryngeal&quot; sound, so-called because we don't have a better name for it. Scholars can't agree on what its actual sound was; there are arguments to be made for various different sounds, though I'm partial to the voiceless velar fricative as in &quot;Bach&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Proto-Indo-European broke apart, all the laryngeals disappeared. But when they were next to a vowel they left &quot;color&quot; on it before vanishing. _*h₂_ in particular tended to turn _e_ into _a_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So these turned into the Latin &quot;a-stem&quot; nouns: the first declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Stems ending in a &quot;thematic vowel&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some nouns were formed using suffixes ending in *o*. These were the only true &quot;vowel-stem nouns&quot; in PIE, and the &quot;thematic&quot; _o_ occasionally became _e_ (such as in the vocative singular). If you know Ancient Greek, you'll recognize this intermittent *o/e* immediately from verb conjugations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Old Latin, short *o* tended to turn into *u* in many environments. So the original forms _-os, -om_ became _-us, -um_. This formed the second declension. (Note that this pattern didn't affect long *ō*, which persisted in the accusative plural.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Stems ending in *-y&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PIE didn't distinguish much between the vowel *i* and the consonant *y* (phonetic /j/), a trend which persisted into Latin. So when endings were applied to nouns ending in *_-y_, it tended to become a vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These became the &quot;i-stem nouns&quot;, a subset of the third declension. These are the ones like *turris* which have *-im* in the accusative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Stems ending in *-w&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like with _y/i_, PIE didn't have much of a distinction between *u* and *w*. (Same as Latin: compare *auspex* with a vowel and *avis* with a consonant, from the same stem *au-*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nouns whose stems ended in *_-w_ became the Latin &quot;u-stems&quot;, the fourth declension. Unlike the second declension, the *u* that appears here actually comes from a PIE *w/u*, so you don't see it alternating with *o*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Stems ending in laryngeals (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure of the etymology of this class, actually. And someone with a better knowledge of Proto-Indo-European should feel free to correct me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I believe stems ending in &quot;laryngeals&quot; other than *_h₂_ became the fifth-declension, with the preceding vowel becoming the characteristic *e*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Stems ending in anything else&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PIE was fine with consonants smashed together, but most of its descendants reversed this tendency. So when the endings involving consonants were put onto the stems involving consonants, extra vowels often got inserted in between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, these ended up becoming &quot;consonant-stems&quot;, which make up the majority of the third declension. These are the ones like *rex* which have *-em* in the accusative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A few exceptions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nouns which didn't fit cleanly into any of these groups were generally shoved into the nearest one. *Dies*, for example, became the only masculine in the fifth-declension, while *domus* can't decide whether it's second or fourth. But almost no nouns actually remained &quot;irregular&quot;; Latin was very good at putting them into these five categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And thus, the variety of PIE nouns became Latin's five-declension system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4217" RevisionGUID="ccab314a-bb2b-4c52-a6e0-a2e8fa29a237" CreationDate="2017-04-28T07:16:09.557" UserId="1289" Text="I distinctly remember from a class at some point a disparaging remark by an Latin poet about other less accomplished poets who churned out &quot;a million hexameters a year&quot;, obviously implying terrible quality. Unfortunately, I only remember the general sentiment, but none of the Latin words or an exact translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought the quote I'm looking for was in either an epigram or a satire, but I already searched for such a passage years ago and never found it. I wanted to use the argument that writing technically correct hexameters wasn't the hardest thing in the world, and that the elite naturally preferred quality over quantity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this ring a bell with anyone ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12732" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4217" RevisionGUID="ccab314a-bb2b-4c52-a6e0-a2e8fa29a237" CreationDate="2017-04-28T07:16:09.557" UserId="1289" Text="Latin quote about a million doggerel verses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12733" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4217" RevisionGUID="ccab314a-bb2b-4c52-a6e0-a2e8fa29a237" CreationDate="2017-04-28T07:16:09.557" UserId="1289" Text="|poetry|roman-culture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4217" RevisionGUID="f207cff8-8d30-481b-94ec-b00e05bbeea5" CreationDate="2017-04-28T07:42:00.660" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="I distinctly remember from a class at some point a disparaging remark by an Latin poet about other less accomplished poets who churned out &quot;a million hexameters a year&quot;, obviously implying terrible quality. Unfortunately, I only remember the general sentiment, but none of the Latin words or an exact translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought the quote I'm looking for was in either an epigram or a satire, but I already searched for such a passage years ago and never found it. I wanted to use the argument that writing technically correct hexameters wasn't the hardest thing in the world, and that the elite naturally preferred quality over quantity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this ring a bell with anyone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12736" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4217" RevisionGUID="f207cff8-8d30-481b-94ec-b00e05bbeea5" CreationDate="2017-04-28T07:42:00.660" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|poetry|roman-culture|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4206" RevisionGUID="a2c60a8a-b39d-4ea4-a545-9a5137156767" CreationDate="2017-04-28T08:05:30.030" UserId="118" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="The verb _est_ is omitted but implied. The motto is taken from the start of Psalm 27 (or 26):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dominus illuminatio mea et salus mea; quem timebo?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Dominus protector vitae meae; a quo trepidabo?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Lord is my source of light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;The Lord is the protector of my life; by whom will I be made to tremble?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Putting in the omitted *est*s:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dominus illuminatio **est** mea et salus mea; quem timebo?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Dominus protector **est** vitae meae; a quo trepidabo?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Omitting a copula](https://books.google.com/books?id=H5UZAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA147&amp;ots=xHpz5B4cTo&amp;dq=latin%20omitted%20copula&amp;pg=PA147#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20omitted%20copula&amp;f=false) verb is quite common in Latin. Here's a sample from Varro, _Lingua Latina,_ V.4, proposing an etymology of the word _terra_. I've indicated the missing copulae in the English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Terra_ dicta ab eo, ut Aelius scribit, quod teritur. Itaque _tera_ in augurum libris scripta cum R uno. Ab eo colonis locus communis qui prope oppidum relinquitur _teritorium,_ quod maxime teritur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Terra_ [_Earth_] **is** said because, as Aelius writes, it is trodden on [i.e. the root of the verb _tero_ sounds like _terra_]. And so it **is** written _tera,_ with one R, in the books of the augurs. For the same reason, the communal place near a town that is left to the farmers **is called** the _teritorium,_ because it gets trodden on the most.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(Varro's etymology is mistaken according to [modern scholarship](https://books.google.com/books?id=KphVAgAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA216&amp;dq=terra%20dry%20indo-european&amp;pg=PA216#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), and he seems to have misspelled [_territorium_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/territorium#Latin).)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Omitting the copula is especially common in proverbs and mottos:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In vino veritas. (There is truth in wine.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Scientia potentia. (Knowledge is power.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Dulce bellum inexpertis. (War seems sweet to those who haven't experienced it.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;[Caesar non supra grammaticos](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4213/118). (Caesar is not above the grammarians.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4217" RevisionGUID="15650853-6a32-4134-8f0e-4207e7af9850" CreationDate="2017-04-28T08:17:50.430" UserId="1289" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I distinctly remember from a class at some point a disparaging remark by a Latin poet about other less accomplished poets who churned out &quot;a million hexameters a year&quot;, obviously implying terrible quality. Unfortunately, I only remember the general sentiment, but none of the Latin words or an exact translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought the quote I'm looking for was in either an epigram or a satire, but I already searched for such a passage years ago and never found it. I wanted to use the argument that writing technically correct hexameters wasn't the hardest thing in the world, and that the elite naturally preferred quality over quantity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this ring a bell with anyone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4213" RevisionGUID="94a40843-7c2d-4c26-a0fd-23485abdacc5" CreationDate="2017-04-28T09:36:50.013" UserId="118" Comment="added 1185 characters in body" Text="It sounds like you're talking about this incident involving the Holy Roman Emperor [Sigismund](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigismund,_Holy_Roman_Emperor#Council_of_Constance) at the Council of Constance in 1414:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …A similar anecdote is told of the German Emperor Sigismund. When presiding at the Council of Constance, he addressed the assembly in a Latin speech, exhorting them to eradicate the schism of the Hussites. 'Videte Patres,' he said, 'ut eradicetis **schismam** Hussitarum.' He was very unceremoniously called to order by a monk, who called out 'Serenissime Rex, schisma est generis neutri.' The emperor, however, without losing his presence of mind, asked the impertinent monk, 'How do you know it?' The old Bohemian schoolmaster replied, 'Alexander Gallus says so.' 'And who is Alexander Gallus?' the emperor rejoined. The monk replied, 'He was a monk.' 'Well,' said the emperor, 'and I am emperor of Rome; and my word, I trust, will be as good as the word of any monk.' No doubt the laughers were with the emperor; but for all that, _schisma_ remained a neuter, and not even an emperor could change its gender or termination.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Source: [_The Science of Language, Founded on Lectures Delivered at the Royal Institution in 1861 and 1863_](https://books.google.com/books?id=2DQTAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;dq=council+constance+caesar+sigismund+schisma&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj5pPfd08XTAhVk4IMKHWB6A4cQuwUIQDAF#v=onepage&amp;q=council%20constance%20caesar%20sigismund%20schisma&amp;f=false) by F. Max Mūller, K.M., pp. 39–40. (1899)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A long footnote in [this 1845 German translation of the Poem _Hudibras_](https://books.google.com/books?id=Ot1LAAAAcAAJ&amp;dq=hudibras%20sigismund%20placentius%20schisma&amp;pg=PA214#v=onepage&amp;q=hudibras%20sigismund%20placentius%20schisma&amp;f=false) gives Sigismund's sentence as &quot;Date operam ut **illa nefanda schisma** eradicetur&quot; and attributes the correction to a Cardinal Placentius: &quot;locutio parum grammatica&quot;. After a similar interrogation leading to Gallus and Priscian, Sigismund retorts that as _Caesar,_ he outranks those people, and he can very well make a different grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some versions of the story, like the one in Wolfgang Menzel's 1852 [_History of the Germans_](https://books.google.com/books?id=41kEAAAAQAAJ&amp;vq=grammaticam&amp;pg=PA477#v=onepage&amp;q=ego%20sum%20rex&amp;f=false), Sigismund is said to have replied:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego sum Rex Romanus et super grammaticam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The version at [Bestiara Latina](http://audiolatinproverbs.blogspot.com/2007/05/caesar-non-supra-grammaticos.html) has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A certain archbishop then rose to his feet and declared, _Caesar non supra grammaticos,_ &quot;Caesar is not superior to the grammarians.&quot; Consequently, the word _schisma_ remains neuter in gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but these sound to me like embroidering. In his [_History of Friedrich II of Prussia_](https://books.google.com/books?id=oZkTAQAAIAAJ&amp;dq=thomas%20carlyle%20history%20of%20friedrich%20ego%20sum%20rex&amp;pg=RA1-PA134#v=onepage&amp;q=ego%20sum%20rex&amp;f=false), Thomas Carlyle recounts Menzel's version, adding adverbs like &quot;mildly&quot; and &quot;loftily&quot;, no doubt contributing to the story's use as an object lesson in the arrogance of kings. Many sources wrongly attribute the origin of the proverb &quot;Caesar non supra grammaticos&quot; to this anecdote. Note, though, that _Rex Romanus_ is correct, since in 1414 Sigismund was king of the Romans but not yet Holy Roman Emperor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4213" RevisionGUID="8a1861d0-bdf0-4af1-9c50-4f3d36757ba5" CreationDate="2017-04-28T09:46:36.593" UserId="118" Comment="added 1185 characters in body" Text="It sounds like you're talking about this incident involving the Holy Roman Emperor [Sigismund](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigismund,_Holy_Roman_Emperor#Council_of_Constance) at the Council of Constance in 1414:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …A similar anecdote is told of the German Emperor Sigismund. When presiding at the Council of Constance, he addressed the assembly in a Latin speech, exhorting them to eradicate the schism of the Hussites. 'Videte Patres,' he said, 'ut eradicetis **schismam** Hussitarum.' He was very unceremoniously called to order by a monk, who called out 'Serenissime Rex, schisma est generis neutri.' The emperor, however, without losing his presence of mind, asked the impertinent monk, 'How do you know it?' The old Bohemian schoolmaster replied, 'Alexander Gallus says so.' 'And who is Alexander Gallus?' the emperor rejoined. The monk replied, 'He was a monk.' 'Well,' said the emperor, 'and I am emperor of Rome; and my word, I trust, will be as good as the word of any monk.' No doubt the laughers were with the emperor; but for all that, _schisma_ remained a neuter, and not even an emperor could change its gender or termination.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Source: [_The Science of Language, Founded on Lectures Delivered at the Royal Institution in 1861 and 1863_](https://books.google.com/books?id=2DQTAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;dq=council+constance+caesar+sigismund+schisma&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj5pPfd08XTAhVk4IMKHWB6A4cQuwUIQDAF#v=onepage&amp;q=council%20constance%20caesar%20sigismund%20schisma&amp;f=false) by F. Max Mūller, K.M., pp. 39–40. (1899)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A long footnote in [this 1845 German translation of the Poem _Hudibras_](https://books.google.com/books?id=Ot1LAAAAcAAJ&amp;dq=hudibras%20sigismund%20placentius%20schisma&amp;pg=PA214#v=onepage&amp;q=hudibras%20sigismund%20placentius%20schisma&amp;f=false) gives Sigismund's sentence as &quot;Date operam ut **illa nefanda schisma** eradicetur&quot; and attributes the correction to a Cardinal Placentius: &quot;locutio parum grammatica&quot;. After a similar interrogation leading to Gallus and Priscian, Sigismund retorts that as _Caesar,_ he outranks those people, and he can very well make a different grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some versions of the story, like the one in Wolfgang Menzel's 1852 [_History of the Germans_](https://books.google.com/books?id=41kEAAAAQAAJ&amp;vq=grammaticam&amp;pg=PA477#v=onepage&amp;q=ego%20sum%20rex&amp;f=false), Sigismund's rejoinder is:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego sum Rex Romanus et super grammaticam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the version at [Bestiara Latina](http://audiolatinproverbs.blogspot.com/2007/05/caesar-non-supra-grammaticos.html) has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A certain archbishop then rose to his feet and declared, _Caesar non supra grammaticos,_ &quot;Caesar is not superior to the grammarians.&quot; Consequently, the word _schisma_ remains neuter in gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but these sound to me like embroidering. In his [_History of Friedrich II of Prussia_](https://books.google.com/books?id=oZkTAQAAIAAJ&amp;dq=thomas%20carlyle%20history%20of%20friedrich%20ego%20sum%20rex&amp;pg=RA1-PA134#v=onepage&amp;q=ego%20sum%20rex&amp;f=false), Thomas Carlyle recounts Menzel's version, adding adverbs like &quot;mildly&quot; and &quot;loftily&quot;, no doubt contributing to the story's use as an object lesson in the arrogance of kings. Many sources wrongly attribute the origin of the proverb _Caesar non supra grammaticos_ to this anecdote. Note, though, that _Rex Romanus_ is correct, since in 1414 Sigismund was king of the Romans but not yet Holy Roman Emperor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt;Menzel's version also has the Cardinal say _neutrius_ rather than _neutri._&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4206" RevisionGUID="5607eb57-b6f1-4a3b-9bef-35b65e41781f" CreationDate="2017-04-28T09:56:53.963" UserId="118" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The verb _est_ is omitted but implied. The motto is taken from the start of Psalm 27 (or 26):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dominus illuminatio mea et salus mea; quem timebo?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Dominus protector vitae meae; a quo trepidabo?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Lord is my source of light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;The Lord is the protector of my life; by whom shall I be made to tremble?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Putting in the omitted *est*s:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dominus illuminatio **est** mea et salus mea; quem timebo?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Dominus protector **est** vitae meae; a quo trepidabo?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Omitting a copula](https://books.google.com/books?id=H5UZAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA147&amp;ots=xHpz5B4cTo&amp;dq=latin%20omitted%20copula&amp;pg=PA147#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20omitted%20copula&amp;f=false) verb is quite common in Latin. Here's a sample from Varro, _Lingua Latina,_ V.4, proposing an etymology of the word _terra_. I've indicated the missing copulae in the English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Terra_ dicta ab eo, ut Aelius scribit, quod teritur. Itaque _tera_ in augurum libris scripta cum R uno. Ab eo colonis locus communis qui prope oppidum relinquitur _teritorium,_ quod maxime teritur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Terra_ [_Earth_] **is** said because, as Aelius writes, it is trodden on [i.e. the root of the verb _tero_ sounds like _terra_]. And so it **is** written _tera,_ with one R, in the books of the augurs. For the same reason, the communal place near a town that is left to the farmers **is called** the _teritorium,_ because it gets trodden on the most.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(Varro's etymology is mistaken according to [modern scholarship](https://books.google.com/books?id=KphVAgAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA216&amp;dq=terra%20dry%20indo-european&amp;pg=PA216#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), and he seems to have misspelled [_territorium_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/territorium#Latin).)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Omitting the copula is especially common in proverbs and mottos:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In vino veritas. (There is truth in wine.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Scientia potentia. (Knowledge is power.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Dulce bellum inexpertis. (War seems sweet to those who haven't experienced it.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;[Caesar non supra grammaticos](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4213/118). (Caesar is not above the grammarians.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4213" RevisionGUID="317e2970-456a-4e5c-9a7b-a58f754e039a" CreationDate="2017-04-28T10:27:04.897" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="It sounds like you're talking about this incident involving the Holy Roman Emperor [Sigismund](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigismund,_Holy_Roman_Emperor#Council_of_Constance) at the Council of Constance in 1414:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …A similar anecdote is told of the German Emperor Sigismund. When presiding at the Council of Constance, he addressed the assembly in a Latin speech, exhorting them to eradicate the schism of the Hussites. 'Videte Patres,' he said, 'ut eradicetis **schismam** Hussitarum.' He was very unceremoniously called to order by a monk, who called out 'Serenissime Rex, schisma est generis neutri.' The emperor, however, without losing his presence of mind, asked the impertinent monk, 'How do you know it?' The old Bohemian schoolmaster replied, 'Alexander Gallus says so.' 'And who is Alexander Gallus?' the emperor rejoined. The monk replied, 'He was a monk.' 'Well,' said the emperor, 'and I am emperor of Rome; and my word, I trust, will be as good as the word of any monk.' No doubt the laughers were with the emperor; but for all that, _schisma_ remained a neuter, and not even an emperor could change its gender or termination.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Source: [_The Science of Language, Founded on Lectures Delivered at the Royal Institution in 1861 and 1863_](https://books.google.com/books?id=2DQTAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;dq=council+constance+caesar+sigismund+schisma&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj5pPfd08XTAhVk4IMKHWB6A4cQuwUIQDAF#v=onepage&amp;q=council%20constance%20caesar%20sigismund%20schisma&amp;f=false) by F. Max Müller, K.M., pp. 39–40. (1899)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A long footnote in [this 1845 German translation of the poem _Hudibras_](https://books.google.com/books?id=Ot1LAAAAcAAJ&amp;dq=hudibras%20sigismund%20placentius%20schisma&amp;pg=PA214#v=onepage&amp;q=hudibras%20sigismund%20placentius%20schisma&amp;f=false) gives Sigismund's sentence as &quot;Date operam ut **illa nefanda schisma** eradicetur&quot; and attributes the correction to a Cardinal Placentius: &quot;locutio parum grammatica&quot;. After a similar interrogation leading to Gallus and Priscian, Sigismund retorts that as _Caesar,_ he outranks those people, and he can very well make a different grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some versions of the story, like the one in Wolfgang Menzel's 1852 [_History of the Germans_](https://books.google.com/books?id=41kEAAAAQAAJ&amp;vq=grammaticam&amp;pg=PA477#v=onepage&amp;q=ego%20sum%20rex&amp;f=false), Sigismund's rejoinder is:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego sum Rex Romanus et super grammaticam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the version at [Bestiara Latina](http://audiolatinproverbs.blogspot.com/2007/05/caesar-non-supra-grammaticos.html) has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A certain archbishop then rose to his feet and declared, _Caesar non supra grammaticos,_ &quot;Caesar is not superior to the grammarians.&quot; Consequently, the word _schisma_ remains neuter in gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but these sound to me like embroidering. In his [_History of Friedrich II of Prussia_](https://books.google.com/books?id=oZkTAQAAIAAJ&amp;dq=thomas%20carlyle%20history%20of%20friedrich%20ego%20sum%20rex&amp;pg=RA1-PA134#v=onepage&amp;q=ego%20sum%20rex&amp;f=false), Thomas Carlyle recounts Menzel's version, adding adverbs like &quot;mildly&quot; and &quot;loftily&quot;, no doubt contributing to the story's use as an object lesson in the arrogance of kings. Many sources wrongly attribute the origin of the proverb _Caesar non supra grammaticos_ to this anecdote. Note, though, that _Rex Romanus_ is correct, since in 1414 Sigismund was king of the Romans but not yet Holy Roman Emperor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt;Menzel's version also has the Cardinal say _neutrius_ rather than _neutri._&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4219" RevisionGUID="849c49e3-f25b-4300-872f-d11fa74eb5b3" CreationDate="2017-04-28T11:24:00.247" UserId="645" Text="I can't answer this as fully as you would like, but Ovid gives a clear idea of his own facility for writing verse, at Tristia IV, X, 25-26:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*sponte sua carmen numeros veniebat ad aptos / et quod temptabam scribere versus erat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole of this passage provides a clearer insight, and is well known to enthusiasts for Ovid. It's often quoted in biographies of the poet. I'm not surprised that you can't track down the critic for whom you are looking, but my guess is someone (Juvenal, maybe?) with a jaundiced view of life was being sarcastic about another poet — who may very well have been Ovid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that this helps you to make the argument that your question refers to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4220" RevisionGUID="b8394069-b464-4a6f-a30f-28eccb001bf9" CreationDate="2017-04-28T12:56:19.200" UserId="12" Text="I'm studying Augustine's [Sermon 46, &quot;De Pastoribus,&quot;](http://www.augustinus.it/latino/discorsi/discorso_057_testo.htm) largely via translations into Spanish and English.  There are a number of places where my English source and my Spanish source disagree, but perhaps none are more blatant than in section 11.  The relevant passage in Latin reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et tu dic: &quot;Si in Christo pie vixeris, abundabunt tibi omnia bona. Et si filios non habes, **suscipies et enutries omnes**, et nemo tibi morietur&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English translation goes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You say instead: “If you live a holy life in Christ, all good things will be yours in abundance. If you do not have children, **you will embrace and nourish all men**, and none of them shall die”. ([source, ostensibly from the Liturgy of the Hours](http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/57817-is-augustine39s-sermo-46-available-on-line-e-text/); cf. [LotH 1010](https://books.google.com/books?id=p5OjDgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT416&amp;lpg=PT416))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Spanish translation](http://www.augustinus.it/spagnolo/discorsi/discorso_057_testo.htm) makes much more sense to me in context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; di tú: «Si vives piadosamente en Cristo, abundarás en toda clase de bienes; y si no tienes hijos, **los recibirás, los criarás a todos** y ninguno se te morirá»  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;you say: &quot;If you live piously in Christ, you will abound in every kind of good thing; and if you do not have children, **you will receive them, you will raise them all**, and none of them will die. [my translation]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Breaking up the Latin phrase in question on [Latin-English.com](http://www.latin-english.com/), I see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **suscipies**: undertake, support, receive&#xD;&#xA; - **enutries**: nurture, rear&#xD;&#xA; - **omnes**: all men, everything, all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems then that the difference in translation is due to a different understanding of *omnes* in context – in particular, the English translator seems to believe that it must apply to both *suscipies* and *enutries* (you will receive and nurture all), while the Spanish translator understands it as applying to only *enutries* (of those you receive, you will nurture all).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I've analyzed the problem correctly, which translator is more accurately applying rules of Latin grammar?  Or is this a truly ambiguous case where context reigns?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12749" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4220" RevisionGUID="b8394069-b464-4a6f-a30f-28eccb001bf9" CreationDate="2017-04-28T12:56:19.200" UserId="12" Text="What does &quot;suscipies et enutries omnes&quot; mean in Augustine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12750" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4220" RevisionGUID="b8394069-b464-4a6f-a30f-28eccb001bf9" CreationDate="2017-04-28T12:56:19.200" UserId="12" Text="|phrase|late-latin|augustinus|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4221" RevisionGUID="1a45d031-48da-4bff-be6f-fbac86d1c32e" CreationDate="2017-04-28T13:39:16.213" UserId="45" Text="Latin does indeed use the term [*philosophia, -ae*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dphilosophia), from the Greek [φιλοσοφία,](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dfilosofi%2Fa).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Romans acknowledged that this was a Greek term:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ita fit ut mater omnium bonarum rerum &lt;sit&gt; sapientia, **a quoius amore Graeco	&#xD;&#xA;uerbo philosophia nomen inuenit**, qua nihil a dis immortalibus uberius, nihil florentius, nihil praestabilius hominum uitae datum est. (Cicero, *De Legibus* 1.58)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Thus it is that the mother of all good things is wisdom, **from whose love *philosophy* found its name in a Greek word**: nothing has been given to the life of men by the immortal gods that is more fertile, fruitful, and excellent.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further evidence that a native term for this was never in widespread use comes from *De Officiis*. Given Cicero's proclivity for inventing Latin neologisms for Greek philosophical terms, it is significant that he views the *studium sapientiae* as a one-off translation while continuing to use *philosophia* afterwards:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nec quicquam aliud est philosophia, si interpretari velis, praeter **studium sapientiae**. (Cicero, *De Officiis* 2.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Philosophy, if you wish to translate the word, is nothing other than the **love of wisdom.**&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4219" RevisionGUID="cc68e949-c6be-46ab-9528-b14f0a3bbd03" CreationDate="2017-04-28T14:07:52.147" UserId="45" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I can't answer this as fully as you would like, but Ovid gives a clear idea of his own facility for writing verse, at Tristia IV, X, 25-26:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sponte sua carmen numeros veniebat ad aptos  &#xD;&#xA;et quod temptabam scribere versus erat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole of this passage provides a clearer insight, and is well known to enthusiasts for Ovid. It's often quoted in biographies of the poet. I'm not surprised that you can't track down the critic for whom you are looking, but my guess is someone (Juvenal, maybe?) with a jaundiced view of life was being sarcastic about another poet — who may very well have been Ovid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that this helps you to make the argument that your question refers to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1855" RevisionGUID="6c30483d-5a45-4bdd-81e2-4501ff9e0b4f" CreationDate="2017-04-28T15:06:08.460" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 290 characters in body" Text="I think it helps to look at two different commentaries on this verse. First we'll reproduce the Greek, and then the commentaries on the Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ θεός Ἄφρων, ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ τὴν ψυχήν σου **αἰτοῦσιν** ἀπὸ σοῦ· ἃ δὲ ἡτοίμασας, τίνι ἔσται;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Westcott and Hort 1881][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first commentator is A.T. Robertson.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thou foolish one (aprwn). Fool, for lack of sense (a privative and prhn, sense) as in Luke 11:40 ; 2 Corinthians 11:19 . Old word, used by Socrates in Xenophon. Nominative form as vocative. Is thy soul required of thee (thn psuchn sou aitousin apo sou). Plural active present, not passive: &quot;They are demanding thy soul from thee.&quot; The **impersonal plural (aitousin)** is common enough ( Luke 6:38 ; Luke 12:11 ; Luke 16:9 ; Luke 23:31 ). The rabbis used &quot;they&quot; to avoid saying &quot;God.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is Henry Alford.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; αἰτοῦσιν, not strictly impersonal; there are those whose business it is, even the angels, the ministers of the divine purposes: see ch. Luke 6:38 and note. The merely impersonal sense may be defended: cf. Luke 12:48 : but this saying seems so solemn, as to require something more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Henry Alford's Commentaries on Luke 12][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two commentators agree that the verb αἰτοῦσιν could be a case of the **impersonal third person plural**. Robertson gives a good description of this idiom. He notes that it has at least a few other occurrences in Luke. He claims that it allows the author to avoid having to say &quot;God&quot;, in the same way that the passive would, but keeping the active voice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one possible answer. That the Greek verb αἰτοῦσιν is impersonal, and thus the Vulgate's choice of *repetunt* is a way of copying the idiom into Latin. But Alford allows that it could be otherwise, explaining that it could possibly refer to angels. For this reason, I hesitate to say definitively whether *repetunt* is impersonal. I think it's a matter of interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also worth mentioning how the Douay-Rheims bible, an early and more literal translation of the Vulgate, keeps the third person and the active voice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And I will say to my soul: Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years take thy rest; eat, drink, make good cheer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But God said to him: Thou fool, this night do **they require** thy soul of thee: and whose shall those things be which thou hast provided? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Luke 12:19-20 Douay-Rheims][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://biblehub.com/text/luke/12-20.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/luke/luke-12-20.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hac/luke-12.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/dou/luk.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4222" RevisionGUID="20487dd1-6129-4a7b-a2e4-c6a1a4213c01" CreationDate="2017-04-28T15:20:04.167" UserId="406" Text="That English translation is very good, in my opinion. For the sake of comparison, here's my rendering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And you say: &quot;if you live [literally &quot;will have lived&quot;] piously in Christ, all good things will abound for you. And if you do not have children, you will voluntarily take in and support and take care of all [people], and nobody will die with you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Suscipiō* is an excellent verb. It literally means to hold something up (from *sub* &quot;underneath&quot; + *capiō* &quot;take&quot;), but when applied to a person means to protect and take care of them. And it's specifically used when this support is given voluntarily, rather than out of duty or obligation—the latter would be *rēcipiō* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ēnūtriō* is less common (never appearing in pre-Augustan Latin) and more straightforward. It's simply an intensive form of *nūtriō*, &quot;to nourish, take care of&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notably, both these verbs require a direct object. You need to support *something*, nourish *something*. And *omnēs* is the only noun in the right form and position for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So your analysis of the English is closer to the Latin: &quot;all&quot; is the direct object of both verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4223" RevisionGUID="ba7fab51-bdee-49c5-8942-649ac01ad41c" CreationDate="2017-04-28T15:45:17.737" UserId="1102" Text="The word phonetic have a extra t (phone + ic = phonetic). etymologically it seems that it relate to [ancient greek][1] morphology and phonology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%86%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B7%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C%CF%82#grc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12756" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4223" RevisionGUID="ba7fab51-bdee-49c5-8942-649ac01ad41c" CreationDate="2017-04-28T15:45:17.737" UserId="1102" Text="Ancient Greek: how &quot;φωνέω&quot; + &quot;ικός&quot; = φωνητικός" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12757" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4223" RevisionGUID="ba7fab51-bdee-49c5-8942-649ac01ad41c" CreationDate="2017-04-28T15:45:17.737" UserId="1102" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4223" RevisionGUID="a5bf7c72-71a5-48f1-853c-d8a20ad3b266" CreationDate="2017-04-28T15:53:05.827" UserId="45" Comment="added 51 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="The word &quot;phonetic&quot; has a extra *t* (phone + ic = phonetic). Etymologically it seems that it is related to [ancient Greek][1] morphology and phonology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Where does this extra *t* come from?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%86%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B7%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C%CF%82#grc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12759" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4223" RevisionGUID="a5bf7c72-71a5-48f1-853c-d8a20ad3b266" CreationDate="2017-04-28T15:53:05.827" UserId="45" Comment="added 51 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How does &quot;φωνέω&quot; + &quot;ικός&quot; = φωνητικός" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12760" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4223" RevisionGUID="a5bf7c72-71a5-48f1-853c-d8a20ad3b266" CreationDate="2017-04-28T15:53:05.827" UserId="45" Comment="added 51 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|etymology|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4224" RevisionGUID="f686fa99-e668-4d6a-a554-26235421eb2e" CreationDate="2017-04-28T16:58:39.497" UserId="235" Text="The tau τ is actually quite expected in adjectives formed from verbs. There is a whole class of verbal adjectives that are based on the suffixes -τέος and -τός. The former (τέος) expresses the idea of obligation, whereas the latter (τός) expresses the idea of capability. For example, if you consider the verb παιδεύω, to teach, then the adjective παιδευτέος means &quot;needing to be taught&quot; and the adjective παιδευτός means &quot;able to be taught&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix -τικός is in a similar vein. This suffix is also used to create adjectives from verbs, but it expresses the idea of being suited or related to something. Thus φωνητικός means &quot;vocal&quot; as φωνέω means &quot;to sound&quot; and the suffix conveys the idea of something related to sound. If you recall one of the other suffixes, -τός, then you won't be surprised to find [φωνητός][1] in the dictionary, which means &quot;capable of being spoken&quot; or &quot;utterable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tau τ is thus common in the suffixes of verbal adjectives. It might be helpful to look up a word I mentioned earlier, παιδεύω, to see even more evidence of these suffixes. Not surprisingly, there are entries for [παιδευτέος][2], [παιδευτός][3], and [παιδευτικός][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.80:4:198.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.55:2:147.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.55:2:151.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.55:2:150.LSJ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4224" RevisionGUID="d12e908a-50df-4b8e-a72d-b09be0916f79" CreationDate="2017-04-28T17:09:14.647" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="The tau τ is actually quite expected in adjectives formed from verbs. There is a whole class of verbal adjectives that are based on the suffixes -τέος and -τός. The former (-τέος) expresses the idea of obligation, whereas the latter (-τός) expresses the idea of capability. For example, if you consider the verb παιδεύω, to teach, then you can form the adjectives παιδευτέος &quot;needing to be taught&quot; and παιδευτός &quot;able to be taught&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix -τικός is in a similar vein. This suffix is also used to create adjectives from verbs, but it expresses the idea of being suited or related to something. Thus φωνητικός means &quot;vocal&quot; as φωνέω means &quot;to sound&quot; and the suffix conveys the idea of something related to sound. If you recall one of the other suffixes, -τός, then you won't be surprised to find [φωνητός][1] in the dictionary, which means &quot;capable of being spoken&quot; or &quot;utterable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tau τ is thus common in the suffixes of verbal adjectives. It might be helpful to look up a word I mentioned earlier, παιδεύω, to see even more evidence of these suffixes. Not surprisingly, there are entries for [παιδευτέος][2], [παιδευτός][3], and [παιδευτικός][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.80:4:198.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.55:2:147.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.55:2:151.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.55:2:150.LSJ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4226" RevisionGUID="dbbfd8e9-997d-4227-a598-0fdc32e9bdf5" CreationDate="2017-04-28T17:11:08.833" UserId="1459" Text="[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloysius) states that Aloysius is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... a Latinisation of the names Louis, Lewis, Luis, Luigi, Ludwig, and other cognate names (traditionally in Medieval Latin as Ludovicus or Chlodovechus), ultimately from Frankish *Hlūdawīg, from Proto-Germanic *Hlūdawīgą (&quot;famous battle&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the [list of Latinised names](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latinised_names) you can see a lot of Latinised names ending in -is, -us, and -ius. This kind of make sense, as these seem to be pretty common declensions in Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am puzzled with the &quot;y&quot; in between Aloysius. From that list (perhaps excepting the conversion from English names, where an &quot;y&quot; in the original name is more common), there are very few exceptions having the &quot;y&quot; in the Latinised name. For example, Syncerus (Sannazaro). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If there is one, what was the logic of the Latinisation of the name Louis as Aloysius?** I mean, given my current little knowledge of Latin, works with &quot;y&quot; and &quot;k&quot; tend to be mainly of Greek origin. So it seems rather unatural to translate a name with a &quot;y&quot;, even more if the original did not have it. What was wrong with Aloisius? It seems &quot;oi&quot; is actually a [diphthong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation#Diphthongs), whereas &quot;oy&quot; is not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12765" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4226" RevisionGUID="dbbfd8e9-997d-4227-a598-0fdc32e9bdf5" CreationDate="2017-04-28T17:11:08.833" UserId="1459" Text="Which is the logic behind &quot;Aloysius&quot; latinisation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12766" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4226" RevisionGUID="dbbfd8e9-997d-4227-a598-0fdc32e9bdf5" CreationDate="2017-04-28T17:11:08.833" UserId="1459" Text="|names|latinization|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4224" RevisionGUID="016e2b79-905c-4a6c-b2c7-f7b90118f51c" CreationDate="2017-04-28T17:15:08.020" UserId="235" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="The tau τ is actually quite expected in adjectives formed from verbs. There is a whole class of verbal adjectives that are based on the suffixes -τέος and -τός. The former expresses the idea of obligation, whereas the latter expresses the idea of capability. For example, if you consider the verb παιδεύω, to teach, then you can form the adjectives παιδευτέος &quot;needing to be taught&quot; and παιδευτός &quot;able to be taught&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix -τικός is in a similar vein. This suffix is also used to create adjectives from verbs, but it expresses the idea of being suited or related to something. Thus φωνητικός means &quot;vocal&quot; as φωνέω means &quot;to sound&quot; and the suffix conveys the idea of something related to sound. If you recall one of the other suffixes, -τός, then you won't be surprised to find [φωνητός][1] in the dictionary, which means &quot;capable of being spoken&quot; or &quot;utterable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, tau τ is common in the suffixes of verbal adjectives. It might be helpful to look up a word I mentioned earlier, παιδεύω, to see even more evidence of these suffixes. You can find entries for [παιδευτέος][2], [παιδευτός][3], and [παιδευτικός][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.80:4:198.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.55:2:147.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.55:2:151.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.55:2:150.LSJ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4227" RevisionGUID="648607a3-28ae-4847-bc50-6585fac29cb6" CreationDate="2017-04-28T18:36:09.643" UserId="1459" Text="At first, I thought &quot;misnomer&quot; was an English word adapted from Latin (still learning, as you can see). Yet, it seems it does not exist in Latin. According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/misnomer):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;From Anglo-Norman mesnomer, noun use of Anglo-Norman and Old French verb mesnomer (“to name incorrectly”), from mes- (“mis-”) + nomer (“to name”) (from Latin nōmināre).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, given this assertion, would not the Latin equivalent be &quot;mesnomer&quot;? However, Wiktionary does not yield an entry for such word. Neither does [S&amp;L dictionary](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=exact&amp;lookup=mesnomer&amp;lang). Why is such not a word? Am I incorrectly understanding the above quoted text?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12769" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4227" RevisionGUID="648607a3-28ae-4847-bc50-6585fac29cb6" CreationDate="2017-04-28T18:36:09.643" UserId="1459" Text="Is &quot;mesnomer&quot; the Latin equivalent of the English word &quot;misnomer&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12770" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4227" RevisionGUID="648607a3-28ae-4847-bc50-6585fac29cb6" CreationDate="2017-04-28T18:36:09.643" UserId="1459" Text="|vocabulary|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4228" RevisionGUID="89a50005-e96c-43c0-b143-ccb1492c9cb5" CreationDate="2017-04-28T19:13:30.127" UserId="45" Text="We've already had a question asking https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/732/what-are-the-classical-names-of-the-letters-of-the-latin-alphabet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious to know **if, and how, a Roman could ask the spelling of a word.** Though Latin is phonetic, I can imagine cases (for instance with Greek loan words, double letters, or nasalized vowels) where a Roman might want to check before chiseling on a monument. The first thing that comes to my mind is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quomodo scribitur?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any classical sources talking about how to spell something would also be helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12772" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4228" RevisionGUID="89a50005-e96c-43c0-b143-ccb1492c9cb5" CreationDate="2017-04-28T19:13:30.127" UserId="45" Text="How can I ask the spelling of a word in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12773" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4228" RevisionGUID="89a50005-e96c-43c0-b143-ccb1492c9cb5" CreationDate="2017-04-28T19:13:30.127" UserId="45" Text="|translation|orthography|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="294" RevisionGUID="1e0bb22d-feec-4cff-b7fe-a62a772d5c99" CreationDate="2017-04-28T19:39:43.037" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and reformatted." Text="Referring to progressively more distance ancestors, I would list my&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Pater* (father)&#xD;&#xA; - *Avus* (grandfather)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After this point, it gets a bit shaky. [This](https://books.google.com/books?id=vJfzPId7PnEC&amp;pg=PA50&amp;lpg=PA50&amp;dq=latin+great-grandfather+using+magnus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=UAbDtGXhPP&amp;sig=x93AG7SRVeJBrslznpdSGYmn1Ck&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjotI63xJjLAhUMdj4KHbcaCdAQ6AEIJTAC#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20great-grandfather%20using%20magnus&amp;f=false), for example, gives past ancestors as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Proavus* (great-grandfather)&#xD;&#xA; - *Abavus* (great-great-grandfather)&#xD;&#xA; - *Atavus* (great-great-great-grandfather)&#xD;&#xA; - *Tritavus* (great-great-great-great-grandfather)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;See also [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=blhFAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA83&amp;lpg=PA83&amp;dq=latin+great-grandfather&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=hE7ZQS81Fh&amp;sig=hiGNx9TRiDAUQy2LMoBA-8SwK-0&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi056DNw5jLAhXCbj4KHbxpCtc4FBDoAQghMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20great-grandfather&amp;f=false).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how far back this system went on &amp;mdash; I have yet to find anything further &amp;mdash; although it seems somewhat absurd that someone should need to refer to someone this distantly related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I were to literally translate &quot;grand&quot; in this usage, I would end up with some form of *magnus*, which could then be applied as successive prefixes. However, I doubt that this has actually been used; it seems like a misrepresentation. The book I cited also gave *pro-* as meaning&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'add one generation away from *ego*.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might then mean that my *atavus* could also be called my *pro-pro-proavus*. However, *pro-* can also be used to indicate steps in future generations &amp;mdash; and may in fact have been used more commonly in this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What system was most commonly used in Classical Latin &amp;mdash; the specific naming system, applicable to at least six generations back in time, the *pro-* system, which could apparently be used for an arbitrary number of generations (which I'm slightly more interested in here), or something completely different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12776" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="294" RevisionGUID="1e0bb22d-feec-4cff-b7fe-a62a772d5c99" CreationDate="2017-04-28T19:39:43.037" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and reformatted." Text="|classical-latin|affixes|familia|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2813" RevisionGUID="c4cf172b-1099-4bc6-965c-baaa88b5477a" CreationDate="2017-04-28T19:43:07.520" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="I seem to remember reading that *iuvenis* referred to someone roughly between 15 and 30. However, my Collins Latin Dictionary states it refers to someone between 30 and 45. Since a man could serve as praetor or consul at around the 40 year old mark, this seems highly unlikely. Even today, I doubt if a 44-year-old would be considered &quot;young&quot;, except perhaps by an octogenarian! Have Collins got it wrong? Sorry if this is a bit basic, so is my Latin at present. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12778" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2813" RevisionGUID="c4cf172b-1099-4bc6-965c-baaa88b5477a" CreationDate="2017-04-28T19:43:07.520" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|vocabulary|meaning|adjective|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4224" RevisionGUID="8607a255-6515-4573-8a30-9479ccec8e38" CreationDate="2017-04-28T20:19:49.793" UserId="235" Comment="edited body" Text="The tau (τ) is actually quite expected in adjectives formed from verbs. There is a whole class of verbal adjectives that are based on the suffixes -τέος and -τός. The former expresses the idea of obligation, whereas the latter expresses the idea of capability. For example, if you consider the verb παιδεύω, to teach, then you can form the adjectives παιδευτέος &quot;needing to be taught&quot; and παιδευτός &quot;able to be taught&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix -τικός is in a similar vein. This suffix is also used to create adjectives from verbs, but it expresses the idea of being suited or related to something. Thus φωνητικός means &quot;vocal&quot; as φωνέω means &quot;to sound&quot; and the suffix conveys the idea of something related to sound. If you recall one of the other suffixes, -τός, then you won't be surprised to find [φωνητός][1] in the dictionary, which means &quot;capable of being spoken&quot; or &quot;utterable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, tau is common in the suffixes of verbal adjectives. It might be helpful to look up a word I mentioned earlier, παιδεύω, to see even more evidence of these suffixes. You can find entries for [παιδευτέος][2], [παιδευτός][3], and [παιδευτικός][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.80:4:198.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.55:2:147.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.55:2:151.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.55:2:150.LSJ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4224" RevisionGUID="3ae9a9f5-6ccd-45a0-a031-eeed0c1b6e83" CreationDate="2017-04-28T20:49:09.007" UserId="235" Comment="added 13 characters in body; added 15 characters in body; deleted 15 characters in body; added 3 characters in body" Text="The tau (τ) is actually quite expected in adjectives formed from verbs. There is a whole class of verbal adjectives that are based on the suffixes -τέος and -τός. The former expresses the idea of obligation or necessity, whereas the latter expresses the idea of capability. For example, if you consider the verb παιδεύω, to teach, then you can form the adjectives παιδευτέος &quot;needing to be taught&quot; and παιδευτός &quot;able to be taught&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix -τικός is in a similar vein. This suffix is also used to create adjectives from verbs, but it expresses the idea of being suited to or related to something. Thus φωνητικός means &quot;vocal&quot; as φωνέω means &quot;to sound&quot; and the suffix conveys the idea of something related to sound. If you recall one of the other suffixes, -τός, then you won't be surprised to find [φωνητός][1] in the dictionary, which means &quot;capable of being spoken&quot; or &quot;utterable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, tau is common in the suffixes of verbal adjectives. It might be helpful to look up a word I mentioned earlier, παιδεύω, to see even more evidence of these suffixes. You can find entries for [παιδευτέος][2], [παιδευτός][3], and [παιδευτικός][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.80:4:198.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.55:2:147.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.55:2:151.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.55:2:150.LSJ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4229" RevisionGUID="b936089e-fe14-4340-a718-403d7caeae17" CreationDate="2017-04-28T21:53:08.480" UserDisplayName="user1466" Text="Quintilian uses the phrase ***quomodo scribitur*** in *Institutio Oratoria*, Book I, 4, 11 ([accessed via Perseus][1]) in discussing two of the same vowels next to one another in a word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *quaeret hoc etiam, quomodo duabus demum vocalibus in se ipsas coeundi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; natura sit, cum consonantium nulla nisi alteram frangat. atqui littera&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I sibi insidit, coniicit enim est ab illo iacit, et V, **quomodo nunc&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scribitur** uulgus et seruus. sciat etiam Ciceroni placuisse aiio&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maiiamque geminata I scribere; quod si est, etiam iungetur ut&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consonans.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following excerpt from Suetonius about Augustus and his spelling habits  is fascinating. Note the definition of orthography in the first sentence. This suggests that the Romans noticed and commented on spelling errors.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(from the [Loeb Library edition][2] in public domain)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;88  ***Orthographiam, id est formulam rationemque scribendi a grammaticis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; institutam**, non adeo custodit ac videtur eorum potius sequi opinionem,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui perinde scribendum ac loquamur existiment. Nam quod saepe non&#xD;&#xA;&gt; litteras modo sed syllabas aut permutat aut praeterit, communis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hominum error est. Nec ego id notarem, nisi mihi mirum videretur&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tradidisse aliquos, legato eum consulari successorem dedisse ut rudi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et indocto, cuius manu &quot;ixi&quot; pro &quot;ipsi&quot; scriptum animadverterit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quotiens autem per notas scribit, B pro A, C pro B ac deinceps eadem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ratione sequentis litteras ponit; pro X autem duplex A.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article][3] about an embarrassing spelling mistake in an inscription (a modern S for a Greek sigma) on a new Classics building at Cambridge University  in 2010 makes your point quite nicely about checking twice before using the chisel.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0060%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D4&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Augustus*.html#88&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://%20http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7759356/Cambridge-classics-department-misspells-quote-on-new-building.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4229" RevisionGUID="c79412ad-c35a-4fc0-9840-c8ac3decef1d" CreationDate="2017-04-28T21:58:26.317" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body" Text="Quintilian uses the phrase ***quomodo scribitur*** in *Institutio Oratoria*, Book I, 4, 11 ([accessed via Perseus][1]) in discussing doubling of vowels in a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *quaeret hoc etiam, quomodo duabus demum vocalibus in se ipsas coeundi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; natura sit, cum consonantium nulla nisi alteram frangat. atqui littera&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I sibi insidit, coniicit enim est ab illo iacit, et V, **quomodo nunc&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scribitur** uulgus et seruus. sciat etiam Ciceroni placuisse aiio&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maiiamque geminata I scribere; quod si est, etiam iungetur ut&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consonans.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following excerpt from Suetonius about Augustus and his spelling habits based on pronounciation  is fascinating. Note the definition of orthography in the first sentence. This suggests that the Romans noticed and commented on spelling errors.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(from the [Loeb Library edition][2] in public domain)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;88  ***Orthographiam, id est formulam rationemque scribendi a grammaticis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; institutam**, non adeo custodit ac videtur eorum potius sequi opinionem,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui perinde scribendum ac loquamur existiment. Nam quod saepe non&#xD;&#xA;&gt; litteras modo sed syllabas aut permutat aut praeterit, communis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hominum error est. Nec ego id notarem, nisi mihi mirum videretur&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tradidisse aliquos, legato eum consulari successorem dedisse ut rudi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et indocto, cuius manu &quot;ixi&quot; pro &quot;ipsi&quot; scriptum animadverterit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quotiens autem per notas scribit, B pro A, C pro B ac deinceps eadem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ratione sequentis litteras ponit; pro X autem duplex A.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article][3] about an embarrassing spelling mistake in an inscription (a modern S for a Greek sigma) on a new Classics building at Cambridge University  in 2010 makes your point quite nicely about checking twice before using the chisel.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0060%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D4&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Augustus*.html#88&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://%20http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7759356/Cambridge-classics-department-misspells-quote-on-new-building.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4229" RevisionGUID="6a5a5482-99fa-450d-9e74-ccb1c1500a40" CreationDate="2017-04-28T22:13:44.420" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="Quintilian uses the phrase ***quomodo scribitur*** in *Institutio Oratoria*, Book I, 4, 11 ([accessed via Perseus][1]) in discussing doubling of vowels in a word.  He is not using it as a direct question, but the phrase seems amenable for that purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *quaeret hoc etiam, quomodo duabus demum vocalibus in se ipsas coeundi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; natura sit, cum consonantium nulla nisi alteram frangat. atqui littera&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I sibi insidit, coniicit enim est ab illo iacit, et V, **quomodo nunc&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scribitur** uulgus et seruus. sciat etiam Ciceroni placuisse aiio&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maiiamque geminata I scribere; quod si est, etiam iungetur ut&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consonans.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following excerpt from Suetonius about Augustus and his spelling habits based on pronounciation  is fascinating. Note the definition of orthography in the first sentence. This suggests that the Romans noticed and commented on spelling errors.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(from the [Loeb Library edition][2] in public domain)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;88  ***Orthographiam, id est formulam rationemque scribendi a grammaticis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; institutam**, non adeo custodit ac videtur eorum potius sequi opinionem,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui perinde scribendum ac loquamur existiment. Nam quod saepe non&#xD;&#xA;&gt; litteras modo sed syllabas aut permutat aut praeterit, communis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hominum error est. Nec ego id notarem, nisi mihi mirum videretur&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tradidisse aliquos, legato eum consulari successorem dedisse ut rudi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et indocto, cuius manu &quot;ixi&quot; pro &quot;ipsi&quot; scriptum animadverterit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quotiens autem per notas scribit, B pro A, C pro B ac deinceps eadem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ratione sequentis litteras ponit; pro X autem duplex A.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article][3] about an embarrassing spelling mistake in an inscription (a modern S for a Greek sigma) on a new Classics building at Cambridge University  in 2010 makes your point quite nicely about checking twice before using the chisel.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0060%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D4&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Augustus*.html#88&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://%20http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7759356/Cambridge-classics-department-misspells-quote-on-new-building.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4229" RevisionGUID="fd942a95-f42a-48b1-8356-d9d1f37b573b" CreationDate="2017-04-28T22:28:59.480" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Quintilian uses the phrase ***quomodo scribitur*** in *Institutio Oratoria*, Book I, 4, 11 ([accessed via Perseus][1]) in discussing doubling of vowels in a word.  He is not using it as a direct question, but the phrase seems amenable for that purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *quaeret hoc etiam, quomodo duabus demum vocalibus in se ipsas coeundi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; natura sit, cum consonantium nulla nisi alteram frangat. atqui littera&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I sibi insidit, coniicit enim est ab illo iacit, et V, **quomodo nunc&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scribitur** uulgus et seruus. sciat etiam Ciceroni placuisse aiio&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maiiamque geminata I scribere; quod si est, etiam iungetur ut&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consonans.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following excerpt from Suetonius about Augustus and his spelling habits based on pronounciation  is fascinating. Note the definition of orthography in the first sentence. This suggests that the Romans noticed and commented on spelling errors.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(from the [Loeb Library edition][2] in public domain)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;88  ***Orthographiam, id est formulam rationemque scribendi a grammaticis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; institutam**, non adeo custodit ac videtur eorum potius sequi opinionem,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui perinde scribendum ac loquamur existiment. Nam quod saepe non&#xD;&#xA;&gt; litteras modo sed syllabas aut permutat aut praeterit, communis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hominum error est. Nec ego id notarem, nisi mihi mirum videretur&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tradidisse aliquos, legato eum consulari successorem dedisse ut rudi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et indocto, cuius manu &quot;ixi&quot; pro &quot;ipsi&quot; scriptum animadverterit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quotiens autem per notas scribit, B pro A, C pro B ac deinceps eadem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ratione sequentis litteras ponit; pro X autem duplex A.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article][3] about an embarrassing spelling mistake in an inscription (a modern S for a Greek sigma) on a new Classics building at Cambridge University  in 2010 makes your point quite nicely about checking twice before using the chisel.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0060%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D4&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Augustus*.html#88&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7759356/Cambridge-classics-department-misspells-quote-on-new-building.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4230" RevisionGUID="733b4ec6-c052-4ec8-9824-e8f671ecdd6c" CreationDate="2017-04-29T01:45:10.373" UserId="1498" Text="How to translate &quot;suit yourself&quot;? I'm curious as to how it translates in Latin. The tone intention here is important, as it tends to be used in a rude or sarcastic way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12788" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4230" RevisionGUID="733b4ec6-c052-4ec8-9824-e8f671ecdd6c" CreationDate="2017-04-29T01:45:10.373" UserId="1498" Text="How to say &quot;suit yourself&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12789" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4230" RevisionGUID="733b4ec6-c052-4ec8-9824-e8f671ecdd6c" CreationDate="2017-04-29T01:45:10.373" UserId="1498" Text="|translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4231" RevisionGUID="298f313c-1fbb-4c87-8f21-959faddf38f2" CreationDate="2017-04-29T01:50:32.790" UserId="78" Text="Are there any ancient—or modern, if not—examples of a learner's alphabet that mirrors the modern &quot;A is for...&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really looking for poetry that has an alphabet acrostic or any other playfulness, but specifically for a standard construction of &quot;is for&quot; or &quot;stands for&quot; or &quot;signifies&quot; when used with alphabets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know I could used *significare* or *indicare*, but I don't know if that has Classical precedents specifically for this type of exercise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12791" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4231" RevisionGUID="298f313c-1fbb-4c87-8f21-959faddf38f2" CreationDate="2017-04-29T01:50:32.790" UserId="78" Text="A is for... Latin examples" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12792" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4231" RevisionGUID="298f313c-1fbb-4c87-8f21-959faddf38f2" CreationDate="2017-04-29T01:50:32.790" UserId="78" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4230" RevisionGUID="16ee909b-9b63-4d7e-94ff-09a275da47de" CreationDate="2017-04-29T01:51:04.453" UserId="1498" Comment="typo" Text="How to translate &quot;suit yourself&quot;? I'm curious as to how it translates to Latin. In certain contexts, it can come off as rude or sarcastic, even though, it's used in formal conversations and is not intended to be offensive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4224" RevisionGUID="63b19f20-fb2b-42b7-91ae-3cc8f09f6f6a" CreationDate="2017-04-29T02:30:48.150" UserId="235" Comment="added 356 characters in body" Text="The tau (τ) is actually quite expected in adjectives formed from verbs. There is a whole class of verbal adjectives that are based on the suffixes -τέος and -τός. The former expresses the idea of obligation or necessity, whereas the latter expresses the idea of capability ([Smyth §2149][1]). For example, if you consider the verb παιδεύω, to teach, then you can form the adjectives παιδευτέος &quot;needing to be taught&quot; and παιδευτός &quot;able to be taught&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix -τικός is in a similar vein. This suffix is also used to create adjectives from verbs, but it expresses the idea of being suited to or related to something ([Smyth §858.6d][2]). Thus [φωνητικός][3] means &quot;vocal&quot; as φωνέω means &quot;to sound&quot; and the suffix conveys the idea of something related to sound. If you recall one of the other suffixes, -τός, then you won't be surprised to find [φωνητός][4] in the dictionary, which means &quot;capable of being spoken&quot; or &quot;utterable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, tau is common in the suffixes of verbal adjectives. It might be helpful to look up a word I mentioned earlier, παιδεύω, to see even more evidence of these suffixes. You can find entries for [παιδευτέος][5], [παιδευτός][6], and [παιδευτικός][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Apart%3D4%3Achapter%3D47&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Apart%3D3%3Achapter%3D21&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.80:4:197.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.80:4:198.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.55:2:147.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.55:2:151.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.55:2:150.LSJ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="1310a5fd-b00f-4e93-9196-8b4facb8e137" CreationDate="2017-04-29T05:11:35.347" UserId="235" Text="I couldn't help but wonder, while reading this verse from the Lord's Prayer, whether ῥύομαι might be cognate with the English verb *rescue*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And lead us not into temptation,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But rescue us from evil.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Matthew 6:13][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [entry on etymonline.com][2] did not suggest anything of the sort. It claims that *rescue* derives from the Latin verb *excutere* but stops short of making any connections to Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rescue (v.)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; c. 1300, from stem of Old French rescorre &quot;protect, keep safe; free, deliver&quot; (Modern French recourre), from re-, intensive prefix (see re-), + escourre &quot;to cast off, discharge,&quot; from Latin excutere &quot;to shake off, drive away,&quot; from ex &quot;out&quot; (see ex-) + -cutere, combining form of quatere &quot;to shake&quot; (see quash). Related: Rescued; rescuing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought there might be more to the story. Would anyone here happen to know whether ῥύομαι is cognate with *rescue*? If not, I would be equally interested in learning what PIE root or stem ῥύομαι descends from. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online/text/bibeltext/lesen/stelle/50/60001/69999/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rescue&amp;allowed_in_frame=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12796" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="1310a5fd-b00f-4e93-9196-8b4facb8e137" CreationDate="2017-04-29T05:11:35.347" UserId="235" Text="Is ῥύομαι cognate with rescue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12797" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="1310a5fd-b00f-4e93-9196-8b4facb8e137" CreationDate="2017-04-29T05:11:35.347" UserId="235" Text="|etymology|greek|proto-indo-european|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4233" RevisionGUID="2a82acea-3f9a-415b-813c-7a7067a87873" CreationDate="2017-04-29T07:11:08.290" UserId="79" Text="Latin effectively lost its dual number.&#xD;&#xA;It left behind some remnants, most notably *duo* and *ambo*.&#xD;&#xA;However, all [examples or relics of the dual number in Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2135/79) I have seen are in declension.&#xD;&#xA;I would assume the grammatical number to be present in conjugation also, so that between *unus canit* and *quinque canunt* there would be *duo canX*, where the *X* stands for a third person dual ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Classical or later Latin as I know it does not really have a dual; all examples of duals can be practically treated as irregular plurals.&#xD;&#xA;This leads me to phrase my confusion as this series of questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Assuming there ever was such a thing as dual conjugation, when was it lost?&#xD;&#xA;- Did Proto-Indo-European ever have it to begin with?&#xD;&#xA;- Are there remains of originally dual conjugation that survived in Latin, presumably as plural forms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12799" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4233" RevisionGUID="2a82acea-3f9a-415b-813c-7a7067a87873" CreationDate="2017-04-29T07:11:08.290" UserId="79" Text="Was there ever dual conjugation in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12800" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4233" RevisionGUID="2a82acea-3f9a-415b-813c-7a7067a87873" CreationDate="2017-04-29T07:11:08.290" UserId="79" Text="|language-evolution|conjugation|proto-indo-european|numbers|proto-italic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4234" RevisionGUID="542c4d8e-b5bf-4a2d-9820-689c5d3bf00a" CreationDate="2017-04-29T09:51:02.627" UserId="1499" Text="I am trying to get this title from a book by Charles Bukowski translated to Latin. It goes, &quot;What matters most is how well you walk through the fire&quot;. Google came up with different answers which I put together on the translate box until I came up with the English equivalent above. The best that Google could offer was: &quot;sit amet quam honestus te ambulate per ignem&quot;. Is this accurate or close enough at least? Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12802" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4234" RevisionGUID="542c4d8e-b5bf-4a2d-9820-689c5d3bf00a" CreationDate="2017-04-29T09:51:02.627" UserId="1499" Text="Help Translating English Book Title to Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12803" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4234" RevisionGUID="542c4d8e-b5bf-4a2d-9820-689c5d3bf00a" CreationDate="2017-04-29T09:51:02.627" UserId="1499" Text="|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4231" RevisionGUID="75c7dad1-e84c-4c15-9ac8-a1b60ae8cbf4" CreationDate="2017-04-29T12:14:09.303" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Are there any ancient—or modern, if not—examples of a learner's alphabet that mirrors the modern &quot;A is for...&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really looking for poetry that has an alphabet acrostic or any other playfulness, but specifically for a standard construction of &quot;is for&quot; or &quot;stands for&quot; or &quot;signifies&quot; when used with alphabets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know I could use *significare* or *indicare*, but I don't know if that has Classical precedents specifically for this type of exercise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4235" RevisionGUID="966a4e3b-193e-440c-86ff-5dd898df0ccc" CreationDate="2017-04-29T12:55:50.440" UserId="1500" Text="So firstly, `ambulate` is either the vocative of the passive perfect participle of `ambulo` (I walk) or the plural imperative, neither of which you seem to mean. Your translation is, roughly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `sit` = (he/she/it) is (subjunctive)&#xD;&#xA; - `amet` = (he/she/it) loves (subjunctive)&#xD;&#xA; - `quam` = as&#xD;&#xA; - `honestus` = worthy, noble, decent&#xD;&#xA; - `te` = you (singular accusative)&#xD;&#xA; - `ambulate` = either &quot;Walk!&quot; (imperative) or &quot;having been traversed!&quot; (in the sense of &quot;You!&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - `per ignem` = through the fire&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't quite make sense as `sit` and `amet` haven't actually got subjects and are subjunctive for some reason; you may have plucked `sit amet` from Cicero's `de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum`? `ambulate` also doesn't quite fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, here is a possible translation: `cui momentum maximum est per ignem quam bene ambulas.` Broken down:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `cui` = that to which&#xD;&#xA; - `momentum maximum` = the most importance&#xD;&#xA; - `est` = is&#xD;&#xA; - `per ignem` = through the fire&#xD;&#xA; - `quam bene` = how well&#xD;&#xA; - `ambulas` = you walk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in English, literally, the translation is &quot;That to which there is most importance (i.e. that which has most importance) is how well you walk through the fire.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully this should do the trick." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4236" RevisionGUID="6ff79c8a-861e-4034-81d3-8e3d69cc0133" CreationDate="2017-04-29T13:54:40.793" UserId="1502" Text="What is the correct way to write roman numerals with superscript? Should the convention of the language be used or the latin convention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12807" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4236" RevisionGUID="6ff79c8a-861e-4034-81d3-8e3d69cc0133" CreationDate="2017-04-29T13:54:40.793" UserId="1502" Text="Is it VIIth or VIIe in latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12808" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4236" RevisionGUID="6ff79c8a-861e-4034-81d3-8e3d69cc0133" CreationDate="2017-04-29T13:54:40.793" UserId="1502" Text="|numerals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4237" RevisionGUID="9411d173-a7fd-4b76-9131-1caf088f7c87" CreationDate="2017-04-29T17:18:58.307" UserId="40" Text="PIE appears to have had dual verb forms, as can be seen from e.g. Greek ἐστόν &quot;you two are&quot;, Sanskrit *ithás* &quot;you two go&quot;, Gothic *baírats* &quot;you two carry&quot;. (Anatolian, though, lacks dual forms, which makes it uncertain whether these existed in PIE and were lost in Anatolian, or only developed after Anatolian had branched off from the rest of the IE languages; the same question arises for many other morphological features that are absent from Anatolian.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dual (in both verbs and nouns) disappeared en route to Italic -- neither Latin nor any of its Italic sister languages retain it. It's possible that there is at least one relic of the PIE dual in the Latin verb system, though: namely the 2pl. ending *-tis*, which has sometimes been explained as originating in the dual ending. (Cf. the *-thás* and *-ts-* of the Sanskrit and Gothic forms above.) But this is controversial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4238" RevisionGUID="0ec81cb4-0c3b-41ce-aa80-a4f7e980ff2f" CreationDate="2017-04-29T17:30:36.473" UserId="845" Text="&quot;NIL VIRTUS GENEROSA TIMET&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes also found as &quot;Nihil virtus generosa timet&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was, supposedly, the divise or motto of [Bertrand du Guesclin](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Du_Guesclin#Renseignements_compl.C3.A9mentaires), French knight during the Hundred Years' War.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not found any English translation of this, only [contradictory French translations](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22virtus+generosa+timet%22&amp;rlz=1C1AOHY_esES708ES708&amp;oq=%22virtus+generosa+timet%22&amp;aqs=chrome..69i57l2j69i59l4.1550j0j7&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=%22virtus+generosa+timet%22&amp;safe=off&amp;start=0) that don't seem to be quite right (Virtue doesn't learn anything, Generosity doesn't fear anything...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this mean exactly? What would be the correct translation in English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12812" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4238" RevisionGUID="0ec81cb4-0c3b-41ce-aa80-a4f7e980ff2f" CreationDate="2017-04-29T17:30:36.473" UserId="845" Text="&quot;Nil virtus generosa timet&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12813" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4238" RevisionGUID="0ec81cb4-0c3b-41ce-aa80-a4f7e980ff2f" CreationDate="2017-04-29T17:30:36.473" UserId="845" Text="|translation|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4239" RevisionGUID="b56ad472-83f4-4131-b038-71d37c870716" CreationDate="2017-04-29T17:37:33.423" UserId="40" Text="The words are unrelated: there's no way to connect *ex-cutere* with ῥύομαι. The Latin word is based on *quatio* &quot;shake&quot;, which has a Greek cognate πάττω &quot;sprinkle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The etymology of ῥύομαι is a bit messy. It's part of a family of forms which include ἔρυμαι, ἐρύομαι, εἴρυτο and others (all with the same meaning). These seem to go back to a PIE root such as *ueru-, which also yields the English word *wear* and German *wehren* &quot;defend&quot;. But there are some doubts about this because of the lack of evidence for digamma in Greek, and other etymologies have been suggested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4240" RevisionGUID="31609c65-d55f-4103-b295-4b18a1f6332d" CreationDate="2017-04-29T19:36:39.687" UserId="985" Text="At least in the inscriptions that I've seen, there's no particular indication at all – it would just be understood from context that an ordinal rather than cardinal number is required. For example, the grave inscription of a man named Rufus Site who served in the sixth cohort says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; RVFVS SITA EQVES C[o]HO[rtis] VI ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This inscription is _CIL_ VII,67; there's a not-very-clear photo in Alison Cooley, _The Cambridge manual of Latin epigraphy_, p 379.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In printed texts, though, ordinals are often represented by using a period after the number, as is the convention in, e.g., modern German (VI.). For example, from the Oxford text of Caesar, _De bello civili_ 3.62:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ad eas munitiones Caesar Lentulum Marcellinum quaestorem cum legione VIIII. positum habebat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4241" RevisionGUID="207874a8-a000-4618-9977-59b02b4ef67b" CreationDate="2017-04-29T19:45:13.023" UserId="469" Text="Let's analyze the sentence word-by-word first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `Nil`/nihil translates mainly as [_nothing_][1] (either noun or adverb). It is indeclinable (hence it gives no clue about its grammatical function in the sentence.)&#xD;&#xA;* `virtus` is a feminine noun [meaning][2] either _strength_ or _virtue_. The ending tells us it is either the subject of the sentence (nominative case) or it is being addressed by the speaker (vocative case, which seems unlikely.)&#xD;&#xA;* `generosa` is a form of an adjective meaning _generous_ but [also][3] _noble_ or _dignified_ (especially when referred to things.) The ending implies it is either a plural, neuter in gender (unlikely,) or a feminine (agreeing with virtus, and thus part of the subject.)&#xD;&#xA;* `timet` is basically the verb [to fear][4], in present tense, 3rd person singular: he/she/it _fears_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since `virtus generosa` is likely to be the subject, `nil` is fit to be the object. Piecing the words together leads to the translation **Generous virtue fears nothing**, which is close to (but not exactly) what you have found so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For it to mean _generosity_ (i.e. the noun, the specific virtue of generosity) instead of _generous_ (as an attribute of something else), it needs to use a form of [_generositas_][5] or something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the verb _to learn_ I can't recall any Latin verb close in meaning that resembles _timeo_. The most common way of saying it is probably &#xD;&#xA;[disco][6], which would make the sentence _nihil virtus generosa discit_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnihil&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvirtus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgenerosus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtimeo&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgenerositas&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddisco" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4242" RevisionGUID="4dabde47-4db9-4eba-9195-add9b330d57c" CreationDate="2017-04-29T21:41:01.640" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[[ Etymonline : ](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=vault&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) ]  vault (n.1)   &#xD;&#xA;[...] Latin *volutus* &quot;bowed, arched,&quot; past participle of    &#xD;&#xA;*volvere* &quot;to turn, turn around, roll,&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;from PIE root [*wel-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=*wel-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (3) &quot;to turn, revolve.&quot; [...] " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12818" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4242" RevisionGUID="4dabde47-4db9-4eba-9195-add9b330d57c" CreationDate="2017-04-29T21:41:01.640" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What semantic notions connect &quot;to turn, turn around, roll,&quot; to &quot;bowed, arched&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12819" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4242" RevisionGUID="4dabde47-4db9-4eba-9195-add9b330d57c" CreationDate="2017-04-29T21:41:01.640" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="fd505323-a600-49d6-8928-43d481e60763" CreationDate="2017-04-29T23:00:18.813" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and slightly reformatted." Text="What does *cepeo* mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Google Translate, this means &quot;onions&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any connotations, other words that carry the same meaning, or anything else specifically related to it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12821" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="fd505323-a600-49d6-8928-43d481e60763" CreationDate="2017-04-29T23:00:18.813" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and slightly reformatted." Text="|vocabulary|meaning|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4243" RevisionGUID="ce8a4ad3-a4b9-48a3-bc68-f723a4ce85ae" CreationDate="2017-04-30T00:11:47.130" UserId="30" Text="When you turn or (re)volve around something, you move along a curve, like the pencil of a pair of compasses (the pin is the centre). The path traversed could be a full circle, or part of a circle, or a less regular curve. This curve is the result of the action of revolving, and as such it can be expressed by a passive form of the verb, the participium perfecti passivi *volutus*. This describes a curved appearance. A bow and an arch have curved shapes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4244" RevisionGUID="4760c484-40e2-447a-a90a-a2ac0f5cb7c4" CreationDate="2017-04-30T00:14:58.197" UserId="118" Text="The motto calls upon connotations and associations in Latin that are hard to evoke in an analogous way in English. So here is a clumsy translation followed by some exposition of **generosus** and **virtus** so you can follow for yourself how they combine in the motto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **High-born manliness fears nothing.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;The adjective **generosus** = **genus** + **-osus**. _Genus_ is your birth, your origin, your _kind_—like _gens,_ your clan. If you are _genere Anglus,_ then you are an Englishman by birth, that is, originally, not as an immigrant. _Genus_ is the root of a great many words in English, like &quot;generate&quot;, &quot;general&quot;, and &quot;generic&quot;. These all grow out of a metaphor with _begetting:_ things reproduce after their own kind. Most English words from this root emphasize only having something in common, but the notion of begetting is still there, just a little below the surface: a generation, as in &quot;the 1960s generation&quot;, is all the people born at around the same time, seen as part of a sequence of generations each giving birth to the next. Latin also uses _genus_ to mean any sort of group or kind with something in common, but the metaphor with birth and family is still alive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix **-osus** makes an adjective indicating having an abundance of the noun it's based on, similar to the Anglo-Saxon suffix _-ful._ For example, _dolor_ is pain or sadness; _dolorosus_ means painful or sorrowful. (In English, _-osus_ appears as _-ous;_ e.g. &quot;cavern&quot; and &quot;cavernous&quot;, &quot;luxury&quot; and &quot;luxurious&quot;.) When added to some nouns, like _genus,_ it brings a positive connotation: if you are **generosus**, then you come from good stock, you are well-bred. As in English, the Latin word is also used to mean giving freely, since a noble family properly shows largesse, but this is an extended sense; the primary meaning is having a noble family background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should come as no surprise, then, that **generosus** is a common word in heraldic mottos, where it is an adjective for &quot;gentleman&quot;. The exact meaning of this varied a lot over the centuries, as the criteria for what entitled you to the rank of gentleman shifted, but the basic connotation remained the same. Putting **generosus** onto your coat of arms asserts that you come from a long line of respectable ancestors even if you don't have a title of nobility. Here's a [dictionary of heraldry](https://books.google.com/books?id=w_5BAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PR222&amp;lpg=PR222&amp;dq=generosus+gentleman+heraldry&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=yoxB0gU7ko&amp;sig=YW5MjFPcPCKIPsRSaEKxeK465mI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwizrZaO4crTAhXD7SYKHQTCBwY4ChDoAQgmMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=generosus%20gentleman%20heraldry&amp;f=false) from 1828 that says some more about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun **virtus** = **vir** + **-tus**. This one is easier to explain. **Vir** means man, and **-tus** forms a noun meaning the essential quality of the first part of the word, as _iuvenis,_ &quot;a young person&quot;, and _iuventus,_ &quot;youth&quot;. The path from Latin _virtus_ to contemporary English &quot;virtue&quot; is a long one, involving trips through Christianity and supernaturalism, described a little more in the answers to [this question](https://ell.stackexchange.com/q/60946/6700). The main thing to know is that in Latin, **virtus** means manliness, especially courage, strength, honor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the _Tusculan Disputations_ 2.15–16 someone tells Cicero that pain is the worst evil. Cicero asks &quot;Worse than dishonor?&quot; The other person immediately concedes that he was wrong, embarrassed to have been refuted so quickly. A little later Cicero says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ergo id quod natura ipsa et **quaedam generosa virtus** statim respuit, ne scilicet dolorem summum malum diceres oppositoque dedecore sententia depellerere, in eo magistra vitae philosophia tot saecula permanet?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what nature itself, and **a certain [worthy, innate uprightness?]**, immediately spat back out—the proposition that pain is the worst evil, which you were driven away from saying when it was contrasted with dishonor—the mistress of life, philosophy, is going to maintain _that_ for so many ages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't think of a satisfactory English translation of Cicero's use of the phrase, but hopefully the meaning is starting to become clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here is a less clumsy translation of the motto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gentlemanly courage fears nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this conveys much less of the spirit of the motto, though, than the clumsy version did." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4241" RevisionGUID="f640986f-39b8-482e-b36c-cf8e988a63e9" CreationDate="2017-04-30T00:16:46.990" UserId="469" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="Let's analyze the sentence word-by-word first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `Nil`/nihil translates mainly as [nothing_][1] (either noun or adverb). It is indeclinable (hence it gives no clue about its grammatical function in the sentence.)&#xD;&#xA;* `virtus` is a feminine noun [meaning][2] either _strength_ or _virtue_. The ending tells us it is either the subject of the sentence (nominative case) or it is being addressed by the speaker (vocative case, which seems unlikely.)&#xD;&#xA;* `generosa` is a form of an adjective meaning _generous_ but [also][3] _noble_ or _dignified_ (especially when referred to things.) The ending implies it is either a plural, neuter in gender (unlikely,) or a feminine (agreeing with virtus, and thus part of the subject.)&#xD;&#xA;* `timet` is basically the verb [to fear][4], in present tense, 3rd person singular: he/she/it _fears_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since `virtus generosa` is likely to be the subject, `nil` is fit to be the object. Piecing the words together leads to the translation **Generous virtue fears nothing**, which is close to (but not exactly) what you have found so far. It could also be translated as **noble strength fears nothing** (depending on the context.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For it to mean _generosity_ (i.e. the noun, the specific virtue of generosity) instead of _generous_ (as an attribute of something else), it needs to use a form of [_generositas_][5] or something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the verb _to learn_ I can't recall any Latin verb close in meaning that resembles _timeo_. The most common way of saying it is probably &#xD;&#xA;[disco][6], which would make the sentence _nihil virtus generosa discit_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnihil&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvirtus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgenerosus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtimeo&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgenerositas&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddisco" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4241" RevisionGUID="bc6e55ad-533f-4eb1-8b7e-74fdc67b638c" CreationDate="2017-04-30T00:22:43.420" UserId="469" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="Let's analyze the sentence word-by-word first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `Nil`/nihil translates mainly as [nothing_][1] (either noun or adverb). It is indeclinable (hence it gives no clue about its grammatical function in the sentence.)&#xD;&#xA;* `virtus` is a feminine noun [meaning][2] either _strength_ or _virtue_. The ending tells us it is either the subject of the sentence (nominative case) or it is being addressed by the speaker (vocative case, which seems unlikely.)&#xD;&#xA;* `generosa` is a form of an adjective meaning _generous_ but [also][3] _noble_ or _dignified_ (especially when referred to things.) The ending implies it is either a plural, neuter in gender (unlikely,) or a feminine (agreeing with virtus, and thus part of the subject.)&#xD;&#xA;* `timet` is basically the verb [to fear][4], in present tense, 3rd person singular: he/she/it _fears_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since `virtus generosa` is likely to be the subject, `nil` is fit to be the object. Piecing the words together leads to the translation **Generous virtue fears nothing**, which is close to (but not exactly) what you have found so far. It might alternatively be translated as **noble strength fears nothing** (depending on the context, or what the creator of the motto meant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For it to mean _generosity_ (i.e. the noun, the specific virtue of generosity) instead of _generous_ (as an attribute of something else), it needs to use a form of [_generositas_][5] or something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the verb _to learn_ I can't recall any Latin verb close in meaning that resembles _timeo_. The most common way of saying it is probably &#xD;&#xA;[disco][6], which would make the sentence _nihil virtus generosa discit_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnihil&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvirtus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgenerosus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtimeo&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgenerositas&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddisco" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4244" RevisionGUID="5b1de6cd-15a4-438c-a39c-2523eba77c69" CreationDate="2017-04-30T00:37:00.310" UserId="118" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="The motto calls upon connotations and associations in Latin that are hard to evoke in an analogous way in English. So here is a clumsy translation followed by some exposition of **generosus** and **virtus** so you can follow for yourself how they combine in the motto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **High-born manliness fears nothing.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;The adjective **generosus** = **genus** + **-osus**. _Genus_ is your birth, your origin, your _kind_—like _gens,_ your clan. If you are _genere Anglus,_ then you are an Englishman by birth, that is, originally, not as an immigrant. _Genus_ is the root of a great many words in English, like &quot;generate&quot;, &quot;general&quot;, and &quot;generic&quot;. These all grow out of a metaphor with _begetting:_ things reproduce after their own kind. Most English words from this root emphasize only having something in common, but the notion of begetting is still there, just a little below the surface: a generation, as in &quot;the 1960s generation&quot;, is all the people born at around the same time, seen as part of a sequence of generations each giving birth to the next. Latin also uses _genus_ to mean any sort of group or kind with something in common, but the metaphor with birth and family is still alive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix **-osus** makes an adjective indicating having an abundance of the noun it's based on, similar to the Anglo-Saxon suffix _-ful._ For example, _dolor_ is pain or sadness; _dolorosus_ means painful or sorrowful. (In English, _-osus_ appears as _-ous;_ e.g. &quot;cavern&quot; and &quot;cavernous&quot;, &quot;luxury&quot; and &quot;luxurious&quot;.) When added to some nouns, like _genus,_ it brings a positive connotation: if you are **generosus**, then you come from good stock, you are well-bred. As in English, the Latin word is also used to mean giving freely, since a noble family properly shows largesse, but in Latin this is an extended sense; the primary meaning is having a noble family background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should come as no surprise, then, that **generosus** is a common word in heraldic mottos, where it is an adjective for &quot;gentleman&quot;. The exact meaning of this varied a lot over the centuries, as the criteria for what entitled you to the rank of gentleman shifted, but the basic connotation remained the same. Putting **generosus** onto your coat of arms asserts that you come from a long line of respectable ancestors even if you don't have a title of nobility. Here's a [dictionary of heraldry](https://books.google.com/books?id=w_5BAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PR222&amp;lpg=PR222&amp;dq=generosus+gentleman+heraldry&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=yoxB0gU7ko&amp;sig=YW5MjFPcPCKIPsRSaEKxeK465mI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwizrZaO4crTAhXD7SYKHQTCBwY4ChDoAQgmMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=generosus%20gentleman%20heraldry&amp;f=false) from 1828 that says some more about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun **virtus** = **vir** + **-tus**. This one is easier to explain. **Vir** means man, and **-tus** forms a noun meaning the essential quality of the first part of the word, as _iuvenis,_ &quot;a young person&quot;, and _iuventus,_ &quot;youth&quot;. The path from Latin _virtus_ to contemporary English &quot;virtue&quot; is a long one, involving trips through Christianity and supernaturalism, described a little more in the answers to [this question](https://ell.stackexchange.com/q/60946/6700). The main thing to know is that in Latin, **virtus** means manliness, especially courage, strength, honor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the _Tusculan Disputations_ 2.15–16 someone tells Cicero that pain is the worst evil. Cicero asks &quot;Worse than dishonor?&quot; The other person immediately concedes that he was wrong, embarrassed to have been refuted so quickly. A little later Cicero says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ergo id quod natura ipsa et **quaedam generosa virtus** statim respuit, ne scilicet dolorem summum malum diceres oppositoque dedecore sententia depellerere, in eo magistra vitae philosophia tot saecula permanet?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what nature itself, and **a certain [worthy, innate uprightness?]**, immediately spat back out—the proposition that pain is the worst evil, which you were driven away from saying when it was contrasted with dishonor—the mistress of life, philosophy, is going to maintain _that_ for so many ages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't think of a satisfactory English translation of Cicero's use of the phrase, but hopefully the meaning is starting to become clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here is a less clumsy translation of the motto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gentlemanly courage fears nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this conveys much less of the spirit of the motto, though, than the clumsy version did." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1221" RevisionGUID="4ceecaab-dada-4d62-9bd8-1b4466ca2857" CreationDate="2017-04-30T00:44:19.307" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and slightly reformatted." Text="In circumstances where the same meaning can be expressed by an indirect question depending on a verb of speech, or by a relative clause modifying an (implicit or explicit) object of that verb, which is more idiomatic in Classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;He related to me what had happened.&quot; This can be cast as an indirect question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Rettulit mihi quid accidisset.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it could also be expressed with a relative clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Rettulit mihi (id) quod acciderat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is better Latin? Do different verbs have different preferences, and if so what are they?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12828" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1221" RevisionGUID="4ceecaab-dada-4d62-9bd8-1b4466ca2857" CreationDate="2017-04-30T00:44:19.307" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and slightly reformatted." Text="|idiom|syntax|relative-clause|indirect-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4245" RevisionGUID="7603426f-9744-4f9e-a13a-dff7876c4e1d" CreationDate="2017-04-30T00:44:44.593" UserId="79" Text="All examples of indirect questions I could find are objects of their governing clauses.&#xD;&#xA;A model example would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Scio, ubi fueris*.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I know where you were.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the indirect question *quid feceris* is the object of the verb *scio*.&#xD;&#xA;I tried to look at some Latin grammar material online, but none seems to explain the grammatical role of the indirect question in the governing clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does some grammar discuss whether an indirect question should always be an object?&#xD;&#xA;Are there attested classical examples of indirect questions that are subjects of their governing clause?&#xD;&#xA;I imagine the governing verb could be something like *est*, *patet*, or a passive form such as *scitur*.&#xD;&#xA;If the indirect question can be a subject, does the verb have to be passive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12830" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4245" RevisionGUID="7603426f-9744-4f9e-a13a-dff7876c4e1d" CreationDate="2017-04-30T00:44:44.593" UserId="79" Text="Can an indirect question be the subject of its governing clause?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12831" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4245" RevisionGUID="7603426f-9744-4f9e-a13a-dff7876c4e1d" CreationDate="2017-04-30T00:44:44.593" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|syntax|indirect-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4244" RevisionGUID="5a139c0b-5b75-4791-b858-aa48bc63b4fc" CreationDate="2017-04-30T00:50:07.673" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="The motto calls upon connotations and associations in Latin that are hard to evoke in an analogous way in English. So here is a clumsy translation followed by some exposition of **generosus** and **virtus** so you can follow for yourself how they combine in the motto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **High-born manliness fears nothing.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;The adjective **generosus** = **genus** + **-osus**. _Genus_ is your birth, your origin, your _kind_—like _gens,_ your clan. If you are _genere Anglus,_ then you are an Englishman by birth, that is, originally, not as an immigrant. _Genus_ is the root of a great many words in English, like &quot;generate&quot;, &quot;general&quot;, and &quot;generic&quot;. These all grow out of a metaphor with _begetting:_ things reproduce after their own kind. Most English words from this root emphasize only having something in common, but the notion of begetting is still there, just a little below the surface: a generation, as in &quot;the 1960s generation&quot;, is all the people born at around the same time, seen as part of a sequence of generations each giving birth to the next. Latin also uses _genus_ to mean any sort of group or kind with something in common, but the metaphor with birth and family is still alive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix **-osus** makes an adjective indicating having an abundance of the noun it's based on, similar to the Anglo-Saxon suffix _-ful._ For example, _dolor_ is pain or sadness; _dolorosus_ means painful or sorrowful. (In English, _-osus_ appears as _-ous;_ e.g. &quot;cavern&quot; and &quot;cavernous&quot;, &quot;luxury&quot; and &quot;luxurious&quot;.) When added to some nouns, like _genus,_ it brings a positive connotation: if you are **generosus**, then you come from good stock, you are well-bred. As in English, the Latin word is also used to mean giving freely, since a noble family properly shows largesse, but in Latin this is an extended sense; the primary meaning is having a noble family background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should come as no surprise, then, that **generosus** is a common word in heraldic mottos, where it is an adjective for &quot;gentleman&quot;. The exact meaning of this varied a lot over the centuries, as the criteria for what entitled you to the rank of gentleman shifted, but the basic connotation remained the same. Putting **generosus** onto your coat of arms asserts that you come from a long line of respectable ancestors even if you don't have a title of nobility. Here's a [dictionary of heraldry](https://books.google.com/books?id=w_5BAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PR222&amp;lpg=PR222&amp;dq=generosus+gentleman+heraldry&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=yoxB0gU7ko&amp;sig=YW5MjFPcPCKIPsRSaEKxeK465mI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwizrZaO4crTAhXD7SYKHQTCBwY4ChDoAQgmMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=generosus%20gentleman%20heraldry&amp;f=false) from 1828 that says some more about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun **virtus** = **vir** + **-tus**. This one is easier to explain. **Vir** means man, and **-tus** forms a noun meaning the essential quality of the first part of the word, as _iuvenis,_ &quot;a young person&quot;, and _iuventus,_ &quot;youth&quot;. The path from Latin _virtus_ to contemporary English &quot;virtue&quot; is a long one, involving trips through Christianity and supernaturalism, described a little more in the answers to [this question](https://ell.stackexchange.com/q/60946/6700). The main thing to know is that in Latin, **virtus** means manliness, especially strength, courage, honor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the _Tusculan Disputations_ 2.15–16 someone tells Cicero that pain is the worst evil. Cicero asks &quot;Worse than dishonor?&quot; The other person immediately concedes that he was wrong, embarrassed to have been refuted so quickly. A little later Cicero says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ergo id quod natura ipsa et **quaedam generosa virtus** statim respuit, ne scilicet dolorem summum malum diceres oppositoque dedecore sententia depellerere, in eo magistra vitae philosophia tot saecula permanet?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what nature itself, and **a certain [worthy, innate uprightness?]**, immediately spat back out—the proposition that pain is the worst evil, which you were driven away from saying when it was contrasted with dishonor—the mistress of life, philosophy, is going to maintain _that_ for so many ages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't think of a satisfactory English translation of Cicero's use of the phrase, but hopefully the meaning is starting to become clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here is a less clumsy translation of the motto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gentlemanly courage fears nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this conveys much less of the spirit of the motto, though, than the clumsy version did." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4246" RevisionGUID="f18d9f17-9786-4ea4-8e2b-bf5e505694c7" CreationDate="2017-04-30T00:53:56.420" UserId="79" Text="Moments after asking the question I stumbled upon this in Caesar's *De bello Gallico*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quae ubi convenit ac primum ab hostibus visa est, circiter CCXX naves eorum paratissimae atque omni genere armorum ornatissimae profectae ex portu nostris adversae constiterunt; **neque satis Bruto**, qui classi praeerat, vel tribunis militum centurionibusque, quibus singulae naves erant attributae, **constabat quid agerent aut quam rationem pugnae insisterent**. ([3.14](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0002%3Abook%3D3%3Achapter%3D14%3Asection%3D3))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently it is possible: the indirect question is the subject of *constabat*.&#xD;&#xA;But I have no idea how exceptional this passage is or if the class of possible verbs is somehow restricted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4244" RevisionGUID="032f763a-ccab-4431-bedf-84250922eabc" CreationDate="2017-04-30T01:19:10.700" UserId="118" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="The motto calls upon connotations and associations in Latin that are hard to evoke in an analogous way in English. So here is a clumsy translation followed by some exposition of **generosus** and **virtus** so you can follow for yourself how they combine in the motto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **High-born manliness fears nothing.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;The adjective **generosus** = **genus** + **-osus**. _Genus_ is your birth, your origin, your _kind_—like _gens,_ your clan. If you are _genere Anglus,_ then you are an Englishman by birth, that is, originally, not as an immigrant. _Genus_ is the root of a great many words in English, like &quot;generate&quot;, &quot;general&quot;, and &quot;generic&quot;. These all grow out of a metaphor with _begetting:_ things reproduce after their own kind. Most English words from this root emphasize only having something in common, but the notion of begetting is still there, just a little below the surface: a generation, as in &quot;the 1960s generation&quot;, is all the people born at around the same time, seen as part of a sequence of generations each giving birth to the next. The word _genus_ can also mean any sort of group or kind with something in common, but in Latin the metaphor with birth and family is still clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix **-osus** makes an adjective indicating having an abundance of the noun it's based on, similar to the Anglo-Saxon suffix _-ful._ For example, _dolor_ is pain or sadness; _dolorosus_ means painful or sorrowful. (In English, _-osus_ appears as _-ous;_ e.g. &quot;cavern&quot; and &quot;cavernous&quot;, &quot;luxury&quot; and &quot;luxurious&quot;.) When added to some nouns, like _genus,_ it brings a positive connotation: if you are **generosus**, then you come from good stock, you are well-bred. As in English, the Latin word is also used to mean giving freely, since a noble family properly shows largesse, but in Latin this is an extended sense; the primary meaning is having a noble family background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should come as no surprise, then, that **generosus** is a common word in heraldic mottos, where it is an adjective for &quot;gentleman&quot;. The exact meaning of this varied a lot over the centuries, as the criteria for what entitled you to the rank of gentleman shifted, but the basic connotation remained the same. Putting **generosus** onto your coat of arms asserts that you come from a long line of respectable ancestors even if you don't have a title of nobility. Here's a [dictionary of heraldry](https://books.google.com/books?id=w_5BAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PR222&amp;lpg=PR222&amp;dq=generosus+gentleman+heraldry&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=yoxB0gU7ko&amp;sig=YW5MjFPcPCKIPsRSaEKxeK465mI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwizrZaO4crTAhXD7SYKHQTCBwY4ChDoAQgmMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=generosus%20gentleman%20heraldry&amp;f=false) from 1828 that says some more about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun **virtus** = **vir** + **-tus**. This one is easier to explain. **Vir** means man, and **-tus** forms a noun meaning the essential quality of the first part of the word, as _iuvenis,_ &quot;a young person&quot;, and _iuventus,_ &quot;youth&quot;. The path from Latin _virtus_ to contemporary English &quot;virtue&quot; is a long one, involving trips through Christianity and supernaturalism, described a little more in the answers to [this question](https://ell.stackexchange.com/q/60946/6700). The main thing to know is that in Latin, **virtus** means manliness, especially strength, courage, honor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the _Tusculan Disputations_ 2.15–16 someone tells Cicero that pain is the worst evil. Cicero asks &quot;Worse than dishonor?&quot; The other person immediately concedes that he was wrong, embarrassed to have been refuted so quickly. A little later Cicero says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ergo id quod natura ipsa et **quaedam generosa virtus** statim respuit, ne scilicet dolorem summum malum diceres oppositoque dedecore sententia depellerere, in eo magistra vitae philosophia tot saecula permanet?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what nature itself, and **a certain [worthy, innate uprightness?]**, immediately spat back out—the proposition that pain is the worst evil, which you were driven away from saying when it was contrasted with dishonor—the mistress of life, philosophy, is going to maintain _that_ for so many ages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure that any English words can satisfactorily translate Cicero's use of the phrase, but hopefully the meaning is starting to become clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here is a less clumsy translation of the motto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gentlemanly courage fears nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this conveys much less of the spirit of the motto, though, than the clumsy version did." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12835" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2965" RevisionGUID="98df8a46-f3f7-4bf8-ae88-49edd13da3de" CreationDate="2017-04-30T01:50:12.233" UserId="30" Comment="29" />
  <row Id="12836" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2414" RevisionGUID="04fcb3e8-9edc-4e09-8421-a23a1d4c4646" CreationDate="2017-04-30T01:50:35.410" UserId="30" Comment="30" />
  <row Id="12837" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="1278" RevisionGUID="c161c6ef-3589-435e-a659-59a3ebdca042" CreationDate="2017-04-30T01:50:47.187" UserId="30" Comment="28" />
  <row Id="12838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4247" RevisionGUID="f666653b-12ee-48fb-98a3-707a7950b22d" CreationDate="2017-04-30T06:45:00.687" UserId="79" Text="The Google translation is gibberish.&#xD;&#xA;I could not translate it into an equally nonsensical sentence in English; perhaps someone can do it.&#xD;&#xA;(I can do it only in Finnish.)&#xD;&#xA;So no, it is not accurate nor even close enough, no matter what &quot;close enough&quot; means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us start with the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How well do you walk through fire?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quam bene ignem permeas?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can always say *per ignem ambulare*, but it feels more idiomatic to pick one of the prefixed verbs for going through.&#xD;&#xA;These include *permeare*, *perambulare*, *percedere*, and *pervadere* &amp;mdash; and I surely forgot something.&#xD;&#xA;Have a look at [an online Latin dictionary of your choice](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) to see which sounds most appropriate to you.&#xD;&#xA;You can always use a plain verb and then *per ignem*, but I would advice against *ambulare* &amp;mdash; it has a sense of strolling leisurely which is probably not what you want here.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *gradi*, for example, would be more neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question in indirect form is the subject of &quot;what matters most&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(I had to ask a separate [question about indirect questions as subjects](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4245/79). See that question for details, especially after someone other than myself has answered it.)&#xD;&#xA;Indirect questions come in the conjunctive mood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence we want to use this in is essentially this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What matters most is this.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (This is most important.)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Maximi momenti est hoc*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combining these parts together gives my translation suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What matters most is how well you walk through the fire.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Maximi momenti est, quam bene ignem permees.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also like to suggest using a relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;It changes the meaning a little, but if it's tolerable, I would recommend it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What matters most is the way in which you walk through the fire.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Maximi momenti est modus, quo ignem permeas.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4248" RevisionGUID="7e4f6cd1-cd99-4f72-a523-a1ec707decf9" CreationDate="2017-04-30T06:56:13.920" UserId="985" Text="An indirect question is a noun clause and can indeed be used as the subject of the main clause, as required, wherever it makes sense to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples to supplement the passage from _De bello gallico_ 3.14. (The translations aren't mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Indirect question as subject of a form of _esse_, with a neuter adjective as complement:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _primo nobis fuit dubium **quid ageremus**_, 'At first we were in doubt what to do' (Cicero, _Verr._ 2.4.138)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _dubium est **uter nostrum sit**, leviter_ [or _leniter_] _ut dicam, **verecundior**?_ 'then is it doubtful which of us is – to speak frivolously – the more modest?'  (Cicero, _Acad._ 2.126)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _mirum_ [_est_] _**quantum illi viro nuntianti haec fidei fuerit quamque desiderium Romuli apud plebem exercitumque facta fide inmortalitatis lenitum sit**._ 'It is marvellous what credit was given to this man's story, and how the grief of the people and the army was soothed by the belief which had been created in the immortality of Romulus.' (Livy _AUC_ 1.16)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**As subject of a passive verb:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _...non erat quaerendum **cuius manu numerarentur, sed cuius iniuria cogerentur**_, 'the point to be inquired into was not into whose hand it was paid, but by whose oppression it was extorted' (Cicero, _Verr._ 2.2.26)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**As subject of an impersonal verb:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _quod si in philosophia tantum interest **quem ad modum dicas**, ubi res spectatur, non verba penduntur, quid tandem in causis existimandum est quibus totis moderatur oratio?_ 'But if it is a circumstance of so much moment in philosophy, in what manner we express ourselves, where the matter, and not the language, is principally regarded, what must we think of public debates, which are wholly ruled and swayed by the powers of elocution?' (Cicero, _Orat._ 51)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4249" RevisionGUID="d37f6149-f6a1-4891-90fc-411f832baa18" CreationDate="2017-04-30T11:43:34.757" UserId="645" Text="'What matters most is how well you walk through the fire'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it stands, that title isn't a sentence which might have been translated straight from Latin. The trick is to find idiomatic Latin that gives the same sense as the English *as nearly as possible*, and not literally. One way out is to make the sentence impersonal (quite normal for this kind of thing if, as I judge, the 'you' of your title is essentially non-referential) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Primum ducitur dum bene per ignem itur.* (n.b. *ducitur* isn't a typo for *dicitur*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Most important (it is said) (that) well through (the) fire it is gone.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4249" RevisionGUID="4874c23d-dea5-4052-86a4-06ac426c5e44" CreationDate="2017-04-30T14:54:24.207" UserId="645" Comment="change to last sentence" Text="'What matters most is how well you walk through the fire'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it stands, that title isn't a sentence which might have been translated straight from Latin. The trick is to find idiomatic Latin that gives the same sense as the English *as nearly as possible*, and not literally. One way out is to make the sentence impersonal (quite normal for this kind of thing if, as I judge, the 'you' of your title is essentially non-referential) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Primum ducitur dum bene per ignem itur.* (n.b. *ducitur* isn't a typo for *dicitur*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Most important (it is said) (as long as) well through (the) fire it is gone.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4234" RevisionGUID="b78678d8-2548-4854-9dbb-63023269f158" CreationDate="2017-04-30T16:36:44.090" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I am trying to get this title from a book by Charles Bukowski translated to Latin. It goes, &quot;What matters most is how well you walk through the fire&quot;. Google came up with different answers which I put together on the translate box until I came up with the English equivalent above. The best that Google could offer was &quot;sit amet quam honestus te ambulate per ignem&quot;. Is this accurate or close enough at least? Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12844" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4234" RevisionGUID="b78678d8-2548-4854-9dbb-63023269f158" CreationDate="2017-04-30T16:36:44.090" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Help Translating English Book Title: &quot;What matters most is how well you walk through the fire&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12845" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4234" RevisionGUID="b78678d8-2548-4854-9dbb-63023269f158" CreationDate="2017-04-30T16:36:44.090" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4250" RevisionGUID="b5672f5f-2443-4af8-abf3-a7476964dd83" CreationDate="2017-04-30T17:53:56.733" UserId="118" Text="I looked at the [poem](https://hellopoetry.com/poem/9392/how-is-your-heart/) that the title is taken from, and I think [_ambulare_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=ambulo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), with its connotation of nonchalance, is actually appropriate to translate &quot;walk&quot;. Here is a very literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plurimum refert, quam bene per ignem ambules&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(You could omit the comma, but it seems to me to fit the style of the poem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exercising a little artistic license, you could say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In hoc incendio refert ut ambules&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the noun [_ignis_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=ignis&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) to just mean fire generally; [_incendium_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=incendium&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) means a big fire, like a house fire or a whole city on fire. Literally, this second version means &quot;In this [the] fire, it matters that you walk&quot; (with composure, comfortably). Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In hoc incendio refert quomodo ambules&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;If this fire, it matters how you walk.&quot; For &quot;how well&quot;, change _quomodo_ to _quam bene._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4250" RevisionGUID="f874a300-8477-4660-8a4c-442042970104" CreationDate="2017-04-30T18:01:16.297" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="I looked at the [poem](https://hellopoetry.com/poem/9392/how-is-your-heart/) that the title is taken from, and I think [_ambulare_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=ambulo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), with its connotation of nonchalance, is actually appropriate to translate &quot;walk&quot;. Here is a very literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plurimum refert, quam bene per ignem ambules&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(You could omit the comma, but it seems to me to fit the style of the poem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exercising a little artistic license, you could say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In hoc incendio refert ut ambules&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the noun [_ignis_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=ignis&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) to just mean fire generally; [_incendium_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=incendium&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) means a big fire, like a house fire or a whole city on fire. Literally, this second version means &quot;In this [the] fire, it matters that you walk&quot; (with composure, comfortably). Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In hoc incendio refert quomodo ambules&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In this fire, it matters how you walk.&quot; For &quot;how well&quot;, change _quomodo_ to _quam bene._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4251" RevisionGUID="beb10908-40d8-4793-b48d-9f331a07b046" CreationDate="2017-04-30T18:58:27.867" UserDisplayName="user1466" Text="Here is a footnote to the other answers, which are excellent. I have a question about broader meaning.  Did the writer or adapter of the motto **Nil virtus generosa timet** envision a personification of Virtus or were these simply abstract words to describe the fearlessness of noble valor? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems clear to me that Aritstotle's ethics would have been congenial to a knight who followed the code of chivalry and that [Christian values][1] incorporated selected pagan values. Both ancient Greeks and Romans personified virtues as deities. Christians continued the ancient Greek and Roman habit of personifying virtues. How did people in the middle ages think of these virtues?  I realize this is a broad question and may be beyond the scope of Latin stack exchange.  If so, please let me know.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not my area of expertise, but anecdotally, I can attest there are numerous Christian depicitons of both virtue and vice in Christian art and in morality plays. Here in the United States Liberty was personified as a woman, for example, in a kind of secular deification. Boethius personified philosophy as Philosophia.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those, like me, who delight in considering such questions and knowing more about Roman thought, here's some information for your delectation. Perhaps, I want all of you to be as charmed, and yet puzzled, as I am by the depiction of manly virtue as a female deity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Rome  Virtus and Honos were named deities with a double temples dedicated to them in Rome.  See entry in [Plattner's Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome][2]: **Virtus et Honos, aedes. Cf. **ναὸς Δόξης καὶ Ἀρετῆς**, the Greek goddess, Arete, mentioned in Plutarch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also entries in Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities ([accessed on Perseus][3])about the Roman goddess, Virtus, and the god, Honos, frequently mentioned and depicted together. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Virtus**. The Roman personification of manly valour. She was represented with a short tunic, her right breast uncovered, a helmet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on her head, a spear in her left hand, a sword in the right, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; standing with her right foot on a helmet. A temple of Virtus was built&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by Marcellus close to the one of Honor. See Honor.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Honor or Honos**. The personification of honour at Rome, to whom temples were built both by Marcellus (B.C. 212) and by Marius (B.C.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 101), close to the temples of Virtus. Marcellus also built one to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Virtus; and the two deities are frequently mentioned together. Honor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and Virtus are represented on coins as youthful figures—Honor wearing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a bay-leaf chaplet, and Virtus a helmet. See Virtus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.britannica.com/topic/virtue-in-Christianity&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0054%3Aentry%3Dhonos-et-virtus-aedes-1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0062:id=honor-harpers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4241" RevisionGUID="d211f1d7-75bf-4a28-a5b9-a3427e9986b8" CreationDate="2017-04-30T19:17:44.147" UserId="469" Comment="added 188 characters in body" Text="Let's analyze the sentence word-by-word first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `Nil`/nihil translates mainly as [_nothing_][1] (either noun or adverb). It is indeclinable (hence it gives no clue about its grammatical function in the sentence.)&#xD;&#xA;* `virtus` is a feminine noun [meaning][2] either _strength_ or _virtue_. The ending tells us it is either the subject of the sentence (nominative case) or it is being addressed by the speaker (vocative case, which seems unlikely.)&#xD;&#xA;* `generosa` is a form of an adjective meaning _generous_ but [also][3] _noble_ or _dignified_ (especially when referred to things.) The ending implies it is either a plural, neuter in gender (unlikely,) or a feminine (agreeing with virtus, and thus part of the subject.)&#xD;&#xA;* `timet` is basically the verb [to fear][4], in present tense, 3rd person singular: he/she/it _fears_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since `virtus generosa` is likely to be the subject, `nil` is fit to be the object. Piecing the words together leads to the translation **Generous virtue fears nothing**, which is close to (but not exactly) what you have found so far. It might alternatively be translated as **noble strength fears nothing** (depending on the context, or what the creator of the motto meant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For it to mean _generosity_ (i.e. the noun, the specific virtue of generosity) instead of _generous_ (as an attribute of something else), it needs to use a form of [_generositas_][5] or something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the verb _to learn_ I can't recall any Latin verb close in meaning that resembles _timeo_. The most common way of saying it is probably &#xD;&#xA;[disco][6], which would make the sentence _nihil virtus generosa discit_. As Hugh points out, the confusion comes most probably from French (in which there must be more information about him,) where _apprendre_ means to learn, while _appréhendre_ means to fear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnihil&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvirtus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgenerosus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtimeo&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgenerositas&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddisco" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4251" RevisionGUID="2b8ea1b4-a41c-41a3-aa48-337dff59d2ff" CreationDate="2017-04-30T21:24:37.300" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Here is a footnote to the other answers, which are excellent. I have a question about broader meaning.  Did the writer or adapter of the motto, **Nil virtus generosa timet**, envision a personification of Virtus or were these simply abstract words to describe the fearlessness of noble valor? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems clear to me that Aristotle's ethics would have been congenial to a knight who followed the code of chivalry and that [Christian values][1] incorporated selected pagan values. Both ancient Greeks and Romans personified virtues as deities. Christians continued the ancient Greek and Roman habit of personifying virtues. How did people in the middle ages think of these virtues?  I realize this is a broad question and may be beyond the scope of Latin stack exchange.  If so, please let me know.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not my area of expertise, but anecdotally, I can attest there are numerous Christian depicitons of both virtue and vice in Christian art and in morality plays. Here in the United States Liberty is still personified as a woman, for example, in a kind of secular deification. Similarly, blindfolded Justice is a goddess-like figure. Boethius personified philosophy as Philosophia.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those, like me, who delight in considering such questions and knowing more about Roman thought, here's some information for your delectation. Perhaps, I want all of you to be as charmed, and yet puzzled, as I am by the depiction of manly virtue as a female deity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Rome  Virtus and Honos were named deities with a double temple dedicated to them in Rome.  See entry in [Plattner's Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome][2]: **Virtus et Honos, aedes. Cf. **ναὸς Δόξης καὶ Ἀρετῆς**, the Greek goddess, Arete, mentioned in Plutarch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also entries in Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities ([accessed on Perseus][3])about the Roman goddess, Virtus, and the god, Honos, frequently mentioned and depicted together. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Virtus**. The Roman personification of manly valour. She was represented with a short tunic, her right breast uncovered, a helmet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on her head, a spear in her left hand, a sword in the right, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; standing with her right foot on a helmet. A temple of Virtus was built&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by Marcellus close to the one of Honor. See Honor.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Honor or Honos**. The personification of honour at Rome, to whom temples were built both by Marcellus (B.C. 212) and by Marius (B.C.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 101), close to the temples of Virtus. Marcellus also built one to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Virtus; and the two deities are frequently mentioned together. Honor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and Virtus are represented on coins as youthful figures—Honor wearing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a bay-leaf chaplet, and Virtus a helmet. See Virtus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.britannica.com/topic/virtue-in-Christianity&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0054%3Aentry%3Dhonos-et-virtus-aedes-1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0062:id=honor-harpers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4251" RevisionGUID="319c00c7-7d70-4661-a0ff-5415ace528a2" CreationDate="2017-04-30T21:37:38.320" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Here is a footnote to the other answers, which are excellent. I have a question about broader meaning.  Did the writer or adapter of the motto, **Nil virtus generosa timet**, envision a personification of Virtus or were these simply abstract words to describe the fearlessness of noble valor? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems clear to me that Aristotle's ethics would have been congenial to a knight who followed the code of chivalry and that [Christian values][1] incorporated selected pagan values. Both ancient Greeks and Romans personified virtues as deities. Christians continued the ancient Greek and Roman habit of personifying virtues. How did people in the middle ages think of these virtues?  I realize this is a broad question and may be beyond the scope of Latin stack exchange.  If so, please let me know.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not my area of expertise, but anecdotally, I can attest there are numerous Christian depictions of both virtue and vice in Christian art and in morality plays. Here in the United States Liberty is still personified as a woman, for example, in a kind of secular deification. Similarly, blindfolded Justice is a goddess-like figure. Boethius personified philosophy as Philosophia.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those, like me, who delight in considering such questions and knowing more about Roman thought, here's some information for your delectation. Perhaps, I want all of you to be as charmed, and yet puzzled, as I am by the depiction of manly virtue as a female deity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Rome  Virtus and Honos were named deities with a double temple dedicated to them in Rome.  See entry in [Plattner's Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome][2]: **Virtus et Honos, aedes. Cf. **ναὸς Δόξης καὶ Ἀρετῆς**, the Greek goddess, Arete, mentioned in Plutarch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also entries in Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities ([accessed on Perseus][3])about the Roman goddess, Virtus, and the god, Honos or Honor, frequently mentioned and depicted together. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Virtus**. The Roman personification of manly valour. She was represented with a short tunic, her right breast uncovered, a helmet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on her head, a spear in her left hand, a sword in the right, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; standing with her right foot on a helmet. A temple of Virtus was built&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by Marcellus close to the one of Honor. See Honor.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Honor or Honos**. The personification of honour at Rome, to whom temples were built both by Marcellus (B.C. 212) and by Marius (B.C.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 101), close to the temples of Virtus. Marcellus also built one to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Virtus; and the two deities are frequently mentioned together. Honor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and Virtus are represented on coins as youthful figures—Honor wearing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a bay-leaf chaplet, and Virtus a helmet. See Virtus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.britannica.com/topic/virtue-in-Christianity&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0054%3Aentry%3Dhonos-et-virtus-aedes-1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0062:id=honor-harpers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4252" RevisionGUID="95418051-f985-4466-8eea-17a7fe6c5f34" CreationDate="2017-04-30T23:49:42.320" UserId="1506" Text="The motto is for a hunting club. Virtually impossible to find a reliable source anywhere!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12854" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4252" RevisionGUID="95418051-f985-4466-8eea-17a7fe6c5f34" CreationDate="2017-04-30T23:49:42.320" UserId="1506" Text="How would you translate 'To hunt is to live' into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12855" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4252" RevisionGUID="95418051-f985-4466-8eea-17a7fe6c5f34" CreationDate="2017-04-30T23:49:42.320" UserId="1506" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4252" RevisionGUID="6b254487-98fa-4356-b81c-c1a35be1cb62" CreationDate="2017-05-01T00:03:36.883" UserId="1506" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="The motto is for a hunting club. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation I have arrived at is: 'Venari est vivere'. Is this a correct translation? If not, how could it be improved?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4253" RevisionGUID="27c2c2da-2fa0-4755-93fc-b6ecf8edb5fe" CreationDate="2017-05-01T00:09:01.953" UserId="30" Text="Your translation is entirely correct! You have two infinitives, *venari* and *vivere*, which are both idiomatic. The finite verb *est* &quot;is&quot; is used to connect the two, just as in English, which is also idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. To novice learners of Latin, *venari* might seem wrong, but it's not. It is the passive infinitive, because *venari* is a deponent, which means that hardly has any active forms at all, and that its passive forms are generally translated as if they were active." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4254" RevisionGUID="9fbf2af9-baee-4b6c-86a4-4cc53eb0d0cb" CreationDate="2017-05-01T01:51:00.483" UserDisplayName="user1466" Text="&gt; **Plurimum opportet te ignem dexterius transire.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **It matters most that you cross through fire rather skillfully.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bukowski's title is long and rambling, but Latin is compact.  Like Tom Cotton, I thought about how a Roman might say this rather than translating so directly from the English. I like all the translations and think it's so interesting to hear a translator's reasoning and to see there are quite a few ways to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Plurimum oportet** seems like a reasonable way to carry the idea of &quot;what matters most&quot; in a Latin construction.   I also like the way the paired **te** as subject and **transire** as verb are separated by **ignem**, such that the notion of crossing fire is suggested. &#xD;&#xA;Due to my desire for a Roman feel, I like **dexterius transire** to get at the idea that you need to walk through fire in the right way. I admit this changes the meaning a bit, but it sounds authentically Roman to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I liked **transire** better than **ambulare**, because &quot;walk through fire&quot; isn't a Roman idea. Also, I somehow started associating it with Erasmus's sweet little phrase, **Bene ambulas et redambulas**, said to someone leaving on a trip.  **Transire** for pass through (a danger) seems a more Roman idea, though I take Ben Kovitz's point that walking is meant to convey nonchalance.  Likewise, Latin can render &quot;pass through fire&quot; as a verb with prefix plus accusative instead of a verb plus prepositional phrase.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some examples from Caesar that attest to a military usage of ** transire** in the context of danger.   &#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Sequani, ne itinere Helvetios prohibeant,	Helvetii, **ut sine maleficio et iniuria transeant.**  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In **transire** plus the accusative, the things crossed found in Lewis and Short were campos, paludem, maria and flumen.  **Ignem transire**  seems like a reasonable usage then.  The addition of an adverb or a phrase to get across the notion that **how well** or **in what way** you pass through fire is important.  I chose the add the adverb **dexterius** Using the comparative degree rather than **dextere** seemed a good choice to construe **with a lot of skill** along with a sense of doing it **in the right way** or **in a favorable way**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to give credit to Thomas a Kempis for inspiration.  In De Imitatione Christi, he wrote: **Oportet te bene per ignem et aquam transire, antequam in refrigerium venias.** He's making reference to psalm (65-12): **inposuisti homines super caput nostrum transivimus per ignem et aquam et eduxisti nos in refrigerium.**&#xD;&#xA;Bukowski is nihilistic, but he is suffering in a way that feels hellish, so the Chrisitan reference feels right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also Isaiah 43:2 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 **cum transieris per aquas tecum ero et flumina non operient te cum ambulaveris in igne non conbureris et flamma non ardebit in te**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(KJV)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: **when thou walkest through the fire**, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that I've done all this work, I see that another possibility based on my process is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Plurimum oportet te in igne dexterius ambulare.**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4254" RevisionGUID="5460d9c8-c624-4e26-a8c1-e23a00551903" CreationDate="2017-05-01T02:01:09.483" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="changed ambulare to perambulare" Text="&gt; **Plurimum opportet te ignem dexterius transire.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **It matters most that you cross through fire rather skillfully.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bukowski's title is long and rambling, but Latin is compact.  Like Tom Cotton, I thought about how a Roman might say this rather than translating so directly from the English. I like all the translations and think it's so interesting to hear a translator's reasoning and to see there are quite a few ways to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Plurimum oportet** seems like a reasonable way to carry the idea of &quot;what matters most&quot; in a Latin construction.   I also like the way the paired **te** as subject and **transire** as verb are separated by **ignem**, such that the notion of crossing fire is suggested. &#xD;&#xA;Due to my desire for a Roman feel, I like **dexterius transire** to get at the idea that you need to walk through fire in the right way. I admit this changes the meaning a bit, but it sounds authentically Roman to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I liked **transire** better than **ambulare**, because &quot;walk through fire&quot; isn't a Roman idea. Also, I somehow started associating it with Erasmus's sweet little phrase, **Bene ambulas et redambulas**, said to someone leaving on a trip.  **Transire** for pass through (a danger) seems a more Roman idea, though I take Ben Kovitz's point that walking is meant to convey nonchalance.  Likewise, Latin can render &quot;pass through fire&quot; as a verb with prefix plus accusative instead of a verb plus prepositional phrase.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some examples from Caesar that attest to a military usage of ** transire** in the context of danger.   &#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Sequani, ne itinere Helvetios prohibeant,	Helvetii, **ut sine maleficio et iniuria transeant.**  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In **transire** plus the accusative, the things crossed found in Lewis and Short were campos, paludem, maria and flumen.  **Ignem transire**  seems like a reasonable usage then.  The addition of an adverb or a phrase to get across the notion that **how well** or **in what way** you pass through fire is important.  I chose the add the adverb **dexterius** Using the comparative degree rather than **dextere** seemed a good choice to construe **with a lot of skill** along with a sense of doing it **in the right way** or **in a favorable way**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to give credit to Thomas a Kempis for inspiration.  In De Imitatione Christi, he wrote: **Oportet te bene per ignem et aquam transire, antequam in refrigerium venias.** He's making reference to psalm (65-12): **inposuisti homines super caput nostrum transivimus per ignem et aquam et eduxisti nos in refrigerium.**&#xD;&#xA;Bukowski is nihilistic, but he is suffering in a way that feels hellish, so the Chrisitan reference feels right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also Isaiah 43:2 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 **cum transieris per aquas tecum ero et flumina non operient te cum ambulaveris in igne non conbureris et flamma non ardebit in te**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(KJV)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: **when thou walkest through the fire**, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that I've done all this work, I see that another possibility based on my process is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Plurimum oportet te ignem dexterius perambulare.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4252" RevisionGUID="a748ef6b-a134-4a82-8e6f-a6ae1f44695a" CreationDate="2017-05-01T02:05:12.523" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="I want to translate the motto &quot;To hunt is to live&quot; to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The motto is for a hunting club. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation I have arrived at is: *Venari est vivere*. Is this a correct translation? If not, how could it be improved?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12861" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4252" RevisionGUID="a748ef6b-a134-4a82-8e6f-a6ae1f44695a" CreationDate="2017-05-01T02:05:12.523" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1106" RevisionGUID="a72f20ef-7651-4ed6-af4f-41cd3ccab840" CreationDate="2017-05-01T02:58:39.820" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="Another little puzzle inside Little Office of the BVM, Baronius Press, which is based upon the Gallican Psalter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Psalm cxxi has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Stantes erant pedes nostri, in atriis tuis, Jerusalem.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which it translates: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our feet were wont to stand: in thy courts, O Jerusalem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translation surprises me because I cannot detect within the Latin sentence the element of **desire** nor **privation**. As a beginner, it seems to me to say, more simply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our feet were standing in thy courts, O Jerusalem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first, mysterious (to me) translation fits the context better than my own. I just see no justification for it within the sentence itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this perhaps another Hebraism? Or some Latin idiom I have yet to learn? Or something else entirely?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12863" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1106" RevisionGUID="a72f20ef-7651-4ed6-af4f-41cd3ccab840" CreationDate="2017-05-01T02:58:39.820" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4250" RevisionGUID="463b2b6c-a50c-46dd-8d3d-bce7f05ccd76" CreationDate="2017-05-01T04:36:35.000" UserId="118" Comment="added 833 characters in body" Text="I looked at the [poem](https://hellopoetry.com/poem/9392/how-is-your-heart/) that the title is taken from, and I think [_ambulare_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=ambulo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), with its connotation of nonchalance, is actually appropriate to translate &quot;walk&quot;. Here is a very literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plurimum refert, quam bene per ignem ambules&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(You could omit the comma, but it seems to me to fit the style of the poem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exercising a little artistic license, you could say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In hoc incendio refert ut ambules&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the noun [_ignis_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=ignis&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) to just mean fire generally; [_incendium_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=incendium&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) means a big fire, like a house fire or a whole city on fire. Literally, this second version means &quot;In this [the] fire, it matters that you walk&quot; (with composure, comfortably). Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In hoc incendio refert quomodo ambules&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In this fire, it matters how you walk.&quot; For &quot;how well&quot;, change _quomodo_ to _quam bene._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I chose this wording to eliminate the notion of getting all the way through the fire and coming out the other side—i.e. to suggest that you're wandering around within the fire, because that's life. That's certainly not the only reasonable interpretation of Bukowski's sentence in context, though. If you want the notion of getting across to the other side, see [Palizsche's answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4254/118), which uses the verb [_transire_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=transeo) to convey that notion very clearly. Her answer also has a variation with [_perambulare_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=perambulo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), which _does_ suggest walking around throughout rather than trying to cut through to the other side." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4256" RevisionGUID="8db4acb3-4f7c-4230-9878-d12d30559724" CreationDate="2017-05-01T04:42:14.467" UserId="118" Text="&lt;sup&gt;Triggered by [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1106/118).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the difference in meaning between:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stantes erant pedes nostri, in atriis tuis, Jerusalem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stabant pedes nostri, in atriis tuis, Jerusalem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and does this apply broadly throughout the language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4256" RevisionGUID="8db4acb3-4f7c-4230-9878-d12d30559724" CreationDate="2017-05-01T04:42:14.467" UserId="118" Text="&quot;Stantes erant&quot; vs. &quot;stabant&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4256" RevisionGUID="8db4acb3-4f7c-4230-9878-d12d30559724" CreationDate="2017-05-01T04:42:14.467" UserId="118" Text="|meaning|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4254" RevisionGUID="7bd0e057-6a8a-4bf8-b240-8c41d5e92a29" CreationDate="2017-05-01T04:56:48.920" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="edits in response to comments." Text="&gt; **Plurimum opportet te ignem dexterius transire.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **It matters most that you cross through fire rather skillfully.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bukowski's title is long and rambling, but Latin is compact.  Like Tom Cotton, I thought about how a Roman might say this rather than translating so directly from the English. I like all the translations and think it's so interesting to hear a translator's reasoning and to see there are quite a few ways to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Plurimum oportet** seems like a reasonable way to carry the idea of &quot;what matters most&quot; in a Latin construction.   I also like the way the paired **te** as subject and **transire** as verb are separated by **ignem**, such that the notion of crossing fire is suggested. &#xD;&#xA;Due to my desire for a Roman feel, I like **dexterius transire** to get at the idea that you need to walk through fire in the right way. I admit this changes the meaning a bit, but it sounds authentically Roman to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I liked **transire** better than **ambulare**, because &quot;walk through fire&quot; isn't a Roman idea. Also, I somehow started associating it with Erasmus's sweet little phrase, **Bene ambula et redambula**, said to someone leaving on a trip.  **Transire** for pass through (a danger) seems a more Roman idea, though I take Ben Kovitz's point that walking is meant to convey nonchalance.  Likewise, Latin can render &quot;pass through fire&quot; as a verb with prefix plus accusative instead of a verb plus prepositional phrase.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **transire** plus the accusative, the things crossed found in Lewis and Short were campos, paludem, maria and flumen.  **Ignem transire**  seems like a reasonable usage then.  The addition of an adverb or a phrase to get across the notion that **how well** or **in what way** you pass through fire is important.  I chose to add the adverb **dexterius** Using the comparative degree rather than **dextere** seemed a good choice to construe **with a lot of skill** along with a sense of doing it **in the right way** or **in a favorable way**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to give credit to Thomas a Kempis for inspiration.  In De Imitatione Christi, he wrote: **Oportet te bene per ignem et aquam transire, antequam in refrigerium venias.** He's making reference to psalm (65-12): **inposuisti homines super caput nostrum transivimus per ignem et aquam et eduxisti nos in refrigerium.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bukowski is nihilistic, but he is suffering in a way that feels hellish, so the Chrisitan reference feels right.  Thanks to Ben Kovitz, I went and read Bukowski's poem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also Isaiah 43:2 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 **cum transieris per aquas tecum ero et flumina non operient te cum ambulaveris in igne non conbureris et flamma non ardebit in te**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(KJV)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: **when thou walkest through the fire**, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that I've done all this work, I see that another possibility based on my process is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Plurimum oportet te ignem dexterius perambulare.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4254" RevisionGUID="0a4b816c-df15-4142-a3ca-e93ee581b6ea" CreationDate="2017-05-01T05:07:00.767" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="edits in response to comments." Text="&gt; **Plurimum opportet te ignem dexterius transire.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **It matters most that you cross through fire rather skillfully.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bukowski's title is long and rambling, but Latin is compact.  Like Tom Cotton, I thought about how a Roman might say this rather than translating so directly from the English. I like all the translations and think it's so interesting to hear a translator's reasoning and to see there are quite a few ways to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Plurimum oportet** seems like a reasonable way to carry the idea of &quot;what matters most&quot; in a Latin construction.   I also like the way the paired **te** as subject and **transire** as verb are separated by **ignem**, such that the notion of crossing fire is suggested. &#xD;&#xA;Due to my desire for a Roman feel, I like **dexterius transire** to get at the idea that you need to walk through fire in the right way. I admit this changes the meaning a bit, but it sounds authentically Roman to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I liked **transire** better than **ambulare**, because &quot;walk through fire&quot; isn't a Roman idea. Also, I somehow started associating it with Erasmus's sweet little phrase, **Bene ambula et redambula**, said to someone leaving on a trip.  **Transire** for pass through (a danger) seems a more Roman idea, though I take Ben Kovitz's point that walking is meant to convey nonchalance.  Likewise, Latin can render &quot;pass through fire&quot; as a verb with prefix plus accusative instead of a verb plus prepositional phrase.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **transire** plus the accusative, the things crossed found in Lewis and Short were campos, paludem, maria and flumen.  **Ignem transire**  seems like a reasonable usage then.  The addition of an adverb or a phrase to get across the notion that **how well** or **in what way** you pass through fire is important.  I chose to add the adverb **dexterius** Using the comparative degree rather than **dextere** seemed a good choice to construe **with a lot of skill** along with a sense of doing it **in the right way** or **in a favorable way**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to give credit to Thomas a Kempis for inspiration.  In De Imitatione Christi, he wrote: **Oportet te bene per ignem et aquam transire, antequam in refrigerium venias.** He's making reference to psalm (65-12): **inposuisti homines super caput nostrum transivimus per ignem et aquam et eduxisti nos in refrigerium.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bukowski is nihilistic, but he is suffering in a way that feels hellish, so the Chrisitan reference feels right.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also Isaiah 43:2 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 **cum transieris per aquas tecum ero et flumina non operient te cum ambulaveris in igne non conbureris et flamma non ardebit in te**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(KJV)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: **when thou walkest through the fire**, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that I've done all this work, I see that another possibility based on my process is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Plurimum oportet te ignem dexterius perambulare.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3026" RevisionGUID="4f1ebf8b-0989-4c38-8399-5a624d74d767" CreationDate="2017-05-01T06:16:38.087" UserId="79" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="Lewis &amp; Short has [*sceletus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=sceletus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) (second declension masculine), which must be etymologically related to the English &quot;sceleton&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is described as *eviscerata forma diri cadaveris*, &quot;a disemboweled form of a dreadful corpse&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding Greek word *σκελετός* means &quot;dried body&quot; or &quot;mummy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find this word used in Apuleius, *Apologia*, sections [61](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0501%3Asection%3D61) and [63](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0501%3Asection%3D63).&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks for helping with this, cnread!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4244" RevisionGUID="37b75c0e-9c0a-4a76-a5f4-f34cb6ce662f" CreationDate="2017-05-01T06:26:45.517" UserId="118" Comment="added 1538 characters in body" Text="The motto calls upon connotations and associations in Latin that are hard to evoke in an analogous way in English. So here is a clumsy translation followed by some exposition of **generosus** and **virtus** so you can follow for yourself how they combine in the motto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **High-born manliness fears nothing.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;The adjective **generosus** = **genus** + **-osus**. _Genus_ is your birth, your origin, your _kind_—like _gens,_ your clan. If you are _genere Anglus,_ then you are an Englishman by birth, that is, originally, not as an immigrant. _Genus_ is the root of a great many words in English, like &quot;generate&quot;, &quot;general&quot;, and &quot;generic&quot;. These all grow out of a metaphor with _begetting:_ things reproduce after their own kind. Most English words from this root emphasize only having something in common, but the notion of begetting is still there, just a little below the surface: a generation, as in &quot;the 1960s generation&quot;, is all the people born around the same time, seen as part of a sequence of generations each giving birth to the next. The word _genus_ can also mean any sort of group or kind with something in common, but in Latin the metaphor with birth and family is still clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix **-osus** makes an adjective indicating having an abundance of the noun it's based on, similar to the Anglo-Saxon suffix _-ful._ For example, _dolor_ is pain or sadness; _dolorosus_ means painful or sorrowful. (In English, _-osus_ appears as _-ous;_ e.g. &quot;cavern&quot; and &quot;cavernous&quot;, &quot;luxury&quot; and &quot;luxurious&quot;.) When added to some nouns, like _genus,_ it brings a positive connotation: if you are **generosus**, then you come from good stock, you are well-bred. As in English, the Latin word is also used to mean giving freely, since a noble family properly shows largesse, but in Latin this is an extended sense; the primary meaning is being born to noble ancestry—&quot;genetic&quot; superiority, you could say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should come as no surprise, then, that **generosus** is a common word in heraldic mottos, where it is an adjective for &quot;gentleman&quot;. The exact meaning of this varied a lot over the centuries, as the criteria for what entitled you to the rank of gentleman shifted, but the basic connotation remained the same. Putting **generosus** onto your coat of arms asserts that you come from a long line of respectable ancestors even if you don't have a title of nobility. Here's a [dictionary of heraldry](https://books.google.com/books?id=w_5BAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PR222&amp;lpg=PR222&amp;dq=generosus+gentleman+heraldry&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=yoxB0gU7ko&amp;sig=YW5MjFPcPCKIPsRSaEKxeK465mI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwizrZaO4crTAhXD7SYKHQTCBwY4ChDoAQgmMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=generosus%20gentleman%20heraldry&amp;f=false) from 1828 that says some more about this. And notice the sentence in the middle of the bottom row of this picture: **Generoso germine gemmo**: &quot;From an excellent bud I sprout.&quot; Well, &quot;excellent&quot; doesn't carry the precise meaning, of course, but you get the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentleman#/media/File:English_Gentleman.jpg&quot; /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun **virtus** = **vir** + **-tus**. This one is easier to explain. **Vir** means man, and **-tus** forms a noun meaning the essential quality of the first part of the word, as _iuvenis,_ &quot;a young person&quot;, and _iuventus,_ &quot;youth&quot;. The path from Latin _virtus_ to contemporary English &quot;virtue&quot; is a long one, involving trips through Christianity and supernaturalism, described a little more in the answers to [this question](https://ell.stackexchange.com/q/60946/6700). The main thing to know is that in Latin, **virtus** means manliness, especially strength, courage, honor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the _Tusculan Disputations_ 2.15–16 someone tells Cicero that pain is the worst evil. Cicero asks &quot;Worse than dishonor?&quot; The other person immediately concedes that he was wrong, embarrassed to have been refuted so quickly. A little later Cicero says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ergo id quod natura ipsa et **quaedam generosa virtus** statim respuit, ne scilicet dolorem summum malum diceres oppositoque dedecore sententia depellerere, in eo magistra vitae philosophia tot saecula permanet?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what nature itself, and **a certain [worthy, innate uprightness?]**, immediately spat back out—the proposition that pain is the worst evil, which you were driven away from saying when it was contrasted with dishonor—the mistress of life, philosophy, is going to maintain _that_ for so many ages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure that any English words can satisfactorily translate Cicero's use of the phrase, but hopefully the meaning is starting to become clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here is a less clumsy translation of the motto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gentlemanly courage fears nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this conveys less of the spirit of the motto than the clumsy version did, but it's certainly less jarring if you need a translation that you can use in English prose. I'm avoiding the word &quot;[noble](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility)&quot; because, in the context of coats of arms, this suggests having a [peerage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage)—that is, being a peer of the royalty. A peerage might be hereditary, but originally it is _earned:_ it is conferred by a [monarch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fons_honorum) in honor of a great deed or service. Hence **fit nobilis, nascitur generosus**: nobility is made, gentility is born (more [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=-pQISmv2asUC&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;ots=UW798pe9kX&amp;dq=nobilis%20peerage%20%22coat%20of%20arms%22&amp;pg=PA281#v=onepage&amp;q=fit%20nobilis%20nascitur%20generosus&amp;f=false)). Thus the two are quite distinct, at least in the feudal worldview that gave rise to coats of arms and heraldic mottos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, please note that I am not an expert on heraldry. A while back, I happened to get curious about **generosus**, since it wasn't being used in Latin the way I expected—whence the explanation above. And yesterday, your question triggered me to google a bunch about the word's use in coats of arms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4244" RevisionGUID="7756cbc3-e744-4a75-9b5f-5e0fe19f07bd" CreationDate="2017-05-01T06:31:05.160" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected the image link." Text="The motto calls upon connotations and associations in Latin that are hard to evoke in an analogous way in English. So here is a clumsy translation followed by some exposition of **generosus** and **virtus** so you can follow for yourself how they combine in the motto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **High-born manliness fears nothing.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;The adjective **generosus** = **genus** + **-osus**. _Genus_ is your birth, your origin, your _kind_—like _gens,_ your clan. If you are _genere Anglus,_ then you are an Englishman by birth, that is, originally, not as an immigrant. _Genus_ is the root of a great many words in English, like &quot;generate&quot;, &quot;general&quot;, and &quot;generic&quot;. These all grow out of a metaphor with _begetting:_ things reproduce after their own kind. Most English words from this root emphasize only having something in common, but the notion of begetting is still there, just a little below the surface: a generation, as in &quot;the 1960s generation&quot;, is all the people born around the same time, seen as part of a sequence of generations each giving birth to the next. The word _genus_ can also mean any sort of group or kind with something in common, but in Latin the metaphor with birth and family is still clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix **-osus** makes an adjective indicating having an abundance of the noun it's based on, similar to the Anglo-Saxon suffix _-ful._ For example, _dolor_ is pain or sadness; _dolorosus_ means painful or sorrowful. (In English, _-osus_ appears as _-ous;_ e.g. &quot;cavern&quot; and &quot;cavernous&quot;, &quot;luxury&quot; and &quot;luxurious&quot;.) When added to some nouns, like _genus,_ it brings a positive connotation: if you are **generosus**, then you come from good stock, you are well-bred. As in English, the Latin word is also used to mean giving freely, since a noble family properly shows largesse, but in Latin this is an extended sense; the primary meaning is being born to noble ancestry—&quot;genetic&quot; superiority, you could say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should come as no surprise, then, that **generosus** is a common word in heraldic mottos, where it is an adjective for &quot;gentleman&quot;. The exact meaning of this varied a lot over the centuries, as the criteria for what entitled you to the rank of gentleman shifted, but the basic connotation remained the same. Putting **generosus** onto your coat of arms asserts that you come from a long line of respectable ancestors even if you don't have a title of nobility. Here's a [dictionary of heraldry](https://books.google.com/books?id=w_5BAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PR222&amp;lpg=PR222&amp;dq=generosus+gentleman+heraldry&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=yoxB0gU7ko&amp;sig=YW5MjFPcPCKIPsRSaEKxeK465mI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwizrZaO4crTAhXD7SYKHQTCBwY4ChDoAQgmMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=generosus%20gentleman%20heraldry&amp;f=false) from 1828 that says some more about this. And notice the sentence in the middle of the bottom row of this picture: **Generoso germine gemmo**: &quot;From an excellent bud I sprout.&quot; Well, &quot;excellent&quot; doesn't carry the precise meaning, of course, but you get the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/English_Gentleman.jpg&quot; /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun **virtus** = **vir** + **-tus**. This one is easier to explain. **Vir** means man, and **-tus** forms a noun meaning the essential quality of the first part of the word, as _iuvenis,_ &quot;a young person&quot;, and _iuventus,_ &quot;youth&quot;. The path from Latin _virtus_ to contemporary English &quot;virtue&quot; is a long one, involving trips through Christianity and supernaturalism, described a little more in the answers to [this question](https://ell.stackexchange.com/q/60946/6700). The main thing to know is that in Latin, **virtus** means manliness, especially strength, courage, honor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the _Tusculan Disputations_ 2.15–16 someone tells Cicero that pain is the worst evil. Cicero asks &quot;Worse than dishonor?&quot; The other person immediately concedes that he was wrong, embarrassed to have been refuted so quickly. A little later Cicero says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ergo id quod natura ipsa et **quaedam generosa virtus** statim respuit, ne scilicet dolorem summum malum diceres oppositoque dedecore sententia depellerere, in eo magistra vitae philosophia tot saecula permanet?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what nature itself, and **a certain [worthy, innate uprightness?]**, immediately spat back out—the proposition that pain is the worst evil, which you were driven away from saying when it was contrasted with dishonor—the mistress of life, philosophy, is going to maintain _that_ for so many ages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure that any English words can satisfactorily translate Cicero's use of the phrase, but hopefully the meaning is starting to become clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here is a less clumsy translation of the motto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gentlemanly courage fears nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this conveys less of the spirit of the motto than the clumsy version did, but it's certainly less jarring if you need a translation that you can use in English prose. I'm avoiding the word &quot;[noble](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility)&quot; because, in the context of coats of arms, this suggests having a [peerage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage)—that is, being a peer of the royalty. A peerage might be hereditary, but originally it is _earned:_ it is conferred by a [monarch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fons_honorum) in honor of a great deed or service. Hence **fit nobilis, nascitur generosus**: nobility is made, gentility is born (more [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=-pQISmv2asUC&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;ots=UW798pe9kX&amp;dq=nobilis%20peerage%20%22coat%20of%20arms%22&amp;pg=PA281#v=onepage&amp;q=fit%20nobilis%20nascitur%20generosus&amp;f=false)). Thus the two are quite distinct, at least in the feudal worldview that gave rise to coats of arms and heraldic mottos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, please note that I am not an expert on heraldry. A while back, I happened to get curious about **generosus**, since it wasn't being used in Latin the way I expected—whence the explanation above. And yesterday, your question triggered me to google a bunch about the word's use in coats of arms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4244" RevisionGUID="d6a93bad-2bf7-4e5a-98db-68f57dbec88b" CreationDate="2017-05-01T06:37:38.037" UserId="118" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="The motto calls upon connotations and associations in Latin that are hard to evoke in an analogous way in English. So here is a clumsy translation followed by some exposition of **generosus** and **virtus** so you can follow for yourself how they combine in the motto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **High-born manliness fears nothing.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;The adjective **generosus** = **genus** + **-osus**. _Genus_ is your birth, your origin, your _kind_—like _gens,_ your clan. If you are _genere Anglus,_ then you are an Englishman by birth, that is, originally, not as an immigrant. _Genus_ is the root of a great many words in English, like &quot;generate&quot;, &quot;general&quot;, and &quot;generic&quot;. These all grow out of a metaphor with _begetting:_ things reproduce after their own kind. Most English words from this root emphasize only having something in common, but the notion of begetting is still there, just a little below the surface: a generation, as in &quot;the 1960s generation&quot;, is all the people born around the same time, seen as part of a sequence of generations each giving birth to the next. The word _genus_ can also mean any sort of group or kind with something in common, but in Latin the metaphor with birth and family is still clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix **-osus** makes an adjective indicating having an abundance of the noun it's based on, similar to the Anglo-Saxon suffix _-ful._ For example, _dolor_ is pain or sadness; _dolorosus_ means painful or sorrowful. (In English, _-osus_ appears as _-ous;_ e.g. &quot;cavern&quot; and &quot;cavernous&quot;, &quot;luxury&quot; and &quot;luxurious&quot;.) When added to some nouns, like _genus,_ it brings a positive connotation: if you are **generosus**, then you come from good stock, you are well-bred. As in English, the Latin word is also used to mean giving freely, since a noble family properly shows largesse, but in Latin this is an extended sense; the primary meaning is being born to noble ancestry—&quot;genetic&quot; superiority, you could say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should come as no surprise, then, that **generosus** is a common word in heraldic mottos, where it is an adjective for &quot;gentleman&quot;. The exact meaning of this varied a lot over the centuries, as the criteria for what entitled you to the rank of gentleman shifted, but the basic connotation remained the same. Putting **generosus** onto your coat of arms asserts that you come from a long line of respectable ancestors even if you don't have a title of nobility. Here's a [dictionary of heraldry](https://books.google.com/books?id=w_5BAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PR222&amp;lpg=PR222&amp;dq=generosus+gentleman+heraldry&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=yoxB0gU7ko&amp;sig=YW5MjFPcPCKIPsRSaEKxeK465mI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwizrZaO4crTAhXD7SYKHQTCBwY4ChDoAQgmMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=generosus%20gentleman%20heraldry&amp;f=false) from 1828 that says some more about this. And notice the sentence in the middle of the bottom row of the picture below: **Generoso germine gemmo**: &quot;From an excellent bud I sprout.&quot;* Well, &quot;excellent&quot; doesn't carry the precise meaning, of course, but you get the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![The English Gentleman, by Richard Braithwait (1630)][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun **virtus** = **vir** + **-tus**. This one is easier to explain. **Vir** means man, and **-tus** forms a noun meaning the essential quality of the first part of the word, as _iuvenis,_ &quot;a young person&quot;, and _iuventus,_ &quot;youth&quot;. The path from Latin _virtus_ to contemporary English &quot;virtue&quot; is a long one, involving trips through Christianity and supernaturalism, described a little more in the answers to [this question](https://ell.stackexchange.com/q/60946/6700). The main thing to know is that in Latin, **virtus** means manliness, especially strength, courage, honor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the _Tusculan Disputations_ 2.15–16 someone tells Cicero that pain is the worst evil. Cicero asks &quot;Worse than dishonor?&quot; The other person immediately concedes that he was wrong, embarrassed to have been refuted so quickly. A little later Cicero says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ergo id quod natura ipsa et **quaedam generosa virtus** statim respuit, ne scilicet dolorem summum malum diceres oppositoque dedecore sententia depellerere, in eo magistra vitae philosophia tot saecula permanet?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what nature itself, and **a certain [worthy, innate uprightness?]**, immediately spat back out—the proposition that pain is the worst evil, which you were driven away from saying when it was contrasted with dishonor—the mistress of life, philosophy, is going to maintain _that_ for so many ages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure that any English words can satisfactorily translate Cicero's use of the phrase, but hopefully the meaning is starting to become clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So finally here is a less clumsy translation of the motto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gentlemanly courage fears nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this conveys less of the spirit of the motto than the clumsy version did, but it's certainly less jarring if you need a translation that you can use in English prose. I'm avoiding the word &quot;[noble](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility)&quot; because, in the context of coats of arms, this suggests having a [peerage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage)—that is, being a peer of the royalty. A peerage might be hereditary, but originally it is _earned:_ it is conferred by a [monarch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fons_honorum) in honor of a great deed or service. Hence **fit nobilis, nascitur generosus**: nobility is made, gentility is born (more [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=-pQISmv2asUC&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;ots=UW798pe9kX&amp;dq=nobilis%20peerage%20%22coat%20of%20arms%22&amp;pg=PA281#v=onepage&amp;q=fit%20nobilis%20nascitur%20generosus&amp;f=false)). Thus the two are quite distinct, at least in the feudal worldview that gave rise to coats of arms and heraldic mottos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I am not an expert on heraldry. A while back, I happened to get curious about **generosus**, since it wasn't being used in Latin the way I expected—whence the explanation above. And yesterday, your question triggered me to google a bunch about the word's use in coats of arms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt;Source: [_The English Gentleman_](http://www.thegentry.org.uk/braithwait.html) by Richard Braithwait (1630).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Eldt.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4257" RevisionGUID="44a99b01-3475-405e-a69c-682bf19ad07d" CreationDate="2017-05-01T07:10:55.547" UserId="235" Text="The English word &quot;lonely&quot; has at least a couple different uses. A person can be lonely — we all know, and have probably felt, this meaning of the word. But also a place can be lonely. A lot of people refer to NYC and London as lonely cities. Right now, the Latin.SE chat room feels pretty lonely because I am the only person in it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to know, what are the different Latin words for &quot;lonely&quot;, and what are their different uses, meanings, and connotations? I have come up with two guesses. The first is *solum*. I believe that the most literal meaning of this word is &quot;alone&quot; or &quot;only&quot;. I'm guessing that it also means &quot;lonely&quot; - either directly or as a connnotation (in my understanding, the two often converge).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second guess is *desertum*. I'm guessing that this differs from *solum* in that it describes a place more often than a person or a thing. But it might not have the same connotation as the word &quot;lonely&quot; when we say that NYC is a lonely city. For sure, NYC is a lonely city, but it is certainly *not* deserted, and I feel that *desertum* probably denotes emptiness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, we might use *desertum* to describe an empty bar at 4pm. An empty bar does feel lonely. So there, it has its uses!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just my thoughts. What Latin words would you use for &quot;lonely&quot;? Perhaps you can give some sample contexts and the word that you think describes that context. For example, how would you say NYC is a lonely city in Latin? How would you say the Latin.SE chat room is lonely? How would you say a person is lonely?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12878" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4257" RevisionGUID="44a99b01-3475-405e-a69c-682bf19ad07d" CreationDate="2017-05-01T07:10:55.547" UserId="235" Text="What are the different ways to say &quot;lonely&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12879" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4257" RevisionGUID="44a99b01-3475-405e-a69c-682bf19ad07d" CreationDate="2017-05-01T07:10:55.547" UserId="235" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|meaning|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4258" RevisionGUID="5fee4141-30c0-46e4-a3ef-7d71e7706ee9" CreationDate="2017-05-01T07:15:58.687" UserId="1507" Text="I was surprised to see that several (Hungarian) sources claim that *De mortuis nihil nisi bonum* is an incorrect version of *De mortuis nil nisi bene*, but I could find nothing supporting this theory in English. Can anyone shed some more light on the origin of these related proverbs? Here is the [related Wikipedia entry][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_mortuis_nil_nisi_bonum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12881" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4258" RevisionGUID="5fee4141-30c0-46e4-a3ef-7d71e7706ee9" CreationDate="2017-05-01T07:15:58.687" UserId="1507" Text="De mortuis nil nisi bene or bonum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12882" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4258" RevisionGUID="5fee4141-30c0-46e4-a3ef-7d71e7706ee9" CreationDate="2017-05-01T07:15:58.687" UserId="1507" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4259" RevisionGUID="3e9ddb51-5d17-485e-85a6-52e2e1b3c56f" CreationDate="2017-05-01T07:32:14.093" UserId="79" Text="For a lonely place I would use the noun *solitudo*.&#xD;&#xA;[L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=solitudo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) describes it, among other things, as &quot;loneliness&quot;, &quot;solitude (of a person or place)&quot;, and &quot;a lonely place&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This word refers to the state of loneliness in a broader sense than any English word.&#xD;&#xA;I would probably use this word for all of the cases you describe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to cry &quot;how lonely!&quot; as you did in [the chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm), one possible Latin translation would be *qualis solitudo!*&#xD;&#xA;There might be other ways of forming such exclamations with nouns, but *qualis* has famous precedent.&#xD;&#xA;Remember the famous *qualis artifex pereo!* by Nero?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may view it as a problem or an opportunity, but bear in mind that *solitudo* is a noun, unlike the English &quot;lonely&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you want an adjective instead, I would recommend the related [*solitarius*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=solitarius&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;I would be ready to use this for all of your example cases, but that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be more idiomatic choices for some other situations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4224" RevisionGUID="ab965c26-3fb6-4213-b0e0-294053669f47" CreationDate="2017-05-01T07:56:12.287" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 228 characters in body" Text="The tau (τ) is actually quite expected in adjectives formed from verbs. There is a whole class of verbal adjectives that are based on the suffixes -τέος and -τός. The former expresses the idea of obligation or necessity, whereas the latter expresses the idea of capability (Smyth §2149). For example, if you consider the verb παιδεύω, to teach, then you can form the adjectives παιδευτέος &quot;needing to be taught&quot; and παιδευτός &quot;able to be taught&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix -τικός is in a similar vein. This suffix is also used to create adjectives from verbs, but it expresses the idea of being suited to or related to something (Smyth §858.6d). Thus [φωνητικός][1] means &quot;vocal&quot; as φωνέω means &quot;to sound&quot; and the suffix conveys the idea of something related to sound. If you recall one of the other suffixes, -τός, then you won't be surprised to find [φωνητός][2] in the dictionary, which means &quot;capable of being spoken&quot; or &quot;utterable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, tau is common in the suffixes of verbal adjectives. It might be helpful to look up a word I mentioned earlier, παιδεύω, to see even more evidence of these suffixes. You can find entries for [παιδευτέος][3], [παιδευτός][4], and [παιδευτικός][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.80:4:197.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.80:4:198.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.55:2:147.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.55:2:151.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.55:2:150.LSJ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4260" RevisionGUID="00c642c3-f93f-4b7f-a92b-5002a796c090" CreationDate="2017-05-01T08:02:39.950" UserId="79" Text="I cannot comment on the origin of the two versions of the proverbs, but perhaps a grammatical comparison can be useful, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *bene* is the adverb &quot;well&quot; derived from the adjective *bonus*, &quot;good&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;With this word the proverb recommends to speak only well of the deceased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *bonum* is the singular neuter form of *bonus*.&#xD;&#xA;When &quot;good&quot; refers to something (as opposed to someone) but not any specific noun in particular, this is a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;It could also be seen as a substantivized adjective, a noun meaning &quot;good thing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;With this word the proverb recommends to speak only good things of the deceased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no real semantic difference between the two.&#xD;&#xA;From a grammatical point of view I wouldn't call either one of them wrong.&#xD;&#xA;But it is possible that one of them is a misquote of the other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4261" RevisionGUID="1e0cd16c-735a-4bf0-8f9c-d9b90c033145" CreationDate="2017-05-01T09:52:13.433" UserId="1508" Text="In the classic [school interchange][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quis? Ego de to my liking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What grammatical part is the &quot;de&quot; playing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/150733/quis-ego-childs-phrase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12887" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4261" RevisionGUID="1e0cd16c-735a-4bf0-8f9c-d9b90c033145" CreationDate="2017-05-01T09:52:13.433" UserId="1508" Text="What does &quot;de&quot; mean in &quot;Ego de to my liking&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12888" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4261" RevisionGUID="1e0cd16c-735a-4bf0-8f9c-d9b90c033145" CreationDate="2017-05-01T09:52:13.433" UserId="1508" Text="|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4235" RevisionGUID="971255a9-b142-4fe3-810f-4eeda92750f8" CreationDate="2017-05-01T10:10:29.830" UserId="1500" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="So firstly, `ambulate` is either the vocative of the passive perfect participle of `ambulo` (I walk) or the plural imperative, neither of which you seem to mean. Your translation is, roughly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `sit` = (he/she/it) is (subjunctive)&#xD;&#xA; - `amet` = (he/she/it) loves (subjunctive)&#xD;&#xA; - `quam` = as&#xD;&#xA; - `honestus` = worthy, noble, decent&#xD;&#xA; - `te` = you (singular accusative)&#xD;&#xA; - `ambulate` = either &quot;Walk!&quot; (imperative) or &quot;having been traversed!&quot; (in the sense of &quot;You!&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - `per ignem` = through the fire&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't quite make sense as `sit` and `amet` haven't actually got subjects and are subjunctive for some reason; you may have plucked `sit amet` from Cicero's `de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum`? `ambulate` also doesn't quite fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, here is a possible translation: `cui momentum maximum est per ignem quam bene ambules.` Broken down:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `cui` = that to which&#xD;&#xA; - `momentum maximum` = the most importance&#xD;&#xA; - `est` = is&#xD;&#xA; - `per ignem` = through the fire&#xD;&#xA; - `quam bene` = how well&#xD;&#xA; - `ambules` = you walk (hypothetical)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in English, literally, the translation is &quot;That to which there is most importance (i.e. that which has most importance) is how well you walk through the fire.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully this should do the trick." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4262" RevisionGUID="66fbade9-80dc-41d0-b533-7ac2e91e8886" CreationDate="2017-05-01T10:27:51.233" UserId="645" Text="There is no difference in meaning, but it's rare to find a *present* participle used, as here, in a periphrastic conjugation : such usage is quite legitimate, but isn't normally recommended for prose composition. There is a perfectly good imperfect tense in Latin which supplies the need, as in your second version. Your example is from Ps. 121 in the Vulgate, where idiosyncratic grammar is not unusual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your general point : periphrastic conjugations in Latin are almost entirely restricted to two types.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The active future participle with *sum* as auxiliary verb: using from your example the verb *sto*, sample forms are  *staturus sum*, I am about to stand; *staturi erant*, they were about to stand. This is the *active periphrastic conjugation*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The gerundive is used in a similar way to form a *passive periphrastic conjugation*. Examples are *monendus est*, he ought to be advised, and *monendi eratis*, you ought to have been advised.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4263" RevisionGUID="25ff0c8c-ce65-4da9-8b07-c4fb82b05188" CreationDate="2017-05-01T12:00:02.030" UserId="1511" Text="&gt; *[Praedari][1] est vivere.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary also appears to condone the form [*praedare*][2], although this could be an error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not an authoritative answer. It’s just how I would say it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/praedari&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/praedare" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4254" RevisionGUID="525194c1-6c55-4d45-b114-4220c53e0979" CreationDate="2017-05-01T12:39:19.480" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="&gt; **Plurimum opportet te ignem dexterius transire.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **It matters most that you cross through fire rather skillfully.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bukowski's title is long and rambling, but Latin is compact.  Like Tom Cotton, I thought about how a Roman might say this rather than translating so directly from the English. I like all the translations and think it's so interesting to hear a translator's reasoning and to see there are quite a few ways to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Plurimum oportet** seems like a reasonable way to carry the idea of &quot;what matters most&quot; in a Latin construction.   I also like the way the paired **te** as subject and **transire** as verb are separated by **ignem**, such that the notion of crossing fire is suggested. &#xD;&#xA;Due to my desire for a Roman feel, I like **dexterius transire** to get at the idea that you need to walk through fire in the right way. I admit this changes the meaning a bit, but it sounds authentically Roman to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I liked **transire** better than **ambulare**, because &quot;walk through fire&quot; isn't a Roman idea. Also, I somehow started associating it with Erasmus's sweet little phrase, **Bene ambula et redambula**, said to someone leaving on a trip.  **Transire** for pass through (a danger) seems a more Roman idea, though I take Ben Kovitz's point that walking is meant to convey nonchalance.  Like Joonas, I took advantage that Latin can render &quot;pass through fire&quot; as a verb with prefix plus accusative instead of a verb plus prepositional phrase.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **transire** plus the accusative, the things crossed found in Lewis and Short were campos, paludem, maria and flumen.  **Ignem transire**  seems like a reasonable usage then.  The addition of an adverb or a phrase to get across the notion that **how well** or **in what way** you pass through fire is important.  I chose to add the adverb **dexterius** Using the comparative degree rather than **dextere** seemed a good choice to construe **with a lot of skill** along with a sense of doing it **in the right way** or **in a favorable way**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to give credit to Thomas a Kempis for inspiration.  In De Imitatione Christi, he wrote: **Oportet te bene per ignem et aquam transire, antequam in refrigerium venias.** He's making reference to psalm (65-12): **inposuisti homines super caput nostrum transivimus per ignem et aquam et eduxisti nos in refrigerium.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bukowski is nihilistic, but he is suffering in a way that feels hellish, so the Chrisitan reference feels right.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also Isaiah 43:2 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 **cum transieris per aquas tecum ero et flumina non operient te cum ambulaveris in igne non conbureris et flamma non ardebit in te**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(KJV)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: **when thou walkest through the fire**, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that I've done all this work, I see that another possibility based on my process is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Plurimum oportet te ignem dexterius perambulare.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4254" RevisionGUID="669cd00a-b299-474c-89b8-4fc0ebc33357" CreationDate="2017-05-01T13:31:05.163" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="Thomas a Kempis &amp; Vulgate usage" Text="&gt; **Plurimum opportet te ignem dexterius transire.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **It matters most that you cross through fire rather skillfully.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bukowski's title is long and rambling, but Latin is compact.  Like Tom Cotton, I thought about how a Roman might say this rather than translating so directly from the English. I like all the translations and think it's so interesting to hear a translator's reasoning and to see there are quite a few ways to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Plurimum oportet** seems like a reasonable way to carry the idea of &quot;what matters most&quot; in a Latin construction.   I also like the way the paired **te** as subject and **transire** as verb are separated by **ignem**, such that the notion of crossing fire is suggested. &#xD;&#xA;Due to my desire for a Roman feel, I like **dexterius transire** to get at the idea that you need to walk through fire in the right way. I admit this changes the meaning a bit, but it sounds authentically Roman to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I liked **transire** better than **ambulare**, because &quot;walk through fire&quot; isn't a Roman idea. Also, I somehow started associating it with Erasmus's sweet little phrase, **Bene ambula et redambula**, said to someone leaving on a trip.  **Transire** for pass through (a danger) seems a more Roman idea, though I take Ben Kovitz's point that walking is meant to convey nonchalance.  Like Joonas, I took advantage that Latin can render &quot;pass through fire&quot; as a verb with prefix plus accusative instead of a verb plus prepositional phrase.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **transire** plus the accusative, the things crossed found in Lewis and Short were campos, paludem, maria and flumen.  **Ignem transire**  seems like a reasonable usage then.  The addition of an adverb or a phrase to get across the notion that **how well** or **in what way** you pass through fire is important.  I chose to add the adverb **dexterius** Using the comparative degree rather than **dextere** seemed a good choice to construe **with a lot of skill** along with a sense of doing it **in the right way** or **in a favorable way**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to give credit to Thomas a Kempis for inspiration.  In De Imitatione Christi, he wrote: **Oportet te bene per ignem et aquam transire, antequam in refrigerium venias.** He's making reference to psalm (65-12): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**inposuisti homines super caput nostrum transivimus per ignem et aquam et eduxisti nos in refrigerium.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bukowski is nihilistic, but he is suffering in a way that feels hellish, so the Chrisitan reference feels right.  I follow classical usage rather than Thomas a Kempis who uses  **transire** and the prepositional phrase **per ignem**.  This seems redundant to me.  The Latin used in the Vulgate Bible  to express the same ideas is not as close to classical usage as that of Thomas a Kempis, but is useful as a reference point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also Isaiah 43:2 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 **cum transieris per aquas tecum ero et flumina non operient te cum ambulaveris in igne non conbureris et flamma non ardebit in te**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(KJV)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: **when thou walkest through the fire**, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that I've done all this work, I see that another possibility based on my process is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Plurimum oportet te ignem dexterius perambulare.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4254" RevisionGUID="1bdfa3cd-2894-40ee-9535-bda28d5e1d71" CreationDate="2017-05-01T17:04:25.297" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="Thomas a Kempis &amp; Vulgate usage" Text="&gt; **Plurimum opportet te ignem dexterius transire.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **It matters most that you cross through fire rather skillfully.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bukowski's title is long and rambling, but Latin is compact.  Like Tom Cotton, I thought about how a Roman might say this rather than translating so directly from the English. I like all the translations and think it's so interesting to hear a translator's reasoning and to see there are quite a few ways to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Plurimum oportet** seems like a reasonable way to carry the idea of &quot;what matters most&quot; in a Latin construction.   I also like the way the paired **te** as subject and **transire** as verb are separated by **ignem**, such that the notion of crossing fire is suggested. &#xD;&#xA;Due to my desire for a Roman feel, I like **dexterius transire** to get at the idea that you need to walk through fire in the right way. I admit this changes the meaning a bit, but it sounds authentically Roman to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I liked **transire** better than **ambulare**, because &quot;walk through fire&quot; isn't a Roman idea. Also, I somehow started associating it with Erasmus's sweet little phrase, **Bene ambula et redambula**, said to someone leaving on a trip.  **Transire** for pass through (a danger) seems a more Roman idea, though I take Ben Kovitz's point that walking is meant to convey nonchalance.  Like Joonas, I took advantage that Latin can render &quot;pass through fire&quot; as a verb with prefix plus accusative instead of a verb plus prepositional phrase.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **transire** plus the accusative, the things crossed found in Lewis and Short were campos, paludem, maria and flumen.  **Ignem transire**  seems like a reasonable usage then.  The addition of an adverb or a phrase to get across the notion that **how well** or **in what way** you pass through fire is important.  I chose to add the adverb **dexterius** Using the comparative degree rather than **dextere** seemed a good choice to construe **with a lot of skill** along with a sense of doing it **in the right way** or **in a favorable way**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to give credit to Thomas a Kempis for inspiration.  In De Imitatione Christi, he wrote: **Oportet te bene per ignem et aquam transire, antequam in refrigerium venias.** He's making reference to psalm (65-12): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**inposuisti homines super caput nostrum transivimus per ignem et aquam et eduxisti nos in refrigerium.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bukowski is nihilistic, but he is suffering in a way that feels hellish, so the Chrisitan reference feels right.  I follow classical usage rather than Thomas a Kempis who uses  **transire** and the prepositional phrase **per ignem**.  This seems redundant to me.  The Latin used in the Vulgate Bible  to express the same ideas is not as close to classical usage as that of Thomas a Kempis, but is useful as a reference point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also Isaiah 43:2 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 **cum transieris per aquas tecum ero et flumina non operient te cum ambulaveris in igne non conbureris et flamma non ardebit in te**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(KJV)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: **when thou walkest through the fire**, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that I've done all this work, I see that another possibility based on my process is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Plurimum oportet te ignem dexterius perambulare.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4264" RevisionGUID="d6597633-9ed6-4d21-b616-f7b378cd01b2" CreationDate="2017-05-01T18:03:51.737" UserId="1512" Text="I'm writing a novel in which Latin-speaking students at Oxford in 1560's are talking.  In English, they'd be referring respectfully to gentlemen who weren't noblemen as &quot;master,&quot; and noblemen as &quot;lord.&quot;  If I use Dominus (Domine in direct address) as &quot;Mister&quot; or &quot;master,&quot; what would &quot;lord&quot; be when they run into an actual nobleman?  (I'm writing it in English, but I'm throwing in a few foreign words for color.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll appreciate any help you can give.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12896" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4264" RevisionGUID="d6597633-9ed6-4d21-b616-f7b378cd01b2" CreationDate="2017-05-01T18:03:51.737" UserId="1512" Text="English &quot;Master&quot; vs. &quot;Mister&quot; translated in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12897" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4264" RevisionGUID="d6597633-9ed6-4d21-b616-f7b378cd01b2" CreationDate="2017-05-01T18:03:51.737" UserId="1512" Text="|translation|vocabulary|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4265" RevisionGUID="4f418169-531a-45eb-a6eb-22bf29d376dd" CreationDate="2017-05-01T18:10:55.317" UserId="79" Text="Latin has four classes of numeral words.&#xD;&#xA;Can Roman numbers (**I**, **II**, &amp;hellip;) be used to for any class, or should they be restricted to, say, cardinals and ordinals?&#xD;&#xA;For example, can **I** abbreviate any of *unus*, *primus*, *singuli*, and *semel* (appropriately declined), and **X** any of *decem*, *decimus*, *deni*, *decies*?&#xD;&#xA;In English Roman numbers are mainly used for ordinals, but my question concerns Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12899" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4265" RevisionGUID="4f418169-531a-45eb-a6eb-22bf29d376dd" CreationDate="2017-05-01T18:10:55.317" UserId="79" Text="Can Roman numbers stand for any kind of Latin numerals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12900" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4265" RevisionGUID="4f418169-531a-45eb-a6eb-22bf29d376dd" CreationDate="2017-05-01T18:10:55.317" UserId="79" Text="|grammar-choice|abbreviations|numbers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4257" RevisionGUID="993f8dc6-9efe-4e08-b84a-29e446bff09f" CreationDate="2017-05-01T18:11:20.643" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 937 characters in body" Text="The English word &quot;lonely&quot; has at least a couple different uses. A person can be lonely — we all know, and have probably felt, this meaning of the word. But also a place can be lonely. A lot of people refer to NYC and London as lonely cities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to know, what are the different Latin words for &quot;lonely&quot;, and what are their different connotations? I have come up with two candidates myself, *solum* and *desertum*, and I'm wondering whether *solum* is better suited to people or things, and *desertum* to places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a Latin word that has connotations similar to the English &quot;lonely&quot;, e.g. sadness?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4264" RevisionGUID="3f92489a-7ac7-4670-9b47-eb037cabaf8d" CreationDate="2017-05-01T18:13:26.067" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm writing a novel in which Latin-speaking students at Oxford in 1560's are talking.  In English, they'd be referring respectfully to gentlemen who weren't noblemen as &quot;master,&quot; and noblemen as &quot;lord.&quot;  If I use *Dominus* (*Domine* in direct address) as &quot;Mister&quot; or &quot;master,&quot; what would &quot;lord&quot; be when they run into an actual nobleman?  (I'm writing it in English, but I'm throwing in a few foreign words for color.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll appreciate any help you can give.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12903" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4264" RevisionGUID="3f92489a-7ac7-4670-9b47-eb037cabaf8d" CreationDate="2017-05-01T18:13:26.067" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4244" RevisionGUID="3cbde3b6-30af-4b1c-a69e-8f572a00673c" CreationDate="2017-05-01T18:20:11.683" UserId="118" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="The motto calls upon connotations and associations in Latin that are hard to evoke in an analogous way in English. So here is a clumsy translation followed by some exposition of **generosus** and **virtus** so you can follow for yourself how they combine in the motto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; High-born manliness fears nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;generosus&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;The adjective **generosus** = **genus** + **-osus**. _Genus_ is your birth, your origin, your _kind_—like _gens,_ your clan. If you are _genere Anglus,_ then you are an Englishman by birth, that is, originally, not as an immigrant. _Genus_ is the root of a great many words in English, like &quot;generate&quot;, &quot;general&quot;, and &quot;generic&quot;. These all grow out of a metaphor with _begetting:_ things reproduce after their own kind. Most English words from this root emphasize only having something in common, but the notion of begetting is still there, just a little below the surface: a generation, as in &quot;the 1960s generation&quot;, is all the people born around the same time, seen as part of a sequence of generations each giving birth to the next. The word _genus_ can also mean any sort of group or kind with something in common, but in Latin the metaphor with birth and family is still clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix **-osus** makes an adjective indicating having an abundance of the noun it's based on, similar to the Anglo-Saxon suffix _-ful._ For example, _dolor_ is pain or sadness; _dolorosus_ means painful or sorrowful. (In English, _-osus_ appears as _-ous;_ e.g. &quot;cavern&quot; and &quot;cavernous&quot;, &quot;luxury&quot; and &quot;luxurious&quot;.) When added to some nouns, like _genus,_ it brings a positive connotation: if you are **generosus**, then you come from good stock, you are well-bred. As in English, the Latin word is also used to mean giving freely, since a noble family properly shows largesse, but in Latin this is an extended sense; the primary meaning is being born to noble ancestry—&quot;genetic&quot; superiority, you could say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should come as no surprise, then, that **generosus** is a common word in heraldic mottos, where it is an adjective for &quot;gentleman&quot;. The exact meaning of this varied a lot over the centuries, as the criteria for what entitled you to the rank of gentleman shifted, but the basic connotation remained the same. Putting **generosus** onto your coat of arms asserts that you come from a long line of respectable ancestors even if you don't have a title of nobility. Here's a [dictionary of heraldry](https://books.google.com/books?id=w_5BAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PR222&amp;lpg=PR222&amp;dq=generosus+gentleman+heraldry&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=yoxB0gU7ko&amp;sig=YW5MjFPcPCKIPsRSaEKxeK465mI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwizrZaO4crTAhXD7SYKHQTCBwY4ChDoAQgmMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=generosus%20gentleman%20heraldry&amp;f=false) from 1828 that says some more about this. And notice the sentence in the middle of the bottom row of the picture below: **Generoso germine gemmo**: &quot;From an excellent bud I sprout.&quot; Well, &quot;excellent&quot; doesn't carry the precise meaning, of course, but you get the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![The English Gentleman, by Richard Braithwait (1630)][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Source: [_The English Gentleman_](http://www.thegentry.org.uk/braithwait.html) by Richard Braithwait (1630).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;virtus&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun **virtus** = **vir** + **-tus**. This one is easier to explain. **Vir** means man, and **-tūs** forms a noun meaning the essential quality of the first part of the word, as _iuvenis,_ &quot;a young person&quot;, and _iuventus,_ &quot;youth&quot;. The path from Latin _virtus_ to contemporary English &quot;virtue&quot; is a long one, involving trips through Christianity and supernaturalism, described a little more in the answers to [this question](https://ell.stackexchange.com/q/60946/6700). The main thing to know is that in Latin, **virtus** means manliness, especially strength, courage, honor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;virtus generosa&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the _Tusculan Disputations_ 2.15–16 someone tells Cicero that pain is the worst evil. Cicero asks &quot;Worse than dishonor?&quot; The other person immediately concedes that he was wrong, embarrassed to have been refuted so quickly. A little later Cicero says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ergo id quod natura ipsa et **quaedam generosa virtus** statim respuit, ne scilicet dolorem summum malum diceres oppositoque dedecore sententia depellerere, in eo magistra vitae philosophia tot saecula permanet?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what nature itself, and **a certain [worthy, innate uprightness?]**, immediately spat back out—the proposition that pain is the worst evil, which you were driven away from saying when it was contrasted with dishonor—the mistress of life, philosophy, is going to maintain _that_ for so many ages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure that any English words can satisfactorily translate Cicero's use of the phrase, but hopefully the meaning is starting to become clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;A smoother translation&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So finally here is a less clumsy translation of the motto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gentlemanly courage fears nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this conveys less of the spirit of the motto than the clumsy version did, but it's certainly less jarring if you need a translation that you can use in English prose. I'm avoiding the word &quot;[noble](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility)&quot; because, in the context of coats of arms, this suggests having a [peerage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage)—that is, being a peer of the royalty. A peerage might be hereditary, but originally it is _earned:_ it is conferred by a [monarch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fons_honorum) in honor of a great deed or service. Hence **fit nobilis, nascitur generosus**: nobility is made, gentility is born (more [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=-pQISmv2asUC&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;ots=UW798pe9kX&amp;dq=nobilis%20peerage%20%22coat%20of%20arms%22&amp;pg=PA281#v=onepage&amp;q=fit%20nobilis%20nascitur%20generosus&amp;f=false)). Thus the two are quite distinct, at least in the feudal worldview that gave rise to coats of arms and heraldic mottos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I am not an expert on heraldry. A while back, I happened to get curious about **generosus**, since it wasn't being used in Latin the way I expected—whence the explanation above. And yesterday, your question triggered me to google a bunch about the word's use in coats of arms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Eldt.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="05c3aec1-b932-4042-9fea-08f58a43d071" CreationDate="2017-05-01T18:58:57.117" UserId="118" Text="Here is [_The English Gentleman_](http://www.thegentry.org.uk/braithwait.html) as depicted by Richard Braithwait in 1630:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Eldt.jpg&quot; /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a thirty-part question. Can you tell:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) What are the Latin words in each box?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) What do they literally mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) What do they really mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not looking for crisp English translations, but explanations of the meaning, possibly including allusions to history or tradition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate, I can make out that under Education, the motto is _Ubera et verbera,_ which literally means &quot;teats and beatings&quot;, but what does _that_ mean? Under Moderation, I think the words are _moderata durant,_ which dictionary definitions suggest means &quot;moderated things endure&quot;, but that only goes to show that definitions often don't convey much of the meanings of the words they define. The middle box says _Spes in cælis, pes in terris,_ the meaning of which I can see is &quot;Hope in heaven, feet on the ground,&quot; but why are _cælis_ and _terris_ in the plural? I can't even make out the Latin words in many of the boxes; maybe if you can recognize traditional mottos, you can make out the text better. (Or maybe you can find a higher-resolution image.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;A tangent off of researching [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4238/118).&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12906" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="05c3aec1-b932-4042-9fea-08f58a43d071" CreationDate="2017-05-01T18:58:57.117" UserId="118" Text="The English Gentleman" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12907" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="05c3aec1-b932-4042-9fea-08f58a43d071" CreationDate="2017-05-01T18:58:57.117" UserId="118" Text="|translation|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4265" RevisionGUID="00e15951-4ec8-406b-9070-ff8c8152c9db" CreationDate="2017-05-01T19:04:05.833" UserId="118" Comment="numeral: one of a set of symbol for representing numbers" Text="Latin has four classes of number words.&#xD;&#xA;Can Roman numerals (**I**, **II**, &amp;hellip;) be used to for any class, or should they be restricted to, say, cardinals and ordinals?&#xD;&#xA;For example, can **I** abbreviate any of *unus*, *primus*, *singuli*, and *semel* (appropriately declined), and **X** any of *decem*, *decimus*, *deni*, *decies*?&#xD;&#xA;In English, Roman numerals are mainly used for ordinal numbers, but my question concerns Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12909" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4265" RevisionGUID="00e15951-4ec8-406b-9070-ff8c8152c9db" CreationDate="2017-05-01T19:04:05.833" UserId="118" Comment="numeral: one of a set of symbol for representing numbers" Text="Can Roman numerals stand for any kind of Latin numbers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="82b64267-71e7-4abc-838c-37d005400900" CreationDate="2017-05-01T19:07:11.483" UserId="118" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="Here is [_The English Gentleman_](http://www.thegentry.org.uk/braithwait.html) as depicted by Richard Braithwait in 1630:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Eldt.jpg&quot; /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a thirty-part question. Can you tell:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) What are the Latin words in each box?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) What do they literally mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) What do they really mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not looking for crisp English translations, but brief explanations of the meaning, possibly including stories, traditions, or writings that they allude to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate, I can make out that under Education, the motto is _Ubera et verbera,_ which literally means &quot;teats and beatings&quot;, but what does _that_ mean? Under Moderation, I think the words are _moderata durant,_ which dictionary definitions suggest means &quot;moderated things endure&quot;, but that only goes to show that definitions often don't convey much of the meanings of the words they define. The middle box says _Spes in cælis, pes in terris,_ the meaning of which I can see is &quot;Hope in heaven, feet on the ground,&quot; but why are _cælis_ and _terris_ in the plural? I can't even make out the Latin words in many of the boxes; maybe if you can recognize traditional mottos, you can make out the text better. (Or maybe you can find a higher-resolution image.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;A tangent off of researching [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4238/118).&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="05885080-4661-4b30-baa4-def2a1a619e3" CreationDate="2017-05-01T19:30:43.000" UserId="118" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="Here is [_The English Gentleman_](http://www.thegentry.org.uk/braithwait.html) as depicted by Richard Braithwait in 1630:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Eldt.jpg&quot; /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a thirty-part question. Can you tell:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) What are the Latin words in each box?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) What do they literally mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) What do they really mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not looking for crisp English translations, but brief explanations of the meaning, possibly including stories, traditions, or writings that they allude to. (You don't have to get all ten boxes. I'll give you a +1 if you can get even one of them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate, I can make out that under Education, the motto is _Ubera et verbera,_ which literally means &quot;teats and beatings&quot;, but what does _that_ mean? Under Moderation, I think the words are _moderata durant,_ which dictionary definitions suggest means &quot;moderated things endure&quot;, but that only goes to show that definitions often don't convey much of the meanings of the words they define. The middle box says _Spes in cælis, pes in terris,_ the meaning of which I can see is &quot;Hope in heaven, feet on the ground,&quot; but why are _cælis_ and _terris_ in the plural? I can't even make out the Latin words in many of the boxes; maybe if you can recognize traditional mottos, you can make out the text better. (Or maybe you can find a higher-resolution image.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;A tangent off of researching [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4238/118).&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4267" RevisionGUID="b6e7b1d1-4192-4a16-a728-a38a56554b8c" CreationDate="2017-05-01T19:51:18.870" UserId="9" Text="Here is a community-wiki post for simply establishing the text in the boxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The format is original spelling — modern spelling (when they differ), with uncertain sections in brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The English Gentleman&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SPES IN CÆLIS — SPES IN CAELIS&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;PES IN TERRIS.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;YOVTH: Virtute [...]. Vox [...xia?] [...i?]. — YOUTH: Virtute [...]. Vox [...xia?] [...i?].&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;DISPOSITION: [...imur] in [v..itum?]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;EDVCATION: Vbera et verbera — EDUCATION: Ubera et verbera&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;VOCATION: [Paſcimur?] et [patimur?]. — [Pascimur?] et [patimur?].&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;RECREATION: Non [ar...?] ſemper [tendit?] Apollo. — Non [ar...?] semper [tendit?] Apollo.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ACQVAINTAINCE: Certus amor merum eſt. — ACQUAINTAINCE: Certus amor merum est.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;MODERATION: Moderata durant&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;PERFECTION: [...e] c[ae?]lum petitur via&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Generoso Germine Gemmo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant source I just found and have not updated the above as of yet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=60635&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; mwh » Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:41 am&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yes, &quot;Hope in heaven, foot on earth&quot; though it's snazzier in Latin (pes ~ spes, terris ~ caelis), quite apart from the exemplifying pic.&#xD;&#xA;Here's a quick and hesitant stab at the other captions – not to be relied on.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Youth. virtute tute (a good jingle), &quot;by virtue safely&quot;; vox laeta, sed anxia lethi (a hexameter ending) &quot;A joyful voice, but one mindful of death&quot; (?, or &quot;distressed by death&quot;?; and how does this relate to the image?)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Disposition. &quot;Nitimur in vetitum (a quote from Ovid Amores 3.4), we strive for what is forbidden&quot; (Garden of Eden)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Education. Ubera et verbera, &quot;Plenties and beatings&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Vocation. Pascimur et patimur (hexameter beginning), &quot;We are fed and we suffer&quot; (again, better in Latin!)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Recreation. Non arcum semper tendit Apollo (a not quite accurate quote from Horace Odes), &quot;Apollo does not always stretch his bow&quot; (i.e. shoot)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Acquaintance. Certus amor morum est (hexam. beginning), &quot;love of morals (character) is certain&quot; (i.e. something that won't let you down)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Moderation. Moderata durant, lit. &quot;Tempered things, things in moderation, last/endure&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Perfection. Hac caelum petitur via (modified hex. beginning?), &quot;By this route is Heaven sought&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Motto: generoso germine gemmo (alliterative hex. ending), &quot;I grow from noble stock.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;I haven't tried to identify the quotes (if that's what they are), beyond the couple I recognized. Maybe others will.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12913" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4267" RevisionGUID="afc1fe03-f212-4298-8475-f85867477c2e" CreationDate="2017-05-01T19:51:18.870" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="12914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="495b3d48-9c63-4e0a-8479-e80394304924" CreationDate="2017-05-01T19:56:00.553" UserId="45" Comment="edited body" Text="Here is [_The English Gentleman_](http://www.thegentry.org.uk/braithwait.html) as depicted by Richard Braithwait in 1630:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/aMCVz.jpg&quot; /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a thirty-part question. Can you tell:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) What are the Latin words in each box?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) What do they literally mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) What do they really mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not looking for crisp English translations, but brief explanations of the meaning, possibly including stories, traditions, or writings that they allude to. (You don't have to get all ten boxes. I'll give you a +1 if you can get even one of them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate, I can make out that under Education, the motto is _Ubera et verbera,_ which literally means &quot;teats and beatings&quot;, but what does _that_ mean? Under Moderation, I think the words are _moderata durant,_ which dictionary definitions suggest means &quot;moderated things endure&quot;, but that only goes to show that definitions often don't convey much of the meanings of the words they define. The middle box says _Spes in cælis, pes in terris,_ the meaning of which I can see is &quot;Hope in heaven, feet on the ground,&quot; but why are _cælis_ and _terris_ in the plural? I can't even make out the Latin words in many of the boxes; maybe if you can recognize traditional mottos, you can make out the text better. (Or maybe you can find a higher-resolution image.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;A tangent off of researching [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4238/118).&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4267" RevisionGUID="ff9b50d8-3081-40a1-b7c2-d97c3f9148dc" CreationDate="2017-05-01T20:00:04.733" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Here is a community-wiki post for simply establishing the text in the boxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The format is original spelling — modern spelling (when they differ), with uncertain sections in brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The English Gentleman&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SPES IN CÆLIS — SPES IN CAELIS&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;PES IN TERRIS.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;YOVTH: Virtute tute. Vox l[æ?]ta, ſed anxia lethi. — YOUTH: Virtute tute. Vox l[ae?]ta,sed anxia lethi.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;DISPOSITION: Nitimur in vetitum.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;EDVCATION: Vbera et verbera — EDUCATION: Ubera et verbera&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;VOCATION: Paſcimur et patimur. — Pascimur et patimur.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;RECREATION: Non arcum ſemper tendit Apollo. — Non arcum semper tendit Apollo.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ACQVAINTAINCE: Certus amor morum eſt. — ACQUAINTAINCE: Certus amor morum est.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;MODERATION: Moderata durant&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;PERFECTION: Hac c[æ?/œ?]lum petitur via —  Hac caelum petitur via &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Generoso Germine Gemmo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant source I just found which was used for some of the above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=60635&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; mwh » Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:41 am&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yes, &quot;Hope in heaven, foot on earth&quot; though it's snazzier in Latin (pes ~ spes, terris ~ caelis), quite apart from the exemplifying pic.&#xD;&#xA;Here's a quick and hesitant stab at the other captions – not to be relied on.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Youth. virtute tute (a good jingle), &quot;by virtue safely&quot;; vox laeta, sed anxia lethi (a hexameter ending) &quot;A joyful voice, but one mindful of death&quot; (?, or &quot;distressed by death&quot;?; and how does this relate to the image?)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Disposition. &quot;Nitimur in vetitum (a quote from Ovid Amores 3.4), we strive for what is forbidden&quot; (Garden of Eden)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Education. Ubera et verbera, &quot;Plenties and beatings&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Vocation. Pascimur et patimur (hexameter beginning), &quot;We are fed and we suffer&quot; (again, better in Latin!)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Recreation. Non arcum semper tendit Apollo (a not quite accurate quote from Horace Odes), &quot;Apollo does not always stretch his bow&quot; (i.e. shoot)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Acquaintance. Certus amor morum est (hexam. beginning), &quot;love of morals (character) is certain&quot; (i.e. something that won't let you down)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Moderation. Moderata durant, lit. &quot;Tempered things, things in moderation, last/endure&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Perfection. Hac caelum petitur via (modified hex. beginning?), &quot;By this route is Heaven sought&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Motto: generoso germine gemmo (alliterative hex. ending), &quot;I grow from noble stock.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;I haven't tried to identify the quotes (if that's what they are), beyond the couple I recognized. Maybe others will.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4267" RevisionGUID="5d5801c2-6b0a-48a9-9fe6-d7cdb7c139c0" CreationDate="2017-05-01T20:07:55.530" UserId="9" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Here is a community-wiki post for simply establishing the text in the boxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The format is original spelling — modern spelling (when they differ), with uncertain sections in brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The English Gentleman&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SPES IN CÆLIS — SPES IN CAELIS&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;PES IN TERRIS.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;YOVTH: Virtute tute. Vox l[æ?]ta, ſed anxia lethi. — YOUTH: Virtute tute. Vox l[ae?]ta, sed anxia lethi.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;DISPOSITION: Nitimur in vetitum.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;EDVCATION: Vbera et verbera — EDUCATION: Ubera et verbera&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;VOCATION: Paſcimur et patimur. — Pascimur et patimur.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;RECREATION: Non arcum ſemper tendit Apollo. — Non arcum semper tendit Apollo.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ACQVAINTAINCE: Certus amor morum eſt. — ACQUAINTAINCE: Certus amor morum est.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;MODERATION: Moderata durant&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;PERFECTION: Hac c[æ?/œ?]lum petitur via —  Hac caelum petitur via &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Generoso Germine Gemmo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant source I just found which was used for some of the above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=60635&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; mwh » Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:41 am&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yes, &quot;Hope in heaven, foot on earth&quot; though it's snazzier in Latin (pes ~ spes, terris ~ caelis), quite apart from the exemplifying pic.&#xD;&#xA;Here's a quick and hesitant stab at the other captions – not to be relied on.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Youth. virtute tute (a good jingle), &quot;by virtue safely&quot;; vox laeta, sed anxia lethi (a hexameter ending) &quot;A joyful voice, but one mindful of death&quot; (?, or &quot;distressed by death&quot;?; and how does this relate to the image?)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Disposition. &quot;Nitimur in vetitum (a quote from Ovid Amores 3.4), we strive for what is forbidden&quot; (Garden of Eden)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Education. Ubera et verbera, &quot;Plenties and beatings&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Vocation. Pascimur et patimur (hexameter beginning), &quot;We are fed and we suffer&quot; (again, better in Latin!)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Recreation. Non arcum semper tendit Apollo (a not quite accurate quote from Horace Odes), &quot;Apollo does not always stretch his bow&quot; (i.e. shoot)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Acquaintance. Certus amor morum est (hexam. beginning), &quot;love of morals (character) is certain&quot; (i.e. something that won't let you down)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Moderation. Moderata durant, lit. &quot;Tempered things, things in moderation, last/endure&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Perfection. Hac caelum petitur via (modified hex. beginning?), &quot;By this route is Heaven sought&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Motto: generoso germine gemmo (alliterative hex. ending), &quot;I grow from noble stock.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;I haven't tried to identify the quotes (if that's what they are), beyond the couple I recognized. Maybe others will.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="fe54bdd1-97ed-4816-9ed7-c63ee731b311" CreationDate="2017-05-02T01:34:33.457" UserId="118" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="Here is [_The English Gentleman_](http://www.thegentry.org.uk/braithwait.html) as depicted by Richard Braithwait in 1630:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Eldt.jpg&quot; /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a thirty-part question. Can you tell:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) What are the Latin words in each box?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) What do they literally mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) What do they really mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not looking for crisp English translations, but brief explanations of the meaning, possibly including stories, traditions, or writings that they allude to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate, I can make out that under Education, the motto is _Ubera et verbera,_ which literally means &quot;teats and beatings&quot;, but what does _that_ mean? Under Moderation, I think the words are _moderata durant,_ which dictionary definitions suggest means &quot;moderated things endure&quot;, but that only goes to show that definitions often don't convey much of the meanings of the words they define. The middle box says _Spes in cælis, pes in terris,_ the meaning of which I can see is &quot;Hope in heaven, feet on the ground,&quot; but why are _cælis_ and _terris_ in the plural? I can't even make out the Latin words in many of the boxes; maybe if you can recognize traditional mottos, you can make out the text better. (Or maybe you can find a higher-resolution image.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't have to get all ten boxes. I'll give you a +1 if you can get even one of them. Here's [a higher-resolution image](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aMCVz.jpg) (thanks to brianpck).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;A tangent off of researching [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4238/118).&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="5ab630dd-2b28-4801-87ea-09ddaf2a650e" CreationDate="2017-05-02T02:06:31.763" UserId="118" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="Here is [_The English Gentleman_](http://www.thegentry.org.uk/braithwait.html) as depicted by Richard Braithwait in 1630:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Eldt.jpg&quot; /&gt;](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aMCVz.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a thirty-part question. Can you tell:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) What are the Latin words in each box?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) What do they literally mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) What do they really mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not looking for crisp English translations, but brief explanations of the meaning, possibly including stories, traditions, or writings that they allude to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate, I can make out that under Education, the motto is _Ubera et verbera,_ which literally means &quot;teats and beatings&quot;, but what does _that_ mean? Under Moderation, I think the words are _moderata durant,_ which dictionary definitions suggest means &quot;moderated things endure&quot;, but that only goes to show that definitions often don't convey much of the meanings of the words they define. The middle box says _Spes in cælis, pes in terris,_ the meaning of which I can see is &quot;Hope in heaven, feet on the ground,&quot; but why are _cælis_ and _terris_ in the plural? I can't even make out the Latin words in many of the boxes; maybe if you can recognize traditional mottos, you can make out the text better. (Or maybe you can find a higher-resolution image.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't have to get all ten boxes. I'll give you a +1 if you can get even one of them. Here's [a higher-resolution image](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aMCVz.jpg) (thanks to brianpck).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;A tangent off of researching [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4238/118).&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4267" RevisionGUID="4c33e8f4-7485-458e-b13b-4955066e0682" CreationDate="2017-05-02T02:53:06.680" UserId="9" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Here is a community-wiki post for simply establishing the text in the boxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The format is original spelling (modernized spelling), with the latter given only when they differ, and uncertain sections in brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ##*The English Gentleman*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SPES IN CÆLIS (CAELIS)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;PES IN TERRIS.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;YOVTH (YOUTH): *Virtute tute. Vox l[æ?]ta, ſed anxia lethi.* (*Vox l[ae?]ta, sed anxia lethi.*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;DISPOSITION: *Nitimur in vetitum.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;EDVCATION (EDUCATION): *Vbera et verbera* (*Ubera et verbera*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;VOCATION: *Paſcimur et patimur.* (*Pascimur et patimur.*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;RECREATION: *Non arcum ſemper tendit Apollo.* (*Non arcum semper tendit Apollo.*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ACQVAINTAINCE (ACQUAINTAINCE): *Certus amor morum eſt* (*est*).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;MODERATION: *Moderata durant*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;PERFECTION: *Hac c[æ/œ?]lum* (*caelum*) *petitur via*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Generoso Germine Gemmo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant source I just found which was used for some of the above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=60635&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; mwh » Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:41 am&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yes, &quot;Hope in heaven, foot on earth&quot; though it's snazzier in Latin (pes ~ spes, terris ~ caelis), quite apart from the exemplifying pic.&#xD;&#xA;Here's a quick and hesitant stab at the other captions – not to be relied on.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Youth. virtute tute (a good jingle), &quot;by virtue safely&quot;; vox laeta, sed anxia lethi (a hexameter ending) &quot;A joyful voice, but one mindful of death&quot; (?, or &quot;distressed by death&quot;?; and how does this relate to the image?)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Disposition. &quot;Nitimur in vetitum (a quote from Ovid Amores 3.4), we strive for what is forbidden&quot; (Garden of Eden)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Education. Ubera et verbera, &quot;Plenties and beatings&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Vocation. Pascimur et patimur (hexameter beginning), &quot;We are fed and we suffer&quot; (again, better in Latin!)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Recreation. Non arcum semper tendit Apollo (a not quite accurate quote from Horace Odes), &quot;Apollo does not always stretch his bow&quot; (i.e. shoot)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Acquaintance. Certus amor morum est (hexam. beginning), &quot;love of morals (character) is certain&quot; (i.e. something that won't let you down)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Moderation. Moderata durant, lit. &quot;Tempered things, things in moderation, last/endure&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Perfection. Hac caelum petitur via (modified hex. beginning?), &quot;By this route is Heaven sought&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Motto: generoso germine gemmo (alliterative hex. ending), &quot;I grow from noble stock.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;I haven't tried to identify the quotes (if that's what they are), beyond the couple I recognized. Maybe others will." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4267" RevisionGUID="fe6e1995-57d9-4b6d-a5f1-13edf1117a07" CreationDate="2017-05-02T03:16:36.710" UserId="9" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Here is a community-wiki post for simply establishing the text in the boxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The format is original spelling (modernized spelling), with the latter given only when they differ, and uncertain sections in brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ##*The English Gentleman*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SPES IN CÆLIS (CAELIS)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;PES IN TERRIS.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;YOVTH (YOUTH): *Virtute tute. Vox l[æ?]ta, ſed anxia lethi.* (*Vox l[ae?]ta, sed anxia lethi.*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;DISPOSITION: *Nitimur in vetitum.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;EDVCATION (EDUCATION): *Vbera et verbera* (*Ubera et verbera*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;VOCATION: *Paſcimur et patimur.* (*Pascimur et patimur.*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;RECREATION: *Non arcum ſemper tendit Apollo.* (*Non arcum semper tendit Apollo.*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ACQVAINTAINCE (ACQUAINTAINCE): *Certus amor morum eſt* (*est*).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;MODERATION: *Moderata durant*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;PERFECTION: *Hac c[æ/œ?]lum* (*caelum*) *petitur via*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Generoso Germine Gemmo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant Textkit thread; the post by &quot;mwh » Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:41 am&quot; was used as a source for some of the above: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=60635&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4268" RevisionGUID="0dfde6bd-28b0-46dd-ac42-ac6ddcf1158f" CreationDate="2017-05-02T03:21:42.133" UserId="9" Text="#Meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a community-wiki post for information relating to the meaning of these passages. The Textkit thread &quot;[The English Gentleman Latin Title Page][1]&quot; mentioned in the other answer is again useful. It says (bullets and italics not in the original, but added to make it more readable):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; mwh » Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:41 am&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yes, &quot;Hope in heaven, foot on earth&quot; though it's snazzier in Latin (pes ~ spes, terris ~ caelis), quite apart from the exemplifying pic.&#xD;&#xA;Here's a quick and hesitant stab at the other captions – not to be relied on.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Youth. *virtute tute* (a good jingle), &quot;by virtue safely&quot;; *vox laeta, sed anxia lethi* (a hexameter ending) &quot;A joyful voice, but one mindful of death&quot; (?, or &quot;distressed by death&quot;?; and how does this relate to the image?)&#xD;&#xA;- Disposition. &quot;*Nitimur in vetitum* (a quote from Ovid Amores 3.4), we strive for what is forbidden&quot; (Garden of Eden)&#xD;&#xA;- Education. *Ubera et verbera,* &quot;Plenties and beatings&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Vocation. *Pascimur et patimur* (hexameter beginning), &quot;We are fed and we suffer&quot; (again, better in Latin!)&#xD;&#xA;- Recreation. *Non arcum semper tendit Apollo* (a not quite accurate quote from Horace Odes), &quot;Apollo does not always stretch his bow&quot; (i.e. shoot)&#xD;&#xA;- Acquaintance. *Certus amor morum est* (hexam. beginning), &quot;love of morals (character) is certain&quot; (i.e. something that won't let you down)&#xD;&#xA;- Moderation. *Moderata durant,* lit. &quot;Tempered things, things in moderation, last/endure&quot;&#xD;&#xA;0 Perfection. *Hac caelum petitur via* (modified hex. beginning?), &quot;By this route is Heaven sought&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Motto: *generoso germine gemmo* (alliterative hex. ending), &quot;I grow from noble stock.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't tried to identify the quotes (if that's what they are), beyond the couple I recognized. Maybe others will.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant book passage I found in *[Textual Intercourse: Collaboration, Authorship, and Sexualities in Renaissance Drama][2]*, by Jeffrey Masten (1997):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latin text of the motto has a number of relevant translations. &quot;*Certus amor morum est*&quot; may mean &quot;a secure love is a virtue&quot; or &quot;love of virtue is a secure thing.&quot; A further possibility is &quot;the love [that is, the conjunction or agreement] of desires [or wills, or mores] is a secure thing,&quot; a translation that resonates, as we shall see, with Montaigne's description of friendship as &quot;the agreement of wills.&quot; (p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the second and third translations Masten gives would be based on analyzing &quot;morum&quot; as the genitive plural of *[mos, moris][3] m.* &quot;manner&quot; modifying the preceding noun *amor* &quot;love&quot;. I don't know how the first translation &quot;a secure love is a virtue&quot; would work grammatically; my understanding is that a predicate noun in this context would be expected to be in the nominative case, and &quot;morum&quot; is as far as I can tell only a nominative form of the noun *[morum, mori][4] n.* &quot;a mulberry or blackberry&quot;. Perhaps the genitive plural can be analyzed as predicative, with a literal meaning of something like &quot;A secure love is *of mores*&quot;, and the given translation &quot;a secure love is a virtue&quot; is the idiomatic equivalent to this in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=60635&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Sasatws8y6MC&amp;pg=PA30&amp;lpg=PA30&amp;dq=Certus%20amor%20morum%20e%C5%BFt&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ij_dJSvUeQ&amp;sig=gsOcYhdPf_SIkbNm_nHT9FXRAUQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwix6_S2mtDTAhUlzIMKHcL9AJMQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&amp;q=Certus%20amor%20morum%20e%C5%BFt&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=m%C5%8Drum&amp;la=la&amp;can=m%C5%8Drum0&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=morum&amp;i=1#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmorum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12922" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4268" RevisionGUID="7ee16e6c-2fc7-4af1-81c4-896cef694398" CreationDate="2017-05-02T03:21:42.133" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="12923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4267" RevisionGUID="ec61272a-d66c-43cd-8102-f19341d2a89e" CreationDate="2017-05-02T03:22:24.523" UserId="9" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="#Latin text&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a community-wiki post for simply establishing the text in the boxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The format is original spelling (modernized spelling), with the latter given only when they differ, and uncertain sections in brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ##*The English Gentleman*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SPES IN CÆLIS (CAELIS)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;PES IN TERRIS.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;YOVTH (YOUTH): *Virtute tute. Vox l[æ?]ta, ſed anxia lethi.* (*Vox l[ae?]ta, sed anxia lethi.*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;DISPOSITION: *Nitimur in vetitum.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;EDVCATION (EDUCATION): *Vbera et verbera* (*Ubera et verbera*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;VOCATION: *Paſcimur et patimur.* (*Pascimur et patimur.*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;RECREATION: *Non arcum ſemper tendit Apollo.* (*Non arcum semper tendit Apollo.*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ACQVAINTAINCE (ACQUAINTAINCE): *Certus amor morum eſt* (*est*).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;MODERATION: *Moderata durant*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;PERFECTION: *Hac c[æ/œ?]lum* (*caelum*) *petitur via*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Generoso Germine Gemmo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant Textkit thread: &quot;[The English Gentleman Latin Title Page][1]&quot;; the post by &quot;mwh » Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:41 am&quot; was used as a source for some of the above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=60635" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4268" RevisionGUID="5d723fc6-e670-43c4-ba0f-a3288608e82b" CreationDate="2017-05-02T03:26:57.367" UserId="9" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="#Meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a community-wiki post for information relating to the meaning of these passages. The Textkit thread &quot;[The English Gentleman Latin Title Page][1]&quot; mentioned in the other answer is again useful. It says (bullets and italics not in the original, but added to make it more readable):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; mwh » Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:41 am&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yes, &quot;Hope in heaven, foot on earth&quot; though it's snazzier in Latin (pes ~ spes, terris ~ caelis), quite apart from the exemplifying pic.&#xD;&#xA;Here's a quick and hesitant stab at the other captions – not to be relied on.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Youth. *virtute tute* (a good jingle), &quot;by virtue safely&quot;; *vox laeta, sed anxia lethi* (a hexameter ending) &quot;A joyful voice, but one mindful of death&quot; (?, or &quot;distressed by death&quot;?; and how does this relate to the image?)&#xD;&#xA;- Disposition. &quot;*Nitimur in vetitum* (a quote from Ovid Amores 3.4), we strive for what is forbidden&quot; (Garden of Eden)&#xD;&#xA;- Education. *Ubera et verbera,* &quot;Plenties and beatings&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Vocation. *Pascimur et patimur* (hexameter beginning), &quot;We are fed and we suffer&quot; (again, better in Latin!)&#xD;&#xA;- Recreation. *Non arcum semper tendit Apollo* (a not quite accurate quote from Horace Odes), &quot;Apollo does not always stretch his bow&quot; (i.e. shoot)&#xD;&#xA;- Acquaintance. *Certus amor morum est* (hexam. beginning), &quot;love of morals (character) is certain&quot; (i.e. something that won't let you down)&#xD;&#xA;- Moderation. *Moderata durant,* lit. &quot;Tempered things, things in moderation, last/endure&quot;&#xD;&#xA;0 Perfection. *Hac caelum petitur via* (modified hex. beginning?), &quot;By this route is Heaven sought&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Motto: *generoso germine gemmo* (alliterative hex. ending), &quot;I grow from noble stock.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't tried to identify the quotes (if that's what they are), beyond the couple I recognized. Maybe others will.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant book passage I found in *[Textual Intercourse: Collaboration, Authorship, and Sexualities in Renaissance Drama][2]*, by Jeffrey Masten (1997):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latin text of the motto has a number of relevant translations. &quot;*Certus amor morum est*&quot; may mean &quot;a secure love is a virtue&quot; or &quot;love of virtue is a secure thing.&quot; A further possibility is &quot;the love [that is, the conjunction or agreement] of desires [or wills, or mores] is a secure thing,&quot; a translation that resonates, as we shall see, with Montaigne's description of friendship as &quot;the agreement of wills.&quot; (p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the second and third translations Masten gives would be based on analyzing &quot;morum&quot; as the genitive plural of *[mos, moris][3] m.* &quot;manner&quot; modifying the preceding noun *amor* &quot;love&quot;. I don't know how the first translation &quot;a secure love is a virtue&quot; would work grammatically; my understanding is that a predicate noun or adjective in this context would be expected to be in the nominative case, and &quot;morum&quot; is as far as I can tell only a nominative form of the noun *[morum, mori][4] n.* &quot;a mulberry or blackberry&quot;. Perhaps the genitive plural can be analyzed as predicative rather than attributive, with a literal meaning of something like &quot;A secure love is *of mores*&quot;, and the given translation &quot;a secure love is a virtue&quot; is the idiomatic equivalent to this in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=60635&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Sasatws8y6MC&amp;pg=PA30&amp;lpg=PA30&amp;dq=Certus%20amor%20morum%20e%C5%BFt&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ij_dJSvUeQ&amp;sig=gsOcYhdPf_SIkbNm_nHT9FXRAUQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwix6_S2mtDTAhUlzIMKHcL9AJMQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&amp;q=Certus%20amor%20morum%20e%C5%BFt&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=m%C5%8Drum&amp;la=la&amp;can=m%C5%8Drum0&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=morum&amp;i=1#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmorum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4269" RevisionGUID="23e936a5-543f-408b-be81-af9160a600a9" CreationDate="2017-05-02T05:07:15.907" UserId="1516" Text="Look up for &quot;*procer, proceris*&quot;. Maybe that will do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4269" RevisionGUID="f9e83052-879c-4603-8bb3-cf44fe071878" CreationDate="2017-05-02T06:03:16.797" UserId="1516" Comment="added 317 characters in body" Text="Look up for &quot;*procer, proceris*&quot;. Maybe that will do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Some definitions and examples can be found [here][1] (English) or [here][2] (French).&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure about it being used as a form of address though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g.: *Agnosco procerem*, Juv. 8, 26.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#procer&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?q=procer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4270" RevisionGUID="35b7a815-017c-420f-8636-233cd2e2d023" CreationDate="2017-05-02T10:41:34.427" UserId="1481" Text="How to nominalize adjectives in Latin ? In English, adjectives can be nominalized with a slight different in meaning: the sick man, the sick&#xD;&#xA;In German, it's possible to nominalize the present participle: die neue Kollegin, die Neue&#xD;&#xA;But how is it with Latin? and can the participles (liek portans, portatus..) be nominalized (like the German: tragend &gt; der Tragende)&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12928" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4270" RevisionGUID="35b7a815-017c-420f-8636-233cd2e2d023" CreationDate="2017-05-02T10:41:34.427" UserId="1481" Text="Nominalized adjective in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12929" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4270" RevisionGUID="35b7a815-017c-420f-8636-233cd2e2d023" CreationDate="2017-05-02T10:41:34.427" UserId="1481" Text="|adjective|grammarians|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4271" RevisionGUID="3624141c-d9d7-4a93-93e2-5085375b8f3c" CreationDate="2017-05-02T11:46:17.683" UserId="1459" Text="Ichthys is a Greek acronym, an early symbol of Christianity. The [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthys) entry defines it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ΙΧΘΥΣ, or also ΙΧΘΥC with lunate sigma (Ichthys) is a backronym/acrostic[6] for &quot;Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ&quot;, (Iēsous Christos, Theou Yios, Sōtēr) contemporary Koine [ie̝ˈsus kʰrisˈtos tʰeˈu (h)yˈjos soˈte̝r], which translates into English as &quot;Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Latin translation into Classic Latin would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Iesu Christi Filii Dei Salvatore&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the acronym equivalent to ICHTHYS would be **ICFDS**? or maybe **ICEFEDES**, if one takes letter pronunciation? The equivalent for Medieval Latin would have the &quot;J&quot; instead of the &quot;I&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12931" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4271" RevisionGUID="3624141c-d9d7-4a93-93e2-5085375b8f3c" CreationDate="2017-05-02T11:46:17.683" UserId="1459" Text="Is my translation of &quot;ichthys&quot; (in Greek) correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12932" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4271" RevisionGUID="3624141c-d9d7-4a93-93e2-5085375b8f3c" CreationDate="2017-05-02T11:46:17.683" UserId="1459" Text="|translation|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4272" RevisionGUID="100e9733-4bc7-46b0-ac5d-b5947cfe252e" CreationDate="2017-05-02T13:17:08.553" UserId="78" Text="Latin doesn't need any changes at all. Since there are no definite articles, there's no need for anything but using the adjective substantively. The only requirement is following normal grammar rules on case endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you could easily say both *vir bonus* and just *bonus* for &quot;the good man.&quot; Same with participles, one of the most memorably lines from Livy is *vae victis*, &quot;woe to the conquered.&quot; Even things like *omnia*, &quot;everything,&quot; are technically adjectives used as nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further reading, I suggest looking at Allen and Greenough's [New Latin Grammar §288](http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.288.html)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="18878ac2-6317-4d09-93ec-4bfec1b68a80" CreationDate="2017-05-02T13:28:53.897" UserId="78" Text="Your close on the Latin, but your endings are wrong:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iesus Christus Filius Dei Salvator&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted to, you could even switch the F and the D:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iesus Christus Dei Filius Salvator&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really like the acronym either gives, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on when in the Middle Ages you're talking about, you still would see an initial I. J was used to distinguish an I from surrounding letters. Its use as a consonant only (as opposed to the vocalic I) is as late as the [17th century](https://books.google.com/books?id=Bb32Th4WAK0C&amp;pg=PA79#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4274" RevisionGUID="f3d7b99f-286e-485c-b10d-bad4330b81dc" CreationDate="2017-05-02T13:51:53.263" UserId="645" Text="Latin doesn't really allow for the social distinctions that we make in English. Modern translators are obliged to deal with (indeed, to agonise over) this very problem, for which there seems to be no perfect, or even an agreed solution. It's the same for other modes of address. As long as there is consistency and no ambiguity, the choice is that of the translator, which seldom seems to be criticised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peter Needham, in his Latin versions of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter stories, uses *Dominus* and *Domina* for Mr. and Mrs. Dursley. At Hogwarts, the staff are variously *professor, magister, magistra* and so on, while Harry is himself formally addressed as *Domine Potter*. All Needham's usages are well thought out and quite acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Superbia et Odium* I myself used *honestus* and *honestior* to indicate the different social classes of, say, Mr. Bennett (a country squire) and Mr. Darcy (a wealthy man with a position in society). Mrs. Bennett is *matrona*, which allowed *dominus* and *domina* to be reserved for members of the aristocracy. For a knight of the realm I used *senior*, but if it is necessary to address a man as 'Sir', then *O mi Bone*, *Bone Vir* or *Optime Vir* indicate different levels of familiarity or respect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't think that you have any need to strain for an accuracy that may not be genuinely attainable — just use whatever seems to fit comfortably with the social and professional situations of the speakers, allow the context to help you where appropriate (e.g. to choose beteween *magister* and *dominus*) and try always to be consistent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="ce909b57-8465-43c7-86ff-f3ce593256a3" CreationDate="2017-05-02T14:21:20.823" UserId="78" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="You're close on the Latin, but your endings are wrong:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iesus Christus Filius Dei Salvator&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted to, you could even switch the F and the D:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iesus Christus Dei Filius Salvator&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really like the acronym either gives, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on when in the Middle Ages you're talking about, you still would see an initial I. J was used to distinguish an I from surrounding letters. Its use as a consonant only (as opposed to the vocalic I) is as late as the [17th century](https://books.google.com/books?id=Bb32Th4WAK0C&amp;pg=PA79#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4275" RevisionGUID="713497ee-4c07-490d-9b3e-5c78b28b25a8" CreationDate="2017-05-02T14:38:57.543" UserId="324" Text="The Hebrew, Greek and Latin versions of Ps. 121 (KJV: 122) all have a similar periphrastic construction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;121:2 ἑστῶτες ἦσαν οἱ πόδες ἡμῶν ἐν ταῖς αὐλαῖς σου ιερουσαλημ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	עֹמְדֹות הָיוּ רַגְלֵינוּ בִּשְׁעָרַיִךְ יְרוּשָׁלִָם׃	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;121:2 Stantes erant pedes nostri in atriis tuis, Jerusalem.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4276" RevisionGUID="b2abf106-f429-4d6f-9f91-87c794fb1efb" CreationDate="2017-05-02T14:56:13.327" UserId="118" Text="EDVCATION&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Braithwait himself explains on [this page](https://archive.org/stream/englishgentleman00brat#page/n9/mode/1up):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; EDVCATION preſented with an ingenous countenance, is inclosed with the ſeven Liberall Sciences; ſo many Portals being ſhadowed, on whoſe Frontispiece, each diſtinct Science is inſcribed; neere to the feature are figured **_Breſts_ and _Rods_**: from which Adjunct he derives this Motto; _Ubera &amp; Verbera._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The breasts represent life-giving wisdom and the rods represent correction. ([Source](https://books.google.com/books?id=mOsoDAAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA332&amp;ots=vYknPm8NtJ&amp;dq=%22ubera%20et%20verbera%22&amp;pg=PA332#v=onepage&amp;q=%22ubera%20et%20verbera%22&amp;f=false))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12939" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4276" RevisionGUID="28708275-5d3b-4cb5-9556-6538f5faa239" CreationDate="2017-05-02T14:56:13.327" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="12940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4267" RevisionGUID="1084816e-2062-4263-8d4a-03597de944a3" CreationDate="2017-05-02T15:03:11.710" UserId="118" Comment="[Ian Green](https://books.google.com/books?id=mOsoDAAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA332&amp;ots=vYknPm8NtJ&amp;dq=%22ubera%20et%20verbera%22&amp;pg=PA332#v=onepage&amp;q=vox%20laeta&amp;f=false) confirms _vox læta._" Text="#Latin text&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a community-wiki post for simply establishing the text in the boxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The format is original spelling (modernized spelling), with the latter given only when they differ, and uncertain sections in brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ##*The English Gentleman*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SPES IN CÆLIS (CAELIS)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;PES IN TERRIS.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;YOVTH (YOUTH): *Virtute tute. Vox læta, ſed anxia lethi.* (*Vox laeta, sed anxia lethi.*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;DISPOSITION: *Nitimur in vetitum.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;EDVCATION (EDUCATION): *Vbera et verbera* (*Ubera et verbera*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;VOCATION: *Paſcimur et patimur.* (*Pascimur et patimur.*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;RECREATION: *Non arcum ſemper tendit Apollo.* (*Non arcum semper tendit Apollo.*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ACQVAINTAINCE (ACQUAINTAINCE): *Certus amor morum eſt* (*est*).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;MODERATION: *Moderata durant*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;PERFECTION: *Hac c[æ/œ?]lum* (*caelum*) *petitur via*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Generoso Germine Gemmo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant Textkit thread: &quot;[The English Gentleman Latin Title Page][1]&quot;; the post by &quot;mwh » Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:41 am&quot; was used as a source for some of the above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=60635" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4268" RevisionGUID="cc4f0266-cf8d-489f-a971-6adf29f4e437" CreationDate="2017-05-02T15:09:18.093" UserId="118" Comment="Narrowed heading to &quot;Literal meaning&quot;; moving _Certus amor morum est_ to its own Community Wiki." Text="#Literal meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a community-wiki post for information relating to the meaning of these passages. The Textkit thread &quot;[The English Gentleman Latin Title Page][1]&quot; mentioned in the other answer is again useful. It says (bullets and italics not in the original, but added to make it more readable):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; mwh » Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:41 am&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yes, &quot;Hope in heaven, foot on earth&quot; though it's snazzier in Latin (pes ~ spes, terris ~ caelis), quite apart from the exemplifying pic.&#xD;&#xA;Here's a quick and hesitant stab at the other captions – not to be relied on.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Youth. *virtute tute* (a good jingle), &quot;by virtue safely&quot;; *vox laeta, sed anxia lethi* (a hexameter ending) &quot;A joyful voice, but one mindful of death&quot; (?, or &quot;distressed by death&quot;?; and how does this relate to the image?)&#xD;&#xA;- Disposition. &quot;*Nitimur in vetitum* (a quote from Ovid Amores 3.4), we strive for what is forbidden&quot; (Garden of Eden)&#xD;&#xA;- Education. *Ubera et verbera,* &quot;Plenties and beatings&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Vocation. *Pascimur et patimur* (hexameter beginning), &quot;We are fed and we suffer&quot; (again, better in Latin!)&#xD;&#xA;- Recreation. *Non arcum semper tendit Apollo* (a not quite accurate quote from Horace Odes), &quot;Apollo does not always stretch his bow&quot; (i.e. shoot)&#xD;&#xA;- Acquaintance. *Certus amor morum est* (hexam. beginning), &quot;love of morals (character) is certain&quot; (i.e. something that won't let you down)&#xD;&#xA;- Moderation. *Moderata durant,* lit. &quot;Tempered things, things in moderation, last/endure&quot;&#xD;&#xA;0 Perfection. *Hac caelum petitur via* (modified hex. beginning?), &quot;By this route is Heaven sought&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Motto: *generoso germine gemmo* (alliterative hex. ending), &quot;I grow from noble stock.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't tried to identify the quotes (if that's what they are), beyond the couple I recognized. Maybe others will." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4277" RevisionGUID="fdcea952-c48a-4ba8-8c26-2ea0ba205747" CreationDate="2017-05-02T15:11:24.327" UserId="118" Text="#Acquaintance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant book passage I found in *[Textual Intercourse: Collaboration, Authorship, and Sexualities in Renaissance Drama][2]*, by Jeffrey Masten (1997):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latin text of the motto has a number of relevant translations. &quot;*Certus amor morum est*&quot; may mean &quot;a secure love is a virtue&quot; or &quot;love of virtue is a secure thing.&quot; A further possibility is &quot;the love [that is, the conjunction or agreement] of desires [or wills, or mores] is a secure thing,&quot; a translation that resonates, as we shall see, with Montaigne's description of friendship as &quot;the agreement of wills.&quot; (p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the second and third translations Masten gives would be based on analyzing &quot;morum&quot; as the genitive plural of *[mos, moris][3] m.* &quot;manner&quot; modifying the preceding noun *amor* &quot;love&quot;. I don't know how the first translation &quot;a secure love is a virtue&quot; would work grammatically; my understanding is that a predicate noun or adjective in this context would be expected to be in the nominative case, and &quot;morum&quot; is as far as I can tell only a nominative form of the noun *[morum, mori][4] n.* &quot;a mulberry or blackberry&quot;. Perhaps the genitive plural can be analyzed as predicative rather than attributive, with a literal meaning of something like &quot;A secure love is *of mores*&quot;, and the given translation &quot;a secure love is a virtue&quot; is the idiomatic equivalent to this in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=60635&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Sasatws8y6MC&amp;pg=PA30&amp;lpg=PA30&amp;dq=Certus%20amor%20morum%20e%C5%BFt&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ij_dJSvUeQ&amp;sig=gsOcYhdPf_SIkbNm_nHT9FXRAUQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwix6_S2mtDTAhUlzIMKHcL9AJMQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&amp;q=Certus%20amor%20morum%20e%C5%BFt&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=m%C5%8Drum&amp;la=la&amp;can=m%C5%8Drum0&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=morum&amp;i=1#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmorum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12943" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4277" RevisionGUID="1f13f68f-323e-45c9-a8dc-d226f21b477f" CreationDate="2017-05-02T15:11:24.327" UserId="118" />
  <row Id="12944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4276" RevisionGUID="a7946bb7-ecc2-4bbe-aabd-409ec7c49b83" CreationDate="2017-05-02T15:11:47.343" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="Education&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Braithwait himself explains on [this page](https://archive.org/stream/englishgentleman00brat#page/n9/mode/1up):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; EDVCATION preſented with an ingenous countenance, is inclosed with the ſeven Liberall Sciences; ſo many Portals being ſhadowed, on whoſe Frontispiece, each diſtinct Science is inſcribed; neere to the feature are figured **_Breſts_ and _Rods_**: from which Adjunct he derives this Motto; _Ubera &amp; Verbera._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The breasts represent life-giving wisdom and the rods represent correction. ([Source](https://books.google.com/books?id=mOsoDAAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA332&amp;ots=vYknPm8NtJ&amp;dq=%22ubera%20et%20verbera%22&amp;pg=PA332#v=onepage&amp;q=%22ubera%20et%20verbera%22&amp;f=false))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4267" RevisionGUID="d50a3197-0fb8-4983-a2cc-d6d5aac513b3" CreationDate="2017-05-02T15:36:09.183" UserId="118" Comment="Updates from Ian Green and Braithwait himself" Text="#Latin text&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a community-wiki post for simply establishing the text in the boxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The format is original spelling (modernized spelling), with the latter given only when they differ, and uncertain sections in brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ##*The English Gentleman*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SPES IN CÆLIS (CAELIS)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;PES IN TERRIS.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;YOVTH (YOUTH): *Virtute tute. Vox læta, ſed anxia lethi.* (*Vox laeta, sed anxia lethi.*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;DISPOSITION: *Nitimur in vetitum.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;EDVCATION (EDUCATION): *Vbera et verbera* (*Ubera et verbera*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;VOCATION: *Paſcimur et patimur.* (*Pascimur et patimur.*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;RECREATION: *Non arcum ſemper tendit Apollo.* (*Non arcum semper tendit Apollo.*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ACQVAINTAINCE (ACQUAINTAINCE): *Certus amor morum eſt* (*est*).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;MODERATION: *Moderata durant*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;PERFECTION: *Hâc cœlum* (*caelum*) *petitur viâ*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Generoso Germine Gemmo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant Textkit thread: &quot;[The English Gentleman Latin Title Page][1]&quot;; the post by &quot;mwh » Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:41 am&quot; was used as a source for some of the above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[_Humanism and Protestantism in Early Modern English Education_](https://books.google.com/books?id=mOsoDAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA332&amp;lpg=PA332&amp;dq=%22ubera+et+verbera%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vYknPm8NtJ&amp;sig=-cEV-W3fOxhiSCHfkX_1tQC7t0c&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj4iN23utHTAhUq6oMKHYEeBXwQ6AEIOzAE#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) by Ian Green (2016), p. 332, includes transcriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Braithwait himself includes the mottos set in type on [this fold-out page](https://archive.org/stream/englishgentleman00brat#page/n8/mode/1up) included with a double book also including _The English Gentlewoman._ The typeset version has _Spes in cœlis_ while the image above clearly has _cælis,_ but the double book has a different frontispiece, too, which really does have _cœlis._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=60635" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="c36d5764-1038-433a-b799-9c4e6a28d851" CreationDate="2017-05-02T15:45:57.513" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Here is [_The English Gentleman_](http://www.thegentry.org.uk/braithwait.html) as depicted by Richard Braithwait in 1630:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Eldt.jpg&quot; /&gt;](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aMCVz.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a thirty-part question. Can you tell:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) What are the Latin words in each box?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) What do they literally mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) What do they really mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not looking for crisp English translations, but brief explanations of the meaning, possibly including stories, traditions, or writings that they allude to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate, I can make out that under Education, the motto is **Ubera et verbera**, which literally means &quot;teats and beatings&quot;, but what does _that_ mean? Under Moderation, I think the words are **moderata durant**, which dictionary definitions suggest means &quot;moderated things endure&quot;, but that only reminds me that definitions often fail to convey the meanings of the words they define. The middle box says **Spes in cælis, pes in terris**, the meaning of which I can see is &quot;Hope in heaven, feet on the ground,&quot; but why are _cælis_ and _terris_ in the plural? I can't even make out the Latin words in many of the boxes; maybe if you can recognize traditional mottos, you can make out the text better. (Or maybe you can find a higher-resolution image.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't have to get all ten boxes. I'll give you a +1 if you can get even one of them. Here's [a higher-resolution image](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aMCVz.jpg) (thanks to brianpck).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;A tangent off of researching [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4238/118).&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4276" RevisionGUID="8f142b13-2b38-43f2-b018-aeabb6d31338" CreationDate="2017-05-02T15:50:55.277" UserId="118" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Education: Ubera et verbera&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Braithwait himself explains on [this page](https://archive.org/stream/englishgentleman00brat#page/n9/mode/1up):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; EDVCATION preſented with an ingenous countenance, is inclosed with the ſeven Liberall Sciences; ſo many Portals being ſhadowed, on whoſe Frontispiece, each diſtinct Science is inſcribed; neere to the feature are figured **_Breſts_ and _Rods_**: from which Adjunct he derives this Motto; _Ubera &amp; Verbera._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The breasts represent life-giving wisdom and the rods represent correction. ([Source](https://books.google.com/books?id=mOsoDAAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA332&amp;ots=vYknPm8NtJ&amp;dq=%22ubera%20et%20verbera%22&amp;pg=PA332#v=onepage&amp;q=%22ubera%20et%20verbera%22&amp;f=false))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4277" RevisionGUID="bd79c0ff-e04e-479a-a86c-8b24bcce89e9" CreationDate="2017-05-02T15:51:18.497" UserId="118" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="#Acquaintance: Certus amor morum est&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant book passage I found in *[Textual Intercourse: Collaboration, Authorship, and Sexualities in Renaissance Drama][2]*, by Jeffrey Masten (1997):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latin text of the motto has a number of relevant translations. &quot;*Certus amor morum est*&quot; may mean &quot;a secure love is a virtue&quot; or &quot;love of virtue is a secure thing.&quot; A further possibility is &quot;the love [that is, the conjunction or agreement] of desires [or wills, or mores] is a secure thing,&quot; a translation that resonates, as we shall see, with Montaigne's description of friendship as &quot;the agreement of wills.&quot; (p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the second and third translations Masten gives would be based on analyzing &quot;morum&quot; as the genitive plural of *[mos, moris][3] m.* &quot;manner&quot; modifying the preceding noun *amor* &quot;love&quot;. I don't know how the first translation &quot;a secure love is a virtue&quot; would work grammatically; my understanding is that a predicate noun or adjective in this context would be expected to be in the nominative case, and &quot;morum&quot; is as far as I can tell only a nominative form of the noun *[morum, mori][4] n.* &quot;a mulberry or blackberry&quot;. Perhaps the genitive plural can be analyzed as predicative rather than attributive, with a literal meaning of something like &quot;A secure love is *of mores*&quot;, and the given translation &quot;a secure love is a virtue&quot; is the idiomatic equivalent to this in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=60635&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Sasatws8y6MC&amp;pg=PA30&amp;lpg=PA30&amp;dq=Certus%20amor%20morum%20e%C5%BFt&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ij_dJSvUeQ&amp;sig=gsOcYhdPf_SIkbNm_nHT9FXRAUQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwix6_S2mtDTAhUlzIMKHcL9AJMQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&amp;q=Certus%20amor%20morum%20e%C5%BFt&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=m%C5%8Drum&amp;la=la&amp;can=m%C5%8Drum0&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=morum&amp;i=1#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmorum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4277" RevisionGUID="dbe5ac41-01d0-4075-8962-be7efac29016" CreationDate="2017-05-02T15:59:12.930" UserId="45" Comment="added 641 characters in body" Text="#Acquaintance: Certus amor morum est&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Certus amor morum est* is an excerpt of a line from Ovid's [*Medicamina Faciei Femineae*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Ov.%20Med.), ln. 45:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prima sit in vobis morum tutela, puellae.  &#xD;&#xA;     Ingenio facies conciliante placet.  &#xD;&#xA;**Certus amor morum est:** formam populabitur aetas,  &#xD;&#xA;     Et placitus rugis vultus aratus erit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My rough translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First make sure to guard your manners, girls.  &#xD;&#xA;With an accompanying good nature, your face will please.  &#xD;&#xA;**The love of character is true**: age will will spoil beauty,  &#xD;&#xA;and a pleasing face will be ploughed with wrinkles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jeffrey Masten, in *[Textual Intercourse: Collaboration, Authorship, and Sexualities in Renaissance Drama][2]* (1997), offers other (far-fetched) interpretations of this line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latin text of the motto has a number of relevant translations. &quot;*Certus amor morum est*&quot; may mean &quot;a secure love is a virtue&quot; or &quot;love of virtue is a secure thing.&quot; A further possibility is &quot;the love [that is, the conjunction or agreement] of desires [or wills, or mores] is a secure thing,&quot; a translation that resonates, as we shall see, with Montaigne's description of friendship as &quot;the agreement of wills.&quot; (p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the second and third translations Masten gives would be based on analyzing &quot;morum&quot; as the genitive plural of *[mos, moris][3] m.* &quot;manner&quot; modifying the preceding noun *amor* &quot;love&quot;. I don't know how the first translation &quot;a secure love is a virtue&quot; would work grammatically; my understanding is that a predicate noun or adjective in this context would be expected to be in the nominative case, and &quot;morum&quot; is as far as I can tell only a nominative form of the noun *[morum, mori][4] n.* &quot;a mulberry or blackberry&quot;. Perhaps the genitive plural can be analyzed as predicative rather than attributive, with a literal meaning of something like &quot;A secure love is *of mores*&quot;, and the given translation &quot;a secure love is a virtue&quot; is the idiomatic equivalent to this in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=60635&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Sasatws8y6MC&amp;pg=PA30&amp;lpg=PA30&amp;dq=Certus%20amor%20morum%20e%C5%BFt&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ij_dJSvUeQ&amp;sig=gsOcYhdPf_SIkbNm_nHT9FXRAUQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwix6_S2mtDTAhUlzIMKHcL9AJMQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&amp;q=Certus%20amor%20morum%20e%C5%BFt&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=m%C5%8Drum&amp;la=la&amp;can=m%C5%8Drum0&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=morum&amp;i=1#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmorum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4269" RevisionGUID="321c3770-a821-4a05-87e1-11d74166f3c0" CreationDate="2017-05-02T16:42:56.243" UserId="469" Comment="Added third link" Text="Look up for &quot;*procer, proceris*&quot;. Maybe that will do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Some definitions and examples can be found in [English][1], [French][2] or [Latin][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure about it being used as a form of address though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g.: *Agnosco procerem*, Juv. 8, 26.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#procer&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?q=procer&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/PROCER" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4270" RevisionGUID="b822ed80-dfa2-494d-b680-3630d0fd90bc" CreationDate="2017-05-02T17:47:20.223" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="How to nominalize adjectives in Latin? In English, adjectives can be nominalized with a slight different in meaning: &quot;the sick man&quot;, &quot;the sick&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In German, it's possible to nominalize the present participle: &quot;die neue Kollegin&quot;, &quot;die Neue&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;But how is it with Latin? And can the participles (like *portans, portatus...*) be nominalized (like the German: &quot;tragend&quot; &gt; &quot;der Tragende&quot;)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12952" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4270" RevisionGUID="b822ed80-dfa2-494d-b680-3630d0fd90bc" CreationDate="2017-05-02T17:47:20.223" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|adjective|derivation|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4277" RevisionGUID="dcdd9c72-04b1-4caa-9f64-d2c055dc3d1a" CreationDate="2017-05-02T20:25:55.267" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 1249 characters in body" Text="#Acquaintance: Certus amor morum est&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Certus amor morum est* is an excerpt of a line from Ovid's [*Medicamina Faciei Femineae*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Ov.%20Med.), ln. 45:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prima sit in vobis morum tutela, puellae.  &#xD;&#xA;     Ingenio facies conciliante placet.  &#xD;&#xA;**Certus amor morum est:** formam populabitur aetas,  &#xD;&#xA;     Et placitus rugis vultus aratus erit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My rough translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First make sure to guard your manners, girls.  &#xD;&#xA;With an accompanying good nature, your face will please.  &#xD;&#xA;**The love of character is true**: age will will spoil beauty,  &#xD;&#xA;and a pleasing face will be ploughed with wrinkles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jeffrey Masten, in *[Textual Intercourse: Collaboration, Authorship, and Sexualities in Renaissance Drama][2]* (1997), offers other possible readings, including: &quot;a secure love is a virtue&quot; and &quot;the love [that is, the conjunction or agreement] of desires [or wills, or mores] is a secure thing&quot;, but these readings are scarcely justifiable, especially in light of the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=60635&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Sasatws8y6MC&amp;pg=PA30&amp;lpg=PA30&amp;dq=Certus%20amor%20morum%20e%C5%BFt&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ij_dJSvUeQ&amp;sig=gsOcYhdPf_SIkbNm_nHT9FXRAUQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwix6_S2mtDTAhUlzIMKHcL9AJMQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&amp;q=Certus%20amor%20morum%20e%C5%BFt&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4278" RevisionGUID="c3ce7086-2ec9-4657-a222-9e2e530371ed" CreationDate="2017-05-02T20:33:53.657" UserId="47" Text="I have a question about a translation of the phrase mentioned in the title, which comes from Psalmus 30 (31) as it appears in &quot;The Office of Compline, Latin and English&quot; from the Saint Louis Antiphonary for the Hours, Ignatius Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin text with its context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      In te, Domine, speravi, non confundar in aeternum; in iustitia tua libera me.&#xD;&#xA;      Inclina ad me aurem tuam, accelera, ut eruas me.&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Esto mihi in rupem praesidii et in domum munitam, ut salvum me facias.&#xD;&#xA;      Quoniam fortitudo mea et refugium meum es tu et properter nomen tuum deduces me at pasces me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English translation for the line in question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Be a rock of refuge for me, a mighty stronghold to save me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in my simplicity, it seems to me the Psalmist is asking God to be **in** the rock of refuge and **in** the mighty stronghold, in the sense of **occupying** these defensive places.  This seems quite different in meaning from the provided English translation, which carries the sense of **identification with** these defensive places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: Is this a known Latin idiom that corresponds closely with the English translation, or is this a case where the Latin really means what I think it means, and the translator took the liberty of changing one sense into another?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12957" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4278" RevisionGUID="c3ce7086-2ec9-4657-a222-9e2e530371ed" CreationDate="2017-05-02T20:33:53.657" UserId="47" Text="&quot;Esto mihi in rupem praesidii et in domum munitam...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12958" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4278" RevisionGUID="c3ce7086-2ec9-4657-a222-9e2e530371ed" CreationDate="2017-05-02T20:33:53.657" UserId="47" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4278" RevisionGUID="9945d437-13c2-452f-b0b6-3d418fdcd29a" CreationDate="2017-05-02T20:37:14.827" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have a question about a translation of the phrase mentioned in the title, which comes from Psalmus 30 (31) as it appears in &quot;The Office of Compline, Latin and English&quot; from the Saint Louis Antiphonary for the Hours, Ignatius Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin text with its context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In te, Domine, speravi, non confundar in aeternum; in iustitia tua libera me.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Inclina ad me aurem tuam, accelera, ut eruas me.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Esto mihi in rupem praesidii et in domum munitam, ut salvum me facias.**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quoniam fortitudo mea et refugium meum es tu et properter nomen tuum deduces me at pasces me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English translation for the line in question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Be a rock of refuge for me, a mighty stronghold to save me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in my simplicity, it seems to me the Psalmist is asking God to be **in** the rock of refuge and **in** the mighty stronghold, in the sense of **occupying** these defensive places.  This seems quite different in meaning from the provided English translation, which carries the sense of **identification with** these defensive places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: Is this a known Latin idiom that corresponds closely with the English translation, or is this a case where the Latin really means what I think it means, and the translator took the liberty of changing one sense into another?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12960" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4278" RevisionGUID="9945d437-13c2-452f-b0b6-3d418fdcd29a" CreationDate="2017-05-02T20:37:14.827" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4278" RevisionGUID="29f542b4-1560-4257-8f5b-7075337a774b" CreationDate="2017-05-02T20:38:25.980" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I have a question about a translation of the phrase mentioned in the title, which comes from Psalm 30 (31) as it appears in &quot;The Office of Compline, Latin and English&quot; from the Saint Louis Antiphonary for the Hours, Ignatius Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin text with its context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In te, Domine, speravi, non confundar in aeternum; in iustitia tua libera me.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Inclina ad me aurem tuam, accelera, ut eruas me.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Esto mihi in rupem praesidii et in domum munitam, ut salvum me facias.**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quoniam fortitudo mea et refugium meum es tu et properter nomen tuum deduces me at pasces me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English translation for the line in question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Be a rock of refuge for me, a mighty stronghold to save me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in my simplicity, it seems to me the Psalmist is asking God to be **in** the rock of refuge and **in** the mighty stronghold, in the sense of **occupying** these defensive places.  This seems quite different in meaning from the provided English translation, which carries the sense of **identification with** these defensive places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: Is this a known Latin idiom that corresponds closely with the English translation, or is this a case where the Latin really means what I think it means, and the translator took the liberty of changing one sense into another?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4279" RevisionGUID="93f42064-e824-47e5-90f0-0b22d1ea408f" CreationDate="2017-05-02T20:41:10.530" UserId="1289" Text="For reference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    iambus: light + heavy&#xD;&#xA;    pyrrhicus: light + light&#xD;&#xA;    creticus: heavy + light + heavy&#xD;&#xA;    dactylus heavy + light + light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brevis Brevians is a tendency in early Latin, first attested in early metric poetry, to reduce the length of the second syllable of iambic words, resulting in a pyrrhic word. The same principle applies if the word is a cretic, which then mutates to a dactylus. It is also possible for it to occur on the second syllable of four-syllable words, but this is rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have any examples in verses, because Plautine meter gives me chills, but I do have a number of single-word examples written down: *ho̯mo̯*, *ma̯le̯*, *gu̯be̯rnabunt*, ... &#xD;&#xA;The application of Brevis Brevians is, in Plautus, not necessarily limited within one word. There are instances like *e̯t i̯llorum* and even, with elision, *a̯ge a̯bdūce*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brevis Brevians is quite common in Plautine drama, and most probably originates in an actual linguistic tendency. It is retained in the classical language in common words which kept their pyrrhic form, like *mălĕ* and *bĕnĕ*, where the adverbial -e is expected to be long, and in *ĕgŏ* (compare: *ἐγω*). Others, like *homo*, reverted back to a long final vowel even in other preclassical poets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Samnis, | spurcu̯s ho|mō, vi|ta illa | dignu̯s lo|coque (Lucilius 150 Marx)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pattern is, as one might intuitively expect, less common in declined nominal and verbal forms, because of the strong paradigmatic analogy with non-iambic and non-cretic forms that retain the final heavy syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources: Nougaret 1956, Sturtevant 1940, Mester 1994, Marotta 2000, Hayes 1989" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4280" RevisionGUID="59478752-7cb0-4aac-a950-26b19c676380" CreationDate="2017-05-02T21:25:50.033" UserId="45" Text="This is most certainly a Hebraism. Compare to 2 Sam 7:14:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ego ero ei in patrem et ipse erit mihi in filium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Hebrew, we have: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; אֲנִי֙ אֶהְיֶה־לּ֣וֹ לְאָ֔ב וְה֖וּא יִהְיֶה־לִּ֣י לְבֵ֑ן&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the duplication of the &quot;לּ֣&quot; preposition, which is alternatively translation with a dative and in + accusative. I am *not* an expert in Hebrew, and cannot comment on the niceties of this construction, but it appears to mirror the Latin double dative, i.e. &quot;I will be to him as a father.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This same duplication of the &quot;ל־&quot; preposition occurs in the Psalm verse you cite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; הֱיֵ֤ה לִ֨י׀ לְֽצוּר־מָ֭עוֹז לְבֵ֥ית מְצוּד֗וֹת לְהוֹשִׁיעֵֽנִי&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an almost identical construction (again, though, I am not an expert) translated in the same way: dative and in + accusative. By extrapolation, the interpretation is entirely clear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4280" RevisionGUID="90d1f95a-c8d1-429e-b6f4-1e7d524aac3f" CreationDate="2017-05-02T22:04:24.087" UserId="45" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="This is most certainly a Hebraism. Compare to 2 Sam 7:14:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ego ero ei in patrem et ipse erit mihi in filium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Hebrew, we have: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; אֲנִי֙ אֶהְיֶה־לּ֣וֹ לְאָ֔ב וְה֖וּא יִהְיֶה־לִּ֣י לְבֵ֑ן&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the duplication of the &quot;לּ֣&quot; preposition, which is alternatively translated with a dative and with *in* + accusative. I am *not* an expert in Hebrew, and cannot comment on the niceties of this construction, but it appears to mirror the Latin double dative, i.e. &quot;I will be to him as a father.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This same duplication of the &quot;ל־&quot; preposition occurs in the Psalm verse you cite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; הֱיֵ֤ה לִ֨י׀ לְֽצוּר־מָ֭עוֹז לְבֵ֥ית מְצוּד֗וֹת לְהוֹשִׁיעֵֽנִי&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an almost identical construction (again, though, I am not an expert) translated in the same way: dative and *in* + accusative. By extrapolation, the English interpretation is entirely clear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1927" RevisionGUID="50069cca-362c-4dad-b8cb-4c63c72a7e39" CreationDate="2017-05-03T06:32:48.540" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted a little." Text="According to the *[Handbook of Medieval Culture][1]* (Albrecht Classen, vol. 2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The first written evidence considered to be Italian rather than Latin is known as the *Placiti Cassinesi*, which are four legal documents containing vernacular testimonies in an Upper Southern dialect dated to 960&amp;ndash;963.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text of the four *placiti* has been published in *Storia della lingua italiana*, by B. Migliorini and is available on this [collection of Italian texts][2] established by Ulrich Harsch (*[Bibliotheca Augustana][3]*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;## I&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sao ko kelle terre, per kelle fini que ki contene, trenta anni le possette parte sancti Benedicti.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Capua, marzo 960)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;## II&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sao cco kelle terre, per kelle fini que tebe monstrai, Pergoaldi foro, que ki contene, et trenta anni le possette.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Sessa, marzo 963)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;## III&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Kella terra, per kelle fini que bobe mostrai, sancte Marie è, et trenta anni la posset parte sancte Marie.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Teano, luglio 963)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;## IV&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sao cco kelle terre, per kelle fini que tebe mostrai, trenta anni le possette parte sancte Marie.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Teano, ottobre 963)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **philological analysis** of this text is available on the [Italian version of Wikipedia](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placiti_cassinesi#Analisi_filologica) or in *[Vers les sources des langues romanes][4]* by Eugeen Roegiest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples of differences with Latin Language**: some forms like *cco* (from *quod*), *tebe* (*tibi*) or *bobe* (*vobis*, already betacism).&#xD;&#xA;However, there still are latinisms such as the use of the genitive in proper nouns or the *n* of *monstrai*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, the distinction Latin-*Italian* was clearly established during the 10th century as a monk, Gunzo of Novare, wrote in 965: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;usu nostrae vulgaris linguae, quae latinitati vicina est&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An other example, according to the *[Manuel pratique de latin médiéval][5]* by [Dag Norberg][6]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In 915, on the occasion of the coronation of King Berengar I, the senate paid him homage patrio ore, &quot;in Latin,&quot; while the people honored him nativa voce, &quot;in Italian,&quot; according to the text of a song composed a few years later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Norberg, the oaths of Capoue *mark the beginning of the history of Italian literature*. Others claim that the oldest preserved Italian text is the ***[Indovinello Veronese][7]*** (please see Tom's answer). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=Uh5pCgAAQBAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/italica/Cronologia/i_crono.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/augustana.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=K7FeNc7B3EYC&amp;lpg=PA151&amp;hl=fr&amp;pg=PA151#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://homepages.wmich.edu/~johnsorh/MedievalLatin/Norberg/ital.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/8892/ALMA_1996_54_5.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/italica/Cronologia/secolo09/Indovinello/ind_intr.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2093" RevisionGUID="dda5b9f7-1734-49e8-854f-53c4b7130235" CreationDate="2017-05-03T06:36:12.380" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted a bit." Text="For playing a musical instrument, Latin uses *ludere*. See II. under Lewis and Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. Trop.&#xD;&#xA;A. *To sport, play with any thing, to practise as a pastime, amuse one's self with* anything: “illa ipsa ludens conjeci in communes locos, Cic. Par. prooem.: Prima Syracosio dignata est ludere versu Nostra ... Thalia,” Verg. E. 6, 1.—**Esp., to play on an instrument of music, *to make* or *compose music* or *song***: “ludere quae vellem calamo permisit agresti,” Verg. E. 1, 10: “talia fumosi luduntur mense Decembri,” Ov. Tr. 2, 491: “quod tenerae cantent, lusit tua musa, puellae,” id. Am. 3, 1, 27: “coloni Versibus incomptis ludunt,” Verg. G. 2, 386: “carmina pastorum,” id. ib. 4, 565; Suet. Ner. 3: “si quid vacui sub umbra Lusimus tecum,” Hor. C. 1, 22, 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were it a real word, *clavilizo* would be more &quot;to turn *X* into a piano&quot; or &quot;to do the piano thing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since *facere* and *agere* are mentioned, I might as well mention their possible analogies. E.g., you might have an analogy with *facere histrionem* as found in Plautus, *Amphitruo* 89&amp;ndash;90:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quid? admirati estis? quasi vero novom  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; nunc proferatur, Iovem facere histrioniam;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last three words are to be translated as &quot;Jupiter plays an actor.&quot; That's not quite the same as &quot;playing a piano&quot;, though, since this is more &quot;playing a part&quot; than making an object work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that case, the better word is *agere*; to drive a cart&quot; is *agere raedam*, which I feel is better analogy for the piano.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for playing the piano or doing any sport or amusement, stick with *ludere*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1162" RevisionGUID="b6ba37ee-9484-4154-b8d5-fdac2ea19fdb" CreationDate="2017-05-03T06:37:10.873" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="The Italian word &quot;fare&quot; is often used in a very generic way. English doesn't use &quot;do&quot; or &quot;make&quot; that much, but it can still be a good comparison. Let me give some examples. We may say &quot;fare Greco&quot; (&quot;make Greek&quot;, literally, or &quot;do Greek&quot;) to mean &quot;do something related to Greek&quot;, like studying grammar, translating something. We can say &quot;fare piano&quot; (&quot;do/make piano&quot;) for &quot;play the piano&quot;. I once kept a diary in Latin, and to render that I simply used the suffix *-izo* to create new verbs. The examples above gave me *Græcizo* and *clavilizo*. But I was wondering: was there something like this in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12968" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1162" RevisionGUID="b6ba37ee-9484-4154-b8d5-fdac2ea19fdb" CreationDate="2017-05-03T06:37:10.873" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|word-choice|italian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4279" RevisionGUID="806fb8a2-fc53-49ec-8330-f819d96407fb" CreationDate="2017-05-03T07:03:31.467" UserId="1289" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="For reference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    iambus: light + heavy&#xD;&#xA;    pyrrhicus: light + light&#xD;&#xA;    creticus: heavy + light + heavy&#xD;&#xA;    dactylus: heavy + light + light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brevis Brevians is a tendency in early Latin, first attested in early metric poetry, to reduce the length of the second syllable of iambic words, resulting in a pyrrhic word. The same principle applies if the word is a cretic, which then mutates to a dactylus. It is also possible for it to occur on the second syllable of four-syllable words, but this is rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have any examples in verses, because Plautine meter gives me chills, but I do have a number of single-word examples written down: *ho̯mo̯*, *ma̯le̯*, *gu̯be̯rnabunt*, ... &#xD;&#xA;The application of Brevis Brevians is, in Plautus, not necessarily limited within one word. There are instances like *e̯t i̯llorum* and even, with elision, *a̯ge a̯bdūce*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brevis Brevians is quite common in Plautine drama, and most probably originates in an actual linguistic tendency. It is retained in the classical language in common words which kept their pyrrhic form, like *mălĕ* and *bĕnĕ*, where the adverbial -e is expected to be long, and in *ĕgŏ* (compare: *ἐγω*). Others, like *homo*, reverted back to a long final vowel even in other preclassical poets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Samnis, | spurcu̯s ho|mō, vi|ta illa | dignu̯s lo|coque (Lucilius 150 Marx)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pattern is, as one might intuitively expect, less common in declined nominal and verbal forms, because of the strong paradigmatic analogy with non-iambic and non-cretic forms that retain the final heavy syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources: Nougaret 1956, Sturtevant 1940, Mester 1994, Marotta 2000, Hayes 1989" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4281" RevisionGUID="15ec6b45-47dd-45e0-b931-c0e9da861d9e" CreationDate="2017-05-03T09:43:52.613" UserId="1520" Text="Please can someone help me translate the following into Latin as correctly as possible, or if other suggestions, all welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot; I am not alone&#xD;&#xA;  , I live with the memories, &#xD;&#xA;  regret is my home, &#xD;&#xA;  this is my true freedom &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you so much!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12971" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4281" RevisionGUID="15ec6b45-47dd-45e0-b931-c0e9da861d9e" CreationDate="2017-05-03T09:43:52.613" UserId="1520" Text="Can someone help me translate this lyrics into Latin please?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12972" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4281" RevisionGUID="15ec6b45-47dd-45e0-b931-c0e9da861d9e" CreationDate="2017-05-03T09:43:52.613" UserId="1520" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4282" RevisionGUID="9283e059-edda-46d7-9e34-3b20716457ee" CreationDate="2017-05-03T12:35:33.447" UserId="1521" Text="I'd like to combine the words &quot;apis&quot; and &quot;genu&quot; to mean something like &quot;pertaining to the knee's bees&quot;.  My guess would be something like &quot;apigenual&quot;, but I have no idea if that's close to the mark or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12974" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4282" RevisionGUID="9283e059-edda-46d7-9e34-3b20716457ee" CreationDate="2017-05-03T12:35:33.447" UserId="1521" Text="How can I combine apis and genu?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12975" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4282" RevisionGUID="9283e059-edda-46d7-9e34-3b20716457ee" CreationDate="2017-05-03T12:35:33.447" UserId="1521" Text="|translation|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4283" RevisionGUID="68fdca2a-1deb-4f76-b9b5-075cb358a332" CreationDate="2017-05-03T12:52:19.037" UserId="78" Text="You mean in English, right? You're actually right on the money. Note that *genualia* (from a hypothetical *\*genualis*) was used by Ovid to mean &quot;garter,&quot; but it's a [*hapax legomenon*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=genual), and thus Ovid probably coined it with this meaning himself. This sort of combining words was unusual (outside Lucilius' ridiculed efforts), but here it's pretty clear what the word would mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The breakdown of the word would be a series of questions: what it's pertain to (-al)? Knees (genu-). What kind of knees? Bee's knees (api-)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4284" RevisionGUID="007fbf55-23ae-4771-9b90-3175285248f1" CreationDate="2017-05-03T13:20:33.197" UserId="1224" Text="I'm no expert (just a kid who's interested in the language), but I think I could translate this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Solus non sum, cum memoris convivo, paenitudo domus meus est, hoc est libertas vera mea. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4282" RevisionGUID="74612b0c-fb72-485a-8e46-b4e3a71a678c" CreationDate="2017-05-03T14:08:17.627" UserId="45" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="I'd like to combine the words &quot;apis&quot; and &quot;genu&quot; into an English word that means something like &quot;pertaining to the knee's bees&quot;.  My guess would be something like &quot;apigenual&quot;, but I have no idea if that's close to the mark or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4283" RevisionGUID="b3097b2a-555d-4a58-bc75-16bb57ea3103" CreationDate="2017-05-03T14:08:56.227" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body" Text="You're actually right on the money. Note that *genualia* (from a hypothetical *\*genualis*) was used by Ovid to mean &quot;garter,&quot; but it's a [*hapax legomenon*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=genual), and thus Ovid probably coined it with this meaning himself. This sort of combining words was unusual (outside Lucilius' ridiculed efforts), but here it's pretty clear what the word would mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The breakdown of the word would be a series of questions: what it's pertain to (-al)? Knees (genu-). What kind of knees? Bee's knees (api-)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12981" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1309" RevisionGUID="cf7585f7-eb3c-43aa-ba51-42c2f3a6c341" CreationDate="2017-05-03T15:59:51.203" UserId="45" Comment="32" />
  <row Id="12982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4281" RevisionGUID="e65b365e-3379-40f5-a22f-f20f7530d173" CreationDate="2017-05-03T16:09:12.037" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Please can someone help me translate the following into Latin as correctly as possible, or if other suggestions, all welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am not alone,  &#xD;&#xA;I live with the memories,  &#xD;&#xA;regret is my home,  &#xD;&#xA;this is my true freedom&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you so much!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4282" RevisionGUID="f46de382-e8e1-467c-8de1-fa294f799e0c" CreationDate="2017-05-03T17:41:25.040" UserId="1521" Comment="edited body" Text="I'd like to combine the words &quot;apis&quot; and &quot;genu&quot; into an English word that means something like &quot;pertaining to the bee's knees&quot;.  My guess would be something like &quot;apigenual&quot;, but I have no idea if that's close to the mark or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4285" RevisionGUID="b3363ae8-bf60-4a26-9ecf-951b3085f2b7" CreationDate="2017-05-03T21:02:59.223" UserId="118" Text="I'm only a beginner with Latin, but, inspired by Middle School Historian, I'm posting an attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Solitarius non sum,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Memoriis comitantibus habito.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Desiderium domus est mihi,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Ecce Eleutheria vera mea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4286" RevisionGUID="7771fd23-c0e2-45f8-b342-f06223b9b7df" CreationDate="2017-05-03T22:06:01.013" UserId="79" Text="Here is my take on the lyrics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non secubo,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum memoriis vivo,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; maerore domo,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; haec mi vera libertas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some background:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I found [something with matching lyrics on YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uS3MDTxy6w) and guessed that this might be the song you are interested in. I made sure the translation is actually singable. The rhythm of the original is fairly free, but it does exist.&#xD;&#xA;- Not having room for all the syllables one might want to have forces the translation to be a bit mystic and terse. But I find that very suitable.&#xD;&#xA;- The verb *secubare* means &quot;to live alone&quot;. More literally, it means &quot;to sleep alone&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- The third line is an absolute ablative: &quot;grief being home&quot; or &quot;home being grief&quot;. You can't really tell which way it is. Ambiguity like this works well in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;- When you say something like &quot;this is my treasure&quot; with an abstract &quot;this&quot;, then the grammatical gender and number is often adapted to the one of &quot;treasure&quot; instead of being simply neuter. I would translate &quot;this is my treasure&quot; as *haec sunt divitiae meae*.&#xD;&#xA;- The fourth line translates to &quot;to me this is true freedom&quot;. I felt that the rhythm does not allow replacing the dative *mi* with the possessive pronoun *mea*. It would be valid too (literally &quot;this is my true freedom&quot;). And I quite like the tone of &quot;this is freedom to me&quot; as opposed to &quot;this is my freedom&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my experience of translating lyrics to Latin for professional musicians, the best translation is always reached in collaboration with the performer or original writer.&#xD;&#xA;So many things affect what makes a good translation, not all of which are under the translator's control.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I will gladly welcome any feedback on the translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4284" RevisionGUID="96e3759e-ba6b-4bf7-9a39-566802a55852" CreationDate="2017-05-03T22:18:10.413" UserId="79" Comment="Broke the translation to lines (double space breaks line)." Text="I'm no expert (just a kid who's interested in the language), but I think I could translate this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Solus non sum,  &#xD;&#xA;cum memoris convivo,  &#xD;&#xA;paenitudo domus meus est,  &#xD;&#xA;hoc est libertas vera mea. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4287" RevisionGUID="62e95a0b-8451-469b-95cd-73d34fdb43e5" CreationDate="2017-05-03T22:29:27.773" UserId="40" Text="[It seems that](https://www.behindthename.com/name/aloysius) the Latin form *Aloysius* is based specifically on an Occitan form of the name, *Aloys*. The Latin has simply retained the Occitan spelling; I don't know enough about Occitan to say anything about that spelling, or about the strange initial *A-*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4267" RevisionGUID="169ea7d0-ebfd-41e0-aade-c7f720663408" CreationDate="2017-05-03T23:00:56.493" UserId="522" Comment="ACQVAINTANCE spelling corrected from plate." Text="#Latin text&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a community-wiki post for simply establishing the text in the boxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The format is original spelling (modernized spelling), with the latter given only when they differ, and uncertain sections in brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ##*The English Gentleman*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SPES IN CÆLIS (CAELIS)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;PES IN TERRIS.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;YOVTH (YOUTH): *Virtute tute. Vox læta, ſed anxia lethi.* (*Vox laeta, sed anxia lethi.*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;DISPOSITION: *Nitimur in vetitum.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;EDVCATION (EDUCATION): *Vbera et verbera* (*Ubera et verbera*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;VOCATION: *Paſcimur et patimur.* (*Pascimur et patimur.*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;RECREATION: *Non arcum ſemper tendit Apollo.* (*Non arcum semper tendit Apollo.*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ACQVAINTANCE (ACQUAINTANCE): *Certus amor morum eſt* (*est*).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;MODERATION: *Moderata durant*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;PERFECTION: *Hâc cœlum* (*caelum*) *petitur viâ*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Generoso Germine Gemmo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant Textkit thread: &quot;[The English Gentleman Latin Title Page][1]&quot;; the post by &quot;mwh » Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:41 am&quot; was used as a source for some of the above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[_Humanism and Protestantism in Early Modern English Education_](https://books.google.com/books?id=mOsoDAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA332&amp;lpg=PA332&amp;dq=%22ubera+et+verbera%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vYknPm8NtJ&amp;sig=-cEV-W3fOxhiSCHfkX_1tQC7t0c&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj4iN23utHTAhUq6oMKHYEeBXwQ6AEIOzAE#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) by Ian Green (2016), p. 332, includes transcriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Braithwait himself includes the mottos set in type on [this fold-out page](https://archive.org/stream/englishgentleman00brat#page/n8/mode/1up) included with a double book also including _The English Gentlewoman._ The typeset version has _Spes in cœlis_ while the image above clearly has _cælis,_ but the double book has a different frontispiece, too, which really does have _cœlis._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=60635" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4267" RevisionGUID="fb023d9b-4a14-4f6a-8f2b-808965ea1e8e" CreationDate="2017-05-03T23:51:37.800" UserId="118" Comment="Braithwait URL pointed to previous page" Text="#Latin text&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a community-wiki post for simply establishing the text in the boxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The format is original spelling (modernized spelling), with the latter given only when they differ, and uncertain sections in brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ##*The English Gentleman*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SPES IN CÆLIS (CAELIS)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;PES IN TERRIS.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;YOVTH (YOUTH): *Virtute tute. Vox læta, ſed anxia lethi.* (*Vox laeta, sed anxia lethi.*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;DISPOSITION: *Nitimur in vetitum.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;EDVCATION (EDUCATION): *Vbera et verbera* (*Ubera et verbera*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;VOCATION: *Paſcimur et patimur.* (*Pascimur et patimur.*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;RECREATION: *Non arcum ſemper tendit Apollo.* (*Non arcum semper tendit Apollo.*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ACQVAINTANCE (ACQUAINTANCE): *Certus amor morum eſt* (*est*).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;MODERATION: *Moderata durant*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;PERFECTION: *Hâc cœlum* (*caelum*) *petitur viâ*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Generoso Germine Gemmo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant Textkit thread: &quot;[The English Gentleman Latin Title Page][1]&quot;; the post by &quot;mwh » Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:41 am&quot; was used as a source for some of the above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[_Humanism and Protestantism in Early Modern English Education_](https://books.google.com/books?id=mOsoDAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA332&amp;lpg=PA332&amp;dq=%22ubera+et+verbera%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vYknPm8NtJ&amp;sig=-cEV-W3fOxhiSCHfkX_1tQC7t0c&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj4iN23utHTAhUq6oMKHYEeBXwQ6AEIOzAE#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) by Ian Green (2016), p. 332, includes transcriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Braithwait himself includes the mottos set in type on [this fold-out page](https://archive.org/stream/englishgentleman00brat#page/n9/mode/1up) included with a double book also including _The English Gentlewoman._ The typeset version has _Spes in cœlis_ while the image above clearly has _cælis,_ but the double book has a different frontispiece, too, which really does have _cœlis._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=60635" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4267" RevisionGUID="5bbd7256-506d-4946-8da3-07779fc30f1d" CreationDate="2017-05-04T00:24:48.130" UserId="118" Comment="One more motto, found in double book" Text="#Latin text&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a community-wiki post for simply establishing the text in the boxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The format is original spelling (modernized spelling), with the latter given only when they differ, and uncertain sections in brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ##*The English Gentleman*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SPES IN CÆLIS (CAELIS)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;PES IN TERRIS.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;YOVTH (YOUTH): *Virtute tute. Vox læta, ſed anxia lethi.* (*Vox laeta, sed anxia lethi.*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;DISPOSITION: *Nitimur in vetitum.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;EDVCATION (EDUCATION): *Vbera et verbera* (*Ubera et verbera*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;VOCATION: *Paſcimur et patimur.* (*Pascimur et patimur.*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;RECREATION: *Non arcum ſemper tendit Apollo.* (*Non arcum semper tendit Apollo.*)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ACQVAINTANCE (ACQUAINTANCE): *Certus amor morum eſt* (*est*).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;MODERATION: *Moderata durant*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;PERFECTION: *Hâc cœlum* (*caelum*) *petitur viâ*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Generoso Germine Gemmo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant Textkit thread: &quot;[The English Gentleman Latin Title Page][1]&quot;; the post by &quot;mwh » Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:41 am&quot; was used as a source for some of the above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[_Humanism and Protestantism in Early Modern English Education_](https://books.google.com/books?id=mOsoDAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA332&amp;lpg=PA332&amp;dq=%22ubera+et+verbera%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vYknPm8NtJ&amp;sig=-cEV-W3fOxhiSCHfkX_1tQC7t0c&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj4iN23utHTAhUq6oMKHYEeBXwQ6AEIOzAE#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) by Ian Green (2016), p. 332, includes transcriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Braithwait himself includes the mottos set in type on [this fold-out page](https://archive.org/stream/englishgentleman00brat#page/n9/mode/1up) included with a double book also including _The English Gentlewoman._ The typeset version has _Spes in cœlis_ while the image above clearly has _cælis,_ but the double book has a different frontispiece, too, which really does have _cœlis._ The Gentleman in the double book stands over one more motto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qui genus jactat suum, aliena laudat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=60635" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4286" RevisionGUID="be01c008-51c8-49bf-9331-1980ec45429f" CreationDate="2017-05-04T01:33:54.893" UserId="79" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="Here is my take on the lyrics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non secubo,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum memoriis vivo,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; maerore domo,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; haec mi vera libertas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some background:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I found [something with matching lyrics on YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uS3MDTxy6w) and guessed that this might be the song you are interested in. I made sure the translation is actually singable. The rhythm of the original is fairly free, but it does exist.&#xD;&#xA;- Not having room for all the syllables one might want to have forces the translation to be a bit mystic and terse. But I find that very suitable.&#xD;&#xA;- The verb *secubare* means &quot;to live alone&quot;. More literally, it means &quot;to sleep alone&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- The third line is an absolute ablative: &quot;grief being home&quot; or &quot;home being grief&quot;. You can't really tell which way it is. Ambiguity like this works well in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;- When you say something like &quot;this is my treasure&quot; with an abstract &quot;this&quot;, then the grammatical gender and number is often adapted to the one of &quot;treasure&quot; instead of being simply neuter. I would translate &quot;this is my treasure&quot; as *hae sunt divitiae meae*. This is why I have *haec* in my translation.&#xD;&#xA;- The fourth line translates to &quot;to me this is true freedom&quot;. I felt that the rhythm does not allow replacing the dative *mi* with the possessive pronoun *mea*. It would be valid too (literally &quot;this is my true freedom&quot;). And I quite like the tone of &quot;this is freedom to me&quot; as opposed to &quot;this is my freedom&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my experience of translating lyrics to Latin for professional musicians, the best translation is always reached in collaboration with the performer or original writer.&#xD;&#xA;So many things affect what makes a good translation, not all of which are under the translator's control.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I will gladly welcome any feedback on the translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4277" RevisionGUID="5f867a11-9373-4e4b-8c09-9f254f2a64b9" CreationDate="2017-05-04T02:32:02.400" UserId="118" Comment="That's no &quot;rough&quot; translation. Removed first-person phrasing." Text="#Acquaintance: Certus amor morum est&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Certus amor morum est* is an excerpt of a line from Ovid's [*Medicamina Faciei Femineae*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Ov.%20Med.), ln. 45:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prima sit in vobis morum tutela, puellae.  &#xD;&#xA;     Ingenio facies conciliante placet.  &#xD;&#xA;**Certus amor morum est:** formam populabitur aetas,  &#xD;&#xA;     Et placitus rugis vultus aratus erit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First make sure to guard your manners, girls.  &#xD;&#xA;With an accompanying good nature, your face will please.  &#xD;&#xA;**The love of character is true**: age will will spoil beauty,  &#xD;&#xA;and a pleasing face will be ploughed with wrinkles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jeffrey Masten, in *[Textual Intercourse: Collaboration, Authorship, and Sexualities in Renaissance Drama][2]* (1997), offers other possible readings, including: &quot;a secure love is a virtue&quot; and &quot;the love [that is, the conjunction or agreement] of desires [or wills, or mores] is a secure thing&quot;, but these readings are scarcely justifiable, especially in light of the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=60635&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Sasatws8y6MC&amp;pg=PA30&amp;lpg=PA30&amp;dq=Certus%20amor%20morum%20e%C5%BFt&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ij_dJSvUeQ&amp;sig=gsOcYhdPf_SIkbNm_nHT9FXRAUQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwix6_S2mtDTAhUlzIMKHcL9AJMQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&amp;q=Certus%20amor%20morum%20e%C5%BFt&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="9ac4bf46-cf8b-404c-814b-3540d34a111a" CreationDate="2017-05-04T02:34:26.573" UserId="118" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Here is [_The English Gentleman_](http://www.thegentry.org.uk/braithwait.html) as depicted by Richard Braithwait in 1630:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Eldt.jpg&quot; /&gt;](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aMCVz.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a thirty-part question. Can you tell:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) What are the Latin words in each box?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) What do they literally mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) What do they _really_ mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not looking for crisp English translations, but brief explanations of the meaning, possibly including stories, traditions, or writings that they allude to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate, I can make out that under Education, the motto is **Ubera et verbera**, which literally means &quot;teats and beatings&quot;, but what does _that_ mean? Under Moderation, I think the words are **moderata durant**, which dictionary definitions suggest means &quot;moderated things endure&quot;, but that only reminds me that definitions often fail to convey the meanings of the words they define. The middle box says **Spes in cælis, pes in terris**, the meaning of which I can see is &quot;Hope in heaven, feet on the ground,&quot; but why are _cælis_ and _terris_ in the plural? I can't even make out the Latin words in many of the boxes; maybe if you can recognize traditional mottos, you can make out the text better. (Or maybe you can find a higher-resolution image.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't have to get all ten boxes. I'll give you a +1 if you can get even one of them. Here's [a higher-resolution image](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aMCVz.jpg) (thanks to brianpck).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;A tangent off of researching [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4238/118).&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4277" RevisionGUID="a699bc28-cd32-4c32-9d89-f6712a4ed159" CreationDate="2017-05-04T02:40:41.580" UserId="118" Comment="That's no &quot;rough&quot; translation. Removed first-person phrasing. Added Braithwait's explanation." Text="#Acquaintance: Certus amor morum est&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Certus amor morum est* is an excerpt of a line from Ovid's [*Medicamina Faciei Femineae*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Ov.%20Med.), ln. 45:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prima sit in vobis morum tutela, puellae.  &#xD;&#xA;     Ingenio facies conciliante placet.  &#xD;&#xA;**Certus amor morum est:** formam populabitur aetas,  &#xD;&#xA;     Et placitus rugis vultus aratus erit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First make sure to guard your manners, girls.  &#xD;&#xA;With an accompanying good nature, your face will please.  &#xD;&#xA;**The love of character is true**: age will will spoil beauty,  &#xD;&#xA;and a pleasing face will be ploughed with wrinkles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Braithwait explains the picture thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ACQVAINTANCE is in two bodies individually incorporated, and no lesse selfely than sociably united : two Twins cannot be more naturally neere, than these be affectionately deare; which they expresse in hugging one another, and shewing the consenting Comfort of their mind, by the mutuall interchoice of their Motto; _Certus amor morum est._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jeffrey Masten, in *[Textual Intercourse: Collaboration, Authorship, and Sexualities in Renaissance Drama][2]* (1997), offers other possible readings, including: &quot;a secure love is a virtue&quot; and &quot;the love [that is, the conjunction or agreement] of desires [or wills, or mores] is a secure thing&quot;, but these readings are scarcely justifiable, especially in light of the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=60635&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Sasatws8y6MC&amp;pg=PA30&amp;lpg=PA30&amp;dq=Certus%20amor%20morum%20e%C5%BFt&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ij_dJSvUeQ&amp;sig=gsOcYhdPf_SIkbNm_nHT9FXRAUQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwix6_S2mtDTAhUlzIMKHcL9AJMQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&amp;q=Certus%20amor%20morum%20e%C5%BFt&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12996" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4226" RevisionGUID="e0f9b6e0-f390-4c88-be6b-af6e2878d24e" CreationDate="2017-05-04T03:51:06.513" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Which is the logic behind &quot;Aloysius&quot; Latinisation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12997" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4226" RevisionGUID="e0f9b6e0-f390-4c88-be6b-af6e2878d24e" CreationDate="2017-05-04T03:51:06.513" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|etymology|names|latinization|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="3449ab7a-d7dd-4f99-a27a-97c65f02b000" CreationDate="2017-05-04T05:02:03.743" UserId="118" Text="Inspired by [this _Marginalia_ blog post](http://promagistris.blogspot.com/2006/08/latin-word-order-doesnt-matter.html), I propose that the word order _helps_ disambiguates the two meanings, amplifying or opposing other syntactic and semantic pressures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have nearly enough experience with the language to give this hypothesis much credibility—or to reject it. I am hoping that someone will either post a good debunking, perhaps in a comment (or we can make this answer a Community Wiki disproving this hypothesis). Then we will at least have a nice page on the Internet that shows why this idea is wrong. Or, if debunkings fail and the hypothesis is right, we'll have a nice page about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is that listeners expect the opening of a sentence or clause in Latin to establish its _topic,_ and speakers can expect listeners to call upon that expectation to resolve ambiguity. The topic is not necessarily the grammatical subject, since the opening may be a noun in any case or even a verb, but the anchor to which the rest of the sentence or clause attaches information, usually culminating in the main new information at the end. A friend from Hungary informs me that Hungarian, which has word order at least as flexible as Latin's, works by this principle (though I don't know if Hungarian uses it to resolve ambiguity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit se litteras scripsisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quintus said something about himself, namely that he had written a letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit se Marcum odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quintus said something about himself, namely that he (Quintus) hates Marcus. Not ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there is strong ambiguity, but Quintus is favored as the antecedent of _se._ If surrounding context puts &quot;Does Marcus hate himself?&quot; on the table, this wording would indicate clearly enough that Quintus said Marcus hates himself. But absent such context, the prosaic word order _Aliquis dixit aliquem se infinitivum,_ where _se_ is the object of the infinitive and refers to _aliquis,_ leads a listener to make Quintus the antecedent of _se._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum odisse se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the placement of _se_ in the most prominent position, outside the prosaic word order, indicates that Marcus is the object of _odisse._ This, too, could be overridden by other contextual pressures. If the question of whether Marcus hates Quintus were being entertained, the very same sentence could mean that Quintus said he does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be clear now that hypothesis does not say that word order alone dictates the antecedent of _se._ Other pressures (on this hypothesis) can override it, such as intentional irony, poetic meter, semantics (only one interpretation makes sense), or even joking—playing with the ambiguity, understanding that the listener is aware of it. The hypothesis is that prosaically, the (topical) subject comes first, and you can usually draw upon the listener's familiarity with that word order to resolve the ambiguity. There might also be other ways to add weight to one interpretation or another, such as adding an _ipse_ or _proprie._ A place where you might want to do that is when you want to override pressure from semantics, i.e. to say something extremely unexpected or deliberately nonsensical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit litteras se scripsisse. (Oh, come on, surely this is just a way of emphasizing the letter: Quintus said about the letter, that he had written it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit litteras se ipsae scripsisse. (Wow, the speaker really does mean that Quintus said the letter wrote itself. The plural removes all ambiguity here, but it's not available in the _se odisse_ example.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the hypothesis is that multiple antecedents can simultaneously &quot;attract&quot; the _se,_ and the prosaic word order, where the (topical) subject comes first, is one of the competing forces that decides which antecedent wins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure yet whether [Allen &amp; Greenough §300](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-300.html) settles this (thanks, TKR!). On my first couple readings, I get the impression that they're struggling with explaining _se_ in terms of rules, are aware that the rules don't settle all the cases, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples that test this sort of theory may be hard to find, since skillful writers take pains to word sentences in such a way that this kind of ambiguity is avoided without giving the reader any hint that the author had to struggle to restructure the surrounding text from what first came to mind. Examples might come mainly from speech and casual writing—or, perhaps, law." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="0696a998-e4bb-4605-98a0-45445fc400b7" CreationDate="2017-05-04T05:16:24.197" UserId="118" Comment="added 357 characters in body" Text="Inspired by [this _Marginalia_ blog post](http://promagistris.blogspot.com/2006/08/latin-word-order-doesnt-matter.html), I propose that the word order _helps_ disambiguate the two meanings, amplifying or opposing other syntactic and semantic pressures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have nearly enough experience with the language to give this hypothesis much credibility—or to reject it. I am hoping that someone will either post a good debunking, perhaps in a comment (or we can make this answer a Community Wiki disproving this hypothesis). Then we will at least have a nice page on the Internet that shows why this idea is wrong. Or, if debunkings fail and the hypothesis is right, we'll have a nice page about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is that listeners expect the opening of a sentence or clause in Latin to establish its _topic,_ and speakers can expect listeners to call upon that expectation to resolve ambiguity. The topic is not necessarily the grammatical subject, since the opening may be a noun in any case or even a verb, but the anchor to which the rest of the sentence or clause attaches information, usually culminating in the main new information at the end. A friend from Hungary informs me that Hungarian, which has word order at least as flexible as Latin's, works by this principle (though I don't know if Hungarian uses it to resolve ambiguity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit se litteras scripsisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quintus said something about himself, namely that he had written a letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit se Marcum odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quintus said something about himself, namely that he (Quintus) hates Marcus. Not ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there is strong ambiguity, but Quintus is favored as the antecedent of _se._ If surrounding context puts &quot;Does Marcus hate himself?&quot; on the table, this wording would indicate clearly enough that Quintus said Marcus hates himself. But absent such context, the prosaic word order _Aliquis dixit aliquem se infinitivum,_ where _se_ is the object of the infinitive and refers to _aliquis,_ leads a listener to make Quintus the antecedent of _se._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum odisse se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the placement of _se_ in the most prominent position, outside the prosaic word order, indicates that Marcus is the object of _odisse._ This, too, could be overridden by other contextual pressures. If the question of whether Marcus hates Quintus were being entertained, the very same sentence could mean that Quintus said he does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be clear now that hypothesis does not say that word order alone dictates the antecedent of _se,_ only that it contributes. Other pressures (on this hypothesis) can override it, such as intentional irony, poetic meter, semantics (only one interpretation makes sense), or even joking—playing with the ambiguity, understanding that the listener is aware of it. The hypothesis is that prosaically, the (topical) subject comes first, and you can usually draw upon the listener's familiarity with that word order to resolve the ambiguity. There might also be other ways to add weight to one interpretation or another, such as adding an _ipse_ or _proprie._ A place where you might want to do that is when you want to override pressure from semantics, i.e. to say something extremely unexpected or deliberately nonsensical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit litteras se scripsisse. (Oh, come on, surely this is just a way of emphasizing the letter: Quintus said about the letter, that he had written it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit litteras se ipsas scripsisse. (Wow, the speaker really does mean that Quintus said the letter wrote itself.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gender and plural remove all ambiguity in that sentence, but, by analogy with that phrasing, the same word order can be used to disambiguate even when gender, case, and number are unavailable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum se ipsum odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quintus said, about Marcus, that he hates himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the hypothesis is that multiple antecedents can simultaneously &quot;attract&quot; the _se,_ and word order, where the (topical) subject comes first, is one of the competing forces that decides which antecedent wins. Or in other words, _there is no rule._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure yet whether [Allen &amp; Greenough §300](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-300.html) settles this (thanks, TKR!). On my first couple readings, I get the impression that they're struggling with explaining _se_ in terms of rules, are aware that the rules don't settle all the cases, and are flailing about trying to give examples without countenancing the idea of competing pressures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples that test this sort of theory may be hard to find, since skillful writers take pains to word sentences in such a way that this kind of ambiguity is avoided without giving the reader any hint that the author had to struggle to restructure the surrounding text from what first came to mind. Examples might come mainly from speech and casual writing—or, perhaps, law." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="74c515c6-963c-4950-91a3-319ad41ee4fb" CreationDate="2017-05-04T08:30:19.473" UserId="118" Comment="added 222 characters in body" Text="#1. Yes, it's ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is only a hypothesis, inspired somewhat indirectly by [this _Marginalia_ blog post](http://promagistris.blogspot.com/2006/08/latin-word-order-doesnt-matter.html). I don't have nearly enough experience with the language to give this hypothesis much credibility—or to reject it, so here goes. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can debunk it or corroborate it in comments. Do not take this as in any way authoritative. This post is essentially me thinking out loud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Inside a subordinate clause, _se_ is &quot;attracted&quot; simultaneously to multiple antecedents, in both the inner and the outer clause. When one antecedent exerts a much stronger pressure than all others, there is no ambiguity. When two antecedents exert nearly equal pressures, there is ambiguity. So, **there is no rule**, only a competition in the listener's mind—and different antecedents may win in different listener's minds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some forces, each of which can be opposed or overridden by others:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The first word of a clause typically establishes the topic of that clause: not necessarily the grammatical subject, but the anchor to which the sentence gradually attaches information, culminating in the end of the sentence, which usually provides the most important new thing. Upon reaching the first word of a clause, normally the scope of what a pronoun can refer to is limited to subjects already mentioned in the sentence, though this is easily overridden at the start of a main clause (when there's nothing yet to refer to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Analogous word orders, especially those felt to be canonical, add weight to analogous choices of antecedent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Alterations of canonical word order add weight to choices of precedent that are _not_ analogous to the canonical one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Semantics: interpretations that don't make sense exert only very weak pressure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Context: if preceding discourse has put a question &quot;on the table&quot;, an antecedent of _se_ that makes the sentence answer that question is favored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Juxtaposed _ipse, proprius,_ and _semet, sese_ and the like add weight favoring finding the antecedent in the subordinate clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Irony, poetic meter, flair, whimsy—stylistic choices that run against conventional word order can reverse any of the above pressures. These depend on a listener's ability to &quot;get it&quot; and willingness to &quot;play along&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit se Marcum odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Se,_ coming first in the subordinate clause, here establishes its topic: Quintus said something about himself, namely that he hates Marcus. Pressures (1) and (2) prevail, and there is practically no ambiguity (absent contextual pressures).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The familiar and canonical word order _Aliquis dixit aliquem se infinitivum,_ where _se_ is an object of the infinitive verb and refers to _aliquis_, pulls _se_ toward _Quintus_ (2). But _Aliquis se odit_ is also a reasonable sentence, and it pulls _se_ toward _Marcum_ almost as strongly (2, 4). Other pressures, especially from context (5) will tend to prevail, tipping the balance toward one antecedent or the other. Absent other pressures, _Quintus_ will most likely be heard as the antecedent, but it's not certain. A speaker and listener might even resolve the ambiguity differently, without even noticing that there is an ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quomodo se aestimat Marcus? Nescio sed Quintus dixit Marcum se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here context pulls _se_ toward _Marcum_ (5), probably, but not certainly, excluding _Quintus._ A speaker who meant that Quintus said that Marcus hates himself would likely choose this wording spontaneously, without noticing the ambiguity. A listener is more likely to notice, but is still likely to take _Marcum_ as the antecedent. (_N.b._ I am _making this up_ as I am writing it. It's only a guess.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#2. Here are some ways to disambiguate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum odisse se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, moving _se_ out of its canonical position and into the most important spot, the end of the sentence, suggests that the speaker wants you to understand that _se_ refers to _Marcum_ (3). A listener could still easily hear it the other way, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of throwing in an _ipse_ to overcome other pressures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit cavum se fodisse. (Surely the speaker is emphasizing the fact that Quintus is talking about the hole: Quintus said of the hole that he had dug it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit cavum se ipsum fodisse. (Well, maybe the speaker really does mean that Quintus said that the hole dug itself.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only made that up, but [Allen &amp; Greenough §300](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-300.html) (thanks, TKR!) says that using _ipse,_ or even _is, instead of_ the reflexive pronoun can resolve the ambiguity, with _ipse_ having a stronger pull toward the main clause's subject (maybe contra what I just said):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Caesar centuriones incusavit:] …Aut cur de **sua** virtute aut de **ipsius** diligentia desperarent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Caesar berated the centurions:] …Why should they despair either of **their own** courage or of **Caesar's** diligence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way out of the ambiguity is to use the passive voice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A Quinto dicitur Marcus se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="2c9725fa-b6aa-4749-a7d2-62d73472c206" CreationDate="2017-05-04T10:20:13.233" UserId="118" Comment="added 222 characters in body" Text="#1. Yes, it's ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is only a hypothesis, inspired somewhat indirectly by [this _Marginalia_ blog post](http://promagistris.blogspot.com/2006/08/latin-word-order-doesnt-matter.html). I don't have nearly enough experience with the language to give this hypothesis much credibility—or to reject it, so here goes. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can debunk it or corroborate it in comments. Do not take this as in any way authoritative. This post is essentially me thinking out loud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _Se_ refers to the _subject_ currently having things said about it—not necessarily the grammatical subject, but the current grammatical &quot;topic&quot;, regardless of its grammatical case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The ambiguity occurs when multiple antecedents can reasonably be understood as the current topic—as happens inside a subordinate clause. The main clause has a topic and the inner clause has a topic. Consequently _se_ is &quot;attracted&quot; simultaneously to both antecedents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A variety of pressures make each antecedent attract the _se_ more or less strongly. When one antecedent exerts a much stronger pressure than all others, there is no ambiguity. When two antecedents exert nearly equal pressures, there is ambiguity. So, **there is no rule**, only a competition in the listener's mind—and different antecedents may win in different listeners' minds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some pressures, each of which can be opposed or overridden by others:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The topic of the main clause is the topic of the whole sentence, and normally maintains that dominance even inside the subordinate clause—at least, it tends to attract _se_ more strongly by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The beginning of a clause typically establishes its topic. Regardless of its case, the topic is the anchor to which the sentence gradually attaches information, usually culminating in the end of the clause, where the most important new thing is stated. Upon reaching the first word of a clause, normally the scope of what a pronoun can refer to is limited to subjects already mentioned in the sentence, though this is easily overridden at the start of a main clause (when there's nothing yet to refer to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Analogous word orders, especially those felt to be canonical, add weight to analogous choices of antecedent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Alterations of canonical word order add weight to choices of precedent that are _not_ analogous to the canonical one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Interpretations that don't make sense exert only very weak pressure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Context: if preceding discourse has put a question &quot;on the table&quot;, an antecedent of _se_ that makes the sentence answer that question is favored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Juxtaposed _ipse, proprius,_ and _semet, sese_ and the like add weight favoring finding the antecedent in the subordinate clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. Irony, poetic meter, flair, whimsy—stylistic choices that run against conventional word order can reverse any of the above pressures. These depend on a listener's ability to &quot;get it&quot; and willingness to &quot;play along&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit se Marcum odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Se,_ coming first in the subordinate clause, here establishes its topic: Quintus said something about himself, namely that he hates Marcus. Pressures (1), (2), and (3) prevail, and there is practically no ambiguity (absent contextual pressures).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The familiar and canonical word order _Aliquis dixit aliquem se infinitivum,_ where _se_ is an object of the infinitive verb and refers to _aliquis_, pulls _se_ toward _Quintus_ (1, 3). But _Aliquis se odit_ is also a reasonable sentence, and it pulls _se_ toward _Marcum_ almost as strongly (2, 5). Absent other pressures, _Quintus_ will most likely be heard as the antecedent, but it's not certain. A speaker and listener might even resolve the ambiguity differently, without even noticing that there is an ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#2. Here are some ways to disambiguate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, here are some ways to overpower (1), helping _se_ refer to the subject of the subordinate clause—though, since there are no rules, there are no guarantees, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcum se odisse, Quintus dixit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here _Marcum_ is the only available antecedent when _se_ arrives (2). If _Quintus_ is to own _se,_ it'll have to steal it from an already entrenched defender (perhaps another pressure). Cicero may have used this trick in [_De Finibus_ 5.20](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=LatinAugust2012&amp;getid=0&amp;query=Cic.%20Fin.%205.20), though other pressures are at work, too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam voluptatis causa facere omnia, cum, etiamsi nihil consequamur,&#xD;&#xA;tamen ipsum illud **consilium** ita faciendi per **se** expetendum et honestum et solum bonum sit, **nemo dixit**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **No one** [neither Aristippus nor Hieronymus nor Carneades] **has claimed** that everyone acts for the sake of pleasure in the sense that&#xD;&#xA;even if we accomplish nothing, the mere **intention** of so acting&#xD;&#xA;is, because of **itself** alone, to be desired or honorable or the sole good  [not because of Aristippus _et al._)].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way out of the ambiguity is to use the passive voice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A Quinto dicitur Marcus se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passive voice makes _Marcus_ the subject of both the main clause and the subordinate clause. Perhaps contextual pressure could still make _se_ refer to _Quinto,_ though. Moving _Marcus_ to the beginning of the sentence and _a Quinto_ to the end would add more pressures favoring _Marcus_ as the antecedent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum odisse se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, moving _se_ out of its canonical position and into the most important spot, the end of the sentence, suggests that the speaker wants you to understand that _se_ refers to _Marcum_ (4). A listener could still easily hear it the other way, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of throwing in an _ipse_ to overcome other pressures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit cavum se fodisse. (Surely the speaker is emphasizing the fact that Quintus is talking about the hole: Quintus said of the hole that he had dug it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit cavum se ipsum fodisse. (Well, maybe the speaker really does mean that Quintus said that the hole dug itself.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only made that up, but [Allen &amp; Greenough §300](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-300.html) (thanks, TKR!) says that using _ipse,_ or even _is, instead of_ the reflexive pronoun can resolve the ambiguity, with _ipse_ having a stronger pull toward the main clause's subject (maybe contra what I just said):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Caesar centuriones incusavit:] …Aut cur de **sua** virtute aut de **ipsius** diligentia desperarent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Caesar berated the centurions:] …Why should they despair either of **their own** courage or of **Caesar's** diligence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quomodo se aestimat Marcus? Nescio sed Quintus dixit Marcum se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here context pulls _se_ toward _Marcum_ (6), probably, but not certainly, excluding _Quintus._ A speaker who meant that Quintus said that Marcus hates himself would likely choose this wording spontaneously, without noticing the ambiguity. A listener is more likely to notice, but is still likely to take _Marcum_ as the antecedent. (_N.b._ I am _making this up_ as I am writing it. It's only a guess.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="20da92f5-6f98-4269-8fdb-e07e23315f9e" CreationDate="2017-05-04T10:37:15.617" UserId="118" Comment="added 222 characters in body" Text="#1. Yes, it's ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is only a hypothesis, inspired somewhat indirectly by [this _Marginalia_ blog post](http://promagistris.blogspot.com/2006/08/latin-word-order-doesnt-matter.html). I don't have nearly enough experience with the language to give this hypothesis much credibility—or to reject it, so here goes. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can debunk it or corroborate it in comments. Do not take this as in any way authoritative. This post is essentially me thinking out loud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _Se_ refers to the _subject_ currently having things said about it—not necessarily the grammatical subject, but the current grammatical &quot;topic&quot;, regardless of its grammatical case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The ambiguity occurs when multiple antecedents can reasonably be understood as the current topic—as happens inside a subordinate clause. The main clause has a topic and the inner clause has a topic. Consequently _se_ is &quot;attracted&quot; simultaneously to both antecedents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A variety of pressures make each antecedent attract the _se_ more or less strongly. When one antecedent exerts a much stronger pressure than all others, there is no ambiguity. When two antecedents exert nearly equal pressures, there is ambiguity. So, **there is no rule**, only a competition in the listener's mind—and different antecedents may win in different listeners' minds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some pressures, each of which can be opposed or overridden by others:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The topic of the main clause is the topic of the whole sentence, and normally maintains that dominance even inside the subordinate clause—at least, it tends to attract _se_ more strongly by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The beginning of a clause typically establishes its topic. Regardless of its case, the topic is the anchor to which the sentence gradually attaches information, usually culminating in the end of the clause, where the most important new thing is stated. Upon reaching the first word of a clause, normally the scope of what a pronoun can refer to is limited to subjects already mentioned in the sentence, though this is easily overridden at the start of a main clause (when there's nothing yet to refer to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Analogous word orders, especially those felt to be canonical, add weight to analogous choices of antecedent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Alterations of canonical word order add weight to choices of precedent that are _not_ analogous to the canonical one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Interpretations that don't make sense exert only very weak pressure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Context: if preceding discourse has put a question &quot;on the table&quot;, an antecedent of _se_ that makes the sentence answer that question is favored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Juxtaposed _ipse, proprius,_ and _semet, sese_ and the like add weight favoring finding the antecedent in the subordinate clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. Irony, poetic meter, flair, whimsy—stylistic choices that run against conventional word order can reverse any of the above pressures. These depend on a listener's ability to &quot;get it&quot; and willingness to &quot;play along&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit se Marcum odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Se,_ coming first in the subordinate clause, here establishes its topic: Quintus said something about himself, namely that he hates Marcus. Pressures (1), (2), and (3) prevail, and there is practically no ambiguity (absent contextual pressures).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The familiar and canonical word order _Aliquis dixit aliquem se infinitivum,_ where _se_ is an object of the infinitive verb and refers to _aliquis_, pulls _se_ toward _Quintus_ (1, 3). But _Aliquis se odit_ is also a reasonable sentence, and it pulls _se_ toward _Marcum_ almost as strongly (2, 5). Absent other pressures, _Quintus_ will most likely be heard as the antecedent, but it's not certain. A speaker and listener might even resolve the ambiguity differently, without even noticing that there is an ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#2. Here are some ways to disambiguate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, here are some ways to overpower (1), helping _se_ refer to the subject of the subordinate clause—though, since there are no rules, there are no guarantees, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcum se odisse, Quintus dixit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here _Marcum_ is the only available antecedent when _se_ arrives (2). If _Quintus_ is to own _se,_ it'll have to steal it from an already entrenched defender (perhaps another pressure). Cicero may have used this trick in [_De Finibus_ 5.20](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=LatinAugust2012&amp;getid=0&amp;query=Cic.%20Fin.%205.20), though other pressures are at work, too (3, 5, 6):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam voluptatis causa facere omnia, cum, etiamsi nihil consequamur,&#xD;&#xA;tamen ipsum illud **consilium** ita faciendi per **se** expetendum et honestum et solum bonum sit, **nemo dixit**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **No one** [neither Aristippus nor Hieronymus nor Carneades] **has claimed** that everyone acts for the sake of pleasure in the sense that&#xD;&#xA;even if we accomplish nothing, the mere **intention** of so acting&#xD;&#xA;is, because of **itself** alone, to be desired or honorable or the sole good  [not because of Aristippus _et al._)].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way out of the ambiguity is to use the passive voice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A Quinto dicitur Marcus se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passive voice makes _Marcus_ the subject of both the main clause and the subordinate clause. Perhaps contextual pressure could still make _se_ refer to _Quinto,_ though. Moving _Marcus_ to the beginning of the sentence and _a Quinto_ to the end would add more pressures favoring _Marcus_ as the antecedent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quomodo se aestimat Marcus? Nescio sed Quintus dixit Marcum se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here context pulls _se_ toward _Marcum_ (6), probably, but not certainly, excluding _Quintus._ A speaker who meant that Quintus said that Marcus hates himself would likely choose this wording spontaneously, without noticing the ambiguity. A listener is more likely to notice, but is still likely to take _Marcum_ as the antecedent. (_N.b._ I am _making this up_ as I am writing it. It's only a guess.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum odisse se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, moving _se_ out of its canonical position and into the most important spot, the end of the sentence, suggests that the speaker wants you to understand that _se_ refers to _Marcum_ (4). A listener could still easily hear it the other way, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quomodo se aestimat Marcus? Nescio sed Quintus dixit Marcum se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here context pulls _se_ toward _Marcum_ (6), probably, but not certainly, excluding _Quintus._ A speaker who meant that Quintus said that Marcus hates himself would likely choose this wording spontaneously, without noticing the ambiguity. A listener is more likely to notice, but is still likely to take _Marcum_ as the antecedent. (_N.b._ I am _making this up_ as I am writing it. It's only a guess.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of throwing in an _ipse_ to overcome other pressures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit cavum se fodisse. (Surely the speaker is emphasizing the fact that Quintus is talking about the hole: Quintus said of the hole that he had dug it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit cavum se ipsum fodisse. (Well, maybe the speaker really does mean that Quintus said that the hole dug itself.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only made that up, but [Allen &amp; Greenough §300](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-300.html) (thanks, TKR!) says that using _ipse,_ or even _is, instead of_ the reflexive pronoun can resolve the ambiguity, with _ipse_ having a stronger pull toward the main clause's subject (maybe contra what I just said):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Caesar centuriones incusavit:] …Aut cur de **sua** virtute aut de **ipsius** diligentia desperarent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Caesar berated the centurions:] …Why should they despair either of **their own** courage or of **Caesar's** diligence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you could always drop the reflexive pronoun, though this sure sounds weird:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum Marcum odisse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="0de53a14-0c79-4872-b3e7-752cd9f52890" CreationDate="2017-05-04T10:46:01.950" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 481 characters in body" Text="#1. Yes, it's ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is only a hypothesis, inspired somewhat indirectly by [this _Marginalia_ blog post](http://promagistris.blogspot.com/2006/08/latin-word-order-doesnt-matter.html). I don't have nearly enough experience with the language to give this hypothesis much credibility—or to reject it, so here goes. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can debunk it or corroborate it in comments. Do not take this as in any way authoritative. This post is essentially me thinking out loud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _Se_ refers to the _subject_ currently having things said about it—not necessarily the grammatical subject, but the current grammatical &quot;topic&quot;, regardless of its grammatical case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The ambiguity occurs when multiple antecedents can reasonably be understood as the current topic—as happens inside a subordinate clause. The main clause has a topic and the inner clause has a topic. Consequently _se_ is &quot;attracted&quot; simultaneously to both antecedents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A variety of pressures make each antecedent attract the _se_ more or less strongly. When one antecedent exerts a much stronger pressure than all others, there is no ambiguity. When two antecedents exert nearly equal pressures, there is ambiguity. So, **there is no rule**, only a competition in the listener's mind—and different antecedents may win in different listeners' minds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some pressures, each of which can be opposed or overridden by others:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The topic of the main clause is the topic of the whole sentence, and normally maintains that dominance even inside the subordinate clause—at least, it tends to attract _se_ more strongly by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The beginning of a clause typically establishes its topic. Regardless of its case, the topic is the anchor to which the sentence gradually attaches information, usually culminating in the end of the clause, where the most important new thing is stated. Upon reaching the first word of a clause, normally the scope of what a pronoun can refer to is limited to subjects already mentioned in the sentence, though this is easily overridden at the start of a main clause (when there's nothing yet to refer to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Analogous word orders, especially those felt to be canonical, add weight to analogous choices of antecedent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Alterations of canonical word order add weight to choices of precedent that are _not_ analogous to the canonical one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Interpretations that don't make sense exert only very weak pressure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Context: if preceding discourse has put a question &quot;on the table&quot;, an antecedent of _se_ that makes the sentence answer that question is favored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Juxtaposed _ipse, proprius,_ and _semet, sese_ and the like add weight favoring finding the antecedent in the subordinate clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. Irony, poetic meter, flair, whimsy—stylistic choices that run against conventional word order can reverse any of the above pressures. These depend on a listener's ability to &quot;get it&quot; and willingness to &quot;play along&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit se Marcum odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Se,_ coming first in the subordinate clause, here establishes its topic: Quintus said something about himself, namely that he hates Marcus. Pressures (1), (2), and (3) prevail, and there is practically no ambiguity (absent contextual pressures).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The familiar and canonical word order _Aliquis dixit aliquem se infinitivum,_ where _se_ is an object of the infinitive verb and refers to _aliquis_, pulls _se_ toward _Quintus_ (1, 3). But _Aliquis se odit_ is also a reasonable sentence, and it pulls _se_ toward _Marcum_ almost as strongly (2, 5). Absent other pressures, _Quintus_ will most likely be heard as the antecedent, but it's not certain. A speaker and listener might even resolve the ambiguity differently, without even noticing that there is an ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#2. Here are some ways to disambiguate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, here are some ways to overpower (1), helping _se_ refer to the subject of the subordinate clause—though, since there are no rules, there are no guarantees, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcum se odisse, Quintus dixit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here _Marcum_ is the only available antecedent when _se_ arrives (2). If _Quintus_ is to own _se,_ it'll have to steal it from an already entrenched defender (perhaps another pressure). Cicero may have used this trick in [_De Finibus_ 5.20](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=LatinAugust2012&amp;getid=0&amp;query=Cic.%20Fin.%205.20), though other pressures are at work, too (2, 3, 5, 6):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam voluptatis causa facere omnia, cum, etiamsi nihil consequamur,&#xD;&#xA;tamen ipsum illud **consilium** ita faciendi per **se** expetendum et honestum et solum bonum sit, **nemo dixit**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **No one** [neither Aristippus nor Hieronymus nor Carneades] **has claimed** that everyone acts for the sake of pleasure in the sense that&#xD;&#xA;even if we accomplish nothing, the mere **intention** of so acting&#xD;&#xA;is, because of **itself** alone, to be desired or honorable or the sole good  [not because of Aristippus _et al._)].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way out of the ambiguity is to use the passive voice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A Quinto dicitur Marcus se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passive voice makes _Marcus_ the subject of both the main clause and the subordinate clause. Perhaps contextual pressure could still make _se_ refer to _Quinto,_ though. Moving _Marcus_ to the beginning of the sentence and _a Quinto_ to the end would add more pressures favoring _Marcus_ as the antecedent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quomodo se aestimat Marcus? Nescio sed Quintus dixit Marcum se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here context pulls _se_ toward _Marcum_ (6), probably, but not certainly, excluding _Quintus._ A speaker who meant that Quintus said that Marcus hates himself would likely choose this wording spontaneously, without noticing the ambiguity. A listener is more likely to notice, but is still likely to take _Marcum_ as the antecedent. (_N.b._ I am _making this up_ as I am writing it. It's only a guess.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum odisse se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, moving _se_ out of its canonical position and into the most important spot, the end of the sentence, suggests that the speaker wants you to understand that _se_ refers to _Marcum_ (4). A listener could still easily hear it the other way, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of throwing in an _ipse_ to overcome other pressures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit cavum se fodisse. (Surely the speaker is emphasizing the fact that Quintus is talking about the hole: Quintus said of the hole that he had dug it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit cavum se ipsum fodisse. (Well, maybe the speaker really does mean that Quintus said that the hole dug itself.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only made that up, but [Allen &amp; Greenough §300](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-300.html) (thanks, TKR!) says that using _ipse,_ or even _is, instead of_ the reflexive pronoun can resolve the ambiguity, with _ipse_ having a stronger pull toward the main clause's subject (maybe contra what I just said):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Caesar centuriones incusavit:] …Aut cur de **sua** virtute aut de **ipsius** diligentia desperarent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Caesar berated the centurions:] …Why should they despair either of **their own** courage or of **Caesar's** diligence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you could always drop the reflexive pronoun, though this sure sounds weird:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum Marcum odisse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="844323ef-fc87-499f-b4da-7bb339ebaf46" CreationDate="2017-05-04T10:54:36.960" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="#1. Yes, it's ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is only a hypothesis, inspired somewhat indirectly by [this _Marginalia_ blog post](http://promagistris.blogspot.com/2006/08/latin-word-order-doesnt-matter.html). I don't have nearly enough experience with the language to give this hypothesis much credibility—or to reject it, so here goes. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can debunk it or corroborate it in comments. Do not take this as in any way authoritative. This post is essentially me thinking out loud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _Se_ refers to the _subject_ currently having things said about it—not necessarily the grammatical subject, but the current grammatical &quot;topic&quot;, regardless of its grammatical case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The ambiguity occurs when multiple antecedents can reasonably be understood as the current topic—as happens inside a subordinate clause. The main clause has a topic and the inner clause has a topic. Consequently _se_ is &quot;attracted&quot; simultaneously to both antecedents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A variety of pressures make each antecedent attract the _se_ more or less strongly. When one antecedent exerts a much stronger pressure than all others, there is no ambiguity. When two antecedents exert nearly equal pressures, there is ambiguity. So, **there is no rule**, only a competition in the listener's mind—and different antecedents may win in different listeners' minds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some pressures, each of which can be opposed or overridden by others:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The topic of the main clause is the topic of the whole sentence, and normally maintains that dominance even inside the subordinate clause—at least, it tends to attract _se_ more strongly by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The beginning of a clause typically establishes its topic. Regardless of its case, the topic is the anchor to which the sentence gradually attaches information, usually culminating in the end of the clause, where the most important new thing is stated. Upon reaching the first word of a clause, normally the scope of what a pronoun can refer to is limited to subjects already mentioned in the sentence, though this is easily overridden at the start of a main clause (when there's nothing yet to refer to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Analogous word orders, especially those felt to be canonical, add weight to analogous choices of antecedent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Alterations of canonical word order add weight to choices of precedent that are _not_ analogous to the canonical one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Interpretations that don't make sense exert only very weak pressure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Context: if preceding discourse has put a question &quot;on the table&quot;, an antecedent of _se_ that makes the sentence answer that question is favored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Juxtaposed _ipse, proprius,_ and _semet, sese_ and the like add weight favoring finding the antecedent in the subordinate clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. Irony, poetic meter, flair, whimsy—stylistic choices that run against conventional word order can reverse any of the above pressures. These depend on a listener's ability to &quot;get it&quot; and willingness to &quot;play along&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit se Marcum odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Se,_ coming first in the subordinate clause, here establishes its topic: Quintus said something about himself, namely that he hates Marcus. Pressures (1), (2), and (3) prevail, and there is practically no ambiguity (absent contextual pressures).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The familiar and canonical word order _Aliquis dixit aliquem se infinitivum,_ where _se_ is an object of the infinitive verb and refers to _aliquis_, pulls _se_ toward _Quintus_ (1, 3). But _Aliquis se odit_ is also a reasonable sentence, and it pulls _se_ toward _Marcum_ almost as strongly (2, 5). Absent other pressures, _Quintus_ will most likely be heard as the antecedent, but it's not certain. A speaker and listener might even resolve the ambiguity differently, without even noticing that there is an ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#2. Here are some ways to disambiguate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, here are some ways to overpower (1), helping _se_ refer to the subject of the subordinate clause—though, since there are no rules, there are no guarantees, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcum se odisse, Quintus dixit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here _Marcum_ is the only available antecedent when _se_ arrives (2). If _Quintus_ is to own _se,_ it'll have to steal it from an already entrenched defender (perhaps another pressure). Cicero may have used this trick in [_De Finibus_ 5.20](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=LatinAugust2012&amp;getid=0&amp;query=Cic.%20Fin.%205.20), though other pressures are at work, too (3, 5, 6):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam voluptatis causa facere omnia, cum, etiamsi nihil consequamur,&#xD;&#xA;tamen ipsum illud **consilium** ita faciendi per **se** expetendum et honestum et solum bonum sit, **nemo dixit**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **No one** [neither Aristippus nor Hieronymus nor Carneades] **has claimed** that everyone acts for the sake of pleasure in the sense that&#xD;&#xA;even if we accomplish nothing, the mere **intention** of so acting&#xD;&#xA;is, because of **itself** alone, to be desired or honorable or the sole good  [not because of Aristippus _et al._)].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way out of the ambiguity is to use the passive voice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A Quinto dicitur Marcus se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passive voice makes _Marcus_ the subject of both the main clause and the subordinate clause. Perhaps contextual pressure could still make _se_ refer to _Quinto,_ though. Moving _Marcus_ to the beginning of the sentence and _a Quinto_ to the end would add more pressures favoring _Marcus_ as the antecedent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quomodo se aestimat Marcus? Nescio sed Quintus dixit Marcum se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here context pulls _se_ toward _Marcum_ (6), probably, but not certainly, excluding _Quintus._ A speaker who meant that Quintus said that Marcus hates himself would likely choose this wording spontaneously, without noticing the ambiguity. A listener is more likely to notice, but is still likely to take _Marcum_ as the antecedent. (_N.b._ I am _making this up_ as I am writing it. It's only a guess.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum odisse se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, moving _se_ out of its canonical position and into the most important spot, the end of the sentence, suggests that the speaker wants you to understand that _se_ refers to _Marcum_ (4). A listener could still easily hear it the other way, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of throwing in an _ipse_ to overcome other pressures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit cavum se fodisse. (Surely the speaker is emphasizing the fact that Quintus is talking about the hole: Quintus said of the hole that he had dug it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit cavum se ipsum fodisse. (Well, maybe the speaker really does mean that Quintus said that the hole dug itself.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only made that up, but [Allen &amp; Greenough §300](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-300.html) (thanks, TKR!) says that using _ipse,_ or even _is, instead of_ the reflexive pronoun can resolve the ambiguity, with _ipse_ having a stronger pull toward the main clause's subject (maybe contra what I just said):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Caesar centuriones incusavit:] …Aut cur de **sua** virtute aut de **ipsius** diligentia desperarent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Caesar berated the centurions:] …Why should they despair either of **their own** courage or of **Caesar's** diligence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you could always drop the reflexive pronoun, though this sure sounds weird:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum Marcum odisse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="1f1527de-ada4-4c5e-8b8d-d37e7d6435b1" CreationDate="2017-05-04T11:16:59.830" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="#1. Yes, it's ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is only a hypothesis, inspired somewhat indirectly by [this _Marginalia_ blog post](http://promagistris.blogspot.com/2006/08/latin-word-order-doesnt-matter.html). I don't have nearly enough experience with the language to give this hypothesis much credibility—or to reject it, so here goes. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can debunk it or corroborate it in comments. Do not take this as in any way authoritative. This post is essentially me thinking out loud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _Se_ refers to the _subject_ currently having things said about it—not necessarily the grammatical subject, but the current grammatical &quot;topic&quot;, regardless of its grammatical case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The ambiguity occurs when multiple antecedents can reasonably be understood as the current topic—as happens inside a subordinate clause. The main clause has a topic and the inner clause has a topic. Consequently _se_ is &quot;attracted&quot; simultaneously to both antecedents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A variety of pressures make each antecedent attract the _se_ more or less strongly. When one antecedent exerts a much stronger pressure than all others, there is no ambiguity. When two antecedents exert nearly equal pressures, there is ambiguity. So, **there is no rule**, only a competition in the listener's mind—and different antecedents may win in different listeners' minds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some pressures, each of which can be opposed or overridden by others:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The topic of the main clause is the topic of the whole sentence, and normally maintains that dominance even inside the subordinate clause—at least, it tends to attract _se_ more strongly by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The beginning of a clause typically establishes its topic. Regardless of its case, the topic is the anchor to which the sentence gradually attaches information, usually culminating in the end of the clause, where the most important new thing is stated. Upon reaching the first word of a clause, normally the scope of what a pronoun can refer to is limited to subjects already mentioned in the sentence, though this is easily overridden at the start of a main clause (when there's nothing yet to refer to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Analogous word orders, especially those felt to be canonical, add weight to analogous choices of antecedent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Alterations of canonical word order add weight to choices of precedent that are _not_ analogous to the canonical one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Interpretations that don't make sense repel rather than attract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Context: if preceding discourse has put a question &quot;on the table&quot;, an antecedent of _se_ that makes the sentence answer that question is favored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Juxtaposed _ipse, proprius,_ and _semet, sese_ and the like add weight favoring finding the antecedent in the subordinate clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. Irony, poetic meter, flair, whimsy—stylistic choices that run against conventional word order can reverse any of the above pressures. These depend on a listener's ability to &quot;get it&quot; and willingness to &quot;play along&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit se Marcum odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Se,_ coming first in the subordinate clause, here establishes its topic: Quintus said something about himself, namely that he hates Marcus. Pressures (1), (2), and (3) prevail, and there is practically no ambiguity (absent contextual pressures).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The familiar and canonical word order _Aliquis dixit aliquem se infinitivum,_ where _se_ is an object of the infinitive verb and refers to _aliquis_, pulls _se_ toward _Quintus_ (1, 3). But _Aliquis se odit_ is also a reasonable sentence, and it pulls _se_ toward _Marcum_ almost as strongly (2, 5). Absent other pressures, _Quintus_ will most likely be heard as the antecedent, but it's not certain. A speaker and listener might even resolve the ambiguity differently, without even noticing that there is an ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#2. Here are some ways to disambiguate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, here are some ways to overpower (1), helping _se_ refer to the subject of the subordinate clause—though, since there are no rules, there are no guarantees, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcum se odisse, Quintus dixit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here _Marcum_ is the only available antecedent when _se_ arrives (2). If _Quintus_ is to own _se,_ it'll have to steal it from an already entrenched defender (perhaps another pressure). Cicero may have used this trick in [_De Finibus_ 5.20](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=LatinAugust2012&amp;getid=0&amp;query=Cic.%20Fin.%205.20), though other pressures are at work, too (3, 5, 6):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam voluptatis causa facere omnia, cum, etiamsi nihil consequamur,&#xD;&#xA;tamen ipsum illud **consilium** ita faciendi per **se** expetendum et honestum et solum bonum sit, **nemo dixit**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **No one** [neither Aristippus nor Hieronymus nor Carneades] **has claimed** that everyone acts for the sake of pleasure in the sense that&#xD;&#xA;even if we accomplish nothing, the mere **intention** of so acting&#xD;&#xA;is, because of **itself** alone, to be desired or honorable or the sole good  [not because of Aristippus _et al._)].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way out of the ambiguity is to use the passive voice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A Quinto dicitur Marcus se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passive voice makes _Marcus_ the subject of both the main clause and the subordinate clause. Perhaps contextual pressure could still make _se_ refer to _Quinto,_ though. Moving _Marcus_ to the beginning of the sentence and _a Quinto_ to the end would add more pressures favoring _Marcus_ as the antecedent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quomodo se aestimat Marcus? Nescio sed Quintus dixit Marcum se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here context pulls _se_ toward _Marcum_ (6), probably, but not certainly, excluding _Quintus._ A speaker who meant that Quintus said that Marcus hates himself would likely choose this wording spontaneously, without noticing the ambiguity. A listener is more likely to notice, but is still likely to take _Marcum_ as the antecedent. (_N.b._ I am _making this up_ as I am writing it. It's only a guess.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum odisse se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, moving _se_ out of its canonical position and into the most important spot, the end of the sentence, suggests that the speaker wants you to understand that _se_ refers to _Marcum_ (4). A listener could still easily hear it the other way, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of throwing in an _ipse_ to overcome other pressures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit cavum se fodisse. (Surely the speaker is emphasizing the fact that Quintus is talking about the hole: Quintus said of the hole that he had dug it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit cavum se ipsum fodisse. (Well, maybe the speaker really does mean that Quintus said that the hole dug itself.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only made that up, but [Allen &amp; Greenough §300](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-300.html) (thanks, TKR!) says that using _ipse,_ or even _is, instead of_ the reflexive pronoun can resolve the ambiguity, with _ipse_ having a stronger pull toward the main clause's subject (maybe contra what I just said):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Caesar centuriones incusavit:] …Aut cur de **sua** virtute aut de **ipsius** diligentia desperarent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Caesar berated the centurions:] …Why should they despair either of **their own** courage or of **Caesar's** diligence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you could always drop the reflexive pronoun, though this sure sounds weird:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum Marcum odisse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="7d35a2bb-d3b5-4482-a49f-3e3bb431ff51" CreationDate="2017-05-04T12:13:41.487" UserId="118" Comment="added 223 characters in body" Text="#1. Yes, it's ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is only a hypothesis, inspired somewhat indirectly by [this _Marginalia_ blog post](http://promagistris.blogspot.com/2006/08/latin-word-order-doesnt-matter.html). I don't have nearly enough experience with the language to give this hypothesis much credibility—or to reject it, so here goes. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can debunk it or corroborate it in comments. Do not take this as in any way authoritative. This post is essentially me thinking out loud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _Se_ refers to the _subject_ currently having things said about it—not necessarily the grammatical subject, but the current grammatical &quot;topic&quot;, regardless of its grammatical case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The ambiguity occurs when multiple antecedents can reasonably be understood as the current topic—as happens inside a subordinate clause. The main clause has a topic and the inner clause has a topic. Consequently _se_ is &quot;attracted&quot; simultaneously to both antecedents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A variety of pressures make each antecedent attract the _se_ more or less strongly. When one antecedent exerts a much stronger pressure than all others, there is no ambiguity. When two antecedents exert nearly equal pressures, there is ambiguity. So, **there is no rule**, only a competition in the listener's mind—and different antecedents may win in different listeners' minds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some pressures, each of which can be opposed or overridden by others:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The topic of the main clause is the topic of the whole sentence, and normally maintains that dominance even inside the subordinate clause—at least, it tends to attract _se_ more strongly by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The beginning of a clause typically establishes its topic. Regardless of its case, the topic is the anchor to which the sentence gradually attaches information, usually culminating in the end of the clause, where the most important new thing is stated. Upon reaching the first word of a clause, normally the scope of what a pronoun can refer to is limited to subjects already mentioned in the sentence, though this is easily overridden at the start of a main clause (when there's nothing yet to refer to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Analogous word orders, especially those felt to be canonical, add weight to analogous choices of antecedent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Alterations of canonical word order add weight to choices of precedent that are _not_ analogous to the canonical one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Interpretations that don't make sense repel rather than attract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Context: if preceding discourse has put a question &quot;on the table&quot;, an antecedent of _se_ that makes the sentence answer that question is favored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Juxtaposed _ipse, proprius,_ and _semet, sese_ and the like add weight favoring finding the antecedent in the subordinate clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. Irony, poetic meter, flair, whimsy—stylistic choices that run against conventional word order can reverse any of the above pressures. These depend on a listener's ability to &quot;get it&quot; and willingness to &quot;play along&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit se Marcum odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Se,_ coming first in the subordinate clause, here establishes its topic: Quintus said something about himself, namely that he hates Marcus. Pressures (1), (2), and (3) prevail, and there is practically no ambiguity (absent contextual pressures).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The familiar and canonical word order _Aliquis dixit aliquem se infinitivum,_ where _se_ is an object of the infinitive verb and refers to _aliquis_, pulls _se_ toward _Quintus_ (1, 3). But _Aliquis se odit_ is also a reasonable sentence, and it pulls _se_ toward _Marcum_ almost as strongly (2, 5). Absent other pressures, _Quintus_ will most likely be heard as the antecedent, but it's not certain. A speaker and listener might even resolve the ambiguity differently, without even noticing that there is an ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#2. Here are some ways to disambiguate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, here are some ways to overpower (1), helping _se_ refer to the subject of the subordinate clause—though, since there are no rules, there are no guarantees, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcum se odisse, Quintus dixit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here _Marcum_ is the only available antecedent when _se_ arrives (2). If _Quintus_ is to own _se,_ it'll have to steal it from an already entrenched defender (perhaps another pressure). Cicero may have used this trick in [_De Finibus_ 5.20](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=LatinAugust2012&amp;getid=0&amp;query=Cic.%20Fin.%205.20), though other pressures are at work, too (3, 5, 6):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam voluptatis causa facere omnia, cum, etiamsi nihil consequamur,&#xD;&#xA;tamen ipsum illud **consilium** ita faciendi per **se** expetendum et honestum et solum bonum sit, **nemo dixit**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **No one** [neither Aristippus nor Hieronymus nor Carneades] **has claimed** that everyone acts for the sake of pleasure in the sense that&#xD;&#xA;even if we accomplish nothing, the mere **intention** of so acting&#xD;&#xA;is, because of **itself** alone, to be desired or honorable or the sole good  [not because of Aristippus _et al._)].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way out of the ambiguity is to use the passive voice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A Quinto dicitur Marcus se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passive voice makes _Marcus_ the subject of both the main clause and the subordinate clause. Perhaps contextual pressure could still make _se_ refer to _Quinto,_ though. Moving _Marcus_ to the beginning of the sentence and _a Quinto_ to the end would add more pressures favoring _Marcus_ as the antecedent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quomodo se aestimat Marcus? Nescio sed Quintus dixit Marcum se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here context pulls _se_ toward _Marcum_ (6), probably, but not certainly, excluding _Quintus._ A speaker who meant that Quintus said that Marcus hates himself would likely choose this wording spontaneously, without noticing the ambiguity. A listener is more likely to notice, but is still likely to take _Marcum_ as the antecedent. (_N.b._ I am _making this up_ as I am writing it. It's only a guess.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum odisse se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, moving _se_ out of its canonical position and into the most important spot, the end of the sentence, suggests that the speaker wants you to understand that _se_ refers to _Marcum_ (4). A listener could still easily hear it the other way, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of throwing in an _ipse_ to overcome other pressures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit cavum se fodisse. (Surely the speaker is emphasizing the fact that Quintus is talking about the hole: Quintus said of the hole that he had dug it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit cavum seipsum fodisse. (Well, maybe the speaker really does mean that Quintus said that the hole dug itself.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only made that up, but [Allen &amp; Greenough §300](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-300.html) (thanks, TKR!) says that using _ipse,_ or even _is, instead of_ the reflexive pronoun can resolve the ambiguity, with _ipse_ having a stronger pull toward the main clause's subject (maybe contra what I just said):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Caesar centuriones incusavit:] …Aut cur de **sua** virtute aut de **ipsius** diligentia desperarent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Caesar berated the centurions:] …Why should they despair either of **their own** courage or of **Caesar's** diligence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there's yet another pressure: separate use of both _se_ and _ipse_ suggests distinction, driving _ipse_ to the main clause and _se_ to the subordinate clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum se odisse atque ipsum dilexisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you could always drop the reflexive pronoun, though this sure sounds weird:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum Marcum odisse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13008" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4281" RevisionGUID="056b6f62-2644-48e2-9a60-8b70f617d3f7" CreationDate="2017-05-04T12:17:08.250" UserId="118" Comment="grammar in title" Text="Can someone help me translate these lyrics into Latin please?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4284" RevisionGUID="6d3ce9c2-2fce-487d-80dd-f906ed4b3029" CreationDate="2017-05-04T13:00:24.640" UserId="1224" Comment="Some stuff was done. This is all..." Text="I'm no expert (just a kid who's interested in the language), but I think I could translate this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Solus non sum,  &#xD;&#xA;cum memoriis convivo,  &#xD;&#xA;paenitudo domus mea est,  &#xD;&#xA;hoc est libertas vera mea. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4289" RevisionGUID="67c82111-14f4-4746-a139-d2b54bb80b64" CreationDate="2017-05-04T16:20:14.590" UserId="1388" Text="I think this is &quot;are the signs of gods [to be found] in men?&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3049" RevisionGUID="aeac7fd6-38b8-47ad-a992-d45186df2d34" CreationDate="2017-05-04T16:37:25.923" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="I'm learning Koine Greek. One of the example sentences that my lecturer has dreamt up is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Τα σημεια θεου ανθρωποις εστιν;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not exactly sure how to translate this. It seems to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are the signs of God men?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more logical sentence might be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are the signs of God for men?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess I'm confused by the -οις ending on ανθροποις. What case is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4289" RevisionGUID="e1783e6b-89ae-4388-8785-7e16f47b3cc0" CreationDate="2017-05-04T17:21:42.580" UserId="1388" Comment="Major changes after discussion in the comments. " Text="There are some references about the dative case without preposition being used to indicate the agent (e.g. [here][1]). I understand that this would result in &quot;are the signs of gods [made / made up] by men?&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder, as others said earlier, if there is more context available. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My original answer, which changed after the discussion in the comments, was &quot;are the signs of gods [to be found] in men?&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=XlqoTVsk2wcC&amp;pg=PA432&amp;lpg=PA432&amp;dq=dative%20without%20preposition%20greek&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DyJcy46F2I&amp;sig=5doQipElqsBa3_rrSHhPSqpcR8o&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiOuaWt3dbTAhWBrZQKHTjwD6UQ6AEIfDAR#v=onepage&amp;q=dative%20without%20preposition%20greek&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="882" RevisionGUID="a10f1b45-5d1a-4f89-b5a6-d49d51a05258" CreationDate="2017-05-04T21:00:16.213" UserId="45" Comment="added 415 characters in body" Text="Actually, I disagree: this sentence does have a coherent meaning in Latin, if my parsing is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than as a noun, I read *comploratus* as the past participle of [*comploro*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcomploro) which has attested forms of taking the accusative (see the first example in the linked entry). It is rare and post-Augustinian, but it is not *incorrect*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest is not hard to put together, if you understand *comploratus* as a past participle and *silens* as a present participle both modifying *ego*. The last trick would be to put a colon after *oro* and see &quot;regnet exitium&quot; as direct discourse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Prodigia comploratus,		Having bewailed these [bad] portents,&#xD;&#xA;silens, oro:				Keeping silence, I pray:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Regnet exitium.&quot;			&quot;Let destruction reign.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As @TKR pointed out in the comments, *comploratus* can only be interpreted as active (&quot;having bewailed&quot;) rather than passive (&quot;having been bewailed&quot;) if it is deponent. I do not see any precedent for this, so it turns out that the phrase *is*  bad Latin, because a passive participle cannot take an accusative direct object in this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I *still* think that this is a more probable interpretation of what they were getting at and shows perhaps a little more effort on their part than visiting our friends at [Google Translate](http://google.com/translate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Edit 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per Cerberus's comment, there is another grammatical interpretation, though its meaning is less clear. Since *sileo* (like *taceo*) can take an accusative object to mean, &quot;to keep X silent&quot;, we could interpret *complarat&amp;umacr;s* (4th declension) as genitive and *prodigia* as the object of *silens.* We thus get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Keeping silence over these portents of grief, I pray: &quot;Let destruction reign.&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4291" RevisionGUID="8ff524b9-d8f0-4143-b9f0-c3a252ba8780" CreationDate="2017-05-04T22:03:43.377" UserId="79" Text="Is there a Latin idiom for deciding to sit back and wait instead of acting immediately?&#xD;&#xA;If I want to let things evolve for a little more before taking any action, I could use the phrase &quot;let's wait and see&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I couldn't find an attested or idiomatic way of expressing this in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13016" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4291" RevisionGUID="8ff524b9-d8f0-4143-b9f0-c3a252ba8780" CreationDate="2017-05-04T22:03:43.377" UserId="79" Text="&quot;Let's wait and see&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13017" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4291" RevisionGUID="8ff524b9-d8f0-4143-b9f0-c3a252ba8780" CreationDate="2017-05-04T22:03:43.377" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13018" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="00b264a1-3cd8-487e-ae94-c92578f1b971" CreationDate="2017-05-04T23:32:09.230" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Translation of the Latin lyrics in Avenged Sevenfold's &quot;Requiem&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13019" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="00b264a1-3cd8-487e-ae94-c92578f1b971" CreationDate="2017-05-04T23:32:09.230" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|translation|song-lyrics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4292" RevisionGUID="eb22db36-edb4-479a-9397-6ccbb7d1d097" CreationDate="2017-05-04T23:50:05.557" UserId="1527" Text="I'd like to typeset an excerpt of *Metalogicus* from Ioannis Saresberiensis. The *Patrologia Latina* version can be found [here](http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/04z/z_1115-1180__Joannis_Saresberiensis__Metalogicus_%5BMetalogicum%5D__MLT.pdf.html) (MPL199 – the exact reference of the excerpt is Lib. III, Chap. 4, col. 900c.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue I have is that the editor seems to use three different punctuation items:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. `word` `.` `␣` `Word` : regular period, as in English (gray).&#xD;&#xA; 1. `word` `,` `␣` `Word` : regular comma, as in English (purple).&#xD;&#xA; 1. `word` `␣` `,` `␣` `Word` : specific comma, surrounded by two space characters (orange).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Is there really such a thing as space-comma-space in Latin, or &quot;orange&quot; commas are just regular commas that are badly positioned?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Or in other words, should I typeset the second line like this:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nanos, gigantium humeris incidentes , ut possimus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or like this?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;nanos, gigantium humeris incidentes, ut possimus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WggMB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13021" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4292" RevisionGUID="eb22db36-edb4-479a-9397-6ccbb7d1d097" CreationDate="2017-05-04T23:50:05.557" UserId="1527" Text="Is there such a thing as &quot;word-[space-comma-space]-word&quot; punctuation in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13022" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4292" RevisionGUID="eb22db36-edb4-479a-9397-6ccbb7d1d097" CreationDate="2017-05-04T23:50:05.557" UserId="1527" Text="|punctuation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4293" RevisionGUID="d48677a0-a776-4796-a8e8-de095b022272" CreationDate="2017-05-05T00:57:00.603" UserId="985" Text="The verb _ex(s)pecto_ covers this concept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, *Poenulus* 12:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exsurge, praeco, fac populo audientiam;   &#xD;&#xA;**iam dudum exspecto, si tuom officium scias**:  &#xD;&#xA;exerce vocem, quam per vivisque et † colis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; '...For a long time now, I've been waiting to see if you know your duty'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terence, *Andria* 34:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SIMO. nil istac opus est arte ad hanc rem quam paro,  &#xD;&#xA;sed eis quas semper in te intellexi sitas,  &#xD;&#xA;fide et taciturnitate. SOSIA. **exspecto quid velis.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'I'm waiting to see what you want.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *In Verrem* 2.2.127:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum suffragiis tres ex tribus generibus creati sunt, res revocatur ad sortem. perfecerat iste imperio ut pro suffragio Theomnastus, familiaris suus, in tribus illis renuntiaretur: in sorte, cui imperare non potuerat, **exspectabant homines quidnam acturus esset.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; '...all men were waiting to see what he intended to do.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4294" RevisionGUID="ae90dcf4-056e-42fa-9e22-bc094f220e34" CreationDate="2017-05-05T01:04:08.223" UserId="985" Text="The typesetter just used extra space before some of the commas to help get the text block properly justified on the right edge. So \[space\],\[space\] is completely equivalent to \[no space\],\[space\]. You should typeset without the space before the commas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4292" RevisionGUID="bb65231a-d648-44bd-ad87-dcb7895560c9" CreationDate="2017-05-05T01:38:15.673" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="I'd like to typeset an excerpt of *Metalogicus* from Ioannis Saresberiensis. The *Patrologia Latina* version can be found [here](http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/04z/z_1115-1180__Joannis_Saresberiensis__Metalogicus_%5BMetalogicum%5D__MLT.pdf.html) (MPL199 – the exact reference of the excerpt is Lib. III, Chap. 4, col. 900c.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue I have is that the editor seems to use three different punctuation items:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. `word` `.` `␣` `Word` : regular period, as in English (gray).&#xD;&#xA; 1. `word` `,` `␣` `Word` : regular comma, as in English (purple).&#xD;&#xA; 1. `word` `␣` `,` `␣` `Word` : specific comma, surrounded by two space characters (orange).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Is there really such a thing as space-comma-space in Latin, or &quot;orange&quot; commas are just regular commas that are badly positioned?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or in other words, should I typeset the second line like this:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nanos, gigantium humeris incidentes , ut possimus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or like this?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;nanos, gigantium humeris incidentes, ut possimus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WggMB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13026" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4292" RevisionGUID="bb65231a-d648-44bd-ad87-dcb7895560c9" CreationDate="2017-05-05T01:38:15.673" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|orthography|punctuation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4295" RevisionGUID="3883cd69-f360-4806-9e53-6fadc6c2646c" CreationDate="2017-05-05T02:17:20.220" UserId="79" Text="I saw a Latin inscription in a church in Rome years ago, and there was an interesting feature.&#xD;&#xA;It mentioned a pope and his *filius*.&#xD;&#xA;We were a couple of Latinists and we agreed that so it said, but we didn't know why.&#xD;&#xA;There seemed to be two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The pope had a biological son.&#xD;&#xA;2. The other person might be the pope's protégé of some kind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For most people the first option is more likely, but we thought that popes are less likely to have a son than most other people.&#xD;&#xA;This likeliness may have varied over time, but this is not actually important to my question.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know if the second option would really be a possible reading of the word *filius*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does *filius* always refer to a son or some other biological descendant, or can it also refer to a protégé of some kind?**&#xD;&#xA;Is such non-biological use, if it exists, restricted to adoptive sons?&#xD;&#xA;For example, can a teacher refer to his student as a *filius* if there is no family relation between them whatsoever?&#xD;&#xA;I am only interested in a *filius* of a person, not expressions like *fortunae filius*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=filius&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) seems to say that a person's *filius* is a biological descendant, most typically a son.&#xD;&#xA;However, the inscription was certainly not from classical antiquity, so the definition of L&amp;S might not have been valid when it was inscribed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13028" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4295" RevisionGUID="3883cd69-f360-4806-9e53-6fadc6c2646c" CreationDate="2017-05-05T02:17:20.220" UserId="79" Text="Is filius necessarily a biological descendant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13029" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4295" RevisionGUID="3883cd69-f360-4806-9e53-6fadc6c2646c" CreationDate="2017-05-05T02:17:20.220" UserId="79" Text="|meaning|medieval-latin|new-latin|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4294" RevisionGUID="8f196884-0f2d-48e2-8436-4fbd2484b22a" CreationDate="2017-05-05T03:01:29.827" UserId="985" Comment="added 1387 characters in body" Text="The typesetter just used extra space before some of the commas to help get the text block properly justified on the right edge. So \[space\],\[space\] is completely equivalent to \[no space\],\[space\]. You should typeset without the space before the commas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Update:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When interword spacing is used for justification, one of the longstanding standard principles is that you want to avoid having the large white spaces in multiple (esp. 3 or more) successive lines of text line up in such a way that they form a noticeable path or 'river' down the page; as I consider the occurrences of [space],[space] in the example, it looks to me that space is being used in front of the comma instead of an extra wide space after it precisely to prevent such rivers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I think this explanation really does apply to all instances of \[space\],\[space\] that are shown. Imagine that 'incidentes' in line 2 were followed by \[no space\],\[large space\]; in this case, there would be a strong diagonal river in the first 3 lines to the right of 'nos' – 'incidentes,' – 'non'. Likewise, imagine that 'videre' in line 3 and 'acquieverim' in the last line were followed by \[no space\],\[large space\]; in this case, there would be a 4-line river running to the right of 'videre,' – 'eminentia' – 'extollimur' – 'acquieverim,'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that, technically, there's a river at the beginning of lines 2–6 (to the right of 'nanos,' – 'plura' – 'visus' – 'altum' – 'Et'). In this case, though, all the spaces are regular size – or perhaps even a bit thinner – so the effect is mitigated and the alignment of spaces over 5 lines doesn't 'read' as a river." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4294" RevisionGUID="55bd1585-b241-4ed8-bcc7-0a9d25f04aa9" CreationDate="2017-05-05T03:21:24.270" UserId="985" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="The typesetter just used extra space before some of the commas to help get the text block properly justified on the right edge. So \[space\],\[space\] is completely equivalent to \[no space\],\[space\]. You should typeset without the space before the commas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Update:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When interword spacing is used for justification, one of the longstanding standard principles in typesetting is that you want to avoid having the large white spaces in multiple (esp. 3 or more) successive lines of text line up in such a way that they form a noticeable path or 'river' down the page (rivers that run over just 2 lines can be quite hard to avoid, esp. in a text that has many short words); as I consider the occurrences of [space],[space] in the example, it looks to me that space is being used in front of the comma instead of an extra wide space after it precisely where this is necessary to prevent such rivers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I think this explanation really does apply to all instances of \[space\],\[space\] that are shown. Imagine that 'incidentes' in line 2 were followed by \[no space\],\[large space\]; in this case, there would be a strong diagonal river in the first 3 lines to the right of 'nos' – 'incidentes,' – 'non'. Likewise, imagine that 'videre' in line 3 and 'acquieverim' in the last line were followed by \[no space\],\[large space\]; in this case, there would be a 4-line river running to the right of 'videre,' – 'eminentia' – 'extollimur' – 'acquieverim,'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that, technically, there's a river at the beginning of lines 2–6 (to the right of 'nanos,' – 'plura' – 'visus' – 'altum' – 'Et'). In this case, though, all the spaces are regular size – or perhaps even a bit thinner – so the effect is mitigated and the alignment of spaces over 5 lines doesn't 'read' as a river." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4296" RevisionGUID="2a72c5a0-ea0e-4455-966e-4d33422ab7bf" CreationDate="2017-05-05T04:22:25.200" UserId="522" Text="&lt;h2&gt;YOUTH&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--to his right a virtuous figure waves a branch (?of sweet laurel); to his left a mermaid with mirror and comb entices him off the path.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Virtute tute:* Safely with Virtue.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but both words carry baggage; **Virtus** is the abstract noun from **'Vir'** 'an adult.' **'Tute'** is the emphatic 2nd S. pronoun, 'You.' So there is a  sub-text; 'By being grown-up be (truly) yourself.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Vox læta, sed anxia lethi.***  '**The voice is sweet, but plangent with oblivion**.' (*or/* mind-troubling with nothingness)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Mermaids][1]** [Sirens][2], and, much later, [Loreley][3], all distract sailors with their sweet voices, and lure them into danger. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lethi is usually translated as 'death,' but it is one of the seven rivers of the underworld, and it destroyed memory;   **oblivion,** blurring of memory, seems appropriate here with the Student about to be distracted from his studies rather than drowned on the shore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The distracting influence is not always an animal-human chimaera. In [Boethius][4], **Philosophy** shouts at a 'scarlet' **Muse** who inspires bad and depressing poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot; quis,&quot; inquit, &quot;has scenicas meretriculas ad hunc aegrum permisit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accedere, quae dolores eius non modo nullis remediis fouerent, uerum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dulcibus insuper alerent uenenis?&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;*[H. R. JAMES, M.A  archive.org translation]*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  And when she saw the Muses of Poesie standing by my bedside,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dictating the words of my lamentations, she was moved awhile to wrath,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and her eyes flashed sternly. **Who , said she, has allowed yon&#xD;&#xA;&gt; play-acting wantons to approach this sick man these who, so far from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; giving medicine to heal his malady, even feed it with sweet poison ?**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These it is who kill the rich crop of...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; And on p.17 in '[On the Same and Different,][5]' an early work by Adelard of Bath, **Philosophy** and her seven nerds, get rid of **Philocosmia** with her five beauties, Divitie, Potentia, Dignitas, Fama, Voluptas all competing for attention. [*Adelard of Bath: Conversations; C Burnett Cambridge Medieval*][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hic illa dextra in modestum turgorem elata,&quot;Huncne etiam,&quot; inquit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Philosophia] &quot;inpudica, venenis tuis michi eripere conaris, dum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fallacias tuas et tegis nominibus et vestis exemplis? Set apud alios.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Me enim praesente...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point Philosophy... roused to controlled fury, said, &quot;Are you trying, you shameless one with your poisons, even now  to snatch this one of mine, while hiding fallacies in terminology  and dressing them up with choice gobbets. It might work with others. But with me here.....&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/mermaid&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siren_(mythology)&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorelei&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0121%3Abook%3D1%3Asectio%3DP1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521397759" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13033" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4296" RevisionGUID="91f68918-f3c3-4bcb-94fe-616765d5addd" CreationDate="2017-05-05T05:01:01.583" UserId="522" />
  <row Id="13034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4296" RevisionGUID="de69e83d-131e-4a3d-b34f-f4db4d6ae542" CreationDate="2017-05-05T05:06:06.707" UserId="522" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="&lt;h2&gt;YOUTH&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--to his right a virtuous figure waves a branch (?of sweet laurel); to his left a mermaid with mirror and comb entices him off the path.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Virtute tute:* Safely with Virtue.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but both words carry baggage; **Virtus** is the abstract noun from **'Vir'** 'an adult.' **'Tute'** is the emphatic 2nd S. pronoun, 'You.' So there is a  sub-text; 'By being grown-up be (truly) yourself.' See more [Ben Kovitz][1] /questions/4238/nil-virtus-generosa-timet **Virtus**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Vox læta, sed anxia lethi.***  '**The voice is sweet, but plangent with oblivion**.' (*or/* mind-troubling with nothingness)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Mermaids][2]** [Sirens][3], and, much later, [Loreley][4], all distract sailors with their sweet voices, and lure them into danger. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lethi is usually translated as 'death,' but it is one of the seven rivers of the underworld, and it destroyed memory;   **oblivion,** blurring of memory, seems appropriate here with the Student about to be distracted from his studies rather than drowned on the shore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The distracting influence is not always an animal-human chimaera. In [Boethius][5], **Philosophy** shouts at a 'scarlet' **Muse** who inspires bad and depressing poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot; quis,&quot; inquit, &quot;has scenicas meretriculas ad hunc aegrum permisit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accedere, quae dolores eius non modo nullis remediis fouerent, uerum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dulcibus insuper alerent uenenis?&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;*[H. R. JAMES, M.A  archive.org translation]*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  And when she saw the Muses of Poesie standing by my bedside,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dictating the words of my lamentations, she was moved awhile to wrath,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and her eyes flashed sternly. **Who , said she, has allowed yon&#xD;&#xA;&gt; play-acting wantons to approach this sick man these who, so far from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; giving medicine to heal his malady, even feed it with sweet poison ?**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These it is who kill the rich crop of...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; And on p.17 in '[On the Same and Different,][6]' an early work by Adelard of Bath, **Philosophy** and her seven nerds, get rid of **Philocosmia** with her five beauties, Divitie, Potentia, Dignitas, Fama, Voluptas all competing for attention. [*Adelard of Bath: Conversations; C Burnett Cambridge Medieval*][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hic illa dextra in modestum turgorem elata,&quot;Huncne etiam,&quot; inquit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Philosophia] &quot;inpudica, venenis tuis michi eripere conaris, dum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fallacias tuas et tegis nominibus et vestis exemplis? Set apud alios.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Me enim praesente...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point Philosophy... roused to controlled fury, said, &quot;Are you trying, you shameless one with your poisons, even now  to snatch this one of mine, while hiding fallacies in terminology  and dressing them up with choice gobbets. It might work with others. But with me here.....&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http:///questions/4238/nil-virtus-generosa-timet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/mermaid&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siren_(mythology)&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorelei&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0121%3Abook%3D1%3Asectio%3DP1&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521397759" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4297" RevisionGUID="778d5141-5590-4979-89fa-7b725b3eed6c" CreationDate="2017-05-05T09:09:44.370" UserId="1459" Text="First and foremost, **I am looking for films mostly spoken in Latin** (not just a few scenes). My search so far has been fairly unfruitful. Most of the &quot;films&quot; available seem to be amateur (by students of Latin) or very low-quality, low-budget films. (e.g. [here](http://www.lingua.co.uk/latin/films/index.php) or [here](http://www.imdb.com/list/ls055779263/)). The only decent (but old) [forum thread](http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=10448) I found seem to be negative about this too. There seem to be [a movie around](http://the-roman-movie.com/trailer/) (about a wounded Roman general, escaping to the woods...), but looks terrible, and not likely to have much dialogue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be understandable to imagine why such films do not exist. As movies are oriented to mass audiences, Latin is not a good seller. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, even if not a single, decent film script is spoken in Latin, **my &quot;second best&quot; request is for subtitles**. It would be amazing to watch, say Star Wars, Gladiator, Brave Heart, _et cetera_, with subtitles in Latin. A quick search in subtitles websites however shows nothing (many don't even have the option to search for Latin subtitles). Other [forum threads](http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/do-you-use-latin-subtitles-when-watching-movies.18818/) have not been very positive either. Oh, and [apparently](http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=10448#p79701) the Passion of Christ is in Ecclesiastical Latin, but cannot find any other serious reference of this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13036" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4297" RevisionGUID="778d5141-5590-4979-89fa-7b725b3eed6c" CreationDate="2017-05-05T09:09:44.370" UserId="1459" Text="Are there movies or subtitles for movies in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13037" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4297" RevisionGUID="778d5141-5590-4979-89fa-7b725b3eed6c" CreationDate="2017-05-05T09:09:44.370" UserId="1459" Text="|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4298" RevisionGUID="f8fd1cb0-a9f3-4b81-81c7-4c11589355f6" CreationDate="2017-05-05T09:33:15.100" UserId="324" Text="As we all know, the Romans did not have punctuation. Modern (and not so modern) editions of Latin books generally follow the typographic norms of the country where they are printed. For example, Latin texts published in France and Germany use lower-case initials for adjectives derived from proper nouns (latina, like latin, latein), while those published in England use capitals (Latina, Latin). In modern French typography you leave a space before and after complex punctuation marks (? ! ; :) but only after simple punctuation marks (. ,). But in older books you find spaces both before and after commas and full stops. Here is an example from an old book about typography: https://books.google.fr/books?id=Kdmpyl_TXQMC&amp;pg=PT12&amp;hl=fr#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;The editors of the PL were simply following the then current French style.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4276" RevisionGUID="1d88a77b-242e-4201-8292-002a36c13a99" CreationDate="2017-05-05T11:40:05.473" UserId="522" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Education: Ubera et verbera&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Braithwait himself explains on [this page](https://archive.org/stream/englishgentleman00brat#page/n9/mode/1up):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; EDVCATION preſented with an ingenuous countenance, is inclosed with the ſeven Liberall Sciences; ſo many Portals being ſhadowed, on whoſe Frontispiece, each diſtinct Science is inſcribed; neere to the feature are figured **_Breſts_ and _Rods_**: from which Adjunct he derives this Motto; _Ubera &amp; Verbera._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The breasts represent life-giving wisdom and the rods represent correction. ([Source](https://books.google.com/books?id=mOsoDAAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA332&amp;ots=vYknPm8NtJ&amp;dq=%22ubera%20et%20verbera%22&amp;pg=PA332#v=onepage&amp;q=%22ubera%20et%20verbera%22&amp;f=false))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4299" RevisionGUID="de96aa11-f0f8-44c3-9c56-a1e2c292e40a" CreationDate="2017-05-05T12:22:01.227" UserId="469" Text="[work in progress]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short answer, **no**, at least since the 1st century." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4298" RevisionGUID="36248086-6ef5-4bb6-b95b-eb1df3153d8a" CreationDate="2017-05-05T12:31:24.567" UserId="324" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="As we all know, the Romans did not have punctuation. Modern (and not so modern) editions of Latin books generally follow the typographic norms of the country where they are printed. For example, Latin texts published in France and Germany use lower-case initials for adjectives derived from proper nouns (latina, like latin, lateinisch), while those published in England use capitals (Latina, Latin). In modern French typography you leave a space before and after complex punctuation marks (? ! ; :) but only after simple punctuation marks (. ,). But in older books you find spaces both before and after commas and full stops. Here is an example from an old book about typography: https://books.google.fr/books?id=Kdmpyl_TXQMC&amp;pg=PT12&amp;hl=fr#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;The editors of the PL were simply following the then current French style.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4299" RevisionGUID="59a1a820-30d7-443f-83fa-6439136d4bda" CreationDate="2017-05-05T12:48:56.503" UserId="469" Comment="added 1638 characters in body" Text="[work in progress]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short answer: **no**. At least since Post-Classical Latin, and quite possibly from earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One may or may not believe the quote attributed to Julius Caesar when he calls Brutus *[fili mi][1]* despite the fact their relationship was aquired by adoption. Nevertheless, it is a sign that at some point later, it was considered valid and no one saw it as a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;* The Vulgate uses *filius* both to mean an adopted child and a wider kind of spiritual relationship where someone is *brought to the life of faith* by someone else.&#xD;&#xA; * John says we have become children of God: e.g. *dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri* ([Ioh 1,12][2]). This has been always interpreted as a form of adoption: cf. e.g. [Basil of Caesarea][3] (IV century), and [Augustine of Hippo][4].&#xD;&#xA; * John and Paul (among others) call disciples _filioli_ and _filii_: e.g. [I Ioh 2,1][5] and [I Tim 1,2][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque,_Brute,_fili_mi!&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-ioannem_lt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=f-9MAQAAMAAJ&amp;lpg=PA396&amp;ots=RLnyrJsvvP&amp;dq=adoptione%20filii%20dei%20sumus&amp;pg=PA396#v=onepage&amp;q=adoptione%20filii%20dei%20sumus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=jSnlYQeqI58C&amp;pg=PA212&amp;lpg=PA212&amp;dq=adoptione%20filii%20dei%20sumus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=_aM8wUkyXX&amp;sig=uhbPzmE5Eyd7H5WWa2ELyWNZt0A&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=adoptione%20filii%20dei%20sumus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_epist-i-ioannis_lt.html#3&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_epist-i-timotheum_lt.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4299" RevisionGUID="8fea5347-229f-4972-a3d8-c56913aa67e3" CreationDate="2017-05-05T13:00:55.500" UserId="469" Comment="added 1638 characters in body" Text="Short answer: **no**. At least since Post-Classical Latin, and quite possibly from earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One may or may not believe the quote attributed to Julius Caesar when he calls Brutus *[fili mi][1]* despite the fact their relationship was aquired by adoption. Nevertheless, it is a sign that at some point later, it was considered valid and no one saw it as a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;* The Vulgate uses *filius* both to mean an adopted child and an arguably wider kind of spiritual relationship where someone is *brought to the life of faith* by someone else.&#xD;&#xA; * St. John says we have become children of God: e.g. **dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri** ([Ioh 1,12][2]). This has been always interpreted as a form of adoption: cf. e.g. [Basil of Caesarea][3] (IV century), and [Augustine of Hippo][4].&#xD;&#xA; * John and Paul (among others) call disciples **filioli** and **filii**: e.g. [I Ioh 2,1][5] and [I Tim 1,2][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of that, it is worth mentioning that there have been Popes with biological children, both legitimate and illegitimate. Although celibacy has been the norm for bishops in the Catholic Church since at least very early, there have been widowed men that become Popes, as well as married ones exceptionally allowed to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly the best example of a Pope with a legitimate child is [Saint Hormisdas][7] (VI century), who was married and become widowed before he took the Holy Orders: one of his children also became Pope thirteen years after his death and is today known as [Saint Silverius][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque,_Brute,_fili_mi!&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-ioannem_lt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=f-9MAQAAMAAJ&amp;lpg=PA396&amp;ots=RLnyrJsvvP&amp;dq=adoptione%20filii%20dei%20sumus&amp;pg=PA396#v=onepage&amp;q=adoptione%20filii%20dei%20sumus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=jSnlYQeqI58C&amp;pg=PA212&amp;lpg=PA212&amp;dq=adoptione%20filii%20dei%20sumus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=_aM8wUkyXX&amp;sig=uhbPzmE5Eyd7H5WWa2ELyWNZt0A&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=adoptione%20filii%20dei%20sumus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_epist-i-ioannis_lt.html#3&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_epist-i-timotheum_lt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Hormisdas&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Silverius" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13046" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4295" RevisionGUID="af30d63a-596c-4884-8b82-25fc17a40470" CreationDate="2017-05-05T13:07:48.407" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|meaning|medieval-latin|new-latin|ecclesiastical-latin|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4300" RevisionGUID="3ce50819-33dc-436b-af77-f3bd4742b075" CreationDate="2017-05-05T14:22:29.610" UserId="45" Text="I agree with Rafael's answer. Here are some specific classical examples to support this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ***Filius* can refer to an adopted son**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Filiorum neque naturalem Drusum neque adoptivum Germanicum patria caritate dilexit, alterius vitiis infensus. (Suetonius, *De Vita Caesarum* Tiberius 52)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; And an example from Gaius the jurist (2nd c. AD):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Adoptiui filii, quamdiu manent in adoptione, na-	136.1&#xD;&#xA;turalium loco sunt. (Gaius, *Institutiones* 2.136)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ***Filius* can be used figuratively**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; extra communia censes  &#xD;&#xA;ponendum, quia tu gallinae filius albae,  &#xD;&#xA;nos viles pulli, nati infelicibus ovis?  (Juvenal, *Satire XIII*, 140-142)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; per totum hoc tempus subiectior in diem et horam  &#xD;&#xA;invidiae noster. ludos spectaverat, una  &#xD;&#xA;luserat in campo: 'Fortunae filius' omnes. (Horace, *Satires* 2.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I spent a lot of time looking, I still have not found a classical example of *filius* being used as a term of affection. I will add if I find anything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4301" RevisionGUID="ce97262f-d783-4f64-8538-e37c90eb0a14" CreationDate="2017-05-05T15:03:31.023" UserId="1224" Text="On the Medieval Latin Wikipedia page, this image is present under Influences: Christian Latin. I can make out some of the words, but I'm not particularly good with interpreting scribes' handwriting. I decided to ask this question on the Latin StackExchange, because I believe better word-recognition would certainly help here.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/MilanBTCod470BookOfHours2FoliosAnnuncShepherdsDecortatedInit2.jpg/742px-MilanBTCod470BookOfHours2FoliosAnnuncShepherdsDecortatedInit2.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;File:MilanBTCod470BookOfHours2FoliosAnnuncShepherdsDecortatedInit2.jpg&quot;/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I can recognize some of these words, so this is what I have so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;meum in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;nunc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sicut erat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;quod&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;corporis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;mater&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's seriously it. Please, help -- I'm totally lost. I don't need a translation, but if any of you have the time, I'd be glad to see it. If there are shortenings or uncertain words, tell me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13050" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4301" RevisionGUID="ce97262f-d783-4f64-8538-e37c90eb0a14" CreationDate="2017-05-05T15:03:31.023" UserId="1224" Text="What does this manuscript say?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13051" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4301" RevisionGUID="ce97262f-d783-4f64-8538-e37c90eb0a14" CreationDate="2017-05-05T15:03:31.023" UserId="1224" Text="|medieval-latin|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4302" RevisionGUID="da73a0d0-4d6b-4242-a02c-319555f957f6" CreationDate="2017-05-05T15:19:22.523" UserId="469" Text="The second half is part of a hymn, [`Memento salutis Auctor`][1] (English translation in the linked page):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MEMENTO, salutis Auctor, &lt;br&gt;quod nostri quondam corporis,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ex illibata Virgine&lt;br&gt;nascendo, formam sumpseris. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Maria, mater gratiae,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;mater misericordiae,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/BVM/MementoSA.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4302" RevisionGUID="179ed066-9422-4f2e-a099-8b2da5b82bcd" CreationDate="2017-05-05T15:25:15.943" UserId="469" Comment="added 547 characters in body" Text="This is undoubtedly from a book of prayers, possibly from a form of [Breviary][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fisrt half reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus in adiutorium meum intende&lt;br&gt;Domine ad adiuvandum me festina&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Gloria p.&lt;br&gt;sicut erat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Gloria Patri is a very common prayer, so only the first words of each sentence are writen. The full prayer is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gloria Patri et Filii et Spiritus Sancti&lt;br&gt;Sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum. Amen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both *Deus in adiutorium* and *Gloria Patri* are common building blocks of longer prayers, as in the Roman breviary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't read what is written in red, but they are [rubrics][2]: liturgical instructions to the readers rather than part of the prayers. The fisrt rubric possibly reads `ad tertiam[...]` which is one of the *hours* in which the praying of the breviary is usually divided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second half is part of a hymn, [`Memento salutis Auctor`][3] (English translation in the linked page):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MEMENTO, salutis Auctor, &lt;br&gt;quod nostri quondam corporis,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ex illibata Virgine&lt;br&gt;nascendo, formam sumpseris. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Maria, mater gratiae,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;mater misericordiae,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Breviary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubric&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/BVM/MementoSA.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4303" RevisionGUID="41d1e50a-7b09-4cee-aa8f-13852e3d8cbf" CreationDate="2017-05-05T15:30:37.017" UserId="78" Text="This comes from the Book of Hours, and is the first part of the prayers at terce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ad tertium&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus in adiutorium meum intende.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Domine ad adiuvandum me festina.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gloria P[atri, et Filio: et Spiritui sancto.]&lt;br /&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper: et in saecula saeculorum, Amen. Alleluia.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hymnus: &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Memento salutis auctor. &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod n[ost]ri quondam corporis, &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ex illibata virgine &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nascendo, formam su[m]pseris. &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maria mater grati[a]e, &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mater misericordi[a]e, &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At the third hour&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Incline unto my aid O God.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O Lord make haste to help me.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Glory be to the Father, and to the Son: and to the Holy Ghost. &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Even as it was in the beginning, and now, and ever: and world without end. Amen. Alleluia.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hymn: &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Be mindful, author of our health, &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That thou sometime didst take on thee &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of a pure virgin being born, &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form of our humanity. &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mary that mother art of grace, &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of mercy mother also art, &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see the full prayer [here](http://www.medievalist.net/hourstxt/bvm1ter.htm)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4302" RevisionGUID="1cb95cb6-4942-4b57-9d2c-6bd1dcac1cde" CreationDate="2017-05-05T15:33:25.783" UserId="469" Comment="edited body" Text="This is undoubtedly from a book of prayers, possibly from a form of [Breviary][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fisrt half reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus in adiutorium meum intende&lt;br&gt;Domine ad adiuvandum me festina&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Gloria p.&lt;br&gt;sicut erat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Gloria Patri is a very common prayer, so only the first words of each sentence are writen. The full prayer is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto&lt;br&gt;Sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum. Amen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both *Deus in adiutorium* and *Gloria Patri* are common building blocks of longer prayers, as in the Roman breviary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't read what is written in red, but they are [rubrics][2]: liturgical instructions to the readers rather than part of the prayers. The fisrt rubric possibly reads `ad tertiam[...]` which is one of the *hours* in which the praying of the breviary is usually divided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second half is part of a hymn, [`Memento salutis Auctor`][3] (English translation in the linked page):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MEMENTO, salutis Auctor, &lt;br&gt;quod nostri quondam corporis,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ex illibata Virgine&lt;br&gt;nascendo, formam sumpseris. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Maria, mater gratiae,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;mater misericordiae,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Breviary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubric&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/BVM/MementoSA.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4303" RevisionGUID="f9b01a87-ee09-4e7c-9828-6c01c983d21a" CreationDate="2017-05-05T16:20:41.713" UserId="45" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="This comes from the Book of Hours, and is the first part of the prayers at terce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ad tertiam**&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus in adiutorium meum intende.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Domine ad adiuvandum me festina.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gloria P[atri, et Filio: et Spiritui sancto.]&lt;br /&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Sicut erat [in principio, et nunc, et semper: et in saecula saeculorum, Amen. Alleluia.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Hymnus:** &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Memento salutis auctor. &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod n[ost]ri quondam corporis, &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ex illibata virgine &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nasce[n]do, formam su[m]pseris. &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maria mater grati[a]e, &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mater misericordi[a]e, tu...&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **At the third hour**&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Incline unto my aid O God.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O Lord make haste to help me.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Glory be to the Father, and to the Son: and to the Holy Ghost. &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Even as it was in the beginning, and now, and ever: and world without end. Amen. Alleluia.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Hymn:** &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Be mindful, author of our health, &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That thou sometime didst take on thee &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of a pure virgin being born, &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form of our humanity. &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mary that mother art of grace, &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of mercy mother also art, &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see the full prayer [here](http://www.medievalist.net/hourstxt/bvm1ter.htm)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4302" RevisionGUID="594f8865-d481-45d4-b440-bddc3450e99c" CreationDate="2017-05-05T16:29:55.350" UserId="45" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="This is undoubtedly from a book of prayers, possibly from a form of [Breviary][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first half reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus in adiutorium meum intende&lt;br&gt;Domine ad adiuvandum me festina&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Gloria p.&lt;br&gt;sicut erat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Gloria Patri is a very common prayer, so only the first words of each sentence are written. The full prayer is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto&lt;br&gt;Sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum. Amen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both *Deus in adiutorium* and *Gloria Patri* are common building blocks of longer prayers, as in the Roman breviary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't read what is written in red, but they are [rubrics][2]: liturgical instructions to the readers rather than part of the prayers. The first rubric possibly reads *ad tertiam[...]* which is one of the *hours* in which the praying of the breviary is usually divided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second half is part of a hymn, [*Memento salutis Auctor*][3] (English translation in the linked page):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MEMENTO, salutis Auctor, &lt;br&gt;quod nostri quondam corporis,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ex illibata Virgine&lt;br&gt;nascendo, formam sumpseris. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Maria, mater gratiae,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;mater misericordiae,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Breviary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubric&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/BVM/MementoSA.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4302" RevisionGUID="318c4296-9717-4225-af67-04e95518c51a" CreationDate="2017-05-05T16:33:33.813" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="This is undoubtedly from a book of prayers, possibly from a form of [Breviary][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first half reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (ad tertiam)&lt;br&gt;Deus in adiutorium meum intende&lt;br&gt;Domine ad adiuvandum me festina&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Gloria p.&lt;br&gt;sicut erat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Gloria Patri is a very common prayer, so only the first words of each sentence are written. The full prayer is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto&lt;br&gt;Sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum. Amen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both *Deus in adiutorium* and *Gloria Patri* are common building blocks of longer prayers, as in the Roman breviary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is written in red are [rubrics][2]: liturgical instructions to the readers rather than part of the prayers. The first rubric reads *ad tertiam* which is one of the *hours* in which the praying of the breviary is usually divided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second half is part of a hymn, [*Memento salutis Auctor*][3] (English translation in the linked page):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MEMENTO, salutis Auctor, &lt;br&gt;quod nostri quondam corporis,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ex illibata Virgine&lt;br&gt;nascendo, formam sumpseris. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Maria, mater gratiae,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;mater misericordiae,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Breviary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubric&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/BVM/MementoSA.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13060" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4301" RevisionGUID="5e7a917e-ade9-480a-b3df-4c10989120fb" CreationDate="2017-05-05T16:53:41.583" UserId="118" Comment="edited tags" Text="|medieval-latin|christianity|paleography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4299" RevisionGUID="91d7bf45-ac1c-4b31-b24a-53af562e7dff" CreationDate="2017-05-05T17:24:30.130" UserId="469" Comment="added 176 characters in body" Text="Short answer: **no**. At least since Post-Classical Latin, and quite possibly from earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One may or may not believe the quote attributed to Julius Caesar when he calls Brutus *[fili mi][1]* despite the fact their relationship was aquired by adoption. Nevertheless, it is a sign that at some point later, it was considered valid and no one saw it as a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;* The Vulgate uses *filius* both to mean an adopted child and an arguably wider kind of spiritual relationship where someone is *brought to the life of faith* by someone else.&#xD;&#xA; * St. John says we have become children of God: e.g. **dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri** ([Ioh 1,12][2]). This has been always interpreted as a form of adoption: cf. e.g. [Basil of Caesarea][3] (IV century), and [Augustine of Hippo][4].&#xD;&#xA; * John and Paul (among others) call disciples **filioli** and **filii**: e.g. [I Ioh 2,1][5] and [I Tim 1,2][6].&#xD;&#xA;* In Christianity, **Deus Filius** (Jesus) is one of the three persons of the Holy Trinity, the One God, and that of course is not a biological filiation to the person of God the Father.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of that, it is worth mentioning that there have been Popes with biological children, both legitimate and illegitimate. Although celibacy has been the norm for bishops in the Catholic Church since at least very early, there have been widowed men that become Popes, as well as married ones exceptionally allowed to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly the best example of a Pope with a legitimate child is [Saint Hormisdas][7] (VI century), who was married and become widowed before he took the Holy Orders: one of his children also became Pope thirteen years after his death and is today known as [Saint Silverius][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque,_Brute,_fili_mi!&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-ioannem_lt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=f-9MAQAAMAAJ&amp;lpg=PA396&amp;ots=RLnyrJsvvP&amp;dq=adoptione%20filii%20dei%20sumus&amp;pg=PA396#v=onepage&amp;q=adoptione%20filii%20dei%20sumus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=jSnlYQeqI58C&amp;pg=PA212&amp;lpg=PA212&amp;dq=adoptione%20filii%20dei%20sumus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=_aM8wUkyXX&amp;sig=uhbPzmE5Eyd7H5WWa2ELyWNZt0A&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=adoptione%20filii%20dei%20sumus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_epist-i-ioannis_lt.html#3&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_epist-i-timotheum_lt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Hormisdas&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Silverius" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4302" RevisionGUID="d363d107-5551-470b-b3de-d24a4798def0" CreationDate="2017-05-05T17:37:54.957" UserId="469" Comment="identified the codex" Text="This is undoubtedly from a book of prayers, possibly from a form of [Breviary][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first half reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (ad tertiam)&lt;br&gt;Deus in adiutorium meum intende&lt;br&gt;Domine ad adiuvandum me festina&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Gloria p.&lt;br&gt;sicut erat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Gloria Patri is a very common prayer, so only the first words of each sentence are written. The full prayer is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto&lt;br&gt;Sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum. Amen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both *Deus in adiutorium* and *Gloria Patri* are common building blocks of longer prayers, as in the Roman breviary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is written in red are [rubrics][2]: liturgical instructions to the readers rather than part of the prayers. The first rubric reads *ad tertiam* which is one of the *hours* in which the praying of the breviary is usually divided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second half is part of a hymn, [*Memento salutis Auctor*][3] (English translation in the linked page):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MEMENTO, salutis Auctor, &lt;br&gt;quod nostri quondam corporis,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ex illibata Virgine&lt;br&gt;nascendo, formam sumpseris. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Maria, mater gratiae,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;mater misericordiae,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** *pulling the thread* in Wikipedia I got to [another article][4] using the image giving a deeper description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book is indeed a Book of the Hours (breviary) known for its inventory name **Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, Codex 470**. The picture on the left is represents the annunciation to the shepherds (right after Jesus was born, cf. the [Gospel of Luke, ch. 2][5].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Breviary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubric&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/BVM/MementoSA.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Hours_(Milan,_Biblioteca_Trivulziana,_Cod._470)&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-lucam_lt.html#2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4304" RevisionGUID="767f3d39-47d5-446e-a322-134a2f03ccee" CreationDate="2017-05-05T17:48:56.980" UserId="45" Text="N.B. I intend this question to be strictly *historical*--not speculative or (please!) political.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Matrimonium*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmatrimonium) is the standard term in Roman legal parlance for &quot;matrimony&quot;, along with the related term [*nuptiae*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnuptiae), &quot;wedding.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is simply stated: **In Roman classical antiquity, either by legal arrangement or even anecdotally, is *matrimonium* ever used to refer to a (1) polygamous, or (2) homosexual relationship?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13065" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4304" RevisionGUID="767f3d39-47d5-446e-a322-134a2f03ccee" CreationDate="2017-05-05T17:48:56.980" UserId="45" Text="Does &quot;matrimonium&quot; ever refer to a polygamous or homosexual relationship?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13066" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4304" RevisionGUID="767f3d39-47d5-446e-a322-134a2f03ccee" CreationDate="2017-05-05T17:48:56.980" UserId="45" Text="|vocabulary|roman-culture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4305" RevisionGUID="c7bc94fa-4cfe-4427-b2ae-6f3546953278" CreationDate="2017-05-05T18:16:47.057" UserId="78" Text="I found two references in Aulus Gellius, one of *matrimonium* and one of the verb *nupta*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tum puer matre urgente lepidi atque festivi mendacii consilium capit. Actum in senatu dixit, utrum videretur utilius exque republica esse, unusne ut duas uxores haberet, an ut una apud duos **nupta** esset. (1.23.8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then the boy, because of his mother's insistence, resorted to a witty and amusing falsehood. He said that the senate had discussed the question whether it seemed more expedient, and to the advantage of the State, for one man to have two wives or one woman to have two husbands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mulieres fere omnes in maiorem modum exosus fuisse dicitur, siue quod natura abhorruit a mulierum coetu siue	quod duas simul uxores habuerat, cum id decreto ab Atheniensibus facto ius esset, quarum **matrimonii** pertaedebat. (15.20.6) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He is said to have had an exceeding antipathy towards almost all women, either because he had a natural disinclination to their society, or because he had had two wives at the same time (since that was permitted by a decree passed by the Athenians) and they had made wedlock hateful to him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(English is Rolfe's revised translation from the Loeb.)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus in his *Germania* 18.1 also mentions matrimonium in the context of polygamous barbarians, but it's a more tenuous connection, since he's contrasting the Germans' adherence to monogamy against others' practice of polygamy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4304" RevisionGUID="f802b171-feba-49ec-85b0-d2070cb60a57" CreationDate="2017-05-05T18:41:56.073" UserId="45" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="N.B. I intend this question to be strictly *historical*--not speculative or (please!) political.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Matrimonium*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmatrimonium) is the standard term in Roman legal parlance for &quot;matrimony&quot;, along with the related term [*nuptiae*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnuptiae), &quot;wedding.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is simply stated: **In Roman classical antiquity, either by legal arrangement or even anecdotally, is *matrimonium* ever used to refer to a (1) polygamous, or (2) homosexual relationship?** I am especially interested in uses of this term that imply some form of legal or cultural recognition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4301" RevisionGUID="962408d4-9cfa-4cae-8dba-708560ac003f" CreationDate="2017-05-05T19:22:48.257" UserId="79" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="On the Medieval Latin Wikipedia page, this image is present under Influences: Christian Latin. I can make out some of the words, but I'm not particularly good with interpreting scribes' handwriting. I decided to ask this question on the Latin StackExchange, because I believe better word-recognition would certainly help here.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/MilanBTCod470BookOfHours2FoliosAnnuncShepherdsDecortatedInit2.jpg/742px-MilanBTCod470BookOfHours2FoliosAnnuncShepherdsDecortatedInit2.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;File:MilanBTCod470BookOfHours2FoliosAnnuncShepherdsDecortatedInit2.jpg&quot;/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I can recognize some of these words, so this is what I have so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;meum in  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;nunc  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;me  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sicut erat  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;... quod  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;... corporis  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;... mater&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's seriously it. Please, help &amp;mdash; I'm totally lost. I don't need a translation, but if any of you have the time, I'd be glad to see it. If there are shortenings or uncertain words, tell me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4304" RevisionGUID="7718d977-8909-41b1-9b62-733e31068f7a" CreationDate="2017-05-05T19:32:55.377" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 93 characters in body" Text="[*Matrimonium*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmatrimonium) is the standard term in Roman legal parlance for &quot;matrimony&quot;, along with the related term [*nuptiae*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnuptiae), &quot;wedding.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is simply stated: **In Roman classical antiquity, either by legal arrangement or even anecdotally, is *matrimonium* ever used to refer to a (1) polygamous, or (2) homosexual relationship?** If so, I am especially interested in uses of this term that imply some form of legal or cultural recognition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="532" RevisionGUID="aaec7104-f664-4dfa-ab5d-c260a7daa587" CreationDate="2017-05-05T22:16:17.570" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In his tale of Æetes, Hyginus writes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Itaque Æeta Jasoni hanc simultatem constituit: Si vellet pellem auratam auferre, tauros æripedes &amp;hellip; jungeret &amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis &amp; Short gives this definition for *simultas*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. A hostile encounter, dissension, enmity, rivalry, jealousy, grudge, hatred, animosity&#xD;&#xA;2. a strife, contest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first I tried to translate the Hyginus passage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And so Ætes conceived this enmity for Jason: If he wanted, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that doesn't make any sense at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *The Myths of Hyginus*, Mary Grant translates [this passage][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And so Aeetes appointed this task for Jason: If he wished, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is &quot;task&quot; a recognized meaning of *simultas* that Lewis &amp; Short just leave out? And, if so, does it have a connotation of hostility, as the other definitions might suggest?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.theoi.com/Text/HyginusFabulae1.html#22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13072" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="532" RevisionGUID="aaec7104-f664-4dfa-ab5d-c260a7daa587" CreationDate="2017-05-05T22:16:17.570" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|meaning|nuance|hyginus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13073" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="8014d2ac-98ff-4096-965c-e4c8bc726aa4" CreationDate="2017-05-05T22:18:08.060" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Why is there no word meaning firearm in contemporary Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13074" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="8014d2ac-98ff-4096-965c-e4c8bc726aa4" CreationDate="2017-05-05T22:18:08.060" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|weapons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="a444b477-7c56-4ae0-852a-5a11b55c69f9" CreationDate="2017-05-05T22:20:32.703" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm trying to write a short thing about a jade statuette that my family has had for roughly forever, but when I looked up &quot;jade&quot;, I found... nothing. Well, I found plenty of results, but there was nothing about the mineral, which is what I'm looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So... what's the Latin word for &quot;jade&quot; (as in the rock)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I'd prefer an answer from ancient Latin, either classical or vulgar, but if there isn't a word from that period, I'll take the most concise word that modern Latin speakers would likely understand. It also doesn't have to be &quot;pure&quot; Latin – loan words from other languages work just fine, as long as they were used by Romans at some point. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13076" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="a444b477-7c56-4ae0-852a-5a11b55c69f9" CreationDate="2017-05-05T22:20:32.703" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="310" RevisionGUID="28f1c89f-3b9a-49cc-9f91-133b20d53b2d" CreationDate="2017-05-05T22:21:59.507" UserId="79" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="There is no simple (or even complicated) rule you could follow.&#xD;&#xA;In some cases the word *res* is ambiguous and you cannot narrow the options down to one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word can mean [so many things](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1013846) that instead of learning all the possible translations I encourage trying to get a feeling to what **kinds of** things it can mean.&#xD;&#xA;If you encounter it in a Latin text, try to figure out what the text means and then express that meaning in English.&#xD;&#xA;There may be an English word or expression corresponding to *res*, but is not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;This is different from simple-mindedly translating the text word by word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no definitive definition for *res*, and there is no way around that.&#xD;&#xA;'Thing' is a good general translation, but sometimes it doesn't work at all.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes choosing a different translation from a dictionary dramatically changes the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;To translate well, you really need to figure out from the context what the writer is trying to express.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will probably get a better feeling of the word by working with examples.&#xD;&#xA;If some use contexts feel confusing to you, post another question and ask how *res* and the sentence containing it should be translated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="25905039-cb2a-46c7-a769-b1c8223c8eb0" CreationDate="2017-05-05T22:22:30.827" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="The word *rem* seems to mean all sorts of things depending on the context &amp;mdash; sometimes it means &quot;the thing&quot;, sometimes &quot;it&quot;, and sometimes *rem* can be entirely omitted from the English translation. What is the rule for determining exactly what it means?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13079" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="25905039-cb2a-46c7-a769-b1c8223c8eb0" CreationDate="2017-05-05T22:22:30.827" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1269" RevisionGUID="1988a2a9-3b97-49f6-9184-ef24e1af4ae8" CreationDate="2017-05-05T22:23:55.393" UserId="79" Comment="added 18 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Simply, what is &quot;major subject&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;By a major subject I mean the subject a university student mainly focuses on.&#xD;&#xA;I have used the translation *materia principalis*, but I wonder if there is a more suitable one.&#xD;&#xA;In particular, is (or was) a Latin expression for this already in use somewhere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13081" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1269" RevisionGUID="1988a2a9-3b97-49f6-9184-ef24e1af4ae8" CreationDate="2017-05-05T22:23:55.393" UserId="79" Comment="added 18 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13082" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1097" RevisionGUID="b46643c7-ddcc-45c8-a141-8ed37deadae8" CreationDate="2017-05-05T22:25:53.853" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1062" RevisionGUID="7ebb723d-7c10-41d1-b500-55de6985263c" CreationDate="2017-05-05T22:28:30.690" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I want to understand a diploma text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;DIPLOMA&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;QVOD DEVS OPTIME VERTAT  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;EX LEGIBVS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;VNIVERSITATIS JYVÄSKYLÄENSIS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ATQVE EX DECRETO  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;FACVLTATIS (&amp;hellip;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I consider *Diploma* as a title and *Quod Deus optime vertat* a subtitle (not grammatically tied to following text), I can parse the sentence starting *ex legibus universitatis Jyväskyläensis atque ex decreto facultatis&amp;hellip;*: &quot;by the rules of the University of Jyväskylä and by the decision of the faculty&amp;hellip;&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The rest of the diploma makes sense as a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The real question is, **what does *quod Deus optime vertat* mean?**&#xD;&#xA;The reason for giving additional context is that it might somehow be part of the sentence that the rest of the diploma forms.&#xD;&#xA;I assume it is a separate &quot;slogan&quot;, but there is no punctuation whatsoever and the layout does not give clear syntactical clues.&#xD;&#xA;(If the second line is grammatically entirely separate from the third one, I will recommend to the university that a blank line be added in between for clarity.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best guess is that the second line means simply &quot;May God bring success&quot;, and a separate sentence starts at the beginning of the third line.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the full text for a female graduating as a Master of Psychology (with the added empty row if my suspicion is correct).&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to skip; this is just additional background information for the curious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;DIPLOMA&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;QVOD DEVS OPTIME VERTAT&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;EX LEGIBVS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;VNIVERSITATIS JYVÄSKYLÄENSIS&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ATQVE EX DECRETO  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;AMPLISSIMAE RERVM CIVILIVM IN EA VNIVERSITATE FACVLTATIS  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;ABSOLVTO OMNI SPECIMINE LEGITIMO&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ARTIS PSYCHOLOGICAE MAGISTRA&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;CREATVR OMNIBVSQVE HVIVS DIGNITATIS IVRIBVS PRIVILEGIISQVE ORNATVR  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;IN VRBE JYVÄSKYLÄ  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;IDIBVS AVGVSTIS ANNO MMXVI  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;FEMINA PRAECLARISSIMA&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;lt;insert name of student&amp;gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ARTIS PSYCHOLOGICAE CANDIDATA  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;QVOD FACTVM  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;NOMINE MEO SVBSCRIPTO ET SIGILLO VNIVERSITATIS ADFIXO  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;EGO CONFIRMO  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;LEGITIME CONSTITVTVS PROMOTOR  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;lt;insert name of conferrer of degrees&amp;gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quick English translation (as it seems to me) of the whole thing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Diploma&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;May God bring success&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;By the rules&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;of the University of Jyväskylä&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and by the decision  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;of the great faculty of social sciences  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;after the completion of all due exams&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;the exceptional lady  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Bachelor of Psychology&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;lt;insert name of student&amp;gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;is promoted to&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Master of Psychology&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and is equipped with all rights, privileges and insignia of this status  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;in the city of Jyväskylä  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;on August 13, 2016&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;which I confirm by my signature and the seal of the university  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;as the legitimately appointed conferrer of degrees&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;lt;insert name of conferrer of degrees&amp;gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13084" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1062" RevisionGUID="7ebb723d-7c10-41d1-b500-55de6985263c" CreationDate="2017-05-05T22:28:30.690" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|idiom|contemporary-latin|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4306" RevisionGUID="08c88f44-87bc-4555-8ea3-0ef2e0fde839" CreationDate="2017-05-06T05:46:20.270" UserId="79" Text="Long story short:&#xD;&#xA;I want to be able to write Latin on my phone, but I don't know how to best do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short story long:&#xD;&#xA;I have and Android (version 6.0.1) phone and I want to write in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Writing Latin is technically possible, but I would prefer to have it as a separate input language.&#xD;&#xA;I mainly write Finnish and English currently, and I can easily switch the input language by swiping the space bar.&#xD;&#xA;Changing the language does two things: It adapts the keyboard and it changes the dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;The English (or Finnish) keyboard is fine, but I don't want to mess with the dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I dislike writing on the phone, so I really appreciate offers to fill or correct a word while typing.&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't work if I'm not writing in the selected language.&#xD;&#xA;What's far worse, the device learns new words as I use them, and the dictionaries become far less useful if I mix different languages together.&#xD;&#xA;That's why I would like to add Latin as a separate language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phone has a long list of possible input languages I could install, but Latin is not on the list.&#xD;&#xA;I see two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Find a Latin input thing somewhere online and install it. I don't know how to add new options to the list.&#xD;&#xA;2. Create a blank language. It's perfectly fine if I can start a &quot;new language&quot; using the English keyboard and a custom name. I can build the vocabulary over time myself as I use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that I don't know how to do either of these.&#xD;&#xA;Could someone help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comment:&#xD;&#xA;This question is experimental; we haven't had this kind here before.&#xD;&#xA;It is very much about using Latin language, so I think it is on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;It might work better on some other SE site, but that does not make it off-topic here &amp;mdash; this is information I would like Latinists to find easily.&#xD;&#xA;And most importantly, this is a question I really want to see answered.&#xD;&#xA;However, anyone is welcome to disagree with the suitability of this question here.&#xD;&#xA;Extended commentary on it should rather be taken to [meta](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/) or [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm), but sharing opinions in comments here is of course allowed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13086" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4306" RevisionGUID="08c88f44-87bc-4555-8ea3-0ef2e0fde839" CreationDate="2017-05-06T05:46:20.270" UserId="79" Text="Writing in Latin on an Android phone" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13087" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4306" RevisionGUID="08c88f44-87bc-4555-8ea3-0ef2e0fde839" CreationDate="2017-05-06T05:46:20.270" UserId="79" Text="|technologia|latin-on-devices|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4307" RevisionGUID="fa096d18-76df-434d-8c40-b2a6002c572a" CreationDate="2017-05-06T08:06:30.677" UserId="1289" Text="Some quick fiddling on my own Android phone revealed that I have an app installed called `GBoard` which does have a Latin option. So yes, it is possible, but I haven't used it at all so I have no information how well it will handle the variation in endings of nouns and, even worse, verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if this is installed by default on my or all Android phones (I have a OnePlus Two), but it is [available on the Play Store][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you require more info than this, please tell me in a comment and I can adapt my answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.inputmethod.latin&amp;hl=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4308" RevisionGUID="9ea1eadc-419e-4a95-918c-1b77206f4c16" CreationDate="2017-05-06T08:20:59.970" UserId="1459" Text="[Multiling O Keyboard](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=kl.ime.oh) is a light and fully customisable keyboard, which provides a Latin dictionary. (I will upload a screenshot soon)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4308" RevisionGUID="44c5afc0-b2fe-487a-87ac-15c9e8ecf369" CreationDate="2017-05-06T08:26:22.700" UserId="1459" Comment="added 200 characters in body" Text="[Multiling O Keyboard](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=kl.ime.oh) is a light and fully customisable keyboard, which provides a Latin dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, you need to install that app, and then select the [Latin plug-in](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=klye.plugin.x9).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OlIs4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4307" RevisionGUID="2f1097d1-6de1-4efe-a627-0f7ad1022ee5" CreationDate="2017-05-06T08:28:45.653" UserId="1289" Comment="added 301 characters in body" Text="Some quick fiddling on my own Android phone revealed that I have an app installed called `GBoard` which does have a Latin option. So yes, it is possible, but I haven't used it at all so I have no information how well it will handle the variation in endings of nouns and, even worse, verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if this is installed by default on my or all Android phones (I have a OnePlus Two), but it is [available on the Play Store][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you require more info than this, please tell me in a comment and I can adapt my answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Small update after some basic experiments, i.e. sending texts to random friends: it works reasonably well for common verb forms and will understand hints like prepositions, but it has problems with the `-ne` enclitic and it had strong opinions about less common verb forms like `dixeramus`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.inputmethod.latin&amp;hl=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4309" RevisionGUID="7ceaa361-39e7-47da-a8f8-8892405dc17e" CreationDate="2017-05-06T09:38:49.887" UserId="1459" Text="I have found very diverse translations online:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Luke, sum ipse patrem te](http://www.eudict.com/?lang=englat&amp;word=Luke,%20I%20am%20your%20father.%20(Star%20Wars))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Luca, pater tuus sum](http://orig09.deviantart.net/51df/f/2016/053/7/8/luke__i_am_your_father___latin__by_legoguy87-d9sqk8a.png) (or in a [different order](https://youtu.be/7peadBMosmI?t=44s))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Luke, ego patrem tuum sum](http://noiamyourfather.org/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My guess**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the Latin name Luke seems to be [Lucas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_(given_name)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, I would say the vocative need to be used here. In this case, it is [Luca](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Lucas#Declension). The vocative of Pater is also pater. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, ego sum tuum seems to be &quot;I am your&quot;. Ego, however, seems to be used only for [emphasis](https://www.quora.com/When-in-Latin-would-you-use-the-word-ego-to-refer-to-yourself), and it is not necessary. Provided the context of this phrase however (dramatic scene in Star Wars), I would say that the correct translation is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Luca, pater ego sum tuum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure about the order though. Would the above be correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13093" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4309" RevisionGUID="7ceaa361-39e7-47da-a8f8-8892405dc17e" CreationDate="2017-05-06T09:38:49.887" UserId="1459" Text="How to say &quot;Luke, I am your father&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13094" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4309" RevisionGUID="7ceaa361-39e7-47da-a8f8-8892405dc17e" CreationDate="2017-05-06T09:38:49.887" UserId="1459" Text="|idiom|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4310" RevisionGUID="762026a4-1968-4b5e-8d50-c96dead5ac3c" CreationDate="2017-05-06T14:42:31.370" UserDisplayName="user761" Text="I'm studying Arabic grammar from an old text book and it uses the term Spiritus Lenis. What does it mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13096" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4310" RevisionGUID="762026a4-1968-4b5e-8d50-c96dead5ac3c" CreationDate="2017-05-06T14:42:31.370" UserDisplayName="user761" Text="Meaning of Spiritus Lenis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13097" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4310" RevisionGUID="762026a4-1968-4b5e-8d50-c96dead5ac3c" CreationDate="2017-05-06T14:42:31.370" UserDisplayName="user761" Text="|grammar-choice|terminology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4311" RevisionGUID="bb1f0784-b80c-4a70-9a07-ab0b0fa94c45" CreationDate="2017-05-06T15:19:01.703" UserId="78" Text="&quot;Smooth breathing.&quot; When a word in ancient Greek began with a vowel, ancient scholars gave it one of two breathing marks. The *spiritus lenis* (Gk. ψιλὸν πνεῦμα) meant it was not aspirated, while the rough breathing (Lt. *spiritus asper*, Gk. δασὺ πνεῦμα) meant it should be aspirated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like the Hebrew aleph, Arabic uses the alif to mark smooth breathing when a vowel begins a word. Take, for example, العَرَبِيَّة‎‎ (al \`arabiya), made up of the definite article and the word for &quot;Arabic.&quot; The initial stroke is the alif, and there is no consonant beginning the word. However, the second word begins with an ayin, a voiced pharyngeal, which gives a roughness to the vowel. Speakers of languages with pharyngeals would rightfully see them as separate consonants, while in English we tend to just use some punctuation in front (usually ' or \`)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4312" RevisionGUID="efebafe2-69d6-402c-ab45-da1e8a3bac4c" CreationDate="2017-05-06T15:36:05.570" UserId="78" Text="Give the context of the (mis)quote, I'd offer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Luca, *ego* pater tuus (sum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, &quot;your&quot; is most often the adjective *tuus*, and thus declines with the noun it modifies. Because *pater* is masculine, so too would be *tuus*. If it were 'mother', then you'd have *mater tua*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The order *pater tuus* is assured, though *tuus pater* isn't impossible. There's no reason to separate it, though, like you did. You'd only really see that in poetry, and then it's done for some purpose (either meaning or, more likely, meter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The emphasis can change depending on what you include. I think having *ego* is appropriate, but different speakers will use different things and they're not necessarily wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, for the actual quote, this would be a great example of using [*immo*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=immo&amp;la=la#lexicon). Note that Darth Vader actually says, &quot;No, *I* am your father.&quot; In Latin, this could be rendered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Immo ego pater tuus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *immo* here counters what was previously said (&quot;He told me you killed him&quot;) and points to a correction of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13100" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4309" RevisionGUID="c9601701-d45c-4c67-97f5-16a05564b7c6" CreationDate="2017-05-06T15:39:12.653" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4313" RevisionGUID="018ab42f-17b0-46f8-9e1e-5cf412168159" CreationDate="2017-05-06T19:28:28.603" UserId="45" Text="Here's a quick transcript of the preceding lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Luke: I'll never join you.  &#xD;&#xA;Vader: If you only knew the power of the dark side. Obi Wan never told you what happened to your father.  &#xD;&#xA;L: He told me enough. He told me you killed him  &#xD;&#xA;V: No, I am your father&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like C.M. Weimer's suggestion: here is a slight modification that does not require any vocal inflection to understand exactly what the *immo* is referring to. I will use Plautus as my pattern:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bal. Quid est ei homini nomen?  &#xD;&#xA;Sim. Leno Ballio.  &#xD;&#xA;Bal. Scivin ego? **Ipse ego is sum**, adulescens, quem tu quaeris. (Plautus, *Pseudolus* 975-77)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the dialogue in context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lucas: Numquam tecum consociabo.  &#xD;&#xA;Vader: Si modo vim cognosceres partis obscurae. Obi Wan numquam tibi dixit quid patri tuo evenisset.  &#xD;&#xA;L: Sat mihi dixit. Mihi dixit te eum occidisse.  &#xD;&#xA;V: **Immo, ipse ego pater tuus sum.**  &#xD;&#xA;L: Eheu! Eheu! Eheu!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4311" RevisionGUID="a784efb9-94cd-4e27-8e64-cf1a7c65235c" CreationDate="2017-05-06T19:29:23.730" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 563 characters in body" Text="&quot;Smooth breathing.&quot; When a word in ancient Greek began with a vowel, ancient scholars gave it one of two breathing marks. The *spiritus lenis* (Gk. ψιλὸν πνεῦμα) meant it was not aspirated, while the rough breathing (Lt. *spiritus asper*, Gk. δασὺ πνεῦμα) meant it should be aspirated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4314" RevisionGUID="28a146e1-6d1c-47af-affe-a0f4ab53e90d" CreationDate="2017-05-06T22:10:53.110" UserId="39" Text="As Pinkster 2015 writes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“There is an immense literature concerning the rule or rules for the use of the reflexive in subordinate clauses (p. 1125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s a summary of most important points found in volume 1 “The Simple Clause”, [section 11.124][1] of Pinkster 2015 magisterial “The Oxford Latin Syntax” (pp. 1120-1137).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question is about **indirect reflexives** (other terms: long-distance reflexives or long-distance anaphors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster explains it as follows,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**“In complex sentences a constituent of the subordinate clause may be coreferential with a constituent of its own clause (normally the subject) or with a constituent of the governing clause, not necessarily the subject”** (p. 1124). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He notes that “the reflexive pronoun usually follows the constituent it is coreferential with” (p. 1135). Pinkster also discusses four cases when the reflexive pronoun is the preferred choice – rather than the possessive adjective (non-finite clauses, restrictive relative clauses etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pinkster also argues that **the use of the indirect reflexive decreased during time and other anaphoric forms – such as the pronoun “is” and the demonstrative “ille” – took its place.** He mentions that the latter “is” and “ille” are usually coreferential with a non-subject though (p. 1133).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster discusses several examples (mostly from Cicero and Livy) where confusion is avoided by using the pronoun “is” (instead of “se” or “suus”) – see pp. 1133-1135.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613-chapter-11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4314" RevisionGUID="54547fc7-877a-4e60-a2f1-599deeb3af8c" CreationDate="2017-05-07T02:40:15.490" UserId="39" Comment="added 764 characters in body" Text="As Pinkster 2015 writes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“There is an immense literature concerning the rule or rules for the use of the reflexive in subordinate clauses (p. 1125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s a summary of most important points found in volume 1 “The Simple Clause”, [section 11.124][1] of Pinkster 2015 magisterial “The Oxford Latin Syntax” (pp. 1120-1137).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question is about **indirect reflexives** (other terms: long-distance reflexives or long-distance anaphors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster explains it as follows,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**“In complex sentences a constituent of the subordinate clause may be coreferential with a constituent of its own clause (normally the subject) or with a constituent of the governing clause, not necessarily the subject”** (p. 1124). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He notes that “the reflexive pronoun usually follows the constituent it is coreferential with” (p. 1135). Pinkster also discusses four cases when the reflexive pronoun is the preferred choice – rather than the possessive adjective (non-finite clauses, restrictive relative clauses etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pinkster also argues that the use of the indirect reflexive decreased during time and other anaphoric forms – such as the pronoun “is” and the demonstrative “ille” – took its place. He mentions that the latter “is” and “ille” are usually coreferential with a non-subject though (p. 1133).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster discusses several examples (mostly from Cicero and Livy) where confusion is avoided by using the pronoun “is” (instead of “se” or “suus”) – see pp. 1133-1135.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about your example sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Solberg 2011][2] argues that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**The LDAs** [long-distance anaphora - Alex] **in reported complement**, which I have called the normal Latin LDAs, **obligatorily take as antecedent the noun referring to the person whose thought the clause expresses**&quot; (p. 117).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, there are two competing readings of your example sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) **Dixit&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; Marcum se&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; odisse.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The referent of the subject of the matrix clause reported what he thinks about Mark (the thinker is not Mark).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) **Dixit Marcum&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; se&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; odisse.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The referent of the subject of the matrix clause merely reported what Mark said (the thinker is Mark).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613-chapter-11&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://munin.uit.no/handle/10037/3512" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4314" RevisionGUID="d8942f92-b38b-4dc3-8c96-f40480288d31" CreationDate="2017-05-07T02:49:51.983" UserId="39" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="As Pinkster 2015 writes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“There is an immense literature concerning the rule or rules for the use of the reflexive in subordinate clauses (p. 1125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s a summary of most important points found in volume 1 “The Simple Clause”, [section 11.124][1] of Pinkster 2015 magisterial “The Oxford Latin Syntax” (pp. 1120-1137).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question is about **indirect reflexives** (other terms: long-distance reflexives or long-distance anaphors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster explains it as follows,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**“In complex sentences a constituent of the subordinate clause may be coreferential with a constituent of its own clause (normally the subject) or with a constituent of the governing clause, not necessarily the subject”** (p. 1124). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He notes that “the reflexive pronoun usually follows the constituent it is coreferential with” (p. 1135). Pinkster also discusses four cases when the reflexive pronoun is the preferred choice – rather than the possessive adjective (non-finite clauses, restrictive relative clauses etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pinkster also argues that the use of the indirect reflexive decreased during time and other anaphoric forms – such as the pronoun “is” and the demonstrative “ille” – took its place. He mentions that the latter “is” and “ille” are usually coreferential with a non-subject though (p. 1133).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster discusses several examples (mostly from Cicero and Livy) where confusion is avoided by using the pronoun “is” (instead of “se” or “suus”) – see pp. 1133-1135.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about your example sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Solberg 2011][2] argues that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**The LDAs** [long-distance anaphora - Alex] **in reported complement**, which I have called the normal Latin LDAs, **obligatorily take as antecedent the noun referring to the person whose thought the clause expresses**&quot; (p. 117).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, there are two competing readings of your example sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) **Dixit&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; Marcum se&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; odisse.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The referent of the subject of the matrix clause reported what he thinks about Mark (the thinker is not Mark), cf. *I think Mark hates me*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) **Dixit Marcum&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; se&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; odisse.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The referent of the subject of the matrix clause merely reported what Mark said (the thinker is Mark), cf. *Mark told me he hates himself*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613-chapter-11&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://munin.uit.no/handle/10037/3512" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4315" RevisionGUID="2afac26b-4435-4476-9a68-910d363e6d67" CreationDate="2017-05-07T04:16:02.227" UserId="79" Text="If I want to say that two things are equivalent in Latin, I can imagine two ways using essentially the same word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *X et Y sunt aequivalentes.*&#xD;&#xA;2. *X et Y aequivalent.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Googling for the first option (with *X et Y*) produces numerous Latin texts with the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;Both intuition and [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=aequivaleo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) suggest that *aequivalere* is a verb that should have the same effect as the first option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 1 has the benefit of matching the structure used in many other languages.&#xD;&#xA;However, using *esse* with a present participle (a present active periphrasis) looks a bit weird to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is particularly common in mathematics, but not confined to that one field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference between 1 and 2?&#xD;&#xA;Are there cases where one should be used instead of the other?&#xD;&#xA;Did the participle *aequivalens* get a meaning separate from its parent verb, so that it should not really be treated as its form?&#xD;&#xA;Is either option more idiomatic or otherwise better in your opinion?&#xD;&#xA;(If so, why?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13108" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4315" RevisionGUID="2afac26b-4435-4476-9a68-910d363e6d67" CreationDate="2017-05-07T04:16:02.227" UserId="79" Text="Which one is better: &quot;sunt aeqivalentes&quot; or &quot;aequivalent&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13109" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4315" RevisionGUID="2afac26b-4435-4476-9a68-910d363e6d67" CreationDate="2017-05-07T04:16:02.227" UserId="79" Text="|word-comparison|participle|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4315" RevisionGUID="eae7a037-1524-4ba2-b10e-b3d0ab5471bf" CreationDate="2017-05-07T04:29:52.200" UserId="79" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="If I want to say that two things are equivalent in Latin, I can imagine two ways using essentially the same word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *X et Y sunt aequivalentes.*&#xD;&#xA;2. *X et Y aequivalent.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Googling for the first option (with *X et Y*) produces numerous Latin texts with the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;Both intuition and [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=aequivaleo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) suggest that *aequivalere* is a verb that should have the same effect as the first option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 1 has the benefit of matching the structure used in many other languages.&#xD;&#xA;However, using *esse* with a present participle (a present active periphrasis) looks a bit weird to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is particularly common in mathematics, but [not confined to that one field](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference between 1 and 2?&#xD;&#xA;Are there cases where one should be used instead of the other?&#xD;&#xA;Did the participle *aequivalens* get a meaning separate from its parent verb, so that it should not really be treated as its form?&#xD;&#xA;Is either option more idiomatic or otherwise better in your opinion?&#xD;&#xA;(If so, why?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4312" RevisionGUID="3269d6af-6cc8-45ae-a042-768fce0ff287" CreationDate="2017-05-07T05:09:00.573" UserId="78" Comment="added 250 characters in body" Text="Give the context of the (mis)quote, I'd offer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Luca, *ego* pater tuus sum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, &quot;your&quot; is most often the adjective *tuus*, and thus declines with the noun it modifies. Because *pater* is masculine, so too would be *tuus*. If it were 'mother', then you'd have *mater tua*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The order *pater tuus* is assured, though *tuus pater* isn't impossible. There's no reason to separate it, though, like you did. You'd only really see that in poetry, and then it's done for some purpose (either meaning or, more likely, meter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The emphasis can change depending on what you include. I think having *ego* is appropriate, but different speakers will use different things and they're not necessarily wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, for the actual quote, this would be a great example of using [*immo*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=immo&amp;la=la#lexicon). Note that Darth Vader actually says, &quot;No, *I* am your father.&quot; In Latin, this could be rendered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Immo ego pater tuus sum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *immo* here counters what was previously said (&quot;He told me you killed him&quot;) and points to a correction of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *sum* is optional, since *ego* is already spelled out, though I'm torn as to whether Vader would drop it. There's something to be said about the rhythms of a snappy sentence (without the *sum*) v. the fuller, more formal sentence (with it)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4315" RevisionGUID="c0aa888a-d0c7-4026-a9a4-42b49a111deb" CreationDate="2017-05-07T05:14:30.667" UserId="79" Comment="added 96 characters in body; edited tags" Text="If I want to say that two things are equivalent in Latin, I can imagine two ways using essentially the same word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *X et Y sunt aequivalentes.*&#xD;&#xA;2. *X et Y aequivalent.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Googling for the first option (with *X et Y*) produces numerous Latin texts with the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;Both intuition and [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=aequivaleo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) suggest that *aequivalere* is a verb that should have the same effect as the first option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 1 has the benefit of matching the structure used in many other languages.&#xD;&#xA;However, using *esse* with a present participle (a present active periphrasis) looks a bit weird to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is particularly common in mathematics, but [not confined to that one field](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference between 1 and 2?&#xD;&#xA;Are there cases where one should be used instead of the other?&#xD;&#xA;Did the participle *aequivalens* get a meaning separate from its parent verb, so that it should not really be treated as its form?&#xD;&#xA;Is either option more idiomatic or otherwise better in your opinion?&#xD;&#xA;(If so, why?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in using the phrase in today's world, but insights from any era are welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13113" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4315" RevisionGUID="c0aa888a-d0c7-4026-a9a4-42b49a111deb" CreationDate="2017-05-07T05:14:30.667" UserId="79" Comment="added 96 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|word-comparison|contemporary-latin|new-latin|participle|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4315" RevisionGUID="07b5fb28-04d1-4158-8619-f92bc261a002" CreationDate="2017-05-07T05:16:09.870" UserId="79" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="If I want to say that two things are equivalent in Latin, I can imagine two ways using essentially the same word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *X et Y sunt aequivalentes.*&#xD;&#xA;2. *X et Y aequivalent.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Googling for the first option (with *X et Y*) produces numerous Latin texts with the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;Both intuition and [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=aequivaleo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) suggest that *aequivalere* is a verb that should have the same effect as the first option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 1 has the benefit of matching the structure used in many other languages.&#xD;&#xA;However, using *esse* with a present participle (a present active periphrasis) looks a bit weird to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is particularly common in mathematics, but [not confined to that one field](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1/79).&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example sentence: &quot;The following statements are equivalent.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence would then be followed by a list of statements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference between 1 and 2?&#xD;&#xA;Are there cases where one should be used instead of the other?&#xD;&#xA;Did the participle *aequivalens* get a meaning separate from its parent verb, so that it should not really be treated as its form?&#xD;&#xA;Is either option more idiomatic or otherwise better in your opinion?&#xD;&#xA;(If so, why?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in using the phrase in today's world, but insights from any era are welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4316" RevisionGUID="69072b4e-f9af-4749-8f85-cdd27acfb9d5" CreationDate="2017-05-07T06:40:40.933" UserId="1481" Text="when pronouncing a word in classical Latin, should the heavy syllable and all other long vowels be lengthened, or just the heavy syllable ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: fació, is it pronounced [fa:kio:] oder [fa:kio] ? (in) Európá [ɛʊ̯ˈroːpa] or [ɛʊ̯ˈro:pa:]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks a lot!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13117" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4316" RevisionGUID="69072b4e-f9af-4749-8f85-cdd27acfb9d5" CreationDate="2017-05-07T06:40:40.933" UserId="1481" Text="Stress and vowel lenghth" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13118" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4316" RevisionGUID="69072b4e-f9af-4749-8f85-cdd27acfb9d5" CreationDate="2017-05-07T06:40:40.933" UserId="1481" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4316" RevisionGUID="41a821c6-8886-4306-aa9d-f362d04f1bc1" CreationDate="2017-05-07T06:46:40.597" UserId="1481" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="when pronouncing a word in classical Latin, should the heavy syllable and all other long vowels be lengthened, or just the heavy syllable ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: fació, is it pronounced [fa:kio:] or [fa:kio] ? (in) Európá [ɛʊ̯roːpa] or [ɛʊ̯ro:pa:]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks a lot!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4318" RevisionGUID="6d1d601d-4e32-45cb-b116-300b3b6f24fd" CreationDate="2017-05-07T07:50:42.843" UserId="1459" Text="It would be a great learning tool to have the OS in my computer completely in Latin. Does such OS exist? Or, maybe, did such OS exist in the past, and was not longer maintained?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, _recent_ versions of Windows [do not](https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/14236/language-packs) include Latin as a Language Pack. Yet, I know Windows had dropped some languages which were available in Windows XP (e.g. [Mapudungun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapuche_language)). Maybe an older Windows version had it? Current versions of [Mac OS](https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201841) do not support Latin either. What about other OS?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13122" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4318" RevisionGUID="6d1d601d-4e32-45cb-b116-300b3b6f24fd" CreationDate="2017-05-07T07:50:42.843" UserId="1459" Text="Is there any Operative System entirely in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13123" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4318" RevisionGUID="6d1d601d-4e32-45cb-b116-300b3b6f24fd" CreationDate="2017-05-07T07:50:42.843" UserId="1459" Text="|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4319" RevisionGUID="cdafb3e2-61e9-4a3a-acb6-285bf3230019" CreationDate="2017-05-07T07:50:42.843" UserId="1459" Text="Regarding Linux, there seem to have never existed such OS (but non existence hard to prove). As this is an open-source OS, it is based on collaboration, and as such, translation are made by enthusiasts of a given Language. There have been efforts in the past, like [KDE](https://l10n.kde.org/team-infos.php?teamcode=la) and  [Gnome](https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-latin-list/), but both seems dead. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only project I could find to be still &quot;alive&quot;, albeit with very low activity, is [Ubuntu](https://translations.launchpad.net/ubuntu/zesty/+lang/la). At the moment not a single package has been fully translated, and there are 245,352 entries (phrases) waiting to be translated. Therefore, at least from the Ubuntu community, a fully Latin OS might not arrive very soon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(PS: The advantage of Ubuntu in terms of translations, and what makes a Latin OS a real possibility, is that any translation made in the past are rolled into new distributions (when possible), and as such, are not lost. That means that valid translations last for long. There is no need to re-translate it for new releases.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13125" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4318" RevisionGUID="d38d4bdf-e58a-427f-b07a-0c9eb0aad916" CreationDate="2017-05-07T07:51:55.623" UserId="118" Comment="Corrected spelling in title" Text="Is there any Operating System entirely in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13126" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4316" RevisionGUID="8f58402d-97f1-487a-862d-a7591da9d1bf" CreationDate="2017-05-07T07:54:11.357" UserId="1481" Comment="edited title" Text="Stress and vowel length" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4320" RevisionGUID="b9153c9e-7c1e-4d0c-b306-bafcdb6d0ab1" CreationDate="2017-05-07T13:38:01.163" UserId="1289" Text="You are starting your question from an incorrect presupposition: in Latin, a stressed syllable is not lengthened. In *facio*, the pronunciation of stressed `a` is very similar to unstressed `a` in, for example, *faciebat*. Similarly, unstressed syllables are not shortened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nature of the Latin word accent has been the subject of many a discussion among philologists, but because of the metrical evidence in poetry there has never been a serious suggestion to lengthen a vowel in a stressed syllable. There are many more ways that one can use to stress a syllable, by modulating e.g. pitch and volume. Compare to the first `e` in these two English words: *example* and *level*. While there is clearly stress on the `e` in the second word, the length of the vowel is not a differentiating factor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4318" RevisionGUID="0e24cb35-6918-4f4e-965f-c19744d869fe" CreationDate="2017-05-07T18:55:26.193" UserId="79" Comment="added 19 characters in body; edited tags" Text="It would be a great learning tool to have the OS (operating system) in my computer completely in Latin. Does such OS exist? Or, maybe, did such OS exist in the past, and was not longer maintained?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, _recent_ versions of Windows [do not](https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/14236/language-packs) include Latin as a Language Pack. Yet, I know Windows had dropped some languages which were available in Windows XP (e.g. [Mapudungun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapuche_language)). Maybe an older Windows version had it? Current versions of [Mac OS](https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201841) do not support Latin either. What about other OS?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13130" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4318" RevisionGUID="0e24cb35-6918-4f4e-965f-c19744d869fe" CreationDate="2017-05-07T18:55:26.193" UserId="79" Comment="added 19 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|modern-life|latin-on-devices|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4319" RevisionGUID="2384fb9a-e2c2-4a2f-ba9d-450d88d55549" CreationDate="2017-05-07T18:56:20.403" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Regarding Linux, there seem to have never existed such OS (but non existence hard to prove). As this is an open-source OS, it is based on collaboration, and as such, translation are made by enthusiasts of a given Language. There have been efforts in the past, like [KDE](https://l10n.kde.org/team-infos.php?teamcode=la) and  [Gnome](https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-latin-list/), but both seem dead. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only project I could find to be still &quot;alive&quot;, albeit with very low activity, is [Ubuntu](https://translations.launchpad.net/ubuntu/zesty/+lang/la). At the moment not a single package has been fully translated, and there are 245,352 entries (phrases) waiting to be translated. Therefore, at least from the Ubuntu community, a fully Latin OS might not arrive very soon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(PS: The advantage of Ubuntu in terms of translations, and what makes a Latin OS a real possibility, is that any translation made in the past are rolled into new distributions (when possible), and as such, are not lost. That means that valid translations last for long. There is no need to re-translate it for new releases.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13132" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4282" RevisionGUID="24dc47f3-9a76-4d81-9070-e0c5e95582a6" CreationDate="2017-05-07T19:44:43.767" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4321" RevisionGUID="aeb38600-8132-41e3-97ec-2ba190d0a349" CreationDate="2017-05-07T20:59:17.297" UserId="78" Text="Macron's victory in France has got me wondering what would be the best way to capture the phrase &quot;En Marche&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My natural instinct is to use the *incedere* with perhaps *prorsus*, but the English meaning of &quot;to march&quot; is probably intruding into my thinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas on how to best capture the French idiom?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13134" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4321" RevisionGUID="aeb38600-8132-41e3-97ec-2ba190d0a349" CreationDate="2017-05-07T20:59:17.297" UserId="78" Text="En Marche ! in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13135" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4321" RevisionGUID="aeb38600-8132-41e3-97ec-2ba190d0a349" CreationDate="2017-05-07T20:59:17.297" UserId="78" Text="|idiom|french|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13136" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4315" RevisionGUID="520cfcbb-d991-4391-83cd-1645ff8f8963" CreationDate="2017-05-07T21:04:00.713" UserId="78" Comment="edited title" Text="Which one is better: &quot;sunt aequivalentes&quot; or &quot;aequivalent&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4321" RevisionGUID="f0171527-2384-4927-a486-a26b320b683e" CreationDate="2017-05-07T21:23:45.997" UserId="78" Comment="added 556 characters in body" Text="Macron's victory in France has got me wondering what would be the best way to capture the phrase &quot;En Marche&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first thought was to use the *incedere* with perhaps *prorsus*, but the English meaning of &quot;to march&quot; is probably intruding into my thinking. Alternatively, there's *progredior*, which might work best, as it can refer to normal going forward or military marching (cf. Caesar *Bellum Gallicum* 7.14).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any other suggestions on how to best capture the French idiom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update:  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;In French, *en marche* has the sense of &quot;moving forwards.&quot; If a train is *en marche*, it's currently in motion. While in ordinary language *marche* can mean step or walk, there is a sense still related to the English *march* (which, of course, is related to it). &quot;Marching on&quot; means going forward, and of course &quot;going forward&quot; is neatly tied to the idea of &quot;progress.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4321" RevisionGUID="ba4925b2-863f-42b0-be93-feec6c028fd9" CreationDate="2017-05-07T21:34:22.480" UserId="78" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="Macron's victory in France has got me wondering what would be the best way to capture the phrase &quot;En Marche&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first thought was to use the *incedere* with perhaps *prorsus*, but the English meaning of &quot;to march&quot; is probably intruding into my thinking. Alternatively, there's *progredior*, which might work best, as it can refer to normal going forward or military marching (cf. Caesar *Bellum Gallicum* 7.14).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any other suggestions on how to best capture the French idiom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update:  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;In French, *en marche* has the sense of &quot;moving forwards.&quot; If a train is *en marche*, it's currently in motion. While in ordinary language *marche* can mean step or walk, there is a sense still related to the English *march* (which, of course, is related to it). &quot;Marching on&quot; means going forward, and of course &quot;going forward&quot; is neatly tied to the idea of &quot;progress.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps a native French speaker with an ear to current usage can add any further detail." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13139" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4318" RevisionGUID="9021431f-4afc-4152-9586-a85b2f9111e2" CreationDate="2017-05-07T22:30:41.017" UserId="78" Comment="edited title" Text="Is there an operating system entirely in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13140" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4318" RevisionGUID="9021431f-4afc-4152-9586-a85b2f9111e2" CreationDate="2017-05-07T22:30:41.017" UserId="78" Comment="edited title" Text="|technology|modern-life|latin-on-devices|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4322" RevisionGUID="1410f83e-644a-456a-b22b-fc46ba7c851e" CreationDate="2017-05-07T23:40:15.383" UserDisplayName="user1466" Text="Perge!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See Lewis and Short entry for pergo, pergere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In gen., to go on, continue, proceed with any thing (esp. a motion),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to pursue with energy, prosecute vigorously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Cicero *Ad Familiares*, 7,18:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *qua re **perge**, ut coepisti; forti animo istam tolera militiam.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore, go on as you have begun: endure your military service with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a  strong spirit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought I knew perge from medieval mottos, but apparently I only know it from a prep school in NYC called St. Bernard's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Perge sed caute***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Go forward, but be cautious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4322" RevisionGUID="341749c8-764a-4ebb-9c66-ab305003bdf8" CreationDate="2017-05-07T23:49:23.467" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="***Perge!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Keep going!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; My suggestion is a simple imperative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. ***Forza, Italia!*** (Go, Italy!), the Italian soccer cheer, coopted for political purposes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Lewis and Short entry][1] for pergo, pergere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In gen., to go on, continue, proceed with any thing (esp. a motion),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to pursue with energy, prosecute vigorously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Cicero *Ad Familiares*, 7,18:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *qua re **perge**, ut coepisti; forti animo istam tolera militiam.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore, go on as you have begun: endure your military service with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a  strong spirit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought I knew *perge* from medieval mottos, but apparently I only know it from a prep school in NYC called St. Bernard's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Perge sed caute***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Go forward, but be cautious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pergere&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4322" RevisionGUID="cfff4409-d968-4e8e-850b-d53ffa55e298" CreationDate="2017-05-08T00:05:32.807" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="***Perge!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Keep going!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; My suggestion is a simple imperative. This, admittedly, is without knowing the nuance and origin of ***En Marche!*** in French.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. ***Forza, Italia!*** (Go, Italy!), the Italian soccer cheer, coopted for political purposes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Lewis and Short entry][1] for pergo, pergere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In gen., to go on, continue, proceed with any thing (esp. a motion),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to pursue with energy, prosecute vigorously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Cicero *Ad Familiares*, 7,18:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *qua re **perge**, ut coepisti; forti animo istam tolera militiam.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore, go on as you have begun: endure your military service with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a  strong spirit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought I knew *perge* from medieval mottos, but apparently I only know it from a prep school in NYC called St. Bernard's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Perge sed caute***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Go forward, but be cautious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pergere&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4322" RevisionGUID="0a4d2b9b-3e0d-4cc8-acb3-08ce8f14a848" CreationDate="2017-05-08T00:36:09.537" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="french meaning of ca marche." Text="***Perge!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Keep going!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; My suggestion is a simple imperative. This, admittedly, is without knowing the nuance and origin of ***En Marche!*** in French. My French knowledge does, however, tell me how important the phrases &quot; ca (with cedille) marche.&quot; and &quot;ca ne marche pas&quot; are.  That works.  That doesn't work.  My suggestion is only capturing the idea of movement forward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. ***Forza, Italia!*** (Go, Italy!), the Italian soccer cheer, coopted for political purposes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Lewis and Short entry][1] for pergo, pergere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In gen., to go on, continue, proceed with any thing (esp. a motion),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to pursue with energy, prosecute vigorously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Cicero *Ad Familiares*, 7,18:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *qua re **perge**, ut coepisti; forti animo istam tolera militiam.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore, go on as you have begun: endure your military service with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a  strong spirit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought I knew *perge* from medieval mottos, but apparently I only know it from a prep school in NYC called St. Bernard's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Perge sed caute***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Go forward, but be cautious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pergere&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4323" RevisionGUID="9479c450-4f9e-4f0d-89ea-9784e98de2d1" CreationDate="2017-05-08T00:36:11.897" UserId="1224" Text="*Esse* could indeed be paired with a present participle, at least in Medieval Latin. Like Greek, this forms a periphrastic tense, which is pretty much the same as the English progressive, as far as I know. Similar to word order, its use was usually a matter of preference.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4324" RevisionGUID="f9735fc0-6b62-415f-ac67-0180ea0241be" CreationDate="2017-05-08T05:27:07.913" UserId="79" Text="My simple suggestion: ***Prorsum!*** (Forwards!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No Latin phrase will be able to capture the French &quot;en marche&quot; perfectly &amp;mdash; unless you are overly verbose, but that dilutes the slogan.&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure this is a good match (French is my sixth best language&amp;hellip;), but let me still try to reason why it might work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original French phrase is not a verb but an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;Although similar meanings can be capture with Latin verbs in various forms (*incede*, *incedamus*, and similarly with several other verbs), I find it a little more natural to use an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;This shifts the focus from a specific action to a specific **direction**.&#xD;&#xA;I don't think *prorsus* and &quot;en marche&quot; describe exactly the same direction, but it was the closest Latin adverb I could think of.&#xD;&#xA;There is a greater variety to choose from in verbs, but I prefer an adverb if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me also point out that *prorsum* (or *prorsus*) does not comment on the current state of affairs.&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of something like &quot;continue!&quot; depends on the (desirability of) status quo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want, you can consider adding *una* (together) to *prorsum*, but I'm not sure if that takes the tone closer to or further from the original French." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4324" RevisionGUID="8726e09f-d44f-42eb-a709-9580f04eace1" CreationDate="2017-05-08T05:38:34.750" UserId="79" Comment="added 165 characters in body" Text="My simple suggestion: ***Pr&amp;omacr;rsum!*** (Forwards!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No Latin phrase will be able to capture the French &quot;en marche&quot; perfectly &amp;mdash; unless you are overly verbose, but that dilutes the slogan.&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure this is a good match (French is my sixth best language&amp;hellip;), but let me still try to reason why it might work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original French phrase is not a verb but an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;Although similar meanings can be capture with Latin verbs in various forms (*incede*, *incedamus*, and similarly with several other verbs), I find it a little more natural to use an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;This shifts the focus from a specific action to a specific **direction**.&#xD;&#xA;I don't think *prorsus* and &quot;en marche&quot; describe exactly the same direction, but it was the closest Latin adverb I could think of.&#xD;&#xA;There is a greater variety to choose from in verbs, but I prefer an adverb if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me also point out that *prorsum* (or *prorsus*) does not comment on the current state of affairs.&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of something like &quot;continue!&quot; depends on the (desirability of) status quo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want, you can consider adding *una* (together) to *prorsum*, but I'm not sure if that takes the tone closer to or further from the original French.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the adverb *prorsus* or *prorsum* can have a short or long *o*.&#xD;&#xA;Macron seems very appropriate to use in this context, so I chose a long one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="551" RevisionGUID="0e272505-9776-4d9c-96a0-5882f1ab3e75" CreationDate="2017-05-08T06:22:25.340" UserId="79" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="Not best of my elegiac couplets, but here goes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sic tibi rex iuvenis gracili ore piloque Kalendis  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;hac forma lyrica littera quaeque datur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Free translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Young king with simple face and hair, this is how you are given every letter through this lyrical form on the first day of the month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I never use J when writing Latin, but the couplet does contain one if you are inclined to use it (*juvenis*).&#xD;&#xA;The only missing letter is Z, but that is [not much of a Latin letter](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/34/79).&#xD;&#xA;Also, not all vowels are included in both lengths.&#xD;&#xA;If you would prefer to have a Z and macrons, let me know and I will see what I can do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there is no such meta phrase in classical literature, which gives all the letters and tells that it does so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4325" RevisionGUID="25a9ccef-937e-4db0-a8aa-1420990c255a" CreationDate="2017-05-08T15:17:54.763" UserId="78" Text="From [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2763/78), I'm curious what the poet is doing with *quam Karus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sic fugiens, dux, zelotypos quam Karus haberis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus fleeing, O leader, you are regarded with jealousy like Karus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagery aside, it looks unusual to me, since *zelotypos* isn't a comparative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not so sure section 9 under L&amp;S works applies here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13157" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4325" RevisionGUID="25a9ccef-937e-4db0-a8aa-1420990c255a" CreationDate="2017-05-08T15:17:54.763" UserId="78" Text="zelotypos quam Karus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13158" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4325" RevisionGUID="25a9ccef-937e-4db0-a8aa-1420990c255a" CreationDate="2017-05-08T15:17:54.763" UserId="78" Text="|adverb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="164" RevisionGUID="f17954ae-bd36-4107-aec4-7fd86b48aed8" CreationDate="2017-05-08T17:21:02.690" UserId="78" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="The primary eras of Latin, with approximate dates, are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Old](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin) (before 75 BC) [tag:old-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Classical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Latin) (75 BC to AD 300) [tag:classical-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Late](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin) (300–500) [tag:late-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Medieval](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Latin) (500–1400) [tag:medieval-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [New/Modern](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Latin) (1400–1900) [tag:new-latin]&#xD;&#xA;- [Contemporary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_Latin) (1900–present) [tag:contemporary-latin]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions concerning specifically spoken Latin until the 6th century, use [tag:vulgar-latin].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For changes in Latin within and especially across eras, use [tag:language-evolution]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="165" RevisionGUID="29763959-111d-4300-9bd7-9d9ab2f67b3b" CreationDate="2017-05-08T17:21:02.690" UserId="78" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Questions concerning Latin of the classical era, approximately 75 BC to AD 300" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4326" RevisionGUID="2b7332a7-fda2-4760-aacc-ce6ec023261d" CreationDate="2017-05-08T17:25:06.523" UserId="78" Text="Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Definition of *amare*.  &#xD;&#xA;How do *amare* &amp; *diligere* differ?  &#xD;&#xA;What does the phrase *in amore* mean?  &#xD;&#xA;Is the right spelling *diligere* or *deligere*?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This should not be used for grammatical questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13162" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4326" RevisionGUID="2b7332a7-fda2-4760-aacc-ce6ec023261d" CreationDate="2017-05-08T17:25:06.523" UserId="78" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4327" RevisionGUID="d57926fa-8f9c-438f-adeb-2a9d95618677" CreationDate="2017-05-08T17:25:06.523" UserId="78" Text="This tag is for questions concerning the meaning and usage of individual words or a few words in conjunction with each other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13164" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4327" RevisionGUID="d57926fa-8f9c-438f-adeb-2a9d95618677" CreationDate="2017-05-08T17:25:06.523" UserId="78" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4328" RevisionGUID="4948d4fe-d024-49f3-8135-777354af7ad5" CreationDate="2017-05-08T17:30:40.583" UserId="78" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13166" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4328" RevisionGUID="4948d4fe-d024-49f3-8135-777354af7ad5" CreationDate="2017-05-08T17:30:40.583" UserId="78" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4329" RevisionGUID="76b740b1-8ecf-4596-bb7d-5c088b7909ea" CreationDate="2017-05-08T17:30:40.583" UserId="78" Text="This tag is used for questions concerning the liturgical and codified language of the church from the end of antiquity until today." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13168" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4329" RevisionGUID="76b740b1-8ecf-4596-bb7d-5c088b7909ea" CreationDate="2017-05-08T17:30:40.583" UserId="78" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4330" RevisionGUID="33b450ed-1716-459d-b6a4-6af61f9aa331" CreationDate="2017-05-08T18:54:18.607" UserId="79" Text="I don't think any comparison is implied.&#xD;&#xA;I would read *quam Karus* as &quot;(just) like Karus&quot;, as in the translation you give.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=quam&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) says that *quam* can be used with an elliptic *tam* (II.A.2).&#xD;&#xA;In this reading *quam* does not seem to differ much from *sicut*.&#xD;&#xA;That is, *zelotypos quam Karus haberis &amp;approx; tam zelotypos quam Karus haberis &amp;approx; zelotypos haberis sicut Karus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if *sic* and *quam* should be parsed as a pair in the spirit of II.A.9 in L&amp;S.&#xD;&#xA;I would rather consider them separate, with an implicit *tam* to go with *quam*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I got the impression that *zelotypus* is typically spelled with *-us*.&#xD;&#xA;The word seems to have a Greek origin, so the Grecism in the nominative is understandable.&#xD;&#xA;Choosing between the nominative endings has no effect on whether all letters of the alphabet are covered or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4324" RevisionGUID="7d2266ad-04db-41d5-a2fa-82628869420e" CreationDate="2017-05-08T21:17:55.430" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="My simple suggestion: ***Pr&amp;omacr;rsum!*** (Forwards!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No Latin phrase will be able to capture the French &quot;en marche&quot; perfectly &amp;mdash; unless you are overly verbose, but that dilutes the slogan.&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure this is a good match (French is my sixth best language&amp;hellip;), but let me still try to reason why it might work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original French phrase is not a verb but an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;Although similar meanings can be captured with Latin verbs in various forms (*incede*, *incedamus*, and similarly with several other verbs), I find it a little more natural to use an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;This shifts the focus from a specific action to a specific **direction**.&#xD;&#xA;I don't think *prorsus* and &quot;en marche&quot; describe exactly the same direction, but it was the closest Latin adverb I could think of.&#xD;&#xA;There is a greater variety to choose from in verbs, but I prefer an adverb if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me also point out that *prorsum* (or *prorsus*) does not comment on the current state of affairs.&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of something like &quot;continue!&quot; depends on the (desirability of) status quo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want, you can consider adding *una* (together) to *prorsum*, but I'm not sure if that takes the tone closer to or further from the original French.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the adverb *prorsus* or *prorsum* can have a short or long *o*.&#xD;&#xA;Macron seems very appropriate to use in this context, so I chose a long one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4322" RevisionGUID="a9c3b5be-57c4-44bb-bd77-ceee715dcc1f" CreationDate="2017-05-08T22:15:34.717" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="Seneca &amp; new suggestions" Text="***Perge!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Keep going!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; My suggestion is a simple imperative. This, admittedly, is without knowing the nuance and origin of ***En Marche!*** in French. My French knowledge does, however, tell me how important the phrases &quot; ca (with cedille) marche.&quot; and &quot;ca ne marche pas&quot; are.  That works.  That doesn't work.  My suggestion is only capturing the idea of movement forward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. ***Forza, Italia!*** (Go, Italy!), the Italian soccer cheer, coopted for political purposes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Lewis and Short entry][1] for pergo, pergere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In gen., to go on, continue, proceed with any thing (esp. a motion),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to pursue with energy, prosecute vigorously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Cicero *Ad Familiares*, 7,18:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *qua re **perge**, ut coepisti; forti animo istam tolera militiam.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore, go on as you have begun: endure your military service with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a  strong spirit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought I knew *perge* from medieval mottos, but apparently I only know it from a prep school in NYC called St. Bernard's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Perge sed caute***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Go forward, but be cautious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***POST SCRIPTAM***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another possible translation of the idea of ***En Marche!***:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Pergentes quo eundum est!***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Quo eundum est!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can tell by my original answer,I liked the verb pergere. I agreed with comments about possible use of gerund or gerundive. I myself had been wondering about a participle.  So, I did a search on gerund and participle forms.  I found an intriguing sentence in Seneca that gave me the ideas above. It is in a discussion of the right way to live. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca *De Vita Beata, VII,1* ([accessed on Perseus][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Nihil ergo magis praestandum est, quam ne pecorum ritu sequamur&#xD;&#xA;&gt; antecedentium gregem, **pergentes non quo eundum est, sed quo itur**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nothing, therefore, is more important than that we should not, like sheep, &gt;follow the flock that has gone before us, and thus proceed not whither we &gt;ought, but whither the rest are going.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([translated by Aubrey Stewart,][3] M.A., Late Fellow of Trinity College Cambridge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pergere&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://http:/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Sen.%20Vit.%20Beat.&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://http:/https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_a_Happy_Life/Book_I&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I've simply made Seneca's negative a positive,  ***quo eundum est*** from the negative ***non quo eundum est***.  The idea of  direction is marked by ***quo***. The contrast between going the way that must gone (***quo eundum est***) and taking the way that just follows the path set by the previous flock (***quo itur***) maybe gets at the element of change ***En Marche!*** connotes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4322" RevisionGUID="0fb8f747-789a-42eb-8300-97d3811e8d05" CreationDate="2017-05-08T22:26:01.657" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="Seneca &amp; new suggestions" Text="***Quo Eundum Est!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(See explanation of new answer in my post script at bottom of page.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Perge!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Keep going!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; My suggestion is a simple imperative. This, admittedly, is without knowing the nuance and origin of ***En Marche!*** in French. My French knowledge does, however, tell me how important the phrases &quot; ca (with cedille) marche.&quot; and &quot;ca ne marche pas&quot; are.  That works.  That doesn't work.  My suggestion is only capturing the idea of movement forward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. ***Forza, Italia!*** (Go, Italy!), the Italian soccer cheer, coopted for political purposes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Lewis and Short entry][1] for pergo, pergere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In gen., to go on, continue, proceed with any thing (esp. a motion),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to pursue with energy, prosecute vigorously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Cicero *Ad Familiares*, 7,18:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *qua re **perge**, ut coepisti; forti animo istam tolera militiam.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore, go on as you have begun: endure your military service with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a  strong spirit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought I knew *perge* from medieval mottos, but apparently I only know it from a prep school in NYC called St. Bernard's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Perge sed caute***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Go forward, but be cautious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;==========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***POST SCRIPTAM***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another possible translation of the idea of ***En Marche!***:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Pergentes quo eundum est!***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Quo eundum est!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can tell by my original answer, I liked the verb pergere to show movement forward. I agreed with comments about possible use of gerund or gerundive. I myself had been wondering about a participle.  So, I did a search on gerund and participle forms.  I found an intriguing sentence in Seneca that gave me the ideas above. It is in a discussion of the right way to live. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca *De Vita Beata, VII,1* ([accessed on Perseus][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Nihil ergo magis praestandum est, quam ne pecorum ritu sequamur&#xD;&#xA;&gt; antecedentium gregem, **pergentes non quo eundum est, sed quo itur**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nothing, therefore, is more important than that we should not, like sheep, &gt;follow the flock that has gone before us, and thus proceed not whither we &gt;ought, but whither the rest are going.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([translated by Aubrey Stewart,][3] M.A., Late Fellow of Trinity College Cambridge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pergere&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://http:/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Sen.%20Vit.%20Beat.&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://http:/https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_a_Happy_Life/Book_I&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I've simply made Seneca's negative a positive,  ***quo eundum est*** from the negative ***non quo eundum est***.  The idea of  direction is marked by ***quo***. The contrast between going the way that must gone (***quo eundum est***) and taking the way that just follows the path set by the previous flock (***quo itur***) maybe gets at the element of change ***En Marche!*** connotes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4322" RevisionGUID="9c7a6a30-79fb-4255-94e4-b40e4c72cb15" CreationDate="2017-05-08T22:34:59.587" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="deleted 82 characters in body" Text="***Quo Eundum Est!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(See explanation of new answer in my post script at bottom of page.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Perge!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Keep going!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; My suggestion is a simple imperative. This, admittedly, is without knowing the nuance and origin of ***En Marche!*** in French. My French knowledge does, however, tell me how important the phrases &quot; ca (with cedille) marche.&quot; and &quot;ca ne marche pas&quot; are.  That works.  That doesn't work.  My suggestion is only capturing the idea of movement forward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. ***Forza, Italia!*** (Go, Italy!), the Italian soccer cheer, coopted for political purposes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Lewis and Short entry][1] for pergo, pergere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In gen., to go on, continue, proceed with any thing (esp. a motion),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to pursue with energy, prosecute vigorously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Cicero *Ad Familiares*, 7,18:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *qua re **perge**, ut coepisti; forti animo istam tolera militiam.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore, go on as you have begun: endure your military service with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a  strong spirit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought I knew *perge* from medieval mottos, but apparently I only know it from a prep school in NYC called St. Bernard's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Perge sed caute***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Go forward, but be cautious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;==========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***POST SCRIPTAM***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another possible translation of the idea of ***En Marche!***:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Pergentes quo eundum est!***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or just:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Quo eundum est!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can tell by my original answer, I liked the verb pergere to show movement forward. I agreed with comments about possible use of gerund or gerundive. I myself had been wondering about a participle.  So, I did a search on gerund and participle forms.  I found an intriguing sentence in Seneca that gave me the ideas above. It is in a discussion of the right way to live. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca *De Vita Beata, VII,1* ([accessed on Perseus][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Nihil ergo magis praestandum est, quam ne pecorum ritu sequamur&#xD;&#xA;&gt; antecedentium gregem, **pergentes non quo eundum est, sed quo itur**.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nothing, therefore, is more important than that we should not, like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sheep, follow the flock that has gone before us, and thus proceed not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whither we ought, but whither the rest are going&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pergere&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://http:/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Sen.%20Vit.%20Beat.&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://http:/https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_a_Happy_Life/Book_I&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I've simply made Seneca's negative a positive,  ***quo eundum est*** from the negative ***non quo eundum est***.  The idea of  direction is marked by ***quo***. The contrast between going the way that must gone (***quo eundum est***) and taking the way that just follows the path set by the previous flock (***quo itur***) maybe gets at the element of change ***En Marche!*** connotes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4322" RevisionGUID="61d2667c-2378-43bb-b738-755dbddf63af" CreationDate="2017-05-08T22:43:16.013" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="Quo eundum (without est)" Text="***Quo Eundum!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(See explanation of new answer in my post script at bottom of page.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Perge!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Keep going!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; My suggestion is a simple imperative. This, admittedly, is without knowing the nuance and origin of ***En Marche!*** in French. My French knowledge does, however, tell me how important the phrases &quot; ca (with cedille) marche.&quot; and &quot;ca ne marche pas&quot; are.  That works.  That doesn't work.  My suggestion is only capturing the idea of movement forward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. ***Forza, Italia!*** (Go, Italy!), the Italian soccer cheer, coopted for political purposes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Lewis and Short entry][1] for pergo, pergere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In gen., to go on, continue, proceed with any thing (esp. a motion),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to pursue with energy, prosecute vigorously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Cicero *Ad Familiares*, 7,18:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *qua re **perge**, ut coepisti; forti animo istam tolera militiam.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore, go on as you have begun: endure your military service with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a  strong spirit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought I knew *perge* from medieval mottos, but apparently I only know it from a prep school in NYC called St. Bernard's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Perge sed caute***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Go forward, but be cautious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;==========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***POST SCRIPTAM***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another possible translation of the idea of ***En Marche!***:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Pergentes quo eundum est!***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or just:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Quo eundum est!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can tell by my original answer, I liked the verb pergere to show movement forward. I agreed with comments about possible use of gerund or gerundive. I myself had been wondering about a participle.  So, I did a search on gerund and participle forms.  I found an intriguing sentence in Seneca that gave me the ideas above. It is in a discussion of the right way to live. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca *De Vita Beata, VII,1* ([accessed on Perseus][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Nihil ergo magis praestandum est, quam ne pecorum ritu sequamur&#xD;&#xA;&gt; antecedentium gregem, **pergentes non quo eundum est, sed quo itur**.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nothing, therefore, is more important than that we should not, like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sheep, follow the flock that has gone before us, and thus proceed not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whither we ought, but whither the rest are going&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pergere&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://http:/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Sen.%20Vit.%20Beat.&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://http:/https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_a_Happy_Life/Book_I&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I've simply made Seneca's negative a positive,  ***quo eundum est*** from the negative ***non quo eundum est***.  The idea of  direction is marked by ***quo***. The contrast between going the way that must gone (***quo eundum est***) and taking the way that just follows the path set by the previous flock (***quo itur***) maybe gets at the element of change ***En Marche!*** connotes. I dropped the ***est*** of ***eundum est*** to make a compact two  word phrase not emulation of the French.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4322" RevisionGUID="95e0e648-0e06-4f1f-81ce-bff50bac929b" CreationDate="2017-05-08T22:49:09.607" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="Quo eundum (without est)" Text="***Quo Eundum!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(See explanation of new answer in my post script at bottom of page.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Perge!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Keep going!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; My suggestion is a simple imperative. This, admittedly, is without knowing the nuance and origin of ***En Marche!*** in French. My French knowledge does, however, tell me how important the phrases &quot; ca (with cedille) marche.&quot; and &quot;ca ne marche pas&quot; are.  That works.  That doesn't work.  My suggestion is only capturing the idea of movement forward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. ***Forza, Italia!*** (Go, Italy!), the Italian soccer cheer, coopted for political purposes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Lewis and Short entry][1] for pergo, pergere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In gen., to go on, continue, proceed with any thing (esp. a motion),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to pursue with energy, prosecute vigorously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Cicero *Ad Familiares*, 7,18:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *qua re **perge**, ut coepisti; forti animo istam tolera militiam.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore, go on as you have begun: endure your military service with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a  strong spirit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought I knew *perge* from medieval mottos, but apparently I only know it from a prep school in NYC called St. Bernard's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Perge sed caute***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Go forward, but be cautious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;==========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***POST SCRIPTAM***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another possible translation of the idea of ***En Marche!***:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Pergentes quo eundum est!***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Quo eundum est!***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or just:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Quo Eundum!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can tell by my original answer, I liked the verb pergere to show movement forward. I agreed with comments about possible use of gerund or gerundive. I myself had been wondering about a participle.  So, I did a search on gerund and participle forms.  I found an intriguing sentence in Seneca that gave me the ideas above. It is in a discussion of the right way to live. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca *De Vita Beata, VII,1* ([accessed on Perseus][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Nihil ergo magis praestandum est, quam ne pecorum ritu sequamur&#xD;&#xA;&gt; antecedentium gregem, **pergentes non quo eundum est, sed quo itur**.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nothing, therefore, is more important than that we should not, like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sheep, follow the flock that has gone before us, and thus proceed not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whither we ought, but whither the rest are going&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pergere&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://http:/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Sen.%20Vit.%20Beat.&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://http:/https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_a_Happy_Life/Book_I&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I've simply made Seneca's negative a positive,  ***quo eundum est*** from the negative ***non quo eundum est***.  The idea of  direction is marked by ***quo***. The contrast between going the way that must gone (***quo eundum est***) and taking the way that just follows the path set by the previous flock (***quo itur***) maybe gets at the element of change ***En Marche!*** connotes. I dropped the ***est*** of ***eundum est*** to make a compact two  word phrase not emulation of the French.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4331" RevisionGUID="9a61b91c-031f-4598-b871-1a0b41cfce43" CreationDate="2017-05-08T22:52:03.437" UserId="30" Text="How you would translate it also depends on which possible context of the phrase you want to capture. Is it more like &quot;we should be marching!&quot;, or &quot;we will succeed by/in marching forward&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be inclined towards a simple adhorative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Progrediamur!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is best translated as &quot;let us go forward!&quot;. It is a present subjunctive used in its adhortative function. It is passive because *progredior* is a deponent verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a gerund is also possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Progrediundo!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Progrediundo vincemus!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Marching forward (we will win)!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Replace the *u* with an *e* if you so prefer: the *u* is I believe a bit more archaic or poetic, but that might fit the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4322" RevisionGUID="ed108fb7-3b7e-4f96-b636-dae37276a976" CreationDate="2017-05-08T23:01:20.977" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="***Quo Eundum!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(See explanation of new answer in my post script at bottom of page.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Perge!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Keep going!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; My suggestion is a simple imperative. This, admittedly, is without knowing the nuance and origin of ***En Marche!*** in French. My French knowledge does, however, tell me how important the phrases &quot; ca (with cedille) marche.&quot; and &quot;ca ne marche pas&quot; are.  That works.  That doesn't work.  My suggestion is only capturing the idea of movement forward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. ***Forza, Italia!*** (Go, Italy!), the Italian soccer cheer, coopted for political purposes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Lewis and Short entry][1] for pergo, pergere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In gen., to go on, continue, proceed with any thing (esp. a motion),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to pursue with energy, prosecute vigorously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Cicero *Ad Familiares*, 7,18:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *qua re **perge**, ut coepisti; forti animo istam tolera militiam.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore, go on as you have begun: endure your military service with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a  strong spirit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought I knew *perge* from medieval mottos, but apparently I only know it from a prep school in NYC called St. Bernard's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Perge sed caute***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Go forward, but be cautious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;==========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***POST SCRIPTAM***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another possible translation of the idea of ***En Marche!***:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Pergentes quo eundum est!***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Quo eundum est!***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or just:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Quo Eundum!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can tell by my original answer, I liked the verb pergere to show movement forward. I agreed with comments about possible use of gerund or gerundive. I myself had been wondering about a participle.  So, I did a search on gerund and participle forms.  I found an intriguing sentence in Seneca that gave me the ideas above. It is in a discussion of the right way to live. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca *De Vita Beata, VII,1* ([accessed on Perseus][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Nihil ergo magis praestandum est, quam ne pecorum ritu sequamur&#xD;&#xA;&gt; antecedentium gregem, **pergentes non quo eundum est, sed quo itur**.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nothing, therefore, is more important than that we should not, like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sheep, follow the flock that has gone before us, and thus proceed not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whither we ought, but whither the rest are going&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pergere&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://http:/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Sen.%20Vit.%20Beat.&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://http:/https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_a_Happy_Life/Book_I&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I've simply made Seneca's negative a positive,  ***quo eundum est*** from the negative ***non quo eundum est***.  The idea of  direction is marked by ***quo***. The contrast between going the way that must gone (***quo eundum est***) and taking the way that just follows the path set by the previous flock (***quo itur***) maybe gets at the element of change ***En Marche!*** connotes. I dropped the ***est*** of ***eundum est*** to make a compact two  word phrase in emulation of the French.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4332" RevisionGUID="c085624b-46af-4dda-a125-e87a2270440d" CreationDate="2017-05-08T23:02:06.417" UserId="1369" Text="In the Medieval _studia generalia_, there were four &quot;majors&quot; one could study (although one of them was preliminary to the other three), and they were called _**facultates**_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When one entered University, one studied the _trivium_ and then the _quadrivium_ within the _facultas artium_, or the faculty of the (Liberal) Arts. Once students had obtained their title of _Magister Artium_, they could leave University or continue into one of the other three _facultates_: Law, Medicine or Theology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, there's the issue that, in North America, the term &quot;faculty&quot; is used to refer to the teaching body of an institution, the _corpus docens_. However, since they are different languages, there is no problem in using the closest historical term to the modern English concept — even if they really looked nothing like Anglophone majors do today." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4333" RevisionGUID="89c77ae5-24b8-474b-9db3-1020e5b09102" CreationDate="2017-05-09T00:01:17.657" UserId="78" Text="Are there any animals whose names in Latin start with a Q? Ideally I'm looking for common or barnyard animals attested in the Classical period, but Late Latin or early Medieval Latin that has a good case of going back to the Classical period would suffice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought about *quaccula*, but I don't think the word is very ancient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13180" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4333" RevisionGUID="89c77ae5-24b8-474b-9db3-1020e5b09102" CreationDate="2017-05-09T00:01:17.657" UserId="78" Text="Do any Latin names for animals start with Q?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13181" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4333" RevisionGUID="89c77ae5-24b8-474b-9db3-1020e5b09102" CreationDate="2017-05-09T00:01:17.657" UserId="78" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4334" RevisionGUID="6495e820-b60d-4048-b6e3-f35de84df20e" CreationDate="2017-05-09T00:24:33.783" UserId="30" Text="The theme vowels a, e, and i in infinitives are long. But, in other forms of those verbs, they can be short. But when, exactly? What are the rules for this? And how about the suppletive vowels used after a consonant stem: are they always short?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13183" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4334" RevisionGUID="6495e820-b60d-4048-b6e3-f35de84df20e" CreationDate="2017-05-09T00:24:33.783" UserId="30" Text="How can one predict the length of theme vowels in verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13184" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4334" RevisionGUID="6495e820-b60d-4048-b6e3-f35de84df20e" CreationDate="2017-05-09T00:24:33.783" UserId="30" Text="|verbs|vowel-quantity|vowel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4322" RevisionGUID="0b312b98-3593-42b8-9042-552fae9e5e4c" CreationDate="2017-05-09T00:27:14.983" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="English for quo eundum" Text="***Quo Eundum!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hard to translate, but the idea is:&#xD;&#xA; **Let's go where we should!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(See explanation of new answer in my post script at bottom of page.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Perge!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Keep going!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; My suggestion is a simple imperative. This, admittedly, is without knowing the nuance and origin of ***En Marche!*** in French. My French knowledge does, however, tell me how important the phrases &quot; ca (with cedille) marche.&quot; and &quot;ca ne marche pas&quot; are.  That works.  That doesn't work.  My suggestion is only capturing the idea of movement forward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. ***Forza, Italia!*** (Go, Italy!), the Italian soccer cheer, coopted for political purposes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Lewis and Short entry][1] for pergo, pergere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In gen., to go on, continue, proceed with any thing (esp. a motion),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to pursue with energy, prosecute vigorously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Cicero *Ad Familiares*, 7,18:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *qua re **perge**, ut coepisti; forti animo istam tolera militiam.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore, go on as you have begun: endure your military service with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a  strong spirit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought I knew *perge* from medieval mottos, but apparently I only know it from a prep school in NYC called St. Bernard's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Perge sed caute***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Go forward, but be cautious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;==========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***POST SCRIPTAM***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another possible translation of the idea of ***En Marche!***:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Pergentes quo eundum est!***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Quo eundum est!***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or just:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Quo Eundum!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can tell by my original answer, I liked the verb pergere to show movement forward. I agreed with comments about possible use of gerund or gerundive. I myself had been wondering about a participle.  So, I did a search on gerund and participle forms.  I found an intriguing sentence in Seneca that gave me the ideas above. It is in a discussion of the right way to live. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca *De Vita Beata, VII,1* ([accessed on Perseus][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Nihil ergo magis praestandum est, quam ne pecorum ritu sequamur&#xD;&#xA;&gt; antecedentium gregem, **pergentes non quo eundum est, sed quo itur**.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nothing, therefore, is more important than that we should not, like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sheep, follow the flock that has gone before us, and thus proceed not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whither we ought, but whither the rest are going&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pergere&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://http:/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Sen.%20Vit.%20Beat.&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://http:/https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_a_Happy_Life/Book_I&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I've simply made Seneca's negative a positive,  ***quo eundum est*** from the negative ***non quo eundum est***.  The idea of  direction is marked by ***quo***. The contrast between going the way that must gone (***quo eundum est***) and taking the way that just follows the path set by the previous flock (***quo itur***) maybe gets at the element of change ***En Marche!*** connotes. I dropped the ***est*** of ***eundum est*** to make a compact two  word phrase in emulation of the French.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4333" RevisionGUID="ac6fef3e-bf45-49d3-b506-256bb5fea040" CreationDate="2017-05-09T00:37:13.250" UserId="78" Comment="added 76 characters in body; edited title" Text="Ideally I'm looking for common or barnyard animals attested in the Classical period, but Late Latin or early Medieval Latin that has a good case of going back to the Classical period would suffice. I'd also accept Greek so long as it's a somewhat common word in Latin texts (e.g. *draco*, or *taurus* were that actually from Greek).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought about *quaccula*, but I don't think the word is very ancient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13187" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4333" RevisionGUID="ac6fef3e-bf45-49d3-b506-256bb5fea040" CreationDate="2017-05-09T00:37:13.250" UserId="78" Comment="added 76 characters in body; edited title" Text="Do any Latin animal names start with Q?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4333" RevisionGUID="0bcb1d22-4a0b-44e6-af1e-ff728d59b668" CreationDate="2017-05-09T01:54:46.707" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 135 characters in body" Text="Ideally I'm looking for common or barnyard animals attested in the Classical period, but Late Latin or early Medieval Latin that has a good case of going back to the Classical period would suffice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought about *quaccula*, but I don't think the word is very ancient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4335" RevisionGUID="09ba3532-44d7-4a5e-9b95-cfc3722e0da3" CreationDate="2017-05-09T04:26:16.857" UserId="79" Text="Whether or not this is how the forms really developed, this is how I organize it in my head.&#xD;&#xA;And it has proven quite efficient, so I consider it a good description of what classical Latin conjugation is even if it fails to describe where it comes from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the theme vowels in conjugations 1, 2, and 4 are long: *&amp;amacr;, &amp;emacr;, &amp;imacr;*.&#xD;&#xA;The vowel *i* in conjugation 3 is short (whether part of the stem or not).&#xD;&#xA;The question then is, what can shorten the vowel?&#xD;&#xA;Nothing can cause the third conjugation one become long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These cause the preceding long vowel to become short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- word-final *t*&#xD;&#xA;- the clusters *nt* and *nd*&#xD;&#xA;- another vowel (eg. *aud**e&amp;#x306;**&amp;omacr;*, *aud**i&amp;#x306;**&amp;emacr;ns*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the theme vowel is completely lost in conjugation 1 before *&amp;omacr;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These rules also apply to vowels added after the stem, for example in present participles and gerundives.&#xD;&#xA;Just imagine that the *&amp;emacr;* added is long at first and becomes short before *nt* and *nd*.&#xD;&#xA;The suppletive vowels in personal forms are always short &amp;mdash; they always come before *nt* unless I forget something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to work perfectly for regular verbs.&#xD;&#xA;I don't promise that it works for irregular ones, but the same guidelines help get at least most of the vowel lengths right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4336" RevisionGUID="f127be66-7454-4a50-a55d-48236aae522f" CreationDate="2017-05-09T04:32:40.580" UserId="985" Text="While checking something in the _queror_ entry in _OLD_, I just happened to glance down and see _querquēdula_, 'a kind of water-fowl, prob. the teal.' It's not exactly a barnyard animal, though. Or maybe it would hang out with the ducks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, aside from _quadriiugus_ and _quadrupes_, there's also _quadriga_, which can refer to the team of four horses that pulls a _quadriga_. In addition, _OLD_ tells me that, in the plural, it can mean 'chariot-horses.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4336" RevisionGUID="b3be3e04-3b6e-4309-8a50-0b71548bd6f8" CreationDate="2017-05-09T04:41:18.427" UserId="985" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="While checking something in the _queror_ entry in _OLD_, I just happened to glance down and see _querquēdula_, 'a kind of water-fowl, prob. the teal.' It's not exactly a barnyard animal, though. Or maybe it would hang out with the ducks – or I should say _other_ ducks, since the teal is a type of duck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, aside from _quadriiugus_ and _quadrupes_, there's also _quadriga_, which can refer to the team of four horses that pulls a _quadriga_. In addition, _OLD_ tells me that, in the plural, it can mean 'chariot-horses.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="9bb2a8e2-5ac7-4e19-b06d-d51b75787afd" CreationDate="2017-05-09T04:59:31.180" UserId="79" Text="The Latin dictionaries I checked suggest that the word *draco* is attested in classical literature and it is often translated as &quot;dragon&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However, it is my impression &amp;mdash; which may well be wrong! &amp;mdash; that the current dragon imagery in popular culture comes mainly from China or that region of Asia more broadly.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I suspect that my intuitive image of a dragon might be far from what the Romans meant by a *draco*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what was a *draco*?&#xD;&#xA;Could it be just any snake or serpent, or did it refer to something more specific?&#xD;&#xA;Have we identified a species that the Romans would call *draco*?&#xD;&#xA;Was it a real thing or something more mystical?&#xD;&#xA;Are there illustrations of what a *draco* is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13193" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="9bb2a8e2-5ac7-4e19-b06d-d51b75787afd" CreationDate="2017-05-09T04:59:31.180" UserId="79" Text="What was a draco?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13194" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="9bb2a8e2-5ac7-4e19-b06d-d51b75787afd" CreationDate="2017-05-09T04:59:31.180" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|meaning|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4338" RevisionGUID="a59f7828-9a3c-4ed6-b7a4-c083b2759cc7" CreationDate="2017-05-09T06:43:36.250" UserId="78" Text="The word dragon is far older than the Medieval and Chinese dragon imagery. In fact, it's no coincidence, either, was *dragon* is derived from *draco*. It's the meaning of the former which has changed, so as an archaicism, *dragon* is still a fine translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to what the Greeks and Romans thought of *draco* (and *δράκων*), these would be simply &quot;large snakes.&quot; In Greek mythology, *δράκοντες* were large enough to be enemies to heroes and gods: Cadmus slew the [Ismenian dragon](http://www.theoi.com/Ther/DrakonIsmenios.html), which you can see represented on a vase here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Cadmus battles the Ismenian Dragon][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This really is just some monstrous snake, and is likely what ordinary people thought of when they heard the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, they could also be true monstrosities, having [multiple heads](http://www.theoi.com/Ther/DrakonHesperios.html) or being [underwater nightmares](http://www.theoi.com/Ther/KetosAithiopios.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some places, like *Odyssey* 12.202, it's just a regular snake, and Lewis &amp; Short list a number of pet *dracontes*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. Prop. (those of the tame sort, esp. the Epidaurian, being kept as pets by luxurious Romans), Cic. Div. 2, 30; 66; Plin. 8, 17, 22, § 61; 29, 4, 20, § 67; Suet. Aug. 94; “Sen. de Ira, 2, 31&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, when you see *draco*, think snake first, but allow for the possibility of some monstrous snake as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DGWqE.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4339" RevisionGUID="9040ced3-3b47-4344-b569-e725dfaead85" CreationDate="2017-05-09T13:45:37.760" UserId="183" Text="The classical operating system MULTICS wasn't completely in Latin, but it included a famous error message in Latin: [HODIE NATUS EST RADICI FRATER][1], meaning that a second root file system was created (because of a clock reset, MULTICS relied on strict temporal ordering of events). The linked webpage on multicians.org gives the full story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.multicians.org/hodie-natus-est.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4322" RevisionGUID="fea9c763-227e-4ad6-b4e4-1f6fc9b2cbe6" CreationDate="2017-05-09T13:52:41.380" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="Eo, ire OLD" Text="***Quo Eundum!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hard to translate, but the idea is:&#xD;&#xA; **Let's go where we should!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(See explanation of new answer in my post script at bottom of page.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Perge!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Keep going!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; My suggestion is a simple imperative. This, admittedly, is without knowing the nuance and origin of ***En Marche!*** in French. My French knowledge does, however, tell me how important the phrases &quot; ca (with cedille) marche.&quot; and &quot;ca ne marche pas&quot; are.  That works.  That doesn't work.  My suggestion is only capturing the idea of movement forward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. ***Forza, Italia!*** (Go, Italy!), the Italian soccer cheer, coopted for political purposes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Lewis and Short entry][1] for pergo, pergere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In gen., to go on, continue, proceed with any thing (esp. a motion),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to pursue with energy, prosecute vigorously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Cicero *Ad Familiares*, 7,18:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *qua re **perge**, ut coepisti; forti animo istam tolera militiam.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore, go on as you have begun: endure your military service with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a  strong spirit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought I knew *perge* from medieval mottos, but apparently I only know it from a prep school in NYC called St. Bernard's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Perge sed caute***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Go forward, but be cautious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;==========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***POST SCRIPTAM***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another possible translation of the idea of ***En Marche!***:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Pergentes quo eundum est!***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Quo eundum est!***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or just:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Quo Eundum!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can tell by my original answer, I liked the verb pergere to show movement forward. I agreed with comments about possible use of gerund or gerundive. I myself had been wondering about a participle.  So, I did a search on gerund and participle forms.  I found an intriguing sentence in Seneca that gave me the ideas above. It is in a discussion of the right way to live. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca *De Vita Beata, VII,1* ([accessed on Perseus][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Nihil ergo magis praestandum est, quam ne pecorum ritu sequamur&#xD;&#xA;&gt; antecedentium gregem, **pergentes non quo eundum est, sed quo itur**.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nothing, therefore, is more important than that we should not, like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sheep, follow the flock that has gone before us, and thus proceed not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whither we ought, but whither the rest are going&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pergere&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://http:/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Sen.%20Vit.%20Beat.&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://http:/https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_a_Happy_Life/Book_I&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I've simply made Seneca's negative a positive,  ***quo eundum est*** from the negative ***non quo eundum est***.  The idea of  direction is marked by ***quo***. The contrast between going the way that must be taken (***quo eundum est***) and taking the way that just follows the path set by the previous flock (***quo itur***) maybe gets at the element of change ***En Marche!*** connotes. I dropped the ***est*** of ***eundum est*** to make a compact two  word phrase in emulation of the French.  In addition, the Oxford Latin Dictionary has an entry for ***eo, ire*** that notes the verb's emphasis on initial movement with a meaning of setting out on a journey. This usage supports the needed meaning here quite well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4339" RevisionGUID="a0886391-df4a-48ce-ad01-f93389b8a1d9" CreationDate="2017-05-09T14:03:01.790" UserId="183" Comment="Deleted wrong explantion of the cause of the bug" Text="The classical operating system MULTICS wasn't completely in Latin, but it included a famous error message in Latin: [HODIE NATUS EST RADICI FRATER][1]. The linked webpage on multicians.org gives the full story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.multicians.org/hodie-natus-est.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4338" RevisionGUID="fd60059e-0a4d-4f88-a7f6-0feac985f665" CreationDate="2017-05-09T14:05:56.837" UserId="78" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="The word dragon is far older than the Medieval dragon or the West's knowledge of the Chinese dragon. In fact, it's no coincidence, either, was *dragon* is derived from *draco*. It's the meaning of the former which has changed, so as an archaicism, *dragon* is still a fine translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to what the Greeks and Romans thought of *draco* (and *δράκων*), these would be simply &quot;large snakes.&quot; In Greek mythology, *δράκοντες* were large enough to be enemies to heroes and gods: Cadmus slew the [Ismenian dragon](http://www.theoi.com/Ther/DrakonIsmenios.html), which you can see represented on a vase here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Cadmus battles the Ismenian Dragon][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This really is just some monstrous snake, and is likely what ordinary people thought of when they heard the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, they could also be true monstrosities, having [multiple heads](http://www.theoi.com/Ther/DrakonHesperios.html) or being [underwater nightmares](http://www.theoi.com/Ther/KetosAithiopios.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some places, like *Odyssey* 12.202, it's just a regular snake, and Lewis &amp; Short list a number of pet *dracontes*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. Prop. (those of the tame sort, esp. the Epidaurian, being kept as pets by luxurious Romans), Cic. Div. 2, 30; 66; Plin. 8, 17, 22, § 61; 29, 4, 20, § 67; Suet. Aug. 94; “Sen. de Ira, 2, 31&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, when you see *draco*, think snake first, but allow for the possibility of some monstrous snake as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DGWqE.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4340" RevisionGUID="135378ff-8d5c-4d05-a1b1-df61be7e49ab" CreationDate="2017-05-09T14:11:05.510" UserId="118" Text="[DuCange](http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/qualea) reports **qualea** (quail) with **qualia** (!) and **quaquilia** as alternate spellings. The work cited by DuCange, by Johannes de Janua, better known as Johannes Balbus (d. c. 1298), explains that the bird got its name from the sound it makes, &quot;_quaquera_&quot;. Possibly this was a medieval development, as in classical Latin, this bird would be called a [_cōturnīx_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coturnix#Latin)—apparently also imitative. No word on the _vulgo._ The [OED](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/155818?rskey=3n4bEG&amp;result=1#eid)'s etymology of &quot;quail&quot; also reports the spellings **quaquila** and **quaila**, and **quaccola** from the 8th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, **qualeæ** and similar birds are protected by [this law](https://books.google.com/books?id=HOIkaI3ENq4C&amp;dq=%22Ius%20municipale%20Vicentinum%22&amp;pg=PA268#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) in the 1628 edition of the _Ius municipale Vicentinum_ against being caught by nets except at certain times.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4340" RevisionGUID="550a471f-ba62-49d9-a928-0bc7bd34658d" CreationDate="2017-05-09T14:26:39.033" UserId="118" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="[DuCange](http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/qualea) reports **qualea** (quail) with **qualia** (!) and **quaquilia** as alternate spellings. The work cited by DuCange, by Johannes de Janua, better known as Johannes Balbus (d. c. 1298), explains that the bird got its name from the sound it makes, &quot;_quaquera_&quot;. Possibly this was a medieval development, as in classical Latin, this bird would be called a [_cōturnīx_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coturnix#Latin)—apparently also imitative. No word on the _vulgo._ The [OED](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/155818?rskey=3n4bEG&amp;result=1#eid)'s etymology of &quot;quail&quot; also reports the spellings **quaquila** and **quaila**, and **quaccola** from the 8th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, **qualeæ** and similar birds are protected by [this law](https://books.google.com/books?id=HOIkaI3ENq4C&amp;dq=%22Ius%20municipale%20Vicentinum%22&amp;pg=PA268#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) in the 1628 edition of the _Ius municipale Vicentinum_ against being caught with nets or hoods during April, May, and June.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4341" RevisionGUID="d7f5c683-d29e-41f1-a70a-9bcbac5db012" CreationDate="2017-05-09T14:39:44.923" UserId="469" Text="After a quick review of letter Q in L&amp;S, I only found what cnread found: [querquedula][1], which is apparently a kind of duck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other near misses (besides the already mentioned _quadrupes_, _quadriiugus_ and _quadriga_):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Quelea][2], scientific name Quelea quelea, an african bird, described in the XVIII century by Linneus, present in most of Africa (perhaps the Romans knew it by that name?)&#xD;&#xA;* [Quercus][3], the oak tree. I know a tree is not an animal, but just maybe it fits as a second best for someone looking for this question in the future.&#xD;&#xA;* As far as I understand L&amp;S, [_quadrigarius_][4] is applied to the racing horse: _pulvis quadrigarius_, e.g. in Vegetius's [Digesta Artis Mulomedicinae][5] (p. 140 of the pdf, 85 in printed page numbers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if _quadrigalis_/_quadrigarius_ was ever used &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DQ%3Aentry%20group%3D6%3Aentry%3Dquerquedula&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-billed_quelea&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquercus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DQ%3Aentry%20group%3D2%3Aentry%3Dquadrigarius1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ia601408.us.archive.org/35/items/pvegetirenatidi00lommgoog/pvegetirenatidi00lommgoog.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4341" RevisionGUID="f4f39f43-5bae-491f-90c0-7a119f08a6ca" CreationDate="2017-05-09T14:44:51.940" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 61 characters in body" Text="After a quick review of letter Q in L&amp;S, I only found what cnread found: [querquedula][1], which is apparently a kind of duck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other near misses (besides the already mentioned _quadrupes_, _quadriiugus_ and _quadriga_):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Quelea][2], scientific name Quelea quelea, an african bird, described in the XVIII century by Linneus, present in most of Africa (perhaps the Romans knew it by that name?)&#xD;&#xA;* [Quercus][3], the oak tree. I know a tree is not an animal, but just maybe it fits as a second best for someone looking for this question in the future.&#xD;&#xA;* As far as I understand L&amp;S, [_quadrigarius_][4] is applied to the racing horse: _pulvis quadrigarius_, e.g. in Vegetius's [Digesta Artis Mulomedicinae][5] (p. 140 of the pdf, 85 in printed page numbers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DQ%3Aentry%20group%3D6%3Aentry%3Dquerquedula&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-billed_quelea&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquercus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DQ%3Aentry%20group%3D2%3Aentry%3Dquadrigarius1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ia601408.us.archive.org/35/items/pvegetirenatidi00lommgoog/pvegetirenatidi00lommgoog.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4332" RevisionGUID="5114f343-3804-4bd7-ad0c-2b84ee3f23ed" CreationDate="2017-05-09T14:46:00.667" UserId="1369" Comment="Adding ancillary information about the organisation of Medieval Universities." Text="In the Medieval _studia generalia_, there were four &quot;majors&quot; one could study (although one of them was preliminary to the other three), and they were called _**facultates**_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we think of today as a University actually began as a corporation (or guild) of teachers or of students in a certain city; those were called _universitates_: _u. magistrum_ for a teachers' guild, and _u. scholarium_ for a students' guild. Sometimes there was a single guild for both, called _universitas magistrum et scholarium_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When one entered University, one studied the _trivium_ and then the _quadrivium_ within the _facultas artium_, or the faculty of the (Liberal) Arts. Once students had obtained their title of _Magister Artium_, they could leave University or continue into one of the other three _facultates_: Law, Medicine or Theology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, there's the issue that, in North America, the term &quot;faculty&quot; is used to refer to the teaching body of an institution, the _corpus docens_. However, since they are different languages, there is no problem in using the closest historical term to the modern English concept — even if they really looked nothing like Anglophone majors do today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, during the High Middle Ages, the same term (_facultas_) was used both for the course taught and for the subset of the _universitas magistrum_ which taught the same course, so the _facultas legis_ or the _facultas medicinae_ could refer to both the subject which the students enrolled in it studied or to the teachers who taught those subjects." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4342" RevisionGUID="890d7f1a-a9f5-4382-9a02-2e1ae934c36d" CreationDate="2017-05-09T14:52:01.493" UserId="1541" Text="Let me start by apologising for my terrible attempt at Latin I don't have any knowledge of the language at all however I do speak Italian so I've taken a bit of my knowledge and lots of google translate help to hopefully convert the phrase to Latin (ancient or modern not that bothered as long as it back translates to English as the full phrase)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is &quot;My Gracious Mistake&quot; which I've translated to &quot;mei misereatur error&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How far off the mark am I / can it be approved and also how would you pronounce it any help would be much appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4342" RevisionGUID="890d7f1a-a9f5-4382-9a02-2e1ae934c36d" CreationDate="2017-05-09T14:52:01.493" UserId="1541" Text="Is my transaltion of this phrase correct &quot;My Gracious mistake&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4342" RevisionGUID="890d7f1a-a9f5-4382-9a02-2e1ae934c36d" CreationDate="2017-05-09T14:52:01.493" UserId="1541" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4314" RevisionGUID="11af5daf-eb6b-4c03-a770-5e56fae80639" CreationDate="2017-05-09T15:37:14.567" UserId="39" Comment="added 428 characters in body" Text="As Pinkster 2015 writes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“There is an immense literature concerning the rule or rules for the use of the reflexive in subordinate clauses (p. 1125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s a summary of most important points found in volume 1 “The Simple Clause”, [section 11.124][1] of Pinkster 2015 magisterial “The Oxford Latin Syntax” (pp. 1120-1137).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question is about **indirect reflexives** (other terms: long-distance reflexives or long-distance anaphors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster explains it as follows,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**“In complex sentences a constituent of the subordinate clause may be coreferential with a constituent of its own clause (normally the subject) or with a constituent of the governing clause, not necessarily the subject”** (p. 1124). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He notes that “the reflexive pronoun usually follows the constituent it is coreferential with” (p. 1135). Pinkster also discusses four cases when the reflexive pronoun is the preferred choice – rather than the possessive adjective (non-finite clauses, restrictive relative clauses etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pinkster also argues that the use of the indirect reflexive decreased during time and other anaphoric forms – such as the pronoun “is” and the demonstrative “ille” – took its place. He mentions that the latter “is” and “ille” are usually coreferential with a non-subject though (p. 1133).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster discusses several examples (mostly from Cicero and Livy) where confusion is avoided by using the pronoun “is” (instead of “se” or “suus”) – see pp. 1133-1135 for further discussion/details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. *Milesios navem poposcit quae eum praesidii causa Myndum prosequeretur.* ([Cic. *Ver*. 1.86][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster writes that &quot;eum&quot; here &quot;indicates that Cicero is responsible for the insertion of this specification, and that it was not (necessarily) part of Verres' demand&quot; (p. 1133).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about your example sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Solberg 2011][3] argues that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**The LDAs** [long-distance anaphora - Alex] **in reported complement**, which I have called the normal Latin LDAs, **obligatorily take as antecedent the noun referring to the person whose thought the clause expresses**&quot; (p. 117).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, there are two competing readings of your example sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) **Dixit&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; Marcum se&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; odisse.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The referent of the subject of the matrix clause reported what he thinks about Mark (the thinker is not Mark), cf. *I think Mark hates me*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) **Dixit Marcum&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; se&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; odisse.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The referent of the subject of the matrix clause merely reported what Mark said (the thinker is Mark), cf. *Mark told me he hates himself*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613-chapter-11&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-second_speech_verres/1928/pb_LCL221.215.xml?&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://munin.uit.no/handle/10037/3512" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4314" RevisionGUID="d6157ed4-3961-4f78-8a70-42e3fa7625fb" CreationDate="2017-05-09T15:47:33.300" UserId="39" Comment="added 428 characters in body" Text="As Pinkster 2015 writes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“There is an immense literature concerning the rule or rules for the use of the reflexive in subordinate clauses (p. 1125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s a summary of most important points found in volume 1 “The Simple Clause”, [section 11.124][1] of Pinkster 2015 magisterial “The Oxford Latin Syntax” (pp. 1120-1137).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question is about **indirect reflexives** (other terms: long-distance reflexives or long-distance anaphors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster explains it as follows,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**“In complex sentences a constituent of the subordinate clause may be coreferential with a constituent of its own clause (normally the subject) or with a constituent of the governing clause, not necessarily the subject”** (p. 1124). e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*vos ex M. **Favonio**&lt;sup&gt;x&lt;/sup&gt; audistis Clodium **sibi**&lt;sup&gt;x&lt;/sup&gt; dixisse ... periturum Milonem triduo* ([Cic. *Mil*. 44][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He notes that “the reflexive pronoun usually follows the constituent it is coreferential with” (p. 1135). Pinkster also discusses four cases when the reflexive pronoun is the preferred choice – rather than the possessive adjective (non-finite clauses, restrictive relative clauses etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pinkster also argues that the use of the indirect reflexive decreased during time and other anaphoric forms – such as the pronoun “is” and the demonstrative “ille” – took its place. He mentions that the latter “is” and “ille” are usually coreferential with a non-subject though (p. 1133).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster discusses several examples (mostly from Cicero and Livy) where confusion is avoided by using the pronoun “is” (instead of “se” or “suus”) – see pp. 1133-1135 for further discussion/details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. *Milesios navem poposcit quae eum praesidii causa Myndum prosequeretur.* ([Cic. *Ver*. 1.86][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster writes that &quot;eum&quot; here &quot;indicates that Cicero is responsible for the insertion of this specification, and that it was not (necessarily) part of Verres' demand&quot; (p. 1133).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about your example sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Solberg 2011][4] argues that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**The LDAs** [long-distance anaphora - Alex] **in reported complement**, which I have called the normal Latin LDAs, **obligatorily take as antecedent the noun referring to the person whose thought the clause expresses**&quot; (p. 117).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, there are two competing readings of your example sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) **Dixit&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; Marcum se&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; odisse.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The referent of the subject of the matrix clause reported what he thinks about Mark (the thinker is not Mark), cf. *I think Mark hates me*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) **Dixit Marcum&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; se&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; odisse.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The referent of the subject of the matrix clause merely reported what Mark said (the thinker is Mark), cf. *Mark told me he hates himself*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613-chapter-11&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-pro_milone/1931/pb_LCL252.57.xml?mainRsKey=TR6gQb&amp;amp;result=2&amp;amp;rskey=mRr8OG&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-second_speech_verres/1928/pb_LCL221.215.xml?&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://munin.uit.no/handle/10037/3512" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4314" RevisionGUID="7f5e01c3-343e-4f08-9641-2aeb7c0e9a6b" CreationDate="2017-05-09T16:19:52.983" UserId="39" Comment="added 278 characters in body" Text="As Pinkster 2015 writes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“There is an immense literature concerning the rule or rules for the use of the reflexive in subordinate clauses (p. 1125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s a summary of most important points found in volume 1 “The Simple Clause”, [section 11.124][1] of Pinkster 2015 magisterial “The Oxford Latin Syntax” (pp. 1120-1137).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question is about **indirect reflexives** (other terms: long-distance reflexives or long-distance anaphors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster explains it as follows,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**“In complex sentences a constituent of the subordinate clause may be coreferential with a constituent of its own clause (normally the subject) or with a constituent of the governing clause, not necessarily the subject”** (p. 1124). e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*vos ex M. **Favonio**&lt;sup&gt;x&lt;/sup&gt; audistis Clodium **sibi**&lt;sup&gt;x&lt;/sup&gt; dixisse ... periturum Milonem triduo* ([Cic. *Mil*. 44][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*illam&lt;sup&gt;y&lt;/sup&gt; suam&lt;sup&gt;x&lt;/sup&gt; suas&lt;sup&gt;y&lt;/sup&gt; res sibi&lt;sup&gt;y&lt;/sup&gt; habere iussit&lt;sup&gt;x&lt;/sup&gt;...* ([Cic. *Phil*. 2.69][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He notes that “the reflexive pronoun usually follows the constituent it is coreferential with” (p. 1135). Pinkster also discusses four cases when the reflexive pronoun is the preferred choice – rather than the possessive adjective (non-finite clauses, restrictive relative clauses etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pinkster also argues that the use of the indirect reflexive decreased during time and other anaphoric forms – such as the pronoun “is” and the demonstrative “ille” – took its place. He mentions that the latter “is” and “ille” are usually coreferential with a non-subject though (p. 1133).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster discusses several examples (mostly from Cicero and Livy) where confusion is avoided by using the pronoun “is” (instead of “se” or “suus”) – see pp. 1133-1135 for further discussion/details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. *Milesios navem poposcit quae eum praesidii causa Myndum prosequeretur.* ([Cic. *Ver*. 1.86][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster writes that &quot;eum&quot; here &quot;indicates that Cicero is responsible for the insertion of this specification, and that it was not (necessarily) part of Verres' demand&quot; (p. 1133).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about your example sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Solberg 2011][5] argues that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**The LDAs** [long-distance anaphora - Alex] **in reported complement**, which I have called the normal Latin LDAs, **obligatorily take as antecedent the noun referring to the person whose thought the clause expresses**&quot; (p. 117).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, there are two competing readings of your example sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) **Dixit&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; Marcum se&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; odisse.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The referent of the subject of the matrix clause reported what he thinks about Mark (the thinker is not Mark), cf. *I think Mark hates me*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) **Dixit Marcum&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; se&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; odisse.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The referent of the subject of the matrix clause merely reported what Mark said (the thinker is Mark), cf. *Mark told me he hates himself*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613-chapter-11&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-pro_milone/1931/pb_LCL252.57.xml?mainRsKey=TR6gQb&amp;amp;result=2&amp;amp;rskey=mRr8OG&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-philippic_2/2010/pb_LCL189.121.xml?mainRsKey=xZaCUf&amp;amp;result=1&amp;amp;rskey=59VZeb&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-second_speech_verres/1928/pb_LCL221.215.xml?&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://munin.uit.no/handle/10037/3512" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4314" RevisionGUID="80009f24-dbec-4afa-bc0e-c80f581c2e2d" CreationDate="2017-05-09T16:26:25.897" UserId="39" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="As Pinkster 2015 writes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“There is an immense literature concerning the rule or rules for the use of the reflexive in subordinate clauses (p. 1125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s a summary of most important points found in volume 1 “The Simple Clause”, [section 11.124][1] of Pinkster 2015 magisterial “The Oxford Latin Syntax” (pp. 1120-1137).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question is about **indirect reflexives** (other terms: long-distance reflexives or long-distance anaphors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster explains it as follows,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**“In complex sentences a constituent of the subordinate clause may be coreferential with a constituent of its own clause (normally the subject) or with a constituent of the governing clause, not necessarily the subject”** (p. 1124). e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*vos ex M. **Favonio**&lt;sup&gt;x&lt;/sup&gt; audistis Clodium **sibi**&lt;sup&gt;x&lt;/sup&gt; dixisse ... periturum Milonem triduo* ([Cic. *Mil*. 44][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*illam&lt;sup&gt;y&lt;/sup&gt; suam&lt;sup&gt;x&lt;/sup&gt; suas&lt;sup&gt;y&lt;/sup&gt; res sibi&lt;sup&gt;y&lt;/sup&gt; habere iussit&lt;sup&gt;x&lt;/sup&gt;...* ([Cic. *Phil*. 2.69][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He notes that “the reflexive pronoun usually follows the constituent it is coreferential with” (p. 1135). Pinkster also discusses four cases when the reflexive pronoun is the preferred choice – rather than the possessive adjective (non-finite clauses, restrictive relative clauses etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pinkster also argues that the use of the indirect reflexive decreased during time and other anaphoric forms – such as the pronoun “is” and the demonstrative “ille” – took its place. He mentions that the latter “is” and “ille” are usually coreferential with a non-subject though (p. 1133).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster discusses several examples (mostly from Cicero and Livy) where confusion is avoided by using the pronoun “is” (instead of “se” or “suus”) – see pp. 1133-1135 for further discussion/details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. *Milesios navem poposcit quae eum praesidii causa Myndum prosequeretur.* ([Cic. *Ver*. 1.86][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster writes that &quot;eum&quot; here &quot;indicates that Cicero is responsible for the insertion of this specification, and that it was not (necessarily) part of Verres' demand&quot; (p. 1133).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about your example sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Solberg 2011][5] argues that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**The LDAs** [long-distance anaphora - Alex] **in reported complement**, which I have called the normal Latin LDAs, **obligatorily take as antecedent the noun referring to the person whose thought the clause expresses**&quot; (p. 117). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In linguistics, this phenomenon is called [logophoricity][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, there are two competing readings of your example sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) **Dixit&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; Marcum se&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; odisse.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The referent of the subject of the matrix clause reported what he thinks about Mark (the thinker is not Mark), cf. *I think Mark hates me*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) **Dixit Marcum&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; se&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; odisse.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The referent of the subject of the matrix clause merely reported what Mark said (the thinker is Mark), cf. *Mark told me he hates himself*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613-chapter-11&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-pro_milone/1931/pb_LCL252.57.xml?mainRsKey=TR6gQb&amp;amp;result=2&amp;amp;rskey=mRr8OG&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-philippic_2/2010/pb_LCL189.121.xml?mainRsKey=xZaCUf&amp;amp;result=1&amp;amp;rskey=59VZeb&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-second_speech_verres/1928/pb_LCL221.215.xml?&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://munin.uit.no/handle/10037/3512&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logophoricity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4314" RevisionGUID="71d42278-339f-470a-af4a-8fa5c0b9430e" CreationDate="2017-05-09T16:41:22.923" UserId="39" Comment="added 526 characters in body" Text="As Pinkster 2015 writes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“There is an immense literature concerning the rule or rules for the use of the reflexive in subordinate clauses (p. 1125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s a summary of most important points found in volume 1 “The Simple Clause”, [section 11.124][1] of Pinkster 2015 magisterial “The Oxford Latin Syntax” (pp. 1120-1137).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question is about **indirect reflexives** (other terms: long-distance reflexives or long-distance anaphors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster explains it as follows,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**“In complex sentences a constituent of the subordinate clause may be coreferential with a constituent of its own clause (normally the subject) or with a constituent of the governing clause, not necessarily the subject”** (p. 1124). e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*vos ex M. **Favonio**&lt;sup&gt;x&lt;/sup&gt; audistis Clodium **sibi**&lt;sup&gt;x&lt;/sup&gt; dixisse ... periturum Milonem triduo* ([Cic. *Mil*. 44][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*illam&lt;sup&gt;y&lt;/sup&gt; suam&lt;sup&gt;x&lt;/sup&gt; suas&lt;sup&gt;y&lt;/sup&gt; res sibi&lt;sup&gt;y&lt;/sup&gt; habere iussit&lt;sup&gt;x&lt;/sup&gt;...* ([Cic. *Phil*. 2.69][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He notes that “the reflexive pronoun usually follows the constituent it is coreferential with” (p. 1135). Pinkster also discusses four cases when the reflexive pronoun is the preferred choice – rather than the possessive adjective (non-finite clauses, restrictive relative clauses etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pinkster also argues that the use of the indirect reflexive decreased during time and other anaphoric forms – such as the pronoun “is” and the demonstrative “ille” – took its place. He mentions that the latter “is” and “ille” are usually coreferential with a non-subject though (p. 1133).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster discusses several examples (mostly from Cicero and Livy) where confusion is avoided by using the pronoun “is” (instead of “se” or “suus”) – see pp. 1133-1135 for further discussion/details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. *Milesios navem poposcit quae eum praesidii causa Myndum prosequeretur.* ([Cic. *Ver*. 1.86][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster writes that &quot;eum&quot; here &quot;indicates that Cicero is responsible for the insertion of this specification, and that it was not (necessarily) part of Verres' demand&quot; (p. 1133).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about your example sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Solberg 2011][5] argues that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**The LDAs** [long-distance anaphora - Alex] **in reported complement**, which I have called the normal Latin LDAs, **obligatorily take as antecedent the noun referring to the person whose thought the clause expresses**&quot; (p. 117).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;The reflexive in Latin may be considered a device for marking the speaker’s attitude towards the participants in the event that he is describing. When the speaker identifies himself with the subject’s (or topic’s) point of view, that is, when he presents the facts from the perspective of the subject (or of the topic), then the reflexive is used&quot; ([Bertocchi 1989][6]: 455).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In linguistics, this phenomenon is called [logophoricity][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, there are two competing readings of your example sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) **Dixit&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; Marcum se&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; odisse.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The referent of the subject of the matrix clause reported what he thinks about Mark (the thinker is not Mark), cf. *I think Mark hates me*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) **Dixit Marcum&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; se&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; odisse.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The referent of the subject of the matrix clause merely reported what Mark said (the thinker is Mark), cf. *Mark told me he hates himself*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613-chapter-11&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-pro_milone/1931/pb_LCL252.57.xml?mainRsKey=TR6gQb&amp;amp;result=2&amp;amp;rskey=mRr8OG&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-philippic_2/2010/pb_LCL189.121.xml?mainRsKey=xZaCUf&amp;amp;result=1&amp;amp;rskey=59VZeb&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-second_speech_verres/1928/pb_LCL221.215.xml?&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://munin.uit.no/handle/10037/3512&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=jLkXdU_ie1EC&amp;lpg=PA441&amp;dq=Bertocchi%201%20the%20role%20of%20antecedents&amp;pg=PA455#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logophoricity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4343" RevisionGUID="b3b2d9b4-eaf4-4166-b83f-3cfb2dbcdeae" CreationDate="2017-05-09T17:18:22.293" UserId="79" Text="I'm not familiar with an actual idiom for this purpose, but let me propose a phrase the Romans would likely find natural.&#xD;&#xA;Here is a phrase with similar idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *neque me Iuppiter neque di omnes id prohibebunt, si volent,  &#xD;&#xA;quin sic faciam ut constitui.*  &#xD;&#xA;(Plautus, Amphitruo, 1051&amp;ndash;1052)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the phrase *sic facito* is ubiquitous in Cato's *De agri cultura*.&#xD;&#xA;These two can be adapted to say &quot;suit yourself&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sic facito, ut constituisti!*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do as you have decided!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suit yourself!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is certainly not the only way to express the idea.&#xD;&#xA;This just happens to be a structure for which I find support in extant literature.&#xD;&#xA;The future imperative is not necessary; the present imperative *fac* is also fine, but for some reason I like it better with the future one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase *Sic facito, ut constituisti!* is polite.&#xD;&#xA;But like anything else, it can be used sarcastically or in a negative tone.&#xD;&#xA;I would consider the tone to be fairly close to that of the English idiom." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4230" RevisionGUID="dc3c5514-edd2-42c6-8e9c-3e1ce76eec2f" CreationDate="2017-05-09T17:19:13.233" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="How to translate &quot;suit yourself&quot;? I'm curious as to how it translates to Latin. In certain contexts, it can come off as rude or sarcastic, even though, it's used in formal conversations and is not intended to be offensive.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13218" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4230" RevisionGUID="dc3c5514-edd2-42c6-8e9c-3e1ce76eec2f" CreationDate="2017-05-09T17:19:13.233" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|idiom|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4341" RevisionGUID="69c9bba6-8082-4429-8672-6d45f45f83d7" CreationDate="2017-05-09T17:23:04.093" UserId="469" Comment="added 565 characters in body" Text="After a quick review of letter Q in L&amp;S, I only found what cnread found: [querquedula][1], which is apparently a kind of duck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other near misses (besides the already mentioned _quadrupes_, _quadriiugus_ and _quadriga_):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Quelea][2], scientific name Quelea quelea, an african bird, first described in the XVIII century by Linneus as a species, later become a whole genus, present in most of Africa south of the Sahara. (Perhaps the Romans knew it by that name?) It is the most numerous and destructive bird species in the world. It has been argued that there is a link between _quelea_ and the _coturnices_ (quails) mentioned at the end of [Ex 11][3]. It has also been argued that the name comes from an aboriginal African name. ([Source][4].) *Thanks Ben Kovitz*.&#xD;&#xA;* [Quercus][5], the oak tree. I know a tree is not an animal, but just maybe it fits as a second best for someone looking for this question in the future.&#xD;&#xA;* As far as I understand L&amp;S, [_quadrigarius_][6] is applied to the racing horse: _pulvis quadrigarius_, e.g. in Vegetius's [Digesta Artis Mulomedicinae][7] (p. 140 of the pdf, 85 in printed page numbers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DQ%3Aentry%20group%3D6%3Aentry%3Dquerquedula&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-billed_quelea&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_numeri_lt.html#11&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=-RfSBAAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA328&amp;pg=PA328#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquercus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DQ%3Aentry%20group%3D2%3Aentry%3Dquadrigarius1&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://ia601408.us.archive.org/35/items/pvegetirenatidi00lommgoog/pvegetirenatidi00lommgoog.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1336" RevisionGUID="cea3b265-b6cb-40d9-b7d2-8c617b8bea4c" CreationDate="2017-05-09T17:52:57.297" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="In Suetonius's [*Vita Horati*](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/de_Poetis/Horace*.html), a letter from Augustus to Horace is quoted, which includes the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sume tibi aliquid iuris apud me, tamquam si convictor mihi fueris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Loeb translation](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/de_Poetis/Horace*.html) gives: &quot;Enjoy any privilege at my house, as if you were making your home there&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why the perfect subjunctive *fueris*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bennett's New Latin Grammar](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html), section 307, discusses the forms of verbs after such phrases as *tamquam si*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Conditional Clauses of Comparison are introduced by the particles, ac sī, ut sī, quasi, quam sī, tamquam sī, velut sī, or simply by velut or tamquam. They stand in the Subjunctive mood and regularly involve an ellipsis (see § 374, 1), as indicated in the following examples:—  &#xD;&#xA;tantus patrēs metus cēpit, velat sī jam ad portās hostis esset, as great fear seized the senators as (would have seized them) if the enemy were already at the gates;&#xD;&#xA;sed quid ego hīs testibus ūtor quasi rēs dubia aut obscūra sit, but why do I use these witnesses, as (I should do) if the matter were doubtful or obscure;&#xD;&#xA;serviam tibi tam quasi ēmerīs mē argentō, I will serve you as though you had bought me for money.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that in sentences of this kind the Latin observes the regular principles for the Sequence of Tenses. Thus after principal tenses the Latin uses the Present and Perfect (as in the second and third examples), where the English uses the Past and Past Perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in this example we're in primary sequence. So if the usual sequence of tenses rules are in force, the perfect subjunctive should express prior time: &quot;as if you had (at some time in the past) been living with me&quot;. This seems not to be what's intended, though &amp;ndash; rather, it looks like a present counterfactual: &quot;as if you were (now) living with me&quot;. But in that case, shouldn't we expect either *sis* (if following sequence of tenses), or maybe *esses* (as in an ordinary present counterfactual condition)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a bonus question, how does the Loeb get to &quot;enjoy *any* privilege at my house&quot;? AFAIK, *aliquis* does not mean &quot;any whatsoever&quot; (that's *quicumque* or *quilibet*), but &quot;some&quot;, so it should literally be &quot;take some (not further identified) kind of privilege at my house&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4344" RevisionGUID="b9b97d8d-24ef-4c80-8770-c6afc5a0c33f" CreationDate="2017-05-09T17:53:02.580" UserId="79" Text="It possible to read the sentence with *fueris* having a perfect meaning: &quot;&amp;hellip; as if you had dined with me.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;I read the idea roughly like &quot;I have accepted you as a guest in my house in the past, and therefore my home is yours&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;*Convictor* can mean someone who lives together, but also &quot;table companion&quot; and &quot;familiar friend&quot; are suggested in L&amp;S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on your answer to [my question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2488/79) (and the Oxford Latin Syntax), it would also make sense to read the perfect conjunctive with a present meaning.&#xD;&#xA;OLS (p. 493) says that &quot;the perfect subjunctive forms are supposed to be milder or less direct than the present ones&quot; without implying a temporal difference.&#xD;&#xA;The next sentence says that this is but an unsupported theory, but it seems that we do not have a conclusive explanation at all to the perfect conjunctive in a present meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In either case, I don't think *tamquam si* has any special effect here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the bonus question, [*aliquis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=aliquis&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) seems to have a much broader set of meanings than you assume.&#xD;&#xA;Depending on context, it can mean &quot;anything (whatsoever)&quot; or &quot;some&quot; or other things.&#xD;&#xA;(There does not seem to be a clear correspondence between Latin and English pronouns apart from first and second person personal ones.)&#xD;&#xA;To quote L&amp;S:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *aliquis*, more emphatic than *quis*, denotes that an object really exists, but that nothing depends upon its individuality; no matter of what kind it may be, if it is only *one*, and not *none*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Loeb that the most natural English translation is &quot;any&quot; in this case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4345" RevisionGUID="7ebeddc9-6644-42a8-949c-0abfd0358950" CreationDate="2017-05-09T18:01:23.510" UserId="45" Text="I would translate this with a common Plautine injunction: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Age ut lubet!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples in context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Immo age, út lubet, bíbe, es, disperde rem. (Plautus, *Casina* 247)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Go ahead, suit yourself! Drink, eat, waste your money!&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Med. ...ibi meo arbitratu potero curare hominem.  &#xD;&#xA;Sen. Age ut lubet. (Plautus, *Menaechmi* 949)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Med.: In my opinion I can cure the man there.  &#xD;&#xA;Sen: Suit yourself.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More polite, with *sis* (= *si vis*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ant. Eamus, mea germana.  &#xD;&#xA;Ad. Age sis, ut lubet. (Plautus, *Poenulus* 329)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Ant. Let's go, sister.  &#xD;&#xA;Ad.: Sure, as you wish!&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ut lubet* can easily be inserted with another verb in the imperative, e.g. *perge ut lubet*. This can be translation: *go right ahead*, ironically or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4342" RevisionGUID="fec9a8d8-d35b-46c2-a1c0-45c062d3ad3a" CreationDate="2017-05-09T19:14:37.667" UserId="1541" Comment="added 383 characters in body" Text="Let me start by apologising for my terrible attempt at Latin I don't have any knowledge of the language at all however I do speak Italian so I've taken a bit of my knowledge and lots of google translate help to hopefully convert the phrase to Latin (ancient or modern not that bothered as long as it back translates to English as the full phrase)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is &quot;My Gracious Mistake&quot; which I've translated to &quot;mei misereatur error&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How far off the mark am I / can it be approved and also how would you pronounce it any help would be much appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT to give context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context is a little strange I suppose and you'd never probably use it in a sentence as such. Its a phrase a my best friend uses to describe his kid as he was a mistake but he loves him. so for their birthday I was going to get something made up for them with the phrase but wanted to do it in a nicer sounding language than English if that makes sense" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4341" RevisionGUID="f9de8868-0187-4d96-820a-7098bb93bbc2" CreationDate="2017-05-09T19:25:50.080" UserId="469" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="After a quick review of letter Q in L&amp;S, I only found what cnread found: [querquedula][1], which is apparently a kind of duck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other near misses (besides the already mentioned _quadrupes_, _quadriiugus_ and _quadriga_):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Quelea][2], scientific name Quelea quelea, an african bird, first described in the XVIII century by Linneus as a species, later become a whole genus, present in most of Africa south of the Sahara. (Perhaps the Romans knew it by that name?) It is the most numerous and destructive bird species in the world. It has been argued that there is a link between _quelea_ and the _coturnices_ (quails) mentioned at the end of [Num 11][3]. It has also been argued that the name comes from an aboriginal African name. ([Source][4].) *Thanks Ben Kovitz*.&#xD;&#xA;* [Quercus][5], the oak tree. I know a tree is not an animal, but just maybe it fits as a second best for someone looking for this question in the future.&#xD;&#xA;* As far as I understand L&amp;S, [_quadrigarius_][6] is applied to the racing horse: _pulvis quadrigarius_, e.g. in Vegetius's [Digesta Artis Mulomedicinae][7] (p. 140 of the pdf, 85 in printed page numbers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DQ%3Aentry%20group%3D6%3Aentry%3Dquerquedula&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-billed_quelea&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_numeri_lt.html#11&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=-RfSBAAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA328&amp;pg=PA328#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquercus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DQ%3Aentry%20group%3D2%3Aentry%3Dquadrigarius1&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://ia601408.us.archive.org/35/items/pvegetirenatidi00lommgoog/pvegetirenatidi00lommgoog.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4340" RevisionGUID="9c8e4546-79c6-4aa4-9093-36626c31e90d" CreationDate="2017-05-09T19:54:21.897" UserId="118" Comment="added 327 characters in body" Text="[DuCange](http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/qualea) reports **qualea** (quail) with **qualia** (!) and **quaquilia** as alternate spellings. The work cited by DuCange, by Johannes de Janua, better known as Johannes Balbus (d. c. 1298), explains that the bird got its name from the sound it makes, &quot;_quaquera_&quot;. Possibly this was a medieval development, as in classical Latin, this bird would be called a [_cōturnīx_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coturnix#Latin)—apparently also imitative. No word on the _vulgo,_ so it's theoretically possible that ordinary folks in Ancient Rome said something that sounded like _qualea,_ but the word for quail in both the Vulgate and Vetus Latina is [_coturnix_](https://books.google.com/books?id=06-8DgAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA124&amp;ots=5I3l8FT_a7&amp;dq=coturnix%20vetus%20latina&amp;pg=PA124#v=onepage&amp;q=coturnix&amp;f=false). The [OED](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/155818?rskey=3n4bEG&amp;result=1#eid)'s etymology of &quot;quail&quot; also reports the spellings **quaquila** and **quaila**, and **quaccola** from the 8th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, **qualeæ** and similar birds are protected by [this law](https://books.google.com/books?id=HOIkaI3ENq4C&amp;dq=%22Ius%20municipale%20Vicentinum%22&amp;pg=PA268#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) in the 1628 edition of the _Ius municipale Vicentinum_ against being caught with nets or hoods during April, May, and June.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4346" RevisionGUID="66b389dd-fa94-4d73-9619-aab524bc9c5d" CreationDate="2017-05-09T19:57:05.703" UserId="469" Text="I'd translate it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Propitius error meus**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(also* propitius meus error: *word order doesn't matter that much)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [error][1] (masculine) means mistake. Alternatives: [mendum][2] (neuter in gender, not as common nor -apparently- as broadly applicable) and [falsum][3] (also neuter)&#xD;&#xA;* [propitius][4] means *favorable, well-disposed, gracious, kind, propitious*, which seems fit for your purpose, also, more freely:&#xD;&#xA; * [gratiosus][5] (*full of favor, popular, regarded, beloved, agreeable*), &#xD;&#xA; * [felix][6] with a wide range of meanings: from *fruitful* to *lucky* to *happy*.&#xD;&#xA;* [meus][7] is *my, of me, mine*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If you chose mendum or falsum instead of error, both adjectives have to change gender accordingly: **propitium/gratiosum/felix meum mendum/falsum**&#xD;&#xA;* Felix [*culpa*][8] (femine, thus *felix culpa mea*) is indeed (as noted by Hugh) a very relevant attested expression quite close in meaning to what you want, but I think it underlines a lack of neutrality a mistake does not: a crime/fault is more than just an accident. Besides, it has a strong religious background some people would want to avoid in a joke.&#xD;&#xA;* [Peccatum][9] (neuter) is also an error, but it means a sin too, and became too strongly associated to the later since Christianity.&#xD;&#xA;* Also, if your friend is addressing the kid (rather than just naming him), it could be **propiti error mi**, if I am not mistaken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Derror&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmendum&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dfalsum&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpropitius&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgratiosus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfelix1&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmeus&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dculpa&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpeccatum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4346" RevisionGUID="27caf831-991e-4b26-86d6-9a437f40843f" CreationDate="2017-05-09T20:02:36.853" UserId="469" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I'd translate it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Propitius error meus**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(also* **propitius meus error**: *word order doesn't matter that much)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [error][1] (masculine) means mistake. Alternatives: [mendum][2] (neuter in gender, not as common nor -apparently- as broadly applicable) and [falsum][3] (also neuter)&#xD;&#xA;* [propitius][4] means *favorable, well-disposed, gracious, kind, propitious*, which seems fit for your purpose, also, more freely:&#xD;&#xA; * [gratiosus][5] (*full of favor, popular, regarded, beloved, agreeable*), &#xD;&#xA; * [felix][6] with a wide range of meanings: from *fruitful* to *lucky* to *happy*.&#xD;&#xA;* [meus][7] is *my, of me, mine*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If you chose mendum or falsum instead of error, both adjectives have to change gender accordingly: **propitium/gratiosum/felix meum mendum/falsum**&#xD;&#xA;* Felix [*culpa*][8] (femine, thus *felix culpa mea*) is indeed (as noted by Hugh) a very relevant attested expression quite close in meaning to what you want, but I think it underlines a lack of neutrality a mistake does not: a crime/fault is more than just an accident. Besides, it has a strong religious background some people would want to avoid in a joke.&#xD;&#xA;* [Peccatum][9] (neuter) is also an error, but it means a sin too, and became too strongly associated to the later since Christianity.&#xD;&#xA;* Also, if your friend is addressing the kid (rather than just naming him), it could be **propiti error mi**, if I am not mistaken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Derror&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmendum&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dfalsum&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpropitius&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgratiosus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfelix1&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmeus&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dculpa&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpeccatum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4345" RevisionGUID="c167a4a0-698c-42d3-aa05-5421fa1f7878" CreationDate="2017-05-09T20:54:15.257" UserId="45" Comment="added 501 characters in body" Text="I would translate this with a common Plautine injunction: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Age ut lubet!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or simply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Ut lubet!*** / ***Ut libet!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples in context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Immo age, út lubet, bíbe, es, disperde rem. (Plautus, *Casina* 247)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Go ahead, suit yourself! Drink, eat, waste your money!&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Med. ...ibi meo arbitratu potero curare hominem.  &#xD;&#xA;Sen. Age ut lubet. (Plautus, *Menaechmi* 949)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Med.: In my opinion I can cure the man there.  &#xD;&#xA;Sen: Suit yourself.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More polite, with *sis* (= *si vis*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ant. Eamus, mea germana.  &#xD;&#xA;Ad. Age sis, ut lubet. (Plautus, *Poenulus* 329)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Ant. Let's go, sister.  &#xD;&#xA;Ad.: Sure, as you wish!&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This *lubet* is colloquial and less common in later works, though Cicero does use *ut lubet* once. A more standard way of saying this would be *ut libet*. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nam mihi in mentem non venerat. 'non credo' inquis. ut libet; sed plane gaudeo, quoniam τὸ νεμεσᾶν interest	τοῦ φθονεῖν. (Cicero, *Epistulae ad Atticum* 5.19.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;For it had not even occurred to me. &quot;I don't believe you,&quot; you say. Suit yourself. But I am quite glad, for resentment is not the same as ill-will.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ut lubet* can easily be inserted with another verb in the imperative, e.g. *perge ut lubet*. This can be translation: *go right ahead*, ironically or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13229" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4342" RevisionGUID="448f33ce-f882-466c-bee5-3679a0b9fab7" CreationDate="2017-05-10T02:02:58.040" UserId="45" Comment="edited title" Text="Is my translation of the phrase &quot;My Gracious mistake&quot; correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4342" RevisionGUID="d7aa05f5-d6aa-47bf-9c8c-361b4e80e570" CreationDate="2017-05-10T02:08:47.980" UserId="45" Comment="edited title" Text="Let me start by apologising for my terrible attempt at Latin. I don't have any knowledge of the language at all.  However, I do speak Italian so I've taken a bit of my knowledge and lots of Google Translate help to hopefully convert the phrase to Latin (ancient or modern: I'm not that bothered as long as it back-translates to English as the full phrase).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is **&quot;My Gracious Mistake&quot;** which I've translated to &quot;mei misereatur error.&quot; In context, it's a phrase my best friend uses to describe his kid, since he was a mistake but he loves him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How far off the mark am I?  Can it be improved and also how would you pronounce it? Any help would be much appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4340" RevisionGUID="027c11c4-004c-4f2b-aea6-f063321aa820" CreationDate="2017-05-10T02:36:07.580" UserId="118" Comment="added 1845 characters in body" Text="[DuCange](http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/qualea) reports **qualea** (quail) with **qualia** (!) and **quaquilia** as alternate spellings. The work cited by DuCange, by Johannes de Janua, better known as Johannes Balbus (d. c. 1298), explains that the bird got its name from the sound it makes, &quot;_quaquera_&quot;. Possibly this was a medieval development, as in classical Latin, this bird would be called a [_cōturnīx_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coturnix#Latin)—apparently also imitative. No word on the _vulgo,_ so it's theoretically possible that ordinary folks in Ancient Rome said something that sounded like _qualea,_ but the word for quail in both the Vulgate and Vetus Latina is [_coturnix_](https://books.google.com/books?id=06-8DgAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA124&amp;ots=5I3l8FT_a7&amp;dq=coturnix%20vetus%20latina&amp;pg=PA124#v=onepage&amp;q=coturnix&amp;f=false). The [OED](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/155818?rskey=3n4bEG&amp;result=1#eid)'s etymology of &quot;quail&quot; also reports the spellings **quaquila** and **quaila**, and **quaccola** from the 8th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, **qualeæ** and similar birds are protected by [this law](https://books.google.com/books?id=HOIkaI3ENq4C&amp;dq=%22Ius%20municipale%20Vicentinum%22&amp;pg=PA268#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) in the 1628 edition of the _Ius municipale Vicentinum_ against being caught with nets or hoods during April, May, and June.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[_The Birds of the Latin Poets_](https://books.google.com/books?id=oishAQAAIAAJ&amp;dq=quail%20latin&amp;pg=PA196#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) by Ernest Whitney Martin (1914) lists one bird whose name starts with Q: **querquedula**, &quot;probably the Teal (_Anas crecca_) or the Garganey (_Anas querquedula_).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Columella in _De Re Rustica_ 8.15 writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nessotrophii cura similis, sed maior impensa est. Nam clausae pascuntur anates, **querquedulae**, boscides, phalerides, similesque volucres, quae stagna et paludes rimantur. …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A place for rearing ducks requires similar attention but is more costly. For mallard, **teal**, garganey and coots and similar birds, which root about in pools and marshes, can be kept in captivity. …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Translation: Forster &amp; Heffner, [Loeb Classical Library 407](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/columella-agriculture/1941/pb_LCL407.397.xml?rskey=W4sS6o&amp;result=1&amp;mainRsKey=JSw185)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Varro, in his own _Rerum Rusticarum_ [3.3.3](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/varro-agriculture/1934/pb_LCL283.441.xml?result=2&amp;rskey=fgJAUA), quotes a playful debate about what constitutes a _villa,_ in which one Cornelius &quot;Blackbird&quot; Merula says that _querqedulae_ need both land and water—important to know if you're keeping them in an enclosure. In _De Lingua Latina_ [5.79](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/varro-latin_language/1938/pb_LCL333.77.xml?rskey=lo9pDu&amp;result=1&amp;mainRsKey=gUgkeJ), Varro claims that the _querqedula_ gets its name from its cry (or some quality), and that the word originates from Greek κερκήδης. You can judge for yourself [here](https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Green-winged_Teal/sounds). Note the pitch mark in the Greek word; the pitch and rhythm do seem to match the male call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **querquedula** is definitely a farm animal and definitely Classically attested." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13232" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1233" RevisionGUID="c92f595f-4c39-4715-8373-e4377c69f1e0" CreationDate="2017-05-10T06:59:32.630" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13233" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1116" RevisionGUID="4549224d-cef5-4ef8-bc71-b66d449258f8" CreationDate="2017-05-10T07:01:43.470" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1108" RevisionGUID="feac8f5f-ec09-407f-91de-3f5f3b8905e9" CreationDate="2017-05-10T07:03:20.483" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm trying to say in Latin, &quot;Our garden has been full of junk for three years&quot;  and I can't figure out what tense to put the verb in. In English, &quot;has been&quot; expresses present tense with perfective aspect of a stative verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other present-tense, perfective-aspect verbs (stative or otherwise, unless I'm mistaken) call for the perfect. But somehow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hortus trés annós scopí quisquiliæque fuit plénus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;makes me feel the past tense only, not the present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hortus trés annós scopí quisuiliæque erat plénus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also feels wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hortus trés annós scopí quisquiliæque est plénus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can't be right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, past tense perfective aspect seems impossible to me too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hortus trés annós scopí quisquiliæque fuerat plénus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the feeling this is actually a really easy thing to deal with and I'm just overthinking it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13235" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1108" RevisionGUID="feac8f5f-ec09-407f-91de-3f5f3b8905e9" CreationDate="2017-05-10T07:03:20.483" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|verbs|syntax|perfect-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1012" RevisionGUID="fc1583b8-adda-4336-8ee7-2dce22d69942" CreationDate="2017-05-10T07:06:25.190" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="In the *Tusculan Disputations* V.iii, Cicero writes about Pythagoras declaring that life seems to him like the great Greek games:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nam ut illic alii corporibus exercitatis gloriam et nobilitatem coronæ peterent, alii emendi aut vendendi quæstu et lucro ducerentur, esset autem quoddam genus eorum, idque **vel** maxime ingenuum, qui nec plausum nec lucrum quærerent, sed visendi causa venirent studuiosque perspicerent quid agitur et quo modo&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is *vel* working in this sentence and what does it mean? Without *vel* I would translate the relevant portion something like &quot;there was however a certain class of them, and that of the highest character, who sought neither applause nor money,&quot; etc. But I don't know what the addition of *vel* does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13237" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1012" RevisionGUID="fc1583b8-adda-4336-8ee7-2dce22d69942" CreationDate="2017-05-10T07:06:25.190" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|idiom|conjunction|cicero|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="924" RevisionGUID="39f96a68-abe1-4338-9d05-3588c082efe1" CreationDate="2017-05-10T07:16:38.567" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Lines one and two of book 2 of Vergil's Aeneid sparked this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Conticuere omnes intentique ora tenebant  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; inde toro pater Aeneas sic orsus ab alto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had two interpretations. My first interpretation is that the *-que* in *intentique* links the verbs *conticuere* (perfect active indicative) and *tenebant*. However, that makes it unclear as to how the second line connects grammatically to the first unless *inde* can somehow be used as an introduction to a temporal clause, but I was under the impression (perhaps too narrow) that only *dum, cum, donec, postquam, ubi*, and *ut* could introduce temporal clauses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My other interpretation was that *-que* links the two clauses with the first line just having a missing conjunction for poetic effect: &quot;All were silent [and] attentive were holding their mouths and from there ...&quot;. However, this version feels weird considering the placement of *-que*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would a contemporary Roman perceive the *-que* as connecting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13239" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="924" RevisionGUID="39f96a68-abe1-4338-9d05-3588c082efe1" CreationDate="2017-05-10T07:16:38.567" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|meaning|aeneis|vergilius|subordinate-clause|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="858" RevisionGUID="99714d6a-de68-4a3e-a6a5-41951caf88f7" CreationDate="2017-05-10T07:23:53.643" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have been reading Cicero's letters in translation on the Perseus.uchicago.edu site, but check the Latin to improve my limited ability. Most of the letters include **S. P. D.** in the salutation, and I am wondering &amp;mdash; is this formulaic and what does it mean?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13241" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="858" RevisionGUID="99714d6a-de68-4a3e-a6a5-41951caf88f7" CreationDate="2017-05-10T07:23:53.643" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|abbreviations|cicero|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13242" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="639" RevisionGUID="25722d16-e454-49aa-938d-fbe244afd603" CreationDate="2017-05-10T07:33:29.623" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|idiom|time|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4347" RevisionGUID="c6c8456d-d8d8-40a9-bf03-c08ebc96acd4" CreationDate="2017-05-10T09:05:54.040" UserId="118" Text="&gt; Lapsus meus gratiosus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **lapsus** is literally a slip, a fall, commonly extended to mean a mistake. It lives on in English in &quot;relapse&quot;, &quot;collapse&quot;, and of course &quot;lapse&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Meus** means &quot;my&quot;. I put it here after the noun in order not to give it strong emphasis. Putting a possessive pronoun before the noun tends to make it the main point: _meus lapsus_ would mean &quot;_my_ mistake&quot;, putting most of the emphasis on the father.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gratiosus** is filled with 2,700 years of accumulated positive connotations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4347" RevisionGUID="7e202c83-2dd8-4271-9331-76a6f2313848" CreationDate="2017-05-10T09:21:23.723" UserId="118" Comment="added 1312 characters in body" Text="&gt; Lapsus meus gratiosus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **lapsus** (noun, masc.) is literally a slip, a fall, commonly extended to mean a mistake. Both of these senses live in English in &quot;relapse&quot;, &quot;collapse&quot;, and of course &quot;lapse&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Meus** means &quot;my&quot;. I put it here after the noun in order not to give it strong emphasis. Putting a possessive pronoun before the noun tends to make it the main point: _meus lapsus_ would mean &quot;_my_ mistake&quot;, putting most of the emphasis on the father.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gratiosus** (adjective) is filled with 2,700 years of accumulated positive connotations. [_Gratus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) primarily means beloved, dear, pleasing, commonly extended to mean worthy of thanks—a sense that lives in English &quot;gratitude&quot;. There is also the well-known Latin phrase _persona non grata_, a person who is not welcome: a person who is _grata_ is welcome, i.e. gladly admitted into the community. As a noun, [_gratia_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) it means favor, both that felt by others and favor felt toward another. Christianity picked it up as &quot;grace&quot;, and it occurs in such established Latin phrases as [_Dei gratia regina_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dei_Gratia_Regina), &quot;Queen by the grace of God&quot;, still used on coins in Commonwealth countries. The suffix _-osus_ is like Anglo-Saxon _-ful_ in English: it makes an adjective signifying an intensified version of the noun. [_Gratiosus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratiosus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) primarily means enjoying the favor of others: popular, beloved—especially, due to agreeable qualities about oneself. This lives in English &quot;gracious&quot;, a word which your friend appears to have chosen quite propitiously.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4347" RevisionGUID="7e4d5632-e31e-499b-b33b-2ec25445ac5f" CreationDate="2017-05-10T09:31:08.943" UserId="118" Comment="added 1312 characters in body" Text="&gt; Lapsus meus gratiosus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **lapsus** (noun, masc.) is literally a slip, a fall, extended to mean a mistake, including a moral mistake. These senses live in English &quot;relapse&quot;, &quot;collapse&quot;, and of course &quot;lapse&quot;. It appears in phrases such as [_lapsus linguæ_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lapsus_linguae), &quot;a slip of the tongue&quot;. At the same time, Christianity uses _lapsus_ to refer to the fall of Adam. A [_lapsus carnalis_](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22lapsus+carnalis%22&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8#q=%22lapsus+carnalis%22&amp;tbm=bks) is a &quot;sin of the flesh&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Meus** means &quot;my&quot;. I put it here after the noun in order not to give it strong emphasis. Putting a possessive pronoun before the noun tends to make it the main point: _meus lapsus_ would mean &quot;_my_ mistake&quot;, putting most of the emphasis on the father.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gratiosus** (adjective) is filled with 2,700 years of accumulated positive connotations. [_Gratus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) primarily means beloved, dear, pleasing, commonly extended to mean worthy of thanks—a sense that lives in English &quot;gratitude&quot;. There is also the well-known Latin phrase _persona non grata_, a person who is not welcome: a person who is _grata_ is welcome, i.e. gladly admitted into the community. As a noun, [_gratia_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) it means favor, both that felt by others and favor felt toward another. Christianity picked it up as &quot;grace&quot;, and it occurs in such established Latin phrases as [_Dei gratia regina_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dei_Gratia_Regina), &quot;Queen by the grace of God&quot;, still used on coins in Commonwealth countries. The suffix _-osus_ is like Anglo-Saxon _-ful_ in English: it makes an adjective signifying an intensified version of the noun. [_Gratiosus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratiosus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) primarily means enjoying the favor of others: popular, beloved—especially, due to agreeable qualities about oneself. This is imported into English as &quot;gracious&quot;, a word which your friend appears to have chosen quite propitiously.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4347" RevisionGUID="12627a09-1750-4d4f-b430-3410dc6debc1" CreationDate="2017-05-10T09:36:28.897" UserId="118" Comment="added 1312 characters in body" Text="&gt; Lapsus meus gratiosus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **lapsus** (noun, masc.) is literally a slip, a fall, extended to mean a mistake, including a moral mistake. These senses live in English &quot;relapse&quot;, &quot;collapse&quot;, and of course &quot;lapse&quot;. It appears in phrases such as [_lapsus linguæ_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lapsus_linguae), &quot;a slip of the tongue&quot;. At the same time, Christianity uses _lapsus_ to refer to the fall of Adam. A [_lapsus carnalis_](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22lapsus+carnalis%22&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8#q=%22lapsus+carnalis%22&amp;tbm=bks) is a &quot;sin of the flesh&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Meus** means &quot;my&quot;. I put it here after the noun in order not to give it strong emphasis. Putting a possessive pronoun before the noun tends to make it the main point: _meus lapsus_ would mean &quot;_my_ mistake&quot;, putting most of the emphasis on the father.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gratiosus** (adjective) is filled with 2,700 years of accumulated positive connotations. [_Gratus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) primarily means beloved, dear, pleasing, commonly extended to mean worthy of thanks—a sense that lives in English &quot;gratitude&quot;. There is also the well-known Latin phrase _persona non grata_, a person who is not welcome: a person who is _grata_ is welcome, i.e. gladly admitted into the community. As a noun, [_gratia_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) it means favor, both that felt by others and favor felt toward another. Christianity picked it up as &quot;grace&quot;, and it occurs in such established Latin phrases as [_Dei gratia regina_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dei_Gratia_Regina), &quot;Queen by the grace of God&quot;, still used on coins in Commonwealth countries. The suffix _-osus_ is like Anglo-Saxon _-ful_ in English: it makes an adjective signifying an intensified version of the noun. [_Gratiosus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratiosus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) primarily means enjoying the favor of others: popular, beloved—especially, due to agreeable qualities about oneself. In other words, a person who is _gratiosus_ is one that others are very glad to have around. This is imported into English as &quot;gracious&quot;, a word which your friend appears to have chosen quite propitiously.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4347" RevisionGUID="6e389989-0ba3-42b3-b6bc-bc90f4ddcc31" CreationDate="2017-05-10T09:45:42.767" UserId="118" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="&gt; Lapsus meus gratiosus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **lapsus** ([noun](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#lapsus), masc.) is literally a slip, a fall, extended to mean a mistake, including a moral mistake. These senses live in English &quot;relapse&quot;, &quot;collapse&quot;, and of course &quot;lapse&quot;. It appears in phrases such as [_lapsus linguæ_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lapsus_linguae), &quot;a slip of the tongue&quot;. At the same time, Christianity uses _lapsus_ to refer to the fall of Adam. A [_lapsus carnalis_](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22lapsus+carnalis%22&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8#q=%22lapsus+carnalis%22&amp;tbm=bks) is a &quot;sin of the flesh&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Meus** means &quot;my&quot;. I put it here after the noun in order not to give it strong emphasis. Putting a possessive pronoun before the noun tends to make it the main point: _meus lapsus_ would mean &quot;_my_ mistake&quot;, putting most of the emphasis on the father.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gratiosus** ([adjective](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#gratiosus)) is filled with 2,700 years of accumulated positive connotations. [_Gratus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) primarily means beloved, dear, pleasing, commonly extended to mean worthy of thanks—a sense that lives in English &quot;gratitude&quot;. There is also the well-known Latin phrase _persona non grata_, a person who is not welcome: a person who is _grata_ is welcome, i.e. gladly admitted into the community. As a noun, [_gratia_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) it means favor, both that felt by others and favor felt toward another. Christianity picked it up as &quot;grace&quot;, and it occurs in such established Latin phrases as [_Dei gratia regina_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dei_Gratia_Regina), &quot;Queen by the grace of God&quot;, still used on coins in Commonwealth countries. The suffix _-osus_ is like Anglo-Saxon _-ful_ in English: it makes an adjective signifying an intensified version of the noun. [_Gratiosus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratiosus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) primarily means enjoying the favor of others: popular, beloved—especially, due to agreeable qualities about oneself. In other words, a person who is _gratiosus_ is one that others are very glad to have around. This is imported into English as &quot;gracious&quot;, a word which your friend appears to have chosen quite propitiously.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4347" RevisionGUID="827180de-d595-44c0-b377-68a14eccf9f7" CreationDate="2017-05-10T09:52:18.400" UserId="118" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="&gt; Lapsus meus gratiosus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **lapsus** ([noun](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#lapsus), masc.) is literally a slip, a fall, extended to mean a mistake, including a moral mistake. These senses live in English &quot;relapse&quot;, &quot;collapse&quot;, and of course &quot;lapse&quot;. It appears in phrases such as [_lapsus linguæ_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lapsus_linguae), &quot;a slip of the tongue&quot;. At the same time, Christianity uses _lapsus_ to refer to the fall of Adam. A [_lapsus carnalis_](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22lapsus+carnalis%22&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8#q=%22lapsus+carnalis%22&amp;tbm=bks) is a &quot;sin of the flesh&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Meus** means &quot;my&quot;. I put it here after the noun in order not to give it strong emphasis. Putting a possessive pronoun before the noun tends to make it the main point: _meus lapsus_ would mean &quot;_my_ mistake&quot;, putting most of the emphasis on the father.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gratiosus** ([adjective](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#gratiosus)) is filled with 2,700 years of accumulated positive connotations. [_Gratus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) primarily means beloved, dear, pleasing, commonly extended to mean worthy of thanks—a sense that lives in English &quot;gratitude&quot;. There is also the well-known Latin phrase _persona non grata_, a person who is not welcome: a person who is _grata_ is welcome, i.e. gladly admitted into the community. As a noun, [_gratia_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) it means favor, both that felt by others and favor felt toward another. Christianity picked it up as &quot;grace&quot;, and it occurs in such established Latin phrases as [_Dei gratia regina_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dei_Gratia_Regina), &quot;Queen by the grace of God&quot;, still used on coins in Commonwealth countries. The suffix _-osus_ is like Anglo-Saxon _-ful_ in English: it makes an adjective signifying an intensified version of the noun. [_Gratiosus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratiosus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) primarily means enjoying the favor of others: popular, beloved—especially, due to agreeable qualities about oneself. In other words, a person who is _gratiosus_ is one that others are very glad to have around. This is imported into English as &quot;gracious&quot;, a word which your friend appears to have chosen quite propitiously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the father wants to address the son by this phrase, he should use the vocative case, which comes out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mi lapse gratiose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that the *e*'s are both pronounced, like _e_ as in Spanish.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4347" RevisionGUID="517fd2aa-9f81-4ab6-8d84-f231b008cb96" CreationDate="2017-05-10T09:57:51.040" UserId="118" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="&gt; Lapsus meus gratiosus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **lapsus** ([noun](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#lapsus), masc.) is literally a slip, a fall, extended to mean a mistake, including a moral mistake. These senses live in English &quot;relapse&quot;, &quot;collapse&quot;, and of course &quot;lapse&quot;. It appears in phrases such as [_lapsus linguæ_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lapsus_linguae), &quot;a slip of the tongue&quot;. At the same time, Christianity uses _lapsus_ to refer to the fall of Adam. A [_lapsus carnalis_](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22lapsus+carnalis%22&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8#q=%22lapsus+carnalis%22&amp;tbm=bks) or [_lapsus carnis_](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22lapsus+carnis%22&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8#q=%22lapsus+carnis%22&amp;tbm=bks) is a &quot;sin of the flesh&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Meus** means &quot;my&quot;. I put it here after the noun in order not to give it strong emphasis. Putting a possessive pronoun before the noun tends to make it the main point: _meus lapsus_ would mean &quot;_my_ mistake&quot;, putting most of the emphasis on the father.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gratiosus** ([adjective](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#gratiosus)) is filled with 2,700 years of accumulated positive connotations. [_Gratus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) primarily means beloved, dear, pleasing, commonly extended to mean worthy of thanks—a sense that lives in English &quot;gratitude&quot;. There is also the well-known Latin phrase _persona non grata_, a person who is not welcome: a person who is _grata_ is welcome, i.e. gladly admitted into the community. As a noun, [_gratia_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) it means favor, both that felt by others and favor felt toward another. Christianity picked it up as &quot;grace&quot;, and it occurs in such established Latin phrases as [_Dei gratia regina_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dei_Gratia_Regina), &quot;Queen by the grace of God&quot;, still used on coins in Commonwealth countries. The suffix _-osus_ is like Anglo-Saxon _-ful_ in English: it makes an adjective signifying an intensified version of the noun. [_Gratiosus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratiosus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) primarily means enjoying the favor of others: popular, beloved—especially, due to agreeable qualities about oneself. In other words, a person who is _gratiosus_ is one that others are very glad to have around. This is imported into English as &quot;gracious&quot;, a word which your friend appears to have chosen quite propitiously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the father wants to address the son by this phrase, he should use the vocative case, which comes out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mi lapse gratiose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that the *e*'s are both pronounced, like _e_ as in Spanish.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4347" RevisionGUID="f2118a9a-2adb-408e-b797-4d6f39f655dd" CreationDate="2017-05-10T10:07:45.387" UserId="118" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="&gt; Lapsus meus gratiosus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **lapsus** ([noun](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#lapsus), masc.) is literally a slip, a fall, extended to mean a mistake, including a moral mistake. These senses live in English &quot;relapse&quot;, &quot;collapse&quot;, and of course &quot;lapse&quot;. It appears in phrases such as [_lapsus linguæ_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lapsus_linguae), &quot;a slip of the tongue&quot;. At the same time, Christianity uses _lapsus_ to refer to the fall of Adam. A [_lapsus carnalis_](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22lapsus+carnalis%22&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8#q=%22lapsus+carnalis%22&amp;tbm=bks) or [_lapsus carnis_](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22lapsus+carnis%22&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8#q=%22lapsus+carnis%22&amp;tbm=bks) is a &quot;sin of the flesh&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Meus** means &quot;my&quot;. I put it here after the noun in order not to give it strong emphasis. Putting a possessive pronoun before the noun tends to make it the main point: _meus lapsus_ would mean &quot;_my_ mistake&quot;, putting most of the emphasis on the father.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gratiosus** ([adjective](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#gratiosus)) is filled with 2,700 years of accumulated positive connotations. [_Gratus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) primarily means beloved, dear, pleasing, commonly extended to mean worthy of thanks—a sense that lives in English &quot;gratitude&quot;. There is also the well-known Latin phrase [_persona non grata_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_non_grata), a person who is not welcome; so, a person who is _grata_ is welcome, i.e. gladly admitted into the community. As a noun, [_gratia_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) it means favor, both that felt by others and favor felt toward another. Christianity picked it up as &quot;grace&quot;, and it occurs in such established Latin phrases as [_Dei gratia regina_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dei_Gratia_Regina), &quot;Queen by the grace of God&quot;, still used on coins in Commonwealth countries. The suffix _-osus_ is like Anglo-Saxon _-ful_ in English: it makes an adjective signifying an intensified version of the noun. [_Gratiosus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratiosus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) primarily means enjoying the favor of others: popular, beloved—especially, due to agreeable qualities about oneself. In other words, a person who is _gratiosus_ is one that others are very glad to have around. This is imported into English as &quot;gracious&quot;, a word which your friend appears to have chosen quite propitiously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the father wants to address the son by this phrase, he should use the vocative case, which comes out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mi lapse gratiose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that the *e*'s are both pronounced, like _e_ as in Spanish.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4347" RevisionGUID="0b809d7b-9dd0-46ba-894d-410aadc3c809" CreationDate="2017-05-10T10:28:45.837" UserId="118" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="&gt; Lapsus meus gratiosus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **lapsus** ([noun](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#lapsus), masc.) is literally a slip, a fall, extended to mean a mistake, including a moral mistake. These senses live in English &quot;relapse&quot;, &quot;collapse&quot;, and of course &quot;lapse&quot;. It appears in phrases such as [_lapsus linguæ_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lapsus_linguae), &quot;a slip of the tongue&quot;. Christianity uses _lapsus_ to refer to the fall of [Adam](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22lapsus+carnis%22&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8#tbm=bks&amp;q=lapsus+adam), whence some unusual English words like &quot;[prelapsarian](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prelapsarian#Latin)&quot; and &quot;[postlapsarian](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/postlapsarian#English)&quot;. A [_lapsus carnalis_](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22lapsus+carnalis%22&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8#q=%22lapsus+carnalis%22&amp;tbm=bks) or [_lapsus carnis_](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22lapsus+carnis%22&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8#q=%22lapsus+carnis%22&amp;tbm=bks) is a &quot;sin of the flesh&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Meus** means &quot;my&quot;. I put it here after the noun in order not to give it strong emphasis. Putting a possessive pronoun before the noun tends to make it the main point: _meus lapsus_ would mean &quot;_my_ mistake&quot;, putting most of the emphasis on the father.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gratiosus** ([adjective](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#gratiosus)) is filled with 2,700 years of accumulated positive connotations. [_Gratus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) primarily means beloved, dear, pleasing, commonly extended to mean worthy of thanks—a sense that lives in English &quot;gratitude&quot;. There is also the well-known Latin phrase [_persona non grata_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_non_grata), a person who is not welcome; so, a person who is _grata_ is welcome, i.e. gladly admitted into the community. As a noun, [_gratia_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) it means favor, both that felt by others and favor felt toward another. Christianity picked it up as &quot;grace&quot;, and it occurs in such established Latin phrases as [_Dei gratia regina_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dei_Gratia_Regina), &quot;Queen by the grace of God&quot;, still used on coins in Commonwealth countries. The suffix _-osus_ is like Anglo-Saxon _-ful_ in English: it makes an adjective signifying an intensified version of the noun. [_Gratiosus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratiosus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) primarily means enjoying the favor of others: popular, beloved—especially, due to agreeable qualities about oneself. In other words, a person who is _gratiosus_ is one that others are very glad to have around. This is imported into English as &quot;gracious&quot;, a word which your friend appears to have chosen quite propitiously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the father wants to address the son by this phrase, he should use the vocative case, which comes out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mi lapse gratiose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that the *e*'s are both pronounced, like _e_ as in Spanish.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4347" RevisionGUID="b2cc19f4-4cd7-4e66-b736-7c5c9d745e90" CreationDate="2017-05-10T10:54:12.290" UserId="118" Comment="added 183 characters in body" Text="&gt; Lapsus meus gratiosus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **lapsus** ([noun](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#lapsus), masc.) is literally a slip, a fall, extended to mean a mistake, including a moral mistake. These senses live in English &quot;relapse&quot;, &quot;collapse&quot;, and of course &quot;lapse&quot;. It appears in phrases such as [_lapsus linguæ_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lapsus_linguae), &quot;a slip of the tongue&quot;. Christianity uses _lapsus_ to refer to the fall of [Adam](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22lapsus+carnis%22&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8#tbm=bks&amp;q=lapsus+adam), whence some unusual English words like &quot;[prelapsarian](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prelapsarian#Latin)&quot; and &quot;[postlapsarian](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/postlapsarian#English)&quot;. A [_lapsus carnalis_](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22lapsus+carnalis%22&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8#q=%22lapsus+carnalis%22&amp;tbm=bks) or [_lapsus carnis_](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22lapsus+carnis%22&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8#q=%22lapsus+carnis%22&amp;tbm=bks) is a &quot;sin of the flesh&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Meus** means &quot;my&quot;. I put it here after the noun in order not to give it strong emphasis. Putting a possessive pronoun before the noun tends to make it the main point: _meus lapsus_ would mean &quot;_my_ mistake&quot;, putting most of the emphasis on the father.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gratiosus** ([adjective](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#gratiosus)) is filled with 2,700 years of accumulated positive connotations. [_Gratus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) primarily means beloved, dear, pleasing, commonly extended to mean worthy of thanks—a sense that lives in English &quot;gratitude&quot;. There is also the well-known Latin phrase [_persona non grata_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_non_grata), a person who is not welcome; so, a person who is _grata_ is welcome, i.e. gladly admitted into the community. As a noun, [_gratia_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) it means favor, both that felt by others and favor felt toward another. Christianity picked it up as &quot;grace&quot;, and it occurs in such established Latin phrases as [_Dei gratia regina_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dei_Gratia_Regina), &quot;Queen by the grace of God&quot;, still used on coins in Commonwealth countries. The suffix _-osus_ is like Anglo-Saxon _-ful_ in English: it makes an adjective signifying an intensified version of the noun. [_Gratiosus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratiosus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) primarily means enjoying the favor of others: popular, beloved—especially, due to agreeable qualities about oneself. In other words, a person who is _gratiosus_ is one that others are very glad to have around. This is imported into English as &quot;gracious&quot;, a word which your friend appears to have chosen quite propitiously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I'm thinking that combining the connotations of _lapsus_ with those of _gratiosus_ creates the same benevolent irony of &quot;my gracious mistake&quot;—maybe even a little more clearly!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the father wants to address the son by this phrase, he should use the vocative case, which comes out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mi lapse gratiose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that the *e*'s are both pronounced, like _e_ as in Spanish.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13253" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="1309" RevisionGUID="20135aa0-028a-4bf3-ae86-d68453feb80a" CreationDate="2017-05-10T13:06:49.370" UserId="45" Comment="32" />
  <row Id="13254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4347" RevisionGUID="05c9b63c-1465-4431-8f74-94efcf0d0fb1" CreationDate="2017-05-10T13:09:57.007" UserId="118" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="&gt; Lapsus meus gratiosus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **lapsus** ([noun](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#lapsus), masc.) is literally a slip, a fall, extended to mean a mistake, including a moral mistake. These senses live in English &quot;relapse&quot;, &quot;collapse&quot;, and of course &quot;lapse&quot;. It appears in phrases such as [_lapsus linguæ_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lapsus_linguae), &quot;a slip of the tongue&quot;. Christianity uses _lapsus_ to refer to the fall of [Adam](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22lapsus+carnis%22&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8#tbm=bks&amp;q=lapsus+adam), whence some unusual English words like &quot;[prelapsarian](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prelapsarian#Latin)&quot; and &quot;[postlapsarian](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/postlapsarian#English)&quot;. A [_lapsus carnalis_](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22lapsus+carnalis%22&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8#q=%22lapsus+carnalis%22&amp;tbm=bks) or [_lapsus carnis_](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22lapsus+carnis%22&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8#q=%22lapsus+carnis%22&amp;tbm=bks) is a &quot;sin of the flesh&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Meus** means &quot;my&quot;. I put it here after the noun in order not to give it strong emphasis. Putting a possessive pronoun before the noun tends to make it the main point: _meus lapsus_ would mean &quot;_my_ mistake&quot;, putting most of the emphasis on the father.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gratiosus** ([adjective](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#gratiosus)) is filled with 2,700 years of accumulated positive connotations. [_Gratus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) primarily means beloved, dear, pleasing, commonly extended to mean worthy of thanks—a sense that lives in English &quot;gratitude&quot;. There is also the well-known Latin phrase [_persona non grata_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_non_grata), a person who is not welcome; so, a person who is _grata_ is welcome, i.e. gladly admitted into the community. As a noun, [_gratia_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), it means favor, both that felt by others and favor felt toward another. Christianity picked it up as &quot;[grace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_grace)&quot;, and it occurs in such established Latin phrases as [_Dei gratia regina_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dei_Gratia_Regina), &quot;Queen by the [grace of God](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By_the_Grace_of_God)&quot;, still used on coins in Commonwealth countries. The suffix _-osus_ is like Anglo-Saxon _-ful_ in English: it makes an adjective signifying an intensified version of the noun. [_Gratiosus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratiosus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) primarily means enjoying the favor of others: popular, beloved—especially, due to agreeable qualities about oneself. In other words, a person who is _gratiosus_ is one that others are very glad to have around. This is imported into English as &quot;gracious&quot;, a word which your friend appears to have chosen quite propitiously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I'm thinking that combining the connotations of _lapsus_ with those of _gratiosus_ creates the same benevolent irony of &quot;my gracious mistake&quot;. Maybe it's even clearer in Latin!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the father wants to address the son by this phrase, he should use the vocative case, which comes out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mi lapse gratiose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that the *e*'s are both pronounced, like _e_ as in Spanish.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4314" RevisionGUID="78acd9fc-ba96-46ac-98cc-609243ebe7d0" CreationDate="2017-05-10T13:12:19.377" UserId="45" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="As Pinkster 2015 writes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is an immense literature concerning the rule or rules for the use of the reflexive in subordinate clauses (p. 1125).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s a summary of most important points found in volume 1 “The Simple Clause”, [section 11.124][1] of Pinkster 2015 magisterial “The Oxford Latin Syntax” (pp. 1120-1137).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question is about **indirect reflexives** (other terms: long-distance reflexives or long-distance anaphors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster explains it as follows,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**In complex sentences a constituent of the subordinate clause may be coreferential with a constituent of its own clause (normally the subject) or with a constituent of the governing clause, not necessarily the subject** (p. 1124). e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; *vos ex M. **Favonio**&lt;sup&gt;x&lt;/sup&gt; audistis Clodium **sibi**&lt;sup&gt;x&lt;/sup&gt; dixisse ... periturum Milonem triduo* ([Cic. *Mil*. 44][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; *illam&lt;sup&gt;y&lt;/sup&gt; suam&lt;sup&gt;x&lt;/sup&gt; suas&lt;sup&gt;y&lt;/sup&gt; res sibi&lt;sup&gt;y&lt;/sup&gt; habere iussit&lt;sup&gt;x&lt;/sup&gt;...* ([Cic. *Phil*. 2.69][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He notes that “the reflexive pronoun usually follows the constituent it is coreferential with” (p. 1135). Pinkster also discusses four cases when the reflexive pronoun is the preferred choice – rather than the possessive adjective (non-finite clauses, restrictive relative clauses etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pinkster also argues that the use of the indirect reflexive decreased during time and other anaphoric forms – such as the pronoun “is” and the demonstrative “ille” – took its place. He mentions that the latter “is” and “ille” are usually coreferential with a non-subject though (p. 1133).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster discusses several examples (mostly from Cicero and Livy) where confusion is avoided by using the pronoun “is” (instead of “se” or “suus”) – see pp. 1133-1135 for further discussion/details, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Milesios navem poposcit quae eum praesidii causa Myndum prosequeretur.* ([Cic. *Ver*. 1.86][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster writes that &quot;eum&quot; here &quot;indicates that Cicero is responsible for the insertion of this specification, and that it was not (necessarily) part of Verres' demand&quot; (p. 1133).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about your example sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Solberg 2011][5] argues that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**The LDAs** [long-distance anaphora - Alex] **in reported complement**, which I have called the normal Latin LDAs, **obligatorily take as antecedent the noun referring to the person whose thought the clause expresses**&quot; (p. 117).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The reflexive in Latin may be considered a device for marking the speaker’s attitude towards the participants in the event that he is describing. When the speaker identifies himself with the subject’s (or topic’s) point of view, that is, when he presents the facts from the perspective of the subject (or of the topic), then the reflexive is used ([Bertocchi 1989][6]: 455).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In linguistics, this phenomenon is called [logophoricity][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, there are two competing readings of your example sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Dixit&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; Marcum se&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; odisse.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The referent of the subject of the matrix clause reported what he thinks about Mark (the thinker is not Mark), cf. *I think Mark hates me*. Or,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  **Dixit Marcum&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; se&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt; odisse.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The referent of the subject of the matrix clause merely reported what Mark said (the thinker is Mark), cf. *Mark told me he hates himself*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613-chapter-11&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-pro_milone/1931/pb_LCL252.57.xml?mainRsKey=TR6gQb&amp;amp;result=2&amp;amp;rskey=mRr8OG&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-philippic_2/2010/pb_LCL189.121.xml?mainRsKey=xZaCUf&amp;amp;result=1&amp;amp;rskey=59VZeb&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-second_speech_verres/1928/pb_LCL221.215.xml?&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://munin.uit.no/handle/10037/3512&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=jLkXdU_ie1EC&amp;lpg=PA441&amp;dq=Bertocchi%201%20the%20role%20of%20antecedents&amp;pg=PA455#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logophoricity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4342" RevisionGUID="7c81fc5b-322f-4ec0-8a26-05fce6449e34" CreationDate="2017-05-10T15:31:16.630" UserId="118" Comment="Moved the explanation closer to the phrase." Text="Let me start by apologising for my terrible attempt at Latin. I don't have any knowledge of the language at all.  However, I do speak Italian so I've taken a bit of my knowledge and lots of Google Translate help to hopefully convert the phrase to Latin (ancient or modern: I'm not that bothered as long as it back-translates to English as the full phrase).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is **&quot;My Gracious Mistake&quot;**. It's a phrase my best friend uses to describe his kid, since he was a mistake but he loves him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've translated to &quot;mei misereatur error.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How far off the mark am I?  Can it be improved and also how would you pronounce it? Any help would be much appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4342" RevisionGUID="82f71c4c-6175-44c8-875b-d9484e379084" CreationDate="2017-05-10T15:40:52.860" UserId="118" Comment="typo" Text="Let me start by apologising for my terrible attempt at Latin. I don't have any knowledge of the language at all.  However, I do speak Italian so I've taken a bit of my knowledge and lots of Google Translate help to hopefully convert the phrase to Latin (ancient or modern: I'm not that bothered as long as it back-translates to English as the full phrase).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is **&quot;My Gracious Mistake&quot;**. It's a phrase my best friend uses to describe his kid, since he was a mistake but he loves him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've translated it to &quot;mei misereatur error.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How far off the mark am I?  Can it be improved and also how would you pronounce it? Any help would be much appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="5790d5c6-f883-49d6-bd8a-61fd86955ffd" CreationDate="2017-05-10T19:29:04.420" UserId="118" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="#1. Yes, it's ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is only a hypothesis, inspired somewhat indirectly by [this _Marginalia_ blog post](http://promagistris.blogspot.com/2006/08/latin-word-order-doesnt-matter.html). I don't have nearly enough experience with the language to give this hypothesis much credibility—or to reject it, so here goes. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can debunk it or corroborate it in comments. Do not take this as in any way authoritative. This post is essentially me thinking out loud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _Se_ refers to the _subject_ currently having things said about it—not necessarily the grammatical subject, but the current grammatical &quot;topic&quot;, regardless of its grammatical case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The ambiguity occurs when multiple antecedents can reasonably be understood as the current topic—as happens inside a subordinate clause. The main clause has a topic and the inner clause has a topic. Consequently _se_ is &quot;attracted&quot; simultaneously to both antecedents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A variety of pressures make each antecedent attract the _se_ more or less strongly. When one antecedent exerts a much stronger pressure than all others, there is no ambiguity. When two antecedents exert nearly equal pressures, there is ambiguity. So, **there is no rule**, only a competition in the listener's mind—and different antecedents may win in different listeners' minds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some pressures, each of which can be opposed or overridden by others:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The topic of the main clause is the topic of the whole sentence, and normally maintains that dominance even inside the subordinate clause—at least, it tends to attract _se_ more strongly by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The beginning of a clause typically establishes its topic. Regardless of its case, the topic is the anchor to which the sentence gradually attaches information, usually culminating in the end of the clause, where the most important new thing is stated. Upon reaching the first word of a clause, normally the scope of what a pronoun can refer to is limited to subjects already mentioned in the sentence, though this is easily overridden at the start of a main clause (when there's nothing yet to refer to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Analogous word orders, especially those felt to be canonical, add weight to analogous choices of antecedent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Alterations of canonical word order add weight to choices of precedent that are _not_ analogous to the canonical one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Interpretations that don't make sense repel rather than attract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Context: if preceding discourse has put a question &quot;on the table&quot;, an antecedent of _se_ that makes the sentence answer that question is favored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Juxtaposed _ipse, proprius,_ and _semet, sese_ and the like add weight favoring finding the antecedent in the subordinate clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. Irony, poetic meter, flair, whimsy—stylistic choices that run against conventional word order can reverse any of the above pressures. These depend on a listener's ability to &quot;get it&quot; and willingness to &quot;play along&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit se Marcum odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Se,_ coming first in the subordinate clause, here establishes its topic: Quintus said something about himself, namely that he hates Marcus. Pressures (1), (2), and (3) prevail, and there is practically no ambiguity (absent contextual pressures).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The familiar and canonical word order _Aliquis dixit aliquem se infinitivum,_ where _se_ is an object of the infinitive verb and refers to _aliquis_, pulls _se_ toward _Quintus_ (1, 3). But _Aliquis se odit_ is also a reasonable sentence, and it pulls _se_ toward _Marcum_ almost as strongly (2, 5). Absent other pressures, _Quintus_ will most likely be heard as the antecedent, but it's not certain. A speaker and listener might even resolve the ambiguity differently, without even noticing that there is an ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#2. Here are some ways to disambiguate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, here are some ways to overpower (1), helping _se_ refer to the subject of the subordinate clause—though, since there are no rules, there are no guarantees, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcum se odisse, Quintus dixit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here _Marcum_ is the only available antecedent when _se_ arrives (2). If _Quintus_ is to own _se,_ it'll have to steal it from an already entrenched defender (perhaps another pressure). Cicero may have used this trick in [_De Finibus_ 5.20](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=LatinAugust2012&amp;getid=0&amp;query=Cic.%20Fin.%205.20), though other pressures are at work, too (3, 5, 6):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam voluptatis causa facere omnia, cum, etiamsi nihil consequamur,&#xD;&#xA;tamen ipsum illud **consilium** ita faciendi per **se** expetendum et honestum et solum bonum sit, **nemo dixit**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **No one** [neither Aristippus nor Hieronymus nor Carneades] **has claimed** that everyone acts for the sake of pleasure in the sense that&#xD;&#xA;even if we accomplish nothing, the mere **intention** of so acting&#xD;&#xA;is, because of **itself** alone, to be desired or honorable or the sole good  [not because of Aristippus _et al._)].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way out of the ambiguity is to use the passive voice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A Quinto dicitur Marcus se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passive voice makes _Marcus_ the subject of both the main clause and the subordinate clause. Perhaps contextual pressure could still make _se_ refer to _Quinto,_ though. Moving _Marcus_ to the beginning of the sentence and _a Quinto_ to the end would add more pressures favoring _Marcus_ as the antecedent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quomodo se aestimat Marcus? Non bene, puto. Quintus tamen dixit Marcum se odisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here context pulls _se_ toward _Marcum_ (6), probably, but not certainly, excluding _Quintus._ A speaker who meant that Quintus said that Marcus hates himself would likely choose this wording spontaneously, without noticing the ambiguity. A listener is more likely to notice, but is still likely to take _Marcum_ as the antecedent. (_N.b._ I am _making this up_ as I am writing it. It's only a guess.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum odisse se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, moving _se_ out of its canonical position and into the most important spot, the end of the sentence, suggests that the speaker wants you to understand that _se_ refers to _Marcum_ (4). A listener could still easily hear it the other way, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of throwing in an _ipse_ to overcome other pressures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit cavum se fodisse. (Surely the speaker is emphasizing the fact that Quintus is talking about the hole: Quintus said of the hole that he had dug it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit cavum seipsum fodisse. (Well, maybe the speaker really does mean that Quintus said that the hole dug itself.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only made that up, but [Allen &amp; Greenough §300](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-300.html) (thanks, TKR!) says that using _ipse,_ or even _is, instead of_ the reflexive pronoun can resolve the ambiguity, with _ipse_ having a stronger pull toward the main clause's subject (maybe contra what I just said):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Caesar centuriones incusavit:] …Aut cur de **sua** virtute aut de **ipsius** diligentia desperarent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Caesar berated the centurions:] …Why should they despair either of **their own** courage or of **Caesar's** diligence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there's yet another pressure: separate use of both _se_ and _ipse_ suggests distinction, driving _ipse_ to the main clause and _se_ to the subordinate clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum se odisse atque ipsum dilexisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you could always drop the reflexive pronoun, though this sure sounds weird:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintus dixit Marcum Marcum odisse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="769" RevisionGUID="63ad8464-ad4b-4359-89aa-61d93dc766ff" CreationDate="2017-05-10T21:18:11.513" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="Quo modo expressio Anglica &quot;fool proof&quot; Latine reddi potest?&#xD;&#xA;Nullum idioma Latinum significatione simile scio.&#xD;&#xA;Eandem rem Latine exprimere possum, exempli gratia dicendo &quot;perbene munitus&quot;, sed malim vocem (aut voces) invenire, qua utebantur iam Romani antiqui.&#xD;&#xA;Ecce exemplum usus: &quot;Hoc systema securitatis ____ est.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short English version: How to translate &quot;fool proof&quot; into Latin? *Perbene munitus*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13261" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="769" RevisionGUID="63ad8464-ad4b-4359-89aa-61d93dc766ff" CreationDate="2017-05-10T21:18:11.513" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|adjective|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="749" RevisionGUID="b13aafb8-8cfe-4fe6-934d-d8860caa10c5" CreationDate="2017-05-10T21:24:20.493" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm looking to use &quot;Night bird&quot; as a name or title for something. I don't know which, if any, of the following would be correct: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Noctis Avem&#xD;&#xA; - Avem Noctis&#xD;&#xA; - Avis Noctem&#xD;&#xA; - Avem nox&#xD;&#xA; - etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What rules come into play when this is being used as a name or title of something, and is there more than one correct way to phrase it? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13263" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="749" RevisionGUID="b13aafb8-8cfe-4fe6-934d-d8860caa10c5" CreationDate="2017-05-10T21:24:20.493" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|grammar-choice|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4348" RevisionGUID="dd5f6b47-a931-4c2b-8b39-33ebe8faab85" CreationDate="2017-05-10T22:49:25.430" UserId="79" Text="For the purposes of this questtion, let me spell the English word &quot;atopy&quot; as &quot;atopia&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea why the the same kind of etymological background (same derivative on the same Greek word *τόπος*) has lead to two different endings in English, but that is not what I want to ask here.&#xD;&#xA;In many other languages these two words seem to have the same spelling (at the end).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utopia means an unrealistically perfect place, and the word means roughly &quot;non-place&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Atopia is a condition that is not localized in any particular part of the body, and the word means roughly &quot;placelessness&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I want to compare the prefixes *u-* and *a-* here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the point of view of classical Greek, how do the prefixes *u-* and *a-* compare?&#xD;&#xA;Would they correspond reasonably to the use in &quot;utopia&quot; and &quot;atopia&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Was *u-* even ever used as a prefix like this in classical or older Greek, or is the derivation a more modern invention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13265" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4348" RevisionGUID="dd5f6b47-a931-4c2b-8b39-33ebe8faab85" CreationDate="2017-05-10T22:49:25.430" UserId="79" Text="Comparing utopia and atopia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13266" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4348" RevisionGUID="dd5f6b47-a931-4c2b-8b39-33ebe8faab85" CreationDate="2017-05-10T22:49:25.430" UserId="79" Text="|greek|word-comparison|derivation|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4349" RevisionGUID="68f20f10-cf95-4b24-92db-2c2ab928d0a6" CreationDate="2017-05-11T00:39:13.023" UserId="79" Text="Google Translate is notoriously unreliable for Latin.&#xD;&#xA;However, the translations do make some amount of sense.&#xD;&#xA;**Is there some kind of translation task involving Latin that Google Translate is relatively reliable for?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried it for simple phrases to and from English.&#xD;&#xA;Here are the result of my little test&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Puer canem amat. &amp;rightarrow; The boy dog loves. (The boy loves the dog.)&#xD;&#xA;2. Canem puer amat. &amp;rightarrow; The boy loves the dog. (Correct!)&#xD;&#xA;3. Puerum canis amat. &amp;rightarrow; The dog loves the child. (Correct!)&#xD;&#xA;4. Canis puerum amat. &amp;rightarrow; The dog loves the child. (Correct!)&#xD;&#xA;5. Puer canis amat. &amp;rightarrow; The boy dog loves. (The boy of the dog loves.)&#xD;&#xA;6. Canis puer amat. &amp;rightarrow; The dog loves the child. (The boy of the dog loves.)&#xD;&#xA;7. Canis pueri amat. &amp;rightarrow; The dog loves children. (The dog of the boy loves.)&#xD;&#xA;8. Pueri canis amat. &amp;rightarrow; The dog loves children. (The dog of the boy loves.)&#xD;&#xA;9. The boy loves the dog. &amp;rightarrow; Puer canem diligit. (Correct!)&#xD;&#xA;10. The dog loves the boy. &amp;rightarrow; Canis puerum amat. (Correct!)&#xD;&#xA;11. The boy of the dog loves. &amp;rightarrow; Puer canem amat. (Correct!)&#xD;&#xA;12. The dog of the boy loves. &amp;rightarrow; Canis pueri amat. (Correct!)&#xD;&#xA;13. The boy and the dog walk together because it does not rain. &amp;rightarrow; Puer et canis ambulare quia non pluet simul. (Puer et canis una ambulant quia non pluit.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These might not be the perfect example sentences, but they demonstrate some basic syntax.&#xD;&#xA;(Whether or not the content makes sense should not affect translation in simple cases like this, but it might be that Google Translate is not wired that way.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that translation from Latin to English is very difficult even with simple structures.&#xD;&#xA;English to Latin is much better, but it fails for the slightly more complicated sentence.&#xD;&#xA;Google does offer alternatives, and some of them greatly improve the last sentence, but someone with no knowledge in Latin will not be able to pick the right ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tool might work better for translating individual words&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; or with some language other than English.&#xD;&#xA;And perhaps it does translate simple SVO clauses consistently well from English to Latin &amp;mdash; I did not do an extensive test, and I have no prior experience.&#xD;&#xA;Does someone have more experience with Google Translate?&#xD;&#xA;It would be good to know if there is something it is useful and reliable for, even if the scope is very limited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Format:&#xD;&#xA;Original &amp;rightarrow; Google translation (better translation if Google fails)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For translating individual words it's better to look at [any online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;But my question is not whether there are better tools than Google Translate.&#xD;&#xA;The question whether Google Translate can be trusted for anything at all regarding Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13268" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4349" RevisionGUID="68f20f10-cf95-4b24-92db-2c2ab928d0a6" CreationDate="2017-05-11T00:39:13.023" UserId="79" Text="What is Google Translate good for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13269" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4349" RevisionGUID="68f20f10-cf95-4b24-92db-2c2ab928d0a6" CreationDate="2017-05-11T00:39:13.023" UserId="79" Text="|translation|latin-on-devices|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4350" RevisionGUID="8a7577e3-ded1-4b82-a608-e70058068fac" CreationDate="2017-05-11T00:55:50.993" UserId="235" Text="When greeting someone, are there any subtle differences between &quot;Ave&quot; and &quot;Salve&quot;? Can both be used to greet and respond? E.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcus: Ave, Cicero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cicero: Salve, Marce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, vice versa:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vergilius: Salve, Ovidi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ovidius: Ave, Vergili.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, is one in a higher register than the other? Would one be used more often by plebeians? Or by aristocrats?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13271" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4350" RevisionGUID="8a7577e3-ded1-4b82-a608-e70058068fac" CreationDate="2017-05-11T00:55:50.993" UserId="235" Text="Are there any subtle differences in the greetings, &quot;Ave&quot; and &quot;Salve&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13272" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4350" RevisionGUID="8a7577e3-ded1-4b82-a608-e70058068fac" CreationDate="2017-05-11T00:55:50.993" UserId="235" Text="|vocabulary|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4350" RevisionGUID="14b2296c-6cb8-4dea-ad92-5eb4ee953f94" CreationDate="2017-05-11T01:03:27.063" UserId="235" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="When greeting someone, are there any subtle differences between &quot;Ave&quot; and &quot;Salve&quot;? Can both be used to greet and respond? E.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcus: Ave, Cicero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cicero: Salve, Marce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, vice versa:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vergilius: Salve, Ovidi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ovidius: Ave, Vergili.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, is one in a higher register than the other? Would one be used more often by plebeians? Or by aristocrats?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4351" RevisionGUID="d0a3822f-9d54-4ece-8e35-6eaa9942fcaf" CreationDate="2017-05-11T01:07:42.077" UserId="78" Text="Like with [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4333/do-any-latin-animal-names-start-with-q), I'm looking for common or barnyard animals attested in the Classical period, but Late Latin or early Medieval Latin that has a good case of going back to the Classical period would suffice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do know two that went back to Greek (*ictis* and *ibis*), but I'm hoping for more examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13275" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4351" RevisionGUID="d0a3822f-9d54-4ece-8e35-6eaa9942fcaf" CreationDate="2017-05-11T01:07:42.077" UserId="78" Text="Do any common/barnyard Latin animal names start with vocalic I?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13276" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4351" RevisionGUID="d0a3822f-9d54-4ece-8e35-6eaa9942fcaf" CreationDate="2017-05-11T01:07:42.077" UserId="78" Text="|vocabulary|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4351" RevisionGUID="3c94ff3d-c40b-4a94-aa19-e3c516dd4f27" CreationDate="2017-05-11T01:26:41.877" UserId="78" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="Like with [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4333/do-any-latin-animal-names-start-with-q), I'm looking for common or barnyard animals attested in the Classical period, but Late Latin or early Medieval Latin that has a good case of going back to the Classical period would suffice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do know two that went back to Greek (*ictis* and *ibis*, the former probably sufficing), but I'm hoping for more examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13278" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4351" RevisionGUID="3c94ff3d-c40b-4a94-aa19-e3c516dd4f27" CreationDate="2017-05-11T01:26:41.877" UserId="78" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="96199dc8-8eff-4091-8a69-fb753aab001e" CreationDate="2017-05-11T03:09:15.597" UserId="118" Text="A classmate of mine who got his Ph.D. in natural-language processing and now works at Google told me the following. It might be out of date and I might be remembering it wrong. But I just did a little, er, googling, and this seems to be passably well corroborated by other sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate is completely statistical. It has no model of grammar, syntax, or meaning. It works by correlating sequences of up to five consecutive words in texts that have been manually translated into two or more languages. More precisely, it has built up a [hidden Markov model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Markov_model) from all the manual translations that have been fed into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the conceit, roughly speaking. Assume that people speak by randomly choosing one word after another, with the probabilities determined by the previous word spoken. For example, if you said &quot;two&quot;, there is a certain probability that the next word will be &quot;or&quot;. If you just said &quot;or&quot;, there is a certain probability that the next word will be &quot;butane&quot;. You can calculate an estimate of these probabilities by looking at lots of text. You can then generate random but just slightly coherent gibberish according to these probabilities: TWO OR BUTANE GAS AND OF THE SAME. If you use a window of more words, say five, the resulting gibberish will look more like a schizophrenic said it than someone with an aphasia. That's a Markov model. The &quot;hidden&quot; part adds some complexity, which I'll defer to the end of this message. The basic idea is: Google Translate tries to choose the most probable next word, based on estimates of probability derived from five-word sequences in both languages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you won't learn much about what Google Translate is reliable for by trying out different grammatical structures. If you're lucky, all you'll get from that is an Eliza effect. What Google Translate is most reliable for is translating documents produced by the United Nations between the languages in use there. This is because UN documents have provided a disproportionately large share of the manually translated texts from which Google Translate draws its five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Witness what happens when I type this in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; À l'exception de ce qui peut être convenu dans les accords particuliers de tutelle conclus conformément aux Articles 77, 79 et 81 et plaçant chaque territoire sous le régime de tutelle, et jusqu'à ce que ces accords aient été conclus, aucune disposition du présent Chapitre ne sera interprétée comme modifiant directement ou indirectement en aucune manière les droits quelconques d'aucun État ou d'aucun peuple ou les dispositions d'actes internationaux en vigueur auxquels des Membres de l'Organisation peuvent être parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Except as may be agreed upon in the special guardianship agreements concluded in accordance with Articles 77, 79 and 81 and placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, This Chapter shall not be construed as directly or indirectly modifying in any way the rights of any State or any people or the provisions of international instruments in force to which Members of the Organization may be parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfect! ([Almost](http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xii/index.html).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why its Latin translations tend to be so poor: it has a very thin corpus of human-made translations of Latin to base its hidden Markov models on—oh, and it's using hidden Markov models.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, until the United Nations starts doing its business in Latin, Google Translate is not going to do a very good job. And even then, don't expect much unless you're translating text pasted from UN documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A hidden Markov model adds &quot;states&quot;. The speaker is assumed to randomly transition from one &quot;state&quot; to another, and each state has its own set of probabilities for what word it will &quot;emit&quot;. Thus a hidden Markov model is a statistical guess about what are the most likely states, transition probabilities, and emission probabilities that would produce a given set of sequences—assuming that they were produced in this random fashion. Google Translate basically calculates &quot;Given that the author in language A just said (up to) these five words, what is the most likely state that the author is in? OK, now, from the corresponding state in language B, what is the most likely word to output next?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of the five-word window. I enter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, are worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin translations are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Anhelat](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anhelo#Latin) quemadmodum speravimus confecta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Braccas](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/braca#Latin) sunt attriti.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anhelat, ut spe [teris](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tero#Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the first and third sentences border on ungrammatical nonsense. There aren't any five-word sequences in Google Translate's English database that line up well with &quot;pants as you expected were/are,&quot; so it's flailing. Notice that in the third sentence, by the time it got to &quot;worn&quot;, it had forgotten which sense of &quot;pants&quot; it chose at the start of the sentence. Or rather, it didn't forget, because it never tracked it. It only tracked five-word sequences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4353" RevisionGUID="0f263cdd-56f9-4f93-941d-f099cb4c7e1f" CreationDate="2017-05-11T03:22:31.657" UserId="45" Text="To answer the question (&quot;What is Latin Google Translate good for?&quot;) as stated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Absolutely nothing***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least reliably." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="5e67b24b-1c25-48e2-ac73-744177bd9a85" CreationDate="2017-05-11T04:11:06.187" UserId="118" Comment="added 1028 characters in body" Text="A classmate of mine who got his Ph.D. in natural-language processing and now works at Google told me the following. It might be out of date and I might be remembering it wrong. But I just did a little, er, googling, and this seems to be passably well corroborated by other sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate is completely statistical. It has no model of grammar, syntax, or meaning. It works by correlating sequences of up to five consecutive words in texts that have been manually translated into two or more languages. More precisely, it has built up a [hidden Markov model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Markov_model) from all the manual translations that have been fed into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the conceit, roughly speaking. Assume that people speak by randomly choosing one word after another, with the probabilities determined by the previous word spoken. For example, if you said &quot;two&quot;, there is a certain probability that the next word will be &quot;or&quot;. If you just said &quot;or&quot;, there is a certain probability that the next word will be &quot;butane&quot;. You can calculate an estimate of these probabilities by looking at lots of text. You can then generate random but just slightly coherent gibberish according to these probabilities: TWO OR BUTANE GAS AND OF THE SAME. If you use a window of more words, say five, the resulting gibberish will look more likely to have been written by a schizophrenic than an aphasic. That's a Markov model. The &quot;hidden&quot; part adds some complexity, which I'll defer to the end of this message. The basic idea is: Google Translate tries to choose the most probable next word, based on estimates of probability derived from five-word sequences in both languages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you won't learn much about what Google Translate is reliable for by trying out different grammatical structures. If you're lucky, all you'll get from that is an Eliza effect. What Google Translate is most reliable for is translating documents produced by the United Nations between the languages in use there. This is because UN documents have provided a disproportionately large share of the manually translated texts from which Google Translate draws its five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Witness what happens when I type this in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; À l'exception de ce qui peut être convenu dans les accords particuliers de tutelle conclus conformément aux Articles 77, 79 et 81 et plaçant chaque territoire sous le régime de tutelle, et jusqu'à ce que ces accords aient été conclus, aucune disposition du présent Chapitre ne sera interprétée comme modifiant directement ou indirectement en aucune manière les droits quelconques d'aucun État ou d'aucun peuple ou les dispositions d'actes internationaux en vigueur auxquels des Membres de l'Organisation peuvent être parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Except as may be agreed upon in the special guardianship agreements concluded in accordance with Articles 77, 79 and 81 and placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, This Chapter shall not be construed as directly or indirectly modifying in any way the rights of any State or any people or the provisions of international instruments in force to which Members of the Organization may be parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfect! ([Almost](http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xii/index.html).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why its Latin translations tend to be so poor: it has a very thin corpus of human-made translations of Latin to base its hidden Markov models on—oh, and it's using hidden Markov models.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, until the United Nations starts doing its business in Latin, Google Translate is not going to do a very good job. And even then, don't expect much unless you're translating text pasted from UN documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Singula curiosorum causa&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A hidden Markov model adds &quot;states&quot;. The speaker is assumed to randomly transition from one &quot;state&quot; to another, and each state has its own set of probabilities for what word it will &quot;emit&quot;. Thus a hidden Markov model is a statistical guess about what are the most likely states, transition probabilities, and emission probabilities that would produce a given set of sequences—assuming that they were produced in this random fashion. Google Translate basically calculates &quot;Given that the author in language A just said (up to) these five words, what is the most likely state that the author is in? OK, now, from the corresponding state in language B, what is the most likely word to output next?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of the five-word window. I enter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, are worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin translations are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Anhelat](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anhelo#Latin) quemadmodum speravimus confecta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Braccas](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/braca#Latin) sunt attriti.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anhelat, ut spe [teris](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tero#Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the first and third sentences border on ungrammatical nonsense. There aren't any five-word sequences in Google Translate's English database that line up well with &quot;pants as you expected were/are,&quot; so it's flailing. Notice that in the third sentence, by the time it got to &quot;worn&quot;, it had forgotten which sense of &quot;pants&quot; it chose at the start of the sentence. Or rather, it didn't forget, because it never tracked it. It only tracked five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether the sentence makes sense sort of affects the translation, but it's worse than that. What matters is exact, word-for-word matching with texts in the database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Entering Latin into Google Translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Iuliam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero canem duxit uxorem nomine Fido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English output:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian, now the wife of another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and the name of his wife, a daughter named Julia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took a wife, and brought him to a dog by the name of Fido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vulgate and the [ASV translation](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025&amp;version=ASV) (or similar) would appear to be among Google Translate's source texts. Notice what happens when the input is off by as little as one word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4354" RevisionGUID="1fe3a1e7-ddbf-4fc8-9782-36202aacd072" CreationDate="2017-05-11T04:11:58.720" UserId="40" Text="οὐ is not used as a prefix in Ancient Greek. I've never seen it used as such other than in Thomas More's coinage *utopia*. I'd guess More may have got the idea from the word οὔτις &quot;nobody&quot; (which is important in *Odyssey* 9, where it's the name Odysseus gives when asked who he is by the cyclops); this is simply a compound of οὐ &quot;not&quot; + τις &quot;someone&quot;. The usual Greek negative prefix is ἀ-, or ἀν- before a vowel. Here is the LSJ for [ἀτοπία][1] (there is no entry for οὐτοπία).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da)topi%2Fa" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4355" RevisionGUID="f4d6e194-5450-42a4-853e-addd80a6a30e" CreationDate="2017-05-11T05:07:22.647" UserId="78" Text="I'll second what TKR said. However, you should keep in mind the pun with utopia. That prefix is supposed to sound like *eu* + *topia*, or &quot;good place.&quot; On the earliest editions, More included the following notice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Me, Utopia, called in Antiquity,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; void of haunt and harbor.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now I am like to Plato’s city,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whose fame flies the world through.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yea like, or rather more likely,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plato’s plot to excel and pass.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For what Plato’s pen has plotted briefly,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In naked words, as in a glass,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The same have I performed fully,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; With laws, with men, and treasure fitly.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wherefore not Utopia, but rather rightly,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **My name is *Eutopie* a place of felicity.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while *utopia* is indeed *ou-* + *topia*, the reader will have both prefixes in mind when reading the work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4355" RevisionGUID="157b20f1-665c-4d63-bd23-512d5be30c35" CreationDate="2017-05-11T05:16:55.457" UserId="78" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="I'll second what TKR said. However, you should keep in mind the pun in the word. That prefix *u-* is supposed to sound like *eu*, giving us the homonym *eutopia*, or &quot;good place.&quot; In the earliest editions of *Utopia*, More included the following notice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Me, Utopia, called in Antiquity,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; void of haunt and harbor.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now I am like to Plato’s city,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whose fame flies the world through.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yea like, or rather more likely,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plato’s plot to excel and pass.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For what Plato’s pen has plotted briefly,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In naked words, as in a glass,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The same have I performed fully,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; With laws, with men, and treasure fitly.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wherefore not Utopia, but rather rightly,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **My name is *Eutopie* a place of felicity.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while *utopia* is indeed *ou-* + *topia*, the reader will have both prefixes in mind when reading the work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4355" RevisionGUID="5a71f798-3e18-4a90-8e55-01de31a5000b" CreationDate="2017-05-11T06:37:54.940" UserId="78" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I'll second what TKR said. However, you should keep in mind the pun in the word. That prefix *u-* is supposed to sound like *eu*, giving us the homophone *eutopia*, or &quot;good place.&quot; In the earliest editions of *Utopia*, More included the following notice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Me, Utopia, called in Antiquity,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; void of haunt and harbor.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now I am like to Plato’s city,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whose fame flies the world through.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yea like, or rather more likely,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plato’s plot to excel and pass.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For what Plato’s pen has plotted briefly,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In naked words, as in a glass,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The same have I performed fully,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; With laws, with men, and treasure fitly.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wherefore not Utopia, but rather rightly,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **My name is *Eutopie* a place of felicity.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while *utopia* is indeed *ou-* + *topia*, the reader will have both prefixes in mind when reading the work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="d6f97998-8bfe-402d-8d00-ce2575805309" CreationDate="2017-05-11T06:47:37.883" UserId="118" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="A classmate of mine who got his Ph.D. in natural-language processing and now works at Google told me the following. It might be out of date and I might be remembering it wrong. But I just did a little, er, googling, and this seems to be passably well corroborated by other sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate is completely statistical. It has no model of grammar, syntax, or meaning. It works by correlating sequences of up to five consecutive words in texts that have been manually translated into two or more languages. More precisely, it has built up a [hidden Markov model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Markov_model) from all the manual translations that have been fed into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the conceit, roughly speaking. Assume that people speak by randomly choosing one word after another, with the probabilities determined by the previous word spoken. For example, if you said &quot;two&quot;, there is a certain probability that the next word will be &quot;or&quot;. If you just said &quot;or&quot;, there is a certain probability that the next word will be &quot;butane&quot;. You can calculate an estimate of these probabilities by looking at lots of text. You can then generate random but just slightly coherent gibberish according to these probabilities: TWO OR BUTANE GAS AND OF THE SAME. If you use a window of more words, say five, the resulting gibberish will look more likely to have been written by a schizophrenic than an aphasic. That's a Markov model. The &quot;hidden&quot; part adds some complexity, which I'll defer to the end of this message. The basic idea is: Google Translate tries to choose the most probable next word, based on estimates of probability derived from five-word sequences in both languages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you won't learn much about what Google Translate is reliable for by trying out different grammatical structures. If you're lucky, all you'll get from that is an Eliza effect. What Google Translate is most reliable for is translating documents produced by the United Nations between the languages in use there. This is because UN documents have provided a disproportionately large share of the manually translated texts from which Google Translate draws its five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Witness what happens when I type this in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; À l'exception de ce qui peut être convenu dans les accords particuliers de tutelle conclus conformément aux Articles 77, 79 et 81 et plaçant chaque territoire sous le régime de tutelle, et jusqu'à ce que ces accords aient été conclus, aucune disposition du présent Chapitre ne sera interprétée comme modifiant directement ou indirectement en aucune manière les droits quelconques d'aucun État ou d'aucun peuple ou les dispositions d'actes internationaux en vigueur auxquels des Membres de l'Organisation peuvent être parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Except as may be agreed upon in the special guardianship agreements concluded in accordance with Articles 77, 79 and 81 and placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, This Chapter shall not be construed as directly or indirectly modifying in any way the rights of any State or any people or the provisions of international instruments in force to which Members of the Organization may be parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfect! ([Almost](http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xii/index.html).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why its Latin translations tend to be so poor: it has a very thin corpus of human-made translations of Latin to base its hidden Markov models on—oh, and it's using hidden Markov models.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, until the United Nations starts doing its business in Latin, Google Translate is not going to do a very good job. And even then, don't expect much unless you're translating text pasted from UN documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Further details for the curious&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A hidden Markov model adds &quot;states&quot;. The speaker is assumed to randomly transition from one &quot;state&quot; to another, and each state has its own set of probabilities for what word it will &quot;emit&quot;. Thus a hidden Markov model is a statistical guess about what are the most likely states, transition probabilities, and emission probabilities that would produce a given set of sequences—assuming that they were produced in this random fashion. Google Translate basically calculates &quot;Given that the author in language A just said (up to) these five words, what is the most likely state that the author is in? OK, now, from the corresponding state in language B, what is the most likely word to output next?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of the five-word window. I enter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, are worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin translations are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Anhelat](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anhelo#Latin) quemadmodum speravimus confecta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Braccas](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/braca#Latin) sunt attriti.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anhelat, ut spe [teris](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tero#Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the first and third sentences border on ungrammatical nonsense. There aren't any five-word sequences in Google Translate's English database that line up well with &quot;pants as you expected were/are,&quot; so it's flailing. Notice that in the third sentence, by the time it got to &quot;worn&quot;, it had forgotten which sense of &quot;pants&quot; it chose at the start of the sentence. Or rather, it didn't forget, because it never tracked it. It only tracked five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether the sentence makes sense sort of affects the translation, but it's worse than that. What matters is exact, word-for-word matching with texts in the database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Entering Latin into Google Translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Iuliam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero canem duxit uxorem nomine Fido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English output:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian, now the wife of another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and the name of his wife, a daughter named Julia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took a wife, and brought him to a dog by the name of Fido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vulgate and the [ASV translation](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025&amp;version=ASV) (or similar) would appear to be among Google Translate's source texts. Notice what happens when the input is off by as little as one word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="ac0f93a7-7c0b-4e7f-9a9c-3cea0ebc0bb3" CreationDate="2017-05-11T07:10:40.080" UserId="118" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="A classmate of mine who got his Ph.D. in natural-language processing and now works at Google told me the following. It might be out of date and I might be remembering it wrong. But I just did a little, er, googling, and this seems to be passably well corroborated by other sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate is completely statistical. It has no model of grammar, syntax, or meaning. It works by correlating sequences of up to five consecutive words in texts that have been manually translated into two or more languages. More precisely, it has built up a [hidden Markov model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Markov_model) from all the manual translations that have been fed into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the conceit, roughly speaking. Assume that people speak by randomly choosing one word after another, with the probabilities determined by the previous word spoken. For example, if you said &quot;two&quot;, there is a certain probability that the next word will be &quot;or&quot;. If you just said &quot;or&quot;, there is a certain probability that the next word will be &quot;butane&quot;. You can calculate an estimate of these probabilities by looking at lots of text. You can then generate random but just slightly coherent gibberish according to these probabilities: TWO OR BUTANE GAS AND OF THE SAME. If you use a window of more words, say five, the resulting gibberish will look more likely to have been written by a schizophrenic than an aphasic. That's a Markov model. The &quot;hidden&quot; part adds some complexity, which I'll defer to the end of this message. The basic idea is: Google Translate tries to choose the most probable next word, based on estimates of probability derived from five-word sequences in both languages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you won't learn much about what Google Translate is reliable for by trying out different grammatical structures. If you're lucky, all you'll get from that is an [ELIZA effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect). What Google Translate is most reliable for is translating documents produced by the United Nations between the languages in use there. This is because UN documents have provided a disproportionately large share of the manually translated texts from which Google Translate draws its five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Witness what happens when I type this in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; À l'exception de ce qui peut être convenu dans les accords particuliers de tutelle conclus conformément aux Articles 77, 79 et 81 et plaçant chaque territoire sous le régime de tutelle, et jusqu'à ce que ces accords aient été conclus, aucune disposition du présent Chapitre ne sera interprétée comme modifiant directement ou indirectement en aucune manière les droits quelconques d'aucun État ou d'aucun peuple ou les dispositions d'actes internationaux en vigueur auxquels des Membres de l'Organisation peuvent être parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Except as may be agreed upon in the special guardianship agreements concluded in accordance with Articles 77, 79 and 81 and placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, This Chapter shall not be construed as directly or indirectly modifying in any way the rights of any State or any people or the provisions of international instruments in force to which Members of the Organization may be parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfect! ([Almost](http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xii/index.html).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why its Latin translations tend to be so poor: it has a very thin corpus of human-made translations of Latin to base its hidden Markov models on—oh, and it's using hidden Markov models.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, until the United Nations starts doing its business in Latin, Google Translate is not going to do a very good job. And even then, don't expect much unless you're translating text pasted from UN documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Further details for the curious&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A hidden Markov model adds &quot;states&quot;. The speaker is assumed to randomly transition from one &quot;state&quot; to another, and each state has its own set of probabilities for what word it will &quot;emit&quot;. Thus a hidden Markov model is a statistical guess about what are the most likely states, transition probabilities, and emission probabilities that would produce a given set of sequences—assuming that they were produced in this random fashion. Google Translate basically calculates &quot;Given that the author in language A just said (up to) these five words, what is the most likely state that the author is in? OK, now, from the corresponding state in language B, what is the most likely word to output next?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of the five-word window. I enter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, are worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin translations come back (with my manual translations back to English):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Anhelat](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anhelo#Latin) quemadmodum speravimus confecta. _(He is panting just as we hoped accomplished.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Braccas](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/braca#Latin) sunt attriti. _(The trousers have been worn away [like &quot;attrition&quot;])._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anhelat, ut spe [teris](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tero#Latin). _(He is panting, just as, by hope, you are wearing [something] out.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the first and third sentences border on ungrammatical nonsense. There aren't any five-word sequences in Google Translate's English database that line up well with &quot;pants as you expected were/are,&quot; so it's flailing. Notice that in the third sentence, by the time it got to &quot;worn&quot;, it had forgotten which sense of &quot;pants&quot; it chose at the start of the sentence. Or rather, it didn't forget, because it never tracked it. It only tracked five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether the sentence makes sense sort of affects the translation, but it's worse than that. What matters is exact, word-for-word matching with texts in the database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Entering Latin into Google Translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilianus vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Iuliam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero canem duxit uxorem nomine Fido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English output:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian, now the wife of another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and the name of his wife, a daughter named Julia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took a wife, and brought him to a dog by the name of Fido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vulgate and the [ASV translation](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025&amp;version=ASV) (or similar) would appear to be among Google Translate's source texts. Notice what happens when the input is off by as little as one word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="cef5b6d3-20c5-4c9b-8722-3798267dfc19" CreationDate="2017-05-11T07:17:19.757" UserId="118" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="A classmate of mine who got his Ph.D. in natural-language processing and now works at Google told me the following. It might be out of date and I might be remembering it wrong. But I just did a little, er, googling, and this seems to be passably well corroborated by other sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate is completely statistical. It has no model of grammar, syntax, or meaning. It works by correlating sequences of up to five consecutive words in texts that have been manually translated into two or more languages. More precisely, it has built up a [hidden Markov model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Markov_model) from all the manual translations that have been fed into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the conceit, roughly speaking. Assume that people speak by randomly choosing one word after another, with the probabilities determined by the previous word spoken. For example, if you said &quot;two&quot;, there is a certain probability that the next word will be &quot;or&quot;. If you just said &quot;or&quot;, there is a certain probability that the next word will be &quot;butane&quot;. You can calculate an estimate of these probabilities by looking at lots of text. You can then generate random but just slightly coherent gibberish according to these probabilities: TWO OR BUTANE GAS AND OF THE SAME. If you use a window of more words, say five, the resulting gibberish will look more likely to have been written by a schizophrenic than by an aphasic. That's a Markov model. The &quot;hidden&quot; part adds some complexity, which I'll defer to the end of this message. The basic idea is: Google Translate tries to choose the most probable next word, based on estimates of probability derived from five-word sequences in both languages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you won't learn much about what Google Translate is reliable for by trying out different grammatical structures. If you're lucky, all you'll get from that is an [ELIZA effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect). What Google Translate is most reliable for is translating documents produced by the United Nations between the languages in use there. This is because UN documents have provided a disproportionately large share of the manually translated texts from which Google Translate draws its five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Witness what happens when I type this in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; À l'exception de ce qui peut être convenu dans les accords particuliers de tutelle conclus conformément aux Articles 77, 79 et 81 et plaçant chaque territoire sous le régime de tutelle, et jusqu'à ce que ces accords aient été conclus, aucune disposition du présent Chapitre ne sera interprétée comme modifiant directement ou indirectement en aucune manière les droits quelconques d'aucun État ou d'aucun peuple ou les dispositions d'actes internationaux en vigueur auxquels des Membres de l'Organisation peuvent être parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Except as may be agreed upon in the special guardianship agreements concluded in accordance with Articles 77, 79 and 81 and placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, This Chapter shall not be construed as directly or indirectly modifying in any way the rights of any State or any people or the provisions of international instruments in force to which Members of the Organization may be parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfect! ([Almost](http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xii/index.html).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why its Latin translations tend to be so poor: it has a very thin corpus of human-made translations of Latin to base its hidden Markov models on—oh, and it's using hidden Markov models.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, until the United Nations starts doing its business in Latin, Google Translate is not going to do a very good job. And even then, don't expect much unless you're translating text pasted from UN documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Further details for the curious&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A hidden Markov model adds &quot;states&quot;. The speaker is assumed to randomly transition from one &quot;state&quot; to another, and each state has its own set of probabilities for what word it will &quot;emit&quot;. Thus a hidden Markov model is a statistical guess about what are the most likely states, transition probabilities, and emission probabilities that would produce a given set of sequences—assuming that they were produced in this random fashion. Google Translate basically calculates &quot;Given that the author in language A just said (up to) these five words, what is the most likely state that the author is in? OK, now, from the corresponding state in language B, what is the most likely word to output next?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of the five-word window. I enter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, are worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin translations come back (with my manual translations back to English):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Anhelat](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anhelo#Latin) quemadmodum speravimus confecta. _(He is panting just as we hoped accomplished.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Braccas](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/braca#Latin) sunt attriti. _(The trousers have been worn away [like &quot;attrition&quot;])._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anhelat, ut spe [teris](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tero#Latin). _(He is panting, just as, by hope, you are wearing [something] out.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the first and third sentences border on ungrammatical nonsense. There aren't any five-word sequences in Google Translate's English database that line up well with &quot;pants as you expected were/are,&quot; so it's flailing. Notice that in the third sentence, by the time it got to &quot;worn&quot;, it had forgotten which sense of &quot;pants&quot; it chose at the start of the sentence. Or rather, it didn't forget, because it never tracked it. It only tracked five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether the sentence makes sense sort of affects the translation, but it's worse than that. What matters is exact, word-for-word matching with texts in the database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Entering Latin into Google Translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilianus vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Iuliam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero canem duxit uxorem nomine Fido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English output:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian, now the wife of another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and the name of his wife, a daughter named Julia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took a wife, and brought him to a dog by the name of Fido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vulgate and the [ASV translation](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025&amp;version=ASV) (or similar) would appear to be among Google Translate's source texts. Notice what happens when the input is off by as little as one word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="fca2bb1e-bfc6-496a-834d-9c522ed74665" CreationDate="2017-05-11T07:23:06.837" UserId="118" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="A classmate of mine who got his Ph.D. in natural-language processing and now works at Google told me the following. It might be out of date and I might be remembering it wrong. But I just did a little, er, googling, and this seems to be passably well corroborated by other sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate is completely statistical. It has no model of grammar, syntax, or meaning. It works by correlating sequences of up to five consecutive words in texts that have been manually translated into two or more languages. More precisely, it has built up a [hidden Markov model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Markov_model) from all the manual translations that have been fed into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the conceit, roughly speaking. Assume that people speak by randomly choosing one word after another, with the probabilities determined by the previous word spoken. For example, if you said &quot;two&quot;, there is a certain probability that the next word will be &quot;or&quot;. If you just said &quot;or&quot;, there is a certain probability that the next word will be &quot;butane&quot;. You can calculate an estimate of these probabilities by looking at lots of text. You can then generate random but just slightly coherent gibberish according to these probabilities: TWO OR BUTANE GAS AND OF THE SAME. If you use a window of more words, say five, the resulting gibberish will look more likely to have been written by a schizophrenic than by an aphasic. That's a Markov model. The &quot;hidden&quot; part adds some complexity, which I'll defer to the end of this message. The basic idea is: Google Translate tries to choose the most probable next word, based on estimates of probability derived from five-word sequences in both languages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you won't learn much about what Google Translate is reliable for by trying out different grammatical structures. If you're lucky, all you'll get from that is an [ELIZA effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect). What Google Translate is most reliable for is translating documents produced by the United Nations between the languages in use there. This is because UN documents have provided a disproportionately large share of the manually translated texts from which Google Translate draws its five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Witness what happens when I type this in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; À l'exception de ce qui peut être convenu dans les accords particuliers de tutelle conclus conformément aux Articles 77, 79 et 81 et plaçant chaque territoire sous le régime de tutelle, et jusqu'à ce que ces accords aient été conclus, aucune disposition du présent Chapitre ne sera interprétée comme modifiant directement ou indirectement en aucune manière les droits quelconques d'aucun État ou d'aucun peuple ou les dispositions d'actes internationaux en vigueur auxquels des Membres de l'Organisation peuvent être parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Except as may be agreed upon in the special guardianship agreements concluded in accordance with Articles 77, 79 and 81 and placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, This Chapter shall not be construed as directly or indirectly modifying in any way the rights of any State or any people or the provisions of international instruments in force to which Members of the Organization may be parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfect! ([Almost](http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xii/index.html).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why its Latin translations tend to be so poor: it has a very thin corpus of human-made translations of Latin to base its hidden Markov models on—oh, and it's using hidden Markov models.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, until the United Nations starts doing its business in Latin, Google Translate is not going to do a very good job. And even then, don't expect much unless you're translating text pasted from UN documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Further details for the curious&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A hidden Markov model adds &quot;states&quot;. The speaker is assumed to randomly transition from one &quot;state&quot; to another, and each state has its own set of probabilities for what word it will &quot;emit&quot;. Thus a hidden Markov model is a statistical guess about what are the most likely states, transition probabilities, and emission probabilities that would produce a given set of sequences—assuming that they were produced in this random fashion. Google Translate basically calculates &quot;Given that the author in language A just said (up to) these five words, what is the most likely state that the author is in? OK, now, from the corresponding state in language B, what is the most likely word to output next?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of the five-word window. I enter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, are worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin translations (with my manual translations back to English):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Anhelat](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anhelo#Latin) quemadmodum speravimus confecta. _(He is panting just as we hoped accomplished.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Braccas](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/braca#Latin) sunt attriti. _(The trousers have been worn away [like &quot;attrition&quot;])._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anhelat, ut spe [teris](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tero#Latin). _(He is panting, just as, by hope, you are wearing [something] out.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the first and third sentences border on ungrammatical nonsense. There aren't any five-word sequences in Google Translate's English database that line up well with &quot;pants as you expected were/are,&quot; so it's flailing. Notice that in the third sentence, by the time it got to &quot;worn&quot;, it had forgotten which sense of &quot;pants&quot; it chose at the start of the sentence. Or rather, it didn't forget, because it never tracked it. It only tracked five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether the sentence makes sense sort of affects the translation, but it's worse than that. What matters is exact, word-for-word matching with texts in the database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Entering Latin into Google Translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilianus vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Iuliam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero canem duxit uxorem nomine Fido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English output:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian, now the wife of another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and the name of his wife, a daughter named Julia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took a wife, and brought him to a dog by the name of Fido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vulgate and the [ASV translation](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025&amp;version=ASV) (or similar) would appear to be among Google Translate's source texts. Notice what happens when the input is off by as little as one word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="8e15729f-2dbb-45b6-b83c-f6820a5e1f17" CreationDate="2017-05-11T07:43:59.217" UserId="118" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="A classmate of mine who got his Ph.D. in natural-language processing and now works at Google told me the following. It might be out of date and I might be remembering it wrong. But I just did a little, er, googling, and this seems to be passably well corroborated by other sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate is completely statistical. It has no model of grammar, syntax, or meaning. It works by correlating sequences of up to five consecutive words in texts that have been manually translated into two or more languages. More precisely, it has built up a [hidden Markov model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Markov_model) from all the manual translations that have been fed into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the conceit, roughly speaking. Assume that people speak by randomly choosing one word after another, with the probabilities determined by the previous word spoken. For example, if you said &quot;two&quot;, there is a certain probability that the next word will be &quot;or&quot;. If you just said &quot;or&quot;, there is a certain probability that the next word will be &quot;butane&quot;. You can calculate an estimate of these probabilities by looking at lots of text. You can then generate random but just slightly coherent gibberish according to these probabilities: TWO OR BUTANE GAS AND OF THE SAME. If you use a window of more words, say five, the resulting gibberish will look more likely to have been written by a schizophrenic than by an aphasic. That's a Markov model. The &quot;hidden&quot; part adds some complexity, which I'll defer to the end of this message. The basic idea is: Google Translate tries to choose the most probable next word, based on estimates of probability derived from five-word sequences in both languages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you won't learn much about what Google Translate is reliable for by trying out different grammatical structures. If you're lucky, all you'll get from that is an [ELIZA effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect). What Google Translate is most reliable for is translating documents produced by the United Nations between the languages in use there. This is because UN documents have provided a disproportionately large share of the manually translated texts from which Google Translate draws its five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Witness what happens when I type this in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; À l'exception de ce qui peut être convenu dans les accords particuliers de tutelle conclus conformément aux Articles 77, 79 et 81 et plaçant chaque territoire sous le régime de tutelle, et jusqu'à ce que ces accords aient été conclus, aucune disposition du présent Chapitre ne sera interprétée comme modifiant directement ou indirectement en aucune manière les droits quelconques d'aucun État ou d'aucun peuple ou les dispositions d'actes internationaux en vigueur auxquels des Membres de l'Organisation peuvent être parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Except as may be agreed upon in the special guardianship agreements concluded in accordance with Articles 77, 79 and 81 and placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, This Chapter shall not be construed as directly or indirectly modifying in any way the rights of any State or any people or the provisions of international instruments in force to which Members of the Organization may be parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfect! ([Almost](http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xii/index.html).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why its Latin translations tend to be so poor: it has a very thin corpus of human-made translations of Latin to base its hidden Markov models on—oh, and it's using hidden Markov models.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, until the United Nations starts doing its business in Latin, Google Translate is not going to do a very good job. And even then, don't expect much unless you're translating text pasted from UN documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Further details for the curious&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A hidden Markov model adds &quot;states&quot;. The speaker is assumed to randomly transition from one &quot;state&quot; to another, and each state has its own set of probabilities for what word it will &quot;emit&quot;. Thus a hidden Markov model is a statistical guess about what are the most likely states, transition probabilities, and emission probabilities that would produce a given set of sequences—assuming that they were produced in this random fashion. Google Translate basically calculates &quot;Given that the author in language A just said (up to) these five words, what is the most likely state that the author is in? OK, now, from the corresponding state in language B, what is the most likely word to output next?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of the five-word window. I enter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, are worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin translations (with my manual translations back to English):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Anhelat](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anhelo#Latin) quemadmodum speravimus confecta. _(He is panting just as we hoped accomplished.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Braccas](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/braca#Latin) sunt attriti. _(The trousers have been worn away [like &quot;attrition&quot;])._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anhelat, ut spe [teris](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tero#Latin). _(He is panting, just as, by hope, you are wearing [something] out.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the first and third sentences border on ungrammatical nonsense. There aren't any five-word sequences in Google Translate's English database that line up well with &quot;pants as you expected were/are,&quot; so it's flailing. Notice that in the third sentence, by the time it got to &quot;worn&quot;, it had forgotten which sense of &quot;pants&quot; it chose at the start of the sentence. Or rather, it didn't forget, because it never tracked it. It only tracked five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether the sentence makes sense sort of affects the translation, but it's worse than that. What matters is exact, word-for-word matching with texts in the database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Entering Latin into Google Translate (with words changed from the first sentence shown in bold):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quintilianus** vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine **Iuliam**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero **canem** duxit uxorem nomine **Fido**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English output:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian, now the wife of another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and the name of his wife, a daughter named Julia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took a wife, and brought him to a dog by the name of Fido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vulgate and the [ASV translation](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025&amp;version=ASV) (or similar) would appear to be among Google Translate's source texts. Notice what happens when the input is off by as little as one word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4356" RevisionGUID="61abe049-48b8-4573-8a2a-1f5b2c69ad7d" CreationDate="2017-05-11T12:05:49.477" UserId="469" Text="*[in progress]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[ibex][1]**, -icis, m. *a kind of goat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DI%3Aentry%20group%3D1%3Aentry%3Dibex" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13294" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4356" RevisionGUID="b55a78e6-e2b0-4616-982e-dce76e3272e3" CreationDate="2017-05-11T12:43:37.640" UserId="469" Comment="added 1399 characters in body" />
  <row Id="13295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4356" RevisionGUID="b55a78e6-e2b0-4616-982e-dce76e3272e3" CreationDate="2017-05-11T12:43:37.640" UserId="469" Comment="added 1399 characters in body" Text="*[so far, up to entry group 4 of around 70 in L&amp;S, currently in 'il-' in alphabetical order. Most of letter i- is made of in-, which is dominated by in- and inter- prefixed words less likely to be animals]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;&lt;i&gt;Arguably&lt;/i&gt; common animals starting with i-:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[ibex][1]**, -icis, m. *a kind of goat, the [chamois][2]*.&#xD;&#xA;* **[ictis][3]**, -idis, f.  *a kind of weasel*. From Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Other (non-barnyard animals or near misses)&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*(this list will probably be deleted if the previous gets large enough)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [ichneumon][4], -onis,  m. *Egiptian rat* - wild. Also the name of an insect. From Greek.&#xD;&#xA;* [ichthyŏcolla][5], -ae, f. *A kind of sturgeon, the [huso][6]*. From Greek.&#xD;&#xA;* [icterus][7], -i, m. *A yellow bird*, seemingly a hapax legomenon. From Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DI%3Aentry%20group%3D1%3Aentry%3Dibex&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamois&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DI%3Aentry%20group%3D2%3Aentry%3Dictis&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DI%3Aentry%20group%3D2%3Aentry%3Dichneumon&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DI%3Aentry%20group%3D2%3Aentry%3Dichthyocolla&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huso&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DI%3Aentry%20group%3D2%3Aentry%3Dicterus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="7cf65cbb-d61b-45f7-a267-196f33e061a9" CreationDate="2017-05-11T13:09:53.093" UserId="1560" Text="I'm a programmer and I regularly write small utility programs for friends and family. Since I like a joke, all those programs have help/about forms that describe the program as having been produced by a completely fictional company. So far so boring. However, I would like my &quot;company&quot; to have a motto* in Latin and the motto I have chosen is &quot;Let's go to work&quot; but specifically in the sense Joe Cabot uses in Reservoir Dogs - [short clip here](https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=8&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiCxMnG8OfTAhUHilQKHWmrANgQtwIIPDAH&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymotion.com%2Fvideo%2Fx4cbs5u_let-s-go-to-work-reservoir-dogs_shortfilms&amp;usg=AFQjCNHs1Xu67fQagAASoBMXYXfeNogZtg&amp;sig2=1x9s36FiYrLl9uAS1BBFHg]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is a bit trivial or off-topic, please just close it down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Motto might not even be the right word, but you know what I mean." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13297" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="7cf65cbb-d61b-45f7-a267-196f33e061a9" CreationDate="2017-05-11T13:09:53.093" UserId="1560" Text="Reservoir Dogs: &quot;Let's go to work&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13298" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="7cf65cbb-d61b-45f7-a267-196f33e061a9" CreationDate="2017-05-11T13:09:53.093" UserId="1560" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="148e2a14-cc38-43f5-b32d-99d1c692eb2c" CreationDate="2017-05-11T13:41:16.427" UserId="118" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="A classmate of mine who got his Ph.D. in natural-language processing and now works at Google told me the following. It might be out of date and I might be remembering it wrong. But I just did a little, er, googling, and this seems to be passably well corroborated by other sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate is completely statistical. It has no model of grammar, syntax, or meaning. It works by correlating sequences of up to five consecutive words in texts that have been manually translated into two or more languages. More precisely, it has built up a [hidden Markov model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Markov_model) from all the manual translations that have been fed into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the conceit, roughly speaking. Assume that people speak by randomly choosing one word after another, with the probabilities determined by the previous word spoken. For example, if you said &quot;two&quot;, there is a certain probability that the next word will be &quot;or&quot;. If you just said &quot;or&quot;, there is a certain probability that the next word will be &quot;butane&quot;. You can calculate an estimate of these probabilities by looking at lots of text. You can then generate random but just slightly coherent gibberish according to these probabilities: TWO OR BUTANE GAS AND OF THE SAME. If you use a window of more words, say five, the resulting gibberish will look more likely to have been written by a schizophrenic than by an aphasic. That's a Markov model. The &quot;hidden&quot; part adds some complexity, which I'll defer to the end of this message. The basic idea is: Google Translate tries to choose the most probable next word, based on estimates of probability derived from five-word sequences in both languages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you won't learn much about what Google Translate is reliable for by trying out different grammatical structures. If you're lucky, all you'll get from that is an [ELIZA effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect). What Google Translate is most reliable for is translating documents produced by the United Nations between the languages in use there. This is because UN documents have provided a disproportionately large share of the manually translated texts from which Google Translate draws its five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Witness what happens when I type this in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; À l'exception de ce qui peut être convenu dans les accords particuliers de tutelle conclus conformément aux Articles 77, 79 et 81 et plaçant chaque territoire sous le régime de tutelle, et jusqu'à ce que ces accords aient été conclus, aucune disposition du présent Chapitre ne sera interprétée comme modifiant directement ou indirectement en aucune manière les droits quelconques d'aucun État ou d'aucun peuple ou les dispositions d'actes internationaux en vigueur auxquels des Membres de l'Organisation peuvent être parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Except as may be agreed upon in the special guardianship agreements concluded in accordance with Articles 77, 79 and 81 and placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, This Chapter shall not be construed as directly or indirectly modifying in any way the rights of any State or any people or the provisions of international instruments in force to which Members of the Organization may be parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfect! ([Almost](http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xii/index.html).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why its Latin translations tend to be so poor: it has a very thin corpus of human-made translations of Latin to base its hidden Markov models on—oh, and it's using hidden Markov models.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, until the United Nations starts doing its business in Latin, Google Translate is not going to do a very good job. And even then, don't expect much unless you're translating text pasted from UN documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Further details for the curious&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A hidden Markov model adds &quot;states&quot;. The speaker is assumed to randomly transition from one &quot;state&quot; to another, and each state has its own set of probabilities for what word it will &quot;emit&quot;. Thus a hidden Markov model is a statistical guess about what are the most likely states, transition probabilities, and emission probabilities that would produce a given set of sequences—assuming that they were produced in this random fashion. Google Translate basically calculates &quot;Given that the author in language A just said (up to) these five words, what is the most likely state that the author is in? OK, now, from the corresponding state in language B, what is the most likely word to output next?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of the five-word window. I enter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, are worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin translations (with my manual translations back to English):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Anhelat](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anhelo#Latin) quemadmodum speravimus confecta. _(He is panting just as we hoped accomplished.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Braccas](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/braca#Latin) sunt attriti. *(The trousers have been worn away [like &quot;attrition&quot;].)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anhelat, ut spe [teris](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tero#Latin). _(He is panting, just as, by hope, you are wearing [something] out.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the first and third sentences border on ungrammatical nonsense. The second sentence makes sense but it's ungrammatical; it should be *Braccae sunt attritae.* There aren't any five-word sequences in Google Translate's English database that line up well with &quot;pants as you expected were/are,&quot; so it's flailing. Notice that in the third sentence, by the time it got to &quot;worn&quot;, it had forgotten which sense of &quot;pants&quot; it chose at the start of the sentence. Or rather, it didn't forget, because it never tracked it. It only tracked five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether the sentence makes sense sort of affects the translation, but it's worse than that. What matters is exact, word-for-word matching with texts in the database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Entering Latin into Google Translate (with words changed from the first sentence shown in bold):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quintilianus** vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine **Iuliam**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero **canem** duxit uxorem nomine **Fido**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English output:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian, now the wife of another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and the name of his wife, a daughter named Julia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took a wife, and brought him to a dog by the name of Fido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vulgate and the [ASV translation](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025&amp;version=ASV) (or similar) would appear to be among Google Translate's source texts. Notice what happens when the input is off by as little as one word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4355" RevisionGUID="074a0f9a-f79a-435a-97cb-49a79db54c65" CreationDate="2017-05-11T13:55:50.917" UserId="78" Comment="added 304 characters in body" Text="I'll second what TKR said. However, you should keep in mind the pun in the word. That prefix *u-* is supposed to sound like *eu*, giving us the homophone *eutopia*, or &quot;good place.&quot; In the earliest editions of *Utopia*, More included the following notice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vtopia priscis dicta, ob infrequentiam,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nunc ciuitatis aemula Platonicae,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fortasse uictrix, (nam quod illa literis  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deliniauit, hoc ego una praestiti,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Viris &amp; opibus, optimisque legibus)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eutopia merito sum uocanda nomine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was translated and expanded to the following in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Me, Utopia, called in Antiquity,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; void of haunt and harbor.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now I am like to Plato’s city,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whose fame flies the world through.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yea like, or rather more likely,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plato’s plot to excel and pass.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For what Plato’s pen has plotted briefly,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In naked words, as in a glass,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The same have I performed fully,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; With laws, with men, and treasure fitly.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wherefore not Utopia, but rather rightly,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **My name is *Eutopie* a place of felicity.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while *utopia* is indeed *ou-* + *topia*, the reader will have both prefixes in mind when reading the work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4356" RevisionGUID="457698ba-9be9-4093-ae20-8a2e211067f2" CreationDate="2017-05-11T17:10:47.720" UserId="469" Comment="edited body" Text="*[so far, up to entry group 8 of around 70 in L&amp;S, currently in 'im-' in alphabetical order. Most of letter i- is made of in-, which is dominated by in- and inter- prefixed words less likely to be animals]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;&lt;i&gt;Arguably&lt;/i&gt; common animals starting with i-:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[ibex][1]**, -icis, m. *a kind of goat, the [chamois][2]*.&#xD;&#xA;* **[ictis][3]**, -idis, f.  *a kind of weasel*. From Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Other (non-barnyard animals or near misses)&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*(this list will probably be deleted if the previous gets large enough)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [ichneumon][4], -onis,  m. *Egiptian rat* - wild. Also the name of an insect. From Greek.&#xD;&#xA;* [ichthyŏcolla][5], -ae, f. *A kind of sturgeon, the [huso][6]*. From Greek.&#xD;&#xA;* [icterus][7], -i, m. *A yellow bird*, seemingly a hapax legomenon. From Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DI%3Aentry%20group%3D1%3Aentry%3Dibex&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamois&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DI%3Aentry%20group%3D2%3Aentry%3Dictis&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DI%3Aentry%20group%3D2%3Aentry%3Dichneumon&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DI%3Aentry%20group%3D2%3Aentry%3Dichthyocolla&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huso&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DI%3Aentry%20group%3D2%3Aentry%3Dicterus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13303" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="d65c2b7d-feab-43fa-8d47-fbc7dcedddc7" CreationDate="2017-05-11T17:43:10.443" UserId="79" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:45,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;brianpck&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="fc32e130-6d86-4480-8231-e77b49acae50" CreationDate="2017-05-11T18:36:17.227" UserId="118" Comment="added 709 characters in body" Text="A classmate of mine who got his Ph.D. in natural-language processing and now works at Google told me the following. It might be out of date and I might be remembering it wrong. But I just did a little, er, googling, and this seems to be passably well corroborated by other sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate is completely statistical. It has no model of grammar, syntax, or meaning. It works by correlating sequences of up to five consecutive words in texts that have been manually translated into two or more languages. More precisely, it has built up a [hidden Markov model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Markov_model) from all the manual translations that have been fed into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the conceit, roughly speaking. Assume that people speak by randomly choosing one word after another, with the probabilities determined by the previous word spoken. For example, if you said &quot;two&quot;, there is a certain probability that the next word will be &quot;or&quot;. If you just said &quot;or&quot;, there is a certain probability that the next word will be &quot;butane&quot;. You can calculate an estimate of these probabilities by looking at lots of text. You can then generate random but just slightly coherent gibberish according to these probabilities: TWO OR BUTANE GAS AND OF THE SAME. If you use a window of more words, say five, the resulting gibberish will look more likely to have been written by a schizophrenic than by an aphasic. That's a Markov model. The &quot;hidden&quot; part adds some complexity, which I'll defer to the end of this message. The basic idea is: Google Translate tries to choose the most probable next word, based on estimates of probability derived from five-word sequences in both languages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you won't learn much about what Google Translate is reliable for by trying out different grammatical structures. If you're lucky, all you'll get from that is an [ELIZA effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect). What Google Translate is most reliable for is translating documents produced by the United Nations between the languages in use there. This is because UN documents have provided a disproportionately large share of the manually translated texts from which Google Translate draws its five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Witness what happens when I type this in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; À l'exception de ce qui peut être convenu dans les accords particuliers de tutelle conclus conformément aux Articles 77, 79 et 81 et plaçant chaque territoire sous le régime de tutelle, et jusqu'à ce que ces accords aient été conclus, aucune disposition du présent Chapitre ne sera interprétée comme modifiant directement ou indirectement en aucune manière les droits quelconques d'aucun État ou d'aucun peuple ou les dispositions d'actes internationaux en vigueur auxquels des Membres de l'Organisation peuvent être parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Except as may be agreed upon in the special guardianship agreements concluded in accordance with Articles 77, 79 and 81 and placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, This Chapter shall not be construed as directly or indirectly modifying in any way the rights of any State or any people or the provisions of international instruments in force to which Members of the Organization may be parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfect! ([Almost](http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xii/index.html).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why its Latin translations tend to be so poor: it has a very thin corpus of human-made translations of Latin to base its hidden Markov models on—oh, and it's using hidden Markov models.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, until the United Nations starts doing its business in Latin, Google Translate is not going to do a very good job. And even then, don't expect much unless you're translating text pasted from UN documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Further details for the curious&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A hidden Markov model adds &quot;states&quot;. The speaker is assumed to randomly transition from one &quot;state&quot; to another, and each state has its own set of probabilities for what word it will &quot;emit&quot;. Thus a hidden Markov model is a statistical guess about what are the most likely states, transition probabilities, and emission probabilities that would produce a given set of sequences—assuming that they were produced in this random fashion. Google Translate basically calculates &quot;Given that the author in language A just said (up to) these five words, what is the most likely state that the author is in? OK, now, from the corresponding state in language B, what is the most likely word to output next?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of the five-word window. I enter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, are worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin translations (with my manual translations back to English):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Anhelat](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anhelo#Latin) quemadmodum speravimus confecta. _(He is panting just as we hoped accomplished.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Braccas](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/braca#Latin) sunt attriti. *(The trousers have been worn away [like &quot;attrition&quot;].)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anhelat, ut spe [teris](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tero#Latin). _(He is panting, just as, by hope, you are wearing [something] out.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the first and third sentences border on ungrammatical nonsense. The second sentence makes sense but it's ungrammatical; it should be *Braccae sunt attritae.* There aren't any five-word sequences in Google Translate's English database that line up well with &quot;pants as you expected were/are,&quot; so it's flailing. Notice that in the third sentence, by the time it got to &quot;worn&quot;, it had forgotten which sense of &quot;pants&quot; it chose at the start of the sentence. Or rather, it didn't forget, because it never tracked it. It only tracked five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether the sentence makes sense sort of affects the translation, but it's worse than that. What matters is exact, word-for-word matching with texts in the database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Entering Latin into Google Translate (with words changed from the first sentence shown in bold):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quintilianus** vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine **Iuliam**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero **canem** duxit uxorem nomine **Fido**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English output:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian, now the wife of another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and the name of his wife, a daughter named Julia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took a wife, and brought him to a dog by the name of Fido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vulgate and the [ASV translation](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025&amp;version=ASV) (or similar) would appear to be among Google Translate's source texts. Notice what happens when the input is off by as little as one word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above explains just enough so that a layperson can understand what Google Translate is good at, what it's bad at, and why—and so they won't be misled by the results of experimenting with different grammatical structures. If you're interested in more rigorous and thorough information about the full complexities of this approach, google for &quot;[statistical machine translation](https://www.google.com/search?q=statistical+machine+translation)&quot;. Google Translate's exact algorithm is proprietary, but some further info is [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Translate#Method_of_translation), including their rollout, now in progress, of an entirely new algorithm (which hasn't reached Latin yet)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4358" RevisionGUID="87685dca-c4ee-4efa-ac7f-ea28b25f5615" CreationDate="2017-05-11T20:50:45.493" UserId="1369" Text="The point of Google Translate (and this is not just for Latin) is that it only serves a purpose if you are able to judge the quality of its output, and understand that it's not a faithful account of the source text in any case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means, of course, that it must only be used to translate a text in a language you _don't_ know into a language you _do_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you're content with just getting the gist of what is being said, then it's great for approximately understanding what a web page is talking about in general lines. If it's the choice between understanding part of it and understanding nothing at all, then there may be value in using it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, whenever you _do_ use it, you must always be wary of what you get presented with. Could this have possibly been misconstrued?  Does the surrounding text generally agree with the sense of this sentence? Some rudimentary text criticism may give you some confidence of whether a given translation is sound or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4359" RevisionGUID="fe340a4c-c233-4313-a3a3-58437121347f" CreationDate="2017-05-11T21:08:26.723" UserId="1578" Text="Salve is, from what I've observed, the commoner greeting. It certainly is the one used more in Latin instruction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4360" RevisionGUID="1010a11a-c2e3-4525-9510-1294f2abf242" CreationDate="2017-05-11T22:47:02.490" UserId="1580" Text="While Google Translate may be useless to an advanced Latin speaker, a beginner such as me finds it helpful for gaining **quick insights.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use it in combination with **little tricks,** such as splitting the sentence into separate clauses and/or adding punctuation and converting the syntax to the [Subject–Verb–Object word order][1] which makes Latin more “palpable” to Anglo-Saxon Google Translate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of initial accuracy (or lack of it), this workflow is ultimately more efficient *for me* than the tedious alternative, which is using dictionaries and trying to match the meaning of each word manually from a multitude of confusing possibilities. Which are confusing because ancient notions don’t map onto modern notions on a 1:1 basis. The average Latin word appears to have a dozen of equally plausible meanings that appear unrelated to each other to the modern European mind. Or at least that’s how I see Latin as a beginner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example (borrowed from @BenKovitz above):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Quintilianus vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram. *(raw Latin)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. Vero; Quintilianus duxit aliam uxorem; nomine Cetthuram. *(manually pre-processed)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. Vero, Quintilianus duxit aliam uxorem, nomine Cetthuram. *(manually pre-processed)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Result:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Quintilian, now the wife of another wife, and her name was Keturah. *(nonsense)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. however; Quintilian [married another woman] for his wife; her name was Keturah. ***(wow!)***  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. However, Quintilian [married another] wife, whose name was Keturah. ***(wow!)***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Square brackets indicate user-selected alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;**Technical note:** The last time I posted an answer, I received questions in comments which I was unable to answer due to the restrictions built into Stack Exchange. Not only that: when I tried to edit my own answer, I was “allowed” to do it... only for this function to become instantly blocked in the split second between pressing “Submit” and actual submission. That is, *after* I finished editing. Not *before* I begun. Classic [bait &amp; switch][2] behaviour. Stack Exchange thrives on deception (especially concealing its adverse intents towards the user). The bottom line is that, being an anonymous user, **I won’t be able to respond** to comments or edit this post. I shouldn’t need to include this section in the answer but, to add insult to injury, I’m not allowed to post questions on Meta. So including it here is the least unreasonable thing I can do, short of not participating at all.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject–verb–object&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4360" RevisionGUID="83d31124-6fc6-4494-bc3a-68278cf026a0" CreationDate="2017-05-11T22:57:57.617" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="While Google Translate may be useless to an advanced Latin speaker, a beginner such as me finds it helpful for gaining **quick insights.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use it in combination with **little tricks,** such as splitting the sentence into separate clauses and/or adding punctuation and converting the syntax to the [Subject–Verb–Object word order][1] which makes Latin more “palpable” to Anglo-Saxon Google Translate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of initial accuracy (or lack of it), this workflow is ultimately more efficient *for me* than the tedious alternative, which is using dictionaries and trying to match the meaning of each word manually from a multitude of confusing possibilities. Which are confusing because ancient notions don’t map onto modern notions on a 1:1 basis. The average Latin word appears to have a dozen of equally plausible meanings that appear unrelated to each other to the modern European mind. Or at least that’s how I see Latin as a beginner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example (borrowed from @BenKovitz above):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Quintilianus vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram. *(raw Latin)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. Vero; Quintilianus duxit aliam uxorem; nomine Cetthuram. *(manually pre-processed)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. Vero, Quintilianus duxit aliam uxorem, nomine Cetthuram. *(manually pre-processed)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Result:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Quintilian, now the wife of another wife, and her name was Keturah. *(nonsense)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. however; Quintilian [married another woman] for his wife; her name was Keturah. ***(wow!)***  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. However, Quintilian [married another] wife, whose name was Keturah. ***(wow!)***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Square brackets indicate user-selected alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;**Technical note:** The last time I posted an answer, I received questions in comments which I was unable to answer due to the restrictions built into Stack Exchange. Not only that: when I tried to edit my own answer, I was “allowed” to do it... only for this function to become instantly blocked in the split second between pressing “Submit” and actual submission. That is, *after* I finished editing. Not *before* I begun. Classic [bait &amp; switch][2] behaviour. Stack Exchange thrives on deception (especially concealing its adverse intents towards the user). The bottom line is that, being an anonymous user, **I won’t be able to respond** to comments or edit this post. I shouldn’t need to include this section in the answer but, to add insult to injury, I’m not allowed to post questions on Meta. So including it here is the least unreasonable thing I can do, short of not participating at all.&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject–verb–object&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4356" RevisionGUID="b011d619-ab52-4b73-8ea4-24f442d1cd76" CreationDate="2017-05-11T23:38:57.920" UserId="78" Comment="added 239 characters in body" Text="*[so far, up to entry group 8 of around 70 in L&amp;S, currently in 'im-' in alphabetical order. Most of letter i- is made of in-, which is dominated by in- and inter- prefixed words less likely to be animals]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;&lt;i&gt;Arguably&lt;/i&gt; common animals starting with i-:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[ibex][1]**, -icis, m. *a kind of goat, the [chamois][2]*.&#xD;&#xA;* **[ictis][3]**, -idis, f.  *a kind of weasel*. From Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Other (non-barnyard animals or near misses)&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*(this list will probably be deleted if the previous gets large enough)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [ibis][8], -is &amp; -idis (irregular declension), f. *the ibis, a bird held sacred by the Egyptians*. From Greek.&#xD;&#xA;* [ichneumon][4], -onis,  m. *Egyptian rat* - wild. Also the name of an insect. From Greek.&#xD;&#xA;* [ichthyŏcolla][5], -ae, f. *A kind of sturgeon, the [huso][6]*. From Greek.&#xD;&#xA;* [icterus][7], -i, m. *A yellow bird*, seemingly a hapax legomenon. From Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DI%3Aentry%20group%3D1%3Aentry%3Dibex&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamois&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DI%3Aentry%20group%3D2%3Aentry%3Dictis&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DI%3Aentry%20group%3D2%3Aentry%3Dichneumon&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DI%3Aentry%20group%3D2%3Aentry%3Dichthyocolla&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huso&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DI%3Aentry%20group%3D2%3Aentry%3Dicterus&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DI%3Aentry+group%3D2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="46dccb64-ca50-466b-87fb-b59b1ff657ea" CreationDate="2017-05-12T04:10:41.527" UserId="118" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="A classmate of mine who got his Ph.D. in natural-language processing and now works at Google told me the following. It might be out of date and I might be remembering it wrong. But I just did a little, er, googling, and this seems to be passably well corroborated by other sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate is completely statistical. It has no model of grammar, syntax, or meaning. It works by correlating sequences of up to five consecutive words in texts that have been manually translated into two or more languages. The exact algorithm is proprietary, but it appears to be based on [hidden Markov models](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Markov_model) or a similarly probabilistic approach (my friend did not explicitly use that term).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the conceit, roughly speaking. Assume that people speak by randomly choosing one word after another, with the probabilities determined by the previous word spoken. For example, if you said &quot;two&quot;, there is a certain probability that the next word will be &quot;or&quot;. If you just said &quot;or&quot;, there is a certain probability that the next word will be &quot;butane&quot;. You can calculate an estimate of these probabilities by looking at lots of text. You can then generate random but just slightly coherent gibberish according to these probabilities: TWO OR BUTANE GAS AND OF THE SAME. If you use a window of more words, say five, the resulting gibberish will look more likely to have been written by a schizophrenic than by an aphasic. That's a Markov model. The &quot;hidden&quot; part adds some complexity, which I'll defer to the end of this message. The basic idea is: Google Translate tries to choose the most probable next word, based on estimates of probability derived from five-word sequences in both languages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you won't learn much about what Google Translate is reliable for by trying out different grammatical structures. If you're lucky, all you'll get from that is an [ELIZA effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect). What Google Translate is most reliable for is translating documents produced by the United Nations between the languages in use there. This is because UN documents have provided a disproportionately large share of the manually translated texts from which Google Translate draws its five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Witness what happens when I type this in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; À l'exception de ce qui peut être convenu dans les accords particuliers de tutelle conclus conformément aux Articles 77, 79 et 81 et plaçant chaque territoire sous le régime de tutelle, et jusqu'à ce que ces accords aient été conclus, aucune disposition du présent Chapitre ne sera interprétée comme modifiant directement ou indirectement en aucune manière les droits quelconques d'aucun État ou d'aucun peuple ou les dispositions d'actes internationaux en vigueur auxquels des Membres de l'Organisation peuvent être parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Except as may be agreed upon in the special guardianship agreements concluded in accordance with Articles 77, 79 and 81 and placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, This Chapter shall not be construed as directly or indirectly modifying in any way the rights of any State or any people or the provisions of international instruments in force to which Members of the Organization may be parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfect! ([Almost](http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xii/index.html).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why its Latin translations tend to be so poor: it has a very thin corpus of human-made translations of Latin on which to base its probability estimates—and, of course, it's using an approach that's based on probabilities of word sequences, disregarding grammar and meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, until the United Nations starts doing its business in Latin, Google Translate is not going to do a very good job. And even then, don't expect much unless you're translating text pasted from UN documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Further details for the curious&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A hidden Markov model adds &quot;states&quot;. The speaker is assumed to randomly transition from one &quot;state&quot; to another, and each state has its own set of probabilities for what word it will &quot;emit&quot;. Thus a hidden Markov model is a statistical guess about what are the most likely states, transition probabilities, and emission probabilities that would produce a given set of sequences—assuming that they were produced in this random fashion. Google Translate basically calculates &quot;Given that the author in language A just said (up to) these five words, what is the most likely state that the author is in? OK, now, from the corresponding state in language B, what is the most likely word to output next?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of the five-word window. I enter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, are worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin translations (with my manual translations back to English):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Anhelat](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anhelo#Latin) quemadmodum speravimus confecta. _(He is panting just as we hoped accomplished.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Braccas](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/braca#Latin) sunt attriti. *(The trousers have been worn away [like &quot;attrition&quot;].)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anhelat, ut spe [teris](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tero#Latin). _(He is panting, just as, by hope, you are wearing [something] out.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the first and third sentences border on ungrammatical nonsense. The second sentence makes sense but it's ungrammatical; it should be *Braccae sunt attritae.* There aren't any five-word sequences in Google Translate's English database that line up well with &quot;pants as you expected were/are,&quot; so it's flailing. Notice that in the third sentence, by the time it got to &quot;worn&quot;, it had forgotten which sense of &quot;pants&quot; it chose at the start of the sentence. Or rather, it didn't forget, because it never tracked it. It only tracked five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether the sentence makes sense sort of affects the translation, but it's worse than that. What matters is exact, word-for-word matching with texts in the database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Entering Latin into Google Translate (with words changed from the first sentence shown in bold):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quintilianus** vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine **Iuliam**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero **canem** duxit uxorem nomine **Fido**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English output:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian, now the wife of another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and the name of his wife, a daughter named Julia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took a wife, and brought him to a dog by the name of Fido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vulgate and the [ASV translation](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025&amp;version=ASV) (or similar) would appear to be among Google Translate's source texts. Notice what happens when the input is off by as little as one word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above explains just enough so that a layperson can understand what Google Translate is good at, what it's bad at, and why—and so they won't be misled by the results of experimenting with different grammatical structures. If you're interested in more rigorous and thorough information about the full complexities of this approach, google for &quot;[statistical machine translation](https://www.google.com/search?q=statistical+machine+translation)&quot;. Some further info is [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Translate#Method_of_translation), including Google's rollout, now in progress, of an entirely new translation algorithm (which hasn't reached Latin yet)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="c3a81ac8-b388-448c-80dc-2e67feb79c48" CreationDate="2017-05-12T04:24:18.660" UserId="118" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="A classmate of mine who got his Ph.D. in natural-language processing and now works at Google told me the following. It might be out of date and I might be remembering it wrong. But I just did a little, er, googling, and this seems to be passably well corroborated by other sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate is completely statistical. It has no model of grammar, syntax, or meaning. It works by correlating sequences of up to five consecutive words in texts that have been manually translated into two or more languages. The exact algorithm is proprietary, but it appears to be based on [hidden Markov models](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Markov_model) or a similarly probabilistic approach (my friend did not explicitly use that term).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the conceit, roughly speaking. Assume that people speak by randomly choosing one word after another, with the probabilities determined by the previous word spoken. For example, if you said &quot;two&quot;, there is a certain probability that the next word will be &quot;or&quot;. If you just said &quot;or&quot;, there is a certain probability that the next word will be &quot;butane&quot;. You can calculate an estimate of these probabilities by looking at lots of text. You can then generate random but just slightly coherent gibberish according to these probabilities: TWO OR BUTANE GAS AND OF THE SAME. If you use a window of more words, say five, the resulting gibberish will look more likely to have been written by a schizophrenic than by an aphasic. That's a Markov model. A &quot;hidden&quot; Markov model adds another layer, which I'll defer to the end of this message. The main idea is: Google Translate tries to choose the most probable next word, based on estimates of probability derived from five-word sequences found in real texts from both languages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consequently, you won't learn much about what Google Translate is reliable for by trying out different grammatical structures. If you're lucky, all you'll get from that is an [ELIZA effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect). What Google Translate is most reliable for is translating documents produced by the United Nations between the languages in use there. This is because UN documents have provided a disproportionately large share of the manually translated texts from which Google Translate draws its five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Witness what happens when I type this in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; À l'exception de ce qui peut être convenu dans les accords particuliers de tutelle conclus conformément aux Articles 77, 79 et 81 et plaçant chaque territoire sous le régime de tutelle, et jusqu'à ce que ces accords aient été conclus, aucune disposition du présent Chapitre ne sera interprétée comme modifiant directement ou indirectement en aucune manière les droits quelconques d'aucun État ou d'aucun peuple ou les dispositions d'actes internationaux en vigueur auxquels des Membres de l'Organisation peuvent être parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Except as may be agreed upon in the special guardianship agreements concluded in accordance with Articles 77, 79 and 81 and placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, This Chapter shall not be construed as directly or indirectly modifying in any way the rights of any State or any people or the provisions of international instruments in force to which Members of the Organization may be parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfect! ([Almost](http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xii/index.html).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why its Latin translations tend to be so poor: it has a very thin corpus of human-made translations of Latin on which to base its probability estimates—and, of course, it's using an approach that's based on probabilities of word sequences, disregarding grammar and meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, until the United Nations starts doing its business in Latin, Google Translate is not going to do a very good job. And even then, don't expect much unless you're translating text pasted from UN documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Further details for the curious&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A hidden Markov model adds &quot;states&quot;. The speaker is assumed to randomly transition from one &quot;state&quot; to another, and each state has its own set of probabilities for what word it will &quot;emit&quot;. Thus a hidden Markov model is a statistical guess about what are the most likely states, transition probabilities, and emission probabilities that would produce a given set of sequences—assuming that they were produced in this random fashion. Google Translate basically calculates &quot;Given that the author in language A just said (up to) these five words, what is the most likely state that the author is in? OK, now, from the corresponding state in language B, what is the most likely word to output next?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of the five-word window. I enter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, are worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin translations (with my manual translations back to English):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Anhelat](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anhelo#Latin) quemadmodum speravimus confecta. _(He is panting just as we hoped accomplished.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Braccas](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/braca#Latin) sunt attriti. *(The trousers have been worn away [like &quot;attrition&quot;].)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anhelat, ut spe [teris](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tero#Latin). _(He is panting, just as, by hope, you are wearing [something] out.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the first and third sentences border on ungrammatical nonsense. The second sentence makes sense but it's ungrammatical; it should be *Braccae sunt attritae.* There aren't any five-word sequences in Google Translate's English database that line up well with &quot;pants as you expected were/are,&quot; so it's flailing. Notice that in the third sentence, by the time it got to &quot;worn&quot;, it had forgotten which sense of &quot;pants&quot; it chose at the start of the sentence. Or rather, it didn't forget, because it never tracked it. It only tracked five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether the sentence makes sense sort of affects the translation, but it's worse than that. What matters is exact, word-for-word matching with texts in the database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Entering Latin into Google Translate (with words changed from the first sentence shown in bold):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quintilianus** vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine **Iuliam**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero **canem** duxit uxorem nomine **Fido**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English output:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian, now the wife of another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and the name of his wife, a daughter named Julia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took a wife, and brought him to a dog by the name of Fido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vulgate and the [ASV translation](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025&amp;version=ASV) (or similar) would appear to be among Google Translate's source texts. Notice what happens when the input is off by as little as one word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above explains just enough so that a layperson can understand what Google Translate is good at, what it's bad at, and why—and so they won't be misled by the results of experimenting with different grammatical structures. If you're interested in more rigorous and thorough information about the full complexities of this approach, google for &quot;[statistical machine translation](https://www.google.com/search?q=statistical+machine+translation)&quot;. Some further info is [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Translate#Method_of_translation), including Google's rollout, now in progress, of an entirely new translation algorithm (which hasn't reached Latin yet)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="3b886eb7-2545-4456-989c-61ce67c0310a" CreationDate="2017-05-12T06:58:44.833" UserId="118" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="A classmate of mine who got his Ph.D. in natural-language processing and now works at Google told me the following. It might be out of date and I might be remembering it wrong. But I just did a little, er, googling, and this seems to be passably well corroborated by other sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How it works&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate is completely statistical. It has no model of grammar, syntax, or meaning. It works by correlating sequences of up to five consecutive words found in texts from both languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the conceit, roughly speaking. Ignore all the complexity, structure, and meaning of language and pretend that people speak just by randomly choosing one word after another. The only question now is how to calculate the probabilities. A simple way is to say that the probability of each word is determined by the previous word spoken. For example, if the last word you said was &quot;two&quot;, there is a certain probability that your next word will be &quot;or&quot;. If you just said &quot;or&quot;, there is a certain probability that your next word will be &quot;butane&quot;. If you generate text according to these probabilities, you'll get random but just slightly coherent gibberish: TWO OR BUTANE GAS AND OF THE SAME. That's called a [Markov model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_model). If you use a window of more words, say five, the resulting gibberish will look more likely to have been written by a schizophrenic than by an aphasic. A variation called a [hidden Markov model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Markov_model) introduces &quot;states&quot;, where each state has its own set of probabilities for &quot;emitting&quot; words as well as a set of &quot;transition&quot; probabilities for what will be the next state. This can model a little more of the influence of context on each word choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate's algorithm is proprietary, and I think it's a little more sophisticated than hidden Markov models, but the principle is the same. They let computers run on lots of text in each language, calculating probabilities according to the principle &quot;Assuming this text was generated by a random gibberish-generator, what probabilities [maximize the chance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_likelihood_estimation) that this exact text would have been generated?&quot; Manually translated texts provide data to line up word sequences in one language with word sequences in another. Translation, then, is finding the highest-probability sequence from one language's gibberish-generator that corresponds to whatever makes the other language's gibberish-generator produce the input text. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What it's reliable for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consequently, you won't learn much about what Google Translate is reliable for by trying out different grammatical structures. If you're lucky, all you'll get from that is an [ELIZA effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect). What Google Translate is most reliable for is translating documents produced by the United Nations between the languages in use there. This is because UN documents have provided a disproportionately large share of the manually translated texts from which Google Translate draws its five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Witness what happens when I type this in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; À l'exception de ce qui peut être convenu dans les accords particuliers de tutelle conclus conformément aux Articles 77, 79 et 81 et plaçant chaque territoire sous le régime de tutelle, et jusqu'à ce que ces accords aient été conclus, aucune disposition du présent Chapitre ne sera interprétée comme modifiant directement ou indirectement en aucune manière les droits quelconques d'aucun État ou d'aucun peuple ou les dispositions d'actes internationaux en vigueur auxquels des Membres de l'Organisation peuvent être parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Except as may be agreed upon in the special guardianship agreements concluded in accordance with Articles 77, 79 and 81 and placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, This Chapter shall not be construed as directly or indirectly modifying in any way the rights of any State or any people or the provisions of international instruments in force to which Members of the Organization may be parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfect! ([Almost](http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xii/index.html).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why its Latin translations tend to be so poor: it has a very thin corpus of human-made translations of Latin on which to base its probability estimates—and, of course, it's using an approach that's based on probabilities of word sequences, disregarding grammar and meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, until the United Nations starts doing its business in Latin, Google Translate is not going to do a very good job. And even then, don't expect much unless you're translating text pasted from UN documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The five-word window&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of the five-word window. I enter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, are worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin translations (with my manual translations back to English):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Anhelat](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anhelo#Latin) quemadmodum speravimus confecta. _(He is panting just as we hoped accomplished.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Braccas](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/braca#Latin) sunt attriti. *(The trousers have been worn away [like &quot;attrition&quot;].)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anhelat, ut spe [teris](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tero#Latin). _(He is panting, just as, by hope, you are wearing [something] out.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the first and third sentences border on ungrammatical nonsense. The second sentence makes sense but it's ungrammatical; it should be *Braccae sunt attritae.* There aren't any five-word sequences in Google Translate's English database that line up well with &quot;pants as you expected were/are,&quot; so it's flailing. Notice that in the third sentence, by the time it got to &quot;worn&quot;, it had forgotten which sense of &quot;pants&quot; it chose at the start of the sentence. Or rather, it didn't forget, because it never tracked it. It only tracked five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether the sentence makes sense sort of affects the translation, but it's worse than that. What matters is exact, word-for-word matching with texts in the database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Entering Latin into Google Translate (with words changed from the first sentence shown in bold):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quintilianus** vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine **Iuliam**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero **canem** duxit uxorem nomine **Fido**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English output:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian, now the wife of another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and the name of his wife, a daughter named Julia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took a wife, and brought him to a dog by the name of Fido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vulgate and the [ASV translation](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025&amp;version=ASV) (or similar) would appear to be among Google Translate's source texts. Notice what happens when the input is off by as little as one word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above explains just enough so that a layperson can understand what Google Translate is good at, what it's bad at, and why—and so they won't be misled by the results of experimenting with different grammatical structures. If you're interested in more rigorous and thorough information about the full complexities of this approach, google for &quot;[statistical machine translation](https://www.google.com/search?q=statistical+machine+translation)&quot;. Some further info is [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Translate#Method_of_translation), including Google's rollout, now in progress, of an entirely new translation algorithm (which hasn't reached Latin yet)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="a6e64dee-80cf-48b1-8f36-f882b4903466" CreationDate="2017-05-12T07:10:56.677" UserId="118" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="A classmate of mine who got his Ph.D. in natural-language processing and now works at Google told me the following. It might be out of date and I might be remembering it wrong. But I just did a little, er, googling, and this seems to be passably well corroborated by other sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How it works&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate is completely statistical. It has no model of grammar, syntax, or meaning. It works by correlating sequences of up to five consecutive words found in texts from both languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the conceit, roughly speaking. Ignore all the complexity, structure, and meaning of language and pretend that people speak just by randomly choosing one word after another. The only question now is how to calculate the probabilities. A simple way is to say that the probability of each word is determined by the previous word spoken. For example, if the last word you said was &quot;two&quot;, there is a certain probability that your next word will be &quot;or&quot;. If you just said &quot;or&quot;, there is a certain probability that your next word will be &quot;butane&quot;. You could calculate these word-to-next-word probabilities from their frequencies in real text. If you generate new text according to these probabilities, you'll get random but just slightly coherent gibberish: TWO OR BUTANE GAS AND OF THE SAME. That's called a [Markov model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_model). If you use a window of more words, say five, the resulting gibberish will look more likely to have been written by a schizophrenic than by an aphasic. A variation called a [hidden Markov model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Markov_model) introduces &quot;states&quot;, where each state has its own set of probabilities for &quot;emitting&quot; words as well as a set of &quot;transition&quot; probabilities for what will be the next state. This can model a little more of the influence of context on each word choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate's algorithm is proprietary, and I think it's a little more sophisticated than hidden Markov models, but the principle is the same. They let computers run on lots of text in each language, calculating probabilities according to the principle &quot;Assuming this text was generated by a random gibberish-generator, what probabilities [maximize the chance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_likelihood_estimation) that this exact text would have been generated?&quot; Manually translated texts provide data to line up word sequences in one language with word sequences in another. Translation, then, is finding the highest-probability sequence from one language's gibberish-generator that corresponds to whatever makes the other language's gibberish-generator produce the input text. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What it's reliable for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consequently, you won't learn much about what Google Translate is reliable for by trying out different grammatical structures. If you're lucky, all you'll get from that is an [ELIZA effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect). What Google Translate is most reliable for is translating documents produced by the United Nations between the languages in use there. This is because UN documents have provided a disproportionately large share of the manually translated texts from which Google Translate draws its five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Witness what happens when I type this in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; À l'exception de ce qui peut être convenu dans les accords particuliers de tutelle conclus conformément aux Articles 77, 79 et 81 et plaçant chaque territoire sous le régime de tutelle, et jusqu'à ce que ces accords aient été conclus, aucune disposition du présent Chapitre ne sera interprétée comme modifiant directement ou indirectement en aucune manière les droits quelconques d'aucun État ou d'aucun peuple ou les dispositions d'actes internationaux en vigueur auxquels des Membres de l'Organisation peuvent être parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Except as may be agreed upon in the special guardianship agreements concluded in accordance with Articles 77, 79 and 81 and placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, This Chapter shall not be construed as directly or indirectly modifying in any way the rights of any State or any people or the provisions of international instruments in force to which Members of the Organization may be parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfect! ([Almost](http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xii/index.html).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why its Latin translations tend to be so poor: it has a very thin corpus of human-made translations of Latin on which to base its probability estimates—and, of course, it's using an approach that's based on probabilities of word sequences, disregarding grammar and meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, until the United Nations starts doing its business in Latin, Google Translate is not going to do a very good job. And even then, don't expect much unless you're translating text pasted from UN documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The five-word window&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of the five-word window. I enter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, are worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin translations (with my manual translations back to English):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Anhelat](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anhelo#Latin) quemadmodum speravimus confecta. _(He is panting just as we hoped accomplished.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Braccas](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/braca#Latin) sunt attriti. *(The trousers have been worn away [like &quot;attrition&quot;].)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anhelat, ut spe [teris](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tero#Latin). _(He is panting, just as, by hope, you are wearing [something] out.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the first and third sentences border on ungrammatical nonsense. The second sentence makes sense but it's ungrammatical; it should be *Braccae sunt attritae.* There aren't any five-word sequences in Google Translate's English database that line up well with &quot;pants as you expected were/are,&quot; so it's flailing. Notice that in the third sentence, by the time it got to &quot;worn&quot;, it had forgotten which sense of &quot;pants&quot; it chose at the start of the sentence. Or rather, it didn't forget, because it never tracked it. It only tracked five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether the sentence makes sense sort of affects the translation, but it's worse than that. What matters is exact, word-for-word matching with texts in the database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Entering Latin into Google Translate (with words changed from the first sentence shown in bold):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quintilianus** vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine **Iuliam**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero **canem** duxit uxorem nomine **Fido**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English output:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian, now the wife of another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and the name of his wife, a daughter named Julia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took a wife, and brought him to a dog by the name of Fido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vulgate and the [ASV translation](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025&amp;version=ASV) (or similar) would appear to be among Google Translate's source texts. Notice what happens when the input is off by as little as one word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above explains just enough so that a layperson can understand what Google Translate is good at, what it's bad at, and why—and so they won't be misled by the results of experimenting with different grammatical structures. If you're interested in more rigorous and thorough information about the full complexities of this approach, google for &quot;[statistical machine translation](https://www.google.com/search?q=statistical+machine+translation)&quot;. Some further info is [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Translate#Method_of_translation), including Google's rollout, now in progress, of an entirely new translation algorithm (which hasn't reached Latin yet)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="690bf7de-e3a2-445a-b939-d25bc1796a5d" CreationDate="2017-05-12T08:07:05.393" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="A classmate of mine who got his Ph.D. in natural-language processing and now works at Google told me the following. It might be out of date and I might be remembering it wrong. But I just did a little, er, googling, and this seems to be passably well corroborated by other sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How it works&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate is completely statistical. It has no model of grammar, syntax, or meaning. It works by correlating sequences of up to five consecutive words found in texts from both languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the conceit. Ignore all the complexity, structure, and meaning of language and pretend that people speak just by randomly choosing one word after another. The only question now is how to calculate the probabilities. A simple way is to say that the probability of each word is determined by the previous word spoken. For example, if the last word you said was &quot;two&quot;, there is a certain probability that your next word will be &quot;or&quot;. If you just said &quot;or&quot;, there is a certain probability that your next word will be &quot;butane&quot;. You could calculate these word-to-next-word probabilities from their frequencies in real text. If you generate new text according to these probabilities, you'll get random but just slightly coherent gibberish: TWO OR BUTANE GAS AND OF THE SAME. That's called a [Markov model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_model). If you use a window of more words, say five, the resulting gibberish will look more likely to have been written by a schizophrenic than by an aphasic. A variation called a [hidden Markov model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Markov_model) introduces &quot;states&quot;, where each state has its own set of probabilities for &quot;emitting&quot; words as well as a set of &quot;transition&quot; probabilities for what will be the next state. This can model a little more of the influence of context on each word choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate's algorithm is proprietary, and I think it's a little more sophisticated than hidden Markov models, but the principle is the same. They let computers run on lots of text in each language, calculating probabilities according to the principle &quot;Assuming this text was generated by a random gibberish-generator, what probabilities [maximize the chance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_likelihood_estimation) that this exact text would have been generated?&quot; Manually translated texts provide data to line up word sequences in one language with word sequences in another. Translation, then, is finding the highest-probability sequence from one language's gibberish-generator that corresponds to whatever makes the other language's gibberish-generator produce the input text. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What it's reliable for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consequently, you won't learn much about what Google Translate is reliable for by trying out different grammatical structures. If you're lucky, all you'll get from that is an [ELIZA effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect). What Google Translate is most reliable for is translating documents produced by the United Nations between the languages in use there. This is because UN documents have provided a disproportionately large share of the manually translated texts from which Google Translate draws its five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Witness what happens when I type this in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; À l'exception de ce qui peut être convenu dans les accords particuliers de tutelle conclus conformément aux Articles 77, 79 et 81 et plaçant chaque territoire sous le régime de tutelle, et jusqu'à ce que ces accords aient été conclus, aucune disposition du présent Chapitre ne sera interprétée comme modifiant directement ou indirectement en aucune manière les droits quelconques d'aucun État ou d'aucun peuple ou les dispositions d'actes internationaux en vigueur auxquels des Membres de l'Organisation peuvent être parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Except as may be agreed upon in the special guardianship agreements concluded in accordance with Articles 77, 79 and 81 and placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, This Chapter shall not be construed as directly or indirectly modifying in any way the rights of any State or any people or the provisions of international instruments in force to which Members of the Organization may be parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfect! ([Almost](http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xii/index.html).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why its Latin translations tend to be so poor: it has a very thin corpus of human-made translations of Latin on which to base its probability estimates—and, of course, it's using an approach that's based on probabilities of word sequences, disregarding grammar and meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, until the United Nations starts doing its business in Latin, Google Translate is not going to do a very good job. And even then, don't expect much unless you're translating text pasted from UN documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The five-word window&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of the five-word window. I enter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, are worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin translations (with my manual translations back to English):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Anhelat](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anhelo#Latin) quemadmodum speravimus confecta. _(He is panting just as we hoped accomplished.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Braccas](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/braca#Latin) sunt attriti. *(The trousers have been worn away [like &quot;attrition&quot;].)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anhelat, ut spe [teris](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tero#Latin). _(He is panting, just as, by hope, you are wearing [something] out.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the first and third sentences border on ungrammatical nonsense. The second sentence makes sense but it's ungrammatical; it should be *Braccae sunt attritae.* There aren't any five-word sequences in Google Translate's English database that line up well with &quot;pants as you expected were/are,&quot; so it's flailing. Notice that in the third sentence, by the time it got to &quot;worn&quot;, it had forgotten which sense of &quot;pants&quot; it chose at the start of the sentence. Or rather, it didn't forget, because it never tracked it. It only tracked five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether the sentence makes sense sort of affects the translation, but it's worse than that. What matters is exact, word-for-word matching with texts in the database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Entering Latin into Google Translate (with words changed from the first sentence shown in bold):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quintilianus** vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine **Iuliam**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero **canem** duxit uxorem nomine **Fido**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English output:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian, now the wife of another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and the name of his wife, a daughter named Julia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took a wife, and brought him to a dog by the name of Fido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vulgate and the [ASV translation](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025&amp;version=ASV) (or similar) would appear to be among Google Translate's source texts. Notice what happens when the input is off by as little as one word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above explains just enough so that a layperson can understand what Google Translate is good at, what it's bad at, and why—and so they won't be misled by the results of experimenting with different grammatical structures. If you're interested in more rigorous and thorough information about the full complexities of this approach, google for &quot;[statistical machine translation](https://www.google.com/search?q=statistical+machine+translation)&quot;. Some further info is [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Translate#Method_of_translation), including Google's rollout, now in progress, of an entirely new translation algorithm (which hasn't reached Latin yet)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="533" RevisionGUID="aeb6d012-5696-4345-9b35-7ceba656cd35" CreationDate="2017-05-12T08:08:35.577" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged. Feel free to reretag if needed." Text="In Ovid's *Tristia*, 1.2.23&amp;ndash;4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Nihil est, nisi pontus et aer,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nubibus hic tumidus, fluctibus ille minax...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, this means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...There is nothing, unless the sea and air  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This one swollen with clouds and that one threatening with waves...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I _think_ &quot;this one&quot; means &quot;the air&quot; and &quot;that one&quot; means &quot;the sea&quot;, based on context. Is that right? Is translating &quot;hic&quot; and &quot;ille&quot; like this typical and correct? If so, is there a better way to translate it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13320" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="533" RevisionGUID="aeb6d012-5696-4345-9b35-7ceba656cd35" CreationDate="2017-05-12T08:08:35.577" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged. Feel free to reretag if needed." Text="|vocabulary|poetry|pronouns|ovidius|demonstrative-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="900e5bb3-3137-4d24-82ec-a358d8bf5513" CreationDate="2017-05-12T08:14:18.787" UserId="118" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="A classmate of mine who got his Ph.D. in natural-language processing and now works at Google told me the following. It might be out of date and I might be remembering it wrong. But I just did a little, er, googling, and this seems to be passably well corroborated by other sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How it works&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate is completely statistical. It has no model of grammar, syntax, or meaning. It works by correlating sequences of up to five consecutive words found in texts from both languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the conceit. Ignore all the complexity, structure, and meaning of language and pretend that people speak just by randomly choosing one word after another. The only question now is how to calculate the probabilities. A simple way is to say that the probability of each word is determined by the previous word spoken. For example, if the last word you said was &quot;two&quot;, there is a certain probability that your next word will be &quot;or&quot;. If you just said &quot;or&quot;, there is a certain probability that your next word will be &quot;butane&quot;. You could calculate these word-to-next-word probabilities from their frequencies in real text. If you [generate new text](https://www.jwz.org/dadadodo/dadadodo.cgi) according to these probabilities, you'll get random but just slightly coherent gibberish: TWO OR BUTANE GAS AND OF THE SAME. That's called a [Markov model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_model). If you use a window of more words, say five, the resulting gibberish will look more likely to have been written by a schizophrenic than by an aphasic. A variation called a [hidden Markov model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Markov_model) introduces &quot;states&quot;, where each state has its own set of probabilities for &quot;emitting&quot; words as well as a set of &quot;transition&quot; probabilities for what will be the next state. This can simulate a little more of the influence of context on each word choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate's algorithm is proprietary, and I think it's a little more sophisticated than hidden Markov models, but the principle is the same. They let computers run on lots of text in each language, calculating probabilities according to the principle &quot;Assuming this text was generated by a random gibberish-generator, what probabilities [maximize the chance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_likelihood_estimation) that this exact text would have been generated?&quot; Manually translated texts provide data to line up word sequences in one language with word sequences in another. Translation, then, is finding the highest-probability sequence from one language's gibberish-generator that corresponds to whatever makes the other language's gibberish-generator produce the input text. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What it's reliable for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consequently, you won't learn much about what Google Translate is reliable for by trying out different grammatical structures. If you're lucky, all you'll get from that is an [ELIZA effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect). What Google Translate is most reliable for is translating documents produced by the United Nations between the languages in use there. This is because UN documents have provided a disproportionately large share of the manually translated texts from which Google Translate draws its five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Witness what happens when I type this in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; À l'exception de ce qui peut être convenu dans les accords particuliers de tutelle conclus conformément aux Articles 77, 79 et 81 et plaçant chaque territoire sous le régime de tutelle, et jusqu'à ce que ces accords aient été conclus, aucune disposition du présent Chapitre ne sera interprétée comme modifiant directement ou indirectement en aucune manière les droits quelconques d'aucun État ou d'aucun peuple ou les dispositions d'actes internationaux en vigueur auxquels des Membres de l'Organisation peuvent être parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Except as may be agreed upon in the special guardianship agreements concluded in accordance with Articles 77, 79 and 81 and placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, This Chapter shall not be construed as directly or indirectly modifying in any way the rights of any State or any people or the provisions of international instruments in force to which Members of the Organization may be parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfect! ([Almost](http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xii/index.html).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why its Latin translations tend to be so poor: it has a very thin corpus of human-made translations of Latin on which to base its probability estimates—and, of course, it's using an approach that's based on probabilities of word sequences, disregarding grammar and meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, until the United Nations starts doing its business in Latin, Google Translate is not going to do a very good job. And even then, don't expect much unless you're translating text pasted from UN documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The five-word window&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of the five-word window. I enter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, are worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin translations (with my manual translations back to English):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Anhelat](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anhelo#Latin) quemadmodum speravimus confecta. _(He is panting just as we hoped accomplished.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Braccas](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/braca#Latin) sunt attriti. *(The trousers have been worn away [like &quot;attrition&quot;].)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anhelat, ut spe [teris](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tero#Latin). _(He is panting, just as, by hope, you are wearing [something] out.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the first and third sentences border on ungrammatical nonsense. The second sentence makes sense but it's ungrammatical; it should be *Braccae sunt attritae.* There aren't any five-word sequences in Google Translate's English database that line up well with &quot;pants as you expected were/are,&quot; so it's flailing. Notice that in the third sentence, by the time it got to &quot;worn&quot;, it had forgotten which sense of &quot;pants&quot; it chose at the start of the sentence. Or rather, it didn't forget, because it never tracked it. It only tracked five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether the sentence makes sense sort of affects the translation, but it's worse than that. What matters is exact, word-for-word matching with texts in the database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Entering Latin into Google Translate (with words changed from the first sentence shown in bold):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quintilianus** vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine **Iuliam**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero **canem** duxit uxorem nomine **Fido**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English output:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian, now the wife of another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and the name of his wife, a daughter named Julia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took a wife, and brought him to a dog by the name of Fido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vulgate and the [ASV translation](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025&amp;version=ASV) (or similar) would appear to be among Google Translate's source texts. Notice what happens when the input is off by as little as one word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above explains just enough so that a layperson can understand what Google Translate is good at, what it's bad at, and why—and so they won't be misled by the results of experimenting with different grammatical structures. If you're interested in more rigorous and thorough information about the full complexities of this approach, google for &quot;[statistical machine translation](https://www.google.com/search?q=statistical+machine+translation)&quot;. Some further info is [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Translate#Method_of_translation), including Google's rollout, now in progress, of an entirely new translation algorithm (which hasn't reached Latin yet)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="e17673ea-1d41-461a-aac0-2646695665d9" CreationDate="2017-05-12T08:15:24.813" UserId="1560" Comment="added 327 characters in body" Text="I'm a programmer and I regularly write small utility programs for friends and family. Since I like a joke, all those programs have help/about forms that describe the program as having been produced by a completely fictional company. So far so boring. However, I would like my &quot;company&quot; to have a motto* in Latin and the motto I have chosen is &quot;Let's go to work&quot; but specifically in the sense Joe Cabot uses in Reservoir Dogs - [short clip here](https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=8&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiCxMnG8OfTAhUHilQKHWmrANgQtwIIPDAH&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymotion.com%2Fvideo%2Fx4cbs5u_let-s-go-to-work-reservoir-dogs_shortfilms&amp;usg=AFQjCNHs1Xu67fQagAASoBMXYXfeNogZtg&amp;sig2=1x9s36FiYrLl9uAS1BBFHg]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is a bit trivial or off-topic, please just close it down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Refining my searches a bit (my Google-fu must be weak), I keep coming up with &quot;et eamus ad operandum&quot;, so I suppose my question is really: is &quot;et eamus ad operandum&quot; valid, and does it actually mean &quot;let's go to work&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks to @Rafael and @Joonas Ilmavirta for the guidance and for keeping me plugging away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Motto might not even be the right word, but you know what I mean." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13323" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="ee393154-80ee-4899-b37c-da5a4fe646ca" CreationDate="2017-05-12T08:17:01.960" UserId="79" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="dbd25b08-a366-40aa-9e16-139ea64c9b66" CreationDate="2017-05-12T08:30:03.303" UserId="118" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="A classmate of mine who got his Ph.D. in natural-language processing and now works at Google told me the following. It might be out of date and I might be remembering it wrong. But I just did a little, er, googling, and this seems to be passably well corroborated by other sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How it works&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate is completely statistical. It has no model of grammar, syntax, or meaning. It works by correlating sequences of up to five consecutive words found in texts from both languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the conceit. Ignore all the complexity, structure, and meaning of language and pretend that people speak just by randomly choosing one word after another. The only question now is how to calculate the probabilities. A simple way is to say that the probability of each word is determined by the previous word spoken. For example, if the last word you said was &quot;two&quot;, there is a certain probability that your next word will be &quot;or&quot;. If you just said &quot;or&quot;, there is a certain probability that your next word will be &quot;butane&quot;. You could calculate these word-to-next-word probabilities from their frequencies in real text. If you [generate new text](https://www.jwz.org/dadadodo/dadadodo.cgi) according to these probabilities, you'll get random but just slightly coherent gibberish: TWO OR BUTANE GAS AND OF THE SAME. That's called a [Markov model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_model). If you use a window of more words, say five, the resulting gibberish will look more likely to have been written by a schizophrenic than by an aphasic. A variation called a [hidden Markov model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Markov_model) introduces &quot;states&quot;, where each state has its own set of probabilities for &quot;emitting&quot; words as well as a set of &quot;transition&quot; probabilities for what will be the next state. This can simulate a little more of the influence of context on each word choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate's algorithm is proprietary, and I think it's a little more sophisticated than hidden Markov models, but the principle is the same. They let computers run on lots of text in each language, assigning probabilities to word sequences according to the principle &quot;Assuming this text was generated by a random gibberish-generator, what probabilities [maximize the chance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_likelihood_estimation) that this exact text would have been generated?&quot; Manually translated texts provide data to line up word sequences in one language with word sequences in another. Translation, then, is finding the highest-probability sequence from one language's gibberish-generator that corresponds to whatever makes the other language's gibberish-generator produce the input text. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What it's reliable for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consequently, you won't learn much about what Google Translate is reliable for by trying out different grammatical structures. If you're lucky, all you'll get from that is an [ELIZA effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect). What Google Translate is most reliable for is translating documents produced by the United Nations between the languages in use there. This is because UN documents have provided a disproportionately large share of the manually translated texts from which Google Translate draws its five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Witness what happens when I type this in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; À l'exception de ce qui peut être convenu dans les accords particuliers de tutelle conclus conformément aux Articles 77, 79 et 81 et plaçant chaque territoire sous le régime de tutelle, et jusqu'à ce que ces accords aient été conclus, aucune disposition du présent Chapitre ne sera interprétée comme modifiant directement ou indirectement en aucune manière les droits quelconques d'aucun État ou d'aucun peuple ou les dispositions d'actes internationaux en vigueur auxquels des Membres de l'Organisation peuvent être parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Except as may be agreed upon in the special guardianship agreements concluded in accordance with Articles 77, 79 and 81 and placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, This Chapter shall not be construed as directly or indirectly modifying in any way the rights of any State or any people or the provisions of international instruments in force to which Members of the Organization may be parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfect! ([Almost](http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xii/index.html).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why its Latin translations tend to be so poor: it has a very thin corpus of human-made translations of Latin on which to base its probability estimates—and, of course, it's using an approach that's based on probabilities of word sequences, disregarding grammar and meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, until the United Nations starts doing its business in Latin, Google Translate is not going to do a very good job. And even then, don't expect much unless you're translating text pasted from UN documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The five-word window&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of the five-word window. I enter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, are worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin translations (with my manual translations back to English):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Anhelat](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anhelo#Latin) quemadmodum speravimus confecta. _(He is panting just as we hoped accomplished.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Braccas](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/braca#Latin) sunt attriti. *(The trousers have been worn away [like &quot;attrition&quot;].)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anhelat, ut spe [teris](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tero#Latin). _(He is panting, just as, by hope, you are wearing [something] out.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the first and third sentences border on ungrammatical nonsense. The second sentence makes sense but it's ungrammatical; it should be *Braccae sunt attritae.* There aren't any five-word sequences in Google Translate's English database that line up well with &quot;pants as you expected were/are,&quot; so it's flailing. Notice that in the third sentence, by the time it got to &quot;worn&quot;, it had forgotten which sense of &quot;pants&quot; it chose at the start of the sentence. Or rather, it didn't forget, because it never tracked it. It only tracked five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether the sentence makes sense sort of affects the translation, but it's worse than that. What matters is exact, word-for-word matching with texts in the database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Entering Latin into Google Translate (with words changed from the first sentence shown in bold):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quintilianus** vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine **Iuliam**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero **canem** duxit uxorem nomine **Fido**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English output:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian, now the wife of another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and the name of his wife, a daughter named Julia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took a wife, and brought him to a dog by the name of Fido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vulgate and the [ASV translation](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025&amp;version=ASV) (or similar) would appear to be among Google Translate's source texts. Notice what happens when the input is off by as little as one word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above explains just enough so that a layperson can understand what Google Translate is good at, what it's bad at, and why—and so they won't be misled by the results of experimenting with different grammatical structures. If you're interested in more rigorous and thorough information about the full complexities of this approach, google for &quot;[statistical machine translation](https://www.google.com/search?q=statistical+machine+translation)&quot;. Some further info is [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Translate#Method_of_translation), including Google's rollout, now in progress, of an entirely new translation algorithm (which hasn't reached Latin yet)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="f01cd219-510c-4b0c-93eb-c28e4b7a128e" CreationDate="2017-05-12T08:40:36.347" UserId="118" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="A classmate of mine who got his Ph.D. in natural-language processing and now works at Google told me the following. It might be out of date and I might be remembering it wrong. But I just did a little, er, googling, and this seems to be passably well corroborated by other sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How it works&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate is completely statistical. It has no model of grammar, syntax, or meaning. It works by correlating sequences of up to five consecutive words found in texts from both languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the conceit. Ignore all the complexity, structure, and meaning of language and pretend that people speak just by randomly choosing one word after another. The only question now is how to calculate the probabilities. A simple way is to say that the probability of each word is determined by the previous word spoken. For example, if the last word you said was &quot;two&quot;, there is a certain probability that your next word will be &quot;or&quot;. If you just said &quot;or&quot;, there is a certain probability that your next word will be &quot;butane&quot;. You could calculate these word-to-next-word probabilities from their frequencies in real text. If you [generate new text](https://www.jwz.org/dadadodo/dadadodo.cgi) according to these probabilities, you'll get random but just slightly coherent gibberish: TWO OR BUTANE GAS AND OF THE SAME. That's called a [Markov model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_model). If you use a window of more words, say five, the resulting gibberish will look more likely to have been written by a schizophrenic than by an aphasic. A variation called a [hidden Markov model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Markov_model) introduces &quot;states&quot;, where each state has its own set of probabilities for &quot;emitting&quot; words as well as a set of &quot;transition&quot; probabilities for what will be the next state. This can simulate a little more of the influence of context on each word choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate's algorithm is proprietary, and I think it's a little more sophisticated than hidden Markov models, but the principle is the same. They let computers run on lots of text in each language, assigning [probabilities to word sequences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_model) according to the principle &quot;Assuming this text was generated by a random gibberish-generator, what probabilities [maximize the chance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_likelihood_estimation) that this exact text would have been generated?&quot; Manually translated texts provide data to line up word sequences in one language with word sequences in another. Translation, then, is finding the highest-probability sequence from one language's gibberish-generator that corresponds to whatever makes the other language's gibberish-generator produce the input text. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#What it's reliable for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consequently, you won't learn much about what Google Translate is reliable for by trying out different grammatical structures. If you're lucky, all you'll get from that is an [ELIZA effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect). What Google Translate is most reliable for is translating documents produced by the United Nations between the languages in use there. This is because UN documents have provided a disproportionately large share of the manually translated texts from which Google Translate draws its five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Witness what happens when I type this in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; À l'exception de ce qui peut être convenu dans les accords particuliers de tutelle conclus conformément aux Articles 77, 79 et 81 et plaçant chaque territoire sous le régime de tutelle, et jusqu'à ce que ces accords aient été conclus, aucune disposition du présent Chapitre ne sera interprétée comme modifiant directement ou indirectement en aucune manière les droits quelconques d'aucun État ou d'aucun peuple ou les dispositions d'actes internationaux en vigueur auxquels des Membres de l'Organisation peuvent être parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Except as may be agreed upon in the special guardianship agreements concluded in accordance with Articles 77, 79 and 81 and placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, This Chapter shall not be construed as directly or indirectly modifying in any way the rights of any State or any people or the provisions of international instruments in force to which Members of the Organization may be parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfect! ([Almost](http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xii/index.html).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why its Latin translations tend to be so poor: it has a very thin corpus of human-made translations of Latin on which to base its probability estimates—and, of course, it's using an approach that's based on probabilities of word sequences, disregarding grammar and meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, until the United Nations starts doing its business in Latin, Google Translate is not going to do a very good job. And even then, don't expect much unless you're translating text pasted from UN documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The five-word window&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of the five-word window. I enter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants were worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pants, as you expected, are worn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin translations (with my manual translations back to English):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Anhelat](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anhelo#Latin) quemadmodum speravimus confecta. _(He is panting just as we hoped accomplished.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Braccas](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/braca#Latin) sunt attriti. *(The trousers have been worn away [like &quot;attrition&quot;].)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anhelat, ut spe [teris](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tero#Latin). _(He is panting, just as, by hope, you are wearing [something] out.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the first and third sentences border on ungrammatical nonsense. The second sentence makes sense but it's ungrammatical; it should be *Braccae sunt attritae.* There aren't any five-word sequences in Google Translate's English database that line up well with &quot;pants as you expected were/are,&quot; so it's flailing. Notice that in the third sentence, by the time it got to &quot;worn&quot;, it had forgotten which sense of &quot;pants&quot; it chose at the start of the sentence. Or rather, it didn't forget, because it never tracked it. It only tracked five-word sequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether the sentence makes sense sort of affects the translation, but it's worse than that. What matters is exact, word-for-word matching with texts in the database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Entering Latin into Google Translate (with words changed from the first sentence shown in bold):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quintilianus** vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine Cetthuram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero aliam duxit uxorem nomine **Iuliam**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abraham vero **canem** duxit uxorem nomine **Fido**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English output:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian, now the wife of another wife, and her name was Keturah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took another wife, and the name of his wife, a daughter named Julia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Abraham took a wife, and brought him to a dog by the name of Fido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vulgate and the [ASV translation](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025&amp;version=ASV) (or similar) would appear to be among Google Translate's source texts. Notice what happens when the input is off by as little as one word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above explains just enough so that a layperson can understand what Google Translate is good at, what it's bad at, and why—and so they won't be misled by the results of experimenting with different grammatical structures. If you're interested in more rigorous and thorough information about the full complexities of this approach, google for &quot;[statistical machine translation](https://www.google.com/search?q=statistical+machine+translation)&quot;. Some further info is [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Translate#Method_of_translation), including Google's rollout, now in progress, of an entirely new translation algorithm (which hasn't reached Latin yet)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13327" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="4349" RevisionGUID="6300fe34-685a-432d-80d7-0d690f0db024" CreationDate="2017-05-12T13:23:04.027" UserId="45" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:45,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;brianpck&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13328" PostHistoryTypeId="20" PostId="4349" RevisionGUID="2c10229c-aab0-4343-8dc2-1a9cc71ee644" CreationDate="2017-05-12T13:23:26.680" UserId="45" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:45,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;brianpck&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4363" RevisionGUID="6f312807-8115-4b4a-a76b-2f28ca427d10" CreationDate="2017-05-12T13:55:58.160" UserId="118" Text="In English speech, we say the year 1992 not as &quot;one thousand nine hundred ninety-two&quot; but &quot;nineteen ninety-two&quot;: five syllables rather than nine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has a convention like that evolved for Latin? (It's certainly had enough time!) &quot;Mille nongenti nonaginta duo&quot; is eleven syllables and _tempus pecunia est!_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13330" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4363" RevisionGUID="6f312807-8115-4b4a-a76b-2f28ca427d10" CreationDate="2017-05-12T13:55:58.160" UserId="118" Text="How to say four-digit years without so many syllables" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13331" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4363" RevisionGUID="6f312807-8115-4b4a-a76b-2f28ca427d10" CreationDate="2017-05-12T13:55:58.160" UserId="118" Text="|word-choice|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4364" RevisionGUID="37f75ab0-b7cf-4495-8706-ace58ea838ba" CreationDate="2017-05-12T16:30:15.257" UserId="118" Text="It's the Middle Ages and you're explaining to someone how to play [rock-paper-scissors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock–paper–scissors). You say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cisorium pergamenum vincit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wait a minute. Both of those nouns, being [neuter](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/18/118), are the same in both nominative and accusative. Latin has free word order and parchment is pretty tough, so—what beats what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More to the point, how do you sort out this kind of ambiguity in Latin if you can't think of a masculine or feminine synonym? Do you call upon conventions for word order? Do you add more words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13335" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4364" RevisionGUID="37f75ab0-b7cf-4495-8706-ace58ea838ba" CreationDate="2017-05-12T16:30:15.257" UserId="118" Text="Neuter nominative-accusative ambiguity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13336" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4364" RevisionGUID="37f75ab0-b7cf-4495-8706-ace58ea838ba" CreationDate="2017-05-12T16:30:15.257" UserId="118" Text="|ambiguity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4364" RevisionGUID="3ab06d93-6dc6-46aa-989e-c847cf6f1a6e" CreationDate="2017-05-12T16:38:40.390" UserId="118" Comment="added 153 characters in body; edited title" Text="It's the Middle Ages and you're explaining to someone how to play [rock-paper-scissors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock–paper–scissors). You say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cisorium pergamenum vincit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wait a minute. Both of those nouns, being [neuter](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/18/118), are the same in both nominative and accusative. Latin has free word order and parchment is pretty tough, so—what beats what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More to the point, how do you sort out this kind of ambiguity in Latin if you can't think of a masculine or feminine synonym? Depending on the listener to use sense to disambiguate won't work here, because you're explaining the rules of a game, which are somewhat arbitrary. So, do you call upon conventions for word order? Do you add more words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13338" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4364" RevisionGUID="3ab06d93-6dc6-46aa-989e-c847cf6f1a6e" CreationDate="2017-05-12T16:38:40.390" UserId="118" Comment="added 153 characters in body; edited title" Text="Nominative-accusative ambiguity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4365" RevisionGUID="1a31b8dd-2074-46f9-a9e7-09eac8b01b78" CreationDate="2017-05-12T17:04:21.593" UserId="1369" Text="This is the same sort of ambiguity we have with _accusativum cum infinitivo_ construction, where both actors are put into accusative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Reor canem hominem momordisse._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, the free word order of Latin gains further constraints (the same thing happened with Vulgar, as the old case system degraded over the First Millennium).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particularly, in _accusativum cum infinitivo_, the subject must be expressed first, and the object second; in the Vulgar languages, the object migrated to after the verb; in transitive phrases where both subject and object are neuter, there are a few strategies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. put the sentence in the Passive voice:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Pergamenum a cisorio vincitur._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. add descriptive adjectives:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cisorium, quia fortius quam pergamenum/fortius pergameno, id vincit._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. if all else fails, rely on the standard word order.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cisorium pergamenum vincit_ vs. _pergamenum cisorium vincit._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;one can generally assume that the earlier word will be the subject and the later the object, particularly in prose, and the context may make it clearer. Ambiguity is sometimes impossible to avoid, so it's not such a big deal if we have a bit of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4365" RevisionGUID="0aa9542d-53ff-42f8-ad5a-21e7605e0ae3" CreationDate="2017-05-12T17:34:40.000" UserId="1369" Comment="Ablative of means rather than Agent of passive" Text="This is the same sort of ambiguity we have with _accusativum cum infinitivo_ construction, where both actors are put into accusative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Reor canem hominem momordisse._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, the free word order of Latin gains further constraints (the same thing happened with Vulgar, as the old case system degraded over the First Millennium).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particularly, in _accusativum cum infinitivo_, the subject must be expressed first, and the object second; in the Vulgar languages, the object migrated to after the verb; in transitive phrases where both subject and object are neuter, there are a few strategies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. put the sentence in the Passive voice:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Pergamenum cisorio vincitur._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. add descriptive adjectives:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cisorium, quia fortius quam pergamenum/fortius pergameno, id vincit._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. if all else fails, rely on the standard word order.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cisorium pergamenum vincit_ vs. _pergamenum cisorium vincit._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;one can generally assume that the earlier word will be the subject and the later the object, particularly in prose, and the context may make it clearer. Ambiguity is sometimes impossible to avoid, so it's not such a big deal if we have a bit of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4367" RevisionGUID="c8bfc6c1-7243-46b1-8c31-8fc0ba5fdec2" CreationDate="2017-05-12T19:33:06.707" UserId="469" Text="Here's what I got:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are translated as a salutation -at times with a reference to God-, and are quite interchangeable, but they have different origins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Ave** comes from the imperative form of [aveo][1], which means *to be/fare well*.&#xD;&#xA;* **Salve** comes from the imperative form of [salveo][2], *to be well/in good health*. Note that this health can be physical or spiritual, (hence *God save you*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So both are basically *be well*, but an emphasis -if any- might be implied in **performance (ave)** or **health (salve)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the etymology means the distinction should have been valid, at least at the beginning. In contrast, _ave_ has also been translated as _God save you_, e.g. at least in translations of the Hail Mary (or Lc 1, 28) to Spanish, [Aragonese][3], [Catalan][4] and [Sardinian][5] (the Greek version uses χαῖρε as salutation, which means rejoice).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daveo2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsalveo&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://an.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ave_Mar%C3%ADa&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avemaria&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ti_salvet_Maria" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4368" RevisionGUID="11849f6f-72a9-43da-9f56-4d7d6f1280e2" CreationDate="2017-05-12T19:38:01.393" UserId="45" Text="I found an example of [15th century Medieval inscription](https://books.google.com/books?id=pRLMdAdJKAwC&amp;pg=PA138&amp;lpg=PA138) that abbreviates to the last two numbers of the year (cf. &quot;Summer of '69&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; HIC IACET DOMINUS WILELMUS MEDELEY ABBAS HUIUS MONASTERII XII QUI OBIIT XII DIE MENSIS DECEMBRIS **ANNO** [DOMINI MILLESIMO QUADRINGENTESIMO] **SEPTUAGESIMO TERCIO** CUIUS ANIME PROPICIETUR DEUS AMEN.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Loose translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here lies the Sir William Medeley, the 12th abbot of this monastery, who died on the 12th day of the month of December in the **year '73**. May God look kindly on his soul.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, I have been unable to find a consistent abbreviation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This should not strike us as a gross omission. Obviously, the Romans never had to speak about years like this. English is actually fairly *unique* when it truncates a 4-digit year into 2 2-digit numbers. Consider 1999 (I'll exclude the word for &quot;year&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **English:** nineteen ninety-nine (5 syllables!)&#xD;&#xA;* **French:** mille neuf cent quatre-vingt-dix-neuf (8) or dix-neuf cent quatre-vingt-dix-neuf (8)&#xD;&#xA;* [**German:**](https://german.stackexchange.com/questions/23325/how-to-read-years-in-german) neunzehnhundert[-]neunundneunzig (8) or neunzehnneunundneunzig (6--&quot;more colloquial&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;* **Spanish:** mil novecientos noventa y nueve (10 syllables with [Synalephas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synalepha))&#xD;&#xA;* **Italian:** millenovecento novantanove (11)&#xD;&#xA;* **Latin:** [anno Domini] millesimo nongentesimo nonagesimo nono (16)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So sure, it's *longer*, but we're not talking about orders of magnitude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As further evidence, both the [Vatican](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22anno+millesimo%22+site:vatican.va) and [*Nuntii Latini*](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22anno+millesimo%22+site:http://ephemeris.alcuinus.net) have many examples of the full form without any attempt to shorten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is difficult to prove a negative (so I am happy to be contradicted!), but I think I can venture to claim that **there is no commonly occurring abbreviation of years in Latin.**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4368" RevisionGUID="678bf9ae-7a0a-4e41-8d6e-dc670be246f1" CreationDate="2017-05-12T19:44:58.010" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="I found a [15th century Medieval inscription](https://books.google.com/books?id=pRLMdAdJKAwC&amp;pg=PA138&amp;lpg=PA138) that abbreviates to the last two numbers of the year (cf. &quot;Summer of '69&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; HIC IACET DOMINUS WILELMUS MEDELEY ABBAS HUIUS MONASTERII XII QUI OBIIT XII DIE MENSIS DECEMBRIS **ANNO** [DOMINI MILLESIMO QUADRINGENTESIMO] **SEPTUAGESIMO TERCIO** CUIUS ANIME PROPICIETUR DEUS AMEN.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Loose translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here lies the Sir William Medeley, the 12th abbot of this monastery, who died on the 12th day of the month of December in the **year '73**. May God look kindly on his soul.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, I have been unable to find a consistent abbreviation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This should not strike us as a gross omission. Obviously, the Romans never had to speak about years like this. English is actually fairly *unique* when it truncates a 4-digit year into 2 2-digit numbers. Consider 1999 (I'll exclude the word for &quot;year&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **English:** nineteen ninety-nine (5 syllables!)&#xD;&#xA;* **French:** mille neuf cent quatre-vingt-dix-neuf (8) or dix-neuf cent quatre-vingt-dix-neuf (8)&#xD;&#xA;* [**German:**](https://german.stackexchange.com/questions/23325/how-to-read-years-in-german) neunzehnhundert[-]neunundneunzig (8) or neunzehnneunundneunzig (6--&quot;more colloquial&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;* **Spanish:** mil novecientos noventa y nueve (10 syllables with [Synalephas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synalepha))&#xD;&#xA;* **Italian:** millenovecento novantanove (11)&#xD;&#xA;* **Latin:** [anno Domini] millesimo nongentesimo nonagesimo nono (16)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So sure, it's *longer*, but we're not talking about orders of magnitude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As further evidence, both the [Vatican](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22anno+millesimo%22+site:vatican.va) and [*Nuntii Latini*](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22anno+millesimo%22+site:http://ephemeris.alcuinus.net) have many examples of the full form without any attempt to shorten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is difficult to prove a negative (so I am happy to be contradicted!), but I think I can venture to claim that **there is no commonly occurring abbreviation of years in Latin.**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4367" RevisionGUID="06eb4e11-6a53-45e4-a8be-236e1fd9d565" CreationDate="2017-05-12T20:41:24.747" UserId="469" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Here's what I got:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are translated as a salutation -at times with a reference to God-, and are quite interchangeable, but they have different origins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Ave** comes from the imperative form of [aveo][1], which means *to be/fare well*.&#xD;&#xA;* **Salve** comes from the imperative form of [salveo][2], *to be well/in good health*. Note that this health can be physical or spiritual -salvation-, (hence *God save you*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So both are basically *be well*, but an emphasis -if any- might be implied in **performance (ave)** or **health (salve)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the etymology means the distinction should have been valid, at least at the beginning. In contrast, _ave_ has also been translated as _God save you_, e.g. at least in translations of the Hail Mary (or Lc 1, 28) to Spanish, [Aragonese][3], [Catalan][4] and [Sardinian][5] (the Greek version uses χαῖρε as salutation, which means rejoice).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daveo2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsalveo&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://an.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ave_Mar%C3%ADa&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avemaria&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ti_salvet_Maria" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4369" RevisionGUID="217fa46e-29f0-44db-a4d9-cea576ded12f" CreationDate="2017-05-12T20:53:21.383" UserId="79" Text="I like Wtrmute's suggestions, but I want to add one thing.&#xD;&#xA;You can also consider dropping the object.&#xD;&#xA;You can clarify it in another clause.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quando cisorium et pergamenum certant, cisorium vincit.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; When scissors and paper compete, the scissors win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course you can refer to *cisorium* as *illud* (*pergamenum* being *hoc*), but in this case I think clarity demands repeating the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is to use a preposition to clarify things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cisorium contra pergamenum vincit.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scissors win agains paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This *contra* does not feel entirely idiomatic, but it does add the desired clarity without changing the overall structure significantly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4370" RevisionGUID="14b05f60-2819-456c-893d-4b8d028d5570" CreationDate="2017-05-12T21:20:46.220" UserId="79" Text="If I understand correctly, [*derivare*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=derivo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) means literally &quot;to lead water from a river&quot; (from [*rivus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=rivus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)).&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S gives examples of this literal meaning, but it also lists figurative uses.&#xD;&#xA;Only the figurative sense remains in many loaned versions of the word, like the English &quot;derive&quot; &amp;mdash; or at least I have never seen it mean anything water-related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know how this figurative meaning came about?&#xD;&#xA;Was there a first author that introduced this sense?&#xD;&#xA;What were the first abstract or generalized uses cases like?&#xD;&#xA;Or was this meaning always there?&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S gives examples, but it does not say if it was first introduced by someone (Cicero?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some mathematicians have asked me about the Latin meaning of (the word behind) &quot;derive&quot;, but I have not been able to give a convincing answer that bridges the gap between &quot;taking water&quot; and &quot;deriving&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13352" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4370" RevisionGUID="14b05f60-2819-456c-893d-4b8d028d5570" CreationDate="2017-05-12T21:20:46.220" UserId="79" Text="Development of the figurative meaning of derivare" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13353" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4370" RevisionGUID="14b05f60-2819-456c-893d-4b8d028d5570" CreationDate="2017-05-12T21:20:46.220" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|etymology|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4370" RevisionGUID="d9acb886-65a0-4c13-a3a1-1e79bb3376bc" CreationDate="2017-05-12T21:41:56.930" UserId="79" Comment="added 183 characters in body" Text="If I understand correctly, [*derivare*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=derivo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) means literally &quot;to lead water from a river&quot; (from [*rivus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=rivus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)).&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S gives examples of this literal meaning, but it also lists figurative uses.&#xD;&#xA;Only the figurative sense remains in many loaned versions of the word, like the English &quot;derive&quot; &amp;mdash; or at least I have never seen it mean anything water-related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know how this figurative meaning came about?&#xD;&#xA;Was there a first author that introduced this sense?&#xD;&#xA;What were the first abstract or generalized uses cases like?&#xD;&#xA;Or was this meaning always there?&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S gives examples, but it does not say if it was first introduced by someone (Cicero?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I most interested in figurative meanings closer to the English &quot;derive&quot; than &quot;divert&quot;, but any understanding of the development of figurative meanings of this word would be great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some mathematicians have asked me about the Latin meaning of (the word behind) &quot;derive&quot;, but I have not been able to give a convincing answer that bridges the gap between &quot;taking water&quot; and &quot;deriving&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1891" RevisionGUID="ebd8a56f-daf0-4e82-b308-ef45355a06cc" CreationDate="2017-05-12T22:39:09.233" UserId="79" Comment="added 14 characters in body; edited tags" Text="How to translate 'breakfast', 'lunch', and 'dinner' into Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I gather *cena* is an adequate translation of 'dinner', but google translate produces many possibilities for 'breakfast' and 'lunch', and one of those possibilities, *prandium*, appears as possible translation of **both** 'breakfast' and 'lunch'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Breakfast:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *prandium*&#xD;&#xA;* *ientaculum*&#xD;&#xA;* *iantaculum*&#xD;&#xA;* *ieientaculum*&#xD;&#xA;* *iaientaculum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lunch:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *prandium*&#xD;&#xA;* *merenda*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are able to explain the nuance among these various words for the morning and midday meals, that would be fantastic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13356" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1891" RevisionGUID="ebd8a56f-daf0-4e82-b308-ef45355a06cc" CreationDate="2017-05-12T22:39:09.233" UserId="79" Comment="added 14 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|word-comparison|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1872" RevisionGUID="dea7eeef-1735-4e17-a806-519b34c1c777" CreationDate="2017-05-12T22:41:20.113" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="This is a bit cheeky, but I'm trying to find out the meaning of what may be an 18th century abbreviation of a Latin phrase (for an answer to a [question](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/354909/abbreviation-in-a-business-letter) in EL&amp;U.SE). Since I have no Latin, I've been fumbling around a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The abbreviation is *qsd* (with a macron over the s). The context is a business letter between two brothers (which I do not have). I could find no ready interpretation online. Without going through all my researches, I eventually came up with *quod sine dictum* (that without mentioning), i.e. &quot;keep your mouth shut&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it sound  reasonable, and if so, have I got the Latin (and translation) right? I couldn't decline a Latin verb if you threatened to string my up by my testes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acknowledgements will be given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, feel free to provide your own answer. I'm sure that the denizens of EL&amp;U will be grateful for any assistance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/w0wRt.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In transcribing a business letter written in 1776, I keep finding an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparent abbreviation, 'qsd' with a line over the s, e.g &quot;this to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qsd my brother.&quot; The letters are hand-written by William Phelps in London to James Morrissey in Madeira and concern the shipping of wine and other commodities between England and Madeira. William, his brother Joseph and James M were in partnership. I have screenshots of the word in context but don't know how to attach them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13358" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1872" RevisionGUID="dea7eeef-1735-4e17-a806-519b34c1c777" CreationDate="2017-05-12T22:41:20.113" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4369" RevisionGUID="3d212503-ca67-4e0a-b552-d25ea0db05d7" CreationDate="2017-05-12T23:12:21.683" UserId="79" Comment="added 270 characters in body" Text="I like Wtrmute's suggestions, but I want to add one thing.&#xD;&#xA;You can also consider dropping the object.&#xD;&#xA;You can clarify it in another clause.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quando cisorium et pergamenum certant, cisorium vincit.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; When scissors and paper compete, the scissors win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course you can refer to *cisorium* as *illud* (*pergamenum* being *hoc*), but in this case I think clarity demands repeating the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Slight ambiguity remains: you could parse the second *cisorium* as the object of *vincit*, but this reading feels a little contrived to me.&#xD;&#xA;While leaving the subject out and leaving the object in is possible in Latin, it does not feel natural (to me) in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is to use a preposition to clarify things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cisorium contra pergamenum vincit.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scissors win against paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This *contra* does not feel entirely idiomatic, but it does add the desired clarity without changing the overall structure significantly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4371" RevisionGUID="02bece7b-4602-4e8f-95ba-628655ab742a" CreationDate="2017-05-13T00:13:04.867" UserId="79" Text="If someone thanks me in Latin, how should I respond?&#xD;&#xA;I have been taught to reply *sodes*, but [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=sodes&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) does not seem to mention such use at all.&#xD;&#xA;Did the Romans have any idiom for replying to &quot;thank you&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;A direct translation of the English &quot;you are welcome&quot; is unlikely to work, and I don't want anything as heavy as *gratias tibi ago, quod gratias mihi egisti*.&#xD;&#xA;Is *sodes* fine, but only a modern option?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13361" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4371" RevisionGUID="02bece7b-4602-4e8f-95ba-628655ab742a" CreationDate="2017-05-13T00:13:04.867" UserId="79" Text="How to say &quot;you are welcome&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13362" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4371" RevisionGUID="02bece7b-4602-4e8f-95ba-628655ab742a" CreationDate="2017-05-13T00:13:04.867" UserId="79" Text="|politeness|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4372" RevisionGUID="0fd3b6b9-cac0-4d4e-bc61-5834d7949df3" CreationDate="2017-05-13T03:02:54.613" UserId="1224" Text="From *fluere*, *su(short)perfluere* means to overflow. However, I'm not sure how the adjective *superflu(first u short)us* is pronounced. My guess would be that both final Us are short, but why are they not marked so?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13364" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4372" RevisionGUID="0fd3b6b9-cac0-4d4e-bc61-5834d7949df3" CreationDate="2017-05-13T03:02:54.613" UserId="1224" Text="Pronouncing &quot;Superfluus&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13365" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4372" RevisionGUID="0fd3b6b9-cac0-4d4e-bc61-5834d7949df3" CreationDate="2017-05-13T03:02:54.613" UserId="1224" Text="|pronunciation|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4373" RevisionGUID="9c5ab132-e313-44d0-9663-6ff323f11f81" CreationDate="2017-05-13T05:13:14.620" UserId="779" Text="Appendix probi was a book written in 3rd-4th century AD to correct people's written Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It consists of lines of the form &quot;*xxx* non *yyy*&quot;, meaning that people commonly wrote *yyy*, where *xxx* is the &quot;correct&quot; form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a line reads:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cannelam **nun** canianus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is &quot;nun&quot; used here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13367" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4373" RevisionGUID="9c5ab132-e313-44d0-9663-6ff323f11f81" CreationDate="2017-05-13T05:13:14.620" UserId="779" Text="Appendix probi: &quot;cannelam nun canianus&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13368" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4373" RevisionGUID="9c5ab132-e313-44d0-9663-6ff323f11f81" CreationDate="2017-05-13T05:13:14.620" UserId="779" Text="|vulgar-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4374" RevisionGUID="d9a1da4e-079c-4428-9153-4d56cebd5aad" CreationDate="2017-05-13T06:19:56.180" UserId="779" Text="It was a typo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the online sources I find have been based on the book *Sprachlicher Kommentar zur vulgärlateinischen Appendix Probi*, but in the book it was correctly printed as *non* (Page 5 of [this document](https://archive.org/details/sprachlicherkomm00baeh)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I suspect that someone, when typing from that book, made a typographical error which is then spread everywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Page 73 of [Lingüística Romanica](https://filologiauefs.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/linguistica-romanica-rodoldo-ilari-pdf.pdf), it is also correctly printed as *non*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4375" RevisionGUID="7c3bc065-0eda-4110-8dbf-d638b8a05325" CreationDate="2017-05-13T06:25:37.123" UserId="1393" Text="I came across a medal commemorating the coronation of Charles XV in 1860. The inscriptions on the medal are all in Latin. I am aware of a few latin abbreviations centered around the creators of medals like these:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;FEC. = [fecit][1]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SC. = [sculpsit][2]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;DIR. = [direxit][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the inscriptions on the medal is sculpsit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; J. E. ERICSSON **SC**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is another abbreviation on this medal that I am not familiar with:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; C. G. OVARNSTRӦM **FORM**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What Latin verb is this supposed to be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess would be &quot;format&quot; but how is that different than &quot;sculpsit&quot;? I have included a picture that I took of the medal for reference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fecit&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sculpsit&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/direxit&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/a9lP4.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13371" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4375" RevisionGUID="7c3bc065-0eda-4110-8dbf-d638b8a05325" CreationDate="2017-05-13T06:25:37.123" UserId="1393" Text="What does the Latin abbreviation &quot;Form.&quot; stand for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13372" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4375" RevisionGUID="7c3bc065-0eda-4110-8dbf-d638b8a05325" CreationDate="2017-05-13T06:25:37.123" UserId="1393" Text="|new-latin|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4376" RevisionGUID="c537885f-ea7a-4337-a80c-ecd28aec74d1" CreationDate="2017-05-13T07:26:52.600" UserId="779" Text="1. &quot;Let's ...&quot; is formed using the present active subjunctive first person plural form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Your sentence can be rendered as &quot;let's work&quot; or &quot;let's go to [a figurative place called] work&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. There are two ways to write Latin: with macron or without macron. (Obviously there are other ways, such as with apices, with breves, etc.) Macrons are used in a more academical context, so you may want the version without macrons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. There are three ways to speak Latin: the reconstructed classical way (weni, widi, wiki), the ecclesiastical way (veni, vidi, vici), the English way (veenai, vidai, vichai). You may want the English way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. In the Classical pronunciations,`ː` signifies a long vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Let's work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### First translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- With macron: Labōrēmus.&#xD;&#xA;- Without macron: Laboremus.&#xD;&#xA;- Classical: `la.boː.REː.mus`&#xD;&#xA;- Ecclesiastical: `la.bo.RE.mus`&#xD;&#xA;- English: `luh-bow-REE-muhs`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Second translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- With macron: Operēmur.&#xD;&#xA;- Without macron: Operemur.&#xD;&#xA;- Classical: `o.pe.REː.mur`&#xD;&#xA;- Ecclesiastical: `o.pe.RE.mur`&#xD;&#xA;- English: `oh-puh-RE-mer`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Let's go to work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- With macron: Ad labōrem eāmus.&#xD;&#xA;- Without macron: Ad laborem eamus.&#xD;&#xA;- Classical: `ad.la.BOː.re.me.Aː.mus`&#xD;&#xA;- Ecclesiastical: `ad.la.BO.rem.e.A.mus`&#xD;&#xA;- English: `ad-luh-BOW-ruhm-ee-EI-muhs`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that &quot;ad labōrem&quot; can be switched with &quot;eāmus&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13374" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="0d1a0ef3-a668-463d-a4e1-515f7183c631" CreationDate="2017-05-13T07:55:33.240" UserId="118" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13377" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4349" RevisionGUID="bda641d7-2b17-433d-8ba3-de0f1ce3f89f" CreationDate="2017-05-13T17:17:36.260" UserId="78" Comment="edited title" Text="What is Google Translate good for (with Latin)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4378" RevisionGUID="97e3c2af-c010-4cf4-b4bc-cfea2dc14f0e" CreationDate="2017-05-13T17:22:32.930" UserId="78" Text="This is not a phrase which demands a response, at least not from the available evidence. Most instances of *gratias ago* do not have the thanked person respond at all, and I could only really find one exception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Cicero's *De Oratore* 2.268, we get this exchange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arguta etiam significatio est, cum parva re et saepe verbo res obscura et latens inlustratur; ut, cum C. Fabricio P. Cornelius, homo, ut existimabatur, avarus et furax, sed egregie fortis et bonus imperator, gratias ageret, quod se homo inimicus consulem fecisset, bello praesertim magno et gravi **&quot;nihil est, quod mihi gratias agas,&quot; inquit &quot;si malui compilari quam venire&quot;.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is also frequently acuteness shown, when something obscure and not commonly known is illustrated by a slight circumstance, and often by a single word; as when Publius Cornelius, a man, as was suspected, of a covetous and rapacious disposition, but of great courage and an able commander, thanked Caius Fabricius for having, though he was his enemy, made him consul, especially during a difficult and important war, **You have no reason to thank me, returned Fabricius, if I had rather be pillaged than sold for a slave.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not a simple *nihil est*, but I think it gets the point across. But in this exchange, the thanked one minimized the actions, as if there actually was no reason to be thanked to begin with. This is different from the *de nada*s and *de rien*s that essentially mean, &quot;It wasn't very difficult to do, but I appreciate the thanks anyway.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Terence's *Phormio*, we get this exchange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nausistrata*: Phormio, at ego ecastor posthac tibi quod potero, quae voles faciamque et dicam.*Phormio*: Benigne dici'. *Na.*: **Pol meritumst tuom.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nausistrata: Phormio, I by Castor henceforth I will do and speak for you whatever I can, whatever you wish. Phormio: Thanks! (Lit. You speak kindly.) Na. **By Pollux, you merit it.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here it might help to recognize that there were different ways of thanking someone, and this comes after kind words. I imagine it being similar to the English response, &quot;You're too kind!&quot; It's not really the formal thanks and it's not really an automatic &quot;you're welcome.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be others, but there's certainly nothing consistent. Searching all possibilities is time consuming, but I think it speaks volumes that it's not something that is easily found (unlike the many ways of thanking someone); despite giving several ways of saying &quot;Thanks!&quot;, Goodwin Beach's article &quot;De Sermone Cotidiano&quot; doesn't mention &quot;You're welcome&quot; in any way, though it might help remembering that *you're welcome* in its current form as a response to *thank you* was first attested only in 1907.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I searched for *gratias* and *benigne* both, and while responses are often given, there isn't anything on par with English *you're welcome*, French *de rien*, or German *bitte*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For modern speakers, I indeed have heard *nihil est*, *libet*, *precare/precamini*, and *flocci* all used, though you should always keep in mind just what you're being thanked for and its appropriate response. Even in English, for someone being publicly thanked for the service to the state, &quot;you're welcome&quot; is hardly appropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4378" RevisionGUID="b1c1756a-b960-41e9-9acb-33b18d64572a" CreationDate="2017-05-13T17:37:16.440" UserId="78" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="This is not a phrase which demands a response, at least not from the available evidence. Most instances of *gratias ago* do not have the thanked person respond at all, and I could only really find one exception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Cicero's *De Oratore* 2.268, we get this exchange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arguta etiam significatio est, cum parva re et saepe verbo res obscura et latens inlustratur; ut, cum C. Fabricio P. Cornelius, homo, ut existimabatur, avarus et furax, sed egregie fortis et bonus imperator, gratias ageret, quod se homo inimicus consulem fecisset, bello praesertim magno et gravi **&quot;nihil est, quod mihi gratias agas,&quot; inquit &quot;si malui compilari quam venire&quot;.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is also frequently acuteness shown, when something obscure and not commonly known is illustrated by a slight circumstance, and often by a single word; as when Publius Cornelius, a man, as was suspected, of a covetous and rapacious disposition, but of great courage and an able commander, thanked Caius Fabricius for having, though he was his enemy, made him consul, especially during a difficult and important war, **You have no reason to thank me, returned Fabricius, if I had rather be pillaged than sold for a slave.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not a simple *nihil est*, but I think it gets the point across. But in this exchange, the thanked one minimized the actions, as if there actually was no reason to be thanked to begin with. This is different from the *de nada*s and *de rien*s that essentially mean, &quot;It wasn't very difficult to do, but I appreciate the thanks anyway.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Terence's *Phormio*, we get this exchange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nausistrata*: Phormio, at ego ecastor posthac tibi quod potero, quae voles faciamque et dicam.*Phormio*: Benigne dici'. *Na.*: **Pol meritumst tuom.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nausistrata: Phormio, I by Castor henceforth I will do and speak for you whatever I can, whatever you wish. Phormio: Thanks! (Lit. You speak kindly.) Na. **By Pollux, you merit it.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here it might help to recognize that there were different ways of thanking someone, and this comes after kind words. I imagine it being similar to the English response, &quot;You're too kind!&quot; It's not really the formal thanks and it's not really an automatic &quot;you're welcome.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be others, but there's certainly nothing consistent. Searching all possibilities is time consuming, but I think it speaks volumes that it's not something that is easily found (unlike the many ways of thanking someone); despite giving several ways of saying &quot;Thanks!&quot;, Goodwin Beach's article &quot;De Sermone Cotidiano&quot; doesn't mention &quot;You're welcome&quot; in any way, though it might help remembering that *you're welcome* in its current form as a response to *thank you* was first attested only in 1907.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I searched for *gratias* and *benigne* both, and while responses are often given, there isn't anything on par with English *you're welcome*, French *de rien*, or German *bitte*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For modern speakers, I indeed have heard *nihil est*, *libet*, *precare/precamini*, and *flocci* all used, though you should always keep in mind just what you're being thanked for and its appropriate response. Even in English, for someone being publicly thanked for the service to the state, &quot;you're welcome&quot; is hardly appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;1: Though certainly there were other responses, they just weren't &quot;you're welcome.&quot;&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13383" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4349" RevisionGUID="c46fdef7-9c39-4ed6-9200-f1c58a7bfe0f" CreationDate="2017-05-13T21:03:18.900" UserId="78" Comment="edited title" Text="What is Google Translate good for (Latin)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4378" RevisionGUID="8ac27586-a4a6-4d15-aef9-98968fd2af66" CreationDate="2017-05-13T22:08:22.507" UserId="78" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="This is not a phrase which demands a response, at least not from the available evidence. Most instances of *gratias ago* do not have the thanked person respond at all, and I could only really find one exception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Cicero's *De Oratore* 2.268, we get this exchange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arguta etiam significatio est, cum parva re et saepe verbo res obscura et latens inlustratur; ut, cum C. Fabricio P. Cornelius, homo, ut existimabatur, avarus et furax, sed egregie fortis et bonus imperator, gratias ageret, quod se homo inimicus consulem fecisset, bello praesertim magno et gravi **&quot;nihil est, quod mihi gratias agas,&quot; inquit &quot;si malui compilari quam venire&quot;.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is also frequently acuteness shown, when something obscure and not commonly known is illustrated by a slight circumstance, and often by a single word; as when Publius Cornelius, a man, as was suspected, of a covetous and rapacious disposition, but of great courage and an able commander, thanked Caius Fabricius for having, though he was his enemy, made him consul, especially during a difficult and important war, **You have no reason to thank me, returned Fabricius, if I had rather be pillaged than sold for a slave.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not a simple *nihil est*, but I think it gets the point across. But in this exchange, the thanked one minimized the actions, as if there actually was no reason to be thanked to begin with. This is different from the *de nada*s and *de rien*s that essentially mean, &quot;It wasn't very difficult to do, but I appreciate the thanks anyway.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Terence's *Phormio*, we get this exchange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nausistrata*: Phormio, at ego ecastor posthac tibi quod potero, quae voles faciamque et dicam.*Phormio*: Benigne dici'. *Na.*: **Pol meritumst tuom.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nausistrata: Phormio, I by Castor henceforth I will do and speak for you whatever I can, whatever you wish. Phormio: Thanks! (Lit. You speak kindly.) Na. **By Pollux, you earned it.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here it might help to recognize that there were different ways of thanking someone, and this comes after kind words. I imagine it being similar to the English response, &quot;You're too kind!&quot; It's not really the formal thanks and it's not really an automatic &quot;you're welcome.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be others, but there's certainly nothing consistent. Searching all possibilities is time consuming, but I think it speaks volumes that it's not something that is easily found (unlike the many ways of thanking someone); despite giving several ways of saying &quot;Thanks!&quot;, Goodwin Beach's article &quot;De Sermone Cotidiano&quot; doesn't mention &quot;You're welcome&quot; in any way, though it might help remembering that *you're welcome* in its current form as a response to *thank you* was first attested only in 1907.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I searched for *gratias* and *benigne* both, and while responses are often given, there isn't anything on par with English *you're welcome*, French *de rien*, or German *bitte*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For modern speakers, I indeed have heard *nihil est*, *libet*, *precare/precamini*, and *flocci* all used, though you should always keep in mind just what you're being thanked for and its appropriate response. Even in English, for someone being publicly thanked for the service to the state, &quot;you're welcome&quot; is hardly appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;1: Though certainly there were other responses, they just weren't &quot;you're welcome.&quot;&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13386" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1836" RevisionGUID="57389509-1745-476e-83fe-df7703165927" CreationDate="2017-05-14T01:48:37.030" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|example-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1830" RevisionGUID="6e4ae697-de39-49d6-82e8-7449fc16ef3f" CreationDate="2017-05-14T01:50:29.023" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Especially when speaking a second language, I am forced to frequently say something like &quot;Pardon me?&quot; or &quot;What was that?&quot; or &quot;Excuse me?&quot; when I fail to understand or hear what a speaker says.  I'd like to know what was used in Classical Latin to express one's remorse for not understanding while asking the other speaker to repeat himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [quick search for &quot;pardon&quot;](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/search3t?dbname=lewisandshort&amp;dgdivhead=&amp;matchtype=sameold&amp;word=pardon&amp;CONJUNCT=PHRASE) in L&amp;S provides many options, but I can't tell if any of them apply to this situation.  John Traupman offers *ignosce mihi* for &quot;Excuse me,&quot; but I'm not sure if that can be used in the situation I'm describing here (as opposed to accidentally inconveniencing or harming someone).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how do I say &quot;Pardon me&quot; in Classical Latin, to politely apologize for not understanding and imply a desire for the other speaker to repeat himself?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13388" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1830" RevisionGUID="6e4ae697-de39-49d6-82e8-7449fc16ef3f" CreationDate="2017-05-14T01:50:29.023" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|politeness|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13389" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1809" RevisionGUID="f0e86484-cd79-41f6-8853-cab77468ecd7" CreationDate="2017-05-14T01:52:00.540" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Greatly fruitful in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13390" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1809" RevisionGUID="f0e86484-cd79-41f6-8853-cab77468ecd7" CreationDate="2017-05-14T01:52:00.540" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|vocabulary|adjective|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13391" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1701" RevisionGUID="8ca3dc05-fade-49b2-b5f6-90dab00bea64" CreationDate="2017-05-14T01:53:28.037" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="How to translate the Finnish &quot;muka&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13392" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1701" RevisionGUID="8ca3dc05-fade-49b2-b5f6-90dab00bea64" CreationDate="2017-05-14T01:53:28.037" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|vocabulary|nuance|finnish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4380" RevisionGUID="3eaa2fea-57ef-4860-bd62-ca16d2962324" CreationDate="2017-05-14T04:27:08.957" UserId="79" Text="I suddenly realized that I don't know how to translate the English word &quot;tax&quot; to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;**What would be the best Latin word for &quot;tax(es)&quot; in the sense of income (salary) taxation in the modern world?**&#xD;&#xA;I found some possible words, the best ones being&#xD;&#xA;*vectigal*,&#xD;&#xA;*stipendium*,&#xD;&#xA;*tributum*, and&#xD;&#xA;*exactio*,&#xD;&#xA;but each one of them seems to have a number of other meanings, too.&#xD;&#xA;I am not familiar enough with the Roman taxation system to tell what would be a good fit.&#xD;&#xA;A classical word would be great &amp;mdash; as always &amp;mdash; but it is perfectly fine if the word is a later coinage or obtained its meaning later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side question:&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way I could have found an answer in an online Latin dictionary?&#xD;&#xA;I could find a list of words translated to &quot;tax&quot;, but most of them are far from what I want, and the English translations given by L&amp;S are somewhat discouraging.&#xD;&#xA;I imagine a good translation for &quot;tax(es)&quot; should be easier to find than what I went through." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13394" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4380" RevisionGUID="3eaa2fea-57ef-4860-bd62-ca16d2962324" CreationDate="2017-05-14T04:27:08.957" UserId="79" Text="A word for income tax" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13395" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4380" RevisionGUID="3eaa2fea-57ef-4860-bd62-ca16d2962324" CreationDate="2017-05-14T04:27:08.957" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|money|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4381" RevisionGUID="dcd97fae-9ea8-4fe0-93eb-3e8fee8bdf4f" CreationDate="2017-05-14T10:46:29.073" UserId="645" Text="Several dictionaries refer to the start of Suetonius's biography of Vespasian (Book 1), where he comments about the future emperor's grandfather :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*. . . . . deinde venia et missione impetrata coactiones argentarias factitavit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that Vespasian himself, in order to replenish the treasury as rapidly as possible, was notoriously keen on taxing anything and everything that he could (*cf.* the *non olet* story about the tax on public lavatories, which the French still occasionally call *vespasiennes*), it seems quite appropriate to adopt Suetonius's phrase *coactio argentaria* for the grandfather's earlier exactions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1811" RevisionGUID="c5b0b724-e5b5-428f-90c4-8e5dc8fd108b" CreationDate="2017-05-14T17:11:16.530" UserId="645" Comment="sp." Text="It's better to use single words of the intended meaning when they are available, as in this case, rather than invent phrases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*fructuosus* means actually yielding plentiful fruit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*frugifer* simply means yielding fruit, its superlative *frugiferrimus* being virtually the same as *fructuosus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Very nourishing' is expressed by something like *maximi alimenti*, (roughly) 'of greatest alimentary value'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="3b7d8646-cb1e-46d0-aaf6-6efcc8add03b" CreationDate="2017-05-14T21:37:48.087" UserDisplayName="user1466" Text="I offer this answer in the spirit of suggesting the obvious&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***cornu Copiae*** - the horn of the goddess, Copia; also called the **Horn of Plenty** or **cornucopia** in English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other goddesses like *Fortuna* and *Pax* are depicted holding the ***Cornu Copiae***.  You can see a statue of **Tyche** (Greek **Τύχη**), the counterpart of the Roman goddess, Fortuna, holding the horn of plenty [**here**][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cornu Copiae** corresponds to the Greek  **Κέρας Ἀμαλθείας**, the **horn of Amalthea** (Greek: Αμαλθεια), the goat who fostered and nursed Zeus.  He broke off one of her horns and the story goes that he then promised to fill it with good things to repair his mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short gives explanation and ancient sources under the entry for ***[cornu, cornus][2]***- the horn of an animal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Blockquote&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Cornu Copiae** (less correctly, but freq. in late Lat., as one word,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Cornūcōpĭae** , and twice **Cornūcōpĭa , ae, f.**, Amm. 22, 9, 1; 25, 2, 3),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; acc. to the fable, the horn of the goat Amalthea placed in heaven,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek Κέρας Ἀμαλθείας (v. Amalthea), **the emblem of fruitfulness and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abundance**, Plaut. Ps. 2, 3, 5; Gell. 14, 6, 2; cf. Hor. C. 1, 17, 16;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; id. C. S. 60; id. Ep. 1, 12, 29; Ov. M. 9, 88.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.maicar.com/GML/000Images/tim/tyche2132.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcornu" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="d296cf9e-76db-4a2a-aa99-cb670c387837" CreationDate="2017-05-14T21:40:46.097" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="&gt;  Fruitfulness, bounty and being filled with goodness are all part of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the meaning of the **Cornu Copiae**,  the horn of the goddess, Copia;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also called the **Horn of Plenty** or **cornucopia** in English. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perhaps, this answer is obvious and overused in our culture, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other goddesses like *Fortuna* and *Pax* are depicted holding the ***Cornu Copiae***.  You can see a statue of **Tyche** (Greek **Τύχη**), the counterpart of the Roman goddess, Fortuna, holding the horn of plenty [**here**][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cornu Copiae** corresponds to the Greek  **Κέρας Ἀμαλθείας**, the **horn of Amalthea** (Greek: Αμαλθεια), the goat who fostered and nursed Zeus.  He broke off one of her horns and the story goes that he then promised to fill it with good things to repair his mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short gives explanation and ancient sources under the entry for ***[cornu, cornus][2]***- the horn of an animal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Cornu Copiae** (less correctly, but freq. in late Lat., as one word,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Cornūcōpĭae** , and twice **Cornūcōpĭa , ae, f.**, Amm. 22, 9, 1; 25, 2, 3),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; acc. to the fable, the horn of the goat Amalthea placed in heaven,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek Κέρας Ἀμαλθείας (v. Amalthea), **the emblem of fruitfulness and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abundance**, Plaut. Ps. 2, 3, 5; Gell. 14, 6, 2; cf. Hor. C. 1, 17, 16;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; id. C. S. 60; id. Ep. 1, 12, 29; Ov. M. 9, 88.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.maicar.com/GML/000Images/tim/tyche2132.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcornu" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="5fbee0f4-0c58-46a7-8b10-83a0132a8139" CreationDate="2017-05-14T21:48:43.480" UserId="79" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="&gt;  Fruitfulness, bounty and being filled with goodness are all part of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the meaning of the **Cornu Copiae**,  the horn of the goddess, Copia;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also called the **Horn of Plenty** or **cornucopia** in English. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perhaps, this answer is obvious and overused in our culture, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other goddesses like *Fortuna* and *Pax* are depicted holding the ***Cornu Copiae***.  Here you can see a statue of **Tyche** (Greek **Τύχη**), the counterpart of the Roman goddess, Fortuna, holding the horn of plenty:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Source: http://www.maicar.com/GML/000Images/tim/tyche2132.jpg][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cornu Copiae** corresponds to the Greek  **Κέρας Ἀμαλθείας**, the **horn of Amalthea** (Greek: Αμαλθεια), the goat who fostered and nursed Zeus.  He broke off one of her horns and the story goes that he then promised to fill it with good things to repair his mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short gives explanation and ancient sources under the entry for ***[cornu, cornus][3]***- the horn of an animal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Cornu Copiae** (less correctly, but freq. in late Lat., as one word,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Cornūcōpĭae** , and twice **Cornūcōpĭa , ae, f.**, Amm. 22, 9, 1; 25, 2, 3),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; acc. to the fable, the horn of the goat Amalthea placed in heaven,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek Κέρας Ἀμαλθείας (v. Amalthea), **the emblem of fruitfulness and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abundance**, Plaut. Ps. 2, 3, 5; Gell. 14, 6, 2; cf. Hor. C. 1, 17, 16;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; id. C. S. 60; id. Ep. 1, 12, 29; Ov. M. 9, 88.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uHvnK.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcornu" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="d29074aa-bc6f-4cc4-881d-84bcaad60d04" CreationDate="2017-05-14T22:02:02.987" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="tellus mater" Text="&gt;  Fruitfulness, bounty and being filled with goodness are all part of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the meaning of the **Cornu Copiae**,  the horn of the goddess, Copia;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also called the **Horn of Plenty** or **cornucopia** in English. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perhaps, this answer is obvious and overused in our culture, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other goddesses like *Fortuna* and *Pax* are depicted holding the ***Cornu Copiae***.  Here you can see a statue of **Tyche** (Greek **Τύχη**), the counterpart of the Roman goddess, Fortuna, holding the horn of plenty:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Source: http://www.maicar.com/GML/000Images/tim/tyche2132.jpg][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cornu Copiae** corresponds to the Greek  **Κέρας Ἀμαλθείας**, the **horn of Amalthea** (Greek: Αμαλθεια), the goat who fostered and nursed Zeus.  He broke off one of her horns and the story goes that he then promised to fill it with good things to repair his mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short gives explanation and ancient sources under the entry for ***[cornu, cornus][2]***- the horn of an animal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Cornu Copiae** (less correctly, but freq. in late Lat., as one word,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Cornūcōpĭae** , and twice **Cornūcōpĭa , ae, f.**, Amm. 22, 9, 1; 25, 2, 3),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; acc. to the fable, the horn of the goat Amalthea placed in heaven,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek Κέρας Ἀμαλθείας (v. Amalthea), **the emblem of fruitfulness and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abundance**, Plaut. Ps. 2, 3, 5; Gell. 14, 6, 2; cf. Hor. C. 1, 17, 16;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; id. C. S. 60; id. Ep. 1, 12, 29; Ov. M. 9, 88.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addendum:  ***Tellus Mater*** or ***Terra Mater***, Mother Earth, is also depicted holding the Cornu Copiae on her lap with children by her side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Tellus Mater / Gaia][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uHvnK.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcornu&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/srBqp.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="0b8f5db7-cb83-42d5-9bae-fc368a340cb4" CreationDate="2017-05-14T23:25:56.253" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="added 149 characters in body" Text="You asked for an adjective for **greatly fruitful**, but then you also mention the noun phrase, **great bounty**, and the Latin noun, ***frux***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Fruitfulness, bounty and being filled with goodness are all part of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the meaning of the **Cornu Copiae**,  the horn of the goddess, Copia;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also called the **Horn of Plenty** or **cornucopia** in English. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perhaps, this answer is obvious and overused in our culture, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other goddesses like *Fortuna* and *Pax* are depicted holding the ***Cornu Copiae***.  Here you can see a statue of **Tyche** (Greek **Τύχη**), the counterpart of the Roman goddess, Fortuna, holding the horn of plenty:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Source: http://www.maicar.com/GML/000Images/tim/tyche2132.jpg][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cornu Copiae** corresponds to the Greek  **Κέρας Ἀμαλθείας**, the **horn of Amalthea** (Greek: Αμαλθεια), the goat who fostered and nursed Zeus.  He broke off one of her horns and the story goes that he then promised to fill it with good things to repair his mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short gives explanation and ancient sources under the entry for ***[cornu, cornus][2]***- the horn of an animal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Cornu Copiae** (less correctly, but freq. in late Lat., as one word,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Cornūcōpĭae** , and twice **Cornūcōpĭa , ae, f.**, Amm. 22, 9, 1; 25, 2, 3),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; acc. to the fable, the horn of the goat Amalthea placed in heaven,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek Κέρας Ἀμαλθείας (v. Amalthea), **the emblem of fruitfulness and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abundance**, Plaut. Ps. 2, 3, 5; Gell. 14, 6, 2; cf. Hor. C. 1, 17, 16;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; id. C. S. 60; id. Ep. 1, 12, 29; Ov. M. 9, 88.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addendum:  ***Tellus Mater*** or ***Terra Mater***, Mother Earth, is also depicted holding the Cornu Copiae on her lap with children by her side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Tellus Mater / Gaia][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uHvnK.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcornu&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/srBqp.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4383" RevisionGUID="8ad11e4d-0b35-4fe8-876d-7801c8e8fd88" CreationDate="2017-05-14T23:45:20.233" UserId="136" Text="I have decided to undertake the quest of expanding upon the entries found in the [Morgan and Silva University Lexicon][1], as per Palizche's comment on the question. There are three results in this dictionary for &quot;income tax&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *tributum generale redituum*- &quot;a common tax of revenue&quot; originally from Helfer&#xD;&#xA;2. *tributum manupretii*- &quot;a tax of wages&quot; originally from Helfer as well&#xD;&#xA;3. *vectigal pro reditu*- &quot;a tax for revenue&quot; originally from Levine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I'm not here to debate the quality of the sources, as I do not feel qualified to comment on this. It is important to note however, that the MSUL is a compilation of definitions from various, more modern sources for modern terms. These definitions are from the second part of the lexicon, called the *Adumbratio*, which means they aren't necessary classical idioms, simply put, but they are still worth looking at. I will instead analyze the translations for how close they are to the English definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, right off the bat, I prefer the second translation. Both the first and third translation use a word that means &quot;revenue.&quot; It can also mean &quot;income,&quot; but take a look at the literal translation of *reditum*: &quot;that which must go back/again.&quot; This may seem odd, but to me it suggests a closer tie to revenue, as revenue is money given back to the seller in exchange for a product or service. Income, however, is different, in that it usually refers to money given in exchange for labor, however it can have a more loose definition. Compare these English definitions for the two terms (revenue and income):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Revenue- income, especially when of a company or organization and of a substantial nature&#xD;&#xA;Income- money received, especially on a regular basis, for work or through investments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These definitions again show that revenue is more applicable to companies and the money they make for selling products or services, and income is more applicable to money received in exchange for work. *Manupretium* means wages, hire, or reward. An income tax is defined in English thusly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tax levied by a government directly on income, especially an annual tax on personal income&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Knowing the definition of income, this is a tax on wages. This is why I believe that the second translation is the best. Finally, to further put the nail in the coffin for the other two, &quot;general&quot; implies that the tax applies to everyone evenly, which, at least in the United States and most countries, not everyone pays an income tax at all or at the same rate as others. I also personally dislike the use of *pro* in the third definition as it somewhat implies the tax is for generating revenue in one interpretation. This is what taxes are for, but in that context it could be any type of tax really. &#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;Again, the word reditum can mean tax, but I believe it closer means revenue. A tax on revenue could be a sales tax , which itself has its own MSUL definitions, or a corporate tax, which I have given my own translation for because there is not one in the MSUL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Sales tax = *venalicium*, *tributum consumptionis*, *vectigal rerum venalium*&#xD;&#xA;2. Corporate tax = *tributum societatium*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;In summary, an &quot;income tax&quot; can be translated as *tributum manupretii.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ia801000.us.archive.org/12/items/TheLexiconAnglumEtLatinumByDavidMorgan/MorganAndSilvaFurmanUniversityLexicon.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13409" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1566" RevisionGUID="c3cc3069-2475-4271-9f72-fde69e792fc2" CreationDate="2017-05-15T03:06:41.983" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4385" RevisionGUID="a9172298-7c5c-417d-aaa6-228c6e7543fd" CreationDate="2017-05-15T03:28:23.193" UserId="79" Text="I reread [this old question about &quot;touché&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1566/79), and I realized I'm not sure how to conjugate the suggested verb *synchōrō*.&#xD;&#xA;It was borrowed from *συγχωρέω*.&#xD;&#xA;Although I'm interested in this special case too, I would like to ask about a more general problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek verbs ending in *-ω* can have a consonant, an alpha, an epsilon, or an omicron before the omega.&#xD;&#xA;(And there are exceptions, at least *ἀκούω*.)&#xD;&#xA;The last three classes can be contracted to lose the the vowel, but with an effect on the endings.&#xD;&#xA;How are these verbs borrowed to Latin?&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that they all go the first conjugation (in the contracted form).&#xD;&#xA;But it would also make sense that an *&amp;alpha;*-stem would go to conjugation 1, *&amp;epsilon;*-stem to 2 or 3 and a consonant stem to 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any logic to this, or are the verbs borrowed any which way?&#xD;&#xA;Are regular Greek verbs borrowed to Latin regularly?&#xD;&#xA;Let me stress that I'm not looking for cognates, but for verbs borrowed from Greek to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My knowledge &amp;mdash; and particularly my memory &amp;mdash; of Greek grammar is quite limited, so feel free to correct any underlying misunderstandings by commenting or editing.&#xD;&#xA;If someone more familiar with Greek grammar wants to suggest rephrasing or refocusing the question, I'm all ears.&#xD;&#xA;(Or all eyes? After all, I will read, not listen.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13411" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4385" RevisionGUID="a9172298-7c5c-417d-aaa6-228c6e7543fd" CreationDate="2017-05-15T03:28:23.193" UserId="79" Text="What determines the conjugation of verbs borrowed from Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13412" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4385" RevisionGUID="a9172298-7c5c-417d-aaa6-228c6e7543fd" CreationDate="2017-05-15T03:28:23.193" UserId="79" Text="|greek|verbs|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4386" RevisionGUID="35020ebe-a989-4d25-a9c1-c2b9012da963" CreationDate="2017-05-15T04:02:22.200" UserId="78" Text="Going from brianpck's list [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2468/borrowing-greek-verbs-without-%CE%AF%CE%B6%CF%89), all the words that were borrowed as Greek verbs are indeed in the first conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list of verbs, though, is incredibly short, and since there may be unknown exceptions, I wouldn't like to generalize the rule to include future verb borrowings; *συγχωρέω*, after all, was not used in any extant Classical Latin. Unless they were technical or didn't have nice equivalents, neither of which fit *συγχωρέω*, Greek words tended to be translated, not borrowed. For that verb, a typical Latin translation could have been *conlocare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, I can't get behind Draconis' reasoning for *συγχωρέω* as a way of translating *touche*. Smith [suggests some ways](https://archive.org/stream/copiouscriticale00smit#page/348/mode/2up) of idiomatically saying it in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4387" RevisionGUID="a9bb7ee8-b153-4951-ac13-ae9e2841c383" CreationDate="2017-05-15T08:07:40.353" UserId="1459" Text="You might be familiar with Yoda's speech style, with phrases like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Powerful you have become...&#xD;&#xA;- Patience you must have...&#xD;&#xA;- Wars not make one great...&#xD;&#xA;- If ..., only pain will you find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoda#Character_overview) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Yoda's speech syntax has been analyzed and discussed by academic syntacticians, who found it somewhat inconsistent, but could extrapolate that it has object–subject–verb word order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as I understand, in Latin [there is not](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_order#Latin) a strict rule for any particular ordering of words. Now, Yoda's speech style is special or characteristic **precisely because in other languages like English and Spanish _there is_ such general rule**. As such, Yoda's speech becomes distinctive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that mean that it is **impossible** in Latin to achieve such distinctive speech? In other words, would Yoda' speech style be &quot;lost in translation&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13415" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4387" RevisionGUID="a9bb7ee8-b153-4951-ac13-ae9e2841c383" CreationDate="2017-05-15T08:07:40.353" UserId="1459" Text="Yoda's distinctive speech syntax in Latin, &quot;lost in translation&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13416" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4387" RevisionGUID="a9bb7ee8-b153-4951-ac13-ae9e2841c383" CreationDate="2017-05-15T08:07:40.353" UserId="1459" Text="|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4386" RevisionGUID="a8f153f6-62c9-4455-86dc-5d9cd29106a2" CreationDate="2017-05-15T12:02:29.987" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Going from brianpck's list [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2468/borrowing-greek-verbs-without-%CE%AF%CE%B6%CF%89), all the words that were borrowed as Greek verbs are indeed in the first conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list of verbs, though, is incredibly short, and since there may be unknown exceptions, I wouldn't like to generalize the rule to include future verb borrowings; *συγχωρέω*, after all, was not used in any extant Classical Latin. Unless they were technical or didn't have nice equivalents, neither of which fit *συγχωρέω*, Greek words tended to be translated, not borrowed. For that verb, a typical Latin translation could have been *conlocare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, I can't get behind Draconis' reasoning for *συγχωρέω* as a way of translating *touché*. Smith [suggests some ways](https://archive.org/stream/copiouscriticale00smit#page/348/mode/2up) of conceding arguments in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4388" RevisionGUID="f5f3e70a-0813-4a99-a0b3-ac4c5049db23" CreationDate="2017-05-15T13:23:38.613" UserId="1623" Text="Simply, is there any way to indicate that a noun is the most numerous in some aspect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If i want to tell everybody that my horse carries the largest number of horns, could i call it a ____corn?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13419" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4388" RevisionGUID="f5f3e70a-0813-4a99-a0b3-ac4c5049db23" CreationDate="2017-05-15T13:23:38.613" UserId="1623" Text="Is there a prefix, suffix or adjective to indicate that something is the most numerous?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13420" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4388" RevisionGUID="f5f3e70a-0813-4a99-a0b3-ac4c5049db23" CreationDate="2017-05-15T13:23:38.613" UserId="1623" Text="|prefix|suffixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4389" RevisionGUID="5b32322c-92bb-4cc4-bee1-bf8c7615329b" CreationDate="2017-05-15T13:52:11.790" UserId="45" Text="This may be an incredibly obvious question, but if so it's not immediately clear to me and probably deserves a question here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two Roman numerals seem to have an obvious parallel to an existing word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* M = 1000 = *mille*&#xD;&#xA;* C = 100 = *centum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest, though, seem fairly random: the &quot;I&quot; appears to be just a notch, &quot;D&quot; might be *dimidium,* and the rest (V, X, and L) are anyone's guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do each of these letters have a specific meaning, either as an initial or some other sign?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13422" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4389" RevisionGUID="5b32322c-92bb-4cc4-bee1-bf8c7615329b" CreationDate="2017-05-15T13:52:11.790" UserId="45" Text="Do Roman numerals stand for something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13423" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4389" RevisionGUID="5b32322c-92bb-4cc4-bee1-bf8c7615329b" CreationDate="2017-05-15T13:52:11.790" UserId="45" Text="|roman-culture|numbers|numerals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4388" RevisionGUID="287aeb15-ddcd-450e-a864-87121dc1ab1d" CreationDate="2017-05-15T13:55:04.270" UserId="45" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="Is there any way (prefix, suffix, or adjective) to indicate that a noun is the most numerous in some aspect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, if I want to tell everybody that my horse carries the largest number of horns, could I call it a ____corn?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4390" RevisionGUID="148333ee-045f-47e6-8162-8319fe4b78d7" CreationDate="2017-05-15T14:41:11.287" UserId="45" Text="It is certainly not *impossible* to mimic Yoda's speech style in Latin, though I would say that **the effect will be a little more muted**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English is an [analytic language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_language) with a low morpheme-per-word ratio: it expresses a *lot* of meaning by word order. Latin, being a synthetic language, does not often rely on word order to prevent *ambiguity*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin *does* rely on word order, though, to indicate emphasis. It is incorrect to say that it has no word order: the default pattern is SOV:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amor omnia vincit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These words could be put in any order and still be understood, but each would give a special nuance. For instance,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnia vincit amor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;emphasizes *omnia*: &quot;Love conquers *all things*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even with all this flexibility, though, Latin rarely uses OSV word order: OVS (as in the above example) is much more common. Although one usage certainly wouldn't raise eyebrows, **consistently using OSV word order (including pronouns, where Latin would normally omit them) should produce a similar strange effect.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Fortis tu factus es.** -Powerful you have become.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Patientiam tu debes habere.**  -Patience you must have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Si ..., modo dolorem tu invenies.** -If ..., only pain will you find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your third example does not use word order, but rather solecisms, to convey foreignness. A similar effect might be achieved by treating *facere* as a non-io verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Hominem bella magnum non facunt.** -Wars not make one great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4391" RevisionGUID="48540f4e-4773-4ff0-9a91-a43d332a42e9" CreationDate="2017-05-15T15:22:20.710" UserDisplayName="user1466" Text=" ***rem acu*** is a way of rendering **touché**.   Here, the person is not &quot;touched&quot;, but the matter is &quot;touched by the point of a needle&quot;, i.e. with accuracy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rem Acu.   You have hit the mark; you have hit the nail on the head.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rem acu tetigisti (Plautus). A phrase in archery, meaning, You have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hit the white, or the bull’s-eye.	   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  “‘Rem acu once again,’ said Sir Piercie.”—The Monastery, chap. &gt; xvi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin expression is used by Plautus and then picked up by Erasmus (*Adagia* II, iv, 93): ***rem acu tetigisti***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; See Lewis and Short entry for [***acus, -us***][1] f. needle. Contrast&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is made between literal and figurative meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***acu rem tangere***, to touch the thing with a needle, English, to hit the nail on the head&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;from Plautus, *Rudens* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Grip. *Tum tu mendicus es?* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Labr. ***Tetigisti acu.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also L &amp; S entry for ***[tango, tetigi, tactum][2]*** - there are multiple literal and figurative uses meaning to touch, to strike and to affect, among others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=acus1&amp;highlight=rem%2Cacu&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtango&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4391" RevisionGUID="bdacb0f2-12d2-4d87-a6ca-ae49df4c1379" CreationDate="2017-05-15T15:26:45.220" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text=" ***rem acu*** is a way of rendering **touché**.   Here, the person is not &quot;touched&quot;, but the matter is &quot;touched by the point of a needle&quot;, i.e. with accuracy.  **Tetigisti** is implied, but left out of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from [Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rem Acu.   You have hit the mark; you have hit the nail on the head.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rem acu tetigisti (Plautus). A phrase in archery, meaning, You have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hit the white, or the bull’s-eye.	   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  “‘Rem acu once again,’ said Sir Piercie.”—The Monastery, chap. &gt; xvi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin expression is used by Plautus and then picked up by Erasmus (*Adagia* II, iv, 93): ***rem acu tetigisti***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; See Lewis and Short entry for [***acus, -us***][2] f. needle. Contrast&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is made between literal and figurative meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***acu rem tangere***, to touch the thing with a needle, English, to hit the nail on the head&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;from Plautus, *Rudens* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Grip. *Tum tu mendicus es?* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Labr. ***Tetigisti acu.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also L &amp; S entry for ***[tango, tetigi, tactum][3]*** - there are multiple literal and figurative uses meaning to touch, to strike and to affect, among others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bartleby.com/81/14217.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=acus1&amp;highlight=rem%2Cacu&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtango" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4391" RevisionGUID="e474dfb7-eb54-4c86-b346-a91863909de7" CreationDate="2017-05-15T15:35:50.980" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="acu tactus" Text=" ***rem acu*** is a way of rendering **touché**.   Here, the person is not &quot;touched&quot;, but the matter is &quot;touched by the point of a needle&quot;, i.e. with accuracy.  **Tetigisti** is implied, but left out of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***acu tactus*** is a more direct way of saying **touché** using the same phrase as a basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see [Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rem Acu.   You have hit the mark; you have hit the nail on the head.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rem acu tetigisti (Plautus). A phrase in archery, meaning, You have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hit the white, or the bull’s-eye.	   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  “‘Rem acu once again,’ said Sir Piercie.”—The Monastery, chap. &gt; xvi.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin expression is used by Plautus and then picked up by Erasmus (*Adagia* II, iv, 93): ***rem acu tetigisti***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; See Lewis and Short entry for [***acus, -us***][2] f. needle. Contrast&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is made between literal and figurative meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***acu rem tangere***, to touch the thing with a needle, English, to hit the nail on the head&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;from Plautus, *Rudens* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Grip. *Tum tu mendicus es?* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Labr. ***Tetigisti acu.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also L &amp; S entry for ***[tango, tetigi, tactum][3]*** - there are multiple literal and figurative uses meaning to touch, to strike and to affect, among others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bartleby.com/81/14217.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=acus1&amp;highlight=rem%2Cacu&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtango&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4391" RevisionGUID="8f9c1825-07e9-4ce2-b8ca-72f7c302e47d" CreationDate="2017-05-15T15:49:38.987" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="The Latin expression is used by Plautus and then picked up by Erasmus (*Adagia* II, iv, 93): ***rem acu tetigisti*** immediately came to mind as potentially useful in answering your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***rem acu*** is a way of rendering the idea **&quot;point made&quot;**.   Here, the person is not **&quot;touched&quot;**, but the matter is **&quot;touched by the point of a needle&quot;**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; i.e. with accuracy.  ***Tetigisti*** is implied, but left out of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ***acu tactus*** is a more direct way of saying **touché** using the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; same phrase as a basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see [Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rem Acu.   You have hit the mark; you have hit the nail on the head.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rem acu tetigisti (Plautus). A phrase in archery, meaning, You have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hit the white, or the bull’s-eye.	   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  “‘Rem acu once again,’ said Sir Piercie.”—The Monastery, chap. &gt; xvi.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; See Lewis and Short entry for [***acus, -us***][2] f. needle. Contrast&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is made between literal and figurative meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***acu rem tangere***, to touch the thing with a needle, English, to hit the nail on the head&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from Plautus, *Rudens*, 1306&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Grip. *Tum tu mendicus es?* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Labr. ***Tetigisti acu.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also L &amp; S entry for ***[tango, tetigi, tactum][3]*** - there are multiple literal and figurative uses meaning to touch, to strike and to affect, among others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bartleby.com/81/14217.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=acus1&amp;highlight=rem%2Cacu&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtango&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4391" RevisionGUID="e19f6641-c1c7-4427-be8b-630ac3535e6b" CreationDate="2017-05-15T16:00:03.800" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The Latin expression used by Plautus and then picked up by Erasmus (*Adagia* II, iv, 93), ***rem acu tetigisti***, immediately came to mind as potentially useful in answering your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***rem acu*** is a way of rendering the idea **&quot;point made&quot;**.   Here, the person is not **&quot;touched&quot;**, but the matter is **&quot;touched by the point of a needle&quot;**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; i.e. with accuracy.  ***Tetigisti*** is implied, but left out of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ***acu tactus*** is a more direct way of saying **touché** using the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; same phrase as a basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see [Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rem Acu.   You have hit the mark; you have hit the nail on the head.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rem acu tetigisti (Plautus). A phrase in archery, meaning, You have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hit the white, or the bull’s-eye.	   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  “‘Rem acu once again,’ said Sir Piercie.”—The Monastery, chap. &gt; xvi.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; See Lewis and Short entry for [***acus, -us***][2] f. needle. Contrast&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is made between literal and figurative meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***acu rem tangere***, to touch the thing with a needle, English, to hit the nail on the head&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from Plautus, *Rudens*, 1306&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Grip. *Tum tu mendicus es?* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Labr. ***Tetigisti acu.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also L &amp; S entry for ***[tango, tetigi, tactum][3]*** - there are multiple literal and figurative uses meaning to touch, to strike and to affect, among others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bartleby.com/81/14217.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=acus1&amp;highlight=rem%2Cacu&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtango&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4391" RevisionGUID="348f9a44-33cf-47e7-93da-02bf47f862f6" CreationDate="2017-05-15T18:13:05.770" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="The Latin expression used by Plautus and then picked up by Erasmus (*Adagia* II, iv, 93), ***rem acu tetigisti***, immediately came to mind as potentially useful in answering your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***rem acu*** is a way of rendering the idea **&quot;point made&quot;**.   Here, the person is not **&quot;touched&quot;**, but the matter is **&quot;touched by the point of a needle&quot;**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; i.e. with accuracy.  ***Tetigisti*** is implied, but left out of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ***acu tactus*** is a more direct way of saying **touché** using the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; same phrase as a basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see [Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rem Acu.   You have hit the mark; you have hit the nail on the head.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rem acu tetigisti (Plautus). A phrase in archery, meaning, You have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hit the white, or the bull’s-eye.	   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  “‘Rem acu once again,’ said Sir Piercie.”—The Monastery, chap. &gt; xvi.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; See Lewis and Short entry for [***acus, -us***][2] f. needle. Contrast&#xD;&#xA; is made between literal and figurative meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***acu rem tangere***, to touch the thing with a needle, English, to hit the nail on the head&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from Plautus, *Rudens*, 1306&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Grip. *Tum tu mendicus es?* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Labr. ***Tetigisti acu.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also L &amp; S entry for ***[tango, tetigi, tactum][3]*** - there are multiple literal and figurative uses meaning to touch, to strike and to affect, among others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bartleby.com/81/14217.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=acus1&amp;highlight=rem%2Cacu&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtango&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4392" RevisionGUID="bfc58b09-1161-480c-94e6-92b596d9b344" CreationDate="2017-05-15T18:57:12.160" UserId="79" Text="I believe the most common way to express &quot;most numerous&quot; is to use the superlative *plurimi*.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I might say *equus tuus plurima cornua fert*, &quot;your horse carries the most horns&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is to use the superlative of *numerosus*, &quot;numerous&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You can replace *plurima* with *numerosissima* in my example above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The superlative in Latin is more often absolute than in English.&#xD;&#xA;This means that it does not express comparison (&quot;more than any other&quot;), but just emphasizes the adjective (&quot;very many&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;If I were given my example sentence in Latin without context, I would translate it as &quot;your horse carries a lot of horns&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of a prefix with this effect, but I can coin one.&#xD;&#xA;However, it should be used with caution like any new coinage.&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;numerous&quot;, the typical prefix is *multi-* and this is widely understood (in multiple languages).&#xD;&#xA;Correspondingly, you could use *plurimi-* for &quot;most numerous&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you really need a prefix, I suggest this one, but if not, I suggest going with something more idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;Somehow &quot;multicorn&quot; looks better than &quot;plurimicorn&quot; (and they both sound more like cereal brands than horn-carrying horses to me)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4393" RevisionGUID="8a35f6d3-39e6-423a-81e4-87caa8a324ca" CreationDate="2017-05-16T01:22:37.330" UserId="985" Text="If words that combine elements from Latin and Greek are allowed, there's the fairly prolific Greek prefix _myri(a)-_, which literally means '10,000' but is used in a general way for very large numbers, in the sense 'countless'. This would give _myriacorn_.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13436" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1854" RevisionGUID="41123282-f83c-427f-bf4a-509fd75015e1" CreationDate="2017-05-16T04:46:33.900" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|resource-request|passage-request|soft-question|study-strategies|text-corpus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4394" RevisionGUID="b246f045-f970-49b8-8fd9-8f247b285fb9" CreationDate="2017-05-16T04:49:14.853" UserId="79" Text="Inspired by [this question about Yoda's word order in Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4387/79), I would like to know how common different word orders were in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;To be more specific, I would like statistical information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, an analysis of a single work of literature (preferably prose) for the number of instances of the different possible orders of subject, object and verb (SOV, SVO, OSV, OVS, VSO, VOS) would be great.&#xD;&#xA;I leave the exact choice of texts analyzed open, but please indicate what the source material is in your answer.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any such research, but I assume it must be out there.&#xD;&#xA;I also assume that there is a sufficiently annotated corpus to make this kind of search possible, but I lack the aptitude to run a check myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is:&#xD;&#xA;How common are different word orders (permutations of SOV) in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a numerical answer based on analyzing some amount of extant literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you know good text corpora, please suggest them in [the dedicated question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1854/79)!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13438" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4394" RevisionGUID="b246f045-f970-49b8-8fd9-8f247b285fb9" CreationDate="2017-05-16T04:49:14.853" UserId="79" Text="Corpus analysis of word order frequency" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13439" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4394" RevisionGUID="b246f045-f970-49b8-8fd9-8f247b285fb9" CreationDate="2017-05-16T04:49:14.853" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|word-order|text-corpus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4394" RevisionGUID="234acb57-1341-48a5-8a75-32c1a9400da7" CreationDate="2017-05-16T05:31:51.013" UserId="79" Comment="added 244 characters in body" Text="Inspired by [an earlier question about Yoda's word order in Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4387/79), I would like to know how common different word orders were in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;To be more specific, I would like statistical information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, an analysis of a single work of literature (preferably prose) for the number of instances of the different possible orders of subject, object and verb (SOV, SVO, OSV, OVS, VSO, VOS) would be great.&#xD;&#xA;I leave the exact choice of texts analyzed open, but please indicate what the source material is in your answer.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any such research, but I assume it must be out there.&#xD;&#xA;I also assume that there is a sufficiently annotated corpus to make this kind of search possible, but I lack the aptitude to run a check myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is:&#xD;&#xA;How common are different word orders (permutations of SOV) in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a numerical answer based on analyzing some amount of extant literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't expect anyone here to take Caesar's *De bello Gallico* (or anything else) and analyze every sentence by hand.&#xD;&#xA;I expect that there are easier ways nowadays, or that maybe someone has published the results of such tedious work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you know good text corpora, please suggest them in [the dedicated question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1854/79)!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4395" RevisionGUID="3c67896e-c7b8-4ea8-b366-db5439d2fab1" CreationDate="2017-05-16T09:21:51.753" UserId="779" Text="The vowel lengths are: **sŭpĕrflŭŭs**. All four vowels are short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nominative singular forms are: **sŭpĕrflŭŭs**, **sŭpĕrflŭă**, and **sŭpĕrflŭŭm**. Based on the endings -us/-a/-um, we can tell that it is short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule is that the nominative masculine singular form cannot end with -ūs, so the shortness is implied and does not need to be marked. In fact, you can only find -ūs in the nominative *plural* form of the 4th declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Historical reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second conjugation ending **-us** descends from o-stem in Old Latin (**-os**), which is from the o-grade of the Indo-European ablaut.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Proto-Indo-European ***pórḱos** gives Proto-Italic ***porkos**, which gives Latin **porcus**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4396" RevisionGUID="64c89511-8a05-4a6f-a281-a81d0c8ed9b4" CreationDate="2017-05-16T10:45:07.067" UserId="645" Text="I was taught Latin prose composition in a way that is now almost forgotten. There were many tricks of the trade to be acquired, including such basic rules as correctly sequencing tenses; most of these could be found in the primers and study guides — as they can be still — and one of these was how to change emphasis by altering word order, which apparently underlies your question. (In the end, however, it was considered that the only way to write with good style was to develop one's own — and that could be done only by reading widely, in just the same way as one's style of English could be developed.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your query seems to suggest that you are looking for rules of word-order that could be applied to prose composition. Given the vast quantity and variety of source material, that is formidably difficult. I can readily understand your wish for statistical information but, even if examples could be gathered, how would we know that they represent accurately the population from which they were drawn? And what might that population be? We might think that in Caesar's 'diaries' (rejecting those books of which his own authorship is doubted), we would be analysing just a single person's style: but there are quite a few passages which are very obviously not his own and have probably been interpolated from elsewhere. How much of such material was included with Caesar's approval? Where should we draw the line for acceptance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is the probability that even a single writer's style depends on the circumstances under which he is writing. For the works of Cicero we can be comfortably, if not completely sure that he is genuinely the author, but familiarity gained by reading selections of his works reveals that his style (like that of most people) depends on the subject and the mood of the writer. For example, the measured periods of the forensic speeches are not at all the same thing as his personal correspondence. Do we know that Tiro's copies accurately reflect his master's originals — or was he allowed, or even instructed, to make changes for stylistic effect? Perhaps; but how much 'correction' has been applied by copyists and grammarians in the process of preserving his works in a 'consistent' style? And that, of course, applies not only to Cicero's, but to all texts that survive to the present day; and not only to the syntax to which your query applies, but to the accidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Returning to your question, how would you expect the statistical data be presented? Maybe you have in mind a way in which the six permutations of [SOV] can be related to purpose, style, etc. for some particular set of authors, by some kind of multivariate analysis. That would indeed be a formidable, indeed virtually impossible, task if it were done in the way of nineteenth-century grammarians — but indeed, how very interesting! I think it would be a big surprise, but let's hope that someone can come up with a sound analysis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4397" RevisionGUID="a03aab62-e694-40f6-a073-c7ee4d90025e" CreationDate="2017-05-16T12:21:37.040" UserId="992" Text="why latin person's name culminate &quot;us&quot; or &quot;i&quot;? For example, Ordericus Vitalis- Orderici Vitalis; Ekkehardus Uraguensis or Ekkehardi?&#xD;&#xA;Which is the correct? Orderici or Ordericus.&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13445" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4397" RevisionGUID="a03aab62-e694-40f6-a073-c7ee4d90025e" CreationDate="2017-05-16T12:21:37.040" UserId="992" Text="why latin person's name culminate &quot;us&quot; or &quot;i&quot;? Ordericus or Orderici Which is the correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13446" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4397" RevisionGUID="a03aab62-e694-40f6-a073-c7ee4d90025e" CreationDate="2017-05-16T12:21:37.040" UserId="992" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4398" RevisionGUID="9dcbf2cc-e376-4d02-bba8-483375b1a574" CreationDate="2017-05-16T12:50:52.607" UserId="78" Text="Both! The -us ending is nominative, i.e. when it's the subject of a sentence. The -i is when it's in the genitive. Think of it like English's 's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first book reads *Historiae Ecclesiasticae Orderici Vitalis*, because it means Ordericus Vitalis' (notice the genitive marker) Ecclesiastical Histories. In Latin, were I to say, &quot;Ordericus Vitalis wrote the Historiae Ecclesiasticae,&quot; I would have written it as so: *Ordericus Vitalis Historias Ecclesiasticas scripsit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The endings change depending on how you use it. The English translation accurately reflects his name in English, so use that if you want to e.g. cite him in a bibliography somewhere or write about him in an essay." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13448" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4397" RevisionGUID="cc13fd29-a4b2-4cbe-9359-d1256bdf8b67" CreationDate="2017-05-16T12:51:29.517" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags" Text="|medieval-latin|accidence|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4399" RevisionGUID="32a9c31b-f3b1-4aba-838e-d59146493a03" CreationDate="2017-05-16T12:51:43.980" UserId="779" Text="The nominative case is the form of the noun when it acts as the subject of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another case, called the genitive case, which is used to show possession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;Marcus amat puellam&quot; = &quot;Mark loves a girl&quot;, and &quot;Marcus&quot; is in the nominative case, because it is the subject of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To say &quot;Marcus's dog&quot;, we say &quot;Marcī canis&quot;, where &quot;Marcī&quot; is in the genitive case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latinized name of the historian was, in the nominative case, &quot;Ordericus Vitalis&quot;, and in the genitive case, &quot;Orderici Vitalis&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can view &quot;Orderici Vitalis&quot; as, in English, &quot;Orderic Vital's&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4397" RevisionGUID="d78484ac-aa76-4eae-a63b-b6eccbd03606" CreationDate="2017-05-16T13:19:03.943" UserId="45" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why do some Latin names end with both an &quot;us&quot; and an &quot;i&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Ordericus Vitalis, **or** Orderici Vitalis,&#xD;&#xA;* Ekkehardus Uraguensis, **or** Ekkehardi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which form is correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13451" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4397" RevisionGUID="d78484ac-aa76-4eae-a63b-b6eccbd03606" CreationDate="2017-05-16T13:19:03.943" UserId="45" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="Does Ordericus/i end with a &quot;us&quot; or &quot;i&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4400" RevisionGUID="6716f1df-2ee3-474a-904c-2fda06a255d1" CreationDate="2017-05-16T13:38:19.360" UserId="78" Text="I'd like to offer another alternative: taking the noun, making it into an adjective with -*osus*, and then making that superlative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take, for example, take the word *populus*, &quot;people.&quot; To describe a place as being &quot;full of people,&quot; we have the adjective *populosus*, as found in Apuleius' *Florida* as *gens populosa* describing the Indians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can then make this superlative with regular endings, as Dicuil (and 8th century monk) did in his work on India:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Gange insula est populosissima amplissimam continens gentem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the Ganges is an island **most populous** and containing **a most abundant *gens***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Note: Some editions have *populissima*, but that looks to be a mistake.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can do the same with other nouns. Cicero calls Apollonius, one of the plaintiffs in the case against Verres a *homo pecuniosissimus* (Cic. *Verr*. 2.5.9), literally a &quot;man most full of money&quot; (another way of saying very wealthy). This construction goes back to the very earliest Latin prose we have, beginning with Cato's [aquosissimus](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=osissim)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4397" RevisionGUID="122e9ebe-cc1a-48f0-97c8-54b7c5d5ec61" CreationDate="2017-05-16T13:43:47.537" UserId="78" Comment="added 173 characters in body" Text="Why do some Latin names end with both an &quot;us&quot; and an &quot;i&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Ordericus Vitalis, **or** Orderici Vitalis,&#xD;&#xA;* Ekkehardus Uraguensis, **or** Ekkehardi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare [this edition](https://archive.org/details/ordericivitalish05ordeuoft) in Latin v. [this edition](https://archive.org/details/ecclesiasticalhi03orde) in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which form is correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4400" RevisionGUID="d5dae6cf-de17-4ac7-9964-bee7b35842cf" CreationDate="2017-05-16T13:48:14.043" UserId="78" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="I'd like to offer another alternative: taking the noun, making it into an adjective with -*osus*, and then making that superlative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take, for example, take the word *populus*, &quot;people.&quot; To describe a place as being &quot;full of people,&quot; we have the adjective *populosus*, as found in Apuleius' *Florida* as *gens populosa* describing the Indians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can then make this superlative with regular endings, as Dicuil (and 8th century monk) did in his work on India:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Gange insula est populosissima amplissimam continens gentem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the Ganges is an island **most populous** and containing **a most abundant *gens***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Note: Some editions have *populissima*, but that looks to be a mistake.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can do the same with other nouns. Cicero calls Apollonius, one of the plaintiffs in the case against Verres a *homo pecuniosissimus* (Cic. *Verr*. 2.5.9), literally a &quot;man most full of money&quot; (another way of saying very wealthy). This construction goes back to the very earliest Latin prose we have, beginning with Cato's [aquosissimus](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=osissim).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, for your specific example, there are no attested forms in Classical Latin, but were someone to write *cornuosus* and *cornuosissimus*, an ancient Roman would have understood what it meant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4401" RevisionGUID="2965d148-edb5-4a4f-82a6-2980a7081c88" CreationDate="2017-05-16T14:34:32.503" UserId="78" Text="My old Latin teacher jokingly taught that it's all based on hands. I for a single finger; V for the shape of the space between the thumb and the fingers when a palm is put up; and X for the shape of two hands crossing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reality, I think [Wikipedia's summary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#Pre-Roman_times_and_ancient_Rome) is perhaps best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One hypothesis is that the Etrusco-Roman numerals actually derive from notches on tally sticks, which continued to be used by Italian and Dalmatian shepherds into the 19th century.[14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, ⟨I⟩ descends not from the letter ⟨I⟩ but from a notch scored across the stick. Every fifth notch was double cut i.e. ⋀, ⋁, ⋋, ⋌, etc.), and every tenth was cross cut (X), IIIIΛIIIIXIIIIΛIIIIXII...), much like European tally marks today. This produced a positional system: Eight on a counting stick was eight tallies, IIIIΛIII, or the eighth of a longer series of tallies; either way, it could be abbreviated ΛIII (or VIII), as the existence of a Λ implies four prior notches. By extension, eighteen was the eighth tally after the first ten, which could be abbreviated X, and so was XΛIII. Likewise, number four on the stick was the I-notch that could be felt just before the cut of the Λ (V), so it could be written as either IIII or IΛ (IV). Thus the system was neither additive nor subtractive in its conception, but ordinal. When the tallies were transferred to writing, the marks were easily identified with the existing Roman letters I, V and X.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The tenth V or X along the stick received an extra stroke. Thus 50 was written variously as N, И, K, Ψ, ⋔, etc., but perhaps most often as a chicken-track shape like a superimposed V and I: ᗐ. This had flattened to ⊥ (an inverted T) by the time of Augustus, and soon thereafter became identified with the graphically similar letter L. Likewise, 100 was variously Ж, ⋉, ⋈, H, or as any of the symbols for 50 above plus an extra stroke. The form Ж (that is, a superimposed X and I like: ) came to predominate. It was written variously as &gt;I&lt; or ƆIC, was then abbreviated to Ɔ or C, with C variant finally winning out because, as a letter, it stood for centum, Latin for &quot;hundred&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The hundredth V or X was marked with a box or circle. Thus 500 was like a Ɔ superimposed on a ⋌ or ⊢, becoming D or Ð by the time of Augustus, under the graphic influence of the letter ⟨D⟩. It was later identified as the letter D; an alternative symbol for &quot;thousand&quot; was (I) (or CIƆ or CꟾƆ), and half of a thousand or &quot;five hundred&quot; is the right half of the symbol, I) (or IƆ or ꟾƆ), and this may have been converted into ⟨D⟩.[15] This at least was the etymology given to it later on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;James Egbert's study on [Latin inscriptions](https://archive.org/stream/introductiontost00egberich#page/72/mode/2up) is also informative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The important takeaway is that IVXLCDM is actually a late stage in the evolution of Roman numerals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4400" RevisionGUID="3500465e-cee6-4bed-a99f-594054d76b16" CreationDate="2017-05-16T14:36:43.753" UserId="78" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="If the original question is about English, it's in the wrong stack. However, if you're looking for a Latin form, I'd like to offer another alternative: taking the noun, making it into an adjective with -*osus*, and then making that superlative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take, for example, take the word *populus*, &quot;people.&quot; To describe a place as being &quot;full of people,&quot; we have the adjective *populosus*, as found in Apuleius' *Florida* as *gens populosa* describing the Indians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can then make this superlative with regular endings, as Dicuil (and 8th century monk) did in his work on India:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Gange insula est populosissima amplissimam continens gentem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the Ganges is an island **most populous** and containing **a most abundant *gens***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Note: Some editions have *populissima*, but that looks to be a mistake.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can do the same with other nouns. Cicero calls Apollonius, one of the plaintiffs in the case against Verres a *homo pecuniosissimus* (Cic. *Verr*. 2.5.9), literally a &quot;man most full of money&quot; (another way of saying very wealthy). This construction goes back to the very earliest Latin prose we have, beginning with Cato's [aquosissimus](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=osissim).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, for your specific example, there are no attested forms in Classical Latin, but were someone to write *cornuosus* and *cornuosissimus*, an ancient Roman would have understood what it meant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4401" RevisionGUID="f3006053-1d01-4c2d-9243-e8b7e1b88ca2" CreationDate="2017-05-16T15:01:49.383" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 1021 characters in body" Text="My old Latin teacher jokingly taught that it's all based on hands. I for a single finger; V for the shape of the space between the thumb and the fingers when a palm is put up; and X for the shape of two hands crossing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reality, I think [Wikipedia's summary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#Pre-Roman_times_and_ancient_Rome) is perhaps best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One hypothesis is that the Etrusco-Roman numerals actually derive from notches on tally sticks, which continued to be used by Italian and Dalmatian shepherds into the 19th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 50 was written variously as N, И, K, Ψ, ⋔, etc., but perhaps most often as a chicken-track shape like a superimposed V and I: ᗐ. This had flattened to ⊥ (an inverted T) by the time of Augustus, and soon thereafter became identified with the graphically similar letter L. Likewise, 100 was variously Ж, ⋉, ⋈, H, or as any of the symbols for 50 above plus an extra stroke. The form Ж (that is, a superimposed X and I like: ) came to predominate. It was written variously as &gt;I&lt; or ƆIC, was then abbreviated to Ɔ or C, with C variant finally winning out because, as a letter, it stood for centum, Latin for &quot;hundred&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The hundredth V or X was marked with a box or circle. Thus 500 was like a Ɔ superimposed on a ⋌ or ⊢, becoming D or Ð by the time of Augustus, under the graphic influence of the letter ⟨D⟩. It was later identified as the letter D; an alternative symbol for &quot;thousand&quot; was (I) (or CIƆ or CꟾƆ), and half of a thousand or &quot;five hundred&quot; is the right half of the symbol, I) (or IƆ or ꟾƆ), and this may have been converted into ⟨D⟩.[15] This at least was the etymology given to it later on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;James Egbert's study on [Latin inscriptions](https://archive.org/stream/introductiontost00egberich#page/72/mode/2up) is also informative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The important takeaway is that IVXLCDM is actually a late stage in the evolution of Roman numerals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4402" RevisionGUID="b9e2f133-feb6-4061-9228-e5fd8e83e802" CreationDate="2017-05-16T17:40:22.187" UserId="9" Text="As [Leaky Nun has said][1], this word has a short vowel in every syllable: **sŭpĕrflŭŭs**, or in broad IPA /suˈperfluus/ (in narrower IPA, the pronunciation in the later classical period might have been something like [sʊˈpɛɾfluʊs] or [sʊˈpɛɾflʊʊs]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see the length of the vowel in the penult marked in the [Lewis and Short dictionary entry][2], available online at the Perseus Digital Library. It doesn't mark the quality of the vowel in the final syllable. I believe this information is generally omitted by Lewis and Short when it can be inferred from the declension class, as it can in this case: the *-us* suffix of the second declension nominative singular always has a short u. (Lewis and Short also omit to mark the length of the &quot;e&quot; in the penult; I assume the reason for this is because it has a &quot;hidden quantity&quot; since the syllable is closed by the coda /r/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowel length is not consistently marked in Latin writing outside of dictionaries (it's often not marked at all), especially not with breves (macrons for long vowels are somewhat more common, but still not preferred by many in running text).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A general vowel length rule that would be applicable to the penult is that a (monophthongal) vowel before another vowel is usually short in Latin. You can find this rule, along with some exceptions, in [Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar section 604][3] on the Allen and Greenough online website. I don't know the historical reasons for it, but it is a good rule of thumb to be aware of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4395&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsuperfluus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.604.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4402" RevisionGUID="59452419-8f21-48bd-aa84-571aab19873a" CreationDate="2017-05-16T17:45:57.060" UserId="9" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="As [Leaky Nun has said][1], this word has a short vowel in every syllable: **sŭpĕrflŭŭs**, or in broad IPA /suˈperfluus/ (in narrower IPA, the pronunciation in the later classical period might have been something like [sʊˈpɛɾfluʊs] or [sʊˈpɛɾflʊʊs]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see the length of the vowel in the penult marked in the [Lewis and Short dictionary entry][2], available online at the Perseus Digital Library. It doesn't mark the quality of the vowel in the final syllable. I believe this information is generally omitted by Lewis and Short when it can be inferred from the declension class, as it can in this case: the *-us* suffix of the second declension nominative singular always has a short u. (Lewis and Short also omit to mark the length of the &quot;e&quot; in the penult; I assume the reason for this is because it has a &quot;hidden quantity&quot; since the syllable is closed by the coda /r/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowel length is not consistently marked in Latin writing outside of dictionaries (many writers never mark it at all), especially not with breves (macrons for long vowels are somewhat more common, but still not preferred by many in running text).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A general vowel length rule that would be applicable to the penult is that a (monophthongal) vowel before another vowel is usually short in Latin. You can find this rule, along with some exceptions, in [Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar section 604][3] on the Allen and Greenough online website. I don't know the historical reasons for it, but it is a good rule of thumb to be aware of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4395&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsuperfluus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.604.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4403" RevisionGUID="f87f96ff-0642-461d-b0c3-32cb4687f93e" CreationDate="2017-05-16T18:00:28.493" UserId="1627" Text="# Latin is Simple!&#xD;&#xA;http://latin-is-simple.com/ is a dedicated online dictionary that contains most latin words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Over 44,000 vocabulary entries (with translations)&#xD;&#xA;- Thus over 3,100,000 inflected (conjugated/declined) forms! Including all tenses, cases, persons, participles, .... Each word can be displayed individually including all details and inflections&#xD;&#xA;- optimized for mobile as well as desktop computers (this is rare among all those old other websites)&#xD;&#xA;- A [Vocabulary Trainer](http://www.latin-is-simple.com/trainer/ &quot;Latin Vocabulary Trainer&quot;) which also asks for stem forms (only one on the web yet)&#xD;&#xA;- **[Sentence Analysis!](http://www.latin-is-simple.com/analysis/ &quot;Latin text analysis&quot;)** This is indeed the coolest feature; give it a latin text and you'll get a handful of information about every word: Matching vocabulary entries, which forms they correspond. **It also detects relations and clauses!** so e.g. *which noun belongs to which adjective* or clauses like *&quot;Accusativus Cum Infinitivo&quot;* (A.C.I.) and *&quot;Ablativus Absolutus&quot;* (Abl.Abs.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; e.g. &quot;legimus&quot; comes from &quot;lego legis legere legi lectum&quot; and matches the 1. person active indicative in present as well as perfect tense).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Latin Text / Sentence analysis&#xD;&#xA;[![Sentence Analysis][1]](http://www.latin-is-simple.com/analysis/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Vocabulary Trainer&#xD;&#xA;[![Vocabulary Trainer][2]](http://www.latin-is-simple.com/trainer/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to add that I am the ambitious and proud developer of that site, so my opinion may be a little bit biased.. My site is only about one year old and has since been subjected to constant development and improvements and this will continue! Give it a try!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now I'm working on design and usability improvements as well as functionality advancements such as the recognition of *cum/ut/si* sentences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KDHD4.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UKrs6.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13461" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4403" RevisionGUID="ec35e759-ef65-4206-b4ab-9fa7d5135c20" CreationDate="2017-05-16T18:00:28.493" UserId="1627" />
  <row Id="13463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4404" RevisionGUID="f70f747d-ce83-4252-bb83-0b7d6505c236" CreationDate="2017-05-16T18:46:15.387" UserId="1629" Text="I've been a fan of Mike Carey's [_Lucifer_][1] comic series, for its believable portrait of a fallen angel. The series [spun off][2] from Neil Gaiman's [_The Sandman_][3], which established this incarnation of Lucifer Morningstar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, Lucifer gets tired of the role given to him by God, so he abandons Hell and opens a piano bar on Earth called &quot;Lux&quot; (best in LA!). I know &quot;lux&quot; means &quot;light&quot;, so this one is ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now there's a [new _Lucifer_ series][4], set right after the previous run. In it, Lucifer returns to Earth and opens a bar called _&quot;Ex Lux&quot;_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1DxRa.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;I'd have missed him, had I not read the original series right before reading this one :D&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does &quot;ex lux&quot; mean? [This website][5] says &quot;lightbringer&quot;, and I'd be inclined to believe it (because Lightbringer is Lucifer official title), had it not listed &quot;machine translation&quot; as its source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could try to scrape the barrel of my Latin knowledge, and suggest that it means &quot;from light&quot; - using &quot;deus ex machina&quot; as a reference point - but I don't dare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I'm asking here: __what does _&quot;ex lux&quot;_ mean?__&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer_(DC_Comics)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.dccomics.com/blog/2015/12/16/lucifer-101-what-you-need-to-know&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sandman_(Vertigo)&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.cbr.com/vertigos-new-lucifer-series-sends-black-garbett-to-hell-and-back/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://mymemory.translated.net/en/Latin/English/ex-lux" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13464" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4404" RevisionGUID="f70f747d-ce83-4252-bb83-0b7d6505c236" CreationDate="2017-05-16T18:46:15.387" UserId="1629" Text="What is the meaning of &quot;Ex Lux&quot;, the name of Lucifer Morningstar's new bar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13465" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4404" RevisionGUID="f70f747d-ce83-4252-bb83-0b7d6505c236" CreationDate="2017-05-16T18:46:15.387" UserId="1629" Text="|translation|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4405" RevisionGUID="1bfbbf59-8739-43b8-805b-6e495bc25dee" CreationDate="2017-05-16T18:57:53.653" UserId="30" Text="*Lux* can mean &quot;light&quot;, and ex can mean &quot;out (of)&quot;; but that sign is wrong. The grammar is impossible; you can't just combine words like that in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give you a feel of the type of wrongness, consider a sign in English that said &quot;Of She&quot;. That would sound almost like gibberish. It should be &quot;of her&quot;, and even then it could mean many things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, the Latin *E(x) Luce* would mean &quot;From (the) Light&quot;, but *\*Ex Lux* is just not possible without an extremely unlikely context of far-fetched, extensive ellipsis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Ex lux][1]* gives you exactly 0 results from the HP Latin corpus, and the same applies to *[e lux][2]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ex%20lux%23&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23e%20lux%23" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13467" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="4349" RevisionGUID="6df497f3-5916-44bf-94c4-364d5372bbb0" CreationDate="2017-05-16T19:01:05.063" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4406" RevisionGUID="c00d2095-3abe-4f62-8f90-5e83814820de" CreationDate="2017-05-16T19:48:12.680" UserId="1578" Text="Ex lux doesn't make any sense in Latin. E(x) is generally followed by an ablative, and drops the x when before a consonant. Lux means light, or, per [William Whitaker's Words](http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?keyword=lux), also daylight, light of day, life, world, and day. E luce would mean either out of or from light. So, it would appear to be an error if it is supposed to be Latin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13475" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4182" RevisionGUID="ae8eee3b-486b-4200-9115-22a992c5debf" CreationDate="2017-05-16T20:54:52.923" UserId="9" Comment="35" />
  <row Id="13476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4401" RevisionGUID="f4aa057b-8a2f-47b4-ae8c-fd711c06d92d" CreationDate="2017-05-16T20:58:20.707" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 1257 characters in body" Text="My old Latin teacher jokingly taught that it's all based on hands. I for a single finger; V for the shape of the space between the thumb and the fingers when a palm is put up; and X for the shape of two hands crossing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a cute theory, but really the numerals come from Etruscan. The (still?) standard article is Paul Keyser's 1988 article &quot;The Origin of the Latin Numerals 1 to 1000&quot; in *AJA* 92.4. Therein he summarizes both ancient and modern hypotheses of the origin of Roman numerals. I won't get into the ancient ones, because they're frankly just not worth it. In fact, Renaissance theories weren't very much better, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In progress]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13477" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="4401" RevisionGUID="4457f121-a1ff-41c6-bc1f-88b7282be53d" CreationDate="2017-05-16T20:58:23.430" UserId="78" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4407" RevisionGUID="1d570c9a-12d6-489b-81cf-b29d65956467" CreationDate="2017-05-16T21:53:25.013" UserId="40" Text="This is a question about how a specific type of unattainable (counterfactual) wish about the present is expressed in Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for a good way of translating sentences like the following into Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whenever I think of Socrates, I wish he were still alive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some common ways of expressing present counterfactual wishes in Greek, but they don't seem to fit in this case. For example, this construction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εἴθε / εἰ γὰρ παρῆσθα! &quot;I wish you were here! If only you were here!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- is only used in exclamations, not in sentences like mine where &quot;I wish&quot; is a description of the speaker's state of mind, not an exclamatory expression (it can't be replaced with &quot;if only&quot;). The same seems to be true of the construction with ὤφελον + inf., also meaning &quot;if only&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand there are examples of the imperfect of βούλομαι used for a present counterfactual wish, with or without ἄν, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἐβουλόμην οὐκ ἐρίζειν ἐνθάδε “I wish I were not contending here”  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἐβουλόμην ἂν Σίμωνα τὴν αὐτὴν γνώμην ἐμοὶ ἔχειν “I wish S. were of the same mind as myself”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this too seems somehow unsuitable in this case. In the above examples the imperfect makes some sense as something like &quot;I would have liked&quot;, or &quot;what I wanted, though I didn't get it, was...&quot; -- i.e. there seems to some kind of preteriteness that licenses the imperfect, which isn't the case with my sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most straightforward option would simply be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; βούλομαι Σωκράτη ζῆν &quot;I want S. to be alive&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe this is grammatically correct, but I'm not sure it's the most natural way a Greek would have phrased this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how would my sentence be most naturally phrased in Greek? Can anyone find a reasonably close parallel in a Greek author?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13479" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4407" RevisionGUID="1d570c9a-12d6-489b-81cf-b29d65956467" CreationDate="2017-05-16T21:53:25.013" UserId="40" Text="Greek: unattainable wishes about the present" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13480" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4407" RevisionGUID="1d570c9a-12d6-489b-81cf-b29d65956467" CreationDate="2017-05-16T21:53:25.013" UserId="40" Text="|greek|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4408" RevisionGUID="12256ac8-6afa-49ed-958c-f57091bc06c9" CreationDate="2017-05-16T22:30:38.903" UserDisplayName="user1466" Text="**Ex Lux** is a fun name for the character's bar.  I think the use of the Latin is meant to be playful. (And yes, I know the Latin is not correctly formed according to Latin rules, even medieval ones.) The main character's name is **Lucifer Morningstar** and I'm guessing he's a night owl.  Lucifer means light-bringer, of course. Morningstar reminds me of an anglicized version of the German surname, Morganstern.  So, the character's name makes me laugh, as it is meant to.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;***Ex Lux*** sounds cooler in English than ***e luce*** for **out of the light** or **from the light**. I think so, even though I love Latin and this is not quite proper Latin.  I think maybe ***ex lux*** is also playing on **de luxe** from French.  I don't know the comic, but suspect***lux*** as a double entendre here for both **light** and **luxury**.  For all I know it is also making a joke about ExLax laxatives.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ex lux*** could be an English shortening of ***ex luxuria*** -- **from luxury** and in English still carry the meaning light.  Many people know the prhase ***Fiat lux.***  Let there be light, so ***lux*** is familiar to some ears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cf. **deluxe** - luxurious, topnotch&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; in French - *modèle de luxe* = **deluxe model**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Latin ***[luxuria][1]*** means luxury in our sense, but also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; extravagance, excess and even reckless living.  Cicero contrasts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***luxuria*** with **[parsimonia][2]** (frugality, thrift).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***In urbe luxuries creatur, ex luxuriā existat avaritia, necesse est***,” Cic. Rosc. Am. 27, 75&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=luxuria&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=parsimonia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4408" RevisionGUID="952c765f-49f4-43c4-ad81-672e6daefbd3" CreationDate="2017-05-16T22:57:58.277" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="**Ex Lux** is a fun name for the character's bar.  I think the use of the Latin is meant to be playful. (And yes, I know the Latin is not correctly formed according to Latin rules, even medieval ones.) The main character's name is **Lucifer Morningstar** and I'm guessing he's a night owl.  Lucifer means light-bringer, of course. Morningstar reminds me of an anglicized version of the German surname, Morganstern.  So, the character's name makes me laugh, as it is meant to.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;***Ex Lux*** sounds cooler in English than ***e luce*** for **out of the light** or **from the light**. I think so, even though I love Latin and this is not quite proper Latin.  I think maybe ***ex lux*** is also playing on **de luxe** from French.  I don't know the comic, but suspect ***lux*** as a double entendre here for both **light** and **luxury**.  For all I know it is also making a joke about ExLax laxatives.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ex lux*** could be an English shortening of ***ex luxuria*** -- **from luxury** and in English still carry the meaning light.  Many people know the prhase ***Fiat lux.***  Let there be light, so ***lux*** is familiar to some ears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cf. **deluxe** - luxurious, topnotch&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; in French - *modèle de luxe* = **deluxe model**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Latin ***[luxuria][1]*** means luxury in our sense, but also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; extravagance, excess and even reckless living.  Cicero contrasts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***luxuria*** with **[parsimonia][2]** (frugality, thrift).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***In urbe luxuries creatur, ex luxuriā existat avaritia, necesse est***,” Cic. Rosc. Am. 27, 75&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=luxuria&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=parsimonia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4409" RevisionGUID="55c8e102-d202-428e-adad-4f67907ab88d" CreationDate="2017-05-16T23:10:38.513" UserId="79" Text="As pointed out in other answers, it's not good Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I assume (I hope!) it was not meant to be, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my interpretation the &quot;ex&quot; is just the English word, so the name &quot;Ex Lux&quot; means &quot;Former Lux&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is similar to how &quot;ex-girlfriend&quot; means &quot;former girlfriend&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I believe the allusion to Latin is fully intentional.&#xD;&#xA;The original name &quot;Lux&quot; is indeed a Latin word &amp;mdash; and *lux* is what a *lucifer* carries.&#xD;&#xA;I assume &quot;ex&quot; also has its origin in Latin, but I don't think the two words try to mean anything together in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The two words have a Latin origin by they were put together in English, not in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4409" RevisionGUID="0c000ce5-8a71-4881-8bbd-918e89fe2d75" CreationDate="2017-05-16T23:23:51.757" UserId="79" Comment="added 188 characters in body" Text="As pointed out in other answers, it's not good Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I assume (I hope!) it was not meant to be, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my interpretation the &quot;ex&quot; is just the English word, so the name &quot;Ex Lux&quot; means &quot;Former Lux&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is similar to how &quot;ex-girlfriend&quot; means &quot;former girlfriend&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I believe the allusion to Latin is fully intentional.&#xD;&#xA;The original name &quot;Lux&quot; is indeed a Latin word &amp;mdash; and *lux* is what a *lucifer* carries.&#xD;&#xA;I assume &quot;ex&quot; also has its origin in Latin, but I don't think the two words try to mean anything together in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The two words have a Latin origin by they were put together in English, not in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name looks better to me without a hyphen.&#xD;&#xA;This spelling variant also gives a more Latinate feel to it.&#xD;&#xA;Business names and proper spelling don't always go together, unfortunately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1668" RevisionGUID="1d163599-52d9-47db-8cdb-ef4292a3ea62" CreationDate="2017-05-16T23:39:09.240" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am writing a book, quoting from Aune: “There are several instances in Revelation of this use of ἔρχεται as futurum instans&amp;hellip;” Note that Aune uses the term “futurum instans” for Greek, not Semitic languages. Google Translate tells the term as “be instant” and tells “futurum” as “the future” and “istans” as “instant”. http://tbt.sagepub.com/content/66/2/129.abstract tells the term as “the imminent future, ‘about to’”. Perseus tells “present, immediate” for “istans” (nothing for “futurum”). If I want to give a brief definition of the term &quot;futurum istans&quot; to the readers of my book, could I give “the imminent future, ‘about to’”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13486" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1668" RevisionGUID="1d163599-52d9-47db-8cdb-ef4292a3ea62" CreationDate="2017-05-16T23:39:09.240" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|greek|christianity|terminology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4401" RevisionGUID="c95e6f9d-24be-4799-bc5c-f92644b16aca" CreationDate="2017-05-16T23:39:24.830" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 1257 characters in body" Text="My old Latin teacher jokingly taught that it's all based on hands. I for a single finger; V for the shape of the space between the thumb and the fingers when a palm is put up; and X for the shape of two hands crossing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a cute theory, but really the numerals come from Etruscan. The standard article is Paul Keyser's 1988 article &quot;The Origin of the Latin Numerals 1 to 1000&quot; in *AJA* 92.4. (If you do not have access to JSTOR, Prof. Keyser actually put it on his [Academia.edu](https://www.academia.edu/7554252/_The_Origin_of_the_Latin_Numerals_1_to_1000_American_Journal_of_Archaeology_92_1988_529_546) page.) Therein he summarizes both ancient and modern hypotheses of the origin of Roman numerals. I won't get into the ancient ones, because they're frankly just not worth it. In fact, Renaissance theories weren't very much better, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reality is that Latin numerals come from late Etruscan numerals. The shape of 100 and 1000 (C &amp; M respectively) is misleading: the Romans inherited the shapes, but certainly made them exactly as they were due to the influence of the letters. They're originally Etruscan shaped, though, which are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 = I  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5 = V  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10 = X  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 50 = W (general shape; using a W for lack of a proper unicode character)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 100 = Ж  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 500 = Ð  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1000 = ⊗  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1/2 = &gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I represents a single stroke. That much seems indisputable. X and Ж are &quot;second&quot; and &quot;third rank&quot; symbols, i.e. each new stroke times the base number (I) by ten. Five and fifty are the top half of X and Ж to represent half the number. (Really they're the bottom half of the inverted numerals, for Etruscan letters and numerals both could be written in boustrophedon as well as upside-down.) Fifty (that W looking symbol) over time slowly morphed to L, though the original symbol is &quot;well attested in Latin) (Keyser, 544).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keyser hypothesizes that the C shape came from an abbreviated form of Ж, partly due to the fact that &gt; was used for 1/2. The more rounded C shape then evolved under influence of *centum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1000 is easier to see. Keyser notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Etruscan ⊗ or ⊕ = 1000 became (X) when written quickly (note that O is a two-stroke character ( ) and the circle of ⊗ would no doubt be written as O as written). The form (X)...written cursively would lead naturally to the well-attested Latin form ∞. This &quot;horizontal-8&quot; figure can also appear in a &quot;compressed&quot; form oo which leads naturally to the well-attested formal Latin numeral ⌽. Although the development of Etruscan ⊗ to Latin ⌽ is not obvious at first glance, every step is attested in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Some of these characters, especialy 'oo' and '⌽', look different in Keyser's article, which I suggest everyone read.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, for 500, the older symbol was Ð, not D, which is, as it looks, half of ⊕." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13488" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="4401" RevisionGUID="552ba0d8-e8b6-4545-800b-e093c84b1700" CreationDate="2017-05-16T23:39:31.730" UserId="78" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="637f7b9f-0ceb-4e4c-bad2-3690d34931d2" CreationDate="2017-05-17T00:21:43.097" UserId="79" Text="[Trajan's column](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan%27s_Column) contains a famous spiral relief.&#xD;&#xA;The relief is organized into panels &amp;mdash; there are no lines for panel boundaries, but the composition makes the panel structure quite clear.&#xD;&#xA;The relief (a replica) is on display panel by panel at [Museo della Civiltà Romana](http://en.museociviltaromana.it/).&#xD;&#xA;Here is a photo from the museum home page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Panels of Trajan's comic][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there ancient Latin descriptions of this relief?&#xD;&#xA;I am particularly interested in references to the panelated structure as opposed to being just a &quot;single wide picture wrapped around a column&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The inscription at the base of the column does no mention it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of the structure I would consider the story an early version of a comic.&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that it is the best known &quot;early comic&quot; of ancient Rome, even if not usually known as a comic.&#xD;&#xA;I am not trying to imply that the modern comic took any influence from it, but just observing the similarity in structure.&#xD;&#xA;To some extent the question is &quot;what would the Romans have called a comic&quot;, but I want to keep the speculative aspect to the side and focus on finding passages about this particular piece of work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is something interesting in post-classical literature or by some miracle there is no extant classical mention of it, later passages are also welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5SaW7.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13491" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="637f7b9f-0ceb-4e4c-bad2-3690d34931d2" CreationDate="2017-05-17T00:21:43.097" UserId="79" Text="How was Trajan's comic called?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13492" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="637f7b9f-0ceb-4e4c-bad2-3690d34931d2" CreationDate="2017-05-17T00:21:43.097" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|history|passage-request|architecture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13493" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="1485" RevisionGUID="0b8bb408-296d-4390-9a5c-c702e4583af0" CreationDate="2017-05-17T01:03:36.223" UserId="79" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1485" RevisionGUID="380fa776-a8f4-400d-bee9-d0e71bd53219" CreationDate="2017-05-17T01:19:03.480" UserId="30" Comment="Removed everything that wasn't relevant to the question." Text="How about encifrāre, a neologism from cifra ou cifera, Medieval Latin for Arabic sifr, &quot;zero&quot;? Programmers ultimately reduce things to zeros and ones and owe a debt of thanks to the Arab mathematicians for inventing nothingness! &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13496" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="1485" RevisionGUID="d3ee05cc-7cb7-408a-828a-43031d4bcd42" CreationDate="2017-05-17T01:19:10.027" UserId="30" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:30,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Cerberus&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4408" RevisionGUID="2082283a-8775-4703-9e92-e4be61be973d" CreationDate="2017-05-17T01:38:57.163" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="Addendum" Text="**Ex Lux** is a fun name for the character's bar.  I think the use of the Latin is meant to be playful. (And yes, I know the Latin is not correctly formed according to Latin rules, even medieval ones.) The main character's name is **Lucifer Morningstar** and I'm guessing he's a night owl.  Lucifer means light-bringer, of course. Morningstar reminds me of an anglicized version of the German surname, Morgenstern.  So, the character's name makes me laugh, as it is meant to.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;***Ex Lux*** sounds cooler in English than ***e luce*** for **out of the light** or **from the light**. I think so, even though I love Latin and this is not quite proper Latin.  I think maybe ***ex lux*** is also playing on **de luxe** from French.  I don't know the comic, but suspect ***lux*** as a double entendre here for both **light** and **luxury**.  For all I know it is also making a joke about ExLax laxatives.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ex lux*** could be an English shortening of ***ex luxuria*** -- **from luxury** and in English still carry the meaning light.  Many people know the prhase ***Fiat lux.***  Let there be light, so ***lux*** is familiar to some ears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cf. **deluxe** - luxurious, topnotch&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; in French - *modèle de luxe* = **deluxe model**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Latin ***[luxuria][1]*** means luxury in our sense, but also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; extravagance, excess and even reckless living.  Cicero contrasts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***luxuria*** with **[parsimonia][2]** (frugality, thrift).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***In urbe luxuries creatur, ex luxuriā existat avaritia, necesse est***,” Cic. Rosc. Am. 27, 75&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=luxuria&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=parsimonia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;=====================&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addendum:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Only after this question and various answers unfolded have I begun to see all the references.  Satan in the Hebrew bible is described as the morning star.  I don't know much about why St. Jerome used the Latin term Lucifer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Ex Lux -- Former Light -- is this possibly a reference to Lucifer's fallen angel or ex-angel status?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is not really a Latin question, but I've had fun thinking about it and learned some things too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4401" RevisionGUID="602b5b45-f32b-448c-86fc-e39d188f012d" CreationDate="2017-05-17T01:40:03.250" UserId="78" Comment="added 239 characters in body" Text="My old Latin teacher jokingly taught that it's all based on hands. I for a single finger; V for the shape of the space between the thumb and the fingers when a palm is put up; and X for the shape of two hands crossing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a cute theory, but really the numerals come from Etruscan. The standard article is Paul Keyser's 1988 article &quot;The Origin of the Latin Numerals 1 to 1000&quot; in *AJA* 92.4. (If you do not have access to JSTOR, Prof. Keyser actually put it on his [Academia.edu](https://www.academia.edu/7554252/_The_Origin_of_the_Latin_Numerals_1_to_1000_American_Journal_of_Archaeology_92_1988_529_546) page.) Therein he summarizes both ancient and modern hypotheses of the origin of Roman numerals. I won't get into the ancient ones, because they're frankly just not worth it. In fact, Renaissance theories weren't very much better, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reality is that Latin numerals come from late Etruscan numerals. The shape of 100 and 1000 (C &amp; M respectively) is misleading: the Romans inherited the shapes, but certainly made them exactly as they were due to the influence of the letters. They're originally Etruscan shaped, though, which are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 = I  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5 = Λ  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10 = X  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 50 = M (general shape; using a W for lack of a proper unicode character)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 100 = Ж  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 500 = Ð  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1000 = ⊗  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1/2 = &gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I represents a single stroke. That much seems indisputable. X and Ж are &quot;second&quot; and &quot;third rank&quot; symbols, i.e. each new stroke times the base number (I) by ten. Five and fifty are the bottom half of X and Ж to represent half the number. These were borrowed in Latin inscriptions, all identical except inverted. (It helps to remember that there was no standard order of writing Etruscan; it could be written in boustrophedon or even upside-down. The entire Latin alphabet just looks like a mirror of Etruscan letters as they're typically written, so at one point one direction became codified in Latin, including these numerals.) Fifty (that W looking symbol) over time slowly morphed to L, though the original symbol is &quot;well attested in Latin) (Keyser, 544).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keyser hypothesizes that the C shape came from an abbreviated form of Ж, partly due to the fact that &gt; was used for 1/2. The more rounded C shape then evolved under influence of *centum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1000 is easier to see. Keyser notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Etruscan ⊗ or ⊕ = 1000 became (X) when written quickly (note that O is a two-stroke character ( ) and the circle of ⊗ would no doubt be written as O as written). The form (X)...written cursively would lead naturally to the well-attested Latin form ∞. This &quot;horizontal-8&quot; figure can also appear in a &quot;compressed&quot; form oo which leads naturally to the well-attested formal Latin numeral ⌽. Although the development of Etruscan ⊗ to Latin ⌽ is not obvious at first glance, every step is attested in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Some of these characters, especialy 'oo' and '⌽', look different in Keyser's article, which I suggest everyone read.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, for 500, the older symbol was Ð, not D, which is, as it looks, half of ⊕." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4408" RevisionGUID="d2ff797e-02ca-47a1-ba63-8b49af881843" CreationDate="2017-05-17T01:56:44.070" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="deleted 147 characters in body" Text="**Ex Lux** is a fun name for the character's bar.  I think the use of the Latin is meant to be playful. (And yes, I know the Latin is not correctly formed according to Latin rules, even medieval ones.) The main character's name is **Lucifer Morningstar** and I'm guessing he's a night owl.  Lucifer means light-bringer, of course. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ex Lux*** sounds cooler in English than ***e luce*** for **out of the light** or **from the light**. I think so, even though I love Latin and this is not quite proper Latin.  I think maybe ***ex lux*** is also playing on **de luxe** from French.  I don't know the comic, but suspect ***lux*** as a double entendre here for both **light** and **luxury**.  For all I know it is also making a joke about ExLax laxatives.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ex lux*** could be an English shortening of ***ex luxuria*** -- **from luxury** and in English still carry the meaning light.  Many people know the prhase ***Fiat lux.***  Let there be light, so ***lux*** is familiar to some ears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cf. **deluxe** - luxurious, topnotch&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; in French - *modèle de luxe* = **deluxe model**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Latin ***[luxuria][1]*** means luxury in our sense, but also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; extravagance, excess and even reckless living.  Cicero contrasts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***luxuria*** with **[parsimonia][2]** (frugality, thrift).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***In urbe luxuries creatur, ex luxuriā existat avaritia, necesse est***,” Cic. Rosc. Am. 27, 75&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=luxuria&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=parsimonia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;=====================&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addendum:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Only after this question and various answers unfolded have I begun to see all the references.  Satan in the Hebrew bible is described as the morning star.  I don't know much about why St. Jerome used the Latin term Lucifer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Ex Lux -- Former Light -- is this possibly a reference to Lucifer's fallen angel or ex-angel status?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is not really a Latin question, but I've had fun thinking about it and learned some things too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4412" RevisionGUID="24e42cd6-9871-4fc2-b45b-2dcb96982a88" CreationDate="2017-05-17T05:06:37.977" UserId="1631" Text="I don't think Latin has much to do with it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Lux&quot; is simply a shortening of Lucifer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the &quot;Ex&quot; is more likely to be of similar meaning to the prefix of ex-wife, ex-boyfriend, which is used to signify &quot;former&quot;. (Incidentally, it does have Latin origins).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is the Ex Lux, the *former Lucifer*. &quot;The Devil is back&quot; as the comic strip noted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4413" RevisionGUID="95d8303e-0960-4a0c-808f-56c8fffdd048" CreationDate="2017-05-17T05:31:33.330" UserId="985" Text="As for ancient sources, I looked in Van Heck's _Breviarium urbis Romae antiquae_, which gathers ancient references to ancient monuments, etc. Of the 3 primary references to Trajan's Column, one is the text of the inscription on the base; and one from _Epit. de Caes._ (which I'm not familiar with) and one from Eutropius basically just mention the column as being above T.'s ashes. They're entirely uninterested in the relief.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inter divos relatus est solusque omnium intra Urbem sepultus est. ossa conlata in urnam auream in Foro, quood aedificavit, sub columna posita sunt. [Eutropius 8.5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Richardson, _A new topographical dictionary of ancient Rome_, in the entry for Forum Traiani, has this to say about the relief:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The theory that the relief spiral had its origin as a book roll, a theory first propounded by Birt and endorsed repeatedly by others, ignores the excellence of the overall design, in which patterns are worked out vertically, as well as in sequence. And such continuous narrative is at least as old as the Odyssey Landscapes from the Esquiline, which seem hardly likely to have been derived from a book roll.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had never considered the Odyssey Landscapes in relation to the Column of Trajan, but that's an interesting connection. I believe those paintings are from the 1st century BCE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coarelli, _Rome and environs_, appears to follow the theory of Birt that Richardson mentions. He says this (this is the translation by Jim Clauss and Dan Harmon from the University of Washington, Seattle):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The reliefs convey not so much a celebratory character as a documentary one. They have been interpreted as a figurative representation of Trajan's _Commentarii_, a prose narrative of the two Dacian wars that unfortunately has not survived.... This interpretation seems all the more plausible if we take into account the location of the column between the two libraries (Trajan's commentaries would have been kept in the Latin one) and the very appearance of the relief, which reproduces the form of an ancient book – a scroll (_volumen_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This approach does indeed seem to view the relief as something akin to the graphic novel version of _Moby Dick_ or the Bible, though without resorting to calling it a 'comic.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, one of the essays in Calvino, _Collezione di sabbia_ (_Collection of sand_) is a very fine narrative reading of the relief – a result of Calvino's close-up inspection of the column itself, from the scaffolding that was erected around it at the time. It's been a while since I read the original Italian version, and I can't locate it on my shelves, but the English translation that I managed to find actually uses the word _strip_ – once in 'scare quotes,' which may point to the double meaning 'continuous strip' (e.g., of parchment in a book roll) and 'comic strip' (and I believe the Latin word _striscia_, like the English word _strip_ can cover both these meanings)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4413" RevisionGUID="2fbef84f-bd82-4cfd-8c80-540d8846a752" CreationDate="2017-05-17T07:54:29.940" UserId="985" Comment="Corrected 'Latin' to 'Italian'" Text="As for ancient sources, I looked in Van Heck's _Breviarium urbis Romae antiquae_, which gathers ancient references to ancient monuments, etc. Of the 3 primary references to Trajan's Column, one is the text of the inscription on the base; and one from _Epit. de Caes._ (which I'm not familiar with) and one from Eutropius basically just mention the column as being above T.'s ashes. They're entirely uninterested in the relief.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inter divos relatus est solusque omnium intra Urbem sepultus est. ossa conlata in urnam auream in Foro, quood aedificavit, sub columna posita sunt. [Eutropius 8.5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Richardson, _A new topographical dictionary of ancient Rome_, in the entry for Forum Traiani, has this to say about the relief:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The theory that the relief spiral had its origin as a book roll, a theory first propounded by Birt and endorsed repeatedly by others, ignores the excellence of the overall design, in which patterns are worked out vertically, as well as in sequence. And such continuous narrative is at least as old as the Odyssey Landscapes from the Esquiline, which seem hardly likely to have been derived from a book roll.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had never considered the Odyssey Landscapes in relation to the Column of Trajan, but that's an interesting connection. I believe those paintings are from the 1st century BCE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coarelli, _Rome and environs_, appears to follow the theory of Birt that Richardson mentions. He says this (this is the translation by Jim Clauss and Dan Harmon from the University of Washington, Seattle):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The reliefs convey not so much a celebratory character as a documentary one. They have been interpreted as a figurative representation of Trajan's _Commentarii_, a prose narrative of the two Dacian wars that unfortunately has not survived.... This interpretation seems all the more plausible if we take into account the location of the column between the two libraries (Trajan's commentaries would have been kept in the Latin one) and the very appearance of the relief, which reproduces the form of an ancient book – a scroll (_volumen_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This approach does indeed seem to view the relief as something akin to the graphic novel version of _Moby Dick_ or the Bible, though without resorting to calling it a 'comic.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, one of the essays in Calvino, _Collezione di sabbia_ (_Collection of sand_) is a very fine narrative reading of the relief – a result of Calvino's close-up inspection of the column itself, from the scaffolding that was erected around it at the time. It's been a while since I read the original Italian version, and I can't locate it on my shelves, but the English translation that I managed to find actually uses the word _strip_ – once in 'scare quotes,' which may point to the double meaning 'continuous strip' (e.g., of parchment in a book roll) and 'comic strip' (and I believe the Italian word _striscia_, like the English word _strip_, can cover both these meanings)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4414" RevisionGUID="3d4a26c9-7127-40b5-bd06-31b498e4de1d" CreationDate="2017-05-17T08:26:17.457" UserId="1051" Text="A sentence in Corderii colloquy 24,&#xD;&#xA;'ille spiritus bonus faxit' is translated&#xD;&#xA;'may that good spirit grant it'.&#xD;&#xA;how does the pf ind come to have an optative sense here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13507" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4414" RevisionGUID="3d4a26c9-7127-40b5-bd06-31b498e4de1d" CreationDate="2017-05-17T08:26:17.457" UserId="1051" Text="Optative perfect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13508" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4414" RevisionGUID="3d4a26c9-7127-40b5-bd06-31b498e4de1d" CreationDate="2017-05-17T08:26:17.457" UserId="1051" Text="|perfect-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4416" RevisionGUID="6b2c8342-e59c-4cce-b097-cbabdee6ac36" CreationDate="2017-05-17T11:54:17.770" UserId="78" Text="It's actually not indicative, but subjunctive. I know Perseus' morph tool parses it as both indicative and subjunctive, but both [Gildersleeve](https://books.google.com/books?id=UU0BIAbE0SIC&amp;pg=PA91&amp;lpg=PA91&amp;dq=gildersleeve+faxim&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=hXkdqiFIrJ&amp;sig=JmmtfK2GU5EfZDDJmSmwbN9WNBc&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj9oszc7vbTAhWBTSYKHSXzAIsQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=gildersleeve%20faxim&amp;f=false) and the OLD say it's subjunctive and do not mention anything about it being indicative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *faxo, faxim* (where later writers use *fecero, fecerim*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The normal perfect indicative of *facio* was *feci, fecisti, fecit* (etc.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4414" RevisionGUID="303cfaf0-0e38-4f01-a7bd-dbcf4f1ad2d9" CreationDate="2017-05-17T13:06:09.040" UserId="136" Comment="Don't abbreviate things here, this is a question, not a text message" Text="A sentence in Corderii colloquy 24,&#xD;&#xA;'ille spiritus bonus faxit' is translated&#xD;&#xA;'may that good spirit grant it'.&#xD;&#xA;how does the perfect indicative come to have an optative sense here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13513" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4414" RevisionGUID="29f24ed4-f49d-4010-a410-4e7cac51400c" CreationDate="2017-05-17T14:08:30.417" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags" Text="|verbs|perfect-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13515" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="4414" RevisionGUID="da69da42-e8aa-44c2-81b0-52d6163cc7e2" CreationDate="2017-05-17T16:06:22.337" UserId="1051" Comment="Rollback to [303cfaf0-0e38-4f01-a7bd-dbcf4f1ad2d9]" Text="|perfect-tense|" />
  <row Id="13516" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4414" RevisionGUID="e49f6eb5-1e6f-4b83-a623-a1259cade3cf" CreationDate="2017-05-17T16:08:18.570" UserId="1051" Comment="Rollback to [3d4a26c9-7127-40b5-bd06-31b498e4de1d]" Text="A sentence in Corderii colloquy 24,&#xD;&#xA;'ille spiritus bonus faxit' is translated&#xD;&#xA;'may that good spirit grant it'.&#xD;&#xA;how does the pf ind come to have an optative sense here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13517" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4414" RevisionGUID="436c7b12-f046-4a9f-9f67-b58819099043" CreationDate="2017-05-17T16:45:06.363" UserId="45" Comment="Rollback to [29f24ed4-f49d-4010-a410-4e7cac51400c]" Text="A sentence in Corderii colloquy 24,&#xD;&#xA;'ille spiritus bonus faxit' is translated&#xD;&#xA;'may that good spirit grant it'.&#xD;&#xA;how does the perfect indicative come to have an optative sense here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13518" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="4414" RevisionGUID="436c7b12-f046-4a9f-9f67-b58819099043" CreationDate="2017-05-17T16:45:06.363" UserId="45" Comment="Rollback to [29f24ed4-f49d-4010-a410-4e7cac51400c]" Text="|verbs|perfect-tense|" />
  <row Id="13519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4414" RevisionGUID="85a89de5-1150-42fe-98ba-2d8c34c912c9" CreationDate="2017-05-17T16:49:28.363" UserId="45" Comment="added 18 characters in body; edited title" Text="A sentence in *Corderii Colloquia* 24, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ille spiritus bonus faxit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; May that good spirit grant it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does the perfect indicative come to have an optative sense here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13520" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4414" RevisionGUID="85a89de5-1150-42fe-98ba-2d8c34c912c9" CreationDate="2017-05-17T16:49:28.363" UserId="45" Comment="added 18 characters in body; edited title" Text="Does the perfect &quot;faxit&quot; have an optative sense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4414" RevisionGUID="e1f7bfff-71b2-4b4b-a548-60260a243dab" CreationDate="2017-05-17T17:01:17.870" UserId="1051" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="A sentence in *Corderii Colloquia* 24, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ille spiritus bonus faxit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; May that good spirit grant it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does the pf ind come to have an optative sense here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4401" RevisionGUID="c8cef135-0f06-4bed-9b64-5fe9c7a4fa2a" CreationDate="2017-05-17T23:08:58.617" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="My old Latin teacher jokingly taught that it's all based on hands. I for a single finger; V for the shape of the space between the thumb and the fingers when a palm is put up; and X for the shape of two hands crossing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a cute theory, but really the numerals come from Etruscan. The standard article is Paul Keyser's 1988 article &quot;The Origin of the Latin Numerals 1 to 1000&quot; in *AJA* 92.4. (If you do not have access to JSTOR, Prof. Keyser actually put it on his [Academia.edu](https://www.academia.edu/7554252/_The_Origin_of_the_Latin_Numerals_1_to_1000_American_Journal_of_Archaeology_92_1988_529_546) page.) Therein he summarizes both ancient and modern hypotheses of the origin of Roman numerals. I won't get into the ancient ones, because they're frankly just not worth it. In fact, Renaissance theories weren't very much better, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reality is that Latin numerals come from late Etruscan numerals. The shape of 100 and 1000 (C &amp; M respectively) is misleading: the Romans inherited the shapes, but certainly made them exactly as they were due to the influence of the letters. They're originally Etruscan shaped, though, which are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 = I  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5 = Λ  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10 = X  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 50 = M (general shape; the unicode character would be )  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 100 = Ж  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 500 = Ð  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1000 = ⊗  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1/2 = &gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I represents a single stroke. That much seems indisputable. X and Ж are &quot;second&quot; and &quot;third rank&quot; symbols, i.e. each new stroke times the base number (I) by ten. Five and fifty are the bottom half of X and Ж to represent half the number. These were borrowed in Latin inscriptions, all identical except inverted. (It helps to remember that there was no standard order of writing Etruscan; it could be written in boustrophedon or even upside-down. The entire Latin alphabet just looks like a mirror of Etruscan letters as they're typically written, so at one point one direction became codified in Latin, including these numerals.) Fifty (that W looking symbol) over time slowly morphed to L, though the original symbol is &quot;well attested in Latin) (Keyser, 544).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keyser hypothesizes that the C shape came from an abbreviated form of Ж, partly due to the fact that &gt; was used for 1/2. The more rounded C shape then evolved under influence of *centum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1000 is easier to see. Keyser notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Etruscan ⊗ or ⊕ = 1000 became (X) when written quickly (note that O is a two-stroke character ( ) and the circle of ⊗ would no doubt be written as O as written). The form (X)...written cursively would lead naturally to the well-attested Latin form ∞. This &quot;horizontal-8&quot; figure can also appear in a &quot;compressed&quot; form oo which leads naturally to the well-attested formal Latin numeral ⌽. Although the development of Etruscan ⊗ to Latin ⌽ is not obvious at first glance, every step is attested in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Some of these characters, especialy 'oo' and '⌽', look different in Keyser's article, which I suggest everyone read.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, for 500, the older symbol was Ð, not D, which is, as it looks, half of ⊕." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4417" RevisionGUID="f1a82bfb-dc3c-4280-a805-12014d3141ed" CreationDate="2017-05-18T00:51:35.657" UserId="1638" Text="I'm just looking for an accurate translation before getting a tattoo. I don't trust Google Translate completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheers Mates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13526" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4417" RevisionGUID="f1a82bfb-dc3c-4280-a805-12014d3141ed" CreationDate="2017-05-18T00:51:35.657" UserId="1638" Text="Translation of &quot;May Change Nourish Me&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13527" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4417" RevisionGUID="f1a82bfb-dc3c-4280-a805-12014d3141ed" CreationDate="2017-05-18T00:51:35.657" UserId="1638" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4417" RevisionGUID="c28aa4ae-351e-4c84-8f25-8625ac97cd85" CreationDate="2017-05-18T01:50:12.230" UserId="1638" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="I'm just looking for an accurate translation before getting a tattoo. I don't trust Google Translate completely. &quot;Let Change Guide Me&quot; to is also a contender. &#xD;&#xA;Google says it's &quot;Mutatio Et Enutries Me&quot;..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheers Mates!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4418" RevisionGUID="0372ed42-35f2-40f6-92f5-7b37ad6f32f6" CreationDate="2017-05-18T03:03:32.953" UserId="136" Text="Alright, as was noted in the comments, there are rules guiding how you can ask translation questions, so sorry to be buzzkill, but make sure you adhere to those in the future. Let me start with the phrase you use in the question. Below is the English and the Latin translation I have come up with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; May Change Nourish Me&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Mutatio me alat* or *Mutatio me augeat*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Mutatio***- the nominative form, means &quot;change&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***me***- the accusative, means &quot;me&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***alat* or *augeat***- the active subjunctive third person singular, means &quot;nourish.&quot; *Alat* has a meaning closer to &quot;support&quot; or &quot;sustain,&quot; or *augeat* is closer to &quot;increase&quot; or &quot;strengthen&quot; so whatever context sounds better to you, go for it! *Augeat* (from *augeo*) is the source of the English word &quot;augment,&quot; and it has a similar connotation to it, while *alat* (from *alo*) has a closer connotation to eating food for nourishment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;For your other option, here is what I propose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; May Change Guide Me&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Mutatio me ducat*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also suggest as an option:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;May Change Drive Me&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Mutatio me agat*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck in your endeavor!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4419" RevisionGUID="ba74db35-d314-4205-b581-78efa6b33e87" CreationDate="2017-05-18T09:43:17.553" UserId="324" Text="faxim is (according to one theory) the subjunctive (historically: optative) of the old s-aorist; note that Old Latin also had an s-future faxō. There is a rather convoluted discussion of this in Sihler par. 502. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4420" RevisionGUID="1d8484ae-ecc2-46ba-afb7-8e109d6aa601" CreationDate="2017-05-18T12:18:55.020" UserId="78" Text="Sam K has given you a literal translation, but might I suggest something more pithy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fortior Mutatus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stronger [having been] Changed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be a past tense situation, in which the change has already occurred and you're stronger for it. The &quot;I am&quot; part is assumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's a complete life &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also do something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Alma Nova  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The nourishing new things&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would emphasize the nourishing aspect of what's new. The Latin verb *novare* (related to *nova*) has the connotations of change built in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the language of Statius (8.101-102), you could even have a full metaphor in place (depending on how much ink you want):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Novam lucem quae me alat complector.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I embrace the new light, which nourishes me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just some extra things to think about. Feel free to ask questions about any of the translations. A tattoo is a permanent thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FWIW, in ancient Rome, tattoos were used primarily to brand slaves (a big FVG for runaways, for example), though in later centuries soldiers got them on their hands, too. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4419" RevisionGUID="c7f529ec-b768-4310-990e-c56cbb5ad63b" CreationDate="2017-05-18T12:21:09.523" UserId="118" Comment="Link to Sihler §502 on Google Books; italics" Text="_faxim_ is (according to one theory) the subjunctive (historically: optative) of the old _s_-aorist; note that Old Latin also had an _s_-future _faxō._ There is a rather convoluted discussion of this in [Sihler §502](https://books.google.com/books?id=tcVTC9XJN-8C&amp;pg=PA558&amp;dq=faxo). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4421" RevisionGUID="e0a6e9b9-e8bd-4fb6-aee8-593c77a5a35e" CreationDate="2017-05-18T13:54:24.757" UserId="1224" Text="Medieval-esque phrases like &quot;habeo abire&quot; and &quot;is habet scire&quot; do not *break the rules* of Classical Latin, but I know that they were much more common afterward. This construction interests me greatly, because it's yet another &quot;weird English thing&quot; explained. However, as you might expect, it's quite difficult to search through an online corpus (if only *corpus* had a different accusative so that I could do a &quot;or shall I say&quot; thing) when the word *habere* has so many meanings. So my question is: how was &quot;have to&quot; used before the Middle Ages? Was it recorded at all? When was it first encountered? What were the opinions on it's usage at the time? I wouldn't consider these as multiple questions, but rather as suggestions for the ways in which one could answer my question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13534" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4421" RevisionGUID="e0a6e9b9-e8bd-4fb6-aee8-593c77a5a35e" CreationDate="2017-05-18T13:54:24.757" UserId="1224" Text="Usage of &quot;Have to&quot; Before The Middle Ages" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13535" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4421" RevisionGUID="e0a6e9b9-e8bd-4fb6-aee8-593c77a5a35e" CreationDate="2017-05-18T13:54:24.757" UserId="1224" Text="|word-choice|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4420" RevisionGUID="61a4f347-65ca-42c6-bfa2-91256d4abef9" CreationDate="2017-05-18T13:58:31.053" UserId="78" Comment="edited body" Text="Sam K has given you a literal translation, but might I suggest something more pithy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fortior Mutatus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stronger [having been] Changed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be a past tense situation, in which the change has already occurred and you're stronger for it. The &quot;I am&quot; part is assumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's a complete life &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also do something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Alma Nova  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The nourishing new things&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would emphasize the nourishing aspect of what's new. The Latin verb *novare* (related to *nova*) has the connotations of change built in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the language of Statius (8.101-102), you could even have a full metaphor in place (depending on how much ink you want):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Novam lucem quae me alit complector.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I embrace the new light, which nourishes me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just some extra things to think about. Feel free to ask questions about any of the translations. A tattoo is a permanent thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FWIW, in ancient Rome, tattoos were used primarily to brand slaves (a big FVG for runaways, for example), though in later centuries soldiers got them on their hands, too. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="789bdc97-b6c0-4442-92e8-49f96d31de8f" CreationDate="2017-05-18T15:08:09.717" UserId="1369" Text="The supine is, in fact, the remnant of a fourth-declension nominal form, a verbal noun which stood for the action itself. The [Plautine comedies still record an intermediate stage of this syntactical use](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0070%3Achapter%3D5%3Apara%3D42).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, we have accusative with _ire_, as in _ire obsonatum_ &quot;to go shopping&quot; or _ire venatum_ &quot;to go hunting&quot;. On the other hand, _redire_ takes the ablative, as in _obsonatu redire_ &quot;to return from hunting&quot;, while _habere_ takes the dative, as in _me... habes perditui et praedatui_ (here I confess my Latin isn't quite good enough to parse this pre-Classic prose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, it is clear that by Plautus's time, the Supine had several other uses which were mostly taken up by Classical times by the Infinitive and the Gerund.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4182" RevisionGUID="af6d0b8a-4e7e-4b8b-ae38-573b876ede9c" CreationDate="2017-05-18T15:33:48.517" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="I asked [yesterday about the word *venatu*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4177/79).&#xD;&#xA;There was a good answer and good comments, but I want to ask a broader related question more specifically &amp;mdash; especially due to TKR's comment.&#xD;&#xA;I want to know how the supine (eg. *venatum* and *venatu*) is related to the derived fourth declension noun (eg. *venatus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are the supine and the noun related historically? If so, how? If not,&#xD;&#xA; why so?&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Is there a reason not to consider the supine just as two forms of the noun?&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- When did grammarians first make the distinction, if ever? That is, when where the supine and the noun considered as separate entities, assuming they weren't originally?&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that some common uses of the noun developed into something that was later considered independent of the noun.&#xD;&#xA;But this is just a guess without any details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I have no trouble reading *difficile dictu* (difficult to say) or *te dictum misi* (I sent you to speak) as if they had the noun *dictus*.&#xD;&#xA;I find the lack of preposition with the accusative a little odd in this reading, but only a little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Any Roman remarks on the matter would be interesting.&#xD;&#xA;But if there are too many, I can split this into a separate question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4423" RevisionGUID="a9d15f52-2fe5-4c3e-9d30-52d366dea484" CreationDate="2017-05-18T16:30:56.517" UserId="118" Text="Inspired by the other answers and your comment that &quot;I am at a point where I want to embrace [change] rather than run from it&quot;, here's another idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Complectere mutationem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's in the imperative mood: &quot;Embrace change&quot;. Declaratively, as a motto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mutatio amplectenda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Change is to be embraced/cherished.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are along the line of a [_Memento mori_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_mori) bracelet, that is, a reminder that you carry with you at all times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than expressing a hope or a reminder, another variation is to state the desired attitude as a fact already accomplished. Some people consider this more psychologically powerful. That suggests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mutatione alitus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Nourished by change.&quot; That might be suitable for a tattoo, since it's written right on you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more variation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mutatio mihi est alimentum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Change is my nourishment&quot; or literally &quot;Change, to me, is nourishment.&quot; Someone whose Latin is more solid than mine should confirm if it's still clear without _est,_ which might sound more epigrammatic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mutatio mihi alimentum." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4423" RevisionGUID="36736006-56b8-4b4a-9165-7202a119ccd0" CreationDate="2017-05-18T16:39:07.500" UserId="118" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="Inspired by the other answers and your comment that &quot;I am at a point where I want to embrace [change] rather than run from it&quot;, here's another idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Complectere mutationem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's in the imperative mood: &quot;Embrace change&quot;. Declaratively, as a motto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mutatio amplectenda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Change is to be embraced/cherished.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are along the line of a [_Memento mori_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_mori) bracelet, that is, a reminder that you carry with you at all times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than expressing a hope or a reminder, another variation is to state the desired attitude as a fact already accomplished. Some people consider this more psychologically powerful. That suggests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mutatione alitus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Nourished by change.&quot; That might be especially suitable for a tattoo, being written right on you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more variation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mutatio mihi est alimentum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Change is my nourishment&quot; or literally &quot;Change, to me, is nourishment.&quot; Someone whose Latin is more solid than mine should confirm if it's still clear without _est,_ which might sound more epigrammatic, maybe as two lines in Roman capitals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MVTATIO MIHI&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br/&gt; ALIMENTVM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4417" RevisionGUID="49099acd-430a-4e10-9955-db1bae553932" CreationDate="2017-05-18T16:40:04.820" UserId="79" Comment="added 457 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm just looking for an accurate translation before getting a tattoo. I don't trust Google Translate completely. &quot;Let Change Guide Me&quot; to is also a contender. &#xD;&#xA;Google says it's &quot;Mutatio Et Enutries Me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context is that I am a person who often fears change and I am at a point where I want to embrace it rather than run from it. Embracing change or not fearing change is ultimately the message I wish to convey.&#xD;&#xA; 		&#xD;&#xA;I want to make sure that what I get permanently inked on my body is grammatically correct in Latin. Unfortunately I know nothing of Latin. I'm just trying to make sure I'm not one of those people who gets ink in another language that doesn't make sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13546" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4417" RevisionGUID="49099acd-430a-4e10-9955-db1bae553932" CreationDate="2017-05-18T16:40:04.820" UserId="79" Comment="added 457 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4421" RevisionGUID="83b0e92e-3a64-4fca-b346-727e4ea7ed3e" CreationDate="2017-05-18T17:00:40.000" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Medieval-esque phrases like &quot;habeo abire&quot; and &quot;is habet scire&quot; do not *break the rules* of Classical Latin, but I know that they were much more common afterward. This construction interests me greatly, because it's yet another &quot;weird English thing&quot; explained. However, as you might expect, it's quite difficult to search through an online corpus (if only *corpus* had a different accusative so that I could do a &quot;or shall I say&quot; thing) when the word *habere* has so many meanings. So my question is: how was &quot;have to&quot; used before the Middle Ages? Was it recorded at all? When was it first encountered? What were the opinions on it's usage at the time? I wouldn't consider these as multiple questions, but rather as suggestions for the ways in which one could answer my question.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13548" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4421" RevisionGUID="83b0e92e-3a64-4fca-b346-727e4ea7ed3e" CreationDate="2017-05-18T17:00:40.000" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Usage of &quot;Have to&quot; before The Middle Ages" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13549" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4421" RevisionGUID="83b0e92e-3a64-4fca-b346-727e4ea7ed3e" CreationDate="2017-05-18T17:00:40.000" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|syntax|language-evolution|word-choice|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4424" RevisionGUID="8e0cfa8d-6a72-499d-9900-e02b3e8a790b" CreationDate="2017-05-18T23:34:01.033" UserId="1639" Text="I'm really struggling with a passage in a 12th century manuscript extolling the virtues of studying astrology that I'm working on for my thesis. The sentence is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*De huius utilitate autem superfluum esset agere cum ista hominem super hominem efferens futuraram ac omnium a natura absconditorum precium efficiat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The previous sentences explained that though its study was hard work, it was worthwhile, and this sentence is expanding on that. I'm confused as to what the subject and object are in the sentence - efficiat seems to be the main verb and I assume that precium (reward) is the object. I'm also assuming that superfluum is a noun (surplus) here, and Whitaker's tells me that agere with cum means &quot;spends time&quot; rather than its usual meaning (though does that mean cum doesn't take the ablative in that case, because I can't see an ablative here?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt at translating it is pretty muddled - I have something along these lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the usefulness of this surplus would be to spend time so that a man over man brings out the [events of the] future, and all hidden things by birth/nature are its reward. I think the gist of it is that it's worth spending time studying because the reward is the ability to see hidden and future events, but I'm puzzling about the structure of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hominem super hominem is confusing me in particular - I know super takes the accusative, but why is the first hominem also accusative? Is it somehow the object of efficiat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions very gratefully accepted!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chris." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13552" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4424" RevisionGUID="8e0cfa8d-6a72-499d-9900-e02b3e8a790b" CreationDate="2017-05-18T23:34:01.033" UserId="1639" Text="Hominem super hominem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13553" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4424" RevisionGUID="8e0cfa8d-6a72-499d-9900-e02b3e8a790b" CreationDate="2017-05-18T23:34:01.033" UserId="1639" Text="|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4425" RevisionGUID="0877bf31-8e09-4957-8db8-c35d8bd2f801" CreationDate="2017-05-19T00:01:00.060" UserId="45" Text="The word *futuraram* is not well-formed: the closest form is *futurarum* (feminine genitive plural) but actually *futurorum* (masculine genitive plural) is the only form that seems to make sense in context to me. Others may disagree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found an M.Phil. dissertation by Nicholas Whyte which transcribes it in this same way, so I suspect that you may have taken it from there. Either way, it is most certainly a typo, or the work of someone who does not understand Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Amending thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De huius utilitate autem superfluum esset agere cum ista hominem super hominem efferens futuraram ac omnium a natura absconditorum precium efficiat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reading is fairly straightforward with this amendment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But it would be unnecessary to speak of the utility of this thing [= astrology], since it brings about the reward of [knowing] all things that are to come and that are hidden from nature, elevating man above man.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is classic *praetermissio* in the style of Cicero: &quot;I will not speak of X, since it so obvious...but here you go anyway!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *agere de aliquo* means &quot;to treat about something&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* *cum* is introducing a causal relation: &quot;since, because&quot;. In this use, it takes the present subjunctive, *efficiat*&#xD;&#xA;* *effero* means to &quot;elevate&quot;: in this case, it means to &quot;elevate man above man&quot; = &quot;allow man to exceed his natural abilities&quot;. This is a participle, modifying *ista*, independent of what comes after.&#xD;&#xA;* *pretium +* genitive + *efficere* means &quot;to bring the reward of...&quot; In my reading, &quot;knowledge&quot; is just understood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4424" RevisionGUID="80df7787-e7b7-42f3-aebc-31746ff44938" CreationDate="2017-05-19T00:52:03.000" UserId="136" Comment="Separated translation of quote from personal comments about said translation, and put translation in blockquotes" Text="I'm really struggling with a passage in a 12th century manuscript extolling the virtues of studying astrology that I'm working on for my thesis. The sentence is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*De huius utilitate autem superfluum esset agere cum ista hominem super hominem efferens futuraram ac omnium a natura absconditorum precium efficiat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The previous sentences explained that though its study was hard work, it was worthwhile, and this sentence is expanding on that. I'm confused as to what the subject and object are in the sentence - efficiat seems to be the main verb and I assume that precium (reward) is the object. I'm also assuming that superfluum is a noun (surplus) here, and Whitaker's tells me that agere with cum means &quot;spends time&quot; rather than its usual meaning (though does that mean cum doesn't take the ablative in that case, because I can't see an ablative here?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt at translating it is pretty muddled - I have something along these lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Concerning the usefulness of this surplus would be to spend time so&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that a man over man brings out the [events of the] future, and all&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hidden things by birth/nature are its reward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the gist of it is that it's worth spending time studying because the reward is the ability to see hidden and future events, but I'm puzzling about the structure of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hominem super hominem is confusing me in particular - I know super takes the accusative, but why is the first hominem also accusative? Is it somehow the object of efficiat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions very gratefully accepted!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chris." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13556" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1607" RevisionGUID="539c29a7-5f9f-4de3-9918-ab67dce628fb" CreationDate="2017-05-19T03:13:49.370" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|idiom|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13557" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1595" RevisionGUID="53fc04a4-339e-4e16-870e-b5a442d9230a" CreationDate="2017-05-19T03:18:34.193" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|meaning|nuance|adverb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1530" RevisionGUID="5e3d09de-1346-4e61-a9f6-bbbe78e29cad" CreationDate="2017-05-19T03:22:15.400" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted Wikipedia link." Text="Both my English-Latin Dictionaries suggest **Laganum** (plural Lagana).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Smith: *laganun ex ovo frictum*  [explic. pancake (made with egg) fried.]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Ainsworth: *laganum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like &quot;Crêpe&quot; it is a borrowed word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  λάγανον, τό,      A a thin broad cake, of meal and oil,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [Henry George Liddell; Robert Scott \[1940\]][1],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A cookery site adds:][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's entirely possible that Laganum evolved into different forms in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; different parts of the Roman Empire, at different times, and even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; continued evolving after the fall of official Rome&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vicipǽdia mentions *laganum* briefly on the page for&#xD;&#xA;[***lucunculus***](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucunculus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are no related words for the crêperie or the cook. Perhaps  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Kitchen ***culina*** f. or  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Pistor,** baker.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **pistrina,** bakery  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **pistrilla,** a small bakery&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.42:2:55.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cooksinfo.com/laganum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13559" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1528" RevisionGUID="cfe4fd0a-89b2-456c-a285-d9c8373718b9" CreationDate="2017-05-19T03:22:37.773" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1489" RevisionGUID="a8fac672-ec8c-4cac-88f6-95ad7fd49e6a" CreationDate="2017-05-19T03:25:24.887" UserId="79" Comment="added 21 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I wrote up a lengthy question to ask here, but my computer crashed and I lost it.&#xD;&#xA;Instead of reproducing the question just now, I would like to know how to describe the situation in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The only thing I am missing is a good verb for crashing.&#xD;&#xA;Which word should I use and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best guess now is *mugire*, so I might write something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Computatrum meum mugivit, et ita rogatum meum amisi.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13561" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1489" RevisionGUID="a8fac672-ec8c-4cac-88f6-95ad7fd49e6a" CreationDate="2017-05-19T03:25:24.887" UserId="79" Comment="added 21 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|verbs|contemporary-latin|technology|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4425" RevisionGUID="de172d3d-f58f-44b2-b3f2-4220195c0e93" CreationDate="2017-05-19T03:25:34.737" UserId="45" Comment="edited body" Text="The word *futuraram* is not well-formed: the closest correct form is *futurarum* (feminine genitive plural) but actually *futurorum* (masculine genitive plural) is the only form that seems to make sense in context to me. Others may disagree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found an M.Phil. dissertation by Nicholas Whyte which transcribes it in this same way, so I suspect that you may have taken it from there. Either way, it is most certainly a typo, or the work of someone who does not understand Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Amending thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De huius utilitate autem superfluum esset agere cum ista hominem super hominem efferens futurorum ac omnium a natura absconditorum precium efficiat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reading is fairly straightforward with this amendment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But it would be unnecessary to speak of the utility of this thing [= astrology], since it brings about the reward of [knowing] future things and all things that are hidden from nature, elevating man above man.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is classic *praetermissio* in the style of Cicero: &quot;I will not speak of X, since it is so obvious...but here you go anyway!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *agere de aliquo* means &quot;to treat about something&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* *cum* is introducing a causal relation: &quot;since, because&quot;. In this use, it takes the present subjunctive, *efficiat*&#xD;&#xA;* *effero* means to &quot;elevate&quot;: in this case, it means to &quot;elevate man above man&quot; = &quot;allow man to exceed his natural abilities&quot;. This is a participle, modifying *ista*, independent of what comes after.&#xD;&#xA;* *pretium +* genitive + *efficere* means &quot;to bring the reward of...&quot; In my reading, &quot;knowledge&quot; is understood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1503" RevisionGUID="edfa0688-6218-49d0-8fd3-0e7349461201" CreationDate="2017-05-19T03:26:11.123" UserId="79" Comment="The @ has no effect in questions or answers." Text="[This][1] was cited in [the answer][2] to a recent question as the _de facto standard for Latin technology vocabulary_ by C. M. Weimer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acording to it, the verbs _corruo_ and _collabor_ are enough for a _soft_ crash. L&amp;S cites [corruo][3] as _to fall, sink to the ground_ and with an active meaning of someone _to ruin_ sth. Meanwhile, [collabor][4] is more explicit in meaning _to fall in ruins_ (for buildings, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess as a choice to more properly mean that it was not just a matter of restarting your computer is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Computatrum meum collapsit_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.obta.uw.edu.pl/~draco/docs/voccomp.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/196/latin-word-for-code-or-program-the-verb&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcorruo&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcollabor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1473" RevisionGUID="5ff58d9f-f4d4-429a-8b62-d66aee1cd4b5" CreationDate="2017-05-19T03:31:09.800" UserId="79" Comment="added 91 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The expression &quot;with respect to&quot; is common in mathematics.&#xD;&#xA;Consider these example sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The derivative of `x^2y` with respect to `y` is `x^2`.&#xD;&#xA;2. Let us reflect the point `A` with respect to the line `L` and call the new point `B`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This SE site doesn't support MathJax, so I'm not formatting the formulas at all. Using dollars would probably confuse users here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to be able to translate these sentences like these in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I believe such things can be found in scientific texts written in Latin, but I am not familiar with this literature.&#xD;&#xA;**Is there an attested Latin idiom for the mathematical &quot;with respect to&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By best guess is *respectu* with genitive.&#xD;&#xA;Using my examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Derivativus expressionis `x^2y` respectu (variabilis) `y` est `x^2`.&#xD;&#xA;2. Punctum `A` reflectimus respectu lineae `L` et punctum novum `B` appellamus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I later asked a separate [question about reading mathematics out loud in Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1937/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My feeling is that using a mere preposition or case is not enough.&#xD;&#xA;(Although in a sense the whole &quot;with respect to&quot; is a preposition.)&#xD;&#xA;As a mathematician myself, I find it beneficial to have a somewhat heavier structure to make it more easily recognizable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13565" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1473" RevisionGUID="5ff58d9f-f4d4-429a-8b62-d66aee1cd4b5" CreationDate="2017-05-19T03:31:09.800" UserId="79" Comment="added 91 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|idiom|preposition|science|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4424" RevisionGUID="27290bc2-2d6a-478f-9124-4afd35fea460" CreationDate="2017-05-19T04:16:13.680" UserId="79" Comment="added 28 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm really struggling with a passage in a 12th century manuscript extolling the virtues of studying astrology that I'm working on for my thesis. The sentence is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *De huius utilitate autem superfluum esset agere cum ista hominem super hominem efferens futuraram ac omnium a natura absconditorum precium efficiat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The previous sentences explained that though its study was hard work, it was worthwhile, and this sentence is expanding on that. I'm confused as to what the subject and object are in the sentence &amp;mdash; *efficiat* seems to be the main verb and I assume that *precium* (reward) is the object. I'm also assuming that *superfluum* is a noun (surplus) here, and Whitaker's tells me that *agere* with *cum* means &quot;spends time&quot; rather than its usual meaning (though does that mean *cum* doesn't take the ablative in that case, because I can't see an ablative here?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt at translating it is pretty muddled &amp;mdash; I have something along these lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Concerning the usefulness of this surplus would be to spend time so&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that a man over man brings out the [events of the] future, and all&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hidden things by birth/nature are its reward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the gist of it is that it's worth spending time studying because the reward is the ability to see hidden and future events, but I'm puzzling about the structure of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Hominem super hominem* is confusing me in particular &amp;mdash; I know super takes the accusative, but why is the first *hominem* also accusative? Is it somehow the object of *efficiat*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions very gratefully accepted!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13567" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4424" RevisionGUID="27290bc2-2d6a-478f-9124-4afd35fea460" CreationDate="2017-05-19T04:16:13.680" UserId="79" Comment="added 28 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|medieval-latin|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4425" RevisionGUID="f02d5e8b-5e6d-4bac-9a69-d8e86e1418c6" CreationDate="2017-05-19T14:03:34.623" UserId="45" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="The word *futuraram* is not well-formed: the closest correct form is *futurarum* (feminine genitive plural) but actually *futurorum* (masculine genitive plural) is the only form that seems to make sense in context to me. It is possible that it means *futurarum [rerum]* (&quot;of future things&quot;)--a phrase often used by Cicero, without the ellipsis--but it comes out to the same thing. It's a moot point, unless you have access to the actual manuscript.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found an M.Phil. dissertation by Nicholas Whyte which transcribes it in this same way, so I suspect that you may have taken it from there. Either way, it is most certainly a typo, or the work of someone who does not understand Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Amending thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De huius utilitate autem superfluum esset agere cum ista hominem super hominem efferens futurorum ac omnium a natura absconditorum precium efficiat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reading is fairly straightforward with this amendment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But it would be unnecessary to speak of the utility of this thing [= astrology], since it brings about the reward of [knowing] future things and all things that are hidden from nature, elevating man above man.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is classic *praetermissio* in the style of Cicero: &quot;I will not speak of X, since it is so obvious...but here you go anyway!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *agere de aliquo* means &quot;to treat about something&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* *cum* is introducing a causal relation: &quot;since, because&quot;. In this use, it takes the present subjunctive, *efficiat*&#xD;&#xA;* *effero* means to &quot;elevate&quot;: in this case, it means to &quot;elevate man above man&quot; = &quot;allow man to exceed his natural abilities&quot;. This is a participle, modifying *ista*, independent of what comes after.&#xD;&#xA;* *pretium +* genitive + *efficere* means &quot;to bring the reward of...&quot; In my reading, &quot;knowledge&quot; is understood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4310" RevisionGUID="b1596ba2-5de5-43d6-9069-a4cde7cbf3ce" CreationDate="2017-05-19T19:19:40.143" UserDisplayName="user761" Comment="added 160 characters in body" Text="I'm studying Arabic grammar from an old text book and it uses the term Spiritus Lenis. What does it mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To quote the book:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The object of it is merely to distinguish elif as the long vowel (ie lam-elif) from the elif as the spiritus lenis (elif with hamza)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4426" RevisionGUID="cccaf6ba-6ff5-41ea-a05d-faf83bf1b44f" CreationDate="2017-05-20T01:33:06.653" UserId="235" Text="I was translating this verse, and although I came up with several candidates for translating *vindice*, I am still not sure about the intended meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aurea prima sata est aetas, quae vindice nullo,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; sponte sua, sine lege fidem rectumque colebat. [(Met. 1.89-90)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First was sown the golden age, which, with no protector,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; of its own will fostered faith and virtue without law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the intended meaning of this word &quot;protector&quot;? Or is it more specific, e.g. &quot;government&quot;? How would you translate *vindice*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0029%3Abook%3D1%3Acard%3D89" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13572" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4426" RevisionGUID="cccaf6ba-6ff5-41ea-a05d-faf83bf1b44f" CreationDate="2017-05-20T01:33:06.653" UserId="235" Text="What's the best translation of &quot;vindice&quot; in Met. 1.89?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13573" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4426" RevisionGUID="cccaf6ba-6ff5-41ea-a05d-faf83bf1b44f" CreationDate="2017-05-20T01:33:06.653" UserId="235" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4427" RevisionGUID="d6d0b865-fe80-4826-9afd-b6c9ffca6520" CreationDate="2017-05-20T01:45:51.633" UserId="30" Text="I think *protector* is fine and understandable. Normally a good thing needs to be protected in order to prosper, and *vindex* is not seldom so translated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word comes from *vim* &quot;force&quot; and *dico* &quot;say, tell, proclaim&quot;, resulting in a basic meaning &quot;to assert authority, to enforce&quot;. The translation &quot;enforcer&quot; therefore comes to mind first. But there must be something that is to be enforced, which is absent here: the *aurea aetas* itself is a situation, not a law. I think that is why the translator chose *protector* (are you he?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to &quot;government&quot;, I think that is too specific. The Latin word is not so specific." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4428" RevisionGUID="ccbc3283-0e53-48ef-875f-16aba6bf7bc3" CreationDate="2017-05-20T03:06:15.620" UserId="1224" Text="No matter the language, it seems as if the perfect tenses (except for the future perfect) can be replaced with the imperfect. In translation, why do these sets of tenses have different meaning? I don't understand their difference other than the way they're worded. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, I see example sentences on dictionary sites with translations aside them. They'll have an English imperfect rendered by a Latin perfect/pluperfect. Are there situations in which a phrase should be translated in a different tense than its equivalent in another language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13576" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4428" RevisionGUID="ccbc3283-0e53-48ef-875f-16aba6bf7bc3" CreationDate="2017-05-20T03:06:15.620" UserId="1224" Text="When should the perfect tenses be used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13577" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4428" RevisionGUID="ccbc3283-0e53-48ef-875f-16aba6bf7bc3" CreationDate="2017-05-20T03:06:15.620" UserId="1224" Text="|grammar-choice|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4426" RevisionGUID="648e1922-416c-40b2-8068-fc4129577ab2" CreationDate="2017-05-20T05:03:55.110" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I was translating this verse, and although I came up with several candidates for translating *vindice*, I am still not sure about the intended meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aurea prima sata est aetas, quae vindice nullo,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; sponte sua, sine lege fidem rectumque colebat. [(Met. 1.89&amp;ndash;90)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First was sown the golden age, which, with no protector,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; of its own will fostered faith and virtue without law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the intended meaning of this word &quot;protector&quot;? Or is it more specific, e.g. &quot;government&quot;? How would you translate *vindice*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0029%3Abook%3D1%3Acard%3D89" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13580" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4426" RevisionGUID="648e1922-416c-40b2-8068-fc4129577ab2" CreationDate="2017-05-20T05:03:55.110" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|meaning|ovidius|metamorphoses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4429" RevisionGUID="efff1394-0f0c-4c52-b843-7cecc8cc3d84" CreationDate="2017-05-20T06:08:31.967" UserId="235" Text="I came across a passage that is quite difficult to understand. Unlike most passages that I ask about, it is hard for me to make an attempt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nondum caesa suis, peregrinum ut viseret orbem,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; montibus in liquidas pinus descenderat undas,                  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; nullaque mortales praeter sua litora norant;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Charles Martin translates it like this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As yet no pine tree on its mountaintop  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; had been chopped down and fitted out to ship  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; for foreign lands; men kept to their own shores;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if anyone could give a word-by-word translation, to help make sense of the passage. I'll share the observations I have already made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Nondum ... pinus = As yet no  pine tree&#xD;&#xA; - nullaque mortales praeter sua litora norant = men knew nothing beyond their shores&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two clauses are what trouble me (&quot;nondum...undas&quot;). Could anyone help me make sense of these clauses? Are there are any details or constructions that might illuminate the passage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13582" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4429" RevisionGUID="efff1394-0f0c-4c52-b843-7cecc8cc3d84" CreationDate="2017-05-20T06:08:31.967" UserId="235" Text="How to translate these few lines? Met. 1.94-96" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13583" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4429" RevisionGUID="efff1394-0f0c-4c52-b843-7cecc8cc3d84" CreationDate="2017-05-20T06:08:31.967" UserId="235" Text="|translation|ovidius|metamorphoses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13584" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4429" RevisionGUID="1559427a-8604-4421-bbfb-dfd938ddf72c" CreationDate="2017-05-20T06:27:33.427" UserId="235" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|translation|ovidius|metamorphoses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4430" RevisionGUID="378fdb17-58b6-4a55-8c2e-9da89c1df2c6" CreationDate="2017-05-20T06:30:22.960" UserId="79" Text="Let me offer a translation attempt piece by piece.&#xD;&#xA;My translations are not perfectly literal, but the way I build it up should clarify what it each Latin word does.&#xD;&#xA;I reordered the words to make the organization clearer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus descenderat.*  &#xD;&#xA;No pine had yet gone down.&#xD;&#xA;2. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus montibus descenderat in liquidas undas.*  &#xD;&#xA;No pine had yet gone down from the mountains to the liquid waves.&#xD;&#xA;3. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus caesa suis montibus descenderat in liquidas undas.*  &#xD;&#xA;No cut-down pine had yet gone down from the mountains to the liquid waves.  &#xD;&#xA;(Alternative reading: *pinus caesa (a) suis* = &quot;pine, which had been cut by the local people&quot;. In this reading *suis* is an agent for *caesa*, not an attribute of *montibus*.)&#xD;&#xA;4. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus caesa suis montibus descenderat in liquidas undas, ut viseret peregrinum orbem.*  &#xD;&#xA;No cut-down pine had yet gone down from the mountains to the liquid waves, so that it would visit a foreign land.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third line is a separate remark:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. &#xD;&#xA;*Et mortales nulla litora praeter sua no(ve)rant.*  &#xD;&#xA;And mortals did not know other shores than their own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13586" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4429" RevisionGUID="bb552d7e-ba6f-42b1-9b0c-3987a1e2a4b1" CreationDate="2017-05-20T06:32:07.720" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="How to translate these few lines? Met. 1.94–96" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13587" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4429" RevisionGUID="bb552d7e-ba6f-42b1-9b0c-3987a1e2a4b1" CreationDate="2017-05-20T06:32:07.720" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|classical-latin|poetry|ovidius|metamorphoses|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4430" RevisionGUID="43cf839c-1611-4158-a19e-d6f1fa3aea25" CreationDate="2017-05-20T06:34:36.197" UserId="79" Comment="added 293 characters in body" Text="Let me offer a translation attempt piece by piece.&#xD;&#xA;My translations are not perfectly literal, but the way I build it up should clarify what it each Latin word does.&#xD;&#xA;I reordered the words to make the organization clearer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus descenderat.*  &#xD;&#xA;No pine had yet gone down.&#xD;&#xA;2. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus montibus descenderat in liquidas undas.*  &#xD;&#xA;No pine had yet gone down from the mountains to the liquid waves.&#xD;&#xA;3. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus caesa suis montibus descenderat in liquidas undas.*  &#xD;&#xA;No cut-down pine had yet gone down from the mountains to the liquid waves.  &#xD;&#xA;(Alternative reading: *pinus caesa (a) suis* = &quot;pine, which had been cut by the local people&quot;. In this reading *suis* is an agent for *caesa*, not an attribute of *montibus*.)&#xD;&#xA;4. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus caesa suis montibus descenderat in liquidas undas, ut viseret peregrinum orbem.*  &#xD;&#xA;No cut-down pine had yet gone down from the mountains to the liquid waves, so that it would visit a foreign land.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third line is a separate remark:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. &#xD;&#xA;*Et mortales nulla litora praeter sua no(ve)rant.*  &#xD;&#xA;And mortals did not know other shores than their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Martin's translation suggests that *suis* refers to something mentioned before, whence *(de) suis montibus* means &quot;from its mountaintops&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This makes sense, but I cannot judge that based on the three lines alone.&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, my translation seems to agree content-wise with Martin's." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4430" RevisionGUID="43d8cd0e-0b93-41bc-a394-3d901c0f225d" CreationDate="2017-05-20T06:44:45.500" UserId="79" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="Let me offer a translation attempt piece by piece.&#xD;&#xA;My translations are not perfectly literal, but the way I build it up should clarify what it each Latin word does.&#xD;&#xA;I reordered the words to make the organization clearer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus descenderat.*  &#xD;&#xA;No pine had yet gone down.&#xD;&#xA;2. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus montibus descenderat in liquidas undas.*  &#xD;&#xA;No pine had yet gone down from the mountains to the liquid waves.&#xD;&#xA;3. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus caesa suis montibus descenderat in liquidas undas.*  &#xD;&#xA;No cut-down pine had yet gone down from the mountains to the liquid waves.  &#xD;&#xA;(Alternative reading: *pinus caesa (a) suis* = &quot;pine, which had been cut by the local people&quot;. In this reading *suis* is an agent for *caesa*, not an attribute of *montibus*.)&#xD;&#xA;4. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus caesa suis montibus descenderat in liquidas undas, ut viseret peregrinum orbem.*  &#xD;&#xA;No cut-down pine had yet gone down from the mountains to the liquid waves, so that it would visit a foreign land.  &#xD;&#xA;(More literally: *orbis peregrinus* = &quot;the foreign world&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third line is a separate remark:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. &#xD;&#xA;*Et mortales nulla litora praeter sua no(ve)rant.*  &#xD;&#xA;And mortals did not know other shores than their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Martin's translation suggests that *suis* refers to something mentioned before, whence *(de) suis montibus* means &quot;from its mountaintops&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This makes sense, but I cannot judge that based on the three lines alone.&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, my translation seems to agree content-wise with Martin's." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4430" RevisionGUID="ce6f95ae-e83b-4b6a-bb28-be34df5db7a3" CreationDate="2017-05-20T07:12:40.447" UserId="79" Comment="added 353 characters in body" Text="Let me offer a translation attempt piece by piece.&#xD;&#xA;My translations are not perfectly literal, but the way I build it up should clarify what it each Latin word does.&#xD;&#xA;I reordered the words to make the organization clearer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus descenderat.*  &#xD;&#xA;No pine had yet gone down.&#xD;&#xA;2. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus montibus descenderat in liquidas undas.*  &#xD;&#xA;No pine had yet gone down from the mountains to the liquid waves.&#xD;&#xA;3. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus caesa suis montibus descenderat in liquidas undas.*  &#xD;&#xA;No cut-down pine had yet gone down from its mountains to the liquid waves.&#xD;&#xA; - Alternative reading: *pinus caesa (a) suis* = &quot;pine, which had been cut by the local people&quot;. In this reading *suis* is an agent for *caesa*, not an attribute of *montibus*.&#xD;&#xA; - Second alternative reading&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;: Maybe *suis* refers to something mentioned earlier instead of *pinus*, perhaps an area. I would have expected *eius* instead, but this could be accounted to poetic freedom. The English translation would still be &quot;its mountains&quot;, but &quot;it&quot; would mean something else.&#xD;&#xA;4. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus caesa suis montibus descenderat in liquidas undas, ut viseret peregrinum orbem.*  &#xD;&#xA;No cut-down pine had yet gone down from its mountains to the liquid waves, so that it would visit a foreign land.  &#xD;&#xA;(More literally: *orbis peregrinus* = &quot;the foreign world&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third line is a separate remark:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. &#xD;&#xA;*Et mortales nulla litora praeter sua no(ve)rant.*  &#xD;&#xA;And mortals did not know other shores than their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation seems to agree content-wise with Martin's, but the overall composition and choices of words are different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot judge the plausibility of this reading based on the three lines alone.&#xD;&#xA;I suggest including a link to a longer passage or the whole poem for further context in case it is needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4430" RevisionGUID="740d71a6-e289-4a2f-82b6-5bb29be3628c" CreationDate="2017-05-20T07:20:55.390" UserId="79" Comment="added 353 characters in body" Text="Let me offer a translation attempt piece by piece.&#xD;&#xA;My translations are not perfectly literal, but the way I build it up should clarify what it each Latin word does.&#xD;&#xA;I reordered the words to make the organization clearer.&#xD;&#xA;It has proven quite useful to try to identify the core clause and expand little by little in both languages at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus descenderat.*  &#xD;&#xA;No pine had yet gone down.&#xD;&#xA;2. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus (de) montibus descenderat in liquidas undas.*  &#xD;&#xA;No pine had yet gone down from the mountains to the liquid waves.&#xD;&#xA;3. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus caesa suis montibus descenderat in liquidas undas.*  &#xD;&#xA;No cut-down pine had yet gone down from its mountains to the liquid waves.&#xD;&#xA; - Alternative reading: *pinus caesa (a) suis* = &quot;pine, which had been cut by the local people&quot;. In this reading *suis* is an agent for *caesa*, not an attribute of *montibus*.&#xD;&#xA; - Second alternative reading&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;: Maybe *suis* refers to something mentioned earlier instead of *pinus*, perhaps an area. I would have expected *eius* instead, but this could be accounted to poetic freedom. The English translation would still be &quot;its mountains&quot;, but &quot;it&quot; would mean something else.&#xD;&#xA;4. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus caesa suis montibus descenderat in liquidas undas, ut viseret peregrinum orbem.*  &#xD;&#xA;No cut-down pine had yet gone down from its mountains to the liquid waves, so that it would visit a foreign land.  &#xD;&#xA;(More literally: *orbis peregrinus* = &quot;the foreign world&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third line is a separate remark:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. &#xD;&#xA;*Et mortales nulla litora praeter sua no(ve)rant.*  &#xD;&#xA;And mortals did not know other shores than their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation seems to agree content-wise with Martin's, but the overall composition and choices of words are different.&#xD;&#xA;Here is a literal complete translation with more fluent English than in my step-by-step translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No pine had yet been cut down from its mountains into the water to visit foreign lands, and no mortal knew of shores other than their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot judge the plausibility of this reading based on the three lines alone.&#xD;&#xA;I suggest including a link to a longer passage or the whole poem for further context in case it is needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4430" RevisionGUID="4bf00d42-7fd2-4ca9-951c-f18a8b5658de" CreationDate="2017-05-20T07:44:44.200" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Let me offer a translation attempt piece by piece.&#xD;&#xA;My translations are not perfectly literal, but the way I build it up should clarify what it each Latin word does.&#xD;&#xA;I reordered the words to make the organization clearer.&#xD;&#xA;It has proven quite useful to try to identify the core clause and expand little by little in both languages at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus descenderat.*  &#xD;&#xA;No pine had yet gone down.&#xD;&#xA;2. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus (de) montibus descenderat in liquidas undas.*  &#xD;&#xA;No pine had yet gone down from the mountains to the liquid waves.&#xD;&#xA;3. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus caesa suis montibus descenderat in liquidas undas.*  &#xD;&#xA;No cut-down pine had yet gone down from its mountains to the liquid waves.&#xD;&#xA; - Alternative reading: *pinus caesa (a) suis* = &quot;pine, which had been cut by the local people&quot;. In this reading *suis* is an agent for *caesa*, not an attribute of *montibus*.&#xD;&#xA; - Second alternative reading&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;: Maybe *suis* refers to something mentioned earlier instead of *pinus*, perhaps an area. I would have expected *eius* instead, but this could be accounted to poetic freedom. The English translation would still be &quot;its mountains&quot;, but &quot;it&quot; would mean something else.&#xD;&#xA;4. &#xD;&#xA;*Nondum pinus caesa suis montibus descenderat in liquidas undas, ut viseret peregrinum orbem.*  &#xD;&#xA;No cut-down pine had yet gone down from its mountains to the liquid waves, so that it would visit a foreign land.&#xD;&#xA; - More literally: *orbis peregrinus* = &quot;the foreign world&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third line is a separate remark:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. &#xD;&#xA;*Et mortales nulla litora praeter sua no(ve)rant.*  &#xD;&#xA;And mortals did not know other shores than their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation seems to agree content-wise with Martin's, but the overall composition and choices of words are different.&#xD;&#xA;Here is a literal complete translation with more fluent English than in my step-by-step translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No pine had yet been cut down from its mountains into the water to visit foreign lands, and no mortal knew of shores other than their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot judge the plausibility of this reading based on the three lines alone.&#xD;&#xA;I suggest including a link to a longer passage or the whole poem for further context in case it is needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4431" RevisionGUID="e15e62d8-b78f-4a1d-92fa-c4f820740783" CreationDate="2017-05-20T17:41:44.890" UserId="243" Text="I have been given as an exercise this sentence to translate into Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The soldier arrived in Herculaneum, a town near the mountain&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i offered the translation of &quot;Miles in Herculaneum pervenit, oppidum prope montem&quot;. However, the solution given to the exercise says that in the second part of the sentence, &quot;oppidum quod erat prope montem&quot; is preferred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would you consider this to be a more natural translation? My skepticism is due to the fact that the verb 'esse' is omitted so often that it seems strange that it is included in Latin where it would be shortened in English. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13594" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4431" RevisionGUID="e15e62d8-b78f-4a1d-92fa-c4f820740783" CreationDate="2017-05-20T17:41:44.890" UserId="243" Text="Natural translation of &quot;... Herculaneum, a town near the mountain&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13595" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4431" RevisionGUID="e15e62d8-b78f-4a1d-92fa-c4f820740783" CreationDate="2017-05-20T17:41:44.890" UserId="243" Text="|classical-latin|verbs|relative-clause|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4432" RevisionGUID="7eac60b5-4b37-413f-803d-af547bce397a" CreationDate="2017-05-20T18:04:26.597" UserDisplayName="user1641" Text="I can't find where this text comes from. I don't find the author on the internet. Thanks for your help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13597" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4432" RevisionGUID="7eac60b5-4b37-413f-803d-af547bce397a" CreationDate="2017-05-20T18:04:26.597" UserDisplayName="user1641" Text="Origin of the following phrase: Ambulatoria enim est voluntas hominum usque ad vitae supremum exitum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13598" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4432" RevisionGUID="7eac60b5-4b37-413f-803d-af547bce397a" CreationDate="2017-05-20T18:04:26.597" UserDisplayName="user1641" Text="|example-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4432" RevisionGUID="9d8d5bb2-a0ab-48cf-9b76-f8b46c085be7" CreationDate="2017-05-20T18:21:18.830" UserId="45" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="I can't find where this text comes from:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ambulatoria enim est voluntas hominum usque ad vitae supremum exitum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find the author on the internet. What is the source of this phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4433" RevisionGUID="e5766a16-05ae-4b1a-a38f-5ccb8fbc1c6b" CreationDate="2017-05-20T18:39:28.647" UserId="45" Text="The phrase is actually slightly different:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ambulatoria enim est voluntas **defuncti** usque ad vitae supremum exitum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For the will of a dead man is changeable until his final departure from life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This comes from the [*Digest*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digest_\(Roman_law\)) (or *Pandects*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Digest, also known as the Pandects (Latin: Digesta seu Pandectae, adapted from Ancient Greek πανδέκτης pandektes, &quot;all-containing&quot;), is a name given to a compendium or digest of Roman law compiled by order of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) emperor Justinian I in the 6th century (AD 530-533). It spans 50 volumes, and represented a reduction and codification of all Roman laws up to that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full passage is [Dig. 34.4.4.](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/justinian/digest34.shtml):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod si iterum in amicitiam redierunt et paenituit testatorem prioris offensae, legatum vel fideicommissum relictum redintegratur: ambulatoria enim est voluntas defuncti usque ad vitae supremum exitum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular quote is compiled from the writing of [Ulpian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulpian) (c. 170-223). I am not sure if this particular quote is extant beyond the transmission from the *Digest*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears to have gained some popularity as a legal maxim regarding will-writing: a [Google search](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ambulatoria+enim+est+voluntas+defuncti%22) reveals several hundred results from old legal books. The basic idea is that a will can be changed as long as the person in question is alive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4434" RevisionGUID="2ae4019c-a558-4980-9025-9b0afc1864f0" CreationDate="2017-05-20T21:07:40.300" UserId="39" Text="Remember than infinitives are “typically frozen case-forms” of verbal nouns (Fortson 2010: 107; see also Weiss 2009: 445). So, in several IE branches (Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian and Italic), there is a “specific infinitive formation often called **the supine** that is solely used with verbs of motion to indicate purpose” (Fortson 2010: 108).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, it’s also used with some other verbs and a rather limited group of adjectives; [Kroon 1989][1] categories such adjectives into two groups, success-oriented and value-oriented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster 2015 reminds that even though&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“the so-called first and second supines, that from a historical point of view must be regarded as nominals, but have no nominal properties of the type mentioned: they cannot be modified by determiners or adjectives” (p. 64).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He later adds that Latin supines can have arguments and satellites (the latter in his terminology are basically adjuncts), e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*mihi dificile dictu est* (from [Kroon 1989][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, even though the communis opinio is that there are two supines in Latin, some researchers hypothesize we could distinguish three (e.g. Fruyt 2011).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that Latin supines usually function as an adverbial modifier (or adjunct, depending on your theory of syntax). However, Pinkster 2015 writes that “the syntactic and semantic properties of the two supines are quite diverse” (we’ll have to wait for the second volume of The Oxford Latin Syntax for more details though – it hasn’t been published yet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, he provides two “typical” examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;… nunc venis etiam ultro **irrisum** *dominum* (Pl. Am. 587), a purpose clause, the first supine has verbal properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Bonam atque iustam rem oppido imperas et **factu** *facilem* (Ter. Hau. 704), the second supine and an evaluative adjective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, the first supine (-um), as Weiss 2009 writes, is “the accusative of a u-stem verbal noun in –tum” whereas the second supine (-u) is “the old dative or ablative of the same u-stem verbal noun” (pp. 444-445). Of course, there are also –ui supine forms, e.g. *aqua potui iucunda*, Pl. N.H. 6.203, or *divisui facilis*, Liv. 45.30.2 (Tronskii 1960, p. 285).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. Szantyr 1977 who calls the first supine “der Zielakkusativ auf –tum” (i.e. the accusative of purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tronskii 1960 adds that the supine in Latin has never been productive, esp. the second supine, and its use had gradually declined – see para 687 for further details. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fruyt 2011 writes that the first supine is “obviously a diminishing category after the archaic period and its distribution is limited more and more to lexicalized and rigid sequences” (p. 770).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Kroon 1989][1] mentions two studies that meticulously examined and counted all (!) the uses of the second supine throughout Latin literature. Sjostrand 1891 recorded 621 second supine constructions whereas Richter 1856-60 records “a few hundred more.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40266836" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4434" RevisionGUID="714481f0-41b5-43db-aa05-02792498d1da" CreationDate="2017-05-20T21:23:07.800" UserId="39" Comment="added 238 characters in body" Text="Remember than infinitives are “typically frozen case-forms” of verbal nouns (Fortson 2010: 107; see also Weiss 2009: 445). So, in several IE branches (Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian and Italic), there is a “specific infinitive formation often called **the supine** that is solely used with verbs of motion to indicate purpose” (Fortson 2010: 108).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, it’s also used with some other verbs and a rather limited group of adjectives; [Kroon 1989][1] categories such adjectives into two groups, success-oriented and value-oriented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Pinkster 2015][2] reminds that even though&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“the so-called first and second supines, that from a historical point of view must be regarded as nominals, but have no nominal properties of the type mentioned: they cannot be modified by determiners or adjectives” (p. 64).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He later adds that Latin supines can have arguments and satellites (the latter in his terminology are basically adjuncts), e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*mihi dificile dictu est* (from [Kroon 1989][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, even though the communis opinio is that there are two supines in Latin, some researchers hypothesize we could distinguish three (e.g. [Fruyt 2011][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that Latin supines usually function as an adverbial modifier (or adjunct, depending on your theory of syntax). However, [Pinkster 2015][2] writes that “the syntactic and semantic properties of the two supines are quite diverse” (we’ll have to wait for the second volume of The Oxford Latin Syntax for more details though – it hasn’t been published yet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, he provides two “typical” examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;… nunc venis etiam ultro **irrisum** *dominum* (Pl. Am. 587), a purpose clause, the first supine has verbal properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Bonam atque iustam rem oppido imperas et **factu** *facilem* (Ter. Hau. 704), the second supine and an evaluative adjective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, the first supine (-um), as Weiss 2009 writes, is “the accusative of a u-stem verbal noun in –tum” whereas the second supine (-u) is “the old dative or ablative of the same u-stem verbal noun” (pp. 444-445). Of course, there are also –ui supine forms, e.g. *aqua potui iucunda*, Pl. N.H. 6.203, or *divisui facilis*, Liv. 45.30.2 (Tronskii 1960, p. 285).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. Szantyr 1977 who calls the first supine “der Zielakkusativ auf –tum” (i.e. the accusative of purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tronskii 1960 adds that the supine in Latin has never been productive, esp. the second supine, and its use had gradually declined – see para 687 for further details. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Fruyt 2011][3] writes that the first supine is “obviously a diminishing category after the archaic period and its distribution is limited more and more to lexicalized and rigid sequences” (p. 770).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Kroon 1989][1] mentions two studies that meticulously examined and counted all (!) the uses of the second supine throughout Latin literature. Sjostrand 1891 recorded 621 second supine constructions whereas Richter 1856-60 records “a few hundred more.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40266836&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613-chapter-3&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110253412/9783110253412.661/9783110253412.661.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4434" RevisionGUID="38d0c8eb-5a3a-45f6-a04f-fd71ebaf48b4" CreationDate="2017-05-20T21:57:03.127" UserId="39" Comment="added 201 characters in body" Text="Remember than infinitives are “typically frozen case-forms” of verbal nouns (Fortson 2010: 107; see also Weiss 2009: 445). So, in several IE branches (Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian and Italic), there is a “specific infinitive formation often called **the supine** that is solely used with verbs of motion to indicate purpose” (Fortson 2010: 108).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, it’s also used with some other verbs and a rather limited group of adjectives; [Kroon 1989][1] categories such adjectives into two groups, success-oriented and value-oriented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Pinkster 2015][2] reminds that even though&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“the so-called first and second supines, that from a historical point of view must be regarded as nominals, but have no nominal properties of the type mentioned: they cannot be modified by determiners or adjectives” (p. 64).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He later adds that Latin supines can have arguments and satellites (the latter in his terminology are basically adjuncts), e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*mihi dificile dictu est* (from [Kroon 1989][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, even though the communis opinio is that there are two supines in Latin, some researchers hypothesize we could distinguish three (e.g. [Fruyt 2011][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that Latin supines usually function as an adverbial modifier (or adjunct, depending on your theory of syntax). However, [Pinkster 2015][2] writes that “the syntactic and semantic properties of the two supines are quite diverse” (we’ll have to wait for the second volume of The Oxford Latin Syntax for more details though – it hasn’t been published yet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, he provides two “typical” examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;… nunc venis etiam ultro **irrisum** *dominum* (Pl. Am. 587), a purpose clause, the first supine has verbal properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Bonam atque iustam rem oppido imperas et **factu** *facilem* (Ter. Hau. 704), the second supine and an evaluative adjective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, the first supine (-um), as Weiss 2009 writes, is “the accusative of a u-stem verbal noun in –tum” whereas the second supine (-u) is “the old dative or ablative of the same u-stem verbal noun” (pp. 444-445). Of course, there are also –ui supine forms, e.g. *aqua potui iucunda*, Pl. N.H. 6.203, or *divisui facilis*, Liv. 45.30.2 (Tronskii 1960, p. 285).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. Szantyr 1977 who calls the first supine “der Zielakkusativ auf –tum” (i.e. the accusative of purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tronskii 1960 adds that the supine in Latin has never been productive, esp. the second supine, and its use had gradually declined – see para 687 for further details. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Fruyt 2011][3] writes that the first supine is “obviously a diminishing category after the archaic period and its distribution is limited more and more to lexicalized and rigid sequences” (p. 770).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Kroon 1989][1] mentions two studies that meticulously examined and counted all (!) the uses of the second supine throughout Latin literature. Sjostrand 1891 recorded 621 second supine constructions whereas Richter 1856-60 records “a few hundred more.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the origin of the grammatical term supinum, we can see it already in [Priscian][4] (6th century AD).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40266836&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613-chapter-3&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110253412/9783110253412.661/9783110253412.661.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://kaali.linguist.jussieu.fr/CGL/text.jsp?topic=de%20uerbo&amp;ref=2,369,1-547,14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4435" RevisionGUID="9f5bbb77-a059-48a4-85c0-b08fca08cdcd" CreationDate="2017-05-20T23:16:26.273" UserId="118" Text="A number of 19th-century textbooks suggest &quot;avenger&quot;. For example, Thomas Swinburne Carr [writes](https://books.google.com/books?id=QWdiAAAAcAAJ&amp;dq=vindice&amp;pg=PA71):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Vindice,_ **avenger**. So the minister of justice was termed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Writing in Latin, the 17th-century commentator Daniel Crespin [suggests](https://books.google.com/books?id=uDAPAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA8&amp;dq=punitore):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Vindice._] **_Punitore**._ Nulli enim tum erant judices, nulli lictores, nulli **rerum capitalium vindices**, nec ulli carceres.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crespin uses _ultor_ in a prose rewrite of the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prima facta sunt tempora aurea, quæ ultro sine lege **ultore** nullo servabant fidem et æquum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't tell who wrote [this](https://books.google.com/books?id=mHATAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA883&amp;dq=vindice%20nullo), maybe Peter Burman the Elder:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Vindice nullo_] Cum nullus esset, **qui mulctam aut pœnam aliis irrogaret**, si forte deliquissent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I gather from all this that a _vindex_ was someone with authority to order a remedy or penalty in a law suit, but unlike _iudex,_ but the word evokes notions of vengeance and vindication—English words that derive from its close relatives in Latin. [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=vindex) suggests &quot;avenger, punisher, revenger&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4435" RevisionGUID="cc9bc104-ccfa-4d18-ab2a-a5f082252280" CreationDate="2017-05-20T23:43:23.727" UserId="118" Comment="added 423 characters in body" Text="A number of 19th-century textbooks suggest &quot;avenger&quot;. For example, Thomas Swinburne Carr [writes](https://books.google.com/books?id=QWdiAAAAcAAJ&amp;dq=vindice&amp;pg=PA71):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Vindice,_ **avenger**. So the minister of justice was termed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Writing in Latin, the 17th-century commentator Daniel Crespin [suggests](https://books.google.com/books?id=uDAPAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA8&amp;dq=punitore):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Vindice._] **_Punitore**._ Nulli enim tum erant judices, nulli lictores, nulli **rerum capitalium vindices**, nec ulli carceres.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crespin uses _ultor_ in a prose rewrite of the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prima facta sunt tempora aurea, quæ ultro sine lege **ultore** nullo servabant fidem et æquum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe Peter Burman the Elder wrote [this](https://books.google.com/books?id=mHATAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA883&amp;dq=vindice%20nullo):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Vindice nullo_] Cum nullus esset, **qui mulctam aut pœnam aliis irrogaret**, si forte deliquissent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I gather from all this that a _vindex_ was someone with authority to order a remedy or penalty in a law suit, but unlike _iudex,_ but the word evokes notions of vengeance and vindication—English words that derive from its close relatives in Latin. [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=vindex) suggests &quot;avenger, punisher, revenger&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more of these commentaries I read, the less sure I am of who wrote them, but [this](https://books.google.com/books?id=2aMNAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA57&amp;dq=%22nemine%20scelera%20coercente%22) rather idiosyncratic one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Vindice nullo,_ **nemine scelera coercente**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;suggests to me someone like a sheriff, who keeps criminals &quot;in line&quot; by a credible threat of force—not needed in the Golden Age, since people are loyal and upright _sponte sua._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4435" RevisionGUID="a7a244d8-eba4-4406-bb4d-06e95ca3d2b7" CreationDate="2017-05-20T23:56:41.207" UserId="118" Comment="added 194 characters in body" Text="A number of 19th-century textbooks suggest &quot;avenger&quot;. For example, Thomas Swinburne Carr [writes](https://books.google.com/books?id=QWdiAAAAcAAJ&amp;dq=vindice&amp;pg=PA71):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Vindice,_ **avenger**. So the minister of justice was termed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Writing in Latin, the 17th-century commentator Daniel Crespin [suggests](https://books.google.com/books?id=uDAPAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA8&amp;dq=punitore):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Vindice._] **_Punitore**._ Nulli enim tum erant judices, nulli lictores, nulli **rerum capitalium vindices**, nec ulli carceres.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crespin uses _ultor_ in a prose rewrite of the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prima facta sunt tempora aurea, quæ ultro sine lege **ultore** nullo servabant fidem et æquum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe Peter Burman the Elder wrote [this](https://books.google.com/books?id=mHATAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA883&amp;dq=vindice%20nullo):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Vindice nullo_] Cum nullus esset, **qui mulctam aut pœnam aliis irrogaret**, si forte deliquissent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I gather from all this that a _vindex_ was someone with authority to order a remedy or penalty in a law suit, but unlike _iudex,_ but the word evokes notions of vengeance and vindication—English words that derive from its close relatives in Latin. [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=vindex) suggests &quot;avenger, punisher, revenger&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more of these commentaries I read, the less sure I am of who wrote them, but [this](https://books.google.com/books?id=2aMNAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA57&amp;dq=%22nemine%20scelera%20coercente%22) rather idiosyncratic one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Vindice nullo,_ **nemine scelera coercente**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;suggests to me someone like a sheriff, who keeps criminals &quot;in line&quot; by a credible threat of force—not needed in the Golden Age, since people are loyal and upright _sponte sua._ Since the Golden Age itself, not the people, is the subject of the sentence, this suggests a poetic translation of _vindice nullo_ that might do justice to all of the above: &quot;without coercion&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4436" RevisionGUID="cec52e55-e10e-4925-949d-129c62ce9df6" CreationDate="2017-05-21T02:25:37.923" UserId="118" Text="[Here's](https://books.google.com/books?id=uDAPAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA8) a rewording _solutis versibus_ by Daniel Crispin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nondum abies ex montibus suis desecta descenderat in aquas fluidas, ut terras alienas adiret : et nulla littora nisi sua hominibus perspecta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That probably clarifies a lot, especially that _suis_ modifies _montibus_ and that _caesa_ modifies _pinus,_  but here are a couple other notes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thomas Swinburne Carr [writes](https://books.google.com/books?id=QWdiAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA72):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Peregrinum—orbem,_ a foreign world or clime, as we speak of the &quot;new world&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Pinus,_ the pine, of which ships were made. Hence, poetically, a ship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crespin says of _orbem_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Orbem._] Pro orbus parte posuit, synechdochicè.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my (beginner's) perspective on what's going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By interrupting the clause at _caesa suis,_ Ovid is doing two things: (a) putting _suis_ next to _peregrinum_ to emphasize the contrast; and (b) creating &quot;grammatical suspense&quot;, which emphasizes the modified nouns when you reach them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, here's a word-for-word translation that doesn't quite work even as poetic English, but I think maintains the sense and emphasis of the Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having not yet hewn from their own—a foreign world to see—&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mountains, the pine, and lowered it [as a ship] into the flowing waves,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; no mortals knew any shores beyond their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am taking the grammar to suggest that the third line is the result of the first two. In the Latin, _pinus_ is the subject of the first sentence, poetically suggesting that the pine trees would have lowered themselves into the sea, but clearly it's the people who would have done that. The tense of the first sentence is pluperfect, suggesting that it's referring to a time before something else. I take that something else to be the third line. The perfect and pluperfect of _nosco_ refer literally to the process of getting to know, which is already accomplished at the time of interest—which is one &quot;tense&quot; later than the literal one. So, you could even more literally translate the last line as &quot;no mortals had gotten to know any shores beyond their own.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [textbook from 1873](https://books.google.com/books?id=9JcAAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA3&amp;ots=JGxOjMbvnD&amp;dq=%22nondum%20caesa%20suis%2C%20peregrinum%20ut%20viseret%20orbem%22%20pluperfect&amp;pg=PA3#v=onepage&amp;q=%22nondum%20caesa%20suis%2C%20peregrinum%20ut%20viseret%20orbem%22%20pluperfect&amp;f=false) seems to agree:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _norant_] The pluperfect of this verb has the force of an imperfect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4435" RevisionGUID="135672fe-f35f-47fb-9cd5-cf61c2dee18b" CreationDate="2017-05-21T02:32:11.747" UserId="118" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="A number of 19th-century textbooks suggest &quot;avenger&quot;. For example, Thomas Swinburne Carr [writes](https://books.google.com/books?id=QWdiAAAAcAAJ&amp;dq=vindice&amp;pg=PA71):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Vindice,_ **avenger**. So the minister of justice was termed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Writing in Latin, the 17th-century commentator Daniel Crespin [suggests](https://books.google.com/books?id=uDAPAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA8&amp;dq=punitore):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Vindice._] **_Punitore**._ Nulli enim tum erant judices, nulli lictores, nulli **rerum capitalium vindices**, nec ulli carceres.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crespin uses _ultor_ in a prose rewrite of the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prima facta sunt tempora aurea, quæ ultro sine lege **ultore** nullo servabant fidem et æquum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe Peter Burman the Elder wrote [this](https://books.google.com/books?id=mHATAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA883&amp;dq=vindice%20nullo):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Vindice nullo_] Cum nullus esset, **qui mulctam aut pœnam aliis irrogaret**, si forte deliquissent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I gather from all this that a _vindex_ was someone with authority to order a remedy or penalty in a law suit, but unlike _iudex,_ but the word evokes notions of vengeance and vindication—English words that derive from its close relatives in Latin. [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=vindex) suggests &quot;avenger, punisher, revenger&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more of these commentaries I read, the less sure I am of who wrote them, but [this](https://books.google.com/books?id=2aMNAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA57&amp;dq=%22nemine%20scelera%20coercente%22) rather idiosyncratic one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Vindice nullo,_ **nemine scelera coercente**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;suggests to me someone like a sheriff, who keeps criminals &quot;in line&quot; by a credible threat of force—not needed in the Golden Age, since people then were loyal and upright _sponte sua._ Since the Golden Age itself, not the people, is the subject of the sentence, and &quot;protector&quot; in English carries the unwanted suggestion that the Golden Age might have needed protection, this suggests a liberal but accurate translation of _vindice nullo_ that might do justice to all of the above: **without coercion**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4436" RevisionGUID="2843db90-08bb-47ba-95e1-7fc9f6aeac40" CreationDate="2017-05-21T02:50:02.580" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 107 characters in body" Text="[Here's](https://books.google.com/books?id=uDAPAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA8) a rewording _solutis versibus_ by Daniel Crespin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nondum abies ex montibus suis desecta descenderat in aquas fluidas, ut terras alienas adiret : et nulla littora nisi sua hominibus perspecta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That probably clarifies a lot, especially that _suis_ modifies _montibus_ and that _caesa_ modifies _pinus,_  but here are a couple other notes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thomas Swinburne Carr [writes](https://books.google.com/books?id=QWdiAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA72):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Peregrinum—orbem,_ a foreign world or clime, as we speak of the &quot;new world&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Pinus,_ the pine, of which ships were made. Hence, poetically, a ship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crespin says of _orbem_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Orbem._] Pro orbus parte posuit, synechdochicè.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my (beginner's) perspective on what's going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By interrupting the clause at _caesa suis,_ Ovid is doing two things: (a) putting _suis_ next to _peregrinum_ to emphasize the contrast; and (b) creating &quot;grammatical suspense&quot;, which emphasizes the modified nouns when you reach them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, here's a word-for-word translation that doesn't quite work even as poetic English, but I think maintains the sense and emphasis of the Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having not yet hewn from their own—a foreign world to see—&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mountains, the pine, and lowered it [as a ship] into the flowing waves,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mortals had not gotten to know any shores beyond their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am taking the grammar to suggest that the third line is the result of the first two. In the Latin, _pinus_ is the subject of the first sentence, poetically suggesting that the pine trees would have lowered themselves into the sea, but clearly it's the people who would have done that. The tense of the first sentence is pluperfect, suggesting that it's referring to a time before something else. I take that something else to be the third line. The perfect and pluperfect of _nosco_ refer literally to the process of getting to know, which is already accomplished at the time of interest—which is one &quot;tense&quot; later than the literal one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [textbook from 1873](https://books.google.com/books?id=9JcAAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA3&amp;ots=JGxOjMbvnD&amp;dq=%22nondum%20caesa%20suis%2C%20peregrinum%20ut%20viseret%20orbem%22%20pluperfect&amp;pg=PA3#v=onepage&amp;q=%22nondum%20caesa%20suis%2C%20peregrinum%20ut%20viseret%20orbem%22%20pluperfect&amp;f=false) seems to agree:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _norant_] The pluperfect of this verb has the force of an imperfect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4436" RevisionGUID="fed4f69c-98c6-4053-a4b4-e45c4502e45a" CreationDate="2017-05-21T02:57:45.520" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 107 characters in body" Text="[Here's](https://books.google.com/books?id=uDAPAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA8) a rewording _solutis versibus_ by Daniel Crespin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nondum abies ex montibus suis desecta descenderat in aquas fluidas, ut terras alienas adiret : et nulla littora nisi sua hominibus perspecta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That probably clarifies a lot, especially that _suis_ modifies _montibus_ and that _caesa_ modifies _pinus,_  but here are a couple other notes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thomas Swinburne Carr [writes](https://books.google.com/books?id=QWdiAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA72):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Peregrinum—orbem,_ a foreign world or clime, as we speak of the &quot;new world&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Pinus,_ the pine, of which ships were made. Hence, poetically, a ship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crespin says of _orbem_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Orbem._] Pro orbus parte posuit, synechdochicè.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my (beginner's) perspective on what's going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By interrupting the clause at _caesa suis,_ Ovid is doing two things: (a) putting _suis_ next to _peregrinum_ to emphasize the contrast; and (b) creating &quot;grammatical suspense&quot;, which emphasizes the modified nouns when you reach them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, here's a word-for-word translation that doesn't quite work even as poetic English, but I think maintains the sense and emphasis of the Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having not yet hewn from their own—a foreign world to see—&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mountains, the pine, and lowered it [as a ship] into the flowing waves,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mortals had not gotten to know any shores beyond their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am taking the grammar to suggest that the third line is the result of the first two. In the Latin, _pinus_ is the subject of the first sentence, but clearly it's the people who are the agents of all the verbs and verbals: _caesa, viseret, descenderat,_ and _norant._ The tense of the first sentence is pluperfect, suggesting that it's referring to a time before something else. I take that something else to be the third line. The perfect and pluperfect of _nosco_ refer literally to the process of getting to know, which is already accomplished at the time of interest—which is one &quot;tense&quot; later than the literal one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [textbook from 1873](https://books.google.com/books?id=9JcAAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA3&amp;ots=JGxOjMbvnD&amp;dq=%22nondum%20caesa%20suis%2C%20peregrinum%20ut%20viseret%20orbem%22%20pluperfect&amp;pg=PA3#v=onepage&amp;q=%22nondum%20caesa%20suis%2C%20peregrinum%20ut%20viseret%20orbem%22%20pluperfect&amp;f=false) seems to agree:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _norant_] The pluperfect of this verb has the force of an imperfect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4437" RevisionGUID="8ae50843-69fb-42ae-80d3-919aaf557f76" CreationDate="2017-05-21T03:22:19.493" UserId="867" Text="The closest to this idiomatic phrase I could find was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quaeso, quid narras?* / sorry, what are you saying?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terence, *Phormio*, act 5, scene 8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which, in this particular dialogue, is not quite “sorry, I didn’t hear that, could you repeat it?” but more a rhetorical “excuse me, what on earth are you saying?”  However, it does seem that ***quaeso + verb of speaking/repeating/telling*** certainly does encapsulate that casual, almost throwaway “excuse me/pardon/what was that?” that we use in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another similar example is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *dic dum, quaeso, mi, es tu Myconius?* / excuse me, tell me, are you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from Myconos?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terence, *The Mother-in-Law*, act 5, scene 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very different from *ignosce mihi* which is often used more like “pardon me, I’ve done something I really hope you will overlook”.  Here it is used in a casual way like the *quaeso* above, yet the tone/meaning is slightly different:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tunc tunc—ignoscite (nolo, quid faciam?) sed sum petulanti&#xD;&#xA;&gt; splene—cachinno* / then, then - excuse me (I don’t want to, what can I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; do?) but I have a cheeky temper – I cackle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Persius, *Satires*, 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quisquis es, ignoscas; in nullam lumina partem gurgite ab hoc flexi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; studioque operatus inhaesi* / whoever you are, please forgive me; I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; haven’t taken my eyes off this pool so intent am I on fishing [and therefore can't help you in your search]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, 8.864-5&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4436" RevisionGUID="3e40db19-8cc6-49a1-b04a-3148eb1d697f" CreationDate="2017-05-21T03:30:59.563" UserId="118" Comment="added 283 characters in body" Text="[Here's](https://books.google.com/books?id=uDAPAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA8) a rewording _solutis versibus_ by Daniel Crespin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nondum abies ex montibus suis desecta descenderat in aquas fluidas, ut terras alienas adiret : et nulla littora nisi sua hominibus perspecta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That probably clarifies a lot, especially that _suis_ modifies _montibus_ and that _caesa_ modifies _pinus,_  but here are a couple other notes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thomas Swinburne Carr [writes](https://books.google.com/books?id=QWdiAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA72):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Peregrinum—orbem,_ a foreign world or clime, as we speak of the &quot;new world&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Pinus,_ the pine, of which ships were made. Hence, poetically, a ship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crespin says of _orbem_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Orbem._] Pro orbus parte posuit, synechdochicè.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my (beginner's) perspective on what's going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By interrupting the clause at _caesa suis,_ Ovid is doing two things: (a) putting _suis_ next to _peregrinum_ to emphasize the contrast; and (b) creating &quot;grammatical suspense&quot;, which emphasizes the modified nouns when you reach them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, here's a word-for-word translation that doesn't quite work even as poetic English, but I think maintains the sense and emphasis of the Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having not yet hewn from its own—a foreign world to survey—&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mountains, a pine, and lowered it [as a ship] into the flowing waves,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mortals had not gotten to know any shores beyond their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am taking the grammar to suggest that the third line is the result of the first two. In the Latin, _pinus_ is the subject of the first sentence, but clearly it's the people who are the agents of all the verbs and verbals: _caesa, viseret, descenderat,_ and _norant._ What I think has happened is that Latin grammar is not as well suited as English to an absolute construction containing so many subclauses, so Ovid has exploited _-que_ and the subtleties of Latin tenses to express the same meaning. The tense of _descenderat_ is pluperfect, suggesting that it's referring to a time before something else. I take that something else to be the third line, which completes the thought—the  whole _sententia._ The perfect and pluperfect of _nosco_ refer literally to the process of getting to know, which is already accomplished at the time of interest—which is one &quot;tense&quot; later than the literal one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [textbook from 1873](https://books.google.com/books?id=9JcAAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA3&amp;ots=JGxOjMbvnD&amp;dq=%22nondum%20caesa%20suis%2C%20peregrinum%20ut%20viseret%20orbem%22%20pluperfect&amp;pg=PA3#v=onepage&amp;q=%22nondum%20caesa%20suis%2C%20peregrinum%20ut%20viseret%20orbem%22%20pluperfect&amp;f=false) seems to agree:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _norant_] The pluperfect of this verb has the force of an imperfect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4436" RevisionGUID="9d2ebb28-f215-46b5-82f3-fb6c2817a97f" CreationDate="2017-05-21T03:37:10.320" UserId="118" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="[Here's](https://books.google.com/books?id=uDAPAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA8) a rewording _solutis versibus_ by Daniel Crespin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nondum abies ex montibus suis desecta descenderat in aquas fluidas, ut terras alienas adiret : et nulla littora nisi sua hominibus perspecta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That probably clarifies a lot, especially that _suis_ modifies _montibus_ and that _caesa_ modifies _pinus,_  but here are a couple other notes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thomas Swinburne Carr [writes](https://books.google.com/books?id=QWdiAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA72):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Peregrinum—orbem,_ a foreign world or clime, as we speak of the &quot;new world&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Pinus,_ the pine, of which ships were made. Hence, poetically, a ship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crespin says of _orbem_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Orbem._] Pro orbus parte posuit, synechdochicè.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my (beginner's) perspective on what's going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By interrupting the clause at _caesa suis,_ Ovid is doing two things: (a) putting _suis_ next to _peregrinum_ to emphasize the contrast; and (b) creating &quot;grammatical suspense&quot;, which emphasizes the modified nouns when you reach them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, here's a word-for-word translation that doesn't quite work even as poetic English, but I think maintains the sense and emphasis of the Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having not yet hewn from their own—a foreign world to survey—&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mountains, a pine, and lowered it [as a ship] into the flowing waves,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mortals had not gotten to know any shores beyond their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am taking the grammar to suggest that the third line is the result of the first two. In the Latin, _pinus_ is the subject of the first sentence, but clearly it's the people who are the agents of all the verbs and verbals: _caesa, viseret, descenderat,_ and _norant._ What I think has happened is that Latin grammar is not as well suited as English to an absolute construction containing so many subclauses, so Ovid has exploited _-que_ and the subtleties of Latin tenses to express the same meaning. The tense of _descenderat_ is pluperfect, suggesting that it's referring to a time before something else. I take that something else to be the third line, which completes the thought—the  whole _sententia._ The perfect and pluperfect of _nosco_ refer literally to the process of getting to know, which is already accomplished at the time of interest—which is one &quot;tense&quot; later than the literal one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [textbook from 1873](https://books.google.com/books?id=9JcAAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA3&amp;ots=JGxOjMbvnD&amp;dq=%22nondum%20caesa%20suis%2C%20peregrinum%20ut%20viseret%20orbem%22%20pluperfect&amp;pg=PA3#v=onepage&amp;q=%22nondum%20caesa%20suis%2C%20peregrinum%20ut%20viseret%20orbem%22%20pluperfect&amp;f=false) seems to agree:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _norant_] The pluperfect of this verb has the force of an imperfect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4436" RevisionGUID="deb12f5a-1526-4e21-bac7-1ca811af02d6" CreationDate="2017-05-21T03:47:10.843" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="[Here's](https://books.google.com/books?id=uDAPAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA8) a rewording _solutis versibus_ by Daniel Crespin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nondum abies ex montibus suis desecta descenderat in aquas fluidas, ut terras alienas adiret : et nulla littora nisi sua hominibus perspecta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That probably clarifies a lot, especially that _suis_ modifies _montibus_ and that _caesa_ modifies _pinus,_  but here are a couple other notes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thomas Swinburne Carr [writes](https://books.google.com/books?id=QWdiAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA72):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Peregrinum—orbem,_ a foreign world or clime, as we speak of the &quot;new world&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Pinus,_ the pine, of which ships were made. Hence, poetically, a ship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crespin says of _orbem_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Orbem._] Pro orbus parte posuit, synechdochicè.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my (beginner's) perspective on what's going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By interrupting the clause at _caesa suis,_ Ovid is doing two things: (a) putting _suis_ next to _peregrinum_ to emphasize the contrast; and (b) creating &quot;grammatical suspense&quot;, which emphasizes the modified nouns when you reach them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, here's a word-for-word translation that doesn't quite work even as poetic English, but I think maintains the sense and emphasis of the Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having not yet hewn from their own—a foreign world to survey—&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mountains, a pine, and lowered it [as a ship] into the flowing waves,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mortals had not gotten to know any shores beyond their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am taking the grammar to suggest that the third line is the result of the first two. In the Latin, _pinus_ is the subject of the first sentence, but clearly it's the people who are the agents of all the verbs and verbals: _caesa, viseret, descenderat,_ and _norant._ What I think has happened is that Latin grammar is not as well suited as English to an absolute construction containing so many subclauses, so Ovid has exploited _-que_ and the subtleties of Latin tenses to express the same meaning. The tense of _descenderat_ is pluperfect, suggesting that it's referring to a time before something else. I take that something else to be the third line, which completes the thought—the  whole _sententia._ The perfect and pluperfect of _nosco_ refer literally to the process of getting to know, which is already accomplished at the time of interest—one &quot;tense&quot; later than the literal one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [textbook from 1873](https://books.google.com/books?id=9JcAAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA3&amp;ots=JGxOjMbvnD&amp;dq=%22nondum%20caesa%20suis%2C%20peregrinum%20ut%20viseret%20orbem%22%20pluperfect&amp;pg=PA3#v=onepage&amp;q=%22nondum%20caesa%20suis%2C%20peregrinum%20ut%20viseret%20orbem%22%20pluperfect&amp;f=false) seems to agree:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _norant_] The pluperfect of this verb has the force of an imperfect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4436" RevisionGUID="27754afe-9b40-410d-8c57-035a5b3d483e" CreationDate="2017-05-21T04:04:16.427" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="[Here's](https://books.google.com/books?id=uDAPAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA8) a rewording _solutis versibus_ by Daniel Crespin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nondum abies ex montibus suis desecta descenderat in aquas fluidas, ut terras alienas adiret : et nulla littora nisi sua hominibus perspecta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That probably clarifies a lot, especially that _suis_ modifies _montibus_ and that _caesa_ modifies _pinus,_  but here are a couple other notes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thomas Swinburne Carr [writes](https://books.google.com/books?id=QWdiAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA72):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Peregrinum—orbem,_ a foreign world or clime, as we speak of the &quot;new world&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Pinus,_ the pine, of which ships were made. Hence, poetically, a ship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crespin says of _orbem_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Orbem._] Pro orbus parte posuit, synechdochicè.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my (beginner's) perspective on what's going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By interrupting the clause at _caesa suis,_ Ovid is doing two things: (a) putting _suis_ next to _peregrinum_ to emphasize the contrast; and (b) creating &quot;grammatical suspense&quot;, which emphasizes the modified nouns when you reach them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, here's a word-for-word translation that doesn't quite work even as poetic English, but I think maintains the sense and emphasis of the Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having not yet hewn from native—a foreign world to survey—&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mountains, a pine, and lowered it [as a ship] into the flowing waves,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mortals had not gotten to know any shores beyond their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am taking the grammar to suggest that the third line is the result of the first two. In the Latin, _pinus_ is the subject of the first sentence, but clearly it's the people who are the agents of all the verbs and verbals: _caesa, viseret, descenderat,_ and _norant._ What I think has happened is that Latin grammar is not as well suited as English to an absolute construction containing so many subclauses, so Ovid has exploited _-que_ and the subtleties of Latin tenses to express the same meaning. The tense of _descenderat_ is pluperfect, suggesting that it's referring to a time before something else. I take that something else to be the third line, which completes the thought—the  whole _sententia._ The perfect and pluperfect of _nosco_ refer literally to the process of getting to know, which is already accomplished at the time of interest—one &quot;tense&quot; later than the literal one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [textbook from 1873](https://books.google.com/books?id=9JcAAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA3&amp;ots=JGxOjMbvnD&amp;dq=%22nondum%20caesa%20suis%2C%20peregrinum%20ut%20viseret%20orbem%22%20pluperfect&amp;pg=PA3#v=onepage&amp;q=%22nondum%20caesa%20suis%2C%20peregrinum%20ut%20viseret%20orbem%22%20pluperfect&amp;f=false) seems to agree:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _norant_] The pluperfect of this verb has the force of an imperfect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4434" RevisionGUID="8fc52d57-7902-4dd8-bc8d-d97390f0254a" CreationDate="2017-05-21T04:09:57.183" UserId="39" Comment="added 394 characters in body" Text="Remember than infinitives are “typically frozen case-forms” of verbal nouns (Fortson 2010: 107; see also Weiss 2009: 445). So, in several IE branches (Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian and Italic), there is a “specific infinitive formation often called **the supine** that is solely used with verbs of motion to indicate purpose” (Fortson 2010: 108).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, it’s also used with some other verbs and a rather limited group of adjectives; [Kroon 1989][1] categories such adjectives into two groups, success-oriented and value-oriented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Pinkster 2015][2] reminds that even though&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“the so-called first and second supines, that from a historical point of view must be regarded as nominals, but have no nominal properties of the type mentioned: they cannot be modified by determiners or adjectives” (p. 64).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He later adds that Latin supines can have arguments and satellites (the latter in his terminology are basically adjuncts), e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*mihi dificile dictu est* (from [Kroon 1989][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, even though the communis opinio is that there are two supines in Latin, some researchers hypothesize we could distinguish three (e.g. [Fruyt 2011][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that Latin supines usually function as an adverbial modifier (or adjunct, depending on your theory of syntax). However, [Pinkster 2015][2] writes that “the syntactic and semantic properties of the two supines are quite diverse” (we’ll have to wait for the second volume of The Oxford Latin Syntax for more details though – it hasn’t been published yet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, he provides two “typical” examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;… nunc venis etiam ultro **irrisum** *dominum* ([Pl. *Am*.][4] 587), a purpose clause, the first supine has verbal properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Bonam atque iustam rem oppido imperas et **factu** *facilem* ([Ter. *Hau*.][5] 704), the second supine and an evaluative adjective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, the first supine (-um), as Weiss 2009 writes, is “the accusative of a u-stem verbal noun in –tum” whereas the second supine (-u) is “the old dative or ablative of the same u-stem verbal noun” (pp. 444-445). Of course, there are also –ui supine forms, e.g. *aqua potui iucunda*, [Pl. N.H.][6] 6.203, or *divisui facilis*, [Liv. 45.30.2][7] (Tronskii 1960, p. 285).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. Szantyr 1977 who calls the first supine “der Zielakkusativ auf –tum” (i.e. the accusative of purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tronskii 1960 adds that the supine in Latin has never been productive, esp. the second supine, and its use had gradually declined – see para 687 for further details. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Fruyt 2011][3] writes that the first supine is “obviously a diminishing category after the archaic period and its distribution is limited more and more to lexicalized and rigid sequences” (p. 770).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Kroon 1989][1] mentions two studies that meticulously examined and counted all (!) the uses of the second supine throughout Latin literature. Sjostrand 1891 recorded 621 second supine constructions whereas Richter 1856-60 records “a few hundred more.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the origin of the grammatical term supinum, we can see it already in [Priscian][8] (6th century AD).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40266836&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613-chapter-3&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110253412/9783110253412.661/9783110253412.661.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/plautus-amphitryon/2011/pb_LCL060.11.xml?rskey=cHLzGq&amp;result=1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/terence-self_tormentor/2001/pb_LCL022.181.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/pliny_elder-natural_history/1938/pb_LCL330.3.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/livy-history_rome_33/1935/pb_LCL295.279.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://kaali.linguist.jussieu.fr/CGL/text.jsp?topic=de%20uerbo&amp;ref=2,369,1-547,14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4436" RevisionGUID="9cf3f2c7-764d-4576-bb48-9f7e25285d98" CreationDate="2017-05-21T10:18:13.900" UserId="118" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="[Here's](https://books.google.com/books?id=uDAPAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA8) a rewording _solutis versibus_ by Daniel Crespin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nondum abies ex montibus suis desecta descenderat in aquas fluidas, ut terras alienas adiret : et nulla littora nisi sua hominibus perspecta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That probably clarifies a lot, especially that _suis_ modifies _montibus_ and that _caesa_ modifies _pinus,_  but here are a couple other notes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thomas Swinburne Carr [writes](https://books.google.com/books?id=QWdiAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA72):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Peregrinum—orbem,_ a foreign world or clime, as we speak of the &quot;new world&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Pinus,_ the pine, of which ships were made. Hence, poetically, a ship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crespin says of _orbem_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Orbem._] Pro orbus parte posuit, synechdochicè.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my (beginner's) perspective on what's going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By interrupting the clause at _caesa suis,_ Ovid is doing two things: (a) putting _suis_ next to _peregrinum_ to emphasize the contrast; and (b) creating &quot;grammatical suspense&quot;, which emphasizes the modified nouns when you reach them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, here's a word-for-word translation that doesn't quite work even as poetic English, but I think maintains the sense and emphasis of the Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having not yet hewn from native—a foreign world to survey—&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mountains, a pine, and lowered it [as a ship] into the flowing waves,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mortals had not gotten to know any shores beyond their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am taking the grammar to suggest that the third line is the result of the first two. In the Latin, _pinus_ is the subject of the first sentence, but clearly it's the people who are the agents of all the verbs and verbals: _caesa, viseret, descenderat,_ and _norant._ The tense of _descenderat_ is pluperfect, suggesting that it's referring to a time before something else. I take that something else to be the third line, which completes the thought—the  whole _sententia._ The perfect and pluperfect of _nosco_ refer literally to the process of getting to know, which is already accomplished at the time of interest—one &quot;tense&quot; later than the literal one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [textbook from 1873](https://books.google.com/books?id=9JcAAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA3&amp;ots=JGxOjMbvnD&amp;dq=%22nondum%20caesa%20suis%2C%20peregrinum%20ut%20viseret%20orbem%22%20pluperfect&amp;pg=PA3#v=onepage&amp;q=%22nondum%20caesa%20suis%2C%20peregrinum%20ut%20viseret%20orbem%22%20pluperfect&amp;f=false) seems to agree:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _norant_] The pluperfect of this verb has the force of an imperfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I think has happened is that Latin grammar is not as well suited as English to an absolute construction containing so many subclauses, so Ovid has exploited _-que_ and the subtleties of Latin tenses to express the same meaning. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4435" RevisionGUID="1c689df8-7309-459a-80d8-d32173398b36" CreationDate="2017-05-21T10:51:22.663" UserId="118" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="A number of 19th-century textbooks suggest &quot;avenger&quot;. For example, Thomas Swinburne Carr [writes](https://books.google.com/books?id=QWdiAAAAcAAJ&amp;dq=vindice&amp;pg=PA71):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Vindice,_ **avenger**. So the minister of justice was termed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Writing in Latin, the 17th-century commentator Daniel Crespin [suggests](https://books.google.com/books?id=uDAPAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA8&amp;dq=punitore):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Vindice._] **_Punitore**._ Nulli enim tum erant judices, nulli lictores, nulli **rerum capitalium vindices**, nec ulli carceres.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crespin uses _ultor_ in a prose rewrite of the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prima facta sunt tempora aurea, quæ ultro sine lege **ultore** nullo servabant fidem et æquum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe Peter Burman the Elder wrote [this](https://books.google.com/books?id=mHATAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA883&amp;dq=vindice%20nullo):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Vindice nullo_] Cum nullus esset, **qui mulctam aut pœnam aliis irrogaret**, si forte deliquissent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I gather from all this that a _vindex_ was someone with authority to order a remedy or penalty in a law suit, but unlike _iudex,_ the word evokes notions of vengeance and vindication—English words that derive from its close relatives in Latin. [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=vindex) suggests &quot;avenger, punisher, revenger&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more of these commentaries I read, the less sure I am of who wrote them, but [this](https://books.google.com/books?id=2aMNAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA57&amp;dq=%22nemine%20scelera%20coercente%22) rather idiosyncratic one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Vindice nullo,_ **nemine scelera coercente**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;suggests to me someone like a sheriff, who keeps criminals &quot;in line&quot; by a credible threat of force—not needed in the Golden Age, since people then were loyal and upright _sponte sua._ Since the Golden Age itself, not the people, is the grammatical subject of the sentence, and &quot;protector&quot; in English carries the unwanted suggestion that the Golden Age might have needed protection, this suggests a liberal but accurate translation of _vindice nullo_ that might do justice to all of the above: **without coercion**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4436" RevisionGUID="b1135918-203c-4a46-bf7f-0415b3a363af" CreationDate="2017-05-21T18:14:52.777" UserId="118" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="[Here's](https://books.google.com/books?id=uDAPAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA8) a rewording _solutis versibus_ by Daniel Crespin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nondum abies ex montibus suis desecta descenderat in aquas fluidas, ut terras alienas adiret : et nulla littora nisi sua hominibus perspecta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That probably clarifies a lot, especially that _suis_ modifies _montibus_ and that _caesa_ modifies _pinus,_  but here are a couple other notes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thomas Swinburne Carr [writes](https://books.google.com/books?id=QWdiAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA72):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Peregrinum—orbem,_ a foreign world or clime, as we speak of the &quot;new world&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Pinus,_ the pine, of which ships were made. Hence, poetically, a ship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crespin says of _orbem_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Orbem._] Pro orbus parte posuit, synechdochicè.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my (beginner's) perspective on what's going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By interrupting the clause at _caesa suis,_ Ovid is doing two things: (a) putting _suis_ next to _peregrinum_ to emphasize the contrast; and (b) creating &quot;grammatical suspense&quot;, which emphasizes the modified nouns when you reach them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, here's a word-for-word translation that doesn't quite work even as poetic English, but I think maintains the sense and emphasis of the Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having not yet hewn from its native—a foreign world to survey—&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mountains, a pine, and lowered it [as a ship] into the flowing waves,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mortals had not gotten to know any shores beyond their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am taking the grammar to suggest that the third line is the result of the first two. In the Latin, _pinus_ is the subject of the first sentence, but clearly it's the people who are the agents of all the verbs and verbals: _caesa, viseret, descenderat,_ and _norant._ The tense of _descenderat_ is pluperfect, suggesting that it's referring to a time before something else. I take that something else to be the third line, which completes the thought—the  whole _sententia._ The perfect and pluperfect of _nosco_ refer literally to the process of getting to know, which is already accomplished at the time of interest—one &quot;tense&quot; later than the literal one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [textbook from 1873](https://books.google.com/books?id=9JcAAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA3&amp;ots=JGxOjMbvnD&amp;dq=%22nondum%20caesa%20suis%2C%20peregrinum%20ut%20viseret%20orbem%22%20pluperfect&amp;pg=PA3#v=onepage&amp;q=%22nondum%20caesa%20suis%2C%20peregrinum%20ut%20viseret%20orbem%22%20pluperfect&amp;f=false) seems to agree:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _norant_] The pluperfect of this verb has the force of an imperfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I think has happened is that Latin grammar is not as well suited as English to an absolute construction containing so many subclauses, so Ovid has exploited _-que_ and the subtleties of Latin tenses to express the same meaning. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4437" RevisionGUID="bcc22bf3-77bc-4d11-8dbf-6b490a80e7f4" CreationDate="2017-05-21T19:02:26.573" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted a little. Feel free to roll back." Text="The closest to this idiomatic phrase I could find was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quaeso, quid narras?*  &#xD;&#xA;sorry, what are you saying?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terence, *Phormio*, act 5, scene 8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which, in this particular dialogue, is not quite “sorry, I didn’t hear that, could you repeat it?” but more a rhetorical “excuse me, what on earth are you saying?”  However, it does seem that ***quaeso + verb of speaking/repeating/telling*** certainly does encapsulate that casual, almost throwaway “excuse me/pardon/what was that?” that we use in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another similar example is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *dic dum, quaeso, mi, es tu Myconius?*  &#xD;&#xA;excuse me, tell me, are you from Myconos?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terence, *The Mother-in-Law*, act 5, scene 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very different from *ignosce mihi* which is often used more like “pardon me, I’ve done something I really hope you will overlook”.  Here it is used in a casual way like the *quaeso* above, yet the tone/meaning is slightly different:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tunc tunc—ignoscite (nolo, quid faciam?) sed sum petulanti splene—cachinno*   &#xD;&#xA;then, then - excuse me (I don’t want to, what can I do?) but I have a cheeky temper – I cackle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Persius, *Satires*, 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quisquis es, ignoscas; in nullam lumina partem  &#xD;&#xA;gurgite ab hoc flexi studioque operatus inhaesi*  &#xD;&#xA;whoever you are, please forgive me; I haven’t taken my eyes off this pool so intent am I on fishing [and therefore can't help you in your search]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, 8.864&amp;ndash;5&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13627" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4432" RevisionGUID="28f308d6-5575-427a-b168-d6dd428fbf61" CreationDate="2017-05-21T19:09:48.057" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; added 1 character in body" Text="|passage-request|origin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4432" RevisionGUID="28f308d6-5575-427a-b168-d6dd428fbf61" CreationDate="2017-05-21T19:09:48.057" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; added 1 character in body" Text="I can't find where this text comes from:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ambulatoria enim est voluntas hominum usque ad vitae supremum exitum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find the author on the internet. What is the source of this phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13629" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1441" RevisionGUID="a80437b9-2f16-4c7c-b5bb-957540e00d63" CreationDate="2017-05-21T19:40:02.933" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|contemporary-latin|new-latin|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1425" RevisionGUID="e5ff1b0c-007f-444d-8d36-de88751a0145" CreationDate="2017-05-21T19:42:36.930" UserId="79" Comment="added 38 characters in body; edited tags" Text="For instance, if you say, &quot;I came here to eat,&quot; or &quot;We want something good to eat,&quot; you are using the infinitive &quot;to eat&quot; to express reason or purpose. How do translate something like this in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13631" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1425" RevisionGUID="e5ff1b0c-007f-444d-8d36-de88751a0145" CreationDate="2017-05-21T19:42:36.930" UserId="79" Comment="added 38 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|verbs|syntax|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4182" RevisionGUID="2a54de0f-51dd-4ebd-b1c8-d9e912d409ba" CreationDate="2017-05-22T03:48:26.393" UserId="79" Comment="added 391 characters in body" Text="I asked [yesterday about the word *venatu*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4177/79).&#xD;&#xA;There was a good answer and good comments, but I want to ask a broader related question more specifically &amp;mdash; especially due to TKR's comment.&#xD;&#xA;I want to know how the supine (eg. *venatum* and *venatu*) is related to the derived fourth declension noun (eg. *venatus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are the supine and the noun related historically? If so, how? If not,&#xD;&#xA; why so?&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Is there a reason not to consider the supine just as two forms of the noun?&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- When did grammarians first make the distinction, if ever? That is, when where the supine and the noun considered as separate entities, assuming they weren't originally?&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer by fdb to [this question about *-us* and *-io*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/891/79) implies that the supine and the passive perfect participle are unrelated (the similarity of their stems is coincidental), but there is no mention of the fourth declension noun.&#xD;&#xA;The question is related to this one, but the answers there do not seem to answer the question(s) asked here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that some common uses of the noun developed into something that was later considered independent of the noun.&#xD;&#xA;But this is just a guess without any details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I have no trouble reading *difficile dictu* (difficult to say) or *te dictum misi* (I sent you to speak) as if they had the noun *dictus*.&#xD;&#xA;I find the lack of preposition with the accusative a little odd in this reading, but only a little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Any Roman remarks on the matter would be interesting.&#xD;&#xA;But if there are too many, I can split this into a separate question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4439" RevisionGUID="21c8a529-a8f1-4a66-abdb-44acf460bfa6" CreationDate="2017-05-22T04:07:30.567" UserId="1358" Text="The sentence is &quot;The sailor realized that he himself ought to give the money back to the girl.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation is &quot;Nauta intellexit se debere dare pecuniam retro puellae.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;(If there are any errors please help)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since &quot;ought&quot; is the verb in the dependent clause of an indirect statement, I think it should be in the infinitive form. However, there is also &quot;to give&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an indirect statement, could there be two infinitives in the dependent clause -- one acting as the main verb and one acting as an infinitive phrase?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13634" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4439" RevisionGUID="21c8a529-a8f1-4a66-abdb-44acf460bfa6" CreationDate="2017-05-22T04:07:30.567" UserId="1358" Text="In an indirect statement, could there be two infinitives in the dependent clause for different purposes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13635" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4439" RevisionGUID="21c8a529-a8f1-4a66-abdb-44acf460bfa6" CreationDate="2017-05-22T04:07:30.567" UserId="1358" Text="|translation|syntax|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4436" RevisionGUID="3866ee1c-274a-4a85-8033-0bd6ae3e9a58" CreationDate="2017-05-22T04:27:49.387" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="[Here's](https://books.google.com/books?id=uDAPAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA8) a rewording _solutis versibus_ by Daniel Crespin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nondum abies ex montibus suis desecta descenderat in aquas fluidas, ut terras alienas adiret : et nulla littora nisi sua hominibus perspecta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That probably clarifies a lot, especially that _suis_ modifies _montibus_ and that _caesa_ modifies _pinus,_  but here are a couple other notes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thomas Swinburne Carr [writes](https://books.google.com/books?id=QWdiAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA72):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Peregrinum—orbem,_ a foreign world or clime, as we speak of the &quot;new world&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Pinus,_ the pine, of which ships were made. Hence, poetically, a ship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crespin says of _orbem_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Orbem._] Pro orbis parte posuit, synechdochicè.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my (beginner's) perspective on what's going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By interrupting the clause at _caesa suis,_ Ovid is doing two things: (a) putting _suis_ next to _peregrinum_ to emphasize the contrast; and (b) creating &quot;grammatical suspense&quot;, which emphasizes the modified nouns when you reach them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, here's a word-for-word translation that doesn't quite work even as poetic English, but I think maintains the sense and emphasis of the Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having not yet hewn from its native—a foreign world to survey—&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mountains, a pine, and lowered it [as a ship] into the flowing waves,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mortals had not gotten to know any shores beyond their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am taking the grammar to suggest that the third line is the result of the first two. In the Latin, _pinus_ is the subject of the first sentence, but clearly it's the people who are the agents of all the verbs and verbals: _caesa, viseret, descenderat,_ and _norant._ The tense of _descenderat_ is pluperfect, suggesting that it's referring to a time before something else. I take that something else to be the third line, which completes the thought—the  whole _sententia._ The perfect and pluperfect of _nosco_ refer literally to the process of getting to know, which is already accomplished at the time of interest—one &quot;tense&quot; later than the literal one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [textbook from 1873](https://books.google.com/books?id=9JcAAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA3&amp;ots=JGxOjMbvnD&amp;dq=%22nondum%20caesa%20suis%2C%20peregrinum%20ut%20viseret%20orbem%22%20pluperfect&amp;pg=PA3#v=onepage&amp;q=%22nondum%20caesa%20suis%2C%20peregrinum%20ut%20viseret%20orbem%22%20pluperfect&amp;f=false) seems to agree:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _norant_] The pluperfect of this verb has the force of an imperfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I think has happened is that Latin grammar is not as well suited as English to an absolute construction containing so many subclauses, so Ovid has exploited _-que_ and the subtleties of Latin tenses to express the same meaning. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4440" RevisionGUID="1daa6a73-e7d4-4767-a8bc-1dc80c589f0d" CreationDate="2017-05-22T04:32:36.153" UserId="79" Text="There is no limit to how many infinitives you can have in a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it will become silly after some amount, but having two infinitives does not make your translation wrong or bizarre.&#xD;&#xA;Consider this artificial example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Credo te velle me potuisse intelligere rem ita fuisse.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I believe that you want me to have understood that the thing was so.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (More directly: I didn't understand the thing was the way it was. I think it would have been better for you if I had understood.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your translation is very good, but I would recommend some changes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Rather than using *retro* (which may in fact be correct but sounds a little off to me), I would use a prefixed verb.&#xD;&#xA;I would replace *dare retro* with *reddere* (&amp;approx; *re-* + *dare*).&#xD;&#xA;- The word order is a little unusual.&#xD;&#xA;Latin word order is mostly free, but is often most fluent to use SOV unless you want to stress something or add variation to your sentence structures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that these suggestions are stylistical; I see no grammatical error.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is this variation of yours:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nauta se intellexit debere pecuniam puellae reddere.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the only correct choice!&#xD;&#xA;This is just one suggestion that I think would make your sentence more fluent.&#xD;&#xA;I would also consider moving *debere* all the way to the end after *reddere*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4439" RevisionGUID="8a836120-f853-4104-b56d-c927061540b2" CreationDate="2017-05-22T04:34:09.480" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The sentence is &quot;The sailor realized that he himself ought to give the money back to the girl.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation is &quot;Nauta intellexit se debere dare pecuniam retro puellae.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;(If there are any errors please help.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since &quot;ought&quot; is the verb in the dependent clause of an indirect statement, I think it should be in the infinitive form. However, there is also &quot;to give&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an indirect statement, could there be two infinitives in the dependent clause &amp;mdash; one acting as the main verb and one acting as an infinitive phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13639" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4439" RevisionGUID="8a836120-f853-4104-b56d-c927061540b2" CreationDate="2017-05-22T04:34:09.480" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|syntax|infinitive|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13640" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4429" RevisionGUID="c65b4b26-72b2-429b-9490-d86505dd28df" CreationDate="2017-05-22T04:36:33.050" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|poetry|ovidius|metamorphoses|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13641" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1397" RevisionGUID="65bb1322-89dc-48da-945b-0bee0dec8d4a" CreationDate="2017-05-22T04:43:46.727" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|idiom|military|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4437" RevisionGUID="d9594b08-3edb-4299-8245-78e71e062f46" CreationDate="2017-05-22T05:04:03.197" UserId="867" Comment="extra examples" Text="The closest to this idiomatic phrase I could find was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quaeso, quid narras?*  &#xD;&#xA;sorry, what are you saying?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terence, *Phormio*, act 5, scene 8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which, in this particular dialogue, is not quite “sorry, I didn’t hear that, could you repeat it?” but more a rhetorical “excuse me, what on earth are you saying?”  However, it does seem that ***quaeso + verb of speaking/repeating/telling*** certainly does encapsulate that casual, almost throwaway “excuse me/pardon/what was that?” that we use in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another similar example is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *dic dum, quaeso, mi, es tu Myconius?*  &#xD;&#xA;excuse me, tell me, are you from Myconos?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terence, *The Mother-in-Law*, act 5, scene 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very different from *ignosce mihi* which is often used more like “pardon me, I’ve done something I really hope you will overlook”.  Here it is used in a casual way like the *quaeso* above, yet the tone/meaning is slightly different:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tunc tunc—ignoscite (nolo, quid faciam?) sed sum petulanti splene—cachinno*   &#xD;&#xA;then, then - excuse me (I don’t want to, what can I do?) but I have a cheeky temper – I cackle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Persius, *Satires*, 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quisquis es, ignoscas; in nullam lumina partem  &#xD;&#xA;gurgite ab hoc flexi studioque operatus inhaesi*  &#xD;&#xA;whoever you are, please forgive me; I haven’t taken my eyes off this pool so intent am I on fishing [and therefore can't help you in your search]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, 8.864&amp;ndash;5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since posting my original answer, I came across the following two examples that you might find useful for your context (speaking a second language).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Phormia: *cena “dubia” apponitur*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the “problematic” meal is set before you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Geta: *quid istuc verbist?* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; what sort of expression is that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terence, *Phormio*, act 2, scene 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hanno: whispers something in an aside&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Milphio: *quid ais tu?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; what are you saying?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, *Poenulus*, act 5, scene 2&#xD;&#xA;(This is actually a very funny scene where Hanno, a Carthaginian, speaks Punic and Agorastocles pretends to translate for his master, Milphio) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don’t think either phrases are particularly polite, but perhaps if you just added a *quaeso*, it would soften it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4429" RevisionGUID="d0236480-d89d-494f-9095-e834ce70d19e" CreationDate="2017-05-22T05:17:38.380" UserId="118" Comment="I added a URL that goes pretty close to this passage, but not exactly there. If you can find a URL that goes straight to line 94, that would be even better." Text="I came across a [passage](http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lsante01/Ovidius/ovi_me01.html#03) that is quite difficult to understand. Unlike most passages that I ask about, it is hard for me to make an attempt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nondum caesa suis, peregrinum ut viseret orbem,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; montibus in liquidas pinus descenderat undas,                  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; nullaque mortales praeter sua litora norant;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Charles Martin translates it like this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As yet no pine tree on its mountaintop  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; had been chopped down and fitted out to ship  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; for foreign lands; men kept to their own shores;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if anyone could give a word-by-word translation, to help make sense of the passage. I'll share the observations I have already made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Nondum ... pinus = As yet no  pine tree&#xD;&#xA; - nullaque mortales praeter sua litora norant = men knew nothing beyond their shores&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two clauses are what trouble me (&quot;nondum...undas&quot;). Could anyone help me make sense of these clauses? Are there are any details or constructions that might illuminate the passage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4440" RevisionGUID="9a528df0-f239-415f-b0ee-b5d9966cfb0d" CreationDate="2017-05-22T05:42:11.443" UserId="79" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="There is no limit to how many infinitives you can have in a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it will become silly after some amount, but having two infinitives does not make your translation wrong or bizarre.&#xD;&#xA;Consider this artificial example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Credo te velle me potuisse intelligere rem ita fuisse.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I believe that you want me to have understood that the thing was so.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (More directly: I didn't understand the thing was the way it was. I think it would have been better for you if I had understood.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your translation is very good, but I would recommend some changes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Rather than using *retro* (which may in fact be correct but sounds a little off to me), I would use a prefixed verb.&#xD;&#xA;I would replace *dare retro* with *reddere* (&amp;approx; *re-* + *dare*).&#xD;&#xA;- The word order is a little unusual.&#xD;&#xA;Latin word order is mostly free, but is often most fluent to use SOV unless you want to stress something or add variation to your sentence structures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that these suggestions are stylistical; I see no grammatical error.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is this variation of yours:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nauta se intellexit debere pecuniam puellae reddere.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the only correct choice!&#xD;&#xA;This is just one suggestion that I think would make your sentence more fluent.&#xD;&#xA;I would also consider moving *debere* all the way to the end after *reddere*.&#xD;&#xA;To emphasize &quot;himself&quot; you can add an *ipsum* after *se*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4441" RevisionGUID="5b1b082d-05f7-47d0-a0d4-3417de2c82c7" CreationDate="2017-05-22T07:19:27.643" UserId="867" Text="I have found some alternatives to *gratias tibi ago* in the literature.  I limited my search for simple, conversational thank yous.  These fall into two broad groups:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Thanks expressed using “thanksgiving”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***habeo gratiam*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This occurs frequently in Plautus, often standing alone for a straightforward “thank you”.  It also appears in Terence’s *The Brothers*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *fateor, habeo gratiam* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;I admit it, thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, *Persa* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here it is with the object of thanks in the dative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Epidico habeas gratiam*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; you should thank Epidicus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, *Epidicus*, act 2, scene 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***gratum/grata mihi est*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero uses this quite a bit.  A couple of examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *domum meam quod crebro invisis est mihi valde gratum*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; thank you very much for keeping a close eye on my house&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Letters to Atticus*, 80 (IV.5), Antium, soon after 79&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *… tamen mihi grata hortatio tua est*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; nevertheless, thank you for your encouragement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*De Finibus*, 5.6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here without the dative pronoun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *gratum est quod patriae civem populoque dedisti*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; thank you for producing a citizen for the fatherland and the people&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Juvenal, *Satires*, 14.70&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here alone:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *gratum est*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca, *Medea*, act 3, line 553  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even more brief:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quod Lucceio scribis te nostrum gloriam commendatrum et aedificium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nostrum quod crebro invisis, **gratum***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; for writing that you will recommend my glory to Lucceius and for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; keeping a close eye on my home, **thanks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Letters to Atticus*, 85 (IV.9), Naples, 27 April 55&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Thanks expressed as pleasure and assent to the preceding&#xD;&#xA;   action/suggestion etc:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***bene facis***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuppiter: *iam nunc irata non es?* / you’re not still angry, are you?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Alcumena: *non sum* / no, I’m not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuppiter: *bene facis* / thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, *Amphitryon*, act 3, scene 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***bene vocas***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, combined with *gratia est*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Erotium: *eamus intro, ut prandeamus* / let’s go inside and have lunch&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sosia: *bene uocas, tam gratia est* / thanks but no thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, *Menaechmi*, 2.3.36&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***bene***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *“en” inquit, “hospitium”.  “Bene” ego …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Welcome” he said.  “Thanks” I replied …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apuleius, *Metamorphoses*, 1.22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***optime***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *“nam et a te perfici istam disputationem volo nec tua mihi oratio&#xD;&#xA;&gt; longa videri potest.” “Optime,” inquam …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “for I wish that you finish your argument and no speech of yours could&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seem to me long.”  “Thank you very much” I said …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *De Finibus*, 4.44&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4441" RevisionGUID="82a1c95d-31e3-4fe8-96a0-c9b061fe3458" CreationDate="2017-05-22T08:47:52.873" UserId="118" Comment="Fixed what I believe is a typo: &quot;nostrum gloriam commendatrum&quot;" Text="I have found some alternatives to *gratias tibi ago* in the literature.  I limited my search for simple, conversational thank yous.  These fall into two broad groups:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Thanks expressed using “thanksgiving”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***habeo gratiam*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This occurs frequently in Plautus, often standing alone for a straightforward “thank you”.  It also appears in Terence’s *The Brothers*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *fateor, habeo gratiam* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;I admit it, thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, *Persa* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here it is with the object of thanks in the dative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Epidico habeas gratiam*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; you should thank Epidicus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, *Epidicus*, act 2, scene 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***gratum/grata mihi est*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero uses this quite a bit.  A couple of examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *domum meam quod crebro invisis est mihi valde gratum*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; thank you very much for keeping a close eye on my house&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Letters to Atticus*, 80 (IV.5), Antium, soon after 79&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *… tamen mihi grata hortatio tua est*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; nevertheless, thank you for your encouragement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*De Finibus*, 5.6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here without the dative pronoun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *gratum est quod patriae civem populoque dedisti*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; thank you for producing a citizen for the fatherland and the people&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Juvenal, *Satires*, 14.70&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here alone:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *gratum est*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca, *Medea*, act 3, line 553  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even more brief:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quod Lucceio scribis te nostram gloriam commendaturum et aedificium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nostrum quod crebro invisis, **gratum***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; for writing that you will recommend my glory to Lucceius and for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; keeping a close eye on my home, **thanks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Letters to Atticus*, 85 (IV.9), Naples, 27 April 55&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Thanks expressed as pleasure and assent to the preceding&#xD;&#xA;   action/suggestion etc:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***bene facis***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuppiter: *iam nunc irata non es?* / you’re not still angry, are you?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Alcumena: *non sum* / no, I’m not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuppiter: *bene facis* / thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, *Amphitryon*, act 3, scene 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***bene vocas***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, combined with *gratia est*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Erotium: *eamus intro, ut prandeamus* / let’s go inside and have lunch&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sosia: *bene uocas, tam gratia est* / thanks but no thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, *Menaechmi*, 2.3.36&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***bene***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *“en” inquit, “hospitium”.  “Bene” ego …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Welcome” he said.  “Thanks” I replied …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apuleius, *Metamorphoses*, 1.22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***optime***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *“nam et a te perfici istam disputationem volo nec tua mihi oratio&#xD;&#xA;&gt; longa videri potest.” “Optime,” inquam …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “for I wish that you finish your argument and no speech of yours could&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seem to me long.”  “Thank you very much” I said …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *De Finibus*, 4.44&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4442" RevisionGUID="7082809e-06a7-4564-be48-f252280319bf" CreationDate="2017-05-22T11:16:04.370" UserId="1518" Text="So while there is a plethora of words regarding features of urban planning in Latin, is there an actual term or phrase for the act of planning a city? &quot;Urbs designans&quot; and &quot;inventio urbica&quot; seem like poor fits to me, and I feel like a culture with such a civil engineering bent would have had a dedicated word for the urban planning field, but I just can't find any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, within the field, was there a term for the city grid? I am aware of the terms for the various streets, buildings, etc., but &quot;reticulum urbicum&quot; strikes me as incorrect, as I was under the impression &quot;reticulum&quot; meant more of a &quot;net&quot; than a &quot;grid,&quot; and &quot;cancellus&quot; seems to be more associated with literal bars than cities. Again, I find it hard to believe, given the nature of the Romans, that they would not have had a word for a city grid, but I simply can't seem to find it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13648" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4442" RevisionGUID="7082809e-06a7-4564-be48-f252280319bf" CreationDate="2017-05-22T11:16:04.370" UserId="1518" Text="Term for urban planning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13649" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4442" RevisionGUID="7082809e-06a7-4564-be48-f252280319bf" CreationDate="2017-05-22T11:16:04.370" UserId="1518" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4443" RevisionGUID="71b00b05-51f0-47d8-ad7f-950a329010ea" CreationDate="2017-05-22T14:40:25.840" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[pit (n.1)](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pit&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)     &#xD;&#xA;    &quot;hole, cavity,&quot; Old English *pytt* &quot;water hole, well; pit, grave,&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;from Proto-Germanic *puttjaz &quot;pool, puddle&quot; (source also of Old Frisian pet, Old Saxon putti, Old Norse pyttr, Middle Dutch putte, Dutch put, Old High German pfuzza, German Pfütze &quot;pool, puddle&quot;),     &#xD;&#xA;early borrowing &#xD;&#xA;from Latin *puteus* **[2.]** &quot;well, pit, shaft,&quot; which is perhaps      &#xD;&#xA;from **[1.]** PIE root [*pau-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=*pau-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (2) &quot;to cut, strike, stamp,&quot; but there are phonetic and sense objections, so perhaps a loan-word. Meaning &quot;abode of evil spirits, hell&quot; is attested from early 13c. Pit of the stomach (1650s) is from the slight depression there between the ribs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why did linguists impute 2 to 1? [Wiktionnaire](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/puteus#.C3.89tymologie) also asserts this semantic shift. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13651" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4443" RevisionGUID="71b00b05-51f0-47d8-ad7f-950a329010ea" CreationDate="2017-05-22T14:40:25.840" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What semantic notions underlie 'well, pit, shaft' and 'to cut, strike, stamp'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13652" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4443" RevisionGUID="71b00b05-51f0-47d8-ad7f-950a329010ea" CreationDate="2017-05-22T14:40:25.840" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4444" RevisionGUID="63a29821-4c7c-4363-a386-2bf6d5c7c77d" CreationDate="2017-05-22T16:01:25.537" UserId="1645" Text="I wanted to find out how to say in Latin &quot;everything will be good&quot; (like in &quot;all'll gon'a be fine&quot;). I came up with &quot;Omnium bene futurum&quot;. Is this o.k., or am I too ill-Latined? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13655" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4444" RevisionGUID="63a29821-4c7c-4363-a386-2bf6d5c7c77d" CreationDate="2017-05-22T16:01:25.537" UserId="1645" Text="How to say &quot;everything will be good&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13656" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4444" RevisionGUID="63a29821-4c7c-4363-a386-2bf6d5c7c77d" CreationDate="2017-05-22T16:01:25.537" UserId="1645" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4444" RevisionGUID="8142ac1a-76c6-46e8-aea8-e04681859fd1" CreationDate="2017-05-22T17:16:55.607" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I wanted to find out how to say in Latin &quot;everything will be good&quot; (like in &quot;all'll gon'a be fine&quot;). I came up with *Omnium bene futurum*. Is this o.k., or am I too ill-Latined? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13658" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4444" RevisionGUID="8142ac1a-76c6-46e8-aea8-e04681859fd1" CreationDate="2017-05-22T17:16:55.607" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How to say &quot;everything will be good&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13659" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4444" RevisionGUID="8142ac1a-76c6-46e8-aea8-e04681859fd1" CreationDate="2017-05-22T17:16:55.607" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|idiom|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4445" RevisionGUID="4617f7d8-ad96-4d4c-9df7-d2a7930cb19d" CreationDate="2017-05-22T17:24:34.503" UserId="79" Text="You produce a well or a pit by cutting or striking the ground.&#xD;&#xA;If you read 1 as &quot;hole&quot; and 2 as &quot;dig&quot;, the connection should be clear.&#xD;&#xA;It is natural to derive a noun for the result of an action from a corresponding verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4442" RevisionGUID="94baf90a-b41f-4660-acdf-d457f4e81260" CreationDate="2017-05-22T17:41:53.313" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="So while there is a plethora of words regarding features of urban planning in Latin, is there an actual term or phrase for the act of planning a city? &quot;Urbs designans&quot; and &quot;inventio urbica&quot; seem like poor fits to me, and I feel like a culture with such a civil engineering bent would have had a dedicated word for the urban planning field, but I just can't find any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, within the field, was there a term for the city grid? I am aware of the terms for the various streets, buildings, etc., but &quot;reticulum urbicum&quot; strikes me as incorrect, as I was under the impression &quot;reticulum&quot; meant more of a &quot;net&quot; than a &quot;grid,&quot; and &quot;cancellus&quot; seems to be more associated with literal bars than cities. Again, I find it hard to believe, given the nature of the Romans, that they would not have had a word for a city grid, but I simply can't seem to find it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13662" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4442" RevisionGUID="94baf90a-b41f-4660-acdf-d457f4e81260" CreationDate="2017-05-22T17:41:53.313" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|word-request|architecture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4446" RevisionGUID="99cea3f4-33d3-46db-b378-c1543d1a483a" CreationDate="2017-05-22T17:55:55.037" UserId="79" Text="Vitruvius discusses some aspects of urban planning in the first book of his famous [*De architectura*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_architectura).&#xD;&#xA;However, I do not seem to find a term for &quot;urban planning&quot; there.&#xD;&#xA;He discusses the topic but does not seem to give it a name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the closest hit that I found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*arearum divisiones platearumque* ([Vitr. 1.6.1](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0072%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D6%3Asection%3D1))  &#xD;&#xA;the apportionment of house lots ([translation by Morris Hicky Morgan](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0073%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D6%3Asection%3D1))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no good attested expression in the literature, you should consider coining a new one in classical style.&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest *designatio urbis* or *urbs designanda*.&#xD;&#xA;(*Urbs designans* implies that the city is the one that plans instead of the one being planned. An active participle sounds like a bad fit here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be something better, but it missed my eye.&#xD;&#xA;At any rate, digging through *De architectura* is what I suggest doing first in the search for such a word.&#xD;&#xA;There is probably something for a &quot;city grid&quot; too, but I found nothing better than *angiportorum divisiones*, &quot;the directions of the different alleys&quot; (1.6.13, see the two links above)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4447" RevisionGUID="8d930a9d-7f2b-4e20-9feb-14b050cadfb3" CreationDate="2017-05-22T19:31:47.043" UserId="1518" Text="Before answering, I'd like to clarify the exact definition of a reserve military force, which I'll use in my answer. A reserve military force is once which is composed of soldiers who undergo a training period, then return to their civilian lives, spending some amount of time each month or year staying brushed up on their military skills, so that in the event of war, they might be assembled into their units and sent into combat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, my Latin isn't the best, so correct me if I am wrong, but a phrase is idiomatic if it corresponds with something existent in Roman society, and is what a Roman likely would have called something. As such, let's ask what elements of the Roman military resembled our definition of reserve forces throughout its history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best comparison has to be with the pre-Marian Roman military, being composed as it was of citizen soldiers. This was, quite literally, an entirely reservist force. The length of time deployed for manipular legions does not necessarily mean that they could not have been considered &quot;reservists,&quot; as modern reservists (I'm thinking of the US National Guard here) occasionally spend longer amounts of time deployed than regular troops. Here is where my flimsy Latin skills come into play. I'm not sure if there was an exact word for &quot;citizen soldier,&quot; and a few preliminary searches aren't turning up anything. As such, I'll say that if the Romans had an explicit term for soldiers in the manipular army, those citizen soldiers, that would be the best idiomatic word for a modern Reservist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if that isn't satisfactory, and you want an exact word, probably the best I can come up with is actually &quot;auxilia.&quot; While this isn't the best word, it sort of works. It actually might be a better word for employees of PMCs, but the idea of &quot;back-up&quot; troops deployed to a combat zone to fill in the &quot;gaps in the line&quot; so to say, makes some sense, especially if you correlate modern reservists with, say, state volunteer Union army regiments from the American Civil War. The best argument in favor of &quot;auxilia&quot; is that the historical auxilia were, simply put, not professional troops, but rather were employed to supplement weaknesses in the professional Roman legions, and modern reservist units are primarily used to augment the professional forces of nations, especially those with rather small regular armies, such as Finland." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4447" RevisionGUID="8f68e623-3034-45ea-aced-f46da0da6bab" CreationDate="2017-05-22T19:38:31.110" UserId="1518" Comment="added 322 characters in body" Text="Before answering, I'd like to clarify the exact definition of a reserve military force, which I'll use in my answer. A reserve military force is once which is composed of soldiers who undergo a training period, then return to their civilian lives, spending some amount of time each month or year staying brushed up on their military skills, so that in the event of war, they might be assembled into their units and sent into combat. While some reservists have prior active duty service, in most national reserve forces this isn't the case as far as I'm aware, and even in reserve forces like the US which often have ex-professional service soldiers and even hold themselves to a professional quality, many members do not have that active duty background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, my Latin isn't the best, so correct me if I am wrong, but a phrase is idiomatic if it corresponds with something existent in Roman society, and is what a Roman likely would have called something. As such, let's ask what elements of the Roman military resembled our definition of reserve forces throughout its history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best comparison has to be with the pre-Marian Roman military, being composed as it was of citizen soldiers. This was, quite literally, an entirely reservist force. The length of time deployed for manipular legions does not necessarily mean that they could not have been considered &quot;reservists,&quot; as modern reservists (I'm thinking of the US National Guard here) occasionally spend longer amounts of time deployed than regular troops. Here is where my flimsy Latin skills come into play. I'm not sure if there was an exact word for &quot;citizen soldier,&quot; and a few preliminary searches aren't turning up anything. As such, I'll say that if the Romans had an explicit term for soldiers in the manipular army, those citizen soldiers, that would be the best idiomatic word for a modern Reservist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if that isn't satisfactory, and you want an exact word, probably the best I can come up with is actually &quot;auxilia.&quot; While this isn't the best word, it sort of works. It actually might be a better word for employees of PMCs, but the idea of &quot;back-up&quot; troops deployed to a combat zone to fill in the &quot;gaps in the line&quot; so to say, makes some sense, especially if you correlate modern reservists with, say, state volunteer Union army regiments from the American Civil War. The best argument in favor of &quot;auxilia&quot; is that the historical auxilia were, simply put, not professional troops, but rather were employed to supplement weaknesses in the professional Roman legions, and modern reservist units are primarily used to augment the professional forces of nations, especially those with rather small regular armies, such as Finland." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4447" RevisionGUID="c5851cdb-1284-4403-b8fe-882875c17c56" CreationDate="2017-05-22T19:44:23.783" UserId="1518" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="Before answering, I'd like to clarify the exact definition of a reserve military force, which I'll use in my answer. A reserve military force is once which is composed of soldiers who undergo a training period, then return to their civilian lives, spending some amount of time each month or year staying brushed up on their military skills, so that in the event of war, they might be assembled into their units and sent into combat. While some reservists have prior active duty service, in most national reserve forces this isn't the case as far as I'm aware, and even in reserve forces like the US which often have ex-professional service soldiers and even hold themselves to a professional quality, many members do not have that active duty background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, my Latin isn't the best, so correct me if I am wrong, but a phrase is idiomatic if it corresponds with something existent in Roman society, and is what a Roman likely would have called something. As such, let's ask what elements of the Roman military resembled our definition of reserve forces throughout its history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best comparison has to be with the pre-Marian Roman military, being composed as it was of citizen soldiers. This was, quite literally, an entirely reservist force. The length of time deployed for manipular legions does not necessarily mean that they could not have been considered &quot;reservists,&quot; as modern reservists (I'm thinking of the US National Guard here) occasionally spend longer amounts of time deployed than regular troops. Here is where my flimsy Latin skills come into play. I'm not sure if there was an exact word for &quot;citizen soldier,&quot; and a few preliminary searches aren't turning up anything. As such, I'll say that if the Romans had an explicit term for soldiers in the manipular army, those citizen soldiers, that would be the best idiomatic word for a modern Reservist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if that isn't satisfactory, and you want an exact word, probably the best I can come up with is actually the noun &quot;auxilia,&quot; or the adjective &quot;auxiliaris.&quot; While this isn't the best word, it sort of works. It actually might be a better word for employees of PMCs, but the idea of &quot;back-up&quot; troops deployed to a combat zone to fill in the &quot;gaps in the line&quot; so to say, makes some sense, especially if you correlate modern reservists with, say, state volunteer Union army regiments from the American Civil War. The best argument in favor of &quot;auxilia&quot; is that the historical auxilia were, simply put, not professional troops, but rather were employed to supplement weaknesses in the professional Roman legions, and modern reservist units are primarily used to augment the professional forces of nations, especially those with rather small regular armies, such as Finland." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4446" RevisionGUID="aa6cf1a9-a949-4ded-be96-6843245842f6" CreationDate="2017-05-22T22:58:51.330" UserId="79" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="Vitruvius discusses some aspects of urban planning in the first book of his famous [*De architectura*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_architectura).&#xD;&#xA;However, I do not seem to find a term for &quot;urban planning&quot; there.&#xD;&#xA;He discusses the topic but does not seem to give it a name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the closest hit that I found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*arearum divisiones platearumque* ([Vitr. 1.6.1](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0072%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D6%3Asection%3D1))  &#xD;&#xA;the apportionment of house lots ([translation by Morris Hicky Morgan](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0073%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D6%3Asection%3D1))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no good attested expression in the literature, you should consider coining a new one in classical style.&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest *designatio urbis* or *urbs designanda*.&#xD;&#xA;(*Urbs designans* implies that the city is the one that plans instead of the one being planned. An active participle sounds like a bad fit here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be something better, but it missed my eye.&#xD;&#xA;At any rate, digging through *De architectura* is what I suggest doing first in the search for such a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is probably something for a &quot;city grid&quot; too, but I found nothing better than *angiportorum divisiones*, &quot;the directions of the different alleys&quot; (1.6.13, see the two links above).&#xD;&#xA;If I were to coin a new expression for it, I would probably choose *rete viarum*, &quot;network of roads&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4448" RevisionGUID="73c2c35f-16af-45af-9945-633f47582edf" CreationDate="2017-05-23T04:34:03.873" UserId="79" Text="I found some attestations for *omne futurum* as &quot;all things to come&quot; ([Seneca](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/1017/12/123/60-65,65-72@1#123) and [Statius](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/1020/1/7/8463-8468,8468-8475@1#7)).&#xD;&#xA;You could say *omne bene futurum* for &quot;everything will be good&quot; (not *omnium*, though, since it's a plural genitive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another simple expression, and a one I would suggest, is *omnia bene erunt*, &quot;all (things) will be well&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is good Latin and difficult to misinterpret; *omne bene futurum* can also be understood as &quot;everything that will be good&quot;, leading to a rather different tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please leave a comment and tell how these match your needs, so I (or someone else) can suggest other alternatives or know that you got what you need." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4449" RevisionGUID="776c85b2-fc9c-488b-a181-11ae1b8ab245" CreationDate="2017-05-23T06:53:51.313" UserId="985" Text="The verb _cadere_ ('to fall'), when paired with an adverb (or when its subject is paired with an adjective), can mean 'to turn out (in the manner denoted by the adverb/adjective)' – for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _quis negat, aut quis iam audebit, quod male cecidit, bene consultum putare?_, 'Who denies it, or who now will dare to consider what has turned out badly to be a good measure?' [Cicero, _Pro Rabirio Postumo_ 5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _haud inritae cecidere minae_, 'the threats turned out (to be) by no means empty' [Livy 6.35.10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a number of the attested uses in the _Oxford Latin Dictionary_, the subject is just _res_ ('thing,' 'matter'), used in either the singular or plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _sed si haec res graviter cecidit stultitia mea, / Philto, est ager sub urbe hic nobis_. 'But if this matter has turned out badly because of my stupidity, Philto, we have a farm here near the city.' [Plautus, _Trinummus_ 507]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, going with the plural _res_, and using the closest opposite of Cicero's _male_ ('badly') as the simplest solution, you could say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _res bene cadent_ (or _res bene casurae sunt_ or simply _res bene casurae_), 'things will turn out well.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although you could also say _omnes res_ instead of just _res_, to mean 'all things,' 'everything,' I don't think it's really necessary here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4450" RevisionGUID="6cb7885b-7820-4eec-aad9-47a6ee7d5b45" CreationDate="2017-05-23T09:32:03.543" UserId="1649" Text="the word Lacrymosa, generally, enters in the common language during the middle age when the Italian language was already well developed, in fact this is mostly an hybrid between the Italian word Lacrima and the latin Lacruma. In the case cited by the person who opened the topic we are talking about the Catholic sequence &quot;Dies Irae&quot; composed by Tommaso da Celano that contains a verse that begins with the &quot;Lacrymosa dies illa ...&quot; in the 14th century when the Italian language was already in high phase of development from the Latin and in which the purity of the Ciceronian times was just a faint remembering.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4451" RevisionGUID="3b0c4a94-7ac7-4c0d-af79-d73d2707ecc2" CreationDate="2017-05-23T14:52:16.120" UserId="1650" Text="what would be the most appropriate translation for the sentence *&quot;Risen from the dead&quot;* to latin? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13672" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4451" RevisionGUID="3b0c4a94-7ac7-4c0d-af79-d73d2707ecc2" CreationDate="2017-05-23T14:52:16.120" UserId="1650" Text="How can I translate &quot;Risen from the dead&quot; to latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13673" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4451" RevisionGUID="3b0c4a94-7ac7-4c0d-af79-d73d2707ecc2" CreationDate="2017-05-23T14:52:16.120" UserId="1650" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4452" RevisionGUID="b8762fc9-1e22-4d2b-b5d2-2083d4b96d2d" CreationDate="2017-05-23T15:53:25.070" UserId="1224" Text="A few options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(re)surrectus a letho/morte&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ascenditus a letho/morte&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Surrectus* means risen, and *resurrectus* means risen again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A* (*ab* before a vowel or *h*) means from or by.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Letho* and *morte* are in the ablative case, meaning that someone or something has risen *from* them. They are both words for death. As far as I see, *lethum* is more poetic than *mors*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the subject is a thing and not a person, change *(re)surrectus* to *(re)surrectum*; if feminine specifically (if gender is unknown, -*us*), *(re)surrecta*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same gender-stuff with *ascenditus*, meaning climbed up.&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4451" RevisionGUID="60e7f290-d2e8-49f1-aafb-5d6173c7da12" CreationDate="2017-05-23T15:54:09.027" UserId="1224" Comment="Edited capitalization." Text="What would be the most appropriate translation for the sentence *&quot;Risen from the dead&quot;* to Latin? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4452" RevisionGUID="c9816fc8-db9d-4eb6-bc73-c184902ce833" CreationDate="2017-05-23T15:59:21.660" UserId="1224" Comment="Added extra sentence or two!" Text="A few options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(re)surrectus a letho/morte&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ascenditus a letho/morte&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Surrectus* means risen, and *resurrectus* means risen again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A* (*ab* before a vowel or *h*) means from or by.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Letho* and *morte* are in the ablative case, meaning that someone or something has risen *from* them. They are both words for death. As far as I see, *lethum* is more poetic than *mors*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the subject is a thing and not a person, change *(re)surrectus* to *(re)surrectum*; if feminine specifically (if gender is unknown, -*us*), *(re)surrecta*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same gender-stuff with *ascenditus*, meaning climbed up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that if you find better words, decline them so. Wiktionary.org should provide these. The word you choose for death should be in the ablative singular.&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4452" RevisionGUID="1a7a60f7-6253-4890-b3f2-ce798f7071c7" CreationDate="2017-05-23T16:09:04.077" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="A few options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(re)surrectus a letho/morte&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ascensus a letho/morte&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Surrectus* means risen, and *resurrectus* means risen again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A* (*ab* before a vowel or *h*) means from or by.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Letho* and *morte* are in the ablative case, meaning that someone or something has risen *from* them. They are both words for death. As far as I see, *lethum* is more poetic than *mors*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the subject is a thing and not a person, change *(re)surrectus* to *(re)surrectum*; if feminine specifically (if gender is unknown, -*us*), *(re)surrecta*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same gender-stuff with *ascensus*, meaning climbed up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that if you find better words, decline them so. Wiktionary.org should provide these. The word you choose for death should be in the ablative singular.&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13679" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1294" RevisionGUID="0b371e6b-eb81-4599-a072-db456a5dba11" CreationDate="2017-05-23T17:45:32.157" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|word-comparison|derivation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1285" RevisionGUID="2ab988b9-7f65-4d11-9729-fce058269766" CreationDate="2017-05-23T17:49:14.660" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="In English, and most modern European languages, we have one single word, &quot;very,&quot; which is accepted as the regular way to make an adjective more extreme.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a common way to do this in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Ways I can think of are just using the superlative, or using some adjective like *nimis*, *multum* or *magnopere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. (something) is very cold: maybe *est frigidissimus*, *est multum frigidus* or *est nimis frigidus*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what I'm really interested in is whether there's a &quot;regular&quot; way of doing this.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps different ways were idiomatic in different eras.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the same sort of emphasis as moving the adjective to the start of the sentence &amp;mdash; that emphasizes the importance of the word, whereas I want to change the meaning of it, make it more extreme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13681" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1285" RevisionGUID="2ab988b9-7f65-4d11-9729-fce058269766" CreationDate="2017-05-23T17:49:14.660" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How to emphasize adjectives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13682" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1285" RevisionGUID="2ab988b9-7f65-4d11-9729-fce058269766" CreationDate="2017-05-23T17:49:14.660" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|vocabulary|grammar-choice|adjective|semantics|emphasis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4453" RevisionGUID="2b2605f8-e96f-4912-a995-ec2586d3660e" CreationDate="2017-05-23T20:17:50.777" UserId="136" Text="While Middle School Historian took the more classical approach, I would like to present you with the Catholic/Ecclesiastical approach. Hence, the Latin translation of the Apostles' Creed, or *Symbolum Apostolorum*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et in Iesum Christum, Filium eius unicum, Dominum nostrum, qui&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus, descendit ad inferos,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **tertia die resurrexit a mortuis**, ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dei Patris omnipotentis, inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Credo in Spiritum Sanctum, sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam, sanctorum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; communionem, remissionem peccatorum, carnis resurrectionem, vitam&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aeternam.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Amen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The important part is in bold. This translates as &quot;on the third day he rose from the dead.&quot; So, by using the verb *resurgo*, one would get the phrase ***Resurrectus/a/um a mortuis***. Obviously, *resurrectus* would have to be declined with the proper agreeing noun. [Here][1] is a link with all forms of the word if you need help with the agreement part.&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;The Nicene Creed (*Symbolum Nicaenum*) also corroborates this result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terrae,visibilium omnium et invisibilium.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum, et ex Patre&#xD;&#xA;&gt; natum ante omnia saecula.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deum de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, genitum non&#xD;&#xA;&gt; factum, consubstantialem Patri; per quem omnia facta sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit de&#xD;&#xA;&gt; caelis.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; est.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato, passus et sepultus est,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **et resurrexit tertia die**, secundum Scripturas, et ascendit in caelum,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sedet ad dexteram Patris.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et iterum venturus est cum gloria, iudicare vivos et mortuos, cuius&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regni non erit finis.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque&#xD;&#xA;&gt; procedit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur: qui locutus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; est per prophetas.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam venturi saeculi.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Amen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.cactus2000.de/showverb.en.php?verb=resurgere&amp;gen=0&amp;voc=2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4452" RevisionGUID="91b2257c-960b-4e04-8563-28283cb4259d" CreationDate="2017-05-23T20:21:20.003" UserId="136" Comment="Made explanation of matching gender of subject paragraph clearer by reordering the part in parentheses and removing said parentheses" Text="A few options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(re)surrectus a letho/morte&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ascensus a letho/morte&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Surrectus* means risen, and *resurrectus* means risen again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A* (*ab* before a vowel or *h*) means from or by.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Letho* and *morte* are in the ablative case, meaning that someone or something has risen *from* them. They are both words for death. As far as I see, *lethum* is more poetic than *mors*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the subject is a thing and not a person, change *(re)surrectus* to *(re)surrectum*; if feminine specifically, *(re)surrecta*; if gender is unknown, -*us*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same gender-stuff with *ascensus*, meaning climbed up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that if you find better words, decline them so. Wiktionary.org should provide these. The word you choose for death should be in the ablative singular.&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4454" RevisionGUID="1ed46f10-cd1a-496b-8fa0-60d069ab5c95" CreationDate="2017-05-23T21:11:45.577" UserId="79" Text="There are many particle names ending in -on in English: electron, muon, lepton, proton&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;How should these particle names behave in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that the electron and the proton came first (I'm not sure of their naming order), and the rest were modeled on them.&#xD;&#xA;The electron is &quot;amber&quot; (*ἤλεκτρον*) and proton is &quot;first&quot; (*πρῶτον*).&#xD;&#xA;This makes me want to treat all these particles of second declension neuters of the Greek type, and I wouldn't be opposed to Latinizing them into *electrum* and *protum* if someone is so inclined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Vicipaedia seems to treat these words as third declension masculines ending in *-on/-onis*.&#xD;&#xA;This feels off to me, especially with the final *-n* which I expect to be dropped from a Latin nominative of this kind.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin Wikipedia is not particularly reliable, but there might be a good reason for this convention.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the words were borrowed from English to Latin and assigned to the third declension without much etymological thought.&#xD;&#xA;Or this might be by analogy to Italian where the ending is -one (corresponding to the Latin third declension).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymological considerations and comparison with Italian seem lead to different Latin declensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you think the particle names ending in -on in English should be treated in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;And, most importantly, why so?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13686" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4454" RevisionGUID="1ed46f10-cd1a-496b-8fa0-60d069ab5c95" CreationDate="2017-05-23T21:11:45.577" UserId="79" Text="How should particle names ending in -on be treated in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13687" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4454" RevisionGUID="1ed46f10-cd1a-496b-8fa0-60d069ab5c95" CreationDate="2017-05-23T21:11:45.577" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|contemporary-latin|science|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4454" RevisionGUID="1c55712b-5dba-4f83-88f8-e919cca5337b" CreationDate="2017-05-23T21:52:25.137" UserId="79" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="There are many particle names ending in -on in English: electron, muon, lepton, proton&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;How should these particle names behave in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that the electron and the proton came first (I'm not sure of their naming order), and the rest were modeled on them.&#xD;&#xA;The electron is &quot;amber&quot; (*ἤλεκτρον*) and proton is &quot;first&quot; (*πρῶτον*).&#xD;&#xA;This makes me want to treat all these particles of second declension neuters of the Greek type, and I wouldn't be opposed to Latinizing them into *electrum* and *protum* if someone is so inclined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Vicipaedia seems to treat these words as third declension masculines ending in *-on/-onis*.&#xD;&#xA;This feels off to me, especially with the final *-n* which I expect to be dropped from a Latin nominative of this kind.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin Wikipedia is not particularly reliable, but there might be a good reason for this convention.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the words were borrowed from English to Latin and assigned to the third declension without much etymological thought.&#xD;&#xA;Or this might be by analogy to Italian where the ending is -one (corresponding to the Latin third declension).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymological considerations and comparison with Italian seem lead to different Latin declensions.&#xD;&#xA;Vicipaedia also gives the alternative *electronium*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you think the particle names ending in -on in English should be treated in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;And, most importantly, why so?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13689" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4182" RevisionGUID="3c7a4d64-9c34-4658-abb3-ee39239c4def" CreationDate="2017-05-23T22:19:30.447" UserId="9" Comment="35" />
  <row Id="13690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4454" RevisionGUID="4291c1e5-f83a-49b0-b184-229bc3fe75bd" CreationDate="2017-05-24T00:43:24.800" UserId="118" Comment="added link to Vicipædia article" Text="There are many particle names ending in -on in English: electron, muon, lepton, proton&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;How should these particle names behave in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that the electron and the proton came first (I'm not sure of their naming order), and the rest were modeled on them.&#xD;&#xA;The electron is &quot;amber&quot; (*ἤλεκτρον*) and proton is &quot;first&quot; (*πρῶτον*).&#xD;&#xA;This makes me want to treat all these particles of second declension neuters of the Greek type, and I wouldn't be opposed to Latinizing them into *electrum* and *protum* if someone is so inclined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, [Vicipaedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron) seems to treat these words as third declension masculines ending in *-on/-onis*.&#xD;&#xA;This feels off to me, especially with the final *-n* which I expect to be dropped from a Latin nominative of this kind.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin Wikipedia is not particularly reliable, but there might be a good reason for this convention.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the words were borrowed from English to Latin and assigned to the third declension without much etymological thought.&#xD;&#xA;Or this might be by analogy to Italian where the ending is -one (corresponding to the Latin third declension).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymological considerations and comparison with Italian seem lead to different Latin declensions.&#xD;&#xA;Vicipaedia also gives the alternative *electronium*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you think the particle names ending in -on in English should be treated in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;And, most importantly, why so?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4454" RevisionGUID="053d84ce-34a3-4755-a4c5-11e2442aae37" CreationDate="2017-05-24T01:37:29.007" UserId="79" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="There are many particle names ending in -on in English: electron, muon, lepton, proton&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;How should these particle names behave in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that the electron and the proton came first (I'm not sure of their naming order), and the rest were modeled on them.&#xD;&#xA;The electron is &quot;amber&quot; (*ἤλεκτρον*) and proton is &quot;first&quot; (*πρῶτον*).&#xD;&#xA;This makes me want to treat all these particles of second declension neuters of the Greek type, and I wouldn't be opposed to Latinizing them into *electrum* and *protum* if someone is so inclined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, [Vicipaedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron) seems to treat these words as third declension masculines ending in *-on/-onis*.&#xD;&#xA;This feels off to me, especially with the final *-n* which I expect to be dropped from a Latin nominative of this kind.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin Wikipedia is not particularly reliable, but there might be a good reason for this convention.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the words were borrowed from English to Latin and assigned to the third declension without much etymological thought.&#xD;&#xA;Or this might be by analogy to Italian where the ending is -one (corresponding to the Latin third declension).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymological considerations and comparison with Italian seem lead to different Latin declensions.&#xD;&#xA;Vicipaedia also gives the alternative *electronium*.&#xD;&#xA;Yet another thing to consider is that the neutron might have a significant conflict with the pronoun *neuter*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you think the particle names ending in -on in English should be treated in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;And, most importantly, why so?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4456" RevisionGUID="1bf4210f-d6f2-4cfb-8dc5-4b7225e240de" CreationDate="2017-05-24T09:42:22.917" UserId="324" Text="It is correct that ἤλεκτρον means “gold-silver alloy”, and then “amber”, and that it is the source of modern words like electricity, electric, electromagnetism etc. But I do not think you can say that “electron” is borrowed directly from ἤλεκτρον, especially as it does not have the same meaning. Rather it is a modern formation with the “particle” suffix -on. This started with the genuine Greek words aniōn “going up” and katiōn “going down”, both participles of the verb “to go” with different preverbs: an- and kat(a)-. Then we got “ion” on its own as a term encompassing both, and then, by analogy, “proton”, “electron”, “neutron”, and ultimately also “positron” (the last of these based on a spurious reanalysis of electr-on as elect-ron, and creation of a pseudo-suffix “ron”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what to do in (Neo-)Latin? Perhaps reborrow the English “electron” as electrōn, -ontis?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4456" RevisionGUID="15d9a538-909d-4a5e-98f1-4ce4a005b6fe" CreationDate="2017-05-24T09:47:52.783" UserId="324" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="It is correct that ἤλεκτρον means “gold-silver alloy”, and then “amber”, and that it is the source of modern words like electricity, electric, electromagnetism etc. But I do not think you can say that “electron” is borrowed directly from ἤλεκτρον, especially as it does not have the same meaning. Rather it is a modern formation with the “particle” suffix -on. This started with the genuine Greek words anion “going up” and kation “going down”, both neuter participles of the verb “to go” with different preverbs: an- and kat(a)-. Then we got “ion” on its own as a term encompassing both, and then, by analogy, “proton”, “electron”, “neutron”, and ultimately also “positron” (the last of these based on a spurious reanalysis of electr-on as elect-ron, and creation of a pseudo-suffix “ron”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what to do in (Neo-)Latin? Perhaps reborrow the English “electron” as electron, -ontis?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4458" RevisionGUID="34e8bd56-a590-45f8-b917-2060fd5bd449" CreationDate="2017-05-25T05:19:33.643" UserId="79" Text="In English &quot;Google&quot; has become a verb meaning &quot;to search using Google&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In Finnish the name &quot;Google&quot; is not a valid verb, so it has been modified to &quot;googlata&quot; which is conjugated regularly.&#xD;&#xA;How should I derive such a verb in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want a single word, not circumlocutions like &quot;to search using Google&quot; or &quot;use Google&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The core of the question is to decide the most suitable way to derive a verb from a noun.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore examples of attested derivatives of similar nature and then generalization to the present situation would be the best way to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My own intuition is to form the first conjugation verb *googlare*, but I'm not sure if this is the most Latinate choice and I don't have evidence beyond my intuition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13702" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4458" RevisionGUID="34e8bd56-a590-45f8-b917-2060fd5bd449" CreationDate="2017-05-25T05:19:33.643" UserId="79" Text="A verb for Googling in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13703" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4458" RevisionGUID="34e8bd56-a590-45f8-b917-2060fd5bd449" CreationDate="2017-05-25T05:19:33.643" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|derivation|technology|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2443" RevisionGUID="c624f96e-e0c4-46c1-89e6-704c734a99b9" CreationDate="2017-05-25T05:25:52.047" UserId="79" Comment="added 46 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Although the idea of idolatry has been present for a long time, I believe St. Paul is the first to use the term [*εἰδωλολατρία*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dei\)dwlolatri%2Fa), e.g. Gal 5:20. (Corrections welcome!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two surprises come when we look at the Vulgate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. εἰδωλολατρία is translated as &quot;idolorum servitus&quot; (Gal 5:20) or &quot;idolorum cultura&quot; (1 Cor 10:14)&#xD;&#xA;2. But: &quot;idolatria&quot; is used at least twice, to translate the Greek &quot;κατείδωλον&quot; (Acts 17:16) and &quot;θεραφιν&quot; (1 Sam 15:23, LXX) (which, I found out after some digging, is just a transliteration of Hebrew וּתְרָפִ֖ים (uterafim) = &quot;household idol&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although there are a *lot* of good questions that this cursory look bring up (many of which would probably find a better home at [Biblical Hermeneutics](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/)), I will only ask one: **Why was εἰδωλολατρία transcribed as *idolatria* rather than *idololatria*?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13705" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2443" RevisionGUID="c624f96e-e0c4-46c1-89e6-704c734a99b9" CreationDate="2017-05-25T05:25:52.047" UserId="79" Comment="added 46 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|greek|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4436" RevisionGUID="f5832f83-b167-46c0-aed3-cc843049f9f9" CreationDate="2017-05-25T14:30:00.240" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="[Here's](https://books.google.com/books?id=uDAPAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA8) a rewording _solutis versibus_ by Daniel Crespin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nondum abies ex montibus suis desecta descenderat in aquas fluidas, ut terras alienas adiret : et nulla littora nisi sua hominibus perspecta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That probably clarifies a lot, especially that _suis_ modifies _montibus_ and that _caesa_ modifies _pinus,_  but here are a couple other notes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thomas Swinburne Carr [writes](https://books.google.com/books?id=QWdiAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA72):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Peregrinum—orbem,_ a foreign world or clime, as we speak of the &quot;new world&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Pinus,_ the pine, of which ships were made. Hence, poetically, a ship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crespin says of _orbem_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Orbem._] Pro orbis parte posuit, synechdochicè.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my (beginner's) perspective on what's going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By interrupting the clause at _caesa suis,_ Ovid is doing two things: (a) putting _suis_ next to _peregrinum_ to emphasize the contrast; and (b) creating &quot;grammatical suspense&quot;, which emphasizes the modified nouns when you reach them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, here's a word-by-word translation that doesn't quite work even as poetic English, but I think maintains the sense and emphasis of the Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having not yet hewn from its native—a foreign world to survey—&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mountains, a pine, and lowered it [as a ship] into the flowing waves,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mortals had not gotten to know any shores beyond their own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am taking the grammar to mean that the third line is the result of the first two. In the Latin, _pinus_ is the subject of the first sentence, but clearly it's the people who are the agents of all the verbs and verbals: _caesa, viseret, descenderat,_ and _norant._ The tense of _descenderat_ is pluperfect, suggesting that it's referring to a time before something else. I take that something else to be the third line, which completes the thought—the  whole _sententia._ The perfect and pluperfect of _nosco_ refer literally to the process of getting to know, which is already accomplished at the time of interest—one &quot;tense&quot; later than the literal one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [textbook from 1873](https://books.google.com/books?id=9JcAAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA3&amp;ots=JGxOjMbvnD&amp;dq=%22nondum%20caesa%20suis%2C%20peregrinum%20ut%20viseret%20orbem%22%20pluperfect&amp;pg=PA3#v=onepage&amp;q=%22nondum%20caesa%20suis%2C%20peregrinum%20ut%20viseret%20orbem%22%20pluperfect&amp;f=false) seems to agree:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _norant_] The pluperfect of this verb has the force of an imperfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I think has happened is that Latin grammar is not as well suited as English to an absolute construction containing so many subclauses, so Ovid has exploited _-que_ and the subtleties of Latin tenses to express the same meaning. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4458" RevisionGUID="dadbd635-e275-4f66-bd38-a9edbe9b780e" CreationDate="2017-05-25T14:32:11.827" UserId="118" Comment="I added a hyphen." Text="In English &quot;Google&quot; has become a verb meaning &quot;to search using Google&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In Finnish the name &quot;Google&quot; is not a valid verb, so it has been modified to &quot;googlata&quot; which is conjugated regularly.&#xD;&#xA;How should I derive such a verb in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want a single word, not circumlocutions like &quot;to search using Google&quot; or &quot;use Google&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The core of the question is to decide the most suitable way to derive a verb from a noun.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore examples of attested derivatives of similar nature and then generalization to the present situation would be the best way to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My own intuition is to form the first-conjugation verb *googlare*, but I'm not sure if this is the most Latinate choice and I don't have evidence beyond my intuition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4459" RevisionGUID="df60a9ba-2840-42da-b828-d59ceffbde49" CreationDate="2017-05-25T15:04:50.150" UserId="45" Text="I can think of many ways of going about this, but for such an unapologetically modern idea I think the best approach may be to observe how other related modern languages have solved this problem and extrapolate how a similar transformation might work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Spanish: *googlear*&#xD;&#xA;* Portuguese: *googlar*&#xD;&#xA;* Italian: *googlare*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;French, though, seems to be a hold-out: I have only heard &quot;chercher sur/avec Google.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By analogy with Italian, then, my proposal is: ***googlo, -are, -avi, -atus***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4244" RevisionGUID="dc3bc073-3170-452d-84d9-9e1ac9ae43f1" CreationDate="2017-05-25T15:40:26.003" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="The motto calls upon connotations and associations in Latin that are hard to evoke in an analogous way in English. So here is a clumsy translation followed by some exposition of **generosus** and **virtus** so you can follow for yourself how they combine in the motto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; High-born manliness fears nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;generosus&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;The adjective **generosus** = **genus** + **-osus**. _Genus_ is your birth, your origin, your _kind_—like _gens,_ your clan. If you are _genere Anglus,_ then you are an Englishman by birth, that is, originally, not as an immigrant. _Genus_ is the root of a great many words in English, like &quot;generate&quot;, &quot;general&quot;, and &quot;generic&quot;. These all grow out of a metaphor with _begetting:_ things reproduce after their own kind. Most English words from this root emphasize only having something in common, but the notion of begetting is still there, just a little below the surface: a generation, as in &quot;the 1960s generation&quot;, is all the people born around the same time, seen as part of a sequence of generations each giving birth to the next. The word _genus_ can also mean any sort of group or kind with something in common, but in Latin the metaphor with birth and family is still clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix **-osus** makes an adjective indicating having an abundance of the noun it's based on, similar to the Anglo-Saxon suffix _-ful._ For example, _dolor_ is pain or sadness; _dolorosus_ means painful or sorrowful. (In English, _-osus_ appears as _-ous;_ e.g. &quot;cavern&quot; and &quot;cavernous&quot;, &quot;luxury&quot; and &quot;luxurious&quot;.) When added to some nouns, like _genus,_ it brings a positive connotation: if you are **generosus**, then you come from good stock, you are well-bred. As in English, the Latin word is also used to mean giving freely, since a noble family properly shows largesse, but in Latin this is an extended sense; the primary meaning is being born to noble ancestry—&quot;genetic&quot; superiority, you could say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should come as no surprise, then, that **generosus** is a common word in heraldic mottos, where it is an adjective for &quot;gentleman&quot;. The exact meaning of this varied a lot over the centuries, as the criteria for what entitled you to the rank of gentleman shifted, but the basic connotation remained the same. Putting **generosus** onto your coat of arms asserts that you come from a long line of respectable ancestors even if you don't have a title of nobility. Here's a [dictionary of heraldry](https://books.google.com/books?id=w_5BAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PR222&amp;lpg=PR222&amp;dq=generosus+gentleman+heraldry&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=yoxB0gU7ko&amp;sig=YW5MjFPcPCKIPsRSaEKxeK465mI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwizrZaO4crTAhXD7SYKHQTCBwY4ChDoAQgmMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=generosus%20gentleman%20heraldry&amp;f=false) from 1828 that says some more about this. And notice the sentence in the middle of the bottom row of the picture below: **Generoso germine gemmo**: &quot;From an excellent bud I sprout.&quot; Well, &quot;excellent&quot; doesn't carry the precise meaning, of course, but you get the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![The English Gentleman, by Richard Braithwait (1630)][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Source: [_The English Gentleman_](http://www.thegentry.org.uk/braithwait.html) by Richard Braithwait (1630).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;virtus&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun **virtus** = **vir** + **-tus**. This one is easier to explain. **Vir** means man, and **-tūs** forms a noun meaning the essential quality of the first part of the word, as _iuvenis,_ &quot;a young person&quot;, and _iuventus,_ &quot;youth&quot;. The path from Latin _virtus_ to contemporary English &quot;virtue&quot; is a long one, involving trips through Christianity and supernaturalism, described a little more in the answers to [this question](https://ell.stackexchange.com/q/60946/6700). The main thing to know is that in Latin, **virtus** means manliness, especially strength, courage, honor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;virtus generosa&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the _Tusculan Disputations_ 2.15–16 someone tells Cicero that pain is the worst evil. Cicero asks &quot;Worse than dishonor?&quot; The other person immediately concedes that he was wrong, embarrassed to have been refuted so quickly. A little later Cicero says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ergo id quod natura ipsa et **quaedam generosa virtus** statim respuit, ne scilicet dolorem summum malum diceres oppositoque dedecore sententia depellerere, in eo magistra vitae philosophia tot saecula permanet?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what nature itself, and **a certain [worthy, innate uprightness?]**, immediately spat back out—your saying that pain is the worst evil, a proposition you were driven away from when it was contrasted with dishonor—the mistress of life, philosophy, is going to maintain _that_ for so many ages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure that any English words can satisfactorily translate Cicero's use of the phrase, but hopefully the meaning is starting to become clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;A smoother translation&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So finally here is a less clumsy translation of the motto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gentlemanly courage fears nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this conveys less of the spirit of the motto than the clumsy version did, but it's certainly less jarring if you need a translation that you can use in English prose. I'm avoiding the word &quot;[noble](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility)&quot; because, in the context of coats of arms, this suggests having a [peerage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage)—that is, being a peer of the royalty. A peerage might be hereditary, but originally it is _earned:_ it is conferred by a [monarch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fons_honorum) in honor of a great deed or service. Hence **fit nobilis, nascitur generosus**: nobility is made, gentility is born (more [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=-pQISmv2asUC&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;ots=UW798pe9kX&amp;dq=nobilis%20peerage%20%22coat%20of%20arms%22&amp;pg=PA281#v=onepage&amp;q=fit%20nobilis%20nascitur%20generosus&amp;f=false)). Thus the two are quite distinct, at least in the feudal worldview that gave rise to coats of arms and heraldic mottos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I am not an expert on heraldry. A while back, I happened to get curious about **generosus**, since it wasn't being used in Latin the way I expected—whence the explanation above. And yesterday, your question triggered me to google a bunch about the word's use in coats of arms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Eldt.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4244" RevisionGUID="c60c4e70-cba7-4041-a63b-23ba785c8c3e" CreationDate="2017-05-25T15:47:54.393" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The motto calls upon connotations and associations in Latin that are hard to evoke in an analogous way in English. So here is a clumsy translation followed by some exposition of **generosus** and **virtus** so you can follow for yourself how they combine in the motto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; High-born manliness fears nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;generosus&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;The adjective **generosus** = **genus** + **-osus**. _Genus_ is your birth, your origin, your _kind_—like _gens,_ your clan. If you are _genere Anglus,_ then you are an Englishman by birth, that is, originally, not as an immigrant. _Genus_ is the root of a great many words in English, like &quot;generate&quot;, &quot;general&quot;, and &quot;generic&quot;. These all grow out of a metaphor with _begetting:_ things reproduce after their own kind. Most English words from this root emphasize only having something in common, but the notion of begetting is still there, just a little below the surface: a generation, as in &quot;the 1960s generation&quot;, is all the people born around the same time, seen as part of a sequence of generations each giving birth to the next. The word _genus_ can also mean any sort of group or kind with something in common, but in Latin the metaphor with birth and family is still clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix **-osus** makes an adjective indicating having an abundance of the noun it's based on, similar to the Anglo-Saxon suffix _-ful._ For example, _dolor_ is pain or sadness; _dolorosus_ means painful or sorrowful. (In English, _-osus_ appears as _-ous;_ e.g. &quot;cavern&quot; and &quot;cavernous&quot;, &quot;luxury&quot; and &quot;luxurious&quot;.) When added to some nouns, like _genus,_ it brings a positive connotation: if you are **generosus**, then you come from good stock, you are well-bred. As in English, the Latin word is also used to mean giving freely, since a noble family properly shows largesse, but in Latin this is an extended sense; the primary meaning is being born to noble ancestry—&quot;genetic&quot; superiority, you could say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should come as no surprise, then, that **generosus** is a common word in heraldic mottos, where it is an adjective for &quot;gentleman&quot;. The exact meaning of this varied a lot over the centuries, as the criteria for what entitled you to the rank of gentleman shifted, but the basic connotation remained the same. Putting **generosus** onto your coat of arms asserts that you come from a long line of respectable ancestors even if you don't have a title of nobility. Here's a [dictionary of heraldry](https://books.google.com/books?id=w_5BAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PR222&amp;lpg=PR222&amp;dq=generosus+gentleman+heraldry&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=yoxB0gU7ko&amp;sig=YW5MjFPcPCKIPsRSaEKxeK465mI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwizrZaO4crTAhXD7SYKHQTCBwY4ChDoAQgmMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=generosus%20gentleman%20heraldry&amp;f=false) from 1828 that says some more about this. And notice the sentence in the middle of the bottom row of the picture below: **Generoso germine gemmo**: &quot;From an excellent bud I sprout.&quot; Well, &quot;excellent&quot; doesn't carry the precise meaning, of course, but you get the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![The English Gentleman, by Richard Braithwait (1630)][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Source: [_The English Gentleman_](http://www.thegentry.org.uk/braithwait.html) by Richard Braithwait (1630).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;virtus&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun **virtus** = **vir** + **-tus**. This one is easier to explain. **Vir** means man, and **-tūs** forms a noun meaning the essential quality of the first part of the word, as _iuvenis,_ &quot;a young person&quot;, and _iuventus,_ &quot;youth&quot;. The path from Latin _virtus_ to contemporary English &quot;virtue&quot; is a long one, involving trips through Christianity and supernaturalism, described a little more in the answers to [this question](https://ell.stackexchange.com/q/60946/6700). The main thing to know is that in Latin, **virtus** means manliness, especially strength, courage, honor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;virtus generosa&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the _Tusculan Disputations_ 2.15–16 someone tells Cicero that pain is the worst evil. Cicero asks &quot;Worse than dishonor?&quot; The other person immediately concedes that he was wrong, embarrassed to have been refuted so quickly. A little later Cicero says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ergo id quod natura ipsa et **quaedam generosa virtus** statim respuit, ne scilicet dolorem summum malum diceres oppositoque dedecore sententia depellerere, in eo magistra vitae philosophia tot saecula permanet?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what nature itself, and **a certain [worthy, innate uprightness?]**, immediately spat back out—your saying that pain is the worst evil, a sentiment you were driven away from when it was contrasted with dishonor—the mistress of life, philosophy, is going to maintain _that_ for so many ages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure that any English words can satisfactorily translate Cicero's use of the phrase, but hopefully the meaning is starting to become clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;A smoother translation&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So finally here is a less clumsy translation of the motto:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gentlemanly courage fears nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this conveys less of the spirit of the motto than the clumsy version did, but it's certainly less jarring if you need a translation that you can use in English prose. I'm avoiding the word &quot;[noble](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility)&quot; because, in the context of coats of arms, this suggests having a [peerage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage)—that is, being a peer of the royalty. A peerage might be hereditary, but originally it is _earned:_ it is conferred by a [monarch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fons_honorum) in honor of a great deed or service. Hence **fit nobilis, nascitur generosus**: nobility is made, gentility is born (more [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=-pQISmv2asUC&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;ots=UW798pe9kX&amp;dq=nobilis%20peerage%20%22coat%20of%20arms%22&amp;pg=PA281#v=onepage&amp;q=fit%20nobilis%20nascitur%20generosus&amp;f=false)). Thus the two are quite distinct, at least in the feudal worldview that gave rise to coats of arms and heraldic mottos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I am not an expert on heraldry. A while back, I happened to get curious about **generosus**, since it wasn't being used in Latin the way I expected—whence the explanation above. And yesterday, your question triggered me to google a bunch about the word's use in coats of arms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Eldt.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4460" RevisionGUID="c8d74885-504b-48db-aa6b-a613f20c3707" CreationDate="2017-05-26T00:23:44.080" UserId="1657" Text="I have anger management issues, and am currently working on a tattoo I'd like to have done. So I'm thinking of a good Latin phrase which carries the same spirit as `Memento Mori`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'd like to have is the phrase `Remember Calmness`, but in Latin. A quick search resulted in the translation `Memento Sedatiores`. I just wanted to verify if this is a sound/proper translation of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much! If you also have phrases to suggest, please feel free to comment them!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13712" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4460" RevisionGUID="c8d74885-504b-48db-aa6b-a613f20c3707" CreationDate="2017-05-26T00:23:44.080" UserId="1657" Text="Latin translation for &quot;Remember calmness&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13713" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4460" RevisionGUID="c8d74885-504b-48db-aa6b-a613f20c3707" CreationDate="2017-05-26T00:23:44.080" UserId="1657" Text="|translation|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4461" RevisionGUID="344d7889-db3a-4866-b1b7-aed45d5ecfb8" CreationDate="2017-05-26T01:29:24.173" UserId="79" Text="## Step 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are various words for calmness.&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at these ones, at least:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*clementia*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2010845)&#xD;&#xA;- [*aequanimitas*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2001507)&#xD;&#xA;- [*lanquor*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2031792)&#xD;&#xA;- [*lenitudo*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2032407)&#xD;&#xA;- [*quietudo*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2049815)&#xD;&#xA;- [*tranquillitas*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2060301)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one looks most suitable to you?&#xD;&#xA;Probably some of them are very unsuitable, but the final call is yours to make.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The links above are to one online Latin dictionary, but [there are several to choose from](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;The list above is not exhaustive of all the possibilities out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me *sedatiores* does not sound like a well formed Latin word at all.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps *sedatores* (&quot;calmers&quot;) or *sedationes* (&quot;calmings&quot;), but I wouldn't recommend them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Step 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Decline the word appropriately.&#xD;&#xA;With *meminisse* (&quot;to remember&quot;) you have several choices, and I would use the accusative here.&#xD;&#xA;The accusatives of the listed words are *clementiam*, *aequanimitatem*, *lanquorem*, *lenitudinem*, *quietudinem*, and *tranquillitatem*.&#xD;&#xA;Put one of these after *memento*, and your phrase is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Step 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check that the final wording you ended up with is sensible and means what you want it to mean.&#xD;&#xA;Ask in a comment or a new question if you are unsure.&#xD;&#xA;It's all too [easy to end up with nonsense](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79) if you don't ask someone (preferably several) who understand some Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend against tattooing something based solely on a single Latinist's opinion.&#xD;&#xA;Wait to see how users answer, vote, and comment here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4460" RevisionGUID="0d6b64e6-7215-4915-814d-36ff485c6d55" CreationDate="2017-05-26T02:27:01.647" UserId="79" Comment="Removed a tag and reformatted a bit." Text="I have anger management issues, and am currently working on a tattoo I'd like to have done. So I'm thinking of a good Latin phrase which carries the same spirit as *Memento Mori*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'd like to have is the phrase &quot;Remember Calmness&quot;, but in Latin. A quick search resulted in the translation *Memento Sedatiores*. I just wanted to verify if this is a sound/proper translation of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much! If you also have phrases to suggest, please feel free to comment them!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13716" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4460" RevisionGUID="0d6b64e6-7215-4915-814d-36ff485c6d55" CreationDate="2017-05-26T02:27:01.647" UserId="79" Comment="Removed a tag and reformatted a bit." Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4463" RevisionGUID="a9df1989-c59d-4cf8-804f-1a24a31ae7c4" CreationDate="2017-05-26T05:10:27.977" UserId="79" Text="I am looking for a Latin idiom for disclosing a secret.&#xD;&#xA;In English one can spill the beans, but I am not aware of a similar idiom in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Is any idiom or colorful expression for this **attested** in classical Latin, or should I use something more direct?&#xD;&#xA;How did the Romans express spilling the beans?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13719" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4463" RevisionGUID="a9df1989-c59d-4cf8-804f-1a24a31ae7c4" CreationDate="2017-05-26T05:10:27.977" UserId="79" Text="An idiom for disclosing a secret" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13720" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4463" RevisionGUID="a9df1989-c59d-4cf8-804f-1a24a31ae7c4" CreationDate="2017-05-26T05:10:27.977" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2265" RevisionGUID="b357dc01-1a2e-4aca-ab4a-8051915b2d63" CreationDate="2017-05-26T06:47:06.033" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged." Text="What is the exact meaning of 'solummodo'? I take it is an adverb, perhaps? Encountered this in new Latin, more precisely in Spinoza's Ethics. It is translated as 'only', but it is not in my dictionary, so I would like to know what the exact meaning is. Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;...*quia assueti sunt eas **solummodo** res contemplari quæ a causis externis fiunt*..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13724" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2265" RevisionGUID="b357dc01-1a2e-4aca-ab4a-8051915b2d63" CreationDate="2017-05-26T06:47:06.033" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged." Text="|vocabulary|new-latin|adverb|spinoza|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2000" RevisionGUID="54db4452-b12e-44c2-904a-99d1691bc6ab" CreationDate="2017-05-26T06:50:44.727" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="What are the best Latin words to describe greatness, godlike powers and something holy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll use those words as character name for some MMORPG.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples, along with their translations by Google:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Godlike Powers = Divina Potentia&#xD;&#xA; - Bull's Eye = Boves Oculos&#xD;&#xA; - lightspeed = lightspeed ??&#xD;&#xA; - Holy Judgement = Sanctus iudicium&#xD;&#xA; - Armageddon = Hermageddon &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when I translated the words back to English using Google Translate, almost all the words do not match with what I want. Just similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said in my comment, I have zero experience with Latin words, so even if I use a dictionary, I am not 100% sure that it's the word I am looking for. So, I am asking for help from the experts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13726" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2000" RevisionGUID="54db4452-b12e-44c2-904a-99d1691bc6ab" CreationDate="2017-05-26T06:50:44.727" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4461" RevisionGUID="bb5ce375-812e-4c93-98ea-a273942ff859" CreationDate="2017-05-26T16:31:39.533" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="## Step 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are various words for calmness.&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at these ones, at least:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*clementia*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2010845)&#xD;&#xA;- [*aequanimitas*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2001507)&#xD;&#xA;- [*languor*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2031792)&#xD;&#xA;- [*lenitudo*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2032407)&#xD;&#xA;- [*quietudo*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2049815)&#xD;&#xA;- [*tranquillitas*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2060301)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one looks most suitable to you?&#xD;&#xA;Probably some of them are very unsuitable, but the final call is yours to make.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The links above are to one online Latin dictionary, but [there are several to choose from](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;The list above is not exhaustive of all the possibilities out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me *sedatiores* does not sound like a well formed Latin word at all.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps *sedatores* (&quot;calmers&quot;) or *sedationes* (&quot;calmings&quot;), but I wouldn't recommend them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Step 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Decline the word appropriately.&#xD;&#xA;With *meminisse* (&quot;to remember&quot;) you have several choices, and I would use the accusative here.&#xD;&#xA;The accusatives of the listed words are *clementiam*, *aequanimitatem*, *languorem*, *lenitudinem*, *quietudinem*, and *tranquillitatem*.&#xD;&#xA;Put one of these after *memento*, and your phrase is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Step 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check that the final wording you ended up with is sensible and means what you want it to mean.&#xD;&#xA;Ask in a comment or a new question if you are unsure.&#xD;&#xA;It's all too [easy to end up with nonsense](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79) if you don't ask someone (preferably several) who understand some Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend against tattooing something based solely on a single Latinist's opinion.&#xD;&#xA;Wait to see how users answer, vote, and comment here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4465" RevisionGUID="0313760f-d9d2-46c6-bfd2-c7d9226cf5f2" CreationDate="2017-05-26T22:35:33.323" UserId="1330" Text="Please, do not use the accusative here. As far as I have learned *meminisse* is one of those words that normally require an object in its genitive form. Combinations like *meminisse de aliquo* or *meminisse aliquem* are existent but rather uncommon. To my mind they are also a bit ugly. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1976" RevisionGUID="5823a1af-76f6-41e4-b114-1bcdeb3bf55e" CreationDate="2017-05-27T02:14:47.997" UserId="79" Comment="added 43 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Today happens to be father's day in Finland, and I would like to know how to express that in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that ancient Romans did not have a father's day, so the question is about translation.&#xD;&#xA;How should I say &quot;father's day in Latin&quot; and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Dies patris* is one way to put it, but perhaps *dies patrius* would be better.&#xD;&#xA;What adjective should I use if using one is better than going with the genitive?&#xD;&#xA;Should *dies* be masculine or feminine in this use?&#xD;&#xA;Or should I express it in some other way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13731" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1976" RevisionGUID="5823a1af-76f6-41e4-b114-1bcdeb3bf55e" CreationDate="2017-05-27T02:14:47.997" UserId="79" Comment="added 43 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|calendarium|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1592" RevisionGUID="7f3caa36-ac4d-42cc-9ece-3334fcd94070" CreationDate="2017-05-27T02:16:43.920" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="I'm wondering how the Romans would have said &quot;yes&quot; as in &quot;yes please&quot; or &quot;no&quot; as in &quot;no thank you&quot;. I don't know if they would have said it exactly like that, but what would they have said if they had to mean something like that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13733" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1592" RevisionGUID="7f3caa36-ac4d-42cc-9ece-3334fcd94070" CreationDate="2017-05-27T02:16:43.920" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="992" RevisionGUID="a56291b3-003f-490c-bc36-1175d5f08258" CreationDate="2017-05-27T02:18:39.423" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm trying to translate the sentence &quot;The whole state was thanking this man's brother alone.&quot; (that is, the brother the only one being thanked)&#xD;&#xA;My try is: *Tota civitas fratri huius soli gratias agebat*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if my usage of *soli* (as dative) is right. (I think *solus* must follow the case of *fratri*, which is dative. Am I correct?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm teaching myself Latin with Wheelock's Latin, and this is a sentence given as an exercise in CAPVT IX. I used *civitas* because it is the only word meaning 'state' until CAPVT IX." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13735" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="992" RevisionGUID="a56291b3-003f-490c-bc36-1175d5f08258" CreationDate="2017-05-27T02:18:39.423" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|grammar-choice|syntax|adjective|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4466" RevisionGUID="a86e2c98-0b84-429f-bc35-dbab4f81e32e" CreationDate="2017-05-27T03:19:45.503" UserId="79" Text="The verb *meminisse* can take an accusative or a genitive object.&#xD;&#xA;Also other constructions are possible ([see the entry in L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=memini&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)), but I want to focus on comparing these two in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the accusative and genitive always interchangeable?&#xD;&#xA;Does the nature of the object (person, something inanimate, &amp;hellip;) make a difference?&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference in the meaning between the two cases when both can be used?&#xD;&#xA;If I read L&amp;S correctly, both cases can be used for both people and things, but I seem to vaguely remember that there is more to it than that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13737" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4466" RevisionGUID="a86e2c98-0b84-429f-bc35-dbab4f81e32e" CreationDate="2017-05-27T03:19:45.503" UserId="79" Text="What is the difference between accusative and genitive with meminisse?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13738" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4466" RevisionGUID="a86e2c98-0b84-429f-bc35-dbab4f81e32e" CreationDate="2017-05-27T03:19:45.503" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|verbs|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4467" RevisionGUID="f3271e05-597d-4e35-b4f1-a5ae6a072ea4" CreationDate="2017-05-27T18:54:03.547" UserId="1578" Text="At least in a few cases, I have been taught that Ita or ita vero is correct for yes. I have seen it used when answering questions. As @Draconis pointed out, Ita means it is so, and vero means truly or something like that. However, ita seems to be a shorter, more casual form, not different in strength. Another tactic I have seen (rarely) is to just reply with a verb. In English, this would look like: Do you speak Latin? I speak it. A standard form of no (at least for beginners) is minime. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4468" RevisionGUID="4c954505-9cc4-4dbe-b579-bb3bc593e1ec" CreationDate="2017-05-28T10:28:17.740" UserId="867" Text="Alas, I couldn’t find an idiom, colourful or otherwise, for spilling the beans!  But I did at least find some common ways of talking about letting secrets slip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*genua opsecro, ne indicium ero facias meo* / I’m begging you on my knees, don’t spill the beans to my master (Plautus, *Mostellaria*, 3.2.57)&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first (and possibly most useful) is ***indicium facere***.  According to the *Oxford Latin Dictionary*, *indicium* alone is a “disclosure of something intended to be secret”, while *indicium facere* is “to give away [that] secret”.  *Indicium profiteri* is to “offer information, to ‘turn Queen’s evidence’”.  We can see this use in Seneca the Elder’s *Controversiae* where someone confesses to his part in a theft in the hope of a lesser sentence: *indicium profiteor* (10.6).  So, this seems to capture best the idea and tone of spilling the beans the best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*omnia hercle ego edictavi!* / by Hercules, I’ve gone and blabbed everything! (Plautus, *Menaechmi*, 4.2)&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are a lot of secrets in Latin literature and they are being discovered all the time – too many to quote in full here!  But they are shared (*participo*), made public (*publico*), exhibited and revealed in the worst of betrayals (*prodo*).  They are transmitted and carried far (*edicto, emitto, enuntio, expromo, defero*) and sometimes they just fall out and escape (*excidit*).  As Seneca writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nulla lex iubet amicorum secreta non eloqui* / there is no law that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; orders you not to disclose your friends’ secrets (*De Beneficiis*, 5.21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*linguaque refert audita susurra* / and with whispering tongues she reported what she had heard (Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, 7.824)&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little less direct but perhaps of interest is the use of *titubo*, usually meaning to stagger (typically after too much to drink).  But it is also used figuratively to mean to falter, stammer, hesitate and hence to give the game away.  Thus in *Miles Gloriosus*, one character says to another, “let’s go inside and get our stories straight …”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ne quid, ubi miles venerit, titubetur* / so that when the soldier comes, we won’t falter [and give the game away]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *at vide ne titubes* / but look out lest you stumble [over the details&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the story and give the game away] (*Pseudolus*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *verum illa ne quid titubet* / make sure she doesn’t give the game away&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Terence, *The Self-Tormentor*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another phrase which is also a bit left-field is *hinc illae lacrimae*, which I have seen translated as “the cat’s out of the bag”*, another way of saying that the secret is out.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This proverbial expression was originally a line in Terence’s *Andria*.  A father suddenly realises that his son was only pretending to be upset by something in order to win the affections of a girl:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *percussit ilico animum.  Attat!  Hoc illud est, hinc illae lacrimae* /&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the truth struck me at once.  So!  This is it, this is the explanation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for the tears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Cicero uses it when hearing about a case in which the servants have revealed their mistress’ sordid and secret affair (*rem totam et maleficium … detulissent*) and he says *hinc illae lacrimae nimirum* / now the cat’s well and truly out of the bag (*Pro Caelio*, 25.61).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*In R. Gardner’s 1958 Loeb translation of Cicero’s *Pro Caelio*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4468" RevisionGUID="2d1256c3-9edb-4cab-8dcd-a83ecb60c9df" CreationDate="2017-05-28T10:52:15.923" UserId="867" Comment="changed my crazy formatting" Text="Alas, I couldn’t find an idiom, colourful or otherwise, for spilling the beans!  But I did at least find some common ways of talking about letting secrets slip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***genua opsecro, ne indicium ero facias meo* / I’m begging you on my knees, don’t spill the beans to my master (Plautus, *Mostellaria*, 3.2.57)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first (and possibly most useful) is ***indicium facere***.  According to the *Oxford Latin Dictionary*, *indicium* alone is a “disclosure of something intended to be secret”, while *indicium facere* is “to give away [that] secret”.  *Indicium profiteri* is to “offer information, to ‘turn Queen’s evidence’”.  We can see this use in Seneca the Elder’s *Controversiae* where someone confesses to his part in a theft in the hope of a lesser sentence: *indicium profiteor* (10.6).  So, this seems to capture best the idea and tone of spilling the beans the best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***omnia hercle ego edictavi!* / by Hercules, I’ve gone and blabbed everything! (Plautus, *Menaechmi*, 4.2)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are a lot of secrets in Latin literature and they are being discovered all the time – too many to quote in full here!  But they are shared (*participo*), made public (*publico*), exhibited and revealed in the worst of betrayals (*prodo*).  They are transmitted and carried far (*edicto, emitto, enuntio, expromo, defero*) and sometimes they just fall out and escape (*excidit*).  As Seneca writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nulla lex iubet amicorum secreta non eloqui* / there is no law that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; orders you not to disclose your friends’ secrets (*De Beneficiis*, 5.21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***linguaque refert audita susurra* / and with whispering tongues she reported what she had heard (Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, 7.824)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little less direct but perhaps of interest is the use of *titubo*, usually meaning to stagger (typically after too much to drink).  But it is also used figuratively to mean to falter, stammer, hesitate and hence to give the game away.  Thus in *Miles Gloriosus*, one character says to another, “let’s go inside and get our stories straight …”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ne quid, ubi miles venerit, titubetur* / so that when the soldier comes, we won’t falter [and give the game away]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *at vide ne titubes* / but look out lest you stumble [over the details&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the story and give the game away] (*Pseudolus*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *verum illa ne quid titubet* / make sure she doesn’t give the game away&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Terence, *The Self-Tormentor*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another phrase which is also a bit left-field is *hinc illae lacrimae*, which I have seen translated as “the cat’s out of the bag”*, another way of saying that the secret is out.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This proverbial expression was originally a line in Terence’s *Andria*.  A father suddenly realises that his son was only pretending to be upset by something in order to win the affections of a girl:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *percussit ilico animum.  Attat!  Hoc illud est, hinc illae lacrimae* /&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the truth struck me at once.  So!  This is it, this is the explanation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for the tears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Cicero uses it when hearing about a case in which the servants have revealed their mistress’ sordid and secret affair (*rem totam et maleficium … detulissent*) and he says *hinc illae lacrimae nimirum* / now the cat’s well and truly out of the bag (*Pro Caelio*, 25.61).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*In R. Gardner’s 1958 Loeb translation of Cicero’s *Pro Caelio*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4468" RevisionGUID="bfa72970-ae21-41a5-9984-052ead0b748c" CreationDate="2017-05-28T12:22:33.330" UserId="867" Comment="clarified that I was listing common verbs used to talk about revealing secrets" Text="Alas, I couldn’t find an idiom, colourful or otherwise, for spilling the beans!  But I did at least find some common ways of talking about letting secrets slip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***genua opsecro, ne indicium ero facias meo* / I’m begging you on my knees, don’t spill the beans to my master (Plautus, *Mostellaria*, 3.2.57)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first (and possibly most useful) is ***indicium facere***.  According to the *Oxford Latin Dictionary*, *indicium* alone is a “disclosure of something intended to be secret”, while *indicium facere* is “to give away [that] secret”.  *Indicium profiteri* is to “offer information, to ‘turn Queen’s evidence’”.  We can see this use in Seneca the Elder’s *Controversiae* where someone confesses to his part in a theft in the hope of a lesser sentence: *indicium profiteor* (10.6).  So, this seems to capture best the idea and tone of spilling the beans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***omnia hercle ego edictavi!* / by Hercules, I’ve gone and blabbed everything! (Plautus, *Menaechmi*, 4.2)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are a lot of secrets in Latin literature and they are being discovered all the time – too many to quote in full here!  But looking at the most common verbs used, we see that they are shared (*participo*), made public (*publico*), exhibited and betrayed (*prodo*).  They are transmitted and carried far (*edicto, emitto, enuntio, expromo, defero*) and sometimes they just fall out and escape (*excidit*).  As Seneca writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nulla lex iubet amicorum secreta non eloqui* / there is no law that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; orders you not to disclose your friends’ secrets (*De Beneficiis*, 5.21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***linguaque refert audita susurra* / and with whispering tongues she reported what she had heard (Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, 7.824)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little less direct but perhaps of interest is the use of *titubo*, usually meaning to stagger (typically after too much to drink).  But it is also used figuratively to mean to falter, stammer, hesitate and hence to give the game away.  Thus in *Miles Gloriosus*, one character says to another, “let’s go inside and get our stories straight …”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ne quid, ubi miles venerit, titubetur* / so that when the soldier comes, we won’t falter [and give the game away]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *at vide ne titubes* / but look out lest you stumble [over the details&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the story and give the game away] (*Pseudolus*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *verum illa ne quid titubet* / make sure she doesn’t give the game away&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Terence, *The Self-Tormentor*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another phrase which is also a bit left-field is *hinc illae lacrimae*, which I have seen translated as “the cat’s out of the bag”*, another way of saying that the secret is out.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This proverbial expression was originally a line in Terence’s *Andria*.  A father suddenly realises that his son was only pretending to be upset by something in order to win the affections of a girl:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *percussit ilico animum.  Attat!  Hoc illud est, hinc illae lacrimae* /&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the truth struck me at once.  So!  This is it, this is the explanation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for the tears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Cicero uses it when hearing about a case in which the servants have revealed their mistress’ sordid and secret affair (*rem totam et maleficium … detulissent*) and he says *hinc illae lacrimae nimirum* / now the cat’s well and truly out of the bag (*Pro Caelio*, 25.61).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*In R. Gardner’s 1958 Loeb translation of Cicero’s *Pro Caelio*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4469" RevisionGUID="669130be-3fd0-47d4-ae83-af89c9fafe02" CreationDate="2017-05-28T15:09:26.847" UserId="79" Text="Mushrooms are taxonomically clearly distinct from plants and animals (and other kingdoms), but in &quot;cuisine taxonomy&quot; they are typically included plants.&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;vegetables&quot; in a restaurant's menu can well include mushrooms &amp;mdash; no matter how much I personally dislike this inclusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know whether the Romans saw mushrooms as plants or vegetables.&#xD;&#xA;Are there passages in Roman literature that discuss or hint at the inclusion or exclusion of mushrooms within plants?&#xD;&#xA;Any mention like &quot;mushrooms and plants&quot;, &quot;mushrooms and other plants&quot;, or &quot;mushrooms are plants&quot; would be interesting.&#xD;&#xA;Any word for &quot;mushroom&quot; or &quot;plant&quot; is possible, for example *boletus* and *holus*.&#xD;&#xA;The context can be food or taxonomy.&#xD;&#xA;I did not manage to find anything.&#xD;&#xA;(I purposely decided to leave the question broad, since I fear there is not much relevant extant material.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13744" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4469" RevisionGUID="669130be-3fd0-47d4-ae83-af89c9fafe02" CreationDate="2017-05-28T15:09:26.847" UserId="79" Text="Were mushrooms vegetables to Romans?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13745" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4469" RevisionGUID="669130be-3fd0-47d4-ae83-af89c9fafe02" CreationDate="2017-05-28T15:09:26.847" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|passage-request|cibus|biology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4470" RevisionGUID="09e01a49-73f1-4239-a9bb-fc676fd8b250" CreationDate="2017-05-29T04:32:40.677" UserDisplayName="user1466" Text="You might consider a phrase from the poet Quintus Horatius Flaccus, known in English as Horace, suitable for your purpose.  I don't have any tattoos, but if I were getting a Latin one, I'd want a real Latin quote from a classical author.  There is something almost incredible about hearing the words from the distant past speak so clearly.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From Odes 3.29&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Memento componere aequus.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As with most Latin, it can be hard to put into English succinctly.  Roughly it means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Remember to settle things calmly.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Aequus*** is an masculine singular adjective meaning calm, even, unruffled and modifies the imperative verb ***memento***.  ****** is an infinitive that follows *memento* and means to gather, settle or arrange.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another possible phrase from Horace, Odes 2.3 is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem.***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Remember to keep a calm mind in difficult&#xD;&#xA;&gt; matters/events/circumstances.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This could easily be shortened to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;***Aequam memento servare mentem.***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Remember to keep a calm mind.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These phrases are each from one of Horace's lovely odes.  He lived during very turbulent times, as the Roman republic transitioned to the Roman empire.  His philosophy was to live in the moment and enjoy what you have. Tomorrow is an unknown.  When Horace uses the adjective, ***aequus***, to describe a person or his mind, he is not speaking of controlling anger, but of maintaining calmness in the face of human uncertainty in a more general sense.  Perhaps, this more general sense of calmness will speak to you.  Perhaps not.  Either would make a classic tattoo, in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if you like Horace and want a phrase that speaks specifically about anger, you might consider this one from his letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace, Epistulae, 1.2.62&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Ira brevis furor est.***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Anger is a brief madness.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you would like to read more about how anger was viewed in the ancient world, check out: *[Restraining Rage: The Ideology of Anger Control in Classical Antiquity][1]*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.amazon.com/Restraining-Rage-Ideology-Classical-Antiquity/dp/0674013867" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4470" RevisionGUID="28052cc3-640f-4cb9-8e9d-4d75f7622168" CreationDate="2017-05-29T06:15:55.450" UserId="79" Comment="Added a missing word." Text="You might consider a phrase from the poet Quintus Horatius Flaccus, known in English as Horace, suitable for your purpose.  I don't have any tattoos, but if I were getting a Latin one, I'd want a real Latin quote from a classical author.  There is something almost incredible about hearing the words from the distant past speak so clearly.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From Odes 3.29&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Memento componere aequus.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As with most Latin, it can be hard to put into English succinctly.  Roughly it means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Remember to settle things calmly.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Aequus*** is an masculine singular adjective meaning calm, even, unruffled and modifies the imperative verb ***memento***.  ***Componere*** is an infinitive that follows *memento* and means to gather, settle or arrange.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another possible phrase from Horace, Odes 2.3 is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem.***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Remember to keep a calm mind in difficult&#xD;&#xA;&gt; matters/events/circumstances.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This could easily be shortened to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;***Aequam memento servare mentem.***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Remember to keep a calm mind.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These phrases are each from one of Horace's lovely odes.  He lived during very turbulent times, as the Roman republic transitioned to the Roman empire.  His philosophy was to live in the moment and enjoy what you have. Tomorrow is an unknown.  When Horace uses the adjective, ***aequus***, to describe a person or his mind, he is not speaking of controlling anger, but of maintaining calmness in the face of human uncertainty in a more general sense.  Perhaps, this more general sense of calmness will speak to you.  Perhaps not.  Either would make a classic tattoo, in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if you like Horace and want a phrase that speaks specifically about anger, you might consider this one from his letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace, Epistulae, 1.2.62&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Ira brevis furor est.***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Anger is a brief madness.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you would like to read more about how anger was viewed in the ancient world, check out: *[Restraining Rage: The Ideology of Anger Control in Classical Antiquity][1]*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.amazon.com/Restraining-Rage-Ideology-Classical-Antiquity/dp/0674013867" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4471" RevisionGUID="c37328a2-f6f4-4bd3-bab3-7be62819d811" CreationDate="2017-05-29T13:03:27.160" UserId="79" Text="There seem to be two Latin adjectives that mean &quot;Asian&quot;: [*Asianus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=asianus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) and [*Asiaticus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DA%3Aentry+group%3D79%3Aentry%3DAsiaticus).&#xD;&#xA;The dictionary entries in Lewis and Short linked above suggest that the two adjectives are different, but no comparison is given.&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between these two words?&#xD;&#xA;When should I choose one over the other?&#xD;&#xA;Are there cases where both are equally valid and mean the same thing?&#xD;&#xA;Are there cases where both are possible but the meaning is different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13750" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4471" RevisionGUID="c37328a2-f6f4-4bd3-bab3-7be62819d811" CreationDate="2017-05-29T13:03:27.160" UserId="79" Text="What is the difference between Asianus and Asiaticus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13751" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4471" RevisionGUID="c37328a2-f6f4-4bd3-bab3-7be62819d811" CreationDate="2017-05-29T13:03:27.160" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|word-comparison|adjective|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4472" RevisionGUID="221102b4-0f55-45a8-a7bb-1adc8541af39" CreationDate="2017-05-29T14:16:26.983" UserId="79" Text="There are reasons to treat them as (Greek style) second declension neuters.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin ending corresponding to the Greek *-on* is *-um*, and the names can be Latinized as *electrum* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was no word for an electron in Greek or any other language.&#xD;&#xA;One simply had to come up with a new word or borrow a word from a classical language and change the meaning &amp;mdash; the latter method was certainly not unheard of in science.&#xD;&#xA;Picking *ἤλεκτρον* for the name of a negatively charged particle makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly *πρῶτον* can be chosen for the name of a positively charged particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two words are second declension neuters in Greek, and are easily recognized as such.&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, *πρῶτον* has masculine and feminine words too, but the neuter forms are regular second declension.)&#xD;&#xA;Therefore it is most intuitive to treat them similarly as Latin words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarity to the Greek participle *ion* may be seen as an accident.&#xD;&#xA;I see no problem declining *ion* as *iontis* while using the genitive *electri* for *electron*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would strongly advise against using forms like *electronium*, since there are established physical concepts with names like [protonium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protonium).&#xD;&#xA;When confusion can be avoided, it should." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4456" RevisionGUID="f81105e6-d441-48be-ba99-f849347a8722" CreationDate="2017-05-29T14:45:29.137" UserId="136" Comment="Changed &quot;preverbs&quot; to &quot;prefixes,&quot; as, according to Wikipedia, the use of &quot;preverb&quot; is &quot;not widely accepted in linguistics.&quot; There are some languages where it is more widely used, but Greek is not listed as one of them." Text="It is correct that ἤλεκτρον means “gold-silver alloy”, and then “amber”, and that it is the source of modern words like electricity, electric, electromagnetism etc. But I do not think you can say that “electron” is borrowed directly from ἤλεκτρον, especially as it does not have the same meaning. Rather it is a modern formation with the “particle” suffix -on. This started with the genuine Greek words anion “going up” and kation “going down”, both neuter participles of the verb “to go” with different prefixes: an- and kat(a)-. Then we got “ion” on its own as a term encompassing both, and then, by analogy, “proton”, “electron”, “neutron”, and ultimately also “positron” (the last of these based on a spurious reanalysis of electr-on as elect-ron, and creation of a pseudo-suffix “ron”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what to do in (Neo-)Latin? Perhaps reborrow the English “electron” as electron, -ontis?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4473" RevisionGUID="430b5d35-973d-4a06-a667-92616b99c73c" CreationDate="2017-05-29T15:35:43.920" UserId="78" Text="There's actually another: *Asius*. There aren't many differences between the three, and they could all roughly stand for something that we would call &quot;Asian&quot; (keep in mind the differences between modernity's *Asia* and Rome's *Asia*). *Asius* and *Asiaticus* come from Greek while *Asianus* is Latin, and thus typically is most often used when referring to the province of Asia Minor. For things like &quot;Asiatic oratory,&quot; both are common (in reference to the style, *Asiaticus* is more common, but *Asianus* isn't rare).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Asius* has a couple special uses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B. Adj.: Ā^sĭus , a, um, of Asia: “palus,” the marshy region on the river Cayster, Verg. A. 7, 701; cf. id. G. 1, 383, and Hom. Il. 2, 461; “Asia,” a nymph, Verg. G. 4, 343; cf. Hyg. Fab. prooem.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will also see *Asiani* referring to people far more often than *Asiatici*, and in fact, I'm not so sure you'll see the latter to refer to people from Asia (or Asia Minor)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4474" RevisionGUID="388f1d09-6885-4f42-ac18-c7ba05d5f468" CreationDate="2017-05-29T19:20:12.880" UserId="1664" Text="We all know the principle of divide and conquer: *divide et impera*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering (kind of as a joke) what would be the appropriate translation of &quot;unite and conquer&quot; or &quot;unify and conquer&quot; (whichever one sounds better)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13756" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4474" RevisionGUID="388f1d09-6885-4f42-ac18-c7ba05d5f468" CreationDate="2017-05-29T19:20:12.880" UserId="1664" Text="How would one say &quot;Unite/unify and conquer&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13757" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4474" RevisionGUID="388f1d09-6885-4f42-ac18-c7ba05d5f468" CreationDate="2017-05-29T19:20:12.880" UserId="1664" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4475" RevisionGUID="ccb1ebe2-c1f2-4e83-a976-8d7a21fc76e0" CreationDate="2017-05-29T19:53:52.350" UserId="78" Text="There are several different ways, but I prefer *conduc et impera*. *Conducere* is one of the many words which can mean &quot;unite,&quot; but in this particular case, it's also used for gathering together troops:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Of persons (esp. freq. of the collecting, assembling of troops in any place): milites de castellis ad castra, Sisenn. ap. Non. p. 514, 7: “populum in forum,” Varr. ib. p. 274, 20: “exercitum in unum locum,” Caes. B. G. 2, 2: “eo copias omnes,” id. B. C. 3, 13 fin.: “copias suas,” id. B. G. 6, 31 init.; cf. “auxilia,” Liv. 30, 21, 3; 23, 13, 8: “dispersas suorum copias,” Tac. H. 4, 71: “virgines unum in locum,” Cic. Inv. 2, 1, 3: “omnis clientes suos eodem,” Caes. B. G. 1, 4: “milites in unum,” Sall. J. 51, 3; cf. Tac. A. 4, 47.—" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4476" RevisionGUID="8ef50fe8-b55e-405c-bfae-e518d5ad6e1d" CreationDate="2017-05-29T21:10:27.237" UserId="1665" Text="Im looking at getting a Latin phrase/quote on my arm and Id like to know if the translation im thinking about using is correct. I've pulled some translations from this website and it seems to be corrects but I would like the help of more knowledgeable people to confirm that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the 'Phrases' im looking to use:&#xD;&#xA;-Deo Servante (With God protecting)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Deo Custode (With God as a guardian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Deo Aegide (With God as a shield)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Deo Patrocinante (With God protecting)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Deo Patrono (With God as a guardian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Deo Praesite (With God protecting)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Deo Tutamine (With God as a protecting force (trying to illustrate that it is neuter))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Deo Tutante (With God protecting)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Deo Vindicante (With God protecting/seeking vengeance)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I pulled from [here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/protected-by-god.1537/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13760" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4476" RevisionGUID="8ef50fe8-b55e-405c-bfae-e518d5ad6e1d" CreationDate="2017-05-29T21:10:27.237" UserId="1665" Text="God Protects us Lat &gt; Eng Translation help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13761" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4476" RevisionGUID="8ef50fe8-b55e-405c-bfae-e518d5ad6e1d" CreationDate="2017-05-29T21:10:27.237" UserId="1665" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13762" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4476" RevisionGUID="c054a29a-3af5-427d-abf0-196d01809d3c" CreationDate="2017-05-29T21:19:40.130" UserId="136" Comment="Removed Greek tag as the question has nothing to do with Greek, replaced it with Translation tag" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4476" RevisionGUID="f4e3e74b-c229-4c0f-b548-fd3211629603" CreationDate="2017-05-29T21:44:04.777" UserId="1666" Comment="Added alittle more detail to my intro" Text="Im looking at getting a Latin phrase/quote on my arm and Id like to know if the translation im thinking about using is correct. I've pulled some translations from this website and it seems to be corrects but I would like the help of more knowledgeable people to confirm that.I just want to know if these are the actual translations, but also if you can give me the translation for 'God is vengeful' or 'God will vindicate' than that is the actual translation I am lookin for. Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the 'Phrases' im looking to use:&#xD;&#xA;-Deo Servante (With God protecting)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Deo Custode (With God as a guardian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Deo Aegide (With God as a shield)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Deo Patrocinante (With God protecting)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Deo Patrono (With God as a guardian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Deo Praesite (With God protecting)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Deo Tutamine (With God as a protecting force (trying to illustrate that it is neuter))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Deo Tutante (With God protecting)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Deo Vindicante (With God protecting/seeking vengeance)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I pulled from [here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/protected-by-god.1537/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13765" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4476" RevisionGUID="f4e3e74b-c229-4c0f-b548-fd3211629603" CreationDate="2017-05-29T21:44:04.777" Comment="Proposed by 1666 approved by -1 edit id of 185" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4476" RevisionGUID="9005be22-7379-4294-8163-c7586b7fd464" CreationDate="2017-05-29T21:44:04.777" UserId="9" Comment="Added alittle more detail to my intro" Text="Im looking at getting a Latin phrase/quote on my arm and I'd like to know if the translation I'm thinking about using is correct. I've pulled some translations from this website ([Protected By God - Latin Discussion][1]) and they seem to be correct but I would like the help of more knowledgeable people to confirm that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the 'phrases' I'm looking to use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Deo Servante (With God protecting)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Deo Custode (With God as a guardian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Deo Aegide (With God as a shield)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Deo Patrocinante (With God protecting)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Deo Patrono (With God as a guardian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Deo Praesite (With God protecting)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Deo Tutamine (With God as a protecting force (trying to illustrate that it is neuter))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Deo Tutante (With God protecting)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Deo Vindicante (With God protecting/seeking vengeance)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just want to know if these are the actual translations, but also if you can give me the translation for 'God is vengeful' or 'God will vindicate' than that is the actual translation I am looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/protected-by-god.1537/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4478" RevisionGUID="06ff7c47-352a-4bc1-af9b-8a0ae73825b7" CreationDate="2017-05-29T22:01:32.970" UserId="136" Text="Based on your question, I will confirm the translations provided, and the format will be Original Latin-English Translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Deo Servante* - With God protecting/preserving/guarding&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Deo Custode* - With God the guard/protector/watchman&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Deo Aegide* - With God the shield/defense&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Deo Patrocinante* - With God defending/protecting&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Deo Patrono* - With God the patron/advocate (I don't really like this one because *patronus* had a more specific cultural meaning, but it still works I guess.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Deo Praesite* - I'm not quite sure about this one, *praesite* is not a form I'm familiar with. [WWW][1] says its a compound meaning &quot;stored completely,&quot; and [Perseus][2] returns no search results for the word, so I'm not quite sure where they got that one from. If someone can enlighten me, I'd be very happy.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Deo Tutamine* - With God the means of protection/protection&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Deo Tutante* - With God guarding/protecting/defending&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Deo Vindicante* - With God claiming/vindicating/avenging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now that you know what those phrases mean more closely, here are my suggestions for what you would like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; God is vengeful - *Deus ultrix (est)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this one, *est* is the &quot;is,&quot; and is commonly omitted in things like this, so feel free to include it or exclude it if you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;God will vindicate - *Deus vindicabit/iustificabit*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both verbs mean vindicate, so choose only one, but I prefer *vindicabit* more because it has the more vengeful context you seem to be looking for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, those are literal translations of the phrases about which you asked, but I have some other suggestions that may also work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Deus Ultor/Vindicator* - God the Avenger&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was an actual Roman god named *Mars Ultor* or Mars the Avenger, so this makes sense as a construction, plus it sounds pretty cool in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Deus Vindicaturus* - God about to Avenge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't prefer this one, but I though of it and it still has a similar meaning, so I figured I'd still put it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps, and good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?keyword=praesite&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=praesitus&amp;lang=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13768" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4476" RevisionGUID="e7d85af9-0213-4307-9809-9e3402da8033" CreationDate="2017-05-29T22:04:33.120" UserId="136" Comment="Altered title to reflect question better" Text="God is Vengeful Translation Help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4478" RevisionGUID="fd4bcade-e6a6-4e02-9064-fc073f47a194" CreationDate="2017-05-29T23:29:18.557" UserId="136" Comment="Updated translation after revelation of misspelling in original source" Text="Based on your question, I will confirm the translations provided, and the format will be Original Latin-English Translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Deo Servante* - With God protecting/preserving/guarding&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Deo Custode* - With God the guard/protector/watchman&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Deo Aegide* - With God the shield/defense&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Deo Patrocinante* - With God defending/protecting&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Deo Patrono* - With God the patron/advocate (I don't really like this one because *patronus* had a more specific cultural meaning, but it still works I guess.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Deo Praesite* - *Praesite* most likely is a misspelling of *Praeside*, which would make the translation: With God the protector/guardian/defender&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Deo Tutamine* - With God the means of protection/protection&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Deo Tutante* - With God guarding/protecting/defending&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Deo Vindicante* - With God claiming/vindicating/avenging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now that you know what those phrases mean more closely, here are my suggestions for what you would like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; God is vengeful - *Deus ultrix (est)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this one, *est* is the &quot;is,&quot; and is commonly omitted in things like this, so feel free to include it or exclude it if you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;God will vindicate - *Deus vindicabit/iustificabit*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both verbs mean vindicate, so choose only one, but I prefer *vindicabit* more because it has the more vengeful context you seem to be looking for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, those are literal translations of the phrases about which you asked, but I have some other suggestions that may also work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Deus Ultor/Vindicator* - God the Avenger&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was an actual Roman god named *Mars Ultor* or Mars the Avenger, so this makes sense as a construction, plus it sounds pretty cool in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Deus Vindicaturus* - God about to Avenge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't prefer this one, but I though of it and it still has a similar meaning, so I figured I'd still put it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps, and good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?keyword=praesite&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=praesitus&amp;lang=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4408" RevisionGUID="408eaa39-867a-47ac-8630-1523a16a9169" CreationDate="2017-05-30T05:40:34.077" UserDisplayName="user1466" Comment="Remove ExLax coment." Text="**Ex Lux** is a fun name for the character's bar.  I think the use of the Latin is meant to be playful. (And yes, I know the Latin is not correctly formed according to Latin rules, even medieval ones.) The main character's name is **Lucifer Morningstar** and I'm guessing he's a night owl.  Lucifer means light-bringer, of course. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ex Lux*** sounds cooler in English than ***e luce*** for **out of the light** or **from the light**. I think so, even though I love Latin and this is not quite proper Latin.  I think maybe ***ex lux*** is also playing on **de luxe** from French.  I don't know the comic, but suspect ***lux*** as a double entendre here for both **light** and **luxury**.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ex lux*** could be an English shortening of ***ex luxuria*** -- **from luxury** and in English still carry the meaning light.  Many people know the prhase ***Fiat lux.***  Let there be light, so ***lux*** is familiar to some ears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cf. **deluxe** - luxurious, topnotch&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; in French - *modèle de luxe* = **deluxe model**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Latin ***[luxuria][1]*** means luxury in our sense, but also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; extravagance, excess and even reckless living.  Cicero contrasts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***luxuria*** with **[parsimonia][2]** (frugality, thrift).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***In urbe luxuries creatur, ex luxuriā existat avaritia, necesse est***,” Cic. Rosc. Am. 27, 75&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=luxuria&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=parsimonia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;=====================&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addendum:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Only after this question and various answers unfolded have I begun to see all the references.  Satan in the Hebrew bible is described as the morning star.  I don't know much about why St. Jerome used the Latin term Lucifer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Ex Lux -- Former Light -- is this possibly a reference to Lucifer's fallen angel or ex-angel status?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is not really a Latin question, but I've had fun thinking about it and learned some things too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4479" RevisionGUID="9496a3fd-18a3-4071-b621-2e28e651d14b" CreationDate="2017-05-30T10:57:12.450" UserId="1667" Text="Next text is called _&quot;Lorem ipsum&quot;_ and is a filler text commonly used to demonstrate the graphic elements of a document or visual presentation. But what does it mean? Can you give a resume about the text?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Full text on [loremipsum.nl][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://loremipsum.nl/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13777" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4479" RevisionGUID="9496a3fd-18a3-4071-b621-2e28e651d14b" CreationDate="2017-05-30T10:57:12.450" UserId="1667" Text="What means the Lorem Ipsum text?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13778" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4479" RevisionGUID="9496a3fd-18a3-4071-b621-2e28e651d14b" CreationDate="2017-05-30T10:57:12.450" UserId="1667" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4480" RevisionGUID="5d7f2a7d-9602-4397-9c24-5f34403955b4" CreationDate="2017-05-30T12:27:57.500" UserId="1439" Text="The text is not a coherent passage of Latin but rather is derived from sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 of &quot;de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum&quot; (The Extremes of Good and Evil) by Cicero, written in 45 BC. [This website][1] has both sections and their English translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sectie 1.10.32 van &quot;de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum&quot;, geschreven door&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cicero in 45 v.Chr.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1914 vertaling door H. Rackham&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of denouncing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pleasure and praising pain was born and I will give you a complete&#xD;&#xA;&gt; account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the great&#xD;&#xA;&gt; explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness. No one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally&#xD;&#xA;&gt; encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again is there&#xD;&#xA;&gt; anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because it is pain, but because occasionally circumstances occur in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces&#xD;&#xA;&gt; no resultant pleasure?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sectie 1.10.33 van &quot;de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum&quot;, geschreven door&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cicero in 45 v.Chr.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui&#xD;&#xA;&gt; blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est&#xD;&#xA;&gt; laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita&#xD;&#xA;&gt; distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Temporibus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; autem quibusdam et aut officiis debitis aut rerum necessitatibus saepe&#xD;&#xA;&gt; eveniet ut et voluptates repudiandae sint et molestiae non recusandae.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; asperiores repellat.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1914 vertaling door H. Rackham&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike&#xD;&#xA;&gt; men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms of pleasure of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and trouble that are bound to ensue; and equal blame belongs to those&#xD;&#xA;&gt; who fail in their duty through weakness of will, which is the same as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; saying through shrinking from toil and pain. These cases are perfectly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; simple and easy to distinguish. In a free hour, when our power of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; choice is untrammelled and when nothing prevents our being able to do&#xD;&#xA;&gt; what we like best, every pleasure is to be welcomed and every pain&#xD;&#xA;&gt; avoided. But in certain circumstances and owing to the claims of duty&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or the obligations of business it will frequently occur that pleasures&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have to be repudiated and annoyances accepted. The wise man therefore&#xD;&#xA;&gt; always holds in these matters to this principle of selection: he&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rejects pleasures to secure other greater pleasures, or else he&#xD;&#xA;&gt; endures pains to avoid worse pains.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://nl.lipsum.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4481" RevisionGUID="dd6bc4a1-b98e-4593-8566-bc7022bc59b6" CreationDate="2017-05-30T14:56:25.210" UserId="79" Text="What would be a good Latin word for &quot;form&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;I mean the word in the sense it has in &quot;To order our new Latin language product, please fill in this online form&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I was unable to find this sense of the word in online dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the English word is derived from the Latin *forma*, but that fact alone is not sufficiently convincing evidence to me that that is the best word to use.&#xD;&#xA;Many languages seem to use something that looks like *formularium*, and some have something resembling [_*blancus_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Latin/blancus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if the Romans had anything like forms.&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not there is any classical precedent, I'm looking for something that could work well in modern use like the example sentence above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4481" RevisionGUID="dd6bc4a1-b98e-4593-8566-bc7022bc59b6" CreationDate="2017-05-30T14:56:25.210" UserId="79" Text="A word for form" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4481" RevisionGUID="dd6bc4a1-b98e-4593-8566-bc7022bc59b6" CreationDate="2017-05-30T14:56:25.210" UserId="79" Text="|contemporary-latin|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4479" RevisionGUID="cefee92f-dcf1-472c-a9dc-86083092c942" CreationDate="2017-05-30T19:58:34.313" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;Lorem ipsum&quot; is a filler text commonly used to demonstrate the graphic elements of a document or visual presentation. But what does it mean? Can you give a brief review of the text's origin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Full text on [loremipsum.nl][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://loremipsum.nl/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13784" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4479" RevisionGUID="cefee92f-dcf1-472c-a9dc-86083092c942" CreationDate="2017-05-30T19:58:34.313" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited title" Text="What does the &quot;Lorem Ipsum&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4482" RevisionGUID="d8fcf53b-ea11-4038-9d6a-1e426d83a189" CreationDate="2017-05-30T20:34:53.170" UserId="136" Text="According to the [Morgan and Silva Furman University Lexicon][1], you have two options for the entry &quot;[form (document with blanks to fill in)][2]&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *formula -ae f.*&#xD;&#xA; - *schida formularia*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, *schida formularia* is specifically marked as a modern word (after 1400 AD), and *formula* is obviously classical in origin, and there is [evidence in Livy][3] that suggests it had a similar meaning to the modern one in classical times. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These entries were found in the first part of the Lexicon, and are generally considered more reliable. However, there were some [additional entries][4] in the second part:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *formularium*&#xD;&#xA; - *folium interrogativum+*&#xD;&#xA; - *interrogatorium++*&#xD;&#xA; - *quaestionarium*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+Modern (post 1400)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;++Medieval (700-1400)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last three reference more of a questionnaire style form, so that could also be useful if that difference needs to be made. There are further entries under &quot;[form (document)][4].&quot; I do not believe, however, that these are what you are looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *exemplar typis descriptum*&#xD;&#xA; - *specimen*&#xD;&#xA; - *typus*&#xD;&#xA; - *norma*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the verb &quot;to fill out a form&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *[schedulam explere][4]*&#xD;&#xA; - *[formulam explere][5]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Presumably the second one would be more applicable.&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;Several of these links are supposed to take you to the page at which the entries can be found in the PDF, but if it does not work I apologize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ia801000.us.archive.org/12/items/TheLexiconAnglumEtLatinumByDavidMorgan/MorganAndSilvaFurmanUniversityLexicon.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ia801000.us.archive.org/12/items/TheLexiconAnglumEtLatinumByDavidMorgan/MorganAndSilvaFurmanUniversityLexicon.pdf#page=97&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dformula&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ia801000.us.archive.org/12/items/TheLexiconAnglumEtLatinumByDavidMorgan/MorganAndSilvaFurmanUniversityLexicon.pdf#page=383&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ia801000.us.archive.org/12/items/TheLexiconAnglumEtLatinumByDavidMorgan/MorganAndSilvaFurmanUniversityLexicon.pdf#page=495" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4483" RevisionGUID="a2ca40f9-a20f-408a-84e7-f2d7ae1c865c" CreationDate="2017-05-31T00:27:51.543" UserId="1668" Text="I'm in the midst of designing a graphic for my parents' 50th anniversary celebration, and for obscure reasons I want to include the proper Latin equivalent of &quot;since 1967&quot;, in the same way that a business might include a founding date on a sign or logo, such as &quot;est. 1950&quot; or &quot;ever since 1995&quot;. My research on the web has thus far been inconclusive, indicating that either &quot;ex MCMLXVII&quot; or &quot;ab MCMLXVII&quot; would be most appropriate, but I am unable to determine which is more appropriate (or if there is some other way of putting it entirely that would be preferred).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the best way to write a founding date for an ongoing entity (or the date of the beginning of a marriage, if that differs from the general case)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13787" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4483" RevisionGUID="a2ca40f9-a20f-408a-84e7-f2d7ae1c865c" CreationDate="2017-05-31T00:27:51.543" UserId="1668" Text="Translation of &quot;since 1950&quot; (for example)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13788" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4483" RevisionGUID="a2ca40f9-a20f-408a-84e7-f2d7ae1c865c" CreationDate="2017-05-31T00:27:51.543" UserId="1668" Text="|translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4484" RevisionGUID="f0a07bdb-5b93-463a-baee-7a799970a22c" CreationDate="2017-05-31T02:07:22.900" UserId="136" Text="First off, please congratulate your parents on such a marked achievement! Now, I'm not sure if there is something specific to marriage, but I know such a general construction exists. The Romans used a dating system based off of the years since the founding of Rome, so for instance, the year 1 AD would be written:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *DCCLIV ab urbe condita*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;754 from the city having been founded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, one could adapt this to a marriage like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *L a nuptiis conditis* OR *L a coniugio condito*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, &quot;L&quot; represents 50, but this does not really incorporate the year in which your parents were married. You could thus manipulate the above to get what you need:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Nuptiis conditis MCMLXVII anno domini*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;With the marriage having been founded in the 1967th year of the Lord&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a little lengthy, so you could abbreviate *anno domini* in the normal fashion to AD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A/ab* can also mean &quot;since&quot;, so your guess of *a MCMLXVII* could still be technically correct.&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;*It is important to use the correct form of *a/ab*. *A* is generally used in front of a consonant, while *ab* is used in front of vowels. This is comparable to the use of &quot;a/an&quot; in English. How this works in front of Roman numerals I am not quite sure, so if someone could either confirm or negate my current guess that would be great." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4485" RevisionGUID="ea074cc7-e0af-4e7d-b89d-9dc3fa6bbf57" CreationDate="2017-05-31T04:06:14.547" UserId="118" Text="When I first looked into Latin, I saw in a textbook that the dative and ablative singular are the same in the second declension:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _nom._ servus&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _acc._ servum&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _gen._ servi&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _dat._ serv**o**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _acc._ serv**o**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _voc._ serve&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in the plural, the dative and ablative are the same in all declensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought, &quot;Oh no! These have nearly opposite meanings! I need to keep this ambiguity in mind while hearing/reading a sentence until something resolves it? What if nothing does? How do people live with an ambiguity like that?&quot; Of course I know that English has similar kinds of ambiguity that must be kept in mind, but I still wondered about this. Eventually I learned that a dative noun is never the object of a preposition, which helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When reading, I've often been tripped up the dative–ablative ambiguity, but in nearly every case (no pun intended), I've found that only one interpretation was reasonable. Amazing!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here's my question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) Why is dative–ablative ambiguity not a problem in practice? Or am I mistaken about that: are there actually common, barely noticeable conventions for preventing it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) How do people deal with the ambiguity when it's real? For example, if a ship is named &quot;Deo Data&quot;, does that mean &quot;Given by God&quot; or &quot;Given to God&quot;? How do you tell?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13791" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4485" RevisionGUID="ea074cc7-e0af-4e7d-b89d-9dc3fa6bbf57" CreationDate="2017-05-31T04:06:14.547" UserId="118" Text="Dative–ablative ambiguity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13792" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4485" RevisionGUID="ea074cc7-e0af-4e7d-b89d-9dc3fa6bbf57" CreationDate="2017-05-31T04:06:14.547" UserId="118" Text="|ambiguity|ablative|dative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4485" RevisionGUID="24ee76d3-1239-489b-8572-1b86e1140aae" CreationDate="2017-05-31T04:38:12.487" UserId="9" Comment="fixed typo" Text="When I first looked into Latin, I saw in a textbook that the dative and ablative singular are the same in the second declension:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _nom._ servus&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _acc._ servum&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _gen._ servi&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _dat._ serv**o**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _abl._ serv**o**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _voc._ serve&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in the plural, the dative and ablative are the same in all declensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought, &quot;Oh no! These have nearly opposite meanings! I need to keep this ambiguity in mind while hearing/reading a sentence until something resolves it? What if nothing does? How do people live with an ambiguity like that?&quot; Of course I know that English has similar kinds of ambiguity that must be kept in mind, but I still wondered about this. Eventually I learned that a dative noun is never the object of a preposition, which helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When reading, I've often been tripped up the dative–ablative ambiguity, but in nearly every case (no pun intended), I've found that only one interpretation was reasonable. Amazing!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here's my question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) Why is dative–ablative ambiguity not a problem in practice? Or am I mistaken about that: are there actually common, barely noticeable conventions for preventing it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) How do people deal with the ambiguity when it's real? For example, if a ship is named &quot;Deo Data&quot;, does that mean &quot;Given by God&quot; or &quot;Given to God&quot;? How do you tell?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4486" RevisionGUID="79a399c6-c93d-4c6b-b2d9-3206991475bc" CreationDate="2017-05-31T12:07:01.580" UserId="30" Text="There are several ways in which the ambiguity is normally resolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ablative without a preposition is not normally used with a person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A deo data = given by a god&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In deo inventum = found in a god&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cum deo perire = to perish with a god&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deo data = given to a god (in all likelihood)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when the word is a person, and you have no other information, chances are that it is a dative. In poetry, though, there is more freedom in this respect, and hence you will encounter more serious ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certain verbs or prepositions or adjectives always take a dative, others always an ablative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deo uti = to use a god (ablative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Parcere deo = to spare a god (dative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plenus deo = full of a god (ablative*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Occasionally, a word can be used with either ablative or dative without a chance in meaning, like *misceo*. Then you just don't know—but the meaning is the same either way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;*) *Plenus* can be used with either genitive or ablative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4486" RevisionGUID="eef0b8ba-a09c-4445-a91d-59b36e8def8d" CreationDate="2017-05-31T12:13:41.683" UserId="30" Comment="added 235 characters in body" Text="You are right that there will be the occasional ambiguity. But there are several ways in which the ambiguity is normally resolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ablative without a preposition is not normally used with a person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A deo data = given by a god&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In deo inventum = found in a god&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cum deo perire = to perish with a god&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deo data = given to a god (in all likelihood)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when the word is a person, and you have no other information, chances are that it is a dative. In poetry, though, there is more freedom in this respect, and hence you will encounter more serious ambiguity. Conversely, when the word is not a person, it's less likely to be a dative, for the dative usually conveys a thematic role fit for a person, like recipient or beneficiary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certain verbs or prepositions or adjectives always take a dative, others always an ablative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deo uti = to use a god (ablative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Parcere deo = to spare a god (dative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plenus deo = full of a god (ablative*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Occasionally, a word can be used with either ablative or dative without a change in meaning, like *misceo*. Then you just don't know—but the meaning is the same either way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;*) *Plenus* can be used with either genitive or ablative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4487" RevisionGUID="efe34a1d-d445-465a-810f-b472ebe5606d" CreationDate="2017-05-31T20:02:30.250" UserId="136" Text="To add another voice to this conversation, I would like to show the entries given for various particles in the [Morgan and Silva Furman University Lexicon][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electron- *electron, -onis; electronium, -i*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; proton- *protonium -i*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; neutron- *neutro, -onis; neutronium, -i*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; anti-neutron- *antineutronium*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; anti-proton- *antiprotonium*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; photon- *photonium*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quark- *quarcium*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the most part, there seems to be a trend of adding *-ium* to the end of the particle's English name. Many of these words are source to the Latinitas Recens, so it seems somewhat credible. However, as for electron and neutron, there seems to also exist alternative forms that retain the more Greek origins. fdb suggests in their answer that the genitive form for this would be *-ontis,* however, this seems to be refuted by these entries, which drop the t. Joonas Ilmavirta makes a good point about how some of these terms may be confusing when one starts talking about other similarly named objects, but I feel as though, to use his example, protonium would not be translated as such. In the Wikipedia article he cites, it states that the other name for this particle is anti-protonic hydrogen. Perhaps this process could instead be translated as *antiprotonicum hydrogenium* Note here that even hydrogen follows the *-ium* rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that there is evidence for *-ium* as the preferred ending to particles. However, there is still much to be discussed in the matter, as demonstrated by the many comments and answers to this question.&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;A few final notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.   There are a few deviants to this pattern that I found, one of which was already discussed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ion- *ion, iontis*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; neon- *neon, neoni*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what to make of that, but I guess that's for you to figure out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Even in classical Latin there are examples of words that look exactly the same, and yet have different meanings. Although attempts should be made to avoid this moving forward, it is something we still have to deal with if it does occur. Just one example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *avis*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - nominative or genitive singular meaning bird&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - dative or ablative plural meaning grandmothers/fathers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, the meaning could probably be deduced from context, and I think a similar line of thought could be used when talking about possible conflicts. So those are my two cents, do with that what you will!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:  https://ia801000.us.archive.org/12/items/TheLexiconAnglumEtLatinumByDavidMorgan/MorganAndSilvaFurmanUniversityLexicon.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4488" RevisionGUID="dabe6e20-92af-4f65-9848-8fd3e5d6b08e" CreationDate="2017-05-31T21:30:51.993" UserId="1671" Text="Heres a link to an mp3 if anyone knows it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance &#xD;&#xA;https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8JFmkDe6fX_dDZ3UTRtUnY0R3M/view?usp=drivesdk" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13798" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4488" RevisionGUID="dabe6e20-92af-4f65-9848-8fd3e5d6b08e" CreationDate="2017-05-31T21:30:51.993" UserId="1671" Text="Can anyone translate speech from a recording?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13799" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4488" RevisionGUID="dabe6e20-92af-4f65-9848-8fd3e5d6b08e" CreationDate="2017-05-31T21:30:51.993" UserId="1671" Text="|translation|spoken-language|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4489" RevisionGUID="85ed0de4-e255-4fde-99cc-cf28c002c2f7" CreationDate="2017-05-31T22:21:53.197" UserId="78" Text="It sounds to me like it's saying *militaribus avidis incredulitate*. A quick Google search doesn't show me any hits for anything important, so maybe I'm mishearing, or maybe it's nothing really at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a little ambiguous without context, but it means something like &quot;with soldiers eager with disbelief.&quot; The last word is post-classical, so if it does come from something, it's not from ancient Rome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4487" RevisionGUID="1b4b82c2-6682-4bb4-a8b2-b0658b41bc45" CreationDate="2017-05-31T23:07:38.240" UserId="136" Comment="Added a single missing punctuation mark and removed single word" Text="To add another voice to this conversation, I would like to show the entries given for various particles in the [Morgan and Silva Furman University Lexicon][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electron- *electron, -onis; electronium, -i*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; proton- *protonium -i*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; neutron- *neutro, -onis; neutronium, -i*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; anti-neutron- *antineutronium*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; anti-proton- *antiprotonium*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; photon- *photonium*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quark- *quarcium*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the most part, there seems to be a trend of adding *-ium* to the end of the particle's English name. Many of these words are source to the Latinitas Recens, so it seems somewhat credible. However, as for electron and neutron, there seems to also exist alternative forms that retain the more Greek origins. fdb suggests in their answer that the genitive form for this would be *-ontis,* however, this seems to be refuted by these entries, which drop the t. Joonas Ilmavirta makes a good point about how some of these terms may be confusing when one starts talking about other similarly named objects, but I feel as though, to use his example, protonium would not be translated as such. In the Wikipedia article he cites, it states that the other name for this particle is anti-protonic hydrogen. Perhaps this could instead be translated as *antiprotonicum hydrogenium*. Note here that even hydrogen follows the *-ium* rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that there is evidence for *-ium* as the preferred ending to particles. However, there is still much to be discussed in the matter, as demonstrated by the many comments and answers to this question.&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;A few final notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.   There are a few deviants to this pattern that I found, one of which was already discussed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ion- *ion, iontis*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; neon- *neon, neoni*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what to make of that, but I guess that's for you to figure out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Even in classical Latin there are examples of words that look exactly the same, and yet have different meanings. Although attempts should be made to avoid this moving forward, it is something we still have to deal with if it does occur. Just one example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *avis*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - nominative or genitive singular meaning bird&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - dative or ablative plural meaning grandmothers/fathers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, the meaning could probably be deduced from context, and I think a similar line of thought could be used when talking about possible conflicts. So those are my two cents, do with that what you will!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:  https://ia801000.us.archive.org/12/items/TheLexiconAnglumEtLatinumByDavidMorgan/MorganAndSilvaFurmanUniversityLexicon.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4483" RevisionGUID="16b9ffb7-333b-469a-9589-23ea115b7607" CreationDate="2017-06-01T00:48:23.973" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm in the midst of designing a graphic for my parents' 50th anniversary celebration, and for obscure reasons I want to include the proper Latin equivalent of &quot;since 1967&quot;, in the same way that a business might include a founding date on a sign or logo, such as &quot;est. 1950&quot; or &quot;ever since 1995&quot;. My research on the web has thus far been inconclusive, indicating that either &quot;ex MCMLXVII&quot; or &quot;ab MCMLXVII&quot; would be most appropriate, but I am unable to determine which is more appropriate (or if there is some other way of putting it entirely that would be preferred).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the best way to write a founding date for an ongoing entity (or the date of the beginning of a marriage, if that differs from the general case)?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13803" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4483" RevisionGUID="16b9ffb7-333b-469a-9589-23ea115b7607" CreationDate="2017-06-01T00:48:23.973" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|time|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4479" RevisionGUID="50b781b7-8c72-404a-a792-0743cb35fab8" CreationDate="2017-06-01T00:49:48.933" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&quot;Lorem ipsum&quot; is a filler text commonly used to demonstrate the graphic elements of a document or visual presentation. But what does it mean? Can you give a brief review of the text's origin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Full text on [loremipsum.nl][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://loremipsum.nl/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13805" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4479" RevisionGUID="50b781b7-8c72-404a-a792-0743cb35fab8" CreationDate="2017-06-01T00:49:48.933" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation|origin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="261374b4-b755-4e77-8646-59c3bb5c04ed" CreationDate="2017-06-01T04:37:26.267" UserId="1239" Text="I want to know how to say, &quot;Double negation affirms by accident&quot; or &quot;Double negation affirms accidentally.&quot;  Would it be *duplex negatio affirmat per accidens*?  This is in reference to the idea from logic and grammar that double negation affirms and from the idea in metaphysics that properties either are essential or accidental.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm coming to this in specific reference to the following excerpt from Arist. *Int*. 14.23b15-17: “*Si ergo quod bonum et bonum et non malum est, et hoc quidem secundum se, illud vero secundum accidens (accidit enim ei malum non esse)*.”  In the 'original' Classical Attic this was: &quot;εἰ οὖν τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ ἀγαθὸν καὶ οὐ κακόν ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ μὲν καθ’ αὑτὸ τὸ δὲ κατὰ συμβεβηκός (συμβέβηκε γὰρ αὐτῷ οὐ κακῷ εἶναι).&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13807" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="261374b4-b755-4e77-8646-59c3bb5c04ed" CreationDate="2017-06-01T04:37:26.267" UserId="1239" Text="How to say &quot;Double negation affirms by accident&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13808" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="261374b4-b755-4e77-8646-59c3bb5c04ed" CreationDate="2017-06-01T04:37:26.267" UserId="1239" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|philosophy-terms|logic|aristotle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13809" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4488" RevisionGUID="0d46d329-e292-4d13-86f7-9ad573b7bfb7" CreationDate="2017-06-01T07:55:28.277" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4491" RevisionGUID="3fb7370f-eb46-45a7-b702-4c33535e5c3e" CreationDate="2017-06-01T14:45:33.103" UserId="45" Text="It seems pretty clear to me that the recording says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **militaribus viris incredulitate**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This exact word sequence does not occur in any corpus I can find, and is meaningless outside of its grammatical context. Here's a sample sentence I came up with that could use that word sequence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unus ex **militaribus viris incredulitate** demersus fugit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;One of the **soldiers**, overwhelemed **with disbelief**, fled.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4488" RevisionGUID="dd5c7967-c183-4b31-8aeb-d53da1324ce5" CreationDate="2017-06-01T14:51:04.073" UserId="45" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="I have a short audio sample in Latin, but cannot make it out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone provide a transcription and translation of what it says?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here's a link to the audio file on Google Drive.](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8JFmkDe6fX_dDZ3UTRtUnY0R3M/view?usp=drivesdk)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4492" RevisionGUID="135fc183-990e-4dca-851e-9e90f3cd0988" CreationDate="2017-06-01T21:00:08.410" UserId="469" Text="**Apparently yes**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I haven't found any *Roman* source, all evidence point to fungi being considered plants at their time, and into the XX century. This is what I have found so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Aristotle, [*De Plantis* I. 4. 30](https://books.google.cl/books?id=knBoAAAAcAAJ&amp;lpg=PA397&amp;ots=K6JhNnTreO&amp;dq=plantae%20sunt%20non%20habentes%20ramos%20nec%20folia%2C%20ut%20fungi&amp;pg=PA397#v=onepage&amp;q=plantae%20sunt%20non%20habentes%20ramos%20nec%20folia,%20ut%20fungi&amp;f=false) considered them plants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; _Item plantae sunt nec ramos habentes nec folia, ut fungi et tuberes_ (unkown Latin translator.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (Any help with the original Greek would be appreciated. I don't really know Greek.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* According to [Wikipedia][1] *&quot;the seminal work in the development of mycology is considered to be the publication of Pier Antonio Micheli's 1729 work Nova plantarum genera&quot;*. The title itself is eloquent in telling that they were considered plants at the time.&#xD;&#xA;* Linnaeus in his [Sistema Naturae][2] (XVIII century) classified everything in nature into three *Kingdoms*, namely animals, plants and minerals. (*Regum animale, vegetabile*, and *lapideum*.) Modern taxonomical kingdoms started from these.) Apparently this was still taught on schools in the mid-XX century.&#xD;&#xA;* The distinction of fungi from plants seems to be [XX century science][3] (possibly requiring modern genetics to tell them appart.)&#xD;&#xA; * There are examples of good scientific literature classing them together as late as the sixties [(Alexopoulos 1962)][4].&#xD;&#xA; * An early example of telling kingdoms appart is [Ainsworth and Bisby (1971)][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungus#History&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systema_Naturae&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/wong/Bot201/Myxomycota/Introduction.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3758063?origin=crossref&amp;seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.cl/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=IFD4_VFRDdUC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PR11&amp;dq=Ainsworth%20and%20Bisby%20(1971)&amp;ots=sZrTmgqkmd&amp;sig=G8Ew75krDgw2Mmyy8GvTb_HZjHQ#v=onepage&amp;q=Ainsworth%20and%20Bisby%20(1971)&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4492" RevisionGUID="74997814-95a3-447f-9a30-ec403fe92d1b" CreationDate="2017-06-01T21:43:07.107" UserId="469" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="**Apparently yes**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I haven't found any explicitly *Roman* source, all evidence point to fungi being considered plants at their time, and into the XX century. This is what I have found so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The author of [*De Plantis* I. 4. 30](https://books.google.cl/books?id=knBoAAAAcAAJ&amp;lpg=PA397&amp;ots=K6JhNnTreO&amp;dq=plantae%20sunt%20non%20habentes%20ramos%20nec%20folia%2C%20ut%20fungi&amp;pg=PA397#v=onepage&amp;q=plantae%20sunt%20non%20habentes%20ramos%20nec%20folia,%20ut%20fungi&amp;f=false) considered them plants. The book is attributed to Aristotle (in which case the original is Greek, and the translator unknown, but also to [Nicolaus of Damascus][1] who would have written it in the I century BC (thanks brianpck:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; _Item plantae sunt nec ramos habentes nec folia, ut fungi et tuberes_ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* According to [Wikipedia][2] *&quot;the seminal work in the development of mycology is considered to be the publication of Pier Antonio Micheli's 1729 work Nova plantarum genera&quot;*. The title itself is eloquent in telling that they were considered plants at the time.&#xD;&#xA;* Linnaeus in his [Sistema Naturae][3] (XVIII century) classified everything in nature into three *Kingdoms*, namely animals, plants and minerals. (*Regum animale, vegetabile*, and *lapideum*.) Modern taxonomical kingdoms started from these.) Apparently this was still taught on schools in the mid-XX century.&#xD;&#xA;* The distinction of fungi from plants seems to be [XX century science][4] (possibly requiring modern genetics to tell them appart.)&#xD;&#xA; * There are examples of good scientific literature classing them together as late as the sixties [(Alexopoulos 1962)][5].&#xD;&#xA; * An early example of telling kingdoms appart is [Ainsworth and Bisby (1971)][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_of_Damascus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungus#History&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systema_Naturae&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/wong/Bot201/Myxomycota/Introduction.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3758063?origin=crossref&amp;seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.cl/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=IFD4_VFRDdUC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PR11&amp;dq=Ainsworth%20and%20Bisby%20(1971)&amp;ots=sZrTmgqkmd&amp;sig=G8Ew75krDgw2Mmyy8GvTb_HZjHQ#v=onepage&amp;q=Ainsworth%20and%20Bisby%20(1971)&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13814" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="4489" RevisionGUID="d6a3d7a6-bfbc-462a-a4f7-75332e3576ec" CreationDate="2017-06-01T22:07:49.107" UserId="78" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13815" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="4489" RevisionGUID="8ec42de9-ad89-408b-b806-3277c2de9b79" CreationDate="2017-06-01T22:09:10.677" UserId="78" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4493" RevisionGUID="9c0c3175-f37f-426c-945d-c8e6bfb2ad1b" CreationDate="2017-06-02T03:04:20.510" UserId="30" Text="I have seen Q.B.V.D. as the first line of titles pages of academic dissertations, like this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.nl/books?id=YmpZAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA3&amp;lpg=PA3&amp;dq=Q.B.V.D&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=28TRv2QHOi&amp;sig=vN4j7q4dHlyMtc_MCW2i-5SU038&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=Q.B.V.D&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any idea what this stands for? I could fabricate guesses, but they would be completely arbitrary: none would be convincing at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tof9q.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13817" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4493" RevisionGUID="9c0c3175-f37f-426c-945d-c8e6bfb2ad1b" CreationDate="2017-06-02T03:04:20.510" UserId="30" Text="What does Q.B.V.D. stand for on the title page of a dissertation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13818" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4493" RevisionGUID="9c0c3175-f37f-426c-945d-c8e6bfb2ad1b" CreationDate="2017-06-02T03:04:20.510" UserId="30" Text="|new-latin|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4494" RevisionGUID="32a550ae-47f6-407f-ab24-4b88782f29ab" CreationDate="2017-06-02T04:13:20.400" UserId="985" Text="It's also – more commonly, I believe – given as Q. D. B. V. = _quod Deus bene vertat_, 'May God cause this to turn out well'/'May God grant this success.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This use of _verto_ is under definition 18 in the _Oxford Latin Dictionary_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **18** (esp. w. advs.) To turn the course of (affairs) to a specificed (favourable, etc.) outcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two example of dissertations that are headed by Q. D. B. V.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ [Example 1](https://archive.org/details/dissertatiogeogr00reic)&#xD;&#xA;+ [Example 2](https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Lieber_Collection/pdf/Q.D.B.V_MiliteDesertore.pdf)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4495" RevisionGUID="280f6076-8f7a-4645-a2ee-21e5eface112" CreationDate="2017-06-02T05:33:33.117" UserId="1675" Text="A scholar named Joseph Solodow wrote an entire book called &quot;The Latin Particle Quidem&quot;. To boil his work down as much as possible, the function of the word (because it's always safer to think of particles in terms of their function, not their dictionary translation)--the function is to acknowledge the truth of a claim, but to let you know that the speaker is about to introduce a qualification. You'll sometimes find a &quot;sed&quot; later in the sentence, though not always. So, you'd use it in sentences like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Sure (quidem), that's a great idea, but I don't think it's going to work.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Yeah, I know (quidem), but it won't last long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Granted (quidem) she was happier; however, I don't think she was entirely thrilled.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4496" RevisionGUID="3d89806d-f166-4240-b72d-f8785adf880e" CreationDate="2017-06-02T09:24:12.893" UserId="1676" Text="I was thinking about the famous Phrase &quot;alea iacta est&quot;, and I was wondering: how would be the plural version of it? &#xA;&#xA;I thought about&#xA;&#xA;ALEAS IACTA SUNT&#xA;&#xA;Because aleas needs to be in the accusative declination since it's the object and not the subject.&#xA;&#xA;Sunt because &quot;they are&quot;&#xA;&#xA;I am just stuck on &quot;iacta&quot; which should be conjugated with sunt and aleas, right? &#xA;&#xA;Should it be IACENT?&#xA;&#xA;thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13822" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4496" RevisionGUID="3d89806d-f166-4240-b72d-f8785adf880e" CreationDate="2017-06-02T09:24:12.893" UserId="1676" Text="Alea iacta est, plural version?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13823" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4496" RevisionGUID="3d89806d-f166-4240-b72d-f8785adf880e" CreationDate="2017-06-02T09:24:12.893" UserId="1676" Text="|classical-latin|translation|grammar-choice|verbs|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4497" RevisionGUID="0ad904a2-e847-4072-9092-ec6d53705b4e" CreationDate="2017-06-02T11:03:59.083" UserId="645" Text="The plural would be *aleae iactae sunt*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Alea / aleae* is nominative, because it's the subject of a passive verb-form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that, if you used the accusative case for *alea*, the verb would have to be in the indicative and its subject would be implicit, or else would have to be a noun or pronoun. So,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*aleam / aleas iecit* means 'he (she, it) threw the di(c)e'. Putting in a discrete subject indicates who did the throwing: *Gaius aleam iecit.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4498" RevisionGUID="82c63ebd-2e1e-483a-9ad1-8012acb01a32" CreationDate="2017-06-02T16:07:56.453" UserId="1677" Text="It does not really make sense to put *&quot;Alea iacta est&quot;* in the plural form. The reason for this is that *alea* does not exactly mean &quot;one dice&quot; or &quot;one die&quot; (as some resources claim), but it in original Latin, *alea* is the name for the &quot;game of dice&quot;. As a consequence, using the plural would mean something like &quot;The games of dice were thrown&quot; which is most probably not the intended meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this explanation on the German wikipedia. The English wikipedia does not discuss the grammar of the English translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4498" RevisionGUID="a9f2afc0-fe8f-4ea0-9c15-47d1d98c929b" CreationDate="2017-06-02T16:42:15.210" UserId="1677" Comment="Provided link and quote" Text="It does not really make sense to put *&quot;Alea iacta est&quot;* in the plural form. The reason for this is that *alea* does not exactly mean &quot;one dice&quot; or &quot;one die&quot; (as some resources claim), but it in original Latin, *alea* is the name for the &quot;game of dice&quot; or &quot;set of dice&quot;. As a consequence, using the plural would mean something like &quot;The sets of dice were thrown&quot; which is most probably not the intended meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this explanation on the [German wikipedia][1]. It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Common incorrect translations are:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * „Aleum iactum est“ (assuming there is a singular *aleum*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * „Alea iacta sunt“ (as above, but plural)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The word *alea* in the singular form means the &quot;game of dice&quot; as a whole. Consequently, &quot;Alea iacta sunt&quot; would be a correct plural, but would refer to multiple games (or sets) of dices. In fact, *alea* can be translated in the singular as wells as the plural form. However, in Latin the verb is always in the singular form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English wikipedia does not discuss the grammar of the English translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alea_iacta_est#R.C3.BCck.C3.BCbersetzungen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4498" RevisionGUID="7eebd604-1733-49de-abbb-15dd21e16771" CreationDate="2017-06-02T16:47:17.650" UserId="1677" Comment="Provided yet another link and quote" Text="It does not really make sense to put *&quot;Alea iacta est&quot;* in the plural form. The reason for this is that *alea* does not exactly mean &quot;one dice&quot; or &quot;one die&quot; (as some resources claim), but it in original Latin, *alea* is the name for the &quot;game of dice&quot; or &quot;set of dice&quot;. As a consequence, using the plural would mean something like &quot;The sets of dice were thrown&quot; which is most probably not the intended meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this explanation on the [German wikipedia][1]. It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Common incorrect translations are:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * „Aleum iactum est“ (assuming there is a singular *aleum*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * „Alea iacta sunt“ (as above, but plural)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The word *alea* in the singular form means the &quot;game of dice&quot; as a whole. Consequently, &quot;Alea iacta sunt&quot; would be a correct plural, but would refer to multiple games (or sets) of dices. In fact, *alea* can be translated in the singular as wells as the plural form. However, in Latin the verb is always in the singular form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English wikipedia does not discuss the grammar of the English translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also interesting (quoted from [Wikionary][2]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form “the die is cast” is from the Latin iacta ālea est, a grammatically incorrect translation by Suetonius, 121 CE, of the Ancient Greek phrase of Menander ἀνερρίφθω κύβος (anerrhíphthō kúbos), which Caesar quoted in Greek (not Latin). The Greek translates rather as “let the die be cast!”, or “let the game be ventured!”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alea_iacta_est#R.C3.BCck.C3.BCbersetzungen&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_die_is_cast" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4498" RevisionGUID="84fc2344-117d-40c0-9490-4f9afedd4d8e" CreationDate="2017-06-02T17:11:24.650" UserId="1677" Comment="Yet another link" Text="It does not really make sense to put *&quot;Alea iacta est&quot;* in the plural form. The reason for this is that *alea* does not exactly mean &quot;one dice&quot; or &quot;one die&quot; (as some resources claim), but it in original Latin, [*alea* is the name for the &quot;game of dice&quot; or &quot;set of dice&quot;][1]. As a consequence, using the plural would mean something like &quot;The sets of dice were thrown&quot; which is most probably not the intended meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this explanation on the [German wikipedia][2]. It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Common incorrect translations are:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * „Aleum iactum est“ (assuming there is a singular *aleum*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * „Alea iacta sunt“ (as above, but plural)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The word *alea* in the singular form means the &quot;game of dice&quot; as a whole. Consequently, &quot;Alea iacta sunt&quot; would be a correct plural, but would refer to multiple games (or sets) of dices. In fact, *alea* can be translated in the singular as wells as the plural form. However, in Latin the verb is always in the singular form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English wikipedia does not discuss the grammar of the English translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also interesting (quoted from [Wikionary][3]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form “the die is cast” is from the Latin iacta ālea est, a grammatically incorrect translation by Suetonius, 121 CE, of the Ancient Greek phrase of Menander ἀνερρίφθω κύβος (anerrhíphthō kúbos), which Caesar quoted in Greek (not Latin). The Greek translates rather as “let the die be cast!”, or “let the game be ventured!”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%231776&amp;redirect=true&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alea_iacta_est#R.C3.BCck.C3.BCbersetzungen&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_die_is_cast" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4497" RevisionGUID="c54cdd36-b2c1-4c85-8c2e-d8962186134f" CreationDate="2017-06-02T19:07:57.603" UserId="645" Comment="corr. indicative to active" Text="The plural would be *aleae iactae sunt*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Alea / aleae* is nominative, because it's the subject of a passive verb-form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that, if you used the accusative case for *alea*, the verb would have to be in the active and its subject would be implicit, or else would have to be a noun or pronoun. So,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*aleam / aleas iecit* means 'he (she, it) threw the di(c)e'. Putting in a discrete subject indicates who did the throwing: *Gaius aleam iecit.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4499" RevisionGUID="10040e44-78a5-4fae-bd4d-5ec20b5d189f" CreationDate="2017-06-02T19:16:19.840" UserId="45" Text="(Inspired by [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4496/alea-iacta-est-plural-version).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The common English understanding of Caesar's famous &quot;alea iacta est&quot; is that a physical die has been thrown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Lewis &amp; Short entry for *alea*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dalea), though, defines an *alea* as the *game itself*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. A game with dice, and in gen., a game of hazard or chance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. Transf., any thing uncertain or contingent, an accident, chance, hazard, venture, risk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further confirmation of this is that I cannot find a single recorded instance of *alea* in the plural, at least in a classical corpus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **can *alea* refer to an actual physical die?** If not, how do I refer to one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13834" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4499" RevisionGUID="10040e44-78a5-4fae-bd4d-5ec20b5d189f" CreationDate="2017-06-02T19:16:19.840" UserId="45" Text="Can &quot;alea&quot; refer to a physical die, or only the game of dice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13835" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4499" RevisionGUID="10040e44-78a5-4fae-bd4d-5ec20b5d189f" CreationDate="2017-06-02T19:16:19.840" UserId="45" Text="|vocabulary|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4498" RevisionGUID="28847b43-d60a-4a2b-abde-edc6aa530cc6" CreationDate="2017-06-02T19:52:48.087" UserId="1677" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It does not really make sense to put *&quot;Alea iacta est&quot;* in the plural form. The reason for this is that *alea* does not exactly mean &quot;one dice&quot; or &quot;one die&quot; (as some resources claim), but it in original Latin, [*alea* is the name for the &quot;game of dice&quot; or &quot;set of dice&quot;][1]. As a consequence, using the plural would mean something like &quot;The sets of dice were thrown&quot; which is most probably not the intended meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this explanation on the [German wikipedia][2]. It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Common incorrect translations are:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * „Aleum iactum est“ (assuming there is a singular *aleum*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * „Alea iacta sunt“ (as above, but plural)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The word *alea* in the singular form means the &quot;game of dice&quot; as a whole. Consequently, &quot;Alea iacta sunt&quot; would be a correct plural, but would refer to multiple games (or sets) of dices. In fact, *alea* can be translated in the singular as wells as the plural form. However, in Latin the verb is always in the singular form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English wikipedia does not discuss the grammar of the English translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also interesting (quoted from [Wiktionary][3]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form “the die is cast” is from the Latin iacta ālea est, a grammatically incorrect translation by Suetonius, 121 CE, of the Ancient Greek phrase of Menander ἀνερρίφθω κύβος (anerrhíphthō kúbos), which Caesar quoted in Greek (not Latin). The Greek translates rather as “let the die be cast!”, or “let the game be ventured!”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%231776&amp;redirect=true&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alea_iacta_est#R.C3.BCck.C3.BCbersetzungen&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_die_is_cast" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4499" RevisionGUID="96ddf046-014b-48c6-97c5-73db64c94109" CreationDate="2017-06-02T20:41:21.647" UserId="45" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="(Inspired by [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4496/alea-iacta-est-plural-version).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The common English understanding of Caesar's famous &quot;alea iacta est&quot; is &quot;the die is cast&quot;, using a metaphor from the throwing of a (physical) die.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Lewis &amp; Short entry for *alea*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dalea), though, defines an *alea* as the *game itself*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. A game with dice, and in gen., a game of hazard or chance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. Transf., any thing uncertain or contingent, an accident, chance, hazard, venture, risk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further confirmation of this is that I cannot find a single recorded instance of *alea* in the plural, at least in a classical corpus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **can *alea* refer to an actual physical die?** If not, how do I refer to one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4500" RevisionGUID="99ee5967-f137-4c45-b83e-baab4b54ae65" CreationDate="2017-06-03T03:42:47.857" UserId="39" Text="So far I was able to find one example (the Loeb Classical Library):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;aut pugnaciter **aleis** certant, turpi sono fragosis naribus introrsum reducto spiritu concrepantes&quot; ([Ammianus Marcellinus][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;or they quarrel with one another in their games at dice, making a disgusting sound by drawing back the breath into their resounding nostrils&quot;(translated by J.C. Rolfe)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/amminanus_marcellinus-history/1939/pb_LCL300.51.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4500" RevisionGUID="88e3b049-496b-40e8-86a5-988f0b5bb1e4" CreationDate="2017-06-03T03:53:48.773" UserId="39" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="So far I was able to find one example (the Loeb Classical Library):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;aut pugnaciter **aleis** certant, turpi sono fragosis naribus introrsum reducto spiritu concrepantes&quot; ([Ammianus Marcellinus][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;or they quarrel with one another in their games at dice, making a disgusting sound by drawing back the breath into their resounding nostrils&quot;(translated by J.C. Rolfe)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to consult [the TLL][2]. The entry you need is https://www.degruyter.com/view/TLL/1-0-07/1_0_07_alea_v2007.xml (no access from home)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/amminanus_marcellinus-history/1939/pb_LCL300.51.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/db/tll" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4500" RevisionGUID="728c3e99-211c-46f8-a034-3bb598a0f082" CreationDate="2017-06-03T04:01:36.057" UserId="39" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="So far I was able to find one example (the Loeb Classical Library):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;aut pugnaciter **aleis** certant, turpi sono fragosis naribus introrsum reducto spiritu concrepantes&quot; ([Ammianus Marcellinus][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;or they quarrel with one another in their games at dice, making a disgusting sound by drawing back the breath into their resounding nostrils&quot;(translated by J.C. Rolfe)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to consult [the TLL][2]. The entry you need is https://www.degruyter.com/view/TLL/1-0-07/1_0_07_alea_v2007.xml (no access from home)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brill's New Pauly mentions **tesserae** - see http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tesserae&amp;la=la#lexicon &quot;a die for playing, numbered on all the six sides&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/amminanus_marcellinus-history/1939/pb_LCL300.51.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/db/tll" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4500" RevisionGUID="2374cb6d-f749-4eeb-8980-508d799b649f" CreationDate="2017-06-03T04:15:22.870" UserId="39" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="So far I've been able to find one example of the plural (the Loeb Classical Library):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;aut pugnaciter **aleis** certant, turpi sono fragosis naribus introrsum reducto spiritu concrepantes&quot; ([Ammianus Marcellinus][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;or they quarrel with one another in their games at dice, making a disgusting sound by drawing back the breath into their resounding nostrils&quot;(translated by J.C. Rolfe)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to consult [the TLL][2]. The entry you need is https://www.degruyter.com/view/TLL/1-0-07/1_0_07_alea_v2007.xml (no access from home)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brill's New Pauly mentions **tesserae** - see http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tesserae&amp;la=la#lexicon &quot;a die for playing, numbered on all the six sides&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/amminanus_marcellinus-history/1939/pb_LCL300.51.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/db/tll" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4500" RevisionGUID="f2ca6bf5-2aa9-46ae-a7bc-9b9706b42079" CreationDate="2017-06-03T04:33:09.690" UserId="39" Comment="added 546 characters in body" Text="Brill's New Pauly mentions **tesserae** - see http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tesserae&amp;la=la#lexicon &quot;a die for playing, numbered on all the six sides&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Martial writes the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;non mea magnanimo depugnat tessera talo, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;senio nec nostrum cum cane quassat ebur:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;haec mihi charta nuces, haec est mihi charta fritillus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;alea nec damnum nec facit ista lucrum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;My dice do not contend with highhearted knucklebones, nor do sice and ace shake my ivory. This paper is my nuts, this paper my dice box; such gambling brings neither loss nor gain.&quot; - translated by D.R. Shackleton Bailey)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Hac mihi bis seno numeratur tessera puncto&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I've been able to find at least one example of the plural for alea (in the Loeb Classical Library):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;aut pugnaciter **aleis** certant, turpi sono fragosis naribus introrsum reducto spiritu concrepantes&quot; ([Ammianus Marcellinus][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;or they quarrel with one another in their games at dice, making a disgusting sound by drawing back the breath into their resounding nostrils&quot;(translated by J.C. Rolfe)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to consult [the TLL][2]. The entry you need is https://www.degruyter.com/view/TLL/1-0-07/1_0_07_alea_v2007.xml (no access from home)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/amminanus_marcellinus-history/1939/pb_LCL300.51.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/db/tll" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4501" RevisionGUID="d4d1fa9b-7c65-418b-bd79-0dee5790fe38" CreationDate="2017-06-03T04:37:39.410" UserId="118" Text="This doesn't answer your question (Tom Cotton's answer does that), but it's an interesting datum and way too long for a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](https://books.google.com/books?id=6NDmAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA22&amp;dq=%22in%20perpetuam%20servitutem%22) is an (in-)famous sentence from the papal bull _Dum Diversas_ by Pope Nicholas V, issued in 1452:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nos igitur considerantes, quod contra Catholicam fidem insurgentibus, Christianamque Religionem extinguere molientibus, ea virtute, et alia constantia a Christi fidelibus est resistendum, ut fideles ipsi fidei ardore succensi, virtitubusque pro posse succinti detestandum illorum propositum, non solum obice intentionis contraire impediant, si ex oppositione roboris iniquos conatus prohibeant, et Deo cui militant, ipsis assistente perfidorum substernant molimenta, nos, que divino amore communiti, Christianorum charitate invitati, officiique pastoralis astricti debito, et quæ fidei, pro qua Christus Deus noster sanguinem effudit, integritatem, augmentumque respiciunt, nobis fidelium animis vigorem, tuamque Regiam Magestatem in hujusmodi sanctissimo proposito confovere merito cupientes, tibi Sarracenos, et Paganos, aliosque infideles, et Christi inimicos quoscunque, et ubicunque constitutos Regna, Ducatus, Comitatus, Principatus, aliaque Dominia, Terras, Loca, Villas, **Castra**, et quæcunque alia possessiones, bona mobilia, et immobilia in quibuscumque rebus consistentia, et quocunque nomine censeatur, per eosdem Sarracenos, Paganos, infideles, et Christi inimicos detenta, et possessa, etiam cujuscunque, seu quorumcunque Regis, seu Principis, aut Regum, vel Principum Regna, Ducatus, Comitatus, Principatus, aliaque Dominia, Terræ, Loca, Villæ, **Castra**, possessionies, et bona hujusmodi fuerint, invadendi, conquerendi, expugnandi, et subjugandi, illorumque personas in perpetuam servitutem redigendi, regna quoque, Ducatus, Comitatus, Principatus, alique Dominia, possessiones, et bona hujusmodi, tibi et successoribus tuis Regibus Portugalliæ, perpetuo applicandi, et appropriandi, ac in tuos eorundem successorum usus, et utilitates convertendi plenam, et liberam, auctoritate Apostolica, tenore præsentium concedimus facultatem, eandemque Regiam Magestatem tuam rogamus, requirimus, et hortamur attente, quatenus virtutis gladio præcinctus, ac forti animo præmunitus, pro divini nominis augmento, fideique exaltatione, ac animæ tuæ salute conquirenda, Deum præ oculis habens, in hujusmodi negotio, potentiam virtutis tuæ extendas, ut fides Catholica, per tuam Regiam Magestatem contra inimicos Christi triumphum se reportasse censeat, tuque coronam æternæ gloriæ, pro qua militandum est in terris, quamque promisit Deus diligentibus se, nostramque, et dictæ Sedis benedictionem, et gratiam exinde valeas uberius promereri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This might be a rare case where English is more concise than Latin, since the sentence is usually translated &quot;You can enslave non-Christians.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word _castra,_ clearly intended to be understood to refer to camps (plural), appears in many other papal bulls in the same book, in similar contexts. So, I'm thinking that the Latin plural for this word, at least, is understood to mean both one and many." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4500" RevisionGUID="15f191a5-1772-4041-a5f8-b775b33afdac" CreationDate="2017-06-03T04:40:38.333" UserId="39" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="Brill's New Pauly mentions **tesserae** (as well as **talus**) - see http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tesserae&amp;la=la#lexicon &quot;a die for playing, numbered on all the six sides&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Martial writes the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;non mea magnanimo depugnat tessera talo, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;senio nec nostrum cum cane quassat ebur:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;haec mihi charta nuces, haec est mihi charta fritillus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;alea nec damnum nec facit ista lucrum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;My dice do not contend with highhearted knucklebones, nor do sice and ace shake my ivory. This paper is my nuts, this paper my dice box; such gambling brings neither loss nor gain.&quot; - translated by D.R. Shackleton Bailey)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Hac mihi bis seno numeratur tessera puncto&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I've been able to find at least one example of the plural for alea (in the Loeb Classical Library):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;aut pugnaciter **aleis** certant, turpi sono fragosis naribus introrsum reducto spiritu concrepantes&quot; ([Ammianus Marcellinus][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;or they quarrel with one another in their games at dice, making a disgusting sound by drawing back the breath into their resounding nostrils&quot;(translated by J.C. Rolfe)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to consult [the TLL][2]. The entry you need is https://www.degruyter.com/view/TLL/1-0-07/1_0_07_alea_v2007.xml (no access from home)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/amminanus_marcellinus-history/1939/pb_LCL300.51.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/db/tll" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4502" RevisionGUID="904eaba8-69f8-407b-954c-ebf8ba6eda79" CreationDate="2017-06-03T05:16:18.453" UserId="985" Text="To add to what Alex B. has already said about _tesserae_, there's a passage near the end of Seneca's _Apocolocyntosis_ (14.4) that uses _alea_ specifically to denote the game, whereas _tesserae_ denotes the objects that you use to play it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tum Aeacus iubet illum **alea ludere** pertuso fritillo. et iam coeperat fugientes semper **tesseras** quaerere et nihil proficere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then Aeacus ordered him [Claudius] to **play dice** using a dice-box with a hole in it. And Claudius was already beginning to chase the ever-receding **dice**, and was getting nowhere. [trans. Eden]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for other terms for more than one die, Ovid's _Ars amatoria_ (2.204) offers the lovely periphrasis _numeri eburni_ for, I presume, _tesserae_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; riserit, adride; si flebit, flere memento;  &#xD;&#xA;imponat leges vultibus illa tuis.  &#xD;&#xA;seu ludet, **numeros**que manu iactabit **eburnos**,  &#xD;&#xA;tu male iactato, tu male iacta dato:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; She laughs, you laugh: remember to cry, if she cries:  &#xD;&#xA;she’ll set the rules according to your expression.  &#xD;&#xA;If she plays, tossing the **ivory dice** in her hand,  &#xD;&#xA;throw them wrong, and concede on your bad throw: [trans. A.S. Kline]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4501" RevisionGUID="765a1cd7-3c2b-4f7f-9f47-2519ee964fa0" CreationDate="2017-06-03T05:16:28.417" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="This doesn't answer your question (Tom Cotton's answer does that), but it's an interesting datum and way too long for a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](https://books.google.com/books?id=6NDmAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA22&amp;dq=%22in%20perpetuam%20servitutem%22) is an (in-)famous sentence from the papal bull _Dum Diversas_ by Pope Nicholas V, issued in 1452:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nos igitur considerantes, quod contra Catholicam fidem insurgentibus, Christianamque Religionem extinguere molientibus, ea virtute, et alia constantia a Christi fidelibus est resistendum, ut fideles ipsi fidei ardore succensi, virtitubusque pro posse succinti detestandum illorum propositum, non solum obice intentionis contraire impediant, si ex oppositione roboris iniquos conatus prohibeant, et Deo cui militant, ipsis assistente perfidorum substernant molimenta, nos, que divino amore communiti, Christianorum charitate invitati, officiique pastoralis astricti debito, et quæ fidei, pro qua Christus Deus noster sanguinem effudit, integritatem, augmentumque respiciunt, nobis fidelium animis vigorem, tuamque Regiam Magestatem in hujusmodi sanctissimo proposito confovere merito cupientes, tibi Sarracenos, et Paganos, aliosque infideles, et Christi inimicos quoscunque, et ubicunque constitutos Regna, Ducatus, Comitatus, Principatus, aliaque Dominia, Terras, Loca, Villas, **Castra**, et quæcunque alia possessiones, bona mobilia, et immobilia in quibuscumque rebus consistentia, et quocunque nomine censeatur, per eosdem Sarracenos, Paganos, infideles, et Christi inimicos detenta, et possessa, etiam cujuscunque, seu quorumcunque Regis, seu Principis, aut Regum, vel Principum Regna, Ducatus, Comitatus, Principatus, aliaque Dominia, Terræ, Loca, Villæ, **Castra**, possessiones, et bona hujusmodi fuerint, invadendi, conquerendi, expugnandi, et subjugandi, illorumque personas in perpetuam servitutem redigendi, regna quoque, Ducatus, Comitatus, Principatus, alique Dominia, possessiones, et bona hujusmodi, tibi et successoribus tuis Regibus Portugalliæ, perpetuo applicandi, et appropriandi, ac in tuos eorundem successorum usus, et utilitates convertendi plenam, et liberam, auctoritate Apostolica, tenore præsentium concedimus facultatem, eandemque Regiam Magestatem tuam rogamus, requirimus, et hortamur attente, quatenus virtutis gladio præcinctus, ac forti animo præmunitus, pro divini nominis augmento, fideique exaltatione, ac animæ tuæ salute conquirenda, Deum præ oculis habens, in hujusmodi negotio, potentiam virtutis tuæ extendas, ut fides Catholica, per tuam Regiam Magestatem contra inimicos Christi triumphum se reportasse censeat, tuque coronam æternæ gloriæ, pro qua militandum est in terris, quamque promisit Deus diligentibus se, nostramque, et dictæ Sedis benedictionem, et gratiam exinde valeas uberius promereri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This might be a rare case where English is more concise than Latin, since the sentence is usually translated &quot;You can enslave non-Christians.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word _castra,_ clearly intended to be understood to refer to camps (plural), appears in many other papal bulls in the same book, in similar contexts. So, I'm thinking that the Latin plural for this word, at least, is understood to mean both one and many." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4501" RevisionGUID="d73c7d04-e203-4f08-8537-a2f4d7867f24" CreationDate="2017-06-03T12:25:23.480" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="This doesn't answer your question (Tom Cotton's answer does that), but it's an interesting datum and way too long for a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](https://books.google.com/books?id=6NDmAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA22&amp;dq=%22in%20perpetuam%20servitutem%22) is an (in-)famous sentence from the papal bull _Dum Diversas_ by Pope Nicholas V, issued in 1452:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nos igitur considerantes, quod contra Catholicam fidem insurgentibus, Christianamque Religionem extinguere molientibus, ea virtute, et alia constantia a Christi fidelibus est resistendum, ut fideles ipsi fidei ardore succensi, virtutibusque pro posse succinti detestandum illorum propositum, non solum obice intentionis contraire impediant, si ex oppositione roboris iniquos conatus prohibeant, et Deo cui militant, ipsis assistente perfidorum substernant molimenta, nos, que divino amore communiti, Christianorum charitate invitati, officiique pastoralis astricti debito, et quæ fidei, pro qua Christus Deus noster sanguinem effudit, integritatem, augmentumque respiciunt, nobis fidelium animis vigorem, tuamque Regiam Magestatem in hujusmodi sanctissimo proposito confovere merito cupientes, tibi Sarracenos, et Paganos, aliosque infideles, et Christi inimicos quoscunque, et ubicunque constitutos Regna, Ducatus, Comitatus, Principatus, aliaque Dominia, Terras, Loca, Villas, **Castra**, et quæcunque alia possessiones, bona mobilia, et immobilia in quibuscumque rebus consistentia, et quocunque nomine censeatur, per eosdem Sarracenos, Paganos, infideles, et Christi inimicos detenta, et possessa, etiam cujuscunque, seu quorumcunque Regis, seu Principis, aut Regum, vel Principum Regna, Ducatus, Comitatus, Principatus, aliaque Dominia, Terræ, Loca, Villæ, **Castra**, possessiones, et bona hujusmodi fuerint, invadendi, conquerendi, expugnandi, et subjugandi, illorumque personas in perpetuam servitutem redigendi, regna quoque, Ducatus, Comitatus, Principatus, alique Dominia, possessiones, et bona hujusmodi, tibi et successoribus tuis Regibus Portugalliæ, perpetuo applicandi, et appropriandi, ac in tuos eorundem successorum usus, et utilitates convertendi plenam, et liberam, auctoritate Apostolica, tenore præsentium concedimus facultatem, eandemque Regiam Magestatem tuam rogamus, requirimus, et hortamur attente, quatenus virtutis gladio præcinctus, ac forti animo præmunitus, pro divini nominis augmento, fideique exaltatione, ac animæ tuæ salute conquirenda, Deum præ oculis habens, in hujusmodi negotio, potentiam virtutis tuæ extendas, ut fides Catholica, per tuam Regiam Magestatem contra inimicos Christi triumphum se reportasse censeat, tuque coronam æternæ gloriæ, pro qua militandum est in terris, quamque promisit Deus diligentibus se, nostramque, et dictæ Sedis benedictionem, et gratiam exinde valeas uberius promereri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This might be a rare case where English is more concise than Latin, since the sentence is usually translated &quot;You can enslave non-Christians.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word _castra,_ clearly intended to be understood to refer to camps (plural), appears in many other papal bulls in the same book, in similar contexts. So, I'm thinking that the Latin plural for this word, at least, is understood to mean both one and many." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4503" RevisionGUID="1e1c1bb8-69eb-4f75-b225-63253b565a2d" CreationDate="2017-06-03T22:40:29.847" UserId="952" Text="Is &quot;ad populum&quot; ever seen as an idiom for &quot;popular&quot;, or can it only mean &quot;to the people&quot;? For example, if something is considered popular, would &quot;ad populum&quot; be an acceptable phrase to use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13849" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4503" RevisionGUID="1e1c1bb8-69eb-4f75-b225-63253b565a2d" CreationDate="2017-06-03T22:40:29.847" UserId="952" Text="&quot;Ad populum&quot; idiom" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13850" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4503" RevisionGUID="1e1c1bb8-69eb-4f75-b225-63253b565a2d" CreationDate="2017-06-03T22:40:29.847" UserId="952" Text="|translation|vocabulary|idiom|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4504" RevisionGUID="7a8867d0-ac53-4fcf-9442-fe7b265d15e8" CreationDate="2017-06-04T12:07:24.070" UserId="79" Text="The name *Iuppiter* is declined weirdly.&#xD;&#xA;It has otherwise regular third declension endings with the stem *Iov-*, but the nominative comes with the suffix *-pater*, producing *Iuppiter*.&#xD;&#xA;At least this is what all Latin grammar sources I have ever seen say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any attested uses of the *-pater* for oblique (other than nominative) cases?&#xD;&#xA;For example, a genitive *Iuppitris* is the kind of &quot;long oblique case&quot; that I'm looking for.&#xD;&#xA;The source may be an inscription or any other text." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13852" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4504" RevisionGUID="7a8867d0-ac53-4fcf-9442-fe7b265d15e8" CreationDate="2017-06-04T12:07:24.070" UserId="79" Text="Are there any instances of long oblique cases of Iuppiter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13853" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4504" RevisionGUID="7a8867d0-ac53-4fcf-9442-fe7b265d15e8" CreationDate="2017-06-04T12:07:24.070" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|irregular-words|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4505" RevisionGUID="5d82ae0f-d1e8-4044-ac8c-76c90d89b76a" CreationDate="2017-06-04T12:32:33.987" UserId="78" Text="Varro mentions these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *De Lingua Latina* 9.75.4ff.&#xD;&#xA;ut in hoc frugis frugi frugem, item colem colis cole, obliquos non habere ut in hoc Diespiter Diespitri Diespitrem, Maspiter Maspitri Maspitrem. ad haec respondeo et priora habere nominandi et posteriora patrici esset casus. ut ovis, et avis. sic in obliquis casibus cur negent esse Diespitri Diespitrem non video, nisi quod minus est tritum in consuetudine quam Diespiter; quod [in]nihili argumentum&#xD;&#xA;est: nam tam casus qui non tritus est quam qui est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[English translation]&gt;(https://archive.org/stream/onlatinlanguage02varruoft#page/496/mode/2up)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'll add more to this soon, traveling at the moment.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4506" RevisionGUID="c3dab63b-ebed-40b1-82e5-e93180f67085" CreationDate="2017-06-04T14:51:53.160" UserId="645" Text="*Ad populum* is such a common phrase that searching for such a particular usage could be quite tedious. Offhand, I can think of no example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could simply use *popularis*, though it's more usual to use a circumlocution to describe someone or something as 'popular'. A phrase such as *in vulgus acceptus* has the precise meaning; similarly *studium populi habere* and *coram populo gratus* (and, no doubt, several others) might serve well enough in many situations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4505" RevisionGUID="70654864-a417-4afa-9859-043c1dd08fa1" CreationDate="2017-06-05T01:07:14.220" UserId="78" Comment="added 386 characters in body" Text="Varro mentions the possibility:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *De Lingua Latina* 9.75.4ff.&#xD;&#xA;obliquos non habere ut in hoc Diespiter Diespitri Diespitrem, Maspiter Maspitri Maspitrem. ad haec respondeo et priora habere nominandi et posteriora patrici esset casus. ut ovis, et avis. sic in obliquis casibus cur negent esse Diespitri Diespitrem non video, nisi quod minus est tritum in consuetudine quam Diespiter; quod [in]nihili argumentum est: nam tam casus qui non tritus est quam qui est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[English translation](https://archive.org/stream/onlatinlanguage02varruoft#page/496/mode/2up)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, outside of Varro, there is no literary record of these forms, nor could I find them in inscriptions. They seem to exist only in nominative and vocative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As TKR noted below, Varro is saying that they should exist, and that others say they do not exist. This section comes from book 9 of *De Lingua Latina*, though, in which Varro is presenting arguments against anomaly, so these forms do not necessarily exist, nor would they be seen as existing by ordinary Latin speakers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4507" RevisionGUID="ea23d63c-d3f2-4687-bcc3-241d35e9727b" CreationDate="2017-06-05T04:19:12.060" UserId="39" Text="I have searched the entire [Loeb Classical Library][1], [Bibliotheca Teubneriana Latina][2] and [Keil's Corpus Grammaticorum Latinorum][3]. Believe me, this is quite representative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, such forms are not attested and the only extremely rare occurrences are three grammarians, Varro, Priscian, aka Priscianus Caesariensis (5-6th centuries AD) and Pompeius (Maurus) (5th century AD). cf.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.loebclassics.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/db/btl&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://kaali.linguist.jussieu.fr/CGL/index.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/00PvK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4508" RevisionGUID="a65a5068-4192-4f8a-9b69-2d05b0d1365f" CreationDate="2017-06-05T04:52:24.020" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[polyp (n.)](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=polyp)     &#xD;&#xA;    c. 1400, &quot;nasal tumor,&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;from Middle French polype and    &#xD;&#xA;directly from Latin polypus &quot;cuttlefish,&quot; also &quot;nasal tumor,&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;from Greek (Doric, Aeolic) polypos &quot;octopus, cuttlefish,&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;from polys &quot;many&quot; (from PIE root [*pele-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=*pele-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (1) &quot;to fill&quot;) + pous &quot;foot&quot; (from PIE root [*ped-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=*ped-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) &quot;foot&quot;). Etymological sense revived 1742 as a name for hydras and sea anemones (earlier polypus, early 16c.). The Latin word is the source of French poulpe &quot;octopus.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, [nasal tumours](https://www.google.com/search?q=octopus+nasal+tumour&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwimk8XJ86XUAhWIWSYKHba2A9YQ_AUIBigB&amp;biw=1152&amp;bih=538#tbm=isch&amp;q=nasal+tumour) do not resemble octopodes or cuttlefish? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13859" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4508" RevisionGUID="a65a5068-4192-4f8a-9b69-2d05b0d1365f" CreationDate="2017-06-05T04:52:24.020" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What semantic notions underlie 'octopus or cuttlefish' with 'nasal tumours'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13860" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4508" RevisionGUID="a65a5068-4192-4f8a-9b69-2d05b0d1365f" CreationDate="2017-06-05T04:52:24.020" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4509" RevisionGUID="978b3c94-3a4f-4c70-89a8-9e7d3f8cd7e9" CreationDate="2017-06-05T06:18:24.130" UserId="79" Text="I am no physician, so take this with a grain of salt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [polyp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyp_(medicine)) is an abnormal growth of tissue which may produce narrow elongated stalks.&#xD;&#xA;These stalks give a good reason to describe it as &quot;many-leg&quot;, which is what polyp means as you describe.&#xD;&#xA;Polyps are common in the nose, but polyp is not synonymous with nasal tumor.&#xD;&#xA;It can be regarded as a subclass of nasal tumors, but I believe polyps are found elsewhere, too.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the earliest known occurrences were in the nasal area; that would explain it meaning only a nasal tumor centuries ago.&#xD;&#xA;Most of the nasal tumors Google shows you are not polyps at all.&#xD;&#xA;(I'm not sure if a polyp is classified as a tumor, but that doesn't really matter.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, [polyp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyp) is also an animal.&#xD;&#xA;It also has a multi-legged appearance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion:**&#xD;&#xA;Anything that looks like it has many legs can reasonably be called a polyp.&#xD;&#xA;There is a nasal tumor with this appearance and hence this name, but this is not the type of nasal tumors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4505" RevisionGUID="b55fade8-707b-4b3d-8a5e-93b7d8feeef9" CreationDate="2017-06-05T11:37:26.247" UserId="78" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Varro mentions the possibility:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *De Lingua Latina* 9.75.4ff.&#xD;&#xA;obliquos non habere ut in hoc Diespiter Diespitri Diespitrem, Maspiter Maspitri Maspitrem. ad haec respondeo et priora habere nominandi et posteriora patrici esset casus. ut ovis, et avis. sic in obliquis casibus cur negent esse Diespitri Diespitrem non video, nisi quod minus est tritum in consuetudine quam Diespiter; quod [in]nihili argumentum est: nam tam casus qui non tritus est quam qui est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[English translation](https://archive.org/stream/onlatinlanguage02varruoft#page/496/mode/2up)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, outside of Varro, there is no literary record of the oblique forms, nor could I find them in inscriptions. They exist only in nominative and vocative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As TKR noted below, Varro is saying that they *should* exist, and that others (the anomalists) say they do not exist. This section comes from book 9 of *De Lingua Latina*, though, in which Varro is presenting arguments against anomaly; this makes it a theoretical engagement, not words that ordinary Latin speakers would have known and used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4510" RevisionGUID="1f6605e6-f8fc-4513-ba08-c19e1d345029" CreationDate="2017-06-05T18:52:32.097" UserId="1680" Text="I have this stone with the incomplete inscription &quot;IH&quot;, I think it could be the [IHS Christogram][1] but I am not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What other latin inscription might be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How old is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![A stone with the incomplete inscription &quot;IH&quot;][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christogram#IHS&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/H2rgq.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13864" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4510" RevisionGUID="1f6605e6-f8fc-4513-ba08-c19e1d345029" CreationDate="2017-06-05T18:52:32.097" UserId="1680" Text="A stone with the incomplete inscription &quot;IH&quot;, how hold is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13865" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4510" RevisionGUID="1f6605e6-f8fc-4513-ba08-c19e1d345029" CreationDate="2017-06-05T18:52:32.097" UserId="1680" Text="|christianity|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4510" RevisionGUID="542817a3-9e2a-480c-ba33-362f73e661a2" CreationDate="2017-06-05T19:05:41.170" UserId="45" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="I have this stone with the incomplete inscription &quot;IH&quot;. I think it could be the [IHS Christogram][1] but I am not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What other Latin inscription might it be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How old is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![A stone with the incomplete inscription &quot;IH&quot;][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christogram#IHS&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/H2rgq.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13867" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4510" RevisionGUID="542817a3-9e2a-480c-ba33-362f73e661a2" CreationDate="2017-06-05T19:05:41.170" UserId="45" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="A stone with the incomplete inscription &quot;IH&quot;, how old is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4510" RevisionGUID="9fadf862-26ce-49ee-9254-d0e9016e1ff2" CreationDate="2017-06-05T19:15:11.260" UserId="1680" Comment="add info and context" Text="I have this stone with the incomplete inscription &quot;IH&quot;. I think it could be the [IHS Christogram][1] but I am not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The height of the fragment is about 10cm, the material seems terracotta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stone was found in a rural area in the Emilia Romagna region in Italy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A local farmer told me it could be from a cemetery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What other Latin inscription might it be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How old is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![A stone with the incomplete inscription &quot;IH&quot;][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christogram#IHS&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/H2rgq.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4511" RevisionGUID="e47a3fcd-2224-4932-9ac0-f99410f69182" CreationDate="2017-06-05T22:17:47.117" UserId="324" Text="If I may dissent from the previous answers: &quot;alea iacta est&quot; surely means &quot;the die (physical object) has been cast&quot;. Even if there is no other attestation in classical Latin literature. Once is enough to secure a place in the dictionary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13872" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="4489" RevisionGUID="c390aff7-78e5-4f39-9980-ae2236ac4f3b" CreationDate="2017-06-06T12:03:29.143" UserId="78" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4512" RevisionGUID="c045b0c1-e925-44a1-9b20-ed4620ae685c" CreationDate="2017-06-06T16:54:50.250" UserId="79" Text="Having flown quite a bit over the last few months, the vocabulary is fresh in my mind &amp;mdash; but only in English.&#xD;&#xA;**How can I say &quot;my mobile phone is in airplane mode&quot; in Latin?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of issues with translating this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What is a mobile phone? I prefer *telephonulum*, but *telephonum mobile* makes sense too. This puzzles me far less than the next two points.&#xD;&#xA;- Is there a good adjective to translate &quot;airplane&quot;? Perhaps *areoplanarius*? There might be other reasonable derivatives and stems one could use.&#xD;&#xA;- What is a good word for &quot;mode&quot;? Despite the obvious etymological connection, *modus* does not look like a good translation to me. The best word I could think of is *status*. Is this a good translation, or should I use something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt is this: *Telephonulum meum in statu aeroplanario est.*&#xD;&#xA;How would you go about translating this, and why so?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13877" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4512" RevisionGUID="c045b0c1-e925-44a1-9b20-ed4620ae685c" CreationDate="2017-06-06T16:54:50.250" UserId="79" Text="Putting a mobile phone in airplane mode" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13878" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4512" RevisionGUID="c045b0c1-e925-44a1-9b20-ed4620ae685c" CreationDate="2017-06-06T16:54:50.250" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|modern-life|technology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4513" RevisionGUID="db961aba-126e-4130-a9e6-b6676a0787e1" CreationDate="2017-06-06T17:48:48.730" UserId="1681" Text="Apparently this pronunciation of Latium is the one that the French also use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had the same question when I visited Rome and realized that the modern name of Lazio is the Italian pronunciation of Latium. Since -tion in English corresponds to -zione in Italian, I concluded that the -ti- in La**ti**um should probably be pronounced like the -ti- in e.g. ini**ti**a**ti**on (just like how, in Italian, the -zi- in La**zi**o is pronounced like the -zi- in ini**zi**a**zi**one and, in Spanish, the -ci- in La**ci**o is pronounced like the -ci- in ini**ci**a**ci**ón).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since English adopted all the French sound changes to the Latin language, the fact that -ti- is pronounced like -sh- should not be surprising." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4513" RevisionGUID="0bf4be2a-5f88-42a9-ad33-a769c57dc817" CreationDate="2017-06-06T17:56:19.723" UserId="1681" Comment="added 208 characters in body" Text="Apparently this pronunciation of Latium is the one that the French also use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had the same question when I visited Rome and realized that the modern name of Lazio is the Italian pronunciation of Latium. Since -tion in English corresponds to -zione in Italian, I concluded that the -ti- in La**ti**um should probably be pronounced like the -ti- in e.g. ini**ti**a**ti**on (just like how, in Italian, the -zi- in La**zi**o is pronounced like the -zi- in ini**zi**a**zi**one and, in Spanish, the -ci- in La**ci**o is pronounced like the -ci- in ini**ci**a**ci**ón).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since English adopted all the French sound changes to the Latin language, the fact that -ti- is pronounced like -sh- should not be surprising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In linguistics, I believe this phenomenon is known as [palatalization][1]. It's the same reason that diurnal became giorno in Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatalization_(sound_change)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4512" RevisionGUID="8335451e-b070-4c95-9075-55a57d6ca7ce" CreationDate="2017-06-06T21:20:18.120" UserId="9" Comment="fixed typo" Text="Having flown quite a bit over the last few months, the vocabulary is fresh in my mind &amp;mdash; but only in English.&#xD;&#xA;**How can I say &quot;my mobile phone is in airplane mode&quot; in Latin?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of issues with translating this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What is a mobile phone? I prefer *telephonulum*, but *telephonum mobile* makes sense too. This puzzles me far less than the next two points.&#xD;&#xA;- Is there a good adjective to translate &quot;airplane&quot;? Perhaps *aeroplanarius*? There might be other reasonable derivatives and stems one could use.&#xD;&#xA;- What is a good word for &quot;mode&quot;? Despite the obvious etymological connection, *modus* does not look like a good translation to me. The best word I could think of is *status*. Is this a good translation, or should I use something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt is this: *Telephonulum meum in statu aeroplanario est.*&#xD;&#xA;How would you go about translating this, and why so?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4500" RevisionGUID="28b478ce-745b-46b7-9b36-00b493ee8911" CreationDate="2017-06-07T01:09:00.657" UserId="39" Comment="added 516 characters in body" Text="Brill's New Pauly mentions **tesserae** (as well as **talus**) - see http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tesserae&amp;la=la#lexicon &quot;a die for playing, numbered on all the six sides&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Martial writes the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;non mea magnanimo depugnat tessera talo, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;senio nec nostrum cum cane quassat ebur:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;haec mihi charta nuces, haec est mihi charta fritillus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;alea nec damnum nec facit ista lucrum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;My dice do not contend with highhearted knucklebones, nor do sice and ace shake my ivory. This paper is my nuts, this paper my dice box; such gambling brings neither loss nor gain.&quot; - translated by D.R. Shackleton Bailey)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Hac mihi bis seno numeratur tessera puncto&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I've been able to find at least one example of the plural for alea (in the Loeb Classical Library):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;aut pugnaciter **aleis** certant, turpi sono fragosis naribus introrsum reducto spiritu concrepantes&quot; ([Ammianus Marcellinus][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;or they quarrel with one another in their games at dice, making a disgusting sound by drawing back the breath into their resounding nostrils&quot;(translated by J.C. Rolfe)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to consult [the TLL][2]. The entry you need is https://www.degruyter.com/view/TLL/1-0-07/1_0_07_alea_v2007.xml (no access from home)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, this is what Klaus Bartels writes in Brill's New Pauly (in the entry &quot;[dicta][3]&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Caesar's “Alea iacta est(o)”, **regularly misconstrued as &quot;the die is cast&quot;**, is more correctly translated as: &quot;the die is (or is to be) thrown&quot;. This phrase, a verse of Menander's that was already proverbial, does not refer to the decision made by the fall of the die, but the decision for the boldness of casting it in the first place.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/amminanus_marcellinus-history/1939/pb_LCL300.51.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/db/tll&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/dicta-ct-e1400940" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4500" RevisionGUID="c46ee64d-b0ae-4809-8346-7e07c4577894" CreationDate="2017-06-07T03:52:59.400" UserId="39" Comment="added 223 characters in body" Text="Brill's New Pauly mentions **tesserae** (as well as **talus**) - see http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tesserae&amp;la=la#lexicon &quot;a die for playing, numbered on all the six sides&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Martial writes the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;non mea magnanimo depugnat tessera talo, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;senio nec nostrum cum cane quassat ebur:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;haec mihi charta nuces, haec est mihi charta fritillus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;alea nec damnum nec facit ista lucrum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;My dice do not contend with highhearted knucklebones, nor do sice and ace shake my ivory. This paper is my nuts, this paper my dice box; such gambling brings neither loss nor gain.&quot; - translated by D.R. Shackleton Bailey)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Hac mihi bis seno numeratur tessera puncto&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I've been able to find at least one example of the plural for alea (in the Loeb Classical Library):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;aut pugnaciter **aleis** certant, turpi sono fragosis naribus introrsum reducto spiritu concrepantes&quot; ([Ammianus Marcellinus][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;or they quarrel with one another in their games at dice, making a disgusting sound by drawing back the breath into their resounding nostrils&quot;(translated by J.C. Rolfe)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details, see [&quot;Literate games: Roman society and the game of alea&quot;][2] by Nicholas Purcell (Purcell 1995).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should also consult [the TLL][3]. The entry you need is https://www.degruyter.com/view/TLL/1-0-07/1_0_07_alea_v2007.xml (no access from home)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, this is what Klaus Bartels writes in Brill's New Pauly (in the entry &quot;[dicta][4]&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Caesar's “Alea iacta est(o)”, **regularly misconstrued as &quot;the die is cast&quot;**, is more correctly translated as: &quot;the die is (or is to be) thrown&quot;. This phrase, a verse of Menander's that was already proverbial, does not refer to the decision made by the fall of the die, but the decision for the boldness of casting it in the first place.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/amminanus_marcellinus-history/1939/pb_LCL300.51.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.academia.edu/4459724/Literate_games_Roman_society_and_the_game_of_alea_1995_&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/db/tll&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/dicta-ct-e1400940" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4500" RevisionGUID="f8f64431-dc61-4d86-8b65-a4162b2322a6" CreationDate="2017-06-07T04:04:27.213" UserId="39" Comment="added 550 characters in body" Text="Brill's New Pauly mentions **tesserae** (as well as **talus**) - see http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tesserae&amp;la=la#lexicon &quot;a die for playing, numbered on all the six sides&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suetonius quotes a letter written by Augustus that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Inter cenam lusimus geronticos et heri et hodie; **talis enim iactatis**, ut quisque canem aut senionem miserat, in singulos talos singulos denarios in medium conferebat, quos tollebat universos, qui Venerem iecerat.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;We gambled like old men during the meal both yesterday and to-day; for when the dice were thrown; whoever turned up the ‘dog’ or the six, put a denarius in the pool for each one of the dice, and the whole was taken by anyone who threw the 'Venus'&quot; (transl. by ?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Martial writes the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;non mea magnanimo depugnat tessera talo, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;senio nec nostrum cum cane quassat ebur:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;haec mihi charta nuces, haec est mihi charta fritillus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;alea nec damnum nec facit ista lucrum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;My dice do not contend with highhearted knucklebones, nor do sice and ace shake my ivory. This paper is my nuts, this paper my dice box; such gambling brings neither loss nor gain.&quot; - translated by D.R. Shackleton Bailey)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Hac mihi bis seno numeratur tessera puncto&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I've been able to find at least one example of the plural for alea (in the Loeb Classical Library):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;aut pugnaciter **aleis** certant, turpi sono fragosis naribus introrsum reducto spiritu concrepantes&quot; ([Ammianus Marcellinus][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;or they quarrel with one another in their games at dice, making a disgusting sound by drawing back the breath into their resounding nostrils&quot;(translated by J.C. Rolfe)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details, see [&quot;Literate games: Roman society and the game of alea&quot;][2] by Nicholas Purcell (Purcell 1995).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should also consult [the TLL][3]. The entry you need is https://www.degruyter.com/view/TLL/1-0-07/1_0_07_alea_v2007.xml (no access from home)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, this is what Klaus Bartels writes in Brill's New Pauly (in the entry &quot;[dicta][4]&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Caesar's “Alea iacta est(o)”, **regularly misconstrued as &quot;the die is cast&quot;**, is more correctly translated as: &quot;the die is (or is to be) thrown&quot;. This phrase, a verse of Menander's that was already proverbial, does not refer to the decision made by the fall of the die, but the decision for the boldness of casting it in the first place.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/amminanus_marcellinus-history/1939/pb_LCL300.51.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.academia.edu/4459724/Literate_games_Roman_society_and_the_game_of_alea_1995_&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/db/tll&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/dicta-ct-e1400940" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4513" RevisionGUID="e370df2e-2dee-4659-8b20-a83b95515d83" CreationDate="2017-06-07T05:48:31.497" UserId="1681" Comment="added 238 characters in body" Text="Apparently this pronunciation of Latium is similar to the one that the French use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had the same question when I visited Rome and realized that the modern name of Lazio is the Italian pronunciation of Latium. Since -tion in English corresponds to -zione in Italian, I concluded that the -ti- in La**ti**um should probably be pronounced like the -ti- in e.g. ini**ti**a**ti**on (just like how, in Italian, the -zi- in La**zi**o is pronounced like the -zi- in ini**zi**a**zi**one and, in Spanish, the -ci- in La**ci**o is pronounced like the -ci- in ini**ci**a**ci**ón).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since English adopted many of the French sound changes to the Latin language (well, at least as best they could given the phonology of the English language), the fact that -ti- is pronounced like -sh- should not be surprising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In linguistics, I believe this phenomenon is known as [palatalization][1]. It's the same reason that diurnal became giorno in Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclaimer: I am in no sense a linguist and do not speak any of the languages I mentioned above (except for English, of course). I'm just someone with an untrained ear who is sharing an observation I made while traveling abroad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatalization_(sound_change)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4514" RevisionGUID="9da0bf22-9006-4e01-8e70-b801f99f34a2" CreationDate="2017-06-07T07:50:14.257" UserId="79" Text="Various military vehicles have often call signs containing a numbers.&#xD;&#xA;For a quick example, you can watch a little bit of [this YouTube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WBG2rJZGW8&amp;t=1m45s).&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how to render such call signs in Latin, especially regarding the numerals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make the question concrete, how should I translate &quot;red 5&quot; to Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Should I use an ordinal (*rubrum quintum*), a cardinal (*rubrum quinque*), or something else?&#xD;&#xA;The neuter can be replaced with another gender if one reads it as &quot;the fifth red ship&quot; or something similar.&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the final Latin call sign should be concise, and implied words like &quot;ship&quot; have to be left out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that ordinals are the way to go here, but I don't know any precedent for call signs in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13888" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4514" RevisionGUID="9da0bf22-9006-4e01-8e70-b801f99f34a2" CreationDate="2017-06-07T07:50:14.257" UserId="79" Text="Numbers in call signs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13889" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4514" RevisionGUID="9da0bf22-9006-4e01-8e70-b801f99f34a2" CreationDate="2017-06-07T07:50:14.257" UserId="79" Text="|contemporary-latin|military|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4505" RevisionGUID="0e3b7aaf-b7e2-443d-8f80-473464254741" CreationDate="2017-06-07T09:36:07.783" UserId="78" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Varro mentions the possibility:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *De Lingua Latina* 9.75.4ff.&#xD;&#xA;obliquos non habere ut in hoc Diespiter Diespitri Diespitrem, Maspiter Maspitri Maspitrem. ad haec respondeo et priora habere nominandi et posteriora patrici esset casus. ut ovis, et avis. sic in obliquis casibus cur negent esse Diespitri Diespitrem non video, nisi quod minus est tritum in consuetudine quam Diespiter; quod [in]nihili argumentum est: nam tam casus qui non tritus est quam qui est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[English translation](https://archive.org/stream/onlatinlanguage02varruoft#page/496/mode/2up)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, outside of grammarians, there is no literary record of the oblique forms, nor could I find them in inscriptions. They exist only in nominative and vocative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As TKR noted below, Varro is saying that they *should* exist, and that others (the anomalists) say they do not exist. This section comes from book 9 of *De Lingua Latina*, though, in which Varro is presenting arguments against anomaly; this makes it a theoretical engagement, not words that ordinary Latin speakers would have known and used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4515" RevisionGUID="d414a369-dac5-4868-8c38-cb9bd4d9dcf7" CreationDate="2017-06-07T17:32:45.143" UserId="1051" Text="Is there any evidence that aspirations that are as a result&#xD;&#xA;of composition no longer orthographically marked were still&#xD;&#xA;pronounced?  Or to the contrary?  I mean was προαίρησις&#xD;&#xA;pronounced proairesis or prohairesis?  Since as far as I know&#xD;&#xA;diacritics were not used in antiquity, I would incline to the&#xD;&#xA;latter alternative.  But it would be nice to have it confirmed.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13892" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4515" RevisionGUID="d414a369-dac5-4868-8c38-cb9bd4d9dcf7" CreationDate="2017-06-07T17:32:45.143" UserId="1051" Text="Greek pronunciation, invisible aspirations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13893" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4515" RevisionGUID="d414a369-dac5-4868-8c38-cb9bd4d9dcf7" CreationDate="2017-06-07T17:32:45.143" UserId="1051" Text="|greek|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4514" RevisionGUID="c1461ded-684b-41df-9621-fa9439fe1c3b" CreationDate="2017-06-07T19:46:02.753" UserId="79" Comment="added 452 characters in body" Text="Various military vehicles have often call signs containing a numbers.&#xD;&#xA;For a quick example, you can watch a little bit of [this YouTube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WBG2rJZGW8&amp;t=1m45s).&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how to render such call signs in Latin, especially regarding the numerals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make the question concrete, how should I translate &quot;red 5&quot; to Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Should I use an ordinal (*rubrum quintum*), a cardinal (*rubrum quinque*), or something else?&#xD;&#xA;The neuter can be replaced with another gender if one reads it as &quot;the fifth red ship&quot; or something similar.&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the final Latin call sign should be concise, and implied words like &quot;ship&quot; have to be left out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the questions &quot;How to translate call signs from English (or some other language) to Latin?&quot; and &quot;How to write call signs in Latin?&quot; are identical.&#xD;&#xA;Whatever the Latin convention is (choice of gender and ordinal or cardinal), it should be followed in both cases.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps comparison to other languages would help, but I couldn't find information on reading out numbers in call signs.&#xD;&#xA;I only know that both English and Finnish use cardinals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that ordinals are the way to go here, but I don't know any precedent for call signs in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4516" RevisionGUID="d4b69828-9b2e-4346-8df7-9d95fd520065" CreationDate="2017-06-07T23:00:07.483" UserId="45" Text="I recently discovered that LSJ lists [exactly two words beginning with ῤ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=r%29&amp;lang=greek) (rho with a smooth breathing mark): [ῤάρος](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=r%29a%2Fros&amp;la=greek&amp;can=r%29a%2Fros0&amp;prior=to/&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=r\)a/rion&amp;i=1) and its diminutive [ῤάριον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dr\)a%2Frion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most beginning Greek students are taught, of course, that all words beginning with rho should have a rough breathing (ῥ). LSJ [has 957 results](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=r%28&amp;lang=greek) beginning in this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How is this pronounced?&#xD;&#xA;* Why did only this word get the privilege of having a smooth breathing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, since the LSJ entry is pretty opaque, I'd also like to know:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What does ῤάρος mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13896" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4516" RevisionGUID="d4b69828-9b2e-4346-8df7-9d95fd520065" CreationDate="2017-06-07T23:00:07.483" UserId="45" Text="Why does &quot;ῤάρος&quot; have a smooth breathing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13897" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4516" RevisionGUID="d4b69828-9b2e-4346-8df7-9d95fd520065" CreationDate="2017-06-07T23:00:07.483" UserId="45" Text="|greek|pronunciation|irregular-words|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4517" RevisionGUID="d89fbb4f-68cc-4bbe-9484-572afb9af517" CreationDate="2017-06-08T03:01:42.380" UserId="40" Text="I don't have a solution to the mystery of the breathing, but to unpack the LSJ entry a little:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word is only found in grammatical works, and these differ as to its meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *EM* is the *Etymologicum magnum*, a 12th-century Byzantine lexicon/encyclopedia. This is online, and the entry can be seen [here](http://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/fs1/object/display/bsb10209806_01059.html?zoom=2). It says that some people think ῤάρος is the name of a place, others think it's a synonym for γαστήρ &quot;belly&quot;, and that the diminutive ῤάριον is derived from the latter sense and means &quot;fetus&quot; or &quot;infant&quot; (βρέφος). (I don't understand the final sentence οὕτως εὗρον τὸ λεξείδιον; the last word isn't in LSJ but looks like a diminutive of λέξις, so &quot;Thus I have found the word&quot;?.) This edition doesn't show the breathing on the rho, unfortunately.&#xD;&#xA; - The *Suda* (a 10th-century Byzantine encyclopedia) also lists the words. The entries are [here](https://archive.org/stream/suidaelexicongr03suid#page/252/mode/2up), and read &quot;ῥάριον· τὸ βρέφος&quot; and &quot;ῥάρον· ἰσχυρόν&quot;, i.e. ῥάριον means βρέφος (as in the EM) but ῥάρον means &quot;strong&quot;. This edition shows a rough breathing on the rho.&#xD;&#xA; - Hesychius and Photius also say ῥάρος means ἰσχυρός &quot;strong&quot;. (I haven't tried to find these online.)&#xD;&#xA; - There are two sources for the smooth breathing: &quot;Sch. *D.T.*&quot; = a scholiast on the grammarian Dionysius Thrax; and &quot;Lex. de Spir.&quot; = the *Lexicon de spiritu* or περὶ πνευμάτων, a Byzantine collation of grammatical information on breathings. I don't have ready access to either text, but maybe someone here can tell us what either says about the breathing in this word. As for the meaning, the former source says it is Aeolic for &quot;embryo&quot;, while the latter says it means &quot;aborted fetus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4518" RevisionGUID="4a20786e-27c8-4dc2-8ed3-d5307ddbfc48" CreationDate="2017-06-08T04:13:58.217" UserId="9" Text="Here is a relevant Quora post: [Why is “ρ” translitered as “rh” instead of “r”?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Philip Newton's answer cites a passage from *[Gaps in the System][2]* by&#xD;&#xA;[Nick Nicholas][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  rho with smooth breathing appears [...] in Ancient representations of psilotic dialects. The TLG corpus manages 57 instances, all of them Aeolic, with the exception of Rarus, father of Triptolemus, the first human to have been taught agriculture by Demeter; his name was apparently back-formed from the (non-Attic) Rarian field in Eleusis associated with the cult of Demeter. In the surviving corpus, Rarus and his field are predictably mentioned more by the grammarians, who loved a good exception, than by the classics themselves:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Τὸ ρ ἀρχόμενον λέξεως δασύνεσθαι θέλει, ῥά, ῥανίς, ῥάξ χωρὶς τοῦ Ρ̓ᾶρος (ἔστι δὲ ὄνομα κύριον) καὶ χωρὶς τῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ οἷον  «Ρ̓αρίδος Δηοῦς» καὶ Ρ̓αρία γῆ καὶ Ρ̓αριάς, σημαίνει δὲ τὴν Δήμητρα, καὶ Ρ̓άριον πεδίον ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι, ἐπὶ τούτων γάρ φασι τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ρ ψιλοῦσθαι, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον δασύνεσθαι. ἀλλὰ τὰ δύο ρρ ψιλωτέον ἐπὶ τούτων καὶ κατὰ τὴν πρώτην συλλαβὴν καὶ κατὰ τὴν δευτέραν. (Herodian, *De prosodia catholica* 3.1.547)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;At the beginning of a word, *r* takes a rough breathing, as in *rhá* &quot;then&quot;, *rhanís* &quot;drop&quot;, *rháx* &quot;grape&quot;, except for *Rarus* (a proper name) and the words derived from it, such as &quot;*Rarian* Demeter&quot; and &quot;*Rarian* earth&quot; and *Rarias,* which is a name for Demeter, and the *Rarian* field in Eleusis. It is said that for these the first *r* has a smooth breathing and the second a rough; but the two *r*'s in these words should bear a smooth breathing both in the first and in the second syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Not all authorities put up with the exception; the *[Suda][4]* preferred to call Demeter *[Rharias][5].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found a short allusion to dialectal variation in the realization of rho in an extract from the book *Asianic Elements in Greek Civilisation* (1938), by William Ramsay, &quot;[Chapter XXI: General Principles][6]&quot;, hosted by The Gifford Lectures online:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The letter “r” appears and disappears in perplexing fashion in Anatolian words as written in Greek alphabet. Probably a soft “r” was used in Asia Minor as in the English word pretty; but there were doubtless more sounds than one “rho” in Anatolian although they cannot now be distinguished. In Greek the “rho” was rougher and is written ῥ except in Aeolic (which is more Anatolian in type).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, all modern dialects of Greek are psilotic; according to [Wikipedia][7] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The loss of /h/ happened at different times in different dialects of Greek. The eastern Ionic dialects, the Aeolic dialect of Lesbos, as well as the Doric dialects of Crete and Elis, were already psilotic at the beginning of their written record. In Attic, there was widespread variation in popular speech during the classical period, but the formal standard language retained /h/. This variation continued into the Hellenistic Koine. [...] By the late Roman and early Byzantine period, /h/ had been lost in all forms of the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So at later time periods at least, and in earlier time periods for some varieties of Greek, there would have been no difference in pronunciation between rho with a rough and smooth breathing. It would just have been a spelling exception to memorize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-%E2%80%9C%CF%81%E2%80%9D-translitered-as-%E2%80%9Crh%E2%80%9D-instead-of-%E2%80%9Cr%E2%80%9D&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.opoudjis.net/unicode/unicode_gaps.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.opoudjis.net&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.stoa.org/sol/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.stoa.org/sol-bin/search.pl?db=REAL&amp;search_method=QUERY&amp;login=guest&amp;enlogin=guest&amp;user_list=LIST&amp;page_num=1&amp;searchstr=rho%2C50&amp;field=adlerhw_gr&amp;num_per_page=50&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.giffordlectures.org/books/asianic-elements-greek-civilisation/chapter-xxi-general-principles&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilosis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4518" RevisionGUID="96712b65-c00d-4bde-bd9c-3da14770baaa" CreationDate="2017-06-08T04:23:02.590" UserId="9" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="I wasn't able to find out why this word, or name, has a smooth breathing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, here is a relevant Quora post: [Why is “ρ” translitered as “rh” instead of “r”?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Philip Newton's answer cites a passage from *[Gaps in the System][2]* by&#xD;&#xA;[Nick Nicholas][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  rho with smooth breathing appears [...] in Ancient representations of psilotic dialects. The TLG corpus manages 57 instances, all of them Aeolic, with the exception of Rarus, father of Triptolemus, the first human to have been taught agriculture by Demeter; his name was apparently back-formed from the (non-Attic) Rarian field in Eleusis associated with the cult of Demeter. In the surviving corpus, Rarus and his field are predictably mentioned more by the grammarians, who loved a good exception, than by the classics themselves:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Τὸ ρ ἀρχόμενον λέξεως δασύνεσθαι θέλει, ῥά, ῥανίς, ῥάξ χωρὶς τοῦ Ρ̓ᾶρος (ἔστι δὲ ὄνομα κύριον) καὶ χωρὶς τῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ οἷον  «Ρ̓αρίδος Δηοῦς» καὶ Ρ̓αρία γῆ καὶ Ρ̓αριάς, σημαίνει δὲ τὴν Δήμητρα, καὶ Ρ̓άριον πεδίον ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι, ἐπὶ τούτων γάρ φασι τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ρ ψιλοῦσθαι, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον δασύνεσθαι. ἀλλὰ τὰ δύο ρρ ψιλωτέον ἐπὶ τούτων καὶ κατὰ τὴν πρώτην συλλαβὴν καὶ κατὰ τὴν δευτέραν. (Herodian, *De prosodia catholica* 3.1.547)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;At the beginning of a word, *r* takes a rough breathing, as in *rhá* &quot;then&quot;, *rhanís* &quot;drop&quot;, *rháx* &quot;grape&quot;, except for *Rarus* (a proper name) and the words derived from it, such as &quot;*Rarian* Demeter&quot; and &quot;*Rarian* earth&quot; and *Rarias,* which is a name for Demeter, and the *Rarian* field in Eleusis. It is said that for these the first *r* has a smooth breathing and the second a rough; but the two *r*'s in these words should bear a smooth breathing both in the first and in the second syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Not all authorities put up with the exception; the *[Suda][4]* preferred to call Demeter *[Rharias][5].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found a short allusion to dialectal variation in the realization of rho in an extract from the book *Asianic Elements in Greek Civilisation* (1938), by William Ramsay, &quot;[Chapter XXI: General Principles][6]&quot;, hosted by The Gifford Lectures online:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The letter “r” appears and disappears in perplexing fashion in Anatolian words as written in Greek alphabet. Probably a soft “r” was used in Asia Minor as in the English word pretty; but there were doubtless more sounds than one “rho” in Anatolian although they cannot now be distinguished. In Greek the “rho” was rougher and is written ῥ except in Aeolic (which is more Anatolian in type).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, all modern dialects of Greek are psilotic; according to [Wikipedia][7] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The loss of /h/ happened at different times in different dialects of Greek. The eastern Ionic dialects, the Aeolic dialect of Lesbos, as well as the Doric dialects of Crete and Elis, were already psilotic at the beginning of their written record. In Attic, there was widespread variation in popular speech during the classical period, but the formal standard language retained /h/. This variation continued into the Hellenistic Koine. [...] By the late Roman and early Byzantine period, /h/ had been lost in all forms of the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So at later time periods at least, and in earlier time periods for some varieties of Greek, there would have been no difference in pronunciation between rho with a rough and smooth breathing. It would just have been a spelling exception to memorize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-%E2%80%9C%CF%81%E2%80%9D-translitered-as-%E2%80%9Crh%E2%80%9D-instead-of-%E2%80%9Cr%E2%80%9D&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.opoudjis.net/unicode/unicode_gaps.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.opoudjis.net&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.stoa.org/sol/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.stoa.org/sol-bin/search.pl?db=REAL&amp;search_method=QUERY&amp;login=guest&amp;enlogin=guest&amp;user_list=LIST&amp;page_num=1&amp;searchstr=rho%2C50&amp;field=adlerhw_gr&amp;num_per_page=50&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.giffordlectures.org/books/asianic-elements-greek-civilisation/chapter-xxi-general-principles&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilosis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4518" RevisionGUID="ae509f93-ccce-403e-b54e-66d97eb42206" CreationDate="2017-06-08T04:52:35.277" UserId="9" Comment="added 644 characters in body" Text="I wasn't able to find out why this word, or name, has a smooth breathing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, here is a relevant Quora post: [Why is “ρ” translitered as “rh” instead of “r”?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Philip Newton's answer cites a passage from *[Gaps in the System][2]* by&#xD;&#xA;[Nick Nicholas][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  rho with smooth breathing appears [...] in Ancient representations of psilotic dialects. The TLG corpus manages 57 instances, all of them Aeolic, with the exception of Rarus, father of Triptolemus, the first human to have been taught agriculture by Demeter; his name was apparently back-formed from the (non-Attic) Rarian field in Eleusis associated with the cult of Demeter. In the surviving corpus, Rarus and his field are predictably mentioned more by the grammarians, who loved a good exception, than by the classics themselves:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Τὸ ρ ἀρχόμενον λέξεως δασύνεσθαι θέλει, ῥά, ῥανίς, ῥάξ χωρὶς τοῦ Ρ̓ᾶρος (ἔστι δὲ ὄνομα κύριον) καὶ χωρὶς τῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ οἷον  «Ρ̓αρίδος Δηοῦς» καὶ Ρ̓αρία γῆ καὶ Ρ̓αριάς, σημαίνει δὲ τὴν Δήμητρα, καὶ Ρ̓άριον πεδίον ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι, ἐπὶ τούτων γάρ φασι τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ρ ψιλοῦσθαι, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον δασύνεσθαι. ἀλλὰ τὰ δύο ρρ ψιλωτέον ἐπὶ τούτων καὶ κατὰ τὴν πρώτην συλλαβὴν καὶ κατὰ τὴν δευτέραν. (Herodian, *De prosodia catholica* 3.1.547)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;At the beginning of a word, *r* takes a rough breathing, as in *rhá* &quot;then&quot;, *rhanís* &quot;drop&quot;, *rháx* &quot;grape&quot;, except for *Rarus* (a proper name) and the words derived from it, such as &quot;*Rarian* Demeter&quot; and &quot;*Rarian* earth&quot; and *Rarias,* which is a name for Demeter, and the *Rarian* field in Eleusis. It is said that for these the first *r* has a smooth breathing and the second a rough; but the two *r*'s in these words should bear a smooth breathing both in the first and in the second syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Not all authorities put up with the exception; the *[Suda][4]* preferred to call Demeter *[Rharias][5].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found a short allusion to dialectal variation in the realization of rho in an extract from the book *Asianic Elements in Greek Civilisation* (1938), by William Ramsay, &quot;[Chapter XXI: General Principles][6]&quot;, hosted by The Gifford Lectures online:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The letter “r” appears and disappears in perplexing fashion in Anatolian words as written in Greek alphabet. Probably a soft “r” was used in Asia Minor as in the English word pretty; but there were doubtless more sounds than one “rho” in Anatolian although they cannot now be distinguished. In Greek the “rho” was rougher and is written ῥ except in Aeolic (which is more Anatolian in type).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, all modern dialects of Greek are psilotic; according to [Wikipedia][7] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The loss of /h/ happened at different times in different dialects of Greek. The eastern Ionic dialects, the Aeolic dialect of Lesbos, as well as the Doric dialects of Crete and Elis, were already psilotic at the beginning of their written record. In Attic, there was widespread variation in popular speech during the classical period, but the formal standard language retained /h/. This variation continued into the Hellenistic Koine. [...] By the late Roman and early Byzantine period, /h/ had been lost in all forms of the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So at later time periods at least, and in earlier time periods for some varieties of Greek, there would have been no difference in pronunciation between rho with a rough and smooth breathing. It would just have been a spelling exception to memorize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LSJ seems to have a bit more information in its entry for &quot;[Rarion pedion][8]&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the field&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;A. *of Rarus,* (where tillage was first practised, and which was sacred to Demeter, Paus.1.38.6, *St.Byz.*; (without pedion) **Rarion**, to, **h.Cer.450**; **Raria**, hē (sc. gē), *Plu.2.144b*; whence the goddess was herself called **Rarias**, hē, *St.Byz.* [a is long, h.Cer. l.c., so that the accent is prob. not Raros, as in most codd.:—for the smooth breathing, v. Hdn.Gr.2.402, 940.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's unclear to me if the name is the same in origin as the &quot;embryo&quot; word that TKR's answer deals with. LSJ say about this word&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**raros**][9], ho, a word found only in Gramm., expid. as = gastēr in *EM 702.37, Suid.*; as Aeol. for embruon in Sch.D.T.*p.143* H.; as&#xD;&#xA;A.= amblōthridion brephos in *Lex. de Spir.p.215* Valck.; as = iskhuros (cf. rhōros), *Hsch., Phot., Suid.* [The breathing is smooth, as in Raros, Sch.*D.T.* and Lex. de Spir. ll. cc.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-%E2%80%9C%CF%81%E2%80%9D-translitered-as-%E2%80%9Crh%E2%80%9D-instead-of-%E2%80%9Cr%E2%80%9D&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.opoudjis.net/unicode/unicode_gaps.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.opoudjis.net&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.stoa.org/sol/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.stoa.org/sol-bin/search.pl?db=REAL&amp;search_method=QUERY&amp;login=guest&amp;enlogin=guest&amp;user_list=LIST&amp;page_num=1&amp;searchstr=rho%2C50&amp;field=adlerhw_gr&amp;num_per_page=50&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.giffordlectures.org/books/asianic-elements-greek-civilisation/chapter-xxi-general-principles&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilosis&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3D*r%3Aentry%20group%3D4%3Aentry%3D*)ra%2Frion&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dr)a%2Fros" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4518" RevisionGUID="70aca42f-0e42-46b9-bbcf-bb51717888a4" CreationDate="2017-06-08T04:58:27.743" UserId="9" Comment="added 644 characters in body" Text="I wasn't able to find out why this word, or name, has a smooth breathing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you may have seen already, LSJ actually has separate entries for &quot;[Raros][1]&quot;, a name, and &quot;[raros][2]&quot;, the &quot;embryo&quot; word that TKR's answer deals with. It's unclear to me if these have the same origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LSJ seems to have a bit more information and examples of words related to the name in its entry for &quot;[Rarion pedion][3]&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the field&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;A. *of Rarus,* (where tillage was first practised, and which was sacred to Demeter, Paus.1.38.6, *St.Byz.*; (without pedion) **Rarion**, to, **h.Cer.450**; **Raria**, hē (sc. gē), *Plu.2.144b*; whence the goddess was herself called **Rarias**, hē, *St.Byz.* [a is long, h.Cer. l.c., so that the accent is prob. not Raros, as in most codd.:—for the smooth breathing, v. Hdn.Gr.2.402, 940.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a relevant Quora post: [Why is “ρ” translitered as “rh” instead of “r”?][4] Philip Newton's answer cites a passage from *[Gaps in the System][5]* by&#xD;&#xA;[Nick Nicholas][6]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  rho with smooth breathing appears [...] in Ancient representations of psilotic dialects. The TLG corpus manages 57 instances, all of them Aeolic, with the exception of Rarus, father of Triptolemus, the first human to have been taught agriculture by Demeter; his name was apparently back-formed from the (non-Attic) Rarian field in Eleusis associated with the cult of Demeter. In the surviving corpus, Rarus and his field are predictably mentioned more by the grammarians, who loved a good exception, than by the classics themselves:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Τὸ ρ ἀρχόμενον λέξεως δασύνεσθαι θέλει, ῥά, ῥανίς, ῥάξ χωρὶς τοῦ Ρ̓ᾶρος (ἔστι δὲ ὄνομα κύριον) καὶ χωρὶς τῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ οἷον  «Ρ̓αρίδος Δηοῦς» καὶ Ρ̓αρία γῆ καὶ Ρ̓αριάς, σημαίνει δὲ τὴν Δήμητρα, καὶ Ρ̓άριον πεδίον ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι, ἐπὶ τούτων γάρ φασι τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ρ ψιλοῦσθαι, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον δασύνεσθαι. ἀλλὰ τὰ δύο ρρ ψιλωτέον ἐπὶ τούτων καὶ κατὰ τὴν πρώτην συλλαβὴν καὶ κατὰ τὴν δευτέραν. (Herodian, *De prosodia catholica* 3.1.547)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;At the beginning of a word, *r* takes a rough breathing, as in *rhá* &quot;then&quot;, *rhanís* &quot;drop&quot;, *rháx* &quot;grape&quot;, except for *Rarus* (a proper name) and the words derived from it, such as &quot;*Rarian* Demeter&quot; and &quot;*Rarian* earth&quot; and *Rarias,* which is a name for Demeter, and the *Rarian* field in Eleusis. It is said that for these the first *r* has a smooth breathing and the second a rough; but the two *r*'s in these words should bear a smooth breathing both in the first and in the second syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Not all authorities put up with the exception; the *[Suda][7]* preferred to call Demeter *[Rharias][8].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found a short allusion to dialectal variation in the realization of rho in an extract from the book *Asianic Elements in Greek Civilisation* (1938), by William Ramsay, &quot;[Chapter XXI: General Principles][9]&quot;, hosted by The Gifford Lectures online:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The letter “r” appears and disappears in perplexing fashion in Anatolian words as written in Greek alphabet. Probably a soft “r” was used in Asia Minor as in the English word pretty; but there were doubtless more sounds than one “rho” in Anatolian although they cannot now be distinguished. In Greek the “rho” was rougher and is written ῥ except in Aeolic (which is more Anatolian in type).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, all modern dialects of Greek are psilotic; according to [Wikipedia][10] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The loss of /h/ happened at different times in different dialects of Greek. The eastern Ionic dialects, the Aeolic dialect of Lesbos, as well as the Doric dialects of Crete and Elis, were already psilotic at the beginning of their written record. In Attic, there was widespread variation in popular speech during the classical period, but the formal standard language retained /h/. This variation continued into the Hellenistic Koine. [...] By the late Roman and early Byzantine period, /h/ had been lost in all forms of the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So at later time periods at least, and in earlier time periods for some varieties of Greek, there would have been no difference in pronunciation between rho with a rough and smooth breathing. It would just have been a spelling exception to memorize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D*)ra%3Dros&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dr)a%2Fros&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3D*r%3Aentry%20group%3D4%3Aentry%3D*)ra%2Frion&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-%E2%80%9C%CF%81%E2%80%9D-translitered-as-%E2%80%9Crh%E2%80%9D-instead-of-%E2%80%9Cr%E2%80%9D&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.opoudjis.net/unicode/unicode_gaps.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.opoudjis.net&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.stoa.org/sol/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.stoa.org/sol-bin/search.pl?db=REAL&amp;search_method=QUERY&amp;login=guest&amp;enlogin=guest&amp;user_list=LIST&amp;page_num=1&amp;searchstr=rho%2C50&amp;field=adlerhw_gr&amp;num_per_page=50&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.giffordlectures.org/books/asianic-elements-greek-civilisation/chapter-xxi-general-principles&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilosis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4515" RevisionGUID="69401fd4-b1c1-4c99-beaa-3763da62fe38" CreationDate="2017-06-08T08:05:16.357" UserId="1051" Comment="add par" Text="Is there any evidence that aspirations that are as a result&#xD;&#xA;of composition no longer orthographically marked were still&#xD;&#xA;pronounced?  Or to the contrary?  I mean was προαίρησις&#xD;&#xA;pronounced proairesis or prohairesis?  Since as far as I know&#xD;&#xA;diacritics were not used in antiquity, I would incline to the&#xD;&#xA;latter alternative.  But it would be nice to have it confirmed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if simple words were only aspirated initially,&#xD;&#xA;except after θ φ χ, as a rule, then perhaps this rule was carried over to&#xD;&#xA;composites. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4519" RevisionGUID="b84ab2ed-6bf8-4aa7-82c7-de372f11b366" CreationDate="2017-06-08T13:37:21.440" UserId="1686" Text="I am reading an essay on Vergil's Aeneid, and there is a citation that says:&#xD;&#xA;[![the citation][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GUl0M.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this citation direct to the book *Vergilius 4* published in 1940, on page 5-17?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, I am having trouble finding such a book written by Duckworth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13908" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4519" RevisionGUID="b84ab2ed-6bf8-4aa7-82c7-de372f11b366" CreationDate="2017-06-08T13:37:21.440" UserId="1686" Text="George Duckworth's Vergilius?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13909" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4519" RevisionGUID="b84ab2ed-6bf8-4aa7-82c7-de372f11b366" CreationDate="2017-06-08T13:37:21.440" UserId="1686" Text="|vergilius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4520" RevisionGUID="fe1e2fc8-5042-4c60-a639-721e72d24f85" CreationDate="2017-06-08T14:13:30.070" UserId="78" Text="The full citation is: Duckworth, G. W. 1940. &quot;Turnus as a Tragic Character.&quot; *Vergilius* 4: 5-17.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the article is not available online. *Vergilius* took a hiatus (or had a different name?), and you're right that it's not on JSTOR. There's a collection of the early volumes on Google Books, but it only shows &quot;snippet view&quot; for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have access to a library that offers InterLibrary Loan, that would be your best bet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4520" RevisionGUID="a1fd9a8c-e8fd-4e73-87c9-68f3a4738a57" CreationDate="2017-06-08T14:42:16.397" UserId="78" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="The full citation is: Duckworth, G. W. 1940. &quot;Turnus as a Tragic Character.&quot; *Vergilius* 4: 5-17. This is the fourth volume of the journal and was published in 1940.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the article is not available online. *Vergilius* took a hiatus (or had a different name?), and you're right that it's not on JSTOR. There's a collection of the early volumes on Google Books, but it only shows &quot;snippet view&quot; for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;WorldCat lists [three locations](https://www.worldcat.org/title/vergilius-the-bulletin-of-the-vergilian-society-no-1-6-june-1938-dec-1940/oclc/795275165&amp;referer=brief_results) for the collected volumes, and if you have access to a library that offers InterLibrary Loan, that might be your best bet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4521" RevisionGUID="48bf84d4-6780-4ffe-b273-8bb1601242eb" CreationDate="2017-06-08T14:45:09.443" UserId="324" Text="I found this is the Cambridge University Library catalogue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Title:Vergilius.&#xD;&#xA;Other Entries:Vergilian Society. &#xD;&#xA;Published:Atlanta, GA : Vergilian Society, 1956-&#xD;&#xA;Publication history:Began with vol. 1, (1956).&#xD;&#xA;Description:ill ; 23 cm.&#xD;&#xA;ISSN:0506-7294&#xD;&#xA;Notes:Supersedes Vergilius, no. 1-6, 1938-40.&#xD;&#xA;Continues The Vergilian Digest, 1956-58.&#xD;&#xA;Published by the Vergilian Society.&#xD;&#xA;Subjects:Virgil--Periodicals. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4523" RevisionGUID="4a5bbcb7-7253-4578-8d50-2872fa70b57a" CreationDate="2017-06-08T19:39:10.453" UserId="45" Text="With thanks to [this discussion](http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2002-September/022446.html) for pointing me in the right direction, I found a passage in W. Sidney Allen's [*Vox Graeca*](https://books.google.com/books?id=5i89AAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA52), pg. 52-53 that addresses this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In compound words, however, one has to consider the possibility of aspiration of the second member, thereby giving rise to medial aspiration, or 'interaspiration' as it is commonly called. When the first member ends in a voiceless plosive, this is of course an established fact (e.g. ἐφορῶ from ἐπ(ι)+ὁρῶ), the aspiration having become a feature of the plosive. But **the situation is less clear when the first element ends in a vowel or in a consonant which has no aspirated counterpart.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rough breathing marking is &quot;occasionally&quot; inserted in Attic inscriptions, though usually not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In such cases the aspirate does not generally appear in Attic inscriptions which otherwise indicate it, but it is occasionally found--e.g. ευ*h*ορκον, παρ*h*εδροι, προσ*h*εκετο (= προσηκέτω). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned, Latin transcriptions sometimes show it and sometimes do not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Latin transcriptions show considerable variation, and this may have been a feature of Greek speech itself**; the presence of aspiration in such forms could well have depended upon the extent to which the two elements of the compound were still recognized as such by the speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explicit interaspiration is present in some words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from compounds (and exclamations as εὐαἵ), interaspiration is attested for Attic only in the word ταὧς 'peacock', a borrowing of uncertain origin, which is specifically mentioned by Athenaeus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tracked down this last citation, which is mentioned in the [LSJ entry](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dtaw%2Fs2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ταὧς λέγουσιν Ἀθηναῖοι τὴν τελευταίαν συλλαβὴν περισπῶντες καὶ δασύνοντες (Tryphoap. Ath. 9.397e)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the key point is the one I bolded above: given the haphazard inclusion of rough breathing in written testimonies (both Greek and Latin), **it is likely that there was no consistent convention for pronouncing these words.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4521" RevisionGUID="b773a4bf-a52d-4b99-a338-9b258419f8fb" CreationDate="2017-06-08T20:40:12.957" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted to break rows." Text="I found this is the Cambridge University Library catalogue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Title: Vergilius.  &#xD;&#xA;Other Entries: Vergilian Society.  &#xD;&#xA;Published: Atlanta, GA: Vergilian Society, 1956-  &#xD;&#xA;Publication history: Began with vol. 1, (1956).  &#xD;&#xA;Description: ill ; 23 cm.  &#xD;&#xA;ISSN: 0506-7294  &#xD;&#xA;Notes: Supersedes Vergilius, no. 1-6, 1938-40.  &#xD;&#xA;Continues The Vergilian Digest, 1956-58.  &#xD;&#xA;Published by the Vergilian Society.  &#xD;&#xA;Subjects: Virgil--Periodicals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4524" RevisionGUID="75ac7e34-8cf2-4f2d-b9c7-45b472ff7092" CreationDate="2017-06-09T04:32:36.317" UserId="255" Text="Calvin's commentary on Romans 1:18 ([Latin](http://solomon.tcpt.alexanderstreet.com/cgi-bin/asp/philo/cpt/getobject.pl?p.260:14.cpt), English translation by MacKenzie):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ira, ἀνθρωποπαθῶς, more Scripturae pro ultione Dei: quia Deus puniens, prae se fert (nostra opinione) irascentis faciem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The word *wrath*, referring to God in human terms as is usual in Scripture, means the vengeance of God, for when God punishes, He has, according to our way of thinking, the appearance of anger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nullum ergo **motum** in Deo significat: sed tantum ad sensum peccatoris, qui plectitur, relationem habet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The word, therefore, implies no **emotion** in God, but has reference only to the feelings of the sinner who is punished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How accurate is this translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I am wondering whether this use of *motum* 'movement' is nothing more than a typical assertion of [divine impassibility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impassibility), or whether it is stronger, not denying merely that he has no passions (involuntary/passive responses) but also that he has no true active and transcendent anger. Does anyone know how the Reformation era use of the concept of movement maps onto our contemporary concepts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13920" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4524" RevisionGUID="75ac7e34-8cf2-4f2d-b9c7-45b472ff7092" CreationDate="2017-06-09T04:32:36.317" UserId="255" Text="Should motum be translated as emotions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13921" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4524" RevisionGUID="75ac7e34-8cf2-4f2d-b9c7-45b472ff7092" CreationDate="2017-06-09T04:32:36.317" UserId="255" Text="|meaning|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4524" RevisionGUID="313305b9-6497-40e7-820b-f11de30b60f9" CreationDate="2017-06-09T09:35:43.390" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Calvin's commentary on Romans 1:18 ([Latin](http://solomon.tcpt.alexanderstreet.com/cgi-bin/asp/philo/cpt/getobject.pl?p.260:14.cpt), English translation by MacKenzie):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ira, ἀνθρωποπαθῶς, more Scripturae pro ultione Dei: quia Deus puniens, prae se fert (nostra opinione) irascentis faciem.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The word *wrath*, referring to God in human terms as is usual in Scripture, means the vengeance of God, for when God punishes, He has, according to our way of thinking, the appearance of anger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nullum ergo **motum** in Deo significat: sed tantum ad sensum peccatoris, qui plectitur, relationem habet.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The word, therefore, implies no **emotion** in God, but has reference only to the feelings of the sinner who is punished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How accurate is this translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I am wondering whether this use of *motum* 'movement' is nothing more than a typical assertion of [divine impassibility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impassibility), or whether it is stronger, not denying merely that he has no passions (involuntary/passive responses) but also that he has no true active and transcendent anger. Does anyone know how the Reformation era use of the concept of movement maps onto our contemporary concepts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13923" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4524" RevisionGUID="313305b9-6497-40e7-820b-f11de30b60f9" CreationDate="2017-06-09T09:35:43.390" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|meaning|christianity|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4524" RevisionGUID="360cb0ec-e5bc-4aa8-84ee-8e409177e028" CreationDate="2017-06-09T11:12:01.630" UserId="255" Comment="added 152 characters in body" Text="Calvin's commentary on Romans 1:18 ([Latin](http://solomon.tcpt.alexanderstreet.com/cgi-bin/asp/philo/cpt/getobject.pl?p.260:14.cpt), English translation by MacKenzie):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ira, ἀνθρωποπαθῶς, more Scripturae pro ultione Dei: quia Deus puniens, prae se fert (nostra opinione) irascentis faciem.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The word *wrath*, referring to God in human terms as is usual in Scripture, means the vengeance of God, for when God punishes, He has, according to our way of thinking, the appearance of anger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nullum ergo **motum** in Deo significat: sed tantum ad sensum peccatoris, qui plectitur, relationem habet.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The word, therefore, implies no **emotion** in God, but has reference only to the feelings of the sinner who is punished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How accurate is this translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I am wondering whether this use of *motum* 'movement' is nothing more than a typical assertion of [divine impassibility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impassibility), or whether it is stronger, not denying merely that he has no passions (involuntary/passive responses) but also that he has no true active and transcendent anger. Does anyone know how the Reformation era use of the concept of movement, signified by *moveo/motum*, maps onto our contemporary concepts? ([Oxford Dictionaries](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/emotion) say that the current sense of *emotion* dates only from the 19th century.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13925" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4524" RevisionGUID="1b730bda-e383-46ab-aece-ae50d5796f3e" CreationDate="2017-06-09T11:42:56.987" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|meaning|new-latin|christianity|translation-explanation|calvinus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13926" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="169" RevisionGUID="8ba7c580-4aca-4f05-9db8-c618cb1f91d2" CreationDate="2017-06-09T11:43:14.153" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|new-latin|christianity|definitions|calvinus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4525" RevisionGUID="ba1fddec-11d4-499f-aa50-633e5bbfb37a" CreationDate="2017-06-10T09:34:19.963" UserId="1692" Text="How is the **γ** in verbs like these, ***γ*ιγνώσκω**, ***γ*ίνομαι**, pronounced? Is it pronounced like **g** in ***g*et** or like **g** in ***g*em**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13929" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4525" RevisionGUID="ba1fddec-11d4-499f-aa50-633e5bbfb37a" CreationDate="2017-06-10T09:34:19.963" UserId="1692" Text="The pronunciation of Greek &quot;γ&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13930" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4525" RevisionGUID="ba1fddec-11d4-499f-aa50-633e5bbfb37a" CreationDate="2017-06-10T09:34:19.963" UserId="1692" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4526" RevisionGUID="db383f56-13a9-4efd-8b49-46c03bb5d98f" CreationDate="2017-06-10T12:30:08.487" UserId="30" Text="The letter gamma was pronounced like the *g* in *get* in Ancient Greek, a  voiced velar stop. But before another gamma, before kappa, chi, or xi, the gamma was pronounced like *ng*, as in *boring*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information, including the pronunciation in New Greek, can be found on Wikipaedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4527" RevisionGUID="1904b946-b8f3-4d49-9f2a-bc33cae4c879" CreationDate="2017-06-10T14:37:07.317" UserId="243" Text="According to Suetonius, the final words of emperor Vespasian were &quot;Vae! Puto deus fio&quot; which translates to &quot;Alas! I think I'm becoming a god&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the 'proper' way of saying this would be using an acc-inf construction, i.e. &quot;Vae! Puto me deum fieri&quot;. Why did he say it the other way? I've never seen this construction before, and I've always been told the acc-inf is the right way of doing it. Is this a later Latin construction which became acceptable to use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13933" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4527" RevisionGUID="1904b946-b8f3-4d49-9f2a-bc33cae4c879" CreationDate="2017-06-10T14:37:07.317" UserId="243" Text="Why isn't &quot;Puto deus fio&quot; grammatcally incorrect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13934" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4527" RevisionGUID="1904b946-b8f3-4d49-9f2a-bc33cae4c879" CreationDate="2017-06-10T14:37:07.317" UserId="243" Text="|classical-latin|subordinate-clause|oratio-obliqua|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4528" RevisionGUID="d2335a41-54e4-4bcc-8544-ac98ef3d848f" CreationDate="2017-06-10T15:09:49.217" UserId="79" Text="In this case I would read *puto* more as a side remark to the clause *deus fio*.&#xD;&#xA;You could emphasize this with punctuation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Puto: deus fio.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think: I'm becoming a god.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *puto* is indeed grammatically detached from the rest of the clause.&#xD;&#xA;It is grammatically correct, but it is not really grammatically connected to *deus fio*.&#xD;&#xA;(The semantic connection is strong, of course.)&#xD;&#xA;It would also be grammatical to say *puto me deum fieri*, but that would give a somewhat different tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *credo* is often used in a similar fashion, essentially as an interjection.&#xD;&#xA;For example, consider this quote from [Cicero, *Pro S. Roscio Amerino* 76.7&amp;ndash;8](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/474/2/17/434-439@1#17):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Litteras, credo, misit alicui sicario qui Romae noverat neminem.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He sent letters, I think, to an assassin who knew no one in Rome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare this to &quot;I think that he sent letters...&quot; to see the difference between *puto* as an &quot;interjection&quot; and with an ACI.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if this became more common in later Latin, but the construction is does exist in classical authors like Cicero and it seems very common in Plautus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4527" RevisionGUID="9116eec5-1360-44ee-8300-ae2cd2c748d8" CreationDate="2017-06-10T15:10:41.837" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="According to Suetonius, the final words of emperor Vespasian were &quot;Vae! Puto deus fio&quot; which translates to &quot;Alas! I think I'm becoming a god&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the 'proper' way of saying this would be using an acc-inf construction, i.e. &quot;Vae! Puto me deum fieri&quot;. Why did he say it the other way? I've never seen this construction before, and I've always been told the acc-inf is the right way of doing it. Is this a later Latin construction which became acceptable to use?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13938" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4527" RevisionGUID="9116eec5-1360-44ee-8300-ae2cd2c748d8" CreationDate="2017-06-10T15:10:41.837" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|subordinate-clause|suetonius|oratio-obliqua|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4529" RevisionGUID="4fff0acd-7ee5-4997-ad3a-6826f73d2c10" CreationDate="2017-06-10T15:51:18.637" UserId="78" Text="Is there a currently accepted etymology for the name *Otho*? Lewis and Short suggest it comes from the Greek Ὄθων, which I suppose they mean comes from [ὄθομαι](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*o%3Aentry+group%3D6%3Aentry%3Do%29%2Fqomai), but how good is that suggestion? There's also [ὠθέω](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dw\)qe%2Fw), but from [Juvenal](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0093%3Abook%3D1%3Apoem%3D2), the first O in Otho is definitely short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, the OLD doesn't have an etymology for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13940" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4529" RevisionGUID="4fff0acd-7ee5-4997-ad3a-6826f73d2c10" CreationDate="2017-06-10T15:51:18.637" UserId="78" Text="Etymology of Otho" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13941" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4529" RevisionGUID="4fff0acd-7ee5-4997-ad3a-6826f73d2c10" CreationDate="2017-06-10T15:51:18.637" UserId="78" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4528" RevisionGUID="daf9d999-e288-4790-a160-cd0c0702bb10" CreationDate="2017-06-10T16:01:40.177" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="In this case I would read *puto* more as a side remark to the clause *deus fio*.&#xD;&#xA;You could emphasize this with punctuation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Puto: deus fio.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think: I'm becoming a god.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *puto* is indeed grammatically detached from the rest of the clause.&#xD;&#xA;It is grammatically correct, but it is not really grammatically connected to *deus fio*.&#xD;&#xA;(The semantic connection is strong, of course.)&#xD;&#xA;It would also be grammatical to say *puto me deum fieri*, but that would give a somewhat different tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *credo* is often used in a similar fashion, essentially as an interjection.&#xD;&#xA;For example, consider this quote from [Cicero, *Pro S. Roscio Amerino* 76.7&amp;ndash;8](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/474/2/17/434-439@1#17):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Litteras, credo, misit alicui sicario qui Romae noverat neminem.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He sent letters, I think, to an assassin who knew no one in Rome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare this to &quot;I think that he sent letters...&quot; to see the difference between *puto* as an &quot;interjection&quot; and with an ACI.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if this became more common in later Latin, but the construction does exist in classical authors like Cicero and it seems very common in Plautus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4530" RevisionGUID="fe1be5d0-08d3-491f-92a2-d305b236715d" CreationDate="2017-06-10T18:41:15.867" UserId="1694" Text="We need to distinguish a mediaeval *Latin* pronunciation from an *English* one.  The English pronunciation is what would be used in talking about him in a English context, and is what one might expect for &quot;Boëthius&quot; [boʊˈiːθiəs] (&quot;bowEEthius&quot;) The alternative spelling &quot;Boëtius&quot; yields [boʊˈɪʃəs] (&quot;bowIshus&quot;) or similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*However*, if one wants to know how he and his contemporaries pronounced his name, it was probably [boˈeːtsiʊs] (&quot;boAYtsioos&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explanation:  The name is of Greek origin and would contain a theta in Greek.  If one were to pronounce this in the Classical way, that would be [bo'e:t(h)iʊs].  By late Latin times, however, &quot;th&quot; was pronounced exactly like &quot;t&quot; (which is why &quot;Boetius&quot; is a mere spelling variant of the &quot;correct&quot; &quot;Boethius&quot;), and moreover the sequence [ti]+vowel when unaccented came to be pronounced [tsi]+vowel.  Thus, [boˈeːtsiʊs] for Boet(h)ius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This assibilated &quot;t&quot; would further develop, often to [s] in many areas speaking a neo-Latin dialect, and in particular France.  And, after the Norman Conquest, French conventions for pronouncing Latin were imported into England.  Thus, Latin *natio* went from Classical [natio:] to late [natsio] to French _nation_ (with &quot;t&quot; pronounced [s]).  The last step is to further assimilate [sj] to [ʃ] as in English &quot;nation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, [th] -&gt; [t] and [ti] -&gt; [tsi] in late Latin; [ts] -&gt; [s] in French; and [sj] -&gt; [ʃ] in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh yes, forms like &quot;Boece&quot;, &quot;Stace&quot;, and &quot;Lucrece&quot; are French forms, imported into English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4531" RevisionGUID="5d471073-8163-42a0-b946-5d244991bcae" CreationDate="2017-06-10T19:04:03.497" UserId="1386" Text="How would you decline this noun? It can not be 1st, 2nd, or 3rd declension. Also, how would you say &quot;of Aeneas&quot;, which is genitive case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13946" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4531" RevisionGUID="5d471073-8163-42a0-b946-5d244991bcae" CreationDate="2017-06-10T19:04:03.497" UserId="1386" Text="What declension is the name, Aeneas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13947" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4531" RevisionGUID="5d471073-8163-42a0-b946-5d244991bcae" CreationDate="2017-06-10T19:04:03.497" UserId="1386" Text="|declension|mythology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4532" RevisionGUID="37091ce9-190d-4b64-91f4-f30d3400cf4c" CreationDate="2017-06-10T19:23:31.580" UserId="1695" Text="actually it is pronounced exactly like **y** in **yet**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4533" RevisionGUID="ad2fe762-e37e-4734-af8a-0b0ec7491f35" CreationDate="2017-06-10T19:40:44.550" UserId="79" Text="It is of the first declension, but not of the most typical kind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would divide the first declension into four classes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    NOM  -a   -ās      -ē   -ēs&#xD;&#xA;    ACC  -am  -am/-ān  -ēn  -ēn&#xD;&#xA;    GEN  -ae  -ae      -ēs  -ae&#xD;&#xA;    DAT  -ae  -ae      -ae  -ae&#xD;&#xA;    ABL  -ā   -ā       -ē   -ē&#xD;&#xA;    VOC  -a   -ā       -ē   -ē&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last three classes are reserved (almost completely) for Greek names.&#xD;&#xA;The first class is by far the most common one, and it is typically the only thing mentioned in introductory material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the nominative ends in an *-s*, the name is a masculine.&#xD;&#xA;The ones ending in *-a* and *-ē* are feminines, although there are exceptions in the biggest class.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name *Aeneas* is declined as in the table above.&#xD;&#xA;The genitive is *Aeneae*.&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, the Latin form of my name (*Ionas*) is declined in the same way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4531" RevisionGUID="1904365d-7ab8-4cbf-839c-79d1e45edef6" CreationDate="2017-06-10T19:41:19.647" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="How would you decline this noun? It can not be 1st, 2nd, or 3rd declension. Also, how would you say &quot;of Aeneas&quot;, which is genitive case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13951" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4531" RevisionGUID="1904365d-7ab8-4cbf-839c-79d1e45edef6" CreationDate="2017-06-10T19:41:19.647" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|declension|names|mythology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4530" RevisionGUID="918b8635-aadc-4cb2-b6f4-23f3b8c6d5c4" CreationDate="2017-06-10T19:56:47.053" UserId="1694" Comment="modified andswer in rewsponse to a comment from @sumelic" Text="We need to distinguish a mediaeval *Latin* pronunciation from an *English* one.  The English pronunciation is what would be used in talking about him in a English context, and is what one might expect for &quot;Boëthius&quot; [boʊˈiːθiəs] (&quot;bowEEthius&quot;) The alternative spelling &quot;Boëtius&quot; yields [boʊˈi:ʃəs] (&quot;bowEEshus&quot;) or similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*However*, if one wants to know how he and his contemporaries pronounced his name, it was probably [boˈeːtsiʊs] (&quot;boAYtsioos&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explanation:  The name is of Greek origin and would contain a theta in Greek.  If one were to pronounce this in the Classical way, that would be [bo'e:t(h)iʊs].  By late Latin times, however, &quot;th&quot; was pronounced exactly like &quot;t&quot; (which is why &quot;Boetius&quot; is a mere spelling variant of the &quot;correct&quot; &quot;Boethius&quot;), and moreover the sequence [ti]+vowel when unaccented came to be pronounced [tsi]+vowel.  Thus, [boˈeːtsiʊs] for Boet(h)ius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This assibilated &quot;t&quot; would further develop, often to [s] in many areas speaking a neo-Latin dialect, and in particular France.  And, after the Norman Conquest, French conventions for pronouncing Latin were imported into England.  Thus, Latin *natio* went from Classical [natio:] to late [natsio] to French _nation_ (with &quot;t&quot; pronounced [s]).  The last step is to further assimilate [sj] to [ʃ] as in English &quot;nation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, [th] -&gt; [t] and [ti] -&gt; [tsi] in late Latin; [ts] -&gt; [s] in French; and [sj] -&gt; [ʃ] in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh yes, forms like &quot;Boece&quot;, &quot;Stace&quot;, and &quot;Lucrece&quot; are French forms, imported into English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4532" RevisionGUID="3a74cdd1-730c-4855-8638-7f24033fdc6e" CreationDate="2017-06-10T20:07:16.183" UserId="79" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="In modern Greek it is pronounced exactly like **y** in **yet**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4535" RevisionGUID="df1bb373-8044-4331-b668-1dca2cb702fe" CreationDate="2017-06-10T20:42:48.303" UserId="1694" Text="I think C. M. Weimer's answer above is on the right track, but Draconis is right about the -ong, so I would consider ZVNGVEN the closest that can be expressed in Latin.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, this is based on the modern pronunciation.  The transcription of the corresponding Old Chinese words are given as *trjuwngH *mjun by Baxter &amp; Sagart in &quot;Old Chinese - a New Reconstruction&quot;.  (Try pronouncing that!)  OK, I'll take a stab - TRVGMIVN" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4526" RevisionGUID="18ee4706-cc67-4957-aeee-57058d1db9da" CreationDate="2017-06-10T21:41:28.383" UserId="30" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="The letter gamma was pronounced like the *g* in *get* in Ancient Greek, a  voiced velar stop. But before another gamma, before kappa, chi, or xi, the gamma was pronounced like *ng*, as in *boring*. It's also like pronounced like *ng* before at least some cases of nu or mu (possibly all).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information, including the pronunciation in New Greek, can be found on Wikipaedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="70724ca5-5b37-4062-9972-e32cd303502d" CreationDate="2017-06-10T23:31:20.120" UserId="324" Text="The actual quotation in Suetonius Vesp. 23 is &quot;“ut puto, deus fio,” &quot;As I surmise, I am becoming a god&quot;. &quot;Ut puto&quot; is a subordinate clause." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="54931633-3100-437d-b3ae-7203fe58287c" CreationDate="2017-06-11T07:32:35.173" UserId="985" Text="Especially given the importance attached to last words, I myself would tend to assume that it's a Grecism. After all, _puto_ is a Latin equivalent of νομίζω, which is one of the verbs that express indirect statement through infinitives in Greek. In the Greek construction, if the subject of the indirect statement is the same as the subject of the introductory verb, the subject accusative is usually omitted, and any complement remains in the nominative case – both of which characteristics are exactly what we find in Vespasian's statement. Compare, e.g., εὖνοι φασιν εἶναι, 'they assert that they are loyal' (Lysias 12.49)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13962" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="c71c30f6-b884-468c-b553-8f590640a4a9" CreationDate="2017-06-11T07:35:14.817" UserId="985" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:985,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;cnread&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="72cf4be4-43e1-4e34-83eb-d0c04187a7ab" CreationDate="2017-06-11T07:39:14.470" UserId="985" Comment="deleted 454 characters in body" Text="As Joonas noted, _puto_ is parenthetical. I'll just add, by way of comparison, that Claudius's _ultima vox_ in Seneca's _Apocolocyntosis_ was 'vae me, puto, concacavi me.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13964" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="f8f6a745-bba6-4dcb-bb11-0ed086a2db8f" CreationDate="2017-06-11T07:39:20.493" UserId="985" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:985,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;cnread&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4539" RevisionGUID="67fdc8e1-f267-491b-acfa-2eed5a5780df" CreationDate="2017-06-11T07:41:27.227" UserId="1348" Text="I saw in Wiktionary that the imperfect and aorist conjugations (for the first person singular) of the verb λογαριάζω are λογάριαζα  and λογάριασα, respectively. However, for the verb απουσιάζω, the respective conjugations are απουσίαζα and απουσίασα. Why does the latter have the accent on ι, whereas the first one has it on α. The particle ια is not considered as a unique syllable, is it? I had the idea that normally the tenses for imperfect and aorist have the accent on the antepenult. Is there a rule for that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13966" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4539" RevisionGUID="67fdc8e1-f267-491b-acfa-2eed5a5780df" CreationDate="2017-06-11T07:41:27.227" UserId="1348" Text="Aorist of λογαριάζω and απουσιάζω" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13967" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4539" RevisionGUID="67fdc8e1-f267-491b-acfa-2eed5a5780df" CreationDate="2017-06-11T07:41:27.227" UserId="1348" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4540" RevisionGUID="05c1a739-0928-4dec-8d14-1434f905b607" CreationDate="2017-06-11T11:15:09.207" UserId="324" Text="The forms that you quoted are Modern (not Classical) Greek. In MG the group -ια- is usually pronounced as a single syllable /ja/. In this case, the regressive accent goes back one more syllable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4540" RevisionGUID="827a08d8-1c10-447e-ae3b-3b2ff3e71f3e" CreationDate="2017-06-11T11:31:51.057" UserId="324" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="The forms that you quoted are Modern (not Classical) Greek. In MG the group -ια- is usually pronounced as a single syllable /ja/. In this case, the regressive accent goes back one more syllable. Broadly speaking, forms with ιά (one syllable) are genuine Demotic, while those with ία (two syllables) are borrowed from or influenced by Katharevousa. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4541" RevisionGUID="dd13e46b-0e17-4e6b-afa7-2b7de29d8296" CreationDate="2017-06-11T12:06:38.327" UserId="1699" Text="Conferre nostris tu potest te laudibus?&#xD;&#xA;Ubi immolatur, exta praegusto deum,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it to mean &quot;Are YOU able to compare by our praises&quot; but in the context maybe praises should be another word, maybe reputation or what we are known for. Hoping for some enlightenment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13971" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4541" RevisionGUID="dd13e46b-0e17-4e6b-afa7-2b7de29d8296" CreationDate="2017-06-11T12:06:38.327" UserId="1699" Text="Help with what I believe is an ablative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13972" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4541" RevisionGUID="dd13e46b-0e17-4e6b-afa7-2b7de29d8296" CreationDate="2017-06-11T12:06:38.327" UserId="1699" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4542" RevisionGUID="f51b81c4-6dbd-4d65-87d6-e066d4cefa3e" CreationDate="2017-06-11T13:17:31.620" UserId="522" Text="**Te** in this sentence means 'the ant.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Are you able *(potes)* to compare **yourself** *(te)* with our praises?&quot;  --and this is followed by other boasts.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13975" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4527" RevisionGUID="c7977e1b-7815-4420-8cc5-58a8e6e12f11" CreationDate="2017-06-11T13:28:52.307" UserId="255" Comment="fix typo in title" Text="Why isn't &quot;Puto deus fio&quot; grammatically incorrect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13976" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4527" RevisionGUID="c7977e1b-7815-4420-8cc5-58a8e6e12f11" CreationDate="2017-06-11T13:28:52.307" Comment="Proposed by 255 approved by 522, 78 edit id of 186" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4542" RevisionGUID="c7f5bcb0-a2c8-4036-8880-a73547cb765c" CreationDate="2017-06-11T13:37:59.423" UserId="522" Comment="Completed hte answer." Text="**Te** in this sentence means 'the ant.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Are you able *(potes)* to compare **yourself** *(te)* with our praises?&quot;  --and this is followed by other boasts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;And where there is sacrifice, I am the first to taste the gods' chitterlings.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's tricky to translate it to show the entrails are delicacies put out for the gods! Praegustator tastes the Emperor's food to make sure it's safe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4541" RevisionGUID="b96e1afa-9d67-42c3-b73d-b5858e1cf1b8" CreationDate="2017-06-11T16:07:20.187" UserId="78" Comment="added 187 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&gt; Conferre nostris tu potes te laudibus?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Moror inter aras, templa perlustro deum;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ubi immolatur, exta praegusto omnia;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Phaedrus, &quot;[Formica et Musca](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0118%3Abook%3D4%3Apoem%3D24)&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it to mean &quot;Are YOU able to compare by our praises&quot; but in the context maybe praises should be another word, maybe reputation or what we are known for. Hoping for some enlightenment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13979" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4541" RevisionGUID="b96e1afa-9d67-42c3-b73d-b5858e1cf1b8" CreationDate="2017-06-11T16:07:20.187" UserId="78" Comment="added 187 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation|ablative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4543" RevisionGUID="9186f8a7-ed6b-40a3-bc47-6426bd1e3d70" CreationDate="2017-06-11T16:28:37.567" UserId="1692" Text="**Cornēliō, *virō* magnae sapientiae, dabō pulchrum librum novum** is rendered into English as [*To Cornelius, a man of great wisdom, I will give this fine new book*][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything is clear in this translation of the Latin sentence except for the noun *virō*. In Latin, *vir* is used here in the Dative case, *virō*, to be in keeping with the Dative form of *Cornēlius*, which is *Cornēliō*, presumably because of the apposition required by *dābō*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, why is *virō* rendered into English in the Nominative case, as *a man*? Shouldn't it have been *To Cornelius, to a man [...]*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://quizlet.com/206408013/latin-translations-wheelock-flash-cards/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4543" RevisionGUID="9186f8a7-ed6b-40a3-bc47-6426bd1e3d70" CreationDate="2017-06-11T16:28:37.567" UserId="1692" Text="Why &quot;a man&quot; instead of &quot;to a man&quot; in this translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4543" RevisionGUID="9186f8a7-ed6b-40a3-bc47-6426bd1e3d70" CreationDate="2017-06-11T16:28:37.567" UserId="1692" Text="|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4544" RevisionGUID="bc79bb99-ddec-4b90-9177-ae3dfe3999d8" CreationDate="2017-06-11T16:41:56.257" UserId="79" Text="You are understanding the Latin phrase correctly.&#xD;&#xA;The issue is all about English: the preposition is not repeated in such cases.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if repeating the &quot;to&quot; is strictly ungrammatical, but it does sound clumsy to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, Latin wouldn't repeat the preposition either.&#xD;&#xA;But in this case, there is no preposition at all.&#xD;&#xA;The grammatical case is not dropped the way a preposition is &amp;mdash; after all, every noun needs to be in a case, but having a preposition is not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you replace the dative with *ad* and accusative, the two languages get closer together:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ad Cornēlium, virum magnae sapientiae&amp;hellip;*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; To Cornelius, a man of great wisdom&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice how *virum* is still in accusative just like *Cornelius*, even though the preposition is not repeated.&#xD;&#xA;Words (prepositions in this case) can be left out in an ellipsis, but inflection cannot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion:**&#xD;&#xA;Adding the &quot;to&quot; would be correct reading of the Latin sentence, but that's less idiomatic English.&#xD;&#xA;Prepositions don't have to be repeated in either language, but case has to be repeated in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4543" RevisionGUID="4ffdb275-d3ef-4e9a-a034-ff22c891a133" CreationDate="2017-06-11T16:43:34.777" UserId="79" Comment="added 45 characters in body; edited tags" Text="**Cornēliō, *virō* magnae sapientiae, dabō pulchrum librum novum** is rendered into English as &quot;To Cornelius, a man of great wisdom, I will give this fine new book&quot; [on this page of Latin translation flashcards][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything is clear in this translation of the Latin sentence except for the noun *virō*. In Latin, *vir* is used here in the Dative case, *virō*, to be in keeping with the Dative form of *Cornēlius*, which is *Cornēliō*, presumably because of the apposition required by *dābō*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, why is *virō* rendered into English in the Nominative case, as &quot;a man&quot;? Shouldn't it have been &quot;To Cornelius, to a man [...]&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://quizlet.com/206408013/latin-translations-wheelock-flash-cards/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13985" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4543" RevisionGUID="4ffdb275-d3ef-4e9a-a034-ff22c891a133" CreationDate="2017-06-11T16:43:34.777" UserId="79" Comment="added 45 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|declension|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4526" RevisionGUID="59d0f30e-f2d2-41ed-8b25-e93b71a09214" CreationDate="2017-06-11T16:57:51.850" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="The letter gamma was pronounced like the *g* in *get* in Ancient Greek, a  voiced velar stop. But before another gamma, before kappa, chi, or xi, the gamma was pronounced like *ng*, as in *boring*. It's also pronounced like *ng* before at least some cases of nu or mu (possibly all).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information, including the pronunciation in New Greek, can be found on Wikipaedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13987" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4539" RevisionGUID="ca86b665-6a92-49d3-9232-5e50d3a26886" CreationDate="2017-06-12T00:24:07.297" UserId="30" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:40,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;TKR&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:45,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;brianpck&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:30,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Cerberus&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4545" RevisionGUID="e51bd5e1-1f02-4914-a2a6-0983cb633828" CreationDate="2017-06-12T02:55:54.983" UserId="9" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I found various sources indicating that the Latin word inferus (or infer) comes from a Proto-Indo-European form like *n̥dʰer, the source of English “under” and Sanskrit *adhara, adhas.* (The Sanskrit cognate(s) are mentioned in [Lewis and Short][1] and *[A Concise Etymological Dictionary of the English Language][2]* (Walter William Skeat, 1885); the reconstructed PIE form and connection to English “under” is mentioned in [Wiktionary][3].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Skeat further says that it is a comparative form, which kind of sounds plausible to me, although I don’t know if this is considered correct by modern scholars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing that's puzzling to me is why Latin has “in**f**er(us)” rather than “in**d**er(us)”, since the regular word-medial reflexes of PIE voiced aspirates in Latin were voiced stops rather than voiceless fricatives. (For example,  Wiktionary says  PIE *n̥bʰrís developed to Latin “[imber][4]”.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was PIE *n̥dʰer (or if the “r” is part of a comparative suffix, *n̥dʰer or whatever) a compound of the negative morpheme *n̥- and some other morpheme? It doesn’t seem obvious to me what the second morpheme would mean. Or was it not originally a compound, but later reinterpreted as one in Proto-Italic or something like that? I’m wondering if there’s any explanation of the phonological/morphological development that gave us “inf” in this word in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, all other instances of “nf” in Latin can fairly easily be explained as the result of compounding: *[Aspects of the Phonology and Morphology of Classical Latin][5],* by András Cser says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The overwhelming majority of the nasal vowel + [f] cases are prefixed forms consisting of *in-* or *con-* plus an *f*-initial stem (*conferre* ‘collect’, *infamis* ‘disreputable’), but see also the simplex *inferus* [ĩːferus] ‘lower’ and its derivatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=inferus&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Ak8JAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA218&amp;lpg=PA218&amp;dq=etymology%20inferus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=eW9VCiWY40&amp;sig=lcFg2YK6N9JWnWIkhV1882g-exE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwin_dSJorfUAhVk34MKHdNgDt44ChDoAQgoMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=etymology%20inferus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inferus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imber#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13991" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4545" RevisionGUID="e51bd5e1-1f02-4914-a2a6-0983cb633828" CreationDate="2017-06-12T02:55:54.983" UserId="9" Text="Why does “inferus” have /f/ rather than /d/?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13992" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4545" RevisionGUID="e51bd5e1-1f02-4914-a2a6-0983cb633828" CreationDate="2017-06-12T02:55:54.983" UserId="9" Text="|etymology|proto-indo-european|consonants|phonology|proto-italic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4545" RevisionGUID="e27e0d00-29d6-4de5-9b28-2db36ccebfdb" CreationDate="2017-06-12T03:01:52.843" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="I found various sources indicating that the Latin word inferus (or infer) comes from a Proto-Indo-European form like *n̥dʰer, the source of English “under” and Sanskrit *adhara, adhas.* (The Sanskrit cognate(s) are mentioned in [Lewis and Short][1] and *[A Concise Etymological Dictionary of the English Language][2]* (Walter William Skeat, 1885); the reconstructed PIE form and connection to English “under” is mentioned in [Wiktionary][3].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Skeat further says that it is a comparative form, which kind of sounds plausible to me, although I don’t know if this is considered correct by modern scholars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing that's puzzling to me is why Latin has “in**f**er(us)” rather than “in**d**er(us)”, since the regular word-medial reflexes of PIE voiced aspirates in Latin were voiced stops rather than voiceless fricatives. (For example,  Wiktionary says  PIE *n̥bʰrís developed to Latin “[imber][4]”.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was PIE *n̥dʰer (or if the “r” is part of a comparative suffix, *n̥dʰ- or whatever) a compound of the negative morpheme *n̥- and some other morpheme? It doesn’t seem obvious to me what the second morpheme would mean. Or was it not originally a compound, but later reinterpreted as one in Proto-Italic or something like that? I’m wondering if there’s any explanation of the phonological/morphological development that gave us “inf” in this word in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, all other instances of “nf” in Latin can fairly easily be explained as the result of compounding: *[Aspects of the Phonology and Morphology of Classical Latin][5],* by András Cser says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The overwhelming majority of the nasal vowel + [f] cases are prefixed forms consisting of *in-* or *con-* plus an *f*-initial stem (*conferre* ‘collect’, *infamis* ‘disreputable’), but see also the simplex *inferus* [ĩːferus] ‘lower’ and its derivatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=inferus&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Ak8JAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA218&amp;lpg=PA218&amp;dq=etymology%20inferus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=eW9VCiWY40&amp;sig=lcFg2YK6N9JWnWIkhV1882g-exE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwin_dSJorfUAhVk34MKHdNgDt44ChDoAQgoMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=etymology%20inferus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inferus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imber#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4546" RevisionGUID="6904f672-bd37-4fb9-a6b6-7fe1e221c84a" CreationDate="2017-06-12T03:28:17.880" UserId="40" Text="Weiss (*Hist. Comp. Gramm. Lat.* 75, note 26) says that &quot;the first syllable of *īnferus* was identified with *in-* and the medial *dʰ was therefore given a pseudo-initial treatment&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan (s.v.) agrees, citing Walde-Hoffman, Leumann, and Meiser, though he also mentions the possibility of a divergent dialectal treatment. He compares *-fāriam* &quot;in *n* parts&quot; (e.g. *bifāriam*), Skt. *(dvi-)dhā*, where according to Weiss the *f* again results from a pseudo-initial treatment within an analyzable compound." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4547" RevisionGUID="1395ee70-a468-4f45-bbc7-3132ed43d2d6" CreationDate="2017-06-12T13:45:59.963" UserId="1692" Text="If I want to say in Latin *I speak Latin easily*, I say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Latīnā facile loquere possum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if I want to add to this the idea that it is in my opinion that I speak Latin easily, do I simply use the dative of reference, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Latīnā **tibi** facile loquere possum?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13996" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4547" RevisionGUID="1395ee70-a468-4f45-bbc7-3132ed43d2d6" CreationDate="2017-06-12T13:45:59.963" UserId="1692" Text="On the dative of reference" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13997" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4547" RevisionGUID="1395ee70-a468-4f45-bbc7-3132ed43d2d6" CreationDate="2017-06-12T13:45:59.963" UserId="1692" Text="|dative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4548" RevisionGUID="204baef2-69c0-401c-ac55-20d265036850" CreationDate="2017-06-12T14:57:13.453" UserId="522" Text="There is a ready-made phrase, *&quot;ut opinor,&quot;* which, in my opinion, avoids a lot of ambiguities and other problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suggero 'ut opinor,' quamvis non examussim, ut opinor, tibi respondeo,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I suggest *ut opinor,* although I am not, in my opinion, answering you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; precisely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4542" RevisionGUID="ff2a26b9-7dc2-49b6-8452-fa6401f13425" CreationDate="2017-06-12T15:11:59.617" UserId="522" Comment="changed question: changed reply" Text="**Te** in this sentence means 'the ant.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Are you able *(potes)* to compare **yourself** *(te)* with our praises?&quot;  --and this is followed by other boasts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;And where there is sacrifice, I am the first to taste the gods' chitterlings.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's tricky to translate it to show the entrails are delicacies put out for the gods! Praegustator tastes the Emperor's food to make sure it's safe. Here's a version of the revised text,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I loiter amongst the altars,  busy myself with the temples of the gods; //  &#xD;&#xA;And where there is sacrifice, I am the first to taste every chitterling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4549" RevisionGUID="f6b0afa1-3d67-4dfd-8ab2-faca8f14c59f" CreationDate="2017-06-12T18:34:06.043" UserId="79" Text="If I were to say &quot;this man is 40 years old&quot; in Latin, I would say *hic vir 40 annos natus est*.&#xD;&#xA;That is, I would use the participle *natus* instead of any adjective meaning &quot;old&quot;, and it is my impression that this is idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;(Please correct me if I am wrong!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how do I say &quot;this wine is 40 years old&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Should I use a translation of &quot;old&quot;, the participle *natum*, some other participle, or yet something else?&#xD;&#xA;I could say *hoc vinum 40 annos abhinc factum est* or something similar, but that feels like a circumlocution.&#xD;&#xA;And it feels unnecessarily heavy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14002" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4549" RevisionGUID="f6b0afa1-3d67-4dfd-8ab2-faca8f14c59f" CreationDate="2017-06-12T18:34:06.043" UserId="79" Text="What is &quot;old&quot; in the age of a wine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14003" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4549" RevisionGUID="f6b0afa1-3d67-4dfd-8ab2-faca8f14c59f" CreationDate="2017-06-12T18:34:06.043" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|adjective|participle|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4550" RevisionGUID="4be5ffed-d850-4f8d-aaeb-0fa2396b162b" CreationDate="2017-06-12T18:52:42.117" UserId="79" Text="Let me start by fixing your initial sentence.&#xD;&#xA;My take on translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can speak Latin easily.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Latine facile loqui possum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Important points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You speak &quot;Latinly&quot;, *Latine*, not &quot;in Latin&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I do not recall seeing the preposition *in* in this sense in Latin, but I could be mistaken.&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, the adverb (*Latine, Anglice, Germanice&amp;hellip;*) is the typical way to express using a language in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;- The verb *loqui* is deponent, so you need to use formally passive forms.&#xD;&#xA;For example, it is *loquor* instead of *loquo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, I'll offer a completely different alternative.&#xD;&#xA;It is common to express such things with the supine ablative.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion with an overly literal English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Lingua Latina (mihi) facilis est locutu.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin language is easy (for me) with respect to speaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, let me answer your question.&#xD;&#xA;In English you could add a parenthetical &quot;I think&quot;, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin is easy to me, I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, a similar remark could be worded as *credo* (I believe) or *puto* (I think).&#xD;&#xA;The *ut opinor* suggested by Hugh is also a good option, and can be used similarly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Also, *tibi* is second person, meaning roughly &quot;to you&quot;. Perhaps you meant *mihi*, but that would be weird, too.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4547" RevisionGUID="84fc9fc6-b320-4df6-921a-aa0bb0821260" CreationDate="2017-06-12T18:53:32.867" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="If I want to say in Latin *I speak Latin easily*, I say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Latīnā facile loquere possum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if I want to add to this the idea that it is in my opinion that I speak Latin easily, do I simply use the dative of reference, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Latīnā **tibi** facile loquere possum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14006" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4547" RevisionGUID="84fc9fc6-b320-4df6-921a-aa0bb0821260" CreationDate="2017-06-12T18:53:32.867" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|syntax|dative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4551" RevisionGUID="38aea05b-3c70-4095-a56e-c2df77720b6f" CreationDate="2017-06-12T20:07:03.960" UserId="645" Text="If looking for a word meaning 'fluently' we have the authority of Cicero (Brutus, *passim*) himself. Keeping things simple, I suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*lingua latina solute utor*, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*credo me lingua latina solute uti*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4552" RevisionGUID="87b35fd6-4036-4006-87a5-e1abdea42d61" CreationDate="2017-06-12T20:28:02.867" UserId="645" Text="I believe that there's no difference between specifying the ages of people, and those of anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb I would choose here is conficio:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Hoc vinum est XL annos confectum.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4550" RevisionGUID="5dc10ed7-34a6-4273-84c6-40bcf99e94b4" CreationDate="2017-06-12T20:45:27.960" UserId="79" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="Let me start by fixing your initial sentence.&#xD;&#xA;My take on translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can speak Latin easily.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Latine facile loqui possum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Important points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You speak &quot;Latinly&quot;, *Latine*, not &quot;in Latin&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I do not recall seeing the preposition *in* in this sense in Latin, but I could be mistaken.&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, the adverb (*Latine, Anglice, Germanice&amp;hellip;*) is the typical way to express using a language in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;- The verb *loqui* is deponent, so you need to use formally passive forms.&#xD;&#xA;For example, it is *loquor* instead of *loquo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, I'll offer a completely different alternative.&#xD;&#xA;It is common to express such things with the supine ablative.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion with an overly literal English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Lingua Latina (mihi) facilis est locutu.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin language is easy (for me) with respect to speaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As brianpck suggested in a comment, this is another good option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Facile est (mihi) Latine loqui.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is easy (for me) to speak Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, let me answer your question.&#xD;&#xA;In English you could add a parenthetical &quot;I think&quot;, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin is easy to me, I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, a similar remark could be worded as *credo* (I believe) or *puto* (I think).&#xD;&#xA;The *ut opinor* suggested by Hugh is also a good option, and can be used similarly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Also, *tibi* is second person, meaning roughly &quot;to you&quot;. Perhaps you meant *mihi*, but that would be weird, too.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4553" RevisionGUID="5709b095-40e4-4891-9f81-29f106666546" CreationDate="2017-06-12T22:01:30.837" UserId="1706" Text="It means, &quot;unfortunate are those to whom you appear resplendently innocent (or virginal) (or &quot;all shiny and pure&quot;).&quot;  As another, better known phrase puts it, &quot;cave canem&quot; --in this case, a female dog..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2128" RevisionGUID="3face24b-74ca-475a-bc79-3778b2ef4cb9" CreationDate="2017-06-12T22:11:50.427" UserId="79" Comment="added 90 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Consider this example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ecce Marcus et Gaius. Hic canit, ille auscultat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here are Marcus and Gaius. The latter sings, the former listens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When there are two or more things one could refer to, *hic* often means &quot;the latter&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The first of two can then be referred to with *ille* or *is* unless I am mistaken, but *ille* seems to be at least more common.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure whether *is* is possible and when so, but I would like to figure that out.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--I am not sure which one of *ille* and *is* is better here or whether there is a difference.--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference between *is* and *ille* in references like this?&#xD;&#xA;That is, can I use *is* instead of *ille* here, or would it mean something else?&#xD;&#xA;In case of two (here Marcus and Gaius), would *is* refer to Marcus or Gaius, our would it not refer clearly to either one?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--If there were three people, what would *is* and *ille* refer to?--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the usual latter/former pair is *hic/ille*, but I am unsure of the role of *is*.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure it has any role like this at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This came up when I wrote an answer to [a pronoun ambiguity question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2118/79) yesterday." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14012" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2128" RevisionGUID="3face24b-74ca-475a-bc79-3778b2ef4cb9" CreationDate="2017-06-12T22:11:50.427" UserId="79" Comment="added 90 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|syntax|pronouns|demonstrative-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2135" RevisionGUID="6114bd0f-64d4-45b3-9305-6873f1cf4e0b" CreationDate="2017-06-12T22:15:20.537" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited tags" Text="To my understanding, Latin doesn't have a dual number at all. The adjectives *duo* &quot;two&quot; and *ambō* &quot;both&quot; have some special forms derived from the PIE dual (-*ō*, -*ābus*, -*ōbus*), but are considered irregular rather than part of any real pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, from an answer to [an unrelated question][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By the way, another heterogeneous noun with a similar story behind it is *frēnum* &quot;rein&quot;, pl. *frēnī*. In this case the Latin masculine plural ending continues what was in PIE terms not a plural at all, but a neuter dual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This points to another trace of the dual number which I hadn't heard about before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other irregularities or fossilized forms in Latin which derive from the dual number in PIE or Proto-Italic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2132/where-do-the-plurals-of-locus-come-from" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14014" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2135" RevisionGUID="6114bd0f-64d4-45b3-9305-6873f1cf4e0b" CreationDate="2017-06-12T22:15:20.537" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited tags" Text="|language-evolution|declension|dual|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4233" RevisionGUID="f2da50ac-13f5-4f15-ae6e-686cb43752c5" CreationDate="2017-06-12T22:17:55.657" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Latin effectively lost its dual number.&#xD;&#xA;It left behind some remnants, most notably *duo* and *ambo*.&#xD;&#xA;However, all [examples or relics of the dual number in Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2135/79) I have seen are in declension.&#xD;&#xA;I would assume the grammatical number to be present in conjugation also, so that between *unus canit* and *quinque canunt* there would be *duo canX*, where the *X* stands for a third person dual ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Classical or later Latin as I know it does not really have a dual; all examples of dual forms can be practically treated as irregular plurals.&#xD;&#xA;This leads me to phrase my confusion as this series of questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Assuming there ever was such a thing as dual conjugation, when was it lost?&#xD;&#xA;- Did Proto-Indo-European ever have it to begin with?&#xD;&#xA;- Are there remains of originally dual conjugation that survived in Latin, presumably as plural forms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14016" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4233" RevisionGUID="f2da50ac-13f5-4f15-ae6e-686cb43752c5" CreationDate="2017-06-12T22:17:55.657" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|language-evolution|conjugation|proto-indo-european|proto-italic|dual|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4553" RevisionGUID="2e17e120-88f4-4166-8be1-b3fa3bb01b2d" CreationDate="2017-06-13T01:04:04.797" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 84 characters in body" Text="It means, &quot;unfortunate are those to whom you appear resplendently innocent (or virginal) (or &quot;all shiny and pure&quot;).&quot; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4554" RevisionGUID="6fd34cf7-c888-4a45-b27e-f542fefe5424" CreationDate="2017-06-13T08:02:44.227" UserId="867" Text="I have found three ways of referring to the age of wine, the first of which is the most common and simplest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An adjective such as *anniculus, bimus* etc.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***quadrimum** Sabina, o Thaliarche, **merum** diota* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; fetch the **four-year old wine** from the Sabine jar, o Thaliarchus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace, *Odes*, 1.9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ponite turaque **bimi** cum patera **meri***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; set down incense and a bowl with **two-year old wine**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace, *Odes*, 1.20&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: Horace, *Satires*, 2.8.47 (*quinquennis)*; Varro, *On Agriculture*, LXV (*anniculus*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Stored for *x* years**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *genera ... quae quanto pluris annos **condita** habuerunt*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [there are] types [of wine] ... which the more years they have been&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stored&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Varro, *On Agriculture*, LXV&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sense of *condo* is also used for preserving and pickling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pressed during the time of *x***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using *premo* + an ablative absolute:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tu **vina** **Torquato** move **consule** **pressa** **meo***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; you, bring out the **wines pressed** **when my Torquatus was consul**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace, *Epodes*, 13.6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also Horace, *Epistles*, 1.5.4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bonus: wine that is older than *x* years**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *est mihi **nonum superantis annum** / plenus Albani cadus*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have a jar full of Alban wine that is **more than nine years [old]**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace, *Odes*, 4.11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4555" RevisionGUID="5f47cdff-b3df-4dd5-9387-840185c9b5f8" CreationDate="2017-06-13T14:03:14.090" UserId="1289" Text="There is a direct quote for this situation in the Satyricon, where Petronius just uses *annus* in the genitive plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Statim allatae sunt amphorae vitreae diligenter gypsatae, quarum in cervicibus pittacia erant affixa cum hoc titulo: FALERNVM OPIMIANVM **ANNORVM CENTVM**. Dum titulos perlegimus, complosit Trimalchio manus et: &quot;Eheu, inquit, ergo diutius vivit vinum quam homuncio. (Petr. Satyr. XXXIV)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The labels on the amphorae remind me of this joke:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![XKCD 363][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CbmoG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4556" RevisionGUID="49240ff9-c807-4e74-a8f3-96af694a840e" CreationDate="2017-06-13T15:45:12.610" UserId="243" Text="In book II, line 141 of Vergil's Aeneid (shown at the end of the question), my notes describe the first word 'quod' as an 'adverbial accusative', but no explanation as to what that means. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question simply is, what is an adverbial accusative, and how should I translate it in this sentence? &#xD;&#xA;I've looked online a bit but anything I've found has been quite confusing to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(141) &quot;quod te per superos et conscia numina veri,&#xD;&#xA;per si qua est quae restet adhuc mortalibus usquam&#xD;&#xA;intemerata fides, oro, miserere laborum ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14023" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4556" RevisionGUID="49240ff9-c807-4e74-a8f3-96af694a840e" CreationDate="2017-06-13T15:45:12.610" UserId="243" Text="What is an Adverbial Accusative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14024" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4556" RevisionGUID="49240ff9-c807-4e74-a8f3-96af694a840e" CreationDate="2017-06-13T15:45:12.610" UserId="243" Text="|classical-latin|adverb|accusative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4557" RevisionGUID="7786adf9-f1b0-4341-a008-4fcfa6d0a11f" CreationDate="2017-06-13T16:00:39.443" UserId="1707" Text="See the Vatican version [here][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6 qui reddet unicuique secundum opera eius: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7 his quidem, qui secundum patientiam boni operis gloriam et honorem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et incorruptionem quaerunt, vitam aeternam; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8 his autem, qui ex contentione et non oboediunt veritati, oboediunt&#xD;&#xA;&gt; autem iniquitati, ira et indignatio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems understandable that in 7 vitam aeternam is in accusative because it acts like the object of reddet; but why is ira et indignatio not in accusative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://w2.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_epist-romanos_lt.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14026" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4557" RevisionGUID="7786adf9-f1b0-4341-a008-4fcfa6d0a11f" CreationDate="2017-06-13T16:00:39.443" UserId="1707" Text="New testament Romans 2:8 - Why is nominative used instead of accusative like the previous verse?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14027" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4557" RevisionGUID="7786adf9-f1b0-4341-a008-4fcfa6d0a11f" CreationDate="2017-06-13T16:00:39.443" UserId="1707" Text="|declension|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4556" RevisionGUID="0af73979-26c4-4572-aa40-06d1805da488" CreationDate="2017-06-13T16:48:21.260" UserId="30" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="In book II, line 141 of Vergil's Aeneid (shown at the end of the question), my notes describe the first word 'quod' as an 'adverbial accusative', but no explanation as to what that means. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question simply is, what is an adverbial accusative, and how should I translate it in this sentence? &#xD;&#xA;I've looked online a bit but anything I've found has been quite confusing to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nec mihi iam patriam antiquam spes ulla videndi  &#xD;&#xA;nec dulcis natos exoptatumque parentem,  &#xD;&#xA;quos illi fors et poenas ob nostra reposcent  &#xD;&#xA;effugia, et culpam hanc miserorum morte piabunt.               140  &#xD;&#xA;**quod** te per superos et conscia numina veri,  &#xD;&#xA;per si qua est quae restet adhuc mortalibus usquam  &#xD;&#xA;intemerata fides, oro, miserere laborum  &#xD;&#xA;tantorum, miserere animi non digna ferentis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4557" RevisionGUID="a8bec91f-1657-4202-9811-2c6bab614dd5" CreationDate="2017-06-13T16:54:23.420" UserId="45" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="See the Vatican version [here][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6 qui reddet unicuique secundum opera eius: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7 his quidem, qui secundum patientiam boni operis gloriam et honorem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et incorruptionem quaerunt, vitam aeternam; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8 his autem, qui ex contentione et non oboediunt veritati, oboediunt&#xD;&#xA;&gt; autem iniquitati, **ira et indignatio**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems understandable that in verse 7 *vitam aeternam* is accusative because it acts like the object of *reddet*; but why is *ira* et *indignatio* not in the accusative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://w2.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_epist-romanos_lt.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4525" RevisionGUID="cb7b9998-4623-4573-81e6-95dbca8e970a" CreationDate="2017-06-13T18:08:14.083" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and a restriction." Text="How is the **γ** in verbs like ***γ*ιγνώσκω** and ***γ*ίνομαι** pronounced in ancient Greek? Is it pronounced like **g** in ***g*et** or like **g** in ***g*em**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14032" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4525" RevisionGUID="cb7b9998-4623-4573-81e6-95dbca8e970a" CreationDate="2017-06-13T18:08:14.083" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and a restriction." Text="|greek|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4559" RevisionGUID="af425266-a881-4fd9-88df-742b62b9f261" CreationDate="2017-06-13T18:56:37.097" UserId="45" Text="Regarding why the *Latin* text uses the accusative and then the nominative, this is simply because the Vulgate is closely following the Greek original:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6 ὃς ἀποδώσει ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ·  &#xD;&#xA;7 τοῖς μὲν καθ’ ὑπομονὴν ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν ζητοῦσιν **ζωὴν αἰώνιον**·  &#xD;&#xA;8 τοῖς δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας καὶ ἀπειθοῦσι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πειθομένοις δὲ τῇ ἀδικίᾳ **ὀργὴ καὶ θυμός**,  &#xD;&#xA;9 θλῖψις καὶ στενοχωρία, ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν ἀνθρώπου τοῦ κατεργαζομένου τὸ κακόν, Ἰουδαίου τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνος&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most commentaries that call attention to this lack of parallelism suggest a simple elipsis, either of ἀποδοθήσονται (Latin: *reddentur*) or ἔσονται (Latin: *erunt*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* McFadden, in [*Judgment According to Works in Romans*](https://books.google.com/books?id=NQGsAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA44&amp;lpg=PA44), pg. 44, n. 5, says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Syntactically, only ζωὴν αἰώνιον (Rom. 2:7) supplies an accusative object for apodosei (2:6). But semantically, ὀργὴ καὶ θυμός (2:8) &#xD;&#xA;θλῖψις καὶ στενοχωρία (2:9), and δόξα δὲ καὶ τιμὴ καὶ εἰρήνη (2:10) also supply objects to ἀποδώσει (2:6). **The objects are transposed into the nominative case and should be understood with an assumed future passive form of the verb ἀποδίδωμι** [= ἀποδοθήσονται].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Robertson, in [*Word Pictures in the New Testament - Romans*](https://books.google.com/books?id=XrvsqV8kw7wC&amp;pg=PT17&amp;lpg=PT17), comments on this verse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ...[T]he construction changes and the substantives that follow are not the object of ἀποδώσει like ζωὴν αἰώνιον above, but are **in the nominative as if with ἔσονται (shall be) understood.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4560" RevisionGUID="6813e5ad-1609-4dd3-a770-19672008fcc0" CreationDate="2017-06-13T19:03:32.483" UserId="75" Text="The nouns *ira* and *indignatio* are declined in the nominative because there is an implied verb ἔσται (Latin *erit*), i.e., “there shall be.” The same ellipsis occurs in Rom. 2:9 with the phrase «θλῖψις καὶ στενοχωρία» (Vul: *tribulatio et angustia*). As Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer commented on Rom. 2:8,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Meyer, p. 88][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. [*Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Romans.*][2] Trans. Moore, John C.; Johnson, Edwin. Ed. Dickson, William P. New York: Funk, 1884.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; p. [87–88][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3rETZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=N_s2AAAAMAAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=N_s2AAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA87#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=true" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4561" RevisionGUID="ebdf8640-e3c1-4bc9-8bb6-142ee48b70f9" CreationDate="2017-06-14T07:33:30.360" UserId="1710" Text="Did the Romans distinguish between black and blue? Or, more generally, what do we know about their color system? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering because many of the modern Roman languages use either Arabic or Germanic words for blue and I faintly remember my Latin teacher saying that Romans referred to the sky both at day and at night as &quot;black&quot;. Here some examples: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Italian: azzurro (&quot;Arabic&quot;), blu (&quot;Germanic&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - French: bleu (there is also azurer = dye in&#xD;&#xA;   blue)&#xD;&#xA; - Spanish: azul&#xD;&#xA; - Catalan: blau" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14042" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4561" RevisionGUID="ebdf8640-e3c1-4bc9-8bb6-142ee48b70f9" CreationDate="2017-06-14T07:33:30.360" UserId="1710" Text="Did Romans distinguish between black and blue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14043" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4561" RevisionGUID="ebdf8640-e3c1-4bc9-8bb6-142ee48b70f9" CreationDate="2017-06-14T07:33:30.360" UserId="1710" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|etymology|language-evolution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4561" RevisionGUID="02d0f080-0234-4ea9-8872-daab7d5b1325" CreationDate="2017-06-14T08:55:27.953" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Did the Romans distinguish between black and blue? Or, more generally, what do we know about their color system? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering because many of the modern Roman languages use either Arabic or Germanic words for blue and I faintly remember my Latin teacher saying that Romans referred to the sky both at day and at night as &quot;black&quot;. Here some examples: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Italian: azzurro (&quot;Arabic&quot;), blu (&quot;Germanic&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - French: bleu (there is also azurer = dye in&#xD;&#xA;   blue)&#xD;&#xA; - Spanish: azul&#xD;&#xA; - Catalan: blau&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14047" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4561" RevisionGUID="02d0f080-0234-4ea9-8872-daab7d5b1325" CreationDate="2017-06-14T08:55:27.953" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|etymology|language-evolution|color|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="a18bf7d9-a136-4d91-8bce-c55876633e0b" CreationDate="2017-06-14T14:50:25.520" UserId="1239" Text="Boethius wrote in Classical, Late, or Medieval Latin? His style does not appear medieval in the Peter of Spain sense of Medieval Latin, however it does not appear to be classical in the Ciceronian sense of Classical Latin.  Hence, it seems he might be best classified as a writer in the nebulous Late Latin, but the classification &quot;Late Latin&quot; is not commonly accepted. If Late Latin is rejected as a distinct style of Latin, would he be classified as writing in a mixed Classical-Medieval style? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14050" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="a18bf7d9-a136-4d91-8bce-c55876633e0b" CreationDate="2017-06-14T14:50:25.520" UserId="1239" Text="Boethius wrote in Classical, Late, or Medieval Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14051" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="a18bf7d9-a136-4d91-8bce-c55876633e0b" CreationDate="2017-06-14T14:50:25.520" UserId="1239" Text="|classical-latin|medieval-latin|history|late-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14052" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="c755cbb3-df62-4464-8563-c2905784ae45" CreationDate="2017-06-14T15:13:58.820" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Did Boethius write in Classical, Late, or Medieval Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14053" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="c755cbb3-df62-4464-8563-c2905784ae45" CreationDate="2017-06-14T15:13:58.820" UserId="12" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|classical-latin|medieval-latin|history|late-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4564" RevisionGUID="7d9bdc65-3585-499c-9f21-3cb7d1722c9c" CreationDate="2017-06-14T15:27:14.887" UserId="79" Text="I would like to have the phrase &quot;NN and NN &amp;mdash; dangerous together&quot; inscribed in a ring in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate suggests *periculosum simul* and *simul ancipitia*, but I'm not sure if they make any sense.&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer to keep the original structure of the phrase, so I just want a translation of &quot;dangerous together&quot; to be used in such a romantic context.&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: I received this translation request by email and asked it here to get more eyes on it than my own. This is why I also gave an answer myself.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14055" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4564" RevisionGUID="7d9bdc65-3585-499c-9f21-3cb7d1722c9c" CreationDate="2017-06-14T15:27:14.887" UserId="79" Text="Translating &quot;dangerous together&quot; for a ring" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14056" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4564" RevisionGUID="7d9bdc65-3585-499c-9f21-3cb7d1722c9c" CreationDate="2017-06-14T15:27:14.887" UserId="79" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4565" RevisionGUID="8845d571-8e01-44f9-ac46-a5030e24ecdc" CreationDate="2017-06-14T15:27:14.887" UserId="79" Text="First, [Google Translate is horrible with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79), and doubt is wise.&#xD;&#xA;In matters of any importance I strongly suggest consulting a person who knows Latin, and this site is a good option for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Periculosum* is just the adjective I would use for &quot;dangerous&quot;, but the form is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;The best choice is *periculosi*; I will discuss options below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would read *simul* more as &quot;at the same time&quot; than &quot;together&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The most fitting adverb for &quot;together&quot; I can think of is *una*, but I would prefer to use a participle.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is *coniuncti*, which could be translated as &quot;connected&quot;, &quot;married&quot; or &quot;together&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(Spelling variant: *conjuncti*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My complete translation suggestion is this with a rough translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*NN et NN &amp;mdash; periculosi coniuncti*  &#xD;&#xA;NN and NN &amp;mdash; dangerous when combined/married/together&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I put both words *periculosi* and *coniuncti* in plural masculine nominative.&#xD;&#xA;Masculine is the correct choice if at least one of the two people is male.&#xD;&#xA;If both are female, then the words should be in feminine forms instead: *periculosae* and *coniunctae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One option to consider is to use all capital letters.&#xD;&#xA;It often works well with Latin inscriptions, but the choice is of course yours.&#xD;&#xA;If you do so, it is typical to replace every J with I and U with V (better leave the names as they are, though), so my alternative suggestion is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *NN ET NN &amp;mdash; PERICULOSI CONIUNCTI*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4566" RevisionGUID="dcf81081-e4fe-4137-8447-24d56d924b01" CreationDate="2017-06-14T15:40:41.653" UserId="45" Text="Another possibility would be to interpret the phrase as a sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [We are] dangerous together. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reasons I can't quite formulate, I don't like the sound of so many nominatives together. It has the sound of &quot;NN and NN are dangerous joined ones.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion would be to use a verb, such as [*comminor*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcomminor) (=&quot;threaten&quot;), which happens to go quite well with *coniuncti*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; NN et NN — coniuncti comminamur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another pleasing combination might be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; NN et NN — uniti urgemus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4565" RevisionGUID="e98d5cac-de45-48f0-acd1-c9465affede6" CreationDate="2017-06-14T15:57:12.593" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="First, [Google Translate is horrible with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79), and doubt is wise.&#xD;&#xA;In matters of any importance I strongly suggest consulting a person who knows Latin, and this site is a good option for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Periculosum* is just the adjective I would use for &quot;dangerous&quot;, but the form is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;The best choice is *periculosi*; I will discuss options below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would read *simul* more as &quot;at the same time&quot; than &quot;together&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The most fitting adverb for &quot;together&quot; I can think of is *una*, but I would prefer to use a participle.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is *coniuncti*, which could be translated as &quot;connected&quot;, &quot;married&quot; or &quot;together&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(Spelling variant: *conjuncti*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My complete translation suggestion is this with a rough translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*NN et NN &amp;mdash; periculosi coniuncti*  &#xD;&#xA;NN and NN &amp;mdash; dangerous when combined/married/together&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I put both words *periculosi* and *coniuncti* in plural masculine nominative.&#xD;&#xA;Masculine is the correct choice if at least one of the two people is male.&#xD;&#xA;If both are female, then the words should be in feminine forms instead: *periculosae* and *coniunctae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One option to consider is to use all capital letters.&#xD;&#xA;It often works well with Latin inscriptions, but the choice is of course yours.&#xD;&#xA;If you do so, it is typical to replace every J with I and U with V (better leave the names as they are, though), so my alternative suggestion is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *NN ET NN &amp;mdash; PERICVLOSI CONIVNCTI*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4567" RevisionGUID="9c63c13d-ec25-4acc-82ee-ac701540cabb" CreationDate="2017-06-14T16:47:00.803" UserId="12" Text="In [*Medieval Latin*](https://books.google.com/books?id=ReCp978iiA8C&amp;pg=PA124), K. P. Harrington briefly describes the style of Boethius (480–524) in his chapter entitled &quot;The Rise of Late Latin&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The sort of straightforward prose writing that had dominated philosophical and even theological discourse for centuries in Greek and, to a much lesser extent, in Latin was challenged by Late Latin writers of the so-called mixed style, like Boethius, who put to the test the old allegiances of a rational prose set against a poetry grounded in the passions of the heart. [...] The Christian outlook, then, privileged a view of the world that discounted, at least by antique terms, hard and fast categories of reason and emotion—a view championed by Boethius and carried forward in several later works of the Medieval Latin tradition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Boethius also introduces a number of elements of the Greek language in his translations into Latin of classic Greek works, another aspect of &quot;Late Latin&quot; as described by Harrington.  These developments made the language more suitable for theological use, as in the writings of Pope Gregory I (540–604).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So according to Harrington Boethius could certainly be described as a Late Latin writer, who played an important part in the development of Medieval Latin.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="20cf2023-0b8a-479b-8e51-dcdd5d13ae69" CreationDate="2017-06-14T19:48:12.460" UserId="31" Comment="Proofreading" Text="Did Boethius write in Classical, Late, or Medieval Latin? His style does not appear medieval in the Peter of Spain sense of Medieval Latin; however, it does not appear to be classical in the Ciceronian sense of Classical Latin.  Hence, it seems he might be best classified as a writer in the nebulous Late Latin, but the classification &quot;Late Latin&quot; is not commonly accepted. If Late Latin is rejected as a distinct style of Latin, would he be classified as writing in a mixed Classical-Medieval style?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14063" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="20cf2023-0b8a-479b-8e51-dcdd5d13ae69" CreationDate="2017-06-14T19:48:12.460" Comment="Proposed by 31 approved by 79 edit id of 187" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4567" RevisionGUID="0eb7f943-1d76-497d-93c9-aeb1925f29a3" CreationDate="2017-06-15T07:02:58.787" UserId="75" Comment="edited body" Text="In [*Medieval Latin*](https://books.google.com/books?id=ReCp978iiA8C&amp;pg=PA124), K. P. Harrington briefly describes the style of Boethius (480–524) in his chapter entitled &quot;The Rise of Late Latin&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The sort of straightforward prose writing that had dominated philosophical and even theological discourse for centuries in Greek and, to a much lesser extent, in Latin was challenged by Late Latin writers of the so-called mixed style, like Boethius, who put to the test the old allegiances of a rational prose set against a poetry grounded in the passions of the heart. [...] The Christian outlook, then, privileged a view of the world that discounted, at least by antique terms, hard and fast categories of reason and emotion—a view championed by Boethius and carried forward in several later works of the Medieval Latin tradition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Boethius also introduces a number of elements of the Greek language in his translations into Latin of classic Greek works, another aspect of &quot;Late Latin&quot; as described by Harrington.  These developments made the language more suitable for theological use, as in the writings of Pope Gregory I (540–604).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So according to Harrington, Boethius could certainly be described as a Late Latin writer who played an important part in the development of Medieval Latin.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4568" RevisionGUID="5280e81a-dace-42f0-8406-6e54e1fc9c46" CreationDate="2017-06-15T14:44:47.370" UserId="1700" Text="First of all I have to point out  that  the word “quod” in book II, line 141 of Vergil's Aeneid is not an adverbial accusative, but simply  a causal conjunction introducing the causal clause with the  verb  “oro”, as you can read in the  literal translation  at the foot of my answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your notes describe “quod” as an 'adverbial accusative' because the causal conjunction “quod”, (meaning “because”/” for”/ “ since”) was in origin a relative pronoun used adverbially in the accusative neuter , though its use as a causal particle is an early special development.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the Latin  'adverbial accusative' , it is an idiomatic use in a few adverbial phrases such as “id temporis”( at that time), “maximam partem”( for the most part), “quod nisi” ( if not), etc.&#xD;&#xA;(See Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar for Schools and Colleges &#xD;&#xA;J. B. Greenough, G. L. Kittredge, A. A. Howard, Benj. L. D'Ooge, Ed., §397 at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Apart%3D2%3Asection%3D9%3Asubsection%3D13%3Asmythp%3D397  ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, here’s the literal translation of “Quod te per superos et conscia numina veri,/per si qua est quae restet adhuc mortalibus usquam/ intemerata fides, oro, miserere laborum/ tantorum, miserere animi non digna ferentis”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Because ( quod) I beg (oro) you (te) in gods above name (per superos) and the deities (numina, accusative neuter plural depending on “per) [who are] conscious  (conscia, acc neuter plural agreeing with “numina”) of the truth (veri, genitive sing), in name of (per)  a pure (intemeratam, which is implied, however, just like the following  “fidem”, both depending on the preposition “per”) faith (fidem, implied), if (si) some (qua/aliqua)  pure faith (intemerata fides, nominative) exists (est) which (quae) still (adhuc) remains (restet, present subjunctive suggesting possibility) anywhere (usquam) among the mortals (mortalibus, dative depending on “restet”), have pity (miserēre, 2nd sing present imperative of the deponent verb “misereor”) on so great sufferings (tantorum laborum, genitive plural depending on “miserēre”), have pity (miserēre) on a soul (animi, genitive singular depending on “miserēre”) which suffers (ferentis, present participle in the genitive singular agreeing with “animi”) not deserved things (not digna, acc neuter plural)”, i.e.: &#xD;&#xA;“Because I beg you in gods name as well as in the name of those deities  who know the truth, and also  in the name of  a pure faith,  if some pure faith exists  which  still  remains anywhere  among the mortals, have pity on my so great sufferings, have pity on my heart  which suffers what I really  do not deserve”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.in the literal translation I’ve used round brackets  to indicate Latin terms and square brackets to indicate implied terms.ù&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.in “per si qua est quae restet adhuc mortalibus usquam /intemerata fides” (line 142) the preposition “per” implies the accusative “intemeratam fidem” which is understood, because “per” is used with ellipsis of the object in order to avoid any repetition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope all is clear enough. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="4492ab1e-01e9-492f-80cf-a4843419be0b" CreationDate="2017-06-15T15:44:19.427" UserId="1692" Text="As I don't have an *English* Greek dictionary myself, I was wondering if anyone could tell me how I could translate **user** into Greek in its technical sense used on sites such as this one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14069" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="4492ab1e-01e9-492f-80cf-a4843419be0b" CreationDate="2017-06-15T15:44:19.427" UserId="1692" Text="&quot;User&quot; in Greek in the English technical sense of the word" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14070" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="4492ab1e-01e9-492f-80cf-a4843419be0b" CreationDate="2017-06-15T15:44:19.427" UserId="1692" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4568" RevisionGUID="d9045ba0-3b48-41f4-b9d8-f164dadaec54" CreationDate="2017-06-15T15:51:37.257" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted the list." Text="First of all I have to point out  that  the word “quod” in book II, line 141 of Vergil's Aeneid is not an adverbial accusative, but simply  a causal conjunction introducing the causal clause with the  verb  “oro”, as you can read in the  literal translation  at the foot of my answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your notes describe “quod” as an 'adverbial accusative' because the causal conjunction “quod”, (meaning “because”/” for”/ “ since”) was in origin a relative pronoun used adverbially in the accusative neuter , though its use as a causal particle is an early special development.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the Latin  'adverbial accusative' , it is an idiomatic use in a few adverbial phrases such as “id temporis”( at that time), “maximam partem”( for the most part), “quod nisi” ( if not), etc.&#xD;&#xA;(See Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar for Schools and Colleges &#xD;&#xA;J. B. Greenough, G. L. Kittredge, A. A. Howard, Benj. L. D'Ooge, Ed., §397 at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Apart%3D2%3Asection%3D9%3Asubsection%3D13%3Asmythp%3D397  ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, here’s the literal translation of “Quod te per superos et conscia numina veri,/per si qua est quae restet adhuc mortalibus usquam/ intemerata fides, oro, miserere laborum/ tantorum, miserere animi non digna ferentis”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Because ( quod) I beg (oro) you (te) in gods above name (per superos) and the deities (numina, accusative neuter plural depending on “per) [who are] conscious  (conscia, acc neuter plural agreeing with “numina”) of the truth (veri, genitive sing), in name of (per)  a pure (intemeratam, which is implied, however, just like the following  “fidem”, both depending on the preposition “per”) faith (fidem, implied), if (si) some (qua/aliqua)  pure faith (intemerata fides, nominative) exists (est) which (quae) still (adhuc) remains (restet, present subjunctive suggesting possibility) anywhere (usquam) among the mortals (mortalibus, dative depending on “restet”), have pity (miserēre, 2nd sing present imperative of the deponent verb “misereor”) on so great sufferings (tantorum laborum, genitive plural depending on “miserēre”), have pity (miserēre) on a soul (animi, genitive singular depending on “miserēre”) which suffers (ferentis, present participle in the genitive singular agreeing with “animi”) not deserved things (not digna, acc neuter plural)”, i.e.: &#xD;&#xA;“Because I beg you in gods name as well as in the name of those deities  who know the truth, and also  in the name of  a pure faith,  if some pure faith exists  which  still  remains anywhere  among the mortals, have pity on my so great sufferings, have pity on my heart  which suffers what I really  do not deserve”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. in the literal translation I’ve used round brackets  to indicate Latin terms and square brackets to indicate implied terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. in “per si qua est quae restet adhuc mortalibus usquam /intemerata fides” (line 142) the preposition “per” implies the accusative “intemeratam fidem” which is understood, because “per” is used with ellipsis of the object in order to avoid any repetition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope all is clear enough. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4570" RevisionGUID="d0375b38-f2b1-4d2c-8d63-b32a2b635db7" CreationDate="2017-06-15T16:15:46.140" UserId="45" Text="Honoratus, in his [Commentary on the Aeneid](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0053%3Abook%3D2%3Acommline%3D141), glosses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [141] *quod te per superos*: **propter quod**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conington explicitly refers to it as an adverbial accusative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [141] Quod is usual in adjurations, 6. 363, Hor. 1 Ep. 7. 94, Ter. And. 1. 5. 54. **Grammatically it is of course the cognate or adverbial accustaive after ‘oro;’** but we need not therefore take ‘miserere,’ &amp;c. as epexegetical of it, which is the view of Gossrau, comp. 10. 903., 12. 819; as **it may equally well stand for “quam ob rem,”** and in the other passages where it is used, as here, it comes in after a sentence supplying the considerations on which the petition is based.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *cognate* or *adverbial accusative*&#xD;&#xA; ([Allen &amp; Greenough &amp;sect;390](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/cognate-accusative)) is an accusative noun following an intransitive verb, usually with a kindred meaning. Some examples from the above link:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Noun and verb have similar meaning: ***vitam** vivere*&#xD;&#xA;* Tasting/smelling: ***Herbam** mella sapiunt*&#xD;&#xA;* Loosely, by poets: ***Torvum** clāmat.*&#xD;&#xA;* Neuter/indefinite pronouns: ***Id** laetor.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last case is the one relevant for us: it is the reason why *quid* can mean &quot;why?&quot; (= &quot;for what?&quot;). Another common usage, indicated in [A&amp;G &amp;sect; 397](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/idiomatic-accusatives), is the construction &quot;quod (ni)si...&quot; (= &quot;as to which, if (not)...&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, *quod* simply means &quot;to which extent...&quot; or &quot;for which reason.&quot; It indicates that what precedes is the reason for what follows. An almost identical phrase occurs in *Aen* 6:362-5:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nunc me fluctus habet, versantque in litore venti.  &#xD;&#xA;Quod te per caeli iucundum lumen et auras,  &#xD;&#xA;per genitorem oro, per spes surgentis Iuli,  &#xD;&#xA;eripe me his, invicte, malis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree that *quod* is being used here as a simple causal conjuction (= &quot;because&quot;). It is clear from the context, as noted by Conington, that the *quod* refers to the preceding &quot;reason&quot; for the prayer. The imperative (&quot;miserere&quot; and &quot;eripe,&quot; respectively) is *what* is being implored, not the *result* of the act of imploring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4566" RevisionGUID="0023883d-f635-4144-8ade-75e9a3702669" CreationDate="2017-06-15T16:23:07.583" UserId="45" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="Another possibility would be to interpret the phrase as a sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [We are] dangerous together. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reasons I can't quite formulate, I don't like the sound of so many nominatives together. It has the sound of &quot;NN and NN are dangerous joined ones.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion would be to use a verb, such as [*comminor*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcomminor) (=&quot;threaten&quot;), which happens to go quite well with *coniuncti*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; NN et NN — coniuncti comminamur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another pleasing combination might be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; NN et NN — uniti urgemus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(N.B. *unio* is a rare, post-Augustinian word, so it may not be suitable for this context.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="67dd9926-8d8a-4d8a-8bcd-0a8bcadacf7a" CreationDate="2017-06-15T16:23:54.520" UserId="78" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="As I don't have an *English* Greek dictionary myself, I was wondering if anyone could tell me how I could translate **user** into Ancient Greek in its technical sense used on sites such as this one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14075" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="67dd9926-8d8a-4d8a-8bcd-0a8bcadacf7a" CreationDate="2017-06-15T16:23:54.520" UserId="78" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4570" RevisionGUID="70b41d33-a5c7-4be4-887e-cfb2db564c24" CreationDate="2017-06-15T16:24:57.377" UserId="45" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Honoratus, in his [Commentary on the Aeneid](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0053%3Abook%3D2%3Acommline%3D141), glosses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [141] *quod te per superos*: **propter quod**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conington explicitly refers to it as an adverbial accusative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [141] Quod is usual in adjurations, 6. 363, Hor. 1 Ep. 7. 94, Ter. And. 1. 5. 54. **Grammatically it is of course the cognate or adverbial accustaive after ‘oro;’** but we need not therefore take ‘miserere,’ &amp;c. as epexegetical of it, which is the view of Gossrau, comp. 10. 903., 12. 819; as **it may equally well stand for “quam ob rem,”** and in the other passages where it is used, as here, it comes in after a sentence supplying the considerations on which the petition is based.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *cognate* or *adverbial accusative*&#xD;&#xA; ([Allen &amp; Greenough &amp;sect; 390](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/cognate-accusative)) is an accusative noun following an intransitive verb, usually with a kindred meaning. Some examples from the above link:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Noun and verb have similar meaning: ***vitam** vivere*&#xD;&#xA;* Tasting/smelling: ***Herbam** mella sapiunt*&#xD;&#xA;* Loosely, by poets: ***Torvum** clāmat.*&#xD;&#xA;* Neuter/indefinite pronouns: ***Id** laetor.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last case is the one relevant for us: it is the reason why *quid* can mean &quot;why?&quot; (= &quot;for what?&quot;). Another common usage, indicated in [A&amp;G &amp;sect; 397](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/idiomatic-accusatives), is the construction &quot;quod (ni)si...&quot; (= &quot;as to which, if (not)...&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, *quod* simply means &quot;to which extent...&quot; or &quot;for which reason.&quot; It indicates that what precedes is the reason for what follows. An almost identical phrase occurs in *Aen* 6:362-5:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nunc me fluctus habet, versantque in litore venti.  &#xD;&#xA;Quod te per caeli iucundum lumen et auras,  &#xD;&#xA;per genitorem oro, per spes surgentis Iuli,  &#xD;&#xA;eripe me his, invicte, malis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree that *quod* is being used here as a simple causal conjuction (= &quot;because&quot;). It is clear from the context, as noted by Conington, that the *quod* refers to the preceding &quot;reason&quot; for the prayer. The imperative (&quot;miserere&quot; and &quot;eripe,&quot; respectively) is *what* is being implored, not the *result* of the act of imploring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="375459bc-9b2e-47ba-b6cb-65fcb18b6473" CreationDate="2017-06-15T16:33:02.900" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="As I don't have an *English* Greek dictionary myself, I was wondering if anyone could tell me how I could translate the word &quot;**user**&quot; into Ancient Greek in its technical sense used on sites such as this one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14078" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="375459bc-9b2e-47ba-b6cb-65fcb18b6473" CreationDate="2017-06-15T16:33:02.900" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|vocabulary|greek|modern-life|technology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4571" RevisionGUID="b35373ca-8f59-44f0-9d40-434494afa2c4" CreationDate="2017-06-15T17:58:39.730" UserId="79" Text="L&amp;S gives descriptions of [*niger*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DN%3Aentry+group%3D13%3Aentry%3Dniger1) and [*ater*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DA%3Aentry+group%3D85%3Aentry%3Dater1), but the difference is is not clear to me at all.&#xD;&#xA;Both mean black, but there appears to be a difference in nuance &amp;mdash; as practically always when two different words mean (almost) the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I get the impression that *ater* is more in the direction of &quot;mournful&quot; and *niger* is more &quot;malicious&quot; or &quot;glowless&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But I might be wrong and there might be more to it.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I'm not sure if I could use *ater* for glowing black and *niger* for matte black if I need to make the distinction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone compare these two adjectives for me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14080" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4571" RevisionGUID="b35373ca-8f59-44f0-9d40-434494afa2c4" CreationDate="2017-06-15T17:58:39.730" UserId="79" Text="What is the difference between niger and ater?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14081" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4571" RevisionGUID="b35373ca-8f59-44f0-9d40-434494afa2c4" CreationDate="2017-06-15T17:58:39.730" UserId="79" Text="|word-comparison|adjective|color|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2175" RevisionGUID="2a39360c-9ce1-4551-acf7-718e61a71301" CreationDate="2017-06-15T18:35:14.723" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have a friend who amazingly makes whatever she wants to have happen in life, happen—regardless of how impossible the feat may seem. I want to work out a translation for her own slogan, something similar to &quot;I do what I want.&quot; Figuring out this Latin translation has led me down a path of wanting to understand what are the parts involved in making this work, properly, grammatically in Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Here is my question (one that can be answered)**: Take this phrase &quot;Facio quod volo&quot; which I came up with after much deliberation and playing with translation software. Then software tells me that this is saying that in fact translates to &quot;I do what I want,&quot; but am I missing something? Is it backwards? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specifically, what is the difference between &quot;Quid me vis facere&quot; and &quot;Facio quod volo&quot;? Do either of them even remotely resemble a properly written phrase? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14083" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2175" RevisionGUID="2a39360c-9ce1-4551-acf7-718e61a71301" CreationDate="2017-06-15T18:35:14.723" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|meaning|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14086" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="faec2e9e-fbab-4b4c-b4ca-0312a13db723" CreationDate="2017-06-15T20:16:50.493" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4573" RevisionGUID="863a961c-88e3-49b5-b130-7fae12334923" CreationDate="2017-06-16T05:17:47.960" UserId="39" Text="As I posted earlier in a comment, *quod* is used as **a connective particle** here, quite often **with** so called **adversative meaning** - cf. the first meaning in the OLD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the best Latin grammars, *[Lateinische Grammatik][1]*, written a while ago but not terribly outdated and still relevant in our time, in the second part, called *Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik*, discusses *quod* in much detail (they devote twelve pages to quod only!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The authors (Leumann et al.)  discuss our use of *quod* in section &quot;Das auf einen ganzen Satz bezogene quod&quot; (i.e. *quod* referring to the whole sentence).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the relevant quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Das** darin enthaltene **anknüpfende quod** ist ein urspr. Nominativ oder Akkusativ des Relativums, welcher einmal schon bei Plautus, häufiger seit Ter. seine Kasusbedeutung verloren hat und **lediglich der Anknüpfung und Überleitung** (= 'nun, aber') **dient** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 571; emphasis mine - Alex B.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, this *quod* is used as a connective particle. Note the German equivalents, nun or aber - that would be *now* or *but* or even *therefore*  in English. Crucially, our *quod* **is not causal**, contrary to what the other two posts suggest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann et al. specifically mention quod used &quot;in zur Einleitung eines Hauptsatzes in dem Typus *te oro*&quot;, citing Terence, Sallust , Vergil, and Horace among others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terence, [The Woman of Andros][2] (289-291)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**quod** ego per hanc te dexteram et genium tuom, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;per tuam fidem perque huius solitudinem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**te obtestor** ne abs te hanc segreges neu deseras.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sallust, [The Histories][3] (9)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Quod** ego **vos oro atque obsecro**, patres conscripti, ut ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.chbeck.de/Lateinische-Grammatik-Bd-2-Lateinische-Syntax-Stilistik-allgemeinen-Teil-lateinischen-Grammatik/productview.aspx?product=16572123&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/terence-woman_andros/2001/pb_LCL022.79.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/sallust-histories/2015/pb_LCL522.65.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4574" RevisionGUID="fdc1bc00-c568-492e-bbfb-ee9aff5a99d2" CreationDate="2017-06-16T10:04:55.637" UserId="13" Text="What I am interested in is the part where he quotes Sappho, or, even more specifically, l. 3 of the second stanza of the quoted poem, and in particular the verb in that line. This starts from [this post](https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/2690/about-l-3-of-the-second-stanza-of-sapphos-%e1%bd%a8%ce%b4%e1%bd%b4-%ce%b5%e1%bc%b0%cf%82-%e1%bc%88%ce%bd%ce%b1%ce%ba%cf%84%cf%89%cf%81%ce%af%ce%b1%ce%bd-ode-to-anactoria). The answer there told me the poem comes from Longinus, so I was wondering what the manuscript tradition for that part is. I found something about a Parisian codex. Quoting the post linked above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[This edition of Longinus _On the sublime_](https://ia800309.us.archive.org/27/items/LonginusOnTheSublimeTheGreekTextEditedAfterTheParisManuscriptWith/longinus_sublime_Roberts.pdf) reports the text as:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![amended text in the above link](https://i.stack.imgur.com/KWSub.png)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;that is with `ἔς σ' ἴδω`, and adds this critical note:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![critical note to the poem in the above link](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2cCi8.png)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It is Longinus's work following a Paris manuscript.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other sources (maybe available online) for that passage? What do those other sources have to say about that line?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14091" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4574" RevisionGUID="fdc1bc00-c568-492e-bbfb-ee9aff5a99d2" CreationDate="2017-06-16T10:04:55.637" UserId="13" Text="What are our sources for Longinus' De sublimitate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14092" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4574" RevisionGUID="fdc1bc00-c568-492e-bbfb-ee9aff5a99d2" CreationDate="2017-06-16T10:04:55.637" UserId="13" Text="|poetry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4574" RevisionGUID="83833a5a-5187-4483-9565-c53c299f44f4" CreationDate="2017-06-16T10:13:52.687" UserId="13" Comment="added note" Text="What I am interested in is the part where he quotes Sappho, or, even more specifically, l. 3 of the second stanza of the quoted poem, and in particular the verb in that line. This starts from [this post](https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/2690/about-l-3-of-the-second-stanza-of-sapphos-%e1%bd%a8%ce%b4%e1%bd%b4-%ce%b5%e1%bc%b0%cf%82-%e1%bc%88%ce%bd%ce%b1%ce%ba%cf%84%cf%89%cf%81%ce%af%ce%b1%ce%bd-ode-to-anactoria). The answer there told me the poem comes from Longinus, so I was wondering what the manuscript tradition for that part is. I found something about a Parisian codex. Quoting the post linked above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[This edition of Longinus _On the sublime_](https://ia800309.us.archive.org/27/items/LonginusOnTheSublimeTheGreekTextEditedAfterTheParisManuscriptWith/longinus_sublime_Roberts.pdf) reports the text as:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![amended text in the above link](https://i.stack.imgur.com/KWSub.png)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;that is with `ἔς σ' ἴδω`, and adds this critical note:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![critical note to the poem in the above link](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2cCi8.png)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It is Longinus's work following a Paris manuscript.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other sources (maybe available online) for that passage? What do those other sources have to say about that line?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about reconstructions of texts (Latin or Ancient Greek, as long as AG is allowed here) might be borderline off-topic, seen as they typically are not so much about the language as about the reading and emendation of the various sources. If a question like this is considered off-topic, please warn me, because I have a number of these that I haven't yet formulated but will surely have to post. After all, I'm sure I'll need inputs for my blog posts about Sappho's poems, which I &quot;restored&quot; and translated (all of them) years ago into Latin English and Italian as poems, keeping or imitating the original meters. So better warn me now than after I post tens of these :)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="006b165a-e787-43d3-a07e-1058139aac78" CreationDate="2017-06-16T10:31:19.620" UserId="1692" Comment="added 312 characters in body" Text="As I don't have an *English* Greek dictionary myself, I was wondering if anyone could tell me how I could translate the word &quot;**user**&quot; into Ancient Greek in its technical sense used on sites such as this one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;And if there is no such word in Ancient Greek, as might after all be quite expected, couldn't one be made up *ad hoc*, in the same manner of making up Latin words for contemporary realities, as for example [computatrum][1] is for *computer*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/computatrum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="65a623ec-df15-4ad9-8658-af3cdee50220" CreationDate="2017-06-16T12:03:05.473" UserId="1692" Comment="Latin; at; text" Text="In [Avenged Sevenfold's &quot;Requiem&quot;][1] there is a passage in Latin at the very beginning of the song. It says something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prodigia comploratus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Silens, oro&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Regnet exitium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know nothing about this language but I assume that the written text above is Latin. What does that mean (if it means anything at all)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://youtu.be/mV7bND-_KdI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14096" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="65a623ec-df15-4ad9-8658-af3cdee50220" CreationDate="2017-06-16T12:03:05.473" Comment="Proposed by 1692 approved by 79 edit id of 188" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4573" RevisionGUID="cb724570-caa4-4b08-8969-35e4e7bec980" CreationDate="2017-06-16T13:48:35.440" UserId="45" Comment="added 275 characters in body" Text="As I posted earlier in a comment, *quod* is used as **a connective particle** here, quite often **with** so called **adversative meaning** - cf. the first meaning in the OLD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the best Latin grammars, *[Lateinische Grammatik][1]*, written a while ago but not terribly outdated and still relevant in our time, in the second part, called *Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik*, discusses *quod* in much detail (they devote twelve pages to quod only!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The authors (Leumann et al.)  discuss our use of *quod* in section &quot;Das auf einen ganzen Satz bezogene quod&quot; (i.e. *quod* referring to the whole sentence).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the relevant quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Das** darin enthaltene **anknüpfende quod** ist ein urspr. Nominativ oder Akkusativ des Relativums, welcher einmal schon bei Plautus, häufiger seit Ter. seine Kasusbedeutung verloren hat und **lediglich der Anknüpfung und Überleitung** (= 'nun, aber') **dient** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;**The connective *quod*** contained therein is originally the nominative or accusative of the relative, which has lost its case meaning once already in Plautus and more frequently since Terence, and merely serves as a connection or transition (= &quot;now, but&quot;).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[p. 571; emphasis mine - Alex B.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, this *quod* is used as a connective particle. Note the German equivalents, nun or aber - that would be *now* or *but* or even *therefore*  in English. Crucially, our *quod* **is not causal**, contrary to what the other two posts suggest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann et al. specifically mention quod used &quot;in zur Einleitung eines Hauptsatzes in dem Typus *te oro*&quot;, citing Terence, Sallust , Vergil, and Horace among others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terence, [The Woman of Andros][2] (289-291)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**quod** ego per hanc te dexteram et genium tuom, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;per tuam fidem perque huius solitudinem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**te obtestor** ne abs te hanc segreges neu deseras.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sallust, [The Histories][3] (9)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Quod** ego **vos oro atque obsecro**, patres conscripti, ut ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.chbeck.de/Lateinische-Grammatik-Bd-2-Lateinische-Syntax-Stilistik-allgemeinen-Teil-lateinischen-Grammatik/productview.aspx?product=16572123&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/terence-woman_andros/2001/pb_LCL022.79.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/sallust-histories/2015/pb_LCL522.65.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4568" RevisionGUID="100f3950-61bb-4428-a740-4cf06d99357c" CreationDate="2017-06-16T15:24:41.943" UserId="1700" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="First of all I have to point out  that  the word “quod” in book II, line 141 of Vergil's Aeneid is not an adverbial accusative, but simply  a causal conjunction introducing the causal clause with the  verb  “oro”, as you can read in the  literal translation  at the foot of my answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your notes describe “quod” as an 'adverbial accusative' because the causal conjunction “quod”, (meaning “because”/” for”/ “ since”) was in origin a relative pronoun used adverbially in the accusative neuter , though its use as a causal particle is an early special development.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the Latin  'adverbial accusative' , it is an idiomatic use in a few adverbial phrases such as “id temporis”( at that time), “maximam partem”( for the most part), “quod nisi” ( if not), etc.&#xD;&#xA;(See Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar for Schools and Colleges &#xD;&#xA;J. B. Greenough, G. L. Kittredge, A. A. Howard, Benj. L. D'Ooge, Ed., §397 at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Apart%3D2%3Asection%3D9%3Asubsection%3D13%3Asmythp%3D397  ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, here’s the literal translation of “Quod te per superos et conscia numina veri,/per si qua est quae restet adhuc mortalibus usquam/ intemerata fides, oro, miserere laborum/ tantorum, miserere animi non digna ferentis”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Because ( quod) I beg (oro) you (te) in gods above name (per superos) and the deities (numina, accusative neuter plural depending on “per) [who are] conscious  (conscia, acc neuter plural agreeing with “numina”) of the truth (veri, genitive sing), in name of (per)  a pure (intemeratam, which is implied, however, just like the following  “fidem”, both depending on the preposition “per”) faith (fidem, implied), if (si) some (qua/aliqua)  pure faith (intemerata fides, nominative) exists (est) which (quae) still (adhuc) remains (restet, present subjunctive suggesting possibility) anywhere (usquam) among the mortals (mortalibus, dative depending on “restet”), have pity (miserēre, 2nd sing present imperative of the deponent verb “misereor”) on so great sufferings (tantorum laborum, genitive plural depending on “miserēre”), have pity (miserēre) on a soul (animi, genitive singular depending on “miserēre”) which suffers (ferentis, present participle in the genitive singular agreeing with “animi”) not deserved things (not digna, acc neuter plural)”, i.e.: &#xD;&#xA;“So, I beg you in gods name as well as in the name of those deities  who know the truth, and also  in the name of  a pure faith,  if some pure faith exists  which  still  remains anywhere  among the mortals, have pity on my so great sufferings, have pity on my heart  which suffers what I really  do not deserve”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. in the literal translation I’ve used round brackets  to indicate Latin terms and square brackets to indicate implied terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. in “per si qua est quae restet adhuc mortalibus usquam /intemerata fides” (line 142) the preposition “per” implies the accusative “intemeratam fidem” which is understood, because “per” is used with ellipsis of the object in order to avoid any repetition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope all is clear enough. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4575" RevisionGUID="7f28ac09-6c8f-41c4-aa6b-c46cfce84918" CreationDate="2017-06-16T15:56:33.617" UserId="1699" Text="Missæ tres Petro Certon pueris simphoniacis sancti sacelli Parisiensis auctore, nunc primúm in lucem ædit[a]e, cum quatuor vocibus, ad imitationem modulorum. Lutetiae&#xD;&#xA;Any help would be very much appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14100" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4575" RevisionGUID="7f28ac09-6c8f-41c4-aa6b-c46cfce84918" CreationDate="2017-06-16T15:56:33.617" UserId="1699" Text="Could someone help with a renaissance musical translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14101" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4575" RevisionGUID="7f28ac09-6c8f-41c4-aa6b-c46cfce84918" CreationDate="2017-06-16T15:56:33.617" UserId="1699" Text="|music|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4575" RevisionGUID="bdf0519c-1efb-4cb2-9fd8-c8ea88dff1c9" CreationDate="2017-06-16T16:19:47.347" UserId="45" Comment="added 226 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am trying to translate a Latin title, reproduced below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Missæ tres Petro Certon pueris simphoniacis sancti sacelli Parisiensis auctore, nunc primúm in lucem ædit[a]e, cum quatuor vocibus, ad imitationem modulorum. Lutetiae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Google books bibliographical entry is [available here](https://books.google.com/books/about/Missae_tres_Petro_Certon_pueris_simphoni.html?id=Dkt3nQEACAAJ).  Any help would be very much appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14103" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4575" RevisionGUID="bdf0519c-1efb-4cb2-9fd8-c8ea88dff1c9" CreationDate="2017-06-16T16:19:47.347" UserId="45" Comment="added 226 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation|music|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4576" RevisionGUID="6d093f18-11f9-45eb-ab94-906059c075ff" CreationDate="2017-06-16T16:37:22.060" UserId="45" Text="The translation is fairly straightforward. Here is a literal rendering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Three Masses, with Pierre Certon as author, for the choristers of the Sainte-Chapelle of Paris, now published for the first time, in four voices, in imitation of the melodies X.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lutetia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutetia) (Locative: *Lutetiae*) is simply the old Roman name for Paris, and indicates the city where it was published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A *missa* in this context is a setting of the ordinary of the Mass: the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo (sometimes), Sanctus, Benedictus, and Agnus Dei. &#xD;&#xA;* A [*sacellum*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsacellum) (diminutive of *sacrum*) is a &quot;little sanctuary.&quot; In this context, and based on the biography of [Pierre Certon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Certon), this certainly refers to the Sainte-Chapelle.&#xD;&#xA;* [*symphoniacus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsymphoniacus) (&quot;y&quot; changed to &quot;i&quot;, as common in later Latin) is an adjective for a concert. Combined with *puer*, it refers to a boys choir.&#xD;&#xA;* I was stuck with &quot;ad imitationem modulorum&quot; until I realized that something is surely being left out. As you can see in [this bibliography for Pierre Certon](https://books.google.com/books?id=0eMxAQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA383&amp;lpg=PA383), &quot;modulorum&quot; (or &quot;moduli,&quot; if only one) should be followed the names of the melodies that are being imitated. It was quite common in Renaissance music to use a folk song as a point of departure for the mass's themes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4575" RevisionGUID="14223102-0144-4624-bfac-97214d18cff5" CreationDate="2017-06-16T16:54:38.190" UserId="79" Comment="added 195 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am trying to translate a Latin title, reproduced below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Missæ tres Petro Certon pueris simphoniacis sancti sacelli Parisiensis auctore, nunc primúm in lucem ædit[a]e, cum quatuor vocibus, ad imitationem modulorum. Lutetiae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my attempted translation of which I'm unsure:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Three masses by Pierre Certon,for the boys choir of the holy shrine of Paris, newly published, in four voices, imitating (something)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Google books bibliographical entry is [available here](https://books.google.com/books/about/Missae_tres_Petro_Certon_pueris_simphoni.html?id=Dkt3nQEACAAJ).  Any help would be very much appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14106" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4575" RevisionGUID="14223102-0144-4624-bfac-97214d18cff5" CreationDate="2017-06-16T16:54:38.190" UserId="79" Comment="added 195 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation-check|music|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="d3a922c3-6fe9-4235-8137-2e17e5078d1a" CreationDate="2017-06-16T17:27:16.767" UserId="79" Text="I was trying to translate something to Latin, and I ended up writing something that made me feel uncertain.&#xD;&#xA;For the purposes of this question, I stripped all unnecessary content to focus on what puzzles me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to express something something in the direction of &quot;you will sing until you are forgotten&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I want to use the future tense for &quot;you will sing&quot; and I want to phrase &quot;you are forgotten&quot; as *oblivio te sumit*, but the tense of the second part is not as important.&#xD;&#xA;I wrote this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cantabis donec te sumpserit oblivio.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question concerns the tense of *sumere*.&#xD;&#xA;Should it be in the future perfect form *sumpserit*, in the perfect form *sumpsit*, or perhaps in the future form *sumet*?&#xD;&#xA;If many are possible, what is the difference?&#xD;&#xA;Is my original sentence grammatical and meaningful?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since *cantare* is in the future tense, it feels more natural to use a future tense for *sumere* as well.&#xD;&#xA;But for some reason I like a perfect tense too, as it gives the tone of &quot;you will sing until you have been forgotten&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Changing the exact point in time of the oblivion is fine; I want to explore my (three?) options here for the tense of *sumere*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14108" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="d3a922c3-6fe9-4235-8137-2e17e5078d1a" CreationDate="2017-06-16T17:27:16.767" UserId="79" Text="Using two future tenses together" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14109" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="d3a922c3-6fe9-4235-8137-2e17e5078d1a" CreationDate="2017-06-16T17:27:16.767" UserId="79" Text="|syntax|perfect-tense|future-tense|tenses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4578" RevisionGUID="d846046d-2d36-4f49-89bd-5c2c29f2c8d8" CreationDate="2017-06-16T17:55:20.500" UserId="45" Text="I will try to add to my answer with a more grammatical explanation if I have time, but for now I can introduce some sample phrases. These examples come from the Lewis &amp; Short entry for [*donec*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddonec):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Future perfect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; haud desinam, donec perfecero hoc (Ter. Ph. 2, 3, 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; neque defetiscar usque adeo experirier  &#xD;&#xA;donec tibi id quod pollicitus sum effecero. (ib. 4, 1, 24)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Future&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; hic regnabitur ... donec regina sacerdos geminam partu dabit Ilia prolem (Verg. A. 1, 273)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vergil example seems most close to yours, since it does not involve a negation or a discrete action. Since Terence is ante-classical, I would recommend the **future as a safer option**, though I have no standing to say whether the future perfect is less correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a wealth of information about this topic in pg. 680 of Fischer's [*Latin Grammar*](https://books.google.com/books?id=gaJIAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA680&amp;lpg=PA680)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2190" RevisionGUID="b5999c8b-6505-4ee6-b2ca-a3e20466654e" CreationDate="2017-06-16T20:50:21.657" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged." Text="Here I have two words: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *verto, vertere, verti, versum (versus)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *vertor, verti, versus sum, &amp;mdash;* (I assume it's deponent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They both mean &quot;turn&quot; according to the Cambridge Latin Course Book V, but a quick search on wikitionary of *vertor* says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first-person singular present passive indicative of *vertō*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know whether *vertor* actually exists, and if so, why it does and it's difference to *verto*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14112" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2190" RevisionGUID="b5999c8b-6505-4ee6-b2ca-a3e20466654e" CreationDate="2017-06-16T20:50:21.657" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged." Text="Comparing verto and vertor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14113" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2190" RevisionGUID="b5999c8b-6505-4ee6-b2ca-a3e20466654e" CreationDate="2017-06-16T20:50:21.657" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged." Text="|vocabulary|verbs|word-comparison|deponent-verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4579" RevisionGUID="e17a9701-d0c4-4e84-ae20-3b7beaa6723b" CreationDate="2017-06-16T21:28:34.757" UserId="1289" Text="Your specific question allows it, so would you be interested in avoiding the construction with a conjugated verb ? If you are, you might consider a few options, some of which are admittedly arcane and maybe not exactly grammatical (because I'm mostly spitballing here):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* using a perfect tense in the passive voice plus ellipsis of es/eris (of course, this allows freedom between *futurum exactum* and *perfectum*, not *futurum exactum* and *futurum simplex*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cantabis donec ab oblivione sumptus [es/eris]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the *gerundivum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cantabis te ab oblivione sumendum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the *supinum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cantabis [te] sumptum ab oblivione&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* avoiding a verb form and hence *consecutio temporum* altogether&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cantabis usque (ad/in) oblivionem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="d49eb2d8-206e-4149-815e-8917a7112204" CreationDate="2017-06-17T10:21:38.123" UserId="13" Text="Some time ago, I [posted on Literature](https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/2731/about-sapphos-hector-and-andromacha-poem) about Sappho's _Hector and Andromacha_. To sum-up, the sources for that are P.Oxy. 1232 and P.Oxy. 2076. P.Oxy. 1232 is three scraps of papyrus, one of which has a big part of the poem in two columns, another one of which is considered to contain a different poem, and the last one is (for what I can tell) a tiny scrap containing the ending of some lines. The question at Literature was: the two-column scrap and P.Oxy. 2076 clearly go together, but the tiny scrap? Why is it together with those as well? Now once we have P.Oxy. 2076 we clearly see the lines in P.Oxy. 2076 join very nicely with those of the tiny scrap, which is reason enough to put them together. However, before P.Oxy. 2076, the only reason I can see to hypothize a link between the two-column scrap and the tiny scrap is the P.Oxy. number. So I was wondering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Why are those scraps under the same number? And more generally, how are P.Oxy. numbers chosen for scraps of Oxyrhynchus papyri?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14117" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="d49eb2d8-206e-4149-815e-8917a7112204" CreationDate="2017-06-17T10:21:38.123" UserId="13" Text="How are P.Oxy. numbers chosen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14118" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="d49eb2d8-206e-4149-815e-8917a7112204" CreationDate="2017-06-17T10:21:38.123" UserId="13" Text="|text-corpus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4581" RevisionGUID="05e59ece-6c34-4edc-b493-76197a46ec55" CreationDate="2017-06-17T13:25:50.510" UserId="1715" Text="I would like to know which case follows after the phrase &quot;praeparatio in&quot; in the sense of &quot;preparation in (expectation of)&quot; in English, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of above-mentioned example, is the correct rendition in Latin &quot;praeparatio in expectatione&quot; or &quot;praeparatio in expectationem&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14120" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4581" RevisionGUID="05e59ece-6c34-4edc-b493-76197a46ec55" CreationDate="2017-06-17T13:25:50.510" UserId="1715" Text="praeparatio in + Ablative or Accusative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14121" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4581" RevisionGUID="05e59ece-6c34-4edc-b493-76197a46ec55" CreationDate="2017-06-17T13:25:50.510" UserId="1715" Text="|grammar-choice|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4582" RevisionGUID="c6eed535-27ee-4da3-9498-f75be6172bdd" CreationDate="2017-06-17T14:04:33.037" UserId="1692" Text="As Spinoza wrote in post-Renaissance times, I would imagine that his Latin was inspired by that of the humanists, which in turn was inspired by that in which Cicero himself wrote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my logical conclusion correct, in that Spinoza's Latin had nothing Medieval in it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14123" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4582" RevisionGUID="c6eed535-27ee-4da3-9498-f75be6172bdd" CreationDate="2017-06-17T14:04:33.037" UserId="1692" Text="About Spinoza's Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14124" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4582" RevisionGUID="c6eed535-27ee-4da3-9498-f75be6172bdd" CreationDate="2017-06-17T14:04:33.037" UserId="1692" Text="|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4581" RevisionGUID="fb9ed7a6-0405-47d3-93d6-0b5394dad8ec" CreationDate="2017-06-17T14:54:19.197" UserId="1692" Comment="in the case of the; Latin rendition" Text="I would like to know which case follows after the phrase &quot;praeparatio in&quot; in the sense of &quot;preparation in (expectation of)&quot; in English, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of the above-mentioned example, is the correct Latin rendition &quot;praeparatio in expectatione&quot; or &quot;praeparatio in expectationem&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14126" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4581" RevisionGUID="fb9ed7a6-0405-47d3-93d6-0b5394dad8ec" CreationDate="2017-06-17T14:54:19.197" Comment="Proposed by 1692 approved by 78, -1 edit id of 189" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4581" RevisionGUID="6babf82c-53bc-45a1-9dd3-ea8a3bc3e798" CreationDate="2017-06-17T14:54:19.197" UserId="136" Comment="adjusted phrasing of second paragraph" Text="I would like to know which case follows after the phrase &quot;praeparatio in&quot; in the sense of &quot;preparation in (expectation of)&quot; in English, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To use the above-mentioned example, would the correct Latin translation be &quot;praeparatio in expectatione&quot; or &quot;praeparatio in expectationem&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4583" RevisionGUID="c1232e09-10f1-4554-8d44-60ec35287e81" CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:01:52.817" UserId="45" Text="Terence Tunberg's translation of [Dr. Seuss's *How the Grinch Stole Christmas*](https://www.amazon.com/Quomodo-Invidiosulus-Grinchus-Christi-Abrogaverit/dp/0865164207) has a rather prolix title:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quomodo Invidiosulus Nomine Grinchus Christi Natalem Abrogaverit*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;whose literal translation is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *How the little envious one named Grinch repealed Christmas*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two choices stand out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Substituting a diminutive adjective and explicit naming for the simple &quot;Grinch&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* Changing &quot;steal&quot; to a more complicated legal term, &quot;abrogo&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll be honest: I've always thought this was a terrible translation of the title, substituting 5 easily understood children's words (= 7 syllables) with a long-winded and difficult title of a treatise (= 24 syllables).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more literal translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quomodo Grinchus Christi Natalem Furatus Sit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(= 14 syllables)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: **Has Terence, an excellent Latinist, offered any commentary on his reasons for translating this way? What are some good reasons for opting for the longer title?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14129" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4583" RevisionGUID="c1232e09-10f1-4554-8d44-60ec35287e81" CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:01:52.817" UserId="45" Text="Why is the Latin title of &quot;How the Grinch Stole Christmas&quot; so verbose?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14130" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4583" RevisionGUID="c1232e09-10f1-4554-8d44-60ec35287e81" CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:01:52.817" UserId="45" Text="|contemporary-latin|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4584" RevisionGUID="7ab2d24a-67e3-498a-9cac-60c8db7d91f6" CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:14:09.080" UserId="45" Text="In the same vein as our other [&quot;Did the Romans have...&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/search?q=did+the+romans+have) questions, I would like to know: **Did the Romans have any children's books?** I am especially interested in preserved examples, but a second-hand mention would also count.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a common (and seemingly obvious) pedagogical practice today to start children reading simpler books: picture books, short sentences with easy vocabulary, etc. I can't think of a single Roman work, though, that was purposely simplified to help the comprehension of young children. I am not interested in works, like those of Plautus, that lack high-brow appeal but are clearly not written for children. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going to the 4th century, Augustine speaks in his *Confessions* of reading Vergil and Homer as a school boy. Surely he started with something a little easier?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14132" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4584" RevisionGUID="7ab2d24a-67e3-498a-9cac-60c8db7d91f6" CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:14:09.080" UserId="45" Text="Did the Romans have children's books?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14133" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4584" RevisionGUID="7ab2d24a-67e3-498a-9cac-60c8db7d91f6" CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:14:09.080" UserId="45" Text="|roman-culture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4585" RevisionGUID="e0da68e4-6a6a-4fb4-83cf-d949f9a1df3b" CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:21:15.297" UserId="13" Text="Below is a bit of P.Oxy.2076. Full image of that papyrus [here](http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH011f/ee301502.dir/POxy.v0017.n2076.a.01.hires.jpg).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;ϹΑΠΦΟ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Β&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΜΙΤ̣I̤ΝΥΔΥ[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two lines read `Σαπφο[ῦς] Β`, i.e. &quot;Sappho [book] 2&quot;, but the third line? What could that be saying?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uBi1x.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14135" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4585" RevisionGUID="e0da68e4-6a6a-4fb4-83cf-d949f9a1df3b" CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:21:15.297" UserId="13" Text="What does this bit of papyrus say?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14136" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4585" RevisionGUID="e0da68e4-6a6a-4fb4-83cf-d949f9a1df3b" CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:21:15.297" UserId="13" Text="|text-corpus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4585" RevisionGUID="0350dc02-feb9-42c1-842e-6b4887833c0b" CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:41:53.070" UserId="79" Comment="Removed the link to the smaller image and added a tag." Text="Below is a bit of P.Oxy.2076. Full image of that papyrus [here](http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH011f/ee301502.dir/POxy.v0017.n2076.a.01.hires.jpg).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Papyrus.](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uBi1x.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;ϹΑΠΦΟ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Β&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΜΙΤ̣I̤ΝΥΔΥ[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two lines read `Σαπφο[ῦς] Β`, i.e. &quot;Sappho [book] 2&quot;, but the third line? What could that be saying?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14139" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4585" RevisionGUID="0350dc02-feb9-42c1-842e-6b4887833c0b" CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:41:53.070" UserId="79" Comment="Removed the link to the smaller image and added a tag." Text="|greek|text-corpus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4582" RevisionGUID="72d45f7b-14e9-4537-ba8f-c61a1b9fac96" CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:46:40.610" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="As Spinoza wrote in post-Renaissance times, I would imagine that his Latin was inspired by that of the humanists, which in turn was inspired by that in which Cicero himself wrote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my logical conclusion correct, in that Spinoza's Latin had nothing Medieval in it?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14141" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4582" RevisionGUID="72d45f7b-14e9-4537-ba8f-c61a1b9fac96" CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:46:40.610" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|new-latin|style|spinoza|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14142" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4585" RevisionGUID="76acea18-5814-4305-a9d2-e7a1e954a370" CreationDate="2017-06-17T17:26:54.640" UserId="30" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|text-corpus|papyrology|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14143" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="26fe76f7-ccbc-428e-b180-187e9c0f08ca" CreationDate="2017-06-17T17:54:36.370" UserId="13" Comment="added papyrology tag" Text="|text-corpus|papyrology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4586" RevisionGUID="e7af235e-8fbe-4c58-94a2-911024a8d2aa" CreationDate="2017-06-17T20:08:51.397" UserId="985" Text="I found [this article](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-12-15/features/9812150025_1_theodor-geisel-grinchus-christi-quomodo-invidiosulus) from the *Chicago Tribune* that partially explains this. The short version: the Tunbergs didn't think 'Grinch' sounded very good as Latin, but they couldn't get permission to change the name, because it's such a recognizable part of the story. 'Invidiosulus nomine Grinchus' was the compromise that was reached with Dr Seuss's estate, but the Tunbergs were allowed to substitute a couple of instances of 'the Grinch' in their translation with 'Invidiosulus.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4585" RevisionGUID="6f6e5158-afb5-4e55-8fc7-911c24cf0b8c" CreationDate="2017-06-17T21:00:34.640" UserId="13" Comment="added note" Text="Below is a bit of P.Oxy.2076. Full image of that papyrus [here](http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH011f/ee301502.dir/POxy.v0017.n2076.a.01.hires.jpg).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Papyrus.](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uBi1x.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;ϹΑΠΦΟ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Β&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΜΙΤ̣I̤ΝΥΔΥ[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two lines read `Σαπφο[ῦς] Β`, i.e. &quot;Sappho [book] 2&quot;, but the third line? What could that be saying?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just realized I hadn't written that, in the above transcription, I distinguish between a single underdot (like under the T), which means a somewhat doubtful letter, and a double underdot (like under the I), which means a letter so doubtful that the given suggestion is just a guess, because e.g. it is only partially present and the rest could lead to many different letters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4587" RevisionGUID="ffe98ec7-f0db-40e6-8cd5-c82109e68a18" CreationDate="2017-06-17T22:07:06.097" UserId="79" Text="Both *per-* an *de-* can be used as intensifying prefixes.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that *per-* is far more common, but also *de-* occurs (*detritus*, *defetisci*, *deplorare*&amp;hellip;).&#xD;&#xA;There is also *deperire*, where *de-* seems to intensify *perire* whereas *per-* is not really an intensifier of *ire*.&#xD;&#xA;There are some words that can be intensified with either prefix.&#xD;&#xA;I found *vincere* and *populari*, and I assume there is more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to compare these two prefixes.&#xD;&#xA;How can I guess which prefix is a more likely intensifier?&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference in meaning between the two, either when both can be used or ruling out one?&#xD;&#xA;I know that both prefixes can also indicate direction, and in that case the difference is clear; my interest here is in intensification.&#xD;&#xA;Are there any general rules (of thumb) at all, or do I really need to go on a case-by-case basis here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If giving a reasonable answer requires imposing some restrictions (only verbs and only in classical Latin, for example), feel free to do so.&#xD;&#xA;Also illuminating examples are good even without an overall theory.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for some intuition into this thing, not any specific details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14147" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4587" RevisionGUID="ffe98ec7-f0db-40e6-8cd5-c82109e68a18" CreationDate="2017-06-17T22:07:06.097" UserId="79" Text="Comparing per- and de- as intensifying prefixes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14148" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4587" RevisionGUID="ffe98ec7-f0db-40e6-8cd5-c82109e68a18" CreationDate="2017-06-17T22:07:06.097" UserId="79" Text="|word-comparison|derivation|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4588" RevisionGUID="ff17623b-5db3-4f7c-bee4-12f2af1f01d7" CreationDate="2017-06-18T01:57:58.220" UserId="1407" Text="I'm trying to explore if there is any plausible connection between these words.  I find them to be somewhat cognate in English, where one might carelessly drop the initial &quot;o&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe there is some confusion injected in that curi or curus is a Latinization of the Greek kouros, as opposed to puer. [Cor][1] is the Latin root for heart, and distinct from the Greek kour, but becomes cœur and cuore in the French and Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously dios is quite distinct from dis phoenetically, and yet [there is a relationship between &quot;dis&quot; to &quot;deus&quot;][2].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't think the association of the Dioskouroi with discord is purely linguistic.  When I think of brothers in general, and these brothers in particular, I think of then as wrestling, which is consistent with the conception of the twins the representation of a binary. This conception seems to have been been formalized in modern astrology. (i.e. in the popular imagination the meaning of Gemini related to binaries.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=cor&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dis&amp;la=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14150" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4588" RevisionGUID="ff17623b-5db3-4f7c-bee4-12f2af1f01d7" CreationDate="2017-06-18T01:57:58.220" UserId="1407" Text="Dioscuri and Discord" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14151" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4588" RevisionGUID="ff17623b-5db3-4f7c-bee4-12f2af1f01d7" CreationDate="2017-06-18T01:57:58.220" UserId="1407" Text="|etymology|names|mythology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4588" RevisionGUID="7a241cc9-1e3d-4dfe-ae38-05d1459c6895" CreationDate="2017-06-18T02:12:10.917" UserId="1407" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="I'm trying to explore if there is any plausible connection between these words.  I find them to be somewhat cognate in English, where one might carelessly drop the initial &quot;o&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe there is some confusion injected in that curi or curus is a Latinization of the Greek kouros, as opposed to puer. [Cor][1] is the Latin root for heart, and distinct from the Greek kour, but becomes cœur and cuore in the French and Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously dios is quite distinct from dis phoenetically, and yet [there is a relationship between &quot;dis&quot; to &quot;deus&quot;][2].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't think the association of the Dioskouroi with discord is purely linguistic.  When I think of brothers in general, and these brothers in particular, I think of then as wrestling, which is consistent with the conception of the twins the representation of a binary. This conception seems to have been been formalized in modern astrology. (i.e. in the popular imagination the meaning of Gemini is related to binaries, which is not random, and represents a meaningful  application of an idea to a symbol.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=cor&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dis&amp;la=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4588" RevisionGUID="d54be603-e77e-40f7-81e5-27deb29fac64" CreationDate="2017-06-18T05:22:54.027" UserId="1407" Comment="Added counters to critiques in the comments regarding dis as a dative form of deus, and a point about Discordia." Text="I'm trying to explore if there is any plausible connection between these words.  I find them to be somewhat cognate in English, where one might carelessly drop the initial &quot;o&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe there is some confusion injected in that curi or curus is a Latinization of the Greek kouros, as opposed to puer. [Cor][1] is the Latin root for heart, and distinct from the Greek kour, and becomes cœur and cuore and corazon, but I'm not entirely satisfied with this derivation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's particular note that [Discordia][2] is a goddess, and what I think of when I read that is the Greek root for girl, &quot;κόρη&quot; as in &quot;Divider Girl&quot; = Strife Goddess. *Discordia* is descriptive of  Ἔρις. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero derives *[Dis][3]* from *[dives][4]*, per the Plutonian meaning, and [divido][5] shares a meaning with the particle *dis* in the sense of separation, or apartness. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously *dios* is quite distinct from dis phonetically, and yet [there is a relationship between &quot;*dis*&quot; to &quot;*deus*&quot;][6]. [The Lewis &amp; Short entry on the preceding link lists *dis* as a dative form of *deus*.]  Additionally &quot;*Dis*&quot; connotes deity, initially Jupiter, and subsequently the inverse of Jupiter as god of the underworld.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think the association of the Dioskouroi with discord is purely linguistic.  When I think of brothers in general, and these brothers in particular, I think of then as wrestling, which is consistent with the conception of the twins the representation of a binary. This conception seems to have been been formalized in modern astrology. (i.e. in the popular imagination the meaning of Gemini is related to binaries, which is not random, and represents a meaningful  application of an idea to a symbol.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=cor&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=discordia&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C4%ABs_Pater#Etymology&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dives&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=divides&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dis&amp;la=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4588" RevisionGUID="9b0fefac-17bd-4f16-8956-d3f97952343e" CreationDate="2017-06-18T05:28:17.120" UserId="1407" Comment="Added counters to critiques in the comments regarding dis as a dative form of deus, and a point about Discordia." Text="I'm trying to explore if there is any plausible connection between these words.  I find them to be somewhat cognate in English, where one might carelessly drop the initial &quot;o&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe there is some confusion injected in that curi or curus is a Latinization of the Greek kouros, as opposed to puer. [Cor][1] is the Latin root for heart, and distinct from the Greek kour, and becomes cœur and cuore and corazon, but I'm not entirely satisfied with this derivation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's particular note that [Discordia][2] is a goddess, and what I think of when I read that is the Greek root for girl, &quot;κόρη&quot; as in &quot;Divider Girl&quot; = Strife Goddess. *Discordia* is descriptive of  Ἔρις. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero derives *[Dis][3]* from *[dives][4]*, per the Plutonian meaning, and [divido][5] shares a meaning with the particle *dis* in the sense of separation, or apartness. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously *dios* is quite distinct from dis phonetically, and yet [there is a relationship between &quot;*dis*&quot; to &quot;*deus*&quot;][6]. [The Lewis &amp; Short entry on the preceding link lists *dis* as a dative form of *deus*.]  Additionally &quot;*Dis*&quot; connotes deity, initially Jupiter, and subsequently the inverse of Jupiter as god of the underworld.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think the association of the Dioskouroi with discord is purely linguistic.  When I think of brothers in general, and these brothers in particular, wrestling often comes to mind, which is consistent with the conception of the twins as representation of the binary, a conception which seems to have been been &quot;formalized&quot; in modern astrology. (i.e. in the popular imagination, deriving from the hermetic traditions, the meaning of Gemini is related to binaries, which is not random, and represents a meaningful application of idea to symbol.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=cor&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=discordia&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C4%ABs_Pater#Etymology&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dives&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=divides&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dis&amp;la=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4589" RevisionGUID="9ba9c12f-b596-4813-827b-577214c5681b" CreationDate="2017-06-18T08:36:17.810" UserId="1692" Text="In putting together his *dictum*, Horace, as a native speaker of Latin, perhaps instinctively chose to put first the word &quot;sapere,&quot; and then the word &quot;aude,&quot; even if, strictly grammatically speaking, &quot;aude sapere&quot; might have been equally correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did he choose to put the verb in the imperative mood at the end of his *dictum* because it is a personal mood, like the indicative and the subjunctive, and the verb in the infinitive in initial position because the infinitive is not a personal mood, and we all know that in Latin there is a strong preference for verbs in personal moods to be placed at the end of their sentences? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14156" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4589" RevisionGUID="9ba9c12f-b596-4813-827b-577214c5681b" CreationDate="2017-06-18T08:36:17.810" UserId="1692" Text="On the word order of &quot;Sapere aude&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14157" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4589" RevisionGUID="9ba9c12f-b596-4813-827b-577214c5681b" CreationDate="2017-06-18T08:36:17.810" UserId="1692" Text="|verbs|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4590" RevisionGUID="857db34e-b774-427c-af45-e154dfdae9bd" CreationDate="2017-06-18T10:30:22.503" UserId="79" Text="Some of this is already included in the comments, but let me try to organize the various thoughts into an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, *discordia* is quite literally &quot;separate-heartedness&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The prefix *di&amp;#x306;s-* (with a short I) indicates separation physically or mentally; cf. [*discurrere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=discurro&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) and [*dissentire*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=dissentio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) for example.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin stem *cord-* means &quot;heart&quot;, and the D is dropped in the nominative *cor*.&#xD;&#xA;The suffix *-ia* is essentially the same as the english -ness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix [*di&amp;#x306;s-*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DD%3Aentry+group%3D38%3Aentry%3Ddis3) has nothing to do with the plural dative and ablative *d&amp;imacr;s* of [*deus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DD%3Aentry+group%3D27%3Aentry%3Ddeus) (with a long I).&#xD;&#xA;There is also the adjective [*di(ve)s*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DD%3Aentry+group%3D38%3Aentry%3Ddis1) and a god's name [*Dis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DD%3Aentry+group%3D38%3Aentry%3DDis2).&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the prefix looks the same, but it does not imply any etymological connection to the other words.&#xD;&#xA;If you look up the etymology of *dis* somewhere, be careful; pay attention to which *dis* is in question.&#xD;&#xA;I find it confusing, too, especially since all sources do not explicitly distinguish the words.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Wikipedia link you give tells that Cicero derives the God's name *Dis* from the adjective *di(ve)s*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, the word *Dioscuri* is directly loaned from the Greek *Διόσκουροι*, literally &quot;boys of Zeus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if there was an etymological connection between *Ζεύς* and *dis-* or *κοῦρος* and *cor*, the connection was surely lost by the time the words *discordia* and *Διόσκουροι* were formed.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps someone better versed in etymology can give PIE roots for each word to make the point stronger.&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary gives the roots (for *Ζεύς*, *dis-*, *κοῦρος*, and *cor*)&#xD;&#xA;[dyḗws](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dy%E1%B8%97ws),&#xD;&#xA;[dwóh₁](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dw%C3%B3h%E2%82%81),&#xD;&#xA;[ḱer-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/%E1%B8%B1er-), and&#xD;&#xA;[ḱḗr-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/%E1%B8%B1%E1%B8%97r),&#xD;&#xA;which are all distinct, but I can't judge how reliable Wiktionary is in this respect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **I see no plausible connection between the two words**.&#xD;&#xA;They do look somewhat similar, and maybe that could be used for a pun.&#xD;&#xA;But similarity does not mean that the words are cognates; being cognate means having a common origin, not looking alike." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4589" RevisionGUID="382bd4da-bd3c-45fb-93a2-61742d770fdc" CreationDate="2017-06-18T10:32:02.763" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="In putting together his *dictum*, Horace, as a native speaker of Latin, perhaps instinctively chose to put first the word &quot;sapere,&quot; and then the word &quot;aude,&quot; even if, strictly grammatically speaking, &quot;aude sapere&quot; might have been equally correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did he choose to put the verb in the imperative mood at the end of his *dictum* because it is a personal mood, like the indicative and the subjunctive, and the verb in the infinitive in initial position because the infinitive is not a personal mood, and we all know that in Latin there is a strong preference for verbs in personal moods to be placed at the end of their sentences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14160" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4589" RevisionGUID="382bd4da-bd3c-45fb-93a2-61742d770fdc" CreationDate="2017-06-18T10:32:02.763" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|verbs|syntax|word-order|horatius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4591" RevisionGUID="86ae6970-16f4-44e5-9939-6066436a1c4b" CreationDate="2017-06-18T10:49:39.140" UserId="79" Text="Do not read too much into word order in poetry.&#xD;&#xA;The metric constraints on language distort the word order quite a bit.&#xD;&#xA;Not all freedom is lost, but it is difficult to see what was the author's design and what was limitations of the medium.&#xD;&#xA;Adhering to the metric structure does give a certain benefit, so sacrificing some freedom to that end is reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;The benefit certainly depends on your taste, but I for one really enjoy metric poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both word orders are equally correct grammatically.&#xD;&#xA;A [quick look at attested classical uses of *audere*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23aude) shows both word orders in prose.&#xD;&#xA;I didn't dig deep enough to see if one is more common than the other, but both are clearly possible: *audere* can come before or after the infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case putting *aude* last (at the end of the verse) gives it more weight.&#xD;&#xA;The order gains more emphasis this way.&#xD;&#xA;Although this sounds better in this order, I think Horatius would have used the opposite order if the words or the meter (hexameter here) were somehow different so that *sapere aude* didn't work metrically.&#xD;&#xA;Also note that *sapere* can only appear in hexameter if followed by a word starting with a consonant cluster or a long syllable starting with a vowel; one has to elide or lengthen the third short syllable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14162" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4076" RevisionGUID="c03cbdae-a53a-4c1d-80ef-59443b218682" CreationDate="2017-06-18T10:56:06.450" UserId="79" Comment="36" />
  <row Id="14163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4211" RevisionGUID="35f7a6d1-43fb-4842-b933-64463f867d79" CreationDate="2017-06-18T10:58:04.787" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I vaguely remember reading a story years ago, and it was something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A king in medieval Europe knew some Latin but made mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;I think there was something like him writing plurals like *lemmae* instead of *lemmata*; he treated Greek neuters in *-ma* as Latin feminines.&#xD;&#xA;When it was pointed out that this is wrong, he ordered Latin grammar to be changed so that he is correct.&#xD;&#xA;In an unusual act of defiance, scholars refused the king's orders and stated something to the effect of &quot;Latin grammar is above kings&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My memory is leaky, so I may remember something wrong.&#xD;&#xA;But the essence is that a king's authority was placed under Latin grammar.&#xD;&#xA;I think a neuter in *-ma* was included, so the king's idea would not have been a completely unnatural simplification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone help me find the story again?&#xD;&#xA;I would even be happy with a different story with the same moral, if my memory does not define the story uniquely.&#xD;&#xA;The story itself can be in any language; I believe I read a Finnish translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14164" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4211" RevisionGUID="100e9d0e-8400-48c3-9a12-6ae730e3062d" CreationDate="2017-06-18T10:58:53.157" UserId="79" Comment="37" />
  <row Id="14165" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2866" RevisionGUID="6534fa55-61eb-4d43-96cf-36953f59650e" CreationDate="2017-06-18T11:03:57.330" UserId="79" Comment="38" />
  <row Id="14166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4592" RevisionGUID="3287483d-c105-4a2b-a669-ed85fff3246e" CreationDate="2017-06-18T12:26:40.277" UserId="307" Text="The intertubes are [awash][1] with [grammatically incorrect][2] &quot;[translations][3]&quot; of the phrase &quot;don't let the bastards grind you down&quot; (please pardon my French :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone please provide a correct and definitive (canonical) translation? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin4everyone.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/dont-let-the-bastards-grind-you-down/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/noli_illegitimi_carborundum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14167" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4592" RevisionGUID="3287483d-c105-4a2b-a669-ed85fff3246e" CreationDate="2017-06-18T12:26:40.277" UserId="307" Text="Don't let the bastards grind you down" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14168" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4592" RevisionGUID="3287483d-c105-4a2b-a669-ed85fff3246e" CreationDate="2017-06-18T12:26:40.277" UserId="307" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4593" RevisionGUID="bfa5c0a6-1add-4f37-a372-bea18401edc2" CreationDate="2017-06-18T13:11:10.423" UserId="78" Text="There can't be a &quot;definitive&quot; translation, because the pseudo-Latin precedes the popularity of the English. That second link you offer is actually good. Harry Beard offers *Noli nothi permittere te terere.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I could see a few tweaks. Instead of *nothi*, I'd subsitute it with *spurii*. Also, *te terere* sounds clumsy; I'd be tempted to use *attere* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, to be less literal, I'd opt for: *Ne terant te spurii.* Typically for &quot;let not&quot; Latin employs *ne* + the subjunctive. Compare that with e.g. Cicero's *De Legibus* 2.16.41, *donis impii **ne** placare **audeant** deos* (&quot;let not the wicked dare [to try] to appease the gods with gifts&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4594" RevisionGUID="319c7cce-1320-408c-8e3d-c5fc1c97e5dd" CreationDate="2017-06-18T14:52:02.823" UserId="79" Text="As far as classical Latin is concerned, neither.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I went through the [28 occurrences of *praeparatio* (in any case)](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=praeparatio) in a classical corpus, and I found only one case of &quot;preparation for something&quot; expressed with a preposition:&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, in [*Tusculanae Disputationes* 3.30.9](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/474/49/59/1767-1778@1#59), uses&#xD;&#xA;*praeparatio ad* + accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears to be more common to use genitive.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I would render &quot;preparation for his arrival&quot; as *praeparatio advent&amp;umacr;s eius*.&#xD;&#xA;Also *praeparatio ad adventum eius* by analogy to Cicero is fine, but I find no support for *preaparatio in* with either accusative or ablative.&#xD;&#xA;See also the [L&amp;S dictionary entry for *praeparatio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=praeparatio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this answer only applies to classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;You commented that *praeparatio in* is indeed found in later authors but I don't know enough of later use to be able to comment on it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14171" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4581" RevisionGUID="ab32e3fe-4da6-4081-970e-c27f362c3e3e" CreationDate="2017-06-18T14:52:42.310" UserId="79" Comment="Changed capitalization of the title. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="Praeparatio in + ablative or accusative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4594" RevisionGUID="ae734aa8-8d40-4797-89d3-5f9633a3c143" CreationDate="2017-06-18T15:32:58.030" UserId="79" Comment="added 412 characters in body" Text="As far as classical Latin is concerned, neither.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I went through the [28 occurrences of *praeparatio* (in any case)](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=praeparatio) in a classical corpus, and I found only one case of &quot;preparation for something&quot; expressed with a preposition:&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, in [*Tusculanae Disputationes* 3.30.9](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/474/49/59/1767-1778@1#59), uses&#xD;&#xA;*praeparatio ad* + accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears to be more common to use genitive.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I would render &quot;preparation for his arrival&quot; as *praeparatio advent&amp;umacr;s eius*.&#xD;&#xA;Also *praeparatio ad adventum eius* by analogy to Cicero is fine, but I find no support for *preaparatio in* with either accusative or ablative.&#xD;&#xA;See also the [L&amp;S dictionary entry for *praeparatio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=praeparatio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this answer only applies to classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;You commented that *praeparatio in* is indeed found in later authors but I don't know enough of later use to be able to comment on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As commented by C. M. Weimer under the question, you can say *praeparatio in expectatione alicuius* for &quot;preparation in expectation of something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is not attested, but it appears to be a reasonable extrapolation from known classical material.&#xD;&#xA;However, to me this is not significantly different from *praeparatio ad aliquid*, &quot;preparation for something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;As always, the best choice depends on context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4595" RevisionGUID="48c26f00-253d-42a4-929e-76586c8249c4" CreationDate="2017-06-18T15:34:28.330" UserId="78" Text="You would use the ablative: *in expectatione*. It's not that it comes off of *praeparatio*, though, but rather is part of how *in* works with the ablative. Conceptually, you're &quot;in the state of expectation,&quot; which is akin to an ablative of place. You can substitute *praeparatio* for anything else. *Curro in expectatione praemii*, &quot;I run in expectation of a reward.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You prepare *for* something with *ad*. I understand your question implying that there's something to be prepared. More fully, then, you would have *praeparatio ad aliquid in expectatione alicuius*, &quot;preparation for something in expectation of something.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4549" RevisionGUID="0f594a2e-4adb-48de-bf49-68696f288e9c" CreationDate="2017-06-18T15:35:48.560" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="If I were to say &quot;this man is 40 years old&quot; in Latin, I would say *hic vir 40 annos natus est*.&#xD;&#xA;That is, I would use the participle *natus* instead of any adjective meaning &quot;old&quot;, and it is my impression that this is idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;(Please correct me if I am wrong!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how do I say &quot;this wine is 40 years old&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Should I use a translation of &quot;old&quot;, the participle *natum*, some other participle, or yet something else?&#xD;&#xA;I could say *hoc vinum 40 annos abhinc factum est* or something similar, but that feels like a circumlocution and unnecessarily heavy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14175" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4549" RevisionGUID="0f594a2e-4adb-48de-bf49-68696f288e9c" CreationDate="2017-06-18T15:35:48.560" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|idiom|adjective|participle|time|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4596" RevisionGUID="98f07347-efd7-4c4a-a2b5-208807d20aa2" CreationDate="2017-06-18T15:36:23.930" UserId="79" Text="An answer to [an earlier question about age of wine](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4549/79) introduced me to adjectives for specific ages in years.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, there are nouns for periods of time in years.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *bimus* &amp; *biennium*&#xD;&#xA;3. *trimus* &amp; *triennium*&#xD;&#xA;4. *quadrimus* &amp; *quadriennium*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Number 1 is expectedly exceptional, and the corresponding words would be *anniculus* and *annus*.&#xD;&#xA;All these words are mentioned in Lewis and Short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How far do numbers of this kind extend?&#xD;&#xA;It is somewhat laborious to guess more words of this kind and check dictionaries for their existence; a list of all &amp;mdash; or most or many &amp;mdash; attested forms would be nice.&#xD;&#xA;Can such words be derived productively, and if yes, how do I do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that such words exist for 2&amp;ndash;10, 100, and 1000, but not for other numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side note:&#xD;&#xA;I had trouble finding a descriptive title. Suggestions are welcome. Also, if you think this question should rather be split in two (one for *bimus* etc. and one for *biennium* etc.), I can do that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14177" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4596" RevisionGUID="98f07347-efd7-4c4a-a2b5-208807d20aa2" CreationDate="2017-06-18T15:36:23.930" UserId="79" Text="How far can we go with words for single words for age?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14178" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4596" RevisionGUID="98f07347-efd7-4c4a-a2b5-208807d20aa2" CreationDate="2017-06-18T15:36:23.930" UserId="79" Text="|adjective|derivation|noun|time|numbers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14179" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4596" RevisionGUID="117a4b96-25a5-49a0-a650-8bd7f0ce9581" CreationDate="2017-06-18T15:45:03.890" UserId="136" Comment="Adjusted title to be more clear (in my opinion)" Text="How far can we go with single words for an age of a set number of years?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14180" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4596" RevisionGUID="20c27fc1-58d1-4a67-85be-0bdb1cd1a6f2" CreationDate="2017-06-18T15:51:49.873" UserId="79" Comment="edited title" Text="Expressing a number of years with a single word" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4594" RevisionGUID="977ee1a8-b92d-4a51-a8f7-be13a42c1c9c" CreationDate="2017-06-18T15:57:24.000" UserId="79" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="As far as classical Latin is concerned, neither.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I went through the [28 occurrences of *praeparatio* (in any case)](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=praeparatio) in a classical corpus, and I found only one case of &quot;preparation for something&quot; expressed with a preposition:&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, in [*Tusculanae Disputationes* 3.30.9](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/474/49/59/1767-1778@1#59), uses&#xD;&#xA;*praeparatio ad* + accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears to be more common to use genitive.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I would render &quot;preparation for his arrival&quot; as *praeparatio advent&amp;umacr;s eius*.&#xD;&#xA;Also *praeparatio ad adventum eius* by analogy to Cicero is fine, but I find no support for *preaparatio in* with either accusative or ablative.&#xD;&#xA;See also the [L&amp;S dictionary entry for *praeparatio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=praeparatio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this answer only applies to classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;You commented that *praeparatio in* is indeed found in later authors but I don't know enough of later use to be able to comment on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As pointed out by C. M. Weimer in his answer, you can say *praeparatio in expectatione alicuius* for &quot;preparation in expectation of something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is not attested, but it appears to be a reasonable extrapolation from known classical material.&#xD;&#xA;However, to me this is not significantly different from *praeparatio ad aliquid*, &quot;preparation for something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;As always, the best choice depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;See his answer for a better discussion of this point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4597" RevisionGUID="4fc2eb5c-aab9-4568-9601-ad035789921d" CreationDate="2017-06-18T16:58:55.330" UserId="645" Text="This originated in the British Armed Forces, whose lower ranks have for many, many years used, as a kind of humorous but informal motto, the phrase *NIL ILLEGITIMI CARBORUNDUM*, which of course is not proper Latin at all but is universally understood to mean exactly 'don't let the bastards grind you down'. Sometimes, to be more polite, it is shortened — *NIL CARBORUNDUM* — 'don't let them grind you down'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4592" RevisionGUID="23df9649-0cff-4073-b6c8-2e0c082d1f40" CreationDate="2017-06-18T19:18:54.793" UserId="307" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="The intertubes are [awash][1] with [grammatically incorrect][2] &quot;[translations][3]&quot; of the phrase &quot;don't let the bastards grind you down&quot; (please pardon my French :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone please provide a correct and definitive (canonical) translation? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Update] Chaps, I am not interested in modern &quot;origins&quot;. I only ask for a pure Latin translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin4everyone.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/dont-let-the-bastards-grind-you-down/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/noli_illegitimi_carborundum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4598" RevisionGUID="65c0b838-7c88-4dff-87f6-db0d7c10ec21" CreationDate="2017-06-18T19:29:39.987" UserId="985" Text="Setting aside the impossibility of a linguistic connection, there's also the issue that only one of the brothers, Pollux, was known for boxing (not wrestling); Castor was known for something having to do with horses (horsemanship or maybe horse taming). This is very often brought up when the twins are mentioned – or, as in this passage from Horace, _Satires_ 2.1.26, is the whole point of mentioning them at all:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Castor gaudet equis, ovo prognatus eodem  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; pugnis; quot capitum vivunt, totidem studiorum  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; milia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Castor rejoices in horses, the child from the same egg rejoices in fisticuffs; however many thousands of souls live, there are just as many thousands of pursuits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no _discordia_ here; they just have different pursuits. So you'd want to look at as many other passages as you can find (and there are many), where the twins and their varying pursuits are mentioned, and see whether, even if the word _discordia_ isn't actually used, this difference is ever framed as a serious matter of contention between them. That would provide a real, solid starting point for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not convinced that _discordia_ applies to boxing (or wrestling) anyway, since it's a sport. (Granted that Pollux did have to use his fighting skills for non-sporting purposes during his time with the Argonauts.) I'd want to see some evidence that a competition of that sort was viewed as involving _discordia_ between the two participants. Maybe if you can find instances (literary, artistic) where the two brothers boxed *each other*, that could be construed as discord, even if it were just for sport.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the only connection at all that I find between the brothers and discord is the story of their attempt to obtain wives by stealing the girls who were already betrothed to their cousins. I had forgotten this story until I just read it in my mythology dictionary, and I don't know what the ancient sources for it are. It was during the ensuing fight that Castor and Pollux died. Certainly, cousins fighting cousins over potential wives would count as _discordia_. So, if you can track down a version of this story where the word _discordia_ is mentioned, that would also provide a solid starting point for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, if you can find a work of art that depicts the brothers (either in general or boxing each other), their abduction of their cousins' fiancées, or their fight against their cousins, and the goddess Discordia (or Eris) is shown too – much as, e.g., the goddess Peitho (Persuasion) is sometimes depicted with Helen –, that would be a starting point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to admit, though, I don't think you're going to find any real evidence to support your idea. Personally, I don't even find the words close enough for a pun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4593" RevisionGUID="72d3183e-b697-4fe8-8d32-5e3f9011e26b" CreationDate="2017-06-18T19:44:32.820" UserId="78" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="There can't be a &quot;definitive&quot; translation, because the pseudo-Latin precedes the popularity of the English. That second link you offer is actually good. Henry Beard offers *Noli nothi permittere te terere.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I could see a few tweaks. Instead of *nothi*, I'd subsitute it with *spurios* (needs the accusative). Also, *te terere* sounds clumsy; I'd be tempted to use *attere* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, to be less literal, I'd opt for: *Ne terant te spurii.* Typically for &quot;let not&quot; Latin employs *ne* + the subjunctive. Compare that with e.g. Cicero's *De Legibus* 2.16.41, *donis impii **ne** placare **audeant** deos* (&quot;let not the wicked dare [to try] to appease the gods with gifts&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4598" RevisionGUID="3275162f-a103-4676-9bc3-0061501716ec" CreationDate="2017-06-18T19:45:31.830" UserId="985" Comment="added 379 characters in body" Text="Setting aside the impossibility of a linguistic connection, there's also the issue that only one of the brothers, Pollux, was known for boxing (not wrestling); Castor was known for something having to do with horses (horsemanship or maybe horse taming). This is very often brought up when the twins are mentioned – or, as in this passage from Horace, _Satires_ 2.1.26, is the whole point of mentioning them at all:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Castor gaudet equis, ovo prognatus eodem  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; pugnis; quot capitum vivunt, totidem studiorum  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; milia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Castor rejoices in horses, the child from the same egg rejoices in fisticuffs; however many thousands of souls live, there are just as many thousands of pursuits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no _discordia_ here; they just have different pursuits. So you'd want to look at as many other passages as you can find (and there are many), where the twins and their varying pursuits are mentioned, and see whether, even if the word _discordia_ isn't actually used, this difference is ever framed as a serious matter of contention between them. That would provide a real, solid starting point for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not convinced that _discordia_ applies to boxing (or wrestling) anyway, since it's a sport. (Granted that Pollux did have to use his fighting skills for non-sporting purposes during his time with the Argonauts.) I'd want to see some evidence that a competition of that sort was viewed as involving _discordia_ between the two participants. Maybe if you can find instances (literary, artistic) where the two brothers boxed *each other*, that could be construed as discord, even if it were just for sport.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the only connection at all that I find between the brothers and discord is the story of their attempt to obtain wives by stealing the girls who were already betrothed to their cousins. I had forgotten this story until I just read it in my mythology dictionary, and I don't know what the ancient sources for it are. It was during the ensuing fight that Castor and Pollux died. Certainly, cousins fighting cousins over potential wives would count as _discordia_. So, if you can track down a version of this story where the word _discordia_ is mentioned, that would also provide a solid starting point for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, if you can find a work of art that depicts the brothers (either in general or boxing each other), their abduction of their cousins' fiancées, or their fight against their cousins, and the goddess Discordia (or Eris) is shown too – much as, e.g., the goddess Peitho (Persuasion) is sometimes depicted with Helen –, that would be a starting point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to admit, though, I don't think you're going to find any real evidence to support your idea. Personally, I don't even find the words close enough for a pun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** I suggested a couple of times that you explore artistic depictions of the Dioscuri. If you're not already aware of it, the very best place to start for this type of research is the _Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae_ (LIMC). If you have access to a good research library (e.g., a university library), it will likely have a complete set of LIMC volumes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4590" RevisionGUID="1b02fc07-759d-4672-9c89-237fb36b3bbc" CreationDate="2017-06-18T19:52:48.803" UserId="79" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="Some of this is already included in the comments, but let me try to organize the various thoughts into an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, *discordia* is quite literally &quot;separate-heartedness&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The prefix *di&amp;#x306;s-* (with a short I) indicates separation physically or mentally; cf. [*discurrere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=discurro&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) and [*dissentire*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=dissentio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) for example.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin stem *cord-* means &quot;heart&quot;, and the D is dropped in the nominative *cor*.&#xD;&#xA;The suffix *-ia* is essentially the same as the English &quot;-ness&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix [*di&amp;#x306;s-*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DD%3Aentry+group%3D38%3Aentry%3Ddis3) has nothing to do with the plural dative and ablative *d&amp;imacr;s* of [*deus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DD%3Aentry+group%3D27%3Aentry%3Ddeus) (with a long I).&#xD;&#xA;There is also the adjective [*di(ve)s*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DD%3Aentry+group%3D38%3Aentry%3Ddis1) and a god's name [*Dis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DD%3Aentry+group%3D38%3Aentry%3DDis2).&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the prefix looks the same, but it does not imply any etymological connection to the other words.&#xD;&#xA;If you look up the etymology of *dis* somewhere, be careful; pay attention to which *dis* is in question.&#xD;&#xA;I find it confusing, too, especially since all sources do not explicitly distinguish the words.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Wikipedia link you give tells that Cicero derives the god's name *Dis* from the adjective *di(ve)s*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, the word *Dioscuri* is directly loaned from the Greek *Διόσκουροι*, literally &quot;boys of Zeus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if there was an etymological connection between *Ζεύς* and *dis-* or *κοῦρος* and *cor*, the connection was surely lost by the time the words *discordia* and *Διόσκουροι* were formed.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps someone better versed in etymology can give PIE roots for each word to make the point stronger.&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary gives the roots (for *Ζεύς*, *dis-*, *κοῦρος*, and *cor*)&#xD;&#xA;[dyḗws](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dy%E1%B8%97ws),&#xD;&#xA;[dwóh₁](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dw%C3%B3h%E2%82%81),&#xD;&#xA;[ḱer-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/%E1%B8%B1er-), and&#xD;&#xA;[ḱḗr-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/%E1%B8%B1%E1%B8%97r),&#xD;&#xA;which are all distinct, but I can't judge how reliable Wiktionary is in this respect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **I see no plausible connection between the two words**.&#xD;&#xA;They do look somewhat similar, and maybe that could be used for a pun.&#xD;&#xA;But similarity does not mean that the words are cognates; being cognate means having a common origin, not looking alike.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the English word comes directly from the Latin word [*cognatus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=cognatus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4599" RevisionGUID="f8d45612-6743-4f8a-8f56-8e3fa583dc66" CreationDate="2017-06-18T20:57:43.153" UserId="1719" Text="This map names a lot of tribes-people. The one in Scotland is called **&quot;Caledonii&quot;.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming &quot;Caledonii&quot; is the **plural form** of the people. I've also seen other maps where the **land** is called **&quot;Caledonia&quot;**. But what I want to know is, **what's the singular form when referring to just one person of the Caledonii?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My English tendencies want to say &quot;Caledonian&quot;, but English tendencies cannot necessarily be trusted, can they.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(P.S., maybe someone can edit the tags. I don't know any better tags to use than vocab and case.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EBjta.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14190" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4599" RevisionGUID="f8d45612-6743-4f8a-8f56-8e3fa583dc66" CreationDate="2017-06-18T20:57:43.153" UserId="1719" Text="What would the singular of a tribes-people like Caledonii be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14191" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4599" RevisionGUID="f8d45612-6743-4f8a-8f56-8e3fa583dc66" CreationDate="2017-06-18T20:57:43.153" UserId="1719" Text="|vocabulary|case|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4600" RevisionGUID="e01e29e2-f026-4bf2-b5a5-2e812bb525b5" CreationDate="2017-06-18T21:41:29.707" UserId="78" Text="*Caledonii* would be the tribes inhabiting *Caledonia*, the land. Think *Americans* and *America*. The word seems related to *Celt*, for what it's worth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammatically, the singular would be *Caledonius*, but oddly, I cannot find Classical usage for this. It seems merely a descriptive adjective for geography/features of the land of Caledonia (such as &quot;[Caledonian Ocean](http://www.theoi.com/Text/ValeriusFlaccus1.html),&quot; &quot;[Caledonian forest](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Florus/Epitome/1C*.html#XII),&quot; and &quot;[Caledonian bear](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/1294/1/7/144-153@1#7)&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible to use *Caledonius* (for a male, *Caledonia* for a female) in this way, but I'm not so sure it was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also see online the people called [*Caledones*](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#Caledones). Again, though, no singular. A similar search in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae showed up no singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's not to say you can't use *Caledonius*, though perhaps in Latin you'd want to use *vir Caledonius*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For English, *Caledonian* would be acceptable, though apparently not for a modern Scot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4600" RevisionGUID="749fda51-0b85-4901-8cf5-2f43302a97b7" CreationDate="2017-06-19T01:21:30.977" UserId="78" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="*Caledonii* would be the tribes inhabiting *Caledonia*, the land. Think *Americans* and *America*. The word seems related to *Celt*, for what it's worth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammatically, the singular would be *Caledonius*, but oddly, I cannot find Classical usage for this. It seems merely a descriptive adjective for geography/features of the land of Caledonia (such as &quot;[Caledonian Ocean](http://www.theoi.com/Text/ValeriusFlaccus1.html),&quot; &quot;[Caledonian forest](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Florus/Epitome/1C*.html#XII),&quot; and &quot;[Caledonian bear](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/1294/1/7/144-153@1#7)&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible to use *Caledonius* (for a male, *Caledonia* for a female) in this way, but I'm not so sure it was ever done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also see online the people called [*Caledones*](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#Caledones). Again, though, no singular. A similar search in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae showed up no singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's not to say you can't use *Caledonius*, though perhaps in Latin you'd want to use *vir Caledonius*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For English, *Caledonian* would be acceptable, though apparently not for a modern Scot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4588" RevisionGUID="a4c16889-0d55-4e09-b59e-a7a60d682ee9" CreationDate="2017-06-19T02:29:22.747" UserId="1407" Comment="Cleaned up the chain of the argument, and addressed the diis/dis question.  " Text="I'm trying to explore if there is any plausible connection between these words.  I find them to be somewhat similar in English, where one might carelessly drop the initial &quot;o&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe there is some confusion injected in that curi or curus is a Latinization of the Greek kouros, as opposed to puer. [Cor][1] is the Latin root for heart, and distinct from the Greek *kour*, and becomes cœur and cuore and corazon. The meaning meaning of *discordia* as &quot;separate-heartedness&quot; is clear (thanks to Joonas for [putting it so aptly][2];) but I'm not convinced it has to be the exclusive meaning of *Discordia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's particular note that [Discordia][3] is a goddess, and what I sometimes think of when hear her name is the &quot;κόρη&quot; as in &quot;Divider Girl [Divine][4]&quot; = Strife Goddess. In this conception, *Discordia* is descriptive of Ἔρις. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Obviously *dios* is phonetically distinct from *dis*, and yet [there is a relationship between &quot;*dis*&quot; to &quot;*deus*&quot;][9]--the Lewis &amp; Short entry on the preceding link lists *dis* (short vowel) as a dative form of *deus*, and offers phrases such as &quot;*si dis placet*&quot; (&quot;if it please the gods&quot;) and &quot;*dis hominibusque invitis*&quot;, which uses the alternate meaning (&quot;in spite of every body&quot;).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally &quot;*Dīs*&quot; connotes deity, initially Jupiter, and subsequently the inverse of Jupiter as god of the underworld. Cicero suggests that *[Dīs][5]* derives from *[dives][6]*, per the Plutonian association, and *[divido][7]* shares a meaning with the particle *dis* in the sense of separation, or apartness. The introduction of a v gives us words meaning divine, such as *[divus][8]*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think the association of the Dioskouroi with discord is purely linguistic.  When I think of brothers in general, and these brothers in particular, wrestling often comes to mind, which is consistent with the conception of twins as representation of the binary. I tend to associate these twins with Eteocles and Polynices, but I need to look into this more deeply.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=cor&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4590/1407&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=discordia&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dia&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C4%ABs_Pater#Etymology&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dives&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=divides&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=divus&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dis&amp;la=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4590" RevisionGUID="04f77dd3-6f29-4089-9997-3cc9113b45f1" CreationDate="2017-06-19T07:34:04.370" UserId="79" Comment="added 675 characters in body" Text="Some of this is already included in the comments, but let me try to organize the various thoughts into an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, *discordia* is quite literally &quot;separate-heartedness&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The prefix *di&amp;#x306;s-* (with a short I) indicates separation physically or mentally; cf. [*discurrere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=discurro&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) and [*dissentire*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=dissentio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) for example.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin stem *cord-* means &quot;heart&quot;, and the D is dropped in the nominative *cor*.&#xD;&#xA;The suffix *-ia* is essentially the same as the English &quot;-ness&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix [*di&amp;#x306;s-*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DD%3Aentry+group%3D38%3Aentry%3Ddis3) has nothing to do with the plural dative and ablative *d&amp;imacr;s* of [*deus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DD%3Aentry+group%3D27%3Aentry%3Ddeus) (with a long I).&#xD;&#xA;There is also the adjective [*di(ve)s*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DD%3Aentry+group%3D38%3Aentry%3Ddis1) and a god's name [*Dis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DD%3Aentry+group%3D38%3Aentry%3DDis2).&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the prefix looks the same, but it does not imply any etymological connection to the other words.&#xD;&#xA;If you look up the etymology of *dis* somewhere, be careful; pay attention to which *dis* is in question.&#xD;&#xA;I find it confusing, too, especially since all sources do not explicitly distinguish the words.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Wikipedia link you give tells that Cicero derives the god's name *Dis* from the adjective *di(ve)s*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, the word *Dioscuri* is directly loaned from the Greek *Διόσκουροι*, literally &quot;boys of Zeus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if there was an etymological connection between *Ζεύς* and *dis-* or *κοῦρος* and *cor*, the connection was surely lost by the time the words *discordia* and *Διόσκουροι* were formed.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps someone better versed in etymology can give PIE roots for each word to make the point stronger.&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary gives the roots (for *Ζεύς*, *dis-*, *κοῦρος*, and *cor*)&#xD;&#xA;[dyḗws](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dy%E1%B8%97ws),&#xD;&#xA;[dwóh₁](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dw%C3%B3h%E2%82%81),&#xD;&#xA;[ḱer-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/%E1%B8%B1er-), and&#xD;&#xA;[ḱḗr-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/%E1%B8%B1%E1%B8%97r),&#xD;&#xA;which are all distinct, but I can't judge how reliable Wiktionary is in this respect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **I see no plausible connection between the two words**.&#xD;&#xA;They do look somewhat similar, and maybe that could be used for a pun.&#xD;&#xA;But similarity does not mean that the words are cognates; being cognate means having a common origin, not looking alike.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the English word comes directly from the Latin word [*cognatus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=cognatus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Amendment corresponding to edits in the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *si dis placet* the word *dis* is simply a plural dative of *deus*, and in *dis (hominibusque) invitis* an ablative.&#xD;&#xA;I see nothing more in it.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, *nobis placet* means &quot;it pleases us&quot; or &quot;we like&quot; and *nobis invitis* means &quot;in spite of us&quot; or &quot;against our will&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The word *dis* brings no special tone here, it's just a form of *deus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The different meanings of *dis(-)* might make for a decent wordplay, but the separative *dis-* is semantically and etymologically *dis*connected from *deus*.&#xD;&#xA;I get the feeling that you want to see a deep connection that isn't there as far as anyone can tell." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4601" RevisionGUID="7fb6223e-6c69-487d-aa81-8855a4593a0d" CreationDate="2017-06-19T07:43:32.650" UserId="79" Text="Which verb did the Romans use for making wine?&#xD;&#xA;I can imagine saying *vinum facio/conficio/primo* and maybe some other options as well.&#xD;&#xA;Different verbs might emphasize different aspects or steps of making wine.&#xD;&#xA;What verbs are possible in such use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was inspired by [an earlier one about the age of wine](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4549/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14198" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4601" RevisionGUID="7fb6223e-6c69-487d-aa81-8855a4593a0d" CreationDate="2017-06-19T07:43:32.650" UserId="79" Text="What verb is wine made with?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14199" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4601" RevisionGUID="7fb6223e-6c69-487d-aa81-8855a4593a0d" CreationDate="2017-06-19T07:43:32.650" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|verbs|word-choice|roman-culture|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4602" RevisionGUID="9ad45621-0d74-4c56-99d1-ff45a378ad8b" CreationDate="2017-06-19T11:56:18.547" UserId="1289" Text="Cato Maior devotes a large subsection of *De Agri Cultura* to wine. You can read the entire text [here][1], and as can be expected, he sticks to very simple verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* making: vinum Graecum sic **facito**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;actual wine making:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* plucking grapes: Hoc vinum [= has uvas] seorsum **legito**&#xD;&#xA;* trampling grapes: In orculam **calcato**&#xD;&#xA;* pressing grapes: Manu **conprimito** acina&#xD;&#xA;* soaking grapes: **conbibant** noctem et diem&#xD;&#xA;* mixing: ne **conmisceas** cum cetero vino&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in recipes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* blending: Vinum **concinnare**&#xD;&#xA;* boiling: Ubi **bullabit** vinum&#xD;&#xA;* cooling off: Ubi id vinum **refrixerit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;drinking !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* pouring: pridie quam vinum **infundere** voles&#xD;&#xA;* drinking: **bibito** ante cenam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Varro also wrote a *De Agri Cultura* treatise, I'll look whether he is a bit more creative in his choice of words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Cato/De_Agricultura/G*.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4602" RevisionGUID="736144c0-d9d6-4f4d-a1e7-8bfac3be38ed" CreationDate="2017-06-19T12:08:30.857" UserId="1289" Comment="addition about Varro" Text="Cato Maior devotes a large subsection of *De Agri Cultura* to wine. You can read the entire text [here][1], and as can be expected, he sticks to very simple verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* making: vinum Graecum sic **facito**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;actual wine making:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* plucking grapes: Hoc vinum [= has uvas] seorsum **legito**&#xD;&#xA;* trampling grapes: In orculam **calcato**&#xD;&#xA;* pressing grapes: Manu **conprimito** acina&#xD;&#xA;* soaking grapes: **conbibant** noctem et diem&#xD;&#xA;* mixing: ne **conmisceas** cum cetero vino&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in recipes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* blending: Vinum **concinnare**&#xD;&#xA;* boiling: Ubi **bullabit** vinum&#xD;&#xA;* cooling off: Ubi id vinum **refrixerit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;drinking !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* pouring: pridie quam vinum **infundere** voles&#xD;&#xA;* drinking: **bibito** ante cenam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Varro also wrote a *De Agri Cultura* treatise. I've looked whether he is a bit more creative in his choice of words, but he isn't. In fact, he hardly mentions how to press wine, he focuses rather on which types of vines to plant etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Cato/De_Agricultura/G*.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4597" RevisionGUID="bc1ca2db-f847-48f5-a843-4ce25b0774d1" CreationDate="2017-06-19T14:00:28.217" UserId="645" Comment="expanded in response to comment" Text="This originated in the British Armed Forces, whose lower ranks have for many, many years used, as a kind of humorous but informal motto, the phrase *NIL ILLEGITIMI CARBORUNDUM*, which of course is not proper Latin at all but is universally understood to mean exactly 'don't let the bastards grind you down'. Sometimes, to be more polite, it is shortened — *NIL CARBORUNDUM* — 'don't let them grind you down'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You ask for a 'correct and definitive (canonical) translation', and C.M. Weiner has shown how to provide what you wish for — if you really need to call them 'bastards'. If, however, you want to draw attention to the moral character of these people, I suggest that you need something a bit stronger than *nothus* or *spurius* : something to indicate a bullying nature directly, rather than by metonymy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero (Fam. 7, 13) has, for instance, *homo procax in lacessendo*, which for me solves the problem nicely, with *procax* to describe the character and *lacesso* the verb for harrying, irritating, exasperating harassing, etc.(earlier at the same reference he uses *molestiam afferre). I rather like *Ne [homines] procaces te impune lacessant*, with its echo of *nemo me impune lacessit*, the motto of the British Stuart dynasty, the Order of the Thistle, and of The Black Watch (among other Scottish regiments).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4597" RevisionGUID="a19c5fc5-4d55-43d4-8d6e-86a2695cfce7" CreationDate="2017-06-19T14:28:46.747" UserId="645" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="This originated in the British Armed Forces, whose lower ranks have for many, many years used, as a kind of humorous but informal motto, the phrase *NIL ILLEGITIMI CARBORUNDUM*, which of course is not proper Latin at all but is universally understood to mean exactly 'don't let the bastards grind you down'. Sometimes, to be more polite, it is shortened — *NIL CARBORUNDUM* — 'don't let them grind you down'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You ask for a 'correct and definitive (canonical) translation', and C.M. Weiner has shown how to provide what you wish for — if you really need to call them 'bastards'. If, however, you want to draw attention to the moral character of these people, I suggest that you need something a bit stronger than *nothus* or *spurius* : something to indicate a bullying nature directly, rather than by metonymy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero (*Fam. 7, 13*) has, for instance, *homo procax in lacessendo*, which for me solves the problem nicely, with *procax* to describe the character and *lacesso* the verb for harrying, irritating, exasperating, harassing, etc.(earlier at the same reference he uses *molestiam afferre*). I rather like *Ne [homines] procaces te impune lacessant*, with its echo of *nemo me impune lacessit*, the motto of the British Stuart dynasty, the Order of the Thistle, and of The Black Watch (among other Scottish regiments).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4597" RevisionGUID="d8f40fc3-7421-44a4-b446-b69f97c0fdad" CreationDate="2017-06-19T17:48:36.877" UserId="78" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="This originated in the British Armed Forces, whose lower ranks have for many, many years used, as a kind of humorous but informal motto, the phrase *NIL ILLEGITIMI CARBORUNDUM*, which of course is not proper Latin at all but is universally understood to mean exactly 'don't let the bastards grind you down'. Sometimes, to be more polite, it is shortened — *NIL CARBORUNDUM* — 'don't let them grind you down'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You ask for a 'correct and definitive (canonical) translation', and C. M. Weimer has shown how to provide what you wish for — if you really need to call them 'bastards'. If, however, you want to draw attention to the moral character of these people, I suggest that you need something a bit stronger than *nothus* or *spurius* : something to indicate a bullying nature directly, rather than by metonymy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero (*Fam. 7, 13*) has, for instance, *homo procax in lacessendo*, which for me solves the problem nicely, with *procax* to describe the character and *lacesso* the verb for harrying, irritating, exasperating, harassing, etc.(earlier at the same reference he uses *molestiam afferre*). I rather like *Ne [homines] procaces te impune lacessant*, with its echo of *nemo me impune lacessit*, the motto of the British Stuart dynasty, the Order of the Thistle, and of The Black Watch (among other Scottish regiments).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4603" RevisionGUID="c68284be-3914-4a16-99cd-138c501167c3" CreationDate="2017-06-19T18:17:29.987" UserId="324" Text="For whatever they might be worth, there are two inscriptions from Hadrian’s wall mentioning a centurion by the name of Caledonius Secundus, in both instances in the genitive singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/1854&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/1679&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4604" RevisionGUID="8865fdbb-3406-40ec-a34c-286e494c7533" CreationDate="2017-06-20T07:44:34.847" UserId="13" Text="**Cross-post notice**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A week ago, I asked [the exact same question](https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/2704/who-put-forward-this-completion-to-sappho-94-and-what-is-it-actually-supposed-t) (modulo the title) on Literature. It was met with an uproar of upvotes (alliteration casual, 9 upvotes), but not answers. I discussed the matter with [Literature meta](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/763/my-sappho-questions-best-way-to-handle) and on [this site's CONLOQVIVM chatroom](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/38188833#38188833), and I was recommended to cross-post, so I am copy-pasting the question here to see if it gets an answer here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The question**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Sappho 94 (τεθνάκην δ' ἀδόλως θέλω), there is this tercet at ll. 25-27, which is very incomplete, which [Edmonds](https://ia600209.us.archive.org/25/items/lyragraecabeing00edmogoog/lyragraecabeing00edmogoog.pdf) doesn't even have, and which [Bibliotheca Augustana](https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/graeca/Chronologia/S_ante06/Sappho/sap_me05.html) and [Campbell p. 69](https://www.scribd.com/doc/34720745/Sappho-and-Alcaeus-Loeb) both read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κωὔτε τις [^ ^ οὔ]τε τι&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ἶρων οὐδ᾽ ὐ[^ – ^ ^&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      ἔπλετ᾽, ὄππ[οθεν ἄμ]μες ἀπέσκομεν·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wharton](https://ia802704.us.archive.org/22/items/sapphomemoirtex00bunngoog/sapphomemoirtex00bunngoog.pdf) seems to not even have the fragment, just like [Bergk](https://ia600207.us.archive.org/18/items/poetaelyricigrae00berguoft/poetaelyricigrae00berguoft.pdf). [Diehl p. 49](https://ia600201.us.archive.org/0/items/supplementumlyri00diehuoft/supplementumlyri00diehuoft.pdf) also has an incomplete (in fact, even more incomplete than the others) version. Can't seem to get ahold of Voigt online. Then safopoemas. This weird doc full of horrid typos, which is no longer available at [the link it was at](http://www.b3ta.cr3ation.co.uk/data/doc/safopoemas.doc), which is now broken, but can be found as a pdf [here](http://ftp.utalca.cl/intercambio/plataforma/lgc/Dani/Libros/Para%20imprimir/Poemas_completos_Safo.pdf), with the same garbage typos as the doc version, and is based on a Spanish edition of Sappho, has this semi-garbage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χωΰτε τις[λόγος οδ]τε τι Τρον ούδ' ύ[δατος ρ6χ]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ϊπλετ' όπ π [όθεν Εμ]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;μες άπέσχομεν&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very messy, but it allows us to almost complete the above as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κωὔτε τις [λόγος οὔ]τε τι&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ἶρον οὐδ᾽ ὔ[δατος †ρ6χ†&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      ἔπλετ᾽, ὄππ[οθεν ἄμ]μες ἀπέσκομεν·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The safopoemas translation reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Y no hubo colina profana | And there was no sacred hill&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;o sagrada, ni fuentes de aguas | Or profane, nor springs of water&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a donde no hayamos ido | Where we haven't gone to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tells us that `λόγος` is probably a typo/mojibake for `λόφος`, given by [LSJ as quoted by Perseus's Greek Word Study Tool](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=lofos&amp;la=greek#lexicon) as various things including `crest of a hill`, and that the incomprehensible `ρ6χ` must somehow mean `spring`. I looked for all possible combinations of vowels substituted for the 6 and endings, and found nothing on Perseus, but found [`ραχία`](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=raxia&amp;la=greek), `flood-tide`, on the Rocci dictionary. Not too fitting, but maybe. Back in the days when I translated Sappho, I had temporarily settled for `ῥέον`, but now I guess a better way to do this would be `ῥόος`, both meaning `stream` and keeping the initial consonant and possibly a vowel. Analysing other fragments in that safopoemas, 6 is almost certainly an omicron, and the chi could be a kappa, so we could have `ροχ` or `ροκ`, neither of which yields anything interesting on Perseus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked around for another source for this completion (possibly Reinach, which this document claims to be following in the [quote at the other post](https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/2704/who-put-forward-this-completion-to-sappho-94-and-what-is-it-actually-supposed-t)), but was unable to find any. So my question is: what was this reconstruction supposed to look like, and who proposed it, and of course, how supported is this amongst critics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4604" RevisionGUID="8865fdbb-3406-40ec-a34c-286e494c7533" CreationDate="2017-06-20T07:44:34.847" UserId="13" Text="Sappho 94: the Spaniards' completion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4604" RevisionGUID="8865fdbb-3406-40ec-a34c-286e494c7533" CreationDate="2017-06-20T07:44:34.847" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4605" RevisionGUID="eeea18df-49ca-44cc-b1c7-57272fc8b112" CreationDate="2017-06-20T07:56:15.190" UserId="13" Text="##Cross-post notice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A week ago, I asked [the exact same question](https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/2721/about-sapphos-epigram-for-the-little-girl-aithopia-first-line-manuscript-trad) on Literature. It was met with an uproar of upvotes (alliteration casual, 7 upvotes), but not answers. I discussed the matter with [Literature meta](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/763/my-sappho-questions-best-way-to-handle) and on [this site's CONLOQVIVM chatroom](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/38188833#38188833), and I was recommended to cross-post, so I am copy-pasting the question here to see if it gets an answer here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background and research**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I am planning to post this poem on [my blog](http://michelegorini.blogspot.it/) relatively soon, I was doing some research on the first line. From what I had written previously, I seem to have found two different versions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Παῖδες, ἄφωνος ἔοισα τόδ' ἐννέπω, αἴ τις ἔραται&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Καίπερ ἄφωνος ἔοισα ποτεννέπω, αἴ τις ἔραται&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I opted for the first one for my translations, because `καίπερ` only stresses the concessive (is that the word?) nature of the participle, and I preferred to have a vocative there like `παῖδες`, and also because instead of a seemingly useless prefix I preferred an object for the verb `ἐννέπω`. Tonight I was trying to get more info on the sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I looked into [bibliotheca&#xD;&#xA;   Augustana](https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/graeca/Chronologia/S_ante06/Sappho/sap_intr.html),&#xD;&#xA;   and the `ἐπιγράμματα` link does not exist.&#xD;&#xA; - I looked at Edmonds (who proposes another version, `παῖς ἔτ'`, which&#xD;&#xA;   I prefer to the one I opted for back in the days, and has `τόρ'`&#xD;&#xA;   instead of the object, an adjective referred to the speaker meaning&#xD;&#xA;   &quot;clear, distinct&quot;, perhaps I will adopt this reading), and he says&#xD;&#xA;   `Anth. Pal. 6 269`.&#xD;&#xA; - Sadly, I found no scans of that.&#xD;&#xA; - I looked at&#xD;&#xA;   [Campbell](https://www.scribd.com/doc/34720745/Sappho-and-Alcaeus-Loeb)&#xD;&#xA;   hoping for a more detailed critical note, and didn't see the poem at&#xD;&#xA;   first, which made me think there was an authorship dispute on this.&#xD;&#xA; - I found confirmation of this&#xD;&#xA;   [here](http://laurelsdailynotes.blogspot.it/2017/03/ap-6269-possibly-sappho-but-probably-not.html)&#xD;&#xA;   (`possibly Sappho (but probably not)`, says the post).&#xD;&#xA; - I also found out I'd missed the epigrams in Campbell because they&#xD;&#xA;   were in smaller type. [Here they&#xD;&#xA;   are](https://i.stack.imgur.com/RWWKS.png).&#xD;&#xA; - [Wharton](https://ia802704.us.archive.org/22/items/sapphomemoirtex00bunngoog/sapphomemoirtex00bunngoog.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;   agrees with me.&#xD;&#xA; - [The Complete Poems of Sappho](http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/)&#xD;&#xA;   follows Cox (or so he says), and ends up agreeing with my choice --&#xD;&#xA;   almost, he has `τότ'` instead of `τόδ'`, perhaps a typo, as &quot;then&quot;&#xD;&#xA;   doesn't seem to fit in there.&#xD;&#xA; - I'm starting to wonder where I got the other choices. Well, the&#xD;&#xA;   `καίπερ` might have been off the weird safopoemas.doc (pdf version&#xD;&#xA;   [here](http://ftp.utalca.cl/intercambio/plataforma/lgc/Dani/Libros/Para%20imprimir/Poemas_completos_Safo.pdf)),&#xD;&#xA;   for which cfr. [my post on the completion of Sappho&#xD;&#xA;   94](https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/2704/who-put-forward-this-completion-to-sappho-94-and-what-is-it-actually-supposed-t).&#xD;&#xA; - But the other thing? Even [the Greek&#xD;&#xA;   Wikisource](https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%8E%CE%BC%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%B9_%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9_%CE%95%CF%80%CE%B9%CE%B8%CE%B1%CE%BB%CE%AC%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%B1)&#xD;&#xA;   completely agrees with me on this!&#xD;&#xA; - Googling `Σαϋναϊάδα` yields&#xD;&#xA;   [this](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/sappho-fragments/1982/pb_LCL142.205.xml)&#xD;&#xA;   with `ποτεννέπω`. I don't remember this source, but perhaps that was&#xD;&#xA;   it.&#xD;&#xA; - [Bergk p. 636](https://ia600207.us.archive.org/18/items/poetaelyricigrae00berguoft/poetaelyricigrae00berguoft.pdf) has all epigrams, his line 1 reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Παῖδες, ἄφωνος ἐοῖσα τότ' ἐννέπω, αἴ τις ἔρηται&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and he has [this critical note](https://i.stack.imgur.com/U7pG4.png).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Anyways, I was wondering what the experts think about this line and its most likely &quot;correct&quot; reading, what the sources for this poem have to say, and why Campbell doesn't include it. Is it perhaps of disputed authorship, along with the other two epigrams in elegiac couplets?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Reference to Greek Wikisource with texts of epigrams**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two of these (the present one is Απόσπασμα 118, the other one 119) can be found [here](https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%8E%CE%BC%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%B9_%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9_%CE%95%CF%80%CE%B9%CE%B8%CE%B1%CE%BB%CE%AC%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%B1). The third one, to the fisher Pelagon (`τῷ γρίπει Πελάγωνι πάτηρ ἐπέθηκε Μένισκος / Κύρτον καὶ κώπαν, μνᾶμα κακοζοΐας`), has strangely been removed even from there. Somebody [here](https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%95%CF%80%CE%B9%CE%B3%CF%81%CE%AC%CE%BC%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B1_%CE%A3%CE%B1%CF%80%CF%86%CE%BF%CF%8D%CF%82) probably doesn't have a clear idea what an epigram is :). Anyway here is someone following Edmonds on the poem of the question and including all 3 epigrams." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14212" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4605" RevisionGUID="eeea18df-49ca-44cc-b1c7-57272fc8b112" CreationDate="2017-06-20T07:56:15.190" UserId="13" Text="About Sappho's epigram for the little girl Aithopia: first line (manuscript tradition and experts' take), and authorship" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14213" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4605" RevisionGUID="eeea18df-49ca-44cc-b1c7-57272fc8b112" CreationDate="2017-06-20T07:56:15.190" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4606" RevisionGUID="baa7c7d5-9a81-49f7-9106-d4f40b38ed3d" CreationDate="2017-06-20T10:06:17.843" UserId="867" Text="Could it be **Catullus 95**?  I quote the whole thing because it is a sustained attack on prolix poetry (unlike his own small, polished nuggets of verse) but it might be line 3 that you're thinking of.  The text has gaps but most translators supply &quot;year&quot; after *uno* and assume *quingenta* lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Zmyrna mei Cinnae, nonam post denique messem*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quam coeptast nonamque edita post hiemem,*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***milia cum interea quingenta Hortensius uno &lt; … &gt;***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Zmyrna cavas Satrachi penitus mittetur ad undas,*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Zmyrnam cana diu saecula pervoluent.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *at Volusi annales Paduam morientur ad ipsam*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et laxas scombris saepe dabunt tunicas.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *parva mei mihi cordi monumenta &lt;sodalis&gt;,*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *at populus tumido gaudeat Antimacho.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Elsewhere, Catullus calls Volusius' voluminous works *cacata charta* (poem 36)! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4606" RevisionGUID="d3a7ee62-8c0c-4c62-9437-148e62ed769a" CreationDate="2017-06-20T10:24:41.817" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted. Two spaces (&quot;  &quot;) at the end of a line breaks row without changing paragraph." Text="Could it be **Catullus 95**?  I quote the whole thing because it is a sustained attack on prolix poetry (unlike his own small, polished nuggets of verse) but it might be line 3 that you're thinking of.  The text has gaps but most translators supply &quot;year&quot; after *uno* and assume *quingenta* lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Zmyrna mei Cinnae, nonam post denique messem*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quam coeptast nonamque edita post hiemem,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***milia cum interea quingenta Hortensius uno &lt; … &gt;***  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Zmyrna cavas Satrachi penitus mittetur ad undas,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Zmyrnam cana diu saecula pervoluent.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *at Volusi annales Paduam morientur ad ipsam*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et laxas scombris saepe dabunt tunicas.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *parva mei mihi cordi monumenta &lt;sodalis&gt;,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *at populus tumido gaudeat Antimacho.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Elsewhere, Catullus calls Volusius' voluminous works *cacata charta* (poem 36)! &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4607" RevisionGUID="1f5518ca-7043-4690-9538-d909ec6c19c9" CreationDate="2017-06-20T11:14:43.067" UserId="243" Text="I'm not sure whether 'Caledonii' can be used in the singular, but it would not be completely out of the ordinary if it can't. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Aeneid Virgil regularly describes the Greeks and Trojans as the 'Danai' and the 'Teucri' respectively. But he never uses them in the singular, or as an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in your case, if you want to translate English into Latin, you could use 'vir Caledoniorum' to say 'a Caledonian man'; if by chance you're writing Latin verse, you might consider 'vir Caledonium', a common contraction which Virgil regularly uses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4608" RevisionGUID="8e73e15a-db5e-4bf8-9c53-63c7198dd621" CreationDate="2017-06-20T13:17:54.657" UserId="522" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Your post deserves a response from a scholar.  In the meantime here's an opinion from an amateur. &#xD;&#xA;Your choice will be influenced by the three ideas being played with here:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A: **infans** /infant, baby  ::ἄφωνος:: unable to form words  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  B: voiceless ἄφωνος :: the infant's persistent phonan (cries?)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  C: oblation at the feet of the goddess :: crawling infant on the floor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kaiper is clearer;  &#xD;&#xA;pais eti is neater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there is also the idea of the poet being speechless in the presence of a tiny child.  &#xD;&#xA;Is the 'dedication' the bestowal of the name Aethopia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4596" RevisionGUID="75b12e3a-42cf-401d-8273-c9abfcf59a2c" CreationDate="2017-06-20T13:21:05.960" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 74 characters in body" Text="An answer to [an earlier question about age of wine](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4549/79) introduced me to adjectives for specific ages in years.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, there are nouns for periods of time in years.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *bimus* &amp; *biennium*&#xD;&#xA;3. *trimus* &amp; *triennium*&#xD;&#xA;4. *quadrimus* &amp; *quadriennium*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Number 1 is expectedly exceptional, and the corresponding words would be *anniculus* and *annus*.&#xD;&#xA;All these words are mentioned in Lewis and Short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How far do numbers of this kind extend?&#xD;&#xA;It is somewhat laborious to guess more words of this kind and check dictionaries for their existence; a list of all &amp;mdash; or most or many &amp;mdash; attested forms would be nice.&#xD;&#xA;Can such words be derived productively, and if yes, how do I do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that such words exist for 2&amp;ndash;10, 100, and 1000, but not for other numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side note:&#xD;&#xA;If you think this question should rather be split in two (one for *bimus* etc. and one for *biennium* etc.), I can do that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4609" RevisionGUID="48d9328c-a843-43c3-b4e9-390b85b9317a" CreationDate="2017-06-20T14:58:33.367" UserId="79" Text="What is the name of the municipality (small city) [Eura](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eura) in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The name in Finnish and Swedish is Eura and it would be reasonable that the Latin name is the same.&#xD;&#xA;However, I haven't managed to find any Latin sources mentioning the place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eura has a long history (especially prehistory), so I do assume that it has been mentioned in Latin texts.&#xD;&#xA;A mention in a dictionary or a list of Latin city names would be good, a passage in a Latin text would be great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For the sake of searchability, let me repeat the main question in Finnish: Mikä on Euran kunnan nimi latinaksi? Onko Eura latinaksi Eura?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14223" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4609" RevisionGUID="48d9328c-a843-43c3-b4e9-390b85b9317a" CreationDate="2017-06-20T14:58:33.367" UserId="79" Text="What is Eura called in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14224" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4609" RevisionGUID="48d9328c-a843-43c3-b4e9-390b85b9317a" CreationDate="2017-06-20T14:58:33.367" UserId="79" Text="|passage-request|finnish|place-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4609" RevisionGUID="f6d91b7c-0cec-4cb1-a48c-0516d9c3bfb6" CreationDate="2017-06-20T15:15:49.130" UserId="79" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="What is the name of the municipality (small city) [Eura](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eura) in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The name in Finnish and Swedish is Eura and it would be reasonable that the Latin name is the same.&#xD;&#xA;However, I haven't managed to find any Latin sources mentioning the place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eura has a long history (especially prehistory), so I do assume that it has been mentioned in Latin texts.&#xD;&#xA;A mention in a dictionary or a list of Latin city names would be good, a passage in a Latin text would be great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If possible, I would also like to know the related adjective (I'm guessing *Eurensis* or *Euranus*), but my main focus is on the city.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For the sake of searchability, let me repeat the main question in Finnish: Mikä on Euran kunnan nimi latinaksi? Onko Eura latinaksi Eura?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4610" RevisionGUID="af4ad53d-4f5b-4402-b3c5-0e7e01110df3" CreationDate="2017-06-20T15:45:57.417" UserId="45" Text="[Vicipaedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raumoa), which has very little authority in these matters, uses the obvious choice: *Eura.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After doing a little digging, I found an old work (warning, large PDF file!) on Finnish metal working: [*Historica delineatio officinarum ferrariarum in magno principatu Finnlandia*](http://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/111598/Historica_delineatio_officinarum_ferrarium_in_Finlandia.pdf) which includes several references to Eura, including the below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* pg. 33:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Hanc ordine excipit *Officina Cautua*, in provincia *Bioerneburgensi, territorii Satagundensis parte inferiori, &amp; paroecia **Eura**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* pg. 45:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; A[nn]o 1694. veniam parandi alterius foci petiit illustris postestor [?], quid vero responsi tulerit ignoramus. 1697 d. 30. Dec. unus hic focus ad officinam Cautua, in paroecia **Eura**, transferendus judicabatur." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4600" RevisionGUID="50adc7bc-438d-4f75-a7f1-c54927d56d8c" CreationDate="2017-06-20T16:17:26.173" UserId="78" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="*Caledonii* would be the tribes inhabiting *Caledonia*, the land. Think *Americans* and *America*. The word seems related to *Celt*, for what it's worth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammatically, the singular would be *Caledonius*, but oddly, I cannot find Classical usage for this. It seems merely a descriptive adjective for geography/features of the land of Caledonia (such as &quot;[Caledonian Ocean](http://www.theoi.com/Text/ValeriusFlaccus1.html),&quot; &quot;[Caledonian forest](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Florus/Epitome/1C*.html#XII),&quot; and &quot;[Caledonian bear](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/1294/1/7/144-153@1#7)&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible to use *Caledonius* (for a male, *Caledonia* for a female) in this way, but I'm not so sure it was ever done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also see online the people called [*Caledones*](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#Caledones). Again, though, no singular. A similar search in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae showed up no singular. By parallel with *Macedones* (as Rafael points out in the comments), though, one could perhaps use *Caledo* (-*onis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's not to say you can't use *Caledonius*, though perhaps in Latin you'd want to use *vir Caledonius*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For English, *Caledonian* would be acceptable, though apparently not for a modern Scot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4611" RevisionGUID="87c318eb-c8dc-4327-ac5c-3636dabee547" CreationDate="2017-06-20T16:18:51.057" UserId="45" Text="A simple search for [words ending in -ennium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=ennium&amp;lang=la) will give you a list of year-counting words attested by Lewis &amp; Short (excluding one false positive):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2 - biennium&#xD;&#xA;3 - triennium&#xD;&#xA;4 - quadriennium&#xD;&#xA;5 - quinquennium&#xD;&#xA;6 - sexennium&#xD;&#xA;7 - septuennium, septennium&#xD;&#xA;8 - octennium&#xD;&#xA;10 - decennium&#xD;&#xA;12 - duodecennium, duodennium&#xD;&#xA;20 - vicennium&#xD;&#xA;30 - tricennium&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*-ennis* is the corresponding adjective ending, and also has [many examples](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=ennis&amp;lang=la). Excluding periods already in the above list, we can add from L&amp;S:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;9 - novennis&#xD;&#xA;? - quotennis&#xD;&#xA;∞ - perennis&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later Latin has many other examples (*novennium*, *millennium*, etc.). English (and, I'm sure, other modern languages) has even spoken of a *sesquicentennium* (=150). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**All this suggests that the construction is only restricted by the writer's and audience's tolerance for ever increasing complexity.** At some point, *centum quadraginta tres annos* makes more sense than *centumquadragintatriennium*. I suspect the latter would be understood, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin also offers the ability to multiply these time periods. Lewis &amp; Short [cites](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Doctennium) [Macrobius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrobius) (5th c.), who uses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; tertio quoque octennio (Macr. S. 1, 13, 13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means, &quot;every third eight-year period&quot; = &quot;every 24 years.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4612" RevisionGUID="fe34c8d2-92ed-437d-a7eb-d7b010dfbd7e" CreationDate="2017-06-20T16:43:19.233" UserId="1724" Text="The [verbs derived from][1] `habere` usually have an 'i' in the stem rather than an 'a'. For example, `adhibere`, `exhibere`, `inhibere`, and `prohibere`, leading to the modern English verbs `adhibit`, `exhibit`, `inhibit`, and `prohibit`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why did the stem vowel change when prefixes were added to `habere` to form new verbs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is mostly a matter of curiosity for me, since this seemingly arbitrary change, which nevertheless occurs in all of the verbs derived from `habere` by adding prefixes, except for `antehabere` and `posthabere` for some reason, makes the etymology of words like `exhibition` or `inhibition` more difficult to deduce (since there is no Latin word `hibitio`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/habeo#Derived_terms&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exhibitio#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prohibitio#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inhibitio#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic_language&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ibit&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2360/the-latin-word-have-rather-than-ave-as-a-translation-of-the-greek-word-%CE%A7%CE%B1%E1%BF%96%CF%81%CE%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=exhibition&amp;allowed_in_frame=0&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=prohibition&amp;allowed_in_frame=0&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=inhibition&amp;allowed_in_frame=0&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/habeo#Inflection&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/verb:habere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14230" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4612" RevisionGUID="fe34c8d2-92ed-437d-a7eb-d7b010dfbd7e" CreationDate="2017-06-20T16:43:19.233" UserId="1724" Text="Why does 'a' change to 'i' in verbs derived from 'habere'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14231" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4612" RevisionGUID="fe34c8d2-92ed-437d-a7eb-d7b010dfbd7e" CreationDate="2017-06-20T16:43:19.233" UserId="1724" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|prefix|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4613" RevisionGUID="82b5dbbf-0ccc-4f44-b343-75a605d11e05" CreationDate="2017-06-20T18:16:10.070" UserId="235" Text="I would like to say, &quot;I'm going to the cafe&quot; in Latin, but the best I can come up with is &quot;Eo ad cafe.&quot; What would be a good choice for &quot;cafe&quot;? I'm not sure if a similar concept existed in Ancient Rome (e.g. with other food/beverages), so there's a good chance I will be asking for a modern word or neologism. But whatever you think is the best choice - and gets well supported - should make me content." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14234" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4613" RevisionGUID="82b5dbbf-0ccc-4f44-b343-75a605d11e05" CreationDate="2017-06-20T18:16:10.070" UserId="235" Text="How would you say &quot;cafe&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14235" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4613" RevisionGUID="82b5dbbf-0ccc-4f44-b343-75a605d11e05" CreationDate="2017-06-20T18:16:10.070" UserId="235" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|word-request|contemporary-latin|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4614" RevisionGUID="c70e1b5b-2168-491a-b0fc-78b8ad2631e5" CreationDate="2017-06-20T19:15:50.950" UserId="1694" Text="It's usual to attribute it to a point in time when Latin had a strong stress accent on the first syllable, so interior vowels in open syllables weakened to _i_ or (depending on the environment) _u_.  So, we post somthing like: *in+'habere -&gt; *'inhabere -&gt; inhi'bere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4614" RevisionGUID="2170c2d6-0e13-432b-b0f4-0946343fac23" CreationDate="2017-06-20T19:19:24.880" UserId="1694" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="It's usual to attribute it to a point in time when Latin had a strong stress accent on the first syllable, so interior vowels in open syllables weakened to _i_ or (depending on the environment) _u_.  So, we posit somthing like: *in+'habere -&gt; *'inhabere -&gt; 'inhibere -&gt; inhi'bere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(IPA: [ɪn+ˈhɑbeːrɛ] -&gt; [ˈɪnhɑbeːrɛ] -&gt; [ˈɪnhɪbeːrɛ] -&gt; [ɪnhɪˈbeːrɛ])" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4614" RevisionGUID="a04b6685-e05d-4836-8f3f-3e2ee709de79" CreationDate="2017-06-20T19:29:13.657" UserId="1694" Comment="added 160 characters in body" Text="It's usual to attribute it to a point in time when Latin had a strong stress accent on the first syllable, so interior vowels in open syllables weakened to _i_ or (depending on the environment) _u_.  So, we posit something like: *in+'habere -&gt; *'inhabere -&gt; 'inhibere -&gt; inhi'bere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(IPA: [ɪn+ˈhɑbeːrɛ] -&gt; [ˈɪnhɑbeːrɛ] -&gt; [ˈɪnhɪbeːrɛ] -&gt; [ɪnhɪˈbeːrɛ])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(As a side remark, I think this phenomenon provides additional support for the accepted view that short _i_ was lax vowel [ɪ] rather than a tense vowel [i].)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4615" RevisionGUID="852c4aac-caca-437c-90c0-b405b7aafd69" CreationDate="2017-06-20T19:54:33.610" UserId="1694" Text="I would suggest that if the Romans knew about coffee, it would most likely come via Greek, since coffee originated even further to the East in Ethiopia.  The Modern Greek word for &quot;cafe&quot; is καφενείο, so I would suggest remodeling that as a Classical Greek καφενεῖον and then Latinizing that.  I think either _caphenion_ or _capheneum_ would be acceptable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4616" RevisionGUID="dacddbeb-eb58-49c2-bbc2-bd045099aa43" CreationDate="2017-06-20T21:21:28.927" UserId="406" Text="From Cicero's *De Divinatione* I.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Itaque ut alia nos melius multa quam Graeci, sic huic praestantissimae rei nomen nostri a divis, Graeci, ut Plato interpretatur, a furore duxerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(My trans.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And just as we have done many things better than the Greeks, thus we derived our name for this most excellent matter [divination] from &quot;the Gods&quot; [*divi*], while as Plato explains, the Greeks derived theirs [*manteía*] from &quot;frenzy&quot; [*manía*].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an interesting etymology, though I'm hesitant to trust Cicero's derivations. But what's more interesting is that he attributes it to Plato.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Plato, or any other Greek writer, draw an etymological connection between *μαντεία* and *μανία*? And do modern linguists agree with this assessment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14241" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4616" RevisionGUID="dacddbeb-eb58-49c2-bbc2-bd045099aa43" CreationDate="2017-06-20T21:21:28.927" UserId="406" Text="Who first associated μαντεία with μανία?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14242" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4616" RevisionGUID="dacddbeb-eb58-49c2-bbc2-bd045099aa43" CreationDate="2017-06-20T21:21:28.927" UserId="406" Text="|etymology|greek|plato|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4617" RevisionGUID="681f7f66-6262-4656-8435-55473c5ad877" CreationDate="2017-06-20T21:56:19.627" UserId="45" Text="I can answer the first part of your question: **Yes, Plato makes this direct connection.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He does this in the [*Phaedrus*, 244b-c:](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0173%3Atext%3DPhaedrus%3Asection%3D244b)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τόδε μὴν ἄξιον ἐπιμαρτύρασθαι, ὅτι καὶ τῶν παλαιῶν οἱ τὰ ὀνόματα τιθέμενοι οὐκ αἰσχρὸν ἡγοῦντο οὐδὲ ὄνειδος μανίαν: οὐ γὰρ ἂν τῇ καλλίστῃ τέχνῃ, ᾗ τὸ μέλλον κρίνεται, **αὐτὸ τοῦτο τοὔνομα ἐμπλέκοντες μανικὴν ἐκάλεσαν.**  ἀλλ᾽ ὡς καλοῦ ὄντος, ὅταν θείᾳ μοίρᾳ γίγνηται, οὕτω νομίσαντες ἔθεντο, οἱ δὲ νῦν ἀπειροκάλως **τὸ ταῦ ἐπεμβάλλοντες μαντικὴν ἐκάλεσαν.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fowler's translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And it is worth while to adduce also the fact that those men of old who invented names thought that madness was neither shameful nor disgraceful; otherwise they would not have **connected the very word mania** with the noblest of arts, that which foretells the future, **by calling it the manic art.** No, they gave this name thinking that mania, when it comes by gift of the gods, is a noble thing, but nowadays **people call prophecy the mantic art, tastelessly inserting a T in the word.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(As a side note, [ἀπειροκάλως](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da\)peiro%2Fkalos) is one of my new favorite Greek words.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4617" RevisionGUID="fb877964-97db-4f89-873f-983f71b8f1ce" CreationDate="2017-06-20T22:10:30.723" UserId="45" Comment="added 444 characters in body" Text="**Yes, Plato makes this direct connection, and it does appear to be attested.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He does this in the [*Phaedrus*, 244b-c:](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0173%3Atext%3DPhaedrus%3Asection%3D244b)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τόδε μὴν ἄξιον ἐπιμαρτύρασθαι, ὅτι καὶ τῶν παλαιῶν οἱ τὰ ὀνόματα τιθέμενοι οὐκ αἰσχρὸν ἡγοῦντο οὐδὲ ὄνειδος μανίαν: οὐ γὰρ ἂν τῇ καλλίστῃ τέχνῃ, ᾗ τὸ μέλλον κρίνεται, **αὐτὸ τοῦτο τοὔνομα ἐμπλέκοντες μανικὴν ἐκάλεσαν.**  ἀλλ᾽ ὡς καλοῦ ὄντος, ὅταν θείᾳ μοίρᾳ γίγνηται, οὕτω νομίσαντες ἔθεντο, οἱ δὲ νῦν ἀπειροκάλως **τὸ ταῦ ἐπεμβάλλοντες μαντικὴν ἐκάλεσαν.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fowler's translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And it is worth while to adduce also the fact that those men of old who invented names thought that madness was neither shameful nor disgraceful; otherwise they would not have **connected the very word mania** with the noblest of arts, that which foretells the future, **by calling it the manic art.** No, they gave this name thinking that mania, when it comes by gift of the gods, is a noble thing, but nowadays **people call prophecy the mantic art, tastelessly inserting a T in the word.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(As a side note, [ἀπειροκάλως](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da\)peiro%2Fkalos) is one of my new favorite Greek words.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chantraine, in his [*Dictionnaire Etymologique*](https://archive.org/stream/Dictionnaire-Etymologique-Grec/Chantraiine-DictionnaireEtymologiqueGrec#page/n681/mode/2up), s.v. μάντις, acknowledges that the &quot;t&quot; is difficult to account for, but says that it clearly related to *mania*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Dictionnaire Etymologique][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm in a bit of a rush, but can add a transcription/translation later if needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1ytP8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4618" RevisionGUID="170eb782-6921-4392-a1c1-862a7405efce" CreationDate="2017-06-20T23:36:27.750" UserId="118" Text="I quote [this cautionary tale](https://books.google.com/books?id=2BVLAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=RA2-PA33&amp;dq=%22a%20discipulo%20quereret%22) about the dangers of studying Scholastic logic in full because it's just too good not to, but my question is only about the part in bold face:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Parisius accidit, quod quidam discipulus post mortem magistro suo de die apparuit, qui indutus videbatur cappa ex pergameno, minutis litteris conscripta. Cumque magister Sella, sic enim magister vocabatur, **a discipulo quereret**, quid cappa illa et littere sibi vellent, **respondit**: &quot;quelibet harum litterarum magis me gravat pondere suo, quam si turrem hujus ecclesiæ super collum portarem,&quot; ostensa sibi ecclesia Sancta Germani Parisiensis, in cujus prato discipulus ejus apparuit illi. &quot;Hec,&quot; inquit, &quot;littere sunt sophysmata et curiositates, in quibus dies meos consumpsi,&quot; et addidit: &quot;Non possem tibi exprimere, quanto ardore crucior sub hac cappa, sed per unam guttam sudoris aliquo modo possem tibi ostendere.&quot; Cumque magister extenderet palmam, ut sudoris exciperet guttam, perforata est manus ejus a fervente gutta velut acutissima sagitta. Mox ille magister scolas logice reliquit et ad ordinem Cystertiensium se transferens ait:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Linquo &quot;coax&quot; ranis, &quot;cra&quot; corvis, vanaque vanis;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  ad logicam pergo, que mortis non timet &quot;ergo&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From **a discipulo**, it appears to me that the student asked Sella what the cape and its letters meant to him (Sella?), and Sella responded with the story about how the letters weigh more heavily on him than if he were carrying the church tower on his neck. From context, though, that's obviously wrong: obviously Sella asked the student why the student is wearing the cape, and the student answered with his tale of woe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, **quereret** is active, and maybe I'm misunderstanding **vellent**. How does the grammar clearly indicate who asked whom, and who answered? How can you tell who is the subject of **respondit**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14246" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4618" RevisionGUID="170eb782-6921-4392-a1c1-862a7405efce" CreationDate="2017-06-20T23:36:27.750" UserId="118" Text="Who asked whom about the cape of parchment? And who answered?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14247" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4618" RevisionGUID="170eb782-6921-4392-a1c1-862a7405efce" CreationDate="2017-06-20T23:36:27.750" UserId="118" Text="|medieval-latin|ambiguity|voice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4619" RevisionGUID="7e7d7d82-964e-4a5f-9473-8ed7d2f970b0" CreationDate="2017-06-21T00:03:44.207" UserId="1725" Text="Context&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;The Latin grapheme: &quot;Œ&quot; is the majuscule ligature of the letters &quot;O&quot; and &quot;E&quot;. Is it proper—or in-fact possible—to have part of the ligature be majuscule and the other part be minuscule? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14249" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4619" RevisionGUID="7e7d7d82-964e-4a5f-9473-8ed7d2f970b0" CreationDate="2017-06-21T00:03:44.207" UserId="1725" Text="Is it possible to have a single Latin ligature be majuscule and minuscule?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14250" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4619" RevisionGUID="7e7d7d82-964e-4a5f-9473-8ed7d2f970b0" CreationDate="2017-06-21T00:03:44.207" UserId="1725" Text="|orthography|alphabet|case|typography|ligatures|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4620" RevisionGUID="2426c9cc-bda0-4cf5-91c5-6a39a3999f78" CreationDate="2017-06-21T00:05:59.173" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="[Wiktionary in English](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cancan#French) lacking information on etymology, I must cite [the French version of the French verb 'cancan'](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/cancan#fr), but omit the other impertinent etymology hypotheses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Bavardage) (1821) [3.] Désignant d’abord un « grand bruit à propos de quelque chose »,       &#xD;&#xA;[2.] dérivé du [quanquan](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/quanquan) de collège (vers 1640),      &#xD;&#xA;[1.] dérivé du latin [quamquam](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/quamquam#la) (« quoique »), conjonction souvent employée dans les débats d’école. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recognise Latin's being the lingua franca until 1850-1900, and so Latin would have been spoken even by French students before 1640 (as dated above). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Per 1, what is special about 'quamquam', compared to [any other conjunction](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Latin_conjunctions)? E.g., English has borrowed cum and ergo, but they have not been derived into verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. How would the explanation above explain the semantic shift for 'cancaner' (= to gossip)? What semantic notions underlie the use of quamquam with 'cancaner'? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14252" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4620" RevisionGUID="2426c9cc-bda0-4cf5-91c5-6a39a3999f78" CreationDate="2017-06-21T00:05:59.173" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Why would 'quamquam' have been employed in school debates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14253" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4620" RevisionGUID="2426c9cc-bda0-4cf5-91c5-6a39a3999f78" CreationDate="2017-06-21T00:05:59.173" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|french|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4621" RevisionGUID="9eb81d5a-1ff0-473b-9144-52511bf3532c" CreationDate="2017-06-21T02:19:57.863" UserId="118" Text="De hac re nullam auctoritatem superiorem scio quam @NemoOudeis, qui vocabulum **taberna caffearia** sive in brevi **taberna** scribit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://twitter.com/search?q=%40nemooudeis%20taberna&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="a08aece2-c58a-4a5f-a1ba-f5d414f87e0c" CreationDate="2017-06-21T02:50:25.850" UserId="136" Text="There have already been a few answers, but I have always liked the [Morgan and Silva Furman University Lexicon][1], so here are the terms it gives for &quot;cafe&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *thermopolium, -i, n.*&#xD;&#xA; 2. *taberna cafearia*&#xD;&#xA; 3. *cafeum*&#xD;&#xA; 4. *cauponula*&#xD;&#xA; 5. *deversorium*&#xD;&#xA; 6. *taberna caldaria*&#xD;&#xA; 7. *domus cafearia*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This corroborates Ben Kovitz's answer, and provides several other options. The last few options were listed under &quot;cafe/coffee-house,&quot; which may add a little variety.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ia801000.us.archive.org/12/items/TheLexiconAnglumEtLatinumByDavidMorgan/MorganAndSilvaFurmanUniversityLexicon.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4623" RevisionGUID="4071bc02-b0f6-406e-b3b4-01603633d944" CreationDate="2017-06-21T02:51:20.267" UserId="45" Text="TKR has it exactly right:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cumque magister Sella, sic enim magister vocabatur, a discipulo quereret, quid cappa illa et littere sibi vellent, respondit....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And when Master Sella (that was the master's name) asked of the student, what the cape and letters meant, he [the student] responded....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two idioms are used here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *quaerere a(b) aliquo*: means &quot;to ask of someone&quot; or &quot;question.&quot; See meaning [II.B.3 of L&amp;S s.v. *quaero*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquaero). You could just as easily say *ex* or *de*.&#xD;&#xA;* *sibi velle* means &quot;to mean.&quot; See [I.E.1.d or I.E.4](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvolo1). My Latin professor would say, &quot;quid sibi vult X?&quot; = &quot;what does X mean?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4624" RevisionGUID="7022ac4b-b990-4c53-98c2-ee9753036873" CreationDate="2017-06-21T11:42:16.830" UserId="1731" Text="Ainsworth's Dictionary (abridged) of 1778 suggests kuphipolium for coffee-house, and kupha for coffee." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4625" RevisionGUID="11b35599-8267-49b5-9e40-ddbc239264a0" CreationDate="2017-06-21T12:54:20.290" UserId="1692" Text="Endless bits of wisdom from canonical writers have come down to us as Latin dicta: a sort of Ancient proverbs, if you will, with the notable exception that these were, unlike modern, post-Antiquity proverbs, *written* by an identifiable writer, not *said* by an anonymous and heterogeneous source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is simple: were there in Latin proverbs like the modern ones, the creations, over centuries, of anonymous people, always in autonomous contexts, and not part of larger writings, from which they were taken out as dicta standing, somewhat anachronistically, on their own? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14264" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4625" RevisionGUID="11b35599-8267-49b5-9e40-ddbc239264a0" CreationDate="2017-06-21T12:54:20.290" UserId="1692" Text="Were there proverbs in Latin in the sense detailed by this question of mine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14265" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4625" RevisionGUID="11b35599-8267-49b5-9e40-ddbc239264a0" CreationDate="2017-06-21T12:54:20.290" UserId="1692" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4626" RevisionGUID="264aaecb-9f5a-4a32-b36a-a6a5caf3d8c0" CreationDate="2017-06-21T16:54:10.987" UserId="406" Text="I recently mentioned to someone the mnemonic I'd learned for the locative: &quot;cities, towns, islands smaller than Rhodes, and *domus* and *rus*&quot;. In other words, only the names of cities, towns, and small islands, plus two common nouns, were able to take the locative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my surprise, though, they had learned a different mnemonic, ending in &quot;*domus*, *rus*, and *humus*&quot;. And another chimed in that *focus* could also take the locative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a complete list of common nouns which have commonly-accepted locative forms? (I'm looking primarily for Classical Latin, but earlier or later citations are fine also, so long as the locative wasn't productive at that time.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14267" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4626" RevisionGUID="264aaecb-9f5a-4a32-b36a-a6a5caf3d8c0" CreationDate="2017-06-21T16:54:10.987" UserId="406" Text="Which common nouns have a locative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14268" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4626" RevisionGUID="264aaecb-9f5a-4a32-b36a-a6a5caf3d8c0" CreationDate="2017-06-21T16:54:10.987" UserId="406" Text="|declension|case|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4626" RevisionGUID="f86d9924-7ff8-457d-bb3a-85a8d1925cad" CreationDate="2017-06-21T17:43:54.667" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="I recently mentioned to someone the mnemonic I'd learned for the locative: &quot;cities, towns, islands smaller than Rhodes, and *domus* and *rus*&quot;. In other words, only the names of cities, towns, and small islands, plus two common nouns, were able to take the locative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my surprise, though, they had learned a different mnemonic, ending in &quot;*domus*, *rus*, and *humus*&quot;. And another chimed in that *focus* could also take the locative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a complete list of common nouns which have commonly-accepted locative forms? (I'm looking primarily for Classical Latin, but earlier or later citations are fine also, so long as the locative wasn't productive at that time.)&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14270" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4626" RevisionGUID="f86d9924-7ff8-457d-bb3a-85a8d1925cad" CreationDate="2017-06-21T17:43:54.667" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|declension|case|locative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4627" RevisionGUID="be71729b-3499-4227-b055-6b408e8925b8" CreationDate="2017-06-21T19:37:24.830" UserId="645" Text="Aren't you confusing the idea of 'motion to' with that of actual location?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Motion to' usually has *ad* + accusative, the exceptions being those in various mnemonics similar to those you quote: cities, towns, small islands, *domus*, *rus* and *humus* (I've never come across *focus* in such a list, but wouldn't rule it out). Thus, *Romam* and NOT *ad Romam* 'to Rome', and so on. The critical size of the island of Rhodes is questionable, and my guess is that using *ad* depended entirely on the writer's idea of an island's importance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The locative simply indicates, as you might expect, *place where*,  a position without the idea of motion to it. It takes its form regularly from a genitive or ablative, according to declension, for which the rules are to be found in any elementary grammar. *Romae* means 'at Rome'; *Athenis*, 'at Athens'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few irregularities to be learnt, such as *domi* for 'at home' (where *domus*, the 4th Decl. genitive might have been expected) and *militiae*, 'in battle' or 'on the battlefield'. Such a list as you ask for would probably be limited to the few exceptions of whatever mnemonic (or maybe aide-memoire?) you choose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14272" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4613" RevisionGUID="c56a48bb-709c-4c68-a061-ccb5ed4f97e8" CreationDate="2017-06-21T20:49:02.703" UserId="118" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|word-request|contemporary-latin|new-latin|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4627" RevisionGUID="18e4d197-18a3-44ec-a90b-23782ea8126c" CreationDate="2017-06-21T21:15:48.430" UserId="645" Comment="expl. meaning of 'ad Romam'" Text="Aren't you confusing the idea of 'motion to' with that of actual location?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Motion to' usually has *ad* + accusative, the exceptions being those in various mnemonics similar to those you quote: cities, towns, small islands, *domus*, *rus* and *humus* (I've never come across *focus* in such a list, but wouldn't rule it out). Thus, *Romam* and NOT *ad Romam* (which means 'near Rome') 'to Rome', and so on. The critical size of the island of Rhodes is questionable, and my guess is that using *ad* depended entirely on the writer's idea of an island's importance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The locative simply indicates, as you might expect, *place where*,  a position without the idea of motion to it. It takes its form regularly from a genitive or ablative, according to declension, for which the rules are to be found in any elementary grammar. *Romae* means 'at Rome'; *Athenis*, 'at Athens'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few irregularities to be learnt, such as *domi* for 'at home' (where *domus*, the 4th Decl. genitive might have been expected) and *militiae*, 'in battle' or 'on the battlefield'. Such a list as you ask for would probably be limited to the few exceptions of whatever mnemonic (or maybe aide-memoire?) you choose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4628" RevisionGUID="4fbe4226-ae28-4606-ab9b-5e7d38b4eea6" CreationDate="2017-06-21T22:33:24.357" UserId="78" Text="That's quite a leap in logic there. First, people learned Latin in Latin schools, so their style would take after their teacher's, not necessarily the *zeitgeist*. Second, just because something is *influenced* by Cicero, does not mean it will be Ciceronian. Medieval Latin survived and was strong all throughout early modern Europe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for his actual style, while I have not read any Spinoza, I do note this assessment by [W. N. A. Klever](https://books.google.com/books?id=gZEgOxy_hXoC&amp;pg=PA10#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;We may suppose that Spinoza was for one or two years still in the Latin school of Van den Enden; independent evidence for this hypothesis is the fact that Spinoza's latinity shows much familiarity with the Latin of Terence. [...] A curious thing is that quotations from Terence seem to be completely absent from the *Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect*; this absence could be interpreted as an indication for a very early date of this text, name before Spinoza's participation on the stage. The content and Latin of this work are much nearer to the tragedies and letters of Seneca and the *Metamorphoses* of Ovid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4629" RevisionGUID="7112e8bf-881c-4d80-8764-a2d2699c08b7" CreationDate="2017-06-21T22:52:31.440" UserId="78" Text="Of course. The ancient Romans were humans, too, so nothing human should seem strange to them. Your impression of their proverb style stems from the fact that the canon passed along great works with nice little *bon mots* within. Were you actually present in Rome, no doubt you'd hear plenty of proverbs that never made it into literature. Think how few proverbs actually exist in a random selection of fifty works in English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One only need to look at the many ways *fortune favors the brave* is represented in Latin literature (given by Terence, Vergil, Pliny, and others). Meanwhile, several authors give a *vetus proverbium*, one devoid of a written source. Varro offers *Romanus sedendo vincit* (*Res Rusticae* 1.2.2), while Seneca has *gladiator in harena capit consilium* (*Epistulae* 22.1)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4630" RevisionGUID="e2a7d35a-a134-4067-b433-30286103d1c2" CreationDate="2017-06-22T00:01:11.677" UserId="1386" Text="I'm trying to write a letter to a friend in Latin, but I do not trust google translate. Help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14278" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4630" RevisionGUID="e2a7d35a-a134-4067-b433-30286103d1c2" CreationDate="2017-06-22T00:01:11.677" UserId="1386" Text="How do you say, &quot;I will remember you&quot;, or &quot;I will never forget you,&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14279" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4630" RevisionGUID="e2a7d35a-a134-4067-b433-30286103d1c2" CreationDate="2017-06-22T00:01:11.677" UserId="1386" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4631" RevisionGUID="3ba5e612-b023-4dc5-92ce-41299d150621" CreationDate="2017-06-22T00:16:28.243" UserId="406" Text="## I will not/never forget you = *nōn/numquam tuī oblīviscar*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The marks above the vowels are optional; they mark a pronunciation difference that disappeared in later Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;I&quot; is usually omitted in Latin, unless you want your identity to be very emphatic. The verb form makes it unambiguous without an extra word.&#xD;&#xA; - *nōn* is &quot;not&quot;, plain and simple.&#xD;&#xA; - *numquam* is &quot;never&quot;. Either one works here.&#xD;&#xA; - *tuī* is the genitive singular of *tu*, &quot;you&quot;. (This is a weird verb that takes the genitive when referring to people.)&#xD;&#xA; - *oblīviscar* is the first singular future deponent indicative of *oblīviscor*, &quot;to forget about&quot;. (The *r* at the end looks passive, but this verb uses passive forms with an active meaning.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4633" RevisionGUID="a297c41d-69e5-4227-83e0-b4687454b03a" CreationDate="2017-06-22T02:09:56.660" UserId="45" Text="I find *memor* to be rather evocative, so here's another straightforward translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Semper memor ero tui.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4634" RevisionGUID="bf1feb83-4014-419f-9704-2efb0fdf3f98" CreationDate="2017-06-22T02:20:51.457" UserId="1495" Text="I don't understand where vosmet and temet came from. I know vos and te as pronouns, but what is the -met ending? Is that from some other language. Is it used anywhere else. It seems irregular. Why even use these words instead of the regular form for yourself (ipsum)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14284" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4634" RevisionGUID="bf1feb83-4014-419f-9704-2efb0fdf3f98" CreationDate="2017-06-22T02:20:51.457" UserId="1495" Text="vosmet and temet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14285" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4634" RevisionGUID="bf1feb83-4014-419f-9704-2efb0fdf3f98" CreationDate="2017-06-22T02:20:51.457" UserId="1495" Text="|vocabulary|reflexive-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4635" RevisionGUID="fb114574-55eb-4007-88af-d920b72999cd" CreationDate="2017-06-22T02:43:46.053" UserId="78" Text="It's for emphasis, and older than the use of *ipse* as an intensifier. From Allen &amp; Greenough §143.d:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Emphatic forms of **tu** are **tute** and **tutemet** (**tutimet**). The other cases of the personal pronouns, excepting the genitive plural, are made emphatic by adding **-met**: as, **egomet**, **vosmet**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;NOTE.—Early emphatic forms are **mepte** and **tepte**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Latin_words_suffixed_with_-met) has a list of them all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can stack them, too: [*egomet ipse*](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/426/1/53/685-696#53)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4636" RevisionGUID="f96e321a-88a6-4cf0-a75c-f4f6e7e6d6a1" CreationDate="2017-06-22T11:28:57.440" UserId="79" Text="One can often derive adjectives from city names, the most famous example probably being *Romanus* from *Roma*.&#xD;&#xA;Such derivatives are typically formed with *-anus* or *-ensis*.&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that *-anus* is typically restricted to names ending in *-a* (like *Roma*), but *-ensis* can be used for any kind of name.&#xD;&#xA;For a first declension example, the adjective derived from *Aboa* ([Turku](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turku)) is *Aboensis*, not *Aboanus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Suppose I have a city name ending in *-a*.&#xD;&#xA;Is there any rule or tendency for choosing between *-anus* and *-ensis*?&#xD;&#xA;How do I know which one to pick?**&#xD;&#xA;Does it depend more on the time and location where the derivative is formed or on the type of the city?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is related to the [recent question about Eura](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4609/79).&#xD;&#xA;I learned that the city is called *Eura* in Latin, but now I would like to know whether to derive *Euranus* or *Eurensis*.&#xD;&#xA;However, instead of this special case I want to focus on general rules (or lack thereof) for such derivations.&#xD;&#xA;If someone knows the answer for Eura, I can make it into a separate question so that particular translation stands out (or you can post it as an answer to the previous Eura question)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14288" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4636" RevisionGUID="f96e321a-88a6-4cf0-a75c-f4f6e7e6d6a1" CreationDate="2017-06-22T11:28:57.440" UserId="79" Text="Deriving adjectives from city names" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14289" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4636" RevisionGUID="f96e321a-88a6-4cf0-a75c-f4f6e7e6d6a1" CreationDate="2017-06-22T11:28:57.440" UserId="79" Text="|adjective|derivation|place-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4627" RevisionGUID="6db1d63e-15c9-4558-8083-f0d249ee7518" CreationDate="2017-06-22T11:46:49.803" UserId="645" Comment="further expl." Text="Aren't you confusing the idea of 'motion to' with that of actual location?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Motion to' usually has *ad* + accusative, the exceptions being those in various mnemonics similar to those you quote: cities, towns, small islands, *domus*, *rus* and *humus* (I've never come across *focus* in such a list, but wouldn't rule it out). Thus, *Romam* and NOT *ad Romam* (which means 'near Rome') 'to Rome', and so on. The critical size of the island of Rhodes is questionable, and my guess is that using *ad* depended entirely on the writer's idea of an island's importance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The locative simply indicates, as you might expect, *place where*,  a position without the idea of motion to it. It takes its form regularly from a genitive or ablative, according to declension, for which the rules are to be found in any elementary grammar. *Romae* means 'at Rome'; *Athenis*, 'at Athens'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few irregularities to be learnt, such as *domi* for 'at home' (where *domus*, the 4th Decl. genitive might have been expected) and *militiae*, 'in battle' or 'on the battlefield'. Such a list as you ask for would probably be limited to the few exceptions of whatever mnemonic (or maybe aide-memoire?) you choose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Edit following responses]: &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I'm quite baffled by the responses (below) to this answer. No noun &quot;takes&quot; a locative, but it can certainly can adopt a locative form (e.g. *Romae*), where appropriate, to indicate a &quot;place where&quot; — including those on Draconis's list. Motion towards a place is quite a different thing, usually indicated by *ad* (sometimes *in*) + accusative, but there are exceptions where the preposition is omitted: these are listed in (and are the purpose of) Draconis's mnemonic, and in these cases the preposition, if used, indicates proximity: *ad Romam*, for instance, means 'near Rome' " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4624" RevisionGUID="dee6e169-29b5-4a66-8950-0031a05934e5" CreationDate="2017-06-22T12:52:38.197" UserId="1731" Comment="corrected date of publication of source" Text="Ainsworth's Dictionary (abridged) of 1758 suggests kuphipolium for coffee-house, and kupha for coffee." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4633" RevisionGUID="3117740e-6a0b-4fd3-9c6c-068bdc1f9c2d" CreationDate="2017-06-22T13:17:18.897" UserId="45" Comment="added 179 characters in body" Text="I find *memor* to be rather evocative, so here's another straightforward translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Semper memor ero tui.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rough translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will always be mindful of you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Mindful&quot; is a decent stand-in, though as far as I'm aware *memor* doesn't have the additional &quot;watchful&quot; meaning. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14293" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4634" RevisionGUID="a263f390-8165-4c36-9615-685e19fc5a46" CreationDate="2017-06-22T13:21:12.113" UserId="45" Comment="edited title" Text="What does the -met ending mean in &quot;vosmet&quot; or &quot;temet&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4634" RevisionGUID="8977e647-f396-4344-b27c-ad45bd33b9c6" CreationDate="2017-06-22T14:45:33.650" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags and reformatted a little." Text="I don't understand where *vosmet* and *temet* came from. I know *vos* and *te* as pronouns, but what is the *-met* ending? Is that from some other language? Is it used anywhere else? It seems irregular. Why even use these words instead of the regular form for yourself (*ipsum*)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14295" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4634" RevisionGUID="8977e647-f396-4344-b27c-ad45bd33b9c6" CreationDate="2017-06-22T14:45:33.650" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags and reformatted a little." Text="|vocabulary|pronouns|suffixes|reflexive-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="256" RevisionGUID="5187b909-bb10-48d9-8a3c-f18e531751e8" CreationDate="2017-06-22T15:36:36.270" UserId="78" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="*Vespere*, like *mane*, is adverbial (originally from the ablative), 'in the evening.' Also like *mane*, in late vulgar Latin it became an indeclinable substantive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That *mane*, as an ablative, can turn into an adverb and then be used as a noun allows *vespere* to be done on analogy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Vergil (*Georg*. 3.325) can say *mane novum* 'new morning', Cicero (*Att*. 5.4.1) joked with Atticus about sleeping *mane totum* 'the whole morning', and of course Martial (1.49.36) can simply say, *mane erat* 'it was morning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While we don't quite see this development with *vesper* in Classical Latin, fifth-century vulgar Latin was no stranger to strange developments, and *mane* furnishes a perfect parallel (both grammatically and conceptually) to allow Jerome to use it as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There *is* an alternative way to look at it, which would be to read *factum est* as an impersonal and *vespere et mane* adverbially/as ablatives of time. I don't like that reading, and I think it's being too charitable to vulgar Latin, but there you have it anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4637" RevisionGUID="f0bc5d67-efa2-44d1-818c-22138d927550" CreationDate="2017-06-22T16:19:39.243" UserId="645" Text="This kind of thing is codified in Bennett's New Latin Grammar at http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect150&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entries that you seek are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Names of persons take the suffixes: -*ānus*, -*iānus*, -*īnus*; as, —*Catōniānus*, belonging to Cato; *Plautīnus*, belonging to Plautus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Names of nations take the suffixes *-icus, -ius;* as ,—*Germānicus*, German; *Thrācius*, Thracian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Names of places take the suffixes -*ānus*, -*īnus*, -*ēnsis*, -*aeus*, -ius; as,—*Rōmānus*, Roman; *Athēniēnsis*, Athenian; *Amerīnus*, of Ameria; *Smyrnaeus*, of Smyrna; Corinthius, Corinthian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOTE.— -*ānus* and -*ēnsis*, appended to names of countries, designate something stationed in the country or connected with it, but not indigenous; as,— *bellum Āfricānum*, a war (of Romans with Romans) in Africa; *bellum Hispāniēnse*, a war carried on in Spain. *legiōnes Gallicānae*, (Roman) legions stationed in Gaul.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4638" RevisionGUID="45f7f5c4-9e98-4b72-95b6-44116024b0cf" CreationDate="2017-06-22T16:28:58.417" UserId="78" Text="I don't know of a complete list, but [Albert Hoefer](https://books.google.com/books?id=x3cNAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=RA2-PA192&amp;lpg=RA2-PA192&amp;dq=foci+humi+vesperi+luci+ubi+ibi+ruri+romae&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=OPSBmRduJK&amp;sig=lkgOFnUQ5sb07G_UDt0Ti8TOAQA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj37arf7dHUAhXH8j4KHegGAbgQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=foci%20humi%20vesperi%20luci%20ubi%20ibi%20ruri%20romae&amp;f=false) has an extensive one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ubi, cubi, ibi, hic, illic  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Common nouns: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terrae, militae, viciniae, belli, humi, domi, foci, crastini (die), ruri, tempori, vesperi, and luci&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've yet to come across someone else adding another." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4638" RevisionGUID="96408b2a-3298-4951-a5d7-62c80374ee9c" CreationDate="2017-06-22T16:37:27.503" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="I don't know of a complete list, but [Albert Hoefer](https://books.google.com/books?id=x3cNAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=RA2-PA192&amp;lpg=RA2-PA192&amp;dq=foci+humi+vesperi+luci+ubi+ibi+ruri+romae&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=OPSBmRduJK&amp;sig=lkgOFnUQ5sb07G_UDt0Ti8TOAQA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj37arf7dHUAhXH8j4KHegGAbgQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=foci%20humi%20vesperi%20luci%20ubi%20ibi%20ruri%20romae&amp;f=false) has an extensive one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ubi, ibi, hic, illic  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Common nouns: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terrae, militae, viciniae, belli, humi, domi, foci, crastini (die), ruri, tempori, vesperi, and luci&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've yet to come across someone else adding another." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4637" RevisionGUID="352f0990-6eca-4fbb-8d2a-ca43cec1dea5" CreationDate="2017-06-22T16:39:45.013" UserId="645" Comment="italicize corinthius" Text="This kind of thing is codified in Bennett's New Latin Grammar at http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect150&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entries that you seek are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Names of persons take the suffixes: -*ānus*, -*iānus*, -*īnus*; as, —*Catōniānus*, belonging to Cato; *Plautīnus*, belonging to Plautus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Names of nations take the suffixes *-icus, -ius;* as ,—*Germānicus*, German; *Thrācius*, Thracian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Names of places take the suffixes -*ānus*, -*īnus*, -*ēnsis*, -*aeus*, -ius; as,—*Rōmānus*, Roman; *Athēniēnsis*, Athenian; *Amerīnus*, of Ameria; *Smyrnaeus*, of Smyrna; *Corinthius*, Corinthian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOTE.— -*ānus* and -*ēnsis*, appended to names of countries, designate something stationed in the country or connected with it, but not indigenous; as,— *bellum Āfricānum*, a war (of Romans with Romans) in Africa; *bellum Hispāniēnse*, a war carried on in Spain. *legiōnes Gallicānae*, (Roman) legions stationed in Gaul.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4631" RevisionGUID="ef142837-e352-4d24-8d6c-7da6c649f8e0" CreationDate="2017-06-22T16:40:29.773" UserId="406" Comment="merged answers" Text="## I will not/never forget you = *nōn/numquam tuī oblīviscar*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The marks above the vowels are optional; they mark a pronunciation difference that disappeared in later Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;I&quot; is usually omitted in Latin, unless you want your identity to be very emphatic. The verb form makes it unambiguous without an extra word.&#xD;&#xA; - *nōn* is &quot;not&quot;, plain and simple.&#xD;&#xA; - *numquam* is &quot;never&quot;. Either one works here.&#xD;&#xA; - *tuī* is the genitive singular of *tu*, &quot;you&quot;. (This is a weird verb that takes the genitive when referring to people.)&#xD;&#xA; - *oblīviscar* is the first singular future deponent indicative of *oblīviscor*, &quot;to forget about&quot;. (The *r* at the end looks passive, but this verb uses passive forms with an active meaning.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##I will (always) remember you = *(semper) tuī meminerō*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *semper* is &quot;always&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - *tuī*, as above, because this is another of those rare verbs which take the genitive.&#xD;&#xA; - *meminerō* is, weirdly enough, in the *future perfect* tense: the verb *meminī* &quot;to remember&quot; doesn't have a normal future tense (or a present tense, for that matter), so the future perfect is used in its place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4639" RevisionGUID="7977d1c8-3c5c-4d4e-be65-8759654ee8eb" CreationDate="2017-06-22T20:17:46.057" UserId="13" Text="From what I gather, we alrady have the text of Sappho's Hymn to Aphrodite (alias Sappho 1, the only poem we have complete) complete and uncontroversial (save for the bit in cruces, `τίνα δηὖτε πείθω / ἄψ σ' ἄγην`, which the P.Oxy. doesn't seem to help settle). I found an image of that papyrus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![image of papyrus][http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH5084/5d783f84.dir/POxy.v0021.n2288.a.01.hires.jpg]](https://i.stack.imgur.com/24rW6.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It only gives a few letters in the middle of lines. So am I right in my impression that this papyrus was, as far as our knowledge of the poem goes, utterly useless, or were there any controversies in the text as reported by Dionysus of Halicarnassus in `Περὶ συνθέσεως ὀνομάτων` (aka `De Compositione Verborum`) that I am not aware of and that were settled by deciphering the papyrus and identifying it as Sappho 1?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14306" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4639" RevisionGUID="7977d1c8-3c5c-4d4e-be65-8759654ee8eb" CreationDate="2017-06-22T20:17:46.057" UserId="13" Text="Did P.Oxy. 2288 contribute in any way to our knowledge of Sappho's hymn to Aphrodite?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14307" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4639" RevisionGUID="7977d1c8-3c5c-4d4e-be65-8759654ee8eb" CreationDate="2017-06-22T20:17:46.057" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|text-corpus|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4640" RevisionGUID="2380e1c5-4771-4c6c-a08d-860e3a4ea359" CreationDate="2017-06-22T21:46:49.163" UserId="13" Text="We're talking about the Gongyla poem. Campbell has it as sourced by P.Oxy. 1231 frr. 12 and 15. Edmonds separates the two. Also, Edmonds' completion is perfectly fine with Grenfell and Hunt's reading of fr. 15, while Campbell has critical notation that seems to exclude it. So on what basis is Campbell putting them together whereas Edmonds splits them? And if Grenfell and Hunt say e.g. l. 1 of fr. 15 ends with `σ[`, why does Campbell have an exta uncertain alpha excluding Edmonds' `κέλομάι σ' [ὄνελθε`? Was something done with the papyrus that revealed more letters?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14310" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4640" RevisionGUID="2380e1c5-4771-4c6c-a08d-860e3a4ea359" CreationDate="2017-06-22T21:46:49.163" UserId="13" Text="On what basis does Campbell put P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 12 together with fr. 15? And why does Edmonds not? And why does C read more than Grenfell and Hunt do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14311" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4640" RevisionGUID="2380e1c5-4771-4c6c-a08d-860e3a4ea359" CreationDate="2017-06-22T21:46:49.163" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|text-corpus|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4641" RevisionGUID="62c07a3c-3b2b-43b2-b15a-c5c91c8c52e0" CreationDate="2017-06-23T06:33:21.823" UserId="1348" Text="I was looking for a translation of the word &quot;government&quot; and I found in Pons dictionary (german - latin) that it could be *regnum* or *imperium*. On the other hand, I also checked it in Collins dictionary and there I found the word *gubernatio*. I know that there may be lots of translations for a word, but how can I determine which one is the right one? The dictionaries do not always contain a context explanation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, for example, in the book *Lingua latina per se illustrata* there is the word *aspicere*, which could be translated as &quot;to see&quot;, but in the book *Cambridge latin course* it was more frequent to find the word *conspicere*, also translated as &quot;to see&quot;. In those cases, can I use these words interchangeably?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the impression that in many cases the prefixes such as a-, con-, or simply the root verb may have the same translation, but I do not know if for any of those variants there is a specific context to use them correctly. This is similar to german, where one may have *rufen*, *zurufen*, which may be translated as &quot;to call&quot;, but they are not completely interchangeable. Is latin more free in order to simply use many verbs having the same translation interchangeably? Unfortunately there is no native speaker (disregarding people that may have been taught latin very early in their lives) that has a natural feeling to decide when the use of one verb variant is correct or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if I were to write a text, and I wanted to use the word &quot;government&quot;, would it be valid to simply use the word *gubernatio*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14313" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4641" RevisionGUID="62c07a3c-3b2b-43b2-b15a-c5c91c8c52e0" CreationDate="2017-06-23T06:33:21.823" UserId="1348" Text="How to select dictionary translations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14314" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4641" RevisionGUID="62c07a3c-3b2b-43b2-b15a-c5c91c8c52e0" CreationDate="2017-06-23T06:33:21.823" UserId="1348" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4642" RevisionGUID="709ae57a-a779-4162-af65-1e6237b1948a" CreationDate="2017-06-23T08:50:27.270" UserId="522" Text="This is no more than a guide:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***guberno*** is to be in control, but not necessarily top brass. The steersman is *gubernator* of the ship he steers. God (in Boethius Cons III m9) *gubernat* the Universe. *Gubernatio* ensures the smooth running of the state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***regnum*** means both kingdom, and the court at the palace. If you mean the laws and regulations and the people who invent the laws, choose *rego, regnum, regulo,* and *regulum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***imperium*** is the power and the politics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A prefix, as you observe, is sometimes ornamental; some times intensifies; sometimes negates; sometimes transforms the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4644" RevisionGUID="42b27364-781c-4df3-b08b-88abb7c678d7" CreationDate="2017-06-23T10:41:03.387" UserId="867" Text="Take two!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think to specify &quot;at four o'clock on the dot&quot;, you might have to say something like &quot;at the beginning of the fourth hour&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using classic texts as a guide, some options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*initio* + gen. (see Apuleius, *Metamorphoses*, 7.15, &quot;at the beginning of spring&quot;), giving us: ***initio horae quartae***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caesar prefers *inita* + abl.  For example: *inita heime* (*Gallic War*, 3.7) or *inita secunda vigilia* (*ibid*, 5.23).  Thus, you could write: ***inita hora quarta***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, Ovid prefers *principio* + gen. (*principio mensis*, *Fasti*, 2.55).  So, ***principio horae quartae***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*quaque hora* is used in medicine for &quot;each hour&quot;.  This is abbreviated to q. and &quot;take every hour&quot; would be written &quot;q1h&quot; but of course that wouldn't suit your purposes!  Rather, I have found two ways of saying &quot;every hour&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*horis singulis* - see Celsus, *On Medicine*, 4.12 (take a glass of wine every hour) and Pliny, *Natural History*, 2.232 (a copious spring always swells up and sinks back again every hour).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, there is *omnibus horis* or *omni hora*.  Cicero is especially fond of this (see *Letters to Brutus*, 1.17; *De Senecute*, 75; *Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino*, 53.154) but it is also used by Lucan and Tacitus.  However, while this means &quot;every hour&quot;, it does have overtones of &quot;any hour&quot;.  *Horis singulis*, in contrast, does seem to be more specifically for &quot;once every hour&quot;, as the examples above show.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my suggestion for &quot;at four o-clock on the dot, every hour&quot; is: ***inita hora quarta, horis singulis*** (with *quaque hora* for added emphasis if you like but I think *singulus* covers this)&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4644" RevisionGUID="1599a980-e51d-4425-9f23-09c3304b9170" CreationDate="2017-06-23T10:46:45.400" UserId="867" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Take two!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think to specify &quot;at four o'clock on the dot&quot;, you might have to say something like &quot;at the beginning of the fourth hour&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using classic texts as a guide, some options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*initio* + gen. (see Apuleius, *Metamorphoses*, 7.15, &quot;at the beginning of spring&quot;), giving us: ***initio horae quartae***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caesar prefers *inita* + abl.  For example: *inita heime* (*Gallic War*, 3.7) or *inita secunda vigilia* (*ibid*, 5.23).  Thus, you could write: ***inita hora quarta***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, Ovid prefers *principio* + gen. (*principio mensis*, *Fasti*, 2.55).  So, ***principio horae quartae***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*quaque hora* is used in medicine for &quot;each hour&quot;.  This is abbreviated to q. and &quot;take every hour&quot; would be written &quot;q1h&quot; but of course that wouldn't suit your purposes!  Rather, I have found two ways of saying &quot;every hour&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*horis singulis* - see Celsus, *On Medicine*, 4.12 (take a glass of wine every hour) and Pliny, *Natural History*, 2.232 (a copious spring always swells up and sinks back again every hour).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, there is *omnibus horis* or *omni hora*.  Cicero is especially fond of this (see *Letters to Brutus*, 1.17; *De Senecute*, 75; *Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino*, 53.154) but it is also used by Lucan and Tacitus.  However, while this means &quot;every hour&quot;, it does have overtones of &quot;any hour&quot; or &quot;all the time&quot;.  *Horis singulis*, in contrast, does seem to be more specifically for &quot;once every hour&quot;, as the examples above show.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my suggestion for &quot;at four o-clock on the dot, every hour&quot; is: ***inita hora quarta, horis singulis*** (with *quaque hora* for added emphasis if you like but I think *singulus* covers this)&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4645" RevisionGUID="3382a24f-6a0d-4c11-8f35-f06865b2c8e8" CreationDate="2017-06-23T12:53:51.503" UserId="45" Text="Almost every Plautus play that I have read begins with an acrostic that lays out the *argumentum*. Here's an example from the *Menaechmi*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mercator Siculus, quoi erant gemini filii,  &#xD;&#xA;Ei surrupto altero mors optigit.  &#xD;&#xA;Nomen surrepticii illi indit qui domist  &#xD;&#xA;Avos paternus, facit Maenaechmum e Sosicle.  &#xD;&#xA;Et is germanum, postquam adolevit, quaeritat  &#xD;&#xA;Circum omnis oras. post Epidamnum devenit:  &#xD;&#xA;Hic fuerat alitus ille surrepticius.  &#xD;&#xA;Menaechmum omnes civem credunt advenam  &#xD;&#xA;Eumque appellant meretrix, uxor et socer.  &#xD;&#xA;I se cognoscunt fratres postremo invicem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have even noticed some plays, like the *Mercator*, that have two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Did Plautus write these acrostics?** If not, who did and how do we know? Do we know if they were used in the performance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14323" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4645" RevisionGUID="3382a24f-6a0d-4c11-8f35-f06865b2c8e8" CreationDate="2017-06-23T12:53:51.503" UserId="45" Text="Who wrote the acrostics that appear at the beginning of Plautus's plays?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14324" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4645" RevisionGUID="3382a24f-6a0d-4c11-8f35-f06865b2c8e8" CreationDate="2017-06-23T12:53:51.503" UserId="45" Text="|plautus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4646" RevisionGUID="101cb0df-f887-48f2-ab6c-72804918a51e" CreationDate="2017-06-23T13:31:46.637" UserId="78" Text="We have no idea who wrote the argumenta for Plautus' plays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Fontaine 1996](https://books.google.com/books?id=SFPUvjlSUIsC&amp;pg=PA254#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The acrostic *argumentum* prefixed to *Gorgylio* that spells out CURCULIO suggests that the paradigm [of Latin names for characters] had shifted in antiquity. However, because **we do not know when these acrostic *argumenta* were written** and because it remains possible that ancient readers interpreted *Curculio* as an authentic, archaic transliteration of *Γοργυλίων*, its evidentiary value is limited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Hammond, MAck, Moskalew](https://books.google.com/books?id=FREobG0sEnUC&amp;&amp;pg=PA22#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) suggest that they were scholars in the second century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Furthermore, scholars, probably during the second century A.D., composed brief summaries of the plots, called *argumenta*, in imacic seenarii. There survive for all the comedies of Plautus, except for the incomplete *Bacchides* and *Vidularia*, summaries the first letters of whose lines spell the names of the plays concerned, that is, acrostic summaries. For seven plays of Plautus...there are also non-acrostic summaries, as there are for all those of Terence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They [go on](https://books.google.com/books?id=FREobG0sEnUC&amp;&amp;pg=PA69#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Non-acrostic] ones for the plays of Terence are attributed to a scholar of the Hadrianic period, Sulpicius Apollinaris. [...] As the notes will indicate, **the summaries show words and meaning characteristic of Silver Latin**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4646" RevisionGUID="de5c822d-1ee9-4f67-b98e-022b5afaa6f7" CreationDate="2017-06-23T15:16:39.870" UserId="45" Comment="edited body" Text="We have no idea who wrote the argumenta for Plautus' plays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Fontaine 1996](https://books.google.com/books?id=SFPUvjlSUIsC&amp;pg=PA254#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The acrostic *argumentum* prefixed to *Gorgylio* that spells out CURCULIO suggests that the paradigm [of Latin names for characters] had shifted in antiquity. However, because **we do not know when these acrostic *argumenta* were written** and because it remains possible that ancient readers interpreted *Curculio* as an authentic, archaic transliteration of *Γοργυλίων*, its evidentiary value is limited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Hammond, Mack, Moskalew](https://books.google.com/books?id=FREobG0sEnUC&amp;&amp;pg=PA22#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) suggest that they were scholars in the second century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Furthermore, scholars, probably during the second century A.D., composed brief summaries of the plots, called *argumenta*, in imacic seenarii. There survive for all the comedies of Plautus, except for the incomplete *Bacchides* and *Vidularia*, summaries the first letters of whose lines spell the names of the plays concerned, that is, acrostic summaries. For seven plays of Plautus...there are also non-acrostic summaries, as there are for all those of Terence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They [go on](https://books.google.com/books?id=FREobG0sEnUC&amp;&amp;pg=PA69#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Non-acrostic] ones for the plays of Terence are attributed to a scholar of the Hadrianic period, Sulpicius Apollinaris. [...] As the notes will indicate, **the summaries show words and meaning characteristic of Silver Latin**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4647" RevisionGUID="607570b2-40d1-4e49-8cec-2d50d39b73ad" CreationDate="2017-06-23T16:25:46.060" UserId="1700" Text="The adjective “ater” goes just  in the direction of “dark” in the sense of &quot;mournful&quot; / “gloomy”, since  the “dies atri” were considered unlucky days (See Macrobius, Saturnalia, book 1, chapter 16, section 21,  and  Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, book 22, chapter 10, section 6 ), while “niger” means “black” and sometimes  “malicious”/”bad”/” wicked “ (See Cicero, Pro A.Caecina, 27)  or “inauspicious” as  in “nigra avis” (bird of ill omen) and “funereal” as in “nigra hora” or “niger ille dies” with reference to death (See e.g.Tibullus and Propertius passim) . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Primary sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Livy, Ab Urbe Condita,  book 22. chapter 10. section 6 : “si atro die faxit insciens, probe factum esto” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0200%3Abook%3D22%3Achapter%3D10&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cicero, Pro A.Caecina, 27 : “Clodius, cui nomen est  Phormio nec minus niger nec minus confidens quam ille Terentianus Phormio”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.+Caec.+27&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Macrobius,  Saturnalia, book 1, chapter 16. section 21:” Dies autem postriduanos ad omnia maiores nostri cavendos putarunt, quos etiam atros velut infausta appellatione damnarunt: eosdem tamen nonnulli communes velut ad emendationem nominis vocitaverunt”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Macrobius/Saturnalia/home.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that Macrobius says that “dies atri”, aka “dies postriduani”, i.e.  the days immediately following  the Kalendae, Nonae and Idus of each month,  are days of bad omens .&#xD;&#xA;We know, in fact, that &quot;Dies atri&quot; were &quot;dark&quot; days in which fire should not be lit and sacrifices should not be offered in altars; temples should not celebrate public worship; all religious ceremonies are private but without sacrifices; starting new projects should be avoided, and certain gods, including Iuppiter and Ianus, may not be named.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4646" RevisionGUID="ffe766fd-8b94-429e-be27-9c044d9007c6" CreationDate="2017-06-23T16:32:04.333" UserId="78" Comment="added 897 characters in body" Text="We have no idea who wrote the argumenta for Plautus' plays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Fontaine 1996](https://books.google.com/books?id=SFPUvjlSUIsC&amp;pg=PA254#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The acrostic *argumentum* prefixed to *Gorgylio* that spells out CURCULIO suggests that the paradigm [of Latin names for characters] had shifted in antiquity. However, because **we do not know when these acrostic *argumenta* were written** and because it remains possible that ancient readers interpreted *Curculio* as an authentic, archaic transliteration of *Γοργυλίων*, its evidentiary value is limited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Hammond, Mack, Moskalew](https://books.google.com/books?id=FREobG0sEnUC&amp;&amp;pg=PA22#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) suggest that they were scholars in the second century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Furthermore, scholars, probably during the second century A.D., composed brief summaries of the plots, called *argumenta*, in imacic seenarii. There survive for all the comedies of Plautus, except for the incomplete *Bacchides* and *Vidularia*, summaries the first letters of whose lines spell the names of the plays concerned, that is, acrostic summaries. For seven plays of Plautus...there are also non-acrostic summaries, as there are for all those of Terence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They [go on](https://books.google.com/books?id=FREobG0sEnUC&amp;&amp;pg=PA69#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Non-acrostic] ones for the plays of Terence are attributed to a scholar of the Hadrianic period, Sulpicius Apollinaris. [...] As the notes will indicate, **the summaries show words and meaning characteristic of Silver Latin**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a very old hypothesis (at least as early as Wheeley's collection of Ben Jonson's works in 1756) that Priscian the Grammarian (5th/6th century CE) was its author. This is unlikely. One, it's attribution to Priscian is just a guess, included by &quot;[some editors](https://books.google.com/books?id=Ab8DAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA59&amp;#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&quot; (though I'm not sure who was the first to do so). Moreover, the idea that acrostics are &quot;late&quot; is wrong, and acrostics have been used at least as early as [Aratus' *Phaenomena*](http://www.persee.fr/doc/rea_0035-2004_1960_num_62_1_3638).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Hammond, Mack, Moskalew above point out, the Latin is better located in the first couple centuries CE. Even as early as [Smith's *Dictionary*](https://books.google.com/books?id=aA9QAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA409#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) do we find doubt based on style and word choice that Priscian could have written it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4624" RevisionGUID="318d66d4-ad6e-4d9e-941b-4c914fed5716" CreationDate="2017-06-23T17:45:04.637" UserId="1731" Comment="added link to on-line copy of the dictionary" Text="[Ainsworth's Dictionary][1] (abridged) of 1758 suggests kuphipolium for coffee-house, and kupha for coffee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/stream/abridgmentofains00ainsrich" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4644" RevisionGUID="6cceb12a-3ecf-474b-946f-5869da768e09" CreationDate="2017-06-23T18:55:27.953" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected typo: heime &gt; hieme." Text="Take two!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think to specify &quot;at four o'clock on the dot&quot;, you might have to say something like &quot;at the beginning of the fourth hour&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using classic texts as a guide, some options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*initio* + gen. (see Apuleius, *Metamorphoses*, 7.15, &quot;at the beginning of spring&quot;), giving us: ***initio horae quartae***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caesar prefers *inita* + abl.  For example: *inita hieme* (*Gallic War*, 3.7) or *inita secunda vigilia* (*ibid*, 5.23).  Thus, you could write: ***inita hora quarta***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, Ovid prefers *principio* + gen. (*principio mensis*, *Fasti*, 2.55).  So, ***principio horae quartae***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*quaque hora* is used in medicine for &quot;each hour&quot;.  This is abbreviated to q. and &quot;take every hour&quot; would be written &quot;q1h&quot; but of course that wouldn't suit your purposes!  Rather, I have found two ways of saying &quot;every hour&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*horis singulis* - see Celsus, *On Medicine*, 4.12 (take a glass of wine every hour) and Pliny, *Natural History*, 2.232 (a copious spring always swells up and sinks back again every hour).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, there is *omnibus horis* or *omni hora*.  Cicero is especially fond of this (see *Letters to Brutus*, 1.17; *De Senecute*, 75; *Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino*, 53.154) but it is also used by Lucan and Tacitus.  However, while this means &quot;every hour&quot;, it does have overtones of &quot;any hour&quot; or &quot;all the time&quot;.  *Horis singulis*, in contrast, does seem to be more specifically for &quot;once every hour&quot;, as the examples above show.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my suggestion for &quot;at four o-clock on the dot, every hour&quot; is: ***inita hora quarta, horis singulis*** (with *quaque hora* for added emphasis if you like but I think *singulus* covers this)&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4641" RevisionGUID="3c66bb69-f309-45ec-8056-e1bed5ff67eb" CreationDate="2017-06-23T19:28:41.700" UserId="79" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I was looking for a translation of the word &quot;government&quot; and I found in Pons dictionary (German&amp;ndash;Latin) that it could be *regnum* or *imperium*. On the other hand, I also checked it in Collins dictionary and there I found the word *gubernatio*. I know that there may be lots of translations for a word, but how can I determine which one is the right one? The dictionaries do not always contain a context explanation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, for example, in the book *Lingua Latina per se illustrata* there is the word *aspicere*, which could be translated as &quot;to see&quot;, but in the book *Cambridge Latin course* it was more frequent to find the word *conspicere*, also translated as &quot;to see&quot;. In those cases, can I use these words interchangeably?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the impression that in many cases the prefixes such as *a-*, *con-*, or simply the root verb may have the same translation, but I do not know if for any of those variants there is a specific context to use them correctly. This is similar to German, where one may have *rufen*, *zurufen*, which may be translated as &quot;to call&quot;, but they are not completely interchangeable. Is Latin more free in order to simply use many verbs having the same translation interchangeably? Unfortunately there is no native speaker (disregarding people that may have been taught Latin very early in their lives) that has a natural feeling to decide when the use of one verb variant is correct or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if I were to write a text, and I wanted to use the word &quot;government&quot;, would it be valid to simply use the word *gubernatio*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14332" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4641" RevisionGUID="3c66bb69-f309-45ec-8056-e1bed5ff67eb" CreationDate="2017-06-23T19:28:41.700" UserId="79" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|word-choice|dictionary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4648" RevisionGUID="2719149c-a2b6-4855-b42f-dddc2a2d8832" CreationDate="2017-06-23T19:32:06.177" UserId="1743" Text="A usual latin phrase is _horror vacui_, which in English can be rendered as _fear of emptiness_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question**: what do you consider a correct latin translation of the English _fear of equality_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is mostly about the correct declension of a latin word for _equality_ of _being identical_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would propose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_horror aequalitatis_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you agree with that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background to the question: here, _equality_ is to be understood as in mathematics, abstractly. There are parts of mathematics where, with good reason, one tries to avoid speaking of objects being actually _equal_ (whatever that means---in fact, the reason for avoiding the concept that sometimes it is actually highly problematic what equality means), and rather develops useful precise notions of _similarity_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14334" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4648" RevisionGUID="2719149c-a2b6-4855-b42f-dddc2a2d8832" CreationDate="2017-06-23T19:32:06.177" UserId="1743" Text="Latin phrase, modelled on _horror vacui_, for the fear of _equality_?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14335" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4648" RevisionGUID="2719149c-a2b6-4855-b42f-dddc2a2d8832" CreationDate="2017-06-23T19:32:06.177" UserId="1743" Text="|translation|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4648" RevisionGUID="dac143be-1547-4c1a-8a98-1659c531ac93" CreationDate="2017-06-23T19:46:52.247" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="A usual latin phrase is _horror vacui_, which in English can be rendered as _fear of emptiness_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question**: what do you consider a correct Latin translation of the English _fear of equality_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is mostly about the correct declension of a Latin word for _equality_ of _being identical_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would propose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_horror aequalitatis_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you agree with that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background to the question: here, _equality_ is to be understood as in mathematics, abstractly. There are parts of mathematics where, with good reason, one tries to avoid speaking of objects being actually _equal_ (whatever that means&amp;mdash;in fact, the reason for avoiding the concept that sometimes it is actually highly problematic what equality means), and rather develops useful precise notions of _similarity_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14337" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4648" RevisionGUID="dac143be-1547-4c1a-8a98-1659c531ac93" CreationDate="2017-06-23T19:46:52.247" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Latin phrase, modelled on &quot;horror vacui&quot;, for the fear of &quot;equality&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14338" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4648" RevisionGUID="dac143be-1547-4c1a-8a98-1659c531ac93" CreationDate="2017-06-23T19:46:52.247" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|declension|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4649" RevisionGUID="074074a1-bb52-423d-a060-a8a96eb511c4" CreationDate="2017-06-23T19:59:55.307" UserId="79" Text="Your translation *horror aequalitatis* is great!&#xD;&#xA;When something is feared, the something is in genitive &amp;mdash; an objective genitive.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *aequalitatis* is correctly declined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The hardest question is choosing the best translation for &quot;equality&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I support *aequalitas*, which also happens to be (rather obviously) etymologically connected to the English word.&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at the underlying adjective [*aequalis*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2001498) and that of [*aequalitas* itself](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2001500) in L&amp;S to see what they meant in antiquity.&#xD;&#xA;It fits your purpose well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, [Gauss](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/gauss.html) uses related words in similar meanings.&#xD;&#xA;The linked text contains words like *aequatio* and *(in)aequalis*.&#xD;&#xA;Although *aequalitas* itself is not used, he would have certainly understood the word in the right sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thirdly, my intuition as a Latinist and a mathematician says that *aequalitas* is just the right word for this kind of thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4640" RevisionGUID="74f41659-bbd7-44dc-bac5-6c8e068492c1" CreationDate="2017-06-23T20:16:42.640" UserId="13" Comment="added compare-and-contrast section (**More details**)" Text="We're talking about the Gongyla poem. Campbell has it as sourced by P.Oxy. 1231 frr. 12 and 15. Edmonds separates the two. Also, Edmonds' completion is perfectly fine with Grenfell and Hunt's reading of fr. 15, while Campbell has critical notation that seems to exclude it. So on what basis is Campbell putting them together whereas Edmonds splits them? And if Grenfell and Hunt say e.g. l. 1 of fr. 15 ends with `σ[`, why does Campbell have an exta uncertain alpha excluding Edmonds' `κέλομάι σ' [ὄνελθε`? Was something done with the papyrus that revealed more letters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More details**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is Grenfell and Hunt's reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I strip Campbell of all completions, accents and spaces, I get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;.].ϵ.[....].[....]ελομαισα̣[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]γγυλα̣[..]α̣νθιλαβοισανα.[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]κτινασ̣σεδηυτεποθοςτ̣.[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;αμφιποταται&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τανκαλαναγαργατ̣αγωγισαθτα[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;επτοαισιδοισανεγωδεχαιρω&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καιγ̣αραυτ̣αδηπο̣[.]ε̣μεμφ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]υπρογεν[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ω̣σαραμα̣[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τουτοτω[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]ολλομα̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I pair up Grenfell-Hunt &quot;restored&quot; version and Campbell's text, I get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's do some compare&amp;contrast, shall we?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In l. 1, an uncertain near-start nu magically becomes a certain epsilon (!), and, as pointed out above, `σ̣[` at the end of the preserved portion of the line turns to `σα̣[`;&#xD;&#xA; - The totally illegible letter at the start of l. 2 suddenly becomes a certain gamma, and an uncertain letter before the lacuna vanishes; also, the lacuna has 2 letters for GH and only 2 are given as a completion by C; the two last letters of Gongyla become certain; an uncertain alpha is conjured up after the lacuna; the `μ̣α̣` (both uncertain) turns to `να` (both certain);&#xD;&#xA; - A few uncertain letters in l. 3 become certain, and an uncertain nu becomes an uncertain sigma;&#xD;&#xA; - For the rest, it's mostly uncertain letters becoming certain;&#xD;&#xA; - But before the lacuna in l. 8, `δητ[` is suddenly δηπο̣[`; 'xcuse me? How did a certain tau turn to a certain pi with an uncertain omicron suddenly appearing?&#xD;&#xA; - And finally, what about `[.]α̣σ` turning to `ω̣σ`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where did the above changes come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TBd6p.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sekcG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4650" RevisionGUID="db11ccd6-38cc-43b0-9475-9b27913c9fa5" CreationDate="2017-06-23T21:07:53.750" UserId="79" Text="I recommend this method when choosing a Latin translation for an English word:&#xD;&#xA;When you look up the word in an English&amp;ndash;Latin dictionary (or several sources), you get a list of possible translations.&#xD;&#xA;Then **check each of the suggested Latin words in a Latin&amp;ndash;English dictionary to get an impression of their meaning**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a better insight, consult several dictionaries (possibly from Latin to other languages than English).&#xD;&#xA;Some dictionaries will also give usage examples or explanations of nuance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the same advice works for translation in the other direction, or in fact between any two languages.&#xD;&#xA;This method is simple, but it is very useful &amp;mdash; although insufficient for the most complicated cases.&#xD;&#xA;It may be trivial, but I have the impression that not everyone uses it.&#xD;&#xA;One of the good sides is that it requires no knowledge in Latin to quite reliably choose the best Latin translation in many cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4640" RevisionGUID="5c4aec15-cb88-4305-8a81-0ec31353349a" CreationDate="2017-06-23T21:19:05.957" UserId="13" Comment="added &quot;new info&quot;" Text="We're talking about the Gongyla poem. Campbell has it as sourced by P.Oxy. 1231 frr. 12 and 15. Edmonds separates the two. Also, Edmonds' completion is perfectly fine with Grenfell and Hunt's reading of fr. 15, while Campbell has critical notation that seems to exclude it. So on what basis is Campbell putting them together whereas Edmonds splits them? And if Grenfell and Hunt say e.g. l. 1 of fr. 15 ends with `σ[`, why does Campbell have an exta uncertain alpha excluding Edmonds' `κέλομάι σ' [ὄνελθε`? Was something done with the papyrus that revealed more letters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More details**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is Grenfell and Hunt's reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I strip Campbell of all completions, accents and spaces, I get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;.].ϵ.[....].[....]ελομαισα̣[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]γγυλα̣[..]α̣νθιλαβοισανα.[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]κτινασ̣σεδηυτεποθοςτ̣.[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;αμφιποταται&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τανκαλαναγαργατ̣αγωγισαθτα[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;επτοαισιδοισανεγωδεχαιρω&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καιγ̣αραυτ̣αδηπο̣[.]ε̣μεμφ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]υπρογεν[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ω̣σαραμα̣[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τουτοτω[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]ολλομα̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I pair up Grenfell-Hunt &quot;restored&quot; version and Campbell's text, I get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's do some compare&amp;contrast, shall we?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In l. 1, an uncertain near-start nu magically becomes a certain epsilon (!), and, as pointed out above, `σ̣[` at the end of the preserved portion of the line turns to `σα̣[`;&#xD;&#xA; - The totally illegible letter at the start of l. 2 suddenly becomes a certain gamma, and an uncertain letter before the lacuna vanishes; also, the lacuna has 2 letters for GH and only 2 are given as a completion by C; the two last letters of Gongyla become certain; an uncertain alpha is conjured up after the lacuna; the `μ̣α̣` (both uncertain) turns to `να` (both certain);&#xD;&#xA; - A few uncertain letters in l. 3 become certain, and an uncertain nu becomes an uncertain sigma;&#xD;&#xA; - For the rest, it's mostly uncertain letters becoming certain;&#xD;&#xA; - But before the lacuna in l. 8, `δητ[` is suddenly δηπο̣[`; 'xcuse me? How did a certain tau turn to a certain pi with an uncertain omicron suddenly appearing?&#xD;&#xA; - And finally, what about `[.]α̣σ` turning to `ω̣σ`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where did the above changes come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**New info**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Complete Poems of Sappho, by Sean B. Palmer](http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/) is the only one to mention another source, `P. Oxy. XXI (1951) add. p. 125, 11`. Now, I cannot find the volume P.Oxy. XXI on archive.org or elsewhere online, and I cannot seem to find any P.Oxy. XXI images with Sappho (just two commentary fragments I do not really want to transcribe &quot;blind&quot;). So what happened in that source? What does that source give us? What is that source? Is it a papyrus or some kind of scholarly discussion? Is it one of the commentary papyri I found the image of, i.e. [2292](http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH01e4/93fd78cc.dir/POxy.v0021.n2292.a.01.hires.jpg) and [2293](http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH01f6/940d78cc.dir/POxy.v0021.n2293.a.01.hires.jpg)? And if that's the case, how in the world did they give extra certain letters? Quotations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TBd6p.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sekcG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4651" RevisionGUID="932c0103-1a5b-4130-9b34-c17ada4634b2" CreationDate="2017-06-23T23:51:17.957" UserId="118" Text="In linguistics there is a term **horror aequi**, referring to a tendency to word sentences so as to avoid repeating the same grammatical structure consecutively or nearly consecutively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This term was coined fairly recently, in 1909, and the study usually cited to explain it is &quot;[Cognitive complexity and _horror aequi_ as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English](https://books.google.com/books?id=7Rs2n-pesM4C&amp;pg=PA236&amp;dq=%22horror%20aequi%22)&quot; by Günter Rohdenberg, in _Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English_ (2003), p. 205. An example from that article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) She was at a loss **to know** what **to do**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) She was at a loss **to know** what **could be done**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The _horror aequi_ principle says that speakers will tend to favor (2) because it avoids the unseemly repetition of _to &amp;lt;verb&amp;gt;_ in (1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't the meaning that you have in mind, but it's close and might serve your purpose in mathematics. It sounds like _horror aequi_ was coined in imitation of _horror vacui,_ but I haven't tracked down the original article yet.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4651" RevisionGUID="2a4e4e80-194f-4f1f-a89d-59643fe5e71d" CreationDate="2017-06-24T00:12:15.047" UserId="118" Comment="added 651 characters in body" Text="In linguistics there is a term **horror aequi**, referring to a tendency to word sentences so as to avoid repeating the same grammatical structure consecutively or nearly consecutively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This term was coined fairly recently, in 1909, and the study usually cited to explain it is &quot;[Cognitive complexity and _horror aequi_ as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English](https://books.google.com/books?id=7Rs2n-pesM4C&amp;pg=PA236&amp;dq=%22horror%20aequi%22)&quot; by Günter Rohdenberg, in _Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English_ (2003), p. 205. An example from that article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) She was at a loss **to know** what **to do**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) She was at a loss **to know** what **could be done**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The _horror aequi_ principle says that speakers will tend to favor (2) because it avoids the unseemly repetition of _to &amp;lt;verb&amp;gt;_ in (1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like _horror aequi_ was coined in imitation of _horror vacui,_ but I haven't tracked down the original article yet to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both _vacui_ and _aequi_ are genitive forms of an adjective. I understand _horror vacui_ to mean most literally &quot;dread of empty space&quot;. That is, the adjective is used substantively (as a noun), so it means &quot;something empty&quot;. _Horror aequi_ thus means &quot;dread of things that are equal&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone with a better feeling for Latin will have to confirm this (maybe in a comment), but it sounds like Joonas's answer might fit your meaning more precisely even though it doesn't parallel _horror vacui_ as closely, because you mean not a dread of _things_ that are equal, but of the _abstraction_ of equality—_aequalitas_ rather than _aequa._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;By the way, when writing that last sentence, I chose &quot;precisely&quot; to avoid repeating &quot;closely&quot;.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4644" RevisionGUID="1346c945-cd7f-47f3-a718-97d3a06019e4" CreationDate="2017-06-24T02:45:30.770" UserId="867" Comment="Clarified Caesar's use of an ablative absolute." Text="Take two!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think to specify &quot;at four o'clock on the dot&quot;, you might have to say something like &quot;at the beginning of the fourth hour&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using classic texts as a guide, some options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*initio* + gen. (see Apuleius, *Metamorphoses*, 7.15, &quot;at the beginning of spring&quot;), giving us: ***initio horae quartae***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caesar prefers an ablative absolute using *inita*.  For example: *inita hieme* (*Gallic War*, 3.7) or *inita secunda vigilia* (*ibid*, 5.23).  Thus, you could write: ***inita hora quarta***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, Ovid prefers *principio* + gen. (*principio mensis*, *Fasti*, 2.55).  So, ***principio horae quartae***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*quaque hora* is used in medicine for &quot;each hour&quot;.  This is abbreviated to q. and &quot;take every hour&quot; would be written &quot;q1h&quot; but of course that wouldn't suit your purposes!  Rather, I have found two ways of saying &quot;every hour&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*horis singulis* - see Celsus, *On Medicine*, 4.12 (take a glass of wine every hour) and Pliny, *Natural History*, 2.232 (a copious spring always swells up and sinks back again every hour).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, there is *omnibus horis* or *omni hora*.  Cicero is especially fond of this (see *Letters to Brutus*, 1.17; *De Senecute*, 75; *Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino*, 53.154) but it is also used by Lucan and Tacitus.  However, while this means &quot;every hour&quot;, it does have overtones of &quot;any hour&quot; or &quot;all the time&quot;.  *Horis singulis*, in contrast, does seem to be more specifically for &quot;once every hour&quot;, as the examples above show.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my suggestion for &quot;at four o-clock on the dot, every hour&quot; is: ***inita hora quarta, horis singulis*** (with *quaque hora* for added emphasis if you like but I think *singulus* covers this)&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4648" RevisionGUID="9c45de47-1511-4174-bc5f-5de71ce86ecc" CreationDate="2017-06-24T04:33:22.920" UserId="1743" Comment="Corrected typo and missing verb &quot;is&quot;." Text="A usual latin phrase is _horror vacui_, which in English can be rendered as _fear of emptiness_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question**: what do you consider a correct Latin translation of the English _fear of equality_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is mostly about the correct declension of a Latin word for _equality_ of _being identical_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would propose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_horror aequalitatis_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you agree with that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background to the question: here, _equality_ is to be understood as in mathematics, abstractly. There are parts of mathematics where, with good reason, one tries to avoid speaking of objects being actually _equal_ (whatever that means&amp;mdash;in fact, the reason for avoiding the concept _is_ that sometimes it is actually highly problematic what equality means), and rather develop useful precise notions of _similarity_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14348" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4648" RevisionGUID="5e81f1eb-c63e-4d02-a0de-b6891633b02c" CreationDate="2017-06-24T04:40:21.117" UserId="1743" Comment="Added the &quot;mathematics&quot; tag." Text="|declension|mathematics|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4652" RevisionGUID="8f16ac44-fc63-482a-9b92-15bdb232d877" CreationDate="2017-06-24T19:43:16.317" UserId="118" Text="Which prior meaning of _pars_ does **pars orationis** draw from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if just as the notion of grammatical &quot;person&quot; makes (I think) an analogy with roles in drama (the roles of the speaker, the one spoken to, and the one spoken about), maybe _pars orationis_ in Latin means some prior sense of _pars_ more specific than just &quot;any ol' part&quot;. Lewis &amp; Short's entry for [_pars_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=pars&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) doesn't mention _pars orationis._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If _pars_ is merely a calque of Greek μέρος, as in Aristotle's _Poetics_ [1456b20](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0086,034:1456b:20&amp;lang=original), then my same question applies. Aristotle there seems to use the word much more broadly, dividing λέξις (&quot;diction as a whole&quot;) into &quot;letter, syllable, conjunction, joint, noun, verb, case, phrase&quot;—a lot more than the usual &quot;two parts of speech&quot; usually attributed to him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm especially wondering if _pars_ would tend to make such matters of debate as &quot;What is the true number of parts of speech?&quot; seem meaningful or meaningless. If _pars_ just means any ol' division of a whole, then &quot;How many parts of speech are there?&quot; would seem as nonsensical as &quot;How many parts of a sphere are there?&quot; &quot;Uh, as many as you divide it into.&quot; But if _pars_ suggests something more like a fundamental element, as in chemistry the &quot;periodic table of **the** elements&quot;, this would suggest that the Ancient Latin grammarians were thinking that there was a single, true categorization of fundamental &quot;parts&quot; to be found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, does _pars orationis_ evoke a meaning like what we would in English typically call an &quot;element&quot;, or merely any &quot;division&quot; of a whole, or does it evoke something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14351" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4652" RevisionGUID="8f16ac44-fc63-482a-9b92-15bdb232d877" CreationDate="2017-06-24T19:43:16.317" UserId="118" Text="Unde &quot;partes orationis&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14352" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4652" RevisionGUID="8f16ac44-fc63-482a-9b92-15bdb232d877" CreationDate="2017-06-24T19:43:16.317" UserId="118" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4618" RevisionGUID="459269da-5bf2-4b8f-9538-185a1fa29518" CreationDate="2017-06-24T20:07:04.367" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="I quote [this cautionary tale](https://books.google.com/books?id=2BVLAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=RA2-PA33&amp;dq=%22a%20discipulo%20quereret%22) about the dangers of studying Scholastic logic in full because it's just too good not to, but my question is only about the part in bold face:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Parisius accidit, quod quidam discipulus post mortem magistro suo de die apparuit, qui indutus videbatur cappa ex pergameno, minutis litteris conscripta. Cumque magister Sella, sic enim magister vocabatur, **a discipulo quereret**, quid cappa illa et littere sibi vellent, **respondit**: &quot;quelibet harum litterarum magis me gravat pondere suo, quam si turrem hujus ecclesiæ super collum portarem,&quot; ostensa sibi ecclesia Sancta Germani Parisiensis, in cujus prato discipulus ejus apparuit illi. &quot;Hec,&quot; inquit, &quot;littere sunt sophysmata et curiositates, in quibus dies meos consumpsi,&quot; et addidit: &quot;Non possem tibi exprimere, quanto ardore crucior sub hac cappa, sed per unam guttam sudoris aliquo modo possem tibi ostendere.&quot; Cumque magister extenderet palmam, ut sudoris exciperet guttam, perforata est manus ejus a fervente gutta velut acutissima sagitta. Mox ille magister scolas logice reliquit et ad ordinem Cystertiensium se transferens ait:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Linquo &quot;coax&quot; ranis, &quot;cra&quot; corvis, vanaque vanis;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  ad logicam pergo, que mortis non timet &quot;ergo&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From **a discipulo**, it appears to me that the student asked Sella what the cape and its letters meant to him (Sella?), and Sella responded with the story about how the letters weigh more heavily on him than if he were carrying the church tower on his neck. From context, though, that's obviously wrong: obviously Sella asked the student why the student is wearing the cape, and the student answered with his tale of woe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, **quæreret** is active, and maybe I'm misunderstanding **vellent**. How does the grammar clearly indicate who asked whom, and who answered? How can you tell who is the subject of **respondit**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14354" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2866" RevisionGUID="c9498a7d-69ad-4709-9f7e-a46249754760" CreationDate="2017-06-24T21:04:32.110" UserId="79" Comment="38" />
  <row Id="14355" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4211" RevisionGUID="1c21c3dd-f040-4973-9d6b-07f93b448734" CreationDate="2017-06-24T21:04:50.913" UserId="79" Comment="37" />
  <row Id="14356" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4076" RevisionGUID="9fdd2b61-4163-4bdf-baed-272c3d2f5b2d" CreationDate="2017-06-24T21:05:09.743" UserId="79" Comment="36" />
  <row Id="14357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4653" RevisionGUID="4b0b67a7-e31e-4670-8483-ac7aeb616e7f" CreationDate="2017-06-24T21:09:38.387" UserId="39" Text="Here's the relevant quote from [The Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The expression ‘parts of speech’ is a literal translation of the Greek term mérē toû lógou, which was calqued by Latin authors as partes orationis. While it initially referred to the components of the sentence (lógos; oratio), the term acquired, within technical grammaticography, a morphological-paradigmatic sense, referring to word classes.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wouters and Swigger 2013 emphasize that Plato and Aristotle understood logos as a proposition and its truth/falsity could be studied through its components (mérē [toû] lógou).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was only with [the Alexandrian school][1] that parts of speech came to denote word classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see [Wouters and Swiggers 2013][2], *Word Classes (mérē toû lógou), Ancient Theories of*,  in [The Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics][3], with extensive bibliography, for more details&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/alexandrian-school-e114130?&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/word-classes-mere-tou-logou-ancient-theories-of-COM_00000400?&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://brillonline.nl/browse/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4653" RevisionGUID="3de2061f-da74-4a17-9b4c-77c34dd040bb" CreationDate="2017-06-24T21:15:50.993" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Here's the relevant quote from [The Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The expression ‘parts of speech’ is a literal translation of the Greek term mérē toû lógou, which was calqued by Latin authors as partes orationis. While it initially referred to the components of the sentence (lógos; oratio), the term acquired, within technical grammaticography, a morphological-paradigmatic sense, referring to word classes.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wouters and Swigger 2013 emphasize that Plato and Aristotle understood logos as a proposition and its truth/falsity could be studied through its components (mérē [toû] lógou).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was only with the Alexandrian school that parts of speech came to denote word classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see [Wouters and Swiggers 2013][2], *Word Classes (mérē toû lógou), Ancient Theories of*,  in [The Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics][3], with extensive bibliography, for more details&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/alexandrian-school-e114130?&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/word-classes-mere-tou-logou-ancient-theories-of-COM_00000400?&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://brillonline.nl/browse/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="ab1d53f0-f76b-48b1-aba5-21b6ba5e726c" CreationDate="2017-06-24T21:31:39.693" UserId="79" Text="The present, perfect and participle stems&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; of the verb *struere* are *stru-*, *strux-*, and *struct-*.&#xD;&#xA;The *-s-* in the perfect stem and the *-t-* in the participle stem are nothing unusual, but they seem to follow a consonant that is absent from the present stem, perhaps *-c-*, *-g-*, or *-h-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The situation is similar to, for example, *trah-/trax-/tract-* and *dic-/dix-/dict-*.&#xD;&#xA;A partial example with a *-g-* is *tang-/tetig-/tact-*, which could all naturally come from a single stem *tag-*.&#xD;&#xA;The thing I don't understand is why there is no consonant at the end of the present stem of *struere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was there ever a consonant that was later dropped &amp;mdash; was it *struhere* or *strucere* or something similar?&#xD;&#xA;If not, what explains the discrepancy between the present stem *stru-* and the two other stems?&#xD;&#xA;Or is this just an irregularity I should accept without explanation?&#xD;&#xA;I fail to see a story behind the paradigm *stru-/strux-/struct-*, although I can see a justification for most Latin verb paradigms.&#xD;&#xA;Any explanation about the background of the stems of *struere* would be welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know the canonical names of these stems, but that's tangential.&#xD;&#xA;I hope the terminology is clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;I prefer short names for fluency." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14360" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="ab1d53f0-f76b-48b1-aba5-21b6ba5e726c" CreationDate="2017-06-24T21:31:39.693" UserId="79" Text="Understanding the stem(s) of 'struere'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14361" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="ab1d53f0-f76b-48b1-aba5-21b6ba5e726c" CreationDate="2017-06-24T21:31:39.693" UserId="79" Text="|verbs|grammar-identification|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="e91bc237-3c40-4022-b516-cf9335d6448a" CreationDate="2017-06-25T00:41:35.593" UserId="39" Text="A good question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Assimilation (voice): * tagto &gt; * takto. This is a common phenomenon, cf. scribo-scripsi, veho-vixi etc. (see e.g. Weiss, p. 188, I.1);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. With dico, there's nothing unusual: diksi, dikto;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. With struo: technically, there shouldn't be k in it, but there is because of another rule. Verbs ending in a labiovelar (kw, gw) follow this pattern:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;coquo- coxi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;fivo (i.e. figo) - fixi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, this rule applied to some verbs without a labiovelar, e.g. vivo-vixi or struo-struxi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Will add more later - typing Latin on an iPad is quite a challenge)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="dd03ba4a-ff59-4c81-80e4-8da2363d3512" CreationDate="2017-06-25T01:14:02.080" UserId="39" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="A good question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Assimilation (voice): * tagto &gt; * takto. This is a common phenomenon, cf. scribo-scripsi, veho-vixi etc. (see e.g. Weiss, p. 188, I.1);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - With **dico**, there's nothing unusual: diksi, dikto;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - With **struo**: technically, there shouldn't be k in it, but there is because of another rule. Verbs ending in a labiovelar (kw, gw) follow this pattern:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  &quot;the labial element of a labiovelar is deleted before a consonant&quot; (Weiss, p. 188)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;coquo- coxi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;fivo (i.e. figo) - fixi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, this rule applied - by analogy - to some verbs without a labiovelar, e.g. vivo-vixi or struo-struxi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Weiss &quot;[a]lterations caused by the differing outcomes of the voiced labiovelars in prevocalic and preconsonantal position would lead to an alternation -u̯-V ~ -kT-&quot; (p. 441).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="1828212b-89e5-4139-a1b3-7cf6a8a6825b" CreationDate="2017-06-25T01:21:07.547" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 30 characters in body" Text="A good question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Assimilation (voice): * tagto &gt; * takto. This is a common phenomenon,&#xD;&#xA;   cf. scribo-scripsi, veho-vixi etc. (see e.g. Weiss, p. 188, I.1);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - With **dico**, there's nothing unusual: diksi, dikto;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - With **struo**: k was inserted there analogically. Verbs ending in a&#xD;&#xA;   labiovelar (kw, gw) follow this pattern:&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;the labial element of a labiovelar is deleted before a consonant&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    (Weiss, p. 188)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;coquo- coxi, unguo - unxi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Labial and velar stops are devoiced and deaspirated before a voiceless obstruent&quot; (Weiss, p. 188) - in other words, our voice assimilation again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;unguo - unxi, fivo (i.e. figo) - fixi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, this rule applied - by analogy - to some verbs without a labiovelar, e.g. vivo-vixi or struo-struxi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Weiss &quot;[a]lterations caused by the differing outcomes of the voiced labiovelars in prevocalic and preconsonantal position would lead to an alternation -u̯-V ~ -kT-&quot; (p. 441).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="cc975003-00ad-468c-90e0-c7628330cf25" CreationDate="2017-06-25T01:31:45.810" UserId="39" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="A good question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Assimilation (voice): * tagto &gt; * takto. This is a common phenomenon,&#xD;&#xA;   cf. scribo-scripsi, veho-vixi etc. (see e.g. Weiss, p. 188, I.1);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - With **dico**, there's nothing unusual: diksi, dikto;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - With **struo**: k was inserted there analogically. Verbs ending in a&#xD;&#xA;   labiovelar (k&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;, g&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;) follow this pattern:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. &quot;the labial element of a labiovelar is deleted before a consonant&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    (Weiss, p. 188)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;coquo- coxi, unguo - unxi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. &quot;Labial and velar stops are devoiced and deaspirated before a voiceless obstruent&quot; (Weiss, p. 188) - in other words, our voice assimilation again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;unguo - unxi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;fivo (i.e. figo) - fixi, remember that PIE *g&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt; &gt; Lat. u̯ (unless after a nasal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, this rule applied - by analogy - to some verbs without a labiovelar, e.g. vivo-vixi or struo-struxi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Weiss &quot;[a]lterations caused by the differing outcomes of the voiced labiovelars in prevocalic and preconsonantal position would lead to an alternation -u̯-V ~ -kT-&quot; (p. 441).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="b78ec39c-34d6-4b64-ae87-f2f4c40f2866" CreationDate="2017-06-25T01:41:46.813" UserId="39" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="A good question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Assimilation (voice): * tagto &gt; * takto. This is a common phenomenon,&#xD;&#xA;   cf. scribo-scripsi, veho-vixi etc. (see e.g. Weiss, p. 188, I.1);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - With **dico**, there's nothing unusual: diksi, dikto;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - With **struo**: k was inserted there analogically. Verbs ending in a&#xD;&#xA;   labiovelar (k&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;, g&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;) follow this pattern:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. &quot;the labial element of a labiovelar is deleted before a consonant&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    (Weiss, p. 188)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;coquo- coxi, unguo - unxi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. &quot;Labial and velar stops are devoiced and deaspirated before a voiceless obstruent&quot; (Weiss, p. 188) - in other words, our voice assimilation again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;unguo - unxi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;fivo (i.e. figo) - fixi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;fluo - fluxi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;coniveo - conixi &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Examples taken from Tronskii 1960, pp. 260-261).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that **PIE *g&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt; &gt; Lat. u̯** (unless after a nasal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So, this rule applied - by analogy - to some verbs without a labiovelar**, e.g. vivo-vixi or struo-struxi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Weiss &quot;[a]lterations caused by the differing outcomes of the voiced labiovelars in prevocalic and preconsonantal position would lead to an alternation -u̯-V ~ -kT-&quot; (p. 441).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4653" RevisionGUID="11581427-ff4a-416f-ab0f-464a83718679" CreationDate="2017-06-25T01:44:26.660" UserId="118" Comment="fixed URL" Text="Here's the relevant quote from [The Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The expression ‘parts of speech’ is a literal translation of the Greek term mérē toû lógou, which was calqued by Latin authors as partes orationis. While it initially referred to the components of the sentence (lógos; oratio), the term acquired, within technical grammaticography, a morphological-paradigmatic sense, referring to word classes.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wouters and Swigger 2013 emphasize that Plato and Aristotle understood logos as a proposition and its truth/falsity could be studied through its components (mérē [toû] lógou).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was only with the Alexandrian school that parts of speech came to denote word classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see [Wouters and Swiggers 2013][2], *Word Classes (mérē toû lógou), Ancient Theories of*,  in [The Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics][3], with extensive bibliography, for more details&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/alexandrian-school-e114130?&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/word-classes-mere-tou-logou-ancient-theories-of-COM_00000400&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://brillonline.nl/browse/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4653" RevisionGUID="916ae8a8-2cfd-488d-a6cd-ebe297d85d4e" CreationDate="2017-06-25T01:45:29.280" UserId="39" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="Here's the relevant quote from [The Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The expression ‘parts of speech’ is a literal translation of the Greek term mérē toû lógou, which was calqued by Latin authors as partes orationis. While it **initially referred to the components of the sentence (lógos; oratio)**, the term acquired, within technical grammaticography, a morphological-paradigmatic sense, referring to word classes&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[emphasis mine - Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wouters and Swigger 2013 emphasize that Plato and Aristotle understood logos as a proposition and its truth/falsity could be studied through its components (mérē [toû] lógou).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was only with the Alexandrian school that parts of speech came to denote word classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see [Wouters and Swiggers 2013][2], *Word Classes (mérē toû lógou), Ancient Theories of*,  in [The Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics][3], with extensive bibliography, for more details&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/alexandrian-school-e114130?&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/word-classes-mere-tou-logou-ancient-theories-of-COM_00000400&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://brillonline.nl/browse/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4656" RevisionGUID="e549079f-aea1-42da-a1b5-aee392382d5a" CreationDate="2017-06-25T01:55:03.910" UserId="9" Text="The form *structum* seems to have &quot;c&quot; by analogy to stems that had labiovelar consonants in Proto-Indo-European, as Alex B. says. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In *frūctus* (from *fruor*) the Indo-European present stem ended in a labio-velar *gʷ,* but various analogies no doubt account for *strūctus, flūxus,* old *flūctus, uīctum* (from *struo, fluo, uīuo*)&#xD;&#xA;(*Vox Latina,* W. Sidney Allen, Second Edition, p. 69) (First published 1965, Second edition 1978)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a relevant footnote on this page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Old Latin [for *fīgo*] is in fact *fīuo,* with *u* from Indo-European *gʷ.* But note *nīxus* (and *nictare*) from *(co)nīveo,* where *u* is from Indo-European *gʷh.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Latin and Greek Accidence][1],* by John Perkins, I found the following examples of verbs that have a velar consonant only in non-present stems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- fluo, fluxi, fluctum/fluxum&#xD;&#xA;- struo, struxi, structum&#xD;&#xA;- vivo, vixi, victum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p 36)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- fruor, fructus/fruitus&#xD;&#xA;- nitor, nisus/nixus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p 37)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary (accessed 24 June 2017) gives the following etymologies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [fluo][2]: &quot;From Proto-Italic *flowō&quot; (cites De Vaan), &quot;from Proto-Indo-European *\*bʰlewgʷ-,* from *\*bʰlew-*&quot; (not sure about this part; there's no citation and the links are red)&#xD;&#xA;- [struo][3]: &quot;From Proto-Italic *strowō&quot; (cites De Vaan) &quot;with spurious *c* in *struxī* and *structum*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- [vivo][4]: &quot;From Proto-Italic *gʷīwō [...] The *x* and *c* in *vīxī* and *vīctum* were introduced by analogy with other verbs.&quot; I left out what Wiktionary says about the Indo-European etymology because my understanding is that this is a somewhat troublesome root to analyze &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [fruor][5]: &quot;From the Proto-Indo-European *\*bʰruHg-*&quot; (De Vaan is listed in the &quot;references&quot; section, but there's no explicit citation and no Proto-Italic form given)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [nitor][6]: &quot;From Proto-Indo-European *\*kneygʷʰ-* (“to bend, to droop”). Cognate with *nicō, connīveō, nictō*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you might have noticed, Wikipedia, unlike Allen, doesn't write a macron on *structum,* and there is a note in the Wikipedia entry for *struo* saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; . Please note that there is a disagreement over whether or not there is a macron on the third and fourth principal parts and the subsequent verb forms from these (*strūxī* for *struxī* and *strūctum* for *structum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is no citation for this statement, so I don't know what the basis for the disagreement would be. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Latin language; a historical outline of its sounds, inflections, and syntax][7],* by Charles E. Bennett (1907) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gellius [...] testifies (*Noctes Atticae,* &#xD;&#xA;ix. 6) to the quantity of the vowels of *āctus, lēctus, ūnctus,* and in &#xD;&#xA;xii. 3. 4 to that of *strūctus* (p. 52)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but perhaps there are some issues with this evidence, or opposing pieces of evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=KwZyJh3QgDEC&amp;pg=PA36&amp;lpg=PA36&amp;dq=fluo%20fluxum%20fluctum%20fruor%20fructus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ZXCASg4GJQ&amp;sig=fMotdFecey-Rwu5FVMOYhRmFwyQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjjyZud5dfUAhUL5oMKHSpYCBsQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=fructus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fluo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/struo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vivo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fruor#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nitor#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://archive.org/stream/latinlanguagehis00benn#page/52/mode/2up" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4656" RevisionGUID="801cc1d3-b6ea-4178-b087-5a5001e14b94" CreationDate="2017-06-25T02:04:29.223" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The form *structum* seems to have &quot;c&quot; by analogy to stems that had labiovelar consonants in Proto-Indo-European, as Alex B. says.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In *frūctus* (from *fruor*) the Indo-European present stem ended in a labio-velar *gʷ,* but various analogies no doubt account for *strūctus, flūxus,* old *flūctus, uīctum* (from *struo, fluo, uīuo*)&#xD;&#xA;(*Vox Latina,* W. Sidney Allen, Second Edition, p. 69) (First published 1965, Second edition 1978)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a relevant footnote on this page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Old Latin [for *fīgo*] is in fact *fīuo,* with *u* from Indo-European *gʷ.* But note *nīxus* (and *nictare*) from *(co)nīveo,* where *u* is from Indo-European *gʷh.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Latin and Greek Accidence][1],* by John Perkins, I found the following examples of verbs that have a velar consonant only in non-present stems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- fluo, fluxi, fluctum/fluxum&#xD;&#xA;- struo, struxi, structum&#xD;&#xA;- vivo, vixi, victum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p 36)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- fruor, fructus/fruitus&#xD;&#xA;- nitor, nisus/nixus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p 37)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary (accessed 24 June 2017) gives the following etymologies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [fluo][2]: &quot;From Proto-Italic *flowō&quot; (cites De Vaan), &quot;from Proto-Indo-European *\*bʰlewgʷ-,* from *\*bʰlew-*&quot; (not sure about this part; there's no citation and the links are red)&#xD;&#xA;- [struo][3]: &quot;From Proto-Italic *strowō&quot; (cites De Vaan) &quot;with spurious *c* in *struxī* and *structum*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- [vivo][4]: &quot;From Proto-Italic *gʷīwō [...] The *x* and *c* in *vīxī* and *vīctum* were introduced by analogy with other verbs.&quot; I left out what Wiktionary says about the Indo-European etymology because my understanding is that this is a somewhat troublesome root to analyze &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [fruor][5]: &quot;From the Proto-Indo-European *\*bʰruHg-*&quot; (De Vaan is listed in the &quot;references&quot; section, but there's no explicit citation and no Proto-Italic form given)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [nitor][6]: &quot;From Proto-Indo-European *\*kneygʷʰ-* (“to bend, to droop”). Cognate with *nicō, connīveō, nictō*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you might have noticed, Wikipedia, unlike Allen, doesn't write a macron on *structum,* and there is a note in the Wikipedia entry for *struo* saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; . Please note that there is a disagreement over whether or not there is a macron on the third and fourth principal parts and the subsequent verb forms from these (*strūxī* for *struxī* and *strūctum* for *structum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is no citation for this statement, so I don't know what the basis for the disagreement would be. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Latin language; a historical outline of its sounds, inflections, and syntax][7],* by Charles E. Bennett (1907) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gellius [...] testifies (*Noctes Atticae,* &#xD;&#xA;ix. 6) to the quantity of the vowels of *āctus, lēctus, ūnctus,* and in &#xD;&#xA;xii. 3. 4 to that of *strūctus* (p. 52)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but perhaps there are some issues with this evidence, or opposing pieces of evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=KwZyJh3QgDEC&amp;pg=PA36&amp;lpg=PA36&amp;dq=fluo%20fluxum%20fluctum%20fruor%20fructus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ZXCASg4GJQ&amp;sig=fMotdFecey-Rwu5FVMOYhRmFwyQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjjyZud5dfUAhUL5oMKHSpYCBsQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=fructus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fluo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/struo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vivo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fruor#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nitor#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://archive.org/stream/latinlanguagehis00benn#page/52/mode/2up" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="0bcc5a93-2071-4d03-93a2-2bfd2c9af9de" CreationDate="2017-06-25T02:33:46.027" UserId="39" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="A good question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Assimilation (voice): * tagto &gt; * takto. This is a common phenomenon,&#xD;&#xA;   cf. scribo-scripsi, veho-vixi etc. (see e.g. Weiss, p. 188, I.1);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - With **dico**, there's nothing unusual: diksi, dikto;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - With **struo**: k was inserted there analogically. Verbs ending in a&#xD;&#xA;   labiovelar (k&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;, g&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;) follow this pattern:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. &quot;the labial element of a labiovelar is deleted before a consonant&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    (Weiss, p. 188)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;coquo- coxi, unguo - unxi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. &quot;Labial and velar stops are devoiced and deaspirated before a voiceless obstruent&quot; (Weiss, p. 188) - in other words, our voice assimilation again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;unguo - unxi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;fivo (i.e. figo) - fixi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;fluo - fluxi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;coniveo - conixi &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Examples taken from Tronskii 1960, pp. 260-261).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that **PIE *g&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt; &gt; Lat. u̯** (unless after a nasal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So, this rule applied - by analogy - to some verbs without a labiovelar**, e.g. vivo-vixi or struo-struxi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Weiss &quot;[a]lterations caused by the differing outcomes of the voiced labiovelars in prevocalic and preconsonantal position would lead to an alternation -u̯-V ~ -kT-&quot; (p. 441)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or Meiser 1998:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bmrE3.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4656" RevisionGUID="f7961b70-476c-4669-8135-356cb6db80fb" CreationDate="2017-06-25T02:46:57.450" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The form *structum* seems to have &quot;c&quot; by analogy to stems that had labiovelar consonants in Proto-Indo-European, as Alex B. says.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In *frūctus* (from *fruor*) the Indo-European present stem ended in a labio-velar *gʷ,* but various analogies no doubt account for *strūctus, flūxus,* old *flūctus, uīctum* (from *struo, fluo, uīuo*)&#xD;&#xA;(*Vox Latina,* W. Sidney Allen, Second Edition, p. 69) (First published 1965, Second edition 1978)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a relevant footnote on this page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Old Latin [for *fīgo*] is in fact *fīuo,* with *u* from Indo-European *gʷ.* But note *nīxus* (and *nictare*) from *(co)nīveo,* where *u* is from Indo-European *gʷh.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Latin and Greek Accidence][1],* by John Perkins, I found the following examples of verbs that have a velar consonant only in non-present stems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- fluo, fluxi, fluctum/fluxum&#xD;&#xA;- struo, struxi, structum&#xD;&#xA;- vivo, vixi, victum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p 36)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- fruor, fructus/fruitus&#xD;&#xA;- nitor, nisus/nixus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p 37)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary (accessed 24 June 2017) gives the following etymologies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [fluo][2]: &quot;From Proto-Italic *flowō&quot; (cites De Vaan), &quot;from Proto-Indo-European *\*bʰlewgʷ-,* from *\*bʰlew-*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- [struo][3]: &quot;From Proto-Italic *strowō&quot; (cites De Vaan) &quot;with spurious *c* in *struxī* and *structum*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- [vivo][4]: &quot;From Proto-Italic *gʷīwō [...] The *x* and *c* in *vīxī* and *vīctum* were introduced by analogy with other verbs.&quot; I left out what Wiktionary says about the Indo-European etymology because my understanding is that this is a somewhat troublesome root to analyze &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [fruor][5]: &quot;From the Proto-Indo-European *\*bʰruHg-*&quot; (De Vaan is listed in the &quot;references&quot; section, but there's no explicit citation and no Proto-Italic form given)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [nitor][6]: &quot;From Proto-Indo-European *\*kneygʷʰ-* (“to bend, to droop”). Cognate with *nicō, connīveō, nictō*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you might have noticed, Wikipedia, unlike Allen, doesn't write a macron on *structum,* and there is a note in the Wikipedia entry for *struo* saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please note that there is a disagreement over whether or not there is a macron on the third and fourth principal parts and the subsequent verb forms from these (*strūxī* for *struxī* and *strūctum* for *structum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is no citation for this statement, so I don't know what the basis for the disagreement would be. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Latin language; a historical outline of its sounds, inflections, and syntax][7],* by Charles E. Bennett (1907) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gellius [...] testifies (*Noctes Atticae,* &#xD;&#xA;ix. 6) to the quantity of the vowels of *āctus, lēctus, ūnctus,* and in &#xD;&#xA;xii. 3. 4 to that of *strūctus* (p. 52)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but perhaps there are some issues with this evidence, or opposing pieces of evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=KwZyJh3QgDEC&amp;pg=PA36&amp;lpg=PA36&amp;dq=fluo%20fluxum%20fluctum%20fruor%20fructus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ZXCASg4GJQ&amp;sig=fMotdFecey-Rwu5FVMOYhRmFwyQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjjyZud5dfUAhUL5oMKHSpYCBsQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=fructus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fluo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/struo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vivo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fruor#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nitor#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://archive.org/stream/latinlanguagehis00benn#page/52/mode/2up" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4656" RevisionGUID="819927c0-edc5-4f77-89d5-22d3ecf3ff2e" CreationDate="2017-06-25T05:52:23.407" UserId="9" Comment="added 1938 characters in body" Text="The form *structum* seems to have &quot;c&quot; by analogy to stems that had labiovelar consonants in Proto-Indo-European, as Alex B. says.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In *frūctus* (from *fruor*) the Indo-European present stem ended in a labio-velar *gʷ,* but various analogies no doubt account for *strūctus, flūxus,* old *flūctus, uīctum* (from *struo, fluo, uīuo*)&#xD;&#xA;(*Vox Latina,* W. Sidney Allen, Second Edition, p. 69) (First published 1965, Second edition 1978)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a relevant footnote on this page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Old Latin [for *fīgo*] is in fact *fīuo,* with *u* from Indo-European *gʷ.* But note *nīxus* (and *nictare*) from *(co)nīveo,* where *u* is from Indo-European *gʷh.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Latin and Greek Accidence][1],* by John Perkins, I found the following examples of verbs that have a velar consonant only in non-present stems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- fluo, fluxi, fluctum/fluxum&#xD;&#xA;- struo, struxi, structum&#xD;&#xA;- vivo, vixi, victum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p 36)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- fruor, fructus/fruitus&#xD;&#xA;- nitor, nisus/nixus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p 37)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary (accessed 24 June 2017) gives the following etymologies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [fluo][2]: &quot;From Proto-Italic *flowō&quot; (cites De Vaan), &quot;from Proto-Indo-European *\*bʰlewgʷ-,* from *\*bʰlew-*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- [struo][3]: &quot;From Proto-Italic *strowō&quot; (cites De Vaan) &quot;with spurious *c* in *struxī* and *structum*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- [vivo][4]: &quot;From Proto-Italic *gʷīwō [...] The *x* and *c* in *vīxī* and *vīctum* were introduced by analogy with other verbs.&quot; I left out what Wiktionary says about the Indo-European etymology because my understanding is that this is a somewhat troublesome root to analyze &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [fruor][5]: &quot;From the Proto-Indo-European *\*bʰruHg-*&quot; (De Vaan is listed in the &quot;references&quot; section, but there's no explicit citation and no Proto-Italic form given)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [nitor][6]: &quot;From Proto-Indo-European *\*kneygʷʰ-* (“to bend, to droop”). Cognate with *nicō, connīveō, nictō*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you might have noticed, Wikipedia, unlike Allen, doesn't write a macron on *structum,* and there is a note in the Wikipedia entry for *struo* saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please note that there is a disagreement over whether or not there is a macron on the third and fourth principal parts and the subsequent verb forms from these (*strūxī* for *struxī* and *strūctum* for *structum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is no citation for this statement, so I don't know what the basis for the disagreement would be. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Latin language; a historical outline of its sounds, inflections, and syntax][7],* by Charles E. Bennett (1907) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gellius [...] testifies (*Noctes Atticae,* &#xD;&#xA;ix. 6) to the quantity of the vowels of *āctus, lēctus, ūnctus,* and in &#xD;&#xA;xii. 3. 4 to that of ***strūctus*** (p. 52)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Romance languages [...] point to *cīnxī, distīnxī, exstīnxī, fīnxī, pīnxī, **strūxī,** tīnxī, ūnxī* (p. 53)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but perhaps there are some issues with this evidence, or opposing pieces of evidence. Bennet doesn't indicate any inscriptional evidence (e.g. use of the [apex][8]) for vowel length in this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Further reading &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some links to further literature that seems relevant that I found by Googling, but that I haven't processed yet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;[Latin Verbs in -uo, -uere][9]&quot;, Oswald Szemerényi, in *Italic and Romance Linguistic Studies in Honor of Ernst Pulgram* (1980). This seems pretty detailed! I can only see part of it through Google Books, but it looks worth a read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;[On some Slavic words in *-č*: *k* from laryngeal?][11]&quot;, by Jens Elmegård Rasmussen (1988)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;[Lachmann's Law (Part 2)][12]&quot;, by Roman Sukač (2013)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;[On Latin *strāgulum* and *strāges*: *-g-* and analogy][10]&quot;, by Kanehiro Nishimura, in *Words and Dictionaries: A Festschrift for Professor Stanisław Stachowski on the Occassion of his 85&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; Birthday* (2015)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=KwZyJh3QgDEC&amp;pg=PA36&amp;lpg=PA36&amp;dq=fluo%20fluxum%20fluctum%20fruor%20fructus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ZXCASg4GJQ&amp;sig=fMotdFecey-Rwu5FVMOYhRmFwyQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjjyZud5dfUAhUL5oMKHSpYCBsQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=fructus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fluo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/struo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vivo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fruor#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nitor#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://archive.org/stream/latinlanguagehis00benn#page/52/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_(diacritic)&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://books.google.com/books?id=1mVwAuuC8GoC&amp;pg=PA12&amp;lpg=PA12&amp;dq=vowel%20length%20%22struxi%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-LmXUZCyDT&amp;sig=2uwMYrKtuV_XXFA-xrqOdclpYCA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjLwrn6odjUAhVExoMKHZhxDbkQ6AEINDAF#v=snippet&amp;q=struo&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://books.google.com/books?id=SoQIDgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA234&amp;lpg=PA234&amp;dq=vowel%20length%20%22struxi%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XVqslgIwak&amp;sig=ufCsDbYWCXFelNLOLVQfkdFcGt4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjLwrn6odjUAhVExoMKHZhxDbkQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=vowel%20length%20%22struxi%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://books.google.com/books?id=--ssbDUSJfIC&amp;pg=PA344&amp;lpg=PA344&amp;dq=vowel%20length%20%22struxi%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=OnRD8wQlyO&amp;sig=LXJvc7ZmMZalhjEHkOk5TfjlpD8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjLwrn6odjUAhVExoMKHZhxDbkQ6AEIMTAE#v=onepage&amp;q=vowel%20length%20%22struxi%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://digilib.phil.muni.cz/bitstream/handle/11222.digilib/127146/1_LinguisticaBrunensia_14-2013-1_2.pdf?sequence=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="89ab7e78-eda8-4131-9ff9-34109d9e7ae3" CreationDate="2017-06-25T13:01:10.033" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The present, perfect, and participle stems&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; of the verb *struere* are *stru-*, *strux-*, and *struct-*.&#xD;&#xA;The *-s-* in the perfect stem and the *-t-* in the participle stem are nothing unusual, but they seem to follow a consonant that is absent from the present stem, perhaps *-c-*, *-g-*, or *-h-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The situation is similar to, for example, *trah-/trax-/tract-* and *dic-/dix-/dict-*.&#xD;&#xA;A partial example with a *-g-* is *tang-/tetig-/tact-*, which could all naturally come from a single stem *tag-*.&#xD;&#xA;**The thing I don't understand is why there is no consonant at the end of the present stem of *struere*.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was there ever a consonant that was later dropped &amp;mdash; was it *struhere* or *strucere* or something similar?&#xD;&#xA;If not, what explains the discrepancy between the present stem *stru-* and the two other stems?&#xD;&#xA;Or is this just an irregularity I should accept without explanation?&#xD;&#xA;I fail to see a story behind the paradigm *stru-/strux-/struct-*, although I can see a justification for most Latin verb paradigms.&#xD;&#xA;Any explanation about the background of the stems of *struere* would be welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know the canonical names of these stems, but that's tangential.&#xD;&#xA;I hope the terminology is clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;I prefer short names for fluency." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14377" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="89ab7e78-eda8-4131-9ff9-34109d9e7ae3" CreationDate="2017-06-25T13:01:10.033" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|verbs|grammar-identification|conjugation|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4658" RevisionGUID="9e0a303b-69b0-46de-8127-f40b05541c6e" CreationDate="2017-06-25T13:12:33.903" UserId="574" Text="I was thinking about the verb _sequi_, an deponent which means _to follow_. I was wondering, how do you translate the deponent into a passive form? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is it possible to translate the following sentences into Latin with the verb _sequi_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _I'm getting followed_&#xD;&#xA;- _I got followed_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14379" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4658" RevisionGUID="9e0a303b-69b0-46de-8127-f40b05541c6e" CreationDate="2017-06-25T13:12:33.903" UserId="574" Text="How to translate an deponent passive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14380" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4658" RevisionGUID="9e0a303b-69b0-46de-8127-f40b05541c6e" CreationDate="2017-06-25T13:12:33.903" UserId="574" Text="|deponent-verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="25068216-af98-445e-ab3e-2f7854659142" CreationDate="2017-06-25T13:27:51.300" UserId="79" Text="Good question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of a possibility of passivizing such a structure.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I suggest two ways around this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Use a different verb.&#xD;&#xA;Depending on context, perhaps *comitare*, *haerere*, or *insistere* could replace *sequi*.&#xD;&#xA;With a non-deponent verb you can form passives as usual.&#xD;&#xA;- Use a pronoun meaning &quot;someone&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Although *aliquis me sequitur* might not be exactly what you are after, it's pretty close." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4658" RevisionGUID="1bbb72a2-a38e-4d46-9a35-a64f19cf6855" CreationDate="2017-06-25T14:41:51.677" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="I was thinking about the verb _sequi_, an deponent which means _to follow_. I was wondering, how do you translate the deponent into a passive form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is it possible to translate the following sentences into Latin with the verb _sequi_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _I'm getting followed_&#xD;&#xA;- _I got followed_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14384" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4658" RevisionGUID="1bbb72a2-a38e-4d46-9a35-a64f19cf6855" CreationDate="2017-06-25T14:41:51.677" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|syntax|passive-voice|deponent-verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4658" RevisionGUID="2bdaeb71-57f1-4dc3-8462-47a305cefe72" CreationDate="2017-06-25T17:01:12.223" UserId="136" Comment="replaced the use of the verb &quot;to get&quot; (which was used in a colloquial and technically incorrect manner) with the proper &quot;to be&quot;" Text="I was thinking about the verb _sequi_, an deponent which means _to follow_. I was wondering, how do you translate the deponent into a passive form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is it possible to translate the following sentences into Latin with the verb _sequi_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _I'm being followed_&#xD;&#xA;- _I had been followed_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="149" RevisionGUID="5124f95e-d546-4228-8944-883c83c05af0" CreationDate="2017-06-25T19:15:45.407" UserId="79" Comment="Reworded a little." Text="As you know, Latin language has several terms for what we call &quot;shield&quot;, namely _clipeus_, _scutum_, _parma_, _pelta_ etc. I'm just wondering which among them is the most &quot;neutral&quot; or &quot;common&quot; word that referring &quot;shields&quot;, or is there perhaps a blanket term for them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a Classical word (if any) for &quot;a hand-carried armor designed for battle&quot;, or metaphoric usage of it that translates English &quot;shield&quot; such as in [&quot;Religious Liberty Is a Shield and Not a Sword&quot;][1]. I'm also interested in knowing if Latin since the Classical period would use the same word or a different one, because I have little knowledge about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-knox/post_9703_b_7702140.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14387" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="149" RevisionGUID="5124f95e-d546-4228-8944-883c83c05af0" CreationDate="2017-06-25T19:15:45.407" UserId="79" Comment="Reworded a little." Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14388" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="149" RevisionGUID="2e71da7f-3a05-4221-bbf2-a2ce2aa765eb" CreationDate="2017-06-25T19:17:28.163" UserId="79" Comment="39" />
  <row Id="14389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="939" RevisionGUID="acdee15c-5f5d-404a-bc8e-865aeebd135c" CreationDate="2017-06-25T19:19:44.527" UserId="79" Comment="Reworded a little." Text="While working in class, I came across this. They have a similar spelling, yet mean completely different things. Is this just random or does it have an actual purpose in the Latin language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Book = *Libri*&#xD;&#xA; - Children = *Liberi*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14390" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="939" RevisionGUID="acdee15c-5f5d-404a-bc8e-865aeebd135c" CreationDate="2017-06-25T19:19:44.527" UserId="79" Comment="Reworded a little." Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|etymology|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14391" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="939" RevisionGUID="74e7fb55-be34-4110-85c2-818fa425eac4" CreationDate="2017-06-25T19:20:10.527" UserId="79" Comment="40" />
  <row Id="14392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2214" RevisionGUID="1348872a-6288-44e0-9be0-fbf6745e2380" CreationDate="2017-06-25T19:30:32.860" UserId="79" Comment="Moved link from comment to answer." Text="The adjective *fessus* (wearied, tired, fatigued, worn out, weak, feeble, infirm) sounds and looks like it could well be a participle.&#xD;&#xA;If there is a verb, I would assume it to mean something in the direction of &quot;to weaken&quot; or &quot;to burden&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Is there such a verb, or has there ever been one?&#xD;&#xA;I found no suitable verb starting with *fed-* or *fet-*.&#xD;&#xA;The meanings and conjugations of *fetare* and *fetere* do not match.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *fendere* could be suitable, but it seems to survive only in compounds (*offendere*, *defendere*), and the past participle seems to be *fensus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that proving non-existence is hard.&#xD;&#xA;If you think there is no such verb, it is perfectly acceptable if you argue why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is related to the [later question about the difference between *fessus* and *defessus*](http://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2239/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14393" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2214" RevisionGUID="6cc3cf8f-8faf-4400-9051-78dc9b2e4dff" CreationDate="2017-06-25T19:31:00.680" UserId="79" Comment="41" />
  <row Id="14394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4638" RevisionGUID="4a61264f-70c1-40d3-8866-2927dfbcf287" CreationDate="2017-06-25T19:32:03.770" UserId="78" Comment="added 727 characters in body" Text="I don't know of a complete list, but [Albert Hoefer](https://books.google.com/books?id=x3cNAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=RA2-PA192&amp;lpg=RA2-PA192&amp;dq=foci+humi+vesperi+luci+ubi+ibi+ruri+romae&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=OPSBmRduJK&amp;sig=lkgOFnUQ5sb07G_UDt0Ti8TOAQA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj37arf7dHUAhXH8j4KHegGAbgQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=foci%20humi%20vesperi%20luci%20ubi%20ibi%20ruri%20romae&amp;f=false) has an extensive one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Pronouns&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ubi, ibi, hic, illic  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I doubt these are true locatives. See de Vaan on *ubi*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ubi** 'where' [adv.]...PIt. *\*k&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;u-þ/fei* 'where'. It. cognates: O. **puf**, U. **pufe**, *pufe* [adv.] 'where' &lt; \*k&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;u-b/d&lt;sup&gt;h&lt;/sup&gt;ei. PIE \*k&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;u-d&lt;sup&gt;h&lt;/sup&gt;i/-b&lt;sup&gt;h&lt;/sup&gt;i 'where.' IE cognates: Skt. *kuha*m OAv. *kuda* 'where'...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Theoretically, *ubi* can reflect *\*k&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;ub&lt;sup&gt;h&lt;/sup&gt;ei* or *\*k&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;ud&lt;sup&gt;h&lt;/sup&gt;ei*. The suffix \*-b&lt;sup&gt;h&lt;/sup&gt;i would be the PIE ins[trumental] ending, whereas \*-d&lt;sup&gt;h&lt;/sup&gt;ei could be an Italic innovation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The long *i* ending on the *ubi* etc. seems to have lead to Hoefer making them all locatives, but I don't know if that holds up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Common nouns: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terrae, militae, viciniae, belli, humi, domi, foci, crastini (die), ruri, tempori, vesperi, and luci&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've yet to come across someone else adding another to any list." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4599" RevisionGUID="f9726785-9da9-45ee-9c83-842060d298f6" CreationDate="2017-06-25T21:12:33.200" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="This map names a lot of tribes-people. The one in Scotland is called **&quot;Caledonii&quot;.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming &quot;Caledonii&quot; is the **plural form** of the people. I've also seen other maps where the **land** is called **&quot;Caledonia&quot;**. But what I want to know is, **what's the singular form when referring to just one person of the Caledonii?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My English tendencies want to say &quot;Caledonian&quot;, but English tendencies cannot necessarily be trusted, can they.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EBjta.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14396" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4599" RevisionGUID="f9726785-9da9-45ee-9c83-842060d298f6" CreationDate="2017-06-25T21:12:33.200" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|declension|plural|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4660" RevisionGUID="b8c22432-5b48-48e9-8a7b-b57e16fc58c6" CreationDate="2017-06-26T04:17:11.730" UserId="1750" Text="How did the Latin past participle suffix -atus develop into modern French -é?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the two following examples: modern French *état* (&quot;state; status&quot;) and *été* (&quot;been&quot;). Both derives ultimately from the Latin past participle *status*. But while the former, as a noun, retains a somewhat faithful representation of the root word, the latter deviates for some reason. Compare cognates in Italian, Portuguese and Spanish which have perfect parallels: Italian *stato*, Portuguese and Spanish *estado* are the single form of both the noun and past participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On another note, considering the suffix of the unrelated noun *été* (&quot;summer&quot;) which is on the other hand, regular, as it derives from the Latin suffix -as.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, the most straightforward routes would be Latin *-atus* &gt; French *-at*, *-as* &gt; *-é*. Yet the past participle ending *-é* doesn't follow these routes. Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14398" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4660" RevisionGUID="b8c22432-5b48-48e9-8a7b-b57e16fc58c6" CreationDate="2017-06-26T04:17:11.730" UserId="1750" Text="How did the Latin past participle suffix -atus develop into modern French -é?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14399" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4660" RevisionGUID="b8c22432-5b48-48e9-8a7b-b57e16fc58c6" CreationDate="2017-06-26T04:17:11.730" UserId="1750" Text="|etymology|participle|morphology|suffixes|french|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4660" RevisionGUID="e0a801bb-85de-4271-86a5-651d78d15d29" CreationDate="2017-06-26T04:27:32.990" UserId="1750" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="How did the Latin past participle suffix -atus develop into modern French -é?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the two following examples: modern French *état* (&quot;state; status&quot;) and *été* (&quot;been&quot;). Both derives ultimately from the Latin past participle *status*. But while the former, as a noun, retains a somewhat faithful representation of the root word, the latter deviates for some reason. Compare cognates in Italian, Portuguese and Spanish which have perfect parallels: Italian *stato*, Portuguese and Spanish *estado* are the single form of both the noun and past participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On another note, considering the suffix *-té* of the unrelated noun *été* (&quot;summer&quot;) which is on the other hand, regular, as it derives from the Latin suffix *-tas*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, the most straightforward routes would be Latin *-atus* &gt; French *-at*, *-as* &gt; *-é*. Yet the past participle ending *-é* doesn't follow these routes. Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4661" RevisionGUID="1e2400e5-cc03-422f-af5b-64b6e6d4baf2" CreationDate="2017-06-26T11:36:17.963" UserId="79" Text="I was reading Dante's Divine Comedy, and this verse caught my attention (Hell 25.45 with my translation):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *mi puosi 'l dito su dal mento al naso*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I put my finger up from my chin to my nose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the typical finger gesture for hushing (image source: [Getty Images](http://www.gettyimages.fi/detail/photo/teenage-boy-hush-quiet-one-finger-gesture-royalty-free-image/175436780)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Hushing gesture with a finger.](https://i.stack.imgur.com/G0see.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/G0see.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was somewhat surprised that this gesture is old enough to be known to Dante in early 14th century Italy.&#xD;&#xA;**Did the Romans have a similar &amp;mdash; or even identical &amp;mdash; finger gesture for hushing?**&#xD;&#xA;A passage like the one from Dante with some commentary would be great.&#xD;&#xA;If there is no Roman record of this thing, later Latin attestations or some justification for non-existence would be nice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Another well known finger gesture](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1389/79) appears to have been known to Romans, so it seems genuinely possible that this one would be, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14402" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4661" RevisionGUID="1e2400e5-cc03-422f-af5b-64b6e6d4baf2" CreationDate="2017-06-26T11:36:17.963" UserId="79" Text="Hushing with a finger gesture" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14403" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4661" RevisionGUID="1e2400e5-cc03-422f-af5b-64b6e6d4baf2" CreationDate="2017-06-26T11:36:17.963" UserId="79" Text="|roman-culture|passage-request|italian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14404" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4658" RevisionGUID="0480e3a1-a737-48eb-a91f-48935f414800" CreationDate="2017-06-26T12:50:01.510" UserId="79" Comment="Changed the article in the title." Text="How to translate a deponent passive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4662" RevisionGUID="d77bd9f6-a86d-4930-964c-5c77c5ad3936" CreationDate="2017-06-26T15:52:52.110" UserId="45" Text="I found a non-classical reference to this gesture in the *Metamorphoses* (or *Golden Ass*) of [Apuleius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apuleius) (AD 124-170):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  At ille, **digitum a pollice proximum ori suo admovens** et in stuporem attonitus, **‘Tace, tace,’** inquit, et circumspiciens tutamenta sermonis, ‘Parce’ inquit, 'In feminam divinam, ne quam tibi lingua intemperante noxam contrahas.' (I.8)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4663" RevisionGUID="6f0ce61e-1a22-4047-bd91-4d50d3eec64b" CreationDate="2017-06-26T16:49:38.870" UserId="40" Text="There is a regular sound change by which Latin *a* (long or short), when stressed and in an open syllable, became [e] or [ε]. A few examples out of many:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *mare &gt; mer*&#xD;&#xA; - *amare &gt; aimer*&#xD;&#xA; - *nasum &gt; nez*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The past participle suffix is simply another case of this change: *-atum &gt; -é*. (It's conventional to cite Latin nouns in the accusative when talking about Romance changes because, as several commenters pointed out, Romance noun forms are mostly based on the Latin oblique cases, not the nominative.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *état* and many other words in *-at* (*avocat, sénat*, etc.), these are not directly inherited from Latin but are later learned borrowings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4663" RevisionGUID="b8ba7a28-1c56-4aba-aaa7-b6ac61dd150c" CreationDate="2017-06-26T16:55:04.417" UserId="40" Comment="edited body" Text="There is a regular sound change by which Latin *a* (long or short), when stressed and in an open syllable, became [e] or [ε]. A few examples out of many:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *mare &gt; mer*&#xD;&#xA; - *amāre &gt; aimer*&#xD;&#xA; - *nāsum &gt; nez*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The past participle suffix is simply another case of this change: *-ātum &gt; -é*. (It's conventional to cite Latin nouns in the accusative when talking about Romance changes because, as several commenters pointed out, Romance noun forms are mostly based on the Latin oblique cases, not the nominative.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *état* and many other words in *-at* (*avocat, sénat*, etc.), these are not directly inherited from Latin but are later learned borrowings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4664" RevisionGUID="93096e65-d3da-43fe-b3f9-13a6b5ddbf4e" CreationDate="2017-06-26T17:04:35.267" UserId="985" Text="The Egyptian god Harpocrates was typically depicted as a boy with his finger held to his lips.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Example here](http://art.thewalters.org/images/art/large/l_cur_71506_fnt_dd_rs2009.jpg).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He makes a few appearances in classical literature, such as Ovid, _Metamorphoses_ 9.692:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inerant lunaria fronti  &#xD;&#xA;cornua cum spicis nitido flaventibus auro  &#xD;&#xA;et regale decus; cum qua latrator Anubis,  &#xD;&#xA;sanctaque Bubastis, variusque coloribus Apis,  &#xD;&#xA;**quique premit vocem digitoque silentia suadet;**  &#xD;&#xA;sistraque erant, numquamque satis quaesitus Osiris,  &#xD;&#xA;plenaque somniferis serpens peregrina venenis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4665" RevisionGUID="000c1a32-d91f-45d5-a623-89824e65af2a" CreationDate="2017-06-26T17:45:21.803" UserId="1753" Text="Trying to say the phrase &quot;destroy the bad.&quot; Exitium and Malus. Exitium is neutral but in a two word sentence is &quot;Exitium Malum&quot; the proper phrasing? You would use malum since it's the direct object, right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14410" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4665" RevisionGUID="000c1a32-d91f-45d5-a623-89824e65af2a" CreationDate="2017-06-26T17:45:21.803" UserId="1753" Text="Latin grammer, accusative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14411" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4665" RevisionGUID="000c1a32-d91f-45d5-a623-89824e65af2a" CreationDate="2017-06-26T17:45:21.803" UserId="1753" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4665" RevisionGUID="ca88532e-2842-4e6b-b577-3a2f8999a6a4" CreationDate="2017-06-26T18:16:04.947" UserId="79" Comment="added 289 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I am considering a tattoo in Latin, and I want it to say &quot;destroy the bad&quot;, or perhaps &quot;get rid of the evil&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I want the translation to be short due to space constraints.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked online and I found *exitium* for &quot;destroy&quot; and *malus* for &quot;bad&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Would &quot;Exitium Malum&quot; work?&#xD;&#xA;*Exitium* is neutral and you would use the accusative *malum* since it's the direct object, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've learned some individual phrases, but I don't really know any Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I'm not going to trust Google on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14414" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4665" RevisionGUID="ca88532e-2842-4e6b-b577-3a2f8999a6a4" CreationDate="2017-06-26T18:16:04.947" UserId="79" Comment="added 289 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Translating &quot;destroy the bad&quot; for a tattoo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14415" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4665" RevisionGUID="ca88532e-2842-4e6b-b577-3a2f8999a6a4" CreationDate="2017-06-26T18:16:04.947" UserId="79" Comment="added 289 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|translation-check|tattoo|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4666" RevisionGUID="6ab08d57-ad37-49d4-ac28-d2ee8ce32e73" CreationDate="2017-06-26T21:38:28.200" UserId="574" Text="I'm studying economics, and the words *ceteris paribus* are often used. I know it means that one thing changes, but that the other factors stay the same.&#xA;&#xA;I was trying to figure out the translation myself, and I knew that *ceteris* means *remaining*, and that *paribus* must be something in the dative, but I couldn't figure out the whole sentence. So my question is: how to literally translate the saying *ceteris paribus*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14419" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4666" RevisionGUID="6ab08d57-ad37-49d4-ac28-d2ee8ce32e73" CreationDate="2017-06-26T21:38:28.200" UserId="574" Text="How to translate &quot;Ceteris Paribus&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14420" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4666" RevisionGUID="6ab08d57-ad37-49d4-ac28-d2ee8ce32e73" CreationDate="2017-06-26T21:38:28.200" UserId="574" Text="|translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4667" RevisionGUID="74578f41-e896-491b-a592-4cb4916ef4f6" CreationDate="2017-06-26T21:43:36.693" UserId="78" Text="*Exitium* is a noun , and technically *malum* is an adjective (though it's often used substantively), so the phrase together means &quot;evil destruction.&quot; That's not what you're going for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have several option for &quot;destroy&quot;, though, so ultimately it's a matter of picking what sounds best. One option is *dele malum*. This means something along the lines of &quot;put an end to evil.&quot; Scipio, in conquering the Carthaginians, *futura bella delevit*, &quot;put an end to future wars&quot; (Cic. *Amic.* 11).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word has a biblical sense to it, as well. In Genesis 6, when god is talking to Noah, he says that he *delebo...hominem* &quot;will destroy man.&quot; In 6.13, though, he uses the word *disperdo*, so that's another option. That form would be *disperde malum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Funnily enough, there's yet another word used in the passage at 6.17, *interficere*, though that most often is a straight forward word for &quot;to kill.&quot; It returns to *delere* in 7.23.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another very good word to use, that also has a biblical feeling to it, is *perde*. Classicists will know it from Catullus 8, Catullus' mourning of his lost (*perditum*) love with Lesbia. Those reading the Vulgate might recall a question Jesus asked the &quot;scribes and Pharisees&quot; about the Sabbath, &quot;if it's permitted to do good on the sabbath or to do evil (*malum*), to save a life or to destroy (*perdere*) it?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I prefer this one best. It really has the sense of &quot;destroy utterly&quot;, whereas *delere* to me sounds too much like &quot;delete&quot;, though clearly this is just my Anglophone ears reacting to the otherwise healthy Latin word. Still, can't beat Catullus. I also think the imperative of *delere* (i.e. *dele*) looks funny, too, especially compared to *perde*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To sum up, my suggestion is: *Perde Malum*.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a lot to play around with, too, if you want to add more than a simple &quot;destroy the bad.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4668" RevisionGUID="754a5f96-f95d-4add-9e5b-dc32b8b6cf76" CreationDate="2017-06-26T22:01:42.553" UserId="78" Text="[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus) not only explains the concepts, but translates the phrase several different ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one I hear most often is &quot;with all else being equal,&quot; which also was the top answer on [ELL](https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/9580/is-ceteris-paribus-used-in-formal-american-english)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4669" RevisionGUID="c9680164-81d8-438c-a624-4e1a1c1fea06" CreationDate="2017-06-26T22:05:53.343" UserId="45" Text="* [*ceterus, -a, -um*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dceterus) is an adjective meaning &quot;other.&quot; In this case, it is used substantively and means &quot;other things&quot; or &quot;all else.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* [*par, -is*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpar) is an adjective meaning &quot;equal.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both words are in the ablative plural, to form an ablative absolute, e.g. &quot;Caesare mortuo&quot; = &quot;Caesar being dead.&quot; The ablative absolute is very flexible and thus can be translated in many different ways. Any  of the following (as well as C.M. Weimer's suggestion) are equally valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* With other things equal&#xD;&#xA;* All else being equal&#xD;&#xA;* When the other things are the same&#xD;&#xA;* etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4670" RevisionGUID="8ea06bef-6882-4d08-9284-1531c36c3b92" CreationDate="2017-06-27T09:25:25.680" UserId="1755" Text="This is often used in economics.  It means all other things being equal.  For example, a country in which more people are employed than another will have a higher GDP, ceteris paribus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4671" RevisionGUID="fc5388b0-c8ad-4533-a3df-299d3f101f90" CreationDate="2017-06-27T14:42:34.463" UserId="574" Text="What is the difference between _futurum exactum_ and _futurum simplex_? I have to learn both for an upcoming test, but I don't know the difference between the two. I do know the lines, but what is the difference between the two and how are they used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14427" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4671" RevisionGUID="fc5388b0-c8ad-4533-a3df-299d3f101f90" CreationDate="2017-06-27T14:42:34.463" UserId="574" Text="What is the difference between futurum exactum and futurum simplex?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14428" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4671" RevisionGUID="fc5388b0-c8ad-4533-a3df-299d3f101f90" CreationDate="2017-06-27T14:42:34.463" UserId="574" Text="|differences|future-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4672" RevisionGUID="1e2d273a-6dbb-4770-9d64-0ebaec25a469" CreationDate="2017-06-27T15:41:51.860" UserId="1752" Text="It would be fun to have &quot;Malum Delendum Est&quot;, which means &quot;Evil must be destroyed&quot;, because of the famous Cato quote to the Senate during the Punic Wars, &quot;Karthago delenda est,&quot; so you could impress us Latin nerds when we see your tatoo. For the command of &quot;Destroy the Bad&quot; that you want, however, my suggestion would be &quot;Perde Malum&quot;. &quot;Perde nefas&quot; also sounds cool, which means something like &quot;Destroy evil/sin&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4673" RevisionGUID="3eabe588-07a3-4761-bf77-49b8bc148d27" CreationDate="2017-06-27T15:50:32.110" UserId="1752" Text="From what I understand in the comments, where you say 'amabo' is futurum simplex and 'amavero' is futurum exactum, what you are actually asking about is the difference between what most Latin scholars would call the future tense and the future perfect tense. The future tense (amabo, your 'futurum simplex) is simple a verb tense referring to an action that will occur - for example, amabo means 'I will love'. The future perfect tense (your 'futurum exactum') refers to an action that will have occured - i.e. amavero means &quot;I will have loved&quot;. All you really need to know to translate them correctly is &quot;will vs. will have&quot;. When you see the normal future verb endings (-o,-s,-t,-mus,-tis,-nt, in the first conjugation), translate as &quot;will&quot;. When you see the future perfect endings, using the third principle verb part (-ero,-eris,-erit,-erimus,-eritis,-erunt), translate as &quot;will have&quot;. I hope this is the answer you were looking for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4670" RevisionGUID="6a851061-da70-4bf4-9470-028f7775b704" CreationDate="2017-06-27T16:23:10.537" UserId="574" Comment="Added extra info, so the answer is clearer." Text="This is often used in economics.  It means all other things being equal.  For example, a country in which more people are employed than another will have a higher GDP, _ceteris paribus_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(GDP stands for Gross Domestic Product, a monetary measure of the market value of all final goods and services produced in a period (quarterly or yearly)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14435" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4670" RevisionGUID="6a851061-da70-4bf4-9470-028f7775b704" CreationDate="2017-06-27T16:23:10.537" Comment="Proposed by 574 approved by -1 edit id of 190" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4670" RevisionGUID="0190bb07-52fd-4f72-a4f6-0e6aff72c99e" CreationDate="2017-06-27T16:23:10.537" UserId="79" Comment="Added extra info, so the answer is clearer." Text="This is often used in economics.  It means all other things being equal.  For example, a country in which more people are employed than another will have a higher GDP, _ceteris paribus_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(GDP stands for Gross Domestic Product, a monetary measure of the market value of all final goods and services produced in a period (quarterly or yearly).)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4674" RevisionGUID="4982d869-2187-48ad-bd1c-489dd32e45b0" CreationDate="2017-06-27T17:44:36.090" UserId="406" Text="## *Futurum Simplex* (simple future, future imperfect)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The simple future, *amābō*, is the most common future tense. It refers to something which is going to happen in the future: &quot;I will love&quot;. In general, &quot;will&quot; is the best way to translate this into English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You form the simple future in two different ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In the first (*amāre*) and second (*habēre*) conjugations, you take the present stem (*amā-*, *habē-*), and add the endings *-bō*, *-bis*, *-bit*, *-bimus*, *-bitis*, *-bunt*.&#xD;&#xA; - In the third (*currere*, *capere*) and fourth (*audīre*) conjugations, you take the present stem (*curr-*, *capi-*, *audi-*), and add the endings *-am*, *-ēs*, *-et*, *-ēmus*, *-ētis*, *-ent*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##*Futurum Exactum* (*futurum perfectum*, future perfect)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future perfect, *amāverō*, is much less common, and doesn't have a direct analogue in English. It's used for something which happens in the future, but *before* something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English tends to use present-tense forms for this: &quot;After I get home, I will eat dinner.&quot; In this sentence, &quot;get home&quot; is referring to a future event, happening before another future event (eating dinner). So in Latin it would be translated with a future perfect (*domum **redīverō***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really need to make it clear in your translation, you can use &quot;will have&quot;, but this tends to sound awkward in English: &quot;After I **will have gotten home**, I will eat dinner.&quot; I'd never say something like that except in a translation exercise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, it's easy to form, without any weird exceptions that I'm aware of. Take the perfect stem (*amāv-*, *habu-*, *cucurr-*, *cēp-*, *audīv-*), then add endings based on the future tense of *esse* (*erō*, *eris*, *erit*, *erimus*, *eritis*, ***erint***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third person plural is the one to watch out for: since *-erunt* is already the ending for the perfect tense, the future perfect is *-erint*. All the rest are exactly like the forms of *esse*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4673" RevisionGUID="0abe25e8-a43b-445d-b0e5-b61f2c680150" CreationDate="2017-06-27T18:40:12.240" UserId="1752" Comment="edited body" Text="From what I understand in the comments, where you say 'amabo' is futurum simplex and 'amavero' is futurum exactum, what you are actually asking about is the difference between what most Latin scholars would call the future tense and the future perfect tense. The future tense (amabo, your 'futurum simplex) is simple a verb tense referring to an action that will occur - for example, amabo means 'I will love'. The future perfect tense (your 'futurum exactum') refers to an action that will have occured - i.e. amavero means &quot;I will have loved&quot;. All you really need to know to translate them correctly is &quot;will vs. will have&quot;. When you see the normal future verb endings (-o,-s,-t,-mus,-tis,-nt, in the first conjugation), translate as &quot;will&quot;. When you see the future perfect endings, using the third principle verb part (-ero,-eris,-erit,-erimus,-eritis,-erint), translate as &quot;will have&quot;. I hope this is the answer you were looking for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4675" RevisionGUID="02ccd290-1280-4588-903e-5af26e1ef815" CreationDate="2017-06-27T21:04:03.353" UserId="1760" Text="In his 1924's &quot;Autobiography&quot;, Serbian author Branislav Nušić mocks doctors' habit of speaking Latin in presence of a patient to justify higher fees:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then they switched to Latin to impress my parents and justify a higher fee:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Volete ire, collegae, ad bibendum pivae?&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ego praeferro ante vesper bibere aquam slivovensem&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;__&quot;Cum cucurbitis aegris ex aqua&quot;__&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They were saying it so earnestly and mysteriously that one could really think they were talking about my illness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(translation mine)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two phrases, apparently, mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Would you, colleagues, like to go have some beer?&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Before evening I prefer to drink šljivovica (*plum brandy*)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third phrase baffles me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently it refers to some kind of pickled gourd, but I can't figure out what exactly could &quot;cucurbita aegra&quot; mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this phrase make sense at all, and, if yes, what could it mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14440" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4675" RevisionGUID="02ccd290-1280-4588-903e-5af26e1ef815" CreationDate="2017-06-27T21:04:03.353" UserId="1760" Text="Cum cucurbitis aegris ex aqua" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14441" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4675" RevisionGUID="02ccd290-1280-4588-903e-5af26e1ef815" CreationDate="2017-06-27T21:04:03.353" UserId="1760" Text="|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4676" RevisionGUID="1bf01f59-7d7c-4ddb-92d3-1c7c8c00be6a" CreationDate="2017-06-27T21:27:38.757" UserId="576" Text="Does Latin have words for the various types of diets, e.g., &quot;vegetarian,&quot; &quot;vegan,&quot; etc.?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;St. Thomas Aquinas, seemingly referring to what we today would call a &quot;vegan,&quot; says ([*Summa Theologica* II-II q. 147 a. 8][1] arg. 1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_abstinentia a carnibus et ovis et lacticiniis_&lt;br&gt;[abstinence from meat, eggs, and milk foods]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/SS/SS147.html#SSQ147A8THEP1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14443" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4676" RevisionGUID="1bf01f59-7d7c-4ddb-92d3-1c7c8c00be6a" CreationDate="2017-06-27T21:27:38.757" UserId="576" Text="Latin words for various types of diets (carnivour, vegetarian, vegan, etc.)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14444" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4676" RevisionGUID="1bf01f59-7d7c-4ddb-92d3-1c7c8c00be6a" CreationDate="2017-06-27T21:27:38.757" UserId="576" Text="|translation|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4677" RevisionGUID="59904499-9fe4-43f8-affa-8bea5a5c7547" CreationDate="2017-06-27T21:46:53.577" UserId="12" Text="The word *dulia* comes from the Greek *doulia* (meaning &quot;servant&quot; or &quot;slave&quot;).  But in Catholicism, the word has taken on a theological meaning, as described in the [*Catholic Encyclopedia*](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm), &quot;signifying the honour paid to the saints.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see the connection between *servant* and *veneration*, in that a servant shows a sort of respect to his master.  But yet the two meanings, I think, are distinct enough that this transition wouldn't have been automatic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I'd like to know when this transition occurred.  Did the &quot;veneration&quot; meaning first appear in Latin, or originally in Ancient Greek?  I know from that *CE* entry that Augustine weighed in on this subject, so it seems to have happened at least that early, but did it happen earlier than that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14446" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4677" RevisionGUID="59904499-9fe4-43f8-affa-8bea5a5c7547" CreationDate="2017-06-27T21:46:53.577" UserId="12" Text="What is the origin of the &quot;veneration&quot; meaning of dulia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14447" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4677" RevisionGUID="59904499-9fe4-43f8-affa-8bea5a5c7547" CreationDate="2017-06-27T21:46:53.577" UserId="12" Text="|etymology|greek|christianity|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4674" RevisionGUID="e031da79-2414-4bec-aa3d-d43bc78959da" CreationDate="2017-06-27T22:09:01.170" UserId="406" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="## *Futurum Simplex* (simple future, future imperfect)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The simple future, *amābō*, is the most common future tense. It refers to something which is going to happen in the future: &quot;I will love&quot;. In general, &quot;will&quot; is the best way to translate this into English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You form the simple future in two different ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In the first (*amāre*) and second (*habēre*) conjugations, you take the present stem (*amā-*, *habē-*), and add the endings *-bō*, *-bis*, *-bit*, *-bimus*, *-bitis*, *-bunt*.&#xD;&#xA; - In the third (*currere*, *capere*) and fourth (*audīre*) conjugations, you take the present stem (*curr-*, *capi-*, *audi-*), and add the endings *-am*, *-ēs*, *-et*, *-ēmus*, *-ētis*, *-ent*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##*Futurum Exactum* (*futurum perfectum*, future perfect)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future perfect, *amāverō*, is much less common, and doesn't have a direct analogue in English. *(EDIT: Or perhaps it does. See the comments.)* It's used for something which happens in the future, but *before* something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English tends to use present-tense forms for this: &quot;After I get home, I will eat dinner.&quot; In this sentence, &quot;get home&quot; is referring to a future event, happening before another future event (eating dinner). So in Latin it would be translated with a future perfect (*domum **redīverō***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really need to make it clear in your translation, you can use &quot;will have&quot;, but this tends to sound awkward in English: &quot;After I **will have gotten home**, I will eat dinner.&quot; I'd never say something like that except in a translation exercise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, it's easy to form, without any weird exceptions that I'm aware of. Take the perfect stem (*amāv-*, *habu-*, *cucurr-*, *cēp-*, *audīv-*), then add endings based on the future tense of *esse* (*erō*, *eris*, *erit*, *erimus*, *eritis*, ***erint***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third person plural is the one to watch out for: since *-erunt* is already the ending for the perfect tense, the future perfect is *-erint*. All the rest are exactly like the forms of *esse*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4676" RevisionGUID="5258dd76-5967-4ec4-8fe2-cc84d0a0f21b" CreationDate="2017-06-27T22:27:45.367" UserId="9" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="Does Latin have words for the various types of diets, e.g., &quot;vegetarian,&quot; &quot;vegan,&quot; etc.?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;St. Thomas Aquinas, seemingly referring to what we today would call a &quot;vegan,&quot; says ([*Summa Theologica* II-II q. 147 a. 8][1] arg. 1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_abstinentia a carnibus et ovis et lacticiniis_&lt;br&gt;[abstinence from meat, eggs, and milk foods]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I'm not interested in modern coinages of the words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/SS/SS147.html#SSQ147A8THEP1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4677" RevisionGUID="92e3bffc-deec-41a4-a935-ec86114b621f" CreationDate="2017-06-27T22:37:08.880" UserId="12" Comment="correction to Greek translation" Text="The word *dulia* comes from the Greek *doulia* (meaning &quot;slavery&quot; or &quot;servitude&quot;).  But in Catholicism, the word has taken on a theological meaning, as described in the [*Catholic Encyclopedia*](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm), &quot;signifying the honour paid to the saints.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see the connection between *servitude* and *veneration*, in that a servant shows a sort of respect to his master.  But yet the two meanings, I think, are distinct enough that this transition wouldn't have been automatic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I'd like to know when this transition occurred.  Did the &quot;veneration&quot; meaning first appear in Latin, or originally in Ancient Greek?  I know from that *CE* entry that Augustine weighed in on this subject, so it seems to have happened at least that early, but did it happen earlier than that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14451" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4676" RevisionGUID="ce2ceef0-fcd7-409c-a5ce-56b6c920260c" CreationDate="2017-06-28T00:29:32.983" UserId="576" Comment="edited title" Text="Latin words for various types of diets (carnivore, vegetarian, vegan, etc.)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2611" RevisionGUID="bebc55c5-b58b-42d7-a792-e3ad01bde8a3" CreationDate="2017-06-28T00:29:52.760" UserId="78" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="##Pretty much never.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LSJ's entry on *οὐ* mentions *οὐ* + subjunctive only once:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...with subj[unctive] in fut[ure] sense, only in Ep[ic], “οὐ γάρ τίς με βίῃ γε ἑκὼν ἀέκοντα δίηται” 7.197; “οὐκ ἄν τοι χραίς μῃ κίθαρις” 3.54, cf. 11.387.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To elaborate: the subjunctive mood in Epic can have a meaning closer to the Classical future tense. When this happens, and the subjunctive verb expresses something relatively definite, it will take *οὐ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There can also be some weirdness in negative fear clauses][1], since they're already using *μὴ* for a different purpose. But this is an edge case which doesn't often happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anywhere else, the subjunctive should take *μὴ*, as it expresses a possibility rather than a reality. [More detail is available in Smyth][2] if you want to go down that rabbit hole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Wow, two other answers saying the same thing while I was typing! I really need to get faster at this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0007:id=s2221&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0007:part=4:chapter=59" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4678" RevisionGUID="ac74a167-0c1e-4320-b84a-6a2ca4e28623" CreationDate="2017-06-28T00:35:53.303" UserId="576" Text="carnivore = [*carnivorus*][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vegetarian = *herbivorus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=carnivorus&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4679" RevisionGUID="9e92106e-5ec9-48bc-9668-79ce4f21e1c8" CreationDate="2017-06-28T02:13:12.543" UserId="522" Text="Before the food industry tried to hide these things from us, everyone knew that food could be improved with bacteria.  &#xD;&#xA;Yoghurt with *Streptococcus thermophilus and Lactobacillus bulgaricus*  &#xD;&#xA;Cheese with, for example, *Penicillium roqueforti*  &#xD;&#xA;Sourdough bread with *Lactobacillus plantarum*   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process known a brine fermentation, where food is kept very warm in salt water, to allow anaerobic bacteria to develop was best known to Roman cooks for [Garum][1]. In it's present day version, *colatura di alici* or&#xD;&#xA;Anchovy Sauce, solar salt and smallfish, at 30degrees C.  &#xD;&#xA;generate beneficial *Tetragenococcus,* immersed in 12-20% brine for 30 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process is used to pickle a variety of food, including olives, sauerkraut, kimchi, picallillis, and cucurbitae. The flavour is soured, and the food is preserved from mould, by bacteria which produce lactic acid. Vine leaves or oak leaves keep the pickles crisp. Herbs and spice add flavour.  &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;The **gourd** most often pickled is the cucumber, sold as '[dill cucumbers;][2]' and the tiny cucumbers called gherkins, or [cornichons][3]. The [fermentation][4] in brine creates the right conditions for *Lactobacillus plantarum,* and *L. brevis* to preserve the pickles so long as they are covered (anaerobic) by the brine. ***Aeger,*** fermented not infected, relates to the bacteria, which the doctors would have known were present in the brine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, ***&quot;Cum cucurbitis aegris ex aqua&quot;*** means 'With pickled cornichons  straight from the brine.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.passthegarum.co.uk/single-post/2015/02/20/GarumLiquamen-Fish-Sauce&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.simplebites.net/make-old-fashioned-brine-fermented-pickles-like-your-great-grandmother/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://chooserealfood.wordpress.com/2015/07/26/cornichons-cucumber-pickles-lacto-fermented/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.wildfermentation.com/making-sour-pickles-2/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4680" RevisionGUID="6db0a15f-242c-468e-b692-bf16688655e3" CreationDate="2017-06-28T20:53:46.223" UserId="13" Text="[Campbell p. 122](https://www.scribd.com/doc/34720745/Sappho-and-Alcaeus-Loeb) has this poem as fr. 98. The first &quot;wannabe&quot; tercet has only one line in Campbell. [Bibliotheca Augustana](https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/graeca/Chronologia/S_ante06/Sappho/sap_me05.html) reports the poem with two &quot;blank&quot; lines at the start, and also offers the image of one of the source papyri, `P.Hauniens.`, source for the first 12 lines. The papyrus evidently starts with what is l. 3 in the Campbell-B.A. text, and it even has white space above, indicating that it was probably the top of whatever it was in (e.g. papyrus scroll). So we'd have to assume that either two (or more) lines weren't even written on the papyrus, or that some other part of it (another column, e.g.) contained those line, and the scribe decided to make a column-break-like thing in the middle of a tercet. Couldn't that just be the first lie, and the meter be as below?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;–ux xx–uu–ux&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;xx–uu–ux&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;xx–uu–ux&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the reason people assume those two lines were lost and the meter was as follows?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;xx–uu–ux&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;xx–uu–uc&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;–ux xx–uu–ux&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean, if the following meter is accepted for Campbell's fr. 96:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;–ux xx–uu–ux&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;xx–uu–ux&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;xx–uu–u–u–x&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;why can my proposed meter not be the actual meter of fr. 98?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14457" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4680" RevisionGUID="6db0a15f-242c-468e-b692-bf16688655e3" CreationDate="2017-06-28T20:53:46.223" UserId="13" Text="Why is it assumed that Sappho fr. 98 Campbell is missing two lines at the beginning of the first known tercet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14458" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4680" RevisionGUID="6db0a15f-242c-468e-b692-bf16688655e3" CreationDate="2017-06-28T20:53:46.223" UserId="13" Text="|poetry|metre|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14459" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4680" RevisionGUID="b9f420d2-4bfc-4433-9be9-6eb7785e211b" CreationDate="2017-06-28T20:59:23.033" UserId="13" Comment="edited tags" Text="|poetry|metre|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14462" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4678" RevisionGUID="de42d75e-5895-4d8f-ac65-238e3ee6553f" CreationDate="2017-06-29T13:28:14.737" UserId="12" Comment="42" />
  <row Id="14463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4681" RevisionGUID="630bf487-2397-40df-94ed-6539f8296a48" CreationDate="2017-06-29T15:48:05.903" UserId="1133" Text="Can someone please explain how these two words,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ingenuus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ingeniōsus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;both deriving from *gignō*, come to mean what they respectively do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BACKGROUND**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Wiktionary, *[ingenuus][1]* is made of *in-* +‎ *gignō* +‎ *-uus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry for *[ingeniōsus][2]* gives no etymology.  So I had to look up *[ingenious][3]*, whose etymology is also *in-* + *gignere*; and *[ingenium][4]*, again *in-* + *gignere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found *[-ōsus][5]*.  I believe this may be the third element in *ingeniōsus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My random guess is something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The *in-* in *ingenuus* is a negation.  So the word has the structure of *in-* +‎ [*gignō* +‎ *-uus*], or *not caused*, amenable to meanings like *natural* and *candid* (or *unaffected*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The *in-* in *ingeniōsus* means *in* or *at*. So the word has [*in-* + *gignere*] + *-ōsus*, or *[at birth]-full*, amenable to *full of quality* and therefore *clever*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer I am looking for would take each of the words (*ingenuus* and *ingeniōsus*), break it to its constituent parts, identify those parts by meaning and usage, say what was the probably first application of the word, and if possible trace how that might have expanded to the more figurative senses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For *[-uus][6]*, Wiktionary lists *contiguus*, *succiduus*, and *vacuus*.  For these words the present and the perfect stems (maybe these are not the right terms) look alike. But the case of *gigno* perhaps suggests that *-uus* is always attaching itself to the perfect stem?  What happens to other verbs with different present and perfect stems when they take *-uus*? Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ingenuus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ingeniosus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ingenious&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ingenium&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-osus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-uus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14464" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4681" RevisionGUID="630bf487-2397-40df-94ed-6539f8296a48" CreationDate="2017-06-29T15:48:05.903" UserId="1133" Text="Etymology of &quot;ingeniōsus&quot; and &quot;ingenuus&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14465" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4681" RevisionGUID="630bf487-2397-40df-94ed-6539f8296a48" CreationDate="2017-06-29T15:48:05.903" UserId="1133" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4681" RevisionGUID="3eb642e5-d378-4be5-931b-84736ffcaaa5" CreationDate="2017-06-29T16:01:53.623" UserId="1133" Comment="edited body" Text="Can someone please explain how these two words,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ingenuus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ingeniōsus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;both deriving from *gignō*, come to mean what they respectively do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BACKGROUND**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Wiktionary, *[ingenuus][1]* is made of *in-* +‎ *gignō* +‎ *-uus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry for *[ingeniōsus][2]* gives no etymology.  So I had to look up *[ingenious][3]*, whose etymology is also *in-* + *gignere*; and *[ingenium][4]*, again *in-* + *gignere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found *[-ōsus][5]*.  I believe this may be the third element in *ingeniōsus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My random guess is something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The *in-* in *ingenuus* is a negation.  So the word has the structure of *in-* +‎ [*gignō* +‎ *-uus*], or *not caused*, amenable to meanings like *natural* and *candid* (or *unaffected*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The *in-* in *ingeniōsus* means *in* or *at*. So the word has [*in-* + *gignere*] + *-ōsus*, or *[at birth]-full*, amenable to *full of quality* and therefore *clever*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer I am looking for would take each of the words (*ingenuus* and *ingeniōsus*), break it to its constituent parts, identify those parts by meaning and usage, say what was the probable first application of the word, and if possible trace how that might have expanded to the more figurative senses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For *[-uus][6]*, Wiktionary lists *contiguus*, *succiduus*, and *vacuus*.  For these words the present and the perfect stems (maybe these are not the right terms) look alike. But the case of *gignō* perhaps suggests that *-uus* is always attaching itself to the perfect stem?  What happens to other verbs with different present and perfect stems when they take *-uus*? Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ingenuus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ingeniosus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ingenious&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ingenium&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-osus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-uus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4681" RevisionGUID="7a61fb04-e5ff-41e8-99bd-2d2ff43312f3" CreationDate="2017-06-29T16:04:43.650" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags and reformatted slightly. Feel free to retag or reedit!" Text="Can someone please explain how these two words,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *ingenuus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *ingeniōsus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;both deriving from *gignō*, come to mean what they respectively do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##BACKGROUND&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--Note: different amounts of #s are meant for titles of different levels--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Wiktionary, *[ingenuus][1]* is made of *in-* +‎ *gignō* +‎ *-uus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry for *[ingeniōsus][2]* gives no etymology.  So I had to look up *[ingenious][3]*, whose etymology is also *in-* + *gignere*; and *[ingenium][4]*, again *in-* + *gignere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found *[-ōsus][5]*.  I believe this may be the third element in *ingeniōsus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My random guess is something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The *in-* in *ingenuus* is a negation.  So the word has the structure of *in-* +‎ [*gignō* +‎ *-uus*], or *not caused*, amenable to meanings like *natural* and *candid* (or *unaffected*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The *in-* in *ingeniōsus* means *in* or *at*. So the word has [*in-* + *gignere*] + *-ōsus*, or *[at birth]-full*, amenable to *full of quality* and therefore *clever*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer I am looking for would take each of the words (*ingenuus* and *ingeniōsus*), break it to its constituent parts, identify those parts by meaning and usage, say what was the probable first application of the word, and if possible trace how that might have expanded to the more figurative senses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For *[-uus][6]*, Wiktionary lists *contiguus*, *succiduus*, and *vacuus*.  For these words the present and the perfect stems (maybe these are not the right terms) look alike. But the case of *gignō* perhaps suggests that *-uus* is always attaching itself to the perfect stem?  What happens to other verbs with different present and perfect stems when they take *-uus*? Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ingenuus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ingeniosus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ingenious&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ingenium&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-osus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-uus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14468" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4681" RevisionGUID="7a61fb04-e5ff-41e8-99bd-2d2ff43312f3" CreationDate="2017-06-29T16:04:43.650" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags and reformatted slightly. Feel free to retag or reedit!" Text="|etymology|word-comparison|adjective|derivation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4682" RevisionGUID="9d1edb44-1d52-4db1-9546-42490578bf43" CreationDate="2017-06-29T16:30:18.390" UserId="1763" Text="I've heard that Augustus originally wanted an &quot;Augusteis&quot; from Vergil. I know that in the end Augustus really liked the Aeneis, but is there any known reason why exactly Vergil decided to write an &quot;Aeneis&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14470" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4682" RevisionGUID="9d1edb44-1d52-4db1-9546-42490578bf43" CreationDate="2017-06-29T16:30:18.390" UserId="1763" Text="Aeneis instead of &quot;Augusteis&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14471" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4682" RevisionGUID="9d1edb44-1d52-4db1-9546-42490578bf43" CreationDate="2017-06-29T16:30:18.390" UserId="1763" Text="|aeneis|vergilius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4682" RevisionGUID="a5f8ac6b-0fae-4837-b015-d22ff9fe2dba" CreationDate="2017-06-29T17:13:38.840" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I've heard that Augustus originally wanted an &quot;Augusteis&quot; from Vergil. I know that in the end Augustus really liked the Aeneis, but is there any known reason why exactly Vergil decided to write an &quot;Aeneis&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14473" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4682" RevisionGUID="a5f8ac6b-0fae-4837-b015-d22ff9fe2dba" CreationDate="2017-06-29T17:13:38.840" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|history|aeneis|vergilius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4683" RevisionGUID="8282f83f-b1ea-4bbd-b843-306bd8fb01e1" CreationDate="2017-06-29T17:55:48.867" UserId="79" Text="I assume that we do not know the meaning of every single word attested in classical and older Latin (literature, inscriptions, and other material).&#xD;&#xA;If this assumption is false, it makes this question pointless, but a well explained justification of it would constitute a good answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems fair to assume that in general rarer words are not known as well as more common ones.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore many unknown words are probably [*hapax legomena*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapax_legomenon).&#xD;&#xA;But are there more commonly occurring words whose meaning we don't know?&#xD;&#xA;In particular, **what are the most common Latin words that we don't understand**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Understanding the meaning of a word is non-binary: there is a lot of room between understanding fully and knowing nothing at all.&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions of poorly understood words, particularly ones occurring several times, are welcome as answers&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;Also words that have only recently been figured out are interesting.&#xD;&#xA;Also, the frequency of a word depends on the corpus used, but that should not invalidate the question.&#xD;&#xA;Instead of trying to give too stringent definitions, I trust you to make a judgement call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me exclude names from this question, since their origins are often unclear and meaning (if any) is secondary to their use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If you know a suitable word, please suggest it as an answer since it is an answer.&#xD;&#xA;Comments are meant for clarifying and improving the question or making related remarks, not for answers.&#xD;&#xA;If you can't give all the details you wanted to, perhaps someone else can help you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14475" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4683" RevisionGUID="8282f83f-b1ea-4bbd-b843-306bd8fb01e1" CreationDate="2017-06-29T17:55:48.867" UserId="79" Text="What is the most common classical Latin word that we don't understand?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14476" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4683" RevisionGUID="8282f83f-b1ea-4bbd-b843-306bd8fb01e1" CreationDate="2017-06-29T17:55:48.867" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|text-corpus|old-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4684" RevisionGUID="ef5301db-b1a1-4237-8fd7-9dd4179cf3e6" CreationDate="2017-06-29T20:25:28.680" UserId="406" Text="There's a particular type of prolepsis in Greek which is often called &quot;lilies prolepsis&quot; because of the most famous example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; καταμάθετε τὰ κρίνα τοῦ ἀγροῦ πῶς αὐξάνουσιν  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Matthew 6.24)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This occurs as far back as Homer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ᾔδεε γὰρ κατὰ θυμὸν ἀδελφεὸν ὡς ἐπονεῖτο  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For he knew in his mind his brother, how he was troubled  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Iliad 2.409)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And even appears occasionally in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [I] watch'd him, how he singled Clifford forth  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Shakespeare, Henry VI II.1.12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Examples from Fraser, [Consider the lilies: prolepsis and the development of complementation][1].)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this sort of prolepsis ever appear in native, Classical Latin (as opposed to the Greek-influenced Latin of the Vulgate)? Is it attested in prose or poetry, or both?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/198282/Prolepsis.pdf?sequence=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14479" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4684" RevisionGUID="ef5301db-b1a1-4237-8fd7-9dd4179cf3e6" CreationDate="2017-06-29T20:25:28.680" UserId="406" Text="Does Classical Latin have &quot;lilies prolepsis&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14480" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4684" RevisionGUID="ef5301db-b1a1-4237-8fd7-9dd4179cf3e6" CreationDate="2017-06-29T20:25:28.680" UserId="406" Text="|classical-latin|greek|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4685" RevisionGUID="0f1c26a2-9556-431d-821e-462a1ad9f6d1" CreationDate="2017-06-29T20:41:45.947" UserId="45" Text="This is a great question: it's certainly difficult to find Latin words with uncertain meaning that are not *hapax legomena*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My entry is ***[cortumio, -nis](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcortumio)***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* L&amp;S says that it is &quot;an old word of the augurial language, perhaps equivalent to *contumio*, from *contueor*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* [Gaffiot’s *Dictionnaire Illustré Latin-Français*](http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/gaffiot/cortumio) is more sanguine about the meaning, tracing its origin to *cor* and translating as &quot;interior contemplation.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* Varro sees it as a kind of calque of *cor* and *conspicio*:&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  quod cum dicunt 'conspicionem', addunt 'cortumionem', dicitur a cordis visu: cor enim cortumionis origo. (*De Lingua Latina* 7.9.7)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides Varro, who uses it about 3 times in the same discussion, this word is also seen in the [*Commentarii Augurum*](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/492/1/0/394-400#0).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a weak entry, since it occurs only a handful of times and is likely a strange calque, but hopefully it will spark better entries!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4686" RevisionGUID="cb7c7d66-56d2-4778-aff2-6e3a4f1adbb3" CreationDate="2017-06-29T22:37:13.317" UserId="1366" Text="How would &quot;To the front/vanguard&quot; be translated not literally but metaphorically? Would there even be a difference?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am by no means educated in Latin, but I have done some self study. Would &quot;Ad Praeventores&quot; be anywhere close to what I am looking for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14484" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4686" RevisionGUID="cb7c7d66-56d2-4778-aff2-6e3a4f1adbb3" CreationDate="2017-06-29T22:37:13.317" UserId="1366" Text="Metaphoric translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14485" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4686" RevisionGUID="cb7c7d66-56d2-4778-aff2-6e3a4f1adbb3" CreationDate="2017-06-29T22:37:13.317" UserId="1366" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14486" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4686" RevisionGUID="87407586-991f-4bc1-ad2c-ded9b4771a0a" CreationDate="2017-06-29T22:57:59.703" UserId="78" Comment="edited title" Text="Metaphorical translation: &quot;To the front/vanguard&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4687" RevisionGUID="ff4149ad-0db9-4bbd-96b4-a68d433d2658" CreationDate="2017-06-30T03:44:54.103" UserId="985" Text="Cicero, _Ad familiares_ 8.10.3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _nosti Marcellum, quam tardus et parum efficax sit, itemque Servium, quam cunctator._  &#xD;&#xA;'You know Marcus, how slow he is and how ineffective, and likewise Servius, what a dawdler he is.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4688" RevisionGUID="33e5f616-c6ef-4a0a-b51b-c0794d7f2a23" CreationDate="2017-06-30T10:49:04.530" UserId="1764" Text="Obviously, I don't trust Google translate, or I wouldn't be here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to clarify: &#xD;&#xA;By &quot;The will&quot;, I mean &quot;a deliberate or fixed desire or intention&quot;. Thank you so much for your help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14489" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4688" RevisionGUID="33e5f616-c6ef-4a0a-b51b-c0794d7f2a23" CreationDate="2017-06-30T10:49:04.530" UserId="1764" Text="How does one say &quot;the will to live&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14490" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4688" RevisionGUID="33e5f616-c6ef-4a0a-b51b-c0794d7f2a23" CreationDate="2017-06-30T10:49:04.530" UserId="1764" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4689" RevisionGUID="ff46e044-50db-4586-a767-5ae3e2bad14c" CreationDate="2017-06-30T11:03:08.630" UserId="79" Text="You are indeed [right not to trust Google Translate with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend translating &quot;will&quot; with [*voluntas*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2063535).&#xD;&#xA;I don't know a better word for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;Please check the linked dictionary entry to see what nuances it has.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When translating constructions like this to Latin, I suggest using the genitive of the gerund.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to describe the ease of singing (*facilitas canendi*) or the joy of drinking (*gaudium bibendi*), this is a good way to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore suggest ***voluntas vivendi***, which also happens to sound pleasing for several reasons.&#xD;&#xA;Translated literally to English, it means &quot;willingness of living&quot;, but that is not as idiomatic English as your &quot;the will to live&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4690" RevisionGUID="101ce15b-bb8c-418e-96b8-773673b5603f" CreationDate="2017-06-30T11:34:58.447" UserId="645" Text="A touch more positively than Joonas's answer, I suggest *studium vitae*, 'zeal' or 'eagerness for life'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4691" RevisionGUID="092dfb09-cf03-452f-a61b-617c199d6638" CreationDate="2017-06-30T13:02:17.937" UserId="324" Text="Schopenhauer himself rendered his concept &quot;Wille zum Leben&quot; as &quot;voluntas vivendi&quot; in a marginal note to Augustine's *Civitas dei*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1133" RevisionGUID="d9ce92be-df3f-4afc-aafe-75fa86765529" CreationDate="2017-06-30T13:51:35.470" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="Nearly every human language is named after the people who spoke it, from ancient Egyptian, Hebrew and Greek, to modern tongues such as English, German and Chinese. And then we have the language of the ancient Romans: *Latin*. Why do we call it that, rather than &quot;Roman&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14496" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1133" RevisionGUID="d9ce92be-df3f-4afc-aafe-75fa86765529" CreationDate="2017-06-30T13:51:35.470" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|vocabulary|history|place-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4692" RevisionGUID="b76f47d8-8130-4ffd-a93b-3997adf2a14a" CreationDate="2017-06-30T14:38:12.983" UserId="1752" Text="The definition of 'the vanguard' in Latin is actually more commonly idiomatic, as opposed to being a word. If you wanted to say 'to the vanguard', you would actually say '*ad primum agmen*', which means to the first [in] the line of march, when taken literally. Similarly, '*novissimum agmen*' is the rear, as the newest recruits would march at the back of the army. '*Ad praeventores*' would not have any military context, meaning simply 'towards those who proceed'. As to translating metaphorically, I am not entirely sure what you mean - what would be the context of your metaphor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4693" RevisionGUID="79fe3f67-d3ed-4498-81bd-c43c7bb029d1" CreationDate="2017-06-30T16:19:09.403" UserId="1743" Text="**Question:** does Latin have a grammatical mechanism to disambiguate the ambiguous use of `his' in the third of the three following English sentences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Person A wrote a book. &#xD;&#xA;    Then person B wrote a book. &#xD;&#xA;    Then person A wrote a book review of B's book, &#xD;&#xA;    wherein he compared his book with his. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Remarks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In English, a solution is of course to replace the latter &quot;his&quot; with the two words &quot;his own&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;The question is whether Latin has a mechanism which somehow uses the same possessive pronoun, but &quot;inflected&quot; in different ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* More generally, even though this is a Latin-language-forum: what other languages do you know which have a mechanism for this particular disambiguation?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14500" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4693" RevisionGUID="79fe3f67-d3ed-4498-81bd-c43c7bb029d1" CreationDate="2017-06-30T16:19:09.403" UserId="1743" Text="Does Latin have a mechanism to disambiguate possessive pronouns of the same gender referring to distinct persons?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14501" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4693" RevisionGUID="79fe3f67-d3ed-4498-81bd-c43c7bb029d1" CreationDate="2017-06-30T16:19:09.403" UserId="1743" Text="|grammar-choice|language-evolution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4694" RevisionGUID="401a1db8-c8c3-46d5-b0ab-f9d81398c80b" CreationDate="2017-06-30T16:54:22.497" UserId="79" Text="Two key mechanisms of disambiguation come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Using *hic* (latter) and *ille* (former) is one way. Simple example: &quot;A and B meet. The former eats, the latter drinks.&quot; &amp;mdash; *A et B conveniunt. Ille est, hic bibit.*&#xD;&#xA;- The pronoun *se/suus* usually refers to the subject of the sentence. Simple example: &quot;B wrote a book. A compares his own book with B's.&quot; &amp;mdash; *B librum scripsit. A librum suum cum libro eius comparat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately there are cases where *se/suus* refers to something other than a subject.&#xD;&#xA;The risk of misinterpretation is larger than usual in your story, but I guess that is inevitable if you want to use pronouns only.&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, &quot;comparing X with Y&quot; does not change much if X and Y are interchanged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the caveat, I think the distinction is best made with the pair *suus/eius*.&#xD;&#xA;Here's how I'd translate your story:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Aeneas librum scripsit.  &#xD;&#xA;Deinde Brutus librum scripsit.  &#xD;&#xA;Deinde Aeneas contemplationem libri Bruti scripsit,  &#xD;&#xA;in quo librum suum cum libro eios comparavit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be a better translation for &quot;review&quot; than *contemplatio*, but I hope to see that in another question.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know a good translation, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4695" RevisionGUID="ebfebfe8-1e16-4056-bbd0-f3cff49f6d3c" CreationDate="2017-06-30T16:54:41.053" UserId="78" Text="Yep, it's called the *reflexive adjective*, *suus*, -*a*, -*um*. It declines like an adjective and goes with the noun it's modifying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Marcus reads a book. *Marcus librum legit.*&#xD;&#xA;* Marcus reads his [i.e. someone else's] book. *Marcus **eius** librum legit.*&#xD;&#xA;* Marcus reads his own book. *Marcus **suum** librum legit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the full set of rules on reflexives, see [Allen &amp; Greenough](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/reflexive-pronouns) on the topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4696" RevisionGUID="bf90fc1f-32a8-4288-8ed3-88edc8cd1305" CreationDate="2017-06-30T16:57:09.290" UserId="45" Text="To complement the other answer, another common way to refer to the vanguard is *prima acies*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*In primam aciem* is the usual way of saying, &quot;to the van&quot;, e.g. Caesar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  scuto ab novissimis uni militi detracto, quod ipse eo sine scuto venerat, **in primam aciem processit** centurionibusque nominatim appellatis reliquos cohortatus milites signa inferre et manipulos laxare iussit. (Caesar, *De Bello Gallico* 2.25)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Livy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Praenestinus praetor per timorem segnius ex subsidiis suos duxerat **in primam aciem**. (Livius, *Ab Urbe Condita* 9.16)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what you mean by &quot;not literally but metaphorically.&quot; *Acies* is used in a myriad of contexts, some of which are decidedly metaphorical. I am sure that a Roman would understand *in primam aciem* outside of a military context if the context was otherwise clear that it is not meant literally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4693" RevisionGUID="86c23ace-9ed7-4eef-ab95-91317b3914d6" CreationDate="2017-06-30T17:09:42.580" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags and reformatted the quote as a quote instead of code block." Text="**Question:** does Latin have a grammatical mechanism to disambiguate the ambiguous use of `his' in the third of the three following English sentences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Person A wrote a book.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then person B wrote a book.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then person A wrote a book review of B's book,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; wherein he compared his book with his. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Remarks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In English, a solution is of course to replace the latter &quot;his&quot; with the two words &quot;his own&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;The question is whether Latin has a mechanism which somehow uses the same possessive pronoun, but &quot;inflected&quot; in different ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* More generally, even though this is a Latin-language-forum: what other languages do you know which have a mechanism for this particular disambiguation?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14507" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4693" RevisionGUID="86c23ace-9ed7-4eef-ab95-91317b3914d6" CreationDate="2017-06-30T17:09:42.580" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags and reformatted the quote as a quote instead of code block." Text="|grammar-choice|syntax|language-evolution|pronouns|ambiguity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4694" RevisionGUID="701fc856-6fda-4e0f-b930-2b2ac9d4c56a" CreationDate="2017-06-30T17:27:21.960" UserId="45" Comment="edited body" Text="Two key mechanisms of disambiguation come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Using *hic* (latter) and *ille* (former) is one way. Simple example: &quot;A and B meet. The former eats, the latter drinks.&quot; &amp;mdash; *A et B conveniunt. Ille est, hic bibit.*&#xD;&#xA;- The pronoun *se/suus* usually refers to the subject of the sentence. Simple example: &quot;B wrote a book. A compares his own book with B's.&quot; &amp;mdash; *B librum scripsit. A librum suum cum libro eius comparat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately there are cases where *se/suus* refers to something other than a subject.&#xD;&#xA;The risk of misinterpretation is larger than usual in your story, but I guess that is inevitable if you want to use pronouns only.&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, &quot;comparing X with Y&quot; does not change much if X and Y are interchanged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the caveat, I think the distinction is best made with the pair *suus/eius*.&#xD;&#xA;Here's how I'd translate your story:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Aeneas librum scripsit.  &#xD;&#xA;Deinde Brutus librum scripsit.  &#xD;&#xA;Deinde Aeneas contemplationem libri Bruti scripsit,  &#xD;&#xA;in quo librum suum cum libro eius comparavit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be a better translation for &quot;review&quot; than *contemplatio*, but I hope to see that in another question.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know a good translation, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="e0b0b885-a3ce-4293-a302-09007d55d3d4" CreationDate="2017-06-30T17:28:18.657" UserId="79" Text="Let's start with some example sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the house where I was born.  &#xD;&#xA;*Ecce domus ubi natus sum.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the house in which I was born.  &#xD;&#xA;*Ecce domus in qua natus sum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both sentences are understandable in both languages, but I'm not sure if both are grammatical and, if so, whether they are identical.&#xD;&#xA;Now that I think of it, I'm not sure how to compare the English &quot;where&quot; and &quot;in which&quot;; I have developed some intuition over the years, but there is no analogous comparison in my native language.&#xD;&#xA;My question concerns Latin, but comparison to or discussion of English is welcome, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on a [quick look at uses of *ubi*](#ubi#), it seems that it is more commonly used in other meanings, but sometimes as a relative pronoun as in the examples.&#xD;&#xA;My question only concerns this use of *ubi*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a bunch of related questions:&#xD;&#xA;**What is the difference, if any, between *ubi* and *in quo/qua* as relative pronouns?**&#xD;&#xA;How do I know which one to pick?&#xD;&#xA;Of both can be used in some cases, is there a difference in meaning?&#xD;&#xA;Are there situations that require *ubi* and others that require *in quo*?&#xD;&#xA;Can I always safely use *in quo* and forget about *ubi* as a relative pronoun?&#xD;&#xA;I know this is a whole bunch of questions, but I hope it gives a better idea of what I'm after than just the bolded one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14510" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="e0b0b885-a3ce-4293-a302-09007d55d3d4" CreationDate="2017-06-30T17:28:18.657" UserId="79" Text="What is the difference between &quot;ubi&quot; and &quot;in quo&quot; as relative pronouns?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14511" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="e0b0b885-a3ce-4293-a302-09007d55d3d4" CreationDate="2017-06-30T17:28:18.657" UserId="79" Text="|word-comparison|pronouns|relative-pronouns|relative-clause|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4694" RevisionGUID="e7b85550-3bf0-4fd7-a532-54009055f5fb" CreationDate="2017-06-30T17:39:35.773" UserId="79" Comment="added 633 characters in body" Text="Two key mechanisms of disambiguation come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Using *hic* (latter) and *ille* (former) is one way. Simple example: &quot;A and B meet. The former eats, the latter drinks.&quot; &amp;mdash; *A et B conveniunt. Ille est, hic bibit.*&#xD;&#xA;- The pronoun *se/suus* usually refers to the subject of the sentence. Simple example: &quot;B wrote a book. A compares his own book with B's.&quot; &amp;mdash; *B librum scripsit. A librum suum cum libro eius comparat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately there are cases where *se/suus* refers to something other than a subject.&#xD;&#xA;The risk of misinterpretation is larger than usual in your story, but I guess that is inevitable if you want to use pronouns only.&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, &quot;comparing X with Y&quot; does not change much if X and Y are interchanged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the caveat, I think the distinction is best made with the pair *suus/eius*.&#xD;&#xA;Here's how I'd translate your story:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Aeneas librum scripsit.  &#xD;&#xA;Deinde Brutus librum scripsit.  &#xD;&#xA;Deinde Aeneas contemplationem libri Bruti scripsit,  &#xD;&#xA;in quo librum suum cum libro eius comparavit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be a better translation for &quot;review&quot; than *contemplatio*, but I hope to see that in another question.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know a good translation, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, the specification &quot;same gender&quot; in the question is irrelevant for Latin here.&#xD;&#xA;The the form of the pronoun *suus* depends on the thing possessed, not the possessor, and the genitive *eius* is the same for all three genders.&#xD;&#xA;English makes a distinction between &quot;his&quot; and &quot;her(s)&quot;, but Latin doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding other languages:&#xD;&#xA;Many languages have something similar to the Latin *suus*.&#xD;&#xA;Italian has &quot;suo&quot;, Swedish has &quot;sin&quot;, Finnish has &quot;-nsA&quot;, but there are syntactical differences between the languages.&#xD;&#xA;However, to make the distinction clear in any language, I would simply repeat B's name on the last line." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="b31bbfc1-6bab-4e62-8802-b49a0dc3ae54" CreationDate="2017-06-30T18:30:19.890" UserId="666" Text="How do you say the word &quot;graduation&quot; in Latin, referring to a college graduation?  I searched online, but couldn't find anyone who had asked this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14514" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="b31bbfc1-6bab-4e62-8802-b49a0dc3ae54" CreationDate="2017-06-30T18:30:19.890" UserId="666" Text="How to say &quot;Graduation&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14515" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="b31bbfc1-6bab-4e62-8802-b49a0dc3ae54" CreationDate="2017-06-30T18:30:19.890" UserId="666" Text="|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14516" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="a6c54ce5-e34b-4aaa-a8bb-9a0c69c3e79c" CreationDate="2017-06-30T18:35:35.067" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="How to say &quot;Graduation&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14517" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="a6c54ce5-e34b-4aaa-a8bb-9a0c69c3e79c" CreationDate="2017-06-30T18:35:35.067" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|word-request|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4699" RevisionGUID="ccf9e9df-f0e4-4118-9799-b0d7bb9f6e9b" CreationDate="2017-06-30T18:43:14.520" UserId="79" Text="Two suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If Etymonline is to be trusted, the English word &quot;graduation&quot; comes from a medieval Latin adjective *graduatus* (&quot;graduated&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;This Latin word is a regular derivation but seems to be absent in classical literature.&#xD;&#xA;If *barbatus* is &quot;bearded&quot; and *alatus* is &quot;winged&quot;, *graduatus* is &quot;degreed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The word *gradus* can mean &quot;status&quot;, &quot;degree&quot;, or &quot;position&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Going by analogy with *graduatus*, it is natural to translate &quot;graduation&quot; as ***graduatio, -nis***.&#xD;&#xA;The benefit is that it looks obviously related to the English word and is readily understood (in context) by most Latinists even if they have never seen the word before in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;2. The Finnish&amp;ndash;Latin&amp;ndash;Finnish dictionary by Reijo Pitkäranta translates &quot;to graduate&quot; as *specimina absolvere* and lists no other options.&#xD;&#xA;More directly, this Latin expression means &quot;to finish one's exams&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, you could call &quot;graduation&quot; as *specimina absoluta* (lit. &quot;completion of exams&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;Frankly, I dislike this option." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4700" RevisionGUID="4ad19cf3-5cfd-4572-9940-94c359a5ece1" CreationDate="2017-06-30T18:45:47.323" UserId="645" Text="I wouldn't even try to guess which words are *most commonly* 'not understood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The natural world is a rich category here, with many examples of species that cannot be exactly identified: though reasonable guesses are made, they are often with reservations. These include both plants and animals, some of which occur in several places&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My off-the-cuff offering is *haematopus*, described by Pliny (10, 47, 64) as a red-legged bird, of which the identity can't be properly established. It seems to be either the black-winged longshanks or the oystercatcher." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4701" RevisionGUID="24f4b55f-51a8-470a-985a-77dc98dd6c39" CreationDate="2017-06-30T19:03:15.760" UserId="1752" Text="Well, it is a simple answer to the question itself...ubi is not a relative pronoun, even if it is sometimes used as one. Ergo, it is always safe to simply use *in quo*, as, when translated idiomatically into English, simply means 'where'. However, I believe the question you are asking is more akin to whether you can use *ubi* and *in quo* interchangeably. As far as I know, you can use them interchangeably in this particular context, but you will never be wrong if you simply use the actual relative pronoun as opposed to the adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, on a side note, I believe the example sentences you gave translate more like, &quot;Behold, the house where I was born&quot;. Or, if you wish to imply a main verb 'est', &quot;Behold, this is the house where I was born&quot;. Ecce is typically an interjection that means &quot;behold&quot; or &quot;there!&quot;, or, more colloquially, &quot;check it out!&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="9811cb88-8517-47d8-b37c-c6002ee8db71" CreationDate="2017-06-30T19:29:08.523" UserId="79" Comment="added 286 characters in body; edited title" Text="Let's start with some example sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the house where I was born.  &#xD;&#xA;*Ecce domus ubi natus sum.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the house in which I was born.  &#xD;&#xA;*Ecce domus in qua natus sum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both sentences are understandable in both languages, but I'm not sure if both are grammatical and, if so, whether they are identical.&#xD;&#xA;Now that I think of it, I'm not sure how to compare the English &quot;where&quot; and &quot;in which&quot;; I have developed some intuition over the years, but there is no analogous comparison in my native language.&#xD;&#xA;My question concerns Latin, but comparison to or discussion of English is welcome, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on a [quick look at uses of *ubi*](#ubi#), it seems that it is more commonly used in other meanings, but sometimes as a relative pronoun as in the examples.&#xD;&#xA;My question only concerns this use of *ubi*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a bunch of related questions:&#xD;&#xA;**What is the difference, if any, between *ubi* and *in quo/qua* as relative adverbs&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;?**&#xD;&#xA;How do I know which one to pick?&#xD;&#xA;Of both can be used in some cases, is there a difference in meaning?&#xD;&#xA;Are there situations that require *ubi* and others that require *in quo*?&#xD;&#xA;Can I always safely use *in quo* and forget about *ubi* as a relative pronoun?&#xD;&#xA;I know this is a whole bunch of questions, but I hope it gives a better idea of what I'm after than just the bolded one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A previous version of this question spoke about *ubi* and *in quo/qua* as relative pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;However, they are not that, they are relative adverbs.&#xD;&#xA;One can regard the relative pronoun *qui/quae/quod* in ablative and with *in* as a relative adverb.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps *ubi* is more commonly interrogative than relative when referring to place, but I have seen it used similarly to *in quo/qua*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14523" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="9811cb88-8517-47d8-b37c-c6002ee8db71" CreationDate="2017-06-30T19:29:08.523" UserId="79" Comment="added 286 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the difference between &quot;ubi&quot; and &quot;in quo&quot; as relative adverbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="ce73cb3d-96ec-4ed1-8d0b-7babc1a4e647" CreationDate="2017-06-30T19:58:32.060" UserId="45" Text="David Morgan, in his *Lexicon*, offers ***promotio [academica]***. [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpromotio) says that this is a post-classical word and offers &quot;advancement, preferment, promotion&quot; as translations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;graduation ceremony&quot; would be ***promotionis sollemnia***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14525" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="0360e359-a7c4-4ed6-858f-292d287bc7cb" CreationDate="2017-06-30T20:02:43.883" UserId="666" Comment="edited tags" Text="|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4703" RevisionGUID="823754ce-7f03-4b31-af85-a3f39e78669a" CreationDate="2017-06-30T20:26:42.033" UserId="1439" Text="Two ideas from the University of Oxford, which still conducts some of its ceremonies (including degree days) in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Encaenia** is a Greek word for a festival of renewal, which is the name of Oxford's ceremony celebrating benefactors and conferring honorary degrees. The [university website][1] describes the term as equivalent to the American term 'commencement' for the chief ceremony of the academic year.&#xD;&#xA; - A [regular degree ceremony][2] uses the phrase **Gradus conferre** for the granting of degrees in the opening formula (although when students are specifically admitted to degrees, the phrasing is **admittere ad gradum**). This suggests some sort of expression like **ceremonia gradum conferentis** could be apposite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ox.ac.uk/news-and-events/The-University-Year/Encaenia&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/field/field_document/Degree%20ceremony_201617_web.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4704" RevisionGUID="4b568cd5-8e2e-40ca-a10b-570669a3c9e8" CreationDate="2017-07-01T01:12:07.280" UserId="1369" Text="In Medieval _studia generalia_, the term that seems to have been used is _[gradum](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradus_academicus) concedere_ or _conferre_. Alternately, instead of _gradum_, the name of the degree: _baccalaureus_ for those who finished the _trivium_, _magister_ for those who finished the _quadrivium_, and _doctor_ for those who finished the higher _facultates_ of Law, Medicine or Theology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4705" RevisionGUID="27e90a83-18e5-4f19-aa9d-ce5155509634" CreationDate="2017-07-01T02:23:20.813" UserId="427" Text="Although Tom Cotton's answer may be correct for pure Classical Latin, it neglects other eras of the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Excerpted from W. M. Lindsay's [Syntax of Plautus 5.42][1] (emphasis mine): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Supine.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Verbal Noun in *-tus* (4th Declension) is greatly in evidence in Plautus. We find the Accusative with *eo,* etc., e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    *ire obsonatum* to go a-marketing,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    *ire venatum* to go a-hunting;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **the Ablative with *redeo,* e.g. Cas. 719 (Men. 278, 288） *“obsonatu redire”* to return from marketing;** the Dative with *habeo,* e.g. Cist. 365 *“me … habes perditui et praedatui”,* and with *sum* (see II. 19), also with some Adjectives, e.g. *“fabula lepida auditui”;* with others the Ablative (Locative?), e.g. *celer cursu* quick in running. Two of these usages took so firm root in the language that they became part of the Verbal system, the Accusative with *eo,* etc. (called the ‘First Supine’) and the Ablative (Locative?) with an Adjective (called the ‘Second Supine’).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a direct analogue to your example, both having an ablative supine paired with *redire.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0070%3Achapter%3D5%3Apara%3D42" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4706" RevisionGUID="45a4e7b6-4c1d-4b34-ada3-8210ebbfb78a" CreationDate="2017-07-01T02:54:45.160" UserId="1239" Text="Is the sentence *omnis res est* (&quot;every thing is&quot;) grammatical?&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, are sentences like *aliqua res est* and *nulla res est* grammatical?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14530" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4706" RevisionGUID="45a4e7b6-4c1d-4b34-ada3-8210ebbfb78a" CreationDate="2017-07-01T02:54:45.160" UserId="1239" Text="Is the sentence &quot;omnis res est&quot; (&quot;every thing is&quot;) grammatical?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14531" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4706" RevisionGUID="45a4e7b6-4c1d-4b34-ada3-8210ebbfb78a" CreationDate="2017-07-01T02:54:45.160" UserId="1239" Text="|grammar-choice|grammar-identification|translation-check|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4707" RevisionGUID="aece3f1c-b8f8-44af-a6b9-04313116f091" CreationDate="2017-07-01T03:17:42.013" UserId="136" Text="**Technically, yes.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each of those sentences, meaning &quot;every thing is,&quot; &quot;some thing is,&quot; and &quot;no thing is&quot; respectively, is complete grammatical sentence when one uses *esse* (&quot;to be&quot;) in the sense of the &quot;thing&quot; exists  (intransitive), rather than the thing is something else (transitive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems like a rather odd sentence in my opinion. In English, we don't separate &quot;every&quot; and &quot;thing,&quot; but combine them into one word: &quot;everything.&quot; Latin, likewise, has a similar single word that contains the same meaning, and would probably be used more often/sound more natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *Omnia est*&#xD;&#xA; - Everything is&#xD;&#xA; 2. *Aliquid est*&#xD;&#xA; - Something is&#xD;&#xA; 3. *Nihil est*&#xD;&#xA; - Nothing is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;Now, if you are insistent on using them as separate words, it could emphasize the singularity (a one by one sense) of each item in the whole. But this is only a feeling I get from English, so I do not know if it transfers to Latin, so that is why I suggest the options above. *Esse* can serve in an intransitive sense, as I already mentioned. *Res* can often be omitted and is replaced instead with a neuter adjective/pronoun, which is essentially what options 1 and 2 are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note, this is merely a grammatical analysis, and doesn't particularly examine any historical examples. I did search a bit on Perseus, and found no examples, but there may still be some out there I did not find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4708" RevisionGUID="34183bb3-475a-401a-a65c-a89308e13e89" CreationDate="2017-07-01T08:19:41.437" UserId="1239" Text="*Aliquis* is typically a pronoun, but can it also function as an adjective like *aliqui*?  For example, *aliqui homo currit* versus *aliquis homo currit*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14534" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4708" RevisionGUID="34183bb3-475a-401a-a65c-a89308e13e89" CreationDate="2017-07-01T08:19:41.437" UserId="1239" Text="Can aliquis function as an adjective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14535" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4708" RevisionGUID="34183bb3-475a-401a-a65c-a89308e13e89" CreationDate="2017-07-01T08:19:41.437" UserId="1239" Text="|vocabulary|grammar-choice|pronouns|grammarians|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4709" RevisionGUID="c4e46eac-78ad-4e99-9631-99db2f250a92" CreationDate="2017-07-01T11:04:57.070" UserId="1692" Text="As far as I know, *the nature of man* could be translated in at least two ways in Attic Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. ἡ φῠ́σῐς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. ἡ τοῦ φῠ́σῐς ἀνθρώπου&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second version seems to have been more idiomatic in Ancient Greek; so my question is whether or not this is true; and also if both versions are grammatically correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14537" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4709" RevisionGUID="c4e46eac-78ad-4e99-9631-99db2f250a92" CreationDate="2017-07-01T11:04:57.070" UserId="1692" Text="Translating &quot;the nature of man&quot; in Ancient Greek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14538" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4709" RevisionGUID="c4e46eac-78ad-4e99-9631-99db2f250a92" CreationDate="2017-07-01T11:04:57.070" UserId="1692" Text="|substantivum|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4709" RevisionGUID="88e95374-124c-4d18-acc7-a1ad7e779cea" CreationDate="2017-07-01T12:25:01.640" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body; edited tags" Text="As far as I know, *the nature of man* could be translated in at least two ways in Attic Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. ἡ φῠ́σῐς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου&#xD; &#xA;&gt; 2. ἡ τοῦ φῠ́σῐς ἀνθρώπου&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second version seems to have been more idiomatic in Ancient Greek; so my question is whether or not this is true; and also if both versions are grammatically correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14540" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4709" RevisionGUID="88e95374-124c-4d18-acc7-a1ad7e779cea" CreationDate="2017-07-01T12:25:01.640" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|greek|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4711" RevisionGUID="5ab914dd-84bc-437c-ab74-df4832430626" CreationDate="2017-07-01T13:56:23.300" UserId="243" Text="Recently I was thinking about words in English which were formed from a Greek and Latin morpheme pair. An example of this is 'television', where 'tele-' is a Greek-originating prefix while 'vision' is of Latin origin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That then got me thinking; did the Romans ever do anything like this with their Latin words? Did they ever, for instance, add Greek prefixes instead of a Lati one to their words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I do realise that this question may be more nuanced than I've stated thus far, since there are many Latin words of Greek origin, but which are otherwise entirely Latin words; such a scenario would be ambiguous. These ambiguities should be included as examples, just to be sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14543" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4711" RevisionGUID="5ab914dd-84bc-437c-ab74-df4832430626" CreationDate="2017-07-01T13:56:23.300" UserId="243" Text="Did the Romans ever combine Greek and Latin morphemes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14544" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4711" RevisionGUID="5ab914dd-84bc-437c-ab74-df4832430626" CreationDate="2017-07-01T13:56:23.300" UserId="243" Text="|classical-latin|greek|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4707" RevisionGUID="34a6fc19-b8f3-4b06-9fe0-872a8e5798fc" CreationDate="2017-07-01T14:22:51.820" UserId="136" Comment="changed est to sunt" Text="**Technically, yes.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each of those sentences, meaning &quot;every thing is,&quot; &quot;some thing is,&quot; and &quot;no thing is&quot; respectively, is complete grammatical sentence when one uses *esse* (&quot;to be&quot;) in the sense of the &quot;thing&quot; exists  (intransitive), rather than the thing is something else (transitive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems like a rather odd sentence in my opinion. In English, we don't separate &quot;every&quot; and &quot;thing,&quot; but combine them into one word: &quot;everything.&quot; Latin, likewise, has a similar single word that contains the same meaning, and would probably be used more often/sound more natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *Omnia sunt*&#xD;&#xA; - Everything is&#xD;&#xA; 2. *Aliquid est*&#xD;&#xA; - Something is&#xD;&#xA; 3. *Nihil est*&#xD;&#xA; - Nothing is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;Now, if you are insistent on using them as separate words, it could emphasize the singularity (a one by one sense) of each item in the whole. But this is only a feeling I get from English, so I do not know if it transfers to Latin, so that is why I suggest the options above. *Esse* can serve in an intransitive sense, as I already mentioned. *Res* can often be omitted and is replaced instead with a neuter adjective/pronoun, which is essentially what options 1 and 2 are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note, this is merely a grammatical analysis, and doesn't particularly examine any historical examples. I did search a bit on Perseus, and found no examples, but there may still be some out there I did not find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4712" RevisionGUID="4df18e23-a18c-4a2c-85fd-191e2e809473" CreationDate="2017-07-01T14:39:02.430" UserId="243" Text="While everything in your answer is correctly inflected, I'd argue that it's actually not a correct construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, the use of 'res' for 'thing' is not a very common construction; 'res' is nearly always better translated as 'affair, issue, matter' among others, but usually not 'thing' in a general manner as you mean. Latin generally uses a neuter gender adjective. So in your ase you should be saying 'omnia sunt' (plural, not singular as I'll explain), 'aliquod est' and 'nihil est' ('nullum est' is rare but you could probably get away with it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, the word 'omnis' should really be plural. 'Omnis' is better translated as 'all'; it is a quirk of the word 'everything' in English that we always use the singular verb instead of the plural, but this is not the case for 'omnis'; we use the plural for countable nouns in the plural. &#xD;&#xA;For uncountable nouns or singular countable noun, 'the whole' or 'the entire' is a nice translation for 'omnis'. So 'omnis res' actually translates to 'the whole thing/affair/matter/...', which is quite different to what you're trying to say. &#xD;&#xA;The use of 'omnis' in the singular to refer to the plural I have seen before, but only ever in poetry, where the poet might do this in order to obey the rules of scansion. So I wouldn't recommend it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4713" RevisionGUID="e3cb1dcc-1393-4b6e-b744-e1f80e41d035" CreationDate="2017-07-01T14:50:14.833" UserId="136" Text="I disagree with LaFeeVerte, and would like to posit that *aliquis* can function as an adjective. A quote from one of my favorite sources, [Bennett's Latin Grammar][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Aliquis may be used adjectively, and (occasionally) aliquī substantively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, no examples are provided to show its adjectival use, but the fact that it can be used as an adjective makes sense based upon dictionary definitions elsewhere, such as this one from [Lewis Elementary][2], which does provide a quote from Terence as an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II.II. adj. (cf. aliqui): nos quibus est alicunde aliquis obiectus labos, T.: ut aliquis metus adiunctis sit ad gratiam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect82&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=aliquis&amp;highlight=aliquis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4714" RevisionGUID="a12d843d-f722-4827-a4f9-a2654170a993" CreationDate="2017-07-01T14:52:37.960" UserId="243" Text="Generally, the answer is no. The adjective 'aliqui, aliquae, aliquod' should be used instead. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, however, Virgil (Aeneid, book II, line 48) seems to use 'aliquis' as an adjective, saying 'aut aliquis latet error'. Here both 'aliquis' and 'error' are in the nominative, which suggests that you can use 'aliquis' as an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;But perhaps 'error' should be translated predicatively, as in 'something lies hidden as a trap' instead of 'some trap lies hidden'.&#xD;&#xA;So you probably shouldn't use it as an adjective, but you might not be wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4711" RevisionGUID="02cefeb0-1307-4edf-9b72-2f096d00d7a7" CreationDate="2017-07-01T14:56:12.047" UserId="136" Comment="added missing letter and changed s in realised to z to reflect English used primarily on this site (American)" Text="Recently I was thinking about words in English which were formed from a Greek and Latin morpheme pair. An example of this is 'television', where 'tele-' is a Greek-originating prefix while 'vision' is of Latin origin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That then got me thinking; did the Romans ever do anything like this with their Latin words? Did they ever, for instance, add Greek prefixes instead of a Latin one to their words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I do realize that this question may be more nuanced than I've stated thus far, since there are many Latin words of Greek origin, but which are otherwise entirely Latin words; such a scenario would be ambiguous. These ambiguities should be included as examples, just to be sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4715" RevisionGUID="04c3a496-ddc7-4e84-8c71-226a3b7e4f88" CreationDate="2017-07-01T15:16:42.467" UserId="406" Text="The second stanza of Sappho's *Poem 16* is reconstructed as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; πάγχυ δ' εὔμᾱρες σύνετον πόησαι  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; πάντι τοῦτ', ᾱ γὰρ πόλυ **περσκέθοισᾱ**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; κάλλος ἀνθρώπων Ἐλένᾱ τὸν ἄνδρα  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; τὸν πανάτιστον&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mostly familiar with Attic, but trying to branch out into other dialects. Most of the unfamiliar Aeolian words are fairly easy to figure out: for instance, *πόησαι* is Attic *ποίησαι*, and *ᾱ* is Attic *ἡ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm unsure what to do about *περσκέθοισᾱ*. LSJ lists no stems starting with *persk-*, nor with *peri-sk-*. What word does this come from? And what form is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14551" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4715" RevisionGUID="04c3a496-ddc7-4e84-8c71-226a3b7e4f88" CreationDate="2017-07-01T15:16:42.467" UserId="406" Text="What does &quot;περσκέθοισᾱ&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14552" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4715" RevisionGUID="04c3a496-ddc7-4e84-8c71-226a3b7e4f88" CreationDate="2017-07-01T15:16:42.467" UserId="406" Text="|greek|sappho|aeolian-dialect|dialects|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4713" RevisionGUID="06685b3b-01d2-4461-b0c2-228ee6af6edc" CreationDate="2017-07-01T15:55:36.947" UserId="136" Comment="added 222 characters in body" Text="I disagree with LaFeeVerte, and would like to posit that *aliquis* can function as an adjective. A quote from one of my favorite sources, [Bennett's Latin Grammar][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Aliquis may be used adjectively, and (occasionally) aliquī substantively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, no examples are provided to show its adjectival use, but the fact that it can be used as an adjective makes sense based upon dictionary definitions elsewhere, such as this one from [Lewis Elementary][2], which does provide a quote from Terence as an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II.II. adj. (cf. aliqui): nos quibus est alicunde aliquis obiectus labos, T.: ut aliquis metus adiunctis sit ad gratiam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;As Cataline mentions, there is a separate adjective (*aliqui*, *aliqua*, *aliquod* that means &quot;some, any&quot; that would serve the same purpose as the pronoun *aliquis*; however, *aliquis* can still serve as an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect82&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=aliquis&amp;highlight=aliquis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4716" RevisionGUID="7fa6e325-4496-4568-a63a-4771da8c3f27" CreationDate="2017-07-01T17:27:43.957" UserId="40" Text="It is, believe it or not, a form of ἔχω. Specifically, it's a feminine nominative singular of the aorist active participle of the compound περι-έχω &quot;have beyond, have in a greater measure than others&quot;. The Attic form would be περισχοῦσα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ἔχω has a rare alternative aorist ἔσχεθον, attested for example in *Iliad* 14.427-8:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀλλὰ πάροιθεν ἀσπίδας εὐκύκλους σχέθον αὐτοῦ  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;but before him they held their round shields&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that in Aeolic, the form was instead ἔσκεθον, with the velar presumably deaspirated by Grassmann's Law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ending -οισα is the Aeolic equivalent of Attic -οῦσα; both derive by regular sound change from the original *-ontya (through an intermediate stage -ονσα).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4717" RevisionGUID="1752e3ed-c5bb-479b-aba5-2bce30336305" CreationDate="2017-07-01T17:30:43.857" UserId="1694" Text="I'm not absolutely sure about this, but this looks a dialectal form corresponding to Attic περιέχουσα from περιέχειν, meaning &quot;encompassing&quot; or similar.  (The σκε in the Aeolic from would correspond to the by-stem σχε of ἔχειν [‹ *σεχ] with loss of aspiration in Aeolic.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4716" RevisionGUID="c7d46dd5-50dd-4a71-88c2-e93188741233" CreationDate="2017-07-01T17:33:00.063" UserId="40" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="It is, believe it or not, a form of ἔχω. Specifically, it's a feminine nominative singular of the aorist active participle of the compound περι-έχω &quot;have beyond, have in a greater measure than others&quot;. The Attic form would be περισχοῦσα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ἔχω has a rare alternative aorist ἔσχεθον, attested for example in *Iliad* 14.427-8:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀλλὰ πάροιθεν ἀσπίδας εὐκύκλους σχέθον αὐτοῦ  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;but before him they held their round shields&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that in Aeolic, the form was instead ἔσκεθον, with the velar presumably deaspirated by Grassmann's Law. There are a few other verbs which show such alternate aorists in -θ-, e.g. ἐέργαθον, ἠμύναθον, ἐδιώκαθον; this may be related to the -θ- of the aorist passive in -θην.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ending -οισα is the Aeolic equivalent of Attic -οῦσα; both derive by regular sound change from the original *-ontya (through an intermediate stage -ονσα).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4715" RevisionGUID="dc97739a-ccc5-4cf2-96ea-676ba8e8fe4b" CreationDate="2017-07-01T17:46:13.597" UserId="406" Comment="edited body" Text="The second stanza of Sappho's *Poem 16* is reconstructed as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; πάγχυ δ' εὔμᾱρες σύνετον πόησαι  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; πάντι τοῦτ', ᾱ γὰρ πόλυ **περσκέθοισᾱ**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; κάλλος ἀνθρώπων Ἐλένᾱ τὸν ἄνδρα  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; τὸν πανάριστον&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mostly familiar with Attic, but trying to branch out into other dialects. Most of the unfamiliar Aeolian words are fairly easy to figure out: for instance, *πόησαι* is Attic *ποίησαι*, and *ᾱ* is Attic *ἡ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm unsure what to do about *περσκέθοισᾱ*. LSJ lists no stems starting with *persk-*, nor with *peri-sk-*. What word does this come from? And what form is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4718" RevisionGUID="c20e8ae2-663f-404d-9cba-0c539ac49eb1" CreationDate="2017-07-01T19:36:23.197" UserId="79" Text="When an elderly person is no longer capable of or willing to live on their own, they can choose to move something I would call a &quot;service home&quot;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;Such institutions offer a variety of services: cleaning, food, assistance for running errands, help and supervision with medication, and other such things.&#xD;&#xA;These places are closer to hotels than hospitals in nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to find a good word for such a place in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I want to avoid negative connotations.&#xD;&#xA;Something like &quot;service home&quot; (or &quot;retirement home&quot;?) might work, but I don't want to call it a hospital of any kind.&#xD;&#xA;It is a place where a person can choose to go, not a place where &quot;old people are locked up to keep the out of the way&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If possible, reference to old age should preferably be avoided, as an &quot;old people's home&quot; comes across (to me at least) as far more pejorative than &quot;service home&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You could say that I'm looking for an euphemism, but there is also a genuine distinction to be made &amp;mdash; at least in Finland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word for an old people's home my dictionary suggests is *gerontocomium*.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the Greek *γέρων* has a more positive tone than the English &quot;old man&quot;, but I hope there would be a more suitable word.&#xD;&#xA;The words for &quot;hotel&quot; mentioned in the dictionary (*deversorium* and *xenodochium*) refer to housing visitors and therefore look like inappropriate starting points.&#xD;&#xA;Another Latin word that comes to mind is *asylum*, but I dislike the tone.&#xD;&#xA;If I were to choose a word now, I might go with *domus famulatoria*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which word would you suggest and why?**&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't have to be a single word, but I don't want anything excessively long.&#xD;&#xA;Maybe I have too stringent criteria there is no perfect word, but in that case I ask you to propose the best fit(s) you know.&#xD;&#xA;Latin of any era is welcome and attestation is not required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This is a direct translation from Finnish.&#xD;&#xA;If a person requires more aid and cannot survive in a &quot;service home&quot; (palvelutalo), they can move to an &quot;old people's home&quot; (vanhainkoti) or &quot;treatment home&quot; (hoitokoti/hoivakoti), which is a big step towards a hospital-like environment.&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of any similar distinction in English, but I hope I have communicated my need clearly enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14559" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4718" RevisionGUID="c20e8ae2-663f-404d-9cba-0c539ac49eb1" CreationDate="2017-07-01T19:36:23.197" UserId="79" Text="What to call an old people's service home?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14560" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4718" RevisionGUID="c20e8ae2-663f-404d-9cba-0c539ac49eb1" CreationDate="2017-07-01T19:36:23.197" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|nuance|euphemism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14561" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4718" RevisionGUID="0479a992-7da9-42c1-b09a-7ff32784a715" CreationDate="2017-07-01T19:48:27.970" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|nuance|modern-life|euphemism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4715" RevisionGUID="9c768d7e-4371-4477-977a-d04572a916af" CreationDate="2017-07-02T03:21:30.687" UserId="406" Comment="edited body" Text="The second stanza of Sappho's *Poem 16* is reconstructed as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; πάγχυ δ' εὔμᾱρες σύνετον πόησαι  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; πάντι τοῦτ', ᾱ γὰρ πόλυ **περσκέθοισα**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; κάλλος ἀνθρώπων Ἐλένᾱ τὸν ἄνδρα  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; τὸν πανάριστον&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mostly familiar with Attic, but trying to branch out into other dialects. Most of the unfamiliar Aeolian words are fairly easy to figure out: for instance, *πόησαι* is Attic *ποίησαι*, and *ᾱ* is Attic *ἡ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm unsure what to do about *περσκέθοισα*. LSJ lists no stems starting with *persk-*, nor with *peri-sk-*. What word does this come from? And what form is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4718" RevisionGUID="b0c9b31b-92f0-4dd5-912f-84aa21e0f06e" CreationDate="2017-07-02T09:17:19.410" UserId="79" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="When an elderly person is no longer capable of or willing to live on their own, they can choose to move something I would call a &quot;service home&quot;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;Such institutions offer a variety of services: cleaning, food, assistance for running errands, help and supervision with medication, and other such things.&#xD;&#xA;These places are closer to hotels than hospitals in nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to find a good word for such a place in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I want to avoid negative connotations.&#xD;&#xA;Something like &quot;service home&quot; (or &quot;retirement home&quot;?) might work, but I don't want to call it a hospital of any kind.&#xD;&#xA;It is a place where a person can choose to go, not a place where &quot;old people are locked up to keep the out of the way&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If possible, reference to old age should preferably be avoided, as an &quot;old people's home&quot; comes across (to me at least) as far more pejorative than &quot;service home&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You could say that I'm looking for an euphemism, but there is also a genuine distinction to be made &amp;mdash; at least in Finland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word for an old people's home my dictionary suggests is *gerontocomium*.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the Greek *γέρων* has a more positive tone than the English &quot;old man&quot;, but I hope there would be a more suitable word.&#xD;&#xA;The words for &quot;hotel&quot; mentioned in the dictionary (*deversorium* and *xenodochium*) refer to housing visitors and therefore look like inappropriate starting points.&#xD;&#xA;Another Latin word that comes to mind is *asylum*, but I dislike the tone.&#xD;&#xA;If I were to choose a word now, I might go with *domus famulatoria*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which word would you suggest and why?**&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't have to be a single word, but I don't want anything excessively long.&#xD;&#xA;Maybe I have too stringent criteria there is no perfect word, but in that case I ask you to propose the best fit(s) you know.&#xD;&#xA;Latin of any era is welcome and attestation is not required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This is a direct translation from Finnish.&#xD;&#xA;If a person requires more aid and cannot survive in a &quot;service home&quot; (palvelutalo), they can move to an &quot;old people's home&quot; (vanhainkoti) or &quot;nursing home&quot; (hoitokoti/hoivakoti), which is a big step towards a hospital-like environment.&#xD;&#xA;As suggested by kkm in a comment, a similar distinction is found in the US between an assisted living facility and a nursing home.&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of any similar distinction in English, but I hope I have communicated my need clearly enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14564" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="149" RevisionGUID="1d99601b-b804-46c9-b74f-e51f070f9613" CreationDate="2017-07-02T10:07:32.883" UserId="79" Comment="39" />
  <row Id="14565" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="939" RevisionGUID="8c94cfbc-393a-4957-9987-f99a5e160341" CreationDate="2017-07-02T10:07:51.700" UserId="79" Comment="40" />
  <row Id="14566" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2214" RevisionGUID="544d3d48-82e9-4bf1-8549-f84b1e4f433d" CreationDate="2017-07-02T10:08:02.087" UserId="79" Comment="41" />
  <row Id="14567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4718" RevisionGUID="d405b70a-6bfd-452f-8b85-27a642aaea84" CreationDate="2017-07-02T11:25:28.183" UserId="79" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="When an elderly person is no longer capable of or willing to live on their own, they can choose to move something I would call a &quot;service home&quot;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;Such institutions offer a variety of services: cleaning, food, assistance for running errands, help and supervision with medication, and other such things.&#xD;&#xA;These places are closer to hotels than hospitals in nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to find a good word for such a place in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I want to avoid negative connotations.&#xD;&#xA;Something like &quot;service home&quot; or &quot;assisted living facility&quot; (or &quot;retirement home&quot;?) might work, but I don't want to call it a hospital of any kind.&#xD;&#xA;It is a place where a person can choose to go, not a place where &quot;old people are locked up to keep the out of the way&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If possible, reference to old age should preferably be avoided, as an &quot;old people's home&quot; comes across (to me at least) as far more pejorative than &quot;service home&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You could say that I'm looking for an euphemism, but there is also a genuine distinction to be made &amp;mdash; at least in Finland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word for an old people's home my dictionary suggests is *gerontocomium*.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the Greek *γέρων* has a more positive tone than the English &quot;old man&quot;, but I hope there would be a more suitable word.&#xD;&#xA;The words for &quot;hotel&quot; mentioned in the dictionary (*deversorium* and *xenodochium*) refer to housing visitors and therefore look like inappropriate starting points.&#xD;&#xA;Another Latin word that comes to mind is *asylum*, but I dislike the tone.&#xD;&#xA;If I were to choose a word now, I might go with *domus famulatoria*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which word would you suggest and why?**&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't have to be a single word, but I don't want anything excessively long.&#xD;&#xA;Maybe I have too stringent criteria there is no perfect word, but in that case I ask you to propose the best fit(s) you know.&#xD;&#xA;Latin of any era is welcome and attestation is not required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This is a direct translation from Finnish.&#xD;&#xA;If a person requires more aid and cannot survive in a &quot;service home&quot; (palvelutalo), they can move to an &quot;old people's home&quot; (vanhainkoti) or &quot;nursing home&quot; (hoitokoti/hoivakoti), which is a big step towards a hospital-like environment.&#xD;&#xA;As suggested by kkm in a comment, a similar distinction is found in the US between an assisted living facility and a nursing home.&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of any similar distinction in English, but I hope I have communicated my need clearly enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4720" RevisionGUID="c4a93002-259c-4693-9b5d-db81c950aadf" CreationDate="2017-07-02T14:02:50.323" UserId="1775" Text="I asked this at another language Stack Exchange but was directed to here instead. I wasn't too sure how best to phrase the title of this question, so hope I can better explain it in this body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those who are perhaps unaware, 'misogynoir' is [a term coined by queer Black feminist Moya Bailey to describe an intersectional form of misogyny directed at Black women][1]. I definitely support the acknowledgement and existence of such a term. What bothers me about it, though, is its lexical construction. It is essentially a portmanteau of two words with totally different roots: *misogyny* (from Greek) and *noir* (French [black]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one was to refashion it in Greek root form – like other 'hate' terms like misogyny itself as well as *misandry* [hatred of men], *misogamy* [hatred of marriage], etc. – does anybody know what it would be? I've considered *misomelanogyny* (miso [hate] + melano [black] + gyny [women]) but am not convinced it's proper. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated and I thank all in advance for their input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogynoir" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14570" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4720" RevisionGUID="c4a93002-259c-4693-9b5d-db81c950aadf" CreationDate="2017-07-02T14:02:50.323" UserId="1775" Text="What would be the etymologically Greek spelling of 'misogynoir'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14571" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4720" RevisionGUID="c4a93002-259c-4693-9b5d-db81c950aadf" CreationDate="2017-07-02T14:02:50.323" UserId="1775" Text="|etymology|greek|pronunciation|orthography|neologism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4707" RevisionGUID="b4f6c615-ceec-4b0f-a6fa-81c7f502aad5" CreationDate="2017-07-02T15:47:45.553" UserId="136" Comment="Replaced transitive and intransitive with complementary and existential respectively" Text="**Technically, yes.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each of those sentences, meaning &quot;every thing is,&quot; &quot;some thing is,&quot; and &quot;no thing is&quot; respectively, is complete grammatical sentence when one uses *esse* (&quot;to be&quot;) in the sense of the &quot;thing&quot; exists  (existential), rather than the thing is something else (complementary).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems like a rather odd sentence in my opinion. In English, we don't separate &quot;every&quot; and &quot;thing,&quot; but combine them into one word: &quot;everything.&quot; Latin, likewise, has a similar single word that contains the same meaning, and would probably be used more often/sound more natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *Omnia sunt*&#xD;&#xA; - Everything is&#xD;&#xA; 2. *Aliquid est*&#xD;&#xA; - Something is&#xD;&#xA; 3. *Nihil est*&#xD;&#xA; - Nothing is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;Now, if you are insistent on using them as separate words, it could emphasize the singularity (a one by one sense) of each item in the whole. But this is only a feeling I get from English, so I do not know if it transfers to Latin, so that is why I suggest the options above. *Esse* can serve in an existential sense, as I already mentioned. *Res* can often be omitted and is replaced instead with a neuter adjective/pronoun, which is essentially what options 1 and 2 are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note, this is merely a grammatical analysis, and doesn't particularly examine any historical examples. I did search a bit on Perseus, and found no examples, but there may still be some out there I did not find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4722" RevisionGUID="f80acda4-c916-40b1-a3f4-688db6933e90" CreationDate="2017-07-02T16:34:51.100" UserId="136" Text="As mentioned by kkm, there are multiple levels of senior care in the United States. I actually volunteer often enough at one such facility. At this place there are three tiers of care available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Assisted Living&#xD;&#xA; - The people here are almost completely independent, and can do and go practically anywhere. They receive basic medical care through the provision of their doctor required pills administered by RNAs.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Skilled nursing/rehabilitation&#xD;&#xA; - This is what we would traditionally call a nursing home. Most of the residents here are in wheelchairs and many have memory deterioration. They are not allowed to leave the premises. Some are there only temporarily because they suffered from some injury.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Memory care&#xD;&#xA; - Residents here all suffer from serious memory deterioration, often in the form of dementia. They are not allowed to leave, and are heavily dependent upon the staff and RNAs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how would one translate this? Let me start with tier 2, as that is what is most traditionally known as a nursing home. You mention *gerontocomium*, which the [Morgan and Silva Furman University Lexicon][1] also suggests, among a few other options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; .med **nursing home (for elderly), old folks' home, rest home** /&#xD;&#xA;gerontocomîum [Cod. Just.] (HELF.) gerontotrophium (LRL) ]]&#xD;&#xA;gerusia (LEV.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly enough, the Emperor Justinian is the source for *gerontocomium*, which is used in the Codex Iustinianus, as in this quote (CJ.1.2.22):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sancimus res ad venerabiles ecclesias vel xenones vel monasteria vel ptochotrophia vel brephotrophia vel orphanotrophia vel **gerontocomia** vel si quid aliud tale consortium descendentes ex qualicumque curiali liberalitate sive inter vivos sive mortis causa sive in ultimis voluntatibus habita lucrativorum inscriptionibus liberas immunesque esse: lege scilicet, quae super huiusmodi inscriptionibus posita est, in aliis quidem personis suum robur obtinente, in parte autem ecclesiastica vel aliarum domuum, quae piis consortiis deputatae sunt, suum vigorem pietatis intuitu mitigante. cur enim non faciamus discrimen inter res divinas et humanas, et quare non competens praerogativa caelesti favori conservetur?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this appears to be a suitable option fro tier 2. But what about tiers 1 and 3? Well, it appears that the MSFUL does not provide a difference, so we are left to try to create something that captures the meaning. Neither of these facilities are hospital-like (although they perform some similar actions). Here are my suggestions for how one might translate them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) *Domus victūs coadiuti* - Home of assisted living&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) *Domus curae memoriarum* - Home for the care of memories&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just my creations, and I am open to suggestions, particularly for tier 3, as I am slightly unsatisfied with that one. These are a bit longer, but that is generally how many modern terms are adapted (see [Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis][2]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, I am open to suggestions and improvements, but these were just my two bits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ia801000.us.archive.org/12/items/TheLexiconAnglumEtLatinumByDavidMorgan/MorganAndSilvaFurmanUniversityLexicon.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/rc_latinitas_20040601_lexicon_it.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4723" RevisionGUID="e6159dd2-9f5d-466e-9cf2-bb4bbb197540" CreationDate="2017-07-02T16:40:46.533" UserId="1694" Text="I would suggest that your first choice is *almost* right - just get rid of the connecting vowel -o-, in other words: _misomelangyny_.  (Typically, the combining form of μελας is μελαν‐ .)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4724" RevisionGUID="23cb6041-55de-42cb-9123-11b0e363acd9" CreationDate="2017-07-02T19:07:08.803" UserId="13" Text="In my file of Sappho translations, the next-to-last fragment reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[–u–x κ]αδδέκεται μέλαινα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[–u– πόλλ]ων ἀχέων ἐπαύσθη&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[–u–x] Ἀτρεϊδαι τελέσθη[ν&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; –uu–x]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sooner or later, it's going to end up on my blog, so I wanted to search for its sources. To my surprise, none of my sources (Greek Wikisource, Bibliotheca Augustana, Campbell, Edmonds, The Complete Poems of Sappho) seem to have it. I cannot find anything about it on the INternet: a Google search for l.1 and one for l.2 both revealed nothing. So does anyone recognize this fragment? What is this, where is this from, and is it really Sappho or is there debate about its authorship?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't looked through [safopoemas](http://ftp.utalca.cl/intercambio/plataforma/lgc/Dani/Libros/Para%20imprimir/Poemas_completos_Safo.pdf) yet, but that is a long thing which I cannot do before dinner. I will afterwards, and will check back if I have any updates. It is anyway a good idea to have this thread pointing to safopoemas, should the fragment pop up in there, because this way anyone who happens to have somehow come across it knows somewhere it is present, and besides even if they have safopoemas they have no idea about sources or authorship debate, since safopoemas makes no mention of that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14580" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4724" RevisionGUID="23cb6041-55de-42cb-9123-11b0e363acd9" CreationDate="2017-07-02T19:07:08.803" UserId="13" Text="Where does this (Sappho?) fragment come from" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14581" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4724" RevisionGUID="23cb6041-55de-42cb-9123-11b0e363acd9" CreationDate="2017-07-02T19:07:08.803" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4725" RevisionGUID="ee7ecaff-3187-4dda-87f7-a08d75e0abbc" CreationDate="2017-07-02T20:43:18.573" UserId="78" Text="It's an uncertain fragment, fr. 27.1 in Lobel &amp; Page's *Poetarum Lesbiorum fragmenta*, per the TLG.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I searched the PDF and didn't see it mentioned in that link you gave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have a copy of Lobel-Page in front of me, but it should be arriving soon and I can check the apparatus criticus then for any relevant information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4726" RevisionGUID="745c59e3-23b1-430c-ae07-4c2886d46f3a" CreationDate="2017-07-02T21:38:43.537" UserId="39" Text="No, you are mistaken - you can easily find it in [Campbell][1] on [page 454][2] (checked de visu). Campbell puts it with the fragments that are written in the Aeolic dialect but &quot;there is no means of establishing whether the author was Sappho or Alcaeus.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/LCL142/1982/volume.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/sappho_alcaeus_lyric_poet-fragments/1982/pb_LCL142.455.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4712" RevisionGUID="0db6052b-bdd4-4153-8954-14615d6e1139" CreationDate="2017-07-02T21:55:10.833" UserId="136" Comment="added missing letter" Text="While everything in your answer is correctly inflected, I'd argue that it's actually not a correct construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, the use of 'res' for 'thing' is not a very common construction; 'res' is nearly always better translated as 'affair, issue, matter' among others, but usually not 'thing' in a general manner as you mean. Latin generally uses a neuter gender adjective. So in your case you should be saying 'omnia sunt' (plural, not singular as I'll explain), 'aliquod est' and 'nihil est' ('nullum est' is rare but you could probably get away with it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, the word 'omnis' should really be plural. 'Omnis' is better translated as 'all'; it is a quirk of the word 'everything' in English that we always use the singular verb instead of the plural, but this is not the case for 'omnis'; we use the plural for countable nouns in the plural. &#xD;&#xA;For uncountable nouns or singular countable noun, 'the whole' or 'the entire' is a nice translation for 'omnis'. So 'omnis res' actually translates to 'the whole thing/affair/matter/...', which is quite different to what you're trying to say. &#xD;&#xA;The use of 'omnis' in the singular to refer to the plural I have seen before, but only ever in poetry, where the poet might do this in order to obey the rules of scansion. So I wouldn't recommend it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4724" RevisionGUID="d8636d63-97c8-450a-a6df-0b7d855174a3" CreationDate="2017-07-02T22:00:01.760" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="In my file of Sappho translations, the next-to-last fragment reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[–u–x κ]αδδέκεται μέλαινα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[–u– πόλλ]ων ἀχέων ἐπαύσθη&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[–u–x] Ἀτρεϊδαι τελέσθη[ν&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; –uu–x]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sooner or later, it's going to end up on my blog, so I wanted to search for its sources. To my surprise, none of my sources (Greek Wikisource, Bibliotheca Augustana, Campbell, Edmonds, The Complete Poems of Sappho) seem to have it. I cannot find anything about it on the Internet: a Google search for l.1 and one for l.2 both revealed nothing. So does anyone recognize this fragment? What is this, where is this from, and is it really Sappho or is there debate about its authorship?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't looked through [safopoemas](http://ftp.utalca.cl/intercambio/plataforma/lgc/Dani/Libros/Para%20imprimir/Poemas_completos_Safo.pdf) yet, but that is a long thing which I cannot do before dinner. I will afterwards, and will check back if I have any updates. It is anyway a good idea to have this thread pointing to safopoemas, should the fragment pop up in there, because this way anyone who happens to have somehow come across it knows somewhere it is present, and besides even if they have safopoemas they have no idea about sources or authorship debate, since safopoemas makes no mention of that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14586" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4724" RevisionGUID="d8636d63-97c8-450a-a6df-0b7d855174a3" CreationDate="2017-07-02T22:00:01.760" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|greek|poetry|resource-request|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4725" RevisionGUID="907dda21-a7ea-4277-9ab8-7bf687072fcd" CreationDate="2017-07-02T22:03:11.963" UserId="78" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="It's an uncertain fragment, fr. 27.1 in Lobel &amp; Page's *Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta*, per the TLG. It comes from P.Vindob. 29777a.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's on p. 454 of the Campbell's Loeb on Sappho and Alcaeus. If you have access to the Loeb Library Online, you can view it [here](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/sappho_alcaeus_lyric_poet-fragments/1982/pb_LCL142.455.xml).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;πόλλ &amp; Ἀτρε are not actually readable from the papyrus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4726" RevisionGUID="d69b5e4f-9f32-4945-8471-eed38026d111" CreationDate="2017-07-02T23:50:13.387" UserId="39" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="No, you are mistaken - you can easily find it in [Campbell][1] on [page 454][2] (checked de visu). Campbell puts it with the fragments that are written in the Aeolic dialect but &quot;there is no means of establishing whether the author was Sappho or Alcaeus.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zoomable scans of the papyrus known as Vindob. 29777 are available from the Austrian National Library http://data.onb.ac.at/rec/RZ00008466&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its catalog entry is www.trismegistos.org/text/59081&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/LCL142/1982/volume.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/sappho_alcaeus_lyric_poet-fragments/1982/pb_LCL142.455.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4727" RevisionGUID="a62d8c61-ddd1-4d2c-8b8a-93a140f0c18c" CreationDate="2017-07-03T08:30:54.077" UserId="13" Text="Thanks to [@AlexB's comment](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4724/where-does-this-sappho-fragment-come-from#comment9630_4725), I now have the scan of the papyrus from [an online resource](http://data.onb.ac.at/rec/RZ00008466). I actually have two scans. I include one here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ink is terribly faint, but with some squinting I would transcribe it as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;]&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣ Δ̣ΕΚΕΤ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]ωΝ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣ỊT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I chose scan 2 at random, but looking at scan 1 better I see it has a whole lot more visible stuff! Picture:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Transcription:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;]ΔΔ€Κ€ΤΑΙΜ€́ΛΑΙΝ&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;]ῶΝΑΧ€́ωΝ€ΠÁΥϹθΗ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;]&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣ΙΔẠΙΤΛ&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣Υ̣Ϲ̣&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I see as ẠI in the third line might just be an A with the following T being an I (with what looks like an almost-invisible horizontal stroke). Also, my Ỵ is actually just the upper half of an ypsilon, and it may well be two very close epsilons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also seem to see a I in what would be the fourth line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing the two scans are the two sides (recto and verso) of the same two scraps of papyrus, one of which contains our fragment, while the other seems to be blank on the scan 2 side, and contains:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;]ḤϹΟΡΜ'Α€ϹP̣&lt;sup&gt;Ο&lt;/sup&gt;ΑΤ€́Ρ&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]ΑΝΟΜỌΡ̣Β̣&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣Α€ΛΛ̣ΑΦΙΧ€̣́Τ€&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder what this is…&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2GSGC.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/H9hMM.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="fe5468d2-8fc3-4f19-bf79-1f21acb333ec" CreationDate="2017-07-03T09:40:42.647" UserId="1133" Text="Why does *dō* conjugate differently from other first conjugation verbs in that you find a short *a* where otherwise you might expect a long *ā*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BACKGROUND**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;amāre (dare), amārī (darī), amātūrus (datūrus), amāns (dans), amātus (datus), amābit (dabit), amābitur (dabitur), amātō (datō), amābat (dabat), amābātur (dabātur), amāret (daret), amārētur (darētur)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only other irregularity of this sort I have found so far is *stō* having *statūrus* (not &lt;strike&gt;*stātūrus*&lt;/strike&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least according to en.wiktionary.org (where I got those forms), it seems *amō* sets the pattern for most first conjugation verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought there might be an interesting story of derivation about *dō*.  Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14592" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="fe5468d2-8fc3-4f19-bf79-1f21acb333ec" CreationDate="2017-07-03T09:40:42.647" UserId="1133" Text="Why is it &quot;dare&quot; and not &quot;dāre&quot; when most first conjugation verbs spell like &quot;amāre&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14593" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="fe5468d2-8fc3-4f19-bf79-1f21acb333ec" CreationDate="2017-07-03T09:40:42.647" UserId="1133" Text="|etymology|verbs|spelling|irregular-words|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="c225b8e3-4a79-4a5e-b8eb-01a843d8f463" CreationDate="2017-07-03T09:47:07.297" UserId="79" Comment="Added a link and a tag." Text="Why does *dō* conjugate differently from other first conjugation verbs in that you find a short *a* where otherwise you might expect a long *ā*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BACKGROUND**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;amāre (dare), amārī (darī), amātūrus (datūrus), amāns (dans), amātus (datus), amābit (dabit), amābitur (dabitur), amātō (datō), amābat (dabat), amābātur (dabātur), amāret (daret), amārētur (darētur)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only other irregularity of this sort I have found so far is *stō* having *statūrus* (not &lt;strike&gt;*stātūrus*&lt;/strike&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least according to [en.wiktionary.org](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/do#Latin) (where I got those forms), it seems *amō* sets the pattern for most first conjugation verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought there might be an interesting story of derivation about *dō*.  Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14595" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="c225b8e3-4a79-4a5e-b8eb-01a843d8f463" CreationDate="2017-07-03T09:47:07.297" UserId="79" Comment="Added a link and a tag." Text="|etymology|verbs|morphology|spelling|irregular-words|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4729" RevisionGUID="4ab40956-29fc-4b04-9c2e-5b39fd323cfc" CreationDate="2017-07-03T13:11:06.387" UserId="1496" Text="Suppose I want to write a math paper in Latin. I need to translate terms such as &quot;manifold&quot;, &quot;holomorphic&quot;, &quot;martingale&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin Wikipedia only has a limited number of terms available and many Latin dictionaries don't have these kind of technical entries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless there are still some Latin papers out there such as [this one](https://www.math.univ-toulouse.fr/~schechtman/defin-nova-preprint.pdf)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14598" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4729" RevisionGUID="4ab40956-29fc-4b04-9c2e-5b39fd323cfc" CreationDate="2017-07-03T13:11:06.387" UserId="1496" Text="Where can I find standard translations of mathematics/physics terms in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14599" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4729" RevisionGUID="4ab40956-29fc-4b04-9c2e-5b39fd323cfc" CreationDate="2017-07-03T13:11:06.387" UserId="1496" Text="|mathematics|academic-latin|dictionary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4730" RevisionGUID="2cd12aea-451a-4630-9fbd-f8e98399beed" CreationDate="2017-07-03T13:21:33.307" UserId="1450" Text="I asked Google Translate to do &quot;There is always a choice&quot; into Latin and it gave me &quot;Est semper elegit&quot; - is this correct? Is there a better way to put the same idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14601" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4730" RevisionGUID="2cd12aea-451a-4630-9fbd-f8e98399beed" CreationDate="2017-07-03T13:21:33.307" UserId="1450" Text="Is this translation correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14602" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4730" RevisionGUID="2cd12aea-451a-4630-9fbd-f8e98399beed" CreationDate="2017-07-03T13:21:33.307" UserId="1450" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4730" RevisionGUID="a3b8fa6e-2f4a-46e3-9243-a40f280c3cf2" CreationDate="2017-07-03T13:36:13.877" UserId="79" Comment="Changed the tag." Text="I asked Google Translate to do &quot;There is always a choice&quot; into Latin and it gave me &quot;Est semper elegit&quot; &amp;mdash; is this correct? Is there a better way to put the same idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14604" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4730" RevisionGUID="a3b8fa6e-2f4a-46e3-9243-a40f280c3cf2" CreationDate="2017-07-03T13:36:13.877" UserId="79" Comment="Changed the tag." Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4731" RevisionGUID="8ab0db7a-9850-4b62-930a-5a198973e658" CreationDate="2017-07-03T13:38:36.463" UserId="78" Text="Google translate is almost always inaccurate when it comes to Latin (and, in my experience, most languages). Maybe as a per word dictionary, it is OK, but it cannot translate Latin for the life of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in the sentence above, *elegit* is a verb. In English that would sound a bit like, &quot;There is always chooses.&quot; Not exactly what you were going for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The normal word for &quot;choice&quot; in Latin is *optio* (which is actually from where we get the word *option*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin word order in cases like these is very loose, and ultimately it will be up to how it sounds. As a straightforward translation, you could have something like *optio semper est* or *semper est optio* or even *est semper optio* (of these three I prefer the first).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a little more context concerning your quote, other options (pun not intended) become available. For example, most Latin proverbs of these type just leave off *est* entirely, e.g. *in vino veritas* (&quot;in wine there is truth&quot;). No verb needed. But it's difficult to give an optimal translation without seeing a bit how it will be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4732" RevisionGUID="9d662152-66f1-475e-a243-b21d55d65c93" CreationDate="2017-07-03T14:57:52.660" UserId="13" Text="I researched the sources of Sappho's `῎Υμμες πεδὰ Μοίσαν ἰοκόλπων κάλα δῶρα παῖδες` (whatever the number is). There are two scraps from P.Oxy. 1787, precisely frr. 1-2, and potentially fr. 2(a), with very low certainty; then we have a quotation by Athenaeus's Deipnosophistae; finally, we have [three papyrus scraps](https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyrhynchus_papyri#/media/File:P.K%C3%B6ln_XI_429.jpg) (feels weird to call those two big ones &quot;scraps&quot; though) conserved in Cologne. Now let's see why these are placed together:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The medium-sized fragment from Cologne and the P.Oxy. fr. 1 overlap for 4 consecutive lines;&#xD;&#xA; - The big Cologne fragment overlaps with P.Oxy. fr. 1 for a whole lot of lines;&#xD;&#xA; - P.Oxy. fr. 2 starts with `τολα`, which is recognizable from Athenaeus's quotation as the start of the last line of P.Oxy. fr. 1;&#xD;&#xA; - To put the P.Oxy. fragments together, we also have Grenfell-Hunt's note, which I fail to understand and will discuss below: «That the small fragment containing the beginnings of ll. 25-9 is rightly placed can hardly be doubted. The fact that l. 28 is the last of a column helps to confirm the coincidence of the letters `τολα[` in l. 25.»;&#xD;&#xA; - I can't seem to find any valid reason for the little Cologne fragment to go with the others, other than that it is in the picture with the other two Cologne fragments;&#xD;&#xA; - The reason for putting fr. 2.(a) in this as well is «the similarity on both sides to the upper part of fr. 1».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the reason to assume l. 28 (last line of fr. 2) is the last of a column is that the line below in the fragment appears blank. If there were another line below it, it should extend to below the letters we have of those above. However, how does this support the thesis that 1) they are the starts of lines (and not the middles or ends e.g.) and 2) they belong with fr. 1 with the first line of fr. 2 being the last of fr. 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any reason for the little Cologne fragment to belong to this poem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And is there a scan of fr. 2.(a) so that I can see the mentioned _similarity on both sides to the upper part of fr. 1_, which now appears as an unverifiable claim to me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14608" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4732" RevisionGUID="9d662152-66f1-475e-a243-b21d55d65c93" CreationDate="2017-07-03T14:57:52.660" UserId="13" Text="Is there any other reason to put these P.Oxy. 1787 frr. 1&amp;2 together than Athenaeus's quotation? And what about the little Cologne scrap?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14609" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4732" RevisionGUID="9d662152-66f1-475e-a243-b21d55d65c93" CreationDate="2017-07-03T14:57:52.660" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|text-corpus|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14610" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4730" RevisionGUID="f3d61e7b-8779-4608-8eed-3e2544f7af96" CreationDate="2017-07-03T15:33:50.620" UserId="45" Comment="edited title" Text="What is a good translation of &quot;there is always a choice&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4733" RevisionGUID="3deda5ac-8de7-49be-b7e3-ef5d7a2a0443" CreationDate="2017-07-03T17:42:11.543" UserId="13" Text="I just noticed that [Campbell](https://www.scribd.com/doc/34720745/Sappho-and-Alcaeus-Loeb), listing sources for the Sappho poem Catullus &quot;translated&quot; to his `Ille mi par esse deo videtur` (sorry, I don't know the number, or rather I have two of them, since Bergk and Edmonds have it as 2 while Campbell has it as 31), besides Longinus, mentions also `P.S.I. (v. fr. 213B)`. I looked on [PSI online](http://www.psi-online.it/home), but nothing with the number 213 in its denomination seems to contain a literary text. So what is this source? And is there a scan (or perhaps raw transcription) of it available online?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14612" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4733" RevisionGUID="3deda5ac-8de7-49be-b7e3-ef5d7a2a0443" CreationDate="2017-07-03T17:42:11.543" UserId="13" Text="What is this extra source for the Sappho poem Catullus &quot;translated&quot; to Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14613" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4733" RevisionGUID="3deda5ac-8de7-49be-b7e3-ef5d7a2a0443" CreationDate="2017-07-03T17:42:11.543" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|text-corpus|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4734" RevisionGUID="7eadbf70-cb29-46dc-a0a2-d32a8c1e2229" CreationDate="2017-07-03T17:48:39.387" UserId="13" Text="I understand ordering the poems by meter, and perhaps putting those of uncertain meter at the end. However, there are many poems with the same meter, especially Sapphic stanzas (which is probably why it's called Sapphic stanza), so one has to order the poems within meter sections as well. I have also noticed there was a change between the numbering of e.g. Edmonds and that of e.g. Campbell, and in particular that the poem quoted by Longinus and &quot;translated&quot; by Catullus into his `Ille mi par esse deo videtur` is number 2 in Edmonds and number 31 in Campbell, which is particularly annoying since every time I look for this in Campbell I have to browse _n_ pages before I find it, whereas in almost every other source I have it is readily found at the beginning. So what is the logic behind the ordering of the poems, and why was the ordering changed over time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14615" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4734" RevisionGUID="7eadbf70-cb29-46dc-a0a2-d32a8c1e2229" CreationDate="2017-07-03T17:48:39.387" UserId="13" Text="What is the logic behind the ordering and numbering of Sappho fragments, and why did it change e.g. from Edmonds to Campbell?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14616" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4734" RevisionGUID="7eadbf70-cb29-46dc-a0a2-d32a8c1e2229" CreationDate="2017-07-03T17:48:39.387" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4727" RevisionGUID="e1d0820d-e225-4271-9cf3-54111a39c340" CreationDate="2017-07-03T17:57:20.840" UserId="13" Comment="added note" Text="Thanks to [@AlexB's comment](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4724/where-does-this-sappho-fragment-come-from#comment9630_4725), I now have the scan of the papyrus from [an online resource](http://data.onb.ac.at/rec/RZ00008466). I actually have two scans. I include one here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ink is terribly faint, but with some squinting I would transcribe it as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;]&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣ Δ̣ΕΚΕΤ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]ωΝ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣ỊT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I chose scan 2 at random, but looking at scan 1 better I see it has a whole lot more visible stuff! Picture:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Transcription:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;]ΔΔ€Κ€ΤΑΙΜ€́ΛΑΙΝ&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;]ῶΝΑΧ€́ωΝ€ΠÁΥϹθΗ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;]&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣ΙΔẠΙΤΛ&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣Υ̣Ϲ̣&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I see as ẠI in the third line might just be an A with the following T being an I (with what looks like an almost-invisible horizontal stroke). Also, my Ỵ is actually just the upper half of an ypsilon, and it may well be two very close epsilons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also seem to see a I in what would be the fourth line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing the two scans are the two sides (recto and verso) of the same two scraps of papyrus, one of which contains our fragment, while the other seems to be blank on the scan 2 side, and contains:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;]ḤϹΟΡΜ'Α€ϹP̣&lt;sup&gt;Ο&lt;/sup&gt;ΑΤ€́Ρ&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]ΑΝΟΜỌΡ̣Β̣&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣Α€ΛΛ̣ΑΦΙΧ€̣́Τ€&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ̣&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder what this is…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to «How did this end up in my file?» is [Bibliotheca Augustana ἐξ ἀδήλων βιβλίων](https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/graeca/Chronologia/S_ante06/Sappho/sap_me10.html). I assumed it would be in μελῶν α' because it's evidently a Sapphic stanza (and it is weird how BA completes it with –s and ^s while putting it in &quot;from unclear books&quot;: were poems not assigned to those books by meter?), so I only looked there and not in &quot;unclear books&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2GSGC.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/H9hMM.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4733" RevisionGUID="42d06146-65bb-416d-bb53-c7096f6522bd" CreationDate="2017-07-03T18:05:31.547" UserId="13" Comment="used comment suggestion for notation to refer to the poem; added update" Text="I just noticed that [Campbell](https://www.scribd.com/doc/34720745/Sappho-and-Alcaeus-Loeb), listing sources for Sappho 31 Campbell / 2 Edmonds, besides Longinus, mentions also `P.S.I. (v. fr. 213B)`. I looked on [PSI online](http://www.psi-online.it/home), but nothing with the number 213 in its denomination seems to contain a literary text. So what is this source? And is there a scan (or perhaps raw transcription) of it available online?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it be [this one](http://www.psi-online.it/images/orig/PSI%20XV%201470%20r.jpg?1316722594), which is termed in the image name as `PSI XV 1470 r`? I mean, the names don't match because Campbell has a number 213B whereas this has number 1470, and Campbell says `v` (which I assume means `verso`), whereas the image name has `r` (which I assume means `recto`), but this looks like a very valid source for the poem at hand, so is this the extra source listed by Campbell or does Campbell ignore this one and list yet another source for this poem? And in the latter case, what is that source? And in the former, why the name differences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14619" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4733" RevisionGUID="42d06146-65bb-416d-bb53-c7096f6522bd" CreationDate="2017-07-03T18:05:31.547" UserId="13" Comment="used comment suggestion for notation to refer to the poem; added update" Text="What is this extra source for Sappho 31 Campbell / 2 Edmonds?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4639" RevisionGUID="bb7ef9e3-25ef-423a-b7e2-ad1dc7a8dbb3" CreationDate="2017-07-03T20:20:30.353" UserId="13" Comment="added update" Text="From what I gather, we alrady have the text of Sappho's Hymn to Aphrodite (alias Sappho 1, the only poem we have complete) complete and uncontroversial (save for the bit in cruces, `τίνα δηὖτε πείθω / ἄψ σ' ἄγην`, which the P.Oxy. doesn't seem to help settle). I found an image of that papyrus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![image of papyrus][http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH5084/5d783f84.dir/POxy.v0021.n2288.a.01.hires.jpg]](https://i.stack.imgur.com/24rW6.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It only gives a few letters in the middle of lines. So am I right in my impression that this papyrus was, as far as our knowledge of the poem goes, utterly useless, or were there any controversies in the text as reported by Dionysus of Halicarnassus in `Περὶ συνθέσεως ὀνομάτων` (aka `De Compositione Verborum`) that I am not aware of and that were settled by deciphering the papyrus and identifying it as Sappho 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Campbell (see note to this poem), one line of this papyrus reads `.]ψ σ. ἄγην[`. It should be this line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this, I can clearly see `ÁΓΗ`, surrounded by what has the looks of a `C…N`. But where is the psi? I cannot find any trace of it in there. Since the psi would be like THE contribution of this papyrus to our knowledge of the poem's text, suggesting the `ἄψ σ'` found on B.A. and Greek Wikisource, the question now becomes: how did the psi pop up? Can anyone see it in the image? Was something done to the papyrus that made it appear clearly? If so, what?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EL64J.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4639" RevisionGUID="af36940c-305b-4dea-b402-783478dca378" CreationDate="2017-07-03T20:36:22.307" UserId="13" Comment="added update 2" Text="From what I gather, we alrady have the text of Sappho's Hymn to Aphrodite (alias Sappho 1, the only poem we have complete) complete and uncontroversial (save for the bit in cruces, `τίνα δηὖτε πείθω / ἄψ σ' ἄγην`, which the P.Oxy. doesn't seem to help settle). I found an image of that papyrus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![image of papyrus][http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH5084/5d783f84.dir/POxy.v0021.n2288.a.01.hires.jpg]](https://i.stack.imgur.com/24rW6.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It only gives a few letters in the middle of lines. So am I right in my impression that this papyrus was, as far as our knowledge of the poem goes, utterly useless, or were there any controversies in the text as reported by Dionysus of Halicarnassus in `Περὶ συνθέσεως ὀνομάτων` (aka `De Compositione Verborum`) that I am not aware of and that were settled by deciphering the papyrus and identifying it as Sappho 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Campbell (see note to this poem), one line of this papyrus reads `.]ψ σ. ἄγην[`. It should be this line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this, I can clearly see `ÁΓΗ`, surrounded by what has the looks of a `C…N`. But where is the psi? I cannot find any trace of it in there. Since the psi would be like THE contribution of this papyrus to our knowledge of the poem's text, suggesting the `ἄψ σ'` found on B.A. and Greek Wikisource, the question now becomes: how did the psi pop up? Can anyone see it in the image? Was something done to the papyrus that made it appear clearly? If so, what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One small contribution, besides the one in the other update (if the psi was actually there), is that, from what Bergk says, all codices had a zeta in ὐπαζεύξαισα, whereas the papyrus clearly has a sigma-delta cluster in the line `]MYΠ̣ ϹΔ€`.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EL64J.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4639" RevisionGUID="ed551c43-41b4-4750-b793-bcc382f3fb2c" CreationDate="2017-07-03T20:43:18.663" UserId="13" Comment="added update 3" Text="From what I gather, we alrady have the text of Sappho's Hymn to Aphrodite (alias Sappho 1, the only poem we have complete) complete and uncontroversial (save for the bit in cruces, `τίνα δηὖτε πείθω / ἄψ σ' ἄγην`, which the P.Oxy. doesn't seem to help settle). I found an image of that papyrus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![image of papyrus][http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH5084/5d783f84.dir/POxy.v0021.n2288.a.01.hires.jpg]](https://i.stack.imgur.com/24rW6.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It only gives a few letters in the middle of lines. So am I right in my impression that this papyrus was, as far as our knowledge of the poem goes, utterly useless, or were there any controversies in the text as reported by Dionysus of Halicarnassus in `Περὶ συνθέσεως ὀνομάτων` (aka `De Compositione Verborum`) that I am not aware of and that were settled by deciphering the papyrus and identifying it as Sappho 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Campbell (see note to this poem), one line of this papyrus reads `.]ψ σ. ἄγην[`. It should be this line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this, I can clearly see `ÁΓΗ`, surrounded by what has the looks of a `C…N`. But where is the psi? I cannot find any trace of it in there. Since the psi would be like THE contribution of this papyrus to our knowledge of the poem's text, suggesting the `ἄψ σ'` found on B.A. and Greek Wikisource, the question now becomes: how did the psi pop up? Can anyone see it in the image? Was something done to the papyrus that made it appear clearly? If so, what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One small contribution, besides the one in the other update (if the psi was actually there), is that, from what Bergk says, all codices had a zeta in ὐπαζεύξαισα, whereas the papyrus clearly has a sigma-delta cluster in the line `]MYΠ̣ ϹΔ€`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 3**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This guy](https://books.google.it/books?id=cHQ30Ifgp4IC&amp;pg=PA31&amp;lpg=PA31&amp;dq=P.Oxy.+2288&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=hgRJS8y2a7&amp;sig=BGOe2e41tQyOurmIEsZtGK6vd5k&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi0jKrk--3UAhWCPRoKHaMgCuIQ6AEIUTAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=P.Oxy.%202288&amp;f=false) limits the importance of that psi by attributing it to a possible correction from the following line, and seems to favor Edmonds' solution from the critical note he offers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EL64J.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4uTOa.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4735" RevisionGUID="6fe1d1c3-37f2-4578-a27a-5d9f081cb621" CreationDate="2017-07-03T21:00:55.507" UserId="79" Text="[This earlier question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4693/79) asked about translating a sentence about book reviews.&#xD;&#xA;Translating the concept correctly was unimportant, since the question was about syntax and pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;In my answer I gave the translation *contemplatio* for &quot;review&quot;, so that &quot;a review of Brutus's book&quot; became *contemplatio libri Bruti*.&#xD;&#xA;This translation was a bit hasty, but I couldn't come up with anything better later on, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How would you say &quot;book review&quot; and &quot;a review of B's book&quot; in Latin?**&#xD;&#xA;It would be great if the same word could be used for other reviews, too (plays, movies, music&amp;hellip;).&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if a comparable concept existed in antiquity, so I won'd restrict the era." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14624" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4735" RevisionGUID="6fe1d1c3-37f2-4578-a27a-5d9f081cb621" CreationDate="2017-07-03T21:00:55.507" UserId="79" Text="What to call a book review?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14625" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4735" RevisionGUID="6fe1d1c3-37f2-4578-a27a-5d9f081cb621" CreationDate="2017-07-03T21:00:55.507" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4733" RevisionGUID="9f2dc864-cf60-497d-902b-158d85cdcfd1" CreationDate="2017-07-03T21:04:44.393" UserId="13" Comment="added extra papyrus transcription" Text="I just noticed that [Campbell](https://www.scribd.com/doc/34720745/Sappho-and-Alcaeus-Loeb), listing sources for Sappho 31 Campbell / 2 Edmonds, besides Longinus, mentions also `P.S.I. (v. fr. 213B)`. I looked on [PSI online](http://www.psi-online.it/home), but nothing with the number 213 in its denomination seems to contain a literary text. So what is this source? And is there a scan (or perhaps raw transcription) of it available online?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it be [this one](http://www.psi-online.it/images/orig/PSI%20XV%201470%20r.jpg?1316722594), which is termed in the image name as `PSI XV 1470 r`? I mean, the names don't match because Campbell has a number 213B whereas this has number 1470, and Campbell says `v` (which I assume means `verso`), whereas the image name has `r` (which I assume means `recto`), but this looks like a very valid source for the poem at hand, so is this the extra source listed by Campbell or does Campbell ignore this one and list yet another source for this poem? And in the latter case, what is that source? And in the former, why the name differences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Extra: papyrus transcription**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Μ€ΟΒΟΝΒ̣ΟϹΟΙΛ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ωΤωΝΚΑΙΟΤΡΟ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΤΟΥϹωΜ ̣ΤΟϹΚ ̣[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΚΑΙΜ€ΤẠΤΑΥΤΑΤ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΦΗϹΙṆ ΧΛωΡΟΤ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;] ̣ΙΑϹ€ΜΜΙΤ€θ̣[  *&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]ΛΙΓωΔΕΠΙΔ€[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]Ν̣ΟΜ̣ΕΜΑΥ[  * *&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The theta is uncertain because it doens't close and so it llooks like another epsilon.&#xD;&#xA;* * The nu is half cut off, and the mu has the left stroke vanished (faded, probably).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that would read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἐ]μὲ ὁ βόνβος, ὁ ἴλ[ιγγος&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ὤτων καὶ ὁ τρό[μος&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τοῦ σώματος κ[ατέχει&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καὶ μετὰ ταπυτα τ[άδε&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;φησίν· χλωροτ[έρα δὲ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;πο]ίας ἔμμι, τεθ[νάκην&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δ' ὀ]λίγω δ' ἐπιδε[ύης&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;φαί]νομ' ἐμαύ[τᾳ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;solving that φάινομ line which had different completions, and translating to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;me the confusion, the sp[inning&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;of the years and the tre[mor&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;of the body k[eeps&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and after these things t[hese others&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;she says: green[er than&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;gr]ass I am, and to not have d[ied&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;b[y] lit[tle&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I se]em to mys[elf&lt;br&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4639" RevisionGUID="18af50cd-42f7-47fc-82bc-bf5a9b81ce59" CreationDate="2017-07-03T21:09:06.587" UserId="13" Comment="put in name of M.L. West" Text="From what I gather, we alrady have the text of Sappho's Hymn to Aphrodite (alias Sappho 1, the only poem we have complete) complete and uncontroversial (save for the bit in cruces, `τίνα δηὖτε πείθω / ἄψ σ' ἄγην`, which the P.Oxy. doesn't seem to help settle). I found an image of that papyrus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![image of papyrus][http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH5084/5d783f84.dir/POxy.v0021.n2288.a.01.hires.jpg]](https://i.stack.imgur.com/24rW6.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It only gives a few letters in the middle of lines. So am I right in my impression that this papyrus was, as far as our knowledge of the poem goes, utterly useless, or were there any controversies in the text as reported by Dionysus of Halicarnassus in `Περὶ συνθέσεως ὀνομάτων` (aka `De Compositione Verborum`) that I am not aware of and that were settled by deciphering the papyrus and identifying it as Sappho 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Campbell (see note to this poem), one line of this papyrus reads `.]ψ σ. ἄγην[`. It should be this line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this, I can clearly see `ÁΓΗ`, surrounded by what has the looks of a `C…N`. But where is the psi? I cannot find any trace of it in there. Since the psi would be like THE contribution of this papyrus to our knowledge of the poem's text, suggesting the `ἄψ σ'` found on B.A. and Greek Wikisource, the question now becomes: how did the psi pop up? Can anyone see it in the image? Was something done to the papyrus that made it appear clearly? If so, what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One small contribution, besides the one in the other update (if the psi was actually there), is that, from what Bergk says, all codices had a zeta in ὐπαζεύξαισα, whereas the papyrus clearly has a sigma-delta cluster in the line `]MYΠ̣ ϹΔ€`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 3**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[M.L. West](https://books.google.it/books?id=cHQ30Ifgp4IC&amp;pg=PA31&amp;lpg=PA31&amp;dq=P.Oxy.+2288&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=hgRJS8y2a7&amp;sig=BGOe2e41tQyOurmIEsZtGK6vd5k&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi0jKrk--3UAhWCPRoKHaMgCuIQ6AEIUTAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=P.Oxy.%202288&amp;f=false) limits the importance of that psi by attributing it to a possible correction from the following line, and seems to favor Edmonds' solution from the critical note he offers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EL64J.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4uTOa.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4639" RevisionGUID="afd5163e-6356-42a1-8dff-912721bc3fc1" CreationDate="2017-07-03T21:14:59.427" UserId="13" Comment="added wiki link in update 3" Text="From what I gather, we alrady have the text of Sappho's Hymn to Aphrodite (alias Sappho 1, the only poem we have complete) complete and uncontroversial (save for the bit in cruces, `τίνα δηὖτε πείθω / ἄψ σ' ἄγην`, which the P.Oxy. doesn't seem to help settle). I found an image of that papyrus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![image of papyrus][http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH5084/5d783f84.dir/POxy.v0021.n2288.a.01.hires.jpg]](https://i.stack.imgur.com/24rW6.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It only gives a few letters in the middle of lines. So am I right in my impression that this papyrus was, as far as our knowledge of the poem goes, utterly useless, or were there any controversies in the text as reported by Dionysus of Halicarnassus in `Περὶ συνθέσεως ὀνομάτων` (aka `De Compositione Verborum`) that I am not aware of and that were settled by deciphering the papyrus and identifying it as Sappho 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Campbell (see note to this poem), one line of this papyrus reads `.]ψ σ. ἄγην[`. It should be this line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this, I can clearly see `ÁΓΗ`, surrounded by what has the looks of a `C…N`. But where is the psi? I cannot find any trace of it in there. Since the psi would be like THE contribution of this papyrus to our knowledge of the poem's text, suggesting the `ἄψ σ'` found on B.A. and Greek Wikisource, the question now becomes: how did the psi pop up? Can anyone see it in the image? Was something done to the papyrus that made it appear clearly? If so, what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One small contribution, besides the one in the other update (if the psi was actually there), is that, from what Bergk says, all codices had a zeta in ὐπαζεύξαισα, whereas the papyrus clearly has a sigma-delta cluster in the line `]MYΠ̣ ϹΔ€`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 3**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[M.L. West](https://books.google.it/books?id=cHQ30Ifgp4IC&amp;pg=PA31&amp;lpg=PA31&amp;dq=P.Oxy.+2288&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=hgRJS8y2a7&amp;sig=BGOe2e41tQyOurmIEsZtGK6vd5k&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi0jKrk--3UAhWCPRoKHaMgCuIQ6AEIUTAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=P.Oxy.%202288&amp;f=false) (more info about him [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Litchfield_West)) limits the importance of that psi by attributing it to a possible correction from the following line, and seems to favor Edmonds' solution from the critical note he offers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EL64J.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4uTOa.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4736" RevisionGUID="1164a35a-14b9-4fb8-bdda-147e70c95baf" CreationDate="2017-07-03T21:48:40.547" UserId="645" Text="You might simply use *sententia*, though I'd say *censura* is rather more appropriate. This example from Aulus Gellius *XII, 2* should be quite helpful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Mihi de omni eius ingenio deque omni scripto iudicium censuramque facere non necessum est*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4737" RevisionGUID="3bf239ad-601b-402b-88da-ddd6acc0845d" CreationDate="2017-07-03T21:48:49.647" UserId="30" Text="I would venture **censura** or **recensio**. It seems Aulus Gellius and others used *censura* in that sense; so Lewis &amp; Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A. A *judgment, opinion*, in gen. (prob. not ante-Aug.), Ov. R. Am. 362: &quot;vivorum&quot;, Vell. 2, 36, 3: &quot;vini&quot;, Plin. 14, 6, 8, 72: &quot;culinarum&quot;, id. 9, 54, 79, 169: &quot;cachinni&quot;, Juv. 10, 31: &quot;de omni scripto (Senecae) judicium censuramque facere&quot;, Gell. 12, 2, 2. —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sense was probably derived from its main sense, a review or enumeration as done by a censor for the purpose of taxation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Recensio* seems to have been used less in the desired sense, but rather in the primary censorial sense; however, Pinkster mentions the use of *recenseo* as &quot;judge critically, test, review&quot;, in the context of poems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Gell.) kritisch beoordelen, toetsen, herzien [poëmata].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more general alternative is *aestimatio* for &quot;opinion, judgement&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4738" RevisionGUID="637e3f3e-df11-4c79-86e1-07223b0bb1d9" CreationDate="2017-07-03T23:57:11.027" UserId="136" Text="The answers given by friends here are all good ones, and my answer isn't really to contradict their own, but to compile and add to for a more holistic answer. If you haven't noticed by now, I like the source [Morgan and Silva Furman University Lexicon][1], which provides the following options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Book Review (Noun)***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Existimatio libri* - &quot;the judgement of a book&quot; (Vox Latina/LRL)&#xD;&#xA; - *Recensio libri* - &quot;the assessment of a book&quot; (Springhetti)&#xD;&#xA; - *Censura libri* - &quot;the appraisal of a book&quot; (Springhetti)&#xD;&#xA; - *Recensus libri* - &quot;the appraisal of a book&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *Aestimatio libri* - &quot;the valuation of a book&quot; (Helfer)&#xD;&#xA; - *Iudicium libri* - &quot;the judgement of a book&quot; (Levine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Review (Verb)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Scripta existimo* - &quot;to value the literary works&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Reviewer (Noun)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Existimans librorum*^ - &quot;(the one) judging the books&quot; (Levine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we see here many options, accompanied by their respective literal translations, as well as their source. It seems the common thread between the noun &quot;book review,&quot; the verb &quot;to review (books),&quot; and the noun &quot;reviewer&quot; is the use of the verb *existimare*, which suggests that this could be the best option, especially seeing as it is used by multiple sources. However, an argument can (and has been) made for words like *censura* or *recensio*. That is why I provided a literal translation of these phrases. This provides for a sense of what the word means. A lot of the options (*censura* and *recensio* included) have a more financial/monetary connotation to them (i.e. the valuation of their material worth), while words like *existimatio* have a more value/opinion sense to them (i.e. the opinion of the reviewer of its intellectual/artistic worth). In the end, it is up to the author to decide which of these options works best for them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The use of _libri_ after each noun appears to be optional (i.e. it could be omitted if desired), but it may make more sense to keep it for clarity's sake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;^I don't particularly like the use of a present participle here, especially when there is already a mechanism in place in Latin for creating an agent of a verb. Using said mechanism and the verb *existimare*, the word for book reviewer would be *existimator librorum*.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ia801000.us.archive.org/12/items/TheLexiconAnglumEtLatinumByDavidMorgan/MorganAndSilvaFurmanUniversityLexicon.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4733" RevisionGUID="bcc09d2a-9246-4845-bf94-cdbf2437598d" CreationDate="2017-07-04T16:29:33.330" UserId="13" Comment="fixed the transcription part" Text="I just noticed that [Campbell](https://www.scribd.com/doc/34720745/Sappho-and-Alcaeus-Loeb), listing sources for Sappho 31 Campbell / 2 Edmonds, besides Longinus, mentions also `P.S.I. (v. fr. 213B)`. I looked on [PSI online](http://www.psi-online.it/home), but nothing with the number 213 in its denomination seems to contain a literary text. So what is this source? And is there a scan (or perhaps raw transcription) of it available online?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it be [this one](http://www.psi-online.it/images/orig/PSI%20XV%201470%20r.jpg?1316722594), which is termed in the image name as `PSI XV 1470 r`? I mean, the names don't match because Campbell has a number 213B whereas this has number 1470, and Campbell says `v` (which I assume means `verso`), whereas the image name has `r` (which I assume means `recto`), but this looks like a very valid source for the poem at hand, so is this the extra source listed by Campbell or does Campbell ignore this one and list yet another source for this poem? And in the latter case, what is that source? And in the former, why the name differences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Extra: papyrus transcription**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Μ€ΟΒΟΝΒ̣ΟϹΟΙΛ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ωΤωΝΚΑΙΟΤΡΟ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΤΟΥϹωΜ&amp;nbsp; ̣ΤΟϹΚ&amp;nbsp; ̣[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΚΑΙΜ€ΤẠΤΑΥΤΑΤ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΦΗϹΙṆ ΧΛωΡΟΤ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]&amp;nbsp; ̣ΙΑϹ€ΜΜΙΤ€θ̣[  *&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]ΛΙΓωΔΕΠΙΔ€[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]&amp;nbsp; ̣Ν̣ΟΜ̣ΕΜΑΥ[  * *&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The theta is uncertain because it doens't close and so it llooks like another epsilon.&#xD;&#xA;* * The nu is half cut off, and the mu has the left stroke vanished (faded, probably).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that would read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἐ]μὲ ὁ βόνβος, ὁ ἴλ[ιγγος&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ὤτων καὶ ὁ τρό[μος&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τοῦ σώματος κα[τέχει&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα τ[άδε&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;φησίν· χλωροτ[έρα δὲ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;π]οίας ἔμμι, τεθ[νάκην&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δ' ὀ]λίγω δ' ἐπιδε[ύης&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;φα]ίνομ' ἐμαύ[τᾳ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;solving that φάινομ line which had different completions, and translating to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;me the confusion, the sp[inning&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;of the years and the tre[mor&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;of the body k[eeps&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and after these things t[hese others&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;she says: green[er than&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;gr]ass I am, and to not have d[ied&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;b[y l]ittle&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I se]em to mys[elf&lt;br&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4694" RevisionGUID="948b19df-174b-4ec5-8f4e-14aac5c6efea" CreationDate="2017-07-04T17:51:12.000" UserId="79" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="Two key mechanisms of disambiguation come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Using *hic* (latter) and *ille* (former) is one way. Simple example: &quot;A and B meet. The former eats, the latter drinks.&quot; &amp;mdash; *A et B conveniunt. Ille est, hic bibit.*&#xD;&#xA;- The pronoun *se/suus* usually refers to the subject of the sentence. Simple example: &quot;B wrote a book. A compares his own book with B's.&quot; &amp;mdash; *B librum scripsit. A librum suum cum libro eius comparat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately there are cases where *se/suus* refers to something other than a subject.&#xD;&#xA;The risk of misinterpretation is larger than usual in your story, but I guess that is inevitable if you want to use pronouns only.&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, &quot;comparing X with Y&quot; does not change much if X and Y are interchanged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the caveat, I think the distinction is best made with the pair *suus/eius*.&#xD;&#xA;Here's how I'd translate your story:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Aeneas librum scripsit.  &#xD;&#xA;Deinde Brutus librum scripsit.  &#xD;&#xA;Deinde Aeneas contemplationem libri Bruti scripsit,  &#xD;&#xA;in quo librum suum cum libro eius comparavit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are better translations for &quot;review&quot; than *contemplatio*, but I decided to let the original translation stay here as its beside the point.&#xD;&#xA;For a more on book reviews, see [this follow-up question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4735/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, the specification &quot;same gender&quot; in the question is irrelevant for Latin here.&#xD;&#xA;The the form of the pronoun *suus* depends on the thing possessed, not the possessor, and the genitive *eius* is the same for all three genders.&#xD;&#xA;English makes a distinction between &quot;his&quot; and &quot;her(s)&quot;, but Latin doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding other languages:&#xD;&#xA;Many languages have something similar to the Latin *suus*.&#xD;&#xA;Italian has &quot;suo&quot;, Swedish has &quot;sin&quot;, Finnish has &quot;-nsA&quot;, but there are syntactical differences between the languages.&#xD;&#xA;However, to make the distinction clear in any language, I would simply repeat B's name on the last line." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4740" RevisionGUID="5798e01e-53fe-44a2-9131-d6f0001d905c" CreationDate="2017-07-04T18:01:02.700" UserId="13" Text="I was updating the critical note to my blog post on this poem and inspecting Bergk's huge critical note when I saw that, concerning this line, he proposes «ἀ δέ μ' ἴδρως κακχέεται», maybe even «ἀ δὲ ϝίδρως κ.», on the basis of some book called «Crameri Anecdota» reporting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ΙΔΡΩΣ· τοῦτο παρ' Αἰολεῦσι θηλυκῶς λέγεται. ἀναδέχεται κλίσιν ἀκόλουθον θελυῷ γένει· Ἀδεμ' ἱδρὼς κακὸς χέεται, ὅμοιον τῷ ἠώς· εἶτα ἡ γενικὴ ἱδρῶς&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I translate to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;SWEAT: the Aeolians have it feminine. The following takes feminine inflection: [some corrupted version of part of this line], similarly to dawn; therefore the genitive ἱδρῶς)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I have no idea what book this is, and how reliable its claim about sweat being feminine in Aeolic – especially since it is compared to dawn, which is feminine in Aeolic but also in Attic, so no gender change, as opposed to sweat, which is masculine in Attic, and is not even the reported ἠώς in Aeolic, but rather αὔως. Also, the part about the genitive is obscure to me: what is that &quot;therefore&quot; there for? So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What book is this? Who wrote it, and when? Is the claim about the gender of sweat in Aeolic reliable? Can you explain what the genitive part is trying to say? Is there a reason feminine gender has to do with the genitive being the way it's reported? Is the genitive different in Attic where sweat is masculine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14643" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4740" RevisionGUID="5798e01e-53fe-44a2-9131-d6f0001d905c" CreationDate="2017-07-04T18:01:02.700" UserId="13" Text="About l. 13 of Sappho 31 Campbell / 2 Edmonds" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14644" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4740" RevisionGUID="5798e01e-53fe-44a2-9131-d6f0001d905c" CreationDate="2017-07-04T18:01:02.700" UserId="13" Text="|greek|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4741" RevisionGUID="b9e79ee8-ede1-4ab0-8f2e-3bfa5169baf4" CreationDate="2017-07-04T18:39:43.507" UserId="79" Text="Judging by Lewis and Short (and other sources), [*planeta*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DP%3Aentry+group%3D66%3Aentry%3Dplaneta) means a wandering star and was borrowed from Greek.&#xD;&#xA;Apparently the word is post-classical, and the classical expression is *stellae errantes/erraticae/errones*, used (almost?) exclusively in plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the word *planeta* enters Latin literature, is it defined?&#xD;&#xA;Is it ever explicitly linked to the classical version mentioned in L&amp;S?&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know what the word meant in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;(I prefer classical Latin, but if the word is younger than that, I won't require it.)&#xD;&#xA;If the meaning evolved over time, an account of this evolution would be great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best guess is that it means any bright spots in the sky that move.&#xD;&#xA;That may or may not include the Sun and the Moon, but it most certainly does not include other actual stars than our own.&#xD;&#xA;I would assume the definition should be extended to objects visible with a telescope but too dim for the naked eye, although such conclusions can be hard to extrapolate from extant literature.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps comets are *planetae* too.&#xD;&#xA;One of the most famous test cases is Pluto, whose planetship has been revoked.&#xD;&#xA;Would Pluto be a *planeta* using the early meaning of the word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that in modern Latin it is wisest to use the word *planeta* to mean precisely the same thing as &quot;planet&quot; to avoid confusions.&#xD;&#xA;This definition is almost certainly different from the earlier meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14646" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4741" RevisionGUID="b9e79ee8-ede1-4ab0-8f2e-3bfa5169baf4" CreationDate="2017-07-04T18:39:43.507" UserId="79" Text="Is Pluto a planet(a)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14647" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4741" RevisionGUID="b9e79ee8-ede1-4ab0-8f2e-3bfa5169baf4" CreationDate="2017-07-04T18:39:43.507" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|science|definitions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4733" RevisionGUID="946cb47e-eece-42e8-b7c8-1d288aa0a2c4" CreationDate="2017-07-04T20:35:25.027" UserId="13" Comment="fixed &quot;years&quot; into &quot;ears&quot;" Text="I just noticed that [Campbell](https://www.scribd.com/doc/34720745/Sappho-and-Alcaeus-Loeb), listing sources for Sappho 31 Campbell / 2 Edmonds, besides Longinus, mentions also `P.S.I. (v. fr. 213B)`. I looked on [PSI online](http://www.psi-online.it/home), but nothing with the number 213 in its denomination seems to contain a literary text. So what is this source? And is there a scan (or perhaps raw transcription) of it available online?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it be [this one](http://www.psi-online.it/images/orig/PSI%20XV%201470%20r.jpg?1316722594), which is termed in the image name as `PSI XV 1470 r`? I mean, the names don't match because Campbell has a number 213B whereas this has number 1470, and Campbell says `v` (which I assume means `verso`), whereas the image name has `r` (which I assume means `recto`), but this looks like a very valid source for the poem at hand, so is this the extra source listed by Campbell or does Campbell ignore this one and list yet another source for this poem? And in the latter case, what is that source? And in the former, why the name differences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Extra: papyrus transcription**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Μ€ΟΒΟΝΒ̣ΟϹΟΙΛ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ωΤωΝΚΑΙΟΤΡΟ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΤΟΥϹωΜ&amp;nbsp; ̣ΤΟϹΚ&amp;nbsp; ̣[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΚΑΙΜ€ΤẠΤΑΥΤΑΤ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΦΗϹΙṆ ΧΛωΡΟΤ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]&amp;nbsp; ̣ΙΑϹ€ΜΜΙΤ€θ̣[  *&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]ΛΙΓωΔΕΠΙΔ€[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]&amp;nbsp; ̣Ν̣ΟΜ̣ΕΜΑΥ[  * *&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The theta is uncertain because it doens't close and so it llooks like another epsilon.&#xD;&#xA;* * The nu is half cut off, and the mu has the left stroke vanished (faded, probably).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that would read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἐ]μὲ ὁ βόνβος, ὁ ἴλ[ιγγος&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ὤτων καὶ ὁ τρό[μος&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τοῦ σώματος κα[τέχει&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα τ[άδε&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;φησίν· χλωροτ[έρα δὲ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;π]οίας ἔμμι, τεθ[νάκην&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δ' ὀ]λίγω δ' ἐπιδε[ύης&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;φα]ίνομ' ἐμαύ[τᾳ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;solving that φάινομ line which had different completions, and translating to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;me the confusion, the sp[inning&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;of the ears and the tre[mor&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;of the body k[eeps&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and after these things t[hese others&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;she says: green[er than&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;gr]ass I am, and to not have d[ied&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;b[y l]ittle&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I se]em to mys[elf&lt;br&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4742" RevisionGUID="49acbd57-4423-4d3c-a409-23361ad5e8a2" CreationDate="2017-07-04T20:36:53.837" UserId="40" Text="The story, as often, has to do with Proto-Indo-European laryngeals. Both these verbs had a laryngeal as the last consonant of the root: *deh₃-, *steh₂-. All the forms in Latin are based on the zero grade of these roots (i.e. the form without a vowel): *dh₃-, *sth₂-. Now, when a PIE laryngeal found itself between two consonants, in Latin the result was the vowel *a*: for example, *dh₃-tos &gt; *datus*. So although these verbs are considered part of the first conjugation, in historical terms the *a* is not the first-conjugation vowel at all, but the reflex of a PIE laryngeal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4740" RevisionGUID="b15d9fef-7619-48c0-b7ce-8d9b31f0fdf3" CreationDate="2017-07-04T21:40:48.797" UserId="13" Comment="added update" Text="I was updating the critical note to my blog post on this poem and inspecting Bergk's huge critical note when I saw that, concerning this line, he proposes «ἀ δέ μ' ἴδρως κακχέεται», maybe even «ἀ δὲ ϝίδρως κ.», on the basis of some book called «Crameri Anecdota» reporting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ΙΔΡΩΣ· τοῦτο παρ' Αἰολεῦσι θηλυκῶς λέγεται. ἀναδέχεται κλίσιν ἀκόλουθον θελυῷ γένει· Ἀδεμ' ἱδρὼς κακὸς χέεται, ὅμοιον τῷ ἠώς· εἶτα ἡ γενικὴ ἱδρῶς&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I translate to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;SWEAT: the Aeolians have it feminine. The following takes feminine inflection: [some corrupted version of part of this line], similarly to dawn; therefore the genitive ἱδρῶς)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I have no idea what book this is, and how reliable its claim about sweat being feminine in Aeolic – especially since it is compared to dawn, which is feminine in Aeolic but also in Attic, so no gender change, as opposed to sweat, which is masculine in Attic, and is not even the reported ἠώς in Aeolic, but rather αὔως. Also, the part about the genitive is obscure to me: what is that &quot;therefore&quot; there for? So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What book is this? Who wrote it, and when? Is the claim about the gender of sweat in Aeolic reliable? Can you explain what the genitive part is trying to say? Is there a reason feminine gender has to do with the genitive being the way it's reported? Is the genitive different in Attic where sweat is masculine?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to @TKR, we have [the book](https://archive.org/stream/anecdotagraecae01cram#page/208/mode/2up) now. Here is the full entry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the cover says this is a book published `MDCCCXXXV` (1835) by a certain `J. A. Cramer, S.T.P.`. Googling for this, I found two people: [Cramer, John Anthony, 1793-1848](http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Cramer%2C%20J%2E%20A%2E%20%28John%20Anthony%29%2C%201793%2D1848) and [Johann Andrea Cramer](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Andreas_Cramer_(th%C3%A9ologien)) (link in French, no English version is available, only Danish, French, German, Esperanto, Bokmål, Russian and Swedish).  Looking at link 1, it seems that is our guy. So at first sight, we're looking at a book by a 1700s-1800s guy, so why should we trust him on a gender change between Ancient Greek dialects? BUT, the cover says «e codd. manuscriptis», so what codices is this referring to? Should we trust this sort of glossary entry about sweat being feminine in Aeolic? ANd, as pointed out by TKR, if whoever wrote the entry thought sweat was feminine, how did the blatantly masculine `κακὸς` end up in a place where it seems to evidently refer to `ἱδρὼς`, which implies it should agree with it in gender as well as number, which would make it feminine, which it isn't?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SueDp.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4743" RevisionGUID="f75d6558-cca0-451f-b028-f187741bb4db" CreationDate="2017-07-05T09:38:54.187" UserId="13" Text="One contribution this papyrus certainly gave is at l. 9.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ll. 8-10 in the papyrus][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The middle line in the image reads `ΜΥΠ̣ ϹΔ€`, giving us a σδ cluster, whereas the manuscript tradition, according to Bergk's note, is unanimous on having a ζ there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other possible contribution, which I am fairly skeptical about, is &quot;the psi issue&quot;. The corrupted l. 19 can be seen in the papyrus as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![l. 19 in the papyrus][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to me that reads `̣ CÁΓΗṆ`, with the C compressed and the N half-cut, and the vestige being more of a blank space. Others have seen a psi in that space, leading to the transcription &quot;ψ̣ σ' ἄγην&quot; and hence the reading &quot;ἄψ σ' ἄγην&quot;. I tried to see the psi in the image, and all I got was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I for one believe this is far too close to the sigma to actually be what was written there. There is something like a mini-psi far down in a sort of subscript placement, but that can hardly (IMHO) be considered an actual letter. So I'm very prone to discarding this psi idea. For other reasons, [M.L. West](https://books.google.it/books?id=cHQ30Ifgp4IC&amp;pg=PA31&amp;lpg=PA31&amp;dq=P.Oxy.+2288&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=hgRJS8y2a7&amp;sig=BGOe2e41tQyOurmIEsZtGK6vd5k&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi0jKrk--3UAhWCPRoKHaMgCuIQ6AEIUTAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=P.Oxy.%202288&amp;f=false), a very famous linguist I only found out about when I found that link, discards it. This reading, however, is accepted by many (Greek Wikisource, BA, Campbell, [these guys](http://www.uc.pt/fluc/eclassicos/publicacoes/ficheiros/humanitas25-26/07_Bonnaria.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That just about wraps it up, because the rest of the text was already uncontroversial before this papyrus, AFAICT.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/K3QIe.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EL64J.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Tu2nt.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4744" RevisionGUID="4e737881-a712-4402-aa1e-da40ad68e1bd" CreationDate="2017-07-05T09:51:09.920" UserId="645" Text="I'm looking for a word for 'boiler' as in the phrase 'the ship's  boiler nearly burst', but I can't think of anything remotely suitable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps there is something obvious that I can't bring to mind? Can anyone help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14653" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4744" RevisionGUID="4e737881-a712-4402-aa1e-da40ad68e1bd" CreationDate="2017-07-05T09:51:09.920" UserId="645" Text="A plausible technical term for 'boiler'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14654" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4744" RevisionGUID="4e737881-a712-4402-aa1e-da40ad68e1bd" CreationDate="2017-07-05T09:51:09.920" UserId="645" Text="|vocabulary|technology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="30eb94f2-ae74-4c05-addb-a6649b3f595c" CreationDate="2017-07-05T10:34:39.717" UserId="79" Text="This kind of boiler is also known as a steam generator, and direct translations from relevant words in other languages are mostly &quot;steam generator&quot; or &quot;steam pot&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;One could take for example the Italian expression &quot;generatore di vapore&quot; and adapt to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The result, *generator/generatrum vaporis*, should be easily understood and descriptive.&#xD;&#xA;I find the [neuter agent noun derivative](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/178/79) most suitable here, but some might prefer the masculine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would prefer to start with the verb [*vaporare*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2062090), which means just the kind of things a boiler would do: emit steam, glow, heat&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore my suggestion is ***vaporatrum***.&#xD;&#xA;This is admittedly new coinage to the best of my knowledge, but I find the word descriptive, neat, and understandable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4746" RevisionGUID="4d5b9778-8fab-4d9d-af38-98a5f465affe" CreationDate="2017-07-05T11:16:15.100" UserId="469" Text="An adequate word in Spanish is *caldera*, which sounded pretty Latin to me. So looking at L&amp;S I finally converged to [**caldaria**][1], meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A pot for boiling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you were not looking for a word for *pot*, I think the analogy remains valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcaldarius" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4746" RevisionGUID="06d2b691-fbd2-4617-9921-3518fc282198" CreationDate="2017-07-05T11:36:45.853" UserId="469" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="A suitable word in Spanish is *caldera*, which sounded pretty Latin to me. So looking at L&amp;S I finally converged to [**caldaria**][1]. One of its meaning is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A pot for boiling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you were not looking for a word for *pot*, I think the analogy remains valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcaldarius" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4747" RevisionGUID="bfa7da7c-06e6-41d8-99bf-0667cf3a04af" CreationDate="2017-07-05T12:26:03.220" UserId="45" Text="A [***caminus***](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcaminus) (from Greek κάμινος) is a furnace, so another possibility is a *caminus vaporalis*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4746" RevisionGUID="56895279-97fd-48f9-88d4-9070521b2f0a" CreationDate="2017-07-05T14:26:21.613" UserId="469" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="A suitable word in Spanish is *caldera*, which sounded pretty Latin to me. So looking at L&amp;S I finally converged to [**caldaria**][1]. One of its meanings is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A pot for boiling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you were not looking for a word for *pot*, I think the analogy remains valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcaldarius" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4460" RevisionGUID="143ef75f-d20f-407a-b176-fe9b793bbd5b" CreationDate="2017-07-05T19:30:00.147" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have anger management issues, and am currently working on a tattoo I'd like to have done. So I'm thinking of a good Latin phrase which carries the same spirit as *Memento Mori*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'd like to have is the phrase &quot;Remember Calmness&quot;, but in Latin. A quick search resulted in the translation *Memento Sedatiores*. I just wanted to verify if this is a sound/proper translation of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much! If you also have phrases to suggest, please feel free to comment them!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14665" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4460" RevisionGUID="143ef75f-d20f-407a-b176-fe9b793bbd5b" CreationDate="2017-07-05T19:30:00.147" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|tattoo|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2771" RevisionGUID="704ffa97-24f7-4903-8561-aa6df27f6aa0" CreationDate="2017-07-05T19:32:00.353" UserId="79" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm considering getting a tattoo with the phrase &quot;Always Truth&quot; or &quot;Always the Truth&quot; in Latin, but I'm not 100% how to translate it, because I don't really understand Latin noun declension. My first guess was *Semper Veritas*, and based on *Semper Fidus* and *Semper Fidelis*, I'm guessing that's correct, though *Fidus* and *Fidelis* are adjectives and *Veritas* is a noun, so I'm not sure if that makes a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, Google Translate indicates the correct translation is *Semper Veritatem*, though I know better than to assume that Google Translate always knows best, particularly as I suppose this is grammatically more of a sentence fragment than a proper sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14667" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2771" RevisionGUID="704ffa97-24f7-4903-8561-aa6df27f6aa0" CreationDate="2017-07-05T19:32:00.353" UserId="79" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|idiom|translation-check|tattoo|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4417" RevisionGUID="61690824-e142-4c33-9477-742391661366" CreationDate="2017-07-05T19:36:30.077" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="I'm just looking for an accurate translation before getting a tattoo. I don't trust Google Translate completely. &quot;Let Change Guide Me&quot; to is also a contender. &#xD;&#xA;Google says it's &quot;Mutatio Et Enutries Me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context is that I am a person who often fears change and I am at a point where I want to embrace it rather than run from it. Embracing change or not fearing change is ultimately the message I wish to convey.&#xD;&#xA; 		&#xD;&#xA;I want to make sure that what I get permanently inked on my body is grammatically correct in Latin. Unfortunately I know nothing of Latin. I'm just trying to make sure I'm not one of those people who gets ink in another language that doesn't make sense.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14669" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4417" RevisionGUID="61690824-e142-4c33-9477-742391661366" CreationDate="2017-07-05T19:36:30.077" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|classical-latin|translation-check|sentence-translation|tattoo|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4749" RevisionGUID="6f2094f6-c0a0-41f8-895c-d0b72df123a4" CreationDate="2017-07-05T20:22:52.817" UserId="1790" Text="The classical author Vitruvius was familiar with a basic steam turbine, which he describes in [*De architectura I.VI.2*](https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lsante01/Vitruvius/vit_ar01.html) thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fiunt enim aeoli pilae aereae cavae, - hae habent punctum angustissimum - quae aqua infunduntur conlocanturque ad ignem; et antequam calescant, non habent ullum spiritum, simul autem ut fervere coeperint, efficiunt ad ignem vehementem flatum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could follow him in using *aeoli pila*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4750" RevisionGUID="63dd0f50-2a23-4386-9d8a-42c6c2d1c098" CreationDate="2017-07-05T23:23:50.173" UserId="79" Text="The English word &quot;resistance&quot; is obviously etymologically related to *resistentia*, and I would like to understand how good of a translation *resistentia*.&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, I mean resistance in the sense of a rebellious movement, strong opposition to present rule, or something similar.&#xD;&#xA;There are several words in L&amp;S which translate to &quot;resistance&quot; or &quot;opposition&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*oppugnantia*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=oppugnantia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)&#xD;&#xA;- [*refragatio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=refragatio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)&#xD;&#xA;- [*refragium*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=refragium&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)&#xD;&#xA;- [*repugnantia*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DR%3Aentry+group%3D20)&#xD;&#xA;- [*repugnatio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DR%3Aentry+group%3D20%3Aentry%3Drepugnatio)&#xD;&#xA;- [*resistentia*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=resistentia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the dictionary entries, I don't see much of a difference between these.&#xD;&#xA;Are there differences, or are they pretty much interchangeable?&#xD;&#xA;Does the extant text corpus suggest notable differences in tone or style?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging by intuition &amp;mdash; which is known to have failed miserably &amp;mdash; I see a distinction into three categories:&#xD;&#xA;The ones coming from *pugna* refer to armed resistance.&#xD;&#xA;The ones coming from *refragari* I don't understand; I don't see where they come from so that I could see what kind of a nuance they might have.&#xD;&#xA;Finally *resistentia* sounds like standing against something, suggesting a different tone from the more militant words.&#xD;&#xA;I have no proof to substantiate my guesswork, and I might be reading too much into things.&#xD;&#xA;However, I do think that the *pugna*-words mean essentially the same thing, and so do the *refragari*-words; the question is then whether these three classes differ from each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S mentions that *resistentia* is a late Latin word for *repugnantia*, so those seem to be synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise I find the entries hard to compare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14673" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4750" RevisionGUID="63dd0f50-2a23-4386-9d8a-42c6c2d1c098" CreationDate="2017-07-05T23:23:50.173" UserId="79" Text="Comparing words for resistance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14674" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4750" RevisionGUID="63dd0f50-2a23-4386-9d8a-42c6c2d1c098" CreationDate="2017-07-05T23:23:50.173" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4751" RevisionGUID="3a053de1-14b1-4fc2-bbe8-55c1b3a50900" CreationDate="2017-07-06T03:06:57.723" UserId="118" Text="You've probably already checked here, but _Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary_ offers ***fornax vaporifer*** as a &quot;furnace emitting steam&quot;, citing Statius' _Silvae_ [1.3.45](https://books.google.com/books?id=PU_rxafMU4sC&amp;pg=PA64&amp;dq=vaporiferis):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An quae graminea suscepta crepidine fumant&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; balnea et impositum ripis algentibus ignem,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quaque **vaporiferis** iunctus **fornacibus** amnis&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ridet anhelantes vicino flumina Nymphas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or [shall I sing] of the steaming baths taken up by their [the silent woods'] grassy ledge and fire imposed on chilly banks, where the river linked to a **vaporous furnace** laughs at the Nymphs as they pant, though the stream be hard by?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Translation: D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Loeb's Classical Library.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's, er, not exactly an allusion to a steam engine. Maybe it's supposed to make the reader think of the kind of boiler used to heat a Roman bath. If so, that's not a bad classical precedent to start from. I don't know a lot about either, but I understand both the Roman boiler at a _therma_ and the boiler for a steam engine to work on the same principle: a vessel containing water is exposed to fire, the water turns to steam, a pipe leads the steam to some form of heat exchanger where the heat does something useful, and a pipe returns the resulting cold water back to the boiler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some quick googling suggests that my guess about how the heat was transferred in a Roman bath might be wrong: some sources suggest that they heated hypocausts by air or smoke flowing under the room rather than steam turning to water. But I'm not sure. [This extraordinary commentary](https://books.google.com/books?id=IGhPU5TThAAC&amp;pg=PA140&amp;dq=%22tenuem%20volvunt%20hypocausta%20vaporem%22) on Vitrivius's explanation of how the baths were heated mentions many ancient words for the boiler or closely related things, including **vaporarium**, **caldarium vas**, **miliarium**, and **concameratio**. Have a look; it may give you a new idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I was trying to follow C.M. Weimer's [suggestion](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4744/a-plausible-technical-term-for-boiler#comment9685_4744) to see what's been written in Latin about steam ships.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you use ***vaporifer*** substantively? [Forcellini](http://www.linguax.com/lexica/forc.php?searchedLG=vaporifer) defines _vaporifer_ as an adjective meaning _vaporem et calorem emittens_ and gives a few more classical citations. The _calorem_ gives me some hope. Nothing about steam engines there, but steam engines were just getting started in Forcellini's time. A quick look at [Google Books](https://www.google.com/search?q=vaporifer&amp;tbm=bks), though, suggests that a few people have invented the word _vaporifer_ to mean various things, but none for steam boilers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](https://books.google.com/books?id=WG7RLyV6ongC&amp;pg=PA708&amp;dq=vaporario) is an article explaining how steamboats work in a four-language version of Comenius's _Orbis Pictus_ updated by J.G. Gailer 1842. It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quae vis ut efficiatur, ignis sub aheno **vaporario** perpetuo alendus est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The fire must in order to produce this power be continually kept up under the **steam boiler**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Translation: J.G. Gailer, apparently a native speaker of German.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google Books](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=vaporarium) reveals that **_vaporarium_** has other established meanings, too, most notably a greenhouse and (I think) a sauna. But, that's at least one precedent for steam boiler on a steam ship. Classically, the _vaporarium_ seems to be the pipe carrying steam to the hypocaust (hey, maybe my first guess was right). Cicero uses it in _Q. fr._ [3.1.2](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=LatinAugust2012&amp;getid=0&amp;query=Cic.%20Q.%20fr.%203.1.2)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4751" RevisionGUID="10ce43ef-8c08-466a-a0fb-954d2ba5a434" CreationDate="2017-07-06T03:12:56.547" UserId="118" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="You've probably already checked here, but _Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary_ offers ***fornax vaporifer*** as a &quot;furnace emitting steam&quot;, citing Statius' _Silvae_ [1.3.45](https://books.google.com/books?id=PU_rxafMU4sC&amp;pg=PA64&amp;dq=vaporiferis):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An quae graminea suscepta crepidine fumant&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; balnea et impositum ripis algentibus ignem,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quaque **vaporiferis** iunctus **fornacibus** amnis&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ridet anhelantes vicino flumina Nymphas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or [shall I sing] of the steaming baths taken up by their [the silent woods'] grassy ledge and fire imposed on chilly banks, where the river linked to a **vaporous furnace** laughs at the Nymphs as they pant, though the stream be hard by?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Translation: D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Loeb's Classical Library.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's, er, not exactly an allusion to a steam engine. Maybe it's supposed to make the reader think of the kind of boiler used to heat a Roman bath. If so, that's not a bad classical precedent to start from. I don't know a lot about either, but I understand both the Roman boiler at a _therma_ and the boiler for a steam engine to work on the same principle: a vessel containing water is exposed to fire, the water turns to steam, a pipe leads the steam up to some form of heat exchanger where the heat does something useful, and a pipe returns the resulting cold water back down to the boiler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some quick googling suggests that my guess about how the heat was transferred in a Roman bath might be wrong: some sources suggest that they heated hypocausts by air or smoke flowing under the room rather than steam turning to water. But I'm not sure. [This extraordinary commentary](https://books.google.com/books?id=IGhPU5TThAAC&amp;pg=PA140&amp;dq=%22tenuem%20volvunt%20hypocausta%20vaporem%22) on Vitrivius's explanation of how the baths were heated mentions many ancient words for the boiler or closely related things, including **vaporarium**, **caldarium vas**, **miliarium**, and **concameratio**. Have a look; it may give you a new idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I was trying to follow C.M. Weimer's [suggestion](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4744/a-plausible-technical-term-for-boiler#comment9685_4744) to see what's been written in Latin about steam ships.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you use ***vaporifer*** substantively? [Forcellini](http://www.linguax.com/lexica/forc.php?searchedLG=vaporifer) defines _vaporifer_ as an adjective meaning _vaporem et calorem emittens_ and gives a few more classical citations. The _calorem_ gives me some hope. Nothing about steam engines there, but steam engines were just getting started in Forcellini's time. A quick look at [Google Books](https://www.google.com/search?q=vaporifer&amp;tbm=bks), though, suggests that a few people have invented the word _vaporifer_ to mean various things, but none for steam boilers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here is an article](https://books.google.com/books?id=WG7RLyV6ongC&amp;pg=PA708&amp;dq=vaporario) explaining how steamboats work in a four-language version of Comenius's _Orbis Pictus_ updated by J.G. Gailer in 1842. It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quae vis ut efficiatur, ignis sub aheno **vaporario** perpetuo alendus est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The fire must in order to produce this power be continually kept up under the **steam boiler**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Translation: J.G. Gailer, apparently a native speaker of German.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google Books](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=vaporarium) reveals that **_vaporarium_** has other established meanings, too, most notably a greenhouse and (I think) a sauna. But, that's at least one precedent for steam boiler on a steam ship. Classically, the _vaporarium_ seems to be the pipe carrying steam to the hypocaust (hey, maybe my first guess was right). Cicero uses it in _Q. fr._ [3.1.2](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=LatinAugust2012&amp;getid=0&amp;query=Cic.%20Q.%20fr.%203.1.2)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4751" RevisionGUID="4bddd829-77aa-4de7-b680-2ae9ec911fd1" CreationDate="2017-07-06T03:38:09.140" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="You've probably already checked here, but _Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary_ offers ***fornax vaporifer*** as a &quot;furnace emitting steam&quot;, citing Statius' _Silvae_ [1.3.45](https://books.google.com/books?id=PU_rxafMU4sC&amp;pg=PA64&amp;dq=vaporiferis):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An quae graminea suscepta crepidine fumant&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; balnea et impositum ripis algentibus ignem,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quaque **vaporiferis** iunctus **fornacibus** amnis&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ridet anhelantes vicino flumina Nymphas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or [shall I sing] of the steaming baths taken up by their [the silent woods'] grassy ledge and fire imposed on chilly banks, where the river linked to a **vaporous furnace** laughs at the Nymphs as they pant, though the stream be hard by?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Translation: D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Loeb's Classical Library.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's, er, not exactly an allusion to a steam engine. Maybe it's supposed to make the reader think of the kind of boiler used to heat a Roman bath. If so, that's not a bad classical precedent to start from. I don't know a lot about either, but I understand both the Roman boiler at a _therma_ and the boiler for a steam engine to work on the same principle: a vessel containing water is exposed to fire, the water turns to steam, a pipe leads the steam up to some form of heat exchanger where the heat does something useful, and a pipe returns the resulting cold water back down to the boiler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some quick googling suggests that my guess about how the heat was transferred in a Roman bath might be wrong: some sources suggest that they heated hypocausts by air or smoke flowing under the room rather than steam turning to water. But I'm not sure. [This extraordinary commentary](https://books.google.com/books?id=IGhPU5TThAAC&amp;pg=PA140&amp;dq=%22tenuem%20volvunt%20hypocausta%20vaporem%22) on Vitrivius's explanation of how the baths were heated mentions many ancient words for the boiler or closely related things, including **vaporarium**, **caldarium vas**, **miliarium**, and **fornacula**. Have a look; it may give you a new idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I was trying to follow C.M. Weimer's [suggestion](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4744/a-plausible-technical-term-for-boiler#comment9685_4744) to see what's been written in Latin about steam ships.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you use ***vaporifer*** substantively? [Forcellini](http://www.linguax.com/lexica/forc.php?searchedLG=vaporifer) defines _vaporifer_ as an adjective meaning _vaporem et calorem emittens_ and gives a few more classical citations. The _calorem_ gives me some hope. Nothing about steam engines there, but steam engines were just getting started in Forcellini's time. A quick look at [Google Books](https://www.google.com/search?q=vaporifer&amp;tbm=bks), though, suggests that a few people have invented the word _vaporifer_ to mean various things, but none for steam boilers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here is an article](https://books.google.com/books?id=WG7RLyV6ongC&amp;pg=PA708&amp;dq=vaporario) explaining how steamboats work in a four-language version of Comenius's _Orbis Pictus_ updated by J.G. Gailer in 1842. It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quae vis ut efficiatur, ignis sub aheno **vaporario** perpetuo alendus est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The fire must in order to produce this power be continually kept up under the **steam boiler**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Translation: J.G. Gailer, apparently a native speaker of German.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google Books](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=vaporarium) reveals that **_vaporarium_** has other established meanings, too, most notably a greenhouse and (I think) a sauna. But, that's at least one precedent for steam boiler on a steam ship. Classically, the _vaporarium_ seems to be the pipe carrying steam to the hypocaust (hey, maybe my first guess was right). Cicero uses it in _Q. fr._ [3.1.2](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=LatinAugust2012&amp;getid=0&amp;query=Cic.%20Q.%20fr.%203.1.2)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4751" RevisionGUID="b4a417d0-e06e-4b11-8a80-90751bc44d4c" CreationDate="2017-07-06T06:42:03.643" UserId="118" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="You've probably already checked here, but _Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary_ offers ***fornax vaporifer*** as a &quot;furnace emitting steam&quot;, citing Statius' _Silvae_ [1.3.45](https://books.google.com/books?id=PU_rxafMU4sC&amp;pg=PA64&amp;dq=vaporiferis):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An quae graminea suscepta crepidine fumant&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; balnea et impositum ripis algentibus ignem,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quaque **vaporiferis** iunctus **fornacibus** amnis&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ridet anhelantes vicino flumina Nymphas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or [shall I sing] of the steaming baths taken up by their [the silent woods'] grassy ledge and fire imposed on chilly banks, where the river linked to a **vaporous furnace** laughs at the Nymphs as they pant, though the stream be hard by?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Translation: D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Loeb's Classical Library.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's, er, not exactly an allusion to a steam engine. Maybe it's supposed to make the reader think of the kind of boiler used to heat a Roman bath. If so, that's not a bad classical precedent to start from. I don't know a lot about either, but I understand both the Roman boiler at a _therma_ and the boiler for a steam engine to work on the same principle: a vessel containing water is exposed to fire, the water turns to steam, a pipe leads the steam up to some form of heat exchanger where the heat does something useful, and a pipe returns the resulting cold water back down to the boiler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some quick googling suggests that my guess about how the heat was transferred in a Roman bath might be wrong: some sources suggest that they heated hypocausts by air or smoke flowing under a room rather than by steam turning to water. But I'm not sure. [This extraordinary commentary](https://books.google.com/books?id=IGhPU5TThAAC&amp;pg=PA140&amp;dq=%22tenuem%20volvunt%20hypocausta%20vaporem%22) on Vitrivius's explanation of how the baths were heated explains more, and it mentions many ancient words for the boiler or closely related things, including **vaporarium**, **caldarium vas**, **miliarium**, and **fornacula**. Have a look; it may give you a new idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I was trying to follow C.M. Weimer's [suggestion](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4744/a-plausible-technical-term-for-boiler#comment9685_4744) to see what's been written in Latin about steam ships.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you use ***vaporifer*** substantively? [Forcellini](http://www.linguax.com/lexica/forc.php?searchedLG=vaporifer) defines _vaporifer_ as an adjective meaning _vaporem et calorem emittens_ and gives a few more classical citations. The _calorem_ gives me some hope. Nothing about steam engines there, but steam engines were just getting started in Forcellini's time. A quick look at [Google Books](https://www.google.com/search?q=vaporifer&amp;tbm=bks), though, suggests that a few people have invented the word _vaporifer_ to mean various things, but none for steam boilers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here is an article](https://books.google.com/books?id=WG7RLyV6ongC&amp;pg=PA708&amp;dq=vaporario) explaining how steamboats work in a four-language version of Comenius's _Orbis Pictus_ updated by J.G. Gailer in 1842. It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quae vis ut efficiatur, ignis sub aheno **vaporario** perpetuo alendus est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The fire must in order to produce this power be continually kept up under the **steam boiler**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Translation: J.G. Gailer, apparently a native speaker of German.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google Books](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=vaporarium) reveals that **_vaporarium_** has other established meanings, too, most notably a greenhouse and (I think) a sauna. But, that's at least one precedent for steam boiler on a steam ship. Classically, the _vaporarium_ seems to be the pipe carrying steam to the hypocaust (hey, maybe my first guess was right). Cicero uses it in _Q. fr._ [3.1.2](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=LatinAugust2012&amp;getid=0&amp;query=Cic.%20Q.%20fr.%203.1.2)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4751" RevisionGUID="d4979354-2a4a-4655-b37b-e926255af5d8" CreationDate="2017-07-06T06:50:31.140" UserId="118" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="You've probably already checked here, but _Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary_ offers ***fornax vaporifer*** as a &quot;furnace emitting steam&quot;, citing Statius' _Silvae_ [1.3.45](https://books.google.com/books?id=PU_rxafMU4sC&amp;pg=PA64&amp;dq=vaporiferis):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An quae graminea suscepta crepidine fumant&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; balnea et impositum ripis algentibus ignem,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quaque **vaporiferis** iunctus **fornacibus** amnis&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ridet anhelantes vicino flumina Nymphas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or [shall I sing] of the steaming baths taken up by their [the silent woods'] grassy ledge and fire imposed on chilly banks, where the river linked to a **vaporous furnace** laughs at the Nymphs as they pant, though the stream be hard by?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Translation: D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Loeb's Classical Library.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's, er, not exactly an allusion to a steam engine. Maybe it's supposed to make the reader think of the kind of boiler used to heat a Roman bath. If so, that's not a bad classical precedent to start from. I don't know a lot about either, but I understand both the Roman boiler at a _therma_ and the boiler for a steam engine to work on the same principle: a vessel containing water is exposed to fire, the water turns to steam, a pipe leads the steam up to some form of heat exchanger where the heat does something useful, and a pipe returns the resulting cold water back down to the boiler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some quick googling suggests that my guess about how the heat was transferred in a Roman bath might be wrong: some sources suggest that they heated hypocausts by air or smoke flowing under a room rather than by steam turning to water. But I'm not sure. [This extraordinary commentary](https://books.google.com/books?id=IGhPU5TThAAC&amp;pg=PA140&amp;dq=%22tenuem%20volvunt%20hypocausta%20vaporem%22) on Vitrivius's explanation of how the baths were heated explains more, and it mentions many ancient words for the boiler or closely related things, including **vaporarium**, **caldarium vas**, **miliarium**, and **fornacula**. Have a look; it may give you a new idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I was trying to follow C.M. Weimer's [suggestion](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4744/a-plausible-technical-term-for-boiler#comment9685_4744) to see what's been written in Latin about steam ships.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you use ***vaporifer*** substantively? [Forcellini](http://www.linguax.com/lexica/forc.php?searchedLG=vaporifer) defines _vaporifer_ as an adjective meaning _vaporem et calorem emittens_ and gives a few more classical citations. The _calorem_ gives me some hope. Nothing about steam engines there, but steam engines were just getting started in Forcellini's time. A quick look at [Google Books](https://www.google.com/search?q=vaporifer&amp;tbm=bks), though, suggests that a few people have invented the word _vaporifer_ to mean various things, but none for steam boilers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here is an article](https://books.google.com/books?id=WG7RLyV6ongC&amp;pg=PA708&amp;dq=vaporario) explaining how steamboats work in a four-language version of Comenius's _Orbis Pictus_ updated by J.G. Gailer in 1842. It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quae vis ut efficiatur, ignis sub aheno **vaporario** perpetuo alendus est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The fire must in order to produce this power be continually kept up under the **steam boiler**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Translation: J.G. Gailer, apparently a native speaker of German.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intended term might be ***ahenum vaporarium***. [Google Books](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=vaporarium) reveals that **_vaporarium_** has other established meanings, too, most notably a greenhouse and (I think) a sauna. But, that's at least one precedent for steam boiler on a steam ship. Classically, the _vaporarium_ seems to be the pipe carrying steam to the hypocaust (hey, maybe my first guess was right). Cicero uses it in _Q. fr._ [3.1.2](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=LatinAugust2012&amp;getid=0&amp;query=Cic.%20Q.%20fr.%203.1.2)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4752" RevisionGUID="5b7000d4-e738-4f40-afc0-3586e812e810" CreationDate="2017-07-06T08:57:26.797" UserId="1791" Text="*Sorry if the question is not very deep, please edit the question if it is not accurate in meaning.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Wikipedia (and common understanding of people who sang Gloria), the meaning is stated as &quot;**Glory to God in the highest**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, recently one of my friends told me that the meaning should be &quot;**May there be a lot of glory to God**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two differences in this 2 translations would be: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Certainty (a claim versus &quot;May&quot;)*, and &#xD;&#xA;2. *&quot;God in the highest&quot; versus &quot;'glory to God' in the highest sense (to the extreme)&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My friend explained to me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The verb-to-be &quot;sit&quot; is missing from the sentence, showing uncertainty.&#xD;&#xA;2. **excelsis** is &quot;masculine, plural, dative&quot; while **Deo** is &quot;masculine, singular, dative&quot;.  So the *adverb* phrase &quot;In excelsis&quot; is describing the sentence as a whole but not God.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that &quot;Gloria in excelsis Deo&quot; is in nominative case instead of vocative case.  However when people sing (or say it), usually they are &quot;claiming&quot; that Glory to the highest God.  So... I would like to know how &quot;correct&quot; is my friend's explanation, and whether I should sound like &quot;claiming a fact&quot; or &quot;expressing a wish&quot; with the phrase &quot;Gloria in excelsis Deo&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks in advance. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14682" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4752" RevisionGUID="5b7000d4-e738-4f40-afc0-3586e812e810" CreationDate="2017-07-06T08:57:26.797" UserId="1791" Text="&quot;Deep&quot; Meaning of &quot;Gloria in excelsis Deo&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14683" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4752" RevisionGUID="5b7000d4-e738-4f40-afc0-3586e812e810" CreationDate="2017-07-06T08:57:26.797" UserId="1791" Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|catechism-catholic-church|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4753" RevisionGUID="9fed9111-4de0-4975-a013-51661defbdd8" CreationDate="2017-07-06T09:35:34.590" UserId="79" Text="If there is an implicit *sit*, it does not show uncertainty.&#xD;&#xA;The conjunctive mood can show uncertainty, but it has other functions.&#xD;&#xA;One of them is wishes (sometimes called optative), like *sit Deus tibi benignus*, &quot;may the God be benign to you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The English &quot;may&quot; does not imply uncertainty either, unless I'm mistaken.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;There may be&quot; is uncertain by &quot;may there be&quot; is a wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not clear to me if a *sit* should be understood in that line.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some form of *esse* should be understood.&#xD;&#xA;One option is indeed *sit* for a wish.&#xD;&#xA;Another one is *esto*, which also expresses a wish.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of a significant difference in nuance between these in this context, although one is present conjunctive and the other is future imperative.&#xD;&#xA;(Both are in third person. Latin has third person future imperatives.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet another option is simply *est*.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps there simply is glory to the God, and a fact is being stated.&#xD;&#xA;In this case one can read the dative *Deo* possessively, rendering *gloria Deo est* as &quot;God has glory&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The line can express a fact or a wish.&#xD;&#xA;(But I can't parse it as an uncertain statement, especially in this context.)&#xD;&#xA;Without a verb it's hard to judge, since both readings make sense.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the expression was borrowed from somewhere else and the context in that other place is clearer.&#xD;&#xA;But read in isolation &amp;mdash; it does make sense in isolation too &amp;mdash; it is ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adverb(ial phrase) *in excelsis* can be interpreted in several ways.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps &quot;in high&quot; or &quot;in Heaven&quot; would be most appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;It is not stated whether it is the God or the glory that is in Heaven, but it eventually makes little difference.&#xD;&#xA;Your friend seems to read this adverb as &quot;excessively&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is not completely unrealistic, but does strike me as odd.&#xD;&#xA;It seems far more likely that it refers to location way up high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But again, the line does not explain itself precisely, and it is open to interpretations.&#xD;&#xA;The differences between the interpretations seem to be mostly grammatical, though, and I cannot see big differences in meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4752" RevisionGUID="a942e800-7b16-418e-b8aa-02df5a36ba1d" CreationDate="2017-07-06T09:39:02.177" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="*Sorry if the question is not very deep, please edit the question if it is not accurate in meaning.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Wikipedia (and common understanding of people who sang Gloria), the meaning is stated as &quot;**Glory to God in the highest**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, recently one of my friends told me that the meaning should be &quot;**May there be a lot of glory to God**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two differences in this 2 translations would be: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Certainty (a claim versus &quot;May&quot;)*, and &#xD;&#xA;2. *&quot;God in the highest&quot; versus &quot;'glory to God' in the highest sense (to the extreme)&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My friend explained to me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The verb-to-be &quot;sit&quot; is missing from the sentence, showing uncertainty.&#xD;&#xA;2. **excelsis** is &quot;masculine, plural, dative&quot; while **Deo** is &quot;masculine, singular, dative&quot;.  So the *adverb* phrase &quot;In excelsis&quot; is describing the sentence as a whole but not God.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that &quot;Gloria in excelsis Deo&quot; is in nominative case instead of vocative case.  However when people sing (or say it), usually they are &quot;claiming&quot; that Glory to the highest God.  So... I would like to know how &quot;correct&quot; is my friend's explanation, and whether I should sound like &quot;claiming a fact&quot; or &quot;expressing a wish&quot; with the phrase &quot;Gloria in excelsis Deo&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks in advance. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14686" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4752" RevisionGUID="a942e800-7b16-418e-b8aa-02df5a36ba1d" CreationDate="2017-07-06T09:39:02.177" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|syntax|ecclesiastical-latin|sentence-translation|catechism-catholic-church|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4754" RevisionGUID="c36de519-84f3-42a6-8a39-d508cc696eff" CreationDate="2017-07-06T09:57:07.763" UserId="522" Text="Luke ch2 v13&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et subito facta est cum angelo multitudo militiae caelestis laudantium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deum et dicentium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 14 gloria **in altissimis** Deo :: et **in terra** pax in hominibus bonae&#xD;&#xA;&gt; voluntatis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background:**  &#xD;&#xA;It is the song of the army of the angels.  &#xD;&#xA;it describes a two-tier universe. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4754" RevisionGUID="61afb62b-dd31-44f9-8129-88bd88ff4729" CreationDate="2017-07-06T12:29:13.293" UserId="522" Comment="explicit analogy" Text="Luke ch2 v13&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et subito facta est cum angelo multitudo militiae caelestis laudantium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deum et dicentium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 14 gloria **in altissimis** Deo :: et **in terra** pax in hominibus bonae&#xD;&#xA;&gt; voluntatis &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background:**  &#xD;&#xA;It is the song of the army of the angels.  &#xD;&#xA;it describes a two-tier universe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The angel army *(multitudo militiae)* are praising and saying *(laudantium et dicentem).*  &#xD;&#xA;You can get a pretty good idea of the *Gloria to God,&quot; part if you can understand the easy half of the quote which describes  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;the multitude of the heavenly militia praising and saying [ **... and** ]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on earth *(et in terra)* peace *(pax)* to men of good&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will.*(hominibus bonae voluntatis)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4751" RevisionGUID="1c0a8e3c-5ee6-48fb-b59e-edf411b0f98d" CreationDate="2017-07-06T12:33:35.813" UserId="118" Comment="added 231 characters in body" Text="You've probably already checked here, but _Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary_ offers ***fornax vaporifer*** as a &quot;furnace emitting steam&quot;, citing Statius' _Silvae_ [1.3.45](https://books.google.com/books?id=PU_rxafMU4sC&amp;pg=PA64&amp;dq=vaporiferis):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An quae graminea suscepta crepidine fumant&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; balnea et impositum ripis algentibus ignem,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quaque **vaporiferis** iunctus **fornacibus** amnis&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ridet anhelantes vicino flumina Nymphas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or [shall I sing] of the steaming baths taken up by their [the silent woods'] grassy ledge and fire imposed on chilly banks, where the river linked to a **vaporous furnace** laughs at the Nymphs as they pant, though the stream be hard by?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Translation: D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Loeb's Classical Library.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's, er, not exactly an allusion to a steam engine. Maybe it's supposed to make the reader think of the kind of boiler used to heat a Roman bath. If so, that's not a bad classical precedent to start from. I don't know a lot about either, but I understand both the Roman boiler at a _therma_ and the boiler for a steam engine to work on the same principle: a vessel containing water is exposed to fire, the water turns to steam, a pipe leads the steam up to some form of heat exchanger where the heat does something useful, and a pipe returns the resulting cold water back down to the boiler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some quick googling suggests that my guess about how the heat was transferred in a Roman bath might be wrong: some sources suggest that they heated hypocausts by air or smoke flowing under a room rather than by steam turning to water. But I'm not sure. [This extraordinary commentary](https://books.google.com/books?id=IGhPU5TThAAC&amp;pg=PA140&amp;dq=%22tenuem%20volvunt%20hypocausta%20vaporem%22) on Vitrivius's explanation of how the baths were heated explains more, and it mentions many ancient words for the boiler or closely related things, including **vaporarium**, **caldarium vas**, **miliarium**, and **fornacula**. Have a look; it may give you a new idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I was trying to follow C.M. Weimer's [suggestion](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4744/a-plausible-technical-term-for-boiler#comment9685_4744) to see what's been written in Latin about steam ships.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you use ***vaporifer*** substantively? [Forcellini](http://www.linguax.com/lexica/forc.php?searchedLG=vaporifer) defines _vaporifer_ as an adjective meaning _vaporem et calorem emittens_ and gives a few more classical citations. The _calorem_ gives me some hope. Nothing about steam engines there, but steam engines were just getting started in Forcellini's time. A quick look at [Google Books](https://www.google.com/search?q=vaporifer&amp;tbm=bks), though, suggests that a few people have invented the word _vaporifer_ to mean various things, but none for steam boilers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here is an article](https://books.google.com/books?id=WG7RLyV6ongC&amp;pg=PA708&amp;dq=vaporario) explaining how steamboats work in a four-language version of Comenius's _Orbis Pictus_ updated by J.G. Gailer in 1842. It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quae vis ut efficiatur, ignis sub **aheno vaporario** perpetuo alendus est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The fire must in order to produce this power be continually kept up under the **steam boiler**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Translation: J.G. Gailer, apparently a native speaker of German.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it appears that ***ahenum vaporarium*** has one precedent specifically for a steam boiler on a steam ship. This is the only instance I found. I can't tell if the substantive is _ahenum_ modified by _vaporarium_ or the other way around. Either way, _ahenum,_ suggesting copper, seems unnecessarily narrow. [Google Books](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=vaporarium) reveals that **_vaporarium_** as a substantive by itself has other established meanings, most notably a greenhouse (in botanical Latin) and (I think) a sauna. Classically, the _vaporarium_ seems to be the pipe carrying steam to the hypocaust (hey, maybe my first guess was right). Cicero uses it in _Q. fr._ [3.1.2](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=LatinAugust2012&amp;getid=0&amp;query=Cic.%20Q.%20fr.%203.1.2)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4755" RevisionGUID="9c53b2aa-3e8b-47c8-978a-02a75688b413" CreationDate="2017-07-06T19:17:39.703" UserId="1415" Text="Hello dear people of the Latin Stack Exchange community,&#xA;&#xA;I’m really into Latin and I have a LOT of questions. One of them is when the ablative originated. Additionally, I’d like to know which tense was used before the ablative for adverbials. I think it replaced the dative, as I also study Ancient Greek. In that language, the dative is used.&#xA;&#xA;-Thijs365&#xA;&#xA;Post Scriptum:&#xA;My English is really not the best. Don’t judge me on that please." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14693" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4755" RevisionGUID="9c53b2aa-3e8b-47c8-978a-02a75688b413" CreationDate="2017-07-06T19:17:39.703" UserId="1415" Text="When and why did the ablative form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14694" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4755" RevisionGUID="9c53b2aa-3e8b-47c8-978a-02a75688b413" CreationDate="2017-07-06T19:17:39.703" UserId="1415" Text="|grammar-choice|ablative|origin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4755" RevisionGUID="9a1e884d-366a-406d-b651-cc355f351c29" CreationDate="2017-07-06T19:44:12.117" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Hello dear people of the Latin Stack Exchange community,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’m really into Latin and I have a LOT of questions. One of them is when the ablative originated. Additionally, I’d like to know which case was used before the ablative for adverbials. I think it replaced the dative, as I also study Ancient Greek. In that language, the dative is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Thijs365&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Post Scriptum:&#xD;&#xA;My English is really not the best. Don’t judge me on that please." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14696" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4755" RevisionGUID="9a1e884d-366a-406d-b651-cc355f351c29" CreationDate="2017-07-06T19:44:12.117" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|language-evolution|ablative|origin|case|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4755" RevisionGUID="8e1eba8b-d793-46c7-b37b-d0adecffda60" CreationDate="2017-07-06T20:30:34.163" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 154 characters in body" Text="I’m really into Latin and I have a LOT of questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of them is when the ablative originated. Additionally, I’d like to know which case was used before the ablative for adverbials. I think it replaced the dative, as I also study Ancient Greek. In that language, the dative is used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4756" RevisionGUID="8f3fff70-0c18-4756-8fc5-31e4457b1288" CreationDate="2017-07-07T00:55:21.183" UserId="1694" Text="This is a *very* abbreviated answer, which I will intend to expand on in the future (unless others get in there before me).  The short answer is that the ablative didn't replace *any* earlier case - it dates back to at least late Proto-Indo-European (PIE), which developed a complex system of cases (including the ablative) best preserved (in general) in Sanskrit.  Greek represents a simplification of the earlier, more complex, system, where the ablative *function* was taken up by the Greek Dative and Genitive cases.  (So, in this respect at least, Latin is *more* archaic than Greek) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4757" RevisionGUID="76ddb7ff-8067-4a0f-9678-e8dfaeb99077" CreationDate="2017-07-07T01:16:13.313" UserId="985" Text="The Latin ablative case represents a merger of three earlier Proto-Indo European (PIE) cases: the ablative (sometimes referred to as the 'from' case, because it was used to express ideas of source, separation, etc. – ideas where English often can use the preposition 'from'), the sociative-instrumental ('with' case), and the locative ('in'/'on' case). Of these, the ablative was retained and kept its name, and the functions of the sociative-instrumental and locative cases were folded into it – mostly: the locative also continued to exist for some words in Latin. In Greek, on the other hand, all three of those PIE cases were dropped, their functions being divided between the dative and genitive cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the ablative was already one of the cases in PIE, the parent language of both Latin and Greek. It wasn't developed in Latin as a brand-new case, though it did evolve in distinct ways in that language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4751" RevisionGUID="c695f566-5a9c-4469-822e-173dd6672a90" CreationDate="2017-07-07T01:29:51.207" UserId="118" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="You've probably already checked here, but _Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary_ offers ***fornax vaporifer*** as a &quot;furnace emitting steam&quot;, citing Statius' _Silvae_ [1.3.45](https://books.google.com/books?id=PU_rxafMU4sC&amp;pg=PA64&amp;dq=vaporiferis):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An quae graminea suscepta crepidine fumant&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; balnea et impositum ripis algentibus ignem,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quaque **vaporiferis** iunctus **fornacibus** amnis&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ridet anhelantes vicino flumina Nymphas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or [shall I sing] of the steaming baths taken up by their [the silent woods'] grassy ledge and fire imposed on chilly banks, where the river linked to a **vaporous furnace** laughs at the Nymphs as they pant, though the stream be hard by?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Translation: D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Loeb's Classical Library.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's, er, not exactly an allusion to a steam engine. Maybe it's supposed to make the reader think of the kind of boiler used to heat a Roman bath. If so, that's not a bad classical precedent to start from. I don't know a lot about either, but I understand both the Roman boiler at a _therma_ and the boiler for a steam engine to work on the same principle: a vessel containing water is exposed to fire, the water turns to steam, a pipe leads the steam up to some form of heat exchanger where the heat does something useful, and a pipe returns the resulting cold water back down to the boiler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some quick googling suggests that my guess about how the heat was transferred in a Roman bath might be wrong: some sources suggest that they heated [hypocausts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocaust) with air or smoke rather than by steam turning to water. But I'm not sure. [This extraordinary commentary](https://books.google.com/books?id=IGhPU5TThAAC&amp;pg=PA140&amp;dq=%22tenuem%20volvunt%20hypocausta%20vaporem%22) on Vitrivius's explanation of how the baths were heated explains more, and it mentions many ancient words for the boiler or closely related things, including **vaporarium**, **caldarium vas**, **miliarium**, and **fornacula**. Have a look; it may give you a new idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I was trying to follow C.M. Weimer's [suggestion](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4744/a-plausible-technical-term-for-boiler#comment9685_4744) to see what's been written in Latin about steam ships.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you use ***vaporifer*** substantively? [Forcellini](http://www.linguax.com/lexica/forc.php?searchedLG=vaporifer) defines _vaporifer_ as an adjective meaning _vaporem et calorem emittens_ and gives a few more classical citations. The _calorem_ gives me some hope. Nothing about steam engines there, but steam engines were just getting started in Forcellini's time. A quick look at [Google Books](https://www.google.com/search?q=vaporifer&amp;tbm=bks), though, suggests that a few people have invented the word _vaporifer_ to mean various things, but none for steam boilers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here is an article](https://books.google.com/books?id=WG7RLyV6ongC&amp;pg=PA708&amp;dq=vaporario) explaining how steamboats work in a four-language version of Comenius's _Orbis Pictus_ updated by J.G. Gailer in 1842. It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quae vis ut efficiatur, ignis sub **aheno vaporario** perpetuo alendus est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The fire must in order to produce this power be continually kept up under the **steam boiler**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Translation: J.G. Gailer, apparently a native speaker of German.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it appears that ***ahenum vaporarium*** has one precedent specifically for a steam boiler on a steam ship—in a children's book. This is the only instance I found. I can't tell if the substantive is _ahenum_ modified by _vaporarium_ or the other way around. Either way, _ahenum,_ suggesting copper, seems unnecessarily narrow. [Google Books](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=vaporarium) reveals that **_vaporarium_** as a substantive by itself has other established meanings, most notably a greenhouse (in botanical Latin) and (I think) a sauna. Classically, the _vaporarium_ seems to be the pipe carrying steam to the hypocaust (hey, maybe my first guess was right). Cicero uses it in _Q. fr._ [3.1.2](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=LatinAugust2012&amp;getid=0&amp;query=Cic.%20Q.%20fr.%203.1.2)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4758" RevisionGUID="b480d07c-777d-42b4-993a-57cbab2b3ce1" CreationDate="2017-07-07T05:49:01.420" UserId="118" Text="How do you say &quot;Bloomington&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been searching for a precedent and so far have found nothing. [Vicipædia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana) seems to contain no lead to a precedent. Not even this nice book, [_Latin in the Latin Class: A List of Convenient Words and Expressions_](https://books.google.com/books?id=cFfnAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PP3), written in 1917 by a professor of Latin at Indiana University in Bloomington aiming to encourage students to speak conversational Latin in class, offers a word—though it does mention [the university](https://books.google.com/books?id=cFfnAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA21&amp;dq=%22universitas%20indianensis%22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I have to settle for a newly invented calque, I will, but surely many people before me have needed a word for this town and established some sort of consensus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14702" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4758" RevisionGUID="b480d07c-777d-42b4-993a-57cbab2b3ce1" CreationDate="2017-07-07T05:49:01.420" UserId="118" Text="Quomodo &quot;Bloomington&quot; reddere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14703" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4758" RevisionGUID="b480d07c-777d-42b4-993a-57cbab2b3ce1" CreationDate="2017-07-07T05:49:01.420" UserId="118" Text="|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4759" RevisionGUID="98d1bce4-ad1e-49e9-a012-78294f0eddf1" CreationDate="2017-07-07T08:01:48.467" UserId="79" Text="I'm not sure if this works, but perhaps this is an idea worth sharing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compound city names don't tend to sound authentic in Latin, so I don't even want to try to translate &quot;blooming town&quot; into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I believe the -ton in Bloomington has its origin in the word &quot;town&quot;, but I have not confirmed it in this particular case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would also be possible to treat &quot;Bloomington&quot; or some spelling variant as a Latin word, but I want to do something different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possible verb for blooming is *florere*.&#xD;&#xA;And, what is fortunate, there is already an established city name related to it: *Florentia*.&#xD;&#xA;The US is littered with city names borrowed from Europe, so adding a Florence in Indiana doesn't seem so exceptional, even if the English name is quite different.&#xD;&#xA;To make sure no one is thinking of Tuscany, you could call it ***Florentia Indianae*** and drop the genitive when the context is clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience such specifications are usually given by a demonym in plural genitive.&#xD;&#xA;In this case it might lead to *Indianorum* which can be misleading.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps *Indianensium* would be safer, but I am not sure of the correct demonym, so I chose to use the name of the state instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4758" RevisionGUID="254b1d01-bd59-4032-bcef-38c75dc6bc90" CreationDate="2017-07-07T08:02:28.033" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="How do you say &quot;Bloomington&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been searching for a precedent and so far have found nothing. [Vicipædia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana) seems to contain no lead to a precedent. Not even this nice book, [_Latin in the Latin Class: A List of Convenient Words and Expressions_](https://books.google.com/books?id=cFfnAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PP3), written in 1917 by a professor of Latin at Indiana University in Bloomington aiming to encourage students to speak conversational Latin in class, offers a word—though it does mention [the university](https://books.google.com/books?id=cFfnAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA21&amp;dq=%22universitas%20indianensis%22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I have to settle for a newly invented calque, I will, but surely many people before me have needed a word for this town and established some sort of consensus.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14706" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4758" RevisionGUID="254b1d01-bd59-4032-bcef-38c75dc6bc90" CreationDate="2017-07-07T08:02:28.033" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|word-request|place-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4758" RevisionGUID="07bbdc0a-a8c3-4122-a388-8d5faff23098" CreationDate="2017-07-07T09:18:24.477" UserId="118" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="How do you say &quot;Bloomington&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been searching for a precedent and so far have found nothing. [Vicipædia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana) seems to contain no lead to a precedent. Not even this nice book, [_Latin in the Latin Class: A List of Convenient Words and Expressions_](https://books.google.com/books?id=cFfnAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PP3), written in 1917 by a professor of Latin at Indiana University in Bloomington aiming to encourage students to speak conversational Latin in class, offers a word—though it does mention [the university](https://books.google.com/books?id=cFfnAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA21&amp;dq=%22universitas%20indianensis%22). I haven't had any luck searching for the text of a Latin diploma for a degree granted in Bloomington. One of those would surely have the name of the town.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I have to settle for a newly invented calque, I will, but surely many people before me have needed a word for this town and established some sort of consensus.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4760" RevisionGUID="1f873677-5f35-46ec-95d1-4cc1315f8b08" CreationDate="2017-07-07T13:39:10.403" UserId="645" Text="For myself, I might prefer *Bloomingtona* as a simple 1st decl. proper noun — or maybe *Blumingtona* to forestall criticism of the double-o. Or you might base your decision on the idea of Joonas Ilmavirta and go for something more 'Latiny', like *Florentina*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it really matters too much. If you can't find a precedent in the place itself and its records, the best thing is to take the plunge and invent something plausible.  A few weeks ago I decide to call Liverpool *Hepatopolis* and its inhabitants *Hepatopolitani*, and shall not lose any sleep over the inevitable sniping when it appears in print. No matter how artful you are, no matter how good are your intentions, just be prepared for objections!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4758" RevisionGUID="617c8738-f624-4e1c-89e5-b11820f170f1" CreationDate="2017-07-07T14:20:10.097" UserId="118" Comment="added 565 characters in body" Text="How do you say &quot;Bloomington&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figure that the text of a Latin diploma for a degree granted in Bloomington would likely be authoritative, but I haven't found one yet. This nice old book, [_Latin in the Latin Class: A List of Convenient Words and Expressions_](https://books.google.com/books?id=cFfnAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PP3), written in 1917 by a professor of Latin at Indiana University in Bloomington aiming to encourage students to speak conversational Latin in class, mentions [the university](https://books.google.com/books?id=cFfnAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA21&amp;dq=%22universitas%20indianensis%22) but not the town.  [Vicipædia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana) seems to contain no lead to a precedent, though someone seems to have tossed out _Bloomingtonia_ (unsourced) on [this page](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universitas_Indianensis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, an answer will point out some precedent in prior Latin usage. I figure that many people before me must have needed a word for this town and probably established some sort of consensus. When the university started teaching in 1825, it taught only Latin and Greek. If I have to settle for a newly invented calque, though, I will. A phonetic translation might be fine, too. (That's what I'd expect to find on a diploma from 1890 anyway.) If you make up a word, please be sure to mention something about analogous precedents in the Latin names of other cities, if you can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, Wikipedia lists [27 cities in North America](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomington) all named Bloomington." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4761" RevisionGUID="ba4cbbe4-08cf-47e1-b6d1-ebff7680c178" CreationDate="2017-07-07T16:22:31.597" UserId="645" Text="The verb *refragor* has the meaning of resisting, opposing or gainsaying; *refragator* is an opponent; *refragatio* is resistance or opposition. Another likely verb is *renitor*, to struggle against, or resist (there is a derived noun *renisus*, which is post-classical).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that verbs that are compounds of *sto* — *resto*, *resisto*, *obsto*, *obsisto* — and their derived nouns contain the idea of 'standing one's ground': as it seems to me, they do not quite have the sense of active resistance as conducted by the French *maquis* in WW2, for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4762" RevisionGUID="8172f8a6-f79c-4932-9ce6-6897c2064e1e" CreationDate="2017-07-07T18:29:38.187" UserId="1694" Text="The trouble with forms like _Florentia_ and _Hepatopolis_ is that nobody is going to connect them with the English names unless they've been clued in (well, they might for _Hepatopolis_, but that would a kind of joke).  I know I don't automatically think of blooming [flowers] when I hear the name _Bloomington_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my mind, there are clear precedents in the established forms of Boston and Houston, _Bostonia_ and _Hustonia_, resp., thus _Blumingtonia_.  (I think it's better to slightly Latinize the &quot;oo&quot; to &quot;u&quot;, just as _Hustonia_ does.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4762" RevisionGUID="6157b461-f12a-41aa-ba8e-082442cd5259" CreationDate="2017-07-07T18:31:22.423" UserId="136" Comment="fixed minor grammar problem" Text="The trouble with forms like _Florentia_ and _Hepatopolis_ is that nobody is going to connect them with the English names unless they've been clued in (well, they might for _Hepatopolis_, but that would be kind of a joke).  I know I don't automatically think of blooming [flowers] when I hear the name _Bloomington_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my mind, there are clear precedents in the established forms of Boston and Houston, _Bostonia_ and _Hustonia_, resp., thus _Blumingtonia_.  (I think it's better to slightly Latinize the &quot;oo&quot; to &quot;u&quot;, just as _Hustonia_ does.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4760" RevisionGUID="54af720b-ae59-436d-a9b4-4b3376d2fdcd" CreationDate="2017-07-07T19:05:26.593" UserId="645" Comment="spelling" Text="For myself, I might prefer *Bloomingtona* as a simple 1st decl. proper noun — or maybe *Blumingtona* to forestall criticism of the double-o. Or you might base your decision on the idea of Joonas Ilmavirta and go for something more 'Latiny', like *Florentina*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it really matters too much. If you can't find a precedent in the place itself and its records, the best thing is to take the plunge and invent something plausible.  A few weeks ago I decided to call Liverpool *Hepatopolis* and its inhabitants *Hepatopolitani*, and shall not lose any sleep over the inevitable sniping when it appears in print. No matter how artful you are, no matter how good are your intentions, just be prepared for objections!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4763" RevisionGUID="b0bc222b-24b5-4447-bc28-5a960b282c3c" CreationDate="2017-07-07T19:15:44.560" UserId="1803" Text="&quot;help your friends, harm your enemies&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have heard this was a motto of Roman life and foreign policy. It is the definition of justice that begins the discussion in Plato's &quot;Republic&quot;. I believe that the inscription on Cato's tomb was something like, &quot;No man did more to help his friends or harm his enemies.&quot; But I can't find the exact phrase anywhere. I am a political scientist and I would like to reference the maxim but I can't a direct quotation of it anywhere. Does anyone know of one? Also, how would the English phrase be translated in to Latin properly? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14715" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4763" RevisionGUID="b0bc222b-24b5-4447-bc28-5a960b282c3c" CreationDate="2017-07-07T19:15:44.560" UserId="1803" Text="help your friends, harm your enemies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14716" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4763" RevisionGUID="b0bc222b-24b5-4447-bc28-5a960b282c3c" CreationDate="2017-07-07T19:15:44.560" UserId="1803" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4763" RevisionGUID="218ceb9e-1612-466e-97b1-64f707ae4983" CreationDate="2017-07-07T19:23:37.573" UserId="45" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;Help your friends, harm your enemies.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have heard this was a motto of Roman life and foreign policy. It is the definition of justice that begins the discussion in Plato's *Republic*. I believe that the inscription on Cato's tomb was something like, &quot;No man did more to help his friends or harm his enemies.&quot; But I can't find the exact phrase anywhere. I am a political scientist and I would like to reference the maxim but I can't find a direct quotation of it anywhere. Does anyone know of one? Also, how would the English phrase be translated into Latin properly? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14718" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4763" RevisionGUID="218ceb9e-1612-466e-97b1-64f707ae4983" CreationDate="2017-07-07T19:23:37.573" UserId="45" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="Help your friends, harm your enemies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4764" RevisionGUID="d195f4a5-7c3c-489b-9302-4b9ad778e12d" CreationDate="2017-07-07T19:25:25.200" UserId="78" Text="The exact phrase did not survive antiquity. The phrase as it stands comes from Plutarch's *Life of Sulla* 38.4, which was written in Greek, not Latin. You are right that it was an epitaph, but it was about Sulla, not Cato. Moreover, Plutarch doesn't even give an exact translation, but rather the &quot;gist&quot; of it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; οὔτε τῶν φίλων τις αὐτὸν εὖ ποιῶν οὔτε τῶν ἐχθρῶν κακῶς ὑπερεβάλετο.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's different from Polemarchus' definition of justice, though. The above is translated (not so literally by Perrin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No friend ever surpassed him in kindness, and no enemy in mischief." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4755" RevisionGUID="e7829362-89cc-406b-a6ea-137459be3d66" CreationDate="2017-07-07T19:25:55.060" UserId="1799" Comment="Removed fluff" Text="When did the ablative originate? Additionally, I’d like to know which case was used before the ablative for adverbials. I think it replaced the dative, as I also study Ancient Greek. In that language, the dative is used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14721" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4755" RevisionGUID="e7829362-89cc-406b-a6ea-137459be3d66" CreationDate="2017-07-07T19:25:55.060" Comment="Proposed by 1799 approved by 1289, 79 edit id of 191" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4763" RevisionGUID="2887fb14-b3e2-4d9b-b803-d27dbbbed690" CreationDate="2017-07-07T19:31:52.757" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="&quot;Help your friends, harm your enemies.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have heard this was a motto of Roman life and foreign policy. It is the definition of justice that begins the discussion in Plato's *Republic*. I believe that the inscription on Cato's tomb was something like, &quot;No man did more to help his friends or harm his enemies.&quot; But I can't find the exact phrase anywhere. I am a political scientist and I would like to reference the maxim but I can't find a direct quotation of it anywhere. Does anyone know of one? Also, how would the English phrase be translated into Latin properly? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14723" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4763" RevisionGUID="2887fb14-b3e2-4d9b-b803-d27dbbbed690" CreationDate="2017-07-07T19:31:52.757" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|english-to-latin-translation|vocabulary|idiom|cato|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14724" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4763" RevisionGUID="87693c89-a2bf-44f3-83b9-230ec4830336" CreationDate="2017-07-07T19:37:19.267" UserId="78" Comment="edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|idiom|cato|epitaph|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4765" RevisionGUID="e72ee389-401f-43d9-9e01-9c89512cf94e" CreationDate="2017-07-07T19:40:42.773" UserId="78" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14726" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4765" RevisionGUID="e72ee389-401f-43d9-9e01-9c89512cf94e" CreationDate="2017-07-07T19:40:42.773" UserId="78" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4766" RevisionGUID="711dcaa7-810f-42ee-9374-3bc1234fdae2" CreationDate="2017-07-07T19:40:42.773" UserId="78" Text="For Latin and Greek epitaphs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14728" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4766" RevisionGUID="711dcaa7-810f-42ee-9374-3bc1234fdae2" CreationDate="2017-07-07T19:40:42.773" UserId="78" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4767" RevisionGUID="f8ca54f6-2f41-4fd1-b2b4-db4b9222a7b5" CreationDate="2017-07-07T19:44:34.760" UserId="45" Text="The Greek phrase is most famously preserved in the [*Republic*, book 1, 332δ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0167:book=1:section=332d). In the quote, Polemarchus summarizes his interpretation of Simonides's definition of justice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἡ οὖν δὴ τίσιν τί ἀποδιδοῦσα τέχνη δικαιοσύνη ἂν καλοῖτο;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εἰ μέν τι, ἔφη, δεῖ ἀκολουθεῖν, ὦ Σώκρατες, τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν εἰρημένοις, **ἡ τοῖς φίλοις τε καὶ ἐχθροῖς ὠφελίας τε καὶ βλάβας ἀποδιδοῦσα.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **τὸ τοὺς φίλους ἄρα εὖ ποιεῖν καὶ τοὺς ἐχθροὺς κακῶς δικαιοσύνην** λέγει;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; δοκεῖ μοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Socates: [Given the above], the art that renders what thing to whom should be called justice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Polemarchus: If we must keep with what has been said previously, Socrates, it is **the art that renders help and harm to friends and foes** [respectively].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Socrates: So [Simonides] says that justice is **doing well to friends and ill to enemies**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Polemarchus: So it seems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A very similar thought is expressed in Xenophon's *Memorabilia* 2.6.35:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...ἔγνωκας ἀνδρὸς ἀρετὴν εἶναι νικᾶν τοὺς μὲν φίλους εὖ ποιοῦντα, τοὺς δ᾽ ἐχθροὺς κακῶς....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A parallel Latin thought can be found in Plautus, *Captivi*, IV.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nam **vél prodesse amico possum vel inimicum perdere**,	&#xD;&#xA;ita híc me amoenitate amoena amoenus oneravit dies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For now I can either benefit a friend or destroy an enemy,  &#xD;&#xA;for so has this wonderful day wonderfully heaped wonderful things on me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I will update as I find more examples.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4768" RevisionGUID="10c4a608-6ca6-4c9d-bb35-0469ee23dbd0" CreationDate="2017-07-07T20:13:45.263" UserId="78" Text="Lobel-Page (p. 37) give `.[.......] γὰρ ἐφίλει δυ[`, saying, &quot;Sub coloph. **2076** schol. vestigia...quod quorsum spectet obscurum est.&quot; I'm not trained in papyrology (I much prefer inscriptions—far easier to read!), so it's difficult for me to judge, at least without seeing the papyrus in person." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4769" RevisionGUID="6adeeb9a-eb9c-448a-bb62-7dd4dab64434" CreationDate="2017-07-07T20:21:22.003" UserId="78" Text="This is a temporary answer, but here's the app crit for the Sappho from Lobel-Page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ymdo8.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4767" RevisionGUID="48821abe-a360-4862-9327-7dad23a4408a" CreationDate="2017-07-07T21:49:26.980" UserId="45" Comment="added 835 characters in body" Text="# Greece&#xD;&#xA;The Greek phrase is most famously preserved in the [*Republic*, book 1, 332δ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0167:book=1:section=332d). In the quote, Polemarchus summarizes his interpretation of Simonides's definition of justice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἡ οὖν δὴ τίσιν τί ἀποδιδοῦσα τέχνη δικαιοσύνη ἂν καλοῖτο;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εἰ μέν τι, ἔφη, δεῖ ἀκολουθεῖν, ὦ Σώκρατες, τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν εἰρημένοις, **ἡ τοῖς φίλοις τε καὶ ἐχθροῖς ὠφελίας τε καὶ βλάβας ἀποδιδοῦσα.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **τὸ τοὺς φίλους ἄρα εὖ ποιεῖν καὶ τοὺς ἐχθροὺς κακῶς δικαιοσύνην** λέγει;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; δοκεῖ μοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Socates: [Given the above], the art that renders what thing to whom should be called justice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Polemarchus: If we must keep with what has been said previously, Socrates, it is **the art that renders help and harm to friends and foes** [respectively].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Socrates: So [Simonides] says that justice is **doing well to friends and ill to enemies**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Polemarchus: So it seems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A very similar thought is expressed in Xenophon's *Memorabilia* 2.6.35:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...ἔγνωκας ἀνδρὸς ἀρετὴν εἶναι νικᾶν τοὺς μὲν φίλους εὖ ποιοῦντα, τοὺς δ᾽ ἐχθροὺς κακῶς....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Rome&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A parallel Latin thought can be found in Plautus, *Captivi*, IV.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nam **vél prodesse amico possum vel inimicum perdere**,	&#xD;&#xA;ita híc me amoenitate amoena amoenus oneravit dies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For now I can either benefit a friend or destroy an enemy,  &#xD;&#xA;for so has this wonderful day wonderfully heaped wonderful things on me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, Plautus is not a philosophical authority, and this seems more like gloating than moralizing. I will update if I find more examples, but strangely enough it doesn't seem to have an explicit formulation in Latin literature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Other Sources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, the primary source of this idea is from the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus explicitly goes against this idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη· Ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου καὶ μισήσεις τὸν ἐχθρόν σου. (Mt 5:43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vulgate has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; audistis quia dictum est diliges proximum tuum et odio habebis inimicum tuum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a subject of contention where this previous idea comes from. The Old Testament speaks of &quot;loving one's neighbor&quot; but not of &quot;hating one's enemy.&quot; A few sources (such as [this one](http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/matt543.html)) attribute it to Qumran Community Rule discovered with the Dead Sea Scrolls. What is clear, though, is that this was **not an explicitly formulated rule** bandied about by Romans." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="e3831903-12ff-4b72-9b6b-e5513d626fd1" CreationDate="2017-07-08T04:14:37.520" UserId="9" Text="I would second Tom Cotton’s suggestions of ***Bloomingtona*** or ***Blumingtona.*** If you want to assimilate the name completely to Latin phonotactics and spelling conventions, ***Blumintona*** also seems possible, but that doesn't seem necessary or even particularly advisable. Using *-tonia* doesn't seem incorrect either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I am still a beginner in Latin so I have no expertise with regard to this; all of this has been a guess based on a list of Latin place-names I found and other Google research. Please take it accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a large “[List of the Latin Names of Places in Great Britain and Ireland][1]” online; I’m not sure of its sourcing (so it might not be reliable) but a few of the names I checked were corroborated by other sources, so I’m tentatively assuming that it is reliable and only lists terms with some kind of attested use, not ones that are entirely questionable suggestions for neologisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven’t found any rule for whether to use “-tona” or “tonia” in the Latinization of English place names ending in “-ton”. As varro pointed out, “Bostonia” and “Hustonia” are used, but the list I linked to in the previous paragraph seems to have slightly more examples of “-tona” (e.g.  &quot;Chingestona&quot; – Kingston and &quot;Cunctona&quot; – Compton). A document I found while Googling lists the additional variants of “-thonia” (found in “Conthonia”, an alternative name for Compton) and “-tuna” (found in “Stoctuna”, a name for Stoughton) (*[Sussex Archaeological Collections Relating to the History and Antiquities of the County][2],* published by the Sussex Archaeological Society, Vol. XL). While variation between “th” and “t” and “o” and “u” could be attributed merely to the less fixed nature of orthography in past times, I don’t think the variation between “ia” and “a” can be as easily dismissed as purely graphical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a (not necessarily complete) list of Latin place names I found in the list corresponding to English place-names ending in “-ton”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-tona/-tuna/-thona:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Chingestona (Kingston)&#xD;&#xA;  - Cunctona (Compton, Sussex)&#xD;&#xA;  - Gaidingtona, Gaingtona (Geddington)&#xD;&#xA;  - Hunegetona (Honington or Hunnington, Staffordshire)&#xD;&#xA;  - Karintona (Catherington, Hants)&#xD;&#xA;  - Mucletona (Mickleton)&#xD;&#xA;  - Stiuentona (Staunton, Gloucestershire)&#xD;&#xA;  - Waldintona (Waldington, Yorks)&#xD;&#xA;  - Cleituna (Clayton, Sussex)&#xD;&#xA;  - Mealtuna (Malton, Yorks)&#xD;&#xA;  - Tornetuna (Thornton, Yorks)&#xD;&#xA;  - Ethona (Nuneaton, which was earlier simply “Etone” according to Wikipedia)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-tonia/-tunia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Bramptonia (Brampton)&#xD;&#xA;- Glastonia, Gleastonia, Glestonia (Glastonbury)&#xD;&#xA;- Rugnitunia, Ruitonia (Ryton-upon-Dunsmoor, Warwickshire)&#xD;&#xA;- Wiltonia (Wilton; Wilts)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###either -tonia or -tona/-tuna:&#xD;&#xA;- Hamptonia, Hamtona (Southampton; Northampton; Hampton)&#xD;&#xA;- Northamptonia, Northantonia, Northamtuna (Northampton)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-tonium:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Varingtonium (Warrington, Lancashire)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This is weird and I don't know how to explain it, but it doesn't seem to be a typo. Possibly compare &quot;Vasingtonium&quot;, listed on Wikipedia &quot;[List of Latin names of cities][3]&quot;, but called &quot;quite odd&quot; by somebody on the [talk page][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-dunum:&#xD;&#xA;- Burgodunum (Burton, Staffordshire)&#xD;&#xA;- Castrodunum (Chesterton, Cambridgeshire)&#xD;&#xA;- Dorpendunum (Orpington, Kent)&#xD;&#xA;- Ellandunum (Allington, near Amesbury, or Wilton, in Wilts)&#xD;&#xA;- Repandunum (Repton)&#xD;&#xA;- Spinodunum (Thornton, Lincolnshire)&#xD;&#xA;- Sturodunum (Stourton, and Stourminster, Dorset)&#xD;&#xA;- Tanodunum, Thenodunum (Taunton, Somerset)&#xD;&#xA;- Venantodunum (Huntingdon)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don’t know if the use of “-dunum” is due to contamination from names with “-down” and “-don”. [Wikipedia][5] says: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dunum was a Latinized nameplace in ancient Ireland and the name of at least two recorded settlements there, one in the far north, one in the far south. [...] As a word, Dunum is very similar to words for fortifications and measurements, and sometimes used as a suffix or prefix in placenames to note the presence of fortification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, it seems it is thought to be derived from a Celtic word cognate with “town”. It seems to me that “-dunum”, although relatively common as a final element in established Latin place names, would not be a good choice for Latinizing the names of cities or towns that were named in modern times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of Latinization of the rest of the name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - as varro pointed out, “oo” can be changed to “u” (which would be pronounced as ū /uː/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The letter-sequence “ngt”, which does not occur in Latin, might also be changed. Although “nct” seems to me the closest equivalent in sound, I don’t know of any examples of &quot;ngt&quot; being Latinized this way, so I wouldn’t recommend it. Instead, simplifying the cluster to “nt” seems to have some precedent, as well as simply retaining it as “ngt”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-ingt:&#xD;&#xA;- Gaidingtona, Gaingtona (Geddington)&#xD;&#xA;- Varingtonium (Warrington, Lancashire)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-int-:&#xD;&#xA;- Karintona (Catherington, Hants)&#xD;&#xA;- Waldintona (Waldington, Yorks)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would just ignore the &quot;weird&quot; examples in the list of *Godritona* (Codrington) and *Hunegetona* (Honington/Hunnington).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, http://geonames.enacademic.com/12172/Bloomington lists &quot;Blumingtona&quot; as one of the names of &quot;Bloomington&quot; in another language, but it doesn't specify which one! Googling it seems to show that it is used in Serbian ([example][6]) and possibly some other Slavic languages, also some Baltic languages such as Latvian (https://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blūmingtona_(Indiāna)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://comp.uark.edu/~mreynold/recint2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=6r1CAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA60&amp;lpg=PA60&amp;dq=Cunctona&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2wHEL--vTh&amp;sig=dxlg83Q5OyOYswFuHkrJn9xoJRQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjykebt0vjUAhVl4oMKHRZlDl0Q6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&amp;q=Cunctona&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_names_of_cities&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Latin_names_of_cities#V_and_W&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunum_(Ireland)&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.nbaserbia.rs/vesti/2865/i-kodi-zeler-spreman-za-nba" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="3383494e-0135-4b54-b245-725ecbfcde4d" CreationDate="2017-07-08T04:21:39.723" UserId="9" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="I would second Tom Cotton’s suggestions of ***Bloomingtona*** or ***Blumingtona.*** If you want to assimilate the name completely to Latin phonotactics and spelling conventions, ***Blumintona*** also seems possible, but that doesn't seem necessary or even particularly advisable. Using *-tonia* doesn't seem incorrect either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I am still a beginner in Latin so I have no expertise with regard to this; all of this has been a guess based on a list of Latin place-names I found and other Google research. Please take it accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a large “[List of the Latin Names of Places in Great Britain and Ireland][1]” online; I’m not sure of its sourcing (so it might not be reliable) but a few of the names I checked were corroborated by other sources, so I’m tentatively assuming that it is reliable and only lists terms with some kind of attested use, not ones that are entirely questionable suggestions for neologisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven’t found any rule for whether to use “-tona” or “tonia” in the Latinization of English place names ending in “-ton”. As varro pointed out, “Bostonia” and “Hustonia” are used, but the list I linked to in the previous paragraph seems to have slightly more examples of “-tona” (e.g.  &quot;Chingestona&quot; – Kingston and &quot;Cunctona&quot; – Compton). A document I found while Googling lists the additional variants of “-thonia” (found in “Conthonia”, an alternative name for Compton) and “-tuna” (found in “Stoctuna”, a name for Stoughton) (*[Sussex Archaeological Collections Relating to the History and Antiquities of the County][2],* published by the Sussex Archaeological Society, Vol. XL). While variation between “th” and “t” and “o” and “u” could be attributed merely to the less fixed nature of orthography in past times, I don’t think the variation between “ia” and “a” can be as easily dismissed as purely graphical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a (not necessarily complete) list of Latin place names I found in the list corresponding to English place-names ending in “-ton”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-tona/-tuna/-thona:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Chingestona (Kingston)&#xD;&#xA;  - Cunctona (Compton, Sussex)&#xD;&#xA;  - Gaidingtona, Gaingtona (Geddington)&#xD;&#xA;  - Hunegetona (Honington or Hunnington, Staffordshire)&#xD;&#xA;  - Karintona (Catherington, Hants)&#xD;&#xA;  - Mucletona (Mickleton)&#xD;&#xA;  - Stiuentona (Staunton, Gloucestershire)&#xD;&#xA;  - Waldintona (Waldington, Yorks)&#xD;&#xA;  - Cleituna (Clayton, Sussex)&#xD;&#xA;  - Mealtuna (Malton, Yorks)&#xD;&#xA;  - Tornetuna (Thornton, Yorks)&#xD;&#xA;  - Ethona (Nuneaton, which was earlier simply “Etone” according to Wikipedia)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-tonia/-tunia/-thonia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Bramptonia (Brampton)&#xD;&#xA;- Glastonia, Gleastonia, Glestonia (Glastonbury)&#xD;&#xA;- Rugnitunia, Ruitonia (Ryton-upon-Dunsmoor, Warwickshire)&#xD;&#xA;- Wiltonia (Wilton; Wilts)&#xD;&#xA;- Conthonia (Compton; not in the list but in the cited book)&#xD;&#xA;- Bostonia (Boston; not in the list)&#xD;&#xA;- Hustonia (Houston; not in the list)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###either -tonia or -tona/-tuna:&#xD;&#xA;- Hamptonia, Hamtona (Southampton; Northampton; Hampton)&#xD;&#xA;- Northamptonia, Northantonia, Northamtuna (Northampton)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-tonium:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Varingtonium (Warrington, Lancashire)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This is weird and I don't know how to explain it, but it doesn't seem to be a typo. Possibly compare &quot;Vasingtonium&quot;, listed on Wikipedia &quot;[List of Latin names of cities][3]&quot;, but called &quot;quite odd&quot; by somebody on the [talk page][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-dunum:&#xD;&#xA;- Burgodunum (Burton, Staffordshire)&#xD;&#xA;- Castrodunum (Chesterton, Cambridgeshire)&#xD;&#xA;- Dorpendunum (Orpington, Kent)&#xD;&#xA;- Ellandunum (Allington, near Amesbury, or Wilton, in Wilts)&#xD;&#xA;- Repandunum (Repton)&#xD;&#xA;- Spinodunum (Thornton, Lincolnshire)&#xD;&#xA;- Sturodunum (Stourton, and Stourminster, Dorset)&#xD;&#xA;- Tanodunum, Thenodunum (Taunton, Somerset)&#xD;&#xA;- Venantodunum (Huntingdon)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don’t know if the use of “-dunum” is due to contamination from names with “-down” and “-don”. [Wikipedia][5] says: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dunum was a Latinized nameplace in ancient Ireland and the name of at least two recorded settlements there, one in the far north, one in the far south. [...] As a word, Dunum is very similar to words for fortifications and measurements, and sometimes used as a suffix or prefix in placenames to note the presence of fortification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, it seems it is thought to be derived from a Celtic word cognate with “town”. It seems to me that “-dunum”, although relatively common as a final element in established Latin place names, would not be a good choice for Latinizing the names of cities or towns that were named in modern times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of Latinization of the rest of the name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - as varro pointed out, “oo” can be changed to “u” (which would be pronounced as ū /uː/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The letter-sequence “ngt”, which does not occur in Latin, might also be changed. Although “nct” seems to me the closest equivalent in sound, I don’t know of any examples of &quot;ngt&quot; being Latinized this way, so I wouldn’t recommend it. Instead, simplifying the cluster to “nt” seems to have some precedent, as well as simply retaining it as “ngt”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-ingt:&#xD;&#xA;- Gaidingtona, Gaingtona (Geddington)&#xD;&#xA;- Varingtonium (Warrington, Lancashire)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-int-:&#xD;&#xA;- Karintona (Catherington, Hants)&#xD;&#xA;- Waldintona (Waldington, Yorks)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would just ignore the &quot;weird&quot; examples in the list of *Godritona* (Codrington) and *Hunegetona* (Honington/Hunnington).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, http://geonames.enacademic.com/12172/Bloomington lists &quot;Blumingtona&quot; as one of the names of &quot;Bloomington&quot; in another language, but it doesn't specify which one! Googling it seems to show that it is used in Serbian ([example][6]) and possibly some other Slavic languages, also some Baltic languages such as Latvian (https://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blūmingtona_(Indiāna)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://comp.uark.edu/~mreynold/recint2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=6r1CAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA60&amp;lpg=PA60&amp;dq=Cunctona&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2wHEL--vTh&amp;sig=dxlg83Q5OyOYswFuHkrJn9xoJRQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjykebt0vjUAhVl4oMKHRZlDl0Q6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&amp;q=Cunctona&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_names_of_cities&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Latin_names_of_cities#V_and_W&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunum_(Ireland)&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.nbaserbia.rs/vesti/2865/i-kodi-zeler-spreman-za-nba" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="6d8e9a3d-f199-4540-97ab-621a8ad4fb7c" CreationDate="2017-07-08T04:28:46.890" UserId="9" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="I would second Tom Cotton’s suggestions of ***Bloomingtona*** or ***Blumingtona.*** If you want to assimilate the name completely to Latin phonotactics and spelling conventions, ***Blumintona*** also seems possible, but that doesn't seem necessary or even particularly advisable. Using *-tonia* doesn't seem incorrect either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I am still a beginner in Latin so I have no expertise with regard to this; all of this has been a guess based on a list of Latin place-names I found and other Google research. Please take it accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a large “[List of the Latin Names of Places in Great Britain and Ireland][1]” online; I’m not sure of its sourcing (so it might not be reliable) but a few of the names I checked were corroborated by other sources, so I’m tentatively assuming that it is reliable and only lists terms with some kind of attested use, not ones that are entirely questionable suggestions for neologisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven’t found any rule for whether to use “-tona” or “tonia” in the Latinization of English place names ending in “-ton”. As varro pointed out, “Bostonia” and “Hustonia” are used, but the list I linked to in the previous paragraph seems to have slightly more examples of “-tona” (e.g.  &quot;Chingestona&quot; – Kingston and &quot;Cunctona&quot; – Compton). A document I found while Googling lists the additional variants of “-thonia” (found in “Conthonia”, an alternative name for Compton) and “-tuna” (found in “Stoctuna”, a name for Stoughton) (*[Sussex Archaeological Collections Relating to the History and Antiquities of the County][2],* published by the Sussex Archaeological Society, Vol. XL). While variation between “th” and “t” and “o” and “u” could be attributed merely to the less fixed nature of orthography in past times, I don’t think the variation between “ia” and “a” can be as easily dismissed as purely graphical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a (not necessarily complete) list of Latin place names I found in the list corresponding to English place-names ending in “-ton”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-tona/-tuna/-thona:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Chingestona (Kingston)&#xD;&#xA;  - Cunctona (Compton, Sussex)&#xD;&#xA;  - Gaidingtona, Gaingtona (Geddington)&#xD;&#xA;  - Hunegetona (Honington or Hunnington, Staffordshire)&#xD;&#xA;  - Karintona (Catherington, Hants)&#xD;&#xA;  - Mucletona (Mickleton)&#xD;&#xA;  - Stiuentona (Staunton, Gloucestershire)&#xD;&#xA;  - Waldintona (Waldington, Yorks)&#xD;&#xA;  - Cleituna (Clayton, Sussex)&#xD;&#xA;  - Mealtuna (Malton, Yorks)&#xD;&#xA;  - Tornetuna (Thornton, Yorks)&#xD;&#xA;  - Ethona (Nuneaton, which was earlier simply “Etone” according to Wikipedia)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-tonia/-tunia/-thonia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Bramptonia (Brampton)&#xD;&#xA;- Glastonia, Gleastonia, Glestonia (Glastonbury)&#xD;&#xA;- Rugnitunia, Ruitonia (Ryton-upon-Dunsmoor, Warwickshire)&#xD;&#xA;- Wiltonia (Wilton; Wilts)&#xD;&#xA;- Conthonia (Compton; not in the list but in the cited book)&#xD;&#xA;- Bostonia (Boston; not in the list)&#xD;&#xA;- Hustonia (Houston; not in the list).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Note: it may be relevant that the city of &quot;Houston&quot; was named after [Sam Houston][3], whose name might not have been etymologically connected to the &quot;-ton&quot; suffix found in many other English city names. Thus, it seems possible to me that the Latin name &quot;H(o)ustonia&quot; should be compared to names like &quot;Columbia&quot; from the personal name &quot;Columbus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###either -tonia or -tona/-tuna:&#xD;&#xA;- Hamptonia, Hamtona (Southampton; Northampton; Hampton)&#xD;&#xA;- Northamptonia, Northantonia, Northamtuna (Northampton)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-tonium:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Varingtonium (Warrington, Lancashire)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This is weird and I don't know how to explain it, but it doesn't seem to be a typo. Possibly compare &quot;Vasingtonium&quot;, listed on Wikipedia &quot;[List of Latin names of cities][4]&quot;, but called &quot;quite odd&quot; by somebody on the [talk page][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-dunum:&#xD;&#xA;- Burgodunum (Burton, Staffordshire)&#xD;&#xA;- Castrodunum (Chesterton, Cambridgeshire)&#xD;&#xA;- Dorpendunum (Orpington, Kent)&#xD;&#xA;- Ellandunum (Allington, near Amesbury, or Wilton, in Wilts)&#xD;&#xA;- Repandunum (Repton)&#xD;&#xA;- Spinodunum (Thornton, Lincolnshire)&#xD;&#xA;- Sturodunum (Stourton, and Stourminster, Dorset)&#xD;&#xA;- Tanodunum, Thenodunum (Taunton, Somerset)&#xD;&#xA;- Venantodunum (Huntingdon)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don’t know if the use of “-dunum” is due to contamination from names with “-down” and “-don”. [Wikipedia][6] says: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dunum was a Latinized nameplace in ancient Ireland and the name of at least two recorded settlements there, one in the far north, one in the far south. [...] As a word, Dunum is very similar to words for fortifications and measurements, and sometimes used as a suffix or prefix in placenames to note the presence of fortification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, it seems it is thought to be derived from a Celtic word cognate with “town”. It seems to me that “-dunum”, although relatively common as a final element in established Latin place names, would not be a good choice for Latinizing the names of cities or towns that were named in modern times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of Latinization of the rest of the name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - as varro pointed out, “oo” can be changed to “u” (which would be pronounced as ū /uː/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The letter-sequence “ngt”, which does not occur in Latin, might also be changed. Although “nct” seems to me the closest equivalent in sound, I don’t know of any examples of &quot;ngt&quot; being Latinized this way, so I wouldn’t recommend it. Instead, simplifying the cluster to “nt” seems to have some precedent, as well as simply retaining it as “ngt”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-ingt:&#xD;&#xA;- Gaidingtona, Gaingtona (Geddington)&#xD;&#xA;- Varingtonium (Warrington, Lancashire)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-int-:&#xD;&#xA;- Karintona (Catherington, Hants)&#xD;&#xA;- Waldintona (Waldington, Yorks)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would just ignore the &quot;weird&quot; examples in the list of *Godritona* (Codrington) and *Hunegetona* (Honington/Hunnington).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, http://geonames.enacademic.com/12172/Bloomington lists &quot;Blumingtona&quot; as one of the names of &quot;Bloomington&quot; in another language, but it doesn't specify which one! Googling it seems to show that it is used in Serbian ([example][7]) and possibly some other Slavic languages, also some Baltic languages such as Latvian (https://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blūmingtona_(Indiāna)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://comp.uark.edu/~mreynold/recint2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=6r1CAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA60&amp;lpg=PA60&amp;dq=Cunctona&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2wHEL--vTh&amp;sig=dxlg83Q5OyOYswFuHkrJn9xoJRQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjykebt0vjUAhVl4oMKHRZlDl0Q6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&amp;q=Cunctona&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Houston&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_names_of_cities&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Latin_names_of_cities#V_and_W&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunum_(Ireland)&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.nbaserbia.rs/vesti/2865/i-kodi-zeler-spreman-za-nba" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="1e47cb9d-4725-4d3d-b3b5-22d950267fc6" CreationDate="2017-07-08T04:35:09.413" UserId="9" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="I would second Tom Cotton’s suggestions of ***Bloomingtona*** or ***Blumingtona.*** If you want to assimilate the name completely to Latin phonotactics and spelling conventions, ***Blumintona*** also seems possible, but that doesn't seem necessary or even particularly advisable. Using *-tonia* doesn't seem incorrect either. One argument I can think of in favor of &quot;-tonia&quot; is that English speakers already use &quot;Bloomingtonian&quot; as an adjective, like &quot;Bostonian&quot; or &quot;Houstonian&quot;; of course, English is not Latin, but for the Latinization of an English place-name this seems relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I am still a beginner in Latin so I have no expertise with regard to this; all of this has been a guess based on a list of Latin place-names I found and other Google research. Please take it accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a large “[List of the Latin Names of Places in Great Britain and Ireland][1]” online; I’m not sure of its sourcing (so it might not be reliable) but a few of the names I checked were corroborated by other sources, so I’m tentatively assuming that it is reliable and only lists terms with some kind of attested use, not ones that are entirely questionable suggestions for neologisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven’t found any rule for whether to use “-tona” or “tonia” in the Latinization of English place names ending in “-ton”. As varro pointed out, “Bostonia” and “Hustonia” are used, but the list I linked to in the previous paragraph seems to have slightly more examples of “-tona” (e.g.  &quot;Chingestona&quot; – Kingston and &quot;Cunctona&quot; – Compton). A document I found while Googling lists the additional variants of “-thonia” (found in “Conthonia”, an alternative name for Compton) and “-tuna” (found in “Stoctuna”, a name for Stoughton) (*[Sussex Archaeological Collections Relating to the History and Antiquities of the County][2],* published by the Sussex Archaeological Society, Vol. XL). While variation between “th” and “t” and “o” and “u” could be attributed merely to the less fixed nature of orthography in past times, I don’t think the variation between “ia” and “a” can be as easily dismissed as purely graphical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a (not necessarily complete) list of Latin place names I found in the list corresponding to English place-names ending in “-ton”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-tona/-tuna/-thona:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Chingestona (Kingston)&#xD;&#xA;  - Cunctona (Compton, Sussex)&#xD;&#xA;  - Gaidingtona, Gaingtona (Geddington)&#xD;&#xA;  - Hunegetona (Honington or Hunnington, Staffordshire)&#xD;&#xA;  - Karintona (Catherington, Hants)&#xD;&#xA;  - Mucletona (Mickleton)&#xD;&#xA;  - Stiuentona (Staunton, Gloucestershire)&#xD;&#xA;  - Waldintona (Waldington, Yorks)&#xD;&#xA;  - Cleituna (Clayton, Sussex)&#xD;&#xA;  - Mealtuna (Malton, Yorks)&#xD;&#xA;  - Tornetuna (Thornton, Yorks)&#xD;&#xA;  - Ethona (Nuneaton, which was earlier simply “Etone” according to Wikipedia)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-tonia/-tunia/-thonia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Bramptonia (Brampton)&#xD;&#xA;- Glastonia, Gleastonia, Glestonia (Glastonbury)&#xD;&#xA;- Rugnitunia, Ruitonia (Ryton-upon-Dunsmoor, Warwickshire)&#xD;&#xA;- Wiltonia (Wilton; Wilts)&#xD;&#xA;- Conthonia (Compton; not in the list but in the cited book)&#xD;&#xA;- Bostonia (Boston; not in the list)&#xD;&#xA;- Hustonia (Houston; not in the list).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Note: it may be relevant that the city of &quot;Houston&quot; was named after [Sam Houston][3], whose name might not have been etymologically connected to the &quot;-ton&quot; suffix found in many other English city names. Thus, it seems possible to me that the Latin name &quot;H(o)ustonia&quot; should be compared to names like &quot;Columbia&quot; from the personal name &quot;Columbus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###either -tonia or -tona/-tuna:&#xD;&#xA;- Hamptonia, Hamtona (Southampton; Northampton; Hampton)&#xD;&#xA;- Northamptonia, Northantonia, Northamtuna (Northampton)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-tonium:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Varingtonium (Warrington, Lancashire)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This is weird and I don't know how to explain it, but it doesn't seem to be a typo. Possibly compare &quot;Vasingtonium&quot;, listed on Wikipedia &quot;[List of Latin names of cities][4]&quot;, but called &quot;quite odd&quot; by somebody on the [talk page][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-dunum:&#xD;&#xA;- Burgodunum (Burton, Staffordshire)&#xD;&#xA;- Castrodunum (Chesterton, Cambridgeshire)&#xD;&#xA;- Dorpendunum (Orpington, Kent)&#xD;&#xA;- Ellandunum (Allington, near Amesbury, or Wilton, in Wilts)&#xD;&#xA;- Repandunum (Repton)&#xD;&#xA;- Spinodunum (Thornton, Lincolnshire)&#xD;&#xA;- Sturodunum (Stourton, and Stourminster, Dorset)&#xD;&#xA;- Tanodunum, Thenodunum (Taunton, Somerset)&#xD;&#xA;- Venantodunum (Huntingdon)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don’t know if the use of “-dunum” is due to contamination from names with “-down” and “-don”. [Wikipedia][6] says: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dunum was a Latinized nameplace in ancient Ireland and the name of at least two recorded settlements there, one in the far north, one in the far south. [...] As a word, Dunum is very similar to words for fortifications and measurements, and sometimes used as a suffix or prefix in placenames to note the presence of fortification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, it seems it is thought to be derived from a Celtic word cognate with “town”. It seems to me that “-dunum”, although relatively common as a final element in established Latin place names, would not be a good choice for Latinizing the names of cities or towns that were named in modern times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of Latinization of the rest of the name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - as varro pointed out, “oo” can be changed to “u” (which would be pronounced as ū /uː/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The letter-sequence “ngt”, which does not occur in Latin, might also be changed. Although “nct” seems to me the closest equivalent in sound, I don’t know of any examples of &quot;ngt&quot; being Latinized this way, so I wouldn’t recommend it. Instead, simplifying the cluster to “nt” seems to have some precedent, as well as simply retaining it as “ngt”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-ingt:&#xD;&#xA;- Gaidingtona, Gaingtona (Geddington)&#xD;&#xA;- Varingtonium (Warrington, Lancashire)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-int-:&#xD;&#xA;- Karintona (Catherington, Hants)&#xD;&#xA;- Waldintona (Waldington, Yorks)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would just ignore the &quot;weird&quot; examples in the list of *Godritona* (Codrington) and *Hunegetona* (Honington/Hunnington).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, http://geonames.enacademic.com/12172/Bloomington lists &quot;Blumingtona&quot; as one of the names of &quot;Bloomington&quot; in another language, but it doesn't specify which one! Googling it seems to show that it is used in Serbian ([example][7]) and possibly some other Slavic languages, also some Baltic languages such as Latvian (https://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blūmingtona_(Indiāna)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://comp.uark.edu/~mreynold/recint2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=6r1CAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA60&amp;lpg=PA60&amp;dq=Cunctona&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2wHEL--vTh&amp;sig=dxlg83Q5OyOYswFuHkrJn9xoJRQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjykebt0vjUAhVl4oMKHRZlDl0Q6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&amp;q=Cunctona&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Houston&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_names_of_cities&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Latin_names_of_cities#V_and_W&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunum_(Ireland)&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.nbaserbia.rs/vesti/2865/i-kodi-zeler-spreman-za-nba" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4771" RevisionGUID="f5991f40-685b-4300-adae-93b03aa79264" CreationDate="2017-07-08T09:52:48.303" UserId="1692" Text="According to the wikipedia article on [this word][1], it is composed of αὐτός and ματος, which seems to be derived from &quot;the proto-Indo-European *méntis ~ *mn̥téys (“thought”).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is simple: Is there in Attic Greek such a word as ματος, considered on its own?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B1%E1%BD%90%CF%84%CF%8C%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14740" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4771" RevisionGUID="f5991f40-685b-4300-adae-93b03aa79264" CreationDate="2017-07-08T09:52:48.303" UserId="1692" Text="About αὐτόματος" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14741" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4771" RevisionGUID="f5991f40-685b-4300-adae-93b03aa79264" CreationDate="2017-07-08T09:52:48.303" UserId="1692" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4771" RevisionGUID="19ac6989-b701-4960-b4ac-337d5eee5d96" CreationDate="2017-07-08T10:44:08.620" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="According to the wikipedia article on [this word][1], it is composed of αὐτός and ματος, which seems to be derived from &quot;the proto-Indo-European *méntis ~ *mn̥téys (“thought”).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is simple: Is there in Attic Greek such a word as ματος, considered on its own?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B1%E1%BD%90%CF%84%CF%8C%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14743" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4771" RevisionGUID="19ac6989-b701-4960-b4ac-337d5eee5d96" CreationDate="2017-07-08T10:44:08.620" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|vocabulary|etymology|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4772" RevisionGUID="f810402a-4219-4c6c-9310-2e16487272f4" CreationDate="2017-07-08T11:31:02.863" UserId="324" Text="The answer to your question is no. *matos does not exist as a word on its own in any Greek dialect. But it can confidently be posited for proto-Greek, where it is cognate of Latin -mentus. *mato- is the expected Greek representative of IE *mnto-." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4773" RevisionGUID="5e2a8d3f-fa24-44da-930a-622c743c2816" CreationDate="2017-07-08T11:44:03.303" UserId="1692" Text="Here is a question related to [the one][1] I asked about an hour ago:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an adjective, the main meaning of αὐτόματος is *self-willed*, but as a noun, it primarily means *accident* or *chance*, according to [this wikipedia page][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But something that is self-willed seems to be the opposite of something that is accidental, isn't it? If so, is this word similar to [φάρμακον][3], which means both a healing drug and poison, a gathering of contraries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4771/about-%CE%B1%E1%BD%90%CF%84%CF%8C%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B1%E1%BD%90%CF%84%CF%8C%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%86%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%BD#Ancient_Greek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14746" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4773" RevisionGUID="5e2a8d3f-fa24-44da-930a-622c743c2816" CreationDate="2017-07-08T11:44:03.303" UserId="1692" Text="A semantic question about αὐτόματος" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14747" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4773" RevisionGUID="5e2a8d3f-fa24-44da-930a-622c743c2816" CreationDate="2017-07-08T11:44:03.303" UserId="1692" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4420" RevisionGUID="786d7e13-f232-4c1b-a04c-d0b6697034b7" CreationDate="2017-07-08T13:23:10.443" UserId="78" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="Sam K has given you a literal translation, but might I suggest something more pithy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fortior Mutatus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stronger [having been] Changed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be a past tense situation, in which the change has already occurred and you're stronger for it. The &quot;I am&quot; part is assumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's a complete life &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also do something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Alma Nova  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The nourishing new things&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would emphasize the nourishing aspect of what's new. The Latin verb *novare* (related to *nova*) has the connotations of change built in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the language of Statius (8.101-102), you could even have a full metaphor in place (depending on how much ink you want):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Novam lucem quae me alit complector.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I embrace the new light, which nourishes me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just some extra things to think about. Feel free to ask questions about any of the translations. A tattoo is a permanent thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FWIW, in ancient Rome, tattoos were used primarily to brand slaves (a big FVG for runaways, for example), though in later centuries soldiers got them on their hands, too. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4420" RevisionGUID="26e3c3ef-1d19-4287-bc9d-deac717a23f2" CreationDate="2017-07-08T17:16:06.387" UserId="78" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="Sam K has given you a literal translation, but might I suggest something more pithy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fortior Mutatus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stronger [having been] Changed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For feminine, use *mutata* instead of *mutatus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be a past tense situation, in which the change has already occurred and you're stronger for it. The &quot;I am&quot; part is assumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also do something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Alma Nova  // Al(i)tus ab Luce Nova&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The nourishing new things // Nourished by New Things&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would emphasize the nourishing aspect of what's new. The Latin verb *novare* (related to *nova*) has the connotations of change built in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the language of Statius (8.101-102), you could even have a full metaphor in place (depending on how much ink you want):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Novam lucem quae me alit complector.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I embrace the new light, which nourishes me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just some extra things to think about. Feel free to ask questions about any of the translations. A tattoo is a permanent thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FWIW, in ancient Rome, tattoos were used primarily to brand slaves (a big FVG for runaways, for example), though in later centuries soldiers got them on their hands, too. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4774" RevisionGUID="42c289d5-6d24-4ffd-bb56-d10196d0e49b" CreationDate="2017-07-08T18:56:07.423" UserId="576" Text="For example, is there a semantic difference between the two following sentences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Lapis descendit ab A ad B unâ horâ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Lapis descendit ab A ad B una hora." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15752" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4774" RevisionGUID="42c289d5-6d24-4ffd-bb56-d10196d0e49b" CreationDate="2017-07-08T18:56:07.423" UserId="576" Text="Use of circumflex in Latin: Is there a difference between &quot;hora&quot; and &quot;horâ&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15753" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4774" RevisionGUID="42c289d5-6d24-4ffd-bb56-d10196d0e49b" CreationDate="2017-07-08T18:56:07.423" UserId="576" Text="|orthography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4775" RevisionGUID="7323438f-c0db-4245-b43b-2d3c8ad7dca9" CreationDate="2017-07-08T19:12:10.343" UserId="40" Text="The [LSJ entry][1] sheds some light on the semantics. αὐτόματος literally or etymologically means &quot;having a mind of one's own&quot;. When applied to people,  αὐτόματος means &quot;acting of one's own will&quot;; when applied to things, which don't have minds,  it means something like &quot;acting on its own, without human control or intervention&quot;. Something that happens on its own happens &quot;by chance&quot; in the sense that it has not been brought about by any human agency. When you can't control an occurrence, it's an easy step to thinking of it as happening &quot;of itself&quot; or &quot;of its own accord&quot;. If the river floods &quot;of its own will&quot;, i.e. without the possibility of human control or prediction, it also can be said to flood &quot;at random&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dau)to%2Fmatos" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4774" RevisionGUID="90e57365-bc94-49a2-97d3-362c5647118a" CreationDate="2017-07-08T19:21:24.253" UserId="576" Comment="added 279 characters in body" Text="For example, is there a semantic difference between the two following sentences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Lapis descendit ab A ad B unâ horâ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Lapis descendit ab A ad B una hora.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This site][1], e.g., says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The distinction between short and long vowels was grammatically significant, cf. **hora** hour *vs.* **horâ** at (this) hour, now&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/Grammar/Latin-Pronunciation-Syllable-Accent.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4776" RevisionGUID="01d5e2e6-bcb8-46e3-af47-690dbd72a5b7" CreationDate="2017-07-08T19:24:04.660" UserId="576" Text="I would like to learn how to read medieval Latin manuscripts, but they often use abbreviations/shorthand. What are some books that would help me read these manuscripts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4776" RevisionGUID="01d5e2e6-bcb8-46e3-af47-690dbd72a5b7" CreationDate="2017-07-08T19:24:04.660" UserId="576" Text="Books of reading medieval Latin manuscripts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4776" RevisionGUID="01d5e2e6-bcb8-46e3-af47-690dbd72a5b7" CreationDate="2017-07-08T19:24:04.660" UserId="576" Text="|medieval-latin|abbreviations|reference-request|paleography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4777" RevisionGUID="388d861b-ed13-4f8d-a912-0e092d26310a" CreationDate="2017-07-08T19:36:27.480" UserId="40" Text="There is no independent word ματος in any form of Greek we know of or can reconstruct; it's often the case that forms found in compounds are not found as independent words with the exact same shape. But there are many Greek words which come from the same Indo-European root. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - μένος &quot;mind, courage; strength&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - μαίνομαι &quot;rage, be crazy&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - μανία &quot;madness&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - μέμονα &quot;be mindful&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - μιμνήσκω &quot;remind&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - μνήμη &quot;memory&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the same root we get Latin *mens* &quot;mind&quot;, as well as the English word *mind* itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4778" RevisionGUID="102e85a5-4fe0-4b1c-bce9-d628015c427f" CreationDate="2017-07-08T19:52:46.173" UserId="406" Text="##In that particular example sentence, no. In general, yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The circumflex used by some authors to indicate long vowels. I prefer to use the macron: *hōra* versus *hōrā*. Some ancient inscriptions used an &quot;apex&quot;, a diacritic similar to the modern acute: *hórá*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Hōra* with a short *a* is unambiguously nominative, &quot;a time&quot; or &quot;an hour&quot;. While *hōrā* with a long *a* is unambiguously ablative, &quot;at the time&quot; or &quot;in an hour&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example sentence, it's unambiguous that the word is *hōrā*, because *hōra* with a short *a* wouldn't make sense. So even without any markings, it would be read with a long *ā*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are other situations in which long and short vowels can cause significant ambiguity. For example, a famous graffito (paraphrased):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A. B. amat, sed B. alium amat*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A. loves B., but B. loves *alium*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, the ambiguity is used for humor: *alium* with a short *a* means &quot;another man&quot;, but *ālium* with a long *a* means &quot;garlic&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or for a more risqué example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *C. anum amat*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; C. loves an *anus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Anus* with a short *a* (feminine, fourth declension) means &quot;old woman&quot;, while *ānus* with a long *ā* (masculine, second declension) means the same thing it does in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4778" RevisionGUID="b8451b8b-6316-497b-8481-cdc1dc1910be" CreationDate="2017-07-08T20:00:49.033" UserId="406" Comment="fix a macron" Text="##In that particular example sentence, no. In general, yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The circumflex used by some authors to indicate long vowels. I prefer to use the macron: *hōra* versus *hōrā*. Some ancient inscriptions used an &quot;apex&quot;, a diacritic similar to the modern acute: *hórá*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Hōra* with a short *a* is unambiguously nominative, &quot;a time&quot; or &quot;an hour&quot;. While *hōrā* with a long *a* is unambiguously ablative, &quot;at the time&quot; or &quot;in an hour&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example sentence, it's unambiguous that the word is *hōrā*, because *hōra* with a short *a* wouldn't make sense. So even without any markings, it would be read with a long *ā*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are other situations in which long and short vowels can cause significant ambiguity. For example, a famous graffito (paraphrased):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A. B. amat, sed B. alium amat*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A. loves B., but B. loves *alium*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, the ambiguity is used for humor: *alium* with a short *a* means &quot;another man&quot;, but *ālium* with a long *ā* means &quot;garlic&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or for a more risqué example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *C. anum amat*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; C. loves an *anus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Anus* with a short *a* (feminine, fourth declension) means &quot;old woman&quot;, while *ānus* with a long *ā* (masculine, second declension) means the same thing it does in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4779" RevisionGUID="e5a6910e-e1bb-4e2e-be31-21f9cbbd6612" CreationDate="2017-07-08T20:18:25.267" UserId="9" Text="##There is no difference between “unâ horâ” and “una hora” in this context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Lapis descendit ab A ad B unâ horâ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Lapis descendit ab A ad B una hora.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of comparing these two sentences, there is no difference between “unâ horâ” and “una hora”. They mean the same thing (and should be pronounced the same way): they are purely orthographical variants representing the ablative singular of “una hora”  (with the “ablative of time” interpretation). The overall sentence means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A stone descends from A to B in/within one hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example seems to be taken with, a slight modification, from Descartes’ *Cogitationes Privatae* (which has “Lapis, aiebat, descendit ab A ad B una hora”). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this text with a Spanish translation on Google, and I know enough Spanish to be able to tell that it confirms the above English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Una piedra — dijo — desciende de A a B en un hora&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[Estudios galileanos][1],* by Alexandre Koyré)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of no sensible interpretation of this sentence with “una hora” interpreted as a nominative rather than an ablative noun phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Latin orthography is not a single system; it comprises many systems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many variations on Latin orthography. It is a language that has existed in many times and places, and different customs have naturally developed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The source you found refers to an orthographic distinction between “**hora** hour vs. **horâ** at (this) hour, now”, but this distinction is not universally observed: it applies only to orthographic traditions that use the circumflex consistently to mark the ablative singular of first-declension nouns. Penelope’s answer to the following question describes the possible uses of the circumflex: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1887/interpretation-of-circumflex-in-a-poem-from-1621&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, my impression is that only a minority of writers use the circumflex nowadays. Many popular introductory Latin textbooks, such as *[Wheelock’s][2]*, use macrons instead. Typically, macrons are used to mark all long vowels in a word, not just the grammatically significant ones, so in a text using macrons the distinction between nominative singular and ablative singular would usually be written as *hōra* vs. *hōrā.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in contexts other than introductory textbooks, many modern writers and readers of Latin prefer text without any diacritical marks at all: no circumflexes and no macrons. In text like this, both the nominative singular and ablative singular are written the same way (“una hora”); you can generally figure out which one is meant by context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it all depends on the context. You cannot in general assume that “una hora” is nominative rather than ablative; however, this might be a safe assumption if you observe that the text you are reading consistently uses circumflexes to mark the ablative singular of first-declension nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar area of variance in written Latin is the use of j and i vs. just i; e.g. &quot;jam&quot; and &quot;iam&quot; are just different ways of writing the same word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=qCKWpD4189QC&amp;pg=PA104&amp;lpg=PA104&amp;dq=Lapis,%20aiebat,%20descendit%20ab%20A%20ad%20B%20una%20hora&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=yjc3U9Pwqc&amp;sig=xthF87vCmYaAAe7yJj6snLl_GY0&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjp0MfBufrUAhWC7YMKHURbDW0Q6AEIKzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Lapis%2C%20aiebat%2C%20descendit%20ab%20A%20ad%20B%20una%20hora&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wheelockslatin.com/chapters/introduction/introduction_vowels.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4773" RevisionGUID="cf19436a-3fad-4c59-af60-6cb0ae80ecd2" CreationDate="2017-07-08T20:34:46.627" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="Here is a question related to [the one][1] I asked about an hour ago:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an adjective, the main meaning of αὐτόματος is *self-willed*, but as a noun, it primarily means *accident* or *chance*, according to [this Wikipedia page][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But something that is self-willed seems to be the opposite of something that is accidental, isn't it? If so, is this word similar to [φάρμακον][3], which means both a healing drug and poison, a gathering of contraries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4771/about-%CE%B1%E1%BD%90%CF%84%CF%8C%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B1%E1%BD%90%CF%84%CF%8C%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%86%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%BD#Ancient_Greek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15764" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4773" RevisionGUID="cf19436a-3fad-4c59-af60-6cb0ae80ecd2" CreationDate="2017-07-08T20:34:46.627" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|etymology|greek|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4774" RevisionGUID="758aefc7-2a04-4d30-a969-8e7fec528d9d" CreationDate="2017-07-08T20:39:21.643" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="For example, is there a semantic difference between the two following sentences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Lapis descendit ab A ad B unâ horâ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Lapis descendit ab A ad B una hora.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This site][1], e.g., says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The distinction between short and long vowels was grammatically significant, cf. **hora** hour *vs.* **horâ** at (this) hour, now&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/Grammar/Latin-Pronunciation-Syllable-Accent.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15766" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4774" RevisionGUID="758aefc7-2a04-4d30-a969-8e7fec528d9d" CreationDate="2017-07-08T20:39:21.643" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|orthography|diacritics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4780" RevisionGUID="d224731d-e2dc-448c-b1cb-5842f35beb7b" CreationDate="2017-07-09T01:42:44.487" UserId="522" Text="The UK National Archive runs a [two part course][1] which gives immediate feedback and quickly introduces .1. dating of mss  .2. different styles of writing (book script, private notes, .3. post classical grammar .4. some abbreviations. You'll whizz through that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For simply the **Abbreviations** also known as **Sigla**  &#xD;&#xA;For manuscripts earlier than 850, including a section on Irish Latin, by [W M Lindsay][2] posted by InternetArchive  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For later Medieval works Kansas University has posted Adriano Capelli (60 page A5) [hand book][3] as a pdf  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Six pages from Lindsay are in &quot;[Scribal Abbreviations][4]&quot; Wikipedia. You might also find it worthwhile printing off this page from &quot;[textcreationpartnership][5]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/latin/beginners/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/notaelatinaeacco00lindrich&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/1821/47cappelli.pdf?sequence=3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribal_abbreviation&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/docs/dox/latabbrs.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4781" RevisionGUID="7de05050-3c8f-41a5-9913-a6ceb2278c17" CreationDate="2017-07-09T02:14:04.333" UserId="522" Text="The problem may be particular to Mozart's requiem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Step one*: in Mozart's 'Lacrimosa' the 'i' is sung on two notes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Step two*: In the musical score the word might therefore written under the notes as 'la- cri- i -mo -sa' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Step three*: a printer, seeing  'lacriimosa,' would set it as 'lacrijmosa' or 'lacrymosa' with two dots, or plain 'lacrymosa.'  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4782" RevisionGUID="b098bcf3-42e3-428d-986d-33aa78edf5cb" CreationDate="2017-07-09T03:38:06.827" UserId="522" Text="There is one book that you would find more useful than any other, and that is a Latin Bible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The internet provides access to Manuscripts from the British Library, and the Beinecke (Yale), and the Parker Library (Cambridge) and several others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, visit the **[British library][1]**, and tell them you want to read St Cuthbert's copy of St John, **Add MS 89000** in half uncials (800) with few abbreviations.  &#xD;&#xA;Then move on to the Stavelot Bible (Add MS 28106  1093-1097) The script has developed and there are abbreviations for per- pro- ; -us -um;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so on through the Centuries. The search engine allows you to chose a date; select Psalms, Gospels,  Bible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Default.asp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4783" RevisionGUID="6367f859-c7cb-45d4-bf20-dd851660820d" CreationDate="2017-07-09T18:06:20.830" UserId="39" Text="Since we are talking about the end of the eighteenth century (that’s when Mozart supposedly composed it), I will argue that the evidence already mentioned coming from etymology or Classical Latin spelling practices is not quite relevant here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;David Butterfield succinctly summarizes the development of Latin after the late medieval period (i.e. Neo-Latin or New Latin) in two words – “purification” and “decline” ([Butterfield 2011][1]: 303). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The defining feature of Neo-Latin is that humanist scholars dismissed Medieval Latin as “Latina barbara” and the only “correct” way to acquire Latin was through imitation (i.e. by reading Classical Latin writers). Naturally, such a daunting task was impossible to accomplish and, ironically, the language of Neo-Latin writers does not precisely follow the rules and practices of Classical Latin writers – see [Butterfield 2011][1] for further detail (esp. pp. 310-313).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about Neo-Latin spelling practices. To slightly paraphrase Butterfield, despite “the closer attention paid better to manuscript sources for ancient literature” and – hence – “an improved understanding of orthography,” “correcting the spelling of Latin to Classical standards was not a central area for scholarly attention” (p. 312). That is why we can find different spellings of the same word among Neo-Latin writers – it could be even the same author using different spelling variants in the same text! That is why Milena Minkova argues that “Neo-Latin orthography is not a strictly definable concept” ([Minkova 2014][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about the word “lacrima” (and its derivatives). [De Vaan][3] argues that TLL does not provide any information re: the distribution of variants lacruma and lacrima in Classical Latin, and I haven’t looked into this further – yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peter Stotz ([Stotz 1996][4]) mentions, in the magisterial fifth-volume “Handbuch zur lateinischen  Sprache des Mittelalters” (we need the third volume – “Lautlehre”), that in Medieval Latin there was the following rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“omnia Graeca nomina, que in usum Latini semonis veniunt, per ‘y’ scribenda sunt.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule was generalized even to cases where ‘y’ shouldn’t be (it’s not etymological), e.g. the ending –ia in *phylosophya* [sic!]. This is known as hypercorrect spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stotz also adds that:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch18/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-the-neo-latin-world/orthography-of-neo-latin-B9789004271029_0095?&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.chbeck.de/Stotz-Handbuch-Altertumswissenschaft-Griechische-Grammatik-Lateinische-Grammatik-Rhetorik-Band-II_5-3-Handbuch-lateinischen-Spra/productview.aspx?product=15797&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IGQEw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4783" RevisionGUID="4778f31e-7dc3-4725-8b66-4598f6404bb2" CreationDate="2017-07-09T18:17:58.803" UserId="39" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="Since we are talking about the end of the eighteenth century (that’s when Mozart supposedly composed it), I will argue that the evidence already mentioned coming from etymology or Classical Latin spelling practices is not quite relevant here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;David Butterfield succinctly summarizes the development of Latin after the late medieval period (i.e. Neo-Latin or New Latin) in two words – “purification” and “decline” ([Butterfield 2011][1]: 303). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The defining feature of Neo-Latin is that humanist scholars dismissed Medieval Latin as “Latina barbara” and the only “correct” way to acquire Latin was through imitation (i.e. by reading Classical Latin writers). Naturally, such a daunting task was impossible to accomplish and, ironically, the language of Neo-Latin writers does not precisely follow the rules and practices of Classical Latin writers – see [Butterfield 2011][1] for further detail (esp. pp. 310-313).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about Neo-Latin spelling practices. To slightly paraphrase Butterfield, despite “the closer attention paid better to manuscript sources for ancient literature” and – hence – “an improved understanding of orthography,” “correcting the spelling of Latin to Classical standards was not a central area for scholarly attention” (p. 312). That is why we can find different spellings of the same word among Neo-Latin writers – it could be even the same author using different spelling variants in the same text! That is why Milena Minkova argues that “Neo-Latin orthography is not a strictly definable concept” ([Minkova 2014][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about the word “lacrima” (and its derivatives). [De Vaan][3] argues that TLL does not provide any information re: the distribution of variants lacruma and lacrima in Classical Latin, and I haven’t looked into this further – yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peter Stotz ([Stotz 1996][4]) mentions, in the magisterial fifth-volume “Handbuch zur lateinischen  Sprache des Mittelalters” (we need the third volume – “Lautlehre”), that in Medieval Latin there was the following rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“omnia Graeca nomina, que in usum Latini semonis veniunt, per ‘y’ scribenda sunt.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule was generalized even to cases where ‘y’ shouldn’t be (it’s not etymological), e.g. the ending –ia in *phylosophya* [sic!]. This is known as hypercorrect spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stotz also adds that:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in this case the &quot;correct&quot; spelling would be whatever Mozart used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch18/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-the-neo-latin-world/orthography-of-neo-latin-B9789004271029_0095?&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.chbeck.de/Stotz-Handbuch-Altertumswissenschaft-Griechische-Grammatik-Lateinische-Grammatik-Rhetorik-Band-II_5-3-Handbuch-lateinischen-Spra/productview.aspx?product=15797&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IGQEw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="c74285a8-a530-488d-ae74-f86780e0479e" CreationDate="2017-07-10T09:10:57.110" UserId="79" Text="The verb *fieri* has an unusual conjugation, and one of the weird aspects is the long I before many vowels: *f&amp;imacr;&amp;omacr;, f&amp;imacr;&amp;amacr;s, f&amp;imacr;et&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;Why is the I long?&#xD;&#xA;Does the origin of the verb (which I have no idea of) explain this behavior?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not remember any other verbs that would have a long vowel before the *-&amp;omacr;* in the first person singular present indicative, although short ones are common (*facio, ruo, luo, eo&amp;hellip;*), and the long I is against my [rule of thumb concerning vowel quantity in verbs](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4334/79).&#xD;&#xA;This particular I feels like an outlier in Latin conjugation, and I can't make any sense of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15777" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="c74285a8-a530-488d-ae74-f86780e0479e" CreationDate="2017-07-10T09:10:57.110" UserId="79" Text="Understanding vowel quantity in fieri" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15778" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="c74285a8-a530-488d-ae74-f86780e0479e" CreationDate="2017-07-10T09:10:57.110" UserId="79" Text="|verbs|conjugation|irregular-words|vowel-quantity|phonology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4785" RevisionGUID="48c96ebf-e0ed-48fb-ac05-7d9ca80dd707" CreationDate="2017-07-10T20:33:27.370" UserId="13" Text="I have heard that there was, a long long time ago, an edition of Sappho's poem published (right?) at Alexandria. I know it had at least 8 books (maybe 9, maybe more, that's up for debate) and that the poems were arranged &quot;by meter&quot;. So I was wondering: besides knowing that book 1 contained Sapphic stanzas, do we know what meters other books contained? I ask because I see [Bibliotheca Augustana](https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/graeca/Chronologia/S_ante06/Sappho/sap_me00.html) splitting the poems into books, supposedly by meter, and yet some books seem to have poems of pretty different meters. Let me make a little list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Melôn I: sapphic stanzas;&#xD;&#xA; - Melôn II: aeolic dactylic pentapodies (hope the terms is right, metric scheme is xx–uu–uu-uu–ux), with a few fragments being not even a full line, and one being possibly catalectic (ὠς δὲ πάϊς πεδὰ μάτερα πεπτερύγωμαι ends with –u, not –ux, so either it's missing its last syllable, or it's xx–uu–uu–uu–x);&#xD;&#xA; - Melôn III: greater asclepiads, and then suddenly μνάσασθαί τινα φαῖμι ... κἄψερον ἀμμέων, which as is looks like xx–uu–u–uu–ux, but is usually restored to be a dactylic pentapody and hence belong in book 2, or as a lesser asclepiad (maybe book III was generically &quot;asclepiads&quot;? But that would anyway make this &quot;ἐξ ἀδήλων βιβλίων&quot;, seen as the quotation this is from, as reported by Bergk, does not mention it being ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ, i.e. in book III…);&#xD;&#xA; - Melôn IV: Ionic a maiore tetrapodies (xxuu––uu––uu–u–x);&#xD;&#xA; - Melôn V: first off, an uncertain fragment; then, τί με Πανδίονις ᾬραννα χελίδων, which looks like uu–uu–––uuu–, but I don't believe the short alpha of Ὤραννα, so I'd expect uu–uu––––uu–, maybe with a final anceps, that is two anapests, and then something dactylic, so a caesura after Pandionis, uu–uu–|–––uu–, feet uu– uu– || –– –uu x, which I cannot classify as a meter; then Ζά τ' ἐλεξάμαν ὄναρ Κυπρογένηα, uu–u–u–||–uu–x, which is different from the previous and cannot be explained away with anaclasis because anaclasis of the previous gives uu–u–u–––uu–, which ends in –––uu– vs. ––uu–x in this one; then πλήρης μὲν ἐφάινετ' ἀ σέλαννα, ––uu–u–u–u, ionic a maiore plus three trochees; then πτερύγων δ' ὐπακακχέει λιγύραν ἀοίδαν, uu–uu–u–uu–u–x, with a reversal of the thesis-arsis pattern from the previous; then δεῦτέ νυν ἄβραι Χάριτες καλλίκομοί τε Μοῖσαι, –uu––uu––uu–u–u, choriambic n-meter; and I think I can stop here: my point is well illustrated; just one more: dactylic pentapodies make a comeback! Φοίβῳ χρυσοκόμᾳ τὸν ἔτικτε Κόω κόρα;&#xD;&#xA; - Melôn 6: fragmenta desunt;&#xD;&#xA; - Melôn 7: a single fragment in x–u–u–||–uu–u–u–x;&#xD;&#xA; - Melôn 8: three fragments of unclear meters which could be ionic a maiore tetrapodies (book IV), and one which is of unclear meter but, being line beginnings; all these are from papyri, so no quotation could tell us &quot;they were in book VIII&quot;;&#xD;&#xA; - Melôn 9: epithalamia of the most various meters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is B.A.'s logic in that book V, and is it known what meters were in what books (at least the 8 that are sure to have existed)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15780" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4785" RevisionGUID="48c96ebf-e0ed-48fb-ac05-7d9ca80dd707" CreationDate="2017-07-10T20:33:27.370" UserId="13" Text="About the Alexandrian edition of Sappho: how were the poems assigned to the books?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15781" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4785" RevisionGUID="48c96ebf-e0ed-48fb-ac05-7d9ca80dd707" CreationDate="2017-07-10T20:33:27.370" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|metre|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4786" RevisionGUID="59df3f63-c4a2-4a3f-ba68-a641c29e1396" CreationDate="2017-07-11T02:07:49.003" UserId="39" Text="Weiss writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In Classical Latin fīo, fīunt, fīam etc. 'become' have been analogically restored&quot; (p. 126).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He also mentions, in footnote 10 on the same page, a very interesting observation made by Jan Safarewicz (Safarewicz 1974): ī tends to be used when the following syllable is heavy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4787" RevisionGUID="97de76b7-e31a-43dd-873a-bccdb1021219" CreationDate="2017-07-11T02:09:07.563" UserId="1407" Text="There was an interesting question on Lit regarding a proposed meaning of Nausicaa as &quot;burner of ships&quot;.  Although I don't have an issue with the ναῦς/κάω hypothesis, [I suspect κάω is more likely used in the sense of &quot;passion&quot; as opposed to literal fire][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wondering if anyone here has thoughts on the subject, if I would be incorrect in updating Wikipedia to comment that the &quot;burner of ships&quot; is an *hypothesis*, and if I would be overstepping to suggest alternate meanings such as &quot;passion for ships&quot;/&quot;passion for sailors&quot;, which makes much more sense from a narrative perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*More detail on my alternate interpretation of κάω can be found in my answer on Lit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://literature.stackexchange.com/a/2978/391" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15784" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4787" RevisionGUID="97de76b7-e31a-43dd-873a-bccdb1021219" CreationDate="2017-07-11T02:09:07.563" UserId="1407" Text="Etymology of Nausicaa?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15785" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4787" RevisionGUID="97de76b7-e31a-43dd-873a-bccdb1021219" CreationDate="2017-07-11T02:09:07.563" UserId="1407" Text="|etymology|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4787" RevisionGUID="cb218d71-5dfa-4315-bc07-2b51e2f6d264" CreationDate="2017-07-11T02:51:17.673" UserId="1407" Comment="updated based on a comment, and added the Pindar line where κάω is used to mean passion." Text="There was an interesting question on Lit regarding a proposed meaning of Nausicaa as &quot;burner of ships&quot;.  Although I don't have an issue with the ναῦς/κάω hypothesis, [I suspect κάω is more likely used in the sense of &quot;passion&quot; as opposed to literal fire][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia page references [Shipley as the source][2], and you can find the entry in [The Origins of English Words: A Discursive Dictionary of Indo-European Roots on page 160][3], but I'm a little befuddled that he doesn't mention the Pindar usage, “[ἐν φρασὶ καιομένα][4]” [Pi.P.4.219], especially in the context of Nausicaa in the Odyssey, choosing instead, the literal meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wondering if anyone here has thoughts on the subject, if I would be incorrect in updating Wikipedia to comment that the &quot;burner of ships&quot; is an *hypothesis*, either of the interpretation or the etymology itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*More detail on my alternate interpretation of κάω can be found in my answer on Lit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://literature.stackexchange.com/a/2978/391&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nausicaa#cite_note-2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=m1UKpE4YEkEC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q=nausicaa&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kai%2Fw&amp;la=greek&amp;can=kai%2Fw0&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0073:alphabetic%20letter=k:entry%20group=1:entry=kai/w&amp;i=1#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4787" RevisionGUID="06d2fdb0-f848-4532-8781-fb7c90b701e6" CreationDate="2017-07-11T03:14:18.900" UserId="1407" Comment="updated based on additional commentary" Text="There was [an interesting question on Lit regarding a proposed meaning of Nausicaa as &quot;burner of ships&quot;][1].  Although I don't have an issue with the ναῦς/κάω hypothesis, [I suspect κάω is more likely used in the sense of &quot;passion&quot; as opposed to literal fire][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia page references [Shipley as the source][3], and you can find the entry in [The Origins of English Words: A Discursive Dictionary of Indo-European Roots on page 160][4], but I'm a little befuddled that he doesn't mention the Pindar usage, “[ἐν φρασὶ καιομένα][5]” [Pi.P.4.219], especially in the context of Nausicaa in the Odyssey, and instead chooses the literal meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wondering if anyone here has thoughts on the subject, and if I would be incorrect in updating Wikipedia to comment that the &quot;burner of ships&quot; is an *hypothesis*, either of the interpretation or the etymology itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If anyone knows of alternate sources for &quot;burner of ships&quot;, or scholarly corroboration of the Shipley, that would also be helpful.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://literature.stackexchange.com/q/2963/391&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://literature.stackexchange.com/a/2978/391&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nausicaa#cite_note-2&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=m1UKpE4YEkEC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q=nausicaa&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kai%2Fw&amp;la=greek&amp;can=kai%2Fw0&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0073:alphabetic%20letter=k:entry%20group=1:entry=kai/w&amp;i=1#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4787" RevisionGUID="76055077-0aa5-405d-97a7-8638e83962ab" CreationDate="2017-07-11T03:28:28.820" UserId="1407" Comment="updated to include a second, unreliable source. " Text="There was [an interesting question on Lit regarding a proposed meaning of Nausicaa as &quot;burner of ships&quot;][1].  Although I don't have an issue with the ναῦς/κάω hypothesis, [I suspect κάω is more likely used in the sense of &quot;passion&quot; as opposed to literal fire][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia page references [Shipley as the source][3], and you can find the entry in [The Origins of English Words: A Discursive Dictionary of Indo-European Roots on page 160][4], and it appears Shipley may have [lifted this derivation and interpretation from Graves][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm a little befuddled that Shipley doesn't mention the Pindar usage, “[ἐν φρασὶ καιομένα][5]” [Pi.P.4.219], especially in the context of Nausicaa in the Odyssey, and instead chooses the literal meaning.  (I'm sure Graves has a rationale, but I don't have access to his text at the moment.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wondering if anyone here has thoughts on the subject, and if I would be incorrect in updating Wikipedia to comment that the &quot;burner of ships&quot; is an *hypothesis*, either of the interpretation or the etymology itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If anyone knows of alternate sources for &quot;burner of ships&quot;, or scholarly corroboration of the Graves/Shipley, that would also be helpful.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://literature.stackexchange.com/q/2963/391&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://literature.stackexchange.com/a/2978/391&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nausicaa#cite_note-2&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=m1UKpE4YEkEC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q=nausicaa&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kai%2Fw&amp;la=greek&amp;can=kai%2Fw0&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0073:alphabetic%20letter=k:entry%20group=1:entry=kai/w&amp;i=1#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=EbirnNTqi2EC&amp;q=burner%20of%20ships#v=snippet&amp;q=burner%20of%20ships&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4788" RevisionGUID="b0c6a538-eb6a-4713-819a-c86db24205e5" CreationDate="2017-07-11T03:45:45.263" UserId="39" Text="Lobel and Page (1963) include fragments 92-99 into ΜΕΛΩΝ Ε - note the question marks throughout pp. 74-83 for all those fragments though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek metrics could give you a strong headache (see e.g. West 1982); luckily, Eva-Maria Voigt did all the work for us - see her Conspectus Metrum for Book 5 below (Voigt 1971: 20):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ad = adonis (West: adonean, i.e. —∪∪— —)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ba = baccheus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cho = choriambus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;eras = ∪—∪∪—∪∪—x&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hem = hemiepes (i.e. —∪∪—∪∪—)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ith = ithyphallicus (West: ithyphallic, i.e. —∪—∪— —)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9zIgi.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4788" RevisionGUID="4efcbcae-23cc-45b6-982d-8f537a09a567" CreationDate="2017-07-11T03:52:27.657" UserId="39" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="Lobel and Page (1963) include fragments 92-99 into ΜΕΛΩΝ Ε - note the question marks throughout pp. 74-83 for all those fragments though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek metrics could give you a strong headache (see e.g. West 1982); luckily, Eva-Maria Voigt did all the work for us - see her Conspectus Metrum for Book 5 below (Voigt 1971: 20):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ad = adonis (West: adonean, i.e. — ∪ ∪ — —)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ba = baccheus (i.e. ∪ — —)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cho = choriambus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;eras = ∪—∪∪—∪∪—x&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hem = hemiepes (i.e. — ∪ ∪ — ∪ ∪ —)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ith = ithyphallicus (West: ithyphallic, i.e. — ∪ — ∪ — —)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9zIgi.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4694" RevisionGUID="f8a694ec-d995-47f6-b3de-c4381d78e11a" CreationDate="2017-07-11T06:04:52.960" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="Two key mechanisms of disambiguation come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Using *hic* (latter) and *ille* (former) is one way. Simple example: &quot;A and B meet. The former eats, the latter drinks.&quot; &amp;mdash; *A et B conveniunt. Ille est, hic bibit.*&#xD;&#xA;- The pronoun *se/suus* usually refers to the subject of the sentence. Simple example: &quot;B wrote a book. A compares his own book with B's.&quot; &amp;mdash; *B librum scripsit. A librum suum cum libro eius comparat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately there are cases where *se/suus* refers to something other than a subject.&#xD;&#xA;The risk of misinterpretation is larger than usual in your story, but I guess that is inevitable if you want to use pronouns only.&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, &quot;comparing X with Y&quot; does not change much if X and Y are interchanged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the caveat, I think the distinction is best made with the pair *suus/eius*.&#xD;&#xA;Here's how I'd translate your story:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Aeneas librum scripsit.  &#xD;&#xA;Deinde Brutus librum scripsit.  &#xD;&#xA;Deinde Aeneas contemplationem libri Bruti scripsit,  &#xD;&#xA;in qua librum suum cum libro eius comparavit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are better translations for &quot;review&quot; than *contemplatio*, but I decided to let the original translation stay here as its beside the point.&#xD;&#xA;For a more on book reviews, see [this follow-up question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4735/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, the specification &quot;same gender&quot; in the question is irrelevant for Latin here.&#xD;&#xA;The the form of the pronoun *suus* depends on the thing possessed, not the possessor, and the genitive *eius* is the same for all three genders.&#xD;&#xA;English makes a distinction between &quot;his&quot; and &quot;her(s)&quot;, but Latin doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding other languages:&#xD;&#xA;Many languages have something similar to the Latin *suus*.&#xD;&#xA;Italian has &quot;suo&quot;, Swedish has &quot;sin&quot;, Finnish has &quot;-nsA&quot;, but there are syntactical differences between the languages.&#xD;&#xA;However, to make the distinction clear in any language, I would simply repeat B's name on the last line." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4787" RevisionGUID="81be7ddf-a146-4153-bed3-79b46c87aea6" CreationDate="2017-07-11T06:50:35.967" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="There was [an interesting question on Lit regarding a proposed meaning of Nausicaa as &quot;burner of ships&quot;][1].  Although I don't have an issue with the ναῦς/κάω hypothesis, [I suspect κάω is more likely used in the sense of &quot;passion&quot; as opposed to literal fire][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia page references [Shipley as the source][3], and you can find the entry in [The Origins of English Words: A Discursive Dictionary of Indo-European Roots on page 160][4], and it appears Shipley may have [lifted this derivation and interpretation from Graves][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm a little befuddled that Shipley doesn't mention the Pindar usage, “[ἐν φρασὶ καιομένα][5]” [Pi.P.4.219], especially in the context of Nausicaa in the Odyssey, and instead chooses the literal meaning.  (I'm sure Graves has a rationale, but I don't have access to his text at the moment.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wondering if anyone here has thoughts on the subject, and if I would be incorrect in updating Wikipedia to comment that the &quot;burner of ships&quot; is an *hypothesis*, either of the interpretation or the etymology itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If anyone knows of alternate sources for &quot;burner of ships&quot;, or scholarly corroboration of the Graves/Shipley, that would also be helpful.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://literature.stackexchange.com/q/2963/391&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://literature.stackexchange.com/a/2978/391&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nausicaa#cite_note-2&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=m1UKpE4YEkEC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q=nausicaa&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kai%2Fw&amp;la=greek&amp;can=kai%2Fw0&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0073:alphabetic%20letter=k:entry%20group=1:entry=kai/w&amp;i=1#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=EbirnNTqi2EC&amp;q=burner%20of%20ships#v=snippet&amp;q=burner%20of%20ships&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15793" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4787" RevisionGUID="81be7ddf-a146-4153-bed3-79b46c87aea6" CreationDate="2017-07-11T06:50:35.967" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|etymology|greek|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4789" RevisionGUID="a3f45f40-8810-4ef9-8f70-2deb2eaf888f" CreationDate="2017-07-11T08:45:50.647" UserId="324" Text="Chantraîne suggests (tentatively, but with references) that it might be a hypocoristic of Ναυσικάστη.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robert Graves’s “Greek myths” is a work of imaginative literature. The etymologies proposed there need to be taken with a very large grain of salt.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4790" RevisionGUID="406d3a27-52d7-484a-aaca-f22954c41bb3" CreationDate="2017-07-11T11:18:03.287" UserId="1459" Text="Apparently, [anti](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anti-) is a work already available in [Greek](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%80%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%AF#Ancient_Greek), meaning against. However, it seems this word [did not reached Latin](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=exact&amp;lookup=anti&amp;lang=la). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Wikipedia entries of common English words that have anti as prefix are incorporated into Latin, keeping the anti prefix. For example, [anticapitalismus](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticapitalismus), [antivirus](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus), [antiglobalisation](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motus_antiglobalisticus), etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine these words adapt the word that does exist in latin (e.g. capitalism to capitalismum), but keep the _anti_ prefix for simplicity, or maybe because there is no such prefix in Latin. **Is there?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, if you were to translate anticapitalism litteraly, how would you say it? Something like _in capitalismi_ or _adversus capitalismi_? For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Modus in capitalismi est in cresente&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15796" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4790" RevisionGUID="406d3a27-52d7-484a-aaca-f22954c41bb3" CreationDate="2017-07-11T11:18:03.287" UserId="1459" Text="Is &quot;anti&quot; used in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15797" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4790" RevisionGUID="406d3a27-52d7-484a-aaca-f22954c41bb3" CreationDate="2017-07-11T11:18:03.287" UserId="1459" Text="|greek|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4791" RevisionGUID="dc670f13-8232-4c35-a824-03dbb7141039" CreationDate="2017-07-11T11:21:29.720" UserId="1459" Text="I am looking for an expression like &quot;alter ego&quot;, but which refers to the exact opposite of something or someone. For example, the style of democracy that wanted to be implemented in the US by T. Jefferson (called [Jeffersonian Democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffersonian_democracy)) is in many dimensions the &quot;exact opposite&quot; to that of Britain (republican, federal country, written constitution, wide electoral roll, etc). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Jeffersonian Democracy would be the &quot;_adversus ego_&quot; of British political system? Apparently, &quot;anti&quot; is not used in Latin (see [related question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4790/is-anti-used-in-latin)) so &quot;_anti ego_&quot; might not be an option.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15799" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4791" RevisionGUID="dc670f13-8232-4c35-a824-03dbb7141039" CreationDate="2017-07-11T11:21:29.720" UserId="1459" Text="Is there a Latin expression to say the &quot;exact opposite of something/someone&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15800" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4791" RevisionGUID="dc670f13-8232-4c35-a824-03dbb7141039" CreationDate="2017-07-11T11:21:29.720" UserId="1459" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4792" RevisionGUID="eadc1e18-17b1-4b8b-9703-a59005b02be3" CreationDate="2017-07-11T11:39:10.720" UserId="79" Text="The closest Latin prefix I can think of is *contra-*.&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if it as exact synonym of *anti-*, but certainly close enough for many purposes; both *contra-* and *anti-* mean &quot;against&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The English prefix &quot;counter-&quot; appears to be a descendant of this Latin prefix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that in front of words related to *vertere*, it is often *contro-* instead of *contra-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix is attested, but appears to be post-classical.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it was more purely a preposition in the classical period, and merged with some other words later on.&#xD;&#xA;I found these examples in L&amp;S:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*contradicere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcontradico)&#xD;&#xA;- [*contradictio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcontradictio)&#xD;&#xA;- [*contradictor*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcontradictor)&#xD;&#xA;- [*contrafactio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcontrafactio)&#xD;&#xA;- [*contraiuris*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcontrajuris)&#xD;&#xA;- [*contraponere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcontrapono)&#xD;&#xA;- [*contrascriba*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcontrascriba)&#xD;&#xA;- [*contrascribere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcontrascribo)&#xD;&#xA;- [*contrascriptor*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcontrascriptor)&#xD;&#xA;- [*contravenire*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcontravenio)&#xD;&#xA;- [*contraversum*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcontraversum)&#xD;&#xA;- [*contraversus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcontraversus)&#xD;&#xA;- [*controversia*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcontroversia)&#xD;&#xA;- [*controversari*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcontroversor)&#xD;&#xA;- [*controversus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcontroversus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the prefix can be used productively in a modern context.&#xD;&#xA;I believe *contracapitalismus* is quite understandable.&#xD;&#xA;However, for established technical terms, I would prefer to keep the original prefix *anti-*.&#xD;&#xA;Greek influences are not a particularly non-Latin phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning your example of anticapitalism, there is a difference in English between &quot;anticapitalism&quot; and &quot;against capitalism&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Semantically they are close, but their syntactic behavior is different.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to translate the concept anticapitalism in Latin, I would go with *anticapitalismus*, but I would also consider *contracapitalismus*, depending on context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4790" RevisionGUID="1116770e-dcb7-43e3-a824-5d5875e6d985" CreationDate="2017-07-11T11:39:59.377" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected a typo." Text="Apparently, [anti](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anti-) is a word already available in [Greek](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%80%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%AF#Ancient_Greek), meaning against. However, it seems this word [did not reached Latin](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=exact&amp;lookup=anti&amp;lang=la). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Wikipedia entries of common English words that have anti as prefix are incorporated into Latin, keeping the anti prefix. For example, [anticapitalismus](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticapitalismus), [antivirus](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus), [antiglobalisation](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motus_antiglobalisticus), etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine these words adapt the word that does exist in Latin (e.g. capitalism to capitalismum), but keep the _anti_ prefix for simplicity, or maybe because there is no such prefix in Latin. **Is there?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, if you were to translate anticapitalism literally, how would you say it? Something like _in capitalismi_ or _adversus capitalismi_? For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Modus in capitalismi est in cresente&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4791" RevisionGUID="56bc91c3-8c1b-4485-858a-95cfa87b2a6c" CreationDate="2017-07-11T14:20:56.903" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="I am looking for an expression like &quot;antithesis&quot; in Latin. For example, the style of democracy that wanted to be implemented in the US by T. Jefferson (called [Jeffersonian Democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffersonian_democracy)) is in many dimensions the &quot;antithesis&quot; to that of Britain (republican, federal country, written constitution, wide electoral roll, etc). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Derived from  the Latin &quot;_alter ego_&quot;, an example could be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Jeffersonian Democracy would be the &quot;_adversus ego_&quot; of British political system &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, &quot;anti&quot; is not used in Latin (see [related question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4790/is-anti-used-in-latin)) so &quot;_anti ego_&quot; might not be an option.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4793" RevisionGUID="1260631b-4866-45bc-a071-29edfa4f56a1" CreationDate="2017-07-11T15:35:46.587" UserId="645" Text="Smith's English-Latin should help you out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**antithesis**: **1.** contrarium (strictly *a contrary thing or proposition,* not antithesis abstractedly): *there is an a. (in the passage),* contaria opponuntur, Cic. Or. 49 : *the statement of an a.,* relatio contrariorum, ib. (in this passage he describes such passages as “quae Graeci [*antitheta*] nominant, quum contraria contrariis opponuntur”)  **2.** contentio: Cic. : Quint.  **3.** contrapositum : Quint.  **4.** distinctio : Quint. : contrapositum is stated by Quint. (9, *3*, 81) to be synonymous with contentio : whereas distinctio is a peculiar kind of antithesis, in which the members are exactly balanced, word by word.  **5.** antitheton (. Cic. 1. c. supr.) : *polished antitheses*, rasa antitheta, Pers.—NOTE. *Not* antithesis ; which denotes *a change of letter* ; Charis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4794" RevisionGUID="32481451-45b8-4809-9366-0befcb55ce61" CreationDate="2017-07-11T15:44:22.743" UserId="79" Text="I suggest using the adjective [*contrarius*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DC%3Aentry+group%3D100%3Aentry%3Dcontrarius).&#xD;&#xA;Cicero makes [frequent use](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23contrari+%5Bcic%5D) of this adjective, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Nam ut utilitatem nullam esse docuimus, quae honestati esset contraria, sic omnem voluptatem dicimus honestati esse contrariam.* &amp;mdash; De Officiis, 3.119&#xD;&#xA;- *virtutis contraria est vitiositas* &amp;mdash; Tusculanae Disputationes, 4.34&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the dictionary entry shows, the adjective *contrarius* can be used with genitive, dative, *atque*, or *inter se*.&#xD;&#xA;I warmly suggest taking a close look at the entry to see more detail and examples.&#xD;&#xA;It is flexible to use and idiomatic classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt at translating your example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jeffersonian Democracy is the antithesis of British political system.  &#xD;&#xA;*Democratia Jeffersoniana contraria est rationi politicae Britannicae.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4795" RevisionGUID="3581cce7-4c09-4266-bd58-d07f79bd2fd0" CreationDate="2017-07-11T15:45:23.847" UserId="1743" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems (to me at least) that with regard to the English sentence &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    You can learn writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the following is true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Strictly speaking, the sentence is grammatically incorrect w.r.t. standard modern English. To make it correct, one either one would have to say &quot;You can learn _to write_.&quot; in order to express the opinion that there is the possibility for someone to learn how to write (well), or one would have to add to it some direct object (in the grammatical sense), and in this case a pluralized noun seems to be called for, and e.g. say &quot;You can learn writing  reviews.&quot;, or, as yet another correction, one could say &quot;You can learn _while_ writing.&quot;, to express the idea that writing is a process during which one learns.&#xD;&#xA;* **But**, and this brings me to my question about Latin, there is a nice tension and ambiguity in the incorrect short version of the sentence. It somehow simultaneously conveys both the _to write_-version and the _while_-version mentioned above, and this compressed richness is lost if either of the corrections is made. &#xD;&#xA;* **Question:** can one create the same kind of ambiguity in a _Latin_ translation of the above sentence, and if so how? Or do you rather think that Latin's stronger grammatical rules make it impossible to intentionally create said ambiguity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15807" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4795" RevisionGUID="3581cce7-4c09-4266-bd58-d07f79bd2fd0" CreationDate="2017-07-11T15:45:23.847" UserId="1743" Text="Can one recreate the ambiguity of the (incorrect) sentence &quot;You can learn writing.&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15808" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4795" RevisionGUID="3581cce7-4c09-4266-bd58-d07f79bd2fd0" CreationDate="2017-07-11T15:45:23.847" UserId="1743" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|grammar-choice|poetry|ambiguity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4796" RevisionGUID="305485ff-da36-4885-94ff-408a48f01bf3" CreationDate="2017-07-11T15:47:06.640" UserId="324" Text="Classical Latin does of course have anti- in Greek loanwords (e.g. antithesis), but does not seem to use it in combination with Latin words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4795" RevisionGUID="fc3afc74-ee36-4b2a-b5b1-7ecd0085b4e7" CreationDate="2017-07-11T15:57:35.873" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted the quote." Text="It seems (to me at least) that with regard to the English sentence &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can learn writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the following is true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Strictly speaking, the sentence is grammatically incorrect w.r.t. standard modern English. To make it correct, one either one would have to say &quot;You can learn _to write_.&quot; in order to express the opinion that there is the possibility for someone to learn how to write (well), or one would have to add to it some direct object (in the grammatical sense), and in this case a pluralized noun seems to be called for, and e.g. say &quot;You can learn writing  reviews.&quot;, or, as yet another correction, one could say &quot;You can learn _while_ writing.&quot;, to express the idea that writing is a process during which one learns.&#xD;&#xA;* **But**, and this brings me to my question about Latin, there is a nice tension and ambiguity in the incorrect short version of the sentence. It somehow simultaneously conveys both the _to write_-version and the _while_-version mentioned above, and this compressed richness is lost if either of the corrections is made. &#xD;&#xA;* **Question:** can one create the same kind of ambiguity in a _Latin_ translation of the above sentence, and if so how? Or do you rather think that Latin's stronger grammatical rules make it impossible to intentionally create said ambiguity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4797" RevisionGUID="3eee5368-4d18-454e-872a-8bfba0b6440c" CreationDate="2017-07-11T16:10:58.633" UserId="79" Text="My suggestion is this: *Scribens discis.*&#xD;&#xA;While this is most naturally translated as &quot;you write and you learn&quot; or &quot;you learn when you write&quot;, you could also parse it as &quot;you learn as a writer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The last interpretation is a bit of a far fetch, but I think this is closest to the desired ambiguity Latin can take you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison, I would translate &quot;you learn by writing&quot; as *scribendo discis* and &quot;you learn to write&quot; as *scribere discis*.&#xD;&#xA;I don't see room for the kind of ambiguity you are after with gerund or infinitive, so the participle *scribens* is my best bet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4791" RevisionGUID="f8aaf505-e0ae-4a5e-9a41-95df69c2bc27" CreationDate="2017-07-11T16:35:30.407" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 43 characters in body" Text="Consider the following English sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Clark Kent is the _alter ego_ of Superman&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter uses a Latin expression, _alter ego_, meaning the &quot;other self&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, consider this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Jeffersonian Democracy is the antithesis of British political system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a Latin word or short phrase that replaces &quot;antithesis&quot; in the latter sentence (I want to use Latin to give &quot;force&quot; to the expression). At the moment have found _contrarius_ and _adversus ego_. Apparently, &quot;anti&quot; is not used in Latin (see [related question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4790/is-anti-used-in-latin)) so &quot;_anti ego_&quot; might not be an option.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4794" RevisionGUID="0fab8076-6361-471b-903e-1722552bcbd4" CreationDate="2017-07-11T16:39:37.227" UserId="79" Comment="added 343 characters in body" Text="I suggest using the adjective [*contrarius*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DC%3Aentry+group%3D100%3Aentry%3Dcontrarius).&#xD;&#xA;Cicero makes [frequent use](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23contrari+%5Bcic%5D) of this adjective, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Nam ut utilitatem nullam esse docuimus, quae honestati esset contraria, sic omnem voluptatem dicimus honestati esse contrariam.* &amp;mdash; De Officiis, 3.119&#xD;&#xA;- *virtutis contraria est vitiositas* &amp;mdash; Tusculanae Disputationes, 4.34&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the dictionary entry shows, the adjective *contrarius* can be used with genitive, dative, *atque*, or *inter se*.&#xD;&#xA;I warmly suggest taking a close look at the entry to see more detail and examples.&#xD;&#xA;It is flexible to use and idiomatic classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt at translating your example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jeffersonian Democracy is the antithesis of British political system.  &#xD;&#xA;*Democratia Jeffersoniana contraria est rationi politicae Britannicae.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Added after the question was clarified:**&#xD;&#xA;Since the original question did not mention English, I assumed the phrase was intended for use in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use a Latin expression in an English sentence, then perhaps *res contraria* works.&#xD;&#xA;It is a reasonable (classical) Latin term and it has certain naturality and weight to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4798" RevisionGUID="eecdb929-4185-47fc-acb6-043676a7dbb1" CreationDate="2017-07-11T16:57:35.683" UserId="645" Text="That's a nice question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rhetorical device for causing confusion is *amphibole*, or sometimes, if intentional, *ambage(s)*. With a bit of ingenuity, the peculiar grammar of Latin can certainly be used to create deliberate ambiguity: the oracle famously quoted by Augustine of Hippo, *Aio te Aeacida Romanos vincere posse*, is one of the best known examples. If you want to use that particular  trick, you need a verb to govern two accusatives, but for myself I struggle to make your  example properly ambiguous. (Can you spot the ambage in that last bit?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[BTW amphibole is also a type of mineral.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4793" RevisionGUID="1b5c8894-3c7b-47b5-a538-f1191405b24e" CreationDate="2017-07-11T19:08:23.380" UserId="645" Comment="added 229 characters in body" Text="Smith's English-Latin should help you out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**antithesis**: **1.** contrarium (strictly *a contrary thing or proposition,* not antithesis abstractedly): *there is an a. (in the passage),* contaria opponuntur, Cic. Or. 49 : *the statement of an a.,* relatio contrariorum, ib. (in this passage he describes such passages as “quae Graeci [*antitheta*] nominant, quum contraria contrariis opponuntur”)  **2.** contentio: Cic. : Quint.  **3.** contrapositum : Quint.  **4.** distinctio : Quint. : contrapositum is stated by Quint. (9, *3*, 81) to be synonymous with contentio : whereas distinctio is a peculiar kind of antithesis, in which the members are exactly balanced, word by word.  **5.** antitheton (. Cic. 1. c. supr.) : *polished antitheses*, rasa antitheta, Pers.—NOTE. *Not* antithesis ; which denotes *a change of letter* ; Charis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Added after the questioner's comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you might simply use *locus contrarius*, meaning 'the direct(ly) opposite (position)' :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Jeffersonian Democracy is the *locus contrarius* of [the] British political system.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4790" RevisionGUID="27c8bd3a-20a5-47ed-9a5e-6a7e5fcc96d3" CreationDate="2017-07-11T20:46:54.603" UserId="136" Comment="minor grammar fix and minor clarification for ease of understanding" Text="Apparently, [anti](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anti-) is a word already available in [Greek](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%80%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%AF#Ancient_Greek), meaning against. However, it seems this word [did not reach Latin](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=exact&amp;lookup=anti&amp;lang=la). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Wikipedia entries of common English words that have anti as prefix are incorporated into Latin, keeping the anti prefix. For example, [anticapitalismus](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticapitalismus), [antivirus](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus), [antiglobalisation](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motus_antiglobalisticus), etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine these words adapt the English word that does exist in Latin (e.g. capitalism to capitalismum), but keep the _anti_ prefix for simplicity, or maybe because there is no such prefix in Latin. **Is there?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, if you were to translate anticapitalism literally, how would you say it? Something like _in capitalismi_ or _adversus capitalismi_? For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Modus in capitalismi est in cresente&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4789" RevisionGUID="7565a41e-6782-4f2a-a11f-08aaed11fa2f" CreationDate="2017-07-11T20:50:13.863" UserId="324" Comment="edited body" Text="Chantraîne suggests (tentatively, but with references) that it might be a hypocoristic of Ναυσικάστη.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robert Graves’s “Greek myths” is a work of imaginative literature. The etymologies proposed there need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4799" RevisionGUID="d89f27ee-6727-4c70-b637-925a26c35718" CreationDate="2017-07-11T20:56:03.100" UserId="79" Text="The gerund and the gerundive look similar and have similar meanings, but they are still distinct as any Latin grammar will tell us.&#xD;&#xA;But how did classical Latin come to have these two close but distinct (sets of) forms?&#xD;&#xA;Did the gerund split off as a substantivized gerundive, or did the two end up being similar despite very different origins, or something different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming the two developed from a common origin, when did the distinction emerge?&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea how well we might know this kind of thing, so any justified estimate (such as &quot;some time between PIE and Plautus because&amp;hellip;&quot;) is great.&#xD;&#xA;And if there are trustworthy scholarly sources stating that we simply don't know, that's a good answer, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15819" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4799" RevisionGUID="d89f27ee-6727-4c70-b637-925a26c35718" CreationDate="2017-07-11T20:56:03.100" UserId="79" Text="When and how did the distinction between the gerund and the gerundive develop?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15820" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4799" RevisionGUID="d89f27ee-6727-4c70-b637-925a26c35718" CreationDate="2017-07-11T20:56:03.100" UserId="79" Text="|verbs|language-evolution|morphology|gerund|gerundive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4786" RevisionGUID="ff12178e-edee-41bf-a9f2-e85ed1eac8cd" CreationDate="2017-07-12T03:21:26.087" UserId="39" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="Weiss writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In Classical Latin fīo, fīunt, fīam etc. 'become' have been analogically restored&quot; (p. 126).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems this explanation goes back to Sommer 1914 (at least, that's what Leumman 1977 mentions). Here's what Sommer suggested:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He also mentions, in footnote 10 on the same page, a very interesting observation made by Jan Safarewicz (Safarewicz 1974): ī tends to be used when the following syllable is heavy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4786" RevisionGUID="483f6aac-7701-49f2-a18d-30d8ad9c2052" CreationDate="2017-07-12T03:28:43.827" UserId="39" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="Weiss writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In Classical Latin fīo, fīunt, fīam etc. 'become' have been analogically restored&quot; (p. 126).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems this explanation goes back to Sommer 1914 (at least, that's what Leumman 1977 mentions). Here's what Sommer suggested (p. 589):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, Sommer hypothesized that ī was &quot;restored&quot; in the forms with ī+V so that the paradigm of the verb would have fewer different forms. This is known as analogical restoration in historical linguistics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss also mentions, in footnote 10 on the same page, a very interesting observation made by Jan Safarewicz (Safarewicz 1974): ī tends to be used when the following syllable is heavy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/se3EB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4786" RevisionGUID="837079ad-f813-4090-96a3-739646de977e" CreationDate="2017-07-12T03:40:26.553" UserId="39" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="Weiss writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In Classical Latin fīo, fīunt, fīam etc. 'become' have been analogically restored&quot; (p. 126).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems this explanation goes back to Sommer 1914 (at least, that's what Leumman 1977 mentions). Here's what Sommer suggested (p. 589):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, Sommer hypothesized that ī was &quot;restored&quot; in the forms with ī+V so that the paradigm of the verb would have fewer different forms. This is known as analogical restoration in historical linguistics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss also mentions, in footnote 10 on the same page, a very interesting observation made by Jan Safarewicz (Safarewicz 1974): ī tends to be used in those word-forms of fio when the following syllable is heavy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/se3EB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4800" RevisionGUID="855bb4c7-3778-49c2-9681-cf0e7c00e80a" CreationDate="2017-07-12T03:43:19.273" UserId="522" Text="There are at least three ways of creating the sort of ambuguity you describe.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.1. **Polysemy:**  &#xD;&#xA;You can use a broader word for 'learn.' A Latin phrase such as *perago scribere,* &#xD;&#xA;creates the same ambiguity as 'I am involved in writing,' *Per ago* can mean 'I am working hard at,' or 'I'm very skillful at,' or even 'I've had enough of.' A nominative participle *'discens'* would add 'while I am learning.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.2. **using a Homonym:**  &#xD;&#xA;Cicero uses the phrase *'literis deditus,'* and Terence  *'amore deditus.'*  &#xD;&#xA;If the first e is long, it comes from *dedeo,* and means a hostage, a prisoner, an addict of writing.  &#xD;&#xA;If short, from *dedo,* frequentative of *do,* meaning 'dedicated to,' 'given over to..'    &#xD;&#xA;***Literis dĕditus disco.*** or ***Literis dēditus disco.***  &#xD;&#xA;This has the advantage of classical usage; and the ambiguity lies in whether you mean, 'I learn as a devotee of writing,' or 'I learn, held hostage by literature.' This does approach your double meaning of passive learner and learning professional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.3. **Isidore homophone.** alt **(Detached Prefix:)**  &#xD;&#xA;One of the causes of ambiguity demonstrated by Isidore (Etym. Bk I) is caused by 'one word being heard as two,' or 'two words heard as one.'  &#xD;&#xA;***Describendo discere potes.***   &#xD;&#xA;By writing-about-things you can learn  &#xD;&#xA;and ***De scribendo discere potes.***  &#xD;&#xA;You can learn about writing.  &#xD;&#xA;If &quot;You can &quot; is unimportant, this is shorter:  &#xD;&#xA; ***Describendo discis; De scribendo discis.***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4786" RevisionGUID="1022c9ce-a285-448e-be43-4e967ce87ba9" CreationDate="2017-07-12T03:48:13.977" UserId="39" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="Weiss writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In Classical Latin fīo, fīunt, fīam etc. 'become' have been analogically restored&quot; (p. 126).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems this explanation goes back to Sommer 1914 (at least, that's what Leumman 1977 mentions). Here's what Sommer suggested (p. 589):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, Sommer hypothesized that ī was &quot;restored&quot; in the forms with ī+V so that the paradigm of the verb would have fewer different forms. This is known as analogical restoration in historical linguistics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we won't find &quot;hard evidence&quot; - we are talking about Old Latin here, after all. But another source of indirect evidence comes from Plautus and Terence, where we can find both fĭerī (more common) and fīerī, fĭeret (more common) and fīeret etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss also mentions, in footnote 10 on the same page, a very interesting observation made by Jan Safarewicz (Safarewicz 1974): ī tends to be used in those word-forms of fio when the following syllable is heavy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/se3EB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4786" RevisionGUID="ef29e60a-c1f6-43c5-b97a-25400fd160ea" CreationDate="2017-07-12T03:53:27.980" UserId="39" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="Weiss writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In Classical Latin fīo, fīunt, fīam etc. 'become' have been analogically restored&quot; (p. 126).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems this explanation goes back to Sommer 1914 (at least, that's what Leumman 1977 mentions). Here's what Sommer suggested (p. 589):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, Sommer hypothesized that ī was &quot;restored&quot; in the forms with ī+V so that the paradigm of the verb would have fewer different forms. This is known as analogical restoration in historical linguistics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we won't find &quot;hard evidence&quot; - we are talking about Old Latin here, after all. But another source of indirect evidence comes from Plautus and Terence, where we can find both fĭerī (more common) and fīerī, fĭeret (more common) and fīeret etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss also mentions, in footnote 10 on the same page, a very interesting observation made by Jan Safarewicz (Safarewicz 1974): ī tends to be used in those word-forms of fio when the following syllable is heavy. Tronskii 1960 argues that ī &gt; ĭ occurred only before -er-. That being said, Leumann 1977 still writes, &quot;Die Verteilung von fī- und fi- ist unregelmäßig&quot; (p. 530).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/se3EB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4786" RevisionGUID="4835db73-9af7-4747-9e55-9f7f7117e296" CreationDate="2017-07-12T04:03:42.680" UserId="39" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Weiss writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In Classical Latin fīo, fīunt, fīam etc. 'become' have been analogically restored&quot; (p. 126).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems this explanation goes back to [Sommer 1902][1] (at least, that's what Leumman 1977 mentions, a later edition though). Here's what Sommer suggested (p. 589):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So, [Sommer][1] hypothesized that **ī was &quot;restored&quot; in the thematic forms with ī+V so that the paradigm of the verb would have fewer alternating forms**. This is known as [analogical restoration][3] in historical linguistics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we won't find &quot;hard evidence&quot; - we are talking about Old Latin here, after all. But another source of indirect evidence comes from Plautus and Terence, where we can find both fĭerī (more common) and fīerī, fĭeret (more common) and fīeret etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss also mentions, in footnote 10 on the same page, a very interesting observation made by Jan Safarewicz (Safarewicz 1974): ī tends to be used in those word-forms of fio when the following syllable is heavy. Tronskii 1960 argues that ī &gt; ĭ occurred only before -er-. That being said, Leumann 1977 still writes, &quot;Die Verteilung von fī- und fi- ist unregelmäßig&quot; (p. 530).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/handbuchderlate00sommgoog&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/se3EB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=EHeGzQ8wuLQC&amp;lpg=PA20&amp;ots=VkGqn8xbzL&amp;dq=analogical%20restoration&amp;pg=PA20#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4786" RevisionGUID="24d75be4-18d4-430f-8340-f16b3c53cee7" CreationDate="2017-07-12T04:20:07.127" UserId="39" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="Weiss writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In Classical Latin fīo, fīunt, fīam etc. 'become' have been analogically restored&quot; (p. 126).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems this explanation goes back to [Sommer 1902][1] (at least, that's what Leumman 1977 mentions, a later edition though). Here's what Sommer suggested (p. 589):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So, [Sommer][1] hypothesized that **ī was &quot;restored&quot; in the thematic forms with ī+V so that the paradigm of the verb would have fewer alternating forms**. This is known as [analogical restoration][3] in historical linguistics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. de Vaan &quot;*fī - would develop phonetically in the 23s. and 12 p.pr. forms, and then spread to the other forms of the paradigm.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we won't find &quot;hard evidence&quot; - we are talking about Old Latin here, after all. But another source of indirect evidence comes from Plautus and Terence, where we can find both fĭerī (more common) and fīerī, fĭeret (more common) and fīeret etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss also mentions, in footnote 10 on the same page, a very interesting observation made by Jan Safarewicz (Safarewicz 1974): ī tends to be used in those word-forms of fio when the following syllable is heavy. Tronskii 1960 argues that ī &gt; ĭ occurred only before -er-. That being said, Leumann 1977 still writes, &quot;Die Verteilung von fī- und fi- ist unregelmäßig&quot; (p. 530).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/handbuchderlate00sommgoog&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/se3EB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=EHeGzQ8wuLQC&amp;lpg=PA20&amp;ots=VkGqn8xbzL&amp;dq=analogical%20restoration&amp;pg=PA20#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4786" RevisionGUID="ed773fde-9049-4966-9f33-fe682b671a78" CreationDate="2017-07-12T04:56:39.253" UserId="39" Comment="added 223 characters in body" Text="Weiss writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In Classical Latin fīo, fīunt, fīam etc. 'become' have been analogically restored&quot; (p. 126).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems this explanation goes back to [Sommer 1902][1] (at least, that's what Leumman 1977 mentions, a later edition though). Here's what Sommer suggested (p. 589):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So, [Sommer][1] hypothesized that **ī was &quot;restored&quot; in the thematic forms with ī+V so that the paradigm of the verb would have fewer alternating forms**. This is known as [analogical restoration][3] in historical linguistics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. de Vaan &quot;*fī - would develop phonetically in the 23s. and 12 p.pr. forms, and then spread to the other forms of the paradigm.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sihler adds, cautiously though, that it could have happened because of a very special status of fio - &quot;the only verb in -io with tonic accent on the i&quot; (p. 546).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we won't find &quot;hard evidence&quot; - we are talking about Old Latin here, after all. But another source of indirect evidence comes from Plautus and Terence, where we can find both fĭerī (more common) and fīerī, fĭeret (more common) and fīeret etc. See Sihler (p. 546) for some interesting thoughts on this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss also mentions, in footnote 10 on the same page, a very interesting observation made by Jan Safarewicz (Safarewicz 1974): ī tends to be used in those word-forms of fio when the following syllable is heavy. Tronskii 1960 argues that ī &gt; ĭ occurred only before -er-. That being said, Leumann 1977 still writes, &quot;Die Verteilung von fī- und fi- ist unregelmäßig&quot; (p. 530).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/handbuchderlate00sommgoog&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/se3EB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=EHeGzQ8wuLQC&amp;lpg=PA20&amp;ots=VkGqn8xbzL&amp;dq=analogical%20restoration&amp;pg=PA20#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4802" RevisionGUID="a2339e14-507b-4981-a882-4f6056ed3ec2" CreationDate="2017-07-12T08:06:46.260" UserId="9" Text="Unfortunately, I don’t own any Latin or Greek dictionaries or etymological texts, but I tried to research this topic on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;Here is what I found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Perseus: [words ending in “iasis” in L&amp;S][1] mostly have short *-ăsis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long *ā*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ănăthȳmĭāsis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short *ă*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ĕlĕphantĭăsis, mydrĭăsis, phthīrĭăsis, hypŏcŏrĭăsis, sătyrĭăsis, sīrĭăsis, plătycŏrĭăsis, stĕnŏcŏrĭăsis, trĭchĭăsis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oddly, all of them are transcribed with a short “a” in Latin except for “anathymiasis”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Short a” is also implied by the antepenultimate stress in the usual pronunciations of English words with this ending (e.g. English “satyriasis” = /sætəˈraɪəsɪs/), so this doesn't seem to be just a Lewis and Short thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##OED: but they're from Greek words with *-ᾱσις*?&#xD;&#xA;The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) has a entry that, if I’m reading it correctly, says that the vowel was long in Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -asis, *suffix*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Etymology:** &lt; Latin *-ăsis,* Greek *-ᾱσις.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Forming names of diseases, really nouns of state or process from verbs in -άειν (contracted *-ᾶν*); as from *ϕθείρ* louse, *ϕθειρᾶν* to be lousy, *ϕθειρίᾱσις* *phthiˈriăsis*; so *elephantiasis, psoriasis,* and many modern words, more or less analogical, as *allantiasis, arseniasis,* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the following note in the OED about a historical pronunciation of “myiasis” (not in Lewis and Short) with penult stress:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *N.E.D.* (1908) gives the pronunciation as (məiˌiˌ*ē*i·sis) /maɪɪˈeɪsɪs/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The length of the alpha in some of the above words in Greek seems to be supported by some Ionic spellings with *η* listed in LSJ on Perseus: “[μυ^δ-ίησις][2]” (for *mydriasis*) and “[σα^τυ^ρί-ησις][3]” (for *satyriasis*). ([Wikipedia][4] tells me that “Proto-Greek *ā* &gt; Ionic *ē*; in Doric, Aeolic, *ā* remains; in Attic, *ā* after *e, i, r,* but *ē* elsewhere.”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What is the Greek etymology of this apparent suffix *-ιασις*? I think that I recognize the last part as the nominalizing suffix *[-σις][5]* from PIE *-tis. But I'm confused by the *-ια-.* The OED says verbs were a step in the derivation of these words, and gives as examples *psoriasis* (*ψωρίασις*) and phthiriasis (*ϕθειρίασις*). But the corresponding verbs are apparently *ψωριᾶν* and *ϕθειρᾶν*: one has an iota before the *ᾶν* and the other doesn't. Why does *ϕθειρᾶν* turn into &quot;ϕθειριασις&quot; instead of &quot;ϕθειρασις&quot; (if the OED's explanation is right)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Was the alpha long in Greek? I found a few pages through Google Books that seem to say that in general, Greek nouns ending in *ασις* could have short /a/ or long /aː/, with a rule for choosing between them based on the conjugation of the verb from which they are derived (long when derived from verbs in *-αω*; short elsewise) (*[Introduction to Greek Prosody][6],* Peter Wilson; *[Practical rules for Greek accents &amp; quantity][7],* by Philipp Buttmann). Unfortunately, the citation forms used by the OED for *ϕθειρᾶν* and *ψωριᾶν* don't end in *-αω,* and I don't know how to conjugate verbs in Greek so I can't tell if they have this ending in other forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Why are most of these words pronounced with &quot;ă&quot; in Latin? Why is &quot;ănăthȳmĭāsis&quot; an exception, and pronounced with a long &quot;ā&quot; according to Lewis and Short?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm really stumped. I did come up with one tentative hypothesis, which is that these words were late borrowings that were stressed on the antepenult after the Greek (like certain nouns in *-ia* were stressed on the penult after Greek in Romance languages; e.g. Spanish *filosofía* &lt; Gr. *φιλοσοφία*). If that's the case, maybe it would be better for L&amp;S to say that they belong to a period of Latin after vowel length began to be lost, rather than saying that the &quot;a&quot; was short? But I'm not confident about this. I'd really appreciate an explanation if anyone knows of one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=iasis&amp;lang=la&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=mudri%2Fasis&amp;la=greek&amp;can=mudri%2Fasis0&amp;prior=mydr%C4%AD%C4%83sis&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=mydriasis&amp;i=1#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=saturi%2Fasis&amp;la=greek&amp;can=saturi%2Fasis0&amp;prior=s%C4%83tyr%C4%AD%C4%83sis&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=satyriasis&amp;i=1#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_Greek#Vowels&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-%CF%83%CE%B9%CF%82#Ancient_Greek&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=txIBAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B9%CF%82%20Greek%20long%20vowel&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=LVef0JQfWn&amp;sig=q_qXjbTEn_-XaeEXIqCurA8Yvho&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi02K-VmYPVAhVn2IMKHR-wAD8Q6AEIPTAE#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B9%CF%82%20Greek%20long%20vowel&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=L6U-AAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA86&amp;lpg=PA86&amp;dq=%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B9%CF%82%20Greek%20long%20vowel&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=svkzLEaHGO&amp;sig=REJtuoT028VrDdQ3NsTFXi7M9sU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi02K-VmYPVAhVn2IMKHR-wAD8Q6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B9%CF%82%20Greek%20long%20vowel&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15833" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4802" RevisionGUID="a2339e14-507b-4981-a882-4f6056ed3ec2" CreationDate="2017-07-12T08:06:46.260" UserId="9" Text="Etymology and pronunciation of words ending in “-iasis”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15834" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4802" RevisionGUID="a2339e14-507b-4981-a882-4f6056ed3ec2" CreationDate="2017-07-12T08:06:46.260" UserId="9" Text="|etymology|greek|suffixes|vowel-quantity|stress|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4802" RevisionGUID="b81db970-305c-4a4d-b9ef-055687af09ec" CreationDate="2017-07-12T08:14:17.083" UserId="9" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Unfortunately, I don’t own any Latin or Greek dictionaries or etymological texts, but I tried to research this topic on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;Here is what I found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Perseus: [words ending in “iasis” in L&amp;S][1] mostly have short *-ăsis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long *ā*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ănăthȳmĭāsis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short *ă*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ĕlĕphantĭăsis, mydrĭăsis, phthīrĭăsis, hypŏcŏrĭăsis, sătyrĭăsis, sīrĭăsis, plătycŏrĭăsis, stĕnŏcŏrĭăsis, trĭchĭăsis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oddly, all of them are transcribed with a short “a” in Latin except for “anathymiasis”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Short a” is also implied by the antepenultimate stress in the usual pronunciations of English words with this ending (e.g. English “satyriasis” = /sætəˈraɪəsɪs/), so this doesn't seem to be just a Lewis and Short thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##OED: but they're from Greek words with *-ᾱσις*?&#xD;&#xA;The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) has a entry that, if I’m reading it correctly, says that the vowel was long in Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -asis, *suffix*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Etymology:** &lt; Latin *-ăsis,* Greek *-ᾱσις.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Forming names of diseases, really nouns of state or process from verbs in -άειν (contracted *-ᾶν*); as from *ϕθείρ* louse, *ϕθειρᾶν* to be lousy, *ϕθειρίᾱσις* *phthiˈriăsis*; so *elephantiasis, psoriasis,* and many modern words, more or less analogical, as *allantiasis, arseniasis,* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the following note in the OED about a historical pronunciation of “myiasis” (not in Lewis and Short) with penult stress:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *N.E.D.* (1908) gives the pronunciation as (məiˌiˌ*ē*i·sis) /maɪɪˈeɪsɪs/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The length of the alpha in some of the above words in Greek seems to be supported by some Ionic spellings with *η* listed in LSJ on Perseus: “[μυ^δ-ίησις][2]” (for *mydriasis*) and “[σα^τυ^ρί-ησις][3]” (for *satyriasis*). ([Wikipedia][4] tells me that “Proto-Greek *ā* &gt; Ionic *ē*; in Doric, Aeolic, *ā* remains; in Attic, *ā* after *e, i, r,* but *ē* elsewhere.”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What is the Greek etymology of this apparent suffix *-ιασις*? I think that I recognize the last part as the nominalizing suffix *[-σις][5]* from PIE *-tis. But I'm confused by the *-ια-.* The OED says verbs were a step in the derivation of these words, and gives as examples *psoriasis* (*ψωρίασις*) and phthiriasis (*ϕθειρίασις*). But the corresponding verbs are apparently *ψωριᾶν* and *ϕθειρᾶν*: one has an iota before the *ᾶν* and the other doesn't. Why does *ϕθειρᾶν* turn into &quot;ϕθειριασις&quot; instead of &quot;ϕθειρασις&quot; (if the OED's explanation is right)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Was the alpha long in Greek? I found a few pages through Google Books that seem to say that in general, Greek nouns ending in *ασις* could have short /a/ or long /aː/, with a rule for choosing between them based on the conjugation of the verb from which they are derived (long when derived from verbs in *-αω*; short elsewise) (*[Introduction to Greek Prosody][6],* Peter Wilson; *[Practical rules for Greek accents &amp; quantity][7],* by Philipp Buttmann). Unfortunately, the citation forms used by the OED for *ϕθειρᾶν* and *ψωριᾶν* don't end in *-αω,* and I don't know how to conjugate verbs in Greek so I can't tell if they have this ending in other forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Why are most of these words pronounced with &quot;ă&quot; in Latin, except for &quot;ănăthȳmĭāsis&quot;, according to Lewis and Short?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm really stumped. I did come up with one tentative hypothesis, which is that these words were late borrowings that were stressed on the antepenult after the Greek (like certain nouns in *-ia* were stressed on the penult after Greek in Romance languages; e.g. Spanish *filosofía* &lt; Gr. *φιλοσοφία*). If that's the case, maybe it would be better for L&amp;S to say that they belong to a period of Latin after vowel length began to be lost, rather than transcribing the &quot;a&quot; with a breve? But I'm not confident about this. I'd really appreciate an explanation if anyone knows of one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=iasis&amp;lang=la&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=mudri%2Fasis&amp;la=greek&amp;can=mudri%2Fasis0&amp;prior=mydr%C4%AD%C4%83sis&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=mydriasis&amp;i=1#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=saturi%2Fasis&amp;la=greek&amp;can=saturi%2Fasis0&amp;prior=s%C4%83tyr%C4%AD%C4%83sis&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=satyriasis&amp;i=1#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_Greek#Vowels&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-%CF%83%CE%B9%CF%82#Ancient_Greek&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=txIBAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B9%CF%82%20Greek%20long%20vowel&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=LVef0JQfWn&amp;sig=q_qXjbTEn_-XaeEXIqCurA8Yvho&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi02K-VmYPVAhVn2IMKHR-wAD8Q6AEIPTAE#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B9%CF%82%20Greek%20long%20vowel&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=L6U-AAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA86&amp;lpg=PA86&amp;dq=%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B9%CF%82%20Greek%20long%20vowel&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=svkzLEaHGO&amp;sig=REJtuoT028VrDdQ3NsTFXi7M9sU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi02K-VmYPVAhVn2IMKHR-wAD8Q6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B9%CF%82%20Greek%20long%20vowel&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4803" RevisionGUID="14b8c2f0-b432-40ef-a7af-2fd053b77147" CreationDate="2017-07-12T08:27:14.983" UserId="1784" Text="The question is if they could differentiate and the answer is yes, of course. One aspect that could be more complicated is how they used it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- blue (bluish, etc.): caeruleus, -a, -um.&#xD;&#xA;- Origin: it derivates from caelum (sky, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;- Example: mare caeruleum.&#xD;&#xA;- Comments: Neptune and Tetis were considered blue divinities because they came and represented the sea.&#xD;&#xA;- Comments: In Spanish there are many words for the color blue, &quot;cerúleo&quot; is conserved, with evident diphthong changes.&#xD;&#xA;- Comments: A brain region called locus coeruleus was named as by the pigmentation caused by the content of melanin granules in this structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There are different words differentiating between general, matte and shiny: furvus, -a, -um. shiny: niger, -gra, -grum. matte: ater, -tra, -um.&#xD;&#xA;- Example: Furvae regna Proserpinae: The kingdoms of the gloomy proserpine.&#xD;&#xA;- Example: atra bilis: black bile (Theory of the four moods of Hippocrates).&#xD;&#xA;- Example: Nec scire utrum sis albus an ater homo (Catulo, Carmina, 93, 2). I'm (not interested) if you're white or black. &#xD;&#xA;- Example: Candida de nigris et de candentibus atra [...] facere (Ovidio, Metamorfosis, 11, 314). Transform black into white and white into black.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4804" RevisionGUID="bee28e35-cb8c-41e4-8b5c-015731ae8f76" CreationDate="2017-07-12T14:18:48.437" UserId="1813" Text="I'm looking to translate a sentence, and need conjugation help&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The motto would be &quot;through all things/trials/struggles, (loving)kindness&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per conatio omina, bonitatis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15841" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4804" RevisionGUID="bee28e35-cb8c-41e4-8b5c-015731ae8f76" CreationDate="2017-07-12T14:18:48.437" UserId="1813" Text="Through all things, kindness" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15842" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4804" RevisionGUID="bee28e35-cb8c-41e4-8b5c-015731ae8f76" CreationDate="2017-07-12T14:18:48.437" UserId="1813" Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4805" RevisionGUID="ec8c2d35-0679-44a0-9f3e-54fdf7e12a31" CreationDate="2017-07-12T16:03:02.967" UserId="645" Text="Your first effort indicates that you are starting without much knowledge of Latin so, rather than explain what's not right about it, can I make a couple of suggestions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a motto, a verb can often (as you have done here) be omitted. You might like :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *rebus in arduis benignitas*, kindliness when things are difficult ;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— alternatively, *per rebus adversis cum benignitate,* with kindliness through adversity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4805" RevisionGUID="c1402254-d503-463d-989e-aad4fa37155f" CreationDate="2017-07-12T16:45:06.770" UserId="645" Comment="A last sentence added" Text="Your first effort indicates that you are starting without much knowledge of Latin so, rather than explain what's not right about it, can I make a couple of suggestions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a motto, a verb can often (as you have done here) be omitted. You might like :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *rebus in arduis benignitas*, kindliness when things are difficult ;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— alternatively, *per rebus adversis cum benignitate,* with kindliness through adversity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many other possibilities. Perhaps you could make the context a little fuller?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4804" RevisionGUID="4f0d572a-b398-42ca-9d91-431130dc258f" CreationDate="2017-07-12T17:02:42.163" UserId="1692" Comment="general editing" Text="I'm looking to translate a sentence, and need conjugation help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The motto would be &quot;through all things / trials / struggles, (loving) kindness.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Per conatio omina, bonitatis..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15847" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4804" RevisionGUID="4f0d572a-b398-42ca-9d91-431130dc258f" CreationDate="2017-07-12T17:02:42.163" UserId="1692" Comment="general editing" Text="&quot;Through all things, kindness&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15848" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4804" RevisionGUID="4f0d572a-b398-42ca-9d91-431130dc258f" CreationDate="2017-07-12T17:02:42.163" Comment="Proposed by 1692 approved by 522, -1 edit id of 192" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4804" RevisionGUID="955ae691-83c4-40a6-a340-a8c2783078b0" CreationDate="2017-07-12T17:02:42.163" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and explicit questions, and reformatted a bit." Text="I'm looking to translate a sentence, and need conjugation help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The motto would be &quot;through all things/trials/struggles, (loving) kindness.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Per conatio omina, bonitatis...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this translation fine so far? How do I finish the sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15850" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4804" RevisionGUID="955ae691-83c4-40a6-a340-a8c2783078b0" CreationDate="2017-07-12T17:02:42.163" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and explicit questions, and reformatted a bit." Text="|translation-check|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="088cb891-af0f-4b2d-8ae0-444f90bbeeff" CreationDate="2017-07-12T17:03:42.303" UserId="1692" Comment="general editing" Text="&gt;[[vault (v.1) :](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=vault&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)]    [...] from Vulgar Latin _*volvitare_ &quot;to turn, leap,&quot;    &#xD;&#xA;  frequentative of Latin _volvere_ &quot;to turn, turn around, roll&quot; (see [volvox](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=volvox&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)). [...] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask not about the meanings &quot;turn&quot; or &quot;turn around&quot; which both verbs share, but only about the meaning of &quot;leap&quot; that appears new to Vulgar Latin and (superficially) unconnected to the notion of to &quot;turn, roll.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15852" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="088cb891-af0f-4b2d-8ae0-444f90bbeeff" CreationDate="2017-07-12T17:03:42.303" UserId="1692" Comment="general editing" Text="What underlying notion connects &quot;roll&quot; (in &quot;volvere&quot;) to &quot;leap&quot; (in &quot;*volvitare&quot;)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15853" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="088cb891-af0f-4b2d-8ae0-444f90bbeeff" CreationDate="2017-07-12T17:03:42.303" Comment="Proposed by 1692 approved by 79 edit id of 193" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4806" RevisionGUID="d021bc3d-1420-46a7-acbc-3b4ef535292a" CreationDate="2017-07-12T18:21:33.137" UserId="45" Text="If you don't mind using Christian vocabulary, your quote is an almost exact translation of St Augustine's famous saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, **in omnibus caritas.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In necessary things, unity. In uncertain things, liberty. **In all things, charity.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4807" RevisionGUID="4d4eccee-2d6f-4f7a-ae21-7cbc69267922" CreationDate="2017-07-12T23:48:24.610" UserId="79" Text="Tuomo Pekkanen's Latin grammar mentions (§52.3) that the *-e-* added to the present stem before *-nd-* in the gerund and gerundive (in the third and fourth conjugations) can be replaced with a *-u-*.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *mittendus = mittundus* and *faciendus = faciundus*.&#xD;&#xA;No more details are given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When can I one replace the typical *-e-* with *-u-*?&#xD;&#xA;Is this specific to some era, author, or verbs?&#xD;&#xA;Would it be appropriate to occasionally make the replacement in any context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15856" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4807" RevisionGUID="4d4eccee-2d6f-4f7a-ae21-7cbc69267922" CreationDate="2017-07-12T23:48:24.610" UserId="79" Text="When is there a U instead of an E in gerund(ive)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15857" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4807" RevisionGUID="4d4eccee-2d6f-4f7a-ae21-7cbc69267922" CreationDate="2017-07-12T23:48:24.610" UserId="79" Text="|morphology|gerund|gerundive|vowel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4808" RevisionGUID="5ddeea3d-0c15-4f3a-be9e-004e0f81d423" CreationDate="2017-07-13T00:03:03.283" UserId="79" Text="The English words &quot;[gay](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gay)&quot; and &quot;[queer](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/queer)&quot; are originally adjectives with a broad range of possible use contexts, but currently they are used almost exclusively in reference to certain minorities.&#xD;&#xA;It has become difficult to use these words in their original meaning and tone; trying to use &quot;gay&quot; as a synonym of &quot;happy&quot; without any homosexual connotations seems almost impossible to me.&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, some people learning English today are unaware of these other (older?) meanings altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any similar cases in Latin, where an originally broader adjective has come to refer to something very specific, possibly a group of people?&#xD;&#xA;**Which Latin adjectives are closest to the phenomenon seen in the two English examples?**&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea how close to this Latin gets, so weaker occurrences of this phenomenon are welcome as answers, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be specific, I am not interested in words loaned from Latin to other languages (that would merit a separate question), but in this effect within the Latin language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15859" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4808" RevisionGUID="5ddeea3d-0c15-4f3a-be9e-004e0f81d423" CreationDate="2017-07-13T00:03:03.283" UserId="79" Text="Are there words like &quot;gay&quot; and &quot;queer&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15860" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4808" RevisionGUID="5ddeea3d-0c15-4f3a-be9e-004e0f81d423" CreationDate="2017-07-13T00:03:03.283" UserId="79" Text="|meaning|language-evolution|adjective|nuance|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4800" RevisionGUID="f209fdc5-cffb-4d6a-b588-5e780aeba7b8" CreationDate="2017-07-13T01:04:39.407" UserId="522" Comment="Attribution corrected; and examples added" Text="There are at least three ways of creating the sort of ambuguity you describe.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.1. **Polysemy:**  &#xD;&#xA;You can use a broader word for 'learn.' A Latin phrase such as *perago scribere,* &#xD;&#xA;creates the same ambiguity as 'I am involved in writing,' *Per ago* can mean 'I am working hard at,' or 'I'm very skillful at,' or even 'I've had enough of.' A nominative participle *'discens'* would add 'while I am learning.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.2. **using a Homonym:**  &#xD;&#xA;Cicero uses the phrase *'literis deditus,'* and Terence  *'amore deditus.'*  &#xD;&#xA;If the first e is long, it comes from *dedeo,* and means a hostage, a prisoner, an addict of writing.  &#xD;&#xA;If short, from *dedo,* frequentative of *do,* meaning 'dedicated to,' 'given over to..'    &#xD;&#xA;***Literis dĕditus disco.*** or ***Literis dēditus disco.***  &#xD;&#xA;This has the advantage of classical usage; and the ambiguity lies in whether you mean, 'I learn as a devotee of writing,' or 'I learn, held hostage by literature.' This does approach your double meaning of passive learner and learning professional.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian touches on this (Instutio Oratoria Bk7 ch9) &quot;[If it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is]doubtful in a written document whether a syllable is long or short.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cato, for example, means one thing in the nominative when its second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; syllable is short, and another in the dative or ablative when the same&#xD;&#xA;&gt; syllable is long(adj. catus shrewd.)&quot; (Perseus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.3. **Detached Prefix:** or **Split Words:** is promising provided the phrase is spoken not written.  &#xD;&#xA;Quintilian (35 – ca. 96) [Institutio Oratoria, Book7 ch9][1] (Perseus) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is another form of ambiguity where a word has one meaning when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entire and another when divided, as, for example, ingenua, armameniam&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or Corvinum.  There is another form of ambiguity where a word has one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; meaning when entire and another when divided, as, for example,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ingenua, armameniam or Corvinum. **and** ... the question whether the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; words mean “in a cultivated place” (in culto loco) or “in an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; uncultivated place” (inculto loco)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Describendo discere potes.***   &#xD;&#xA;By writing-about-things you can learn  &#xD;&#xA;and ***De scribendo discere potes.***  &#xD;&#xA;You can learn about writing.  &#xD;&#xA;If &quot;You can &quot; is unimportant, this is shorter:  &#xD;&#xA; ***Describendo discis; De scribendo discis.***  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another example example of .3. 'detached prefix,' is versum in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cinerem, &quot;turned into dust;&quot; Versum incinerem, &quot;that I might chant a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verse.&quot; Twelfth century; style of the Archpoet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0066%3Abook%3D7%3Achapter%3D8%3Asection%3D6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4786" RevisionGUID="e8271d86-c9f6-4e49-85f9-7cad4c162aac" CreationDate="2017-07-13T02:15:06.027" UserId="39" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Weiss writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In Classical Latin fīo, fīunt, fīam etc. 'become' have been analogically restored&quot; (p. 126).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems this explanation goes back to [Sommer 1902][1] (at least, that's what Leumman 1977 mentions, a later edition though). Here's what Sommer suggested (p. 589):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So, [Sommer][1] hypothesized that **ī was &quot;restored&quot; in the thematic forms with ī+V so that the paradigm of the verb would have fewer alternating forms**. This is known as [analogical restoration][3] in historical linguistics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. de Vaan &quot;*fī - would develop phonetically in the 23s. and 12 p.pr. forms, and then spread to the other forms of the paradigm.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sihler adds**, cautiously though, that it could have happened because of a very special status of **fio - &quot;the only verb in -io with tonic accent on the i&quot;** (p. 546).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we won't find &quot;hard evidence&quot; - we are talking about Old Latin here, after all. But another source of indirect evidence comes from Plautus and Terence, where we can find both fĭerī (more common) and fīerī, fĭeret (more common) and fīeret etc. See Sihler (p. 546) for some interesting thoughts on this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss also mentions, in footnote 10 on the same page, a very interesting observation made by Jan Safarewicz (Safarewicz 1974): ī tends to be used in those word-forms of fio when the following syllable is heavy. Tronskii 1960 argues that ī &gt; ĭ occurred only before -er-. That being said, Leumann 1977 still writes, &quot;Die Verteilung von fī- und fi- ist unregelmäßig&quot; (p. 530).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/handbuchderlate00sommgoog&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/se3EB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=EHeGzQ8wuLQC&amp;lpg=PA20&amp;ots=VkGqn8xbzL&amp;dq=analogical%20restoration&amp;pg=PA20#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4808" RevisionGUID="acd96065-cb45-4462-97a0-5fef3723d8bc" CreationDate="2017-07-13T08:13:30.233" UserId="79" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="The English words &quot;[gay](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gay)&quot; and &quot;[queer](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/queer)&quot; are originally adjectives with a broad range of possible use contexts, but currently they are used almost exclusively in reference to certain minorities.&#xD;&#xA;It has become difficult to use these words in their original meaning and tone; trying to use &quot;gay&quot; as a synonym of &quot;happy&quot; without any homosexual connotations seems almost impossible to me.&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, some people learning English today are unaware of these other (older?) meanings altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any similar cases in Latin, where an originally broader adjective has come to refer to something very specific, possibly a group of people?&#xD;&#xA;**Which Latin adjectives are closest to the phenomenon seen in the two English examples?**&#xD;&#xA;Is there, by any chance, a (substantivized?) Latin adjective that means something similar to &quot;gay&quot; or &quot;queer&quot; but used to be broader?&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea how close to this Latin gets, so weaker occurrences of this phenomenon are welcome as answers, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be specific, I am not interested in words loaned from Latin to other languages (that would merit a separate question), but in this effect within the Latin language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4809" RevisionGUID="b08ebe1d-a68f-4af3-8c3d-77a98e634534" CreationDate="2017-07-13T10:31:03.563" UserId="1818" Text="I've composed the following two verses in Latin (an allusion to the *prooemium* of Vergil's *Aeneis*:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Anni virumque cano Scolae qui ab origine         &#xA;&gt; ad probationem fecit nos inscitis ad sapientos&#xA;&#xA;I would scan them the following way:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; *- v v - v v - - - -v v - x*       &#xA;&gt; *- v v - v v - - - v v - v v - x*&#xA;&#xA;However, I often mess up the *muta cum liquida*. Are these verses strict hexameters?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4809" RevisionGUID="b08ebe1d-a68f-4af3-8c3d-77a98e634534" CreationDate="2017-07-13T10:31:03.563" UserId="1818" Text="Are theses verses strictly hexametric?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4809" RevisionGUID="b08ebe1d-a68f-4af3-8c3d-77a98e634534" CreationDate="2017-07-13T10:31:03.563" UserId="1818" Text="|scansion|metre|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4809" RevisionGUID="71b94eed-22c3-4607-a5e6-91c36913f86a" CreationDate="2017-07-13T10:59:53.480" UserId="1818" Comment="fixed casūs" Text="I've composed the following two verses in Latin (an allusion to the *prooemium* of Vergil's *Aeneis*:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Annos virumque cano Scolae qui ab origine         &#xA;&gt; ad probationem fecit nos inscitis ad sapientos&#xA;&#xA;I would scan them the following way:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; *- v v - v v - - - -v v - x*       &#xA;&gt; *- v v - v v - - - v v - v v - x*&#xA;&#xA;However, I often mess up the *muta cum liquida*. Are these verses strict hexameters?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4810" RevisionGUID="73bc943b-1544-4f77-906b-60af5e2f6bef" CreationDate="2017-07-13T12:50:40.020" UserId="78" Text="Sorry, but this does not scan correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the meter in your first line is missing a beat in your description, though, it's there I see in the line itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The o in *annos* is long by position, because it is followed by two consonants. Same with the u in *virumque*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *qui* is elided before *ab*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The a in *probationem* is long, as is the second *o*. The makes the first line scan `- u - u - - |`, since it is also followed by two consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The dative/ablative plural of first/second declension adjectives is long." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4811" RevisionGUID="bd8b326a-b262-4da5-bcef-48c408ee83fd" CreationDate="2017-07-13T12:52:59.777" UserId="79" Text="No, unfortunately it does not quite scan right.&#xD;&#xA;Here are the problems I found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The second syllable of the first line, *-n&amp;omacr;s*, is long for two reasons: the vowel is long and followed by two consonants.&#xD;&#xA;- The *o* in *sc(h)ola* is short, so the first syllable is metrically short even though it has stress in prose.&#xD;&#xA;- I'm not quite sure how you intended to scan the end of the first line. There is an elision between *qui* and *ab*. Did you perhaps intend to elide at the line break, too? The only long syllable in *or&amp;imacr;gine* is the second one.&#xD;&#xA;- The long syllables of *prob&amp;amacr;ti&amp;omacr;nem* don't quite match your scansion.&#xD;&#xA;- Frankly, I have trouble seeing how the scansion of the second line is supposed to go. The ending *ad sapientos* matches your scansion and works well, but I can't quite see how the rest works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, there is a grammatical problem.&#xD;&#xA;If you make someone from ignorant to wise, then *aliquem inscitum sapientem facis*.&#xD;&#xA;(Also, the plural accusative ending is slightly off: it should be *sapientes*.)&#xD;&#xA;Both words are in accusative without prepositions, and there is some possibility of confusion, too.&#xD;&#xA;I don't think the English structure of &quot;making someone from something to something&quot; can work as you write in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I wanted to list the problems honestly.&#xD;&#xA;I think the text is good prose apart from the one lapse, but the metric part does not quite work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my offer (with prose translation):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tempora cara cano, quae tu schola cara dedisti;  &#xD;&#xA;te inscia turba intrans meminit sapiens abitura.*  &#xD;&#xA;I sing dear times, which you dear school gave;  &#xD;&#xA;the ignorant entering crowd remembers you when it is about to exit wise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4812" RevisionGUID="4566ede3-5d3e-475d-9622-55406d94cd0b" CreationDate="2017-07-13T13:40:42.927" UserId="1692" Text="In [this passage][1] from *Nicomachean Ethics*, Aristotle uses this word to mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [joy over one's neighbour's misfortune][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, Does ἐπιχαιρεκακία have a Latin counterpart in either Classical or Medieval ethical works?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0086,010:1107a:10&amp;lang=original&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=e)pixairekaki/a" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15873" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4812" RevisionGUID="4566ede3-5d3e-475d-9622-55406d94cd0b" CreationDate="2017-07-13T13:40:42.927" UserId="1692" Text="About Aristotelian ἐπιχαιρεκακία" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15874" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4812" RevisionGUID="4566ede3-5d3e-475d-9622-55406d94cd0b" CreationDate="2017-07-13T13:40:42.927" UserId="1692" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4812" RevisionGUID="1fca8a3b-1651-410f-8ea1-9bed5f1fa9d2" CreationDate="2017-07-13T15:01:51.177" UserId="79" Comment="Added the word in the first sentence in clarity, and added some tags." Text="In [this passage][1] from *Nicomachean Ethics*, Aristotle uses the word ἐπιχαιρεκακία to mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [joy over one's neighbour's misfortune][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, Does ἐπιχαιρεκακία have a Latin counterpart in either Classical or Medieval ethical works?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0086,010:1107a:10&amp;lang=original&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=e)pixairekaki/a" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15876" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4812" RevisionGUID="1fca8a3b-1651-410f-8ea1-9bed5f1fa9d2" CreationDate="2017-07-13T15:01:51.177" UserId="79" Comment="Added the word in the first sentence in clarity, and added some tags." Text="|vocabulary|greek|aristotle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4743" RevisionGUID="e040e7a2-a3e2-43aa-ad48-e147859dbba1" CreationDate="2017-07-13T15:14:41.093" UserId="13" Comment="added part of transcription (first two stanzas)" Text="One contribution this papyrus certainly gave is at l. 9.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ll. 8-10 in the papyrus][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The middle line in the image reads `ΜΥΠ̣ ϹΔ€`, giving us a σδ cluster, whereas the manuscript tradition, according to Bergk's note, is unanimous on having a ζ there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other possible contribution, which I am fairly skeptical about, is &quot;the psi issue&quot;. The corrupted l. 19 can be seen in the papyrus as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![l. 19 in the papyrus][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to me that reads `̣ CÁΓΗṆ`, with the C compressed and the N half-cut, and the vestige being more of a blank space. Others have seen a psi in that space, leading to the transcription &quot;ψ̣ σ' ἄγην&quot; and hence the reading &quot;ἄψ σ' ἄγην&quot;. I tried to see the psi in the image, and all I got was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I for one believe this is far too close to the sigma to actually be what was written there. There is something like a mini-psi far down in a sort of subscript placement, but that can hardly (IMHO) be considered an actual letter. So I'm very prone to discarding this psi idea. For other reasons, [M.L. West](https://books.google.it/books?id=cHQ30Ifgp4IC&amp;pg=PA31&amp;lpg=PA31&amp;dq=P.Oxy.+2288&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=hgRJS8y2a7&amp;sig=BGOe2e41tQyOurmIEsZtGK6vd5k&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi0jKrk--3UAhWCPRoKHaMgCuIQ6AEIUTAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=P.Oxy.%202288&amp;f=false), a very famous linguist I only found out about when I found that link, discards it. This reading, however, is accepted by many (Greek Wikisource, BA, Campbell, [these guys](http://www.uc.pt/fluc/eclassicos/publicacoes/ficheiros/humanitas25-26/07_Bonnaria.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That just about wraps it up, because the rest of the text was already uncontroversial before this papyrus, AFAICT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bonus: papyrus transcription**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how I read this papyrus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ΙΚΙΛ &amp;nbsp;̣ &amp;nbsp;̣ &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;̤ Λ̤&amp;nbsp; ̤ ΛΟ &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;{...}ẠṂṆẠ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;{....}Αθ̣Υ{.}&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ẠΤÝΙΔ &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ϲ€̄ṂΑϹΑÝ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ỵ€ϹΠẠΤΡ &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &amp;nbsp;̣ΥϹΙΟΝΗ̤Λ̤ &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt; Work In Progress &gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/K3QIe.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EL64J.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Tu2nt.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4813" RevisionGUID="e7a6256e-3b35-4676-8679-9d13f132deec" CreationDate="2017-07-13T18:00:49.063" UserId="645" Text="Sexuality of all kinds was largely tolerated in republican Rome, and though various kinds of behaviour met with censure in some quarters, it was probably accepted as inevitable by all, if distasteful to some. 'Unnatural' behaviour is referred to, described, or alleged all over the place: here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Cicero (*Tusc V, 33*) has something to say about it. The Satyricon has characters who live by it. Catullus makes insulting references to *cinaedi* (e.g. *XXV*), in *XVI* threatens  to revenge himself by inflicting the worst possible physical (*sc*. sexual) degradation, and accuses Caesar in several poems of sexual irregularity (e.g. with Mamurra).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I may be wrong, but I think that with the attitudes then prevailing, it is unlikely that the Romans would think much of perverting(!) words to a sexual usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="e4572126-b8f2-45d7-9ffb-39fce0cfc5cb" CreationDate="2017-07-13T18:25:10.243" UserId="406" Text="I've seen the name of the famous Aeolian poet written as both &quot;Ψαπφω&quot; and &quot;Σαπφω&quot;. The latter seems universal in Attic, and hence she's known as &quot;Sappho&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which of these names is &quot;more correct&quot;, if either? Where did the other one come from? And how would the pronunciations have differed in ancient times? (I've heard that psi wasn't /ps/ in all dialects, for example.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15880" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="e4572126-b8f2-45d7-9ffb-39fce0cfc5cb" CreationDate="2017-07-13T18:25:10.243" UserId="406" Text="What was Sappho's name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15881" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="e4572126-b8f2-45d7-9ffb-39fce0cfc5cb" CreationDate="2017-07-13T18:25:10.243" UserId="406" Text="|greek|names|sappho|aeolian-dialect|dialects|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4813" RevisionGUID="a7c83ed2-31ab-4404-8a9c-d6b304ed8f00" CreationDate="2017-07-13T18:41:57.110" UserId="645" Comment="clarifying last sentence" Text="Sexuality of all kinds was largely tolerated in republican Rome, and though various kinds of behaviour met with censure in some quarters, it was probably accepted as inevitable by all, if distasteful to some. 'Unnatural' behaviour is referred to, described, or alleged all over the place: here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Cicero (*Tusc V, 33*) has something to say about it. The Satyricon has characters who live by it. Catullus makes insulting references to *cinaedi* (e.g. *XXV*), in *XVI* threatens  to revenge himself by inflicting the worst possible physical (*sc*. sexual) degradation, and accuses Caesar in several poems of sexual irregularity (e.g. with Mamurra).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I may be wrong, but I think that with the attitudes then prevailing, it is unlikely that the Romans would think that there was much need of perverting(!) words to a sexual usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4743" RevisionGUID="7e22b22f-5b82-431e-885a-dab047919b97" CreationDate="2017-07-13T20:09:29.553" UserId="13" Comment="finished transcription" Text="One contribution this papyrus certainly gave is at l. 9.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ll. 8-10 in the papyrus][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The middle line in the image reads `ΜΥΠ̣ ϹΔ€`, giving us a σδ cluster, whereas the manuscript tradition, according to Bergk's note, is unanimous on having a ζ there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other possible contribution, which I am fairly skeptical about, is &quot;the psi issue&quot;. The corrupted l. 19 can be seen in the papyrus as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![l. 19 in the papyrus][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to me that reads `̣ CÁΓΗṆ`, with the C compressed and the N half-cut, and the vestige being more of a blank space. Others have seen a psi in that space, leading to the transcription &quot;ψ̣ σ' ἄγην&quot; and hence the reading &quot;ἄψ σ' ἄγην&quot;. I tried to see the psi in the image, and all I got was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I for one believe this is far too close to the sigma to actually be what was written there. There is something like a mini-psi far down in a sort of subscript placement, but that can hardly (IMHO) be considered an actual letter. So I'm very prone to discarding this psi idea. For other reasons, [M.L. West](https://books.google.it/books?id=cHQ30Ifgp4IC&amp;pg=PA31&amp;lpg=PA31&amp;dq=P.Oxy.+2288&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=hgRJS8y2a7&amp;sig=BGOe2e41tQyOurmIEsZtGK6vd5k&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi0jKrk--3UAhWCPRoKHaMgCuIQ6AEIUTAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=P.Oxy.%202288&amp;f=false), a very famous linguist I only found out about when I found that link, discards it. This reading, however, is accepted by many (Greek Wikisource, BA, Campbell, [these guys](http://www.uc.pt/fluc/eclassicos/publicacoes/ficheiros/humanitas25-26/07_Bonnaria.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That just about wraps it up, because the rest of the text was already uncontroversial before this papyrus, AFAICT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bonus: papyrus transcription**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how I read this papyrus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ΙΚΙΛ &amp;nbsp;̣ &amp;nbsp;̣ &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;̤&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;̣Λ̤ &amp;nbsp;̣́ &amp;nbsp;̣ΛΟ̤ &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;{...}ẠṂṆẠ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;{....}Αθ̣Υ{.}&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ẠΤÝΙΔ &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ϲ€̄ṂΑϹΑÝ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ỵ€ϹΠẠΤΡ &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &amp;nbsp;̣ΥϹΙΟΝΗ̤Λ̤ &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΜΥΠ̣[.]ϹΔ€&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Κ̣€̣€Ϲ̤ϹΤΡΟ᷍Υ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ḲΝΑΔĬΝ̤&#xD;&#xA;ỌϹΔΙΑΜ€̣Ϲ̣ &amp;nbsp;̣ &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;̣ΑΔΕξÏḲΟ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;̣ΗΔΙΑϹẠ[..]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ρ̤€ΟΤΤΙ &amp;nbsp;̣[.] &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΥΤ€́{.}A̤{.}[.]M̤&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΟΤΤÍ{.}[.]{.}&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A̤I̤N̤ &amp;nbsp;̣ΛΑI̤&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;{.}C̣ĂΓΗṆ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΠΦ&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/K3QIe.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EL64J.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Tu2nt.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4743" RevisionGUID="e55bb8e6-8734-4138-938e-14e028f68297" CreationDate="2017-07-13T20:16:11.033" UserId="13" Comment="added update" Text="One contribution this papyrus certainly gave is at l. 9.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ll. 8-10 in the papyrus][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The middle line in the image reads `ΜΥΠ̣ ϹΔ€`, giving us a σδ cluster, whereas the manuscript tradition, according to Bergk's note, is unanimous on having a ζ there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other possible contribution, which I am fairly skeptical about, is &quot;the psi issue&quot;. The corrupted l. 19 can be seen in the papyrus as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![l. 19 in the papyrus][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to me that reads `̣ CÁΓΗṆ`, with the C compressed and the N half-cut, and the vestige being more of a blank space. Others have seen a psi in that space, leading to the transcription &quot;ψ̣ σ' ἄγην&quot; and hence the reading &quot;ἄψ σ' ἄγην&quot;. I tried to see the psi in the image, and all I got was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I for one believe this is far too close to the sigma to actually be what was written there. There is something like a mini-psi far down in a sort of subscript placement, but that can hardly (IMHO) be considered an actual letter. So I'm very prone to discarding this psi idea. For other reasons, [M.L. West](https://books.google.it/books?id=cHQ30Ifgp4IC&amp;pg=PA31&amp;lpg=PA31&amp;dq=P.Oxy.+2288&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=hgRJS8y2a7&amp;sig=BGOe2e41tQyOurmIEsZtGK6vd5k&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi0jKrk--3UAhWCPRoKHaMgCuIQ6AEIUTAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=P.Oxy.%202288&amp;f=false), a very famous linguist I only found out about when I found that link, discards it. This reading, however, is accepted by many (Greek Wikisource, BA, Campbell, [these guys](http://www.uc.pt/fluc/eclassicos/publicacoes/ficheiros/humanitas25-26/07_Bonnaria.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That just about wraps it up, because the rest of the text was already uncontroversial before this papyrus, AFAICT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bonus: papyrus transcription**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how I read this papyrus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ΙΚΙΛ &amp;nbsp;̣ &amp;nbsp;̣ &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;̤&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;̣Λ̤ &amp;nbsp;̣́ &amp;nbsp;̣ΛΟ̤ &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;{...}ẠṂṆẠ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;{....}Αθ̣Υ{.}&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ẠΤÝΙΔ &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ϲ€̄ṂΑϹΑÝ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ỵ€ϹΠẠΤΡ &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &amp;nbsp;̣ΥϹΙΟΝΗ̤Λ̤ &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΜΥΠ̣[.]ϹΔ€&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Κ̣€̣€Ϲ̤ϹΤΡΟ᷍Υ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ḲΝΑΔĬΝ̤&#xD;&#xA;ỌϹΔΙΑΜ€̣Ϲ̣ &amp;nbsp;̣ &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;̣ΑΔΕξÏḲΟ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;̣ΗΔΙΑϹẠ[..]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ρ̤€ΟΤΤΙ &amp;nbsp;̣[.] &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΥΤ€́{.}A̤{.}[.]M̤&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΟΤΤÍ{.}[.]{.}&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A̤I̤N̤ &amp;nbsp;̣ΛΑI̤&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;{.}C̣ĂΓΗṆ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΠΦ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also realized this papyrus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Dispels Edmonds' dual ὤκεε στρούθω with its double sigma, though one sigma is very doubtful;&#xD;&#xA; - Dispels any μειδιάσαισ' idea with its clear ΗΔΙΑϹ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/K3QIe.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EL64J.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Tu2nt.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4815" RevisionGUID="842762e6-e225-4b9d-a5ad-952fe036f058" CreationDate="2017-07-13T20:23:21.200" UserId="1407" Text="&quot;is good&quot; is fairly easy, some form of [bŏnum][1] with the verb of being, but I'm having more trouble with the word for &quot;fun&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Part I: &quot;Fun&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lūdus][2] was my first thought because it refers to play in the broadest sense, including play in the sense of acting, games, diversions, jokes, jests, and sports.  But for that very reason, it may be over-broad in the sense that a play can be a drama, and sports can be serious. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I spread my net wider, and looked at [iocor][3], but I find it too limited, referring only to jokes and jests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving into verb forms, [oblecto][4], [fruor][5], and [gaudĕo][6], all seem closer to fun, connoting enjoyment and delight, but these are more obscure that ludus, and would render the Latin less accessible to those with an interest, but only basic vocabulary. Thus there is an tension between precision and comprehensibility. &#xD;&#xA;_______________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Part II: Dr. Seuss**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also be very interested in peoples' thoughts on a Latinization of Dr. Seuss.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Medicus][7] seems to physiological, connoting a surgeon, which I don't believe was Seuss' intent. I suspect the type of doctor Seuss' was whimsically indicating would be closer to a [rhetor][8], but I'm unaware of an abbreviation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The doctor part is not essential, and could be dropped, but a solid Latinization of Seuss is critical.&#xD;&#xA;____________________________&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts, perspectives are welcome, as well as proposed renderings as I don't have many excuses to exercise my Latin, which is limited in any case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=bonum&amp;la=la&amp;can=bonum0#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dludus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Diocor&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=oblecto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dfruor&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=gaudere&amp;la=la#Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=gaudeo-contents&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmedicus1&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Drhetor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15886" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4815" RevisionGUID="842762e6-e225-4b9d-a5ad-952fe036f058" CreationDate="2017-07-13T20:23:21.200" UserId="1407" Text="How to render &quot;'Fun is Good' -Dr. Seuss&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15887" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4815" RevisionGUID="842762e6-e225-4b9d-a5ad-952fe036f058" CreationDate="2017-07-13T20:23:21.200" UserId="1407" Text="|translation|vocabulary|latinization|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4743" RevisionGUID="aac7fbd8-f7bc-49b1-88ac-f8cdf12b7241" CreationDate="2017-07-13T20:45:03.427" UserId="13" Comment="added missing &lt;br&gt; in transcription (end of l. 11)" Text="One contribution this papyrus certainly gave is at l. 9.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ll. 8-10 in the papyrus][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The middle line in the image reads `ΜΥΠ̣ ϹΔ€`, giving us a σδ cluster, whereas the manuscript tradition, according to Bergk's note, is unanimous on having a ζ there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other possible contribution, which I am fairly skeptical about, is &quot;the psi issue&quot;. The corrupted l. 19 can be seen in the papyrus as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![l. 19 in the papyrus][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to me that reads `̣ CÁΓΗṆ`, with the C compressed and the N half-cut, and the vestige being more of a blank space. Others have seen a psi in that space, leading to the transcription &quot;ψ̣ σ' ἄγην&quot; and hence the reading &quot;ἄψ σ' ἄγην&quot;. I tried to see the psi in the image, and all I got was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I for one believe this is far too close to the sigma to actually be what was written there. There is something like a mini-psi far down in a sort of subscript placement, but that can hardly (IMHO) be considered an actual letter. So I'm very prone to discarding this psi idea. For other reasons, [M.L. West](https://books.google.it/books?id=cHQ30Ifgp4IC&amp;pg=PA31&amp;lpg=PA31&amp;dq=P.Oxy.+2288&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=hgRJS8y2a7&amp;sig=BGOe2e41tQyOurmIEsZtGK6vd5k&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi0jKrk--3UAhWCPRoKHaMgCuIQ6AEIUTAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=P.Oxy.%202288&amp;f=false), a very famous linguist I only found out about when I found that link, discards it. This reading, however, is accepted by many (Greek Wikisource, BA, Campbell, [these guys](http://www.uc.pt/fluc/eclassicos/publicacoes/ficheiros/humanitas25-26/07_Bonnaria.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That just about wraps it up, because the rest of the text was already uncontroversial before this papyrus, AFAICT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bonus: papyrus transcription**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how I read this papyrus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ΙΚΙΛ &amp;nbsp;̣ &amp;nbsp;̣ &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;̤&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;̣Λ̤ &amp;nbsp;̣́ &amp;nbsp;̣ΛΟ̤ &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;{...}ẠṂṆẠ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;{....}Αθ̣Υ{.}&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ẠΤÝΙΔ &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ϲ€̄ṂΑϹΑÝ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ỵ€ϹΠẠΤΡ &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &amp;nbsp;̣ΥϹΙΟΝΗ̤Λ̤ &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΜΥΠ̣[.]ϹΔ€&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Κ̣€̣€Ϲ̤ϹΤΡΟ᷍Υ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ḲΝΑΔĬΝ̤&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ỌϹΔΙΑΜ€̣Ϲ̣ &amp;nbsp;̣ &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;̣ΑΔΕξÏḲΟ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;̣ΗΔΙΑϹẠ[..]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ρ̤€ΟΤΤΙ &amp;nbsp;̣[.] &amp;nbsp;̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΥΤ€́{.}A̤{.}[.]M̤&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΟΤΤÍ{.}[.]{.}&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A̤I̤N̤ &amp;nbsp;̣ΛΑI̤&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;{.}C̣ĂΓΗṆ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΠΦ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also realized this papyrus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Dispels Edmonds' dual ὤκεε στρούθω with its double sigma, though one sigma is very doubtful;&#xD;&#xA; - Dispels any μειδιάσαισ' idea with its clear ΗΔΙΑϹ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/K3QIe.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EL64J.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Tu2nt.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4808" RevisionGUID="c7fb2496-7aa0-4463-affe-b847e913fc81" CreationDate="2017-07-13T20:54:05.873" UserId="79" Comment="Changed the title." Text="The English words &quot;[gay](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gay)&quot; and &quot;[queer](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/queer)&quot; are originally adjectives with a broad range of possible use contexts, but currently they are used almost exclusively in reference to certain minorities.&#xD;&#xA;It has become difficult to use these words in their original meaning and tone; trying to use &quot;gay&quot; as a synonym of &quot;happy&quot; without any homosexual connotations seems almost impossible to me.&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, some people learning English today are unaware of these other (older?) meanings altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any similar cases in Latin, where an originally broader adjective has come to refer to something very specific, possibly a group of people?&#xD;&#xA;**Which Latin adjectives are closest to the phenomenon seen in the two English examples?**&#xD;&#xA;Is there, by any chance, a (substantivized?) Latin adjective that means something similar to &quot;gay&quot; or &quot;queer&quot; but used to be broader?&#xD;&#xA;In yet other words, are there words like &quot;gay&quot; and &quot;queer&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea how close to this Latin gets, so weaker occurrences of this phenomenon are welcome as answers, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be specific, I am not interested in words loaned from Latin to other languages (that would merit a separate question), but in this effect within the Latin language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15891" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4808" RevisionGUID="c7fb2496-7aa0-4463-affe-b847e913fc81" CreationDate="2017-07-13T20:54:05.873" UserId="79" Comment="Changed the title." Text="Have Latin adjectives narrowed down in meaning due to reference to a group of people?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4808" RevisionGUID="cb3d6105-ef76-4a77-8383-863101dd20ad" CreationDate="2017-07-13T21:15:33.130" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited title" Text="The English words &quot;[gay](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gay)&quot; and &quot;[queer](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/queer)&quot; are originally adjectives with a broad range of possible use contexts, but currently they are used almost exclusively in reference to certain minorities.&#xD;&#xA;It has become difficult to use these words in their original meaning and tone; trying to use &quot;gay&quot; as a synonym of &quot;happy&quot; without any homosexual connotations seems almost impossible to me.&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, some people learning English today are unaware of these other (older?) meanings altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there words like &quot;gay&quot; and &quot;queer&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;That is, are there any similar cases in Latin, where an originally broader adjective has come to refer to something very specific, possibly a group of people?&#xD;&#xA;**Which Latin adjectives are closest to the phenomenon seen in the two English examples?**&#xD;&#xA;Is there, by any chance, a (substantivized?) Latin adjective that means something similar to &quot;gay&quot; or &quot;queer&quot; but used to be broader?&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea how close to this Latin gets, so weaker occurrences of this phenomenon are welcome as answers, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be specific, I am not interested in words loaned from Latin to other languages (that would merit a separate question), but in this effect within the Latin language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15893" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4808" RevisionGUID="cb3d6105-ef76-4a77-8383-863101dd20ad" CreationDate="2017-07-13T21:15:33.130" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited title" Text="Has the meaning of any Latin adjectives narrowed in a way similar to English &quot;gay&quot; transitioning from a meaning of &quot;happy&quot; to &quot;homosexual&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4816" RevisionGUID="4fdafc6f-1f86-4533-89c1-50139e8b2c05" CreationDate="2017-07-13T22:42:51.020" UserId="79" Text="I suggest: ***Gaudium bono est, doctor Seuss.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Rationale&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to translate &quot;fun&quot; with a single short(ish) noun to keep the rhythm close to original.&#xD;&#xA;Changing to a verb would have felt too drastic, and, frankly, I think *gaudium* is a good general translation for &quot;fun&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is related to the verb *gaudere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you say &quot;X is Y in Latin&quot;, both X and Y are in the nominative.&#xD;&#xA;Since the word order is pretty free, this leaves a lot of room for ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;In addition, since *bonum* is an adjective and *gaudium* is neuter, you could parse *gaudium bonum est* as &quot;this is good fun&quot; or something similar.&#xD;&#xA;So there is a reason to avoid a simple nominative, but, again, it shouldn't be to heavy in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a construction known as the final dative (*dativus finalis*).&#xD;&#xA;There are even attestations of the very phrase [*bono est*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=bono+est).&#xD;&#xA;You can translate *gaudium bono est* as &quot;fun is (for) good&quot; with or without the preposition.&#xD;&#xA;(Other examples of this structure: *Hoc (nobis) usui est. Hoc nobis exemplo est.*)&#xD;&#xA;This dative often comes with another dative, indicating the beneficiary.&#xD;&#xA;You could well say *gaudium tibi bono est*, &quot;fun is good for you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate the title &quot;doctor&quot; as simply the Latin word *doctor*.&#xD;&#xA;Any doctor can be called *doctor*, but only someone holding a medical doctorate could be called *medicus*.&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, the pen name is not trying to refer to the title of MD or similar, so *doctor* seems most appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;(I am sometimes referred to as Dr. Ilmavirta, and I would not allow translating the title as a medical one, even though the work leading to my doctorate has some medical applications.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Names are often best left as they are.&#xD;&#xA;If there is no obvious way to Latinize it, my instinct is to do nothing.&#xD;&#xA;The authors of [Nuntii Latini](http://areena.yle.fi/1-1931339) have a good rule of thumb:&#xD;&#xA;When first introducing a new person, the name is used in its original form, and if there is a Latinized version, it will be used subsequently after the person has been introduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also depends on your need.&#xD;&#xA;If you need to decline the name, then you might want to do something.&#xD;&#xA;But even then, if you always use the word *doctor* with it, there's no need to decline the name at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for what it might be worth, [Vicipaedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Seuss) leaves the name in its original form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4815" RevisionGUID="1fa05a97-ffbd-4399-8909-264b0666447d" CreationDate="2017-07-13T22:45:46.893" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="&quot;is good&quot; is fairly easy, some form of [bŏnum][1] with the verb of being, but I'm having more trouble with the word for &quot;fun&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Part I: &quot;Fun&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lūdus][2] was my first thought because it refers to play in the broadest sense, including play in the sense of acting, games, diversions, jokes, jests, and sports.  But for that very reason, it may be over-broad in the sense that a play can be a drama, and sports can be serious. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I spread my net wider, and looked at [iocor][3], but I find it too limited, referring only to jokes and jests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving into verb forms, [oblecto][4], [fruor][5], and [gaudĕo][6], all seem closer to fun, connoting enjoyment and delight, but these are more obscure that ludus, and would render the Latin less accessible to those with an interest, but only basic vocabulary. Thus there is an tension between precision and comprehensibility. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Part II: Dr. Seuss**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also be very interested in peoples' thoughts on a Latinization of Dr. Seuss.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Medicus][7] seems to physiological, connoting a surgeon, which I don't believe was Seuss' intent. I suspect the type of doctor Seuss' was whimsically indicating would be closer to a [rhetor][8], but I'm unaware of an abbreviation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The doctor part is not essential, and could be dropped, but a solid Latinization of Seuss is critical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts, perspectives are welcome, as well as proposed renderings as I don't have many excuses to exercise my Latin, which is limited in any case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=bonum&amp;la=la&amp;can=bonum0#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dludus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Diocor&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=oblecto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dfruor&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=gaudere&amp;la=la#Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=gaudeo-contents&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmedicus1&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Drhetor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15896" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4815" RevisionGUID="1fa05a97-ffbd-4399-8909-264b0666447d" CreationDate="2017-07-13T22:45:46.893" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|vocabulary|names|sentence-translation|latinization|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2372" RevisionGUID="fa3c61ba-da7f-45a3-b930-d98c19a40008" CreationDate="2017-07-13T23:07:02.253" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and reformatted." Text="How would one say &quot;freedom through strength&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *vis* means strength and *libertas* is liberty/freedom.&#xD;&#xA;So would one say *vis libertas*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15898" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2372" RevisionGUID="fa3c61ba-da7f-45a3-b930-d98c19a40008" CreationDate="2017-07-13T23:07:02.253" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and reformatted." Text="|idiom|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2354" RevisionGUID="ee27252b-0788-4035-b34e-59e874464451" CreationDate="2017-07-13T23:10:30.510" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="I would like to say &quot;I am eating in the grocery store&quot;, and so far I have come up with &quot;edo in foro&quot; and &quot;edo in emporio&quot;. But I'm not sure if either of these would be the best fit. What word would you use to describe a modern-day grocery store? On a related topic, what is the Latin equivalent of the Greek αγορά? I assume that if I were to ask the same question of Attic Greek, αγορά would be the clear choice. Please correct me if I am wrong.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15900" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2354" RevisionGUID="ee27252b-0788-4035-b34e-59e874464451" CreationDate="2017-07-13T23:10:30.510" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|classical-latin|greek|word-request|word-choice|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2360" RevisionGUID="77b86474-da86-49f3-a739-71e20d1643c1" CreationDate="2017-07-13T23:13:17.043" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="According to BlueLetterBible, the Latin Vulgate translation of Matthew 26:49 states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![BlueLetterBible, Matt. 26:49, Vulgate][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek text from the Textus Receptus states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;ΜΘʹ&lt;/sup&gt; καὶ εὐθέως προσελθὼν τῷ Ἰησοῦ εἶπεν **Χαῖρε** ῥαββί καὶ κατεφίλησεν αὐτόν &lt;sup&gt;TR, 1550&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assumed the Latin translation of *Χαῖρε* to be *Ave*, but what is *Have*? Is that a typo?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QhuJn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15902" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2360" RevisionGUID="77b86474-da86-49f3-a739-71e20d1643c1" CreationDate="2017-07-13T23:13:17.043" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|greek|christianity|orthography|vulgata|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4816" RevisionGUID="be5a007f-71d1-4fef-9e32-55caca61e9ef" CreationDate="2017-07-13T23:51:48.887" UserId="79" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="I suggest: ***Gaudium bono est, doctor Seuss.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Rationale&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to translate &quot;fun&quot; with a single short(ish) noun to keep the rhythm close to original.&#xD;&#xA;Changing to a verb would have felt too drastic, and, frankly, I think *gaudium* is a good general translation for &quot;fun&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is related to the verb *gaudere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more details on what *gaudium* means, see [the entry in Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gaudium&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;Part II of the entry is most relevant here, and it explicitly mentions that it can be used like the English &quot;joy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For comparing different Latin words for &quot;joy&quot;, see [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/696/79).&#xD;&#xA;If you decide to go with, say, *laetitia* instead, you can simply plug it into my suggestion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you say &quot;X is Y in Latin&quot;, both X and Y are in the nominative.&#xD;&#xA;Since the word order is pretty free, this leaves a lot of room for ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;In addition, since *bonum* is an adjective and *gaudium* is neuter, you could parse *gaudium bonum est* as &quot;this is good fun&quot; or something similar.&#xD;&#xA;So there is a reason to avoid a simple nominative, but, again, it shouldn't be to heavy in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a construction known as the final dative (*dativus finalis*).&#xD;&#xA;There are even attestations of the very phrase [*bono est*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=bono+est).&#xD;&#xA;You can translate *gaudium bono est* as &quot;fun is (for) good&quot; with or without the preposition.&#xD;&#xA;(Other examples of this structure: *Hoc (nobis) usui est. Hoc nobis exemplo est.*)&#xD;&#xA;This dative often comes with another dative, indicating the beneficiary.&#xD;&#xA;You could well say *gaudium tibi bono est*, &quot;fun is good for you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate the title &quot;doctor&quot; as simply the Latin word *doctor*.&#xD;&#xA;Any doctor can be called *doctor*, but only someone holding a medical doctorate could be called *medicus*.&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, the pen name is not trying to refer to the title of MD or similar, so *doctor* seems most appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;(I am sometimes referred to as Dr. Ilmavirta, and I would not allow translating the title as a medical one, even though the work leading to my doctorate has some medical applications.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Names are often best left as they are.&#xD;&#xA;If there is no obvious way to Latinize it, my instinct is to do nothing.&#xD;&#xA;The authors of [Nuntii Latini](http://areena.yle.fi/1-1931339) have a good rule of thumb:&#xD;&#xA;When first introducing a new person, the name is used in its original form, and if there is a Latinized version, it will be used subsequently after the person has been introduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also depends on your need.&#xD;&#xA;If you need to decline the name, then you might want to do something.&#xD;&#xA;But even then, if you always use the word *doctor* with it, there's no need to decline the name at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for what it might be worth, [Vicipaedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Seuss) leaves the name in its original form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4813" RevisionGUID="c3489bb1-b77a-484e-8dcb-62ff356b72bf" CreationDate="2017-07-14T06:45:22.383" UserId="645" Comment="added 1303 characters in body" Text="Sexuality of all kinds was largely tolerated in republican Rome, and though various kinds of behaviour met with censure in some quarters, it was probably accepted as inevitable by all, if distasteful to some. 'Unnatural' behaviour is referred to, described, or alleged all over the place: here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Cicero (*Tusc V, 33*) has something to say about it. The Satyricon has characters who live by it. Catullus makes insulting references to *cinaedi* (e.g. *XXV*), in *XVI* threatens  to revenge himself by inflicting the worst possible physical (*sc*. sexual) degradation, and accuses Caesar in several poems of sexual irregularity (e.g. with Mamurra).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I may be wrong, but I think that with the attitudes then prevailing, it is unlikely that the Romans would think that there was much need of perverting(!) words to a sexual usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Added in response to changes in the question and its title] **:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer as given above was written in the light of the question's second paragraph, for which I think it is valid. As I now read the modified question, it looks for any adjectives deliberately chosen to have their use so altered for the purpose of perceiving the nouns to which they were epithetical in a completely abnormal way — which then would be normalized. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the examples given, the word *queer* has in fact lost little of its proper meaning and merely retains the pejorative sense in referring to sexual deviance that it has had for a very long time. On the other hand, *gay* is a word with associations once only pleasant, which was deliberately chosen as an epithet to be promulgated for the improvement of the public image of those to whom it was to be applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that cases where (in the words of the question) '*an originally broader adjective has come to refer to something very specific, possibly a group of people*' are certainly possible in Latin. Instances can be found in any comprehensive dictionary where a different meaning is described as 'late'. However, it seems to me that this kind of (anarchical?) campaign to introduce a calculated change of meaning must be rare in any language. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4816" RevisionGUID="7dd3cb67-06cb-4252-815e-53cd70943065" CreationDate="2017-07-14T08:48:30.740" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="I suggest: ***Gaudium bono est, doctor Seuss.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Rationale&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to translate &quot;fun&quot; with a single short(ish) noun to keep the rhythm close to original.&#xD;&#xA;Changing to a verb would have felt too drastic, and, frankly, I think *gaudium* is a good general translation for &quot;fun&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is related to the verb *gaudere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more details on what *gaudium* means, see [the entry in Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gaudium&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;Part II of the entry is most relevant here, and it explicitly mentions that it can be used like the English &quot;joy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For comparing different Latin words for &quot;joy&quot;, see [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/696/79).&#xD;&#xA;If you decide to go with, say, *laetitia* instead, you can simply plug it into my suggestion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you say &quot;X is Y&quot; in Latin, both X and Y are in the nominative.&#xD;&#xA;Since the word order is pretty free, this leaves a lot of room for ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;In addition, since *bonum* is an adjective and *gaudium* is neuter, you could parse *gaudium bonum est* as &quot;this is good fun&quot; or something similar.&#xD;&#xA;So there is a reason to avoid a simple nominative, but, again, it shouldn't be to heavy in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a construction known as the final dative (*dativus finalis*).&#xD;&#xA;There are even attestations of the very phrase [*bono est*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=bono+est).&#xD;&#xA;You can translate *gaudium bono est* as &quot;fun is (for) good&quot; with or without the preposition.&#xD;&#xA;(Other examples of this structure: *Hoc (nobis) usui est. Hoc nobis exemplo est.*)&#xD;&#xA;This dative often comes with another dative, indicating the beneficiary.&#xD;&#xA;You could well say *gaudium tibi bono est*, &quot;fun is good for you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate the title &quot;doctor&quot; as simply the Latin word *doctor*.&#xD;&#xA;Any doctor can be called *doctor*, but only someone holding a medical doctorate could be called *medicus*.&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, the pen name is not trying to refer to the title of MD or similar, so *doctor* seems most appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;(I am sometimes referred to as Dr. Ilmavirta, and I would not allow translating the title as a medical one, even though the work leading to my doctorate has some medical applications.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Names are often best left as they are.&#xD;&#xA;If there is no obvious way to Latinize it, my instinct is to do nothing.&#xD;&#xA;The authors of [Nuntii Latini](http://areena.yle.fi/1-1931339) have a good rule of thumb:&#xD;&#xA;When first introducing a new person, the name is used in its original form, and if there is a Latinized version, it will be used subsequently after the person has been introduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also depends on your need.&#xD;&#xA;If you need to decline the name, then you might want to do something.&#xD;&#xA;But even then, if you always use the word *doctor* with it, there's no need to decline the name at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for what it might be worth, [Vicipaedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Seuss) leaves the name in its original form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4817" RevisionGUID="71f278ec-ca9f-4638-bd6c-e291e4f126ff" CreationDate="2017-07-14T15:47:11.643" UserId="13" Text="I see that Sappho Campbell 15 has two sources: P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 1, and P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 3. The matching Edmonds is n. 37, which only keeps the last, more complete stanza, and thus does not include fr. 3. I really wish I had a scan of the papyrus to see why the nu in καυχάσαντο is uncertain, since that uncertainty is what a different reconstruction (that of Campbell) has to base itself on, and I'd like to know if that nu could be a iota and allow for Campbell's reading or if that reading should be doffed in favor of Edmonds'. I was, however, unable to find any scan of fragments in the P.Oxy. 1231 group online. That word is a real mystery: Grenfell-Hunt have it as καυχασα̣ν̣το, Campbell as καυχάσ[α]ιτο (suddenly, a lacuna, and a certain iota?!), and Edmonds as καυχάσαντο. Can anybody chime in on this or maybe get ahold of an image of the papyrus to maybe-possibly upload it here / send it to me? Not expecting to get ahold of it myself since, if it's not online, maybe the institution conserving the fragment has reason to not want it online (whatever those may be…) I also would really like to know why Edmonds has certain letters where the Grenfell-Hunt transcription has lacunas (as in, the papyrus didn't have those letters at all, they'd be out of the fragment's border), but I'd have to ask him, since I guess nobody else would know. So I'll concentrate on the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On what basis is fr. 3 put together with fr. 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grenfell-Hunt's note doesn't say a word about this, and I am at a loss for reasons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15911" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4817" RevisionGUID="71f278ec-ca9f-4638-bd6c-e291e4f126ff" CreationDate="2017-07-14T15:47:11.643" UserId="13" Text="About the Sappho fragment containing Doricha's name that was found first (Campbell 15, Edmonds 37)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15912" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4817" RevisionGUID="71f278ec-ca9f-4638-bd6c-e291e4f126ff" CreationDate="2017-07-14T15:47:11.643" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|text-corpus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="c2711656-a128-4603-85c2-a1ac34564515" CreationDate="2017-07-14T17:02:46.033" UserId="1820" Text="I want to engrave my ring with my wedding date in Latin. June 8th, 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you please help me? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15914" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="c2711656-a128-4603-85c2-a1ac34564515" CreationDate="2017-07-14T17:02:46.033" UserId="1820" Text="Can you translate this for me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15915" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="c2711656-a128-4603-85c2-a1ac34564515" CreationDate="2017-07-14T17:02:46.033" UserId="1820" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4819" RevisionGUID="0f17b8fd-228c-46a1-b536-30a754aa93c4" CreationDate="2017-07-14T17:42:10.077" UserId="645" Text="In classical mode this is rather complicated, but would be  abbreviated to **a.d. VI Id. Iun. A.D. MMX**, literally short for 'the sixth day before the Ides of June in the Year of the Lord 2010'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In more modern writings this might be more simply expressed **VIII. IUN. MMX**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take your pick!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="99475323-0e17-4dcd-9bd0-bba008838c83" CreationDate="2017-07-14T18:01:21.957" UserId="1459" Comment="improved, changed title." Text="I want to engrave my ring with my wedding date in Latin. The date is June 8th, 2010. Can you translate this for me?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15918" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="99475323-0e17-4dcd-9bd0-bba008838c83" CreationDate="2017-07-14T18:01:21.957" UserId="1459" Comment="improved, changed title." Text="How to translate date into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15919" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="99475323-0e17-4dcd-9bd0-bba008838c83" CreationDate="2017-07-14T18:01:21.957" Comment="Proposed by 1459 approved by -1 edit id of 194" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15920" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="884cca9c-71bf-419e-83fb-515b00c82cde" CreationDate="2017-07-14T18:01:21.957" UserId="9" Comment="improved, changed title." Text="How would this date be translated into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="1ce8b884-40e4-4c18-89c3-0830e1c673d4" CreationDate="2017-07-14T18:11:31.267" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="I want to engrave my ring with my wedding date in Latin. The date is June 8th, 2010. Can you translate this for me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15922" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="1ce8b884-40e4-4c18-89c3-0830e1c673d4" CreationDate="2017-07-14T18:11:31.267" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|english-to-latin-translation|time|calendarium|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2343" RevisionGUID="72531a82-7f3e-4ef4-aaeb-eefb3af1a35a" CreationDate="2017-07-14T18:20:55.740" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="In reading through Book VI of Vergil's Aeneid, I came across the following line:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**851** *tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this is translated as &quot;*you, Roman, remember to rule the people with authority*&quot;, where *memento* is a future imperative. Evidently, **future imperatives are used when the command is given for some point in the future**. This got me thinking about the situations in which future imperatives could be used.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It makes sense for affirmative future imperatives to exist, because you could give someone instructions to do something for a later date. However, it seems that negative future imperatives would not really be necessary  because you could just avoid giving any order or give a negative present imperative (I figure, chances are, if you don't want someone to do something today, you wouldn't want them to do it tomorrow).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Here are my questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Do negative future imperatives exist?&#xD;&#xA; 2. If so, what are some examples? (preferably from the Classical Latin works, but anything is fine)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Would this construction be favoured over using a negative subjunctive or *non* with a periphrastic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15924" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2343" RevisionGUID="72531a82-7f3e-4ef4-aaeb-eefb3af1a35a" CreationDate="2017-07-14T18:20:55.740" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|syntax|aeneis|vergilius|imperative|future-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4820" RevisionGUID="bbb76f2a-21d4-4629-a1ad-19294a5aed18" CreationDate="2017-07-14T21:24:55.627" UserId="39" Text="A partial answer, to address some general issues in your post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're serious about Sappho, you need to work with the following editions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Campbell 1982** (reprinted with corrections in 1990); **Lobel and Page 1963** and, of course, **Voigt 1971**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: Edmonds, this is what Campbell wrote in the Preface to the 1982 edition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;J. M. Edmonds’ three volumes of *Lyra Graeca* have given useful service since their appearance some fifty years ago, but the time has come to replace them. Much new material has been unearthed; **and Edmonds’ version of the papyrus texts was spoiled by his excessive eagerness to fill the gaps** (p. vii; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4820" RevisionGUID="d7fffa1d-0607-48f0-a217-94555b79637e" CreationDate="2017-07-14T21:51:00.120" UserId="39" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="A partial answer, to address some general issues in your post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're serious about Sappho, you need to work with the following editions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Campbell 1982** (reprinted with corrections in 1990); **Lobel and Page 1963** and, of course, **Voigt 1971**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, all the editions listed above have, in line 9,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**καυχάσ[α]ι̩το** (iota with a dot - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: Edmonds, this is what Campbell wrote in the Preface to the 1982 edition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;J. M. Edmonds’ three volumes of *Lyra Graeca* have given useful service since their appearance some fifty years ago, but the time has come to replace them. Much new material has been unearthed; **and Edmonds’ version of the papyrus texts was spoiled by his excessive eagerness to fill the gaps** (p. vii; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4820" RevisionGUID="16460b4f-1a8d-4968-a5da-139d2fcbf9aa" CreationDate="2017-07-14T21:57:23.960" UserId="39" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="A partial answer, to address some general issues in your post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're serious about Sappho, you need to work with the following editions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Campbell 1982** (reprinted with corrections in 1990); **Lobel and Page 1963** and, of course, **Voigt 1971**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, all the editions listed above have, in line 10,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**καυχάσ[α]ι̩το** (iota with a dot - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: Edmonds, this is what Campbell wrote in the Preface to the 1982 edition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;J. M. Edmonds’ three volumes of *Lyra Graeca* have given useful service since their appearance some fifty years ago, but the time has come to replace them. Much new material has been unearthed; **and Edmonds’ version of the papyrus texts was spoiled by his excessive eagerness to fill the gaps** (p. vii; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4820" RevisionGUID="90c8f654-b35b-4a0c-aa9c-4c783e2911b1" CreationDate="2017-07-14T22:42:53.847" UserId="39" Comment="added 321 characters in body" Text="A partial answer, to address some general issues in your post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're serious about Sappho, you need to work with the following editions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Campbell 1982** (reprinted with corrections in 1990); **Lobel and Page 1963** and, of course, **Voigt 1971**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, all the editions listed above have, in line 10,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**&quot;καυχάϲ[α]ιτ̣ο&quot;** (iota with a dot - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. [Obbink 2016a][1] - this is one of the leading papyrologists of our time [Dirk Obbink][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: Edmonds, this is what Campbell wrote in the Preface to the 1982 edition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;J. M. Edmonds’ three volumes of *Lyra Graeca* have given useful service since their appearance some fifty years ago, but the time has come to replace them. Much new material has been unearthed; **and Edmonds’ version of the papyrus texts was spoiled by his excessive eagerness to fill the gaps** (p. vii; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789004314832_003&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.classics.ox.ac.uk/dirkobbink.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vQlC5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4820" RevisionGUID="b8d47893-b9c7-4ce7-98cf-2a1ffbf9742c" CreationDate="2017-07-14T22:59:33.003" UserId="39" Comment="added 321 characters in body" Text="If you're serious about Sappho, you need to work with the following editions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Campbell 1982** (reprinted with corrections in 1990); **Lobel and Page 1963** and, of course, **Voigt 1971**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, all the editions listed above have, in line 10,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**&quot;καυχάϲ[α]ιτ̣ο&quot;** (iota with a dot - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. [Obbink 2016a][1] - this is one of the leading papyrologists of our time, [Dirk Obbink][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Working with papyri and their scans alone is **not** enough in the 21st century - a serious scholar must study what is known as &quot;critical apparatus.&quot; For example, in Voigt 1971 we see the following (and your answer is there btw!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: Edmonds, this is what Campbell wrote in the Preface to the 1982 edition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;J. M. Edmonds’ three volumes of *Lyra Graeca* have given useful service since their appearance some fifty years ago, but the time has come to replace them. Much new material has been unearthed; **and Edmonds’ version of the papyrus texts was spoiled by his excessive eagerness to fill the gaps** (p. vii; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789004314832_003&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.classics.ox.ac.uk/dirkobbink.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vQlC5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cbzxr.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4820" RevisionGUID="1942433a-d9f0-4999-9f95-f4532d104a57" CreationDate="2017-07-14T23:14:13.860" UserId="39" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="If you're serious about Sappho, you need to work with the following editions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Campbell 1982** (reprinted with corrections in 1990); **Lobel and Page 1963** and, of course, **Voigt 1971**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, all the editions listed above have, in line 10,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**&quot;καυχάϲ[α]ιτ̣ο&quot;** (iota with a dot - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. [Obbink 2016a][1] - this is one of the leading papyrologists of our time, [Dirk Obbink][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Working with papyri and their scans alone is **not** enough in the 21st century - a serious scholar must study what is known as &quot;critical apparatus.&quot; For example, in Voigt 1971 we see the following (and your answer is there btw!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Edmonds][5] passed away in 1958, so we can't ask him; that being said, this is what Campbell wrote in the Preface to the 1982 edition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;J. M. Edmonds’ three volumes of *Lyra Graeca* have given useful service since their appearance some fifty years ago, but the time has come to replace them. Much new material has been unearthed; **and Edmonds’ version of the papyrus texts was spoiled by his excessive eagerness to fill the gaps** (p. vii; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789004314832_003&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.classics.ox.ac.uk/dirkobbink.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vQlC5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cbzxr.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maxwell_Edmonds" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4821" RevisionGUID="05ddeca2-2ec8-4317-9a6a-a1099b5aa108" CreationDate="2017-07-15T00:38:39.020" UserId="1821" Text="What is the Latin for the above phrase?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For background - I am a small-town local politician and have been campaigning for some time to abolish the small salary, or &quot;allowance&quot;, which is paid to members of the council I sit on.  The council has little money, and we all have paid day jobs in the local community, mostly as professional people or successful business owners.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to begin ending each of my speeches to the council with the above phrase, as a reference to Cato the Elder and &quot;Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam&quot;.  I would be grateful for a correct Latin translation.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help would be appreciated. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15932" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4821" RevisionGUID="05ddeca2-2ec8-4317-9a6a-a1099b5aa108" CreationDate="2017-07-15T00:38:39.020" UserId="1821" Text="&quot;Furthermore, I believe our salary should be abolished&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15933" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4821" RevisionGUID="05ddeca2-2ec8-4317-9a6a-a1099b5aa108" CreationDate="2017-07-15T00:38:39.020" UserId="1821" Text="|classical-latin|cato|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4820" RevisionGUID="f784468d-5ab6-42e2-a570-e318529e2a8d" CreationDate="2017-07-15T02:05:51.160" UserId="39" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="If you're serious about Sappho, you need to work with the following editions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Campbell 1982** (reprinted with corrections in 1990); **Lobel and Page 1963** and, of course, **Voigt 1971**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, all the editions listed above have, in line 10,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**&quot;καυχάϲ[α]ιτ̣ο&quot;** (iota with a dot - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. [Obbink 2016a][1] - this is one of the leading papyrologists of our time, [Dirk Obbink][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Working with papyri and their scans alone is **not** enough in the 21st century - a serious scholar must study what is known as &quot;critical apparatus.&quot; For example, in Voigt 1971 we can see the following (and your answer is there, by the way!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Edmonds][5] passed away in 1958, so we can't ask him; that being said, this is what Campbell wrote in the Preface to the 1982 edition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;J. M. Edmonds’ three volumes of *Lyra Graeca* have given useful service since their appearance some fifty years ago, but the time has come to replace them. Much new material has been unearthed; **and Edmonds’ version of the papyrus texts was spoiled by his excessive eagerness to fill the gaps** (p. vii; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789004314832_003&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.classics.ox.ac.uk/dirkobbink.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vQlC5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cbzxr.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maxwell_Edmonds" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4823" RevisionGUID="01ec4a00-9bbd-4fca-9b5f-0723798e43d3" CreationDate="2017-07-15T04:24:59.497" UserId="427" Text="In imitation of Cato's famous saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ceterum censeo salaria nostra abroganda esse.* 'Furthermore, I think that our salaries should be abolished.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4786" RevisionGUID="59082918-43d4-4012-a40e-bfa1c29d36de" CreationDate="2017-07-15T04:56:40.373" UserId="39" Comment="added 221 characters in body" Text="The paradigm of fio is quite unusual - see its present indicative partial paradigm (*fīmus* and *fītis* are pretty much regular; from my undergrad textbook, Sobolevskii 1948):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In Classical Latin fīo, fīunt, fīam etc. 'become' have been analogically restored&quot; (p. 126).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems this explanation goes back to [Sommer 1902][2] (at least, that's what Leumman 1977 mentions, a later edition though). Here's what Sommer suggested (p. 589):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So, [Sommer][2] hypothesized that **ī was &quot;restored&quot; in the thematic forms with ī+V so that the paradigm of the verb would have fewer alternating forms**. This is known as [analogical restoration][4] in historical linguistics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. de Vaan &quot;*fī - would develop phonetically in the 23s. and 12 p.pr. forms, and then spread to the other forms of the paradigm.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sihler adds**, cautiously though, that it could have happened because of a very special status of **fio - &quot;the only verb in -io with tonic accent on the i&quot;** (p. 546).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we won't find &quot;hard evidence&quot; - we are talking about Old Latin here, after all. But another source of indirect evidence comes from Plautus and Terence, where we can find both fĭerī (more common) and fīerī, fĭeret (more common) and fīeret etc. See Sihler (p. 546) for some interesting thoughts on this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss also mentions, in footnote 10 on the same page, a very interesting observation made by Jan Safarewicz (Safarewicz 1974): ī tends to be used in those word-forms of fio when the following syllable is heavy. Tronskii 1960 argues that ī &gt; ĭ occurred only before -er-. That being said, Leumann 1977 still writes, &quot;Die Verteilung von fī- und fi- ist unregelmäßig&quot; (p. 530).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xqNjn.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/handbuchderlate00sommgoog&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/se3EB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=EHeGzQ8wuLQC&amp;lpg=PA20&amp;ots=VkGqn8xbzL&amp;dq=analogical%20restoration&amp;pg=PA20#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4824" RevisionGUID="317cbde8-7560-4ab1-8cae-473fdd4fe3a1" CreationDate="2017-07-15T07:01:34.473" UserId="75" Text="After brief research, it appears that Latin had no equivalent of ἐπιχαιρεκακία (i.e., a single word capturing the essence of the Greek word). Rather, Thomas Aquinas (for one) translated the word ἐπιχαιρεκακία into Latin as *gaudium de malo*,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; which in English translates as “joy from evil.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aquinas, Thomas. [*Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics.*][1] Trans. Litzinger, C. I. Chicago: Regnery, 1964.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Book II, Lecture 7, Chapter 6, D’, 3., a., §329&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Ethics.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4824" RevisionGUID="4ee2e153-b4a7-4225-ab32-c8f2ae317432" CreationDate="2017-07-15T07:12:45.127" UserId="75" Comment="added 578 characters in body" Text="After brief research, it appears that Latin had no equivalent of ἐπιχαιρεκακία (i.e., a single word capturing the essence of the Greek word). Rather, Thomas Aquinas (for one) translated the word ἐπιχαιρεκακία into Latin as *gaudium de malo*,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; which in English translates as “joy from evil (misfortune).”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Dictionarium Latino-Græcum*, a Latin-Greek dictionary composed by Charles Estienne in 1554, Estienne defined ἐπιχαιρεκακία as *gaudium ex alienis malis acceptum*—“joy received from another’s misfortune.”&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aquinas, Thomas. [*Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics.*][1] Trans. Litzinger, C. I. Chicago: Regnery, 1964.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Estienne, Charles. [*Dictionarium Latino-Græcum.*][2] Lutetia: Typographum Regium, 1554.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Book II, Lecture 7, Chapter 6, D’, 3., a., §329&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; p. [337][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Ethics.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=fjoVjZ0gB8MC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=fjoVjZ0gB8MC&amp;dq=%E1%BC%90%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%87%CE%B1%CE%B9%CF%81%CE%B5%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%BA%CE%AF%CE%B1%20gaudium&amp;pg=PA337#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=true" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4825" RevisionGUID="a8532d9c-a721-4189-b8ad-cc5a3eb636eb" CreationDate="2017-07-15T08:50:16.573" UserId="1692" Text="[My last question][1] received a comment from [Joonas Ilmavirta][2] that just made me think about a fantastical, if in any way true, possibility:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I would add that Greek tends to favor compound words far more than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin, so it is not surprising that an idiomatic Latin expression&#xD;&#xA;&gt; takes up several words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is perhaps no coincidence that German, like Ancient Greek, having this linguistic feature in common, the ability of making complex words representing complex ideas and concepts out of &quot;simpler&quot; and &quot;more [lexically] elemental&quot; words, have both produced unparalleled philosophies in notional sophistication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am obviously not asking whether or not this feature of their vocabulary has had a role in the abundance of philosophically intricate texts written in these languages; I am rather asking whether or not this apparent coincidence has ever been studied from a linguistic perspective, confirming or altogether refuting any link between this particular feature of both Ancient Greek and German and the philosophy produced in them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4812/about-aristotelian-%E1%BC%90%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%87%CE%B1%CE%B9%CF%81%CE%B5%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%BA%CE%AF%CE%B1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/79/joonas-ilmavirta" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15942" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4825" RevisionGUID="a8532d9c-a721-4189-b8ad-cc5a3eb636eb" CreationDate="2017-07-15T08:50:16.573" UserId="1692" Text="Has linguistic agglutination played any provable role in Ancient Greek's conduciveness to complex philosophical ideas and concepts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15943" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4825" RevisionGUID="a8532d9c-a721-4189-b8ad-cc5a3eb636eb" CreationDate="2017-07-15T08:50:16.573" UserId="1692" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4826" RevisionGUID="3da448fc-3578-4944-8164-2beb11f477f5" CreationDate="2017-07-15T11:26:37.947" UserId="1823" Text="&lt;br&gt; I came across the usage of subjunctive the other day. I read that if the main verb is in the present, future or perfect with have, the subjunctive is in the present whereas if the main verb is in the past, the subjunctive is in the future. &lt;br&gt;Is it possible for the subjunctive to be in the future?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15945" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4826" RevisionGUID="3da448fc-3578-4944-8164-2beb11f477f5" CreationDate="2017-07-15T11:26:37.947" UserId="1823" Text="The use of ut/ne in the future" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15946" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4826" RevisionGUID="3da448fc-3578-4944-8164-2beb11f477f5" CreationDate="2017-07-15T11:26:37.947" UserId="1823" Text="|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4826" RevisionGUID="acb93e76-941d-4b05-a09d-627424b25961" CreationDate="2017-07-15T11:44:40.220" UserId="1823" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&lt;br&gt; I came across the usage of subjunctive the other day. I read that if the main verb is in the present, future or perfect with have, the subjunctive is in the present whereas if the main verb is in the past, the subjunctive is in the imperfect. &lt;br&gt;Is it possible for the subjunctive to be in the future?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12" RevisionGUID="54ee9482-6b70-4e05-b698-bcdaee4fbecf" CreationDate="2017-07-15T12:01:16.783" UserId="1692" Comment="for the; general editing" Text="From the online etymology dictionary (boldface mine):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[spine (n.)](http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=spine)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; c. 1400, &quot;backbone,&quot; later &quot;thornlike part&quot; (early 15c.),      &#xD;&#xA;from Old French *espine* &quot;thorn, prickle; backbone, spine&quot; (12c., Modern French *épine*),      &#xD;&#xA;from Latin *spina* &quot;**backbone**,&quot; originally &quot;**thorn, prickle**&quot; (figuratively, in plural, &quot;difficulties, perplexities&quot;),      &#xD;&#xA;from PIE _*spe-ina-_, from root _*spei-_  &quot;sharp point&quot; (see [*spike*](http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=spike&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.1)).     &#xD;&#xA;Meaning &quot;the back of a book&quot; is first attested 1922.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not comprehend the underlying semantic notions for the entitled question; the human spine does not resemble or feel like a “thorn, prickle”. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15950" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12" RevisionGUID="54ee9482-6b70-4e05-b698-bcdaee4fbecf" CreationDate="2017-07-15T12:01:16.783" UserId="1692" Comment="for the; general editing" Text="How did &quot;spina&quot; shift semantically from &quot;thorn&quot; or &quot;prickle&quot; to &quot;backbone&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15951" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12" RevisionGUID="54ee9482-6b70-4e05-b698-bcdaee4fbecf" CreationDate="2017-07-15T12:01:16.783" Comment="Proposed by 1692 approved by 79 edit id of 195" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="190" RevisionGUID="6c684ed7-8546-47d8-9ee3-d90fe3fd4d04" CreationDate="2017-07-15T12:02:07.520" UserId="1692" Comment="its; general editing" Text="I don't know about that late period, but the two dictionaries available on Perseus project give this as one definition for [suffragium][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B. In gen., a decision, judgment, opinion: “rhetor suffragio tuo et compotorum tuorum,” Cic. Phil. 2, 17, 42: “(apes) concorde suffragio deterrimos (reges) necant,” Plin. 11, 16, 16, § 51.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. In partic., a favorable decision, assent, approbation, applause (post-Aug.): “ventosae plebis suffragia,” Hor. Ep. 1, 19, 37; 2, 2, 103: “voto et suffragio prosequor,” Plin. Ep. 10, 18, 1; Dig. 24, 1, 24 al.: “Dentatus vel numerosissima suffragia habet,” i.e. very many authors who award to him the palm of bravery, Plin. 7, 28, 29, § 101.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the sense of *suffragio* here is &quot;by its favorable judgement,&quot; which is made more idiomatic into English as &quot;seal of approval.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=suffragio&amp;la=la&amp;can=suffragio0&amp;prior=pares#Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=suffragium-contents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15953" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="190" RevisionGUID="6c684ed7-8546-47d8-9ee3-d90fe3fd4d04" CreationDate="2017-07-15T12:02:07.520" Comment="Proposed by 1692 approved by -1 edit id of 197" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="190" RevisionGUID="26d66ffd-80af-4241-8e9f-7af475fd70e8" CreationDate="2017-07-15T12:02:07.520" UserId="79" Comment="Slightly changed a suggested edit." Text="I don't know about that late a period, but the two dictionaries available on Perseus project give this as one definition for [suffragium][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B. In gen., a decision, judgment, opinion: “rhetor suffragio tuo et compotorum tuorum,” Cic. Phil. 2, 17, 42: “(apes) concorde suffragio deterrimos (reges) necant,” Plin. 11, 16, 16, § 51.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. In partic., a favorable decision, assent, approbation, applause (post-Aug.): “ventosae plebis suffragia,” Hor. Ep. 1, 19, 37; 2, 2, 103: “voto et suffragio prosequor,” Plin. Ep. 10, 18, 1; Dig. 24, 1, 24 al.: “Dentatus vel numerosissima suffragia habet,” i.e. very many authors who award to him the palm of bravery, Plin. 7, 28, 29, § 101.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the sense of *suffragio* here is &quot;by its favorable judgement,&quot; which is made more idiomatic into English as &quot;seal of approval.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=suffragio&amp;la=la&amp;can=suffragio0&amp;prior=pares#Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=suffragium-contents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4826" RevisionGUID="d080eb5f-7292-45cf-9825-af843a133dd4" CreationDate="2017-07-15T12:04:49.197" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I came across the usage of subjunctive the other day. I read that if the main verb is in the present, future or perfect with have, the subjunctive is in the present whereas if the main verb is in the past, the subjunctive is in the imperfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible for the subjunctive to be in the future?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15956" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4826" RevisionGUID="d080eb5f-7292-45cf-9825-af843a133dd4" CreationDate="2017-07-15T12:04:49.197" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="The use of subjunctive in the future" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15957" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4826" RevisionGUID="d080eb5f-7292-45cf-9825-af843a133dd4" CreationDate="2017-07-15T12:04:49.197" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|grammar-choice|syntax|conjunctive|tenses|future-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4827" RevisionGUID="c898139d-f7f4-4407-aea7-613a8e66a7e1" CreationDate="2017-07-15T12:20:56.527" UserId="79" Text="### Tenses of the subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subjunctive is also known as conjunctive &amp;mdash; these two words are synonymous in Latin grammar.&#xD;&#xA;The subjunctive mood has four tenses: present (*faciam*), imperfect (*facerem*), perfect (*fecerim*) and pluperfect (*fecissem*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The indicative mood has two more tenses: future and future perfect.&#xD;&#xA;While the subjunctive does not have these tenses, there is a replacement, known as periphrastic forms.&#xD;&#xA;I suggest taking a look at [this older question regarding the future perfect subjunctive](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/393/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to answer your question, there are no future subjunctive forms in Latin, but there is a decent replacement.&#xD;&#xA;In the passive voice you have to use the present tense instead &amp;mdash; or the perfect tense to replace future perfect.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if the active periphrastic conjugation is a must in subordinate clauses when possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### When to use different tenses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many subordinate clauses the tense of the subjunctive predicate depends on two things: when does the &quot;subordinate action&quot; take place with respect to the &quot;governing action&quot;, and what is the tense of the governing clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the governing clause refers to present or future things, then the predicate of the subordinate clause with subjunctive mood is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- in present tense if it refers to something simultaneous to the governing clause,&#xD;&#xA;- in the perfect tense if it refers to something prior to the governing clause, and&#xD;&#xA;- in the present tense (passive) or periphrastic conjugation (active) if it refers to something later than the governing clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, if the governing clause refers to the past, the tense of the subjunctive is imperfect/pluperfect/imperfect in the order of the above list." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2276" RevisionGUID="c216a893-26f4-40ff-92bf-64763b9ed73d" CreationDate="2017-07-15T13:43:10.143" UserId="79" Comment="Small edits." Text="I have the following sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quis lata in silva habitat? Diana, lunae clarae pulchra dea, lata in silva habitat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I initially thought these words were emphatic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Lata*, the adjective, because it's separated from the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *lunae clarae*, because it's a genitive that is put before *pulchra dea*&#xD;&#xA;* *pulchra*, because it's an adjective that is put before the noun.&#xD;&#xA;* Finally, the second *lata* for the same reason as the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to my key: the first *lata* is not emphasized and neither is *lunae clarae*, but the rest is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there something I'm missing here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My exercise is asking to show which parts of the sentence are considered to be emphatic, as in that the normal word order of the Latin sentence is changed to create a stylistic effect. Not sure if it makes sense said this way. For example, we usually put the adjective after the noun but if we wanted to put emphasis on the adjective we would switch it before the noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15960" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2276" RevisionGUID="c216a893-26f4-40ff-92bf-64763b9ed73d" CreationDate="2017-07-15T13:43:10.143" UserId="79" Comment="Small edits." Text="Showing which words are emphatic in a Latin sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15961" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2276" RevisionGUID="c216a893-26f4-40ff-92bf-64763b9ed73d" CreationDate="2017-07-15T13:43:10.143" UserId="79" Comment="Small edits." Text="|word-order|emphasis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4829" RevisionGUID="41828ce7-f73a-4524-aa47-a92a95530de0" CreationDate="2017-07-15T13:47:20.137" UserId="1133" Text="The particular sense of *medium* I have in mind is the one used in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Water is a medium of sound propagation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But propagation implies a multiplicity of places, or at least two of them, so that if something propagates then it goes from place A to B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But suppose a thing simply exists in another.  For example sound may now exist in a body of water (having already propagated to all places in it).  In which case, we might say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This body of water is a medium of sound's existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If *medium* simply requires some sort of movement, maybe:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This body of water is a substratum of sound's existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally I am looking for a word (in Latin and Greek) that means a thing in which another may either propagate or exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- A crowd is a medium of hysteria's propagation.&#xD;&#xA;- A human breast is a medium (or substratum) of love's existence.&#xD;&#xA;- A (financial) account is a medium of (financial) delinquency's existence.&#xD;&#xA;- A network of accounts is a medium of delinquency's propagation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15966" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4829" RevisionGUID="41828ce7-f73a-4524-aa47-a92a95530de0" CreationDate="2017-07-15T13:47:20.137" UserId="1133" Text="What is Latin (and Greek) for &quot;medium&quot;? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15967" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4829" RevisionGUID="41828ce7-f73a-4524-aa47-a92a95530de0" CreationDate="2017-07-15T13:47:20.137" UserId="1133" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4830" RevisionGUID="398a3507-5d4a-4622-9f56-64f0c56960e9" CreationDate="2017-07-15T13:52:54.660" UserId="1823" Text="That's a very interesting question. I would translate 'medium' as 'reason' or 'cause' with the latin caussa, caussae&#xD;&#xA;or causa, causae. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2324" RevisionGUID="84e9c267-9e2e-4bb3-96d1-0008bda6ade9" CreationDate="2017-07-15T13:57:32.190" UserId="79" Comment="added 437 characters in body" Text="I ended up studying this poem last year:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ybQ56.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a congratulatory poem in a dissertation at the Academy of Turku from 1759.&#xD;&#xA;It is on page 4 of the [full dissertation](http://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/110144).&#xD;&#xA;I also [published](http://users.jyu.fi/~jojapeil/pub/bridges-lexell.pdf) an English translation of the poem in hexameter, together with an analysis (with J. Stén).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question concerns orthographic details.&#xD;&#xA;There are two versions of the letter S, a normal one (&quot;short S&quot;) used in word-final positions and a &quot;long S&quot; used in other positions.&#xD;&#xA;I do not know if the names &quot;short&quot; and &quot;long&quot; are standard, but I hope the intention is clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;(It turns out &quot;long S&quot; is the standard name, and the normal short one is &quot;round&quot; or &quot;terminal&quot;; see comments.)&#xD;&#xA;This rule seems pretty obvious, and it parallels the Greek use of two sigmas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are two points that I want clarification for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. On the first line: *Cum modo di**S**jectis&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;2. On line 19: *LEXELL a**SS**iduos inter&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is the S in *disjectis* short?&#xD;&#xA;I assume it is because it is the final letter of the prefix *dis-*, and therefore considered word-final.&#xD;&#xA;Reading through pages 2 and 3 reveals that SJ in Swedish is always spelled with long S.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the ligature SJ is avoided in Latin to emphasize that it is pronounced so differently in Swedish.&#xD;&#xA;This would also fit the observation that the ligature SI with long S is not avoided in the poem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that prefixes should end in a short S, the first S in *assiduos* should be short.&#xD;&#xA;Why is it long?&#xD;&#xA;Is it because of &quot;attraction&quot; by the adjacent S which starts *siduos* is therefore long?&#xD;&#xA;Or is *as-* not realized to be a prefix?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side question:&#xD;&#xA;Is this consistent with typographical conventions of the era?&#xD;&#xA;Are these two points exceptional, or is this something to be expected in general?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize that the question may be more about typographical conventions than Latin in itself, but I hope this is still a good place to ask." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4831" RevisionGUID="ceb93374-9afd-4158-8ddd-634dec8649c3" CreationDate="2017-07-15T14:38:39.843" UserId="324" Text="The obvious answer is “medium”. In classical Latin it means “middle, intermediary” etc., and in humanistic Latin (since the 15th century) it is also used for the “intervening substance” in its philosophical sense, in effect replacing “substantia”, the Latin equivalent of Aristotle’s ὑποκείμενον. In your sentences I think that “medium” would do very well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4831" RevisionGUID="8e6d3777-0978-4c14-849d-99658c7a1dd2" CreationDate="2017-07-15T14:44:57.243" UserId="324" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="The obvious answer is “medium”. In classical Latin it means “middle, intermediary” etc., and in humanistic Latin (since the 15th century) it is also used for the “intervening substance” in its philosophical sense, in effect as a synonym for “substantia”, the Latin equivalent of Aristotle’s ὑποκείμενον. In your sentences I think that “medium” would do very well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4832" RevisionGUID="b1d9208c-0a67-40f0-8e5a-e72516a9faef" CreationDate="2017-07-15T16:56:11.990" UserId="1824" Text="The Greek word for this is «Μέσο».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. water acts as a medium of sound propagation = «το νερό δρα ως μέσο μεταφοράς ήχου».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say &quot;medium&quot; here is best described as &quot;means of / by / through&quot;, i.e. water is a means by / through which sound can be propagated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="a495ea07-8f6e-4be5-b44e-7a2df4eb6068" CreationDate="2017-07-15T18:33:49.460" UserId="79" Text="There is a rule which I have learned to know and love by the name *consecutio temporum*, and it governs the tense of a conjunctive predicate in (many) subordinate clauses.&#xD;&#xA;All three Latin Grammars I have (Pekkanen, Streng, Pakarinen) indicate that if the governing clause is in the present tense and the subordinate clause refers to later events in active voice, one must use the active periphrastic conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nescio an saltaturus sis.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't know if you are going to dance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it really necessary to use the periphrastic conjugation in such cases in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible to substitute it with a present conjunctive (*saltaturus sis* &gt; *saltes*)?&#xD;&#xA;In particular, are there examples in known classical literature where the subordinate clause clearly refers to the (somewhat distant) future but a present active conjunctive form is used?&#xD;&#xA;Or are there reliable sources stating that this is indeed a hard rule?&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that there was a misunderstanding in the first Finnish Latin grammar and it was perpetuated through newer versions, so I want to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that the present tense can be used for things in the immediate future, so cases where one would clearly use the future tense in indicative are more convincing.&#xD;&#xA;Also, it is important that it's active, since the passive periphrastic conjugation is not used this way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15975" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="a495ea07-8f6e-4be5-b44e-7a2df4eb6068" CreationDate="2017-07-15T18:33:49.460" UserId="79" Text="Is active periphrastic conjugation compulsory in consecutio temporum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15976" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="a495ea07-8f6e-4be5-b44e-7a2df4eb6068" CreationDate="2017-07-15T18:33:49.460" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|subordinate-clause|tenses|consecutio-temporum|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4827" RevisionGUID="f2b81ec3-1caa-46a4-ad55-bcf7699eac37" CreationDate="2017-07-15T20:29:11.547" UserId="79" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="### Tenses of the subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subjunctive is also known as conjunctive &amp;mdash; these two words are synonymous in Latin grammar.&#xD;&#xA;The subjunctive mood has four tenses: present (*faciam*), imperfect (*facerem*), perfect (*fecerim*) and pluperfect (*fecissem*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The indicative mood has two more tenses: future and future perfect.&#xD;&#xA;While the subjunctive does not have these tenses, there is a replacement, known as periphrastic forms.&#xD;&#xA;I suggest taking a look at [this older question regarding the future perfect subjunctive](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/393/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to answer your question, there are no future subjunctive forms in Latin, but there is a decent replacement.&#xD;&#xA;In the passive voice you have to use the present tense instead &amp;mdash; or the perfect tense to replace future perfect.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if the active periphrastic conjugation is a must in subordinate clauses when possible.&#xD;&#xA;(I asked [a separate question about this point](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4833/79).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### When to use different tenses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many subordinate clauses the tense of the subjunctive predicate depends on two things: when does the &quot;subordinate action&quot; take place with respect to the &quot;governing action&quot;, and what is the tense of the governing clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the governing clause refers to present or future things, then the predicate of the subordinate clause with subjunctive mood is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- in present tense if it refers to something simultaneous to the governing clause,&#xD;&#xA;- in the perfect tense if it refers to something prior to the governing clause, and&#xD;&#xA;- in the present tense (passive) or periphrastic conjugation (active) if it refers to something later than the governing clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, if the governing clause refers to the past, the tense of the subjunctive is imperfect/pluperfect/imperfect in the order of the above list." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4834" RevisionGUID="d6a30a0a-57da-42b2-b27d-b72b4b117092" CreationDate="2017-07-15T23:20:48.513" UserId="406" Text="In music, the Italian term *morendo* means &quot;fading or dying away&quot;. This fairly transparently comes from *morior*. But *morior* to me suggests the moment of death, rather than a gradual decline, and is also a fairly morbid word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I wanted an adjective (or participle) for &quot;fading away&quot; or &quot;in decline&quot;, are there better alternatives to *moriēns*? I'm interested in both Greek and Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15979" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4834" RevisionGUID="d6a30a0a-57da-42b2-b27d-b72b4b117092" CreationDate="2017-07-15T23:20:48.513" UserId="406" Text="How would one say &quot;fading away&quot; in Greek and Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15980" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4834" RevisionGUID="d6a30a0a-57da-42b2-b27d-b72b4b117092" CreationDate="2017-07-15T23:20:48.513" UserId="406" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|greek|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4835" RevisionGUID="48eced1d-9abd-4499-ae27-ab7782ac7e5a" CreationDate="2017-07-16T06:48:49.210" UserId="1133" Text="I got this word [κεῖμαι][1] while trying to learn [ὑποκείμενον][2], found in [this answer][3] to another question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the deponent verbs I've run across so far had an ο for theme vowel, as in:  βούλομαι or φαίνομαι.  Contraction resulted in an ω (as in θεᾰ́ομαι to θεῶμαι) or ου (ἡγέομαι to ἡγοῦμαι).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I have not seen ο &quot;losing&quot; to another vowel (e.g. α or ε) in a combination and disappearing.  For example, α + ο = ω, ε + ο = ου, and ο + ε = ου.  To wit, ο survives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought of two possibilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. κεῖμαι never had an ο.  For example, it comes from κέεμαι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. κεῖμαι came by a strange sort of contraction from κέομαι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please tell me what is going on, and if possible provide other verbs that behave like κεῖμαι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%B5%E1%BF%96%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9#Ancient_Greek&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BD%91%CF%80%CE%BF%CE%BA%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BC%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%BD&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4831/1133" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15982" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4835" RevisionGUID="48eced1d-9abd-4499-ae27-ab7782ac7e5a" CreationDate="2017-07-16T06:48:49.210" UserId="1133" Text="What is the uncontracted form of &quot;κεῖμαι&quot;? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15983" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4835" RevisionGUID="48eced1d-9abd-4499-ae27-ab7782ac7e5a" CreationDate="2017-07-16T06:48:49.210" UserId="1133" Text="|verbs|irregular-words|deponent-verbs|contraction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4835" RevisionGUID="a3fea7fb-b2c7-4dcf-9361-765cdc3b4586" CreationDate="2017-07-16T06:56:55.277" UserId="1133" Comment="added 438 characters in body" Text="I got this word [κεῖμαι][1] while trying to learn [ὑποκείμενον][2], found in [this answer][3] to another question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the deponent verbs I've run across so far had an ο for theme vowel, as in:  βούλομαι or φαίνομαι.  Contraction resulted in an ω (as in θεᾰ́ομαι to θεῶμαι) or ου (ἡγέομαι to ἡγοῦμαι).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I have not seen ο &quot;losing&quot; to another vowel (e.g. α or ε) in a combination and disappearing.  For example, α + ο = ω, ε + ο = ου, and ο + ε = ου.  To wit, ο survives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought of two possibilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. κεῖμαι never had an ο.  For example, it comes from κέεμαι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. κεῖμαι came by a strange sort of contraction from κέομαι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please tell me what is going on, and if possible provide other verbs that behave like κεῖμαι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe a similar question arises in respect of [ὑποκείμενος][4].  So far I have only seen -μενος with α or ο for a theme vowel (as in πεμψάμενος or πεμπόμενος) or without a theme vowel (as in πεπεμμένος).  Contraction might give me ου (as in οἰκούμενος).  But how do we end up with ει in ὑποκείμενος?  Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%B5%E1%BF%96%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9#Ancient_Greek&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BD%91%CF%80%CE%BF%CE%BA%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BC%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%BD&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4831/1133&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BD%91%CF%80%CE%BF%CE%BA%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BC%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%82#Ancient_Greek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15985" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4835" RevisionGUID="a3fea7fb-b2c7-4dcf-9361-765cdc3b4586" CreationDate="2017-07-16T06:56:55.277" UserId="1133" Comment="added 438 characters in body" Text="|verbs|participle|irregular-words|deponent-verbs|contraction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4836" RevisionGUID="958e9e7c-f33a-43a2-84b9-389daa4ada1a" CreationDate="2017-07-16T09:13:06.020" UserId="985" Text="The verb κεῖμαι isn't a contract verb like θεάομαι or ἡγέομαι (or a 'regular' verb like λύω); it's an athematic verb like τίθημι, δίδωμι, or ἵημι, but deponent. So, the circumflex isn't showing contraction as it is in θεῶμαι and ἡγοῦμαι; it's used because the the accent is on the penult, the penult is a long syllable, and the ultima is short, per the regular rules for accent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4836" RevisionGUID="195cc198-798a-4e73-baf7-190610cfe75d" CreationDate="2017-07-16T09:18:57.257" UserId="985" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The verb κεῖμαι isn't a contract verb like θεάομαι or ἡγέομαι (or a 'regular' verb like λύω); it's an athematic verb like τίθημι, δίδωμι, or ἵημι, but deponent. So, the circumflex isn't showing contraction as it is in θεῶμαι and ἡγοῦμαι; it's used simply because the accent is on the penult, the penult is a long syllable, and the ultima is short, per the regular rules for accent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4837" RevisionGUID="e56b83c5-c0df-4168-b782-f825b4d47c13" CreationDate="2017-07-16T11:12:18.903" UserId="1692" Text="The etymology of **euthanasia** is pretty straightforward, as [this site][1] shows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Early 17th century (in the sense ‘easy death’): from Greek, from eu&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘well’ + thanatos ‘death’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is less straightforward, though, is how come **-thanasia** was formed off the Greek noun **thanatos**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, **-thanasia** should have been the end result if the Greek word for &quot;death&quot; would have been `*thanasos: &lt; *thanas- + -ia`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, based on the same model, **euthanasia** should really have been `*euthanatia: *thanatos: &lt; *thanat- + -ia`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/euthanasia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15989" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4837" RevisionGUID="e56b83c5-c0df-4168-b782-f825b4d47c13" CreationDate="2017-07-16T11:12:18.903" UserId="1692" Text="About the formation of the word &quot;euthanasia&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15990" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4837" RevisionGUID="e56b83c5-c0df-4168-b782-f825b4d47c13" CreationDate="2017-07-16T11:12:18.903" UserId="1692" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4837" RevisionGUID="6c604330-bf74-4625-bce7-961a26fd453b" CreationDate="2017-07-16T11:28:30.243" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags and reformatted slightly." Text="The etymology of **euthanasia** is pretty straightforward, as [this site][1] shows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Early 17th century (in the sense ‘easy death’): from Greek, from *eu*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘well’ + *thanatos* ‘death’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is less straightforward, though, is how come **-thanasia** was formed off the Greek noun **thanatos**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, **-thanasia** should have been the end result if the Greek word for &quot;death&quot; would have been `*thanasos: &lt; *thanas- + -ia`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, based on the same model, **euthanasia** should really have been `*euthanatia: *thanatos: &lt; *thanat- + -ia`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/euthanasia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15992" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4837" RevisionGUID="6c604330-bf74-4625-bce7-961a26fd453b" CreationDate="2017-07-16T11:28:30.243" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags and reformatted slightly." Text="|etymology|greek|derivation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4838" RevisionGUID="fa2fcd81-2538-4fcf-86bd-f02c30703c20" CreationDate="2017-07-16T14:20:31.383" UserId="13" Text="Sappho Bergk 30, not present (AFAICT from searching) in Campbell or Edmonds, is from Athenaeus's Deipnosophistae, book XIII. Here is the text with some of Athenaeus's words around it, as reported by Greek Wikisource:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;καὶ τὴν Σαπφὼ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ταῦτά φησιν εἰπεῖν&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κεῖνον, ὦ χρυσόθρονε Μοῦσ᾽, ἔνισπες&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ὕμνον, ἐκ τᾶς καλλιγύναικος ἐσθλᾶς&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Τήιος χώρας ὃν ἄειδε τερπνῶς&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;πρέσβυς ἀγαυός.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ὅτι δὲ οὔκ ἐστι Σαπφοῦς τοῦτο τὸ ᾆσμα παντί που δῆλον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last sentence reads «That this poem is not by Sappho is everywhere clear». Why does Athenaeus say that? And why does Bergk have it in his edition of Sappho if Athenaeus says, with reason, that it is not Sappho?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15994" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4838" RevisionGUID="fa2fcd81-2538-4fcf-86bd-f02c30703c20" CreationDate="2017-07-16T14:20:31.383" UserId="13" Text="Why does Athenaeus say this is not Sappho?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15995" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4838" RevisionGUID="fa2fcd81-2538-4fcf-86bd-f02c30703c20" CreationDate="2017-07-16T14:20:31.383" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="b06d670f-527d-43db-8fb8-96959a2c1831" CreationDate="2017-07-16T15:31:26.637" UserId="79" Text="Suppose I want to curse someone &amp;mdash; I want to ask some gods or spirits to do evil upon a particular person.&#xD;&#xA;(No, I'm not angry at any user of this site.)&#xD;&#xA;How do I do this in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not familiar with the typical structure or vocabulary of such curses.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if there is a reliable cursing guide somewhere out there, but I'm sure I can survive without one if I have good examples.&#xD;&#xA;**A link to a curse text corpus together with some examples showcasing the most typical curses** would be great!&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps there's a list of [curse tablet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_tablet) texts somewhere?&#xD;&#xA;Mentions in other literature are also welcome if they tell how to curse.&#xD;&#xA;I want to know how to curse authentically, so my interest is limited to curses of the (pagan) classical antiquity.&#xD;&#xA;I assume there's an idiomatic way to phrase &quot;please take this offering and kill that other guy&quot; in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a question regarding the [syntax of swearing](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2077/79), but it's not really relevant here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15997" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="b06d670f-527d-43db-8fb8-96959a2c1831" CreationDate="2017-07-16T15:31:26.637" UserId="79" Text="How to curse in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15998" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="b06d670f-527d-43db-8fb8-96959a2c1831" CreationDate="2017-07-16T15:31:26.637" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|syntax|resource-request|passage-request|text-corpus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4834" RevisionGUID="48f117c2-ffec-4920-a875-2b1a860eddad" CreationDate="2017-07-16T18:11:14.803" UserId="406" Comment="Added examples" Text="In music, the Italian term *morendo* means &quot;fading or dying away&quot;. This fairly transparently comes from *morior*. But *morior* to me suggests the moment of death, rather than a gradual decline, and is also a fairly morbid word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I wanted an adjective (or participle) for &quot;fading away&quot; or &quot;in decline&quot;, are there better alternatives to *moriēns*? I'm interested in both Greek and Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ETA: Example sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Roman empire was **in decline** for a significant period before its actual fall.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; We sat by the ocean at dusk, watching the sunlight **fading away**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He would have preferred a quick death rather than **fading away** like this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4838" RevisionGUID="5af6f768-b148-4657-9c2f-3927f1285d0c" CreationDate="2017-07-16T19:23:00.260" UserId="13" Comment="fixed translation last quoted sentence from Athenaeus" Text="Sappho Bergk 30, not present (AFAICT from searching) in Campbell or Edmonds, is from Athenaeus's Deipnosophistae, book XIII. Here is the text with some of Athenaeus's words around it, as reported by Greek Wikisource:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;καὶ τὴν Σαπφὼ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ταῦτά φησιν εἰπεῖν&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κεῖνον, ὦ χρυσόθρονε Μοῦσ᾽, ἔνισπες&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ὕμνον, ἐκ τᾶς καλλιγύναικος ἐσθλᾶς&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Τήιος χώρας ὃν ἄειδε τερπνῶς&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;πρέσβυς ἀγαυός.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ὅτι δὲ οὔκ ἐστι Σαπφοῦς τοῦτο τὸ ᾆσμα παντί που δῆλον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last sentence reads «That this poem is not by Sappho is clear to all, I suppose». Why does Athenaeus say that? And why does Bergk have it in his edition of Sappho if Athenaeus says, with reason, that it is not Sappho?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4838" RevisionGUID="1b0b934d-f40e-47ad-a86e-5773e00ee7cf" CreationDate="2017-07-16T19:49:31.863" UserId="13" Comment="added edit with Campbell reference" Text="Sappho Bergk 30, not present (AFAICT from searching) in Campbell or Edmonds, is from Athenaeus's Deipnosophistae, book XIII. Here is the text with some of Athenaeus's words around it, as reported by Greek Wikisource:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;καὶ τὴν Σαπφὼ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ταῦτά φησιν εἰπεῖν&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κεῖνον, ὦ χρυσόθρονε Μοῦσ᾽, ἔνισπες&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ὕμνον, ἐκ τᾶς καλλιγύναικος ἐσθλᾶς&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Τήιος χώρας ὃν ἄειδε τερπνῶς&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;πρέσβυς ἀγαυός.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ὅτι δὲ οὔκ ἐστι Σαπφοῦς τοῦτο τὸ ᾆσμα παντί που δῆλον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last sentence reads «That this poem is not by Sappho is clear to all, I suppose». Why does Athenaeus say that? And why does Bergk have it in his edition of Sappho if Athenaeus says, with reason, that it is not Sappho?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As pointed out by AlexB, Cambpell has it in the &quot;life of Sappho&quot; section, on p. 10 (original) and p. 11 (translation). I hadn't looked there, but only through Sappho's poems, and then after posting I looked through the uncertain authorship fragments section and through the Alcaeus poems section, in vain, of course. Edmonds doesn't seem to have it. It is known as `Fragmentum adespotum 953 PMG`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2079" RevisionGUID="0a4afe56-8a54-4c6c-9b0f-1ecf9d68a976" CreationDate="2017-07-16T20:19:48.400" UserId="136" Comment="changed book link to that of normal books.google.com because majority of users can read English page and not French one" Text="There is an amusing little book called [X-treme Latin][1], by Henry Beard. It is billed as 'Lingua Latina Extrema, all the Latin you need to know for surviving the 21st century'. It is published in the UK by Headline. If you really want the authentic syntax, this will demonstrate how it ought to be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or if, of course, you want the authentic Roman, you will probably have to restrict yourself to swearing oaths by Jupiter (*pro Iuppiter* or *pro Iove*), Hercules (*mehercule*, *hercle* etc) or by Castor (*ecastor!*) for a woman or Pollux (*edepol!*) for a man; and so on. For expressly bad language, rather than oaths, it's quite legitimate to use an appropriate indecency — though you will, I think, find examples still (in the words of Edward Gibbon, who no doubt came across a few while writing his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire) 'cloaked in the decency of a learned language' without a translation to your vernacular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=v-5BPbPfzBAC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4840" RevisionGUID="8da7feb2-7fcf-44cb-bf4e-db1e3c3eb392" CreationDate="2017-07-16T21:41:56.243" UserId="522" Text="I'm not sure that I agree with your premise:&#xD;&#xA;*morior,* 'die,' gives *moriendum,* 'a dying.'&#xD;&#xA;Could the Italian have mutated, through popular association, from morando?  &#xD;&#xA; *Moror*  comes in three forms from three different roots; *mŏs* (usage) and *mōrus* (silly) are dead ends; but what about *mora*, delay?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *morans, morantes,* lingering.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Another musical term  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Con sordini* 'with a mute'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;suggest *sordeo.* The problem is *sorditus*  had connotations in classical Latin of meanness, grime, decay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May I suggest *cadens* as the most promising. There is the musical association with *'cadence,'* and a quotation from Horace; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cadentia verba.* 'words dying away;'&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4841" RevisionGUID="a739710e-90e4-42b1-a8c3-f08d424c837a" CreationDate="2017-07-16T23:08:02.647" UserId="39" Text="Here's what we can find in Voigt 1971 (in Testimonia); she refers to it as fragmentum adespotum 35 P.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this is not my area of expertise, that's all I can do for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ys49R.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4842" RevisionGUID="2ae91f9d-e457-4909-a609-03939fea0742" CreationDate="2017-07-17T00:49:38.757" UserId="40" Text="The answer to the second question is presumably that Bergk was including all fragments that were thought in antiquity to be Sappho's, even if some dissented. I don't think we can do more than speculate about the first question, since Athenaeus's speaker (the Deipnosophistae is a dialogue) does not explain further." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2231" RevisionGUID="02175476-87db-41a6-9b83-8215c52401e2" CreationDate="2017-07-17T09:28:39.263" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="So I recently learned the first declension nouns concept and my list of new vocabularies to learn suddenly changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words were usually presented as: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* sagitta&#xD;&#xA;* pecunia&#xD;&#xA;* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, they indicate the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* casa, -ae, fem&#xD;&#xA;* cena, -ae, fem,&#xD;&#xA;* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the -ae is nominative plural? Of what use is this indication? I feel like there's something I'm missing here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16010" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2231" RevisionGUID="02175476-87db-41a6-9b83-8215c52401e2" CreationDate="2017-07-17T09:28:39.263" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|vocabulary|morphology|dictionary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2296" RevisionGUID="7f53db0d-1034-4c55-88ab-f87aeb3393a2" CreationDate="2017-07-17T09:30:25.703" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="I want to use a motto &quot;always seize the future&quot; as a company slogan. Does &quot;capere semper in posterum&quot; make sense? I got it from Google Translate and based on Spanish-English translations from that site, I trust it for single words but not always for phrases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16012" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2296" RevisionGUID="7f53db0d-1034-4c55-88ab-f87aeb3393a2" CreationDate="2017-07-17T09:30:25.703" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|translation-check|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2297" RevisionGUID="789e1ac7-fe0b-4164-8f20-130f119457bf" CreationDate="2017-07-17T09:32:05.863" UserId="79" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="Google Translate is [notoriously bad](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79) with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;It seems to have little understanding of Latin grammar.&#xD;&#xA;If you only want single words, you are much better off using an [online Latin dictionary of your choice](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;I do not know an online service (or any computerized tool) that translates Latin reliably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin phrase *capere semper in posterum* means roughly &quot;to always take from this point on&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It makes little sense.&#xD;&#xA;(This is the default answer to &quot;does this result from Google translate make sense?&quot; in my experience.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I suggest ***semper futura carpito***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good translation for &quot;to seize&quot; in your context is *carpere*.&#xD;&#xA;I chose the future imperative *carpito* instead of the present *carpe* (which would also be fine) to give it a more festive feel.&#xD;&#xA;If you want it to be more mundane, use *carpe*, but its pronunciation is more ambiguous to an Anglophone.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if everyone agrees with my sense of nuance here.&#xD;&#xA;These imperatives are singular; if you want plural, use *carpitote* or *carpite* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no good Latin noun for &quot;future&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I chose the participle *futurus* which can be seen as the adjective &quot;future&quot; &amp;mdash; and the etymological source of the English word.&#xD;&#xA;There are two choices: the neuter singular *futurum* and the neuter plural *futura*.&#xD;&#xA;The singular means roughly &quot;the thing in future&quot;, treating future as one.&#xD;&#xA;The plural means roughly &quot;the things in future&quot;, treating future as a series of things.&#xD;&#xA;The plural sounds more idiomatic to me, and I think the nuance of the singular *futurum* would be less appropriate for this use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *semper* is simply a good translation for &quot;always&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is up to you to make the choices *futurum/futura* and *carpe/carpito/carpite/carpitote* if you are after a different nuance.&#xD;&#xA;Also the word order is relatively free in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is what I find most fitting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4844" RevisionGUID="87885c14-6d27-4887-af8c-1c7d2eb71379" CreationDate="2017-07-17T18:15:57.270" UserId="1407" Text="&gt; &quot;Sophocles is wise, Euripides is wiser than Sophocles; but Socrates is the wisest of all men.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've come across this quote in various places on the internet, including many scholarly books, and it is attributed to Suidas, but I'm having trouble finding the early source(s) of the quote. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16016" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4844" RevisionGUID="87885c14-6d27-4887-af8c-1c7d2eb71379" CreationDate="2017-07-17T18:15:57.270" UserId="1407" Text="Source of quote attributed to Suidas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16017" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4844" RevisionGUID="87885c14-6d27-4887-af8c-1c7d2eb71379" CreationDate="2017-07-17T18:15:57.270" UserId="1407" Text="|origin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4844" RevisionGUID="af8d2d0f-31b4-47cc-ba1f-0d7132a0af7c" CreationDate="2017-07-17T18:18:24.723" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags and a question. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="&gt; &quot;Sophocles is wise, Euripides is wiser than Sophocles; but Socrates is the wisest of all men.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've come across this quote in various places on the internet, including many scholarly books, and it is attributed to Suidas, but I'm having trouble finding the early source(s) of the quote. What is the origin of this quote?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16019" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4844" RevisionGUID="af8d2d0f-31b4-47cc-ba1f-0d7132a0af7c" CreationDate="2017-07-17T18:18:24.723" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags and a question. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="|greek|passage-request|origin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4845" RevisionGUID="54091f6f-30b4-434c-98fa-104bb66116be" CreationDate="2017-07-17T19:21:33.293" UserId="79" Text="What resources are out there for learning to pronounce Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Latin was pronounced differently in different places and eras, so resources for any part of the spatiotemporal realm of Latin are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;When you propose a resource, please explain what it contains (instructions, audio recordings, what kind of Latin, &amp;hellip;) and if there are benefits and drawbacks one should know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Please give only one course per answer.**&#xD;&#xA;If you have many courses to suggest, give multiple answers—but read the other answers to avoid duplicating answers.&#xD;&#xA;This way people can vote on individual courses, causing the best ones to rise up and the worst ones to sink down, so that we can easily find the most useful resources.&#xD;&#xA;If there are many courses listed in an answer, it's hard to link the answer score to the quality of each listed course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Note about resource questions:**  &#xD;&#xA;Broad resource questions like this are generally **not** allowed on this site.&#xD;&#xA;The community chooses a select few to avoid an overflow of questions of this kind.&#xD;&#xA;If you have an opinion on what resource questions should be asked next, post a suggestion in [this meta post](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) or vote on the existing ones.&#xD;&#xA;The ones to be asked will be chosen from that list according to their number of votes.&#xD;&#xA;If you have ideas about listing resources on this site in general, you can contribute to [this meta discussion](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/177/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In particular, if you would like to ask a similar resource request question, do **not** just ask it, but post a suggestion in the [mentioned meta post](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16021" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4845" RevisionGUID="54091f6f-30b4-434c-98fa-104bb66116be" CreationDate="2017-07-17T19:21:33.293" UserId="79" Text="Resources for pronouncing Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16022" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4845" RevisionGUID="54091f6f-30b4-434c-98fa-104bb66116be" CreationDate="2017-07-17T19:21:33.293" UserId="79" Text="|pronunciation|resource-request|study-strategies|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4846" RevisionGUID="4f7bca5c-14a9-43e2-ba41-7c4d1b72bc16" CreationDate="2017-07-17T19:21:33.293" UserId="79" Text="One resource for learning Latin pronunciation is [Nuntii Latini](http://areena.yle.fi/1-1931339), the Finnish Latin news broadcast.&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation is very clear and the news items are also available as plain text, making it easy compare the written and spoken word.&#xD;&#xA;When the show is not on a winter or summer break, it produces 5 minutes of news every week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not presented as study material, but it does fit in that role.&#xD;&#xA;I enjoy the fact that it's not artificial stories for the sake of learning Latin, but actual news items simply delivered through the medium of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;However, the words are not pronounced slowly and one at a time nor are there any pronunciation instructions.&#xD;&#xA;But if you like learning by imitation, I recommend this as a part of your Latin hobby.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin used there is the contemporary Latin pronunciation in Finland ([excluding Turku](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/562/79)).&#xD;&#xA;I believe the pronunciation is supposed to follow classical pronunciation of the early Roman Empire.&#xD;&#xA;I described this pronunciation in my answer to [a question on contemporary local Latin pronunciation](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1177/79).&#xD;&#xA;And if you catch me speaking Latin in public, the accent will be very close to that of Nuntii Latini." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4847" RevisionGUID="e25c704a-6202-4ed7-985b-e558ff5a49eb" CreationDate="2017-07-17T19:55:42.227" UserId="47" Text="For Ecclesiastical Latin, I am using audio published by Familiae Sancti Hieronomi, a religious community with a special charism for the Latin language:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.hieronymus.us.com/Venalia/IndLatin.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My experience is with their Cursus and their recording of the book of Psalms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are specifically Ecclesiastical Latin materials, which is great if that is what you are looking for, so you get ecclesiastical pronunciation and texts.  Also, I find the pronunciation rather convincing.  (I can think of only one voice that has a rather thick American accent.)  The production quality will be lower than you expect: plan for some hiss and tracks at widely divergent volume levels." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4847" RevisionGUID="c08c7f8d-ba3b-4df2-b08d-c510a5474eb5" CreationDate="2017-07-17T20:11:16.733" UserId="47" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="For Ecclesiastical Latin, I am using audio published by Familiae Sancti Hieronomi, a religious community with a special charism for the Latin language:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.hieronymus.us.com/Venalia/IndLatin.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My experience is with their Cursus and their recording of the book of Psalms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are specifically Ecclesiastical Latin materials, which is great if that is what you are looking for, so you get ecclesiastical pronunciation and texts.  Also, I find the pronunciation rather convincing.  (I can think of only one voice that has a rather thick American accent.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The production quality will be lower than you expect: plan for some hiss and tracks at widely divergent volume levels.  Oh, and there is no way to sample the audio, it is on CD only, and they have no way to take credit cards!  Caveat emptor!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4848" RevisionGUID="74cd9f35-de7c-4563-a87e-9cc2e4912ef0" CreationDate="2017-07-17T23:10:17.097" UserId="40" Text="[This page](http://www.stoa.org/sol-bin//search.pl?search_method=QUERY&amp;login=&amp;enlogin=&amp;searchstr=sigma,820&amp;field=adlerhw_gr&amp;db=REAL) ascribes the quote to the scholia on Aristophanes *Clouds*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4849" RevisionGUID="b4aff833-add0-4e99-9544-037125579741" CreationDate="2017-07-18T02:54:25.473" UserId="78" Text="Vox Latin by W. Sidney Allen (2nd edition, 1978) is the standard book for pronouncing not just Classical Latin, but noted variants, as well. The book is a companion to Vox Graeca, and is a reconstruction of how it would be pronounced according to a variety of sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it's a work of scholarship, it's easily accessible to undergraduates and other serious beginners." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4850" RevisionGUID="c995c620-9852-4526-8698-ae96dae10de7" CreationDate="2017-07-18T03:07:37.690" UserId="78" Text="You can find some at [Attalus](http://www.attalus.org/docs/cil/curses.html), along with a bunch from [Roman Britain](http://curses.csad.ox.ac.uk/beginners/cursive-languages.shtml). The latter is region-specific, but breaks it all down for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There isn't one way to do so, and there's no special language that can be applied to every curse, though certain themes and vocabulary are frequent and sometimes &quot;magical&quot; gibberish is used in incantations. Lead tablets are frequently preferred for their longevity. One standard work that includes far more than Latin texts is Gager's *Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World*], though I highly recommend everyone check out Daniel Ogden's *Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds*, an excellent sourcebook with tons of curse examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also apparently [this book](https://www.muni.cz/en/research/publications/1341843), but I haven't personally checked it out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 	There are altogether about six hundred Latin curse texts, most of which are inscribed on lead tablets. The extant Latin defixiones are attested from the 2nd cent. BCE to the end of the 4th and beginning of the 5th century. However, the number of extant tablets is certainly not final, which is clear from the new findings in Mainz recently published by Blänsdorf (2012, 34 tablets), the evidence found in the fountain dedicated to Anna Perenna in Rome (Blänsdorf 2012, Piranomonte 2012, (26 tablets and other inscribed magical items), or the new findings in Pannonia (Barta 2009). The curse tablets were addressed exclusively to the supernatural powers, so their authors usually hid them very well to be banished from the eyes of mortals; not to speak of the randomness of the archaeological findings. Thus, it can be assumed that the preserved defixiones are only a fragment of the overall ancient production. Remarkable diversities in cursing practice can be found when comparing the preserved defixiones from particular provinces of the Roman Empire and their specific features, with respect to the language, genre, and content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Greek, the standard corpus is the *Papyri Graecae Magicae* (*PGM*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4849" RevisionGUID="23666d9d-826c-4949-aa4a-970586eea4c8" CreationDate="2017-07-18T07:27:02.200" UserId="118" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="_Vox Latina_ by W. Sidney Allen (2nd edition, 1978) is the standard book for pronouncing not just Classical Latin, but noted variants, as well. The book is a companion to _Vox Graeca,_ and is a reconstruction of how it would be pronounced according to a variety of sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it's a work of scholarship, it's easily accessible to undergraduates and other serious beginners." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4851" RevisionGUID="58a4c52c-d263-4ba6-970e-8fdeaf03ce0f" CreationDate="2017-07-18T07:41:46.150" UserId="1828" Text="If I wanted to use an equivalent of `persona non grata` to describe a company with which I would not want to do business, what's the best translation of &quot;company&quot;, i.e. in the financial/commercial sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking `corpus non gratum`, in the sense of a company as a single body (from which we get &quot;corporation&quot;) but is there a better word/translation? Google translate (yes, yes; I know) is offering `turba` which seems like the wrong sense, i.e. more like a loose mob of people acting together." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16031" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4851" RevisionGUID="58a4c52c-d263-4ba6-970e-8fdeaf03ce0f" CreationDate="2017-07-18T07:41:46.150" UserId="1828" Text="What is equivalent of &quot;persona non grata&quot; for a company?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16032" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4851" RevisionGUID="58a4c52c-d263-4ba6-970e-8fdeaf03ce0f" CreationDate="2017-07-18T07:41:46.150" UserId="1828" Text="|translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16034" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4845" RevisionGUID="9fd44fbf-c2a5-4f87-bffa-3ad3d512a308" CreationDate="2017-07-18T08:19:02.763" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2297" RevisionGUID="339c8b2e-763b-4d4a-bb0c-0dc47e1ba384" CreationDate="2017-07-18T08:42:18.727" UserId="79" Comment="added 715 characters in body" Text="Google Translate is [notoriously bad](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79) with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;It seems to have little understanding of Latin grammar.&#xD;&#xA;If you only want single words, you are much better off using an [online Latin dictionary of your choice](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;I do not know an online service (or any computerized tool) that translates Latin reliably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin phrase *capere semper in posterum* means roughly &quot;to always take from this point on&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It makes little sense.&#xD;&#xA;(This is the default answer to &quot;does this result from Google translate make sense?&quot; in my experience.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I suggest ***semper futura carpito***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good translation for &quot;to seize&quot; in your context is *carpere*.&#xD;&#xA;I chose the future imperative *carpito* instead of the present *carpe* (which would also be fine) to give it a more festive feel.&#xD;&#xA;If you want it to be more mundane, use *carpe*, but its pronunciation is more ambiguous to an Anglophone.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if everyone agrees with my sense of nuance here.&#xD;&#xA;These imperatives are singular; if you want plural, use *carpitote* or *carpite* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *carpere* has several meanings, and you can study the details in [the L&amp;S dictionary entry](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=carpo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;It seems to mostly mean &quot;to harvest, pick, or pluck&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I find that a reasonable (albeit somewhat poetic) translation of &quot;seize&quot;, but if you want to explore other options, [*capere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DC%3Aentry+group%3D14%3Aentry%3Dcapio1) is a good word for &quot;catch, seize, take in hand&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding forms are easy: just drop the R from *carpere*.&#xD;&#xA;(This does not apply to all forms, but it does apply to the imperatives used here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no good Latin noun for &quot;future&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I chose the participle *futurus* which can be seen as the adjective &quot;future&quot; &amp;mdash; and the etymological source of the English word.&#xD;&#xA;There are two choices: the neuter singular *futurum* and the neuter plural *futura*.&#xD;&#xA;The singular means roughly &quot;the thing in future&quot;, treating future as one.&#xD;&#xA;The plural means roughly &quot;the things in future&quot;, treating future as a series of things.&#xD;&#xA;The plural sounds more idiomatic to me, and I think the nuance of the singular *futurum* would be less appropriate for this use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *semper* is simply a good translation for &quot;always&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is up to you to make the choices *futurum/futura* and *carpe/carpito/carpite/carpitote* if you are after a different nuance.&#xD;&#xA;Also the word order is relatively free in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is what I find most fitting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16036" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4849" RevisionGUID="60f46a17-9b7b-409c-9779-7beb9518a706" CreationDate="2017-07-18T13:10:49.293" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="16037" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4846" RevisionGUID="aff237c2-632b-40fb-b161-89b7bb62715b" CreationDate="2017-07-18T13:10:55.490" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="16038" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4847" RevisionGUID="75244ed4-9258-4c3f-a695-333a58ffb859" CreationDate="2017-07-18T13:11:02.790" UserId="12" />
  <row Id="16040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4852" RevisionGUID="ababe8da-95f9-47e2-b739-074f9a17b71b" CreationDate="2017-07-18T15:07:36.377" UserId="79" Text="The question is mainly about finding a good Latin expression for a company.&#xD;&#xA;Pitkäranta's dictionary suggests *opus mercatorium* or *societas mercatoria*.&#xD;&#xA;These feel a bit too heavy for the intended use, and without the adjectives the nouns [*opus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DO%3Aentry+group%3D27%3Aentry%3Dopus1) and [*societas*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=societas&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) are too broad to be understood as &quot;company&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Of these two *societas* is better as a standalone translation, but it still doesn't quite work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word [*corpus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=corpus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) you suggest is a possibility, but is suffers from similar broadness.&#xD;&#xA;It might work well with an added adjective (like *mercatorium*), but then the phrase becomes too long to my taste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you mention, [*turba*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=turba&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is closer to &quot;mob&quot; or &quot;confusion&quot; than &quot;company&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Unless mockery is intended, I suggest choosing another word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I propose using the word *firma*, which can be seen as the Latin version of the English &quot;[firm](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/firm)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It can be used to refer to a company of some kind in Latin (also according to the aforementioned dictionary) and most importantly, the word is correctly understood by many people with no education in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Replacing *persona* with *firma* should be clear enough for most.&#xD;&#xA;They are also both conveniently feminines, so the adjective *grata* can stay as it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore suggest ***firma non grata***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16041" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1829" RevisionGUID="5b6183d3-01fe-408e-b1ec-55bbd130b491" CreationDate="2017-07-18T18:44:35.357" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation-check|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1829" RevisionGUID="5b6183d3-01fe-408e-b1ec-55bbd130b491" CreationDate="2017-07-18T18:44:35.357" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="I want to translate this short sentence to Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I too can write in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean that there are also others who know Latin, not that I can write in other languages or that I can speak Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my translation attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego quoque Latīnē scrībere possum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this short sentence correct? But I'm not sure if it's correct. If anyone can help me it would be greatly appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4848" RevisionGUID="6d1c071b-1095-4bed-92ef-47c768071e4d" CreationDate="2017-07-18T20:39:06.307" UserId="1407" Comment="Added a link to the passage in Greek, which I found quickly thanks to this answer. " Text="[This page](http://www.stoa.org/sol-bin//search.pl?search_method=QUERY&amp;login=&amp;enlogin=&amp;searchstr=sigma,820&amp;field=adlerhw_gr&amp;db=REAL) ascribes the quote to the scholia on Aristophanes *Clouds*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [link to the Greek can be found here][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://livingpoets.dur.ac.uk/w/The_Delphic_Oracle_420_P-W_(H3_R_(3)_Fontenrose)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16044" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4848" RevisionGUID="6d1c071b-1095-4bed-92ef-47c768071e4d" CreationDate="2017-07-18T20:39:06.307" Comment="Proposed by 1407 approved by -1 edit id of 199" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4848" RevisionGUID="cf427e5d-5656-42d6-83ee-391d7c892133" CreationDate="2017-07-18T20:39:06.307" UserId="79" Comment="Added a link to the passage in Greek, which I found quickly thanks to this answer. " Text="[This page](http://www.stoa.org/sol-bin//search.pl?search_method=QUERY&amp;login=&amp;enlogin=&amp;searchstr=sigma,820&amp;field=adlerhw_gr&amp;db=REAL) ascribes the quote to the scholia on Aristophanes *Clouds*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quote can be found [here in Greek][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://livingpoets.dur.ac.uk/w/The_Delphic_Oracle_420_P-W_(H3_R_(3)_Fontenrose)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4853" RevisionGUID="cf173933-b332-4690-9db8-62295589ed14" CreationDate="2017-07-18T21:55:17.693" UserId="79" Text="A common phrase for mistrust towards a given gift is [looking a gift horse in the mouth](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/don%27t_look_a_gift_horse_in_the_mouth).&#xD;&#xA;As explained in Wiktionary (linked above), the saying goes back to the New Testament via St. Jerome's Latin translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was this or something similar an established saying in classical antiquity in Latin or Greek?&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how to define an established saying or what it means to be similar enough, so I will leave it to your judgement.&#xD;&#xA;I don't believe there is an awful lot of extant sayings regarding horses, gifts and mistrust, so this shouldn't be horribly broad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some reason I suspect that the ancients might have a saying about [looking a gift horse in the belly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Horse) instead&amp;hellip;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16047" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4853" RevisionGUID="cf173933-b332-4690-9db8-62295589ed14" CreationDate="2017-07-18T21:55:17.693" UserId="79" Text="Looking a gift horse in the mouth" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16048" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4853" RevisionGUID="cf173933-b332-4690-9db8-62295589ed14" CreationDate="2017-07-18T21:55:17.693" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16049" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="65310f99-6e92-4ebd-9ea5-97b534a0e641" CreationDate="2017-07-19T01:53:03.370" UserId="78" Comment="edited title" Text="How to curse someone in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4854" RevisionGUID="b6e62a9a-94a4-4ccc-8d8a-912e535aee34" CreationDate="2017-07-19T14:40:29.357" UserId="1692" Text="For this *trending* modern (or rather contemporary idiom), I have two possible translations, but am not sure which one better suits the specificity of Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **audītiōnēs falsae** (or *falsae audītiōnēs*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **audītiōnēs fallāciloquae** (or *fallāciloquae audītiōnēs*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While **1.** seems to be the more straightforward and obvious solution, **2.**, on the other hand, appears to be more subtly in tune with what *fake news* actually means as the adjective [**fallāciloquus, fallāciloqua, fallāciloquum**][1] actually means &quot;speaking deceitfully, false.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1006076" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16051" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4854" RevisionGUID="b6e62a9a-94a4-4ccc-8d8a-912e535aee34" CreationDate="2017-07-19T14:40:29.357" UserId="1692" Text="Translating &quot;fake news&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16052" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4854" RevisionGUID="b6e62a9a-94a4-4ccc-8d8a-912e535aee34" CreationDate="2017-07-19T14:40:29.357" UserId="1692" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4855" RevisionGUID="1d2c00a9-d0fd-425c-8d95-b725263cd962" CreationDate="2017-07-19T15:14:41.100" UserId="1692" Text="I see there's a word for it: [**laetificum, laetificī**][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, if there's a Latin word for &quot;joyful news,&quot; is there also a Latin word for &quot;sad newws&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latinlexicon.org/search_english.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16055" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4855" RevisionGUID="1d2c00a9-d0fd-425c-8d95-b725263cd962" CreationDate="2017-07-19T15:14:41.100" UserId="1692" Text="About &quot;joyful news&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16056" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4855" RevisionGUID="1d2c00a9-d0fd-425c-8d95-b725263cd962" CreationDate="2017-07-19T15:14:41.100" UserId="1692" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4856" RevisionGUID="99afa0a4-d62b-46b2-973b-a87d1f67c310" CreationDate="2017-07-19T15:33:49.633" UserId="293" Text="CC Cummings wrote a poem called 'Puella Mea'. A quick skim of the omniscient google suggests that Mea Puella might be more accurate. Which would be more accurate, in isolation, when used as a pet name for someone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16058" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4856" RevisionGUID="99afa0a4-d62b-46b2-973b-a87d1f67c310" CreationDate="2017-07-19T15:33:49.633" UserId="293" Text="Puella Mea OR Mea Puella?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16059" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4856" RevisionGUID="99afa0a4-d62b-46b2-973b-a87d1f67c310" CreationDate="2017-07-19T15:33:49.633" UserId="293" Text="|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4856" RevisionGUID="e18b8d34-598c-4c28-aefb-429f550954b9" CreationDate="2017-07-19T16:15:13.380" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="CC Cummings wrote a poem called 'Puella Mea'. A quick skim of the omniscient google suggests that 'Mea Puella' might be more accurate. Which would be more accurate, in isolation, when used as a pet name for someone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16061" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4856" RevisionGUID="e18b8d34-598c-4c28-aefb-429f550954b9" CreationDate="2017-07-19T16:15:13.380" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|grammar-choice|translation-check|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4857" RevisionGUID="03335aaf-7ba6-412a-b784-6ce98ad48e5a" CreationDate="2017-07-19T16:21:37.487" UserId="79" Text="Both word orders are possible.&#xD;&#xA;Word order is flexible in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;It would be wrong to say that the Latin word order is completely free, but it is far more flexible than that of English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In isolation, without further context, *puella mea* is the more typical choice.&#xD;&#xA;Latin typically puts adjectives (you could in see *mea* as an adjective) after the nouns, unlike English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, if the phrase appears in a poem, then metric constraints have their effect.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know the poem in question or even whether it was composed in an ancient poetic meter, but I remark that one can use *puella mea* in hexameter, but *mea puella* is impossible unless you insert other words in between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google might answer all your questions, but there's [no guarantee](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79) that the answers are right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4858" RevisionGUID="e51ae5b1-aeff-476c-a301-a01c955090f6" CreationDate="2017-07-19T16:22:38.307" UserId="406" Text="Word order in Latin is fairly free, so neither of those is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, adjectives in Latin tend to follow their nouns. And skimming [the L&amp;S entry for *meus*][1], most of the attestations have it following the noun. The first word in a Latin phrase also tends to be more emphatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *puella mea* is more neutral, while *mea puella* is closer to &quot;**my** girl&quot;. But neither is incorrect, and especially in poetry (where the meter tends to constrain the word order) neither would be considered strange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmeus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4859" RevisionGUID="0929aeee-4003-4a2e-86cc-99636be26512" CreationDate="2017-07-19T16:33:49.473" UserId="406" Text="*Laetificus* is a compound of *laetus* &quot;happy&quot; and *faciō* &quot;make&quot;. (*Fac-* turns into *fic-* when something comes before it, due to stress rules in early Latin.) [L&amp;S lists it as an adjective][1] meaning &quot;gladdening&quot;. When this adjective is used as a substantive in the neuter plural, &quot;gladdening things&quot;, it means &quot;good news&quot;. (Note that this tends to be plural *laetifica, -ōrum*, not singular.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I don't believe this is attested, you could make a similar compound with *tristis* &quot;sad&quot;: *tristifica, -ōrum* &quot;saddening things, sad news&quot;. This would be easily understandable to a Latin speaker even if the form isn't attested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternately, *tristis* can mean &quot;saddening&quot; as well as &quot;sad&quot;, so you could use it substantively: *tristia, -um*. Ovid called the poems he wrote in exile *tristia*, &quot;sad things&quot; or &quot;saddening things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlaetificus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4860" RevisionGUID="10a335cd-5f9c-4f6c-ba79-486f3a3b4a83" CreationDate="2017-07-19T16:33:55.247" UserId="79" Text="My suggestion is ***nuntii fallaces***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might be biased as a Finn, but I'm used to *nuntii* as the typical translation of &quot;news&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It has a nuance of a delivered message, whereas *auditio(nes)* sounds more like a rumor.&#xD;&#xA;It is up to you to choose which one is more suitable in any given situation.&#xD;&#xA;I would say that using the word *auditio* already has a mocking tone when referring to news, but perhaps others will disagree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the news are wrong, then I'd call them *falsi*.&#xD;&#xA;If they speak deceitfully, I might indeed call them *fallaciloqui*, but it strikes me a little odd to use such an adjective for news.&#xD;&#xA;It depends on what you refer to with the word &quot;news&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you mean a &quot;news broadcast on TV&quot;, then speaking deceitfully is a good pick.&#xD;&#xA;But if you mean news in some other media or news as a &quot;collection of news items&quot; (instead of the broadcast that delivers them), I would use the adjective *fallax* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective you suggest is combined from *fallax* and *loqui*.&#xD;&#xA;The word *fallax* on its own means &quot;deceitful&quot; or &quot;fallacious&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;*Fallax* means someone who tends to *fallere*; this is what the *-ax* suffix does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, the nouns *nuntii* and *auditio(nes)* are both possible, and so are the adjectives *falsus*, *fallaciloquus* and *fallax*.&#xD;&#xA;It depends on what you want to convey exactly.&#xD;&#xA;But I think *nuntii fallaces* is the most appropriate choice for &quot;fake news&quot; the way I understand the English term." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4855" RevisionGUID="66bb40e7-fc2c-43ab-9b5d-50c38b3b7e65" CreationDate="2017-07-19T16:35:53.783" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I see there's a word for it: [**laetificum, laetificī**][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, if there's a Latin word for &quot;joyful news,&quot; is there also a Latin word for &quot;sad news&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latinlexicon.org/search_english.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4861" RevisionGUID="6168b3f1-558d-47da-a1c6-afc0fc78732b" CreationDate="2017-07-19T16:44:20.447" UserId="406" Text="Joonas's answer is excellent, but for the sake of multiple viewpoints here's how I would translate the term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than a noun+adjective, as you suggest, I would use a substantive. As [another recent question][1] brought up, the adjective &quot;gladdening&quot; means &quot;good news&quot; when used as a neuter plural substantive, literally &quot;gladdening things&quot;. And the word &quot;news&quot; itself originated as a plural substantive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Fallāciloquus* is an excellent adjective, with a nicely derogatory tone. So I would translate &quot;fake news&quot; as ***fallāciloqua***, &quot;[things] speaking falsely&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a bonus, this translation can be used as an adjective, as in &quot;the mainstream fake-news media&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4855/about-joyful-news" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4862" RevisionGUID="09701704-00b0-46cb-9e84-a33e6b6d13ae" CreationDate="2017-07-19T18:06:56.807" UserId="13" Text="Turns out [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolic_verse) could answer this with a nice table:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't think of looking for &quot;Aeolic verse&quot; or &quot;Aeolic meter&quot; (which is what I actually looked for today) until just now, after reading [this](http://aoidoi.org/articles/meter/intro.pdf) in the part about Aeolic verse and in particular the sentnce «There are other cola, but these are the fundamental building blocks», so I went to Wikipedia in the hope of finding those left-out cola. Ironically, the Wiki article not only doesn't list any extra cola, but lists those in the intro, minus the penthemimer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems book V was an exception, in that the contents were not chosen according to meter, but to lines-per-stanza number, the meter being various. If this is correct, then I understand some of B.A.'s choices for that book, which are indeed 3-line stanzas. However, a lot of those choices are short fragments of less than three lines, and some are organized into stanzas of more than three, so something is still off in those placements. Or in the stanza division. But then on what basis are the stanzas divided if the poem is only preserved in line beginnings on a papyrus? Finally, Φοίβῳ χρυσοκόμᾳ is definitely book 2, so B.A. has made at least that one mistake.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aN9Nl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4863" RevisionGUID="a1dfdf61-3136-42a4-b4de-84c738399abd" CreationDate="2017-07-19T19:57:50.410" UserId="1407" Text="I'm looking for parallel idioms related by vocabulary and/or meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is in reference to a question on Mythology regarding the &quot;gray eyed&quot; translation of an epithet of Athena: [Why is Athena “gray eyed”?][1] and on English: [What is the origin of steely-eyed?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://mythology.stackexchange.com/q/2728/2892&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/400813/what-is-the-origin-of-steely-eyed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16070" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4863" RevisionGUID="a1dfdf61-3136-42a4-b4de-84c738399abd" CreationDate="2017-07-19T19:57:50.410" UserId="1407" Text="Is there a Ancient Greek or Latin equivalent to &quot;steely eyed&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16071" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4863" RevisionGUID="a1dfdf61-3136-42a4-b4de-84c738399abd" CreationDate="2017-07-19T19:57:50.410" UserId="1407" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|idiom|word-request|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4864" RevisionGUID="4ef1f979-e904-4511-856c-be0130cfd276" CreationDate="2017-07-19T20:53:25.770" UserId="406" Text="The best-known type of curse is called a *dēfixio*, literally &quot;binding&quot;, calqued from Greek *κατάδεσμος*. The word itself is more modern; while Roman *dēfixiōnes* do tend to use the verb *dēfīgō*, the noun wasn't nearly as common as in Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Dēfixio* tended to involve writing a prayer on a metal tablet, then &quot;binding&quot; it somehow. Some might be simply folded in half, while others were pierced with nails, marked with some of the target's hair or blood, or even shaped into a miniature likeness of the target before being pierced (like a Hollywood &quot;voodoo doll&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best corpus of these I've found are the [Bath tablets][1], tablets found at a sacred spring in Bath, UK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These curses tend to begin by naming the deity (in the dative) and the writer (in the nominative with a verb like *queritur* &quot;complains&quot;, or ablative with a noun like *commonitorium* &quot;formal complaint&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The writer first lays out the nature of the complaint (&quot;because someone downvoted my answer&quot;). Then they request (with a verb like *rogat*) that the deity do some terrible things to the target (&quot;drain all of their reputation&quot;). The target can be listed directly by name, or with a formula like &quot;whether free or slave, whether man or woman, whether old or young, whether pagan or Christian&quot; (*si...si...si...si...*) if their identity is unknown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the writer promises some sort of reward or sacrifice to the deity in return. Often this involves the target, or in the case of stolen goods, the goods themselves (&quot;half the reputation points you take from them&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This formula isn't universal, and some curses can be much less formal. A brief curse might be as simple as &quot;whoever downvoted my question, let his name be given over to Mercury&quot; (see [Uley 3][2] for a fragmentary example). But the longer ones tend to follow this general pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://curses.csad.ox.ac.uk/4Dlink2/4DACTION/WebRequestCurseTabletSearch?searchType=browse&amp;searchField=CurseNumber&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://curses.csad.ox.ac.uk/4Dlink2/4DACTION/WebRequestCurseTablet?thisLeafNum=1&amp;searchTerm=&amp;searchType=browse&amp;searchField=CurseNumber&amp;thisListPosition=3&amp;displayImage=1&amp;displayLatin=1&amp;displayEnglish=1&amp;lastListPosition=%3C!--4DVAR%20records%20in%20selection[curse_metadata]--%3E%20:%20##%20Error%20#%2048" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4865" RevisionGUID="20c7edab-60d6-43b8-9fea-3c2385e254db" CreationDate="2017-07-19T21:21:36.733" UserId="406" Text="##*Γλαυκῶπις, -ιδος* (L. *glaucōpis, -idis*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has already been mentioned in the Mythology question you linked, but I think it's the best idiom for your usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a compound word. The second part is pretty clearly *ὤψ/ōps*, &quot;eye&quot; (as in optics, optometry). But the first part, *glauc-*, is more interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Γλαυκός/glaucus* is a curious word with no known cognates. Its earliest meaning, as found in Homer, is probably &quot;shining&quot; or &quot;gleaming&quot;, with no reference to color. Later it shifted to mean &quot;silver&quot; or &quot;gray&quot;, and then to something bluer, what we would now call a &quot;steely&quot; color (it was applied to olive leaves and certain other plants, as well as the ocean).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the meaning of &quot;shining&quot; came the noun *γλαῦξ, γλαῦκος/glaux, glaucis*, &quot;little owl&quot;, because of how their eyes shine at night. Because the owl was a symbol of Athena, *γλαῦξ* was often used in reference to her: we find idioms like *γλαῦκ᾽ Ἀθήναζε* &quot;owls to Athens&quot;, the equivalent of English &quot;carry coals to Newcastle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *γλαυκῶπις* could mean &quot;with shining eyes&quot;, &quot;with steely eyes&quot;, or &quot;owl-eyed&quot;. When used as an epithet of Athena, all three are fitting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4865" RevisionGUID="0d5bc265-da76-459b-ae49-ad8911301755" CreationDate="2017-07-19T21:30:08.200" UserId="406" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="##*Γλαυκῶπις, -ιδος* (L. *glaucōpis, -idis*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has already been mentioned in the Mythology question you linked, but I think it's the best idiom for your usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a Greek word, but one famous enough that educated Romans would recognize it (especially as *glaucus* is attested in Latin). It's a compound; the second part is pretty clearly *ὤψ/ōps*, &quot;eye&quot; (as in optics, optometry). But the first part, *glauc-*, is more interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Γλαυκός/glaucus* is a curious word with no known cognates. Its earliest meaning, as found in Homer, is probably &quot;shining&quot; or &quot;gleaming&quot;, with no reference to color. Later it shifted to mean &quot;silver&quot; or &quot;gray&quot;, and then to something bluer, what we would now call a &quot;steely&quot; color (it was applied to olive leaves and certain other plants, as well as the ocean).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the meaning of &quot;shining&quot; came the noun *γλαῦξ, γλαῦκος/glaux, glaucis*, &quot;little owl&quot;, because of how their eyes shine at night. Because the owl was a symbol of Athena, *γλαῦξ* was often used in reference to her: we find idioms like *γλαῦκ᾽ Ἀθήναζε* &quot;owls to Athens&quot;, the equivalent of English &quot;carry coals to Newcastle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *γλαυκῶπις* could mean &quot;with shining eyes&quot;, &quot;with steely eyes&quot;, or &quot;owl-eyed&quot;. When used as an epithet of Athena, all three are fitting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4788" RevisionGUID="726368cc-f940-4c68-bd52-edabe0e43088" CreationDate="2017-07-20T03:59:24.840" UserId="39" Comment="added 228 characters in body" Text="Lobel and Page (1963) include fragments 92-99 into ΜΕΛΩΝ Ε - note the question marks throughout pp. 74-83 for all those fragments though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek metrics could give you a strong headache (see e.g. West 1982); luckily, Eva-Maria Voigt did all the work for us - see her Conspectus Metrum for Book 5 below (Voigt 1971: 20):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Asynarteton** (plural: asynarteta) is understood as &quot;a verse composed of two different metrical units that follow one another without a pause, but have diaeresis between between the two units&quot; (Halporn, Ostwald and Rosenmeyer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ad = adonis (West: adonean, i.e. — ∪ ∪ — —)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ba = baccheus (i.e. ∪ — —)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cho = choriambus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;eras = ∪—∪∪—∪∪—x&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hem = hemiepes (i.e. — ∪ ∪ — ∪ ∪ —)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ith = ithyphallicus (West: ithyphallic, i.e. — ∪ — ∪ — —)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9zIgi.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16077" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4807" RevisionGUID="76b73453-0cbb-4ded-a6d3-cd96f112f672" CreationDate="2017-07-20T05:44:45.613" UserId="9" Comment="45" />
  <row Id="16081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4867" RevisionGUID="b1b08040-784d-40c5-809b-5cca7dac15c4" CreationDate="2017-07-20T13:01:01.893" UserId="1459" Text="What about &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ceterum, credo stipendio nostro debet removeri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it has the advantage that, from a Spanish speaker perspective, this is (more or less) perfectly understandable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4867" RevisionGUID="51c63b31-814e-4b88-89a5-82464e44999b" CreationDate="2017-07-20T13:10:19.320" UserId="1459" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="What about &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ceterum, credo stipendio nostro debet removeri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it has the advantage that, from a Spanish speaker perspective, this is (more or less) perfectly understandable (`creo [que el] estipendio nuestro debe [ser] removido`)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4821" RevisionGUID="8485e38a-c985-4d48-92c8-53906ba3095b" CreationDate="2017-07-20T13:20:52.167" UserId="1459" Comment="minor corrections" Text="What is the Latin for the above phrase?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For background - I am a small-town local politician and have been campaigning for some time to abolish the small salary, or &quot;allowance&quot;, which is paid to members of the council I sit on.  The council has little money, and we all have paid day jobs in the local community, mostly as professional people or successful business owners.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to begin ending each of my speeches to the council with the above phrase, as a reference to Cato the Elder and &quot;Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam&quot;.  I would be grateful for a correct Latin translation.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16084" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4821" RevisionGUID="8485e38a-c985-4d48-92c8-53906ba3095b" CreationDate="2017-07-20T13:20:52.167" Comment="Proposed by 1459 approved by 78, 79 edit id of 200" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4868" RevisionGUID="e421a5a9-f248-45c8-b90a-0f5f3065b58a" CreationDate="2017-07-20T13:53:11.733" UserId="1459" Text="A type of curse seems to have been the phrase &quot;te perdant&quot; after a deity. For example, &quot;Iuppiter te perdat!&quot; and &quot;Iuppiter te dique perdant!&quot;, which seem to mean something like &quot;That Jupiter destroys you!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(from [here](http://press.princeton.edu/titles/3510.html) via google)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(from [here](http://press.princeton.edu/titles/4011.html) via google)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another form of curse seems to have been &quot;i in malam crucem!&quot; (or &quot;abi in malam crucem!&quot;, which seems to translate like &quot;go to the bad cross&quot;, or &quot;go to crucify yourself&quot;, but is translated into English like &quot;go and be hanged!&quot;. Given that crucifixion was humiliating punishment, this is clearly a terrible insult. Below an example from Terence's [Phormio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phormio_(play)) play, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(both from [here](https://books.google.es/books?id=efMpAAAAYAAJ&amp;hl=es))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2JvH9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/g4diw.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iNMwh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YxNJY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4869" RevisionGUID="725d3039-f3db-4b97-b5b5-1809af7afe86" CreationDate="2017-07-20T15:27:44.567" UserId="79" Text="A period of tyranny came to an end in Athens in 510 BC when the tyrant Hippias was expelled.&#xD;&#xA;The last king of Rome, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, was overthrown in 509 BC and the Roman Republic was born.&#xD;&#xA;What strikes me as odd is that these very similar events transpired almost simultaneously in Athens and Rome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was this simultaneity observed in antiquity?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, what did people think about it?&#xD;&#xA;I can well imagine that (1) the simultaneity was not known, possibly due to dating differences, (2) it was considered faith or divine intervention that the events were so simultaneous, or that (3) someone considered Roman history to have been &quot;adjusted&quot; so that the more mythological past coincides better with Greek history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize that this a history question to a large extent, but I am mainly asking for ancient views on the matter attested in extant literature.&#xD;&#xA;I am not opposed to the sharing of any historical insights, but I want to keep the main discussion on-topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16087" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4869" RevisionGUID="725d3039-f3db-4b97-b5b5-1809af7afe86" CreationDate="2017-07-20T15:27:44.567" UserId="79" Text="The simultaneity of democracy in Athens and Rome" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16088" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4869" RevisionGUID="725d3039-f3db-4b97-b5b5-1809af7afe86" CreationDate="2017-07-20T15:27:44.567" UserId="79" Text="|history|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4870" RevisionGUID="197c68d0-9d0b-4f4e-9ff9-e8283bc0d929" CreationDate="2017-07-20T20:13:59.493" UserId="1743" Text="**Background.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following is correct standard English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (0) He read the poems of Horace and Virgil. He liked the poems *of the latter two* better than Juvenal's. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following uses a *fantasy-construction* that standard English does not offer, namely a single word referring back to the last *and* the penultimate mentioned name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) He read the poems of Horace and Virgil. He like *the latters'* poems better than Juvenal's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intent is that (1) be *equivalent* to (0). Hence the pluralized fantasized &quot;latters&quot;. Sentence (0) says that &quot;He&quot; likes Horace's and Virgil's poems *collectively* better than Juvenal's. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the standard word &quot;*latter*&quot; instead would result in a sentence saying that &quot;He&quot; liked *Virgil*'s poems better than Juvenals, but remaining noncommittal about whether &quot;He&quot; liked Horace's poems better than Juvenal's. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Latin offer a mechanism like the above (invented) pluralized &quot;latters&quot;, i.e., a **single** word referring back to the preceding **two** names?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you know a natural language which does?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16090" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4870" RevisionGUID="197c68d0-9d0b-4f4e-9ff9-e8283bc0d929" CreationDate="2017-07-20T20:13:59.493" UserId="1743" Text="Does Latin offer a single word referring back to the preceding *two* names mentioned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16091" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4870" RevisionGUID="197c68d0-9d0b-4f4e-9ff9-e8283bc0d929" CreationDate="2017-07-20T20:13:59.493" UserId="1743" Text="|vocabulary|grammar-choice|poetry|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4871" RevisionGUID="410fa8cc-faac-42be-9ce2-5edcda9d3559" CreationDate="2017-07-21T06:12:12.283" UserId="1797" Text="I recently encountered someone in an online game who had the battlecry &quot;Veni, vidi, calce asinum!&quot;.  Now, my Latin's quite rusty, but I'm certain that can only be translated as &quot;I came, I saw, I kicked donkey&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would I express the sentiment &quot;I came, I saw, I kicked ass&quot; in Latin?  I'm more interested in preserving the general sentiment than in the literal meaning of kicking someone in the buttocks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16093" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4871" RevisionGUID="410fa8cc-faac-42be-9ce2-5edcda9d3559" CreationDate="2017-07-21T06:12:12.283" UserId="1797" Text="How would I say &quot;I came, I saw, I kicked ass&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16094" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4871" RevisionGUID="410fa8cc-faac-42be-9ce2-5edcda9d3559" CreationDate="2017-07-21T06:12:12.283" UserId="1797" Text="|translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4867" RevisionGUID="31facbb0-5e36-418b-9138-777fe05e66ec" CreationDate="2017-07-21T11:00:15.167" UserId="1459" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="What about &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ceterum, credo stipendio nostro debere removeri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it has the advantage that, from a Spanish speaker perspective, this is (more or less) perfectly understandable (`creo [que el] estipendio nuestro debe [ser] removido`)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4872" RevisionGUID="9b3ea2c4-b077-4eda-9173-ecfb91286d62" CreationDate="2017-07-21T11:20:27.093" UserId="645" Text="'Ass' is no more than the American version of 'arse': I don't think it is an attempt at euphemism, but just a small corruption that somehow got adopted into their language. The Americans 'kick ass' but we English are a little less direct and 'give a kick up the backside'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word you want here is *culus*, used with that precise meaning by Catullus and others. I can't think of sensibly brief Latin to use for 'kick', but you could use *tundo*, to beat, strike, etc. with the foot (*pede*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does *Veni, vidi, pede culum tutundi* have the right sort of sound for your purpose?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4873" RevisionGUID="5d7a4b18-5d53-4e49-906a-69e8c12989f2" CreationDate="2017-07-21T11:41:47.213" UserId="78" Text="If you want to preserve the V-V-V structure of the original, you could do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Veni, Vidi, Valde Verberavi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translates to &quot;I came, I saw, I violently beat people.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4873" RevisionGUID="6da9cda3-61d6-4db5-804a-3ed45d39d6a2" CreationDate="2017-07-21T16:10:23.687" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="If you want to preserve the V-V-V structure of the original, you could do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Veni, Vidi, Verberavi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translates to &quot;I came, I saw, I beat people.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4874" RevisionGUID="1c6571f6-1eb0-4724-93ae-6c4277137ea3" CreationDate="2017-07-21T20:02:15.390" UserId="30" Text="Several English etymological sources say *violin* is from Latin *vitula*. A *vitula/vitulus* is a calf. But why was the instrument named after a calf?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But some sources say this *vitula* may be from *vitulari* &quot;to make merry&quot;, which is probably related to *Vitula* &quot;goddess of joy&quot;. This would make sense, but it is a little bit vague.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is derived from *vitula* &quot;calf&quot;, was it perhaps because the strings were originally made of calf gut? I have not seen this possibility anywhere, but I read somewhere that a *vitula* could be any stringed instrument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a bonus question, when was this word first used for a musical instrument? Did it happen in Antiquity already, or in Mediaeval Italy, or somewhere else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16100" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4874" RevisionGUID="1c6571f6-1eb0-4724-93ae-6c4277137ea3" CreationDate="2017-07-21T20:02:15.390" UserId="30" Text="On the etymology of &quot;violin&quot; and &quot;vitula&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16101" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4874" RevisionGUID="1c6571f6-1eb0-4724-93ae-6c4277137ea3" CreationDate="2017-07-21T20:02:15.390" UserId="30" Text="|etymology|music|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4874" RevisionGUID="7fb68892-e107-4bbc-828f-a29e9f0bbab5" CreationDate="2017-07-21T20:08:25.480" UserId="30" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="Several English etymological sources say *violin* is from Latin *vitula*. A *vitula/vitulus* is a calf. But why was the instrument named after a calf?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But some sources say this *vitula* may be from *vitulari* &quot;to make merry&quot;, which is probably related to *Vitula* &quot;goddess of joy&quot;. This would make sense, but it is a little bit vague.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is derived from *vitula* &quot;calf&quot;, was it perhaps because the strings were originally made of calf gut? I have not seen this possibility anywhere, but I read somewhere that a *vitula* could be any stringed instrument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the goddess and the verb have a long i, whereas the calf and its derivatives have a short i. Another interesting word is *Vĭtŭlārĭa via*, a road near Arpinum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a bonus question, when was this word first used for a musical instrument? Did it happen in Antiquity already, or in Mediaeval Italy, or somewhere else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4875" RevisionGUID="ee897f43-d72d-4f5d-ab77-a27d67239bac" CreationDate="2017-07-21T20:46:12.290" UserId="79" Text="Is there a (preferably classical) Latin word for &quot;time&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;I mean &quot;time&quot; in the sense it has in &quot;The first time is easiest.&quot; or &quot;I can't remember the last time I was here.&quot;, not in the most common meaning of the word.&#xD;&#xA;In many other languages my kind of time is different from the usual kind of time, so I don't think *tempus* is a good translation (for all I know).&#xD;&#xA;The word I'm looking for is &quot;volta&quot; in Italian, &quot;g&amp;aring;ng&quot; in Swedish, and &quot;kerta&quot; in Finnish (not &quot;tempo&quot;, &quot;tid&quot;, or &quot;aika&quot;), if that helps.&#xD;&#xA;Latin has immensely useful numerals for this kind of thing (*semel, bis, ter, &amp;hellip;*), but I am looking for a noun if one exists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4875" RevisionGUID="ee897f43-d72d-4f5d-ab77-a27d67239bac" CreationDate="2017-07-21T20:46:12.290" UserId="79" Text="What is &quot;time&quot; in &quot;first time&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16105" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4875" RevisionGUID="ee897f43-d72d-4f5d-ab77-a27d67239bac" CreationDate="2017-07-21T20:46:12.290" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4876" RevisionGUID="0f6127b9-20ce-4a40-9ccc-ca1ca93e5ec9" CreationDate="2017-07-21T23:14:57.690" UserId="469" Text="[Vicis](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DV%3Aentry+group%3D17%3Aentry%3Dvicis) is an option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spanish equivalent _vez_ seems to be derived from it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4877" RevisionGUID="5ffaadfb-96f0-41c0-8e3f-011bf58934df" CreationDate="2017-07-22T01:14:34.907" UserId="1832" Text="i'm jack seeking a brush up of a Christopher Wren inspired momento mori:&quot; If you seek my monument do not look around, (rather) Look you here upon her beautiful face, deep into her eyes.&quot; My school boy Latin was weak. I came up with incorrect variations like : Titulum quaeris mea nolite circumspice. Respice ad eius faciem pulchram. In illam oculos, voltus. I'm writing this 4my young daughter's wedding as a preface in a journal i'm gifting 2her that describes my love 4her &amp; her mamma that was given 2me from her mum, my deceased wife, who bore my beloved child, now 17 becoming married to her lover &amp; 2whom I give as his wife. Can someone out there offer their help to polish my crude school boy Latin I learned 30 yrs ago when I was 7. Email me : jackellisdod202@gmail.com&#xD;&#xA;Cheers &amp; Thanks so ever much !" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16108" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4877" RevisionGUID="5ffaadfb-96f0-41c0-8e3f-011bf58934df" CreationDate="2017-07-22T01:14:34.907" UserId="1832" Text="to aid love lost and gained" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16109" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4877" RevisionGUID="5ffaadfb-96f0-41c0-8e3f-011bf58934df" CreationDate="2017-07-22T01:14:34.907" UserId="1832" Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4878" RevisionGUID="86672d0b-d16b-46f6-b88a-216dd9040e2a" CreationDate="2017-07-22T03:04:49.427" UserId="406" Text="There are two main parts to this translation: &quot;if you seek my monument&quot; and &quot;look you here&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Christopher Wren's epitaph is originally in Latin, so you can use that as a starting point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Epitaph][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relevant part is the last two lines of text: *lector, si monumentum requiris, circumspice* (reader, if you would see his tomb/memorial, look around you).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as a starting point, *sī monumentum meum requīris, nōlī circumspice*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;rather&quot; I would use *sed*, though there may be better alternatives (for example Greek has a very nice particle for this exact usage, and something in the back of my mind suggests *immo*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I would use a form of *aspiciō*, &quot;look upon&quot;, for symmetry with *circumspiciō* &quot;look around&quot;. The previous verb is singular imperative, so this should be as well, *aspice*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A beautiful face would be *vultus pulcher*, *vultum pulchrum* in the accusative. (Other alternatives are *faciēs* and *bellus*. TODO: there's a passage in Aeneid IV which mentioned Ascanius's lovely face; what words did that use?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Into her eyes would be *in oculōs ejōs*. Again there might be more poetic words for that. And unfortunately I'm not sure what the idiom for looking &quot;deep into one's eyes&quot; is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So all together, *sī monumentum meum requīris, nōlī circumspice, sed aspice vultum pulchrum et in oculōs ejōs*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FWftC.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4877" RevisionGUID="ce3f931e-0e00-4d59-a753-2d0e00a8c7a7" CreationDate="2017-07-22T03:19:15.180" UserId="136" Comment="formatting and grammar overhaul" Text="My name is Jack, and I am seeking a translation of a Christopher Wren inspired momento mori: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you seek my monument do not look around, (rather) Look you here&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upon her beautiful face, deep into her eyes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My school boy Latin was weak. I came up with incorrect variations like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Titulum quaeris mea nolite circumspice. Respice ad eius faciem*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *pulchram. In illam oculos, voltus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm writing this for my young daughter's wedding as a preface in a journal I am gifting to her that describes my love for her and her mother. The journal was given to me from her mum, my deceased wife, who bore my beloved child (who is now 17), becoming married to her lover and to whom I give as his wife. Can someone out there offer their help to polish my crude school boy Latin I learned 30 years ago when I was 7?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheers &amp; Thanks so ever much !" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16112" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4877" RevisionGUID="ce3f931e-0e00-4d59-a753-2d0e00a8c7a7" CreationDate="2017-07-22T03:19:15.180" UserId="136" Comment="formatting and grammar overhaul" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4879" RevisionGUID="0407b437-e6f9-436e-a46a-6ee84e72d986" CreationDate="2017-07-22T13:07:20.617" UserId="645" Text="There isn't a direct and simple alternative of the sense you are looking for to *tempus*, which is really a very flexible word and could be adopted into your examples. If, however, you find that *tempus* can't be used in precisely the sense that you require, there are other possibilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of *locus* is not restricted to physical location. It has its uses as a word for a point in time, e.g. *ad id locorum*, 'up to that point'; *in illo locorum*, 'at that juncture' (*sc*. of time'); this is probably the nearest answer to your actual question. You may prefer to use *occasio*, a convenient or suitable moment, etc., as in  *facillime ut primum occasio data est*, roughly 'most easily at the first opportunity'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not what you are asking for, but instead of trying to find an appropriate single word, you might find that temporal adverbs or conjunctions (*cum*, *ubi* etc.) can do the trick, as in *hoc cum primum fecissem*, 'the first time I did this'. Or straightforward circumlocution, such as *salutationem nostram apud te nuperrimam obliviscor*, 'I forget when I paid my last visit to you'.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4880" RevisionGUID="b3c34cc6-4e25-4d49-8fe2-b9f3ea8d20fe" CreationDate="2017-07-22T13:31:04.743" UserId="39" Text="Weiss writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The *u*-forms are characteristic of legal and archaizing style, e.g. *pecuniae repetundae* (the recovery of extorted money), and are found in the isolated forms *secundus* 'following' and *rotundus* 'round' (p. 444)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4880" RevisionGUID="cf330a6d-9c0c-48bb-b242-467e097074ed" CreationDate="2017-07-22T13:41:25.027" UserId="39" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="Weiss writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The *u*-forms are characteristic of legal and archaizing style, e.g. *pecuniae repetundae* (the recovery of extorted money), and are found in the isolated forms *secundus* 'following' and *rotundus* 'round' (p. 444).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. Leumann - will translate later&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gQ3v2.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4881" RevisionGUID="5db248aa-2bb9-4dc4-a12b-2d8f95039f80" CreationDate="2017-07-22T14:11:31.517" UserId="118" Text="I was thinking of how you could alter the medical dictum _Primum non nocere_ to mean &quot;First, [CYA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_your_ass).&quot; My first thought: _Primum non culpare,_ which I would literally translate as &quot;First, don't get blamed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now wait a minute. How can you tell that _nocere_ is an active infinitive and that _culpare_ is a passive imperative? I understand _Primum non nocere_ to literally mean &quot;First, no harming.&quot; But you could also understand it as &quot;First, don't get harmed,&quot; since _nocere_ is also a passive imperative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or should I say _Primum non culpari_?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16117" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4881" RevisionGUID="5db248aa-2bb9-4dc4-a12b-2d8f95039f80" CreationDate="2017-07-22T14:11:31.517" UserId="118" Text="Primum non culpare?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16118" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4881" RevisionGUID="5db248aa-2bb9-4dc4-a12b-2d8f95039f80" CreationDate="2017-07-22T14:11:31.517" UserId="118" Text="|translation|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4878" RevisionGUID="6ee7eaba-00eb-498e-9751-1dede9c13e9c" CreationDate="2017-07-22T14:23:47.507" UserId="406" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="There are two main parts to this translation: &quot;if you seek my monument&quot; and &quot;look you here&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Christopher Wren's epitaph is originally in Latin, so you can use that as a starting point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Epitaph][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relevant part is the last two lines of text: *lector, si monumentum requiris, circumspice* (reader, if you would see his tomb/memorial, look around you).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as a starting point, *sī monumentum meum requīris, nōlī circumspicere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;rather&quot; I would use *sed*, though there may be better alternatives (for example Greek has a very nice particle for this exact usage, and something in the back of my mind suggests *immo*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I would use a form of *aspiciō*, &quot;look upon&quot;, for symmetry with *circumspiciō* &quot;look around&quot;. The previous verb is singular imperative, so this should be as well, *aspice*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A beautiful face would be *vultus pulcher*, *vultum pulchrum* in the accusative. (Other alternatives are *faciēs* and *bellus*. TODO: there's a passage in Aeneid IV which mentioned Ascanius's lovely face; what words did that use?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Into her eyes would be *in oculōs eius*. Again there might be more poetic words for that. And unfortunately I'm not sure what the idiom for looking &quot;deep into one's eyes&quot; is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So all together, *sī monumentum meum requīris, nōlī circumspicere, sed aspice vultum pulchrum et in oculōs eius*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FWftC.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4882" RevisionGUID="d8036a7d-db23-477b-91bb-4edbf44bf4a1" CreationDate="2017-07-22T14:42:11.030" UserId="1459" Text="I came across this phrase whilst reading _[Crotchet Castle](http://www.thomaslovepeacock.net/Crotchet.html)_, by Thomas Love Peacock. It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The moment you admit that [...], [then] the whole of that curious fabric of postulates and dogmas, which you call the science of political economy, and which I call _politicæ oeconomiæ inscientia_, tumbles to pieces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation of the first two words is I think simple: _political economy_. But I am struggling with [inscientia](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inscientia). I think it's being used as an adjective, probably as _ignorant_. But the phrase sound slightly odd to me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ... and which I call _the ignorant political economy_, tumbles to pieces. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean, a science (or pseudo-science, or scientific discipline) is not ignorant. An individual can be. Am I understanding this correctly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: I'm also quite shocked that economics is _oeconomia_ rather than _economia_. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16121" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4882" RevisionGUID="d8036a7d-db23-477b-91bb-4edbf44bf4a1" CreationDate="2017-07-22T14:42:11.030" UserId="1459" Text="How to translate &quot;Politicae oeconomiae inscientia&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16122" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4882" RevisionGUID="d8036a7d-db23-477b-91bb-4edbf44bf4a1" CreationDate="2017-07-22T14:42:11.030" UserId="1459" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4883" RevisionGUID="e9012cd9-a135-4e1f-8f8c-8fe5c4b81e54" CreationDate="2017-07-22T15:16:38.347" UserId="406" Text="## &quot;The un-science of political economy&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Scientia* fundamentally means knowledge, as in Bacon's famous motto, *nam ipsa scientia potestās est* &quot;for knowledge itself is power&quot;. But it's also the origin of the modern word &quot;science&quot;, and I think that's the sense that's intended here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while *īnscientia* literally means &quot;ignorance&quot; or &quot;inexperience&quot;, I think it's meant here to contrast with &quot;the science of political economy&quot;. I would calque it as &quot;un-science&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a more natural English translation, which doesn't preserve the pun, you could say **the ignorance of political economy**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. *Oeconomia* is a loan from Greek, *οἶκος* &quot;home&quot; + *νόμος* &quot;law&quot;. The sequences *oe* and *ae* in Latin and Greek-via-Latin words tend to become plain *e* in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4880" RevisionGUID="e703701c-5a01-441a-9d9f-1cb6ecba3d4b" CreationDate="2017-07-22T15:57:06.323" UserId="39" Comment="added 435 characters in body" Text="Weiss writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**The *u*-forms are characteristic of legal and archaizing style**, e.g. *pecuniae repetundae* (the recovery of extorted money), and are found in the isolated forms *secundus* 'following' and *rotundus* 'round' (p. 444; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Powell 2007/2011][1] adds that even though &quot;the gerundive suffix in -*undus*, rather than -*endus*, has an old-fashioned flavor and is characteristic of legal Latin,&quot; **&quot;neither confined to it nor universal in it&quot;** (p. 482, note 21; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for specific authors, Leumann 1977 (p. 331) mentions Plautus, Terence, Sallust and Gellius, cf.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gQ3v2.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch26/summary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4880" RevisionGUID="8e15e735-4ad3-4d0c-b9cc-1e684f0dacd3" CreationDate="2017-07-22T16:10:27.963" UserId="39" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="Weiss writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**The *u*-forms are characteristic of legal and archaizing style**, e.g. *pecuniae repetundae* (the recovery of extorted money), and are found in the isolated forms *secundus* 'following' and *rotundus* 'round' (p. 444; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Powell 2007/2011][1] adds that even though &quot;the gerundive suffix in -*undus*, rather than -*endus*, has an old-fashioned flavor and is characteristic of legal Latin,&quot; **&quot;neither confined to it nor universal in it&quot;** (p. 482, note 21; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for specific authors, Leumann 1977 (p. 331) mentions first Plautus and Terence (Neue and Wagener write that the u-forms are *gewöhnliche*, i.e. usual/normal, in Plautus and Terence, p. 332); also Sallust and Gellius, cf.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gQ3v2.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more examples, see pp. 331-340 in [Neue and Wagener 1897, volume 3: Das Verbum][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch26/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/formenlehrederla03neueuoft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4880" RevisionGUID="ecf5a3f2-fe35-4c98-9fa0-53f6f991d4f7" CreationDate="2017-07-22T17:06:55.093" UserId="39" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="Weiss writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**The *u*-forms are characteristic of legal and archaizing style**, e.g. *pecuniae repetundae* (the recovery of extorted money), and are found in the isolated forms *secundus* 'following' and *rotundus* 'round' (p. 444; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Powell 2007/2011][1] adds that even though &quot;the gerundive suffix in -*undus*, rather than -*endus*, has an old-fashioned flavor and is characteristic of legal Latin,&quot; **&quot;neither confined to it nor universal in it&quot;** (p. 482, note 21; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for specific authors, Leumann 1977 (p. 331) mentions first Plautus and Terence (Neue and Wagener write that the u-forms are *gewöhnliche*, i.e. usual/normal, in Plautus and Terence, p. 332); also Sallust and Gellius, cf.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gQ3v2.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the above quote from Leumann, we can also learn that in verbs whose stem ended in **u, u̯, qu** the *u*-forms were avoided in Latin - the only exception seems to be *secundus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more examples, see pp. 331-340 in [Neue and Wagener 1897, volume 3: Das Verbum][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch26/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/formenlehrederla03neueuoft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4884" RevisionGUID="3abdddc5-1962-40e1-8d62-72b3d3ec9569" CreationDate="2017-07-22T17:12:57.693" UserId="1839" Text="translate qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto:  If Jesus &quot;was conceived by the Holy Ghost,&quot; does that mean He was NOT conceived by The Virgin Mary?  Who, exactly, conceived Jesus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16128" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4884" RevisionGUID="3abdddc5-1962-40e1-8d62-72b3d3ec9569" CreationDate="2017-07-22T17:12:57.693" UserId="1839" Text="translate qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16129" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4884" RevisionGUID="3abdddc5-1962-40e1-8d62-72b3d3ec9569" CreationDate="2017-07-22T17:12:57.693" UserId="1839" Text="|translation|vocabulary|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="8e4de162-8adf-40db-b7e8-21f7f2e55ba0" CreationDate="2017-07-22T19:24:58.913" UserId="406" Text="In [this question][1], the idiom &quot;to look deep into one's eyes&quot; came up. While the rest of the translation was relatively straightforward, I don't know of any equivalent idiom in Greek or Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I wanted to say &quot;when I look deep into your eyes&quot;, for example, how would I go about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4877/to-aid-love-lost-and-gained" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16133" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="8e4de162-8adf-40db-b7e8-21f7f2e55ba0" CreationDate="2017-07-22T19:24:58.913" UserId="406" Text="How to &quot;look deep into one's eyes&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16134" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="8e4de162-8adf-40db-b7e8-21f7f2e55ba0" CreationDate="2017-07-22T19:24:58.913" UserId="406" Text="|greek|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4887" RevisionGUID="4679fa37-5e95-4eb4-acc0-e40e33397c39" CreationDate="2017-07-22T20:18:39.560" UserId="79" Text="I hope there are better ideas than mine, but let me record it here anyway.&#xD;&#xA;As I mentioned in the linked question, I have used this Latin translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quando oculos eius profundos specto/video/aspicio&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [Anonym](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/427/anonym) comments under the question, *imos* is one option to replace *profundos*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4884" RevisionGUID="9c7f5255-2791-40c2-8067-b9f4329d073c" CreationDate="2017-07-22T20:35:57.353" UserId="79" Comment="Tried to clarify the question." Text="The so-called Apostles' Creed contains this passage: *qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus&amp;hellip;* I am interested in the part *qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this mean exactly? If Jesus &quot;was conceived by the Holy Ghost,&quot; does that mean He was **not** conceived by The Virgin Mary? Who, exactly, conceived Jesus? How should I understand *conceptus de Spiritu Sancto* in this context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16138" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4884" RevisionGUID="9c7f5255-2791-40c2-8067-b9f4329d073c" CreationDate="2017-07-22T20:35:57.353" UserId="79" Comment="Tried to clarify the question." Text="Understanding &quot;conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16139" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4884" RevisionGUID="9c7f5255-2791-40c2-8067-b9f4329d073c" CreationDate="2017-07-22T20:35:57.353" UserId="79" Comment="Tried to clarify the question." Text="|translation|christianity|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16140" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4881" RevisionGUID="1ecfa42c-cee8-4dff-aa7a-b922a21531a6" CreationDate="2017-07-22T20:53:00.293" UserId="118" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|infinitive|imperative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4888" RevisionGUID="b7ce8bba-0d7c-4135-8a9c-9ca2b0f3c766" CreationDate="2017-07-23T02:05:29.143" UserId="9" Text="I found the following text on Google Books, but I cannot vouch for its theological or linguistic accuracy, so it will have to stand or fall on its own merits:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###FULL MEANING OF *conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With regard to this complete action, the phrase in the creed, *de Spiritu Sanctu,* has a double meaning according to St. Thomas, who follows the example of many Fathers. The preposition *de* indicates the Holy Ghost not only as the principle of an effect created and produced by Him, but also as the principle of the introduction of his own divine substance into the fruit, and thus into the womb of the Virgin, where this fruit comes into being. The personal action of the Holy Ghost in this *actio unitiva* consists precisely in this, that He Himself through the Son ushers the divine substance into the humanity which He formed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;–*[Mariology][1],* by Rev. M.J. Scheeben, translated by Rev. T. L. M. J. Geukers, Vol. 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a little bit more—I haven't quoted the full section because I felt it would be excessive; also, the rest focuses more on matters of theology than word choice and language usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There also seems to be some coverage in this book of Mary's role in the conception of Jesus, but due to restrictions on page access I can't say exactly where. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=G1dTCAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT82&amp;lpg=PT82&amp;dq=conceptus%20est%20de%20Spiritu%20Sancto%20conceived&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=OdSO3Oro2b&amp;sig=jXcncUC0_hM7eCf80JhxThR_Rts&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjnwcqgpZ7VAhXJilQKHXhjDiUQ6AEISjAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=conceptus%20est%20de%20Spiritu%20Sancto%20conceived&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4841" RevisionGUID="3e99c7c4-a775-488a-8b71-114c6244ce39" CreationDate="2017-07-23T04:29:23.403" UserId="39" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="Here's what we can find in Voigt 1971 (in Testimonia); she refers to it as **fragmentum adespotum 35 P.**, which means we can find it in *Poetae Melici Graeci* (Page 1962) in the section &quot;Fragmenta Adespota&quot; under number 35.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this is not my area of expertise, that's all I can do for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ys49R.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4889" RevisionGUID="6864d6b5-4eca-41a6-8cab-e2c046809386" CreationDate="2017-07-23T04:30:11.510" UserId="118" Text="I understand _nolle_ to be short for _non volle,_ i.e. &quot;not to wish/want&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought _noli_ was the imperative form of this: &lt;i&gt;non vo—&lt;/i&gt;er, wait a minute, [volo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/volo#Latin) has no imperative!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what's _noli?_ The usual explanation is that it literally means &quot;Be unwilling&quot;, but what about the missing _voli?_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16144" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4889" RevisionGUID="6864d6b5-4eca-41a6-8cab-e2c046809386" CreationDate="2017-07-23T04:30:11.510" UserId="118" Text="What does &quot;noli&quot; really mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16145" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4889" RevisionGUID="6864d6b5-4eca-41a6-8cab-e2c046809386" CreationDate="2017-07-23T04:30:11.510" UserId="118" Text="|imperative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4890" RevisionGUID="2e4097f0-4a92-44a9-b982-5d7cf4767b98" CreationDate="2017-07-23T09:36:52.360" UserId="324" Text="My French-Latin dictionary renders “fois” as “vicis”. Lewis/Short have for “vicis”, besides other things, this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A time, turn (late Lat.; cf. Orell. ad Hor. C. 4, 14, 13): “ager tertiā vice arabitur,” Pall. 10, 1: “tribus per diem vicibus,” id. 1, 3 fin.; cf.: “tesserulas in medium vice suā quisque jaciebamus,” Gell. 18, 13, 1: “vice quādam,” once, Sid. Ep. 7, 1; Aus. Pan. Grat. Aug. 4.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4877" RevisionGUID="43a33350-f0c1-467b-a081-cc590ecc46ae" CreationDate="2017-07-23T16:43:17.650" UserId="1459" Comment="minor corrections" Text="I am seeking a translation of a Christopher Wren inspired _memento mori_: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you seek my monument do not look around, (rather) Look you here&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upon her beautiful face, deep into her eyes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My school boy Latin was weak. I came up with incorrect variations like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Titulum quaeris mea nolite circumspice. Respice ad eius faciem*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *pulchram. In illam oculos, voltus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm writing this for my young daughter's wedding as a preface in a journal I am gifting to her that describes my love for her and her mother. The journal was given to me from her mum, my deceased wife, who bore my beloved child (who is now 17), becoming married to her lover and to whom I give as his wife. Can someone out there offer their help to polish my crude school boy Latin I learned 30 years ago when I was 7?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16148" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4877" RevisionGUID="43a33350-f0c1-467b-a081-cc590ecc46ae" CreationDate="2017-07-23T16:43:17.650" UserId="1459" Comment="minor corrections" Text="To aid love lost and gained" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16149" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4877" RevisionGUID="43a33350-f0c1-467b-a081-cc590ecc46ae" CreationDate="2017-07-23T16:43:17.650" Comment="Proposed by 1459 approved by -1 edit id of 201" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4877" RevisionGUID="9755be29-0251-4ad7-ad96-a3931cffc862" CreationDate="2017-07-23T16:43:17.650" UserId="136" Comment="Improvement on Luchonacho's proposed edit" Text="I am seeking a translation of a Christopher Wren inspired _memento mori_: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you seek my monument do not look around, (rather) Look you here&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upon her beautiful face, deep into her eyes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My school boy Latin was weak. I came up with incorrect variations like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Titulum quaeris mea nolite circumspice. Respice ad eius faciem*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *pulchram. In illam oculos, voltus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm writing this for my young daughter's wedding as a preface in a journal I am gifting to her that describes my love for her and her mother. The journal was given to me from her mum, my deceased wife, who bore my beloved child (who is now 17), becoming married to her lover and to whom I give as his wife. Can someone out there offer their help to polish my crude school boy Latin I learned 30 years ago when I was 7?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheers, and thanks so ever much!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4841" RevisionGUID="9b9c2730-4a29-42bb-b659-5b43b9e14766" CreationDate="2017-07-23T18:09:49.793" UserId="39" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="Here's what we can find in Voigt 1971 (in Testimonia); she refers to it as **fragmentum adespotum 35 P.**, which means we can find it in *Poetae Melici Graeci* (Page 1962) in the section &quot;Fragmenta Adespota&quot; under number 35.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a matter of fact, Campbell does provide all the information you're asking us about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ys49R.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Dmeh7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4841" RevisionGUID="d8ee6387-0033-42b6-91f5-c40e9131754a" CreationDate="2017-07-23T18:16:21.967" UserId="39" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="Here's what we can find in Voigt 1971 (in Testimonia); she refers to it as **fragmentum adespotum 35 P.**, which means we can find it in *Poetae Melici Graeci* (Page 1962) in the section &quot;Fragmenta Adespota&quot; under number 35.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the fragment in Page 1962 (PMG):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a matter of fact, Campbell does provide all the information you're asking us about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ys49R.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Now8C.png![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/oq0VM.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4841" RevisionGUID="11d86630-4321-48ea-84c4-2e9c634f6630" CreationDate="2017-07-23T18:22:43.043" UserId="39" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Here's what we can find in Voigt 1971 (in Testimonia); she refers to it as **fragmentum adespotum 35 P.**, which means we can find it in *Poetae Melici Graeci* (Page 1962) in the section &quot;Fragmenta Adespota&quot; under number 35.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the fragment in Page 1962 (PMG):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a matter of fact, Campbell does provide all the information you're asking us about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ys49R.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/A75Rt.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/z8aVI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4841" RevisionGUID="1a573038-ffd1-4617-ab59-2ebb2424a123" CreationDate="2017-07-23T18:39:00.750" UserId="39" Comment="added 137 characters in body" Text="Here's what we can find in Voigt 1971 (in Testimonia); she refers to it as **fragmentum adespotum 35 P.**, which means we can find it in *Poetae Melici Graeci* (Page 1962) in the section &quot;Fragmenta Adespota&quot; under number 35.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you seem to be struggling with the sources, I decided to post three images below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the relevant section in Voigt 1971:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the fragment in Page 1962 (PMG):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a matter of fact, Campbell does provide all the information you're asking us about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ys49R.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/A75Rt.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/z8aVI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4884" RevisionGUID="a157bdf2-8fa0-4b57-b769-5cf262a5ed21" CreationDate="2017-07-23T18:51:52.467" UserId="136" Comment="removed unnecessary qualifier" Text="The Apostles' Creed contains this passage: *qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus&amp;hellip;* I am interested in the part *qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this mean exactly? If Jesus &quot;was conceived by the Holy Ghost,&quot; does that mean He was **not** conceived by The Virgin Mary? Who, exactly, conceived Jesus? How should I understand *conceptus de Spiritu Sancto* in this context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4891" RevisionGUID="e19b6d42-03d3-47b3-9249-401c941adfff" CreationDate="2017-07-23T23:38:32.307" UserId="1841" Text="So I am getting a tattoo of my two boys names - Vincent and Alexander. To make it interesting I am going with the meaning of the names in latin rather than the names themselves. So I understand Vincent derives meaning from &quot;to conquer&quot; and Alexander &quot;protector/defender of men&quot;. As the space I am tattooing is limited I want to write &quot;CONQUER DEFEND&quot; in capitals. At present VINCERE seems pretty straight forward but I am having issues with the Alexander side. I think I could use SANCTUM, FORTIS, SPIRITUS, SERVO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also does this all change if you want it to read as one instead of two seperate words? E.g. translate &quot;to protect &amp; conquer&quot;. Remember limited space.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16157" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4891" RevisionGUID="e19b6d42-03d3-47b3-9249-401c941adfff" CreationDate="2017-07-23T23:38:32.307" UserId="1841" Text="How to say protect &amp; conquer in latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16158" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4891" RevisionGUID="e19b6d42-03d3-47b3-9249-401c941adfff" CreationDate="2017-07-23T23:38:32.307" UserId="1841" Text="|translation|tattoo|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4892" RevisionGUID="b3f4fd96-b080-45fe-947e-0e018c0ce03c" CreationDate="2017-07-24T00:19:09.807" UserId="136" Text="Alright so it's really about mixing and matching and finding what looks and sounds good to you. I will provide translations for both words to choose from, and then show you how to combine them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conquer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *vincere* (this reflects Vincent nicely (as it is the origin of said name), so the next option is just for kicks)&#xD;&#xA; - *domare* (as in dominate)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Defend**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Unfortunately, Alexander is Greek in origin, so there is no Latin verb from which it derives, so these are all just translations of &quot;to protect.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *servare*&#xD;&#xA; - *tegere*&#xD;&#xA; - *tutare*&#xD;&#xA; - *munire*&#xD;&#xA; - *arcere*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some options have been omitted due to length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Putting it Together**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as in English, one would normally join two clauses like this with a conjunction such as &quot;and.&quot; Latin can do the same thing, and provides two options that are pretty common (even in English). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *et* as in *VINCERE ET ARCERE* (This one is most familiar to non-Latin English speakers, as it appears in common phrases such as &quot;*et tu, Brute*&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; 2. *-que* as in VINCERE ARCEREQVE (The *-que* is a suffix of the second word)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could omit a conjunction as well, to reflect the English example you gave (&quot;CONQUER DEFEND&quot; -&gt; *VINCERE ARCERE*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will also notice that I capitalized all of the letters in these examples and replaced any u's with V's. This is how the Romans would write inscriptions on monuments and such (see [here][1]), so it makes sense to me to do it like that on a tattoo, especially if you use a similar font.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may have noticed that I used *arcere* in all of my examples. I like this one the best especially when paired with the *-que* conjunction because of the consonance with the c's and q (even if it becomes somewhat of a tongue twister!). However, it is up to you to choose the words that you prefer best, as well as the conjunction. I hope this assists you, and good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone knows of any verbs that derive from the Greek words that were the original source of Alexander, I'd be very interested to hear about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dl.ket.org/latin2/grammar/images/inscription.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16160" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="4893" RevisionGUID="b9d6ca4e-02ec-435e-80bf-92423b55fb7a" CreationDate="2017-07-24T00:46:09.863" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/402432/etymology-of-axiom-and-axis" />
  <row Id="16161" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="4894" RevisionGUID="ba6f2538-5e81-4d16-8da8-6e3fe3d63e23" CreationDate="2017-07-24T00:46:09.863" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/402432/etymology-of-axiom-and-axis/402439#402439" />
  <row Id="16162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4894" RevisionGUID="f002087f-4cf1-4452-82dd-9737ea33e99b" CreationDate="2017-07-24T00:36:16.977" UserId="30" Text="It is indeed possible that Latin *axis* (whence English *axis*) and Greek *axiôma* (whence English *axiom*) are from the same Proto-Indo-European root, *\*h2eg-* &quot;to lead&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**Chantraine** describes the development of Greek *axiôma* from the verb *axioô*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the ultimate etymology of the root, he suggests that it is rightly connected with the verb *ago* &quot;to lead, bring, carry, weigh&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**De Vaan** gives *\*h2eks-(i-)* &quot;axle, arm-pit&quot; as the Proto-Indo-European root of Latin *axis*:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He also adds that this root may be derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *\*h2eg-* &quot;to lead&quot;, which is the root of the Latin verb *ago*, which has in turn the same origin as the Greek verb *agô* that Chantraine suggests as the origin of the Greek verb above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jvemX.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HJYxE.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lM1Od.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BJENS.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4893" RevisionGUID="55713ad6-ef17-4397-8bd6-13b16ecb3e97" CreationDate="2017-07-23T22:52:03.553" UserId="597" Text="Is it possible that &quot;axis&quot; and &quot;axiom&quot; derive from the same etymological root?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a superficial search, it at least seems possible that the PIE root *ag &quot;to move&quot; (i.e. *axiom: to move about ~*) could translate across. However, I could find no explicit evidence that they were related etymologically." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16164" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4893" RevisionGUID="55713ad6-ef17-4397-8bd6-13b16ecb3e97" CreationDate="2017-07-23T22:52:03.553" UserId="597" Text="Etymology of axiom and axis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16165" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4893" RevisionGUID="55713ad6-ef17-4397-8bd6-13b16ecb3e97" CreationDate="2017-07-23T22:52:03.553" UserId="597" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4895" RevisionGUID="2c002bc9-47c4-4b46-be8f-0197f4c2331a" CreationDate="2017-07-24T03:51:33.893" UserId="118" Text="In medical prescriptions, up until almost the present day, doctors wrote _b.i.d., t.i.d., etc._ for _bis in die, ter in die, etc.,_ mean &quot;two times a day&quot;, &quot;three times a day&quot;, etc. [This Latin grammar book](https://books.google.com/books?id=PMQDAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA237&amp;dq=%22bis+in+die%22) by Leonhard Schmitz says that you can drop the preposition _in,_ hence _septies anno,_ &quot;seven times a year&quot;. So, as you already noted, one way to render &quot;a time&quot; in the sense you have in mind is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use an adverbial number, like _semel, bis, ter, quarter, quinquies, etc.,_ and no noun at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That won't work when you want to modify a single &quot;time&quot; with some notion of ordinal number, though, as in &quot;the first time&quot;, &quot;the second time&quot;, &quot;the next time&quot;, or &quot;the last time&quot;. Surely we need a noun for that. Well, Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin dictionary gives the adverb _primum_ for &quot;the first time&quot;. Also, _saepius_ for &quot;many times&quot;. The Vulgate provides some examples for other ordinal-ish concepts with &quot;a time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et ait &quot;Implete quattuor hydrias aqua et fundite super holocaustum et super ligna.&quot; Rursumque dixit &quot;Etiam **secundo** hoc facite.&quot; Qui cum fecissent et **secundo**, ait &quot;Etiam **tertio** id ipsum facite.&quot; Feceruntque et **tertio**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And he said, &quot;Fill four buckets with water and pour them over the burnt offering and over the wood.&quot; And again he said, &quot;And do it a **second time**.&quot; When they had done so, he said &quot;Do the same even a **third time**.&quot; And they did it a **third time**. (Kings 18:34)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This construction occurs many &quot;times&quot; in the Vulgate. So:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    You can get ordinal &quot;times&quot; by using the ordinal adjective substantively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But look at Judges 20:30:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et **tertia vice** sicut **semel** et **bis** contra Beniamin exercitum produxerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And they drew up armies against Benjamin **a third time**, just as they had **the first time** and **the second time**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like we've got your noun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _[vicis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vicis#Latin), -is_ (f.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even here, Latin seems to prefer to avoid it, saying the equivalent of &quot;once and twice before&quot; for &quot;the first and second times&quot;. Being a noun, _vicis_ is easy to modify with anything you like. Here it is with _alia,_ being used as a synonym for [_iterum_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iterum#Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Alia** etiam **vice** Philisthim inruerunt et diffusi sunt in valle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And **another time** the Philistines made a raid and spread themselves out in the valley. (Paralipomenon 14:13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deuteronomy 10:10 has &quot;this time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego autem steti in monte sicut prius quadraginta diebus ac noctibus exaudivitque me Deus etiam **hac vice** et te perdere noluit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And I stood on the mountain as before, forty days and nights, and God heard me **this time** also, and he would not destroy you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genesis 27:36:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At ille subiunxit iuste vocatum est nomen eius Iacob supplantavit enim me en **altera vice**. Primogenita mea ante tulit et nunc **secondo** subripuit benedictionem meam. Rursumque ad patrem &quot;Numquid non reservasti&quot; ait &quot;et mihi benedictionem?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But he added, &quot;Rightly is his name called Jacob, for he hath supplanted me lo **this second time**. He took away my birthright before, and now **this second time** he hath stolen away my blessing. Again he said to his father, &quot;Hast thou not reserved tome also a blessing?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand _altera vice_ here as an emphatic substitute for _iterum._ Notice that in the next sentence, _secundo_ denotes the same time, the fact that it's current emphasized with _nunc._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while it sounds like [_vicis_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vicis#Latin) is the word you're looking for, providing a noun to explicitly denote one time/occurrence, enabling you to say things _about_ it, the main thing I've gotten from digging for information about this is a striking reminder that in Latin, parts of speech other than the noun play a more important role than in English, often making a noun inappropriate or unnecessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4895" RevisionGUID="0d9a2381-6cef-4dfe-a3b8-640db67e216f" CreationDate="2017-07-24T03:59:10.567" UserId="118" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="In medical prescriptions, up until almost the present day, doctors wrote _b.i.d., t.i.d., etc._ for _bis in die, ter in die, etc.,_ mean &quot;two times a day&quot;, &quot;three times a day&quot;, etc. [This Latin grammar book](https://books.google.com/books?id=PMQDAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA237&amp;dq=%22bis+in+die%22) by Leonhard Schmitz says that you can drop the preposition _in,_ hence _septies anno,_ &quot;seven times a year&quot;. So, as you already noted, one way to render &quot;a time&quot; in the sense you have in mind is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use an adverbial number, like _semel, bis, ter, quarter, quinquies, etc.,_ and no noun at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That won't work when you want to modify a single &quot;time&quot; with some notion of ordinal number, though, as in &quot;the first time&quot;, &quot;the second time&quot;, &quot;the next time&quot;, or &quot;the last time&quot;. Surely we need a noun for that. Well, Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin dictionary gives the adverb _primum_ for &quot;the first time&quot;. Also, _saepius_ for &quot;many times&quot;. The Vulgate provides some examples for other ordinal-ish concepts with &quot;a time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et ait &quot;Implete quattuor hydrias aqua et fundite super holocaustum et super ligna.&quot; Rursumque dixit &quot;Etiam **secundo** hoc facite.&quot; Qui cum fecissent et **secundo**, ait &quot;Etiam **tertio** id ipsum facite.&quot; Feceruntque et **tertio**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And he said, &quot;Fill four buckets with water and pour them over the burnt offering and over the wood.&quot; And again he said, &quot;And do it a **second time**.&quot; When they had done it a **second time**, he said &quot;And do the same thing a **third time**.&quot; And they did it a **third time**. (Kings 18:34)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This construction occurs many &quot;times&quot; in the Vulgate. So:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    You can get ordinal &quot;times&quot; by using the ordinal adjective substantively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But look at Judges 20:30:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et **tertia vice** sicut **semel** et **bis** contra Beniamin exercitum produxerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And they drew up armies against Benjamin **a third time**, just as they had **the first time** and **the second time**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like we've got your noun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _[vicis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vicis#Latin), -is_ (f.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even here, Latin seems to prefer to avoid it, saying the equivalent of &quot;once and twice before&quot; for &quot;the first and second times&quot;. Being a noun, _vicis_ is easy to modify with anything you like. Here it is with _alia,_ being used as a synonym for [_iterum_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iterum#Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Alia** etiam **vice** Philisthim inruerunt et diffusi sunt in valle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And **another time** the Philistines made a raid and spread themselves out in the valley. (Paralipomenon 14:13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deuteronomy 10:10 has &quot;this time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego autem steti in monte sicut prius quadraginta diebus ac noctibus exaudivitque me Deus etiam **hac vice** et te perdere noluit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And I stood on the mountain as before, forty days and nights, and God heard me **this time** also, and he would not destroy you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genesis 27:36:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At ille subiunxit iuste vocatum est nomen eius Iacob supplantavit enim me en **altera vice**. Primogenita mea ante tulit et nunc **secondo** subripuit benedictionem meam. Rursumque ad patrem &quot;Numquid non reservasti&quot; ait &quot;et mihi benedictionem?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But he added, &quot;Rightly is his name called Jacob, for he hath supplanted me lo **this second time**. He took away my birthright before, and now **this second time** he hath stolen away my blessing. Again he said to his father, &quot;Hast thou not reserved tome also a blessing?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand _altera vice_ here as an emphatic substitute for _iterum._ Notice that in the next sentence, _secundo_ denotes the same time, the fact that it's current emphasized with _nunc._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while it sounds like [_vicis_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vicis#Latin) is the word you're looking for, providing a noun to explicitly denote one time/occurrence, enabling you to say things _about_ it, the main thing I've gotten from digging for information about this is a striking reminder that in Latin, parts of speech other than the noun play a more important role than in English, often making a noun inappropriate or unnecessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4895" RevisionGUID="a5ea8adf-1aeb-4d08-b809-b449248f729d" CreationDate="2017-07-24T04:12:40.897" UserId="118" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="In medical prescriptions, up until almost the present day, doctors wrote _b.i.d., t.i.d., etc._ for _bis in die, ter in die, etc.,_ mean &quot;two times a day&quot;, &quot;three times a day&quot;, etc. [This Latin grammar book](https://books.google.com/books?id=PMQDAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA237&amp;dq=%22bis+in+die%22) by Leonhard Schmitz says that you can drop the preposition _in,_ hence _septies anno,_ &quot;seven times a year&quot;. So, as you already noted, one way to render &quot;a time&quot; in the sense you have in mind is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use an adverbial number, like _semel, bis, ter, quarter, quinquies, etc.,_ and no noun at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That won't work when you want to modify a single &quot;time&quot; with some notion of ordinal number, though, as in &quot;the first time&quot;, &quot;the second time&quot;, &quot;the next time&quot;, or &quot;the last time&quot;. Surely we need a noun for that. Well, Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin dictionary gives the adverb _primum_ for &quot;the first time&quot;. Also, _saepius_ for &quot;many times&quot;. The Vulgate provides some examples for other ordinal-ish concepts with &quot;a time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et ait &quot;Implete quattuor hydrias aqua et fundite super holocaustum et super ligna.&quot; Rursumque dixit &quot;Etiam **secundo** hoc facite.&quot; Qui cum fecissent et **secundo**, ait &quot;Etiam **tertio** id ipsum facite.&quot; Feceruntque et **tertio**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And he said, &quot;Fill four buckets with water and pour them over the burnt offering and over the wood.&quot; And again he said, &quot;And do it a **second time**.&quot; When they had done it a **second time**, he said &quot;And do the same thing a **third time**.&quot; And they did it a **third time**. (Kings 18:34)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This construction occurs many &quot;times&quot; in the Vulgate. So:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    You can get ordinal &quot;times&quot; by using the ordinal adjective substantively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But look at Judges 20:30:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et **tertia vice** sicut **semel** et **bis** contra Beniamin exercitum produxerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And they drew up armies against Benjamin **a third time**, just as they had **the first time** and **the second time**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like we've got your noun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (missing), _[vicis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vicis#Latin)._ (f.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even here, Latin seems to prefer to avoid it, saying the equivalent of &quot;once and twice before&quot; for &quot;the first and second times&quot;. Indeed, _vice_ has no nominative singular! It seems to want to be in the ablative—where it anchors an adverbial phrase. However, since it's a noun, you can modify _vice_ with anything you like. Here it is with _alia,_ being used as a synonym for [_iterum_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iterum#Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Alia** etiam **vice** Philisthim inruerunt et diffusi sunt in valle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And **another time** the Philistines made a raid and spread themselves out in the valley. (Paralipomenon 14:13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deuteronomy 10:10 has &quot;this time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego autem steti in monte sicut prius quadraginta diebus ac noctibus exaudivitque me Deus etiam **hac vice** et te perdere noluit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And I stood on the mountain as before, forty days and nights, and God heard me **this time** also, and he would not destroy you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genesis 27:36:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At ille subiunxit iuste vocatum est nomen eius Iacob supplantavit enim me en **altera vice**. Primogenita mea ante tulit et nunc **secondo** subripuit benedictionem meam. Rursumque ad patrem &quot;Numquid non reservasti&quot; ait &quot;et mihi benedictionem?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But he added, &quot;Rightly is his name called Jacob, for he hath supplanted me lo **this second time**. He took away my birthright before, and now **this second time** he hath stolen away my blessing. Again he said to his father, &quot;Hast thou not reserved tome also a blessing?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand _altera vice_ here as an emphatic substitute for _iterum._ Notice that in the next sentence, _secundo_ denotes the same time, the fact that it's current emphasized with _nunc._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while it sounds like [_vicis_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vicis#Latin) is the word you're looking for, providing a noun to explicitly denote one time/occurrence, enabling you to say things _about_ it, the main thing I've gotten from digging for information about this is a striking reminder that in Latin, parts of speech other than the noun play a more important role than in English, often making a noun inappropriate or unnecessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4895" RevisionGUID="e94efd92-1004-4436-ac3a-e095f2b382ce" CreationDate="2017-07-24T04:24:17.567" UserId="118" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="In medical prescriptions, up until almost the present day, doctors wrote _b.i.d., t.i.d., etc._ for _bis in die, ter in die, etc.,_ mean &quot;two times a day&quot;, &quot;three times a day&quot;, etc. [This Latin grammar book](https://books.google.com/books?id=PMQDAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA237&amp;dq=%22bis+in+die%22) by Leonhard Schmitz says that you can drop the preposition _in,_ hence _septies anno,_ &quot;seven times a year&quot;. So, as you already noted, one way to render &quot;a time&quot; in the sense you have in mind is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use an adverbial number, like _semel, bis, ter, quarter, quinquies, etc.,_ and no noun at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That won't work when you want to modify a single &quot;time&quot; with some notion of ordinal number, though, as in &quot;the first time&quot;, &quot;the second time&quot;, &quot;the next time&quot;, or &quot;the last time&quot;. Surely we need a noun for that. Well, Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin dictionary gives the adverb _primum_ for &quot;the first time&quot;. Also, _saepius_ for &quot;many times&quot;. The Vulgate provides some examples for other ordinal-ish concepts with &quot;a time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et ait &quot;Implete quattuor hydrias aqua et fundite super holocaustum et super ligna.&quot; Rursumque dixit &quot;Etiam **secundo** hoc facite.&quot; Qui cum fecissent et **secundo**, ait &quot;Etiam **tertio** id ipsum facite.&quot; Feceruntque et **tertio**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And he said, &quot;Fill four buckets with water and pour them over the burnt offering and over the wood.&quot; And again he said, &quot;And do it a **second time**.&quot; When they had done it a **second time**, he said &quot;And do the same thing a **third time**.&quot; And they did it a **third time**. (Kings 18:34)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This construction occurs many &quot;times&quot; in the Vulgate. So:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    You can get ordinal &quot;times&quot; by using the ordinal adjective substantively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But look at Judges 20:30:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et **tertia vice** sicut **semel** et **bis** contra Beniamin exercitum produxerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And they drew up armies against Benjamin **a third time**, just as they had **the first time** and **the second time**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like we've got your noun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (missing), _[vicis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vicis#Latin)._ (f.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even here, Latin seems to prefer to avoid it, saying the equivalent of &quot;once and twice before&quot; for &quot;the first and second times&quot;. Indeed, _vice_ has no nominative singular! It seems to want to be in the ablative—where it anchors an adverbial phrase. However, since it's a noun, you can modify _vice_ with anything you like. Here it is with _alia,_ being used as a synonym for [_iterum_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iterum#Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Alia** etiam **vice** Philisthim inruerunt et diffusi sunt in valle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And **another time** the Philistines made a raid and spread themselves out in the valley. (Paralipomenon 14:13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deuteronomy 10:10 has &quot;this time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego autem steti in monte sicut prius quadraginta diebus ac noctibus exaudivitque me Deus etiam **hac vice** et te perdere noluit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And I stood on the mountain as before, forty days and nights, and God heard me **this time** also, and he would not destroy you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genesis 27:36:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At ille subiunxit iuste vocatum est nomen eius Iacob supplantavit enim me en **altera vice**. Primogenita mea ante tulit et nunc **secondo** subripuit benedictionem meam. Rursumque ad patrem &quot;Numquid non reservasti&quot; ait &quot;et mihi benedictionem?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But he added, &quot;Rightly is his name called Jacob, for he hath supplanted me lo **this second time**. He took away my birthright before, and now **this second time** he hath stolen away my blessing. Again he said to his father, &quot;Hast thou not reserved to me also a blessing?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand _altera vice_ here as an emphatic substitute for _iterum._ Notice that in the next sentence, _secundo_ denotes the same time, the fact that it's current emphasized with _nunc._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while it sounds like _vice_ is the word you're looking for, providing a noun to explicitly denote one time/occurrence, enabling you to say things _about_ it, the main thing I've gotten from digging for information about this is a striking reminder that in Latin, parts of speech other than the noun play a more important role than in English, often making a noun inappropriate or unnecessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you desperately need a noun in the nominative singular, you could reach for _vicissitas_ or _vicissitudo._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4895" RevisionGUID="a72bb87c-8fd1-44ab-a695-7069609854ad" CreationDate="2017-07-24T04:30:17.353" UserId="118" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In medical prescriptions, up until almost the present day, doctors wrote _b.i.d., t.i.d., etc._ for _bis in die, ter in die, etc.,_ mean &quot;two times a day&quot;, &quot;three times a day&quot;, etc. [This Latin grammar book](https://books.google.com/books?id=PMQDAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA237&amp;dq=%22bis+in+die%22) by Leonhard Schmitz says that you can drop the preposition _in,_ hence _septies anno,_ &quot;seven times a year&quot;. So, as you already noted, one way to render &quot;a time&quot; in the sense you have in mind is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use an adverbial number, like _semel, bis, ter, quarter, quinquies, etc.,_ and no noun at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That won't work when you want to modify a single &quot;time&quot; with some notion of ordinal number, though, as in &quot;the first time&quot;, &quot;the second time&quot;, &quot;the next time&quot;, or &quot;the last time&quot;. Surely we need a noun for that. Well, Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin dictionary gives the adverb _primum_ for &quot;the first time&quot;. Also, _saepius_ for &quot;many times&quot;. The Vulgate provides some examples for other ordinal-ish concepts with &quot;a time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et ait &quot;Implete quattuor hydrias aqua et fundite super holocaustum et super ligna.&quot; Rursumque dixit &quot;Etiam **secundo** hoc facite.&quot; Qui cum fecissent et **secundo**, ait &quot;Etiam **tertio** id ipsum facite.&quot; Feceruntque et **tertio**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And he said, &quot;Fill four buckets with water and pour them over the burnt offering and over the wood.&quot; And again he said, &quot;And do it a **second time**.&quot; When they had done it a **second time**, he said &quot;And do the same thing a **third time**.&quot; And they did it a **third time**. (Kings 18:34)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This construction occurs many &quot;times&quot; in the Vulgate. So:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    You can get ordinal &quot;times&quot; by using the ordinal adjective substantively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But look at Judges 20:30:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et **tertia vice** sicut **semel** et **bis** contra Beniamin exercitum produxerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And they drew up armies against Benjamin **a third time**, just as they had **the first time** and **the second time**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like we've found your noun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (missing), _[vicis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vicis#Latin)._ (f.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even here, Latin seems to prefer to avoid it, saying the equivalent of &quot;once and twice before&quot; for &quot;the first and second times&quot;. Indeed, _vice_ has no nominative singular! It seems to want to be in the ablative—where it anchors an adverbial phrase. However, since it's a noun, you can modify _vice_ with anything you like. Here it is with _alia,_ being used as a synonym for [_iterum_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iterum#Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Alia** etiam **vice** Philisthim inruerunt et diffusi sunt in valle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And **another time** the Philistines made a raid and spread themselves out in the valley. (Paralipomenon 14:13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deuteronomy 10:10 has &quot;this time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego autem steti in monte sicut prius quadraginta diebus ac noctibus exaudivitque me Deus etiam **hac vice** et te perdere noluit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And I stood on the mountain as before, forty days and nights, and God heard me **this time** also, and he would not destroy you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genesis 27:36:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At ille subiunxit iuste vocatum est nomen eius Iacob supplantavit enim me en **altera vice**. Primogenita mea ante tulit et nunc **secondo** subripuit benedictionem meam. Rursumque ad patrem &quot;Numquid non reservasti&quot; ait &quot;et mihi benedictionem?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But he added, &quot;Rightly is his name called Jacob, for he hath supplanted me lo **this second time**. He took away my birthright before, and now **this second time** he hath stolen away my blessing. Again he said to his father, &quot;Hast thou not reserved to me also a blessing?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand _altera vice_ here as an emphatic substitute for _iterum._ Notice that in the next sentence, _secundo_ denotes the same time, the fact that it's current emphasized with _nunc._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while it sounds like _vice_ is the word you're looking for, providing a noun to explicitly denote one time/occurrence, enabling you to say things _about_ it, the main thing I've gotten from digging for information about this is a striking reminder that in Latin, parts of speech other than the noun play a more important role than in English, often making a noun inappropriate or unnecessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you desperately need a noun in the nominative singular, you could reach for _vicissitas_ or _vicissitudo._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4895" RevisionGUID="eb2d83ec-def5-4c8a-a92c-25c7543ba3f8" CreationDate="2017-07-24T05:11:02.443" UserId="118" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In medical prescriptions, up until almost the present day, doctors wrote _b.i.d., t.i.d., etc._ for _bis in die, ter in die, etc.,_ mean &quot;two times a day&quot;, &quot;three times a day&quot;, etc. [This Latin grammar book](https://books.google.com/books?id=PMQDAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA237&amp;dq=%22bis+in+die%22) by Leonhard Schmitz says that you can drop the preposition _in,_ hence _septies anno,_ &quot;seven times a year&quot;. So, as you already noted, one way to render &quot;a time&quot; in the sense you have in mind is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use an adverbial number, like _semel, bis, ter, quarter, quinquies, etc.,_ and no noun at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That won't work when you want to modify a single &quot;time&quot; with some notion of ordinal number, though, as in &quot;the first time&quot;, &quot;the second time&quot;, &quot;the next time&quot;, or &quot;the last time&quot;. Surely we need a noun for that. Well, Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin dictionary gives the adverb _primum_ for &quot;the first time&quot;. Also, _saepius_ for &quot;many times&quot;. The Vulgate provides some examples for other ordinal-ish concepts with &quot;a time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et ait &quot;Implete quattuor hydrias aqua et fundite super holocaustum et super ligna.&quot; Rursumque dixit &quot;Etiam **secundo** hoc facite.&quot; Qui cum fecissent et **secundo**, ait &quot;Etiam **tertio** id ipsum facite.&quot; Feceruntque et **tertio**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And he said, &quot;Fill four buckets with water and pour them over the burnt offering and over the wood.&quot; And again he said, &quot;And do it a **second time**.&quot; When they had done it a **second time**, he said &quot;And do the same thing a **third time**.&quot; And they did it a **third time**. (Kings 18:34)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This construction occurs many &quot;times&quot; in the Vulgate. So:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    You can get ordinal &quot;times&quot; by using the ordinal adjective substantively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But look at Judges 20:30:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et **tertia vice** sicut **semel** et **bis** contra Beniamin exercitum produxerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And they drew up armies against Benjamin **a third time**, just as they had **the first time** and **the second time**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like we've found your noun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (missing), _[vicis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vicis#Latin)._ (f.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even here, Latin seems to prefer to avoid it, saying the equivalent of &quot;once and twice before&quot; for &quot;the first and second times&quot;. Indeed, _vice_ has no nominative singular! It seems to want to be in the ablative—where it anchors an adverbial phrase. However, since it's a noun, you can modify _vice_ with anything you like. Here it is with _alia,_ being used as a synonym for [_iterum_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iterum#Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Alia** etiam **vice** Philisthim inruerunt et diffusi sunt in valle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And **another time** the Philistines made a raid and spread themselves out in the valley. (Paralipomenon 14:13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deuteronomy 10:10 has &quot;this time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego autem steti in monte sicut prius quadraginta diebus ac noctibus exaudivitque me Deus etiam **hac vice** et te perdere noluit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And I stood on the mountain as before, forty days and nights, and God heard me **this time** also, and he would not destroy you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genesis 27:36:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At ille subiunxit iuste vocatum est nomen eius Iacob supplantavit enim me en **altera vice**. Primogenita mea ante tulit et nunc **secondo** subripuit benedictionem meam. Rursumque ad patrem &quot;Numquid non reservasti&quot; ait &quot;et mihi benedictionem?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But he added, &quot;Rightly is his name called Jacob, for he hath supplanted me lo **this second time**. He took away my birthright before, and now **this second time** he hath stolen away my blessing. Again he said to his father, &quot;Hast thou not reserved to me also a blessing?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand _altera vice_ here as an emphatic substitute for _iterum._ Notice that in the next sentence, _secundo_ denotes the same time, the fact that it's current emphasized with _nunc._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while it sounds like _vice_ is the word you're looking for, providing a noun to explicitly denote one time/occurrence, enabling you to say things _about_ it, the main thing I've gotten from digging for information about this is a striking reminder that in Latin, parts of speech other than the noun play a more important role than in English, often making a noun inappropriate or unnecessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, here's my non-expert attempt to render your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The first time is the easiest.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Facillime facere est prima vice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea here is to avoid predicating anything directly about the first time (since there's no nominative singular), and instead make the action the subject and put _prima vice_ in an emphatic position. Better still is probably _Facillime facere est primum_ or even _Primo est facillimum,_ &quot;It's easiest the first time.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't remember the last time I was here.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proxime vice hic adesse non memini.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But again, probably better is _proximo hic adesse non memini._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you desperately need a noun in the nominative singular, you could reach for _vicissitas_ or _vicissitudo._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4895" RevisionGUID="728f7021-a9a8-4e51-989b-17e2ff8d366d" CreationDate="2017-07-24T05:19:19.123" UserId="118" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In medical prescriptions, up until almost the present day, doctors wrote _b.i.d., t.i.d., etc._ for _bis in die, ter in die, etc.,_ mean &quot;two times a day&quot;, &quot;three times a day&quot;, etc. [This Latin grammar book](https://books.google.com/books?id=PMQDAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA237&amp;dq=%22bis+in+die%22) by Leonhard Schmitz says that you can drop the preposition _in,_ hence _septies anno,_ &quot;seven times a year&quot;. So, as you already noted, one way to render &quot;a time&quot; in the sense you have in mind is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use an adverbial number, like _semel, bis, ter, quarter, quinquies, etc.,_ and no noun at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That won't work when you want to modify a single &quot;time&quot; with some notion of ordinal number, though, as in &quot;the first time&quot;, &quot;the second time&quot;, &quot;the next time&quot;, or &quot;the last time&quot;. Surely we need a noun for that. Well, Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin dictionary gives the adverb _primum_ for &quot;the first time&quot;. Also, _saepius_ for &quot;many times&quot;. The Vulgate provides some examples for other ordinal-ish concepts with &quot;a time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et ait &quot;Implete quattuor hydrias aqua et fundite super holocaustum et super ligna.&quot; Rursumque dixit &quot;Etiam **secundo** hoc facite.&quot; Qui cum fecissent et **secundo**, ait &quot;Etiam **tertio** id ipsum facite.&quot; Feceruntque et **tertio**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And he said, &quot;Fill four buckets with water and pour them over the burnt offering and over the wood.&quot; And again he said, &quot;And do it a **second time**.&quot; When they had done it a **second time**, he said &quot;And do the same thing a **third time**.&quot; And they did it a **third time**. (Kings 18:34)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This construction occurs many &quot;times&quot; in the Vulgate. So:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    You can get ordinal &quot;times&quot; by using the ordinal adjective substantively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But look at Judges 20:30:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et **tertia vice** sicut **semel** et **bis** contra Beniamin exercitum produxerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And they drew up armies against Benjamin **a third time**, just as they had **the first time** and **the second time**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like we've found your noun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (missing), _[vicis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vicis#Latin)._ (f.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even here, Latin seems to prefer to avoid it, saying the equivalent of &quot;once and twice before&quot; for &quot;the first and second times&quot;. Indeed, _vice_ has no nominative singular! It seems to want to be in the ablative—where it anchors an adverbial phrase. However, since it's a noun, you can modify _vice_ with anything you like. Here it is with _alia,_ being used as a synonym for [_iterum_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iterum#Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Alia** etiam **vice** Philisthim inruerunt et diffusi sunt in valle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And **another time** the Philistines made a raid and spread themselves out in the valley. (Paralipomenon 14:13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deuteronomy 10:10 has &quot;this time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego autem steti in monte sicut prius quadraginta diebus ac noctibus exaudivitque me Deus etiam **hac vice** et te perdere noluit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And I stood on the mountain as before, forty days and nights, and God heard me **this time** also, and he would not destroy you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genesis 27:36:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At ille subiunxit iuste vocatum est nomen eius Iacob supplantavit enim me en **altera vice**. Primogenita mea ante tulit et nunc **secondo** subripuit benedictionem meam. Rursumque ad patrem &quot;Numquid non reservasti&quot; ait &quot;et mihi benedictionem?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But he added, &quot;Rightly is his name called Jacob, for he hath supplanted me lo **this second time**. He took away my birthright before, and now **this second time** he hath stolen away my blessing. Again he said to his father, &quot;Hast thou not reserved to me also a blessing?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand _altera vice_ here as an emphatic substitute for _iterum._ Notice that in the next sentence, _secundo_ denotes the same time, the fact that it's current emphasized with _nunc._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while it sounds like _vice_ is the word you're looking for, providing a noun to explicitly denote one time/occurrence, enabling you to say things _about_ it, the main thing I've gotten from digging for information about this is a striking reminder that in Latin, parts of speech other than the noun play a more important role than in English, often making a noun inappropriate or unnecessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, here's my non-expert attempt to render your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The first time is the easiest.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Facillime facere est prima vice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea here is to avoid predicating anything directly about the first time (since there's no nominative singular), and instead make the action the subject and put _prima vice_ in an emphatic position. Better still is probably _Facillime facere est primum_ or even _Primo est facillimum,_ &quot;It's easiest the first time.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't remember the last time I was here.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proxima vice hic adesse non reminiscor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that sounds very strange to me, more like &quot;I can't remember being here on the last occurrence.&quot; Probably better is _Proximus hic adesse non reminiscor._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you desperately need a noun in the nominative singular, you could reach for _vicissitas_ or _vicissitudo._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4895" RevisionGUID="8e0008eb-3a42-4403-8840-53e1b761460a" CreationDate="2017-07-24T05:27:14.453" UserId="118" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="In medical prescriptions, up until almost the present day, doctors wrote _b.i.d., t.i.d., etc._ for _bis in die, ter in die, etc.,_ mean &quot;two times a day&quot;, &quot;three times a day&quot;, etc. [This Latin grammar book](https://books.google.com/books?id=PMQDAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA237&amp;dq=%22bis+in+die%22) by Leonhard Schmitz says that you can drop the preposition _in,_ hence _septies anno,_ &quot;seven times a year&quot;. So, as you already noted, one way to render &quot;a time&quot; in the sense you have in mind is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use an adverbial number, like _semel, bis, ter, quarter, quinquies, etc.,_ and no noun at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That won't work when you want to modify a single &quot;time&quot; with some notion of ordinal number, though, as in &quot;the first time&quot;, &quot;the second time&quot;, &quot;the next time&quot;, or &quot;the last time&quot;. Surely we need a noun for that. Well, Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin dictionary gives the adverb _primum_ for &quot;the first time&quot;. Also, _saepius_ for &quot;many times&quot;. The Vulgate provides some examples for other ordinal-ish concepts with &quot;a time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et ait &quot;Implete quattuor hydrias aqua et fundite super holocaustum et super ligna.&quot; Rursumque dixit &quot;Etiam **secundo** hoc facite.&quot; Qui cum fecissent et **secundo**, ait &quot;Etiam **tertio** id ipsum facite.&quot; Feceruntque et **tertio**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And he said, &quot;Fill four buckets with water and pour them over the burnt offering and over the wood.&quot; And again he said, &quot;And do it a **second time**.&quot; When they had done it a **second time**, he said &quot;And do the same thing a **third time**.&quot; And they did it a **third time**. (Kings 18:34)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This construction occurs many &quot;times&quot; in the Vulgate. So:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    You can get ordinal &quot;times&quot; by using the ordinal adjective substantively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But look at Judges 20:30:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et **tertia vice** sicut **semel** et **bis** contra Beniamin exercitum produxerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And they drew up armies against Benjamin **a third time**, just as they had **the first time** and **the second time**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like we've found your noun—some of it, anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (missing), _[vicis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vicis#Latin)._ (f.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even here, Latin seems to prefer to avoid it, saying the equivalent of &quot;once and twice before&quot; for &quot;the first and second times&quot;. Indeed, _vice_ has no nominative singular! It seems to want to be in the ablative—where it anchors an adverbial phrase. However, since it's a noun, you can modify _vice_ with anything you like. Here it is with _alia,_ being used as a synonym for [_iterum_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iterum#Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Alia** etiam **vice** Philisthim inruerunt et diffusi sunt in valle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And **another time** the Philistines made a raid and spread themselves out in the valley. (Paralipomenon 14:13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deuteronomy 10:10 has &quot;this time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego autem steti in monte sicut prius quadraginta diebus ac noctibus exaudivitque me Deus etiam **hac vice** et te perdere noluit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And I stood on the mountain as before, forty days and nights, and God heard me **this time** also, and he would not destroy you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genesis 27:36:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At ille subiunxit iuste vocatum est nomen eius Iacob supplantavit enim me en **altera vice**. Primogenita mea ante tulit et nunc **secondo** subripuit benedictionem meam. Rursumque ad patrem &quot;Numquid non reservasti&quot; ait &quot;et mihi benedictionem?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But he added, &quot;Rightly is his name called Jacob, for he hath supplanted me lo **this second time**. He took away my birthright before, and now **this second time** he hath stolen away my blessing. Again he said to his father, &quot;Hast thou not reserved to me also a blessing?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand _altera vice_ here as an emphatic substitute for _iterum._ Notice that in the next sentence, _secundo_ denotes the same time, the fact that it's current emphasized with _nunc._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while it sounds like _vice_ is the word you're looking for, providing a noun to explicitly denote one time/occurrence, enabling you to say things _about_ it, the main thing I've gotten from digging for information about this is a striking reminder that in Latin, parts of speech other than the noun play a more important role than in English, often making a noun inappropriate or unnecessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, here's my non-expert attempt to render your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The first time is the easiest.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Facillime facere est prima vice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea here is to avoid predicating anything directly about the first time (since there's no nominative singular), and instead make the action the subject and put _prima vice_ in an emphatic position. Better still is probably _Facillime facere est primum_ or even _Primo est facillimum,_ &quot;It's easiest the first time.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't remember the last time I was here.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proxima vice hic adesse non reminiscor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that sounds very strange to me, more like &quot;I can't remember being here on the last occurrence.&quot; Probably better is _Proximus hic adesse non reminiscor._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you desperately need a noun in the nominative singular, you could reach for _vicissitas_ or _vicissitudo._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4896" RevisionGUID="28398263-8584-4341-8a2b-ece10c7b2830" CreationDate="2017-07-24T06:11:43.723" UserId="1842" Text="The Charter can be found in Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum Vol 1, Appendix i, #71. It reads:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Carta Malcolmi Comitis de Levenax. Robertus etc. Cum concessimus Malcolmo comiti de Levenax dilecto et fideli nostro terram de Strathoune per forisfacturam David de Strathbolgy militis dudum comitis Adtholie tempore quo Duncanus comes de Fyff fuit contra pacem nostram de quo dicta terra tenebatur in capite, pro quaquidem terra idem Malcolmus nobis fecit homagium, et postea eidem comiti de Fyff concessimus omnes terras et tenementa cum omnibus tenandriis et libere tenentibus ad ipsum spectantes jure hereditario infra regnum nostrum, et cum dictus Malcolmus de jure non teneatur facere homagium dicto comiti de Fyff pro terra predicta in vita nostra nobis viventibus, concessimus eidem comiti de Fyff quod occasione homagii nobis per eundem Malcolmum facti pro eadem terra, cum warda relevium seu homagium vel aliquid aliud pertinens ad eundem comitem de Fyff de ipsa terra futuris temporibus contigerit, nullum prejudicium sibi aut heredibus suis aliqualiter generatur, sed quod habeat libere et quiete omnia et singula que sibi antiquis temporibus debebantur de eadem. In cujus rei testimonium etc.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is clear and accepted that Robert has granted the lands of Strathoune which the former Earl of Atholl, David of Strathbolgy has forfeited. Most references by historians writing about this charter assume that the land has been granted to Malcolm, the Earl of Lennox. But a footnote in the Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum has challenged this saying the charter is wrongly titled and the land is really granted to Duncan, the young Earl of Fife. Given the history of the area this would make more sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an explanation for these contradictory interpretations and who is right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am researching the history of Strathoune (now Strathavon) in Banffshire and would be grateful for any advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16176" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4896" RevisionGUID="28398263-8584-4341-8a2b-ece10c7b2830" CreationDate="2017-07-24T06:11:43.723" UserId="1842" Text="Contradictory interpretations of a charter by King Robert the Bruce circa 1314 in medieval Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16177" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4896" RevisionGUID="28398263-8584-4341-8a2b-ece10c7b2830" CreationDate="2017-07-24T06:11:43.723" UserId="1842" Text="|translation|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4895" RevisionGUID="09f76c92-1cd9-4b80-9f4d-5a055ae6a8d4" CreationDate="2017-07-24T07:35:46.963" UserId="118" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="In medical prescriptions, up until almost the present day, doctors wrote _b.i.d., t.i.d., etc._ for _bis in die, ter in die, etc.,_ mean &quot;two times a day&quot;, &quot;three times a day&quot;, etc. [This Latin grammar book](https://books.google.com/books?id=PMQDAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA237&amp;dq=%22bis+in+die%22) by Leonhard Schmitz says that you can drop the preposition _in,_ hence _septies anno,_ &quot;seven times a year&quot;. So, as you already noted, one way to render &quot;a time&quot; in the sense you have in mind is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use an adverbial number, like _semel, bis, ter, quarter, quinquies, etc.,_ and no noun at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That won't work when you want to modify a single &quot;time&quot; with some notion of ordinal number, though, as in &quot;the first time&quot;, &quot;the second time&quot;, &quot;the next time&quot;, or &quot;the last time&quot;. Surely we need a noun for that. Well, Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin dictionary gives the adverb _primum_ for &quot;the first time&quot;. Also, _saepius_ for &quot;many times&quot;. The Vulgate provides some examples for other ordinal-ish concepts with &quot;a time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et ait &quot;Implete quattuor hydrias aqua et fundite super holocaustum et super ligna.&quot; Rursumque dixit &quot;Etiam **secundo** hoc facite.&quot; Qui cum fecissent et **secundo**, ait &quot;Etiam **tertio** id ipsum facite.&quot; Feceruntque et **tertio**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And he said, &quot;Fill four buckets with water and pour them over the burnt offering and over the wood.&quot; And again he said, &quot;And do it a **second time**.&quot; When they had done it a **second time**, he said &quot;And do the same thing a **third time**.&quot; And they did it a **third time**. (Kings 18:34)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This construction occurs many &quot;times&quot; in the Vulgate. So:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    You can get ordinal &quot;times&quot; by using the ordinal adjective substantively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But look at Judges 20:30:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et **tertia vice** sicut **semel** et **bis** contra Beniamin exercitum produxerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And they drew up armies against Benjamin **a third time**, just as they had **the first time** and **the second time**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like we've found your noun—some of it, anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (missing), _[vicis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vicis#Latin)._ (f.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even here, Latin seems to prefer to avoid it, saying the equivalent of &quot;once and twice before&quot; for &quot;the first and second times&quot;. Indeed, _vice_ has no nominative singular! It seems to want to be in the ablative—where it anchors an adverbial phrase. However, since it's a noun, you can modify _vice_ with anything you like. Here it is with _alia,_ being used as a synonym for [_iterum_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iterum#Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Alia** etiam **vice** Philisthim inruerunt et diffusi sunt in valle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And **another time** the Philistines made a raid and spread themselves out in the valley. (Paralipomenon 14:13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deuteronomy 10:10 has &quot;this time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego autem steti in monte sicut prius quadraginta diebus ac noctibus exaudivitque me Deus etiam **hac vice** et te perdere noluit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And I stood on the mountain as before, forty days and nights, and God heard me **this time** also, and he would not destroy you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genesis 27:36:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At ille subiunxit iuste vocatum est nomen eius Iacob supplantavit enim me en **altera vice**. Primogenita mea ante tulit et nunc **secondo** subripuit benedictionem meam. Rursumque ad patrem &quot;Numquid non reservasti&quot; ait &quot;et mihi benedictionem?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But he added, &quot;Rightly is his name called Jacob, for he hath supplanted me lo **this second time**. He took away my birthright before, and now **this second time** he hath stolen away my blessing. Again he said to his father, &quot;Hast thou not reserved to me also a blessing?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand _altera vice_ here as an emphatic substitute for _iterum._ Notice that in the next sentence, _secundo_ denotes the same time, the fact that it's current emphasized with _nunc._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while it sounds like _vice_ is the word you're looking for, providing a noun to explicitly denote one time/occurrence, enabling you to attach modifiers to it _ad libitum,_ the main thing I've gotten from digging for information about this is a striking reminder that in Latin, parts of speech other than the noun play a more important role than in English, often making a noun inappropriate or unnecessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, here's my non-expert attempt to render your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The first time is the easiest.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Facillime facere est prima vice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea here is to avoid predicating anything directly about the first time (since there's no nominative singular), and instead make the action the subject and put _prima vice_ in an emphatic position. Better still is probably _Facillime facere est primum_ or even _Primo est facillimum,_ &quot;It's easiest the first time.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't remember the last time I was here.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proxima vice hic adfuisse non reminiscor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that sounds very strange to me, more like &quot;I can't remember having been here on the last occurrence.&quot; Probably better is _Proximus hic adfuisse non reminiscor._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you desperately need a noun in the nominative singular, you could reach for _vicissitas_ or _vicissitudo._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4856" RevisionGUID="9e1f9f1b-d834-4bc9-abe0-a71675872d3e" CreationDate="2017-07-24T13:36:22.593" UserId="1441" Comment="Correcting my own correction, so as not to be too precious (arguably it should be in lowercase, but life's too short...)" Text="E. E. Cummings wrote a poem called 'Puella Mea'. A quick skim of the omniscient google suggests that 'Mea Puella' might be more accurate. Which would be more accurate, in isolation, when used as a pet name for someone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16180" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4856" RevisionGUID="9e1f9f1b-d834-4bc9-abe0-a71675872d3e" CreationDate="2017-07-24T13:36:22.593" Comment="Proposed by 1441 approved by 118, 952 edit id of 202" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4896" RevisionGUID="f4f2a2c4-dd1f-45e1-b05d-518a44d144e5" CreationDate="2017-07-24T13:39:30.117" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted the quote and added the history tag." Text="The Charter can be found in Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum Vol 1, Appendix i, #71. It reads:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Carta Malcolmi Comitis de Levenax. Robertus etc. Cum concessimus Malcolmo comiti de Levenax dilecto et fideli nostro terram de Strathoune per forisfacturam David de Strathbolgy militis dudum comitis Adtholie tempore quo Duncanus comes de Fyff fuit contra pacem nostram de quo dicta terra tenebatur in capite, pro quaquidem terra idem Malcolmus nobis fecit homagium, et postea eidem comiti de Fyff concessimus omnes terras et tenementa cum omnibus tenandriis et libere tenentibus ad ipsum spectantes jure hereditario infra regnum nostrum, et cum dictus Malcolmus de jure non teneatur facere homagium dicto comiti de Fyff pro terra predicta in vita nostra nobis viventibus, concessimus eidem comiti de Fyff quod occasione homagii nobis per eundem Malcolmum facti pro eadem terra, cum warda relevium seu homagium vel aliquid aliud pertinens ad eundem comitem de Fyff de ipsa terra futuris temporibus contigerit, nullum prejudicium sibi aut heredibus suis aliqualiter generatur, sed quod habeat libere et quiete omnia et singula que sibi antiquis temporibus debebantur de eadem. In cujus rei testimonium etc.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is clear and accepted that Robert has granted the lands of Strathoune which the former Earl of Atholl, David of Strathbolgy has forfeited. Most references by historians writing about this charter assume that the land has been granted to Malcolm, the Earl of Lennox. But a footnote in the Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum has challenged this saying the charter is wrongly titled and the land is really granted to Duncan, the young Earl of Fife. Given the history of the area this would make more sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an explanation for these contradictory interpretations and who is right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am researching the history of Strathoune (now Strathavon) in Banffshire and would be grateful for any advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16182" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4896" RevisionGUID="f4f2a2c4-dd1f-45e1-b05d-518a44d144e5" CreationDate="2017-07-24T13:39:30.117" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted the quote and added the history tag." Text="|translation|medieval-latin|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4893" RevisionGUID="1034a43e-1327-4add-b086-fe050149fc1a" CreationDate="2017-07-24T14:36:03.223" UserId="30" Comment="added 19 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is it possible that &quot;axis&quot; and &quot;axioma&quot; (English &quot;axiom&quot;) derive from the same etymological root?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a superficial search, it at least seems possible that the PIE root *ag &quot;to move&quot; (i.e. *axiom: to move about ~*) could translate across. However, I could find no explicit evidence that they were related etymologically." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16184" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4893" RevisionGUID="1034a43e-1327-4add-b086-fe050149fc1a" CreationDate="2017-07-24T14:36:03.223" UserId="30" Comment="added 19 characters in body; edited title" Text="Etymology of axioma and axis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4897" RevisionGUID="e008ab1c-9f52-4da5-b02c-feb2e0e1998b" CreationDate="2017-07-24T15:14:35.893" UserId="469" Text="This seems related to Latin language only _per accidens_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a theologian, but I think I know the basics from a Catholic POV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to answer in the order you put the questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **What does this mean exactly?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translations to modern languages vary, but some of them say Christ was conceived *by the power of* the Holy Spirit. Conception needs the participation of two, undoubtedly. In the case of Jesus, God and man, the preposition *de* has a double meaning, in words of Thomas Aquinas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Conception is not attributed only to the body of Christ, but also to Christ himself by reason of his body. Now in the Holy Spirit we can see a twofold relation to Christ. In relation to the son of God, who is said to be conceived, he stands as consubstantial; but in relation to his body he is an efficient cause. The preposition 'of' [de] conveys both relations: as when we say a man is 'of' his father. So we can reasonably say that Christ is conceived of the Holy Spirit, in the sense that the causality of the Holy Spirit is in respect to the body assumed, the consubstantiality in respect of the Person assuming it.* ([Summa Theologiae, q. 32, art. 2][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Catholic teaching says that Christ is _perfectus Deus, perfectus homo_, (perfect/complete, trully God and man.) There is only one God in three Divine Persons (distinct, but consubstantial, i.e., sharing the same substance): the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In the instant of incarnation, a human body (and its nature) was formed _by the power of the Holy Spirit_ and *assumed* by the person of God the Son, who is still one person, but holds both natures (cf. [Cathechism of the Catholic Church, 464 ss.][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **If Jesus &quot;was conceived by the Holy Ghost,&quot; does that mean He was not conceived by The Virgin Mary?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it does not. The [Gospel of St. Luke][3] (at least since the [Vulgate, Lc 1,31][4]) uses the active voice of _concipio_ (if someone can help me with the Greek, it will be appreciated) with the Virgin Mary as the subject: *ecce **concipies** in utero et paries filium*. St. Thomas cites Augustine and adds:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *As Augustine says (Enchiridion xl), Christ is said to be conceived or born of the Holy Ghost in one sense; of the Virgin Mary in another---of the Virgin Mary materially; of the Holy Ghost efficiently. Therefore there was no mingling here* (ibid.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Who, exactly, conceived Jesus?**&#xD;&#xA;4. **How should I understand conceptus de Spiritu Sancto in this context?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think most of these have already been answered in the previous two questions.  I only want to add a comment that may be helpful in putting all this in modern context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The scriptures weren't intended as a scientific document, but as something helpful for salvation to be understood by peoples of all eras. Hence the language must be understandable to everyone. Today we have both science and exegesis, in antiquity they had none. That is why the fact that explanations are given through ancient eyes and language is not to be seen as contradictory to modern knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In antiquity, it was believed that in the act of conception, the man put the seed, while the woman's womb and blood were the ground and nutrients needed for that seed to grow. I doubt they didn't realize that children inherit treats from both parents, but they didn't know genetics either, so it's reasonable to think this was not a problem for them. Both through the eyes of antiquity and modern biology an embryo is not produced by the female alone. The missing part was put there _de_ Spiritu Sancto.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_Theologiae/Third_Part/Question_32#Art._2_-_Whether_it_should_be_said_that_Christ_was_conceived_of_.5Bde.5D_the_Holy_Ghost.3F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1J.HTM&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-lucam_lt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/luk001.htm#031" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4898" RevisionGUID="7d61b71e-d238-49af-b91b-9ac6253c946f" CreationDate="2017-07-24T15:20:41.610" UserId="522" Text="The structure of the Charter consists of a long preamble  describing how the situation came about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;///AND AFTERWARDS///  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et postea eidem comiti de Fyff concessimus omnes terras et tenementa&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum omnibus tenandriis et libere tenentibus ad ipsum spectantes jure&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hereditario infra regnum nostrum,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;and afterwards we conceded to the same Count of Fyff (Duncan) all the lands...  together with... under our rule...&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;///AND WHEN/// &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et cum dictus Malcolmus de jure non teneatur facere homagium dicto comiti de Fyff pro terra predicta in vita nostra nobis viventibus,  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;and when the said Malcolm did not hold to his oath to to do homage to the said Count of Fyff for the aforesaid land upon our life and to us living,&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...then after all that ::: WE CONCEDED::: THAT and THAT(Concessimus quod, quod)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **concessimus** eidem comiti de Fyff (i.e. Duncano) ::**quod**:: occasione&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homagii nobis per eundem Malcolmum facti pro eadem terra, cum warda&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relevium seu homagium vel aliquid aliud pertinens ad eundem comitem de&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fyff de ipsa terra futuris temporibus contigerit, nullum prejudicium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sibi aut heredibus suis aliqualiter generatur, sed ::**quod**:: habeat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; libere et quiete omnia et singula que sibi antiquis temporibus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; debebantur de eadem. In cujus rei testimonium etc.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**We conceded** to the same Count of Fyff **that** on the occasion of homage made to us through the same Malcolm with respect to the same land ... no prejudice should be generated to him and his heirs...**but that** he (Duncan) may hold freely and 'quietly' all and singular what was due to him of the same in ancient times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The misunderstanding seems to come from two complications:&#xD;&#xA;.1.The earlier occasion when the lands were given fully to Malcolm (when Duncan was in trouble).  &#xD;&#xA;.2.That the Count of Fyff owed allegiance to Malcolm; and the King only restored his lands when he showed his loyalty by swearing allegiance to Malcolm. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4898" RevisionGUID="565f2269-a4e6-4713-b281-a3d0f8c38849" CreationDate="2017-07-24T15:26:48.817" UserId="522" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="The structure of the Charter consists of a long preamble  describing how the situation came about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;///AND AFTERWARDS///  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et postea eidem comiti de Fyff concessimus omnes terras et tenementa&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum omnibus tenandriis et libere tenentibus ad ipsum spectantes jure&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hereditario infra regnum nostrum,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;and afterwards we conceded to the same Count of Fyff (Duncan) all the lands...  together with... under our rule...&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;///AND WHEN/// &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et cum dictus Malcolmus de jure non teneatur facere homagium dicto comiti de Fyff pro terra predicta in vita nostra nobis viventibus,  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;and when the said Malcolm did not hold to his oath to to do homage to the said Count of Fyff for the aforesaid land upon our life and to us living,&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...then after all that ::: WE CONCEDED::: THAT and THAT(Concessimus quod, quod)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **concessimus** eidem comiti de Fyff (i.e. Duncano) ::**quod**:: occasione&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homagii nobis per eundem Malcolmum facti pro eadem terra, cum warda&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relevium seu homagium vel aliquid aliud pertinens ad eundem comitem de&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fyff de ipsa terra futuris temporibus contigerit, nullum prejudicium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sibi aut heredibus suis aliqualiter generatur, sed ::**quod**:: habeat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; libere et quiete omnia et singula que sibi antiquis temporibus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; debebantur de eadem. In cujus rei testimonium etc.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**We conceded** to the same Count of Fyff **that** on the occasion of homage made to us through the same Malcolm with respect to the same land ... no prejudice should be generated to him and his heirs...**but that** he may hold freely and 'quietly' all and singular what was due to him of the same in ancient times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The misunderstanding seems to come from two complications:&#xD;&#xA;.1.The earlier occasion when the lands were given fully to Malcolm (when Duncan was in trouble, under-age).  &#xD;&#xA;.2.That the Count of Fyff owed allegiance to Malcolm; and the King only restored the lands when Duncan showed his loyalty by swearing allegiance to Malcolm. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4876" RevisionGUID="c6e26cd8-3834-4ac8-8aed-20ac4136f7a6" CreationDate="2017-07-24T16:09:31.663" UserId="469" Comment="added 2039 characters in body" Text="As far as I remember, [Vicis][1] is an option. It is far from a perfect match, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spanish equivalent [_vez_][2] is derived from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S do not offer an infinitive, but the _Diccionario de la Lengua Española_ cites _vix_ (as a noun, not to be confused with the adverb.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S say (vicis, meaning I.B.1) it is _Late_ Latin and cites as examples *ager **tertia vice** arabitur* (for the third time) and ***tribus** per diem **vicibus*** (three times a day.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of further examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Prima vice and secunda vice [in the same context][3] (court decisions in XVII century Naples.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The usage has made it to the modern day legal expression _pro hac vice_ for something that is permitted _for this time/occasion only_, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ...and to [botanics][4] in a number of phrases/contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Perhaps Joonas can say if [this forum][5] is of some help (translation of _prima vice_ to Finnish.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate &quot;The first time is easiest&quot; as _prima vice facilissimum est_, note that you could arguably say _prima vix facilissima est_ too, but with most evidence pointing to not having an infinitive, the idiom seems to work better as a (time) complement, so I'm assuming there is _something_ that is easiest when done for the first time. In the same sense, I'd translate &quot;I can't remember the last time...&quot; as something like _Non memorare possum_ quando... _novissima vice_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally I don't think this is a good term for just _every_ occasion you want to say *time* with this meaning. Particularly for _every time_ in some uses you can use [quoties][6] (and also as an interrogative in _how many times_.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DV%3Aentry%20group%3D17%3Aentry%3Dvicis&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dle.rae.es/?id=biPx6YF&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=gBZmAAAAcAAJ&amp;lpg=PA56&amp;ots=MoJkBOPgDw&amp;dq=prima%20vice&amp;pg=PA53#v=onepage&amp;q=prima%20vice&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.mobot.org/mobot/latindict/keyDetail.aspx?keyWord=vicis&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://keskustelu.suomi24.fi/t/2284965/mita-tarkoittaa-quotprima-vicequot&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3Dq%3Aentry%20group%3D5%3Aentry%3Dquotiens" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4897" RevisionGUID="7c7d227e-7da8-4932-83fe-a8079008a71b" CreationDate="2017-07-24T17:22:51.390" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="This seems related to Latin language only _per accidens_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a theologian, but I think I know the basics from a Catholic POV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to answer in the order you put the questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **What does this mean exactly?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translations to modern languages vary, but some of them say Christ was conceived *by the power of* the Holy Spirit. Conception needs the participation of two, undoubtedly. In the case of Jesus, God and man, the preposition *de* has a double meaning, in words of Thomas Aquinas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Conception is not attributed only to the body of Christ, but also to Christ himself by reason of his body. Now in the Holy Spirit we can see a twofold relation to Christ. In relation to the son of God, who is said to be conceived, he stands as consubstantial; but in relation to his body he is an efficient cause. The preposition 'of' [de] conveys both relations: as when we say a man is 'of' his father. So we can reasonably say that Christ is conceived of the Holy Spirit, in the sense that the causality of the Holy Spirit is in respect to the body assumed, the consubstantiality in respect of the Person assuming it.* ([Summa Theologiae, q. 32, art. 2][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Catholic teaching says that Christ is _perfectus Deus, perfectus homo_, (perfect/complete, trully God and man.) There is only one God in three Divine Persons (distinct, but consubstantial, i.e., sharing the same substance): the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In the instant of incarnation, a human body (and its nature) was formed _by the power of the Holy Spirit_ and *assumed* by the person of God the Son, who is still one person, but holds both natures (cf. [Cathechism of the Catholic Church, 464 ss.][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **If Jesus &quot;was conceived by the Holy Ghost,&quot; does that mean He was not conceived by The Virgin Mary?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it does not. The [Gospel of St. Luke][3] (at least since the [Vulgate, Lc 1,31][4]) uses the active voice of _concipio_ (if someone can help me with the Greek, it will be appreciated) with the Virgin Mary as the subject: *ecce **concipies** in utero et paries filium*. St. Thomas cites Augustine and adds:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *As Augustine says (Enchiridion xl), Christ is said to be conceived or born of the Holy Ghost in one sense; of the Virgin Mary in another---of the Virgin Mary materially; of the Holy Ghost efficiently. Therefore there was no mingling here* (ibid.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Who, exactly, conceived Jesus?**&#xD;&#xA;4. **How should I understand conceptus de Spiritu Sancto in this context?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think most of these have already been answered in the previous two questions.  I only want to add a comment that may be helpful in putting all this in modern context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The scriptures weren't intended as a scientific document, but as something helpful for salvation to be understood by peoples of all eras. Hence the language must be understandable to everyone. Today we have both science and exegesis, in antiquity they had none. That is why the fact that explanations are given through ancient eyes and language is not to be seen as contradictory to modern knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In antiquity, it was believed that in the act of conception, the man put the seed, while the woman's womb and blood were the ground and nutrients needed for that seed to grow. I doubt they didn't realize that children inherit treats from both parents, but they didn't know genetics either, so it's reasonable to think this was not a problem for them. Both through the eyes of antiquity and modern biology a child is not produced by the female alone. The missing part was put there _de_ Spiritu Sancto.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_Theologiae/Third_Part/Question_32#Art._2_-_Whether_it_should_be_said_that_Christ_was_conceived_of_.5Bde.5D_the_Holy_Ghost.3F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1J.HTM&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-lucam_lt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/luk001.htm#031" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4895" RevisionGUID="fc16511e-96b3-4f58-88ce-a4d31b4ee60a" CreationDate="2017-07-24T17:43:35.347" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="In medical prescriptions, up until almost the present day, doctors wrote _b.i.d., t.i.d., etc._ for _bis in die, ter in die, etc.,_ mean &quot;two times a day&quot;, &quot;three times a day&quot;, etc. [This Latin grammar book](https://books.google.com/books?id=PMQDAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA237&amp;dq=%22bis+in+die%22) by Leonhard Schmitz says that you can drop the preposition _in,_ hence _septies anno,_ &quot;seven times a year&quot;. So, as you already noted, one way to render &quot;a time&quot; in the sense you have in mind is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Use an adverbial number, like _semel, bis, ter, quarter, quinquies, etc.,_ and no noun at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That won't work when you want to modify a single &quot;time&quot; with some notion of ordinal number, though, as in &quot;the first time&quot;, &quot;the second time&quot;, &quot;the next time&quot;, or &quot;the last time&quot;. Surely we need a noun for that. Well, Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin dictionary gives the adverb _primum_ for &quot;the first time&quot;. Also, _saepius_ for &quot;many times&quot;. The Vulgate provides some examples for other ordinal-ish concepts with &quot;a time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et ait &quot;Implete quattuor hydrias aqua et fundite super holocaustum et super ligna.&quot; Rursumque dixit &quot;Etiam **secundo** hoc facite.&quot; Qui cum fecissent et **secundo**, ait &quot;Etiam **tertio** id ipsum facite.&quot; Feceruntque et **tertio**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And he said, &quot;Fill four buckets with water and pour them over the burnt offering and over the wood.&quot; And again he said, &quot;And do it a **second time**.&quot; When they had done it a **second time**, he said &quot;And do the same thing a **third time**.&quot; And they did it a **third time**. (Kings 18:34)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This construction occurs many &quot;times&quot; in the Vulgate. So:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    You can get ordinal &quot;times&quot; by using the ordinal adjective substantively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But look at Judges 20:30:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et **tertia vice** sicut **semel** et **bis** contra Beniamin exercitum produxerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And they drew up armies against Benjamin **a third time**, just as they had **the first time** and **the second time**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like we've found your noun—some of it, anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (missing), _[vicis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vicis#Latin)._ (f.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even here, Latin seems to prefer to avoid it, saying the equivalent of &quot;once and twice before&quot; for &quot;the first and second times&quot;. Indeed, _vice_ has no nominative singular! It seems to want to be in the ablative—where it anchors an adverbial phrase. However, since it's a noun, you can modify _vice_ with anything you like. Here it is with _alia,_ being used as a synonym for [_iterum_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iterum#Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Alia** etiam **vice** Philisthim inruerunt et diffusi sunt in valle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And **another time** the Philistines made a raid and spread themselves out in the valley. (Paralipomenon 14:13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deuteronomy 10:10 has &quot;this time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego autem steti in monte sicut prius quadraginta diebus ac noctibus exaudivitque me Deus etiam **hac vice** et te perdere noluit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And I stood on the mountain as before, forty days and nights, and God heard me **this time** also, and he would not destroy you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genesis 27:36:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At ille subiunxit iuste vocatum est nomen eius Iacob supplantavit enim me en **altera vice**. Primogenita mea ante tulit et nunc **secundo** subripuit benedictionem meam. Rursumque ad patrem &quot;Numquid non reservasti&quot; ait &quot;et mihi benedictionem?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But he added, &quot;Rightly is his name called Jacob, for he hath supplanted me lo **this second time**. He took away my birthright before, and now **this second time** he hath stolen away my blessing. Again he said to his father, &quot;Hast thou not reserved to me also a blessing?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand _altera vice_ here as an emphatic substitute for _iterum._ Notice that in the next sentence, _secundo_ denotes the same time, the fact that it's current emphasized with _nunc._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while it sounds like _vice_ is the word you're looking for, providing a noun to explicitly denote one time/occurrence, enabling you to attach modifiers to it _ad libitum,_ the main thing I've gotten from digging for information about this is a striking reminder that in Latin, parts of speech other than the noun play a more important role than in English, often making a noun inappropriate or unnecessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, here's my non-expert attempt to render your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The first time is the easiest.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Facillime facere est prima vice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea here is to avoid predicating anything directly about the first time (since there's no nominative singular), and instead make the action the subject and put _prima vice_ in an emphatic position. Better still is probably _Facillime facere est primum_ or even _Primo est facillimum,_ &quot;It's easiest the first time.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't remember the last time I was here.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proxima vice hic adfuisse non reminiscor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that sounds very strange to me, more like &quot;I can't remember having been here on the last occurrence.&quot; Probably better is _Proximus hic adfuisse non reminiscor._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you desperately need a noun in the nominative singular, you could reach for _vicissitas_ or _vicissitudo._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4899" RevisionGUID="1cd5dfbb-87d3-42f6-a350-6d2896dc02ef" CreationDate="2017-07-24T18:07:40.663" UserId="79" Text="I strolled around [Tampere](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampere) today, and I noticed an inscription in the wall of [The Classical High School of Tampere](http://lukiot.tampere.fi/klassillinen/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;FENNIA VOS GENUIT  &#xD;&#xA;GREMIO VOS INTIMA FOVIT.  &#xD;&#xA;ARBORIS AUSCULTET  &#xD;&#xA;MURMURA QUISQUE SUAE.  &#xD;&#xA;FENNI VOS MANEATIS.  &#xD;&#xA;AT HOC ANIMIS RETINETE  &#xD;&#xA;GRAECIA QUID DEDERIT  &#xD;&#xA;VOBIS ET HESPERIA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a photo, see [here](https://clasu-yhdistysavain-fi-bin.directo.fi/@Bin/faa588bf37e8e014524f4c243a61a618/1500919871/image/jpeg/181205/1.DSC_0122_2%20Fennia%20von%20genuit....jpeg).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This raises a couple of questions.&#xD;&#xA;Let me focus on scansion here; I might return to other issues later.&#xD;&#xA;(Anyone is free to ask questions about the content, of course!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is inscription contains quite obviously two elegiac couplets;&#xD;&#xA;the line breaks match the *caesurae*.&#xD;&#xA;I have two questions regarding scansion in comparison to classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It appears that *hoc* is intended to be *ho&amp;#x306;cc* (neuter singular) instead of the ablative *h&amp;omacr;c*; at least I see no support for an ablative. I recall that it has been mentioned on this site before that *hoc* can be pronounced this way, but I forget where.&#xD;&#xA;**Are there classical examples where *hoc* is clearly neuter nominative or accusative (not ablative) but scansion requires that the *c* is long like in this poem?**&#xD;&#xA;2. I have learned that *v&amp;omacr;b&amp;imacr;s* always has two long vowels, but the *i* appears to be short here.&#xD;&#xA;**Is there classical precedent for such a short *i* in *vobis* or *nobis*?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you think these questions should rather be asked separately, I'll be happy to do so. I'm not sure what's best.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this might be of local interest, let me repeat the question briefly in Finnish: Tampereen klassillisen lukion seinässä on piirtokirjoitus, joka on kirjoitettu elegisellä säeparilla. Miten sanat *hoc* ja *vobis* on tarkoitus ääntää, ja vastaako se klassista runomittaoppia? Katso yksityiskohdat yltä." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16193" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4899" RevisionGUID="1cd5dfbb-87d3-42f6-a350-6d2896dc02ef" CreationDate="2017-07-24T18:07:40.663" UserId="79" Text="Scanning the inscription of The Classical High School of Tampere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16194" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4899" RevisionGUID="1cd5dfbb-87d3-42f6-a350-6d2896dc02ef" CreationDate="2017-07-24T18:07:40.663" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|contemporary-latin|poetry|scansion|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16195" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4349" RevisionGUID="7a483e49-3bf1-4e08-bc7c-b326930273cc" CreationDate="2017-07-24T18:16:31.573" UserId="79" Comment="46" />
  <row Id="16196" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4069" RevisionGUID="39df9be2-f80f-4beb-bfd3-db9ff5c64b5c" CreationDate="2017-07-24T18:17:17.893" UserId="79" Comment="47" />
  <row Id="16197" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4349" RevisionGUID="6f243567-8fc3-43e4-a821-2e1594e1d8be" CreationDate="2017-07-24T18:27:33.880" UserId="79" Comment="Perhaps it's safe now to remove the word &quot;Latin&quot; from the title. The question is protected and off the HNQ list." Text="What is Google Translate good for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4900" RevisionGUID="dd922e65-007d-4cae-92a8-8572601393a8" CreationDate="2017-07-24T20:55:30.663" UserId="1784" Text="To clarify a little more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Gramatica Latina (latin grammar) by Santiago Segura:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Participe of passive future**:&#xD;&#xA;It is also called verbal adjective in -NDUS and gerundive and is formed by adding to the present theme the suffix -ND-US, -ND-A, -ND-UM, sometimes by -e- (3rd and 4th conjugation): ama- ndus, -a, -um; dele-nd-us, -a, -um; leg-e-nd-us, -a, -um; cap-i-e-nd-dus, -a, -um; audi-e-nd-us, -a, -um. It is declined as a bonus, -a, -um.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the archaic period the verbs of the 3rd and 4th conjugation offer forms in -undus (with vocalism or&gt; u, instead of e): legundis, deferundo, querundai, repetunda. The analogical action of the present participle in -e-ns, -e-ntis made generalize the form in -endus, surviving scarce forms in -undus in the **archaizing language of the right** (repetundis) **or as adjectives** (oriundus, secundus and others)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4900" RevisionGUID="d5760a53-fc6b-4f11-b856-de4e307a396e" CreationDate="2017-07-24T21:02:39.960" UserId="1784" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="To clarify a little more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Gramatica Latina (latin grammar) by Santiago Segura:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Participe of passive future**:&#xD;&#xA;It is also called verbal adjective in -NDUS and gerundive and is formed by adding to the present theme the suffix -ND-US, -ND-A, -ND-UM, sometimes by -e- (3rd and 4th conjugation): ama- ndus, -a, -um; dele-nd-us, -a, -um; leg-e-nd-us, -a, -um; cap-i-e-nd-dus, -a, -um; audi-e-nd-us, -a, -um. It is declined as a bonus, -a, -um.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the archaic period the verbs of the 3rd and 4th conjugation offer forms in -undus (with vocalism o&gt; u, instead of e): legundis, deferundo, querundai, repetunda. The analogical action of the present participle in -e-ns, -e-ntis made generalize the form in -endus, surviving scarce forms in -undus in the **archaizing language of the right** (repetundis) **or as adjectives** (oriundus, secundus and others)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4900" RevisionGUID="e8937ae3-35b3-420e-b187-c9dfe6ff45a0" CreationDate="2017-07-24T21:43:22.740" UserId="1784" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="To clarify a little more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Gramatica Latina (latin grammar) by Santiago Segura:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Participe of passive future**:&#xD;&#xA;It is also called verbal adjective in -NDUS and gerundive and is formed by adding to the present theme the suffix -ND-US, -ND-A, -ND-UM, sometimes by -e- (3rd and 4th conjugation): ama- ndus, -a, -um; dele-nd-us, -a, -um; leg-e-nd-us, -a, -um; cap-i-e-nd-dus, -a, -um; audi-e-nd-us, -a, -um. It is declined as a bonus, -a, -um.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the archaic period the verbs of the 3rd and 4th conjugation offer forms in -undus (with vocalism o&gt; u, instead of e): legundis, deferundo, querundai, repetunda. The analogical action of the present participle in -e-ns, -e-ntis made generalize the form in -endus, surviving scarce forms in -undus in the **archaizing language in laws** (repetundis) **or as adjectives** (oriundus, secundus and others)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4900" RevisionGUID="8568a21e-89e8-4db7-b8bb-503aba37b076" CreationDate="2017-07-24T21:55:40.977" UserId="1784" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="To clarify a little more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Gramatica Latina (latin grammar) by Santiago Segura:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Participe of passive future**:&#xD;&#xA;It is also called verbal adjective in -NDUS and gerundive and is formed by adding to the present theme the suffix -ND-US, -ND-A, -ND-UM, sometimes by -e- (3rd and 4th conjugation): ama- ndus, -a, -um; dele-nd-us, -a, -um; leg-e-nd-us, -a, -um; cap-i-e-nd-dus, -a, -um; audi-e-nd-us, -a, -um. It is declined as a bonus, -a, -um.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the archaic period the verbs of the 3rd and 4th conjugation offer forms in -undus (with vocalism o&gt; u, instead of e): legundis, deferundo, querundai, repetunda. The analogical action of the present participle in -e-ns, -e-ntis made generalize the form in -endus, surviving scarce forms in -undus in the **archaizing language of the law** (repetundis) **or as adjectives** (oriundus, secundus and others)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4880" RevisionGUID="c72ef150-71cb-47e2-96b7-865461ba5fef" CreationDate="2017-07-24T23:29:00.237" UserId="39" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Weiss writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**The *u*-forms are characteristic of legal and archaizing style**, e.g. *pecuniae repetundae* (the recovery of extorted money), and are found in the isolated forms *secundus* 'following' and *rotundus* 'round' (p. 444; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Powell 2007/2011][1] adds that even though &quot;the gerundive suffix in -*undus*, rather than -*endus*, has an old-fashioned flavor and is characteristic of legal Latin,&quot; **&quot;neither confined to it nor universal in it&quot;** (p. 482, note 21; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for specific authors, Leumann 1977 (p. 331) mentions first Plautus and Terence (Neue and Wagener write that the u-forms are *gewöhnliche*, i.e. usual/normal, in Plautus and Terence, p. 332); also Sallust and Gellius, cf.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gQ3v2.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the above quote from Leumann, we can also learn that in verbs whose stem ended in **u, u̯, qu** the *u*-forms were avoided in Latin - the only exception to this observation seems to be *secundus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more examples, see pp. 331-340 in [Neue and Wagener 1897, volume 3: Das Verbum][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch26/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/formenlehrederla03neueuoft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4807" RevisionGUID="389c7ee6-d2ca-47d9-bc68-b2955a3efd22" CreationDate="2017-07-25T05:11:44.150" UserId="79" Comment="added 215 characters in body" Text="Tuomo Pekkanen's Latin grammar mentions (§52.3) that the *-e-* added to the present stem before *-nd-* in the gerund and gerundive (in the third and fourth conjugations) can be replaced with a *-u-*.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *mittendus = mittundus* and *faciendus = faciundus*.&#xD;&#xA;No more details are given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When can I one replace the typical *-e-* with *-u-*?&#xD;&#xA;Is this specific to some era, author, or verbs?&#xD;&#xA;Would it be appropriate to occasionally make the replacement in any context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to understand the *-e-*/*-u-* variations in gerund(ive)s better.&#xD;&#xA;The variations can also be across words, not only within single words; I consider both variations to be essentially the same phenomenon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4901" RevisionGUID="f4b66d69-44c1-4a7b-9f7b-d1147ae67ff9" CreationDate="2017-07-25T07:01:46.307" UserId="79" Text="It seems quite clear that *secundus* comes from *sequundus*, a gerundive of *sequi*.&#xD;&#xA;But why did *-quu-* become *-cu-*?&#xD;&#xA;This change is not universal, since some Latin words do preserve *-quu-*, at least the end of a word (consider *equus* and *aequus* for example).&#xD;&#xA;I suppose this sound or spelling change is behind the dative *cui* and genitive *cuius* of *quis*.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a rule that could help me predict when a *-quu-* becomes *-cu-*?&#xD;&#xA;Are there notable examples or exceptions I should be aware of?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16205" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4901" RevisionGUID="f4b66d69-44c1-4a7b-9f7b-d1147ae67ff9" CreationDate="2017-07-25T07:01:46.307" UserId="79" Text="Why sequundus &gt; secundus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16206" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4901" RevisionGUID="f4b66d69-44c1-4a7b-9f7b-d1147ae67ff9" CreationDate="2017-07-25T07:01:46.307" UserId="79" Text="|language-evolution|orthography|morphology|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4897" RevisionGUID="4133a534-1ed6-4a99-8d84-65a805cc2cb1" CreationDate="2017-07-25T14:19:19.707" UserId="469" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="This seems related to Latin language only _per accidens_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a theologian, but I think I know the basics from a Catholic POV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to answer in the order you put the questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **What does this mean exactly?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translations to modern languages vary, but some of them say Christ was conceived *by the power of* the Holy Spirit. Conception needs the participation of two, undoubtedly. In the case of Jesus, God and man, the preposition *de* has a double meaning, in words of Thomas Aquinas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Conception is not attributed only to the body of Christ, but also to Christ himself by reason of his body. Now in the Holy Spirit we can see a twofold relation to Christ. In relation to the son of God, who is said to be conceived, he stands as consubstantial; but in relation to his body he is an efficient cause. The preposition 'of' [de] conveys both relations: as when we say a man is 'of' his father. So we can reasonably say that Christ is conceived of the Holy Spirit, in the sense that the causality of the Holy Spirit is in respect to the body assumed, the consubstantiality in respect of the Person assuming it.* ([Summa Theologiae, q. 32, art. 2][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Catholic teaching says that Christ is _perfectus Deus, perfectus homo_, (perfect/complete --truly-- God and man.) There is only one God in three Divine Persons (distinct, but consubstantial, i.e., sharing the same substance): the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In the instant of incarnation, a human body (and its nature) was formed _by the power of the Holy Spirit_ and *assumed* by the person of God the Son, who is still one person, but holds both natures (cf. [Cathechism of the Catholic Church, 464 ss.][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **If Jesus &quot;was conceived by the Holy Ghost,&quot; does that mean He was not conceived by The Virgin Mary?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it does not. The [Gospel of St. Luke][3] (at least since the [Vulgate, Lc 1,31][4]) uses the active voice of _concipio_ (if someone can help me with the Greek, it will be appreciated) with the Virgin Mary as the subject: *ecce **concipies** in utero et paries filium*. St. Thomas cites Augustine and adds:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *As Augustine says (Enchiridion xl), Christ is said to be conceived or born of the Holy Ghost in one sense; of the Virgin Mary in another---of the Virgin Mary materially; of the Holy Ghost efficiently. Therefore there was no mingling here* (ibid.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Who, exactly, conceived Jesus?**&#xD;&#xA;4. **How should I understand conceptus de Spiritu Sancto in this context?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think most of these have already been answered in the previous two questions.  I only want to add a comment that may be helpful in putting all this in modern context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The scriptures weren't intended as a scientific document, but as something helpful for salvation to be understood by peoples of all eras. Hence the language must be understandable to everyone. Today we have both science and exegesis, in antiquity they had none. That is why the fact that explanations are given through ancient eyes and language is not to be seen as contradictory to modern knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In antiquity, it was believed that in the act of conception, the man put the seed, while the woman's womb and blood were the ground and nutrients needed for that seed to grow. I doubt they didn't realize that children inherit treats from both parents, but they didn't know genetics either, so it's reasonable to think this was not a problem for them. Both through the eyes of antiquity and modern biology a child is not produced by the female alone. The missing part was put there _de_ Spiritu Sancto.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_Theologiae/Third_Part/Question_32#Art._2_-_Whether_it_should_be_said_that_Christ_was_conceived_of_.5Bde.5D_the_Holy_Ghost.3F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1J.HTM&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-lucam_lt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/luk001.htm#031" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2424" RevisionGUID="bee506be-f623-437a-bbb4-9b7b2a62ae63" CreationDate="2017-07-25T16:34:41.887" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="I've been reading some Latin of the 17th and 18th centuries and am wondering if it is possible for there to be &quot;double diminutives.&quot; As I understand it, the word &quot;cerebellum&quot; (Oxford Latin = &quot;brain&quot;) is a diminutive of &quot;cerebrum&quot; (also &quot;brain&quot;). But I've found an 18th-century author who coins the term &quot;cerebellula.&quot; I know that &quot;-ula&quot; is another diminutive ending, so I'm wondering if it really might be the case that &quot;cerebellula&quot; is a double diminutive, meaning &quot;little little brain&quot; or &quot;tiny brain.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this possible, and is there any classic/medieval/Renaissance Latin precedent for this move?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16211" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2424" RevisionGUID="bee506be-f623-437a-bbb4-9b7b2a62ae63" CreationDate="2017-07-25T16:34:41.887" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|medieval-latin|derivation|scientific-names|diminutive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2410" RevisionGUID="01dafd60-8963-4e43-a269-65a9f26da1a8" CreationDate="2017-07-25T16:37:12.993" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="I am not sure how to translate &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Augustus affirm&amp;amacr;vit gen&amp;umacr;s suum ab Iove ortum esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can logically conclude that this much of the sentence is correct...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Augustus affirmed that ... from Jupiter had arisen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; gen&amp;umacr;s can only be genitive singular, and suum can only be accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I try to put this together the only way to put this together is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Augustus affirmed that his knee had arisen from Jupiter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is if this is actually the correct translation, then why didn't the author use gen&amp;umacr; instead of gen&amp;umacr;s?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16213" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2410" RevisionGUID="01dafd60-8963-4e43-a269-65a9f26da1a8" CreationDate="2017-07-25T16:37:12.993" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|syntax|pronouns|genitive|sentence-translation|reflexive-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4902" RevisionGUID="9ffb70be-b47c-4762-9626-b73126357666" CreationDate="2017-07-26T09:57:04.243" UserId="1459" Text="Judging by number of words, how much translation from Latin to English grow in size? Naturally, this would depend on the text (and the translator), but I imagine there might be some form of range or average that can be stated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have attempted to answer this myself, but I'm not sure it's working. For instance, the [Latin](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/acad.shtml) version of Cicero's _Academica_ has roughly 23,500 words, whereas the [English](https://archive.org/details/academicaofcicer00cicerich) version gives me _proximus_ 200,000 words. For Cicero's _de Provinciis Consularibus_ the [Latin](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getwordcount.pl?LatinAugust2012.25) version has 5,992 words, and the [English](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getwordcount.pl?LatinAugust2012.24) version has 10,740 words. Those are massive differences (_proximus_ 900% versus 50% growth).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16216" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4902" RevisionGUID="9ffb70be-b47c-4762-9626-b73126357666" CreationDate="2017-07-26T09:57:04.243" UserId="1459" Text="How much larger are Latin texts translated into English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16217" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4902" RevisionGUID="9ffb70be-b47c-4762-9626-b73126357666" CreationDate="2017-07-26T09:57:04.243" UserId="1459" Text="|translation|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4903" RevisionGUID="5d48a0a4-5c8a-413e-8e8e-6b3a15be072a" CreationDate="2017-07-26T10:21:58.480" UserId="1459" Text="I am looking at some **English translations of Latin texts** (direction which I think is important to highlight), and I'm not sure there is an equivalent word in Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example 1:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [English](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0142:book=4:chapter=1&amp;highlight=respectively):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;These organs are placed against it but under it, on the right and left sides respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Latin](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0141:book=4:chapter=1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Haec viscera proxuma sed infra tamen posita dextra sinistraque sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example 2**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [English](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0144:book=26:chapter=1&amp;highlight=respectively):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  T. Otacilius and M. Valerius were ordered to cruise off the coasts of Sicily and Greece respectively with the fleets and soldiers they had previously commanded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Latin](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0205:book=26:chapter=1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;T. Otacilio et M. Valerio Siciliae Graeciaeque orae cum legionibus classibusque quibus praeerant decretae;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example 3**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [English](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0073:book=1:chapter=6&amp;highlight=respectively):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So we often have Leuconotus and Altanus blowing respectively to the right and left of Auster;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Latin](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0072:book=1:chapter=6):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Itaque dextra et sinistra austrum leuconotus et altanus flare solet,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given these examples, it seems to me that &quot;respectively&quot; is not needed in Latin because some **obviously assumed** correspondence. For example, in _T. Otacilio et M. Valerio Siciliae Graeciaeque_ a Latin reader would unambiguously know that _Siciliae_ refers to Otacilio. This is perhaps also the case (but less strongly) in English, where the addition of &quot;respectively&quot; is just to add emphasis, without being determinant in the understanding of the correspondence. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16219" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4903" RevisionGUID="5d48a0a4-5c8a-413e-8e8e-6b3a15be072a" CreationDate="2017-07-26T10:21:58.480" UserId="1459" Text="Is there a Latin word for &quot;respectively&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16220" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4903" RevisionGUID="5d48a0a4-5c8a-413e-8e8e-6b3a15be072a" CreationDate="2017-07-26T10:21:58.480" UserId="1459" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4902" RevisionGUID="1d085d70-2648-42e2-927f-41fa36c448c1" CreationDate="2017-07-26T11:59:38.383" UserId="1459" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="Judging by number of words, how much translation from Latin to English grow in size? Naturally, this would depend on the text (and the translator), but I imagine there might be some form of range or average that can be stated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have attempted to answer this myself, but I'm not sure it's working. For instance, the [Latin](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/acad.shtml) version of Cicero's _Academica_ has roughly 23,500 words, whereas the [English](https://archive.org/details/academicaofcicer00cicerich) version (without including introduction and etc) gives me _proximus_ 200,000 words. For Cicero's _de Provinciis Consularibus_ the [Latin](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getwordcount.pl?LatinAugust2012.25) version has 5,992 words, and the [English](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getwordcount.pl?LatinAugust2012.24) version has 10,740 words. Those are massive differences (_proximus_ 900% versus 50% growth).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4904" RevisionGUID="d8a0fbe0-5c3e-4d78-aa62-fcb5453259e2" CreationDate="2017-07-26T12:28:22.007" UserId="118" Text="Here's a sentence from the Catholic mass:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Agnus** Dei,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui tollis peccata mundi,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; miserere nobis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not **agne**? Shouldn't **agnus** be in the vocative? Note _tollis_ and _miserere_ in the second person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus Dominus** Deus Sabaoth,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pleni sunt coeli et terra gloria tua.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not **Sancte, sancte, sancte Domine Deus Sabaoth**? Note _tua._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it time to send out an errata sheet for all those missals?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16224" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4904" RevisionGUID="d8a0fbe0-5c3e-4d78-aa62-fcb5453259e2" CreationDate="2017-07-26T12:28:22.007" UserId="118" Text="Why not &quot;Agne Dei&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16225" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4904" RevisionGUID="d8a0fbe0-5c3e-4d78-aa62-fcb5453259e2" CreationDate="2017-07-26T12:28:22.007" UserId="118" Text="|vocative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4904" RevisionGUID="e5287bf3-032c-45fa-8e4a-a38b0e18d08d" CreationDate="2017-07-26T13:02:24.173" UserId="118" Comment="added 401 characters in body" Text="Here's a sentence from the Catholic Mass:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Agnus** Dei,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui tollis peccata mundi,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; miserere nobis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not **agne**? Shouldn't **agnus** be in the vocative? Note _tollis_ and _miserere_ in the second person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus Dominus** Deus Sabaoth,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pleni sunt coeli et terra gloria tua.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not **Sancte, sancte, sancte Domine Deus Sabaoth**? Note _tua._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier, in the Gloria, it says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Domine** Deus, Rex coelestis,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus Pater omnipotens,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Domine Fili unigenite Jesu Christe**,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Domine** Deus, Agnus Dei,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Filius Patris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there are definitely vocatives in the Mass—five in a row in the third line. But notice _Agnus_ and _Filius_ in apposition with **Domine**—in apposition with _Fili,_ even!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it time to send out an errata sheet for all those missals?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4905" RevisionGUID="65d7b12f-cc0a-484f-b9bf-b568e6ba5d53" CreationDate="2017-07-26T13:06:44.093" UserId="1784" Text="I suppose in all the dictionaries it appears:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Noli: Imperative present of nolo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nolle: Infinitive present of nolo .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nolo: (...) Noli is used as an imperative in prohibitions (with similar words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is necessary to consider that there are &quot;twist idiomatic&quot; in the expressions of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	Implore.&#xD;&#xA;-	Order.&#xD;&#xA;- Prohibition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These forms are usually addressed in the grammar books in the sections dedicated to the imperative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Noli is one of the 4 &quot;twist idiomatic&quot; used in classical literature:&#xD;&#xA;Noli (nolite) + infinitvo: noli (nolite) facere, do not do it. It was (and must be considered) a courteous prohibition, do not want, do not want to do, in which the imperative of nolo softens the negative order. The use made forget that primitive nuance of courtesy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The most frequent turn is: Cicero: nolite existumare, do not go to believe. Noli putare, do not think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In poetry developed an analogical spin: parce + infinitive. Parce timere, do not be afraid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other forms of classical prose ban (summary):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ne (cave) + perfect subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ne (cave) + present subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ne + imperative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, it would be necessary to take into account the imperfect and pluscuamperfect of subjunctive that reflect order or prohibition to the past, that is, what someone would have wanted someone to do or not in a given circumstance: faceres, to have done; fecisset, that would have done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The forms of imperative of volo are realized by those of nolo, in fact nolo is especially frequent in imperative, see usage notes of nolo:&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nolo#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4904" RevisionGUID="e242d990-6a18-47ae-af0f-22d9b361cd01" CreationDate="2017-07-26T13:48:17.377" UserId="469" Comment="tagged Ecclesiastical, proposed a more polite wording for the question" Text="Here's a sentence from the Catholic Mass:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Agnus** Dei,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui tollis peccata mundi,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; miserere nobis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not **agne**? Shouldn't **agnus** be in the vocative? Note _tollis_ and _miserere_ in the second person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus Dominus** Deus Sabaoth,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pleni sunt coeli et terra gloria tua.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not **Sancte, sancte, sancte Domine Deus Sabaoth**? Note _tua._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier, in the Gloria, it says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Domine** Deus, Rex coelestis,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus Pater omnipotens,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Domine Fili unigenite Jesu Christe**,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Domine** Deus, Agnus Dei,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Filius Patris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there are definitely vocatives in the Mass—five in a row in the third line. But notice _Agnus_ and _Filius_ in apposition with **Domine**—in apposition with _Fili,_ even!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a mistake or there is something else going on?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16229" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4904" RevisionGUID="e242d990-6a18-47ae-af0f-22d9b361cd01" CreationDate="2017-07-26T13:48:17.377" UserId="469" Comment="tagged Ecclesiastical, proposed a more polite wording for the question" Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|vocative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4906" RevisionGUID="8d62132a-37cf-48b4-9b33-7cc7f789778d" CreationDate="2017-07-26T14:54:30.980" UserId="469" Text="I found the question very interesting, and got me researching _against my will_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the texts of the Mass —and specifically these— come from antiquity, a time when Latin was still alive. Were there grammatical errors, twenty centuries would suffice to find and correct them. So it may be a little far-fetched to put a mistake as the default hypothesis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples you cite seem to have two different explanations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The _Agnus Dei_ is somehow controversial, not in that it is a mistake, but I've found a number of educated guesses that may be seen as complementary or even contradictory. [This forum][1] gathers a few of them. Anyway, it has been accepted in liturgy as it is. Some of the explanations are. Maybe this is a good question for [Christianity.SE]! Some of these are:&#xD;&#xA; 1. Agnus would be an [accepted irregular vocative][2] of _agnus_ in Ecclesiastical Latin. &#xD;&#xA; 2. Agnus Dei as a whole is seen as a title or as a compound not to be declinable.&#xD;&#xA; 3. It is a nominative. (I find this one very interesting.) Quoting a participant in the forum:&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Specifically, it's a nominative used in apposition with the understood subject of the imperative miserere. Although the vocative is more common, it's not unclassical to have the nominative instead, as in Livy (i.24): audi tu, populus Albanus (&quot;hear thou, people of Alba&quot;). See Allen and Greenough 340a.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The *Sanctus* is a mosaic of quotes from three different sources (two of them from both the Old and New Testament,) not intended to form a grammatical unit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth. (Is 6,3) &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Pleni sunt caeli et terra gloria tua. (*a different source*) &lt;br&gt; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Hosanna in excelsis. Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini. Hosanna in excelsis. (Mc 11, 9-10) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Translations use third person in the first and last pieces, and second person for the middle one, (although it is very common for people to mistakenly change it to third person, trying to form a unit artificially, because it just sounds better!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The _Gloria_ is also a mosaic in the sense that the two initial verses are a quote from the Gospel of St. Luke. As for the nominatives you cite, they can find a similar explanation to 1. I don't think they can be seen as copulative predicates, since there is a predicate to this sentece —*miserere nobis*—. The whole sentence being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Domine Fili unigenite, Jesu Christe, Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, Filius Patris, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;qui tollis peccata mundi, suscipe deprecationem nostram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://linguaphiles.livejournal.com/4066631.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=rqoXOW6LmVMC&amp;lpg=PA154&amp;dq=vocative%20agnus&amp;pg=PA154#v=onepage&amp;q=vocative%20agnus&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4906" RevisionGUID="44a6d26d-3864-4802-acca-66feb2ba17bb" CreationDate="2017-07-26T15:01:27.430" UserId="469" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="I found the question very interesting, and got me researching _against my will_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the texts of the Mass —and specifically these— come from antiquity, a time when Latin was still alive. Were there grammatical errors, twenty centuries would suffice to find and correct them. So it may be a little far-fetched to put a mistake as the default hypothesis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples you cite seem to have two different explanations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The _Agnus Dei_ is somehow controversial, not in that it is a mistake, but I've found a number of educated guesses that may be seen as complementary or even contradictory. [This forum][1] gathers a few of them. Anyway, it has been accepted in liturgy as it is. Maybe this is a good question for [Christianity.SE]! Some of the explanations are:&#xD;&#xA; 1. Agnus Dei as a whole is seen as a title or as a compound not to be declinable. Being a title makes a lot of theological sense, FTR.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Agnus would be an [accepted irregular vocative][2] of _agnus_ in Ecclesiastical Latin. (Comparable to the number IIII in clocks? This doesn't convince me a lot, but I cite it since it is sourced.)&#xD;&#xA; 3. It is a nominative. (I find this one very interesting.) Quoting a participant in the forum:&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Specifically, it's a nominative used in apposition with the understood subject of the imperative miserere. Although the vocative is more common, it's not unclassical to have the nominative instead, as in Livy (i.24): audi tu, populus Albanus (&quot;hear thou, people of Alba&quot;). See Allen and Greenough 340a.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The *Sanctus* is a mosaic of quotes from three different sources (two of them from both the Old and New Testament,) not intended to form a grammatical unit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth. (Is 6,3) &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Pleni sunt caeli et terra gloria tua. (*a different source*) &lt;br&gt; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Hosanna in excelsis. Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini. Hosanna in excelsis. (Mc 11, 9-10) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Translations use third person in the first and last pieces, and second person for the middle one, (although it is very common for people to mistakenly change it to third person, trying to form a unit artificially, because it just sounds better!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The _Gloria_ is also a mosaic in the sense that the two initial verses are a quote from the Gospel of St. Luke. As for the nominatives you cite, they can find a similar explanation to 1. I don't think they can be seen as copulative predicates, since there is a predicate to this sentece —*miserere nobis*—. The whole sentence being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Domine Fili unigenite, Jesu Christe, Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, Filius Patris, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;qui tollis peccata mundi, suscipe deprecationem nostram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://linguaphiles.livejournal.com/4066631.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=rqoXOW6LmVMC&amp;lpg=PA154&amp;dq=vocative%20agnus&amp;pg=PA154#v=onepage&amp;q=vocative%20agnus&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4907" RevisionGUID="603405a3-96df-4560-b8ef-85dfcbd76c5c" CreationDate="2017-07-26T15:16:06.267" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="*Forests slow down army movement*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Silve motum exercitus retardant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Silva` - 1st declension, plural nominative is `Silve`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`motus` - 4th declension, in accusative `motum`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`exercitus` - 4th declension, in genitive `exercitus` - movement **of** an army&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`retardo, retardare` - 1st conjugation, indicative, plural, 3rd person - `retardant`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Army movement is slowed down by forests*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Motus exerciti a silvis retardatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`silvis` - plural ablative of `silva`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`retardatur` - passive indicative, 1st conjugation, 3rd person singular&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these translations correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second one is `a` the correct word to say `by what` the movement is slowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I correct in using ablative of `silva` here, or should it be stated differently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know word order is not the most fixed thing here but probably some kind of order is prefered for this two sentences? Is my word order okay, then?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16233" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4907" RevisionGUID="603405a3-96df-4560-b8ef-85dfcbd76c5c" CreationDate="2017-07-26T15:16:06.267" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="&quot;Forests slow down army movement&quot; translation to latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16234" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4907" RevisionGUID="603405a3-96df-4560-b8ef-85dfcbd76c5c" CreationDate="2017-07-26T15:16:06.267" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="|translation-check|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4906" RevisionGUID="becdeb92-2351-439c-944b-5dadb159f49a" CreationDate="2017-07-26T15:33:19.630" UserId="469" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I found the question very interesting, and got me researching _against my will_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the texts of the Mass —and specifically these— come from antiquity, a time when Latin was still alive. Had there been grammatical errors, twenty centuries would suffice to find and correct them. So it may be a little far-fetched to put a mistake as the default hypothesis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples you cite seem to have two different explanations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The _Agnus Dei_ is somehow controversial, not in that it is a mistake, but I've found a number of educated guesses that may be seen as complementary or even contradictory. [This forum][1] gathers a few of them. Anyway, it has been accepted in liturgy as it is. Maybe this is a good question for [Christianity.SE]! Some of the explanations are:&#xD;&#xA; 1. Agnus Dei as a whole is seen as a title or as a compound not to be declinable. Being a title makes a lot of theological sense, FTR.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Agnus would be an [accepted irregular vocative][2] of _agnus_ in Ecclesiastical Latin. (Comparable to the number IIII in clocks? This doesn't convince me a lot, but I cite it since it is sourced.)&#xD;&#xA; 3. It is a nominative. (I find this one very interesting.) Quoting a participant in the forum:&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Specifically, it's a nominative used in apposition with the understood subject of the imperative miserere. Although the vocative is more common, it's not unclassical to have the nominative instead, as in Livy (i.24): audi tu, populus Albanus (&quot;hear thou, people of Alba&quot;). See Allen and Greenough 340a.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The *Sanctus* is a mosaic of quotes from three different sources (two of them from both the Old and New Testament,) not intended to form a grammatical unit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth. (Is 6,3) &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Pleni sunt caeli et terra gloria tua. (*a different source*) &lt;br&gt; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Hosanna in excelsis. Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini. Hosanna in excelsis. (Mc 11, 9-10) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Translations use third person in the first and last pieces, and second person for the middle one, (although it is very common for people to mistakenly change it to third person, trying to form a unit artificially, because it just sounds better!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The _Gloria_ is also a mosaic in the sense that the two initial verses are a quote from the Gospel of St. Luke. As for the nominatives you cite, they can find a similar explanation to 1. I don't think they can be seen as copulative predicates, since there is a predicate to this sentece —*miserere nobis*—. The whole sentence being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Domine Fili unigenite, Jesu Christe, Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, Filius Patris, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;qui tollis peccata mundi, suscipe deprecationem nostram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://linguaphiles.livejournal.com/4066631.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=rqoXOW6LmVMC&amp;lpg=PA154&amp;dq=vocative%20agnus&amp;pg=PA154#v=onepage&amp;q=vocative%20agnus&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4904" RevisionGUID="83ba77b3-1265-4377-a770-fbe494998824" CreationDate="2017-07-26T17:35:37.813" UserId="118" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Here's a sentence from the Catholic Mass:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Agnus** Dei,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui tollis peccata mundi,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; miserere nobis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not **agne**? Shouldn't **agnus** be in the vocative? Note _tollis_ and _miserere_ in the second person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus Dominus** Deus Sabaoth,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pleni sunt coeli et terra gloria tua.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not **Sancte, sancte, sancte Domine Deus Sabaoth**? Note _tua._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier, in the Gloria, it says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Domine** Deus, Rex coelestis,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus Pater omnipotens,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Domine Fili unigenite Jesu Christe**,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Domine** Deus, Agnus Dei,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Filius Patris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there are definitely vocatives in the Mass—five in a row in the third line. But notice _Agnus_ and _Filius_ in apposition with **Domine**—in apposition with _Fili,_ even!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it time to send out an errata sheet for all those missals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4908" RevisionGUID="473135ea-d591-4011-9d63-c270d2d7695b" CreationDate="2017-07-26T17:50:29.733" UserId="79" Text="&gt; Forests slow down army movement.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&lt;del&gt;Silve&lt;/del&gt; Silvae motum exercitus retardant.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only error here is misspelling the first word.&#xD;&#xA;The plural nominative (and singular genitive and dative) of *silva* is *silvae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another question is whether *exercitus* should be singular or plural.&#xD;&#xA;If forests slow down the movement of an army or the army (one at a time), I would go with singular.&#xD;&#xA;However, if it refers to movement of armies in general, then I would use plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the English original is not &quot;the movement of an army&quot;, &quot;the movement of the army&quot;, or &quot;the movement of armies&quot;, but &quot;army movement&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In this context &quot;army&quot; behaves much like an adjective, and it might be a good idea to translate it as one.&#xD;&#xA;You could use *motus militaris* (accusative as needed here: *motum militarem*) for &quot;army movement&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It all depends on how you exactly read the English expression &quot;army movement&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Army movement is slowed down by forests.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Motus &lt;del&gt;exerciti&lt;/del&gt; exercitus &lt;del&gt;&amp;nbsp;a&amp;nbsp;&lt;/del&gt; silvis retardatur.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a passive version of the first sentence.&#xD;&#xA;The subject becomes an agent and the object becomes a subject.&#xD;&#xA;This is mostly executed correctly, but there are minor problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, *exercitus* is fourth declension so the genitive is *exercitus*.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the genitive stays the same in your two sentences, whether you choose singular or plural.&#xD;&#xA;If you choose an adjective instead, it has to be in the same form as *motus* (masculine singular nominative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, the agent does not always take the preposition *a(b)*.&#xD;&#xA;The rule of thumb is that a human agent (some say &quot;animate&quot; instead of &quot;human&quot;) takes the preposition, but others don't.&#xD;&#xA;For more details, I refer you to [this question about deciding which agents are human or animate](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/840/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word order is perfectly fine in both translations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4907" RevisionGUID="b56c41bb-c9e3-4491-84e1-2e5c5112a7ba" CreationDate="2017-07-26T17:52:34.340" UserId="79" Comment="Capitalized &quot;Latin&quot; and reformatted a little." Text="*Forests slow down army movement*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Silve motum exercitus retardant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Silva` - 1st declension, plural nominative is `Silve`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`motus` - 4th declension, in accusative `motum`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`exercitus` - 4th declension, in genitive `exercitus` - movement **of** an army&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`retardo, retardare` - 1st conjugation, indicative, plural, 3rd person - `retardant`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Army movement is slowed down by forests*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Motus exerciti a silvis retardatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`silvis` - plural ablative of `silva`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`retardatur` - passive indicative, 1st conjugation, 3rd person singular&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these translations correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second one is `a` the correct word to say `by what` the movement is slowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I correct in using ablative of `silva` here, or should it be stated differently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know word order is not the most fixed thing here but probably some kind of order is preferred for this two sentences? Is my word order okay, then?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16240" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4907" RevisionGUID="b56c41bb-c9e3-4491-84e1-2e5c5112a7ba" CreationDate="2017-07-26T17:52:34.340" UserId="79" Comment="Capitalized &quot;Latin&quot; and reformatted a little." Text="&quot;Forests slow down army movement&quot; translation to Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4906" RevisionGUID="2bbcb40d-2a6d-4b53-b975-4b67d883858d" CreationDate="2017-07-26T18:04:52.613" UserId="469" Comment="added 200 characters in body" Text="I found the question very interesting, and got me researching _against my will_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the texts of the Mass —and specifically these— come from antiquity, a time when Latin was still alive. Had there been grammatical errors, twenty centuries would suffice to find and correct them. So it may be a little far-fetched to put a mistake as the default hypothesis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples you cite seem to have two different explanations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The _Agnus Dei_ is somehow controversial, not in that it is a mistake, but I've found a number of educated guesses that may be seen as complementary or even contradictory. [This forum][1] gathers a few of them. Anyway, it has been accepted in liturgy as it is. Maybe this is a good question for [Christianity.SE]! Some of the explanations are:&#xD;&#xA; 1. Agnus Dei as a whole is seen as a title or as a compound not to be declinable. Being a title makes a lot of theological sense, FTR. [**Edit**: title attributed to Jesus, just as the previous vocatives are directed toward Him. John the Baptists first called Him so, as he was to be the matter of a sacrifice —just as lambs were— to God]&#xD;&#xA; 2. Agnus would be an [accepted irregular vocative][2] of _agnus_ in Ecclesiastical Latin. (Comparable to the number IIII in clocks? This doesn't convince me a lot, but I cite it since it is sourced.)&#xD;&#xA; 3. It is a nominative. (I find this one very interesting.) Quoting a participant in the forum:&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Specifically, it's a nominative used in apposition with the understood subject of the imperative miserere. Although the vocative is more common, it's not unclassical to have the nominative instead, as in Livy (i.24): audi tu, populus Albanus (&quot;hear thou, people of Alba&quot;). See Allen and Greenough 340a.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The *Sanctus* is a mosaic of quotes from three different sources (two of them from both the Old and New Testament,) not intended to form a grammatical unit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth. (Is 6,3) &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Pleni sunt caeli et terra gloria tua. (*a different source*) &lt;br&gt; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Hosanna in excelsis. Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini. Hosanna in excelsis. (Mc 11, 9-10) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Translations use third person in the first and last pieces, and second person for the middle one, (although it is very common for people to mistakenly change it to third person, trying to form a unit artificially, because it just sounds better!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The _Gloria_ is also a mosaic in the sense that the two initial verses are a quote from the Gospel of St. Luke. As for the nominatives you cite, they can find a similar explanation to 1. I don't think they can be seen as copulative predicates, since there is a predicate to this sentece —*miserere nobis*—. The whole sentence being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Domine Fili unigenite, Jesu Christe, Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, Filius Patris, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;qui tollis peccata mundi, suscipe deprecationem nostram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://linguaphiles.livejournal.com/4066631.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=rqoXOW6LmVMC&amp;lpg=PA154&amp;dq=vocative%20agnus&amp;pg=PA154#v=onepage&amp;q=vocative%20agnus&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4909" RevisionGUID="1402fcd1-026c-4a19-8736-af55d95713a4" CreationDate="2017-07-26T18:46:46.377" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="How to translate to latin sentences describing event occuring during another action. E.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Walking under trees I noticed it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Dum sub arboribus ambulabam id conspicavi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is `conspicare` fitting here?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Can phrase *under trees* be just translated to *sub arboribus*?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Are tenses (in `ambulabam` and `conspicavi`) fitting and executed correctly?&#xD;&#xA; 4. **How to write it better** and what strategies can be used for different sentences following this general scheme?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16243" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4909" RevisionGUID="1402fcd1-026c-4a19-8736-af55d95713a4" CreationDate="2017-07-26T18:46:46.377" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="Event happening during action" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16244" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4909" RevisionGUID="1402fcd1-026c-4a19-8736-af55d95713a4" CreationDate="2017-07-26T18:46:46.377" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="|translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4906" RevisionGUID="949a9aac-fe24-4d36-bd34-ac06d96ac418" CreationDate="2017-07-26T19:24:05.890" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="I found the question very interesting, and got me researching _against my will_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the texts of the Mass —and specifically these— come from antiquity, a time when Latin was still alive. Had there been grammatical errors, twenty centuries would suffice to find and correct them. So it may be a little far-fetched to put a mistake as the default hypothesis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples you cite seem to have two different explanations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The _Agnus Dei_ is somehow controversial, not in that it is a mistake, but I've found a number of educated guesses that may be seen as complementary or even contradictory. [This forum][1] gathers a few of them. Anyway, it has been accepted in liturgy as it is. Maybe this is a good question for [Christianity.SE]! Some of the explanations are:&#xD;&#xA; 1. Agnus Dei as a whole is seen as a title or as a compound not to be declinable. Being a title makes a lot of theological sense, FTR. [**Edit**: title attributed to Jesus, just as the previous vocatives are directed toward Him. John the Baptists first called Him so, as he was to be the matter of a sacrifice —just as lambs were— to God]&#xD;&#xA; 2. Agnus would be an [accepted irregular vocative][2] of _agnus_ in Ecclesiastical Latin. (Comparable to the number IIII in clocks? This doesn't convince me a lot, but I cite it since it is sourced.)&#xD;&#xA; 3. It is a nominative. (I find this one very interesting.) Quoting a participant in the forum:&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Specifically, it's a nominative used in apposition with the understood subject of the imperative miserere. Although the vocative is more common, it's not unclassical to have the nominative instead, as in Livy (i.24): audi tu, populus Albanus (&quot;hear thou, people of Alba&quot;). See Allen and Greenough 340a.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The *Sanctus* is a mosaic from three different sources (two of them from both the Old and New Testament,) not intended to form a grammatical unit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth. (Is 6,3) &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Pleni sunt caeli et terra gloria tua. (*a different source*) &lt;br&gt; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Hosanna in excelsis. Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini. Hosanna in excelsis. (Mc 11, 9-10) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Translations use third person in the first and last pieces, and second person for the middle one, (although it is very common for people to mistakenly change it to third person, trying to form a unit artificially, because it just sounds better!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The _Gloria_ is also a mosaic in the sense that the two initial verses are a quote from the Gospel of St. Luke. As for the nominatives you cite, they can find a similar explanation to 1. I don't think they can be seen as copulative predicates, since there is a predicate to this sentence —*miserere nobis*—. The whole sentence being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Domine Fili unigenite, Jesu Christe, Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, Filius Patris, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis; &#xD;&#xA; &gt;qui tollis peccata mundi, suscipe deprecationem nostram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://linguaphiles.livejournal.com/4066631.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=rqoXOW6LmVMC&amp;lpg=PA154&amp;dq=vocative%20agnus&amp;pg=PA154#v=onepage&amp;q=vocative%20agnus&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4910" RevisionGUID="57df6aad-b2f2-4fd4-bea2-0af0532322ed" CreationDate="2017-07-26T20:22:43.240" UserId="79" Text="1. &#xD;&#xA;I'm not familiar with a verb *conspicare*.&#xD;&#xA;There is a deponent [*conspicari*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2013211) which I just saw for the first time when looking for your verb.&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that the verb you are after is [*conspicere*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2013206).&#xD;&#xA;The perfect of that one would be *conspexi*.&#xD;&#xA;(Also *aspicio* is a possibility.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &#xD;&#xA;Yes, *sub arboribus* sounds like an excellent translation to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &#xD;&#xA;Yes, the tenses are as they should.&#xD;&#xA;(I was about to write that the tenses are perfect, but that might have been confusing&amp;hellip;)&#xD;&#xA;The description of the circumstances is given by the imperfect tense and the sudden event by the perfect tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. &#xD;&#xA;The two constructions that I have seen and used most commonly are these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Sub arboribus ambulabam, cum id conspexi.  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Sub arboribus ambulans id conspexi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I have nothing against using *dum* in the first clause, but I seem to have a slight preference to use a *cum* in the second clause instead.&#xD;&#xA;A *cum* clause introducing a sudden turn of events is known as *cum inversum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The second option is very close to the English one, and it is indeed possible in Latin as well.&#xD;&#xA;The first option has a slightly different tone: &quot;I was walking under the trees when I noticed it.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;But the difference is very slight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Your suggestion would be perfectly understood, if you just correct the verb for noticing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4909" RevisionGUID="13f8e5c9-bdd3-4ed2-a0b3-dd31338c9165" CreationDate="2017-07-26T20:23:36.250" UserId="79" Comment="Small polishing edits." Text="How to translate to Latin sentences describing event occurring during another action. E.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Walking under trees I noticed it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Dum sub arboribus ambulabam id conspicavi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is `conspicare` fitting here?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Can phrase *under trees* be just translated to *sub arboribus*?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Are tenses (in `ambulabam` and `conspicavi`) fitting and executed correctly?&#xD;&#xA; 4. **How to write it better** and what strategies can be used for different sentences following this general scheme?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16248" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4909" RevisionGUID="13f8e5c9-bdd3-4ed2-a0b3-dd31338c9165" CreationDate="2017-07-26T20:23:36.250" UserId="79" Comment="Small polishing edits." Text="|syntax|translation-check|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4911" RevisionGUID="3510d952-cc1f-4137-bbe2-ff383da8778f" CreationDate="2017-07-26T20:32:56.873" UserId="79" Text="When defining the scope of a site like this one, we need to decide what is on topic and what is off topic.&#xD;&#xA;How can I discuss such things in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;It can be a pair of adjectives or some other construction to make the distinction.&#xD;&#xA;The best option that comes to mind is *situi aptus/ineptus*, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is something better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16250" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4911" RevisionGUID="3510d952-cc1f-4137-bbe2-ff383da8778f" CreationDate="2017-07-26T20:32:56.873" UserId="79" Text="What is on or off topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16251" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4911" RevisionGUID="3510d952-cc1f-4137-bbe2-ff383da8778f" CreationDate="2017-07-26T20:32:56.873" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4912" RevisionGUID="f6228ab3-2641-4efe-8590-c32daa4ab765" CreationDate="2017-07-26T21:25:54.450" UserId="645" Text="Even when the main action is in a historic tense, it is usual to follow *dum* with a present indicative, though the imperfect also occurs. That would give&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Dum sub arboribus ambulam id conspexi*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I would prefer a present participle to a *dum* clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sub arboribus ambulans id conspexi* has the sense of 'It was while walking under the trees that I caught sight of it', and you may agree it is neater." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4914" RevisionGUID="6c3ce791-a65e-4ae1-9eb2-bfc9f1191983" CreationDate="2017-07-26T23:45:19.550" UserId="30" Text="As Varro says in his comment above, the cognomen *Otho* might be Etruscan, because the family was apparently descended from Etruscan princes, according to Wikipaedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Otho belonged to an ancient and noble Etruscan family, descended from the princes of Etruria and settled at Ferentinum (currently Ferento, near Viterbo) in Etruria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Utho* seems to have been an alternative spelling, as on the coin below. Etruscan names containing *-uth-* do exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Places like *Ut(h)ica* and *Uthina* exist in northern Africa, but it seems Utica was founded by (Semitic) Punics and hence unrelated to the Etruscan language. According to Wikipaedia, Uthina was a Berber town, but it would seem likely that its name, too, was originally Punic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also the towns of *Othaea* and *Othoca* in western Sardinia. Pauly suggests an alternative spelling *Uta* for *Othaea* and says it is &quot;wohl&quot; (&quot;arguably&quot;?) Punic, like Utica.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pauly doesn't say much at all about the origin of the name *Otho* itself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan remains silent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DhLk6.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://i.imgur.com/M5CHJEW.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4914" RevisionGUID="a6bb85cc-a9c3-42eb-a5cb-994a4b6656fe" CreationDate="2017-07-26T23:53:37.977" UserId="30" Comment="edited body" Text="As Varro says in his comment above, the cognomen *Otho* might be Etruscan, because the family was apparently descended from Etruscan princes, according to Wikipaedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Otho belonged to an ancient and noble Etruscan family, descended from the princes of Etruria and settled at Ferentinum (currently Ferento, near Viterbo) in Etruria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Utho* seems to have been an alternative spelling, as on the coin below. Etruscan names containing *-uth-* do exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Places like *Ut(h)ica* and *Uthina* exist in northern Africa, but it seems Utica was founded by (Semitic) Punics and hence unrelated to the Etruscan language. According to Wikipaedia, Uthina was a Berber town, but it would seem likely that its name, too, was originally Punic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also the towns of *Othaea* and *Othoca* in western Sardinia. Pauly suggests an alternative spelling *Uta* for *Othaea* and says it is &quot;wohl&quot; (&quot;arguably&quot;?) Punic, like Utica.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pauly doesn't say much at all about the origin of the name *Otho* itself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan remains silent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DhLk6.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IAz9s.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4914" RevisionGUID="2892e80f-cb42-453f-9da2-f9cfbd3cc068" CreationDate="2017-07-27T00:04:40.573" UserId="30" Comment="added 185 characters in body" Text="As Varro says in his comment above, the cognomen *Otho* might be Etruscan, because the family was apparently descended from Etruscan princes, according to Wikipaedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Otho belonged to an ancient and noble Etruscan family, descended from the princes of Etruria and settled at Ferentinum (currently Ferento, near Viterbo) in Etruria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek Ὄθων seems to have been a Graecification of the Roman cognomen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are of course many German *Othones (= Ottones)*, but it seems highly unlikely that an old, noble Roman family should adopt a Germanic name, if only because the Germans were still mostly far away in the east at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Utho* seems to have been an alternative spelling, as on the coin below. Etruscan names containing *-uth-* do exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Places like *Ut(h)ica* and *Uthina* exist in northern Africa, but it seems Utica was founded by (Semitic) Punics and hence unrelated to the Etruscan language. According to Wikipaedia, Uthina was a Berber town, but it would seem likely that its name, too, was originally Punic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also the towns of *Othaea* and *Othoca* in western Sardinia. Pauly suggests an alternative spelling *Uta* for *Othaea* and says it is &quot;wohl&quot; (&quot;arguably&quot;?) Punic, like Utica.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pauly doesn't say much at all about the origin of the name *Otho* itself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could not find the reference *Iunius Salvius Otho* at its expected place. There are over 200 Iunii with long articles in Pauly, ordered mostly alphabetically, but he wasn't there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan remains silent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DhLk6.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IAz9s.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4914" RevisionGUID="bc1ad0c4-fc6d-4bca-9ef5-71520b16f3c8" CreationDate="2017-07-27T00:13:24.550" UserId="30" Comment="added 185 characters in body" Text="As Varro says in his comment above, the cognomen *Otho* might be Etruscan, because the family was apparently descended from Etruscan princes, according to Wikipaedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Otho belonged to an ancient and noble Etruscan family, descended from the princes of Etruria and settled at Ferentinum (currently Ferento, near Viterbo) in Etruria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek Ὄθων seems to have been a Graecification of the Roman cognomen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are of course many German *Othones (= Ottones)*, but it seems highly unlikely that an old, noble Roman family should adopt a Germanic name, if only because the Germans were still mostly far away in the east at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Utho* seems to have been an alternative spelling, as on the coin below. Etruscan names containing *-uth-* do exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Places like *Ut(h)ica* and *Uthina* exist in northern Africa, but it seems Utica was founded by (Semitic) Punics and hence unrelated to the Etruscan language. According to Wikipaedia, Uthina was a Berber town, but it would seem likely that its name, too, was originally Punic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also the towns of *Othaea* and *Othoca* in western Sardinia. Pauly suggests an alternative spelling *Uta* for *Othaea* and says it is &quot;wohl&quot; (&quot;arguably&quot;?) Punic, like Utica.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pauly doesn't say much at all about the origin of the name *Otho* itself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could not find the reference *Iunius Salvius Otho* at its expected place. There are over 200 Iunii with long articles in Pauly, ordered mostly alphabetically, but he wasn't there. Three Iunii Othones are mentioned, but nothing about their origin seems to have been known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan remains silent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DhLk6.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IAz9s.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16258" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4807" RevisionGUID="38060beb-43fa-4189-afb3-ed615b24438e" CreationDate="2017-07-27T05:19:10.317" UserId="9" Comment="45" />
  <row Id="16259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4912" RevisionGUID="5fbd70d9-578f-4b50-9902-bde28247e10a" CreationDate="2017-07-27T05:36:22.473" UserId="645" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Even when the main action is in a historic tense, it is usual to follow *dum* with a present indicative, though the imperfect also occurs. That would give&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Dum sub arboribus ambulo id conspexi*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I would prefer a present participle to a *dum* clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sub arboribus ambulans id conspexi* has the sense of 'It was while walking under the trees that I caught sight of it', and you may agree it is neater." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4915" RevisionGUID="8a09bae0-100d-4086-b07d-e38ce6ab0c46" CreationDate="2017-07-27T07:42:45.033" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="Sentence to translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If I see dangerous ocean or beautiful mountains during my long journey I will describe them to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si oceanum periculosus an montes pulchres in itinere meo longo videro tibi illos descripsero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Are there any big mistakes (maybe a lot of them)?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is `an` correct translation of `or`?&#xD;&#xA; 3. `in itinere meo longo` is all in ablative, it that correct?&#xD;&#xA; 4. `videro` and `descripsero` - I used future perfect here, to show that the seeing and describing should be completed.&#xD;&#xA; 5. `illos` in masculine perhaps because `illos montes` but maybe it should be `illa`?&#xD;&#xA; 6. Could you propose some better/correct translations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16261" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4915" RevisionGUID="8a09bae0-100d-4086-b07d-e38ce6ab0c46" CreationDate="2017-07-27T07:42:45.033" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="&quot;If I see (...) I will describe&quot; translation to Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16262" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4915" RevisionGUID="8a09bae0-100d-4086-b07d-e38ce6ab0c46" CreationDate="2017-07-27T07:42:45.033" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4916" RevisionGUID="6e90acad-2324-447c-9a54-daccc3938462" CreationDate="2017-07-27T08:24:28.680" UserId="79" Text="1. &#xD;&#xA;There are a number of small mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;The biggest one in my opinion is the word *an*.&#xD;&#xA;Many will be covered by the subsequent points, but let me address the other ones here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The adjective *periculosus* should be in the same form as *oceanum*.&#xD;&#xA;It should be *periculosum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The adjective *pulcher* should follow second declension (unless in feminine which is first declension), even though *montes* is third declension.&#xD;&#xA;The masculine plural accusative needed here is *pulchros*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; However, *pulcher* is not the word I would choose here.&#xD;&#xA;It is a good choice for beauty in a human, but for beauty in nature I recommend *amoenus* instead.&#xD;&#xA;I would say that *pulcher* is more in the direction of &quot;handsome&quot; and *amoenus* is more like &quot;picturesque&quot;, but I don't claim this is the whole story.&#xD;&#xA;Comparing these two adjectives (or other beauty adjectives) would make a nice and useful question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &#xD;&#xA;The word [*an*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DA%3Aentry+group%3D49%3Aentry%3Dan1) is a little difficult to describe.&#xD;&#xA;It is mainly used in questions (direct or indirect), often introducing the second option.&#xD;&#xA;See the linked dictionary entry for details.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to understand some aspects of this conjunction better, I recommend asking a separate question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The best &quot;or&quot; here is probably *vel*.&#xD;&#xA;See [this question for a comparison of *vel* and *aut*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/40/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &#xD;&#xA;Yes, it should all be in ablative.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, if I want to say that I'm borrowing the horse of my good old rich Portuguese friend, then all those words (good, old, rich, Portuguese, friend) need to be in genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. &#xD;&#xA;If I have understood correctly, the difference between future and future perfect is not the same as the difference between imperfect and perfect.&#xD;&#xA;The future perfect is typically used for something that takes place before a future event.&#xD;&#xA;The main thing is that you will tell me something, and it will happen if you will have seen something.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would put the telling in the future tense (*describam*) and the seeing in the future perfect tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. &#xD;&#xA;Here *illos* refers to both oceans and mountains.&#xD;&#xA;Since they both happen to be masculine, *illos* is the correct choice.&#xD;&#xA;See [this question for details on choosing the gender of an adjective referring to several nouns](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4/79).&#xD;&#xA;If there are objects (or other non-humans) of several grammatical genders, then you should choose neuter (*illa*) instead.&#xD;&#xA;Since the masculinity of oceans and mountains feels somewhat incidental, I wouldn't consider it a sever mistake to use neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. &#xD;&#xA;With the corrections proposed above, your translation is excellent.&#xD;&#xA;The word order and overall structure feel natural.&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there is room for variations.&#xD;&#xA;One possibility would be to use a chiastic word order: *Si oceanum periculosum amoenosve montes in&amp;hellip;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4917" RevisionGUID="8ba98461-ce01-4e09-8571-fe03787de302" CreationDate="2017-07-27T12:50:09.793" UserId="522" Text="One of the pleasures of this site is the civility shown to those who enquire and to those who reply. In keeping with this nonjugmental ethos I would therefore suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***nitens,*** (present participle:*niteo*) brilliant, shining --to show approbation, on-topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***nitens*** (pesent participle deponent *nitor*) on one's knees,striving, making an effort --for off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provided that it was not said out loud, or marked with a macron, the only giveaway, I suppose,  would be the Accusative/ Ablative *situm/ situ.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4918" RevisionGUID="bb463ec8-ebeb-44a2-a031-49fb0cb691ba" CreationDate="2017-07-27T13:19:50.173" UserId="13" Text="Edmonds' edition of Sappho has great eagerness to fill gaps in papyrus texts. One example of this is fragment 12 (in Edmonds' numbering), which in Edmonds reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Αἰ δέ μοι γάλακτο]_ς_ ἐπ̣ά̣β̣ολ’ ἦσ̣[κε&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τωὔατ’ ἢ παίδω]ν δόλοφυν [ποήσ]ε̣ι̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[ἀρμένα, τότ’ οὐ] τρομέροις π*ρ*[ὸς ἄ]λλα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[λέκτρα κε πόσσι        4&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ἠρχόμαν· νῦν δὲ] χρόα γῆρας ἤδη&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[μυρίαν ἄμμον ῤύτι]ν ἀμφιβάσκει,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[κωὐ πρὸς ἄμμ’  Ἔρο]ς̣ π̣έ̣τ̣αται διώκων&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[ἀλγεσίδωρος.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my horrible super-literal English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If to me the paps existed having obtained milk, and the ἀρμένα made a δολόφυν of babies, then with not trembling feet I would go to new beds; but now old age already goes around our skin with thousands of wrinkles, and love no longer flies in our pursuit, the pain-giver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is Edmonds' translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If my paps could still give suck and my womb were able to bear clnkh-en, then would I come to another marriage-bed with unfaltering feet ; but nay, age now raaketh a thousand wrinkles to go upon my flesh, and Love is in no haste to fly to me with his gift of pain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now this question is about the words I left untranslated: what are they? δόλοφυς and δόλοφυν are nowhere to be found in my references, so I thought maybe it was a dialect alteration like κίνδυν for κίνδυνος, which others have reported in Sappho, but δολοφυνος and δολοφυνον both yield the same result as δολόφυν. As for ἀρμένα, all I find is ἄρμενα, which doesn't fit the meter because a long final vowel is required. Thinking again, the κίνδυν case is reported with -n nominative and -na accusative, which would make δολόφυν a nominative and probably the womb, and ἀρμένα maybe aeolic for [ἀρμένη](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=armenh&amp;la=greek#lexicon), &quot;if provided [with what though?]&quot;. SO the translation would read &quot;[…] and my δολόφυν (womb?), if provided [with what?], made …&quot; oh wait, that genitive wouldn't fit then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how does this sentence work? What are those two words? Is my second guess right? And if so, what is that genitive doing there? Wouldn't an accusative (direct object), παῖδας, be better in there then?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16268" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4918" RevisionGUID="bb463ec8-ebeb-44a2-a031-49fb0cb691ba" CreationDate="2017-07-27T13:19:50.173" UserId="13" Text="Two unfindable words from Sappho Edmonds 12, Edmonds' version" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16269" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4918" RevisionGUID="bb463ec8-ebeb-44a2-a031-49fb0cb691ba" CreationDate="2017-07-27T13:19:50.173" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4919" RevisionGUID="aea7d4e4-a258-4fe4-bb17-96a97ddaf8b4" CreationDate="2017-07-27T13:30:47.340" UserId="79" Text="Here are some ideas (mainly adjectives to go with *rogatum* or some such word) that have been proposed so far in comments and the question itself.&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to add any new ideas here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *situi aptus/ineptus*&#xD;&#xA;- *ad hoc*&#xD;&#xA;- *gratus*&#xD;&#xA;- *pertinens*&#xD;&#xA;- *decens*&#xD;&#xA;- *decet*&#xD;&#xA;- *adhibere/prohibere* and *adhibitus/prohibitus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This list contains no explanation or justification, just possibly useful ideas. If you want to elaborate on one or more idea, please write it up in a separate answer!**&#xD;&#xA;This answer is community wiki so that anyone can edit to add a suggestion but no one gets reputation for the votes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16271" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4919" RevisionGUID="5813832c-6216-4f9e-8b73-51d62cf4d6a0" CreationDate="2017-07-27T13:30:47.340" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="16272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4920" RevisionGUID="b6cdf701-3c09-4853-bffb-87f4b9d74fe0" CreationDate="2017-07-27T13:36:44.473" UserId="45" Text="My submission is ***[situi]*** [***consentaneus***](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dconsentaneus):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agreeing or according with something, suited to, becoming, meet, fit, proper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The formulaic phrase *consentaneum est*, in this context, would mean &quot;That is on-topic,&quot; based on its L&amp;S meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it agrees with something, it is according to reason, fitting, consistent, proper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Off-topic could be *non/haud consentaneus* or even, as attested in later Latin, *[situi]* [*inconsentaneus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dinconsentaneus)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4870" RevisionGUID="71da9cc4-b995-4a8a-9697-9e05df8676ce" CreationDate="2017-07-27T14:49:51.420" UserId="1743" Comment="Made substantial edits, responding to the comments. The meaning of the questions has partially been *distorted*, which may not be best practice, but seems fair in this case, against the backdrop of the comments." Text="**Background.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following is correct standard English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (0) He read the poems of Catullus, Juvenal, Horace, and Virgil. He intentionally memorized only poems *of the latter two*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following uses a *fantasy-word* &quot;twatter&quot;, which standard English does not contain, a single word referring back *to the last two names mentioned*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) He read the poems of Catullus, Juvenal, Horace, and Virgil. He intentionally memorized only the twatter's poems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intent is that (1) be *equivalent* to (0). &#xD;&#xA;Hence the pluralized fantasized &quot;twatter&quot;, a portmanteau of &quot;two&quot; and &quot;latter&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the standard word &quot;*latter's*&quot; instead of &quot;twatter's&quot; would result in a sentence saying that &quot;He&quot; intentionally memorized only *Virgil*'s poems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Latin offer a mechanism like the above (invented) pluralized &quot;twatter's&quot;, i.e., a **single** word referring back to the preceding **two** names?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you know a natural language which does?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4921" RevisionGUID="6a18a55c-3ab7-43c6-8b77-f489f4d6677d" CreationDate="2017-07-27T14:57:42.297" UserId="1743" Text="**Question.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Is there anything close to scientifically-meaningful to say about whether the prefix &quot;di-&quot; is *more Latin* than the prefix &quot;bi-&quot;, when indicating *two-ness*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Are there published scholarly references *on precisely this question*, comparing the two prefixes? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) Are there notable Latin words which *simultaneously* contain &quot;bi&quot; and &quot;di&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Remarks.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In a vague sense that I have no time or experience enough to substantiate, this seems to be the case, &quot;di-&quot; seeming significantly more Latin-ish than &quot;bi-&quot; which seems more Greek-ish. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Of course, the difference is not clear-cut, there is organic growth and randomness involved, and e.g. in Greek *both* &quot;bi-&quot; and &quot;di-&quot; appear in composites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Both &quot;bi-&quot; and &quot;di-&quot; appear in countless scientic terms. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16275" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4921" RevisionGUID="6a18a55c-3ab7-43c6-8b77-f489f4d6677d" CreationDate="2017-07-27T14:57:42.297" UserId="1743" Text="Is the prefix &quot;di-&quot; more Latin-like than &quot;bi-&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16276" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4921" RevisionGUID="6a18a55c-3ab7-43c6-8b77-f489f4d6677d" CreationDate="2017-07-27T14:57:42.297" UserId="1743" Text="|etymology|greek|prefix|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4922" RevisionGUID="302d039b-9299-47cd-a353-18b5e8031705" CreationDate="2017-07-27T15:46:13.810" UserId="1694" Text="Your are confused; *bi-* is Latin and *di-* is Greek.  There is no real difference in meaning between them, but in usage *bi-* is used with Latin constructions like *bisexual* and *di-* with Greek constructions like *diglossia*.  *bi-* is *not* a Greek prefix." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4923" RevisionGUID="e4f7cccd-9dfb-42ce-92f4-71a4978ab94b" CreationDate="2017-07-27T16:38:55.253" UserId="1459" Text="The following is a plaque in commemoration of the 700th anniversary of the birth of [John Duns Scotus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duns_Scotus):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Source of image [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Duns_Scotus_plaque_University_Church_Oxford.jpg)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt to translate it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; John Duns Scotus O.F.M [Fransican friar], whom in lecturing [oxonians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxonian) represented David [that?] // [The Lord is my light](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominus_illuminatio_mea) // this tombstone [?] from his brothers [fransiscan friars] placed in commemoration of 700 years // year of the Lord 1966&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That just does not sound right. Not sure how to put David in there. _Lapide_ is almost literal in Spanish (lapida) but not sure what is best for English. And the last bit is also strange. Not sure how to fit _commemoratur_ as it does not state in commemoration of what. But, of course, many other things could be wrong!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bZISP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16279" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4923" RevisionGUID="e4f7cccd-9dfb-42ce-92f4-71a4978ab94b" CreationDate="2017-07-27T16:38:55.253" UserId="1459" Text="How to translate this plaque about John Duns Scotus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16280" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4923" RevisionGUID="e4f7cccd-9dfb-42ce-92f4-71a4978ab94b" CreationDate="2017-07-27T16:38:55.253" UserId="1459" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4922" RevisionGUID="f0ef8549-31a1-491b-836f-de93269a3bfe" CreationDate="2017-07-27T16:51:08.403" UserId="1694" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="Your are confused; *bi-* is Latin and *di-* is Greek.  There is no real difference in meaning between them, but in usage *bi-* is used with Latin constructions like *bisexual* and *di-* with Greek constructions like *diglossia*.  *bi-* is *not* a Greek prefix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(As an aside, I should mention that both Latin bi- and Greek δι‐ have a common origin in a reconstructed ancestor *dwi- .)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4924" RevisionGUID="b6f93b16-4baa-4005-b560-0b04d6c8f5ce" CreationDate="2017-07-27T16:55:26.137" UserId="45" Text="Here is a literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; John Duns Scotus, OFM, who is his Oxford lectures represented that famous line of David, &quot;the Lord is my light,&quot; is commemorated by this stone placed by his brothers after seven hundred years in AD 1966.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* OFM is the abbreviation (still used today) for *Ordo Fratrum Minorum*, &quot;the order of friars minor,&quot; i.e. Franciscans.&#xD;&#xA;* *Illud* is often used alone to refer to a famous saying. In this case, *Illud Davidicum* literally means &quot;that famous Davidic saying.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4925" RevisionGUID="5cc4df17-48f0-495b-9ccc-85eda697aaab" CreationDate="2017-07-27T17:41:10.700" UserId="406" Text="##*di-* is Greek and *bi-* is Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Proto-Indo-European root for &quot;two&quot; is reconstructed as \**dw-*. The remnants of this *w* can be seen in English &quot;two&quot;, Russian *dva*, Ancient Greek *δύο*, and many other languages, as well as Latin *duo*, &quot;two&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old Latin had many words starting with *dv-* (where *v* was pronounced as English &quot;w&quot;). But at some point before Classical times, *dv-* changed into *b-* at the beginning of words. Hence *dvellum* (whence English &quot;duel&quot;) became *bellum* &quot;war&quot;, and *dvonos* became *bonus* &quot;good&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *dvo* &quot;two&quot; was commonly-used enough that it avoided this change; the *v* became the vowel *u* instead, giving Classical Latin *duo* &quot;two&quot;. (It also preserved the dual endings, which died out pretty much everywhere else.) But the prefix *dvi-* was affected by the change, and became *bi-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar thing happened in Ancient Greek, which lost the *w* sound entirely. It became a vowel in *δύο*, and simply disappeared in *δι-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So strictly speaking, *di-* should be used only on Greek roots, and *bi-* on Latin. But in practice Greek and Latin are mixed together all over the place and the prefix is generally chosen based on what sounds better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Compare also the prefixes *semi-* from Latin and *hemi-* from Greek, which are sometimes even combined, as in the musical term &quot;hemisemidemiquaver&quot;. They're also cognates; *s-* before vowels at the beginning of words changed into *h-* in Greek.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4917" RevisionGUID="25ae8b7c-442d-47ef-bc8c-37665e54535c" CreationDate="2017-07-27T17:46:02.390" UserId="406" Comment="Added macrons" Text="One of the pleasures of this site is the civility shown to those who enquire and to those who reply. In keeping with this nonjudgmental ethos I would therefore suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***nitēns,*** (present participle of *niteō*) brilliant, shining --to show approbation, on-topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***nītēns*** (present participle of deponent *nītor*) on one's knees, striving, making an effort --for off-topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provided that it was not said out loud, or marked with a macron, the only giveaway, I suppose, would be the Accusative/Ablative *situm/sitū.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4926" RevisionGUID="efbc2f98-c865-45ba-aff4-46184f907918" CreationDate="2017-07-27T17:56:02.337" UserId="1784" Text="Indeed, dogs have been commonly used in warfare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dogs were commonly used for the care of the house and in the army to accompany the guards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dogs of war were called Canes pugnaces / canis pugnacis / Canes Bellicosi / Canis Pugnax (sometimes in an ambiguous way since they were also used in war shows)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many documents treat it today:&#xD;&#xA;http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D00E2DE123FE233A25752C2A9649C946496D6CF&amp;legacy=true&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one of the first important references for start to work:&#xD;&#xA;Arrian on coursing: the Cynegeticus of the younger Xenophon&#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.es/books?id=-15dAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA219&amp;lpg=PA219&amp;dq=Canes+Bellicosi&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=j8uFVwS9M7&amp;sig=fpWD8NLM8-h99mRpoZ2yuhnaJSM&amp;hl=es&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi02PD-8anVAhUDK1AKHWy-B34Q6AEINTAB#v=snippet&amp;q=canes%20bellicosi&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gaius Plinius Secundus, naturalist and Roman writer also describes the characteristics of these dogs.&#xD;&#xA;Lemish, Michael G. (1999). War Dogs: A History of Loyalty and Heroism. Brassey's Inc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An even more complicated issue is whether in the Ancient egyptian were already using dogs in warfare:&#xD;&#xA;Engraved in furniture found in relation to Neb-jeperu-Ra Tut-anj-Amón (Tutankamon):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rHRi9.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z8hFf.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/celZD.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4924" RevisionGUID="ea6de6eb-0e05-4804-ac51-61eb5d516f63" CreationDate="2017-07-27T18:52:51.330" UserId="45" Comment="edited body" Text="Here is a literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; John Duns Scotus, OFM, who in his Oxford lectures represented that famous line of David, &quot;the Lord is my light,&quot; is commemorated by this stone placed by his brothers after seven hundred years in AD 1966.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* OFM is the abbreviation (still used today) for *Ordo Fratrum Minorum*, &quot;the order of friars minor,&quot; i.e. Franciscans.&#xD;&#xA;* *Illud* is often used alone to refer to a famous saying. In this case, *Illud Davidicum* literally means &quot;that famous Davidic saying.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4927" RevisionGUID="2b409824-a5d4-47ef-998f-e980618cecc0" CreationDate="2017-07-27T21:47:24.277" UserId="78" Text="The question asks about Romans using dogs, and therefore I'm going to say no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Pliny the Elder (8.61):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A king of the Garamantes also was brought back from exile by two hundred dogs, which maintained the combat against all his opponents. **The people of Colophon and Castabala kept troops of dogs, for the purposes of war; and these used to fight in the front rank, and never retreat; they were the most faithful of auxiliaries, and yet required no pay.** After the defeat of the Cimbri, their dogs defended their moveable houses, which were carried upon waggons. Jason, the Lycian, having been slain, his dog refused to take food, and died of famine. A dog, to which Darius gives the name of Hyrcanus, upon the funeral pile of King Lysimachus being lighted, threw itself into the flames, and the dog of King Hiero did the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely if dogs were used during warfare Pliny here would have mentioned it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure where the idea originated, but The Zoologist, written in 1884, [only mentions](https://books.google.com/books?id=QuVGAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA401&amp;#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) that dogs were used in war by the Persians and Assyrians, though he does mention the Pliny reference. And I as I mentioned in a comment to the question, the *OCD&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;* does not mention dogs used in war, which I also would have expected it to were there good evidence for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4918" RevisionGUID="e6fbc968-2e57-4674-8fcb-1909c1b42fe6" CreationDate="2017-07-27T21:56:33.287" UserId="13" Comment="added edit" Text="Edmonds' edition of Sappho has great eagerness to fill gaps in papyrus texts. One example of this is fragment 12 (in Edmonds' numbering), which in Edmonds reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Αἰ δέ μοι γάλακτο]_ς_ ἐπ̣ά̣β̣ολ’ ἦσ̣[κε&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τωὔατ’ ἢ παίδω]ν δόλοφυν [ποήσ]ε̣ι̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[ἀρμένα, τότ’ οὐ] τρομέροις π*ρ*[ὸς ἄ]λλα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[λέκτρα κε πόσσι        4&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ἠρχόμαν· νῦν δὲ] χρόα γῆρας ἤδη&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[μυρίαν ἄμμον ῤύτι]ν ἀμφιβάσκει,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[κωὐ πρὸς ἄμμ’  Ἔρο]ς̣ π̣έ̣τ̣αται διώκων&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[ἀλγεσίδωρος.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my horrible super-literal English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If to me the paps existed having obtained milk, and the ἀρμένα made a δολόφυν of babies, then with not trembling feet I would go to new beds; but now old age already goes around our skin with thousands of wrinkles, and love no longer flies in our pursuit, the pain-giver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is Edmonds' translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If my paps could still give suck and my womb were able to bear clnkh-en, then would I come to another marriage-bed with unfaltering feet ; but nay, age now raaketh a thousand wrinkles to go upon my flesh, and Love is in no haste to fly to me with his gift of pain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now this question is about the words I left untranslated: what are they? δόλοφυς and δόλοφυν are nowhere to be found in my references, so I thought maybe it was a dialect alteration like κίνδυν for κίνδυνος, which others have reported in Sappho, but δολοφυνος and δολοφυνον both yield the same result as δολόφυν. As for ἀρμένα, all I find is ἄρμενα, which doesn't fit the meter because a long final vowel is required. Thinking again, the κίνδυν case is reported with -n nominative and -na accusative, which would make δολόφυν a nominative and probably the womb, and ἀρμένα maybe aeolic for [ἀρμένη](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=armenh&amp;la=greek#lexicon), &quot;if provided [with what though?]&quot;. SO the translation would read &quot;[…] and my δολόφυν (womb?), if provided [with what?], made …&quot; oh wait, that genitive wouldn't fit then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how does this sentence work? What are those two words? Is my second guess right? And if so, what is that genitive doing there? Wouldn't an accusative (direct object), παῖδας, be better in there then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just reread my own poetic Italian translation of this, and it suggests `armena` might mean &quot;suitable&quot;. perseus doesn't quite confirm this, but this hypothesis brings me to believe `poēsei` is not a verb, but the dative of the verbal nuon `poēsis`, and the translation needs to be rewritten as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If to me the paps existed having obtained milk, and the δολόφυν were suitable for the making of babies, then with not trembling feet I would go to new beds; but now old age already goes around our skin with thousands of wrinkles, and love no longer flies in our pursuit, the pain-giver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves the hypothesis on `armena` to be checked, and the origins and meaning of `dolophyn` to be cleared." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4918" RevisionGUID="7940a003-4fc8-4304-9eab-ff0097b85149" CreationDate="2017-07-27T22:02:30.130" UserId="13" Comment="fixed misspelling in text" Text="Edmonds' edition of Sappho has great eagerness to fill gaps in papyrus texts. One example of this is fragment 12 (in Edmonds' numbering), which in Edmonds reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Αἰ δέ μοι γάλακτο]_ς_ ἐπ̣ά̣β̣ολ’ ἦσ̣[κε&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τωὔθατ’ ἢ παίδω]ν δόλοφυν [ποήσ]ε̣ι̣&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[ἀρμένα, τότ’ οὐ] τρομέροις π*ρ*[ὸς ἄ]λλα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[λέκτρα κε πόσσι        4&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ἠρχόμαν· νῦν δὲ] χρόα γῆρας ἤδη&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[μυρίαν ἄμμον ῤύτι]ν ἀμφιβάσκει,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[κωὐ πρὸς ἄμμ’  Ἔρο]ς̣ π̣έ̣τ̣αται διώκων&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[ἀλγεσίδωρος.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my horrible super-literal English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If to me the paps existed having obtained milk, and the ἀρμένα made a δολόφυν of babies, then with not trembling feet I would go to new beds; but now old age already goes around our skin with thousands of wrinkles, and love no longer flies in our pursuit, the pain-giver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is Edmonds' translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If my paps could still give suck and my womb were able to bear clnkh-en, then would I come to another marriage-bed with unfaltering feet ; but nay, age now raaketh a thousand wrinkles to go upon my flesh, and Love is in no haste to fly to me with his gift of pain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now this question is about the words I left untranslated: what are they? δόλοφυς and δόλοφυν are nowhere to be found in my references, so I thought maybe it was a dialect alteration like κίνδυν for κίνδυνος, which others have reported in Sappho, but δολοφυνος and δολοφυνον both yield the same result as δολόφυν. As for ἀρμένα, all I find is ἄρμενα, which doesn't fit the meter because a long final vowel is required. Thinking again, the κίνδυν case is reported with -n nominative and -na accusative, which would make δολόφυν a nominative and probably the womb, and ἀρμένα maybe aeolic for [ἀρμένη](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=armenh&amp;la=greek#lexicon), &quot;if provided [with what though?]&quot;. SO the translation would read &quot;[…] and my δολόφυν (womb?), if provided [with what?], made …&quot; oh wait, that genitive wouldn't fit then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how does this sentence work? What are those two words? Is my second guess right? And if so, what is that genitive doing there? Wouldn't an accusative (direct object), παῖδας, be better in there then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just reread my own poetic Italian translation of this, and it suggests `armena` might mean &quot;suitable&quot;. perseus doesn't quite confirm this, but this hypothesis brings me to believe `poēsei` is not a verb, but the dative of the verbal nuon `poēsis`, and the translation needs to be rewritten as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If to me the paps existed having obtained milk, and the δολόφυν were suitable for the making of babies, then with not trembling feet I would go to new beds; but now old age already goes around our skin with thousands of wrinkles, and love no longer flies in our pursuit, the pain-giver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves the hypothesis on `armena` to be checked, and the origins and meaning of `dolophyn` to be cleared." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4928" RevisionGUID="6c52caf8-2bf1-40f5-ab32-c66c83596e3a" CreationDate="2017-07-27T23:02:30.527" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="Description of wanted meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First thing will be described by me. After first description is completed second one gets done. Then I will be describing fourth thing but not before I spend at least some time describing third one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rem primam descripsero ante describam secundam ante quartam describens ero post fuero describens tertiam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Perhaps there should be future perfect used twice instead of once?&#xD;&#xA; 2. What other word could be more fitting than `post`?&#xD;&#xA; 3. How to say it better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16292" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4928" RevisionGUID="6c52caf8-2bf1-40f5-ab32-c66c83596e3a" CreationDate="2017-07-27T23:02:30.527" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="Future actions happening in sequence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16293" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4928" RevisionGUID="6c52caf8-2bf1-40f5-ab32-c66c83596e3a" CreationDate="2017-07-27T23:02:30.527" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="|translation|tenses|future-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4925" RevisionGUID="aff7689d-e981-4e0a-aa8a-f7d58b0530a7" CreationDate="2017-07-27T23:15:39.747" UserId="406" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="##*di-* is Greek and *bi-* is Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Proto-Indo-European root for &quot;two&quot; is reconstructed as \**dw-*. The remnants of this *w* can be seen in English &quot;two&quot;, Russian *dva*, Ancient Greek *δύο*, and many other languages, as well as Latin *duo*, &quot;two&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old Latin had many words starting with *dv-* (where *v* was pronounced as English &quot;w&quot;). But at some point before Classical times, *dv-* changed into *b-* at the beginning of words. Hence *dvellum* (whence English &quot;duel&quot;) became *bellum* &quot;war&quot;, and *dvonos* became *bonus* &quot;good&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *dvo* &quot;two&quot; was commonly-used enough that it avoided this change; the *v* became the vowel *u* instead, giving Classical Latin *duo* &quot;two&quot;. (It also preserved the dual endings, which died out pretty much everywhere else.) But the prefix *dvi-* was affected by the change, and became *bi-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar thing happened in Ancient Greek, which lost the *w* sound entirely. It became a vowel in *δύο*, and simply disappeared in *δι-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So strictly speaking, *di-* should be used only on Greek roots, and *bi-* on Latin. But in practice Greek and Latin are mixed together all over the place and the prefix is generally chosen based on what sounds better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Compare also the prefixes *semi-* from Latin and *hemi-* from Greek, which are sometimes even combined, as in the musical term &quot;hemisemidemiquaver&quot;. They're also cognates; *s-* before vowels at the beginning of words changed into *h-* in Greek.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ETA: Joonas suggested an even clearer pair of cognates, Latin *super-* and Greek *hyper-*. Many thanks.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4929" RevisionGUID="56a613c2-82ca-4d27-a880-5d7e3ca11715" CreationDate="2017-07-28T01:35:28.417" UserId="406" Text="##*Secundus* is regular, *eqvus* isn't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a sound change called the &quot;Boukólos Rule&quot;, which started back in Proto-Indo-European. When labiovelar consonants (like /kʷ/ and /gʷ/) appeared next to /w/ or /u/, they dissimilated and lost their labialization, becoming /k/ and /g/. The rule is named after one of the first known examples, Greek *βουκόλος* &quot;cowherd&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, a *u* vowel continued to turn the labiovelar *qv* /kʷ/ into a plain velar *c* /k/. So *seqv-* + *-undus* became *secundus*, which was perfectly regular at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule eventually ceased to be relevant in most Indo-European languages (for example Greek lost its labiovelars entirely). But in both Latin and Germanic, later sound changes created more /u/ sounds. And the Boukólos Rule continued to apply to these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short *o* in the second-declension endings shifted to a *u* between Old and Classical Latin, giving the familiar endings *-us* and *-um*. And this new *u* transformed second-declension nouns ending with labiovelars. This also created the irregularity in the relative pronoun: *qvī qvae qvod*, but *cujus, cui* (originally \**quoios, quoi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But while the relative pronouns were fairly fossilized (hence the archaic endings), and the gerundive in *-undus* was falling out of use, the second-declension endings were still very common and productive. And the paradigm *ecus, eqvī, eqvō, ecum, eqvō, eqve* looked inconsistent and wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in writing, it became standard to write *qv* for a plain velar /k/, **only before the second declension endings *-us, -um***. [Allen's *Vox Latina*][1] quotes Velius Longius (writing in the second century AD):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Auribus quidem sufficiebat ut *eqvus* per unum *u* scriberetur, ratio tamen duo exigit.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Indeed, to the ears it is fine to write **eqvus** with a single **u**, but the mind demands two.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite this, forms like *ecus* are still found in inscriptions, indicating that the true pronunciation was still /k/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA20&amp;lpg=PA20&amp;dq=ecus%20equus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=TxPwnk4zUY&amp;sig=pM1w0pHT75ixsMSSsZZqWb_iQ5Y&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwicjuPL76PVAhUW52MKHQduA9Q4ChDoAQhBMAg#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4930" RevisionGUID="a718ed4f-5d0f-46c8-82e4-810d40aa894e" CreationDate="2017-07-28T09:29:56.237" UserId="13" Text="I woke up this morning, connected to the Internet, and found [TKR's comment](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4918/two-unfindable-words-from-sappho-edmonds-12-edmonds-version#comment10100_4918). I tried to do some more research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ἀρμένα**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I opened my big dictionary and looked for ἄρμενος, finding a redirect to ἀραρίσκω after a translation to «adatto» or the likes, hence «suitable». Here is the entry I was redirected to, or rather the relevant part of it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives meanings «well adapted; convenient; thus pleasing», and further down «ready». The example it gives for &quot;suitable&quot; is ἡμέρα κούρῃσι γενέσθαι ἄρμενος, &quot;opportune day for the birth of children&quot;. The analogous construction would be παῖδας δόλοφυν πόησθαι ἀρμένα, which doesn't sit too well with the papyrus text, so I guess Edmonds went creative and invented a reasonably likely but apparently unrecorded construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**δόλοφυν**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry for δελφύς only gives Doric δελφύα, and no Aeolic form. Here is Edmonds' note to the word (wish I'd looked at that earlier):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, it seems making this image bigger is impossible, because adding `s` to the image name in the URL produces a square-cut version ([![][3]][3]), adding `m` does nothing, and adding `?s=&lt;number&gt;` after the url end either produces a variable-size version of the `s` thing before or makes the image vanish altogether in favor of the alt text with a link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, the note reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;=δελφύς, cf. κίνδυν, Φόρκυν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yeah, Edmonds went creative again, and supposed this Aeolic form, where the -ν ending is justified by those forms, which are recorded by other authors (I know so for κίνδυνand suppose as much for Φόρκυν), but the change in the &quot;root&quot; (δελφ -&gt; δολοφ) is entirely his guess. I mean, perhaps ε-&gt;ο can be sorta-kinda justified by analogy with some α-&gt;ο changes (like ἀνία-&gt;ὀνία in Sappho 1), but the extra vowel… pure fantasy :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pMUpn.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxFs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4930" RevisionGUID="9a4cb11c-e2a7-45d8-ad2d-55b59522e366" CreationDate="2017-07-28T10:32:04.110" UserId="13" Comment="fixed the recorded construction for armena and the relevant comments" Text="I woke up this morning, connected to the Internet, and found [TKR's comment](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4918/two-unfindable-words-from-sappho-edmonds-12-edmonds-version#comment10100_4918). I tried to do some more research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ἀρμένα**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I opened my big dictionary and looked for ἄρμενος, finding a redirect to ἀραρίσκω after a translation to «adatto» or the likes, hence «suitable». Here is the entry I was redirected to, or rather the relevant part of it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives meanings «well adapted; convenient; thus pleasing», and further down «ready». The example it gives for &quot;suitable&quot; is ἡμέρα κούρῃσι γενέσθαι ἄρμενος, &quot;opportune day for the birth of children&quot;. The analogous construction would be παῖσιν δόλοφυν πόησθαι ἀρμένα, which probably has too long a suppletion for the last word, besides a different reading for the uncertain ε̣ι, and would probably have a non-Aeolic for (Aeolic would be παίδεσσιν, right?), so I guess Edmonds went creative and invented a reasonably likely but apparently unrecorded construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**δόλοφυν**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry for δελφύς only gives Doric δελφύα, and no Aeolic form. Here is Edmonds' note to the word (wish I'd looked at that earlier):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, it seems making this image bigger is impossible, because adding `s` to the image name in the URL produces a square-cut version ([![][3]][3]), adding `m` does nothing, and adding `?s=&lt;number&gt;` after the url end either produces a variable-size version of the `s` thing before or makes the image vanish altogether in favor of the alt text with a link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, the note reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;=δελφύς, cf. κίνδυν, Φόρκυν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yeah, Edmonds went creative again, and supposed this Aeolic form, where the -ν ending is justified by those forms, which are recorded by other authors (I know so for κίνδυνand suppose as much for Φόρκυν), but the change in the &quot;root&quot; (δελφ -&gt; δολοφ) is entirely his guess. I mean, perhaps ε-&gt;ο can be sorta-kinda justified by analogy with some α-&gt;ο changes (like ἀνία-&gt;ὀνία in Sappho 1), but the extra vowel… pure fantasy :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pMUpn.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxFs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4916" RevisionGUID="0bfc02ba-3d73-49a2-94e0-e792767c7f9d" CreationDate="2017-07-28T11:30:35.580" UserId="79" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="1. &#xD;&#xA;There are a number of small mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;The biggest one in my opinion is the word *an*.&#xD;&#xA;Many will be covered by the subsequent points, but let me address the other ones here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The adjective *periculosus* should be in the same form as *oceanum*.&#xD;&#xA;It should be *periculosum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The adjective *pulcher* should follow second declension (unless in feminine which is first declension), even though *montes* is third declension.&#xD;&#xA;The masculine plural accusative needed here is *pulchros*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; However, *pulcher* is not the word I would choose here.&#xD;&#xA;It is a good choice for beauty in a human, but for beauty in nature I recommend *amoenus* instead.&#xD;&#xA;I would say that *pulcher* is more in the direction of &quot;handsome&quot; and *amoenus* is more like &quot;picturesque&quot;, but I don't claim this is the whole story.&#xD;&#xA;Comparing these two adjectives (or other beauty adjectives) would make a nice and useful question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &#xD;&#xA;The word [*an*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DA%3Aentry+group%3D49%3Aentry%3Dan1) is a little difficult to describe.&#xD;&#xA;It is mainly used in questions (direct or indirect), often introducing the second option.&#xD;&#xA;See the linked dictionary entry for details.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to understand some aspects of this conjunction better, I recommend asking a separate question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The best &quot;or&quot; here is probably *vel*.&#xD;&#xA;See [this question for a comparison of *vel* and *aut*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/40/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &#xD;&#xA;Yes, it should all be in ablative.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, if I want to say that I'm borrowing the horse of my good old rich Portuguese friend, then all those words (good, old, rich, Portuguese, friend) need to be in genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. &#xD;&#xA;If I have understood correctly, the difference between future and future perfect is not the same as the difference between imperfect and perfect.&#xD;&#xA;The future perfect is typically used for something that takes place before a future event.&#xD;&#xA;The main thing is that you will tell me something, and it will happen if you will have seen something.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would put the telling in the future tense (*describam*) and the seeing in the future perfect tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. &#xD;&#xA;Here *illos* refers to both oceans and mountains.&#xD;&#xA;Since they both happen to be masculine, *illos* is the correct choice.&#xD;&#xA;See [this question for details on choosing the gender of an adjective referring to several nouns](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4/79) &amp;mdash; and note that *ille* is not an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;However, this particular case is simple since you refer to two masculines.&#xD;&#xA;Since the masculinity of oceans and mountains feels somewhat incidental and the things are inanimate, I wouldn't consider it a severe mistake to use neuter (*illa*) instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. &#xD;&#xA;With the corrections proposed above, your translation is excellent.&#xD;&#xA;The word order and overall structure feel natural.&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there is room for variations.&#xD;&#xA;One possibility would be to use a chiastic word order: *Si oceanum periculosum amoenosve montes in&amp;hellip;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4930" RevisionGUID="c4557ffd-d40a-4005-b063-75b642204d39" CreationDate="2017-07-28T11:30:53.377" UserId="13" Comment="added result of html code" Text="I woke up this morning, connected to the Internet, and found [TKR's comment](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4918/two-unfindable-words-from-sappho-edmonds-12-edmonds-version#comment10100_4918). I tried to do some more research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ἀρμένα**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I opened my big dictionary and looked for ἄρμενος, finding a redirect to ἀραρίσκω after a translation to «adatto» or the likes, hence «suitable». Here is the entry I was redirected to, or rather the relevant part of it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives meanings «well adapted; convenient; thus pleasing», and further down «ready». The example it gives for &quot;suitable&quot; is ἡμέρα κούρῃσι γενέσθαι ἄρμενος, &quot;opportune day for the birth of children&quot;. The analogous construction would be παῖσιν δόλοφυν πόησθαι ἀρμένα, which probably has too long a suppletion for the last word, besides a different reading for the uncertain ε̣ι, and would probably have a non-Aeolic for (Aeolic would be παίδεσσιν, right?), so I guess Edmonds went creative and invented a reasonably likely but apparently unrecorded construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**δόλοφυν**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry for δελφύς only gives Doric δελφύα, and no Aeolic form. Here is Edmonds' note to the word (wish I'd looked at that earlier):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, it seems making this image bigger is impossible, because adding `s` to the image name in the URL produces a square-cut version ([![][3]][3]), adding `m` does nothing, and adding `?s=&lt;number&gt;` after the url end either produces a variable-size version of the `s` thing before or makes the image vanish altogether in favor of the alt text with a link, and pure html code (`&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxFs.png&quot; alt=&quot;Edmonds note on dolophyn&quot; width=400&gt;`) gives &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxFs.png&quot; alt=&quot;Edmonds note on dolophyn&quot; width=400&gt;, i.e. a whole lot of nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, the note reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;=δελφύς, cf. κίνδυν, Φόρκυν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yeah, Edmonds went creative again, and supposed this Aeolic form, where the -ν ending is justified by those forms, which are recorded by other authors (I know so for κίνδυνand suppose as much for Φόρκυν), but the change in the &quot;root&quot; (δελφ -&gt; δολοφ) is entirely his guess. I mean, perhaps ε-&gt;ο can be sorta-kinda justified by analogy with some α-&gt;ο changes (like ἀνία-&gt;ὀνία in Sappho 1), but the extra vowel… pure fantasy :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pMUpn.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxFs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4931" RevisionGUID="6a59f0ce-be7b-4cfc-b189-9ae25d4dfc7f" CreationDate="2017-07-28T12:53:35.293" UserId="79" Text="The entry for [*niti* in Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnitor1) includes meaning I.B.3: &quot;to strain for a stool&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;One passage of such use is mentioned:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Suet. Ves. 20](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0061%3Alife%3Dves.%3Achapter%3D20):  &#xD;&#xA;*Statura fuit quadrata, compactis firmisque membris, vultu veluti nitentis&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [English translation (Alexander Thomson, ed., 1889)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Suet.%20Ves.%2020&amp;lang=original):  &#xD;&#xA;He was broad-set, strong-limbed, and his features gave the idea of a man in the act of straining himself&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it seems as if this could be included in the meaning I.B.2, &quot;to strain in giving birth&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In general, *niti* seems to mean &quot;to rest against something&quot; or &quot;to make an effort&quot;, and even that general idea might be enough here without specific reference to birth.&#xD;&#xA;The man's face was as if (*veluti*) he was giving birth.&#xD;&#xA;I would argue that *niti* used in this sense here, not referring to what the man was actually doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads me to a couple of questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What does &quot;straining oneself&quot; or &quot;straining for a stool&quot; actually mean? I get the impression that they are euphemisms for [defecation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defecation) in an attempt to [avoid profanities](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/729/79), but I'm not sure if something else was intended.&#xD;&#xA;(More literal translations, however profane or offending, are often useful in getting the meaning and tone right. Bear in mind that English is not a native language for me.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I argued above that the one in Suetonius doesn't even have that particular meaning &amp;mdash; assuming I understood the English correctly.&#xD;&#xA;Do you agree with this judgement?&#xD;&#xA;How would you interpret the word in that passage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Are there other examples of *niti* in meaning I.B.3?&#xD;&#xA;(Or are there any examples at all if you agreed with me?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was inspired by brianpck's comment under Hugh's answer to [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4911/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16304" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4931" RevisionGUID="6a59f0ce-be7b-4cfc-b189-9ae25d4dfc7f" CreationDate="2017-07-28T12:53:35.293" UserId="79" Text="Niti and straining for a stool" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16305" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4931" RevisionGUID="6a59f0ce-be7b-4cfc-b189-9ae25d4dfc7f" CreationDate="2017-07-28T12:53:35.293" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|dictionary|euphemism|suetonius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4932" RevisionGUID="360aaebc-4b72-4227-bb87-148a63ae2965" CreationDate="2017-07-28T14:02:36.317" UserId="45" Text="Concerning your first question, &quot;straining for a stool&quot; has an unambiguous meaning in English. &quot;Straining oneself,&quot; on the other hand, can mean any number of things.  I'm not sure what else needs to be said on this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expanding the context of the Suetonius quote makes it pretty clear why this particular meaning is inferred:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Statura fuit quadrata, compactis firmisque membris, uultu ueluti nitentis; **de quo quidam urbanorum non infacete, siquidem petenti, ut et in se aliquid diceret: 'dicam,' inquit, 'cum uentrem exonerare desieris.'**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He was broad, thick-set and strong, with a face like one who is straining himself. **Concerning him, a certain city dweller, asked to make some joke against him, wittily said: &quot;I will do so, when you have finished emptying your bowels.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My intuition in this case is that **it is overly generous to give *nitor* a separate entry for this meaning.** In the quote provided, *nitor* is as ambiguous as English &quot;strain,&quot; and it takes a city wit to reinterpret this &quot;determined&quot; look as something far more ridiculous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I'm right, there should not be any examples where *nitor*, outside of any other clarifying context, has this specific meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4931" RevisionGUID="5c9e8b11-d4d2-4442-8107-b06e81775901" CreationDate="2017-07-28T14:07:24.237" UserId="79" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="The entry for [*niti* in Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnitor1) includes meaning I.B.3: &quot;to strain for a stool&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;One passage of such use is mentioned:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Suet. Ves. 20](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0061%3Alife%3Dves.%3Achapter%3D20):  &#xD;&#xA;*Statura fuit quadrata, compactis firmisque membris, vultu veluti nitentis&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [English translation (Alexander Thomson, ed., 1889)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Suet.%20Ves.%2020&amp;lang=original):  &#xD;&#xA;He was broad-set, strong-limbed, and his features gave the idea of a man in the act of straining himself&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it seems as if this could be included in the meaning I.B.2, &quot;to strain in giving birth&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In general, *niti* seems to mean &quot;to rest against something&quot; or &quot;to make an effort&quot;, and even that general idea might be enough here without specific reference to birth.&#xD;&#xA;The man's face was as if (*veluti*) he was giving birth.&#xD;&#xA;I would argue that *niti* used in this sense here, not referring to what the man was actually doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads me to a couple of questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What does &quot;straining oneself&quot; or &quot;straining for a stool&quot; actually mean? I get the impression that they are euphemisms for [defecation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defecation) in an attempt to [avoid profanities](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/729/79), but I'm not sure if something else was intended.&#xD;&#xA;I had never heard of &quot;straining for a stool&quot; before.&#xD;&#xA;(More literal translations, however profane or offending, are often useful in getting the meaning and tone right. Bear in mind that English is not a native language for me.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I argued above that the one in Suetonius doesn't even have that particular meaning &amp;mdash; assuming I understood the English correctly.&#xD;&#xA;Do you agree with this judgement?&#xD;&#xA;How would you interpret the word in that passage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Are there other examples of *niti* in meaning I.B.3?&#xD;&#xA;(Or are there any examples at all if you agreed with me?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was inspired by brianpck's comment under Hugh's answer to [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4911/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4914" RevisionGUID="7ce308d6-431a-4e0c-ace2-fe0ae665d01e" CreationDate="2017-07-28T15:20:49.477" UserId="30" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="As Varro says in his comment above, the cognomen *Otho* might be Etruscan, because the family was apparently descended from Etruscan princes, according to Wikipaedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Otho belonged to an ancient and noble Etruscan family, descended from the princes of Etruria and settled at Ferentinum (currently Ferento, near Viterbo) in Etruria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek Ὄθων seems to have been a Graecification of the Roman cognomen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are of course many German *Othones (= Ottones)*, but it seems highly unlikely that an old, noble Roman family should adopt a Germanic name, if only because the Germans were still mostly far away in the east at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Utho* seems to have been an alternative spelling, as on the coin below. Etruscan names containing *-uth-* do exist. And according to Draconis below, Etruscan didn't distinguish between u and o, so this would fit into the theory of Etruscan origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Places like *Ut(h)ica* and *Uthina* exist in northern Africa, but it seems Utica was founded by (Semitic) Punics and hence unrelated to the Etruscan language. According to Wikipaedia, Uthina was a Berber town, but it would seem likely that its name, too, was originally Punic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also the towns of *Othaea* and *Othoca* in western Sardinia. Pauly suggests an alternative spelling *Uta* for *Othaea* and says it is &quot;wohl&quot; (&quot;arguably&quot;?) Punic, like Utica.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pauly doesn't say much at all about the origin of the name *Otho* itself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could not find the reference *Iunius Salvius Otho* at its expected place. There are over 200 Iunii with long articles in Pauly, ordered mostly alphabetically, but he wasn't there. Three Iunii Othones are mentioned, but nothing about their origin seems to have been known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan remains silent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DhLk6.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IAz9s.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4925" RevisionGUID="49c826a4-d563-4cf9-96d6-e5b6697ceddc" CreationDate="2017-07-28T16:29:07.480" UserId="406" Comment="edited body" Text="##*di-* is Greek and *bi-* is Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Proto-Indo-European root for &quot;two&quot; is reconstructed as \**dw-*. The remnants of this *w* can be seen in English &quot;two&quot;, Russian *dva*, Ancient Greek *δύο*, and many other languages, as well as Latin *duo*, &quot;two&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old Latin had many words starting with *dv-* (where *v* was pronounced as English &quot;w&quot;). But at some point before Classical times, *dv-* changed into *b-* at the beginning of words. Hence *dvellum* (whence English &quot;duel&quot;) became *bellum* &quot;war&quot;, and *dvonos* became *bonus* &quot;good&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *duo* &quot;two&quot; itself had a vowel *u* rather than a consonant *v*, so it avoided the change. But the prefix *dvi-* was affected by the change, and became *bi-*. A similar thing happened in Ancient Greek, which lost the *w* sound entirely, giving *δι-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So strictly speaking, *di-* should be used only on Greek roots, and *bi-* on Latin. But in practice Greek and Latin are mixed together all over the place and the prefix is generally chosen based on what sounds better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Compare also the prefixes *semi-* from Latin and *hemi-* from Greek, which are sometimes even combined, as in the musical term &quot;hemidemisemiquaver&quot;. They're also cognates; *s-* before vowels at the beginning of words changed into *h-* in Greek.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ETA: Joonas suggested an even clearer pair of cognates, Latin *super-* and Greek *hyper-*. Many thanks.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4929" RevisionGUID="219271db-08e7-4105-b364-10b8efe94837" CreationDate="2017-07-28T16:34:33.207" UserId="406" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="##*Secundus* is regular, *eqvus* isn't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a sound change called the &quot;Boukólos Rule&quot;, which started back in Proto-Indo-European. When labiovelar consonants (like /kʷ/ and /gʷ/) appeared next to /w/ or /u/, they dissimilated and lost their labialization, becoming /k/ and /g/. The rule is named after one of the first known examples, Greek *βουκόλος* &quot;cowherd&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, a *u* vowel continued to turn a preceding labiovelar *qv* /kʷ/ into a plain velar *c* /k/. So *seqv-* + *-undus* became *secundus*, which was perfectly regular at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule eventually ceased to be relevant in most Indo-European languages (for example Greek lost its labiovelars entirely). But in both Latin and Germanic, later sound changes created more /u/ sounds. And the Boukólos Rule continued to apply to these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short *o* in the second-declension endings shifted to a *u* between Old and Classical Latin, giving the familiar endings *-us* and *-um*. And this new *u* transformed second-declension nouns ending with labiovelars. This also created the irregularity in the relative pronoun: *qvī qvae qvod*, but *cujus, cui* (originally *\*quojos, \*quoi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But while the relative pronouns were fairly fossilized (hence the archaic endings), and the gerundive in *-undus* was falling out of use, the second-declension endings were still very common and productive. And the paradigm *ecus, eqvī, eqvō, ecum, eqvō, eqve* looked inconsistent and wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in writing, it became standard to write *qv* for a plain velar /k/, **only before the second declension endings *-us, -um***. [Allen's *Vox Latina*][1] quotes Velius Longius (writing in the second century AD):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Auribus quidem sufficiebat ut *eqvus* per unum *u* scriberetur, ratio tamen duo exigit.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Indeed, to the ears it is fine to write **eqvus** with a single **u**, but the mind demands two.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite this, forms like *ecus* are still found in inscriptions, indicating that the true pronunciation was still /k/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA20&amp;lpg=PA20&amp;dq=ecus%20equus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=TxPwnk4zUY&amp;sig=pM1w0pHT75ixsMSSsZZqWb_iQ5Y&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwicjuPL76PVAhUW52MKHQduA9Q4ChDoAQhBMAg#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4933" RevisionGUID="0a56511c-6105-4ac2-bcd4-cca8cd35366b" CreationDate="2017-07-28T19:13:08.553" UserId="1857" Text="I originally submitted this question to the Linguistics beta site, and those users recommended that I ask anything related to Greek here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I understand that it is impossible to assign a specific time to any sound change, I am curious about the spirantization of voiced stops in Greek, particularly of beta. I'll present the evidence that I am aware of here. It seems that for beta weakening from /b/ &gt; /v/, most scholars rely on parallel indications that the /au, eu/ diphthongs acquired fricative consonantal status, e.g. Mod. Greek /av, ev/; the graphic evidence for both were confusions of -υ with β, e.g. ῥάυδους for ῥάβδους (2nd c. BCE.) However, I wonder if anyone has a clue as to which sound change probably occurred first, if the evidence for both is the same. Based off of analyses of the Koine papyri, Gignac (1976) argues for /b/ &gt; /v/ (or /β/) in the 1st c. CE and /au, eu/ &gt; /aβ, eβ/ (via /aw, ew/) generally in the Early Byzantine period (when interchanges of -υ with β become most common, but he does list earlier examples, including from the 1st century.) However, I am slightly unsure about the evidence posed suggesting that /b/ &gt; /v/ occurred first––the β transcription of Latin consonantal 'v' (assuming /w/ &gt; /β/ in Latin), e.g. Φλάβιος for flavius––as these could just be a close approximation of a foreign sound. Does anyone know of additional evidence for either sound change apart from the spelling confusions I mentioned? (I also understand that dialectal variation is a further complication, e.g. Boeotian already has -υ for β in the 3rd BCE.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16312" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4933" RevisionGUID="0a56511c-6105-4ac2-bcd4-cca8cd35366b" CreationDate="2017-07-28T19:13:08.553" UserId="1857" Text="Reviewing the evidence of the spirantization of β (betacism) in Greek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16313" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4933" RevisionGUID="0a56511c-6105-4ac2-bcd4-cca8cd35366b" CreationDate="2017-07-28T19:13:08.553" UserId="1857" Text="|greek|pronunciation|language-evolution|orthography|consonants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4349" RevisionGUID="b13036e9-3e85-4772-b961-5b5aaaf9c1f5" CreationDate="2017-07-28T19:35:31.860" UserId="79" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Google Translate is notoriously unreliable for Latin.&#xD;&#xA;However, the translations do make some amount of sense.&#xD;&#xA;**Is there some kind of translation task involving Latin that Google Translate is relatively reliable for?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried it for simple phrases to and from English.&#xD;&#xA;Here are the result of my little test&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Puer canem amat. &amp;rightarrow; The boy dog loves. (The boy loves the dog.)&#xD;&#xA;2. Canem puer amat. &amp;rightarrow; The boy loves the dog. (Correct!)&#xD;&#xA;3. Puerum canis amat. &amp;rightarrow; The dog loves the child. (Correct!)&#xD;&#xA;4. Canis puerum amat. &amp;rightarrow; The dog loves the child. (Correct!)&#xD;&#xA;5. Puer canis amat. &amp;rightarrow; The boy dog loves. (The boy of the dog loves.)&#xD;&#xA;6. Canis puer amat. &amp;rightarrow; The dog loves the child. (The boy of the dog loves.)&#xD;&#xA;7. Canis pueri amat. &amp;rightarrow; The dog loves children. (The dog of the boy loves.)&#xD;&#xA;8. Pueri canis amat. &amp;rightarrow; The dog loves children. (The dog of the boy loves.)&#xD;&#xA;9. The boy loves the dog. &amp;rightarrow; Puer canem diligit. (Correct!)&#xD;&#xA;10. The dog loves the boy. &amp;rightarrow; Canis puerum amat. (Correct!)&#xD;&#xA;11. The boy of the dog loves. &amp;rightarrow; Puer canem amat. (Puer canis amat.)&#xD;&#xA;12. The dog of the boy loves. &amp;rightarrow; Canis pueri amat. (Correct!)&#xD;&#xA;13. The boy and the dog walk together because it does not rain. &amp;rightarrow; Puer et canis ambulare quia non pluet simul. (Puer et canis una ambulant quia non pluit.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These might not be the perfect example sentences, but they demonstrate some basic syntax.&#xD;&#xA;(Whether or not the content makes sense should not affect translation in simple cases like this, but it might be that Google Translate is not wired that way.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that translation from Latin to English is very difficult even with simple structures.&#xD;&#xA;English to Latin is much better, but it fails for the slightly more complicated sentence.&#xD;&#xA;Google does offer alternatives, and some of them greatly improve the last sentence, but someone with no knowledge in Latin will not be able to pick the right ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tool might work better for translating individual words&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; or with some language other than English.&#xD;&#xA;And perhaps it does translate simple SVO clauses consistently well from English to Latin &amp;mdash; I did not do an extensive test, and I have no prior experience.&#xD;&#xA;Does someone have more experience with Google Translate?&#xD;&#xA;It would be good to know if there is something it is useful and reliable for, even if the scope is very limited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Format:&#xD;&#xA;Original &amp;rightarrow; Google translation (better translation if Google fails)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For translating individual words it's better to look at [any online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;But my question is not whether there are better tools than Google Translate.&#xD;&#xA;The question whether Google Translate can be trusted for anything at all regarding Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4934" RevisionGUID="992e2393-a130-4bb6-96f3-908f08adb37f" CreationDate="2017-07-28T20:32:53.880" UserId="235" Text="This is a different kind of question than is normally asked, but since Ancient Greek is on-topic for the meantime, I think this is a surprisingly good place to ask. I wanted to get the opinion of those who might know. Does learning Modern Greek help your knowledge of Ancient Greek? I can think of at least a few reasons why it may. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, there is a shared vocabulary, and anything that makes you more fluent in that shared vocabulary is a good thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, I find that knowing English improves my knowledge of Latin, because it gives me a greater appreciation of Latin, seeing Latin roots and constructs show up in my own language. This is somewhat psychological—if you appreciate a language more, then you will have more motivation to learn it, and thus acquire a better knowledge—but I think most people can testify that it's true, that knowing English or a Romance language does give us a better appreciation of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you think it's reasonable to expect that learning Modern Greek would help me feel more comfortable or become more knowledgeable in Ancient Greek?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Excited to hear your thoughts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16316" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4934" RevisionGUID="992e2393-a130-4bb6-96f3-908f08adb37f" CreationDate="2017-07-28T20:32:53.880" UserId="235" Text="Does learning Modern Greek improve one's knowledge of Ancient Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16317" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4934" RevisionGUID="992e2393-a130-4bb6-96f3-908f08adb37f" CreationDate="2017-07-28T20:32:53.880" UserId="235" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4934" RevisionGUID="c4bc87a7-7605-410d-8eb4-502150bd9b0b" CreationDate="2017-07-28T20:40:51.867" UserId="235" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="This is a different kind of question than is normally asked, but since Ancient Greek is on-topic for the meantime, I think this is a surprisingly good place to ask. I wanted to get the opinion of those who might know. Does learning Modern Greek help your knowledge of Ancient Greek? I can think of at least a few reasons why it may. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, there is a shared vocabulary, and anything that makes you more fluent in that shared vocabulary is a good thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, I find that knowing English improves my knowledge of Latin, because it gives me a greater appreciation of Latin, seeing Latin roots and constructs show up in my own language. This is somewhat psychological—if you appreciate a language more, then you will have more motivation to learn it, and thus acquire a better knowledge—but I think most people can testify that it's true, that knowing English or a Romance language does give us a better appreciation of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you think it's reasonable to expect that learning Modern Greek would help me feel more comfortable or become more knowledgeable in Ancient Greek? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested in both first- and second-hand experiences of those who have learned Ancient Greek and Modern Greek, as well as the opinions of those who know one and not the other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4934" RevisionGUID="9c9c33e4-b492-4f8b-978d-11b90ed39f64" CreationDate="2017-07-28T20:48:23.587" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 27 characters in body" Text="This is a different kind of question than is normally asked, but since Ancient Greek is on-topic for the meantime, I think this is a surprisingly good place to ask. I wanted to get the opinion of those who might know. Does learning Modern Greek help your knowledge of Ancient Greek? I can think of at least a few reasons why it may. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, there is a shared vocabulary, and anything that makes you more fluent in that shared vocabulary is a good thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, I find that knowing English improves my knowledge of Latin, because it gives me a greater appreciation of Latin, seeing Latin roots and constructs show up in my own language. This is somewhat psychological—if you appreciate a language more, then you will have more motivation to learn it, and thus acquire a better knowledge—but I think most people can testify that it's true, that knowing English or a Romance language does give us a better appreciation of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you think it's reasonable to expect that learning Modern Greek would help me feel more comfortable or become more knowledgeable in Ancient Greek? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested in both first- and second-hand experiences of learning the two languages, as well as the opinions of those who know one and not the other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4935" RevisionGUID="6090906a-425b-42b3-a24e-635678a641d1" CreationDate="2017-07-28T22:12:25.397" UserId="1851" Text="I am writing a story about three &quot;space cowboy&quot; types who call themselves &quot;Star Kings.&quot;  They are full of confidence to the point of arrogance.  They also see their adventures as a path to glory and accompanying fame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have an acronym in mind that would add to the story.  The initials R.A.  for &quot;**r**eges **a**strum&quot; would help the story if I could add those initials to the acronym.  What I know / have researched, &quot;astrum&quot; would capture the ideas of &quot;star&quot; and &quot;glory&quot; and &quot;constellation&quot; I want to include.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am not sure if &quot;adstrum&quot; or &quot;stellae&quot; would be a better fit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16321" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4935" RevisionGUID="6090906a-425b-42b3-a24e-635678a641d1" CreationDate="2017-07-28T22:12:25.397" UserId="1851" Text="&quot;reges stellae&quot; or &quot;reges astrum&quot; to evoke self-confident &quot;Star Kings&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16322" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4935" RevisionGUID="6090906a-425b-42b3-a24e-635678a641d1" CreationDate="2017-07-28T22:12:25.397" UserId="1851" Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4935" RevisionGUID="906aa3f5-80d2-44ab-a605-a6bfec1c2e13" CreationDate="2017-07-28T22:17:15.003" UserId="1851" Comment="in response to a question in comment. Also, fix typo" Text="I am writing a story about three &quot;space cowboy&quot; types who call themselves &quot;Star Kings.&quot;  They are full of confidence to the point of arrogance.  They also see their adventures as a path to glory and accompanying fame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: They consider themselves kings of all the stars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have an acronym in mind that would add to the story.  The initials R.A.  for &quot;**r**eges **a**strum&quot; would help the story if I could add those initials to the acronym.  From what I know / have researched, &quot;astrum&quot; would capture the ideas of &quot;star&quot; and &quot;glory&quot; and &quot;constellation&quot; I want to include.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am not sure if &quot;adstrum&quot; or &quot;stellae&quot; would be a better fit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4933" RevisionGUID="4810be8e-8641-400e-a6cb-47f53009c28f" CreationDate="2017-07-28T22:35:16.420" UserId="1858" Comment="au/eu instead of simple -u for clarity " Text="I originally submitted this question to the Linguistics beta site, and those users recommended that I ask anything related to Greek here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I understand that it is impossible to assign a specific time to any sound change, I am curious about the spirantization of voiced stops in Greek, particularly of beta. I'll present the evidence that I am aware of here. It seems that for beta weakening from /b/ &gt; /v/, most scholars rely on parallel indications that the /au, eu/ diphthongs acquired fricative consonantal status, e.g. Modern Greek /av, ev/; the graphic evidence for both were confusions of αυ/ευ with αβ/εβ, e.g. ῥάυδους for ῥάβδους (2nd c. BCE.) However, I wonder if anyone has a clue as to which sound change probably occurred first, if the evidence for both is the same. Based off of analyses of the Koine papyri, Gignac (1976) argues for /b/ &gt; /v/ (or /β/) in the 1st c. CE and /au, eu/ &gt; /aβ, eβ/ (through intermediate &#xD;&#xA;/aw, ew/) generally in the Early Byzantine period (when interchanges of -υ with -β become most common, but he does list earlier examples, including from the 1st century.) However, I am slightly unsure about the evidence posed suggesting that /b/ &gt; /v/ occurred first––the β transcription of Latin consonantal 'v' (assuming /w/ &gt; /β/ in Latin), e.g. Φλάβιος for flavius––as these could just be a close approximation of a foreign sound. Does anyone know of additional evidence for either sound change apart from the spelling confusions I mentioned? (I also understand that dialectal variation is a further complication, e.g. Boeotian already has -υ for β in the 3rd BCE.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16325" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4933" RevisionGUID="4810be8e-8641-400e-a6cb-47f53009c28f" CreationDate="2017-07-28T22:35:16.420" Comment="Proposed by 1858 approved by 136, 1289 edit id of 203" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4936" RevisionGUID="7f991d99-9ef5-4185-9671-caf5dae3fe22" CreationDate="2017-07-28T23:14:49.440" UserId="406" Text="It sounds like you've settled on ***rēgēs*** for &quot;kings&quot;, which is a perfectly good word for that purpose. And to the Romans it would most certainly imply that they were supremely confident, as people at the time did *not* like kings—Caesar and the later emperors specifically avoided the term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;of the stars&quot; you have several options, each with their own benefits and drawbacks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Sīderum*** (from *sīdus, sīderis*): a poetic term, which can mean &quot;stars&quot;, &quot;constellations&quot;, &quot;the night sky&quot;, or even &quot;the heavens&quot;. It's a rather grandiose (and slightly pretentious) word to use in your title…sort of like using a Latin title in English!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Astrōrum*** or ***Asterum*** (from *astrum, -ī* or *astēr, asteris*): borrowed from Greek *ἄστρον* and *ἀστήρ*, these terms eventually started to replace the native Latin words. *Astrum* was considerably more common than *astēr*, though both would be understood. In Classical times these words were still a bit exotic and found &quot;poet[ically] or in more elevated prose&quot;, as Lewis and Short put it, though they were still less poetic than *sīdus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Stellārum*** (from *stella, -ae*): *stella* is the most neutral, standard word for a star or other heavenly body. Calling a single star a *sīdus*, for example, would be somewhat akin to referring to the sky as &quot;the great vault of the heavens&quot; in normal conversation. Planets were *stellae errantes*, comets were *stellae comantes*, and meteors were *stellae lābentes* (or sometimes just *stellae*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Caelī*** or ***Coelī*** (from *caelum, -ī*): &quot;heaven&quot;, or literally &quot;the sky&quot;. This is the most arrogant option out of all of these, as &quot;the King of Heaven&quot; or &quot;the King of the Sky&quot; was a title of Jupiter (and later of the Christian God). But if your characters have reached that point, they might find such a title perfect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4937" RevisionGUID="27d8f4bc-e0e8-4df8-b8ff-68efd7e6c907" CreationDate="2017-07-29T00:15:40.567" UserId="1694" Text="I think it's at least moderately helpful.  I remember studying simultaneously Modern Greek (from an introductory grammar), Classical Greek (from an old-style grammar that concentrated far more on military terminology [Xenophon] than I was interested in), and New Testament Greek (by studying an interlinear Greek NT).  That was many decades ago, but I remember the Modern Greek study being helpful (probably more so for NT than Classical Greek).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there are a lot of differences in both grammar and vocabulary, and many words that persist in Modern Greek have somewhat different meanings, so all-in-all, I don't know if there's enough benefit to recommend studying Modern Greek unless one has an independent interest in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, if you really like Greek culture, as I do - from Homer to NT to the Byzantine empire down - then I definitely think it's valuable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4938" RevisionGUID="c0b6e893-e9d2-40d4-a4fe-2ef90d1ec25d" CreationDate="2017-07-29T01:52:42.953" UserId="40" Text="Even many people who have never studied Latin know the phrase *carpe diem* (from Horace's *Odes* 1.11), and can tell you that it means &quot;seize the day&quot;. But &quot;seize&quot; is not an accurate translation of *carpere*, which [means][1] &quot;pick, pluck, gather, harvest&quot;. Where did the mistranslation originate? Who was the first to use it? Is there a famous-in-its-time English translation of Horace that contains this phrase?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcarpo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16330" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4938" RevisionGUID="c0b6e893-e9d2-40d4-a4fe-2ef90d1ec25d" CreationDate="2017-07-29T01:52:42.953" UserId="40" Text="Origin of &quot;seize the day&quot; as a translation of Horace's carpe diem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16331" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4938" RevisionGUID="c0b6e893-e9d2-40d4-a4fe-2ef90d1ec25d" CreationDate="2017-07-29T01:52:42.953" UserId="40" Text="|translation|idiom|horatius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4934" RevisionGUID="4f3b7ad9-6a9b-430a-89bf-17df90eff201" CreationDate="2017-07-29T06:09:08.600" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 43 characters in body" Text="This is a different kind of question than is normally asked, but since Ancient Greek is on-topic for the meantime, I think this is a surprisingly good place to ask. I wanted to get the opinion of those who might know. Does learning Modern Greek help your knowledge of Ancient Greek? I can think of at least a few reasons why it may. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, there is a shared vocabulary, and anything that makes you more fluent in that shared vocabulary is a good thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, I find that knowing English improves my knowledge of Latin, because it gives me a greater appreciation of Latin, seeing Latin roots and constructs show up in my own language. This is somewhat psychological—if you appreciate a language more, then you will have more motivation to learn it, and thus acquire a better knowledge—but I think most people can testify that it's true. By analogy, the same could be said of Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you think it's reasonable to expect that learning Modern Greek would help me feel more comfortable or become more knowledgeable in Ancient Greek? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested in both first- and second-hand experiences of learning the two languages, as well as the opinions of those who know one and not the other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4938" RevisionGUID="ab03f86f-5ce8-4435-9f72-768ad65de3d2" CreationDate="2017-07-29T09:08:45.337" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Even many people who have never studied Latin know the phrase *carpe diem* (from Horace's *Odes* 1.11), and can tell you that it means &quot;seize the day&quot;. But &quot;seize&quot; is not an accurate translation of *carpere*, which [means][1] &quot;pick, pluck, gather, harvest&quot;. Where did the mistranslation originate? Who was the first to use it? Is there a famous-in-its-time English translation of Horace that contains this phrase?&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcarpo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16334" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4938" RevisionGUID="ab03f86f-5ce8-4435-9f72-768ad65de3d2" CreationDate="2017-07-29T09:08:45.337" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation|idiom|english|horatius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4930" RevisionGUID="2a0d4b10-c334-4528-bcb2-95eafdb5b845" CreationDate="2017-07-29T10:52:52.343" UserId="13" Comment="added update" Text="I woke up this morning, connected to the Internet, and found [TKR's comment](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4918/two-unfindable-words-from-sappho-edmonds-12-edmonds-version#comment10100_4918). I tried to do some more research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ἀρμένα**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I opened my big dictionary and looked for ἄρμενος, finding a redirect to ἀραρίσκω after a translation to «adatto» or the likes, hence «suitable». Here is the entry I was redirected to, or rather the relevant part of it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives meanings «well adapted; convenient; thus pleasing», and further down «ready». The example it gives for &quot;suitable&quot; is ἡμέρα κούρῃσι γενέσθαι ἄρμενος, &quot;opportune day for the birth of children&quot;. The analogous construction would be παῖσιν δόλοφυν πόησθαι ἀρμένα, which probably has too long a suppletion for the last word, besides a different reading for the uncertain ε̣ι, and would probably have a non-Aeolic for (Aeolic would be παίδεσσιν, right?), so I guess Edmonds went creative and invented a reasonably likely but apparently unrecorded construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**δόλοφυν**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry for δελφύς only gives Doric δελφύα, and no Aeolic form. Here is Edmonds' note to the word (wish I'd looked at that earlier):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, it seems making this image bigger is impossible, because adding `s` to the image name in the URL produces a square-cut version ([![][3]][3]), adding `m` does nothing, and adding `?s=&lt;number&gt;` after the url end either produces a variable-size version of the `s` thing before or makes the image vanish altogether in favor of the alt text with a link, and pure html code (`&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxFs.png&quot; alt=&quot;Edmonds note on dolophyn&quot; width=400&gt;`) gives &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxFs.png&quot; alt=&quot;Edmonds note on dolophyn&quot; width=400&gt;, i.e. a whole lot of nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, the note reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;=δελφύς, cf. κίνδυν, Φόρκυν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yeah, Edmonds went creative again, and supposed this Aeolic form, where the -ν ending is justified by those forms, which are recorded by other authors (I know so for κίνδυνand suppose as much for Φόρκυν), but the change in the &quot;root&quot; (δελφ -&gt; δολοφ) is entirely his guess. I mean, perhaps ε-&gt;ο can be sorta-kinda justified by analogy with some α-&gt;ο changes (like ἀνία-&gt;ὀνία in Sappho 1), but the extra vowel… pure fantasy :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting TKR's comments to this answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The vowel change is not quite that fantastic since (a) for the first ο there is a Hesychean gloss δολφός = δελφύς and an inscriptional variant Δολφοί = Δελφοί, and (b) for the second ο there are occasional, though rare, examples of anaptyctic vowels in similar environments, e.g. Τολοφώνιος = Τολφώνιος, Σαλαμόνα = Σαλμόνη. I'm actually more skeptical about the alleged -ν in the nom. sg.; for the alleged κίνδυν and Φόρκυν it seems we only have oblique cases attested, and as third-declension animates the nom. should end in -ς (or so I'd assume).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Do you happen to have a link to a scan of the papyrus, btw? I'm curious how secure the reading δολοφυν is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the -ν nominative, I don't know about Φόρκυν, but here is a mention of κίνδυν as reorted by Campbell:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κίνδυν κίνδυνος· οὕτως δὲ ἔφη Σαπφὼ τὸν κίνδυνον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now this seems an attestation of nominative and genitive to me, and Campbell agrees about the genitive thing, so it could at most be accusative-genitive, which doesn't seem like a sequence that makes sense. So I assume Aeolic has this weird -ν nominative for this word, and this makes δόλοφυν nominative seem likely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the papyrus, this is P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 10, and no P.Oxy. 1231 is available scanned online (which is a shame since many Sappho poems come from 1231…). However, these papyri were published in vol. 10 of Grenfell and Hunt's P.Oxy. series, which is [available online](https://ia600204.us.archive.org/29/items/oxyrhynchusppt1000grenuoft/oxyrhynchusppt1000grenuoft.pdf), and gives this raw transcription:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since δόλοφυν has no underdots, and is mentioned as an unknown form in the notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume it's pretty much undoubtable. The same cannot be said for the splitting of the words, seen as Campbell has `]δ' ὄλοφυν[` or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pMUpn.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxFs.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wwSI0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/if8JV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FA8Bc.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4930" RevisionGUID="3cb3bff5-3eeb-48ea-be63-49b94496aa15" CreationDate="2017-07-29T11:05:49.343" UserId="13" Comment="added dolophyn line Campbell" Text="I woke up this morning, connected to the Internet, and found [TKR's comment](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4918/two-unfindable-words-from-sappho-edmonds-12-edmonds-version#comment10100_4918). I tried to do some more research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ἀρμένα**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I opened my big dictionary and looked for ἄρμενος, finding a redirect to ἀραρίσκω after a translation to «adatto» or the likes, hence «suitable». Here is the entry I was redirected to, or rather the relevant part of it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives meanings «well adapted; convenient; thus pleasing», and further down «ready». The example it gives for &quot;suitable&quot; is ἡμέρα κούρῃσι γενέσθαι ἄρμενος, &quot;opportune day for the birth of children&quot;. The analogous construction would be παῖσιν δόλοφυν πόησθαι ἀρμένα, which probably has too long a suppletion for the last word, besides a different reading for the uncertain ε̣ι, and would probably have a non-Aeolic for (Aeolic would be παίδεσσιν, right?), so I guess Edmonds went creative and invented a reasonably likely but apparently unrecorded construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**δόλοφυν**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry for δελφύς only gives Doric δελφύα, and no Aeolic form. Here is Edmonds' note to the word (wish I'd looked at that earlier):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, it seems making this image bigger is impossible, because adding `s` to the image name in the URL produces a square-cut version ([![][3]][3]), adding `m` does nothing, and adding `?s=&lt;number&gt;` after the url end either produces a variable-size version of the `s` thing before or makes the image vanish altogether in favor of the alt text with a link, and pure html code (`&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxFs.png&quot; alt=&quot;Edmonds note on dolophyn&quot; width=400&gt;`) gives &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxFs.png&quot; alt=&quot;Edmonds note on dolophyn&quot; width=400&gt;, i.e. a whole lot of nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, the note reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;=δελφύς, cf. κίνδυν, Φόρκυν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yeah, Edmonds went creative again, and supposed this Aeolic form, where the -ν ending is justified by those forms, which are recorded by other authors (I know so for κίνδυνand suppose as much for Φόρκυν), but the change in the &quot;root&quot; (δελφ -&gt; δολοφ) is entirely his guess. I mean, perhaps ε-&gt;ο can be sorta-kinda justified by analogy with some α-&gt;ο changes (like ἀνία-&gt;ὀνία in Sappho 1), but the extra vowel… pure fantasy :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting TKR's comments to this answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The vowel change is not quite that fantastic since (a) for the first ο there is a Hesychean gloss δολφός = δελφύς and an inscriptional variant Δολφοί = Δελφοί, and (b) for the second ο there are occasional, though rare, examples of anaptyctic vowels in similar environments, e.g. Τολοφώνιος = Τολφώνιος, Σαλαμόνα = Σαλμόνη. I'm actually more skeptical about the alleged -ν in the nom. sg.; for the alleged κίνδυν and Φόρκυν it seems we only have oblique cases attested, and as third-declension animates the nom. should end in -ς (or so I'd assume).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Do you happen to have a link to a scan of the papyrus, btw? I'm curious how secure the reading δολοφυν is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the -ν nominative, I don't know about Φόρκυν, but here is a mention of κίνδυν as reorted by Campbell:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κίνδυν κίνδυνος· οὕτως δὲ ἔφη Σαπφὼ τὸν κίνδυνον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now this seems an attestation of nominative and genitive to me, and Campbell agrees about the genitive thing, so it could at most be accusative-genitive, which doesn't seem like a sequence that makes sense. So I assume Aeolic has this weird -ν nominative for this word, and this makes δόλοφυν nominative seem likely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the papyrus, this is P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 10, and no P.Oxy. 1231 is available scanned online (which is a shame since many Sappho poems come from 1231…). However, these papyri were published in vol. 10 of Grenfell and Hunt's P.Oxy. series, which is [available online](https://ia600204.us.archive.org/29/items/oxyrhynchusppt1000grenuoft/oxyrhynchusppt1000grenuoft.pdf), and gives this raw transcription:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since δόλοφυν has no underdots, and is mentioned as an unknown form in the notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume it's pretty much undoubtable. The same cannot be said for the splitting of the words, seen as Campbell has `]δ' ὄλοφυν[` or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**δόλοφυν line, Campbell version**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pMUpn.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxFs.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wwSI0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/if8JV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FA8Bc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LeESK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4939" RevisionGUID="342c68b1-6f47-4e05-b3a6-5cbb4bf5f263" CreationDate="2017-07-29T11:24:52.587" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="Sentence to translate:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Would you recommend me to read a book or to go for a walk if I asked you for advice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Librum legere aut deambulationem ire me commendes si te ut consilium quaeram?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is usage of ***legere*** and ***ire*** correct here?&#xD;&#xA; 2. I used present subjunctive for ***commendes*** and ***quaeram***, is that ok?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Is ***commendare*** correct word?&#xD;&#xA; 4. Does ***ut consilium*** mean ***for advice*** or should ***for*** be translatem using different word than ***ut***?&#xD;&#xA; 5. Would ***petere*** be better than ***quaerere*** here?&#xD;&#xA; 6. Are there mistakes not covered in previous questions? Do you have some other idea how to improve it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16338" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4939" RevisionGUID="342c68b1-6f47-4e05-b3a6-5cbb4bf5f263" CreationDate="2017-07-29T11:24:52.587" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="Asking for advice (&quot;this or that&quot; question)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16339" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4939" RevisionGUID="342c68b1-6f47-4e05-b3a6-5cbb4bf5f263" CreationDate="2017-07-29T11:24:52.587" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="|translation|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4940" RevisionGUID="b6979c7d-d479-4e4c-bbf0-c41264f27796" CreationDate="2017-07-29T14:52:01.033" UserId="645" Text="'Seize the day' isn't a mistranslation at all. This is an example of the perennial problem for any translator, that of transforming style and idiom into language that is understood by a reader of his translation in exactly the same way as did the intended readers of the original. This applies, not just for Latin into English, but for any language into another. The concept is often hard to appreciate, particularly for those only beginning to examine the qualities of another language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In effect, this optimistic maxim of Horace's tells us to beware of reaching the end of life with regret for lost opportunity. If we obey, it offers a great prize, that of being truly, fully alive; the opposite, common aphorism *Life's a bitch and then you die* — often attributed, probably in error, to Marilyn Monroe — represents the consequence of disobedience to the poet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the seventeenth century there have been several celebrated translations into English of Horace that include Odes 1.11; the earliest are by John Dryden (the first English Poet Laureate), and John Milton. Towards the end of the eighteenth century, a very successful version was that of the Rev. Philip Francis, whose translation of *carpe diem* runs *Instant the fleeting pleasure seize.* I can identify none that uses the precise wording to which you appear to object; it seems unlikely that the true originator of the phrase 'seize the day' might ever be identified — but is this regrettable, or should we follow Horace and, in pursuit of something more worthwhile, forego the search?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have understood what I have written here, give yourself a test. Take whatever version of the sentiment you prefer in your own language and put it back into a different, but still pithy, Latin phrase, trying to match Horace. For myself, whichever English version I choose, the best answer is always *carpe diem*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1656" RevisionGUID="1ec50c1b-79b8-4f46-ba14-29af9d32963a" CreationDate="2017-07-29T17:37:02.677" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Toilet paper orientation is the source of some amount of debate, and it turns out it even has [a dedicated Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation).&#xD;&#xA;For reasons partly beyond my comprehension, I would like to describe this issue in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;My main motive is to be able to describe such mundane &quot;geometrical&quot; things in Latin in a natural way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only want to do it very simply, so my aim is to translate the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A roll of toilet paper can be put in its holder in two ways.&#xD;&#xA;The more popular orientation is the &quot;over&quot; orientation where the paper comes from above the roll.&#xD;&#xA;In the &quot;under&quot; orientation the paper is against the wall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not important to translate word by word, but to describe the same thing in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Here is my attempted translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Charta latrinalis duobus modis in capulo suo poni potest.&#xD;&#xA;Orientatio popularior, &quot;orientatio superna&quot; appellata, talis est, ut pars chartae capienda super volumen chartae iaceat.&#xD;&#xA;In altera orientatione, quae &quot;orientatio subterna&quot; appellatur, charta capienda inter parietem et volumen est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you improve or comment this translation?&#xD;&#xA;I think it gets the point across, but choices of words and descriptions of the orientation options could probably be improved.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16343" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1656" RevisionGUID="1ec50c1b-79b8-4f46-ba14-29af9d32963a" CreationDate="2017-07-29T17:37:02.677" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|contemporary-latin|modern-life|technology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4940" RevisionGUID="0e911de7-0f1f-46ef-8910-a1af940ffd76" CreationDate="2017-07-29T19:48:06.037" UserId="645" Comment="new intro and emphasis" Text="The question is misconceived: 'Seize the day' isn't a mistranslation at all. This is an example of the perennial problem for any translator, that of transforming style and idiom into language that is understood by a reader of his translation in exactly the same way as did the intended readers of the original. This applies, not just for Latin into English, but for any language into another. The concept is often hard to appreciate, particularly for those only beginning to examine the qualities of another language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In effect, this optimistic maxim of Horace's tells us to beware of reaching the end of life with regret for lost opportunity. If we obey, it offers a great prize, that of being truly, fully alive; the opposite, common aphorism *Life's a bitch and then you die* — often attributed, probably in error, to Marilyn Monroe — represents the consequence of disobedience to the poet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the seventeenth century there have been several celebrated translations into English of Horace that include Odes 1.11; the earliest are by John Dryden (the first English Poet Laureate), and John Milton. Towards the end of the eighteenth century, a very successful version was that of the Rev. Philip Francis, whose translation of *carpe diem* runs *Instant the fleeting pleasure seize.* I can identify none that uses the precise wording to which you appear to object; **it seems unlikely that the true originator of the phrase 'seize the day' might ever be identified** — but is this regrettable, or should we follow Horace and, in pursuit of something more worthwhile, forego the search?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have understood what I have written here, give yourself a test. Take whatever version of the sentiment you prefer in your own language and put it back into a different, but still pithy, Latin phrase, trying to match Horace. For myself, whichever English version I choose, the best answer is always *carpe diem*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4930" RevisionGUID="7537eed4-af9d-4ea0-8a9f-00fc75efbc72" CreationDate="2017-07-29T20:32:36.470" UserId="13" Comment="added source of mention of kindyn" Text="I woke up this morning, connected to the Internet, and found [TKR's comment](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4918/two-unfindable-words-from-sappho-edmonds-12-edmonds-version#comment10100_4918). I tried to do some more research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ἀρμένα**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I opened my big dictionary and looked for ἄρμενος, finding a redirect to ἀραρίσκω after a translation to «adatto» or the likes, hence «suitable». Here is the entry I was redirected to, or rather the relevant part of it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives meanings «well adapted; convenient; thus pleasing», and further down «ready». The example it gives for &quot;suitable&quot; is ἡμέρα κούρῃσι γενέσθαι ἄρμενος, &quot;opportune day for the birth of children&quot;. The analogous construction would be παῖσιν δόλοφυν πόησθαι ἀρμένα, which probably has too long a suppletion for the last word, besides a different reading for the uncertain ε̣ι, and would probably have a non-Aeolic for (Aeolic would be παίδεσσιν, right?), so I guess Edmonds went creative and invented a reasonably likely but apparently unrecorded construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**δόλοφυν**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry for δελφύς only gives Doric δελφύα, and no Aeolic form. Here is Edmonds' note to the word (wish I'd looked at that earlier):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, it seems making this image bigger is impossible, because adding `s` to the image name in the URL produces a square-cut version ([![][3]][3]), adding `m` does nothing, and adding `?s=&lt;number&gt;` after the url end either produces a variable-size version of the `s` thing before or makes the image vanish altogether in favor of the alt text with a link, and pure html code (`&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxFs.png&quot; alt=&quot;Edmonds note on dolophyn&quot; width=400&gt;`) gives &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxFs.png&quot; alt=&quot;Edmonds note on dolophyn&quot; width=400&gt;, i.e. a whole lot of nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, the note reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;=δελφύς, cf. κίνδυν, Φόρκυν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yeah, Edmonds went creative again, and supposed this Aeolic form, where the -ν ending is justified by those forms, which are recorded by other authors (I know so for κίνδυνand suppose as much for Φόρκυν), but the change in the &quot;root&quot; (δελφ -&gt; δολοφ) is entirely his guess. I mean, perhaps ε-&gt;ο can be sorta-kinda justified by analogy with some α-&gt;ο changes (like ἀνία-&gt;ὀνία in Sappho 1), but the extra vowel… pure fantasy :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting TKR's comments to this answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The vowel change is not quite that fantastic since (a) for the first ο there is a Hesychean gloss δολφός = δελφύς and an inscriptional variant Δολφοί = Δελφοί, and (b) for the second ο there are occasional, though rare, examples of anaptyctic vowels in similar environments, e.g. Τολοφώνιος = Τολφώνιος, Σαλαμόνα = Σαλμόνη. I'm actually more skeptical about the alleged -ν in the nom. sg.; for the alleged κίνδυν and Φόρκυν it seems we only have oblique cases attested, and as third-declension animates the nom. should end in -ς (or so I'd assume).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Do you happen to have a link to a scan of the papyrus, btw? I'm curious how secure the reading δολοφυν is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the -ν nominative, I don't know about Φόρκυν, but here is a mention of κίνδυν by Choeroboaeus in _On the canons of Theodosius_, possibly a gloss, as reported by Campbell:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κίνδυν κίνδυνος· οὕτως δὲ ἔφη Σαπφὼ τὸν κίνδυνον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now this seems an attestation of nominative and genitive to me, and Campbell agrees about the genitive thing, so it could at most be accusative-genitive, which doesn't seem like a sequence that makes sense. So I assume Aeolic has this weird -ν nominative for this word, and this makes δόλοφυν nominative seem likely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the papyrus, this is P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 10, and no P.Oxy. 1231 is available scanned online (which is a shame since many Sappho poems come from 1231…). However, these papyri were published in vol. 10 of Grenfell and Hunt's P.Oxy. series, which is [available online](https://ia600204.us.archive.org/29/items/oxyrhynchusppt1000grenuoft/oxyrhynchusppt1000grenuoft.pdf), and gives this raw transcription:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since δόλοφυν has no underdots, and is mentioned as an unknown form in the notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume it's pretty much undoubtable. The same cannot be said for the splitting of the words, seen as Campbell has `]δ' ὄλοφυν[` or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**δόλοφυν line, Campbell version**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pMUpn.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxFs.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wwSI0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/if8JV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FA8Bc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LeESK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4930" RevisionGUID="cb21b87f-32d5-4bb5-a5bc-f69cd147c33d" CreationDate="2017-07-29T20:38:40.400" UserId="13" Comment="fixed choeroboaeus and added Wiki link to it" Text="I woke up this morning, connected to the Internet, and found [TKR's comment](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4918/two-unfindable-words-from-sappho-edmonds-12-edmonds-version#comment10100_4918). I tried to do some more research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ἀρμένα**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I opened my big dictionary and looked for ἄρμενος, finding a redirect to ἀραρίσκω after a translation to «adatto» or the likes, hence «suitable». Here is the entry I was redirected to, or rather the relevant part of it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives meanings «well adapted; convenient; thus pleasing», and further down «ready». The example it gives for &quot;suitable&quot; is ἡμέρα κούρῃσι γενέσθαι ἄρμενος, &quot;opportune day for the birth of children&quot;. The analogous construction would be παῖσιν δόλοφυν πόησθαι ἀρμένα, which probably has too long a suppletion for the last word, besides a different reading for the uncertain ε̣ι, and would probably have a non-Aeolic for (Aeolic would be παίδεσσιν, right?), so I guess Edmonds went creative and invented a reasonably likely but apparently unrecorded construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**δόλοφυν**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry for δελφύς only gives Doric δελφύα, and no Aeolic form. Here is Edmonds' note to the word (wish I'd looked at that earlier):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, it seems making this image bigger is impossible, because adding `s` to the image name in the URL produces a square-cut version ([![][3]][3]), adding `m` does nothing, and adding `?s=&lt;number&gt;` after the url end either produces a variable-size version of the `s` thing before or makes the image vanish altogether in favor of the alt text with a link, and pure html code (`&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxFs.png&quot; alt=&quot;Edmonds note on dolophyn&quot; width=400&gt;`) gives &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxFs.png&quot; alt=&quot;Edmonds note on dolophyn&quot; width=400&gt;, i.e. a whole lot of nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, the note reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;=δελφύς, cf. κίνδυν, Φόρκυν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yeah, Edmonds went creative again, and supposed this Aeolic form, where the -ν ending is justified by those forms, which are recorded by other authors (I know so for κίνδυνand suppose as much for Φόρκυν), but the change in the &quot;root&quot; (δελφ -&gt; δολοφ) is entirely his guess. I mean, perhaps ε-&gt;ο can be sorta-kinda justified by analogy with some α-&gt;ο changes (like ἀνία-&gt;ὀνία in Sappho 1), but the extra vowel… pure fantasy :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting TKR's comments to this answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The vowel change is not quite that fantastic since (a) for the first ο there is a Hesychean gloss δολφός = δελφύς and an inscriptional variant Δολφοί = Δελφοί, and (b) for the second ο there are occasional, though rare, examples of anaptyctic vowels in similar environments, e.g. Τολοφώνιος = Τολφώνιος, Σαλαμόνα = Σαλμόνη. I'm actually more skeptical about the alleged -ν in the nom. sg.; for the alleged κίνδυν and Φόρκυν it seems we only have oblique cases attested, and as third-declension animates the nom. should end in -ς (or so I'd assume).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Do you happen to have a link to a scan of the papyrus, btw? I'm curious how secure the reading δολοφυν is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the -ν nominative, I don't know about Φόρκυν, but here is a mention of κίνδυν by [Choeroboscus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Choiroboskos) in _On the canons of Theodosius_, possibly a gloss, as reported by Campbell:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κίνδυν κίνδυνος· οὕτως δὲ ἔφη Σαπφὼ τὸν κίνδυνον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now this seems an attestation of nominative and genitive to me, and Campbell agrees about the genitive thing, so it could at most be accusative-genitive, which doesn't seem like a sequence that makes sense. So I assume Aeolic has this weird -ν nominative for this word, and this makes δόλοφυν nominative seem likely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the papyrus, this is P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 10, and no P.Oxy. 1231 is available scanned online (which is a shame since many Sappho poems come from 1231…). However, these papyri were published in vol. 10 of Grenfell and Hunt's P.Oxy. series, which is [available online](https://ia600204.us.archive.org/29/items/oxyrhynchusppt1000grenuoft/oxyrhynchusppt1000grenuoft.pdf), and gives this raw transcription:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since δόλοφυν has no underdots, and is mentioned as an unknown form in the notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume it's pretty much undoubtable. The same cannot be said for the splitting of the words, seen as Campbell has `]δ' ὄλοφυν[` or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**δόλοφυν line, Campbell version**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pMUpn.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxFs.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wwSI0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/if8JV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FA8Bc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LeESK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4930" RevisionGUID="feb90e02-2c1f-4c69-afd4-dac7940e5d92" CreationDate="2017-07-29T20:49:48.327" UserId="13" Comment="added further reading section" Text="I woke up this morning, connected to the Internet, and found [TKR's comment](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4918/two-unfindable-words-from-sappho-edmonds-12-edmonds-version#comment10100_4918). I tried to do some more research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ἀρμένα**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I opened my big dictionary and looked for ἄρμενος, finding a redirect to ἀραρίσκω after a translation to «adatto» or the likes, hence «suitable». Here is the entry I was redirected to, or rather the relevant part of it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives meanings «well adapted; convenient; thus pleasing», and further down «ready». The example it gives for &quot;suitable&quot; is ἡμέρα κούρῃσι γενέσθαι ἄρμενος, &quot;opportune day for the birth of children&quot;. The analogous construction would be παῖσιν δόλοφυν πόησθαι ἀρμένα, which probably has too long a suppletion for the last word, besides a different reading for the uncertain ε̣ι, and would probably have a non-Aeolic for (Aeolic would be παίδεσσιν, right?), so I guess Edmonds went creative and invented a reasonably likely but apparently unrecorded construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**δόλοφυν**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry for δελφύς only gives Doric δελφύα, and no Aeolic form. Here is Edmonds' note to the word (wish I'd looked at that earlier):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, it seems making this image bigger is impossible, because adding `s` to the image name in the URL produces a square-cut version ([![][3]][3]), adding `m` does nothing, and adding `?s=&lt;number&gt;` after the url end either produces a variable-size version of the `s` thing before or makes the image vanish altogether in favor of the alt text with a link, and pure html code (`&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxFs.png&quot; alt=&quot;Edmonds note on dolophyn&quot; width=400&gt;`) gives &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxFs.png&quot; alt=&quot;Edmonds note on dolophyn&quot; width=400&gt;, i.e. a whole lot of nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, the note reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;=δελφύς, cf. κίνδυν, Φόρκυν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yeah, Edmonds went creative again, and supposed this Aeolic form, where the -ν ending is justified by those forms, which are recorded by other authors (I know so for κίνδυνand suppose as much for Φόρκυν), but the change in the &quot;root&quot; (δελφ -&gt; δολοφ) is entirely his guess. I mean, perhaps ε-&gt;ο can be sorta-kinda justified by analogy with some α-&gt;ο changes (like ἀνία-&gt;ὀνία in Sappho 1), but the extra vowel… pure fantasy :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting TKR's comments to this answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The vowel change is not quite that fantastic since (a) for the first ο there is a Hesychean gloss δολφός = δελφύς and an inscriptional variant Δολφοί = Δελφοί, and (b) for the second ο there are occasional, though rare, examples of anaptyctic vowels in similar environments, e.g. Τολοφώνιος = Τολφώνιος, Σαλαμόνα = Σαλμόνη. I'm actually more skeptical about the alleged -ν in the nom. sg.; for the alleged κίνδυν and Φόρκυν it seems we only have oblique cases attested, and as third-declension animates the nom. should end in -ς (or so I'd assume).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Do you happen to have a link to a scan of the papyrus, btw? I'm curious how secure the reading δολοφυν is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the -ν nominative, I don't know about Φόρκυν, but here is a mention of κίνδυν by [Choeroboscus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Choiroboskos) in _On the canons of Theodosius_, possibly a gloss, as reported by Campbell:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κίνδυν κίνδυνος· οὕτως δὲ ἔφη Σαπφὼ τὸν κίνδυνον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now this seems an attestation of nominative and genitive to me, and Campbell agrees about the genitive thing, so it could at most be accusative-genitive, which doesn't seem like a sequence that makes sense. So I assume Aeolic has this weird -ν nominative for this word, and this makes δόλοφυν nominative seem likely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the papyrus, this is P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 10, and no P.Oxy. 1231 is available scanned online (which is a shame since many Sappho poems come from 1231…). However, these papyri were published in vol. 10 of Grenfell and Hunt's P.Oxy. series, which is [available online](https://ia600204.us.archive.org/29/items/oxyrhynchusppt1000grenuoft/oxyrhynchusppt1000grenuoft.pdf), and gives this raw transcription:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since δόλοφυν has no underdots, and is mentioned as an unknown form in the notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume it's pretty much undoubtable. The same cannot be said for the splitting of the words, seen as Campbell has `]δ' ὄλοφυν[` or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**δόλοφυν line, Campbell version**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Further reading**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another comment by TKR:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Interesting. Campbell seems to be quoting a gloss, but it's possible that the author of the gloss reconstructed what they thought the nominative should be; LSJ says &quot;dat. κίνδυ_νι (as if from κίνδυν)&quot;, implying the nominative is unattested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author of the quotation is from the early 9th century, so the gloss hypothesis seems likely, and I guess we cannot know if he had a nominative under his eyes or if he reconstructed it, which gives this form even more mystery. Besides, even Campbell's ὄλοφυν, translated to &quot;pity&quot;, is mysterious: where is it from? Perseus doesn't have it… Anyways, I guess this form will be uncertain up till we find another papyrus with this poem that gives us maybe the line beginnings and confirms, or destroys (as happened with tons of conjectures for another fragment when [this papyrus](http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/Fragments/Translation.Neri.i.15.pdf) was found), Edmonds' completion.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pMUpn.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccdxFs.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wwSI0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/if8JV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FA8Bc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LeESK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1657" RevisionGUID="711d1f4b-2ca0-4988-92e9-43cc0e8a4925" CreationDate="2017-07-29T21:01:06.370" UserId="645" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Fieri solet ut charta mundatoria sit in capulo binis modibus ponenda. In vulgus gratus est modus quo charta procidit summo de volumine. In altero modo retro decidit charta iuxta parietem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that you need to keep it simple, without inventing such a word as *orientatio*. Would *cursus* be neater, do you think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4942" RevisionGUID="73777e25-4de6-43ca-a39d-3f4deae7dbfd" CreationDate="2017-07-29T22:19:30.000" UserId="324" Text="I have looked into this some more and think I can now give a precise answer to the question. The earliest published translation of Horace 1,11 to render “carpe diem” as “seize the day” is in THE WORKS OF HORACE. TRANSLATED LITERALLY INTO ENGLISH PROSE, BY C(hristopher) SMART, 1761 and many reprints. It reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;INQUIRE not, Leuconoe (it is not fitting you should know), how long a term of life the gods have granted to you or to me: neither consult the Chaldean calculations. How much better is it to bear with patience whatever shall happen! Whether Jupiter have granted us more winters, or [this as] the last, which now breaks the Etrurian waves against the opposing rocks. Be wise; rack off your wines, and abridge your hopes [in proportion] to the shortness of your life. While we are conversing, envious age has been flying; **seize the** present **day**, not giving the least credit to the succeeding one.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4942" RevisionGUID="e7738e3e-08ff-40e1-aab8-69a2c0f68d66" CreationDate="2017-07-29T22:31:29.487" UserId="324" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="I have looked into this some more and think I can now give a precise answer to the question. The earliest published translation of Horace 1,11 to render “carpe diem” as “seize the day” is in THE WORKS OF HORACE. TRANSLATED LITERALLY INTO ENGLISH PROSE, BY C(hristopher) SMART, 1761 and many reprints. It reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; INQUIRE not, Leuconoe (it is not fitting you should know), how long a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; term of life the gods have granted to you or to me: neither consult&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Chaldean calculations. How much better is it to bear with patience&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whatever shall happen! Whether Jupiter have granted us more winters,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or [this as] the last, which now breaks the Etrurian waves against the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; opposing rocks. Be wise; rack off your wines, and abridge your hopes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [in proportion] to the shortness of your life. While we are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conversing, envious age has been flying; **seize the** present&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **day**, not giving the least credit to the succeeding one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4940" RevisionGUID="dd0cd71f-b8f5-406c-b800-14a904d653eb" CreationDate="2017-07-30T11:27:28.337" UserId="645" Comment="Inserted two paragraphs marked by *" Text="The question is misconceived: 'Seize the day' isn't a mistranslation at all. This is an example of the perennial problem for any translator, that of transforming style and idiom into language that is understood by a reader of his translation in exactly the same way as did the intended readers of the original. This applies, not just for Latin into English, but for any language into another. The concept is often hard to appreciate, particularly for those only beginning to examine the qualities of another language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In effect, this optimistic maxim of Horace's tells us to beware of reaching the end of life with regret for lost opportunity. If we obey, it offers a great prize, that of being truly, fully alive; the opposite, common aphorism *Life's a bitch and then you die* — often attributed, probably in error, to Marilyn Monroe — represents the consequence of disobedience to the poet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*There are a number of English expressions that are basically equivalent to *carpe diem*. Examples I can give off-the-cuff range from *seize the moment*, *grasp every opportunity*, right through *strike while the iron's hot* and *pluck the apple while it's there for the taking*, possibly even to the cynical *never give a sucker an even break*. The poet Robert Herrick ('To the Virgins, to make much of Time') chimes in with *Gather ye rosebuds while ye may*, a short poem that can be compared to Hor. 1.11.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A translation that is not some sort of compromise is unusual. but, taking all the alternatives that English literature and colloquial language have provided through the years, it is indeed hard to see why 'seize the day' should have attained its modern status.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the seventeenth century there have been several celebrated translations into English of Horace that include Odes 1.11; two among the earliest are by John Dryden (the first English Poet Laureate), and John Milton. Towards the end of the eighteenth century, a very successful version was that of the Rev. Philip Francis, whose translation of *carpe diem* runs *Instant the fleeting pleasure seize.* I can identify none that uses the *precise* wording to which you appear to object; **it seems unlikely that the true originator of the phrase 'seize the day' might ever be identified** — but is this regrettable, or should we follow Horace and, in pursuit of something more worthwhile, forego the search?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have understood what I have written here, give yourself a test. Take whatever version of the sentiment you prefer in your own language and put it back into a different, but still pithy, Latin phrase, trying to match Horace. For myself, whichever English version I choose, the best answer is always *carpe diem*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4936" RevisionGUID="e1a70631-8659-4ab1-8b86-64777bb8554b" CreationDate="2017-07-30T16:50:35.990" UserId="406" Comment="Added contracted genitives" Text="It sounds like you've settled on ***rēgēs*** for &quot;kings&quot;, which is a perfectly good word for that purpose. And to the Romans it would most certainly imply that they were supremely confident, as people at the time did *not* like kings—Caesar and the later emperors specifically avoided the term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;of the stars&quot; you have several options, each with their own benefits and drawbacks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Sīderum*** (from *sīdus, sīderis*): a poetic term, which can mean &quot;stars&quot;, &quot;constellations&quot;, &quot;the night sky&quot;, or even &quot;the heavens&quot;. It's a rather grandiose (and slightly pretentious) word to use in your title…sort of like using a Latin title in English!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Astrōrum*** or ***Asterum*** (from *astrum, -ī* or *astēr, asteris*): borrowed from Greek *ἄστρον* and *ἀστήρ*, these terms eventually started to replace the native Latin words. *Astrum* was considerably more common than *astēr*, though both would be understood. In Classical times these words were still a bit exotic and found &quot;poet[ically] or in more elevated prose&quot;, as Lewis and Short put it, though they were still less poetic than *sīdus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ETA: **astrum** would be a slightly more poetic form than **astrōrum**, with the same meaning.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Stellārum*** (from *stella, -ae*): *stella* is the most neutral, standard word for a star or other heavenly body. Calling a single star a *sīdus*, for example, would be somewhat akin to referring to the sky as &quot;the great vault of the heavens&quot; in normal conversation. Planets were *stellae errantes*, comets were *stellae comantes*, and meteors were *stellae lābentes* (or sometimes just *stellae*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ETA: **stellum** would be a slightly more poetic form than **stellārum**, with the same meaning.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Caelī*** or ***Coelī*** (from *caelum, -ī*): &quot;heaven&quot;, or literally &quot;the sky&quot;. This is the most arrogant option out of all of these, as &quot;the King of Heaven&quot; or &quot;the King of the Sky&quot; was a title of Jupiter (and later of the Christian God). But if your characters have reached that point, they might find such a title perfect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4898" RevisionGUID="f783518e-1c4d-4c26-a968-7d407031cdeb" CreationDate="2017-07-30T18:08:58.670" UserId="522" Comment="Expansion at the request of the aforementioned Shaunb." Text="The structure of the Charter consists of a long preamble  describing how the situation came about:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;&quot;Charter of Malcolm Count of Lennox. Robert etc [greetings]When we conceded to Malcolm. our dear and loyal Count of Lennox the land of Strathoun  because of the earlier criminality (forisfacturam) of the soldier David Strathbolgy, erstwhile Count of Athol, at which time Duncan Count of Fyff was at loggerheads (contra pacem nostram) concerning whose person (quo capite) the said land was held by, for which particular land the same Malcolm made homage to us;...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;///AND AFTERWARDS/// The gift Part I. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et postea eidem comiti de Fyff concessimus omnes terras et tenementa&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum omnibus tenandriis et libere tenentibus ad ipsum spectantes jure&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hereditario infra regnum nostrum,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tenandriis, comes in a list of landholders owing allegiance to the new Count. Thegnlands are those with an obligation of military service as knights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&quot;and afterwards we conceded to the same Count of Fyff (Duncan) all the lands and tenancies, together with the Thegnlands and the freeholds looking to himself by hereditary right under our rule...&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;///AND SINCE/// These are the stipulations and conditions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et cum dictus Malcolmus de jure non teneatur facere homagium dicto comiti de Fyff pro terra predicta in vita nostra nobis viventibus, concessimus eidem comiti de Fyff (i.e. Duncano) ::quod:: occasione homagii nobis per eundem Malcolmum facti pro eadem terra, cum warda relevium seu homagium vel aliquid aliud pertinens ad eundem comitem de Fyff de ipsa terra futuris temporibus contigerit,* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The three matters to be dealt with are .1. Homage paid by Duncan of Fife to the King via his representative Malcolm of Lennox; .2. Wardage, a payment to Malcolm for looking after the Castle in the interim; .3. Relevium, a payment made by an heir on taking up his inheritance; .4. Homage is mentioned again because the feudal obligations need to be settled, man-hours of military, agricultural, and building work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;and since the said Malcolm is not obliged by law to do homage to the said Count of Fife for the aforesaid land upon our life and to us living, we concede to the same Count of Fife that, on the occasion of his homage to us made through the same Malcolm for the same land, when he shall have settled the wardage, the relevium or homage or anything else pertaining to the same Count of Fife concerning the land itself in future times, &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...then after all that ::: WE CONCEDED::: THAT (Concessimus quod)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **concessimus**  nullum prejudicium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sibi aut heredibus suis aliqualiter generatur, sed ::**quod**:: habeat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; libere et quiete omnia et singula que sibi antiquis temporibus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; debebantur de eadem. In cujus rei testimonium etc.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Whereto we set our seal. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**We conceded**  ... no prejudice should be engendered to him and his heirs in any way whatsoever, **but that** he may hold freely and unmolested all and singular what was due to him of the same in ancient times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The misunderstanding seems to come from three complications:&#xD;&#xA;.1.The earlier occasion when the lands were given fully to Malcolm (when Duncan was in trouble, under-age).  &#xD;&#xA;.2.That the Count of Fife swears allegiance to the King by homage to Malcolm; and the King only restored the lands when Duncan showed his loyalty.&#xD;&#xA;.3. Debts between Duncan and Malcolm also have to be settled.  &#xD;&#xA;The Charter is rightly addressed to Malcolm because he has to initiate all the activity. But all the benefits go to Duncan." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4943" RevisionGUID="a984cdc6-3d22-4c9e-9ef2-daee585e9b8a" CreationDate="2017-07-30T18:59:26.890" UserId="522" Text="The original question is &quot;Shall I read or shall I walk?&quot; (future indicative) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&quot;Legamne an ambulabo?&quot;* **or** *&quot;Utrum legam an ambulabo?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if your word for 'recommend' is in the present or future or past-perfect tense, then 'read' and 'go for a walk' will be *utrum ..an* with the future subjunctive. This is the compound verb composed of the future participle with the present subjunctive of *sum, esse.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4944" RevisionGUID="6d6c03aa-da2e-46df-a724-c0f2a846ef99" CreationDate="2017-07-30T19:59:26.213" UserDisplayName="user1861" Text="I found this article which you may have read already: http://www.cello.org/Newsletter/Articles/celloetymology.htm.&#xD;&#xA;I am not entirely convinced by all the etymological discussion in it. In particular, it suggests that 'vitula' evolved into 'fides', but 'fides', meaning a stringed instrument, dates back to at least the time of Plautus (see Epidicus 3.4). I can, though, see easily, given the way consonantal sounds changed and sometimes disappeared, how 'vitula' might evolve through 'fidula' into the English 'fiddle' - and how it might also evolve through 'vidula'/'fidula' (both used in medieval times) into viol and vielle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should warn you that I am no Latin expert!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4944" RevisionGUID="10bb0470-f298-42ec-b54a-df08618b01fc" CreationDate="2017-07-30T20:04:47.053" UserDisplayName="user1861" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="I found this article which you may have read already: http://www.cello.org/Newsletter/Articles/celloetymology.htm.&#xD;&#xA;I am not entirely convinced by all the etymological discussion in it. In particular, it suggests that 'vitula' evolved into 'fides', but 'fides', meaning a stringed instrument, dates back to at least the time of Plautus (see Epidicus 3.4). I can, though, see easily, given the way consonantal sounds changed and sometimes disappeared, how 'vitula' might evolve through 'fidula' into the English 'fiddle' - and how it might also evolve through 'vidula'/'fidula' (both used in medieval times) into viol and vielle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, you will note that Robert Jesselson speculates that 'vitula' may have come to refer to a stringed instrument because the strings were made of calf or heifer gut. So there are others who have had this thought!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should warn you that I am no Latin expert." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4945" RevisionGUID="06978316-f03f-4ffe-b942-d9a1cedbd312" CreationDate="2017-07-30T20:19:37.997" UserId="1862" Text="Currently doing some beginner practice with Alexander Lenard's translation of Winnie the Poo. It says, &quot;Ecce Eduardus Ursus scalis nunc tump-tump-tump &lt;b&gt;occipite&lt;/b&gt; gradus pulsante post Christophorum Robinum descendens.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Occipite' is in the imperative mood, but why? I don't see how the context calls for it. Any help is appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16359" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4945" RevisionGUID="06978316-f03f-4ffe-b942-d9a1cedbd312" CreationDate="2017-07-30T20:19:37.997" UserId="1862" Text="Why is Imperative used here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16360" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4945" RevisionGUID="06978316-f03f-4ffe-b942-d9a1cedbd312" CreationDate="2017-07-30T20:19:37.997" UserId="1862" Text="|imperative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4946" RevisionGUID="b6ade044-5faa-4db1-987a-28863414c903" CreationDate="2017-07-30T21:09:43.667" UserId="985" Text="It isn't imperative. It's the ablative singular of _occiput_, _occipitis_, 'the back of the head.' So _occipite gradus pulsante_ is ablative absolute: 'the back of his head striking the stairs'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4947" RevisionGUID="4099fa8a-91be-4240-9ec0-346ee7cb05ee" CreationDate="2017-07-30T21:24:54.703" UserId="39" Text="Just a brief comment on the verb carpo - here's a screenshot of the entry in the OLD:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, carpo as &quot;seize&quot; is even in the OLD. It makes sense - if time fleets (or runs or flies), you may want to capture or seize a moment (or any period of time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sdEFA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4938" RevisionGUID="5dc14226-9875-4641-80df-a698f83b895f" CreationDate="2017-07-30T22:32:38.673" UserId="40" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="Even many people who have never studied Latin know the phrase *carpe diem* (from Horace's *Odes* 1.11), and can tell you that it means &quot;seize the day&quot;. But &quot;seize&quot; is not a very close translation of *carpere*, which literally [means][1] &quot;pick, pluck, gather, harvest&quot;. Where did the &quot;seize&quot; translation originate? Who was the first to use it? How did it become part of popular culture? Is there a famous-in-its-time English translation of Horace that contains this phrase?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcarpo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4948" RevisionGUID="d8c7c30b-9e7c-42b0-abe7-77dd14de2833" CreationDate="2017-07-31T10:03:07.473" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="How does one translate to Latin sentences like:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. How does one do that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. One could try but he would fail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Can one do this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I.e. sentences using ***one*** as subject, where particular subject is not really important to meaning of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could ***se*** be used? If so, how?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16365" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4948" RevisionGUID="d8c7c30b-9e7c-42b0-abe7-77dd14de2833" CreationDate="2017-07-31T10:03:07.473" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="&quot;How does/can one ...&quot; translation to Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16366" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4948" RevisionGUID="d8c7c30b-9e7c-42b0-abe7-77dd14de2833" CreationDate="2017-07-31T10:03:07.473" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4945" RevisionGUID="368bdfd3-98a6-4f53-b26d-d622467aeab1" CreationDate="2017-07-31T13:52:22.653" UserId="1864" Comment="Spelling Correction" Text="Currently doing some beginner practice with Alexander Lenard's translation of Winnie the Pooh. It says, &quot;Ecce Eduardus Ursus scalis nunc tump-tump-tump &lt;b&gt;occipite&lt;/b&gt; gradus pulsante post Christophorum Robinum descendens.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Occipite' is in the imperative mood, but why? I don't see how the context calls for it. Any help is appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16369" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4945" RevisionGUID="368bdfd3-98a6-4f53-b26d-d622467aeab1" CreationDate="2017-07-31T13:52:22.653" UserId="1864" Comment="Spelling Correction" Text="Why is Imperative used here in Alexander Lenard's translation of Winnie the Pooh?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16370" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4945" RevisionGUID="368bdfd3-98a6-4f53-b26d-d622467aeab1" CreationDate="2017-07-31T13:52:22.653" Comment="Proposed by 1864 approved by 12 edit id of 204" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4950" RevisionGUID="776fc4b1-6eb5-4098-abbe-6c3f07e0bf28" CreationDate="2017-07-31T17:36:39.013" UserId="78" Text="I'd suggest an impersonal with or without an indefinite pronoun in the dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Quomodo potest alicui illud agere? (How is it possible for anyone to do that thing?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Licet conari, sed non potest succedere. (It is permitted to make an attempt, but it is not possible to succeed.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Potestne alicui illud agere? (Is it possible for anyone to do this?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Se* is a reflexive pronoun, and therefore not appropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4951" RevisionGUID="ab98f021-364e-46aa-94db-6adf42e6b8af" CreationDate="2017-07-31T17:53:00.450" UserId="406" Text="One option is the indefinite *aliquis*, often shortened to *quis* (and always shortened after *si*, *nisi*, *num*, and *ne*). This literally means &quot;someone&quot; or &quot;anyone&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another is the reduplicated version *quisquis*, &quot;whoever&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quomodo aliquis id agit?* How does anyone do it?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quisquis conatur, deerit.* Whoever tries, will fail.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Aliquis id agere potest?* Can anyone do it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4952" RevisionGUID="92d094f1-83f2-45f0-a311-fd3602a2934c" CreationDate="2017-07-31T20:41:23.837" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="According to [this](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/hortatory-subjunctive), Subjunctive can be used to express &quot;an exhortation or a command.&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When should Hortatory Subjunctive be used and when Imperative is favoured? What is the difference in meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16374" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4952" RevisionGUID="92d094f1-83f2-45f0-a311-fd3602a2934c" CreationDate="2017-07-31T20:41:23.837" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="Imperative vs Hortatory Subjunctive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16375" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4952" RevisionGUID="92d094f1-83f2-45f0-a311-fd3602a2934c" CreationDate="2017-07-31T20:41:23.837" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4953" RevisionGUID="729798af-d179-4b74-844f-0c99ca6c4697" CreationDate="2017-07-31T23:10:54.700" UserId="427" Text="I know of two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The impersonal passive; e.g., *quomodo illud agitur?* 'how is that done?'; *potestne hoc agi?* 'can this be done?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The generic second person, which always takes the subjunctive (and which most grammars try to sweep under the rug); e.g., *quomodo illud agas?* 'how do you do that?'; *possisne hoc agere?* 'can you do this?'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4950" RevisionGUID="e4e3bcc9-b0c0-45ed-9bc9-b26ff0c5fdbd" CreationDate="2017-08-01T01:50:27.443" UserId="78" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="You can use the indefinite pronoun: *quomodo aliquis hoc agere potest* / &quot;How can anyone do this?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See more on [indefinite pronouns](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/relative-interrogative-and-indefinite-pronouns).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on what you're asking, generally a subject-less noun can be constructed with an impersonal: *licet alicui conari, sed non potest succedere* (It is permitted for anyone to try, but it is not possible to succeed.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16380" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4069" RevisionGUID="1635251b-6151-4917-8318-db4ce74f9ce1" CreationDate="2017-08-01T10:39:52.957" UserId="79" Comment="47" />
  <row Id="16381" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4349" RevisionGUID="27fa030e-4658-4f1b-b3f1-bb1441f0bf97" CreationDate="2017-08-01T10:40:08.160" UserId="79" Comment="46" />
  <row Id="16382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="196e9223-970a-4a82-b133-683a7f713201" CreationDate="2017-08-01T11:36:26.480" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="What is the rule for choosing coniunctivus or imperativus when expressing commands? I know, that imperativus has only second person forms, so one is forced to use coniunctivus for other persons. Are there other rules however that make sentences with these modes different?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16383" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="196e9223-970a-4a82-b133-683a7f713201" CreationDate="2017-08-01T11:36:26.480" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|conjunctive|imperative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4952" RevisionGUID="5265d158-4ed0-463f-8fb4-b43916ef9cd2" CreationDate="2017-08-01T11:36:56.523" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="According to [this](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/hortatory-subjunctive), Subjunctive can be used to express &quot;an exhortation or a command&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When should Hortatory Subjunctive be used and when Imperative is favoured? What is the difference in meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16385" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4952" RevisionGUID="5265d158-4ed0-463f-8fb4-b43916ef9cd2" CreationDate="2017-08-01T11:36:56.523" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|grammar-choice|conjunctive|imperative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16386" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="9bbc8e9f-af42-492d-874c-6990386c333c" CreationDate="2017-08-01T13:48:08.677" UserDisplayName="user1846" Comment="fixed a typo" Text="The difference between coniunctivus and imperativus when expressing commands" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16387" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="9bbc8e9f-af42-492d-874c-6990386c333c" CreationDate="2017-08-01T13:48:08.677" Comment="Proposed by 1846 approved by 45, 79 edit id of 205" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16388" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4952" RevisionGUID="08fbb9c7-3398-4c83-b061-741b8d5bfcc3" CreationDate="2017-08-01T13:48:53.910" UserId="79" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[349],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="16389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4954" RevisionGUID="9d54e0bf-90e4-409f-9669-2f10e88f77c1" CreationDate="2017-08-01T17:24:46.630" UserId="79" Text="If a person is addressed formally with a title, it seems to vary from language to language (and to some extent within a single language) whether a word like &quot;Mr&quot; or &quot;Herr&quot; (German) is used.&#xD;&#xA;In Finnish the word &quot;herra&quot; or &quot;rouva&quot; (Mr or Mrs) is always used in front of titles like professor, major, and minister in formal address.&#xD;&#xA;In English such a Mr(s)-word is typically not used; I have heard &quot;Mr President&quot; but not &quot;Mr Professor&quot; or &quot;Mr Lieutenant&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that the most suitable Mr(s)-words in Latin are *dominus* and *domina*, but I will be happy to be corrected if that's not the case.&#xD;&#xA;[This question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/832/79) gives some support for the assumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was such a word ever used in Latin in front of a title?&#xD;&#xA;Were there situations (perhaps in a specific era and area) where a title needs to be accompanied with *dominus/-a*?&#xD;&#xA;Is it safe never to use a word like *dominus/-a* with a title?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have understood that such a word would not be used in classical Latin, so the question concerns Latin from 500 CE to today.&#xD;&#xA;If you think the question is too broad this way, let me know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16390" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4954" RevisionGUID="9d54e0bf-90e4-409f-9669-2f10e88f77c1" CreationDate="2017-08-01T17:24:46.630" UserId="79" Text="Was &quot;dominus&quot; or similar used with a title?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16391" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4954" RevisionGUID="9d54e0bf-90e4-409f-9669-2f10e88f77c1" CreationDate="2017-08-01T17:24:46.630" UserId="79" Text="|medieval-latin|contemporary-latin|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4955" RevisionGUID="b6dbe542-bddf-430d-a997-d2046468ba4c" CreationDate="2017-08-01T20:34:13.500" UserDisplayName="user1861" Text="I have not myself come across Dominus being used in front of a title as opposed to in front of a name, but that may just be my ignorance. In an ecclesiastical context it was used from medieval times as an honorific before the names of clergy and (particularly Benedictine) monks, often abbreviated to 'Dom.' - and is still so used of Benedictines. It was also used for knights and baronets, again before their names, in the sense of 'Sir', and similarly in an academic context for people with degrees. There is an interesting discussion, with extracts from various books, at http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/dominus-domini-whats-the-most-appropriate-english-term.15311/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4956" RevisionGUID="3639d841-e967-46f4-8fba-c1253750eb22" CreationDate="2017-08-01T20:49:10.657" UserDisplayName="user1861" Text="http://logeion.uchicago.edu/#respective gives 'respective', but with examples only from medieval times. (Similarly http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#respectivus gives examples for 'respectivus' from the medieval and Renaissance periods.) It would appear, as you suggest, that classical Latin authors expressed the concept in other ways." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4957" RevisionGUID="41716109-0996-47a4-ad46-726efb5a7f3e" CreationDate="2017-08-02T11:03:08.540" UserId="645" Text="It is true, I think, that  Latin has no simple, direct word for 'respective(ly)'. The notion can be expressed by the pronoun *quisque*, as in (to follow your examples):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Hae partes iuxta ac infra ordinata sunt quisque tamen dextra aut sinistra*, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*T. Otacilio et M. Valerio ut praeter oras Sicilae et Graeciae quisque cum classe ac militibus prioris vagaretur mandatum est*;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or by using a distributive adjective/pronoun, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Itaque Leuconotus dexter ac Altanus sinister singuli cum Austero flare separatim solent*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4958" RevisionGUID="7ad28c4c-88e9-4525-9f0e-242ab6429973" CreationDate="2017-08-02T11:36:23.833" UserId="1868" Text="What is the meaning of donante?  I am trying to find out what Deo donante means in English.  Deo donante is a latin phrase but I want to know the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16397" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4958" RevisionGUID="7ad28c4c-88e9-4525-9f0e-242ab6429973" CreationDate="2017-08-02T11:36:23.833" UserId="1868" Text="Deo donante meaning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16398" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4958" RevisionGUID="7ad28c4c-88e9-4525-9f0e-242ab6429973" CreationDate="2017-08-02T11:36:23.833" UserId="1868" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4958" RevisionGUID="b4ab2231-570b-43d3-97cb-99717034b826" CreationDate="2017-08-02T13:59:13.693" UserId="79" Comment="Updated the question based on the comment." Text="I want to write the words &quot;God's blessing&quot; in Latin. I came up with the translation *Deo donante*. I want to double check if *Deo donante* means &quot;God's blessing&quot; and to understand what it means. What is the meaning of *donante*?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16400" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4958" RevisionGUID="b4ab2231-570b-43d3-97cb-99717034b826" CreationDate="2017-08-02T13:59:13.693" UserId="79" Comment="Updated the question based on the comment." Text="Is &quot;Deo donante&quot; a good translation of &quot;God's blessing&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16401" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4958" RevisionGUID="b4ab2231-570b-43d3-97cb-99717034b826" CreationDate="2017-08-02T13:59:13.693" UserId="79" Comment="Updated the question based on the comment." Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4957" RevisionGUID="d64827f4-29d0-46a4-b3ed-5f6873e115fb" CreationDate="2017-08-02T14:10:25.397" UserId="645" Comment="extended 2nd sentence for clarification" Text="It is true, I think, that  Latin has no simple, direct word for 'respective(ly)'. The notion can be expressed by the pronoun *quisque*, as in (to follow your examples and return them to Latin)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Hae partes iuxta ac infra ordinata sunt quisque tamen dextra aut sinistra*, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*T. Otacilio et M. Valerio ut praeter oras Sicilae et Graeciae quisque cum classe ac militibus prioris vagaretur mandatum est*;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or by using a distributive adjective/pronoun, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Itaque Leuconotus dexter ac Altanus sinister singuli cum Austero flare separatim solent*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4958" RevisionGUID="568b4213-758e-4074-a81a-5f2a3ebac5ef" CreationDate="2017-08-02T15:29:16.130" UserId="79" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="I want to write the words &quot;God's blessing&quot; in Latin. I came up with the translation *Deo donante* after a Google search. I want to double check if *Deo donante* means &quot;God's blessing&quot; and to understand what it means. What is the meaning of *donante*?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="64c444ab-7637-4a62-99b2-cedb330a160f" CreationDate="2017-08-02T15:29:38.650" UserId="118" Text="&quot;God's blessing&quot; in Latin is **benedictio Dei**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase appears in the last sentence of the Pope's [Blessing to the City and to the World](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbi_et_Orbi) (_Urbi et Orbi_):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et **benedictio Dei** omnipotentis, Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, descendat super vos et maneat semper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And may the **blessing of** almighty **God**, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit come down on you and remain with you always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not a distinctively Catholic phrase, though. Latin is an international language, and the early Protestants used this same phrase. [Here](https://books.google.com/books?id=jvJKAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA124&amp;dq=%22benedictio%20dei%22) is some discussion of John Calvin's belief that life is a _benedictio Dei._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Deo donante** literally means &quot;with God giving&quot;, though it could also mean &quot;while giving to God&quot;. In English, the _-ing_ form of a verb serves as both present participle, i.e. as an adjective, as in &quot;The man now **surfing** is the defending champion&quot;, and as gerund, i.e. as a noun, as in &quot;The **surfing** today is wonderful.&quot; In Latin, the present participle and gerund have distinct endings. _Donante_ is a present participle, not a gerund, so it's probably not appropriate for what you have in mind, as it sounds like you want a noun to denote God's blessing, not a modifier for something else. It's also in the [ablative case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablative_(Latin)), which provides a wonderfully concise way to express some kinds of thoughts, but it might not suit what you have in mind. See my explanation of the related phrase _Deo iuvante_ [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4122/118) for more detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corresponding words in different languages usually have a slight difference in meaning or connotation. So here's a little more information to give you a little of the &quot;feel&quot; of _benedictio_ in Latin. _Benedictio_ is a compound word: **bene** means &quot;well&quot;, the root of English words like &quot;benevolent&quot; and &quot;beneficial&quot;; and **dictio** means &quot;a saying, talk, oratory&quot;, whence English &quot;dictionary&quot;. The English word &quot;benediction&quot; is of course a direct borrowing of Latin _benedictio._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you like this answer, please wait at least a day or two before accepting it or putting _Benedictio Dei_ on your business card, as my command of Latin is not that strong. We should at least hear a comment from some of the genuine experts here (or at least a lack of objections).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4960" RevisionGUID="ffe63bbc-0ba4-4cd4-8c9d-af2731e7cb3b" CreationDate="2017-08-02T15:41:38.157" UserId="79" Text="*Deo donante* is not a good translation.&#xD;&#xA;It is an absolute ablative and has numerous meanings.&#xD;&#xA;Depending on context, it can mean &quot;while/when/because/if God gives&quot;, and there is no single universal translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Deo donante* plays a very different grammatical role than &quot;God's blessing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The English phrase is essentially a noun, whereas the Latin one is essentially a subordinate clause.&#xD;&#xA;This is not technically precise, but I just wanted to point out the difference in nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The genitive &quot;God's&quot; is best translated as the Latin genitive *Dei*.&#xD;&#xA;The main problem in translating &quot;God's blessing&quot; is finding a good word for &quot;blessing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You can look up any noun you like in [any online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) and use it as such.&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Ben Kovitz that the most appropriate word seems to be [*benedictio*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2006437).&#xD;&#xA;Therefore ***benedictio Dei*** is my suggestion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many horrible Latin translations out there, and [Google Translate excels at producing more](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79), so it is wise to consult someone who understands Latin in matters of any importance.&#xD;&#xA;I would of course suggest this site. &amp;#9786;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4961" RevisionGUID="55ae619c-0281-4e7b-8dcd-304d20691a4e" CreationDate="2017-08-02T16:07:26.067" UserId="79" Text="Latin has an obvious word for a professor: *professor*.&#xD;&#xA;But what would be good Latin translations for assistant and associate professors?&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for two adjectives to go with *professor* (or [*profestrix*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/178/79)) that would give good Latin translations of &quot;assistant professor&quot; and &quot;associate professor&quot;, but I'm open to solutions without adjectives too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any attested academic use would be great, but also suggestions are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, the translations should be easily identified and distinguished, with as little room as possible for confusion with a full professor, a visiting professor, or an adjunct professor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best guesses are *professor auxiliaris* and *professor associ(at)us* for assistant and associate professor, [respectively](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4903/79).&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps one could also use something derived from *assistere*, but *auxiliaris* sounded more idiomatic to me.&#xD;&#xA;The participle *associatus* and the adjective *associus* see appropriate, and should be easily interpreted correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what translations would you suggest and why?&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas are welcome as answers!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is similar in spirit to the one about [distinguishing lecturers and readers](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1685/79), but I think different translations should be employed here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16407" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4961" RevisionGUID="55ae619c-0281-4e7b-8dcd-304d20691a4e" CreationDate="2017-08-02T16:07:26.067" UserId="79" Text="How to distinguish assistant and associate professors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16408" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4961" RevisionGUID="55ae619c-0281-4e7b-8dcd-304d20691a4e" CreationDate="2017-08-02T16:07:26.067" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-comparison|academic-latin|occupation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4962" RevisionGUID="5166187c-6c83-42e3-bfe5-d8bcd143332f" CreationDate="2017-08-02T21:41:16.997" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="Sentence - *my attempt at translation*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Thank you for your help. - *Gratias propter auxilium tui tibi ago.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Thank you for helping me. - *Gratias propter adiuvandum mihi tibi ago.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is ***propter*** good word here, what could be better words?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is ***adiuvandum*** the right way to translate ***helping***?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16410" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4962" RevisionGUID="5166187c-6c83-42e3-bfe5-d8bcd143332f" CreationDate="2017-08-02T21:41:16.997" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="Thank for help in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16411" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4962" RevisionGUID="5166187c-6c83-42e3-bfe5-d8bcd143332f" CreationDate="2017-08-02T21:41:16.997" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4963" RevisionGUID="2271168f-06ea-44ad-82dd-f782a29ccedf" CreationDate="2017-08-02T21:59:52.153" UserId="406" Text="There are various fragments of Greek and Latin poetry whose provenance is unknown, such as quotations in other works whose source hasn't survived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any known fragments longer than a couple lines, whose author is unknown or uncertain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16413" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4963" RevisionGUID="2271168f-06ea-44ad-82dd-f782a29ccedf" CreationDate="2017-08-02T21:59:52.153" UserId="406" Text="What are the most complete unattributed classical works?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16414" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4963" RevisionGUID="2271168f-06ea-44ad-82dd-f782a29ccedf" CreationDate="2017-08-02T21:59:52.153" UserId="406" Text="|classical-latin|greek|poetry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4964" RevisionGUID="0a535fc8-e058-42ea-9af2-1fab6b91c803" CreationDate="2017-08-02T22:00:41.370" UserId="45" Text="For your first attempt, the only issue is that *tuus, -a, -um* should agree with *auxilium*. The genitive pronoun *tui* is not usually used for possession, [with some rare counterexamples](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1306/when-to-use-a-genitive-pronoun-instead-of-a-possessive-adjective). I would thus amend to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gratias propter auxilium tuum tibi ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your second sentence, I would advise against using the gerund in this way. The accusative of a gerund is almost always used with *ad* to express purpose, and it would be incorrect to use it alone in this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a more general comment, the &quot;two&quot; sentences you are translating are semantically identical. It's an easy trap to fall into, thinking that *help* or *helping* need to be translated respectively by a noun or gerund. Especially with Latin translation, you need to focus on the *sense* of the sentence much more than the individual words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your first question, *propter* is perfectly fine, though I tend to prefer *ob* as a shorter (and [fairly well-attested](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23gratias+~+%23ob%23)) combination. One possibility:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Gratias ob auxilium tibi ago.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to emphasize the fact that the person was helping *me*, a more prolix version could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ob auxilium mihi oblatum gratias tibi [plurimas] ago.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is literally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thank you [very much] for the help you have given me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4962" RevisionGUID="c2aeb577-dd5d-4bde-ad68-718de114d2ac" CreationDate="2017-08-02T22:02:26.980" UserId="45" Comment="added 99 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am trying to thank someone for their help in Latin. Here are two sample sentences I tried to translate, with my attempt *in italics.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Thank you for your help. - *Gratias propter auxilium tui tibi ago.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Thank you for helping me. - *Gratias propter adiuvandum mihi tibi ago.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is ***propter*** a good word here? What could be better words?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is ***adiuvandum*** the right way to translate ***helping***?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16417" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4962" RevisionGUID="c2aeb577-dd5d-4bde-ad68-718de114d2ac" CreationDate="2017-08-02T22:02:26.980" UserId="45" Comment="added 99 characters in body; edited title" Text="How do I thank someone for helping me in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4965" RevisionGUID="eb8281e4-1fc6-42d7-8b9e-f35304a3eb9b" CreationDate="2017-08-03T11:43:45.337" UserId="79" Text="What are the names of the five fingers in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Some fingers may have several names, some may have none; I place no restrictions on the numbers of translations.&#xD;&#xA;Googling gives some answers, but [some](http://www.simplybodylanguage.com/finger-names.html) concern medical Latin and it's not easy to judge the credibility of [other](http://en.antiquitatem.com/finfers-the-names-of-fingers-digitus) sources.&#xD;&#xA;The second link seems promising, but I can't tell whether the names are also classical, as some of the quoted sources are younger." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16419" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4965" RevisionGUID="eb8281e4-1fc6-42d7-8b9e-f35304a3eb9b" CreationDate="2017-08-03T11:43:45.337" UserId="79" Text="What are the names of the fingers in classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16420" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4965" RevisionGUID="eb8281e4-1fc6-42d7-8b9e-f35304a3eb9b" CreationDate="2017-08-03T11:43:45.337" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|biology|anatomia|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4966" RevisionGUID="44aa7c30-1164-4e84-a762-2555081e19eb" CreationDate="2017-08-03T14:19:59.687" UserId="1289" Text="Authorship and the rights associated with it, as we know it now, is a relatively modern concept. In antiquity, works had a higher probability of being preserved (by being distributed more, by being sold more, by being in higher demand) if they were ascribed to a famous author, preferably a dead one who couldn't disclaim authorship anymore. Thus &quot;book sellers&quot; had an incentive to lie about authorship of their wares, with probably a very small chance of being caught and suffering repercussions. &#xA;&#xA;You can find contested works easily on Google by looking for &quot;pseudo-&lt;famous author&gt;&quot; . A few examples: &#xA;&#xA;* Nux, spuriously ascribed to Ovidius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nux_%28poem%29&#xA;&#xA;* appendix vergiliana, supposedly a collection of youth works by Vergilius. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appendix_Vergiliana" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="ff147790-ffd3-4f70-9b56-9aa69360f8c0" CreationDate="2017-08-03T14:49:36.327" UserId="118" Text="In conversation, we often introduce a new topic or make a transition with a little introductory word, like &quot;Well, …&quot; or &quot;So, …&quot; in English or &quot;Allora …&quot; in Italian. For example, if previously we've talked about meeting, but that topic has been brushed aside for a while, I might bring it up like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **So,** where would you like to meet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Well,** where would you like to meet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The little introductory word softens the transition to the new topic. Omitting it would make the sentence seem abrupt or officious. Even at the start of a conversation, these softeners are often appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you make the corresponding softening in conversational Latin? With _autem_ or _enim_ or some related word? Or does one not do this in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16424" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="ff147790-ffd3-4f70-9b56-9aa69360f8c0" CreationDate="2017-08-03T14:49:36.327" UserId="118" Text="Softeners for conversational topic transitions: &quot;Well, …&quot;, &quot;So, …&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16425" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="ff147790-ffd3-4f70-9b56-9aa69360f8c0" CreationDate="2017-08-03T14:49:36.327" UserId="118" Text="|conversational|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="8da6dd31-ddff-4ba3-8641-e292892176f9" CreationDate="2017-08-03T14:55:18.927" UserId="118" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="In conversation, we often introduce a new topic or make a transition with a little introductory word, like &quot;Well, …&quot; or &quot;So, …&quot; in English or &quot;Allora …&quot; in Italian. For example, if previously we've talked about meeting somewhere, but that topic has been brushed aside for a while, I might bring it up like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **So,** where would you like to meet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Well,** where would you like to meet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The little introductory word softens the transition to the new topic. Omitting it would make the sentence seem abrupt or officious. Even at the start of a conversation, these softeners are often appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you make the corresponding softening in conversational Latin? With _autem_ or _enim_ or some related word? Or does one not do this in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4968" RevisionGUID="594aca55-4a21-4066-8ef1-099a80794c42" CreationDate="2017-08-03T15:02:31.470" UserDisplayName="user1869" Text="I think that &quot;corresponding softening&quot; is a more informal parlance, because you don't really see that in written Latin text.  If you were just speaking Latin aloud, then, yes, I would probably use &quot;enim.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4969" RevisionGUID="203b2e38-9e33-4809-b61e-58a41e3bf0e7" CreationDate="2017-08-03T15:10:29.920" UserId="79" Text="This answer is based on what I would do in Latin, not on any rule I know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;If you have both been silent for a while, then the introductory word indicates that you are about to say something; without it the other party is likely to miss your first actual word.&#xD;&#xA;To this end, I often start simply with a &quot;hmm...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you want something more formal, I would remind of the topic:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;De conventu illo: Quando tibi placeat convenire?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience and knowledge (which are both admittedly limited!), Latin does not have proper softener words for this kind of thing, and I don't think anything could match the English &quot;so&quot; or &quot;well&quot; in tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to wrap up the conversation you've just had, the situation is a bit different.&#xD;&#xA;Consider: &quot;So, we'll meet at the graveyard gate at midnight?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;In this use I would go with &quot;ita&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel I should read some Plautus for insights into conversational sentence structures.&#xD;&#xA;Although I haven't had the chance to do so in proper detail, I dare recommend taking a look.&#xD;&#xA;My quick impression that there are few if any such softeners." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="601a648a-a4a0-4675-8e35-b3fbfbb8c2e8" CreationDate="2017-08-03T15:14:48.280" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags. Feel free to remove spoken language if it wasn't intended." Text="In conversation, we often introduce a new topic or make a transition with a little introductory word, like &quot;Well, …&quot; or &quot;So, …&quot; in English or &quot;Allora …&quot; in Italian. For example, if previously we've talked about meeting somewhere, but that topic has been brushed aside for a while, I might bring it up like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **So,** where would you like to meet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Well,** where would you like to meet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The little introductory word softens the transition to the new topic. Omitting it would make the sentence seem abrupt or officious. Even at the start of a conversation, these softeners are often appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you make the corresponding softening in conversational Latin? With _autem_ or _enim_ or some related word? Or does one not do this in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16430" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="601a648a-a4a0-4675-8e35-b3fbfbb8c2e8" CreationDate="2017-08-03T15:14:48.280" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags. Feel free to remove spoken language if it wasn't intended." Text="|word-choice|spoken-language|conversational|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="54329839-be8f-4b40-ae03-b159d489c513" CreationDate="2017-08-03T15:25:11.227" UserId="118" Comment="added 723 characters in body" Text="&quot;God's blessing&quot; in Latin is **benedictio Dei**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase appears in the last sentence of the Pope's [Blessing to the City and to the World](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbi_et_Orbi) (_Urbi et Orbi_):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et **benedictio Dei** omnipotentis, Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, descendat super vos et maneat semper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And may the **blessing of** almighty **God**, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit come down on you and remain with you always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not a distinctively Catholic phrase, though. Latin is an international language, and the early Protestants used this same phrase. [Here](https://books.google.com/books?id=jvJKAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA124&amp;dq=%22benedictio%20dei%22) is some discussion of John Calvin's belief that life is a _benedictio Dei._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Deo donante** literally means &quot;with God giving&quot;, though it could also mean &quot;while giving to God&quot;. In English, the _-ing_ form of a verb serves as both present participle, i.e. as an adjective, as in &quot;The man now **surfing** is the defending champion&quot;, and as gerund, i.e. as a noun, as in &quot;The **surfing** today is wonderful.&quot; In Latin, the present participle and gerund have distinct endings. _Donante_ is a present participle, not a gerund, so it's probably not appropriate for what you have in mind, as it sounds like you want a noun to denote God's blessing, not a modifier for something else. It's also in the [ablative case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablative_(Latin)), which provides a wonderfully concise way to express some kinds of thoughts, but it might not suit what you have in mind. See my explanation of the related phrase _Deo iuvante_ [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4122/118) for more detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corresponding words in different languages often have a slight difference in meaning or connotation. So here's a little more information to give you a little of the &quot;feel&quot; of _benedictio_ in Latin. _Benedictio_ is a compound word: **bene** means &quot;well&quot;, the root of English words like &quot;benevolent&quot; and &quot;beneficial&quot;; and **dictio** means &quot;a saying, talk, oratory&quot;, whence English &quot;dictionary&quot;. The English word &quot;benediction&quot; is of course a direct borrowing of Latin _benedictio._ Here's an example of its usage in [St. Jerome's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome) translation of Genesis 26:28–29:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qui responderunt &quot;Vidimus tecum esse Dominum et idcirco nunc diximus sit iuramentum inter nos et ineamus foedus ut non facias nobis quicquam mali sicut et nos nihil tuorum adtigimus nec fecimus quod te laederet sed cum pace dimisimus auctum **benedictione** Domini.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They responded, &quot;We saw that thou art with the Lord and for that reason we then said, 'Let there be an oath between us, and let us enter into a covenant that thou do us no harm just as we have touched nothing of thine nor have we done anything that would harm thee; but with peace we sent you away enriched **with the blessing** of the Lord.'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Translation mine, written to make the parallels between the Latin and English as easy to follow as possible.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Benedictione_ is the ablative of _benedictio,_ indicating its connection with [_auctum_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/auctus#Latin) (enriched).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4969" RevisionGUID="fc4328f7-1414-47b1-98da-557a5607fc1b" CreationDate="2017-08-03T15:29:52.287" UserId="79" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="This answer is based on what I would do in Latin, not on any rule I know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;If you have both been silent for a while, then the introductory word indicates that you are about to say something; without it the other party is likely to miss your first actual word.&#xD;&#xA;To this end, I often start simply with a &quot;hmm...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you want something more formal, I would remind of the topic:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;De conventu illo: Quando tibi placeat convenire?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience and knowledge (which are both admittedly limited!), Latin does not have proper softener words for this kind of thing, and I don't think anything could match the English &quot;so&quot; or &quot;well&quot; in tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to wrap up the conversation you've just had, the situation is a bit different.&#xD;&#xA;Consider: &quot;So, we'll meet at the graveyard gate at midnight?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;In this use I would go with &quot;ita&quot; or &quot;itaque&quot; or nothing at all.&#xD;&#xA;I have nothing to support &quot;ita(que)&quot; other than my own idiosyncracy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel I should read some Plautus for insights into conversational sentence structures.&#xD;&#xA;Although I haven't had the chance to do so in proper detail, I dare recommend taking a look.&#xD;&#xA;My quick impression that there are few if any such softeners." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="a9d3c0ad-650d-469c-b9a4-0035af915d26" CreationDate="2017-08-03T15:33:59.507" UserId="118" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&quot;God's blessing&quot; in Latin is **benedictio Dei**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase appears in the last sentence of the Pope's [Blessing to the City and to the World](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbi_et_Orbi) (_Urbi et Orbi_):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et **benedictio Dei** omnipotentis, Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, descendat super vos et maneat semper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And may the **blessing of** almighty **God**, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit come down on you and remain with you always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not a distinctively Catholic phrase, though. Latin is an international language, and the early Protestants used this same phrase. [Here](https://books.google.com/books?id=jvJKAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA124&amp;dq=%22benedictio%20dei%22) is some discussion of John Calvin's belief that life is a _benedictio Dei._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Deo donante** literally means &quot;with God giving&quot;, though it could also mean &quot;while giving to God&quot;. In English, the _-ing_ form of a verb serves as both present participle, i.e. as an adjective, as in &quot;The man now **surfing** is the defending champion&quot;, and as gerund, i.e. as a noun, as in &quot;The **surfing** today is wonderful.&quot; In Latin, the present participle and gerund have distinct endings. _Donante_ is a present participle, not a gerund, so it's probably not appropriate for what you have in mind, as it sounds like you want a noun to denote God's blessing, not a modifier for something else. It's also in the [ablative case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablative_(Latin)), which provides a wonderfully concise way to express some kinds of thoughts, but it might not suit what you have in mind. See my explanation of the related phrase _Deo iuvante_ [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4122/118) for more detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corresponding words in different languages often have a slight difference in meaning or connotation. So here's a little more information to give you a little of the &quot;feel&quot; of _benedictio_ in Latin. _Benedictio_ is a compound word: **bene** means &quot;well&quot;, the root of English words like &quot;benevolent&quot; and &quot;beneficial&quot;; and **dictio** means &quot;a saying, talk, oratory&quot;, whence English &quot;dictionary&quot;. The English word &quot;benediction&quot; is of course a direct borrowing of Latin _benedictio._ Here's an example of its usage in [St. Jerome's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome) translation of Genesis 26:28–29:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qui responderunt &quot;Vidimus tecum esse Dominum et idcirco nunc diximus sit iuramentum inter nos et ineamus foedus ut non facias nobis quicquam mali sicut et nos nihil tuorum adtigimus nec fecimus quod te laederet sed cum pace dimisimus auctum **benedictione** Domini.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They responded, &quot;We saw that thou art with the Lord and for that reason we then said, 'Let there be an oath between us, and let us enter into a covenant that thou do us no harm just as we have touched nothing of thine nor have we done anything that would harm thee; but with peace we sent thee away enriched **with the blessing** of the Lord.'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Translation mine, written to make the parallels between the Latin and English as easy to follow as possible.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Benedictione_ is the ablative of _benedictio,_ indicating its connection with [_auctum_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/auctus#Latin) (enriched).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4969" RevisionGUID="466ab5d5-05bd-4466-bbaf-0d6ad2eb3399" CreationDate="2017-08-03T15:39:38.423" UserId="118" Comment="Corrected &quot;idiosyncrasy&quot;: from κρᾶσις (temperament), not -κρατία (government, rule)." Text="This answer is based on what I would do in Latin, not on any rule I know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;If you have both been silent for a while, then the introductory word indicates that you are about to say something; without it the other party is likely to miss your first actual word.&#xD;&#xA;To this end, I often start simply with a &quot;hmm...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you want something more formal, I would remind of the topic:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;De conventu illo: Quando tibi placeat convenire?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience and knowledge (which are both admittedly limited!), Latin does not have proper softener words for this kind of thing, and I don't think anything could match the English &quot;so&quot; or &quot;well&quot; in tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to wrap up the conversation you've just had, the situation is a bit different.&#xD;&#xA;Consider: &quot;So, we'll meet at the graveyard gate at midnight?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;In this use I would go with &quot;ita&quot; or &quot;itaque&quot; or nothing at all.&#xD;&#xA;I have nothing to support &quot;ita(que)&quot; other than my own idiosyncrasy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel I should read some Plautus for insights into conversational sentence structures.&#xD;&#xA;Although I haven't had the chance to do so in proper detail, I dare recommend taking a look.&#xD;&#xA;My quick impression that there are few if any such softeners." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4966" RevisionGUID="6948aae2-2230-4e67-a9ab-955641764c3c" CreationDate="2017-08-03T15:45:10.183" UserId="1289" Comment="edited body" Text="Authorship and the rights associated with it, as we know it now, is a relatively modern concept. In antiquity, works had a higher probability of being preserved (by being distributed more, by being sold more, by being in higher demand) if they were ascribed to a famous author, preferably a dead one who couldn't disclaim authorship anymore. Thus &quot;book sellers&quot; had an incentive to lie about authorship of their wares, with probably a very small chance of being caught and suffering repercussions. &#xA;&#xA;You can find contested works easily on Google by looking for &quot;pseudo-[famous author]&quot; . A few examples: &#xA;&#xA;* Nux, spuriously ascribed to Ovidius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nux_%28poem%29&#xA;&#xA;* appendix vergiliana, supposedly a collection of youth works by Vergilius. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appendix_Vergiliana" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4970" RevisionGUID="eec865e4-779b-47b1-910a-04adf4118af7" CreationDate="2017-08-03T16:26:46.747" UserId="645" Text="The following, taken from a transcription of Smith &amp; Hall's 'Copious &amp; Critical Latin-English Dictionary', should give you everything that you need:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Finger** (subs.)-, digitus (also thumb or toe) : the **fore f**., d. index (as used in pointing), *Hor. : Plin*.: also, d. salutaris (perh. as used in greeting). *Suet. Aug. 80*: the **middle f**., d. medius, *Plin.: Quint*, (also d. infamis, inmpudicus, as used in obscene gestures, *cf. Mart. 6, 70, 5*) : the **third f**., d. minimo proximus, *Gell*. : also d. medicus, *Plin. 10, 12. 54*; d. medicinalis (minimo viciims), *Macr. Sat. 7, U, ad init.* : the **little f**, d. minimus, *Hor. : Gell. : Macr.* To touch (just) with the tips of the f.s, extremis digitis attingere, *Cic. Gael. 12, 28*: to count on the f.s, digitis computare (rationem), *PI. Mil. 2, 2, 51* ; per digitus numerare, *Ov. Fast*: to snap or crack the f.s, digitos or digitis concrepare, *Cic. Off. 3, 19, 75 : Petr.* : gesticnlations with the f.s (in speaking): argutiae digitorum, *Cic. Or. i8, 59*: to talk with the f.s, digitis loqui, *Ov. Trist. 2, 451* : to be pointed at with the f. (i.e. be distinguished), digito monstrari, *Hor. Od. 4, 1, 22*: etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It even has one or two quite impolite gestures, which we modern folk seem to be perpetuating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To complete the picture, the **thumb** is (*digitus*) *pollex*, for which Smith's suggests further indicative uses. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4970" RevisionGUID="c7ecb234-cf57-4d3e-8aef-857efa2ebaf7" CreationDate="2017-08-03T16:34:30.873" UserId="79" Comment="Formatted the quote as a quote." Text="The following, taken from a transcription of Smith &amp; Hall's 'Copious &amp; Critical Latin-English Dictionary', should give you everything that you need:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Finger** (subs.)-, digitus (also thumb or toe) : the **fore f**., d. index (as used in pointing), *Hor. : Plin*.: also, d. salutaris (perh. as used in greeting). *Suet. Aug. 80*: the **middle f**., d. medius, *Plin.: Quint*, (also d. infamis, inmpudicus, as used in obscene gestures, *cf. Mart. 6, 70, 5*) : the **third f**., d. minimo proximus, *Gell*. : also d. medicus, *Plin. 10, 12. 54*; d. medicinalis (minimo viciims), *Macr. Sat. 7, U, ad init.* : the **little f**, d. minimus, *Hor. : Gell. : Macr.* To touch (just) with the tips of the f.s, extremis digitis attingere, *Cic. Gael. 12, 28*: to count on the f.s, digitis computare (rationem), *PI. Mil. 2, 2, 51* ; per digitus numerare, *Ov. Fast*: to snap or crack the f.s, digitos or digitis concrepare, *Cic. Off. 3, 19, 75 : Petr.* : gesticnlations with the f.s (in speaking): argutiae digitorum, *Cic. Or. i8, 59*: to talk with the f.s, digitis loqui, *Ov. Trist. 2, 451* : to be pointed at with the f. (i.e. be distinguished), digito monstrari, *Hor. Od. 4, 1, 22*: etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It even has one or two quite impolite gestures, which we modern folk seem to be perpetuating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To complete the picture, the **thumb** is (*digitus*) *pollex*, for which Smith's suggests further indicative uses. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4971" RevisionGUID="3b63aa7b-a85e-40bc-b822-43e27d485ebe" CreationDate="2017-08-03T17:10:02.623" UserId="79" Text="There are cases where a word is borrowed from Greek to Latin, and then a new word is derived from it within Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Whether this counts as mixing morphemes from the two languages depends on how non-Greek the morpheme added in derivation is.&#xD;&#xA;My Greek vocabulary is weak, so the list may contain morphemes that turn out not to be non-Greek.&#xD;&#xA;I have attempted to separate the languages with a hyphen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*phalang-arius*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2044598)&#xD;&#xA;- [*Philadelph-enus*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2044754)&#xD;&#xA;- [*Phocae-ensis*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2044894)&#xD;&#xA;- [*chalastic-amen*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2009747)&#xD;&#xA;- [*Chalcedon-ius*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2009758)&#xD;&#xA;- [*Chimaeri-fer*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2009921) (I would expect the corresponding Greek morpheme to be borrowed to Latin as *-phorus* (cf. [*Phosphorus*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2044971) or [*amphora*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2002868)), so I would argue that *-fer* is non-Greek.)&#xD;&#xA;- [*hydr-inus*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2026137)&#xD;&#xA;- [*hydro-garum*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2026143)&#xD;&#xA;- [*hymni-sonus*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2026192) (post-classical)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If some of my suffixes turn out to be too Greek, let me know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4972" RevisionGUID="f17878ee-50c3-452d-a3d6-39662018f3cb" CreationDate="2017-08-03T18:02:45.660" UserId="79" Text="I have never seen Latin allow a construction like &quot;a town near the mountain&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It would be more idiomatic to say &quot;a town which is near the mountain&quot;, but this might feel too heavy.&#xD;&#xA;However, it is precisely this idea (a relative clause) used by the solution given to you.&#xD;&#xA;It is fine, but there is an option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As brianpck suggests in his comment, *vicinus* is a good word here.&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*ora [...] vicina perusti aetheris*  &#xD;&#xA;(Lucanus, *Pharsalia*, 9.431&amp;ndash;433)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*is fidem violat, quam in Capitolio vicinam Iovis optimi maximi*  &#xD;&#xA;(Cicero, *De officiis*, 3.104)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*sensit anus vicina loci*  &#xD;&#xA;(Ovidius, *Fasti*, 6.399)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*dixit consularem disertum vicinum consulis sibi dixisse*  &#xD;&#xA;(Cicero, *Epistulae ad Atticum*, 2.24.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*corpus [...] aeriis [...] vicinum*  &#xD;&#xA;(Lucretius, *De Rerum Natura*, 4.932&amp;ndash;933)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*tubicen uicina Curetis cum quateret [...] saxa*  &#xD;&#xA;(Propertius, *Elegiae*, 4.4.9&amp;ndash;10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*Phyllis Auentinae quaedam est uicina Dianae*  &#xD;&#xA;(ibid., 4.8.29)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*Ultima vicinus Phoebo tenet arva Padaeus*  &#xD;&#xA;(Tibullus, *carmina Tibulliana*, 3.7.145)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*Mantua vae miserae nimium vicina Cremonae*  &#xD;&#xA;(Vergilius, *Eclogae*, 9.28)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*Thybrim vicinaque Thybridis arva*  &#xD;&#xA;(Vergilius, *Aeneis*, 3.500)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;To continue looking:&#xD;&#xA;http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=vicin&amp;first=181&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genitive seems to be more common, although there are examples of dative.&#xD;&#xA;I would therefore suggest this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Miles Herculaneum pervenit, oppidum montis vicinum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the preposition *in* is typically not used for movement into a city." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4431" RevisionGUID="939b9468-29b5-42aa-a8c4-c2c3b27d26a3" CreationDate="2017-08-03T18:03:14.630" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="I have been given as an exercise this sentence to translate into Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The soldier arrived in Herculaneum, a town near the mountain&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I offered the translation of &quot;Miles in Herculaneum pervenit, oppidum prope montem&quot;. However, the solution given to the exercise says that in the second part of the sentence, &quot;oppidum quod erat prope montem&quot; is preferred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would you consider this to be a more natural translation? My skepticism is due to the fact that the verb 'esse' is omitted so often that it seems strange that it is included in Latin where it would be shortened in English. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16442" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4431" RevisionGUID="939b9468-29b5-42aa-a8c4-c2c3b27d26a3" CreationDate="2017-08-03T18:03:14.630" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|verbs|translation-check|relative-clause|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4973" RevisionGUID="f2d6afd8-78b6-4368-8a95-845804bda06a" CreationDate="2017-08-03T18:22:29.223" UserId="1872" Text="What is the most accurate translation to English of this expression&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FACIAM UT POTERO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i think this appears in some ovidio's poem and is a motto of an school of lawyer in spain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16444" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4973" RevisionGUID="f2d6afd8-78b6-4368-8a95-845804bda06a" CreationDate="2017-08-03T18:22:29.223" UserId="1872" Text="what is the most accurate translation of 'faciam ut potero' ? and in what context was this made" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16445" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4973" RevisionGUID="f2d6afd8-78b6-4368-8a95-845804bda06a" CreationDate="2017-08-03T18:22:29.223" UserId="1872" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4973" RevisionGUID="8f9afa47-f510-4003-83f0-4feb584394e5" CreationDate="2017-08-03T18:30:51.670" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags and edited a little. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="What is the most accurate translation to English of this expression&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; FACIAM UT POTERO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this appears in some Ovidius's poem and is a motto of an school of lawyers in Spain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16447" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4973" RevisionGUID="8f9afa47-f510-4003-83f0-4feb584394e5" CreationDate="2017-08-03T18:30:51.670" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags and edited a little. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="Translation and context of 'faciam ut potero'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16448" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4973" RevisionGUID="8f9afa47-f510-4003-83f0-4feb584394e5" CreationDate="2017-08-03T18:30:51.670" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags and edited a little. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="|classical-latin|ovidius|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4974" RevisionGUID="5e326892-1171-4d91-bc3c-eeba1c959588" CreationDate="2017-08-03T18:36:43.623" UserId="79" Text="I would translate that as &quot;I will do as I can&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps &quot;I will do all I can&quot; or &quot;I will do as well as I can&quot; would be more idiomatic English, albeit less direct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have two verbs in future tense: *faciam* (I will do) and *potero* (I will be able to).&#xD;&#xA;Between then is *ut*, which has a number of meanings.&#xD;&#xA;The meaning intended here seems to be that of a relative adverb (see [the entry L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=ut&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), meaning I.B).&#xD;&#xA;In this use it is essentially synonymous with *eo modo quo*, and I translated it as &quot;as&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that Ovidius used *potero* [five times](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=potero+%5Bov%5D), none of which matches the motto.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, the phrase seems to be from Cicero's *Cato Maior de Senectute*, [paragraph 7](http://thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/senectute.shtml#7)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4975" RevisionGUID="338134ef-1124-487d-8422-efc4a8941b29" CreationDate="2017-08-03T20:38:18.813" UserId="522" Text="***Porro*** ([Lewis and Short][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I  Literally**  straight on, directly &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**II Transf.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2.** In partic., in discourse. a. In the progress of an argument, or in a sequence of ideas, then, next, furthermore, moreover, besides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DP%3Aentry%20group%3D77%3Aentry%3Dporro" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4976" RevisionGUID="926a70a3-4be2-46f7-aba1-adda42bba9ec" CreationDate="2017-08-03T21:25:37.280" UserId="79" Text="The term is rather new, so there is very low probability for an established Latin translation.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I will coin a new one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of words one could use to translate &quot;to deny&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;One is *negare*, but perhaps *abiurare*, &quot;to deny any thing on oath&quot;, is a better fit in the present case.&#xD;&#xA;As [a corpus search](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=abiur) shows, it can be used transitively.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore something that can be denied on oath can be called *abiurabilis*, and the corresponding deniability is *abiurabilitas*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then it comes to finding a translation for &quot;plausible&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Pitkäranta's dictionary suggests *probabilis*, *credibilis*, *fide dignus*, and *veri similis*.&#xD;&#xA;The last option sounds a little off in this context, and judging by the entries for [*probabilis*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2047746), [*credibilis*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2014368), and [*fides*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2022304) leads me to think that *fide dignus* is the most appropriate choice here.&#xD;&#xA;It might be translated as &quot;deserving of belief&quot;, and that is what &quot;plausible&quot; is all about in this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting these together, my suggestion is ***abiurabilitas fide digna***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you want a single word, then I recommend ***abiurabilitas***, &quot;deniability on oath&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I don't see how to add plausibility to the picture without adding a word.&#xD;&#xA;If three words is too much, I suggest *abiurabilitas probabilis*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4975" RevisionGUID="e43616a1-c219-4395-9592-1686245f0249" CreationDate="2017-08-03T21:47:06.060" UserId="522" Comment="added 227 characters in body" Text="***Porro*** ([Lewis and Short][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I  Literally**  straight on, directly &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**II Transf.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2.** In partic., in discourse. a. In the progress of an argument, or in a sequence of ideas, then, next, furthermore, moreover, besides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*'Porro,'* is used twice at the beginning of a sentence in that sense in the [CCC ms][2] which gives instructions for *'Alea Evangelii,'*  linked to the Google page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DP%3Aentry%20group%3D77%3Aentry%3Dporro&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://image.ox.ac.uk/images/corpus/ms122/f5v.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="709dd569-6231-406f-b31c-e8404c167c91" CreationDate="2017-08-03T21:47:58.207" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="I tried translating three sentences regarding topic in question and will appreciate it if you take time to check my attempts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Chest is to the left of the bed. - *Arca ad sinistram lectuli est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Table is in the middle of the room. - *Mensa in medio mellae est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There are colourful flowers in the crystal vase on the wooden table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Ibi flos colorati in vase crystallino super mensa lignea sunt.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is it correct to translate ***there are ...*** as *ibi ... sunt*? Maybe something less literal would be better?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Are there other mistakes? How to translate these sentences better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16454" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="709dd569-6231-406f-b31c-e8404c167c91" CreationDate="2017-08-03T21:47:58.207" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="Describing relative locations of material objects in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16455" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="709dd569-6231-406f-b31c-e8404c167c91" CreationDate="2017-08-03T21:47:58.207" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="|translation|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4978" RevisionGUID="68f2076b-e17c-48fb-b906-c45f75aa4b67" CreationDate="2017-08-03T21:58:50.703" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_medias_res) gives literal translation as: *Into the middle of things*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I am aware **into** - *in* takes accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plural accusative of *medium* seems to be *media*, not *media**s***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if I am mistaken in this way of thinking, there seems to be no *medias* word in [declension table for *medium*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/medium#Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why does *in medias res* seem to be accepted form then?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16457" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4978" RevisionGUID="68f2076b-e17c-48fb-b906-c45f75aa4b67" CreationDate="2017-08-03T21:58:50.703" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="Why *In medias res* and not *In media res*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16458" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4978" RevisionGUID="68f2076b-e17c-48fb-b906-c45f75aa4b67" CreationDate="2017-08-03T21:58:50.703" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4979" RevisionGUID="dbd4e170-e5e2-4173-853b-6233b2d954c5" CreationDate="2017-08-03T22:04:55.810" UserId="79" Text="The &quot;there&quot; in the English &quot;there are&quot; does not really refer to location.&#xD;&#xA;It is often best to translate &quot;there are&quot; as simply *sunt*.&#xD;&#xA;You should drop *ibi* from your sentence.&#xD;&#xA;Also, the flower word *flos* should be in plural.&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise the sentence looks good to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second sentence is correct, apart from a small misprint: you probably meant *cellae* instead of *mellae*.&#xD;&#xA;In *in medio cellae* the word *medium* is a noun, meaning &quot;the center&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also possible to use the adjective *medius* and say *in media cella*.&#xD;&#xA;It may sound like &quot;in the central room&quot;, but it does also mean &quot;in the center of the room&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Latin is like this; it is hard to distinguish the tallest mountain from the peak of a mountain (both can be *altissimus mons*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure about the first one &amp;mdash; I don't know the idiomatic classical Latin way to put that in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="b739b3cd-a146-4984-b690-2382aff133a8" CreationDate="2017-08-03T22:06:15.557" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted a bit and added some tags. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="I tried translating three sentences regarding topic in question and will appreciate it if you take time to check my attempts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Chest is to the left of the bed.  &#xD;&#xA;*Arca ad sinistram lectuli est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Table is in the middle of the room.  &#xD;&#xA;*Mensa in medio mellae est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There are colourful flowers in the crystal vase on the wooden table.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Ibi flos colorati in vase crystallino super mensa lignea sunt.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is it correct to translate ***there are ...*** as *ibi ... sunt*? Maybe something less literal would be better?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Are there other mistakes? How to translate these sentences better?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16461" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="b739b3cd-a146-4984-b690-2382aff133a8" CreationDate="2017-08-03T22:06:15.557" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted a bit and added some tags. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="|syntax|translation-check|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4980" RevisionGUID="9e835f72-b10d-41f4-a646-2060b486c614" CreationDate="2017-08-03T22:12:38.857" UserId="79" Text="You are confusing two words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The noun *medium* means &quot;center&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- The adjective *medius* means &quot;central&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this idiom one goes into &quot;central things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The word *res* is feminine (the singular nominative and plural accusative happen to look alike), so the adjective has to be in feminine plural accusative: *medias*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were to use the noun *medium* instead, you might want to go into &quot;the center of things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Then you'd put *medium* in singular accusative (there's only one center, right?) and *res* in plural genitive.&#xD;&#xA;This leads to the alternative *in medium rerum*.&#xD;&#xA;This might be equally valid, but Latin does often prefer adjectives to nouns, and Horatius happened to write *in medias res*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4978" RevisionGUID="3ce35456-652e-4d0f-aa25-9b8a8639ffa8" CreationDate="2017-08-03T22:15:04.493" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_medias_res) gives literal translation as: *Into the middle of things*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I am aware **into** &amp;ndash; *in* takes accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plural accusative of *medium* seems to be *media*, not *media**s***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if I am mistaken in this way of thinking, there seems to be no *medias* word in [declension table for *medium*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/medium#Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why does *in medias res* seem to be accepted form then?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16464" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4978" RevisionGUID="3ce35456-652e-4d0f-aa25-9b8a8639ffa8" CreationDate="2017-08-03T22:15:04.493" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|idiom|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4981" RevisionGUID="fa811d1e-96e6-450f-8637-b274e6d54d50" CreationDate="2017-08-04T03:38:28.117" UserId="136" Text="As Joonas Ilmavirta stated, he is unsure of the correctness of the first example. This question interested me, so upon some digging through dictionary entries, I would like to posit that it would be a grammatically correct translation. [Lewis and Short][1] provide this quote that led me to this conclusion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *aspice nunc ad sinistram*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Look now to the left&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a quote from Cicero's Philippics*, and it uses the noun *sinistra* to represent the left as a noun. This obviously comes from *sinister, -a, -um* the adjective, which bears a near identical meaning. I would like to make a special note about *ad* here, as it appears you just translated it from the English &quot;to,&quot; as *ad* is most often used with &quot;to.&quot; However, that is generally only with motion, not relative space. **But**, *ad* still works. Instead, interpret *ad* to mean &quot;at&quot; instead, and *sinistram* to mean &quot;the left (-hand side).&quot; This interpretation would make it seemingly a correct construction. I cannot attest to its definite use in classical literature, but it appears there is at least some proof that alludes to a similar, if not the same use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;*Upon further investigation, this appears to be an oddly manipulated quote. Two other texts I checked instead have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aspicite *illam* a sinistra *equestrem statuam inauratam*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only has the command become plural, but the *nunc* has been dropped and the preposition is *a/ab* with the corresponding ablative. This suggests that the following is also an option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Arca a sinistra lectuli est*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The chest is by the left (-hand side) of the bed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone could explain to me why the discrepancy in the quote exists, I would be very interested to find out more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=sinister&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4982" RevisionGUID="428097bf-3bb0-4006-a2c1-79540d943786" CreationDate="2017-08-04T06:15:32.760" UserId="1874" Text="How is &quot;Et&quot; prounouced. As in &quot;Et tu Brute?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard it pronounced &quot;et to brutay?&quot; and &quot;ay to brutay&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16467" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4982" RevisionGUID="428097bf-3bb0-4006-a2c1-79540d943786" CreationDate="2017-08-04T06:15:32.760" UserId="1874" Text="How is &quot;Et&quot; pronounced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16468" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4982" RevisionGUID="428097bf-3bb0-4006-a2c1-79540d943786" CreationDate="2017-08-04T06:15:32.760" UserId="1874" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4983" RevisionGUID="2961c4d9-acdd-4998-9d28-739ae8c54334" CreationDate="2017-08-04T07:10:21.080" UserId="1875" Text="This is standard idiomatic usage. *In medium rerum* is not really &quot;equally valid&quot;, because a spatial portion is [consistently expressed][1] in Latin with an adjective in a way that sounds wrong when taken word-for-word into English. It is not just this phrase (*in medias res*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=rJgQAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA168&amp;ots=ajZGEtmSgc&amp;pg=PA168#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4983" RevisionGUID="781f4a60-8ed4-4ac2-b18f-d734cf301248" CreationDate="2017-08-04T07:59:40.657" UserId="1875" Comment="Expand answer" Text="*Medias* is not a noun but an accusative of the adjective *medius* (middle or central) in agreement with the plural *res*. This is standard idiomatic usage, not just for this phrase. A spatial portion is [consistently expressed][1] (p. 168) in Latin with an adjective in a way that sounds wrong when taken word-for-word into English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 396. 'The whole of,' 'the middle of,' 'the top (bottom) of,' 'the rest of,' are expressed in Latin by adjectives agreeing with nouns (instead of the partitive genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The alternative *in medium rerum* constructed by Joonas Ilmavirta (using the accusative noun *medium* and the genitive *rerum*) is the closest word-for-word to the English &quot;into the middle of things&quot;, but is not &quot;equally valid&quot; based on the Latin usage rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=rJgQAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA168&amp;ots=ajZGEtmSgc&amp;pg=PA168#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4984" RevisionGUID="5d596ca8-55dc-4811-8dc4-f7418d27f753" CreationDate="2017-08-04T09:34:32.327" UserId="1876" Text="It's pronounced et to brutay.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking that you've heard it the other way for one of two reasons.  One, the actor playing Caesar is trying not to spit in Brutus' face.  Et is the wined up, and tu is the pitch.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second reason and more likely is they're collapsing their Ts.  I had a roommate, who was from Michigan, point out to me that I would do the same thing.  I was raised in Eastern New Mexico in an area where most people have a minor Texas accent.   So when I would say &quot;West Texas&quot;, it would sound like &quot;Wes Texas&quot; because I was collapsing my Ts, normal for the area but not proper, and I never really noticed it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4985" RevisionGUID="809afd0f-81cc-402e-893a-282b3b81dbe4" CreationDate="2017-08-04T10:42:29.670" UserId="79" Text="Do the five toes have individual names in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I prefer classical Latin, but other variants are welcome too.&#xD;&#xA;I learned [the names of the fingers](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4965/79) yesterday, but I doubt the exact same names are valid even though *digitus* seems to refer to both fingers and toes and *pollex* means both thumb and great toe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16474" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4985" RevisionGUID="809afd0f-81cc-402e-893a-282b3b81dbe4" CreationDate="2017-08-04T10:42:29.670" UserId="79" Text="Do the toes have names in (classical) Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16475" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4985" RevisionGUID="809afd0f-81cc-402e-893a-282b3b81dbe4" CreationDate="2017-08-04T10:42:29.670" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|biology|anatomia|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4905" RevisionGUID="f1be40f2-b74e-4fa1-8239-20c1f068f7de" CreationDate="2017-08-04T13:08:37.267" UserId="1784" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I suppose in all the dictionaries it appears:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Noli: Imperative present of nolo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nolle: Infinitive present of nolo .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nolo: (...) Noli is used as an imperative in prohibitions (with similar words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is necessary to consider that there are &quot;twist idiomatic&quot; in the expressions of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	Implore.&#xD;&#xA;-	Order.&#xD;&#xA;- Prohibition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These forms are usually addressed in the grammar books in the sections dedicated to the imperative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Noli is one of the 4 &quot;twist idiomatic&quot; used in classical literature:&#xD;&#xA;Noli (nolite) + infinitive: noli (nolite) facere, do not do it. It was (and must be considered) a courteous prohibition, do not want, do not want to do, in which the imperative of nolo softens the negative order. The use made forget that primitive nuance of courtesy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The most frequent turn is: Cicero: nolite existumare, do not go to believe. Noli putare, do not think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In poetry developed an analogical spin: parce + infinitive. Parce timere, do not be afraid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other forms of classical prose ban (summary):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ne (cave) + perfect subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ne (cave) + present subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ne + imperative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, it would be necessary to take into account the imperfect and pluscuamperfect of subjunctive that reflect order or prohibition to the past, that is, what someone would have wanted someone to do or not in a given circumstance: faceres, to have done; fecisset, that would have done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The forms of imperative of volo are realized by those of nolo, in fact nolo is especially frequent in imperative, see usage notes of nolo:&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nolo#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4970" RevisionGUID="2f068ef9-fcb2-4c1c-bbf1-211a30af9fcb" CreationDate="2017-08-04T13:32:08.970" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 423 characters in body" Text="The following, taken from a transcription of Smith &amp; Hall's 'Copious &amp; Critical Latin-English Dictionary', should give you everything that you need:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Finger** (subs.)-, digitus (also thumb or toe): &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * the **fore finger**: &#xD;&#xA;  1. digitus index (as used in pointing), *Hor. : Plin*.&#xD;&#xA;  2. digitus salutaris (perh. as used in greeting). *Suet. Aug. 80*&#xD;&#xA;*  the **middle finger**:&#xD;&#xA;  1. digitus medius, *Plin.: Quint*, &#xD;&#xA;  2. (digitus infamis, inmpudicus, as used in obscene gestures, *cf. Mart. 6, 70, 5*) &#xD;&#xA;* the **third finger**:&#xD;&#xA;  1. digitus minimo proximus, *Gell*. &#xD;&#xA;  2. digitus medicus, *Plin. 10, 12. 54*&#xD;&#xA;  3. digitus medicinalis (minimo vicinus), *Macr. Sat. 7, U, ad init.*&#xD;&#xA;* the **little finger**:&#xD;&#xA;  1. digitus minimus, *Hor. : Gell. : Macr.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It even has one or two quite impolite gestures, which we modern folk seem to be perpetuating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To complete the picture, the **thumb** is (*digitus*) *pollex*, for which Smith's suggests further indicative uses. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4986" RevisionGUID="2f2487f2-eb6f-4d27-9268-f074d9bbdcbd" CreationDate="2017-08-04T13:47:52.157" UserId="45" Text="The above answer is wonderful, but as a supplement [Pomponius Porphyrion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomponius_Porphyrion) (2nd c. AD, or later), a commentator on Horatius (Horace), takes occasion in the following line of the *Satires*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nomentanus ad hoc, qui, siquid forte lateret,  &#xD;&#xA;indice monstraret digito; (2.8.25-26)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...to remark [in his commentary:](https://books.google.com/books?id=FWcIAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA316&amp;lpg=PA316)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc ideo, quia certis nominibus singuli digiti appellantur.  Et sunt haec nomina: **pollex, index, famosus, medicus, minimus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is worth including, even though it's not classical, since it's an explicit listing of all the fingers (unlike any other source I have been able to find). It substantially agrees with the words given in Smith &amp; Hall, except for &quot;famosus.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4987" RevisionGUID="ed04cf42-fbea-4341-98c3-888cb52b7bfb" CreationDate="2017-08-04T13:53:43.123" UserId="45" Text="In the response to another question about [the names of the fingers in Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4965/what-are-the-names-of-the-fingers-in-classical-latin/4986#4986), we learned that the ring finger is often referred to as a *digitus medicus* or *digitus medicinalis*: a &quot;medical/medicinal finger.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems like a name begging for an explanation. **Do we know why the Romans referred to the ring finger in this way?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16482" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4987" RevisionGUID="ed04cf42-fbea-4341-98c3-888cb52b7bfb" CreationDate="2017-08-04T13:53:43.123" UserId="45" Text="Why did Romans refer to the ring finger as a &quot;medicinal finger&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16483" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4987" RevisionGUID="ed04cf42-fbea-4341-98c3-888cb52b7bfb" CreationDate="2017-08-04T13:53:43.123" UserId="45" Text="|etymology|anatomia|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4988" RevisionGUID="be14dd01-2600-4299-92ca-0b61b6d5e659" CreationDate="2017-08-04T13:56:51.747" UserId="79" Text="The only way I could see *re-* meaning &quot;back&quot; is that breaking something is undoing its construction.&#xD;&#xA;But a [corpus search](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=refring) quickly suggests that this is not implied in a typical use of the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, *re-* is simply an intensifier here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Latin prefix may nominally indicate some kind of location, but you cannot generally reduce the meaning of a prefixed verb to the meanings of the verb and the prefix.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *invenire aliquid* does not really mean *venire in aliquid*, unless you stretch it quite a bit.&#xD;&#xA;Prefixed Latin verbs are like phrasal verbs in English.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I can &quot;write up&quot; or &quot;write down&quot;, but it has no effect on the direction or location of my text.&#xD;&#xA;Or more related to the verb at hand, you can &quot;break up&quot; or &quot;break down&quot;, but again no direction is implied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes a Latin prefix has its obvious meaning, but you cannot rely on that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4989" RevisionGUID="43dd1458-0574-43c6-9abe-0fc999c52d79" CreationDate="2017-08-04T13:58:12.970" UserId="1694" Text="Although I'll give the same answer as Kevin, &quot;et too brutay&quot; [ɛt 'tuː ˈbruːtɛ], I will suggest a completely different reason: the speaker in confused by the French pronunciation of &quot;et&quot;, i.e. [e].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can give personal testimony to this.  Way in the distant past, when I was in high school, one of my fellow students in English class (we were studying &quot;Julius Caesar&quot; at time) asked why Shakespeare had Julius say his last words in French.  She was studying French and to her &quot;Et tu Brute&quot; looked (quite reasonably) French." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4990" RevisionGUID="fbcba6a6-0c22-4411-bb67-b00083d5bd62" CreationDate="2017-08-04T14:04:56.810" UserId="1877" Text="Moreland has this line:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cognoscebamus quo tempore dux mortem illis patriam neglentibus minatus esset  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an indirect question, hence the sequence of tenses: main verb takes Imperfect; secondary verb takes pluperfect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Minatus esset_ is obviously Pluperfect **Passive** Subjunctive yet the translation I found at utoronoto's website was:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;We learned when the leader had threatened death to those neglecting the&#xD;&#xA;fatherland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why is the passive _minatus esset_ being translated as active? I tried taking the illis neglentibus as Ablative of Cause instead of Dative and translated it (wrongly, because dux is nominative) as:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;We learned at what time leader death **by those** neglecting the fatherland had been threatened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anyone please help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16487" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4990" RevisionGUID="fbcba6a6-0c22-4411-bb67-b00083d5bd62" CreationDate="2017-08-04T14:04:56.810" UserId="1877" Text="Passive Subjunctive Translated as Active" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16488" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4990" RevisionGUID="fbcba6a6-0c22-4411-bb67-b00083d5bd62" CreationDate="2017-08-04T14:04:56.810" UserId="1877" Text="|conjunctive|indirect-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4991" RevisionGUID="f05d5f27-03c8-4324-b538-e9a41d479de9" CreationDate="2017-08-04T14:15:12.643" UserId="45" Text="The verb in question ([*minor, -ari, -atus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dminor1)) is a [**deponent verb**](http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.190.html), which means that it has a passive form but an active meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are *many* such verbs in Latin. Consider the following cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Multa passus est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He suffered many things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Te hortamur...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We urge you..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4990" RevisionGUID="0c7838e8-1c65-4d28-9b79-a7850971e8ef" CreationDate="2017-08-04T14:16:13.217" UserId="1877" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="Moreland has this line:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cognoscebamus quo tempore dux mortem illis patriam neglegentibus minatus esset  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an indirect question, hence the sequence of tenses: main verb takes Imperfect; secondary verb takes pluperfect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Minatus esset_ is obviously Pluperfect **Passive** Subjunctive yet the translation I found at utoronoto's website was:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;We learned when the leader had threatened death to those neglecting the&#xD;&#xA;fatherland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why is the passive _minatus esset_ being translated as active? I tried taking the _illis neglegentibus_ as Ablative of Cause instead of Dative and translated it (wrongly, because dux is nominative) as:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;We learned at what time leader death **by those** neglecting the fatherland had been threatened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anyone please help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Spellings" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4990" RevisionGUID="b6a11fbf-71a8-4a35-acf7-38b5e0d8066b" CreationDate="2017-08-04T14:17:08.903" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="Moreland has this line:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cognoscebamus quo tempore dux mortem illis patriam neglegentibus minatus esset  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an indirect question, hence the sequence of tenses: main verb takes Imperfect; secondary verb takes pluperfect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Minatus esset_ is obviously Pluperfect **Passive** Subjunctive yet the translation I found at utoronoto's website was:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;We learned when the leader had threatened death to those neglecting the&#xD;&#xA;fatherland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why is the passive _minatus esset_ being translated as active? I tried taking the _illis neglegentibus_ as Ablative of Cause instead of Dative and translated it (wrongly, because dux is nominative) as:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;We learned at what time leader death **by those** neglecting the fatherland had been threatened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anyone please help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4992" RevisionGUID="22c63ea8-77d2-4a85-abf2-cd7941e72c7c" CreationDate="2017-08-04T14:27:09.440" UserId="79" Text="Such a list of events in sequence gets a bit boring if you use the same structure again and again.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes this is good for clarity or emphasizing repetition.&#xD;&#xA;There are several structures to express this kind of thing in Latin, and here are some:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A temporal clause: *Cum rem primam fecerim, rem secundam faciam.* &quot;When I have done the first thing, I will do the second thing.&quot; If you use *cum*, you must observe *consecutio temporum* rule regarding the tense of the predicate in the temporal clause. The rule has been discussed on this site (e.g. [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/393/79)), but feel free to ask a new question if something puzzles you.&#xD;&#xA;- A participle with a preposition: *Post rem primam factam rem secundam faciam.* &quot;After the first done thing (= after doing the first thing) I will do the second thing.&quot; This construction does not appear as such in English unlike the previous one.&#xD;&#xA;- An absolute ablative: *Re prima facta rem secundam faciam.* &quot;The first thing being done, I will do the second thing.&quot; This is a very versatile and confusing construction, and there is no proper English parallel.&#xD;&#xA;- You can say &quot;then&quot;: Depending on context, that might be *deinde, denique, ergo, tum, tunc,* or something else. In my opinion *deinde* is the most neutral temporal &quot;then&quot;. The word *post* is not really suitable for this use, although it can be both an adverb and a preposition.&#xD;&#xA;- Use the future perfect for the first thing and the future for the following one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to indicate that you were the one to do the first thing, you can add an agent to the participle: *Post rem primam a me factam* or *re prima a me facta* works fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might render your little story like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Rem primam vobis describam et deinde secundam. His descriptis rem tertiam describam. Has omnes cum vobis descripserim, postremo rem quartam quoque describam. Et, ut bene discatis, post descriptiones meas omnia vobis repetere oportebit &amp;mdash; nisi obdormiveritis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will describe you the first thing and then the second one. Having described these, I will describe the third thing. After I have described all this, I will finally describe the fourth thing, too. And so that you learn well, you will have to repeat everything &amp;mdash; unless you will have fallen asleep." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4990" RevisionGUID="f3538927-8167-4ccb-bfa5-91d00cf5eba0" CreationDate="2017-08-04T14:52:47.003" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="Moreland has this line:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cognoscebamus quo tempore dux mortem illis patriam neglegentibus minatus esset  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an indirect question, hence the sequence of tenses: main verb takes Imperfect; secondary verb takes pluperfect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Minatus esset_ is obviously Pluperfect **Passive** Subjunctive yet the translation I found at utoronoto's website was:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;We learned when the leader had threatened death to those neglecting the&#xD;&#xA;fatherland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why is the passive _minatus esset_ being translated as active? I tried taking the _illis neglegentibus_ as Ablative of Cause instead of Dative and translated it (wrongly, because dux is nominative) as:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;We learned at what time leader death **by those** neglecting the fatherland had been threatened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anyone please help?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16494" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4990" RevisionGUID="f3538927-8167-4ccb-bfa5-91d00cf5eba0" CreationDate="2017-08-04T14:52:47.003" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|conjunctive|passive-voice|indirect-question|voice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2310" RevisionGUID="31b407d6-618e-4acf-83c2-6b1c860a0cd8" CreationDate="2017-08-04T16:55:45.560" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged." Text="I had trouble understanding a two-part translation exercise.&#xD;&#xA;First part:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cui Galba agricola fabulam novam narrat?*  &#xD;&#xA;Answer: To whom does Galba, the farmer, tell the new story?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How was I supposed to guess that &quot;Galba&quot; and &quot;the farmer&quot; were supposed to be written the way that they are? I wrote this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To whom does the farmer Galba tell a new story?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that the first translation makes the English more ok then the second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the second part of sentence :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Filiabus dominae clarae fabulam novam narrat.*  &#xD;&#xA;Answer: He tells the new story to the daughters of the famous lady.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The part that got me stuck is *filiabus* I have no idea where the *-bus* part comes from since I don't remember ever seeing something like this at this point. Any explanation on this part would be helpful. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16496" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2310" RevisionGUID="31b407d6-618e-4acf-83c2-6b1c860a0cd8" CreationDate="2017-08-04T16:55:45.560" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged." Text="|sentence-translation|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4993" RevisionGUID="fca14d30-3b30-4b13-9c9d-cf17afd7f68f" CreationDate="2017-08-04T16:58:39.253" UserDisplayName="user1861" Text="St Isidore of Seville , who died in 636, said that the ring finger was called the 'digitus medicinalis' because it was used by physicians to apply eye ointment. (*Etymologies* XI, 1, 70-71) Here is the quotation in Latin: &quot;Quartus [digitus] anularis [vocatus], eo quod in ipso anulus geritur. Idem et medicinalis, quod eo trita collyria a medicis colliguntur.&quot; It may have been used to apply other medicines too. Pliny the Elder refers to the use of the ring finger for the application of a concoction of flies to boils - *Naturalis Historia*, XXX." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4994" RevisionGUID="7bf6db2a-7d59-4e93-9321-261e2afdef3e" CreationDate="2017-08-04T17:09:37.957" UserDisplayName="user1861" Text="I have come across a Latin word for the big toe - allex (or hallex), spelt hallux in modern anatomy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2177" RevisionGUID="f5583186-82bd-46d8-bd2e-f4401e158ccb" CreationDate="2017-08-04T17:10:17.837" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="Are there conventional expressions in Latin to strengthen the question, showing total surprise or perplexity? How do you say, for example, &quot;What the heck...?&quot; or &quot;Why on earth...?&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16500" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2177" RevisionGUID="f5583186-82bd-46d8-bd2e-f4401e158ccb" CreationDate="2017-08-04T17:10:17.837" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|idiom|interrogative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4994" RevisionGUID="647c8f9d-35eb-4600-88b3-16719a9ea441" CreationDate="2017-08-04T17:16:40.547" UserDisplayName="user1861" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="I have come across a Latin word for the big toe - allex (or hallex) in classical Latin (going back to at least Plautus who uses &quot;allex&quot; as an insult for a small man), spelt hallux in modern anatomy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4989" RevisionGUID="759a6ba9-cb5c-44d5-8e19-ff95fd0dd48c" CreationDate="2017-08-04T17:33:58.813" UserId="1694" Comment="edited body" Text="Although I'll give the same answer as Kevin, &quot;et too brutay&quot; [ɛt 'tuː ˈbruːtɛ], I will suggest a completely different reason: the speaker is confused by the French pronunciation of &quot;et&quot;, i.e. [e].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can give personal testimony to this.  Way in the distant past, when I was in high school, one of my fellow students in English class (we were studying &quot;Julius Caesar&quot; at time) asked why Shakespeare had Julius say his last words in French.  She was studying French and to her &quot;Et tu Brute&quot; looked (quite reasonably) French." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4994" RevisionGUID="32db9707-a52f-4bf6-9493-78dfdfa67d8a" CreationDate="2017-08-04T18:03:02.073" UserId="45" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="I have come across a Latin word for the big toe - [allex](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dallex1) (or hallex) in classical Latin (going back to at least Plautus who uses &quot;allex&quot; as an insult for a small man), spelt hallux in modern anatomy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4989" RevisionGUID="70cd203b-c431-42be-a85e-8f0f0bb0e4ff" CreationDate="2017-08-04T21:50:18.587" UserId="1694" Comment="minor expansions and improved punctuation" Text="Although I'll give the same answer as Kevin, &quot;et too brutay&quot; [ɛt 'tuː ˈbruːtɛ], I will suggest a completely different reason for the uncertainty: the speaker is confused by the French pronunciation of &quot;et&quot;, i.e. [e].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can give personal testimony to this.  Way back in the distant past, when I was in high school, one of my fellow students in English class (we were studying &quot;Julius Caesar&quot; at time) asked why Shakespeare had Julius say his last words in French.  She was studying French, and to her, &quot;Et tu Brute&quot; looked (quite reasonably) French." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4995" RevisionGUID="471bbad2-06b8-41b2-906b-fc713b80f748" CreationDate="2017-08-04T22:28:09.913" UserId="985" Text="In a couple of letters where he describes villas (esp. 2.17 and 5.6), Pliny the Younger uses _cryptoporticus_ (Greek κρυπτός + Latin _porticus_) to describe a colonnade with wall and windows – a covered gallery. Commentators (e.g., A. N. Sherwin-White, _The letters of Pliny: a historical and social commentary_ ad II.17.16) seem to agree that he coined this term." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1869" RevisionGUID="1f7d39ad-10ac-4666-972a-afa80d9040a8" CreationDate="2017-08-05T12:19:18.917" UserId="79" Comment="Reworded." Text="Are any of the characters in the main timeline of Aeneis (or Aeneid) historical, that is, known or strongly believed to have really existed?&#xD;&#xA;I want to exclude prophecies of later eras in Roman history.&#xD;&#xA;I assume most characters are either from the traditional Roman myths or were created by the author." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4996" RevisionGUID="cf525a3b-aabb-4a6f-8d67-afeedb39c21e" CreationDate="2017-08-05T13:16:20.707" UserId="79" Text="Consider these examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mr. Johnson has been the janitor for God knows how long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Right behind this park is the new park that costed God knows how much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can replace &quot;God knows how&quot; with &quot;I don't know how&quot; or &quot;who knows how&quot; without really changing the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;(In Finnish I would use &quot;ties vaikka kuinka&quot;, but I have no idea how to translate that into any other language, but I remark that it has to do with knowing, too.)&#xD;&#xA;You could replace it with &quot;very&quot; or drop it altogether, but that would certainly change the nuance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a similar intensifier in Latin that I could use to tell (in exaggeration) that no one knows the real extent?&#xD;&#xA;The God is irrelevant here; the idiom can refer to some divine entities or not.&#xD;&#xA;An attested classical idiom would be great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I might write something like the following in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hora tertia postmeridiana Professor Smith **nescio quam vetus** acroasim faciet de lingua Latina.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how idiomatic the bold part is and how to replace it with something more suitable.&#xD;&#xA;Of course I could use *vetustissimus* or *valde vetus*, but I prefer indicating (jokingly) somehow that no one knows how old he is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16510" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4996" RevisionGUID="cf525a3b-aabb-4a6f-8d67-afeedb39c21e" CreationDate="2017-08-05T13:16:20.707" UserId="79" Text="Translating &quot;God knows how much/long&quot; and similar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16511" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4996" RevisionGUID="cf525a3b-aabb-4a6f-8d67-afeedb39c21e" CreationDate="2017-08-05T13:16:20.707" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4997" RevisionGUID="751081dd-f54c-44cc-b1d2-941e333c6607" CreationDate="2017-08-06T03:36:31.753" UserId="1407" Text="I wasn't entirely happy with any of the translations I found online, so I was forced to attempt my own:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &quot;...crafty Atlas, who knows the full depths of the sea, and holds, himself, the towering pillars which hold apart the earth and sky.&quot; &lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Source: [Odyssey 1.52-54\]][1]&lt;/sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [A.T. Murray translation on Perseus][2] uses &quot;knows the depths of every sea&quot;, while the Shrewing translation on Theoi uses &quot;knows the depths of all the seas&quot;, which seems less accurate in that [θαλάσσης][3] seems to be singular. Fagles seems to agree with my alternate take, having Atlas &quot;[sound] the deep in all its depths&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I chose crafty because I recall my old Greek professor mentioning this less emphasized association in relation to the Titan, and the LSJ has for [ὀλοόφρονος][4] &quot;in Od., crafty, sagacious, of persons, “Ἄτλας” 1.52&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used &quot;towering&quot; for μακράς because of context, to reinforce the idea of great distance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts, corrections, etc., are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0135%3Abook%3D1%3Acard%3D44&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0136%3Abook%3D1%3Acard%3D44&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=qala%2Fsshs&amp;la=greek&amp;can=qala%2Fsshs1&amp;prior=te&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0135:book=1:card=44&amp;i=2&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=o%29loo%2Ffronos&amp;la=greek&amp;can=o%29loo%2Ffronos0&amp;prior=quga/thr&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0135:book=1:card=44&amp;i=1#Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=o)loo/frwn-contents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16514" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4997" RevisionGUID="751081dd-f54c-44cc-b1d2-941e333c6607" CreationDate="2017-08-06T03:36:31.753" UserId="1407" Text="Translation of Odyssey Book I lines 42-44" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16515" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4997" RevisionGUID="751081dd-f54c-44cc-b1d2-941e333c6607" CreationDate="2017-08-06T03:36:31.753" UserId="1407" Text="|vocabulary|translation-check|homer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4998" RevisionGUID="a423b9ea-3a3f-493d-b514-d3b76b49a734" CreationDate="2017-08-06T08:15:24.833" UserDisplayName="user1861" Text="There is a possibility that Dido was a historical character. Quite a lengthy discussion can be found in the Wikipedia article on her - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dido. But if she did exist, it may well have been in the late 9th century BC: that is when Carthage is thought to have been founded. If that date is right, and if Dido was a historical personage, then she lived several centuries after the supposed time of the Trojan War and of Aeneas, and at some point tradition started to link her with the legend of Aeneas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4996" RevisionGUID="8f6d0ef0-b5fe-44e5-b08d-36283534583a" CreationDate="2017-08-06T11:28:36.353" UserId="79" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="Consider these examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mr. Johnson has been the janitor for God knows how long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Right behind this park is the new bridge that costed God knows how much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can replace &quot;God knows how&quot; with &quot;I don't know how&quot; or &quot;who knows how&quot; without really changing the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;(In Finnish I would use &quot;ties vaikka kuinka&quot;, but I have no idea how to translate that into any other language, but I remark that it has to do with knowing, too.)&#xD;&#xA;You could replace it with &quot;very&quot; or drop it altogether, but that would certainly change the nuance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a similar intensifier in Latin that I could use to tell (in exaggeration) that no one knows the real extent?&#xD;&#xA;The God is irrelevant here; the idiom can refer to some divine entities or not.&#xD;&#xA;An attested classical idiom would be great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I might write something like the following in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hora tertia postmeridiana Professor Smith **nescio quam vetus** acroasim faciet de lingua Latina.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how idiomatic the bold part is and how to replace it with something more suitable.&#xD;&#xA;Of course I could use *vetustissimus* or *valde vetus*, but I prefer indicating (jokingly) somehow that no one knows how old he is.&#xD;&#xA;Is *nescio quam* an idiomatic way to put this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4997" RevisionGUID="e7659098-1933-4429-879c-b0d3049fcb97" CreationDate="2017-08-06T12:12:55.973" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and reformatted slightly." Text="I wasn't entirely happy with any of the translations I found online, so I was forced to attempt my own:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;...crafty Atlas, who knows the full depths of the sea, and holds, himself, the towering pillars which hold apart the earth and sky.&quot; &lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Source: [Odyssey 1.52-54\]][1]&lt;/sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [A.T. Murray translation on Perseus][2] uses &quot;knows the depths of every sea&quot;, while the Shrewing translation on Theoi uses &quot;knows the depths of all the seas&quot;, which seems less accurate in that [θαλάσσης][3] seems to be singular. Fagles seems to agree with my alternate take, having Atlas &quot;[sound] the deep in all its depths&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I chose crafty because I recall my old Greek professor mentioning this less emphasized association in relation to the Titan, and the LSJ has for [ὀλοόφρονος][4] &quot;in Od., crafty, sagacious, of persons, “Ἄτλας” 1.52&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used &quot;towering&quot; for μακράς because of context, to reinforce the idea of great distance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts, corrections, etc., are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0135%3Abook%3D1%3Acard%3D44&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0136%3Abook%3D1%3Acard%3D44&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=qala%2Fsshs&amp;la=greek&amp;can=qala%2Fsshs1&amp;prior=te&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0135:book=1:card=44&amp;i=2&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=o%29loo%2Ffronos&amp;la=greek&amp;can=o%29loo%2Ffronos0&amp;prior=quga/thr&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0135:book=1:card=44&amp;i=1#Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=o)loo/frwn-contents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16519" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4997" RevisionGUID="e7659098-1933-4429-879c-b0d3049fcb97" CreationDate="2017-08-06T12:12:55.973" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and reformatted slightly." Text="Translation of Odyssey Book I lines 42–44" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16520" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4997" RevisionGUID="e7659098-1933-4429-879c-b0d3049fcb97" CreationDate="2017-08-06T12:12:55.973" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and reformatted slightly." Text="|vocabulary|greek|translation-check|homer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4999" RevisionGUID="e2c1b093-5e30-4347-a845-7800a7957ece" CreationDate="2017-08-06T12:58:18.200" UserId="13" Text="I came across [this catholic hymn](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXQuOQccCWA), whose text can be found in various versions online, and I found [the following](http://www.sandrodiremigio.com/musica/testo_canto.asp?id=165):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Jesu, rex admirabilis,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Et triumphator nobilis,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Dulcedo ineffabilis,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Totus desiderabilis.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Jesu, dulcedo cordium,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Fons vivus, lumen mentium,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Excedens omne gaudium&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Et omne desiderium.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Mane nobiscum, Domine,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Et nos illustra lumine.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Pulsa mentis caligine,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Mundum reple dulcedine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I found two translations of the last stanza, and in particular of the final couplet. One was on the score I was given to learn this hymn in the 4-voice arrangement of Palestrina (it's his right?), and the final couplet was translated approximately as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Scaccia la tenebra della mente&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;E riempi me, puro, di dolcezza.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which in Italian means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Dispel the darkness of the mind&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;And fill me, pure, with sweetness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So they translated the line _pulsa mentis caligine_ a little freely (it's an ablative absolute but it's translated with an imperative), and analyzed _mundum_ in the last line as acc. sing. masc. of _mundus, munda, mundum_, referred to an implied _me_. When I saw that, I was like «Wait, that can't be right», so I looked online, and found another translation online which I cannot find right now, but which was close to [this one](http://www.culturacattolica.it/attualit%C3%A0/in-rilievo/ultime-news/2011/12/16/basta-canzonette-in-chiesa), which ends the stanza with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;manda via il buio dalla mente,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;riempi il mondo di dolcezza.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Send away the darkness from the mind,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Fill the world with sweetness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I remember the one I found translated the ablative absolute as an a.a. and not as an imperative, but the point here is the last line, where the one I found, and this one too, interpret _mundum_ as acc. sing. of _mundus_, _world_. This agreed with my instinct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came here to ask for arguments for (and possibly against) my gut instinct being right. What I can see here is that the first half of the stanza is all in the plural, _nobiscum_ (with us), and _nos illustra_ (enlighten us), and so abruptly switching from _we_ to _I_ with an implied pronoun seems a bit far-fetched, and imagining a _plurale maiestatis_ to make the transition less abrupt is weird, because in a religious hymn sung by basically anyone a _plurale maiestatis_ is definitely out of place, and besides it is not the choice of the score's translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Can any of you guys come up with any other argument supporting either of these two options as the most likely &quot;correct&quot; one, i.e. most likely the intention of the author of this hymn?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16522" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4999" RevisionGUID="e2c1b093-5e30-4347-a845-7800a7957ece" CreationDate="2017-08-06T12:58:18.200" UserId="13" Text="Two possible translation: which is most likely right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16523" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4999" RevisionGUID="e2c1b093-5e30-4347-a845-7800a7957ece" CreationDate="2017-08-06T12:58:18.200" UserId="13" Text="|translation|ambiguity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5000" RevisionGUID="324464b7-c228-4a63-afee-f5f88c8814e5" CreationDate="2017-08-06T13:22:32.440" UserId="79" Text="My impression is that both translations got the third line wrong and the fourth line right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pulsa mentis caligine*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Dispel the darkness of the mind  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Send away the darkness from the mind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two translations are essentially identical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other three lines of the last stanza each contain a clear imperative, so both translators have treated *pulsa* as an imperative of *pulsare*.&#xD;&#xA;Parsing the rest requires a little stretch.&#xD;&#xA;If *mentis* a plural accusative, you get &quot;beat/remove minds with fog&quot;, which is weird.&#xD;&#xA;If the last word is supposed to be *caligine**m***, you get &quot;beat/remove the fog of the mind&quot;, which appears to be what the two translators have both done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe you are right with reading *pulsa* as a perfect participle of *pellere*, making *pulsa caligine* an absolute ablative.&#xD;&#xA;The only problem I have with this is that the other three lines around have an imperative each, and the analogy is very tempting.&#xD;&#xA;In this reading the line reads &quot;after expelling the fog of the mind&quot;, which makes perfect sense in the context.&#xD;&#xA;Of course, *ablativus absolutus* can be translated in several different ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Mundum reple dulcedine.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. And fill me, pure, with sweetness.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Fill the world with sweetness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you observed, you can parse *mundum* as &quot;pure&quot; (*me mundum*) or as &quot;the world&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Both are grammatical, and both make sense.&#xD;&#xA;The first translation chose to read *mundum* as adjective, the second one as noun.&#xD;&#xA;Both are grammatically valid, so the text is genuinely ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first half of the third stanza indeed speaks of &quot;us&quot;, and the adjective version of the last line turns it suddenly into &quot;me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It would make sense to me to make &quot;a personal wish&quot; (which may be more credible in a Lutheran context, thus biasing my experience), but I can't judge whether such a turn of perspective is to be expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way to resolve the desired meaning is to look at broader context, including the origin of the text and other similar texts in the Christian tradition.&#xD;&#xA;I am no expert in this field, so I will restrict my attention to the language itself &amp;mdash; and that is indecisive here.&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the big picture, I find the second option more fitting, but the first one doesn't seem impossible either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16525" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4999" RevisionGUID="f9c93b7e-411c-492d-be19-6cafcd80f6c5" CreationDate="2017-08-06T13:24:53.287" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags and edited title." Text="Two possible translations of a hymn: which is most likely right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16526" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4999" RevisionGUID="f9c93b7e-411c-492d-be19-6cafcd80f6c5" CreationDate="2017-08-06T13:24:53.287" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags and edited title." Text="|christianity|ambiguity|translation-explanation|song-lyrics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4998" RevisionGUID="9e2afb77-5cb6-4b59-b19b-7849656eefb0" CreationDate="2017-08-06T15:13:23.000" UserDisplayName="user1861" Comment="added 2046 characters in body" Text="There is a possibility that Dido was a historical character. Quite a lengthy discussion can be found in the Wikipedia article on her - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dido. But if she did exist, it may well have been in the late 9th century BC: that is when Carthage is thought to have been founded. If that date is right, and if Dido was a historical personage, then she lived several centuries after the supposed time of the Trojan War and of Aeneas, and at some point tradition started to link her with the legend of Aeneas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Dido was historical and lived in the 9th century - as some experts and ancient authorities think - what happened was that at some point in the centuries after her death someone decided that it would enhance the Aeneas story to link him with her. Whenever this was done, people were not too bothered about the chronological discrepancy - again postulating that Dido was historical. There is a possibility that the link was made before 200 BC - a fragment of poetry by Naevius (who died in 201 BC) may be part of a conversation between Dido and Aeneas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think most experts agree that Carthage was founded in the late 9th century BC, and if that is right, and if the Trojan War is placed early in the 12th century BC, there is no escaping the timing discrepancy. Also, according to Plutarch (his life of Romulus) some Roman authors held that Aeneas was only a generation or two before Romulus and Remus who are said to have founded Rome in 753 BC: were that the case, Aeneas could then have reached Carthage in the late 9th century BC, soon after it was founded, but this merely creates another dating problem given the generally supposed date of the Trojan War. Ancient writers, though, differ considerably about the date of the founding of Carthage: some concur with most modern experts, and suggest a date in the late 9th century BC; others suggest an earlier date, possibly as early as the late 13th century BC, which would eliminate the timing problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, myths are not facts, and they develop and change over time, and mythological time is not the same as chronological time, and is much vaguer. In the legends attaching in medieval times to Charlemagne, Alexander the Great and King Arthur, elements were added over time to the legends some of which would have been chronologically impossible from a historical perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think Virgil would not have been too bothered about any of this: he simply used the Dido/Aeneas story, however it came into being, as part of his material for a patriotic propaganda epic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5002" RevisionGUID="10426dbd-1ead-475a-baed-0cca6d27a07f" CreationDate="2017-08-06T15:13:27.673" UserId="79" Text="There is an academic title in Finland called &quot;dosentti&quot; (Finnish) or &quot;docent&quot; (Swedish).&#xD;&#xA;However, there is a disagreement in Finland whether it should be translated in English as [docent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docent#Finland) or [adjunct professor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjunct_professor).&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I believe the second option is much better understood globally, and therefore superior.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the purposes of updating my homepage, especially the Latin version, I would like to find a good Latin translation for &quot;dosentti&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, a translation would have precedent in Latin use and be easily understood globally, so that many academics around the would get an idea of what the title entails.&#xD;&#xA;I understand if both goals cannot be reached simultaneously.&#xD;&#xA;How would you translate the title in Latin, and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pitkäranta's dictionary translates is as *docens*, but the translations are not justified in any way, so it is hard to judge how fitting it really is.&#xD;&#xA;The etymological connection is clear, but that alone is insufficient grounds for translation.&#xD;&#xA;The second option that comes to mind is *professor adiunctus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Finnish adjunct professorship (or whatever you prefer to call it) is not a paid position, but more of an honorary title and sign of affiliation.&#xD;&#xA;It gives the permission to supervise PhD students and act in other roles in the PhD defense and evaluation process.&#xD;&#xA;It also allows being the principal investigator in some forms of grants.&#xD;&#xA;A person can have several such adjunct positions in different universities.&#xD;&#xA;The position is very different from [assistant and associate professors](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4961/79), which are regular paid staff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Since the question concerns a Finnish title, let me repeat the main question in Finnish:&#xD;&#xA;Miten sanotaan &quot;dosentti&quot; latinaksi?&#xD;&#xA;Pitkärannan sanakirja tarjoaa sanaa *docens*, mutta sanavalintaa ei perustella.&#xD;&#xA;Englanniksi titteli on joko &quot;(title of) docent&quot; tai &quot;adjunct professor&quot; riippuen siitä, keneltä kysytään.&#xD;&#xA;Nämä kaksi englanninnosta tarjoavat heti latinannoksia *docens* ja *professor adiunctus*, muttei ole ihan selvää, kumpi olisi parempi kuvaamaan nykyistä dosentuuria Suomessa, tai olisiko sittenkin jokin muu sana parempi.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16531" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5002" RevisionGUID="10426dbd-1ead-475a-baed-0cca6d27a07f" CreationDate="2017-08-06T15:13:27.673" UserId="79" Text="Translating the Finnish &quot;adjunct professor&quot; or &quot;docent&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16532" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5002" RevisionGUID="10426dbd-1ead-475a-baed-0cca6d27a07f" CreationDate="2017-08-06T15:13:27.673" UserId="79" Text="|contemporary-latin|modern-life|academic-latin|occupation|finnish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4998" RevisionGUID="91726b53-4a9e-436f-83bd-e2dccf4d48e2" CreationDate="2017-08-06T15:18:54.970" UserDisplayName="user1861" Comment="added 2046 characters in body" Text="There is a possibility that Dido was a historical character. Quite a lengthy discussion can be found in the Wikipedia article on her - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dido. But if she did exist, it may well have been in the late 9th century BC: that is when Carthage is thought to have been founded. If that date is right, and if Dido was a historical personage, then she lived several centuries after the supposed time of the Trojan War and of Aeneas, and at some point tradition started to link her with the legend of Aeneas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Dido was historical and lived in the 9th century - as some experts and ancient authorities think - what happened was that at some point in the centuries after her death someone decided that it would enhance the Aeneas story to link him with her. Whenever this was done, people were not too bothered about the chronological discrepancy - again postulating that Dido was historical. There is a possibility that the link was made before 200 BC - a fragment of poetry by Naevius (who died in 201 BC) may be part of a conversation between Dido and Aeneas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think most experts agree that Carthage was founded in the late 9th century BC, and if that is right, and if the Trojan War is placed early in the 12th century BC, there is no escaping the timing discrepancy. Also, according to Plutarch (his life of Romulus) some Roman authors held that Aeneas was only a generation or two before Romulus and Remus who are said to have founded Rome in 753 BC: were that the case, Aeneas could then have reached Carthage in the late 9th century BC, soon after it was founded, but this merely creates another dating problem given the generally supposed date of the Trojan War. Ancient writers, though, differ considerably about when Carthage was founded: some concur with most modern experts, and suggest the late 9th century BC; others suggest an earlier date, possibly as early as the late 13th century BC, which would eliminate the timing problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, myths are not facts, and they develop and change over time, and mythological time is not the same as chronological time, and is much vaguer. In the legends attaching in medieval times to Charlemagne, Alexander the Great and King Arthur, elements were added over time to the legends some of which would have been chronologically impossible from a historical perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think Virgil would not have been too bothered about any of this: he simply used the Dido/Aeneas story, however it came into being, as part of his material for a patriotic propaganda epic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16535" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4997" RevisionGUID="1c6202b9-d8c8-4b15-a365-4bfeec569ea3" CreationDate="2017-08-06T15:28:41.533" UserId="324" Comment="edited title" Text="Translation of Odyssey Book I lines 52–54" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5002" RevisionGUID="de444938-bff3-4406-82d8-87fe8b976d97" CreationDate="2017-08-06T15:32:28.577" UserId="79" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="There is an academic title in Finland called &quot;dosentti&quot; (Finnish) or &quot;docent&quot; (Swedish).&#xD;&#xA;However, there is a disagreement in Finland whether it should be translated in English as [docent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docent#Finland) or [adjunct professor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjunct_professor).&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I believe the second option is much better understood globally, and therefore superior.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the purposes of updating my homepage, especially the Latin version, I would like to find a good Latin translation for &quot;dosentti&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, a translation would have precedent in Latin use and be easily understood globally, so that many academics around the would get an idea of what the title entails.&#xD;&#xA;I understand if both goals cannot be reached simultaneously.&#xD;&#xA;How would you translate the title in Latin, and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pitkäranta's dictionary translates is as *docens*, but the translations are not justified in any way, so it is hard to judge how fitting it really is.&#xD;&#xA;The etymological connection is clear, but that alone is insufficient grounds for translation.&#xD;&#xA;The second option that comes to mind is *professor adiunctus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Finnish adjunct professorship (or whatever you prefer to call it) is not a paid position, but more of an honorary title and sign of affiliation.&#xD;&#xA;It gives the permission to supervise PhD students and act in other roles in the PhD defense and evaluation process.&#xD;&#xA;It also allows being the principal investigator in some forms of grants.&#xD;&#xA;A person can have several such adjunct positions in different universities.&#xD;&#xA;The position is very different from [assistant and associate professors](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4961/79), which are regular paid staff.&#xD;&#xA;Adjunct professorship in Finland is somewhat similar to habilitation in Germany.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Since the question concerns a Finnish title, let me repeat the main question in Finnish:&#xD;&#xA;Miten sanotaan &quot;dosentti&quot; latinaksi?&#xD;&#xA;Pitkärannan sanakirja tarjoaa sanaa *docens*, mutta sanavalintaa ei perustella.&#xD;&#xA;Englanniksi titteli on joko &quot;(title of) docent&quot; tai &quot;adjunct professor&quot; riippuen siitä, keneltä kysytään.&#xD;&#xA;Nämä kaksi englanninnosta tarjoavat heti latinannoksia *docens* ja *professor adiunctus*, muttei ole ihan selvää, kumpi olisi parempi kuvaamaan nykyistä dosentuuria Suomessa, tai olisiko sittenkin jokin muu sana parempi.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4998" RevisionGUID="2f250a5a-bfe7-4efd-b014-077c2c6b6d70" CreationDate="2017-08-06T15:36:36.777" UserDisplayName="user1861" Comment="deleted 75 characters in body" Text="There is a possibility that Dido was a historical character. Quite a lengthy discussion can be found in the Wikipedia article on her - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dido. But if she did exist, it may well have been in the late 9th century BC: that is when Carthage is thought to have been founded. If that date is right, and if Dido was a historical personage, then she lived several centuries after the supposed time of the Trojan War and of Aeneas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Dido was historical and lived in the 9th century - as some experts and ancient authorities think - what happened was that at some point in the centuries after her death someone decided that it would enhance the Aeneas story to link him with her. Whenever this was done, people were not too bothered about the chronological discrepancy - again postulating that Dido was historical. There is a possibility that the link was made before 200 BC - a fragment of poetry by Naevius (who died in 201 BC) may be part of a conversation between Dido and Aeneas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think most experts agree that Carthage was founded in the late 9th century BC, and if that is right, and if the Trojan War is placed early in the 12th century BC, there is no escaping the timing discrepancy. Also, according to Plutarch (his life of Romulus) some Roman authors held that Aeneas was only a generation or two before Romulus and Remus who are said to have founded Rome in 753 BC: were that the case, Aeneas could then have reached Carthage in the late 9th century BC, soon after it was founded, but this merely creates another dating problem given the generally supposed date of the Trojan War. Ancient writers, though, differ considerably about when Carthage was founded: some concur with most modern experts, and suggest the late 9th century BC; others suggest an earlier date, possibly as early as the late 13th century BC, which would eliminate the timing problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, myths are not facts, and they develop and change over time, and mythological time is not the same as chronological time, and is much vaguer. In the legends attaching in medieval times to Charlemagne, Alexander the Great and King Arthur, elements were added over time to the legends some of which would have been chronologically impossible from a historical perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think Virgil would not have been too bothered about any of this: he simply used the Dido/Aeneas story, however it came into being, as part of his material for a patriotic propaganda epic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5003" RevisionGUID="e629867a-85c4-40fc-8afb-f84e3a16bf04" CreationDate="2017-08-06T15:36:38.417" UserId="79" Text="I found an attestation of the title *professor auxiliaris*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Antonius Toledo, Iuris in Universitate Professor Auxiliaris.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; See page 4 (= 286) of [this file](http://bibliotecadigital.jcyl.es/i18n/catalogo_imagenes/imagen.cmd?path=10078813&amp;posicion=2&amp;registrardownload=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The support for this translation is somewhat weak, but I don't see a better option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Googling reveals several uses of *professor associatus* in Vicipaedia and some other sources.&#xD;&#xA;This is also supported by analogy to some Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I recommend using these two translations.&#xD;&#xA;The analogue to the English titles is clear, and there is precedent to their use.&#xD;&#xA;The precedent is not particularly convincing, but this is hardly a surprise:&#xD;&#xA;I am under the impression that the distinction came to effect after Latin was lost as the main academic language, so there was no need to have official Latin translations of the titles.&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the titles are mainly American &amp;mdash; the roughly corresponding titles in the UK, where Latin has stronger traditions in academia, are [lecturer and reader](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1685/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By analogy, the female titles are *prfoestrix auxiliaris* and *profestrix associata*.&#xD;&#xA;See [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/178/79) for morphology and [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/831/79) for precedent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5003" RevisionGUID="2f2e0bd5-b997-4b91-9c63-85fbb868d57c" CreationDate="2017-08-06T16:59:34.387" UserId="136" Comment="fixed minor spelling error" Text="I found an attestation of the title *professor auxiliaris*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Antonius Toledo, Iuris in Universitate Professor Auxiliaris.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; See page 4 (= 286) of [this file](http://bibliotecadigital.jcyl.es/i18n/catalogo_imagenes/imagen.cmd?path=10078813&amp;posicion=2&amp;registrardownload=1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The support for this translation is somewhat weak, but I don't see a better option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Googling reveals several uses of *professor associatus* in Vicipaedia and some other sources.&#xD;&#xA;This is also supported by analogy to some Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I recommend using these two translations.&#xD;&#xA;The analogue to the English titles is clear, and there is precedent to their use.&#xD;&#xA;The precedent is not particularly convincing, but this is hardly a surprise:&#xD;&#xA;I am under the impression that the distinction came to effect after Latin was lost as the main academic language, so there was no need to have official Latin translations of the titles.&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the titles are mainly American &amp;mdash; the roughly corresponding titles in the UK, where Latin has stronger traditions in academia, are [lecturer and reader](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1685/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By analogy, the female titles are *profestrix auxiliaris* and *profestrix associata*.&#xD;&#xA;See [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/178/79) for morphology and [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/831/79) for precedent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4980" RevisionGUID="cb24158b-72c1-4c0b-b800-34040c7c6390" CreationDate="2017-08-06T17:47:57.850" UserId="79" Comment="added 466 characters in body" Text="You are confusing two words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The noun *medium* means &quot;center&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- The adjective *medius* means &quot;central&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this idiom one goes into &quot;central things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The word *res* is feminine (the singular nominative and plural accusative happen to look alike), so the adjective has to be in feminine plural accusative: *medias*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were to use the noun *medium* instead, you might want to go into &quot;the center of things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Then you'd put *medium* in singular accusative (there's only one center, right?) and *res* in plural genitive.&#xD;&#xA;This leads to the alternative *in medium rerum*.&#xD;&#xA;This might be equally valid, but Latin does often prefer adjectives to nouns, and Horatius happened to write *in medias res*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the adjective is probably more idiomatic and common than the noun, but the noun is not a non-Latin choice either.&#xD;&#xA;See [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2153/79) and its answer for an example from Vergilius, where the noun *medium* is used although the adjective *medius* would have been metrically equal.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the adjective would not work here, as something happens between two things, not in the middle of one.&#xD;&#xA;But I would still take it as evidence (perhaps weak!) that both *medius* and *medium* are appropriate in cases like yours." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5004" RevisionGUID="ef212190-f175-4eaa-9606-347adc50cd8d" CreationDate="2017-08-06T18:45:57.910" UserId="1878" Text="I'm looking to find out what the latin for &quot;from the heights&quot; is, as the equivalent of Oscar Wilde's title &quot;De Profundis&quot;. Thanks for your help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16542" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5004" RevisionGUID="ef212190-f175-4eaa-9606-347adc50cd8d" CreationDate="2017-08-06T18:45:57.910" UserId="1878" Text="Antonym for &quot;de profundis&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16543" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5004" RevisionGUID="ef212190-f175-4eaa-9606-347adc50cd8d" CreationDate="2017-08-06T18:45:57.910" UserId="1878" Text="|translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5005" RevisionGUID="16764b64-4620-4e33-bf98-4eadac4ab485" CreationDate="2017-08-06T18:57:28.350" UserId="79" Text="I think the most fitting antonym for *de profundis* is *de caelis* (alternatively spelled *de coelis*).&#xD;&#xA;Literally, this means &quot;from the heavens&quot; or &quot;from the skies&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at what [*caelum*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1001977) can mean.&#xD;&#xA;I used it in the plural.&#xD;&#xA;The best choice of words depends on your exact context, of course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5006" RevisionGUID="16f18d61-8d07-4d0a-b5a9-9b043672ec42" CreationDate="2017-08-06T19:59:30.473" UserId="1879" Text="I have a german christmas song of the 16th century, which is bilingual, german-latin. The lyrics go as follows (I translated the german parts into english):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O how beautiful the group of angels is singing, praising God for today and forever and sing:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Gloria in excelsis Deo!*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; They are rejoicing that Jesus Christ has become human in favour of us. That's why they are singing:   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Et in terra pax hominibus __bona voluntas__*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; So let's be happy too and sing with the angels:   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Gloria in excelsis Deo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, this is an adaptation or even translation of Luke 2:13:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et subito facta est cum angelo multitudo militiae caelestis laudantium Deum et dicentium gloria in altissimis Deo et in terra pax in hominibus bonae voluntatis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My problem in the christmas carol is the apparently nominative case of &quot;bona voluntas&quot;. To my understanding&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    And peace on earth by the humans which are of good will&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where `by the humans` is the translation of the ablative &quot;hominibus&quot; and `which are of good will` corresponds to the genitive &quot;bonae voluntatis&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I cannot find a proper translation of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;et in terra pax hominibus bona voluntas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a meaningful translation, or is this just wrong or bad latin in the source?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16546" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5006" RevisionGUID="16f18d61-8d07-4d0a-b5a9-9b043672ec42" CreationDate="2017-08-06T19:59:30.473" UserId="1879" Text="&quot;Et in terra pax hominibus bona voluntas&quot; [sic!]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16547" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5006" RevisionGUID="16f18d61-8d07-4d0a-b5a9-9b043672ec42" CreationDate="2017-08-06T19:59:30.473" UserId="1879" Text="|medieval-latin|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5007" RevisionGUID="7f4729ea-1c95-493d-818b-399be0055e4c" CreationDate="2017-08-06T20:11:18.197" UserId="985" Text="How about _de excelsis_ (cf. the phrase _gloria in excelsis Deo_)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From _Oxford Latin Dictionary_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **excelsum** ~ī, _n._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1** High ground, an eminence, height. **b** a high altitude; (also pl.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2** Loftiness (of rank, station, etc.), high position." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5006" RevisionGUID="364fa79c-4e19-488f-9088-ff97f52cf8ea" CreationDate="2017-08-06T20:58:41.850" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have a German Christmas song of the 16th century, which is bilingual, German&amp;ndash;Latin. The lyrics go as follows (I translated the German parts into English):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O how beautiful the group of angels is singing, praising God for today and forever and sing:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Gloria in excelsis Deo!*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; They are rejoicing that Jesus Christ has become human in favour of us. That's why they are singing:   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Et in terra pax hominibus __bona voluntas__*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; So let's be happy too and sing with the angels:   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Gloria in excelsis Deo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, this is an adaptation or even translation of Luke 2:13:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et subito facta est cum angelo multitudo militiae caelestis laudantium Deum et dicentium gloria in altissimis Deo et in terra pax in hominibus bonae voluntatis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My problem in the Christmas carol is the apparently nominative case of &quot;bona voluntas&quot;. To my understanding&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    And peace on earth by the humans which are of good will&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where `by the humans` is the translation of the ablative &quot;hominibus&quot; and `which are of good will` corresponds to the genitive &quot;bonae voluntatis&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I cannot find a proper translation of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;et in terra pax hominibus bona voluntas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a meaningful translation, or is this just wrong or bad Latin in the source?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16550" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5006" RevisionGUID="364fa79c-4e19-488f-9088-ff97f52cf8ea" CreationDate="2017-08-06T20:58:41.850" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|medieval-latin|grammar-identification|song-lyrics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5008" RevisionGUID="7f7f322b-61de-4acb-9bf2-9e55e96946e6" CreationDate="2017-08-06T21:06:49.057" UserId="79" Text="Let us first start with Luke.&#xD;&#xA;In *pax hominibus bonae voluntatis* the word *hominibus* is not ablative but dative.&#xD;&#xA;The two forms look alike here, but context reveals the intended case.&#xD;&#xA;It means &quot;to the people&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would offer this translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And on Earth peace to the people of good will&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the song simply uses a messed-up version of this quote.&#xD;&#xA;I can see a way to read it meaningfully, but I wonder what (if anything) was intended.&#xD;&#xA;I might read as a double wish:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Et in terra pax, hominibus bona voluntas*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And on Earth peace, to people good will&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This wishes two things: peace for Earth and good will to people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am tempted to treat this as a mistake, but on the other hand *bona voluntas* is inflected correctly &amp;mdash; both are in nominative, as opposed to both being in genitive in the original.&#xD;&#xA;Since there is a way to read it as a grammatical and meaningful (and fitting!) Latin sentence, I would do so instead of declaring it a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;After all, we are all wished to have a good will!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5009" RevisionGUID="8902039e-bf03-46ed-b457-635e28454401" CreationDate="2017-08-06T21:27:06.603" UserDisplayName="user1861" Text="The Latin version with bonae voluntatis comes from the Vulgate and is actually a mistranslation of the Greek text, which reads &quot;ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία&quot; where both εἰρήνη - peace - and εὐδοκία - goodwill - are in the nominative. (NB Some Greek manuscripts used in some more modern English translations have a slightly different text meaning - in the the translation of the New Revised Standard Version - &quot;On earth peace among those whom he [God] favours.&quot;) The King James version of the Bible is more accurate: &quot;and on earth peace, good will toward men&quot;. (&quot;Hominibus&quot; can be translated &quot;to/for humanity&quot;. The Greek means &quot;among humans.&quot;) The Greek has the angels wishing peace on earth and goodwill for humans, not peace for humans of goodwill. So &quot;bona voluntas&quot; is more accurate - perhaps with a comma before &quot;hominibus&quot;. I would guess that the version with &quot;et in terra pax hominibus bona voluntas&quot; derives from a revision by renaissance scholars who consulted the original Greek. The version with &quot;bona voluntas&quot; must have been in quite wide circulation - it was used by Johann Sebastian Bach." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5008" RevisionGUID="b0440e46-84f5-4f38-95de-5c5cd8ad1634" CreationDate="2017-08-06T21:30:22.553" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Let us first start with Luke.&#xD;&#xA;In *pax hominibus bonae voluntatis* the word *hominibus* is not ablative but dative.&#xD;&#xA;The two forms look alike here, but context reveals the intended case.&#xD;&#xA;It means &quot;to the people&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would offer this translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And on Earth peace to people of good will&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the song simply uses a messed-up version of this quote.&#xD;&#xA;I can see a way to read it meaningfully, but I wonder what (if anything) was intended.&#xD;&#xA;I might read as a double wish:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Et in terra pax, hominibus bona voluntas*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And on Earth peace, to people good will&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This wishes two things: peace for Earth and good will to people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am tempted to treat this as a mistake, but on the other hand *bona voluntas* is inflected correctly &amp;mdash; both are in nominative, as opposed to both being in genitive in the original.&#xD;&#xA;Since there is a way to read it as a grammatical and meaningful (and fitting!) Latin sentence, I would do so instead of declaring it a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;After all, we are all wished to have a good will!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2151" RevisionGUID="82559a68-bc42-49e8-b320-a68337eec9f6" CreationDate="2017-08-06T21:39:20.773" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected spelling." Text="The [Via dei Fori Imperiali][1] was built at the initiative of Mussolini. At the time it caused some controversy about the care for archaeological and sacred Catholic sites, as well as the displacement of residents on _&quot;one of the most densely populated areas&quot;_ of the Urbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among the ancient sites affected, there were the four _fora_ that give the _via_ its modern name: those of (Julius) Caesar, Augustus (Octavian), Nerva and Trajan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The statues are four and honor each of the Emperors. They were erected during the XX century and are bronze reproductions of ancient statues. Below each one there are Latin inscriptions with the name and a title. (See photos and a little more context in [this Italian language site][2].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the inscriptions start with a big &quot;SPQR&quot; and end with two lines: &quot;ANNO XI / A FASCIBUS RENOVATIS&quot;. (Which seemingly has to do with [_fascist time reckoning_][3]. Only Julius says &quot;ANNO X&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The variable part of them is as follows: (I linked the Emperor's name to high-resolution pictures.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. C·[IVLIO CAESARI][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  DICT·PERPETVO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. IMP·CAESARI·DIVIT·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [AVGVSTO][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  PATRI·PATRIAE·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. IMP·CAESARI·NERVAE·F·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [TRAIANO][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  OPTIMO PRINCIPI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. IMP·CAESARI·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [NERVAE][7]·AUG·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_dei_Fori_Imperiali&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.annazelli.com/statue-degli-imperatori-romani-a-via-dei-fori-imperiali-roma.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.romaspqr.it/ROMA/Statue/St._giulio_Cesare_-_Fori_Imperiali.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Statue_of_Roman_Emperor_Augustus%2C_Via_dei_Fori_Imperiali.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Statue_of_Roman_Emperor_Traianus%2C_Via_dei_Fori_Imperiali.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Statue_of_Roman_Emperor_Nerva%2C_Via_dei_Fori_Imperiali.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16555" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1914" RevisionGUID="227117f4-9508-4e9b-a160-935b693519b4" CreationDate="2017-08-06T21:40:21.967" UserId="79" Comment="48" />
  <row Id="16556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2151" RevisionGUID="210f5818-9add-4690-b6ba-4e74a8fa6ef7" CreationDate="2017-08-06T21:43:29.690" UserId="136" Comment="changed order of emperors' names to reflect order of inscriptions" Text="The [Via dei Fori Imperiali][1] was built at the initiative of Mussolini. At the time it caused some controversy about the care for archaeological and sacred Catholic sites, as well as the displacement of residents on _&quot;one of the most densely populated areas&quot;_ of the Urbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among the ancient sites affected, there were the four _fora_ that give the _via_ its modern name: those of (Julius) Caesar, Augustus (Octavian), Trajan and Nerva.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The statues are four and honor each of the Emperors. They were erected during the XX century and are bronze reproductions of ancient statues. Below each one there are Latin inscriptions with the name and a title. (See photos and a little more context in [this Italian language site][2].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the inscriptions start with a big &quot;SPQR&quot; and end with two lines: &quot;ANNO XI / A FASCIBUS RENOVATIS&quot;. (Which seemingly has to do with [_fascist time reckoning_][3]. Only Julius says &quot;ANNO X&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The variable part of them is as follows: (I linked the Emperor's name to high-resolution pictures.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. C·[IVLIO CAESARI][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  DICT·PERPETVO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. IMP·CAESARI·DIVIT·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [AVGVSTO][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  PATRI·PATRIAE·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. IMP·CAESARI·NERVAE·F·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [TRAIANO][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  OPTIMO PRINCIPI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. IMP·CAESARI·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [NERVAE][7]·AUG·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_dei_Fori_Imperiali&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.annazelli.com/statue-degli-imperatori-romani-a-via-dei-fori-imperiali-roma.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.romaspqr.it/ROMA/Statue/St._giulio_Cesare_-_Fori_Imperiali.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Statue_of_Roman_Emperor_Augustus%2C_Via_dei_Fori_Imperiali.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Statue_of_Roman_Emperor_Traianus%2C_Via_dei_Fori_Imperiali.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Statue_of_Roman_Emperor_Nerva%2C_Via_dei_Fori_Imperiali.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="747" RevisionGUID="bf010d28-79be-4cd7-842e-657c635e2105" CreationDate="2017-08-06T21:46:30.893" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm a student and my class laughs when we learn a new verb for &quot;to kill&quot;. Just to list some of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - necare&#xD;&#xA; - interficere&#xD;&#xA; - extinguere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are of course many others.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the key differences between these and other significant Latin words that are frequently translated &quot;to kill&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16558" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="747" RevisionGUID="bf010d28-79be-4cd7-842e-657c635e2105" CreationDate="2017-08-06T21:46:30.893" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|verbs|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16559" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="747" RevisionGUID="91bb4aba-bf5c-4033-a27d-2e3b470e6fe8" CreationDate="2017-08-06T21:47:02.197" UserId="79" Comment="49" />
  <row Id="16560" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4166" RevisionGUID="23324eb3-c229-4960-a9c1-3645d60a2ed8" CreationDate="2017-08-06T21:55:37.943" UserId="79" Comment="50" />
  <row Id="16561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5002" RevisionGUID="992f60af-01ea-4162-b1d4-708f55d3b15c" CreationDate="2017-08-06T22:49:06.590" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="There is an academic title in Finland called &quot;dosentti&quot; (Finnish) or &quot;docent&quot; (Swedish).&#xD;&#xA;However, there is a disagreement in Finland whether it should be translated in English as [docent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docent#Finland) or [adjunct professor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjunct_professor).&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I believe the second option is much better understood globally, and therefore the best translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the purposes of updating my homepage, especially the Latin version, I would like to find a good Latin translation for &quot;dosentti&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, a translation would have precedent in Latin use and be easily understood globally, so that many academics around the would get an idea of what the title entails.&#xD;&#xA;I understand if both goals cannot be reached simultaneously.&#xD;&#xA;How would you translate the title in Latin, and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pitkäranta's dictionary translates is as *docens*, but the translations are not justified in any way, so it is hard to judge how fitting it really is.&#xD;&#xA;The etymological connection is clear, but that alone is insufficient grounds for translation.&#xD;&#xA;The second option that comes to mind is *professor adiunctus*.&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Finnish adjunct professorship (or whatever you prefer to call it) is not a paid position, but more of an honorary title and sign of affiliation.&#xD;&#xA;It gives the permission to supervise PhD students and act in other roles in the PhD defense and evaluation process.&#xD;&#xA;It also allows being the principal investigator in some of grants.&#xD;&#xA;A person can have several such adjunct positions in different universities.&#xD;&#xA;The position is very different from [assistant and associate professors](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4961/79), which are regular paid staff.&#xD;&#xA;Adjunct professorship in Finland is somewhat similar to habilitation in Germany.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Since the question concerns a Finnish title, let me repeat the main question in Finnish:&#xD;&#xA;Miten sanotaan &quot;dosentti&quot; latinaksi?&#xD;&#xA;Pitkärannan sanakirja tarjoaa sanaa *docens*, mutta sanavalintaa ei perustella.&#xD;&#xA;Englanniksi titteli on joko &quot;(title of) docent&quot; tai &quot;adjunct professor&quot; riippuen siitä, keneltä kysytään.&#xD;&#xA;Nämä kaksi englanninnosta tarjoavat heti latinannoksia *docens* ja *professor adiunctus*, muttei ole ihan selvää, kumpi olisi parempi kuvaamaan nykyistä dosentuuria Suomessa, tai olisiko sittenkin jokin muu sana parempi.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5010" RevisionGUID="3f2d051f-05e0-42a2-950d-54aae8dff831" CreationDate="2017-08-07T01:02:43.410" UserId="1343" Text="I know that the Latin words for &quot;gate&quot; and &quot;world&quot; are *porta* and *mundus*, respectively. However, while I know how to write &quot;Gate of the World&quot; in Latin (*Porta Mundi*) since both &quot;gate&quot; and &quot;world&quot; are singular in the English phrase, I'm not sure about doing so for &quot;Gate of World**s**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I write it as *Porta Mundorum*, using the plural genitive of *mundus*? Or do I use the adjective *mundanus* and, following the example of &quot;Star Wars&quot; being rendered as *Bella Stellaria* in Latin (where *stellaria* is in the neuter nominative plural case), write it as *Porta Mundana*? Or are both approaches correct? Or are they both wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: The phrase &quot;Gate of Worlds&quot; is supposed to emphasize the fact that the gate in question connects **several** worlds together." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16563" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5010" RevisionGUID="3f2d051f-05e0-42a2-950d-54aae8dff831" CreationDate="2017-08-07T01:02:43.410" UserId="1343" Text="How to write &quot;gate of worlds&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16564" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5010" RevisionGUID="3f2d051f-05e0-42a2-950d-54aae8dff831" CreationDate="2017-08-07T01:02:43.410" UserId="1343" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5011" RevisionGUID="57f6a666-f3c9-410b-a6a2-36d80df78a47" CreationDate="2017-08-07T02:01:28.380" UserId="136" Text="Only one of those options is correct. Let us start with *porta mundarum*. This translates to &quot;gate of world,&quot; which is just what you are seeking, as it is a singular gate belonging to multiple worlds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since that checks out, let's take a look at the other one. *Porta mundana* literally translates to &quot;earthly port.&quot; Here, it is a single port belonging to a presumably single earth. I understand the idea of mirroring &quot;Star Wars&quot;/*Bella Stellaria*, but this is an incorrect correlation in ideas. In *Bella Stellaria*, *bella* is actually a plural noun (from *bellum*). *Stellaria*, or &quot;stellar,&quot; is an adjective modifying *bella*. This plurality reflects the fact that it is &quot;Star Wars&quot; (multiple wars) and not &quot;War of Stars&quot; (multiple stars). So if you were to pluralize *porta mundana* to *portae mundanae*, you would have &quot;Earthly gates&quot; (multiple gates instead of multiple worlds&quot;). Leaving it in the singular doesn't work either. This thus rules out this option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, ***porta mundarum*** is perfectly acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you would like something that translates closer to &quot;gate between worlds&quot; then I would also suggest *porta inter mundos*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5012" RevisionGUID="93639558-1cb9-486a-8792-89a7bea5f074" CreationDate="2017-08-07T07:05:00.823" UserId="79" Text="I agree with Sam K that *porta mundana* is simple an &quot;earthly/wordly gate&quot;, and therefore not suitable for your use.&#xD;&#xA;The genitive is possible, but let me offer another option.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use an adjective &amp;mdash; which is often an idiomatic choice in Latin &amp;mdash; you might consider *intermundanus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This adjective is not attested in classical Latin (as far as I can tell), but I think there is sufficient precedent for using the prefix *inter-* productively.&#xD;&#xA;For example, we have adjectives like [*intermenstruus*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2029973) and [*intermuralis*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2030001).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore one option would be ***porta intermundana***, which I might translate as &quot;interwordly gate&quot;, for the lack of a better word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5011" RevisionGUID="83580469-66ac-44b6-b4c0-e39418fa5921" CreationDate="2017-08-07T07:05:28.280" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="Only one of those options is correct. Let us start with *porta mundorum*. This translates to &quot;gate of world,&quot; which is just what you are seeking, as it is a singular gate belonging to multiple worlds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since that checks out, let's take a look at the other one. *Porta mundana* literally translates to &quot;earthly port.&quot; Here, it is a single port belonging to a presumably single earth. I understand the idea of mirroring &quot;Star Wars&quot;/*Bella Stellaria*, but this is an incorrect correlation in ideas. In *Bella Stellaria*, *bella* is actually a plural noun (from *bellum*). *Stellaria*, or &quot;stellar,&quot; is an adjective modifying *bella*. This plurality reflects the fact that it is &quot;Star Wars&quot; (multiple wars) and not &quot;War of Stars&quot; (multiple stars). So if you were to pluralize *porta mundana* to *portae mundanae*, you would have &quot;Earthly gates&quot; (multiple gates instead of multiple worlds&quot;). Leaving it in the singular doesn't work either. This thus rules out this option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, ***porta mundorum*** is perfectly acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you would like something that translates closer to &quot;gate between worlds&quot; then I would also suggest *porta inter mundos*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5009" RevisionGUID="d1cdcd29-5232-4c21-9dd4-f4aa9a8cdc62" CreationDate="2017-08-07T13:37:58.717" UserDisplayName="user1861" Comment="Amended to reflects information in comments by others" Text="The Latin version with bonae voluntatis comes from the Vulgate. There are at least two versions of the original Greek in ancient manuscripts, and one reads &quot;ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία&quot; where both εἰρήνη - peace - and εὐδοκία - goodwill - are in the nominative. Other Greek manuscripts often used in more modern English translations have the genitive εὐδοκίας - in the New Revised Standard Version the main translation is &quot;On earth peace among those whom he [God] favours&quot; with &quot;on earth peace, good will among people&quot; given as the translation of the &quot;εὐδοκία&quot; text of alternative ancient authorities. The King James version of the Bible follows the &quot;εὐδοκία&quot; text and has &quot;and on earth peace, good will toward men&quot;. (&quot;Hominibus&quot; is dative and can be translated &quot;to/for humanity&quot;. The Greek means &quot;among humans.&quot;) So &quot;bona voluntas&quot; is a good Latin translation of one of the two main variants found in manuscripts of the Greek - perhaps with a comma before &quot;hominibus&quot;. I would guess that the version with &quot;et in terra pax hominibus bona voluntas&quot; derives from a revision by renaissance scholars who consulted some original Greek manuscripts. The version with &quot;bona voluntas&quot; must have been in quite wide circulation - according to Albert Schweitzer it was used by Johann Sebastian Bach in a setting of additional texts associated with one version of his Magnificat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5009" RevisionGUID="97ce1d58-761b-4db1-bbc1-ec40a70ae573" CreationDate="2017-08-07T13:43:59.793" UserDisplayName="user1861" Comment="Minor clarification" Text="The Latin version with bonae voluntatis comes from the Vulgate. There are at least two versions of the original Greek in ancient manuscripts, and one reads &quot;ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία&quot; where both εἰρήνη - peace - and εὐδοκία - goodwill - are in the nominative. Other Greek manuscripts often used in more modern English translations have the genitive εὐδοκίας - in the New Revised Standard Version the main translation is &quot;On earth peace among those whom he [God] favours&quot; with &quot;on earth peace, good will among people&quot; given in a note as the translation of the &quot;εὐδοκία&quot; text of alternative ancient authorities. The King James version of the Bible follows the &quot;εὐδοκία&quot; text and has &quot;and on earth peace, good will toward men&quot;. (&quot;Hominibus&quot; is dative and can be translated &quot;to/for humanity&quot;. The Greek means &quot;among humans.&quot;) So &quot;bona voluntas&quot; is a good Latin translation of one of the two main variants found in manuscripts of the Greek - perhaps with a comma before &quot;hominibus&quot;. I would guess that the version with &quot;et in terra pax hominibus bona voluntas&quot; derives from a revision by renaissance scholars who consulted some original Greek manuscripts. The version with &quot;bona voluntas&quot; must have been in quite wide circulation - according to Albert Schweitzer it was used by Johann Sebastian Bach in a setting of additional texts associated with one version of his Magnificat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5013" RevisionGUID="9f5b7f76-5deb-4c4b-88a8-37844624cc80" CreationDate="2017-08-07T13:52:55.310" UserId="1883" Text="I would like help modifying the famous phrase &quot;nil satis nisi optimum&quot; to lower expectations somewhat to &quot;nothing but seventh place is good enough&quot;. Google Translate creates a suspicious range of different suggestions, so I thought I'd ask the experts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16571" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5013" RevisionGUID="9f5b7f76-5deb-4c4b-88a8-37844624cc80" CreationDate="2017-08-07T13:52:55.310" UserId="1883" Text="&quot;Nothing but seventh place is good enough&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16572" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5013" RevisionGUID="9f5b7f76-5deb-4c4b-88a8-37844624cc80" CreationDate="2017-08-07T13:52:55.310" UserId="1883" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5014" RevisionGUID="058b4788-5038-427a-aa61-344bfb6ce904" CreationDate="2017-08-07T14:57:21.023" UserId="584" Text="This is the motto inscription placed above the entrance to an old elementary school which was build in the year 1816.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I presume it can mean something like:    &#xD;&#xA;*&quot;With great effort, the spirit is formed&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but that might be imprecise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The sub-question is if **Disciplina** can be interpreted as beating?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16574" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5014" RevisionGUID="058b4788-5038-427a-aa61-344bfb6ce904" CreationDate="2017-08-07T14:57:21.023" UserId="584" Text="What is the correct meaning of &quot;Disciplina sollerti fingitur ingenium&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16575" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5014" RevisionGUID="058b4788-5038-427a-aa61-344bfb6ce904" CreationDate="2017-08-07T14:57:21.023" UserId="584" Text="|meaning|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5014" RevisionGUID="87431a87-e954-434b-bd0f-329e5ad843ee" CreationDate="2017-08-07T15:12:16.653" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="This is the motto inscription placed above the entrance to an old elementary school which was build in the year 1816.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I presume it can mean something like:    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With great effort, the spirit is formed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but that might be imprecise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The sub-question is if *disciplina* can be interpreted as beating?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5015" RevisionGUID="224ab121-1447-4558-b52f-ee481fa5c588" CreationDate="2017-08-07T15:30:29.680" UserId="1743" Text="**Question.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the latin prefix for &quot;2½ times&quot; ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Remark.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The question asks for the correct analogue of the prefix &quot;sesqui-&quot; which, of course, is the prefix for &quot;1½ times&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16578" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5015" RevisionGUID="224ab121-1447-4558-b52f-ee481fa5c588" CreationDate="2017-08-07T15:30:29.680" UserId="1743" Text="What is the correct Latin prefix for 'two-and-a-half-times'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16579" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5015" RevisionGUID="224ab121-1447-4558-b52f-ee481fa5c588" CreationDate="2017-08-07T15:30:29.680" UserId="1743" Text="|vocabulary|prefix|mathematics|numbers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4921" RevisionGUID="480a9aa7-3f90-4bfb-bdca-6d1235a39f54" CreationDate="2017-08-07T15:33:22.643" UserId="1743" Comment="corrections" Text="**Question.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Is there anything close to scientifically-meaningful to say about whether the prefix &quot;di-&quot; is *more Latin* than the prefix &quot;bi-&quot;, when indicating *two-ness*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Are there published scholarly references *on precisely this question*, comparing the two prefixes? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) Are there notable Latin words which *simultaneously* contain &quot;bi&quot; and &quot;di&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Remarks.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In a vague sense that I have no time or experience enough to substantiate, this seems to be the case, &quot;di-&quot; seeming significantly more Latin-ish than &quot;bi-&quot; which seems more Greek-ish. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: like kindly pointed out by the responders, here this attribution of bi to Greek and di to Latin was an accidental **mix-up**. It is the other way round: bi is Latin, di is Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Of course, the difference is not clear-cut, there is organic growth and randomness involved, and e.g. in Greek *both* &quot;bi-&quot; and &quot;di-&quot; appear in composites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Both &quot;bi-&quot; and &quot;di-&quot; appear in countless scientific terms. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5016" RevisionGUID="3c54683d-12fd-4b60-8149-a8ce13b5d351" CreationDate="2017-08-07T15:38:51.290" UserDisplayName="user1861" Text="I think one translation might be &quot;By skilled teaching the character/intellect is formed&quot; - a fitting motto for a school. A common meaning of &quot;disciplina&quot; in classical Latin is education or teaching; &quot;sollerti&quot; is the ablative of &quot;sollers&quot; which can be translated as skilled, clever, adroit or expert; &quot;ingenium&quot; often has the sense of character, disposition, way of thinking, ability, talent or intellectual capacity. In medieval ecclesiastical contexts, &quot;disciplina&quot; could mean the scourging or chastisement which monks and others often underwent, but in a school context it seems to me more natural to think in terms of its classical Latin educational meaning rather than assume the school motto was intended to refer to the value of ruthless corporal punishment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5014" RevisionGUID="364173ec-819b-494e-a587-d2e52aaefe73" CreationDate="2017-08-07T17:47:20.653" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="This is the motto inscription placed above the entrance to an old elementary school which was build in the year 1816.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I presume it can mean something like:    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With great effort, the spirit is formed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but that might be imprecise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sub-question is if *disciplina* can be interpreted as beating?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16583" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5014" RevisionGUID="364173ec-819b-494e-a587-d2e52aaefe73" CreationDate="2017-08-07T17:47:20.653" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|translation-check|sentence-translation|inscription|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5017" RevisionGUID="1d7725e3-27c5-416b-8f04-c93e20e553db" CreationDate="2017-08-07T17:51:37.480" UserId="79" Text="To parallel *optimum* (&quot;best&quot;, singular neuter nominative), I would go with *septimum* (&quot;seventh&quot;, same form).&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I suggest ***nil satis nisi septimum***.&#xD;&#xA;Funnily enough, it sounds very similar to the original, which is always a good bonus for an analogy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5018" RevisionGUID="e3fe0734-cbb9-4595-8e64-7fe5118e7b40" CreationDate="2017-08-07T19:15:45.127" UserId="45" Text="There is a very common word in Latin that literally means &quot;two and a half&quot;: [***sestertium, -i***](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsestertius) which comes from [*semis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsemis) + *tertius*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This usage is antiquated and almost entirely replaced by the current meaning of a &quot;serterce,&quot; which according to L&amp;S is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a small silver coin, originally equal to **two and a half asses**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S also quotes *sestertium* as meaning &quot;two and a half feet [deep],&quot; as used by [Columella](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columella) in *De Arboribus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ipsum agrum sat erit bipalio vertere: quod vocant rustici sestertium. (1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...but this seems like sloppy research to me, since the sentence that immediately follows suggests a number more like 1 2/3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Ea repastinatio altitudinis habet plus sesquipedem, minus tamen quam duos pedes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to use a prefix for &quot;two and a half&quot; then, you could feasibly go with ***sester-***. It turns out that this phrase already has some traction, for instance as applied to a 250 year anniversary: &quot;sestercentennial&quot;. See, for example, this [*New York Times* article](http://www.nytimes.com/1981/12/13/magazine/on-language-by-william-safire-woodshed-blues-kimble-mead.html?pagewanted=all), this [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anniversary), and [~28K Google results](https://www.google.com/search?q=sestercentennial). These are all decidedly non-authoritative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Alternatives&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above-cited Wikipedia article offers one other alternative that fits this case: **semiquin-**, which means &quot;half of five.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## A Word of Caution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ultimate answer to your question is that **there is no frequently used, easily understood** prefix for &quot;two and a half.&quot; This is probably because (!) it's not a terribly useful thing to have. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Classical attestations of any of the above suggestions are conspicuously absent, whereas we have from Varro a very clean example of what a Roman might have done when faced with the same question. Does he use &quot;sesterpedis&quot; to refer to a two-and-a-half-foot distance? Let's look:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...tympanum in latitudinem **duo pedes et semipedem**, in altitudinem palmum. (Varro, *Res Rusticae* 3.5.15.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So much easier to understand!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5018" RevisionGUID="dbaa5e94-e310-4316-949a-8a4fb9566b8d" CreationDate="2017-08-07T19:25:45.607" UserId="45" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="There is a very common word in Latin that literally means &quot;two and a half&quot;: [***sestertium, -i***](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsestertius). This comes from [*semis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsemis) + *tertius*, the idea being (I suppose) that it is &quot;half-way to three [from two].&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This usage is antiquated and almost entirely replaced by the current meaning of a &quot;serterce,&quot; which according to L&amp;S is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a small silver coin, originally equal to **two and a half asses**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S also quotes *sestertium* as meaning &quot;two and a half feet [deep],&quot; as used by [Columella](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columella) in *De Arboribus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ipsum agrum sat erit bipalio vertere: quod vocant rustici sestertium. (1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...but this seems like sloppy research to me, since the sentence that immediately follows suggests a number more like 1 2/3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Ea repastinatio altitudinis habet plus sesquipedem, minus tamen quam duos pedes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to use a prefix for &quot;two and a half&quot; then, you could feasibly go with ***sester-***. It turns out that this phrase already has some traction, for instance as applied to a 250 year anniversary: &quot;sestercentennial&quot;. See, for example, this [*New York Times* article](http://www.nytimes.com/1981/12/13/magazine/on-language-by-william-safire-woodshed-blues-kimble-mead.html?pagewanted=all), this [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anniversary), and [~28K Google results](https://www.google.com/search?q=sestercentennial). These are all decidedly non-authoritative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Alternatives&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above-cited Wikipedia article offers one other alternative that fits this case: **semiquin-**, which means &quot;half of five.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## A Word of Caution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ultimate answer to your question is that **there is no frequently used, easily understood** prefix for &quot;two and a half.&quot; This is probably because (!) it's not a terribly useful thing to have. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Classical attestations of any of the above suggestions are conspicuously absent, whereas we have from Varro a very clean example of what a Roman might have done when faced with the same question. Does he use &quot;sesterpedis&quot; to refer to a two-and-a-half-foot distance? Let's look:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...tympanum in latitudinem **duo pedes et semipedem**, in altitudinem palmum. (Varro, *Res Rusticae* 3.5.15.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So much easier to understand!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5017" RevisionGUID="cb1e293b-8279-4d2d-82f2-e4ebc0902904" CreationDate="2017-08-07T19:28:22.903" UserId="79" Comment="added 266 characters in body" Text="To parallel *optimum* (&quot;best&quot;, singular neuter nominative), I would go with *septimum* (&quot;seventh&quot;, same form).&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I suggest ***nil satis nisi septimum***.&#xD;&#xA;Funnily enough, it sounds very similar to the original, which is always a good bonus for an analogy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As brianpck comments below, *optimum* means &quot;the best [thing]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, my *septimum* means &quot;the seventh [thing]&quot;, not so much &quot;the seventh place&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But I think the message is clear enough in this form, and the word play would be diluted by additional words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5019" RevisionGUID="1a2bb85f-f87c-4c63-81b5-4951019efd8d" CreationDate="2017-08-08T00:19:21.923" UserId="1694" Text="I'll offer another translation that is fact not mine at all, but a translation of someone else (whose abilities I respect) on the Usenet group *alt.language.latin* where this same question came up about a year ago:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Stay with us O Lord&#xD;&#xA;    shine [your] light on us,&#xD;&#xA;    with darkness of mind dispelled,&#xD;&#xA;    fill the world with sweetness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5019" RevisionGUID="8d8a99ca-4795-477d-91fb-7c6d973a019e" CreationDate="2017-08-08T00:27:06.880" UserId="1694" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="I'll offer another translation that is fact not mine at all, but a translation of someone else (whose abilities I respect) on the Usenet group *alt.language.latin* where this same question came up about a year ago:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Stay with us O Lord&#xD;&#xA;    shine [your] light on us,&#xD;&#xA;    with darkness of mind dispelled,&#xD;&#xA;    fill the world with sweetness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I've formatted the above as code, but I'm sure this isn't right; how does one get a quote formatted correctly in this forum?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="0751c76b-6cf5-4274-b57d-6ce409811730" CreationDate="2017-08-08T02:23:24.483" UserId="30" Text="As you say, the ablative absolute is translated freely, as an imperative. But that is completely normal, because, in a liberal/literary translation, any participial construction can be translated as a paratactic (parallel) clause to the main clause, so you'd get two parallel imperatives. So all those translations you posted of the abl. abs. are perfectly fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating *pulsa* as an imperative is really not possible syntactically, because *mentis caligine* really wouldn't fit semanto-syntactically &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, to *mundum*. It must be the (mostly post-classical) *world*; for it could only be &quot;fill me, pure as I am / fill me to be pure&quot; if there were a *me* in the Latin. It would have to be in that very clause as *me* (which it is not); or it would have to be in a parallel clause, also as *me*, and serving as an object in that clause, too. There is no *me* anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not believe the poetic/modest plural *nos* (if that's what it is here) is ever combined with a singular number. It would have to be *mundos*. Besides, I feel that *nos* would be too far back, in a different sentence and with a different semi-clause in between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it must really be &quot;world&quot;, which fits perfectly, both syntactically and semantically, whereas &quot;pure&quot; does not fit syntactically and would be difficult semantically. &quot;Fill me, pure one, with sweetness&quot; is not great semantically: why am I pure for or before or after being filled with sweetness? By contrast, the rest of the hymn is very tight and conventional with its semantic combinations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="4c4b2a64-ad42-415d-9b18-b17edda32d99" CreationDate="2017-08-08T02:28:59.993" UserId="30" Comment="edited body" Text="As you say, the **ablative absolute** is translated freely, as an imperative. But that is completely normal, because, in a liberal/literary translation, any participial construction can be translated as a paratactic (parallel) clause to the main clause, so you'd get two parallel imperatives. So all those translations you posted of the abl. abs. are perfectly fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating *pulsa* as an imperative is really not possible syntactically, because *mentis caligine* really wouldn't fit semanto-syntactically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, to ***mundum***. It must be the (mostly post-classical) *world*; for it could only be &quot;fill me, pure as I am / fill me to be pure&quot; if there were a *me* in the Latin. It would have to be in that very clause as *me* (which it is not); or it would have to be in a parallel clause, also as *me*, and serving as an object in that clause, too. There is no *me* anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not believe the poetic/modest plural *nos* (if that's what it is here) is ever combined with a singular number. It would have to be *mundos*. Besides, I feel that *nos* would be too far back, in a different sentence and with a different semi-clause in between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it must really be &quot;world&quot;, which fits perfectly, both syntactically and semantically, whereas &quot;pure&quot; does not fit syntactically and would be difficult semantically. &quot;Fill me, pure one, with sweetness&quot; is not great semantically: why am I pure for or before or after being filled with sweetness? By contrast, the rest of the hymn is very tight and conventional with its semantic combinations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="1b3be1b1-2d83-41a0-a60d-77295932880f" CreationDate="2017-08-08T02:45:38.290" UserId="30" Comment="added 434 characters in body" Text="As you say, the **ablative absolute** is translated freely, as an imperative. But that is completely normal, because, in a liberal/literary translation, any participial construction can be translated as a paratactic (parallel) clause to the main clause, so you'd get two parallel imperatives. So all those translations you posted of the abl. abs. are perfectly fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating *pulsa* as an imperative is really not possible syntactically, because *mentis caligine* really wouldn't fit semanto-syntactically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, to ***mundum***. It must be the (mostly post-classical) *world*; for it could only be &quot;fill me, pure as I am / fill me to be pure&quot; if there were a *me* in the Latin. It would have to be in that very clause as *me* (which it is not); or it would have to be in a parallel clause, also as *me*, and serving as an object in that clause, too. There is no *me* anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not believe the poetic/modest plural *nos* (if that's what it is here) is ever combined with a singular number. It would have to be *mundos*. Besides, I feel that *nos* would be too far back, in a different sentence and with a different semi-clause in between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it must really be &quot;world&quot;, which fits perfectly, both syntactically and semantically, whereas &quot;pure&quot; does not fit syntactically and would be difficult semantically. &quot;Fill me, pure one, with sweetness&quot; is not great semantically: why am I pure for or before or after being filled with sweetness? By contrast, the rest of the hymn is very tight and conventional with its semantic combinations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ **Update:** ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Evidence of the plural agreement of nomina with the 'pluralis modestiaez' *nos*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *imperatores appellati sumus*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; —  Cicero, *Letter to Atticus*, 5.20.3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Loeb edition [translates][1] this as &quot;I received the title of general from the army&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-letters_atticus/1999/pb_LCL008.81.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="56e0c0ad-af99-436a-8c9e-e89942ec6cde" CreationDate="2017-08-08T02:53:37.620" UserId="30" Comment="added 385 characters in body" Text="As you say, the **ablative absolute** is translated freely, as an imperative. But that is completely normal, because, in a liberal/literary translation, any participial construction can be translated as a paratactic (parallel) clause to the main clause, so you'd get two parallel imperatives. So all those translations you posted of the abl. abs. are perfectly fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating *pulsa* as an imperative is really not possible syntactically, because *mentis caligine* really wouldn't fit semanto-syntactically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, to ***mundum***. It must be the (mostly post-classical) *world*; for it could only be &quot;fill me, pure as I am / fill me to be pure&quot; if there were a *me* in the Latin. It would have to be in that very clause as *me* (which it is not); or it would have to be in a parallel clause, also as *me*, and serving as an object in that clause, too. There is no *me* anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not believe the poetic/modest plural *nos* (if that's what it is here) is ever combined with a singular number. It would have to be *mundos*. Besides, I feel that *nos* would be too far back, in a different sentence and with a different semi-clause in between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it must really be &quot;world&quot;, which fits perfectly, both syntactically and semantically, whereas &quot;pure&quot; does not fit syntactically and would be difficult semantically. &quot;Fill me, pure one, with sweetness&quot; is not great semantically: why am I pure for or before or after being filled with sweetness? By contrast, the rest of the hymn is very tight and conventional with its semantic combinations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ **Update:** ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Evidence of the plural agreement of nomina with the 'pluralis modestiaez' *nos*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *imperatores appellati sumus*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; —  Cicero, *Letter to Atticus*, 5.20.3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Loeb edition [translates][1] this as &quot;I received the title of general from the army&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, occasionally the singular and plural first person are mixed; for some examples, see the scans from Kühner—Stegmann [here][2]. But never in a way such as it would have to have been done in the text in question, where no hint of the singular is present in the entire hymn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-letters_atticus/1999/pb_LCL008.81.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/434/where-did-pluralis-ut-singularis-come-from-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5019" RevisionGUID="3314027a-5f7a-4bd6-8cc5-f8aba45334da" CreationDate="2017-08-08T05:15:07.663" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="I'll offer another translation that is fact not mine at all, but a translation of someone else (whose abilities I respect) on the Usenet group *alt.language.latin* where this same question came up about a year ago:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Stay with us O Lord&#xD; &#xA;&gt; shine [your] light on us,&#xD; &#xA;&gt; with darkness of mind dispelled,&#xD; &#xA;&gt; fill the world with sweetness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;P.S. I've formatted the above as code, but I'm sure this isn't right; how does one get a quote formatted correctly in this forum?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="482" RevisionGUID="0a5ba03e-11ea-438a-baf6-41168ff2b5c7" CreationDate="2017-08-08T09:14:39.697" UserId="79" Comment="added 102 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Did Romans or other ancient users of Latin have lists of difficult words with explanations in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I mean dictionaries composed entirely in Latin, not dictionaries between Latin and another language.&#xD;&#xA;I can think of many kinds of people who could have benefited from such dictionaries: native speakers during their studies, foreigners trying to learn Latin, public speakers trying to improve their speeches, citizens trying to understand difficult texts they encounter&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;If dictionaries were used, what evidence is there and have such word lists survived?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never heard of such dictionaries, but they would make a great source for understanding vocabulary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16597" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="482" RevisionGUID="0a5ba03e-11ea-438a-baf6-41168ff2b5c7" CreationDate="2017-08-08T09:14:39.697" UserId="79" Comment="added 102 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|roman-culture|dictionary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5021" RevisionGUID="38d870c8-6497-4f7c-8bfb-6bcfcc68fe2d" CreationDate="2017-08-08T12:59:57.813" UserId="1886" Text="I've seen the phrase in both wordings, which one is correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if I want to say &quot;From many, one&quot; not in the sense that many parts build a whole, but rather from many possible solutions or things, one (the best one) is selected, would it be the phrase I want? I'd like to use it as a tag line, so there is no further context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16599" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5021" RevisionGUID="38d870c8-6497-4f7c-8bfb-6bcfcc68fe2d" CreationDate="2017-08-08T12:59:57.813" UserId="1886" Text="E pluribus unum or Ex pluribus unum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16600" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5021" RevisionGUID="38d870c8-6497-4f7c-8bfb-6bcfcc68fe2d" CreationDate="2017-08-08T12:59:57.813" UserId="1886" Text="|idiom|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5019" RevisionGUID="4e2fc09d-45d8-4476-94c7-8531af3933bf" CreationDate="2017-08-08T14:31:13.313" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 133 characters in body" Text="I'll offer another translation that is fact not mine at all, but a translation of someone else (whose abilities I respect) on the Usenet group *alt.language.latin* where this same question came up about a year ago:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stay with us O Lord  &#xD;&#xA;shine [your] light on us,  &#xD;&#xA;with darkness of mind dispelled,  &#xD;&#xA;fill the world with sweetness.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5022" RevisionGUID="7507d2f7-df15-4def-80c1-b963f12a164e" CreationDate="2017-08-08T14:50:23.027" UserDisplayName="user1861" Text="Both ex and e are correct before consonants, with ex more common (confirmed by Lewis and Short), while ex is of course required before vowels. In his *Confessions*, St Augustine wrote (IV.8) &quot;flagrare animos et ex pluribus unum facere&quot;. As a motto of the USA, I believe it is always &quot;e pluribus unum&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5021" RevisionGUID="be917c3e-c561-4438-9d4d-8099dc289e43" CreationDate="2017-08-08T14:59:47.313" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and edited slightly." Text="I've seen the phrase in both wordings *E pluribus unum* and *Ex pluribus unum*. Which one is correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if I want to say &quot;From many, one&quot; not in the sense that many parts build a whole, but rather from many possible solutions or things, one (the best one) is selected, would it be the phrase I want? I'd like to use it as a tag line, so there is no further context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16604" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5021" RevisionGUID="be917c3e-c561-4438-9d4d-8099dc289e43" CreationDate="2017-08-08T14:59:47.313" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and edited slightly." Text="|preposition|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="366a3c51-dced-465a-88d7-bdcdfdc341d1" CreationDate="2017-08-08T15:16:39.510" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="As you say, the **ablative absolute** is translated freely, as an imperative. But that is completely normal, because, in a liberal/literary translation, any participial construction can be translated as a paratactic (parallel) clause to the main clause, so you'd get two parallel imperatives. So all those translations you posted of the abl. abs. are perfectly fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating *pulsa* as an imperative is really not possible syntactically, because *mentis caligine* really wouldn't fit semanto-syntactically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, to ***mundum***. It must be the (mostly post-classical) *world*; for it could only be &quot;fill me, pure as I am / fill me to be pure&quot; if there were a *me* in the Latin. It would have to be in that very clause as *me* (which it is not); or it would have to be in a parallel clause, also as *me*, and serving as an object in that clause, too. There is no *me* anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not believe the poetic/modest plural *nos* (if that's what it is here) is ever combined with a singular number. It would have to be *mundos*. Besides, I feel that *nos* would be too far back, in a different sentence and with a different semi-clause in between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it must really be &quot;world&quot;, which fits perfectly, both syntactically and semantically, whereas &quot;pure&quot; does not fit syntactically and would be difficult semantically. &quot;Fill me, pure one, with sweetness&quot; is not great semantically: why am I pure for or before or after being filled with sweetness? By contrast, the rest of the hymn is very tight and conventional with its semantic combinations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ **Update:** ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Evidence of the plural agreement of nomina with the 'pluralis modestiaez' *nos*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *imperatores appellati sumus*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; —  Cicero, *Letter to Atticus*, 5.20.3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Loeb edition [translates][1] this as &quot;I received the title of general from the army&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, occasionally the singular and plural first person are mixed; for some examples, see the scans from Kühner—Stegmann [here][2]. But never in a way such as would be required in the text in question, where no hint of the singular is present in the entire hymn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-letters_atticus/1999/pb_LCL008.81.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/434/where-did-pluralis-ut-singularis-come-from-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5023" RevisionGUID="52913d09-a63d-4a08-8199-3156d57be0b2" CreationDate="2017-08-08T15:22:28.047" UserId="12" Text="The general rule for the use of *e* and *ex* as prepositions can be found in Latin grammars like Gildersleeve's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ē** is used before consonants only, **ex** before both vowels and consonants. ([§417.6](https://books.google.com/books?id=UU0BIAbE0SIC&amp;pg=PA272))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short write that *ex* is still more common than *e* in front of consonants, but that some forms tend to use *e*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ex** or *ē* (*ex* always before vowels, and elsewh. more freq. than *e*; e. g. in Cic. Rep. *e* occurs 19 times, but *ex* 61 times, before consonants—but no rule can be given for the usage; cf., e. g., *ex* and *e* together: qui ex corporum vinculis tamquam e carcere evolaverunt, *Cic. Rep. 6, 14*. But certain expressions have almost constantly the same form, as ex parte, ex sententia, ex senatus consulto, ex lege, ex tempore, etc.; but e regione, e re nata, e vestigio, e medio, and e republica used adverbially. ([source](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.4:1497.lewisandshort))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With respect to the word *pluribus*, PHI's concordance of Classical Latin gives [108 instances of *ex* preceding it](http://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23ex+pluribus), and [only five of *e*](http://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23e+pluribus).  One of the latter reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; paulatim singula uires deperdunt proprias, color est e pluribus unus,	nec totus uiridis, quia lactea frusta repugnant, nec de lacte nitens, quia tot uariatur ab herbis. ([Appendix Vergiliana, *Moretum* 1, 101–4](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/692/11/0/4642-4652#0))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So both are correct, and in Classical Latin at least, *ex* is more common." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5024" RevisionGUID="3a6806a0-e4c0-41c0-8bcc-3599f7e4e0c9" CreationDate="2017-08-08T15:26:27.297" UserId="79" Text="In English you kill two birds with one stone when you achieve two goals in one action.&#xD;&#xA;In Finnish or Dutch you get two flies in one hit.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a similar saying in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I prefer classical Latin, but any era is welcome if there is a particularly suitable saying.&#xD;&#xA;It is easy to translate the idioms from other languages directly, but that is rarely a good idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16608" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5024" RevisionGUID="3a6806a0-e4c0-41c0-8bcc-3599f7e4e0c9" CreationDate="2017-08-08T15:26:27.297" UserId="79" Text="Two birds with one stone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16609" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5024" RevisionGUID="3a6806a0-e4c0-41c0-8bcc-3599f7e4e0c9" CreationDate="2017-08-08T15:26:27.297" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5002" RevisionGUID="34f5ac3c-31d3-4f4f-9c4c-0d58f5c676bc" CreationDate="2017-08-08T15:30:47.280" UserId="79" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="There is an academic title in Finland called &quot;dosentti&quot; (Finnish) or &quot;docent&quot; (Swedish).&#xD;&#xA;However, there is a disagreement in Finland whether it should be translated in English as [docent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docent#Finland) or [adjunct professor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjunct_professor).&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I believe the second option is much better understood globally, and therefore the best translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the purposes of updating my homepage, especially the Latin version, I would like to find a good Latin translation for &quot;dosentti&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, a translation would have precedent in Latin use and be easily understood globally, so that many academics around the would get an idea of what the title entails.&#xD;&#xA;I understand if both goals cannot be reached simultaneously.&#xD;&#xA;How would you translate the title in Latin, and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pitkäranta's dictionary translates is as *docens*, but the translations are not justified in any way, so it is hard to judge how fitting it really is.&#xD;&#xA;The etymological connection is clear, but that alone is insufficient grounds for translation.&#xD;&#xA;The second option that comes to mind is *professor adiunctus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Finnish adjunct professorship (or whatever you prefer to call it) is not a paid position, but more of an honorary title and sign of affiliation.&#xD;&#xA;It gives the permission to supervise PhD students and act in other roles in the PhD defense and evaluation process.&#xD;&#xA;It also allows being the principal investigator in some of grants.&#xD;&#xA;A person can have several such adjunct positions in different universities.&#xD;&#xA;The position is very different from [assistant and associate professors](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4961/79), which are regular paid staff.&#xD;&#xA;Adjunct professorship in Finland is somewhat similar to habilitation in Germany.&#xD;&#xA;The title &quot;docent&quot; in Sweden is similar to the Finnish one if I understand correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Since the question concerns a Finnish title, let me repeat the main question in Finnish:&#xD;&#xA;Miten sanotaan &quot;dosentti&quot; latinaksi?&#xD;&#xA;Pitkärannan sanakirja tarjoaa sanaa *docens*, mutta sanavalintaa ei perustella.&#xD;&#xA;Englanniksi titteli on joko &quot;(title of) docent&quot; tai &quot;adjunct professor&quot; riippuen siitä, keneltä kysytään.&#xD;&#xA;Nämä kaksi englanninnosta tarjoavat heti latinannoksia *docens* ja *professor adiunctus*, muttei ole ihan selvää, kumpi olisi parempi kuvaamaan nykyistä dosentuuria Suomessa, tai olisiko sittenkin jokin muu sana parempi.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5025" RevisionGUID="864648b6-3312-404d-86df-762dcba2fe43" CreationDate="2017-08-08T15:40:43.240" UserId="12" Text="Cicero is cited in this regard by [Riddle and Freund's lexicon](https://books.google.com/books?id=mAwjAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA922&amp;lpg=PA922&amp;dq=Duo+parietes+de+eadem+fidelia+dealbare&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=K4wVSEepIu&amp;sig=1QzT3vj1Z0-zCGGBIlCnGplkDRs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjUluOa-sfVAhUl34MKHdk8BJsQ6AEIPzAH#v=onepage&amp;q=Duo%20parietes%20de%20eadem%20fidelia%20dealbare&amp;f=false): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Duo parietes de eadem fidelia dealbare  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Whitewash two walls out of the same pot*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase comes from [*Ad Familiares*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistulae_ad_Familiares), [7.29.2](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/fam7.shtml#29).  It's worth noting, however, that others suggest a different understanding.  [The editor of the version on Perseus](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=PerseusLatinTexts&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Cic.%20Fam.%207.29) writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A proverb for one who &quot;blows hot and cold,&quot; who &quot;sits on the hedge,&quot; or who tries &quot;to serve two masters.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5025" RevisionGUID="d4c5354b-788c-45a0-9aa7-c750c4d8a988" CreationDate="2017-08-08T16:10:33.210" UserId="12" Comment="added 642 characters in body" Text="Cicero is cited in this regard by [Riddle and Freund's lexicon](https://books.google.com/books?id=mAwjAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA922&amp;lpg=PA922&amp;dq=Duo+parietes+de+eadem+fidelia+dealbare&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=K4wVSEepIu&amp;sig=1QzT3vj1Z0-zCGGBIlCnGplkDRs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjUluOa-sfVAhUl34MKHdk8BJsQ6AEIPzAH#v=onepage&amp;q=Duo%20parietes%20de%20eadem%20fidelia%20dealbare&amp;f=false): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Duo parietes de eadem fidelia dealbare  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Whitewash two walls out of the same pot*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase comes from [*Ad Familiares*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistulae_ad_Familiares), [7.29.2](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/fam7.shtml#29).  It's worth noting, however, that others suggest a different understanding.  [The editor of the version on Perseus](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=PerseusLatinTexts&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Cic.%20Fam.%207.29) writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A proverb for one who &quot;blows hot and cold,&quot; who &quot;sits on the hedge,&quot; or who tries &quot;to serve two masters.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility would be to make reference to Ovid's story of Tiresias, who struck two snakes with one blow of his staff:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nam duo magnorum viridi coeuntia silva corpora serpentum baculi violaverat ictu deque viro factus (mirabile) femina septem egerat autumnos ([3.324–27](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/ovid/ovid.met3.shtml))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are caveats here too: Tiresias wasn't trying to kill the snakes, and the difficulty associated with killing two birds at once is not also found in the striking of these two snakes. But it does involve solving a &quot;problem&quot; by a single action, so that image might perhaps be pressed into service." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5026" RevisionGUID="c2e0e9f8-df4e-4651-812d-dab8ecd925b8" CreationDate="2017-08-08T16:50:24.890" UserId="45" Text="The above-mentioned &quot;duo parietes&quot; seems has a meaning more like &quot;have your cake and eat it too,&quot; i.e. to pursue two conflicting goals at the same time. Cicero also describes this same phenomenon in other terms in [*Pro Sexto Roscio*, 29](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0010%3Atext%3DS.+Rosc.%3Achapter%3D29%3Asection%3D80):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interdum mihi videris, Eruci, **una mercede duas res adsequi velle**, nos iudicio perfundere5, accusare autem eos ipsos a quibus mercedem accepisti.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yonge's translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Meantime you seem to me, O Erucius, to be wishing to obtain two articles for one payment; to blacken our characters in this trial, and to accuse those very men from whom you have received payment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Plautus uses two expressions that cleave closer to the meaning of &quot;kill two birds with one stone.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The first seems more like a literal description than an expression, but I'll include it anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; sed Alcumenae huius honoris gratia  &#xD;&#xA;  pater curavit uno ut fetu fieret,  &#xD;&#xA;  **uno ut labore absolvat aerumnas duas.** (Plautus, *Amphitruo*, I.2.24-26)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The context here is that Alcumena has been impregnated by both her husband and by Jupiter, but Jupiter has decreed that she should have both children in a single birth. The bolded portion literally means, &quot;to complete two [birth-] pangs in one labor.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. We have a second example that is actually a metaphor. It's in expression form, though there's no reason to think it was often used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; iam ego **uno in saltu lepide apros capiam duos.** (Plautus, *Casina*, II.8.40)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This can mean either &quot;to catch two boars in one bush&quot; or &quot;to catch two boars in one leap.&quot; (It could be that one of these readings is impermissible: please let me know if so!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="bda1d8fb-3abb-4e97-8cb6-015354bd182e" CreationDate="2017-08-08T17:11:51.720" UserId="45" Text="Another example I came across, even though it doesn't seem to have classical examples: [***euroauster***](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Deuroauster), &quot;the Southeast wind,&quot; which is a combination of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [*eurus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Deurus), from Greek [*εὖρος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D*eu\)%3Dros), &quot;the East wind&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. [*auster*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dauster1), &quot;the South wind&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Classically, this word uses both Greek roots: [*euronotus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Deuronotus) from *εὐρόνοτος*, but Isidore gives some *late* testimony that the Greek + Latin combination was in use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Euroauster dictus quod ex una parte habeat Eurum, ex altera Austrum. ([*Etym.*, XIII.11.6](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/isidore/13.shtml))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5026" RevisionGUID="04244b80-d946-4ad2-ab03-c417d9b2ebdc" CreationDate="2017-08-08T18:16:14.397" UserId="45" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="The above-mentioned &quot;duo parietes&quot; seems to have a meaning more like &quot;have your cake and eat it too,&quot; i.e. to pursue two conflicting goals at the same time. Cicero also describes this same phenomenon in other terms in [*Pro Sexto Roscio*, 29](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0010%3Atext%3DS.+Rosc.%3Achapter%3D29%3Asection%3D80):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interdum mihi videris, Eruci, **una mercede duas res adsequi velle**, nos iudicio perfundere, accusare autem eos ipsos a quibus mercedem accepisti.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yonge's translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Meantime you seem to me, O Erucius, to be wishing to obtain two articles for one payment; to blacken our characters in this trial, and to accuse those very men from whom you have received payment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although both these expressions have the same &quot;drift,&quot; I don't think they are good substitutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus uses two expressions that cleave closer to the meaning of &quot;kill two birds with one stone.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The first seems more like a literal description than an expression, but I'll include it anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; sed Alcumenae huius honoris gratia  &#xD;&#xA;  pater curavit uno ut fetu fieret,  &#xD;&#xA;  **uno ut labore absolvat aerumnas duas.** (Plautus, *Amphitruo*, I.2.24-26)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The context here is that Alcumena has been impregnated by both her husband and by Jupiter, but Jupiter has decreed that she should have both children in a single birth. The bolded portion literally means, &quot;to complete two [birth-] pangs in one labor.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. We have a second example that is actually a metaphor. It's in expression form, though there's no reason to think it was often used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; iam ego **uno in saltu lepide apros capiam duos.** (Plautus, *Casina*, II.8.40)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This can mean either &quot;to catch two boars in one bush&quot; or &quot;to catch two boars in one leap.&quot; (It could be that one of these readings is impermissible: please let me know if so!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5028" RevisionGUID="60aadf4f-9979-4040-a595-db8e758d71bd" CreationDate="2017-08-08T20:34:26.063" UserId="1886" Text="Ex pluribus unum means (simplified) &quot;From many, one&quot;, in the sense that many parts build one whole. Can I also use the phrase in the sense that from many possible solutions or things only one (the best) is selected? It's for a tagline, so there is no further context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16617" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5028" RevisionGUID="60aadf4f-9979-4040-a595-db8e758d71bd" CreationDate="2017-08-08T20:34:26.063" UserId="1886" Text="Double meaning Ex pluribus unum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16618" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5028" RevisionGUID="60aadf4f-9979-4040-a595-db8e758d71bd" CreationDate="2017-08-08T20:34:26.063" UserId="1886" Text="|idiom|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5021" RevisionGUID="d672fe80-13b3-4655-8ef1-756a777b5eaf" CreationDate="2017-08-08T20:44:22.977" UserId="79" Comment="Replaced the second question with a link to the separate question." Text="I've seen the phrase in both wordings *E pluribus unum* and *Ex pluribus unum*. Which one is correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [my follow-up question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5028/79) for the double meaning of this phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5030" RevisionGUID="1ef9aff5-4df7-441b-8d7b-d0907339d840" CreationDate="2017-08-09T06:26:25.770" UserDisplayName="user1861" Text="One of the senses of &quot;ex&quot; well cited in Lewis and Short is to &quot;specify a multitude from which something [or someone] is taken&quot; - for instance someone is chosen from a group to do something. So I think your suggested use would be perfectly proper. It would not of course be clear that the tag referred to one of a choice of solutions: but then in the motto of the USA, &quot;e pluribus unum&quot;, it is not stated what is being referred to (it is the name of the country that makes that clear) and with heraldic mottos it is often not explicit what is being referred to either. If you wanted readers to realise you were referring to solutions, you would need somewhere to give them more information, but this would not have to be in the tagline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5026" RevisionGUID="0b0900bc-758a-4828-9ba1-29f932e2285d" CreationDate="2017-08-09T11:33:36.040" UserId="12" Comment="no longer above!" Text="The &quot;duo parietes&quot; in [another answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5025/12) seems to have a meaning more like &quot;have your cake and eat it too,&quot; i.e. to pursue two conflicting goals at the same time. Cicero also describes this same phenomenon in other terms in [*Pro Sexto Roscio*, 29](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0010%3Atext%3DS.+Rosc.%3Achapter%3D29%3Asection%3D80):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interdum mihi videris, Eruci, **una mercede duas res adsequi velle**, nos iudicio perfundere, accusare autem eos ipsos a quibus mercedem accepisti.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yonge's translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Meantime you seem to me, O Erucius, to be wishing to obtain two articles for one payment; to blacken our characters in this trial, and to accuse those very men from whom you have received payment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although both these expressions have the same &quot;drift,&quot; I don't think they are good substitutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus uses two expressions that cleave closer to the meaning of &quot;kill two birds with one stone.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The first seems more like a literal description than an expression, but I'll include it anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; sed Alcumenae huius honoris gratia  &#xD;&#xA;  pater curavit uno ut fetu fieret,  &#xD;&#xA;  **uno ut labore absolvat aerumnas duas.** (Plautus, *Amphitruo*, I.2.24-26)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The context here is that Alcumena has been impregnated by both her husband and by Jupiter, but Jupiter has decreed that she should have both children in a single birth. The bolded portion literally means, &quot;to complete two [birth-] pangs in one labor.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. We have a second example that is actually a metaphor. It's in expression form, though there's no reason to think it was often used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; iam ego **uno in saltu lepide apros capiam duos.** (Plautus, *Casina*, II.8.40)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This can mean either &quot;to catch two boars in one bush&quot; or &quot;to catch two boars in one leap.&quot; (It could be that one of these readings is impermissible: please let me know if so!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5031" RevisionGUID="1a774b06-cb67-46ca-ba25-28f44af2c626" CreationDate="2017-08-09T12:12:36.050" UserId="1459" Text="I was studying [this book](https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_Pe9EHPxEtJkC) and it surprises me that **the bottom right of every page includes the first syllable (?) of the next page's first word**. An example below (`Leges`, `Quif`):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following my curiosity, I searched other Latin books and found the same pattern in many of them (e.g [here](https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_74STXQCl1bEC), [here](https://archive.org/details/hin-wel-all-00000837-001), [here](https://archive.org/details/dediuavirginecop00marr), or [here](https://archive.org/details/commentariainsin02farguoft)) but not all (e.g. [here](https://archive.org/details/flodoardipresbyt00flod), [here](https://archive.org/details/deinfinitivohome00engl), or [here](https://archive.org/details/ned-kbn-all-00003043-001)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Does this printing style have a name?&#xD;&#xA;2. How widespread could we say it was? (perhaps a time-period?)&#xD;&#xA;3. What was its function? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fQgTE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16631" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5031" RevisionGUID="1a774b06-cb67-46ca-ba25-28f44af2c626" CreationDate="2017-08-09T12:12:36.050" UserId="1459" Text="Is this printing style common in Latin books?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16632" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5031" RevisionGUID="1a774b06-cb67-46ca-ba25-28f44af2c626" CreationDate="2017-08-09T12:12:36.050" UserId="1459" Text="|book|print|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5031" RevisionGUID="dff39e0f-2ba2-4871-ac86-0b79c171d158" CreationDate="2017-08-09T12:32:36.107" UserId="1459" Comment="edited body" Text="I was studying [this book](https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_Pe9EHPxEtJkC) and it surprised me that **the bottom right of every page includes the first syllable (?) of the next page's first word**. An example below (`Leges`, `Quif`):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following my curiosity, I searched other Latin books and found the same pattern in many of them (e.g [here](https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_74STXQCl1bEC), [here](https://archive.org/details/hin-wel-all-00000837-001), [here](https://archive.org/details/dediuavirginecop00marr), or [here](https://archive.org/details/commentariainsin02farguoft)) but not all (e.g. [here](https://archive.org/details/flodoardipresbyt00flod), [here](https://archive.org/details/deinfinitivohome00engl), or [here](https://archive.org/details/ned-kbn-all-00003043-001)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Does this printing style have a name?&#xD;&#xA;2. How widespread could we say it was? (perhaps a time-period?)&#xD;&#xA;3. What was its function? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fQgTE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5032" RevisionGUID="49b6f952-26e0-4580-81d9-c71c5e146505" CreationDate="2017-08-09T14:19:00.690" UserId="324" Text="It is called a catchword and is common in manuscripts and in early printed books. Usually it appears only on the verso (even-numbered pages) and it allows the bookbinders to make sure that nothing is missing and that the pages are in the right order. Sometimes a catchword will appear (as here) also on the recto (odd-numbered page), for purely aesthetic purposes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5032" RevisionGUID="600290db-0c02-4e01-b3dc-cc52cbf2a91e" CreationDate="2017-08-09T14:52:52.167" UserId="324" Comment="added 296 characters in body" Text="It is called a catchword and is common in manuscripts and in early printed books. Usually it appears only on the verso (even-numbered pages) and it allows the bookbinders to make sure that nothing is missing and that the pages are in the right order. Sometimes a catchword will appear (as here) also on the recto (odd-numbered page), for purely aesthetic purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that in manuscripts in left-to-right scripts (like Latin) the catchword will normally be on the left-hand page, while in manuscripts in right-to-left scripts (Arabic, Hebrew etc.) the catchword will be on the right-hand page, as here: http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/119/162/Page_159.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5033" RevisionGUID="a8fc8845-9e7b-40ad-bd2c-85116271ef78" CreationDate="2017-08-09T15:12:17.927" UserId="645" Text="This 'typesetting leader' was widely in use from early printing times but was not universal, as your examples indicate. In English, it occurs, for  example, in Gibbon's *History of the Decline &amp; Fall of the Roman Empire* and, as @Alex B comments on your question, it certainly carried on, in English at least, well into the nineteenth century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As @fdb says, it is nothing more than a printer's checking device; it was once quite common, too, to buy a book as uncut or unbound papers — when it could be used as a sorting guide — either because the purchaser couldn't afford the cased version, or because he was rich enough to pay for a special binding to suit his personal taste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard to put a date for its extinction: I remember seventy years ago being given textbooks from the early twentieth-century — not in Latin, but in both English and French — which used the same device, but I should think that by that time it was at its last gasp.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5032" RevisionGUID="1c1faa57-8628-448b-8ad3-369131d032af" CreationDate="2017-08-09T15:42:12.320" UserId="324" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="It is called a catchword and is common in manuscripts and in early printed books. Usually it appears only on the verso (even-numbered pages) and it allows the bookbinders to make sure that nothing is missing and that the pages are in the right order. Sometimes a catchword will appear (as here) also on the recto (odd-numbered page), for purely aesthetic purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that in manuscripts in left-to-right scripts (like Latin) the catchword will normally be on the left-hand page, while in manuscripts in right-to-left scripts (Arabic, Hebrew etc.) the catchword will be on the right-hand page, as here: http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/119/162/Page_159.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen the Latin “vox reclamans” used in this sense, but am not sure whether this is already a mediaeval or only a humanistic usage. In French you say réclame." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1948" RevisionGUID="f3fdce11-337c-44e2-bfe7-39b4fe9b5b72" CreationDate="2017-08-09T17:29:41.597" UserId="79" Comment="Added a note about Nonae/nonae." Text="I will split this answer in two halves, for two different kinds of date expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# On November 4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The traditional Roman calendar, whose system is still in use in some festive occasions, is based on three special days in each month:&#xD;&#xA;*Kalendae* (first day of the month), *Nonae* (fifth or seventh), and *Idus* (13th or 15th).&#xD;&#xA;The later options (7 and 15 instead of 5 and 13) were used in March, May, July, and October; in the other months *Nonae* was fifth and *Idus* thirteenth.&#xD;&#xA;All these three words are plural feminines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name *Nonae* should not be confused with the feminine plural of &quot;ninth&quot; (*nonae*).&#xD;&#xA;Capitalization and inflection both hint which one is meant, as feminine adjectives are not needed for dates.&#xD;&#xA;There are &quot;ninth&quot; days in the Roman calendar, but they occur in connection with *Kalendae*, never together with *Nonae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the date falls on one of these special days, you simply put it in ablative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- on March 1 = *Kalendis Martiis*&#xD;&#xA;- on August 5 = *Nonis Augustis*&#xD;&#xA;- on October 15 = *Idibus Octobribus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of days immediately before special days, use the word *pridies* in ablative and put the special day in accusative.&#xD;&#xA;The name of the month is that of the special day, not necessarily that of the day of interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- on February 28 (29 on leap years) = *pridie Kalendas Martias*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I have sometimes seen *postridie* used the same way for days right after a special day.&#xD;&#xA;If this method is used, then &quot;on August 6&quot; = *postridie Nonas Augustas*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For all other days, you count days to the following special day.&#xD;&#xA;As is typical in Latin, counting is inclusive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- on October 13 = *ante diem tertium Idus Octobres*&#xD;&#xA;- on October 12 = *ante diem quartum Idus Octobres*&#xD;&#xA;- on October 17 = *ante diem sextum decimum Kalendas Novembres*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these can be abbreviated, of course:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Kal. Nov.*&#xD;&#xA;- *prid. Id. Aug.*&#xD;&#xA;- *a. d. XIV Kal. Dec.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Counting days before *Kalendae Martiae* on a leap year is a bit tricky, and I will exclude it here.&#xD;&#xA;This special case and the story behind it should be taken to a separate question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contemporary Latin, it is common to write things in a more simple and modern way: &quot;on January 5&quot; is simply *die quinto mensis Ianuarii*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be abbreviated further without much risk of confusion.&#xD;&#xA;The first option I propose is to leave out *die* and *mensis*, since they can be understood implicitly, leaving us with *quinto Ianuarii*.&#xD;&#xA;Another option is to take the month name (which is an adjective in Latin) to modify the numeral or the implicit *dies*, leading to *quinto Ianuario*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A year can be added by the ablative of *annus* and an ordinal numeral: *Hic situs palam factus est Idibus Martiis anno bis millesimo sexto decimo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Today is November 4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any ancient use of phrases like &quot;today is November 4&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, *pridie* is often considered an adverb since the noun *pridies* is only found in the singular ablative form used in dates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the old system can be adapted to such expressions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- today is August 5 = *hodie sunt Nonae Augustae*&#xD;&#xA;- today is March 31 = *hodie est pridies Kalendas Apriles*&#xD;&#xA;- today is October 12 = *hodie est dies quartus ante Idus Octobres*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I stress that these are not attested (as far as I know), but I consider them to be a reasonable extension of classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Notice that *hodie* is here an adverb, not the subject in the above sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the more modern variants, the construction is simple: &quot;today is August 5&quot; = *hodie est dies quintus mensis Augusti*.&#xD;&#xA;Again, ellipsis is possible if this feels too verbose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A year can be added like in the &quot;on November 4&quot; case.&#xD;&#xA;But now genitive is more appropriate than ablative: &quot;Today is [December 6 of the year 1917](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_(Finland)).&quot; = *Hodie est dies octavus ante Idus Decembres anni millesimi nongentesimi septimi decimi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me end with listing all the possibilities I offer for November 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On November 4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *pridie Nonas Novembres (prid. Non. Nov.)*&#xD;&#xA;- *die quarto mensis Novembris (die 4 mensis Nov.)*&#xD;&#xA;- *quarto Novembris (4 Nov.)*&#xD;&#xA;- *[die] quarto Novembri (4 Nov.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today is November 4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *hodie est pridies Nonas Novembres*&#xD;&#xA;- *hodie est dies quartus mensis Novembris*&#xD;&#xA;- *hodie est quartus Novembris*&#xD;&#xA;- *hodie est [dies] quartus November*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="431" RevisionGUID="3023d1f7-2018-4a93-a7f8-96b6679a1a2c" CreationDate="2017-08-09T18:35:41.207" UserId="79" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="Not only was *estote* used, but also the third person plural future imperative *sunto*.&#xD;&#xA;This is not limited to *esse*; a quick search produced examples for *facere* as well (*facito*, *facitote*, *faciunto*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides using a specialized search tool like James Kingsbery mentions, you can also use Google.&#xD;&#xA;Knowing that [The Latin Library](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/) contains a lot of relevant texts, searching for &quot;site:thelatinlibrary.com estote&quot; is a simple way to find examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will leave finding examples of the mentioned forms to you because I want to encourage you to play with such search tools.&#xD;&#xA;You may also want to check out [our list of Latin text corpora and related tools](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1854/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5035" RevisionGUID="bb264b78-ed2b-4261-9397-2fc09b902885" CreationDate="2017-08-10T00:23:38.813" UserId="172" Text="Indeed, the PHI Concordance [reveals many examples](http://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23ex+pluribus)¹ where *ex pluribus unum* means *one out of many*, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;cum praetor *unum ex pluribus* iudicare uetat, ceteris id committere uidetur. (Just.Dig., 5.1.12): “When praetor prohibits *one of many* [judges] to give a verdict, other [judges] are [nonetheless] expected to.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;si *uni ex pluribus* iudicibus de liberali causa cognoscenti de re non liqueat... (Just.Dig., 42.1.36) “If *one of many* judges does not consider the matter proven...”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;quae idem significarent &lt;scio&gt; solitos ediscere, quo facilius et occurreret *unum ex pluribus*... (Quint.Inst., 10.1.7): “those in the habit of learning [words] with exactly same meaning, so that *[any] one [word] of many* would come to mind easily...”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__  &#xD;&#xA;¹ With thanks to Nathaniel for the reference in [their answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5023/172) to another question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5036" RevisionGUID="e8b25034-f717-4160-b782-c039dd46b22a" CreationDate="2017-08-10T00:26:47.910" UserId="1893" Text="Memento Memori coins or tattoos act as reminders to not obsess over trivialities, or trying to become famous, make more money than we could ever spend, or make plans far off in the future. All these are negated by death. It’s time we stop pretending otherwise.![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/bd55i.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5037" RevisionGUID="4a48f642-c84b-490d-b87a-16350293e019" CreationDate="2017-08-10T06:10:57.430" UserId="441" Text="I've even seen this in old books written in other languages as well (including Dutch, English and French). It's a thing they used to do, but usually stopped doing many years ago (it would be great if someone knew around what time this was, I suppose it has something to do with the (semi-)automation of printing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason you see it more in Latin books is because relatively speaking more Latin books are this old." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5038" RevisionGUID="faa7e679-ab87-4e53-a8b6-bc4ee7e172ce" CreationDate="2017-08-10T07:44:48.807" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[ [Wiktionary for 'même'](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/m%C3%AAme) :] **Etymology**     &#xD;&#xA;**[3.]** From [Middle French](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_French_language &quot;w:Middle French language&quot;) _[mesme](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mesme#Middle_French &quot;mesme&quot;)_, from [Old French](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French_language &quot;w:Old French language&quot;) _[mesme](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mesme#Old_French &quot;mesme&quot;)_, earlier _[meïsme](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/meisme#Old_French &quot;meisme&quot;)_,        &#xD;&#xA;**[2.]** from [Vulgar Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin &quot;w:Vulgar Latin&quot;) _[\*metipsimus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Latin/metipsimus &quot;Reconstruction:Latin/metipsimus&quot;)_ [= the same],      &#xD;&#xA;**[1.]** from [Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin &quot;w:Latin&quot;) _[-met](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-met#Latin &quot;-met&quot;)_ [emphatic suffix] + _[ipse](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ipse#Latin &quot;ipse&quot;)_ [“himself”] + _[-issimus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-issimus#Latin &quot;-issimus&quot;)_ [superlative suffix].     &#xD;&#xA;Cognates include Spanish _[mismo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mismo#Spanish &quot;mismo&quot;)_, Portuguese _[mesmo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mesmo#Portuguese &quot;mesmo&quot;)_ and Italian _[medesimo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/medesimo#Italian &quot;medesimo&quot;)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I addedthe Syntatic Categories for 1 and 2 from the link in 2 above.    &#xD;&#xA;How did 2 semantically shift to 3? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16650" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5038" RevisionGUID="faa7e679-ab87-4e53-a8b6-bc4ee7e172ce" CreationDate="2017-08-10T07:44:48.807" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What semantic notions underlie &lt;the same&gt; (in *metipsimus) and &lt;even&gt; (in 'même')?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16651" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5038" RevisionGUID="faa7e679-ab87-4e53-a8b6-bc4ee7e172ce" CreationDate="2017-08-10T07:44:48.807" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|french|vulgar-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5039" RevisionGUID="2e624515-4998-45cf-a0a9-7b40c12dc24b" CreationDate="2017-08-10T07:49:10.760" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[ [Wiktionary for *metipsimus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Latin/metipsimus) :] **Etymology**      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**[0.]** From _[-met](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-met#Latin &quot;-met&quot;)_ (emphatic suffix) + _[ipse](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ipse#Latin &quot;ipse&quot;)_ (“himself”) + _[-issimus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-issimus#Latin &quot;-issimus&quot;)_ (superlative suffix).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;### Adjective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**\*metipsimus** (_feminine_ **[\*metipsima](https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Reconstruction:Latin/metipsima&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1 &quot;Reconstruction:Latin/metipsima (page does not exist)&quot;)**, _neuter_ **[\*metipsimum](https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Reconstruction:Latin/metipsimum&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1 &quot;Reconstruction:Latin/metipsimum (page does not exist)&quot;)**); _[first](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_first_declension &quot;Appendix:Latin first declension&quot;)/[second declension](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_second_declension &quot;Appendix:Latin second declension&quot;)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1.  ([Vulgar Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin &quot;w:Vulgar Latin&quot;)) [same](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/same#English &quot;same&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What semantic notions underlie 0 and 1 above? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16653" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5039" RevisionGUID="2e624515-4998-45cf-a0a9-7b40c12dc24b" CreationDate="2017-08-10T07:49:10.760" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How did -met + ipse + -issimus compound to mean &lt;the same&gt; (in *metipsimus)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16654" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5039" RevisionGUID="2e624515-4998-45cf-a0a9-7b40c12dc24b" CreationDate="2017-08-10T07:49:10.760" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|vulgar-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5040" RevisionGUID="5430ba88-2092-4399-9cc5-16efbc400385" CreationDate="2017-08-10T07:55:23.420" UserId="79" Text="Using the example from Wiktionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Même les rois doivent mourir  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; = Even kings must die  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; = Kings must die, the same way as everyone else&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps even &quot;Kings must die the same&quot;, but this is too close to the boundaries of my syntactical comfort zone in English for me to make strong claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two English translations (the first one from Wiktionary, the second one mine) mean the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;It is just that in this particular case &quot;even&quot; means the same as &quot;same&quot;, although their use is different syntactically.&#xD;&#xA;I don't see a significant semantic shift here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, as an adjective *même* means &quot;same&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Although there is a syntactical difference in use between adjectives and adverbs, there appears to be little difference in semantics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I should also stress that the English &quot;even&quot; in this context is the adverb, not the adjective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5041" RevisionGUID="3e393e69-a520-4a47-8bd3-914196c5af6b" CreationDate="2017-08-10T08:17:33.517" UserId="867" Text="It seems that ***nam*** can be used like this, [&quot;to resume the course of thought after a parenthetical interruption&quot;.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, however, it was hard to find examples that actually capture the full sense of &quot;so, as I was saying/to get back to the matter at hand&quot;.  Instead, *nam* is more often used (even in the examples cited by Lewis and Short) to say something more like &quot;so, because of what I just said, this follows&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, here are the examples I thought best illustrated what you're after:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***nam**, simulac me Dyrrhachium attigisse audivit ...*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **so, as I was saying**, as soon as he heard that I had reached&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dyrrhachium ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Pro Plancio*, 41.98&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;***nam** **et** ipse vobis rem horribilem narrabo*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **well/and so**, I'm going to tell you something horrible myself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Petronius, *Satyricon*, 63&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***nam** meus pater intus nunc est eccum Iuppiter*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **well**, look, my father Jupiter is inside now!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, *Amphitryon*, 120&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=nam&amp;la=la#Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=nam-contents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16658" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5031" RevisionGUID="d9c569e7-0ed3-40ac-b5ce-2099c53cae5c" CreationDate="2017-08-10T15:59:58.903" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|typography|book|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5042" RevisionGUID="1d8c3c73-85df-41e4-bfb3-8f7fba83ece5" CreationDate="2017-08-10T23:49:33.203" UserId="136" Text="Listening in to any conversation, one will quickly realize that people don't always know what they are going to say when they start speaking. This causes them to say things like &quot;ummm,&quot; &quot;uhhh,&quot; or &quot;ahhh.&quot; Each of these have their own nuances in usage in English, but many are found in other languages (whilst in Italy one summer, I frequently heard &quot;ahhh&quot; used in a similar manner as that found in English). Another interjection with its own nuances is &quot;huh.&quot; This is either used as an extremely passive acknowledgement of something one has heard or found interesting, or as an interrogative when one does not understand a concept. [This question about conversational softeners][1] ([specifically this comment][2]) was what inspired this question, as oftentimes these interjections are used as conversational softeners themselves. These interjections are hardly ever written out in formal writing, and are hardly words like the ones discussed in the answers to the linked question. So, (see what I did there?) **what would be the Latin equivalent of these interjections?** Most are just vowel sounds, and might not be language specific, but I would still be interested in knowing whether or not instances of their usage exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;Here are some common English interjections of the type I have discussed, and their definitions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; um- used as an expression of doubt, hesitation, deliberation, interest, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; uh- used to indicate hesitation, doubt, or a pause&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ah- used as an exclamation of pain, surprise, pity, complaint, dislike, joy, etc., according to the manner of utterance&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; huh- used as an exclamation of surprise, bewilderment, disbelief, contempt, or interrogation&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hmm- used typically to express thoughtful absorption, hesitation, doubt, or perplexity&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; eh- an interrogative utterance, usually expressing surprise or doubt or seeking confirmation&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; er- used to express or represent a pause, hesitation, uncertainty, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4967/softeners-for-conversational-topic-transitions-well-so&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4967/softeners-for-conversational-topic-transitions-well-so#comment10220_4969" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16660" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5042" RevisionGUID="1d8c3c73-85df-41e4-bfb3-8f7fba83ece5" CreationDate="2017-08-10T23:49:33.203" UserId="136" Text="Are there any Roman/Latin equivalents of the English interjections um, huh, uh, etc.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16661" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5042" RevisionGUID="1d8c3c73-85df-41e4-bfb3-8f7fba83ece5" CreationDate="2017-08-10T23:49:33.203" UserId="136" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5043" RevisionGUID="4c8a1453-076b-45b2-a810-c93337fe74b4" CreationDate="2017-08-11T09:12:17.167" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16663" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5043" RevisionGUID="4c8a1453-076b-45b2-a810-c93337fe74b4" CreationDate="2017-08-11T09:12:17.167" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5044" RevisionGUID="601da6fc-c7d0-4dcc-b44f-ecb04c38688e" CreationDate="2017-08-11T09:12:17.167" UserId="79" Text="This tag is for questions concerning the relations between English and Latin (or Greek). Questions have to be about English (to some extent), not necessarily in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16665" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5044" RevisionGUID="601da6fc-c7d0-4dcc-b44f-ecb04c38688e" CreationDate="2017-08-11T09:12:17.167" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5042" RevisionGUID="1587e735-c69e-4e9f-8d9e-74efc802d65d" CreationDate="2017-08-11T09:17:43.830" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="Listening in to any conversation, one will quickly realize that people don't always know what they are going to say when they start speaking. This causes them to say things like &quot;ummm,&quot; &quot;uhhh,&quot; or &quot;ahhh.&quot; Each of these have their own nuances in usage in English, but many are found in other languages (whilst in Italy one summer, I frequently heard &quot;ahhh&quot; used in a similar manner as that found in English). Another interjection with its own nuances is &quot;huh.&quot; This is either used as an extremely passive acknowledgement of something one has heard or found interesting, or as an interrogative when one does not understand a concept. [This question about conversational softeners][1] ([specifically this comment][2]) was what inspired this question, as oftentimes these interjections are used as conversational softeners themselves. These interjections are hardly ever written out in formal writing, and are hardly words like the ones discussed in the answers to the linked question. So, (see what I did there?) **what would be the Latin equivalent of these interjections?** Most are just vowel sounds, and might not be language specific, but I would still be interested in knowing whether or not instances of their usage exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some common English interjections of the type I have discussed, and their definitions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; um- used as an expression of doubt, hesitation, deliberation, interest, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; uh- used to indicate hesitation, doubt, or a pause&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ah- used as an exclamation of pain, surprise, pity, complaint, dislike, joy, etc., according to the manner of utterance&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; huh- used as an exclamation of surprise, bewilderment, disbelief, contempt, or interrogation&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hmm- used typically to express thoughtful absorption, hesitation, doubt, or perplexity&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; eh- an interrogative utterance, usually expressing surprise or doubt or seeking confirmation&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; er- used to express or represent a pause, hesitation, uncertainty, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4967/softeners-for-conversational-topic-transitions-well-so&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4967/softeners-for-conversational-topic-transitions-well-so#comment10220_4969" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16667" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5042" RevisionGUID="1587e735-c69e-4e9f-8d9e-74efc802d65d" CreationDate="2017-08-11T09:17:43.830" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|vocabulary|interjection|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5045" RevisionGUID="ae1c4ba2-084b-4f3a-839c-df920a32a610" CreationDate="2017-08-11T10:34:18.283" UserId="1459" Text="**SPQR** stands for &quot;[Senātus Populusque Rōmānus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/SPQR#Latin)&quot;. It would be logical (at least in English or Spanish) to expect the initialism or acronym to be **SPR**. However, the first letter of the conjunction &quot;[-que](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-que#Latin)&quot; is also added to the acronym, forming the well-known **SPQR**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why is the `Q` added to the acronym?** Is it to differentiate it from &quot;Senātus Populus Rōmānus&quot;? Or is a common practice to add the first letter of conjunctions (or at least the &quot;-que&quot; conjunction) into acronyms? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[My search](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_abbreviations) on the latter has not given me any meaningful result. Perhaps surprisingly, the [Wikipedia entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPQR) does not comment on this issue. There is a helpless forum thread [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=245288) too. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16669" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5045" RevisionGUID="ae1c4ba2-084b-4f3a-839c-df920a32a610" CreationDate="2017-08-11T10:34:18.283" UserId="1459" Text="Why is the Roman acronym SPQR and not SPR?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16670" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5045" RevisionGUID="ae1c4ba2-084b-4f3a-839c-df920a32a610" CreationDate="2017-08-11T10:34:18.283" UserId="1459" Text="|conjunction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5046" RevisionGUID="8eacf52e-cf48-47bb-bcb6-ab8dcb49998a" CreationDate="2017-08-11T10:53:42.233" UserId="1459" Text="For example, it is &quot;_Senatus Populusque Romanus_&quot; but it could be &quot;_Senatus et Populus Romanus_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, it is &quot;_qui ex Patre Filioque procedit_&quot; but it could be &quot;_qui ex Patre et Filio procedit_&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps more drastically, in the [_Tantum Ergo_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantum_Ergo) we read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitori, Genitoque&#xD;&#xA;    Laus et iubilatio,&#xD;&#xA;    Salus, honor, virtus quoque&#xD;&#xA;    Sit et benedictio:&#xD;&#xA;    Procedenti ab utroque&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, one line uses &quot;-que&quot; and the next one uses &quot;et&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any **fundamental** reason why one method is preferred than another? The [Wiktionary entry](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-que#Latin) for &quot;-que&quot; states that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In archaic and official language, **-que** is preferred to **et**, from which it is distinguished by denoting a closer connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that what explains the above examples? That might be clear in the case of &quot;SPQR&quot; and the [Nicean Credo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque) (where the _filioque_ is sometimes found). But it is not so evident to me in the case of the _Tantum Ergo_. Maybe there is more to it? Is there a &quot;canonical&quot; answer to this issue, or is in the end essentially arbitrary, perhaps based on taste, rhymes, etc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16672" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5046" RevisionGUID="8eacf52e-cf48-47bb-bcb6-ab8dcb49998a" CreationDate="2017-08-11T10:53:42.233" UserId="1459" Text="When to use &quot;-que&quot; and when to use &quot;et&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16673" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5046" RevisionGUID="8eacf52e-cf48-47bb-bcb6-ab8dcb49998a" CreationDate="2017-08-11T10:53:42.233" UserId="1459" Text="|conjunction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5047" RevisionGUID="fb1938a0-eda0-4c22-af84-22841cc28d90" CreationDate="2017-08-11T11:26:41.120" UserId="645" Text="My guess is that no-one knows the real reason for joining the *-que* to a preceding noun, but I believe that something similar occurs in ancient Greek (of which I know almost nothing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm inclined go along with the explanation which I was taught: that Roman manuscripts were written without a break between words, and that subsequent redactors, knowing or believing that no break was observable in speech, treated the *-que* as an enclitic when separating the words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that there are other enclitics used in the same way, e.g. in *egomet* and *tutemet*, but I know of no authority for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The different usages such as *et, -que, ac,* etc. depend on both style and context — sometimes, the word formed can 'look' wrong,or grate on the ear — making it hard to give a rule agreed by all authorities. To my ear, *senatus populusque romanus* sounds better than the alternative with *et*. For poetry, the metre may well determine the choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5048" RevisionGUID="34bb6bdc-4023-4f2b-ac41-46ac9a15a423" CreationDate="2017-08-11T11:45:18.513" UserId="79" Text="It appears that *-que* was treated much like a word.&#xD;&#xA;Especially Ovidius does not treat it as an enclitic, but more as an independent word.&#xD;&#xA;This becomes evident in quotes, where *-que* is outside the quote but the word it is attached to is inside.&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at [this question on a specific instance of this (for the version *-c*)](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2775/79) and [this list](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23que%23+%5Bov%5D) for a number of similar occurrences in Ovidius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure how the Romans understood or defined a word.&#xD;&#xA;Word spacing as we know it &amp;mdash; including our editions of ancient texts &amp;mdash; [was not an ancient phenomenon](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2414/79).&#xD;&#xA;Spelling conventions have evolved over time, also during the Roman era.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any other ancient abbreviations where the &quot;word&quot; *-que* is given its own letter.&#xD;&#xA;But I didn't manage to find any other abbreviations containing *-que* either.&#xD;&#xA;In the absence of examples in either direction, it is hard to draw very strong conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can only guess why there is a Q, unless some ancient author discusses this very point.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it was to emphasize the &quot;and&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps *-que* was considered a separate word.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps whoever came up with it didn't give it much thought and his decision stuck.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it was to differentiate it from Suomen Punainen Risti (The Finnish Red Cross).&#xD;&#xA;The last guess is probably bad, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16676" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5046" RevisionGUID="12949ea2-cfd3-441b-8a68-c29c5dfa1889" CreationDate="2017-08-11T11:59:32.527" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1459,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;luchonacho&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="16678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5045" RevisionGUID="a9e094ca-cc4c-45eb-a524-fe63f81d1235" CreationDate="2017-08-11T13:21:21.333" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="**SPQR** stands for &quot;[Senātus Populusque Rōmānus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/SPQR#Latin)&quot;. It would be logical (at least in English or Spanish) to expect the initialism or acronym to be **SPR**. However, the first letter of the conjunction &quot;[-que](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-que#Latin)&quot; is also added to the acronym, forming the well-known **SPQR**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why is the `Q` added to the acronym?** Is it to differentiate it from &quot;Senātus Populus Rōmānus&quot;? Or is a common practice to add the first letter of conjunctions (or at least the &quot;-que&quot; conjunction) into acronyms? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[My search](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_abbreviations) on the latter has not given me any meaningful result. Perhaps surprisingly, the [Wikipedia entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPQR) does not comment on this issue. There is a helpless forum thread [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=245288) too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16679" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5045" RevisionGUID="a9e094ca-cc4c-45eb-a524-fe63f81d1235" CreationDate="2017-08-11T13:21:21.333" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|orthography|conjunction|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5050" RevisionGUID="7b1ccd33-b022-4275-ae14-f8b11b9a29a5" CreationDate="2017-08-11T15:35:59.190" UserId="45" Text="There is [ancient but discredited tradition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_Seneca_the_Younger) that St. Paul and Seneca the Younger corresponded. Here is the [Latin text](https://archive.org/stream/MN40033ucmf_1/MN40033ucmf_1_djvu.txt) along with an [English translation](http://wesley.nnu.edu/index.php?id=2220).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;St. Jerome mentions the correspondence in his [*De Viris Illustribus*](http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/hieronym/viris_l.htm), XII:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lucius Annaeus Seneca Cordubensis, Sotionis Stoici discipulus, et patruus Lucani poetae, continentissimae vitae fuit, **quem non ponerem in catalogo Sanctorum, nisi me illae Epistolae provocarent, quae leguntur a plurimis, Pauli ad Senecam, et Senecae ad Paulum. In quibus cum esset Neronis magister, et illius temporis potentissimus, optare se dicit, ejus esse loci apud suos, cujus sit Paulus apud Christianos.** Hic ante biennium quam Petrus et Paulus coronarentur martyrio, a Nerone interfectus est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above Wikipedia article cites Lightfoot, *Dissertations on the Apostolic Age*, who categorically denies their authenticity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The poverty of thought and style, the errors in chronology and history, and the whole conception of the relative positions of the Stoic philosopher and the Christian Apostle, betray clearly the hand of a forger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be a tall order, but an ideal answer could list some **concrete points that establish Lightfoot's thesis.** To make it even more clear, I'll bullet-list the three general categories mentioned above as questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What style choices make it clear that Paul/Seneca did not write the respective epistles?&#xD;&#xA;* What chronological/historical errors are there?&#xD;&#xA;* What ideas are present that do not make sense for a Stoic philosopher or an early apostle to voice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Partial answers (as long as they have **concrete** points) are encouraged!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16685" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5050" RevisionGUID="7b1ccd33-b022-4275-ae14-f8b11b9a29a5" CreationDate="2017-08-11T15:35:59.190" UserId="45" Text="How do we know that the correspondence of Seneca and St. Paul was a forgery?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16686" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5050" RevisionGUID="7b1ccd33-b022-4275-ae14-f8b11b9a29a5" CreationDate="2017-08-11T15:35:59.190" UserId="45" Text="|history|seneca-iunior|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5051" RevisionGUID="29bd3605-66c6-4bca-9ba1-6060e481fb09" CreationDate="2017-08-11T18:24:55.693" UserId="79" Text="Consider the Russian last name Тихонов (of [a mathematician](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Nikolayevich_Tikhonov)).&#xD;&#xA;The most common transliteration I have seen in English is Tychonoff, and the transliteration according to Finnish standards is Tihonov.&#xD;&#xA;Many other spelling variants exist in the Latin alphabet, as listed on the linked Wikipedia page.&#xD;&#xA;Transliterations tend to depend on the target language, and there are differences between languages using the same alphabet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a standard for transliterating Russian words &amp;mdash; especially names &amp;mdash; into Latin?&#xD;&#xA;There might be or have been several standards.&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer transliteration conventions used by native Russians well trained in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I assume Latin proficiency was common in academic circles in Russia in the past, and I find it very hard to believe that there never was any Latin-speaking community in Russia without the need to transliterate local names or other words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the transliteration rules are too complicated to include in an answer, please give some examples (perhaps including my example name) and give a link to further details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16689" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5051" RevisionGUID="29bd3605-66c6-4bca-9ba1-6060e481fb09" CreationDate="2017-08-11T18:24:55.693" UserId="79" Text="Is there a Latin standard for transliterating Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16690" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5051" RevisionGUID="29bd3605-66c6-4bca-9ba1-6060e481fb09" CreationDate="2017-08-11T18:24:55.693" UserId="79" Text="|alphabet|spelling|transliteration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2121" RevisionGUID="af85c7f7-48ec-4d7c-bb1e-1bd514de40fc" CreationDate="2017-08-11T18:31:32.237" UserId="79" Comment="added 58 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Cicero has produced quite a lot of Latin prose in what is considered excellent style.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to find ways to demonstrate briefly what Cicero's style is all about.&#xD;&#xA;**If you had to demonstrate Cicero's prose style with one sentence from his works, what would it be and why? How does it reflect his style?**&#xD;&#xA;Such examples with explanations could easily be given to students or the general public to give an idea of what makes Cicero special.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer, give a sentence (or at most two if they are short) from Cicero and explain what makes it so characteristic of his style.&#xD;&#xA;Please give also a sufficiently precise citation to make the passage easy to find [online corpora](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1854/79) and in various translations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is originally from [this meta discussion](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/229/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16692" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2121" RevisionGUID="af85c7f7-48ec-4d7c-bb1e-1bd514de40fc" CreationDate="2017-08-11T18:31:32.237" UserId="79" Comment="added 58 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|passage-request|style|cicero|soft-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5051" RevisionGUID="db10cee6-0b1e-4b0f-81a0-15c29759abe3" CreationDate="2017-08-11T18:35:59.200" UserId="79" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="Consider the Russian last name Тихонов (of [a mathematician](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Nikolayevich_Tikhonov)).&#xD;&#xA;The most common transliteration I have seen in English (mathematical literature) is Tychonoff, and the transliteration according to Finnish standards is Tihonov.&#xD;&#xA;Many other spelling variants exist in the Latin alphabet, as listed on the linked Wikipedia page.&#xD;&#xA;Transliterations tend to depend on the target language, and there are differences between languages using the same alphabet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a standard for transliterating Russian words &amp;mdash; especially names &amp;mdash; into Latin?&#xD;&#xA;There might be or have been several standards.&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer transliteration conventions used by native Russians well trained in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I assume Latin proficiency was common in academic circles in Russia in the past, and I find it very hard to believe that there never was any Latin-speaking community in Russia without the need to transliterate local names or other words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the transliteration rules are too complicated to include in an answer, please give some examples (perhaps including my example name) and give a link to further details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5052" RevisionGUID="d9967483-d3da-47e3-9400-d98b4d202aae" CreationDate="2017-08-11T19:23:39.520" UserId="1904" Text="As for what I can remember of my Latin and Roman History studies (some time  ago) the Q (standing for *que* = and, as already explained in other answers and comments) was specifically introduced exactly to **stress the union of the Senate and the People**, but I cannot remember the occasion, or indicate a source for that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5053" RevisionGUID="5fdcbdb7-0267-4457-ba32-95dd1df9e66c" CreationDate="2017-08-11T20:05:37.390" UserDisplayName="user1861" Text="In the first letter, Seneca seems to refer to Paul's letters as having been bound together as a collection. That seems extremely unlikely. Letters 13 and 14 are dated in the consulship of Leo and Sabinus - there appears to be no record of two men with these names being consuls, and they do not appear in the comprehensive Wikipedia list of Roman consuls. I think I am right that Leo is an unlikely name for a consul of this period. The name Sabinus may have been chosen by the author of the letters because Sabina was one of Poppaea's names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These letters are mentioned in a work by St Jerome dating from the end of the 4th century, by St Augustine and in a 4th century account of the martyrdom of Paul known as Pseudo-Limus. Others may be able to confirm whether, as I suspect, these are the first surviving mentions of them, but, if the letters were genuine, one would have expected earlier Christian writers to have referred to them. Tertullian, who died around the year 240, described Seneca as &quot;saepe noster&quot; - &quot;often one of us&quot; - but this was in a work (De Anima) where Tertullian said that some other non-Christian philosophers and writers shared some Christian views, and anyway the wording suggests that Tertullian probably did not regard Seneca as having really adopted the Christian faith.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the standard English translation, in letter 2 Paul refers to Seneca as a sophist. I do not have access to the original text, but, if the translation is accurate, I think Seneca might not have reacted well to being so described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Letter 7 Seneca refers fairly insultingly to Paul's supposed lack of education, as if he is some rustic who has never studied. The evidence is that Paul was highly educated - his Epistles demonstrate this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The substance of the letters has all the hallmarks of a pious Christian imagination at work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5053" RevisionGUID="0562d1b1-a824-498f-ab66-ce31fd4e98b2" CreationDate="2017-08-11T20:15:11.557" UserDisplayName="user1861" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="In the first letter, Seneca seems to refer to Paul's letters as having been bound together as a collection. That seems extremely unlikely at such an early date. Letters 13 and 14 are dated in the consulship of Leo and Sabinus - there appears to be no record of two men with these names being consuls, and they do not appear in the comprehensive Wikipedia list of Roman consuls. I think I am right that Leo is an unlikely name for a consul of this period. The name Sabinus may have been chosen by the author of the letters because Sabina was one of Poppaea's names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These letters are mentioned in a work by St Jerome dating from the end of the 4th century, by St Augustine and in a 4th century account of the martyrdom of Paul known as Pseudo-Linus. Others may be able to confirm whether, as I suspect, these are the first surviving mentions of them, but, if the letters were genuine, one would have expected earlier Christian writers to have referred to them. Tertullian, who died around the year 240, described Seneca as &quot;saepe noster&quot; - &quot;often one of us&quot; - but this was in a work (De Anima) where Tertullian said that some other non-Christian philosophers and writers shared some Christian views, and anyway the wording suggests that Tertullian probably did not regard Seneca as having really adopted the Christian faith.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the standard English translation, in letter 2 Paul refers to Seneca as a sophist. I do not have access to the original text, but, if the translation is accurate, I think Seneca might not have reacted well to being so described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Letter 7 Seneca refers fairly insultingly to Paul's supposed lack of education, as if he is some rustic who has never studied. The evidence is that Paul was highly educated - his Epistles demonstrate this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The substance of the letters has all the hallmarks of a pious Christian imagination at work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5048" RevisionGUID="5b25f41d-6888-4e71-bc09-7f30bfce4f52" CreationDate="2017-08-11T20:19:40.763" UserId="79" Comment="added 537 characters in body" Text="It appears that *-que* was treated much like a word.&#xD;&#xA;Especially Ovidius does not treat it as an enclitic, but more as an independent word.&#xD;&#xA;This becomes evident in quotes, where *-que* is outside the quote but the word it is attached to is inside.&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at [this question on a specific instance of this (for the version *-c*)](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2775/79) and [this list](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23que%23+%5Bov%5D) for a number of similar occurrences in Ovidius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure how the Romans understood or defined a word.&#xD;&#xA;Word spacing as we know it &amp;mdash; including our editions of ancient texts &amp;mdash; [was not an ancient phenomenon](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2414/79).&#xD;&#xA;Spelling conventions have evolved over time, also during the Roman era.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any other ancient abbreviations where the &quot;word&quot; *-que* is given its own letter.&#xD;&#xA;But I didn't manage to find any other abbreviations containing *-que* either.&#xD;&#xA;In the absence of examples in either direction, it is hard to draw very strong conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;Modern abbreviations can be quite liberal, but arguing by modern analogies is dangerous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One question worth asking is whether we really know what all the letters in SPQR stand for.&#xD;&#xA;The fact that [the Temple of Saturn in the *Forum Romanum*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Saturn) has *Senatus populusque Romanus* spelled out in full is evidence in support of the standard reading, but it does not strictly rule out other options.&#xD;&#xA;However, I do find it most likely that the Q is *-que* and the standard reading is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can only guess why there is a Q, unless some ancient author discusses this very point.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it was to emphasize the &quot;and&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps *-que* was considered a separate word.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps whoever came up with it didn't give it much thought and his decision stuck.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it was to differentiate it from Suomen Punainen Risti (The Finnish Red Cross).&#xD;&#xA;The last guess is probably bad, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5050" RevisionGUID="7d969bd8-36be-4406-a3ad-10621cd03dcb" CreationDate="2017-08-11T20:42:18.653" UserId="45" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="There is [ancient but discredited tradition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_Seneca_the_Younger) that St. Paul and Seneca the Younger corresponded. Here is the [Latin text](https://archive.org/stream/MN40033ucmf_1/MN40033ucmf_1_djvu.txt) along with an [English translation](http://wesley.nnu.edu/index.php?id=2220). (Or this better [side-by-side edition](http://www.textexcavation.com/documents/senecapaul.htm).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;St. Jerome mentions the correspondence in his [*De Viris Illustribus*](http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/hieronym/viris_l.htm), XII:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lucius Annaeus Seneca Cordubensis, Sotionis Stoici discipulus, et patruus Lucani poetae, continentissimae vitae fuit, **quem non ponerem in catalogo Sanctorum, nisi me illae Epistolae provocarent, quae leguntur a plurimis, Pauli ad Senecam, et Senecae ad Paulum. In quibus cum esset Neronis magister, et illius temporis potentissimus, optare se dicit, ejus esse loci apud suos, cujus sit Paulus apud Christianos.** Hic ante biennium quam Petrus et Paulus coronarentur martyrio, a Nerone interfectus est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above Wikipedia article cites Lightfoot, *Dissertations on the Apostolic Age*, who categorically denies their authenticity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The poverty of thought and style, the errors in chronology and history, and the whole conception of the relative positions of the Stoic philosopher and the Christian Apostle, betray clearly the hand of a forger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be a tall order, but an ideal answer could list some **concrete points that establish Lightfoot's thesis.** To make it even more clear, I'll bullet-list the three general categories mentioned above as questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What style choices make it clear that Paul/Seneca did not write the respective epistles?&#xD;&#xA;* What chronological/historical errors are there?&#xD;&#xA;* What ideas are present that do not make sense for a Stoic philosopher or an early apostle to voice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Partial answers (as long as they have **concrete** points) are encouraged!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5054" RevisionGUID="281ba8f6-8ea1-43bc-a0ac-deb4bf069212" CreationDate="2017-08-11T20:55:41.097" UserId="1906" Text="The consensus seems to be that SPQR means SSenatus Populusque Romanus, but there is also the theory that SPQR did **not** mean Senatus Populusque Romanus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could also may have been **S**enatus **P**opulus **Q**uirites **R**omani.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read this in the entry for *Quirites* in the dictionary  *Langenscheidt Großes Schulwörterbuch Lateinisch-Deutsch* which I unfortunately don't have access to right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] http://de.pons.com/%C3%BCbersetzung/latein-deutsch/Quiritesque&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/quiriti/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5054" RevisionGUID="080671f2-8b54-4312-adf5-a9521d8f2919" CreationDate="2017-08-11T21:03:34.690" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected a typo." Text="The consensus seems to be that SPQR means Senatus Populusque Romanus, but there is also the theory that SPQR did **not** mean Senatus Populusque Romanus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could also may have been **S**enatus **P**opulus **Q**uirites **R**omani.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read this in the entry for *Quirites* in the dictionary  *Langenscheidt Großes Schulwörterbuch Lateinisch-Deutsch* which I unfortunately don't have access to right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] http://de.pons.com/%C3%BCbersetzung/latein-deutsch/Quiritesque&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/quiriti/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="39" RevisionGUID="e410065b-daf6-4337-95e5-944bbb67cec4" CreationDate="2017-08-11T21:06:47.820" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="I know to some degree it's a matter of taste, but are the arguments for one pronunciation being used over another? Is it simply a matter of taste, or are there claims that one is &quot;correct&quot; and another is not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a personal note, this always trips me up around Christmas time, when the hymn _Gloria in excelsis Deo_ is sung in church or on the radio, but I studied Latin at a secular school using the Classical pronunciation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16702" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="39" RevisionGUID="e410065b-daf6-4337-95e5-944bbb67cec4" CreationDate="2017-08-11T21:06:47.820" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1859" RevisionGUID="1f4620d5-e509-458d-9960-d80dd097b9f3" CreationDate="2017-08-11T21:20:20.117" UserId="79" Comment="added 449 characters in body" Text="An alternative way to phrase the question is to ask whether a preposition should be repeated after *et*.&#xD;&#xA;I went through a book for all the examples of *et* used with prepositions in a way that would allow both options.&#xD;&#xA;I excluded the preposition *inter* because it would make little sense to say *inter Sequanos et inter Helvetios* instead of *inter Sequanos et Helvetios*.&#xD;&#xA;I chose [the first book](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/caesar/gall1.shtml) of Caesar's *Commentarii de bello Gallico*, and I found these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1.5: *ab Sequanis et Helvetiis*&#xD;&#xA;- 7.4: *ab iniuria et maleficio*&#xD;&#xA;- 9.4: *sine maleficio et iniuria*&#xD;&#xA;- 11.1: *per angustias et fines*&#xD;&#xA;- 13.5: *ex calamitate populi Romani et internecione exercitus*&#xD;&#xA;- 21.2: *cum duabus legionibus et iis ducibus*&#xD;&#xA;- 26.1: *ad impedimenta et carros*&#xD;&#xA;- 34.1: *de re publica et summis utriusque rebus*&#xD;&#xA;- 37.1: *et legati ab Haeduis et a Treveris*&#xD;&#xA;- 41.3: *cum tribunis militum et primorum ordinum centurionibus*&#xD;&#xA;- 47.4: *et propter fidem et propter linguae Gallicae scientiam*&#xD;&#xA;- 48.2: *ex Sequanis et Haeduis*&#xD;&#xA;- 53.6: *de tanta voluptate et gratulatione*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;- 2.3: *inter Sequanos et Helvetios*&#xD;&#xA;- 6.1: *inter montem Iuram et flumen Rhodanum*&#xD;&#xA;- 15.3: *inter novissimum hostium agmen et nostrum*&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this sample, it seems that the dominant option is not to repeat the preposition &amp;mdash; or, in other words, to place *et* inside a prepositional clause.&#xD;&#xA;There are two exceptions: 37.1 and 47.4.&#xD;&#xA;Both of them use the emphatic *et&amp;hellip;et* instead of a single *et*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caesar's style, at least in this particular book, seems to be to always place *et* inside a prepositional clause, with the sole exception of using *et&amp;hellip;et* in the sense of &quot;both&amp;hellip;and&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this sample, constructions like *de Latona et de Niobe* without a preceding *et* are not used.&#xD;&#xA;The sample is way too small to rule out anything like this definitively, but Caesar seems to avoid this.&#xD;&#xA;So, quite opposite to your guess, my little study suggests that your first option is bad style and the second one is good style.&#xD;&#xA;(The adjectives &quot;bad&quot; and &quot;good&quot; are to be taken with a grain of salt.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If what you suspect to be bad style is indeed bad style, then Caesar has consistently bad style in this respect.&#xD;&#xA;Other authors may have different idiosyncrasies, but at least you are not required to repeat the preposition unless you want special emphasis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5055" RevisionGUID="30518133-1f60-4ee6-b694-f664940ae222" CreationDate="2017-08-11T23:23:37.797" UserId="1694" Text="To the primary question, &quot;Is there a standard for transliterating Russian words?&quot;, I'm pretty sure the answer is no.  After all, who would make such a standard?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the real question is how to reasonably represent Russian words/names in a Latin context, and here I think there can be various answers depending on the criteria selected.  Here are some reasonable answers, depending on different criteria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Tichonof - This is the most likely way an ancient Roman would have rendered the name according to its pronunciation (which is what Romans were used to do).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Tichonow or Tichonov -  These are both closer to transliteration than the above, but suffer from some criticisms: (1) the &quot;Tichonov&quot; rendition would be indistinguishable from &quot;Tichonou&quot; in Classical Latin, which might make it seen as a bad rendition of Тихонов, and (2) &quot;Tichonow&quot; depends on the Mediaeval Latin letter W, but might be seen as a reasonable representation of a Cyrillic в.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, I think there's a certain amount of freedom that can be employed.  The only thing I think is **totally** wrong is to trancribe the Russian into English, and then use **that** as a basis for the Latin form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="4e60bab6-c507-4f71-87dc-33fff0ec0a0c" CreationDate="2017-08-12T02:44:05.057" UserId="39" Text="Not a real answer - so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of famous Russian classical scholars with their names in Russian and their Latin transliteration (used by those scholars themselves since they wrote in Latin too). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Я́ков Ма́ркович Боро́вский (1896 — 1994)][1] [**Borovskij**][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Серге́й Ива́нович Соболе́вский (1864—1963)][3] himself used **Sobolewski** in his 1891 doctoral dissertation, [Syntaxis Aristophaneae capita selecta][4]. However, the editors of 2011 printing of his Commentariorum Belli Gallici (originally published in 1946-1947), transliterated his name differently - **Sobolevski**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%AF%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iacobus_Borovskij&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=LwZsXAvtlSkC&amp;pg=PP5#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="7432e6df-fc69-4e8b-8283-fa2d08179e93" CreationDate="2017-08-12T02:51:25.010" UserId="39" Comment="added 437 characters in body" Text="Not a real answer - so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of famous Russian classical scholars with their names in Russian and their Latin transliteration (used by those scholars themselves since they wrote in Latin too). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Я́ков Ма́ркович Боро́вский (1896 — 1994)][1] [**Borovskij**][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Серге́й Ива́нович Соболе́вский (1864—1963)][3] himself used **Sobolewski** in his 1891 doctoral dissertation, [Syntaxis Aristophaneae capita selecta][4]. However, the editors of 2011 printing of his Commentariorum Belli Gallici (originally published in 1946-1947), transliterated his name differently - **Sobolevski**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Николай Алексеевич Федоров][5] (1925—2016) himself used Nicolai Fedorov - e.g. in his [ALF][6] speech &quot;De statu et studio Latinitatis in Russia&quot; (Fedorov 2007).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%AF%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iacobus_Borovskij&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=LwZsXAvtlSkC&amp;pg=PP5#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D1%91%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.academialatinitatifovendae.org/Academialatinitatifovendae/ALF.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="6bf82b08-ee06-442b-abc3-48f8886dac91" CreationDate="2017-08-12T03:02:42.787" UserId="39" Comment="added 437 characters in body" Text="Examples of famous Russian classical scholars with their names in Russian and their Latin transliteration (used by those scholars themselves since they wrote in Latin too). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Я́ков Ма́ркович Боро́вский (1896—1994)][1] [**Borovskij**][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ио́сиф Моисе́евич Тро́нский][3] (1897—1970) **Tronskij**, see [his biography][4] in Latin wiki &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Серге́й Ива́нович Соболе́вский (1864—1963)][5] himself used **Sobolewski** in his 1891 doctoral dissertation, [Syntaxis Aristophaneae capita selecta][6]. However, the editors of 2011 printing of his Commentariorum Belli Gallici (originally published in 1946-1947), transliterated his name differently - **Sobolevski**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Николай Алексеевич Федоров][7] (1925—2016) himself used **Nicolai Fedorov** - e.g. in his [ALF][8] (i.e. Academia Latinitati fovendae) speech &quot;De statu et studio Latinitatis in Russia&quot; (Fedorov 2007). In this speech - published in his nonagenarian Festschrift &quot;Ars docendi&quot; (Moscow, 2015), we can see more names of the following famous Russian scholars:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thaddeus Zelinsky&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Michael Pokrovsky** [Михаи́л Миха́йлович Покро́вский][9] (1868/1869-1942)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sergius Averintzev** [Серге́й Серге́евич Аве́ринцев][10] (1937—2004) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Michael Gasparov** [Михаи́л Лео́нович Гаспа́ров][11] (1935—2005), [his biography][12] in Latin wiki&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Viktor Jarcho** [Ви́ктор Но́евич Ярхо́][13] (1920—2003)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%AF%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iacobus_Borovskij&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%98%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%84_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosephus_Tronskij&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=LwZsXAvtlSkC&amp;pg=PP5#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D1%91%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.academialatinitatifovendae.org/Academialatinitatifovendae/ALF.html&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BB_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BB_%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gasparov&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D1%80%D1%85%D0%BE,_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="bac581a4-ce70-47fa-b0be-2061a5377cfb" CreationDate="2017-08-12T03:07:50.513" UserId="39" Comment="added 437 characters in body" Text="Examples of famous Russian classical scholars with their names in Russian and their Latin transliteration (used by those scholars themselves since they wrote in Latin too). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Я́ков Ма́ркович Боро́вский (1896—1994)][1] [**Borovskij**][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ио́сиф Моисе́евич Тро́нский][3] (1897—1970) **Tronskij**, see [his biography][4] in Latin wiki &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Серге́й Ива́нович Соболе́вский (1864—1963)][5] himself used **Sobolewski** in his 1891 doctoral dissertation, [Syntaxis Aristophaneae capita selecta][6]. However, the editors of 2011 printing of his Commentariorum Belli Gallici (originally published in 1946-1947), transliterated his name differently - **Sobolevski**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Николай Алексеевич Федоров][7] (1925—2016) himself used **Nicolai Fedorov** - e.g. in his [ALF][8] (i.e. Academia Latinitati fovendae) speech &quot;De statu et studio Latinitatis in Russia&quot; (Fedorov 2007). In this speech - published in his nonagenarian Festschrift &quot;Ars docendi&quot; (Moscow, 2015), we can see more names of the following famous Russian scholars:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Michael Pokrovsky** [Михаи́л Миха́йлович Покро́вский][9] (1868/1869-1942)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sergius Averintzev** [Серге́й Серге́евич Аве́ринцев][10] (1937—2004) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Michael Gasparov** [Михаи́л Лео́нович Гаспа́ров][11] (1935—2005), [his biography][12] in Latin wiki&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Viktor Jarcho** [Ви́ктор Но́евич Ярхо́][13] (1920—2003)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%AF%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iacobus_Borovskij&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%98%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%84_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosephus_Tronskij&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=LwZsXAvtlSkC&amp;pg=PP5#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D1%91%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.academialatinitatifovendae.org/Academialatinitatifovendae/ALF.html&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BB_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BB_%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gasparov&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D1%80%D1%85%D0%BE,_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="3509c59c-8f74-4d49-9e27-26abc1642f04" CreationDate="2017-08-12T03:24:45.637" UserId="39" Comment="added 249 characters in body" Text="I'm sure there is some system of transliteration. I will do more research over the weekend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of famous Russian classical scholars with their names in Russian and their Latin transliteration (used by those scholars themselves since they wrote in Latin too). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Я́ков Ма́ркович Боро́вский (1896—1994)][1] [**Borovskij**][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ио́сиф Моисе́евич Тро́нский][3] (1897—1970) **Tronskij**, see [his biography][4] in Latin wiki &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Серге́й Ива́нович Соболе́вский (1864—1963)][5] himself used **Sobolewski** in his 1891 doctoral dissertation, [Syntaxis Aristophaneae capita selecta][6]. However, the editors of 2011 printing of his Commentariorum Belli Gallici (originally published in 1946-1947), transliterated his name differently - **Sobolevski**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Николай Алексеевич Федоров][7] (1925—2016) himself used **Nicolai Fedorov** - e.g. in his [ALF][8] (i.e. Academia Latinitati fovendae) speech &quot;De statu et studio Latinitatis in Russia&quot; (Fedorov 2007). In this speech - published in his nonagenarian Festschrift &quot;Ars docendi&quot; (Moscow, 2015), we can see more names of the following famous Russian scholars:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Michael Pokrovsky** [Михаи́л Миха́йлович Покро́вский][9] (1868/1869-1942)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sergius Averintzev** [Серге́й Серге́евич Аве́ринцев][10] (1937—2004) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Michael Gasparov** [Михаи́л Лео́нович Гаспа́ров][11] (1935—2005), [his biography][12] in Latin wiki&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Viktor Jarcho** [Ви́ктор Но́евич Ярхо́][13] (1920—2003)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Zaicev** [Алекса́ндр Ио́сифович За́йцев][14] (1926-2000)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%AF%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iacobus_Borovskij&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%98%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%84_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosephus_Tronskij&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=LwZsXAvtlSkC&amp;pg=PP5#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D1%91%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.academialatinitatifovendae.org/Academialatinitatifovendae/ALF.html&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BB_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BB_%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gasparov&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D1%80%D1%85%D0%BE,_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80_%D0%98%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="96f8f9d0-3621-4cd5-a260-44f5f95e2aa3" CreationDate="2017-08-12T03:30:45.580" UserId="39" Comment="added 249 characters in body" Text="I'm sure there is some system of transliteration. I will do more research over the weekend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of famous Russian classical scholars with their names in Russian and their Latin transliteration (used by those scholars themselves since they wrote in Latin too). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Я́ков Ма́ркович Боро́вский (1896—1994)][1] He himself used **Iacobus Borovskij**, see his biography in Latin wiki [**Borovskij**][2]. [Academia Latinitati fovendae][3] also transliterates his name as Jacob BOROVSKIJ (Unio Sovietica). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ио́сиф Моисе́евич Тро́нский][4] (1897—1970) **Tronskij**, see [his biography][5] in Latin wiki &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Серге́й Ива́нович Соболе́вский (1864—1963)][6] himself used **Sobolewski** in his 1891 doctoral dissertation, [Syntaxis Aristophaneae capita selecta][7]. However, the editors of 2011 printing of his Commentariorum Belli Gallici (originally published in 1946-1947), transliterated his name differently - **Sobolevski**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Николай Алексеевич Федоров][8] (1925—2016) himself used **Nicolai Fedorov** - e.g. in his [ALF][9] (i.e. Academia Latinitati fovendae) speech &quot;De statu et studio Latinitatis in Russia&quot; (Fedorov 2007). In this speech - published in his nonagenarian Festschrift &quot;Ars docendi&quot; (Moscow, 2015), we can see more names of the following famous Russian scholars:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Michael Pokrovsky** [Михаи́л Миха́йлович Покро́вский][10] (1868/1869-1942)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sergius Averintzev** [Серге́й Серге́евич Аве́ринцев][11] (1937—2004) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Michael Gasparov** [Михаи́л Лео́нович Гаспа́ров][12] (1935—2005), [his biography][13] in Latin wiki&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Viktor Jarcho** [Ви́ктор Но́евич Ярхо́][14] (1920—2003)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Zaicev** [Алекса́ндр Ио́сифович За́йцев][15] (1926-2000)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%AF%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iacobus_Borovskij&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.academialatinitatifovendae.org/Academialatinitatifovendae/Historia.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%98%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%84_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosephus_Tronskij&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=LwZsXAvtlSkC&amp;pg=PP5#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D1%91%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.academialatinitatifovendae.org/Academialatinitatifovendae/ALF.html&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BB_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BB_%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gasparov&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D1%80%D1%85%D0%BE,_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80_%D0%98%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="b6db65e1-a429-452c-bfa7-a02c3514915b" CreationDate="2017-08-12T03:38:24.963" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="I'm sure there is some system of transliteration. I will do more research over the weekend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of famous Russian classical scholars with their names in Russian and their Latin transliteration (used by those scholars themselves since they wrote in Latin too). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Я́ков Ма́ркович Боро́вский (1896—1994)][1] He himself used **Iacobus Borovskij**, see his biography in Latin wiki [**Borovskij**][2]. [Academia Latinitati fovendae][3] transliterates his name as Jacob BOROVSKIJ (Unio Sovietica). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ио́сиф Моисе́евич Тро́нский][4] (1897—1970) **Tronskij**, see [his biography][5] in Latin wiki &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Серге́й Ива́нович Соболе́вский (1864—1963)][6] himself used **Sobolewski** in his 1891 doctoral dissertation, [Syntaxis Aristophaneae capita selecta][7]. However, the editors of 2011 printing of his Commentariorum Belli Gallici (originally published in 1946-1947), transliterated his name differently - **Sobolevski**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Николай Алексеевич Федоров][8] (1925—2016) himself used **Nicolai Fedorov** - e.g. in his [ALF][9] (i.e. Academia Latinitati fovendae) speech &quot;De statu et studio Latinitatis in Russia&quot; (Fedorov 2007). In this speech - published in his nonagenarian Festschrift &quot;Ars docendi&quot; (Moscow, 2015), we can see more names of the following famous Russian scholars:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Michael Pokrovsky** [Михаи́л Миха́йлович Покро́вский][10] (1868/1869-1942)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sergius Averintzev** [Серге́й Серге́евич Аве́ринцев][11] (1937—2004) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Michael Gasparov** [Михаи́л Лео́нович Гаспа́ров][12] (1935—2005), [his biography][13] in Latin wiki&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Viktor Jarcho** [Ви́ктор Но́евич Ярхо́][14] (1920—2003)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Zaicev** [Алекса́ндр Ио́сифович За́йцев][15] (1926-2000)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%AF%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iacobus_Borovskij&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.academialatinitatifovendae.org/Academialatinitatifovendae/Historia.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%98%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%84_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosephus_Tronskij&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=LwZsXAvtlSkC&amp;pg=PP5#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D1%91%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.academialatinitatifovendae.org/Academialatinitatifovendae/ALF.html&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BB_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BB_%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gasparov&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D1%80%D1%85%D0%BE,_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80_%D0%98%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="8e9d2bb5-77de-4d18-a495-f3f6a6921b4a" CreationDate="2017-08-12T03:55:35.233" UserId="39" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="I'm sure there is some system of transliteration. I will do more research over the weekend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of famous Russian classical scholars with their names in Russian and their Latin transliteration (used by those scholars themselves since they wrote in Latin too). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Я́ков Ма́ркович Боро́вский (1896—1994)][1] He himself used **Iacobus Borovskij**, see his biography in Latin wiki [**Borovskij**][2]. [Academia Latinitati fovendae][3] transliterates his name as Jacob BOROVSKIJ (Unio Sovietica). He also edited the 3rd edition of Martial epigrams in the Teubner series (1978), so his name was also transliterated as **Iacobus Borovskij** there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ио́сиф Моисе́евич Тро́нский][4] (1897—1970) **Tronskij**, see [his biography][5] in Latin wiki &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Серге́й Ива́нович Соболе́вский (1864—1963)][6] himself used **Sobolewski** in his 1891 doctoral dissertation, [Syntaxis Aristophaneae capita selecta][7]. However, the editors of 2011 printing of his Commentariorum Belli Gallici (originally published in 1946-1947), transliterated his name differently - **Sobolevski**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Николай Алексеевич Федоров][8] (1925—2016) himself used **Nicolai Fedorov** - e.g. in his [ALF][9] (i.e. Academia Latinitati fovendae) speech &quot;De statu et studio Latinitatis in Russia&quot; (Fedorov 2007). In this speech - published in his nonagenarian Festschrift &quot;Ars docendi&quot; (Moscow, 2015), we can see more names of the following famous Russian scholars:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Michael Pokrovsky** [Михаи́л Миха́йлович Покро́вский][10] (1868/1869-1942)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sergius Averintzev** [Серге́й Серге́евич Аве́ринцев][11] (1937—2004) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Michael Gasparov** [Михаи́л Лео́нович Гаспа́ров][12] (1935—2005), [his biography][13] in Latin wiki&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Viktor Jarcho** [Ви́ктор Но́евич Ярхо́][14] (1920—2003)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Zaicev** [Алекса́ндр Ио́сифович За́йцев][15] (1926-2000)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%AF%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iacobus_Borovskij&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.academialatinitatifovendae.org/Academialatinitatifovendae/Historia.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%98%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%84_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosephus_Tronskij&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=LwZsXAvtlSkC&amp;pg=PP5#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D1%91%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.academialatinitatifovendae.org/Academialatinitatifovendae/ALF.html&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BB_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BB_%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gasparov&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D1%80%D1%85%D0%BE,_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80_%D0%98%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="8c9420d5-3030-40b3-aed7-cf431960dab4" CreationDate="2017-08-12T04:23:29.757" UserId="39" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="I'm sure there is some system of transliteration. I will do more research over the weekend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of famous Russian classical scholars with their names in Russian and their Latin transliteration (used by those scholars themselves since they wrote in Latin too). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Я́ков Ма́ркович Боро́вский (1896—1994)][1] He himself used **Iacobus Borovskij**, see his biography in Latin wiki [**Borovskij**][2]. [Academia Latinitati fovendae][3] transliterates his name as Jacob BOROVSKIJ (Unio Sovietica). He also edited the 3rd edition of Martial epigrams in the Teubner series (1978), so his name was also transliterated as **Iacobus Borovskij** there. cf. Gavrilov 2011, who mentions &quot;**Jacobus Borovskius**, Academiae Latinitati fovendae socius conditor&quot; (p. 192).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ио́сиф Моисе́евич Тро́нский][4] (1897—1970) **Tronskij**, see [his biography][5] in Latin wiki &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Серге́й Ива́нович Соболе́вский (1864—1963)][6] himself used **Sobolewski** in his 1891 doctoral dissertation, [Syntaxis Aristophaneae capita selecta][7]. However, the editors of 2011 printing of his Commentariorum Belli Gallici (originally published in 1946-1947), transliterated his name differently - **Sobolevski**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Николай Алексеевич Федоров][8] (1925—2016) himself used **Nicolai Fedorov** - e.g. in his [ALF][9] (i.e. Academia Latinitati fovendae) speech &quot;De statu et studio Latinitatis in Russia&quot; (Fedorov 2007). In this speech - published in his nonagenarian Festschrift &quot;Ars docendi&quot; (Moscow, 2015), we can see more names of the following famous Russian scholars:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Michael Pokrovsky** [Михаи́л Миха́йлович Покро́вский][10] (1868/1869-1942)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sergius Averintzev** [Серге́й Серге́евич Аве́ринцев][11] (1937—2004) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Michael Gasparov** [Михаи́л Лео́нович Гаспа́ров][12] (1935—2005), [his biography][13] in Latin wiki&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Viktor Jarcho** [Ви́ктор Но́евич Ярхо́][14] (1920—2003)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Zaicev** [Алекса́ндр Ио́сифович За́йцев][15] (1926-2000)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%AF%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iacobus_Borovskij&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.academialatinitatifovendae.org/Academialatinitatifovendae/Historia.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%98%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%84_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosephus_Tronskij&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=LwZsXAvtlSkC&amp;pg=PP5#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D1%91%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.academialatinitatifovendae.org/Academialatinitatifovendae/ALF.html&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BB_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BB_%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gasparov&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D1%80%D1%85%D0%BE,_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80_%D0%98%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="b38d0606-18e8-4a92-8b47-9d2215c8302a" CreationDate="2017-08-12T04:31:53.583" UserId="39" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="I'm sure there is some system of transliteration. I will do more research over the weekend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of famous Russian classical scholars with their names in Russian and their Latin transliteration (used by those scholars themselves since they wrote in Latin too). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Я́ков Ма́ркович Боро́вский (1896—1994)][1] He himself used **Iacobus Borovskij**, see his biography in Latin wiki [**Borovskij**][2]. [Academia Latinitati fovendae][3] transliterates his name as Jacob BOROVSKIJ (Unio Sovietica). He also edited the 3rd edition of Martial epigrams in the Teubner series (1978), so his name was also transliterated as **Iacobus Borovskij** there. cf. Gavrilov 2011, who mentions &quot;**Jacobus Borovskius**, Academiae Latinitati fovendae socius conditor&quot; (p. 192).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ио́сиф Моисе́евич Тро́нский][4] (1897—1970) **Tronskij**, see [his biography][5] in Latin wiki &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Серге́й Ива́нович Соболе́вский (1864—1963)][6] himself used **Sobolewski** in his 1891 doctoral dissertation, [Syntaxis Aristophaneae capita selecta][7]. However, the editors of 2011 printing of his Commentariorum Belli Gallici (originally published in 1946-1947), transliterated his name differently - **Sobolevski**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Николай Алексеевич Федоров][8] (1925—2016) himself used **Nicolai Fedorov** - e.g. in his [ALF][9] (i.e. Academia Latinitati fovendae) speech &quot;De statu et studio Latinitatis in Russia&quot; (Fedorov 2007). In this speech - published in his nonagenarian Festschrift &quot;Ars docendi&quot; (Moscow, 2015), we can see more names of the following famous Russian scholars:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Michael Pokrovsky** [Михаи́л Миха́йлович Покро́вский][10] (1868/1869-1942)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sergius Averintzev** [Серге́й Серге́евич Аве́ринцев][11] (1937—2004) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Michael Gasparov** [Михаи́л Лео́нович Гаспа́ров][12] (1935—2005), [his biography][13] in Latin wiki&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Viktor Jarcho** [Ви́ктор Но́евич Ярхо́][14] (1920—2003)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Zaicev** [Алекса́ндр Ио́сифович За́йцев][15] (1926-2000)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see [the contents page][16] of the proceedings of a 2010 conference - it is in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%AF%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iacobus_Borovskij&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.academialatinitatifovendae.org/Academialatinitatifovendae/Historia.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%98%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%84_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosephus_Tronskij&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=LwZsXAvtlSkC&amp;pg=PP5#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D1%91%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.academialatinitatifovendae.org/Academialatinitatifovendae/ALF.html&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BB_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BB_%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gasparov&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D1%80%D1%85%D0%BE,_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80_%D0%98%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.philol.msu.ru/~classic/activities/umo/2010-lat/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5054" RevisionGUID="a7322b97-a69b-4256-a5b7-621e0e75300d" CreationDate="2017-08-12T06:59:34.083" UserId="25" Comment="Improved formatting." Text="The consensus seems to be that SPQR means Senatus Populusque Romanus, but there is also the theory that SPQR did **not** mean Senatus Populusque Romanus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could also may have been **S**enatus **P**opulus **Q**uirites **R**omani.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read this in the entry for *Quirites* in the dictionary  *Langenscheidt Großes Schulwörterbuch Lateinisch-Deutsch* which I unfortunately don't have access to right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] [Quiritesque (Pons)](http://de.pons.com/%C3%BCbersetzung/latein-deutsch/Quiritesque)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] [Quiriti (Treccani)](http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/quiriti/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16717" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5054" RevisionGUID="a7322b97-a69b-4256-a5b7-621e0e75300d" CreationDate="2017-08-12T06:59:34.083" Comment="Proposed by 25 approved by 136, 1459 edit id of 209" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5057" RevisionGUID="dc94b5d5-ab4c-452b-bd87-bb3377482ded" CreationDate="2017-08-12T11:22:29.273" UserId="1903" Text="The source referenced in [a Wikipedia-entry][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;SPQR är en förkortning för Senatus Populusque Romanus, [se'na:tus popu'luskwe ro'ma:nus], vilket betyder &quot;senaten och det romerska folket&quot;. Eller Senatus Populus Quiritium Romanus Romerska riket, senaten och det kviritisk-romerska folket.\[1\]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where [the reference \[1\]][2] refers to a blog post by &quot;maximuxz&quot; in 4th of june, 2007. Who copied a piece of text [from here][1]. Where we find the following explanation. I have structured it with some captions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**However, note that it is still unknown what the original source of this information is.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;S.P.Q.R. is an initialism in Latin that be emblazoned on the standards of the Roman legions and be used by the Roman republic and the Roman empire. It currently appears in the modern coat of arms of the city of Rome, as capably as on many of the city's civic buildings and manhole covers. (The latter be originally placed by order of Mussolini, who frequently used SPQR as propaganda for his regime.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The initialism itself is subject to ongoing debate, beside divergent phrases and translations offered as explanations. (Like any translation, initialisms are of debatable importance and accuracy, as the meaning of words are subject to both change and complexity.) Its aim was probably of archaic cause even during ancient Roman times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;S most assuredly stood for Senatus - &quot;Senate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;P is disputed, some see in it Populus or Populusque, &quot;the people&quot; and &quot;and the people&quot;, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Q is disputed, it stood any for que (&quot;and&quot;), or Quirites or Quiritium (both of which mean &quot;spearmen&quot;. Originally adjectives Roman citizens had be soldiers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;R probably stood for Romae, Romanus or Romanorum, translated into &quot;of Rome&quot;, &quot;Roman&quot; or &quot;of the Romans&quot;, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;All this leads to divergent phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Senatus Populus Quiritium Romanus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Senatus Populus Quiritium Romanus&#xD;&#xA;The Senate and the citizens' Roman associates, Quiritium being the genitive plural of Quiris, &quot;citizen&quot;. This initialism is given by Castiglioni and Mariotti, authors of a renowned Latin dictionary, among other scholar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Senatus Populus Quiritium Romanorum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Senatus Populusque Quiritium Romanorum&#xD;&#xA;This version is remarkably similar to the journal above and follows the same logic, self translated as the &quot;Senate and people of the Roman citizens.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Senatus Populus Quirites Romanus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Senatus Populus Quirites Romanus&#xD;&#xA;This is another revision and also follows the same logic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Senatus Populusque Romanus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Senatus Populusque Romanus&#xD;&#xA;The Senate and the Roman family This version started to be used since a completely early stage of the Roman republic, and subsequently continued to be used during the Roman empire. As such, it appears in most of the top monuments and documents. A fine example of this is the Arch of Titus built around 81 AD to honor Titus and his father the Emperor Vespasian. It is also used in Trajan's Column which be built in 113 AD to salary homage to Emperor Trajan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Senatus Populusque Romae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Senatus Populusque Romae.&#xD;&#xA;This version translates into the currently fêted The Senate and the people of Rome. Populus purpose &quot;people&quot;, the suffix que meaning &quot;and&quot;, and Romae characterization &quot;of Rome&quot;. This version have the great merit that its English translation is simply the better sounding one, but its historical accuracy is notably dubious. The english translation is used in masses movies and TV series about ancient Rome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## About Quiris&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One have to realize that a citizen of Rome was expected to come to blows for the Roman republic. The people of Rome would include women, children, and probably even slaves. All these classes were a member of the Roman people but not citizens of the Roman republic. A free Roman manly who had adjectives the rights and fulfilled his duties, who was competent and willing to be at odds for the republic and the people be a citizen, a member of an restricted, in effect a subgroup inwardly the people . Therefore, a citizen would originally be call a Quiris - a &quot;spearman&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## About Quirities&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This can also be seen contained by the original denomination of the citizens right: &quot;Ius civile Quiritium&quot;. On a trustworthy occasion Julius Caesar subdued a insurrectionary legion by apparently accepting adjectives their demands and then famously address them with: &quot;Quirites&quot; - &quot;citizens&quot; Suetonius: Divus Julius 70. The shocked legionaries cried out, reaffirming their loyalty towards their beloved common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## About SQPR vs SPQR&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Perhaps a more accurate modern translation of the original target would be: &quot;The Senate and the Citizens of the People of Rome.&quot; - &quot;Senatus Quiritesque Populi Romae&quot;, which regrettably would change the initialism into &quot;SQPR&quot;. However, since word instruct is secondary to conjugation within Latin, one could rearrange it to &quot;Senatus Populique Quirites Romae&quot; or &quot;Senatus Populi Quiritesque Romae&quot; for &quot;SPQR&quot;. It wouldn't be chic Latin, but understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Disclaimer: I never studied any Latin.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.eduqna.com/Words-Wordplay/2019-1-words-wordplay.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://spqr-maxmuxz.blogspot.se/2007/06/senatus-populus-quiritium-romanus.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPQR" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5057" RevisionGUID="0a5060e1-666c-40c9-889b-e23ad21ee70b" CreationDate="2017-08-12T11:34:07.490" UserId="1903" Comment="fixed some formatting" Text="The source referenced in [a Wikipedia-entry][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;SPQR är en förkortning för Senatus Populusque Romanus, [se'na:tus popu'luskwe ro'ma:nus], vilket betyder &quot;senaten och det romerska folket&quot;. Eller Senatus Populus Quiritium Romanus Romerska riket, senaten och det kviritisk-romerska folket.\[1\]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where [the reference \[1\]][2] refers to a blog post by &quot;maximuxz&quot; in 4th of june, 2007. Who copied a piece of text [from here][1]. Where we find the following explanation below in quoted text. I have structured it with some captions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I traced the source back to an earlier version of the Wikipedia entry. You can find **more information on SPQR** in the [discussion on Wikipedia of SPQR, right here][4]. But the following text (originally from an older version of the SPQR Wikipedia entry) should still offer a good summary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;S.P.Q.R. is an initialism in Latin that be emblazoned on the standards of the Roman legions and be used by the Roman republic and the Roman empire. It currently appears in the modern coat of arms of the city of Rome, as capably as on many of the city's civic buildings and manhole covers. (The latter be originally placed by order of Mussolini, who frequently used SPQR as propaganda for his regime.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The initialism itself is subject to ongoing debate, beside divergent phrases and translations offered as explanations. (Like any translation, initialisms are of debatable importance and accuracy, as the meaning of words are subject to both change and complexity.) Its aim was probably of archaic cause even during ancient Roman times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;S most assuredly stood for Senatus - &quot;Senate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;P is disputed, some see in it Populus or Populusque, &quot;the people&quot; and &quot;and the people&quot;, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Q is disputed, it stood any for que (&quot;and&quot;), or Quirites or Quiritium (both of which mean &quot;spearmen&quot;. Originally adjectives Roman citizens had be soldiers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;R probably stood for Romae, Romanus or Romanorum, translated into &quot;of Rome&quot;, &quot;Roman&quot; or &quot;of the Romans&quot;, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;All this leads to divergent phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Possible interpretations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Senatus Populus Quiritium Romanus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Senatus Populus Quiritium Romanus&#xD;&#xA;The Senate and the citizens' Roman associates, Quiritium being the genitive plural of Quiris, &quot;citizen&quot;. This initialism is given by Castiglioni and Mariotti, authors of a renowned Latin dictionary, among other scholar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Senatus Populus Quiritium Romanorum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Senatus Populusque Quiritium Romanorum&#xD;&#xA;This version is remarkably similar to the journal above and follows the same logic, self translated as the &quot;Senate and people of the Roman citizens.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Senatus Populus Quirites Romanus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Senatus Populus Quirites Romanus&#xD;&#xA;This is another revision and also follows the same logic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Senatus Populusque Romanus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Senatus Populusque Romanus&#xD;&#xA;The Senate and the Roman family This version started to be used since a completely early stage of the Roman republic, and subsequently continued to be used during the Roman empire. As such, it appears in most of the top monuments and documents. A fine example of this is the Arch of Titus built around 81 AD to honor Titus and his father the Emperor Vespasian. It is also used in Trajan's Column which be built in 113 AD to salary homage to Emperor Trajan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Senatus Populusque Romae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Senatus Populusque Romae.&#xD;&#xA;This version translates into the currently fêted The Senate and the people of Rome. Populus purpose &quot;people&quot;, the suffix que meaning &quot;and&quot;, and Romae characterization &quot;of Rome&quot;. This version have the great merit that its English translation is simply the better sounding one, but its historical accuracy is notably dubious. The english translation is used in masses movies and TV series about ancient Rome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## About Quiris&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One have to realize that a citizen of Rome was expected to come to blows for the Roman republic. The people of Rome would include women, children, and probably even slaves. All these classes were a member of the Roman people but not citizens of the Roman republic. A free Roman manly who had adjectives the rights and fulfilled his duties, who was competent and willing to be at odds for the republic and the people be a citizen, a member of an restricted, in effect a subgroup inwardly the people . Therefore, a citizen would originally be call a Quiris - a &quot;spearman&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## About Quirities&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This can also be seen contained by the original denomination of the citizens right: &quot;Ius civile Quiritium&quot;. On a trustworthy occasion Julius Caesar subdued a insurrectionary legion by apparently accepting adjectives their demands and then famously address them with: &quot;Quirites&quot; - &quot;citizens&quot; Suetonius: Divus Julius 70. The shocked legionaries cried out, reaffirming their loyalty towards their beloved common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## About SQPR vs SPQR&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Perhaps a more accurate modern translation of the original target would be: &quot;The Senate and the Citizens of the People of Rome.&quot; - &quot;Senatus Quiritesque Populi Romae&quot;, which regrettably would change the initialism into &quot;SQPR&quot;. However, since word instruct is secondary to conjugation within Latin, one could rearrange it to &quot;Senatus Populique Quirites Romae&quot; or &quot;Senatus Populi Quiritesque Romae&quot; for &quot;SPQR&quot;. It wouldn't be chic Latin, but understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Disclaimer: I never studied any Latin.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.eduqna.com/Words-Wordplay/2019-1-words-wordplay.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://spqr-maxmuxz.blogspot.se/2007/06/senatus-populus-quiritium-romanus.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPQR&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ASPQR" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5058" RevisionGUID="f52e1de6-281f-4ba7-a072-ee7284ffa931" CreationDate="2017-08-12T12:53:10.397" UserId="79" Text="Some of old Latin poetry was written in Saturnian metre.&#xD;&#xA;I am under the impression that use and proper understanding of this poetic form were lost by the classical era, and we do not have a full understanding of how it works.&#xD;&#xA;This is in sharp contrast with many other metres &amp;mdash; like hexameter &amp;mdash; whose current understanding is rather complete.&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnian_(poetry)) gives two different ways to parse the metre &amp;mdash; quantitative and accentual.&#xD;&#xA;Many of the details are disputed.&#xD;&#xA;But is there anything we know for sure or essentially all scholars agree on?&#xD;&#xA;I assume there is not much in this category, but I do hope there is something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is related to [the question about comparing original Latin and Greek metres](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1865/79), but less ambiguous." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16722" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5058" RevisionGUID="f52e1de6-281f-4ba7-a072-ee7284ffa931" CreationDate="2017-08-12T12:53:10.397" UserId="79" Text="What do we know about the Saturnian for sure?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16723" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5058" RevisionGUID="f52e1de6-281f-4ba7-a072-ee7284ffa931" CreationDate="2017-08-12T12:53:10.397" UserId="79" Text="|poetry|scansion|metre|old-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5059" RevisionGUID="7874e09e-c1ee-4964-90c4-b91455a25552" CreationDate="2017-08-12T14:14:57.170" UserId="324" Text=" We discussed this question in the “History of science” forum:&#xD;&#xA;https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/5329/why-saytzeff-and-zaitsev-rules-are-named-differently/5342#5342&#xD;&#xA;where I argued that “there is a case for spelling Russian names the way their bearers did themselves when they used Western languages”, so in this case “Saytzeff”. Likewise “Tschaïkowsky”, as here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ilyich_Tchaikovsky#/media/File:Tchaikovksy%27s_signature.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This should be the case in all Latin-script languages, including (of course) Latin.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5060" RevisionGUID="30f2c6f1-c2d2-49ee-8e80-3840f7be4a10" CreationDate="2017-08-12T16:06:04.203" UserId="1102" Text="illī is a x of ille declension.&#xD;&#xA;illī is singular dative masculine form of ille.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In first sentence what we should say instead of x?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16726" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5060" RevisionGUID="30f2c6f1-c2d2-49ee-8e80-3840f7be4a10" CreationDate="2017-08-12T16:06:04.203" UserId="1102" Text="General term for each inflected form of a lexeme" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16727" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5060" RevisionGUID="30f2c6f1-c2d2-49ee-8e80-3840f7be4a10" CreationDate="2017-08-12T16:06:04.203" UserId="1102" Text="|terminology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5061" RevisionGUID="0789795e-c1bc-48cf-8965-fd106c7603de" CreationDate="2017-08-12T16:12:14.327" UserId="79" Text="I would simply say: &quot;*Illi* is an inflected form of *ille*. *Illi* is the singular dative masculine form of *ille*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;(I am not sure what the role of &quot;declension&quot; in your example is. I found it more natural to leave it out.)&#xD;&#xA;In all generality, I would just use the expression &quot;inflected form&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In a more specific case, you can consider &quot;oblique case&quot;, but that only applies to case inflection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5060" RevisionGUID="f2a5d673-a82d-4a0e-a270-dc107225ccda" CreationDate="2017-08-12T16:13:47.280" UserId="79" Comment="added 13 characters in body; edited tags" Text="*illī* is a X of *ille* declension.&#xD;&#xA;*illī* is singular dative masculine form of *ille*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In  the first sentence what we should say instead of X?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16730" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5060" RevisionGUID="f2a5d673-a82d-4a0e-a270-dc107225ccda" CreationDate="2017-08-12T16:13:47.280" UserId="79" Comment="added 13 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|declension|conjugation|terminology|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="f91b7e91-7eaf-4ba3-9f4c-1417faca0ca8" CreationDate="2017-08-12T18:13:18.697" UserId="39" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="I'm sure there is some system - or, rather, **convention** - of transliterating Russian names into Latin. I will do more research over the weekend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of famous Russian classical scholars with their names in Russian and their Latin transliteration (used by those scholars themselves since they wrote in Latin too). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Я́ков Ма́ркович Боро́вский (1896—1994)][1] He himself used **Iacobus Borovskij**, see his biography in Latin wiki [**Borovskij**][2]. [Academia Latinitati fovendae][3] transliterates his name as Jacob BOROVSKIJ (Unio Sovietica). He also edited the 3rd edition of Martial epigrams in the Teubner series (1978), so his name was also transliterated as **Iacobus Borovskij** there. cf. Gavrilov 2011, who mentions &quot;**Jacobus Borovskius**, Academiae Latinitati fovendae socius conditor&quot; (p. 192).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ио́сиф Моисе́евич Тро́нский][4] (1897—1970) **Tronskij**, see [his biography][5] in Latin wiki &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Серге́й Ива́нович Соболе́вский (1864—1963)][6] himself used **Sobolewski** in his 1891 doctoral dissertation, [Syntaxis Aristophaneae capita selecta][7]. However, the editors of 2011 printing of his Commentariorum Belli Gallici (originally published in 1946-1947), transliterated his name differently - **Sobolevski**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Николай Алексеевич Федоров][8] (1925—2016) himself used **Nicolai Fedorov** - e.g. in his [ALF][9] (i.e. Academia Latinitati fovendae) speech &quot;De statu et studio Latinitatis in Russia&quot; (Fedorov 2007). In this speech - published in his nonagenarian Festschrift &quot;Ars docendi&quot; (Moscow, 2015), we can see more names of the following famous Russian scholars:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Michael Pokrovsky** [Михаи́л Миха́йлович Покро́вский][10] (1868/1869-1942)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sergius Averintzev** [Серге́й Серге́евич Аве́ринцев][11] (1937—2004) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Michael Gasparov** [Михаи́л Лео́нович Гаспа́ров][12] (1935—2005), [his biography][13] in Latin wiki&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Viktor Jarcho** [Ви́ктор Но́евич Ярхо́][14] (1920—2003)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Zaicev** [Алекса́ндр Ио́сифович За́йцев][15] (1926-2000)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see [the contents page][16] of the proceedings of a 2010 conference - it is in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%AF%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iacobus_Borovskij&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.academialatinitatifovendae.org/Academialatinitatifovendae/Historia.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%98%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%84_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosephus_Tronskij&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=LwZsXAvtlSkC&amp;pg=PP5#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D1%91%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.academialatinitatifovendae.org/Academialatinitatifovendae/ALF.html&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BB_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BB_%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gasparov&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D1%80%D1%85%D0%BE,_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80_%D0%98%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.philol.msu.ru/~classic/activities/umo/2010-lat/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="921" RevisionGUID="1ad84739-3b8a-4afc-a91b-65cbcf6a3f3e" CreationDate="2017-08-12T18:43:05.607" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="I thought I read somewhere that Latin verbs usually have about 150 different endings, but when I looked over a paradigm table I only found around 90. How many distinct forms do you need to memorize, say, for a regular verb in _-are_, to know _all_ the inflections of the verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16733" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="921" RevisionGUID="1ad84739-3b8a-4afc-a91b-65cbcf6a3f3e" CreationDate="2017-08-12T18:43:05.607" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|verbs|conjugation|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5048" RevisionGUID="b7d94eb7-2f9c-439f-8aa3-b83b89cb105e" CreationDate="2017-08-12T19:09:13.507" UserId="79" Comment="added 117 characters in body" Text="It appears that *-que* was treated much like a word.&#xD;&#xA;Especially Ovidius does not treat it as an enclitic, but more as an independent word.&#xD;&#xA;This becomes evident in quotes, where *-que* is outside the quote but the word it is attached to is inside.&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at [this question on a specific instance of this (for the version *-c*)](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2775/79) and [this list](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23que%23+%5Bov%5D) for a number of similar occurrences in Ovidius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure how the Romans understood or defined a word.&#xD;&#xA;Word spacing as we know it &amp;mdash; including our editions of ancient texts &amp;mdash; [was not an ancient phenomenon](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2414/79).&#xD;&#xA;Spelling conventions have evolved over time, also during the Roman era.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any other ancient abbreviations where the &quot;word&quot; *-que* is given its own letter.&#xD;&#xA;But I didn't manage to find any other abbreviations containing *-que* either.&#xD;&#xA;In the absence of examples in either direction, it is hard to draw very strong conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;Modern abbreviations can be quite liberal, but arguing by modern analogies is dangerous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One question worth asking is whether we really know what all the letters in SPQR stand for.&#xD;&#xA;The fact that [the Temple of Saturn in the *Forum Romanum*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Saturn) has *Senatus populusque Romanus* spelled out in full (and so does [the arch of Titus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_of_Titus#Inscription) as luchonacho pointed out) is evidence in support of the standard reading, but it does not strictly rule out other options.&#xD;&#xA;However, I do find it most likely that the Q is *-que* and the standard reading is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can only guess why there is a Q, unless some ancient author discusses this very point.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it was to emphasize the &quot;and&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps *-que* was considered a separate word.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps whoever came up with it didn't give it much thought and his decision stuck.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it was to differentiate it from Suomen Punainen Risti (The Finnish Red Cross).&#xD;&#xA;The last guess is probably bad, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5062" RevisionGUID="67e5a854-5072-45da-a588-b25737999171" CreationDate="2017-08-12T19:51:31.403" UserDisplayName="user1861" Text="I fear you will not find any scholarly consensus about Saturnian metre. Have you seen this review of a book by Angelo Mercado published a few years ago? - http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2013/2013-07-30.html Only time will show whether his theory, which is of an accentual basis for the metre, will become generally accepted. The review touches on alternative quantitative theories." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="922" RevisionGUID="647204a2-e88c-4f03-8ad3-9d7d473f9e54" CreationDate="2017-08-13T15:19:08.843" UserId="136" Comment="added other terms for moods" Text="Here is a count of different verb forms for a verb like *amare*.&#xD;&#xA;Including or excluding some forms is a matter of taste, like passive imperatives which only seem common for deponent verbs.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some might also want to include comparatives or superlatives of participles.&#xD;&#xA;The point is that there are different legitimate ways to count, and this is only one.&#xD;&#xA;Declination of participles could also be considered to be outside the realm of verb forms; with little exceptions participles are just adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;I will give detailed calculations so that anyone can easily pick which forms they wish to include and end up with their own number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Active personal forms with 6 persons (60 total):&#xD;&#xA;- nominative/indicative (6 tenses)&#xD;&#xA;- conjunctive/subjunctive (4 tenses)&#xD;&#xA;2. Passive personal forms with 6 persons (half of the tenses use a participle and *esse*) (30 total):&#xD;&#xA;- nominative/indicative (3 tenses)&#xD;&#xA;- conjunctive/subjunctive (2 tenses)&#xD;&#xA;3. Personal forms with less than six persons (6 total):&#xD;&#xA;- present active imperative (2 persons)&#xD;&#xA;- future active imperative (4 persons)&#xD;&#xA;- present and future passive imperatives not used for non-deponent verbs? [See the separate question.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/62/79)&#xD;&#xA;4. Infinitives (only those that are formed without *esse* or *ire*) (3 total):&#xD;&#xA;- present active and passive&#xD;&#xA;- perfect active&#xD;&#xA;5. Supine (2 cases)&#xD;&#xA;6. Gerund (4 cases)&#xD;&#xA;7. Participles and gerundive (144):&#xD;&#xA;- gerundive (3 genders, 2 numbers, 6 cases)&#xD;&#xA;- present active participle (3 genders, 2 numbers, 6 cases)&#xD;&#xA;- future active participle (3 genders, 2 numbers, 6 cases)&#xD;&#xA;- perfect passive participle (3 genders, 2 numbers, 6 cases)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Total: 249**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from the full declension of participles and gerundive, I think one has to know all these forms to be able to reproduce any given form.&#xD;&#xA;Note that I have not listed forms like *amatus sis*, since they are composed from *esse* and a form of *amare* already on the list." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="922" RevisionGUID="2bf501a3-d8d8-4a96-bf9a-ce4d69caf093" CreationDate="2017-08-13T19:20:17.780" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body" Text="Here is a count of different verb forms for a verb like *amare*.&#xD;&#xA;Including or excluding some forms is a matter of taste, like passive imperatives which only seem common for deponent verbs.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some might also want to include comparatives or superlatives of participles.&#xD;&#xA;The point is that there are different legitimate ways to count, and this is only one.&#xD;&#xA;Declination of participles could also be considered to be outside the realm of verb forms; with little exceptions participles are just adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;I will give detailed calculations so that anyone can easily pick which forms they wish to include and end up with their own number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Active personal forms with 6 persons (60 total):&#xD;&#xA;- indicative (6 tenses)&#xD;&#xA;- conjunctive/subjunctive (4 tenses)&#xD;&#xA;2. Passive personal forms with 6 persons (half of the tenses use a participle and *esse*) (30 total):&#xD;&#xA;- indicative (3 tenses)&#xD;&#xA;- conjunctive/subjunctive (2 tenses)&#xD;&#xA;3. Personal forms with less than six persons (6 total):&#xD;&#xA;- present active imperative (2 persons)&#xD;&#xA;- future active imperative (4 persons)&#xD;&#xA;- present and future passive imperatives not used for non-deponent verbs? [See the separate question.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/62/79)&#xD;&#xA;4. Infinitives (only those that are formed without *esse* or *ire*) (3 total):&#xD;&#xA;- present active and passive&#xD;&#xA;- perfect active&#xD;&#xA;5. Supine (2 cases)&#xD;&#xA;6. Gerund (4 cases)&#xD;&#xA;7. Participles and gerundive (144):&#xD;&#xA;- gerundive (3 genders, 2 numbers, 6 cases)&#xD;&#xA;- present active participle (3 genders, 2 numbers, 6 cases)&#xD;&#xA;- future active participle (3 genders, 2 numbers, 6 cases)&#xD;&#xA;- perfect passive participle (3 genders, 2 numbers, 6 cases)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Total: 249**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from the full declension of participles and gerundive, I think one has to know all these forms to be able to reproduce any given form.&#xD;&#xA;Note that I have not listed forms like *amatus sis*, since they are composed from *esse* and a form of *amare* already on the list." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5063" RevisionGUID="19353d48-ad3b-4f44-8778-e077be09f8e6" CreationDate="2017-08-13T19:35:36.030" UserId="1913" Text="&quot;Or is a common practice to add the first letter of conjunctions (or at least the &quot;-que&quot; conjunction) into acronyms?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are looking at this from the modern english tradition of omitting articles like &quot;and&quot; or &quot;of&quot; from acronyms. The Romans did not necessarily follow the same aesthetics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ostensibly the Romans considered the &quot;que&quot; as a separate word, &amp; abbreviated it separately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason for this may have been the actual pronunciation of the phrase at the time. They may have emphasized the -que when speaking, perhaps.&#xD;&#xA;Plus there is the fact that they did not space their words out separately as we do today. Maybe the -que suffix started as a separate word but became considered a suffix much later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5064" RevisionGUID="870ccc8e-f281-45ae-9155-a4f9b99c82db" CreationDate="2017-08-13T19:38:04.777" UserId="79" Text="*Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum* (CIL) is a large corpus of Latin inscriptions.&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Inscriptionum_Latinarum) contains some links, but none of the tools linked there seem to allow me to make a text search.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I might want to search for all inscriptions containing the word *senatus* spelled out in full or those containing the name *Agrippa*.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to do this?&#xD;&#xA;An advanced search tool is not necessary; it would be enough to have a sufficiently large chunk of the corpus in searchable form.&#xD;&#xA;I feel that I must be missing something obvious, but I couldn't figure this out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16741" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5064" RevisionGUID="870ccc8e-f281-45ae-9155-a4f9b99c82db" CreationDate="2017-08-13T19:38:04.777" UserId="79" Text="How to search Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum for words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16742" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5064" RevisionGUID="870ccc8e-f281-45ae-9155-a4f9b99c82db" CreationDate="2017-08-13T19:38:04.777" UserId="79" Text="|text-corpus|soft-question|study-strategies|corpus-inscriptionum-latinarum|cil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5065" RevisionGUID="30fa68e7-c0a4-46ab-98c4-630047c5fdcc" CreationDate="2017-08-13T19:51:22.577" UserId="30" Text="There is this title page of a &quot;disputation&quot; (a kind of academic thesis?), which begins with the abbreviation **J.S.J.P.** Because it is the first line, I would expect it to be some kind of benediction, like *Quod Deus Bene Vertat*. On the other hand, it is a legal subject, so perhaps it could be some kind of personal title or degree with *juris* in it? An [example][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=ddFiAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PP3&amp;lpg=PP3&amp;dq=%22disputatio%20carolina%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=A2jPE2kUp8&amp;sig=4LmPF4OEpOHcQZzlDpSy4mmJylE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=%22disputatio%20carolina%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3IviG.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16744" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5065" RevisionGUID="30fa68e7-c0a4-46ab-98c4-630047c5fdcc" CreationDate="2017-08-13T19:51:22.577" UserId="30" Text="What does J.S.J.P. stand for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16745" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5065" RevisionGUID="30fa68e7-c0a4-46ab-98c4-630047c5fdcc" CreationDate="2017-08-13T19:51:22.577" UserId="30" Text="|academic-latin|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16746" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4166" RevisionGUID="11189703-adb1-43ea-9ee4-7d44b70a4c2a" CreationDate="2017-08-13T20:08:33.403" UserId="79" Comment="50" />
  <row Id="16747" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="747" RevisionGUID="09d6ecfd-8899-4542-bbff-f30372717455" CreationDate="2017-08-13T20:08:44.837" UserId="79" Comment="49" />
  <row Id="16748" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="1914" RevisionGUID="67a5f4c7-acb0-450c-9fef-523cee33bc0f" CreationDate="2017-08-13T20:09:00.133" UserId="79" Comment="48" />
  <row Id="16749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5063" RevisionGUID="c32752a8-8f6f-4254-b60c-4d7eff6190e5" CreationDate="2017-08-13T20:16:03.573" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt;Or is a common practice to add the first letter of conjunctions (or at least the &quot;-que&quot; conjunction) into acronyms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are looking at this from the modern English tradition of omitting articles like &quot;and&quot; or &quot;of&quot; from acronyms. The Romans did not necessarily follow the same aesthetics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ostensibly the Romans considered the &quot;que&quot; as a separate word, &amp; abbreviated it separately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason for this may have been the actual pronunciation of the phrase at the time. They may have emphasized the -que when speaking, perhaps.&#xD;&#xA;Plus there is the fact that they did not space their words out separately as we do today. Maybe the -que suffix started as a separate word but became considered a suffix much later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5065" RevisionGUID="a739783c-9677-4224-9f50-6f6ccc53aaf4" CreationDate="2017-08-14T00:23:52.820" UserId="30" Comment="added 347 characters in body" Text="There is this title page of a &quot;disputation&quot; (a kind of academic thesis?), which begins with the abbreviation **J.S.J.P.** Because it is the first line, I would expect it to be some kind of benediction, like *Quod Deus Bene Vertat*. On the other hand, it is a legal subject, so perhaps it could be some kind of personal title or degree with *juris* in it? An [example][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** Another [example][3], from the same printer and the same university:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I haven't managed to find any other examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=ddFiAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PP3&amp;lpg=PP3&amp;dq=%22disputatio%20carolina%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=A2jPE2kUp8&amp;sig=4LmPF4OEpOHcQZzlDpSy4mmJylE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=%22disputatio%20carolina%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3IviG.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=EshJAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PP1&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;dq=%22j.s.j.p.%22%20disputatio&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=BSsnCVX2YX&amp;sig=mV22dqwcdxNM1Z-Vrv26SXFqHPE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=%22j.s.j.p.%22%20disputatio&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ya5VS.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5066" RevisionGUID="c2353209-5e30-45e8-b904-0adea3de8218" CreationDate="2017-08-14T07:17:35.413" UserId="79" Text="In my experience, academic theses are defended in public with permission &amp;mdash; and perhaps protection &amp;mdash; of high university officials, and this is often indicated on the title page.&#xD;&#xA;Consider for example [this dissertation](http://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/110144) (which contains [a poem that I asked about](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2324/79)).&#xD;&#xA;The title page says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;D. F. G.  &#xD;&#xA;ANIMADVERSIONES SUBITANEAE  &#xD;&#xA;CIRCA  &#xD;&#xA;PRINCIPIUM  &#xD;&#xA;UNIVERSAE  &#xD;&#xA;OPTICAE  &#xD;&#xA;LEIBNITIANUM  &#xD;&#xA;QUATENUS IDEM  &#xD;&#xA;CATOPTRICA  &#xD;&#xA;ADHIBETUR,  &#xD;&#xA;QUAS  &#xD;&#xA;**Consensu Ampliss[imae] Facult[atis] Philosoph[iae]**  &#xD;&#xA;in Regia Academia Aboensi,  &#xD;&#xA;PRAESIDE  &#xD;&#xA;MARTINO JOHANNE  &#xD;&#xA;WALLENIO,  &#xD;&#xA;Matheseos Prosessore Reg. et Ord.  &#xD;&#xA;PUBLICAE CENSURAE SUBJICIT  &#xD;&#xA;Andreas Johannes Lexell  &#xD;&#xA;ABOA Fenno  &#xD;&#xA;Die XXX Junii Anni MDCCLIX  &#xD;&#xA;LOCO HORISQUE A. M. SOLITIS.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;HOLMIAE,  &#xD;&#xA;Typis LAURENT. LUDOV. GREFINGII.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bolded part says that the thesis was defended with consent from the great faculty of philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;The title pages you show do not have a similar phrase, so it is possible that the abbreviation JSJP might have a similar role.&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, I might guess *iussu senatus, iussu praesidentis*, &quot;by the order of the senate and the president [of the university]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would be much more confident about this theory if I knew what JUDPPO meant in your examples and DFG in mine.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is merely an educated guess, but I leave it for others to judge whether it was educated enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5067" RevisionGUID="16c0d8c8-88f7-4174-9caa-90c13b2d1c9e" CreationDate="2017-08-14T11:29:08.747" UserId="1459" Text="I think this is some form of &quot;Motto&quot; attached to dissertations, which might have been personal. For example, [here](https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_gQeIPrxma9UC_2) you can find _In Nomine Jesu Feliciter_, which initialism would have been JNJF. Not quite the same in your example, but it might be some form of _in ... Jesu ..._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Q.D.B.V.](https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_9yJcg-yeglUC), which might stand for _Quod Deus Bene Vertat_ (&quot;May God grant success?&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [C.D.&amp; A.C.](https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_JgnslhN-NpwC), which second letter might be _Domine_ or related (can't find an explanation online).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [?.N.D.N.I.C](https://archive.org/details/ned-kbn-all-00005106-001), where could be partly like _nomine Deus_ or etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5067" RevisionGUID="8755de6f-7cc9-4efd-90f6-b96b2bab1ac6" CreationDate="2017-08-14T11:38:10.157" UserId="1459" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="I think this is some form of &quot;Motto&quot; or blessing attached to dissertations, which might have been personal. For example, [here](https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_gQeIPrxma9UC_2) you can find _In Nomine Jesu Feliciter_, which initialism would have been JNJF. Not quite the same in your example, but it might be some form of _in ... Jesu ..._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Q.D.B.V.](https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_9yJcg-yeglUC), which might stand for _Quod Deus Bene Vertat_ (&quot;May God grant success?&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [C.D.&amp; A.C.](https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_JgnslhN-NpwC), which second letter might be _Domine_ or related (can't find an explanation online).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [?.N.D.N.I.C](https://archive.org/details/ned-kbn-all-00005106-001), where could be partly like _nomine Deus_ or etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5066" RevisionGUID="4e8aa3d1-4497-4df2-8953-93c48d1879f3" CreationDate="2017-08-14T12:00:55.740" UserId="79" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="In my experience, academic theses are defended in public with permission &amp;mdash; and perhaps protection &amp;mdash; of high university officials, and this is often indicated on the title page.&#xD;&#xA;Consider for example [this dissertation](http://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/110144) (which contains [a poem that I asked about](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2324/79)).&#xD;&#xA;The title page says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;D. F. G.  &#xD;&#xA;ANIMADVERSIONES SUBITANEAE  &#xD;&#xA;CIRCA  &#xD;&#xA;PRINCIPIUM  &#xD;&#xA;UNIVERSAE  &#xD;&#xA;OPTICAE  &#xD;&#xA;LEIBNITIANUM  &#xD;&#xA;QUATENUS IDEM  &#xD;&#xA;CATOPTRICA  &#xD;&#xA;ADHIBETUR,  &#xD;&#xA;QUAS  &#xD;&#xA;**Consensu Ampliss[imae] Facult[atis] Philosoph[iae]**  &#xD;&#xA;in Regia Academia Aboensi,  &#xD;&#xA;PRAESIDE  &#xD;&#xA;MARTINO JOHANNE  &#xD;&#xA;WALLENIO,  &#xD;&#xA;Matheseos Prosessore Reg. et Ord.  &#xD;&#xA;PUBLICAE CENSURAE SUBJICIT  &#xD;&#xA;Andreas Johannes Lexell  &#xD;&#xA;ABOA Fenno  &#xD;&#xA;Die XXX Junii Anni MDCCLIX  &#xD;&#xA;LOCO HORISQUE A. M. SOLITIS.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;HOLMIAE,  &#xD;&#xA;Typis LAURENT. LUDOV. GREFINGII.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bolded part says that the thesis was defended with consent from the great faculty of philosophy.&#xD;&#xA;The title pages you show do not have a similar phrase, so it is possible that the abbreviation JSJP might have a similar role.&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, I might guess *iussu senatus, iussu praesidentis/praesidis*, &quot;by the order of the senate and the president [of the university]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would be much more confident about this theory if I knew what JUDPPO meant in your examples and DFG in mine.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is merely an educated guess, but I leave it for others to judge whether it was educated enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5068" RevisionGUID="ac229c83-85d7-4d33-8559-003f092064cc" CreationDate="2017-08-14T12:14:36.420" UserId="522" Text="After looking at a number of Title pages, I found  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; jussu senatus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; By order of the Senate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;on works published collectively such as statutes,books of medical recipes,public lectures. And one [example][1] which almost fits  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; iussu senatus, iure iurando pollicitans,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; by order of the Senate, promising on oath &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are ***J*** not ***I***, and in abbreviations Jus, Jussus are the most frequent Js.  However in this case the 'Senatus' is Genitive,  'of;'  and so it is not the Senate 'pollicitans,' making promises. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0l0UAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA116&amp;dq=iussu%20senatus%20iure&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi_vYb2-dXVAhXMh7QKHV1eBsEQ6AEIVDAH" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5068" RevisionGUID="2427d1d1-c5be-46e8-ad04-8488a7db89ad" CreationDate="2017-08-14T12:22:40.980" UserId="522" Comment="mended link" Text="After looking at a number of Title pages, I found  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; jussu senatus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; By order of the Senate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;on works published collectively such as statutes,books of medical recipes,public lectures. And one [historical example][1] which almost fits  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; iussu senatus, iure iurando pollicitans,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; by order of the Senate, promising on oath &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are ***J*** not ***I***, and in abbreviations Jus, Jussus are the most frequent Js.  However in this case the 'Senatus' is Genitive,  'of;'  and so it is not the Senate 'pollicitans,' making promises. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0l0UAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA116&amp;lpg=PA116&amp;dq=iussu%2Bsenatus%2Biure%2Biurando%20pollicitans&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=JKBJ8v3QIA&amp;sig=3hFHtaXF2dwbTEofGhVVf6lY9Es&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiHuJrZ2tbVAhVSblAKHasdDfYQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=iussu%2Bsenatus%2Biure%2Biurando%20pollicitans&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16760" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5064" RevisionGUID="e1b31332-3a06-40e7-a71d-94cdd20e3b35" CreationDate="2017-08-14T14:07:14.993" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|text-corpus|inscription|study-strategies|corpus-inscriptionum-latinarum|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="599" RevisionGUID="16939421-c10e-485e-ae1c-f545b2c3f6a1" CreationDate="2017-08-14T14:08:47.287" UserId="79" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="I have typically encountered *quippe* with relative pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;It strengthens the relative pronoun in a way that is often best translated with something other than a relative structure.&#xD;&#xA;The word *quippe* emphasizes that the relative clause contains an explanation.&#xD;&#xA;Artificial examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Amicus meus non cantat, quippe qui ne loqui quidem potest.* &quot;My friend does not sing, for he can't even speak.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *Ille mihi auxiliari non poterat, quippe qui ipse quoque inops erat.* &quot;He could not help me, because in fact he was broke, too.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the only possible use of *quippe*, but this is the one I feel most comfortable with (and have seen most often).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note added later:**&#xD;&#xA;Is used the indicative above, but conjunctive may be preferable in relative clauses with *quippe*.&#xD;&#xA;Both moods are possible.&#xD;&#xA;See [this separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1252/79) about this issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1691" RevisionGUID="f620b3d3-26b3-454c-9b6a-b3d24137019b" CreationDate="2017-08-14T14:13:39.990" UserId="79" Comment="Updated the poem; see comments." Text="Your translation is excellent Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The chiasm and ellipsis are very natural and good style.&#xD;&#xA;The only thing I might change is the location of the imperative.&#xD;&#xA;This change is optional.&#xD;&#xA;I would put it at the very end:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cervas arcubus, decipulis lepores venare.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With small changes the phrase can also be turned into a pentameter line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cervam agita arcubus et decipulis lepores.*  &#xD;&#xA;or perhaps  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cerva arcu capitur, decipulo lepores.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer the second one, but I will leave them both in case they are of interest to someone.&#xD;&#xA;Since pentameter is rarely seen alone, this should probably be completed into an elegiac couplet.&#xD;&#xA;For example (with prose translation):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Apte sic animal varium varie capiatur:*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cerva arcu capitur, decipulo lepores.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Varying animals should be captured in various ways like this:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A deer is caught with a bow, rabbits with snares.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other option would have been &quot;Hunt deer with bows and rabbits with snares.&quot; for the second line." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5069" RevisionGUID="425f4137-029b-4f10-96f3-89b5d7006206" CreationDate="2017-08-15T19:13:46.563" UserId="79" Text="What is the best verb to be used in phrases like &quot;I'm sorry, I didn't understand&quot; or &quot;Did you understand?&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;In English one might use &quot;understand&quot; or &quot;get&quot;, in Italian perhaps &quot;capire&quot; is the most common choice.&#xD;&#xA;But how about Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I can see several options, but I don't know what is most natural in conversational Latin: *intelligere, capere, cognoscere, cernere, scire, sentire, videre&amp;hellip;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16765" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5069" RevisionGUID="425f4137-029b-4f10-96f3-89b5d7006206" CreationDate="2017-08-15T19:13:46.563" UserId="79" Text="Translating &quot;understand&quot; in a conversation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16766" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5069" RevisionGUID="425f4137-029b-4f10-96f3-89b5d7006206" CreationDate="2017-08-15T19:13:46.563" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|conversational|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5070" RevisionGUID="69b9f2f5-5249-4279-8d27-a569e1b6b03c" CreationDate="2017-08-15T21:43:00.983" UserId="645" Text="To say *non intelligo* always seems a bit heavy-handed and instead I think you can pretty much make up this sort of informal adjunct to conversation, much as we do in English. *Capio* is useful here: *Veniam da, sed hoc non cepi*  is acceptable as 'excuse me, but I didn't understand', or 'I didn't catch that'. You can also use *non carpsi* in the exact sense of 'I didn't quite gather what you said'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't place specific instances from memory, but this sort of thing is most likely to occur during conversation found in plays. I should think that Plautus in particular has some good examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5071" RevisionGUID="4d3be079-2ded-4e94-a51f-e4f06de06e0f" CreationDate="2017-08-16T12:37:49.613" UserId="584" Text="From Wikipedia I can see that an [Esperanto flag][1] exist.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how about the Latin language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;And who (which organization) could decide on this issue if an official flag should be made?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto_symbols#/media/File:Flag_of_Esperanto.svg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16769" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5071" RevisionGUID="4d3be079-2ded-4e94-a51f-e4f06de06e0f" CreationDate="2017-08-16T12:37:49.613" UserId="584" Text="Does the Latin language have an official flag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16770" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5071" RevisionGUID="4d3be079-2ded-4e94-a51f-e4f06de06e0f" CreationDate="2017-08-16T12:37:49.613" UserId="584" Text="|contemporary-latin|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5072" RevisionGUID="72e34ef9-b36f-4a0f-98cd-96f561de477a" CreationDate="2017-08-16T13:39:23.007" UserId="867" Text="Looking at casual, conversational exchanges, ***intellegere*** is often used, particularly in the negative.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[quid est?] non intellego*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; what? I don't understand&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, *The Ghost*, 475&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nam prorsum nil intellego*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't understand at all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terence, *The Self-Tormentor*, 775&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *non hercle intellego*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't understand by Hercules&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terence, *The Woman of Andros*, 190&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sed parum intellego quid me velis scribere*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; but I don't quite understand what you want me to write&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Letters to Atticus*, 380&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *avunculum meum dixisse:* &quot;*intellexeras nempe?*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; my uncle said, &quot;couldn't you understand him?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny the Younger, *Letters*, 5.12 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But here's a great example using ***scire***, with bonus idiom: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quin nec caput nec pes sermoni apparet. nec quid dicatis scire nec me&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quor ludatis possum.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't make head nor tail of your speech.  I can't understand what&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you're saying or what you're playing at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, *Comedy of Asses*, 729-730 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the affirmative, ***tenere*** is frequently seen in both Plautus and Terence (as in *Phormio* 210, for example: *tenes?*, do you understand; capiche; get it?).  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5072" RevisionGUID="dc5540b3-1c21-4b50-9b5a-236f5bf4364d" CreationDate="2017-08-16T13:44:44.253" UserId="867" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Looking at casual, conversational exchanges, ***intellegere*** is often used, particularly in the negative.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[quid est?] non intellego*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; what? I don't understand&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, *The Ghost*, 475&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nam prorsum nil intellego*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't understand at all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terence, *The Self-Tormentor*, 775&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *non hercle intellego*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't understand by Hercules&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terence, *The Woman of Andros*, 190&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sed parum intellego quid me velis scribere*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; but I don't quite understand what you want me to write&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Letters to Atticus*, 380&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *avunculum meum dixisse:* &quot;*intellexeras nempe?*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; my uncle said, &quot;couldn't you understand him?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny the Younger, *Letters*, 5.12 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But here's a great example using ***scire***, with bonus idiom: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quin nec caput nec pes sermoni apparet. nec quid dicatis scire nec me&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quor ludatis possum.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't make head nor foot [tail] of your speech.  I can't understand what&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you're saying or what you're playing at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, *Comedy of Asses*, 729-730 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the affirmative, ***tenere*** is frequently seen in both Plautus and Terence (as in *Phormio* 210, for example: *tenes?*, do you understand; capiche; get it?).  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5073" RevisionGUID="f427bd82-bec6-4c5d-a561-00590352dd83" CreationDate="2017-08-16T14:11:22.380" UserId="79" Text="Are there preserved inscriptions or other such texts from ancient Rome that contain a prohibition?&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer original signs that have survived, but mentions in the literature are also interesting.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for something like &quot;don't walk on the grass&quot; or &quot;do not enter&quot;; it should be a prohibition, not an order (&quot;return dishes here&quot;) nor a warning (&quot;beware of the dog&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16774" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5073" RevisionGUID="f427bd82-bec6-4c5d-a561-00590352dd83" CreationDate="2017-08-16T14:11:22.380" UserId="79" Text="Are there attested prohibition signs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16775" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5073" RevisionGUID="f427bd82-bec6-4c5d-a561-00590352dd83" CreationDate="2017-08-16T14:11:22.380" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|roman-culture|inscription|old-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5074" RevisionGUID="364e7e75-39e4-4aa5-a4fe-504a88cc8824" CreationDate="2017-08-16T19:20:34.170" UserId="172" Text="I am looking for references to linguistic work on latinization of foreign names by the Romans from the earliest days to the early centuries AD. As this is perhaps quite a wide topic, some field review papers or books would be the best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To elaborate, well known names, such as Brennus, Viriathus, Ariovistus, Arminius sound quite Latin. What is known about the original sounding of such names, and the transformations that they were subject to when borrowed into the Latin language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16777" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5074" RevisionGUID="364e7e75-39e4-4aa5-a4fe-504a88cc8824" CreationDate="2017-08-16T19:20:34.170" UserId="172" Text="How did the Romans latinize foreign names (personal, place names)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16778" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5074" RevisionGUID="364e7e75-39e4-4aa5-a4fe-504a88cc8824" CreationDate="2017-08-16T19:20:34.170" UserId="172" Text="|names|place-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5072" RevisionGUID="ddebc832-44e8-4a84-b89d-0948a2527997" CreationDate="2017-08-17T02:16:38.193" UserId="867" Comment="Clarified and expanded on my original answer but haven't changed the original argument at all" Text="UPDATE &amp; EDIT: My first answer read as though it was simply trying to establish the use of *intellegere* when what I meant to make clear is that *intellegere* is by far and away the most frequently-used verb for this type of exchange (based mainly on Plautus and Terence).  Next most used is *scire* and I have added new material to that section below.  I have also expanded on casual ways of asking &quot;do you understand?&quot; and added a new verb, *callere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at casual, conversational exchanges, ***intellegere*** is the most frequently used, particularly in the negative.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[quid est?] non intellego*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; what? I don't understand&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, *The Ghost*, 475&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nam prorsum nil intellego*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't understand at all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terence, *The Self-Tormentor*, 775&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *non hercle intellego*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't understand by Hercules&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terence, *The Woman of Andros*, 190&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sed parum intellego quid me velis scribere*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; but I don't quite understand what you want me to write&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Letters to Atticus*, 380&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *avunculum meum dixisse:* &quot;*intellexeras nempe?*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; my uncle said, &quot;couldn't you understand him?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny the Younger, *Letters*, 5.12 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Scire*** is the next most used verb to say &quot;I don't understand&quot;.  Here's a great example, with bonus idiom: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quin nec caput nec pes sermoni apparet. nec quid dicatis scire nec me&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quor ludatis possum.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Neither head nor foot of your speech is clear.  I can't understand what&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you're saying or what you're playing at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, *Comedy of Asses*, 729-730 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting use of *scire* is to combine it with *noscere* to emphasise just how much you don't understand:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nec vos qui homines sitis novi nec scio*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I neither know nor understand who you guys are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, *The Braggart Soldier*, 450.  See also Plautus, *Pseudolus*, 1210&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar combination of verbs, this time *nescire* and ***capere*** (the only use of *capere* I found) occurs in Terence, *The Self-Tormentor*, 955:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nescio nec rationem capio*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't know or understand the reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When asking &quot;do you understand?&quot;, again *intellegere* and *scire* are both often used (*satin intellegis?*, *iam scis?*, for example).  But  ***tenere*** is also frequently seen in both Plautus and Terence: simply *tenes?* in *Phormio* 210, or *satin haec meministi et tenes?* in Plautus, *The Persian*, 183, are just two examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***audistin?*** is attested in Terence, *The Brothers*, to essentially mean &quot;do you understand?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, I came across ***[callere][1]*** being used to mean &quot;to understand&quot;, which was new to me and so I add it here.  Examples: *callemus probe* / we understand well (Plautus, *The Little Carthaginian*, 575) and *docte calleo* (Plautus, *The Persian*, 380). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=callere&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5075" RevisionGUID="b7c99917-518d-4141-bdec-3c39c2496bf2" CreationDate="2017-08-17T06:10:25.797" UserDisplayName="user1861" Text="I am currently reading the *Metamorphoses* of Ovid. His practice varied. At times he latinised Greek names; frequently he just transliterated them, often preserving Greek grammatical endings. But poetry is special, and Ovid's choice would have been determined partly by the demands of metre and by the sound and rhythmic effects he wanted in particular lines. And Greek names are anyway probably a special case, given that Greek was a core part of the education of Rome's ruling classes in Ovid's day. Ovid did not even always change the '-os' ending of Greek to the '-us' of Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5076" RevisionGUID="176d2447-f8cb-43f2-96da-cfe1a05e6982" CreationDate="2017-08-17T08:04:58.543" UserId="1922" Text="I need to translate the sentence &quot;Who connected you to the world&quot; in latin. The sentence is not meant to be a question, its more like &quot;[He] Who connected you to the world&quot;. The idea in the way it is written in English is that one would assume that it is a question but just missing the question mark. Is there a way to translate &quot;Who connected you to the world&quot; so that it would could be interpreted as both a sentence and a question missing the question mark? I tried using Google translate to translate the sentence from English to Latin and it gave me &quot;Qui pertinet ad orbem terrarum&quot;, but if you then translate &quot;Qui pertinet ad orbem terrarum&quot; from Latin to English it gives you &quot;He belongs to the world&quot;. Therefore, what would the correct translation be, or is the one by Google translate already correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16782" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5076" RevisionGUID="176d2447-f8cb-43f2-96da-cfe1a05e6982" CreationDate="2017-08-17T08:04:58.543" UserId="1922" Text="How do you translate &quot;Who connected you to the world&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16783" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5076" RevisionGUID="176d2447-f8cb-43f2-96da-cfe1a05e6982" CreationDate="2017-08-17T08:04:58.543" UserId="1922" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5069" RevisionGUID="455c00a0-ece5-4ebb-9dd3-c4b71fedfeb5" CreationDate="2017-08-17T11:59:03.873" UserId="79" Comment="added 281 characters in body" Text="What is the best verb to be used in phrases like &quot;I'm sorry, I didn't understand&quot; or &quot;Did you understand?&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;In English one might use &quot;understand&quot; or &quot;get&quot;, in Italian perhaps &quot;capire&quot; is the most common choice.&#xD;&#xA;But how about Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I can see several options, but I don't know what is most natural in conversational Latin: *intelligere, capere, cognoscere, cernere, scire, sentire, videre&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is related to [an older question about &quot;Pardon me&quot; when not understanding something](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1830/79).&#xD;&#xA;This question is focused on the quest for suitable verbs for all conversational situations, not a phrase for &quot;pardon me, I didn't understand&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5076" RevisionGUID="590d6ef4-24c4-4794-8174-33a1daab364f" CreationDate="2017-08-17T12:00:59.957" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and edited slightly." Text="I need to translate the sentence &quot;Who connected you to the world&quot; in Latin. The sentence is not meant to be a question, its more like &quot;[He] Who connected you to the world&quot;. The idea in the way it is written in English is that one would assume that it is a question but just missing the question mark. Is there a way to translate &quot;Who connected you to the world&quot; so that it would could be interpreted as both a sentence and a question missing the question mark? I tried using Google translate to translate the sentence from English to Latin and it gave me &quot;Qui pertinet ad orbem terrarum&quot;, but if you then translate &quot;Qui pertinet ad orbem terrarum&quot; from Latin to English it gives you &quot;He belongs to the world&quot;. Therefore, what would the correct translation be, or is the one by Google translate already correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16786" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5076" RevisionGUID="590d6ef4-24c4-4794-8174-33a1daab364f" CreationDate="2017-08-17T12:00:59.957" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and edited slightly." Text="|translation-check|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5077" RevisionGUID="37ac14b8-f0c5-4c35-a84b-46a4335322f0" CreationDate="2017-08-17T12:24:24.460" UserId="79" Text="The English pronoun &quot;who&quot; is both interrogative (&quot;who connects?&quot;) and relative (&quot;he who connects&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;In Latin the interrogative and relative pronouns look a little different, but in some cases are indistinguishable.&#xD;&#xA;In the nominative they are *quis* and *qui*.&#xD;&#xA;For example, you could have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quis te mundo connectit?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Who connects you to the world?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[Ille] qui te mundo connectit&amp;hellip;*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [He] who connects you to the world&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not as ambiguous as you want.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I suggest passivizing the expression.&#xD;&#xA;Then the subject (nominative) becomes the agent (ablative), and the two pronouns look alike in the ablative case.&#xD;&#xA;In the perfect tense you could have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A quo cum mundo connexus/connexa es*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; By whom you were (or were you) connected to the world&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has the desired kind of ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;The English translation loses the ambiguity due to word order issues, but Latin does not.&#xD;&#xA;I added the preposition *cum* for clarity, although *connectere* can be used with a plain dative as well.&#xD;&#xA;(Without the preposition it looks like &quot;by which world were you connected&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now there is an ambiguity between a statement and a question.&#xD;&#xA;But another ambiguity is lost:&#xD;&#xA;If you want the connecter to be a female, then it should be *qua* instead of *quo*.&#xD;&#xA;For a question of unspecified gender masculine is the correct choice, but if you want to secretly refer to a specific woman, that is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the gender of &quot;you&quot; needs to be decided.&#xD;&#xA;That is why there are options *connexus/connexa* for masculine and feminine.&#xD;&#xA;I assumed &quot;you&quot; to be singular.&#xD;&#xA;If it is plural, the words change a little, but you still have to decide between masculine and feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you change the perfect tense to the present tense, you don't have to specify the gender of &quot;you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A quo cum mundo connecteris*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; By whom you are (or are you) connected to the world&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used the word *mundum* for &quot;world&quot; and *connectere* for &quot;connect&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For other options, see [an online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding Google translation:&#xD;&#xA;*Qui pertinet ad orbem terrarum* is &quot;who belongs to the world&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The translation from Latin to English is fine (although it should be *quis* if a question was intended), but the one from English to Latin is not.&#xD;&#xA;[Google Translate is not reliable with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79).&#xD;&#xA;The verb *pertinere* is not good in this use, but the phrase *orbis terrarum* is possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5078" RevisionGUID="54782ea5-1acc-4f72-8a49-e69c5222e816" CreationDate="2017-08-17T12:35:17.010" UserId="79" Text="What is the best Latin word for a joke?&#xD;&#xA;By a joke I mean a short funny story, like one starting with [two or three people entering a bar](http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/a-bar-joke).&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't have to be a single word.&#xD;&#xA;I know some joke words (*iocus, ludus, risus, nuga, ridiculum*), but I am not sure what is the best word in this context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16789" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5078" RevisionGUID="54782ea5-1acc-4f72-8a49-e69c5222e816" CreationDate="2017-08-17T12:35:17.010" UserId="79" Text="What is a joke?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16790" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5078" RevisionGUID="54782ea5-1acc-4f72-8a49-e69c5222e816" CreationDate="2017-08-17T12:35:17.010" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5079" RevisionGUID="ad2153c1-b728-4532-8bd5-fda491adc58f" CreationDate="2017-08-17T15:31:33.433" UserId="45" Text="In answer to [another question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2012/the-lowest-form-of-humor/2400#2400), I referenced the [second book of the *Saturnalia*](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Macrobius/Saturnalia/2*.html) of [Macrobius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrobius) (5th century AD). You will see, referring to my answer to that question, that many of these &quot;jokes&quot; are exactly in the same vein as current jokes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Avienus proposes &quot;jokes&quot; as the topic of conversation and begins, at the end of &amp;sect;1, to speak about different appropriate words. Here are the relevant parts of the passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et, ni fallor, inveni, ut **iocos** veterum ac nobilium virorum edecumatos ex multiiugis libris relatione mutua proferamus.... Haec res et cura et studio digna veteribus visa est: et iam primum animadverto duos quos eloquentissimos antiqua aetas tulit, comicum Plautum et oratorem Tullium, eos ambos etiam ad **iocorum** venustatem ceteris praestitisse. Plautus quidem ea re clarus fuit, ut post mortem eius comoediae, quae incertae ferebantur, Plautinae tamen esse de iocorum copia noscerentur. Cicero autem quantum in ea re valuerit quis ignorat qui vel liberti eius libros quos is de iocis patroni conposuit, quos quidam ipsius putant esse, legere curavit? ...Sed in hoc verbum non casu incidi: volens feci. **Iocos** enim hoc genus veteres nostri **dicta** dicebant. Testis idem Cicero, qui in libro epistolarum ad Cornelium Nepotem secundo sic ait: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Itaque nostri, cum omnia quae dixissemus dicta essent, quae facete et breviter et acute locuti essemus, ea proprio nomine appellari **dicta** voluerunt. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Haec Cicero. Novius vero Pomponiusque iocos non raro **dicteria** nominant....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*iocus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Diocus) appears to be the most appropriate, generic word. Macrobius refers every other word back to this and, as a plus, it's directly related to the English word!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *dictum* refers more to a &quot;saying.&quot; I would translate it, based on the Cicero quote above, as a &quot;witticism.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*dicterium*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddicterium) comes from &quot;δεικτήριον&quot; and is described, even by a late-Latin writer, as recent usage. Given its Greek root, the L&amp;S definition seems really appropriate: *bon mot*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the other words in your list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*ludus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dludus) most properly refers to a game. As a &quot;joke,&quot; it really only is appropriate in the sense of &quot;to make fun of.&quot; (=*aliquem ludos facere*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*risus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Drisus) really just means a &quot;laugh.&quot; The only example given for the secondary meaning of &quot;jest&quot; is best translated by &quot;laugh&quot; or perhaps &quot;mockery&quot; (as in English), so it's rarely a good translation of &quot;joke.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*nugae*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnugae) literally are &quot;pointless things.&quot; It means something more like &quot;nonsense&quot; or &quot;foolery.&quot; *Aufer nugas* might be a good reply to a groan-worthy pun, but it certainly would not refer to a witty joke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*ridiculum*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dridiculus) is literally &quot;something that causes laughter&quot;, and the relevant entry gives a few examples that would best be translated by English &quot;joke.&quot; It strikes me as more clunky, but essentially synonymous. Enter Plautus, *Amphitruo*, 3.2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; equidem **ioco** illa dixeram dudum tibi,  &#xD;&#xA;**ridiculi causa**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5080" RevisionGUID="23788fac-dcc7-4dc7-9598-dd01c3d9630a" CreationDate="2017-08-17T21:20:52.790" UserId="1407" Text="I was having [the great &quot;octopuses vs. octopi&quot; debate][1] with a scientist friend the other day, and decided to check the lexicon.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The only entry I could find][2] relates the word to measurement, either of length or area, and the only available instance was Plato:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Socrates**&#xD;&#xA;Do you observe, Meno, that I am not teaching the boy anything, but merely asking him each time? And now he supposes that he knows about the line required to make a figure of eight square feet; or do you not think he does? &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;sub&gt;Source: Plato, Meno 82e&lt;/sub&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The octopus was definitely known to the Greeks, [as these vases demonstrate][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I seem to recall that πολύπους was the word used for the animal, and [this entry mentions a usage meaning &quot;octopus&quot;][4], although it does not seem to be exclusive to [cuttlefish][5]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q: Is it correct that there was no exclusive word for octopus, or cuttlefish in general, in Ancient Greek?  Does the same hold for Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/explore/what-are-the-plurals-of-octopus-hippopotamus-syllabus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Do)ktw%2Fpous&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ferrebeekeeper.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/the-octopus-motif-in-ancient-greek-ceramics/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpolu%2Fpous2&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuttlefish" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16794" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5080" RevisionGUID="23788fac-dcc7-4dc7-9598-dd01c3d9630a" CreationDate="2017-08-17T21:20:52.790" UserId="1407" Text="Is there an exclusive word for octopus in Ancient Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16795" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5080" RevisionGUID="23788fac-dcc7-4dc7-9598-dd01c3d9630a" CreationDate="2017-08-17T21:20:52.790" UserId="1407" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16797" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="4950" RevisionGUID="661dbac2-0ac6-4240-a0eb-b746b84c8dec" CreationDate="2017-08-18T02:40:40.173" UserId="78" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="16799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5081" RevisionGUID="1be4e66f-e5c9-4e38-91a9-d1a79f9ce3a7" CreationDate="2017-08-18T09:11:00.113" UserId="79" Text="It occurred to me that I don't know a good Latin word for a vacation.&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean a celebration, or any religious or other public event, but just a period of time I have decided to take off work.&#xD;&#xA;The period can be paid or unpaid, and it might not include any noteworthy activities.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if there were vacations in Rome like there are today, and I couldn't find good fits in dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that *iustitium* is a break from court activities and *feriae* sounds a bit more like a festival than vacation, but I could be mistaken.&#xD;&#xA;I think I have used *feriae aestivae* in the past to refer to a summer vacation, but I wonder if this is really a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;One obvious translation for &quot;vacation&quot; is *vacatio*, but it does not look that appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;What word(s) would you use for vacation and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5081" RevisionGUID="1be4e66f-e5c9-4e38-91a9-d1a79f9ce3a7" CreationDate="2017-08-18T09:11:00.113" UserId="79" Text="Is there a good word for vacation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5081" RevisionGUID="1be4e66f-e5c9-4e38-91a9-d1a79f9ce3a7" CreationDate="2017-08-18T09:11:00.113" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5082" RevisionGUID="08478777-945d-4d40-a886-a30de9652ef3" CreationDate="2017-08-18T09:40:46.913" UserId="1459" Text="1615 book called _[Facetiae facetiarum](https://archive.org/details/ned-kbn-all-00002414-001)_ (The Jokes of Jokes), which contains [long funny texts](https://www.edition-originale.com/en/literature/first-and-precious-books/facetiae-facetiarum-facetiae-facetiarum-hoc-est-1615-10461). Yet, the word _facetiae_ is also used as joke in [this book](https://www.amazon.com/Poggii-Facetiae-Latin-Jokes/dp/1453771069), which contains shorter and longer &quot;tales&quot; (e.g. see [here](https://archive.org/details/facetiaeorjocos00bracgoog)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a 1642 book called _[Nugae venales](https://archive.org/details/nugaevenalessive00slsn)_ (Jokes for sale), which as far as I understand has different forms of small jokes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this evidence, I think using either _facetia_ or _nuga_ for joke is historically appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5082" RevisionGUID="073db16b-a069-4ee5-99e8-93cdf3ca7bda" CreationDate="2017-08-18T09:47:55.853" UserId="1459" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="There is a 1615 book called _[Facetiae facetiarum](https://archive.org/details/ned-kbn-all-00002414-001)_ (The Jokes of Jokes), which contains [long funny texts](https://www.edition-originale.com/en/literature/first-and-precious-books/facetiae-facetiarum-facetiae-facetiarum-hoc-est-1615-10461). Yet, the word _facetiae_ is also used as joke in [this book](https://www.amazon.com/Poggii-Facetiae-Latin-Jokes/dp/1453771069), which contains shorter and longer &quot;tales&quot; (e.g. see [here](https://archive.org/details/facetiaeorjocos00bracgoog)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a 1642 book called _[Nugae venales](https://archive.org/details/nugaevenalessive00slsn)_ (Jokes for sale), which as far as I understand has different forms of small jokes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this evidence, I think using either _facetia_ or _nuga_ for joke is historically appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5083" RevisionGUID="81437e01-c561-456e-92ef-d08e839609d9" CreationDate="2017-08-18T09:57:50.560" UserId="1459" Text="I was looking at the origin of the English word &quot;competition&quot; and it seems to come from the Latin _[competitio](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/competitio#Latin)_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, this word comes from the Latin _[competere](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/competitio#Etymology)_, which is the present infinitive of _[competo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/competo#Latin)_, that itself means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I meet; I coincide; I agree&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fail to see how _competo_, which could well be translated as &quot;I cooperate&quot;, lead to another word which means &quot;I compete&quot;. In many senses, there are almost antonymous! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16805" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5083" RevisionGUID="81437e01-c561-456e-92ef-d08e839609d9" CreationDate="2017-08-18T09:57:50.560" UserId="1459" Text="From &quot;competo&quot; to &quot;competition&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16806" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5083" RevisionGUID="81437e01-c561-456e-92ef-d08e839609d9" CreationDate="2017-08-18T09:57:50.560" UserId="1459" Text="|etymology|metamorphoses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5084" RevisionGUID="b900dafc-29b0-423d-9a82-05fcdd9c5ffa" CreationDate="2017-08-18T14:38:54.987" UserId="645" Text="The particular meaning of *competo* needed here is 'seek simultaneously' — as the competitors in a foot-race try at the same time to reach the winning tape. In the alternative sense that is making you confused, the verb's subjects have a common goal which both wish to see attained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *competitor* has in Latin exactly the same, restricted meaning as the English and has nothing to do with co-operation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5085" RevisionGUID="30fd9513-376c-46a6-8ba4-d87fada036ff" CreationDate="2017-08-18T21:05:16.780" UserId="136" Text="As always, I travel to the Morgan and Silva Furman University Lexicon for more modern terms. Of course, a vacation is not necessary a modern invention, but this lexicon attempts to find the earliest forms that match the modern definitions, so here is what I found (Format: translation = literal translation):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Vacation**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *commeatus, -ûs*, m. = voyage/leave&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *iter recreatorium* = recreational journey*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *feriae*, f.pl. = festivals&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *vacationes*, f.pl. = freedoms&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *dies feriatae* = days at leisure&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Specific Holidays/Vacations**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *feriae nataliciae* = Christmas Vacation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *feriae aestivae* = Summer Vacation&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Day Off/Vacation Day/Holiday (Job)**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *dies quieti datus* = day given for rest&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *dies feriatus* = day at leisure&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Vacation from School**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *vacatio* = freedom&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *feriae* &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Vacation (Tourism)**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *peregrinatio voluptario* = pleasant traveling*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *peregrinatio ferialis* = ferial traveling*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *peregrinatio curiosa* = careful traveling*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, for my comments and interpretation. As you mentioned, there are many types of vacations. From a day off, to traveling abroad, a vacation can be a very malleable term. This is reflected by the options we have here. And I have drawn several conclusions from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A day (or days) off from school or work for leisure is a *dies feriatus*. This fits well as the adjective *feriatus* means &quot;at leisure&quot; rather than something closer to the traditional definition of *feriae* (festivals). I also like *dies quieti datus* in more of the sense of a day set in advance for the purpose of rest (like a random day off from school).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A vacation (usually extended) for a holiday or event is a *feriae* (singular article with a plural noun!). It is then accompanied by an adjective indicating the holiday/festival for which it is (ex: *feriae nataliciae* = Christmas Vacation). This is because these vacations are given for the purpose of celebrating a specific holiday (summer is questionable, but technically fits this).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A vacation in which one travels to another place could be a *commeatus*, *iter recreatorium*, *peregrinatio voluptario*, or *peregrinatio ferialis*. This is for the obvious connection they make to the journey aspect of a vacation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;*All asterisked terms are of more modern origins, so if you would like to stay classical, try other definitions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, *iustitium* is a court break/break from daily business **due to a national calamity**, so I don't know what kind of vacations you are taking, but I would avoid this one. I could maybe see it working if it was a day off because of some tragedy that befell the organization, but even that is debatable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5086" RevisionGUID="27c232b7-8851-4e9e-843f-527b5a6b279a" CreationDate="2017-08-19T03:29:38.963" UserId="1925" Text="In ancient Greek, there's this exact word for octopus: ὀκτάπους &lt; ὀκτώ + πούς (=eight + leg), which literally means something with eight legs. I think that's specific enough. &#xD;&#xA;Πολύπους &lt; πολύ + πούς (=many + leg) was used as well, although not as specific as  ὀκτάπους and actually meaning something with many legs. &#xD;&#xA;As for Latin, the word that was used to describe octopus was POLYPUS, which comes from the ancient Greek πολύπους and means something with many legs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5087" RevisionGUID="9c801ed7-c4f7-49e2-9d9f-0800e6bc96b4" CreationDate="2017-08-19T03:41:38.730" UserId="1925" Text="As an ancient Greek teacher I can tell you that the sentence #1 is correct. But #2 although it is grammatically correct, it's syntax is not. The sentence that would be the best translation in Attic is the ἡ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου φῠ́σῐς (it's grammar AND syntax are both correct and also sounds better)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5088" RevisionGUID="44eee86e-764d-4835-8f43-6c663bd3df15" CreationDate="2017-08-19T04:25:05.553" UserId="235" Text="The phrase Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος is the first verse from John, chapter 1, and is commonly translated as &quot;In the beginning was the Word&quot;. I would like to know why the definite article is missing inside the prepositional phrase, Ἐν ἀρχῇ. I would expect to see Ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ instead. Is there some rule I am unaware of pertaining to articles inside prepositional phrases? Or is there some more general rule pertaining to the omission of definite articles that explains this phrasing? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of my confusion stems from the fact that almost every English translation I have read renders it as a definite noun. But perhaps Ἐν ἀρχῇ was idiomatic at the time, and did not require an article. It would be nice to know, additionally, whether this phrase was grammatical in both Attic and Koine, or only the Koine dialect. If it was common in Attic, then any examples from Attic texts would be much appreciated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance for any feedback." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16813" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5088" RevisionGUID="44eee86e-764d-4835-8f43-6c663bd3df15" CreationDate="2017-08-19T04:25:05.553" UserId="235" Text="Why is there no definite article in the phrase Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16814" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5088" RevisionGUID="44eee86e-764d-4835-8f43-6c663bd3df15" CreationDate="2017-08-19T04:25:05.553" UserId="235" Text="|greek|articles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5089" RevisionGUID="f17845ae-98c4-44bf-93f0-23227a6eba45" CreationDate="2017-08-19T05:40:47.357" UserId="1851" Text="I'm writing a novella.  In it, I want a motto for a noble family with a strong sense of humour. The family encourages risk taking, learning from failure, and using that failure to build good stories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want the family motto to reflect this strongly held idea that taking risks is worthwhile, if not always immediately financially rewarding. It's perfectly fine for the motto to be itself jocular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, I have &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Defectum est Ridiculam &#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    Falla est Iocosus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not have a high degree of confidence in either, although I understand &quot;falla&quot; covers both &quot;failure&quot; and &quot;flaw&quot; which seems to be close to what I'm trying to laugh at.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16816" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5089" RevisionGUID="f17845ae-98c4-44bf-93f0-23227a6eba45" CreationDate="2017-08-19T05:40:47.357" UserId="1851" Text="&quot;Failure Is Funny&quot; as a family motto" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16817" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5089" RevisionGUID="f17845ae-98c4-44bf-93f0-23227a6eba45" CreationDate="2017-08-19T05:40:47.357" UserId="1851" Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5090" RevisionGUID="b4b76819-a2e2-415b-9c07-76d7c2b59886" CreationDate="2017-08-19T10:28:14.787" UserId="324" Text="The use and non-use of the definite article in the language of the Greek Bible is irregular and often unexpected. At least partially this is due to the fact that the authors of most of these writings were native speakers of Aramaic, a language which (at least at its Middle Aramaic stage) does not have a clear-cut definite article. Speakers of Aramaic must have had difficulty with the Greek article in much the same way that many Russians have difficulty with the English article. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point is that the opening words of John (ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος) are clearly inspired by the opening words of the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch (ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν), where ἐν ἀρχῇ renders Hebrew בְּרֵאשִׁית, literally “in beginning”, without the article, and which seems to be an idiomatic phrase for “first of all”. The Greek is a calque on this Hebrew phrase.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5090" RevisionGUID="a6f62415-59e0-453f-8a74-1b181e6017ac" CreationDate="2017-08-19T11:01:44.413" UserId="324" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="The use and non-use of the definite article in the language of the Greek Bible is irregular and often unexpected. At least partially this is due to the fact that the authors of most of these writings were native speakers of Aramaic, a language which (at least at its Middle Aramaic stage) does not have a clear-cut definite article. Speakers of Aramaic must have had difficulty with the Greek article in much the same way that many Russians have difficulty with the English article. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point is that the opening words of John (ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος) are clearly inspired by the opening words of the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch (ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν), where ἐν ἀρχῇ renders Hebrew בְּרֵאשִׁית, literally “in beginning”, without the article, and which seems to be an idiomatic phrase for “first of all”. The Greek is a calque on this Hebrew phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In classical Greek you can say ἐξ ἀρχῆς, or κατ' ἀρχάς, or ἀπ' ἀρχῆς “from the beginning, from the first”, but not (or not normally) ἐν ἀρχῇ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5090" RevisionGUID="e77bd66f-63a8-4913-8661-7152584bcb80" CreationDate="2017-08-19T11:17:32.630" UserId="324" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body" Text="The use and non-use of the definite article in the language of the Greek Bible is irregular and often unexpected. At least partially this is due to the fact that the authors of most of these writings were native speakers of Aramaic, a language which (at least at its Middle Aramaic stage) does not have a clear-cut definite article. Speakers of Aramaic must have had difficulty with the Greek article in much the same way that many Russians have difficulty with the English article. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point is that the opening words of John (ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος) are clearly inspired by the opening words of the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch (ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν), where ἐν ἀρχῇ renders Hebrew בְּרֵאשִׁית, literally “in beginning”, without the article, and which seems to be an idiomatic phrase for “first of all”. The Greek is a calque on this Hebrew phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In classical Greek you can say ἐξ ἀρχῆς, or κατ' ἀρχάς, or ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, but not (or not normally) ἐν ἀρχῇ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5085" RevisionGUID="5c0cb35c-d49c-4753-a89f-36d272849493" CreationDate="2017-08-19T15:09:03.217" UserId="136" Comment="added 139 characters in body" Text="As always, I travel to the [Morgan and Silva Furman University Lexicon][1] for more modern terms. Of course, a vacation is not necessary a modern invention, but this lexicon attempts to find the earliest forms that match the modern definitions, so here is what I found (Format: translation = literal translation):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Vacation**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *commeatus, -ûs*, m. = voyage/leave&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *iter recreatorium* = recreational journey*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *feriae*, f.pl. = festivals&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *vacationes*, f.pl. = freedoms&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *dies feriatae* = days at leisure&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Specific Holidays/Vacations**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *feriae nataliciae* = Christmas Vacation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *feriae aestivae* = Summer Vacation&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Day Off/Vacation Day/Holiday (Job)**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *dies quieti datus* = day given for rest&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *dies feriatus* = day at leisure&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Vacation from School**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *vacatio* = freedom&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *feriae* &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Vacation (Tourism)**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *peregrinatio voluptario* = pleasant traveling*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *peregrinatio ferialis* = ferial traveling*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *peregrinatio curiosa* = careful traveling*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, for my comments and interpretation. As you mentioned, there are many types of vacations. From a day off, to traveling abroad, a vacation can be a very malleable term. This is reflected by the options we have here. And I have drawn several conclusions from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A day (or days) off from school or work for leisure is a *dies feriatus*. This fits well as the adjective *feriatus* means &quot;at leisure&quot; rather than something closer to the traditional definition of *feriae* (festivals). I also like *dies quieti datus* in more of the sense of a day set in advance for the purpose of rest (like a random day off from school).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A vacation (usually extended) for a holiday or event is a *feriae* (singular article with a plural noun!). It is then accompanied by an adjective indicating the holiday/festival for which it is (ex: *feriae nataliciae* = Christmas Vacation). This is because these vacations are given for the purpose of celebrating a specific holiday (summer is questionable, but technically fits this).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A vacation in which one travels to another place could be a *commeatus*, *iter recreatorium*, *peregrinatio voluptario*, or *peregrinatio ferialis*. This is for the obvious connection they make to the journey aspect of a vacation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;*All asterisked terms are of more modern origins, so if you would like to stay classical, try other definitions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, *iustitium* is a court break/break from daily business **due to a national calamity**, so I don't know what kind of vacations you are taking, but I would avoid this one. I could maybe see it working if it was a day off because of some tragedy that befell the organization, but even that is debatable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ia801000.us.archive.org/12/items/TheLexiconAnglumEtLatinumByDavidMorgan/MorganAndSilvaFurmanUniversityLexicon.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5091" RevisionGUID="0e918fd3-abbd-47bb-9af5-c76645c6e547" CreationDate="2017-08-19T15:10:17.907" UserId="1926" Text="I already think I know how to say this but looking for a more definitive answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tempus Edax Rerum is my thought?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16823" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5091" RevisionGUID="0e918fd3-abbd-47bb-9af5-c76645c6e547" CreationDate="2017-08-19T15:10:17.907" UserId="1926" Text="How to say &quot;Time The Devourer&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16824" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5091" RevisionGUID="0e918fd3-abbd-47bb-9af5-c76645c6e547" CreationDate="2017-08-19T15:10:17.907" UserId="1926" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5092" RevisionGUID="c10bfefb-4670-44d7-ac52-761186bbf506" CreationDate="2017-08-19T16:03:41.830" UserId="406" Text="*Tempus edāx rērum* doesn't quite mean &quot;time the devourer&quot;. *Edāx* literally means &quot;gluttonous&quot;; it comes from the verb *edō* &quot;to eat&quot;. But in English it's much more natural to use the noun &quot;devourer&quot;, since we don't generally form adjectives from nouns. The general meaning is the same: Time is devouring everything. (You could also drop off the *rērum*, which just means &quot;of things&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase comes from Ovid's *Metamorphoses*, book 15:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flet quoque, ut in speculo rugas adspexit aniles,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tyndaris et secum, cur sit bis rapta, requirit.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **tempus edax rerum**, tuque, invidiosa vetustas,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; omnia destruitis vitiataque dentibus aevi  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; paulatim lenta consumitis omnia morte!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the daughter of Tyndaris [i.e. Helen] also weeps, when she sees in the mirror the wrinkles of an old woman, and asks herself why she has been forcefully taken away twice [i.e. once by Paris, and now by aging]. **Time, gluttonous for things**, and you, envious old age, you destroy everything, ruined by the teeth of eternity, slowly, little by little, you despoil all things with death!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(On a side note, the poets liked the word *edāx*. Ovid also applied it to fire in M.9, and nature and old age elsewhere in M.15.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5093" RevisionGUID="c9624dc5-94ff-469c-8adf-5b938f86dedb" CreationDate="2017-08-19T18:29:54.287" UserId="427" Text="I'm not sure where you got those. They're basically word salad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd suggest *deficere iocosum est* 'to fail is funny'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5094" RevisionGUID="e48d2807-1d04-4620-9f8a-99432ab06f52" CreationDate="2017-08-19T19:41:00.650" UserId="136" Text="I started writing this before the other answer was posted, but I was nearly finished, so I am not going to let my time be devoured after all the work I put in, so I'm still posting it! :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would tend to disagree with your translation, for the main reason that *edax* is an adjective, so your translation reads &quot;time devouring of affairs,&quot; which doesn't quite capture the idea for which you are going. So here is my suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tempus Devorator* = Time the Devourer/Glutton&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I especially like the word *devorator* because of the &quot;glutton&quot; meaning in this context because it implies that time keeps devouring and simply can't help itself. There are also words that can be substituted in for each other to find the perfect combination. Important to note is that one must match the gender of the word for time with that of the word for devourer. If time is masculine, then use the ending -*or*, if it is feminine, *-rix*. *Tempus* is technically neuter, but is personified here, so an ending like -*rum* doesn't work (as it generally means a thing, not a person). I therefore just use the masculine with a neuter time. Here are the other options&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Time**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *aevus* m.&#xD;&#xA; - *hora* f.&#xD;&#xA; - *aetas* f.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Devourer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *consumptor* (closer to &quot;consumer&quot;, but also with the undertones of destruction)&#xD;&#xA; - *vorator* (a &quot;swallower,&quot; or &quot;devourer&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;Like I mentioned at the beginning, after I saw the other answer, I agree that *edax* could potentially be used in that sense. These are just some other options." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5092" RevisionGUID="470bd7ae-fffb-4af7-9d66-d585f369e8be" CreationDate="2017-08-19T20:31:15.700" UserId="406" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="*Tempus edāx rērum* doesn't literally mean &quot;time the devourer&quot;. *Edāx* literally means &quot;gluttonous&quot;; it comes from the verb *edō* &quot;to eat&quot;. But in English it's much more natural to use the noun &quot;devourer&quot;, since we don't generally form adjectives from nouns. The general meaning is the same: Time is devouring everything. (You could also drop off the *rērum*, which just means &quot;of things&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase comes from Ovid's *Metamorphoses*, book 15:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flet quoque, ut in speculo rugas adspexit aniles,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tyndaris et secum, cur sit bis rapta, requirit.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **tempus edax rerum**, tuque, invidiosa vetustas,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; omnia destruitis vitiataque dentibus aevi  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; paulatim lenta consumitis omnia morte!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the daughter of Tyndaris [i.e. Helen] also weeps, when she sees in the mirror the wrinkles of an old woman, and asks herself why she has been forcefully taken away twice [i.e. once by Paris, and now by aging]. **Time, gluttonous for things**, and you, envious old age, you destroy everything, ruined by the teeth of eternity, slowly, little by little, you despoil all things with death!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(On a side note, the poets liked the word *edāx*. Ovid also applied it to fire in M.9, and nature and old age elsewhere in M.15.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5095" RevisionGUID="e7166872-8d23-425b-a406-4d4d876a1b6d" CreationDate="2017-08-19T23:53:13.507" UserId="39" Text="As can be seen from LSJ, its first recorded use as a noun goes to the sixth century AD only:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, in the Latin translation we have polypi, and in the Index of the 1886 German edition of *Therapeutica*, Theodor Puschmann puts a question mark next to it, so it is not quite clear, if I read it correctly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/e9X6P.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/K30t4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5095" RevisionGUID="d63254ec-fd38-4fb9-9755-79514e711fb1" CreationDate="2017-08-20T00:15:58.640" UserId="39" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="As can be seen from LSJ, its first recorded use as a noun goes to the sixth century AD only:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, in the Latin translation we have polypi, and in the Index of the 1886 German edition of *Therapeutica*, Theodor Puschmann puts a question mark next to it, so it is not quite that certain, if I read it correctly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/e9X6P.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/K30t4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5096" RevisionGUID="814cdf5e-b5bf-4701-8bd0-e5837ad5d391" CreationDate="2017-08-20T19:23:10.900" UserId="30" Text="In an [answer][1], Draconis said the genitive plural *-um* (instead of *-arum*) is sometimes used in the first declension. Now, while *-um* is fairly common in poetry and with certain specific words, like *deum*, I don't remember ever seeing it in the first declension. How common is it compared to the second declension? Is it also mainly poetic? Do you happen to have an example on hand?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Draconis gave [this file][2] as a source mentioning the possibility in Virgil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Related: [Is -um (instead of -ōrum) a typical genitive plural ending outside of poetry?][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4936/30&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_Jjvd04w9kgJ:https://www.bolchazy.com/Assets/Bolchazy/extras/vergilgrammaticalappendix.pdf%20&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/705/is-um-instead-of-%C5%8Drum-a-typical-genitive-plural-ending-outside-of-poetry" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16832" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5096" RevisionGUID="814cdf5e-b5bf-4701-8bd0-e5837ad5d391" CreationDate="2017-08-20T19:23:10.900" UserId="30" Text="How common is the genitive plural ending -um in the first declension?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16833" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5096" RevisionGUID="814cdf5e-b5bf-4701-8bd0-e5837ad5d391" CreationDate="2017-08-20T19:23:10.900" UserId="30" Text="|declension|genitive|plural|ending|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5097" RevisionGUID="fac98794-0589-4236-a8e9-925bf2f3aefe" CreationDate="2017-08-20T21:08:55.793" UserId="39" Text="Leumann (p. 421) mentions two cases: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. spoken gen.pl. **drachmum** and **amphorum**; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **in dactylic poetry, four-syllable masculine nouns** could also have gen.pl. in -um, mostly compounds with -cola and -gena (e.g. agricolum, Troiugenum), and some Greek proper nouns (Gangaridum, Aeneadum, Phaselitum)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5097" RevisionGUID="ab0e813c-609a-4c51-b695-2ba72cc60f9f" CreationDate="2017-08-20T21:16:00.453" UserId="39" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="Leumann (p. 421) mentions two cases: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. spoken gen.pl. **drachmum** and **amphorum**; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **in dactylic poetry, four-syllable masculine nouns** could also have gen.pl. in -um, mostly compounds with -cola and -gena (e.g. agricolum, Troiugenum), and some Greek proper nouns (Gangaridum, Aeneadum, Phaselitum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question whether these forms are due to analogy (cf. deum) or Greek influence is not settled yet (cf. Weiss, p. 237)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5098" RevisionGUID="ca88392d-f88d-4a3b-9e80-7525bb78ce60" CreationDate="2017-08-20T21:33:31.957" UserId="1930" Text="*Sagittarius* (&quot;archer&quot;), as a noun, is exclusively masculine, but I am trying to refer to a female archer in Latin. Would simply changing the ending to *sagittaria* suffice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5098" RevisionGUID="ca88392d-f88d-4a3b-9e80-7525bb78ce60" CreationDate="2017-08-20T21:33:31.957" UserId="1930" Text="If you had to make an exclusively masculine noun refer to something feminine, would you just change the ending?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16838" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5098" RevisionGUID="ca88392d-f88d-4a3b-9e80-7525bb78ce60" CreationDate="2017-08-20T21:33:31.957" UserId="1930" Text="|grammar-choice|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5097" RevisionGUID="61c2b281-9070-40a6-aba1-0b7e1b0ca217" CreationDate="2017-08-20T21:44:12.120" UserId="39" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="Leumann (p. 421) mentions two cases: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. spoken gen.pl. **drachmum** and **amphorum**; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **in dactylic poetry, four-syllable masculine nouns** could also have gen.pl. in -um, mostly compounds with -cola and -gena (e.g. *agricolum* in Lucr. 4.586 or *caelicolum*; *Troiugenum*), and some Greek proper nouns (*Gangaridum*, *Aeneadum*, *Phaselitum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question whether these forms are due to analogy (cf. deum) or Greek influence is not settled yet (cf. e.g. Weiss, p. 237)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5097" RevisionGUID="33cbd1db-9958-4d23-951a-295edd95f2a6" CreationDate="2017-08-20T22:03:44.630" UserId="39" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Leumann (p. 421) mentions two cases: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. spoken gen.pl. **drachmum** and **amphorum**; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **in dactylic poetry, four-syllable masculine nouns** could also have gen.pl. in -um, mostly compounds with -cola and -gena (e.g. *agricolum* in Lucr. 4.586 or *caelicolum*; *Troiugenum*), and some Greek proper nouns (*Gangaridum*, *Aeneadum*, *Phaselitum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question whether these forms are due to analogy (e.g. Sihler or Tronskii; cf. deum) or Greek influence is not settled yet (e.g. Weiss, p. 237)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5097" RevisionGUID="a7ae35c9-1ddd-4860-bea5-8953fe2ab505" CreationDate="2017-08-20T23:04:54.670" UserId="39" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="Leumann (p. 421) mentions two cases: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. spoken gen.pl. **drachmum** and **amphorum**; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **in dactylic poetry, four-syllable masculine nouns**, **besides** the regular forms,  could also have gen.pl. in -um, mostly compounds with -cola and -gena (e.g. *agricolum* in Lucr. 4.586 or *caelicolum*; *Troiugenum*), and some Greek proper nouns (*Gangaridum*, *Aeneadum*, *Phaselitum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question whether these forms are due to analogy (e.g. Sihler or Tronskii; cf. deum) or Greek influence is not settled yet (e.g. Weiss, p. 237)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5099" RevisionGUID="4efdcbe5-6ed9-4a86-a6f2-1399a75fac52" CreationDate="2017-08-20T23:14:44.840" UserId="1931" Text="What is the difference between &quot;sum&quot; and &quot;existo&quot; verbs?&#xD;&#xA;Would &quot;Cogito, ergo sum&quot; be equivalent to &quot;Cogito, ergo existō&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16843" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5099" RevisionGUID="4efdcbe5-6ed9-4a86-a6f2-1399a75fac52" CreationDate="2017-08-20T23:14:44.840" UserId="1931" Text="What is the difference between sum and existo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16844" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5099" RevisionGUID="4efdcbe5-6ed9-4a86-a6f2-1399a75fac52" CreationDate="2017-08-20T23:14:44.840" UserId="1931" Text="|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16845" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5099" RevisionGUID="d0c3454b-5486-466d-a3b8-1764e66a1b61" CreationDate="2017-08-20T23:24:27.650" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|verbs|philosophy-terms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5097" RevisionGUID="e6c2a5fc-7683-46da-80d2-e43233d9c6c1" CreationDate="2017-08-21T04:29:53.953" UserId="39" Comment="added 197 characters in body" Text="Leumann ([p. 421][1]) mentions two cases: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. spoken gen.pl. **drachmum** and **amphorum**; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **in dactylic poetry, four-syllable masculine nouns**, **besides** the regular forms,  could also have gen.pl. in -um, mostly compounds with -cola and -gena (e.g. *agricolum* in Lucr. 4.586 or *caelicolum*; *Troiugenum*), and some Greek proper nouns (*Gangaridum*, *Aeneadum*, *Phaselitum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question whether these forms are due to analogy (e.g. Sihler or Tronskii; cf. deum) or Greek influence is not settled yet (e.g. Weiss, p. 237).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=ig4F_lvsZUYC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=lateinische%20grammatik&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiX0MPavufVAhVrjVQKHcRzCpYQ6AEIVzAG#v=onepage&amp;q=amphorum&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5100" RevisionGUID="039447aa-e3ae-4940-b9c2-118596316411" CreationDate="2017-08-21T09:07:16.680" UserDisplayName="user1861" Text="All the classical Latin dictionaries (Lewis and Short etc etc) I have consulted  treat &quot;existo&quot; and &quot;exsisto&quot; as alternative forms, with two main meanings. The first is to step or come out, emerge, appear, often but not always used with the nuance of originating or arising. The second - an extension of the first meaning - is to be visible: to exist with the nuance of being discernible. Most of the citations given for the use of the word in this second sense are from Cicero and the implication for me is that &quot;existo&quot; had a narrower (and perhaps more learned) range of use. &quot;Sum&quot; would be, I think, the more normal way of translating &quot;I am&quot;; &quot;existo&quot; would appear to emphasise coming into being or being manifest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5100" RevisionGUID="062c911b-3e3e-464c-b9fc-324a16079285" CreationDate="2017-08-21T11:57:43.870" UserId="469" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="All the classical Latin dictionaries (Lewis and Short etc etc) I have consulted  treat *existo* and *exsisto* as alternative forms, with two main meanings. The first is to step or come out, emerge, appear, often but not always used with the nuance of originating or arising. The second - an extension of the first meaning - is to be visible: to exist with the nuance of being discernible. Most of the citations given for the use of the word in this second sense are from Cicero and the implication for me is that &quot;existo&quot; had a narrower (and perhaps more learned) range of use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sum** would be, I think, the more normal way of translating *I am*; **existo** would appear to emphasise *coming into being* or *being manifest*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16850" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1926" RevisionGUID="dad8c4c5-df7c-4069-938b-cfc58f0f38a6" CreationDate="2017-08-21T15:31:24.460" UserId="79" Comment="51" />
  <row Id="16851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="440" RevisionGUID="afc42b79-58f6-4f46-b1ec-d21f6ab86682" CreationDate="2017-08-21T15:32:26.837" UserId="79" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="The [Online Etymological Dictionary](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=castor) states&#xD;&#xA;&gt; His [Castor's] name was given to secretions of the animal (Latin castoreum), used medicinally in ancient times. (Through this association his name replaced the native Latin word for &quot;beaver,&quot; which was fiber.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Castoreum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castoreum) has been used medicinally since Classical times, prominently as an ingredient in [*material medica*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materia_medica) and [theria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theriac) &amp;mdash; the latter appeared in the [*Amsterdammer Apotheek*](https://books.google.com/books?id=QhdiAAAAcAAJ) as late as 1683, not too long before Linnaeus. Both concoctions had been used by the ancient Greeks and Romans, establishing themselves as supposed cure-alls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The connection between castoreum and Castor is not as clear. The Online Etymological Dictionary states that Castor was venerated by ancient Greek women as a healer; I have not been able to confirm this in any writings. [This page](http://www.billcasselman.com/cwod_archive/beaver_castor_two.htm) does state that no great explanation has been put forth in this regard, only that there is speculation that Castor (Kastor, if you prefer an alternate spelling) was transformed into a beaver and back in the course of some myth. Again, I have found no evidence of this. The direct mythological aspect here seems to be a dead end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part of your question is more interesting. The ancient Greeks and Romans were well aware of castoreum and used it for a variety of medicinal and health uses. Plutarch, for example, refers to it several times in his *Moralia* ([version in English](https://www.archive.org/stream/plutarchsmoralia00plutuoft/plutarchsmoralia00plutuoft_djvu.txt)). And yes, *castor* was one word used by the Romans to refer to beavers (see [the Lewis Elementary Latin dictionary](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1002193&amp;p2=c)), leading directly to the modern taxonomic usage, including that of Linnaeus in [*Systema Naturae*](http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/10277#page/68/mode/1up). Linnaeus's usage, interestingly enough, was originally towards the same species of beaver that the Romans would have been familiar with &amp;mdash; the Eurasian beaver, *Castor fiber*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The naming of the stars [Castor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castor_(star)) (actually a triple star system) and [Pollux](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollux_(star)) seems to be somewhat unrelated to the specifics of the Greek/Roman myths of Castor and Pollux. Rather, the names may have been applied the Alpha Geminorum and Beta Geminorum due to the Babylonian naming of the two stars as &quot;The Great Twins&quot; (see [Rogers (1998)](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998JBAA..108....9R)). The idea that the two stars were twins was then passed on to the Greeks, and then the Romans, and thus they used their example of the [divine twins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_twins).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stars are not, however, related to beavers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16852" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="435" RevisionGUID="c47e74d6-5bf2-4394-8ae9-a303f979b33b" CreationDate="2017-08-21T15:33:08.010" UserId="79" Comment="52" />
  <row Id="16853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2497" RevisionGUID="93cb6f58-2db4-4ba5-a732-4430fe7c79a5" CreationDate="2017-08-21T15:34:13.663" UserId="79" Comment="Small polishing edits." Text="**sŭbŏleo, -ēre**  (‘sub’ = a hint, a trace) to catch a whiff, to suspect. Plautus twice: referring to a wife, and later to the man under suspicion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly the idiomatic answer is to refer to a well known example of suspicion: &#xD;&#xA;Hippolytus or Cassandra;&#xD;&#xA;or to this or another Fable.&#xD;&#xA;http://mythfolklore.net/aesopica/phaedrus/310.htm  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Piscosus,** fishy, is no use in this case. It means that [the river] is brim full of fish." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16854" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2496" RevisionGUID="61449c68-33b0-468c-a262-26791e2df753" CreationDate="2017-08-21T15:34:38.017" UserId="79" Comment="53" />
  <row Id="16855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5101" RevisionGUID="98a3348d-8ce1-4b0f-9c76-753fba28b65a" CreationDate="2017-08-21T22:30:41.490" UserId="1933" Text="I need Latin for my natural-language artificial intelligence research, and I've been at it for enough years that I can read Latin well, but need extensive practice with composition. Thus I have decided to translate (or maybe I should say &quot;work on translating for a few years&quot;) Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. I'm sure there must be standard translations for the philosophical and mathematical terms that might show up in, say, Descartes, or in doctoral theses by, say, 19th century mathematicians or philosophers. My Oxford Desk dictionary, and some other small ones I have, are 'way too concise, and &quot;Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary&quot; does not include even the most basic mathematical terms like derivative or integral (both are nouns), limit, or matrix. Wiktionary is similar. I can handle German-Latin dictionaries if one exists, or even French-Latin, if perhaps there IS a good dictionary but it's not in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gratias tibi ago." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16856" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5101" RevisionGUID="98a3348d-8ce1-4b0f-9c76-753fba28b65a" CreationDate="2017-08-21T22:30:41.490" UserId="1933" Text="What is the most helpful dictionary for post-medieval works of philosophy and mathematics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16857" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5101" RevisionGUID="98a3348d-8ce1-4b0f-9c76-753fba28b65a" CreationDate="2017-08-21T22:30:41.490" UserId="1933" Text="|dictionary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5101" RevisionGUID="f4f65b37-2971-437b-b96d-3c8ca6383876" CreationDate="2017-08-22T08:54:49.930" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="I need Latin for my natural-language artificial intelligence research, and I've been at it for enough years that I can read Latin well, but need extensive practice with composition. Thus I have decided to translate (or maybe I should say &quot;work on translating for a few years&quot;) Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. I'm sure there must be standard translations for the philosophical and mathematical terms that might show up in, say, Descartes, or in doctoral theses by, say, 19th century mathematicians or philosophers. My Oxford Desk dictionary, and some other small ones I have, are way too concise, and &quot;Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary&quot; does not include even the most basic mathematical terms like derivative or integral (both are nouns), limit, or matrix. Wiktionary is similar. I can handle German-Latin dictionaries if one exists, or even French-Latin, if perhaps there IS a good dictionary but it's not in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gratias tibi ago." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16859" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5101" RevisionGUID="f4f65b37-2971-437b-b96d-3c8ca6383876" CreationDate="2017-08-22T08:54:49.930" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|mathematics|dictionary|philosophy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5102" RevisionGUID="9c5ea113-83bf-48ff-a781-41f9a3fec9ea" CreationDate="2017-08-22T10:50:35.363" UserId="584" Text="I can understand that many see [Reginald Foster][1] as an iconic latin teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially due to his career as the Popes own latinist in the Vatican, as described in [this article][2] in [The New Criterion][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He also appeared [in this 2010 tv show][4] as &quot;The Latin King&quot;, where learning latin from Reginald Foster is compared to learning painting from Picasso or learning music from Mozart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He is also know from appearing in [Bill Mahers documentary about religion, called &quot;Religulous&quot; ][5] where he made some very bold quotes about the Vatican.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lately he published a book about latin named [Ossa Latinitas Sola, The mere bones of Latin][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;But what is his concrete method for learning latin and how does it differ from traditional methods?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Foster_(Latinist)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.newcriterion.com/issues/2017/3/the-vaticanas-latinist&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.newcriterion.com&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inQ6CWx7V2c&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExElEMpJN3M&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://thelatinlanguage.org/ossa/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16861" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5102" RevisionGUID="9c5ea113-83bf-48ff-a781-41f9a3fec9ea" CreationDate="2017-08-22T10:50:35.363" UserId="584" Text="What is the latin learning method of the former Vatican latinist Reginald Foster?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16862" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5102" RevisionGUID="9c5ea113-83bf-48ff-a781-41f9a3fec9ea" CreationDate="2017-08-22T10:50:35.363" UserId="584" Text="|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5103" RevisionGUID="d338f63c-e207-4200-bab2-1598d8b49749" CreationDate="2017-08-22T11:04:09.257" UserId="584" Text="The method for learning latin developed by [Hans Ørberg][1] is also known as the natural approach or contextual induction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main book is called: &quot;Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata&quot; which contains only latin text, but also some small explaining figures and marginal notes in latin.&#xD;&#xA;[Se the series here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;What is the current status of Hans Ørberg's natural approach method?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sub-questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Is it still being used?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Does it still work?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Does it have some known drawbacks?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;And has it been expanded in any way by other authors?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_%C3%98rberg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.hackettpublishing.com/lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata-series" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16864" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5103" RevisionGUID="d338f63c-e207-4200-bab2-1598d8b49749" CreationDate="2017-08-22T11:04:09.257" UserId="584" Text="What is the current status of Hans Ørberg's natural approach method?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16865" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5103" RevisionGUID="d338f63c-e207-4200-bab2-1598d8b49749" CreationDate="2017-08-22T11:04:09.257" UserId="584" Text="|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5103" RevisionGUID="fc3e7ac4-396b-474b-9f46-6ae34a54cb21" CreationDate="2017-08-22T11:22:39.507" UserId="584" Comment="added 19 characters in body; edited title" Text="The method for learning latin developed by [Hans Ørberg][1] is also known as the natural approach or contextual induction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main book is called: &quot;Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata&quot; which contains only latin text, but also some small explaining figures and marginal notes in latin.&#xD;&#xA;[Se the series here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;What is the current status of Hans Ørberg's natural approach method for learning latin?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sub-questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Is it still being used?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Does it still work?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Does it have some known drawbacks?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;And has it been expanded in any way by other authors?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_%C3%98rberg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.hackettpublishing.com/lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata-series" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16867" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5103" RevisionGUID="fc3e7ac4-396b-474b-9f46-6ae34a54cb21" CreationDate="2017-08-22T11:22:39.507" UserId="584" Comment="added 19 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the current status of Hans Ørberg's natural approach method for learning latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5103" RevisionGUID="15de4060-1909-43ab-ac2b-7e7421835b68" CreationDate="2017-08-22T11:42:25.767" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and reformatted." Text="The method for learning Latin developed by [Hans Ørberg][1] is also known as the natural approach or contextual induction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main book is called: &quot;Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata&quot; which contains only Latin text, but also some small explaining figures and marginal notes in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;[Se the series here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the current status of Hans Ørberg's natural approach method for learning Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sub-questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is it still being used?&#xD;&#xA;- Does it still work?&#xD;&#xA;- Does it have some known drawbacks?&#xD;&#xA;- And has it been expanded in any way by other authors?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_%C3%98rberg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.hackettpublishing.com/lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata-series" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16869" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5103" RevisionGUID="15de4060-1909-43ab-ac2b-7e7421835b68" CreationDate="2017-08-22T11:42:25.767" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and reformatted." Text="What is the current status of Hans Ørberg's natural approach method for learning Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16870" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5103" RevisionGUID="15de4060-1909-43ab-ac2b-7e7421835b68" CreationDate="2017-08-22T11:42:25.767" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and reformatted." Text="|contemporary-latin|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5102" RevisionGUID="11378842-88d0-4289-a33b-8e3518dbe3c9" CreationDate="2017-08-22T12:01:42.177" UserId="584" Comment="Added 2 links" Text="I can understand that many see [Reginald Foster][1] as an iconic latin teacher. &#xD;&#xA;Se also [other background article][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially due to his career as the Popes own latinist in the Vatican, as described in [this article][3] in [The New Criterion][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He also appeared [in this 2010 tv show][5] as &quot;The Latin King&quot;, where learning latin from Reginald Foster is compared to learning painting from Picasso or learning music from Mozart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He is also know from appearing in [Bill Mahers documentary about religion, called &quot;Religulous&quot; ][6] where he made some very bold quotes about the Vatican.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a [video][7] of him teaching a class filled with many of his former students&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Previously he also appeared regularly in the [Vatican Radio show][8] called &quot;Latin Lover&quot; where he made on the fly translations of various sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lately he published a book about latin named [Ossa Latinitas Sola, The mere bones of Latin][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;But what is his concrete method for learning latin and how does it differ from traditional methods?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Foster_(Latinist)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/29/world/the-saturday-profile-forget-hic-haec-hoc-try-o-tempora-o-lingua.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.newcriterion.com/issues/2017/3/the-vaticanas-latinist&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.newcriterion.com&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inQ6CWx7V2c&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExElEMpJN3M&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZLcWl_NCMY&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.frcoulter.com/latin/latinlover/index.html&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://thelatinlanguage.org/ossa/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5104" RevisionGUID="b00bdf27-336b-420c-842b-c5ffde161bad" CreationDate="2017-08-22T16:13:35.050" UserId="79" Text="The three adjectives [*omnis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=omnis&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), [*cunctus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=cunctus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), and [*universus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=universus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) appear to be essentially synonymous.&#xD;&#xA;They are often used in the plural.&#xD;&#xA;The entries in L&amp;S suggest very strong similarity, but I find it unlikely that they would be exactly identical in all uses.&#xD;&#xA;(They are metrically different, but such poetic considerations do not interest me here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any differences between these words?&#xD;&#xA;Is there a situation where choosing between these adjectives can lead to three different meanings?&#xD;&#xA;I am mainly interested in classical Latin, but insights about later use are of course welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16873" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5104" RevisionGUID="b00bdf27-336b-420c-842b-c5ffde161bad" CreationDate="2017-08-22T16:13:35.050" UserId="79" Text="Comparison of omnes, cuncti, and universi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16874" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5104" RevisionGUID="b00bdf27-336b-420c-842b-c5ffde161bad" CreationDate="2017-08-22T16:13:35.050" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|word-comparison|adjective|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16875" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5104" RevisionGUID="9faff7a6-f2a2-42f5-9ae0-e493d70c64ed" CreationDate="2017-08-22T16:31:32.107" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|word-comparison|adjective|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5105" RevisionGUID="e3329f54-50dc-4ee9-a5e4-ee1b2efefec4" CreationDate="2017-08-22T17:09:48.830" UserId="645" Text="Certainly there are differences between the three, which I hope the following will demonstrate with sufficient clarity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The roots of *universus* indicate 'turned into one', which describes a group formed from [objects] for a single purpose; *homines universi in servitium ducti sunt*, 'the whole population was led into slavery'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Derived from *coniunctus*,*cunctus* is used in much the same fashion as *universus*, but can be used of a rather more disparate collection; *milites civesque cuncti in forum procucurrerunt*, 'soldiers and civilians ran as one towards the forum'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Referring to a group whose members are substantively the same, *omnis* has the additional sense of 'every', especially in the singular, which is not an appropriate use of either *universus* or *cunctus*. It can also be used distributively in that sense: for instance *omnibus mensibus*, 'every month'.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5103" RevisionGUID="be86ee4c-96b5-4683-94e3-0bab19862c49" CreationDate="2017-08-22T17:26:46.477" UserId="136" Comment="Added one missing character" Text="The method for learning Latin developed by [Hans Ørberg][1] is also known as the natural approach or contextual induction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main book is called: &quot;Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata&quot; which contains only Latin text, but also some small explaining figures and marginal notes in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;[See the series here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the current status of Hans Ørberg's natural approach method for learning Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sub-questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is it still being used?&#xD;&#xA;- Does it still work?&#xD;&#xA;- Does it have some known drawbacks?&#xD;&#xA;- And has it been expanded in any way by other authors?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_%C3%98rberg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.hackettpublishing.com/lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata-series" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2327" RevisionGUID="da004218-531a-4782-bed1-d8a566f1798a" CreationDate="2017-08-22T17:44:17.020" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="In *Latin Grammar*, Robert J. Henle wrote (p. 2),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Accent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9. a. In words of two syllables the accent is on the first.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;vía; béllum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;10. b. In words of more than two syllables, if the second last syllable is long it is accented; otherwise the accent is on the third last syllable.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;vidḗrunt; ágmĭne&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any exceptions to these rules? (I’m assuming that Latinized forms of foreign words will be the exception, but I am not certain.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Henle, Robert J. *Latin Grammar.* Chicago: Loyola Press, 1958." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16879" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2327" RevisionGUID="da004218-531a-4782-bed1-d8a566f1798a" CreationDate="2017-08-22T17:44:17.020" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|pronunciation|phonetics|stress|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="600" RevisionGUID="9c1655f6-4e2f-4ac5-8e9a-97850237afc4" CreationDate="2017-08-22T17:45:32.577" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="Do the Latin stress rules (antepenultimate if penultimate is light, penultimate if heavy) have any known exceptions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, what are the exceptions, and what evidence is there in the grammatical canon or in literature or poetry for them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Following a consensus on [Latin Meta.SE](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/159/reposting-latin-questions-from-linguistics-se-which-could-be-answered-better-her), I'm reposting [this question from Linguistics.SE](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/1954/latin-stress-rules-exceptions) here, as I believe the classics community may be better able to support their answer with quotations and historical context.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16881" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="600" RevisionGUID="9c1655f6-4e2f-4ac5-8e9a-97850237afc4" CreationDate="2017-08-22T17:45:32.577" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|pronunciation|irregular-words|phonetics|stress|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2874" RevisionGUID="25533b52-33f4-49ea-9f9b-ca010110e115" CreationDate="2017-08-22T17:50:51.167" UserId="40" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="The υ of ἀπύ (also attested in Arcado-Cypriot, which is the most conservative group of Greek dialects and often shows similarities with Mycenaean) is a secondary development within the Greek dialects, and not inherited from Indo-European. This is shown by many cognates which reflect *o*, e.g. Hitt. *appā*, Skt. *apa*, Russ. *po*. So it's unlikely to be related to anything in Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The change of *ab-* to *au-*, if that's what it is, seems to be a Latin- (or Italic-?) specific sound change before *f*: *au-fero, au-fugio*. However, it is also possible that this *au-* reflects a separate Indo-European morpheme *h₂eu-* 'away', and is not related to *ab-* at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5071" RevisionGUID="0515201a-b0dd-4b36-9a0a-10dd3a670556" CreationDate="2017-08-22T19:27:55.890" UserId="79" Comment="Added context from comment to the question itself." Text="From Wikipedia I can see that an [Esperanto flag](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto_symbols#/media/File:Flag_of_Esperanto.svg) exist.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how about the Latin language?&#xD;&#xA;A possible use of the flag could be at language learning sites like Duolingo, where other languages are represented by country flags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And who (which organization) could decide on this issue if an official flag should be made?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5106" RevisionGUID="eddc83b2-9ca2-4577-ab14-338a41e09a84" CreationDate="2017-08-22T19:54:19.040" UserId="79" Text="## Languages don't usually have flags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very few languages have flags per se.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Finnish flag stands for Finland, a constitutionally bilingual country, not the Finnish language, which is also spoken outside Finland to some extent.&#xD;&#xA;There is no flag for the Finnish language.&#xD;&#xA;Nor for English as far as I know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some languages can be easily identified with some flags; consider Italian, French, Greek, and German, for example.&#xD;&#xA;But the languages are not confined to their main countries, nor are they the sole language in them.&#xD;&#xA;Although often innocent and sometimes useful, identifying a flag with a country can be seen as a political statement.&#xD;&#xA;A Canadian might be upset that their native language is identified with a foreign flag (French), or a Swedish-speaking Finn might be upset that the flag of their fatherland is identified with another language (Finnish).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Esperanto has a flag dedicated to the language, it is a rare exception.&#xD;&#xA;Flags are typically for countries and other administrative entities, not languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## No flag is sufficiently strongly associated with Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some languages can be easily identified from a flag in contexts like language learning software or choosing the language of a website.&#xD;&#xA;I would argue that Latin is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proposed Latin flag linked to in the comments combines Rome and Vatican.&#xD;&#xA;However, both Rome and Vatican operate mostly in Italian today.&#xD;&#xA;The role of Latin in Vatican is mostly ceremonial.&#xD;&#xA;Although Vatican is the country most strongly linked with the Latin language, Latin is (in my opinion) not the language most strongly linked with Vatican.&#xD;&#xA;Some may argue that the Vatican flag stands more for Latin than Italian; perhaps it does, but the ambiguity is inevitable.&#xD;&#xA;If the purpose of a flag is to make the user interface better, ambiguity is certainly something to avoid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Rafael commented, perhaps the best symbol is the Vexilloid of the Roman Empire (image from Wikipedia):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Vexilloid of the Roman Empire](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Vexilloid_of_the_Roman_Empire.svg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This corresponds quite uniquely to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;However, I see two issues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It is not of the typical flag format, so it might be cumbersome to use. (Admittedly, there are cases like Nepal with a similar problem.)&#xD;&#xA;2. Without the [abbreviation SPQR](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5045/79) it is hard to recognize and identify with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;And even then some are going to not understand.&#xD;&#xA;You are much better off using one more letter: the word &quot;Latin&quot; would make things clear beyond any doubt.&#xD;&#xA;The best word to choose depends on the language context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Nobody has jurisdiction over Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anybody can decide to issue a flag for anything.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I could draw and publish a flag for mathematics.&#xD;&#xA;Such declarations will have little effect unless done by a suitable body.&#xD;&#xA;Latin spans many eras and areas in Europe, and no single institution can claim it to itself.&#xD;&#xA;It might be taken seriously if Vatican or [ALF](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia_Latinitati_Fovendae) issued a flag, but it is unlikely to catch on unless several organizations and individuals agree to it and start using it.&#xD;&#xA;A flag without public awareness and support is quite useless, and no person or institution has [sufficient power over Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4211/79) to do anything about the language unilaterally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any institution would need a strong reason to introduce such a flag.&#xD;&#xA;Adding a symbol retroactively to something of such a great historical importance would easily be frowned upon.&#xD;&#xA;I, for one, would be hard to convince to accept a flag for Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5107" RevisionGUID="4ef8d95e-849d-40c2-9baa-355f8052a6eb" CreationDate="2017-08-22T20:23:08.967" UserId="1934" Text="This isn't exactly authoritative, but the translator of Winnie the Pooh, A. Lenard, who had to deal with a variety of interjections, translates &quot;O&quot; (as in &quot;O, mouse, thou hast....&quot;) as &quot;O&quot;, &quot;Oh&quot; as &quot;Oh&quot;, &quot;aha!&quot; as  &quot;eheu&quot;, and everything else is either &quot;heu&quot; or &quot;heus&quot;. &quot;Well, well, well&quot; becomes &quot;eheu, eheu, eheu&quot;. &quot;Oh there you are.&quot; becomes &quot;En, ages&quot;. His glossary defines &quot;Eheu&quot; as &quot;Oh!&quot; or &quot;Ow!&quot;, &quot;En&quot; as &quot;Lo&quot;, &quot;Behold&quot; or &quot;There!&quot;, and &quot;euge!&quot; as &quot;hurrah&quot;. - C. Lanz" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5016" RevisionGUID="e6b191ee-afc4-4662-aed5-47d99b9805c0" CreationDate="2017-08-22T20:35:51.693" UserId="584" Comment="Changed the layout of answer to increase readability + added explanation of fingitur" Text="I think one translation might be: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;By skilled teaching the character/intellect is formed&quot;* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a fitting motto for a school. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**disciplina**&quot; &#xD;&#xA;has the common meaning in classical Latin of education or teaching; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In medieval ecclesiastical contexts, &quot;disciplina&quot; could mean the scourging or chastisement which monks and others often underwent, but in a school context it seems to me more natural to think in terms of its classical Latin educational meaning rather than assume the school motto was intended to refer to the value of ruthless corporal punishment.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**sollerti**&quot; is the ablative of &quot;sollers&quot; which can be translated as skilled, clever, adroit or expert; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;fingitur&quot;** is singular present passive indicative of *fingō*, meaning something like: to shape, to form, to create. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**ingenium**&quot; often has the sense of character, disposition, way of thinking, ability, talent or intellectual capacity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16887" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5016" RevisionGUID="e6b191ee-afc4-4662-aed5-47d99b9805c0" CreationDate="2017-08-22T20:35:51.693" Comment="Proposed by 584 approved by 79 edit id of 210" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2873" RevisionGUID="39fd1932-1f04-48a6-93bf-348ce9283b07" CreationDate="2017-08-22T22:05:10.937" UserId="30" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I came across this Mycenaen word when I was trapped in a Wikipaedia chain:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the verbal augment is almost entirely absent from Mycenaean Greek with only one known exception, [![enter image description here][1]][1] (), a-pe-do-ke (PY Fr 1184), but even that appears elsewhere without the augment, as [![enter image description here][2]][2] (), a-pu-do-ke (KN Od 681). — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenaean_Greek&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I presume this is the third person singular aorist from *ἀποδίδωμι*, &quot;he gave&quot;. Perhaps ἀπο and Latin *a(b(s))* in *aufero* etc. are related. Is there any conexion at all between the Mycenaean u and the Latin u here? My guess would be coincidence, and *a(b(s))* and ἀπο might not be related at all (I believe ὑπό is related, at least), but who knows?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I see Linear B in Firefox, although I now see that they won't show up in Chrome. Do you have a Linear B font installed? You could get the Aegean fonts here: http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/slpoj.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ERr6E.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5108" RevisionGUID="33986f7c-a772-4382-ac7f-afaa22a3aae8" CreationDate="2017-08-23T01:06:07.183" UserId="235" Text="I am eating a hot dog in a beautiful courtyard right around dusk, and I would like to exclaim in Latin, &quot;How beautiful!&quot;&#xA;&#xA;I thought of saying &quot;Quam pulchra!&quot; which can't be far off, but I am wondering whether there is a better choice. For example, would *miranda* be better? Would any other words be better?&#xA;&#xA;I look forward to your feedback, so that on similar twilit evenings I can exclaim this without hesitation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16890" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5108" RevisionGUID="33986f7c-a772-4382-ac7f-afaa22a3aae8" CreationDate="2017-08-23T01:06:07.183" UserId="235" Text="How would you say, &quot;How beautiful!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16891" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5108" RevisionGUID="33986f7c-a772-4382-ac7f-afaa22a3aae8" CreationDate="2017-08-23T01:06:07.183" UserId="235" Text="|idiom|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5109" RevisionGUID="352ee03f-9fac-4a48-abc7-6b6a366be8b0" CreationDate="2017-08-23T05:36:31.957" UserId="645" Text="Use the superlative of any appropriate adjective: *iucundissima, suavissima, , dulcissima* or, especially in those circumstances, *amoenissima*. It gives more of the emphasis that you seem to be looking for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5106" RevisionGUID="e9db6831-0229-497c-9356-93aac4e77b6d" CreationDate="2017-08-23T07:09:14.863" UserId="79" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="## Languages don't usually have flags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very few languages have flags per se.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Finnish flag stands for Finland, a constitutionally bilingual country, not the Finnish language, which is also spoken outside Finland to some extent.&#xD;&#xA;There is no flag for the Finnish language.&#xD;&#xA;Nor for English as far as I know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some languages can be easily identified with some flags; consider Italian, French, Greek, and German, for example.&#xD;&#xA;But the languages are not confined to their main countries, nor are they the sole language in them.&#xD;&#xA;Although often innocent and sometimes useful, identifying a flag with a language can be seen as a political statement.&#xD;&#xA;A Canadian might be upset that their native language is identified with a foreign flag (French), or a Swedish-speaking Finn might be upset that the flag of their fatherland is identified with another language (Finnish).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Esperanto has a flag dedicated to the language, it is a rare exception.&#xD;&#xA;Flags are typically for countries and other administrative entities, not languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## No flag is sufficiently strongly associated with Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some languages can be easily identified from a flag in contexts like language learning software or choosing the language of a website.&#xD;&#xA;I would argue that Latin is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proposed Latin flag linked to in the comments combines Rome and Vatican.&#xD;&#xA;However, both Rome and Vatican operate mostly in Italian today.&#xD;&#xA;The role of Latin in Vatican is mostly ceremonial.&#xD;&#xA;Although Vatican is the country most strongly linked with the Latin language, Latin is (in my opinion) not the language most strongly linked with Vatican.&#xD;&#xA;Some may argue that the Vatican flag stands more for Latin than Italian; perhaps it does, but the ambiguity is inevitable.&#xD;&#xA;If the purpose of a flag is to make the user interface better, ambiguity is certainly something to avoid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Rafael commented, perhaps the best symbol is the Vexilloid of the Roman Empire (image from Wikipedia):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Vexilloid of the Roman Empire](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Vexilloid_of_the_Roman_Empire.svg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This corresponds quite uniquely to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;However, I see two issues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It is not of the typical flag format, so it might be cumbersome to use. (Admittedly, there are cases like Nepal with a similar problem.)&#xD;&#xA;2. Without the [abbreviation SPQR](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5045/79) it is hard to recognize and identify with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;And even then some are not going to understand.&#xD;&#xA;You are much better off using one more letter: the word &quot;Latin&quot; would make things clear beyond any doubt.&#xD;&#xA;The best word to choose depends on the language context, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Nobody has jurisdiction over Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anybody can decide to issue a flag for anything.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I could draw and publish a flag for mathematics.&#xD;&#xA;Such declarations will have little effect unless done by a suitable body.&#xD;&#xA;Latin spans many eras and areas in Europe, and no single institution can claim it to itself.&#xD;&#xA;It might be taken seriously if Vatican or [ALF](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia_Latinitati_Fovendae) issued a flag, but it is unlikely to catch on unless several organizations and individuals agree to it and start using it.&#xD;&#xA;A flag without public awareness and support is quite useless, and no person or institution has [sufficient power over Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4211/79) to do anything about the language unilaterally.&#xD;&#xA;There is no central authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any institution would need a strong reason to introduce such a flag.&#xD;&#xA;Adding a symbol retroactively to something of such a great historical importance would easily be frowned upon.&#xD;&#xA;I, for one, would be hard to convince to accept a flag for Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5110" RevisionGUID="1e777ef5-fc84-4e40-a5c9-5388280f7bfe" CreationDate="2017-08-23T07:22:09.823" UserId="79" Text="Consider these Latin cardinal numbers:&#xD;&#xA;*quadrAginta*,&#xD;&#xA;*quinquAginta*,&#xD;&#xA;*sexAginta*,&#xD;&#xA;*nonAginta*.&#xD;&#xA;The *-ginta* seems to stand for tens (cf. *triginta, octoginta*) and the initial parts *quadr-*, *quinqu-*, *sex-*, and *non-* are easy to connect with 4, 5, 6, and 9, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;The thing that puzzles me is the A in between (capitalized in the examples).&#xD;&#xA;What is the origin of this A?&#xD;&#xA;Do we know if it has a role or meaning?&#xD;&#xA;Is it related to the other long A at the end?&#xD;&#xA;I don't recall seeing a similar A binding two words together in a similar fashion in any other context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;The U in *septuaginta* is a little puzzling, but that is not my main concern here.&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16895" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5110" RevisionGUID="1e777ef5-fc84-4e40-a5c9-5388280f7bfe" CreationDate="2017-08-23T07:22:09.823" UserId="79" Text="The middle A of quadraginta" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16896" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5110" RevisionGUID="1e777ef5-fc84-4e40-a5c9-5388280f7bfe" CreationDate="2017-08-23T07:22:09.823" UserId="79" Text="|language-evolution|morphology|numbers|numerals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5106" RevisionGUID="4cf8419e-7280-4c6e-a31c-6b150d780c9a" CreationDate="2017-08-23T07:50:36.883" UserId="79" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="## Languages don't usually have flags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very few languages have flags per se.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Finnish flag stands for Finland, a constitutionally bilingual country, not the Finnish language, which is also spoken outside Finland to some extent.&#xD;&#xA;There is no flag for the Finnish language.&#xD;&#xA;Nor for English as far as I know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some languages can be easily identified with some flags; consider Italian, French, Greek, and German, for example.&#xD;&#xA;But the languages are not confined to their main countries, nor are they the sole language in them.&#xD;&#xA;Although often innocent and sometimes useful, identifying a flag with a language can be seen as a political statement.&#xD;&#xA;A Canadian might be upset that their native language is identified with a foreign flag (French), or a Swedish-speaking Finn might be upset that the flag of their fatherland is identified with another language (Finnish).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Esperanto has a flag dedicated to the language, it is a rare exception.&#xD;&#xA;Flags are typically for countries and other administrative entities, not languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## No flag is sufficiently strongly associated with Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some languages can be easily identified from a flag in contexts like language learning software or choosing the language of a website.&#xD;&#xA;I would argue that Latin is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proposed Latin flag linked to in the comments combines Rome and Vatican.&#xD;&#xA;However, both Rome and Vatican operate mostly in Italian today.&#xD;&#xA;The role of Latin in Vatican is mostly ceremonial.&#xD;&#xA;Although Vatican is the country most strongly linked with the Latin language, Latin is (in my opinion) not the language most strongly linked with Vatican.&#xD;&#xA;Some may argue that the Vatican flag stands more for Latin than Italian; perhaps it does, but the ambiguity is inevitable.&#xD;&#xA;If the purpose of a flag is to make the user interface better, ambiguity is certainly something to avoid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Rafael commented, perhaps the best symbol is the Vexilloid of the Roman Empire (image from Wikipedia):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Vexilloid of the Roman Empire](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Vexilloid_of_the_Roman_Empire.svg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This corresponds quite uniquely to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;However, I see two issues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It is not of the typical flag format, so it might be cumbersome to use. (Admittedly, there are cases like Nepal with a similar problem.)&#xD;&#xA;2. Without the [abbreviation SPQR](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5045/79) it is hard to recognize and identify with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, it can be associated with Italian or German fascism, as those movements imitated Roman symbols.&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks for pointing this out, Sam K!)&#xD;&#xA;And even then some are not going to understand.&#xD;&#xA;You are much better off using one more letter: the word &quot;Latin&quot; would make things clear beyond any doubt.&#xD;&#xA;The best word to choose depends on the language context, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Nobody has jurisdiction over Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anybody can decide to issue a flag for anything.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I could draw and publish a flag for mathematics.&#xD;&#xA;Such declarations will have little effect unless done by a suitable body.&#xD;&#xA;Latin spans many eras and areas in Europe, and no single institution can claim it to itself.&#xD;&#xA;It might be taken seriously if Vatican or [ALF](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia_Latinitati_Fovendae) issued a flag, but it is unlikely to catch on unless several organizations and individuals agree to it and start using it.&#xD;&#xA;A flag without public awareness and support is quite useless, and no person or institution has [sufficient power over Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4211/79) to do anything about the language unilaterally.&#xD;&#xA;There is no central authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any institution would need a strong reason to introduce such a flag.&#xD;&#xA;Adding a symbol retroactively to something of such a great historical importance would easily be frowned upon.&#xD;&#xA;I, for one, would be hard to convince to accept a flag for Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5111" RevisionGUID="4da21069-13e4-40b8-9cde-a47d417280f5" CreationDate="2017-08-23T10:14:19.723" UserId="324" Text="This is a messy point in Indo-European studies. Most of the many who have written on it think that the long ā originated in quadrāginta and then spread by analogy to sexāginta etc. The -rā- in quadrāginta is then explained as the reflex of long syllabic /ṝ/, or as /r/ plus a laryngeal, or something like that. It is discussed in Sihler and de Vaan, in both cases somewhat differently, but along these general lines. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5111" RevisionGUID="27ab5442-f77c-4b3a-a589-285a363c5f09" CreationDate="2017-08-23T10:20:14.607" UserId="324" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="This is a messy point in Indo-European studies. Most of the many who have written on it think that the internal long ā originated in quadrāgintā and then spread by analogy to sexāgintā etc. The -rā- in quadrāgintā is then explained as the reflex of long syllabic /ṝ/, or as /r/ plus a laryngeal, or something like that. It is discussed in Sihler and de Vaan, in both cases somewhat differently, but along these general lines. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5109" RevisionGUID="67177398-52dc-4504-9c8a-bdbd80b68c19" CreationDate="2017-08-23T14:53:55.963" UserId="645" Comment="added final suggestion" Text="Use the superlative of any appropriate adjective: *iucundissima, suavissima, , dulcissima* or, especially in those circumstances, *amoenissima*. It gives more of the emphasis that you seem to be looking for. You might avoid the ellipse with *Tempestas, quam amoenissima!* or something similar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5112" RevisionGUID="afeaf04a-9afb-4fda-8f1c-3d58a829122b" CreationDate="2017-08-23T19:05:51.223" UserId="469" Text="For what it's worth *quam pulchra* is attested in a Post-Classical context (Vulgate:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quam pulchra es et quam decora, carissima, in deliciis! [(Can 7, 7)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perseus treats *quam* as too common a word (a *stop word, excluded from searches*, so it is difficult to look for the whole phrase. I found by chance an example of *tam pulchra* is attested classically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quid ais, Eruci? tot praedia, tam pulchra, tam fructuosa ([Cic. S. Rosc. 15][2], 43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... and also examples of quam + *adverb* (unfortunately no adjectives so far) as an exclamation. Prominently:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quam multa quam paucis! (*how much [you have said] in a few [words]*, from a [letter by Cicero to D. Brutus][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_canticum-canticorum_lt.html#7&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0010:text=S.%20Rosc.:chapter=15&amp;highlight=quam%20pulchra%2C&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UKJhX-xJVpQJ:https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-letters_friends/2001/pb_LCL230.349.xml%20&amp;cd=3&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5112" RevisionGUID="49d559f4-5215-4586-a86c-055017cef4ba" CreationDate="2017-08-23T21:01:58.537" UserId="469" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="For what it's worth *quam pulchra* is attested in a Post-Classical context (Vulgate:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quam pulchra es et quam decora, carissima, in deliciis! [(Can 7, 7)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perseus treats *quam* as too common a word (a *stop word*, excluded from searches,) so it is difficult to look for the whole phrase. I found by chance an example of *tam pulchra* that is attested classically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quid ais, Eruci? tot praedia, tam pulchra, tam fructuosa ([Cic. S. Rosc. 15][2], 43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... and also examples of quam + *adverb* (unfortunately no adjectives so far) as an exclamation. Prominently:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quam multa quam paucis! (*how much [you have said] in a few [words]*, from a [letter by Cicero to D. Brutus][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_canticum-canticorum_lt.html#7&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0010:text=S.%20Rosc.:chapter=15&amp;highlight=quam%20pulchra%2C&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UKJhX-xJVpQJ:https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-letters_friends/2001/pb_LCL230.349.xml%20&amp;cd=3&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5113" RevisionGUID="79e8a3fe-4360-488e-a27d-556ecdb17dac" CreationDate="2017-08-24T07:44:55.603" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16904" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5113" RevisionGUID="79e8a3fe-4360-488e-a27d-556ecdb17dac" CreationDate="2017-08-24T07:44:55.603" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5114" RevisionGUID="abc26caf-c557-4e17-b68f-5ace4825c92f" CreationDate="2017-08-24T07:44:55.603" UserId="79" Text="For questions about Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata (LLPSI) by Hans Henning Ørberg." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16906" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5114" RevisionGUID="abc26caf-c557-4e17-b68f-5ace4825c92f" CreationDate="2017-08-24T07:44:55.603" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5115" RevisionGUID="d178cff9-152c-4027-a070-f05988870e83" CreationDate="2017-08-24T07:49:33.847" UserId="79" Text="In some contexts it is important to express whether a given date (for example October 25 and November 7 in 1917) is according to the Julian or the Gregorian calendar.&#xD;&#xA;Are there established Latin phrases for this?&#xD;&#xA;For example, should I say *Nonis Aprilibus anno MCMX ad calendarium Iulianum/Gregorianum*?&#xD;&#xA;Latin was in wider use when both calendars were used at the same time, so I assume there was an idiom for this purpose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16908" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5115" RevisionGUID="d178cff9-152c-4027-a070-f05988870e83" CreationDate="2017-08-24T07:49:33.847" UserId="79" Text="How to distinguish Julian and Gregorian calendars in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16909" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5115" RevisionGUID="d178cff9-152c-4027-a070-f05988870e83" CreationDate="2017-08-24T07:49:33.847" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|time|calendarium|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5116" RevisionGUID="cf9c6603-95c9-4f3d-8550-b1d405ab698c" CreationDate="2017-08-24T09:46:40.533" UserId="324" Text="Google conjures up a good number of old books with &quot;stylus vetus et novus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5117" RevisionGUID="ec72c657-882a-4422-8f76-065502e59a05" CreationDate="2017-08-24T16:34:41.750" UserId="1940" Text="The meaning is: &quot;[it is] because of this that ...&quot;. An earlier contributor was right to say that eo (&quot;because of this&quot;, and yes it is an ablative) adds emphasis. The Latin is poorer without it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5118" RevisionGUID="d017aa38-5d67-4de2-9d95-107ff875ee56" CreationDate="2017-08-25T07:53:47.087" UserId="79" Text="The pronoun *idem/eadem/idem* appears to be the combination of *is/ea/id* and *-dem*.&#xD;&#xA;I can understand why *isdem &gt; &amp;imacr;dem* in the masculine, but why do we have *iddem &gt; &amp;#301;dem*?&#xD;&#xA;Shouldn't the vowel be longer to compensate for the lost consonant?&#xD;&#xA;The first syllable in *&amp;#301;dem* is short (or light).&#xD;&#xA;Is the shortness there just to disambiguate it from the masculine?&#xD;&#xA;Such ambiguity would be easy to live with, so I expect the reason to be different.&#xD;&#xA;Or is *idem* perhaps pronounced as if it was *iddem* but still spelled with a single D?&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise the pronoun behaves as expected, but the neuter singular nominative and accusative strikes me as odd." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16913" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5118" RevisionGUID="d017aa38-5d67-4de2-9d95-107ff875ee56" CreationDate="2017-08-25T07:53:47.087" UserId="79" Text="Why idem instead of iddem in neuter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16914" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5118" RevisionGUID="d017aa38-5d67-4de2-9d95-107ff875ee56" CreationDate="2017-08-25T07:53:47.087" UserId="79" Text="|language-evolution|pronouns|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5116" RevisionGUID="454b855d-52a5-46c3-a5a1-00b3d5ca0459" CreationDate="2017-08-25T15:52:20.050" UserId="324" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="Google conjures up a good number of old books with &quot;stylus (or stilus) vetus&quot; and &quot;stylus (stilus) novus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5119" RevisionGUID="5166e032-bfa1-40ef-917e-5f2f42bdd06d" CreationDate="2017-08-25T21:01:05.980" UserId="1407" Text="In the preface to the first edition of *Essays on the Theory of Numbers*, Dedekind writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In this sense which I wish to express by the word formed after a well-known saying ἀεί ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀριθμητίζει, I hope that the following pages, as an attempt to establish the science of numbers upon a uniform foundation will find a generous welcome...&quot; &lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Source: Hawking, *God Created the Integers*, reprinted courtesy of Dover Publications&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm taking the Greek to mean something like **&quot;Man always mathematizes&quot;**, which in the context Dedekind is using it, relates to his idea that: *&quot;Numbers are free creations of the human mind; they serve as a means of apprehending more easiy and more sharply the difference of things.&quot;* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is quite similar to ἀεὶ ὁ θεὸς γεωμετρεῖ, attributed to Plato, translated as &quot;God always geometrizes.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three related questions, answers to any of which are welcome:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is my translation accurate?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What's going on with ἀριθμητίζει?  I can't find that specific form, although the root and meaning seem clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is there a source for this phrase?  Does it come from the Classical period, or is it a later play on Plato's phrase?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16917" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5119" RevisionGUID="5166e032-bfa1-40ef-917e-5f2f42bdd06d" CreationDate="2017-08-25T21:01:05.980" UserId="1407" Text="Source and meaning of ἀεί ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀριθμητίζει?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16918" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5119" RevisionGUID="5166e032-bfa1-40ef-917e-5f2f42bdd06d" CreationDate="2017-08-25T21:01:05.980" UserId="1407" Text="|vocabulary|greek|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5119" RevisionGUID="e8fd7b29-4c4d-42d5-9385-b7c80a7740ec" CreationDate="2017-08-25T23:06:21.453" UserId="1407" Comment="just some minor grammar fixes since this question generated upvotes." Text="In the preface to the first edition of *Essays on the Theory of Numbers*, Dedekind writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;In this sense which I wish to express by the word formed after a well-known saying ἀεί ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀριθμητίζει, I hope that the following pages, as an attempt to establish the science of numbers upon a uniform foundation will find a generous welcome...&quot; &lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Source: Hawking, *God Created the Integers*, reprinted courtesy of Dover Publications&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm taking the Greek to mean something like **&quot;Man always mathematizes&quot;**, which in the context Dedekind is using it, relates to his idea that: *&quot;Numbers are free creations of the human mind; they serve as a means of apprehending more easily and more sharply the difference of things.&quot;* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is quite similar to ἀεὶ ὁ θεὸς γεωμετρεῖ, attributed to Plato, translated as &quot;God always geometrizes.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three related questions, answers to any of which are welcome:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is my translation accurate?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What's going on with ἀριθμητίζει?  I can't find that specific form, although the root and meaning seem clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is there a source for this phrase?  Does it come from the Classical period, or is it a later play on Plato's phrase?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="6f220e93-9cab-4210-a7c5-b1bd39f2c2a8" CreationDate="2017-08-25T23:10:20.570" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="The English abbreviation [*Ph.D.*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy) comes from the Latin for *Doctor of Philosophy*, which I understand would be either *Philosophiae Doctor* or *Doctor Philosophiae*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know word order is flexible in Latin, but I thought that the general rule was &quot;noun + modifier.&quot;  If so, *Doctor Philosophiae* would be the preferred form.  And yet the widespread usage of *Ph.D.* suggests that the opposite order, *Philosophiae Doctor*, prevailed.  Is there a grammatical reason that the latter option became the source of the *Ph.D.* abbreviation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related question on ELU.SE: [Why PhD, and not DPh](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/278027/53711)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16921" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="6f220e93-9cab-4210-a7c5-b1bd39f2c2a8" CreationDate="2017-08-25T23:10:20.570" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|etymology|abbreviations|academic-latin|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16922" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="308" RevisionGUID="9d5baa3a-0f22-408e-8f91-43681e45f567" CreationDate="2017-08-25T23:20:24.003" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|verbs|morphology|conjugation|infinitive|perfect-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5120" RevisionGUID="f4139cf5-c1a4-433f-9d3a-24b2a4b506ed" CreationDate="2017-08-26T00:26:56.010" UserId="68" Text="I found a very specific use for it this summer. For a couple weeks I was at one of the living-Latin summer programs run by [SALVI][1], and the rule there—as at other such programs I've attended—is that you're not allowed to speak any language but Latin except in emergencies. Since my husband, who speaks no Latin, gets lonely when it's just him and the dog and was annoyed that we'd be out of touch for so long, I wanted to be able to communicate with him a little bit, and Google Translate turned out to be just the thing. We sent each other very short, simple sentences (&quot;Quōmodo tē habēs? Tē dēsīderō,&quot; etc.); the Latin he sent wasn't always correct but I always understood what he was trying to say, and I have to assume the same was true of the English that resulted from my Latin. It made him feel much better about my absence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the answer is: Google Translate is good for preserving marital bliss!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.latin.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5121" RevisionGUID="34f1b912-8ac6-4ff4-b8d9-ca4e627abd95" CreationDate="2017-08-26T02:05:28.080" UserId="235" Text="My first inclination was that the verb means &quot;count&quot;, not &quot;mathematize&quot;, as the simple ἀριθμός means &quot;number&quot;. This translation is supported by Alain Badiou, in his book, [Number and Numbers][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I would translate the phrase (as Badiou does): &quot;Man always counts.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Badiou explains the history in a footnote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [aei o anthropos arithmetizei - &quot;man always counts&quot;. Plutarch (Convivialium disputationum, liber&#xD;&#xA;8,2) reports that : &quot;Plato said God geometrizes continually&quot;. Kepler’s repetition of the statement in his&#xD;&#xA;Mysterium Cosmographicum (either placatory or ironic, given the decidedly non-platonic nature of his&#xD;&#xA;proposed coelestis machina) was followed by Gauss’s modification: o theos arithmetizei, god&#xD;&#xA;arithmetizes, counts or calculates. Dedekind’s ‘copernican revolution’ consisted of transforming this&#xD;&#xA;once again into: aei o anthropos arithmetizei - man is always counting; completing the transformation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it started with Plato's phrase, ἀεὶ ὁ θεὸς γεωμετρεῖ. Then Gauss modified it to ἀεὶ ὁ θεὸς ἀριθμητίζει. Then Dedekind modified it to ἀεὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀριθμητίζει.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, the verb is hard to look up, and I will edit this post if I find an online entry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mercaba.org/SANLUIS/Filosofia/autores/Contempor%C3%A1nea/Badiou/Number%20and%20numbers.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5122" RevisionGUID="2320ead9-6540-4b4c-baab-118682c70a4b" CreationDate="2017-08-26T06:05:25.693" UserId="645" Text="Whatever it is that you intend to write, and if you need to make the distinction, it has obviously to be set at a time after the adoption of the Gregorian calendar. As I mentioned in a comment on the question, the two systems after the change were simply referred to as 'O.S.' (*Old Style*, i.e. Julian) and 'N.S.' (*New Style*) in English writings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In adopting those references, a satisfactory word would be *ratio*, which I suggest is preferable to either *modus* or *genus*. I should myself choose any of these before *stilus*, although in classical times the word was sometimes actually used with a secondary meaning similar to that sought here — but that's just a personal preference. In the choice of adjectives there are various alternatives — for instance *prior* and *vetus*,  *recens*,*novus* and perhaps *infimus*, none of which seems controversial — though one might just as comfortably (and more clearly) use *Julianus* and *Gregorianus* instead of 'old' and 'new'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a later context, in times when it has/had become customary to use simple ordinals for the days of the month in English,  it's not really appropriate to use the method of expressing dates from classical times. By the time the Gregorian system had been adopted across Europe, if not earlier, the old Ides of March, for example, would generally be written in correspondence as something like *dies XV mensis Martialis A.D.MDCCLXXVII*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5123" RevisionGUID="9dcd7d06-4778-43b4-921b-878c29672edf" CreationDate="2017-08-26T07:31:00.350" UserId="1942" Text="Profundere is old latin world and its real mean is SOMETHING THAT is in LARGE QUANTITY OR NEVER GONE TO END.Similar to Profusion and Shed load.There is Advertising company which names PROFUNDERE ADVERTISING and data collected from them is same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5124" RevisionGUID="e45344c0-8e44-4437-9bdb-8279b1298c23" CreationDate="2017-08-26T12:13:49.600" UserId="1943" Text="In the sense of &quot;every second employed productively&quot; as a motto, so brevity is important. It's a little tongue-in-cheek." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16928" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5124" RevisionGUID="e45344c0-8e44-4437-9bdb-8279b1298c23" CreationDate="2017-08-26T12:13:49.600" UserId="1943" Text="How would you translate &quot;Not a second wasted&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16929" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5124" RevisionGUID="e45344c0-8e44-4437-9bdb-8279b1298c23" CreationDate="2017-08-26T12:13:49.600" UserId="1943" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5125" RevisionGUID="bfaf6379-2391-45ba-a2b9-e4e89fb28f4b" CreationDate="2017-08-26T14:10:28.243" UserId="1133" Text="What would an educated, bilingual Roman of Nero's time say of Nero to mean that he was a 'tyrant' etc. in our sense--i.e. a bad, unjust, arbitrary ruler--in (a) Latin and (b) Greek?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BACKGROUND**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that neither &lt;i&gt;τύραννος&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;i&gt;δεσπότης&lt;/i&gt;, nor &lt;i&gt;dictātor&lt;/i&gt; implies, at least in its primary sense, that the one so named ruled badly.  For example, Oedipus was τύραννος without being tyrannical in our sense.  Were there other words for the purpose, or had one of the three acquired a secondary meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16931" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5125" RevisionGUID="bfaf6379-2391-45ba-a2b9-e4e89fb28f4b" CreationDate="2017-08-26T14:10:28.243" UserId="1133" Text="Was Nero tyrannical, despotic or dictatorial? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16932" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5125" RevisionGUID="bfaf6379-2391-45ba-a2b9-e4e89fb28f4b" CreationDate="2017-08-26T14:10:28.243" UserId="1133" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5125" RevisionGUID="cb0c95a0-1ead-4c6b-aa25-ca3da3d4f273" CreationDate="2017-08-26T14:16:46.447" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="What would an educated, bilingual Roman of Nero's time say of Nero to mean that he was a 'tyrant' etc. in our sense&amp;mdash;i.e. a bad, unjust, arbitrary ruler&amp;mdash;in (a) Latin and (b) Greek?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BACKGROUND**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that neither &lt;i&gt;τύραννος&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;i&gt;δεσπότης&lt;/i&gt;, nor &lt;i&gt;dictātor&lt;/i&gt; implies, at least in its primary sense, that the one so named ruled badly.  For example, Oedipus was τύραννος without being tyrannical in our sense.  Were there other words for the purpose, or had one of the three acquired a secondary meaning?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16934" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5125" RevisionGUID="cb0c95a0-1ead-4c6b-aa25-ca3da3d4f273" CreationDate="2017-08-26T14:16:46.447" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|greek|meaning|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5126" RevisionGUID="9eac8d16-8e3d-41b5-a2f3-678e897243d1" CreationDate="2017-08-26T15:16:55.427" UserId="79" Text="I recommend taking a look at the [question regarding &quot;without further ado&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4166/79).&#xD;&#xA;To me it seems that the most appropriate phrase for your need given there would be ***dismissa mora***, &quot;delay having been abandoned&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the phrase ***nulla mora interposita***, &quot;with no delay being placed&quot; which might be useful.&#xD;&#xA;Both of these have can be read in two ways, as absolute ablatives (corresponding to the translations I gave) or as full sentences with an implicit *est*.&#xD;&#xA;The latter reading would give the translations &quot;delay has been abandoned&quot; and &quot;no delay has been placed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This dual reading possibility is due to the feminine words of the first declension looking alike in nominative and ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may wonder why I chose to use *mora* (&quot;delay&quot;) instead of a word for &quot;second&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For one thing, *mora* is short and idiomatic Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The more important reason, however, is that unit of time &quot;second&quot; is too new to be used in classical Latin, and the words *secunda* and *secundum* my dictionary suggests can too easily be mistaken for the number &quot;second&quot; (the one between the first and the third).&#xD;&#xA;Of course this source of confusion exists in English as well, but I feel that the risk is far bigger in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of a good word for a short moment that isn't too prone to misunderstandings.&#xD;&#xA;You could use *hora*, but it might be too easily interpreted as &quot;hour&quot;, and that might be inappropriate for your purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two bolded phrases are my suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to go for ultimate brevity, I think *dismissa mora* is a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;(But, as always, there is a fair chance that someone else might have better suggestions.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5127" RevisionGUID="eee222e2-9238-4b8d-a591-5d18817783da" CreationDate="2017-08-26T15:19:39.610" UserId="79" Text="Tuomo Pekkanen's grammar says (§92.1) explains how to express the number of something that is expressed by a plural-only word.&#xD;&#xA;Numbers greater than one are expressed with *bini, trini* etc. but a single one is not *singuli*.&#xD;&#xA;The cardinal number *unus* is used instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: *unae scopae, binae scopae, trinae scopae&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;(The actual example given in the book is *una castra*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This strikes me as odd.&#xD;&#xA;But then again, Latin grammar is occasionally odd.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to have verification or falsification for this rule.&#xD;&#xA;Are there classical use examples like &quot;one broom&quot; (*unae/singulae scopae*)?&#xD;&#xA;What do other modern grammarians say on the topic?&#xD;&#xA;Is *unae* correct and *singulae* incorrect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the neuter plural *una* (as used in the book's sole example) looks a little less suspicious than *unae*, but I still find it weird." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16937" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5127" RevisionGUID="eee222e2-9238-4b8d-a591-5d18817783da" CreationDate="2017-08-26T15:19:39.610" UserId="79" Text="Singulae aut unae scopae?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16938" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5127" RevisionGUID="eee222e2-9238-4b8d-a591-5d18817783da" CreationDate="2017-08-26T15:19:39.610" UserId="79" Text="|grammar-choice|syntax|numbers|plural|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5127" RevisionGUID="a2a45a04-d179-47ba-9c19-d09c697425b7" CreationDate="2017-08-26T21:46:10.843" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Tuomo Pekkanen's grammar (§92.1) explains how to express the number of something that is expressed by a plural-only word.&#xD;&#xA;Numbers greater than one are expressed with *bini, trini* etc. but a single one is not *singuli*.&#xD;&#xA;The cardinal number *unus* is used instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: *unae scopae, binae scopae, trinae scopae&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;(The actual example given in the book is *una castra*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This strikes me as odd.&#xD;&#xA;But then again, Latin grammar is occasionally odd.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to have verification or falsification for this rule.&#xD;&#xA;Are there classical use examples like &quot;one broom&quot; (*unae/singulae scopae*)?&#xD;&#xA;What do other modern grammarians say on the topic?&#xD;&#xA;Is *unae* correct and *singulae* incorrect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the neuter plural *una* (as used in the book's sole example) looks a little less suspicious than *unae*, but I still find it weird." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16940" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5127" RevisionGUID="a2a45a04-d179-47ba-9c19-d09c697425b7" CreationDate="2017-08-26T21:46:10.843" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|numbers|plural|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5128" RevisionGUID="8aaff8fe-966a-48d9-80f3-b6e7c30789bf" CreationDate="2017-08-26T21:48:46.090" UserId="645" Text="This is a tricky thing to explain, but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Unus* is the cardinal 'one', which has plural forms that are used with plural-form nouns such as *castra* and *scopae*. In such cases it is proper to write *una castra* or *unae scopae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Singulus* is used distributively — 'one for each', and so on — and is not to be confused with *singularis*, 'single' when an adjectival use is intended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather confusingly, the distributive forms of numerals are used as if cardinals when describing more than one of the plural-form nouns. Thus, *singulae scopae* and *binae scopae* refer to the numbers of separate brooms, while *unae scopae* is (just) one broom." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5129" RevisionGUID="10263f75-5022-44a4-9ce6-2a7d3c017cca" CreationDate="2017-08-26T23:34:43.030" UserId="324" Text="Have a look here, under II: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtyrannus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tyrannus means &quot;tyrant&quot; in the modern sense at least since Cicero." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5130" RevisionGUID="5cdc7da4-cc56-4387-90f5-bbe018bdb4d7" CreationDate="2017-08-27T00:04:10.393" UserId="79" Text="It is common to name storms.&#xD;&#xA;For example, a hurricane called Harvey is now over Texas.&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, ancient people named deities related to various places and natural phenomena.&#xD;&#xA;There might be a deity for a specific river or for a specific kind of wind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But did the Romans ever give a name to a specific event in a fashion similar to how we name storms?&#xD;&#xA;I don't recall hearing of &quot;one-shot deities&quot; that were related to a specific instance of a natural disaster (eg. a single storm) instead of the phenomenon in general (eg. a god of storms).&#xD;&#xA;Were natural disasters described through the related gods or deities at all, even if the specific event was not given a separate name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16944" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5130" RevisionGUID="5cdc7da4-cc56-4387-90f5-bbe018bdb4d7" CreationDate="2017-08-27T00:04:10.393" UserId="79" Text="Did the Romans give names to instances of natural disasters?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16945" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5130" RevisionGUID="5cdc7da4-cc56-4387-90f5-bbe018bdb4d7" CreationDate="2017-08-27T00:04:10.393" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|history|roman-culture|names|nature|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5131" RevisionGUID="4f5bf457-f3a3-45be-bc9c-f4a70becaf88" CreationDate="2017-08-27T00:52:26.383" UserId="68" Text="When I come across the word *maxime* in macronized texts, it usually lacks a macron over the first vowel. In Ørberg's *Lingua Latīna* series, however, in which the macrons are (from what I understand) very reliable, it's always macronized *māximē*. At first I thought that perhaps the macron was there to mark a vowel made long by position before the letter &quot;x,&quot; but in other words with &quot;x&quot; (*exercitus, mox, vexāvit*, and so on) there's no macron.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what's the deal? Is the vowel long by nature or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16947" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5131" RevisionGUID="4f5bf457-f3a3-45be-bc9c-f4a70becaf88" CreationDate="2017-08-27T00:52:26.383" UserId="68" Text="What is the quantity of the &quot;a&quot; in &quot;maxime&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16948" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5131" RevisionGUID="4f5bf457-f3a3-45be-bc9c-f4a70becaf88" CreationDate="2017-08-27T00:52:26.383" UserId="68" Text="|vowel-quantity|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5132" RevisionGUID="6c0dbac8-1eba-43d2-9725-6e8239cb12a8" CreationDate="2017-08-27T02:43:59.077" UserId="406" Text="I've never seen a macron'd *ā* in *maximus* before. But the evidence is sparse on this matter; since the first syllable is always long by position, poetic meter doesn't tell us anything about the vowel quantity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Maximus* comes from the root of *magis*, which is known to have a short *a*, and *mājor*, which had a heavy first syllable but was probably a short *a* and long *jj* (see the note in [this answer][1]). So etymologically it seems to be short. But vowel quantities can change when the sounds around them change, so this isn't foolproof evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14/when-is-an-i-not-an-i/91#91" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5133" RevisionGUID="05c30f2b-f207-48e6-abf2-c9b81fe06994" CreationDate="2017-08-27T03:19:07.417" UserId="39" Text="On the one hand, we have MAX(IMO), A with an apex in CIL 6.2080.17&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen thinks the long a is unlikely there. Forston argues the apex there could be a mark of the &quot;final member of the phrase&quot; (Weiss, p. 175) or it could be a scribal error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Jasanoff 2004 puts it together with two other non-participles under Lachmann's Law, cf. Tronskii 1960, p. 99. Weiss takes a cautious position on this - he mentions it in the section devoted to Lachmann's Law, with a caveat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5133" RevisionGUID="55307fc5-fbd3-461d-a33f-9c3669523a48" CreationDate="2017-08-27T03:24:37.447" UserId="39" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="On the one hand, we have MAX(IMO), A with an apex in CIL 6.2080.17&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen thinks the long a is unlikely there. Forston argues the apex there could be a mark of the &quot;final member of the phrase&quot; (Weiss, p. 175) or it could be a scribal error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Jasanoff 2004 puts it together with two other non-participles under Lachmann's Law (p. 414); cf. Tronskii 1960, p. 99. Weiss takes a cautious position on this - he mentions it in the section devoted to Lachmann's Law, with a caveat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5133" RevisionGUID="71c25236-39a0-4f6d-a1af-1002bb68db56" CreationDate="2017-08-27T03:31:33.490" UserId="39" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="On the one hand, we have MAX(IMO), A with an apex in CIL 6.2080.17&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen thinks the long a is unlikely there. Forston argues the apex there could be a mark of the &quot;final member of the phrase&quot; (Weiss, p. 175) or it could be a scribal error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Jasanoff 2004 puts it together with two other non-participles under Lachmann's Law (p. 414); cf. Tronskii 1960, p. 99 - thus, long a. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dmaximus1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss takes a cautious position on this - he mentions it in the section devoted to Lachmann's Law, with a caveat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5133" RevisionGUID="ac20401c-494e-4bb4-a300-86541abb63da" CreationDate="2017-08-27T04:02:38.897" UserId="39" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="On the one hand, we have MAX(IMO), A with an apex in CIL 6.2080.17&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen thinks the long a is unlikely there. Forston argues the apex there could be a mark of the &quot;final member of the phrase&quot; (Weiss, p. 175) or it could be a scribal error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;The long a camp&quot;:** Leumann 1977 gives māx- and mentions it in §120 (Lachmann's Law); so does Tronskii 1960 (p. 99). Jasanoff 2004 also puts it together with two other non-participles under same Lachmann's Law (p. 414).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dmaximus1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss takes a cautious position on this - he mentions it in the section devoted to Lachmann's Law, with a caveat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5134" RevisionGUID="53785c54-5ec9-41b2-a667-96af2dce8ad1" CreationDate="2017-08-27T08:34:50.163" UserId="1415" Text="Ever since I started learning Latin, I had a question: how did the Romans pronounce Latin? Not the word, but the language in general. To make it easier for you to answer, please compare their pronunciation to that of a modern civilisation.&#xA;&#xA;-Thijs365&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16955" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5134" RevisionGUID="53785c54-5ec9-41b2-a667-96af2dce8ad1" CreationDate="2017-08-27T08:34:50.163" UserId="1415" Text="How did the Romans pronounce their language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16956" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5134" RevisionGUID="53785c54-5ec9-41b2-a667-96af2dce8ad1" CreationDate="2017-08-27T08:34:50.163" UserId="1415" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5135" RevisionGUID="1b053b68-e305-4a7a-b90e-ef42a62bf16f" CreationDate="2017-08-27T10:37:50.610" UserId="79" Text="Instead of giving a pronunciation guide here, let me point you to some resources that should get you started.&#xD;&#xA;The topic is very broad and I doubt I could give sufficient instructions within an answer of reasonable length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let me point out that [we know fairly well how the Romans pronounced Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/66/79).&#xD;&#xA;Many present-day Latinists, including myself, try to pronounce Latin as the ancient Romans did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest taking a look at our [pronunciation resource list](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4845/79).&#xD;&#xA;To get an idea of the classical pronunciation, I recommend listening to the Latin news broadcast [*Nuntii Latini*](http://areena.yle.fi/1-1931339).&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that the pronunciation used there reproduces imperial Roman pronunciation quite accurately.&#xD;&#xA;Seeing the text and listening to the audio at the same time should quickly give you an idea of how it works.&#xD;&#xA;The only missing thing is macrons; vowel length is rarely indicated in writing but is needed for accurate pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;A good dictionary and grammar should be able to provide you with the macrons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an [extensive article on Latin pronunciation and spelling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation), and that will give you a number of details regarding classical pronunciation and differences to later pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;Beware that Latin pronunciation is very non-uniform; people from different areas will have wildly different pronunciations, and that has been the case for centuries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5134" RevisionGUID="6aef4a9e-0ea9-48bd-84d6-fdb9c592ddd0" CreationDate="2017-08-27T11:58:26.303" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and removed the name. (It is customary not to write one's name under a question here, since your profile name and picture will be displayed anyway.)" Text="Ever since I started learning Latin, I had a question: how did the Romans pronounce Latin? Not the word, but the language in general. To make it easier for you to answer, please compare their pronunciation to that of a modern civilisation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16960" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5134" RevisionGUID="6aef4a9e-0ea9-48bd-84d6-fdb9c592ddd0" CreationDate="2017-08-27T11:58:26.303" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and removed the name. (It is customary not to write one's name under a question here, since your profile name and picture will be displayed anyway.)" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2712" RevisionGUID="252f7aa9-d305-4b59-ab82-f45d619716de" CreationDate="2017-08-27T16:01:10.683" UserId="79" Comment="Added a link to the Perseus version. Feel free to roll back or re-edit!" Text="It seems that *stolidus* was used for both meanings, the former “uncultivated” and the latter “non-cultivable.” According to Lewis &amp; Short,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I. Unmovable; and hence, slow, coarse, uncultivated, rude (class.; cf.: fatuus, insipiens, stupidus, stultus, insulsus).—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;B. Lit.: stolidum genus Aeacidarum Bellipotentes sunt magi' quam sapientipotentes, Enn. ap. Cic. Div. 2, 56, 116 (Ann. v. 187 Vahl.): “nam vi depugnare sues stolidi soliti sunt,” id. ib. 2, 56, 116 (Ann. v. 109 id.).—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;II. Dull, senseless, slow of mind, obtuse, stupid, stolid: “mī stolido,” Plaut. Capt. 3, 4, 123: “stulti, stolidi, fatui, fungi, bardi, blenni, buccones,” Plaut. Bacch. 5, 1, 2: “quid, stolide, clamas?” id. Aul. 3, 2, 1; id. Ep. 3, 3, 40; id. Bacch. 3, 6, 19: “vix tandem sensi stolidus,” Ter. And. 3, 1, 12: indocti stolidique, * Hor. Ep. 2, 1, 184: Lentulus perincertum stolidior an vanior, Sall. ap. Gell. 18, 4, 4 (H. 4, 35 Dietsch): “dux ipse inter stolidissimos,” Liv. 22, 28, 9: “o vatum stolidissime, falleris,” Ov. M. 13, 774.—Of the Stoics, Lucr. 1, 641; 1, 1068.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis, Charlton T.; Short, Charles. [*Harper’s Latin Dictionary: A New Latin Dictionary Founded on the Translation of Freund’s Latin-German Lexicon.*][1] New York: American Book, 1879.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; p. [1763][2], also available [via Perseus][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/harperslatindict00lewi&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/stream/harperslatindict00lewi#page/1762/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=stolidus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5133" RevisionGUID="8dc33b5f-15f8-43ea-b018-75719a530826" CreationDate="2017-08-27T17:48:59.823" UserId="39" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="On the one hand, we have MAX(IMO), A with an apex in CIL 6.2080.17&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen thinks the long a is unlikely there. Forston argues the apex there could be a mark of the &quot;final member of the phrase&quot; (Weiss, p. 175) or it could be a scribal error. Kortland finds this evidence &quot;too weak for any conclusions.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;The long a camp&quot;:** Leumann 1977 gives māx- and mentions it in §120 (Lachmann's Law); so does Tronskii 1960 (p. 99). Jasanoff 2004 also puts it together with two other non-participles under same Lachmann's Law (p. 414).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dmaximus1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss takes a cautious position on this - he mentions it in the section devoted to Lachmann's Law, with a caveat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5133" RevisionGUID="e22fa383-e026-4cc6-ac8b-beca8302e553" CreationDate="2017-08-27T22:15:27.093" UserId="39" Comment="added 208 characters in body" Text="On the one hand, we have MAX(IMO), A with an apex in CIL VI 2080 17&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [De Angelis and Chilà 2015][1] put it,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;the interpretation of the vowel of *maximus* as long is anything but certain&quot; (p. 92).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen thinks the long a is doubtful there (Allen 1978: 70). Forston argues the apex there could be a mark of the &quot;final member of the phrase&quot; (Weiss 209: 175) or it could be a scribal error. Kortland finds this evidence &quot;too weak for any conclusions.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;The long a camp&quot;:** Leumann 1977 gives māx- and mentions it in §120 (Lachmann's Law); so does Tronskii 1960 (p. 99). Jasanoff 2004 also puts it together with two other non-participles under same Lachmann's Law (p. 414).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dmaximus1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss takes a cautious position on this - he mentions it in the section devoted to Lachmann's Law, with a caveat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://doi.org/10.1515/flih-2015-0004" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5133" RevisionGUID="84b44173-6713-4255-b117-9f7ae3fd09b4" CreationDate="2017-08-27T22:38:15.023" UserId="39" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="On the one hand, we have MAX(IMO), A with an apex in CIL VI 2080 17&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as [De Angelis and Chilà 2015][1] put it,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;the interpretation of the vowel of *maximus* as long is anything but certain&quot; (p. 92).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen thinks the long a is doubtful there (Allen 1978: 70). Forston argues the apex there could be a mark of the &quot;final member of the phrase&quot; (Weiss 209: 175) or it could be a scribal error. Kortland finds this evidence &quot;too weak for any conclusions.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;The long a camp&quot;:** Leumann 1977 gives māx- and mentions it in §120 (Lachmann's Law); so does Tronskii 1960 (p. 99). Jasanoff 2004 also puts it together with two other non-participles under same Lachmann's Law (p. 414).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dmaximus1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss takes a cautious position on this - he mentions it in the section devoted to Lachmann's Law, with a caveat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://doi.org/10.1515/flih-2015-0004" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5136" RevisionGUID="ccba38d0-54a0-47e8-8022-4455eaefd133" CreationDate="2017-08-27T23:34:24.827" UserId="68" Text="I'm looking for a good student edition of Terence (any or all of the plays). I have a couple from the 17th or 18th century that are pretty good for my purposes, but I'd love not to have to deal with such unwieldiness. Prior experience with the green and yellow Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics suggests that they'd be slightly more scholarly than I'd like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16966" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5136" RevisionGUID="ccba38d0-54a0-47e8-8022-4455eaefd133" CreationDate="2017-08-27T23:34:24.827" UserId="68" Text="Good student edition of Terence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16967" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5136" RevisionGUID="ccba38d0-54a0-47e8-8022-4455eaefd133" CreationDate="2017-08-27T23:34:24.827" UserId="68" Text="|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5137" RevisionGUID="a95de08a-d4e7-4e8d-97d1-47e9e431f1dd" CreationDate="2017-08-28T07:26:31.907" UserId="79" Text="Is there a good Latin word for a digit or figure?&#xD;&#xA;I might want to say that the sum of the digits of 43 is 7 or that an actor was paid a six-figure salary for a movie.&#xD;&#xA;It occurred to me that I don't know any suitable word for this in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;(In Finnish the corresponding word would be &quot;numero&quot;, whereas a number would be &quot;luku&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Arabic numbers were introduced to Latin too late for there to be much hope to have a suitable word in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The concept of a digit is less meaningfull for numbers like LXXVII (that would be a disappointing six-figure salary!), but perhaps there might be a word for a single symbol in a number.&#xD;&#xA;I pose no era restrictions; I would like to have a word for modern uses like my examples above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The obvious suspect [*digitus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DD%3Aentry+group%3D34%3Aentry%3Ddigitus1) seems to be inappropriate, at least in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;This word might require other words to disambiguate from fingers and toes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16969" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5137" RevisionGUID="a95de08a-d4e7-4e8d-97d1-47e9e431f1dd" CreationDate="2017-08-28T07:26:31.907" UserId="79" Text="What is a digit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16970" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5137" RevisionGUID="a95de08a-d4e7-4e8d-97d1-47e9e431f1dd" CreationDate="2017-08-28T07:26:31.907" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|modern-life|mathematics|numbers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5138" RevisionGUID="4a5ce65b-f49b-4e84-b435-63925b79bb42" CreationDate="2017-08-28T09:11:18.377" UserId="13" Text="As I posted on [the Wiktionary Tea Room](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Tea_room/2017/August#About_the_genitive_.22Sapphonis.22):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Consulting [Bergk's edition of Sappho](https://ia600207.us.archive.org/18/items/poetaelyricigrae00berguoft/poetaelyricigrae00berguoft.pdf), I have seem various instances of this genitive &quot;Sapphonis&quot; (e.g. «Sapphonis esse videtur») in the critical notes. This struck me as odd because I'd always known Sappho as a Greek name which as such was declined in Latin as in Greek. Tonight I opened the Sappho entry here, and I found confirmation of my knowledge, and no trace of the genitive Sapphonis. So I was wondering: is it a very late genitive of Sappho, or is there a whole other version of the name giving this genitive? And if the former, shouldn't we mention it in [Sappho](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Sappho)? And if the latter, do we have an entry covering that version?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I got no responses in over two weeks, I am cross-posting. Is it correct that, at least in Classical Latin, the Genitive form was the Greek form _Sapphus_? When did the genitive shift to _Sapphonis_, and why, if it's known? Is _Sapphonis_ merely a form used in critical apparati?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16972" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5138" RevisionGUID="4a5ce65b-f49b-4e84-b435-63925b79bb42" CreationDate="2017-08-28T09:11:18.377" UserId="13" Text="Genitive of Sappho: Sapphonis or Sapphus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16973" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5138" RevisionGUID="4a5ce65b-f49b-4e84-b435-63925b79bb42" CreationDate="2017-08-28T09:11:18.377" UserId="13" Text="|declension|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5138" RevisionGUID="1beb857c-7271-40f0-add8-2d1ef25ba760" CreationDate="2017-08-28T09:50:38.223" UserId="13" Comment="added Ngram" Text="As I posted on [the Wiktionary Tea Room](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Tea_room/2017/August#About_the_genitive_.22Sapphonis.22):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Consulting [Bergk's edition of Sappho](https://ia600207.us.archive.org/18/items/poetaelyricigrae00berguoft/poetaelyricigrae00berguoft.pdf), I have seem various instances of this genitive &quot;Sapphonis&quot; (e.g. «Sapphonis esse videtur») in the critical notes. This struck me as odd because I'd always known Sappho as a Greek name which as such was declined in Latin as in Greek. Tonight I opened the Sappho entry here, and I found confirmation of my knowledge, and no trace of the genitive Sapphonis. So I was wondering: is it a very late genitive of Sappho, or is there a whole other version of the name giving this genitive? And if the former, shouldn't we mention it in [Sappho](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Sappho)? And if the latter, do we have an entry covering that version?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I got no responses in over two weeks, I am cross-posting. Is it correct that, at least in Classical Latin, the Genitive form was the Greek form _Sapphus_? When did the genitive shift to _Sapphonis_, and why, if it's known? Is _Sapphonis_ merely a form used in critical apparati?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Extra: Ngram**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Sapphonis%2CSapphus&amp;year_start=1700&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=15&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2CSapphonis%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CSapphus%3B%2Cc0) is the result of Ngram:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that _Sapphus_ prevailed over _Sapphonis_ almost always, except for that sudden incredible spike in _Sapphonis_ around 1740 AD. Huh? What happened then?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vyoFX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5139" RevisionGUID="c12e4ca1-89c2-4c89-839a-96334df5cb1d" CreationDate="2017-08-28T10:33:28.430" UserId="79" Text="The Greek female names ending in *-&amp;omacr;* have two declension options, Greek style and Latin style.&#xD;&#xA;For example, consider *Dido*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        | Greek | Latin&#xD;&#xA;    ----+-------+--------&#xD;&#xA;    NOM | Dīdō  | Dīdō&#xD;&#xA;    ACC | Dīdō  | Dīdōnem&#xD;&#xA;    GEN | Dīdūs | Dīdōnis&#xD;&#xA;    DAT | Dīdō  | Dīdōnī&#xD;&#xA;    ABL | Dīdō  | Dīdōne&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the [L&amp;S entry for *Dido*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DD%3Aentry+group%3D32%3Aentry%3DDido2) indicates, both versions are attested.&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S suggests that [*Iuno*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DJ%3Aentry+group%3D5%3Aentry%3DJuno) is exlusively Latin style and [*Sappho*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DS%3Aentry+group%3D10%3Aentry%3DSappho) is exclusively Greek style.&#xD;&#xA;(As far as I know, *Iuno* is not of Greek origin; it is just an example of Latin style declensions of a female name ending in *-&amp;omacr;*.)&#xD;&#xA;It is very easy to see why the endings might start mixing, especially since there were mixed cases like *Dido*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick [corpus search](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=sapphus) gives only one attestation for *Sapphus* and none for *Sapphonis* (or other Latin style cases).&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion this is too little evidence for definitive conclusions about what might be acceptable, and one has to look for other similar names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Ngram for *Dido* looks different, suggesting that what you see for *Sappho* is not universal to all names of this kind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Ngram for Didus versus Didonis][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xFMk4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5138" RevisionGUID="44845c21-7acc-4114-aaa6-483ab47a7909" CreationDate="2017-08-28T10:34:43.860" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="As I posted on [the Wiktionary Tea Room](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Tea_room/2017/August#About_the_genitive_.22Sapphonis.22):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Consulting [Bergk's edition of Sappho](https://ia600207.us.archive.org/18/items/poetaelyricigrae00berguoft/poetaelyricigrae00berguoft.pdf), I have seem various instances of this genitive &quot;Sapphonis&quot; (e.g. «Sapphonis esse videtur») in the critical notes. This struck me as odd because I'd always known Sappho as a Greek name which as such was declined in Latin as in Greek. Tonight I opened the Sappho entry here, and I found confirmation of my knowledge, and no trace of the genitive Sapphonis. So I was wondering: is it a very late genitive of Sappho, or is there a whole other version of the name giving this genitive? And if the former, shouldn't we mention it in [Sappho](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Sappho)? And if the latter, do we have an entry covering that version?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I got no responses in over two weeks, I am cross-posting. Is it correct that, at least in Classical Latin, the Genitive form was the Greek form _Sapphus_? When did the genitive shift to _Sapphonis_, and why, if it's known? Is _Sapphonis_ merely a form used in critical apparati?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Extra: Ngram**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Sapphonis%2CSapphus&amp;year_start=1700&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=15&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2CSapphonis%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CSapphus%3B%2Cc0) is the result of Ngram:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Ngram of Sapphus versus Sapphonis][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that _Sapphus_ prevailed over _Sapphonis_ almost always, except for that sudden incredible spike in _Sapphonis_ around 1740 AD. Huh? What happened then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vyoFX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16977" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5138" RevisionGUID="44845c21-7acc-4114-aaa6-483ab47a7909" CreationDate="2017-08-28T10:34:43.860" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|declension|names|genitive|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16978" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="1926" RevisionGUID="bbb8f988-4956-49ef-84be-dd335e67bea4" CreationDate="2017-08-28T10:36:50.873" UserId="79" Comment="51" />
  <row Id="16979" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="435" RevisionGUID="8aeac71d-6040-4b67-8614-f9bb529e8303" CreationDate="2017-08-28T10:37:01.450" UserId="79" Comment="52" />
  <row Id="16980" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2496" RevisionGUID="9a2e1a3d-6b50-406c-88ec-a0457da0a8ac" CreationDate="2017-08-28T10:37:11.093" UserId="79" Comment="53" />
  <row Id="16981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5139" RevisionGUID="eecdca9e-e13b-45b8-817e-7c0dd6d17548" CreationDate="2017-08-28T11:07:15.367" UserId="79" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="The Greek female names ending in *-&amp;omacr;* have two declension options, Greek style and Latin style.&#xD;&#xA;(The Greek style is not fully Greek; it has been Latinized but not fully.)&#xD;&#xA;For example, consider *Dido*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        | Greek | Latin&#xD;&#xA;    ----+-------+--------&#xD;&#xA;    NOM | Dīdō  | Dīdō&#xD;&#xA;    ACC | Dīdō  | Dīdōnem&#xD;&#xA;    GEN | Dīdūs | Dīdōnis&#xD;&#xA;    DAT | Dīdō  | Dīdōnī&#xD;&#xA;    ABL | Dīdō  | Dīdōne&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the [L&amp;S entry for *Dido*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DD%3Aentry+group%3D32%3Aentry%3DDido2) indicates, both versions are attested.&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S suggests that [*Iuno*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DJ%3Aentry+group%3D5%3Aentry%3DJuno) is exlusively Latin style and [*Sappho*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DS%3Aentry+group%3D10%3Aentry%3DSappho) is exclusively Greek style.&#xD;&#xA;(As far as I know, *Iuno* is not of Greek origin; it is just an example of Latin style declensions of a female name ending in *-&amp;omacr;*.)&#xD;&#xA;It is very easy to see why the endings might start mixing, especially since there were mixed cases like *Dido*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick [corpus search](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=sapphus) gives only one attestation for *Sapphus* and none for *Sapphonis* (or other Latin style cases).&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion this is too little evidence for definitive conclusions about what might be acceptable, and one has to look for other similar names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Ngram for *Dido* looks different, suggesting that what you see for *Sappho* is not universal to all names of this kind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Ngram for Didus versus Didonis][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xFMk4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5140" RevisionGUID="b4845656-03b4-4870-93b5-b007ea5393e4" CreationDate="2017-08-28T12:30:48.263" UserId="324" Text="As you say, the concept of digits is only meaningful if you are using Indian/Arabic numbers. These became known in Latin Europe by the 12th century, and with them the use of “digitus” for the numbers from 0 to 9. This usage is not classical, but it is of respectable antiquity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16983" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5136" RevisionGUID="62e69746-18dc-49b5-bf6c-c1f4fb7ee463" CreationDate="2017-08-28T12:36:13.020" UserId="68" Comment="added a tag" Text="|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="35570f24-7e53-4c90-abb8-7b52f2a458ce" CreationDate="2017-08-28T14:02:26.583" UserId="39" Text="Accius writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;an, nisi legisses auctoris nomina Sapphus, hoc breve nescires unde movetur opus? (Ovid)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O990f.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="39751c9f-fda1-440d-9b1c-83b1561a56c3" CreationDate="2017-08-28T14:56:13.210" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 58 characters in body" Text="Here's what I've been able to find so far (Loeb):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accius writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O990f.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="b848f44f-754c-45d5-a0ae-96edaa389af3" CreationDate="2017-08-28T19:44:36.730" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="Here's what I've been able to find so far (Loeb):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accius:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O990f.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5143" RevisionGUID="e854ebca-4d61-4ddd-88bc-a753a67e3dd9" CreationDate="2017-08-28T19:58:33.930" UserId="469" Text="tl;dr&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I want a Latin motto conveying the idea that you have to ask God for something while at the same time pursuing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I have two Spanish sayings that work pretty well&#xD;&#xA;* I have a couple of Latin cites, that are a bit of an overkill&#xD;&#xA;* I'd *preferently* something attested in Ecclesiastical Latin, but I'm open to different flavors or even translations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Details:&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two popular sayings in Spanish about more or less the same subject:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * A Dios rogando y con el mazo dando (*Strike with thy rod while thou beg to thy God*, apparently derived from an episode in the life of St. Bernard. The rod, in that version, is a tool rather than a weapon.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * A quien madruga, Dios le ayuda (*God helps the one who wakes up early*, first attested in [El Lazarillo de Tormes][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although they admit other interpretations, they both convey the idea that, even if God needs no help from his creatures, He wants them (us) to do their (our) part like a father wants his son/daughter to show their genuine interest/willingness in what he/she is asking for. This has a number of theological implications and is closely related with the Catholic vision on the role of faith and works in salvation, an old matter of debate among Christians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let theology apart, I'm asking for a Latin version of these sayings. (Especially, but not limited to the first one.) If there is no fitting attested *quote*, a translation would be OK. I prefer if there is an Ecclesiastically-attested version, but a classical one is also OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, I found a few close English equivalents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Pray to God, but continue to row to the shore (of Russian origin, apparently.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * God helps those who help themselves&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition [with a more ambiguous interpretation.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;What I've got, so far&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best **cite** I have is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Qui ergo fecit te sine te, non te iustificat sine te* (St. Augustini Sermones, [Sermo 169][2], 11)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Sine voluntate tua non erit in te iustitia Dei* (ibid.),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the problem is the subject of salvation is too explicit, and I want something that is also fit for smaller, more earthly things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't decide a good **translation** either. (Especially, I like the rhyme and cadence in *a Dios rogando...*, but I can't get close to that.) Pushed to find something, a possible translation of mine could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Deo rogantes et malleo pulsantes*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the plural here is just to try to mimic the Spanish rhyme: _rogando_ y _dando_ are compatible with both plural and singular auxiliary verbs: Yo estoy rogando&amp;ndash;I'm begging/nosotros estamos rogando&amp;ndash;We're begging. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct me if I'm wrong, but the alternative *Deo rogando et malleo pulsando* is missing a verb and sounds incomplete (even if it sounds much closer to Spanish.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarillo_de_Tormes&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.augustinus.it/latino/discorsi/discorso_220_testo.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16992" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5143" RevisionGUID="e854ebca-4d61-4ddd-88bc-a753a67e3dd9" CreationDate="2017-08-28T19:58:33.930" UserId="469" Text="A Dios rogando y con el mazo dando" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16993" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5143" RevisionGUID="e854ebca-4d61-4ddd-88bc-a753a67e3dd9" CreationDate="2017-08-28T19:58:33.930" UserId="469" Text="|translation|ecclesiastical-latin|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5143" RevisionGUID="4bc55551-fbef-40e4-8631-1bd22a2b9997" CreationDate="2017-08-28T20:40:20.057" UserId="469" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="tl;dr&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I want a Latin motto conveying the idea that you have to ask God for something while at the same time pursuing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I have two Spanish sayings that work pretty well&#xD;&#xA;* I have a couple of Latin cites, that are a bit of an overkill&#xD;&#xA;* I'd like *preferently* something attested in Ecclesiastical Latin, but I'm open to different flavors or even translations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Details:&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two popular sayings in Spanish about more or less the same subject:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * A Dios rogando y con el mazo dando (*Strike with thy rod while thou beg to thy God*, apparently derived from an episode in the life of St. Bernard. The rod, in that version, is a tool rather than a weapon.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * A quien madruga, Dios le ayuda (*God helps the one who wakes up early*, first attested in [El Lazarillo de Tormes][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although they admit other interpretations, they both convey the idea that, even if God needs no help from his creatures, He wants them (us) to do their (our) part like a father wants his son/daughter to show their genuine interest/willingness in what he/she is asking for. This has a number of theological implications and is closely related with the Catholic vision on the role of faith and works in salvation, an old matter of debate among Christians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let theology apart, I'm asking for a Latin version of these sayings. (Especially, but not limited to the first one.) If there is no fitting attested *quote*, a translation would be OK. I prefer if there is an Ecclesiastically-attested version, but a classical one is also OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, I found a few close English equivalents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Pray to God, but continue to row to the shore (of Russian origin, apparently.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * God helps those who help themselves&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition [with a more ambiguous interpretation.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;What I've got, so far&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best **cite** I have is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Qui ergo fecit te sine te, non te iustificat sine te* (St. Augustini Sermones, [Sermo 169][2], 11)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Sine voluntate tua non erit in te iustitia Dei* (ibid.),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the problem is the subject of salvation is too explicit, and I want something that is also fit for smaller, more earthly things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't decide a good **translation** either. (Especially, I like the rhyme and cadence in *a Dios rogando...*, but I can't get close to that.) Pushed to find something, a possible translation of mine could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Deo rogantes et malleo pulsantes*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the plural here is just to try to mimic the Spanish rhyme: _rogando_ y _dando_ are compatible with both plural and singular auxiliary verbs: Yo estoy rogando&amp;ndash;I'm begging/nosotros estamos rogando&amp;ndash;We're begging. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct me if I'm wrong, but the alternative *Deo rogando et malleo pulsando* is missing a verb and sounds incomplete (even if it sounds much closer to Spanish.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarillo_de_Tormes&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.augustinus.it/latino/discorsi/discorso_220_testo.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5124" RevisionGUID="198d2a09-d984-471a-939a-cb490b162ab7" CreationDate="2017-08-28T21:17:30.780" UserId="1943" Comment="Clarification" Text="In the sense of &quot;every second employed productively&quot; as a motto, so brevity is important. It's a little tongue-in-cheek. I don't mean something like &quot;every second between now and then is important&quot;. Instead, I mean that _every_ second of the day is important." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="0d976d8b-e7b3-4dd7-8f7e-a1e554916fac" CreationDate="2017-08-29T00:37:32.847" UserId="39" Comment="added 469 characters in body" Text="Here's what I've been able to find so far (Loeb):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Accius 378][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Charisius, ap. G.L., II, 63, 19: Huius ‘Didūs Sapphūs Inūs.’ Sed melius esset secundum Latinam consuetudinem huius Sapphonis Didonis dicere . . . Pacuvius sic declinat . . . et Accius—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English translation (by Warmington):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Charisius: Genitives ‘Didūs, Sapphüs, Inüs.’ But it would be better to say ‘Sapphonis, Didonis,’ according to a Latin usage. This is the inflection followed by Pacuvius . . . and Accius—&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/accius-tragedies/1936/pb_LCL314.455.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O990f.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="75677e59-da81-4b2b-822c-f35fc92e745f" CreationDate="2017-08-29T01:08:32.753" UserId="39" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="Here's what I've been able to find so far (Loeb):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Accius 378][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Charisius, ap. G.L., II, 63, 19: Huius ‘Didūs Sapphūs Inūs.’ Sed melius esset secundum Latinam consuetudinem huius Sapphonis Didonis dicere . . . Pacuvius sic declinat . . . et Accius—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English translation (by Warmington):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Charisius: Genitives ‘Didūs, Sapphüs, Inüs.’ But it would be better to say ‘Sapphonis, Didonis,’ according to a Latin usage. This is the inflection followed by Pacuvius . . . and Accius—&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the more frequent form was Sapphus (since it is closer to Greek Σαπφοῦς, attested in e.g. Tz. π. Πινδ. μετρ. 20–22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/accius-tragedies/1936/pb_LCL314.455.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O990f.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="781f2641-3dae-4e2b-b5fc-731e53066086" CreationDate="2017-08-29T01:21:40.087" UserId="39" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="Here's what I've been able to find so far (Loeb):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Accius 378][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Charisius, ap. G.L., II, 63, 19: Huius ‘Didūs Sapphūs Inūs.’ Sed melius esset secundum Latinam consuetudinem huius Sapphonis Didonis dicere . . . Pacuvius sic declinat . . . et Accius—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English translation (by Warmington):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Charisius: Genitives ‘Didūs, Sapphüs, Inüs.’ But it would be better to say ‘Sapphonis, Didonis,’ according to a Latin usage. This is the inflection followed by Pacuvius . . . and Accius—&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the more frequent gen. sg form in Latin was Sapphus (since it is closer to Greek Σαπφοῦς, attested in e.g. Tz. π. Πινδ. μετρ. 20–22); thus, **epistula Sapphus**, **amica Sapphus** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/accius-tragedies/1936/pb_LCL314.455.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O990f.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="5381892a-b947-412d-9711-67e719f05449" CreationDate="2017-08-29T03:12:10.987" UserId="39" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="Here's what I've been able to find so far (Loeb):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Accius 378][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Charisius, ap. G.L., II, 63, 19: Huius ‘Didūs Sapphūs Inūs.’ Sed melius esset secundum Latinam consuetudinem huius Sapphonis Didonis dicere . . . Pacuvius sic declinat . . . et Accius—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English translation (by Warmington):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Charisius: Genitives ‘Didūs, Sapphüs, Inüs.’ But it would be better to say ‘Sapphonis, Didonis,’ according to a Latin usage. This is the inflection followed by Pacuvius . . . and Accius—&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the more frequent gen. sg form in Latin was Sapphus (since it is closer to Greek Σαπφοῦς, attested in e.g. Tz. π. Πινδ. μετρ. 20–22); thus, **epistula Sapphus**, **amica Sapphus** etc. This means that the word was never fully assimilated in Latin - hence its unusual (for Latin) declension paradigm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/accius-tragedies/1936/pb_LCL314.455.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O990f.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="3838e416-9bc5-4c87-aa0d-e244107fe4ca" CreationDate="2017-08-29T03:22:14.877" UserId="39" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="Here's what I've been able to find so far (Loeb and Teubneriana).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sapphonis (gen.sg) has two occurrences only (Charianus and Priscianus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Accius 378][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Charisius, ap. G.L., II, 63, 19: Huius ‘Didūs Sapphūs Inūs.’ Sed melius esset secundum Latinam consuetudinem huius Sapphonis Didonis dicere . . . Pacuvius sic declinat . . . et Accius—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English translation (by Warmington):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Charisius: Genitives ‘Didūs, Sapphüs, Inüs.’ But it would be better to say ‘Sapphonis, Didonis,’ according to a Latin usage. This is the inflection followed by Pacuvius . . . and Accius—&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the more frequent gen. sg form in Latin was Sapphus (since it is closer to Greek Σαπφοῦς, attested in e.g. Tz. π. Πινδ. μετρ. 20–22); thus, **epistula Sapphus**, **amica Sapphus** etc. This means that the word was never fully assimilated in Latin - hence its unusual (for Latin) declension paradigm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/accius-tragedies/1936/pb_LCL314.455.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O990f.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="4c65b731-1003-4e44-b4cd-f9f6612562fe" CreationDate="2017-08-29T04:10:33.973" UserId="39" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="Here's what I've been able to find so far (Loeb and Teubneriana).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sapphonis (genitive) has two occurrences only (Charianus and Priscianus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Accius 378][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Charisius, ap. G.L., II, 63, 19: Huius ‘Didūs Sapphūs Inūs.’ Sed melius esset secundum Latinam consuetudinem huius Sapphonis Didonis dicere . . . Pacuvius sic declinat . . . et Accius—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English translation (by Warmington):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Charisius: Genitives ‘Didūs, Sapphüs, Inüs.’ But it would be better to say ‘Sapphonis, Didonis,’ according to a Latin usage. This is the inflection followed by Pacuvius . . . and Accius—&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the more frequent genitive form in Latin was Sapphus (since it is closer to Greek Σαπφοῦς, attested in e.g. Tz. π. Πινδ. μετρ. 20–22); thus, **epistula Sapphus**, **amica Sapphus** etc. This means that the word was never fully assimilated in Latin - hence its unusual (for Latin) declension paradigm. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sapphus is the preferred genitive form in modern research too (e.g. Teubner).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/accius-tragedies/1936/pb_LCL314.455.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O990f.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5144" RevisionGUID="c654025a-f779-4886-92a1-ff173eaae76e" CreationDate="2017-08-29T04:32:55.163" UserId="985" Text="Perhaps the sentiment in Horace, Ode 1.1.20–21 could be adapted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _nec partem solido demere de die  &#xD;&#xA;spernit_,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; '...and he doesn't decline to take away a portion of the business day.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you might say _partem solido demere de die sperne_, 'decline to take away a portion of the business day'; or, if you want to apply the idea to the full day, not just the business hours of it, omit _solido_, I suppose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility just occurred to me, though I'm not sure it quite works: In letter 2.17, Pliny the Younger states that his Laurentine villa is close enough to Rome that he can put in a full, honest day's work, getting everything done that needs to be done, and still be able enjoy a nice evening's stay at the villa. The phrase he uses is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _salvo iam et composito die_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; '...without losing or leaving unfinished your day's work' [J. H. Westcott]  &#xD;&#xA;'...leaving the business of the day unimpaired and well ordered' [P. G. Walsh]  &#xD;&#xA;'...without having cut short or hurried the day's work' [Betty Radice]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5126" RevisionGUID="9778b034-6a14-4d67-9d3d-95d1fa4b82e5" CreationDate="2017-08-29T06:55:03.753" UserId="79" Comment="added 438 characters in body" Text="I recommend taking a look at the [question regarding &quot;without further ado&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4166/79).&#xD;&#xA;To me it seems that the most appropriate phrase for your need given there would be ***dismissa mora***, &quot;delay having been abandoned&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the phrase ***nulla mora interposita***, &quot;with no delay being placed&quot; which might be useful.&#xD;&#xA;Both of these have can be read in two ways, as absolute ablatives (corresponding to the translations I gave) or as full sentences with an implicit *est*.&#xD;&#xA;The latter reading would give the translations &quot;delay has been abandoned&quot; and &quot;no delay has been placed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This dual reading possibility is due to the feminine words of the first declension looking alike in nominative and ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may wonder why I chose to use *mora* (&quot;delay&quot;) instead of a word for &quot;second&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For one thing, *mora* is short and idiomatic Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The more important reason, however, is that unit of time &quot;second&quot; is too new to be used in classical Latin, and the words *secunda* and *secundum* my dictionary suggests can too easily be mistaken for the number &quot;second&quot; (the one between the first and the third).&#xD;&#xA;Of course this source of confusion exists in English as well, but I feel that the risk is far bigger in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of a good word for a short moment that isn't too prone to misunderstandings.&#xD;&#xA;You could use *hora*, but it might be too easily interpreted as &quot;hour&quot;, and that might be inappropriate for your purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two bolded phrases are my suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to go for ultimate brevity, I think *dismissa mora* is a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;(But, as always, there is a fair chance that someone else might have better suggestions.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My two recommendations are more like &quot;do not postpone anything&quot; than &quot;do not waste a second&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I think the two convey the same idea as a motto.&#xD;&#xA;If you want more literal option, I would offer *nulla secunda/hora amissa*, &quot;with no second/moment thrown away&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is a decent option, but *secunda* is easily read as a number (and *hora* as &quot;hour&quot;) and this is not really classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not this is an issue is up to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5145" RevisionGUID="d7cb2a6e-eece-4318-838c-9ea7ae998ec6" CreationDate="2017-08-29T07:01:52.440" UserId="79" Text="I have been taught that the stress in classical Latin is on the second last syllable if it is long and on the third last syllable otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;In two-syllable words the stress is on the first syllable.&#xD;&#xA;How do we know this?&#xD;&#xA;Did the Romans write about this, or did we deduce it based on later forms of Latin or Romance languages?&#xD;&#xA;This prose stress system is very different from [poetic meters](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2160/79) and seems to be unrelated.&#xD;&#xA;See [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/600/79) for exceptions to the stress rules." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17005" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5145" RevisionGUID="d7cb2a6e-eece-4318-838c-9ea7ae998ec6" CreationDate="2017-08-29T07:01:52.440" UserId="79" Text="How do we know where the Roman prose stress was?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17006" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5145" RevisionGUID="d7cb2a6e-eece-4318-838c-9ea7ae998ec6" CreationDate="2017-08-29T07:01:52.440" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|grammarians|soft-question|stress|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5146" RevisionGUID="fd35326f-6cc4-43f3-a08b-0211ccca120a" CreationDate="2017-08-29T08:37:01.533" UserId="867" Text="Tacitus tells us that at Nero's games, rowdy out-of-town yokels were disrupting events, holding everyone up and soldiers had to discipline them ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ne quod temporis momentum ... praeteriret*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; so that no moment of time ... was lost&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (*Annals*, 16.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you could make a motto out of this, something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***nihil temporis momentum praeterit*** - no moment of time is lost/escapes/is overlooked&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, Cicero writes in *Pro Caecina* (101):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *non me praeterit*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; it does not escape my notice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so maybe you could add in a *me* - ***nihil me temporis momentum praeterit*** - no moment of time escapes me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5146" RevisionGUID="e2b83c55-bad2-4567-8c45-f6eaee082f98" CreationDate="2017-08-29T08:46:24.253" UserId="867" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="Tacitus tells us that at Nero's games, rowdy out-of-town yokels were disrupting events, holding everyone up and soldiers had to discipline them ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ne quod temporis momentum ... praeteriret*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; so that no moment of time ... was lost&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (*Annals*, 16.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you could make a motto out of this, something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***nihil temporis momentum praeterit*** - no moment of time is lost/escapes/is forgotten&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***nihil momentum praeteriit*** - no moment neglected&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, Cicero writes in *Pro Caecina* (101):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *non me praeterit*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; it does not escape my notice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so maybe you could add in a *me* - ***nihil me temporis momentum praeterit*** - no moment of time escapes me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5146" RevisionGUID="84819a17-0f0f-43aa-8d6b-f2c8617ba88b" CreationDate="2017-08-29T08:56:36.797" UserId="867" Comment="added 71 characters in body - my prose comp skills letting me down!" Text="Tacitus tells us that at Nero's games, rowdy out-of-town yokels were disrupting events, holding everyone up and soldiers had to discipline them ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ne quod temporis momentum ... praeteriret*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; so that no moment of time ... was lost&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (*Annals*, 16.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you could make a motto out of this, something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***nihil temporis momentum praeterit*** - no moment of time is lost/escapes/is forgotten&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, Cicero writes in *Pro Caecina* (101):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *non me praeterit*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; it does not escape my notice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so maybe you could add in a *me* - ***nihil me temporis momentum praeterit*** - no moment of time escapes me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also want to write something like &quot;no moment neglected&quot; but can't decide if that would be ***nihil momentum praeteriit*** or ***nihil momentum praeteritum [est]*** and so have to defer to those whose written skills are better than mine! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5146" RevisionGUID="3d984c4b-6b95-4a6c-9f90-7c9f194fad3e" CreationDate="2017-08-29T09:34:34.523" UserId="867" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="Tacitus tells us that at Nero's games, rowdy out-of-town yokels were disrupting events, holding everyone up and soldiers had to discipline them ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ne quod temporis momentum ... praeteriret*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; so that no moment of time ... was lost&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (*Annals*, 16.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you could make a motto out of this, something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***nihil temporis momenti praeterit*** or ***nullum temporis momentum praeterit*** - no moment of time is lost/escapes/is forgotten&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, Cicero writes in *Pro Caecina* (101):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *non me praeterit*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; it does not escape my notice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so maybe you could add in a *me* - ***nihil me temporis momenti praeterit*** - no moment of time escapes me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also want to write something like &quot;no moment neglected&quot; but can't decide if that would be ***nullum momentum praeteriit*** or ***nullum momentum praeteritum [est]*** and so have to defer to those whose written skills are better than mine! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I forgot that *nihil* takes a partitive genitive so I've amended my phrases accordingly and added an alternative using *nullus*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5143" RevisionGUID="a0764680-58cc-446d-802f-d54d55015d08" CreationDate="2017-08-29T12:14:44.170" UserId="469" Comment="small stylistic correction" Text="tl;dr&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I want a Latin motto conveying the idea that you have to ask God for something while at the same time pursuing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I have two Spanish sayings that work pretty well&#xD;&#xA;* I have a couple of Latin cites, that are a bit of an overkill&#xD;&#xA;* I'd like *preferently* something attested in Ecclesiastical Latin, but I'm open to different flavors and/or to translations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Details:&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two popular sayings in Spanish about more or less the same subject:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * A Dios rogando y con el mazo dando (*Strike with thy rod while thou beg to thy God*, apparently derived from an episode in the life of St. Bernard. The rod, in that version, is a tool rather than a weapon.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * A quien madruga, Dios le ayuda (*God helps the one who wakes up early*, first attested in [El Lazarillo de Tormes][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although they admit other interpretations, they both convey the idea that, even if God needs no help from his creatures, He wants them (us) to do their (our) part like a father wants his son/daughter to show their genuine interest/willingness in what he/she is asking for. This has a number of theological implications and is closely related with the Catholic vision on the role of faith and works in salvation, an old matter of debate among Christians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let theology apart, I'm asking for a Latin version of these sayings. (Especially, but not limited to the first one.) If there is no fitting attested *quote*, a translation would be OK. I prefer if there is an Ecclesiastically-attested version, but a classical one is also OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, I found a few close English equivalents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Pray to God, but continue to row to the shore (of Russian origin, apparently.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * God helps those who help themselves&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition [with a more ambiguous interpretation.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;What I've got, so far&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best **cite** I have is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Qui ergo fecit te sine te, non te iustificat sine te* (St. Augustini Sermones, [Sermo 169][2], 11)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Sine voluntate tua non erit in te iustitia Dei* (ibid.),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the problem is the subject of salvation is too explicit, and I want something that is also fit for smaller, more earthly things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't decide a good **translation** either. (Especially, I like the rhyme and cadence in *a Dios rogando...*, but I can't get close to that.) Pushed to find something, a possible translation of mine could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Deo rogantes et malleo pulsantes*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the plural here is just to try to mimic the Spanish rhyme: _rogando_ y _dando_ are compatible with both plural and singular auxiliary verbs: Yo estoy rogando&amp;ndash;I'm begging/nosotros estamos rogando&amp;ndash;We're begging. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct me if I'm wrong, but the alternative *Deo rogando et malleo pulsando* is missing a verb and sounds incomplete (even if it sounds much closer to Spanish.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarillo_de_Tormes&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.augustinus.it/latino/discorsi/discorso_220_testo.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5118" RevisionGUID="f2b4b1d0-d4c3-4096-bc35-535b7a121326" CreationDate="2017-08-29T17:39:11.460" UserId="79" Comment="added 88 characters in body; edited title" Text="The pronoun *idem/eadem/idem* appears to be the combination of *is/ea/id* and *-dem*.&#xD;&#xA;I can understand why *isdem &gt; &amp;imacr;dem* in the masculine, but why do we have *iddem &gt; &amp;#301;dem*?&#xD;&#xA;Shouldn't the vowel be longer to compensate for the lost consonant?&#xD;&#xA;The first syllable in *&amp;#301;dem* is short (or light).&#xD;&#xA;Is the shortness there just to disambiguate it from the masculine?&#xD;&#xA;Such ambiguity would be easy to live with, so I expect the reason to be different.&#xD;&#xA;Or is *idem* perhaps pronounced as if it was *iddem* but still spelled with a single D?&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise the pronoun behaves as expected, but the neuter singular nominative and accusative strikes me as odd.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know much about length compensation, so I am certainly missing something here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17015" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5118" RevisionGUID="f2b4b1d0-d4c3-4096-bc35-535b7a121326" CreationDate="2017-08-29T17:39:11.460" UserId="79" Comment="added 88 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why ĭdem instead of iddem or īdem in neuter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5147" RevisionGUID="61087fba-2633-4b69-9383-3dddbb4b069a" CreationDate="2017-08-30T08:22:54.277" UserId="235" Text="There is a well-known Latin phrase, *aegrescit medendo*, which means, &quot;worsens with treatment&quot;. I believe it comes from Virgil (correct me if I am wrong). I wanted to know if there is an attested phrase which means the opposite, i.e. &quot;improves with treatment&quot;. Is there such a phrase? If not, what would be the best way to formulate this in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17017" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5147" RevisionGUID="61087fba-2633-4b69-9383-3dddbb4b069a" CreationDate="2017-08-30T08:22:54.277" UserId="235" Text="What is the opposite of &quot;aegrescit medendo&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17018" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5147" RevisionGUID="61087fba-2633-4b69-9383-3dddbb4b069a" CreationDate="2017-08-30T08:22:54.277" UserId="235" Text="|translation|idiom|vergilius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5148" RevisionGUID="5b1b97b6-d4d7-4c6a-905a-a7486c9c37b2" CreationDate="2017-08-30T09:47:19.367" UserId="645" Text="The reference from Virgil is to Aeneid XII, 46, *aegrescitque medendo* (in the combat between Aeneas and Turnus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The opposite is easily and exactly rendered as *convalescit medendo*. There may not be a positive attestation, but use of the verb is well supported." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5149" RevisionGUID="a06d9895-a088-4927-9cfa-9a48034872ce" CreationDate="2017-08-30T10:07:27.480" UserId="183" Text="The Latin passive ending usually feature an additional letter R compared to the active endings: laud-or, -aris, -atur, -amur, -antur. However, the second person plural is differen, using the ending -amini.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happened here? How did the ending -mini in the passive evolve?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus question (out of curiosity) Is there an older form of the 2nd person plural passive that contains an additional r?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17021" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5149" RevisionGUID="a06d9895-a088-4927-9cfa-9a48034872ce" CreationDate="2017-08-30T10:07:27.480" UserId="183" Text="Latin passive endings: Why is -mini sticking out" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17022" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5149" RevisionGUID="a06d9895-a088-4927-9cfa-9a48034872ce" CreationDate="2017-08-30T10:07:27.480" UserId="183" Text="|etymologia|passive-voice|origin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5150" RevisionGUID="3b5fc830-5e61-40b0-abf0-54e3b93cfc9c" CreationDate="2017-08-30T10:11:39.913" UserId="79" Text="The Latin cardinal numbers starting at ten are *decem, undecim, duodecim&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;Does the *-decim* (roughly &quot;-teen&quot;) come from *decem* or from the same root?&#xD;&#xA;(I faintly recall *decem* and *δέκα* coming from something like &lt;i&gt;*dekm&lt;/i&gt;.)&#xD;&#xA;It seems very plausible for semantic reasons and similarity, but I would like to understand the situation better.&#xD;&#xA;**Can someone explain the relation between *decem* and *-decim*?**&#xD;&#xA;Assuming they have a common origin, why does one have E and the other I?&#xD;&#xA;Is this case exceptional?&#xD;&#xA;Are there similar vowel changes in Latin that would help understand this case by analogy?&#xD;&#xA;Are there attested spelling variants like *duodecem*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17024" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5150" RevisionGUID="3b5fc830-5e61-40b0-abf0-54e3b93cfc9c" CreationDate="2017-08-30T10:11:39.913" UserId="79" Text="Comparing decem and -decim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17025" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5150" RevisionGUID="3b5fc830-5e61-40b0-abf0-54e3b93cfc9c" CreationDate="2017-08-30T10:11:39.913" UserId="79" Text="|language-evolution|morphology|numbers|origin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5149" RevisionGUID="5ec30a19-8308-4164-939d-ca8fe813df79" CreationDate="2017-08-30T10:13:38.853" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged. Feel free to reretag." Text="The Latin passive ending usually feature an additional letter R compared to the active endings: laud-or, -aris, -atur, -amur, -antur. However, the second person plural is different, using the ending -amini.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happened here? How did the ending -mini in the passive evolve?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus question (out of curiosity) Is there an older form of the 2nd person plural passive that contains an additional r?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17027" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5149" RevisionGUID="5ec30a19-8308-4164-939d-ca8fe813df79" CreationDate="2017-08-30T10:13:38.853" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged. Feel free to reretag." Text="|verbs|language-evolution|morphology|passive-voice|origin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5151" RevisionGUID="42f4987d-1f12-4844-a1dc-bdcc99a83b87" CreationDate="2017-08-30T16:56:12.637" UserId="423" Text="I have been interested in finding and understanding the original Greek text for the following quote by Archimedes, which made it to Wikiquote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Those who claim to discover everything but produce no proofs of the same may be confuted as having actually pretended to discover the impossible.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is found in his treatise *On Spirals* (Περὶ ἑλίκων), a few sentences into the dedication to Dositheus. I have consulted two editions, but it's hard to read the old-style writing, so please excuse any possible mistakes. The Greek-only Herwagen (1544) seems to give the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**1** οἱ φάμενοι μὲν πάντα εὑρίσκειν, ἀπόδειξιν δὲ αὐτῶν οὐδεμίαν ἐκφέροντες ἐλέγχωνται, ἀπό θ’ ὁμολογηκότες εὑρίσκειν τὰ ἀδύνατα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek-Latin edition by Rivault (1615) instead has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**2** οἱ φάμενοι μὲν πάντα εὑρίσκειν, ἀπόδειξιν δὲ αὐτῶν οὐδὲ μίαν ἐκφέροντες ἐλέγχωνται, ἁ [?!] ποθ’ ὁμολογηκότες εὐρίσκειν τὰ ἀδύνατα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which was translated, a bit freely, to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**2'** Qui praedicant omnia se invenire, demonstrationem vero eorum nullam proferentes, sophistice agunt, ea aliquando spondere videantur reperiisse, quae sunt impossibilia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rivault does specify, in a scholium a few lines before, that the source is damaged (*locus hic totus luxatus est*), so the small but relevant divergence of these two editions could have some explanation. Apart from that, the syntax of both readings makes no sense to me: ἀπό what, in Herwagen? and what is that ἁ supposed to mean in Rivault? What is going on here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MnZng.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/p4isU.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17029" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5151" RevisionGUID="42f4987d-1f12-4844-a1dc-bdcc99a83b87" CreationDate="2017-08-30T16:56:12.637" UserId="423" Text="Dubious passage in Archimedes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17030" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5151" RevisionGUID="42f4987d-1f12-4844-a1dc-bdcc99a83b87" CreationDate="2017-08-30T16:56:12.637" UserId="423" Text="|greek|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5152" RevisionGUID="a17ab29d-3d08-47ed-86ee-c88d59b195da" CreationDate="2017-08-30T17:01:03.457" UserId="1694" Text="W. Sindey Allen in *Vox Latina* says that various grammarians such as Quintilian stated the rules quite unambiguously (although he also write that &quot;there is some controversy about the *nature* of the historical accent&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, even if we didn't have precise statements from ancient grammarians, the rules could pretty easily deduced simply from the reflexes of Latin words in the modern Romance languages.  For example, Spanish *dueño* certainly points to a Latin *dóminus* rather than *domínus*, and French *vierge* points to *vírgine(m)* rather than *virgíne(m)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the answer is both - we have explicit testimony and also the evidence of the Romance languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5152" RevisionGUID="89be2cf5-16b6-4bdc-93ae-040898bdadd7" CreationDate="2017-08-30T17:30:31.277" UserId="1694" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="W. Sindey Allen in *Vox Latina* says that various grammarians such as Quintilian stated the rules quite unambiguously (although he also writes that &quot;there is some controversy about the *nature* of the historical accent&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, even if we didn't have precise statements from ancient grammarians, the rules could pretty easily deduced simply from the reflexes of Latin words in the modern Romance languages.  For example, Spanish *dueño* certainly points to a Latin *dóminus* rather than *domínus*, and French *vierge* points to *vírgine(m)* rather than *virgíne(m)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the answer is both - we have explicit testimony and also the evidence of the Romance languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5153" RevisionGUID="ad4809e2-63e6-43c7-971f-1101f07aaf5b" CreationDate="2017-08-30T18:38:34.777" UserId="1694" Text="Sihler in his *New Comparitive Grammar of Greek and Latin* considers the problem &quot;one the enigmas of classical scholarship&quot;, so I don't think there is any generally agreed-on answer.  He does offer the following possibility (summarized):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Start with the PIE ending *-*dhwo* - but where does the nasal come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Perhaps *-*dhwo-ne*, with the same added element as the active&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) This would give first PItal. *-*þwone* -&gt; *-*fone* -&gt; *-*fne* or *-*bne* -&gt; *-*mne* -&gt; *-*mine* (with anaptyxis) -&gt; *-minī*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He admits that the details are uncertain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there is no mention of older forms with -*r*, I doubt there are any." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1889" RevisionGUID="1b4fbb3d-edd9-455c-909c-d0977e96f5e9" CreationDate="2017-08-30T19:30:26.230" UserId="9" Comment="added 1605 characters in body" Text="##Accusative + Subjective Infinitive seems to be grammatical##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Longmans' Latin Course: part III. Elementary Latin Prose][1],* by &#xD;&#xA;W. Horton Spragge, says that a subjective infinitive takes an accusative subject, and gives an example using &quot;esse&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **That you are happy** is agreeable to me &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;**Te beātum esse** mihi est gratum &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 17)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;Te&quot; is the subject, and &quot;beatum&quot; is the predicative complement.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems to me &quot;Hominem esse me delectat&quot; would be correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, other people also seem to have been uncertain about this matter; I just found a discussion here http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/to-be-yourself-is-not-a-crime.11748/ where the user Bitmap provided the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic. inv.II,171: *Nam aliter dicere solemus: &quot;Necesse est **Casilinenses se dedere Hannibali**&quot;; aliter autem: &quot;Necesse est **Casilinum venire in Hannibalis potestatem**&quot;.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Example of accusative subject of a subjective infinitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Terence, Heaut. 666: *non licet hominem esse [saepe ita ut volt, si res non sinit.*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Example of accusative subject of *esse* as a subjective infinitive; I extended the quotation to add the end of the sentence using the [Packard Humanities Institute Latin Texts][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic.TuscI,9: *necesse est enim miseros esse eos qui centum milibus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; annorum ante occiderunt, vel potius omnis, quicumque nati sunt.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If I understand the grammar right, it's an example of an accusative subject (*eos*) and complement (*miseros*) with *esse* as a subjective infinitive; I might have switched the complement and subject)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##I don't think Nominative + Subjective Infinitive is a thing##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another discussion on that site http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/the-subject-of-the-infinitive.11753/ mentions some exceptions to the general tendency for the subject of an infinitive to be in accusative. However, as far as I can tell, none of the exceptions seem to apply in this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in fact, my current understanding is that in the structure generally referred to as the &quot;nominativus cum infinitivo&quot;, the nominative noun does not actually form a constituent with the infinitive; rather, the infinitive plays the role of a complement (not subject) of some other verb in the clause, and the nominative noun (not the infinitive) is the syntactic subject of that other verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first exception listed is &quot;Hercules fortis esse vult/videtur/dicitur&quot; with &quot;Hercules&quot; and &quot;fortis&quot; in the nominative. I would interpret this the same way as the corresponding English sentences &quot;Hercules wants/seems/is said to be strong': i.e., the grammatical subject is really &quot;Hercules&quot; rather than the infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This interpretation seems to be supported by patterns of verb agreement.  As brianpck points out, in &quot;nominativus cum infinitivo&quot; constructions the passive verb is not always third-person neuter, as we would expect if the infinitive were the subject of the clause. I haven't studied this in depth, but an online worksheet I found ([Infinitives, a.c.i. &amp; n.c.i.][3], Latin MILC – W1, MT 2012 October 09, 2012, from [Robin Meyer's pages on the University of Oxford website][4]) gives an example that shows the passive verb agreeing with a plural nominative noun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 18. *Parentes adire ad filios **prohibentur**.* (Cic.Ver.2.5,117) Parents were prohibited to see their children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that the finite verb in this sentence agrees with &quot;parentes&quot; rather than with &quot;adire&quot;. I don't have any examples, but I would guess the same principle applies to gender agreement in compound tenses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if I understand this correctly, the **nominative + infinitive + main verb** structure would not work to express &quot;To be a human pleases me&quot;. I think &quot;homo esse me delectat&quot;, if it's grammatical at all, would mean something like &quot;A man pleases me to be&quot; (i.e. &quot;For a man to be pleases me&quot;), which is pretty much nonsense. To express the proper meaning, I think it's necessary to make the infinitive &quot;esse&quot; the subject of &quot;delectat&quot; rather than the complement, and that means &quot;homo/hominem&quot; should not be the subject of &quot;delectat&quot;, just the predicative complement of &quot;esse&quot;. And in this context, it seems that the case of a predicative complement is assigned by the *accusativus cum infinitivo* rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would interpret the infinitive in sentences like &quot;Hominem esse me delectat&quot; as having an implicit accusative subject like &quot;me,&quot; and &quot;hominem&quot; is just the complement to that. (Or possibly, if it makes it feel more logical, you could even consider the following explicit &quot;me&quot; in &quot;Hominem esse me delectat&quot; to be like the subject of the infinitive, or at least the referent/&quot;postcedent&quot; of the complement. You can't do that for your second example &quot;Finnum esse est canere&quot; though.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PSo5AQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA17&amp;lpg=PA17&amp;dq=Latin%20esse%20%22subjective%20infinitive%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=YkPGDEIGX1&amp;sig=VDshj7IR9o2c7ZVsWeNKoGDrcio&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjCxszPpvbPAhVL0YMKHU5BDA04ChDoAQgeMAE#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/loc/134/2/4/3693-3706#4&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~univ2665/MILC/L_MT1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~univ2665/#teaching" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1889" RevisionGUID="ef2a0840-8f58-4f4e-a70c-a35b51c25432" CreationDate="2017-08-30T19:41:03.427" UserId="9" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="##Accusative + Subjective Infinitive seems to be grammatical##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Longmans' Latin Course: part III. Elementary Latin Prose][1],* by &#xD;&#xA;W. Horton Spragge, says that a subjective infinitive takes an accusative subject, and gives an example using &quot;esse&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **That you are happy** is agreeable to me &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;**Te beātum esse** mihi est gratum &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 17)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;Te&quot; is the subject, and &quot;beatum&quot; is the predicative complement.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems to me &quot;Hominem esse me delectat&quot; would be correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, other people also seem to have been uncertain about this matter; brianpck linked in the comments to http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/to-be-yourself-is-not-a-crime.11748/ where the user Bitmap provided the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic. inv.II,171: *Nam aliter dicere solemus: &quot;Necesse est **Casilinenses se dedere Hannibali**&quot;; aliter autem: &quot;Necesse est **Casilinum venire in Hannibalis potestatem**&quot;.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Example of accusative subject of a subjective infinitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Terence, Heaut. 666: *non licet hominem esse [saepe ita ut volt, si res non sinit.*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Example of accusative subject of *esse* as a subjective infinitive; I extended the quotation to add the end of the sentence using the [Packard Humanities Institute Latin Texts][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic.TuscI,9: *necesse est enim miseros esse eos qui centum milibus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; annorum ante occiderunt, vel potius omnis, quicumque nati sunt.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If I understand the grammar right, it's an example of an accusative subject (*eos*) and complement (*miseros*) with *esse* as a subjective infinitive; I might have switched the complement and subject)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##I don't think Nominative + Subjective Infinitive is a thing##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another discussion on that site http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/the-subject-of-the-infinitive.11753/ mentions some exceptions to the general tendency for the subject of an infinitive to be in accusative. However, as far as I can tell, none of the exceptions seem to apply in this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in fact, my current understanding is that in the structure generally referred to as the &quot;nominativus cum infinitivo&quot;, the nominative noun does not actually form a constituent with the infinitive; rather, the infinitive plays the role of a complement (not subject) of some other verb in the clause, and the nominative noun (not the infinitive) is the syntactic subject of that other verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first exception listed is &quot;Hercules fortis esse vult/videtur/dicitur&quot; with &quot;Hercules&quot; and &quot;fortis&quot; in the nominative. I would interpret this the same way as the corresponding English sentences &quot;Hercules wants/seems/is said to be strong': i.e., the grammatical subject is really &quot;Hercules&quot; rather than the infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This interpretation seems to be supported by patterns of verb agreement.  As brianpck points out, in &quot;nominativus cum infinitivo&quot; constructions the passive verb is not always third-person neuter, as we would expect if the infinitive were the subject of the clause. I haven't studied this in depth, but an online worksheet I found ([Infinitives, a.c.i. &amp; n.c.i.][3], Latin MILC – W1, MT 2012 October 09, 2012, from [Robin Meyer's pages on the University of Oxford website][4]) gives an example that shows the passive verb agreeing with a plural nominative noun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 18. *Parentes adire ad filios **prohibentur**.* (Cic.Ver.2.5,117) Parents were prohibited to see their children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that the finite verb in this sentence agrees with &quot;parentes&quot; rather than with &quot;adire&quot;. I don't have any examples, but I would guess that the same principle applies to gender agreement in compound tenses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Applying this to &quot;Hominem esse me delectat&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if I understand this correctly, the **nominative + infinitive + main verb** structure would not work to express &quot;To be a human pleases me&quot;. I think &quot;homo esse me delectat&quot;, if it's grammatical at all, would mean something like &quot;A man pleases me to be&quot; (i.e. &quot;For a man to be pleases me&quot;), which is pretty much nonsense. To express the proper meaning, I think it's necessary to make the infinitive &quot;esse&quot; the subject of &quot;delectat&quot; rather than the complement, and that means &quot;homo/hominem&quot; should not be the subject of &quot;delectat&quot;, just the predicative complement of &quot;esse&quot;. And in this context, it seems that the case of a predicative complement is assigned by the *accusativus cum infinitivo* rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would interpret the infinitive in sentences like &quot;Hominem esse me delectat&quot; as having an implicit accusative subject like &quot;me,&quot; and &quot;hominem&quot; is just the complement to that. (Or possibly, if it makes it feel more logical, you could even consider the following explicit &quot;me&quot; in &quot;Hominem esse me delectat&quot; to be like the subject of the infinitive, or at least the referent/&quot;postcedent&quot; of the complement. You can't do that for your second example &quot;Finnum esse est canere&quot; though.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PSo5AQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA17&amp;lpg=PA17&amp;dq=Latin%20esse%20%22subjective%20infinitive%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=YkPGDEIGX1&amp;sig=VDshj7IR9o2c7ZVsWeNKoGDrcio&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjCxszPpvbPAhVL0YMKHU5BDA04ChDoAQgeMAE#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/loc/134/2/4/3693-3706#4&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~univ2665/MILC/L_MT1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~univ2665/#teaching" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5154" RevisionGUID="9f3364f6-0628-4e36-9a6a-6c8ea0189603" CreationDate="2017-08-30T20:49:27.120" UserId="1952" Text="I wanted to change windows to use the unabbreviated *ante meridiem* and *post meridiem* for A.M. and P.M., but they're one letter too long. Google translate lists *pro* and *ab* as alternate translations for &quot;before&quot; and &quot;after&quot;, respectively. Would using that make sense in this context? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5154" RevisionGUID="9f3364f6-0628-4e36-9a6a-6c8ea0189603" CreationDate="2017-08-30T20:49:27.120" UserId="1952" Text="Using pro and ab in place of ante and post?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5154" RevisionGUID="9f3364f6-0628-4e36-9a6a-6c8ea0189603" CreationDate="2017-08-30T20:49:27.120" UserId="1952" Text="|grammar-choice|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5154" RevisionGUID="c8fffb8d-3e43-428e-befc-39fd73bc1291" CreationDate="2017-08-30T21:00:05.587" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="I wanted to change windows to use the unabbreviated *ante meridiem* and *post meridiem* for A.M. and P.M., but they're one letter too long. Google Translate lists *pro* and *ab* as alternate translations for &quot;before&quot; and &quot;after&quot;, respectively. Would using that make sense in this context? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17040" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5154" RevisionGUID="c8fffb8d-3e43-428e-befc-39fd73bc1291" CreationDate="2017-08-30T21:00:05.587" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|grammar-choice|word-choice|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5155" RevisionGUID="61ba2d87-9d85-4a6a-8d8f-f08ebba24670" CreationDate="2017-08-30T21:38:20.890" UserId="40" Text="As varro says, the question is debated. There are no *r*-forms in Latin, and we have no 2pl. passives attested in Sabellic, unfortunately. I think Sihler's account is rather farfetched; a much simpler account, going back to Franz Bopp in 1820, is given by Weiss (*Outline* 391) as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The 2nd plural ending -*minī* most probably derives from a reinterpretation of a periphrastic construction made up of the middle participle in the nominative masculine (and feminine) plural, Lat. *sequiminī* 'you (pl.) follow' would then derive from an earlier *sekʷomVnoi estis* comparable to a theoretical Greek collocation ἑπόμενοί ἐστε 'you (pl.) are following'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difficulty with this story is to explain why such a reinterpretation would have occurred specifically in the second person plural; I don't know if anyone has come up with a good explanation for that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5152" RevisionGUID="1b6a9aa0-b6ef-4131-ac4a-6542bc641197" CreationDate="2017-08-30T22:56:01.447" UserId="1694" Comment="edited body" Text="W. Sidney Allen in *Vox Latina* says that various grammarians such as Quintilian stated the rules quite unambiguously (although he also writes that &quot;there is some controversy about the *nature* of the historical accent&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, even if we didn't have precise statements from ancient grammarians, the rules could pretty easily deduced simply from the reflexes of Latin words in the modern Romance languages.  For example, Spanish *dueño* certainly points to a Latin *dóminus* rather than *domínus*, and French *vierge* points to *vírgine(m)* rather than *virgíne(m)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the answer is both - we have explicit testimony and also the evidence of the Romance languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5156" RevisionGUID="6d128c49-30f8-4d8b-9d10-de909aaf8c71" CreationDate="2017-08-31T01:16:56.600" UserId="427" Text="*Pro* means 'before' in the sense of 'in front of, in the presence of', as in *he stood before the judge,* but to my knowledge doesn't have a temporal sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ab* means 'after' in the sense of 'from, since', as in *I've like snow since childhood,* but that's all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither quite has the meaning you're looking for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5157" RevisionGUID="89064831-1c25-4570-9a91-999bd8de8ef5" CreationDate="2017-08-31T04:50:30.140" UserId="985" Text="The _Oxford Latin Dictionary_ lists syncopated forms for _post meridiem_: _posmeridiem_ and _pomeridiem_ (cf. Italian _pomeriggio_); both of these would be short enough for your needs. However, although _OLD_ has entries for both, the only attestation I've managed to find so far is Quintilian, _Institutio oratoria_ 9.4.39, which actually has _pos meridiem_ in the version of the text (Winterbottom's 1970 edition) that appears on the [PHI](http://latin.packhum.org) site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Inde 'belligerare', 'pos meridiem' et illa Censori Catonis 'dicae' 'faciae'que, m littera in e mollita. Quae in ueteribus libris reperta mutare imperiti solent, et dum librariorum insectari uolunt inscientiam, suam confitentur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(_OLD_ cites this passage in the entry for _meridies_ but prints _pomeridiem_ instead of _pos meridiem_.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for an alternative to _ante meridiem_, _OLD_ does list _promeridie_ as an adverb, but the only attestation given is for an inscription (_CIL_ 6.2104.20):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PROMERIDIE FRATRES ARVALES PRAETEXTAS ACCEPER&amp;lt;UNT&amp;gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, there's some support there for the prepositional phrase _pro meridie_ that you asked about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, the only thing I can think of is _mane_ ('early in the day', 'in the morning'), though I'm not sure how well it works here. I'd be interested to see other opinions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5158" RevisionGUID="d9adc621-d8cd-4ac8-ace6-117d9e142ed4" CreationDate="2017-08-31T09:57:03.440" UserId="1954" Text="In the cathedral of Rouen I visited the grave of Richard I the Lionheart. It has an inscription:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Richard the Lionheart][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ANGELORUM REGIS QUI COR LEONIS DICTUS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is the best translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- King of England, who ruled with a lion heart?&#xD;&#xA;- English King, who ruled with a lion heart?&#xD;&#xA;- Maybe something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GqyTH.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17046" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5158" RevisionGUID="d9adc621-d8cd-4ac8-ace6-117d9e142ed4" CreationDate="2017-08-31T09:57:03.440" UserId="1954" Text="What does 'ANGELORUM REGIS QUI COR LEONIS DICTUS' mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17047" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5158" RevisionGUID="d9adc621-d8cd-4ac8-ace6-117d9e142ed4" CreationDate="2017-08-31T09:57:03.440" UserId="1954" Text="|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5159" RevisionGUID="560a450c-0145-4a4d-91d0-6971b48bf149" CreationDate="2017-08-31T10:03:24.110" UserId="645" Text="&quot;Here is interred the heart of Richard, King of the English, called Lionheart. Died in the year 1199.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5160" RevisionGUID="0253e94c-e9ab-4a5b-bbc8-e640382bce7f" CreationDate="2017-08-31T10:30:32.097" UserId="183" Text="Yes, they did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero derived the verb [sullaturio][1] &quot;to imitate or play the part of Sulla&quot; from the name of the famous antique dictator Sulla.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=sullaturio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5161" RevisionGUID="1277e1e6-c278-45f8-81a3-532ee60406a0" CreationDate="2017-08-31T10:38:52.200" UserId="1954" Text="Consider the following photo of the Westminster Cathedral:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Westminster Cathedral][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are those separator-dots called? I see them on many inscriptions. Why is it there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CXRHM.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17051" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5161" RevisionGUID="1277e1e6-c278-45f8-81a3-532ee60406a0" CreationDate="2017-08-31T10:38:52.200" UserId="1954" Text="What is the name of the separator dots between the words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17052" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5161" RevisionGUID="1277e1e6-c278-45f8-81a3-532ee60406a0" CreationDate="2017-08-31T10:38:52.200" UserId="1954" Text="|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5162" RevisionGUID="0d23deca-3162-4610-826a-8897555abe4e" CreationDate="2017-08-31T11:43:27.243" UserId="79" Text="It is called the [interpunct](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpunct).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Empty space to separate words as we do now is not a universal phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;Just as well the Romans might ask why we leave space between words instead of putting a dot in between or spelling all the words together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dots mark word boundaries, but I am not sure if they are added more for legibility or similarity to ancient inscriptions.&#xD;&#xA;Following ancient conventions does give a certain prestigious feel to an inscription.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In ancient Rome one would either separate words by an interpunct or not at all.&#xD;&#xA;See [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/222/79) for the development of word spacing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5161" RevisionGUID="64244591-5bf4-4dd0-acd5-3ac96c8e4238" CreationDate="2017-08-31T12:37:00.993" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="Consider the following photo of the Westminster Cathedral:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![An inscription on Westminster Cathedral][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are those separator-dots called? I see them on many inscriptions. Why is it there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CXRHM.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17055" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5161" RevisionGUID="64244591-5bf4-4dd0-acd5-3ac96c8e4238" CreationDate="2017-08-31T12:37:00.993" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|contemporary-latin|inscription|punctuation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5163" RevisionGUID="391c4c08-7ac1-44de-8a2c-131c0dc2dda6" CreationDate="2017-08-31T14:52:02.983" UserId="79" Text="English words like &quot;brunette&quot;, &quot;blonde&quot;, and &quot;redhead&quot; refer to people of a particular hair color.&#xD;&#xA;Are there similar words in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;It is easy to express hair color in English or Latin with several words: &quot;a girl with red hair&quot;, *virgo crinibus rubris*.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for adjectives or nouns like my three English examples.&#xD;&#xA;I doubt that phrases like *virgo rubra* would be as easy to understand as &quot;redhead&quot;, but I will be gladly proven wrong if color words can be used this way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17058" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5163" RevisionGUID="391c4c08-7ac1-44de-8a2c-131c0dc2dda6" CreationDate="2017-08-31T14:52:02.983" UserId="79" Text="Are there Latin words for hair color?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17059" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5163" RevisionGUID="391c4c08-7ac1-44de-8a2c-131c0dc2dda6" CreationDate="2017-08-31T14:52:02.983" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|idiom|word-request|color|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="af419157-e01e-4414-bd10-894a8538f72f" CreationDate="2017-08-31T15:05:03.143" UserId="324" Text="Certainly &quot;flavus&quot; in the sense &quot;fair-haired&quot;, as in Horace 4,4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qualem ministrum fulminis alitem,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; cui rex deorum regnum in avis vagas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; permisit expertus fidelem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuppiter in Ganymede flavo,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; olim iuventas et patrius vigor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; nido laborum propulit inscium," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="fd9a5af2-cf0b-4462-ac86-365231ba6c7b" CreationDate="2017-08-31T15:22:09.557" UserId="324" Comment="deleted 78 characters in body" Text="Certainly &quot;flavus&quot; in the sense &quot;fair-haired&quot;, as in Horace 4,4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qualem ministrum fulminis alitem,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; cui rex deorum regnum in avis vagas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; permisit expertus fidelem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuppiter in Ganymede flavo,&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="26da1bfe-61a6-438c-83af-65724593581d" CreationDate="2017-08-31T15:36:18.163" UserId="324" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="Certainly &quot;flavus&quot; in the sense &quot;fair-haired&quot;, as in Horace 4,4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qualem ministrum fulminis alitem,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; cui rex deorum regnum in avis vagas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; permisit expertus fidelem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuppiter in Ganymede flavo,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise &quot;rufus&quot;, and, I should think, others.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="cab855b4-8e1b-4eab-999c-2f043f2ed662" CreationDate="2017-08-31T17:21:29.350" UserId="79" Comment="Removed the space between lines. Two spaces at the end of a line cause a line break. Feel free to roll back if this format was not intended." Text="Certainly &quot;flavus&quot; in the sense &quot;fair-haired&quot;, as in Horace 4,4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qualem ministrum fulminis alitem,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; cui rex deorum regnum in avis vagas  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; permisit expertus fidelem  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuppiter in Ganymede flavo,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise &quot;rufus&quot;, and, I should think, others.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5157" RevisionGUID="8fb6ac96-64a5-424b-9ed8-533f114741ab" CreationDate="2017-08-31T17:24:16.273" UserId="985" Comment="added 406 characters in body" Text="The _Oxford Latin Dictionary_ lists syncopated forms for _post meridiem_: _posmeridiem_ and _pomeridiem_ (cf. Italian _pomeriggio_); both of these would be short enough for your needs. However, although _OLD_ has entries for both, the only attestation I've managed to find so far is Quintilian, _Institutio oratoria_ 9.4.39, which actually has _pos meridiem_ in the version of the text (Winterbottom's 1970 edition) that appears on the [PHI](http://latin.packhum.org) site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Inde 'belligerare', 'pos meridiem' et illa Censori Catonis 'dicae' 'faciae'que, m littera in e mollita. Quae in ueteribus libris reperta mutare imperiti solent, et dum librariorum insectari uolunt inscientiam, suam confitentur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(_OLD_ cites this passage in the entry for _meridies_ but prints _pomeridiem_ instead of _pos meridiem_.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for an alternative to _ante meridiem_, _OLD_ does list _promeridie_ as an adverb, but the only attestation given is for an inscription (_CIL_ 6.2104.20):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PROMERIDIE FRATRES ARVALES PRAETEXTAS ACCEPER&amp;lt;UNT&amp;gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, there's some support there for the prepositional phrase _pro meridie_ that you asked about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, the only thing I can think of is _mane_ ('early in the day', 'in the morning'), though I'm not sure how well it works here. I'd be interested to see other opinions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Update:* Overall, I think it makes the most sense just to omit the interword spaces, as Draconis has suggested in a comment. Not only did the Romans often leave out such spaces in writing, as noted in the comment, but _antemeridiem_ as a single word has its own entry in _OLD_ (but not in Lewis &amp; Short), and the entry for _meridies_ in _OLD_ notes that _post meridiem_ can likewise be a single word. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="27e355bd-693d-45ab-8e73-ef5f24d49881" CreationDate="2017-09-01T02:30:15.883" UserId="30" Text="Apparently, the *fabula Milesiae*, &quot;story of Miletus&quot;, was a Greek genre. Apuleius calls himself &quot;the author of this Milesian tale&quot; in his *Metamorphoses* (IV.32, below). From what I remember of the (late) Antique genre of *roman* or &quot;novel&quot;, the type of story of a *roman* seems very similar to Apuleius's *Milesiae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference, exactly? Or did the Romans (and Greeks) have no (other) word for the genre of *roman* and was this the term they used? If so, that would surprise me, because I don't recall the term described as such when reading about the genre, but perhaps I wasn't paying attention...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed Apollo, quamquam Graecus et Ionicus, propter Milesiae conditorem sic Latina sorte respondit...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Apuleis, *Metamorphoses* IV.32." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17068" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="27e355bd-693d-45ab-8e73-ef5f24d49881" CreationDate="2017-09-01T02:30:15.883" UserId="30" Text="What is the difference between a roman (&quot;novel&quot;) and a &quot;Milesiae fabula&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17069" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="27e355bd-693d-45ab-8e73-ef5f24d49881" CreationDate="2017-09-01T02:30:15.883" UserId="30" Text="|terminology|apuleius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5166" RevisionGUID="0316d812-c4fb-478a-8a01-d1c647f01fc6" CreationDate="2017-09-01T03:35:31.507" UserId="40" Text="(A partial answer, on which I hope others will expand:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was an original collection of [Milesian Tales](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milesian_tale) (Μιλησικά), written in Greek by Aristides of Miletus in the second century BC. These have not survived; they were known to the Romans in a Latin translation, of which we only have a few short fragments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These Milesian tales seem to have been comic stories about lovers' misfortunes, sexual escapades, and the like, narrated in a ribald and humorous style. As such they do seem to have been similar in tone to (though much shorter than) the Latin novels of Apuleius and Petronius. They don't seem to have been quite as similar to the extant Greek novels, though: these do deal with love and adventure and feature lots of astounding plot twists, but their tone tends to be less salacious than that of the Latin novelists and presumably of Aristides. Though I don't have any evidence, I don't think *Daphnis and Chloe*, for example, would likely have been thought of as a &quot;Milesian tale&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There doesn't seem to have a concept of the &quot;novel&quot; in antiquity, exactly -- at least, to my knowledge there was no specific term distinguishing what we would call a novel from other types of narrative. What we now call novels would simply have been described with the general words for &quot;story&quot; (*fabula*, λόγος, etc.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="cc9ad921-3132-44a7-a6dd-b86a9e8c2652" CreationDate="2017-09-01T04:09:28.397" UserId="30" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Apparently, the *fabula Milesiae*, &quot;story of Miletus&quot;, was a Greek genre. Apuleius calls himself &quot;the author of this Milesian tale&quot; in his *Metamorphoses* (IV.32, below). From what I remember of the (late) Antique genre of *roman* or &quot;novel&quot;, the type of story of a *roman* seems very similar to Apuleius's *Milesiae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference, exactly? Or did the Romans (and Greeks) have no (other) word for the genre of *roman* and was this the term they used? If so, that would surprise me, because I don't recall the term described as such when reading about the genre, but perhaps I wasn't paying attention...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed Apollo, quamquam Graecus et Ionicus, propter Milesiae conditorem sic Latina sorte respondit...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Apuleius, *Metamorphoses* IV.32." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5167" RevisionGUID="899b4fea-6815-45cb-9d25-b66519c899e1" CreationDate="2017-09-01T09:11:41.310" UserId="1958" Text="There was a discussion about the phrase &quot;Blowing your own trumpet&quot; which according to some means same. But when translated to latin idioms it steered more towards just being &quot;too proud&quot; or &quot;praising onself (too much)&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17073" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5167" RevisionGUID="899b4fea-6815-45cb-9d25-b66519c899e1" CreationDate="2017-09-01T09:11:41.310" UserId="1958" Text="Is there a latin equivalent for &quot;All talk but no action&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17074" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5167" RevisionGUID="899b4fea-6815-45cb-9d25-b66519c899e1" CreationDate="2017-09-01T09:11:41.310" UserId="1958" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5169" RevisionGUID="f1f0bbf9-8855-4835-a965-46d88a2708aa" CreationDate="2017-09-01T09:46:16.033" UserId="645" Text="*Intoleranter se iactat*  (Cic. de Oratore II.52) is an accurate translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The actual passage runs *superioribus invidetur saepe vehementer et eo magis, si intolerantius se iactant et aequabilitatem communis iuris praestantia dignitatis aut fortunae suae transeunt*.]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5169" RevisionGUID="86adc30a-0fbf-4492-a214-32c04dc79138" CreationDate="2017-09-01T09:55:56.940" UserId="645" Comment="added 227 characters in body" Text="*Intoleranter se iactat*  (Cic. de Oratore II.52) is an accurate translation for *blowing your own trumpet*. [The actual passage runs *superioribus invidetur saepe vehementer et eo magis, si intolerantius se iactant et aequabilitatem communis iuris praestantia dignitatis aut fortunae suae transeunt*.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*All talk but no action* is rather a scornful than a strong criticism: *Disertus sed agendo non capax* — rather like the Emperor Galba who, according to Tacitus was *capax imperii nisi imperasset*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5170" RevisionGUID="abdaa2ed-a3b5-4ce1-b87c-c8b5bda5fdfc" CreationDate="2017-09-01T10:55:19.233" UserId="1133" Text="Is there any rule to the length of &lt;i&gt;e&lt;/i&gt; in &lt;i&gt;-ensis&lt;/i&gt;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked up the following words in Perseus (which give entries from 'Lewis &amp; Short' and 'Elem. Lewis') and Wiktionery, without being able to discern any pattern.  Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lewis &amp; Short | Elem. Lewis | Wiktionery&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;āmănŭensis | --- | āmanu&lt;b&gt;ē&lt;/b&gt;nsis&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ātrĭensis | ātri&lt;b&gt;ē&lt;/b&gt;nsis | ātri&lt;b&gt;ē&lt;/b&gt;nsis&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--- | --- | Carthāginiensis&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;cŏmĭtātensis | --- | ---&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Circensis | Circ&lt;b&gt;ē&lt;/b&gt;nsis | circ&lt;b&gt;ē&lt;/b&gt;nsis&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;prātensis | prāt&lt;b&gt;ē&lt;/b&gt;nsis | prāt&lt;b&gt;ē&lt;/b&gt;nsis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;---&quot; means there was no entry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17082" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5170" RevisionGUID="abdaa2ed-a3b5-4ce1-b87c-c8b5bda5fdfc" CreationDate="2017-09-01T10:55:19.233" UserId="1133" Text="Is there any rule to the length of &quot;e&quot; in &quot;-ensis&lt;&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17083" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5170" RevisionGUID="abdaa2ed-a3b5-4ce1-b87c-c8b5bda5fdfc" CreationDate="2017-09-01T10:55:19.233" UserId="1133" Text="|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5170" RevisionGUID="5b131de3-96e2-48e4-9a73-05bb78966234" CreationDate="2017-09-01T10:59:56.870" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected spelling." Text="Is there any rule to the length of &lt;i&gt;e&lt;/i&gt; in &lt;i&gt;-ensis&lt;/i&gt;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked up the following words in Perseus (which give entries from 'Lewis &amp; Short' and 'Elem. Lewis') and Wiktionary, without being able to discern any pattern.  Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lewis &amp; Short | Elem. Lewis | Wiktionary&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;āmănŭensis | --- | āmanu&lt;b&gt;ē&lt;/b&gt;nsis&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ātrĭensis | ātri&lt;b&gt;ē&lt;/b&gt;nsis | ātri&lt;b&gt;ē&lt;/b&gt;nsis&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--- | --- | Carthāginiensis&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;cŏmĭtātensis | --- | ---&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Circensis | Circ&lt;b&gt;ē&lt;/b&gt;nsis | circ&lt;b&gt;ē&lt;/b&gt;nsis&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;prātensis | prāt&lt;b&gt;ē&lt;/b&gt;nsis | prāt&lt;b&gt;ē&lt;/b&gt;nsis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;---&quot; means there was no entry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17085" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5143" RevisionGUID="390746c1-25ac-4c85-8508-af6d93a11f3b" CreationDate="2017-09-01T11:55:21.513" UserId="469" Comment="54" />
  <row Id="17087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5170" RevisionGUID="e9fa11c2-ed0e-4a96-80d4-7814cb95c69f" CreationDate="2017-09-01T13:44:36.630" UserId="1459" Comment="minor corrections" Text="Is there any rule to the length of &lt;i&gt;e&lt;/i&gt; in &lt;i&gt;-ensis&lt;/i&gt;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked up the following words in Perseus (which give entries from 'Lewis &amp; Short' and 'Elem. Lewis') and Wiktionary, without being able to discern any pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lewis &amp; Short | Elem. Lewis | Wiktionary&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;āmănŭensis | --- | āmanu&lt;b&gt;ē&lt;/b&gt;nsis&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ātrĭensis | ātri&lt;b&gt;ē&lt;/b&gt;nsis | ātri&lt;b&gt;ē&lt;/b&gt;nsis&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--- | --- | Carthāginiensis&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;cŏmĭtātensis | --- | ---&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Circensis | Circ&lt;b&gt;ē&lt;/b&gt;nsis | circ&lt;b&gt;ē&lt;/b&gt;nsis&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;prātensis | prāt&lt;b&gt;ē&lt;/b&gt;nsis | prāt&lt;b&gt;ē&lt;/b&gt;nsis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;---&quot; means there was no entry)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5171" RevisionGUID="19671ecb-be29-46f8-a0b0-280d366b7dfa" CreationDate="2017-09-01T14:59:15.413" UserId="1694" Text="It's always long, but some dictionaries don't bother to mark the length since it's &quot;long by position&quot; anyway, so it doesn't matter for a metrical point of view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5172" RevisionGUID="6963baa5-0412-4382-9658-97805b2731dd" CreationDate="2017-09-01T15:01:53.237" UserId="645" Text="It may be apposite to say that, for five modern works of varying styles translated into Latin, I turned a total of 295,700 words of English into 212,300 of Latin. This represents a surprisingly consistent diminution of some 72% overall, with a range of 70.8 to 72.3%. This would correspond to an increase of 40%, if instead the Latin had been converted into English; and although a sample consisting of a single translator can hardly have much statistical significance, it ought at least to suggest that a large expansion is to be expected when translating from Latin to English, as @Luchonacho has seen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Nathaniel's comment on the original question points out, much depends on the translator's style. For what it's worth, and to indicate the levels of variability that can occur in general, here is a list given to me some years ago by an agency which was sourcing translations from English into European languages for compliance with EU regulations on instruction manuals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Percentage expansion/contraction of word counts from English into* : Finnish, -25 to -30; Danish, -10 to -15; Norwegian, -5 to -10; Czech, Swedish, +10; Croatian, +15; Italian, +10 to+25; French, +15 to +20; Portuguese, Spanish, +15 to +30; Polish, +20 to +30; German, +25 to +35." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5174" RevisionGUID="9ed142d5-f13b-4cc4-9e45-3d14d441861c" CreationDate="2017-09-01T18:10:43.470" UserId="9" Text="As varro says, it's always long. This is predictable as one example of a more general rule that any vowel is long before &quot;ns&quot; or &quot;nf&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule is thought to be the result of &quot;compensatory lengthening&quot; or assimilation. We have evidence that in at least some accents of Latin, at some point in time, the consonant sound [n] was lost before [s] and [f]: thus the suffix *-ensis* corrresponds to Italian *-ese,* Portuguese *-ês,* and French *-ois/-ais.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [n] isn't thought to have just disappeared all in one step. It is supposed to have fused with the preceding vowel, producing a long nasalized vowel. Then later on, the vowel denasalized, resulting in the complete loss of nasality seen in the modern Romance pronunciations of the suffixes mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I don't know enough to give a good explanation, but the loss of [n] before the voiceless fricatives [s] and [f] and the corresponding &quot;compensatory lengthening&quot; of the preceding vowel is a phonetically natural sound change. A [similar change applied in the history of English][1], and is why our word *g**oos**e/g**ees**e* corresponds to Latin *a**ns**er*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (1978) actually says that in Classical Latin the nasal consonant was restored in these clusters (at least in some words and in higher registers of speech), but due to the &quot;artificial&quot; nature of this restoration, the vowel continued to be pronounced long, resulting in what some call a &quot;super-heavy&quot; syllable with a long vowel followed by a consonant cluster. (In Latin, &quot;super-heavy&quot; syllables behave exactly like normal heavy syllables metrically, as varro mentions.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The development in a word such as *consul,* therefore, is: prehistoric *cŏnsol,* early Latin *cō̃sol;* classical colloquial *cōsul;* classical literary *cōnsul.* (*Vox Latina* 2nd edition, p. 29-30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingvaeonic_nasal_spirant_law" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5174" RevisionGUID="da557bda-12ad-40fb-b96d-8ce801dbefb5" CreationDate="2017-09-01T19:50:34.320" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="As varro says, it's always long. This is predictable as one example of a more general rule that any vowel is long before &quot;ns&quot; or &quot;nf&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule is thought to be the result of &quot;compensatory lengthening&quot; or assimilation. We have evidence that in at least some accents of Latin, at some point in time, the consonant sound [n] was lost before [s] and [f]: thus the suffix *-ensis* corrresponds to Italian *-ese,* Portuguese *-ês,* and French *-ois/-ais.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [n] isn't thought to have just disappeared all in one step. It is supposed to have fused with the preceding vowel, producing a long nasalized vowel. Then later on, the vowel denasalized, resulting in the complete loss of nasality seen in the modern Romance pronunciations of the suffixes mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I don't know enough to give a good explanation, but the loss of [n] before the voiceless fricatives [s] and [f] and the corresponding &quot;compensatory lengthening&quot; of the preceding vowel is a phonetically natural sound change. A [similar change applied in the history of English][1], and is why our word *g**oos**e/g**ees**e* corresponds to Latin *a**ns**er*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (1978) actually says that in Classical Latin the nasal consonant was restored in these clusters (at least in some words and in higher registers of speech), but due to the &quot;artificial&quot; nature of this restoration, the vowel continued to be pronounced long, resulting in what some call a &quot;super-heavy&quot; syllable with a long vowel followed by a coda consonant. (In Latin, &quot;super-heavy&quot; syllables behave exactly like normal heavy syllables metrically, as varro mentions.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The development in a word such as *consul,* therefore, is: prehistoric *cŏnsol,* early Latin *cō̃sol;* classical colloquial *cōsul;* classical literary *cōnsul.* (*Vox Latina* 2nd edition, p. 29-30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingvaeonic_nasal_spirant_law" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5167" RevisionGUID="cf8d30db-7e7f-4a35-aac1-c4b836ea1fcc" CreationDate="2017-09-01T20:57:02.627" UserId="79" Comment="Improved spelling." Text="There was a discussion about the phrase &quot;Blowing your own trumpet&quot; which according to some means same. But when translated to Latin idioms it steered more towards just being &quot;too proud&quot; or &quot;praising oneself (too much)&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17095" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5167" RevisionGUID="cf8d30db-7e7f-4a35-aac1-c4b836ea1fcc" CreationDate="2017-09-01T20:57:02.627" UserId="79" Comment="Improved spelling." Text="Is there a Latin equivalent for &quot;All talk but no action&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5175" RevisionGUID="e8479c9d-b60e-4d22-a1ed-c4c013a5b077" CreationDate="2017-09-01T21:10:50.290" UserId="172" Text="&gt;  I doubt that phrases like *virgo rubra* would be as easy to understand as &quot;redhead&quot;, but I will be gladly proven wrong if color words can be used this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Color words are used in this manner, and *virgo rufa* indeed means a *redhead*. For example, the L&amp;S dictionary gives references to [*nuntia fulva Jovis*][1] &quot;golden[-haired] messenger&quot;, and exactly [*vigro rufa*][2] in (Ter. Heaut., v., 5), where Clitipho refuses to marry *rufamne illam virginem, / caesiam, sparso ore, adunco naso*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is a reason why Rufus was a common Roman surname!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt *ruber* could be used as a hair color description, though, except maybe for special effect. The adjective refers to the color of blood, setting sun and red paint, and may be understood in many contexts as *scarlet*, *crimson* or *ruby red*. You would rather describe in such a way someone who dyed their hair red, as opposed to the naturally occurring red hair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfulvus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Drufus1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5174" RevisionGUID="cb27e848-542f-4872-862e-3759dfdd2d92" CreationDate="2017-09-01T21:14:14.480" UserId="9" Comment="added 2654 characters in body" Text="As varro says, it's always long. This is predictable as one example of a more general rule that any vowel is long before &quot;ns&quot; or &quot;nf&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule is thought to be the result of &quot;compensatory lengthening&quot; or assimilation. We have evidence that in at least some accents of Latin, at some point in time, the consonant sound [n] was lost before [s] and [f]: thus the suffix *-ensis* corrresponds to Italian *-ese,* Portuguese *-ês,* and French *-ois/-ais.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [n] isn't thought to have just disappeared all in one step. It is supposed to have fused with the preceding vowel, producing a long nasalized vowel. Then later on, the vowel denasalized, resulting in the complete loss of nasality seen in the modern Romance pronunciations of the suffixes mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I don't know enough to give a good explanation, but the loss of [n] before the voiceless fricatives [s] and [f] and the corresponding &quot;compensatory lengthening&quot; of the preceding vowel is a phonetically natural sound change. A [similar change applied in the history of English][1], and is why our word *g**oos**e/g**ees**e* corresponds to Latin *a**ns**er*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (1978) actually says that in Classical Latin the nasal consonant was restored in these clusters (at least in some words and in higher registers of speech), but due to the &quot;artificial&quot; nature of this restoration, the vowel continued to be pronounced long, resulting in what some call a &quot;super-heavy&quot; syllable with a long vowel followed by a coda consonant. (In Latin, &quot;super-heavy&quot; syllables behave exactly like normal heavy syllables metrically, as varro mentions.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The development in a word such as *consul,* therefore, is: prehistoric *cŏnsol,* early Latin *cō̃sol;* classical colloquial *cōsul;* classical literary *cōnsul.* (*Vox Latina* 2nd edition, p. 29-30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Unmarked doesn't necesssarily mean &quot;short&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis &amp; Short/Elem. Lewis don't always mark the length of a vowel. If it has a *breve,* they're saying it's short, but if it's *unmarked,* they aren't saying either way: you don't know if it is long or short. Sometimes this could be because they were unsure, or sometimes it's because they don't think the information is important (for example, vowel length doesn't affect scansion in closed syllables, and they assume that the reader will already be familar with the length of vowels in common suffixes such as *-us, -i*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a vowel letter is marked with a *macron* in L&amp;S, that **usually** means it corresponds to a long vowel, but there are a few questionable cases like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;lucubro&quot;, which L&amp;S give as *[lūcū^bro][2]* but which probably always had a short &quot;u&quot; in the second syllable. The second syllable would be able to scan long even with a short vowel because of variable syllable division of &quot;br&quot; as &quot;.br&quot; or &quot;b.r&quot;. [Wiktionary][3] gives the etymology as Proto-Indo-European *lewk-o-dʰro-, which wouldn't regularly give rise to a long vowel before the *br.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;horizon,&quot; which L&amp;S give as &quot;[hŏrīzon][4]&quot; but which probably had a short &quot;i&quot;, in a syllable that scanned long because of the double consonant &quot;z&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;major,&quot; which L&amp;S give as &quot;[mājor][5]&quot; but which probably had a short &quot;a&quot;, in a syllable that scanned long because of the double consonant &quot;j&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, I'd recommend being a bit suspicious of macrons in L&amp;S on vowels in the following contexts: before a mute + liquid cluster, before &quot;z&quot; or &quot;j&quot;, and occasionally before a word-final consonant (my impression is that it's somewhat unclear whether words like &quot;far&quot; ever had a long vowel in the nominative singular; some authors suggest that instead the *consonant* was long before a following word starting with a vowel). I give a few more references and examples in my answer to *[What effect should a macron have on the sound of a letter and its word?][6]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary does not use breves][7], so in that specific context unmarked vowel letters are supposed to be short (or non-syllabic). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see any inconsistencies between the dictionary entries that you cite. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingvaeonic_nasal_spirant_law&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlucubro&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lucubro&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dhorizon&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=major&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/17/9&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:About_Latin#Breves_should_not_be_used_at_all" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5174" RevisionGUID="98a447cd-8f91-4313-bc7c-01023c14341e" CreationDate="2017-09-01T21:19:49.297" UserId="9" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="As varro says, it's always long. This is predictable as one example of a more general rule that any vowel is long before &quot;ns&quot; or &quot;nf&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule is thought to be the result of &quot;compensatory lengthening&quot; or assimilation. We have evidence that in at least some accents of Latin, at some point in time, the consonant sound [n] was lost before [s] and [f]: thus the suffix *-ensis* corrresponds to Italian *-ese,* Portuguese *-ês,* and French *-ois/-ais.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [n] isn't thought to have just disappeared all in one step. It is supposed to have fused with the preceding vowel, producing a long nasalized vowel. Then later on, the vowel denasalized, resulting in the complete loss of nasality seen in the modern Romance pronunciations of the suffixes mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I don't know enough to give a good explanation, but the loss of [n] before the voiceless fricatives [s] and [f] and the corresponding &quot;compensatory lengthening&quot; of the preceding vowel is a phonetically natural sound change. A [similar change applied in the history of English][1], and is why our word *g**oos**e/g**ees**e* corresponds to Latin *a**ns**er*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (1978) actually says that in Classical Latin the nasal consonant was restored in these clusters (at least in some words and in higher registers of speech), but due to the &quot;artificial&quot; nature of this restoration, the vowel continued to be pronounced long, resulting in what some call a &quot;super-heavy&quot; syllable with a long vowel followed by a coda consonant. (In Latin, &quot;super-heavy&quot; syllables behave exactly like normal heavy syllables metrically, as varro mentions.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The development in a word such as *consul,* therefore, is: prehistoric *cŏnsol,* early Latin *cō̃sol;* classical colloquial *cōsul;* classical literary *cōnsul.* (*Vox Latina* 2nd edition, p. 29-30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Unmarked doesn't necesssarily mean &quot;short&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis &amp; Short/Elem. Lewis don't always mark the length of a vowel. If it has a *breve,* they're saying it's short, but if it's *unmarked,* they aren't saying either way: you don't know if it is long or short. Sometimes this could be because they were unsure, or sometimes it's because they don't think the information is important (for example, vowel length doesn't affect scansion in closed syllables, and they assume that the reader will already be familar with the length of vowels in common suffixes such as *-us, -i*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a vowel letter is marked with a *macron* in L&amp;S, that **usually** means it corresponds to a long vowel, but there are a few questionable cases like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;lucubro&quot;, which L&amp;S give as *[lūcū^bro][2]* but which probably always had a short &quot;u&quot; in the second syllable. The second syllable would be able to scan long even with a short vowel because of variable syllable division of &quot;br&quot; as &quot;.br&quot; or &quot;b.r&quot;. [Wiktionary][3] gives the etymology as Proto-Indo-European *lewk-o-dʰro-, which wouldn't regularly give rise to a long vowel before the *br.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;horizon,&quot; which L&amp;S give as &quot;[hŏrīzon][4]&quot; but which probably had a short &quot;i&quot;, in a syllable that scanned long because of the double consonant &quot;z&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;major,&quot; which L&amp;S give as &quot;[mājor][5]&quot; but which probably had a short &quot;a&quot;, in a syllable that scanned long because of the double consonant &quot;j&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, I'd recommend being a bit suspicious of macrons in L&amp;S on vowels in the following contexts: before a mute + liquid cluster, before &quot;z&quot; or &quot;j&quot;, and occasionally before a word-final consonant (my impression is that it's somewhat unclear whether words like *far, farris* ever had a long vowel in the nominative singular; some authors suggest that instead the *consonant* was long before a following word starting with a vowel). I give a few more references and examples in my answer to *[What effect should a macron have on the sound of a letter and its word?][6]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary does not use breves][7], so in that specific context unmarked vowel letters are supposed to be short (or non-syllabic). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see any inconsistencies between the dictionary entries that you cite, except for the lack of a macron in Wiktionary's entry for &quot;Carthāginiensis&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingvaeonic_nasal_spirant_law&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlucubro&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lucubro&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dhorizon&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=major&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/17/9&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:About_Latin#Breves_should_not_be_used_at_all" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5174" RevisionGUID="1d5d9e34-f33a-4ec8-afc3-6a12fcccc39d" CreationDate="2017-09-01T21:27:44.293" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="As varro says, it's always long. This is predictable as one example of a more general rule that any vowel is long before &quot;ns&quot; or &quot;nf&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule is thought to be the result of &quot;compensatory lengthening&quot; or assimilation. We have evidence that in at least some accents of Latin, at some point in time, the consonant sound [n] was lost before [s] and [f]: thus the suffix *-ensis* corrresponds to Italian *-ese,* Portuguese *-ês,* and French *-ois/-ais.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [n] isn't thought to have just disappeared all in one step. It is supposed to have fused with the preceding vowel, producing a long nasalized vowel. Then later on, the vowel denasalized, resulting in the complete loss of nasality seen in the modern Romance pronunciations of the suffixes mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I don't know enough to give a good explanation, but the loss of [n] before the voiceless fricatives [s] and [f] and the corresponding &quot;compensatory lengthening&quot; of the preceding vowel is a phonetically natural sound change. A [similar change applied in the history of English][1], and is why our word *g**oos**e/g**ees**e* corresponds to Latin *a**ns**er*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (1978) actually says that in Classical Latin the nasal consonant was restored in these clusters (at least in some words and in higher registers of speech), but due to the &quot;artificial&quot; nature of this restoration, the vowel continued to be pronounced long, resulting in what some call a &quot;super-heavy&quot; syllable with a long vowel followed by a coda consonant. (In Latin, &quot;super-heavy&quot; syllables behave exactly like normal heavy syllables metrically, as varro mentions.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The development in a word such as *consul,* therefore, is: prehistoric *cŏnsol,* early Latin *cō̃sol;* classical colloquial *cōsul;* classical literary *cōnsul.* (*Vox Latina* 2nd edition, p. 29-30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Unmarked doesn't necesssarily mean &quot;short&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis &amp; Short/Elem. Lewis don't always mark the length of a vowel. If it has a *breve,* they're saying it's short, but if it's *unmarked,* they aren't saying either way: you don't know if it is long or short. Sometimes this could be because they were unsure, or sometimes it's because they don't think the information is important (for example, vowel length doesn't affect scansion in closed syllables, and they assume that the reader will already be familar with the length of vowels in common suffixes such as *-us, -i*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a vowel letter is marked with a *macron* in L&amp;S, that **usually** means it corresponds to a long vowel, but there are a few questionable cases like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;lucubro&quot;, which L&amp;S give as *[lūcū^bro][2]* but which probably always had a short &quot;u&quot; in the second syllable. The second syllable would be able to scan long even with a short vowel because of variable syllable division of &quot;br&quot; as &quot;.br&quot; or &quot;b.r&quot;. [Wiktionary][3] gives the etymology as Proto-Indo-European *lewk-o-dʰro-, which wouldn't regularly give rise to a long vowel before the *br.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;horizon,&quot; which L&amp;S give as &quot;[hŏrīzon][4]&quot; but which probably had a short &quot;i&quot;, in a syllable that scanned long because of the double consonant &quot;z&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;major,&quot; which L&amp;S give as &quot;[mājor][5]&quot; but which probably had a short &quot;a&quot;, in a syllable that scanned long because of the double consonant &quot;j&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, I'd recommend being a bit suspicious of macrons in L&amp;S on vowels in the following contexts: before a mute + liquid cluster, before &quot;z&quot; or &quot;j&quot;, and occasionally before a word-final consonant (my impression is that it's somewhat unclear whether words like *far, farris* ever had a long vowel in the nominative singular; some authors suggest that instead the *consonant* was long before a following word starting with a vowel). I give a few more references and examples in my answer to *[What effect should a macron have on the sound of a letter and its word?][6]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary does not use breves][7], so in that specific context unmarked vowel letters are supposed to be short (or non-syllabic). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only inconsistency I see in the dictionary entries that you cite is the lack of a macron in Wiktionary's entry for &quot;Carthāginiensis&quot;, which is presumably just an error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingvaeonic_nasal_spirant_law&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlucubro&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lucubro&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dhorizon&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=major&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/17/9&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:About_Latin#Breves_should_not_be_used_at_all" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5175" RevisionGUID="2fde5129-a48b-4d52-bb5a-a8f59154423e" CreationDate="2017-09-01T21:39:06.773" UserId="172" Comment="deleted 150 characters in body" Text="Color words are used in the manner you describe, and *virgo rufa* indeed means a *redhead*. For example, the L&amp;S dictionary gives references to [*nuntia fulva Jovis*][1] &quot;golden[-haired] messenger&quot;, and exactly [*vigro rufa*][2] in (Ter. Heaut., v., 5), where Clitipho refuses to marry *rufamne illam virginem, / caesiam, sparso ore, adunco naso*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is a reason why Rufus was a common Roman surname!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt *ruber* could be used as a hair color description, though, except maybe for special effect. The adjective refers to the color of blood, setting sun and red paint, and may be understood in many contexts as *scarlet*, *crimson* or *ruby red*. You would rather describe in such a way someone who dyed their hair (bold) red, as opposed to the naturally occurring red hair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfulvus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Drufus1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5176" RevisionGUID="5f965368-2564-4bf9-94fe-e3e370735089" CreationDate="2017-09-02T04:05:02.937" UserId="30" Text="Apuleius, *Metamorphoses* VI.24.3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scaena sibi sic concinnata ut Musae quidem chorum canerent, tibias inflaret Saturus, et Paniscus **ad fistulam diceret**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is from the [Loeb edition][1], which translates it as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;She had arranged the stage so that the Muses were singing in chorus, a Satyr blew the flute, and a Paniscus **played on the reed-pipes**.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I have never seen *dicere* used to mean &quot;play [an instrument]&quot;. Is this common? Or just extremely rare? Or an error by the Loeb edition?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Here is the [Cambridge edition][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scaena sibi sic concinnata ut Musae quidem chorum canerent **aut** tibias inflaret, Saturus et Paniscus ad fistulam dicere**n**t.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It translates the text as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;...while a Satyr and a little Pan **sang to** the shepherd's pipe.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must say this translation is much closer to what I would expect; at least Lewis &amp; Short have *dicere* &quot;to sing&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. *To describe, relate, sing, celebrate* in writing (mostly poet.):  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;tibi dicere laudes&quot;, Tib. 1, 3, 31;  &#xD;&#xA;so, &quot;laudes Phoebi et Dianae&quot;, Hor. C. S. 76:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Dianam, Cynthium, Latonam&quot;, id. C. 1, 21, 1:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Alciden puerosque Ledae&quot;, id. ib. 1, 12, 25:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;caelestes, pugilemve equumve&quot;, id. ib. 4, 2, 19:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Pelidae stomachum&quot;, id. ib. 1, 6, 5:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;bella&quot;, id. Ep. 1, 16, 26; Liv. 7, 29:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;carmen&quot;, Hor. C. 1, 32, 3; id. C. S. 8; Tib. 2, 1, 54:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;modos&quot;, Hor. C. 3, 11, 7:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;silvestrium naturas&quot;, Plin. 15, 30, 40, 138 et saep.:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;temporibus Augusti dicendis non defuere decora ingenia&quot;, Tac. A. 1, 1; id. H. 1, 1:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;vir neque silendus neque dicendus sine cura&quot;, Vell. 2, 13.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the Cambridge has a different Latin text, which I cannot judge, but which allows this translation, contrary to the Loeb's Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At any rate, even the &quot;sing&quot; from the Cambridge seems different from the usage in L&amp;S to me. For each of those quotations has a theme, i.e. a complement with an 'object-like' meaning, such as a direct object or an noun that agrees with the gerundive of *dicere*. So I read the L&amp;S definition as &quot;to sing [something] in writing&quot;, which I would understand as &quot;to write about something in verse&quot;. That hardly fits the Cambridge translation &quot;[they] sang **to** the shepherd's pipe&quot;, which strongly suggests oral singing, and without a theme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;How would you feel about a translation &quot;they recited to the shephard's pipe&quot;? Or is that too literal and simple-minded of me? I can imagine the Ancients' reciting to a musical instrument, although I'm not entirely sure whether I remember correctly that they did this (think of recitals like those in the Matthäus-Passion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://scaena%20sibi%20sic%20concinnata%20ut%20Musae%20quidem%20chorum%20canerent,%20tibias%20inflaret%20Saturus,%20et%20Paniscus%20ad%20fistulam%20diceret.&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=bFNK7qX7l9QC&amp;pg=PA114&amp;lpg=PA114&amp;dq=%22ad%20fistulam%20dicerent%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=hm_LleawhM&amp;sig=nJCjUOuaVA9HDtaM8GGqfKCEGxE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=%22ad%20fistulam%20dicerent%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5176" RevisionGUID="5f965368-2564-4bf9-94fe-e3e370735089" CreationDate="2017-09-02T04:05:02.937" UserId="30" Text="What can &quot;dicere&quot; mean in the context of a musical instrument?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17105" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5176" RevisionGUID="5f965368-2564-4bf9-94fe-e3e370735089" CreationDate="2017-09-02T04:05:02.937" UserId="30" Text="|meaning|verbs|definitions|apuleius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5177" RevisionGUID="de6f52f4-80a4-488e-9e6a-3a4d5bf04a59" CreationDate="2017-09-02T14:17:07.787" UserId="645" Text="It's not necessary to be too literal in translating something like this, and I can't see any objection to the poetic licence in your suggestion of 'reciting', which makes the English roll along nicely while avoiding repetition : in fact I rather like it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It isn't unusual to find idiomatic uses of  *dicere* translated into English. A single word to cover all of these might be 'utter', generally used of causing some sort of sound, though it's obviously preferable to use a word of more particular meaning. Smith's Latin-English Dictionary has under **Dico** at item **IV, I** :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;… *to describe, sing, celebrate in verse* (mostly poet.) : tibi dicere laudes, Tib. 1, 3, 31 ; laudes Phoebi et Dianae, Hor. C S. 76 : Dianam, Cynthium, Latonam, id. Od. 1, 21, 1 : coelestes, pugilemve equumve, ib. 4, 2, 19 : Pelidae stomachum, ib. 1, 6, 5 …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— and others from Horace, Livy and Pliny.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, my copy of the Adlington translation of 1566 has :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*… The Muses sang with sweet harmony, Apollo tuned pleasantly to the Harpe, Venus danced finely : Satirus and Paniscus plaid on their pipes ; and thus was Psyches married to Cupid …*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5178" RevisionGUID="983dbd40-f181-41be-9773-e28f22b8bd91" CreationDate="2017-09-02T16:28:25.900" UserId="144" Text="Where did the supine form originate? It seems strange that for there to be a verbal noun with only accusative and ablative forms. This, at least to me, suggests that there was once other forms, especially as the supine can often be replaced with other grammatical structures. Is the supine some sort of hold over from old Latin, or some other language, and if so what was it used to convey?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17109" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5178" RevisionGUID="983dbd40-f181-41be-9773-e28f22b8bd91" CreationDate="2017-09-02T16:28:25.900" UserId="144" Text="Origin of supine form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17110" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5178" RevisionGUID="983dbd40-f181-41be-9773-e28f22b8bd91" CreationDate="2017-09-02T16:28:25.900" UserId="144" Text="|classical-latin|etymology|verbs|old-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5179" RevisionGUID="2fa12b1b-3e44-4dd0-9b05-4e58f7455a73" CreationDate="2017-09-02T17:55:01.193" UserId="666" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta is right, there is no official flag per-se for Latin or most languages for that matter, but this answer addresses if you were looking for an icon to use to represent Latin, e.g., on Duolingo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#It depends on where you're using it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The flag used to identify a language typically depend on who the users associate the flag with.  For example, a website used primarily by Americans would use the U.S. flag to indicate English, while a site used by Europeans would probably use the British Flag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big question to figure out what flag to use in practice is who the users are, whether they're primarily interested in classical or ecclesiastical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin Catholic Church has been using Latin now for a few centuries longer than ancient Rome did, so for most cases the flag of the Vatican City State is the best choice to indicate Latin.  Most people associate the Catholic Church with Latin first, even if the primary operational language of the modern Vatican City State is Italian.  The Vatican flag should certainly be used if the ecclesiastical pronunciation is used, or the thing you're using the flag for is somehow linked to the Church.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Vatican City State flag][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For things that focus more on the Latin of ancient Rome, especially if it uses the classical pronunciation, the Vexilloid @Joonas Ilmavirta suggested would be best.  Users looking for the classical Latin will in all probability be able to distinguish between the SPQR and a Nazi banner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2GCKr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5150" RevisionGUID="c921dc16-3953-40f4-b2eb-1b24b5784d67" CreationDate="2017-09-02T20:28:34.687" UserId="79" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="The Latin cardinal numbers starting at ten are *decem, undecim, duodecim&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;Does the *-decim* (roughly &quot;-teen&quot;) come from *decem* or from the same root?&#xD;&#xA;(I faintly recall *decem* and *δέκα* coming from something like &lt;i&gt;*dekm&lt;/i&gt;.)&#xD;&#xA;It seems very plausible for semantic reasons and similarity, but I would like to understand the situation better.&#xD;&#xA;**Can someone explain the relation between *decem* and *-decim*?**&#xD;&#xA;Assuming they have a common origin, why does one have E and the other I?&#xD;&#xA;Is this case exceptional?&#xD;&#xA;Are there similar vowel changes in Latin that would help understand this case by analogy?&#xD;&#xA;I can't think of any such vowel changes in the last syllable, or even a short E becoming a short I, so I am really short of other similar examples.&#xD;&#xA;Are there attested spelling variants like *duodecem* that might shed light on the issue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5180" RevisionGUID="8bc71eee-aa17-4399-a7ac-51011b2ec148" CreationDate="2017-09-02T23:33:34.157" UserId="9" Text="It might be a type of metathesis: *undecem &gt; *undicem &gt; undecim. This is apparently irregular, but metathesis often is. I don't know for sure, but I was able to find a source that suggests this, although it indicates that we don't have any attestation of the pre-metathesis form *undicem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12.1.11.1. In Latin 'eleven' to 'seventeen' are all indeclinable compounds of 'one', 'two', etc. and 'ten', which appears as *-decim.* By normal vowel weakening *\*-decem* &gt; *\*-dicem,* cf. *auspicem* &lt; *\*auispecem* acc. sg. to *auspex.* The metathesis must have been due to the combined pressure of *decem* and the ordinals, viz. *decimus : decem :: undecimus : undecim* in place of *\*undicimus :* *\*undicem*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Robert Coleman, 1992. &quot;Italic&quot;, Chapter 12 of *[Indo-European Numerals][1],* p. 396-397, edited by Jadranka Gvozdanovic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coleman seems to indicate that the dating of this hypothesized change from *\*undicem* &gt; *undecim* is a bit unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=HmbWRnaridAC&amp;pg=PA396&amp;lpg=PA396&amp;dq=undecim%20metathesis%20undicem&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=JC25Ew4zXj&amp;sig=MOIOG8Qx9urcjp-ZNo3L5jPQRA8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjwsfnL0ofWAhUpxlQKHcRACJ4Q6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=undecim%20metathesis%20undicem&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5175" RevisionGUID="28ab4c6b-f019-4bfc-ba77-2bed1a10e065" CreationDate="2017-09-03T05:47:53.733" UserId="172" Comment="Added a reference to crine ruber in Mart. xii., 54." Text="Color words are used in the manner you describe, and *virgo rufa* indeed means a *redhead*. For example, the L&amp;S dictionary gives references to [*nuntia fulva Jovis*][1] &quot;golden[-haired] messenger&quot;, and exactly [*vigro rufa*][2] in (Ter. Heaut., v., 5), where Clitipho refuses to marry *rufamne illam virginem, / caesiam, sparso ore, adunco naso*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is a reason why Rufus was a common Roman surname!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt *ruber* could be used as a hair color description, though, except maybe for special effect. The adjective refers to the color of blood, setting sun and red paint, and may be understood in many contexts as *scarlet*, *crimson* or *ruby red*. You would rather describe in such a way someone who dyed their hair (bold) red, as opposed to the naturally occurring red hair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ADDEDNUM:** I found a reference to *ruber* signifying a hair color in [(Mart. XII., 54)][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; crine ruber, niger ore, brevis pede, lumine laesus,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; rem magnam praestas, Zoile, si bonus es. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arguably, *crinis ruber* is as hyperbolic here as calling Zoile's *os niger* is. In my thinking, this is rather an example of the &quot;special effect&quot; usage that I mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfulvus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Drufus1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=urn:cts:latinLit:phi1294.phi002.perseus-lat1:12.54" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5181" RevisionGUID="5623fcdf-13c8-4dc6-a0be-b84d5934ae9a" CreationDate="2017-09-04T15:43:33.120" UserId="324" Text="De Vaan writes, s.v. &quot;decem&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In -decim, the i is not well explained. It is often believed to be due&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to a metathesis of *-dicem &gt; *-decim, but a metathesis of two vowels&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is extremely rare in IE languages, and hence unlikely. The numerals in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; decim probably have -dec- from decern 'ten' and -im on the model of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the ordinal numbers in -decimus. The ordinal *dekamo- yields decumo-&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or decimo-, and from it, decumanus is derived." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5172" RevisionGUID="ffa72a96-486a-4b7c-be5b-1b96635073f4" CreationDate="2017-09-04T15:59:18.230" UserId="645" Comment="changed diminution of to diminution to." Text="It may be apposite to say that, for five modern works of varying styles translated into Latin, I turned a total of 295,700 words of English into 212,300 of Latin. This represents a surprisingly consistent diminution to some 72% overall, with a range of 70.8 to 72.3%. This would correspond to an increase of 40%, if instead the Latin had been converted into English; and although a sample consisting of a single translator can hardly have much statistical significance, it ought at least to suggest that a large expansion is to be expected when translating from Latin to English, as @Luchonacho has seen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Nathaniel's comment on the original question points out, much depends on the translator's style. For what it's worth, and to indicate the levels of variability that can occur in general, here is a list given to me some years ago by an agency which was sourcing translations from English into European languages for compliance with EU regulations on instruction manuals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Percentage expansion/contraction of word counts from English into* : Finnish, -25 to -30; Danish, -10 to -15; Norwegian, -5 to -10; Czech, Swedish, +10; Croatian, +15; Italian, +10 to+25; French, +15 to +20; Portuguese, Spanish, +15 to +30; Polish, +20 to +30; German, +25 to +35." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="f51aad6f-1ce9-475a-9180-3b000d7700ec" CreationDate="2017-09-04T16:40:57.260" UserId="79" Text="I am looking for a Latin word for &quot;entrepreneur&quot; or &quot;self-employed&quot; or something in that direction.&#xD;&#xA;My question is two-fold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Was there a word in classical Latin for someone who owns their own business as opposed to working for someone else? I am not looking for words for individual professions, but a broader word. (If you think there is no such word, that makes a nice answer, too.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. What would be a good word to use for this in today's Latin? My dictionary offers *ergolabus* and *redemptor operis*, but they sound more like a contractor or freelancer to me. I would not use these words for someone who runs their own ice cream bar, but I may of course be mistaken. Perhaps something like *caput operis sui*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17121" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="f51aad6f-1ce9-475a-9180-3b000d7700ec" CreationDate="2017-09-04T16:40:57.260" UserId="79" Text="What is an entrepreneur?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17122" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="f51aad6f-1ce9-475a-9180-3b000d7700ec" CreationDate="2017-09-04T16:40:57.260" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|roman-culture|occupation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4401" RevisionGUID="a1f37cad-bbee-4587-b34b-9a60cfcf15d7" CreationDate="2017-09-04T18:13:17.733" UserId="78" Comment="edited body" Text="My old Latin teacher jokingly taught that it's all based on hands. I for a single finger; V for the shape of the space between the thumb and the fingers when a palm is put up; and X for the shape of two hands crossing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a cute theory, but really the numerals come from Etruscan. The standard article is Paul Keyser's 1988 article &quot;The Origin of the Latin Numerals 1 to 1000&quot; in *AJA* 92.4. (If you do not have access to JSTOR, Prof. Keyser actually put it on his [Academia.edu](https://www.academia.edu/7554252/_The_Origin_of_the_Latin_Numerals_1_to_1000_American_Journal_of_Archaeology_92_1988_529_546) page.) Therein he summarizes both ancient and modern hypotheses of the origin of Roman numerals. I won't get into the ancient ones, because they're frankly just not worth it. In fact, Renaissance theories weren't very much better, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reality is that Latin numerals come from late Etruscan numerals. The shape of 100 and 1000 (C &amp; M respectively) is misleading: the Romans inherited the shapes, but certainly made them exactly as they were due to the influence of the letters. They're originally Etruscan shaped, though, which are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 = I  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5 = Λ  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10 = X  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 50 = M (general shape; the unicode character would be )  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 100 = Ж  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 500 = Ð  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1000 = ⊗  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1/2 = &gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I represents a single stroke. That much seems indisputable. X and Ж are &quot;second&quot; and &quot;third rank&quot; symbols, i.e. each new stroke times the base number (I) by ten. Five and fifty are the bottom half of X and Ж to represent half the number. These were borrowed in Latin inscriptions, all identical except inverted. (It helps to remember that there was no standard order of writing Etruscan; it could be written in boustrophedon or even upside-down. The entire Latin alphabet just looks like a mirror of Etruscan letters as they're typically written, so at one point one direction became codified in Latin, including these numerals.) Fifty (that W looking symbol) over time slowly morphed to L, though the original symbol is &quot;well attested in Latin) (Keyser, 544).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keyser hypothesizes that the C shape came from an abbreviated form of Ж, partly due to the fact that &gt; was used for 1/2. The more rounded C shape then evolved under influence of *centum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1000 is easier to see. Keyser notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Etruscan ⊗ or ⊕ = 1000 became (X) when written quickly (note that O is a two-stroke character ( ) and the circle of ⊗ would no doubt be written as O as written). The form (X)...written cursively would lead naturally to the well-attested Latin form ↀ. This &quot;horizontal-8&quot; figure can also appear in a &quot;compressed&quot; form oo which leads naturally to the well-attested formal Latin numeral ⌽. Although the development of Etruscan ⊗ to Latin ⌽ is not obvious at first glance, every step is attested in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Some of these characters, especialy 'oo' and '⌽', look different in Keyser's article, which I suggest everyone read.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, for 500, the older symbol was Ð, not D, which is, as it looks, half of ⊕." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5183" RevisionGUID="a248b8f2-fce6-4b49-944b-9178f9ce0da1" CreationDate="2017-09-04T22:05:47.420" UserId="144" Text="I want to translate the following as a passive periphrastic:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You must give your money to me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt so far is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;pecunia tua tibi danda est mihi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because Latin rarely acknowledges syntax, that is the same as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;pecunia tua mihi danda est mihi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which could be misinterpreted as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I must give your money to you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which has an entirely separate meaning, completely different from what I want to say. Is it possible to differentiate in this scenario the difference between the indirect object and the agent? Would syntax take over in this case? Or is it impossible to have such a structure?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: This is about the grammar, not the vocabulary. I am **not** interested in a solution that involves different vocabulary or uses anything other than the passive periphrastic. Other cases are allowed if they also involve conflicting datives in the passive periphrastic structure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17128" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5183" RevisionGUID="a248b8f2-fce6-4b49-944b-9178f9ce0da1" CreationDate="2017-09-04T22:05:47.420" UserId="144" Text="passive periphrastic with two datives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17129" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5183" RevisionGUID="a248b8f2-fce6-4b49-944b-9178f9ce0da1" CreationDate="2017-09-04T22:05:47.420" UserId="144" Text="|grammar-choice|syntax|dative|gerundive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5184" RevisionGUID="8b5a1040-b4fe-41f3-9874-e03eb2d78a26" CreationDate="2017-09-05T02:19:43.367" UserDisplayName="user1968" Text="I'd originally asked this on SE:H, but it was suggested that here would be more appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Triggered by recently reading about the history of English names with Anglo-Saxon roots and the development of diminutive forms, I'd started wondering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do we know about hypocorism/diminutive name forms in Latin names in Roman antiquity? Or to use a modern analogue, if friends and family call *William* and *Harold*, *Will* (or even Willie?) and *Harry*, then did friends and family of Romans like *Julius Caesar*, in private, use forms like (pure speculation here) ... *cull* for *Caius* -&gt; *Caiulus* -&gt; *cullus* -&gt; *cull*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, I'm not talking about &quot;nicknames&quot; here, known in Roman times as *cognomen*, so not names like *cicero*, *niger*, *ahenobarbus*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per Wikipedia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A hypocorism, from Ancient Greek ὑποκόρισμα (hypokorisma), from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὑποκορίζεσθαι (hypokorizesthai), meaning 'to use child-talk' is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diminutive form of a name. Hypocorisms include pet names or calling&#xD;&#xA;&gt; names, often a, diminutive or augmentative form of a word or given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; name when used as a nickname or term of endearment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried doing some research, first into given names in Latin, of which lists are plentiful. We're all familiar with *Marcus*, *Lucius*, *Caius*, *Claudia*, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then reading up on diminutive word forms in Latin. Many will know about the -ulus/-ula forms, but this interesting link lists others used in the language: [The Formation of Latin &#xD;&#xA;Diminutives of Nouns and Adjectives][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On English names the article [Behind the Name - Diminutive][2] explains&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A diminutive (or pet name) of a given name is a short and/or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; affectionate form. Often they are only used by friends and relatives.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Short forms&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The most common diminutives (at least among English names) are those&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that are short forms of the original name, very often from the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; syllable or sound of the name. For example, Alex is from Alexander,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Barb is from Barbara, Deb is from Deborah, and Mike is from Michael.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Other short forms don't come from the beginning of the name, but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; instead from the end or the middle, like Beth from Elizabeth, Fred&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from Alfred, Greta from Margareta, and Lisa from Elisabeth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But nowhere could I find anything that would show pet names used in ancient Rome. Did Romans really always use the full given name, and maybe with the Latin diminutive form? The link above states that -ill- and -tt-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [are] found  used  only  with  feminine names,  but  it  could&#xD;&#xA;&gt; theoretically  also  be  used  with others words, e.g. a masculine&#xD;&#xA;&gt; form of Līvilla would be Līvillus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, Caesar's mum called him *Caius* and maybe *Caiulus*, but no known pet name form of *Caius*? Was *Marcus Ulpius Traianus* never called *Marc* (or at least the appellative form *Marce*?) Seeing as how Romans abbreviated inscriptions, could we end up with *M.Ulp.Trai*. as *Mulpe* among very close friends or at least before Trajan was raised to office and emperorship?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The detailed Wiki article [on Roman naming conventions][3] makes note that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Roman men were usually known by their praenomina to members of their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; family and household, clientes and close friends; but outside of this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; circle, they might be called by their nomen, cognomen, or any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; combination of praenomen, nomen, and cognomen that was sufficient to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; distinguish them from other men with similar names. In the literature&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the Republic, and on all formal occasions, such as when a senator&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was called upon to speak, it was customary to address a citizen by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; praenomen and nomen; or, if this were insufficient to distinguish him&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from other members of the gens, by praenomen and cognomen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and on the cognomen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unlike the nomen, which was passed down unchanged from father to son,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cognomina could appear and disappear almost at will. They were not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; normally chosen by the persons who bore them, but were earned or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bestowed by others, **which may account for the wide variety of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unflattering names that were used as cognomina. Doubtless some&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cognomina were used ironically, while others continued in use largely&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because, whatever their origin, they were useful for distinguishing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; among individuals and between branches of large families**. New&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cognomina were coined and came into fashion throughout Roman&#xD;&#xA;&gt; history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But while the former indicates that there was *Marcus* but no *Marc*, the latter (with my emphasis) indicates that it's unlikely even his closest friends and family (such as they were) would have called *Nero*... well, *Nero* to his face!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there no Latin hypocoric name forms similar to *William* -&gt; *Bill*, *Richard* -&gt; *Dick*, *Ann* -&gt; *Nancy*, *Helen* -&gt; *Nellie*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://diesgaudii.genvid.com/latin/diminutives/diminutives.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.behindthename.com/glossary/view/diminutive&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_naming_conventions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17131" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5184" RevisionGUID="8b5a1040-b4fe-41f3-9874-e03eb2d78a26" CreationDate="2017-09-05T02:19:43.367" UserDisplayName="user1968" Text="Hypocorism/diminutive name forms in Roman antiquity/Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17132" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5184" RevisionGUID="8b5a1040-b4fe-41f3-9874-e03eb2d78a26" CreationDate="2017-09-05T02:19:43.367" UserDisplayName="user1968" Text="|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5185" RevisionGUID="2bcbe216-0f9e-45fd-a165-80db34761b22" CreationDate="2017-09-05T02:26:20.737" UserId="1967" Text="In the research sites we see the word &quot;Earth&quot; as meaning, but there is an article that cites the Latin word as &quot;sense of the way of man&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17134" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5185" RevisionGUID="2bcbe216-0f9e-45fd-a165-80db34761b22" CreationDate="2017-09-05T02:26:20.737" UserId="1967" Text="What does &quot;tellus&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17135" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5185" RevisionGUID="2bcbe216-0f9e-45fd-a165-80db34761b22" CreationDate="2017-09-05T02:26:20.737" UserId="1967" Text="|translation|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5186" RevisionGUID="8fbe7115-8b4e-4fcf-ad18-14fbd483df71" CreationDate="2017-09-05T03:58:16.533" UserId="406" Text="*Tellūs, tellūris* is a rather poetic word meaning &quot;earth&quot;, both in the sense of &quot;soil&quot; and in the sense of &quot;the globe&quot;. Sometimes it's used like the Greek *Gaea* to mean a personification of the Earth. I've never heard of it meaning a &quot;sense of the way of man&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information, see [Wiktionary][1] (less reliable) or [Lewis and Short][2] (more reliable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tellus#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtellus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5185" RevisionGUID="b86d1c11-a16c-474d-a9c5-538c00e3e55e" CreationDate="2017-09-05T06:51:26.467" UserId="79" Comment="Added the main question to the body as well." Text="What does  the word *tellus* mean? In the research sites we see the word &quot;Earth&quot; as meaning, but there is an article that cites the Latin word as &quot;sense of the way of man&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17139" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5185" RevisionGUID="b86d1c11-a16c-474d-a9c5-538c00e3e55e" CreationDate="2017-09-05T06:51:26.467" UserId="79" Comment="Added the main question to the body as well." Text="|vocabulary|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5187" RevisionGUID="6cbe0971-43e8-404e-9af2-29bf07293ae2" CreationDate="2017-09-05T07:13:45.123" UserId="79" Text="Yesterday in [our chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm) it turned out that we didn't know a Latin word for a typo(graphical error).&#xD;&#xA;For example, I typed *lingarum* instead of *linguarum*.&#xD;&#xA;What would be a Latin word to describe a mistyped word?&#xD;&#xA;Did the Romans have a word for it?&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps something like *error stili* would work, but I have failed to find any classical attestations.&#xD;&#xA;I am sure the phenomenon itself existed in Rome, an people who have studied inscriptions have told me that it is not rare to find misinscribed words &amp;mdash; if that is a word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17141" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5187" RevisionGUID="6cbe0971-43e8-404e-9af2-29bf07293ae2" CreationDate="2017-09-05T07:13:45.123" UserId="79" Text="Is there a word for a typo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17142" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5187" RevisionGUID="6cbe0971-43e8-404e-9af2-29bf07293ae2" CreationDate="2017-09-05T07:13:45.123" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|word-request|spelling|typography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5184" RevisionGUID="89deff96-fe4e-4ee4-af70-f7f8b0f2167b" CreationDate="2017-09-05T07:30:31.090" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="I'd originally asked this on SE:H, but it was suggested that here would be more appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Triggered by recently reading about the history of English names with Anglo-Saxon roots and the development of diminutive forms, I'd started wondering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do we know about hypocorism/diminutive name forms in Latin names in Roman antiquity? Or to use a modern analogue, if friends and family call *William* and *Harold*, *Will* (or even Willie?) and *Harry*, then did friends and family of Romans like *Julius Caesar*, in private, use forms like (pure speculation here) ... *cull* for *Caius* -&gt; *Caiulus* -&gt; *cullus* -&gt; *cull*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, I'm not talking about &quot;nicknames&quot; here, known in Roman times as *cognomen*, so not names like *cicero*, *niger*, *ahenobarbus*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per Wikipedia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A hypocorism, from Ancient Greek ὑποκόρισμα (hypokorisma), from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὑποκορίζεσθαι (hypokorizesthai), meaning 'to use child-talk' is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diminutive form of a name. Hypocorisms include pet names or calling&#xD;&#xA;&gt; names, often a, diminutive or augmentative form of a word or given&#xD;&#xA;&gt; name when used as a nickname or term of endearment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried doing some research, first into given names in Latin, of which lists are plentiful. We're all familiar with *Marcus*, *Lucius*, *Caius*, *Claudia*, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then reading up on diminutive word forms in Latin. Many will know about the -ulus/-ula forms, but this interesting link lists others used in the language: [The Formation of Latin &#xD;&#xA;Diminutives of Nouns and Adjectives][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On English names the article [Behind the Name &amp;ndash; Diminutive][2] explains&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A diminutive (or pet name) of a given name is a short and/or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; affectionate form. Often they are only used by friends and relatives.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Short forms&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The most common diminutives (at least among English names) are those&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that are short forms of the original name, very often from the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; syllable or sound of the name. For example, Alex is from Alexander,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Barb is from Barbara, Deb is from Deborah, and Mike is from Michael.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Other short forms don't come from the beginning of the name, but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; instead from the end or the middle, like Beth from Elizabeth, Fred&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from Alfred, Greta from Margareta, and Lisa from Elisabeth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But nowhere could I find anything that would show pet names used in ancient Rome. Did Romans really always use the full given name, and maybe with the Latin diminutive form? The link above states that -ill- and -tt-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [are] found  used  only  with  feminine names,  but  it  could&#xD;&#xA;&gt; theoretically  also  be  used  with others words, e.g. a masculine&#xD;&#xA;&gt; form of Līvilla would be Līvillus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, Caesar's mum called him *Caius* and maybe *Caiulus*, but no known pet name form of *Caius*? Was *Marcus Ulpius Traianus* never called *Marc* (or at least the appellative form *Marce*?) Seeing as how Romans abbreviated inscriptions, could we end up with *M.Ulp.Trai*. as *Mulpe* among very close friends or at least before Trajan was raised to office and emperorship?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The detailed Wiki article [on Roman naming conventions][3] makes note that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Roman men were usually known by their praenomina to members of their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; family and household, clientes and close friends; but outside of this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; circle, they might be called by their nomen, cognomen, or any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; combination of praenomen, nomen, and cognomen that was sufficient to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; distinguish them from other men with similar names. In the literature&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the Republic, and on all formal occasions, such as when a senator&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was called upon to speak, it was customary to address a citizen by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; praenomen and nomen; or, if this were insufficient to distinguish him&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from other members of the gens, by praenomen and cognomen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and on the cognomen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unlike the nomen, which was passed down unchanged from father to son,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cognomina could appear and disappear almost at will. They were not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; normally chosen by the persons who bore them, but were earned or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bestowed by others, **which may account for the wide variety of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unflattering names that were used as cognomina. Doubtless some&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cognomina were used ironically, while others continued in use largely&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because, whatever their origin, they were useful for distinguishing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; among individuals and between branches of large families**. New&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cognomina were coined and came into fashion throughout Roman&#xD;&#xA;&gt; history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But while the former indicates that there was *Marcus* but no *Marc*, the latter (with my emphasis) indicates that it's unlikely even his closest friends and family (such as they were) would have called *Nero*... well, *Nero* to his face!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there no Latin hypocoric name forms similar to *William* -&gt; *Bill*, *Richard* -&gt; *Dick*, *Ann* -&gt; *Nancy*, *Helen* -&gt; *Nellie*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://diesgaudii.genvid.com/latin/diminutives/diminutives.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.behindthename.com/glossary/view/diminutive&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_naming_conventions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17144" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5184" RevisionGUID="89deff96-fe4e-4ee4-af70-f7f8b0f2167b" CreationDate="2017-09-05T07:30:31.090" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|classical-latin|names|roman-culture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5188" RevisionGUID="cb67a899-0009-48bd-a181-7512e453864f" CreationDate="2017-09-05T07:44:14.283" UserId="79" Text="I have never heard of such hypocoric variants of Roman names.&#xD;&#xA;It has hard to prove non-existence, so we will have to wait to see if others agree.&#xD;&#xA;If no user here has heard of something, it has very slim &amp;mdash; but admittedly non-zero &amp;mdash; chances to exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One noteworthy thing about Roman *praenomina* is that there is not much room for abbreviation.&#xD;&#xA;The Roman given names are relatively short, having often one syllable for the stem and another one for the ending.&#xD;&#xA;Latin is an inflected language and dropping endings will not work quite the same way it does in English.&#xD;&#xA;If *Caius* becomes *Cull* (a more likely spelling would have been *Cul*), how do you form the genitive, dative, or accusative?&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't sound like any simplification to me to turn the second declension *Caius, Caii* to a third declension *Cul, Cullis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I wouldn't draw too deep conclusions from abbreviations in inscriptions.&#xD;&#xA;Space was far more expensive than today.&#xD;&#xA;Of course it is possible that some would read them as *M. Ulp. Trai. &gt; Mulpus*, but I imagine that would have come across as mockery rather than affection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1959" RevisionGUID="5b0a15cb-e9e7-4723-8232-6eff4bd22160" CreationDate="2017-09-05T11:09:36.317" UserId="932" Comment="one n" Text="According to [this dictionary][1] or [this one][2], both are translated by ***prælector***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis&amp;Short gives then this definition of *prælector*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; praelector, ōris, m. id., one who reads an author to others and adds explanations, a prelector (post-class.; cf.: lector, recitator), Gell. 18, 5, 6.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Cassel's dictionary][4] proposes ***scholasticus*** as *a lecturer in the schools, teacher of rhetoric, rhetorician.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, [this dictionary][3] accepts *professor* for lecturer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=hOMTAAAAYAAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=dM0GAQAAIAAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=qZtgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PT932&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=Pz9aAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA383" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="9a76a029-a204-4bd4-9db4-139b8e6b844c" CreationDate="2017-09-05T11:09:58.723" UserId="932" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="We can find the many meanings of `s'il te plaît` in the Littré above the article `PLAIRE`. They are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. *Vouloir, trouver bon*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;E.g.: *Heureux, si vous voulez, malheureux, s'il vous plaît* (*in* *Tartuffe* by Molière)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. *S'il vous plaît, terme de politesse, pour demander quelque chose à quelqu'un.*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;E.g.: *Ne m'oubliez jamais dans vos prières, s'il vous&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plaît* (in a letter by M&lt;sup&gt;me&lt;/sup&gt; de Maintenon)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.  *Parfois, s'il vous plaît, est une façon polie de recommander avec énergie ce qu'on dit.*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;E.g.: *Une seconde fois avisez, s'il vous&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plaît, à traiter Laodice en reine comme elle est ; C'est moi qui vous&#xD;&#xA;&gt; en prie* [Corneille, Nicom. II, 3]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Et moi, ma petite fille, ma mie, je veux que vous vous mariiez, s'il vous plaît* [Molière, Avare, I, 6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Translations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, the (authoritative) *[Quicherat][1] French-Latine dictionary* gives the following possibilities above the article `PLAIRE`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;***Si placet.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. Si vobis videtur.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. Si tibi est commodum.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. Nisi molestum est.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. Si grave non est.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hor. Quæso***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##1. *Vouloir, trouver bon*&#xD;&#xA;###1.a) *Si placet*&#xD;&#xA;It fits really good with this meaning of *placere* (Lewis &amp; Short):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. Transf.: placet mihi (tibi, etc.), or simply placet, it pleases me, it seems good, right, or proper to me; it is my opinion, I am of opinion, I hold, believe, intend, purpose; and in perf., placuit, or placitum est, it is decided, resolved, determined (mihi, nobis, etc., or absol.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can find an exact parallel of the expression in Cicero (Rep. 2, 44, 71):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sed, si placet, in hunc diem hactenus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, in French, *mais, s’il vous le trouvez bon [=s’il vous plaît], c’est assez pour aujourd’hui*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1.b) *Sis*&#xD;&#xA;We could also think to ***sis*** [= *si vis*]. In fact, the *Gaffiot* gives the following translations of this one:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sis (=si vis): si tu veux, s’il te plaît, de grâce  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1.c) *Si videtur* (from *videor*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the *[Gaffiot][2]*, it fits well with the meaning of *trouver bon*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- ***si videtur*** or ***si tibi/vobis videtur***: s’il te paraît bon, si tu veux bien, s’il te plaît : Cic. Ac. 1, 35 ; Tusc. 1, 23 ; 1, 77 ; Fam. 14, 7, 3 ; Verr. 2, 4, 66, etc. ; Cæs. G. 5, 36, 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1.c) Example&#xD;&#xA;For example, I would translate Molière by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Heureux, si vous voulez, malheureux, s'il vous plaît*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Felix sis, infelix si placet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the play on *vouloir* and *plaire* is quite the same with *volere* and *placere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##2. *S'il vous plaît, terme de politesse, pour demander quelque chose à quelqu'un.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one is a polite way to ask something. Here, *s’il te plaît*, means more *if it doesn’t bother you* as it is a term of politness. So I think the following translations (from the *Quicherat*) fit very well with it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. **Si tibi est commodum**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. **Nisi molestum est**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cic. **Si grave non est**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can also translate it with (translations and examples from the *Gaffiot*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- ***quæso***: s'il te plaît, je te prie  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- ***si lĭbet***: s’il te plaît  (*libet = il plaît, il fait plaisir*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;E.g. adde, si libet Cic. Tusc. 5, 45, ajoute, s’il te plaît&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- ***sōdēs*** [=si audes]: s’il te plaît, de grâce Cic.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Or. 154 ; Pl., Ter.; Cic. Att. 7, 3, 11 ; Hor. Ep. 1, 7, 15 ; P. 438, etc. ;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*vescere, sodes* Hor. Ep. 1, 7, 15, mange, s’il te plaît&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Example&#xD;&#xA;I would translate M&lt;sup&gt;me&lt;/sup&gt; de Maintenon by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Ne m'oubliez jamais dans vos prières, s'il vous plaît* &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Noli dediscere me cum precaris, sis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##*3. Parfois, s'il vous plaît, est une façon polie de recommander avec énergie ce qu'on dit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meaning seems more difficult to render. I think we can use the same as for the *polite* `s'il vous plaît`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the quotation from the *Avare* would be (e.g. [staging with Louis de Funès][3]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Et moi, ma petite fille, ma mie, je veux que vous vous mariiez, s'il vous plaît&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et ego, carissima filiola mea, opto ut in matrimonium eas, si placet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis-Marie_Quicherat&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionnaire_Illustr%C3%A9_Latin-Fran%C3%A7ais&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://youtu.be/eyaViznWlxs?t=17s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1941" RevisionGUID="a7998999-bb7b-4cba-a00f-2bb6b3afdb71" CreationDate="2017-09-05T11:10:30.093" UserId="932" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="For basic mathematics, I’ve found some answers in the *[Institutiones Physicæ][1]* by Floriani Dalham, published in 1752:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1+2 = 3 would be read *unus plus duo sunt tres*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Additio est duorum, vel plurium Numerorum in unum collectio. Indicatur per signum + adjectum, id est : *plus*. (…)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Dicatur : 4+2+2+7 sunt 15   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*(Caput III, p. 26)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1-2 = -1 would be read *unus minus duo sunt minus unus*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(…) indicaturque per signum -, id est : *minus*. (…)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*(Caput IV, p. 28-29)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 7*4 is read *septies quatuor* or *quater septem*  &#xD;&#xA;**Other solutions:**  &#xD;&#xA;*tres multiplicata in quattuor* (found by *brianpck* in [Liber Mahameleth][2], or in this dictionary: *[multiplicare numerum in se][3]*)  &#xD;&#xA;According to the Valbuena Latin-Spanish dictionary (or Jeanneau Latin-French): *multiplicare numerum cum numero*  &#xD;&#xA;[![Valbuena's definition of multiplicare][4]][4]  &#xD;&#xA;Jeanneau: *ter multiplicati quinquaginta fiunt centum quinquaginta, Aug. : cinquante multiplié par trois font cent cinquante.* (50*3=350)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; p.33&#xD;&#xA;Note: the tables of logarithms are called *tabularum Neperianarum&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(…)multiplicando 360 cum 5 prodibit numerus 1800 (…). [p.41]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 24/3 is *24 divisum per 3* [p.40] or *24 ad 3*7&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam sicut se habet 1 ad 3, ita se habent 2 ad 6. [p. 54]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A^3 is *A exponens 3* [p. 37]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cross-multiplication is regula trium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 2&gt;3: *2 majus ad 3*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;, &gt;, =: *Signum æqualitas est =. Signum similitudinis ~. &gt; notat majus ad minus. &lt; notat minus ad majus*. [p. 75]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- sqrt(2) would be *radix quadrata duorum*. [p. 101]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin version of Wikipedia can also certainly be of some help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Calculus integralis : &lt;https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrale&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Functio : &lt;https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functio&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- [Categoria:Mathematica][5]&#xD;&#xA;- etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=dvA4AAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA120&amp;dq=Manualis%20mathematicae&amp;hl=fr&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwioq9DKhZDQAhXJkCwKHa7gBFQQ6AEIHjAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=8YK9BAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;lpg=PA39&amp;dq=decem%20septies&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=9x67PhVhly&amp;sig=rYyHCjU8asdLRQoWD5x7CJnRe5Q&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=snippet&amp;q=multiplicata%20in&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=a0supv8ceRQC&amp;pg=PA880&amp;dq=dictionnaire%20latin%20multiplier&amp;hl=fr&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiT3_vr5JbQAhVGthoKHQo1AeEQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=dictionnaire%20latin%20multiplier&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O7IxQ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Mathematica" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2035" RevisionGUID="8c1d8eb7-35a1-470e-8597-4da416d8bd63" CreationDate="2017-09-05T11:10:46.677" UserId="932" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I’ve found some examples of classical use of *ĭdĭōma* and *ĭdĭōtismus* by some Latin grammarians (both are Greek loan word):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **ĭdĭōma, ătis, n. ( ἰδίωμα )**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *Grammatici Latini*, Flavius Sosipater Charisius, liber V, “[de idiomatibus][1]” (found *via* the [Gaffiot dictionary][2])  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *idiomata quae sunt nostri sermonis innumerabilia |quidem debent esse.* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - [*Commentum in Horati Epodos*][3], Pomponius Porphyrio 2.39.6, 2.47.4 (found *via* [PHI][3]) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Potest autem utique accidere idioma.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hoc quoque autem ad idioma rusticae simplicitatis pertinet, hornum uinum bibere.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **ĭdĭōtismus ou -os, ī, m. ( ἰδιωτισμός )**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *Controversiæ*, L. Annæus Seneca Major, [liber II][4], 21 (found *via* the [Gaffiot dictionnary][2] and PHI)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *HISPO ROMANIVS bello idiotismo usus est: dixerunt, inquit, amici: 'eamus ad raptae patrem, hoc curemus; illud domi est.'*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Idiotismos est inter oratorias virtutes res quae raro procedit*…&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, *Institutio Oratoria* 8.3.22.2 (found *via* [PHI][5])  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Unde interim grati idiotismi †de quo†, qualis est ille apud M. Tullium: 'pusio qui cum maiore sorore cubitabat' et 'Flauius qui cornicum oculos confixit', et pro Milone illud 'heus tu Rufio', et 'Erucius Antoniaster'.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://kaali.linguist.jussieu.fr/CGL/text.jsp?topic=de%20idiomatibus,%20elocutionibus,%20differentiis%20et%20synonymis&amp;ref=379,1-470,21%20B&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gerardgreco.free.fr/spip.php?article43&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=idiom&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/seneca.contr2.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=idiotism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5190" RevisionGUID="8f650498-4808-4ad6-8828-913ad013c7c2" CreationDate="2017-09-05T14:02:55.843" UserId="932" Text="# 1. Mendum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Mendum*** corresponds exactly to this sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Gaffiot  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;mendum,¹⁴ ī, n., faute, erreur [dans un texte]mendum,¹⁴ ī, n., faute, erreur [dans un texte] :  ; Att. 13, 23, 2&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Lewis&amp;Short  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;a fault, error, blunder in writing (class.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *quod **mendum** ista litura correxit?*, Cic. Verr. 2, 2, 104&#xD;&#xA;- *tantum librariorum **menda** tolluntur*, Cic, Att., 13, 23, 2: *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Mendum typographicum**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to *A Copious and Critical English-Latin Lexicon*, article « [PRESS](https://books.google.fr/books?id=bIVBAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA527) », a *mendum typographicum* means more precisely a typo where a wrong letter is used (in French, *une coquille*). There are many attestations of it in modern Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1710, *Bibliothèque choisie, pour servir de suite à la Bibliothèque universelle*, Le Clerc, p.99: *Epistulam ad Titum fuisse scriptum anno CXCII est manifestum **mendum typographicum**, vel **lapsus calami**, qui non debuerat transire in Editionem Amsterlodamensem.*&#xD;&#xA;- [Many examples on Gallica](http://gallica.bnf.fr/services/engine/search/sru?operation=searchRetrieve&amp;version=1.2&amp;query=%28gallica%20adj%20%22Mendum%20typographicum%22%29&amp;suggest=0)&#xD;&#xA;- …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 2. Error seu erratum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More simply, the words ***error*** or ***erratum*** can also be used with the meaning of a *typo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cic, Att., 6, 1, 17 : *At me hercule ego, cum in turma inauratarum equestrium quas hic Metellus in Capitolio posuit animadvertissem in Serapionis subscriptione Africani imaginem, **erratum** fabrile putavi, nunc video Metelli.*&#xD;&#xA;- Quint., Inst., I, 47 : *Pronomen quoque genus numerum casus habet, quae omnia recipiunt huius modi **errorem**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Error typographicum seu typographicus**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can have the more precise sens of a typo where a wrong word is put (*un bourdon* in French).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *A Copious and Critical English-Latin Lexicon*, article « [PRESS](https://books.google.fr/books?id=bIVBAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA527) »&#xD;&#xA;- *Deutsch-Lateinisches Wörterbuch* von C. L. Bauer, article « [FEHLER](https://books.google.fr/books?id=O_JPAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA498) »&#xD;&#xA;- *Lateinisch-deutsches und deutsch-lateinisches Schul-worterbuch* von C. F. Ingerslev, article « [DRUCKFEHLER](https://books.google.fr/books?id=7FdGAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA144) »&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples for error typographicum/s**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1618, *Romanae correctionis in Latinis Bibliis editionis vulgatae*, Franciscus Lucas: *ISAIAS v.20: (…) Vix dubito quin sit hic error typographicus in editione Romana etc.*&#xD;&#xA;- [Many examples on Google Books](https://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&amp;dcr=0&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22Error+typographicum%22&amp;oq=%22Error+typographicum%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...4681.6169.0.6333.2.2.0.0.0.0.148.148.0j1.1.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.0.0.0ycgh)&#xD;&#xA;- …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 3. Vitium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Quint. Inst., I, 5, 5: *Sed quia interim excusantur haec **vitia** aut consuetudine aut auctoritate aut vetustate aut denique vicinitate virtutum (nam saepe a figuris ea separare difficile est): ne qua tam lubrica observatio fallat, acriter se in illud tenue discrimen grammaticus intendat, de quo nos latius ibi loquemur ubi de figuris orationis tractandum erit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vitium typographicum**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can have the more precise sense of a blunder that destroys the sense of the text (*un bourdon* in French, or *un mastic*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *A Copious and Critical English-Latin Lexicon*, article « [PRESS](https://books.google.fr/books?id=bIVBAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA527) »&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1941" RevisionGUID="72d13275-0cf2-451e-8ade-88248300827d" CreationDate="2017-09-05T14:07:45.713" UserId="932" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="For basic mathematics, I’ve found some answers in the *[Institutiones Physicæ][1]* by Floriani Dalham, published in 1752:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1+2 = 3 would be read *unus plus duo sunt tres*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Additio est duorum, vel plurium Numerorum in unum collectio. Indicatur per signum + adjectum, id est : *plus*. (…)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Dicatur : 4+2+2+7 sunt 15   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*(Caput III, p. 26)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1-2 = -1 would be read *unus minus duo sunt minus unus*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(…) indicaturque per signum -, id est : *minus*. (…)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*(Caput IV, p. 28-29)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 7*4 is read *septies quatuor* or *quater septem*  &#xD;&#xA;**Other solutions:**  &#xD;&#xA;*tres multiplicata in quattuor* (found by *brianpck* in [Liber Mahameleth][2], or in this dictionary: *[multiplicare numerum in se][3]*)  &#xD;&#xA;According to the Valbuena Latin-Spanish dictionary (or Jeanneau Latin-French): *multiplicare numerum cum numero*  &#xD;&#xA;[![Valbuena's definition of multiplicare][4]][4]  &#xD;&#xA;Jeanneau: *ter multiplicati quinquaginta fiunt centum quinquaginta, Aug. : cinquante multiplié par trois font cent cinquante.* (50*3=350)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; p.33&#xD;&#xA;Note: the tables of logarithms are called *tabularum Neperianarum&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(…)multiplicando 360 cum 5 prodibit numerus 1800 (…). [p.41]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 24/3 is *24 divisum per 3* [p.40] or *24 ad 3*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam sicut se habet 1 ad 3, ita se habent 2 ad 6. [p. 54]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A^3 is *A exponens 3* [p. 37]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cross-multiplication is regula trium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 2&gt;3: *2 majus ad 3*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;, &gt;, =: *Signum æqualitas est =. Signum similitudinis ~. &gt; notat majus ad minus. &lt; notat minus ad majus*. [p. 75]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- sqrt(2) would be *radix quadrata duorum*. [p. 101]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin version of Wikipedia can also certainly be of some help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Calculus integralis : &lt;https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrale&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Functio : &lt;https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functio&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- [Categoria:Mathematica][5]&#xD;&#xA;- etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=dvA4AAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA120&amp;dq=Manualis%20mathematicae&amp;hl=fr&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwioq9DKhZDQAhXJkCwKHa7gBFQQ6AEIHjAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=8YK9BAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;lpg=PA39&amp;dq=decem%20septies&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=9x67PhVhly&amp;sig=rYyHCjU8asdLRQoWD5x7CJnRe5Q&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=snippet&amp;q=multiplicata%20in&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=a0supv8ceRQC&amp;pg=PA880&amp;dq=dictionnaire%20latin%20multiplier&amp;hl=fr&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiT3_vr5JbQAhVGthoKHQo1AeEQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=dictionnaire%20latin%20multiplier&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O7IxQ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Mathematica" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5191" RevisionGUID="22f2cce7-6c90-465e-b726-58dd0e58ec0f" CreationDate="2017-09-05T15:02:59.107" UserId="932" Text="In French, this proverb exists in the form: *Aide-toi et le ciel t’aidera*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This comes from a fable of La Fontaine, *Le Chartier embourbé*. So there is the possibility to read the Latin and Greek fables that gave him inspiration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Æsopus, Βοηλάτης καὶ Ἡρακλῆς&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well it’s Greek, but I just mention it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (…) τοῖς θεοῖς δ᾿ εὔχου,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὅταν τι ποιῇς καὐτός· μὴ μάτην εὔξῃ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many Latin translations of this fable. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ipse juva teipsum, tum Deus juvabit te. (Clarke’s *Fabulæ Æsopi Selectæ*, 1810): *thyself helps thyself, then God will help thee*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Avianus, Rusticus et Hercules&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Disce tamen pigris non flecti numina votis,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Præsentesque adhibe, quum facis ipse, Deos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Gabriele Faerno, Bubulcus et Hercules (1564)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vigilando, agendo, prouidendo quod possis,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Paratur e cælo fauor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# An other possibilty in the rule of Saint Benedict&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want Ecclesiastical Latin, you can also think to the motto of the Benedictines: ***Ora et labora, Deus adest sine mora*** (actually, the motto is only *ora et labora*, but this is the complete sentence from the rule): *pray and work, and God is there without delay*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5192" RevisionGUID="83f48241-3998-43db-aaad-b9ec08192a3f" CreationDate="2017-09-05T17:54:48.403" UserId="1970" Text="Like all good questions, this one has no simple answer.  The big dictionaries devote many columns to it.  Kennedy 286 gives a crisp &amp; useful summary. A couple of firm examples: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Travelling **from** a place... is ***ab***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I am of or **from** the family X... is ***de***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nearly always, *ab* is elided to *a* before a consonant.  See the Oxford Latin Dictionary for exceptions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17158" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5101" RevisionGUID="58001563-9a99-4044-b701-39961ce5a22f" CreationDate="2017-09-05T20:27:42.730" UserId="932" Comment="edited tags" Text="|resource-request|mathematics|dictionary|philosophy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5193" RevisionGUID="c49f2197-4466-40ab-9897-5f4c6bfa5aa2" CreationDate="2017-09-06T07:57:15.173" UserId="584" Text="A company has this long internal motto in the English language, but I was thinking it could be shortened a lot in Latin and maybe sound smarter, and be more easy to remember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is how it is depicted graphically:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Together We Lead The Way** &lt;BR&gt; &lt;BR&gt; *enabling* &lt;BR&gt;&lt;BR&gt; **Dreams And Everyday&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aspirations** &lt;BR&gt; &lt;BR&gt;*for* &lt;BR&gt; &lt;BR&gt; **A Greater Good**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17160" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5193" RevisionGUID="c49f2197-4466-40ab-9897-5f4c6bfa5aa2" CreationDate="2017-09-06T07:57:15.173" UserId="584" Text="How to translate the motto: &quot;Together we lead the way enabling Dreams and everyday aspirations for a greater good&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17161" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5193" RevisionGUID="c49f2197-4466-40ab-9897-5f4c6bfa5aa2" CreationDate="2017-09-06T07:57:15.173" UserId="584" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5194" RevisionGUID="7604f08f-e932-45ee-851f-a3d66caa1ce7" CreationDate="2017-09-06T08:53:30.717" UserId="79" Text="I would suggest an elegiac couplet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ad studium, desiderium cuiusque diei  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp; tendimus nos una, crescat ut haec bonitas.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Together we strive for desires and aspirations of each day, so that this goodness may grow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if this would work for you.&#xD;&#xA;Any comments or suggestions are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;I can try to write a new version if I know which direction to take this to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5195" RevisionGUID="2f3c2253-0bfc-4d30-b97c-6c2f1eb6b083" CreationDate="2017-09-06T08:56:05.910" UserId="79" Text="There were grammarians in antiquity, and they analyzed Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Several grammarians have studied various aspects of Latin grammar in the modern era as well.&#xD;&#xA;I find it hard to believe that modern scholars would be in perfect agreement with the ancient ones.&#xD;&#xA;Is there something about Latin grammar that we confidently think we understand now but one or more Roman grammarians misunderstood?&#xD;&#xA;If there were several such misunderstandings or discrepancies, what were the biggest or most important ones?&#xD;&#xA;Let me exclude etymology from this question and restrict it to other aspects of the language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17164" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5195" RevisionGUID="2f3c2253-0bfc-4d30-b97c-6c2f1eb6b083" CreationDate="2017-09-06T08:56:05.910" UserId="79" Text="What did the Romans misunderstand about Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17165" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5195" RevisionGUID="2f3c2253-0bfc-4d30-b97c-6c2f1eb6b083" CreationDate="2017-09-06T08:56:05.910" UserId="79" Text="|grammarians|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1051" RevisionGUID="0cfe4eef-68ae-4102-b410-8f4f8aebde4b" CreationDate="2017-09-06T09:08:02.910" UserId="79" Comment="Updated the reference and reformatted the Latin quotes." Text="*Re* was certainly used with the same meaning, as stendarr points out in another answer, but it was not used in the same manner.  For example, Cicero did not start his letters with it, although there are examples of him using the word with the meaning &quot;in the matter of.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many references in ancient texts showing the use of the word *res* in the ablative with the meaning &quot;in the matter of.&quot;  The Romans used *res* much like we use the word &quot;thing&quot; and they used it frequently.  Even our word &quot;republic&quot; is from *res publica* which literally means &quot;the public thing.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a crazy sci-fi world where the Romans had email, I think using *re* just as we do would be completely consistent and appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: From Cicero's letters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [*in hac re*][1] translated as &quot;[in this matter][2]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found abundant other examples among Cicero's letters of his use of *re* which I think could hold a meaning like what we're discussing, but this was the only one for which I was able to match the Latin text to an existing translation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These examples are all in the body of his letters as he directs the reader's attention to some matter they've previously discussed.  *Re* does not ever occur as a sort of subject line like we use it.  There's also the example I mentioned in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0017%3Abook%3D1%3Aletter%3D1%3Asection%3D2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0022%3Atext%3DQ%20FR%3Abook%3D1%3Aletter%3D1%3Asection%3D1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="870" RevisionGUID="af9a8129-4326-4041-bc7c-c6a3d6b2681e" CreationDate="2017-09-06T09:12:11.930" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Well, I don't know if it counts, but I think you should search among recent species re-classing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When Linnaeus wrote, Latin names were the logical option to choose a scientific name from. That is why it seems hard to even find one single example of what you're looking for. More recent descriptions of old species (especially when a single common name is found to apply to two different genera) force the need of new names. (i.e., *non-common-Latin* names for species that were known to native Latin-speakers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example is *Loxodonta africana*, the [African elephant][1]. It was in the XVIII century that it was described by [Georges Cuvier][2] as a different species from *Elephas maximus*, the Asian elephant (hence both were probably *Elephas* in Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_elephant&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Cuvier" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5196" RevisionGUID="ca3702bb-5474-4370-826e-768eccea9b06" CreationDate="2017-09-06T10:12:35.517" UserId="645" Text="For 'entrepreneur', or even 'businessman', just as in English, there are few words in Latin of such broad meaning. With the senatorial ranks officially forbidden to engage in commerce, it was left to the equestrians, who were content to manage business both for themselves and for others. Within the equestrian order there seem to have been two broad categories of businessman, the *negotiator* and the *mercator*, either of which, as 'someone owning their own business,' may answer your requirement; there is a distinction between the two that depends on the circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the business of a *negotiator* was more usually money, the basic business of the *mercator* was commerce — a trader, wholesaler etc. Both categories included speculators seeking profit through commercial astuteness and, by and large, their activities were conducted outside of Rome. Business was (of course) operated through the all-pervading patron-client system, downwards through all the citizen classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *negotiatores* is often equivalent to the 'bankers' (*argentarii*) or 'lenders at interest' (*feneratores*) at Rome, but it still included many who speculated in commodities of every kind, from corn and oil to rare materials and works of art. It wasn't used in the *Urbs* — probably because the senatorials had to avoid the taint of 'merchant'  that the word implies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *mercatores*, on the other hand, tended to be contractors (for both labour and commodities — including slaves and wild beasts) or simply traders, shippers and wholesalers. A key distinction is that a notionally independent *mercator* might be dependent on financial support from (locally) a *negotiator* in order to manage his affairs.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5197" RevisionGUID="b474cc58-3011-4756-ad50-467f5709389f" CreationDate="2017-09-06T15:15:11.540" UserId="203" Text="I'm a complete tiro in Latin and Greek, and very puzzled by the phenomenon of *boustrophedon*. Most languages are written left to right, or right to left, but to combine both in the same sentence seems more than perverse. It is particularly strange that the actual letters are reversed, not merely the spelling - eg *mirror writing*. Was there any point to this practice, apart from confusing posterity? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17172" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5197" RevisionGUID="b474cc58-3011-4756-ad50-467f5709389f" CreationDate="2017-09-06T15:15:11.540" UserId="203" Text="Origins and point of boustrophedon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17173" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5197" RevisionGUID="b474cc58-3011-4756-ad50-467f5709389f" CreationDate="2017-09-06T15:15:11.540" UserId="203" Text="|orthography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5198" RevisionGUID="c14014db-0940-4633-9d95-3ce372bc7c09" CreationDate="2017-09-06T15:41:03.573" UserId="324" Text="Boustrophedon means literally &quot;ox turning&quot;. You plough a field from one edge to the other, then you turn the oxen around and plough back in the opposite direction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17175" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5197" RevisionGUID="f2da0f81-9ddb-4254-94fb-afc113b7a78a" CreationDate="2017-09-06T16:09:49.050" UserId="203" Comment="edited tags" Text="|orthography|boustrophedon|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17176" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="500" RevisionGUID="a789496a-9fa7-458f-a351-90e521487465" CreationDate="2017-09-06T16:13:14.983" UserId="203" Comment="Added new tag" Text="|example-request|alphabet|inscription|boustrophedon|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17177" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="500" RevisionGUID="a789496a-9fa7-458f-a351-90e521487465" CreationDate="2017-09-06T16:13:14.983" Comment="Proposed by 203 approved by 79 edit id of 212" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5199" RevisionGUID="dcc429b8-ef9b-489b-8e0e-376d58b87cfe" CreationDate="2017-09-07T09:59:07.597" UserId="806" Text="&quot;Greater good&quot; is actually (at least) from Aristotle, μεῖζον ἀγαθὸν, which in Latin should translate as &quot;majus bonum&quot; (in your scenario, perhaps better spelt as &quot;maius bonum&quot; to avoid pronunciation misunderstanding). &#xD;&#xA;&quot;For the greater good&quot; would translate &quot;ad maius bonum&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;If I would have to choose a Latin motto for a company, I would limit myself to that, as it does convey the main message." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5200" RevisionGUID="e28259a5-fb6d-42b5-a282-b949e41129ce" CreationDate="2017-09-07T11:07:48.030" UserId="1743" Text="Is there any meaningful difference, from the point of view of classical philology (not from the point of view of contemporary usages and dictionaries which more or less seem to consider them synonyms) in the meaning/register/usage of the Latin verbs **calculare** and **computare**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17182" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5200" RevisionGUID="e28259a5-fb6d-42b5-a282-b949e41129ce" CreationDate="2017-09-07T11:07:48.030" UserId="1743" Text="Are there meaningful differences in meaning and usability between 'calculare' and 'computare'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17183" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5200" RevisionGUID="e28259a5-fb6d-42b5-a282-b949e41129ce" CreationDate="2017-09-07T11:07:48.030" UserId="1743" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="504" RevisionGUID="b0d599a4-1d5f-49b1-94c5-eb8da15fb831" CreationDate="2017-09-07T13:52:20.890" UserId="39" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="Since this is not exactly my area of expertise, I will quote [Rex Wallace][1] ([Wallace 2011][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He argues that the earliest Latin inscriptions were written from right to left and from left to right (p. 22). He mentions three examples of right-to-left inscriptions in Latin: the Vetusia inscription (ET La 2.1) and the Fibula Praenestina (CIL I².3). Not everyone agrees whether the language of the Vetusia inscription should be considered Latin, though, and the authenticity of the Fibula Praenestina gets questioned from time to time (the artifact, not the text). The third example is the bronze Fucine Lake inscription (CIL I².5), which was found in 1877 but is lost now. Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011 give its text in a new version proposed in Crawford 2006.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fucine1][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fucine2][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fucine3][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This is what it looks like in CIL** (de visu, I took the picture myself):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![CIL2.1.2.5][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, Wallace observes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; &quot;By the middle of the republican period, however, writers had settled on left-to-right direction as the norm, and almost all Latin inscriptions after this date are written in this manner. Inscriptions in other formats, such as boustrophendon, appear rather infrequently&quot; (Wallace 2011: 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that there is a difference between **boustrophedon** (the direction of writing alternates) and **sinistroverse** (the direction of writing is right-to-left), e.g. [a bronze tablet from Falerii Novi][7] (CIL I² 365); please follow the link to see it, since it is copyrighted. Here's the glossed text, from Clackson and Horrocks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Falerii][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This is what it looks like in CIL** (de visu, I took the picture myself):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][9]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson and Horrocks 2007 argue it is written in Latin and not Faliscan (contrary to what Getty Images says). As they put it, it is written in the Faliscan manner (sinistroverse), with Faliscan letter forms and mainly Faliscan orthography (see Clackson and Horrock 2007: 119-120 for further detail).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[John Bodel][10] (**Bodel 2012) observes that by the end of the fifth BCE Latin texts &quot;regularly ran left to right&quot; (p. 82)**. He discusses **two theories**, neither of which, he argues, can be proven correct at this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the first theory, &quot;[w]hen inscribed writing began to&#xD;&#xA;be used to label larger monuments, however, the fixed position of (generally)&#xD;&#xA;rectilinear objects necessitated accommodating a more limited range&#xD;&#xA;of viewing perspectives&quot; (p. 83).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second theory holds that Roman script is dextroverse because of the desire to make it look as much different as possible from sinistroverse ductus in Etruscan, due to rising  political and cultural ambitions of Rome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bodel, John. 2012. Paragrams, punctuation, and system in ancient Roman script. In S. Houston (ed.), The Shape of script: How and why writing systems change, pp. 63-90. Santa Fe, NM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson, James, and Geoffrey Horrocks. 2007. The Blackwell history of the Latin language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wallace, Rex. 2011. “The Latin Alphabet and Orthography.” In James Clackson (ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language, pp. 9–28. London/New York: Wiley-Blackwell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.umass.edu/hfa/member/rex-wallace&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kmjeQ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/u4wGf.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4MohO.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/w5ZgF.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/inscription-in-faliscan-language-dedicated-to-minerva-stock-graphic/148357367&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jduh1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jm0GR.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://vivo.brown.edu/display/jbodel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5201" RevisionGUID="b3128cd6-0f8b-4c1a-a309-886514ac511b" CreationDate="2017-09-07T15:28:09.193" UserId="406" Text="Most instances of *vv* in Latin seem to fall into three categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's in the combination *qvu* or *ngvu*, as in *eqvus*, [pronounced /u/][1]&#xD;&#xA; - It's actually *vu*, a consonant followed by a vowel, as in *parvus*&#xD;&#xA; - It's actually *uu*, two vowels in a row, as in *metuunt*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How were these latter two pronounced in Classical Latin? I generally pronounce the second /wu/, and the third /uʔu/, but the glottal stop feels somewhat artificial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4929/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5201" RevisionGUID="b3128cd6-0f8b-4c1a-a309-886514ac511b" CreationDate="2017-09-07T15:28:09.193" UserId="406" Text="How was &quot;VV&quot; pronounced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5201" RevisionGUID="b3128cd6-0f8b-4c1a-a309-886514ac511b" CreationDate="2017-09-07T15:28:09.193" UserId="406" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5202" RevisionGUID="5a9ee739-9e8d-49df-a571-42e991c45182" CreationDate="2017-09-07T16:39:23.857" UserId="469" Text="I put here, as a community wiki, what was suggested as comments, since I think they are valid answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *As for classical parallels, it seems to me that this conveys something of this idea*. (Thanks @cnread:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; fortes Fortuna iuvat ([Pliny, Epistulae 6.16][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; also rendered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; audentes Fortuna iuvat ([Aeneid X, 284][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Fortuna being the godess. So the phrase could better fit the purpose of the question if adapted: ***Audentes Deus iuvat***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Also the words of St. Paul are a good option. (Thanks @Hugh:)&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA; &gt;ἐγὼ ἐφύτευσα ἀλλὰ ὁ Θεὸς ηὔξανεν&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ego plantavi sed Deus incrementum dedit ([1 Cor 3,6][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plin.%20Ep.%206.16&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0055%3Abook%3D10%3Acard%3D276&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthios%203%3A6&amp;version=VULGATE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17189" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5202" RevisionGUID="6662ae0a-a0fd-46d7-a676-7636b5702d77" CreationDate="2017-09-07T16:39:23.857" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="17190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5191" RevisionGUID="c690ae32-3283-4a2c-a63b-01cae8335b60" CreationDate="2017-09-07T16:39:47.223" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="In French, this proverb exists in the form: *Aide-toi et le ciel t’aidera*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This comes from a fable of La Fontaine, *Le Chartier embourbé*. So there is the possibility to read the Latin and Greek fables that gave him inspiration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Æsopus, Βοηλάτης καὶ Ἡρακλῆς&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well it’s Greek, but I just mention it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (…) τοῖς θεοῖς δ᾿ εὔχου,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὅταν τι ποιῇς καὐτός· μὴ μάτην εὔξῃ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many Latin translations of this fable. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ipse juva teipsum, tum Deus juvabit te. (Clarke’s *Fabulæ Æsopi Selectæ*, 1810): *thyself helps thyself, then God will help thee*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Avianus, Rusticus et Hercules&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Disce tamen pigris non flecti numina votis,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Præsentesque adhibe, quum facis ipse, Deos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Gabriele Faerno, Bubulcus et Hercules (1564)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vigilando, agendo, prouidendo quod possis,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Paratur e cælo fauor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Another possibilty in the rule of Saint Benedict&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want Ecclesiastical Latin, you can also think to the motto of the Benedictines: ***Ora et labora, Deus adest sine mora*** (actually, the motto is only *ora et labora*, but this is the complete sentence from the rule): *pray and work, and God is there without delay*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4929" RevisionGUID="907c77c5-cc14-4184-9587-e371ad65dc28" CreationDate="2017-09-07T16:54:20.567" UserId="406" Comment="Typo" Text="##*Secundus* is regular, *eqvus* isn't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a sound change called the &quot;Boukólos Rule&quot;, which started back in Proto-Indo-European. When labiovelar consonants (like /kʷ/ and /gʷ/) appeared next to /w/ or /u/, they dissimilated and lost their labialization, becoming /k/ and /g/. The rule is named after one of the first known examples, Greek *βουκόλος* &quot;cowherd&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, a *u* vowel continued to turn a preceding labiovelar *qv* /kʷ/ into a plain velar *c* /k/. So *seqv-* + *-undus* became *secundus*, which was perfectly regular at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule eventually ceased to be relevant in most Indo-European languages (for example Greek lost its labiovelars entirely). But in both Latin and Germanic, later sound changes created more /u/ sounds. And the Boukólos Rule continued to apply to these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short *o* in the second-declension endings shifted to a *u* between Old and Classical Latin, giving the familiar endings *-us* and *-um*. And this new *u* transformed second-declension nouns ending with labiovelars. This also created the irregularity in the relative pronoun: *qvī qvae qvod*, but *cujus, cui* (originally *\*quojos, \*quoi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But while the relative pronouns were fairly fossilized (hence the archaic endings), and the gerundive in *-undus* was falling out of use, the second-declension endings were still very common and productive. And the paradigm *ecus, eqvī, eqvō, ecum, eqvō, eqve* looked inconsistent and wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in writing, it became standard to write *qv* for a plain velar /k/, **only before the second declension endings *-us, -um***. [Allen's *Vox Latina*][1] quotes Velius Longius (writing in the second century AD):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Auribus qvidem sufficiebat ut *eqvus* per unum *u* scriberetur, ratio tamen duo exigit.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Indeed, to the ears it is fine to write **eqvus** with a single **u**, but the mind demands two.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite this, forms like *ecus* are still found in inscriptions, indicating that the true pronunciation was still /k/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA20&amp;lpg=PA20&amp;dq=ecus%20equus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=TxPwnk4zUY&amp;sig=pM1w0pHT75ixsMSSsZZqWb_iQ5Y&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwicjuPL76PVAhUW52MKHQduA9Q4ChDoAQhBMAg#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5203" RevisionGUID="f4237ea8-b413-43b9-8e95-d5023db72369" CreationDate="2017-09-07T16:56:26.170" UserId="469" Text="Some ideas that occurred to me after posting the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A translation of the second Spanish proverb:&#xD;&#xA; &gt; qui mane surgit adiuvat Deus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (I think _adiuvo_ is more common in Ecclesiastical than _iuvo_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* That translation remembered me a quote from [Psalm 127 (126)][1], 1:&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem frustra vigilavit qui custodit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Another option was to adapt one of Augustine's:&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Sine voluntate tua non erit in te *adiutorium* Dei&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But none of them seems to fulfill what I was looking for as good as *ora et labora, Deus adest sine mora.* The context is much closer to the sense I'm looking for than I imagined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_psalmorum_lt.html#PSALMUS%20127" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5204" RevisionGUID="47b693b2-7122-4dd0-b6cf-1d75734beda2" CreationDate="2017-09-07T17:55:13.847" UserId="1348" Text="I found some examples of conditional clauses whose translation may include the word &quot;would&quot;. They are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Si Marcus Iuliam amet, ea eum amet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Marcus should [perhaps ever some day] love Julia, she would love him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Si Marcus Iuliam amaret, ea eum amaret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Marcus loved Julia [but he doesn't love her now], she would love him [but she doesn't love him now].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Si Marcus Iuliam amavisset, ea eum amavisset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Marcus had loved Julia, she would have loved him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That makes me think that a sentece like &quot;I would do that&quot; can be formed in Latin with the present subjunctive (first example) or the imperfect subjunctive (second example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, what is the equivalent to the &quot;conditional tense&quot; of other languages, for example, French &quot;Je le ferais&quot;; Italian &quot;Lo farei&quot;?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also (and the reason of the third example), in English there is another conditional clause which is a combination of the second and third conditional (second and third example). An example could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If he had not had luck, he would not be alive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can this be translated to Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17194" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5204" RevisionGUID="47b693b2-7122-4dd0-b6cf-1d75734beda2" CreationDate="2017-09-07T17:55:13.847" UserId="1348" Text="Translation of would" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17195" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5204" RevisionGUID="47b693b2-7122-4dd0-b6cf-1d75734beda2" CreationDate="2017-09-07T17:55:13.847" UserId="1348" Text="|conditions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5195" RevisionGUID="ca35a2c9-c273-4ba3-ac21-ac0b54e1648e" CreationDate="2017-09-07T17:58:37.603" UserId="79" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="There were grammarians in antiquity, and they analyzed Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Several grammarians have studied various aspects of Latin grammar in the modern era as well.&#xD;&#xA;I find it hard to believe that modern scholars would be in perfect agreement with the ancient ones.&#xD;&#xA;Is there something about Latin grammar that we confidently think we understand now but one or more Roman grammarians misunderstood?&#xD;&#xA;If there were several such misunderstandings or discrepancies, what were the biggest or most important ones?&#xD;&#xA;The Romans did not have the theoretical framework we have today and were bound to misunderstand something; it is unlikely in any field that modern theorists agree perfectly with ancient ones.&#xD;&#xA;Let me exclude etymology from this question and restrict it to other aspects of the language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5205" RevisionGUID="59a375d3-e98d-4b85-a0c3-60d73c21d51f" CreationDate="2017-09-07T18:18:49.610" UserId="79" Text="I learned from [this question about *sequundus* &gt; *secundus*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4901/79) that *-quus* was in fact pronounced as if it was *-cus*.&#xD;&#xA;However, words like *equus* were not spelled as *ecus*, since most oblique cases would still have the original stem *equ-* since *qu&gt;c* only occurred before a *u*.&#xD;&#xA;That is, *equus* was pronounced *ecus* but was spelled *equus* by analogy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would assume that at some point the spelling *equus* caused the pronunciation to become *equus* instead of *ecus* again.&#xD;&#xA;At least this is the case in the contemporary Finnish pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea when this change happened, other than &quot;somewhere between imperial Rome and present day Finland&quot;, but I suspect this *equus* pronunciation (as opposed to *ecus*) was not unusual in some form of medieval or later Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Do we know when &amp;mdash; if ever &amp;mdash; this change took place?&#xD;&#xA;When was *equus* pronounced as *equus* and no loner *ecus*?&#xD;&#xA;If there is not precise answer, any examples or a *terminus ante/post quem* is most welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17198" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5205" RevisionGUID="59a375d3-e98d-4b85-a0c3-60d73c21d51f" CreationDate="2017-09-07T18:18:49.610" UserId="79" Text="When did equus regain its first U?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17199" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5205" RevisionGUID="59a375d3-e98d-4b85-a0c3-60d73c21d51f" CreationDate="2017-09-07T18:18:49.610" UserId="79" Text="|pronunciation|language-evolution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5206" RevisionGUID="81c4a4ec-9326-4a1a-8c79-624399b3809a" CreationDate="2017-09-07T18:39:51.977" UserId="61" Text="For a project of mine, I would like to gather inscriptions from a certain period from CIL. The books however are sorted based on area where they were found. Is there some list sorted by date (I understand that this might not be an exact date, but might just be something like from the 4th century A.D.)? I found one website (http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epi.php) which seemed to do such a thing, but when one just searches on blank terms, it seems to return more queries than there are in CIL, so I am not sure whether this website is that reliable. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17201" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5206" RevisionGUID="81c4a4ec-9326-4a1a-8c79-624399b3809a" CreationDate="2017-09-07T18:39:51.977" UserId="61" Text="Searching CIL based on date of the texts origin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17202" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5206" RevisionGUID="81c4a4ec-9326-4a1a-8c79-624399b3809a" CreationDate="2017-09-07T18:39:51.977" UserId="61" Text="|corpus-inscriptionum-latinarum|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17203" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="5143" RevisionGUID="079231a9-5790-4938-9c40-f94bae90818a" CreationDate="2017-09-08T11:44:46.260" UserId="469" Comment="54" />
  <row Id="17208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5208" RevisionGUID="78b9b834-ec49-4553-8bb7-a34a940a71ba" CreationDate="2017-09-08T16:40:28.660" UserId="47" Text="Psalm 22 includes this phrase, which both my daughter and I find curious because of the use of &quot;super&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here it is with a little more context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dominus regit me, et nihil mihi deerit: in loco pascuæ, ibi me&#xD;&#xA;&gt; collocavit.  Super aquam refectionis educavit me; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An English translation (Knox?):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Lord is my shepherd; how can I lack anything?  He gives me a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; resting-place where there is green pasture, leads me out to the cool&#xD;&#xA;&gt; water’s brink, refreshed and content.  [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here is the source of both: http://newadvent.org/bible/psa022.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The curiosity emerges from our understanding of &quot;super&quot; meaning &quot;over&quot;, suggesting that &quot;super aquam&quot; means &quot;over water&quot;.  But it seems very unlikely that the psalmist means to say he was led &quot;over&quot; refreshing water... is it?  Rather, &quot;super&quot; seems to be expressing the idea of *nearness*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a known function of the word &quot;super&quot;?  Are there any other examples of &quot;super&quot; being used in this way *outside* of the Vulgate?  Have I stumbled across *yet another* Hebraism?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5208" RevisionGUID="78b9b834-ec49-4553-8bb7-a34a940a71ba" CreationDate="2017-09-08T16:40:28.660" UserId="47" Text="&quot;Super aquam refectionis educavit me...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5208" RevisionGUID="78b9b834-ec49-4553-8bb7-a34a940a71ba" CreationDate="2017-09-08T16:40:28.660" UserId="47" Text="|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5209" RevisionGUID="fb0a9ced-f3ef-466e-ad34-4833bef4f06f" CreationDate="2017-09-08T17:18:36.343" UserId="79" Text="I would like to know why people have chosen to study Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I am not looking for personal anecdotes but statistics.&#xD;&#xA;Are there any studies on why students who choose Latin do so?&#xD;&#xA;If there are several, I am ideally interested in the most broad or reliable ones.&#xD;&#xA;But since I don't know what is out there, I don't want to set the bar too high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that I would like to know why people *choose* to study Latin, not why they *do* study Latin.&#xD;&#xA;A large number of students &amp;mdash; teachers or Romance languages, for example &amp;mdash; will have to take a course or two in Latin whether they want it or not.&#xD;&#xA;My interest here is in willful choice of Latin, not compulsory.&#xD;&#xA;I can imagine several different reasons (had to take one course and fell in love, need to use Latin for other interests like philosophy, interest in Roman culture or history, just happening to like the language, thinking it is cool, trying to avoid PE, &amp;hellip;), but it is hard to tell which reasons are most important." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17213" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5209" RevisionGUID="fb0a9ced-f3ef-466e-ad34-4833bef4f06f" CreationDate="2017-09-08T17:18:36.343" UserId="79" Text="Statistics for why people choose to study Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17214" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5209" RevisionGUID="fb0a9ced-f3ef-466e-ad34-4833bef4f06f" CreationDate="2017-09-08T17:18:36.343" UserId="79" Text="|resource-request|soft-question|statistics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17215" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2174" RevisionGUID="2dec49bd-c9a9-44de-b18f-cf25f7155302" CreationDate="2017-09-08T17:18:59.430" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|contemporary-latin|resource-request|soft-question|statistics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17216" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4394" RevisionGUID="49f29a30-3139-46fd-9e4a-13b61c931f2d" CreationDate="2017-09-08T17:20:07.037" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|word-order|text-corpus|statistics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5210" RevisionGUID="1e5773e1-f52b-46dc-ae98-16747622bef2" CreationDate="2017-09-08T18:23:49.810" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="What does word `emeo` mean? &#xD;&#xA;As in: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Heri, ad tabernam eō. In tabernā sunt trēs rēs quārum amō duas sōleās et unam mensam. Habeō trēs denariōs, sīc ego **emeō** mensam sōlum quod sum nōn dīvīnitās&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;taken from [here](https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Latin/Lesson_6-Irregular_Verbs), emphasis by myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not found this word in wiktionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has been suggested by Joonas Ilmavirta in chat that it is in fact misspelled word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a probable right word then?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17219" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5210" RevisionGUID="1e5773e1-f52b-46dc-ae98-16747622bef2" CreationDate="2017-09-08T18:23:49.810" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="Emeo - possibly misspelled word" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17220" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5210" RevisionGUID="1e5773e1-f52b-46dc-ae98-16747622bef2" CreationDate="2017-09-08T18:23:49.810" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5211" RevisionGUID="a9ad00c3-a2c0-41ba-9a59-3d63b73e6dc9" CreationDate="2017-09-08T18:48:27.287" UserId="79" Text="I believe it is supposed to be *emo*, &quot;I buy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This would make sense in the context.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know whether it was a [typing error](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5187/79) or whether the author mistook *emere* for an irregular verb of some kind.&#xD;&#xA;There is also a verb *emeare* (from *e* and *meare*), but it seems inappropriate here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An excellent tool for analyzing passages like this, when they are correctly spelled, is [this word study tool](http://latinlexicon.org/word_study_tool.php) that gives you (simplified) Lewis &amp; Short entries for each word.&#xD;&#xA;Just copy your little story into the box and click &quot;Search&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest is more of a personal opinion on the exercise, and is to be taken with a grain of salt.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin text feels unnatural to me, making me suspicious of the quality of the WikiBook.&#xD;&#xA;There is a banner saying &quot;This page may need to be reviewed for quality.&quot; at the top of the page, and such a review is in order.&#xD;&#xA;A couple of things stick out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The word order is unusual.&#xD;&#xA;- Misspelled *emo* as *emeo*.&#xD;&#xA;- The last word should presumably be *di(ve)s* (rich), not *divinitas* (divinity).&#xD;&#xA;- The second sentence feels weird: *In tabernā sunt trēs rēs quārum amō duas sōleās et unam mensam.* I would recommend against phrasing &quot;there are three things&quot; as *sunt tres res*. The word *res* is not exactly like the English &quot;thing&quot;. In this context, I would replace it with *merx* (merchandise). Also *quārum amō* sounds suspicious; I would much rather say something like *ex quibus mea intersunt* or *ex quibus cupio* or something. I'm not sure if the partitive genitive can be used this way. (This would not be the first time my intuition fails me.)&#xD;&#xA;- Although *solum* can be used as an adverb, I would rather have it agree with *mensam* here (*solam*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5212" RevisionGUID="c980d074-bf60-458a-837e-49628d774603" CreationDate="2017-09-09T03:15:49.960" UserId="39" Text="It's very easy - see the screenshot below how to do it on http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epi.php?s_sprache=en (EDCS):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cc3Xj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5213" RevisionGUID="4b386632-436c-4183-ad16-e794c0cfe159" CreationDate="2017-09-09T05:07:09.130" UserId="235" Text="German has an interesting dative of possession construction where the possessor goes in the dative but a form of &quot;to be&quot; is not needed. This means that the thing or person being possessed can be the subject of any verb (not just a form of esse). You can find a prominent example of this in the opening sentence of Cinderella.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Einem reichen Manne, dem wurde seine Frau krank, und als sie fühlte, daß ihr Ende herankam, rief sie ihr einziges Töchterlein zu sich ans Bett und sprach: ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There was a rich man whose wife became sick, and when she felt that her end was near, she called her only daughter to her to her bed and said...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the possessor is the husband and the person being possessed is the wife. (Grammatically speaking... no misogyny intended.) You can see how the subject, *seine Frau* &quot;his wife&quot;, takes the predicate *wurde krank* &quot;became sick&quot;. This is a neat feature of the German construction, that the subject can take a predicate other than just a form of &quot;to be&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Latin have anything like this? Where the possessor goes in the dative but the thing or person being possessed takes a verb other than esse? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17225" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5213" RevisionGUID="4b386632-436c-4183-ad16-e794c0cfe159" CreationDate="2017-09-09T05:07:09.130" UserId="235" Text="Does Latin have anything like this German syntax? (dative of possession)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17226" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5213" RevisionGUID="4b386632-436c-4183-ad16-e794c0cfe159" CreationDate="2017-09-09T05:07:09.130" UserId="235" Text="|dative|germanic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17227" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5038" RevisionGUID="1d04250e-75e4-47fc-91ff-13a2e48663a8" CreationDate="2017-09-09T08:28:56.017" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5214" RevisionGUID="c605ae43-85a8-4d10-b279-e30d097fc2dc" CreationDate="2017-09-09T13:21:35.187" UserId="324" Text="First of all, let me say that this construction is not exactly standard German, even at the time when the Brothers Grimm wrote down this story. It is more what one calls “dialektgefärbtes Hochdeutsch”. It is like “dem Karle sein Bruder” which you find in a lot of dialects for “Karls Bruder”, but which is not regarded as “correct” high German. In both cases, the extrapositioned noun in the dative case specifies the antecedent of the following possessive pronoun “sein(e)”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin you can say things like “eo est uxor”, “to him is a wife”, “he has a wife”. But you cannot say “eo uxor eius” to mean “ihm seine Frau”, “his wife”. So, Latin does have a dative of possession, but it cannot link this up with a possessive pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5214" RevisionGUID="fc48ea6d-8781-4079-af35-8b7143589a9f" CreationDate="2017-09-09T13:46:06.163" UserId="324" Comment="edited body" Text="First of all, let me say that this construction is not exactly standard German, even at the time when the Brothers Grimm wrote down this story. It is more what one calls “dialektgefärbtes Hochdeutsch”. It is like “dem Karle sein Bruder” which you find in a lot of dialects for “Karls Bruder”, but which is not regarded as “correct” high German. In both cases, the extrapositioned noun in the dative case specifies the antecedent of the following possessive pronoun “sein(e)”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin you can say things like “ei est uxor”, “to him is a wife”, “he has a wife”. But you cannot say “ei uxor eius” to mean “ihm seine Frau”, “his wife”. So, Latin does have a dative of possession, but it cannot link this up with a possessive pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5215" RevisionGUID="d6a659d8-2061-4f95-af74-0bdf57fc2b9c" CreationDate="2017-09-09T14:47:30.833" UserDisplayName="user1979" Text="No possession except the ordinary &quot;seine&quot; is there in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Einem reichen Manne, dem wurde seine Frau krank&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Dativ implies not possession but domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Einem Kletterer, dem brach der Fels weg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that does not mean that the rock was in possession of the climber when it gave out but that it was giving out under the climber's use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that this is actually rather similar to how Dativ is used originally in Latin and earlier Protoindogermanian languages: as a construct expressing a certain relation that ossified only in later language stages into a required part of using certain verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5209" RevisionGUID="f19f8f7c-6d6b-4e0f-8dd1-cb408e17b0f6" CreationDate="2017-09-09T16:59:22.707" UserId="79" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="I would like to know why people have chosen to study Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I am not looking for personal anecdotes but statistics.&#xD;&#xA;Are there any studies on why students who choose Latin do so?&#xD;&#xA;If there are several, I am ideally interested in the most broad or reliable ones.&#xD;&#xA;But since I don't know what is out there, I don't want to set the bar too high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that I would like to know why people *choose* to study Latin, not why they *do* study Latin.&#xD;&#xA;A large number of students &amp;mdash; teachers or Romance languages, for example &amp;mdash; will have to take a course or two in Latin whether they want it or not.&#xD;&#xA;My interest here is in willful choice of Latin, not compulsory.&#xD;&#xA;I can imagine several different reasons (had to take one course and fell in love, need to use Latin for other interests like philosophy, interest in Roman culture or history, just happening to like the language, thinking it is cool, trying to avoid PE, disliking other language options, &amp;hellip;), but it is hard to tell which reasons are most important." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5216" RevisionGUID="a6effd1a-fc86-4d5e-b61c-84c42d9de1ce" CreationDate="2017-09-09T18:07:39.467" UserId="1862" Text="&quot;Bene mane ante speculum in &lt;em&gt;graciliscenda&lt;/em&gt; corpus exercitia incumbens susurrulum quendam excogitaverat.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Found in Alexander Lenard's translation of 'Winnie the Pooh.' Probably a compound word, but my vocab is not yet at a level that I am able to interpret this with confidence. Any help appreciated!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17233" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5216" RevisionGUID="a6effd1a-fc86-4d5e-b61c-84c42d9de1ce" CreationDate="2017-09-09T18:07:39.467" UserId="1862" Text="Graciliscenda - Quid significat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17234" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5216" RevisionGUID="a6effd1a-fc86-4d5e-b61c-84c42d9de1ce" CreationDate="2017-09-09T18:07:39.467" UserId="1862" Text="|vocabulary|irregular-words|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5217" RevisionGUID="9b61c6c5-316e-4d5e-ac84-d586e74441d4" CreationDate="2017-09-09T19:44:02.213" UserId="79" Text="First, the original English version reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He had made up a little hum that very morning, as he was doing his Stoutness Exercises in front of the glass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, *exercitia graciliscenda* means &quot;stoutness exercises&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us then study the word itself.&#xD;&#xA;The starting point is the adjective *gracilis*, meaning a number of things like &quot;simple&quot;, &quot;slim&quot;, and &quot;slender&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;From this you can derive a verb *graciliscere*, &quot;to become *gracilis*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The suffix *-scere* is used to derive verbs for the beginning of some action; see [the Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoative_verb) for more on verbs like this.&#xD;&#xA;The form *graciliscenda* is the neuter plural accusative gerundive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interpretation of this word is tricky, at least to me.&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive (as an attribute) is mostly used for transitive verbs, and incohative (inchoative) derivatives tend to be intransitive.&#xD;&#xA;It appears that the word is supposed to mean &quot;slender-making&quot; (making it a synonym of &quot;stoutness-reducing&quot;), but I cannot quite connect the dots in a way I can believe myself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5218" RevisionGUID="36db7899-80d4-431c-b564-00aacab57420" CreationDate="2017-09-09T20:09:56.093" UserId="1416" Text="I'm formatting some letters we're reading this semester in my Latin class in Word so I have more space to annotate. I need to keep track of which text in my Word doc is on which page of the book the class uses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if I'm referring to &quot;p. 46 (continued)&quot;, how ought I translate that *continued*? I've looked at some dictionaries, and I've seen *exsecutus* and *iugis*, but they don't necessarily seem correct for this usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17237" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5218" RevisionGUID="36db7899-80d4-431c-b564-00aacab57420" CreationDate="2017-09-09T20:09:56.093" UserId="1416" Text="How to translate &quot;continued&quot; into Latin when referring to pages in a book?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17238" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5218" RevisionGUID="36db7899-80d4-431c-b564-00aacab57420" CreationDate="2017-09-09T20:09:56.093" UserId="1416" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5219" RevisionGUID="a87c93e7-88cb-4540-98cb-284f24e63bfb" CreationDate="2017-09-09T20:45:16.243" UserId="324" Text="pp. 46 sqq. = page 46 and the following pages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5219" RevisionGUID="428ca6c6-9940-46eb-b4ea-da37c54591d7" CreationDate="2017-09-09T21:11:15.753" UserId="324" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="pp. 46 sqq. = &quot;pagina 46 et sequentes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;page 46 and the following pages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5218" RevisionGUID="de857f9c-2ccb-4403-9478-547493dc89ba" CreationDate="2017-09-09T21:54:15.523" UserId="79" Comment="Added description." Text="I'm formatting some letters we're reading this semester in my Latin class in Word so I have more space to annotate. I need to keep track of which text in my Word doc is on which page of the book the class uses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if I'm referring to &quot;p. 46 (continued)&quot;, how ought I translate that *continued*? I've looked at some dictionaries, and I've seen *exsecutus* and *iugis*, but they don't necessarily seem correct for this usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This &quot;continued&quot; for the header at the top of each letter. For example, Pliny's Epistles Book II Letter XVII is very long (over 1100 words) and thus, it crosses several pages in Whitton's edition of Book II. When I'm making my version, I want to be able to know what page of Whitton each passage is on, so I might label a section of Letter XVII as &quot;p. 61 - XVII (continued)&quot; to show that XVII began several pages ago." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5220" RevisionGUID="601f8dc4-962b-474b-b9be-edc87b433cd9" CreationDate="2017-09-10T19:24:47.290" UserId="1980" Text="The [Lilly library](http://www.indiana.edu/~liblilly/) has a Gutenberg bible on display and the page that it is open to varies.  This week the page had a marginal comment in it, which is unusual for this particular copy and I was hoping to understand what is written there.  The image is given below.  Note that the page has been cut and it's likely that some of the writing is missing on the right.  So far I know that the first word is &quot;hic.&quot;  The context is that there's a marking written in the text between Luke 23:43 and 23:44, and the full page can be seen on page 101 in the (lower-quality) [digital scan](http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/metsnav3/general/index.html#mets=http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.dlib.indiana.edu%2Fiudl%2Fgeneral%2Fmets%2FVAB8631&amp;page=101).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NhCDY.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17243" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5220" RevisionGUID="601f8dc4-962b-474b-b9be-edc87b433cd9" CreationDate="2017-09-10T19:24:47.290" UserId="1980" Text="Reading a snippet of 15th century handwriting in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17244" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5220" RevisionGUID="601f8dc4-962b-474b-b9be-edc87b433cd9" CreationDate="2017-09-10T19:24:47.290" UserId="1980" Text="|medieval-latin|orthography|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5220" RevisionGUID="a6fefb72-a5b0-40c1-b0a8-494096507aaf" CreationDate="2017-09-10T19:31:12.543" UserId="1980" Comment="Added link to the text of the relevant verses and their translations." Text="The [Lilly library](http://www.indiana.edu/~liblilly/) has a Gutenberg bible on display and the page that it is open to varies.  This week the page had a marginal comment in it, which is unusual for this particular copy, and I was hoping to understand what is written there.  The image is given below.  Note that the page has been cut and it's likely that some of the writing is missing on the right.  So far I know that the first word is &quot;hic.&quot;  The context is that there's a marking written in the text between [Luke 23:43 and 23:44](http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=1&amp;b=3&amp;c=23), and the full page can be seen on page 101 in the (lower-quality) [digital scan](http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/metsnav3/general/index.html#mets=http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.dlib.indiana.edu%2Fiudl%2Fgeneral%2Fmets%2FVAB8631&amp;page=101).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NhCDY.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5220" RevisionGUID="8ee11bf5-6c8e-4a2f-8afd-d9ef8943eb24" CreationDate="2017-09-10T19:40:40.580" UserId="1980" Comment="edited body" Text="The [Lilly library](http://www.indiana.edu/~liblilly/) has a Gutenberg bible on display and the page that it is open to varies.  This week the page had a marginal comment in it, which is unusual for this particular copy, and I was hoping to understand what is written there.  The image is given below.  Note that the page has been cut and it's likely that some of the writing is missing on the right.  So far I know that the first word is &quot;hic.&quot;  The context is that there's a marking written in the text between [Luke 23:53 and 23:54](http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=1&amp;b=3&amp;c=23), and the full page can be seen on page 101 in the (lower-quality) [digital scan](http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/metsnav3/general/index.html#mets=http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.dlib.indiana.edu%2Fiudl%2Fgeneral%2Fmets%2FVAB8631&amp;page=101).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NhCDY.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5221" RevisionGUID="c37bf5af-82c6-4538-bcbf-d021f1697c5d" CreationDate="2017-09-10T20:18:21.280" UserId="522" Text="Poetry translation is often about trying to keep metaphors alive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [2] εἰς τόπον χλόης, ἐκεῖ με κατεσκήνωσεν, ἐπὶ ὕδατος ἀναπαύσεως&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἐξέθρεψέ με,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the LXX translation there is a reference to the Exodus, κατεσκήνωσεν, &quot;he pitched my tent&quot; and the crossing into the promised land &quot;over the water&quot; ἐπὶ ὕδατος (Jordan River).  &#xD;&#xA;There is also an echo of Genesis 1 the 'pausing/hovering,' ἀναπαύσεως, of the Spirit over the water, and the 'nurturing,' ἐξέθρεψέ, of all life.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Super aquam refectionis educavit me;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Jerome focuses on the the second of these references, Genesis 1, 'He led me out over the water of new-creation/ re-Creation;'  &#xD;&#xA;If you search on-line for ***'super aqua_' Bible*** or **ἐπὶ ὕδατος LXX** there are other references." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5222" RevisionGUID="1fbc8035-c74b-4e9c-95cd-a93debe640a4" CreationDate="2017-09-10T20:59:49.023" UserId="79" Text="Greek has the medium participle ending in *-menos*.&#xD;&#xA;It has a couple of occurrences in Latin, too, of which I only seem to remember *alere &gt; alumnus* now.&#xD;&#xA;How many words are there in Latin that contain this element?&#xD;&#xA;What is their origin?&#xD;&#xA;Are they borrowed from Greek, or was the participle or derivative suffix *-m(e)nus* ever productive in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17249" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5222" RevisionGUID="1fbc8035-c74b-4e9c-95cd-a93debe640a4" CreationDate="2017-09-10T20:59:49.023" UserId="79" Text="How productive was the participle in -menus in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17250" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5222" RevisionGUID="1fbc8035-c74b-4e9c-95cd-a93debe640a4" CreationDate="2017-09-10T20:59:49.023" UserId="79" Text="|greek|derivation|morphology|participle|origin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5224" RevisionGUID="887f6576-27e4-4e83-99d6-8f8cd1fced78" CreationDate="2017-09-10T22:59:30.133" UserId="40" Text="Weiss cites, besides *alumnus*, *femina* (from a root meaning 'give suck'), *calumnia* (derived from *kalwo-mno-, from the root of *calvor* 'deceive'), and possibly also *columna* and the divine name *Vortumnus* (if related to *verto* 'turn', though it may rather be Etruscan). These are not Greek loans but are inherited from Indo-European." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5224" RevisionGUID="5f9194b1-8728-4341-bf8a-4320813191c7" CreationDate="2017-09-10T23:10:14.910" UserId="40" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="Weiss cites, besides *alumnus*, *femina* (from a root meaning 'give suck'), *calumnia* (derived from *kalwo-mno-, from the root of *calvor* 'deceive'), and possibly also *columna* and the divine name *Vortumnus* (if related to *verto* 'turn', though it may rather be Etruscan). These are not Greek loans but native formations; I don't know when precisely they were formed, but the suffix doesn't seem to have been productive in Latin as we know it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5225" RevisionGUID="dd440a30-a30d-4143-a968-5015ffb1a84f" CreationDate="2017-09-11T03:05:09.510" UserId="1980" Text="Based on insightful comments from Hugh and a lot of help from a friend, we've now sorted out what it reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hic continuand[i sunt] lectiones in refectori[um].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that lectiones is written lco with an abbreviation symbol.  This translates to roughly &quot;Continue reading here in the refectory.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key point is that this marginal comment is one of six appearing in the gospels all of which indicate that the portion of the gospel concerning the death of Jesus should not be read in the refectory but only in church.  As pointed out by Hugh, there's a very similar comment at the end of the passage in John which is not cut off and reads &quot;Huiusque legitur in refectorio&quot; and one in Matthew reading &quot;&quot;hic ... legendum est in refectorio et omissa passioni domini P.incipiendo est vespere autem sabbati.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5226" RevisionGUID="0da00012-8124-439f-9c89-b6ca8f79019c" CreationDate="2017-09-11T05:45:35.940" UserId="30" Text="Suppose we had this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hannibal Romanos vicisset, nisi plurimi elephantes perissent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's put this in indirect speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Credo Hanibal vicisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We want to say, &quot;I believe that Hannibal would have won&quot;. But the above means something else: &quot;I believe that Hannibal won&quot;. How should the irrealis be rendered in indirect speech?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17259" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5226" RevisionGUID="0da00012-8124-439f-9c89-b6ca8f79019c" CreationDate="2017-09-11T05:45:35.940" UserId="30" Text="How is a counterfactual verbal phrase expressed in indirect speech?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17260" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5226" RevisionGUID="0da00012-8124-439f-9c89-b6ca8f79019c" CreationDate="2017-09-11T05:45:35.940" UserId="30" Text="|accusativus-cum-infinitivo|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5227" RevisionGUID="d1b76a8e-b5e1-4bdd-bf71-ebbe12cee8e5" CreationDate="2017-09-11T05:52:34.750" UserId="30" Text="I had already looked it up, and the below is what Allen and Greenough have to say (which matches what I seemed to remember). In short, use the future participle with *fuisse*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Credo Hannibal **victurum fuisse**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Apart%3D2%3Asection%3D12%3Asubsection%3D1%3Asmythp%3D589:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [*] b. In changing a Condition contrary to fact (§ 517) into the Indirect Discourse, the following points require notice:—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; The Protasis always remains unchanged in tense.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; The Apodosis, if active, takes a peculiar infinitive form, made by combining the Participle in -ūrus with fuisse .&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; If the verb of the Apodosis is passive or has no supine stem, the periphrasis futūrum fuisse ut (with the Imperfect Subjunctive) must&#xD;&#xA;   be used.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; An Indicative in the Apodosis becomes a Perfect Infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Examples are:—  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; “nec se superstitem filiae futurum fuisse, nisi spem ulciscendae mortis êius in auxilio commilitonum habuisset ” (Liv. 3.50.7) , and&#xD;&#xA;   that he should not now be a survivor, etc., unless he had had hope,&#xD;&#xA;   etc. [Direct: non superstes essem , nisi habuissem .] &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; “illud Asia cogitet, nullam a se neque belli externi neque discordiarum domesticarum calamitatem afuturam fuisse, si hoc imperio&#xD;&#xA;   non teneretur ” (Q. Fr. 1.1.34) , let Asia (personified) think of&#xD;&#xA;   this, that no disaster, etc., would not be hers, if she were not held&#xD;&#xA;   by this government. [Direct: abesset , si non tenerer .] &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; “quid inimicitiarum creditis [me] excepturum fuisse, si insontis lacessissem ” (Q. C. 6.10.18) , what enmities do you think I should&#xD;&#xA;   have incurred, if I had wantonly assailed the innocent? [excepissem&#xD;&#xA;   ... si lacessissem.] &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; “invitum se dicere, nec dicturum fuisse, ni caritas rei publicae vinceret ” (Liv. 2.2) , that he spoke unwillingly and should not have&#xD;&#xA;   spoken, did not love for the state prevail. [Direct: nec dixissem ...&#xD;&#xA;   ni vinceret .] &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; “nisi eo tempore quidam nuntii de Caesaris victoria ... essent allati, existimabant plerique futurum fuisse uti [oppidum]&#xD;&#xA;   amitteretur ” (B. C. 3.101) , most people thought that unless at that&#xD;&#xA;   time reports of Cæsar's victory had been brought, the town would have&#xD;&#xA;   been lost. [Direct: nisi essent allati ... amissum esset .] &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; “quorum si aetas potuisset esse longinquior, futurum fuisse ut omnibus perfectis artibus hominum vita erudiretur ” (Tusc. 3.69) , if&#xD;&#xA;   life could have been longer, human existence would have been&#xD;&#xA;   embellished by every art in its perfection. [Direct: si potuisset ...&#xD;&#xA;   erudita esset .] &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; “ at plerique existimant, si acrius insequi voluisset, bellum eo die potuisse finire ” (B. C. 3.51) , but most people think that, if&#xD;&#xA;   he had chosen to follow up the pursuit more vigorously, he could have&#xD;&#xA;   ended the war on that day. [Direct: si voluisset ... potuit .] &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; “Caesar respondit ... si alicûius iniuriae sibi conscius fuisset, non fuisse difficile cavere ” (B. G. 1.14) , Cæsar replied that if&#xD;&#xA;   [the Roman people] had been aware of any wrong act, it would not have&#xD;&#xA;   been hard for them to take precautions. [Direct: si fuisset , non&#xD;&#xA;   difficile fuit (§ 517. c).]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [*] Note 1.--In Indirect Discourse Present Conditions contrary to fact are not distinguished in the apodosis from Past Conditions contrary to fact, but the protasis may keep them distinct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [*] Note 2.--The periphrasis futurum fuisse ut is sometimes used from choice when there is no necessity for resorting to it, but not in Cæsar or Cicero. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [*] Note 3.--Very rarely the Future Infinitive is used in the Indirect Discourse to express the Apodosis of a Present Condition contrary to fact. Only four or five examples of this use occur in classic authors: as,Titurius clamabat si Caesar adesset neque Carnutes, etc., “neque Eburones tanta cum contemptione nostra ad castra venturos esse” (B. G. 5.29) , Titurius cried out that if Cæsar were present, neither would the Carnutes, etc., nor would the Eburones be coming to our camp with such contempt, [Direct: si adesset ... venirent .]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17262" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5226" RevisionGUID="b9c18629-f349-4aaa-9b69-03a1e1815a04" CreationDate="2017-09-11T06:08:17.603" UserId="30" Comment="edited title" Text="How is a counterfactual thought expressed in indirect speech?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5227" RevisionGUID="0386d98d-5d9c-449f-874d-611df8677ff2" CreationDate="2017-09-11T06:08:51.080" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 64 characters in body" Text="I have already looked it up, and the below is what Allen and Greenough have to say (which matches what I seemed to remember). In short, use the future participle with *fuisse*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Credo Hannibalem **victurum fuisse**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Allen and Greenough][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [*] b. In changing a Condition contrary to fact (§ 517) into the Indirect Discourse, the following points require notice:—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; The Protasis always remains unchanged in tense.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; The Apodosis, if active, takes a peculiar infinitive form, made by combining the Participle in -ūrus with fuisse .&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; If the verb of the Apodosis is passive or has no supine stem, the periphrasis futūrum fuisse ut (with the Imperfect Subjunctive) must&#xD;&#xA;   be used.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; An Indicative in the Apodosis becomes a Perfect Infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Examples are:—  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; “nec se superstitem filiae futurum fuisse, nisi spem ulciscendae mortis êius in auxilio commilitonum habuisset ” (Liv. 3.50.7) , and&#xD;&#xA;   that he should not now be a survivor, etc., unless he had had hope,&#xD;&#xA;   etc. [Direct: non superstes essem , nisi habuissem .] &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; “illud Asia cogitet, nullam a se neque belli externi neque discordiarum domesticarum calamitatem afuturam fuisse, si hoc imperio&#xD;&#xA;   non teneretur ” (Q. Fr. 1.1.34) , let Asia (personified) think of&#xD;&#xA;   this, that no disaster, etc., would not be hers, if she were not held&#xD;&#xA;   by this government. [Direct: abesset , si non tenerer .] &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; “quid inimicitiarum creditis [me] excepturum fuisse, si insontis lacessissem ” (Q. C. 6.10.18) , what enmities do you think I should&#xD;&#xA;   have incurred, if I had wantonly assailed the innocent? [excepissem&#xD;&#xA;   ... si lacessissem.] &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; “invitum se dicere, nec dicturum fuisse, ni caritas rei publicae vinceret ” (Liv. 2.2) , that he spoke unwillingly and should not have&#xD;&#xA;   spoken, did not love for the state prevail. [Direct: nec dixissem ...&#xD;&#xA;   ni vinceret .] &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; “nisi eo tempore quidam nuntii de Caesaris victoria ... essent allati, existimabant plerique futurum fuisse uti [oppidum]&#xD;&#xA;   amitteretur ” (B. C. 3.101) , most people thought that unless at that&#xD;&#xA;   time reports of Cæsar's victory had been brought, the town would have&#xD;&#xA;   been lost. [Direct: nisi essent allati ... amissum esset .] &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; “quorum si aetas potuisset esse longinquior, futurum fuisse ut omnibus perfectis artibus hominum vita erudiretur ” (Tusc. 3.69) , if&#xD;&#xA;   life could have been longer, human existence would have been&#xD;&#xA;   embellished by every art in its perfection. [Direct: si potuisset ...&#xD;&#xA;   erudita esset .] &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; “ at plerique existimant, si acrius insequi voluisset, bellum eo die potuisse finire ” (B. C. 3.51) , but most people think that, if&#xD;&#xA;   he had chosen to follow up the pursuit more vigorously, he could have&#xD;&#xA;   ended the war on that day. [Direct: si voluisset ... potuit .] &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; “Caesar respondit ... si alicûius iniuriae sibi conscius fuisset, non fuisse difficile cavere ” (B. G. 1.14) , Cæsar replied that if&#xD;&#xA;   [the Roman people] had been aware of any wrong act, it would not have&#xD;&#xA;   been hard for them to take precautions. [Direct: si fuisset , non&#xD;&#xA;   difficile fuit (§ 517. c).]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [*] Note 1.--In Indirect Discourse Present Conditions contrary to fact are not distinguished in the apodosis from Past Conditions contrary to fact, but the protasis may keep them distinct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [*] Note 2.--The periphrasis futurum fuisse ut is sometimes used from choice when there is no necessity for resorting to it, but not in Cæsar or Cicero. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [*] Note 3.--Very rarely the Future Infinitive is used in the Indirect Discourse to express the Apodosis of a Present Condition contrary to fact. Only four or five examples of this use occur in classic authors: as,Titurius clamabat si Caesar adesset neque Carnutes, etc., “neque Eburones tanta cum contemptione nostra ad castra venturos esse” (B. G. 5.29) , Titurius cried out that if Cæsar were present, neither would the Carnutes, etc., nor would the Eburones be coming to our camp with such contempt, [Direct: si adesset ... venirent .]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://Allen%20and%20Greenough" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5226" RevisionGUID="b9c18629-f349-4aaa-9b69-03a1e1815a04" CreationDate="2017-09-11T06:08:17.603" UserId="30" Comment="edited title" Text="Suppose we had this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hannibal Romanos **vicisset**, nisi plurimi elephantes perissent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's put this in indirect speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Credo Hannibalem *vicisse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We want to say, &quot;I believe that Hannibal would have won&quot;. But the above means something else: &quot;I believe that Hannibal won&quot;. How should the irrealis be rendered in indirect speech?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5228" RevisionGUID="c5a4b1b7-80cf-4033-8962-9191326110c1" CreationDate="2017-09-11T10:56:23.077" UserId="1982" Text="Lucretius: De Natura Rerum: Liber Secundus; L177-181&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the sentence: nam quamvis rerum ignorem primordia quae sint,&#xD;&#xA;hoc tamen ex ipsis caeli rationibus ausim&#xD;&#xA;confirmare aliisque ex rebus reddere multis,&#xD;&#xA;nequaquam nobis divinitus esse createm&#xD;&#xA;naturam mundi:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;given that Lucretius is writing in the first person (eg &quot;ignorem&quot;; &quot;ausim&quot;) why deploy acc-inf construction, esse createm, which represents indirect speech?&#xD;&#xA;Why not &quot;createm est&quot; giving the required--has-been-created; with &quot;nequaquam&quot; giving: has by no means been created?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17266" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5228" RevisionGUID="c5a4b1b7-80cf-4033-8962-9191326110c1" CreationDate="2017-09-11T10:56:23.077" UserId="1982" Text="Accusative--Infinitive Construction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17267" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5228" RevisionGUID="c5a4b1b7-80cf-4033-8962-9191326110c1" CreationDate="2017-09-11T10:56:23.077" UserId="1982" Text="|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5228" RevisionGUID="b697e468-3ab0-4a9a-89b8-015d51e45b1c" CreationDate="2017-09-11T11:05:47.943" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="Lucretius, De Natura Rerum: Liber Secundus; L177&amp;ndash;181 contains this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nam quamvis rerum ignorem primordia quae sint,&#xD;&#xA;hoc tamen ex ipsis caeli rationibus ausim&#xD;&#xA;confirmare aliisque ex rebus reddere multis,&#xD;&#xA;nequaquam nobis divinitus esse createm&#xD;&#xA;naturam mundi:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that Lucretius is writing in the first person (eg &quot;ignorem&quot;; &quot;ausim&quot;) why deploy acc-inf construction, esse createm, which represents indirect speech?&#xD;&#xA;Why not &quot;createm est&quot; giving the required--has-been-created; with &quot;nequaquam&quot; giving: has by no means been created?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17269" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5228" RevisionGUID="b697e468-3ab0-4a9a-89b8-015d51e45b1c" CreationDate="2017-09-11T11:05:47.943" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|accusativus-cum-infinitivo|lucretius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5228" RevisionGUID="12eebbf6-2429-4089-9a6d-941f2e8b6ab9" CreationDate="2017-09-11T12:06:58.467" UserId="1982" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Lucretius, De Natura Rerum: Liber Secundus; L177&amp;ndash;181 contains this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nam quamvis rerum ignorem primordia quae sint,&#xD;&#xA;hoc tamen ex ipsis caeli rationibus ausim&#xD;&#xA;confirmare aliisque ex rebus reddere multis,&#xD;&#xA;nequaquam nobis divinitus esse createm&#xD;&#xA;naturam mundi:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that Lucretius is writing in the first person (eg &quot;ignorem&quot;; &quot;ausim&quot;) why deploy acc-inf construction, esse createm, which represents indirect speech?&#xD;&#xA;Why not &quot;creata est&quot; giving the required--has-been-created; with &quot;nequaquam&quot; giving: has by no means been created?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5228" RevisionGUID="323f3616-e47a-4de3-8c59-9cffa3236b0c" CreationDate="2017-09-11T13:18:14.727" UserId="1982" Comment="edited body" Text="Lucretius, De Natura Rerum: Liber Secundus; L177&amp;ndash;181 contains this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nam quamvis rerum ignorem primordia quae sint,&#xD;&#xA;hoc tamen ex ipsis caeli rationibus ausim&#xD;&#xA;confirmare aliisque ex rebus reddere multis,&#xD;&#xA;nequaquam nobis divinitus esse creatam&#xD;&#xA;naturam mundi:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that Lucretius is writing in the first person (eg &quot;ignorem&quot;; &quot;ausim&quot;) why deploy acc-inf construction, esse creatam, which represents indirect speech?&#xD;&#xA;Why not &quot;creata est&quot; giving the required--has-been-created; with &quot;nequaquam&quot; giving: has by no means been created?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5229" RevisionGUID="234412e3-845b-4fb5-adfd-3e87110c0bb6" CreationDate="2017-09-11T16:56:53.880" UserId="79" Text="I am not familiar with any mentions of bullying in Roman literature, so I would like to ask for good words for the phenomenon in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I would like something that is suitable for bullying in a school, but other similar contexts are also fine.&#xD;&#xA;I have found some words that might be suitable, but I can't quite judge which ones would be most appropriate or if I have missed something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could identify four important word types related to bullying.&#xD;&#xA;Since I assume them to be related &amp;mdash; probably three others derived from one of the words &amp;mdash; I chose to ask about four words in one.&#xD;&#xA;Here are the words with my suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The verb &quot;to bully&quot;: *molestare, cavillari, vexare, angere*&#xD;&#xA;2. The noun &quot;bullying&quot; for the phenomenon: *vexatio, molestatio, cavillatio, molestia, incommodum, fastidium*&#xD;&#xA;3. The noun &quot;bully&quot; for the person bullying: *vexator, tortor, diabolus*&#xD;&#xA;4. A noun for the person being bullied: *vexatus, tortus, molestatus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What quadruplet of words would you suggest and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In Finnish the four words would be &quot;kiusata&quot;, &quot;kiusaaminen&quot;, &quot;kiusaaja&quot;, and &quot;kiusattu&quot;, all derived from the verb &quot;kiusata&quot;. These are all frequent words in related discussions, so I would prefer to have Latin counterparts to be able to discuss the matter in Latin.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17274" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5229" RevisionGUID="234412e3-845b-4fb5-adfd-3e87110c0bb6" CreationDate="2017-09-11T16:56:53.880" UserId="79" Text="Bullying vocabulary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17275" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5229" RevisionGUID="234412e3-845b-4fb5-adfd-3e87110c0bb6" CreationDate="2017-09-11T16:56:53.880" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5226" RevisionGUID="7e683a0a-d8a9-4296-b28d-3c4d91a13d8e" CreationDate="2017-09-11T17:36:06.370" UserId="30" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Suppose we had this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hannibal Romanos **vicisset**, nisi plurimi elephantes periissent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's put this in indirect speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Credo Hannibalem *vicisse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We want to say, &quot;I believe that Hannibal would have won&quot;. But the above means something else: &quot;I believe that Hannibal won&quot;. How should the irrealis be rendered in indirect speech?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5230" RevisionGUID="d37d1444-df6a-4d96-b932-e1cf727dcad5" CreationDate="2017-09-11T17:56:30.440" UserId="30" Text="You are correct that the a.c.i. (and some other constructions) is called indirect speech. So Lucretius could have written, in a new sentence, *nequaquam divinitus est creata natura*, which would not have been indirect speech. But I think the main point here is that indirect speech is not necessarily speech from someone other than the speaker: it can be the same person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The function of indirect speech can be to express the attitude of the speaker towards a certain statement or phrase. In this case, one could say that Lucretius expresses epistemic modality towards his theory and tells us how he come to it: he demonstrates or asserts (*confirmare*) and recounts (*reddo*) the content of his theory, the indirect speech. He takes position with regard to the theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Had he phrased it in direct speech, it would have been presented as a fact by default, which was not his intention. He could have qualified indirect speech in other ways to get around that; but indirect speech is a natural approach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare this with how one would write the same thing in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I assert **that** the gods were not involved in the creation of nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is indirect speech as well, marked by the introductory word *that*. It's the natural way if you want to use a word like *assert*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;On a side note, the term 'direct speech' means speech exactly as it is phrased by the speaker (or *m. m.* the writer). In a way, the entire *De Rerum Natura*, like any text, is direct speech, as one can quote from it; it contains words written exactly so by Lucretius. Then indirect speech is embedded in the direct speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5231" RevisionGUID="d48edf68-53e7-4d0b-be43-69e89373ee85" CreationDate="2017-09-11T21:59:46.680" UserId="79" Text="I suggest using the adjective [*continuus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=continuus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;It has a number of different meanings, including things like &quot;continuous&quot; or &quot;uninterrupted&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I would translate &quot;page 61, [letter] XVII (continued)&quot; as &quot;*pagina 61, [litterae] XVII (continuae)*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The adjective should agree with the noun &quot;letter&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get rid of agreement problems, you can also consider the corresponding adverbs *continue* and *continuo*.&#xD;&#xA;Other similar adverbs include *continuanter* and *continuate*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last two adverbs come from the derived verb *continuare*.&#xD;&#xA;The passive participle *continuatae* has essentially the same effect as *continuae*.&#xD;&#xA;Also the passive *[litterae] continuantur* (&quot;[letter] is continued&quot;) is possible if you prefer a personal verb form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5218" RevisionGUID="daeae242-3f19-40bd-ae8c-f7d36fd6e9d4" CreationDate="2017-09-11T22:00:36.520" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="I'm formatting some letters we're reading this semester in my Latin class in Word so I have more space to annotate. I need to keep track of which text in my Word doc is on which page of the book the class uses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if I'm referring to &quot;p. 46 (continued)&quot;, how ought I translate that *continued*? I've looked at some dictionaries, and I've seen *exsecutus* and *iugis*, but they don't necessarily seem correct for this usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This &quot;continued&quot; for the header at the top of each letter. For example, Pliny's Epistles Book II Letter XVII is very long (over 1100 words) and thus, it crosses several pages in Whitton's edition of Book II. When I'm making my version, I want to be able to know what page of Whitton each passage is on, so I might label a section of Letter XVII as &quot;p. 61 &amp;ndash; XVII (continued)&quot; to show that XVII began several pages ago." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17280" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5218" RevisionGUID="daeae242-3f19-40bd-ae8c-f7d36fd6e9d4" CreationDate="2017-09-11T22:00:36.520" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|english-to-latin-translation|idiom|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5232" RevisionGUID="d3b710ae-b330-44d6-9676-bc9620eec887" CreationDate="2017-09-12T16:09:44.597" UserId="45" Text="I would like to know if [*sequor*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsequor) can be used to translate a sentence like the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do you follow my argument?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The linked L&amp;S entry does not have anything equivalent, though it does indicate logical uses like &quot;ensues,&quot; as in the common phrase &quot;non sequitur.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it can't be used in this way, what would be a better way to translate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17285" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5232" RevisionGUID="d3b710ae-b330-44d6-9676-bc9620eec887" CreationDate="2017-09-12T16:09:44.597" UserId="45" Text="Can &quot;sequi&quot; be used to indicate that I &quot;follow&quot; an argument?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17286" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5232" RevisionGUID="d3b710ae-b330-44d6-9676-bc9620eec887" CreationDate="2017-09-12T16:09:44.597" UserId="45" Text="|vocabulary|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5233" RevisionGUID="c5e0f468-24b0-482f-84aa-02ade6e71aee" CreationDate="2017-09-12T18:43:29.130" UserId="645" Text="There's a wide choice of verbs for your purpose, but *sequor* isn't one of them : it has more a sense of 'pursue', so you might more properly use it for 'pursue an argument' — or a theory, for example — yourself, rather than for following another's line of reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sense that you are looking for is synonymous with 'understand' or 'grasp', for which either *intellego*  or *comprehendo* would do quite well : however these really mean to take in something mentally, for which *capio* would serve equally. For the precise sense that I take from your question (and for myself, in fact, in most cases) I should prefer to use *complector*, with its slightly wider sense of both embracing and accepting. However, the differences between these are pretty slight, and the best choice depends, as ever, on actual context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5234" RevisionGUID="0d2660cc-6d2f-4ca2-a9b5-9fdcbc29eae5" CreationDate="2017-09-12T21:25:11.613" UserId="79" Text="How do I phrase &quot;mistaking something for something&quot; idiomatically in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;There is always a way around if one wants to explain (eg. &quot;I mistook the cat for a dog&quot; &gt; *Felem canem esse falso putabam*), but I imagine there would be a Latin idiom for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find a Latin translation of The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, and I'm out of ideas how to look for an idiom like this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17290" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5234" RevisionGUID="0d2660cc-6d2f-4ca2-a9b5-9fdcbc29eae5" CreationDate="2017-09-12T21:25:11.613" UserId="79" Text="Mistaking something for something" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17291" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5234" RevisionGUID="0d2660cc-6d2f-4ca2-a9b5-9fdcbc29eae5" CreationDate="2017-09-12T21:25:11.613" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5235" RevisionGUID="ddae0b2f-a44a-4276-b9c8-a6d4effca16c" CreationDate="2017-09-13T05:55:58.837" UserId="645" Text="For your examples, I suggest :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Felem credidi canem esse*, in which the mistake is implicit, or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Homo qui coniugem pro petaso finxit*, 'the man who imagined that his wife was a hat'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5236" RevisionGUID="266ea3e6-a304-47c1-b087-89fc641df5d2" CreationDate="2017-09-13T13:48:57.160" UserId="1743" Text="**Question.** Is Kant's &quot;De Mundi Sensibilis atque Intelligibilis Forma et Principiis&quot; available online in its Latin original?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Remarks.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Rather unbelievably, it seems to me that the answer is currently negative. &#xD;&#xA;If this is so (and in particular, if it is not available in both the formats mentioned below), what, do you think, would be a useful way to change that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* This work of Kant's is often referred to by the term 'the inaugural dissertation'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It would be preferable to have it *both* in a scanned format, so as to have some degree of certification of originality and reference in case of doubting parts of a typed format, *and* in some text-format typed by someone living in the computer-age, so as to make it searchable. Neither *only* a scanned format, nor *only* a text-format seem enough for all scholarly uses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* An English translation,&#xD;&#xA; said to be of William J.&#xD;&#xA; Eckoff,&#xD;&#xA; is available [from this Wikisource](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kant%27s_Inaugural_Dissertation_of_1770).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A scanned form of an 1894 edition of William J. Eckoff's English translation is available from [this archive.org page](https://archive.org/details/cu31924029022329)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17294" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5236" RevisionGUID="266ea3e6-a304-47c1-b087-89fc641df5d2" CreationDate="2017-09-13T13:48:57.160" UserId="1743" Text="Is Kant's &quot;De Mundi Sensibilis atque Intelligibilis Forma et Principiis&quot; available online in its Latin original?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17295" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5236" RevisionGUID="266ea3e6-a304-47c1-b087-89fc641df5d2" CreationDate="2017-09-13T13:48:57.160" UserId="1743" Text="|translation|science|philosophy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5237" RevisionGUID="438acff6-28be-43bd-8c20-0a2983435258" CreationDate="2017-09-13T14:10:11.913" UserId="1987" Text="I want to engrave &quot;Peace and Good Will&quot; on my ring in Latin. I have less then a quarter available for the engraving so it can't be too big.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would &quot;PAX ET BONA FIDES&quot; be 1. Correct and 2. Sonorous? If not then what should I use? And because BONA FIDES is so 'common' (having passed both into modern Legal tradition and modern vernacular, eg. &quot;This is a BONA FIDE cheese burger, alright!&quot;), are there any other words I could use, like &quot;SUMMA FIDES&quot;? I've heard of Uberrima Fides but I think that's limited to Insurance right? And is Fides even the correct word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I originally wanted to use something from the Bible (even though I'm not Christian) but turns out it is huge. Luke 2:14 &quot;Gloria in altissimis Deo et in terra pax in hominibus bonae voluntatis&quot;. Also, I was raised as a Protestant, and they translate it as &quot;good will to mankind&quot; but the Catholics translate it as &quot;good will to those upon whom His favor rests&quot;. Ouch. I prefer the more universal idea of good will to all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Awaiting your reply, and thank you very much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yours truly,&#xD;&#xA;Julian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17297" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5237" RevisionGUID="438acff6-28be-43bd-8c20-0a2983435258" CreationDate="2017-09-13T14:10:11.913" UserId="1987" Text="Peace and Good Will in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17298" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5237" RevisionGUID="438acff6-28be-43bd-8c20-0a2983435258" CreationDate="2017-09-13T14:10:11.913" UserId="1987" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5237" RevisionGUID="180ead3e-fcc1-4008-bf2e-47c8f6093b9a" CreationDate="2017-09-13T14:21:54.230" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 73 characters in body" Text="I want to engrave &quot;Peace and Good Will&quot; on my ring in Latin. I have less then a quarter available for the engraving so it can't be too big.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would &quot;PAX ET BONA FIDES&quot; be 1. Correct and 2. Sonorous? If not then what should I use? And because BONA FIDES is so 'common' (having passed both into modern Legal tradition and modern vernacular, eg. &quot;This is a BONA FIDE cheese burger, alright!&quot;), are there any other words I could use, like &quot;SUMMA FIDES&quot;? I've heard of Uberrima Fides but I think that's limited to Insurance right? And is Fides even the correct word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I originally wanted to use something from the Bible (even though I'm not Christian) but turns out it is huge. Luke 2:14 &quot;Gloria in altissimis Deo et in terra pax in hominibus bonae voluntatis&quot;. Also, I was raised as a Protestant, and they translate it as &quot;good will to mankind&quot; but the Catholics translate it as &quot;good will to those upon whom His favor rests&quot;. Ouch. I prefer the more universal idea of good will to all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5238" RevisionGUID="747588d8-2137-4bb3-900c-73be0c399a90" CreationDate="2017-09-13T14:29:38.123" UserId="1459" Text="The Vulgata Bible (which strictly speaking is both Catholic and protestant) has in Luke 2:14 [the following](http://www.biblestudytools.com/vul/luke/2-14.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;gloria in altissimis Deo et in terra pax in hominibus bonae voluntatis &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which in English is translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(the above is for example part of the [Catholic Gloria hymn](http://catholichymn.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/gloria.html))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I would suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;pax et bonum voluntatem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion this is general enough, and will not be associated with a particular interpretation of the aforementioned biblical verse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5238" RevisionGUID="5c4d23bf-2a5c-49a2-aaf5-dbad441cae3c" CreationDate="2017-09-13T14:36:06.840" UserId="1459" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="The Vulgata Bible (which strictly speaking is both Catholic and Protestant) has in Luke 2:14 [the following](http://www.biblestudytools.com/vul/luke/2-14.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;gloria in altissimis Deo et in terra pax in hominibus bonae voluntatis &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which in English is translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translation is in my opinion more loyal to the Latin version than the two you suggest, and thus I would consider it &quot;non-sectarian&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I would suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;pax et bonum voluntatem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion this is general enough, and will not be associated with a particular interpretation of the aforementioned biblical verse. It is also very brief and should fit in a ring. It is also fairly simply to understand if you speak Spanish, French or Italian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5238" RevisionGUID="539185e8-21eb-4a23-8a22-fef0d78ed9dc" CreationDate="2017-09-13T14:42:40.733" UserId="1459" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure _[Fides](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fidus#Latin)_ is correct there. You probably want to use _[voluntas](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/voluntas)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Vulgata Bible (which strictly speaking is both Catholic and Protestant) has in Luke 2:14 [the following](http://www.biblestudytools.com/vul/luke/2-14.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;gloria in altissimis Deo et in terra pax in hominibus bonae voluntatis &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which in English is translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translation is in my opinion more loyal to the Latin version than the two you suggest, and thus I would consider it &quot;non-sectarian&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I would suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;pax et bonum voluntatem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion this is general enough, and will not be associated with a particular interpretation of the aforementioned biblical verse. It is also very brief and should fit in a ring. It is also fairly simply to understand if you speak Spanish, French or Italian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5238" RevisionGUID="b3db1bf2-a39a-4d2c-922a-17f9883095f8" CreationDate="2017-09-13T14:45:43.923" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure _[Fides](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fidus#Latin)_ is correct there. You probably want to use _[voluntas](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/voluntas)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Vulgata Bible (which strictly speaking is both Catholic and Protestant) has in Luke 2:14 [the following](http://www.biblestudytools.com/vul/luke/2-14.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;gloria in altissimis Deo et in terra pax in hominibus bonae voluntatis &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which in English is translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translation is in my opinion more loyal to the Latin version than the two you suggest, and thus I would consider it &quot;non-sectarian&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;pax et bonum voluntatem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion this is general enough, and will not be associated with a particular interpretation of the aforementioned biblical verse. It is also very brief and should fit in a ring, and is fairly simply to understand if you know Spanish, French or Italian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5239" RevisionGUID="5c502784-c580-41c8-b07a-01a11a753d57" CreationDate="2017-09-13T15:12:11.700" UserId="1459" Text="Hard to answer with a sound &quot;no&quot;, as I might end up being proved wrong. However, I could not find one version in Latin wherever I searched. I also looked at my university's library, which has access to paywalled repositories of classical texts (and it's big on classics). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this end up being the case, I suggest to bring it to the public domain! For that, do the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. get access to a physical copy of the book, maybe in your university or city library. For example, in my university there is a version available both in Italian and Latin, which is 107 pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. make a scan of it. Sounds like a lot of work, but in the above case, provided the format is friendly, you only have to scan maybe 50 pages (the English version you linked has 108 pages, which means 54 two-pages scans). This is not too bad. (if you are lucky, the library might have a scanning service for you, which is probably not free, but might be worth it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Use an [OCR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_character_recognition) software to transform the pictures into text. There are plenty of free and decent quality software for this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Since OCR'ing a document is not likely to be perfect, you might need to manually correct some typos and errors. This is probably the most time consuming process. Alternatively, upload both the pdf and the OCR text and ask in a Latin forum (e.g. here, in the chat) and ask for help. I'm sure you will get a bit of support for this.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5239" RevisionGUID="1f78d1cb-1ba1-41c4-b643-e7360e9e4ac8" CreationDate="2017-09-13T15:18:48.890" UserId="1459" Comment="added 315 characters in body" Text="Hard to answer with a sound &quot;no&quot;, as I might end up being proved wrong. However, I could not find one version in Latin wherever I searched. I also looked at my university's library, which has access to paywalled repositories of classical texts (and it's big on classics). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this end up being the case, I suggest to bring it to the public domain! For that, do the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. get access to a physical copy of the book, maybe in your university or city library. For example, in my university there is a version available both in Italian and Latin, which is 107 pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. make a scan of it. Sounds like a lot of work, but in the above case, provided the format is friendly, you only have to scan maybe 50 pages (the English version you linked has 108 pages, which means 54 two-pages scans). This is not too bad. (if you are lucky, the library might have a scanning service for you, which is probably not free, but might be worth it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Use an [OCR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_character_recognition) software to transform the pictures into text. There are plenty of free and decent quality software for this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Since OCR'ing a document is not likely to be perfect, you might need to manually correct some typos and errors. This is probably the most time consuming process. Alternatively, upload both the pdf and the OCR text and ask in a Latin forum (e.g. here, in the chat) and ask for help. I'm sure you will get a bit of support for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Once you are done, share it with the world, for instance in archive.org, and with the [Project Gutenberg](https://www.gutenberg.org/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If 3 and 4 sounds hard work, by sharing the PDF you produce at point 2 you are already contributing to the public domain repository. Maybe others can take on those tasks.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5240" RevisionGUID="33a4ccb2-8aee-4ffc-bd76-4cfe05eeef70" CreationDate="2017-09-13T15:20:20.680" UserId="1987" Text="(COR) CANDIDA ET ABSIT INVIDIA&#xA;&#xA;Is it correct? Is it sonorous? I like that Candidus means 'shining white, clear, bright, fair, beautiful' all in one.&#xA;&#xA;Want to engrave on a necklace (family friend with surname Whiteheart)&#xA;&#xA;Thanks " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17307" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5240" RevisionGUID="33a4ccb2-8aee-4ffc-bd76-4cfe05eeef70" CreationDate="2017-09-13T15:20:20.680" UserId="1987" Text="(Heart) White/Bright and Absit Invidia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17308" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5240" RevisionGUID="33a4ccb2-8aee-4ffc-bd76-4cfe05eeef70" CreationDate="2017-09-13T15:20:20.680" UserId="1987" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5240" RevisionGUID="d2853f0e-3c5f-4a18-8945-845907a090db" CreationDate="2017-09-13T17:40:14.227" UserId="1987" Comment="added 552 characters in body; added 45 characters in body" Text="I want to engrave a Latin phrase on a necklace for a family friend with the surname Whiteheart.&#xA;&#xA;I'm came up with &quot;A Heart White/Bright and Without Malice&quot;, which in Latin I'm thinking might be something like:&#xA;&#xA;(COR) CANDIDA ET ABSIT INVIDIA&#xA;&#xA;Would this be 1. Correct, and 2. Sonorous?&#xA;&#xA;I like that Candidus means 'shining white, clear, bright, fair, beautiful' all in one, and hope to use that word.&#xA;&#xA;I also like the phrase 'Absit Invidia' and want to use that.&#xA;&#xA;I'm also thinking it would be better not to include 'heart' ('cor'), so as to make it more general, applicable to the heart but also to the soul or whatever else, and also to save space and sound more catchy.&#xA;&#xA;CANDIDA ET ABSIT INVIDIA&#xA;Bright and Without Malice&#xA;&#xA;Is that grammatically correct and sonorous? And would there be any better alternatives?&#xA;&#xA;Thanks alot" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5238" RevisionGUID="c861b9af-a20b-4b41-8d94-ebf93a9d9ae7" CreationDate="2017-09-13T18:03:15.257" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I'm not sure _[Fides](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fidus#Latin)_ is correct there. You probably want to use _[voluntas](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/voluntas)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Vulgata Bible (which strictly speaking is both Catholic and Protestant) has in Luke 2:14 [the following](http://www.biblestudytools.com/vul/luke/2-14.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;gloria in altissimis Deo et in terra pax in hominibus bonae voluntatis &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which in English is translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translation is in my opinion more loyal to the Latin version than the two you suggest, and thus I would consider it &quot;non-sectarian&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;pax et bona voluntas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion this is general enough, and will not be associated with a particular interpretation of the aforementioned biblical verse. It is also very brief and should fit in a ring, and is fairly simply to understand if you know Spanish, French or Italian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5239" RevisionGUID="2f8e0e43-95c1-461f-9d3e-c825d70d0c72" CreationDate="2017-09-14T08:25:31.043" UserId="1459" Comment="added 350 characters in body" Text="&gt;Is Kant's &quot;De Mundi Sensibilis atque Intelligibilis Forma et Principiis&quot; available online in its Latin original?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hard to answer with a sound &quot;no&quot;, as I might end up being proved wrong. However, I could not find one version in Latin wherever I searched. I also looked at my university's library, which has access to paywalled repositories of classical texts (and it's big on classics). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Rather unbelievably, it seems to me that the answer is currently negative.  If this is so (and in particular, if it is not available in both the formats mentioned below), what, do you think, would be a useful way to change that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this end up being the case, I suggest to bring it to the public domain! For that, do the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. get access to a physical copy of the book, maybe in your university or city library. For example, in my university there is a version available both in Italian and Latin, which is 107 pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. make a scan of it. Sounds like a lot of work, but in the above case, provided the format is friendly, you only have to scan maybe 50 pages (the English version you linked has 108 pages, which means 54 two-pages scans). This is not too bad. (if you are lucky, the library might have a scanning service for you, which is probably not free, but might be worth it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Use an [OCR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_character_recognition) software to transform the pictures into text. There are plenty of free and decent quality software for this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Since OCR'ing a document is not likely to be perfect, you might need to manually correct some typos and errors. This is probably the most time consuming process. Alternatively, upload both the pdf and the OCR text and ask in a Latin forum (e.g. here, in the chat) and ask for help. I'm sure you will get a bit of support for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Once you are done, share it with the world, for instance in archive.org, and with the [Project Gutenberg](https://www.gutenberg.org/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If 3 and 4 sounds hard work, by sharing the PDF you produce at point 2 you are already contributing to the public domain repository. Maybe others can take on those tasks.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5241" RevisionGUID="24969bf3-bdaa-4a94-b73e-8cf4d0a1a5db" CreationDate="2017-09-14T11:11:58.080" UserId="79" Text="I would suggest this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Candida sis absitque invidia* (for a female)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Candidus sis absitque invidia* (for a male)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means &quot;may you be white and may malice be gone&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I only chose one possible translation of *candidus* to keep it simple.&#xD;&#xA;All the meanings are included, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You wanted to have the element *absit invidia*.&#xD;&#xA;As pointed out in a comment, it is a wish &quot;may malice be gone&quot;, not &quot;without malice&quot; or &quot;absence of malice&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;These three things are semantically very similar, but the grammatical difference is huge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because this last part is a wish, it makes sense to make the beginning a wish, too.&#xD;&#xA;I used the verb *sis* (&quot;may you be&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;I thought it would be appropriate that you wish the person to be *candidus*.&#xD;&#xA;The use of second person also makes this more personal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gender of the adjective must match the gender of the person.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore there are separate versions for a female and a male recipient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want it to be &quot;may I be&quot; instead of &quot;may you be&quot; &amp;mdash; which might make sense if others are supposed to see the text around the wearer's neck &amp;mdash; then you should replace *sis* with *sim*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;dual expressions&quot; like this one a chiastic word order often works best.&#xD;&#xA;I put the two verbs *sis* and *absit* next to each other.&#xD;&#xA;This also emphasizes the difference between the underlying verbs *esse* (&quot;to be&quot;) and *abesse* (&quot;to be away&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some reason *-que* sounds good to me in this use, perhaps because it seems to tie the two statements closer together.&#xD;&#xA;You can replace *absitque* with *et absit* if you want." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5241" RevisionGUID="02756483-1eb0-4994-b977-2893296c2532" CreationDate="2017-09-14T11:17:50.417" UserId="79" Comment="added 770 characters in body" Text="I would suggest this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Candida sis absitque invidia* (for a female)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Candidus sis absitque invidia* (for a male)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means &quot;may you be white and may malice be gone&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I only chose one possible translation of *candidus* to keep it simple.&#xD;&#xA;All the meanings are included, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You wanted to have the element *absit invidia*.&#xD;&#xA;As pointed out in a comment, it is a wish &quot;may malice be gone&quot;, not &quot;without malice&quot; or &quot;absence of malice&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;These three things are semantically very similar, but the grammatical difference is huge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because this last part is a wish, it makes sense to make the beginning a wish, too.&#xD;&#xA;I used the verb *sis* (&quot;may you be&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;I thought it would be appropriate that you wish the person to be *candidus*.&#xD;&#xA;The use of second person also makes this more personal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gender of the adjective must match the gender of the person.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore there are separate versions for a female and a male recipient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want it to be &quot;may I be&quot; instead of &quot;may you be&quot; &amp;mdash; which might make sense if others are supposed to see the text around the wearer's neck &amp;mdash; then you should replace *sis* with *sim*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;dual expressions&quot; like this one a chiastic word order often works best.&#xD;&#xA;I put the two verbs *sis* and *absit* next to each other.&#xD;&#xA;This also emphasizes the difference between the underlying verbs *esse* (&quot;to be&quot;) and *abesse* (&quot;to be away&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some reason *-que* sounds good to me in this use, perhaps because it seems to tie the two statements closer together.&#xD;&#xA;You can replace *absitque* with *et absit* if you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On your suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gender of the adjective must agree with that of the corresponding noun, so a &quot;white heart&quot; would be *cor candidum*, not *cor candida*.&#xD;&#xA;The adjective is often put after the noun, but the word order is free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not you have *cor*, the phrase sounds weird.&#xD;&#xA;*Candida et absit invidia* is roughly &quot;white and may malice be gone&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The role of *candida* is unclear.&#xD;&#xA;That is why I suggested adding *sis/sim* to make it into a two-part wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would therefore say that your suggestions are not correct.&#xD;&#xA;I prefer not to discuss whether something sounds good before it makes any sense.&#xD;&#xA;The things I used to make my suggestion sonorous were chiastic word order and the opposing verbs *esse* and *abesse* next to each other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5242" RevisionGUID="552050e6-6aa6-4415-ae7d-75ee97557b3a" CreationDate="2017-09-14T11:35:06.873" UserId="79" Text="Consider the word *quinquies/quinquiens* (&quot;five times&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;It has two alternative spellings.&#xD;&#xA;Having the options *-ies* and *-iens* seems to be common for numerals of this kind.&#xD;&#xA;What is the origin of these forms?&#xD;&#xA;Why are there two alternatives?&#xD;&#xA;I don't recall seeing any analogous spelling variants elsewhere in Latin; *faciens* and *facies* are very different things, for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17315" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5242" RevisionGUID="552050e6-6aa6-4415-ae7d-75ee97557b3a" CreationDate="2017-09-14T11:35:06.873" UserId="79" Text="Quinquies and quinquiens" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17316" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5242" RevisionGUID="552050e6-6aa6-4415-ae7d-75ee97557b3a" CreationDate="2017-09-14T11:35:06.873" UserId="79" Text="|morphology|numbers|origin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5237" RevisionGUID="230135b3-a902-4559-b359-489d36ca4729" CreationDate="2017-09-14T14:58:03.533" UserId="1987" Comment="deleted 423 characters in body" Text="I want to engrave &quot;Peace and Good Will&quot; on my ring in Latin. I have less then a quarter available for the engraving so it can't be too big.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I originally wanted to use something from the Bible (even though I'm not Christian) but turns out it is huge. Luke 2:14 &quot;Gloria in altissimis Deo et in terra pax in hominibus bonae voluntatis&quot;. Also, I was raised as a Protestant, and they translate it as &quot;good will to mankind&quot; but the Catholics translate it as &quot;good will to those upon whom His favor rests&quot;. Ouch. I prefer the more universal idea of good will to all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5237" RevisionGUID="61de7ed2-6358-451f-a1da-2084f0bece94" CreationDate="2017-09-14T15:00:06.660" UserId="1987" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="I want to engrave &quot;Peace and Good Will&quot; on my ring in Latin. I have less then a quarter available for the engraving so it can't be too big.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I originally wanted to use something from the Bible (even though I'm not Christian) but turns out it is huge. Luke 2:14 &quot;Gloria in altissimis Deo et in terra pax in hominibus bonae voluntatis&quot;. Also, I *read* that Protestants translate it as &quot;good will to mankind&quot; but the Catholics translate it as &quot;good will to those upon whom His favor rests&quot;. Ouch. I prefer the more universal idea of good will to all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5243" RevisionGUID="c94d08f8-f346-49a7-8c49-34ed5a7d5282" CreationDate="2017-09-14T16:21:49.867" UserId="1694" Text="The etymologically expected form is _-iens_, but since the vowel preceding the _ns_ was regularly lengthened, the pronunciation would be [ie:ns], in which the vowel was secondarily nasalized to [iẽ:ns].  This would naturally lead to sometimes omitting the [n] altogether, i.e. [iẽ:s] (still probably phonemically /iens/), and possibly denasalized to [ie:s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In words like _faciens_, the other declensional forms reinforced the pronunciation and spelling of the _n_, but forms like _quinquiens/quinquies_, there was no such reinforcement, hence a more or less random pattern of the replacement form becoming the norm." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5243" RevisionGUID="02c6dcdb-51fb-4340-8aae-2ecd0e1bdae9" CreationDate="2017-09-14T16:35:17.703" UserId="1694" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="The etymologically expected form is _-iens_, but since the vowel preceding the _ns_ was regularly lengthened, the pronunciation would be [ie:ns], in which the vowel was secondarily nasalized to [iẽ:ns].  This would naturally lead to sometimes omitting the [n] altogether, i.e. [iẽ:s]* (still probably phonemically /iens/), and possibly denasalized to [ie:s]**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In words like _faciens_, the other declensional forms reinforced the pronunciation and spelling of the _n_, but forms like _quinquiens/quinquies_, there was no such reinforcement, hence a more or less random pattern of the replacement form becoming the norm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* This stage is like that of modern French, where syllable-final _n_ or _m_ is not pronounced itself, but serves as an indicator that the previous vowel is nasalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\** This untimately became the regular development in Spanish, as exemplified by L. _mensa_ -&gt; Sp. _mesa_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5243" RevisionGUID="e9313f26-d223-4650-b066-bc3ec0fd9efb" CreationDate="2017-09-14T16:42:01.407" UserId="1694" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The etymologically expected form is _-iens_, but since the vowel preceding the _ns_ was regularly lengthened, the pronunciation would be [ie:ns], in which the vowel was secondarily nasalized to [iẽ:ns].  This would naturally lead to sometimes omitting the [n] altogether, i.e. [iẽ:s]* (still probably phonemically /iens/), and possibly denasalized to [ie:s]**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In words like _faciens_, the other declensional forms reinforced the pronunciation and spelling of the _n_, but in forms like _quinquiens/quinquies_, there was no such reinforcement, hence a more or less random pattern of the replacement form becoming the norm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* This stage is like that of modern French, where syllable-final _n_ or _m_ is not pronounced itself, but serves as an indicator that the previous vowel is nasalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\** This untimately became the regular development in Spanish, as exemplified by L. _mensa_ -&gt; Sp. _mesa_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5244" RevisionGUID="f872900c-4e63-429e-bd9d-d51227b17d5f" CreationDate="2017-09-14T18:53:24.483" UserId="324" Text="There is a longstanding view that the interjection *ave* is not the imperative of the verb *aveo* “to long for”, but is a loan from Punic *ḥawe* (tentative vocalisation), the imperative of the Semitic verb ḥ-w-h “to live”. The first attestations are in Plautus, who also uses the plural *havo* (=Punic *ḥawū*) three times in his *Poenulus*. If this is true, then *have* would actually be the etymologically correct spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the discussion in Walde, *Lat. Etym. Wb.*, who comes out in favour of this analysis. By contrast, de Vaan, *Etym. dict. of Latin* does not even mention it as a possibility. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5243" RevisionGUID="49a588de-6eb8-4208-aa17-db76446add61" CreationDate="2017-09-15T02:07:27.503" UserId="1694" Comment="edited body" Text="The etymologically expected form is _-iens_, but since the vowel preceding the _ns_ was regularly lengthened, the pronunciation would be [ie:ns], in which the vowel was secondarily nasalized to [iẽ:ns].  This would naturally lead to sometimes omitting the [n] altogether, i.e. [iẽ:s]* (still probably phonemically /iens/), and possibly denasalized to [ie:s]**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In words like _faciens_, the other declensional forms reinforced the pronunciation and spelling of the _n_, but in forms like _quinquiens/quinquies_, there was no such reinforcement, hence a more or less random pattern of the replacement form becoming the norm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* This stage is like that of modern French, where syllable-final _n_ or _m_ is not pronounced itself, but serves as an indicator that the previous vowel is nasalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\** This ultimately became the regular development in Spanish, as exemplified by L. _mensa_ -&gt; Sp. _mesa_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5243" RevisionGUID="ac0fee24-c401-4da5-8a0d-839c36ac3de7" CreationDate="2017-09-15T03:21:26.460" UserId="1694" Comment="edited body" Text="The etymologically expected form is _-iens_, but since the vowel preceding the _ns_ was regularly lengthened, the pronunciation would be [ie:ns], in which the vowel was secondarily nasalized to [iẽ:ns].  This would naturally lead to sometimes omitting the [n] altogether, i.e. [iẽ:s]* (still probably phonemically /iens/), and possibly denasalized to [ie:s]**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In words like _faciens_, the other declensional forms reinforced the pronunciation and spelling of the _n_, but in forms like _quinquiens/quinquies_, there was no such reinforcement, hence a more or less random pattern of the replacement from becoming the norm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* This stage is like that of modern French, where syllable-final _n_ or _m_ is not pronounced itself, but serves as an indicator that the previous vowel is nasalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\** This ultimately became the regular development in Spanish, as exemplified by L. _mensa_ -&gt; Sp. _mesa_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5245" RevisionGUID="da1b84bc-fc54-4296-9f24-27c29569aec5" CreationDate="2017-09-15T09:41:36.990" UserId="1982" Text="Thank you Cerberus. Indirect speech was taught to me in terms of &quot;he said&quot;; never in first-person terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In North &amp; Hillard: Ex 20; Q2: the student is invited to translate: &quot;Those who wish to command ought to learn to obey.&quot; into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gave: &quot;qui imperare volunt discere parere debent.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer book: this is correct except for the inclusion of &quot;ei&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that &quot;imperare&quot; and &quot;parere&quot;[2] take dative case; but, thought that, here, both verbs are intrans?&#xD;&#xA;The ans. is giving to command or to obey &quot;him&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the inclusion of &quot;ei&quot; mandatory; would the sentence be correct without it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17326" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5245" RevisionGUID="da1b84bc-fc54-4296-9f24-27c29569aec5" CreationDate="2017-09-15T09:41:36.990" UserId="1982" Text="Intransitive Verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17327" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5245" RevisionGUID="da1b84bc-fc54-4296-9f24-27c29569aec5" CreationDate="2017-09-15T09:41:36.990" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5246" RevisionGUID="1da9ef44-a1ec-461d-bc32-215fd290ca8f" CreationDate="2017-09-15T12:36:11.823" UserId="12" Text="I'm examining a work by Tertullian, [*Adversus Iudaeos*](http://www.tertullian.org/latin/adversus_iudaeos.htm), and in it he uses the word &quot;gentibus&quot; in a way that seems to indicate *peoples* or *nations*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hunc enim oportebat pro omnibus gentibus fieri sacrificium (13.21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But [Thewall's translation](http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-19.htm#P2403_788339) renders it this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For Him it behoved to be made a sacrifice on behalf of all Gentiles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure enough, my Latin dictionary app gives &quot;Gentile&quot; as a possible translation of *gēns*, but [Wiktionary doesn't](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gens#Latin), though it gives &quot;heathen&quot; or &quot;pagan&quot; for the derivative [*gentilis*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gentilis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it typical for *gēns* to imply the &quot;otherness&quot; of peoples, as English *Gentile* means &quot;non-Jew&quot;?  Or is that a rare/non-standard usage, or perhaps a later development?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17329" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5246" RevisionGUID="1da9ef44-a1ec-461d-bc32-215fd290ca8f" CreationDate="2017-09-15T12:36:11.823" UserId="12" Text="Can &quot;gēns&quot; be used to exclude outsiders, as in English &quot;Gentile&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17330" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5246" RevisionGUID="1da9ef44-a1ec-461d-bc32-215fd290ca8f" CreationDate="2017-09-15T12:36:11.823" UserId="12" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|meaning|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5247" RevisionGUID="1c4b5f2a-9096-440c-a3ed-2dc67601cbf5" CreationDate="2017-09-15T13:18:09.073" UserId="78" Text="From Lewis &amp; Short:  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; c. In the eccl. fathers, gentes, like ἔθνος, opp. to Jews and Christians, *pagan nations*, *heathen*, *gentiles*, Lact. 2, 13 fin.; Vulg. Psa. 2, 1 et saep.— Hence the title of Arnobius's work, Adversus Gentes.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike in English, *gens* would mean non-Jewish *and* non-Christian. Cf. the Arabic أهل الكتاب (&quot;people of the book,&quot; as opposed to pagan peoples)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5247" RevisionGUID="12716b7d-a039-4065-a898-74339ce47b62" CreationDate="2017-09-15T13:43:02.097" UserId="78" Comment="added 494 characters in body" Text="From Lewis &amp; Short:  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; c. In the eccl. fathers, gentes, like ἔθνος, opp. to Jews and Christians, *pagan nations*, *heathen*, *gentiles*, Lact. 2, 13 fin.; Vulg. Psa. 2, 1 et saep.— Hence the title of Arnobius's work, Adversus Gentes.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in the text you're reading, passage 2 to me provides unambiguous attestation for the reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam occasio quidem defendendi etiam gentibus [sibi] divinam gratiam hinc habuit praerogativam, quod sibi vindicare dei legem instituerit **homo ex gentibus nec prosapia Israelitum Iudaeus.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For the occasion, indeed, of claiming Divine grace even for the Gentiles derived a pre-eminent fitness from this fact, that the man who set up to vindicate God's Law as his own was of the Gentiles, and not a Jew of the stock of the Israelites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bold part has to mean that there's a difference between *homo ex gentibus* and *Iudaeus*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5248" RevisionGUID="09bcf8c1-3159-444e-bd6e-423283457092" CreationDate="2017-09-15T14:02:07.993" UserId="78" Text="I can think of three examples, two of which may or may not fit your strict definitions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is *optimas*. Though it can mean &quot;aristocratic&quot; (as a substantive, &quot;aristocrat&quot;), it most often in its attested use refers specifically to the aristocratic party (in the plural *optimates*) that opposed the *populares*, where you get someone like Caesar, clearly a patrician and an aristocrat, not be an *optimas*, but a *popular* on account of his political affiliations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other two are *amicus* and *amica*. The former never lost its more normal meaning of &quot;friend&quot;, but it did strongly gain the meaning of &quot;political ally&quot;. Lewis &amp; Short note that all *socii* were *amici*, but not all *amici* were *socii*, for what it's worth. The alliance between states was both *amicitia* and *foedus*, so that allies of Rome were called &quot;friend and ally&quot; (*amicus sociusque*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike *gay*, which always had a slightly narrower connotation than *happy*, *amicus* is the most ordinary way to say &quot;friend&quot;, and thus never fully lost that meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rarer word, and so a more difficult word to evaluate, but *amica*, while sometimes meaning &quot;female friend&quot;, more often was synonymous with *meretrix*, though I do believe after a while, it reversed. L&amp;S give plenty of examples in imperial literature where it has the more ordinary meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17335" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1878" RevisionGUID="27cc7804-4f92-49a0-a96a-49f4f8a0d2fd" CreationDate="2017-09-15T14:14:59.293" UserId="1974" Comment="55" />
  <row Id="17336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="3558ab7a-e159-4fea-85ae-590060d4b891" CreationDate="2017-09-15T15:41:45.970" UserId="9" Comment="added 792 characters in body" Text="I think *abdomunculum* would be the most regular diminutive of *abdomen.* But it seems a bit difficult to me to give a clear answer because the rules about &quot;proper&quot; diminutive suffixes are often based on the form and gender of the original noun, and I know of no existing diminutives formed on nouns with precisely the same morphological form and gender as *abdomen, abdominis*. If you get it &quot;wrong,&quot; you may at least be able to take some comfort from the knowledge that Romans even criticized one another sometimes for using supposedly malformed diminutives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Abdomen, abdominis* is a neuter noun of the third declension, of the &quot;consonant stem&quot; sub-declension class, with a stem ending in the consonant &quot;n&quot; specifically. My impression is that any of these features might be relevant to the formation of the diminutive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Words with stems ending in *n* often take diminutives in *-cul-*&#xD;&#xA;[brianpck's answer][1] to *[Variations on the diminutive: -olus and -ulus][2]* contained a link to a page from [Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar][3] that I consulted to try to answer this question. It says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These diminutive endings are all formed by adding *-lus* to various stems. [...] *-culus* comes from -lus added to adjectives in *-cus* formed from stems in *n-* and *s-*: as, *iuven-cus, Aurun-cus* (cf. *Aurunculeius*), *prís-cus,* whence the *cu* becomes a part of the termination, and the whole ending (*-culus*) is used elsewhere, but mostly with *n-* and *s-* stems, in accordance with its origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Usually, *...in-* + *-cul-* = *...uncul-,* apparently&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Formation of Latin&#xD;&#xA;Diminutives of Nouns and Adjectives][4],* compiled by Ian Andreas Miller,  indicates that stems ending *-in-* regularly change the vowel and have *-un-* before *-culus/-culum/-cula.* cnread's answer mentions *homunculus,* from *homo, hominis,* which shows this pattern. There is an interesting note in Miller about the history of this formation saying that the *u* is analogical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The *-uncul-* formation in these diminutives was originally created by adding *-culā-, -culo-* to stems in *-on-,* where the *-o-* became *-u-* by phonetic change (cf. *hunc,* earlier *honc*). Some original stems in *-nō-* (*-on-*) later became stems in *-in-* (e.g. *homin-,* earlier *homon-* or *homōn-*) with nominative singular endings in *-ō,* and through the power of analogy the *-uncul-* formation was used with other stems in *-in-* (e.g. *pecten,* stem *pectin-*) and stems in *-n-* with nominative singular forms in *-o* (e.g. *caro,* stem *carn-*) even if they do not actually have stems in *-in-* or *-on-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any Latin diminutives ending in &quot;...in-cul-&quot; (*vinculum* is derived from the base *vinc-*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Gender of diminutives, and the rarity of *-unculum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller says it is a rule that diminutive nouns derived from third-declension nouns retain the gender of the original noun, which for *abdomen* is neuter. So it seems to me that *abdomunculum* would be most regular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm not entirely certain about recommending *-unculum* rather than *-unculus* as in cnread's answer. There are exceptions to the gender-matching rule; Miller mentions *rana* &gt; *ranunculus.* And since most nouns ending in *-ō* in the nominative are masculine or feminine,  *-unculus* and  *uncula* seem to be much more established in Latin than *-unculum* as suffixes for deriving diminutive nouns from third-declension n-stems. A Perseus search does turn up some existing [nouns ending in *-unculum][5],* but none of those results seems to be derived from a third-declension noun with a stem ending in *-in-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there are certainly diminutives ending in *-culum* with something else before it; for example, *[corpusculum][6],* from the third-declension neuter noun *corpus.* So perhaps the scarcity of words ending in *-un-culum* specifically is just coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, *[pectunculus][7]* from *pecten* is actually the only example I have seen of a diminutive from a noun ending in *-en, -inis.* It is masculine, but so is the original noun *pecten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most Latin nouns that end in *-en* in the nominative and *-inis* in the genitive seem to have an &quot;m&quot; before this and are neuter. Wiktionary indicates that many of them have a &quot;noun-forming suffix [*-men*][8]&quot; and lists a number of them; I searched on Perseus for words starting with the stems up to the &quot;m&quot; of around 10 of them (like &quot;agm,&quot; &quot;germ,&quot; &quot;carm&quot;) but I wasn't able to find any diminutive forms with their own entries. Another neuter third-declension with a consonant other than *m* before *-en,* *-inis* is *gluten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, I was able to find one example of &quot;germunculum&quot; via Google, in *[Dissertatio inauguralis medica de hominis aetatibus][11],* 1824:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; En, amicitiae vagabundae in juventute ortum! en, primum pro firmioribus radicibus amoris in alterum sexum figendis **germunculum** primum! (§27, p. 41)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other sources on diminutive formation in Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other possibly relevant sources I found that I have not yet got a chance to look through:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Word Formation in the Roman Sermo Plebeius,* by Frederic Taber Cooper (1895) -- has a section on &quot;Diminutives&quot; starting on [page 164][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cooper cites some articles by &quot;Paucker,&quot; one of which had a title that sounded like it might be helpful: &quot;Deminutive mit d. Suffix -c-ulus, a, um&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Zeitschr. f. d. oesterr. Gymn. XXVII, p. 273-284. (=&quot;Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien&quot;) I looked though a [Google Books result][10] related to this, and found a long list of words with the suffix &quot;-uncul-&quot; that contained many ending in &quot;-uncula&quot; and &quot;-unculus&quot; but none that I could see ending in &quot;-unculum&quot; aside from those already mentioned that are indexed by Perseus and have entries in Lewis &amp; Short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2903/9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2900/variations-on-the-diminutive-olus-and-ulus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://%20http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.243.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://diesgaudii.genvid.com/latin/diminutives/diminutives.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=unculum&amp;lang=la&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=corpusculum&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=pectunculus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-men#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=724PAAAAYAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;output=reader&amp;hl=en&amp;pg=GBS.PA164&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cY0NAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA597&amp;lpg=PA597&amp;dq=Paucker%20%22Deminutive%22%20mit%20Suffix%20-c-ulus,%20a,%20um%20%22ZEITSCHRIFT%20f%C3%BCr%20die%20%C3%B6sterreichischen%20GYMNASIEN%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QNovpHHp0X&amp;sig=bxKBq0FqnimxK1ZSAc1QuVpX270&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj5i-7rhPXSAhUI1GMKHTH9AIcQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Paucker%20%22Deminutive%22%20mit%20Suffix%20-c-ulus%2C%20a%2C%20um%20%22ZEITSCHRIFT%20f%C3%BCr%20die%20%C3%B6sterreichischen%20GYMNASIEN%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://books.google.com/books?id=YrJUAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA41&amp;lpg=PA41&amp;dq=%22germunculum%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=wHkWxqdxy7&amp;sig=HzvbYWmIEdfz-UI-gwNf_-TVA9c&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiglo2PvqfWAhVH6IMKHVgTDWIQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22germunculum%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5249" RevisionGUID="b6194c2e-fcff-4665-a461-a6004f183879" CreationDate="2017-09-15T15:55:25.530" UserId="645" Text="By the time of Tertullian, *gens* was readily understood as 'nation' or 'people'. Rather later, there is the *Venerabilis Baedae Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum*, in which by *gens* Bede is clearly referring to nations or peoples, in England by it particularly distinguishing between the various well-defined groups such as the Mercii and Nordanhymbri, and not necessarily any of them from the Jews.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are relevant references scattered throughout the work itself. Book III, Ch. IV, for instance, is titled *Quando gens Pictorum fidem Christi perceperit*, and II, XVII has *gens Nordanhymbrorum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5250" RevisionGUID="ab79053f-7e7d-43c7-b821-59bfa9826e1f" CreationDate="2017-09-15T16:27:21.187" UserId="324" Text="In Christian usage *gentes* is a translation of ἔθνη, which already in the Septuagint translates Hebrew *gōyīm* as the designation of the (non-Jewish) “nations”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5251" RevisionGUID="e2044f28-a40c-42b9-8469-9696a5943d5f" CreationDate="2017-09-15T16:36:54.000" UserId="1994" Text="[![I am a research student from India. I work on cicada systematics and some of the literature on cicadas is in Latin. This one of such literature was written in 1866 and it is very important at this point for me to have its English translation as one of my manuscript has been pending due to this. I would really appreciate if someone could help me with this. I will be really grateful! I have attached a screenshot of the lines that needs to be translated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance :)][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O7ftw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17340" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5251" RevisionGUID="e2044f28-a40c-42b9-8469-9696a5943d5f" CreationDate="2017-09-15T16:36:54.000" UserId="1994" Text="I am here because google translate wasn't helpful" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17341" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5251" RevisionGUID="e2044f28-a40c-42b9-8469-9696a5943d5f" CreationDate="2017-09-15T16:36:54.000" UserId="1994" Text="|translation|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5251" RevisionGUID="565c0441-a3fa-4baa-9b7a-c316de9710b5" CreationDate="2017-09-15T17:08:04.440" UserId="406" Comment="fix formatting" Text="I am a research student from India. I work on cicada systematics and some of the literature on cicadas is in Latin. This one of such literature was written in 1866 and it is very important at this point for me to have its English translation as one of my manuscript has been pending due to this. I would really appreciate if someone could help me with this. I will be really grateful! I have attached a screenshot of the lines that needs to be translated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Image of the lines][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O7ftw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5252" RevisionGUID="b757ad54-4c42-4e79-a5ea-580e6d7278a8" CreationDate="2017-09-15T17:08:11.227" UserId="1987" Text="I can't add a comment because of my low rep, but 'Bona Volantas' reflects the original Biblical verse, which uses 'Bonae Voluntatis'. So I would recommend using that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5251" RevisionGUID="32085b8e-65f5-4600-aa52-781c2935079b" CreationDate="2017-09-15T17:13:58.703" UserId="406" Comment="Improve title" Text="I am a research student from India. I work on cicada systematics and some of the literature on cicadas is in Latin. This one of such literature was written in 1866 and it is very important at this point for me to have its English translation as one of my manuscript has been pending due to this. I would really appreciate if someone could help me with this. I will be really grateful! I have attached a screenshot of the lines that needs to be translated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Image of the lines][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*EDIT: Here's a transcript of the lines.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Capite thoracis antico latitudine æquali, margine antico inter frontem et lobos verticis libere prominulos profunde inciso, parte laterali oculos semiglobosos ferente sursum nonnihil vergente fronte paullo prominula; rostro brevi; ocellis ab oculis quam inter se duplo longius remotis; alis areolis apicalibus quinque.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Capitis parte laterali horizontali, nec sursum vergente.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O7ftw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17345" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5251" RevisionGUID="32085b8e-65f5-4600-aa52-781c2935079b" CreationDate="2017-09-15T17:13:58.703" UserId="406" Comment="Improve title" Text="Description of Cicadas from 1866" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5251" RevisionGUID="8dd2d4e5-a61c-47f3-9b47-73c69922273d" CreationDate="2017-09-15T18:14:25.690" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and added a tag." Text="I am a research student from India. I work on cicada systematics and some of the literature on cicadas is in Latin. This one of such literature was written in 1866 and it is very important at this point for me to have its English translation as one of my manuscript has been pending due to this. I would really appreciate if someone could help me with this. I will be really grateful!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a transcript of the lines that need to be translated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Capite thoracis antico latitudine æquali, margine antico inter frontem et lobos verticis libere prominulos profunde inciso, parte laterali oculos semiglobosos ferente sursum nonnihil vergente fronte paullo prominula; rostro brevi; ocellis ab oculis quam inter se duplo longius remotis; alis areolis apicalibus quinque.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Capitis parte laterali horizontali, nec sursum vergente.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a screenshot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Image of the lines][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O7ftw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17348" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5251" RevisionGUID="8dd2d4e5-a61c-47f3-9b47-73c69922273d" CreationDate="2017-09-15T18:14:25.690" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and added a tag." Text="|translation|sentence-translation|biology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5252" RevisionGUID="9a203728-f019-4b6b-8682-09c0a40485b6" CreationDate="2017-09-15T18:15:46.163" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="I can't add a comment because of my low rep, but 'Bona Voluntas' reflects the original Biblical verse, which uses 'Bonae Voluntatis'. So I would recommend using that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5253" RevisionGUID="9360ea9d-7b65-4291-9a3c-f6f3d6dfa205" CreationDate="2017-09-15T18:16:00.450" UserId="30" Text="The relative pronoun *qui* is masculine plural, and you translate it as &quot;those who&quot;. As you can see, in English, we have a demonstrative/personal pronoun &quot;those&quot; and a relative pronoun &quot;who&quot;. In Latin (and some other languages), the demonstrative pronoun can be left in certain such cases. You have left it out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that's acceptable, but you could add the Latin pronoun, representing English &quot;those&quot;. That pronoun would be *ei*, which masculine plural, and nominative, because it is the subject of the main clause (...*debent*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this construction has nothing to do with indirect speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="70d18c84-a554-425b-97fe-bb40577133ca" CreationDate="2017-09-15T20:24:18.413" UserId="9" Comment="added 396 characters in body" Text="I think *abdomunculum* would be the most regular diminutive of *abdomen.* But it seems a bit difficult to me to give a clear answer because the rules about &quot;proper&quot; diminutive suffixes are often based on the form and gender of the original noun, and I know of no existing diminutives formed on nouns with precisely the same morphological form and gender as *abdomen, abdominis*. If you get it &quot;wrong,&quot; you may at least be able to take some comfort from the knowledge that Romans even criticized one another sometimes for using supposedly malformed diminutives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Abdomen, abdominis* is a neuter noun of the third declension, of the &quot;consonant stem&quot; sub-declension class, with a stem ending in the consonant &quot;n&quot; specifically. My impression is that any of these features might be relevant to the formation of the diminutive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Words with stems ending in *n* often take diminutives in *-cul-*&#xD;&#xA;[brianpck's answer][1] to *[Variations on the diminutive: -olus and -ulus][2]* contained a link to a page from [Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar][3] that I consulted to try to answer this question. It says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These diminutive endings are all formed by adding *-lus* to various stems. [...] *-culus* comes from -lus added to adjectives in *-cus* formed from stems in *n-* and *s-*: as, *iuven-cus, Aurun-cus* (cf. *Aurunculeius*), *prís-cus,* whence the *cu* becomes a part of the termination, and the whole ending (*-culus*) is used elsewhere, but mostly with *n-* and *s-* stems, in accordance with its origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Usually, *...in-* + *-cul-* = *...uncul-,* apparently&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Formation of Latin&#xD;&#xA;Diminutives of Nouns and Adjectives][4],* compiled by Ian Andreas Miller,  indicates that stems ending *-in-* regularly change the vowel and have *-un-* before *-culus/-culum/-cula.* cnread's answer mentions *homunculus,* from *homo, hominis,* which shows this pattern. There is an interesting note in Miller about the history of this formation saying that the *u* is analogical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The *-uncul-* formation in these diminutives was originally created by adding *-culā-, -culo-* to stems in *-on-,* where the *-o-* became *-u-* by phonetic change (cf. *hunc,* earlier *honc*). Some original stems in *-nō-* (*-on-*) later became stems in *-in-* (e.g. *homin-,* earlier *homon-* or *homōn-*) with nominative singular endings in *-ō,* and through the power of analogy the *-uncul-* formation was used with other stems in *-in-* (e.g. *pecten,* stem *pectin-*) and stems in *-n-* with nominative singular forms in *-o* (e.g. *caro,* stem *carn-*) even if they do not actually have stems in *-in-* or *-on-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any Latin diminutives ending in &quot;...in-cul-&quot; (*vinculum* is derived from the base *vinc-*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Gender of diminutives, and the rarity of *-unculum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller says it is a rule that diminutive nouns derived from third-declension nouns retain the gender of the original noun, which for *abdomen* is neuter. So it seems to me that *abdomunculum* would be most regular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm not entirely certain about recommending *-unculum* rather than *-unculus* as in cnread's answer. There are exceptions to the gender-matching rule; Miller mentions *rana* &gt; *ranunculus.* And since most nouns ending in *-ō* in the nominative are masculine or feminine,  *-unculus* and  *uncula* seem to be much more established in Latin than *-unculum* as suffixes for deriving diminutive nouns from third-declension n-stems. A Perseus search does turn up some existing [nouns ending in *-unculum][5],* but none of those results seems to be derived from a third-declension noun with a stem ending in *-in-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there are certainly diminutives ending in *-culum* with something else before it; for example, *[corpusculum][6],* from the third-declension neuter noun *corpus.* So perhaps the scarcity of words ending in *-un-culum* specifically is just coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, *[pectunculus][7]* from *pecten* is actually the only example I have seen of a diminutive from a noun ending in *-en, -inis.* It is masculine, but so is the original noun *pecten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most Latin nouns that end in *-en* in the nominative and *-inis* in the genitive seem to have an &quot;m&quot; before this and are neuter. Wiktionary indicates that many of them have a &quot;noun-forming suffix [*-men*][8]&quot; and lists a number of them; I searched on Perseus for words starting with the stems up to the &quot;m&quot; of around 10 of them (like &quot;agm,&quot; &quot;germ,&quot; &quot;carm&quot;) but I wasn't able to find any diminutive forms with their own entries. Another neuter third-declension with a consonant other than *m* before *-en,* *-inis* is *gluten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Post-classical examples of *-unculum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, I was able to find one example of &quot;germunculum&quot; via Google, in *[Dissertatio inauguralis medica de hominis aetatibus][9],* 1824:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; En, amicitiae vagabundae in juventute ortum! en, primum pro firmioribus radicibus amoris in alterum sexum figendis **germunculum** primum! (§27, p. 41)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Stamunculum,* from *stamen, staminis,* also seems to have been used, in *[Hortus Malabaricus][10].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other sources on diminutive formation in Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other possibly relevant sources I found that I have not yet got a chance to look through:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Word Formation in the Roman Sermo Plebeius,* by Frederic Taber Cooper (1895) -- has a section on &quot;Diminutives&quot; starting on [page 164][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cooper cites some articles by &quot;Paucker,&quot; one of which had a title that sounded like it might be helpful: &quot;Deminutive mit d. Suffix -c-ulus, a, um&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Zeitschr. f. d. oesterr. Gymn. XXVII, p. 273-284. (=&quot;Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien&quot;) I looked though a [Google Books result][12] related to this, and found a long list of words with the suffix &quot;-uncul-&quot; that contained many ending in &quot;-uncula&quot; and &quot;-unculus&quot; but none that I could see ending in &quot;-unculum&quot; aside from those already mentioned that are indexed by Perseus and have entries in Lewis &amp; Short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2903/9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2900/variations-on-the-diminutive-olus-and-ulus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://%20http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.243.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://diesgaudii.genvid.com/latin/diminutives/diminutives.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=unculum&amp;lang=la&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=corpusculum&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=pectunculus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-men#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://books.google.com/books?id=YrJUAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA41&amp;lpg=PA41&amp;dq=%22germunculum%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=wHkWxqdxy7&amp;sig=HzvbYWmIEdfz-UI-gwNf_-TVA9c&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiglo2PvqfWAhVH6IMKHVgTDWIQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22germunculum%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://books.google.com/books?id=xYLOojXB8hgC&amp;pg=PT319&amp;lpg=PT319&amp;dq=%22stamunculum%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=M4YnbfIvch&amp;sig=LiCOu8ZEh3XvebJ5R63kW37s7Jk&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjM3s_ggajWAhUM54MKHaXBC8MQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22stamunculum%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=724PAAAAYAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;output=reader&amp;hl=en&amp;pg=GBS.PA164&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cY0NAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA597&amp;lpg=PA597&amp;dq=Paucker%20%22Deminutive%22%20mit%20Suffix%20-c-ulus,%20a,%20um%20%22ZEITSCHRIFT%20f%C3%BCr%20die%20%C3%B6sterreichischen%20GYMNASIEN%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QNovpHHp0X&amp;sig=bxKBq0FqnimxK1ZSAc1QuVpX270&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj5i-7rhPXSAhUI1GMKHTH9AIcQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Paucker%20%22Deminutive%22%20mit%20Suffix%20-c-ulus%2C%20a%2C%20um%20%22ZEITSCHRIFT%20f%C3%BCr%20die%20%C3%B6sterreichischen%20GYMNASIEN%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="06a55d21-0440-4486-8c18-53206bf8aaa7" CreationDate="2017-09-15T20:38:26.447" UserId="9" Comment="added 396 characters in body" Text="I think *abdomunculum* would be the most regular diminutive of *abdomen.* But it seems a bit difficult to me to give a clear answer because the rules about &quot;proper&quot; diminutive suffixes are often based on the form and gender of the original noun, and I know of no existing diminutives formed on nouns with precisely the same morphological form and gender as *abdomen, abdominis*. If you get it &quot;wrong,&quot; you may at least be able to take some comfort from the knowledge that Romans even criticized one another sometimes for using supposedly malformed diminutives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Abdomen, abdominis* is a neuter noun of the third declension, of the &quot;consonant stem&quot; sub-declension class, with a stem ending in the consonant &quot;n&quot; specifically. My impression is that any of these features might be relevant to the formation of the diminutive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Words with stems ending in *n* often take diminutives in *-cul-*&#xD;&#xA;[brianpck's answer][1] to *[Variations on the diminutive: -olus and -ulus][2]* contained a link to a page from [Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar][3] that I consulted to try to answer this question. It says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These diminutive endings are all formed by adding *-lus* to various stems. [...] *-culus* comes from -lus added to adjectives in *-cus* formed from stems in *n-* and *s-*: as, *iuven-cus, Aurun-cus* (cf. *Aurunculeius*), *prís-cus,* whence the *cu* becomes a part of the termination, and the whole ending (*-culus*) is used elsewhere, but mostly with *n-* and *s-* stems, in accordance with its origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Usually, *...in-* + *-cul-* = *...uncul-,* apparently&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Formation of Latin&#xD;&#xA;Diminutives of Nouns and Adjectives][4],* compiled by Ian Andreas Miller,  indicates that stems ending *-in-* regularly change the vowel and have *-un-* before *-culus/-culum/-cula.* cnread's answer mentions *homunculus,* from *homo, hominis,* which shows this pattern. There is an interesting note in Miller about the history of this formation saying that the *u* is analogical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The *-uncul-* formation in these diminutives was originally created by adding *-culā-, -culo-* to stems in *-on-,* where the *-o-* became *-u-* by phonetic change (cf. *hunc,* earlier *honc*). Some original stems in *-nō-* (*-on-*) later became stems in *-in-* (e.g. *homin-,* earlier *homon-* or *homōn-*) with nominative singular endings in *-ō,* and through the power of analogy the *-uncul-* formation was used with other stems in *-in-* (e.g. *pecten,* stem *pectin-*) and stems in *-n-* with nominative singular forms in *-o* (e.g. *caro,* stem *carn-*) even if they do not actually have stems in *-in-* or *-on-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any Latin diminutives ending in &quot;...in-cul-&quot; (*vinculum* is derived from the base *vinc-*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Gender of diminutives, and the rarity of *-unculum*/*-munculum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller says it is a rule that diminutive nouns derived from third-declension nouns retain the gender of the original noun, which for *abdomen* is neuter. So it seems to me that *abdomunculum* would be most regular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm not entirely certain about recommending *-unculum* rather than *-unculus* as in cnread's answer. There are exceptions to the gender-matching rule; Miller mentions *rana* &gt; *ranunculus.* And since most nouns ending in *-ō* in the nominative are masculine or feminine,  *-unculus* and  *uncula* seem to be much more established in Latin than *-unculum* as suffixes for deriving diminutive nouns from third-declension n-stems. A Perseus search does turn up some existing [nouns ending in *-unculum][5],* but none of those results seems to be derived from a third-declension noun with a stem ending in *-in-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there are certainly diminutives ending in *-culum* with something else before it; for example, *[corpusculum][6],* from the third-declension neuter noun *corpus.* So perhaps the scarcity of words ending in *-un-culum* specifically is just coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, *[pectunculus][7]* from *pecten* is actually the only example I have seen of a diminutive from a noun ending in *-en, -inis.* It is masculine, but so is the original noun *pecten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most Latin nouns that end in *-en* in the nominative and *-inis* in the genitive seem to have an &quot;m&quot; before this and are neuter. Wiktionary indicates that many of them have a &quot;noun-forming suffix [*-men*][8]&quot; and lists a number of them; I searched on Perseus for words starting with the stems up to the &quot;m&quot; of around 10 of them (like &quot;agm,&quot; &quot;germ,&quot; &quot;carm&quot;) but I wasn't able to find any diminutive forms with their own entries. Another neuter third-declension with a consonant other than *m* before *-en,* *-inis* is *gluten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found a passage in Italian that seems to say that &quot;vimunculum&quot; (which is apparently not attested) would be the expected diminutive form of *vimen*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Dal positivo *vimen* uscirono *viminculus, vinculus, vinclus* (sic). Da quest'ultimo poi abbiamo fatto *vinco* a significare quel frutice lento e pieghevole donde usci il verbo *vincio,* se non anche l'altro *vinco.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quasi superfluo il notare che da *vimen* neutro sarebbesi più verisimilmente derivato un neutro, qui poi tanto più certo, in quanto il supposto derivato è realmente *vinculum,* non *vinculus.* Non sarebbe poi gran fatto probabile una tale derivazione da neutri in *-men,* non avendosene alcun esempio; e quando poi si dovesse ammettere, sarebbe stato piuttosto *vimunculum* che *viminculus* (cfr. *pectunculus,* dal masch. *pecten*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([Archivio Glottologico italiano, Volume 2][11])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't speak Italian, but judging from Google translate and cognates, this seems to say that there are no examples of diminutives of neuter nouns in *-men.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Post-classical examples of *-munculum* from *-men* neuters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, I was able to find one example of &quot;germunculum&quot; via Google, in *[Dissertatio inauguralis medica de hominis aetatibus][9],* 1824:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; En, amicitiae vagabundae in juventute ortum! en, primum pro firmioribus radicibus amoris in alterum sexum figendis **germunculum** primum! (§27, p. 41)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Stamunculum&quot;, from *stamen, staminis,* also seems to have been used, in *[Hortus Malabaricus][10].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So at least some other people also seem to have had the same idea as me about how to form the diminutives of words like this, if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other sources on diminutive formation in Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other possibly relevant sources I found that I have not yet got a chance to look through:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Word Formation in the Roman Sermo Plebeius,* by Frederic Taber Cooper (1895) -- has a section on &quot;Diminutives&quot; starting on [page 164][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cooper cites some articles by &quot;Paucker,&quot; one of which had a title that sounded like it might be helpful: &quot;Deminutive mit d. Suffix -c-ulus, a, um&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Zeitschr. f. d. oesterr. Gymn. XXVII, p. 273-284. (=&quot;Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien&quot;) I looked though a [Google Books result][13] related to this, and found a long list of words with the suffix &quot;-uncul-&quot; that contained many ending in &quot;-uncula&quot; and &quot;-unculus&quot; but none that I could see ending in &quot;-unculum&quot; aside from those already mentioned that are indexed by Perseus and have entries in Lewis &amp; Short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2903/9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2900/variations-on-the-diminutive-olus-and-ulus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://%20http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.243.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://diesgaudii.genvid.com/latin/diminutives/diminutives.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=unculum&amp;lang=la&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=corpusculum&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=pectunculus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-men#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://books.google.com/books?id=YrJUAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA41&amp;lpg=PA41&amp;dq=%22germunculum%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=wHkWxqdxy7&amp;sig=HzvbYWmIEdfz-UI-gwNf_-TVA9c&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiglo2PvqfWAhVH6IMKHVgTDWIQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22germunculum%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://books.google.com/books?id=xYLOojXB8hgC&amp;pg=PT319&amp;lpg=PT319&amp;dq=%22stamunculum%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=M4YnbfIvch&amp;sig=LiCOu8ZEh3XvebJ5R63kW37s7Jk&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjM3s_ggajWAhUM54MKHaXBC8MQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22stamunculum%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://books.google.com/books?id=VnVIAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA34&amp;lpg=PA34&amp;dq=%22vimunculum%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=CwQaDElPDJ&amp;sig=eIgOIFjHpFDCkKJEViBYjX2HDsE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiHlpzYgqjWAhUD7YMKHTJ4CKkQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22vimunculum%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=724PAAAAYAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;output=reader&amp;hl=en&amp;pg=GBS.PA164&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cY0NAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA597&amp;lpg=PA597&amp;dq=Paucker%20%22Deminutive%22%20mit%20Suffix%20-c-ulus,%20a,%20um%20%22ZEITSCHRIFT%20f%C3%BCr%20die%20%C3%B6sterreichischen%20GYMNASIEN%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QNovpHHp0X&amp;sig=bxKBq0FqnimxK1ZSAc1QuVpX270&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj5i-7rhPXSAhUI1GMKHTH9AIcQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Paucker%20%22Deminutive%22%20mit%20Suffix%20-c-ulus%2C%20a%2C%20um%20%22ZEITSCHRIFT%20f%C3%BCr%20die%20%C3%B6sterreichischen%20GYMNASIEN%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5245" RevisionGUID="c35da724-bfea-4282-bb14-ea54c37d13dc" CreationDate="2017-09-15T20:42:03.890" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 46 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="In North &amp; Hillard, Ex. 20, Q. 2, the student is invited to translate this sentence into Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Those who wish to command ought to learn to obey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I gave this translation: *qui imperare volunt discere parere debent.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer book says this is correct except that the word *ei* should be included.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that *imperare* and *parere[2]* take the dative case; but I thought that, here, both verbs are intransitive?&#xD;&#xA;Does the answer given mean to command or to obey &quot;him&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the inclusion of *ei* mandatory; would the sentence be correct without it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17354" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5245" RevisionGUID="c35da724-bfea-4282-bb14-ea54c37d13dc" CreationDate="2017-09-15T20:42:03.890" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 46 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Why add &quot;ei&quot; to a sentence with &quot;imperare&quot; and &quot;parere&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17355" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5245" RevisionGUID="c35da724-bfea-4282-bb14-ea54c37d13dc" CreationDate="2017-09-15T20:42:03.890" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 46 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|translation|relative-clause|demonstrative-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5254" RevisionGUID="84408c34-cb7a-4001-824c-6f0b9172b458" CreationDate="2017-09-15T20:52:30.403" UserId="79" Text="If I want to say &quot;I can&quot; in Latin, I will usually use *posse*.&#xD;&#xA;But what if I want something stronger and more emphatic, like &quot;I am capable of&quot;, &quot;I am able to&quot;, or similar?&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of a Latin idiom that would mean more or less the same as *posse* but have more gravity.&#xD;&#xA;Are there **classical attestations** of an &quot;emphatic *posse*&quot; that I could mimic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17357" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5254" RevisionGUID="84408c34-cb7a-4001-824c-6f0b9172b458" CreationDate="2017-09-15T20:52:30.403" UserId="79" Text="Is there a more emphatic version of posse?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17358" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5254" RevisionGUID="84408c34-cb7a-4001-824c-6f0b9172b458" CreationDate="2017-09-15T20:52:30.403" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|nuance|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5255" RevisionGUID="8b040f8d-4e77-4b8f-a944-ae19d761f990" CreationDate="2017-09-15T21:31:10.163" UserId="645" Text="Your only real option is to use word placement, that is to put the [posse] form in an unusual position in the sentence. It's quite a normal way of emphasising : for example, where *magnum pondus tollere potest* simply indicates the ability to lift a large weight, *potest magnum pondus tollere* is a stronger declaration of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, there are such phrases as *nequeo quin …*, 'I can't do other than …*, to suggest you can do something, but only because you have no alternative (this may get fairly close, but it isn't really what you want), and *haud dubitandum erat quin possem ….*, 'there was no doubting but that I was able to … ', which might serve well enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5256" RevisionGUID="e7e2aa9a-4d22-4de7-91bd-5f78dd595d18" CreationDate="2017-09-15T22:00:21.430" UserId="985" Text="One sometimes finds _valere_ + infinitive used with the sense of 'to have the ability or power to' (_OLD_ definition 6). I'm not sure it really has more gravity than _posse_; at any rate, I tend to think that the mere fact that it's being used instead of the more obvious _posse_ makes it somewhat 'marked' in the sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5257" RevisionGUID="29478163-d987-4b2c-b65d-06bed9549f0a" CreationDate="2017-09-16T12:13:56.373" UserId="666" Text="[Latdict][1] is a free online Latin-English dictionary based on Whitaker's words.  The biggest handy feature is, when searching by the Latin word, a dropdown displays suggestions with the standard forms of the word.  It also has a work-in-progress grammar section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin-dictionary.net" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17362" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5257" RevisionGUID="09e0e243-9d57-4408-837c-f864b47c3f8f" CreationDate="2017-09-16T12:13:56.373" UserId="666" />
  <row Id="17363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5258" RevisionGUID="08a38290-fd0f-4d0a-9398-e9fb63b7810f" CreationDate="2017-09-16T14:18:52.157" UserId="1997" Text="I don't think it is productive to dwell on what happened or keep much of a score on who did what to whom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what would be concise Latin that conveys something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The past is behind me and does not matter too much&#xD;&#xA;2. Today is a new day, and things are good. A non-defeatist point of view.&#xD;&#xA;3. We can accomplish great things by focusing on the future and not dwelling on the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, in English, I'd simply say &quot;Ever Forward&quot;, in the appropriate context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a link to a Latin site where a similar question has been asked. Maybe it will help. http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/always-moving-forward-without-fear.18082/  (If this is not allowed, mods please delete)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17364" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5258" RevisionGUID="08a38290-fd0f-4d0a-9398-e9fb63b7810f" CreationDate="2017-09-16T14:18:52.157" UserId="1997" Text="Ever Forward - my personal work motto" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17365" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5258" RevisionGUID="08a38290-fd0f-4d0a-9398-e9fb63b7810f" CreationDate="2017-09-16T14:18:52.157" UserId="1997" Text="|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5258" RevisionGUID="e152059d-076f-429a-b5d9-730e0dc03136" CreationDate="2017-09-16T15:17:18.223" UserId="49" Comment="Streamlining the question." Text="I don’t think it is productive to dwell on what happened or keep much of a score on who did what to whom.&#xD;&#xA;In English I would summarise my motto as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ever Forward&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I am looking for an appropriate Latin equivalent, i.e., a phrase that conveys:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The past is behind me and does not matter too much.&#xD;&#xA;2. Today is a new day, and things are good. A non-defeatist point of view.&#xD;&#xA;3. We can accomplish great things by focusing on the future and not dwelling on the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found [similar discussion on another Latin site](http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/always-moving-forward-without-fear.18082/). Maybe it helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17367" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5258" RevisionGUID="e152059d-076f-429a-b5d9-730e0dc03136" CreationDate="2017-09-16T15:17:18.223" UserId="49" Comment="Streamlining the question." Text="Latin equivalent of “Ever Forward” as a motto" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17368" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5258" RevisionGUID="e152059d-076f-429a-b5d9-730e0dc03136" CreationDate="2017-09-16T15:17:18.223" UserId="49" Comment="Streamlining the question." Text="|idiom|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17369" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5258" RevisionGUID="e152059d-076f-429a-b5d9-730e0dc03136" CreationDate="2017-09-16T15:17:18.223" Comment="Proposed by 49 approved by 1997 edit id of 213" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5258" RevisionGUID="1c567b40-6167-480e-b865-1c3b20b6a7fd" CreationDate="2017-09-16T15:18:34.003" UserId="1997" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="In the workplace environment, I don’t think it is productive to dwell on what happened or keep score on who did what to whom.&#xD;&#xA;In English I would summarize my motto as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ever Forward&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I am looking for an appropriate Latin equivalent, i.e., a phrase that conveys:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The past is behind me and does not matter too much.&#xD;&#xA;2. Today is a new day, and things are good. A non-defeatist point of view.&#xD;&#xA;3. We can accomplish great things by focusing on the future and not dwelling on the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found [similar discussion on another Latin site](http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/always-moving-forward-without-fear.18082/). Maybe it helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5252" RevisionGUID="8e3f7ff1-8673-4378-ac29-6cad28d41e43" CreationDate="2017-09-16T17:51:16.397" UserId="1987" Comment="added 282 characters in body; added 29 characters in body" Text="I can't add a comment because of my low rep, but 'Bona Voluntas' reflects the original Biblical verse, which uses 'Bonae Voluntatis'. So I would recommend using that.&#xA;&#xA;Another example of 'Bona Voluntas' that I could find is from PAX ET UNA CHARITAS by Henricus Canisius, 1 January 1685&#xA;&#xA;He writes: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Ubi Deus eft, ibi Charitas eft; Ubi Charitas, ibi bona voluntas; Ubi bona voluntas, ibi Pax; Ubi Pax, ibi justitia; Ubi justitia, ibi securitas.&#xA;&#xA;There are many more examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5252" RevisionGUID="ffbec3f7-9b79-4171-a076-148d7cbd5a4c" CreationDate="2017-09-16T18:03:57.500" UserId="1987" Comment="added 237 characters in body" Text="I can't add a comment because of my low rep, but 'Bona Voluntas' reflects the original Biblical verse, which uses 'Bonae Voluntatis'. So I would recommend using that.&#xA;&#xA;Another example of 'Bona Voluntas' that I could find is from PAX ET UNA CHARITAS by Henricus Canisius, 1 January 1685&#xA;&#xA;He writes: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Ubi Deus eft, ibi Charitas eft; Ubi Charitas, ibi bona voluntas; Ubi bona voluntas, ibi Pax; Ubi Pax, ibi justitia; Ubi justitia, ibi securitas.&#xA;&#xA;There are many more examples.&#xA;&#xA;And yes, the double nominative (pax and bona voluntas)would carry the general, wide meaning you seek, of peace for all and good will to all (as opposed to, for example, pacem et bonam voluntatem, or pacis et bonae voluntatis, and etc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5259" RevisionGUID="6c13b647-924e-491c-aab0-99d1a8eeb596" CreationDate="2017-09-16T20:43:46.763" UserId="79" Text="I don't know much about biblical Latin, so let me offer a more classical point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For good will, *bona voluntas* or perhaps even *voluntas* alone is fine, but I would prefer [*benevolentia*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=benevolentia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;It was commented under another answer that it comes from a biblical verse using *bonae voluntatis*, but that is not true.&#xD;&#xA;The word is [well attested in classical Latin](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=benevolentia).&#xD;&#xA;Meanings include things like &quot;good-will&quot;, &quot;benevolence&quot;, &quot;kindness&quot;, &quot;favor&quot;, and &quot;friendship&quot;, which I find to be a better fit than *bona voluntas*.&#xD;&#xA;And for some reason I do like having this whole idea condensed into a single word &amp;mdash; which doesn't sound artificial.&#xD;&#xA;As always, the optimal choice depends on what exactly one wants to convey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Pax* is a good translation for &quot;peace&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The combination ***pax et benevolentia*** sounds good to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My personal suggestion &amp;mdash; which you may or may not like &amp;mdash; is ***benevolentia pacifera***, roughly &quot;peace-bringing benevolence&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For more details, see [*pacifer* in L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=pacifer&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;I like this for a couple of reasons:&#xD;&#xA;(1) The two ideas are combined in a more active way; it's not just &quot;X and Y&quot;, but &quot;X doing Y&quot;. The idea conveyed is the same, but I like this colorful wording. This is one of the cases where I find myself preferring not to use *et* or anything similar, but finding another kind of connection.&#xD;&#xA;(2) It balances the two words; *pax* is very short and *benevolentia* is quite long. Perhaps it looks a little more grandiose this way, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To find the words whose tone best fits your intended message, please consult a Latin&amp;ndash;English dictionary and see what the offered words mean.&#xD;&#xA;You can use the links given here or [pick the online Latin dictionary you like most](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5260" RevisionGUID="1b4c8af8-1101-4baa-8d72-10fede893291" CreationDate="2017-09-16T22:56:36.837" UserId="522" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Rees  **Cyclopedia** 1819, and therefore superceded by your source, does not list ***Rustia*** in the five pages (11 columns) on Cicada. However it does list ***Rustica*** with this description by Fabricius,  in the fifth section: Genus ***Cercopis*** Fabr.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Rustica,*** Grey; immaculate, wings white; Fabr. An European species, found on plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name Rustia looks odd to me,  I would suspect it to be a misprint for Rustica. However Fabricius does not seem to be describing the same species, except that some of his specimens were very damaged, from private collections.&#xD;&#xA;The following translation has a number of words which most likely have conventional meanings, but you may be able to improve it with your knowledge of the terminology. *Apicalis* (conical) and *Lobus* (lobes) are not in my dictionaries and may be modern Latin.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **75 (76)** Capite thoracis antico latitudine æquali,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;With the head equal in breadth to the anterior of the thorax,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; margine antico inter frontem et lobos verticis libere prominulos&#xD;&#xA;&gt; profunde inciso,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;with the anterior margin between the forehead and the clearly prominent lobes of the top of the head deeply furrowed, ( *libere* (clearly) literally =outspokenly) (*margine antico* might be better as 'front edge')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parte laterali oculos semiglobosos ferente sursum nonnihil vergente&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fronte paullo prominula; rostro brevi;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the lateral part which carries the hemispherical eyes turning somewhat upwards with the brow very slightly prominent; the mouth-parts short;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ocellis ab oculis quam inter se duplo longius remotis; alis areolis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apicalibus quinque.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the simple eyes twice as far from the compound eyes as the distance between them; the wings with five small conical areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **76 (75)** Capitis parte laterali horizontali, nec sursum vergente.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lateral part of the head horizontal, and  not turning upwards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5261" RevisionGUID="c9e2e15c-d993-4e23-a988-9c7f099b8a3f" CreationDate="2017-09-16T23:51:34.490" UserId="406" Text="As a forewarning, I'm not particularly familiar with 19th century Latin, and some features of this text seem very odd to me (such as everything being in the ablative). There were also a few words I couldn't find in my dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Capite thoracis antico latitudine æquali,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The head and the front of the thorax equal in width,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *margine antico inter frontem et lobos verticis libere prominulos profunde inciso,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the front edge between the forehead and the rather prominent lobes on top of the head [unknown word] is deeply cut;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *parte laterali oculos semiglobosos ferente sursum nonnihil vergente fronte paullo prominula;*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the part on the side bearing hemispherical eyes bending upward somewhat, projecting out just a little from the forehead;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *rostro brevi;*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; a short beak [i.e. short mouthparts?];&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ocellis ab oculis quam inter se duplo longius remotis;*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; eyelets twice as far away from the eyes as [the distance] between themselves;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *alis areolis apicalibus quinque.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; on the wings are five apical [spots? literally small open places or gardens].&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Capitis parte laterali horizontali,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The part on the side of the head [is] horizontal,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nec sursum vergente.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; rather than bending upward." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5252" RevisionGUID="3b367d83-df54-4d67-b51d-b3160fcaa543" CreationDate="2017-09-17T02:20:11.023" UserId="1987" Comment="added 179 characters in body; added 16 characters in body" Text="I can't add a comment because of my low rep, but 'Bona Voluntas' reflects the original Biblical verse, which uses 'Bonae Voluntatis'. So I would recommend using that.&#xA;&#xA;Another example of 'Bona Voluntas' that I could find is from PAX ET UNA CHARITAS by Henricus Canisius, 1 January 1685&#xA;&#xA;He writes: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Ubi Deus eft, ibi Charitas eft; Ubi Charitas, ibi bona voluntas; Ubi bona voluntas, ibi Pax; Ubi Pax, ibi justitia; Ubi justitia, ibi securitas.&#xA;&#xA;There are many more examples.&#xA;&#xA;And yes, the double nominative (pax and bona voluntas)would carry the general, wide meaning you seek, of peace for all and good will to all (as opposed to, for example, pacem et bonam voluntatem, or pacis et bonae voluntatis, and etc.)&#xA;&#xA;A GREAT thread addressing this very thing is [Et in Terra Pax Hominibus Bona Voluntas Sic][1]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5006/et-in-terra-pax-hominibus-bona-voluntas-sic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5252" RevisionGUID="547a198e-0481-49f7-9ada-a4a50c02726c" CreationDate="2017-09-17T02:26:00.543" UserId="1987" Comment="added 257 characters in body" Text="I can't add a comment because of my low rep, but 'Bona Voluntas' reflects the original Biblical verse, which uses 'Bonae Voluntatis'. So I would recommend using that.&#xA;&#xA;Another example of 'Bona Voluntas' that I could find is from PAX ET UNA CHARITAS by Henricus Canisius, 1 January 1685&#xA;&#xA;He writes: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Ubi Deus eft, ibi Charitas eft; Ubi Charitas, ibi bona voluntas; Ubi bona voluntas, ibi Pax; Ubi Pax, ibi justitia; Ubi justitia, ibi securitas.&#xA;&#xA;There are many more examples.&#xA;&#xA;And yes, the double nominative (pax and bona voluntas)would carry the general, wide meaning you seek, of peace for all and good will to all (as opposed to, for example, pacem et bonam voluntatem, or pacis et bonae voluntatis, and etc.)&#xA;&#xA;A GREAT thread addressing this very thing is [Et in Terra Pax Hominibus Bona Voluntas Sic][1]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5006/et-in-terra-pax-hominibus-bona-voluntas-sic&#xA;&#xA;Bona Voluntas, from the nominative εὐδοκία, exists, but is regarded as the weaker of the two possibilities, because 'Bonae Voluntatis' (as in the Vulgate) comes from the older (thus more highly regarded) Greek Manuscript, which uses the genitive εὐδοκίας." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5262" RevisionGUID="7c009353-c2c1-4d33-935a-5eaa288aba4b" CreationDate="2017-09-17T13:28:04.027" UserId="78" Text="A common motto is *semper prorsum*, &quot;always forward.&quot; You can find examples of this [all over Google](https://books.google.com/books?id=G2ghAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA249&amp;dq=%22semper+prorsum%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22semper%20prorsum%22&amp;f=false), and is used as a way of expressing the necessity of marching forward. &quot;Always forward, never backward&quot; is what the link is saying in Latin—double down and don't retreat. *Semper prorsus* is a less common but still valid alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's not too cheesy, I'd also suggest just a simple *Excelsior!*. This has now entered the common parlance as a way of saying &quot;Onward &amp; Upward,&quot; which I think gets to the heart of what you're intending to convey." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17379" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="1878" RevisionGUID="bf630dd9-cd62-4fa2-980b-da16506f9963" CreationDate="2017-09-17T15:41:23.647" UserId="3" Comment="55" />
  <row Id="17380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5263" RevisionGUID="a2529d77-819d-448d-8f1c-f1ef549d8ac9" CreationDate="2017-09-17T16:27:04.067" UserId="645" Text="From a good many possibilities, I personally should prefer *Nunc progrediamur!*, or 'Now let's press on!', 'Let's get on with things!' etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5264" RevisionGUID="1ec75f5a-dd85-4a12-a826-f212404e795f" CreationDate="2017-09-17T21:42:45.283" UserId="12" Text="In English, a lowbrow way to call someone a coward is to call him or her a &quot;[scaredy-cat](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scaredy-cat)&quot; or &quot;[fraidy-cat](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fraidy-cat).&quot;  Apparently, somewhere along the way cats got a reputation for being easily frightened.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Latin, particularly Classical Latin, have a similar synonym for coward, comparing a cowardly person to an animal of some kind?  Wiktionary doesn't mention one, and I don't see one in [Wikipedia's list of Latin phrases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(full)) either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17383" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5264" RevisionGUID="1ec75f5a-dd85-4a12-a826-f212404e795f" CreationDate="2017-09-17T21:42:45.283" UserId="12" Text="Does Latin have an animal-based term for &quot;coward,&quot; like &quot;scaredy-cat&quot; in English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17384" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5264" RevisionGUID="1ec75f5a-dd85-4a12-a826-f212404e795f" CreationDate="2017-09-17T21:42:45.283" UserId="12" Text="|vocabulary|idiom|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5265" RevisionGUID="99201ce4-f93e-4452-a7f8-7284f804163e" CreationDate="2017-09-17T22:00:02.633" UserId="79" Text="Did the Romans have a theory for the origin of their language?&#xD;&#xA;I assume there were several ideas, and it would be great to see a summary of them.&#xD;&#xA;No need to go very deep on any individual theory; a reference and a brief description of each would do.&#xD;&#xA;For example, did some grammarians or other scholars think that Latin descends from Greek, or that Latin was given to the Romans by the gods, or that there was a global language of some kind which later split to several different ones, or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All Roman thoughts on the matter are welcome as answers, no matter how short or simple.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what kinds of theories they had or of any single one was more prominent than others, so I can't make the question much more specific." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17386" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5265" RevisionGUID="99201ce4-f93e-4452-a7f8-7284f804163e" CreationDate="2017-09-17T22:00:02.633" UserId="79" Text="Where did the Romans think Latin comes from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17387" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5265" RevisionGUID="99201ce4-f93e-4452-a7f8-7284f804163e" CreationDate="2017-09-17T22:00:02.633" UserId="79" Text="|language-evolution|passage-request|origin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5266" RevisionGUID="b1538e87-f79b-43a0-a118-ef67f65fb382" CreationDate="2017-09-17T22:17:22.390" UserId="666" Text="Is there a Latin equivalent to the English phrase `on the run` to indicate someone who's avoiding capture/recapture?  For example, `The prisoner is on the run.`  Would something like `in fuga` be accurate, or would I need to settle for something like `Captivus effugit`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17389" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5266" RevisionGUID="b1538e87-f79b-43a0-a118-ef67f65fb382" CreationDate="2017-09-17T22:17:22.390" UserId="666" Text="&quot;On the run&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17390" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5266" RevisionGUID="b1538e87-f79b-43a0-a118-ef67f65fb382" CreationDate="2017-09-17T22:17:22.390" UserId="666" Text="|translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5267" RevisionGUID="f50e373c-13de-4d22-bd65-01f665538a37" CreationDate="2017-09-18T03:16:03.600" UserId="78" Text="I always liked Horace's simile comparing Chloe to a fawn in *Odes* 1.23: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vitas hinnuleo me similis, Chloe,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; quaerenti pavidam montibus aviis  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; matrem non sine vano  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; aurarum et siluae metu.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; nam seu mobilibus veris inhorruit  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; adventus foliis seu virides rubum  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; dimovere lacertae,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et corde et genibus tremit.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; atqui non ego te tigris ut aspera  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gaetulusve leo frangere persequor: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; tandem desine matrem  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; tempestiva sequi viro.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English taken from [Wikisource](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Odes_(Horace)/Book_I/23):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You avoid me like a deer, Chloe,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; seeking its trembling mother in the remote mountains  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; not without an empty fear  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the winds and the forest.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For whether the arrival of spring quivered  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; with shifting leaves, or whether green lizards  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; have moved a bramble,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; it trembles with both its heart and its knees.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nevertheless I do not pursue you, as a cruel tiger  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or as a Gaetulian lion, to break you:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cease to follow your mother—  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; at last you are ready for a man.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2812" RevisionGUID="221b7ecc-551b-4897-857c-bf6f0e4ea666" CreationDate="2017-09-18T17:40:23.100" UserId="79" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="(This is more of a reference request than a question, since I'm looking for a more detailed discussion than is normal for an SE answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek adjectives for &quot;good&quot; and &quot;bad&quot; each have several irregular comparative and superlative forms from different stems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;better&quot;: ἀμείνων, βελτίων, κρείττων, λῴων&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;best&quot;: ἄριστος, βέλτιστος, κράτιστος, λῷστος&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;worse&quot;: κακίων, χείρων, ἥττων&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;worst&quot;: κάκιστος, χείριστος&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This isn't a complete list &amp;mdash; there are some rarer forms I'm omitting.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Smyth (319) has a short discussion of the semantic differences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀμείνων, ἄριστος express aptitude, capacity or worth (able, brave, excellent); βελτίων, βέλτιστος, a moral idea (virtuous); κρείττων, κράτιστος, force and superiority (strong) (ἥττων is the opposite of κρείττων); λῴων means more desirable, more agreeable (ὦ λῷστε my good friend); κακίων, κάκιστος express moral perversity, cowardice; χείρων, χείριστος, insufficiency, lack of a quality (less good) (worthless, good for nothing is φαῦλος).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is useful as far as it goes &amp;mdash; but that's not very far. It's very terse and doesn't give examples, and it doesn't discuss the meanings of these forms when describing different kinds of referents (e.g. how does the meaning of βελτίων differ when applied to a person than to a thing?) Also, it says nothing of genre or period, but the usage of e.g. Homer and Plato are presumably different. So I'm looking for a fuller examination of some or all of these forms, with examples of their usage in Greek authors. Does anyone know of such a discussion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17394" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2812" RevisionGUID="221b7ecc-551b-4897-857c-bf6f0e4ea666" CreationDate="2017-09-18T17:40:23.100" UserId="79" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|greek|word-comparison|semantics|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2823" RevisionGUID="727b0723-2e58-4e60-a8da-61c8a4353c23" CreationDate="2017-09-18T17:46:02.910" UserId="79" Comment="Trying how a non-breaking hyphen works: &amp;#8209;" Text="Your idea is correct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lewis-Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dne2) is not terribly clear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;added in a direct question, as an interrogation mark, to the first or principal word of the clause&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but, if you know German, [Georges](http://www.zeno.org/Georges-1913/A/ne+%5B3%5D) is much clearer: _&amp;#8209;n(e)_ is attached to the focus of the question, therefore _mostly_ at the beginning of the sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question completely, a quotation from [Terentius, Phormio, v.851](http://www.mqdq.it/public/testo/testo/ordinata/pf253897) is very interesting: _Sed isne est, quem quaero an non?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It shows _&amp;#8209;ne_ attached to the word asked about, instead of the verb: _is it he?_&#xD;&#xA;* It is an example of what can precede the _ne_-marked word in direct questions: connectives and such stuff, not real constituents.&#xD;&#xA;* It reminds us that  alternatives can be introduced by _an;_ sometimes _&amp;#8209;ne_ is repeated instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read on at the Georges link, you see that, when used as a conjunction in indirect questions, _&amp;#8209;ne_ can be attached to words in whatever position; however this is not the case for direct questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I have strong doubts about your _cum Marcone:_ I couldn't find a single example of a prepositional phrase Prep+Noun+ne, and I would say it is impossible: the forms justified by the extant corpus are _Nonne cum Marco?_ (confirmation expected) or _Num cum Marco?_ (denial expected).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Mecumne loqueris?_ does work and is OK with me, even if I could find it only in modern exercise books, but here _&amp;#8209;cum_ works as a suffix, almost a case ending, and it is a construction closer to _mihine_ than to the PP above. Possibly even _magnone cum gaudio_ could work, but I couldn't find any examples. I don't know what prevents enclitics to be attached to nouns _after_ prepositions: but I'd bet the same holds for _&amp;#8209;que_ and _&amp;#8209;ve_ as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A difference with Finnish (I think: please correct me if I'm wrong) is that _&amp;#8209;ko/&amp;#8209;kö_ is used exclusively and obligatorily in yes/no questions, while _&amp;#8209;ne_ is not obligatory (at least in later periods) and can sometimes (rarely) be attached to interrogative adverbs and pronouns: see the above links for examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5268" RevisionGUID="55905869-77c8-4d6a-b335-dda1281d7fb2" CreationDate="2017-09-18T18:46:25.447" UserId="642" Text="Here is a [list][1] of Latin phrases, including 20 or so beginning with semper. The translation they give is *semper anticus,* which is the motto of the U.S. 45th Infantry Division (now combat brigade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other expressions with &quot;semper&quot; (always) include *semper fidelis* (always faithful), *semper fortis* (always brave), motto of the U.S. Navy, and *semper libre* (always free), from La Traviata.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(S)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17397" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5258" RevisionGUID="38044684-8022-45f8-8f01-510c585d1707" CreationDate="2017-09-18T19:15:44.567" UserId="642" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the Latin equivalent of “Ever Forward” as a motto?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17398" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5258" RevisionGUID="38044684-8022-45f8-8f01-510c585d1707" CreationDate="2017-09-18T19:15:44.567" Comment="Proposed by 642 approved by 79 edit id of 215" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5269" RevisionGUID="6531c24b-c668-4d7e-a530-81a4945a8201" CreationDate="2017-09-18T19:35:20.373" UserId="2001" Text="&quot;Duc in altum !&quot; coming from the Holy Scriptures (Luke, 5,4): *dixit (Jesus) ad Simonem duc in altum et laxate retia vestra in capturam* : Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5270" RevisionGUID="e0a5f105-cdea-4416-844e-78a089996765" CreationDate="2017-09-18T20:15:44.173" UserId="2002" Text="The US Navy's railgun project's badge ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO_zXuOQy6A, timecode 00:14 ) has the motto &quot;Velocitas Eradico&quot; - I have no formal instruction in Latin, but my familiarity with Romance languages and etymology leads me to believe the translation would be &quot;With speed, eliminate/destroy [the target]&quot; - that is: the railgun fires projectiles so fast the need for an explosive warhead is eliminated. To double-check this I put it into Google Translate and it gave me &quot;get rid of speed&quot; - which seems like the complete opposite of what the railgun project is about :S&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is either translation correct? Or are both wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17401" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5270" RevisionGUID="e0a5f105-cdea-4416-844e-78a089996765" CreationDate="2017-09-18T20:15:44.173" UserId="2002" Text="Velocitas eradico - &quot;get rid of speed&quot; or &quot;with speed, eliminate&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17402" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5270" RevisionGUID="e0a5f105-cdea-4416-844e-78a089996765" CreationDate="2017-09-18T20:15:44.173" UserId="2002" Text="|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5271" RevisionGUID="dced40f7-5720-4f22-809f-01aad4f88fb5" CreationDate="2017-09-18T20:49:06.387" UserId="1694" Text="Neither translation is correct, and I suspect the Latin motto was intended to mean something other than what it actually says.  As it reads, though, it means something like: &quot;I, speed, eradicate&quot;.  Seems odd, to say the least." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5272" RevisionGUID="6218fb28-def9-40a5-9372-cdf07be276ca" CreationDate="2017-09-18T21:39:27.967" UserId="79" Text="I agree with varro that neither translation is correct.&#xD;&#xA;The most sensible translation seems to be indeed &quot;I, the speed, eradicate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It's a weird personification, but possible.&#xD;&#xA;However, it is more likely to be wrong than clever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that someone looked up the two words in a dictionary but did not realize that the words might need to be inflected.&#xD;&#xA;They are precisely in the form listed in many [Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the first person singular is possibly coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say &quot;I eradicate the speed&quot;, the speed needs to be in accusative: *Velocitatem eradico*.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say &quot;I eradicate with speed&quot;, the speed should be in ablative: *Velocitate eradico*.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to replace &quot;I eradicate&quot; with &quot;we eradicate&quot;, just replace *eradico* with *eradicamus*.&#xD;&#xA;The English verb &quot;eradicate&quot; is just one possible translation for *eradicare*; there are also other options like &quot;get rid of&quot; or &quot;eliminate&quot; as you suggested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know, they are not likely to change the wording now, but I just wanted to record how the thing should be written properly.&#xD;&#xA;As with any language, you should not be using it in important situations without consulting an expert." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5270" RevisionGUID="09ac71bb-bd15-4cdd-bdb7-ee1cd1fdeab1" CreationDate="2017-09-18T21:41:04.300" UserId="79" Comment="added 44 characters in body; edited title" Text="The US Navy's railgun project's badge (see [this YouTube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO_zXuOQy6A) at timecode 00:14) has the motto &quot;Velocitas Eradico&quot; &amp;mdash; I have no formal instruction in Latin, but my familiarity with Romance languages and etymology leads me to believe the translation would be &quot;With speed, eliminate/destroy [the target]&quot; &amp;mdash; that is: the railgun fires projectiles so fast the need for an explosive warhead is eliminated. To double-check this I put it into Google Translate and it gave me &quot;get rid of speed&quot; &amp;mdash; which seems like the complete opposite of what the railgun project is about :S&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is either translation correct? Or are both wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17406" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5270" RevisionGUID="09ac71bb-bd15-4cdd-bdb7-ee1cd1fdeab1" CreationDate="2017-09-18T21:41:04.300" UserId="79" Comment="added 44 characters in body; edited title" Text="Velocitas eradico — &quot;get rid of speed&quot; or &quot;with speed, eliminate&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5268" RevisionGUID="e0520541-3688-4329-89cb-debfcb1755af" CreationDate="2017-09-18T22:16:46.967" UserId="642" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="Here is a [list][1] of Latin phrases, including 20 or so beginning with semper. The translation they give is *semper anticus,* which is the motto of the U.S. 45th Infantry Division (now combat brigade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other expressions with &quot;semper&quot; (always) include *semper fidelis* (always faithful), *semper fortis* (always brave), motto of the U.S. Navy, and *semper liber* (always free), which may have inspired an Italian song of a similar name from La Traviata.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(S)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5273" RevisionGUID="8c366867-7bb4-4d75-b84f-8443495f6a0a" CreationDate="2017-09-18T22:58:51.913" UserId="78" Text="Personally I'd opt for *summum bonum*. From Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Summum bonum is a Latin expression meaning &quot;the highest good&quot;, which was introduced by the Roman philosopher Cicero, to correspond to the Idea of the Good in ancient Greek philosophy. The *summum bonum* is generally thought of as being an end in itself, and at the same time containing all other goods." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5275" RevisionGUID="bd7daf04-3f23-43e3-8669-a88e88fc647a" CreationDate="2017-09-19T11:56:04.917" UserId="666" Text="In English there are certain phrases, like &quot;copy that&quot; or &quot;roger&quot; that are used to confirm that a message was received, especially in radio communication.  What would be a good Latin term or phrase to use in this case?  My thought was `intelligetur`, but I'm curious if there is a better term to use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17412" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5275" RevisionGUID="bd7daf04-3f23-43e3-8669-a88e88fc647a" CreationDate="2017-09-19T11:56:04.917" UserId="666" Text="Acknowledging Message, e.g. &quot;Copy that&quot; or &quot;Roger&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17413" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5275" RevisionGUID="bd7daf04-3f23-43e3-8669-a88e88fc647a" CreationDate="2017-09-19T11:56:04.917" UserId="666" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5276" RevisionGUID="1f145b63-ee65-4f9a-a45c-fa54b5688f24" CreationDate="2017-09-19T12:35:28.457" UserDisplayName="user2007" Text="Accusing the Grimm brothers of a lack of mastery of good German is certainly not showing a lack of self-esteam...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the accepted answer confuses &quot;Einem reichen Manne, dem wurde seine Frau krank&quot; which is an emphasized version of &quot;Einem reichen Manne wurde seine Frau krank&quot; with &quot;Einem reichen Manne, dem seine Frau wurde krank&quot; which would be an emphasized version of &quot;Einem reichen Manne seine Frau wurde krank&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter variants would be the kind of dialect variant supplanting a possessive pronoun that the accepted answer is talking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;wurde&quot; can take a Dativ object and an additional &quot;es&quot; like in &quot;Es wurde einem reichen Mann der Hund krank&quot; which is at the very least interesting because &quot;Es&quot; appears to be nominative while &quot;der Hund&quot; definitively _is_ nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is also interesting because &quot;Es wurde einem reichen Manne, dem seine Frau krank&quot; does not work at all and indeed sounds like dialect _after_ removing the spurious comma which has no grammatical place here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this demonstrative use of &quot;dem&quot; as a concise repetition of the more elaborate &quot;Einem reichen Manne&quot; only works when the rich man is the first part of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the Grimm brothers certainly produced valid if somewhat circumspect German, and while I can with confidence both state its correctness as well as the Dativ not being used in a possessive function here, the fine points of Grammar involved here are beyond my descriptive mastery of the language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5277" RevisionGUID="5fc09068-5007-450f-abbf-14cefe3a684f" CreationDate="2017-09-19T13:00:31.153" UserId="992" Text="hello what is the meaning of signo solito? thank you.&#xD;&#xA;for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=0Sz2VYI0l1IC&amp;pg=PA383&amp;lpg=PA383&amp;dq=dicio%20paterna&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=4zOp4waZrM&amp;sig=es7u-q8ivNgakbMJPX6MzsEWq9Y&amp;hl=tr&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwizu-v9grHWAhXmCpoKHdxtDr4Q6AEIDDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=dicio%20paterna&amp;f=true" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17416" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5277" RevisionGUID="5fc09068-5007-450f-abbf-14cefe3a684f" CreationDate="2017-09-19T13:00:31.153" UserId="992" Text="signo solito meaning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17417" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5277" RevisionGUID="5fc09068-5007-450f-abbf-14cefe3a684f" CreationDate="2017-09-19T13:00:31.153" UserId="992" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5278" RevisionGUID="ee34f785-c39f-4a0a-be5b-c1e101cac407" CreationDate="2017-09-19T14:18:39.803" UserId="78" Text="It means &quot;with the usual sign (or signal).&quot; Presumably he means he's [shaking his head](https://www.dailysabah.com/life/2016/01/30/nodding-winking-hand-gestures-visitors-experiences-with-turkish-gestures), whereas everywhere else we nod for assent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the phrase used in actual Latin, see Ammianus Marcellinus 25.6: &quot;Adesse hostes signo solito demonstrabam&quot; (I was pointing out that enemies were present with the usual signal.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5277" RevisionGUID="acea8888-149b-4092-b50e-dbc080389e92" CreationDate="2017-09-19T19:32:52.173" UserId="78" Comment="added 162 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the meaning of *signo solito*? [For example](https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=0Sz2VYI0l1IC&amp;pg=PA383&amp;lpg=PA383&amp;dq=dicio%20paterna&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=4zOp4waZrM&amp;sig=es7u-q8ivNgakbMJPX6MzsEWq9Y&amp;hl=tr&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwizu-v9grHWAhXmCpoKHdxtDr4Q6AEIDDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=dicio%20paterna&amp;f=true):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The arrangements were explained to Jem by interpreters &quot;skilled in Latin and in Turkish,&quot; and being satisfied, he confirmed the Hospitallers' plans *signo turchico solito*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17420" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5277" RevisionGUID="acea8888-149b-4092-b50e-dbc080389e92" CreationDate="2017-09-19T19:32:52.173" UserId="78" Comment="added 162 characters in body; edited title" Text="Meaning of &quot;signo solito&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17421" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5277" RevisionGUID="acea8888-149b-4092-b50e-dbc080389e92" CreationDate="2017-09-19T19:32:52.173" UserId="78" Comment="added 162 characters in body; edited title" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5279" RevisionGUID="c18e7d93-41fa-4218-92b1-b74bd4d2ab10" CreationDate="2017-09-19T19:58:13.617" UserId="79" Text="I would go with *intellego* (or the alternative spelling *intelligo*).&#xD;&#xA;For example, it appears in Plautus, *Epidicus* [249](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/119/9/3/4249-4258,6150-6159,6362-6372@1#3) and [278](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/119/9/3/4249-4258,6150-6159,6362-6372@2#3).&#xD;&#xA;For other examples, mainly negative, see [this question about &quot;understand&quot; or &quot;get&quot; in a conversation](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5069/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer active voice here; after all, the message is that I understand, not that the thing is understood in general.&#xD;&#xA;If you use passive, present tense (*intelligitur/intellegitur*) is better than future (*intelligetur/intellegetur*).&#xD;&#xA;Another option that comes to mind but for which I found no classical attestations is the perfect tense version *intellexi*.&#xD;&#xA;My best suggestion is the simplest one: present, indicative, and active ***intellego***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5280" RevisionGUID="392d5f8c-7ef9-46f1-8686-5a83d9adff39" CreationDate="2017-09-19T20:34:36.340" UserId="79" Text="The only Latin translation I found for &quot;honeymoon&quot; or &quot;wedding trip&quot; is *iter nuptiale*.&#xD;&#xA;It is a sensible translation, but I could only find very recent uses.&#xD;&#xA;(Google search results are personalized, so others may see other results.)&#xD;&#xA;I am quite satisfied with *iter nuptiale* for modern uses, but I am interested in older phrases for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;Namely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How old is *iter nuptiale*? A *terminus ante quem* is fine; the timing doesn't have to be perfect.&#xD;&#xA;2. Where there other expressions in use for this purpose? The modern concept of honeymoon is quite recent, so I leave it for your judgement to decide what constitutes a sufficiently similar trip." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17424" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5280" RevisionGUID="392d5f8c-7ef9-46f1-8686-5a83d9adff39" CreationDate="2017-09-19T20:34:36.340" UserId="79" Text="Early Latin expressions for a honeymoon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17425" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5280" RevisionGUID="392d5f8c-7ef9-46f1-8686-5a83d9adff39" CreationDate="2017-09-19T20:34:36.340" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5280" RevisionGUID="654a8053-14af-474f-b529-4528d69d81bf" CreationDate="2017-09-20T06:08:46.020" UserId="79" Comment="added 180 characters in body; edited title" Text="The only Latin translation I found for &quot;honeymoon&quot; or &quot;wedding trip&quot; is *iter nuptiale*.&#xD;&#xA;It is a sensible translation, but I could only find very recent uses.&#xD;&#xA;(Google search results are personalized, so others may see other results.)&#xD;&#xA;I am quite satisfied with *iter nuptiale* for modern uses, but I am interested in older phrases for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;Namely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How old is *iter nuptiale*? A *terminus ante quem* is fine; the timing doesn't have to be perfect.&#xD;&#xA;2. Where there other expressions in use for this purpose? The modern concept of honeymoon is quite recent, so I leave it for your judgement to decide what constitutes a sufficiently similar trip.&#xA;&#xA;I am not looking for any specific era, as I don't know how far back the concept or word goes.&#xA;It might be exclusively modern or there might be classical precedent for all I know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17427" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5280" RevisionGUID="654a8053-14af-474f-b529-4528d69d81bf" CreationDate="2017-09-20T06:08:46.020" UserId="79" Comment="added 180 characters in body; edited title" Text="Earliest Latin expressions for a honeymoon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5281" RevisionGUID="30104dc9-62a7-49fb-9993-1c3abeef3e01" CreationDate="2017-09-20T08:43:35.790" UserId="79" Text="The word *homicida* is attested in classical Latin, and the English &quot;homicide&quot; is an obvious loan.&#xD;&#xA;The word seems to come from *homo* and *caedere*.&#xD;&#xA;Why is the first part *homi-* instead of *homini-*?&#xD;&#xA;The stem of *homo* appears to be *homin-*, not *hom-*, and I'm not aware of any special role of *&amp;#8209;in-*.&#xD;&#xA;Are there other similar examples that might help understand this by analogy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17429" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5281" RevisionGUID="30104dc9-62a7-49fb-9993-1c3abeef3e01" CreationDate="2017-09-20T08:43:35.790" UserId="79" Text="Why homicide instead of hominicide?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17430" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5281" RevisionGUID="30104dc9-62a7-49fb-9993-1c3abeef3e01" CreationDate="2017-09-20T08:43:35.790" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|derivation|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5282" RevisionGUID="6c6a2558-b7d0-4f32-8c90-40a7349a4fed" CreationDate="2017-09-20T19:55:05.483" UserId="645" Text="The original meaning in English of 'honeymoon' is well attested from the mid-sixteenth century, and it differs from the modern idea of a married couple's first holiday, usually immediately following the wedding. It is widely seen as describing the early days of marriage, an initial period of sweetness followed by changes of mood, as the moon changes its appearance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Italian and French there are the literally similar *luna di miele*, and *lune de miel*, though these look like mere copies of the English.  In Germany it is *Flitterwochen*, 'sequins week' or, more prosaically, *Hochzeitreise*, the 'wedding journey', and the latter is, of course, the same as the current English interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm pretty sure that the concept had no precedent in the classical era, when marriage happened at twelve or fourteen and, though one or two startling feats are recorded for boys at that sort of age, I doubt that newlyweds were encouraged to go on a holiday journey to give their marriage a happy beginning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To adopt, like the French and Italian languages, a term such as *luna mellea* or *mellosa*, seems fair enough in the circumstances. If you really need a Latin phrase to describe the modern sense of 'honeymoon', then your *iter nuptiale* is about as good as you can get : but beyond what I've said here, I think that the sort of verification that you are asking for is out of the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5283" RevisionGUID="6121dce3-16f7-4341-8dbd-3cff1d73d516" CreationDate="2017-09-20T21:09:47.000" UserId="79" Text="The closest phrase I could come up with is *in fuga*, which is quite literally &quot;on the run&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There are [a number of classical attestations of this phrase](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=in+fuga%23).&#xD;&#xA;Another good choice is the participle *fugiens*, possibly with a prefix *ef-* or *pro-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no Latin phrase that behaves exactly like &quot;on the run&quot;, so you have to judge each context separately.&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;the prisoner is on the run&quot; I would simply say *captivus profugit*.&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;while on the run, the prisoner slaughtered a dog&quot;, I would choose either *captivus profugiens canem mactavit*, *captivus in fuga canem mactavit*, or use two personal verbs like *captivus profugiebat et canem mactavit*.&#xD;&#xA;The choice is a matter of style and fluency." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5284" RevisionGUID="771b0b0a-3c55-4ab4-89d2-ef633d901b30" CreationDate="2017-09-20T21:47:05.950" UserId="235" Text="I find it interesting that the French expression *avoir raison* shares an etymology with the English words &quot;reason&quot; and &quot;rational&quot;. In a post-truth political era, it is refreshing that the French expression for &quot;being right&quot; is at least etymologically rooted in reason. I wonder, moreover, whether there are connotations of rationality when the French say *j'ai raison*. &#xA;&#xA;Politics aside, the French expression and the English words all derive from the Latin root *ratio, rationis*. The question I have for this forum is whether the word *ratio* was frequently used in Roman philosophy, and whether it was used to translate the Greek word λόγος in translations of Greek philosophy. I know what the word means, but I just want to double-check that it's the same word that Roman philosophers used for reason. &#xA;&#xA;Furthermore, are there many Greek and Roman words for &quot;reason&quot; (as, for example, there are many words for &quot;love&quot;) or was one word predominantly used to describe this concept?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17434" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5284" RevisionGUID="771b0b0a-3c55-4ab4-89d2-ef633d901b30" CreationDate="2017-09-20T21:47:05.950" UserId="235" Text="What is the word for &quot;reason&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17435" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5284" RevisionGUID="771b0b0a-3c55-4ab4-89d2-ef633d901b30" CreationDate="2017-09-20T21:47:05.950" UserId="235" Text="|classical-latin|etymology|greek|philosophy-terms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5284" RevisionGUID="ae88568a-c1d7-47e7-83e0-6f69fcda6132" CreationDate="2017-09-20T21:52:18.340" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; deleted 7 characters in body; added 92 characters in body" Text="I find it interesting that the French expression *avoir raison* shares an etymology with the English words &quot;reason&quot; and &quot;rational&quot;. In a post-truth political era, it is refreshing that the French expression for &quot;being right&quot; is at least etymologically rooted in reason. I wonder, moreover, whether there are connotations of rationality when the French say *j'ai raison*. In American politics, the words &quot;I'm right&quot; have no connotations of rationality. &#xA;&#xA;Politics aside, the French expression and the English words all derive from the Latin root *ratio, rationis*. The question I have for this forum is whether the word *ratio* was frequently used in Roman philosophy, and whether it was used to translate the Greek word λόγος in translations of Greek philosophy. I know what the word means, but I just want to double-check that it's the same word that Roman philosophers used for reason. &#xA;&#xA;Furthermore, are there many Greek and Roman words for &quot;reason&quot; (as, for example, there are many words for &quot;love&quot;) or was one word predominantly used to describe this concept?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17437" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5284" RevisionGUID="381d95a7-64e1-46a9-915a-3506087386c6" CreationDate="2017-09-20T22:23:46.410" UserId="235" Comment="edited title; added 154 characters in body" Text="What is the word for &quot;reason&quot; and what resonance does it have in Roman culture?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5284" RevisionGUID="381d95a7-64e1-46a9-915a-3506087386c6" CreationDate="2017-09-20T22:23:46.410" UserId="235" Comment="edited title; added 154 characters in body" Text="I find it interesting that the French expression *avoir raison* shares an etymology with the English words &quot;reason&quot; and &quot;rational&quot;. In a post-truth political era, it is refreshing that the French expression for &quot;being right&quot; is at least etymologically rooted in reason. I wonder, moreover, whether there are connotations of rationality when the French say *j'ai raison*. In American politics, the words &quot;I'm right&quot; have no connotations of rationality. &#xA;&#xA;Politics aside, the French expression and the English words all derive from the Latin root *ratio, rationis*. The question I have for this forum is whether the word *ratio* was frequently used in Roman philosophy, and whether it was used to translate the Greek word λόγος in translations of Greek philosophy. I know what the word means, but I just want to double-check that it's the same word that Roman philosophers used for reason. &#xA;&#xA;Furthermore, are there many Greek and Roman words for &quot;reason&quot; (as, for example, there are many words for &quot;love&quot;) or was one word predominantly used to describe this concept?&#xA;&#xA;Lastly, what resonance does the Latin word for reason have in Roman culture? Is it in any way comparable to the meaning that λόγος had in Greek culture?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5284" RevisionGUID="1b11e4ac-a71f-4f21-a211-5a1a5ff2fa5c" CreationDate="2017-09-20T23:06:45.993" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 154 characters in body" Text="I find it interesting that the French expression *avoir raison* shares an etymology with the English words &quot;reason&quot; and &quot;rational&quot;. In a post-truth political era, it is refreshing that the French expression for &quot;being right&quot; is at least etymologically rooted in reason. I wonder, moreover, whether there are connotations of rationality when the French say *j'ai raison*. In American politics, the words &quot;I'm right&quot; have no connotations of rationality. &#xA;&#xA;Politics aside, the French expression and the English words all derive from the Latin root *ratio, rationis*. The question I have for this forum is whether the word *ratio* was frequently used in Roman philosophy, and whether it was used to translate the Greek word λόγος in translations of Greek philosophy. I know what the word means, but I just want to double-check that it's the same word that Roman philosophers used for reason. &#xA;&#xA;Furthermore, are there many Greek and Roman words for &quot;reason&quot; (as, for example, there are many words for &quot;love&quot;) or was one word predominantly used to describe this concept?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5285" RevisionGUID="6cd98724-8275-42c0-a9dd-e3d1d0894951" CreationDate="2017-09-21T01:26:47.437" UserId="1694" Text="I don't know of an accepted answer to this question, but I will offer two alternative possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) It's merely a case of phonetic simplification, i.e., an earlier *_hominicida_ was replaced by _homicida_ simply because the latter was easier to say.  (There's a technical term for this, but it escapes at the moment.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) If the PIE ancestor of L. _homo_ goes back to something like *_(dh)ghemon_, then one can easily imagine a combining form *_homi-_ derived from a zero-grade *_gh(e/o)mn̥_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1967" RevisionGUID="d3a428ca-dee7-4857-b324-bf089239ec84" CreationDate="2017-09-21T11:19:49.910" UserId="79" Comment="Made a link more descriptive." Text="As you mention, Latin [*hippopotamus, -i*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dhippopotamus) comes from Greek [*ἱπποπόταμος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=i%28ppopo%2Ftamos&amp;la=greek&amp;can=i%28ppopo%2Ftamos0&amp;prior=hipp%C5%8Fp%C5%8Ft%C4%83mus&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=hippopotamus&amp;i=1#lexicon), which is a compound of [*ἵππος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=i%28ppos&amp;la=greek#lexicon) (*hippos* = horse) and [ποταμός](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=potamos&amp;la=greek#lexicon) (*potamos* = river). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In Latin**, Lewis and Short cites instances in Pomponius Mela (AD 45), Pliny (AD 79), and Ammianus Marcellinus (AD 400). **In Greek**, the LSJ includes references from Dioscorides (AD 90), Galen (AD c. 200), and Damascius (AD c. 538). As you will see you are not the first person to notice its unusual formation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule which is generally observed in Greek (just as in English) is that the attribute precedes the primary noun, i.e. &quot;N1 + N2&quot; = &quot;N2 of the N1.&quot; Here are some examples with ἵππος:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ἱππόδεσμα: bond (i.e. reins) of the horse&#xD;&#xA;* ἱπποδιώκτης: driver of horses&#xD;&#xA;* ἱπποκόσμια: trappings of a horse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, in some cases, two nouns together that seem to bear equal weight, as in English &quot;wolf dog&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ἱππόταυρος: horse bull&#xD;&#xA;* ἱπποκύων: horse dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For more examples, see [this Greek dictionary search](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?lookup=i\(ppo&amp;page=2&amp;lang=greek&amp;type=start).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One explanation of this is in footnote 1, pg. 62 of [*Des origines des sciences naturelles*](https://books.google.com/books?id=MiEaAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA62&amp;lpg=PA62) by Dr. Saint-Lager, which contains a lot of useful information in French. Here is my translation of relevant parts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The word *Hippopotamus* is improperly constructed, because as a rule in words composed from Greek stems, **the principal noun should be placed after the attribute**&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As a result, **the noun *Hippopotamus* (river of the horse) should be changed to *Potamippos* (river horse).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He then includes a very interesting usage note that might explain the reason for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Moreover, ancient Greek authors like Herodotus (Histor. II, 71), Aristotle (Hist. anim. II, 1 et 7), Strabo (Geogr. XV, 1 - XVI, 4), Plutarch (Isis et Osiris XXXII et L), [etc.] **have always written this in three distinct words: ἵππος ὁ ποτάμιος.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this instance, ποτάμιος is an *adjective* in the attributive position, so the phrase literally means &quot;a riverly horse.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the footnote goes on to blame the copyists, a likely explanation is that &quot;hippos ho potamios&quot; was judged too long and shortened without proper regard for the usual construction of such compound words. This is certainly not a hard and fast rule, and there are several examples of compounds where the attribute is placed second, as pointed out by @sumelic and @TKR, such as *φιλόσοφος* (love-wisdom = &quot;lover of wisdom&quot;) and *ἀξιόλογος* (worth-word = &quot;worthy of mention&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note is that your suggested combination of *potamohippus* would be incorrect, since the -os ending would be dropped with a noun starting with a vowel (and no hidden digamma!). One such-formed word is [*λεύκιππος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=leu%2Fkippos&amp;la=greek&amp;can=leu%2Fkippos0&amp;prior=*kth/sippos#) (leukos + hippos = &quot;riding white horses&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5286" RevisionGUID="fe1f8700-d040-4997-9379-68e00cd52f3c" CreationDate="2017-09-21T11:27:46.430" UserId="1961" Text="There is also the Latin proverb often attributed to Hannibal when he attempted to cross the Alps: *viam aut inveniam aut faciam* (I shall either find a way or make one) which although not using *posse* may make be a suitable replacement for 'I can' depending on the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5287" RevisionGUID="9894f7b9-ec4e-4df4-bf67-4b9b43f72722" CreationDate="2017-09-21T11:58:50.977" UserId="78" Text="Others more versed in historical linguistics may offer a more nuanced offer, but *-cida*, like a good many suffixes, are attached to the nominative and not formed from the root. The *-i* instead of *-o* is then due to weakening of an unaccented vowel. Cf. *musculus*, *muscerdae*, *minusculus*, or *paterculus*, all of which are formed from the nominative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if this has been suggested (de Vaan is unhelpful), but I imagine forms like *matricida* were based on analogy with *parricida*, which despite its late meaning likely did not come from *pater*. de Vaan further notes (pp. 447-448):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The absence of syncope to *\*parkaida* suggests *parricida* is a relatively recent compount. For a recent formation, *par* 'equal' is the most obvious candidate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5286" RevisionGUID="e3b30fe7-063d-448b-b50a-4791392092e2" CreationDate="2017-09-21T12:01:59.447" UserId="1961" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="There is also the Latin proverb often attributed to Hannibal when he attempted to cross the Alps: *viam aut inveniam aut faciam* (I shall either find a way or make one) which although not using *posse* may be a suitable replacement for 'I can' depending on the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5287" RevisionGUID="50a50b0c-9b73-4f00-b5da-09d6a61247be" CreationDate="2017-09-21T13:37:06.867" UserId="78" Comment="edited body" Text="Others more versed in historical linguistics may offer a more nuanced offer, but *-cida*, like a good many suffixes, are attached to the nominative and not formed from the root. The *-i* instead of *-o* is then due to weakening of an unaccented vowel. Cf. *musculus*, *muscerdae*, *minusculus*, or *paterculus*, all of which are formed from the nominative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if this has been suggested (de Vaan is unhelpful), but I imagine forms like *matricida* were based on analogy with *parricida*, which despite its late meaning likely did not come from *pater*. de Vaan further notes (pp. 447-448):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The absence of syncope to *\*parkaida* suggests *parricida* is a relatively recent compound. For a recent formation, *par* 'equal' is the most obvious candidate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5288" RevisionGUID="83ea09e5-ab88-4820-a12b-0e2272264bdf" CreationDate="2017-09-21T15:00:17.217" UserId="1961" Text="The only example I can think of is with *Catellus* and *Lesbia* (*Clodia*?) but I wouldn't be surprised if hypocorism wasn't wide spread though for a few reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ancient Roman culture was considerably different with very different morals and if you consider the population of Rome divided up between slaves (basically objects rather than people so did their names even matter?), non-citizens (probably foreign and have non-Roman names, or adopted *cognomina*), plebeians and the equestrian and patrician classes, it seems to me that a person's name was very important in identifying themselves in society (especially for equestrians and patricians if they entered into public life) so Roman citizens were probably very proud of them and it likely wasn't the sort of thing that most Romans subscribed to out of respect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The use of *cognomina* (and that nouns in Latin decline) also suggests to me that if Romans did use hypocorism, it would be more like in the Catallus' / Lesbia situation where a person's *cognomina* would be replaced with one more flattering rather than their *praenomina* being shortened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I think it would also more likely to have been the domain of artists and poets who didn't have more important things to do.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5289" RevisionGUID="5f56da20-15f4-482d-b992-fce4ce30e182" CreationDate="2017-09-21T18:24:18.717" UserId="68" Text="So in writing something in Latin about the state of affairs in the US, I want to quote Thomas Jefferson's 1820 letter to John Holmes in which he says, about the Missouri Compromise (which required that future states be admitted to the Union two at a time and that one be slave and one be free):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what I've worked up. (I went for drama with word order rather than faithfulness to the original, which I'm okay with, unless it makes it less effective in some way.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cōnflāgrātiōnis vērō ut campana quæ noctū commonet, mōmentī quæstiō mē exsūscitāvit conterruitque. Nēniam statim habuī Fœderis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd love any thoughts on how to improve it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17449" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5289" RevisionGUID="5f56da20-15f4-482d-b992-fce4ce30e182" CreationDate="2017-09-21T18:24:18.717" UserId="68" Text="Unsure of translation into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17450" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5289" RevisionGUID="5f56da20-15f4-482d-b992-fce4ce30e182" CreationDate="2017-09-21T18:24:18.717" UserId="68" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5289" RevisionGUID="83010210-4fad-4bc5-ac0f-08bd98855c37" CreationDate="2017-09-21T18:54:48.097" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and added some detail to the title. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="So in writing something in Latin about the state of affairs in the US, I want to quote Thomas Jefferson's 1820 letter to John Holmes in which he says, about the Missouri Compromise (which required that future states be admitted to the Union two at a time and that one be slave and one be free):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what I've worked up. (I went for drama with word order rather than faithfulness to the original, which I'm okay with, unless it makes it less effective in some way.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cōnflāgrātiōnis vērō ut campana quæ noctū commonet, mōmentī quæstiō mē exsūscitāvit conterruitque. Nēniam statim habuī Fœderis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd love any thoughts on how to improve it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17452" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5289" RevisionGUID="83010210-4fad-4bc5-ac0f-08bd98855c37" CreationDate="2017-09-21T18:54:48.097" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and added some detail to the title. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="Unsure of translation into Latin (a letter by Jefferson)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17453" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5289" RevisionGUID="83010210-4fad-4bc5-ac0f-08bd98855c37" CreationDate="2017-09-21T18:54:48.097" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and added some detail to the title. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="|translation-check|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5290" RevisionGUID="f85c6f6f-776b-4ecf-84ce-afd13acf0018" CreationDate="2017-09-21T19:17:53.457" UserId="79" Text="Scattered thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The translation looks good.&#xD;&#xA;- [*Quaestio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=quaestio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is not usually a good translation for &quot;question&quot;, but here it seems very appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;It is a good word for the subject of debate or discussion.&#xD;&#xA;- I think a plain *momenti* is not a good translation for &quot;momentous&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;To me *quaestio momenti* sounds like &quot;question about moment&quot; than &quot;a momentous question&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you could use *maximi momenti*.&#xD;&#xA;But my personal preference would be a simple *grave*.&#xD;&#xA;- The object of the second sentence is a little unclear.&#xD;&#xA;Quid neniam habuisti?&#xD;&#xA;I would consider something around *haec campana neniam foederis cecinit*.&#xD;&#xA;That would connect the two sentences more clearly, but it may or may not be prosaic enough.&#xD;&#xA;- Best vocabulary choices depend on the surrounding translation.&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that I don't know the bigger picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on your translation, I would suggest this version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De conflagratione vero ut campana quae noctu commonet, haec quaestio gravissima me exsuscitavit, conterruit. Eandem campanam neniam statim audivi Foederis canere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5290" RevisionGUID="ac591f14-95e8-4ba6-95fc-8cced142af47" CreationDate="2017-09-21T19:46:25.790" UserId="79" Comment="added 314 characters in body" Text="Scattered thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The translation looks good.&#xD;&#xA;- [*Quaestio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=quaestio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is not usually a good translation for &quot;question&quot;, but here it seems very appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;It is a good word for the subject of debate or discussion.&#xD;&#xA;- I think a plain *momenti* is not a good translation for &quot;momentous&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;To me *quaestio momenti* sounds like &quot;question about moment&quot; than &quot;a momentous question&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you could use *maximi momenti*.&#xD;&#xA;But my personal preference would be a simple *grave*.&#xD;&#xA;- The object of the second sentence is a little unclear.&#xD;&#xA;Quid neniam habuisti?&#xD;&#xA;I would consider something around *haec campana neniam foederis cecinit*.&#xD;&#xA;That would connect the two sentences more clearly, but it may or may not be prosaic enough.&#xD;&#xA;- Best vocabulary choices depend on the surrounding translation.&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that I don't know the bigger picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on your translation, I would suggest this version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De conflagratione vero ut campana quae noctu commonet, haec quaestio gravissima me exsuscitavit, conterruit. Eandem campanam neniam statim audivi Foederis canere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your comment inspired me to see if I can eliminate *campana* altogether.&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't follow the original text as closely, but might be worth considering.&#xD;&#xA;Working in that direction takes me to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ut conflagratio nocturna, me exsuscitavit conterruitque haec quaestio gravissima, quam neniam habui Foederis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5284" RevisionGUID="4bb4b057-09ca-452a-a005-bd497b98e03f" CreationDate="2017-09-21T20:10:40.890" UserId="235" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I find it interesting that the French expression *avoir raison* shares an etymology with the English words &quot;reason&quot; and &quot;rational&quot;. In a post-truth political era, it is refreshing that the French expression for &quot;being right&quot; is at least etymologically rooted in reason. I wonder, moreover, whether there are connotations of rationality when the French say *j'ai raison*. In American politics, the words &quot;I'm right&quot; have no connotations of rationality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Politics aside, the French expression and the English words all derive from the Latin root *ratio, rationis*. The question I have for this forum is whether the word *ratio* was frequently used in Roman philosophy, and whether it was used to translate the Greek word λόγος in translations of Greek philosophy. I know what the word means, but I just want to double-check that it's the same word that Roman philosophers used for reason. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, are there many Greek and Latin words for &quot;reason&quot; (as, for example, there are many words for &quot;love&quot;) or was one word predominantly used to describe this concept?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5290" RevisionGUID="f9fe6628-c394-4e40-a819-9a58eeae313c" CreationDate="2017-09-21T20:16:41.977" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Scattered thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The translation looks good.&#xD;&#xA;- [*Quaestio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=quaestio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is not usually a good translation for &quot;question&quot;, but here it seems very appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;It is a good word for the subject of debate or discussion.&#xD;&#xA;- I think a plain *momenti* is not a good translation for &quot;momentous&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;To me *quaestio momenti* sounds like &quot;question about moment&quot; than &quot;a momentous question&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you could use *maximi momenti*.&#xD;&#xA;But my personal preference would be a simple *gravis*.&#xD;&#xA;- The object of the second sentence is a little unclear.&#xD;&#xA;Quid neniam habuisti?&#xD;&#xA;I would consider something around *haec campana neniam foederis cecinit*.&#xD;&#xA;That would connect the two sentences more clearly, but it may or may not be prosaic enough.&#xD;&#xA;- Best vocabulary choices depend on the surrounding translation.&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that I don't know the bigger picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on your translation, I would suggest this version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De conflagratione vero ut campana quae noctu commonet, haec quaestio gravissima me exsuscitavit, conterruit. Eandem campanam neniam statim audivi Foederis canere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your comment inspired me to see if I can eliminate *campana* altogether.&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't follow the original text as closely, but might be worth considering.&#xD;&#xA;Working in that direction takes me to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ut conflagratio nocturna, me exsuscitavit conterruitque haec quaestio gravissima, quam neniam sensi Foederis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I originally had *habui*, but I think *sensi* is better with *nenia*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5285" RevisionGUID="ebb49024-2935-427c-8bfb-b253e44c8397" CreationDate="2017-09-21T20:53:46.387" UserId="1694" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="I don't know of an accepted answer to this question, but I will offer two alternative possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) It's merely a case of phonetic simplification, i.e., an earlier *_hominicida_ was replaced by _homicida_ simply because the latter was easier to say.  (There's a technical term for this, but it escapes at the moment.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) If the PIE ancestor of L. _homo_ goes back to something like *_(dh)ghemon_, then one can *possibly* imagine a combining form *_homi-_ derived from a zero-grade *_gh(e/o)mn̥_, but since the regular reflex of PIE _n̥_ is _en_, this would work only assuming an irregular dropping of the _n_ in this word, which makes it a lot less likely than possibility (1)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5285" RevisionGUID="9fda7946-d6a6-4bb7-b877-4f0ef3d02425" CreationDate="2017-09-21T21:11:11.457" UserId="79" Comment="Edited the haplology in." Text="I don't know of an accepted answer to this question, but I will offer two alternative possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) It's merely a case of phonetic simplification, i.e., an earlier *_hominicida_ was replaced by _homicida_ simply because the latter was easier to say. This is known as haplology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) If the PIE ancestor of L. _homo_ goes back to something like *_(dh)ghemon_, then one can *possibly* imagine a combining form *_homi-_ derived from a zero-grade *_gh(e/o)mn̥_, but since the regular reflex of PIE _n̥_ is _en_, this would work only assuming an irregular dropping of the _n_ in this word, which makes it a lot less likely than possibility (1)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5290" RevisionGUID="48ba3295-60ef-4330-ad0e-21724a6026b8" CreationDate="2017-09-21T22:50:49.793" UserId="79" Comment="added 188 characters in body" Text="Scattered thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The translation looks good.&#xD;&#xA;- [*Quaestio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=quaestio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is not usually a good translation for &quot;question&quot;, but here it seems very appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;It is a good word for the subject of debate or discussion.&#xD;&#xA;- I think a plain *momenti* is not a good translation for &quot;momentous&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;To me *quaestio momenti* sounds like &quot;question about moment&quot; than &quot;a momentous question&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you could use *maximi momenti*.&#xD;&#xA;But my personal preference would be a simple *gravis*.&#xD;&#xA;- The object of the second sentence is a little unclear.&#xD;&#xA;Quid neniam habuisti?&#xD;&#xA;I would consider something around *haec campana neniam foederis cecinit*.&#xD;&#xA;That would connect the two sentences more clearly, but it may or may not be prosaic enough.&#xD;&#xA;- Best vocabulary choices depend on the surrounding translation.&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that I don't know the bigger picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on your translation, I would suggest this version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De conflagratione vero ut campana quae noctu commonet, haec quaestio gravissima me exsuscitavit, conterruit. Eandem campanam neniam statim audivi Foederis canere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your comment inspired me to see if I can eliminate *campana* altogether.&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't follow the original text as closely, but might be worth considering.&#xD;&#xA;Working in that direction takes me to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ut conflagratio nocturna, me exsuscitavit conterruitque haec quaestio gravissima, quam neniam sensi Foederis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I originally had *habui*, but I think *sensi* is better with *nenia*.&#xA;&#xA;Yet another idea:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Par incendio nocturno me exsuscitavit conterruitque quaestio haec gravis, Foederis deletrix.&#xA;&#xA;I hope these comments and suggestions help you find a good translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5291" RevisionGUID="caa8cc5c-8aa5-468d-82b9-c0034837dc29" CreationDate="2017-09-22T06:07:58.227" UserId="68" Text="I'm looking for a way to talk in Latin about the &quot;blame on both sides&quot; rhetoric with respect to the recent events in Charlottesville. Is there a Latin term for the fallacy of [false equivalence][1]? It seems related to the [*argūmentum ad temperantiam*][2], but they're not exactly the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17462" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5291" RevisionGUID="caa8cc5c-8aa5-468d-82b9-c0034837dc29" CreationDate="2017-09-22T06:07:58.227" UserId="68" Text="Latin term for &quot;false equivalence&quot; fallacy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17463" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5291" RevisionGUID="caa8cc5c-8aa5-468d-82b9-c0034837dc29" CreationDate="2017-09-22T06:07:58.227" UserId="68" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|rhetoric|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5292" RevisionGUID="c03e8bf3-5589-4420-ad34-730cf8b15b10" CreationDate="2017-09-22T12:22:38.900" UserId="79" Text="When giving suggestions to [a recent translation question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5289/79) I could not decide between [*similis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=similis&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) and [*par*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=par&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;I realized that I don't understand the difference of the two sufficiently well.&#xD;&#xA;They are obviously distinct but similar words, but dictionaries are not very good for comparing almost synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;How would you compare *similis* and *par*?&#xD;&#xA;How are they similar and how are they different?&#xD;&#xA;Is there a useful rule of thumb for differentiating them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17465" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5292" RevisionGUID="c03e8bf3-5589-4420-ad34-730cf8b15b10" CreationDate="2017-09-22T12:22:38.900" UserId="79" Text="Comparing similis and par" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17466" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5292" RevisionGUID="c03e8bf3-5589-4420-ad34-730cf8b15b10" CreationDate="2017-09-22T12:22:38.900" UserId="79" Text="|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5290" RevisionGUID="34a9204d-eb8d-4d36-8cbe-d58416bb79f4" CreationDate="2017-09-22T12:25:04.263" UserId="79" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Scattered thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The translation looks good.&#xD;&#xA;- [*Quaestio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=quaestio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is not usually a good translation for &quot;question&quot;, but here it seems very appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;It is a good word for the subject of debate or discussion.&#xD;&#xA;- I think a plain *momenti* is not a good translation for &quot;momentous&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;To me *quaestio momenti* sounds like &quot;question about moment&quot; than &quot;a momentous question&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you could use *maximi momenti*.&#xD;&#xA;But my personal preference would be a simple *gravis*.&#xD;&#xA;- The object of the second sentence is a little unclear.&#xD;&#xA;Quid neniam habuisti?&#xD;&#xA;I would consider something around *haec campana neniam foederis cecinit*.&#xD;&#xA;That would connect the two sentences more clearly, but it may or may not be prosaic enough.&#xD;&#xA;- Best vocabulary choices depend on the surrounding translation.&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that I don't know the bigger picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on your translation, I would suggest this version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De conflagratione vero ut campana quae noctu commonet, haec quaestio gravissima me exsuscitavit, conterruit. Eandem campanam neniam statim audivi Foederis canere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your comment inspired me to see if I can eliminate *campana* altogether.&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't follow the original text as closely, but might be worth considering.&#xD;&#xA;Working in that direction takes me to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ut conflagratio nocturna, me exsuscitavit conterruitque haec quaestio gravissima, quam neniam sensi Foederis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I originally had *habui*, but I think *sensi* is better with *nenia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet another idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Par/Similis incendio nocturno me exsuscitavit conterruitque quaestio haec gravis, Foederis deletrix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope these comments and suggestions help you find a good translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5293" RevisionGUID="0e5d2290-9b04-461c-a0e7-65cc60dce4a8" CreationDate="2017-09-22T14:01:04.893" UserId="645" Text="Each is an adjective but, like their antonyms *dissimilis* and *impar*, they are neither equivalent nor interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indicating only 'likeness', *similis* is 'similar' or 'resembling', while *par* means 'equal' (and does not imply similarity) or 'the same' in some quality (whether stated or implicit) of the noun it qualifies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, *simili intervallo* is said of objects spaced at *similar* — but not precisely *equal* — distances apart, while *pari intervallo* implies that the intervals are exactly equal. Or you might say when comparing cucumbers and apples *cucumeres et mala sunt pondere paria, sed forma dissimilia*, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5294" RevisionGUID="78c7e8bf-252d-4d08-af0b-91ac0e14797d" CreationDate="2017-09-22T14:24:12.503" UserId="2015" Text="Hey :) How would you say &quot;teaching man&quot; in Latin, in the same way as &quot;homo sapiens&quot; (thinking man) or &quot;homo economicus&quot; (economic man)? Thanks a million!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17470" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5294" RevisionGUID="78c7e8bf-252d-4d08-af0b-91ac0e14797d" CreationDate="2017-09-22T14:24:12.503" UserId="2015" Text="Latin for &quot;Teaching man&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17471" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5294" RevisionGUID="78c7e8bf-252d-4d08-af0b-91ac0e14797d" CreationDate="2017-09-22T14:24:12.503" UserId="2015" Text="|translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5295" RevisionGUID="7f67a95f-04f8-4fbe-b1a1-7b77f91ed0fe" CreationDate="2017-09-22T15:21:05.373" UserId="68" Text="Dōderlein, p. 33, has&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Fortasse, forsitan,*...denote possibility, and indeed, *fortasse, fortassis* with an emphatic perception and affirmation of the possibility as approaching to probability...*forsitan, forsan* with merely an occasional perception of the possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ramshorn, meanwhile, p. 217, has&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Forsan*...and *forsitan*...are used if something is imagined as possible....*Fortasse...if the supposition is pronounced with a belief in the probability of the event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be honest, I'm not quite sure how much I trust them here. Just in case, though, my *forsitan* usually stays in the middle between e.g. *nonne* and *num*, whereas my *fortasse* is a little closer to *nonne*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5296" RevisionGUID="09e6398d-5e8f-44c9-be94-3790a72ff28b" CreationDate="2017-09-22T18:05:11.880" UserId="610" Text="Normally we use accusative to express the destination of the movement in Latin. Why then is the ablative form of interrogative pronoun (ie. &quot;quo&quot;) used in the &quot;Quo vadis?&quot; sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we answer this question, everything is back to normal and we use accusative, for example &quot;Romam vado&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17474" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5296" RevisionGUID="09e6398d-5e8f-44c9-be94-3790a72ff28b" CreationDate="2017-09-22T18:05:11.880" UserId="610" Text="Declension case in &quot;Quo vadis?&quot; sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17475" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5296" RevisionGUID="09e6398d-5e8f-44c9-be94-3790a72ff28b" CreationDate="2017-09-22T18:05:11.880" UserId="610" Text="|grammar-choice|interrogative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17476" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5294" RevisionGUID="a6227a39-3b2a-4f50-a476-6204676f651b" CreationDate="2017-09-22T19:28:01.353" UserId="79" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5295" RevisionGUID="1ae34ec1-7c89-460f-9c87-633bae55ebed" CreationDate="2017-09-22T20:36:59.170" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected a typo, I hope." Text="Dōderlein, p. 33, has&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Fortasse, forsitan,*...denote possibility, and indeed, *fortasse, fortassis* with an emphatic perception and affirmation of the possibility as approaching to probability...*forsitan, forsan* with merely an occasional perception of the possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ramshorn, meanwhile, p. 217, has&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Forsan*...and *forsitan*...are used if something is imagined as possible....*Fortasse*...if the supposition is pronounced with a belief in the probability of the event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be honest, I'm not quite sure how much I trust them here. Just in case, though, my *forsitan* usually stays in the middle between e.g. *nonne* and *num*, whereas my *fortasse* is a little closer to *nonne*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="0539afd9-6bc1-48af-80e7-3567aa128671" CreationDate="2017-09-23T00:32:09.720" UserId="68" Text="I'm assuming it's not a phonological thing—like, if the *ē* in *rēx* was compensatorily lengthened because of g—&gt;x, then it would be *regis*, not *rēgis*, right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17479" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="0539afd9-6bc1-48af-80e7-3567aa128671" CreationDate="2017-09-23T00:32:09.720" UserId="68" Text="Why a long ē in rēx, rēgis but not in regere or regiō?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17480" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="0539afd9-6bc1-48af-80e7-3567aa128671" CreationDate="2017-09-23T00:32:09.720" UserId="68" Text="|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5298" RevisionGUID="657310e3-5bda-4ccb-8e74-fce3fd008895" CreationDate="2017-09-23T01:04:22.230" UserId="9" Text="It looks to me like an [ablaut][1] variant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary][2] at least indicates the vowel length difference existed already in Proto-Indo-European:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt;*h₃reǵ-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; *h₃rḗǵ-s (“king”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, ablaut is a bit of a &quot;black box&quot;, but I am no Indo-European scholar—it's possible that someone will be able to explain the reason why lengthened-e grade is used in the &quot;king&quot; noun while short-e grade is used in the (present-tense forms of) the verb. There are theories that explain ablaut grades as arising from earlier differences in things like stress placement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_ablaut&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%83re%C7%B5-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5298" RevisionGUID="b9c98041-39c4-49b6-a1c6-baa58a614594" CreationDate="2017-09-23T01:09:43.603" UserId="9" Comment="added 550 characters in body" Text="It looks to me like an [ablaut][1] variant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary][2] at least indicates the vowel length difference existed already in Proto-Indo-European:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt;*h₃reǵ-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; *h₃rḗǵ-s (“king”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some pages from *[A Grammar of Modern Indo-European][3]* by Carlos Quiles and Fernando López-Menchero (p. 188) that I found in Google Books seem to indicate that the reconstruction of the complete paradigm of the &quot;king&quot; word in PIE is a bit difficult, and there are alternative reconstructions of the nominative form. Apparently, the length in the Latin nominative could be ultimately derived from another form of the PIE word via analogy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, ablaut is a bit of a &quot;black box&quot;, but I am no Indo-European scholar—it's possible that someone will be able to explain the reason why lengthened-e grade is used in the &quot;king&quot; noun in Latin while short-e grade is used in the (present-tense forms of) the verb. There are theories that explain ablaut grades as arising from earlier differences in things like stress placement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_ablaut&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%83re%C7%B5-&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=RILAjuKkIH8C&amp;pg=PA187&amp;lpg=PA187&amp;dq=%22rex%22%20lengthened%20grade%20ablaut&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=MQk-FZzFPE&amp;sig=uQRxkNH1RWjYxDdHuOTUUfHs3h4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwis27TMjrrWAhXm34MKHW8LCsEQ6AEILjAC#v=onepage&amp;q=%22rex%22%20lengthened%20grade%20ablaut&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5299" RevisionGUID="959500a2-7fa0-4bcc-9f55-70ae2ca469c4" CreationDate="2017-09-23T01:10:01.257" UserId="68" Text="I'm reading Goffaux's 1823 Latin adaptation of *Robinson Crusoe* (it turns out there are FOUR nineteenth-century Latin adaptations of *Robinson Crusoe*!) and came across the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Attamen propius **ita** dēmum subīit [scapha], ut iīs quī in nāvī essent fūnis prōjicerētur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A page later comes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quidquid erat in oculīs spectantem **ita** dētinuit, ut, præteritī immemor, dē futūrō minimē cūrāret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both sentences I would have used *adeō* instead of *ita*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is *ita...ut* a common and/or correct construction where one would usually use *adeō*? Or is there a difference that I'm missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I also believe that one could correctly use *tam* but that *adeō* is considered more proper? Would love thoughts on that, too.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17484" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5299" RevisionGUID="959500a2-7fa0-4bcc-9f55-70ae2ca469c4" CreationDate="2017-09-23T01:10:01.257" UserId="68" Text="&quot;ita&quot; used for &quot;adeō&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17485" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5299" RevisionGUID="959500a2-7fa0-4bcc-9f55-70ae2ca469c4" CreationDate="2017-09-23T01:10:01.257" UserId="68" Text="|vocabulary|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5298" RevisionGUID="0eacf902-1dad-49af-95d3-a8dff10b6c58" CreationDate="2017-09-23T01:21:35.083" UserId="9" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="My first thought was that this looks like an [ablaut][1] variant, though this seems far from certain. (So please don't assume this answer is right!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary][2] at least indicates the vowel length difference existed already in Proto-Indo-European:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt;*h₃reǵ-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; *h₃rḗǵ-s (“king”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some pages from *[A Grammar of Modern Indo-European][3]* by Carlos Quiles and Fernando López-Menchero (p. 188) that I found in Google Books seem to indicate that the reconstruction of the complete paradigm of the &quot;king&quot; word in PIE is a bit difficult, and there are alternative reconstructions of the nominative form. Apparently, the length in the Latin nominative could be ultimately derived from another form of the PIE word via analogy.  If that is the case, maybe some kind of phonological lengthening such as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, ablaut is a bit of a &quot;black box&quot;, but I am no Indo-European scholar—it's possible that someone will be able to explain the reason why lengthened-e grade is used in the &quot;king&quot; noun in Latin while short-e grade is used in the (present-tense forms of) the verb. There are theories that explain ablaut grades as arising from earlier differences in things like stress placement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[THE ALLEGED “LENGTHENED” GRADES IN THE ROOTS OF SOME LATIN NOUNS][4], LUCIE PULTROVÁ, actually explains the long vowel in *rex* and some other words as the result of stress shift at some point, but my current understanding after reading through it once is that this is supposed to have occured some time after the split of PIE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_ablaut&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%83re%C7%B5-&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=RILAjuKkIH8C&amp;pg=PA187&amp;lpg=PA187&amp;dq=%22rex%22%20lengthened%20grade%20ablaut&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=MQk-FZzFPE&amp;sig=uQRxkNH1RWjYxDdHuOTUUfHs3h4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwis27TMjrrWAhXm34MKHW8LCsEQ6AEILjAC#v=onepage&amp;q=%22rex%22%20lengthened%20grade%20ablaut&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://all.uniud.it/lam/lamrep/2013/LAM_2_2013_Pultrova.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5298" RevisionGUID="de64074b-bae2-490d-a325-5e42dfbf8fd8" CreationDate="2017-09-23T01:26:38.003" UserId="9" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="My first thought was that this looks like an [ablaut][1] variant, though this seems far from certain. (So please don't assume this answer is right!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary][2] at least indicates the vowel length difference existed already in Proto-Indo-European:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt;*h₃reǵ-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; *h₃rḗǵ-s (“king”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some pages from *[A Grammar of Modern Indo-European][3]* by Carlos Quiles and Fernando López-Menchero (p. 188) that I found in Google Books seem to indicate that the reconstruction of the complete paradigm of the &quot;king&quot; word in PIE is a bit difficult, and there are alternative reconstructions of the nominative form. Apparently, the length in the Latin nominative could be ultimately derived from another form of the PIE word via analogy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, ablaut is a bit of a &quot;black box&quot;, but I am no Indo-European scholar—it's possible that someone will be able to explain the reason why lengthened-e grade is used in the &quot;king&quot; noun in Latin while short-e grade is used in the (present-tense forms of) the verb. There are theories that explain ablaut grades as arising from earlier differences in things like stress placement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[The alleged “lengthened” grades in the roots of some Latin nouns][4]&quot;, by Lucie Pultrová, actually explains the long vowel in *rex* and some other words as the result of stress shift at some point, but as the title indicates, Pultrová is of the opinion that this occured some time after the split of PIE, so it belongs to the history of Latin specifically rather than being inheried from PIE ablaut patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_ablaut&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%83re%C7%B5-&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=RILAjuKkIH8C&amp;pg=PA187&amp;lpg=PA187&amp;dq=%22rex%22%20lengthened%20grade%20ablaut&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=MQk-FZzFPE&amp;sig=uQRxkNH1RWjYxDdHuOTUUfHs3h4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwis27TMjrrWAhXm34MKHW8LCsEQ6AEILjAC#v=onepage&amp;q=%22rex%22%20lengthened%20grade%20ablaut&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://all.uniud.it/lam/lamrep/2013/LAM_2_2013_Pultrova.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5298" RevisionGUID="551d8245-345d-4010-bbaa-39ca51eff676" CreationDate="2017-09-23T01:31:58.033" UserId="9" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="My first thought was that this looks like an [ablaut][1] variant, though this seems far from certain. (So please don't assume this answer is right!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary][2] at least indicates the vowel length difference existed already in Proto-Indo-European:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt;*h₃reǵ-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; *h₃rḗǵ-s (“king”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some pages from *[A Grammar of Modern Indo-European][3]* by Carlos Quiles and Fernando López-Menchero (p. 188) that I found in Google Books seem to indicate that the reconstruction of the complete paradigm of the &quot;king&quot; word in PIE is a bit difficult, and there are alternative reconstructions of the nominative form. Apparently, the length in the Latin nominative could be ultimately derived from another form of the PIE word via analogy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, ablaut is a bit of a &quot;black box&quot;, but I am no Indo-European scholar—it's possible that someone will be able to explain the reason why lengthened-e grade is used in the &quot;king&quot; noun in Latin while short-e grade is used in the (present-tense forms of) the verb. There are theories that explain ablaut grades as arising from earlier differences in things like stress placement. But the Wikipedia article about ablaut that I linked to above says that clear cases of lengthened-grade forms that have to be reconstructed back to PIE are relatively rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[The alleged “lengthened” grades in the roots of some Latin nouns][4]&quot;, by Lucie Pultrová, actually explains the long vowel in *rex* and some other words as the result of stress shift at some point, but as the title indicates, Pultrová is of the opinion that this occured some time after the split of PIE, so that it belongs to the history of Latin specifically rather than being inheried from PIE ablaut patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess my main thought at this point is: good question! I hope someone can provide better insight into the answer, but if not, you've identified an interesting problem in Latin etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_ablaut&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%83re%C7%B5-&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=RILAjuKkIH8C&amp;pg=PA187&amp;lpg=PA187&amp;dq=%22rex%22%20lengthened%20grade%20ablaut&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=MQk-FZzFPE&amp;sig=uQRxkNH1RWjYxDdHuOTUUfHs3h4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwis27TMjrrWAhXm34MKHW8LCsEQ6AEILjAC#v=onepage&amp;q=%22rex%22%20lengthened%20grade%20ablaut&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://all.uniud.it/lam/lamrep/2013/LAM_2_2013_Pultrova.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5298" RevisionGUID="db7fd84c-4536-4d84-835a-54f1a91f37b9" CreationDate="2017-09-23T01:37:01.197" UserId="9" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="My first thought was that this looks like an [ablaut][1] variant, though this seems far from certain. (So please don't assume this answer is right!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary][2] at least indicates the vowel length difference existed already in Proto-Indo-European:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt;*h₃reǵ-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; *h₃rḗǵ-s (“king”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some pages from *[A Grammar of Modern Indo-European][3]* by Carlos Quiles and Fernando López-Menchero (p. 188) that I found in Google Books seem to indicate that the reconstruction of the complete paradigm of the &quot;king&quot; word in PIE is a bit difficult, and there are alternative reconstructions of the nominative form. Apparently, the length in the Latin nominative could be ultimately derived from another form of the PIE word via analogy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, ablaut is a bit of a &quot;black box&quot;, but I am no Indo-European scholar—it's possible that someone will be able to explain the reason why lengthened-e grade is used in the &quot;king&quot; noun in Latin while short-e grade is used in the (present-tense forms of) the verb. There are theories that explain ablaut grades as arising from earlier differences in things like stress placement. But the Wikipedia article about ablaut that I linked to above says that clear cases of lengthened-grade forms that have to be reconstructed back to PIE are relatively rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[The alleged “lengthened” grades in the roots of some Latin nouns][4]&quot;, by Lucie Pultrová, actually explains the long vowel in *rex* and some other words as the result of stress shift at some point, but as the title indicates, Pultrová is of the opinion that this occured some time after the split of PIE, so that it belongs to the history of Latin specifically rather than being inherited from PIE ablaut patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess my main thought at this point is: good question! I hope someone can provide better insight into the answer, but if not, you've identified an interesting problem in Latin etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_ablaut&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%83re%C7%B5-&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=RILAjuKkIH8C&amp;pg=PA187&amp;lpg=PA187&amp;dq=%22rex%22%20lengthened%20grade%20ablaut&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=MQk-FZzFPE&amp;sig=uQRxkNH1RWjYxDdHuOTUUfHs3h4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwis27TMjrrWAhXm34MKHW8LCsEQ6AEILjAC#v=onepage&amp;q=%22rex%22%20lengthened%20grade%20ablaut&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://all.uniud.it/lam/lamrep/2013/LAM_2_2013_Pultrova.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5300" RevisionGUID="9d6d9662-bdfd-4c0e-84d7-52524df744cc" CreationDate="2017-09-23T10:24:19.377" UserId="324" Text="de Vaan posits an IE *h₃reǵ- alternating with *h₃rēǵ-, but he does not offer an explanation for the alternating quantity of the vowel. Sihler 271,4 offers IE *reh¹ǵ-, implying (if I understand him) that rēx is from the cited full-grade form *reh¹ǵ-, and that reg- is from the zero-grade *rh¹ǵ-. But this is not the only possibility. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5300" RevisionGUID="6e903fb7-cb93-4e9c-9ecc-31daa247ad30" CreationDate="2017-09-23T11:01:26.483" UserId="324" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="de Vaan posits an IE *h₃reǵ- alternating with *h₃rēǵ-, but he does not offer an explanation for the alternating quantity of the vowel. Sihler 271,4 offers IE *reh¹ǵ-, implying (if I understand him) that rēx is from the cited full-grade form *reh¹ǵ-, and that reg- is from the zero-grade *rh¹ǵ-. The “classic” theory (e.g. in Walde) is that rēx is a long grade nominative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5294" RevisionGUID="17d559f8-4922-4214-bdce-d5cb7eef0a25" CreationDate="2017-09-23T13:05:59.063" UserId="2015" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="Hey :) How would you say &quot;teaching man&quot; in Latin, in the same way as &quot;homo sapiens&quot; (thinking man) or &quot;homo economicus&quot; (economic man)? It would be for an essay discussing modern education and the role of a teacher, as if one were looking at an &quot;exhibit&quot; of a species that is &quot;teaching man&quot;. Thanks a million!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5299" RevisionGUID="4ccfa8df-d462-491b-9eb2-c8d57dbf47da" CreationDate="2017-09-23T13:29:47.773" UserId="68" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="I'm reading Goffaux's 1823 Latin adaptation of *Robinson Crusoe* (it turns out there are FOUR nineteenth-century Latin adaptations of *Robinson Crusoe*!) and came across the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Attamen propius **ita** dēmum subīit [scapha], ut iīs quī in nāvī essent fūnis prōjicerētur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A page later comes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quidquid erat in oculīs spectantem **ita** dētinuit, ut, præteritī immemor, dē futūrō minimē cūrāret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both sentences I would have used *adeō* instead of *ita*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is *ita...ut* a common and/or correct construction where one would usually use *adeō*? Or is there a difference that I'm missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I also believe that one could correctly use *tam* but that *adeō* is considered more proper? Would love thoughts on that, too.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;C. M. Weiner says in the comments that all three are totally fine. Is there a difference in nuance here, or are they basically interchangeable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17495" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="5298" RevisionGUID="00a016db-72af-4908-a011-46e54f2936d8" CreationDate="2017-09-23T14:30:17.303" UserId="9" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5298" RevisionGUID="f30495fe-abf6-481a-ad2f-e9d1a2b94629" CreationDate="2017-09-23T14:52:54.853" UserId="9" Comment="added 772 characters in body" Text="My first thought was that this looks like an [ablaut][1] variant. After looking into it a bit, this seems possible, but far from certain. I'm not familar with the field of IE literature, but using Google, I found a few sources that mention the matter, although I don't know how reliable they are. (So please don't assume this post contains the correct answer!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Wiktionary][2] at least indicates the vowel length difference existed already in Proto-Indo-European:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;*h₃reǵ-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *h₃rḗǵ-s (“king”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Some pages from *[A Grammar of Modern Indo-European][3]* by Carlos Quiles and Fernando López-Menchero (p. 188) that I found in Google Books seem to indicate that the reconstruction of the complete paradigm of the &quot;king&quot; word in PIE is a bit difficult, and there are alternative reconstructions of the nominative form. Apparently, the length in the Latin nominative could be ultimately derived from another form of the PIE word via analogy. I don't think this is likely to be a high-quality/well-credentialed source  as it is part of a [questionable movement to revive PIE][4], but there are some citations that you may want to check out. I may edit this post to replace this with a better source if anyone has a suggestion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, ablaut is a bit of a &quot;black box&quot;, but I am no Indo-European scholar—it's possible that someone will be able to explain the reason why lengthened-e grade is used in the &quot;king&quot; noun in Latin while short-e grade is used in the (present-tense forms of) the verb. There are theories that explain ablaut grades as arising from earlier differences in things like stress placement. But the Wikipedia article about ablaut that I linked to above says that clear cases of lengthened-grade forms that have to be reconstructed back to PIE are relatively rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;[The alleged “lengthened” grades in the roots of some Latin nouns][5]&quot;, by Lucie Pultrová, actually explains the long vowel in *rex* and some other words as the result of stress shift at some point, but as the title indicates, Pultrová is of the opinion that this occured some time after the split of PIE, so that it belongs to the history of Latin specifically rather than being inherited from PIE ablaut patterns. This was interesting to me, but I don't quite understand what the phonetic motivation is supposed to be for going from zero-grade to long vowels in Latin. Pultrová seems to agree that the phonetics of the proposed sound change are questionable and requests that phonetic specialists review the data presented in the paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess my main thought at this point is: good question! I hope someone can provide better insight into the answer, but if not, you've identified an interesting problem in Latin etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_ablaut&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%83re%C7%B5-&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=RILAjuKkIH8C&amp;pg=PA187&amp;lpg=PA187&amp;dq=%22rex%22%20lengthened%20grade%20ablaut&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=MQk-FZzFPE&amp;sig=uQRxkNH1RWjYxDdHuOTUUfHs3h4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwis27TMjrrWAhXm34MKHW8LCsEQ6AEILjAC#v=onepage&amp;q=%22rex%22%20lengthened%20grade%20ablaut&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://paleoglot.blogspot.com/2007/04/modern-indo-european.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://all.uniud.it/lam/lamrep/2013/LAM_2_2013_Pultrova.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17497" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="5298" RevisionGUID="b5278bd4-8e09-4370-a94e-c16c607427d7" CreationDate="2017-09-23T14:55:04.343" UserId="9" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5298" RevisionGUID="00e61347-01be-425c-97ac-15220f0995cf" CreationDate="2017-09-23T15:01:28.803" UserId="9" Comment="added 268 characters in body" Text="My first thought was that this looks like an [ablaut][1] variant. After looking into it a bit, this seems possible, but far from certain. I'm not familar with the field of IE literature, but using Google, I found a few sources that mention the matter, although I don't know how reliable they are. (So please don't assume this post contains the correct answer!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Wiktionary][2] at least indicates the vowel length difference existed already in Proto-Indo-European:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;*h₃reǵ-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *h₃rḗǵ-s (“king”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Some pages from *[A Grammar of Modern Indo-European][3]* by Carlos Quiles and Fernando López-Menchero (p. 188) that I found in Google Books seem to indicate that the reconstruction of the complete paradigm of the &quot;king&quot; word in PIE is a bit difficult, and there are alternative reconstructions of the nominative form. Apparently, the length in the Latin nominative could be ultimately derived from another form of the PIE word via analogy. I don't think this is likely to be a high-quality/well-credentialed source  as it is part of a [questionable movement to revive PIE][4], but there are some citations that you may want to check out. I may edit this post to replace this with a better source if anyone has a suggestion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, ablaut is a bit of a &quot;black box&quot;, but I am no Indo-European scholar—it's possible that someone will be able to explain the reason why lengthened-e grade is used in the &quot;king&quot; noun in Latin while short-e grade is used in the (present-tense forms of) the verb. There are theories that explain ablaut grades as arising from earlier differences in things like stress placement. But the Wikipedia article about ablaut that I linked to above says that clear cases of lengthened-grade forms that have to be reconstructed back to PIE are relatively rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;[The alleged “lengthened” grades in the roots of some Latin nouns][5]&quot; (2013), by Lucie Pultrová, actually explains the long vowel in *rex* and some other words as the result of stress shift at some point, but as the title indicates, Pultrová is of the opinion that this occured some time after the split of PIE, so that it belongs to the history of Latin specifically rather than being inherited from PIE ablaut patterns. This was interesting to me, but I don't quite understand what the phonetic motivation is supposed to be for going from zero-grade (when unstressed) to long vowels (when stressed). Pultrová seems to agree that the phonetics of the proposed sound change are questionable and requests that phonetic specialists review the data presented in the paper. Pultrová has written a book, *The Latin Deverbative Nouns and Adjectives,* of which you can see a review [here][6] that describes some of her other thoughts about the development of Latin stress and vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess my main thought at this point is: good question! I hope someone can provide better insight into the answer, but if not, you've identified an interesting problem in Latin etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_ablaut&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%83re%C7%B5-&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=RILAjuKkIH8C&amp;pg=PA187&amp;lpg=PA187&amp;dq=%22rex%22%20lengthened%20grade%20ablaut&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=MQk-FZzFPE&amp;sig=uQRxkNH1RWjYxDdHuOTUUfHs3h4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwis27TMjrrWAhXm34MKHW8LCsEQ6AEILjAC#v=onepage&amp;q=%22rex%22%20lengthened%20grade%20ablaut&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://paleoglot.blogspot.com/2007/04/modern-indo-european.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://all.uniud.it/lam/lamrep/2013/LAM_2_2013_Pultrova.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2012/2012-10-56.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17499" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="5294" RevisionGUID="9a21405f-f6a4-41e4-9ba9-392231ae3346" CreationDate="2017-09-23T15:48:11.747" UserId="30" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:30,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Cerberus&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5301" RevisionGUID="9cdd5d31-3ba2-4276-9782-4df6438b3db6" CreationDate="2017-09-23T16:43:21.510" UserId="406" Text="A straightforward translation is ***Homō docēns***. (Macrons are optional; they represent a difference in sound which disappeared in later Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Homō* is a straightforward word for &quot;human&quot;. *Docēns* is the present participle of *doceō*, a straightforward word for &quot;to teach&quot;. See [L&amp;S][1] for more information on the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few other words for &quot;teach&quot;: *ērudiō* &quot;educate&quot;, *īnstruō* &quot;instruct&quot;, *moneō* &quot;advise&quot;. But *doceō* is the most straightforward, and I think the best suited to your purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddoceo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5302" RevisionGUID="885dd4d9-ccc7-46fb-9d51-891d183452c2" CreationDate="2017-09-23T20:38:44.647" UserId="79" Text="I am looking for a Latin translation of the Italian word &quot;piazza&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, I would like to have **a Latin word to describe the various piazze in today's Rome**.&#xD;&#xA;I have found a couple of possibilities, but I'm not sure which would be most suitable or if I should look for something else:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Forum*: This is a very well known classical Latin word and means roughly the same thing. But I'm not sure how good the match is.&#xD;&#xA;- *Piazza*: One can just take the Italian word and treat it like a Latin one. It sounds less Latinate, but it unambiguously refers to piazza as it is understood in Italy.&#xD;&#xA;- *Platea*: If Wiktionary is to be trusted, this is where the Italian word comes from. It is again a good Latin word, but I'm unsure how well it matches the concept of a piazza in today's Italy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think?&#xD;&#xA;How would you translate &quot;piazza&quot; from Italian to Latin and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17502" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5302" RevisionGUID="885dd4d9-ccc7-46fb-9d51-891d183452c2" CreationDate="2017-09-23T20:38:44.647" UserId="79" Text="How to translate piazza?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17503" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5302" RevisionGUID="885dd4d9-ccc7-46fb-9d51-891d183452c2" CreationDate="2017-09-23T20:38:44.647" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|contemporary-latin|italian|architecture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5303" RevisionGUID="65c6db48-7a63-42cd-8296-014c9abfd333" CreationDate="2017-09-23T21:45:57.280" UserId="324" Text="https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_Sancti_Petri_(Roma)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with references, believe it or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5304" RevisionGUID="82e718cf-259b-437c-aaa8-7252519eb8e0" CreationDate="2017-09-24T01:35:04.703" UserId="666" Text="Going off of the king of infallible sources, [Wikipedia][1],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Other major forums are found in Italy; however, they are not to be confused with the piazza of the modern town, which may have originated from a number of different types of ancient civic centers, or more likely was its own type. While similar in use and function to forums, most were created in the Middle Ages and are often not a part of the original city footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the piazza and the forum, while certainly similar, are technically two different types of civic open spaces.  Further down on the Forum page, Wikipedia has a list of [Equivalent spaces in other cultures][2], which includes piazza, plateia (Greek), plaza, and town square.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English certainly plaza and square are used interchangeably, and Piazza San Petro is referred to as St. Peter's Square, so using forum as a Latin synonym for piazza is definitely reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for your particular case, I'd probably stick with using piazza, simply because that's how Italian piazzas are generally referred to in English (e.g. [Piazza Navona][3] and [Piazza Venezia][4]).  It makes it clear you are talking about the Italian construct from the Middle Ages, and as an added bonus it's already in a declinable form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(Roman)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(Roman)#Equivalent_spaces_in_other_cultures&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_Navona&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_Venezia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5236" RevisionGUID="9a1f4b0d-bae4-4d39-9f04-3943c044ba97" CreationDate="2017-09-24T06:58:58.933" UserId="1743" Comment="Added another English source." Text="**Question.** Is Kant's &quot;De Mundi Sensibilis atque Intelligibilis Forma et Principiis&quot; available online in its Latin original?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Remarks.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Rather unbelievably, it seems to me that the answer is currently negative. &#xD;&#xA;If this is so (and in particular, if it is not available in both the formats mentioned below), what, do you think, would be a useful way to change that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* This work of Kant's is often referred to by the term 'the inaugural dissertation'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It would be preferable to have it *both* in a scanned format, so as to have some degree of certification of originality and reference in case of doubting parts of a typed format, *and* in some text-format typed by someone living in the computer-age, so as to make it searchable. Neither *only* a scanned format, nor *only* a text-format seem enough for all scholarly uses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* An English translation,&#xD;&#xA; said to be of William J.&#xD;&#xA; Eckoff,&#xD;&#xA; is available [from this Wikisource](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kant%27s_Inaugural_Dissertation_of_1770).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A scanned form of an 1894 edition of William J. Eckoff's English translation is available from [this archive.org page](https://archive.org/details/cu31924029022329).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A wonderful, commented, different, though again *English* version, translated by a professional philosopher, apparently having been in the works for six years, is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The Form and Principles of the Sensible and Intelligible World (Kant's inaugural dissertation)*, by Jonathan Bennett, 2010-2015. Available at http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1770.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5305" RevisionGUID="6da206bd-9653-4ff5-a89a-152b8bc01333" CreationDate="2017-09-24T17:39:05.937" UserId="78" Text="The relevant Gildersleeve on consecutive sentences is section 551-552: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Correlative demonstratives occur very often : **ita (sic), tam, tantopere, tanto, adeo, eo, huc ; talis, tantus, tot, is, eius modi,** and others of a similar meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't taken a close look, but it's difficult to hear a difference between *tam*, *adeo*, and *ita* when used as so. Once difference is that *ita* will have a force of &quot;in such a way&quot; more often than *tam* or *adeo* will, which instead mostly focus on degree." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5299" RevisionGUID="773bb330-e980-409b-b032-0b92de21c161" CreationDate="2017-09-24T18:32:38.920" UserId="78" Comment="edited body" Text="I'm reading Goffaux's 1823 Latin adaptation of *Robinson Crusoe* (it turns out there are FOUR nineteenth-century Latin adaptations of *Robinson Crusoe*!) and came across the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Attamen propius **ita** dēmum subīit [scapha], ut iīs quī in nāvī essent fūnis prōjicerētur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A page later comes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quidquid erat in oculīs spectantem **ita** dētinuit, ut, præteritī immemor, dē futūrō minimē cūrāret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both sentences I would have used *adeō* instead of *ita*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is *ita...ut* a common and/or correct construction where one would usually use *adeō*? Or is there a difference that I'm missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I also believe that one could correctly use *tam* but that *adeō* is considered more proper? Would love thoughts on that, too.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;C. M. Weimer says in the comments that all three are totally fine. Is there a difference in nuance here, or are they basically interchangeable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5306" RevisionGUID="ad9f8924-1844-47e8-9759-6eb8b1ee5f1c" CreationDate="2017-09-24T21:10:09.450" UserId="68" Text="The first sentence of the Apology of Socrates is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ὅτι μὲν ὑμεῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες Άθηναῖοι, πεπόνθατε ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμῶν κατηγόρων, οὐκ οἶδα· ἐγὼ δ' οὖν καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπ' αὐτῶν ὀλίγου ἐμαυτοῦ ἐπελαθόμην, οὕτω πιθανῶς ἔλεγον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen several different translations for the phrase *ὀλίγου ἐμαυτοῦ ἐπελαθόμην*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I almost forgot myself.&#xD;&#xA; - I was almost carried away with myself.&#xD;&#xA; - I almost didn't recognize myself.&#xD;&#xA; - I almost forgot who I was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is he actually saying?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In context—&quot;How *you* were affected by the prosecution's argument I don't know; as for *me*, they spoke so persuasively that I almost ______, and yet they said almost nothing true&quot;—the most rhetorically *logical* thing for it to mean is something like &quot;I almost forgot that I am who I am instead of who they said I am.&quot; But my view of what's logical and what Plato actually wrote don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case it's helpful to know when answering, I know very little Greek. I know that *λανθάνομαι* means &quot;to escape the notice of,&quot; though I'm not sure what flavor the prefix *ἐπι* adds. In the dictionaries I looked in, there was no entry for the verb as a reflexive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17511" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5306" RevisionGUID="ad9f8924-1844-47e8-9759-6eb8b1ee5f1c" CreationDate="2017-09-24T21:10:09.450" UserId="68" Text="What does [ὀλίγου] ἐμαυτοῦ ἐπελαθόμην actually MEAN?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17512" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5306" RevisionGUID="ad9f8924-1844-47e8-9759-6eb8b1ee5f1c" CreationDate="2017-09-24T21:10:09.450" UserId="68" Text="|vocabulary|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5306" RevisionGUID="c691b3a0-dac9-4161-845d-5af4b270b3e7" CreationDate="2017-09-24T21:13:56.090" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="The first sentence of the Apology of Socrates is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ὅτι μὲν ὑμεῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες Άθηναῖοι, πεπόνθατε ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμῶν κατηγόρων, οὐκ οἶδα· ἐγὼ δ' οὖν καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπ' αὐτῶν ὀλίγου ἐμαυτοῦ ἐπελαθόμην, οὕτω πιθανῶς ἔλεγον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen several different translations for the phrase *ὀλίγου ἐμαυτοῦ ἐπελαθόμην*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I almost forgot myself.&#xD;&#xA; - I was almost carried away with myself.&#xD;&#xA; - I almost didn't recognize myself.&#xD;&#xA; - I almost forgot who I was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is he actually saying?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In context—&quot;How *you* were affected by the prosecution's argument I don't know; as for *me*, they spoke so persuasively that I almost ______, and yet they said almost nothing true&quot;—the most rhetorically *logical* thing for it to mean is something like &quot;I almost forgot that I am who I am instead of who they said I am.&quot; But my view of what's logical and what Plato actually wrote don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case it's helpful to know when answering, I know very little Greek. I know that *λανθάνομαι* means &quot;to escape the notice of,&quot; though I'm not sure what flavor the prefix *ἐπι* adds. In the dictionaries I looked in, there was no entry for the verb as a reflexive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17514" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5306" RevisionGUID="c691b3a0-dac9-4161-845d-5af4b270b3e7" CreationDate="2017-09-24T21:13:56.090" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|vocabulary|greek|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5306" RevisionGUID="cdd39487-c91a-43b3-ae9e-9f2c7834bef7" CreationDate="2017-09-24T21:18:10.317" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="The first sentence of the Apology of Socrates is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ὅτι μὲν ὑμεῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες Άθηναῖοι, πεπόνθατε ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμῶν κατηγόρων, οὐκ οἶδα· ἐγὼ δ' οὖν καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπ' αὐτῶν ὀλίγου ἐμαυτοῦ ἐπελαθόμην, οὕτω πιθανῶς ἔλεγον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen several different translations for the phrase *ὀλίγου ἐμαυτοῦ ἐπελαθόμην*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I almost forgot myself.&#xD;&#xA; - I was almost carried away with myself.&#xD;&#xA; - I almost didn't recognize myself.&#xD;&#xA; - I almost forgot who I was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is he actually saying?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In context—&quot;How *you* felt about the prosecution's argument I don't know; as for *me*, they were so convincing that I almost ______, and yet they said almost nothing true&quot;—the most rhetorically *logical* thing for it to mean is something like &quot;I almost forgot that I am who I am instead of who they said I am.&quot; But my view of what's logical and what Plato actually wrote don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case it's helpful to know when answering, I know very little Greek—certainly not enough to read this sentence if I hadn't read it already years ago when I knew more than I do today. I know that *λανθάνομαι* means &quot;to escape the notice of,&quot; though I'm not sure what flavor the prefix *ἐπι* adds. In the dictionaries I looked in, there was no entry for the verb as a reflexive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5306" RevisionGUID="a860f8b6-1d28-43c4-b68b-cd2887599100" CreationDate="2017-09-24T21:23:21.397" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="The first sentence of the Apology of Socrates is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ὅτι μὲν ὑμεῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες Άθηναῖοι, πεπόνθατε ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμῶν κατηγόρων, οὐκ οἶδα· ἐγὼ δ' οὖν καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπ' αὐτῶν ὀλίγου ἐμαυτοῦ ἐπελαθόμην, οὕτω πιθανῶς ἔλεγον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen several different translations for the phrase *ὀλίγου ἐμαυτοῦ ἐπελαθόμην*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I almost forgot myself.&#xD;&#xA; - I was almost carried away with myself.&#xD;&#xA; - I almost didn't recognize myself.&#xD;&#xA; - I almost forgot who I was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is he actually saying?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In context—&quot;How *you* felt about the prosecution I don't know; as for *me*, they were so convincing that I almost ______, and yet almost nothing they said was true&quot;—the most rhetorically *logical* thing for it to mean is something like &quot;I almost forgot that I am who I am instead of who they said I am.&quot; But my view of what's logical and what Plato actually wrote don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case it's helpful to know when answering, I know very little Greek—certainly not enough to read this sentence if I hadn't read it already years ago when I knew more than I do today. I know that *λανθάνομαι* means &quot;to escape the notice of,&quot; though I'm not sure what flavor the prefix *ἐπι* adds. In the dictionaries I looked in, there was no entry for the verb as a reflexive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5307" RevisionGUID="e1e06393-a0b6-4c12-a46b-6e8c27854995" CreationDate="2017-09-24T22:30:20.740" UserId="406" Text="*Ἐμαυτοῦ* is straightforward: it's a genitive singular reflexive pronoun, &quot;of myself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ἐπελαθόμην* is more interesting. This is the first-person singular aorist active indicative of *ἐπι-λανθάνομαι*. *Λανθάνομαι* means &quot;to forget&quot;, but I've never seen this verb with the prefix *ἐπι* before, and LSJ doesn't even have an entry for it. However, there *is* an adjective *ἐπίληθος*, &quot;causing to forget&quot; with a genitive object (compare *Λήθη*). So the prefix doesn't seem to change the meaning significantly, and seems to just be intensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would translate this literally as &quot;I really forgot myself&quot;, or more idiomatically &quot;I really forgot who I was&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(PS: while the active *λανθάνω* does mean &quot;to escape the notice of&quot;, the middle *λανθάνομαι* has the different meaning of &quot;forget&quot; in Classical times.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5308" RevisionGUID="a7850368-0f04-43e5-af6d-6e4af4015b5b" CreationDate="2017-09-24T22:54:54.057" UserId="39" Text="Montanari (an iPad app, in Italian):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ChBAt.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5308" RevisionGUID="c1d85026-5ec1-4f11-a2b1-c6eaac6740aa" CreationDate="2017-09-24T23:05:22.310" UserId="39" Comment="added 227 characters in body" Text="Montanari (an iPad app, in Italian) - you will need sense 2 medio (**2 middle: forget, forget about**); also available [online][1] (subscription only). It's called [the middle voice][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=montanari&amp;id=44351&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Apart%3D4%3Achapter%3D44%3Asection%3D104&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ChBAt.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5308" RevisionGUID="87628d7d-b24f-4925-99ef-e8b85a065900" CreationDate="2017-09-24T23:12:10.353" UserId="39" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="Montanari ([an iPad app][1], in Italian) - you will need sense 2 medio (**2 middle: forget, forget about**); also available [online][2] (subscription only). It's called [the middle voice][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/gi-vocabolario-della-lingua-greca/id1163762401&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=montanari&amp;id=44351&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Apart%3D4%3Achapter%3D44%3Asection%3D104&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ChBAt.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5306" RevisionGUID="d2130c81-7dad-43c1-9fca-12cb84a0781c" CreationDate="2017-09-25T01:33:10.897" UserId="68" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="The first sentence of the Apology of Socrates is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ὅτι μὲν ὑμεῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες Άθηναῖοι, πεπόνθατε ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμῶν κατηγόρων, οὐκ οἶδα· ἐγὼ δ' οὖν καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπ' αὐτῶν ὀλίγου ἐμαυτοῦ ἐπελαθόμην, οὕτω πιθανῶς ἔλεγον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen several different translations for the phrase *ὀλίγου ἐμαυτοῦ ἐπελαθόμην*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I almost forgot myself.&#xD;&#xA; - I was almost carried away with myself.&#xD;&#xA; - I almost didn't recognize myself.&#xD;&#xA; - I almost forgot who I was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is he actually saying?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In context—&quot;How *you* felt about the prosecution I don't know; as for *me*, they were so convincing that I almost ______, and yet almost nothing they said was true&quot;—the most rhetorically *logical* thing for it to mean is something like &quot;I almost forgot that I am who I am instead of who they said I am.&quot; But my view of what's logical and what Plato actually wrote don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case it's helpful to know when answering, I know very little Greek—certainly not enough to read this sentence if I hadn't read it already years ago when I knew more than I do today. I know that *ἐμαυτοῦ* means &quot;of myself&quot; and *λανθάνομαι* is middle and means &quot;I escape the notice of,&quot; though I'm not sure what flavor the prefix *ἐπι* adds. [**EDIT:** I see from Alex B's comment that λανθάνω, the active, rather than the middle that Socrates uses, is actually &quot;I escape the notice of.&quot;] In the dictionaries I looked in, there was no entry for the verb as a reflexive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5308" RevisionGUID="017e97a2-4416-480c-bbbc-ea3242a3d669" CreationDate="2017-09-25T03:17:26.687" UserId="39" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Montanari ([an iPad app][1], in Italian) - you will need sense 2 medio (**2 middle: forget, forget about**); also available [online][2] in English (subscription only). It's called [the middle voice][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/gi-vocabolario-della-lingua-greca/id1163762401&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=montanari&amp;id=44351&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Apart%3D4%3Achapter%3D44%3Asection%3D104&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ChBAt.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5309" RevisionGUID="4fe65f50-26ac-46c4-867a-36959087d0a6" CreationDate="2017-09-25T16:34:59.773" UserId="235" Text="Did the Romans just borrow the Greek word ταυτολογία and transliterate it as tautologia? Or did they use a different word to express this concept? Furthermore, was the word or concept in common use among the educated class? Do we see it mentioned in any classical or medieval Latin texts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17524" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5309" RevisionGUID="4fe65f50-26ac-46c4-867a-36959087d0a6" CreationDate="2017-09-25T16:34:59.773" UserId="235" Text="What is the Latin word for tautology?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17525" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5309" RevisionGUID="4fe65f50-26ac-46c4-867a-36959087d0a6" CreationDate="2017-09-25T16:34:59.773" UserId="235" Text="|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5310" RevisionGUID="33e0d812-7df0-4ade-b6fa-abc6934faaad" CreationDate="2017-09-25T17:03:02.847" UserId="645" Text="A simple dictionary search (Smith's, in my case) defines 'tautologia' as *a repetition of the same meaning in different words, a tautology*, with an example given as Marc. Cap. 5, 175.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin for the related idea 'redundance' is *pleonasmus* (also from the Greek), a use of unnecessary words, which might be said to include tautologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that both words appear in reputable dictionaries is already enough to indicate that they were in classical use. No doubt educated Romans would use either, as appropriate, in discussing grammar — in particular, figures of syntax." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5311" RevisionGUID="91d317ae-b145-4398-a624-3288f0ddc938" CreationDate="2017-09-26T07:05:05.387" UserId="79" Text="Let us take a look at a corpus.&#xD;&#xA;I found only [four hits for *tautologia*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=tautologi).&#xD;&#xA;Quintilianus (Institutio Oratoria [8.3.50.4](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/1002/1/87/16302-16311@1#87)) says: *tautologia, id est eiusdem verbi aut sermonis iteratio*.&#xD;&#xA;This gives a picture of *tautologia* as a loan word which does have corresponding Latin terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are [more hits for *pleonasmos*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=pleonasm), and it seems to be often spelled with *&amp;#8209;os* instead of *&amp;#8209;us*.&#xD;&#xA;Many appearances of both Greek loan words come across as definitions of a weird foreign word.&#xD;&#xA;Some occurrences are not even transliterated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is more Latin expression for this, *iteratio verborum*, and [its appearances appear to be more &quot;everyday&quot; usage](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=iteratio+~+verb).&#xD;&#xA;It is worth noticing that Cicero only uses *iteratio verborum*, never the Greek options.&#xD;&#xA;You can also replace *iteratio* with *repetitio* and *verborum* with *sermonis*, but the other options are less popular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek loan words are certainly possible, but the most idiomatic choice in classical Latin appears to be *iteratio verborum*, and I imagine one could change *verborum* to something else if the tautology needs to be specified." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5312" RevisionGUID="c4c1dd2e-d48d-466c-8827-8179767c724f" CreationDate="2017-09-26T07:30:26.233" UserId="79" Text="There is a difference between a citizen and a subject.&#xD;&#xA;Roughly, a citizen holds some power in the state (through voting or otherwise), whereas a subject is subordinate to their leader and has no say.&#xD;&#xA;(I hope I'm using the standard terminology here. I mean the Finnish words &quot;kansalainen&quot; and &quot;alamainen&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;My dictionary indicates that the terms &quot;citizen&quot; and &quot;subject&quot; are *civis* and *subiectus* in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;This sounds legitimate, but [I failed to find](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23civ+~+subiect) any classical comparisons of the two terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I would like to know how these words compared to each other in classical Latin** &amp;mdash; or later Latin if the distinction was not clear in antiquity.&#xD;&#xA;Are there any classical comparisons of the two terms?&#xD;&#xA;Or should the opposing pair corresponding to &quot;citizen&quot; and &quot;subject&quot; be something other than *civis* and *subiectus*?&#xD;&#xA;If there is nothing classical, how about later ones?&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer if the two were explicitly compared, but separate clear definitions are also fine if found somewhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17529" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5312" RevisionGUID="c4c1dd2e-d48d-466c-8827-8179767c724f" CreationDate="2017-09-26T07:30:26.233" UserId="79" Text="Comparing citizens and subjects" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17530" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5312" RevisionGUID="c4c1dd2e-d48d-466c-8827-8179767c724f" CreationDate="2017-09-26T07:30:26.233" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-comparison|passage-request|politics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1319" RevisionGUID="e6aab264-017c-4e46-a809-0861c8ce8d8b" CreationDate="2017-09-26T07:54:57.000" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected a typo." Text="For my answer, I will use material from a 1931 article written to address this very issue: &quot;The Use of Forem and Essem&quot; by Winnie D. Lawrence, [available on JSTOR](https://www.jstor.org/stable/282971).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While *essem* was always a good literary word, *forem*, after Plautus, gave evidence of decline in this respect. In later writers, especially in Sallust and Tacitus, it was an affected archaism, but in the poets, metrical convenience also was often the deciding factor in its use. The etymology of *forem* suggests a future meaning and those who employ it most frequently have a strong feeling for this quality. Syntactically, *forem* is met most often in conditional sentences, being employed in this way in 42% of its occurrences, while *essem* is so used in only 15%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some general points sprinkled with the findings of Lawrence's study, which includes a fairly rigorous statistical analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## *forem* has a future tendency&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*forem* comes from the PIE root &quot;BHEU&quot;, *essem* from &quot;ES.&quot; &quot;BHEU&quot; survives in other forms like fu-, fore, and the -ba- and -bo- endings of the imperfect and future (and also English's *be*!). A rough equivalent &quot;future subjunctive&quot; survives in Spanish (*fuere*) and Portuguese (*for*). This future force was recognized by Roman authors, even though it can also be granted to *essem*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Servius, commenting on the *Aeneid*, remarks with surprise when Vergil uses *forem* without any future kind of meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; modo praeteritum significat tempus, quod rarum est, **saepius enim futurum significat**. (Servius on *Aen.* III, 417)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ilio tria fuisse audivi fata quae illi forent exitio. (Pl. *Bacch.* 953)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sallust is especially prone to this kind of usage, using *forem* 33 times with a future sense (e.g. as a substitute for *ero* in indirect discourse) and *essem* only once. One quote in particular even juxtaposes *essem* and *fores* with these two different senses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At Catilina ex itinere...litteras mittit: se...in exitium proficisci, non quo sibi tanti sceleris **conscius esset**, sed uti res public **quieta foret**... (Sal. *Cat.* 34, 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is only a *tendency* with multiple exceptions. However, as Lawrence remarks, &quot;those who use *forem* most often have a strong feeling for its future quality.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## *forem* is more archaic and colloquial&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier writers, such as Plautus, use *forem* comparatively frequently (about 25% of the time). Lucretius uses *forem* more often than *essem*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, more formal writers tend to shy away from heavy usage of *forem*. The most prominent example of this is Vergil, who does not use *forem* at all in the *Eclogues* or *Georgics* and uses it only 15 times in the *Aeneid* (we will see why in the next section). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sallust used the word heavily, but was also often accused of over-employing archaisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## *forem* is great for meter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the most cogent conclusion of Lawrence's study is that *forem* is chosen by poets not for any difference of meaning but because of *metrical expediency*. *Forem* is ideal for metrical schemes ending in an iamb, for instance. Likewise, *forem* is often placed after words ending in a vowel which would cause an elision. Some striking figures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Terence uses *forem* 8 times: 7 are at the end of a line requiring an iamb, and 1 is after a vowel that would otherwise be elided.&#xD;&#xA;- Lucretius: 21 out of 27 cases avoid elision&#xD;&#xA;- Catullus: 7 out 9 avoid elision: in *all 9* cases using *essem* would violate the meter&#xD;&#xA;- Notably, Vergil, who is known for his elision, uses *essem* much more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## *forem* fits better with certain constructions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the previous cases, there is one particularly one construction in which *forem* predominates: **conditionals**. This is very likely a matter of sound, especially for poets, since *si essem* is unpleasant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Half of Terence's *forem*'s are in conditionals&#xD;&#xA;- Quintilian, Seneca Philosophus, and Pliny--who otherwise use *forem* very rarely--use *forem* at a much higher percentage in conditionals&#xD;&#xA;- Tacitus also provides numerous examples, e.g. &quot;Si in Britannia foret&quot; (Ag. 40), &quot;si mali forent&quot; (Hist 1.49), &quot;si vera forent&quot; (Ann 2.8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is likely a question of sound and feel, since a sensitive prose or poetry writer will carefully balance his usage of *s*'s. This seems to explain, for instance, some of the few times when Vergil opts for *forem*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the end of the day, though, we must always appeal to that invisible, inexplicable &quot;choice&quot; an author makes between two roughly equivalent words: the two words evidently have different &quot;feels&quot;, but I would hesitate to formulate any kind of *rules* that apply to all particular cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17532" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1315" RevisionGUID="48e12ebd-f230-45b9-8c67-02231241ab55" CreationDate="2017-09-26T07:55:39.190" UserId="79" Comment="56" />
  <row Id="17535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5266" RevisionGUID="3402e3cc-c8c9-4945-b119-2543772c5a28" CreationDate="2017-09-26T14:39:53.877" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and reformatted slightly." Text="Is there a Latin equivalent to the English phrase &quot;on the run&quot; to indicate someone who's avoiding capture/recapture?  For example, &quot;The prisoner is on the run.&quot;  Would something like *in fuga* be accurate, or would I need to settle for something like *Captivus effugit*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17536" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5266" RevisionGUID="3402e3cc-c8c9-4945-b119-2543772c5a28" CreationDate="2017-09-26T14:39:53.877" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and reformatted slightly." Text="|idiom|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5313" RevisionGUID="82ae417a-7978-46f6-933e-c03acb200d03" CreationDate="2017-09-26T20:58:49.183" UserId="79" Text="The guess *nescio quam* is indeed a good one.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cicero, *Epistulae ad Atticum* [13.19.3.4](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/474/57/335/842-853#335): *nescio quam bene*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was the only such use of *nescio quam bene/longe/vetus/...* I could find that was not an indirect question.&#xD;&#xA;Of course there are examples like this, *nescio* is the predicate, not a side remark:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Quintilianus, *Declamationes Maiores* [4.23.7](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/1002/3/3/31150-31161#3): *nescio quam longe*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most [occurrences of *nescio quam*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=nescio+quam) the *quam* is in fact a feminine accusative of *quis*.&#xD;&#xA;Examples (there were several):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cicero, *Pro Quinctio* [37.7](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/474/1/8/1079-1090@1#8): *istam nescio quam innumerabilem pecuniam*&#xD;&#xA;- Cicero, *Pro Cluentio* [74.8](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/474/10/15/907-918@1#15): *causam nescio quam apud iudicem defendebat*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other cases and genders are of course possible as well; see [the corpus search for *nescio qu-*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=nescio+qu&amp;first=11).&#xD;&#xA;Based on these examples and the single attestation from Cicero, the suggested use of *nescio quam* in the question looks like idiomatic classical Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5314" RevisionGUID="3ee91aa3-f387-40c4-aa44-69e8336fa396" CreationDate="2017-09-26T21:17:25.317" UserId="235" Text="There was a question recently in chat about whether and how to pluralize *nemo*. Would you say sumus nemo or sumus nemines? Is nemo truly defective in the plural and thus does it only take singular forms? Or should a different plural be used, such as sumus nulli, in lieu of nemo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17539" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5314" RevisionGUID="3ee91aa3-f387-40c4-aa44-69e8336fa396" CreationDate="2017-09-26T21:17:25.317" UserId="235" Text="How would you say &quot;we are no one&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17540" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5314" RevisionGUID="3ee91aa3-f387-40c4-aa44-69e8336fa396" CreationDate="2017-09-26T21:17:25.317" UserId="235" Text="|classical-latin|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5315" RevisionGUID="2ace4468-de8c-4cf4-921d-dcb4590973de" CreationDate="2017-09-26T22:35:16.400" UserId="721" Text="**Question:** Please show me a grammar resource that explains what the following construction is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John 1:24 &quot;missi fuerant&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;John 1:40 &quot;secuti fuerant&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;John 2:10 &quot;inebriati fuerint&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;John 3:3 &quot;natus fuerit&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;John 3:5 &quot;renatus fuerit&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;John 3:24 &quot;missus fuerat&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My speculation:** I'm reading through the Vulgate, and I've found a construction I'd like identified. I'm hoping it's actually a construction and not just two separate words. It looks similar to the Perfect System Indicative Passive, so I've speculated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** It's a variation on the **Perfect System Subjunctive Passive.** Normally, I thought the Perfect System Subjunctive was formed by combining the *&quot;4th PP&quot;* + *&quot;Sum: Present System&quot;* . Instead this looks like some sort of double-perfect-system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** Since the Vulgate is **a translation from Koine Greek**, it's some variation on a Greek periphrastic construction that Jerome took directly into account when translating it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17543" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5315" RevisionGUID="2ace4468-de8c-4cf4-921d-dcb4590973de" CreationDate="2017-09-26T22:35:16.400" UserId="721" Text="Which grammatical format is the double-perfect system as found in the Vulgate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17544" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5315" RevisionGUID="2ace4468-de8c-4cf4-921d-dcb4590973de" CreationDate="2017-09-26T22:35:16.400" UserId="721" Text="|greek|participles|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5316" RevisionGUID="0e0054c6-f269-4b68-a66a-d2991e2c83dc" CreationDate="2017-09-27T00:22:11.607" UserId="985" Text="This is found even in classical Latin. The perfect passive can be formed by using either the present tense of *esse* or, when one wants to stress the completedness of the action, the perfect tense. Likewise, the pluperfect can use either the imperfect or pluperfect of *esse*, and the future perfect can use either the future or future perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a reference for you: Gildersleeve and Lodge, _Latin grammar_, section 250:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Perfect Participle passive is used in combination with **sum**, *I am*, and **fui**, *I have been, I was*, to express the Pure Perfect [that is, present perfect] and Historical Perfect [that is, preterite] of the Passive Voice. **Eram**, *I was*, and **fueram**, *I had been*, stand for the Pluperfect; and **ero**, *I shall be*, and **fuero**, *I shall have been*, for the Future Perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; REMARKS.—1. **Fui** is the *favorite* form when the participle is frequently used as an adjective: **convivium exornatum fui**, *the banquet was furnished forth*; **fui** is the *necessary* form when the Pf. denotes that the action is over and gone: **amatus fui**, *I have been loved* (but I am loved no longer). The same principle applies to **fueram** and **fuero**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Simulacrum e marmore in sepulcro positum fuit; hoc quidam homo nobilis deportavit**, C. *Dom.* 43.111; *a marble effigy WAS deposited in the tomb; a certain man of rank has carried it off.* **Arma quae fixa in parietibus fuerant, ea sunt humi inventa**, C. *Div.* 1.34.74; *the arms which had been fastened to the walls were found on the ground.* . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; NOTES.—1. The **fui**, *etc.*, forms are rarely found in CICERO, never in CAESAR, but are characteristic of LIVY and SALLUST." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5318" RevisionGUID="bd05d7e4-122d-40b9-b600-a2b625deb30b" CreationDate="2017-09-27T01:07:39.147" UserId="985" Text="Lewis &amp; Short define the phrase _nihil esse_ as 'to be nothing or nobody' (plus 'to have no power' and 'to be of no use'). And Cicero, _Ad familiares_ 7.33.1 does provide an example of this phrased used with a plural subject:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nos enim plane, mi suavissime Volumni, aut nihil sumus aut nobis quidem ipsis displicemus gregalibus illis quibus te plaudente vigebamus amissis, ut etiam, si quando aliquid dignum nostro nomine emisimus, ingemiscamus quod haec 'pinnigero, non armigero in corpore tela exerceantur', ut ait Philoctetes apud Accium, 'abiecta gloria'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd say that the Latin for 'we are no one' is _nihil sumus_, but not just in the existential sense that C. M. Weimer has suggested." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5319" RevisionGUID="3b4eba8e-935e-44d9-8ffa-3a3ec74c6da2" CreationDate="2017-09-27T01:27:58.577" UserId="2022" Text="can anyone translate these six latin sentences to english, and follow me through step by step on how you did it?&#xD;&#xA;Ignis impetu ventorum vectus circum corripuit nec eius vis opprimi potuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Domibus non erant munimenta, templis non erant muri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;viae erant et flexae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Itaque sine impedimentis flammae omnia devastabant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flammae iam ubique ardebant antequam homines eas extinsguere temptaverunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Propter lacrimas et timores feminarum et propter eos qui huc atque illuc currebant omnia erant in tumultu. Thank You very very much I really appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17549" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5319" RevisionGUID="3b4eba8e-935e-44d9-8ffa-3a3ec74c6da2" CreationDate="2017-09-27T01:27:58.577" UserId="2022" Text="to translate 6 latin sentence sentences to english with a step by step process on how you translated it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17550" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5319" RevisionGUID="3b4eba8e-935e-44d9-8ffa-3a3ec74c6da2" CreationDate="2017-09-27T01:27:58.577" UserId="2022" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5319" RevisionGUID="ef5439b4-4853-440d-a3c2-655690ac5447" CreationDate="2017-09-27T02:18:51.313" UserId="2022" Comment="added 218 characters in body" Text="can anyone translate these six latin sentences to english, and follow me through step by step on how you did it?&#xD;&#xA;Ignis impetu ventorum vectus circum corripuit nec eius vis opprimi potuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Domibus non erant munimenta, templis non erant muri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;viae erant et flexae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Itaque sine impedimentis flammae omnia devastabant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flammae iam ubique ardebant antequam homines eas extinsguere temptaverunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Propter lacrimas et timores feminarum et propter eos qui huc atque illuc currebant omnia erant in tumultu. Thank You very very much I really appreciate it I tried translating it myself and I am able to figure out the translate the words, I just can't put them in the sentence the right way. I also struggle with moods, prep phrases, and finding direct and indirect objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5319" RevisionGUID="2c83dde4-d07b-4b58-8652-9a61b5d53de2" CreationDate="2017-09-27T02:49:46.293" UserId="2022" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="can anyone translate these six latin sentences (from chpts 38-39 of Annales) to english, and follow me through step by step on how you did it?&#xD;&#xA;Ignis impetu ventorum vectus circum corripuit nec eius vis opprimi potuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Domibus non erant munimenta, templis non erant muri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;viae erant et flexae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Itaque sine impedimentis flammae omnia devastabant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flammae iam ubique ardebant antequam homines eas extinsguere temptaverunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Propter lacrimas et timores feminarum et propter eos qui huc atque illuc currebant omnia erant in tumultu. Thank You very very much I really appreciate it I tried translating it myself and I am able to figure out the translate the words, I just can't put them in the sentence the right way. I also struggle with moods, prep phrases, and finding direct and indirect objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5320" RevisionGUID="0afb9e9f-d548-4bc8-95e7-b4227ca75140" CreationDate="2017-09-27T04:46:40.920" UserId="522" Text="**Step ONE**: Look for the verbs. Here you are lucky; they all end in **t** or **nt.**  “It did something or other...” or “**They** did something ot other...”  &#xD;&#xA;**Step TWO**  Look for the conjunctions (or punctuation): These two steps tell you the *shape* of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; .I. (xxxxxxxxxxxxx **corripuit**) nec (xxxxxxxxxx **potuit**)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘(It did this) and  not (...it couldn’t do that)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; .II.(xxxxxxxx **non erant** xxxxxx) , (xxxx **non erant** xxx)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (they weren’t ) , (they weren’t).   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; .III. **Itaque** (xxxxxxxxxxx **devastabant**)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore (the xxxx were devastating).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Step THREE**: Look for the nominatives and accusatives; especially plurals for plural verbs ending ‘nt’, and the nom singular for singular verbs ending ‘t’.  &#xD;&#xA;**Step FOUR**; while you’re looking for those, see if you can make sense of the fiddly bits: the adverbs and other descriptive bits added for colour.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (**Ignis**, the only nom singular noun, **corripuit**) and not (**vis**.........**opprimi potuit**)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ((*fiddly bits*: ‘driven by the onslaught of the wind’) nec (and ‘its strength’ was not...))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another example:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (**Flammae** nominative plural; **ardebant**, plural verb) antequam (**homines**...**temptaverunt**)  &#xD;&#xA;(**iam ubique**, the flames 'now everywhere' were... ) before (the men...........)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17555" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5319" RevisionGUID="1740d985-3f3e-4391-998a-9213acb9da42" CreationDate="2017-09-27T05:51:05.033" UserId="79" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:136,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Sam K&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5318" RevisionGUID="88b15878-e780-4407-b3e7-280ffa875b95" CreationDate="2017-09-27T12:25:54.307" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 71 characters in body" Text="Lewis &amp; Short define the phrase _nihil esse_ as 'to be nothing or nobody' (plus 'to have no power' and 'to be of no use'). And Cicero, _Ad familiares_ 7.33.1 does provide an example of this phrased used with a plural subject:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nos enim plane, mi suavissime Volumni, aut nihil sumus aut nobis quidem ipsis displicemus gregalibus illis quibus te plaudente vigebamus amissis, ut etiam, si quando aliquid dignum nostro nomine emisimus, ingemiscamus quod haec 'pinnigero, non armigero in corpore tela exerceantur', ut ait Philoctetes apud Accium, 'abiecta gloria'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd say that the Latin for 'we are no one' is _nihil sumus_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5310" RevisionGUID="7db03eb5-fba5-4708-a00d-08d2a6d8e3d6" CreationDate="2017-09-27T15:13:26.143" UserId="645" Comment="Expanded to qualify explanation and occurences of tautolgy and pleonasm." Text="A simple dictionary search (Smith's, in my case) defines 'tautologia' as *a repetition of the same meaning in different words, a tautology*, with an example given as Marc. Cap. 5, 175.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin for the related idea 'redundance' is *pleonasmus* (also from the Greek), a use of unnecessary words, which might be said to include tautologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that both words appear in reputable dictionaries is already enough to indicate that they were in classical use. No doubt educated Romans would use either, as appropriate, in discussing grammar — in particular, figures of syntax.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Expanded answer] Tautology and pleonasm are separate figures of speech in English, but often distinguished only pedantically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'All at once I suddenly did it' is a tautology in which the same thing is said twice, but in different words, *all at once* and *suddenly* being of exactly equivalent meaning. In Latin  as in English — tautology may be used for dramatic effect, when Cicero reports the flight of Catiline with the string of words *Abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit.*(Cic. In Cat. II, I)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, 'he walked on the soles of his feet' is a pleonasm in which, in normal circumstances, the last six words are redundant. A Latin example is *Quae postquam vates sic ore effatus amico est.* (Virg. Aen. III, 463), where it can be interpreted as a device to adjust the metre.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5322" RevisionGUID="e38bfad8-0358-446c-bcbb-bc49d039ece7" CreationDate="2017-09-27T15:59:34.320" UserId="1743" Text="Only now, somewhat *accidentally* while searching for another original source, did I find out that there *is* at least one online rendition of the Latin original of *De Mundi Sensibilis atque Intelligibilis Forma et Principiis*, and a professional and careful rendition at that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://korpora.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de/Kant/aa02/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what's that worth, here is an acknowledgement of the institutions which made this happen:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dLobp.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5310" RevisionGUID="129e8d42-9e39-40cc-afaa-e9529cca16e4" CreationDate="2017-09-27T16:16:48.457" UserId="645" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="A simple dictionary search (Smith's, in my case) defines 'tautologia' as *a repetition of the same meaning in different words, a tautology*, with an example given as Marc. Cap. 5, 175.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin for the related idea 'redundance' is *pleonasmus* (also from the Greek), a use of unnecessary words, which might be said to include tautologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that both words appear in reputable dictionaries is already enough to indicate that they were in classical use. No doubt educated Romans would use either, as appropriate, in discussing grammar — in particular, figures of syntax.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Expanded answer] Tautology and pleonasm are separate figures of speech in English, but often distinguished only pedantically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'All at once I suddenly did it' is a tautology in which the same thing is said twice, but in different words, *all at once* and *suddenly* being of exactly equivalent meaning. In Latin  — as in English — tautology may be used for dramatic effect, as when Cicero reports the flight of Catiline with the string of words *Abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit.*(Cic. In Cat. II, I)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, 'he walked on the soles of his feet' is a pleonasm in which, in normal circumstances, the last six words are redundant. A Latin example is *Quae postquam vates sic ore effatus amico est.* (Virg. Aen. III, 463), where it can be interpreted as a device to adjust the metre.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5323" RevisionGUID="40457766-e6d3-46ae-82fd-29c6df4366ca" CreationDate="2017-09-27T18:32:43.043" UserId="2025" Text="I’m creating a Latin quiz game, and want to know what the best word/noun for “information” is. I searched on the internet for the word, it gave me lots of results, but wasn't sure which one is the best." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17568" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5323" RevisionGUID="40457766-e6d3-46ae-82fd-29c6df4366ca" CreationDate="2017-09-27T18:32:43.043" UserId="2025" Text="What's the Latin word for “information”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17569" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5323" RevisionGUID="40457766-e6d3-46ae-82fd-29c6df4366ca" CreationDate="2017-09-27T18:32:43.043" UserId="2025" Text="|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5323" RevisionGUID="d320dbe9-5cbd-48b9-9b65-d3f6d5008ed4" CreationDate="2017-09-27T18:53:48.017" UserId="2025" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="I’m creating a Latin quiz game, and want to know what the best word/noun for “information” is. I searched on the internet for the word, it gave me lots of results, but wasn't sure which one is the best. Some results I found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - informatio&#xD;&#xA; - indicium&#xD;&#xA; - nuntium&#xD;&#xA; - nuntiatio&#xD;&#xA; - significantia&#xD;&#xA; - notitia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5323" RevisionGUID="994e44f8-ac56-49cd-ac83-27c824a252e7" CreationDate="2017-09-27T19:16:47.807" UserId="2025" Comment="Formatting." Text="I’m creating a Latin quiz game, and want to know what the best word/noun for “information” is. I searched on the internet for the word, it gave me lots of results, but wasn't sure which one is the best. Some results I found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *informatio*&#xD;&#xA; - *indicium*&#xD;&#xA; - *nuntium*&#xD;&#xA; - *nuntiatio*&#xD;&#xA; - *significantia*&#xD;&#xA; - *notitia*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17572" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5323" RevisionGUID="994e44f8-ac56-49cd-ac83-27c824a252e7" CreationDate="2017-09-27T19:16:47.807" UserId="2025" Comment="Formatting." Text="What’s the Latin word for “information”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5323" RevisionGUID="beb468b6-9567-4e76-aafb-e4d8e0e0c188" CreationDate="2017-09-27T20:20:23.897" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="I'm creating a Latin quiz game, and want to know what the best word/noun for “information” is. I searched on the internet for the word, it gave me lots of results, but wasn't sure which one is the best. Some results I found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *informatio*&#xD;&#xA; - *indicium*&#xD;&#xA; - *nuntium*&#xD;&#xA; - *nuntiatio*&#xD;&#xA; - *significantia*&#xD;&#xA; - *notitia*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17574" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5323" RevisionGUID="beb468b6-9567-4e76-aafb-e4d8e0e0c188" CreationDate="2017-09-27T20:20:23.897" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|vocabulary|word-choice|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5324" RevisionGUID="3f73bc18-9de6-455b-9291-1fea8c6197b9" CreationDate="2017-09-27T23:50:06.390" UserId="2026" Text="In [*Libri 1*, *Quaestio XX*, sec. 26, of Duns Scotus's *In Octo Libros Physicorum Aristotelis*](https://books.google.com/books?id=ka5JAQAAMAAJ&amp;dq=sed%20forma%20non%20cognoscitur%20nisi%20ex%20operationibus&amp;pg=PA483#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), Duns Scotus gives expression to a common tenet of a Platonic doctrine of the Forms when he writes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [S]ed forma non cognoscitur nisi ex operationibus....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which roughly translates as &quot;[B]ut form is not known [to us] except from [its] operations&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have two questions about this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is &quot;operationibus&quot; dative or ablative in this construction? I know that &quot;ex&quot; typically takes the ablative, but Allen and Greenough's *New Latin Grammar* notes that &quot;ex&quot; + dative can occur as the *Dative of Separation*, a form of the *Dative of Reference* (sec. 381):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note. -- The Dative of Separation is a variety of the Dative of Reference. It represents the action as *done to* the person or thing, and is thus more vivid than the Ablative.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; That would sort of make sense if the idea was to emphasize how the Forms &quot;impress themselves upon *us*&quot;. I suppose that would make the better translation something like &quot;[B]ut form is not known [to us] except by reference to [its] operations [on us] (?)&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 2. What is the best way to translate &quot;operationibus&quot;? I went with &quot;operation&quot;, but I suspect it has a technical use or a use originating in Medieval Latin here. Especially given that these are commentaries on Aristotle, I am tempted to think it is being used in relation to his Four Causes. Given that one translation of &quot;operatio&quot; given by Wiktionary is &quot;effect, result&quot; I'm tempted to see this as referring to the *efficient causes* of our knowledge of From. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17576" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5324" RevisionGUID="3f73bc18-9de6-455b-9291-1fea8c6197b9" CreationDate="2017-09-27T23:50:06.390" UserId="2026" Text="Philosophically sound English translation of Duns Scotus's &quot;sed forma non cognoscitur nisi ex operationibus&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17577" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5324" RevisionGUID="3f73bc18-9de6-455b-9291-1fea8c6197b9" CreationDate="2017-09-27T23:50:06.390" UserId="2026" Text="|medieval-latin|philosophy-terms|aristotle|philosophy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5324" RevisionGUID="63e4e571-e55d-4273-9229-686893c522a5" CreationDate="2017-09-27T23:56:20.917" UserId="2026" Comment="added 2 characters in body; deleted 9 characters in body" Text="In [*Libri 1*, *Quaestio XX*, sec. 26, of Duns Scotus's *In Octo Libros Physicorum Aristotelis*](https://books.google.com/books?id=ka5JAQAAMAAJ&amp;dq=sed%20forma%20non%20cognoscitur%20nisi%20ex%20operationibus&amp;pg=PA483#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), Duns Scotus gives expression to a common tenet of a doctrine of the Forms when he writes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [S]ed forma non cognoscitur nisi ex operationibus....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which roughly translates as &quot;[B]ut form is not known [to us] except from [its] operations&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have two questions about this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is &quot;operationibus&quot; dative or ablative in this construction? I know that &quot;ex&quot; typically takes the ablative, but Allen and Greenough's *New Latin Grammar* notes that &quot;ex&quot; + dative can occur as the *Dative of Separation*, a form of the *Dative of Reference* (sec. 381):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note. -- The Dative of Separation is a variety of the Dative of Reference. It represents the action as *done to* the person or thing, and is thus more vivid than the Ablative.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; That would sort of make sense if the idea was to emphasize how the Forms &quot;impress themselves upon *us*&quot;. I suppose that would make the better translation something like &quot;[B]ut form is not known [to us] except by reference to [its] operations [on us] (?)&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 2. What is the best way to translate &quot;operationibus&quot;? I went with &quot;operation&quot;, but I suspect it has a technical use or a use idiosyncratic to Medieval Latin here. Especially given that these are commentaries on Aristotle, I am tempted to think it is being used in relation to his Four Causes. Given that one translation of &quot;operatio&quot; given by Wiktionary is &quot;effect, result&quot; I'm tempted to see this as referring to the *efficient causes* of our knowledge of From. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5316" RevisionGUID="e320a132-a0c5-4db7-a91c-cc1ac69ec5f8" CreationDate="2017-09-28T01:40:19.027" UserId="985" Comment="added 492 characters in body" Text="This is found even in classical Latin. The perfect passive can be formed by using either the present tense of *esse* or, when one wants to stress the completedness of the action, the perfect tense. Likewise, the pluperfect can use either the imperfect or pluperfect of *esse*, and the future perfect can use either the future or future perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a reference for you: Gildersleeve and Lodge, _Latin grammar_, section 250:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Perfect Participle passive is used in combination with **sum**, *I am*, and **fui**, *I have been, I was*, to express the Pure Perfect [that is, present perfect] and Historical Perfect [that is, preterite] of the Passive Voice. **Eram**, *I was*, and **fueram**, *I had been*, stand for the Pluperfect; and **ero**, *I shall be*, and **fuero**, *I shall have been*, for the Future Perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; REMARKS.—1. **Fui** is the *favorite* form when the participle is frequently used as an adjective: **convivium exornatum fui**, *the banquet was furnished forth*; **fui** is the *necessary* form when the Pf. denotes that the action is over and gone: **amatus fui**, *I have been loved* (but I am loved no longer). The same principle applies to **fueram** and **fuero**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Simulacrum e marmore in sepulcro positum fuit; hoc quidam homo nobilis deportavit**, C. *Dom.* 43.111; *a marble effigy WAS deposited in the tomb; a certain man of rank has carried it off.* **Arma quae fixa in parietibus fuerant, ea sunt humi inventa**, C. *Div.* 1.34.74; *the arms which had been fastened to the walls were found on the ground.* . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; NOTES.—1. The **fui**, *etc.*, forms are rarely found in CICERO, never in CAESAR, but are characteristic of LIVY and SALLUST.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** Cf. Allen and Greenough, _New Latin grammar_, section 184, footnote 1 (p 94), which explicitly notes that this applies to subjunctive forms too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Fui**, **fuisti**, etc., are sometimes used instead of **sum**, **es**, etc.; so also **fueram** instead of **eram** and **fuero** instead of **ero**. Similarly in the Perfect and Pluperfect Subjunctive **fuerim**, **fueris**, etc., are sometimes used instead of **sim**, **sis**, etc., and **fuissem** instead of **essem**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5324" RevisionGUID="d74400a6-8a84-4dfa-9e19-c4a0101d4b77" CreationDate="2017-09-28T01:52:48.737" UserId="2026" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="In [*Libri 1*, *Quaestio XX*, sec. 26, of Duns Scotus's *In Octo Libros Physicorum Aristotelis*](https://books.google.com/books?id=ka5JAQAAMAAJ&amp;dq=sed%20forma%20non%20cognoscitur%20nisi%20ex%20operationibus&amp;pg=PA483#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), Duns Scotus gives expression to a common tenet of a doctrine of the Forms when he writes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [S]ed forma non cognoscitur nisi ex operationibus....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which roughly translates as &quot;[B]ut form is not known [to us] except from [its] operations&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have two questions about this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is &quot;operationibus&quot; dative or ablative in this construction? I know that &quot;ex&quot; typically takes the ablative, but Allen and Greenough's *New Latin Grammar* notes that &quot;ex&quot; + dative can occur as the *Dative of Separation*, a form of the *Dative of Reference* (sec. 381):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note. -- The Dative of Separation is a variety of the Dative of Reference. It represents the action as *done to* the person or thing, and is thus more vivid than the Ablative.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; That would sort of make sense if the idea was to emphasize how the Forms &quot;impress themselves upon *us*&quot;. I suppose that would make the better translation something like &quot;[B]ut form is not known [to us] except by reference to [its] operations [on us] (?)&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 2. What is the best way to translate &quot;operationibus&quot;? I went with &quot;operation&quot;, but I suspect it has a technical use or a use idiosyncratic to Medieval Latin here. Especially given that these are commentaries on Aristotle, I am tempted to think it is being used in relation to his Four Causes. Given that one translation of &quot;operatio&quot; given by Wiktionary is &quot;effect, result&quot; I'm tempted to see this as referring to the *efficient causes* of our knowledge of From. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; EDIT: Thanks to cnread's helpful comment, question 1 is largely moot. There is no &quot;ex&quot;+dative, so &quot;operationibus&quot; is certainly ablative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5325" RevisionGUID="b33b5883-8049-4ff0-aac3-94b58cac9dda" CreationDate="2017-09-28T15:40:32.923" UserId="79" Text="[Fontana di Trevi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevi_Fountain) is a fountain in Rome, built in 1762.&#xD;&#xA;Does it have a (trustworthy) Latin name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Latin Wikipedia page](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fontana_Trebii) uses the name *Fontana Trebii*, but no reference is given.&#xD;&#xA;This name appears to be related to the Roman name [*Trebius*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=trebius&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;However, I would expect an adjective (like *Trebiana*) instead of a genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine that the name of the fountain has something to do with the [Trevi district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevi_(rione_of_Rome)) of Rome.&#xD;&#xA;The linked English Wikipedia page says (without references) that the name Trevi comes from the Latin *trivium*.&#xD;&#xA;This is incompatible with the Latin name of the fountain mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would much appreciate it if there was a Latin document with the name of the fountain (or the district), but I have not been able to locate one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17583" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5325" RevisionGUID="b33b5883-8049-4ff0-aac3-94b58cac9dda" CreationDate="2017-09-28T15:40:32.923" UserId="79" Text="Does Fontana di Trevi have a Latin name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17584" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5325" RevisionGUID="b33b5883-8049-4ff0-aac3-94b58cac9dda" CreationDate="2017-09-28T15:40:32.923" UserId="79" Text="|place-names|architecture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="9e841bb5-dee1-4bf6-8e35-2ba4de084f16" CreationDate="2017-09-29T01:20:04.937" UserId="9" Comment="added another link" Text="I would second Tom Cotton’s suggestions of ***Bloomingtona*** or ***Blumingtona.*** ***Bloomingtonia*** or ***Blumingtonia*** doesn't seem incorrect either. (If you want to completely assimilate the word to Latin phonotactics—which I don't think is necessary—you could simplify the consonant cluster &quot;ngt&quot; to &quot;nt&quot;.) One argument I can think of in favor of using &quot;-tonia&quot; is that English speakers already use &quot;Bloomingtonian&quot; as an adjective, like &quot;Bostonian&quot; or &quot;Houstonian&quot;. But on the other hand, English is not Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I am still a beginner in Latin so I have no expertise with regard to this; all of this has been a guess based on a list of Latin place-names I found and other Google research. Please take it accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide][1],* edited by F.A.C. Mantello and A.G. Rigg, has a chapter titled &quot;Morphology and Syntax&quot; (by A.G. Rigg) that says that the morphology of place names in Medieval Latin was often &quot;arbitrary&quot; and suggests that the commonly-used feminine suffix *-ia* may have been &quot;originally seen as an adjectival ending agreeing with *urbs* or *prouincia* understood (e.g. *Cantuaria,* 'Canterbury', *Abandonia,* 'Abingdon')&quot; (p. 84).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a large “[List of the Latin Names of Places in Great Britain and Ireland][2]” online; I’m not sure of its sourcing (so it might not be reliable) but a few of the names I checked were corroborated by other sources, so I’m tentatively assuming that it is reliable and only lists terms with some kind of attested use, not ones that are entirely questionable suggestions for neologisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven’t found any rule for whether to use “-tona” or “tonia” in the Latinization of English place names ending in “-ton”. As varro pointed out, “Bostonia” and “Hustonia” are used, but the list I linked to in the previous paragraph seems to have slightly more examples of “-tona” (e.g.  &quot;Chingestona&quot; – Kingston and &quot;Cunctona&quot; – Compton). A document I found while Googling lists the additional variants of “-thonia” (found in “Conthonia”, an alternative name for Compton) and “-tuna” (found in “Stoctuna”, a name for Stoughton) (*[Sussex Archaeological Collections Relating to the History and Antiquities of the County][3],* published by the Sussex Archaeological Society, Vol. XL). While variation between “th” and “t” and “o” and “u” could be attributed merely to the less fixed nature of orthography in past times, I don’t think the variation between “ia” and “a” can be as easily dismissed as purely graphical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a (not necessarily complete) list of Latin place names I found in the list corresponding to English place-names ending in “-ton”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-tona/-tuna/-thona:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Chingestona (Kingston)&#xD;&#xA;  - Cunctona (Compton, Sussex)&#xD;&#xA;  - Gaidingtona, Gaingtona (Geddington)&#xD;&#xA;  - Hunegetona (Honington or Hunnington, Staffordshire)&#xD;&#xA;  - Karintona (Catherington, Hants)&#xD;&#xA;  - Mucletona (Mickleton)&#xD;&#xA;  - Stiuentona (Staunton, Gloucestershire)&#xD;&#xA;  - Waldintona (Waldington, Yorks)&#xD;&#xA;  - Cleituna (Clayton, Sussex)&#xD;&#xA;  - Mealtuna (Malton, Yorks)&#xD;&#xA;  - Tornetuna (Thornton, Yorks)&#xD;&#xA;  - Ethona (Nuneaton, which was earlier simply “Etone” according to Wikipedia)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-tonia/-tunia/-thonia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Bramptonia (Brampton)&#xD;&#xA;- Glastonia, Gleastonia, Glestonia (Glastonbury)&#xD;&#xA;- Rugnitunia, Ruitonia (Ryton-upon-Dunsmoor, Warwickshire)&#xD;&#xA;- Wiltonia (Wilton; Wilts)&#xD;&#xA;- Conthonia (Compton; not in the list but in the cited book)&#xD;&#xA;- Bostonia (Boston; not in the list)&#xD;&#xA;- Hustonia (Houston; not in the list).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Note: it may be relevant that the city of &quot;Houston&quot; was named after [Sam Houston][4], whose name might not have been etymologically connected to the &quot;-ton&quot; suffix found in many other English city names. Thus, it seems possible to me that the Latin name &quot;H(o)ustonia&quot; should be compared to names like &quot;Columbia&quot; from the personal name &quot;Columbus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###either -tonia or -tona/-tuna:&#xD;&#xA;- Hamptonia, Hamtona (Southampton; Northampton; Hampton)&#xD;&#xA;- Northamptonia, Northantonia, Northamtuna (Northampton)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-tonium:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Varingtonium (Warrington, Lancashire)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This is weird and I don't know how to explain it, but it doesn't seem to be a typo. Possibly compare &quot;Vasingtonium&quot;, listed on Wikipedia &quot;[List of Latin names of cities][5]&quot;, but called &quot;quite odd&quot; by somebody on the [talk page][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-dunum:&#xD;&#xA;- Burgodunum (Burton, Staffordshire)&#xD;&#xA;- Castrodunum (Chesterton, Cambridgeshire)&#xD;&#xA;- Dorpendunum (Orpington, Kent)&#xD;&#xA;- Ellandunum (Allington, near Amesbury, or Wilton, in Wilts)&#xD;&#xA;- Repandunum (Repton)&#xD;&#xA;- Spinodunum (Thornton, Lincolnshire)&#xD;&#xA;- Sturodunum (Stourton, and Stourminster, Dorset)&#xD;&#xA;- Tanodunum, Thenodunum (Taunton, Somerset)&#xD;&#xA;- Venantodunum (Huntingdon)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don’t know if the use of “-dunum” is due to contamination from names with “-down” and “-don”. [Wikipedia][7] says: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dunum was a Latinized nameplace in ancient Ireland and the name of at least two recorded settlements there, one in the far north, one in the far south. [...] As a word, Dunum is very similar to words for fortifications and measurements, and sometimes used as a suffix or prefix in placenames to note the presence of fortification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, it seems it is thought to be derived from a Celtic word cognate with “town”. It seems to me that “-dunum”, although relatively common as a final element in established Latin place names, would not be a good choice for Latinizing the names of cities or towns that were named in modern times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of Latinization of the rest of the name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - as varro pointed out, “oo” could be changed to “u” (which I assume would be pronounced as ū /uː/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The letter-sequence “ngt”, which does not occur in Latin, might also be changed. Although “nct” seems to me the closest equivalent in sound, I don’t know of any examples of &quot;ngt&quot; being Latinized this way, so I wouldn’t recommend it. Instead, simplifying the cluster to “nt” seems to have some precedent, as well as simply retaining it as “ngt”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-ingt:&#xD;&#xA;- Gaidingtona, Gaingtona (Geddington)&#xD;&#xA;- Varingtonium (Warrington, Lancashire)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###-int-:&#xD;&#xA;- Karintona (Catherington, Hants)&#xD;&#xA;- Waldintona (Waldington, Yorks)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would just ignore the &quot;weird&quot; examples in the list of *Godritona* (Codrington) and *Hunegetona* (Honington/Hunnington).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, http://geonames.enacademic.com/12172/Bloomington lists &quot;Blumingtona&quot; as one of the names of &quot;Bloomington&quot; in another language, but it doesn't specify which one! Googling it seems to show that it is used in Serbian (example: [I Kodi Zeler spreman za NBA : Nakon Viktora Oladipa, i druga zvezda tima iz Blumingtona odlučila se za NBA ligu][8]) and possibly some other Slavic languages, also some Baltic languages such as Latvian (https://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blūmingtona_(Indiāna)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Bb32Th4WAK0C&amp;pg=PA84&amp;lpg=PA84&amp;dq=Latin%20indeclinable%20names&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DYXYYIcBpe&amp;sig=iQfH5jlibqcJGKNk8dKtE1uk-DA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwje6_vtlsnWAhVIDMAKHTU7CY8Q6AEIWjAG#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20indeclinable%20names&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://comp.uark.edu/~mreynold/recint2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=6r1CAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA60&amp;lpg=PA60&amp;dq=Cunctona&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2wHEL--vTh&amp;sig=dxlg83Q5OyOYswFuHkrJn9xoJRQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjykebt0vjUAhVl4oMKHRZlDl0Q6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&amp;q=Cunctona&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Houston&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_names_of_cities&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Latin_names_of_cities#V_and_W&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunum_(Ireland)&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.nbaserbia.rs/vesti/2865/i-kodi-zeler-spreman-za-nba" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5326" RevisionGUID="81733616-ce4f-4880-a2c8-a719cd9f6008" CreationDate="2017-09-29T13:37:51.380" UserId="79" Text="How can I translate the sentence &quot;We are walking hand in hand&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure how to render &quot;hand in hand&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;A direct translation would be *Ambulamus manus in manu*.&#xD;&#xA;But can I use a nominative *manus* like this?&#xD;&#xA;It is probably better to use something like the absolute ablative *manibus coniunctis*, but I want to know if there is something grammatically closer to &quot;hand in hand&quot; than &quot;with hands held together&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Another option seems to be to put the hands in a separate clause (*Ambulamus et manus in manu est* or something in that direction)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17587" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5326" RevisionGUID="81733616-ce4f-4880-a2c8-a719cd9f6008" CreationDate="2017-09-29T13:37:51.380" UserId="79" Text="Walking &quot;hand in hand&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17588" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5326" RevisionGUID="81733616-ce4f-4880-a2c8-a719cd9f6008" CreationDate="2017-09-29T13:37:51.380" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|grammar-choice|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5327" RevisionGUID="ce528586-ebfd-4f63-a5c8-f3e9cf8be84e" CreationDate="2017-09-29T13:46:34.203" UserId="2031" Text="*Manibus coniunctis* makes me think of holding one's hands together in prayer. I'd translate this as &quot;*manibus nexis*&quot;. See location 745 in [Metamorphoses](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/ovid/ovid.met8.shtml) by Obid. There it is used in the context of holding hands dancing around a tree." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5327" RevisionGUID="138f74a3-34f2-4e91-b30a-600775fe4594" CreationDate="2017-09-29T15:53:38.817" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected a typo." Text="*Manibus coniunctis* makes me think of holding one's hands together in prayer. I'd translate this as &quot;*manibus nexis*&quot;. See location 745 in [Metamorphoses](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/ovid/ovid.met8.shtml) by Ovid. There it is used in the context of holding hands dancing around a tree." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5328" RevisionGUID="ebde88f3-6159-4ced-8243-a9e042f6ce6b" CreationDate="2017-09-30T11:45:19.097" UserId="666" Text="How would I say that something won't end for a period of time, for example, _Dinner isn't over for another hour_?  I considered _Cena non finet ante hora_, but that didn't quite sound right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17594" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5328" RevisionGUID="ebde88f3-6159-4ced-8243-a9e042f6ce6b" CreationDate="2017-09-30T11:45:19.097" UserId="666" Text="How to say 'For a [period of time]'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17595" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5328" RevisionGUID="ebde88f3-6159-4ced-8243-a9e042f6ce6b" CreationDate="2017-09-30T11:45:19.097" UserId="666" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5329" RevisionGUID="83dea117-1669-4a2d-9f7c-0b285c081230" CreationDate="2017-09-30T12:04:58.613" UserId="78" Text="You would use the simple accusative here, as duration is one of its key uses. For a full explanation, see Gildersleeve and Lodge § 336. *Cenabimus aliam horam.* &quot;We will dine for another hour.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted to emphasize the ending point, i.e. &quot;Dinner will be over in one hour,&quot; then you could use the ablative (G&amp;L § 393). *Cenae finis una hora.* &quot;Dinner's end is in one hour.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5329" RevisionGUID="cf3c73df-a834-416b-b542-c3f97dcbdfbb" CreationDate="2017-09-30T12:23:50.497" UserId="78" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="You would use the simple accusative here, as duration is one of its key uses. For a full explanation, see Gildersleeve and Lodge § 336. *Cenabimus  alteram horam.* &quot;We will dine for another hour.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted to emphasize the ending point, i.e. &quot;Dinner will be over in one hour,&quot; then you could use the ablative (G&amp;L § 393). *Cenae finis una hora.* &quot;Dinner's end is in one hour.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5328" RevisionGUID="5be81c28-4bab-435b-9120-c968ab069f94" CreationDate="2017-09-30T12:35:16.853" UserId="666" Comment="Explained emphasis on duration" Text="How would I say that something won't end for a period of time, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dinner isn't over for another hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I considered _Cena non finet ante hora_, but that didn't quite sound right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Update:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for a use that emphasizes the length of time, as in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ugh, dinner isn't over for another _two hours_!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yay!   The party is still going for two more hours!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5328" RevisionGUID="0386c05a-1b1f-47ca-8af9-9a65b7f4faca" CreationDate="2017-09-30T13:12:03.347" UserId="666" Comment="Emphasized how far away endpoint is" Text="How would I say that something won't end for a period of time, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dinner isn't over for another hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I considered _Cena non finet ante hora_, but that didn't quite sound right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Update:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for a use that emphasizes the length of time, or how far away the end of the time period is, as in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ugh, dinner isn't over for another _two hours_!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yay!   The party is still going for two more hours!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5330" RevisionGUID="ba4ffffb-8225-4c6b-81a8-27b267416e4b" CreationDate="2017-10-01T05:15:09.350" UserId="867" Text="In addition to loading...'s excellent answer above, I would like to add a couple of suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***iunctus* (nom.) + dative of person with whom you are holding hands**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***iunctae**que Nymphis Gratiae decentes*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the becoming Graces hold hands with the Nymphs &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace, *Odes*, 1.4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *carae Proserpina **iuncta** Dianae*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proserpine holds hands with dear Diana&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Valerius Flaccus, *Argonautica*, 5.345&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither of these examples specify hands yet it is assumed that this is what they are doing because in both scenes they are dancing (like loading ...'s example above).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, *iungere + manus* is regularly used to mean exactly that.  See: Ovid, *Ars Armatoria*, 2.254; Statius, *Silvae*, 5.276; Valerius Flaccus, *Argonautica*, 1.636.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an interesting aside, *(con)iungere + dextera/dextra* (to mean the right hand) is also often used but the hand holding here seems to be more like a handshake, a sign of friendship and good faith.  See: Vergil, *Aeneid*, 3.83; 8.46, 8.164; Statius, *Thebaid*, 2.149.  However, *coniungere + manus* means marriage (e.g. Tibullus, *Elegies*, 1.6.60).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***manibus implexis* or *consertis manibus***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These both occur in Seneca (*On Benefits*, 1.3) where he is describing the three Graces holding hands.  However, it does seem to me that Seneca is trying to amplify the intertwinedness of their hands because he is discussing an eternal cycle of benefit giving and receiving.  So, this may be more a literary illustration than a simple hand-holding scenario.  Also, note that *conserere + manus* more typically means to engage in combat (e.g. Cicero, *Pro Murena*, 20).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***manibus adprehensis***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have assumed that your walking hand in hand is with someone you like (a lot!) and, therefore, the first examples, of holding hands while dancing, may fit the bill as they are associated at least with joy.  And Ovid advises men to flirt with everyone, even lowly maids, when he says *iunge tuis humiles, ambitiose, manus* (*Ars Armatoria*, 2.254).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, in fact, I couldn't find examples of people just strolling, hand in hand, in that way (which may be a reflection of cultural norms).  Nevertheless, Quintilian does use the simile of two men walking together, holding hands to steady themselves:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ut homines, qui **manibus** invicem **adprehensis** gradum firmant*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Orator's Education*, 9.4.129&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5331" RevisionGUID="d20202bc-2e2c-422c-8afb-c931b51b94ec" CreationDate="2017-10-01T05:47:38.360" UserId="235" Text="Does the Latin verb nosco come from Greek, or did the shared root (cf. γιγνώσκω) end up in Greek and Latin separately? [According to Wiktionary,][1] it seems to be the latter case, as the free dictionary traces the ancestry of nosco back to proto-Italic, not to Greek. This came as a surprise to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If indeed the two words evolved independently, then what would explain the shared stem vowel ō which comes from the PIE root *ǵneh₃-? Would the change have come from an ablaut early on and then ended up in the two languages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nosco#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17602" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5331" RevisionGUID="d20202bc-2e2c-422c-8afb-c931b51b94ec" CreationDate="2017-10-01T05:47:38.360" UserId="235" Text="Does the Latin nosco come from Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17603" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5331" RevisionGUID="d20202bc-2e2c-422c-8afb-c931b51b94ec" CreationDate="2017-10-01T05:47:38.360" UserId="235" Text="|classical-latin|etymology|greek|proto-indo-european|proto-italic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5330" RevisionGUID="702bd8a3-f68e-4d60-b279-9be2599ed200" CreationDate="2017-10-01T05:57:41.103" UserId="867" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="In addition to loading...'s excellent answer above, I would like to add a couple of suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***iunctus* (nom.) + dative of person with whom you are holding hands**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***iunctae**que Nymphis Gratiae decentes*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the becoming Graces hold hands with the Nymphs &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace, *Odes*, 1.4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *carae Proserpina **iuncta** Dianae*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proserpine holds hands with dear Diana&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Valerius Flaccus, *Argonautica*, 5.345&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither of these examples specify hands yet it is assumed that this is what they are doing because in both scenes they are dancing (like loading ...'s example above).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, *iungere + manus* is regularly used to mean exactly that.  See: Ovid, *Ars Armatoria*, 2.254; Statius, *Silvae*, 5.276; Valerius Flaccus, *Argonautica*, 1.636.  To this end, you could use ***iunctis manibus***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an interesting aside, *(con)iungere + dextera/dextra* (to mean the right hand) is also often used but the hand holding here seems to be more like a handshake, a sign of friendship and good faith.  See: Vergil, *Aeneid*, 3.83; 8.46, 8.164; Statius, *Thebaid*, 2.149.  However, *coniungere + manus* means marriage (e.g. Tibullus, *Elegies*, 1.6.60).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***manibus implexis* or *consertis manibus***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These both occur in Seneca (*On Benefits*, 1.3) where he is describing the three Graces holding hands.  However, it does seem to me that Seneca is trying to amplify the intertwinedness of their hands because he is discussing an eternal cycle of benefit giving and receiving.  So, this may be more a literary illustration than a simple hand-holding scenario.  Also, note that *conserere + manus* more typically means to engage in combat (e.g. Cicero, *Pro Murena*, 20).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***manibus adprehensis***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have assumed that your walking hand in hand is with someone you like (a lot!) and, therefore, the first examples, of holding hands while dancing, may fit the bill as they are associated at least with joy.  And Ovid advises men to flirt with everyone, even lowly maids, when he says *iunge tuis humiles, ambitiose, manus* (*Ars Armatoria*, 2.254).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, in fact, I couldn't find examples of people just strolling, hand in hand, in that way (which may be a reflection of cultural norms).  Nevertheless, Quintilian does use the simile of two men walking together, holding hands to steady themselves:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ut homines, qui **manibus** invicem **adprehensis** gradum firmant*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Orator's Education*, 9.4.129&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5332" RevisionGUID="854b5c63-3847-41ac-999a-0c214d8ff66e" CreationDate="2017-10-01T13:15:58.940" UserId="79" Text="In all cases of *ablativus absolutus* that I know, there is a main word and an attribute and both are in ablative.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *me absente* is &quot;while I am away&quot; and *Caesare duce* is &quot;when Caesar is in charge&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to replace the attribute with a prepositional phrase or something else that does not contain an bare ablative (without preposition).&#xD;&#xA;I sometimes find myself tempted to use expressions like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Caesare Romae** id fecimus.* &amp;mdash; We did it **while Caesar was in Rome**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Pane in mensa** edere coepimus.* &amp;mdash; We started to eat **when the bread was in the table**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ambulamus **manu in manu**.* &amp;mdash; We are walking **hand in hand**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There is also a [separate question about the last one](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5326/79).)&#xD;&#xA;I suspect these are wrong and I have resisted the temptation hitherto, but I would like confirmation.&#xD;&#xA;Does the absolute ablative always require two parts, both of them in ablative?&#xD;&#xA;Are there examples like the ones I suggested?&#xD;&#xA;I know I can fix most such sentences by adding a participle (e.g. *Caesare Romae versante* or *pane in mensa posito*), but my question is whether such a participle is necessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17606" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5332" RevisionGUID="854b5c63-3847-41ac-999a-0c214d8ff66e" CreationDate="2017-10-01T13:15:58.940" UserId="79" Text="Can the absolute ablative be used with a prepositional phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17607" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5332" RevisionGUID="854b5c63-3847-41ac-999a-0c214d8ff66e" CreationDate="2017-10-01T13:15:58.940" UserId="79" Text="|syntax|ablative|ablative-absolute|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5333" RevisionGUID="90b89bca-50e4-481a-a7d8-75c1c40a38e2" CreationDate="2017-10-01T15:03:05.127" UserId="645" Text="It is quite a usual thing in Latin to use the ablative case to indicate the *circumstances* under which the main clause's action (*sc*. that of the main verb) happens. In such a case, the rule is that the noun (or pronoun) may not appear in the main sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You seem to be confounding the *ablative absolute* with this, the so-called *ablative of attendant circumstances*. Your examples, however, are quite legitimate usage.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5333" RevisionGUID="86de4a23-35b3-43a5-bf51-0df8fc5e4774" CreationDate="2017-10-01T16:30:37.610" UserId="645" Comment="expanded in response to comment" Text="It is quite a usual thing in Latin to use the ablative case to indicate the *circumstances* under which the main clause's action (*sc*. that of the main verb) happens. In such a case, the rule is that the noun (or pronoun) may not appear in the main sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You seem to be confounding the *ablative absolute* with this, the so-called *ablative of attendant circumstances*. Your examples, however, are quite legitimate usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[expanded] The ablative has multiple uses, and grammarians of the past couple of centuries tended to invent their own names for them, which still today can cause confusion. For the most part, however, these usages came to have settled names (of origin, of comparison, of quality, of separation, of manner and so on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *ablative absolute* is set apart from the rest : it is not the ablative *OF* anything, but defines something connected with what happens in the rest of the sentence, to which it is an adjunct, and not an integral part of the action. It contains a noun/pronoun excluded from the main clause, and an epithet, which is most often a participle (of any tense) — for example *Cicero venturo*, Cicero is on his way — but may be otherwise. *Hirtio Pansaque consulibus* is an ablative absolute, constructed with a qualifying noun in the ablative, typically used to denominate a year in question, merely setting the background to what follows. Your example of *Caesare Romae*, similarly, uses a locative to say where Caesar is, rather than what he is up to, and may indeed have nothing to do directly with the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[It may be useful to add that there are conventions which recommend something other than the ablative absolute in certain circumstances, mainly on grounds of style. Thus, it is usual to write *Caesare duce* rather than *Caesare ducente*, while a dependent clause introduced by a conjunction to the main clause may be used instead of the ablative absolute: *cum obsides interfecti essent* for *obsidibus interfectis*.]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5334" RevisionGUID="1e8fb1c9-1666-46fb-8135-ae85049072bf" CreationDate="2017-10-01T16:42:56.410" UserId="406" Text="Latin *nōscō* and Greek *gignōskō* are cognates, but neither is directly derived from the other. They both come from the Proto-Indo-European root *_ǵneh₃-_ &quot;to know&quot;, plus the inchoative *_-sḱ-_ marking the present tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To quote Wtrmute's answer [here][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *h3 is called the &quot;o-colouring laryngeal,&quot; which means that it &quot;colours&quot; (i.e., changes) a neighbouring e into *o or *ō: the former from *h3o and the latter from *oh3. See *h3ewis &gt; ovis and *deh3[r/n]m̥ &gt; dōnum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*_ǵneh₃-sḱ-_ thus became *_gnō-sk-_, which became Latin *gnōscō*, later *nōscō*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Occasionally in PIE a present form would include reduplication, which usually indicated the perfect (much more common in Greek than Latin). That was the case here. From the reduplicated form *_ǵi-ǵneh₃-sḱ-_ came *_gi-gnō-sk-_, and thus Greek *gignōskō*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4137/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5335" RevisionGUID="5eaab6d1-694b-4e95-aa1b-af25cb3fec94" CreationDate="2017-10-01T19:19:55.050" UserId="1818" Text="To my surprise, the [English Wikipedia article about the concept of *homines novi*][1] is called *Novus Homo*, not *homo novus* as I would expect.&#xA;&#xA;I have been taught that Latin order is almost always substantive - verb (*fenestra aperta*) as opposed to English or German (open window, offenes Fenster). The original Latin texts I have read and remember all talk about *homo novus*, not *novus homo*.&#xA;&#xA;Since when has *novus homo* been used as a substitute for *homo novus*, or vice versa, depending which one has been coined first?&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_homo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17612" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5335" RevisionGUID="5eaab6d1-694b-4e95-aa1b-af25cb3fec94" CreationDate="2017-10-01T19:19:55.050" UserId="1818" Text="Homo Novus vs Novus Homo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17613" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5335" RevisionGUID="5eaab6d1-694b-4e95-aa1b-af25cb3fec94" CreationDate="2017-10-01T19:19:55.050" UserId="1818" Text="|classical-latin|etymology|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5336" RevisionGUID="aca415f2-01e6-4033-9c16-c7bf18cdc9d9" CreationDate="2017-10-01T19:22:16.357" UserId="68" Text="I'm looking at a Latin translation of the *Apology of Socrates* by Marcellus Ficinus and I'm puzzled by the very first clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quā vōs quidem ratiōne, Ō virī Athēniēnsēs, affēcerint accūsātōrēs meī, nesciō.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having trouble understanding *quā ratiōne* here. &quot;I don't know by what reason they affected you&quot;? &quot;I don't know by what logic they affected you&quot;? I've seen another translation that started with the same phrase except instead of *quā ratiōne* it used *quōmodo*, which is what I'd expect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the question at the base of this is, what does *Quā vōs ratiōne affēc[ērunt]* mean, and how is it different from *Quōmodo vōs affēc[ērunt]*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17615" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5336" RevisionGUID="aca415f2-01e6-4033-9c16-c7bf18cdc9d9" CreationDate="2017-10-01T19:22:16.357" UserId="68" Text="Quōmodo v. Quā ratiōne" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17616" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5336" RevisionGUID="aca415f2-01e6-4033-9c16-c7bf18cdc9d9" CreationDate="2017-10-01T19:22:16.357" UserId="68" Text="|idiom|word-comparison|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5337" RevisionGUID="e98d969f-e103-454d-8ce8-89b52be40bd3" CreationDate="2017-10-01T19:51:25.630" UserId="79" Text="The comparison here is between the nouns [*modus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=modus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) and [*ratio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=ratio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;Both words are extremely broad as the linked entries in L&amp;S indicate.&#xD;&#xA;Both dictionary entries contain the translations &quot;manner&quot;, &quot;method&quot;, and &quot;mode&quot; (*modus* II.B, *ratio* II.B.1.c.&amp;alpha;).&#xD;&#xA;I assume this is the intended meaning, in which case both *quo modo* and *qua ratione* mean &quot;how&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the words are different.&#xD;&#xA;Although their meanings overlap, they certainly differ in tone.&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that *modus* is more &quot;measure&quot; or &quot;limit&quot; and *ratio* is more &quot;reckoning&quot; by basic meaning.&#xD;&#xA;However, in this particular use the two words seem essentially synonymous to me.&#xD;&#xA;In particular, it seems that the fixed expression [*quo modo* (spelled together or separately)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=quomodo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) has a much narrower meaning than the entry for *modus* would suggest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5338" RevisionGUID="565b4cce-f372-4b92-b119-577c05f60e11" CreationDate="2017-10-01T19:51:31.123" UserId="68" Text="While it's true that it's &quot;standard&quot; for the adjective to follow the noun, Latin word order is VERY flexible, and a noun following an adjective is not at all unusual. A quick search of the corpus reveals that both appear more or less equally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5335" RevisionGUID="f39d8c30-8248-4c42-884b-f49415b67970" CreationDate="2017-10-01T19:53:56.650" UserId="79" Comment="added 20 characters in body; edited tags" Text="To my surprise, the [English Wikipedia article about the concept of *homines novi*][1] is called *Novus Homo*, not *homo novus* as I would expect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been taught that Latin order is almost always substantive &amp;ndash; adjective (*fenestra aperta*) as opposed to English or German (open window, offenes Fenster). The original Latin texts I have read and remember all talk about *homo novus*, not *novus homo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since when has *novus homo* been used as a substitute for *homo novus*, or vice versa, depending which one has been coined first?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_homo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17620" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5335" RevisionGUID="f39d8c30-8248-4c42-884b-f49415b67970" CreationDate="2017-10-01T19:53:56.650" UserId="79" Comment="added 20 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|etymology|syntax|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5336" RevisionGUID="4cc48bc2-127e-47a1-a2d5-617394256831" CreationDate="2017-10-01T19:56:49.633" UserId="68" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="I'm looking at a Latin translation of the *Apology of Socrates* by Marcellus Ficinus and I'm puzzled by the very first clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quā vōs quidem ratiōne, Ō virī Athēniēnsēs, affēcerint accūsātōrēs meī, nesciō.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having trouble understanding *quā ratiōne* here. Obviously it's supposed to be &quot;how,&quot; but I don't see how you get there. &quot;I don't know for what reason they affected you&quot;? &quot;I don't know by what logic they affected you&quot;? I've seen another translation that started with the same phrase except instead of *quā ratiōne* it used *quōmodo*, which is what I'd expect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the question at the base of this is, what does *Quā vōs ratiōne affēc[ērunt]* mean, and how is it different from *Quōmodo vōs affēc[ērunt]*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** After reading @JoonasIlmavirta's answer, I did some searching and found that, interestingly, the phrase *quōmodo et quā ratiōne* seems to be scattered all over the literature. So there's very clearly a difference. I just can't figure out what it is. . . ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5336" RevisionGUID="fbc2469a-a6fb-4aaf-b4e6-681c88c86ec3" CreationDate="2017-10-01T20:09:12.990" UserId="68" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="I'm looking at a Latin translation of the *Apology of Socrates* by Marcellus Ficinus and I'm puzzled by the very first clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quā vōs quidem ratiōne, Ō virī Athēniēnsēs, affēcerint accūsātōrēs meī, nesciō.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having trouble understanding *quā ratiōne* here. Obviously it's supposed to be &quot;how,&quot; but I don't see how you get there. &quot;I don't know for what reason they affected you&quot;? &quot;I don't know by what logic they affected you&quot;? I've seen another translation that started with the same phrase except instead of *quā ratiōne* it used *quōmodo*, which is what I'd expect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the question at the base of this is, how is *Quā vōs ratiōne affēc[ērunt]* different from *Quōmodo vōs affēc[ērunt]*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5338" RevisionGUID="21ccbe5f-5189-46d0-b817-5abe3b1b0969" CreationDate="2017-10-01T20:13:21.253" UserId="68" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="While it's true that it's &quot;standard&quot; for the adjective to follow the noun, Latin word order is VERY flexible, and a noun following an adjective is not at all unusual. A quick search of the corpus at http://latin.packhum.org/search reveals that both appear more or less equally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5339" RevisionGUID="9d4e6956-5f67-4c65-a6e2-925379e3ebfe" CreationDate="2017-10-01T22:14:00.690" UserId="2033" Text="I found two inscriptions on a building in central Italy (both in Latin).&#xD;&#xA;The first one describes how two guys with lots of titles decided to erect the building and it ends with a commonly seen A.D. MDCXXXII.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one states that the previous building collapsed and a new one was built by other two man with multiple titles. At the end it says &quot;A.S. CDDCCLXXI&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this mean? I find it particularly strange that they use &quot;A.S.&quot;, which I couldn't find on the list of abbreviations on Wikipedia, and &quot;CDD&quot;, which I cannot make sense of (it would be too early if it meant 900). Does anyone know?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17625" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5339" RevisionGUID="9d4e6956-5f67-4c65-a6e2-925379e3ebfe" CreationDate="2017-10-01T22:14:00.690" UserId="2033" Text="Uncommon latin year inscription" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17626" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5339" RevisionGUID="9d4e6956-5f67-4c65-a6e2-925379e3ebfe" CreationDate="2017-10-01T22:14:00.690" UserId="2033" Text="|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5333" RevisionGUID="762c7abc-647c-4a51-bde8-b2fb8f7fb643" CreationDate="2017-10-02T05:40:30.533" UserId="645" Comment="3 words to last para." Text="It is quite a usual thing in Latin to use the ablative case to indicate the *circumstances* under which the main clause's action (*sc*. that of the main verb) happens. In such a case, the rule is that the noun (or pronoun) may not appear in the main sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You seem to be confounding the *ablative absolute* with this, the so-called *ablative of attendant circumstances*. Your examples, however, are quite legitimate usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[expanded] The ablative has multiple uses, and grammarians of the past couple of centuries tended to invent their own names for them, which still today can cause confusion. For the most part, however, these usages came to have settled names (of origin, of comparison, of quality, of separation, of manner and so on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *ablative absolute* is set apart from the rest : it is not the ablative *OF* anything, but defines something connected with what happens in the rest of the sentence, to which it is an adjunct, and not an integral part of the action. It contains a noun/pronoun excluded from the main clause, and an epithet, which is most often a participle (of any tense) — for example *Cicero venturo*, Cicero is on his way — but may be otherwise. *Hirtio Pansaque consulibus* is an ablative absolute, constructed with a qualifying noun in the ablative, typically used to denominate a year in question, merely setting the background to what follows. Your example of *Caesare Romae*, similarly, uses a locative to say where Caesar is, rather than what he is up to, and may indeed have nothing to do directly with the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[It may be useful to add that there are conventions which recommend something other than the ablative absolute *with a participle* in certain circumstances, mainly on grounds of style. Thus, it is usual to write *Caesare duce* rather than *Caesare ducente*, while a dependent clause introduced by a conjunction to the main clause may be used instead of the ablative absolute: *cum obsides interfecti essent* for *obsidibus interfectis*.]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5330" RevisionGUID="d24ea8c0-9588-46c1-986c-754dd40b2f83" CreationDate="2017-10-02T06:04:15.647" UserId="867" Comment="Comment added" Text="In addition to loading...'s excellent answer above, I would like to add a couple of suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***iunctus* (nom.) + dative of person with whom you are holding hands**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***iunctae**que Nymphis Gratiae decentes*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the becoming Graces hold hands with the Nymphs &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace, *Odes*, 1.4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *carae Proserpina **iuncta** Dianae*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proserpine holds hands with dear Diana&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Valerius Flaccus, *Argonautica*, 5.345&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither of these examples specify hands yet it is assumed that this is what they are doing because in both scenes they are dancing (like loading ...'s example above).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, *iungere + manus* is regularly used to mean exactly that.  See: Ovid, *Ars Armatoria*, 2.254; Statius, *Silvae*, 5.276; Valerius Flaccus, *Argonautica*, 1.636.  To this end, you could use ***iunctis manibus***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an interesting aside, *(con)iungere + dextera/dextra* (to mean the right hand) is also often used but the hand holding here seems to be more like a handshake, a sign of friendship and good faith.  See: Vergil, *Aeneid*, 3.83; 8.46, 8.164; Statius, *Thebaid*, 2.149.  However, *coniungere + manus* means marriage (e.g. Tibullus, *Elegies*, 1.6.60).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***manibus implexis* or *consertis manibus***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These both occur in Seneca (*On Benefits*, 1.3) where he is describing the three Graces holding hands.  However, it does seem to me that Seneca is trying to amplify the intertwinedness of their hands because he is discussing an eternal cycle of benefit giving and receiving.  So, this may be more a literary illustration than a simple hand-holding scenario.  Also, note that *conserere + manus* more typically means to engage in combat (e.g. Cicero, *Pro Murena*, 20).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***manibus adprehensis***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have assumed that your walking hand in hand is with someone you like (a lot!) and, therefore, the first examples, of holding hands while dancing, may fit the bill as they are associated at least with joy.  And Ovid advises men to flirt with everyone, even lowly maids, when he says *iunge tuis humiles, ambitiose, manus* (*Ars Armatoria*, 2.254).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, in fact, I couldn't find examples of people just strolling, hand in hand, in that way (which may be a reflection of cultural norms).  Nevertheless, Quintilian does use the simile of two men walking together, holding hands to steady themselves:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ut homines, qui **manibus** invicem **adprehensis** gradum firmant*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Orator's Education*, 9.4.129&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[addendum] Unfortunately (in light of your question), every instance of hand holding I encounter in the texts either uses an ablative absolute, a participle (as in the first two examples here) or simply the conjugated form of *iungere + manus* (as object). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, perhaps this comes somewhat close to what you want by using a nominative form of *manus*. It's from Seneca, *Apocolocyntosis*: *manus manum lavat* / one hand washes another (as in, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours). So, perhaps you could say, ***ambulamus, manus manum iungit***.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2774" RevisionGUID="40cc9198-e626-4765-a53e-a4b24171697b" CreationDate="2017-10-02T08:16:39.437" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="In Jonathan Swift's &quot;A Tale of a Tub&quot;, at the end of section X there is a Latin quote which I'm having trouble translating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A cujus lacrymis humecta prodit substantia, à risu lucida, à tristitiâ solida, &amp; à timore mobilis,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    a - of, from&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    cujus - gen - &quot;whose&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    lachrymis - abl pl - tears&#xD;&#xA;    humecta - fem nom or abl. - wet&#xD;&#xA;    prodit - he gives, brings forth&#xD;&#xA;    substantia - fem nom or abl - substance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    risu - abl. - mockery or laughter&#xD;&#xA;    lucida - fem sing. or abl - shiny, bright, lucid&#xD;&#xA;    tristitia - fem sing or abl - sorrow, melancholy&#xD;&#xA;    solida - fem sing or abl or neut accus. pl. - solid&#xD;&#xA;    mobilis - masc/fem sing nom or gen - moveable, loose, pliant&#xD;&#xA;    timore - abl sing of timor - fear, dread&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is 'prodo' one of those verbs whose object takes the dative or ablative case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope someone can help me translate this, it doesn't make much sense at the moment. Just to embarrass myself, here's an attempt: &quot;Whose wet substance bears tears, whose clear [substance bears] laughter, whose solid [substance bears] sorrow, whose loose [substance bears] fear?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds weird to put the second word in each pair in the nominative case, but if they are ablative then &quot;mobilis&quot; doesn't fit...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context of the Latin is &quot;But then he must beware of Bythus and Sigè and be sure not to forget the qualities of Acamoth: A cujus lacrymis humecta prodit substantia, à risu lucida, à tristitiâ solida, &amp; à timore mobilis [...]&quot;. I believe that Bythus and Sigè and Acamoth are Gnostic spiritual powers. I'm not sure why Swift is invoking them here, but the rest of the book is largely a satire on religion.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17632" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2774" RevisionGUID="40cc9198-e626-4765-a53e-a4b24171697b" CreationDate="2017-10-02T08:16:39.437" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Tale of a Tub – &quot;A cujus lacrymis humecta prodit substantia&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17633" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2774" RevisionGUID="40cc9198-e626-4765-a53e-a4b24171697b" CreationDate="2017-10-02T08:16:39.437" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2887" RevisionGUID="68af2e7f-754a-4c9a-b1cd-04603650e59c" CreationDate="2017-10-02T08:23:41.710" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="I would like to say, &quot;I am a grumpy dog,&quot; since I did not get my proper sleep last night. I have a few guesses about &quot;grumpy&quot;, but these are only guesses. I looked up &quot;grumpy&quot; on Whitaker's words and found nothing. I looked up [&quot;irritable&quot;][1] and found *stomachosus* as well as *acriculus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stomachosus canis sum. / Acriculus canis sum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to know if either of these words are *le mot juste*. If not, what would you suggest?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?english=irritable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17635" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2887" RevisionGUID="68af2e7f-754a-4c9a-b1cd-04603650e59c" CreationDate="2017-10-02T08:23:41.710" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|vocabulary|word-request|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5340" RevisionGUID="6bed23cc-1767-45cc-ac2e-94273eae1f4a" CreationDate="2017-10-02T12:59:36.527" UserId="324" Text="It is apparently a quotation from Irenaeus, as explained here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5P8lAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA15&amp;lpg=PA15&amp;dq=%22humecta+prodit+substantia%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PDzoy4PlLv&amp;sig=v88C3RHnvk65GyQX-KKxEVPiHKM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjHiOOX_tHWAhXmIcAKHXuhClQQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22humecta%20prodit%20substantia%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in footnote 3&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5341" RevisionGUID="3be33b3b-6554-462c-b07b-3506a71c006a" CreationDate="2017-10-02T13:12:11.173" UserId="324" Text="I suspect it says CǀƆǀƆCCLXXI = 1500 + 200 + 50 + 20 + 1 = 1771&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, as Joonas says, it would be helpful to see a photograph." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5341" RevisionGUID="bb73c4b2-c83e-4352-b1f1-693a69b2ef95" CreationDate="2017-10-02T13:40:56.380" UserId="324" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="I suspect it says CǀƆǀƆCCLXXI = 1500 + 200 + 50 + 20 + 1 = 1771&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, as Joonas says, it would be helpful to see a photograph.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A.S. is &quot;anno Salvatoris&quot; (as Hugh has mentioned)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17639" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="1315" RevisionGUID="69e560e4-0a4c-4c65-a3ed-9d18f8038bf2" CreationDate="2017-10-02T20:45:39.697" UserId="79" Comment="56" />
  <row Id="17640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2698" RevisionGUID="91ab137f-220b-4c24-8b80-adde0072bbc5" CreationDate="2017-10-02T21:58:49.590" UserId="79" Comment="Tried to reformat a little to remove the dashes." Text="I think that both *index* and *tabula ciborum* work as calques but I can’t find any evidence for either in classical sources.  Indeed, I can’t find any information about whether there even were menus at *tabernae/popinae/cauponae*.  My understanding is that the foods were simply on display.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;I also can’t find any evidence for *tabella cibariorum* but I did find a *wonderful* parallel in Greek: *γραμματειδιον*, also a diminutive, meaning little writing tablet.  Moreover, it is clearly being used to describe a menu, or at the least, a list of the food to be served, albeit at a dinner party:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Οτι εθος ην εν τοις δειπνοις τῳ εστιατορι κατακλιθεντι προδιδοσθαι&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **γραμματειδιον** τι περιεχον των παρεσκευασμενων, εφ ῳ ειδεναι ο τι&#xD;&#xA;&gt; μελλει οψον φερειν ο μαγειρος.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It was the custom at dinner parties for the host to be offered a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **little writing tablet** with a list of the foods prepared when he lay&#xD;&#xA;&gt; down, so that he would know what food the cook was going to bring in.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Athenaeus, *The Learned Banqueters*, 2.49d (please excuse the lack of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accents and breathings – it just takes too long to type them all in!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Latin suggestion is also from the dinner-party scene: *fercula*.  A *ferculum* was a tray used for carrying things, including meals and the plural, *fercula*, became a metonym for courses (of a meal). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Fercula** nunc audi …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now listen to the **courses** [I’m going to serve] …&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Juvenal, *Satires*, 11.64&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *multaque de magna superessent **fercula** cena*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and many **courses** left over from the great dinner&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Horace, *Satires*, 2.6.24&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Martial, complaining about his host at a dinner party who recited his own poems …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *… dum **fercula** prima morantur*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; … while the first **course** awaits&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Martial, *Epigrams*, 3.50.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sequens **ferculum** fuit scriblita frigida*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the next **course** was a cold tart&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Petronius, *Satyricon*, 66&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *cenam ternis **ferculis** aut cum abundantissime senis praebebat*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; he served dinner with three **courses** or six at his most lavish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suetonius, *Lives of the Caesars: Augustus*, LXXIV&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *fercula*/courses could stand alone for “menu”.  Or you could follow the Greek precedent and combine it with *tabella* to give *tabella ferculorum*/a little tablet of courses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5342" RevisionGUID="99310153-23f1-47ba-b8f9-a601a7fb2558" CreationDate="2017-10-02T22:03:17.513" UserId="79" Text="There is a modern myth that if one throws a coin in Fontana di Trevi, faith will make them come back to Rome.&#xD;&#xA;Was there anything similar in ancient Rome?&#xD;&#xA;Any kind of belief, mythological story, myth, legend, or similar would be great, if someone can point to a suitable passage in the literature.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure how close to the modern fountain story ancient counterparts might come, so I will have to leave it somewhat open-ended." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17642" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5342" RevisionGUID="99310153-23f1-47ba-b8f9-a601a7fb2558" CreationDate="2017-10-02T22:03:17.513" UserId="79" Text="Did the ancient Romans have a myth about returning to Rome?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17643" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5342" RevisionGUID="99310153-23f1-47ba-b8f9-a601a7fb2558" CreationDate="2017-10-02T22:03:17.513" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|roman-culture|passage-request|mythology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5343" RevisionGUID="3c33abfd-c00f-409d-b1a8-691641e2f1ff" CreationDate="2017-10-03T07:17:09.077" UserId="79" Text="Suppose, for example, that a child is watching his dad come home from work.&#xD;&#xA;She can't wait any longer to show what she's got, so she goes to the window and shows her new teddy bear to her dad.&#xD;&#xA;How can I say &quot;she showed it to him **from the window**&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The bolded part is what I am unsure about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see various options, but I can't tell which, if any, is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Illa id huic monstravit **ex fenestra**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Illa id huic monstravit **in fenestra**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Illa id huic monstravit **a fenestra**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Illa id huic monstravit **per fenestram**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Illa id huic monstravit **fenestra**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronouns are irrelevant for this question.&#xD;&#xA;**Is there an (attested) idiom for doing something from a window**, be it showing a teddy bear, singing a song, or greeting a friend?&#xD;&#xA;If different actions require different choices of words, I give precedent to the example given above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17645" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5343" RevisionGUID="3c33abfd-c00f-409d-b1a8-691641e2f1ff" CreationDate="2017-10-03T07:17:09.077" UserId="79" Text="How do you show something from a window?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17646" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5343" RevisionGUID="3c33abfd-c00f-409d-b1a8-691641e2f1ff" CreationDate="2017-10-03T07:17:09.077" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|grammar-choice|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5342" RevisionGUID="6584f27e-6a36-4798-a2e5-ed3176f36cc8" CreationDate="2017-10-03T16:39:02.657" UserId="79" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="There is a modern myth (or perhaps rather folklore, superstition or something else) that if one throws a coin in Fontana di Trevi, faith will make them come back to Rome.&#xD;&#xA;Was there anything similar in ancient Rome?&#xD;&#xA;Any kind of belief, mythological story, myth, legend, folklore, or similar would be great, if someone can point to a suitable passage in the literature.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure how close to the modern fountain story ancient counterparts might come, so I will have to leave it somewhat open-ended." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5345" RevisionGUID="235c7809-c334-4ecf-8fb9-6cd2cac35544" CreationDate="2017-10-03T23:46:22.663" UserId="68" Text="I'm reading Ficīnus's Latin translation of Plato's *Apology* and came across the following passage, two things in which baffle me. (They're unrelated, so I'm making them two separate questions.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Socrates is talking about why he never entered politics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hujus autem causa est, dē quā sæpe mē passim dīcentem audīvistis, dīvīnum vidēlicet quiddam atque dæmonium in vōce quādam mihi adesse.... Sed mihi quidem ab ipsā pueritiā hoc adest—vōx scīlicet quædam—quæ quotiēs fit, mē prohibet agere, quod āctūrus eram, prōvocat vērō nunquam. Hoc, inquam, est, quod mihi **repugnet** quō minus mē ad publica cōnferam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is *repugnet* subjunctive? It's not a generic thing (&quot;I found something that fought against my going into politics&quot;); it's one specific thing—the voice and its counsel to him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what gives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17653" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5345" RevisionGUID="235c7809-c334-4ecf-8fb9-6cd2cac35544" CreationDate="2017-10-03T23:46:22.663" UserId="68" Text="subjunctive after &quot;Hoc est, quod&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17654" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5345" RevisionGUID="235c7809-c334-4ecf-8fb9-6cd2cac35544" CreationDate="2017-10-03T23:46:22.663" UserId="68" Text="|grammar-choice|conjunctive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5346" RevisionGUID="5febb95a-e5db-4262-92da-17de940f8c3a" CreationDate="2017-10-03T23:51:48.710" UserId="68" Text="I'm reading Ficīnus's Latin translation of Plato's *Apology* and came across the following passage, two things in which baffle me. (They're unrelated, so I'm making them two separate questions.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Socrates is talking about why he never entered politics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hujus autem causa est, dē quā sæpe mē passim dīcentem audīvistis, dīvīnum vidēlicet quiddam atque dæmonium in vōce quādam mihi adesse.... Sed mihi quidem ab ipsā pueritiā hoc adest—vōx scīlicet quædam—**quæ quotiēs fit, mē prohibet agere**, quod āctūrus eram, prōvocat vērō nunquam. Hoc, inquam, est, quod mihi repugnet quō minus mē ad publica cōnferam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to figure out the grammar of the bolded section. I could see something like *quotiēs fit ut mē prohibeat agere* or even *quæ quotiēs fit ut mē prohibeat agere*, with the implied word order *quotiēs fit ut [quæ] mē prohibeat agere*. Even repunctuating it doesn't help: *Sed mihi hoc adest quæ quotiēs fit. Mē prohibet agere, quod....* Now *mē prohibet agere* makes sense but what comes before it is nonsense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's going on?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17656" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5346" RevisionGUID="5febb95a-e5db-4262-92da-17de940f8c3a" CreationDate="2017-10-03T23:51:48.710" UserId="68" Text="grammar perplexity in Ficīnus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17657" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5346" RevisionGUID="5febb95a-e5db-4262-92da-17de940f8c3a" CreationDate="2017-10-03T23:51:48.710" UserId="68" Text="|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5347" RevisionGUID="257ffa0c-866f-45f5-b319-3f8d7648db2e" CreationDate="2017-10-04T02:28:19.460" UserId="867" Text="The examples closest to your phrase that I could find favour ***per fenestram***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These examples are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a husband finds his wife looking too often out a window in Augustine, *Letters*, no. 57 (to&#xD;&#xA;   Lampadius):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *immoderatius per fenestram aspicientem*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Tanaquil addressing a crowd from the top-floor windows in Livy,&#xD;&#xA;   *History of Rome*, 1.1: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *per fenestras ... populum Tanaquil adloquitur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a lot of throwing things out of windows which also uses *per*, e.g. Apuleius, *Met.*, 4.12; Macrobius, *Sat.*, 2.22; Seneca, *Cons. to Marcia*, 22; Propertius, *Elegies*, 4.7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Fenestra (abl.)*** is used by Martial to describe a brothel owner spotting a naked Nanneius from the window (*Epigrams*, 11.61) (whereupon she closes the doors).  Apuleius also uses the ablative for someone leaning from a window (*Met.*, 4.12).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5347" RevisionGUID="dcb5f980-a883-412c-830e-a4ea33693232" CreationDate="2017-10-04T02:46:37.393" UserId="867" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The examples closest to your scenario that I could find favour ***per fenestram***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These examples are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a husband finds his wife looking too often out a window in Augustine, *Letters*, no. 57 (to&#xD;&#xA;   Lampadius):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *immoderatius per fenestram aspicientem*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Tanaquil addressing a crowd from the top-floor windows in Livy,&#xD;&#xA;   *History of Rome*, 1.1: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *per fenestras ... populum Tanaquil adloquitur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a lot of throwing things out of windows which also uses *per*, e.g. Apuleius, *Met.*, 4.12; Macrobius, *Sat.*, 2.22; Seneca, *Cons. to Marcia*, 22; Propertius, *Elegies*, 4.7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Fenestra (abl.)*** is used by Martial to describe a brothel owner spotting a naked Nanneius from the window (*Epigrams*, 11.61) (whereupon she closes the doors).  Apuleius also uses the ablative for someone leaning from a window (*Met.*, 4.12).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17660" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="5346" RevisionGUID="07711856-f6a9-4b32-9cd5-d2ae680439a7" CreationDate="2017-10-04T02:48:00.467" UserId="68" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:68,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joel Derfner&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5347" RevisionGUID="1acf0d6a-b856-4d5a-b09b-4cc3d428d473" CreationDate="2017-10-04T04:05:00.287" UserId="867" Comment="added an example to strengthen argument for per fenestram and included new example using the preposition ex" Text="The examples closest to your scenario that I could find favour ***per fenestram***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These examples are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a husband finds his wife looking too often out a window in Augustine, *Letters*, no. 57 (to&#xD;&#xA;   Lampadius):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *immoderatius per fenestram aspicientem*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Tanaquil addressing a crowd from the top-floor windows in Livy,&#xD;&#xA;   *History of Rome*, 1.1: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *per fenestras ... populum Tanaquil adloquitur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a crowd is half-visible through the windows in Apuleius, *Met.*, 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nonnulli per fenestras ... semiconspicui*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a lot of throwing things out of windows which also uses *per*, e.g. Apuleius, *Met.*, 4.12; Macrobius, *Sat.*, 2.22; Seneca, *Cons. to Marcia*, 22; Propertius, *Elegies*, 4.7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Fenestra (abl.)*** is used by Martial to describe a brothel owner spotting a naked Nanneius from the window (*Epigrams*, 11.61) (whereupon she closes the doors).  Apuleius also uses the ablative for someone leaning from a window (*Met.*, 4.12).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ex fenestris*** is used by Livy (*History of Rome*, 24.21) of crowds looking out from the roofs and windows: *ex tectis fenestrisque prospectant*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17662" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="5346" RevisionGUID="164c5c0e-6c0f-47ef-b898-090aaed861fd" CreationDate="2017-10-04T13:11:11.580" UserId="68" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:68,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joel Derfner&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5348" RevisionGUID="c6df152c-74ea-4af0-aed9-801e4ba74399" CreationDate="2017-10-04T17:03:19.620" UserId="985" Text="The relative clause is _quae me prohibit agere_, and the clause _quoties fit_ is subordinate to it. If it helps, just add a comma after _quae_: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _quae, quoties fit, me prohibet..._, 'which, as often as it occurs, prohibits me....'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5349" RevisionGUID="ba240356-5e36-49dc-bb7b-753fc0266e82" CreationDate="2017-10-04T17:24:59.643" UserId="235" Text="On the recommendation of an esteemed Finnish member of our forum, I decided to ask how one would translate &quot;night owl&quot; into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [night owl][1] (noun)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a person who keeps late hours at night&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I first checked Whitaker's words, and the only general word it gives for &quot;owl&quot; is cicuma, -ae. Unsurprisingly, there was no entry for &quot;night  owl&quot;  per se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus my best guess would be phrases like &quot;cicuma noctis&quot; or &quot;cicuma nocturna&quot;. But I also feel there is a good chance that this concept existed in ancient Rome, and had its own word or phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any attested examples of the concept of a &quot;night owl&quot;? If so, what word(s) did the author use? If not, what word(s) would you use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/night%20owl" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17665" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5349" RevisionGUID="ba240356-5e36-49dc-bb7b-753fc0266e82" CreationDate="2017-10-04T17:24:59.643" UserId="235" Text="What would be a &quot;night owl&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17666" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5349" RevisionGUID="ba240356-5e36-49dc-bb7b-753fc0266e82" CreationDate="2017-10-04T17:24:59.643" UserId="235" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5350" RevisionGUID="52ded79e-9e0c-46eb-97d1-776a4168872a" CreationDate="2017-10-04T18:21:27.333" UserId="79" Text="I suggest the word *nocticola*, which literally means &quot;night-dweller&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The [entry in Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=nocticola&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) describes it as &quot;fond of the night&quot; and gives one use example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately the word seems to be rare and I could not find any classical attestations.&#xD;&#xA;However, it is a very natural derivative &amp;mdash; just like Ovid's *monticola* &amp;mdash; so I have no doubt the Romans of the classical Latin would have no problem with the word.&#xD;&#xA;It just happens to be a &quot;not-even-*hapax*&quot; *legomenon*, so to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps there are other options out there as well.&#xD;&#xA;I would certainly like to learn more words to describe my sleep cycle&amp;hellip;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5351" RevisionGUID="8dd9262b-8f0f-4df8-bd71-fbf017cd076c" CreationDate="2017-10-04T18:42:02.387" UserId="985" Text="The verb _lucubrare_ means (_OLD_ definition 1) 'To work by lamplight (i.e. late at night), &quot;burn the midnight oil.&quot;' For example, Pliny uses this verb in letter 3.5 to talk about his uncle's work/study habits:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed erat acre ingenium, incredibile stadium, summa vigilantia. lucubrare Vulcanalibus incipiebat non auspicandi causa sed studendi statim a nocte multa, hieme vero ab hora septima vel cum tardissime octava, saepe sexta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several words derived from this verb: _lucubratio_, _lucubratiuncula_, and _lucubratorius_. Although _lucubrator_ ('a person who works, studies, etc. late at night') isn't one of these, it's easy enough to derive it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5352" RevisionGUID="d02ef6da-0fc5-488e-8cdb-2e285b956211" CreationDate="2017-10-04T22:32:24.697" UserId="406" Text="The famous Civil War is best known from Caesar's own account of it. But we also have Lucan's epic *Pharsalia*, and a fairly thorough account in Cassius Dio's histories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Livy's account, and likely many others, have been lost. Do we have any other surviving sources describing the war?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17670" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5352" RevisionGUID="d02ef6da-0fc5-488e-8cdb-2e285b956211" CreationDate="2017-10-04T22:32:24.697" UserId="406" Text="What surviving sources describe the civil war between Caesar and Pompeius?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17671" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5352" RevisionGUID="d02ef6da-0fc5-488e-8cdb-2e285b956211" CreationDate="2017-10-04T22:32:24.697" UserId="406" Text="|history|gaius-iulius-caesar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5353" RevisionGUID="82acb758-7ba8-4b66-ad22-5b58f497133e" CreationDate="2017-10-04T22:59:26.733" UserId="68" Text="Seneca is your man. In Ep 122 he uses the word *lychnobius*: one who lives by lamplight. I don't have the text handy but I was talking about this word yesterday. I'll add it when I get home." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5353" RevisionGUID="3fbd7b31-c307-4af4-a1f8-ec393c04cb1e" CreationDate="2017-10-04T23:16:31.053" UserId="68" Comment="added passage supporting use" Text="Seneca is your man. In Ep 122 he uses the word *lychnobius*: one who lives by lamplight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll quote the passage in full, because it's so great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pedonem Albinovanum narrantem audieramus (erat&#xD;&#xA;autem fabulator elegantissimus) habitasse se supra domum Sex. Papini. Is erat ex hac turba lucifugarum. 'Audio' inquit 'circa horam tertiam noctis flagellorum sonum. Quaero quid faciat: dicitur rationes accipere. Audio circa horam sextam&#xD;&#xA;noctis clamorem concitatum. Quaero quid sit: dicitur vocem exercere. Quaero circa horam octavam noctis quid sibi ille sonus rotarum velit: gestari dicitur. Circa lucem discurritur, pueri vocantur, cellarii, coqui tumultuantur. Quaero quid sit: dicitur mulsum et halicam poposcisse, a balneo exisse. &quot;Excedebat&quot; inquit &quot;huius diem cena.&quot; Minime; valde enim frugaliter vivebat; nihil consumebat nisi noctem.' Itaque Pedo dicentibus illum quibusdam avarum et sordidum 'vos' inquit 'illum et **lychnobium** dicetis'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5354" RevisionGUID="0cff706b-f744-42eb-a301-8af5df807c54" CreationDate="2017-10-05T14:33:12.750" UserId="1763" Text="&quot;Bellum Civile&quot; by Appian&#xA;&#xA;&quot;De Vita Caesarum&quot; by Suton contains Parts about Caesar (and the civil war)&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5354" RevisionGUID="c553a502-230c-4e87-a554-4d333263eba0" CreationDate="2017-10-05T17:28:29.387" UserId="78" Comment="English names" Text="&quot;Bellum Civile&quot; by Appian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;De Vita Caesarum&quot; by Seutonius contains parts about Caesar (and the civil war).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5351" RevisionGUID="6e551354-c007-4603-8006-9e85f99743b1" CreationDate="2017-10-05T19:41:11.367" UserId="727" Comment="highlighted word in quote" Text="The verb _lucubrare_ means (_OLD_ definition 1) 'To work by lamplight (i.e. late at night), &quot;burn the midnight oil.&quot;' For example, Pliny uses this verb in letter 3.5 to talk about his uncle's work/study habits:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed erat acre ingenium, incredibile stadium, summa vigilantia. *lucubrare* Vulcanalibus incipiebat non auspicandi causa sed studendi statim a nocte multa, hieme vero ab hora septima vel cum tardissime octava, saepe sexta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Emphasis added&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several words derived from this verb: _lucubratio_, _lucubratiuncula_, and _lucubratorius_. Although _lucubrator_ ('a person who works, studies, etc. late at night') isn't one of these, it's easy enough to derive it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17679" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5351" RevisionGUID="6e551354-c007-4603-8006-9e85f99743b1" CreationDate="2017-10-05T19:41:11.367" Comment="Proposed by 727 approved by 1694, 79 edit id of 216" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5355" RevisionGUID="c78d288f-2fbc-4feb-acb4-03916af85d46" CreationDate="2017-10-05T19:50:55.947" UserId="78" Text="We shouldn't trust Lucan's *Pharsalia* for history, as it is decidedly not so. Besides being far removed (by almost a century!), Lucan had a [clear ax to grind](http://earlylatinwritings.com/imperial/lucan/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Though the poem covered historical events, Lucan did not mean to convey a historically accurate poem. First, it must be remembered that Caesar's death was over 90 years prior the composition of the poem's first book. Second, it was more important for Lucan to convey Stoic principles. which did not easily line up with a the Julio-Claudian will, as well as deliberate invert the pro-Caesar, pro-Augustan point-of-view he found in the *Aeneid*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cassius Dio, Appian, and Suetonius are all mentioned and worth reading. We also have Plutarch's *Life of Caesar*, *Life of Pompey*, and *Life of Cato the Younger*, as well as *Life of Cicero*, all of which have useful information in them and can be found on [Lacus Curtius](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/home.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You also have the three additional works appended to the end of Caesar's *Commentarii*: the *Bellum Alexandrinum*, *Bellum Africum*, and *Bellum Hispaniense*, which were probably written subordinates of Caesar perhaps even after his death. (The *Bellum Alexandrinum* is thought to be written by either Oppius or Hirtius, the other two are wholly anonymous.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also do not neglect Cicero's letters, which apart from Caesar's works provide the best first-hand account of the lead up and consequences of the war.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, though fragmentary, [Nicholas of Damascus' *Life of Augustus*](http://www.attalus.org/translate/nicolaus1.html) contains some information, though the work is about Augustus and therefore incidental to the war." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5356" RevisionGUID="d7b87227-f13a-481b-becd-0a8b6a20c566" CreationDate="2017-10-05T20:04:15.907" UserId="79" Text="What would be a good Latin translation for the verb &quot;to park&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;I mean contexts like &quot;I parked my car in front of his house&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer to have a classically attested verb, so my main question is this:&#xD;&#xA;How was parking a land vehicle typically expressed in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I want to exclude naval vessels and horses, but I assume the same expression would be equally valid for chariots, wagons, cars, and bicycles.&#xD;&#xA;Verbs like *ponere* and *relinquere* are certainly understandable, but I'm not sure if there is something better.&#xD;&#xA;What would you suggest, and why so?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17682" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5356" RevisionGUID="d7b87227-f13a-481b-becd-0a8b6a20c566" CreationDate="2017-10-05T20:04:15.907" UserId="79" Text="Which verb can I park a car with?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17683" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5356" RevisionGUID="d7b87227-f13a-481b-becd-0a8b6a20c566" CreationDate="2017-10-05T20:04:15.907" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|verbs|word-request|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2748" RevisionGUID="1ad8065e-29a0-419c-99e3-189e4e041ec1" CreationDate="2017-10-05T21:44:32.897" UserId="79" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="The current **communis opinio** is both Latin words oleum and oliva were borrowed from Greek, which, in its turn, are of Pre-Greek origin (e.g. [Beekes 2009/2016][1], Ernout &amp; Meillet 2001); cf. [Miller 2014][2] &quot;there are cultural and phonological reasons for thinking Latin borrowed it from Greek&quot; (p. 31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Miller 2014][2] writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Since Attic-Ionic lost /w/ prehistorically, Greek words borrowed into Latin with v /w/ are either from a West Greek (Doric) dialect, or possibly early enough to have been Mycenaean loans&quot; (p.31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oleum &lt; *olēwom &lt; *eleiwom &lt; Gk. *élaiwon (Miller 2014), cf. ἔλαιον&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin oliva &lt; Gk. *elaíwā ([Beekes 2009/2016][1]), cf. ἐλαία&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the sound changes above are well-known and described in any historical Latin grammar worth reading, e.g. Weiss 2009/2011 (the first book I grabbed from my bookshelves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *e &gt; o/_ɫ (p. 139);&#xD;&#xA; - ai &gt; ei &gt; e (&gt; i) (a-weakening, Weiss tells us, precedes monophthongization, p. 120);&#xD;&#xA; - *ei &gt; *ẹ̄ &gt; e (p. 143) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for a possible Etruscan intermediary hypothesis suggested by TKR (was it borrowed directly from Greek or via Etruscan?), this is highly speculative. As Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011 write,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;All languages of central Italy participate in borrowing words for material artefacts from Greek. **Often we may be unable to tell whether a word came directly from Greek or via the medium of another language**: Greek *kulίkʰna 'cup' borrowed as Latin *culigna*, Etruscan *culicna*, Oscan *culchina*/*culcfna*&quot; (p. 46; emphasis mine &amp;mdash; Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information we will need to look it up in De Simone 1968&amp;ndash;1970 and Watmough 1997 &amp;mdash; and I will. I encourage you to read these books too!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=greek&amp;id=gr2172&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9781614512950/9781614512950.25/9781614512950.25.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=montanari&amp;id=37852&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=montanari&amp;id=37815" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5357" RevisionGUID="0d1cebbc-9b8d-4243-86c2-3ae2a3441ffc" CreationDate="2017-10-05T23:29:23.577" UserId="1386" Text="I don't know how to say shoulders, giants, and upon, but I do not trust google translate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17686" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5357" RevisionGUID="0d1cebbc-9b8d-4243-86c2-3ae2a3441ffc" CreationDate="2017-10-05T23:29:23.577" UserId="1386" Text="How do you say &quot;We stand upon the shoulders of giants&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17687" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5357" RevisionGUID="0d1cebbc-9b8d-4243-86c2-3ae2a3441ffc" CreationDate="2017-10-05T23:29:23.577" UserId="1386" Text="|vocabulary|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5358" RevisionGUID="e213d110-8a12-44b9-9fd3-28e27d051fdb" CreationDate="2017-10-06T01:10:45.423" UserId="522" Text="John of Salisbury 1120-1180 wrote in 'Metalogicon Bk3 ch,4 **[Wikiquote][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dicebat Bernardus Carnotensis nos esse quasi nanos gigantium humeris&#xD;&#xA;&gt; insidentes, ut possimus plura eis et remotiora videre, non utique&#xD;&#xA;&gt; proprii visus acumine, aut eminentia corporis, sed quia in altum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subvehimur et extollimur magnitudine gigantea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is in indirect speech:  &quot;Bernard of Chartres used to say that we are as dwarfs sitting on the shoulders, so that we can see more things and more distant than they can,...&quot;  ...follow the link for a full translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to stay close to the original you could say: &quot;We are as dwarfs sitting upon the shoulders of giants.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quasi nani sumus gigantium humeris insidentes&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your version simply, &quot;We stand upon the shoulders of giants,&quot;   &#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Super humeris gigantium stamus.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_of_Salisbury" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5357" RevisionGUID="d1c0efa6-9284-4c14-8aff-27b9667f7f26" CreationDate="2017-10-06T07:20:43.150" UserId="79" Comment="Added the main question to the text body and edited slightly." Text="I would like to translate &quot;We stand upon the shoulders of giants&quot; to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how to say &quot;shoulders&quot;, &quot;giants&quot;, and &quot;upon&quot;, but I do not trust Google Translate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5359" RevisionGUID="b1467cdc-f52d-4925-841f-c35dc7d3af8f" CreationDate="2017-10-06T07:52:50.130" UserId="2042" Text="There are two possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The relative clause is consecutive (like &quot;Cerberus&quot; commented) and you could translate it like this: &quot;This, I say, is (generally) such a thing / something, that fights against me, ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The subjunctive could be jussive, like: &quot;This, I say, is it, that shall fight against me, ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, it's more likely to be the first one, considering the Greek original, that does not have a jussive construction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5359" RevisionGUID="b18d0bfd-1e34-4244-b615-da5ddd916d98" CreationDate="2017-10-06T07:58:18.980" UserId="2042" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="There are two possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The relative clause is consecutive (like &quot;Cerberus&quot; commented) and you could translate it like this: &quot;This, I say, is (generally) such a thing / something, that fights against me, ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The subjunctive could be jussive, like: &quot;This, I say, is it, that shall fight against me, ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, it's more likely to be the first one, considering the Greek original (Pl. Apol. 19), that does not have a jussive construction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5360" RevisionGUID="f26d501e-99f5-4a3e-b10c-e1179f4e087f" CreationDate="2017-10-06T09:28:49.937" UserId="645" Text="I'm not sure that the concept of vehicle parking was *quite* as familiar to the Romans as it is to us in the modern world, so an attested classical usage may be hard to find. But if you had wanted to park anything casually, from a *cisium* to a *quadriga*, I suggest that you would either choose a *stabularius*, a person to guard your property for money, or find a *locus statarius*, where you might simply 'park' it (equally, if relying on public transport, you might have found a *rheda publica* waiting for you at a similar spot).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to a more permanent place in which to leave your means of transport, *stabula equorum* or *vehiculorum* might serve. Smith offers a suggestion for 'livery stables', *stabula caballorum mercenaria*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because it conveys the sense of going off somewhere, rather than simply of depositing, I would much prefer *relinquo* to *pono* as the verb to use. When you arrived at your actual destination, you might say *Cisium in loco statario reliqui.*  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5361" RevisionGUID="7828e0b6-f608-41c7-83cf-d3fa38827156" CreationDate="2017-10-06T10:06:11.273" UserId="645" Text="Translated by the English 'would' or 'should' gives something like :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Let me say that I should find this so distasteful that I would not inflict it on the public,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— for which the subjunctive would naturally be used in returning it back into Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5354" RevisionGUID="ac272c86-631d-48e1-97e5-4eaf1f6a7d85" CreationDate="2017-10-06T16:55:42.167" UserId="1763" Comment="edited body" Text="&quot;Bellum Civile&quot; by Appian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;De Vita Caesarum&quot; by Suetonius contains parts about Caesar (and the civil war).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5361" RevisionGUID="e0aa9a4e-b873-4dc9-8531-a85ecaaa3921" CreationDate="2017-10-06T17:46:33.843" UserId="645" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Translated by the English 'would' or 'should' gives something like :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Let me say that I should find this so distasteful that I would not inflict it on the public,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— for which the subjunctive would naturally be used in turning it back into Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17697" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5356" RevisionGUID="f4c127cd-e35b-496c-9add-fe52d76a07e7" CreationDate="2017-10-06T20:55:30.513" UserId="136" Comment="moved preposition to proper location in title" Text="With which verb can I park a car?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5359" RevisionGUID="742cb78b-7f51-4909-a472-877f1b8c22e6" CreationDate="2017-10-06T20:58:19.677" UserId="136" Comment="removed quotes around username referenced and added link to specific comment" Text="There are two possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The relative clause is consecutive ([like Cerberus commented][1]) and you could translate it like this: &quot;This, I say, is (generally) such a thing / something, that fights against me, ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The subjunctive could be jussive, like: &quot;This, I say, is it, that shall fight against me, ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, it's more likely to be the first one, considering the Greek original (Pl. Apol. 19), that does not have a jussive construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5345/subjunctive-after-hoc-est-quod#comment10925_5345" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5362" RevisionGUID="ce854fab-80e8-4218-989e-6b908a79b6ef" CreationDate="2017-10-06T21:54:23.377" UserId="2045" Text="I'm considering getting a tattoo with the phrase &quot;Seize the loyal&quot; in Latin, but I'm not 100% how to translate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first guess was *Carpe fidelis* based on *Carpe diem* and *Semper fidelis*, though *diem* is a noun and *fidelis* is an adjective so I'm not sure what difference it makes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17700" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5362" RevisionGUID="ce854fab-80e8-4218-989e-6b908a79b6ef" CreationDate="2017-10-06T21:54:23.377" UserId="2045" Text="Translation of &quot;sieze the loyal&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17701" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5362" RevisionGUID="ce854fab-80e8-4218-989e-6b908a79b6ef" CreationDate="2017-10-06T21:54:23.377" UserId="2045" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|idiom|translation-check|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17702" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5362" RevisionGUID="5dbcc0c1-0074-446b-bce8-69da60e9d927" CreationDate="2017-10-06T22:16:03.587" UserId="2045" Comment="edited title" Text="(Loose) Translation of &quot;sieze the loyal&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5363" RevisionGUID="2e6f13b7-0ffe-4a10-b9c7-7f7c9c377250" CreationDate="2017-10-07T05:01:21.780" UserId="1791" Text="Here is a passage in [Ubi Cartias][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Simul ergo cum in unum congregamur: Ne nos mente dividamur, caveamus. Cessent iurgia maligna, cessent lites. Et in medio nostri sit Christus Deus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English translation translated the last as &quot;And may Christ our God be in our midst&quot;.  However, from my own understanding, the verb-to-be *sit* implies a narrative (something happens / something is happening), instead of a wish of &quot;may (something happen)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Question:** Why is there an &quot;Et&quot; for connecting &quot;We should not .. we should do this and we should do that. *And* Christ is in the middle of us&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*P.S. Informative answers will be appreciated. Inferring both from the Latin grammar side and the real intention of the author may yield different results and I am happy to see both sides :)  Biblical references are also welcomed if that aids explanation.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some discussion with my friends, some said the &quot;And&quot; should be interpreted as a cause-and-effect connective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cause:** We do this we do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Effect:** So Christ is in the middle of us.  And I used &quot;Et&quot; to connect these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or another way round:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cause:** Because Christ is in the middle of us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Effect:** So we should do this, we should do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubi_caritas#Text" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17705" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5363" RevisionGUID="2e6f13b7-0ffe-4a10-b9c7-7f7c9c377250" CreationDate="2017-10-07T05:01:21.780" UserId="1791" Text="The (implied) meaning of &quot;Et&quot; in &quot;Et in medio...&quot; of Ubi Cartias" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17706" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5363" RevisionGUID="2e6f13b7-0ffe-4a10-b9c7-7f7c9c377250" CreationDate="2017-10-07T05:01:21.780" UserId="1791" Text="|grammar-identification|conjunction|ambiguity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5364" RevisionGUID="b3cda090-dafe-430c-8e67-6727da749602" CreationDate="2017-10-07T05:29:35.387" UserId="522" Text="Pliny writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “colere amicos,” Plin. Ep. 7,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;which means: **colo** ([Lewis and Short][1]) to 'to look after *your friends*, appreciate them, value them.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fidos from **[fidus][2]**   means 'faithful, trustworthy, dependable.' So **fidos** 'the loyal.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion would be ***&quot;colere fidos&quot;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DC%3Aentry%20group%3D65%3Aentry%3Dcolo1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DF%3Aentry%20group%3D14%3Aentry%3Dfidus1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5365" RevisionGUID="9830c0cc-d70e-4f7e-8665-da24265fb06c" CreationDate="2017-10-07T06:25:16.043" UserId="522" Text="&quot;We ought not to have division...&quot;  and &quot;We ought to beware ...&quot; would be better translated by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non oportet dividere  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cavere decet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this passage you have a series of *Subjunctives,* (with the same meaning as imperatives for the first and third person, *I, we, he, she, it, they.*  Sometimes these are called Optatives, from *optatio* a wish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ne dividamur** 'let us not be divided.'  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **caveamus,** 'let us beware  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Cessent** 'let them cease,' 'may they cease.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sit** means 'May he be...' it is another Subjunctive/ Optative.  **Et** simply means 'and'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Et in medio nostri sit Christus Deus.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And may Christ our God be in our midst.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubi_caritas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5363" RevisionGUID="60f9d03d-9156-49b5-9baa-838a581c269d" CreationDate="2017-10-07T06:29:53.873" UserId="522" Comment="Spelling in title" Text="Here is a passage in [Ubi Caritas][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Simul ergo cum in unum congregamur: Ne nos mente dividamur, caveamus. Cessent iurgia maligna, cessent lites. Et in medio nostri sit Christus Deus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English translation translated the last as &quot;And may Christ our God be in our midst&quot;.  However, from my own understanding, the verb-to-be *sit* implies a narrative (something happens / something is happening), instead of a wish of &quot;may (something happen)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Question:** Why is there an &quot;Et&quot; for connecting &quot;We should not .. we should do this and we should do that. *And* Christ is in the middle of us&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*P.S. Informative answers will be appreciated. Inferring both from the Latin grammar side and the real intention of the author may yield different results and I am happy to see both sides :)  Biblical references are also welcomed if that aids explanation.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some discussion with my friends, some said the &quot;And&quot; should be interpreted as a cause-and-effect connective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cause:** We do this we do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Effect:** So Christ is in the middle of us.  And I used &quot;Et&quot; to connect these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or another way round:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cause:** Because Christ is in the middle of us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Effect:** So we should do this, we should do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubi_caritas#Text" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17710" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5363" RevisionGUID="60f9d03d-9156-49b5-9baa-838a581c269d" CreationDate="2017-10-07T06:29:53.873" UserId="522" Comment="Spelling in title" Text="The (implied) meaning of &quot;Et&quot; in &quot;Et in medio...&quot; of Ubi Caritas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5362" RevisionGUID="c91246e0-504b-44f8-a8a9-f07bbffe0de2" CreationDate="2017-10-07T14:26:42.907" UserId="79" Comment="Edited the explanation into the question itself." Text="I'm considering getting a tattoo with the phrase &quot;Seize the loyal&quot; in Latin, but I'm not 100% how to translate it. I am trying to get at something like &quot;keep the loyal close&quot; but it can be a very loose translation. I was also trying for something like *Carpe diem*, where it has a meaning beyond its literal translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first guess was *Carpe fidelis* based on *Carpe diem* and *Semper fidelis*, though *diem* is a noun and *fidelis* is an adjective so I'm not sure what difference it makes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17712" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5362" RevisionGUID="44ff2b86-175b-4a27-9a74-cd4130068579" CreationDate="2017-10-07T14:57:53.290" UserId="78" Comment="edited title" Text="(Loose) Translation of &quot;seize the loyal&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5366" RevisionGUID="b3a0a1b1-f56b-41f7-b7c6-bbbe71436324" CreationDate="2017-10-07T20:39:35.467" UserId="2046" Text="The 16th stanza of Dies irae reads:  &#xD;&#xA;Confutatis maledictis,  &#xD;&#xA;Flammis acribus addictis,  &#xD;&#xA;Voca me cum benedictis.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are the first two lines in 2nd person plural, while the last one is 2nd person singular. Also, which case is the word maledictis - plural dative or plural ablative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17714" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5366" RevisionGUID="b3a0a1b1-f56b-41f7-b7c6-bbbe71436324" CreationDate="2017-10-07T20:39:35.467" UserId="2046" Text="16th stanza of Dies irae" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17715" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5366" RevisionGUID="b3a0a1b1-f56b-41f7-b7c6-bbbe71436324" CreationDate="2017-10-07T20:39:35.467" UserId="2046" Text="|medieval-latin|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5366" RevisionGUID="6ce5c6ce-74d5-4b4d-a417-89e1589ac363" CreationDate="2017-10-07T21:07:07.800" UserId="79" Comment="added 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The 16th stanza of *Dies irae* reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Confutatis maledictis,  &#xD;&#xA;Flammis acribus addictis,  &#xD;&#xA;Voca me cum benedictis.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are the first two lines in 2nd person plural, while the last one is 2nd person singular? Also, which case is the word *maledictis* &amp;mdash; plural dative or plural ablative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17717" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5366" RevisionGUID="6ce5c6ce-74d5-4b4d-a417-89e1589ac363" CreationDate="2017-10-07T21:07:07.800" UserId="79" Comment="added 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|medieval-latin|declension|song-lyrics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5367" RevisionGUID="afba98a8-dd02-4e23-a8cd-86f823490828" CreationDate="2017-10-07T21:18:38.157" UserId="79" Text="The first two lines are not second person plural.&#xD;&#xA;They are absolute ablatives (one for each line) and therefore &quot;impersonal&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first line has *confutare* (silence) and *maledictus* (cursed) and reads roughly &quot;When the cursed ones are silenced&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The second line also has implicitly *maledictis* and the other part of the absolute ablative is the participle *addictus* (devoted).&#xD;&#xA;The target of the devotion is expressed with the dative *flammis acribus*.&#xD;&#xA;The only verb in a personal form is the imperative of the third line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate the stanza like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When the cursed ones are silenced  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and devoted to the piercing flames,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; call me with the blessed ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choices of words may or may not be optimal, but I hope the grammatical structure is conveyed clearly enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are four ablatives (*confutatis, maledictis, addictis, benedictis*), two datives (*flammis, acribus*) and one accusative (*me*) in the stanza.&#xD;&#xA;The participle *confutatis* does indeed look like the present active indicative second person plural, but context indicates that it is an ablative of the perfect participle instead.&#xD;&#xA;These two forms differ in the length if the last *i* which is typically not indicated in writing.&#xD;&#xA;(I'm not sure if the distinction was made when those lines were first written.)&#xD;&#xA;For the verb *addicere* the same forms are different: the personal form is *addicitis* and the participle is *addictis*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5369" RevisionGUID="4e4a0ea6-a0c3-42b5-82bd-d07728d2a387" CreationDate="2017-10-08T00:00:17.130" UserId="2048" Text="How do I address an email in Latin to my Latin professor? How is the greeting supposed to look?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17721" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5369" RevisionGUID="4e4a0ea6-a0c3-42b5-82bd-d07728d2a387" CreationDate="2017-10-08T00:00:17.130" UserId="2048" Text="How do I address an email in Latin to my Latin professor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17722" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5369" RevisionGUID="4e4a0ea6-a0c3-42b5-82bd-d07728d2a387" CreationDate="2017-10-08T00:00:17.130" UserId="2048" Text="|example-request|orthography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="0de756e1-00d5-426c-a246-2863b3fbf2c8" CreationDate="2017-10-08T01:26:01.810" UserId="2050" Text="I am giving a presentation on women in Rome, and one of my chosen women is named Servilia, the mother of Brutus. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was curious how to pronounce her name, as I know Romans used the letter 'v' to signify a 'u' type sound (as in Julius) as well as to signify a 'v' type sound (as in victory). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you all very much!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17724" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="0de756e1-00d5-426c-a246-2863b3fbf2c8" CreationDate="2017-10-08T01:26:01.810" UserId="2050" Text="How does one pronounce 'Servilia'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17725" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="0de756e1-00d5-426c-a246-2863b3fbf2c8" CreationDate="2017-10-08T01:26:01.810" UserId="2050" Text="|pronunciation|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5371" RevisionGUID="2e1e09e0-51fc-4ec4-b245-0c669f4367b9" CreationDate="2017-10-08T02:36:15.103" UserId="136" Text="The name *Servilia* would be pronounced **Sair-wee-lee-ah**, with the stress on the third to last syllable, in Classical Latin. However, in Anglicized versions of Latin names, you see a few changes. In this case, the above would become **Sihr-vih-lee-yah**. Please see [this Wikipedia article][1] on more general pronunciation of Latin, and [this one][2] on the pronunciation of Latin words in English.&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I used the method I did for pronunciation is that the traditional IPA method can be confusing to those who are not familiar with it. Dictionary.com does a similar thing for all of its definitions, so there is a basis for this method, at the minimum.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_English_pronunciation_of_Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17727" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5369" RevisionGUID="5526756b-bd7f-4bf5-a3f7-24c2f90354d2" CreationDate="2017-10-08T02:40:29.950" UserId="136" Comment="changed tags" Text="|translation|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="8e13cdd7-7e4f-4440-b1fa-09d85e09a764" CreationDate="2017-10-08T02:53:59.743" UserId="136" Text="So, I will compile two pieces of my personal experience here to provide an answer. First off, whenever write emails to my teachers, I generally do so in the following manner:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hello, Mr./Mrs./Ms. X!&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the message body.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sam K&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This format is formal enough for addressing a teacher, but informal enough to sound friendly and approachable. (I therefore would not recommend this format exactly for other people, but that's another subject.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically in Latin class, one addresses your teacher as *Magister/Magistra*. In your case, the previous might still be applicable, but *Professor/Profestrix* may work here as well. It depends on what they call themselves in class. Again, the typical Latin greeting in my experience with my various teachers has been *Salve!* This yields the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Salve, Magister/Magistra/Professor/Profestrix X!*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hic coporis nuntius est.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Samuelis C*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;This answer is very subjective of course, but it makes sense in modern terms. One could try to adapt a classical letter, of which there are many examples, but that is not what I chose to do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5373" RevisionGUID="c173f26e-3353-488f-aec9-249a288579a2" CreationDate="2017-10-08T05:12:14.640" UserId="235" Text="Roman letters often included the name of both sender and recipient in the greeting. Take, for example, Cicero's letters to Atticus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;[Epistula 1.1][1]  &#xD;&#xA;Scr. Romae m. Quint. a. 689 (65).  &#xD;&#xA;CICERO ATTICO salutem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Epistula 14.5][2]  &#xD;&#xA;Scr. Asturae it Id. Apr. a. 710 (44).  &#xD;&#xA;CICERO ATTICO S. D. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Epistula 14.14][3]  &#xD;&#xA;Scr. in Cumano a. d. v K. Mai. a. 710 (44).  &#xD;&#xA;CICERO ATTICO S. D. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first line tells when and where the letter was written. The second line invariably includes the phrase CICERO ATTICO, which means, Cicero to Atticus. In the first, he uses the word &quot;salutem&quot;, often abbreviated to &quot;sal.&quot; In the next two, he uses the abbreviation S.D. (&quot;salutem dicit&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In each case, the intended meaning is the same. &quot;Cicero sends greetings to Atticus,&quot; or in Latin, &quot;Cicero Attico salutem dicit.&quot; Abbreviations were common in Roman letters and you often find S.D. or sal. [among others][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might want to consider using such a greeting. One problem is that you would need to use Latin names, as the sender should be in the nominative case, and the recipient in the dative. You could also avoid using names and simply write, &quot;DISCIPULUS MAGISTRO S.D.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.%20Att.%201.1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.%20Att.%2014.5&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.%20Att.%2014.14&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://dl.ket.org/latin3/mores/mail/letterwriting.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5373" RevisionGUID="3ffb9559-ef06-4c69-96f6-83c3dcf73073" CreationDate="2017-10-08T05:31:44.627" UserId="235" Comment="added 424 characters in body" Text="Roman letters often included the name of both sender and recipient in the greeting. Take, for example, Cicero's letters to Atticus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;[Epistula 1.1][1]  &#xD;&#xA;Scr. Romae m. Quint. a. 689 (65).  &#xD;&#xA;CICERO ATTICO salutem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Epistula 14.5][2]  &#xD;&#xA;Scr. Asturae it Id. Apr. a. 710 (44).  &#xD;&#xA;CICERO ATTICO S. D. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Epistula 14.14][3]  &#xD;&#xA;Scr. in Cumano a. d. v K. Mai. a. 710 (44).  &#xD;&#xA;CICERO ATTICO S. D. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first line tells when and where the letter was written. The second line invariably includes the phrase CICERO ATTICO, which means, Cicero to Atticus. In the first, he uses the word &quot;salutem&quot;, often abbreviated to &quot;sal.&quot; In the next two, he uses the abbreviation S.D. (&quot;salutem dicit&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In each case, the intended meaning is the same. &quot;Cicero sends greetings to Atticus,&quot; or in Latin, &quot;Cicero Attico salutem dicit.&quot; Abbreviations were common in Roman letters and you often find S.D., sal., [S.P.D.][4] or [SVBEEV][5], among others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might want to consider using such a greeting. One problem is that you don't have Latin names. There might be some workarounds, however. Below are some possibilities, using the names Aaron and Mr. Shaw as examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AARON MAGISTRO S.D.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AARON MAGISTRO SAL.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AARON MAGISTRO SHAW S.P.D.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AARON MAGISTRO salutem  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; SVBEEV&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; DISCIPULUS MAGISTRO S.D.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si vale, bene est.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally think the format AARON MAGISTRO looks best. Including the last name of the professor, as in AARON MAGISTRO SHAW, looks awkward. But that is just my taste. Sam's suggestion is also a good one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.%20Att.%201.1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.%20Att.%2014.5&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.%20Att.%2014.14&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/858/meaning-of-s-p-d-in-letters&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://[SVBEEV][4]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5373" RevisionGUID="03491845-6c57-4f84-972a-705cf73136e5" CreationDate="2017-10-08T05:36:57.167" UserId="235" Comment="added 424 characters in body" Text="Roman letters often included the name of both sender and recipient in the greeting. Take, for example, Cicero's letters to Atticus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;[Epistula 1.1][1]  &#xD;&#xA;Scr. Romae m. Quint. a. 689 (65).  &#xD;&#xA;CICERO ATTICO salutem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Epistula 14.5][2]  &#xD;&#xA;Scr. Asturae it Id. Apr. a. 710 (44).  &#xD;&#xA;CICERO ATTICO S. D. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Epistula 14.14][3]  &#xD;&#xA;Scr. in Cumano a. d. v K. Mai. a. 710 (44).  &#xD;&#xA;CICERO ATTICO S. D. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first line tells when and where the letter was written. The second line invariably includes the phrase CICERO ATTICO, which means, Cicero to Atticus. In the first, he uses the word &quot;salutem&quot;, often abbreviated to &quot;sal.&quot; In the next two, he uses the abbreviation S.D. (&quot;salutem dicit&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In each case, the intended meaning is the same. &quot;Cicero sends greetings to Atticus,&quot; or in Latin, &quot;Cicero Attico salutem dicit.&quot; Abbreviations were common in Roman letters and you often find S.D., sal., [S.P.D.][4], or SVBEEV, [among others.][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might want to consider using such a greeting. One problem is that you don't have Latin names. There might be some workarounds, however. Below are some possibilities, using the names Aaron and Mr. Shaw as examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AARON MAGISTRO S.D.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AARON MAGISTRO SAL.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AARON MAGISTRO SHAW S.P.D.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AARON MAGISTRO salutem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally think the format AARON MAGISTRO looks best. Including the last name of the professor, as in AARON MAGISTRO SHAW, looks awkward. But that is just my taste. Sam's suggestion is also a good one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.%20Att.%201.1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.%20Att.%2014.5&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.%20Att.%2014.14&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/858/meaning-of-s-p-d-in-letters&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://dl.ket.org/latin3/mores/mail/letterwriting.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5373" RevisionGUID="87fbda72-3724-4bc5-866b-1bf486bf973f" CreationDate="2017-10-08T05:44:17.743" UserId="235" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="Roman letters often included the name of both sender and recipient in the greeting. Take, for example, Cicero's letters to Atticus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;[Epistula 1.1][1]  &#xD;&#xA;Scr. Romae m. Quint. a. 689 (65).  &#xD;&#xA;CICERO ATTICO salutem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Epistula 14.5][2]  &#xD;&#xA;Scr. Asturae it Id. Apr. a. 710 (44).  &#xD;&#xA;CICERO ATTICO S. D. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Epistula 14.14][3]  &#xD;&#xA;Scr. in Cumano a. d. v K. Mai. a. 710 (44).  &#xD;&#xA;CICERO ATTICO S. D. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first line tells when and where the letter was written. The second line invariably includes the phrase CICERO ATTICO, which means, Cicero to Atticus. In the first, he uses the word &quot;salutem&quot;, often abbreviated to &quot;sal.&quot; In the next two, he uses the abbreviation S.D. (&quot;salutem dicit&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In each case, the intended meaning is the same. &quot;Cicero sends greetings to Atticus,&quot; or in Latin, &quot;Cicero Attico salutem dicit.&quot; Abbreviations were common in Roman letters and you often find S.D., sal., [S.P.D.][4], or SVBEEV, [among others.][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might want to consider using such a greeting. One problem is that you don't have Latin names. There might be some workarounds, however. Below are some possibilities, using the names Aaron and Mr. Shaw as examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AARON MAGISTRO S.D.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AARON MAGISTRO SAL.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AARON MAGISTRO SHAW S.P.D.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AARON MAGISTRO salutem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally think the format AARON MAGISTRO looks best. Including the last name of the professor, as in AARON MAGISTRO SHAW, looks awkward. But that is just my taste. Sam's suggestion is also a good one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The professor might be impressed, and pleasantly surprised, if he opens an email titled &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Your name here) MAGISTRO S.D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.%20Att.%201.1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.%20Att.%2014.5&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.%20Att.%2014.14&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/858/meaning-of-s-p-d-in-letters&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://dl.ket.org/latin3/mores/mail/letterwriting.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5374" RevisionGUID="03da39cb-ff41-42c6-9557-ca518519a088" CreationDate="2017-10-08T11:39:38.647" UserId="2046" Text="The motto of Sir Francis Drake is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sic parvis magna  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is usually translated as &quot;Greatness from small beginnings&quot;, but what is the literal translation? Would be be something like &quot;Thus from small are great&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17734" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5374" RevisionGUID="03da39cb-ff41-42c6-9557-ca518519a088" CreationDate="2017-10-08T11:39:38.647" UserId="2046" Text="Motto of Sir Francis Drake" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17735" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5374" RevisionGUID="03da39cb-ff41-42c6-9557-ca518519a088" CreationDate="2017-10-08T11:39:38.647" UserId="2046" Text="|translation|medieval-latin|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5374" RevisionGUID="e973072d-ec25-489e-ac81-18feb3665800" CreationDate="2017-10-08T12:33:54.233" UserId="2046" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="The motto of Sir Francis Drake is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sic parvis magna  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is usually translated as &quot;Greatness from small beginnings&quot;, but what is the literal translation? Would be be something like &quot;Thus from small things are great things&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5375" RevisionGUID="27126287-a65e-4d95-81b5-5bac43d307a7" CreationDate="2017-10-08T14:15:43.003" UserId="78" Text="*Quomodo* is more idiomatically &quot;how,&quot; while *qua ratione* can suitable though it seems more often to mean &quot;why&quot; and not &quot;how.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Terence *Phormio*, act II**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Demipho] qua ratione inopem potiu' ducebat domum?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why did he rather lead a pauper home?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Geta] non ratio, verum argentum deerat.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; No reason, but he lacked money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cicero, *Pro Quinctio* 76**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego haec duo quaero, primum qua ratione Naevius susceptum negotium non transegerit, hoc est cur bona quae ex edicto possidebat non vendiderit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I seek two things, first &quot;on what account&quot; Naevius did not finish the undertaken business, that is why he did not sell the goods which he had taken possession of in accordance with the edict.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Modified translation of Yonge's 1903.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can mean &quot;how,&quot; though, and for the Ficinus passage, without too much thought, I'd probably say something along the lines of &quot;in what way&quot; or even perhaps &quot;in what manner.&quot; There is significant overlap in the meanings of *ratio* II.B.c. and *modus*. Calculating and measuring are not all that different, after all. The Greek too is a simple ὅτι, so perhaps Ficinus' translation is a bit overwrought, and only needed a simple, suitable &quot;how.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5376" RevisionGUID="a927cab4-c9af-4acb-b218-4f151386de67" CreationDate="2017-10-08T14:36:51.447" UserId="78" Text="Yes, your literal translation is correct. Both *parvis* and *magna* are neuter plural substantive adjectives, which means they're being used as nouns. (Think similarly to our *the dead have arisen* --- dead is here is an adjective being used as a noun.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the possibilities in translation for neuter substantives is the abstract. See Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge 204.2, which is why the translation has it so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5183" RevisionGUID="d6e3ae72-3872-44e5-84fe-9e8bc995bc60" CreationDate="2017-10-08T15:51:41.757" UserId="144" Comment="typo" Text="I want to translate the following as a passive periphrastic:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You must give your money to me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt so far is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;pecunia tua tibi danda est mihi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because Latin rarely acknowledges syntax, that is the same as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;pecunia tua mihi danda est tibi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which could be misinterpreted as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I must give your money to you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which has an entirely separate meaning, completely different from what I want to say. Is it possible to differentiate in this scenario the difference between the indirect object and the agent? Would syntax take over in this case? Or is it impossible to have such a structure?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: This is about the grammar, not the vocabulary. I am **not** interested in a solution that involves different vocabulary or uses anything other than the passive periphrastic. Other cases are allowed if they also involve conflicting datives in the passive periphrastic structure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5377" RevisionGUID="912364c1-11d2-4325-92d1-b54e58b859c7" CreationDate="2017-10-08T17:16:24.663" UserId="2046" Text="A few days ago, I found the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Est mea cunctorum terror vox daemoniorum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence is readily translated as &quot;My voice is the fear of all demons&quot;. But it prompted another question - how free are you to modify the word order in Latin? The more &quot;traditional&quot; way of writing the sentence would be:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Mea vox est terror cunctorum daemoniorum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any (even marginal) differences between two sentences with different word order (this is a general question - not only for the above sentence)?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17742" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5377" RevisionGUID="912364c1-11d2-4325-92d1-b54e58b859c7" CreationDate="2017-10-08T17:16:24.663" UserId="2046" Text="Word order in latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17743" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5377" RevisionGUID="912364c1-11d2-4325-92d1-b54e58b859c7" CreationDate="2017-10-08T17:16:24.663" UserId="2046" Text="|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5378" RevisionGUID="e15bc59d-d929-4dc3-8327-c7c28dd0eba5" CreationDate="2017-10-08T19:25:19.647" UserId="79" Text="In all forms of Latin I know, the letter Q is always followed by a U.&#xD;&#xA;No other letter seems to be bound this way.&#xD;&#xA;The combination QU stands for something like /kw/, and it would make more sense to me to let the letter Q alone stand for /kw/ and absorb the letter U into it since they always come together.&#xD;&#xA;This would not be the only letter to stand for two sounds; consider X.&#xD;&#xA;The only point in the letter Q seems to be that it signifies that the following U is consonantal, as opposed to C whose following U seems to be always vocalic.&#xD;&#xA;This makes Q look like a special case of C, but weirdly so, as it only modifies the pronunciation of a following U, not the C itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the origin of the letter Q?&#xD;&#xA;Why does it behave in such a weird way, always requiring a U?&#xD;&#xA;Why do we need the letter (in its current form) in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;Can the origins of Latin pronunciation or alphabet shed some light on the unusual behavior of Q?&#xD;&#xA;In short: What's the deal with Q?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17745" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5378" RevisionGUID="e15bc59d-d929-4dc3-8327-c7c28dd0eba5" CreationDate="2017-10-08T19:25:19.647" UserId="79" Text="What's the deal with Q?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17746" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5378" RevisionGUID="e15bc59d-d929-4dc3-8327-c7c28dd0eba5" CreationDate="2017-10-08T19:25:19.647" UserId="79" Text="|alphabet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5378" RevisionGUID="d9c04baf-b11e-462f-9bfa-c39f60f9b4ab" CreationDate="2017-10-08T19:48:53.113" UserId="79" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="In all forms of Latin I know, the letter Q is always followed by a U.&#xD;&#xA;No other letter seems to be bound this way.&#xD;&#xA;The combination QU stands for something like /kw/, and it would make more sense to me to let the letter Q alone stand for /kw/ and absorb the letter U into it since they always come together.&#xD;&#xA;This would not be the only letter to stand for two sounds; consider X.&#xD;&#xA;The only point in the letter Q seems to be that it signifies that the following U is consonantal, as opposed to C whose following U seems to be always vocalic.&#xD;&#xA;For example, consider the difference between *qui* and *cui*.&#xD;&#xA;This makes Q look like a special case of C, but weirdly so, as it only modifies the pronunciation of a following U, not the C itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the origin of the letter Q?&#xD;&#xA;Why does it behave in such a weird way, always requiring a U?&#xD;&#xA;Why do we need the letter (in its current form) in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;Can the origins of Latin pronunciation or alphabet shed some light on the unusual behavior of Q?&#xD;&#xA;In short: What's the deal with Q?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5379" RevisionGUID="85c57bef-5a84-4994-84b6-b509eb4f02a4" CreationDate="2017-10-08T20:55:30.710" UserId="522" Text="The skill in making an effective motto is in saying as much as possible in few words (with *such* few words, big ideas?). So, in addition to all that C.M.Weimer has written there is this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sic** can also *qualify* an adjective. So, it can also mean that Drake did not have riches or nobility: starting, materially, in the way of possessions, &quot;**with so little**, (he achieved) **much**.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Drake's ship for his circumnavigation was about the length of modern [harbour tugs][1]. When he was granted the shield and motto by the Queen, he had just brought back enough treasure to pay the annual expenditure of the Crown, and also pay off his backers (£47 for each pound invested);  &quot;**with such** (sic) **small things**, **mighty achievements**.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From 1936 to '48, his ship, [The Golden Hind][2], was the obverse design on the halfpenny. This plays on the Drake motto to encourage taking care of the ha'pennies, so the pounds will take care of themselves. &quot;**With such small objects, great things**.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://products.damen.com/en/ranges/asd-tug&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ww.brushwood.mintrasystems.com/cn1-shiphalfpenny.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5381" RevisionGUID="9a5cc319-a56a-489e-a991-6169463cf224" CreationDate="2017-10-09T04:16:22.237" UserId="1343" Text="I'm trying to come up with a suffix counterpart to the prefix *klepto-* (basically meaning &quot;related to theft&quot;), seeing that no such thing exists (and thus what I'm doing is technically neologism). For clarification, what I'm looking for is what the suffix *-phagy* is to the prefix *phago-*; both are from the same root, carry the same meaning, but are on opposite ends of the word and tend to have different functions (the prefix usually &quot;X that eats&quot;-type words, while the latter usually creates &quot;X-eating&quot;-type words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One method that I've thought of to create the new suffix:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I looked for an Ancient Greek word that both derives from the same root as *klepto-* and is a noun that actually translates to &quot;theft&quot; (result: κλοπή *klopḗ*)&#xD;&#xA; 2. The way κλοπή sounded for some reason prompted me to look up the suffix *-trophy* on a hunch; and lo and behold, that one's Ancient Greek root is τροφή (*trophḗ*).&#xD;&#xA; 3. It thus seems logical to me that the hypothetical suffix counterpart of *klepto-* would be *-klopy*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative method: Following the example of *phago-*/*-phagy*, the suffix counterpart of *klepto-* would logically be *-klepty*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are either of these a sound derivation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17754" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5381" RevisionGUID="9a5cc319-a56a-489e-a991-6169463cf224" CreationDate="2017-10-09T04:16:22.237" UserId="1343" Text="Suffix counterpart of klepto-?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17755" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5381" RevisionGUID="9a5cc319-a56a-489e-a991-6169463cf224" CreationDate="2017-10-09T04:16:22.237" UserId="1343" Text="|greek|derivation|suffixes|neologism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="a9c75fb1-aaa1-44ca-a9cf-7e4a2d44505e" CreationDate="2017-10-09T05:09:43.727" UserId="9" Text="Disclaimer: I don't know any Greek. This is an answer based on Internet research, not an expert answer. I would advise against accepting it or using it as the basis of any serious decision about forming a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not it's sound, &quot;-klepty&quot; seems to have been used in modern scientific literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyoklepty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;-klopy&quot;/&quot;-clopy&quot; seems preferable to me in that there are at least two Greek words ending in *-κλοπία* ([λογοκλοπία][1] &quot;stealing of another's words&quot; and [πυροκλοπία][2] &quot;theft of fire&quot;–LSJ)&#xD;&#xA; while I haven't been able to find any Greek words ending in *-κλεπτία.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlogoklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpuroklopi%2Fa" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="e95c84d1-ab78-4b8b-8cbe-655aa6db83c4" CreationDate="2017-10-09T05:14:55.647" UserId="9" Comment="added 280 characters in body" Text="Disclaimer: I don't know any Greek. This is an answer based on Internet research, not an expert answer. I would advise against accepting it or using it as the basis of any serious decision about forming a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not it's sound, &quot;-klepty&quot; seems to have been used in modern scientific literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyoklepty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;-klopy&quot;/&quot;-clopy&quot; seems preferable to me in that there are at least two Greek words ending in *-κλοπία* ([λογοκλοπία][1] &quot;stealing of another's words&quot; and [πυροκλοπία][2] &quot;theft of fire&quot;–LSJ)&#xD;&#xA; while I haven't been able to find any Greek words ending in *-κλεπτία.* A side note on English pronunciation: it would be most regular to pronounce words ending in *-clopy/-klopy* with stress on the third-to-last syllable, following the [pattern of words like *miscroscopy, astronomy, geology][3].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[κλεψία][4]* does seem to exist somehow as a kind of synonym of *κλοπή,* but I don't know if it would be suitable for the purposes you describe. I didn't find any Greek compound words ending in *-κλεψία* in LSJ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlogoklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpuroklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194/how-are-words-ending-ology-onomy-ography-pronounced&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%88%CE%B9%CE%AC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="5ac17330-6749-4c44-9161-f55f8e097aa2" CreationDate="2017-10-09T05:20:12.843" UserId="9" Comment="added 280 characters in body" Text="Disclaimer: I don't know any Greek. This is an answer based on Internet research, not an expert answer. I would advise against accepting it or using it as the basis of any serious decision about forming a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not it's sound, &quot;-klepty&quot; seems to have been used in modern scientific literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyoklepty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;-klopy&quot;/&quot;-clopy&quot; seems preferable to me in that there are at least two Greek words ending in *-κλοπία* ([λογοκλοπία][1] &quot;stealing of another's words&quot; and [πυροκλοπία][2] &quot;theft of fire&quot;–LSJ, which could be anglicized as &quot;logoclopy&quot; and &quot;pyroclopy&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; while I haven't been able to find any Greek words ending in *-κλεπτία.* A side note on English pronunciation: it would be most regular to pronounce words ending in *-clopy/-klopy* with stress on the third-to-last syllable, following the [pattern of words like *miscroscopy, astronomy, geology][3].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[κλεψία][4]* does seem to exist as some kind of synonym of *κλοπή,* but I don't know if it would be suitable for the purposes you describe. I didn't find any Greek compound words ending in *-κλεψία* in LSJ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlogoklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpuroklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194/how-are-words-ending-ology-onomy-ography-pronounced&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%88%CE%B9%CE%AC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="46339fca-581a-4620-ada2-6df2a034cf89" CreationDate="2017-10-09T06:50:10.950" UserId="9" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="Disclaimer: I don't know any Greek. This is an answer based on Internet research, not an expert answer. I would advise against accepting it or using it as the basis of any serious decision about forming a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not it's sound, &quot;-klepty&quot; seems to have been used in modern scientific literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyoklepty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;-klopy&quot;/&quot;-clopy&quot; seems preferable to me in that there are at least two Greek words ending in *-κλοπία* ([λογοκλοπία][1] &quot;stealing of another's words&quot; and [πυροκλοπία][2] &quot;theft of fire&quot;–LSJ, which could be anglicized as &quot;logoclopy&quot; and &quot;pyroclopy&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; while I haven't been able to find any Greek words ending in *-κλεπτία.* A side note on English pronunciation: it would be most regular to pronounce words ending in *-clopy/-klopy* with stress on the third-to-last syllable, following the [pattern of words like *miscroscopy, astronomy, geology][3].* (Of course, you could also use the less anglicized form &quot;-klopia&quot;/&quot;-clopia&quot;, similar to how we use &quot;-phobia&quot; and &quot;-philia&quot; in English.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[κλεψία][4]* does seem to exist as some kind of synonym of *κλοπή,* but I don't know if it would be suitable for the purposes you describe. I didn't find any Greek compound words ending in *-κλεψία* in LSJ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlogoklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpuroklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194/how-are-words-ending-ology-onomy-ography-pronounced&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%88%CE%B9%CE%AC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17769" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5038" RevisionGUID="9218f847-21cc-46b9-90d1-516b1f217846" CreationDate="2017-10-09T09:21:39.533" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="d60db19e-5db0-410d-bc03-2ba285d6c01d" CreationDate="2017-10-09T13:27:32.903" UserId="9" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Disclaimer: I don't know any Greek. This is an answer based on Internet research, not an expert answer. I would advise against accepting it or using it as the basis of any serious decision about forming a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not it's sound, &quot;-klepty&quot; seems to have been used in modern scientific literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyoklepty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;-klopy&quot;/&quot;-clopy&quot; seems preferable to me in that there are at least two Greek words ending in *-κλοπία* ([λογοκλοπία][1] &quot;stealing of another's words&quot; and [πυροκλοπία][2] &quot;theft of fire&quot;–LSJ, which could be anglicized as &quot;logoclopy&quot; and &quot;pyroclopy&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; while I haven't been able to find any Greek words ending in *-κλεπτία.* A side note on English pronunciation: it would be most regular to pronounce words ending in *-clopy/-klopy* with stress on the third-to-last syllable, following the [pattern of words like *miscroscopy, astronomy, geology][3].* (Of course, you could also use the less anglicized form &quot;-klopia&quot;/&quot;-clopia&quot;, similar to how we use &quot;-phobia&quot; and &quot;-philia&quot; in English.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[κλεψία][4]* does seem to exist in modern Greek as some kind of synonym of *κλοπή,* but I don't know if it would be suitable for the purposes you describe. I didn't find any Greek compound words ending in *-κλεψία* in LSJ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlogoklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpuroklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194/how-are-words-ending-ology-onomy-ography-pronounced&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%88%CE%B9%CE%AC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="d828fcdc-6a6c-4738-b5c0-6f0ef28ae618" CreationDate="2017-10-09T13:35:36.883" UserId="9" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Disclaimer: I don't know any Greek. This is an answer based on Internet research, not an expert answer. I would advise against accepting it or using it as the basis of any serious decision about forming a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not it's sound, &quot;-klepty&quot; seems to have been used in modern scientific literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyoklepty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;-klopy&quot;/&quot;-clopy&quot; seems preferable to me in that there are at least two Greek words ending in *-κλοπία* ([λογοκλοπία][1] &quot;stealing of another's words&quot; and [πυροκλοπία][2] &quot;theft of fire&quot;–LSJ, which could be anglicized as &quot;logoclopy&quot; and &quot;pyroclopy&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; while I haven't been able to find any Greek words ending in *-κλεπτία.* (A side note on English pronunciation: it would be most regular to pronounce words ending in *-clopy/-klopy* with stress on the third-to-last syllable, following the [pattern of words like *miscroscopy, astronomy, geology][3].* Of course, you could also use the less anglicized form &quot;-klopia&quot;/&quot;-clopia&quot;, similar to how we use &quot;-phobia&quot; and &quot;-philia&quot; in English. I won't try to give a recommendation of which to use because the use of *-y* vs. *-ia* in English doesn't seem to be on-topic for Latin SE.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[κλεψία][4]* does seem to exist in modern Greek as some kind of synonym of *κλοπή,* but I don't know if it would be suitable for the purposes you describe. I didn't find any Greek compound words ending in *-κλεψία* in LSJ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;terdon has let me know that *-κλοπή, -κλεπτία* and *-κλεψιά* all work as suffixes in modern Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In terms of scientific technical terms, while we can say that most of them are based on Ancient Greek and this is the principle for their derivation in an ideal kind of sense, in practice people derive them from whatever they feel like using. E.g. note that the linked Wikipedia article describes &quot;karyoklepty&quot; as being derived from &quot;kleftis&quot;, which looks to me like it is a transcription of the Modern Greek pronunciation of the word for &quot;thief&quot;. Since scientists don't usually study classical languages in the modern era, it may be easier to check if a compound works in Modern Greek than to make sure it works in Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlogoklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpuroklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194/how-are-words-ending-ology-onomy-ography-pronounced&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%88%CE%B9%CE%AC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="491483c5-2975-4604-99a9-b9117e3ab41a" CreationDate="2017-10-09T13:40:48.373" UserId="9" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Disclaimer: I don't know any Greek. This is an answer based on Internet research, not an expert answer. I would advise against accepting it or using it as the basis of any serious decision about forming a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not it's sound, &quot;-klepty&quot; seems to have been used in modern scientific literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyoklepty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;-klopy&quot;/&quot;-clopy&quot; seems preferable to me in that there are at least two Greek words in the LSJ dictionary ending in *-κλοπία* ([λογοκλοπία][1] &quot;stealing of another's words&quot; and [πυροκλοπία][2] &quot;theft of fire&quot;, which could be anglicized as &quot;logoclopy&quot; and &quot;pyroclopy&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; while I haven't been able to find any Greek words ending in *-κλεπτία.* (A side note on English pronunciation: it would be most regular to pronounce words ending in *-clopy/-klopy* with stress on the third-to-last syllable, following the [pattern of words like *miscroscopy, astronomy, geology][3].* Of course, you could also use the less anglicized form &quot;-klopia&quot;/&quot;-clopia&quot;, similar to how we use &quot;-phobia&quot; and &quot;-philia&quot; in English. I won't try to give a recommendation of which to use because the use of *-y* vs. *-ia* in English doesn't seem to be on-topic for Latin SE.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[κλεψία][4]* does seem to exist in modern Greek as some kind of synonym of *κλοπή,* but I don't know if it would be suitable for the purposes you describe. I didn't find any Greek compound words ending in *-κλεψία* in LSJ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;terdon has let me know that *-κλοπή, -κλεπτία* and *-κλεψιά* all work as suffixes in modern Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In terms of scientific technical terms, while we can say that most of them are based on Ancient Greek and this is the principle for their derivation in an ideal kind of sense, in practice people derive them from whatever they feel like using. E.g. note that the linked Wikipedia article describes &quot;karyoklepty&quot; as being derived from &quot;kleftis&quot;, which looks to me like it is a transcription of the Modern Greek pronunciation of the word for &quot;thief&quot;. Since scientists don't usually study classical languages in the modern era, it may be easier to check if a compound works in Modern Greek than to make sure it works in Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlogoklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpuroklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194/how-are-words-ending-ology-onomy-ography-pronounced&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%88%CE%B9%CE%AC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="4723d4c4-a3cb-483d-99c2-18fff48540f6" CreationDate="2017-10-09T13:42:30.887" UserId="9" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="Disclaimer: I don't know any Greek. This is an answer based on Internet research, not an expert answer. I would advise against accepting it or using it as the basis of any serious decision about forming a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not it's sound, &quot;-klepty&quot; seems to have been used in modern scientific literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyoklepty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;-klopy&quot;/&quot;-clopy&quot; seems preferable to me in that there are at least two Greek words in the LSJ dictionary ending in *-κλοπία* ([λογοκλοπία][1] &quot;stealing of another's words&quot; and [πυροκλοπία][2] &quot;theft of fire&quot;, which could be anglicized as &quot;logoclopy&quot; and &quot;pyroclopy&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; while I haven't been able to find any Greek words ending in *-κλεπτία.* (A side note on English pronunciation: it would be most regular to pronounce words ending in *-clopy/-klopy* with stress on the third-to-last syllable, following the [pattern of words like *miscroscopy, astronomy, geology][3].* Of course, you could also use the less anglicized form &quot;-klopia&quot;/&quot;-clopia&quot;, similar to how we use &quot;-phobia&quot; and &quot;-philia&quot; in English. I won't try to give a recommendation of which to use because the use of *-y* vs. *-ia* in English doesn't seem to be on-topic for Latin SE.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[κλεψία][4]* does seem to exist in modern Greek as some kind of synonym of *κλοπή,* but I don't know if it would be suitable for the purposes you describe. I didn't find any Greek compound words ending in *-κλεψία* in LSJ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;terdon has let me know that *-κλοπή, -κλεπτία* and *-κλεψιά* all work as suffixes in modern Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In terms of scientific technical terms, while we can say that most of them are based on Ancient Greek and this is the principle for their derivation in an ideal kind of sense, in practice people derive them from whatever they feel like using (or whatever they can find). E.g. note that the linked Wikipedia article describes &quot;karyoklepty&quot; as being derived from &quot;kleftis&quot;, which looks to me like it is a transcription of the Modern Greek pronunciation of the word for &quot;thief&quot;. Since scientists don't usually study classical languages in the modern era, it may be easier to check if a compound works in Modern Greek than to make sure it works in Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlogoklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpuroklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194/how-are-words-ending-ology-onomy-ography-pronounced&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%88%CE%B9%CE%AC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="7b63c152-dcdf-4077-8359-73583ca81ddb" CreationDate="2017-10-09T13:52:41.497" UserId="9" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="Disclaimer: I don't know any Greek. This is an answer based on Internet research, not an expert answer. I would advise against accepting it or using it as the basis of any serious decision about forming a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not it's sound, &quot;-klepty&quot; seems to have been used in modern scientific literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyoklepty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;-klopy&quot;/&quot;-clopy&quot; seems preferable to me in that there are at least two Greek words in the LSJ dictionary ending in *-κλοπία* ([λογοκλοπία][1] &quot;stealing of another's words&quot; and [πυροκλοπία][2] &quot;theft of fire&quot;, which could be anglicized as &quot;logoclopy&quot; and &quot;pyroclopy&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; while I haven't been able to find any Greek words ending in *-κλεπτία.* (A side note on English pronunciation: it would be most regular to pronounce words ending in *-clopy/-klopy* with stress on the third-to-last syllable, following the [pattern of words like *miscroscopy, astronomy, geology][3].* Of course, you could also use the less anglicized form &quot;-klopia&quot;/&quot;-clopia&quot;, similar to how we use &quot;-phobia&quot; and &quot;-philia&quot; in English. I won't try to give a recommendation of which to use because the use of *-y* vs. *-ia* in English doesn't seem to be on-topic for Latin SE.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[κλεψία][4]* does seem to exist in modern Greek as some kind of synonym of *κλοπή,* but I don't know if it would be suitable for the purposes you describe. I didn't find any Greek compound words ending in *-κλεψία* in LSJ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;terdon has let me know that *-κλοπή, -κλεπτία* and *-κλεψιά* all work as suffixes in modern Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In terms of scientific technical terms, while we can say that most of them are based on Ancient Greek and this is the principle for their derivation in an ideal kind of sense, in practice people derive them from whatever form of Greek they feel like using (or whatever they can find, or even from Latin instead of Greek). E.g. note that the linked Wikipedia article describes &quot;karyoklepty&quot; as being derived from &quot;kleftis&quot;, which looks to me like it is a transcription of the Modern Greek pronunciation of the word for &quot;thief&quot;. Since scientists don't usually study classical languages in the modern era, it may be easier to check if a compound works in Modern Greek than to make sure it works in Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlogoklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpuroklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194/how-are-words-ending-ology-onomy-ography-pronounced&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%88%CE%B9%CE%AC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="dfcf5f59-76f4-4918-9bc0-1fccc7195014" CreationDate="2017-10-09T14:01:12.097" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="Disclaimer: I don't know any Greek. This is an answer based on Internet research, not an expert answer. I would advise against accepting it or using it as the basis of any serious decision about forming a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not it's sound, &quot;-klepty&quot; seems to have been used in modern scientific literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyoklepty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;-klopy&quot;/&quot;-clopy&quot; seems preferable to me in that there are at least two Greek words in the LSJ dictionary ending in *-κλοπία* ([λογοκλοπία][1] &quot;stealing of another's words&quot; and [πυροκλοπία][2] &quot;theft of fire&quot;, which could be anglicized as &quot;logoclopy&quot; and &quot;pyroclopy&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; while I haven't been able to find any Greek words ending in *-κλεπτία.* (A side note on English pronunciation: it would be most regular to pronounce words ending in *-clopy/-klopy* with stress on the third-to-last syllable, following the [pattern of words like *miscroscopy, astronomy, geology][3].* Of course, you could also use the less anglicized form &quot;-klopia&quot;/&quot;-clopia&quot;, similar to how we use &quot;-phobia&quot; and &quot;-philia&quot; in English. I won't try to give a recommendation of which to use because the use of *-y* vs. *-ia* in English doesn't seem to be on-topic for Latin SE.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[κλεψιά][4]* does seem to exist in modern Greek (with stress on the last syllable, although the Greek Wiktionary says it would have been *κλεψία* in Medieval/Byzantine Greek) as some kind of synonym of *κλοπή,* but I don't know if it would be suitable for the purposes you describe. I didn't find any Greek compound words ending in *-κλεψία* in LSJ. terdon said it doesn't look like an Ancient Greek word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;terdon has let me know that *-κλοπή, -κλεπτία* and *-κλεψιά* all work as suffixes in modern Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In terms of scientific technical terms, while we can say that most of them are based on Ancient Greek and this is the principle for their derivation in an ideal kind of sense, in practice people derive them from whatever form of Greek they feel like using (or whatever they can find, or even from Latin instead of Greek). E.g. note that the linked Wikipedia article describes &quot;karyoklepty&quot; as being derived from &quot;kleftis&quot;, which looks to me like it is a transcription of the Modern Greek pronunciation of the word for &quot;thief&quot;. Since scientists don't usually study classical languages in the modern era, it may be easier to check if a compound works in Modern Greek than to make sure it works in Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlogoklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpuroklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194/how-are-words-ending-ology-onomy-ography-pronounced&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%88%CE%B9%CE%AC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="fa348e5b-1d97-4033-a147-24d22ea673d2" CreationDate="2017-10-09T14:07:13.970" UserId="9" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="Disclaimer: I don't know any Greek. This is an answer based on Internet research, not an expert answer. I would advise against accepting it or using it as the basis of any serious decision about forming a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not it's sound, &quot;-klepty&quot; seems to have been used in modern scientific literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyoklepty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;-klopy&quot;/&quot;-clopy&quot; seems preferable to me in that there are at least two Greek words in the LSJ dictionary ending in *-κλοπία* ([λογοκλοπία][1] &quot;stealing of another's words&quot; and [πυροκλοπία][2] &quot;theft of fire&quot;, which could be anglicized as &quot;logoclopy&quot; and &quot;pyroclopy&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; while I haven't been able to find any Greek words ending in *-κλεπτία.* (A side note on English pronunciation: it would be most regular to pronounce words ending in *-clopy/-klopy* with stress on the third-to-last syllable, following the [pattern of words like *miscroscopy, astronomy, geology][3].* Of course, you could also use the less anglicized form &quot;-klopia&quot;/&quot;-clopia&quot;, similar to how we use &quot;-phobia&quot; and &quot;-philia&quot; in English. I won't try to give a recommendation of which to use because the use of *-y* vs. *-ia* in English doesn't seem to be on-topic for Latin SE.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[κλεψιά][4]* does seem to exist in modern Greek (with stress on the last syllable, although the Greek Wiktionary says it would have been *κλεψία* in Medieval/Byzantine Greek) as some kind of synonym of *κλοπή,* but I don't know if it would be suitable for the purposes you describe. I didn't find any Greek compound words ending in *-κλεψία* in LSJ. terdon said it doesn't look like an Ancient Greek word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;terdon has let me know that *-κλοπή, -κλεπτία* and *-κλεψιά* all work as suffixes in modern Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In terms of scientific technical terms, while we can say that most of them are based on Ancient Greek and this is the principle for their derivation in an ideal kind of sense, in practice people derive them from whatever form of Greek they feel like using (or whatever they can find, or even from Latin instead of Greek). E.g. note that the linked Wikipedia article describes &quot;karyoklepty&quot; as being derived from &quot;kleftis&quot;, which looks to me like it is a transcription of the Modern Greek pronunciation of the word for &quot;thief&quot;. Since scientists don't usually study classical languages in the modern era, it may be easier to check if a compound works in Modern Greek than to make sure it works in Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlogoklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpuroklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194/how-are-words-ending-ology-onomy-ography-pronounced&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%88%CE%B9%CE%AC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1584" RevisionGUID="5b1337c6-d26e-442c-9750-089700bc1510" CreationDate="2017-10-09T17:03:28.137" UserId="79" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately, the verbs have survived much better in writing than the actual onomatopoeia. A few of these are fairly clearly based on the sound: *baubor* &quot;bark&quot;, *hinnio* &quot;whinny&quot;, *ululo* &quot;howl&quot; (and *ulula* &quot;owl&quot;), *mugio* &quot;moo&quot;, *crocio* &quot;croak&quot;. See [Suetonius, *De Naturis Animantium*][1] for a long list of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as directly transcribing animal sounds, only a few examples are listed in the dictionaries I've found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [*cocococo*][2] &amp;mdash; rooster crowing&#xD;&#xA; - [*bee*][2] &amp;mdash; sheep bleating&#xD;&#xA; - &lt;strike&gt;[*hinni*][3] &amp;mdash; horse whinnying (also listed [here][4])&lt;/strike&gt; *debatable*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few more for Greek are listed in the LSJ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [*βαά/baá*][5] &amp;mdash; dog barking&#xD;&#xA; - [*βῆ/bẽ*][6] &amp;mdash; sheep bleating (as *bee* above)&#xD;&#xA; - [*γρῦ/grũ*][7] &amp;mdash; pig grunting (compare Latin *grunnio*, &quot;grunt&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - [*ἀρρα/arra*][8] &amp;mdash; dog growling&#xD;&#xA; - [*μῦ/mũ*][9] &amp;mdash; cow mooing&#xD;&#xA; - [*υ/hu*][10] &amp;mdash; owl hooting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These were likely similar between Latin and Greek, but I can't find solid evidence of them being used in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the famous [*brekekekèx koàx koáx*][11] from Aristophanes' [*Frogs*][12] ([translations][13]), which is still occasionally used in English nowadays. But I've only heard it as a reference to the *Frogs*, not because it sounds much like an actual frog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost02/Suetonius/sue_anim.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0062%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DO%3Aentry%20group%3D4%3Aentry%3Donomatopoeia-harpers&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=hinnio&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-linguistic_onomatopoeias#Horse_whinnying&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dbau%2Fzw&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dbh%3D&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dgru%3D&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da)ra%2Fzw&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dmu%2Fzw1&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Du)u%2Fzw&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dkoa%2Fc&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Aristoph.%20Frogs%20230&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://ronsen.org/monkminkpinkpunk/20/frogs.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="a2895a9a-2e3a-4694-a591-6a6a5cadd896" CreationDate="2017-10-09T17:34:01.837" UserId="9" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Disclaimer: I don't know any Greek. This is an answer based on Internet research, not an expert answer. I would advise against accepting it or using it as the basis of any serious decision about forming a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not it's sound, &quot;-klepty&quot; seems to have been used in modern scientific literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyoklepty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;-klopy&quot;/&quot;-clopy&quot; seems preferable to me in that there are at least two Greek words in the LSJ dictionary ending in *-κλοπία* ([λογοκλοπία][1] &quot;stealing of another's words&quot; and [πυροκλοπία][2] &quot;theft of fire&quot;, which could be anglicized as &quot;logoclopy&quot; and &quot;pyroclopy&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; while I haven't been able to find any Greek words ending in *-κλεπτία.* (A side note on English pronunciation: it would be most regular to pronounce words ending in *-clopy/-klopy* with stress on the third-to-last syllable, following the [pattern of words like *miscroscopy, astronomy, geology][3].* Of course, you could also use the less anglicized form &quot;-klopia&quot;/&quot;-clopia&quot;, similar to how we use &quot;-phobia&quot; and &quot;-philia&quot; in English. I won't try to give a recommendation of which to use because the use of *-y* vs. *-ia* in English doesn't seem to be on-topic for Latin SE.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[κλεψιά][4]* does seem to exist in modern Greek (with stress on the last syllable, although the Greek Wiktionary says it would have been *κλεψία* in Medieval/Byzantine Greek) as some kind of synonym of *κλοπή,* but I don't know if it would be suitable for the purposes you describe. I didn't find any Greek compound words ending in *-κλεψία* in LSJ, and terdon said it doesn't look like an Ancient Greek word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;terdon has let me know that *-κλοπή, -κλεπτία* and *-κλεψιά* all work as suffixes in modern Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In terms of scientific technical terms, while we can say that most of them are based on Ancient Greek and this is the principle for their derivation in an ideal kind of sense, in practice people derive them from whatever form of Greek they feel like using (or whatever they can find, or even from Latin instead of Greek). E.g. note that the linked Wikipedia article describes &quot;karyoklepty&quot; as being derived from &quot;kleftis&quot;, which looks to me like it is a transcription of the Modern Greek pronunciation of the word for &quot;thief&quot;. Since scientists don't usually study classical languages in the modern era, it may be easier to check if a compound works in Modern Greek than to make sure it works in Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlogoklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpuroklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194/how-are-words-ending-ology-onomy-ography-pronounced&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%88%CE%B9%CE%AC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="fc9d1687-c4b8-461a-ad8e-7fb17d1dc2d2" CreationDate="2017-10-09T18:07:23.407" UserId="9" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Disclaimer: I don't know any Greek. This is an answer based on Internet research (and now some helpful comments from Modern Greek speakers), not an expert answer. I would advise against accepting it or using it as the basis of any serious decision about forming a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;-klopy&quot;/&quot;-clopy&quot; seems most preferable to me in that there are at least two Greek words in the LSJ dictionary ending in *-κλοπία* ([λογοκλοπία][1] &quot;stealing of another's words&quot; and [πυροκλοπία][2] &quot;theft of fire&quot;, which could be anglicized as &quot;logoclopy&quot; and &quot;pyroclopy&quot;). Tasos Papastylianou and terdon have let me know that *-κλοπή* works as the second element of a compound word in Modern Greek. (The Modern Greek form of λογοκλοπία seems to be [λογοκλοπή][3].) As I don't know Greek, I can't provide any explanation for the presence of the suffix *-ία* in the two Ancient Greek words mentioned above; I can only say that it seems to show up in some other old compound nouns referring to abstract concepts (e.g. *[ὑδροϕοβία][4]* &quot;hydrophobia&quot;, from *φόβος* &quot;fear&quot;; see Tasos Papastylianou's comments below for a native Greek speaker's perspective about the possible nuances of meaning the suffix *-ία* might add in this context.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In English, using the spelling &quot;-klopy&quot; rather than the less anglicized &quot;-klopia&quot; might allow you to maintain a touch of ambiguity about whether you intend for the word to be understood as derived from Greek *-κλοπία* or *-κλοπή*: because modern Greek *[κλοπή][5]* is pronounced as /kloˈpi/, with the vowel /i/, &quot;klopy&quot; could perhaps be interpreted as a non-standard anglicized variant of the typical transcription &quot;klopi&quot; of *κλοπή.* I dunno if that is really a convincing reason to choose this spelling, though. Maybe it's better to just make a definite decision (which might still be in favor of the spelling with &quot;y&quot;, just not because of any ambiguity). There is some minor precedent for going from Greek *-ή* to English *-y* in the form of old spelling variants of some words currently spelled with &quot;e&quot;, like &quot;apostrophy&quot;, &quot;epitomy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (A side note on English pronunciation: it would be most regular to pronounce words ending in *-clopy/-klopy/-clope* with stress on the third-to-last syllable, following the [pattern of compound words like *miscroscopy, astronomy, geology][6]* or *syncope, apocope, apostrophe*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;-klepty&quot; seems a bit more iffy to me, as I haven't been able to find any Greek words ending in *-κλεπτία.* However, terdon said in a comment below that *-κλεπτία* would work as the second part of a compound word in modern Greek.&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not it's sound in Ancient Greek, &quot;-klepty&quot; seems to have been used in modern scientific literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyoklepty. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;-klepsy&quot; is another one I'm unsure about: *[κλεψιά][7]* does seem to exist in modern Greek (with stress on the last syllable, although the Greek Wiktionary says it would have been *κλεψία* in Medieval/Byzantine Greek) as some kind of synonym of *κλοπή,* but I don't know if it would be suitable for the purposes you describe. I didn't find any Greek compound words ending in *-κλεψία* in LSJ, and terdon said it doesn't look like an Ancient Greek word (although *-κλεψιά* would work as the second element of a Modern Greek compound).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of scientific technical terms, while we can say that most of them are based on Ancient Greek and this is the principle for their derivation in an ideal kind of sense, in practice people derive them from whatever form of Greek they feel like using (or whatever they can find, or even from Latin instead of Greek). E.g. note that the linked Wikipedia article describes &quot;karyoklepty&quot; as being derived from &quot;kleftis&quot;, which looks to me like it is a transcription of the Modern Greek pronunciation of the word for &quot;thief&quot;. Since scientists don't usually study classical languages in the modern era, it may be easier to check if a compound works in Modern Greek than to make sure it works in Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlogoklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpuroklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%BF%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%AE#Greek&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Du(drofobi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%AE#Noun_2&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194/how-are-words-ending-ology-onomy-ography-pronounced&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%88%CE%B9%CE%AC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="4343598f-a460-40aa-930f-ec57f7271d9c" CreationDate="2017-10-09T18:13:10.093" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="Disclaimer: I don't know any Greek. This is an answer based on Internet research (and now some helpful comments from Modern Greek speakers), not an expert answer. I would advise against accepting it or using it as the basis of any serious decision about forming a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;-klopy&quot;/&quot;-clopy&quot; seems most preferable to me in that there are at least two Greek words in the LSJ dictionary ending in *-κλοπία* ([λογοκλοπία][1] &quot;stealing of another's words&quot; and [πυροκλοπία][2] &quot;theft of fire&quot;, which could be anglicized as &quot;logoclopy&quot; and &quot;pyroclopy&quot;). Although I can't find any compound words ending in *-κλοπή* in LSJ, Tasos Papastylianou and terdon have let me know that *-κλοπή* works as the second element of a compound word in Modern Greek. (The Modern Greek form of λογοκλοπία seems to be [λογοκλοπή][3].) As I don't know Greek, I can't provide any explanation for the presence of the suffix *-ία* in the two Ancient Greek words mentioned above; I can only say that it seems to show up in some other old compound nouns referring to abstract concepts (e.g. *[ὑδροϕοβία][4]* &quot;hydrophobia&quot;, from *φόβος* &quot;fear&quot;; see Tasos Papastylianou's comments below for a native Greek speaker's perspective about the possible nuances of meaning the suffix *-ία* might add in this context.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In English, using the spelling &quot;-klopy&quot; rather than the less anglicized &quot;-klopia&quot; might allow you to maintain a touch of ambiguity about whether you intend for the word to be understood as derived from Greek *-κλοπία* or *-κλοπή*: because modern Greek *[κλοπή][5]* is pronounced as /kloˈpi/, with the vowel /i/, it is typically transcribed as &quot;klopi&quot;, and &quot;klopy&quot; could perhaps be interpreted as a non-standard anglicization of this (with word-final letter &quot;i&quot; replaced with the letter &quot;y&quot; in accordance with usual English spelling conventions). There is some minor precedent for going from Greek *-ή* to English *-y* in the form of old spelling variants of some words currently spelled with &quot;e&quot;, like &quot;apostrophy&quot;, &quot;epitomy&quot;. I dunno if that is really a convincing reason to choose this spelling, though. Maybe it's better to just make a definite decision (which might still be in favor of the spelling with &quot;y&quot;, just not because of any ambiguity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (A side note on English pronunciation: it would be most regular to pronounce words ending in *-clopy/-klopy/-clope* with stress on the third-to-last syllable, following the [pattern of compound words like *miscroscopy, astronomy, geology][6]* or *syncope, apocope, apostrophe*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;-klepty&quot; seems a bit more iffy to me, as I haven't been able to find any Greek words ending in *-κλεπτία.* However, terdon said in a comment below that *-κλεπτία* would work as the second part of a compound word in modern Greek.&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not it's sound in Ancient Greek, &quot;-klepty&quot; seems to have been used in modern scientific literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyoklepty. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;-klepsy&quot; is another one I'm unsure about: *[κλεψιά][7]* does seem to exist in modern Greek (with stress on the last syllable, although the Greek Wiktionary says it would have been *κλεψία* in Medieval/Byzantine Greek) as some kind of synonym of *κλοπή,* but I don't know if it would be suitable for the purposes you describe. I didn't find any Greek compound words ending in *-κλεψία* in LSJ, and terdon said that, although *-κλεψιά* would work as the second element of a Modern Greek compound, it doesn't look like an Ancient Greek word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of scientific technical terms, while we can say that most of them are based on Ancient Greek and this is the principle for their derivation in an ideal kind of sense, in practice people derive them from whatever form of Greek they feel like using (or whatever they can find, or even from Latin instead of Greek). E.g. note that the linked Wikipedia article describes &quot;karyoklepty&quot; as being derived from &quot;kleftis&quot;, which looks to me like it is a transcription of the Modern Greek pronunciation of the word for &quot;thief&quot;. Since scientists don't usually study classical languages in the modern era, it may be easier to check if a compound works in Modern Greek than to make sure it works in Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlogoklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpuroklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%BF%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%AE#Greek&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Du(drofobi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%AE#Noun_2&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194/how-are-words-ending-ology-onomy-ography-pronounced&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%88%CE%B9%CE%AC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="dc576763-0448-4cc0-b23d-1c12e71a8f22" CreationDate="2017-10-09T18:18:33.697" UserId="9" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Disclaimer: I don't know any Greek. This is an answer based on Internet research (and now some helpful comments from Modern Greek speakers), not an expert answer. I would advise against accepting it or using it as the basis of any serious decision about forming a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;-klopy&quot;/&quot;-clopy&quot; seems most preferable to me in that there are at least two Greek words in the LSJ dictionary ending in *-κλοπία* ([λογοκλοπία][1] &quot;stealing of another's words&quot; and [πυροκλοπία][2] &quot;theft of fire&quot;, which could be anglicized as &quot;logoclopy&quot; and &quot;pyroclopy&quot;). Although I can't find any compound words ending in *-κλοπή* in LSJ, Tasos Papastylianou and terdon have let me know that *-κλοπή* works as the second element of a compound word in Modern Greek. (The Modern Greek form of λογοκλοπία seems to be [λογοκλοπή][3].) As I don't know Greek, I can't provide any explanation for the presence of the suffix *-ία* in the two Ancient Greek words mentioned above; I can only say that it seems to show up in some other old compound nouns referring to abstract concepts (e.g. *[ὑδροϕοβία][4]* &quot;hydrophobia&quot;, from *φόβος* &quot;fear&quot;; see Tasos Papastylianou's comments below for a native Greek speaker's perspective about the possible nuances of meaning the suffix *-ία* might add in this context.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In English, using the spelling &quot;-klopy&quot; rather than the less anglicized &quot;-klopia&quot; might allow you to maintain a touch of ambiguity about whether you intend for the word to be understood as derived from Greek *-κλοπία* or *-κλοπή*: because modern Greek *[κλοπή][5]* is pronounced as /kloˈpi/, with the vowel /i/, it is typically transcribed as &quot;klopi&quot;, and &quot;klopy&quot; could perhaps be interpreted as a non-standard anglicization of this (with word-final letter &quot;i&quot; replaced with the letter &quot;y&quot; in accordance with usual English spelling conventions). There is some minor precedent for going from Greek *-ή* to English *-y* in the form of old spelling variants of some words currently spelled with &quot;e&quot;, like &quot;apostrophy&quot;, &quot;epitomy&quot;. I dunno if that is really a convincing reason to choose this spelling, though. Maybe it's better to just make a definite decision (which might still be in favor of the spelling with &quot;y&quot;, just not because of any ambiguity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (A side note on English pronunciation: it would be most regular to pronounce words ending in *-clopy/-klopy/-clope* with stress on the third-to-last syllable, following the [pattern of compound words like *miscroscopy, astronomy, geology][6]* or *syncope, apocope, apostrophe*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;-klepty&quot; seems a bit more iffy to me, as I haven't been able to find any Greek words ending in *-κλεπτία.* However, terdon said in a comment below that *-κλεπτία* would work as the second part of a compound word in modern Greek.&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not it's sound in Ancient Greek, &quot;-klepty&quot; seems to have been used in modern scientific literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyoklepty. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;-klepsy&quot; is another one I'm unsure about: *[κλεψιά][7]* does seem to exist in modern Greek (with stress on the last syllable, although the Greek Wiktionary says it would have been *κλεψία* in Medieval/Byzantine Greek) as some kind of synonym of *κλοπή,* but I don't know if it would be suitable for the purposes you describe. I didn't find any Greek compound words ending in *-κλεψία* in LSJ, and terdon said that, although *-κλεψιά* would work as the second element of a Modern Greek compound, it would be surprising if it existed in Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to scientific technical terms, while we can say that most of them are based on Ancient Greek and this is the principle for their derivation in an ideal kind of sense, in practice people derive them from whatever form of Greek they feel like using (or whatever they can find, or even from Latin instead of Greek). E.g. note that the linked Wikipedia article describes &quot;karyoklepty&quot; as being derived from &quot;kleftis&quot;, which looks to me like it is a transcription of the Modern Greek pronunciation of the word for &quot;thief&quot; (*κλέφτης*; the ancient form of the word is *κλέπτης,*   which would be transliterated as &quot;kleptes&quot;). Since scientists don't usually study classical languages in the modern era, it may be easier to check if a compound works in Modern Greek than to make sure it works in Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlogoklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpuroklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%BF%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%AE#Greek&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Du(drofobi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%AE#Noun_2&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194/how-are-words-ending-ology-onomy-ography-pronounced&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%88%CE%B9%CE%AC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="a8b5d21e-1a77-4ce2-b2ab-84df2e3077e5" CreationDate="2017-10-09T18:25:42.773" UserId="9" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="Disclaimer: I don't know any Greek. This is an answer based on Internet research (and now some helpful comments from Modern Greek speakers), not an expert answer. I would advise against accepting it or using it as the basis of any serious decision about forming a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;-klopy&quot;/&quot;-clopy&quot; seems most preferable to me in that there are at least two Greek words in the LSJ dictionary ending in *-κλοπία* ([λογοκλοπία][1] &quot;stealing of another's words&quot; and [πυροκλοπία][2] &quot;theft of fire&quot;, which could be anglicized as &quot;logoclopy&quot; and &quot;pyroclopy&quot;). Although I can't find any compound words ending in *-κλοπή* in LSJ, Tasos Papastylianou and terdon have let me know that *-κλοπή* works as the second element of a compound word in Modern Greek. (The Modern Greek form of λογοκλοπία seems to be [λογοκλοπή][3].) As I don't know Greek, I can't provide any explanation for the presence of the suffix *-ία* in the two Ancient Greek words mentioned above; I can only say that it seems to show up in some other old compound nouns referring to abstract concepts (e.g. *[ὑδροϕοβία][4]* &quot;hydrophobia&quot;, from *φόβος* &quot;fear&quot;; see Tasos Papastylianou's comments below for a native Greek speaker's perspective about the possible nuances of meaning the suffix *-ία* might add in this context.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In English, using the spelling &quot;-klopy&quot; rather than the less anglicized &quot;-klopia&quot; might allow you to maintain a touch of ambiguity about whether you intend for the word to be understood as derived from Greek *-κλοπία* or *-κλοπή*: because modern Greek *[κλοπή][5]* is pronounced as /kloˈpi/, with the vowel /i/, it is typically transcribed as &quot;klopi&quot;, and &quot;klopy&quot; could perhaps be interpreted as a non-standard anglicization of this (with word-final letter &quot;i&quot; replaced with the letter &quot;y&quot; in accordance with usual English spelling conventions). There is some minor precedent for going from Greek *-ή* to English *-y* in the form of old spelling variants (or depending on your perspective, misspellings) of some words spelled in the current standard with &quot;e&quot;, like &quot;apostrophy&quot;, &quot;epitomy&quot;. I dunno if that is really a convincing reason to choose this spelling, though. Maybe it's better to just make a definite decision (which might still be in favor of the spelling with &quot;y&quot;, just not because of any ambiguity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (A side note on English pronunciation: it would be most regular to pronounce words ending in *-clopy/-klopy/-clope* with stress on the third-to-last syllable, following the [pattern of compound words like *miscroscopy, astronomy, geology][6]* or *syncope, apocope, apostrophe*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;-klepty&quot; seems a bit more iffy to me, as I haven't been able to find any Greek words ending in *-κλεπτία.* However, terdon said in a comment below that *-κλεπτία* would work as the second part of a compound word in modern Greek.&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not it's sound in Ancient Greek, &quot;-klepty&quot; seems to have been used in modern scientific literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyoklepty. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;-klepsy&quot; is another one I'm unsure about: *[κλεψιά][7]* does seem to exist in modern Greek (with stress on the last syllable, although the Greek Wiktionary says it would have been *κλεψία* in Medieval/Byzantine Greek) as some kind of synonym of *κλοπή,* but I don't know if it would be suitable for the purposes you describe. I didn't find any Greek compound words ending in *-κλεψία* in LSJ, and terdon said that, although *-κλεψιά* would work as the second element of a Modern Greek compound, it would be surprising if it existed in Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to scientific technical terms, while we can say that most of them are based on Ancient Greek and this is the principle for their derivation in an ideal kind of sense, in practice people derive them from whatever form of Greek they feel like using (or whatever they can find, or even from Latin instead of Greek). E.g. note that the linked Wikipedia article describes &quot;karyoklepty&quot; as being derived from &quot;kleftis&quot;, which looks to me like it is a transcription of the Modern Greek pronunciation of the word for &quot;thief&quot; (*κλέφτης*; the ancient form of the word is *κλέπτης,*   which would be transliterated as &quot;kleptes&quot;). Since scientists don't usually study classical languages in the modern era, it may be easier to check if a compound works in Modern Greek than to make sure it works in Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlogoklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpuroklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%BF%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%AE#Greek&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Du(drofobi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%AE#Noun_2&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194/how-are-words-ending-ology-onomy-ography-pronounced&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%88%CE%B9%CE%AC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5385" RevisionGUID="cbad7d1e-9864-4481-9883-d95366564d5d" CreationDate="2017-10-09T20:03:12.447" UserId="79" Text="Is *ulula* (an owl of some kind) a diminutive?&#xD;&#xA;It looks like one, but I'm not familiar with a Latin word looking remotely like *ula*.&#xD;&#xA;The word appears to be onomatopoetic to some extent, but it's hard to judge whether this is the whole story.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *ulula* might be &quot;a little thing that says 'ula'&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The [entry in L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=ulula&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) lists some cognates, and they make me suspect that the diminutive or reduplication is a Latin (and Greek?) invention.&#xD;&#xA;What do we know about the etymology of *ulula*, especially concerning diminutives?&#xD;&#xA;There are some related words (eg. *ululare* and *ululamen*), but they all seem to be derived from *ulula*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17790" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5385" RevisionGUID="cbad7d1e-9864-4481-9883-d95366564d5d" CreationDate="2017-10-09T20:03:12.447" UserId="79" Text="Is ulula a diminutive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17791" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5385" RevisionGUID="cbad7d1e-9864-4481-9883-d95366564d5d" CreationDate="2017-10-09T20:03:12.447" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|animals|diminutive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5386" RevisionGUID="6e7a2b9c-8a44-4fbe-babb-ae1ce2c064da" CreationDate="2017-10-10T00:30:38.860" UserId="522" Text="The verse is  a hexameter in the classical dactylic  metre, internally rhymed (**-orum, -orum**) and chiastic (with symmetric word order) to add intensity.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The hexameter, which [Arturo Graf][1] in 'Art of the Devil' says is added sometimes to the 'Hymn of the Bell,' is designed to provide conclusion and perspective, through contrast with the trochaic verses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trochaics &quot;I praise the True God, I call the people, gather the clergy. I lament the departed, banish plague, ornament feast days.&quot; etcetera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Laudo Deo verum,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plebem voco,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Congrego clerum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Defunctos ploro,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pestem fugo,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Festa decoro.  +6 more lines&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;and sometimes, at the end , the fearful line;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Est mea/ cunctor/um : ter/ror vox /daemoni/orum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two rhymed words (**-orum, -orum**) add emphasis to the **terror vox** at the centre of the chiasmus.  &#xD;&#xA;Compare the simple Chiasmus in Virgil underlining the descent into Hell, &quot;sola sub nocte&quot; under the lonely night. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; From the twelfth Century a classical Hexameter (posh poetry) was sometimes used to contrast with trochaic and iambic couplets and triplets (popular, or vernacular, verse). And another example of a single (late) hexameter, internally **rhymed**, is the verse on Bede's tomb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hac sunt infossa : Baedae venerabilis ossa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another hexameter (swallowing an excess syllable through crasis) from  BL Arundel 83 f 126r complements a simple poem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Equitas judicii: Eternitas regni.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Resurrectionis novitas: Ascensionis libertas.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Constantia in cruciatu: Victoria in conflictu.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etcetera +3 couplets; having a rubricated hexameter, with 'mei' counting as a single syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pellican/us di/cor : pro /pullis/ scindit/ mei cor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In another example from BL Arundel 83 II, only a fragment survives in the rubric (12 types of human attitude), but an **[elegiac couplet][3]** provides the proem to the hard-hitting Ages of Life. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Rubric) Duodec/im [proprietates] condici/onis hu/manae.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Proem) Hac ratio loquitur : homini sic ut videatur  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid sit; quid fuerit; quid-que futurus erit.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Here reason speaks thus to man so that there may be seen: What is, what was, and what shall be.' Which is followed by vernacular trochees: Age Five, Youth, uses uses **Chiasmus** to show self-confidence in the face of cynicism: [Edit:the 'O' possibly, error for 'Q'= Quam]  &#xD;&#xA;Reason: Than proud crops withered, surely there is nothing  more disappointing?  &#xD;&#xA;Youth:Nature's bloom, I rejoice in my youthful elegance.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ratio: O siccis herbis : Ens vilior num superbis.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuvenis: Nature decore :Juvenili gaudeo flore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9778921-art-of-the-devil&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elegiac_couplet&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arturo_Graf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5387" RevisionGUID="57a9310c-0f36-4cd3-92bf-f6378c6e9ed0" CreationDate="2017-10-10T00:42:42.507" UserId="710" Text="Ululatus - defined in &quot;The new college Latin and English Dictionary&quot; as howling (of dogs and wolves), wailing(mourning), war cry. 2. Howl out, howl at, wail. To me since ulula -ae is owl, I assume a more accurate definition would be night howls. The root and words built on it appear to be mainly for creatures that howl, wail, or cry after dark." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5387" RevisionGUID="3c4fec48-3774-4754-bc94-cb73bef5d674" CreationDate="2017-10-10T01:01:00.820" UserId="710" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="Ululatus - defined in &quot;The new college Latin and English Dictionary&quot; as howling (of dogs and wolves), wailing(mourning), war cry. 2. Howl out, howl at, wail. To me since ulula -ae is owl, I assume a more accurate definition would be night howls. The root and words built on it appear to be mainly for creatures that howl, wail, or cry after dark. To answer more specifically your question, my hypothesis would be that ulula is the diminutive of ululatus, the most commonly and regularly heard creature of the night. I've not generally seen this word used for mourning, only referring to a nocturnal activity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5385" RevisionGUID="d1742758-2146-4c85-89a6-15d090527f7b" CreationDate="2017-10-10T06:09:42.730" UserId="79" Comment="added 476 characters in body" Text="Is *ulula* (an owl of some kind) a diminutive?&#xD;&#xA;It looks like one, but I'm not familiar with a Latin word looking remotely like *ula*.&#xD;&#xA;The word appears to be onomatopoetic to some extent, but it's hard to judge whether this is the whole story.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *ulula* might be &quot;a little thing that says 'ula'&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The [entry in L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=ulula&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) lists some cognates, and they make me suspect that the diminutive or reduplication is a Latin (and Greek?) invention.&#xD;&#xA;What do we know about the etymology of *ulula*, especially concerning diminutives?&#xD;&#xA;There are some related words (eg. *ululare* and *ululamen*), but they all seem to be derived from *ulula*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Derivation of verbs from diminutives is not unprecedented: [*artus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DA%3Aentry+group%3D77%3Aentry%3Dartus1) &gt; [*articulus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DA%3Aentry+group%3D77%3Aentry%3Darticulus) &gt; [*articulare*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Darticulo)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5388" RevisionGUID="96635d96-0180-4d4f-a7a4-37aa08880cd9" CreationDate="2017-10-10T16:36:05.747" UserId="1987" Text="I've read on Stack Exchange that Absit Invidia means &quot;May Malice Be Gone&quot;. Can one also use it then, for example,  when a pesky terrible person leave the room, or even say it to them as a command (ie. To get out because of their malice)? Or is it *only* a wish?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17797" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5388" RevisionGUID="96635d96-0180-4d4f-a7a4-37aa08880cd9" CreationDate="2017-10-10T16:36:05.747" UserId="1987" Text="Absit Invidia as a command" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17798" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5388" RevisionGUID="96635d96-0180-4d4f-a7a4-37aa08880cd9" CreationDate="2017-10-10T16:36:05.747" UserId="1987" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5389" RevisionGUID="5a6b0ff5-206d-439d-9440-2b18a5d5caf3" CreationDate="2017-10-10T22:54:07.277" UserId="932" Text="This [answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2050/where-can-i-hear-the-original-pronunciation-of-the-latin-alphabet/2055#2055) already gave the answer as pointed by sumelic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, in archaic Latin, there were three letters , , and , corresponding to C, K and Q. All those letters were used for both the sound /k/ and /g/. Later the letter G was used for the sound /g/ so C was the only letter for in archaic Latin, there were three letters , , and , corresponding to C, K and Q. All those letters were used for both the sound /k/ and /g/. Later the letter G was used for the sound /g/ so C was the only letter for /k/. The letter K became rare and remained only before /a/ (Kalenda…) and Q, which was used in Etruscan before rounded vowels /kʷ/, remained only before /u/ and was therefore only conserved in QV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. also [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Etruscans used Q in conjunction with V to represent /kʷ/, and this usage was copied by the Romans with the rest of their alphabet. In the earliest Latin inscriptions, the letters C, K and Q were all used to represent the two sounds /k/ and /ɡ/, which were not differentiated in writing. Of these, Q was used before a rounded vowel (e.g. ⟨EQO⟩ 'ego'), K before /a/, and C elsewhere. Later, the use of C (and its variant G) replaced most usages of K and Q: Q survived only to represent /k/ when immediately followed by a /w/ sound." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5390" RevisionGUID="f3d1f6ed-e5db-498a-9a0f-8c0390459717" CreationDate="2017-10-11T02:00:03.457" UserId="78" Text="To pun on it but make it a command, try: *Absis, invidia*, &quot;May you, malice, be gone.&quot; *Absis* is the second person singular, and though it still expresses a wish, it's no different than in English in that respect. (Think of it like a curse.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone has just left, you can use the simple present: *Invidia abest*, &quot;The malice is away.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5388" RevisionGUID="af6ca55f-5491-46ed-91d1-8b4af93267c7" CreationDate="2017-10-11T05:48:54.673" UserId="79" Comment="Added explanation." Text="I've read on Stack Exchange that Absit Invidia means &quot;May Malice Be Gone&quot;. Can one also use it then, for example,  when a pesky terrible person leave the room, or even say it to them as a command (i.e. to get out because of their malice)? Or is it *only* a wish?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, I want something other than &quot;F*** off&quot; and &quot;F*** you&quot; to say when the nasty people I have to work and deal with. This would be relevant in two scenarios: 1. They are there and I want them to leave. 2. They have just left and I want to 'relieve' my soul of." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5388" RevisionGUID="6a261da6-69f3-47eb-9d80-ef9ae941446b" CreationDate="2017-10-11T05:51:29.003" UserId="1987" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I've read on Stack Exchange that Absit Invidia means &quot;May Malice Be Gone&quot;. Can one also use it then, for example,  when a pesky terrible person leave the room, or even say it to them as a command (i.e. to get out because of their malice)? Or is it *only* a wish?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, I want something other than &quot;bug off&quot; and &quot;F* you&quot; to say against the nasty people I have to work and deal with. This would be relevant in two scenarios: 1. They are there and I want them to leave. 2. They have just left and I want to 'relieve' my soul of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5391" RevisionGUID="cbd2e591-23df-43e9-90df-59d3e43b6c5e" CreationDate="2017-10-11T19:55:33.027" UserId="79" Text="The latest [Nuntii Latini](https://areena.yle.fi/1-4201630) mentions the Spanish constitution in relation to the Catalonian independence movement.&#xD;&#xA;It appears that in contemporary Latin a constitution is simply *constitutio*.&#xD;&#xA;Judging by [the entry in L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DC%3Aentry+group%3D95%3Aentry%3Dconstitutio), the word *constitutio* had a roughly similar meaning (II.C) in classical Latin, too.&#xD;&#xA;Could someone explain what kind of &quot;regulation&quot;, &quot;order&quot; or &quot;arrangement&quot; it means and how (if at all) it relates to the modern concept of a constitution?&#xD;&#xA;I found it puzzling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17804" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5391" RevisionGUID="cbd2e591-23df-43e9-90df-59d3e43b6c5e" CreationDate="2017-10-11T19:55:33.027" UserId="79" Text="How has the meaning of constitutio changed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17805" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5391" RevisionGUID="cbd2e591-23df-43e9-90df-59d3e43b6c5e" CreationDate="2017-10-11T19:55:33.027" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|nuntii-latini|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="e8c9f79e-2511-41ef-9377-1980c15871da" CreationDate="2017-10-11T23:04:12.797" UserId="9" Comment="added 604 characters in body" Text="Disclaimer: I don't know any Greek. This is an answer based on Internet research (and now some helpful comments from Modern Greek speakers), not an expert answer. I would advise against accepting it or using it as the basis of any serious decision about forming a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;-klopy&quot;/&quot;-clopy&quot; seems most preferable to me in that there are at least two Greek words in the [LSJ dictionary][1] ending in *-κλοπία* ([λογοκλοπία][2] &quot;stealing of another's words&quot; and [πυροκλοπία][3] &quot;theft of fire&quot;, which could be anglicized as &quot;logoclopy&quot; and &quot;pyroclopy&quot;). Although I can't find any compound words ending in *-κλοπή* in LSJ, Tasos Papastylianou and terdon have let me know that *-κλοπή* works as the second element of a compound word in Modern Greek. (The Modern Greek form of λογοκλοπία seems to be [λογοκλοπή][4].) As I don't know Greek, I can't provide any explanation for the presence of the suffix *-ία* in the two Ancient Greek words mentioned above; I can only say that it seems to show up in some other old compound nouns referring to abstract concepts (e.g. *[ὑδροϕοβία][5]* &quot;hydrophobia&quot;, from *φόβος* &quot;fear&quot;; see Tasos Papastylianou's comments below for a native Greek speaker's perspective about the possible nuances of meaning the suffix *-ία* might add in this context.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In English, using the spelling &quot;-klopy&quot; rather than the less anglicized &quot;-klopia&quot; might allow you to maintain a touch of ambiguity about whether you intend for the word to be understood as derived from Greek *-κλοπία* or *-κλοπή*: because modern Greek *[κλοπή][6]* is pronounced as /kloˈpi/, with the vowel /i/, it is typically transcribed as &quot;klopi&quot;, and &quot;klopy&quot; could perhaps be interpreted as a non-standard anglicization of this (with word-final letter &quot;i&quot; replaced with the letter &quot;y&quot; in accordance with usual English spelling conventions). There is some minor precedent for going from Greek *-ή* to English *-y* in the form of old spelling variants (or depending on your perspective, misspellings) of some words spelled in the current standard with &quot;e&quot;, like &quot;apostrophy&quot;, &quot;epitomy&quot;. I dunno if that is really a convincing reason to choose this spelling, though. Maybe it's better to just make a definite decision (which might still be in favor of the spelling with &quot;y&quot;, just not because of any ambiguity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (A side note on English pronunciation: it would be most regular to pronounce words ending in *-clopy/-klopy/-clope* with stress on the third-to-last syllable, following the [pattern of compound words like *miscroscopy, astronomy, geology][7]* or *syncope, apocope, apostrophe*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;-klepty&quot; seems a bit more iffy to me, as I haven't been able to find any Greek words ending in *-κλεπτία.* However, terdon said in a comment below that *-κλεπτία* would work as the second part of a compound word in modern Greek.&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not it's sound in Ancient Greek, &quot;-klepty&quot; seems to have been used in modern scientific literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyoklepty. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;-klepsy&quot; is another one I'm unsure about, but would advise against using if you're trying to stick to Ancient Greek. *[κλεψιά][8]* does seem to exist in modern Greek (with stress on the last syllable, although the Greek Wiktionary says it would have been *κλεψία* in Medieval/Byzantine Greek) as some kind of synonym of *κλοπή,* but I don't know if it would be suitable for the purposes you describe. I didn't find any Greek compound words ending in *-κλεψία* in LSJ, and terdon said that, although *-κλεψιά* would work as the second element of a Modern Greek compound, it would be surprising if it existed in Ancient Greek. (Terdon also said that the difference between *κλεψιά* and *κλοπή* in modern Greeek is &quot;akin to the difference between *theft* and *robbery* with the addition that *κλεψιά* also tends to be more colloquial.&quot;) I found some examples of &quot;[χαρτοκλεψιά][9]&quot; used online in modern Greek (the first part of this word is from *χάρτης*; it seems to be related to *[χαρτοκλέφτης][10]* &quot;card sharp/swindler&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to scientific technical terms, while we can say that most of them are based on Ancient Greek and this is the principle for their derivation in an ideal kind of sense, in practice people derive them from whatever form of Greek they feel like using (or whatever they can find, or even from Latin instead of Greek). E.g. note that the linked Wikipedia article describes &quot;karyoklepty&quot; as being derived from &quot;kleftis&quot;, which looks to me like it is a transcription of the Modern Greek pronunciation of the word for &quot;thief&quot; (*κλέφτης*; the ancient form of the word is *κλέπτης,*   which would be transliterated as &quot;kleptes&quot;). Since scientists  in the modern era don't usually study classical languages, it may be easier to check if a compound works in Modern Greek than to make sure it works in Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Greek%E2%80%93English_Lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlogoklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpuroklopi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%BF%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%AE#Greek&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Du(drofobi%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%AE#Noun_2&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/194/how-are-words-ending-ology-onomy-ography-pronounced&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%88%CE%B9%CE%AC&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%CF%87%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%88%CE%B9%CE%AC&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.wordreference.com/gren/%CF%87%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%AD%CF%86%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5392" RevisionGUID="1aec07a5-6f96-4af1-9489-30f78d4a118d" CreationDate="2017-10-12T10:03:37.903" UserId="79" Text="Is there a Latin word for &quot;deadline&quot;, a predefined point in time before which some assignment must be complete?&#xD;&#xA;I have heard the literal translation *linea letalis*, but there are also words like *terminus* and *limes* that might be appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;How would you express &quot;deadline&quot; in Latin and why so?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17808" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5392" RevisionGUID="1aec07a5-6f96-4af1-9489-30f78d4a118d" CreationDate="2017-10-12T10:03:37.903" UserId="79" Text="Is there a Latin word for a deadline?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17809" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5392" RevisionGUID="1aec07a5-6f96-4af1-9489-30f78d4a118d" CreationDate="2017-10-12T10:03:37.903" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5393" RevisionGUID="558f9d81-2989-41e1-8d52-da082f53caf9" CreationDate="2017-10-12T10:10:54.580" UserId="13" Text="In the Wiktionary entry about [philematology](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/philematology), there is a reference to [this book](http://dfg-viewer.de/en/v3/?tx_dlf%5Bid%5D=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de%2Fitems%2FIAP3WODECZZ2D5LGSIAL2NKGTMM2CWEH%2Fsource&amp;tx_dlf%5Bpage%5D=5&amp;tx_dlf%5Bdouble%5D=0&amp;cHash=95e9bbae1deccec264dceb828423a941). The title is copied (AFAIK, but I can't load the picture in the previous link so…) as in the cover, that is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Jacobus Herrenschmidius] (1659) Speculum φιληματολογίας [philēmatologías]. cùm Sacræ tùm profanæ: Per quæstiones aliquot ex variis multorum monumentis non minus ad voluptatem quam utilitatem S.S. Theologiæ &amp; Philologiæ Studiosorum concinnatum operâ &amp; studio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My reaction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. That circumflex for vowel length (that's an ablative singular) is weird: why not use the standard macron for that?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Why on earth should we keep the &amp;, which is just a scribal abbreviation, and not expand it to `et`?&#xD;&#xA; 3. What in the world is that grave accent for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here comes my question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When digitalizing the title of a book containing scribal abbreviations and/or diacritics, should one keep them as they appear in the book cover, or expand the abbreviations and switch to the standard diacritics? (And also, what are those grave accents for? I mean, the only thing I can think of is vowel length, but that would be either a circumflex or an acute, why a grave? And besides, are those vowel even long?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example of such a title can be found at [carol](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/carol), and is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Piæ cantiones ecclesiasticæ et scholasticæ vetervm episcoporum, in inclyto regno Sueciæ passim vsurpatæ, nuper studio viri cuiusdam reuerendiss: de ecclesia Dei &amp; schola Aboënsi in Finlandia optimè meriti accuratè à mendis correctæ, &amp; nunc typis commissæ, opera Theodorici Petri Nylandensis. His adiecti sunt aliquot ex psalmis recentioribus [Pious Ecclesiastical and School Songs of the Ancient Bishops, Used throughout the Glorious Kingdom of Sweden, […]] (1582)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17811" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5393" RevisionGUID="558f9d81-2989-41e1-8d52-da082f53caf9" CreationDate="2017-10-12T10:10:54.580" UserId="13" Text="About scribal abbreviations and diacritics in digitalized book titles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17812" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5393" RevisionGUID="558f9d81-2989-41e1-8d52-da082f53caf9" CreationDate="2017-10-12T10:10:54.580" UserId="13" Text="|abbreviations|diacritics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5392" RevisionGUID="2dc92ad4-62e6-40f1-bf4b-8b1b9e9123e1" CreationDate="2017-10-12T11:02:35.643" UserId="79" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="Is there a Latin word for &quot;deadline&quot;, a predefined point in time before which some assignment must be complete?&#xD;&#xA;I have heard the literal translation *linea letalis*, but there are also words like *terminus* and *limes* that might be appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;How would you express &quot;deadline&quot; in Latin and why so?&#xD;&#xA;I prefer to have (something that can be used as) a noun, not a verbal expression." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5395" RevisionGUID="a54a011a-6168-4d7a-9f95-685fb7799495" CreationDate="2017-10-12T14:12:32.040" UserId="2060" Text="Why is the adjective clarus, clarioris at the comparative, genitive and neutral form ? Shouldn't it be 'clariusis' since that's the form for neutral adjectives in the Comparative form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17817" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5395" RevisionGUID="a54a011a-6168-4d7a-9f95-685fb7799495" CreationDate="2017-10-12T14:12:32.040" UserId="2060" Text="Comparative adjective" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17818" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5395" RevisionGUID="a54a011a-6168-4d7a-9f95-685fb7799495" CreationDate="2017-10-12T14:12:32.040" UserId="2060" Text="|adjective|comparative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5396" RevisionGUID="f58df9b7-ac7f-4d9f-a34b-2ce90490aa8d" CreationDate="2017-10-12T14:31:08.537" UserId="30" Text="Th neuter adjective *clarius* is of the third declension, just like words such as *praeceps* (gen. *praecipitis*) and *vetus* (gen. *veteris*). As you can see, the genitive is often quite different from the nominative in words of the third declension. You can't really predict the genitive form based on the nominative form unless you know quite a bit more than just the common endings. You need to know the **stem** of the word, which is often not (fully) visible in the nominative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, the rule is that **masculine and neuter words differ *only in the nominative and/or adjective***: in the other three cases (genitive, dative, ablative), all endings must be the same between masculine and neuter. It follows therefore that the genitive singular of *clarius* must be the same as that of *clarior*: *clarioris*. As a rule, this applies to other Indo-European languages as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5395" RevisionGUID="99edfb8e-7dce-4dfe-b338-54e2e61f4262" CreationDate="2017-10-12T14:33:38.407" UserId="30" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The neuter genitive singular comparative of *clarus* is *clarioris*. Why is this? Shouldn't it be 'clariusis', since the form of neuter adjectives in the Comparative form ends on *-us*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17821" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5395" RevisionGUID="99edfb8e-7dce-4dfe-b338-54e2e61f4262" CreationDate="2017-10-12T14:33:38.407" UserId="30" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="|adjective|morphology|comparative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17822" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5395" RevisionGUID="ec43c4c9-1d4a-43c9-99cf-aa3d91485bcf" CreationDate="2017-10-12T14:38:25.820" UserId="12" Comment="edited title" Text="Why is the comparative adjective of &quot;clarus&quot; not &quot;clariusis&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5397" RevisionGUID="7216efc7-818a-4689-afe3-33f72c707569" CreationDate="2017-10-12T14:55:16.060" UserId="79" Text="This phenomenon is not unique to comparatives.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the genitives of *tempus* and *lepus* are *temporis* and *leporis*, while you might expect *tempusis* and *lepusis*.&#xD;&#xA;You can simply learn and accept that the stems of these nouns are *tempor-* and *lepor-* without further questions asked.&#xD;&#xA;This is what I would suggest as a starting point for anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While mostly unnecessary for the ability to speak and use Latin, it is interesting to wonder why the stems are as they are.&#xD;&#xA;(I assume this was your core question, but I may have misunderstood.)&#xD;&#xA;The nominative and the stem used to be alike as you might expect; they were *_tempos_ and *_lepos_.&#xD;&#xA;In the nominative the *o* changed into *u* in the same way as in the second declension nominative ending *-os* &gt; *-us*.&#xD;&#xA;When an ending was added, the singe *s* ended up between two vowels.&#xD;&#xA;In this case rhotacism kicks in and converts the *s* into an *r*.&#xD;&#xA;This leads to the genitive forms _temporis_ &lt; *_temposis_ and _leporis_ &lt; *_leposis_.&#xD;&#xA;Now the *o* is no longer subject to the change into an *u*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, the nominative changed from *tempos* to *tempus* and the stem from *tempos-* to *tempor-* and similarly for *lepus*.&#xD;&#xA;This might lead to more questions than answers, though.&#xD;&#xA;Why did the sound changes work that way?&#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason for these changes was, these patterns of sound changes are common in Latin and the weirdness you observed in the comparative fits nicely into a bigger picture of the evolution of Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5398" RevisionGUID="149db49d-d293-4197-a920-1efd99e21eb3" CreationDate="2017-10-12T15:25:42.130" UserId="183" Text="Inspired by this question https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5349/what-would-be-a-night-owl-in-latin and its excellent answers, I's like to know about the antonym of a &quot;night owl&quot;: What would be a &quot;lark&quot; or &quot;early bird&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was thinking about formations like *homo matutinus* or *homo matinalis*, but for sure, there are better alternatives!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17828" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5398" RevisionGUID="149db49d-d293-4197-a920-1efd99e21eb3" CreationDate="2017-10-12T15:25:42.130" UserId="183" Text="What would be a &quot;lark&quot; or &quot;early bird&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17829" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5398" RevisionGUID="149db49d-d293-4197-a920-1efd99e21eb3" CreationDate="2017-10-12T15:25:42.130" UserId="183" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5397" RevisionGUID="988cbd84-cd9b-47a3-a792-77a2a439ebcc" CreationDate="2017-10-12T16:01:45.623" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="This phenomenon is not unique to comparatives.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the genitives of *tempus* and *lepus* are *temporis* and *leporis*, while you might expect _tempusis_ and _lepusis_.&#xD;&#xA;You can simply learn and accept that the stems of these nouns are *tempor-* and *lepor-* without further questions asked.&#xD;&#xA;This is what I would suggest as a starting point for anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While mostly unnecessary for the ability to speak and use Latin, it is interesting to wonder why the stems are as they are.&#xD;&#xA;(I assume this was your core question, but I may have misunderstood.)&#xD;&#xA;The nominative and the stem used to be alike as you might expect; they were *_tempos_ and *_lepos_.&#xD;&#xA;In the nominative the *o* changed into *u* in the same way as in the second declension nominative ending *-os* &gt; *-us*.&#xD;&#xA;When an ending was added, the singe *s* ended up between two vowels.&#xD;&#xA;In this case rhotacism kicked in and converted the *s* into an *r*.&#xD;&#xA;This lead to the genitive forms _temporis_ &lt; *_temposis_ and _leporis_ &lt; *_leposis_.&#xD;&#xA;Now the *o* was no longer subject to the change into a *u*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, the nominative changed from *tempos* to *tempus* and the stem from *tempos-* to *tempor-* and similarly for *lepus*.&#xD;&#xA;This might lead to more questions than answers, though.&#xD;&#xA;Why did the sound changes work that way?&#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason for these changes was, these patterns of sound changes are common in Latin and the weirdness you observed in the comparative fits nicely into a bigger picture of the evolution of Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5395" RevisionGUID="f1fbf47d-106e-479b-aca1-97dfc5c26295" CreationDate="2017-10-12T16:03:03.420" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="The neuter genitive singular comparative of *clarus* is *clarioris*. Why is this? Shouldn't it be 'clariusis', since the form of neuter adjectives in the comparative form ends on *-us*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5398" RevisionGUID="edd1110d-415b-46c7-a0b3-2cad1512d4b9" CreationDate="2017-10-12T16:15:33.050" UserId="183" Comment="fixed typo in Latin word" Text="Inspired by this question https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5349/what-would-be-a-night-owl-in-latin and its excellent answers, I's like to know about the antonym of a &quot;night owl&quot;: What would be a &quot;lark&quot; or &quot;early bird&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was thinking about formations like *homo matutinus* or *homo matutinalis*, but for sure, there are better alternatives!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5396" RevisionGUID="ab4862d0-5d8e-4bfe-87ab-c52a70e63c05" CreationDate="2017-10-12T17:24:43.977" UserId="30" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Th neuter adjective *clarius* is of the third declension, just like words such as *praeceps* (gen. *praecipitis*) and *vetus* (gen. *veteris*). As you can see, the genitive is often quite different from the nominative in words of the third declension. You can't really predict the genitive form based on the nominative form unless you know quite a bit more than just the common endings. You need to know the **stem** of the word, which is often not (fully) visible in the nominative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, the rule is that **masculine and neuter words differ *only in the nominative and/or accusative***: in the other three cases (genitive, dative, ablative), all endings must be the same between masculine and neuter. It follows therefore that the genitive singular of *clarius* must be the same as that of *clarior*: *clarioris*. As a rule, this applies to other Indo-European languages as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5399" RevisionGUID="1863346a-973b-4415-9ee8-ec1b429aea50" CreationDate="2017-10-12T17:59:06.360" UserId="1694" Text="In my opinion, you should not try to &quot;improve&quot; the text acciording to your own whims, but represent the text as it is.  This means keeping the ampersands and accents as they are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To expand, the grave and the circumflex were used not primarily as length markers, but to provide some measure of grammatical disambiguation.  In particular, although the circumflex *did* indicate a long vowel, it was not  used indiscriminately to indicate *any* long vowel, but only those in certain circumstances, such a here in _operâ_, where it specifically signifies the ablative use.  Similarly, the grave was often used to indicate an adverb or simply to distinguish some uses of common words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a mistake to think of the macron as being &quot;standard&quot; - it has been (to the best of my knowledge) only used in teaching materials and dictionaries to indicate long vowels, not in regular texts, so it is a mistake to think of macrons and circumflexes as being equivalent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5399" RevisionGUID="a09cf887-c4f6-4b4d-a28b-f7339ca435b0" CreationDate="2017-10-12T19:30:34.563" UserId="1694" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In my opinion, you should not try to &quot;improve&quot; the text acciording to your own whims, but represent the text as it is.  This means keeping the ampersands and accents as they are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To expand, the grave and the circumflex were used not primarily as length markers, but to provide some measure of grammatical disambiguation.  In particular, although the circumflex *did* indicate a long vowel, it was not  used indiscriminately to indicate *any* long vowel, but only those in certain circumstances, such as here in _operâ_, where it specifically signifies the ablative use.  Similarly, the grave was often used to indicate an adverb or simply to distinguish some uses of common words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a mistake to think of the macron as being &quot;standard&quot; - it has been (to the best of my knowledge) only used in teaching materials and dictionaries to indicate long vowels, not in regular texts, so it is a mistake to think of macrons and circumflexes as being equivalent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5158" RevisionGUID="d2a96e5c-d25b-4ec8-85d3-b653f2cdfd20" CreationDate="2017-10-13T02:55:19.047" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="In the cathedral of Rouen I visited the grave of Richard I the Lionheart. It has an inscription:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Richard the Lionheart][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ANGLORVM REGIS QVI COR LEONIS DICTVS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is the best translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- King of England, who ruled with a lion heart?&#xD;&#xA;- English King, who ruled with a lion heart?&#xD;&#xA;- Maybe something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GqyTH.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5400" RevisionGUID="a3d608b0-f0c4-4ba1-a69d-e3182feabc04" CreationDate="2017-10-13T03:06:52.477" UserId="666" Text="In his letters to Emperor Trajan, Pliny the Younger used the salutation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gaius Plinius Traiano Imperatori&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly enough, in Trajan's replies he's a bit less formal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Traianus Plinio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me this is still kind of impersonal and formal (and I would not advise calling your professor Imperator unless you're really trying to brown-nose), so I would use something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Joe Johnson Magistro Smith, salve." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5401" RevisionGUID="5440ae8d-0f01-4919-8fdb-80d7149b7aef" CreationDate="2017-10-13T10:56:40.533" UserId="2062" Text="First of all there is a classical verb - constituo constituere constitui constitutum which means set up, bring about, arrange, decide, decree and some others. There is a noun &quot;constitutum -i&quot; meaning, among others things, &quot;an agreed arrangement&quot;. Looking at &quot;constitutum&quot; one can see that it is a second declension neuter noun and it does not end in &quot;ium&quot;, so &quot;constituto&quot; is either ablative or dative case, singular. The meaning of the ablative case is &quot;by&quot;, &quot;with&quot;, or &quot;from&quot; and the dative meaning is &quot;to&quot;. That is how case changes the meaning of the noun above. Refer to the Classical Oxford Latin Dictionary p.462. I hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5400" RevisionGUID="1f18783f-1108-4087-82d5-a00d327eacfd" CreationDate="2017-10-13T12:51:21.520" UserId="666" Comment="Added quote from Paul and explained the grammar" Text="In his letters to Emperor Trajan, Pliny the Younger used the salutation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gaius Plinius Traiano Imperatori&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;putting the sender (himself) in the nominative, and the recipient (Traianus) in the dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is kind of impersonal and formal (and I would not advise calling your professor Imperator unless you're really trying to brown-nose).  Interestingly enough, in Trajan's replies he's a bit less formal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Traianus Plinio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jerome's translation of Paul's _Epistula ad Thessalonicenses Prima_ opens&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Paulus, et Silvanus, et Timotheus ecclesiae Thessalonicensium in Deo Patre, et Domino Jesu Christo.  Gratia vobis, et pax.  (1 Thes. 1-2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an email to a professor, though (and a non-inspired work), you don't need to be quite that fancy.  I personally would use something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Joe Johnson Magistro Smith, salve." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17843" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5158" RevisionGUID="3169438c-fec5-454a-b465-71602bf5c68b" CreationDate="2017-10-13T13:41:58.900" UserId="469" Comment="corrected title, obviously a typo" Text="What does 'ANGLORUM REGIS QUI COR LEONIS DICTUS' mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17844" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5158" RevisionGUID="3169438c-fec5-454a-b465-71602bf5c68b" CreationDate="2017-10-13T13:41:58.900" UserId="469" Comment="corrected title, obviously a typo" Text="|medieval-latin|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5402" RevisionGUID="853cf51b-9729-4e6a-a094-eed6db9b07b1" CreationDate="2017-10-13T13:54:02.060" UserId="68" Text="In addition to ktm5124's excellent answer, the first line after the salutation could read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;SVBEEV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This stands for *Sī valēs, bene est; ego valeō*, which is essentially Latin for &quot;How are you? I am fine.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the closing (after which you don't need to write your name, since you've already included it in the salutation) there are several options, many of which depend on how well you know the professor; the safest one is probably&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cūrā ut valeās.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck with whatever you're asking him/her!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3052" RevisionGUID="331fbf50-b831-43fc-a923-e117ce3b1351" CreationDate="2017-10-13T13:56:34.133" UserId="1289" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="As promised before in a comment, I made a corpus analysis of whether word length, in terms of number of syllables, is correlated with position in the verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spoiler alert: it isn't. brianpck has already done a basic corpus analysis with essentially the right conclusion, but I intended to do this as thoroughly as possible in order to hone my primitive skills as a statistician (meaning: please respond to any errors I may have made), and to make good on the aforementioned promise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Input corpus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used a hexameter corpus consisting of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Vergilius, Bucolica&#xD;&#xA;* Vergilius, Aeneis&#xD;&#xA;* Ovidius, Metamorphoses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Caveats&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only verses that are scanned correctly by my [Latin verse scanning tool](http://benoitlagae.pythonanywhere.com) are taken into account. This is 94.7% of the existing corpus (21525 out of 22723 verses) as of the time of this writing. There's a whole host of reasons why a verse wouldn't be scanned correctly, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* hiatus in the verse&#xD;&#xA;* hypermetricality (elision over verse boundaries)&#xD;&#xA;* unfinished verses&#xD;&#xA;* multiple possible scans&#xD;&#xA;* non-intuitive scansions of foreign words&#xD;&#xA;* other flukes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a small number of words that just cannot be determined correctly e.g. the word **VOLVI** can be either bisyllabic *volvi* (&lt; *volvere*) or *volui* (&lt; *velle*). There is no way to distinguish between these forms if the *vol-* part is in the second half of a foot: vo̱l|vi or vo̯lu̯|i, except by leveraging dictionary or even semantic knowledge. But the occurrence of this kind of problem should be rare enough to not influence the data significantly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't check for elided syllables, so e.g. *multum ille et* in Verg. Aen. I, 3 is counted as a sequence of words of 2, 2, and 1 syllables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Data analysis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I compared the actual vs the expected word length of words in verses: this essentially normalized the data to always have an expected value of 1, in order to allow using the data set of the 4-word verses together with the 11-word ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, any word in a verse consisting of 5 words that is 15 syllables in total, has an expected syllable count of 3. A verse consisting of 10 words and 14 syllables in total will contain on average a word of 1.4 syllables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By doing the calculation (actual * number of words / number of syllables), any word in any verse has an expected normalized weight of 1, no matter how many words and how many total syllables the verse contains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My results are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	+---------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------+&#xD;&#xA;	| word position |   1   |   2   |   3   |   4   |   5   |   6   |   7   |  8   |  9   |  10  |  11  |&#xD;&#xA;	+---------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------+&#xD;&#xA;	| count         | 21525 | 21525 | 21525 | 21525 | 21456 | 18340 | 10133 | 3308 |  636 |   76 |    7 |&#xD;&#xA;	| average       |  0.95 |  0.92 |  0.97 |  0.98 |  1.03 |  1.07 |  1.12 | 1.17 | 1.20 | 1.17 | 1.43 |&#xD;&#xA;	| st dev        |  0.40 |  0.33 |  0.35 |  0.35 |  0.39 |  0.37 |  0.34 | 0.33 | 0.38 | 0.44 | 0.43 |&#xD;&#xA;	| variance      |  0.16 |  0.11 |  0.12 |  0.12 |  0.15 |  0.13 |  0.11 | 0.11 | 0.15 | 0.19 | 0.19 |&#xD;&#xA;	| # of st devs  |  0.12 |  0.25 |  0.07 |  0.07 |  0.08 |  0.19 |  0.35 | 0.52 | 0.53 | 0.38 | 0.98 |&#xD;&#xA;	+---------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------+&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +---------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------+------+-------+&#xD;&#xA;	| word position |  -1   |  -2   |  -3   |  -4   |  -5   |  -6   |  -7   |  -8  |  -9  | -10  |  -11  |&#xD;&#xA;	+---------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------+------+-------+&#xD;&#xA;	| count         | 21525 | 21525 | 21525 | 21525 | 21456 | 18340 | 10133 | 3308 |  636 |   76 |     7 |&#xD;&#xA;	| average       |  1.01 |  1.24 |  0.94 |  0.94 |  0.96 |  0.96 |  0.91 | 0.87 | 0.82 | 0.83 |  0.66 |&#xD;&#xA;	| st dev        |  0.25 |  0.37 |  0.37 |  0.33 |  0.35 |  0.39 |  0.40 | 0.39 | 0.36 | 0.37 |  0.02 |&#xD;&#xA;	| variance      |  0.06 |  0.14 |  0.14 |  0.11 |  0.13 |  0.15 |  0.16 | 0.15 | 0.13 | 0.14 |  0.00 |&#xD;&#xA;	| # of st devs  |  0.06 |  0.64 |  0.17 |  0.18 |  0.10 |  0.09 |  0.21 | 0.34 | 0.49 | 0.45 | 16.77 |&#xD;&#xA;	+---------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------+------+-------+&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;word position -1 means the last word in a verse, -2 the second to last, etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last line of every table is the most important one, because it points to how significant the difference is between actual and expected data. In order to be statistically significant, we want the value in this row to be at least 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the only place where the actual length of words deviates significantly from the expected value is the eleventh-last word in verses of 11 words long, so the first. All 11-word verses start with a monosyllable, but given that there are only 7 such instances in the entire corpus, this is negligible. If any of these 7 instances hadn't had a monosyllable as a first word, then the sigma value would've been 1.30 instead of 16.77.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All other values are not statistically significant, so no, there is no correlation between word position and word length expressed in syllables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FYI I can provide the raw data on request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5403" RevisionGUID="ddf793aa-24ff-4db8-8f9e-d577c6cd3242" CreationDate="2017-10-13T23:00:44.260" UserId="2062" Text="Word order is important in Latin, but unlike English, Latin is more flexible. Most Latin authors use word order to make sure their readers understand what is being conveyed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5404" RevisionGUID="d52fed24-df6d-43a8-8c83-95fe47c16945" CreationDate="2017-10-14T15:27:14.450" UserId="324" Text="From a synchronic point of view, the retention of Q as an allograph of C had the advantage that it disambiguates the distinction of the very common words QVI (qui) and CVI (cui), which would otherwise be homographs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5406" RevisionGUID="272978c5-f9c6-45c6-bed2-2276d83945e4" CreationDate="2017-10-14T17:39:42.477" UserId="13" Text="I ran into [this](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-the-Ancient-Greek-word-%E2%80%9CMegartos%E2%80%9D-It-exists-in-two-centuries-old-books-in-libraries-but-not-in-online-dictionaries) this morning, and had an exchange in comments with the other answerer (after answering myself). The word in the title, I'm fairly certain, means &quot;envied&quot;, being the -τος verbal adjective of the verb μεγαίρω, &quot;to envy&quot;. However, googling for it, I only find lexicons, not actual texts containing the word. So I was wondering: is there any author text that actually uses this word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Also, why does LSJ gloss it &quot;envious&quot;? Are they referring to the obsolete and poetic meaning of &quot;inspiring envy&quot; mentioned on [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/envious) at &quot;envious&quot;?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17851" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5406" RevisionGUID="272978c5-f9c6-45c6-bed2-2276d83945e4" CreationDate="2017-10-14T17:39:42.477" UserId="13" Text="Can we find a quotation from an author containing the word μεγαρτός?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17852" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5406" RevisionGUID="272978c5-f9c6-45c6-bed2-2276d83945e4" CreationDate="2017-10-14T17:39:42.477" UserId="13" Text="|vocabulary|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5406" RevisionGUID="ced58762-b54e-4471-8e61-7c371ef946fb" CreationDate="2017-10-14T19:18:30.037" UserId="79" Comment="Added the Greek tag and added the key word to the question itself." Text="I ran into [this](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-the-Ancient-Greek-word-%E2%80%9CMegartos%E2%80%9D-It-exists-in-two-centuries-old-books-in-libraries-but-not-in-online-dictionaries) this morning, and had an exchange in comments with the other answerer (after answering myself). The word μεγαρτός, I'm fairly certain, means &quot;envied&quot;, being the -τος verbal adjective of the verb μεγαίρω, &quot;to envy&quot;. However, googling for it, I only find lexicons, not actual texts containing the word. So I was wondering: is there any author text that actually uses this word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Also, why does LSJ gloss it &quot;envious&quot;? Are they referring to the obsolete and poetic meaning of &quot;inspiring envy&quot; mentioned on [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/envious) at &quot;envious&quot;?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17858" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5406" RevisionGUID="ced58762-b54e-4471-8e61-7c371ef946fb" CreationDate="2017-10-14T19:18:30.037" UserId="79" Comment="Added the Greek tag and added the key word to the question itself." Text="|vocabulary|greek|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5407" RevisionGUID="63e0af20-f6b3-4bfe-ac32-74f2cd9b3743" CreationDate="2017-10-15T02:31:25.007" UserId="9" Text="Apparently, the English word &quot;Herculean&quot; has an old spelling variant &quot;Herculæan&quot;. This seems to correspond to a Latin variant of the adjective &quot;herculeus/[Hercŭlĕus][1]&quot; spelled &quot;Herculæus&quot; (example: &quot;Magnetem qui **Herculæus** vocatur ubique dispersit, quo nullus est admirabilior, aut utilior lapis in rerum natura.&quot; –*[Universæ naturæ theatrum][2],* Jean Bodin, 1596).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a little confused by this; I think I understand the formation of the more commonly found &quot;Hercŭlĕus&quot; (correct me if I'm wrong, it seems to be &quot;Hercŭl-&quot; as in &quot;Hercul-is&quot; or &quot;Hercul-em&quot; + the adjectival suffix -ĕus), but I'm not sure if &quot;Herculæus&quot; should just be considered an error, or has some basis to it that I can't currently see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that in medieval Latin, there was a lot of interchange between spellings with &quot;e&quot;, &quot;æ&quot; and &quot;œ&quot;, so a word might be spelled with any of these with no regard to its etymology. However, I am not entirely sure if that's the whole explanation for the use of &quot;Herculæus&quot; as an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that there are a number of Latin adjectives that did end in etymological &quot;aeus&quot;, ultimately coming from Greek adjectives in *-αιος* (such as *[trochaeus][3]* from *τροχαῖος*). As far as I can tell, the &quot;a&quot;/alpha in *-aeus* adjectives originates from the thematic vowel of the first declension, but what I don't know is to what extent this suffix may have been able to be applied analogically to nouns of other declensions. (Also, I know there were similar adjectives in Greek terminating in *-ειος,* Latin *-ēus~ῑus,*, which seem to be formed when an &quot;e&quot;-like vowel came before the adjective suffix. So the Greek name of Hercules, *Ἡρακλῆς,* was the source of the word *ἡράκλειος* that became Latin *Heraclius.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In spoken Latin, at least, I would expect there to be a difference in stress between &quot;Herculĕus&quot;, stressed on the antepenult, and &quot;Herculaeus&quot;, stressed on the penult. But maybe these rules aren't relevant when dealing with medieval Latin. I was wondering if if the &quot;ae&quot; spelling is used in any texts from a period when Latin was still a spoken language, and if so, if that should be taken as evidence for analogical extension of *-aeus* as an adjective suffix, rather than just variation in the letters used to spell the *-ĕus* adjective suffix. Also, if there are other words where &quot;-aeus&quot; is suffixed to a non-first-declension noun like this, I would be interested in knowing about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DHerculeus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=q04rNlPQnJcC&amp;pg=PA243&amp;lpg=PA243&amp;dq=Hercul%C3%A6us&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qdYbqNRqMG&amp;sig=57cRB2s3wqOz0kEvMXfEL4JgSEw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj35uKpwvHWAhWh64MKHeveDNYQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=Hercul%C3%A6us&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtrochaeus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17860" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5407" RevisionGUID="63e0af20-f6b3-4bfe-ac32-74f2cd9b3743" CreationDate="2017-10-15T02:31:25.007" UserId="9" Text="How can the use of &quot;-aeus&quot; as an adjective suffix in &quot;Herculaeus&quot; be explained?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17861" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5407" RevisionGUID="63e0af20-f6b3-4bfe-ac32-74f2cd9b3743" CreationDate="2017-10-15T02:31:25.007" UserId="9" Text="|greek|medieval-latin|adjective|suffixes|spoken-language|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5408" RevisionGUID="60e79850-e8b0-433d-9e55-4a6060d6ccc7" CreationDate="2017-10-15T10:44:59.710" UserId="324" Text="The adjective Herculeus is well attested in Classical Latin. I think “Herculaeus” is merely a bad spelling in Mediaeval or Humanistic Latin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5409" RevisionGUID="a20c189e-a941-4d69-b773-a3244deb119a" CreationDate="2017-10-15T11:27:01.180" UserId="324" Text="L/S has: βόο-κλεψ, contr. βοῦκλεψ, ὁ,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   A stealer of oxen, S[ophocles].Fr[agment]318. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5410" RevisionGUID="66f74c7c-e841-48b1-a110-4b3bf17b8716" CreationDate="2017-10-15T13:03:50.643" UserId="79" Text="Judging by [this question on rhyming in classical poetry](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1036/79), it seems that rhyme did not make its way to Latin poetry in the classical era.&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, even hymns intended for singing (like *Carmen saeculare*) were not rhymed.&#xD;&#xA;However, rhyming is very common in various songs (and perhaps poetry as well?) in ecclesiastic Latin.&#xD;&#xA;When did rhyme enter Latin poetry or song?&#xD;&#xA;I assume it was gradual, but I don't even have a big picture or an idea of any major milestones in this respect.&#xD;&#xA;For example, what was the first clearly rhymed piece of Latin poetry?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm not sure if this turned out as clear as I hoped. Please ask if this feels too broad or needs clarification.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17865" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5410" RevisionGUID="66f74c7c-e841-48b1-a110-4b3bf17b8716" CreationDate="2017-10-15T13:03:50.643" UserId="79" Text="When did rhyme enter Latin poetry or song?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17866" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5410" RevisionGUID="66f74c7c-e841-48b1-a110-4b3bf17b8716" CreationDate="2017-10-15T13:03:50.643" UserId="79" Text="|poetry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5411" RevisionGUID="0ad21731-8741-42f4-a046-e20ab259ed52" CreationDate="2017-10-15T17:31:50.960" UserId="9" Text="It seems that some people have proposed that *-menos* developed in a few Latin words to *-mens* rather than *-mnus,* but this was controversial and I don't know if any modern etymologists support it. At least one current Wiktionary entry seems to give an etymology based on this idea: the adjective *[clemens][1],* according to Wiktionary, comes &quot;from *clīnō* + participial suffix *-menos*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks questionable to me (I don't know if the syncope of the *o* in this context can be explained via regular sound laws, and the use of *-t-* in the non-nominative forms seems like it would have to be explained as due to analogy, either from the noun *mens* or from the *-ens* participles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I indicated above, I unfortunately am not aware of current literature on this topic, but &quot;Latin Etymologies&quot;, by Edwin W. Fay, seems to say that Niedermann proposed deriving *vehemens* from *\*vehemenos,* and Osthoff connected *clemens* to Sanskrit &quot;*çrayamānas* 'leaning' &quot; (Note: this seems to correspond to the [IAST][2] spelling śrayamāṇaḥ/śrayamāṇas.) However, Fay says that *clemens* and *vehemens* are basically the only evidence for *-mens* as reflex in Latin of *-menos,* and therefore Fay rejects that etymology and instead proposes that both words are originally compounds from *mens* &quot;mind&quot;. Fay also rejects the identification of the first part of *clemens* with *clīnō,* proposing that it instead comes from a form *\*tlē-* that he associates with Greek *talai-phrōn* and *tlē-thymos*; he suggests the development of the *tl* to *cl* instead of *l* is due to influence from forms prefixed with *in-,* specifically *inclementer.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Osthoff's proposed etymology for *clemens* also seems to have been mentioned by Brugmann (1891) alongside discussion of *-mnus* and *-mini.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify, the point of this post is not to endorse this etymology (nor deny it: I don't have the authority to do either!); I simply wanted to bring it up so that readers would be aware of the historical fact that in the past, some scholars suggested that *-mens* in these two words was derived from *\*-menus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Works Cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Latin Etymologies][3]&quot;,  Edwin W. Fay. *The American Journal of Philology* Vol. 24, No. 1 (1903), pp. 62-74&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages][4]&quot; Volume 2, Karl Brugmann. 1891.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/clemens&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Alphabet_of_Sanskrit_Transliteration&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=X9A4AAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA72&amp;lpg=PA72&amp;dq=Osthoff%20clemens%20Sanskrit&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=fTh23Fd3fI&amp;sig=BdH0ltDm1fE7XifIZ31g5fuDXB8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiM3ZiekvPWAhWm14MKHcNQDf4Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=Osthoff%20clemens%20Sanskrit&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=yO1YAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA165&amp;lpg=PA165&amp;dq=Osthoff%20clemens%20Sanskrit&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=7wrp6x3FOl&amp;sig=Y8EwaHhgCLJmeLyGynAljmAE9uA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjm6fqMj_PWAhVH5IMKHYQ4AOcQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Osthoff%20clemens%20Sanskrit&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5411" RevisionGUID="08772139-9266-4367-a2e9-6074f55d7686" CreationDate="2017-10-15T21:29:32.667" UserId="9" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="It seems that some people have proposed that *-menos* developed in a few Latin words to *-mens* rather than *-mnus,* but this was controversial and I don't know if any modern etymologists support it. (And it certainly doesn't seem to have been productive.) At least one current Wiktionary entry gives an etymology based on this idea: the adjective *[clemens][1],* according to Wiktionary, comes &quot;from *clīnō* + participial suffix *-menos*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks questionable to me (I don't know if the syncope of the *o* in this context can be explained via regular sound laws, and the use of *-t-* in the non-nominative forms seems like it would have to be explained as due to analogy, either from the noun *mens* or from the *-ens* participles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I indicated above, I unfortunately am not aware of current literature on this topic, but &quot;Latin Etymologies&quot;, by Edwin W. Fay, seems to say that Niedermann proposed deriving *vehemens* from *\*vehemenos,* and Osthoff connected *clemens* to Sanskrit &quot;*çrayamānas* 'leaning' &quot; (Note: this seems to correspond to the [IAST][2] spelling śrayamāṇaḥ/śrayamāṇas.) However, Fay says that *clemens* and *vehemens* are basically the only evidence for *-mens* as reflex in Latin of *-menos,* and therefore Fay rejects that etymology and instead proposes that both words are originally compounds from *mens* &quot;mind&quot;. Fay also rejects the identification of the first part of *clemens* with *clīnō,* proposing that it instead comes from a form *\*tlē-* that he associates with Greek *talai-phrōn* and *tlē-thymos*; he suggests the development of the *tl* to *cl* instead of *l* is due to influence from forms prefixed with *in-,* specifically *inclementer.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Osthoff's proposed etymology for *clemens* also seems to have been mentioned by Brugmann (1891) alongside discussion of *-mnus* and *-mini.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify, the point of this post is not to endorse this etymology (nor deny it: I don't have the authority to do either!); I simply wanted to bring it up so that readers would be aware of the historical fact that in the past, some scholars suggested that *-mens* in these two words was derived from *\*-menus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Works Cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Latin Etymologies][3]&quot;,  Edwin W. Fay. *The American Journal of Philology* Vol. 24, No. 1 (1903), pp. 62-74&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages][4]&quot; Volume 2, Karl Brugmann. 1891.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/clemens&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Alphabet_of_Sanskrit_Transliteration&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=X9A4AAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA72&amp;lpg=PA72&amp;dq=Osthoff%20clemens%20Sanskrit&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=fTh23Fd3fI&amp;sig=BdH0ltDm1fE7XifIZ31g5fuDXB8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiM3ZiekvPWAhWm14MKHcNQDf4Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=Osthoff%20clemens%20Sanskrit&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=yO1YAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA165&amp;lpg=PA165&amp;dq=Osthoff%20clemens%20Sanskrit&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=7wrp6x3FOl&amp;sig=Y8EwaHhgCLJmeLyGynAljmAE9uA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjm6fqMj_PWAhVH5IMKHYQ4AOcQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Osthoff%20clemens%20Sanskrit&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5412" RevisionGUID="04fbb55a-adb6-4ca1-8869-a74cd31cebb3" CreationDate="2017-10-16T00:45:06.307" UserId="2067" Text="I'm in need of translating this expression to Latin for a project of mine. I really tried figuring this out using Google but I came to a short end. Could anyone help me? Thank you in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17871" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5412" RevisionGUID="04fbb55a-adb6-4ca1-8869-a74cd31cebb3" CreationDate="2017-10-16T00:45:06.307" UserId="2067" Text="How can you translate the expression &quot;Kindled embers&quot; to preserve the meaning of smoldering chunks of coal or wood?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17872" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5412" RevisionGUID="04fbb55a-adb6-4ca1-8869-a74cd31cebb3" CreationDate="2017-10-16T00:45:06.307" UserId="2067" Text="|classical-latin|contemporary-latin|medieval-latin|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5411" RevisionGUID="54dbd614-f589-4df1-938a-0b7d90ccaee9" CreationDate="2017-10-16T07:48:42.467" UserId="9" Comment="edited to add De Vaan now that I have checked it" Text="It seems that some people have proposed that *-menos* developed in a few Latin words to *-mens* rather than *-mnus,* but there is no consensus in favor of this etymology. (And it certainly doesn't seem to have been productive.) At least one current Wiktionary entry gives an etymology based on this idea: the adjective *[clemens][1],* according to Wiktionary, comes &quot;from *clīnō* + participial suffix *-menos*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan (2008) says an etymology from *\*klejomenos* was given in Walde-Hoffmann (1930-1954), and earlier by Breal and Osthoff (the &quot;nt&quot; in non-nominative forms would have to be analogical). However, he says &quot;the contraction in initial syllable of *\*ejo* &gt; *ē* is doubtful, and the disappearance of *o*-stem inflection completely unexpected.&quot; De Vaan thinks that a derivation from *mēns* 'mind', as given by Ernout-Meillet (1979), is &quot;attractive&quot;. De Vaan also provides an alternative proposal for the first part of the word to try to make the *ē* more explainable, *\*kloi-wo-ment-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Latin Etymologies&quot; by Edwin W. Fay (1903), seems to say that Niedermann proposed deriving *vehemens* from *\*vehemenos,* and mentions that Osthoff connected *clemens* to Sanskrit &quot;*çrayamānas* 'leaning' &quot; (Note: this seems to correspond to the [IAST][2] spelling śrayamāṇaḥ/śrayamāṇas.) However, Fay says that *clemens* and *vehemens* are basically the only evidence for *-mens* as reflex in Latin of *-menos,* and therefore Fay rejects that etymology and instead proposes that both words are originally compounds from *mens* &quot;mind&quot;. Fay also rejects the identification of the first part of *clemens* with *clīnō,* proposing that it instead comes from a form *\*tlē-* that he associates with Greek *talai-phrōn* and *tlē-thymos*; he suggests the development of the *tl* to *cl* instead of *l* is due to influence from forms prefixed with *in-,* specifically *inclementer.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Osthoff's proposed etymology for *clemens* also seems to have been mentioned by Brugmann (1891) alongside discussion of *-mnus* and *-mini.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify, the point of this post is not to endorse this etymology (nor deny it: I don't have the authority to do either!); I simply wanted to bring it up so that readers would be aware of the historical fact that in the past, some scholars suggested that *-mens* in these two words was derived from *\*-menus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Works Cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Latin Etymologies][3]&quot;,  Edwin W. Fay. *The American Journal of Philology* Vol. 24, No. 1 (1903), pp. 62-74&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages][4]&quot; Volume 2, Karl Brugmann. 1891.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages,* Michiel de Vaan. 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/clemens&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Alphabet_of_Sanskrit_Transliteration&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=X9A4AAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA72&amp;lpg=PA72&amp;dq=Osthoff%20clemens%20Sanskrit&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=fTh23Fd3fI&amp;sig=BdH0ltDm1fE7XifIZ31g5fuDXB8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiM3ZiekvPWAhWm14MKHcNQDf4Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=Osthoff%20clemens%20Sanskrit&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=yO1YAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA165&amp;lpg=PA165&amp;dq=Osthoff%20clemens%20Sanskrit&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=7wrp6x3FOl&amp;sig=Y8EwaHhgCLJmeLyGynAljmAE9uA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjm6fqMj_PWAhVH5IMKHYQ4AOcQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Osthoff%20clemens%20Sanskrit&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5411" RevisionGUID="2c1a84ec-78df-4f41-966a-f1c2a9ed89d9" CreationDate="2017-10-16T07:54:25.783" UserId="9" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="It seems that some people have proposed that *-menos* developed in a few Latin words to *-mens* rather than *-mnus,* but there is no consensus in favor of this etymology. (And it certainly doesn't seem to have been productive.) At least one current Wiktionary entry gives an etymology based on this idea: the adjective *[clēmens][1],* according to Wiktionary, comes &quot;from *clīnō* + participial suffix *-menos*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan (2008) says an etymology from *\*klejomenos* was given in Walde-Hoffmann (1930-1954), and earlier by Breal and Osthoff (the &quot;nt&quot; in non-nominative forms would have to be analogical). However, he says &quot;the contraction in initial syllable of *\*ejo* &gt; *ē* is doubtful, and the disappearance of *o*-stem inflection completely unexpected.&quot; De Vaan thinks that a derivation from *mēns* 'mind', as given by Ernout-Meillet (1979), is &quot;attractive&quot;. De Vaan also provides an alternative proposal for exact form of the first part of the word to try to make the *ē* a bit more explainable, *\*kloi-wo-ment-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Latin Etymologies&quot; by Edwin W. Fay (1903), seems to say that Niedermann proposed deriving *vehemens* from *\*vehemenos,* and mentions that Osthoff connected *clēmens* to Sanskrit &quot;*çrayamānas* 'leaning' &quot; (Note: this seems to correspond to the [IAST][2] spelling śrayamāṇaḥ/śrayamāṇas.) However, Fay says that *clēmens* and *vehemens~vēmens* are basically the only evidence for *-mens* as reflex in Latin of *-menos,* and therefore Fay rejects that etymology and instead proposes that both words are originally compounds from *mens* &quot;mind&quot;. Fay also rejects the identification of the first part of *clēmens* with *clīnō* (he finds the semantic relationship underwhelming), proposing that it instead comes from a form *\*tlē-* that he associates with Greek *talai-phrōn* and *tlē-thymos*; he suggests the development of the *tl* to *cl* instead of *l* is due to influence from forms prefixed with *in-,* specifically *inclēmenter.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Osthoff's proposed etymology for *clēmens* also seems to have been mentioned by Brugmann (1891) alongside discussion of *-mnus* and *-mini.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify, the point of this post is not to endorse this etymology (nor deny it: I don't have the authority to do either!); I simply wanted to bring it up so that readers would be aware of the historical fact that in the past, some scholars suggested that *-mens* in these two words was derived from *\*-menus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Works Cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Latin Etymologies][3]&quot;,  Edwin W. Fay. *The American Journal of Philology* Vol. 24, No. 1 (1903), pp. 62-74&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages][4]&quot; Volume 2, Karl Brugmann. 1891.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages,* Michiel de Vaan. 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/clemens&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Alphabet_of_Sanskrit_Transliteration&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=X9A4AAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA72&amp;lpg=PA72&amp;dq=Osthoff%20clemens%20Sanskrit&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=fTh23Fd3fI&amp;sig=BdH0ltDm1fE7XifIZ31g5fuDXB8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiM3ZiekvPWAhWm14MKHcNQDf4Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=Osthoff%20clemens%20Sanskrit&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=yO1YAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA165&amp;lpg=PA165&amp;dq=Osthoff%20clemens%20Sanskrit&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=7wrp6x3FOl&amp;sig=Y8EwaHhgCLJmeLyGynAljmAE9uA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjm6fqMj_PWAhVH5IMKHYQ4AOcQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Osthoff%20clemens%20Sanskrit&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5413" RevisionGUID="84082196-7f1e-433f-9bd3-3a149173dfa5" CreationDate="2017-10-16T08:49:04.547" UserId="645" Text="The word you want is *favilla*, which actually means 'glowing embers', or anything still hot and smouldering after combustion. As examples :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ibi tu calentem debita sparges lacrima favillam vatis amici* (Hor. Odes 2.6.23)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the well-known  medieval hymn, *Dies Irae, dies illa / solvet saeclum in favilla*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5323" RevisionGUID="576dc473-62b9-4229-b598-78f7c98409f3" CreationDate="2017-10-16T09:02:45.747" UserId="2025" Comment="Grammar" Text="I'm creating a Latin quiz game and want to know the best word/noun for “information”. I searched the word on the internet and got lots of results, but wasn't sure which one is the best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Results:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *informatio*&#xD;&#xA; - *indicium*&#xD;&#xA; - *nuntium*&#xD;&#xA; - *nuntiatio*&#xD;&#xA; - *significantia*&#xD;&#xA; - *notitia*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5414" RevisionGUID="94e627a2-7d87-4fbe-87dd-183a256956f3" CreationDate="2017-10-16T11:37:45.267" UserId="645" Text="The best explanation that I know of is given in  Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin (Nicholas Ostler, Harper Collins, London, 2007, p.182 *et seqq.*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ostler's opinion is that Arabic verse probably had a crucial influence on Western verse in the matter of rhyme, writing that &quot;only in the eleventh and twelfth centuries did Latin — and other—  verses begin to be fully and systematically rhymed at the end of lines . . . .  so that the poetry with rhythmical stress that had begun in Augustine's time came into its final state&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was, it seems, earlier Latin rhyming poetry, but not composed with the same rigour as began to be applied in the 11th/12th centuries, for which Ostler goes on to give examples. Dora Pym and Nancy Silver (Alive on Men's Lips, Centaur, 1964) give the anonymous texts of a 'Pilgrim Hymn' and a 'Love Song', each from the tenth century, which illustrate this lack of rigour a little more fully.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the thirteenth century, examples of the more rigorous style alluded to by Ostler become easier to find, including the longish hymn *Dies Irae* attributed to Thomas of Celano and the *Golden Sequence* of Stephen Langton (d. 1228)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5415" RevisionGUID="1d9fcb81-fc99-481d-bf00-6f3d4be8b4a4" CreationDate="2017-10-16T13:44:56.323" UserId="522" Text="What is missing from any answer is the vernacular verse (such as Greek miroloi; spontaneous verse lamentation) which was not written down.   &#xD;&#xA;In classical drama link-words (especially in stichomythia) cued the players, so that they knew when it was their turn to speak and which line followed. The earliest rhyme may have developed from this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The anonymous *Christmas Sequence,* by Notker Balbulus (840-912) ends every line in 'a' or nasal 'a'.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hodie sacrata / Maris stella / Est enixa /Novae salutis gaudia  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quem tremunt barathra. / Mors cruenta / Paver ipsa /A quo peribit mortua,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gemit capta pestis antiqua; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Coluber lividus perdit spolia; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two Lives of Saints (Legenda de Sancto Etfrido (7th C.), and also one of the English princess saints (?Mildred) mentioned by Rollason) which may be earlier; and have major sections written in rhymed rhythmic prose: to be chanted antiphonally. Rhyme reminds the chanter of the correct phrase (mnemonic); and the completion of the couplet is clear for the next singer (cue). Both these Lives were revised by the Ramsey reformers(960+) so can't be dated earlier. Merwald's Dream (from S. Etfrid; BL Harley 2253):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nox praeteritur, dum me sompno  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; datum in strato tenero  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ::::videbar michi videre  &#xD;&#xA;duos canes  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; teterrimos et immanes  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ::::me per iugulum arripere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5416" RevisionGUID="284b119b-0cce-40c6-962a-a3e54815e1e0" CreationDate="2017-10-16T13:52:19.933" UserId="68" Text="I'm having trouble with *quod sī*. L&amp;S offers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;With other particles, as si, nisi, utinam, ubi, etc., always with reference to something which precedes (very freq.), but, though, now&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and then gives a whole bunch of examples that omit whatever the &quot;something which precedes&quot; is, thereby removing any context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking now because I'm trying to translate an Armenian fairy tale into Latin, and there's a noble telling a peasant girl&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The King has sent us to ask you to become his son's wife. This ring, this necklace, these bracelets—all these are yours, if you consent!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've translated it as follows, but I'm not sure I'm using *quod sī* correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Rēx nōs mīsit tē fīlium nūbere ōrātum, quod sī annueris, hanc ānulam, hanc armillam, hoc monīle, cūncta tibi donābit!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17880" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5416" RevisionGUID="284b119b-0cce-40c6-962a-a3e54815e1e0" CreationDate="2017-10-16T13:52:19.933" UserId="68" Text="Meaning of &quot;quod si&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17881" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5416" RevisionGUID="284b119b-0cce-40c6-962a-a3e54815e1e0" CreationDate="2017-10-16T13:52:19.933" UserId="68" Text="|translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5417" RevisionGUID="e350dcdf-56b6-4345-9739-4f4da2fa25cd" CreationDate="2017-10-16T15:21:53.163" UserId="2069" Text="I am writing a poem in Latin and am a bit torn as to the grammar. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, the poem would be as below...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In secrets there is power.&#xD;&#xA;In truths there is freedom. &#xD;&#xA;Lust is for now.&#xD;&#xA;Love is forever. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I am not looking for a direct translation, but something with a similar meaning and more in the theme of latin. Below is my best try&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In secretum virtas.&#xD;&#xA;In verum libertas.&#xD;&#xA;Libido pro tempore.&#xD;&#xA;Amor ad infinitum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any comments/thought/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Also, comments on the poem itself would be great!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17883" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5417" RevisionGUID="e350dcdf-56b6-4345-9739-4f4da2fa25cd" CreationDate="2017-10-16T15:21:53.163" UserId="2069" Text="Latin poem, opinions on grammar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17884" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5417" RevisionGUID="e350dcdf-56b6-4345-9739-4f4da2fa25cd" CreationDate="2017-10-16T15:21:53.163" UserId="2069" Text="|grammar-choice|poetry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5418" RevisionGUID="69a3ad3e-2dbd-428e-bf5e-0741ea4dee44" CreationDate="2017-10-16T15:24:51.380" UserId="1818" Text="As far as I rembered, there are two dominant structurings of the Aeneis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The *Homer-Theory* (a name I made up, I forgot the official one), claiming that the first 6 books resemble the Odyssey with odysseys and books 7-12 resembling the Iliad with all the fighting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A structuring by Niklas Holzberg, which split the text into 3 parts and, as far as I can recall, linked them to the history of Rome (kings, republic, emperors or something like that). I have done a search through my sources but couldn't find anything on that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do speak German, so if somebody only finds German articles (given that Holzberg is German), that would work as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17886" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5418" RevisionGUID="69a3ad3e-2dbd-428e-bf5e-0741ea4dee44" CreationDate="2017-10-16T15:24:51.380" UserId="1818" Text="Structure of the Aeneis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17887" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5418" RevisionGUID="69a3ad3e-2dbd-428e-bf5e-0741ea4dee44" CreationDate="2017-10-16T15:24:51.380" UserId="1818" Text="|aeneis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5418" RevisionGUID="a8e9c124-0ed9-4c22-ad9f-105e79386c66" CreationDate="2017-10-16T17:17:49.933" UserId="136" Comment="Light brush up of spellings and very minor formatting changes" Text="As far as I remembered, there are two dominant structural theories of the Aeneid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The *Homer Theory* (a name I made up, I forgot the official one), claiming that the first 6 books resemble the Odyssey with odysseys and books 7-12 resembling the Iliad with all the fighting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A structuring by Niklas Holzberg, which split the text into 3 parts and, as far as I can recall, linked them to the history of Rome (kings, republic, emperors or something like that). I have done a search through my sources but couldn't find anything on that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do speak German, so if somebody only finds German articles (given that Holzberg is German), that would work as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17889" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5418" RevisionGUID="a8e9c124-0ed9-4c22-ad9f-105e79386c66" CreationDate="2017-10-16T17:17:49.933" UserId="136" Comment="Light brush up of spellings and very minor formatting changes" Text="Structure of the Aeneid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5418" RevisionGUID="746f012c-e567-4a56-b9f4-597c7396ea4c" CreationDate="2017-10-16T17:51:14.477" UserId="1818" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="As far as I remembered, there are two dominant structural theories of the Aeneid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The *Homer Theory* (a name I made up, I forgot the official one), claiming that the first 6 books resemble the Odyssey with odysseys and books 7-12 resembling the Iliad with all the fighting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A structuring by Niklas Holzberg, which split the text into 3 parts and, as far as I can recall, linked them to the history of Rome (kings, republic, emperors or something like that). I have done a search through my sources but couldn't find anything on that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone provide me with a summary of Holzberg theory or a link to his published theory?&#xA;&#xA;I do speak German, so if somebody only finds German articles (given that Holzberg is German), that would work as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5416" RevisionGUID="8c8889c0-be1a-429f-ab6f-fa52b98cb7fc" CreationDate="2017-10-16T18:32:44.080" UserId="68" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="I'm having trouble with *quod sī*. L&amp;S offers, under the definition of *quod*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;With other particles, as si, nisi, utinam, ubi, etc., always with reference to something which precedes (very freq.), but, though, now&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and then gives a whole bunch of examples that omit whatever the &quot;something which precedes&quot; is, thereby removing any context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking now because I'm trying to translate an Armenian fairy tale into Latin, and there's a noble telling a peasant girl,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The King has sent us to ask you to become his son's wife. This ring, this necklace, these bracelets—all these are yours, if you consent!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've translated it as follows, but I'm not sure I'm using *quod sī* correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Rēx nōs mīsit tē fīlium nūbere ōrātum, quod sī annueris, hanc ānulam, hanc armillam, hoc monīle, cūncta tibi donābit!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going for something along the lines of &quot;The king has sent us to ask you to marry his son, if you agree to  which [request], he'll give you this ring, this bracelet, [and] this necklace.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5417" RevisionGUID="967531ad-b7af-4122-81ac-e3915dc714e7" CreationDate="2017-10-16T18:41:54.603" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="I am writing a poem in Latin and am a bit torn as to the grammar. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, the poem would be as below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In secrets there is power.  &#xD;&#xA;In truths there is freedom.  &#xD;&#xA;Lust is for now.  &#xD;&#xA;Love is forever. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I am not looking for a direct translation, but something with a similar meaning and more in the theme of Latin. Below is my best try:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In secretum virtas.  &#xD;&#xA;In verum libertas.  &#xD;&#xA;Libido pro tempore.  &#xD;&#xA;Amor ad infinitum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any comments/thought/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Also, comments on the poem itself would be great!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17893" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5417" RevisionGUID="967531ad-b7af-4122-81ac-e3915dc714e7" CreationDate="2017-10-16T18:41:54.603" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="Feedback on grammar in a Latin poem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5419" RevisionGUID="bf8591ba-18f3-49d9-923f-874492370fb1" CreationDate="2017-10-16T18:57:11.013" UserId="2070" Text="Looking at [Niklas Holzbergs list of publications][1] seems unproductive for this.&#xD;&#xA;His Sammlung Tusculum book does not look like what you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be a mixup: Nicholas Horsfall has published on this too!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this looks like what you want to get at:&#xD;&#xA;[Nicholas Horsfall: &quot;The Epic Distilled. Studies in the Composition of the Aeneid&quot; ?][2] He has much more published on Virgil than Holzberg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I am unsure which &quot;theory&quot; you have in mind in particular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.niklasholzberg.com/Homepage/Publikationen.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-epic-distilled-9780198758877" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5420" RevisionGUID="76401a54-23fe-4748-9272-9863bf5142e9" CreationDate="2017-10-16T18:58:56.463" UserId="79" Text="Miscellaneous remarks on grammar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The preposition *in* has a different meaning with ablative than with accusative.&#xD;&#xA;Accusative indicates motion, ablative indicates position.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *in secretum* means &quot;into secret&quot; and *in secreto* means &quot;in secret&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I think ablatives work better in your poem, but the nuance is ultimately your choice.&#xD;&#xA;You have used singular (&quot;secret&quot;, &quot;truth&quot;) instead of plural, but that is a matter of taste here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I am not familiar with a word *virtas*, and neither are the dictionaries I consulted.&#xD;&#xA;Did you perhaps mean [*virtus*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2063248)?&#xD;&#xA;It is not a very literal translation for &quot;power&quot;, but can work well if the meaning fits what you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The overall structure of the first two lines is good.&#xD;&#xA;The implicit *est* is probably best indeed left implicit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The phrase *pro tempore* sounds a little off to me.&#xD;&#xA;The *ad infinitum* (&quot;to infinity&quot;) sounds better, but I would suggest something else.&#xD;&#xA;If I interpret correctly, you want to say that lust is but a temporary thing, whereas actual love lasts forever.&#xD;&#xA;To make this parallelism clearer, I recommend using similar structures.&#xD;&#xA;I would go with an adverb for both or an adjective for both.&#xD;&#xA;The adverbs (*nunc* and *semper*) might feel somewhat blunt, so I would choose adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;The first pair that comes to mind is [*temprarius*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2058949) and [*sempiternus*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2054008).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Overall, the poem has clear structure and is mostly intelligible.&#xD;&#xA;(Poems are often intended to be at least somewhat mysterious!)&#xD;&#xA;The biggest issue is the non-word *virtas*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just my thoughts, so don't take them as the ultimate verdict.&#xD;&#xA;If I may, I would suggest the following kind of tweaked version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In secreto virtus,  &#xD;&#xA;in vero libertas.  &#xD;&#xA;Libido est temporaria,  &#xD;&#xA;amor sempiternus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5421" RevisionGUID="6563627a-955d-411d-9b8f-72228319715d" CreationDate="2017-10-16T19:44:01.210" UserId="1818" Text="I‘ve found it. Holzberg did at least propagate the idea [in this lecture (from 2:00)][1]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; On a closer look, it can be regrouped into 3 parts of 4 books each, the first four of whom take place in Carthage, interestingly enough. The *epos* is not linearly structured, but in a sort of retrospective. [...] &#xA;&#xA;&gt; in the fifth book, Aeneas goes on more Odysseus, he visits the underworld in book 6 with the showing of heroes, until he sets his first foot on Latium in book seven. Because his ancestors were from Latium, the seventh book was basically a home-coming of Aeneas parallel to the homecoming of Odysseus at the end of the Odyssey. In book eight, Aeneas is looking for partners to combat Turnus and the residents of Latium and Italy. He travels near to the place that will become Rome eventually, having finally reached his destiny. At the end of book eight, he receives a shield and further weaponry from Volcanos, with the depiction of the future heroes of Rome. He is basically at his goal here, he has returned as Odysseus, but he still has to fight in the last 4 books.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Turnus is angry that Latinus, king of Latium, has promised his daughter - former betrothed of Turnus - to Aeneas. The issue at hand is a women again, similar to the Iliad. Long story short, Aeneas wins the final duel between him and Turnus.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; *Rather free translation by myself. I’ve omitted quite a bit about books 1-4 because it is fairly obvious why they should belong together.* &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C0h86kZq-Kg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5417" RevisionGUID="724ad6cf-34a4-4c40-bd8b-8f7f33c0191f" CreationDate="2017-10-16T22:50:35.913" UserId="2069" Comment="Fixed grammar" Text="I am writing a poem in Latin and am a bit torn as to the grammar. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, the poem would be as below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In secrets there is power.  &#xD;&#xA;In truths there is freedom.  &#xD;&#xA;Lust is for now.  &#xD;&#xA;Love is forever. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I am not looking for a direct translation, but something with a similar meaning and more in the theme of Latin. Below is my best try:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In secretum virtas.  &#xD;&#xA;In verum libertas.  &#xD;&#xA;Libido pro tempore.  &#xD;&#xA;Amor ad infinitum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any comments/thought/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Also, comments on the poem itself would be great!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With help from the comments. I have reworked the poem to the following&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In secreta potentia.&#xD;&#xA;In verita libertas.&#xD;&#xA;Libida est temporāria.&#xD;&#xA;Amor infinita.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it still needs some work, some more comments would be great. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5422" RevisionGUID="206f9a0b-2992-4223-bf90-dbc9ac69729f" CreationDate="2017-10-17T19:12:16.037" UserId="68" Text="I'm trying to figure out how to say something is &quot;worth a hundred times its weight in gold&quot; in Latin, and everything I come up with feels cumbersome, unLatinate, and unclear. *Hoc textīle centuplex pretium reddet quam ipsīus aurī pondus* is the best I've been able to do, and that, if it means anything at all (which I doubt) is just gross.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be an elegant way to say this? And, for the sake of thoroughness, what would be an elegant way to say simply that something is &quot;worth its weight in gold&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Obviously the Romans would probably have just said something like *maximī pretiī*, which would certainly do, but I'm hoping to be a little more specific.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17900" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5422" RevisionGUID="206f9a0b-2992-4223-bf90-dbc9ac69729f" CreationDate="2017-10-17T19:12:16.037" UserId="68" Text="Latin for &quot;worth a hundred times its weight in gold&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17901" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5422" RevisionGUID="206f9a0b-2992-4223-bf90-dbc9ac69729f" CreationDate="2017-10-17T19:12:16.037" UserId="68" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5422" RevisionGUID="6820af0b-499e-4c31-9275-5ff729c0e45e" CreationDate="2017-10-17T19:28:44.793" UserId="68" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I'm trying to figure out how to say something is &quot;worth a hundred times its weight in gold&quot; in Latin, and everything I come up with feels cumbersome, unLatinate, and unclear. *Hoc textīle centuplex pretium reddet quam ipsīus aurī pondus* is the best I've been able to do, and that, if it means anything at all (which I doubt) is just gross.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be an elegant way to say this? And, for the sake of thoroughness, what would be an elegant way to say simply that something is &quot;worth its weight in gold&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Obviously the Romans would probably have just said something like *maximī pretiī cōnstat*, which would certainly do, but I'm hoping to be a little more specific.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5423" RevisionGUID="18d0fc8e-8321-48d8-877a-8a86a2d1439d" CreationDate="2017-10-17T19:30:42.430" UserId="79" Text="I would suggest this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Haec merx pondere suo [centuplici] in auro constat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most important way to remove clumsiness is to use *constare* with *ablativus pretii*.&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure whether *in auro* is a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;Other options I thought of were *auri* or the adjective *aureo* to modify *pondere*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5424" RevisionGUID="843d017c-d16a-4ebe-a7f0-40ad81381281" CreationDate="2017-10-17T19:33:10.510" UserId="79" Text="Suppose I have a meeting, a court hearing, or any event that is set by some authority at a specific time in the future.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a word for such a &quot;due date&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;I don't mean a deadline (see [the separate question for deadlines](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5392/79)) by which something must be done, but a date or time at which something must be done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17905" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5424" RevisionGUID="843d017c-d16a-4ebe-a7f0-40ad81381281" CreationDate="2017-10-17T19:33:10.510" UserId="79" Text="Is there a Latin idiom for a set date for an event?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17906" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5424" RevisionGUID="843d017c-d16a-4ebe-a7f0-40ad81381281" CreationDate="2017-10-17T19:33:10.510" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|idiom|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5425" RevisionGUID="ecb8f15f-d3a5-49e8-af4c-3227207e5ccd" CreationDate="2017-10-17T21:09:01.233" UserId="645" Text="*Die praescripta* should do it. I'm told that it is a bit of legal Latin in England. (The opposite is *sine die*, without a day, *sc*. until an indefinite date.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5426" RevisionGUID="4e1b9ff0-adae-4116-aa80-5aaddb90fb48" CreationDate="2017-10-18T01:48:27.613" UserId="985" Text="Also _die constituto_, as in Sallust, _Bellum Iugurthinum_ 13.9:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; igitur ubi legati satis confidunt, **die constituto** senatus utrisque datur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick look in _Lewis &amp; Short_ shows numerous examples of the idiom _diem constituere_ from Caesar, Sallust, Terence, and others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5427" RevisionGUID="ecf9c273-b77e-4e67-a0c5-ceddb368e99e" CreationDate="2017-10-18T02:39:01.623" UserId="867" Text="Perhaps (praestituta) ***summa dies***?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nisi mihi hodie attulerit miles quinque quas debet minas, sicut haec est praestituta **summa** ei argento **dies** ...*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if the soldier doesn't bring me today the five minas he owes, since&#xD;&#xA;&gt; today was the predetermined last day for the money ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plautus, *Pseudolus*, act 1, scene 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, ***dies praestituta*** might be a useful term.  Cicero seems to use it to mean an end date by which the delivery of corn must occur:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Deportatum habeas ante Kalendas Sextiles.” Deportabo igitur ... Sic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deportandi **dies praestituta** tollere cogebat ex area ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Deliver your corn before the first of August.” I will then ... Thus,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **the** **fixing of a date/setting a deadline** for delivery compelled the removal of corn from the floor ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cicero, *Against Verres 2*, 3.14.37&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5428" RevisionGUID="1c7ed944-ff63-4aab-af92-9fac8b8c6466" CreationDate="2017-10-18T02:41:32.377" UserId="2074" Text="I was looking for the proper way to convey the idea of someone being a defender of people's rights,freedoms, and safety.  In this context &quot;Man&quot; would be the same as &quot;mankind&quot; or &quot;people.&quot;  Maybe &quot;Defender of the people&quot; would be a more proper phrasing in English, but I was looking for something more concise.  Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17911" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5428" RevisionGUID="1c7ed944-ff63-4aab-af92-9fac8b8c6466" CreationDate="2017-10-18T02:41:32.377" UserId="2074" Text="Looking for the proper Latin phrasing of &quot;Man's defender&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17912" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5428" RevisionGUID="1c7ed944-ff63-4aab-af92-9fac8b8c6466" CreationDate="2017-10-18T02:41:32.377" UserId="2074" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5427" RevisionGUID="1472cc2d-ec24-4abb-9f00-566ffc3d95e5" CreationDate="2017-10-18T02:57:41.867" UserId="867" Comment="added 253 characters in body" Text="Perhaps (praestituta) ***summa dies***?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nisi mihi hodie attulerit miles quinque quas debet minas, sicut haec est praestituta **summa** ei argento **dies** ...*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if the soldier doesn't bring me today the five minas he owes, since&#xD;&#xA;&gt; today was the predetermined last day for the money ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plautus, *Pseudolus*, act 1, scene 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ADDIT: I just realised that since ***summa dies*** often means *last day* as in **death** (e.g. Lucan, *Civil War*, 8.29; Ovid, *Amores*, 9.27; Virgil, *Aeneid*, 2.324), this is perhaps a better fit for ***dead**line* than I first thought!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, ***dies praestituta*** might be a useful term.  Cicero seems to use it to mean an end date by which the delivery of corn must occur:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Deportatum habeas ante Kalendas Sextiles.” Deportabo igitur ... Sic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deportandi **dies praestituta** tollere cogebat ex area ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Deliver your corn before the first of August.” I will then ... Thus,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **the** **fixing of a date/setting a deadline** for delivery compelled the removal of corn from the floor ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cicero, *Against Verres 2*, 3.14.37&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5429" RevisionGUID="525b4a83-9662-420c-802a-5997c7abe4f2" CreationDate="2017-10-18T04:00:50.753" UserId="406" Text="One standard title for British monarchs is *dēfēnsor fideī*, &quot;defender of the faith&quot;. So in reference to that I'd take *dēfēnsor* as your first word. And the standard word for &quot;of men&quot; (as in &quot;humans&quot;, not &quot;adult males&quot;) is *hominum*. So I'd say ***dēfēnsor hominum***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(You can include the macrons, the little bars over some vowels, or omit them. They represent a pronunciation distinction that disappeared in later Latin.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5323" RevisionGUID="a0b2d87d-8cdd-49a5-957e-cde5ab2cd31b" CreationDate="2017-10-18T11:06:48.533" UserId="2025" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="I'm creating a Latin quiz game and want to know the best word/noun for “information”. The word will be used as a title for an information/welcome page on my quiz. I searched the word on the internet and got lots of results, but wasn't sure which one is the best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Results:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *informatio*&#xD;&#xA; - *indicium*&#xD;&#xA; - *nuntium*&#xD;&#xA; - *nuntiatio*&#xD;&#xA; - *significantia*&#xD;&#xA; - *notitia*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5430" RevisionGUID="04a83fd6-65be-4712-bd46-840a3fdfb517" CreationDate="2017-10-18T11:11:55.653" UserId="79" Text="If you want to be the title for an information or welcome page, I suggest either of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pagina domestica* &amp;mdash; Home page  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pagina salutatoria* &amp;mdash; Welcome page (more literally: Greeting page)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither means &quot;information&quot;, but these are the Latin titles I would recommend for the kind of use you describe.&#xD;&#xA;You can also use shorter variants of these suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Domus* &amp;mdash; Home  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Salve!* &amp;mdash; Welcome! (more literally: Greetings!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5431" RevisionGUID="ed4113fc-fee8-4ca7-80d5-89da130d637b" CreationDate="2017-10-18T15:02:19.797" UserId="1982" Text="North &amp; Hillard Ex. 230 includes the line: &quot;By his advice the confederates bound themselves to resist to the death,&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This, translated, in the Answer Book, as: &quot;euis autem consilio socii se iureiurando obstrinxerunt fore ut usque ad mortem resisterent, &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My answer overlooked &quot;fore&quot;; but, fail to see its necessity. The deployment of &quot;fore&quot; with a past-participle usually creates a number of possible, but vague, alternatives eg., the confederates had been about to bind themselves...Or, the confederates would (a subjunctive may be used for this) bind...Or, the confederates were likely to bind...The past-perfect &quot;obstrinxerunt&quot; is definite in its meaning (as the English appears to demand) so why blunt the intention by rendering it vague with &quot;fore&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, what is the use of &quot;fore&quot; achieving here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17918" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5431" RevisionGUID="ed4113fc-fee8-4ca7-80d5-89da130d637b" CreationDate="2017-10-18T15:02:19.797" UserId="1982" Text="Fore or not Fore?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17919" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5431" RevisionGUID="ed4113fc-fee8-4ca7-80d5-89da130d637b" CreationDate="2017-10-18T15:02:19.797" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5431" RevisionGUID="33c9972b-65ea-498f-96b8-d14ec9146c29" CreationDate="2017-10-18T15:08:08.567" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and added some spaces." Text="North &amp; Hillard Ex. 230 includes the line: &quot;By his advice the confederates bound themselves to resist to the death,&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This, translated, in the Answer Book, as: &quot;euis autem consilio socii se iureiurando obstrinxerunt fore ut usque ad mortem resisterent, &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My answer overlooked &quot;fore&quot;; but, fail to see its necessity. The deployment of &quot;fore&quot; with a past-participle usually creates a number of possible, but vague, alternatives eg., the confederates had been about to bind themselves... Or, the confederates would (a subjunctive may be used for this) bind... Or, the confederates were likely to bind... The past-perfect &quot;obstrinxerunt&quot; is definite in its meaning (as the English appears to demand) so why blunt the intention by rendering it vague with &quot;fore&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, what is the use of &quot;fore&quot; achieving here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17921" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5431" RevisionGUID="33c9972b-65ea-498f-96b8-d14ec9146c29" CreationDate="2017-10-18T15:08:08.567" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and added some spaces." Text="|translation-explanation|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2620" RevisionGUID="9f193729-44c0-41f6-8f77-dbb03c70776f" CreationDate="2017-10-18T15:14:00.647" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Is it correct to say, &quot;*Additionem in prima, secunda, et tertia syllogismi*&quot;? I'm trying my very best to say, &quot;The addition of the first, second, and third syllogisms.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17923" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2620" RevisionGUID="9f193729-44c0-41f6-8f77-dbb03c70776f" CreationDate="2017-10-18T15:14:00.647" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|history|translation-check|philosophy-terms|logic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2602" RevisionGUID="9f8914ef-0ea4-469d-bab7-5c38ab9c600d" CreationDate="2017-10-18T15:15:47.123" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="I'm working on this line from Xenophon, and I'm having a little trouble with the second clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἄξιον δὲ τοῦ Λυκούργου καὶ τόδε ἀγασθῆναι, τὸ κατεργάσασθαι ἐν τῇ πόλει αἱρετώτερον εἶναι τὸν καλὸν θάνατον ἀντὶ τοῦ αἰσχροῦ βίου:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ([Xenophon Const. Lac. 9.1][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And this [deed] of Lycurgus is also deserving to be admired, accomplishing in the city that a noble death is preferable to a disgraceful life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it peculiar that &quot;ἐν τῇ πόλει αἱρετώτερον εἶναι τὸν καλὸν θάνατον ἀντὶ τοῦ αἰσχροῦ βίου&quot; is not placed inside the articular infinitive—between the article and the infinitive κατεργάσασθαι. Why is this? I thought that the subjects, objects, and modifies of an articular infinitive were to be placed inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, why do we get εἶναι, and not ἐστὶ? Is the verb following an articular infinitive supposed to be an infinitive? I wasn't aware of such a rule. Or is it that the first clause somehow introduces indirect statement? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to these questions, I welcome any improvements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0209%3Atext%3DConst.%20Lac.%3Achapter%3D9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17925" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2602" RevisionGUID="9f8914ef-0ea4-469d-bab7-5c38ab9c600d" CreationDate="2017-10-18T15:15:47.123" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|greek|syntax|translation-check|sentence-translation|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5432" RevisionGUID="2cb3d815-3160-4e26-9106-4900bc0ae34d" CreationDate="2017-10-18T17:09:32.913" UserId="985" Text="You need the subordinate idea ('to resist to the death') to be cast into the future (because the confederates didn't bind themselves to have resisted previously or to be doing it currently). Normally, you'd say _obstrinxerunt se usque ad mortem xxxuros_ esse, where _xxx_ is the (stem of the) future active participle of the verb _resistere_. However, _resistere_ is one of a number of verbs that lack a future active participle. Therefore, to arrive at a future of this verb in an accusative+infinitive construction, you have to use the _fore ut_ + subjunctive periphrasis to 'simulate' a future for this verb. If you have the Allen &amp; Greenough Latin grammar, this is discussed in section 569.a. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5433" RevisionGUID="983f5e25-5dcc-4f92-b938-a108bb13a52e" CreationDate="2017-10-18T17:53:32.060" UserId="324" Text="&quot;Defensor&quot; is certainly not wrong, but I think &quot;vindex&quot; somehow sounds more Roman. See the quotations here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=vindex&amp;la=la&amp;can=vindex0&amp;prior=praeses#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5432" RevisionGUID="296405e6-9fae-4e00-b841-8990c2ad99a2" CreationDate="2017-10-18T18:33:55.480" UserId="985" Comment="Edited for clarity" Text="You need the subordinate idea ('to resist to the death') to be cast into the future (because the confederates didn't bind themselves to have resisted earlier or to be resisting right now). Normally, you'd say _obstrinxerunt se usque ad mortem xxxuros_ esse, where _xxx_ is the (stem of the) future active participle of the verb _resistere_. However, _resistere_ is one of a number of verbs that lack a future active participle. Therefore, to arrive at a future of this verb in an accusative+infinitive construction, you have to use the periphrasis _fore_ [= _futurum esse_] _ut_ + subjunctive to 'simulate' it. Literally, then, you end up saying, 'They bound themselves that it would be the case that they resist to the death.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have the Allen &amp; Greenough Latin grammar, this is discussed in section 569.a. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5434" RevisionGUID="2f130b1a-21a5-4f08-9554-d666a3c2415c" CreationDate="2017-10-18T18:36:18.060" UserId="78" Text="To my ears, *defensor hominum* would mean someone who defended the existence of human beings. For the political aspect, I'd go with *defensor populi*, nicely paralleling such concepts as *vox populi*. For the &quot;people&quot; as state, look no further than Rome's motto: *Senatus *Populusque* Romanus*, or even Cicero's *res publica res populi*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the Lewis and Short entry on [**populus**](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpopulus1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also second fdb's note of *vindex*, giving you **vindex populi** as the best way to convey what you want to say in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5435" RevisionGUID="fb71336d-0722-4d67-955a-745633efcc53" CreationDate="2017-10-18T19:06:17.890" UserId="79" Text="I recently came across [the Wiktionary page for *abstemius*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abstemius) and I was genuinely surprised by the pronunciation guide.&#xD;&#xA;It says that in classical Latin the B is the unvoiced /p/ instead of /b/.&#xD;&#xA;Is this really the case?&#xD;&#xA;I had always pronounced B as /b/ everywhere, including the simplest example *abs*.&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary is not particularly reliable and I couldn't find other sources to support or refute the unvoiced pronunciation, so I have to ask here.&#xD;&#xA;Is the B in *abs* /p/ or /b/?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17931" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5435" RevisionGUID="fb71336d-0722-4d67-955a-745633efcc53" CreationDate="2017-10-18T19:06:17.890" UserId="79" Text="Is the B voiced in &quot;abs&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17932" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5435" RevisionGUID="fb71336d-0722-4d67-955a-745633efcc53" CreationDate="2017-10-18T19:06:17.890" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5436" RevisionGUID="7f136edf-a7d1-46de-beba-1b2e64c3814e" CreationDate="2017-10-18T20:01:06.643" UserId="12" Text="Indeed, Wiktionary has it right – *b* is not voiced before *t* or *s*, as W. Sidney Allen explains ([*Vox Latina*, 21](https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA21&amp;lpg=PA21)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On general phonetic grounds it is highly probable that the *b* before *t* or *s* should stand for [p]. It is moreover expressly stated by Quintilian (i, 7, 7) and other grammarians, and clearly indicated by inscriptional spellings with p at all periods (e.g. *pleps, opsides, apsoluere, suptilissima, optinebit*). The distinction between spelling and speech is clearly summed up by Quintilian in the words: '*b* litteram ratio poscit, aures magis audiunt *p*'; and on the writing of *abs* Velius Longus comments (K. vii, 62): 'qui originem uerborum propriam respiciunt, per *b* scribunt'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He explains that *b* is &quot;partially assimilated to the following *t* or *s*&quot; in words like *obsideo* and *urbs*, becoming the voiceless /p/ as a result, but that the written *b* is retained because of the parallels with *obeo* and *urbis*.  With respect to *abs* in particular, he writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similarly the preposition *abs* owes its writing with *b* rather than *p* to the alternative form *ab*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So then, the *b* in *abs* is the voiceless /p/, not voiced /b/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5437" RevisionGUID="3d882ca1-9826-4c8f-bd6a-a2b8de56da2b" CreationDate="2017-10-18T20:42:01.673" UserId="9" Text="As TKR's answer says, the consensus seems to be in favor of reconstructing all intervocalic &quot;s&quot; in Classical Latin as voiceless [s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to Church pronunciation/&quot;ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation/sung Latin, I haven't found a clear consensus. (Which is not unusual, in my experience—&quot;ecclesiastical&quot; Latin is not really a single standard since it is pretty much based on Italian pronunciation, which itself varies between different locations, and many people using this pronunciation nowadays aren't native Italian speakers. It's hard to find good resources giving detailed decriptions of Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation, as opposed to impressionistic stuff intended to allow singers to get it approximately right. I also haven't found consensus about the height of &quot;e&quot;, &quot;ae/æ&quot;, and &quot;oe/œ&quot; as /e/ vs. /ɛ/ in this variety of Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some sources say things like &quot;never z as in raise&quot; ([SUNG ECCLESIASTICAL LATIN (ROMAN) PRONUNCIATION GUIDE][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it seems like some people do use /z/ for at least some intervocalic &quot;s&quot;, and maybe /[gz][2]/ for at least some intervocalic &quot;x&quot;, in sung Latin, as you have noticed. See the following thread on the Latin Discussion forum: [Church-type pronunciation.][3] Also see the following document which uses the wishy-washy description &quot;when it comes between two&#xD;&#xA;vowels, it is closer to the sound of 'z' but softer, like the 's' in 'misery' &quot; ([Latin Pronunciation Guide][4]). If we're talking about a native English pronunciation of &quot;misery&quot;, that's what an English speaker would just call /z/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Ecclesiastical Latin][5]&quot;, by Andrew Crow (Chapter 4, *The Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet in the Choral Rehearsal,* edited by Duane Richard Karna) even describes the following odd pattern of usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **s** is never voiced. That is, [s] not [z]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Some sources make an exception for borrowed words—especially *Jesu* as [jɛ zu] rather than [jɛ su]. Either version is acceptable in this case. (p. 40)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if a native Italian speaker would instinctively pronounce *all* intervocalic &quot;s&quot; in Latin as /z/. I know that in some varieties of Italian—including the one that is as far as I know most often regarded as being &quot;standard&quot;—intervocalic single &quot;s&quot; can actually correspond to either voiceless /s/ or voiced /z/ depending on some complicated factors. Wikipedia's &quot;[Italian Phonology][6]&quot; article says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [s] and [z] [...] can only contrast between two vowels within a word. According to Canepari,&lt;sup&gt;[16]&lt;/sup&gt; though, the traditional standard has been replaced by a modern neutral pronunciation which always prefers /z/ when intervocalic, except when the intervocalic s is the initial sound of a word, if the compound is still felt as such: for example, presento /preˈsɛnto/&lt;sup&gt;[17]&lt;/sup&gt; ('I foresee', with pre meaning 'before' and sento meaning 'I see') vs presento /preˈzɛnto/&lt;sup&gt;[18]&lt;/sup&gt; ('I present'). There are many words in which dictionaries now indicate that both pronunciations with /z/ and with /s/ are acceptable. The two phonemes have merged in many regional varieties of Italian, either into /z/ (Northern-Central) or /s/ (Southern-Central). Geminate /ss/ can be pronounced as single [s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another related discussion thread: [Latin: S or Z between two vowels?][7], on Choral Net, which provides some more examples of equivocal descriptions like &quot;Not &quot;z&quot; nor &quot;s&quot;, blend the sound&quot; and &quot;a z-ish s&quot;. Apparently, this wishy-washiness is present in the *Liber usualis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cmed.faculty.ku.edu/rehnotes/latin.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/LatinPronunciation.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/church-type-pronunciation.24707/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.dominicanlaity.ca/DominicanLaity/Events_files/LatinPronunciation.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cB7ety_ht_IC&amp;pg=PA37&amp;lpg=PA37&amp;dq=%22Ecclesiastical%20Latin%22%20pronunciation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=nPJr0w__HQ&amp;sig=q0WDIxnvmEBkFZmclPXwP7M4Vv4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj868fMgPvWAhVMxYMKHdUgDkk4HhDoAQgwMAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Ecclesiastical%20Latin%22%20pronunciation&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_phonology&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://archive.choralnet.org/view/222623" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5437" RevisionGUID="f4c5ee35-b13b-43f6-9750-9db0ce25612a" CreationDate="2017-10-18T20:47:08.293" UserId="9" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="As TKR's answer says, the consensus seems to be in favor of reconstructing all intervocalic &quot;s&quot; in Classical Latin as voiceless [s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to Church pronunciation/&quot;ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation/sung Latin, I haven't found a clear, established consensus. (Which is not unusual, in my experience—&quot;ecclesiastical&quot; Latin is not really a single standard since it is pretty much based on Italian pronunciation, which itself varies between different locations, and many people using this pronunciation nowadays aren't native Italian speakers. It's hard to find good resources giving detailed decriptions of Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation, as opposed to impressionistic stuff intended to allow singers to get it approximately right. I also haven't found consensus about the height of &quot;e&quot;, &quot;ae/æ&quot;, and &quot;oe/œ&quot; as /e/ vs. /ɛ/ in this variety of Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some sources say things like &quot;never z as in raise&quot; ([SUNG ECCLESIASTICAL LATIN (ROMAN) PRONUNCIATION GUIDE][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it seems like some people do use /z/ for at least some intervocalic &quot;s&quot;, and maybe /[gz][2]/ for at least some intervocalic &quot;x&quot;, in sung Latin, as you have noticed. See the following thread on the Latin Discussion forum: [Church-type pronunciation.][3] Also see the following document which uses the wishy-washy description &quot;when it comes between two&#xD;&#xA;vowels, it is closer to the sound of 'z' but softer, like the 's' in 'misery' &quot; ([Latin Pronunciation Guide][4]). If we're talking about a native English pronunciation of &quot;misery&quot;, that's what an English speaker would just call /z/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Ecclesiastical Latin][5]&quot;, by Andrew Crow (Chapter 4, *The Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet in the Choral Rehearsal,* edited by Duane Richard Karna) even describes the following odd pattern of usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **s** is never voiced. That is, [s] not [z]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Some sources make an exception for borrowed words—especially *Jesu* as [jɛ zu] rather than [jɛ su]. Either version is acceptable in this case. (p. 40)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if a native Italian speaker would instinctively pronounce *all* intervocalic &quot;s&quot; in Latin as /z/. I know that in some varieties of Italian—including the one that is as far as I know most often regarded as being &quot;standard&quot;—intervocalic single &quot;s&quot; can actually correspond to either voiceless /s/ or voiced /z/ depending on some complicated factors, and there is a fair amount of variability in contemporary Italian accents. Wikipedia's &quot;[Italian Phonology][6]&quot; article says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [s] and [z] [...] can only contrast between two vowels within a word. According to Canepari,&lt;sup&gt;[16]&lt;/sup&gt; though, the traditional standard has been replaced by a modern neutral pronunciation which always prefers /z/ when intervocalic, except when the intervocalic s is the initial sound of a word, if the compound is still felt as such: for example, presento /preˈsɛnto/&lt;sup&gt;[17]&lt;/sup&gt; ('I foresee', with pre meaning 'before' and sento meaning 'I see') vs presento /preˈzɛnto/&lt;sup&gt;[18]&lt;/sup&gt; ('I present'). There are many words in which dictionaries now indicate that both pronunciations with /z/ and with /s/ are acceptable. The two phonemes have merged in many regional varieties of Italian, either into /z/ (Northern-Central) or /s/ (Southern-Central). Geminate /ss/ can be pronounced as single [s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another related discussion thread: [Latin: S or Z between two vowels?][7], on Choral Net, which provides some more examples of equivocal descriptions like &quot;Not &quot;z&quot; nor &quot;s&quot;, blend the sound&quot; and &quot;a z-ish s&quot;. Apparently, this wishy-washiness is present in some edition of the *Liber usualis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cmed.faculty.ku.edu/rehnotes/latin.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/LatinPronunciation.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/church-type-pronunciation.24707/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.dominicanlaity.ca/DominicanLaity/Events_files/LatinPronunciation.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cB7ety_ht_IC&amp;pg=PA37&amp;lpg=PA37&amp;dq=%22Ecclesiastical%20Latin%22%20pronunciation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=nPJr0w__HQ&amp;sig=q0WDIxnvmEBkFZmclPXwP7M4Vv4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj868fMgPvWAhVMxYMKHdUgDkk4HhDoAQgwMAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Ecclesiastical%20Latin%22%20pronunciation&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_phonology&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://archive.choralnet.org/view/222623" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4124" RevisionGUID="20511160-8d8e-4cfa-89ac-1ad4a5e97c28" CreationDate="2017-10-18T20:54:48.427" UserId="78" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The word for 'skeleton' in Petronius' *Satryicon* is indeed *larva*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Potantibus ergo nobis et accuratissime lautitias mirantibus **larvam argenteam** attulit **servus sic aptatam, ut articuli eius vertebraeque luxatae in omnem partem flecterentur**. Hanc cum super mensam semel iterumque abiecisset, et catenatio mobilis aliquot figuras exprimeret, Trimalchio adiecit:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Eheu nos miseros, quam totus homuncio nil est.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Sic erimus cuncti, postquam nos auferet Orcus.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ergo vivamus, dum licet esse bene.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As we drank and admired each luxury in detail, a slave brought in **a silver skeleton, made so that its limbs and spine could be moved and bent in every direction**. He put it down once or twice on the table so that the supple joints showed several attitudes, and Trimalchio said appropriately: &quot;Alas for us poor mortals, all that poor man is is nothing. So we shall all be, after the world below takes us away. Let us live then while it goes well with us.&quot; (trans. Heseltine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the word typically means &quot;ghost&quot; or even &quot;goblin,&quot; as Lewis and Short define it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *a ghost, spectre*: “larvae stimulant virum,” Plaut. Capt. 3, 4, 66: “amator qui me et uxorem ludificatust larva,” id. Cas. 3, 4, 2; id. Aul. 4, 4, 15: cum mortuis non nisi larvas luctari, Plin. praef. H. N. § 31. — As a term of reproach, *hobgoblin, scarecrow*: “etiam loquere larŭa?” Plaut. Merc. 5, 4, 20: “nam haec quidem edepol larvarum plenast,” possessed, id. Am. 2, 2, 145.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, here it has to mean skeleton, model skeleton even. He's describing a put together skeleton (made of silver) that can move. To mean &quot;evil spirit&quot; here wouldn't make any sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5437" RevisionGUID="75bc0530-675d-4c46-9d54-d19dbe8916fe" CreationDate="2017-10-18T20:55:47.893" UserId="9" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="As TKR's answer says, the consensus seems to be in favor of reconstructing all intervocalic &quot;s&quot; in Classical Latin as voiceless: [s]. (I have seen some speculation about the exact *place of articulation* of this consonant: since it didn't contrast with any other sibilants, some authors suggest it was, or at least could be, somewhat &quot;retracted&quot;: see the Wikipedia article on the [voiceless alveolar fricative][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to Church pronunciation/&quot;ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation/sung Latin, I haven't found a clear, established consensus. (Which is not unusual, in my experience—&quot;ecclesiastical&quot; Latin is not really a single standard since it is pretty much based on Italian pronunciation, which itself varies between different locations, and many people using this pronunciation nowadays aren't native Italian speakers. It's hard to find good resources giving detailed decriptions of Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation, as opposed to impressionistic stuff intended to allow singers to get it approximately right. I also haven't found consensus about the height of &quot;e&quot;, &quot;ae/æ&quot;, and &quot;oe/œ&quot; as /e/ vs. /ɛ/ in this variety of Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some sources say things like &quot;never z as in raise&quot; ([SUNG ECCLESIASTICAL LATIN (ROMAN) PRONUNCIATION GUIDE][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it seems like some people do use /z/ for at least some intervocalic &quot;s&quot;, and maybe /[gz][3]/ for at least some intervocalic &quot;x&quot;, in sung Latin, as you have noticed. See the following thread on the Latin Discussion forum: [Church-type pronunciation.][4] Also see the following document which uses the wishy-washy description &quot;when it comes between two&#xD;&#xA;vowels, it is closer to the sound of 'z' but softer, like the 's' in 'misery' &quot; ([Latin Pronunciation Guide][5]). If we're talking about a native English pronunciation of &quot;misery&quot;, that's what an English speaker would just call /z/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Ecclesiastical Latin][6]&quot;, by Andrew Crow (Chapter 4, *The Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet in the Choral Rehearsal,* edited by Duane Richard Karna) even describes the following odd pattern of usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **s** is never voiced. That is, [s] not [z]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Some sources make an exception for borrowed words—especially *Jesu* as [jɛ zu] rather than [jɛ su]. Either version is acceptable in this case. (p. 40)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if a native Italian speaker would instinctively pronounce *all* intervocalic &quot;s&quot; in Latin as /z/. I know that in some varieties of Italian—including the one that is as far as I know most often regarded as being &quot;standard&quot;—intervocalic single &quot;s&quot; can actually correspond to either voiceless /s/ or voiced /z/ depending on some complicated factors, and there is a fair amount of variability in contemporary Italian accents. Wikipedia's &quot;[Italian Phonology][7]&quot; article says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [s] and [z] [...] can only contrast between two vowels within a word. According to Canepari,&lt;sup&gt;[16]&lt;/sup&gt; though, the traditional standard has been replaced by a modern neutral pronunciation which always prefers /z/ when intervocalic, except when the intervocalic s is the initial sound of a word, if the compound is still felt as such: for example, presento /preˈsɛnto/&lt;sup&gt;[17]&lt;/sup&gt; ('I foresee', with pre meaning 'before' and sento meaning 'I see') vs presento /preˈzɛnto/&lt;sup&gt;[18]&lt;/sup&gt; ('I present'). There are many words in which dictionaries now indicate that both pronunciations with /z/ and with /s/ are acceptable. The two phonemes have merged in many regional varieties of Italian, either into /z/ (Northern-Central) or /s/ (Southern-Central). Geminate /ss/ can be pronounced as single [s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another related discussion thread: [Latin: S or Z between two vowels?][8], on Choral Net, which provides some more examples of equivocal descriptions like &quot;Not &quot;z&quot; nor &quot;s&quot;, blend the sound&quot; and &quot;a z-ish s&quot;. Apparently, this wishy-washiness is present in some edition of the *Liber usualis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_alveolar_fricative&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://cmed.faculty.ku.edu/rehnotes/latin.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/LatinPronunciation.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/church-type-pronunciation.24707/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.dominicanlaity.ca/DominicanLaity/Events_files/LatinPronunciation.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cB7ety_ht_IC&amp;pg=PA37&amp;lpg=PA37&amp;dq=%22Ecclesiastical%20Latin%22%20pronunciation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=nPJr0w__HQ&amp;sig=q0WDIxnvmEBkFZmclPXwP7M4Vv4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj868fMgPvWAhVMxYMKHdUgDkk4HhDoAQgwMAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Ecclesiastical%20Latin%22%20pronunciation&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_phonology&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://archive.choralnet.org/view/222623" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5432" RevisionGUID="b9cecf02-3dd7-460e-bb91-7cfd03c4d0b0" CreationDate="2017-10-18T20:57:09.143" UserId="12" Comment="add link to google books" Text="You need the subordinate idea ('to resist to the death') to be cast into the future (because the confederates didn't bind themselves to have resisted earlier or to be resisting right now). Normally, you'd say _obstrinxerunt se usque ad mortem xxxuros_ esse, where _xxx_ is the (stem of the) future active participle of the verb _resistere_. However, _resistere_ is one of a number of verbs that lack a future active participle. Therefore, to arrive at a future of this verb in an accusative+infinitive construction, you have to use the periphrasis _fore_ [= _futurum esse_] _ut_ + subjunctive to 'simulate' it. Literally, then, you end up saying, 'They bound themselves that it would be the case that they resist to the death.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is discussed in [Allen &amp; Greenough, §569.a](https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7cAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=pa368). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5433" RevisionGUID="5e92c791-8e11-4c89-bb2b-59a06b68645e" CreationDate="2017-10-18T22:12:57.847" UserId="406" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&quot;Defensor&quot; is certainly not wrong, but I think &quot;vindex&quot; somehow sounds more Roman. See the quotations here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvindex" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5438" RevisionGUID="ce8dcbaf-f1b7-43f3-a6ac-b7294863afc7" CreationDate="2017-10-18T22:19:59.540" UserId="406" Text="(Adding this as a separate answer since it's very different from my first one.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in using Greek instead of Latin, the word ***Ἀλέξανδρος*** (*Alexandros*; *Alexandrus* in Latin) literally means &quot;defending men&quot; or &quot;defender of men&quot;. It was an epithet of the goddess Hera as well as a name, made famous by Alexander the Great." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5439" RevisionGUID="44feb85b-6cea-47db-846d-14edfbafbbd5" CreationDate="2017-10-19T00:45:45.837" UserId="406" Text="The name Alexander fairly transparently comes from *ἀλέξω* &quot;defend&quot; + *ἀνήρ* &quot;man&quot;. As an epithet of Hera, I've heard it translated as &quot;defender of *mankind*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I generally think of *ἀνήρ* as being specifically a male person, like *vir*, as opposed to *ἄνθρωπος*/*homo* &quot;human&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can *ἀνήρ* ever refer to a woman, or to humans regardless of gender?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17944" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5439" RevisionGUID="44feb85b-6cea-47db-846d-14edfbafbbd5" CreationDate="2017-10-19T00:45:45.837" UserId="406" Text="Can ἀνήρ refer to a woman?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17945" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5439" RevisionGUID="44feb85b-6cea-47db-846d-14edfbafbbd5" CreationDate="2017-10-19T00:45:45.837" UserId="406" Text="|greek|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5440" RevisionGUID="ad492c8c-0201-4629-8976-bd24589015f5" CreationDate="2017-10-19T01:07:29.577" UserId="78" Text="The *Androphagoi* would include men and women, and it beggars belief that they would only feast on males to the exclusion of women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acts 17.34 provides at least one good example of ἄνδρες being gender-neutral, and I'd say Euripides' *Orestes* 1523 has a good chance of doing so, too. In poetry, Zeus is πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε - is Homer excluding women here? I highly doubt it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, it's clear that the word primarily refers to males, and its derivatives have to do with male-ness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think part of the zealotry overlooks some of the interesting aspects of ancient languages. No one would deny that the plural *masculine* nominative ending of *Romanus* is *Romani*, yet a group of male and female Romans would still be *Romani*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5441" RevisionGUID="09585306-121c-4af4-9222-a2718fe175e0" CreationDate="2017-10-19T01:34:19.037" UserId="867" Text="I don't feel that any of the words you found quite capture the sense of information that you want (an 'information page').  For some of them, the information is more like evidence, or an accusation.  Others are the 'information' given by an augur reading the omens.  Still others are simply the information contained in an announcement.  None of them capture the sense of information as description and explanation.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, perhaps the following could help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[***expositio***][1] - a statement, description; a definition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[***explicatio***][2] - an explanation; a description, account&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could combine the best of both worlds and have these as subheadings on your welcome page/*pagina salutatoria* (if you choose to use Joonas Ilmavirta's excellent answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=expositio&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=explicatio&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5440" RevisionGUID="15541eae-6441-4ec8-88f3-1fb73d103447" CreationDate="2017-10-19T03:19:37.070" UserId="78" Comment="added 622 characters in body" Text="The *Androphagoi* (mentioned as cannibals in Herodotus book 4) would include men and women, and it beggars belief that they would only feast on males to the exclusion of women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acts 17.34 provides at least one good example of ἄνδρες being gender-neutral:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τινὲς δὲ ἄνδρες κολληθέντες αὐτῷ ἐπίστευσαν, ἐν οἷς καὶ Διονύσιος ὁ Ἀρεοπαγίτης καὶ γυνὴ ὀνόματι Δάμαρις καὶ ἕτεροι σὺν αὐτοῖς.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some &quot;men&quot; followed him and believed, among whom was both Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris, as well as others with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also offer Euripides' *Orestes* 1523 as a good chance of doing so, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Φρύξ: πᾶς ἀνήρ, κἂν δοῦλος ᾖ τις, ἥδεται τὸ φῶς ὁρῶν.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Phrygian: Slave or free, every one is glad to gaze upon the light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Throughout Greek poetry, Zeus is πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε (&quot;father of gods and men&quot; e.g. in [Iliad 8.49](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0133%3Abook%3D8%3Acard%3D41)) — is Homer excluding women here? I highly doubt it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, it's clear that the word primarily refers to males, and its derivatives have to do with male-ness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think part of the zealotry overlooks some of the interesting aspects of ancient languages. No one would deny that the plural *masculine* nominative ending of *Romanus* is *Romani*, yet a group of male and female Romans would still be *Romani*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5442" RevisionGUID="28995a30-aac4-410e-ae5f-9f6ea9339d89" CreationDate="2017-10-19T10:57:34.737" UserId="1496" Text="In mathematics, the following phrase is common:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By Theorem 5.6, the function is differentiable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I say 'By' in Latin? I don't think 'ab' is appropriate to use here. One way is to put 'Theorem' into ablative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Theoremate 5.6, functio est differentiabilis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17950" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5442" RevisionGUID="28995a30-aac4-410e-ae5f-9f6ea9339d89" CreationDate="2017-10-19T10:57:34.737" UserId="1496" Text="How to say by/on the basis of?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17951" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5442" RevisionGUID="28995a30-aac4-410e-ae5f-9f6ea9339d89" CreationDate="2017-10-19T10:57:34.737" UserId="1496" Text="|translation|vocabulary|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5442" RevisionGUID="ebe14146-b009-4b28-8e0e-bcafacf00d39" CreationDate="2017-10-19T11:01:12.537" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="In mathematics, the following phrase is common:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By Theorem 5.6, the function is differentiable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I say 'by' in Latin? I don't think 'ab' is appropriate to use here. One way is to put 'Theorem' into ablative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Theoremate 5.6, functio est differentiabilis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17953" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5442" RevisionGUID="ebe14146-b009-4b28-8e0e-bcafacf00d39" CreationDate="2017-10-19T11:01:12.537" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|vocabulary|idiom|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5443" RevisionGUID="f271cda7-33db-4f75-be81-4258e851acb9" CreationDate="2017-10-19T11:10:10.000" UserId="79" Text="I suggest using *propter* with accusative.&#xD;&#xA;With your example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Propter theorema 5.6 functio est differentiabilis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This Latin mathematical text by Gauss](http://thelatinlibrary.com/gauss.html) has several instances of *propter*, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*propter [...] seriei convergentiam* &amp;mdash; by convergence of the [...] series  &#xD;&#xA;*propter has rationes* &amp;mdash; for these reasons  &#xD;&#xA;*propter [1]* &amp;mdash; by equation [1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *theorema* appears several times, but never in the sense of &quot;by theorem&quot;, and *lemma* only appears as a title for two auxiliary results.&#xD;&#xA;However, based on modern mathematical language and these examples from Gauss, it makes sense to me say *propter lemma/theorema*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might also be worthwhile to take a look at [*propter* in L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=propter&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), especially II.B.1." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5444" RevisionGUID="dc99fdb1-7840-407f-a676-50f7fd6dfce7" CreationDate="2017-10-19T15:53:10.177" UserId="68" Text="I've tended to use *diēs indictus*, which I got from Livy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Et apparebat nihil liberae consultationis concilio quod in diem posterum indictum erat Boeotis relictum esse. (33.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hac quoque gente adiuncta Chalcidem regressus, praemissis inde litteris, ut Demetriadem conuenirent	principes Aetolorum, cum quibus de summa rerum deliberaret, nauibus eo ad diem indictum concilio uenit. (36.6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Glancing through the corpus at PHI, though, it looks like *diēs cōnstitūtus*, as offered by cnread, is more common." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5445" RevisionGUID="a675bbb0-5004-483c-bb53-ee95dfa7f627" CreationDate="2017-10-19T16:27:54.543" UserId="2077" Text="Fortasse accipio oratio stridens vestri. Sum Quintus Fabius centurio navis stellae &quot;Malleus Jesu&quot;. Quid estis, quid agitis in hac provincia? Et quid est mixti lingua vestri?Germanicus est? Non dubito quin vos ex Germaniae Exteriorae. Cognovi de genus vestri prius. Bene? Quam respondebitis mihi?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last paragraph from the book Proxima by Stephen Baxter – what an intriguing and infuriating ending for a book! It leaves you scrabbling around trying to figure out what's going on and struggling with google translator. There had been no latin or Roman involvement until this point in the book. Any help appreciated. I know very little Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a science fiction book and I have figure out that this is a centurion from the star ship? Malleus Jesu asking something about what people are doing there but I'm struggling..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17957" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5445" RevisionGUID="a675bbb0-5004-483c-bb53-ee95dfa7f627" CreationDate="2017-10-19T16:27:54.543" UserId="2077" Text="Can someone translate this paragraph for me? And is it gramaticaly correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17958" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5445" RevisionGUID="a675bbb0-5004-483c-bb53-ee95dfa7f627" CreationDate="2017-10-19T16:27:54.543" UserId="2077" Text="|translation|contemporary-latin|passage-request|mythology|military|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5445" RevisionGUID="83f7a30f-610a-47e9-9354-4e22f860a115" CreationDate="2017-10-19T17:23:51.307" UserId="9" Comment="formatting, added name of book to title, removed &quot;passage request&quot; tag as it doesn't seem to fit" Text="&gt;Fortasse accipio oratio stridens vestri. Sum Quintus Fabius centurio navis stellae &quot;Malleus Jesu&quot;. Quid estis, quid agitis in hac provincia? Et quid est mixti lingua vestri?Germanicus est? Non dubito quin vos ex Germaniae Exteriorae. Cognovi de genus vestri prius. Bene? Quam respondebitis mihi?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last paragraph from the book *Proxima* by Stephen Baxter – what an intriguing and infuriating ending for a book! It leaves you scrabbling around trying to figure out what's going on and struggling with google translator. There had been no Latin or Roman involvement until this point in the book. Any help appreciated. I know very little Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a science fiction book and I have figure out that this is a centurion from the star ship? Malleus Jesu asking something about what people are doing there but I'm struggling..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17960" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5445" RevisionGUID="83f7a30f-610a-47e9-9354-4e22f860a115" CreationDate="2017-10-19T17:23:51.307" UserId="9" Comment="formatting, added name of book to title, removed &quot;passage request&quot; tag as it doesn't seem to fit" Text="Can someone translate this paragraph from the book &quot;Proxima&quot; for me? And is it grammatically correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17961" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5445" RevisionGUID="83f7a30f-610a-47e9-9354-4e22f860a115" CreationDate="2017-10-19T17:23:51.307" UserId="9" Comment="formatting, added name of book to title, removed &quot;passage request&quot; tag as it doesn't seem to fit" Text="|translation|contemporary-latin|mythology|military|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5446" RevisionGUID="73250493-ac24-4eb2-8033-987af87e1ea8" CreationDate="2017-10-19T17:53:12.600" UserId="45" Text="This is garbled Latin that looks like the misguided effort of a first-year Latin student. The meaning (in outline) is clear to me as an English speaker:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perhaps I accept your strident speech. I am Quintus Fabius, the centurion of the star ship &quot;The Hammer of Jesus.&quot; What are you, what are you doing in this territory? And what is your mixed (?) language? Is it German? I don't doubt that you are from Outer Germany. I have heard of your people before. Well? What will you answer me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The case agreements are almost completely wrong and many of the words (e.g. *navis stellae*, *bene*) are a nonsensical calque of English idioms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: it's embarrassing (but not utterly surprising) that this is in a published work, unless in context it is meant to be a parody." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5446" RevisionGUID="d24a4c17-da6d-4592-8127-f68372845bd0" CreationDate="2017-10-19T17:58:16.240" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="This is garbled Latin that looks like the misguided effort of a first-year Latin student (or perhaps, more likely, Google Translate). The meaning (in outline) is clear to me as an English speaker:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perhaps I accept your strident speech. I am Quintus Fabius, the centurion of the star ship &quot;The Hammer of Jesus.&quot; What are you, what are you doing in this territory? And what is your mixed (?) language? Is it German? I don't doubt that you are from Outer Germany. I have heard of your people before. Well? What will you answer me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The case agreements are almost completely wrong and many of the words (e.g. *navis stellae*, *bene*) are nonsensical calques of English idioms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: it's embarrassing (but not utterly surprising) that this is in a published work, unless in context it is meant to be a parody." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5447" RevisionGUID="344dc005-fe73-4e73-92f9-40ed44be4630" CreationDate="2017-10-19T19:49:33.597" UserId="645" Text="I would like to understand the Romans minted coins. Mining, smelting and refining are no mystery; I can envision ways in which uniform coin-blanks might have been made : but the big problems are (1) the striking of the coins themselves, and (2) the means of mass production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The dies  were small, and intricate in design, but what tools were used to shape them? Have any tools for die-sinking ever been identified and, if so, what were they made of? Was there any aid to vision? And what was the material of the dies? To withstand repeated hammering of bronze or silver, a die must resist wear and distortion (the stress in stamping gold is significantly less), so was there a hardening process? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. And once all that has been settled, how was the necessarily prodigious striking rate achieved? Allowing that a blank stock sufficient to allow uninterrupted striking is plausible is one thing, but at, say one minute per coin, during twelve hours of daylight, one pair of dies would produce 720 coins per day, by which time the die might be quite well worn. At such a rate, to turn out a million coins would need 1,400 working days — and the circulation could actually run into billions of sesterces!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reads of two opposing dies being struck with a hammer (there are even photographs of them), but I have never come across a believable account of the whole business. The industry would have been a large employer of highly skilled labour, but I can't find any discussion of it. Was there any way of increasing efficiency, in the way that (for instance) the spinning jenny revolutionised the textile industry?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the years I've tried to discuss this with all manner of people who I thought might help, but few had paused to think it out. Maybe I've been asking (and looking) in the wrong places. Can anyone point me to ancient sources for solid information?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17966" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5447" RevisionGUID="344dc005-fe73-4e73-92f9-40ed44be4630" CreationDate="2017-10-19T19:49:33.597" UserId="645" Text="A source of information on Roman mints" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17967" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5447" RevisionGUID="344dc005-fe73-4e73-92f9-40ed44be4630" CreationDate="2017-10-19T19:49:33.597" UserId="645" Text="|technology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5447" RevisionGUID="7b53b5b3-22d8-45cc-afe4-572033452bb7" CreationDate="2017-10-19T21:07:07.207" UserId="645" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I would like to understand how the Romans minted coins. Mining, smelting and refining are no mystery; I can envision ways in which uniform coin-blanks might have been made : but the big problems are (1) the striking of the coins themselves, and (2) the means of mass production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The dies  were small, and intricate in design, but what tools were used to shape them? Have any tools for die-sinking ever been identified and, if so, what were they made of? Was there any aid to vision? And what was the material of the dies? To withstand repeated hammering of bronze or silver, a die must resist wear and distortion (the stress in stamping gold is significantly less), so was there a hardening process? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. And once all that has been settled, how was the necessarily prodigious striking rate achieved? Allowing that a blank stock sufficient to allow uninterrupted striking is plausible is one thing, but at, say one minute per coin, during twelve hours of daylight, one pair of dies would produce 720 coins per day, by which time the die might be quite well worn. At such a rate, to turn out a million coins would need 1,400 working days — and the circulation could actually run into billions of sesterces!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reads of two opposing dies being struck with a hammer (there are even photographs of them), but I have never come across a believable account of the whole business. The industry would have been a large employer of highly skilled labour, but I can't find any discussion of it. Was there any way of increasing efficiency, in the way that (for instance) the spinning jenny revolutionised the textile industry?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the years I've tried to discuss this with all manner of people who I thought might help, but few had paused to think it out. Maybe I've been asking (and looking) in the wrong places. Can anyone point me to ancient sources for solid information?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5448" RevisionGUID="6f9d4e39-16e6-4760-a4b3-e95aa240014d" CreationDate="2017-10-19T22:29:18.923" UserId="2078" Text="It's probably supposed to be a version of Latin that has undergone a certain mutation over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is, however, entirely a guess, I have not read the book (or books, if this is part of a series.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the line is &quot;I have heard your type of speech before.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English is a Germanic language, which is why double negatives should never be used, though they are common and normal in Latin-rooted languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5449" RevisionGUID="9eeba51a-12ea-41a4-a5d7-cac288720c51" CreationDate="2017-10-20T20:27:17.900" UserId="68" Text="Are there any guidelines for the fluctuation between past and historical present tense in Latin narrative other than &quot;it's used for vividness&quot;? I'm writing my first multi-scene narrative and so I'm running into this question more than usual. Like, do I just switch into historical present when I would do so if I were telling the story informally in English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember reading a review of a book that suggested that different verbs seemed to prefer past or historical present, but I can't remember the name of the book." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17971" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5449" RevisionGUID="9eeba51a-12ea-41a4-a5d7-cac288720c51" CreationDate="2017-10-20T20:27:17.900" UserId="68" Text="tense fluctuation in Latin narrative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17972" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5449" RevisionGUID="9eeba51a-12ea-41a4-a5d7-cac288720c51" CreationDate="2017-10-20T20:27:17.900" UserId="68" Text="|grammar-choice|style|tenses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5450" RevisionGUID="ebfa3864-78d7-4e63-9c3d-fee7f70029ec" CreationDate="2017-10-20T22:53:23.433" UserId="406" Text="I've heard that the Romans considered iron to have protective properties, similar to the more modern tradition of &quot;cold iron&quot; against the Fair Folk, or nailing a horseshoe above the door.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do any ancient sources describe iron's apotropaic powers, or the reason behind them? And did these powers only come from *ferrum*, or from metal in general?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17974" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5450" RevisionGUID="ebfa3864-78d7-4e63-9c3d-fee7f70029ec" CreationDate="2017-10-20T22:53:23.433" UserId="406" Text="Does iron have magical properties?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17975" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5450" RevisionGUID="ebfa3864-78d7-4e63-9c3d-fee7f70029ec" CreationDate="2017-10-20T22:53:23.433" UserId="406" Text="|mythology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5451" RevisionGUID="ba61de77-9a45-4517-955e-610417497d69" CreationDate="2017-10-20T23:00:17.730" UserId="406" Text="When someone comes to visit me at my *villa*, I would like to greet them and welcome them in. I know how to welcome English (&quot;welcome&quot;), German (&quot;wilkommen&quot;), and French (&quot;bienvenue&quot;) guests in a single word. But if a native Roman comes to visit me, what should I say to him?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17977" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5451" RevisionGUID="ba61de77-9a45-4517-955e-610417497d69" CreationDate="2017-10-20T23:00:17.730" UserId="406" Text="How do I welcome someone in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17978" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5451" RevisionGUID="ba61de77-9a45-4517-955e-610417497d69" CreationDate="2017-10-20T23:00:17.730" UserId="406" Text="|word-request|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5452" RevisionGUID="25e76c86-dbbc-4b22-8a0f-b02a26208ad4" CreationDate="2017-10-21T10:04:10.533" UserId="79" Text="Pekkanen's dictionary suggests *salve advenis/advenitis* or *bene adveneris/adveneritis*, but I found no classical attestations of these.&#xD;&#xA;These are understandable phrases, but I don't know how canonical they are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I dug around and found some relevant phrases in the literature that you might want to build on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Plautus, *Trinummus*, 1097: *et salve et salvom te advenisse gaudeo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Pacuvius, *Tragoediae*, 232: *expectata áduenis: salue, hospita!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Plautus, *Bacchides*, 101 (accepting a welcome, but can be turned around for a welcoming idiom): *Bene me accipies advenientem, mea soror.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cicero, *De republica*, 1.18 (on how someone was happy to welcome someone): *eorum adventus periucundus et pergratus fuisset*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cicero, *Epistulae ad Atticum*, 4.19.1 (on arrival of a letter, but works also for arrival of a person): *O exspectatas mihi tuas litteras! O gratum adventum!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that if you want a simple everyday &quot;welcome&quot;, then *salve(te)* is a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;If you want more flavor, use or adapt any of the quotes above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5451" RevisionGUID="c4355376-f1ef-4b58-a925-aae349d0a4cf" CreationDate="2017-10-21T10:04:40.827" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="When someone comes to visit me at my *villa*, I would like to greet them and welcome them in. I know how to welcome English (&quot;welcome&quot;), German (&quot;wilkommen&quot;), and French (&quot;bienvenue&quot;) guests in a single word. But if a native Roman comes to visit me, what should I say to him?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17981" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5451" RevisionGUID="c4355376-f1ef-4b58-a925-aae349d0a4cf" CreationDate="2017-10-21T10:04:40.827" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|idiom|word-request|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5452" RevisionGUID="91833002-5d89-4d8c-a2b2-c2174500559b" CreationDate="2017-10-21T16:11:02.820" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="Pekkanen's dictionary suggests *salve advenis/advenitis* or *bene adveneris/adveneritis*, but I found no classical attestations of these.&#xD;&#xA;These are understandable phrases, but I don't know how canonical they are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I dug around and found some relevant phrases in the literature that you might want to build on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Plautus, *Trinummus*, 1097: *et salve et salvom te advenisse gaudeo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Pacuvius, *Tragoediae*, 232: *expectata advenis: salue, hospita!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Plautus, *Bacchides*, 101 (accepting a welcome, but can be turned around for a welcoming idiom): *Bene me accipies advenientem, mea soror.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cicero, *De republica*, 1.18 (on how someone was happy to welcome someone): *eorum adventus periucundus et pergratus fuisset*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cicero, *Epistulae ad Atticum*, 4.19.1 (on arrival of a letter, but works also for arrival of a person): *O exspectatas mihi tuas litteras! O gratum adventum!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that if you want a simple everyday &quot;welcome&quot;, then *salve(te)* is a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;If you want more flavor, use or adapt any of the quotes above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5453" RevisionGUID="ce7ae3f8-a757-445f-a7ee-01fec222ea0e" CreationDate="2017-10-21T21:40:50.160" UserId="985" Text="The only guidelines I've seen that are related to this issue in any way aren't really about the switch to historic present *per se*. (Every discussion I've ever seen is in agreement that the historic present is used to add 'vividness.') Instead, the guidelines are related to the appropriate use of the historic present and the historic infinitive; and both sets of guidelines are given quite separately in grammars, for good reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The historic present replaces the historic perfect (i.e., perfect as simple past) (Allen &amp; Greenough §469). The historic infinitive replaces the imperfect (A&amp;G §463), and so 'is never used to state a mere historical fact' but is descriptive (ibid., Note). So you're right, in a way: the verbs that you're using – or rather, the nature of the actions that you're using them to describe – might lead you to choose either present indicative or present infinitive for a given passage of text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, the historic present and historic infinitive are two separate constructions that are held to have different purposes and different effects. You switch to historic present whenever you want the reader to feel that they're witnessing the events up close (A&amp;G §469, Note; Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge §229). By contrast, the historic infinitive is used, not for vividness, but 'to give a rapid sequence of events' (G&amp;L §647); it 'gives the outline of the thought, and not the details' (ibid., Note 1). Woodcock (*A new Latin syntax*) §21 gives a nice summary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The *Historic Infinitive* is used in excited narrative to describe an unfolding scene, a state of feeling, or the beginning or repetition of striking actions... [They] are seldom used singly. There are usually two or more... The historians in particular developed the construction as a stylistic device for painting a scene with a few rapid strokes...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, both constructions – one that adds vividness by describing the actions as occurring right now, and one that gives a mere sketch of an unfolding scene – can create a sense of excitement or acceleration during a narrative, especially at climactic or significant moments. In your own narrative, you might use one in one scene and the other in another, depending on the effect that you're trying to achieve." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5455" RevisionGUID="f1ece5c4-3ed3-4596-a121-697bf4416a2c" CreationDate="2017-10-22T01:40:59.800" UserId="576" Text="Are *vir* and *virgo* etymologically related?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;St. Isidore says, in his [*Etymologies*][1] p. 242, that *virago* and *vir* are related: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A ‘heroic maiden’ (*virago*) is so called because she&#xD;&#xA;‘acts like a man’ (*vir* + *agere*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But he doesn't seem to think *vir* and *virgo* are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A man (*vir*) is so called, because in him resides&#xD;&#xA;greater power (*vis*) than in a woman – hence also&#xD;&#xA;‘strength’ (*virtus*) received its name – or else because&#xD;&#xA;he deals with a woman by force (*vis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The term ‘virgin’ (*virgo*) comes from ‘a greener&#xD;&#xA;(*viridior*) age,’ just like the words ‘sprout’ (*virga*) and&#xD;&#xA;‘calf ’ (*vitula*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/book/4516" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17989" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5455" RevisionGUID="f1ece5c4-3ed3-4596-a121-697bf4416a2c" CreationDate="2017-10-22T01:40:59.800" UserId="576" Text="Are &quot;vir&quot; and &quot;virgo&quot; etymologically related?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17990" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5455" RevisionGUID="f1ece5c4-3ed3-4596-a121-697bf4416a2c" CreationDate="2017-10-22T01:40:59.800" UserId="576" Text="|etymology|word-comparison|noun|origin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5456" RevisionGUID="074d0357-1050-4c8e-827e-e1315dec100e" CreationDate="2017-10-22T02:44:16.687" UserId="235" Text="Most likely not. According to de Vaan, there are two hypotheses on the etymology of virgo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **virgo, -inis** 'girl of marriageable age; virgin' [f. (m.) ri\ (Andr.-l·)&#xD;&#xA;Derivatives: virginalis 'of a girl of marriageable age' (PL+), virginarius 'concerned&#xD;&#xA;with girls of a marriageable age' (P1.+), virgineus 'of a girl; virgin' (Lucr.+).&#xD;&#xA;WH interpret virgo as an individuation of virga 'twig, rod', implying a shift from 'young, virgin' &gt; 'young plant'. Ledo-Lemos 2002 posits a compound *wir-gwon- 'young woman', with an unacceptable formal and semantic analysis of the word for 'man' (recte PIE *uiHro-) and formally of PIE 'woman'.&#xD;&#xA;BibL: WH II: 799, EM 739f, IEW 1133f.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first hypothesis is the one from [Walde-Hoffmann][1]. It sees virgo as an individuation of virga ('twig', 'rod') which is derived from the PIE root *wizg-a-. This shares nothing in common etymologically with vir &lt; *uiH-ro-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second hypothesis comes from a paper published in 2002 (Ledo-Lemos), which posits that virgo is  a compound of two IE roots, *uiH-ro- (man) and *gʷén-eH₂- (woman). If the paper is correct then yes, the words &quot;vir&quot; and &quot;virgo&quot; would be etymologically related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thing is, de Vaan seems to dismiss the second hypothesis. It receives no support except for that one paper. I would put my money on the etymology given by Walde-Hoffman (virgo &lt; *wizg-a-) as this is the primary etymology given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/walde" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5457" RevisionGUID="7a9a322f-d10b-4149-8813-2b25373b1a38" CreationDate="2017-10-22T02:54:51.167" UserId="1987" Text="Beloved Wikipedia says: Amadeus is a theophoric given name derived from the Latin words ama – the imperative of the word amare (to love) – and deus (god). As a linguistic compound in the form of a phereoikos, it means &quot;Love god!&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;Is it correct that Amadeo and Amadei mean &quot;God's Love&quot;, rather then &quot;Love God&quot;? That's what I read elsewhere. &#xA;&#xA;(I even read on dear BehindtheName.com that Amadei means &quot;son of Amadeo&quot;)&#xA;&#xA;I like Amadeus and it's meaning, but I'm worried it's a bit of a mouthful for my son's middle name and perhaps even a but too antiquated. So I'm wondering if I can use a shorter variant but **not** lose the meaning of &quot;love God&quot;. Would Amadeo/Amadei/(Or even the French Amédée) lose the meaning of love **TOWARDS** God, and would instead mean love **FROM** God?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17993" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5457" RevisionGUID="7a9a322f-d10b-4149-8813-2b25373b1a38" CreationDate="2017-10-22T02:54:51.167" UserId="1987" Text="The Names Amadeus, Amadeo, Amadei" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17994" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5457" RevisionGUID="7a9a322f-d10b-4149-8813-2b25373b1a38" CreationDate="2017-10-22T02:54:51.167" UserId="1987" Text="|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5458" RevisionGUID="16f2df18-ba8c-4976-805e-87d78b9b4b87" CreationDate="2017-10-22T03:53:18.517" UserId="235" Text="What better example to use than Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mozart was given the baptismal name *Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart*. The first two names (Johannes Chrysostomus) are his patron saint and so for our purposes we can ignore them. But I might point out, as an interesting aside, that Chrysostomus means 'golden mouth' in Greek, which certainly augured true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's move onto the last three, Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart. The first is a Latin version of his German name, Wolfgang. The last is the surname that he shares with his father. It is the second of these names, Theophilus, that helps answer your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Theophilus* comes from Greek roots and it means love of God. The Latin version is *Amadeus*. Mozart translated this name into German, Italian, and French, which is what makes his example so pertinent to your question. I will provide below the various translations of this name that Mozart used throughout his lifetime, and perhaps one of them will catch your interest. (You will furthermore have the consolation of knowing that Mozart himself used this name!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mozart's...&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek name: **Wolfgang Theophilus** (Latin transliteration of Θεόφιλος).  &#xD;&#xA;Latin name: **Wolfgang Amadeus** (Latin translation of Θεόφιλος).  &#xD;&#xA;German name: **Wolfgang Gottlieb** (German translation of Amadeus).  &#xD;&#xA;Italian name: **Wolfgango Amadeo**  (Italian transliteration).  &#xD;&#xA;French name:  **Wolfgang Amadè** (French transliteration).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There you have it, Greek, Latin, German, Italian and French versions of the same word used by one of the world's most famous composers. I would never presume to say what you should name your son, but I hope this list may be of use.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Wikipedia source][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart%27s_name" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5458" RevisionGUID="8fbf8c9a-e7b0-40c0-9dff-2e475ce9c27c" CreationDate="2017-10-22T04:03:04.530" UserId="235" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="What better example to use than Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mozart was given the baptismal name *Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart*. The first two names (Johannes Chrysostomus) are his patron saint and so for our purposes we can ignore them. But I might point out, as an interesting aside, that Chrysostomus means 'golden mouth' in Greek, which certainly augured true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's move onto the last three, Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart. The first is a Latin version of his German name, Wolfgang. The last is the surname that he shares with his father. It is the second of these names, Theophilus, that helps answer your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Theophilus* comes from Greek roots and it means love of God. The Latin version is *Amadeus*. Mozart translated this name into German, Italian, and French, which is what makes his example so pertinent to your question. I will provide below the various translations of this name that Mozart used throughout his lifetime, and perhaps one of them will catch your interest. (You will furthermore have the consolation of knowing that Mozart himself used this name!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mozart's...&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baptismal name: **Wolfgang Theophilus** (Latin transliteration of Θεόφιλος).  &#xD;&#xA;Latin name: **Wolfgangus Amadeus** (Latin translation of Θεόφιλος).  &#xD;&#xA;German name: **Wolfgang Gottlieb** (German translation of Amadeus).  &#xD;&#xA;Italian name: **Wolfgango Amadeo**  (Italian transliteration).  &#xD;&#xA;French name:  **Wolfgang Amadè** (French transliteration).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There you have it, Greek, Latin, German, Italian and French versions of the same word used by one of the world's most famous composers. I would never presume to say what you should name your son, but I hope this list may be of use.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Wikipedia source][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart%27s_name" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5457" RevisionGUID="b82914dd-e822-4929-b7e7-0c04e45f35c3" CreationDate="2017-10-22T04:32:49.093" UserId="1987" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="Beloved Wikipedia says: Amadeus is a theophoric given name derived from the Latin words ama – the imperative of the word amare (to love) – and deus (god). As a linguistic compound in the form of a phereoikos, it means &quot;Love god!&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;Is it correct that Amadeo and Amadei mean &quot;God's Love&quot;, rather then &quot;Love God&quot;? That's what I read elsewhere. &#xA;&#xA;(I even read on dear BehindtheName.com that Amadei means &quot;son of Amadeo&quot;)&#xA;&#xA;I like Amadeus and it's meaning, but I'm worried it's a bit of a mouthful for my son's middle name and perhaps even a but too antiquated. So I'm wondering if I can use a shorter variant but **not** lose the meaning of &quot;love God&quot;. Would Amadeo/Amadei/(Or even the French Amédée) lose the meaning of love **TOWARDS** God, and would instead mean love **FROM** God?&#xA;&#xA;Edit: Having now read that Dee is the Vocative for Deus in Latin, would Amadee be a viable name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5459" RevisionGUID="2bb40944-4a3b-4748-a16d-e461a4844df3" CreationDate="2017-10-22T05:20:39.033" UserId="9" Text="I assume you are not planning to give your son a name *in* Latin, but merely a name *from* Latin. When used as names outside of a Latin-language context, the forms *Amadeus, Amadeo* and *Amédée* should all have equivalent meanings. The first is Latinate in form, the second Italian, and the third French. Due to phonetic sound changes between Latin and the Romance languages, the Latin nominative suffix *-us* corresponds to Italian *-o.* I don't really understand why the French form has a final mute &quot;e&quot;,  but that isn't related to inflected forms either: French *-ée* just corresponds to Latin *-eus* in many names (like *Persée* &quot;Perseus&quot;, *Thésée* &quot;Theseus&quot;, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Amadei* is the genitive form of *Amadeus* in Latin. That is, it can mean more or less &quot;of Amadeus&quot; (or in Italian, &quot;of Amadeo&quot;). This sense naturally gives rise to the sense &quot;**son** of Amadeo&quot; when applied to a person; compare the example of the famous [Galileo Galilei][1], whose name Wikipedia explains as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The surname Galilei derives from the given name of an ancestor, Galileo Bonaiuti, a physician, university teacher and politician who lived in Florence from 1370 to 1450; his descendents had changed their family name from Bonaiuti (or Buonaiuti) to Galilei in his honor in the late 14th century. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Latin inflection of &quot;Amadeus&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*In* Latin, the name &quot;Amadeus&quot; would be inflected into different forms like &quot;Amadeum&quot;, &quot;Amadeo&quot; etc. depending on the grammatical context, but inflected forms like this are not normally used as the basis for names in other languages. For example, the Latin name *Marcus* has the vocative form &quot;Marce&quot;, but this is not commonly used as a name in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, these forms would not change the understood meaning of the name. They would change how sentences containing the name would be interpreted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vocative of &quot;deus&quot; in Latin is actually complicated; it's often said to be &quot;deus&quot; instead of &quot;dee&quot; (although I have the impression that the latter form does occur *sometimes*). Actually, though, I think that you are right about *Amadee* being the vocative of *Amadeus,* because, assuming the name does in fact mean &quot;love God&quot; (something I'm not entirely sure of, despite the claims of Wikipedia), I can see no logical reason for it to contain the word &quot;God&quot; in the nominative case. (In the sentence &quot;love God&quot;, &quot;God&quot; is the object of the sentence.) &#xD;&#xA;Therefore, it seems to me that the nominative suffix *-us* at the end of the word should not be considered to form the word &quot;deus&quot; along with the preceding &quot;de&quot;, but rather, it should be seen as a suffix attached to the entire preceding word: it looks to me like it would be divided [Ama-de]-us, with the [Ama de] part coming from a truncation of &quot;Ama de**um**&quot; (&quot;Love God&quot;) and the *-us* acting as a suffix to convert this phrase to a masculine name. I'm not certain that I'm right about this, but this kind of analysis makes the most sense to me provided we stipulate that the name means &quot;Love God!&quot;, and implies that the inflection in other case-forms should be like that of a normal second-declension noun rather than like that of &quot;deus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I found a post on the Textkit forum that does say &quot;Amadee&quot; is a correct vocative form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Perseu est Perseus vocativo casu quod vocabulum Graecum.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Amadee est Amadeus quod Latinum seu Italicum.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Deus est Deus vocativo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;–[adrianus][2] » Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:21 pm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also saw a WordReference post that refers to the name as &quot;[dog-Latin][3]&quot;, so it may be a bit pointless to try to interpret it as a correctly formed Latin compound in any case – as ktm5124 points out, it is meant to parallel formations in other languages like Greek *Θεόφιλος* and German *Gottlieb.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Name&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=60484&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/thor-bror-ragnor.1444009/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5459" RevisionGUID="fe809921-2613-426c-83a4-3f9562dccefd" CreationDate="2017-10-22T05:26:49.973" UserId="9" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I assume you are not planning to give your son a name *in* Latin, but merely a name *from* Latin. When used as names outside of a Latin-language context, the forms *Amadeus, Amadeo* and *Amédée* should all have equivalent meanings. The first is Latinate in form, the second Italian, and the third French. Due to phonetic sound changes between Latin and the Romance languages, the Latin nominative suffix *-us* corresponds to Italian *-o.* I don't really understand why the French form has a final mute &quot;e&quot;,  but that isn't related to inflected forms either: French *-ée* just corresponds to Latin *-eus* in many names (like *Persée* &quot;Perseus&quot;, *Thésée* &quot;Theseus&quot;, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Amadei* is the genitive form of *Amadeus* in Latin. That is, it can mean more or less &quot;of Amadeus&quot; (or in Italian, &quot;of Amadeo&quot;). This sense naturally gives rise to the sense &quot;**son** of Amadeo&quot; when applied to a person; compare the example of the famous [Galileo Galilei][1], whose name Wikipedia explains as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The surname Galilei derives from the given name of an ancestor, Galileo Bonaiuti, a physician, university teacher and politician who lived in Florence from 1370 to 1450; his descendents had changed their family name from Bonaiuti (or Buonaiuti) to Galilei in his honor in the late 14th century. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Latin inflection of &quot;Amadeus&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*In* Latin, the name &quot;Amadeus&quot; would be inflected into different forms like &quot;Amadeum&quot;, &quot;Amadeo&quot; etc. depending on the grammatical context, but inflected forms like this are not normally used as the basis for names in other languages. For example, the Latin name *Marcus* has the vocative form &quot;Marce&quot;, but this is not commonly used as a name in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, these forms would not change the understood meaning of the name. They would change how sentences containing the name would be interpreted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vocative of &quot;deus&quot; in Latin is actually complicated; it's often said to be &quot;deus&quot; instead of &quot;dee&quot; (although I have the impression that the latter form does occur *sometimes*). Actually, though, I think that you are right about *Amadee* being the vocative of *Amadeus,* because, assuming the name does in fact mean &quot;love God&quot; (something I'm not entirely sure of, despite the claims of Wikipedia), I can see no logical reason for it to contain the word &quot;God&quot; in the nominative case. (In the sentence &quot;love God&quot;, &quot;God&quot; is the object of the sentence.) &#xD;&#xA;Therefore, it seems to me that the nominative suffix *-us* at the end of the word should not be considered to form the word &quot;deus&quot; along with the preceding &quot;de&quot;, but rather, it should be seen as a suffix attached to the entire preceding word: it looks to me like it would be divided [Ama-de]-us, with the [Ama de] part coming from a truncation of &quot;Ama de**um**&quot; (&quot;Love God&quot;) and the *-us* acting as a suffix to convert this phrase to a masculine name. I'm not certain that I'm right about this, but this kind of analysis makes the most sense to me provided we stipulate that the name means &quot;Love God!&quot;, and it implies that the inflection in other case-forms should be like that of a normal second-declension noun rather than like that of &quot;deus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I found a post on the Textkit forum that does say &quot;Amadee&quot; is a correct vocative form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Perseu est Perseus vocativo casu quod vocabulum Graecum.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Amadee est Amadeus quod Latinum seu Italicum.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Deus est Deus vocativo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;–[adrianus][2] » Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:21 pm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also saw a WordReference post that refers to the name as &quot;[dog-Latin][3]&quot;, so it may be a bit pointless to try to interpret it as a correctly formed Latin compound in any case – as ktm5124 points out, it is meant to parallel formations in other languages like Greek *Θεόφιλος* and German *Gottlieb.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Name&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=60484&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/thor-bror-ragnor.1444009/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5460" RevisionGUID="469c1899-05db-4063-958e-9a0934bbf25c" CreationDate="2017-10-22T11:15:16.857" UserId="324" Text="As correctly stated in your first paragraph, Amadeus is a verb+noun compound (type: φερέοικος). The fist component is an imperative, so Amadeus means “love God!” It is thus not synonymous with Theophilos, “friend of God”, a genitival tatpuruṣa. The German Gottlieb is the exact equivalent of Theophilos, but not of Amadeus, for which the German equivalent would be Liebgott. Compound nmes with an imperative as their first component are fairly popular in German, especially in the milieu of pietism; I am thinking of names like Lebrecht. There was at that time in fact an Austrian diplomat called Johann Amadeus von Thugut, a name containing both a Latin (ama-deus) and a German (tu-gut) compound of this type. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5460" RevisionGUID="78f4f3b8-f4ae-4e1c-aa21-9722c678548c" CreationDate="2017-10-22T11:20:22.260" UserId="324" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="As correctly stated in your first paragraph, Amadeus is a verb+noun compound (type: φερέοικος). The first component is an imperative, so Amadeus means “love God!” It is thus not synonymous with Theophilos, “friend of God”, a genitival tatpuruṣa. The German Gottlieb is the exact equivalent of Theophilos, but not of Amadeus, for which the German equivalent would be Liebgott. Compound names with an imperative as their first component are fairly popular in German, especially in the milieu of pietism; I am thinking of names like Lebrecht. There was at that time in fact an Austrian diplomat called Johann Amadeus von Thugut, a name containing both a Latin (ama-deus) and a German (tu-gut) compound of this type. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5461" RevisionGUID="fe79467a-bddc-44b3-ac33-69e67bdda802" CreationDate="2017-10-22T15:57:33.617" UserId="1496" Text="Lower bound, upper bound, infimum, supremum, minimum, and maximum are concepts in mathematics. I cannot find translations of them in Wikipedia and Latin dictionaries. Here are their translations in other Romance Languages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    En. | Lower Bound | Upper bound | Infimum          | Supremum        | Minimum | Maximum&#xD;&#xA;    Fr. | Majorant    | Minorant    | Infimum          | Supremum        | Minimum | Maximum&#xD;&#xA;    Es. | Mayorante   | Minorante   | Infimo           | Supremo         | Minimo  | Maximo&#xD;&#xA;    It. | Maggiorante | Minorante   | EstremoInferiore | EstremoSuperiore| Minimo  | Massimo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so it seems like that `Infimum, Supremum, Minimum, Maximum` are plausible translations in Latin, but I am not sure about Lower bound and Upper bound. Wiktionary suggests they evolved from the Latin root words Major and Minor via an intermediate step (majoro,-are,-avi,-atum?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like `Majorantum,-i` and `Minorantum,-i` are the closest translations of lower and upper bounds. Is this true?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18003" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5461" RevisionGUID="fe79467a-bddc-44b3-ac33-69e67bdda802" CreationDate="2017-10-22T15:57:33.617" UserId="1496" Text="How to say &quot;lower bound&quot; and &quot;upper bound&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18004" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5461" RevisionGUID="fe79467a-bddc-44b3-ac33-69e67bdda802" CreationDate="2017-10-22T15:57:33.617" UserId="1496" Text="|translation|translation-check|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5461" RevisionGUID="790e2a7e-42f5-468e-95c2-18a0c9823609" CreationDate="2017-10-22T17:01:58.933" UserId="1496" Comment="edited body" Text="Lower bound, upper bound, infimum, supremum, minimum, and maximum are concepts in mathematics. I cannot find translations of them in Wikipedia and Latin dictionaries. Here are their translations in other Romance Languages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    En. | Lower Bound | Upper bound | Infimum          | Supremum        | Minimum | Maximum&#xD;&#xA;    Fr. | Majorant    | Minorant    | Infimum          | Supremum        | Minimum | Maximum&#xD;&#xA;    Es. | Mayorante   | Minorante   | Infimo           | Supremo         | Minimo  | Maximo&#xD;&#xA;    It. | Maggiorante | Minorante   | EstremoInferiore | EstremoSuperiore| Minimo  | Massimo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so it seems like that `Infimum, Supremum, Minimum, Maximum` are plausible translations in Latin, but I am not sure about Lower bound and Upper bound. Wiktionary suggests they evolved from the Latin root words Major and Minor via an intermediate step (majoro,-are,-avi,-atum?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like `Majorans,-tis` and `Minorans,-tis` are the closest translations of lower and upper bounds. Is this true?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5461" RevisionGUID="ff611423-b6d9-46fe-a802-ea99176f3715" CreationDate="2017-10-22T18:00:44.190" UserId="1496" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Lower bound, upper bound, infimum, supremum, minimum, and maximum are concepts in mathematics. I cannot find translations of them in Wikipedia and Latin dictionaries. Here are their translations in other Romance Languages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    En. | Lower Bound | Upper bound | Infimum          | Supremum        | Minimum | Maximum&#xD;&#xA;    Fr. | Majorant    | Minorant    | Infimum          | Supremum        | Minimum | Maximum&#xD;&#xA;    Es. | Mayorante   | Minorante   | Infimo           | Supremo         | Minimo  | Maximo&#xD;&#xA;    It. | Maggiorante | Minorante   | EstremoInferiore | EstremoSuperiore| Minimo  | Massimo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so it seems like that `Infimum, Supremum, Minimum, Maximum` are plausible translations in Latin, but I am not sure about Lower bound and Upper bound. Wiktionary suggests they are the present participle of verbs evolved from the Latin root words Major and Minor via an intermediate step (majoro,-are,-avi,-atum?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are `Majorans,-tis` and `Minorans,-tis` the closest translations of lower and upper bounds in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5458" RevisionGUID="27c3ac17-aff4-4082-8200-86915ffca721" CreationDate="2017-10-22T18:07:45.040" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 146 characters in body" Text="What better example to use than Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mozart was given the baptismal name *Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart*. The first two names (Johannes Chrysostomus) are his patron saint and so for our purposes we can ignore them. But I might point out, as an interesting aside, that Chrysostomus means 'golden mouth' in Greek, which certainly augured true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's move onto the last three, Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart. The first is a Latin version of his German name, Wolfgang. The last is the surname that he shares with his father. It is the second of these names, Theophilus, that helps answer your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Theophilus* comes from Greek roots and it means friend of God. The Latin version (not a strict translation) is *Amadeus*. Mozart translated this name into German, Italian, and French, which is what makes this example so useful. I will provide below the different names that Mozart used throughout his lifetime, and perhaps one of them will catch your interest. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mozart's...&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baptismal name: **Wolfgang Theophilus** (&quot;friend of God&quot;).     &#xD;&#xA;Latin name: **Wolfgangus Amadeus** (&quot;love God!&quot;).  &#xD;&#xA;German name: **Wolfgang Gottlieb** (&quot;God's love&quot;).  &#xD;&#xA;Italian name: **Wolfgango Amadeo** (Italian version of Amadeus).      &#xD;&#xA;French name:  **Wolfgang Amadè**   (French version of Amadeus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As fdb points out, these names are not translations of each other. Amadeus means &quot;love God!&quot; whereas &quot;Theophilus&quot; means &quot;friend of God&quot;. But they are conceptually similar, and were used by a famous figure, so they might be worth your consideration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Wikipedia source][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart%27s_name" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5458" RevisionGUID="7e79b1c6-e8c1-4aa4-90a8-9a12a5e89474" CreationDate="2017-10-22T18:14:56.487" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="What better example to use than Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mozart was given the baptismal name *Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart*. The first two names (Johannes Chrysostomus) are his patron saint and so for our purposes we can ignore them. But I might point out, as an interesting aside, that Chrysostomus means 'golden mouth' in Greek, which certainly augured true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's move onto the last three, Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart. The first is a Latin version of his German name, Wolfgang. The last is the surname that he shares with his father. It is the second of these names, Theophilus, that helps answer your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Theophilus* comes from Greek roots and it means friend of God. The Latin version is *Amadeus*. Mozart loosely translated this name into German, Italian, and French, which is what makes this example so useful. I will provide below the different names that Mozart used throughout his lifetime, and perhaps one of them will catch your interest. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mozart's...&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baptismal name: **Wolfgang Theophilus** (&quot;friend of God&quot;).     &#xD;&#xA;Latin name: **Wolfgangus Amadeus** (&quot;love God!&quot;).  &#xD;&#xA;German name: **Wolfgang Gottlieb** (&quot;God's love&quot;).  &#xD;&#xA;Italian name: **Wolfgango Amadeo** (Italian version of Amadeus).      &#xD;&#xA;French name:  **Wolfgang Amadè**   (French version of Amadeus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As fdb points out, these names are not translations of each other. Amadeus means &quot;love God!&quot; whereas &quot;Theophilus&quot; means &quot;friend of God&quot;. But they are conceptually similar, and were used by a famous figure, so they might be worth your consideration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Wikipedia source][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart%27s_name" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5458" RevisionGUID="d2ca9907-f0f4-4969-8a00-195de3c603f1" CreationDate="2017-10-22T18:20:48.720" UserId="235" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="What better example to use than Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mozart was given the baptismal name *Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart*. The first two names (Johannes Chrysostomus) are his patron saint and so for our purposes we can ignore them. But I might point out, as an interesting aside, that Chrysostomus means 'golden mouth' in Greek, which certainly augured true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's move onto the last three, Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart. The first is a Latin version of his German name, Wolfgang. The last is the surname that he shares with his father. It is the second of these names, Theophilus, that helps answer your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Theophilus* comes from Greek roots and it means friend of God. The Latin version is *Amadeus*. Mozart loosely translated this name into German, Italian, and French, which is what makes this example so useful. I will provide below the different names that Mozart used throughout his lifetime, and perhaps one of them will catch your interest. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mozart's...&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baptismal name: **Wolfgang Theophilus** (&quot;friend of God&quot;).     &#xD;&#xA;Latin name: **Wolfgangus Amadeus** (&quot;love God!&quot;).  &#xD;&#xA;German name: **Wolfgang Gottlieb** (&quot;God's love&quot; / &quot;friend of God&quot;).  &#xD;&#xA;Italian name: **Wolfgango Amadeo** (Italian version of Amadeus).      &#xD;&#xA;French name:  **Wolfgang Amadè**   (French version of Amadeus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As fdb points out, these names are not translations of each other. Amadeus means &quot;love God!&quot; whereas &quot;Theophilus&quot; means &quot;friend of God&quot;. But they are conceptually similar, and were used by a famous figure, so they might be worth your consideration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Wikipedia source][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart%27s_name" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5462" RevisionGUID="a7d1ddf7-d3c3-49e5-934c-ec04637f507c" CreationDate="2017-10-22T20:26:05.893" UserId="79" Text="The words *majorans* (or *maiorans*) and *minorans* are present participles of the verbs *maiorare* and *minorare*.&#xD;&#xA;I have not found *maiorare*, but [*minorare* does exist](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=minoro&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;However, the meaning is not exactly what would hope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to notice that the terms you are after are technical terms, and it would be too much to assume that they come from classical Latin words with exactly the right tone.&#xD;&#xA;Mathematical analysis as we know it did not exist in ancient Rome.&#xD;&#xA;(There were some precursors at the time, but I would argue that actual analysis had to wait for over a millennium.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deriving the verb *maiorare* from *maior* makes sense by analogy to *minor &gt; minorare* and other first conjugation derivatives.&#xD;&#xA;The meanings aren't precisely what you might expect, but they make good technical terms: the analogy to other languages is clear, and the meanings are closely related to the underlying words *maior* and *minor*.&#xD;&#xA;If one reads *maiorare/minorare* as &quot;to be bigger/smaller&quot;, which is not entirely unreasonable, then the meanings are precisely the ones you are after.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a mathematician, I can promise that clarity and similarity to other languages is crucial if you ever want to successfully introduce new Latin words into mathematical literature.&#xD;&#xA;The proposed *maiorans* and *minorans* look very good in this respect, and I wholly support choosing them as the translations for &quot;majorant&quot; / &quot;upper bound&quot; and &quot;minorant&quot; / &quot;lower bound&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I would be happy to use these terms if I ever end up writing about related topics in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;(I have published a little something about mathematics in Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, let me add one pair to your sextuplet: *limes superior* and *limes inferior*.&#xD;&#xA;They are sometimes called with these Latin names in English, and these are perfectly valid Latin expressions.&#xD;&#xA;In Italian they are *limite superiore/inferiore*, in French *limite supérieure/inférieure*, and in Spanish *límite superior/inferior*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5461" RevisionGUID="0201cdaf-6bb3-4e16-90a1-ec3e38fe0242" CreationDate="2017-10-22T20:27:52.673" UserId="79" Comment="Retagging and small edits. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="Lower bound, upper bound, infimum, supremum, minimum, and maximum are concepts in mathematics. I cannot find translations of them in Wikipedia and Latin dictionaries. Here are their translations in other Romance Languages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    En. | Lower Bound | Upper bound | Infimum          | Supremum        | Minimum | Maximum&#xD;&#xA;    Fr. | Majorant    | Minorant    | Infimum          | Supremum        | Minimum | Maximum&#xD;&#xA;    Es. | Mayorante   | Minorante   | Infimo           | Supremo         | Minimo  | Maximo&#xD;&#xA;    It. | Maggiorante | Minorante   | EstremoInferiore | EstremoSuperiore| Minimo  | Massimo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so it seems like that *Infimum, Supremum, Minimum, Maximum* are plausible translations in Latin, but I am not sure about Lower bound and Upper bound. Wiktionary suggests they are the present participle of verbs evolved from the Latin root words *Major* and *Minor* via an intermediate step (*majoro, -are, -avi, -atum*?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are *Majorans, -tis* and *Minorans, -tis* the closest translations of lower and upper bounds in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18013" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5461" RevisionGUID="0201cdaf-6bb3-4e16-90a1-ec3e38fe0242" CreationDate="2017-10-22T20:27:52.673" UserId="79" Comment="Retagging and small edits. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="|vocabulary|translation-check|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5462" RevisionGUID="66420158-54ef-4c1c-a753-40c9e6e6ed38" CreationDate="2017-10-22T20:35:44.840" UserId="79" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="The words *majorans* (or *maiorans*) and *minorans* are present participles of the verbs *maiorare* and *minorare*.&#xD;&#xA;I have not found *maiorare*, but [*minorare* does exist](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=minoro&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;However, the meaning is not exactly what would hope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to notice that the terms you are after are technical terms, and it would be too much to assume that they come from classical Latin words with exactly the right tone.&#xD;&#xA;Mathematical analysis as we know it did not exist in ancient Rome.&#xD;&#xA;(There were some precursors at the time, but I would argue that actual analysis had to wait for over a millennium.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deriving the verb *maiorare* from *maior* makes sense by analogy to *minor &gt; minorare* and other first conjugation derivatives.&#xD;&#xA;The meanings aren't precisely what you might expect, but they make good technical terms: the analogy to other languages is clear, and the meanings are closely related to the underlying words *maior* and *minor*.&#xD;&#xA;If one reads *maiorare/minorare* as &quot;to be bigger/smaller&quot;, which is not entirely unreasonable, then the meanings are precisely the ones you are after.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a mathematician, I can promise that clarity and similarity to other languages is crucial if you ever want to successfully introduce new Latin words into mathematical literature.&#xD;&#xA;The proposed *maiorans* and *minorans* look very good in this respect, and I wholly support choosing them as the translations for &quot;majorant&quot; / &quot;upper bound&quot; and &quot;minorant&quot; / &quot;lower bound&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I would be happy to use these terms if I ever end up writing about related topics in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;(I have published a little something about mathematics in Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, let me add one pair to your sextuplet: *limes superior* and *limes inferior*.&#xD;&#xA;They are sometimes called with these Latin names in English, and these are perfectly valid Latin expressions.&#xD;&#xA;In Italian they are *limite superiore/inferiore*, in French *limite supérieure/inférieure*, and in Spanish *límite superior/inferior*.&#xD;&#xA;The most common English versions I hear are the &quot;lim sup&quot; and &quot;lim inf&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5463" RevisionGUID="67583207-c92c-48d2-b149-a13080ffd756" CreationDate="2017-10-22T22:16:44.793" UserId="2081" Text="So I'm experimenting with some character concepts for a story dealing with Platonic Forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I have Forma Spatii (the Form of Space) and Forma Tempii (the Form of Time) as characters, as well as Forma Formarum (the Form of Forms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I've had this idea of a Form of Formlessness, but I'm not sure how to translate it. Note that Formlessness should be in singular genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help will be appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18016" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5463" RevisionGUID="67583207-c92c-48d2-b149-a13080ffd756" CreationDate="2017-10-22T22:16:44.793" UserId="2081" Text="Translation from English to Latin: How to translate formlessness?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18017" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5463" RevisionGUID="67583207-c92c-48d2-b149-a13080ffd756" CreationDate="2017-10-22T22:16:44.793" UserId="2081" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5464" RevisionGUID="4e0ef1a2-9d30-4e33-9787-08c859fa1697" CreationDate="2017-10-22T23:30:23.800" UserId="985" Text="According to the *Oxford Latin Dictionary*, the third-declension adjective *informis* means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1** Having no definite or regular shape, formless, featureless, or sim. **b** (of an abstract idea, institution, or sim.) not having a material form. **c** bodiless, disembodied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although no related noun is attested, it's simple enough to derive one on the model of, e.g., *brevis* &gt; *brevitas*. So, if you're open to using a neologism, the noun *informitas* (genitive singular *informitatis*) would be one possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, note that *Forma Tempii* doesn't mean 'the Form of Time'; the phrase should be *Forma Temporis*, because *tempus* is a third-declension noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5464" RevisionGUID="a9dd2760-d427-4adf-a0bb-0dee5dfe3f5f" CreationDate="2017-10-23T01:25:47.267" UserId="985" Comment="added 1278 characters in body" Text="According to the *Oxford Latin Dictionary*, the third-declension adjective *informis* means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1** Having no definite or regular shape, formless, featureless, or sim. **b** (of an abstract idea, institution, or sim.) not having a material form. **c** bodiless, disembodied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although no related noun is attested, it's simple enough to derive one on the model of, e.g., *brevis* &gt; *brevitas*. So, if you're open to using a neologism, the noun *informitas* (genitive singular *informitatis*) would be one possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, note that *Forma Tempii* doesn't mean 'the Form of Time'; the phrase should be *Forma Temporis*, because *tempus* is a third-declension noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** As sumelic has noted, *informitas* actually *is* attested, in Late Latin, and means 'unshapeliness, ugliness, deformity' (according to Lewis &amp; Short, which I should have checked in addition to *OLD* to begin with). So, yes, my suggestion of *Forma Informitatis* suggestion might be misleading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For alternatives, perhaps one can glean something from, e.g., book 1, lines 5–9 of Ovid's *Metamorphoses*, since that passage describes pre-creation formlessness:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ante mare et terras et quod tegit omnia caelum  &#xD;&#xA;unus erat toto naturae vultus in orbe,  &#xD;&#xA;quem dixere chaos: rudis indigestaque moles  &#xD;&#xA;nec quicquam nisi pondus iners congestaque eodem  &#xD;&#xA;non bene iunctarum discordia semina rerum.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Line 6–7 say that nature had one appearance in the whole world, and that this was called 'chaos.' L&amp;S gives as definition II of *chaos* 'The confused, formless, primitive mass out of which the universe was made,' and *OLD* gives 'The formless state of primordial matter or the period of this state.' So maybe *Forma Chai* would work. The problem there is that it could be taken as chaos in the modern sense of the word. Maybe something can be done with the phrase *rudis indigestaque moles* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, there's bound to be something in Lucretius." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5464" RevisionGUID="2b14d6ea-3ac9-4621-bde3-c18f12511338" CreationDate="2017-10-23T01:32:11.137" UserId="985" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="According to the *Oxford Latin Dictionary*, the third-declension adjective *informis* means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1** Having no definite or regular shape, formless, featureless, or sim. **b** (of an abstract idea, institution, or sim.) not having a material form. **c** bodiless, disembodied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although no related noun is attested, it's simple enough to derive one on the model of, e.g., *brevis* &gt; *brevitas*. So, if you're open to using a neologism, the noun *informitas* (genitive singular *informitatis*) would be one possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, note that *Forma Tempii* doesn't mean 'the Form of Time'; the phrase should be *Forma Temporis*, because *tempus* is a third-declension noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** As sumelic has noted, *informitas* actually *is* attested, in Late Latin, and means 'unshapeliness, ugliness, deformity' (according to Lewis &amp; Short, which I should have checked in addition to *OLD* to begin with). So, yes, my suggestion of *Forma Informitatis* might be misleading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For alternatives, perhaps one can glean something from, e.g., book 1, lines 5–9 of Ovid's *Metamorphoses*, since that passage describes pre-creation formlessness:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ante mare et terras et quod tegit omnia caelum  &#xD;&#xA;unus erat toto naturae vultus in orbe,  &#xD;&#xA;quem dixere chaos: rudis indigestaque moles  &#xD;&#xA;nec quicquam nisi pondus iners congestaque eodem  &#xD;&#xA;non bene iunctarum discordia semina rerum.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Line 6–7 say that nature had one appearance in the whole world, and that this was called 'chaos.' L&amp;S gives as definition II of *chaos* 'The confused, formless, primitive mass out of which the universe was made,' and *OLD* gives 'The formless state of primordial matter or the period of this state.' So maybe *Forma Chai* would work. The problem there is that it could be taken as chaos in the modern sense of the word. Maybe something can be done with the phrase *rudis indigestaque moles* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, there's bound to be something in Lucretius." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5465" RevisionGUID="38711d11-acdc-43c9-bfa6-375fd361a334" CreationDate="2017-10-23T07:55:07.710" UserId="2082" Text="I am creating a patch for my fictional team of heroes from the Terran Defense Force and I need to know if this translation is completely off or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had to use machine translation so I need an expert vetting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Original text: &#xD;&#xA;Keeping the torch of freedom alive - The Strong Protect the weak&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translated text: &#xD;&#xA;Servo libertatem vivere quate - Fortis est splendor infirma&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am asking here because I don't really have a lot of cash to throw around as converting my stories from shorts to comicbooks are sucking up a lot of my resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text will be put on a patch on their arm so it needs to be correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might even create a few patches IRL that I can hand out when I go to a comicon to present my comicbooks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can understand it is really important for me the translation is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really hope someone can advice on the matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kind Regards&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Einar Petersen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18022" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5465" RevisionGUID="38711d11-acdc-43c9-bfa6-375fd361a334" CreationDate="2017-10-23T07:55:07.710" UserId="2082" Text="Is this translation correct ? - Servo libertatem vivere quate - Fortis est splendor infirma" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18023" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5465" RevisionGUID="38711d11-acdc-43c9-bfa6-375fd361a334" CreationDate="2017-10-23T07:55:07.710" UserId="2082" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5465" RevisionGUID="ec9f8212-869f-4eec-b2dd-49e8e59312df" CreationDate="2017-10-23T08:05:20.217" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="I am creating a patch for my fictional team of heroes from the Terran Defense Force and I need to know if this translation is completely off or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had to use machine translation so I need an expert vetting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Original text:  &#xD;&#xA;Keeping the torch of freedom alive &amp;mdash; The Strong Protect the weak&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Translated text:   &#xD;&#xA;Servo libertatem vivere quate &amp;mdash; Fortis est splendor infirma&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am asking here because I don't really have a lot of cash to throw around as converting my stories from shorts to comicbooks are sucking up a lot of my resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text will be put on a patch on their arm so it needs to be correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might even create a few patches IRL that I can hand out when I go to a comicon to present my comicbooks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can understand it is really important for me the translation is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really hope someone can advice on the matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18025" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5465" RevisionGUID="ec9f8212-869f-4eec-b2dd-49e8e59312df" CreationDate="2017-10-23T08:05:20.217" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="Translation check: Servo libertatem vivere quate - Fortis est splendor infirma" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18026" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5465" RevisionGUID="ec9f8212-869f-4eec-b2dd-49e8e59312df" CreationDate="2017-10-23T08:05:20.217" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="|translation-check|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5460" RevisionGUID="f3117873-d5cc-4fe4-9cf0-a593c5810611" CreationDate="2017-10-23T12:24:52.017" UserId="324" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="As correctly stated in your first paragraph, Amadeus is a verb+noun compound (type: φερέοικος). The first component is an imperative, so Amadeus means “love God!” It is thus not synonymous with Theophilos, “friend of God”, a genitival tatpuruṣa. The German Gottlieb is the exact equivalent of Theophilos, but not of Amadeus, for which the German equivalent would be Liebgott. Compound names with an imperative as their first component were once fairly popular in German, especially in the milieu of pietism; I am thinking of names like Lebrecht. There was at that time in fact an Austrian diplomat called Johann Amadeus von Thugut, a name containing both a Latin (ama-deus) and a German (tu-gut) compound of this type. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5466" RevisionGUID="856d42e7-49cb-4653-8046-f46ac1d39f99" CreationDate="2017-10-23T15:42:46.890" UserId="68" Text="I've managed to confuse myself about which syllables to stress in prefixed verbs of two syllables, the first one being short (e.g. *circumdare* or *alloquor*). Do I stress the penultimate syllable in each as if it were two separate words (CIR-cum-DA-re, al-LO-quor) or or the antepenultimate syllable as if it were one word (cir-CUM-da-re, AL-lo-quor)? Allen doesn't seem to have anything about this. A vague memory that *pessumdare* is stressed on the antepenultimate makes me suspect that the latter is the right choice, but the memory could very well have been implanted by aliens." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18032" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5466" RevisionGUID="856d42e7-49cb-4653-8046-f46ac1d39f99" CreationDate="2017-10-23T15:42:46.890" UserId="68" Text="stressed syllables in certain prefixed verb forms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18033" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5466" RevisionGUID="856d42e7-49cb-4653-8046-f46ac1d39f99" CreationDate="2017-10-23T15:42:46.890" UserId="68" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18034" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5466" RevisionGUID="8b51c75f-aeba-4e65-832c-82384eeb1611" CreationDate="2017-10-23T15:50:03.047" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Stressed syllables in certain prefixed verb forms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18035" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5466" RevisionGUID="8b51c75f-aeba-4e65-832c-82384eeb1611" CreationDate="2017-10-23T15:50:03.047" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|pronunciation|stress|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5467" RevisionGUID="f0424d9d-4db4-43f4-b983-b2fdedf32a24" CreationDate="2017-10-23T16:59:04.940" UserId="79" Text="Machine translations are [very unreliable with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79), and I'm glad you are having it checked.&#xD;&#xA;The offered translation is unfortunately quite nonsensical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would propose this Latin translation (with a literal English back-translation):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pro viva face libertatis &amp;mdash; fortes infirmos tuentur.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For a living torch of freedom &amp;mdash; the strong protect/support the weak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see details on the individual words I chose, you can consult any of [the many online Latin dictionaries out there](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;The key words I used were *fax*, *tueor* (or *tueri*), *fortis*, and *infirmus* for &quot;torch&quot;, &quot;support&quot;, &quot;strong&quot;, and &quot;weak&quot;, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;If you would like some word replaced by something you think has a more fitting tone, let me know in a comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5464" RevisionGUID="e6638eac-366c-491c-a424-c363bb6a93fa" CreationDate="2017-10-23T17:20:56.517" UserId="985" Comment="added 470 characters in body" Text="According to the *Oxford Latin Dictionary*, the third-declension adjective *informis* means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1** Having no definite or regular shape, formless, featureless, or sim. **b** (of an abstract idea, institution, or sim.) not having a material form. **c** bodiless, disembodied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although no related noun is attested in Classical Latin, it's simple enough to derive one on the model of, e.g., *brevis* &gt; *brevitas*. So, if you're open to using a neologism, the noun *informitas* (genitive singular *informitatis*) would be one possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, note that *Forma Tempii* doesn't mean 'the Form of Time'; the phrase should be *Forma Temporis*, because *tempus* is a third-declension noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** As sumelic has noted, *informitas* actually *is* attested, though in Late Latin, and means 'unshapeliness, ugliness, deformity' (according to Lewis &amp; Short, which I should have checked in addition to *OLD* to begin with). So, yes, my suggestion of *Forma Informitatis* might be misleading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For alternatives, perhaps one can glean something from, e.g., book 1, lines 5–9 of Ovid's *Metamorphoses*, since that passage describes pre-creation formlessness:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ante mare et terras et quod tegit omnia caelum  &#xD;&#xA;unus erat toto naturae vultus in orbe,  &#xD;&#xA;quem dixere chaos: rudis indigestaque moles  &#xD;&#xA;nec quicquam nisi pondus iners congestaque eodem  &#xD;&#xA;non bene iunctarum discordia semina rerum.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Line 6–7 say that nature had one appearance in the whole world, and that this was called 'chaos.' L&amp;S gives as definition II of *chaos* 'The confused, formless, primitive mass out of which the universe was made,' and *OLD* gives 'The formless state of primordial matter or the period of this state.' So maybe *Forma Chai* would work. The problem there is that it could be taken as chaos in the modern sense of the word. Maybe something can be done with the phrase *rudis indigestaque moles* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, there's bound to be something in Lucretius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2:** I note that Apuleius (*De Platone et eius dogmate* 1.5) uses the adjective *informis* specifically in the context of Plato's forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; initia rerum esse tria arbitratur Plato: deum et materiam inabsolutam, informem, nulla specie nec qualitatis significatione distinctam, **rerumque formas**, quas ἰδέας idem uocat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if one goes by classical meanings, I still think there's some justification for the noun *informitas*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5467" RevisionGUID="34cf000e-e759-49f4-9172-61cf796541fd" CreationDate="2017-10-23T17:21:40.047" UserId="79" Comment="added 325 characters in body" Text="Machine translations are [very unreliable with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79), and I'm glad you are having it checked.&#xD;&#xA;The offered translation is unfortunately quite nonsensical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would propose this Latin translation (with a literal English back-translation):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pro viva face libertatis &amp;mdash; fortes infirmos tuentur.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For a living torch of freedom &amp;mdash; the strong protect/support the weak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see details on the individual words I chose, you can consult any of [the many online Latin dictionaries out there](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;The key words I used were *fax*, *tueor* (or *tueri*), *fortis*, and *infirmus* for &quot;torch&quot;, &quot;support&quot;, &quot;strong&quot;, and &quot;weak&quot;, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;If you would like some word replaced by something you think has a more fitting tone, let me know in a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get an idea what the machine translation means, let me try to translate it back to English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Servo libertatem vivere quate — Fortis est splendor infirma.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I protect the freedom, shake living! — The weak brightness is strong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't make much sense, since I can only translate non-Latin to non-English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5468" RevisionGUID="86b28bf4-bef2-4215-855d-7c0b487f8144" CreationDate="2017-10-23T18:05:48.917" UserId="2083" Text="I agree with the assessment that this is poorly imitated Latin, or perhaps a robotic translation from the web. I disagree that in an imaginary universe Latin could possibly have evolved to sound like that, but that's a speculative debate at best. I would vary the translation provided by Slarty slightly, to produce the following:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Let's say I buy what you just said. I am Quintus Fabius, commander of the starship 'Jesus's Hammer'. What are you, and what are you doing in these parts? And what language do you mixed lot speak? Is it German? No doubt you're from Outer Germany. I heard of your kind before. Well? Are you going to answer me?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to stress here that to a Roman the Latin would just sound like gobbledygook - but to an English speaker who knows what individual Latin words mean, the patterns in the text along with the meaning of the words leads to more or less what I've come up with. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5470" RevisionGUID="39237676-ac8b-4f5f-a599-a83ed597e38a" CreationDate="2017-10-24T03:59:42.407" UserId="522" Text="The Arch poet (c1130-1167) wrote a mock confession to his patron, Archbishop, and Arch-Chancellor to Barbarossa. Because his verse here written in *stressed trochaics,* Odds are stressed and Evens unstressed (except for the last syllable before the double bar-line) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;In these 3 examples distinct prepositions(Bold) are all stressed, but prepositional prefixes(*Italic*) are unstressed -&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Estuans *in*trinsecus // ira vehementi  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **in** amaritudine // loquar meę menti:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; factus **de** materia // levis elementi  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; similis sum folio // **de** quo ludunt venti.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Meum est *pro*positum in taberna mori,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ut sint vina proxima // morientis ori.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; quaero mei similes et *ad*iungor pravis.  &#xD;&#xA;(I seek out those like me, and link up with bad people)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These prefixes have all been prepositional, describing time or place or agent; but when the prefix negates the meaning, 'im-,' and 'dis-,' are stressed.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; via lata gradior more iuventutis,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; implico me vitiis, *im*memor virtutis,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;On the broad path I step (as is the way of youth);  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I get myself involved in bad stuff, unmindful of virtue.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Praesul *dis*cretissime, veniam te precor:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Your most discrete Excellency,&quot; in the vocative. The negative prefix is stressed. &quot;...may I visit you please.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These rules are not totally reliable; but these Pronominal prefixes are almost all proclitic, and the main stress stays with the object.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5471" RevisionGUID="ed6b659c-26c1-4d8d-a759-24bc627fc71f" CreationDate="2017-10-24T13:12:31.253" UserId="79" Text="The word [*infans*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=infans&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) means basically &quot;speechless&quot;, as the connection to the verb *fari* immediately suggests.&#xD;&#xA;One specific meaning of this word is a small child (III in the linked L&amp;S entry).&#xD;&#xA;I assume that it mostly refers to a child that has not started speaking yet.&#xD;&#xA;Can it also refer to a child that has already started speaking, or does it refer exclusively to non-speaking children?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On etymological grounds it seems obvious that it has to refer only to children who don't speak yet, but there is a risk of etymological fallacy and I want to figure out how well the etymology is to be trusted here.&#xD;&#xA;Any examples of *infans* used for a small but speaking child or any other relevant experiences with the Latin word would be welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18044" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5471" RevisionGUID="ed6b659c-26c1-4d8d-a759-24bc627fc71f" CreationDate="2017-10-24T13:12:31.253" UserId="79" Text="Can infans refer to children who can speak?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18045" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5471" RevisionGUID="ed6b659c-26c1-4d8d-a759-24bc627fc71f" CreationDate="2017-10-24T13:12:31.253" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|nuance|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5467" RevisionGUID="c44f28be-9e6d-438a-9618-d67dad7a067a" CreationDate="2017-10-24T16:18:54.063" UserId="79" Comment="added 405 characters in body" Text="Machine translations are [very unreliable with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79), and I'm glad you are having it checked.&#xD;&#xA;The offered translation is unfortunately quite nonsensical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would propose this Latin translation (with a literal English back-translation):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pro viva face libertatis &amp;mdash; fortes infirmos tuentur.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For a living torch of freedom &amp;mdash; the strong protect/support the weak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see details on the individual words I chose, you can consult any of [the many online Latin dictionaries out there](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;The key words I used were *fax*, *tueor* (or *tueri*), *fortis*, and *infirmus* for &quot;torch&quot;, &quot;support&quot;, &quot;strong&quot;, and &quot;weak&quot;, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;If you would like some word replaced by something you think has a more fitting tone, let me know in a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want three plus three words for symmetry, I recommend:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Vivat fax libertatis — fortes infirmos tuentur.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; May the torch of freedom live — the strong support the weak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The version *vivat fax libertas* (suggested by Hugh in the comments) is also possible.&#xD;&#xA;It is not &quot;torch of freedom&quot; but more like &quot;freedom the torch&quot; or &quot;freedom, our torch&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;What is most appropriate is up to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get an idea what the machine translation means, let me try to translate it back to English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Servo libertatem vivere quate — Fortis est splendor infirma.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I protect the freedom, shake living! — The weak brightness is strong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't make much sense, since I can only translate non-Latin to non-English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5472" RevisionGUID="b3652131-8d18-4b04-9bf0-f32bda3d9cd7" CreationDate="2017-10-24T16:25:36.043" UserId="1496" Text="[Reference](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5445/can-someone-translate-this-paragraph-from-the-book-proxima-for-me-and-is-it-g):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following paragraph in Proxima is not correct Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fortasse accipio oratio stridens vestri. Sum Quintus Fabius centurio navis stellae &quot;Malleus Jesu&quot;. Quid estis, quid agitis in hac provincia? Et quid est mixti lingua vestri?Germanicus est? Non dubito quin vos ex Germaniae Exteriorae. Cognovi de genus vestri prius. Bene? Quam respondebitis mihi?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating word-by-word into English reveals its meaning, but what would be a proper way to express this paragraph in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Orationem acerba fortasse accipio. Quintus Fabius sum, centurio in nave Malleo Jesus. Quis es? Quid in hac provincia agitis? Estne tua lingua mixta Germanica? Non dubito te esse Germanum exteriorem. Novi genus tuum. Heia! Quo respondebis mihi?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18048" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5472" RevisionGUID="b3652131-8d18-4b04-9bf0-f32bda3d9cd7" CreationDate="2017-10-24T16:25:36.043" UserId="1496" Text="A more correct translation of the Latin paragraph in &quot;Proxima&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18049" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5472" RevisionGUID="b3652131-8d18-4b04-9bf0-f32bda3d9cd7" CreationDate="2017-10-24T16:25:36.043" UserId="1496" Text="|translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5474" RevisionGUID="e045c6af-b30a-4f42-92e6-600fe2806c0f" CreationDate="2017-10-24T20:39:32.157" UserId="1923" Text="In the Oxford Latin Dictionary (which only covers Classical Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An infant, little child (strictly, one not yet able to talk).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of &quot;strictly&quot; in the parenthesis implies that even in Classical Latin the definition wasn't always applied strictly.  The dictionary cites two examples from the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (*used expressly of older children*) PASTORINO INFANTI DVLCISSIMO QVI VIX ANN XVII MENS X *CIL* **10.4802**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; FL ROMVLIANVS INFAS Q VIXIT AN VI ET M VII **11.1700**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in Alfred Ernout and Antoine Meillet's *Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Comme la période dans laquelle l'enfant est considéré comme incapable de parler finit à sept ans (cf. Quint. 1, 1, 18), on conçoit que *infans* ait pu désigner l'enfant dans le sens ordinairement réservé à *puer*.  Columelle dit *ab infante*, Celse *ab infantibus* dans le sens de *a puero, a pueris*.  De plus, *infantes* formait couple avec *parentes*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meaning that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As the period during which the child is considered incapable of speech finishes at the age of seven (cf. Quint. 1, 1, 18), it may be seen that *infans* was able to designate a child in the sense ordinarily reserved for *puer*. Columella says *ab infante*, Celsus *ab infantibus* in the sense of *a puero, a pueris*.  Moreover, *infantes* was contrasted with *parentes*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In volume I of Le Robert's *Dictionnaire historique de la langue française*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; En latin classique, *infans* a designé l'enfant en bas age, puis le jeune enfant; il a remplacé en bas latin *puer, puella* « enfant de 6 à 14-15 ans » et *liberi* « les enfants, par rapport aux parents ».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Classical Latin, *infans* designated a child of a very young age, then later a young child; in Late Latin it replaced *puer, puella* &quot;child of 6 to 14-15 years of age&quot; and *liberi* &quot;children in relation to their parents&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5475" RevisionGUID="65cc45eb-98e0-4492-aadd-7230a8d13592" CreationDate="2017-10-25T10:11:49.683" UserId="2086" Text="Latin has vowels which are long and short. The long ones are marked by a dash on the top of the letter. How do I know how to pronounce the letters if the long and short vowels are not marked in a text? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18055" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5475" RevisionGUID="65cc45eb-98e0-4492-aadd-7230a8d13592" CreationDate="2017-10-25T10:11:49.683" UserId="2086" Text="How to know long and short vowels if it is not marked?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18056" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5475" RevisionGUID="65cc45eb-98e0-4492-aadd-7230a8d13592" CreationDate="2017-10-25T10:11:49.683" UserId="2086" Text="|pronunciation|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18057" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5475" RevisionGUID="fad9ecb6-671c-4948-ba9e-6712ba216a1a" CreationDate="2017-10-25T10:40:57.407" UserId="79" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1497],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5472" RevisionGUID="57e61fc3-732c-4dc5-8007-9e00e3c41452" CreationDate="2017-10-25T16:30:35.293" UserId="1496" Comment="added 391 characters in body" Text="[Reference](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5445/can-someone-translate-this-paragraph-from-the-book-proxima-for-me-and-is-it-g):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following paragraph in Proxima is not correct Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fortasse accipio oratio stridens vestri. Sum Quintus Fabius centurio navis stellae &quot;Malleus Jesu&quot;. Quid estis, quid agitis in hac provincia? Et quid est mixti lingua vestri?Germanicus est? Non dubito quin vos ex Germaniae Exteriorae. Cognovi de genus vestri prius. Bene? Quam respondebitis mihi?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating word-by-word into English reveals its meaning, but what would be a proper way to express this paragraph in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible English translation, provided by brianpck:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perhaps I accept your strident speech. I am Quintus Fabius, the centurion of the star ship &quot;The Hammer of Jesus.&quot; What are you, what are you doing in this territory? And what is your mixed (?) language? Is it German? I don't doubt that you are from Outer Germany. I have heard of your people before. Well? What will you answer me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Orationem acerba fortasse accipio. Quintus Fabius sum, centurio in nave Malleo Jesus. Quis es? Quid in hac provincia agitis? Estne tua lingua mixta Germanica? Non dubito te esse Germanum exteriorem. Novi genus tuum. Heia! Quo respondebis mihi?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5476" RevisionGUID="86337274-45bd-49da-aacc-13dcdfbd1614" CreationDate="2017-10-26T05:52:22.050" UserId="79" Text="How do you say &quot;whole grain&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The expressions in Romance languages are fairly similar, and based on them I would guess *granum integrum*.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I might say *panem grani integri edere malo*.&#xD;&#xA;I did not manage to find any relevant passages from any era concerning whole grain in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;If anyone can suggest an attested or otherwise well justified translation, I would be happy to hear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18060" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5476" RevisionGUID="86337274-45bd-49da-aacc-13dcdfbd1614" CreationDate="2017-10-26T05:52:22.050" UserId="79" Text="What is whole grain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18061" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5476" RevisionGUID="86337274-45bd-49da-aacc-13dcdfbd1614" CreationDate="2017-10-26T05:52:22.050" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5477" RevisionGUID="ef0bf8ab-4c6b-41d6-b318-edd42a568c66" CreationDate="2017-10-26T11:44:49.600" UserId="79" Text="Here is a simple-minded translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*Fortasse verba ista acerbissima accipio.&#xD;&#xA;Quintus Fabius, centurio navis &quot;Malleum Iesu&quot;, sum.&#xD;&#xA;Quinam estis vos?&#xD;&#xA;Quid agitis in hac regione?&#xD;&#xA;Qualis est lingua turbae tuae?&#xD;&#xA;Estisne Germani?&#xD;&#xA;Sine dubio vos a Germania Exteriore venisse aestimo; populus vester mihi iam notus est.&#xD;&#xA;Age dic!&#xD;&#xA;Quid respondes?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I accept your very harsh words.&#xD;&#xA;I am Quintus Fabius, the centurion of the ship &quot;Malleum Iesu&quot; (&quot;Jesus' hammer&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;But who are you?&#xD;&#xA;What are you doing in this area?&#xD;&#xA;What is the language of that mob of yours?&#xD;&#xA;Are you Germans?&#xD;&#xA;Without doubt I think you came from Outer Germany; I am already familiar with your people.&#xD;&#xA;Speak!&#xD;&#xA;How do you respond?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps someone can offer something better in another answer, but this should get you started.&#xD;&#xA;Many choices depend on context, like where the speech takes place, in what kind of world and time everything happens, what kind of group is addressed, all that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5472" RevisionGUID="dc3acc2c-226a-4bea-970c-f16d4f3a8718" CreationDate="2017-10-26T11:46:00.973" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted the opening and added explanation from the comments." Text="This is continuation of [this earlier question of mine](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5445/79). The following paragraph in Proxima is not correct Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fortasse accipio oratio stridens vestri. Sum Quintus Fabius centurio navis stellae &quot;Malleus Jesu&quot;. Quid estis, quid agitis in hac provincia? Et quid est mixti lingua vestri?Germanicus est? Non dubito quin vos ex Germaniae Exteriorae. Cognovi de genus vestri prius. Bene? Quam respondebitis mihi?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating word-by-word into English reveals its meaning, but what would be a proper way to express this paragraph in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is one possible English translation, provided by brianpck:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perhaps I accept your strident speech. I am Quintus Fabius, the centurion of the star ship &quot;The Hammer of Jesus.&quot; What are you, what are you doing in this territory? And what is your mixed (?) language? Is it German? I don't doubt that you are from Outer Germany. I have heard of your people before. Well? What will you answer me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may use any reasonable English translation as a starting point.&#xD;&#xA;My attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Orationem acerba fortasse accipio. Quintus Fabius sum, centurio in nave Malleo Jesus. Quis es? Quid in hac provincia agitis? Estne tua lingua mixta Germanica? Non dubito te esse Germanum exteriorem. Novi genus tuum. Heia! Quo respondebis mihi?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18064" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5472" RevisionGUID="dc3acc2c-226a-4bea-970c-f16d4f3a8718" CreationDate="2017-10-26T11:46:00.973" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted the opening and added explanation from the comments." Text="|translation-check|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5472" RevisionGUID="cbc5f16d-c596-427a-a9fe-18c7aaf39246" CreationDate="2017-10-26T11:57:32.490" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="This is continuation of [this earlier question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5445/79). The following paragraph in Proxima is not correct Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fortasse accipio oratio stridens vestri. Sum Quintus Fabius centurio navis stellae &quot;Malleus Jesu&quot;. Quid estis, quid agitis in hac provincia? Et quid est mixti lingua vestri?Germanicus est? Non dubito quin vos ex Germaniae Exteriorae. Cognovi de genus vestri prius. Bene? Quam respondebitis mihi?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating word-by-word into English reveals its meaning, but what would be a proper way to express this paragraph in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is one possible English translation, provided by brianpck:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perhaps I accept your strident speech. I am Quintus Fabius, the centurion of the star ship &quot;The Hammer of Jesus.&quot; What are you, what are you doing in this territory? And what is your mixed (?) language? Is it German? I don't doubt that you are from Outer Germany. I have heard of your people before. Well? What will you answer me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may use any reasonable English translation as a starting point.&#xD;&#xA;My attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Orationem acerba fortasse accipio. Quintus Fabius sum, centurio in nave Malleo Jesus. Quis es? Quid in hac provincia agitis? Estne tua lingua mixta Germanica? Non dubito te esse Germanum exteriorem. Novi genus tuum. Heia! Quo respondebis mihi?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5477" RevisionGUID="80828db7-f814-45e9-8a24-b54201a23c69" CreationDate="2017-10-26T12:01:08.963" UserId="79" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="Here is a simple-minded translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*Fortasse verba ista acerbissima accipio.&#xD;&#xA;Quintus Fabius, centurio navis &quot;Malleum Iesu&quot;, sum.&#xD;&#xA;Quisnam es tu?&#xD;&#xA;Quid agis in hac regione?&#xD;&#xA;Qualis est lingua turbae tuae?&#xD;&#xA;Estisne Germani?&#xD;&#xA;Sine dubio vos a Germania Exteriore venisse aestimo; populus vester mihi iam notus est.&#xD;&#xA;Age dic!&#xD;&#xA;Quid respondes?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I accept your very harsh words.&#xD;&#xA;I am Quintus Fabius, the centurion of the ship &quot;Malleum Iesu&quot; (&quot;Jesus' hammer&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;But who are you?&#xD;&#xA;What are you doing in this area?&#xD;&#xA;What is the language of that mob of yours?&#xD;&#xA;Are you Germans?&#xD;&#xA;Without doubt I think you came from Outer Germany; I am already familiar with your people.&#xD;&#xA;Speak!&#xD;&#xA;How do you respond?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps someone can offer something better in another answer, but this should get you started.&#xD;&#xA;Many choices depend on context, like where the speech takes place, in what kind of world and time everything happens, what kind of group is addressed, which &quot;you&quot;s are plural and which singular, all that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5478" RevisionGUID="64e3a27c-b533-45f8-8e32-5ee87453df93" CreationDate="2017-10-26T12:43:40.500" UserId="1987" Text="In a previous question of mine ([The Name Amadeus][1]) a fine fellow (code name: &quot;sumelic&quot;) conjectured that the name Amadeus comes from the phrase &quot;Ama Deum&quot; (&quot;Love God&quot;) with the suffix *-ux* added to render it into a masculine name.&#xA;&#xA;Firstly, **is that correct?** Is everyone agreeing with said conjecture? &#xA;&#xA;Which leads me to the meaty part of my question:&#xA;&#xA;I read elsewhere that &quot;Time Deum&quot; is Latin for &quot;Fear God&quot;. Is that correct and - **if it is** - could I then add the *-ux* suffix to create the masculine name &quot;Timedeus&quot;?&#xA;&#xA;Coining my own name in Latin ! **Muhuhahaha** ! Is it even allowed ? Is it even a proper, gentlemanly, decent, permissable thing to do or would that just be far too naughty and saucy and crossing all bounds ? &#xA;&#xA;[For the record, I'm well aware of the name Timothy, from the Greek Τιμόθεος (Timόtheos) meaning &quot;honouring God&quot;, &quot;in God's honour&quot;, or &quot;honoured by God&quot;, and that is **not** what I'm talking about. I'm talking about  the Latin timē/timeō, not the Greek τῑμή(tīmḗ)/τῑμᾰ́ω(tīmáō). Fearing, not honoring. Rome, not Athens]&#xA;&#xA;TIMEDEUS ! Who's with me !? Yea or nay ?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5457/the-names-amadeus-amadeo-amadei &quot;The Name Amadeus&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18068" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5478" RevisionGUID="64e3a27c-b533-45f8-8e32-5ee87453df93" CreationDate="2017-10-26T12:43:40.500" UserId="1987" Text="The Name Timedeus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18069" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5478" RevisionGUID="64e3a27c-b533-45f8-8e32-5ee87453df93" CreationDate="2017-10-26T12:43:40.500" UserId="1987" Text="|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5478" RevisionGUID="e1027efb-18cf-458d-83e1-a403ad13e8b3" CreationDate="2017-10-26T12:58:29.890" UserId="1987" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="In a previous question of mine ([The Name Amadeus][1]) a fine fellow (code name: &quot;sumelic&quot;) conjectured that the name Amadeus comes from the phrase &quot;Ama Deum&quot; (&quot;Love God&quot;) with the suffix *-ux* added to render it into a masculine name.&#xA;&#xA;Firstly, **is that correct?** Is everyone agreeing with said conjecture? &#xA;&#xA;Which leads me to the meaty part of my question:&#xA;&#xA;I read elsewhere that &quot;Time Deum&quot; is Latin for &quot;Fear God&quot;. Is that correct and - **if it is** - could I then add the *-ux* suffix to create the masculine name &quot;Timedeus&quot;?&#xA;&#xA;Coining my own name in Latin ! **Muhuhahaha** ! Is it even allowed ? Is it even a proper, gentlemanly, decent, permissable thing to do or would that just be far too naughty and saucy and crossing all bounds ? Who's gonna stop me ? Marcus Tullius Cicero ?&#xA;&#xA;[For the record, I'm well aware of the name Timothy, from the Greek Τιμόθεος (Timόtheos) meaning &quot;honouring God&quot;, &quot;in God's honour&quot;, or &quot;honoured by God&quot;, and that is **not** what I'm talking about. I'm talking about  the Latin timē/timeō, not the Greek τῑμή(tīmḗ)/τῑμᾰ́ω(tīmáō). Fearing, not honoring. Rome, not Athens]&#xA;&#xA;TIMEDEUS ! Who's with me !? Yea or nay ?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5457/the-names-amadeus-amadeo-amadei &quot;The Name Amadeus&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5479" RevisionGUID="0f2a5e6c-72f9-431b-bbb4-2099c5928ca3" CreationDate="2017-10-26T17:34:45.617" UserId="406" Text="According to Pliny the Elder, iron seems to be resistant to magic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several remedies require things being done *sine ferro* (translations via Loeb):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;XXIV.VI:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quidam id religione efficacius fieri putant prima luna collectum e robore **sine ferro**, si terram non attigerit...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Some superstitiously believe that the mistletoe proves more efficacious if it be gathered from the hard-wood oak at the new moon **without the use of iron**, and without its touching the ground...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;XXIV.CXVI:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nam quae canaria appellatur lappa [...] medetur et subus effossa **sine ferro** addita in colluviem poturis vel ex lacte ac vino.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *But what is called dog-bur [...] also cures pigs, if dug up **without iron**; it is added to their swill before they go to feed, or else given them in milk and wine.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;XXX.XXX:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Magi] devorari autem iubent cor mergi marini **sine ferro** exemptum inveteratumque conteri et in calida aqua bibi...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[The mages] also recommend the heart of a sea-diver, cut out **without iron**, dried and pounded, to be taken in warm water...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny also describes the use of iron to counteract poisons, which were often seen as magical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;XXXIV.XLIV:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Medicina e ferro est et alia quam secandi. namque et circumscribi circulo terve circumlato mucrone et adultis et infantibus prodest contra noxia medicamenta, et praefixisse in limine evulsos sepulchris clavos adversus nocturnas lymphationes, pungique leviter mucrone, quo percussus homo sit, contra dolores laterum pectorumque subitos, qui punctionem adferant [...] calfit etiam ferro candente potus in multis vitiis, privatim vero dysentericis.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Iron supplies another medicinal service besides its use in surgery. It is beneficial both for adults and infants against noxious drugs for a circle to be drawn round them with iron or for a pointed iron weapon to be carried round them; and to have a fence of nails that have been extracted from tombs driven in in front of the threshold is a protection against attacks of nightmare, and a light prick made with the point of a weapon with which a man has been wounded is beneficial against sudden pains which bring a pricking sensation in the side and chest. [...] In many disorders, but especially in dysenteric cases, drinking water is heated with redhot iron.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18072" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4996" RevisionGUID="f10625e6-2629-4b86-8b22-5b1acf02bd2c" CreationDate="2017-10-26T21:35:35.507" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="18073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5480" RevisionGUID="2890270d-536c-44c5-b7d1-557d9a3bfaf0" CreationDate="2017-10-27T05:48:21.793" UserId="1348" Text="Wheelock's Latin says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In a word of two syllables the accent always falls on the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; syllable: sér-vō, sáe-pe, ní-hil.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In a word of three or more syllables, the accent falls on the next to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; last syllable (sometimes called the &quot;penult&quot;), if that syllable is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; long: ser-vā´-re, cōn-sér-vat, for-tū´-na. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Otherwise, the accent falls on the syllable before that (the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;antepenult&quot;): mó-ne-ō, pá-tri-a, pe-cū´-ni-a, vó-lu-cris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And regarding long syllables, it says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A syllable is long by nature if it contains a long vowel or a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diphthong; a syllable is long by position if it contains a short vowel&#xD;&#xA;&gt; followed by two or more consonants or by x, which is a double&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consonant: ks. Otherwise a syllable is short; again, the difference is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rather like that between a musical half note and a quarter note.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an exception for the last case, as the books says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A stop (p, b, t, d, c, g) plus a liquid (l,r) generally count as a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; single consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also counted as single consonants are qu and the aspirates ch, ph, th.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if those are the rules for accentuation, what happens when in a word, the particle -que is added?. For example, the word fīlius has the accent in the antepenult: fílius, but with the particle -que, would that be filiúsque (because the syllable *us* would be long by position) or does the word keep its original accentuation and just adds the sound of que, thus being fílusque?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18074" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5480" RevisionGUID="2890270d-536c-44c5-b7d1-557d9a3bfaf0" CreationDate="2017-10-27T05:48:21.793" UserId="1348" Text="Pronunciation when adding -que" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18075" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5480" RevisionGUID="2890270d-536c-44c5-b7d1-557d9a3bfaf0" CreationDate="2017-10-27T05:48:21.793" UserId="1348" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5480" RevisionGUID="80b8c892-d867-4a53-8fbc-1a4633b544d7" CreationDate="2017-10-27T05:52:50.697" UserId="79" Comment="Small edits. Feel free to re-edit or rollback!" Text="Wheelock's Latin says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In a word of two syllables the accent always falls on the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; syllable: sér-vō, sáe-pe, ní-hil.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In a word of three or more syllables, the accent falls on the next to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; last syllable (sometimes called the &quot;penult&quot;), if that syllable is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; long: ser-vā´-re, cōn-sér-vat, for-tū´-na. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Otherwise, the accent falls on the syllable before that (the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;antepenult&quot;): mó-ne-ō, pá-tri-a, pe-cū´-ni-a, vó-lu-cris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And regarding long syllables, it says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A syllable is long by nature if it contains a long vowel or a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diphthong; a syllable is long by position if it contains a short vowel&#xD;&#xA;&gt; followed by two or more consonants or by x, which is a double&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consonant: ks. Otherwise a syllable is short; again, the difference is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rather like that between a musical half note and a quarter note.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an exception for the last case, as the books says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A stop (p, b, t, d, c, g) plus a liquid (l,r) generally count as a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; single consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also counted as single consonants are qu and the aspirates ch, ph, th.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if those are the rules for accentuation, what happens when in a word, the particle -que is added? For example, the word fīlius has the accent in the antepenult: fílius, but with the particle -que, would that be filiúsque (because the syllable *us* would be long by position) or does the word keep its original accentuation and just adds the sound of que, thus being fíliusque?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18077" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5480" RevisionGUID="80b8c892-d867-4a53-8fbc-1a4633b544d7" CreationDate="2017-10-27T05:52:50.697" UserId="79" Comment="Small edits. Feel free to re-edit or rollback!" Text="|pronunciation|stress|enclitic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5481" RevisionGUID="9b24958c-0fcb-4f83-a4c0-87f8645ff2d3" CreationDate="2017-10-27T12:38:46.970" UserId="79" Text="The words *ira* and *furor* are quite similar, but apparently not synonymous.&#xD;&#xA;I found myself unable to give a clear comparison of the two words.&#xD;&#xA;How would you describe the difference between the meanings of these two words in classical Latin and why?&#xD;&#xA;Especially passages discussing both *ira* and *furor* and their relation would be enlightening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the translations offered by L&amp;S, which give an idea but not a true comparison:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*ira*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=ira&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059): anger, wrath, rage, ire, cause of anger, provocation, object of anger or hatred, violence, impetuosity, fury&#xD;&#xA;- [*furor*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DF%3Aentry+group%3D34%3Aentry%3Dfuror2): raging, raving, rage, madness, fury, folly, raging desire, cause of wrath" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18079" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5481" RevisionGUID="9b24958c-0fcb-4f83-a4c0-87f8645ff2d3" CreationDate="2017-10-27T12:38:46.970" UserId="79" Text="What is the difference between ira and furor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18080" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5481" RevisionGUID="9b24958c-0fcb-4f83-a4c0-87f8645ff2d3" CreationDate="2017-10-27T12:38:46.970" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5482" RevisionGUID="a04f8d52-c577-40ed-be3c-496daa201c8b" CreationDate="2017-10-27T14:32:53.540" UserId="645" Text="*Ira* and *furor* are more or less the same as *anger* and *fury* in English. The related verbs *irascor* and *furo* differ to  the same degree. *Furor* has a more physical aspect : if you like, it can be a physically observable quality in its own right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the *caeli furor aequinoctialis* of Catullus 46.2, *ira* instead of *furor* would not suggest to me the actual, physical power of the high winds typical of the vernal equinox. On the other hand *ira*, anger, is a more of a sentiment, recognizable mainly by its consequences . According to Horace (Ep 1, 2, 62), *ira furor brevis est*; but I don't think you would say *furor ira brevis est*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's no more than barely true to say that the two words are 'apparently not synonymous'. In English you can be *gripped by fury* or *grasped by anger*, and you can be either *angry* or *furious*. The difference really isn't very much, and the two are often interchangeable, from Latin into English or *vice versa*. The translation is just a matter of appropriate selection for the context.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5483" RevisionGUID="b391d8ee-4ca6-4295-b7cf-cae840749774" CreationDate="2017-10-27T15:11:58.053" UserId="2088" Text="how to say pattern recognizer/analyzer or describe someone who can differentiate patterns?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest thing that I could find was homo analyticus. Are there any better descriptors available?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18083" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5483" RevisionGUID="b391d8ee-4ca6-4295-b7cf-cae840749774" CreationDate="2017-10-27T15:11:58.053" UserId="2088" Text="how to say pattern recognizer/analyzer or describe someone who can differentiate patterns?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18084" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5483" RevisionGUID="b391d8ee-4ca6-4295-b7cf-cae840749774" CreationDate="2017-10-27T15:11:58.053" UserId="2088" Text="|translation|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5482" RevisionGUID="b749b678-7614-43d0-a368-064c5a6d7a0a" CreationDate="2017-10-27T15:51:10.450" UserId="645" Comment="exch seized for grasped" Text="*Ira* and *furor* are more or less the same as *anger* and *fury* in English. The related verbs *irascor* and *furo* differ to  the same degree. *Furor* has a more physical aspect : if you like, it can be a physically observable quality in its own right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the *caeli furor aequinoctialis* of Catullus 46.2, *ira* instead of *furor* would not suggest to me the actual, physical power of the high winds typical of the vernal equinox. On the other hand *ira*, anger, is a more of a sentiment, recognizable mainly by its consequences . According to Horace (Ep 1, 2, 62), *ira furor brevis est*; but I don't think you would say *furor ira brevis est*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's no more than barely true to say that the two words are 'apparently not synonymous'. In English you can be *gripped by fury* or *seized by anger*, and you can be either *angry* or *furious*. The difference really isn't very much, and the two are often interchangeable, from Latin into English or *vice versa*. The translation is just a matter of appropriate selection for the context.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5478" RevisionGUID="296d6f99-49fb-4050-87a2-75630680ba15" CreationDate="2017-10-27T17:36:53.937" UserId="1987" Comment="added 313 characters in body; added 9 characters in body; added 112 characters in body" Text="In a previous question of mine ([The Name Amadeus][1]) a fine fellow (code name: &quot;sumelic&quot;) conjectured that the name Amadeus comes from the phrase &quot;Ama Deum&quot; (&quot;Love God&quot;) with the suffix *-ux* added to render it into a masculine name.&#xA;&#xA;Firstly, **is that correct?** Is everyone agreeing with said conjecture? &#xA;&#xA;Which leads me to the meaty part of my question:&#xA;&#xA;I read elsewhere that &quot;Time Deum&quot; is Latin for &quot;Fear God&quot;. Is that correct and - **if it is** - could I then add the *-ux* suffix to create the masculine name &quot;Timedeus&quot;?&#xA;&#xA;Coining my own name in Latin ! **Muhuhahaha** ! Is it even allowed ? Is it even a proper, gentlemanly, decent, permissable thing to do or would that just be far too naughty and saucy and crossing all bounds ? Who's gonna stop me ? Marcus Tullius Cicero ?&#xA;&#xA;[For the record, I'm well aware of the name Timothy, from the Greek Τιμόθεος (Timόtheos) meaning &quot;honouring God&quot;, &quot;in God's honour&quot;, or &quot;honoured by God&quot;, and that is **not** what I'm talking about. I'm talking about  the Latin timē/timeō, not the Greek τῑμή(tīmḗ)/τῑμᾰ́ω(tīmáō). Fearing, not honoring. Rome, not Athens]&#xA;&#xA;TIMEDEUS ! Who's with me !? Yea or nay ?&#xA;&#xA;Edit: Some have liked my question, others have unliked it, but unfortunately the latter have not commented as to why they are down-voting it, nor actually addressed what is a serious question about Latin. No input from my down-voters as to what is wrong with my question, or what the answer to the question actually is ?? I had a little fun when wording it, harmless fun I'd say, and who says I cannot ? But it is a serious question.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5457/the-names-amadeus-amadeo-amadei &quot;The Name Amadeus&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5478" RevisionGUID="83c63104-e6fa-4d66-bda1-9ab03884312f" CreationDate="2017-10-27T17:51:10.630" UserId="1987" Comment="deleted 635 characters in body; added 6 characters in body; added 10 characters in body" Text="In a previous question of mine ([The Name Amadeus][1]) a fine fellow (code name: &quot;sumelic&quot;) conjectured that the name Amadeus comes from the phrase &quot;Ama Deum&quot; (&quot;Love God&quot;) with the suffix *-us* added to render it into a masculine name.&#xA;&#xA;Firstly, **is that correct?** Is everyone agreeing with said conjecture? &quot;Ama Deum&quot; is a well known Latin phrase, but does everyone agree it is the logical etymological origin of the name Amadeus?&#xA;&#xA;Secondly, &quot;Time Deum&quot; is Latin for &quot;Fear God&quot;. Could I truncate Deum to &quot;de&quot; and then add the *-ux* suffix to create the masculine name &quot;Timedeus&quot;?&#xA;&#xA;Coining my own name in Latin - Is it even allowed ? &#xA;&#xA;[For the record, I'm well aware of the wonderful name Timothy, from the Greek Τιμόθεος (Timόtheos) meaning &quot;honouring God&quot;, &quot;in God's honour&quot;, or &quot;honoured by God&quot;, and that is **not** what I'm talking about. I'm talking about  the Latin timē/timeō, not the Greek τῑμή(tīmḗ)/τῑμᾰ́ω(tīmáō). Fearing, not honoring. Rome, not Athens]&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5457/the-names-amadeus-amadeo-amadei &quot;The Name Amadeus&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5483" RevisionGUID="c28f003a-d2dd-45b0-8fb0-dc721bd4d7ee" CreationDate="2017-10-27T18:28:22.170" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How to say pattern recognizer/analyzer or describe someone who can differentiate patterns?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest thing that I could find was *homo analyticus*. Are there any better descriptors available?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18089" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5483" RevisionGUID="c28f003a-d2dd-45b0-8fb0-dc721bd4d7ee" CreationDate="2017-10-27T18:28:22.170" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How to say pattern recognizer/analyzer or describe someone who can differentiate patterns?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18090" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5483" RevisionGUID="c28f003a-d2dd-45b0-8fb0-dc721bd4d7ee" CreationDate="2017-10-27T18:28:22.170" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18091" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5480" RevisionGUID="5335d69a-e1ea-418c-8fa7-e6da308224ea" CreationDate="2017-10-27T18:29:59.123" UserId="79" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[600],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1289,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;blagae&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5484" RevisionGUID="35e9f1a6-f8c0-44a1-b9bc-c3a8d691f7b3" CreationDate="2017-10-27T22:07:46.137" UserId="9" Text="Of course, I can't provide any more support for my answer to the linked question in this post (if I knew more, I would just say it there!). And I am not a Latin expert. That said, I feel more confident about my conjecture because of the explanation in fdb's answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Amadeus is a verb+noun compound (type: φερέοικος). The first component is an imperative, so Amadeus means &quot;love God!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I would hope that if there were any substantial inaccuracies in what I said there, one of the more knowledgeable members of this site would point them out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To address the question about &quot;Timedeus&quot;, I think it has been used by others in the past—it's too late for you to coin it!—and I don't see any obvious grounds for considering it less appropriate than &quot;Amadeus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; Et hoc fecit, ut melius posset explorare facta Haeriticorum, qui erant in Sermione, quia propter hoc miserat eam Frater **Timedeus** Inquisitor Haeriticorum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (*[Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, Volume 12][1],* by Lodovico Antonio Muratori, 1778; p. 513)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the Vikipaedia page on [Fürchtegott *[&quot;Fear God&quot; in German]* Theodor Kirchner][2]; one of its editors has Latinized his name as &quot;Theodorus Timedeus Kirchner&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=E9MpAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA513&amp;lpg=PA513&amp;dq=%22Timedeus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1gIz3A2F9n&amp;sig=pqS6E3eN8zQHMNLaaA0Y1y5D8Qs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiGw-Hg5ZHXAhVl9IMKHV8JBBg4ChDoAQgtMAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Timedeus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodorus_Kirchner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5484" RevisionGUID="5f3bf2a2-60dc-4c79-87ed-6b5c2c669218" CreationDate="2017-10-27T22:16:06.567" UserId="9" Comment="added 542 characters in body" Text="Of course, I can't provide any more support for my answer to the linked question in this post (if I knew more, I would just say it there!). And I am not a Latin expert. That said, I feel more confident about my conjecture because of the explanation in fdb's answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Amadeus is a verb+noun compound (type: φερέοικος). The first component is an imperative, so Amadeus means &quot;love God!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I would hope that if there were any substantial inaccuracies in what I said there, one of the more knowledgeable members of this site would point them out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To address the question about &quot;Timedeus&quot;, I think it has been used by others in the past—it's too late for you to coin it!—and I don't see any obvious grounds for considering it less appropriate than &quot;Amadeus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; Et hoc fecit, ut melius posset explorare facta Haeriticorum, qui erant in Sermione, quia propter hoc miserat eam Frater **Timedeus** Inquisitor Haeriticorum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (*[Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, Volume 12][1],* by Lodovico Antonio Muratori, 1778; p. 513)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the Vikipaedia page on [Fürchtegott *[&quot;Fear God&quot; in German]* Theodor Kirchner][2]; one of its editors has Latinized his name as &quot;Theodorus Timedeus Kirchner&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A side note: I was thinking a little bit about the stress of names ending in &quot;deus&quot; in the past few days. It seems typical in English and Italian to put the stress on the penultimate syllable, as in the noun &quot;deus&quot;. Technically, this stress placement is irregular in Latin, since it goes against the rule of stressing the antepenult when the penult is light, but there are other exceptions to this rule that apparently were well-established (see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/600/are-there-exceptions-to-the-latin-stress-rules). I suppose &quot;Amadeus&quot; is an exception because of its structure as a compound, and possibly because the Latin  stress rule in its classical form was not really a productive part of the spoken language after vowel length distinctions had been lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=E9MpAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA513&amp;lpg=PA513&amp;dq=%22Timedeus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1gIz3A2F9n&amp;sig=pqS6E3eN8zQHMNLaaA0Y1y5D8Qs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiGw-Hg5ZHXAhVl9IMKHV8JBBg4ChDoAQgtMAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Timedeus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodorus_Kirchner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5484" RevisionGUID="cfaa64b7-7287-49f8-adbc-7cf45802e881" CreationDate="2017-10-27T22:50:15.840" UserId="9" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="Of course, I can't provide any more support for my answer to the linked question in this post (if I knew more, I would just say it there!). And I am not a Latin expert. That said, I feel more confident about my conjecture because of the explanation in fdb's answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Amadeus is a verb+noun compound (type: φερέοικος). The first component is an imperative, so Amadeus means &quot;love God!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I would hope that if there were any substantial inaccuracies in what I said there, one of the more knowledgeable members of this site would point them out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To address the question about &quot;Timedeus&quot;, I think it has been used by others in the past—it's too late for you to coin it!—and I don't see any obvious grounds for considering it less appropriate than &quot;Amadeus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; Et hoc fecit, ut melius posset explorare facta Haeriticorum, qui erant in Sermione, quia propter hoc miserat eam Frater **Timedeus** Inquisitor Haeriticorum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (*[Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, Volume 12][1],* by Lodovico Antonio Muratori, 1778; p. 513)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the Vikipaedia page on [Fürchtegott *[&quot;Fear God&quot; in German]* Theodor Kirchner][2]; one of its editors has Latinized his name as &quot;Theodorus Timedeus Kirchner&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A side note: I was thinking a little bit about the stress of names ending in &quot;deus&quot; in the past few days. It seems typical in English and Italian to put the stress on the penultimate syllable, as in the noun &quot;deus&quot;. Technically, using this stress placement for &quot;Amadeus&quot; and &quot;Timedeus&quot; is irregular in Latin, since it goes against the rule of stressing the antepenult when the penult is light, but there are other exceptions to this rule that apparently were well-established (see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/600/are-there-exceptions-to-the-latin-stress-rules). I suppose the typical pronunciation of &quot;Amadeus&quot; that we can hear in modern languages is an exception because of its structure as a compound, and possibly because the Latin  stress rule in its classical form was not really a productive part of the spoken language after vowel length distinctions had been lost. It probably makes sense to use the same stress pattern for both names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=E9MpAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA513&amp;lpg=PA513&amp;dq=%22Timedeus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1gIz3A2F9n&amp;sig=pqS6E3eN8zQHMNLaaA0Y1y5D8Qs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiGw-Hg5ZHXAhVl9IMKHV8JBBg4ChDoAQgtMAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Timedeus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodorus_Kirchner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5485" RevisionGUID="8059a9de-7eac-4e61-8bb6-916f728c8084" CreationDate="2017-10-29T09:58:51.960" UserId="2092" Text="What &quot;ment&quot; means in &quot;incrementum&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On [wiktionary][1] i have found meaning of only first parts of the word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/incrementum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18097" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5485" RevisionGUID="8059a9de-7eac-4e61-8bb6-916f728c8084" CreationDate="2017-10-29T09:58:51.960" UserId="2092" Text="What &quot;ment&quot; means in &quot;incrementum&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18098" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5485" RevisionGUID="8059a9de-7eac-4e61-8bb6-916f728c8084" CreationDate="2017-10-29T09:58:51.960" UserId="2092" Text="|etymology|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5485" RevisionGUID="6787d2e2-9668-488f-9fa3-7163dc3e0dac" CreationDate="2017-10-29T10:35:04.340" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="What &quot;ment&quot; means in &quot;incrementum&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On [Wiktionary][1] I have found meaning of only first parts of the word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/incrementum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5486" RevisionGUID="c84bf138-e4df-4998-bc35-84bf3de72e8e" CreationDate="2017-10-29T10:49:33.187" UserId="79" Text="The suffix *-mentum* (neuter, genitive *-menti*) is used to indicate an instrument or result.&#xD;&#xA;It appears to be a productive way to derive nouns from verbs.&#xD;&#xA;It even has [its own Wiktionary page](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-mentum), but I admit it is hard to find if you don't know you should be looking for it.&#xD;&#xA;(If anyone here works with Wiktionary, I suggest adding a link to *-mentum* from *incrementum* to show both parts in the etymology section.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are [lots of Latin words ending in *-mentum*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=mentum&amp;lang=la), for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *instrumentum* &lt; *instruere*&#xD;&#xA;- *documentum* &lt; *docere*&#xD;&#xA;- *alimentum* &lt; *alere*&#xD;&#xA;- *argumentum* &lt; *arguere*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the related suffix [*-men*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-men) (neuter, genitive *-minis*) which gives rise to *volumen* (&lt; *volvere*) and *flumen* (&lt; *fluere*), among [others](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=men&amp;lang=la).&#xD;&#xA;The two suffixes are not identical, though, but they are sometimes interchangeable (e.g. *medicamen* &amp;approx; *medicamentum*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5486" RevisionGUID="0fcce3c8-20d8-4594-a15e-e57ed134d8c5" CreationDate="2017-10-29T11:04:42.557" UserId="79" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="The suffix *-mentum* (neuter, genitive *-menti*) is used to indicate an instrument or result.&#xD;&#xA;It appears to be a productive way to derive nouns from verbs.&#xD;&#xA;It even has [its own Wiktionary page](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-mentum), but I admit it is hard to find if you don't know you should be looking for it.&#xD;&#xA;(If anyone here works with Wiktionary, I suggest adding a link to *-mentum* from *incrementum* to show both parts in the etymology section.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are [lots of Latin words ending in *-mentum*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=mentum&amp;lang=la), for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *instrumentum* &lt; *instruere*&#xD;&#xA;- *documentum* &lt; *docere*&#xD;&#xA;- *alimentum* &lt; *alere*&#xD;&#xA;- *argumentum* &lt; *arguere*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the related suffix [*-men*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-men) (neuter, genitive *-minis*) which gives rise to *nomen* (&lt; *noscere*), *volumen* (&lt; *volvere*), and *flumen* (&lt; *fluere*), among [others](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=men&amp;lang=la).&#xD;&#xA;The two suffixes are not identical, though, but they are sometimes interchangeable (e.g. *medicamen* &amp;approx; *medicamentum*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5487" RevisionGUID="aaeb8e8f-bc15-4615-b3f1-70e05d191dbc" CreationDate="2017-10-29T11:16:19.597" UserId="79" Text="When answering [this question about *incrementum*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5485/79), I recalled the similarity of the suffixes [*-mentum*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-mentum) and [*-men*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-men).&#xD;&#xA;If the linked Wiktionary pages are to be trusted, they are etymologically related, both containing the [PIE suffix *-mn̥*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/-mn%CC%A5).&#xD;&#xA;But what are the differences, if any, between the two when used for derivatives in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;In particular, **is there any difference in meaning when both suffixes can be used?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lists of [words ending in *-mentum*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=mentum&amp;lang=la) and [those ending in *-men*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=men&amp;lang=la) seem to contain somewhat different kinds of words, but I can't really put my finger on the exact difference.&#xD;&#xA;I get the impression that *-mentum* is restricted to deriving from verbs while *-men* is not, and not all words ending in *-men* seem to be derivatives.&#xD;&#xA;Any insight into the difference of these two suffixes would be much appreciated, whether based on observations of differences in use, etymology of *-tum*, derivative descriptions in a Latin grammar, or something else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18103" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5487" RevisionGUID="aaeb8e8f-bc15-4615-b3f1-70e05d191dbc" CreationDate="2017-10-29T11:16:19.597" UserId="79" Text="What is the relation between -men and -mentum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18104" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5487" RevisionGUID="aaeb8e8f-bc15-4615-b3f1-70e05d191dbc" CreationDate="2017-10-29T11:16:19.597" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|meaning|word-comparison|derivation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5489" RevisionGUID="bfafd94d-93e7-4261-b5de-7b53979db573" CreationDate="2017-10-29T21:55:09.987" UserId="2094" Text="There is a following illustration (f. 28r) in the [Tractatus de Herbis][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Here is a [link to an image with high resolution][3].)&#xD;&#xA;It is written in Wikipedia that &quot;Apparently the artist has confused his animals in this picture, with his drawing of a deer-like creature. &quot;Beavers and musk deers were sought after for castoreum and musk, respectively&quot;&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;What I wish to know is what is written near the animal. Apparently it reads &quot;castoreum alio noie asustilbar&quot;. I assume that &quot;alio noie&quot; is shortened &quot;alio nomine&quot;, &quot;also called&quot;. But what is the last word? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_de_Herbis&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZU5jt.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/TH_28r.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18111" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5489" RevisionGUID="bfafd94d-93e7-4261-b5de-7b53979db573" CreationDate="2017-10-29T21:55:09.987" UserId="2094" Text="asustilbar (?): a strange word from the Tractatus de Herbis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18112" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5489" RevisionGUID="bfafd94d-93e7-4261-b5de-7b53979db573" CreationDate="2017-10-29T21:55:09.987" UserId="2094" Text="|vocabulary|book|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5490" RevisionGUID="06d8db13-d259-4f8d-a9ed-9a1817b5820c" CreationDate="2017-10-30T01:38:07.203" UserId="235" Text="[Wiktionary][1] gives us the following etymology of *amare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Probably from Proto-Indo-European *am-a-, *am- (“mother, aunt”), a lost nursery-word of the papa-type. Compare amita (“aunt”), Old High German amma (“nurse”). Alternatively, O. Hackstein suggests Proto-Indo-European *h₂emh₃- (“seize”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a fascinating conjecture in this etymology that *amare* comes from a nursery word meaning &quot;mother&quot; or &quot;aunt&quot;, which I take to be a babble word such as &quot;ma-ma&quot;. But unfortunately, I do not find this theory in de Vaan's entry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **amo, -are** 'to love' [v. I] (Naev.+)&#xD;&#xA;Derivatives: amascere 'to begin to love' (Naev.), amasius 'lover' (PL+); amicus&#xD;&#xA;*friend' (Naev.+), 'friendly' [o/a] (PL+), arnica 'female friend' (Naev.+), inimlcus [adj. / m.] 'unfriendly; an enemy* (P1.+), inimicitia 'enmity, ill will' (P1.+); amor 'sexual passion, love' (Naev.+).  &#xD;&#xA;Pit. *ama- 'to take, hold\ It. cognates: Marr. amatens 'they have received'.  &#xD;&#xA;PIE *h3mh3- to take hold of. IE cognates: Olr. namae 'enemy' (&lt; *n-AjmAj-^«/-); Skt pr. amfsi, amanti 'to take hold of; swear', ama- [m.], OAv. §ma-9 YAv. ama- [m.] 'attacking power'; Gr. όμνυμι 'to swear' [aor. όμόσαι, fut. όμοΰμαι] , άνώμοτος 'not under oath'.  &#xD;&#xA;The Latin meaning has developed from 'to take the hand of &gt; 'regard as a friend'. Pit. *ama- could reflect PIE *h3mh3- in front of a vowel, cf. Schrijver 1991: 318. Schrijver 1991: 398ff. argues that the stative meaning of amare and the presence of a derivative amor point to a stative verb *ama-e-. Its formation must then post-date Pit., since Marr. amatens is not likely to have a stative suffix *-e-3 and has the transitive meaning * receive' of the IE cognates. The form amasius, because of its s, seems to be dialectal; maybe it is the same suffix as CLat. -arius. The adjectival function of amicus is original; the suffix -icus might be decasuative from an ins. in *-/A; plus *-Ao- (parallel cases in Latin are pudicus 'chaste' and mendicus 'needy'). The PIE root is reconstructed with initial *h2- in LIV, but Gr. points to *h3-,  &#xD;&#xA;Bibl.: WH 1:40, EM 29, IEW 778, Rix 1999: 523-24, LIV *h2emh3-. -&gt; amplus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan gives the PIE root *h&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;mh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;- (&quot;to take hold of&quot;) for its etymology. This does not disprove the Wiktionary conjecture, but nor does it confirm it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any plausibility behind the Wiktionary conjecture, that *amare* comes from a babble word meaning &quot;mother&quot;? If so, how probable is it? Is there a consensus? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amo#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18114" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5490" RevisionGUID="06d8db13-d259-4f8d-a9ed-9a1817b5820c" CreationDate="2017-10-30T01:38:07.203" UserId="235" Text="Does the verb &quot;amare&quot; come from the babble word for &quot;mother&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18115" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5490" RevisionGUID="06d8db13-d259-4f8d-a9ed-9a1817b5820c" CreationDate="2017-10-30T01:38:07.203" UserId="235" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5490" RevisionGUID="71e4ae18-a839-4f1f-b658-b1eaf678463c" CreationDate="2017-10-30T01:43:20.463" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="[Wiktionary][1] gives us the following etymology of *amare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Probably from Proto-Indo-European *am-a-, *am- (“mother, aunt”), a lost nursery-word of the papa-type. Compare amita (“aunt”), Old High German amma (“nurse”). Alternatively, O. Hackstein suggests Proto-Indo-European *h₂emh₃- (“seize”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a fascinating conjecture in this etymology that *amare* comes from a nursery word meaning &quot;mother&quot; or &quot;aunt&quot;, which I take to be a babble word such as &quot;ma-ma&quot;. But unfortunately, I do not find this theory in de Vaan's entry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **amo, -are** 'to love' [v. I] (Naev.+)&#xD;&#xA;Derivatives: amascere 'to begin to love' (Naev.), amasius 'lover' (PL+); amicus&#xD;&#xA;*friend' (Naev.+), 'friendly' [o/a] (PL+), arnica 'female friend' (Naev.+), inimlcus [adj. / m.] 'unfriendly; an enemy* (P1.+), inimicitia 'enmity, ill will' (P1.+); amor 'sexual passion, love' (Naev.+).  &#xD;&#xA;Pit. *ama- 'to take, hold\ It. cognates: Marr. amatens 'they have received'.  &#xD;&#xA;PIE *h3mh3- to take hold of. IE cognates: Olr. namae 'enemy' (&lt; *n-AjmAj-^«/-); Skt pr. amfsi, amanti 'to take hold of; swear', ama- [m.], OAv. §ma-9 YAv. ama- [m.] 'attacking power'; Gr. όμνυμι 'to swear' [aor. όμόσαι, fut. όμοΰμαι] , άνώμοτος 'not under oath'.  &#xD;&#xA;The Latin meaning has developed from 'to take the hand of &gt; 'regard as a friend'. Pit. *ama- could reflect PIE *h3mh3- in front of a vowel, cf. Schrijver 1991: 318. Schrijver 1991: 398ff. argues that the stative meaning of amare and the presence of a derivative amor point to a stative verb *ama-e-. Its formation must then post-date Pit., since Marr. amatens is not likely to have a stative suffix *-e-3 and has the transitive meaning * receive' of the IE cognates. The form amasius, because of its s, seems to be dialectal; maybe it is the same suffix as CLat. -arius. The adjectival function of amicus is original; the suffix -icus might be decasuative from an ins. in *-/A; plus *-Ao- (parallel cases in Latin are pudicus 'chaste' and mendicus 'needy'). The PIE root is reconstructed with initial *h2- in LIV, but Gr. points to *h3-,  &#xD;&#xA;Bibl.: WH 1:40, EM 29, IEW 778, Rix 1999: 523-24, LIV *h2emh3-. -&gt; amplus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan gives the PIE root *h&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;mh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;- (&quot;to take hold of&quot;) for its etymology. This could be consistent with a babble word, but there is no explicit mention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any plausibility behind the idea that *amare* comes from a nursery word meaning &quot;mother&quot;? If so, how probable is this conjecture? Is there a consensus? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amo#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5491" RevisionGUID="3f825e0f-5d3a-4a99-8f88-da14a58c3551" CreationDate="2017-10-30T04:33:30.190" UserId="522" Text="&#xD;&#xA;In Isidore (translated Barney et al.) *Etymologies* XX which is the section on cookery, Isidore explains *assus*:   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 22. Roasted (assus), something that is blazing hot, as though the word were *arsus,* burnt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact Apicius, whose book on cookery is famous, uses the verb *asso;* &quot;*assere jecus porcinum.*&quot; (to roast pig’s liver)&#xD;&#xA;Isidore also helps with the second half of the word:::&#xD;&#xA;&gt;17. *Placentae* are breads made from spelt. Some people call them *libum*; because they are agreeable (*libere*) and pleasing (*placere*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Spelt is a primitive wheat; it has half the number of chromosomes found in cultivated varieties) *Libar*, here as *Ilbar,* is likely to be a syncopated back-formation of  from *Libarius,* a cook who sold these small *libus* or *libum* birthday cakes, in some dictionaries described as pancakes. In times of hardship (e.g. 1940) Italians have used chestnut flour for bread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Blistering hot cup-cakes&quot; is much more suitable as a description of roast chestnuts straight from the fire: *castaneae,* here written *castanee* on the left of the page. A misunderstanding seems to have arisen because because *castanea,* the word for chestnut, is a direct borrowing from Greek. Once again Isidore's Etymologies p.144 provides an answer, [which is considered rubbish by proper etymological dictionaries]::  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Latin speakers name the chestnut (castanea)from a Greek term, for the Greeks call it καστάνια, because its paired fruits are hidden in a small sack like testicles, and when they are ejected from it, it is as if they were castrated (*castrare*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this fits in perfectly with the story of beavers (*Castores*) making themselves valueless to hunters. And explains why this Herbarium got the idea that musk deer might resort to the same drastic action.  &#xD;&#xA;But there is no connection that I can find between the musk deer and the cryptic &quot;*.Castoreum. alio nomine assustilbar*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5491" RevisionGUID="3305d9b8-4006-44e2-bf79-bf0bac1995f9" CreationDate="2017-10-30T06:49:40.497" UserId="522" Comment="link to libarius" Text="In Isidore (translated Barney et al.) *Etymologies* XX which is the section on cookery, Isidore explains *assus*:   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 22. Roasted (assus), something that is blazing hot, as though the word were *arsus,* burnt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two forms exist: ***assus*** and ***assatus.*** I think the first half of the word,  *asust-* is a combination of these two. Apicius, whose book on cookery is famous, uses the verb *asso;* &quot;*assare jecus porcinum.*&quot; (to roast pig’s liver)&#xD;&#xA;Isidore also helps with the second half of the word:::&#xD;&#xA;&gt;17. *Placentae* are breads made from spelt. Some people call them ***libum***; because they are agreeable (*libere*) and pleasing (*placere*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Spelt is a primitive wheat; it has half the number of chromosomes found in cultivated varieties) *Libar*, here as *ilbar,* is likely to be a syncopated back-formation of  from ***Libar**ius,* a cook who sold these small *libus* or *libum* birthday cakes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Verecunnus libarius hic and Pudens libarius,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; which can be roughly translated as 'Verecunnus and Pudens [sell votive bread][1] here'.  (graffiti on the precinct wall of the Temple of Apollo)   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This creates a new problem**. Beaver scent has nothing whatever to do with the musk deer in the picture. And &quot;Blistering hot cup-cakes&quot; is much more suitable as a description of roast chestnuts straight from the fire: *castaneae,* here written *castanee* on the left of the page. A misunderstanding seems to have arisen because because *castanea,* the word for chestnut, is a direct borrowing from Greek. Isidore's Etymologies p.144 provides a specious answer, which connects the chestnut tree to beaver and to musk::  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin speakers name the chestnut (castanea)from a Greek term, for the Greeks call it καστάνια, because its paired fruits are hidden in a small sack like testicles, and when they are ejected from it, it is as if they were castrated (*castrare*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It fits in perfectly with the story of beavers (*Castores*) making themselves valueless to hunters. And explains why this Herbal got the idea that musk deer might resort to the same drastic action.  &#xD;&#xA;But there is no connection that I can find between the musk deer and the cryptic &quot;*.Castoreum. alio noie asustilbar*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/daily_life_gallery_02.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5486" RevisionGUID="0cb3be78-2b7f-474a-8a8d-9da992256725" CreationDate="2017-10-30T07:55:33.630" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body" Text="The suffix *-mentum* (neuter, genitive *-menti*) is used to indicate an instrument or result.&#xD;&#xA;It appears to be a productive way to derive nouns from verbs.&#xD;&#xA;It even has [its own Wiktionary page](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-mentum), but I admit it is hard to find if you don't know you should be looking for it.&#xD;&#xA;(If anyone here works with Wiktionary, I suggest adding a link to *-mentum* from *incrementum* to show both parts in the etymology section.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are [lots of Latin words ending in *-mentum*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=mentum&amp;lang=la), for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *instrumentum* &lt; *instruere*&#xD;&#xA;- *documentum* &lt; *docere*&#xD;&#xA;- *alimentum* &lt; *alere*&#xD;&#xA;- *argumentum* &lt; *arguere*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the related suffix [*-men*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-men) (neuter, genitive *-minis*) which gives rise to *volumen* (&lt; *volvere*) and *flumen* (&lt; *fluere*), among [others](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=men&amp;lang=la).&#xD;&#xA;The two suffixes are not identical, though, but they are sometimes interchangeable (e.g. *medicamen* &amp;approx; *medicamentum*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5492" RevisionGUID="f0796507-648a-4b58-9781-a893c0e56511" CreationDate="2017-10-30T10:20:16.950" UserId="1459" Text="English versions of [John 20:17](http://biblehub.com/john/20-17.htm) show two types of accounts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jesus said to her, “**Do not cling to me**, for I have not yet ascended to the Father&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jesus says to her, &quot;**Do not touch me**, for not yet have I ascended to the Father&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trying to understand the meaning of this verse (see my question [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/60473/why-could-not-mary-magdalene-touch-the-resurrected-body-of-jesus)), I decided to search for older translations, ideally from original sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jerome's [Vulgate](http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=1&amp;b=4&amp;c=20) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dicit ei Iesus **noli me tangere** nondum enim ascendi ad Patrem meum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where according to [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tangere#Latin), _tangere_ is the transitive of &quot;to touch&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English translations of the [Codex Vaticanus](https://archive.org/details/newtestamentauth00tisc) and [Codex Sinaiticus](http://www.sinaiticus.com/) also prefer the &quot;touch&quot; option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, I decided to search for the original Greek myself (although I cannot read Greek!). [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noli_me_tangere) says, in the entry of _noli me tangere_ (which now I realise is a quite famous phrase that even my mom used to say!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A loose translation [from Latin] into English would be &quot;dont cling to me&quot;[1][2][3] or &quot;don't touch me.&quot; The original Koine Greek phrase, Μή μου ἅπτου (mē mou haptou), is better represented in translation as &quot;cease holding on to me&quot; or &quot;stop clinging to me&quot;.[4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;original&quot; Greek from diverse _papyrus_ can be found [here](http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/AnaServer?NTtranscripts+0+start.anv) (just select the verse and then choose verse-by-verse). There, there are six sources of this text. In effect, all of them have the form &quot;_μη μου απτου_&quot; in one way or another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Digging further, the key verb is then _ἅπτω_, which according to [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%85%CF%80%CF%84%CF%89), includes both &quot;to touch&quot; and &quot;to cling to&quot;. So, both seem valid translations. But as it is always the case, the context and other words indicate some meanings are more appropriate. Is it possible to say something else from the other words, or can we simply conclude that both are equally valid and hence, in principle, there is nothing more it can be said from the linguistic point of view?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18122" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5492" RevisionGUID="f0796507-648a-4b58-9781-a893c0e56511" CreationDate="2017-10-30T10:20:16.950" UserId="1459" Text="Translation of Greek &quot;ἅπτω&quot; in John 20:17" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18123" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5492" RevisionGUID="f0796507-648a-4b58-9781-a893c0e56511" CreationDate="2017-10-30T10:20:16.950" UserId="1459" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5493" RevisionGUID="063809b2-90db-44c6-9dca-aec20e1e30af" CreationDate="2017-10-30T14:10:05.463" UserId="1987" Text="The Vulgate Romans 1:1 reads&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Paulus servus Christi Iesu vocatus apostolus segregatus in evangelium Dei&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God&#xA;&#xA;If I wanted to say &quot;Set apart for God&quot; would that be &quot;Segregatus in Deus&quot;? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18125" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5493" RevisionGUID="063809b2-90db-44c6-9dca-aec20e1e30af" CreationDate="2017-10-30T14:10:05.463" UserId="1987" Text="(Latin) Set apart for God" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18126" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5493" RevisionGUID="063809b2-90db-44c6-9dca-aec20e1e30af" CreationDate="2017-10-30T14:10:05.463" UserId="1987" Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5494" RevisionGUID="b3869815-edf2-4c43-bfa8-7dc1be4d4476" CreationDate="2017-10-30T18:22:14.893" UserId="78" Text="Depends on the thing set apart. If you're talking about yourself (assuming you're male), you could say *segregatus in Deum*. If the subject is female, it would be *segregata*, and if it's an undetermined object, *segregatum*. Nouns all have gender, though, so if it's referring to e.g. a book, name, or house, it would all be different. Same with whether you're referring to one thing or many." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18128" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5492" RevisionGUID="9d73789e-14a4-44ba-9f2b-24fd0915e59a" CreationDate="2017-10-30T18:26:24.147" UserId="79" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5495" RevisionGUID="82b1a45e-9e4d-4c03-aa27-c2c4e2761fda" CreationDate="2017-10-30T19:03:15.510" UserId="985" Text="It seems to me that *in Deum* doesn't work here. In the phrase *in evangelium*, the preposition *in* means 'for' in the sense of 'for the purpose of.' Although *evangelium* can be a purpose for which a person can be set aside, I'm not sure that *Deus* by itself is. A glance (a very quick one, I admit) in the dictionary didn't show any analogous use of a sentient or divine being as the object of *in* when it has this meaning. I'd be more inclined to say *segregatus Deo*, using a dative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5496" RevisionGUID="67bc9596-4fae-4f13-9315-e5bd2fe49118" CreationDate="2017-10-30T19:10:43.943" UserId="645" Text="This is a bit tricky, but I'd settle for [*apostolus*] *pro Deo segregatus*, which I would interpret as 'set apart for God['s work]'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4315" RevisionGUID="5e5c5f55-e910-4d1e-94ca-cfa8e63a24b1" CreationDate="2017-10-30T21:34:30.570" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="If I want to say that two things are equivalent in Latin, I can imagine two ways using essentially the same word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *X et Y sunt aequivalentes.*&#xD;&#xA;2. *X et Y aequivalent.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Googling for the first option (without *X et Y*) produces numerous Latin texts with the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;Both intuition and [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=aequivaleo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) suggest that *aequivalere* is a verb that should have the same effect as the first option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 1 has the benefit of matching the structure used in many other languages.&#xD;&#xA;However, using *esse* with a present participle (a present active periphrasis) looks a bit weird to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is particularly common in mathematics, but [not confined to that one field](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1/79).&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example sentence: &quot;The following statements are equivalent.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence would then be followed by a list of statements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference between 1 and 2?&#xD;&#xA;Are there cases where one should be used instead of the other?&#xD;&#xA;Did the participle *aequivalens* get a meaning separate from its parent verb, so that it should not really be treated as its form?&#xD;&#xA;Is either option more idiomatic or otherwise better in your opinion?&#xD;&#xA;(If so, why?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in using the phrase in today's world, but insights from any era are welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5497" RevisionGUID="84fed028-1aaf-4ebf-ba7e-763b561e1224" CreationDate="2017-10-30T21:36:48.920" UserId="79" Text="I am currently in London, and the Underground has been kind enough to repeat this warning numerous times:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please mind the gap between the train and the platform!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having heard the same phrase over and over again, I couldn't help trying to translate it to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;(I wonder if there's a name for  this kind of disorder.)&#xD;&#xA;I have tried translating, but I am not convinced by what I arrived at.&#xD;&#xA;(I did arrive at the correct station, though.)&#xD;&#xA;I would like to ask for an overall opinion on the translation and particularly on the translations of two words: &quot;gap&quot; and &quot;platform&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I got the impression that &quot;please&quot; is probably best left out for an idiomatic Latin translation; in Latin it is much more appropriate to skip the pleasantries and cut to the chase than in English.&#xD;&#xA;There is also a [separate question about &quot;please&quot; in Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1563/79).&#xD;&#xA;The most suitable word for &quot;gap&quot; I could find was *spatium*, but I'm not sure at all whether it's appropriate for this kind of thing.&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;platform&quot; is way more confusing; I found a list of candidates, but I couldn't tell which, if any, is appropriate here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my attempt at a translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cave spatium inter tramen et aggerem/crepidinem/pulpitum/suggestum!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any feedback, especially on &quot;platform&quot;, would make a welcome answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18133" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5497" RevisionGUID="84fed028-1aaf-4ebf-ba7e-763b561e1224" CreationDate="2017-10-30T21:36:48.920" UserId="79" Text="&quot;Mind the gap!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18134" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5497" RevisionGUID="84fed028-1aaf-4ebf-ba7e-763b561e1224" CreationDate="2017-10-30T21:36:48.920" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|translation-check|modern-life|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5494" RevisionGUID="e2beda72-5ec6-4ceb-88cc-45f08e0a36fd" CreationDate="2017-10-30T22:46:47.713" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Depends on the thing set apart. If you're talking about yourself (assuming you're male), you could say *segregatus*. If the subject is female, it would be *segregata*, and if it's an undetermined object, *segregatum*. Nouns all have gender, though, so if it's referring to e.g. a book, name, or house, it would all be different. Same with whether you're referring to one thing or many." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5494" RevisionGUID="bd68f0ab-55da-4dfa-a0c5-73efbe328d5a" CreationDate="2017-10-30T22:54:05.203" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Depends on the thing set apart. If you're talking about yourself (assuming you're male), you could say *segregatus*. If the subject is female, it would be *segregata*, and if it's an undetermined object, *segregatum*. Nouns all have gender, though, so if it's referring to e.g. a book, name, or house, it would all be different. Same with whether you're referring to one thing or many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing something *for* another typically gives the dative case, which for *Deus* is a simple *Deo*. More clarification on what's being segregating will yield you the full phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5494" RevisionGUID="a021fe70-accb-4c83-b493-6a2b05acb4aa" CreationDate="2017-10-30T23:00:01.507" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Depends on the thing set apart. If you're talking about yourself (assuming you're male), you could say *segregatus*. If the subject is female, it would be *segregata*, and if it's an undetermined object, *segregatum*. Nouns all have gender, though, so if it's referring to e.g. a book, name, or house, it would all be different. Same with whether you're referring to one thing or many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing something *for* another typically gives the dative case, which for *Deus* is a simple *Deo*. More clarification on what's being segregating will yield you the full phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;in evangelium&quot; here is translating *εἰς εὐαγγέλιον*; εἰς + acc. can denote purpose in obtaining that object, which works less well in Latin and especially with *segregatus*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5498" RevisionGUID="5e441b22-4d5d-44f6-92d3-d3afa0494770" CreationDate="2017-10-31T20:06:54.167" UserId="1407" Text="I find the wikitionary conjecture suspect. Here's why:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Although &quot;ama&quot; is quite supportable as baby babble, **infants can't make the &quot;r&quot; sound**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The “R” sound is hard for some children because&#xD;&#xA;it is difficult to see the tongue when you say it and it is&#xD;&#xA;hard to explain to a child how to make it... Many children can say a correct “R” sound by the time they are five and a half&#xD;&#xA;years old, but some do not produce it until they are seven years old.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;SOURCE: [Why is “R” So Hard to Say?][1]  K.F. Bedsole, M.S., CCC-SLP and C.M. Johnson, M.A., CCC-SLP&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Q: Are there usages of &quot;amare&quot; as a noun? I'm only aware of it as a verbal form... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.superduperinc.com/handouts/pdf/102_RforParents.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5499" RevisionGUID="16a91eea-414d-4eb6-9dfa-d12c3b9c1ae4" CreationDate="2017-10-31T21:01:45.983" UserId="79" Text="Many of us have studied Latin simply because we enjoy it, and many have found use for it when studying something like philosophy or history where Latin materials are commonplace.&#xD;&#xA;However, I am **not** looking for personal experience or anecdotal evidence here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there research on the effect of studying Latin?&#xD;&#xA;How does the individual and especially the institution benefit from Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The core question is this:&#xD;&#xA;If I want to convince my university not to discontinue Latin, **what are the most impressive and trustworthy results about the benefits of studying Latin?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin is sometimes seen as unprofitable or otherwise useless, and I am looking for counterarguments &amp;mdash; preferably quantitative.&#xD;&#xA;The first thing that comes to mind (and which I might be able to support with anecdotal evidence) is that the ability to use Latin material is necessary to get funding for research projects in fields where much of the material is in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The second thing is that I suppose many people will greatly benefit from a basic knowledge of Latin although very few will need to specialize in it, and this may not be detected by some of the metrics used to assess the viability of a subject.&#xD;&#xA;The issue with these arguments of mine is that I can't back them up by anything but reasoning; I don't know of any research on the usefulness or lack thereof of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Can you help me find strong and sufficiently well researched reasons to argue for Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I am not asking you to do original research, I am asking you to point to materials that could make a strong case for defending Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18142" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5499" RevisionGUID="16a91eea-414d-4eb6-9dfa-d12c3b9c1ae4" CreationDate="2017-10-31T21:01:45.983" UserId="79" Text="What are the benefits of studying Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18143" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5499" RevisionGUID="16a91eea-414d-4eb6-9dfa-d12c3b9c1ae4" CreationDate="2017-10-31T21:01:45.983" UserId="79" Text="|modern-life|resource-request|soft-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5500" RevisionGUID="1714e28b-528f-4598-8940-bd73ff35240b" CreationDate="2017-10-31T21:25:42.133" UserId="1407" Text="[Crepidinem][1] seems most suitable for 3 reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *crepidinem* is the most visually interesting word in English out of the set of choices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This assessment is, of course, subjective, but aesthetics are subjective, and a major factor in word choice in translation. *(In my case, this term makes me think of delicious words like [crepuscular][2], incites curiosity as to the meaning, and sticks in the memory;)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *crepidinem* is the most neutral term, not carrying confusing connotations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Pulpitum][3]* would be recognized by many as the origin of the English &quot;pulpit&quot;, which is a type of platform, but carries the wrong connotations in this mundane context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Aggerem][4], by contrast, would likely not be recognized as a platform-ey word by English speakers, even those recognizing the root of &quot;aggregation&quot;, and again has the wrong connotations because it indicates a group of object forming a whole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Suggestum][5]* is also sub-optimal because in English it carries a false cognate related to &quot;suggestion&quot;, but no connotations related to a platform.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *crepidinem* has dual meanings, with the second related to an edge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. Prop., a ground, basis, foundation, pedestal &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  II. Transf., an elevated enclosure, a high projection, an edge, brim, brink, etc.&lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;SOURCE: Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, [A Latin Dictionary][1]&lt;/sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcrepido&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/crepuscular&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpulpitum&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daggero1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsuggestum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5500" RevisionGUID="9231b335-d92c-4436-af16-7ade571dc456" CreationDate="2017-10-31T21:37:56.437" UserId="1407" Comment="corrected some typos" Text="[Crepidinem][1] seems most suitable for 3 reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *crepidinem* is the most visually interesting in English &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This assessment is, of course, subjective, but aesthetics are subjective, and a major factor in word choice in translation. *(In my case, this term makes me think of delicious words like [crepuscular][2], incites curiosity as to the meaning, and sticks in the memory;)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *crepidinem* is the most neutral term, not carrying confusing connotations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Pulpitum][3]* would be recognized by many as the origin of the English &quot;pulpit&quot;, which is a type of platform, but carries the wrong connotations (religious) in this mundane context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Aggerem][4], by contrast, would likely not be recognized as a platform-ey word by English speakers. For those recognizing the root of &quot;aggregation&quot;, it also carries the wrong connotations because &quot;aggregate&quot; indicates a group that forms a whole, which the emphasis on group to distinguish from undifferentiated wholes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Suggestum][5]* is also sub-optimal because in English it carries a false cognate related to &quot;suggestion&quot;, but no connotations related to a platform.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *crepidinem* has dual meanings, with the second related to an edge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. Prop., a ground, basis, foundation, pedestal &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  II. Transf., an elevated enclosure, a high projection, an edge, brim, brink, etc.&lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;SOURCE: Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, [A Latin Dictionary][1]&lt;/sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcrepido&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/crepuscular&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpulpitum&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daggero1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsuggestum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5391" RevisionGUID="ca72bd81-3e08-4a0f-b189-679496f675cf" CreationDate="2017-11-01T17:24:52.137" UserId="79" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="The latest [Nuntii Latini](https://areena.yle.fi/1-4201630) mentions the Spanish constitution in relation to the Catalonian independence movement.&#xD;&#xA;It appears that in contemporary Latin a constitution is simply *constitutio*.&#xD;&#xA;Judging by [the entry in L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DC%3Aentry+group%3D95%3Aentry%3Dconstitutio), the word *constitutio* had a roughly similar meaning (II.C) in classical Latin, too.&#xD;&#xA;Could someone explain what kind of &quot;regulation&quot;, &quot;order&quot; or &quot;arrangement&quot; it means and how (if at all) it relates to the modern concept of a constitution?&#xD;&#xA;I found it puzzling, but my impression is that the modern English &quot;constitution&quot; is something much more specific than the classical Latin *constitutio*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="181" RevisionGUID="9cc44c60-0fa1-41aa-b17b-a8e723c2a53f" CreationDate="2017-11-01T17:28:14.940" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="In one of his 1844 manuscripts, C. G. Ehrenberg described the radiolarian species *Lithobotrys*(?) *denticulata* (now known as [*Antarctissa denticulata*](http://www.radiolaria.org/species.htm?sp_id=499&amp;division=)) and, as it was customary at the time, did so in Latin. Although in general his descriptions are relatively straightforward, I'm struggling with the last sentence of this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lorica ovata ampla late porosa (poris in 1/100''' 2—3.) subtriloba,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; utrinque rotundata nec truncata, denticulis undique bispida, apertura&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obsoleta.  Longit. 1/22''' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Habitus *Lithocampae*, sed nulli articuli.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Structuram internam spiralem esse suspicor. **Quae pars anterior quae&#xD;&#xA;&gt; posterior jure habeatur in toto genere non liquet.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some [pictures and drawings](http://www.radiolaria.org/image.htm?sp_id=499&amp;division=) of the species, if that helps giving context. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18149" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="181" RevisionGUID="9cc44c60-0fa1-41aa-b17b-a8e723c2a53f" CreationDate="2017-11-01T17:28:14.940" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|new-latin|sentence-translation|biology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="303" RevisionGUID="821d7e79-1f4c-45b0-bedf-1e1f9c56e2f2" CreationDate="2017-11-01T17:31:17.547" UserId="79" Comment="added 18 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The question of how to express my username, Undo, in Latin recently came up [in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/27882791#27882791). As Ben Kovitz notes, Latin seems to lack the word 'defacio' or similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I say my name, the verb &quot;undo&quot;, in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18151" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="303" RevisionGUID="821d7e79-1f4c-45b0-bedf-1e1f9c56e2f2" CreationDate="2017-11-01T17:31:17.547" UserId="79" Comment="added 18 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5500" RevisionGUID="3d842426-8b44-47aa-a9cb-c9f89681e73b" CreationDate="2017-11-01T20:03:14.863" UserId="1407" Comment="Added thoughts on gap" Text="**ON &quot;PLATFORM&quot;:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Crepidinem][1] seems most suitable for 3 reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *crepidinem* is the most visually interesting in English &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This assessment is, of course, subjective, but aesthetics are subjective, and a major factor in word choice in translation. *(In my case, this term makes me think of delicious words like [crepuscular][2], incites curiosity as to the meaning, and sticks in the memory;)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *crepidinem* is the most neutral term, not carrying confusing connotations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Pulpitum][3]* would be recognized by many as the origin of the English &quot;pulpit&quot;, which is a type of platform, but carries the wrong connotations (religious) in this mundane context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Aggerem][4], by contrast, would likely not be recognized as a platform-ey word by English speakers. For those recognizing the root of &quot;aggregation&quot;, it also carries the wrong connotations because &quot;aggregate&quot; indicates a group that forms a whole, which the emphasis on multiplicity to distinguish from undifferentiated wholes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Suggestum][5]* is also sub-optimal because in English it carries a false cognate related to &quot;suggestion&quot;, but no connotations related to a platform.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *crepidinem* has dual meanings, with the second related to an edge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. Prop., a ground, basis, foundation, pedestal &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  II. Transf., an elevated enclosure, a high projection, an edge, brim, brink, etc.&lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;SOURCE: Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, [A Latin Dictionary][1]&lt;/sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ON &quot;GAP&quot;:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not restricted to the proposed words, I'd favor:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[chasma][6]* because many English speakers would instantly recognize the root of &quot;chasm&quot; and understand the reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[abyssus][7]* would be my alternate choice if I was wanting to be more playful (abyss is more dire than chasm per it's underworld associations, and the warning comes at the risk of one's life.  One of the uses of *abyssus* is &quot;3. The place of the dead&quot;;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By contrast, *[spatium][8]* is neutral in meaning, and does not carry associations of danger. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcrepido&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/crepuscular&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpulpitum&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daggero1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsuggestum&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dchasma&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dabyssus&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=spatium&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5500" RevisionGUID="8bb2e53b-04b8-4bfa-b904-6edb4fe9d00a" CreationDate="2017-11-01T20:54:30.597" UserId="79" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="**ON &quot;PLATFORM&quot;:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Crepidinem][1] seems most suitable for 3 reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *crepidinem* is the most visually interesting in English &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This assessment is, of course, subjective, but aesthetics are subjective, and a major factor in word choice in translation. *(In my case, this term makes me think of delicious words like [crepuscular][2], incites curiosity as to the meaning, and sticks in the memory;)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *crepidinem* is the most neutral term, not carrying confusing connotations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *[Pulpitum][3]* would be recognized by many as the origin of the English &quot;pulpit&quot;, which is a type of platform, but carries the wrong connotations (religious) in this mundane context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Aggerem][4], by contrast, would likely not be recognized as a platform-ey word by English speakers. For those recognizing the root of &quot;aggregation&quot;, it also carries the wrong connotations because &quot;aggregate&quot; indicates a group that forms a whole, which the emphasis on multiplicity to distinguish from undifferentiated wholes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *[Suggestum][5]* is also sub-optimal because in English it carries a false cognate related to &quot;suggestion&quot;, but no connotations related to a platform.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *crepidinem* has dual meanings, with the second related to an edge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; I. Prop., a ground, basis, foundation, pedestal &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  II. Transf., an elevated enclosure, a high projection, an edge, brim, brink, etc.&lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;SOURCE: Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, [A Latin Dictionary][1]&lt;/sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ON &quot;GAP&quot;:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not restricted to the proposed words, I'd favor:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[chasma][6]* because many English speakers would instantly recognize the root of &quot;chasm&quot; and understand the reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[abyssus][7]* would be my alternate choice if I was wanting to be more playful (abyss is more dire than chasm per it's underworld associations, and the warning comes at the risk of one's life.  One of the uses of *abyssus* is &quot;3. The place of the dead&quot;;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By contrast, *[spatium][8]* is neutral in meaning, and does not carry associations of danger. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcrepido&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/crepuscular&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpulpitum&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daggero1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsuggestum&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dchasma&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dabyssus&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=spatium&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5038" RevisionGUID="53ec227c-fe7c-437b-a446-df3dad52fdcd" CreationDate="2017-11-02T09:05:30.130" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="&gt;[ [Wiktionary for 'même'](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/m%C3%AAme) :] **Etymology**     &#xD;&#xA;**[3.]** From [Middle French](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_French_language &quot;w:Middle French language&quot;) _[mesme](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mesme#Middle_French &quot;mesme&quot;)_, from [Old French](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French_language &quot;w:Old French language&quot;) _[mesme](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mesme#Old_French &quot;mesme&quot;)_, earlier _[meïsme](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/meisme#Old_French &quot;meisme&quot;)_,        &#xD;&#xA;**[2.]** from [Vulgar Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin &quot;w:Vulgar Latin&quot;) _[\*metipsimus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Latin/metipsimus &quot;Reconstruction:Latin/metipsimus&quot;)_ [= the same],      &#xD;&#xA;**[1.]** from [Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin &quot;w:Latin&quot;) _[-met](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-met#Latin &quot;-met&quot;)_ [emphatic suffix] + _[ipse](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ipse#Latin &quot;ipse&quot;)_ [“himself”] + _[-issimus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-issimus#Latin &quot;-issimus&quot;)_ [superlative suffix].     &#xD;&#xA;Cognates include Spanish _[mismo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mismo#Spanish &quot;mismo&quot;)_, Portuguese _[mesmo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mesmo#Portuguese &quot;mesmo&quot;)_ and Italian _[medesimo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/medesimo#Italian &quot;medesimo&quot;)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I added the Syntatic Categories for 1 and the English meaning in  2, from the link in 2 above.    &#xD;&#xA;How did 2 semantically shift to 3? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5039" RevisionGUID="cb77da11-c397-424c-9ffe-bcf830c6889f" CreationDate="2017-11-02T09:07:42.770" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="&gt;[ [Wiktionary for *metipsimus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Latin/metipsimus) :] **Etymology**      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**[0.]** From _[-met](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-met#Latin &quot;-met&quot;)_ (emphatic suffix) + _[ipse](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ipse#Latin &quot;ipse&quot;)_ (“himself”) + _[-issimus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-issimus#Latin &quot;-issimus&quot;)_ (superlative suffix).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;### Adjective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**\*metipsimus** (_feminine_ **[\*metipsima](https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Reconstruction:Latin/metipsima&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1 &quot;Reconstruction:Latin/metipsima (page does not exist)&quot;)**, _neuter_ **[\*metipsimum](https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Reconstruction:Latin/metipsimum&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1 &quot;Reconstruction:Latin/metipsimum (page does not exist)&quot;)**); _[first](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_first_declension &quot;Appendix:Latin first declension&quot;)/[second declension](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_second_declension &quot;Appendix:Latin second declension&quot;)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1.  ([Vulgar Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin &quot;w:Vulgar Latin&quot;)) [same](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/same#English &quot;same&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What semantic notions underlie 0 and 1 above? How did 0 semantically shift to 1? I.e., how does compounding 'himself' with 1 emphatic and 1 superlative suffix generate the meaning of 'same'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18156" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5039" RevisionGUID="cb77da11-c397-424c-9ffe-bcf830c6889f" CreationDate="2017-11-02T09:07:42.770" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="How did '-met' + 'ipse' + '-issimus' compound to mean &lt;the same&gt; (in *metipsimus)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="446" RevisionGUID="9e52e98f-e982-4151-a75b-62d41036050d" CreationDate="2017-11-02T10:11:21.513" UserId="79" Comment="Changed a tag and reformatted." Text="The [Latin Library][1] has following punctuation for lines 60–62 of book IV of Ovid's Metamorphoses, describing how Pyramus and Thisbe fell in love but were forbidden from marrying by their parents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tempore crevit amor; taedae quoque iure coissent,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed vetuere patres: **quod non potuere vetare**,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex aequo captis ardebant mentibus ambo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And [Perseus][2] similarly separates the *quod* clause from the preceding clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tempore crevit amor. Taedae quoque iure coissent:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed vetuere patres. **Quod non potuere vetare**,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex aequo captis ardebant mentibus ambo.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Ed. Hugo Magnus, 1892)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This forces the *quod* clause in bold to describe what happens in the next line, rather than what happened in the *sed* clause immediately preceding it on the same line. The translation would then be something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;...with time, their love grew. And marriage would have brought them together in law, // but their parents forbade it: and yet they could not forbid it, // both burned equally with captured hearts.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it would make much more sense to me to remove the colon or full stop and translate it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but the parents forbade what they could not forbid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That way, you don't need to connect the *quod* clause with *ardebant*, which I'd rather not do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could argue that it is *sed vetuere patres. Quod non potuere vetare, [eo]...ardebant*, &quot;but the parents forbade it. They burned...with that which [the parents] could not forbid&quot;. Then *quod* would be a relative with enclosed antecedent as a complement modifying *ardebant*. But this seems a bit far fetched to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also that you then have two ablatives, where one must be the cause of their burning (*eo, quod...*), the other an absolute ablative of circumstances. And yet [Lewis &amp; Short][3] group this quotation under &quot;without ablative [complement]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I find the paradox &quot;forbade what they could not forbid&quot; much more powerful in a single sentence. It's a perfect, so I think it cannot be (literally) translated as &quot;but they tried to forbid&quot;, or it should have been an imperfect. So that makes it a strong paradox.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One translation from Perseus disagrees with me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They wished to join in marriage, but that joy  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; their fathers had forbidden them to hope;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **and yet the passion** that with equal strength  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; inflamed their minds **no parents could forbid**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Brookes More, 1922) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other, much older translation agrees with me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For love to come to that to which it afterward did growe.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And if that right had taken place they had bene man and wife,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **But still their Parents went about to let which (for their life)**   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **They could not let.** For both their heartes with equall flame did burne.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Arthur Golding, 1567) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So should the punctuation and the translation be changed to what I consider the better interpretation? What do other editions and translations say?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/ovid/ovid.met4.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0029%3Abook%3D4%3Acard%3D55&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=ardeo&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18158" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="446" RevisionGUID="9e52e98f-e982-4151-a75b-62d41036050d" CreationDate="2017-11-02T10:11:21.513" UserId="79" Comment="Changed a tag and reformatted." Text="|ovidius|metamorphoses|translation-explanation|punctuation|relative-pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18160" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="4489" RevisionGUID="728fab75-9e56-4332-9e96-24a447671d10" CreationDate="2017-11-02T13:41:12.107" UserId="78" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5501" RevisionGUID="e49fc4a7-634f-4e5a-b61b-4a1c253d5081" CreationDate="2017-11-02T23:07:18.877" UserId="30" Text="When Cupid and Psyche get married, at the end of their story in Apuleius' *Metamorphoses* [VI.23][1], Jupiter announces that they will be wed *iure civili*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et ad Venerem collata facie, ‘Nec tu,’ inquit ‘filia, quicquam contristere, nec prosapiae tantae tuae statuque de matrimonio mortali metuas. Iam faxo nuptias non impares, sed legitimas et **iure civili** congruas.’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gods have arranged this marriage and made it be. So why does Jupiter say he will make it &quot;in accordance with civil law&quot;? What does the term mean in this context? Why would the gods care about something regarding civilian laws—or what sense of *civilis* should we be thinking of to understand this passage? Is it a joke (just like the passage elsewhere where Apuleius says the Greeks in his story spoke Latin)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/apuleius/apuleius.cupid.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18163" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5501" RevisionGUID="e49fc4a7-634f-4e5a-b61b-4a1c253d5081" CreationDate="2017-11-02T23:07:18.877" UserId="30" Text="What does 'iure civili' mean in Apuleius VI.23, when Cupid and Psyche get married?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18164" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5501" RevisionGUID="e49fc4a7-634f-4e5a-b61b-4a1c253d5081" CreationDate="2017-11-02T23:07:18.877" UserId="30" Text="|terminology|legal-latin|apuleius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5502" RevisionGUID="2cc0ec4c-4382-40bc-b27d-cd942899897c" CreationDate="2017-11-03T04:39:44.647" UserId="1851" Text="I am a novice student of Latin. I found the following [summary][1] from the Department of the Classics at the University of Illinois in Urbana - Champaign rewarding.  I've reproduced it here in part, and highlighted in **bold** some of the parts that I believe address your request.  I note this is not my personal nor anecdotal experience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why Study Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) The Romans left a rich body of literature, well worth reading for its&#xD;&#xA;&gt; own sake and widely influential on European and American literature.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our own culture, including our system of government, architecture, art&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and religion, shows the heavy influence of Rome. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) Students of Latin see immediate benefits to their spoken and written&#xD;&#xA;&gt; English. More than 65% of English words come from Latin (and more than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 90% of those over two syllables).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3) Latin students gain an expanded vocabulary and an understanding of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; word formation that can help even with unfamiliar words. **These skills&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are particularly useful for students planning to enter fields with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; large technical vocabularies. Those of medicine and law, for example**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are primarily based on Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4) The study of an inflected language with a very different sentence&#xD;&#xA;&gt; structure than English is an excellent introduction to how languages&#xD;&#xA;&gt; work. Latin students have a huge advantage in learning other inflected&#xD;&#xA;&gt; languages, such as Russian or German. Conversely, speakers of Romance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; languages (Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, Rumanian) have an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; edge in studying Latin: Latin is the source of 75-80% of all words in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; these languages.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5) The study of Latin also provides training in logical thinking,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **boosting cognitive processes essential for math, science, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; engineering**. Latin has been said to &quot;cultivate such mental processes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as alertness, attention to detail, memory, logic, and critical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reasoning&quot;. Not surprisingly, Latin boosts SAT and GRE scores (out of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 270 fields, Classics scored the highest mean Verbal GRE). Click here&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for further information.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6) Last but not least, Latin fulfills your foreign language requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would supplement those arguments with this section of [an article from the Guardian][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The 'classics' are indivisibly attached to class difference. No matter&#xD;&#xA;&gt; how many state schools take it up, **Latin and Greek have historically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; been the preserve of** feepaying schools, Oxbridge candidates and,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ultimately, **the ruling elite**. We may see the Roman and Greek world in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; television history programming and in blockbuster movies, but **we read&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their words inscribed on the walls of buildings where power reside**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The connection between &quot;a knowledge of Latin&quot; and &quot;the wielding of power&quot; seems pretty clear to me.  I will continue to search for an academic study describing the two, and update this answer when I find one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.classics.illinois.edu/programs/latin/why/ &#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/sep/16/why-learn-a-dead-language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5503" RevisionGUID="0f08344e-9066-431b-9961-ca7bee098095" CreationDate="2017-11-03T08:46:53.267" UserId="867" Text="**Platform:**  I vote for [*agger*][1] because, among other things, it describes an elevation above a surface; a causeway through a swamp; and an elevation before a trench.  For me, these all capture the sense of a platform elevated to provide protection from and a pathway over something underfoot (in your case, railway tracks).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gap:**  I have three suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ***hiatus*** often used of cracks in the earth after an earthquake (Pliny, *Nat. Hist.*, 2.82) or heavy rain (Cicero, *On Duties*, 3.9)&#xD;&#xA;   or indeed the pits of hell (Claudian, *Rape of Proserpine*, 2.259)&#xD;&#xA;   thus something you can fall down into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ***fossa*** variously a ditch, a trench, and a gutter, all elongated spaces which you can fall down into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ***fovea*** strictly speaking a small pit, especially for trapping wild animals but also came to mean a pitfall and so I thought this&#xD;&#xA;   covered the literal sense of something you can fall down into and the&#xD;&#xA;   figurative sense of a danger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=agger&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18167" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="5492" RevisionGUID="ed8b8cc3-8529-48ca-b625-9c54a2b02779" CreationDate="2017-11-03T09:11:21.587" UserId="79" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1459,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;luchonacho&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18169" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5492" RevisionGUID="98f8192c-dab3-4191-8ed0-5c9581de9954" CreationDate="2017-11-03T09:12:13.467" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|verbs|christianity|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5504" RevisionGUID="b4dcfe88-b947-49f4-a81c-f7e315be757d" CreationDate="2017-11-03T12:18:58.680" UserId="2096" Text="What is a latin phrase to express the sense of belonging to a  particular place?&#xD;&#xA;How can  this be translated from English to Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18171" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5504" RevisionGUID="b4dcfe88-b947-49f4-a81c-f7e315be757d" CreationDate="2017-11-03T12:18:58.680" UserId="2096" Text="Belonging in the sense of belonging somewhere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18172" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5504" RevisionGUID="b4dcfe88-b947-49f4-a81c-f7e315be757d" CreationDate="2017-11-03T12:18:58.680" UserId="2096" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5505" RevisionGUID="be19fae0-a974-4c3e-bef1-cc87901f8391" CreationDate="2017-11-03T14:11:24.900" UserId="183" Text="I'd suggest *lacuna* for &quot;gap&quot;, it goes specially well with *agger* for &quot;platform&quot; because a *lacuna* can be a pit filled with water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5504" RevisionGUID="a23f93e9-3208-44a2-90f4-5829139b56cc" CreationDate="2017-11-03T15:56:09.377" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="What is a Latin phrase to express the sense of belonging to a particular place?&#xD;&#xA;How can  this be translated from English to Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18175" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5504" RevisionGUID="a23f93e9-3208-44a2-90f4-5829139b56cc" CreationDate="2017-11-03T15:56:09.377" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5506" RevisionGUID="425e4343-9462-4922-9266-5c6925493898" CreationDate="2017-11-03T16:07:29.893" UserId="79" Text="I suggest the word adjective ***localis***.&#xD;&#xA;It is not exactly the same as the English &quot;local&quot;, but evidently related to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=localis&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) translates it as &quot;of or belonging to a place, local&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Some use examples are mentioned in the linked dictionary entry, including *adverbia localia* (&quot;adverbs of place&quot;, Scaurus, *De Adverbio et Praepositione 29.8) and *localiter* (&quot;locally&quot; or &quot;by local inhabitants&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, the best translation depends on context, but the adjective *localis* is my best first guess for &quot;belonging to some place&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or did you perhaps mean phrases like &quot;I was born here and I belong in this city&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;That would be a completely different story." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5507" RevisionGUID="84398b5e-383b-4647-a10f-25cabfb31574" CreationDate="2017-11-03T17:25:57.010" UserId="645" Text="You can say it in various ways to suit the context. For example, for 'belonging to Rome', you might choose from:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Romanus natus sum* — I was born a Roman&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Civis Romanus sum* — I am a Roman citizen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Incola sum Romae* — I am an inhabitant of/at Rome&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="911" RevisionGUID="69afbebe-1bf6-464e-94cd-4583b0c87e41" CreationDate="2017-11-03T18:16:30.537" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and reformatted." Text="As a tongue-in-cheek joke, I'm trying to make a motto out of Russian phrase &quot;впихнуть невпихуемое&quot;, which is literally translated as &quot;to squeeze &lt;something which is&gt; unsqueezable&quot;. 'Squeeze' being used in this context as 'to forcibly fit something into a tight place'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a more informal version of &quot;put a camel through the eye of a needle&quot;, basically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know a slightest bit of Latin, so tried my best with Wikipedia and came up with this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; urgeo inurgor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rationale:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *urgeo* is something which comes in Google Translate for 'push'/'press'&#xD;&#xA;* *in* as a negative prefix&#xD;&#xA;* taken the stem *urg-* for the second word&#xD;&#xA;* *-or* suffix &amp;mdash; one of verb-to-noun suffixes I found in the [Wiki list](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Latin_suffixes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, question is:&#xD;&#xA;Is this an accurate representation of the above ('to squeeze the unsqueezable')? Or is there a better way to *squeeze* the meaning in?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18179" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="911" RevisionGUID="69afbebe-1bf6-464e-94cd-4583b0c87e41" CreationDate="2017-11-03T18:16:30.537" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and reformatted." Text="|translation-check|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18180" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="d5790cab-350e-40e2-8f98-eeffdbb91159" CreationDate="2017-11-03T18:23:05.010" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|idiom|passage-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18181" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4211" RevisionGUID="7376e054-bff8-49d4-8972-5e3450b18dc4" CreationDate="2017-11-03T18:24:21.833" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|history|passage-request|grammarians|passage-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5508" RevisionGUID="44ada1ee-397c-49ea-baf5-d9ca939d165b" CreationDate="2017-11-03T20:45:56.750" UserId="2099" Text="In the opening chapter of *De Musica* (written 387-391), St. Augustine gives an example of a Latin oxytone, i.e. a word with accentual stress on the ultimate syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;MASTER:  Now when we pronounce the verb ‘*pōne*’ and the adverb ‘*pōne*’, except for the difference in meaning, do you perceive no difference in sound?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;DISCIPLE:  There is quite a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;MASTER:  What is the difference, since both consist of the same times and the same letters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;DISCIPLE:  The difference is they have the acute accent in different places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;M. Quid? cum enuntiamus, ‘pone’ verbum, et ‘pone’ adverbium; praeter id quod significatio diversa est, nihil tibi videtur sonus distare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;D. Distat omnino.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;M. Unde distat, cum et iisdem temporibus utrumque, et iisdem litteris constet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;D. Ego distat quod in diversis locis habent acumen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's going on here?  Why would the adverb '*pōne*' be pronounced *poné* rather than *póne*?  I read in [this answer][1] that it's an exception to the rule of accent-always-on-the-penult-or-antepenult, and applies to certain other adverbs too (or at least it did in the fourth century):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... ancient grammarians insisted on oxytone stress in some conjunctions: pone (after), sine, ergo, verum (but), in some cases arguably to distinguish those from other homophones. Mancini 1997, however, seems to dispute this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the reasoning behind it?  Is it a shift in grammatical prescription, or was it always that way?  Is it due to some etymological development of those particular words?  I am also looking for particular sources to cite -- down to page number if possible --, to convince others who might ask, especially since this is scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: /questions/600/are-there-exceptions-to-the-latin-stress-rules/604#604" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18183" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5508" RevisionGUID="44ada1ee-397c-49ea-baf5-d9ca939d165b" CreationDate="2017-11-03T20:45:56.750" UserId="2099" Text="Why do some Latin adverbs have accent on the last syllable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18184" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5508" RevisionGUID="44ada1ee-397c-49ea-baf5-d9ca939d165b" CreationDate="2017-11-03T20:45:56.750" UserId="2099" Text="|adverb|late-latin|augustinus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5508" RevisionGUID="88218ef7-098d-4567-9375-0db3dce90303" CreationDate="2017-11-03T21:50:26.153" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag. Feel free to retag or re-edit." Text="In the opening chapter of *De Musica* (written 387-391), St. Augustine gives an example of a Latin oxytone, i.e. a word with accentual stress on the ultimate syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;MASTER:  Now when we pronounce the verb ‘*pōne*’ and the adverb ‘*pōne*’, except for the difference in meaning, do you perceive no difference in sound?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;DISCIPLE:  There is quite a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;MASTER:  What is the difference, since both consist of the same times and the same letters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;DISCIPLE:  The difference is they have the acute accent in different places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;M. Quid? cum enuntiamus, ‘pone’ verbum, et ‘pone’ adverbium; praeter id quod significatio diversa est, nihil tibi videtur sonus distare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;D. Distat omnino.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;M. Unde distat, cum et iisdem temporibus utrumque, et iisdem litteris constet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;D. Ego distat quod in diversis locis habent acumen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's going on here?  Why would the adverb '*pōne*' be pronounced *poné* rather than *póne*?  I read in [this answer][1] that it's an exception to the rule of accent-always-on-the-penult-or-antepenult, and applies to certain other adverbs too (or at least it did in the fourth century):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... ancient grammarians insisted on oxytone stress in some conjunctions: pone (after), sine, ergo, verum (but), in some cases arguably to distinguish those from other homophones. Mancini 1997, however, seems to dispute this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the reasoning behind it?  Is it a shift in grammatical prescription, or was it always that way?  Is it due to some etymological development of those particular words?  I am also looking for particular sources to cite &amp;mdash; down to page number if possible &amp;mdash;, to convince others who might ask, especially since this is scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: /questions/600/are-there-exceptions-to-the-latin-stress-rules/604#604" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18186" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5508" RevisionGUID="88218ef7-098d-4567-9375-0db3dce90303" CreationDate="2017-11-03T21:50:26.153" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag. Feel free to retag or re-edit." Text="|adverb|stress|late-latin|augustinus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5508" RevisionGUID="c67d60a6-eb73-4dff-a21f-77b26504ab81" CreationDate="2017-11-03T21:50:50.643" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="In the opening chapter of *De Musica* (written 387-391), St. Augustine gives an example of a Latin oxytone, i.e. a word with accentual stress on the ultimate syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;MASTER:  Now when we pronounce the verb ‘*pōne*’ and the adverb ‘*pōne*’, except for the difference in meaning, do you perceive no difference in sound?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;DISCIPLE:  There is quite a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;MASTER:  What is the difference, since both consist of the same times and the same letters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;DISCIPLE:  The difference is they have the acute accent in different places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;M. Quid? cum enuntiamus, ‘pone’ verbum, et ‘pone’ adverbium; praeter id quod significatio diversa est, nihil tibi videtur sonus distare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;D. Distat omnino.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;M. Unde distat, cum et iisdem temporibus utrumque, et iisdem litteris constet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;D. Ego distat quod in diversis locis habent acumen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's going on here?  Why would the adverb '*pōne*' be pronounced *poné* rather than *póne*?  I read in [this answer][1] that it's an exception to the rule of accent-always-on-the-penult-or-antepenult, and applies to certain other adverbs too (or at least it did in the fourth century):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... ancient grammarians insisted on oxytone stress in some conjunctions: pone (after), sine, ergo, verum (but), in some cases arguably to distinguish those from other homophones. Mancini 1997, however, seems to dispute this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the reasoning behind it?  Is it a shift in grammatical prescription, or was it always that way?  Is it due to some etymological development of those particular words?  I am also looking for particular sources to cite &amp;mdash; down to page number if possible &amp;mdash; to convince others who might ask, especially since this is scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: /questions/600/are-there-exceptions-to-the-latin-stress-rules/604#604" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4501" RevisionGUID="a35170f9-675f-49cd-892e-c89b66262f78" CreationDate="2017-11-03T22:18:16.067" UserId="118" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="This doesn't answer your question (Tom Cotton's answer does that), but it's an interesting datum and way too long for a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](https://books.google.com/books?id=6NDmAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA22&amp;dq=%22in%20perpetuam%20servitutem%22) is an (in-)famous sentence from the papal bull _Dum Diversas_ by Pope Nicholas V, issued in 1452. Good luck finding the main verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nos igitur considerantes, quod contra Catholicam fidem insurgentibus, Christianamque Religionem extinguere molientibus, ea virtute, et alia constantia a Christi fidelibus est resistendum, ut fideles ipsi fidei ardore succensi, virtutibusque pro posse succinti detestandum illorum propositum, non solum obice intentionis contraire impediant, si ex oppositione roboris iniquos conatus prohibeant, et Deo cui militant, ipsis assistente perfidorum substernant molimenta, nos, que divino amore communiti, Christianorum charitate invitati, officiique pastoralis astricti debito, et quæ fidei, pro qua Christus Deus noster sanguinem effudit, integritatem, augmentumque respiciunt, nobis fidelium animis vigorem, tuamque Regiam Magestatem in hujusmodi sanctissimo proposito confovere merito cupientes, tibi Sarracenos, et Paganos, aliosque infideles, et Christi inimicos quoscunque, et ubicunque constitutos Regna, Ducatus, Comitatus, Principatus, aliaque Dominia, Terras, Loca, Villas, **Castra**, et quæcunque alia possessiones, bona mobilia, et immobilia in quibuscumque rebus consistentia, et quocunque nomine censeatur, per eosdem Sarracenos, Paganos, infideles, et Christi inimicos detenta, et possessa, etiam cujuscunque, seu quorumcunque Regis, seu Principis, aut Regum, vel Principum Regna, Ducatus, Comitatus, Principatus, aliaque Dominia, Terræ, Loca, Villæ, **Castra**, possessiones, et bona hujusmodi fuerint, invadendi, conquerendi, expugnandi, et subjugandi, illorumque personas in perpetuam servitutem redigendi, regna quoque, Ducatus, Comitatus, Principatus, alique Dominia, possessiones, et bona hujusmodi, tibi et successoribus tuis Regibus Portugalliæ, perpetuo applicandi, et appropriandi, ac in tuos eorundem successorum usus, et utilitates convertendi plenam, et liberam, auctoritate Apostolica, tenore præsentium concedimus facultatem, eandemque Regiam Magestatem tuam rogamus, requirimus, et hortamur attente, quatenus virtutis gladio præcinctus, ac forti animo præmunitus, pro divini nominis augmento, fideique exaltatione, ac animæ tuæ salute conquirenda, Deum præ oculis habens, in hujusmodi negotio, potentiam virtutis tuæ extendas, ut fides Catholica, per tuam Regiam Magestatem contra inimicos Christi triumphum se reportasse censeat, tuque coronam æternæ gloriæ, pro qua militandum est in terris, quamque promisit Deus diligentibus se, nostramque, et dictæ Sedis benedictionem, et gratiam exinde valeas uberius promereri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might be a rare case where English is more concise than Latin, since the sentence is usually translated &quot;You can enslave non-Christians.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word _castra,_ clearly intended to be understood to refer to camps (plural), appears in many other papal bulls in the same book, in similar contexts. So, I'm thinking that the Latin plural for this word, at least, is understood to mean both one and many." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2233" RevisionGUID="6028ed44-4c1d-4ec0-8552-e6e0b555c9b5" CreationDate="2017-11-04T19:35:09.703" UserId="9" Comment="added a link, edited some sentences" Text="It's the singular genitive-case form. The use is that if you know the nominative singular form, genitive singular form, and the gender of a regularly inflected Latin noun, you can predict all of its other forms. These are the &quot;[principal parts][1]&quot; of a regular Latin noun. (Some nouns have irregularities in their inflection that require more description, like the irregular first-declension noun *dea* &quot;goddess&quot; which has the ablative plural *deābus.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being given the genitive may seem a bit useless for nouns that end in &quot;a&quot; in the nominative singular, since nearly all of these are regularly inflected according to the first declension. But there are certain Greek loanwords that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the nominative singular and belong to other declension classes and/or genders, such as *problēma, problēmatis* n. and a number of other neuter third-declension nouns from Greek ending in *-ma, matis.* (See this related question that mentions a story about declining one of these nouns incorrectly: [A story of a king who wanted to simplify Latin grammar][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And knowledge of the genitive form is frequently necessary to be able to inflect nouns of the [third declension][3], where nominative singular forms often don't contain enough information to determine the other forms. For example, the nominative plural of *rēmex* is *rēmigēs,* while the nominative plural of *caudex* is *caudicēs.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://amchslatin.weebly.com/nouns.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4211/a-story-of-a-king-who-wanted-to-simplify-latin-grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect28" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5510" RevisionGUID="740221a6-e5ed-4ed7-ac1b-ef5eaadabc3c" CreationDate="2017-11-05T13:31:26.633" UserId="1818" Text="*sequi* as an example is a deponent verb. All forms are translated active, but look like passive forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a feature of the Latin language (i.e. were contemporary linguists aware of such a feature) or was the verb *sequi* simply passive, but we as translators do not have a passive verb for *&quot;to follow&quot;* in English or other languages and thus need to translate such deponents differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example for what I mean here are self-reflexive verbs: *To get used to* in english is not reflexive. (*I got used to the new president*). In German, on the contrary, it is (*Ich gewöhnte **mich** an den neuen Präsident*). Here, reflexivity is something I need to know as a German translator when translating the above sentence into German, but an English speaker wouldn't be aware of that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this the same with deponents?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18192" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5510" RevisionGUID="740221a6-e5ed-4ed7-ac1b-ef5eaadabc3c" CreationDate="2017-11-05T13:31:26.633" UserId="1818" Text="Are Deponent Verbs a feature of the Latin Language or Means of Translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18193" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5510" RevisionGUID="740221a6-e5ed-4ed7-ac1b-ef5eaadabc3c" CreationDate="2017-11-05T13:31:26.633" UserId="1818" Text="|deponent-verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5511" RevisionGUID="79480e06-e423-4c1b-b24e-73cc6a0ea6cb" CreationDate="2017-11-05T14:10:09.123" UserId="1987" Text="&gt; Augeo et Gaudeo&#xA;&#xA;Would that be a grammatically correct way of saying: &quot;(I) Increase and Rejoice&quot; ?&#xA;&#xA;The point of this is to make a short motto out of [Augeo][1] and [Gaudeo][2], **rather then** to say &quot;(I) increase and rejoice&quot;, in which case I could just use the motto &quot;Cresco et Exulto&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;But, out of interest, how compatible or comparable would &quot;Augeo et Gaudeo&quot; be to &quot;Cresco et Exulto&quot;?&#xA;&#xA;&gt; [Note: &quot;Cresco et Exulto&quot; comes from the first line of Seneca the Younger's beautiful 34th Epistle, &quot;On a Promising Pupil&quot;, and reads: &quot;Cresco et exsulto et discussa senectute recalesco quotiens ex iis quae agis ac scribis intellego quantum te ipse - nam turbam olim reliqueras - superieceris.&quot; In English: &quot;I grow in spirit and leap for joy and shake off my years and my blood runs warm again, whenever I understand, from your actions and your letters, how far you have outdone yourself; for as to the ordinary man, you left him in the rear long ago.&quot;]&#xA;&#xA;And, having stated my purpose, are there other mottos I could make out of Augeo and Gaudeo?&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/augeo&#xA;  [2]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/gaudeo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18195" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5511" RevisionGUID="79480e06-e423-4c1b-b24e-73cc6a0ea6cb" CreationDate="2017-11-05T14:10:09.123" UserId="1987" Text="Augeo et Gaudeo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18196" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5511" RevisionGUID="79480e06-e423-4c1b-b24e-73cc6a0ea6cb" CreationDate="2017-11-05T14:10:09.123" UserId="1987" Text="|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5512" RevisionGUID="23bb3ad6-5882-4c16-a431-45900b51431e" CreationDate="2017-11-05T15:30:57.567" UserId="78" Text="Indeed, historically deponents are descended from a middle/reflexive voice. In historical usage, though, deponents lost this, and can take a direct object. See e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [te sequor](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=te+sequor)  &#xD;&#xA;* [aggredior hominem](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=aggredior+hominem)&#xD;&#xA;* [te hortor](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=te+hortor)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With plenty other examples, and even verbs like *uti* [can take an accusative](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=utor&amp;la=la#lexicon) in some situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could argue that the forms themselves make the distinction, but functionally, for some of these deponents, there isn't one, and *te sequor* is grammatically equivalent to e.g. *te amo* or any other active verb with an accusative for a direct object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't limited to Latin, though, but is a character of Proto-Indo-European, as Sihler notes in § 414:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In some forms the middle developed a special sense, for example \**sek&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;etor* orig. \*'keeps in sight' (root \**sek&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;*- 'see, view) but already in PIE with the sense 'follows'—perhaps specifically a hunting term—whence G. ἕπομαι, L. *sequitur*, Ved. *sacate*, OIr. *sechithir* all 'follows'. This verb is incidentally an example of a whole type, the so-called deponent verbs, that is, verbs which occur only in the middle voice. They are found in all IE languages that preserve the active/middle distinction in more than remnants, but L is peculiar in that the old middle function (in ossified form) is confined to deponents, and the middle forms that contrast with actives are only passive, a distinctly different category." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5511" RevisionGUID="3bee0236-744e-4943-adbd-005f7932915b" CreationDate="2017-11-05T15:33:55.373" UserId="78" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="&gt; Augeo et Gaudeo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would that be a grammatically correct way of saying: &quot;(I) Increase and Rejoice&quot; ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point of this is to make a short motto out of [Augeo][1] and [Gaudeo][2], **rather than** to say &quot;(I) increase and rejoice&quot;, in which case I could just use the motto &quot;Cresco et Exulto&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, out of interest, how compatible or comparable would &quot;Augeo et Gaudeo&quot; be to &quot;Cresco et Exulto&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Note: &quot;Cresco et Exulto&quot; comes from the first line of Seneca the Younger's beautiful 34th Epistle, &quot;On a Promising Pupil&quot;, and reads: &quot;Cresco et exsulto et discussa senectute recalesco quotiens ex iis quae agis ac scribis intellego quantum te ipse - nam turbam olim reliqueras - superieceris.&quot; In English: &quot;I grow in spirit and leap for joy and shake off my years and my blood runs warm again, whenever I understand, from your actions and your letters, how far you have outdone yourself; for as to the ordinary man, you left him in the rear long ago.&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, having stated my purpose, are there other mottos I could make out of Augeo and Gaudeo?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/augeo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/gaudeo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5513" RevisionGUID="c7a9a3dd-d161-43d4-9103-011c66c3a61d" CreationDate="2017-11-05T15:34:32.580" UserId="78" Text="Depends on what you mean by &quot;I increase&quot; - you increase something, or are you yourself growing larger? There is a distinction there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you *can* use *augeo* for the latter, it's rare and more often restricted to the former meaning. You enlarge *something*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are talking about growing yourself, like &quot;I increase in size,&quot; then you should use *cresco* or *augesco* or even *incresco*, whence &quot;increase.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Gaudeo* is a perfectly good word for &quot;I rejoice.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5514" RevisionGUID="c6971cc1-87f8-493b-87be-0e820e10d426" CreationDate="2017-11-05T18:00:24.100" UserId="9" Text="My understanding is that deponent verbs, unlike passive verbs, are conjugated the same way as active verbs for a few non-finite forms/constructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, according to the document &quot;[Deponent Verbs][1]&quot; from The Latin Library online, deponent verbs use the same forms as active verbs for the **present active participle,** the **future active participle** and the **future active infinitive** (which just seems to be built using the future active participle and &quot;sum&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for example, I believe a deponent verb like &quot;sequor&quot; can be distinguished from a passive verb even without translating it, because the present participle form &quot;sequens&quot; corresponds to the meaning of &quot;sequor&quot;, while a passive verb has no present-participle form that has the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/Deponent.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5510" RevisionGUID="f125cfec-8a7d-4b26-88ae-d6846200a186" CreationDate="2017-11-05T18:34:42.070" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="*sequi* as an example is a deponent verb. All forms are translated active, but look like passive forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a feature of the Latin language (i.e. were contemporary linguists aware of such a feature) or was the verb *sequi* simply passive, but we as translators do not have a passive verb for *&quot;to follow&quot;* in English or other languages and thus need to translate such deponents differently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example for what I mean here are self-reflexive verbs: *To get used to* in english is not reflexive. (*I got used to the new president*). In German, on the contrary, it is (*Ich gewöhnte **mich** an den neuen Präsident*). Here, reflexivity is something I need to know as a German translator when translating the above sentence into German, but an English speaker wouldn't be aware of that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this the same with deponents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18203" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5510" RevisionGUID="f125cfec-8a7d-4b26-88ae-d6846200a186" CreationDate="2017-11-05T18:34:42.070" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|verbs|semantics|deponent-verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5515" RevisionGUID="b8fc405e-af07-413e-84b0-20f356114bad" CreationDate="2017-11-06T02:46:18.447" UserId="1987" Text="&gt; &quot;Caesus et Clausus&quot;&#xA;&#xA;Is that grammatically correct? It's meant as a short motto whose meaning (in this case) I think would be &quot;Struck/beaten and Shut off/Enclosed/Sealed&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;The purpose of this exercise is to make a short motto using the words [Caesus][1] and [Clausus][2].&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/caesus&#xA;  [2]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/clausus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18205" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5515" RevisionGUID="b8fc405e-af07-413e-84b0-20f356114bad" CreationDate="2017-11-06T02:46:18.447" UserId="1987" Text="Caesus et Clausus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18206" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5515" RevisionGUID="b8fc405e-af07-413e-84b0-20f356114bad" CreationDate="2017-11-06T02:46:18.447" UserId="1987" Text="|grammar-choice|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5516" RevisionGUID="b15208dc-7c14-403b-a433-b47273e6b9f7" CreationDate="2017-11-06T08:04:13.660" UserId="79" Text="Yes, it is grammatically correct, assuming you are referring to something masculine &amp;mdash; or a person or animal of unknown gender.&#xD;&#xA;If you want feminine or neuter, or perhaps a plural of some gender, you will need to change the endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The real trick is in choosing the words with the most suitable meanings.&#xD;&#xA;Take a look in Lewis and Short at [*caedere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=caedo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) and [*claudere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DC%3Aentry+group%3D53%3Aentry%3Dclaudo1) to get more details than Wiktionary gives.&#xD;&#xA;I can't judge whether they mean exactly what you want, but they look like reasonable choices to me.&#xD;&#xA;If you don't like the way it looks, you can try any of the numerous other [online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5515" RevisionGUID="ad2be1d1-c0c4-47d7-b48b-1486a121c897" CreationDate="2017-11-06T12:21:56.030" UserId="1987" Comment="added 351 characters in body" Text="&gt; &quot;Caesus et Clausus&quot;&#xA;&#xA;Is that grammatically correct? It's meant as a short motto whose meaning (in this case) I think would be &quot;Struck/beaten and Shut off/Enclosed/Sealed&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;The purpose of this exercise is to make a short motto using the words [Caesus][1] and [Clausus][2].&#xA;&#xA;Edit: And rather then Clausus, is there any Conjugation of [Claudo][3] [[L&amp;S][4]] that I could use (in the hopes of reaching something more sonorous, with a solid 'd' in it rather then 's' 's' 's' 's')?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/caesus&#xA;  [2]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/clausus&#xA;  [3]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/claudo&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dclaudo1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5515" RevisionGUID="dd43cbb8-be4c-4b63-a99c-7bb969bc1a2a" CreationDate="2017-11-06T14:37:11.387" UserId="1987" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="&gt; &quot;Caesus et Clausus&quot;&#xA;&#xA;Is that grammatically correct? It's meant as a short motto whose meaning (in this case) I think would be &quot;Struck/beaten and Shut off/Enclosed/Sealed&quot;, for a male character who has suffered some such terrible fate.&#xA;&#xA;The purpose of this exercise is to make a short motto using the words [Caesus][1] and [Clausus][2].&#xA;&#xA;Edit: And rather then Clausus, is there any Conjugation of [Claudo][3] [[L&amp;S][4]] that I could use (in the hopes of reaching something more sonorous, with a solid 'd' in it rather then 's' 's' 's' 's')?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/caesus&#xA;  [2]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/clausus&#xA;  [3]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/claudo&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dclaudo1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5517" RevisionGUID="e2687ea7-8685-44ac-8809-d09bd8b36dfc" CreationDate="2017-11-06T15:39:39.733" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18212" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5517" RevisionGUID="e2687ea7-8685-44ac-8809-d09bd8b36dfc" CreationDate="2017-11-06T15:39:39.733" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5518" RevisionGUID="5efb71ad-8cf4-4532-8918-6fffe84cd5bc" CreationDate="2017-11-06T15:39:39.733" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18214" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5518" RevisionGUID="5efb71ad-8cf4-4532-8918-6fffe84cd5bc" CreationDate="2017-11-06T15:39:39.733" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5516" RevisionGUID="a4462728-1876-4fbe-8d38-d7ea84b86534" CreationDate="2017-11-06T20:11:13.247" UserId="79" Comment="added 487 characters in body" Text="Yes, it is grammatically correct, assuming you are referring to something masculine &amp;mdash; or a person or animal of unknown gender.&#xD;&#xA;If you want feminine or neuter, or perhaps a plural of some gender, you will need to change the endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want something with the stems *caed-* and *claud-* instead of the *-s-* in the perfect stems, then I would suggest *caedor et claudor* (&quot;I am cut and closed&quot;) or *caeditur et clauditur* (&quot;he/she/it is cut and closed&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;These are different to use since these are personal forms instead of participles.&#xD;&#xA;Yet another way to vary the motto is to use *-que* instead of *et* (see [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1/79) for a comparison), as in *caedor claudorque*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The real trick is in choosing the words with the most suitable meanings.&#xD;&#xA;Take a look in Lewis and Short at [*caedere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=caedo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) and [*claudere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DC%3Aentry+group%3D53%3Aentry%3Dclaudo1) to get more details than Wiktionary gives.&#xD;&#xA;I can't judge whether they mean exactly what you want, but they look like reasonable choices to me.&#xD;&#xA;If you don't like the way it looks, you can try any of the numerous other [online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5476" RevisionGUID="6f989f90-5e01-4050-8862-dbf1e77f4f06" CreationDate="2017-11-06T22:04:07.683" UserId="79" Comment="added 331 characters in body" Text="How do you say &quot;whole grain&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The expressions in Romance languages are fairly similar, and based on them I would guess *granum integrum*.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I might say *panem grani integri edere malo*.&#xD;&#xA;I did not manage to find any relevant passages from any era concerning whole grain in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The typical &quot;partial grain&quot; products are made by separating parts from whole grain, so it is fathomable that the Romans could have had a word for it.&#xD;&#xA;But any era is fine here, it does not have to be classical.&#xD;&#xA;And it doesn't even have to be attested as such; a clear analogy to other similarly &quot;whole&quot; things is acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone can suggest an attested or otherwise well justified translation, I would be happy to hear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5515" RevisionGUID="1f5a2831-6f80-45d4-9b24-15e9369ce9a3" CreationDate="2017-11-07T05:41:53.193" UserId="1987" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="&gt; &quot;Caesus et Clausus&quot;&#xA;&#xA;Is that grammatically correct? It's meant as a short motto whose meaning (in this case) I think would be &quot;Struck/beaten and Shut off/Enclosed/Sealed&quot;, for a male character who has suffered some such terrible fate.&#xA;&#xA;The purpose of this exercise is to make a short motto using the words [Caesus][1] and [Clausus][2].&#xA;&#xA;Edit: And rather then Clausus, is there any Conjugation of [Claudo][3] [[L&amp;S][4]] that I could use (in the hopes of reaching something more sonorous, with a solid 'd' in it rather then 's' 's' 's' 's')? Specifically: Is there any way to use the Caes- and Claud- stems together?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/caesus&#xA;  [2]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/clausus&#xA;  [3]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/claudo&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dclaudo1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5516" RevisionGUID="a7421dd6-c856-4a80-a0d3-aac6761e9063" CreationDate="2017-11-07T06:46:34.573" UserId="79" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="Yes, it is grammatically correct, assuming you are referring to something masculine &amp;mdash; or a person or animal of unknown gender.&#xD;&#xA;If you want feminine or neuter, or perhaps a plural of some gender, you will need to change the endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want something with the stems *caed-* and *claud-* instead of the *-s-* in the perfect stems, then I would suggest *caedor et claudor* (&quot;I am cut and closed&quot;) or *caeditur et clauditur* (&quot;he/she/it is cut and closed&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;These are different to use since these are personal forms instead of participles.&#xD;&#xA;It is also possible to mix, like *caesus claudor* (&quot;I am closed when I am cut&quot;), but then the two verbs are not on equal footing.&#xD;&#xA;Yet another way to vary the motto is to use *-que* instead of *et* (see [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1/79) for a comparison), as in *caedor claudorque*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The real trick is in choosing the words with the most suitable meanings.&#xD;&#xA;Take a look in Lewis and Short at [*caedere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=caedo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) and [*claudere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DC%3Aentry+group%3D53%3Aentry%3Dclaudo1) to get more details than Wiktionary gives.&#xD;&#xA;I can't judge whether they mean exactly what you want, but they look like reasonable choices to me.&#xD;&#xA;If you don't like the way it looks, you can try any of the numerous other [online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5518" RevisionGUID="63486344-9e4a-4c3e-a04d-1f027595eac5" CreationDate="2017-11-07T09:27:24.997" UserId="648" Comment="added 247 characters in body" Text="This is a special tag that is designed to be used only by the system for questions that have had all of their other tags removed. Do not add this tag to existing questions, it is reserved for use by the system to identify posts with no valid tags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18222" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5518" RevisionGUID="63486344-9e4a-4c3e-a04d-1f027595eac5" CreationDate="2017-11-07T09:27:24.997" Comment="Proposed by 648 approved by 79 edit id of 217" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5519" RevisionGUID="457b6483-9834-4790-8887-686e11854834" CreationDate="2017-11-07T16:28:31.420" UserId="45" Text="The [*Apicius*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apicius) (which includes some &quot;vulgar&quot; Latin) speaks of a *piperis granum* (peppercorn) that is *solidum* or *integrum*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at, ubi coctum fuerit, levabis cum iure suo et in patellam alternis de trulla refundes cum **piperis grana integra** et nucleis pineis, ita ut per singula coria substernas diploidem, in laganum similiter. (4.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I could be missing something, but I'm really not sure why **grana integra** is not ablative here...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Leporem farsum: nucleos integros, amygdala, nuces sive glandes concisas, **piperis grana solida**, pulpam de ipso lepore. (8.8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems a fairly straightforward extrapolation to apply this to a grains as well, so I think your suggestion is good: **panis grani integri**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5521" RevisionGUID="205c50a7-e584-4088-9fd9-cdb795df90db" CreationDate="2017-11-07T20:42:39.310" UserId="79" Text="I wanted to see how the imperative *pate&amp;#x306;re* of *pati* is used and I made [a corpus search](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23patere%23).&#xD;&#xA;However, most of the results seem to be polluted with the infinitive *pat&amp;emacr;re*, and I'm having hard time finding examples of the imperative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you list a couple of passages with the imperative *pati* (the more, the better) so I could get a better sense of how it is used?&#xD;&#xA;(I will ask a separate question about corpus searches with specific vowel lengths at some point.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18231" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5521" RevisionGUID="205c50a7-e584-4088-9fd9-cdb795df90db" CreationDate="2017-11-07T20:42:39.310" UserId="79" Text="Are there classical examples of the imperative patere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18232" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5521" RevisionGUID="205c50a7-e584-4088-9fd9-cdb795df90db" CreationDate="2017-11-07T20:42:39.310" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|passage-request|imperative|deponent-verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5522" RevisionGUID="70c27adf-dd2a-4945-8a95-8f9748cc4873" CreationDate="2017-11-08T02:45:30.573" UserId="45" Text="I don't know of a good way to distinguish *patere* from *patēre* in a corpus search, so I think you have three choices:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Look through the results.&#xD;&#xA;2. Come up with another search that captures what you are looking for.&#xD;&#xA;3. Try to think of a contextual word that would remove (most) false positives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it happens, all three methods worked for me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The second result in your link is perfectly good, though it comes from Plautus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Pyrg. Quid ego? híc astabo tántisper cum hac fórma et factis frústra?  &#xD;&#xA;Pal. **Patere** átque asta, tibi ego hánc do operam. (Plautus, *Miles Gloriosus* 1021-22)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If you are insistent on something classical, you can filter it with something like &quot;[Cic]&quot;. The third page had the following result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Nunc te obiurgari **patere**, si iure. (Cicero, *Epistulae ad Atticum* 4.16.9)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you are just looking for an imperative...why not search for *patimini*? Though you still have some false positives for the indicative, it's not too difficult to sort through:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Tum Scipio: **Patimini** me, quoniam tertium diem iam feriati sumus... (Cicero, *De Republica* 6.8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Why not search for an obvious combination, such as [&quot;patere me&quot;](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23patere+me%23) (=&quot;allow me&quot;)? The linked page includes 4 results, all of which are imperative and 3 of which are classical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5523" RevisionGUID="10fe7269-0aaf-4cf2-8099-46e63736c7a0" CreationDate="2017-11-08T10:02:47.980" UserId="79" Text="Is there a text corpus, preferably of classical Latin, in which one can or even must search with specific vowel quantities?&#xD;&#xA;This came up [when I wanted to search for *patĕre* but not *patēre*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5521/79) and had difficulties.&#xD;&#xA;The specific need was satisfied, but the general question remains:&#xD;&#xA;Can I disambiguate different vowel quantities in a corpus search?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18235" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5523" RevisionGUID="10fe7269-0aaf-4cf2-8099-46e63736c7a0" CreationDate="2017-11-08T10:02:47.980" UserId="79" Text="Does any text corpus allow quantity-sensitive searches?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18236" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5523" RevisionGUID="10fe7269-0aaf-4cf2-8099-46e63736c7a0" CreationDate="2017-11-08T10:02:47.980" UserId="79" Text="|vowel-quantity|soft-question|text-corpus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5521" RevisionGUID="718d6b15-a723-431d-946d-e9d7182297fd" CreationDate="2017-11-08T10:06:28.457" UserId="79" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="I wanted to see how the imperative *pate&amp;#x306;re* of *pati* is used and I made [a corpus search](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23patere%23).&#xD;&#xA;However, most of the results seem to be polluted with the infinitive *pat&amp;emacr;re*, and I'm having hard time finding examples of the imperative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you list a couple of passages with the imperative *pati* (the more, the better) so I could get a better sense of how it is used?&#xD;&#xA;I asked [a separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5523/79) about corpus searches with specific vowel lengths." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4084" RevisionGUID="a6202110-4cb5-493e-8540-eecb6f403538" CreationDate="2017-11-08T12:28:51.797" UserId="645" Comment="Added material for clarification" Text="You should use a distributive. Cicero, ad Atticum, 5. 3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ibi mihi tuae litterae binae redditae sunt tertio abs te die*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This works for all such plural nouns, but you should take care over the case and gender. As with some larger cardinal numbers, it's a common mistake to forget that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Additional clarification]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. _Unae litterae_ is not necessarily as wrong as I suggested in answer to a comment by @kkm, but the uses of *unus* and *singulus* are somewhat subjective. Where *unae litterae* is found, it's little different from plain *litterae*; but if you need to write of more than one [camp, say] at different places, you should use *castrae singulae* [*Romae et Ostiae*, etc] *positae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. In English, 'one', 'single', 'only', singular', unique', 'sole' etc. each have their uses, which are sometimes problematic in translating between the two languages. I would translate the example *adeo ut una castra iam facta ex binis viderentur* from the comments as 'indeed that a single camp would appear (*sc*. to have been) made from two', but I might equally well write 'just one camp'.&#xD;&#xA;3. A separate question might be better; these are muddy waters. &#xD;&#xA;The problems are partly caused by the lack of a plural for the indefinite article in English, and of any indefinite article in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4335" RevisionGUID="d3f1fbd7-1ec9-4778-b0d2-890dcc529944" CreationDate="2017-11-08T13:07:20.067" UserId="79" Comment="added 209 characters in body" Text="Whether or not this is how the forms really developed, this is how I organize it in my head.&#xD;&#xA;And it has proven quite efficient, so I consider it a good description of what classical Latin conjugation is even if it fails to describe where it comes from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the theme vowels in conjugations 1, 2, and 4 are long: *&amp;amacr;, &amp;emacr;, &amp;imacr;*.&#xD;&#xA;The vowel *i* in conjugation 3 is short (whether part of the stem or not).&#xD;&#xA;The question then is, what can shorten the vowel?&#xD;&#xA;Nothing can cause the third conjugation one to become long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These cause the preceding long vowel to become short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- word-final *t*&#xD;&#xA;- the clusters *nt* and *nd*&#xD;&#xA;- another vowel (eg. *aud**e&amp;#x306;**&amp;omacr;*, *aud**i&amp;#x306;**&amp;emacr;ns*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the theme vowel is completely lost in conjugation 1 before *&amp;omacr;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These rules also apply to vowels added after the stem, for example in present participles and gerundives.&#xD;&#xA;Just imagine that the *&amp;emacr;* added is long at first and becomes short before *nt* and *nd*.&#xD;&#xA;The suppletive vowels in personal forms are always short &amp;mdash; they always come before *nt* unless I forget something.&#xD;&#xA;(Perhaps *sumus* could be a counterexample, but one can't really expect *esse* to follow standard morphology in all respects.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to work perfectly for regular verbs.&#xD;&#xA;I don't promise that it works for irregular ones, but the same guidelines help get at least most of the vowel lengths right.&#xD;&#xA;There are some edge cases one has to learn separately, but surprisingly few." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18244" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5385" RevisionGUID="2b611e51-984f-4f93-8533-22c5aa2e7320" CreationDate="2017-11-09T06:47:22.347" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="18245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5524" RevisionGUID="25169722-6b3f-4695-a088-0956d6b98b44" CreationDate="2017-11-09T07:56:27.623" UserId="79" Text="How can I say in Latin that it is raining on something?&#xD;&#xA;I can find ways around like *pluvia rem tingit*, but I would like something more literally &quot;it rains on something&quot; than &quot;the rain makes something wet&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Would something like *pluit super re* or *pluit in rem* work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18246" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5524" RevisionGUID="25169722-6b3f-4695-a088-0956d6b98b44" CreationDate="2017-11-09T07:56:27.623" UserId="79" Text="How to say that it rains on something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18247" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5524" RevisionGUID="25169722-6b3f-4695-a088-0956d6b98b44" CreationDate="2017-11-09T07:56:27.623" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|weather|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5525" RevisionGUID="f01d774f-0aba-4ad9-9ae6-fbc98f8b8d29" CreationDate="2017-11-09T09:20:15.207" UserId="867" Text="Augustine uses *super* in the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *pluit super iustos et iniustos* / it rains on the just and the unjust (*City of God*, 4.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be as simple as using [impluere][1].  It's used literally of rain (e.g. Pliny, *Nat. Hist.*, 2.210) and figuratively, of punches raining down on someone, for example (Plautus, *Most.*, 871).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=impluo&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5525" RevisionGUID="61cd7ec3-5860-4fc4-a593-04149c1d3a90" CreationDate="2017-11-09T10:40:38.987" UserId="867" Comment="Answering comment re: usage" Text="Augustine uses *super* in the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *pluit super iustos et iniustos* / it rains on the just and the unjust (*City of God*, 4.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it could be as simple as using [impluere][1].  It's used literally of rain (e.g. Pliny, *Nat. Hist.*, 2.210) and figuratively, of punches raining down on someone, for example (Plautus, *Most.*, 871).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT RE: USAGE &#xD;&#xA;The *Oxford Latin Dictionary* specifies that the dative is used in figurative phrases.  Hence the *ceteris &amp; mi* in the Plautus example.  This must also explain the *summis silvis* in Ovid, *Met.*, 1.573 but I have to admit it doesn't seem that figurative to me (although the OLD lists it under figurative uses).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny (*Nat. Hist.*, 2.210) uses *in* + accusative, in addition to *impluere*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *in cuius quandam aream non impluit* / into whose particular courtyard it doesn't rain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All other uses cited imply the object or *impluere* is simply used impersonally without expressing an object, so it makes it hard to extrapolate a hard and fast rule about the use of prepositions and/or the accusative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=impluo&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5526" RevisionGUID="7387057a-5be6-4e75-abf3-fc6a785a6ace" CreationDate="2017-11-09T14:01:46.217" UserId="78" Text="No, the form is accidental. Instead it's onomatopoeic, which can be deduced by it's cognates in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek ololyzein [ὀλολύζειν], Sanskrit ululih &quot;a howling,&quot; Lithuanian uluti &quot;howl,&quot; Gaelic uileliugh &quot;wail of lamentation,&quot; Old English ule &quot;owl&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek diminutives aren't [formed by a lambda](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diminutives_by_language&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjO3JTJ07HXAhUo7oMKHXbMBQwQFggsMAI&amp;usg=AOvVaw3NdCpfhiMEYhQ2vJIU1FIi)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5526" RevisionGUID="8a659b80-77b0-473e-bd8e-735b7bc0f65a" CreationDate="2017-11-09T14:07:55.477" UserId="78" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="No, the form is accidental. Instead it's onomatopoeic, which can be deduced by it's cognates in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek ololyzein [ὀλολύζειν], Sanskrit ululih &quot;a howling,&quot; Lithuanian uluti &quot;howl,&quot; Gaelic uileliugh &quot;wail of lamentation,&quot; Old English ule &quot;owl&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek diminutives aren't [formed by a lambda](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diminutives_by_language&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjO3JTJ07HXAhUo7oMKHXbMBQwQFggsMAI&amp;usg=AOvVaw3NdCpfhiMEYhQ2vJIU1FIi).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That Latin's diminutives do is coincidence. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5527" RevisionGUID="682b42b6-08fd-43b8-9e34-d2cf6e6e6b0b" CreationDate="2017-11-09T15:02:04.127" UserId="45" Text="A [*commentum*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dcommentum) (from [*comminiscor*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcomminiscor)) is, according to the *Elementary Latin Dictionary*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an invention, fabrication, pretence, fiction, falsehood&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At some point, a *commentarium* (and, I presume, its cognate forms) came to mean something much more similar to English &quot;commentary/comment,&quot; e.g. Aquinas's *In Aristotelis De Anima Commentarium*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How (and when) did *commentum* adopt this much more neutral meaning?** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18253" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5527" RevisionGUID="682b42b6-08fd-43b8-9e34-d2cf6e6e6b0b" CreationDate="2017-11-09T15:02:04.127" UserId="45" Text="When did &quot;comment&quot; stop meaning &quot;lie&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18254" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5527" RevisionGUID="682b42b6-08fd-43b8-9e34-d2cf6e6e6b0b" CreationDate="2017-11-09T15:02:04.127" UserId="45" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5526" RevisionGUID="49ab898d-99eb-430e-884b-ad57943666db" CreationDate="2017-11-09T15:05:40.207" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="No, the form is accidental. Instead it's onomatopoeic, which can be deduced by it's cognates in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek ololyzein [ὀλολύζειν], Sanskrit ululih &quot;a howling,&quot; Lithuanian uluti &quot;howl,&quot; Gaelic uileliugh &quot;wail of lamentation,&quot; Old English ule &quot;owl&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek diminutives aren't [formed by a lambda](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diminutives_by_language&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjO3JTJ07HXAhUo7oMKHXbMBQwQFggsMAI&amp;usg=AOvVaw3NdCpfhiMEYhQ2vJIU1FIi). That Latin's diminutives do is coincidence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3054" RevisionGUID="007ced01-f09f-4b39-912d-937dbc01ab49" CreationDate="2017-11-09T17:47:50.613" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted the link. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="I stumbled across [this question on the pronunciation of 'vacuum'](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/21560/why-does-vacuum-have-two-us-and-how-is-it-pronounced) in the “linguistics” forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: If uacuus is *wak+wo- why does uacuus have three syllables, but uiuus, paruus, caluus etc. have only two? Is there a rule that says that *wu remains after sonants (including l, r) but becomes *uu otherwise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18257" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="3054" RevisionGUID="6edb78f9-cbb0-4fd2-84f7-0861c45048e6" CreationDate="2017-11-09T17:48:36.023" UserId="79" Comment="57" />
  <row Id="18258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1132" RevisionGUID="1c16ca82-c741-41bd-964b-092275ab4d8c" CreationDate="2017-11-09T17:58:12.537" UserId="79" Comment="I moved the image to a different place to avoid the threat of link rot." Text="A typical upper- and probably also middle-class Roman house in the classical age contained a *peristylium* or *peristylum*, or so I was told. I wonder why they used a Greek word for such a standard Roman architectural feature. Did they also have a Latin term for it? Or was the feature adopted from Greek architecture?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus question: if the construction was borrowed from the Greeks, when did this happen, and what did Roman houses look like before?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Origin of picture: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Brogi%2C_Carlo_%281850-1925%29_-_Pompei_-_Domus_Vettiorum_-_Veduta_del_peristilio_-_n._9711_-_ca._1896.jpg](https://i.stack.imgur.com/XHGu9.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/XHGu9.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18259" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1132" RevisionGUID="c47fba63-a84e-4723-b649-99b1c1fbac19" CreationDate="2017-11-09T17:59:33.707" UserId="79" Comment="58" />
  <row Id="18260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="20" RevisionGUID="51b2e18b-9076-461f-bc72-1e00e55389aa" CreationDate="2017-11-09T18:13:04.390" UserId="79" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="Bennett's New Latin Grammar ([this link](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect234) will take you to appropriate section) offers several helpful rules of thumb for the agreement of an adjective with multiple nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I recommend reading the above entry, which is fairly short, the basic principles are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Attributive adjectives** agree with the nearest noun in both gender and number, e.g. &quot;Filius *meus* et soror&quot; vs. &quot;Filius et soror *mea*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Predicative adjectives** are made **plural** and:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **agree with the nouns** if they are the same gender, e.g. &quot;Filia et mater mea sunt pulchrae&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 2. are **masculine** if the nouns are persons, e.g. &quot;Soror et frater inepti sunt.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 3. are **neuter** if the nouns are things, e.g. &quot;urbes et moenia foeda sunt&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the nouns are mixed, things get more arbitrary and there do not seem to be hard and fast rules, beyond what a Latin ear tells you is right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case you mention, the above rules would indicate the **neuter plural** (visitata). Here too, though, I do not think there is a wrong or right answer, and my own inexperienced ear would feel more comfortable with the feminine plural because of the juxtaposition with Roma." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18261" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4" RevisionGUID="266b919c-4669-4841-ade5-9962879eddfc" CreationDate="2017-11-09T18:14:51.657" UserId="79" Comment="59" />
  <row Id="18262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5528" RevisionGUID="a6c07104-b0c1-473f-87e3-b54550984d1e" CreationDate="2017-11-09T21:03:47.033" UserId="235" Text="I was reading about maple trees this afternoon, and I was delighted to find out that the genus name is &quot;Acer&quot;, named after the Latin adjective meaning &quot;sharp&quot;, because maple wood was firm, sharp, and desirable. I believe it was used by Romans to make both spears and writing tablets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know the exact species of maple trees that existed in Ancient Rome? Here in the States I often see the sugar maple (&quot;Acer saccharum&quot;) and the Japanese maple (&quot;Acer palmatum&quot;) but I don't know whether these species are native to Italy and existed in Ancient Rome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, how would an Ancient Roman refer to these maple trees? Would he or she call them *acer* (singular) or *acera* (plural)? Or would the plural be *acres*, after the adjective? Did they have different words to distinguish between different species of maple, or just the one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18263" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5528" RevisionGUID="a6c07104-b0c1-473f-87e3-b54550984d1e" CreationDate="2017-11-09T21:03:47.033" UserId="235" Text="Maple trees in Ancient Rome" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18264" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5528" RevisionGUID="a6c07104-b0c1-473f-87e3-b54550984d1e" CreationDate="2017-11-09T21:03:47.033" UserId="235" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5528" RevisionGUID="bf9ff648-d305-48d4-a466-ed5a20e467fd" CreationDate="2017-11-09T21:11:56.457" UserId="235" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="I was reading about maple trees this afternoon, and I was delighted to find out that the genus name is &quot;Acer&quot;, named after the Latin adjective meaning &quot;sharp&quot;, because maple wood was firm, sharp, and desirable. I believe it was used by Romans to make both spears and writing tablets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know the exact species of maple trees that existed in Ancient Rome? Here in the States I often see the sugar maple (&quot;Acer saccharum&quot;) and the Japanese maple (&quot;Acer palmatum&quot;) but this is not what the Romans saw when they looked at maples.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; What maples did they see?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, how would an Ancient Roman refer to these maple trees? Would he or she call them *acer* (singular) or *acera* (plural)? Or would the plural be *acres*, after the adjective? Did they have different words to distinguish between different species of maple, or just the one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The sugar maple is native to the Americas; the Japanese maple to Japan and eastern europe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5528" RevisionGUID="4a8304b2-42bf-433b-9a6b-5a8f4753168c" CreationDate="2017-11-09T21:12:49.610" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="I was reading about maple trees this afternoon, and I was delighted to find out that the genus name is &quot;Acer&quot;, named after the Latin adjective meaning &quot;sharp&quot;, because maple wood was firm, sharp, and desirable. I believe it was used by Romans to make both spears and writing tablets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know the exact species of maple trees that existed in Ancient Rome? Here in the States I often see the sugar maple (&quot;Acer saccharum&quot;) and the Japanese maple (&quot;Acer palmatum&quot;) but this is not what the Romans saw when they looked at maples.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; What maples did they see?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, how would an Ancient Roman refer to these maple trees? Would he or she call them *acer* (singular) or *acera* (plural)? Or would the plural be *acres*, after the adjective? Did they have different words to distinguish between different species of maple, or just the one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The sugar maple is native to the Americas; the Japanese maple to Japan and eastern Europe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18267" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5528" RevisionGUID="4a8304b2-42bf-433b-9a6b-5a8f4753168c" CreationDate="2017-11-09T21:12:49.610" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|biology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5528" RevisionGUID="febc264a-51f9-45c9-a8a4-bf86b875cc32" CreationDate="2017-11-10T01:20:07.777" UserId="235" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I was reading about maple trees this afternoon, and I was delighted to find out that the genus name is &quot;Acer&quot;, named after the Latin adjective meaning &quot;sharp&quot;, because maple wood was firm, sharp, and desirable. I believe it was used by Romans to make both spears and writing tablets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know the exact species of maple trees that existed in Ancient Rome? Here in the States I often see the sugar maple (&quot;Acer saccharum&quot;) and the Japanese maple (&quot;Acer palmatum&quot;) but this is not what the Romans saw when they looked at maples.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; What maples did they see?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, how would an Ancient Roman refer to these maple trees? Would he or she call them *acer* (singular) and *acera* (plural)? Or would the plural be *acres*, after the adjective? Did they have different words to distinguish between different species of maple, or just the one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The sugar maple is native to the Americas; the Japanese maple to Japan and eastern Europe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5529" RevisionGUID="bf6b8451-08f4-4725-ad00-de2aeae751da" CreationDate="2017-11-10T13:23:27.487" UserId="324" Text="The noun acer, aceris n. (with short a) “maple tree” is not related to the adjective ācer, -is, -e (with long ā) “sharp”. The former is cognate with German Ahorn." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5529" RevisionGUID="2c0357f4-b6af-4b4d-b5c9-9450061d72f5" CreationDate="2017-11-10T13:31:07.857" UserId="324" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="The noun acer, aceris n. (with short a) “maple tree” is probably not related to the adjective ācer, -is, -e (with long ā) “sharp”. The former is cognate with German Ahorn." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5529" RevisionGUID="65bd953c-f35e-4f5b-90fe-529777006c3e" CreationDate="2017-11-10T13:38:55.633" UserId="324" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;The noun acer, aceris n. (with short a) “maple tree” is not the same word as adjective ācer, ācris, -ācre (with long ā) “sharp”, n., though it is possible that they share the same Indo-Euopean origin. The former is cognate with German Ahorn." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5529" RevisionGUID="a419fb17-08d3-4bbd-b039-f62b56e67080" CreationDate="2017-11-10T14:44:37.610" UserId="324" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="The noun acer, aceris n. (with short a) “maple tree” is not the same word as the adjective ācer, ācris, ācre (with long ā) “sharp”, n., though it is possible that they share the same Indo-Euopean origin. The former is cognate with German Ahorn." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5531" RevisionGUID="e70d0e0b-fd25-4bc7-a318-02ee839d0af4" CreationDate="2017-11-10T15:04:48.657" UserId="79" Text="The Greek word [*ἀνάλυσις*][1] is a reasonable word for &quot;analysis&quot; or &quot;recognition&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It means roughly &quot;understanding by pulling apart&quot;, whereas the opposite *σύνθεσις* is more about combining.&#xD;&#xA;The derived adjective [*ἀναλυτικός*][2] means &quot;analytical&quot;, and it can be borrowed to Latin as *analyticus*.&#xD;&#xA;This appears not to be attested in classical Latin, but it is a loan that would have been understandable to any Roman familiar with the Greek word *ἀνάλυσις*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *homo analyticus* is a good choice, and I suggest going with that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be something better, of course, this is the best one I could think of.&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, it has the benefit of being easily understandable to a number of people that lack classical education.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da)na%2Flusis&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*a%3Aentry+group%3D139%3Aentry%3Da%29nalutiko%2Fs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5531" RevisionGUID="8c220dc8-8790-41c8-b680-89d04a3fc6ff" CreationDate="2017-11-10T15:18:13.567" UserId="79" Comment="added 1063 characters in body" Text="The Greek word [*ἀνάλυσις*][1] is a reasonable word for &quot;analysis&quot; or &quot;recognition&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It means roughly &quot;understanding by pulling apart&quot;, whereas the opposite *σύνθεσις* is more about combining.&#xD;&#xA;The derived adjective [*ἀναλυτικός*][2] means &quot;analytical&quot;, and it can be borrowed to Latin as *analyticus*.&#xD;&#xA;This appears not to be attested in classical Latin, but it is a loan that would have been understandable to any Roman familiar with the Greek word *ἀνάλυσις*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *homo analyticus* is a good choice, and I suggest going with that.&#xD;&#xA;It has the benefit of being easily understandable to a number of people that lack classical education.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this expression comes across to me as somewhat humorous, and I would not use it in a serious context.&#xD;&#xA;If you want something more serious, I am not convinced that *homo* and an adjective is a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;Much depends on the broader context.&#xD;&#xA;What language is the text in?&#xD;&#xA;What is the field of study and what people are described with the desired term?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a good Latin verb [*diiudicare*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=dijudico&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) (or *dijudicare*, depending on how you prefer to spell) for distinguishing.&#xD;&#xA;The most natural choice seems to be *diiudicator*, a &quot;distinguisher&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;See the linked dictionary entry to see whether the verb means the kind of activity you had in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging by [your newer (now deleted) question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5530/79) with some more context, I have the impression that you are looking for something more serious.&#xD;&#xA;Whether either of my two suggestions works depends on the exact context.&#xD;&#xA;In the future, **when you make word requests or ask for short translations, please give context and explain carefully**.&#xD;&#xA;It is really important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da)na%2Flusis&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*a%3Aentry+group%3D139%3Aentry%3Da%29nalutiko%2Fs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5483" RevisionGUID="f43c88a1-084b-4473-a3ff-9284b795fc4d" CreationDate="2017-11-10T15:20:17.267" UserId="79" Comment="Added context from the other question." Text="How to say pattern recognizer/analyzer or describe someone who can differentiate patterns?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest thing that I could find was *homo analyticus*. Are there any better descriptors available?&#xD;&#xA;*Homo Discriminaticus* sounds nice but obviously gibberish, Google Translate is of no help either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context: This is for a thesis, a serious project. The term Discrimination is a positive term as in being able to **differentiate** between things/events." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5529" RevisionGUID="35c243ff-0b3e-4a33-b8c0-56012e19cdfc" CreationDate="2017-11-10T17:54:54.740" UserId="324" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="The noun acer, aceris n. (with short a) “maple tree” is not the same word as the adjective ācer, ācris, ācre (with long ā) “sharp”, though it is possible that they share the same Indo-Euopean origin. The former is cognate with German Ahorn." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18289" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="1904" RevisionGUID="8edfe243-561a-4762-b6d1-b4b9cb67e495" CreationDate="2017-11-10T22:43:29.127" UserId="30" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:30,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Cerberus&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5533" RevisionGUID="6de90366-e1b6-4231-be23-5c3e28de3ec0" CreationDate="2017-11-10T23:05:22.007" UserId="79" Text="Recently when reading some material related to research grants, I came across the Latin phrase *pro rata temporis* in English text.&#xD;&#xA;It was easy enough to understand in the context.&#xD;&#xA;For example, a 600&amp;nbsp;000&amp;nbsp;&amp;euro; grant might be for three years, and if one applies for a shorter period of time, the maximum money is reduced *pro rata temporis*, so that for two years one can get at most 400&amp;nbsp;000&amp;nbsp;&amp;euro;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how do I parse the Latin phrase?&#xD;&#xA;I have difficulties seeing how it could mean what it does.&#xD;&#xA;Is the phrase an abbreviation of something longer?&#xD;&#xA;Does it have an origin that would help me understand how it works?&#xD;&#xA;Would the phrase make sense in classical Latin without context?&#xD;&#xA;I take it that *rata* is a perfect participle of [*reri*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=reor&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), and L&amp;S lists under II.B.1 *pro rata parte/portione*, which makes me think that perhaps an ablative like *parte* or *portione* is implied." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18291" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5533" RevisionGUID="6de90366-e1b6-4231-be23-5c3e28de3ec0" CreationDate="2017-11-10T23:05:22.007" UserId="79" Text="Parsing pro rata temporis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18292" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5533" RevisionGUID="6de90366-e1b6-4231-be23-5c3e28de3ec0" CreationDate="2017-11-10T23:05:22.007" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5534" RevisionGUID="33f5234f-f50f-439d-894d-f182cdc30f87" CreationDate="2017-11-11T02:16:45.020" UserId="985" Text="Yes, *parte* or *portione* is understood here; sometimes it's explicit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*OLD* has a separate entry for the adjective *ratus* (in origin, the perfect participle of *reor*). Definition 3 is 'Determined, fixed, certain,' and definition 3b is as follows (bold added for emphasis):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *~a pars*, a fixed proportion; esp. *pro ~a parte* (*portione*), in proportion; **also *pro ~a* alone**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One attestation is *CIL* 2.5181.27 (from Hispania), which actually uses the phrase *pro rata temporis* (without *parte* or *portione*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; EIUS TEMPORIS PRO RATA PENSIONEM CONDUCTOR REPUTARE DEBETO" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1007" RevisionGUID="486df996-c8ec-4d95-a114-88ecd05f9fc9" CreationDate="2017-11-11T18:02:26.573" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="Epistólió in electronicó quídam mihi sic scrípsit: &quot;Quid tibi vidétur dé Epistuliís Leónínís?&quot; (Epistulæ Leónínæ acta sunt hebdomadália ab eó missa, quás nóndum vídí.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sententia (síve phrasis) &quot;Quid tibi vidétur dé [néscióquó]&quot; mihi ignóta est. Quid velit dícere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Hóc in linguá Latíná scríptó, cernó sérius respónsum anglicum potius quam latínum mihi conveníre&amp;hellip;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18296" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1007" RevisionGUID="486df996-c8ec-4d95-a114-88ecd05f9fc9" CreationDate="2017-11-11T18:02:26.573" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|idiom|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5535" RevisionGUID="1b157541-bf2e-4757-ac23-ac5f215bc47c" CreationDate="2017-11-11T20:46:28.770" UserId="172" Text="*One pants? One scissors?* Oh, no way! This is a follow-up to the @brianpck's question [How do I specify how many “litterae” or “castra” there are?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4083/172), and the [accepted answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4084/172) was to use distributive numerals with the pluralia tantum nouns, which are morphologically plural even when their denotate is a single object. The answser did not provide any exceptions for expressing the quantity of *one* such a thing, and the answerer even confirmed that a distributive form is used with a single *castra* or *litterae* in my follow-up comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not specifically learn Latin grammar by section and paragraph, and mainly developed my understanding from texts, using grammar books only for reference. The answer struck me as odd, as my internalized pattern (which often happens to be wrong because of my way of study) suggested using a gendered plural *unum* for one such thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example that I immediately came accross was from (Caes. B.G., 1, 74): *ut una castra iam facta ex binis viderentur*: “[They mingled together so much] that two camps ostensibly made one”. A possible argument that *castra* could somehow be used as a normal countable noun of the feminine gender does not work here, because *una facta castra* (which might be considered as either `NEUT-PL` or `FEM-SG` from morphology) does not work syntactically, as the whole NP is the subject of the verb *viderentur* which is plural, which makes the `*FEM-SG` parse is impossible. Caesar here undoubtedly uses *una* with the neuter plural *castra*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A&amp;G $137](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-137.html).b. states [the bold highlight is mine]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Distributives are used as follows:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; b. Instead of cardinals, to express simple number, when a noun plural in form but usually singular in meaning **is used in a plural sense**: as, *bīna castra*, two camps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This conspicuously does not say anything about the singular entity. (To confuse matters further, they have to add that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (*duo castra* would mean *two forts*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but this is not our gripe at the moment.) The PHI corpus, not being POS-tagged, does not help, as *singuli* is also a from of the ADJ *singulum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is the correct way to express *one* “litterae” or “castra” in Classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18298" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5535" RevisionGUID="1b157541-bf2e-4757-ac23-ac5f215bc47c" CreationDate="2017-11-11T20:46:28.770" UserId="172" Text="Numeral form for one pluralia tantum noun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18299" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5535" RevisionGUID="1b157541-bf2e-4757-ac23-ac5f215bc47c" CreationDate="2017-11-11T20:46:28.770" UserId="172" Text="|grammar-choice|syntax|numerals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5535" RevisionGUID="85858a05-8ff8-4e86-9abe-ce9eb3543cd6" CreationDate="2017-11-11T20:54:14.820" UserId="172" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="*One pants? One scissors?* Oh, no way! This is a follow-up to the @brianpck's question [How do I specify how many “litterae” or “castra” there are?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4083/172), and the [accepted answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4084/172) was to use distributive numerals with the pluralia tantum nouns, which are morphologically plural even when their denotate is a single object. The answser did not provide any exceptions for expressing the quantity of *one* such a thing, and the answerer even confirmed that a distributive form is used with a single *castra* or *litterae* in my follow-up comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not specifically learn Latin grammar by section and paragraph, and mainly developed my understanding from texts, using grammar books only for reference. The answer struck me as odd, as my internalized pattern (which often happens to be wrong because of my way of study) suggested using a gendered plural form of *unum* for one such thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example that I immediately came accross was from (Caes. B.G., 1, 74): *ut una castra iam facta ex binis viderentur*: “[They mingled together so much] that two camps ostensibly made one”. A possible argument that *castra* could somehow be used as a normal countable noun of the feminine gender does not work here, because *una facta castra* (which might be considered as either `NEUT-PL` or `FEM-SG` from morphology) does not work syntactically, as the whole NP is the subject of the verb *viderentur* which is plural, which makes the `*FEM-SG` parse is impossible. Caesar here undoubtedly uses *una* with the neuter plural *castra*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A&amp;G $137](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-137.html).b. states [the bold highlight is mine]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Distributives are used as follows:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; b. Instead of cardinals, to express simple number, when a noun plural in form but usually singular in meaning **is used in a plural sense**: as, *bīna castra*, two camps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This conspicuously does not say anything about the singular entity. (To confuse matters further, they have to add that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (*duo castra* would mean *two forts*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but this is not our gripe at the moment.) The PHI corpus, not being POS-tagged, does not help, as *singuli* is also a from of the ADJ *singulum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is the correct way to express *one* “litterae” or “castra” in Classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5536" RevisionGUID="9930c9ae-148d-498a-9403-b8a64afe98e7" CreationDate="2017-11-11T21:27:06.417" UserId="985" Text="It seems to me that you already have all the information you need for an answer. You just need to follow through the logic in the Allen &amp; Greenough section that you quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That section says that distributives are used instead of cardinals when a noun that's plural in form but usually singular in meaning is used in a *plural* sense, and you want to express simple number for that noun. Therefore, 'two camps' is *bina castra*, as in Caesar *BG* 1.74.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you want to express simple number when the noun that's plural in form but usually singular in meaning is used in a *singular* sense. In this case, the condition in §137.b isn't met, and you therefore use a cardinal number. So 'one camp' is *una castra*, just as Caesar says.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you want to say 'one camp apiece' or 'two camps apiece,' that falls under the rule in A&amp;G §137.a instead.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to *duo castra*, *OLD* actually has separate entries for the neuter plural noun *castra*, 'military encampment,' and the neuter singular noun *castrum*, 'fortified post or settlement.' So if you see *duo castra* (using the cardinal number) instead of *bina castra* (the distributive number), you should be dealing with the word for 'fort' rather than the word for 'camp'; otherwise, the rule that A&amp;G gives would be violated. (*L&amp;S* just includes the plural *castra* in the entry for *castrum*; but if the A&amp;G rule holds, the two meanings must have been felt to be sufficiently distinct so as to constitute separate words, in practical terms.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is, of course, not to say that there aren't exceptions to the rule that A&amp;G gives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5537" RevisionGUID="9d16da38-fa81-4b61-a47d-06b05799884b" CreationDate="2017-11-11T22:01:22.137" UserId="79" Text="If I want to describe that [the word *philosophia* was borrowed from Greek to Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4215/79), which Latin verb can I use for borrowing?&#xD;&#xA;Verbs like *commodare* and *mutuari* sound a little weird for this kind of loan.&#xD;&#xA;Should I go with a simple *sumere* or something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18303" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5537" RevisionGUID="9d16da38-fa81-4b61-a47d-06b05799884b" CreationDate="2017-11-11T22:01:22.137" UserId="79" Text="With which verb can I borrow from other languages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18304" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5537" RevisionGUID="9d16da38-fa81-4b61-a47d-06b05799884b" CreationDate="2017-11-11T22:01:22.137" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5536" RevisionGUID="6c73d959-b194-45e9-bcf2-41dbd6092a59" CreationDate="2017-11-12T09:36:36.077" UserId="985" Comment="Incorporated a clarification that I made in a comment into the answer itself" Text="It seems to me that you already have all the information you need for an answer. You just need to follow through the logic in the Allen &amp; Greenough section that you quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That section says that distributives are used instead of cardinals when a noun that's plural in form but usually singular in meaning is used in a *plural* sense, and you want to express simple number for that noun. Therefore, 'two camps' is *bina castra*, as in Caesar *BG* 1.74.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you want to express simple number when the noun that's plural in form but usually singular in meaning is used in a *singular* sense. In this case, the condition in §137.b isn't met, and you therefore use a cardinal number. So 'one camp' is *una castra*, just as Caesar says.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge §97, Remark 3 makes this point explicitly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Distributives are used with **pluralia tantum**: **binae litterae**, *two epistles*. But with these **uni** is used for *one*, **trini** for *three*; **unae litterae**, **trinae litterae**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you want to say 'one camp apiece' or 'two camps apiece,' that falls under the rule in A&amp;G §137.a instead.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to *duo castra*, *OLD* actually has separate entries for the neuter plural noun *castra*, 'military encampment,' and the neuter singular noun *castrum*, 'fortified post or settlement.' So if you see *duo castra* (using the cardinal number) instead of *bina castra* (the distributive number), you should be dealing with the word for 'fort' rather than the word for 'camp'; otherwise, the rule that A&amp;G gives would be violated. (*L&amp;S* just includes the plural *castra* in the entry for *castrum*; but if the A&amp;G rule holds, the two meanings must have been felt to be sufficiently distinct so as to constitute separate words, in practical terms.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is, of course, not to say that there aren't exceptions to the rule that A&amp;G gives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5538" RevisionGUID="84d8aac1-bfb9-4447-bbf9-b211632a5049" CreationDate="2017-11-12T11:02:55.740" UserId="645" Text="The primary meaning of 'borrow' in English is to use something with the intention of returning it after use, and the verb is thus the correlative of 'lend'. In a separate idiom, the word is used entirely properly, but  to mean something like 'convert' or 'appropriate'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't mean that there is no single Latin word that is exactly suitable for both cases. The verb *mutuor*, indeed, has the exact sense of the English, either as the correlative of 'lend', or simply to 'adopt', or 'take for one's own use' etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5539" RevisionGUID="437596ca-f981-493a-95bd-b82f0a075457" CreationDate="2017-11-13T17:53:05.553" UserId="2114" Text="I'm trying to correctly write &quot;Ear to the ground&quot; in latin for a logo I'm creating.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Aurem ad Terram&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Aurem in Terra&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Are either of these correct?  &#xD;&#xA;Something else? &#xD;&#xA;Please help. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, while we're all here, is &quot;Avis Nox&quot; *a* correct way to say &quot;Night Bird&quot;?  &#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18308" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5539" RevisionGUID="437596ca-f981-493a-95bd-b82f0a075457" CreationDate="2017-11-13T17:53:05.553" UserId="2114" Text="Ear To The Ground" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18309" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5539" RevisionGUID="437596ca-f981-493a-95bd-b82f0a075457" CreationDate="2017-11-13T17:53:05.553" UserId="2114" Text="|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5540" RevisionGUID="181d795c-52d6-4736-85e8-32b2f487acb3" CreationDate="2017-11-13T20:13:39.790" UserId="985" Text="In *Instutio oratoria* 1.4.7–8, Quintilian uses the verb *mutuor* to talk about how the letters Y and Z are 'borrowed' into the Latin alphabet to render some Greek words (text and translation from the Perseus website):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an cuiuslibet auris est exigere litterarum sonos? non hercule magis quam nervorum. at grammatici saltem omnes in hanc descendent rerum tenuitatem, desintne aliquae nobis necessariae litterarum, non **cum Graeca scribimus (tum enim ab iisdem duas mutuamur)** sed propriae, in Latinis, ut in his *seruus* et *uulgus* Aeolicum digammon desideratur, et  medius est quidam V et I litterae sonus; non enim sic *optimum* dicimus ut *opimum*, et in *here* neque E plane neque I auditur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is not every ear that can appreciate the correct sound of the different letters. It is fully as hard as to distinguish the different notes in music. But all teachers of literature will condescend to such minutiae: they will discuss for instance whether certain necessary letters are absent from the alphabet, not indeed **when we are writing Greek words (for then we borrow two letters from them)**, but in the case of genuine Latin words: for example in words such as *seruus* and *uulgus* we feel the lack of the Aeolic digamma; there is also a sound intermediate between *u* and *i*, for we do not pronounce *optimum* as we do *opimum*, while in *here* the sound is neither exactly *e* or *i*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If *mutuor* can be used to talk about borrowing individual letters in order to transliterate a Greek word, perhaps it follows that an entire Greek word that has been thus transliterated can also be said to be borrowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(However, as I note in my comment to the original question, in most other passages where the verb *mutuor* is used in the context of words, it appears to describe the process of deriving brand-new words – or expanding the range of meanings of existing words, in the case of Quintilian 10.1.13 – on the basis of some other word and, in this way, 'borrowing' from that other word.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5541" RevisionGUID="29c88921-14c3-4282-abff-781e0fa88e5f" CreationDate="2017-11-13T22:08:46.617" UserId="79" Text="In my experience it is extremely common to say, for example, *rex Romanus* instead of *rex Romae*.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, I do not recall ever seeing a genitive when a local adjective can be used.&#xD;&#xA;Translating to English, this means that the Romans would much rather say &quot;Roman king&quot; than &quot;king of Rome&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of preference varies from language to language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Finland we have two separate entities called [The Academy of Finland](http://www.aka.fi/) and [The Finnish Academy (of Science and Letters)](https://www.acadsci.fi/).&#xD;&#xA;To keep these two clearly distinct in Latin, it seems that I should call them *Academia Finlandiae* and *Academia Fennica (scientiae litterarumque)*.&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion it is not enough for the distinction to call one of them *Academia Fennica* and the other one *Academia Fennica scientiae litterarumque*; there should be a difference in the key part of the name.&#xD;&#xA;But is there any classical precedent for a name like *Academia Finlandiae* as opposed to *Academia Fennica*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are there examples in classical Latin where an expression like *rex Romae* is used where *rex Romanus* would also be possible?**&#xD;&#xA;The noun does not have to be *rex* and the adjective or genitive can be related to any place.&#xD;&#xA;I am just looking for examples of the general phenomenon &amp;mdash; if there are any." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18312" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5541" RevisionGUID="29c88921-14c3-4282-abff-781e0fa88e5f" CreationDate="2017-11-13T22:08:46.617" UserId="79" Text="Are there Roman examples of &quot;of Rome&quot; instead of &quot;Roman&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18313" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5541" RevisionGUID="29c88921-14c3-4282-abff-781e0fa88e5f" CreationDate="2017-11-13T22:08:46.617" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|adjective|example-request|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5541" RevisionGUID="61de76cc-9bab-4877-9768-4cccda4429e0" CreationDate="2017-11-13T22:17:29.173" UserId="79" Comment="added 335 characters in body" Text="In my experience it is extremely common to say, for example, *rex Romanus* instead of *rex Romae*.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, I do not recall ever seeing a genitive when a local adjective can be used.&#xD;&#xA;Translating to English, this means that the Romans would much rather say &quot;Roman king&quot; than &quot;king of Rome&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of preference varies from language to language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Finland we have two separate entities called [The Academy of Finland](http://www.aka.fi/) and [The Finnish Academy (of Science and Letters)](https://www.acadsci.fi/).&#xD;&#xA;To keep these two clearly distinct in Latin, it seems that I should call them *Academia Finlandiae* and *Academia Fennica (scientiae litterarumque)*.&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion it is not enough for the distinction to call one of them *Academia Fennica* and the other one *Academia Fennica scientiae litterarumque*; there should be a difference in the key part of the name.&#xD;&#xA;But is there any classical precedent for a name like *Academia Finlandiae* as opposed to *Academia Fennica*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are there examples in classical Latin where an expression like *rex Romae* is used where *rex Romanus* would also be possible?**&#xD;&#xA;The noun does not have to be *rex* and the adjective or genitive can be related to any place.&#xD;&#xA;I am just looking for examples of the general phenomenon &amp;mdash; if there are any.&#xD;&#xA;If you think there are no such examples, explaining why that is the case is a good answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preference of adjectives to genitives goes beyond places (see e.g. [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/749/79) for a discussion of *avis noctis* and *avis nocturna*), but I want to restrict my attention to locations here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5542" RevisionGUID="796cf319-d7f5-4b07-ad17-fcccee97b5fa" CreationDate="2017-11-14T01:07:25.253" UserId="78" Text="Of course. The genitive exists for a reason. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [rex Romae](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=rex+romae)&#xD;&#xA;2. [rex Aegypti](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=rex+aegypti)&#xD;&#xA;3. [regina Aegypti](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=regina+aegypti)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5483" RevisionGUID="dcbf7744-450e-49d6-b8df-9ab6319ddc84" CreationDate="2017-11-14T01:52:52.833" UserId="2088" Comment="better description" Text="How to say pattern recognizer/analyzer or describe someone who can differentiate patterns?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest thing that I could find was *homo analyticus*. Are there any better descriptors available?&#xD;&#xA;*Homo Discriminaticus* sounds nice but obviously gibberish, Google Translate is of no help either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context: I'm not being facetious, this is for a serious project. The term Discrimination is a positive term as in being able to **differentiate** between things/events." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5542" RevisionGUID="862d204d-a6f9-4bbf-ad7c-a4e54a252141" CreationDate="2017-11-14T03:08:32.253" UserId="78" Comment="added 173 characters in body" Text="Of course. The genitive exists for a reason. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [rex Romae](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=rex+romae)&#xD;&#xA;2. [rex Aegypti](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=rex+aegypti)&#xD;&#xA;3. [regina Aegypti](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=regina+aegypti)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can also be done of peoples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Rex Romanorum](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=rex+Romanorum)&#xD;&#xA;2. [Rex Gallorum](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=rex+gallorum)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5539" RevisionGUID="3e257e71-0ced-4d0e-a50b-98671cba807a" CreationDate="2017-11-14T05:28:53.523" UserId="2114" Comment="deleted 91 characters in body" Text="I'm trying to correctly write &quot;Ear to the ground&quot; in latin for a logo I'm creating.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Aurem ad Terram&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Aurem in Terra&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Are either of these correct?  &#xD;&#xA;Something else? &#xD;&#xA;Please help. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5543" RevisionGUID="963dfd2b-2512-46a0-937e-8c8bff77f971" CreationDate="2017-11-14T09:35:31.097" UserId="79" Text="It depends on how you use it, but I think *auris ad terram* is a good phrase with *auris* suitably declined.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I hold my ear to the ground so I can hear the train.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Aurem ad terram teneo ut tramen audiam.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With my ear held against the ground, I heard the train.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Aure ad terram posita tramen audivi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preposition *ad* has [a huge amount of uses](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=ad&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;I did not find a perfect match (other than II.B.1.c for compounds), but I think this is the most natural preposition here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5544" RevisionGUID="35189396-245a-4d38-a191-7f7fd7edc6ae" CreationDate="2017-11-14T13:11:48.053" UserId="172" Text="PHI is indispensable for looking up concordance, but it lacks part of speech tagging. Anybody knows if there exists a POS-tagged corpus of Latin works?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best preference is a free one, as if not, it's price could be in the 4 or 5 figures easy, out of reach unless through an educational institution that would own it (and I am not affiliated with any). But I can deal with that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best if focused on Classical Latin, or with an option to limit to it. But I can deal with that too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perseus does provide probabilistic POS guesses if you click on the word (almost always correct), but the POS data is not apparently in the XML text if I download it (there are XML links at the bottom of texts if you noticed), when I look at it. Is there an option to restrict searches by POS and morphology? If there is, I cannot find it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, any pointers in that direction? I am thinking about running the Stanford tagger on a plain-text corpus, but this is quite a work, as it will certainly require some tweaking and heuristics, and I am not sure when if ever I am able to fit that in my schedule. Latin is only a lovable hobby for me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18321" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5544" RevisionGUID="35189396-245a-4d38-a191-7f7fd7edc6ae" CreationDate="2017-11-14T13:11:48.053" UserId="172" Text="Is there a Latin POS-tagged corpus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18322" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5544" RevisionGUID="35189396-245a-4d38-a191-7f7fd7edc6ae" CreationDate="2017-11-14T13:11:48.053" UserId="172" Text="|text-corpus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5545" RevisionGUID="12a4bbfa-0fc1-4ce0-a15c-d4c6a43f427f" CreationDate="2017-11-14T14:19:54.517" UserId="39" Text="Of course! For instance, [LatinISE historical corpus][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:  https://the.sketchengine.co.uk/corpus/corp_info?corpname=preloaded/latinwac2_2&amp;struct_attr_stats=1&amp;subcorpora=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5546" RevisionGUID="f7251801-3abd-422f-880d-085c83772bb6" CreationDate="2017-11-14T15:55:02.050" UserId="45" Text="I noticed recently that most (but not all) [Latin words ending in *-etum*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=etum&amp;lang=la) have something to do with a cluster of vegetation. An obvious example derived into English is an &quot;arboretum.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where does &quot;-etum&quot; come from? Was it considered a productive suffix? Extra points if you can find a classical source that mentions the suffix!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18325" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5546" RevisionGUID="f7251801-3abd-422f-880d-085c83772bb6" CreationDate="2017-11-14T15:55:02.050" UserId="45" Text="Where does the suffix &quot;-etum&quot; come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18326" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5546" RevisionGUID="f7251801-3abd-422f-880d-085c83772bb6" CreationDate="2017-11-14T15:55:02.050" UserId="45" Text="|suffixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5547" RevisionGUID="7a47e88b-759d-4437-9b99-08e51a371cf4" CreationDate="2017-11-14T17:47:41.290" UserId="1987" Text="The famous phrase *&quot;Dust to Dust, Ashes to Ashes&quot;* does not come from the Bible but from the *English Burial Service* of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, reading: *&quot;we therefore commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust;&quot;* but the concept *is* mentioned in the Bible.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Genesis 3:19 reads: *&quot;In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.&quot;*&#xA;&#xA;**Vulgate:** In sudore vultus tui vesceris pane donec revertaris in terram de qua sumptus es quia pulvis es et in pulverem reverteris&#xA;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) כִּֽי־עָפָ֣ר אַ֔תָּה וְאֶל־עָפָ֖ר תָּשֽׁוּב&#xA;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) ὅτι γῆ εἰμί καί εἰς γῆ ἀποἔρχομαι&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Genesis 18:27 reads: *&quot;And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:&quot;*&#xA;&#xA;**Vulgate:** Respondens Abraham ait quia semel coepi loquar ad Dominum meum cum sim pulvis et cinis&#xA;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) וְאָנֹכִ֖י עָפָ֥ר וָאֵֽפֶר&#xA;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) ἐγώ δέ εἰμί γῆ καί σποδός&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Job 30:19 reads: *&quot;He hath cast me into the mire, and I am become like dust and ashes.&quot;*&#xA;&#xA;**Vulgate:** Conparatus sum luto et adsimilatus favillae et cineri&#xA;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) כֶּעָפָ֥ר וָאֵֽפֶר&#xA;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) γῆ καί σποδός ἐγώ ὁ μερίς&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Job 42:6 reads: *&quot;Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.&quot;*&#xA;&#xA;**Vulgate:** Idcirco ipse me reprehendo et ago paenitentiam in favilla et cinere&#xA;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) עַל־עָפָר וָאֵֽפֶר&#xA;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) γῆ καί σποδός&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;The original Hebrew Old Testament and subsequent Greek Septuagint uses the same words for Dust and Ashes consistently. For Dust: [עָפָר][1] and [γῆ][2]. For Ashes: [אֵ֫פֶר][3] and [σποδός][4].&#xA;&#xA;But, when the Bible was translated into the Latin Vulgate, we see two **different** words used for Dust: [Pulvis][5] and [Favilla(e)][6]. [For Ashes they have used the same word consistently: [Cinis][7]]&#xA;&#xA;As I read, Favilla(e) itself means Ashes (Short Definitions &quot;cinders, hot ashes, glowing ashes, embers&quot;), rather then &quot;Dust/Soil/Earth&quot;. This definition in the entry for Cinis was particularly relevant: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; I. In gen. (while favilla is usually the ashes that is light like dust, or is still glowing; cf.: “corporis favillam ab reliquo separantcinere,” Plin. 19, 1, 4, § 19: cinis e favillā et carbonibus ad calfaciendum triclinium illatis exstinctus et jam diu frigidus exarsit repente, Suet. Tib. 74), Lucr. 1, 872; cf. id. 1, 890, and 4, 927; Cato ap. Charis. p. 78 P.; Suet. Tib. 74; Col. 2, 15, 6; 11, 3, 28; 12, 22, 1; Hor. C. 4, 13, 28.—&#xA;&#xA;And beloved Wiktionary summarises nicely, saying:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Usage Notes.** The word cinis is used for cold, heavy ashes, while favilla is used for glowing, light ashes.&#xA;&#xA;1. So can someone please explain to me *why* they have chosen to use &quot;Favillae et Cinis&quot; in the Book of Job, instead of &quot;Pulvis et Cinis&quot; (as in Genesis). What possible or probable reason would there be?&#xA;&#xA;2. Is it a good choice? Or is it *&quot;wonky translation&quot;*?&#xA;&#xA;3. Would &quot;Pulvis et Favillae&quot; be; *a)* a grammatically and conceptually correct alternative, and; *b)* better or worse then &quot;Pulvis et Cinis&quot;?&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Note:** Another example of the use of Favilla and Cinis both referring to ash is the Latin Hymn Dies Irae, which reads: *&quot;Dies iræ, dies illa Solvet sæclum in **favilla**, ... Cor contritum quasi **cinis**, ... Lacrimosa dies illa, Qua resurget ex **favilla**, Judicandus homo reus.&quot;*&#xA;(&quot;The day of wrath, that day&#xA;will dissolve the world in **ashes**, ... [my] heart crushed as **ashes**: ... Tearful [will be] that day, on which from the glowing **embers** will arise the guilty man who is to be judged.&quot;)&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/6083.htm&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=gh=&#xA;  [3]: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/665.htm&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dspodo%2Fs&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpulvis&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfavilla&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cinis&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18328" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5547" RevisionGUID="7a47e88b-759d-4437-9b99-08e51a371cf4" CreationDate="2017-11-14T17:47:41.290" UserId="1987" Text="Dust to Dust, Ashes to Ashes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18329" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5547" RevisionGUID="7a47e88b-759d-4437-9b99-08e51a371cf4" CreationDate="2017-11-14T17:47:41.290" UserId="1987" Text="|word-comparison|word-choice|ecclesiastical-latin|irregular-words|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5547" RevisionGUID="272c73f0-1383-46e5-90bc-f84823e3a8d0" CreationDate="2017-11-14T18:31:50.040" UserId="1987" Comment="added 375 characters in body" Text="The famous phrase *&quot;Dust to Dust, Ashes to Ashes&quot;* does not come from the Bible but from the *English Burial Service* of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, reading: *&quot;we therefore commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust;&quot;* but the concept *is* mentioned in the Bible.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Genesis 3:19 reads: *&quot;In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.&quot;*&#xA;&#xA;**Vulgate:** In sudore vultus tui vesceris pane donec revertaris in terram de qua sumptus es quia pulvis es et in pulverem reverteris&#xA;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) כִּֽי־עָפָ֣ר אַ֔תָּה וְאֶל־עָפָ֖ר תָּשֽׁוּב&#xA;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) ὅτι γῆ εἰμί καί εἰς γῆ ἀποἔρχομαι&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Genesis 18:27 reads: *&quot;And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:&quot;*&#xA;&#xA;**Vulgate:** Respondens Abraham ait quia semel coepi loquar ad Dominum meum cum sim pulvis et cinis&#xA;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) וְאָנֹכִ֖י עָפָ֥ר וָאֵֽפֶר&#xA;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) ἐγώ δέ εἰμί γῆ καί σποδός&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Job 30:19 reads: *&quot;He hath cast me into the mire, and I am become like dust and ashes.&quot;*&#xA;&#xA;**Vulgate:** Conparatus sum luto et adsimilatus favillae et cineri&#xA;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) כֶּעָפָ֥ר וָאֵֽפֶר&#xA;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) γῆ καί σποδός ἐγώ ὁ μερίς&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Job 42:6 reads: *&quot;Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.&quot;*&#xA;&#xA;**Vulgate:** Idcirco ipse me reprehendo et ago paenitentiam in favilla et cinere&#xA;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) עַל־עָפָר וָאֵֽפֶר&#xA;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) γῆ καί σποδός&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;The original Hebrew Old Testament and subsequent Greek Septuagint uses the same words for Dust and Ashes consistently. For Dust: [עָפָר][1] and [γῆ][2]. For Ashes: [אֵ֫פֶר][3] and [σποδός][4].&#xA;&#xA;But, when the Bible was translated into the Latin Vulgate, we see two **different** words used for Dust: [Pulvis][5] and [Favilla(e)][6]. [For Ashes they have used the same word consistently: [Cinis][7]]&#xA;&#xA;As I read, Favilla(e) itself means Ashes (Short Definitions &quot;cinders, hot ashes, glowing ashes, embers&quot;), rather then &quot;Dust/Soil/Earth&quot;. This definition in the entry for Cinis was particularly relevant: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; I. In gen. (while favilla is usually the ashes that is light like dust, or is still glowing; cf.: “corporis favillam ab reliquo separantcinere,” Plin. 19, 1, 4, § 19: cinis e favillā et carbonibus ad calfaciendum triclinium illatis exstinctus et jam diu frigidus exarsit repente, Suet. Tib. 74), Lucr. 1, 872; cf. id. 1, 890, and 4, 927; Cato ap. Charis. p. 78 P.; Suet. Tib. 74; Col. 2, 15, 6; 11, 3, 28; 12, 22, 1; Hor. C. 4, 13, 28.—&#xA;&#xA;And beloved Wiktionary summarises nicely, saying:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Usage Notes.** The word cinis is used for cold, heavy ashes, while favilla is used for glowing, light ashes.&#xA;&#xA;1. So can someone please explain to me *why* they have chosen to use &quot;Favillae et Cinis&quot; in the Book of Job, instead of &quot;Pulvis et Cinis&quot; (as in Genesis). What possible or probable reason would there be?&#xA;&#xA;2. Is it a good choice? Or is it *&quot;wonky translation&quot;*?&#xA;&#xA;3. Would &quot;Pulvis et Favillae&quot; be; *a)* a grammatically and conceptually correct alternative, and; *b)* better or worse then &quot;Pulvis et Cinis&quot;?&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Note:** Another example of the use of Favilla and Cinis both referring to ash is the Latin Hymn Dies Irae, which reads: *&quot;Dies iræ, dies illa Solvet sæclum in **favilla**, ... Cor contritum quasi **cinis**, ... Lacrimosa dies illa, Qua resurget ex **favilla**, Judicandus homo reus.&quot;*&#xA;(&quot;The day of wrath, that day&#xA;will dissolve the world in **ashes**, ... [my] heart crushed as **ashes**: ... Tearful [will be] that day, on which from the glowing **embers** will arise the guilty man who is to be judged.&quot;)&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Edit: Just noting: Elsewhere in the Bible we see the Hebrew עָפָר (dry earth, dust) is translated into the Latin *Terra* and the Greek *χοῦς* (Eg. Genesis 2:7, Psalms 103:14, Ecclesiastes 3:1). But that seems quite proper and is hardly surprising like the use of Favillae instead of Terra/Pulvis in the Book of Job, so *that* is not a particular concern in this question. &#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/6083.htm&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=gh=&#xA;  [3]: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/665.htm&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dspodo%2Fs&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpulvis&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfavilla&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cinis&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5547" RevisionGUID="b8ad5a54-1c89-447b-bb41-68d996a03110" CreationDate="2017-11-14T18:44:27.690" UserId="1987" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="The famous phrase *&quot;Dust to Dust, Ashes to Ashes&quot;* does not come from the Bible but from the *English Burial Service* of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, reading: *&quot;we therefore commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust;&quot;* but the concept *is* mentioned in the Bible.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Genesis 3:19 reads: *&quot;In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.&quot;*&#xA;&#xA;**Vulgate:** In sudore vultus tui vesceris pane donec revertaris in terram de qua sumptus es quia pulvis es et in pulverem reverteris&#xA;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) כִּֽי־עָפָ֣ר אַ֔תָּה וְאֶל־עָפָ֖ר תָּשֽׁוּב&#xA;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) ὅτι γῆ εἶ καὶ εἰς γῆν ἀπελεύσῃ&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Genesis 18:27 reads: *&quot;And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:&quot;*&#xA;&#xA;**Vulgate:** Respondens Abraham ait quia semel coepi loquar ad Dominum meum cum sim pulvis et cinis&#xA;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) וְאָנֹכִ֖י עָפָ֥ר וָאֵֽפֶר&#xA;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) ἐγώ δέ εἰμί γῆ καί σποδός&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Job 30:19 reads: *&quot;He hath cast me into the mire, and I am become like dust and ashes.&quot;*&#xA;&#xA;**Vulgate:** Conparatus sum luto et adsimilatus favillae et cineri&#xA;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) כֶּעָפָ֥ר וָאֵֽפֶר&#xA;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) γῆ καί σποδός ἐγώ ὁ μερίς&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Job 42:6 reads: *&quot;Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.&quot;*&#xA;&#xA;**Vulgate:** Idcirco ipse me reprehendo et ago paenitentiam in favilla et cinere&#xA;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) עַל־עָפָר וָאֵֽפֶר&#xA;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) γῆ καί σποδός&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;The original Hebrew Old Testament and subsequent Greek Septuagint uses the same words for Dust and Ashes consistently. For Dust: [עָפָר][1] and [γῆ][2]. For Ashes: [אֵ֫פֶר][3] and [σποδός][4].&#xA;&#xA;But, when the Bible was translated into the Latin Vulgate, we see two **different** words used for Dust: [Pulvis][5] and [Favilla(e)][6]. [For Ashes they have used the same word consistently: [Cinis][7]]&#xA;&#xA;As I read, Favilla(e) itself means Ashes (Short Definitions &quot;cinders, hot ashes, glowing ashes, embers&quot;), rather then &quot;Dust/Soil/Earth&quot;. This definition in the entry for Cinis was particularly relevant: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; I. In gen. (while favilla is usually the ashes that is light like dust, or is still glowing; cf.: “corporis favillam ab reliquo separantcinere,” Plin. 19, 1, 4, § 19: cinis e favillā et carbonibus ad calfaciendum triclinium illatis exstinctus et jam diu frigidus exarsit repente, Suet. Tib. 74), Lucr. 1, 872; cf. id. 1, 890, and 4, 927; Cato ap. Charis. p. 78 P.; Suet. Tib. 74; Col. 2, 15, 6; 11, 3, 28; 12, 22, 1; Hor. C. 4, 13, 28.—&#xA;&#xA;And beloved Wiktionary summarises nicely, saying:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Usage Notes.** The word cinis is used for cold, heavy ashes, while favilla is used for glowing, light ashes.&#xA;&#xA;1. So can someone please explain to me *why* they have chosen to use &quot;Favillae et Cinis&quot; in the Book of Job, instead of &quot;Pulvis et Cinis&quot; (as in Genesis). What possible or probable reason would there be?&#xA;&#xA;2. Is it a good choice? Or is it *&quot;wonky translation&quot;*?&#xA;&#xA;3. Would &quot;Pulvis et Favillae&quot; be; *a)* a grammatically and conceptually correct alternative, and; *b)* better or worse then &quot;Pulvis et Cinis&quot;?&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Note:** Another example of the use of Favilla and Cinis both referring to ash is the Latin Hymn Dies Irae, which reads: *&quot;Dies iræ, dies illa Solvet sæclum in **favilla**, ... Cor contritum quasi **cinis**, ... Lacrimosa dies illa, Qua resurget ex **favilla**, Judicandus homo reus.&quot;*&#xA;(&quot;The day of wrath, that day&#xA;will dissolve the world in **ashes**, ... [my] heart crushed as **ashes**: ... Tearful [will be] that day, on which from the glowing **embers** will arise the guilty man who is to be judged.&quot;)&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Edit: Just noting: Elsewhere in the Bible we see the Hebrew עָפָר (dry earth, dust) is translated into the Latin *Terra* and the Greek *χοῦς* (Eg. Genesis 2:7, Psalms 103:14, Ecclesiastes 3:1). But that seems quite proper and is hardly surprising like the use of Favillae instead of Terra/Pulvis in the Book of Job, so *that* is not a particular concern in this question. &#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/6083.htm&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=gh=&#xA;  [3]: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/665.htm&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dspodo%2Fs&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpulvis&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfavilla&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cinis&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5548" RevisionGUID="0a030397-f2eb-4c52-959a-469ea505a335" CreationDate="2017-11-14T21:57:34.937" UserId="985" Text="_Allen &amp; Greenough_ lists _-etum_/_-tum_ under the heading 'Nouns with Adjective Suffixes' (section 254). It notes that the suffix denotes '*place* of a thing, especially with names of trees and plants to designate where these *grow*.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples provided are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _quercetum_, 'oak grove'&#xD;&#xA;- _olivetum_, 'olive grove'&#xD;&#xA;- _salictum_, 'a willow thicket'&#xD;&#xA;- _Argiletum_, 'The Clay Pit' (from _argilla, 'clay')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus, you've already mentioned _arboretum_. I've also seen _rosetum_ and _fruticetum_, and the corresponding section in _Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge_ (181) offers _myrtetum_ and _virgultum_. So, given the somewhat limited area of applicability, the suffix seems to be reasonably productive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In A&amp;G, comparison is made to the suffixes _-atus_ and _-utus_, and there's a reference to the following note from section 246:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; NOTE. — -atus, -itus, -utus, imply reference to an imaginary verb-stem: -tus is added directly to nouns without any such reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't help wondering whether there's some original relationship to the _-esc_ suffix/infix that has to do with beginning/growing/becoming. There is in fact a verb _arborescere_, 'to grow into a tree.' Perhaps _arboretum_ originally meant '(a place where) there has been growing into trees,' as a sort of impersonal passive. There's also a verb _fruticesco_, 'to put forth shoots, become bushy'; so _fruticetum_ could likewise denote a place where this action has occurred. Other words, where no verb is attested, could easily have been formed by analogy. This is just conjecture, of course, and not a 'proper' answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5548" RevisionGUID="bb9b4fc8-d200-436d-8387-29819c515c98" CreationDate="2017-11-15T01:06:52.367" UserId="136" Comment="minor formatting fix" Text="_Allen &amp; Greenough_ lists _-etum_/_-tum_ under the heading 'Nouns with Adjective Suffixes' (section 254). It notes that the suffix denotes '*place* of a thing, especially with names of trees and plants to designate where these *grow*.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples provided are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _quercetum_, 'oak grove'&#xD;&#xA;- _olivetum_, 'olive grove'&#xD;&#xA;- _salictum_, 'a willow thicket'&#xD;&#xA;- _Argiletum_, 'The Clay Pit' (from _argilla_, 'clay')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus, you've already mentioned _arboretum_. I've also seen _rosetum_ and _fruticetum_, and the corresponding section in _Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge_ (181) offers _myrtetum_ and _virgultum_. So, given the somewhat limited area of applicability, the suffix seems to be reasonably productive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In A&amp;G, comparison is made to the suffixes _-atus_ and _-utus_, and there's a reference to the following note from section 246:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; NOTE. — -atus, -itus, -utus, imply reference to an imaginary verb-stem: -tus is added directly to nouns without any such reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't help wondering whether there's some original relationship to the _-esc_ suffix/infix that has to do with beginning/growing/becoming. There is in fact a verb _arborescere_, 'to grow into a tree.' Perhaps _arboretum_ originally meant '(a place where) there has been growing into trees,' as a sort of impersonal passive. There's also a verb _fruticesco_, 'to put forth shoots, become bushy'; so _fruticetum_ could likewise denote a place where this action has occurred. Other words, where no verb is attested, could easily have been formed by analogy. This is just conjecture, of course, and not a 'proper' answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5549" RevisionGUID="83eb163e-4124-479e-b720-3bc8adbe6ca3" CreationDate="2017-11-15T08:33:23.477" UserId="79" Text="I learned from [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5537/79) that the Romans used the same verb *mutuari* both for loaning words from Greek and deriving new words within Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Are there any examples in classical literature that make a distinction between derivation and loan?&#xD;&#xA;Or were they considered the same thing?&#xD;&#xA;After all, they are both instances of repurposing old words; the difference is only in the source of the material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that the extant evidence is insufficient, and that is indeed one possible answer.&#xD;&#xA;If there are other verbs the Romans used for borrowing words from other languages, please consider leaving an answer to the linked question whether you answer this one or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18336" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5549" RevisionGUID="83eb163e-4124-479e-b720-3bc8adbe6ca3" CreationDate="2017-11-15T08:33:23.477" UserId="79" Text="Did the Romans distinguish derivation and loan?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18337" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5549" RevisionGUID="83eb163e-4124-479e-b720-3bc8adbe6ca3" CreationDate="2017-11-15T08:33:23.477" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5550" RevisionGUID="94b6de0d-1ee9-42e6-abc3-a4f7d709ad56" CreationDate="2017-11-15T10:15:08.220" UserId="1459" Text="In [this paper](https://faculty.washington.edu/dtwills/resources/Edison-Except-One---JES.pdf) there is a quotation from an early 20th century document by an economist (italics in original):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;No bank should be allowed to charge any such percentage as 7% for its services. The ancients called this &quot;usury&quot;, viz. _payment for use_ ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder whether such _videlicet_ is originally found in Latin? By itself, usury comes from the Latin _[usura](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/usury#Etymology)_, which in Latin it is [a noun](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/usura#Noun_3), literally translated as &quot;use&quot; [of something, e.g. of [money lent](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=usura)], and &quot;interest&quot; (as in interest of a loan?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From these nouns to the actual &quot;payment for use&quot; seems a long way. However, [this entry](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=usura) in Lewis (1891) does mention precisely such phrase, namely &quot;a payment for the use of money, interest, usury&quot;. However, I am worried this is a tautological definition of &quot;interest&quot;. In other words, &quot;usura=interest&quot; and &quot;interest = payment for use of money&quot;, _ergo_ &quot;usura=payment for use&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My doubt is, then, that the latter equality is not a _literal_ translation of any Latin term, but simply a redefinition in other terms of a Latin word. Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18339" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5550" RevisionGUID="94b6de0d-1ee9-42e6-abc3-a4f7d709ad56" CreationDate="2017-11-15T10:15:08.220" UserId="1459" Text="Is this meaning of usury coming from Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18340" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5550" RevisionGUID="94b6de0d-1ee9-42e6-abc3-a4f7d709ad56" CreationDate="2017-11-15T10:15:08.220" UserId="1459" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5551" RevisionGUID="05920e10-285c-4124-a5ea-ac59b5546efd" CreationDate="2017-11-15T10:36:35.860" UserId="1063" Text="'diu in undis errabant et multos labores subierunt'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am able to translate the first part of the sentence as: for a long time the ship was wondering in the waves, but I am stuck on the second part. The definition given are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;labor, laboris - effort, exertion, labour, work task, hardship, suffering, distress&#xD;&#xA;subeo [mainly in this context] - go under&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could attempt to translate this as 'and many efforts went under' but that does not fit in with the context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any help &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18342" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5551" RevisionGUID="05920e10-285c-4124-a5ea-ac59b5546efd" CreationDate="2017-11-15T10:36:35.860" UserId="1063" Text="Translating 'multos labores subieurunt'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18343" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5551" RevisionGUID="05920e10-285c-4124-a5ea-ac59b5546efd" CreationDate="2017-11-15T10:36:35.860" UserId="1063" Text="|vocabulary|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="994" RevisionGUID="d75c2724-0910-4de9-8d2f-a4f86413e157" CreationDate="2017-11-15T11:42:39.740" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="Your translation is correct, apart from missing the word *viri*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The whole state was thanking&quot; is indeed translated well with *Tota civitas gratias agebat*.&#xD;&#xA;The expression *gratias agere* requires dative to indicate who is thanked.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore if you want to thank &quot;this man's brother&quot; (*frater huius viri*), the dative expression you need is *fratri huius viri*.&#xD;&#xA;The genitive *huius viri* (&quot;this man's&quot;) does not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact translation of &quot;alone&quot; depends on what it refers to.&#xD;&#xA;The most natural interpretation is that it refers to the brother, whence *solus* takes the gender and case of *fratri*.&#xD;&#xA;The singular masculine dative is *soli* &amp;mdash; note that *solus* is declined like *unus* rather than like *bonus*.&#xD;&#xA;(The genitive would be *solius*.)&#xD;&#xA;This leaves us with this translation: *Tota civitas fratri huius viri soli gratias agebat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish &quot;alone&quot; to refer to the man (whose brother is being thanked), switch *solus* to the same form as *huius viri*.&#xD;&#xA;The singular masculine genitive is *solius*.&#xD;&#xA;Thus you get: *Tota civitas fratri huius viri solius gratias agebat*.&#xD;&#xA;I doubt this was intended, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(An earlier version of the question mentioned that *soli* was genitive. This is why I added some emphasis on its declination.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5551" RevisionGUID="5ea35ab5-1b3f-4a7c-91ca-64de34d7379d" CreationDate="2017-11-15T14:33:29.903" UserId="45" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="I am trying to translate the following verse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diu in undis errabant et multos labores subierunt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am able to translate the first part of the sentence as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For a long time the ship was wandering in the waves&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I am stuck on the second part. The definitions given are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* labor, laboris - effort, exertion, labour, work task, hardship, suffering, distress&#xD;&#xA;* subeo [mainly in this context] - go under&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could attempt to translate this as 'and many efforts went under' but that does not fit in with the context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How do I translate &quot;multos labores subierunt&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5552" RevisionGUID="885993e2-3cdf-4d29-8642-c3b7b4b89142" CreationDate="2017-11-15T14:41:38.670" UserId="45" Text="The relevant meaning of *subeo* in this case is (strangely enough) directly derivable from the parts of the word: *sub + eo* = &quot;under + go&quot; = **undergo**. [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsubeo) lists this meaning in B.2.c., though many of the other meanings also fit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B.2.c. (The figure taken from stooping under a load, under blows, etc.) **To subject one's self to, take upon one's self an evil; to undergo, submit to, sustain, endure, suffer it**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your example sentence, note that *errabant* is plural and thus cannot refer to a singular ship: a literal translation would be that &quot;they&quot; (i.e. the crew) wandered. The rest is fairly straightforward:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Long they wandered in the waves, and **they underwent many trials.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5551" RevisionGUID="d13ffd8b-d151-4c02-8af7-39ccd2c5b93b" CreationDate="2017-11-15T14:44:25.283" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="I am trying to translate the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diu in undis errabant et multos labores subierunt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am able to translate the first part as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For a long time the ship was wandering in the waves&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I am stuck on the second part. The definitions given are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* labor, laboris - effort, exertion, labour, work task, hardship, suffering, distress&#xD;&#xA;* subeo [mainly in this context] - go under&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could attempt to translate this as 'and many efforts went under' but that does not fit in with the context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How do I translate &quot;multos labores subierunt&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18349" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5551" RevisionGUID="d13ffd8b-d151-4c02-8af7-39ccd2c5b93b" CreationDate="2017-11-15T14:44:25.283" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="Translating 'multos labores subierunt'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5551" RevisionGUID="44e7a512-1310-4f57-aba1-ff7828d763c5" CreationDate="2017-11-15T15:08:27.630" UserId="79" Comment="added 13 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am trying to translate the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Diu in undis errabant et multos labores subierunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am able to translate the first part as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For a long time the ship was wandering in the waves&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I am stuck on the second part. The definitions given are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* labor, laboris &amp;mdash; effort, exertion, labour, work task, hardship, suffering, distress&#xD;&#xA;* subeo [mainly in this context] &amp;mdash; go under&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could attempt to translate this as 'and many efforts went under' but that does not fit in with the context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How do I translate &quot;multos labores subierunt&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18351" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5551" RevisionGUID="44e7a512-1310-4f57-aba1-ff7828d763c5" CreationDate="2017-11-15T15:08:27.630" UserId="79" Comment="added 13 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5553" RevisionGUID="e27f7039-e3d0-426d-8de0-e617efe65171" CreationDate="2017-11-15T17:02:57.827" UserId="2099" Text="The quote below is from the *Instituta Patrum de modo psallendi*, an anonymous Carolingian or High Medieval (I myself would date it 800s or 900s) document on singing psalms in Gregorian chant.  The author is admonishing cantors to stay in synch with each other.  He enumerates a list of 'sins', the last two of which trouble me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Nullus** ante alios aut post, incipere in Versu vel cantu, verba cantata&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reiterare, vel nimis discorditer festinare, praesumptiori vel altiori,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; remissiori an graviori, ... tardiori vel&#xD;&#xA;&gt; velociori voce, **aut post alios diutius protrahere, vel punctum tenere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; praesumat**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't tell if the phrases &quot;post alius&quot; and &quot;diutius&quot; apply to both verbs &quot;protrahere&quot; and &quot;tenere&quot;, or to only the first one.  If they both apply to &quot;protrahere&quot; only:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No one may presume ... to protract (the notes) longer after the others, or to hold the cadence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then the second 'sin' doesn't make sense, because &quot;holding the cadence&quot; (&quot;punctum tenere&quot;) isn't bad in itself ... at least how I am reading it.  But, if they both apply to &quot;protrahere&quot; and &quot;punctum tenere&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No one may presume ... to protract (the notes) or hold the cadence longer after the others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then the translation makes sense, and the comma between the two Latin phrases is a mistake on the part of the editor.  And so my questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Do both &quot;post alios&quot; and &quot;diutius&quot; apply to both verbs or to only the first?&#xD;&#xA; 2. In general, how to tell whether an adverb phrase applies to one or both disjoined verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18353" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5553" RevisionGUID="e27f7039-e3d0-426d-8de0-e617efe65171" CreationDate="2017-11-15T17:02:57.827" UserId="2099" Text="Does this adverb phrase apply to one or both verbs separated by 'vel'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18354" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5553" RevisionGUID="e27f7039-e3d0-426d-8de0-e617efe65171" CreationDate="2017-11-15T17:02:57.827" UserId="2099" Text="|conjunction|adverb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5553" RevisionGUID="b133840d-6efa-407e-a529-e67aea6b0976" CreationDate="2017-11-15T17:18:52.403" UserId="2099" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="The quote below is from the *Instituta Patrum de modo psallendi*, an anonymous Carolingian or High Medieval (I myself would date it 800s or 900s) document on singing psalms in Gregorian chant.  The author is admonishing cantors to stay in synch with each other.  He enumerates a list of 'sins', the last two of which trouble me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Nullus** ante alios aut post, incipere in Versu vel cantu, verba cantata&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reiterare, vel nimis discorditer festinare, praesumptiori vel altiori,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; remissiori an graviori, ... tardiori vel&#xD;&#xA;&gt; velociori voce, **aut post alios diutius protrahere, vel punctum tenere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; praesumat**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't tell if the phrases &quot;post alius&quot; and &quot;diutius&quot; apply to both verbs &quot;protrahere&quot; and &quot;tenere&quot;, or to only the first one.  If they both apply to &quot;protrahere&quot; only:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No one may presume ... to protract (the notes) longer after the others, or to hold the cadence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then the second 'sin' doesn't make sense to me, because &quot;holding the cadence&quot; (&quot;punctum tenere&quot;) isn't bad in itself ... at least how I am reading it.  So then am I misunderstanding the meaning of &quot;tenere&quot; in this musical context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, if they both apply to &quot;protrahere&quot; and &quot;punctum tenere&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No one may presume ... to protract (the notes) or hold the cadence longer after the others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then the translation makes sense to me, and the comma between the two Latin phrases is a mistake on the part of the editor.  And so my questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Do both &quot;post alios&quot; and &quot;diutius&quot; apply to both verbs or to only the first?&#xD;&#xA; 2. In general, how to tell whether an adverb phrase applies to one or both disjoined verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5554" RevisionGUID="2e7db4b8-b6f1-4be1-8100-f810c6d0f208" CreationDate="2017-11-15T17:18:59.153" UserId="324" Text="Buck, Comparative grammar p. 335, writes that Latin -ētum is “originally from verb stems in ē, as in acētum ‘vinegar’ (acēscō ‘turn sour’), but productive in nouns of place, especially place where a plant grows.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;de Vann derives acētum from aceō ‘be sour’, not from the inchoative acēscō; in any case the ē is part of the stem. It seems possible to me that the productive suffix -ētum was simply extracted from acētum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5555" RevisionGUID="9bcc9450-3315-4747-b96b-dbb291142057" CreationDate="2017-11-15T17:51:28.740" UserId="79" Text="I am not sure if this is the right reading, but at least it seems to be an option you have overlooked.&#xD;&#xA;Without context, it's also possible I'm misinterpreting the overall syntactical structure of the passage.&#xD;&#xA;Something has been left out (in the middle and before the quote), and that makes a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if it's the adverb *tener&amp;emacr;* instead of the infinitive *ten&amp;emacr;re*?&#xD;&#xA;That would lead to something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nullus [potest?] post alios diutius protrahere, vel punctum tenere praesumat.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; = No one can prolong longer than others (= longer after others), or he should softly take the cadence in advance.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;approx; If you sing longer than others, you should start softly a little earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The part starting at *vel* is a comment on the last sin, not part of the list itself.&#xD;&#xA;One reason I suspect this is that the list contains infinitives and *vel* part does not (in this reading!).&#xD;&#xA;It seems unlikely that *praesumat* would govern all the infinitives on the list, but that is hard to judge without seeing more of the text.&#xD;&#xA;I guessed the verb *potest* to my reading to make it sensible, and a verb like it may also be carried over from the previous sentence(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your numbered questions in this reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Tenere* is not a verb at all, and the phrase *post alios diutius* (&quot;longer than others&quot;) goes as a single entity.&#xD;&#xA;2. There is no general way. Context is your only hope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my reading is wrong, the first answer can be wrong, but the second one stands." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5553" RevisionGUID="ea367d1e-5033-476a-81ab-34eea453d62b" CreationDate="2017-11-15T17:53:00.447" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="The quote below is from the *Instituta Patrum de modo psallendi*, an anonymous Carolingian or High Medieval (I myself would date it 800s or 900s) document on singing psalms in Gregorian chant.  The author is admonishing cantors to stay in synch with each other.  He enumerates a list of 'sins', the last two of which trouble me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Nullus** ante alios aut post, incipere in Versu vel cantu, verba cantata&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reiterare, vel nimis discorditer festinare, praesumptiori vel altiori,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; remissiori an graviori, ... tardiori vel&#xD;&#xA;&gt; velociori voce, **aut post alios diutius protrahere, vel punctum tenere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; praesumat**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't tell if the phrases &quot;post alius&quot; and &quot;diutius&quot; apply to both verbs &quot;protrahere&quot; and &quot;tenere&quot;, or to only the first one.  If they both apply to &quot;protrahere&quot; only:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No one may presume ... to protract (the notes) longer after the others, or to hold the cadence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then the second 'sin' doesn't make sense to me, because &quot;holding the cadence&quot; (&quot;punctum tenere&quot;) isn't bad in itself ... at least how I am reading it.  So then am I misunderstanding the meaning of &quot;tenere&quot; in this musical context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, if they both apply to &quot;protrahere&quot; and &quot;punctum tenere&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No one may presume ... to protract (the notes) or hold the cadence longer after the others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then the translation makes sense to me, and the comma between the two Latin phrases is a mistake on the part of the editor.  And so my questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Do both &quot;post alios&quot; and &quot;diutius&quot; apply to both verbs or to only the first?&#xD;&#xA; 2. In general, how to tell whether an adverb phrase applies to one or both disjoined verbs? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18359" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5553" RevisionGUID="ea367d1e-5033-476a-81ab-34eea453d62b" CreationDate="2017-11-15T17:53:00.447" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|syntax|medieval-latin|conjunction|adverb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5553" RevisionGUID="10064b74-2bf1-4989-8a08-0e484efce3f7" CreationDate="2017-11-15T22:31:15.880" UserId="2099" Comment="added source links, and unabridged quote" Text="The quote below is from the *Instituta Patrum de modo psallendi*, an anonymous Carolingian or High Medieval (I myself would date it 800s or 900s) document on singing psalms in Gregorian chant.  Source link [here][1] or [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the fourth paragraph beginning &quot;Ammonemus&quot;, the author admonishes cantors to stay in synch with each other.  He enumerates a list of 'sins', the last two of which trouble me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Nullus** ante alios aut post, incipere in Versu vel cantu, verba cantata&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reiterare, vel nimis discorditer festinare, praesumptiori vel altiori,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; remissiori an graviori, id est, sursum vel iusum, tardiori vel&#xD;&#xA;&gt; velociori voce, **aut post alios diutius protrahere, vel punctum tenere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; praesumat**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't tell if the phrases &quot;post alius&quot; and &quot;diutius&quot; apply to both verbs &quot;protrahere&quot; and &quot;tenere&quot;, or to only the first one.  If they both apply to &quot;protrahere&quot; only:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No one may presume ... to protract (the notes) longer after the others, or to hold the cadence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then the second 'sin' doesn't make sense to me, because &quot;holding the cadence&quot; (&quot;punctum tenere&quot;) isn't bad in itself ... at least how I am reading it.  So then am I misunderstanding the meaning of &quot;tenere&quot; in this musical context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, if they both apply to &quot;protrahere&quot; and &quot;punctum tenere&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No one may presume ... to protract (the notes) or hold the cadence longer after the others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then the translation makes sense to me, and the comma between the two Latin phrases is a mistake on the part of the editor.  And so my questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Do both &quot;post alios&quot; and &quot;diutius&quot; apply to both verbs or to only the first?&#xD;&#xA; 2. In general, how to tell whether an adverb phrase applies to one or both disjoined verbs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://boethius.music.indiana.edu/tml/13th/PATPSAL&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.chmtl.indiana.edu/tml/13th/PATPSAL" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5553" RevisionGUID="78b2c412-fb7e-4aaa-9e68-3ed8eb31649c" CreationDate="2017-11-15T22:41:23.133" UserId="2099" Comment="added another fact" Text="The quote below is from the *Instituta Patrum de modo psallendi*, an anonymous Carolingian or High Medieval (I myself would date it 800s or 900s) document on singing psalms in Gregorian chant.  Source link [here][1] or [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the fourth paragraph beginning &quot;Ammonemus&quot;, the author admonishes cantors to stay in synch with each other.  He enumerates a list of 'sins', the last two of which trouble me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Nullus** ante alios aut post, incipere in Versu vel cantu, verba cantata&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reiterare, vel nimis discorditer festinare, praesumptiori vel altiori,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; remissiori an graviori, id est, sursum vel iusum, tardiori vel&#xD;&#xA;&gt; velociori voce, **aut post alios diutius protrahere, vel punctum tenere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; praesumat**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't tell if the phrases &quot;post alius&quot; and &quot;diutius&quot; apply to both verbs &quot;protrahere&quot; and &quot;tenere&quot;, or to only the first one.  If they both apply to &quot;protrahere&quot; only:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No one may presume ... to protract (the notes) longer after the others, or to hold the cadence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then the second 'sin' doesn't make sense to me, because &quot;holding the cadence&quot; (&quot;punctum tenere&quot;) isn't bad in itself ... at least how I am reading it.  So then am I misunderstanding the meaning of &quot;tenere&quot; in this musical context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, if they both apply to &quot;protrahere&quot; and &quot;punctum tenere&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No one may presume ... to protract (the notes) or hold the cadence longer after the others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then the translation makes sense to me, and the comma between the two Latin phrases is a mistake on the part of the editor.  And so my questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Do both &quot;post alios&quot; and &quot;diutius&quot; apply to both verbs or to only the first?&#xD;&#xA; 2. In general, how to tell whether an adverb phrase applies to one or both disjoined verbs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I noticed a few sentences later, the author says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si morose cantamus, longior pausa fiat;  si propere, brevior:  semper in Psalmodia punctus et pausa **teneantur**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it could also be that &quot;tenere punctum&quot; is a musical figure of speech I'm not yet acquainted with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://boethius.music.indiana.edu/tml/13th/PATPSAL&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.chmtl.indiana.edu/tml/13th/PATPSAL" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5556" RevisionGUID="038d450e-37dc-4b89-b887-9d71424b6c3d" CreationDate="2017-11-16T03:33:48.727" UserId="172" Text="I am not sure I understand deeper reasons for your doubt, as even the examples from the Elem. Lewis that you are referring to seem on target, but the translation of *usura* as “*interest* paid for the use of money, *usury*” by L&amp;S [(usura, II, B)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dusura) with a plethora of usage examples from the Classical era appears convincing enough to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that two of the sources contrast *sors* and *usura*, respectively “principal” and “interest”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *debitor **usuram** pariter **sortemque** negabit* (Mart. 5, 43, 3): the debtor will [not pay back] both interest and principal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *cures ut Atilio meo salva sit non **sors** modo verum etiam **usura** plurium annorum* [(full cit. Plin. Ep. 6.8.5)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:phi,1318,001:6:8:5) “make sure so that my dear Atillus would recover not only the principal but also interest for multiple years”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that the English word *interest* has changed its meaning very significantly over the history of its use (Harper has to tell [quite a story](https://www.etymonline.com/word/interest)), and, as it took the modern unmarked meaning, the word “usury” began to be used in a marked, derogatory sense, standing in particular for “excessive, unjust interest.” But in Latin, *usura* was instead an apparently unmarked word for “interest.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see a semantically related concept of [*faenus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfaenus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I may be missing some fine point, but if I am, please consider expanding the question by clarifying why exactly would you find these pointers not satisfactory in your context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5556" RevisionGUID="759723f8-2242-4bb6-89f1-e26efee3afec" CreationDate="2017-11-16T03:39:23.057" UserId="172" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="I am not sure I understand deeper reasons for your doubt, as even the examples from the Elem. Lewis that you are referring to seem on target, but the translation of *usura* as “*interest* paid for the use of money, *usury*” by L&amp;S [(usura, II, B)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dusura) with a plethora of usage examples from the Classical era appears convincing enough to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that two of the sources contrast *sors* and *usura*, respectively “principal” and “interest”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *debitor **usuram** pariter **sortemque** negabit* (Mart. 5, 43, 3): the debtor will [not pay back] both interest and principal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *cures ut Atilio meo salva sit non **sors** modo verum etiam **usura** plurium annorum* [(full cit. Plin. Ep. 6.8.5)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:phi,1318,001:6:8:5) “make sure so that my dear Atillus would recover not only the principal but also [due/fair] interest for multiple years”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that the English word *interest* has changed its meaning very significantly over the history of its use (Harper has to tell [quite a story](https://www.etymonline.com/word/interest)), and, as it took the modern unmarked meaning, the word “usury” began to be used in a marked, derogatory sense, standing in particular for “excessive, unjust interest.” But in Latin, *usura* was instead an apparently unmarked word for “interest.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see a semantically related concept of [*faenus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfaenus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I may be missing some fine point, but if I am, please consider expanding the question by clarifying why exactly would you find these pointers not satisfactory in your context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5556" RevisionGUID="bbfb6c66-ede2-48de-a696-6b6e3a8f31f4" CreationDate="2017-11-16T04:12:09.440" UserId="172" Comment="Added a section on semantic drift of English fiscal/legal terms." Text="I am not sure I understand deeper reasons for your doubt, as even the examples from the Elem. Lewis that you are referring to seem on target, but the translation of *usura* as “*interest* paid for the use of money, *usury*” by L&amp;S [(usura, II, B)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dusura) with a plethora of usage examples from the Classical era appears convincing enough to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that two of the sources contrast *sors* and *usura*, respectively “principal” and “interest”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *debitor **usuram** pariter **sortemque** negabit* (Mart. 5, 43, 3): the debtor will [not pay back] both interest and principal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *cures ut Atilio meo salva sit non **sors** modo verum etiam **usura** plurium annorum* [(full cit. Plin. Ep. 6.8.5)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:phi,1318,001:6:8:5) “make sure so that my dear Atillus would recover not only the principal but also [due/fair] interest for multiple years”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that the English word *interest* has changed its meaning very significantly over the history of its use (Harper has to tell [quite a story](https://www.etymonline.com/word/interest)), and, as it took the modern unmarked meaning, the word “usury” began to be used in a marked, derogatory sense, standing in particular for “excessive, unjust interest.” But in Latin, *usura* was instead an apparently unmarked word for “interest.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see a semantically related concept of [*faenus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfaenus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ADDED:** If I am reading your concern that you find implausible the semantic shift of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;use&quot; &gt; (restriction) &quot;use of lent money&quot; &gt; (metonymy) &quot;payment for such use&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then, first of all, there is little doubt that the words has developed one from another. If you look at the development of similar concepts in English, the magnitude of change would be even greater. I already referred to the etymology of *interest* above; here's the breathtaking [*Story Of Fee*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/fee), which can be abridged to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;cattle&quot; &gt; &quot;posession&quot; &gt; &quot;real estate&quot; &gt; (merger with cognate) &quot;fief, feudal estate&quot; &gt; &quot;heritable estate&quot; &gt; &quot;heritable privilege&quot; &gt; (metonymy) &quot;payment to thus privileged&quot; &gt; &quot;payment for privilege use&quot; = (our current sense).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stem of *utor* was very much active in Roman business and legal language (they reposessed property by *usucapio* and married *per usum*, and it was even one and the same thing from the standpoint of law, but I digress), so it is even less surprising for the stem to be productive in this domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I may be missing some fine point, but if I am, please consider expanding the question by clarifying why exactly would you find these pointers not satisfactory in your context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5556" RevisionGUID="dd0ac425-b20e-4da1-a2d1-956e1e1ecf2a" CreationDate="2017-11-16T04:30:31.917" UserId="172" Comment="Clarified non-homonymy of usura in both senses." Text="I am not sure I understand deeper reasons for your doubt, as even the examples from the Elem. Lewis that you are referring to seem on target, but the translation of *usura* as “*interest* paid for the use of money, *usury*” by L&amp;S [(usura, II, B)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dusura) with a plethora of usage examples from the Classical era appears convincing enough to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that two of the sources contrast *sors* and *usura*, respectively “principal” and “interest”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *debitor **usuram** pariter **sortemque** negabit* (Mart. 5, 43, 3): the debtor will [not pay back] both interest and principal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *cures ut Atilio meo salva sit non **sors** modo verum etiam **usura** plurium annorum* [(full cit. Plin. Ep. 6.8.5)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:phi,1318,001:6:8:5) “make sure so that my dear Atillus would recover not only the principal but also [due/fair] interest for multiple years”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that the English word *interest* has changed its meaning very significantly over the history of its use (Harper has to tell [quite a story](https://www.etymonline.com/word/interest)), and, as it took the modern unmarked meaning, the word “usury” began to be used in a marked, derogatory sense, standing in particular for “excessive, unjust interest.” But in Latin, *usura* was instead an apparently unmarked word for “interest.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see a semantically related concept of [*faenus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfaenus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ADDED:** If I am reading your concern that you find implausible the semantic shift of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;use&quot; &gt; (restriction) &quot;use of lent money&quot; &gt; (metonymy) &quot;payment for such use&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then, first of all, there is no doubt that *usura* the use and *usura* the interest is the very same lemma, no homonymy involved. If you look at the development of similar (legal, financial) concepts in English, the magnitude of change would be even greater. I already referred to the etymology of *interest* above; here's the breathtaking [*Story Of Fee*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/fee), which can be abridged to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;cattle&quot; &gt; &quot;posession&quot; &gt; &quot;real estate&quot; &gt; (merger with cognate) &quot;fief, feudal estate&quot; &gt; &quot;heritable estate&quot; &gt; &quot;heritable privilege&quot; &gt; (metonymy) &quot;payment to thus privileged&quot; &gt; &quot;payment for privilege use&quot; = (our current sense).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stem of *utor* was very much active in Roman business and legal language (they reposessed property by *usucapio* and married *per usum*, and it was even one and the same thing from the standpoint of law, but I digress), so it is even less surprising for the stem to be productive in this domain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I may be missing some fine point, but if I am, please consider expanding the question by clarifying why exactly would you find these pointers not satisfactory in your context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18367" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4" RevisionGUID="7c70d584-357f-48a5-85f8-dcdbb1a91ea7" CreationDate="2017-11-16T07:45:26.970" UserId="79" Comment="59" />
  <row Id="18368" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="1132" RevisionGUID="9bb1ad21-5a3f-41cd-8cca-bd0ea58efa1e" CreationDate="2017-11-16T07:45:46.113" UserId="79" Comment="58" />
  <row Id="18369" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="3054" RevisionGUID="4371fcc4-72fb-4ada-b768-1402bd072a72" CreationDate="2017-11-16T07:46:06.583" UserId="79" Comment="57" />
  <row Id="18371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5547" RevisionGUID="542ec918-eb18-45c4-801e-08406c505fbe" CreationDate="2017-11-16T15:11:08.813" UserId="1987" Comment="edited body" Text="The famous phrase *&quot;Dust to Dust, Ashes to Ashes&quot;* does not come from the Bible but from the *English Burial Service* of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, reading: *&quot;we therefore commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust;&quot;* but the concept *is* mentioned in the Bible.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Genesis 3:19 reads: *&quot;In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.&quot;*&#xA;&#xA;**Vulgate:** In sudore vultus tui vesceris pane donec revertaris in terram de qua sumptus es quia pulvis es et in pulverem reverteris&#xA;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) כִּֽי־עָפָ֣ר אַ֔תָּה וְאֶל־עָפָ֖ר תָּשֽׁוּב&#xA;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) ὅτι γῆ εἶ καὶ εἰς γῆν ἀπελεύσῃ&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Genesis 18:27 reads: *&quot;And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:&quot;*&#xA;&#xA;**Vulgate:** Respondens Abraham ait quia semel coepi loquar ad Dominum meum cum sim pulvis et cinis&#xA;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) וְאָנֹכִ֖י עָפָ֥ר וָאֵֽפֶר&#xA;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) ἐγώ δέ εἰμί γῆ καί σποδός&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Job 30:19 reads: *&quot;He hath cast me into the mire, and I am become like dust and ashes.&quot;*&#xA;&#xA;**Vulgate:** Conparatus sum luto et adsimilatus favillae et cineri&#xA;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) כֶּעָפָ֥ר וָאֵֽפֶר&#xA;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) γῇ καὶ σποδῷ μου ἡ μερίς&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Job 42:6 reads: *&quot;Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.&quot;*&#xA;&#xA;**Vulgate:** Idcirco ipse me reprehendo et ago paenitentiam in favilla et cinere&#xA;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) עַל־עָפָר וָאֵֽפֶר&#xA;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) γῆν καὶ σποδόν&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;The original Hebrew Old Testament and subsequent Greek Septuagint uses the same words for Dust and Ashes consistently. For Dust: [עָפָר][1] and [γῆ][2]. For Ashes: [אֵ֫פֶר][3] and [σποδός][4].&#xA;&#xA;But, when the Bible was translated into the Latin Vulgate, we see two **different** words used for Dust: [Pulvis][5] and [Favilla(e)][6]. [For Ashes they have used the same word consistently: [Cinis][7]]&#xA;&#xA;As I read, Favilla(e) itself means Ashes (Short Definitions &quot;cinders, hot ashes, glowing ashes, embers&quot;), rather then &quot;Dust/Soil/Earth&quot;. This definition in the entry for Cinis was particularly relevant: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; I. In gen. (while favilla is usually the ashes that is light like dust, or is still glowing; cf.: “corporis favillam ab reliquo separantcinere,” Plin. 19, 1, 4, § 19: cinis e favillā et carbonibus ad calfaciendum triclinium illatis exstinctus et jam diu frigidus exarsit repente, Suet. Tib. 74), Lucr. 1, 872; cf. id. 1, 890, and 4, 927; Cato ap. Charis. p. 78 P.; Suet. Tib. 74; Col. 2, 15, 6; 11, 3, 28; 12, 22, 1; Hor. C. 4, 13, 28.—&#xA;&#xA;And beloved Wiktionary summarises nicely, saying:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Usage Notes.** The word cinis is used for cold, heavy ashes, while favilla is used for glowing, light ashes.&#xA;&#xA;1. So can someone please explain to me *why* they have chosen to use &quot;Favillae et Cinis&quot; in the Book of Job, instead of &quot;Pulvis et Cinis&quot; (as in Genesis). What possible or probable reason would there be?&#xA;&#xA;2. Is it a good choice? Or is it *&quot;wonky translation&quot;*?&#xA;&#xA;3. Would &quot;Pulvis et Favillae&quot; be; *a)* a grammatically and conceptually correct alternative, and; *b)* better or worse then &quot;Pulvis et Cinis&quot;?&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Note:** Another example of the use of Favilla and Cinis both referring to ash is the Latin Hymn Dies Irae, which reads: *&quot;Dies iræ, dies illa Solvet sæclum in **favilla**, ... Cor contritum quasi **cinis**, ... Lacrimosa dies illa, Qua resurget ex **favilla**, Judicandus homo reus.&quot;*&#xA;(&quot;The day of wrath, that day&#xA;will dissolve the world in **ashes**, ... [my] heart crushed as **ashes**: ... Tearful [will be] that day, on which from the glowing **embers** will arise the guilty man who is to be judged.&quot;)&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Edit: Just noting: Elsewhere in the Bible we see the Hebrew עָפָר (dry earth, dust) is translated into the Latin *Terra* and the Greek *χοῦς* (Eg. Genesis 2:7, Psalms 103:14, Ecclesiastes 3:1). But that seems quite proper and is hardly surprising like the use of Favillae instead of Terra/Pulvis in the Book of Job, so *that* is not a particular concern in this question. &#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/6083.htm&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=gh=&#xA;  [3]: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/665.htm&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dspodo%2Fs&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpulvis&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfavilla&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cinis&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5557" RevisionGUID="a3e36718-62cd-42df-bef1-e192160dd89b" CreationDate="2017-11-16T15:29:14.520" UserId="1987" Text="Juvenal writes in Satire VI, VIII, line 20: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Nobilitas sola est atque unica virtus.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Translated variously as *&quot;Virtue is the one and only nobility&quot;*, *&quot;Nobility is the one only virtue&quot;*, *&quot;Goodness is the only and unparalled nobility&quot;*.&#xA;&#xA;I want to shorten that to *&quot;Virtue is the only Nobility&quot;*. Would **&quot;Nobilitas est unica virtus&quot;** be correct? And could I shorten that further to **&quot;Nobilitas unica virtus&quot;**?&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18373" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5557" RevisionGUID="a3e36718-62cd-42df-bef1-e192160dd89b" CreationDate="2017-11-16T15:29:14.520" UserId="1987" Text="Virtue is the only Nobility" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18374" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5557" RevisionGUID="a3e36718-62cd-42df-bef1-e192160dd89b" CreationDate="2017-11-16T15:29:14.520" UserId="1987" Text="|word-choice|motto|late-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5547" RevisionGUID="85dce918-ea13-4ed7-aee4-c27e839f8d71" CreationDate="2017-11-16T17:35:21.630" UserId="1987" Comment="added 109 characters in body; added 80 characters in body" Text="The famous phrase *&quot;Dust to Dust, Ashes to Ashes&quot;* does not come from the Bible but from the *English Burial Service* of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, reading: *&quot;we therefore commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust;&quot;* but the concept *is* mentioned in the Bible.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Genesis 3:19 reads: *&quot;In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.&quot;*&#xA;&#xA;**Vulgate:** In sudore vultus tui vesceris pane donec revertaris in terram de qua sumptus es quia pulvis es et in pulverem reverteris&#xA;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) כִּֽי־עָפָ֣ר אַ֔תָּה וְאֶל־עָפָ֖ר תָּשֽׁוּב&#xA;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) ὅτι γῆ εἶ καὶ εἰς γῆν ἀπελεύσῃ&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Genesis 18:27 reads: *&quot;And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:&quot;*&#xA;&#xA;**Vulgate:** Respondens Abraham ait quia semel coepi loquar ad Dominum meum cum sim pulvis et cinis&#xA;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) וְאָנֹכִ֖י עָפָ֥ר וָאֵֽפֶר&#xA;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) ἐγώ δέ εἰμί γῆ καί σποδός&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Job 30:19 reads: *&quot;He hath cast me into the mire, and I am become like dust and ashes.&quot;*&#xA;&#xA;**Vulgate:** Conparatus sum luto et adsimilatus favillae et cineri&#xA;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) כֶּעָפָ֥ר וָאֵֽפֶר&#xA;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) γῇ καὶ σποδῷ μου ἡ μερίς&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Job 42:6 reads: *&quot;Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.&quot;*&#xA;&#xA;**Vulgate:** Idcirco ipse me reprehendo et ago paenitentiam in favilla et cinere&#xA;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) עַל־עָפָר וָאֵֽפֶר&#xA;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) γῆν καὶ σποδόν&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;The original Hebrew Old Testament and subsequent Greek Septuagint uses the same words for Dust and Ashes consistently. For Dust: [עָפָר][1] and [γῆ][2]. For Ashes: [אֵ֫פֶר][3] and [σποδός][4].&#xA;&#xA;But, when the Bible was translated into the Latin Vulgate, we see two **different** words used for Dust: [Pulvis][5] and [Favilla(e)][6]. [For Ashes they have used the same word consistently: [Cinis][7]]&#xA;&#xA;As I read, Favilla(e) itself means Ashes (Short Definitions &quot;cinders, hot ashes, glowing ashes, embers&quot;), rather then &quot;Dust/Soil/Earth&quot;. This definition in the entry for Cinis was particularly relevant: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; I. In gen. (while favilla is usually the ashes that is light like dust, or is still glowing; cf.: “corporis favillam ab reliquo separantcinere,” Plin. 19, 1, 4, § 19: cinis e favillā et carbonibus ad calfaciendum triclinium illatis exstinctus et jam diu frigidus exarsit repente, Suet. Tib. 74), Lucr. 1, 872; cf. id. 1, 890, and 4, 927; Cato ap. Charis. p. 78 P.; Suet. Tib. 74; Col. 2, 15, 6; 11, 3, 28; 12, 22, 1; Hor. C. 4, 13, 28.—&#xA;&#xA;And beloved Wiktionary summarises nicely, saying:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Usage Notes.** The word cinis is used for cold, heavy ashes, while favilla is used for glowing, light ashes.&#xA;&#xA;1. So can someone please explain to me *why* they have chosen to use &quot;Favillae et Cinis&quot; in the Book of Job, instead of &quot;Pulvis et Cinis&quot; (as in Genesis). What possible or probable reason would there be?&#xA;&#xA;2. Is it a good choice? Or is it *&quot;wonky translation&quot;*?&#xA;&#xA;3. Would &quot;Pulvis et Favillae&quot; be; *a)* a grammatically and conceptually correct alternative, and; *b)* better or worse then &quot;Pulvis et Cinis&quot;?&#xA;&#xA;It's quite a different thing to repent *'in dust and ashes'* and to repent *'in embers and ashes'*... Ouch. But maybe there is some known figurative use of the word to explain this?&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Note:** Another example of the use of Favilla and Cinis both referring to ash is the Latin Hymn Dies Irae, which reads: *&quot;Dies iræ, dies illa Solvet sæclum in **favilla**, ... Cor contritum quasi **cinis**, ... Lacrimosa dies illa, Qua resurget ex **favilla**, Judicandus homo reus.&quot;*&#xA;(&quot;The day of wrath, that day&#xA;will dissolve the world in **ashes**, ... [my] heart crushed as **ashes**: ... Tearful [will be] that day, on which from the glowing **embers** will arise the guilty man who is to be judged.&quot;)&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Edit: Just noting: Elsewhere in the Bible we see the Hebrew עָפָר (dry earth, dust) is translated into the Latin *Terra* and the Greek *χοῦς* (Eg. Genesis 2:7, Psalms 103:14, Ecclesiastes 3:1, etc.). But that seems quite proper and is hardly surprising like the use of Favillae instead of Terra/Pulvis in the Book of Job, so *that* is not a particular concern in this question. &#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/6083.htm&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=gh=&#xA;  [3]: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/665.htm&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dspodo%2Fs&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpulvis&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfavilla&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cinis&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5558" RevisionGUID="80446d37-5e6f-42ae-930c-66a9c0ccc320" CreationDate="2017-11-16T17:46:53.483" UserId="79" Text="Yes, *Nobilitas (est) unica virtus* is a very good translation.&#xD;&#xA;Leaving *est* out is common, and *Nobilitas unica virtus* is very much in the style you would see in a coat of arms, for example.&#xD;&#xA;I recommend using the shorter variant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two small remarks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The quote is somewhat ambiguous (as things often are): it could be &quot;virtue is nobility&quot; or &quot;nobility is virtue&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Word order and context can suggest which one is more likely, but grammar does not determine it uniquely.&#xD;&#xA;In this case the ambiguity does not seem dangerous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The words *solus* and *unicus* are almost synonymous.&#xD;&#xA;Having them both adds emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;The English phrase is similar, as one could often say &quot;X is the only Y&quot; but &quot;X is the one and only Y&quot; is more emphatic.&#xD;&#xA;Removing *solus* simplifies the phrase but does not have a significant effect on its meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5557" RevisionGUID="d9880ff0-7d73-4793-91b8-9d745fd77534" CreationDate="2017-11-16T17:48:04.480" UserId="79" Comment="Added an author tag because the question is based on a quote." Text="Juvenal writes in Satire VI, VIII, line 20: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nobilitas sola est atque unica virtus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Translated variously as *&quot;Virtue is the one and only nobility&quot;*, *&quot;Nobility is the one only virtue&quot;*, *&quot;Goodness is the only and unparalled nobility&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to shorten that to *&quot;Virtue is the only Nobility&quot;*. Would **&quot;Nobilitas est unica virtus&quot;** be correct? And could I shorten that further to **&quot;Nobilitas unica virtus&quot;**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18379" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5557" RevisionGUID="d9880ff0-7d73-4793-91b8-9d745fd77534" CreationDate="2017-11-16T17:48:04.480" UserId="79" Comment="Added an author tag because the question is based on a quote." Text="|word-choice|motto|late-latin|juvenalis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5559" RevisionGUID="d25b4740-f5fd-467a-99c5-0b640a582408" CreationDate="2017-11-17T03:48:21.690" UserId="2118" Text="doing a project for a logo that intends to use the Latin translation for the term &quot;Apex Predator&quot;. From the various web sites if have visited it appears that &quot;Apicem Rapax&quot; is one possible translation. Would like to ask if you can confirm this or provide a more appropriate translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18381" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5559" RevisionGUID="d25b4740-f5fd-467a-99c5-0b640a582408" CreationDate="2017-11-17T03:48:21.690" UserId="2118" Text="Translation from the english Apex Predator?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18382" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5559" RevisionGUID="d25b4740-f5fd-467a-99c5-0b640a582408" CreationDate="2017-11-17T03:48:21.690" UserId="2118" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5560" RevisionGUID="fa908d29-e49c-475b-936b-009b3a91a471" CreationDate="2017-11-17T05:21:10.837" UserId="78" Text="*Apex* is a noun, and Latin cannot, unlike English, use nouns as adjectives. I don't know if there was a set phrase for this term, though I doubt it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Praedator* is where we get the word 'predator' from, and like the English, it can mean &quot;hunter.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apex is a metaphorical word for &quot;top,&quot; so I'd suggest something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Praedator primus***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Primus* means &quot;first,&quot; but it's often used to mean &quot;best&quot; or &quot;top&quot; or even &quot;greatest,&quot; with emphasis on primacy. You technically could confuse it with &quot;first predator,&quot; though also technically a &quot;apex predator&quot; is a predator who hunts on the tops of mountain peaks, so the ambiguity is really just grasping at straws." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5559" RevisionGUID="b3a8d3aa-35b9-4e66-9ec4-45b9e9157954" CreationDate="2017-11-17T06:46:00.203" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I am doing a project for a logo that intends to use the Latin translation for the term &quot;Apex Predator&quot;. From the various web sites if have visited it appears that &quot;Apicem Rapax&quot; is one possible translation. Would like to ask if you can confirm this or provide a more appropriate translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18385" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5559" RevisionGUID="b3a8d3aa-35b9-4e66-9ec4-45b9e9157954" CreationDate="2017-11-17T06:46:00.203" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Translation from the English Apex Predator?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18386" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5559" RevisionGUID="b3a8d3aa-35b9-4e66-9ec4-45b9e9157954" CreationDate="2017-11-17T06:46:00.203" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5561" RevisionGUID="965ca6f5-7029-4b45-a704-7fcd087d1beb" CreationDate="2017-11-17T06:58:10.900" UserId="79" Text="My suggestion is ***praedator summus***.&#xD;&#xA;The word *summus* means &quot;highest&quot;, &quot;top&quot;, &quot;peak&quot;, &quot;last&quot;, &quot;supreme&quot;, &quot;most important&quot;, and similar things.&#xD;&#xA;See [Lewis and Short (*superus* III.C)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=superus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) for details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An apex predator is the last one in a food chain and at the top of the ecological structure.&#xD;&#xA;I find *summus* to be a good description of this situation, and it also parallels the literal meaning of &quot;apex&quot; (basic meaning: *summus* = &quot;highest&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While [*apex*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=apex&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is a Latin noun, I find it more natural to use an adjective than a noun here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5562" RevisionGUID="8bcbddb4-c9f6-423a-b008-60450a58e875" CreationDate="2017-11-17T07:53:02.807" UserId="235" Text="I was considering the English word *anticipation* the other day, and wondered at how it ended up with a Greek prefix followed by a Latin root.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; After a quick search I found that the word derives from anticipātiō, anticipātiōnis which also has this feature. Do we know anything about how this word was formed? Was the prefix first appropriated into the Latin language and made common as a Latin prefix? Or is there some other explanation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I found this [related question][1], where my hypothesis finds support in Joonas' answer. But it still remains a hypothesis, not an answer, as this is a specific case, not a general question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4711/did-the-romans-ever-combine-greek-and-latin-morphemes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18389" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5562" RevisionGUID="8bcbddb4-c9f6-423a-b008-60450a58e875" CreationDate="2017-11-17T07:53:02.807" UserId="235" Text="How did the mixed-root &quot;anticipātiō, anticipātiōnis&quot; form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18390" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5562" RevisionGUID="8bcbddb4-c9f6-423a-b008-60450a58e875" CreationDate="2017-11-17T07:53:02.807" UserId="235" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5563" RevisionGUID="2f085fea-401a-4a9d-8d0e-99cdd135bad7" CreationDate="2017-11-17T08:03:31.703" UserId="79" Text="It seems to me that [*anticipatio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=anticipatio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) comes from [*anticipare*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=anticipo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), which in turn comes from [*antecapere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=antecapio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;If this line of thought is correct, it was originally the Latin prefix *ante-*, but the *-e-* was weakened into *-i-*.&#xD;&#xA;The prefix *ante-* appears in several verbs, including *antecedere*, *anteponere*, and *antevertere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure why the vowel changed, though.&#xD;&#xA;It is not unusual that vowels get weaker when words get longer by derivation, but I failed to find an analogous change elsewhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5562" RevisionGUID="0bba5b6e-aa44-4924-b829-b34bb70c179e" CreationDate="2017-11-17T08:06:12.630" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I was considering the English word *anticipation* the other day, and wondered at how it ended up with a Greek prefix followed by a Latin root.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; After a quick search I found that the word derives from *anticipātiō, anticipātiōnis* which also has this feature. Do we know anything about how this word was formed? Was the prefix first appropriated into the Latin language and made common as a Latin prefix? Or is there some other explanation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I found this [related question][1], where my hypothesis finds support in Joonas' answer. But it still remains a hypothesis, not an answer, as this is a specific case, not a general question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4711/did-the-romans-ever-combine-greek-and-latin-morphemes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18393" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5562" RevisionGUID="0bba5b6e-aa44-4924-b829-b34bb70c179e" CreationDate="2017-11-17T08:06:12.630" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|etymology|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5564" RevisionGUID="3451e68e-643d-4cf5-b523-e8279ffb4342" CreationDate="2017-11-17T08:30:54.453" UserId="235" Text="Early on in *The Republic*, Socrates contends with Thrasymachus's argument that &quot;justice is the interest of the stronger&quot;. Socrates gives some analogies, such as the relationship that doctors have with their patients, and captains with their sailors. In all these analogies, the superior serves the interest of his or her inferiors. Eventually he rounds off by saying that rulers likewise serve the interest of their subjects, and only the interest of their subjects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia reproduces a definition of *imperium*, supposedly given by A.H.M Jones, i.e. &quot;the power vested by the state in a person to do what he considers to be in the best interests of the state&quot;. Is this definition accurate? If so, how seriously did Romans take the idea that *imperium* should serve the best interest of the state, and not the man wielding it? Lastly, how much was this idea influenced by Plato's idea that rulers should serve only the interest of their subjects? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am particularly interested in this last question (although the previous ones are also necessary to reach it) as I'm curious to know how much influence Plato's thoughts on ruling had on the Romans." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18395" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5564" RevisionGUID="3451e68e-643d-4cf5-b523-e8279ffb4342" CreationDate="2017-11-17T08:30:54.453" UserId="235" Text="Was the Roman concept of &quot;imperium&quot; influenced by Plato?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18396" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5564" RevisionGUID="3451e68e-643d-4cf5-b523-e8279ffb4342" CreationDate="2017-11-17T08:30:54.453" UserId="235" Text="|roman-culture|plato|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5564" RevisionGUID="f01b98cb-6b82-4df5-bdd4-369866700af0" CreationDate="2017-11-17T08:43:05.253" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Early on in *The Republic*, Socrates contends with Thrasymachus's argument that &quot;justice is the interest of the stronger&quot;. Socrates gives some analogies, such as the relationship that doctors have with their patients, and captains with their sailors. In these analogies, the superior serves the interest of his or her inferiors. Eventually he rounds off by saying that rulers likewise serve the interest of their subjects, and only the interest of their subjects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia reproduces a definition of *imperium*, supposedly given by A.H.M Jones, i.e. &quot;the power vested by the state in a person to do what he considers to be in the best interests of the state&quot;. Is this definition accurate? If so, how seriously did Romans take the idea that *imperium* should serve the best interest of the state, and not the man wielding it? Lastly, how much was this idea influenced by Plato's point that rulers should serve only the interest of their subjects? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am particularly interested in this last question (although the previous ones are also necessary to reach it) as I'm curious to know how much influence Plato's thoughts on ruling had on the Romans." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="7f29fb00-cf4b-402d-b4ed-9b4db9897d5b" CreationDate="2017-11-17T12:16:49.000" UserId="79" Text="If have ever seen a Roman grave inscription, chances are you have seen the phrase *Dis Manibus* or its abbreviation *DM*.&#xD;&#xA;It starts almost every Roman tombstone I have seen.&#xD;&#xA;I know it means &quot;to/for the [Manes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manes)&quot;, but I am not sure how to parse it syntactically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I parse *D[is] M[anibus]* as a separate idiom that is not syntactically tied to the rest of the text?&#xD;&#xA;What exactly is given or dedicated to the Manes?&#xD;&#xA;Is it the tomb, the deceased, or something else?&#xD;&#xA;Is the text perhaps addressed to the Manes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be grateful if someone could show an example or two and explain **how the phrase *Dis Manibus* works as a part of the whole text in an epitaph**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18399" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="7f29fb00-cf4b-402d-b4ed-9b4db9897d5b" CreationDate="2017-11-17T12:16:49.000" UserId="79" Text="How to parse &quot;dis manibus&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18400" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="7f29fb00-cf4b-402d-b4ed-9b4db9897d5b" CreationDate="2017-11-17T12:16:49.000" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|syntax|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18401" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="aaa53d41-9e5c-435e-9763-9adf7c7bd2f4" CreationDate="2017-11-17T12:26:19.560" UserId="79" Comment="edited title" Text="How to parse &quot;Dis Manibus&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="c3dea0cc-e3d0-4315-bde0-cce64872ffea" CreationDate="2017-11-17T14:02:06.050" UserId="79" Comment="added 592 characters in body" Text="If have ever seen a Roman grave inscription, chances are you have seen the phrase *Dis Manibus* or its abbreviation *DM*.&#xD;&#xA;It starts almost every Roman tombstone I have seen.&#xD;&#xA;I know it means &quot;to/for the [Manes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manes)&quot;, but I am not sure how to parse it syntactically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I parse *D[is] M[anibus]* as a separate idiom that is not syntactically tied to the rest of the text?&#xD;&#xA;What exactly is given or dedicated to the Manes?&#xD;&#xA;Is it the tomb, the deceased, or something else?&#xD;&#xA;Is the text perhaps addressed to the Manes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be grateful if someone could show an example or two and explain **how the phrase *Dis Manibus* works as a part of the whole text in an epitaph**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some example inscriptions from [this CIL page](http://arachne.uni-koeln.de/Tei-Viewer/cgi-bin/teiviewer.php?manifest=BOOK-ZID883691) (&quot;Section: Sepulchrales&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15128  &#xD;&#xA;DIS MANIBVS  &#xD;&#xA;TI CLAVDIO ISSO  &#xD;&#xA;FIL DVLCISSIMO  &#xD;&#xA;VIX ANN XII D XXXV  &#xD;&#xA;IVLIA SEVERA  &#xD;&#xA;MATER FECIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15130  &#xD;&#xA;DIS MANIBVS  &#xD;&#xA;TI CLAVDIVS  &#xD;&#xA;IVCVNDVS AVG  &#xD;&#xA;L FEC FAVSTO  &#xD;&#xA;ALVMNO SVO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15134  &#xD;&#xA;D M  &#xD;&#xA;BENE MERENTI FILIO  &#xD;&#xA;CLAVDIO LICINIO  &#xD;&#xA;QVI VIXIT ANNO  &#xD;&#xA;VNO MESIBUS VIIII  &#xD;&#xA;FECIT PATER LICINIVS  &#xD;&#xA;EVTHYCIVS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can understand these inscriptions otherwise, but I don't see the exact role played by the first lines." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5560" RevisionGUID="542cc1a0-0e92-40e0-b0c4-140cfeefd450" CreationDate="2017-11-17T14:52:54.870" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 129 characters in body" Text="*Apex* is a noun, and Latin cannot, unlike English, use nouns as adjectives. I don't know if there was a set phrase for this term, though I doubt it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Praedator* is where we get the word 'predator' from, and like the English, it can mean &quot;hunter.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apex is a metaphorical word for &quot;top,&quot; so I'd suggest something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Praedator primus***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Primus* means &quot;first,&quot; but it's often used to mean &quot;best&quot; or &quot;top&quot; or even &quot;greatest,&quot; with emphasis on primacy. The chief centurion, for example, of a Roman legion was the *primus pilus*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5566" RevisionGUID="3b0ed6be-1284-4986-a1f0-19d99cdf593f" CreationDate="2017-11-17T18:25:20.510" UserId="79" Text="Instead of answering your last and main question as stated, I will try to argue why it is not answerable.&#xD;&#xA;The reason is in the answer to the first question: the description is not accurate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *imperium* has a broad range of meanings.&#xD;&#xA;From [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=imperium&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059):&#xD;&#xA;command, order, direction, authority, command, control, supreme power, sovereignty, sway, dominion, empire, public offices, rule, control, commander, commanding officers, generals, government&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on that dictionary entry, I don't see how an interpretation as narrow as the one Jones suggests could be possible.&#xD;&#xA;To reach that, one needs to isolate a very particular class of use cases.&#xD;&#xA;But the choice is arbitrary; picking one of the L&amp;S explanations over another leads to a different interpretation of *imperium*.&#xD;&#xA;At least I am unable to tell when *imperium* is used as a technical political term as opposed to a common word for just about any kind of power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do agree that &quot;the power vested by the state in a person to do what he considers to be in the best interests of the state&quot; is one of the many meanings of *imperium*, not that it characterizes the word completely.&#xD;&#xA;For example, newly conquered areas were brought under the Roman *imperium* (Caesar, de Bello Gallico: *Gallia sub populi Romani imperium redacta*; Cicero, Pro Lege Manilia: *hodie hanc gloriam atque hoc orbis terrae imperium teneremus*), which is not a power vested by the state in an individual." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5567" RevisionGUID="5a06c24c-4a5e-49f0-8701-b1497426b8ec" CreationDate="2017-11-17T18:52:21.010" UserId="235" Text="In each example you give, there is the word *fecit* or its abbreviation *fec*. I believe this goes along with *Dis Manibus* to mean &quot;made to the Manes&quot;. In this way, it [resembles the style of Roman letters][1], in which the recipient is placed up top in the dative case, and &quot;salutem&quot; or &quot;S.D.&quot; often follows. Since epitaphs are short, it makes sense to place *fecit* near the end, using SOV order. This would be impossible in Roman letters — to place S.D. at the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To demonstrate this theory, let's try translating each one. The translations are roughshod (at best) — although the last came out quite nicely — but I think they serve to illustrate how *fecit* goes hand in hand with *DM*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please feel free to improve my translations in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **15128**&#xD;&#xA;DIS MANIBVS  &#xD;&#xA;TI CLAVDIO ISSO  &#xD;&#xA;FIL DVLCISSIMO  &#xD;&#xA;VIX ANN XII D XXXV  &#xD;&#xA;IVLIA SEVERA  &#xD;&#xA;MATER FECIT  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To the spirits of the dead,  &#xD;&#xA;For Tiberius Claudius (of Issus? Issus?),  &#xD;&#xA;most sweet son,   &#xD;&#xA;lived ——   &#xD;&#xA;Iulia Severa,  &#xD;&#xA;his mother, made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **15130**&#xD;&#xA;DIS MANIBVS  &#xD;&#xA;TI CLAVDIVS  &#xD;&#xA;IVCVNDVS AVG  &#xD;&#xA;L FEC FAVSTO  &#xD;&#xA;ALVMNO SVO  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To the ghost-gods,  &#xD;&#xA;Tiberius Claudius,  &#xD;&#xA;Delightful, [Augustus?] [50?]  &#xD;&#xA;made by his fortunate student.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;N.B. I'm imposing a passive sense on FEC which might be wrong!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **15134**&#xD;&#xA;D M  &#xD;&#xA;BENE MERENTI FILIO  &#xD;&#xA;CLAVDIO LICINIO  &#xD;&#xA;QVI VIXIT ANNO  &#xD;&#xA;VNO MESIBUS VIIII  &#xD;&#xA;FECIT PATER LICINIVS  &#xD;&#xA;EVTHYCIVS  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To the Manes,  &#xD;&#xA;For the well-deserving son   &#xD;&#xA;Claudius Licinius   &#xD;&#xA;who lived for one year nine months,&#xD;&#xA;his father Licinius Euthycius made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5369/how-do-i-address-an-email-in-latin-to-my-latin-professor/5373#5373" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5567" RevisionGUID="4d5905c7-1937-4443-b44b-5b02bbb12e25" CreationDate="2017-11-17T18:57:44.597" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="In each example you give, there is the word *fecit* or its abbreviation *fec*. I believe this goes along with *Dis Manibus* to mean &quot;made to the Manes&quot;. In this way, it [resembles the style of Roman letters][1], in which the recipient is placed up top in the dative case, and &quot;salutem&quot; or &quot;S.D.&quot; often follows. Since epitaphs are short, it makes sense to place *fecit* near the end, using SOV order. This would be impossible in Roman letters — to place S.D. at the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To demonstrate this theory, let's try translating each one. I wasn't able to translate each one fully, but I think I got the gist. The translations serve to illustrate how *fecit* goes hand in hand with *DM*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, please feel free to improve my translations in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **15128**&#xD;&#xA;DIS MANIBVS  &#xD;&#xA;TI CLAVDIO ISSO  &#xD;&#xA;FIL DVLCISSIMO  &#xD;&#xA;VIX ANN XII D XXXV  &#xD;&#xA;IVLIA SEVERA  &#xD;&#xA;MATER FECIT  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To the spirits of the dead,  &#xD;&#xA;For Tiberius Claudius (of Issus? Issus?),  &#xD;&#xA;most sweet son,   &#xD;&#xA;lived ——   &#xD;&#xA;Iulia Severa,  &#xD;&#xA;his mother, made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **15130**&#xD;&#xA;DIS MANIBVS  &#xD;&#xA;TI CLAVDIVS  &#xD;&#xA;IVCVNDVS AVG  &#xD;&#xA;L FEC FAVSTO  &#xD;&#xA;ALVMNO SVO  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To the ghost-gods,  &#xD;&#xA;Tiberius Claudius,  &#xD;&#xA;Agreeable, [Augustus?] [50?]  &#xD;&#xA;made for his fortunate student.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; N.B. I am really unsure of this translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **15134**&#xD;&#xA;D M  &#xD;&#xA;BENE MERENTI FILIO  &#xD;&#xA;CLAVDIO LICINIO  &#xD;&#xA;QVI VIXIT ANNO  &#xD;&#xA;VNO MESIBUS VIIII  &#xD;&#xA;FECIT PATER LICINIVS  &#xD;&#xA;EVTHYCIVS  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To the Manes,  &#xD;&#xA;For the well-deserving son   &#xD;&#xA;Claudius Licinius   &#xD;&#xA;who lived for one year nine months,  &#xD;&#xA;his father Licinius Euthycius made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5369/how-do-i-address-an-email-in-latin-to-my-latin-professor/5373#5373" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5567" RevisionGUID="cc3bf069-a260-49f2-b617-f9aae5b2319f" CreationDate="2017-11-17T19:08:05.070" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 70 characters in body" Text="In each example you give, there is the word *fecit* or its abbreviation *fec*. I believe this goes along with *Dis Manibus* to mean &quot;made to the Manes&quot;. In this way, it [resembles the style of Roman letters][1], in which the recipient is placed up top in the dative case, and &quot;salutem&quot; or &quot;S.D.&quot; often follows. Since epitaphs are short, it makes sense to place *fecit* near the end, using SOV order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To demonstrate this theory, let's try translating each one. I wasn't able to translate each one fully, but I think I got the gist. The translations serve to illustrate how *fecit* goes hand in hand with *DM*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, please feel free to improve my translations in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **15128**&#xD;&#xA;DIS MANIBVS  &#xD;&#xA;TI CLAVDIO ISSO  &#xD;&#xA;FIL DVLCISSIMO  &#xD;&#xA;VIX ANN XII D XXXV  &#xD;&#xA;IVLIA SEVERA  &#xD;&#xA;MATER FECIT  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To the spirits of the dead,  &#xD;&#xA;For Tiberius Claudius (of Issus? Issus?),  &#xD;&#xA;most sweet son,   &#xD;&#xA;lived ——   &#xD;&#xA;Iulia Severa,  &#xD;&#xA;his mother, made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **15130**&#xD;&#xA;DIS MANIBVS  &#xD;&#xA;TI CLAVDIVS  &#xD;&#xA;IVCVNDVS AVG  &#xD;&#xA;L FEC FAVSTO  &#xD;&#xA;ALVMNO SVO  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To the ghost-gods,  &#xD;&#xA;Tiberius Claudius,  &#xD;&#xA;Agreeable, [Augustus?] [50?]  &#xD;&#xA;made for his fortunate student.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; N.B. I am really unsure of this translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **15134**&#xD;&#xA;D M  &#xD;&#xA;BENE MERENTI FILIO  &#xD;&#xA;CLAVDIO LICINIO  &#xD;&#xA;QVI VIXIT ANNO  &#xD;&#xA;VNO MESIBUS VIIII  &#xD;&#xA;FECIT PATER LICINIVS  &#xD;&#xA;EVTHYCIVS  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To the Manes,  &#xD;&#xA;For the well-deserving son   &#xD;&#xA;Claudius Licinius   &#xD;&#xA;who lived for one year nine months,  &#xD;&#xA;his father Licinius Euthycius made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5369/how-do-i-address-an-email-in-latin-to-my-latin-professor/5373#5373" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5567" RevisionGUID="b8467d52-bcc7-4586-93d7-ad8246a88d25" CreationDate="2017-11-17T19:47:28.240" UserId="235" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In each example you give, there is the word *fecit* or its abbreviation *fec*. I believe this goes along with *Dis Manibus* to mean &quot;made to the Manes&quot;. In this way, it [resembles the style of Roman letters][1], in which the recipient is placed up top in the dative case, and &quot;salutem&quot; or &quot;S.D.&quot; often follows. Since epitaphs are short, it makes sense to place *fecit* near the end, using SOV order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To demonstrate this theory, let's try translating each one. I wasn't able to translate each one fully, but I think I got the gist. The translations serve to illustrate how *fecit* goes hand in hand with *DM*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, please feel free to improve my translations in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **15128**&#xD;&#xA;DIS MANIBVS  &#xD;&#xA;TI CLAVDIO ISSO  &#xD;&#xA;FIL DVLCISSIMO  &#xD;&#xA;VIX ANN XII D XXXV  &#xD;&#xA;IVLIA SEVERA  &#xD;&#xA;MATER FECIT  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To the spirits of the dead,  &#xD;&#xA;For Tiberius Claudius (of Issus? Issus?),  &#xD;&#xA;most sweet son,   &#xD;&#xA;lived ——   &#xD;&#xA;Iulia Severa,  &#xD;&#xA;his mother, made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **15130**&#xD;&#xA;DIS MANIBVS  &#xD;&#xA;TI CLAVDIVS  &#xD;&#xA;IVCVNDVS AVG  &#xD;&#xA;L FEC FAVSTO  &#xD;&#xA;ALVMNO SVO  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To the ghost-gods,  &#xD;&#xA;Tiberius Claudius, agreeable,  &#xD;&#xA;made for his favorable foster son,  &#xD;&#xA;Lucius Augustus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; N.B. I am really unsure of this translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **15134**&#xD;&#xA;D M  &#xD;&#xA;BENE MERENTI FILIO  &#xD;&#xA;CLAVDIO LICINIO  &#xD;&#xA;QVI VIXIT ANNO  &#xD;&#xA;VNO MESIBUS VIIII  &#xD;&#xA;FECIT PATER LICINIVS  &#xD;&#xA;EVTHYCIVS  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To the Manes,  &#xD;&#xA;For the well-deserving son   &#xD;&#xA;Claudius Licinius   &#xD;&#xA;who lived for one year nine months,  &#xD;&#xA;his father Licinius Euthycius made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5369/how-do-i-address-an-email-in-latin-to-my-latin-professor/5373#5373" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5563" RevisionGUID="5d5d77e1-8bc7-4336-aef7-43a5507b832d" CreationDate="2017-11-18T20:03:52.000" UserId="79" Comment="added 218 characters in body" Text="It seems to me that [*anticipatio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=anticipatio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) comes from [*anticipare*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=anticipo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), which in turn comes from [*antecapere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=antecapio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;If this line of thought is correct, it was originally the Latin prefix *ante-*, but the *-e-* was weakened into *-i-*.&#xD;&#xA;The prefix *ante-* appears in several verbs, including *antecedere*, *anteponere*, and *antevertere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not unusual that vowels get weaker when words get longer by derivation, but cases where a short *-e-* becomes an *-i-* are harder to find.&#xD;&#xA;Following a suggestion by sumelic in the comments, I found examples where *mille-* has turned into *milli-*: *milliformis*, *millimodus*, *millipeda*.&#xD;&#xA;All other examples I found of *anti-* are of Greek origin, so *anticipatio* seems quite unique." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="fbf7f8a5-c778-4744-b72f-4f6ee21cc267" CreationDate="2017-11-18T20:14:11.897" UserId="79" Text="The [L&amp;S entry](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=simia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) for *simia* (&quot;ape&quot;) says that the etymology is dubious, and it is perhaps akin to *similis*.&#xD;&#xA;What do other sources have to say on the etymology?&#xD;&#xA;Are there popular theories or is it perhaps still unclear?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18412" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="fbf7f8a5-c778-4744-b72f-4f6ee21cc267" CreationDate="2017-11-18T20:14:11.897" UserId="79" Text="Where does &quot;simia&quot; come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18413" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="fbf7f8a5-c778-4744-b72f-4f6ee21cc267" CreationDate="2017-11-18T20:14:11.897" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5569" RevisionGUID="ec6728fa-617c-4355-8a47-5090951f0e8b" CreationDate="2017-11-18T21:00:58.387" UserId="324" Text="Walde, following Kretschmer, thinks it is from σῑμός “snub-nosed”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="bacb3c9b-984f-40fc-a8b3-d18521600c57" CreationDate="2017-11-18T21:16:09.827" UserId="79" Comment="added 178 characters in body; edited title" Text="Almost everyone who has ever seen a Roman grave inscription has seen the phrase *Dis Manibus* or its abbreviation *DM*.&#xD;&#xA;It starts almost every Roman tombstone I have seen.&#xD;&#xA;I know it means &quot;to/for the [Manes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manes)&quot;, but I am not sure how to parse it syntactically as a part of the inscription.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I parse *D[is] M[anibus]* as a separate idiom that is not syntactically tied to the rest of the text?&#xD;&#xA;What exactly is given or dedicated to the Manes?&#xD;&#xA;Is it the tomb, the deceased, or something else?&#xD;&#xA;Is the text perhaps addressed to the Manes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be grateful if someone could show an example or two and explain **how the phrase *Dis Manibus* works as a part of the whole text in an epitaph**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some example inscriptions from [this CIL page](http://arachne.uni-koeln.de/Tei-Viewer/cgi-bin/teiviewer.php?manifest=BOOK-ZID883691) (&quot;Section: Sepulchrales&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15128  &#xD;&#xA;DIS MANIBVS  &#xD;&#xA;TI CLAVDIO ISSO  &#xD;&#xA;FIL DVLCISSIMO  &#xD;&#xA;VIX ANN XII D XXXV  &#xD;&#xA;IVLIA SEVERA  &#xD;&#xA;MATER FECIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15130  &#xD;&#xA;DIS MANIBVS  &#xD;&#xA;TI CLAVDIVS  &#xD;&#xA;IVCVNDVS AVG  &#xD;&#xA;L FEC FAVSTO  &#xD;&#xA;ALVMNO SVO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15134  &#xD;&#xA;D M  &#xD;&#xA;BENE MERENTI FILIO  &#xD;&#xA;CLAVDIO LICINIO  &#xD;&#xA;QVI VIXIT ANNO  &#xD;&#xA;VNO MESIBUS VIIII  &#xD;&#xA;FECIT PATER LICINIVS  &#xD;&#xA;EVTHYCIVS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can understand these inscriptions otherwise, but I don't see the exact role played by the first lines.&#xD;&#xA;This may or may not be a representative sample.&#xD;&#xA;I lack the expertise to judge that, but the ubiquity of the phrase is evident from what I have seen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18416" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="bacb3c9b-984f-40fc-a8b3-d18521600c57" CreationDate="2017-11-18T21:16:09.827" UserId="79" Comment="added 178 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to parse &quot;Dis Manibus&quot; syntactically?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5570" RevisionGUID="34ddeaa8-6efc-40d8-a821-13d1da6d71d3" CreationDate="2017-11-19T00:10:06.813" UserId="1496" Text="The suffix -ize (or similar) are used to form verbs from nouns and adjectives in several Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary suggests that this stems from the vulgar latin -izo,-izare,-izavi,-izatum, which (ultimately) is borrowed from Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that there are no Latin literature which use this suffix. Even the Vicipaedia page for [factorisation](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_factores_resolutio) is &quot;In factores resolutio&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it proper usage to append this suffix to words in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18418" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5570" RevisionGUID="34ddeaa8-6efc-40d8-a821-13d1da6d71d3" CreationDate="2017-11-19T00:10:06.813" UserId="1496" Text="Is the suffix -izo,-izare,-izavi,-izatum formal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18419" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5570" RevisionGUID="34ddeaa8-6efc-40d8-a821-13d1da6d71d3" CreationDate="2017-11-19T00:10:06.813" UserId="1496" Text="|suffixes|vulgar-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="870" RevisionGUID="ec9353f2-8d3a-4bee-822a-65a1a9b2574c" CreationDate="2017-11-19T01:41:29.767" UserId="469" Comment="added 794 characters in body" Text="Well, I don't know if it counts, but I think you should search among recent species re-classing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When Linnaeus wrote, Latin names were the logical option to choose a scientific name from. That is why it seems hard to even find one single example of what you're looking for. More recent descriptions of old species (especially when a single common name is found to apply to two different genera) force the need of new names. (i.e., *non-common-Latin* names for species that were known to native Latin-speakers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example is *Loxodonta africana*, the [African elephant][1]. It was in the XVIII century that it was described by [Georges Cuvier][2] as a different species from *Elephas maximus*, the Asian elephant (hence both were probably *Elephas* in Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another remarkable example I just noticed a couple of weeks ago is [vultures][3]. The name in Latin is [vultur][4], which does not correspond to the scientific name of any bird known to Romans (genera are Gyps, Aegypius and a few more.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [andean condor][5] &amp;mdash;whose scientific name is *Vultur gryphus*&amp;mdash; is sometimes classed as a *new world vulture*, although these are not taxonomically related to *old world* vultures. They became known to Europeans in the XVI century and were assigned a scientific name by Linneus in 1758, so here the Latin name was arguably *recycled* after being out of use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_elephant&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Cuvier&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulture&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvultur1&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andean_condor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5570" RevisionGUID="84c5f309-43d6-4bde-a5dc-ec95d2b1237d" CreationDate="2017-11-19T06:08:29.963" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="The suffix -ize (or similar) are used to form verbs from nouns and adjectives in several Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary suggests that this stems from the vulgar latin -izo, -izare, -izavi, -izatum, which (ultimately) is borrowed from Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that there are no Latin literature which use this suffix. Even the Vicipaedia page for [factorisation](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_factores_resolutio) is &quot;In factores resolutio&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it proper usage to append this suffix to words in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18422" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5570" RevisionGUID="84c5f309-43d6-4bde-a5dc-ec95d2b1237d" CreationDate="2017-11-19T06:08:29.963" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is the suffix -izo, -izare, -izavi, -izatum formal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18423" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5570" RevisionGUID="84c5f309-43d6-4bde-a5dc-ec95d2b1237d" CreationDate="2017-11-19T06:08:29.963" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|derivation|suffixes|vulgar-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5571" RevisionGUID="6342c04d-58e8-4e20-9232-a8266e63f8d3" CreationDate="2017-11-19T13:35:42.810" UserId="1987" Text="[![1.][1]][1]&#xA;[![2.][2]][2]&#xA;[![3.][3]][3]&#xA;&#xA;Are those triangular tripods merely highly stylised Alpha's? Or are they Alpha-Upsilon digraphs?&#xA;&#xA;*(Sorry, the websites didn't give the explanation of where the photos were taken)*&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ybyKE.jpg&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1ww0d.jpg&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DZlMa.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18425" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5571" RevisionGUID="6342c04d-58e8-4e20-9232-a8266e63f8d3" CreationDate="2017-11-19T13:35:42.810" UserId="1987" Text="(Greek) Stylized Alpha" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18426" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5571" RevisionGUID="6342c04d-58e8-4e20-9232-a8266e63f8d3" CreationDate="2017-11-19T13:35:42.810" UserId="1987" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5572" RevisionGUID="7bce1f7b-3d0d-4b62-84a4-428e1b36c4bc" CreationDate="2017-11-19T14:20:13.407" UserId="324" Text="It is just the way they write alpha. In the first one, for example:&#xD;&#xA;αναπαυσον την τυχην αυτου μετα των αγιων ....&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5572" RevisionGUID="dd961f80-7abe-4b9b-bffd-c8dd8d61a97f" CreationDate="2017-11-19T18:13:12.980" UserId="324" Comment="edited body" Text="It is just the way they write alpha. In the first one, for example:&#xD;&#xA;αναπαυσον την ψυχην αυτου μετα των αγιων ....&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5571" RevisionGUID="51d5ff12-02ae-4d18-a9f6-fbe3fc0c76fe" CreationDate="2017-11-20T05:35:17.207" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="[![1.][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![2.][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![3.][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are those triangular tripods merely highly stylised Alpha's? Or are they Alpha-Upsilon digraphs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Sorry, the websites didn't give the explanation of where the photos were taken.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ybyKE.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1ww0d.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DZlMa.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18432" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5571" RevisionGUID="51d5ff12-02ae-4d18-a9f6-fbe3fc0c76fe" CreationDate="2017-11-20T05:35:17.207" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|greek|inscription|typography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="f525d80c-f724-41c0-9cfb-95df81bd5832" CreationDate="2017-11-21T05:18:44.747" UserId="79" Text="I have been using the simple-minded translation *situs* (fourth declension) for &quot;[web]site&quot;, and I have used it to refer to this site, among others.&#xD;&#xA;I'm not convinced this is a good choice, as I have no other real motivation for it than the similarity to the English word.&#xD;&#xA;What word would you suggest using and why?&#xD;&#xA;It can very well be the same word, but I would like to know why it is (or is not) suitable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18435" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="f525d80c-f724-41c0-9cfb-95df81bd5832" CreationDate="2017-11-21T05:18:44.747" UserId="79" Text="What is &quot;site&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18436" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="f525d80c-f724-41c0-9cfb-95df81bd5832" CreationDate="2017-11-21T05:18:44.747" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|contemporary-latin|modern-life|technology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="622" RevisionGUID="e2a14c36-0227-4f01-a9c5-0e3a557d1970" CreationDate="2017-11-21T05:51:06.147" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I need the Latin translation for the word &quot;showcase&quot;. I should use it in a blog, replacing the English word to indicate a collection of products or things to be shown to all the visitors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18438" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="622" RevisionGUID="e2a14c36-0227-4f01-a9c5-0e3a557d1970" CreationDate="2017-11-21T05:51:06.147" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="947" RevisionGUID="c80d229e-e390-403f-908e-f6cf7fb3f6ef" CreationDate="2017-11-21T05:52:52.593" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="Some students of mine are creating a school publication featuring student work, and the proposed subtitle of their publication is:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scholaris Opus, Scholaris Vox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intended meaning is &quot;student work, student voice&quot; or &quot;scholar&quot; in place of &quot;student.&quot;  The content of the publication will be be broad and include essays, poetry, mathematics, science, photography, and visual art.  Online dictionaries seem to translate it to the intended meaning, but I just wanted to make sure the Latin is correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18440" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="947" RevisionGUID="c80d229e-e390-403f-908e-f6cf7fb3f6ef" CreationDate="2017-11-21T05:52:52.593" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|idiom|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5574" RevisionGUID="3601430d-bfc2-41e2-a92f-efcc2ffbb69b" CreationDate="2017-11-21T09:49:54.277" UserId="645" Text="A dozen or more years ago, I ran a website using *locus intextus*. This format seemed at the time to be widely acceptable, though it had rivals based on, for instance, *interrete*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My site (now long defunct) opened with the introductory page-heading *Salve! aspicis nunc locum intextum PHASELUS* etc. In about ten years of operation in different editions, this descriptor drew no adverse comment and was, indeed, sometimes commended." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5575" RevisionGUID="44659236-390e-4991-a418-f2320a61c98f" CreationDate="2017-11-21T15:20:40.030" UserId="1982" Text="Before the erudition of Cerberus, the concept of epistemic modality (EM) had passed me by. Now, I have a Q on this topic.&#xD;&#xA;North &amp; Hillard Ex. 216: &quot;Whether the enemy were dismayed at so strange a sight, or whether the gods preserved him on account of his extraordinary valour, it is certain that no man ever accomplished such marvellous deeds.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Answer Book gives: &quot;seu tan miro spectaculo hostes attoniti sunt, seu ipsi dei ob egregiam virtutem eum servaverunt, constat neminem unquam tam mirifica praestitisse.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prodigious achievements of this young man challenge an accepted world picture of human fragility; therefore, a case of EM, producing the indirect &quot;praestitisse&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;My Q: is this a case of EM?&#xD;&#xA;The following sentence may be adding to the confusion concerning an old friend (indirect speech): &quot;It is said that after the battle the Ephori decreed him a crown for his valour, but fined him a thousand drachmae for having exposed himself to so great a danger without arms.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Considered putting the verbs into the past-perfect until &quot;it-is-said-that&quot; registered: this, equivalent to &quot;he-said-that-they&quot; (indirect speech); so, wrote it as indirect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer Book gives: &quot;proelio autem confecto Ephori, ut ferunt, virtutis causa coronam ei decreverunt, quod tamen inermis tanto periculo se obiecerat (obiecisset), mille drachmae eum mulctavere.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Great! So, why is this not a case of indirect speech?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To further confuse things: N &amp; H Ex 213, Q7: &quot; For some time it was asserted that all our best troops were lost.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer: &quot;aliquamdiu affirmatam est optimum quemque nostrorum militum perisse.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;it-is-said-that&quot; does not generate indirect speech; but, &quot;it-was-asserted-that&quot; does. &#xD;&#xA;Please explain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18443" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5575" RevisionGUID="44659236-390e-4991-a418-f2320a61c98f" CreationDate="2017-11-21T15:20:40.030" UserId="1982" Text="Epistemic Modality" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18444" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5575" RevisionGUID="44659236-390e-4991-a418-f2320a61c98f" CreationDate="2017-11-21T15:20:40.030" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5575" RevisionGUID="8eb4c1ee-64e9-4041-8249-46d29252d7be" CreationDate="2017-11-21T19:40:54.123" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="Before the erudition of Cerberus, the concept of epistemic modality (EM) had passed me by. Now, I have a Q on this topic.&#xD;&#xA;North &amp; Hillard Ex. 216: &quot;Whether the enemy were dismayed at so strange a sight, or whether the gods preserved him on account of his extraordinary valour, it is certain that no man ever accomplished such marvellous deeds.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Answer Book gives: &quot;seu tan miro spectaculo hostes attoniti sunt, seu ipsi dei ob egregiam virtutem eum servaverunt, constat neminem unquam tam mirifica praestitisse.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prodigious achievements of this young man challenge an accepted world picture of human fragility; therefore, a case of EM, producing the indirect &quot;praestitisse&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;My Q: is this a case of EM?&#xD;&#xA;The following sentence may be adding to the confusion concerning an old friend (indirect speech): &quot;It is said that after the battle the Ephori decreed him a crown for his valour, but fined him a thousand drachmae for having exposed himself to so great a danger without arms.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Considered putting the verbs into the past-perfect until &quot;it-is-said-that&quot; registered: this, equivalent to &quot;he-said-that-they&quot; (indirect speech); so, wrote it as indirect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer Book gives: &quot;proelio autem confecto Ephori, ut ferunt, virtutis causa coronam ei decreverunt, quod tamen inermis tanto periculo se obiecerat (obiecisset), mille drachmae eum mulctavere.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Great! So, why is this not a case of indirect speech?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To further confuse things: N &amp; H Ex 213, Q7: &quot;For some time it was asserted that all our best troops were lost.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer: &quot;aliquamdiu affirmatam est optimum quemque nostrorum militum perisse.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;it-is-said-that&quot; does not generate indirect speech; but, &quot;it-was-asserted-that&quot; does. &#xD;&#xA;Please explain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18446" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5575" RevisionGUID="8eb4c1ee-64e9-4041-8249-46d29252d7be" CreationDate="2017-11-21T19:40:54.123" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|syntax|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5576" RevisionGUID="60d49a75-42dc-4a1d-9155-28ad1f540691" CreationDate="2017-11-21T20:34:29.227" UserId="61" Text="For an assignment, I have been translating several Latin inscription (on tombstones) from 400-600 AD and one phrase that occurs quite often is memoriae (sometimes with an adjective such as sanctae or bonae). For example, in  RAC-1953-229,7 where it says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hic r(e)q(uiescit) in pace s(an)c(ta)e / memori(a)e Biturianus / pr(es)b(yter) qui vixit pl(us) m(inus) / annis LX d(e)p(ositus) est / pridie Id(us) &lt;F=E&gt;eb(ruarias) se&lt;x=SS&gt;ies p(ost) c(onsulatum) / Basili&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally was unsure how to interpret it. I saw several translation with in commemoration of, but usually there is no genitive, which could belong to memoriae. So now I translated it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To the holy history, Biturianus, the priest, rests here in peace, who etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would anyone know what is meant by memoriae?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18448" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5576" RevisionGUID="60d49a75-42dc-4a1d-9155-28ad1f540691" CreationDate="2017-11-21T20:34:29.227" UserId="61" Text="Origin and explanation of memoriae" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18449" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5576" RevisionGUID="60d49a75-42dc-4a1d-9155-28ad1f540691" CreationDate="2017-11-21T20:34:29.227" UserId="61" Text="|medieval-latin|grammar-identification|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5576" RevisionGUID="67935c0d-27cf-4948-9843-d103ae23a380" CreationDate="2017-11-21T20:51:51.553" UserId="79" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="For an assignment, I have been translating several Latin inscription (on tombstones) from 400&amp;ndash;600 AD and one phrase that occurs quite often is *memoriae* (sometimes with an adjective such as *sanctae* or *bonae*). For example, in  RAC-1953-229,7 where it says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hic r(e)q(uiescit) in pace s(an)c(ta)e / memori(a)e Biturianus / pr(es)b(yter) qui vixit pl(us) m(inus) / annis LX d(e)p(ositus) est / pridie Id(us) &lt;F=E&gt;eb(ruarias) se&lt;x=SS&gt;ies p(ost) c(onsulatum) / Basili&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally was unsure how to interpret it. I saw several translation with in commemoration of, but usually there is no genitive, which could belong to memoriae. So now I translated it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To the holy history, Biturianus, the priest, rests here in peace, who etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would anyone know what is meant by *memoriae*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5577" RevisionGUID="16262816-c66d-404a-9667-3c7dc21d78cb" CreationDate="2017-11-21T20:58:20.470" UserId="79" Text="It seems that *sanctae memoriae* is a genitive.&#xD;&#xA;I can see it referring to one of two things: *pax* or *presbyter*.&#xD;&#xA;This leads to two reading options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;1. Biturianus the priest rests here in the peace of the holy history, who lived...  &#xD;&#xA;2. Here rests in peace Biturianus, a priest of the holy history, who lived...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The wordings are not optimal, but I hope you get the idea.&#xD;&#xA;I find the first option to be more likely.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that you took *sanctae memoriae* to be a dative (&quot;to the holy history&quot;), but I don't seem to be able to make sense of the inscription that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the meaning of *memoria*, I'm not sure.&#xD;&#xA;A quick Google search suggests the phrase *sancta memoria* can refer to more than one thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5576" RevisionGUID="5c649098-4f9b-4186-b89d-91c5f8c6a802" CreationDate="2017-11-21T21:26:27.370" UserId="61" Comment="Changed the question to make it clearer" Text="For an assignment, I have been translating several Latin inscription (on tombstones) from 400&amp;ndash;600 AD and one phrase that occurs quite often is *memoriae* (sometimes with an adjective such as *sanctae* or *bonae*). For example, in  RAC-1953-229,7 where it says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hic r(e)q(uiescit) in pace s(an)c(ta)e / memori(a)e Biturianus / pr(es)b(yter) qui vixit pl(us) m(inus) / annis LX d(e)p(ositus) est / pridie Id(us) &lt;F=E&gt;eb(ruarias) se&lt;x=SS&gt;ies p(ost) c(onsulatum) / Basili&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or in CIL 02-14, 02126, it is said that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bon(a)e memoriae Leucadius / primicerius domesti/corum qui vixit cum / comparem(!) suam(!) Non/nitam(!) annis XXV / depositus pridie / Kalendas Ianuarias / vixit autem omnibus / diebus suis quibus / vix(it) annis plus / minus sexaginta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe, I am wrong, but I thought these were the same phrases. So personally, I was unsure how to interpret it. I saw several translation with in commemoration of, but here there is no genitive, which could belong to memoriae. So now I translated the beginning of first inscription as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To the holy history, Biturianus, the priest, rests here in peace, who etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By translating *memoriae* as a dative, I thought it tried to communicate that the inscription on the tomb was dedicated to history i.e. so that whatever is written would not be forgotten. However, I, myself, was not very convinced by this reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;Would anyone know what is meant by *memoriae*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5578" RevisionGUID="34c9899a-f09b-41ab-8c06-08fa7556361d" CreationDate="2017-11-21T22:53:13.927" UserId="324" Text="&quot;Sanctae/bonae memoriae NN&quot; is surely &quot;NN of sacred/good memory&quot;. Genitive, not dative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5579" RevisionGUID="5d9db80d-64ad-4f3c-8170-d3c62aa6459f" CreationDate="2017-11-22T02:49:40.520" UserId="30" Text="Modality is a purely semantic category; that is, it is only about *meaning*, not about specific constructions. The same meaning, and hence the same modality, can be expressed through different constructions. That said, there are certain words and certain constructions that are typically used to express a certain modality, as indirect speech is often (though by no means always) used to express various kinds of epistemic modality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it doesn't work that way the other way around: epistemic modality can be expressed by using a main verb + indirect speech (*constat* + a.c.i.), or by an adverb (*certo, fortasse*), by a parenthetical clause (*ut ferunt*), etc. So your version, using a main verb + indirect speech instead of *ut ferunt* would be perfectly fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other issue, mentioned by Cnread, is that *quod* can be used with the subjunctive or indicative to distinguish between what one might call two different kinds of epistemic modality. *Quod* + indicative indicates that this was objectively the reason for whatever happened, where 'objectively' usually means 'according to the author'. So it establishes a certain attitude of the author towards the *quod* clause / the reason. With the subjunctive, it indicates a subjective reason: it is the reason according to someone other than the author, such as the Ephori in context. The author may or may not agree with this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5580" RevisionGUID="18dfcc8d-9240-458f-ac53-a0d5d42420fc" CreationDate="2017-11-22T04:01:16.733" UserId="79" Text="How should I translate &quot;cold war&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I can see two ways to approach this, using a classical phrase for a similar hostile political situation, or finding a suitable adjective for &quot;cold&quot; to go together with *bellum*.&#xD;&#xA;There are several adjectives for coldness of some kind, and the most appropriate one I found is *frigidus* (see [L&amp;S, II.C](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=frigidus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)) as it means both cold and frightening.&#xD;&#xA;However, the best choice might have nothing to do with temperature.&#xD;&#xA;How would you go about expressing cold war in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18456" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5580" RevisionGUID="18dfcc8d-9240-458f-ac53-a0d5d42420fc" CreationDate="2017-11-22T04:01:16.733" UserId="79" Text="What is &quot;cold war&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18457" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5580" RevisionGUID="18dfcc8d-9240-458f-ac53-a0d5d42420fc" CreationDate="2017-11-22T04:01:16.733" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|idiom|politics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5581" RevisionGUID="fd6a09ea-44e1-4451-8981-374f0ee36838" CreationDate="2017-11-22T09:04:55.693" UserId="2126" Text="I just began learning the language on my own using a textbook I downloaded from a classics website. I want to make sure I am on the right track and that I am properly declining nouns and adjectives. I have reason to suspect I don't yet grasp the use of the dative case in many examples and having someone go over my answers to the exercise questions to see where I go wrong and give a brief explanation of what I did wrong/what should have been done would be greatly beneficial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18459" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5581" RevisionGUID="fd6a09ea-44e1-4451-8981-374f0ee36838" CreationDate="2017-11-22T09:04:55.693" UserId="2126" Text="Is there anywhere I can go to check if my answers to worksheet questions are correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18460" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5581" RevisionGUID="fd6a09ea-44e1-4451-8981-374f0ee36838" CreationDate="2017-11-22T09:04:55.693" UserId="2126" Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5581" RevisionGUID="5a7c097c-8447-4be9-8f25-bb49c663219e" CreationDate="2017-11-22T15:30:17.870" UserId="79" Comment="Added the main question to the body and retagged. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="I just began learning the language on my own using a textbook I downloaded from a classics website. I want to make sure I am on the right track and that I am properly declining nouns and adjectives. I have reason to suspect I don't yet grasp the use of the dative case in many examples and having someone go over my answers to the exercise questions to see where I go wrong and give a brief explanation of what I did wrong/what should have been done would be greatly beneficial. Is there anywhere I can go to check if my answers to worksheet questions are correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18462" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5581" RevisionGUID="5a7c097c-8447-4be9-8f25-bb49c663219e" CreationDate="2017-11-22T15:30:17.870" UserId="79" Comment="Added the main question to the body and retagged. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="|resource-request|study-strategies|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5582" RevisionGUID="d1c10288-2c3f-46eb-9b20-85d1961da30f" CreationDate="2017-11-22T15:56:34.543" UserId="79" Text="It is indeed good to have human help when working through a textbook.&#xD;&#xA;Some textbooks can have solution keys online, but most do not.&#xD;&#xA;If you are not attending a Latin course at a school of any kind, looking for support online is strongly recommended to keep you on the right track.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;**When you have doubts about your understanding, ask a question on this site, Latin Language Stack Exchange.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you ask here, don't ask for solutions to your exercises or even anyone to check the correctness of your answers.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, ask for understanding.&#xD;&#xA;For example, if you have an exercise to translate *puella cani pilam dat* and your are not quite sure how to do it, explain what you do understand, what you are unsure of, what is your best guess at a translation, and what makes you doubt it might not be correct.&#xD;&#xA;Ask for understanding, not for answers.&#xD;&#xA;Explain what it is that you want to know or understand.&#xD;&#xA;This way your question is likely to be well-received and get a good answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also remember to look at questions already asked at this site.&#xD;&#xA;There is a lot to learn by reading questions and answers here, and in some cases they might already answer the question you have in mind.&#xD;&#xA;But feel free to ask a new question when you feel like it.&#xD;&#xA;If it relates to some other question (or you textbook), please provide a reference so others can see the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm glad to hear that yet another one has found the interest to study Latin and wants to ask for help to make sure they are learning well.&#xD;&#xA;I, for one, am ready to help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5584" RevisionGUID="8e712bcf-b6c5-417d-830d-b72a08143aaa" CreationDate="2017-11-22T23:18:21.613" UserId="136" Text="My state recently changed the formatting of our license plate numbers (from 123-ABC to ABC-1234) in an effort to increase the number of available plate numbers. This got me thinking as to what a Roman license plate would look like. Obviously, cars were not present at the time of Latin's golden age, but perhaps there is a way to approximate it. Let's start with the letters since that is easy enough. The letters would most likely look the same, since the same alphabet was used, minus the characters &quot;u&quot; and &quot;j.&quot; This leaves the numbers, as the Romans of course, used [Roman numerals][1]. One easy solution to this problem is taking the digits as one number:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ABC-123 = ABC-CXXIII&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, if you think about it, this is not how the number is read. I would say &quot;123&quot; as &quot;one twenty-three&quot; or &quot;one two three.&quot; This creates a conundrum when applied here because there is no delimiter between numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ABC-123 = ABC-IXXIII or ABC-IIIIII&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is unclear here where the numbers start and end. The second could read &quot;123,&quot; &quot;321,&quot; &quot;222,&quot; and so on. In addition, the number of characters on a license plate are limited by the fact the characters must be large and easy to read, but still fit on the standard-sized plate. This could rule out plates like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8888-ABC = |D|MMMDCCCLXXXVIII-ABC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what you guys believe a Roman license plate would look like? I'm not looking for **the** definitive answer here, so feel free to get creative. Perhaps another language that does not use Arabic numerals like Western countries could be an inspiration! I look forward to seeing your suggestions!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18467" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5584" RevisionGUID="8e712bcf-b6c5-417d-830d-b72a08143aaa" CreationDate="2017-11-22T23:18:21.613" UserId="136" Text="What would a Roman license plate number look like?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18468" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5584" RevisionGUID="8e712bcf-b6c5-417d-830d-b72a08143aaa" CreationDate="2017-11-22T23:18:21.613" UserId="136" Text="|modern-life|numbers|numerals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5585" RevisionGUID="199f4b79-9827-450a-984d-21d505871231" CreationDate="2017-11-22T23:52:55.063" UserId="79" Text="It would be convenient to have all the licence plates (roughly) equally many characters long.&#xD;&#xA;Since the Roman numerals mostly use letters of the alphabet, mixing numbers with letters adds nothing.&#xD;&#xA;In the common alphanumeric plates it is not important to have numbers ranging from zero to 999, but to have strings of three digits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore my suggestion is that a Roman licence plate contains a fixed amount of letters A&amp;ndash;Z, which may be grouped with a dash to two groups.&#xD;&#xA;Restricting the letters to &quot;numeral letters&quot; (I, V, X, L, C, D, M) in one group seems to achieve little.&#xD;&#xA;If you have 23 letters (A to Z minus J, U, and W), then plates from AA-AA to ZZ-ZZ give over quarter of a million unique names.&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest this if you want to have a licence-platey feeling in a Roman context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1895" RevisionGUID="951b9b45-e275-4b74-b7e3-6d2a955420cd" CreationDate="2017-11-23T05:20:26.250" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I would like to know the meaning of the following Latin expression, as well as a grammatical analysis of the individual words in this context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ARS GRATIA ARTIS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as it appears in the following logo of a lion with a &quot;wreath&quot; with the script on it for the company MGM (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![MGM Logo][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned in a comment, below, [Wikipedia][2] states that ARS GRATIA ARTIS stands for &quot;Art for Art's Sake&quot;, but it does not explain what each of the three words mean, their declension, and any other grammar details. Can someone please provide this in an answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8GfXB.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_for_art%27s_sake?wprov=sfla1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18472" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1895" RevisionGUID="951b9b45-e275-4b74-b7e3-6d2a955420cd" CreationDate="2017-11-23T05:20:26.250" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Ars gratia artis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18473" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1895" RevisionGUID="951b9b45-e275-4b74-b7e3-6d2a955420cd" CreationDate="2017-11-23T05:20:26.250" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|vocabulary|idiom|grammar-identification|motto|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5587" RevisionGUID="47c796cc-efb6-4493-83d9-a0848b16fa11" CreationDate="2017-11-23T08:43:00.617" UserId="235" Text="I wanted to know whether &quot;orgueil&quot; descended from Latin or proto-Germanic, so I looked up the word on Wiktionnaire and found this etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (980, Passion), orgolz, puis (1080, Chanson de Roland) orgoill et (1130, Eneas) orgueil. Du vieux-francique *urgôli « fierté » (cf. ancien haut allemand urguol « remarquable, excellent »), romanisé en *urgolius, qui a remplacé le latin classique superbia « orgueil, fierté » (espagnol orgullo, italien orgoglio, portugais orgulho, occitan orguèlh).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (980, Passion), orgolz, and (1080, Song of Roland) orgoill and (1130, Eneas) orgueil. From Old French *urgôli « fierté » (cf. old high German urguol « remarquable, excellent »), Romanized in *urgolius, which replaced the classical Latin superbia « orgueil, fierté » (Spanish orgullo, Italian orgoglio, Portuguese orgulho, Occitan orguèlh).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't say explicitly that the word descended from the Germanic family, however, the English-language Wiktionary says exactly that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From Middle French, from Old French orgoill (“pride”), from Frankish *urgōl (“pride”), from Proto-Germanic *urgōljō (“pride”). Cognate with Old High German urguol (“outstanding, distinguished”), Old Saxon urgôl (“outstanding, distinguished”), Old English orgel, orgello (“pride”). Compare Italian orgoglio, Spanish orgullo, Catalan orgull.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, I find the etymology to be complicated. Because the word has cognates in several Romance languages (Italian orgoglio, Spanish orgullo, Catalan orgull). If the word comes from proto-Germanic, how did this happen? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wiktionnaire entry says that the word was Romanised as urgolius. My best guess, then, is that the word comes from proto-Germanic, ended up in Old French, was then Latinised to urgolius, and then spread to different Romance languages through the Latin word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the word existed first in Old French, and then was borrowed into Latin. Then it spread to Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Catalan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But boy, is this a complicated history! Can anyone confirm that this is actually what happened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18475" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5587" RevisionGUID="47c796cc-efb6-4493-83d9-a0848b16fa11" CreationDate="2017-11-23T08:43:00.617" UserId="235" Text="Does the French word &quot;orgueil&quot; descend from Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18476" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5587" RevisionGUID="47c796cc-efb6-4493-83d9-a0848b16fa11" CreationDate="2017-11-23T08:43:00.617" UserId="235" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5587" RevisionGUID="490106b8-bf5c-4079-bcac-b34222df7fc7" CreationDate="2017-11-23T08:49:29.453" UserId="235" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="I wanted to know whether *orgueil* (pride) descended from Latin or proto-Germanic, so I looked up the word on Wiktionnaire and found this etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (980, Passion), orgolz, puis (1080, Chanson de Roland) orgoill et (1130, Eneas) orgueil. Du vieux-francique *urgôli « fierté » (cf. ancien haut allemand urguol « remarquable, excellent »), romanisé en *urgolius, qui a remplacé le latin classique superbia « orgueil, fierté » (espagnol orgullo, italien orgoglio, portugais orgulho, occitan orguèlh).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (980, Passion), orgolz, and (1080, Song of Roland) orgoill and (1130, Eneas) orgueil. From Old French *urgôli « fierté » (cf. old high German urguol « remarquable, excellent »), Romanized in *urgolius, which replaced the classical Latin superbia « orgueil, fierté » (Spanish orgullo, Italian orgoglio, Portuguese orgulho, Occitan orguèlh).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't say explicitly that the word descended from the Germanic family, however, the English-language Wiktionary says exactly that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From Middle French, from Old French orgoill (“pride”), from Frankish *urgōl (“pride”), from Proto-Germanic *urgōljō (“pride”). Cognate with Old High German urguol (“outstanding, distinguished”), Old Saxon urgôl (“outstanding, distinguished”), Old English orgel, orgello (“pride”). Compare Italian orgoglio, Spanish orgullo, Catalan orgull.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, I find the etymology complicated. The word has cognates in several Romance languages (Italian *orgoglio*, Spanish *orgullo*, Catalan *orgull*). If the word comes from proto-Germanic, how could this happen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wiktionnaire entry says that the word was Romanised as *urgolius*. My best guess, then, is that the word comes from proto-Germanic, ended up in Old French, was then Latinised to *urgolius*, and then spread to different Romance languages through the influence of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the word existed first in Old French, and then was borrowed into Latin. Then it spread to Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Catalan. That's my hypothesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my hypothesis correct? If not, what would be a better account?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18478" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5587" RevisionGUID="490106b8-bf5c-4079-bcac-b34222df7fc7" CreationDate="2017-11-23T08:49:29.453" UserId="235" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="What role did Latin have in the development and spread of the French word &quot;orgueil&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18479" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5587" RevisionGUID="490106b8-bf5c-4079-bcac-b34222df7fc7" CreationDate="2017-11-23T08:49:29.453" UserId="235" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="|etymology|french|germanic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5588" RevisionGUID="ad9fffbe-42ed-49c4-8a19-9e4351094094" CreationDate="2017-11-23T11:54:28.290" UserId="2129" Text="I'm looking for a motto for a coat of arms which would be an impersonal sentence (as it should be in a coat of arms) and read something like &quot;Never promise anything&quot; or &quot;Promise nothing&quot;. Right now I'm considering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nihil promittere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct? Are there any other more suitable expressions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18481" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5588" RevisionGUID="ad9fffbe-42ed-49c4-8a19-9e4351094094" CreationDate="2017-11-23T11:54:28.290" UserId="2129" Text="&quot;Promise nothing&quot; motto for a coat of arms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18482" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5588" RevisionGUID="ad9fffbe-42ed-49c4-8a19-9e4351094094" CreationDate="2017-11-23T11:54:28.290" UserId="2129" Text="|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5587" RevisionGUID="4335ad64-7736-49de-820b-9184c5ff7063" CreationDate="2017-11-23T18:21:57.207" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 175 characters in body" Text="I wanted to know whether *orgueil* (pride) descended from Latin or proto-Germanic, so I looked up the word on Wiktionnaire and found this etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (980, Passion), orgolz, puis (1080, Chanson de Roland) orgoill et (1130, Eneas) orgueil. Du vieux-francique *urgôli « fierté » (cf. ancien haut allemand urguol « remarquable, excellent »), romanisé en *urgolius, qui a remplacé le latin classique superbia « orgueil, fierté » (espagnol orgullo, italien orgoglio, portugais orgulho, occitan orguèlh).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (980, Passion), orgolz, and (1080, Song of Roland) orgoill and (1130, Eneas) orgueil. From Old French *urgôli « fierté » (cf. old high German urguol « remarquable, excellent »), Romanized in *urgolius, which replaced the classical Latin superbia « orgueil, fierté » (Spanish orgullo, Italian orgoglio, Portuguese orgulho, Occitan orguèlh).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't say explicitly that the word descended from the Germanic family, however, the English-language Wiktionary says exactly that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From Middle French, from Old French orgoill (“pride”), from Frankish *urgōl (“pride”), from Proto-Germanic *urgōljō (“pride”). Cognate with Old High German urguol (“outstanding, distinguished”), Old Saxon urgôl (“outstanding, distinguished”), Old English orgel, orgello (“pride”). Compare Italian orgoglio, Spanish orgullo, Catalan orgull.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, I find the etymology complicated. The word has cognates in several Romance languages (Italian *orgoglio*, Spanish *orgullo*, Catalan *orgull*). If the word comes from proto-Germanic, how could this happen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wiktionnaire entry says that the word was Romanised as *urgolius*. My best guess, then, is that the word comes from proto-Germanic, ended up in Old French, was then Latinised to *urgolius*, and then spread to different Romance languages through the influence of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my hypothesis correct? If not, what would be a better account?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5589" RevisionGUID="6bdc2e08-c804-4fe4-abc9-e88c73534c27" CreationDate="2017-11-23T19:46:48.933" UserId="79" Text="It is now Thanksgiving in the US.&#xD;&#xA;How can I translate the name of the event to Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The [Vicipaedia page](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festum_Gratias_Agendi) is marked dubious (and I am suspicious of the Latin Wikipedia in any case).&#xD;&#xA;It offers several translations, but there are no references or justification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two kinds of reasoning come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;One could either try to form a festival name in Roman style, or one could look for Latin mentions of Thanksgiving.&#xD;&#xA;I assume someone very fluent in Latin has at least mentioned Thanksgiving, and perhaps there is even a canonical translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reiterate, I am looking for a Latin translation of &quot;Thanksgiving&quot; with references or justification.&#xD;&#xA;It is easy enough to coin ideas like *Festum Gratias Agendi* (see more on Wikipedia); the goal is to find support for a translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18487" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5589" RevisionGUID="6bdc2e08-c804-4fe4-abc9-e88c73534c27" CreationDate="2017-11-23T19:46:48.933" UserId="79" Text="What is Thanksgiving in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18488" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5589" RevisionGUID="6bdc2e08-c804-4fe4-abc9-e88c73534c27" CreationDate="2017-11-23T19:46:48.933" UserId="79" Text="|word-request|calendarium|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5587" RevisionGUID="bdc1ead6-4cf6-4cee-9675-839aadfb4690" CreationDate="2017-11-23T23:33:36.430" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 62 characters in body; edited title" Text="I was reading the Wiktionnaire entry for *orgueil* recently, learning more about its etymology, and I came across the idea that the Latin word *urgolius* comes from the Frankish word *urgōl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (980, Passion), orgolz, puis (1080, Chanson de Roland) orgoill et (1130, Eneas) orgueil. Du vieux-francique *urgôli « fierté » (cf. ancien haut allemand urguol « remarquable, excellent »), **romanisé en *urgolius, qui a remplacé le latin classique superbia** « orgueil, fierté » (espagnol orgullo, italien orgoglio, portugais orgulho, occitan orguèlh).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (980, Passion), orgolz, and (1080, Song of Roland) orgoill and (1130, Eneas) orgueil. From Old French *urgôli « fierté » (cf. old high German urguol « remarquable, excellent »), **Romanized in *urgolius, which replaced the classical Latin superbia** « orgueil, fierté » (Spanish orgullo, Italian orgoglio, Portuguese orgulho, Occitan orguèlh).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The connection to the Frankish word actually becomes more evident if we look at the corresponding entry on Wiktionary (en).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From Middle French, from Old French orgoill (“pride”), **from Frankish *urgōl (“pride”)**, from Proto-Germanic *urgōljō (“pride”). Cognate with Old High German urguol (“outstanding, distinguished”), Old Saxon urgôl (“outstanding, distinguished”), Old English orgel, orgello (“pride”). Compare Italian orgoglio, Spanish orgullo, Catalan orgull.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to know under what circumstances, and around what time, was the Frankish word incorporated into the Latin language? Furthermore, how did it become so popular that it replaced the classical word *superbia* (as per Wiktionnaire)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume this happened well after the fall of the Roman Empire. My guess then is that European writers who wrote in Latin felt more comfortable with *urgolius* because of its various cognates in Romance languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18490" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5587" RevisionGUID="bdc1ead6-4cf6-4cee-9675-839aadfb4690" CreationDate="2017-11-23T23:33:36.430" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 62 characters in body; edited title" Text="How and when did the Frankish word *urgōl get incorporated into Latin as urgolius?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5587" RevisionGUID="75b2123a-3691-4ae5-9672-24376b1e81c2" CreationDate="2017-11-24T01:06:33.230" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 80 characters in body; edited title" Text="I was reading about the French word *orgueil* recently, and I learned that it derives from the Frankish word *urgōl. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (980, Passion), orgolz, puis (1080, Chanson de Roland) orgoill et (1130, Eneas) orgueil. Du vieux-francique *urgôli « fierté » (cf. ancien haut allemand urguol « remarquable, excellent »), **romanisé en *urgolius, qui a remplacé le latin classique superbia** « orgueil, fierté » (espagnol orgullo, italien orgoglio, portugais orgulho, occitan orguèlh).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The connection to the Frankish word actually becomes more evident if we look at the corresponding entry on Wiktionary (en).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From Middle French, from Old French orgoill (“pride”), **from Frankish *urgōl (“pride”)**, from Proto-Germanic *urgōljō (“pride”). Cognate with Old High German urguol (“outstanding, distinguished”), Old Saxon urgôl (“outstanding, distinguished”), Old English orgel, orgello (“pride”). Compare Italian orgoglio, Spanish orgullo, Catalan orgull.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was interested to find out more about the Latin word urgolius, so I looked it up on the [Perseus Latin word study tool.][1] Unfortunately, I got no results. Did the Frankish word ever truly make it into the Latin language (as Wiktionnaire seems to imply)? Or is the Wiktionnaire entry simply giving an abstract ancestor for its descendants in the Romance languages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main point of confusion is the French phrases, **romanisé en *urgolius, qui a remplacé le latin classique superbia** (Romanised in *urgolius, which replaced the classical Latin superbia). I thought this implied the existence of the word in Latin, but the more I think about it, the more it looks like a reconstructed root, as the asterisk would imply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=urgolius&amp;la=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18492" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5587" RevisionGUID="75b2123a-3691-4ae5-9672-24376b1e81c2" CreationDate="2017-11-24T01:06:33.230" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 80 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is urgolius a Latin word, as this Wiktionnaire etymology seems to imply?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5587" RevisionGUID="6f35d980-8c0e-4742-bd4c-f213cb1d33a6" CreationDate="2017-11-24T01:19:10.550" UserId="235" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="I was reading about the French word *orgueil* recently, and I learned that it derives from the Frankish word *urgōl. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (980, Passion), orgolz, puis (1080, Chanson de Roland) orgoill et (1130, Eneas) orgueil. Du vieux-francique *urgôli « fierté » (cf. ancien haut allemand urguol « remarquable, excellent »), **romanisé en *urgolius, qui a remplacé le latin classique superbia** « orgueil, fierté » (espagnol orgullo, italien orgoglio, portugais orgulho, occitan orguèlh).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The connection to the Frankish word actually becomes more evident if we look at the corresponding entry on Wiktionary (en).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From Middle French, from Old French orgoill (“pride”), **from Frankish *urgōl (“pride”)**, from Proto-Germanic *urgōljō (“pride”). Cognate with Old High German urguol (“outstanding, distinguished”), Old Saxon urgôl (“outstanding, distinguished”), Old English orgel, orgello (“pride”). Compare Italian orgoglio, Spanish orgullo, Catalan orgull.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was interested to find out more about the Latin word urgolius, so I looked it up on the [Perseus Latin word study tool.][1] Unfortunately, I got no results. Did the Frankish word ever truly make it into the Latin language (as Wiktionnaire seems to imply)? Or is the Wiktionnaire entry simply giving an abstract ancestor for its descendants in the Romance languages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main point of confusion is the French phrases, **romanisé en *urgolius, qui a remplacé le latin classique superbia** (Romanised in *urgolius, which replaced the classical Latin superbia). I thought this implied the existence of the word in Latin, but the more I think about it, the more it looks like a reconstructed root, as the asterisk would imply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel almost silly now, thinking that urgolius made it into the Latin language. It looks like that's not the case. But I'll keep this question just to receive confirmation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=urgolius&amp;la=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5590" RevisionGUID="600b114b-0edd-450e-ba57-70d8037073cf" CreationDate="2017-11-24T02:19:52.073" UserId="172" Text="&gt; romanisé en _*urgolius_, qui a remplacé le latin classique *superbia*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The asterisk before the word is a universally accepted indication that the word *has not been attested*, which means it was not found in documents, but rather linguistically reconstructed from daughter languages (or sometimes a single language) only. It's not therefore surprising that your attempt to find it in sources did not yield anything!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Romanisé* in this context should be understood not as “latinized,” but rather narrowly as “romanized,” as this has to have occurred at the Proto-Romance, late Vulgar Latin stage. The Vulgar language was widely spoken, but very little writing of it exists. In the territories of modern France (Gaul) it heavily borrowed from Gaulic (Celtic) and later Frankish (Germanic) languages. The unattested Germanic borrowing that is reconstructed could have occurred any time past the 5th c. AD, when Frankish started taking over Gaul, and likely before the 8th c., when Old French differentiated from the language continuum. A specialist in early Romance languages could have probably dated it narrower for you, but I am not one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5590" RevisionGUID="831ca263-e9c3-434b-8750-9085a1fcd364" CreationDate="2017-11-24T02:29:38.003" UserId="172" Comment="Remove unhelpful tautology" Text="&gt; romanisé en _*urgolius_, qui a remplacé le latin classique *superbia*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The asterisk before the word is a universally accepted indication that the word *has not been attested*, which means it was not found in documents, but rather linguistically reconstructed from daughter languages (or sometimes a single language) only. It's not therefore surprising that your attempt to find it in sources did not yield anything!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Romanisé* in this context should be understood not as “latinized,” but rather narrowly as “romanized,” as this has to have occurred at the Proto-Romance, late Vulgar Latin stage. The Vulgar language was widely spoken, but very little writing of it exists. In the territories of modern France (Gaul) it heavily borrowed from Gaulic (Celtic) and later Frankish (Germanic) languages. The unattested Germanic borrowing could have occurred any time past the 5th c. AD, when Frankish started taking over Gaul, and likely before the 8th c., when Old French differentiated from the language continuum. A specialist in early Romance languages could have probably dated it narrower for you, but I am not one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5591" RevisionGUID="96fe9659-5b1b-47c7-a406-ad985ef10de8" CreationDate="2017-11-24T04:11:58.587" UserId="235" Text="I think I have the gist of this short sentence, but I would like a little more clarity on one detail. What construction is governing the phrase φάθι εἶναι? I have parsed φάθι as the 2nd singular imperative of φημί (&quot;to say&quot;) and εἶναι is clearly the infinitive of εἰμί (&quot;to be&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose it's possible that εἶναι is simply a complementary infinitive, complementing the imperative. Is that the case? Had Plato omitted the imperative, would εἶναι still be infinitive, or would it be conjugated instead?&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τοῦτο τοίνυν τὸ τὴν ἀλήθειαν παρέχον τοῖς γιγνωσκομένοις καὶ τῷ γιγνώσκοντι τὴν δύναμιν ἀποδιδὸν τὴν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἰδέαν φάθι εἶναι:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This, then, which furnishes truth to the objects of knowledge and gives power to the knower, you must say is the idea of the good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([Plat. Rep. 6.508e][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; At first I suspected an ACI, but the imperative threw me off — I'm not accustomed to seeing this informal 2nd sg imperative in the middle of an ACI.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0168%3Abook%3D6%3Asection%3D508e" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18497" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5591" RevisionGUID="96fe9659-5b1b-47c7-a406-ad985ef10de8" CreationDate="2017-11-24T04:11:58.587" UserId="235" Text="What construction is used with φάθι εἶναι? (Plat. Rep. 6.508e)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18498" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5591" RevisionGUID="96fe9659-5b1b-47c7-a406-ad985ef10de8" CreationDate="2017-11-24T04:11:58.587" UserId="235" Text="|greek|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5592" RevisionGUID="7bf132c9-efdc-47f5-87d3-f93f82e62e91" CreationDate="2017-11-24T05:41:07.000" UserId="79" Text="There are a number of choices to make.&#xD;&#xA;The first one is choosing a verb.&#xD;&#xA;The options that come to mind are [*polliceri*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=polliceor&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), [*promittere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=promitto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), and [*spondere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=spondeo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;Your choice *promittere* has the issue of having several different meanings, and it can be misconstrued in a motto.&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that *spondere* is for more solemn promises than *polliceri*, and perhaps a coat of arms calls for some amount of solemnity.&#xD;&#xA;I would therefore suggest *spondere*, but the choice is yours.&#xD;&#xA;Check the links for details on these three verbs, or check any resource on [our list of online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) for more options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I chose to use *numquam* (&quot;never&quot;), but you can easily replace it with *nihil* (&quot;nothing&quot;) if you prefer.&#xD;&#xA;Also combinations are possible; ask for details if something specific sounds interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last choice is choosing a structure.&#xD;&#xA;Using *spondere*, I might suggest one of these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Numquam spondere*   &#xD;&#xA;To never promise  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Numquam spondens/spondentes*  &#xD;&#xA;One/Ones who never promises/promise  &#xD;&#xA;(This is really a participle, so the translation is not entirely accurate.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. *Numquam spondemus*  &#xD;&#xA;We never promise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. *Numquam spondeto*  &#xD;&#xA;Never promise (as an order)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one might be most suitable, but I find the second one attractive as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5593" RevisionGUID="878a71b3-538c-4d3b-b678-e7d7c40a64d3" CreationDate="2017-11-24T05:55:51.220" UserId="235" Text="As a [sequel to my previous question][1], how would you translate ἡ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἰδέα (&quot;the idea of the good&quot;) into Latin? I'm referring to the concept in Plato's *Republic*, where in Book VI he analogizes the idea of the good with the sun, which shines light on everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose one efficient approach would be to find a Latin translation of *The Republic* and locate this passage (Bk VI 538e) in the Latin translation. But I'm actually not aware of any complete Latin translation or whether it's possible to locate this particular section with ease.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5591/what-construction-is-used-with-%CF%86%CE%AC%CE%B8%CE%B9-%CE%B5%E1%BC%B6%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-plat-rep-6-508e" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18501" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5593" RevisionGUID="878a71b3-538c-4d3b-b678-e7d7c40a64d3" CreationDate="2017-11-24T05:55:51.220" UserId="235" Text="How would you translate ἡ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἰδέα into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18502" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5593" RevisionGUID="878a71b3-538c-4d3b-b678-e7d7c40a64d3" CreationDate="2017-11-24T05:55:51.220" UserId="235" Text="|classical-latin|translation|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5588" RevisionGUID="b7e903d4-e64f-4572-9f3d-e8af7b545783" CreationDate="2017-11-24T05:59:10.010" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm looking for a motto for a coat of arms which would be an impersonal sentence (as it should be in a coat of arms) and read something like &quot;Never promise anything&quot; or &quot;Promise nothing&quot;. Right now I'm considering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nihil promittere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct? Are there any other more suitable expressions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18504" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5588" RevisionGUID="b7e903d4-e64f-4572-9f3d-e8af7b545783" CreationDate="2017-11-24T05:59:10.010" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation-check|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5592" RevisionGUID="b6296ee0-e158-4170-b51e-d60c8bf0b26d" CreationDate="2017-11-24T06:00:05.907" UserId="79" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="Your *nihil promittere* is correct, but let me explore some alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of choices to make.&#xD;&#xA;The first one is choosing a verb.&#xD;&#xA;The options that come to mind are [*polliceri*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=polliceor&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), [*promittere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=promitto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), and [*spondere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=spondeo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;Your choice *promittere* has the issue of having several different meanings, and it can be misconstrued in a motto.&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that *spondere* is for more solemn promises than *polliceri*, and perhaps a coat of arms calls for some amount of solemnity.&#xD;&#xA;I would therefore suggest *spondere*, but the choice is yours.&#xD;&#xA;Check the links for details on these three verbs, or check any resource on [our list of online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) for more options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I chose to use *numquam* (&quot;never&quot;), but you can easily replace it with *nihil* (&quot;nothing&quot;) if you prefer.&#xD;&#xA;Also combinations are possible; ask for details if something specific sounds interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last choice is choosing a structure.&#xD;&#xA;Using *spondere*, I might suggest one of these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Numquam spondere*   &#xD;&#xA;To never promise  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Numquam spondens/spondentes*  &#xD;&#xA;One/Ones who never promises/promise  &#xD;&#xA;(This is really a participle, so the translation is not entirely accurate.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. *Numquam spondemus*  &#xD;&#xA;We never promise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. *Numquam spondeto*  &#xD;&#xA;Never promise (as an order)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one might be most suitable, but I find the second one attractive as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5593" RevisionGUID="2398a34a-98eb-485d-bcdb-2be2c524591f" CreationDate="2017-11-24T06:02:06.827" UserId="235" Comment="added 569 characters in body" Text="**Question**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a [sequel to my previous question][1], how would you translate ἡ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἰδέα (&quot;the idea of the good&quot;) into Latin? I'm referring to the concept in Plato's *Republic*, where in Book VI he analogizes the idea of the good with the sun, which shines light on everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose one efficient approach would be to find a Latin translation of *The Republic* and locate this passage (Bk VI 538e) in the Latin translation. But I'm actually not aware of any complete Latin translation or whether it's possible to locate this particular section with ease.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Preliminary research**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to share with you some preliminary research, I spent some time on Whitaker's words looking for suitable Latin nouns. I came up with *imago*, *conceptum*, and *cognitio* as candidates for &quot;idea&quot;, and the word that comes to mind for ἀγαθοῦ would be &quot;boni&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That left me with the candidates &quot;imago/conceptum/cognitio boni&quot; — but I'm not too confident in any of these! It would be nice in addition to coming up with a good translation to provide some commentary on how these candidates succeed or fall short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5591/what-construction-is-used-with-%CF%86%CE%AC%CE%B8%CE%B9-%CE%B5%E1%BC%B6%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-plat-rep-6-508e" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5594" RevisionGUID="cba142a8-dd04-49b4-a2e8-99be63401802" CreationDate="2017-11-24T06:15:29.913" UserId="79" Text="A [corpus search](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23idea) shows some hits for *idea*.&#xD;&#xA;You can use the Latinized word *idea* as such, or you can use the Greek word with Greek declension and alphabet.&#xD;&#xA;By far the simplest choice is *idea*, and it refers rather unambiguously to the correct philosophical concept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the hits also suggests a translation.&#xD;&#xA;In *Tusculanae Disputationes* Cicero remarks: *ἰδέαν appellat [Plato], nos speciem*.&#xD;&#xA;If you trust Cicero's authority on this, you can translate the idea to Latin as *species*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *boni* is a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;Another option worth consideration is *bonitatis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, I would suggest *idea boni*, but also *species bonitatis* or any mixture thereof sounds acceptable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5593" RevisionGUID="476ba77a-0f8d-4212-8cec-328eddf80534" CreationDate="2017-11-24T06:16:58.373" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted titles and retagged. Feel free to re-edit or roll back!" Text="###Question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a [sequel to my previous question][1], how would you translate ἡ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἰδέα (&quot;the idea of the good&quot;) into Latin? I'm referring to the concept in Plato's *Republic*, where in Book VI he analogizes the idea of the good with the sun, which shines light on everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose one efficient approach would be to find a Latin translation of *The Republic* and locate this passage (Bk VI 538e) in the Latin translation. But I'm actually not aware of any complete Latin translation or whether it's possible to locate this particular section with ease.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Preliminary research&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to share with you some preliminary research, I spent some time on Whitaker's words looking for suitable Latin nouns. I came up with *imago*, *conceptum*, and *cognitio* as candidates for &quot;idea&quot;, and the word that comes to mind for ἀγαθοῦ would be &quot;boni&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That left me with the candidates &quot;imago/conceptum/cognitio boni&quot; — but I'm not too confident in any of these! It would be nice in addition to coming up with a good translation to provide some commentary on how these candidates succeed or fall short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5591/what-construction-is-used-with-%CF%86%CE%AC%CE%B8%CE%B9-%CE%B5%E1%BC%B6%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-plat-rep-6-508e" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18509" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5593" RevisionGUID="476ba77a-0f8d-4212-8cec-328eddf80534" CreationDate="2017-11-24T06:16:58.373" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted titles and retagged. Feel free to re-edit or roll back!" Text="|classical-latin|greek|philosophy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5595" RevisionGUID="34dec531-a392-4f3b-b55f-79ef2851a4f9" CreationDate="2017-11-24T06:34:14.170" UserId="235" Text="On my [previous question][1] (thus begins the chain) I wrote a comment saying &quot;Illa est bona idea. Fortasse rogem cras.&quot; I used the subjunctive because I take &quot;fortasse&quot; to mean &quot;maybe&quot;, which to me warrants the potential subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my conclusion correct? What other adverbs of possibility or probability would warrant the subjunctive? Take the following for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - fortasse&#xD;&#xA; - forsitan&#xD;&#xA; - forte&#xD;&#xA; - fortassis&#xD;&#xA; - probabiliter (probably, [per this suggestion][2])&#xD;&#xA; - veri simile est (same source as above)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Happy to hear your thoughts, primarily regarding the comment I wrote, but also regarding the other words in the bullet-list above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My conjecture, which I will share with you briefly, is that words leaning towards &quot;possibly, perchance, perhaps, maybe&quot; take the subjunctive, but words leaning towards &quot;probably, almost certainly, most likely&quot; lean towards the indicative. I could easily be wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5593/how-would-you-translate-%E1%BC%A1-%CF%84%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6-%E1%BC%80%CE%B3%CE%B1%CE%B8%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6-%E1%BC%B0%CE%B4%CE%AD%CE%B1-into-latin#5593&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2780/how-do-i-say-that-something-will-probably-happen-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18511" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5595" RevisionGUID="34dec531-a392-4f3b-b55f-79ef2851a4f9" CreationDate="2017-11-24T06:34:14.170" UserId="235" Text="Which adverbs of possibility and probability warrant the subjunctive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18512" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5595" RevisionGUID="34dec531-a392-4f3b-b55f-79ef2851a4f9" CreationDate="2017-11-24T06:34:14.170" UserId="235" Text="|classical-latin|adverb|conjunctive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5596" RevisionGUID="927d4f41-14d1-4c6a-9a60-1d2ac35d6024" CreationDate="2017-11-24T07:12:17.267" UserId="2131" Text="I know this StackExchange is dedicated to Latin, but since one for Greek/Ancient Greek is [currently under proposal](https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/101509/greek-language?referrer=yRzQoZHRmyGzfFj03568GA2), I was advised to post my question here [after having posted it on Linguistics](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/26455/rules-to-constructing-a-proper-compound-noun-in-ancient-greek?noredirect=1#comment54272_26455). I am hoping to get some direction, especially given I am not the only person interested in this problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am currently in the process of translating a text from one language into another, and the original uses a compound noun that can either be translated into English as *&quot;fly-eating&quot;* (losing the original's charm) or a fancy quasi-medical term involving *&quot;-phagia&quot;*. I have tried searching for rules regarding Ancient Greek compound nouns' formation but could not unearth a definite algorithm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word for *&quot;fly&quot;* would be [myia](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CF%85%E1%BF%96%CE%B1#Ancient_Greek) and [-phagia](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-phagy#English) could be appended at the end to signify *&quot;eating&quot;*. I would appreciate it if someone with better knowledge of Ancient Greek could help me combine the two together, and I would love to see some scholarly articles on this topic. Surely there are some rules that medical scientists and jurisprudents follow when giving names to new terms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[sumelic](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/9/sumelic) and I think that a &quot;linking O&quot; should be used (resulting in *&quot;my(i)ophagy&quot;*), however, we also realise that might get the resulting word linked with terms like *&quot;myophagy&quot;* (muscle-eating) and [*&quot;myopia&quot;*](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/myopia) that are in no way related to flies. 'tis quite a conundrum." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18514" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5596" RevisionGUID="927d4f41-14d1-4c6a-9a60-1d2ac35d6024" CreationDate="2017-11-24T07:12:17.267" UserId="2131" Text="Rules to constructing a proper compound noun in Ancient Greek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18515" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5596" RevisionGUID="927d4f41-14d1-4c6a-9a60-1d2ac35d6024" CreationDate="2017-11-24T07:12:17.267" UserId="2131" Text="|greek|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5596" RevisionGUID="74835e1f-71d2-43e1-99e5-27e54dbfd510" CreationDate="2017-11-24T07:25:02.013" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="I know this StackExchange is dedicated to Latin, but since one for Greek/Ancient Greek is [currently under proposal](https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/101509/greek-language?referrer=yRzQoZHRmyGzfFj03568GA2), I was advised to post my question here [after having posted it on Linguistics](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/26455/rules-to-constructing-a-proper-compound-noun-in-ancient-greek?noredirect=1#comment54272_26455). I am hoping to get some direction, especially given I am not the only person interested in this problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am currently in the process of translating a text from one language into another, and the original uses a compound noun that can either be translated into English as *&quot;fly-eating&quot;* (losing the original's charm) or a fancy quasi-medical term involving *&quot;-phagia&quot;*. I have tried searching for rules regarding Ancient Greek compound nouns' formation but could not unearth a definite algorithm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word for *&quot;fly&quot;* would be [myia](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CF%85%E1%BF%96%CE%B1#Ancient_Greek) and [-phagia](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-phagy#English) could be appended at the end to signify *&quot;eating&quot;*. I would appreciate it if someone with better knowledge of Ancient Greek could help me combine the two together, and I would love to see some scholarly articles on this topic. Surely there are some rules that medical scientists and jurisprudents follow when giving names to new terms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[sumelic](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/9/sumelic) and I think that a &quot;linking O&quot; should be used (resulting in *&quot;my(i)ophagy&quot;*), however, we also realise that might get the resulting word linked with terms like *&quot;myophagy&quot;* (muscle-eating) and [*&quot;myopia&quot;*](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/myopia) that are in no way related to flies. 'tis quite a conundrum.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18517" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5596" RevisionGUID="74835e1f-71d2-43e1-99e5-27e54dbfd510" CreationDate="2017-11-24T07:25:02.013" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|greek|derivation|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5597" RevisionGUID="2e0f4804-b915-4e32-8d09-8f3695dafa5f" CreationDate="2017-11-24T07:41:29.920" UserId="235" Text="In the following text, how does ἀποδίδωμι add a nuance that would be lost with the simpler δίδωμι? Why do you think Plato chose the former over the latter? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we do a quick search on ἀποδίδωμι in the [Perseus lexicon][1], we find that most definitions (for the transitive use) involve a &quot;giving back&quot; or &quot;return&quot;. But the first definition is &quot;to give up&quot;. Is that the nuance I am looking for: that ἡ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἰδέα gives up of its own free will power to the knower?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be analogous to the difference between &quot;to give&quot; and &quot;to bestow upon&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τοῦτο τοίνυν τὸ τὴν ἀλήθειαν παρέχον τοῖς γιγνωσκομένοις καὶ τῷ γιγνώσκοντι τὴν δύναμιν ἀποδιδὸν τὴν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἰδέαν φάθι εἶναι:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This, then, which furnishes truth to the objects of knowledge and gives power to the knower, you must say is the idea of the good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([Plat. Rep. 6.508e][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%E1%BC%80%CF%80%CE%BF%CE%B4%CE%AF%CE%B4%CF%89%CE%BC%CE%B9&amp;la=greek#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0168%3Abook%3D6%3Asection%3D508e" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18519" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5597" RevisionGUID="2e0f4804-b915-4e32-8d09-8f3695dafa5f" CreationDate="2017-11-24T07:41:29.920" UserId="235" Text="What are the nuances between ἀποδίδωμι and δίδωμι, especially in this context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18520" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5597" RevisionGUID="2e0f4804-b915-4e32-8d09-8f3695dafa5f" CreationDate="2017-11-24T07:41:29.920" UserId="235" Text="|greek|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5598" RevisionGUID="22fefd58-f71d-4c75-82cd-a525183c9a79" CreationDate="2017-11-24T13:57:54.860" UserId="1982" Text="Thank you friends/ colleagues for the contributions to &quot;Epistemic Modality&quot;. These certainly helped to clear up frustrating confusions. Apologies to brianpic: I should have defined/ explained EM--point taken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, with your permission, I have another Q: N &amp; H Ex 222: &quot;If ever a man deserved to be well-treated by his fellow citizens it was Tib. Gracchus.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer: &quot;Tib. Gracchus (TB) si quis alius dignus fuit qui a suis civibus beneficiis afficeretur.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I put &quot;dignus erat&quot;. To me &quot;dignus fuit&quot; implies that his worthiness ended at some point; and, or TB is now dead: he, like his worthiness, is a completed action in the past. Thus, &quot;dignus erat&quot;--he is still alive: his worthiness was; presumably still is; therefore, continues to be....Is this a correct interpretation of the effects of erat &amp; fuit in this context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same passage, if I may, please; &quot;...and connected by birth with both the conquerors of Africa,...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N &amp; H advised the student (footnotes) to deploy &quot;uterque Africanus&quot; for &quot;the conquerors of Africa&quot;, giving:- &quot;...et natu coniunctus cum utroque Africano,...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Given that uterque means &quot;each of the two&quot;, how is the required: &quot;conquerors of&quot; achieved by this?&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18522" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5598" RevisionGUID="22fefd58-f71d-4c75-82cd-a525183c9a79" CreationDate="2017-11-24T13:57:54.860" UserId="1982" Text="The Erat/ Fuit Conflict" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18523" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5598" RevisionGUID="22fefd58-f71d-4c75-82cd-a525183c9a79" CreationDate="2017-11-24T13:57:54.860" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5599" RevisionGUID="d06f73a8-43fb-4ef6-b464-ee1ca536cb3f" CreationDate="2017-11-24T15:00:15.757" UserId="645" Text="It's often appropriate to select between *erat* and *fuit* by thinking of expressions such as 'was', 'was at the time', 'used to be', and so on. Learned Latinists a hundred years and more ago used to argue about this in a point-scoring kind of way, but I don't think that there is a hard-and-fast rule : it's only necessary to choose the one which you think fits comfortably with the meaning as you understand it. For this example, I would personally prefer *erat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Both' can be expressed in different ways — *ambo*, *uterque*, *geminus* etc., and it can be confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *ambo* is usual when the pair act as one, or are referred to as a single entity.&#xD;&#xA;2.  I've just looked at N&amp;H, and agree with them because *uterque* can only mean 'either of two', implying the 'both' of the English (there were two of the *gens* Scipio who were dignified by the title *Africanus* for the parts they played in the Punic Wars).&#xD;&#xA;3. *geminus* is used for natural (maybe inseparable) pairs, such as twins, eyes, hands : *geminae ocellae*, for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5598" RevisionGUID="f348dbd0-217d-4977-87f1-7b70b18336e2" CreationDate="2017-11-24T15:39:47.140" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Thank you friends/colleagues for the contributions to &quot;Epistemic Modality&quot;. These certainly helped to clear up frustrating confusions. Apologies to brianpck: I should have defined/explained EM&amp;mdash;point taken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, with your permission, I have another Q: N &amp; H Ex 222: &quot;If ever a man deserved to be well-treated by his fellow citizens it was Tib. Gracchus.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer: &quot;Tib. Gracchus (TB) si quis alius dignus fuit qui a suis civibus beneficiis afficeretur.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I put &quot;dignus erat&quot;. To me &quot;dignus fuit&quot; implies that his worthiness ended at some point; and, or TB is now dead: he, like his worthiness, is a completed action in the past. Thus, &quot;dignus erat&quot;--he is still alive: his worthiness was; presumably still is; therefore, continues to be....Is this a correct interpretation of the effects of erat &amp; fuit in this context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same passage, if I may, please; &quot;...and connected by birth with both the conquerors of Africa,...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N &amp; H advised the student (footnotes) to deploy &quot;uterque Africanus&quot; for &quot;the conquerors of Africa&quot;, giving:- &quot;...et natu coniunctus cum utroque Africano,...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Given that uterque means &quot;each of the two&quot;, how is the required: &quot;conquerors of&quot; achieved by this?&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18526" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5598" RevisionGUID="f348dbd0-217d-4977-87f1-7b70b18336e2" CreationDate="2017-11-24T15:39:47.140" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5600" RevisionGUID="f3d5862d-2ea8-4b02-b89b-b921da31bf79" CreationDate="2017-11-24T16:05:29.813" UserId="79" Text="Tom Cotton explained &quot;both&quot; and *erat/fuit* well, so let me only address your last question about &quot;conquerors of&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;While it is true that the adjective *Africanus* means &quot;African&quot; or &quot;related to Africa&quot;, this particular case is very specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publius Cornelius Scipio did not have African origins.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, *Africanus* was an honorary title given to him after a decisive victory by his troops in Africa.&#xD;&#xA;The adjective *Germanicus* has a similar use.&#xD;&#xA;This is not explained in your typical Latin dictionary, so some knowledge of Roman nickname conventions regarding military service is needed.&#xD;&#xA;I should point out that this is an example of a case where to fully understand what the language does, you need to have some understanding of the culture as well.&#xD;&#xA;Culture and language are always related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular context *Africanus* means &quot;conqueror of Africa&quot;, and leaving out an explicit &quot;conqueror of&quot; looks idiomatic to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5601" RevisionGUID="e751cb1b-87f9-4e88-873e-5be5d354c4e3" CreationDate="2017-11-24T17:19:50.857" UserId="13" Text="There are apparently numerous versions of these lines. I only have access to two however: Edmonds':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]· ἀ γὰρ πόλυ περσκόπεισα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κάλλος ἀνθρώπων Ἐλένα τὸν ἄνδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[κρίννε κάλ]ιστον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[ὸς τὸ πὰν] σέβας Τροΐας ὄλεσσε&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Campbell's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]· ἀ γὰρ πόλυ περσκέ̣θ̣ο̣ı̣σα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣άλ̣λο̣ς [ἀνθ]ρώπων Ἐλένα [τὸ]ν ἄνδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τ̣ὸν̣ [πανάρ]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣αλλ[ίποι]σ̣' ἔβα 'σ Τροΐαν πλέοı̣[σα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that is a big difference, even outside lacunas. So I tried looking at Grenfell and Hunt's edition of P.Oxy. 1231, whence the poem mostly comes (see below for more), and found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]ᾱγαρπόλυπερσκο̣π̣ε̣ı̣[.]α&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&lt;sup&gt;λ̣&lt;/sup&gt;ο̣σ̣[...]ωπωνελενα̣[..]νανδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[9 letters]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[7 letters]σ̣εβαστροϊα[..]λεσσ̣[..]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That seems to scream &quot;Go Edmonds, screw Campbell&quot;. But let's look at the notes to the transcription. What I gather from them is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - σκεδοισα and σκοπεισα are equally likely endings for l. 6, and since the notes only mention a «rather high stroke turning over» for the delta, I assume σκεθοισα would also be equally likely; so as far as P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 1 is concerned, Cambpell and Edmonds are equally likely right about that line;&#xD;&#xA; - The other lines have no beginning in the papyrus at hand, so those must come from another papyrus, which we will discuss below;&#xD;&#xA; - The notes don't even mention l. 9 (which is l. 21 in the papyrus), so this papyrus actually has a no-doubt λεσ in that line, whereas Campbell would have that as λεο, and read the doubtful sigma right afterwards as a doubtful iota;&#xD;&#xA; - Neither the notes nor the transcriptions show any other P.Oxy. 1231 fragment that could contain beginnings for those lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when [Bonnaria](http://www.uc.pt/fluc/eclassicos/publicacoes/ficheiros/humanitas25-26/07_Bonnaria.pdf) states that P.Oxy. 1231 reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;τ̣ὸν̣ [&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καλλ[&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]σ̣' ἔβα 'ς Τροΐαν πλέοı̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;they are apparetly giving us a nice bit of bull… err, tauricopria. Or maybe they are mixing up papyri. There are two more papyri this poem comes from. One is PSI 123, 1-2, but that only gives the last line, τ' ἐξ ἀδοκή[τω], which gives no trouble. The second one is P.Oxy. 2166(a), published in volume XXI. Unfortunately, I can't find anything online about this: no images, no transcriptions. Campbell's critical notation suggests it must have read at least:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κ̣αλ̣λο̣σ[]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τ̣ὸν̣[]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣αλλ[&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]σ̣εβαστροϊανπλεοι̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;plus the first 5 letters of the following line and the first 2 of the one after that. This implies a papyrus conflict: l. 9 is different from one papyrus to the other, and doubtfulness cannot solve the problem. So we are faced with two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Either we argue that the two are different poems, which seems viable if 2166(a) only has the little mentioned above (which could actually be even less, since we don't actually need it to read the σ̣εβαστροϊα part;&#xD;&#xA; - Or we have to choose one or the other, and with what arguments do we point our finger at one and say &quot;You're wrong!&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: does anyone have access to anything that can shed light on what was actually on 2166(a), and/or to something pointing out extra margins of doubtfulness in 1231 to settle this dispute?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18529" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5601" RevisionGUID="e751cb1b-87f9-4e88-873e-5be5d354c4e3" CreationDate="2017-11-24T17:19:50.857" UserId="13" Text="About Sappho 16, ll. 6-9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18530" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5601" RevisionGUID="e751cb1b-87f9-4e88-873e-5be5d354c4e3" CreationDate="2017-11-24T17:19:50.857" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5601" RevisionGUID="26dad5fc-2c0d-4fce-95cf-63d5dd3f3da2" CreationDate="2017-11-24T17:41:28.233" UserId="13" Comment="added PS's" Text="There are apparently numerous versions of these lines. I only have access to two however: Edmonds':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]· ἀ γὰρ πόλυ περσκόπεισα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κάλλος ἀνθρώπων Ἐλένα τὸν ἄνδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[κρίννε κάλ]ιστον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[ὸς τὸ πὰν] σέβας Τροΐας ὄλεσσε&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Campbell's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]· ἀ γὰρ πόλυ περσκέ̣θ̣ο̣ı̣σα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣άλ̣λο̣ς [ἀνθ]ρώπων Ἐλένα [τὸ]ν ἄνδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τ̣ὸν̣ [πανάρ]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣αλλ[ίποι]σ̣' ἔβα 'σ Τροΐαν πλέοı̣[σα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that is a big difference, even outside lacunas. So I tried looking at Grenfell and Hunt's edition of P.Oxy. 1231, whence the poem mostly comes (see below for more), and found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]ᾱγαρπόλυπερσκο̣π̣ε̣ı̣[.]α&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&lt;sup&gt;λ̣&lt;/sup&gt;ο̣σ̣[...]ωπωνελενα̣[..]νανδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[9 letters]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[7 letters]σ̣εβαστροϊα[..]λεσσ̣[..]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That seems to scream &quot;Go Edmonds, screw Campbell&quot;. But let's look at the notes to the transcription. What I gather from them is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - σκεδοισα and σκοπεισα are equally likely endings for l. 6, and since the notes only mention a «rather high stroke turning over» for the delta, I assume σκεθοισα would also be equally likely; so as far as P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 1 is concerned, Cambpell and Edmonds are equally likely right about that line;&#xD;&#xA; - The other lines have no beginning in the papyrus at hand, so those must come from another papyrus, which we will discuss below;&#xD;&#xA; - The notes don't even mention l. 9 (which is l. 21 in the papyrus), so this papyrus actually has a no-doubt λεσ in that line, whereas Campbell would have that as λεο, and read the doubtful sigma right afterwards as a doubtful iota;&#xD;&#xA; - Neither the notes nor the transcriptions show any other P.Oxy. 1231 fragment that could contain beginnings for those lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when [Bonnaria](http://www.uc.pt/fluc/eclassicos/publicacoes/ficheiros/humanitas25-26/07_Bonnaria.pdf) states that P.Oxy. 1231 reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;τ̣ὸν̣ [&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καλλ[&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]σ̣' ἔβα 'ς Τροΐαν πλέοı̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;they are apparetly giving us a nice bit of bull… err, tauricopria. Or maybe they are mixing up papyri. There are two more papyri this poem comes from. One is PSI 123, 1-2, but that only gives the last line, τ' ἐξ ἀδοκή[τω], which gives no trouble. The second one is P.Oxy. 2166(a), published in volume XXI. Unfortunately, I can't find anything online about this: no images, no transcriptions. Campbell's critical notation suggests it must have read at least:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κ̣αλ̣λο̣σ[]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τ̣ὸν̣[]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣αλλ[&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]σ̣εβαστροϊανπλεοι̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;plus the first 5 letters of the following line and the first 2 of the one after that. This implies a papyrus conflict: l. 9 is different from one papyrus to the other, and doubtfulness cannot solve the problem. So we are faced with two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Either we argue that the two are different poems, which seems viable if 2166(a) only has the little mentioned above (which could actually be even less, since we don't actually need it to read the σ̣εβαστροϊα part;&#xD;&#xA; - Or we have to choose one or the other, and with what arguments do we point our finger at one and say &quot;You're wrong!&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: does anyone have access to anything that can shed light on what was actually on 2166(a), and/or to something pointing out extra margins of doubtfulness in 1231 to settle this dispute?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS If you're thinking of suggesting I buy the Voigt and/or Lobel-Page edition of Sappho, don't. I'm already thinking of getting them for Xmas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS I also have a couple slightly different versions (which basically only differ in the lacuna at v. 8), but I kept the above two as prototypical, and also because all others have no critical notation. Researching again only yielded [The Complete Poems of Sappho](http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/), giving Cox's version as reading κρίννεν ἄριστον. Maybe safopoemas.doc contained other versions. But that's beside the point anyways, so I won't look into it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5602" RevisionGUID="d9460703-5b38-40f4-9b7e-3b3e168698c1" CreationDate="2017-11-24T18:07:02.627" UserId="1694" Text="I'd go for &quot;myiaphagy&quot;, on the basis that &quot;genealogy&quot; serves a precedent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5603" RevisionGUID="a737d083-6c11-4d7a-995d-0481078135a6" CreationDate="2017-11-24T22:53:46.313" UserId="985" Text="LSJ lists μυιοειδής ('like a fly'), μυιοθήρας ('fly-hunter'), μυιοκέφαλον (a complaint in the eyes, in which the uvea protrudes like a fly's head), and a few other compounds that have both the iota and an omicron as the connecting vowel; so I think myiophagy is perfectly reasonable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5596" RevisionGUID="a0318161-ca12-4f20-b679-ac2d287bc079" CreationDate="2017-11-24T23:07:37.443" UserId="2131" Comment="additional information and examples" Text="I know this StackExchange is dedicated to Latin, but since one for Greek/Ancient Greek is [currently under proposal](https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/101509/greek-language?referrer=yRzQoZHRmyGzfFj03568GA2), I was advised to post my question here [after having posted it on Linguistics](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/26455/rules-to-constructing-a-proper-compound-noun-in-ancient-greek?noredirect=1#comment54272_26455). I am hoping to get some direction, especially given I am not the only person interested in this problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am currently in the process of translating a text from one language into another, and the original uses a compound noun that can either be translated into English as *&quot;fly-eating&quot;* (losing the original's charm) or a fancy quasi-medical term involving *&quot;-phagia&quot;*. I have tried searching for rules regarding Ancient Greek compound nouns' formation but could not unearth a definite algorithm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word for *&quot;fly&quot;* would be [myia](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CF%85%E1%BF%96%CE%B1#Ancient_Greek) and [-phagia](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-phagy#English) could be appended at the end to signify *&quot;eating&quot;*. I would appreciate it if someone with better knowledge of Ancient Greek could help me combine the two together, and I would love to see some scholarly articles on this topic. Surely there are some rules that medical scientists and jurisprudents follow when giving names to new terms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[sumelic](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/9/sumelic) and I think that a &quot;linking O&quot; should be used (resulting in *&quot;my(i)ophagy&quot;*), however, we also realise that might get the resulting word linked with terms like *&quot;myophagy&quot;* (muscle-eating) and [*&quot;myopia&quot;*](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/myopia) that are in no way related to flies. 'tis quite a conundrum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**: the fly-related part of the question [has been answered over at Linguistics](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/26458/20499). However, I am still looking for resources and (ideally) an algorithm for properly constructing such nouns. The rules do not seem as straightforward as they are in, say, German. There are at least a few words that seem to fall out of the &quot;linking O&quot; set: _genealogy_ (_γενεά_ + _λόγος_), _koretomia_ (_κόρη_ + _τέμνω_) -  to name a few (I haven't found too many though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a rule for avoiding homographs? Like in the case with _my(i)o-_?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5603" RevisionGUID="1472d30d-07aa-4994-a175-50ad9fadf166" CreationDate="2017-11-24T23:12:04.407" UserId="985" Comment="added 399 characters in body" Text="LSJ lists μυιοειδής ('like a fly'), μυιοθήρας ('fly-hunter'), μυιοκέφαλον (a complaint in the eyes, in which the uvea protrudes like a fly's head), and a few other compounds that have both the iota and an omicron as the connecting vowel; so I think myiophagy is perfectly reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Update:* As to the suggestion of myiaphagy on the analogy of genealogy: For what it's worth, the alpha in genealogy is original to the ancient word (γενεαλογία), whereas none of the ancient μυι- compounds that I saw use an alpha as a connecting vowel; all use omicron. I believe it has something to do with the length of the alpha in the root word (short alpha in μυῖα vs. long alpha in γενεά)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5604" RevisionGUID="5d315be9-67a1-4f20-9199-1f16eaede6d5" CreationDate="2017-11-24T23:40:20.823" UserId="2132" Text="&#xD;&#xA;The diagnosis of ADHD is effectively a clinical opinion that an individual is not reaching their full potential. It's also a claim about the underlying mechanism (being mediated by dopamine; a disturbance in executive function).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to come up with the name of disease entity that means &quot;idiopathic unfulfilled potential&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone suggest an creative and legitimate-looking name for a disorder conveying the convey the following (similar)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Insufficient Potential&#xD;&#xA;- Desire not being satisfied (individual's ambition greater than ability)&#xD;&#xA;- Hidden/latent ability&#xD;&#xA;- Drive is not fully awoken&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Potential candidates are not wholly satisfying to me: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Idiopathic amotivation&#xD;&#xA; - Idiopathic apotentia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only criteria I have is that it sounds good and begins with *idiopathic*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jah Bless&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18537" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5604" RevisionGUID="5d315be9-67a1-4f20-9199-1f16eaede6d5" CreationDate="2017-11-24T23:40:20.823" UserId="2132" Text="Can someone suggest a medical name conveying &quot;idiopathic unfulfilled potential&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18538" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5604" RevisionGUID="5d315be9-67a1-4f20-9199-1f16eaede6d5" CreationDate="2017-11-24T23:40:20.823" UserId="2132" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5605" RevisionGUID="184bdf28-7fc3-46ed-bfbe-6d721a252674" CreationDate="2017-11-25T00:40:49.280" UserId="235" Text="I was reading the answers to [this interesting question][1], about the analogy of forming compound nouns from muia (&quot;fly&quot;) and genea (&quot;birth&quot;). And cnread brought up the interesting point that the alpha in muia is short&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, whereas the alpha in genea is long&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. As a result, the final vowels might undergo different alterations when forming compound nouns (i.e. the alpha in muia would get shortened to an omicron, but this would not be the case for genea).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question, is, how do we know the vowel lengths of the alphas in muia and genea? Are we able to deduce that the final vowel of muia is short because of the circumflex that precedes it? Is there a similar rule that lets us deduce that the alpha in genea is long?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; See [Wiktionary][2], which places a breve over the alpha.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; [Ibid.][3] Macron over the alpha.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5596/rules-to-constructing-a-proper-compound-noun-in-ancient-greek&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CF%85%E1%BF%96%CE%B1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B3%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%AC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18540" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5605" RevisionGUID="184bdf28-7fc3-46ed-bfbe-6d721a252674" CreationDate="2017-11-25T00:40:49.280" UserId="235" Text="How do we know that the alpha in μυῖα is short and the alpha in γενεά is long?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18541" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5605" RevisionGUID="184bdf28-7fc3-46ed-bfbe-6d721a252674" CreationDate="2017-11-25T00:40:49.280" UserId="235" Text="|greek|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5602" RevisionGUID="30234f4f-69eb-4496-93ec-073ba6eb8a59" CreationDate="2017-11-25T01:03:13.323" UserId="1694" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I'd go for &quot;myiaphagy&quot;, on the basis that &quot;genealogy&quot; serves as a precedent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5603" RevisionGUID="1d58e13b-7a36-4f4a-8ed3-70739f7d5bbc" CreationDate="2017-11-25T01:57:40.553" UserId="985" Comment="added 611 characters in body" Text="LSJ lists μυιοειδής ('like a fly'), μυιοθήρας ('fly-hunter'), μυιοκέφαλον (a complaint in the eyes, in which the uvea protrudes like a fly's head), and a few other compounds that have both the iota and an omicron as the connecting vowel; so I think myiophagy is perfectly reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Update:* As to the suggestion of myiaphagy on the analogy of genealogy: For what it's worth, the alpha in genealogy is original to the ancient word (γενεαλογία), whereas none of the ancient μυι- compounds that I saw use an alpha as a connecting vowel; all use omicron. I believe it has something to do with the length of the alpha in the root word (short alpha in μυῖα vs. long alpha in γενεά).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Update 2:* As to resources about guidelines ('alogrithms') for constructing words, I like Oscar Nybakken's _Greek and Latin in scientific terminology_ (Ames: Iowa State College Press, 1959). Even though it's concerned with scientific vocabulary, the info in it has wider applicability. In grad school, I taught a course on bioscientific vocabulary from Latin and Greek several times. Since I'm by no means a science person, I approached this as another language class, where the terminology has vocabulary that is combined according to rules for syntax; Nybakken's book was very helpful for this approach. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2590" RevisionGUID="e47df8b4-124c-49bc-89da-6237ec697526" CreationDate="2017-11-25T02:08:22.677" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I wanted to make a kind of western-style WANTED-poster in Latin, and I got a few questions about it. My questions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- how did the romans say **WANTED** on a poster? &#xD;&#xA;     - I was doubting between the words **voluit** (own translation) and **quis** (translation via translation site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How did the Romans call their currency? &#xD;&#xA;    - I know there were different coins like _as_ and _denarius_, but for example like we say: _it costs **$7**_, did they have a sign to express their coin? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How did they say something like _Dead or Alive_?&#xD;&#xA;   - I ended up with a translation like **Mortuus an vivus** and a translation site ended up with **Mortuus sive vivus**. Is one of those translations correct or not? If no, what should be the correct translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every answer is appreciated, even if it's only an answer on one of the questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18545" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2590" RevisionGUID="e47df8b4-124c-49bc-89da-6237ec697526" CreationDate="2017-11-25T02:08:22.677" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|roman-culture|money|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5604" RevisionGUID="f62883ab-ccf0-40c9-892e-a8341c0e7fde" CreationDate="2017-11-25T02:10:18.587" UserId="2132" Comment="syntax" Text="The diagnosis of ADHD is effectively a clinical opinion that an individual is not reaching their full potential. It's also a claim about the underlying mechanism (being mediated by dopamine; a disturbance in executive function).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***I am trying to come up with the name of a disease entity that means idiopathic unfulfilled potential.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone suggest a creative and legitimate-sounding name for a disorder conveying any of the following (or similar)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Insufficient potential&#xD;&#xA;- Desire not being satisfied (individual's ambition greater than ability)&#xD;&#xA;- Hidden/latent ability&#xD;&#xA;- Drive is not fully awoken&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are my potential candidates. However, none are wholly satisfying to me: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Idiopathic amotivation&#xD;&#xA; - Idiopathic apotentia&#xD;&#xA; - Idiopathic anhedonia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only criteria I have is that it sounds good and begins with *idiopathic*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jah Bless&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5597" RevisionGUID="2bb89397-e092-45f3-8086-f0304ffa89a2" CreationDate="2017-11-25T02:25:41.373" UserId="235" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="In the following text, how does ἀποδίδωμι add a nuance that would be lost with the simpler δίδωμι? Why do you think Plato chose the former over the latter? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we do a quick search on ἀποδίδωμι in the [Perseus lexicon][1], we find that most definitions (for the transitive use) involve a &quot;giving back&quot; or &quot;return&quot;. But the first definition is &quot;to give up&quot;. Is that the nuance I am looking for: that ἡ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἰδέα gives up of its own free will power to the knower?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be analogous to the difference between &quot;to give&quot; and &quot;to bestow upon&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τοῦτο τοίνυν τὸ τὴν ἀλήθειαν παρέχον τοῖς γιγνωσκομένοις καὶ τῷ γιγνώσκοντι τὴν δύναμιν ἀποδιδὸν τὴν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἰδέαν φάθι εἶναι:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This, then, which furnishes truth to the objects of knowledge and gives power to the knower, you must say is the idea of the good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([Plat. Rep. 6.508e][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%E1%BC%80%CF%80%CE%BF%CE%B4%CE%AF%CE%B4%CF%89%CE%BC%CE%B9&amp;la=greek#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0168%3Abook%3D6%3Asection%3D508e" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5606" RevisionGUID="43d63271-2ae8-4735-ac89-45c76b57154a" CreationDate="2017-11-25T04:24:19.113" UserId="235" Text="In book X of his *Republic*, Plato is talking about the prizes and rewards made out to good men. Once again, I have the gist of the sentence, but I'm a little unsure of a minor detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἆθλά τε καὶ μισθοὶ καὶ δῶρα γίγνεται πρὸς ἐκείνοις τοῖς&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀγαθοῖς οἷς αὐτὴ παρείχετο ἡ δικαιοσύνη, τοιαῦτ᾽ ἂν εἴη.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the prizes and rewards and gifts of men are made to those good men&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whom justice itself produces, such as those that could be (exist?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([Plat. Rep. 10.614a][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the majority of my translation is correct, although please correct me if any parts are wrong. The point of confusion is the phrase τοιαῦτ᾽ ἂν εἴη at the end. I have parsed εἴη as the 3sg pres. act. potential optative of the verb &quot;to be&quot;. What's more, I have parsed τοιαῦτ᾽ as the nominative pl neuter of τοιοῦτος, tipped off by the elision which could only occur with an alpha at the end (as it would conflict with the alpha of the following particle). It's not surprising to see a singular verb go with a plural subject, as the subject here is neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**First**, am I right to assume that the antecedent of τοιαῦτ᾽ is the prizes, rewards and gifts that were talked about in the previous clause? As a neuter subject, I reason that it can't possibly refer to the men (τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς) or justice (ἡ δικαιοσύνη) which are masculine and feminine respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Second**, is my translation &quot;such as those that could exist&quot; a good one? It's a little tricky to come up with a good translation for the optative, in this case. I'm a little torn between &quot;be&quot; and &quot;exist&quot;, for translating the conjugated verb &quot;to be&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, I think what Plato is saying is what whatever prizes, rewards, and gifts *could* be offered, will be offered; I feel like this is the point of the final clause, i.e. τοιαῦτ᾽ ἂν εἴη.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0167%3Abook%3D10%3Apage%3D614" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18549" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5606" RevisionGUID="43d63271-2ae8-4735-ac89-45c76b57154a" CreationDate="2017-11-25T04:24:19.113" UserId="235" Text="Did I translate and understand this potential optative correctly? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18550" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5606" RevisionGUID="43d63271-2ae8-4735-ac89-45c76b57154a" CreationDate="2017-11-25T04:24:19.113" UserId="235" Text="|translation|greek|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5607" RevisionGUID="8997822e-08a2-4039-a931-efacac455444" CreationDate="2017-11-25T05:16:36.977" UserId="867" Text="A couple of suggestions - two using Greek (to match the Greek etymology of idiopathic) and one Latin (because this is Latin Stack Exchange).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***idiopathic eudaimonapenia*** - a lack of flourishing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I started with the Greek philosophical concept of *eudaimonia* (εὐδαιμονία), the highest good humans can achieve, by being the best human they were always intended to be.  It is often translated as happiness but flourishing is also used to dissociate it from the transitory happiness of merely satisfying pleasures and to highlight the idea of fulfilling our potential.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Penia* (πενία) means poverty, need, lack.  It is a common suffix in medical terminology (osteopenia, thrombocytopenia etc.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I made it *eudaimonApenia* rather than *eudaimonIApenia* for euphonic reasons, but this is entirely subjective)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***idiopathic cryptodunamis*** - latent potential&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From *cryptos* (κρυπτός) / hidden + *dunamis* (δύναμις) / ability, power, talent, faculty, potential&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*dunamis* is also a philosophical [term][1] that Aristotle, in particular, used to contrast with the idea of actuality, what is actually happening (vs what could happen).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(for the record, both *adunamia* (ἀδυναμία) and *adunatos* (ἀδύνατος) are Greek words but have the sense of being feeble, weak, crippled even, so I thought they tipped over into judgement rather than description of the condition)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***idiopathic florens occultus*** - hidden flourishing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero translated the concept of *eudaimonia* as *beata vita* but I couldn't create a catchy term out of it and so chose *florens* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5606" RevisionGUID="b1270128-29de-4aca-acdf-6bf1bd0f18b7" CreationDate="2017-11-25T06:06:02.937" UserId="235" Comment="edited body" Text="In book X of his *Republic*, Plato is talking about the prizes and rewards made out to good men. Once again, I have the gist of the sentence, but I'm a little unsure of a minor detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἆθλά τε καὶ μισθοὶ καὶ δῶρα γίγνεται πρὸς ἐκείνοις τοῖς&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀγαθοῖς οἷς αὐτὴ παρείχετο ἡ δικαιοσύνη, τοιαῦτ᾽ ἂν εἴη.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the prizes and rewards and gifts of men are made to those good men&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whom justice itself produces, such as those that could be (exist?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([Plat. Rep. 10.614a][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the majority of my translation is correct, although please correct me if any parts are wrong. The point of confusion is the phrase τοιαῦτ᾽ ἂν εἴη at the end. I have parsed εἴη as the 3sg pres. act. potential optative of the verb &quot;to be&quot;. What's more, I have parsed τοιαῦτ᾽ as the nominative pl neuter of τοιοῦτος, tipped off by the elision which could only occur with an alpha at the end (as it would conflict with the alpha of the following particle). It's not surprising to see a singular verb go with a plural subject, as the subject here is neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**First**, am I right to assume that the antecedent of τοιαῦτ᾽ is the prizes, rewards and gifts that were talked about in the previous clause? As a neuter subject, I reason that it can't possibly refer to the men (τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς) or justice (ἡ δικαιοσύνη) which are masculine and feminine respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Second**, is my translation &quot;such as those that could exist&quot; a good one? It's a little tricky to come up with a good translation for the optative, in this case. I'm a little torn between &quot;be&quot; and &quot;exist&quot;, for translating the conjugated verb &quot;to be&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, I think what Plato is saying is that whatever prizes, rewards, and gifts *could* be offered, will be offered; I feel like this is the point of the final clause, i.e. τοιαῦτ᾽ ἂν εἴη.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0167%3Abook%3D10%3Apage%3D614" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18553" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5606" RevisionGUID="c9cd142b-890a-44f4-9f2e-c8b29eaa360c" CreationDate="2017-11-25T08:17:02.093" UserId="235" Comment="edited title" Text="Did I translate and understand this optative correctly? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18554" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5472" RevisionGUID="b53e28ec-1bb4-4fd6-9592-c2b0ab9eb03b" CreationDate="2017-11-25T12:13:53.653" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="18555" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4996" RevisionGUID="552bb0d9-9b65-45d3-8eb2-fa86c66b47f2" CreationDate="2017-11-25T22:15:39.283" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="18556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5607" RevisionGUID="bcefe115-f875-4480-a419-6161a8d42cc2" CreationDate="2017-11-25T23:07:47.237" UserId="867" Comment="added 117 characters in body" Text="A couple of suggestions - two using Greek (to match the Greek etymology of idiopathic) and one Latin (because this is Latin Stack Exchange).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***idiopathic eudaimonapenia*** - a lack of flourishing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I started with the Greek philosophical concept of *eudaimonia* (εὐδαιμονία), the highest good humans can achieve, by being the best human they were always intended to be.  It is often translated as happiness but flourishing is also used to dissociate it from the transitory happiness of merely satisfying pleasures and to highlight the idea of fulfilling our potential.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Penia* (πενία) means poverty, need, lack.  It is a common suffix in medical terminology (osteopenia, thrombocytopenia etc.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I made it *eudaimonApenia* rather than *eudaimonIApenia* for euphonic reasons, but this is entirely subjective)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***idiopathic cryptodunamis*** - latent potential&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From *cryptos* (κρυπτός) / hidden + *dunamis* (δύναμις) / ability, power, talent, faculty, potential&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*dunamis* is also a philosophical [term][1] that Aristotle, in particular, used to contrast with the idea of actuality, what is actually happening (vs what could happen).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(for the record, both *adunamia* (ἀδυναμία) and *adunatos* (ἀδύνατος) are Greek words but have the sense of being feeble, weak, crippled even, so I thought they tipped over into judgement rather than description of the condition)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: On reflection, I would change this to ***idiopathic cryptodynamia*** (see comments below for clarification)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***idiopathic florens occultus*** - hidden flourishing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero translated the concept of *eudaimonia* as *beata vita* but I couldn't create a catchy term out of it and so chose *florens* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="6d482e56-6551-432e-b263-8f9d4cb7a9b9" CreationDate="2017-11-25T23:12:04.563" UserId="235" Text="In my introduction to *Meditations*, Edward Gibbon is quoted as saying that the period between the death of Domitian and the accession of Commodus was the happiest and most prosperous in human history. But I'm also aware that during Marcus Aurelius's lifetime there were several wars and even a plague that affected Rome. What is the basis for Edward Gibbon's statement? What made the period so happy and prosperous, and how does this compare/contrast with Roman eras before and after?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18558" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="6d482e56-6551-432e-b263-8f9d4cb7a9b9" CreationDate="2017-11-25T23:12:04.563" UserId="235" Text="Why was the period between Domitian and Commodus so prosperous?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18559" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="6d482e56-6551-432e-b263-8f9d4cb7a9b9" CreationDate="2017-11-25T23:12:04.563" UserId="235" Text="|history|roman-culture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="bd0ecc71-59bb-48f3-a125-65c04aa1c43a" CreationDate="2017-11-25T23:17:45.793" UserId="235" Comment="added 322 characters in body; added 30 characters in body; deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="In my introduction to *Meditations*, Edward Gibbon is quoted as saying that the period between the death of Domitian and the accession of Commodus was the happiest and most prosperous in human history. But I'm also aware that during Marcus Aurelius's lifetime there were several wars and even a plague that affected Rome. What is the basis for Edward Gibbon's statement? What made the period so happy and prosperous, and how does this compare/contrast with Roman eras before and after?&#xA;&#xA;&gt; If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world during which the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. J.B. Bury (London, 1909), 1.85-6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18561" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="bd0ecc71-59bb-48f3-a125-65c04aa1c43a" CreationDate="2017-11-25T23:17:45.793" UserId="235" Comment="added 322 characters in body; added 30 characters in body; deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Why was the period between Domitian and Commodus so happy and prosperous?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18562" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="58162e57-e8c8-4139-bb05-c9bc03cb9496" CreationDate="2017-11-26T00:02:18.187" UserId="235" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="|history|roman-culture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="72031521-c7b8-4ce7-a999-a5a38ee82aa9" CreationDate="2017-11-26T00:19:35.887" UserId="235" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="In my introduction to *Meditations*, Edward Gibbon is quoted as saying that the period between the death of Domitian and the accession of Commodus was the happiest and most prosperous in human history. But I'm also aware that during Marcus Aurelius's lifetime there were several wars and even a plague that affected Rome. What is the basis for Edward Gibbon's statement? What made the period so happy and prosperous, and how does this compare/contrast with Roman eras before and after?&#xA;&#xA;&gt; If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world during which the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;&#xA;In addition to later sources (up to the modern day), what do Roman sources have to say on this topic?&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. J.B. Bury (London, 1909), 1.85-6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="6d44673d-65c3-4230-9058-bfaa27c8e423" CreationDate="2017-11-26T00:20:48.490" UserId="235" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="In my introduction to *Meditations*, Edward Gibbon is quoted as saying that the period between the death of Domitian and the accession of Commodus was the happiest and most prosperous in human history. But I'm also aware that during Marcus Aurelius's lifetime there were several wars and even a plague that affected Rome. What is the basis for Edward Gibbon's statement? What made the period so happy and prosperous, and how does this compare/contrast with Roman eras before and after?&#xA;&#xA;&gt; If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world during which the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;&#xA;I would be interested in learning both what later-day sources had to say about this question (up until the present) as well as Roman sources: those who lived during this period and those who came after.&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. J.B. Bury (London, 1909), 1.85-6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5609" RevisionGUID="ee6a6a8c-83e7-4d39-ab9f-08b6996d72ad" CreationDate="2017-11-26T00:56:49.077" UserId="1694" Text="As @Draconis mentioned, poetry provides a strong indication of vowel quantity, but the actual Greek tradition of accentuation should not be ignored.  The shortness of the final alpha in μυῖα is guaranteed by the circumflex accent.  While technically the acute accent in γενεά does not guarantee a long vowel, in fact I know of no words with a final short alpha in Greek with an oxytone accent, so it's reasonable to assume the vowel is long.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5610" RevisionGUID="b8c5e102-deaa-4b79-94d8-eb47e530b96e" CreationDate="2017-11-26T01:21:01.350" UserId="9" Text="According to [Wikipedia][1], the following sound changes applied differently to the Proto-Greek long vowel *ā in different dialects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Proto-Greek ā &gt; Ionic ē; in Doric, Aeolic, ā remains; in Attic, ā after e, i, r, but ē elsewhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary][2] and [Liddell &amp; Scott][3] list &quot;γενεή&quot; as an Ionic variant of &quot;γενεά&quot;. If we assume the two forms are fully cognate, that implies that the Attic form has a long vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_Greek#Phonology&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B3%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%AC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dgenea%2F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="748195ea-3ad0-46a3-b2ab-b2e35d3a84a9" CreationDate="2017-11-26T01:27:15.547" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 138 characters in body" Text="In my introduction to *Meditations*, Edward Gibbon is quoted as saying that the period between the death of Domitian and the accession of Commodus was the happiest and most prosperous in human history. But I'm also aware that during Marcus Aurelius's lifetime there were several wars and even a plague that affected Rome. What is the basis for Edward Gibbon's statement? What made the period so happy and prosperous, and how does this compare/contrast with Roman eras before and after?&#xA;&#xA;&gt; If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world during which the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;&#xA;I would be interested in your thoughts as well as Roman sources.&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. J.B. Bury (London, 1909), 1.85-6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5610" RevisionGUID="464e512c-4f4e-4d23-b928-a2478d8437a0" CreationDate="2017-11-26T02:19:21.680" UserId="9" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="According to [Wikipedia][1], the following sound changes applied differently to the Proto-Greek long vowel *ā in different dialects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Proto-Greek ā &gt; Ionic ē; in Doric, Aeolic, ā remains; in Attic, ā after e, i, r, but ē elsewhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary][2] and [Liddell &amp; Scott][3] list &quot;γενεή&quot; as an Ionic variant of &quot;γενεά&quot;. If we assume the two forms are fully cognate, and that nothing else is going on that affects the vowel length, that implies that the Attic form has a long vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_Greek#Phonology&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B3%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%AC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dgenea%2F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="e896228e-d528-49ca-918b-2684af025759" CreationDate="2017-11-26T02:26:03.377" UserId="30" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="In my introduction to *Meditations*, Edward Gibbon is quoted as saying that the period between the death of Domitian and the accession of Commodus was the happiest and most prosperous in human history. But I'm also aware that during Marcus Aurelius's lifetime there were several wars and even a plague that affected Rome. What is the basis for Edward Gibbon's statement? What made the period so happy and prosperous, and how does this compare/contrast with Roman eras before and after? Is this perhaps based on a common Roman expression or idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world during which the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be interested in your thoughts as well as Roman sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. J.B. Bury (London, 1909), 1.85-6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5611" RevisionGUID="06a93b28-3f94-4428-9d70-7fc3e78d5fcf" CreationDate="2017-11-26T10:36:13.793" UserId="235" Text="Marcus Aurelius describes himself succinctly and humbly in the third book of his *Meditations*. I would like to come up with a Latin translation, but have a few questions on diction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἔτι δὲ ὁ ἐν σοὶ θεὸς ἔστω προστάτης ζῴου ἄρρενος καὶ πρεσβύτου καὶ πολιτικοῦ καὶ Ῥωμαίου καὶ ἄρχοντος, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And yet let the god within thee be a guardian of a living being, male, mature in years, a statesman, a Roman, and a ruler, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([*Meditations* 3.5][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my best shot at a Latin translation, but I'm sure there are many mistakes!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tamen autem deus in tibi sit vindex&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; animi&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; masculi et maturi et civis&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; et Romani et imperatoris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What changes would you suggest to my translation? What errors did I make? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Does &quot;deus in tibi sit&quot; look right to you?  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; I was on the fence between vindex and defensor, but perhaps both are wrong.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; On the fence between animi and vitae, but the latter would necessitate feminine adjectives.   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; The Greek πολιτικός could be &quot;statesman&quot; or &quot;citizen&quot;. How would you say &quot;statesman&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Aur.%203.5&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0641" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18571" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5611" RevisionGUID="06a93b28-3f94-4428-9d70-7fc3e78d5fcf" CreationDate="2017-11-26T10:36:13.793" UserId="235" Text="How would you translate Marcus Aurelius's self-description into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18572" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5611" RevisionGUID="06a93b28-3f94-4428-9d70-7fc3e78d5fcf" CreationDate="2017-11-26T10:36:13.793" UserId="235" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|translation|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5611" RevisionGUID="9aede8fc-ed16-4423-b5f4-85a41428ac12" CreationDate="2017-11-26T10:50:08.303" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="Marcus Aurelius describes himself succinctly and humbly in the third book of his *Meditations*. I would like to come up with a Latin translation, but have a few questions on diction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἔτι δὲ ὁ ἐν σοὶ θεὸς ἔστω προστάτης ζῴου ἄρρενος καὶ πρεσβύτου καὶ πολιτικοῦ καὶ Ῥωμαίου καὶ ἄρχοντος, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And yet let the god within thee be a guardian of a living being, male, mature in years, a statesman, a Roman, and a ruler, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([*Meditations* 3.5][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my best shot at a Latin translation, but I'm sure there are many mistakes!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tamen autem deus in tibi sit vindex&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; animi&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; masculi et maturi et civis&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; et Romani et imperatoris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What changes would you suggest? What errors did I make?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Does &quot;deus in tibi sit&quot; look right to you?  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; I was on the fence between vindex and defensor, but perhaps both are wrong.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; On the fence between animi and vitae, but the latter would necessitate feminine adjectives.   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; The Greek πολιτικός could be &quot;statesman&quot; or &quot;citizen&quot;. How would you say &quot;statesman&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Aur.%203.5&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0641" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5611" RevisionGUID="d2aa70c1-96be-4591-835e-b020c5c0c1f4" CreationDate="2017-11-26T11:22:58.320" UserId="235" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="Marcus Aurelius describes himself succinctly and humbly in the third book of his *Meditations*. I would like to come up with a Latin translation, but have a few questions on diction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἔτι δὲ ὁ ἐν σοὶ θεὸς ἔστω προστάτης ζῴου ἄρρενος καὶ πρεσβύτου καὶ πολιτικοῦ καὶ Ῥωμαίου καὶ ἄρχοντος, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And yet let the god within thee be a guardian of a living being, male, mature in years, a statesman, a Roman, and a ruler, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([*Meditations* 3.5][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my best shot at a Latin translation, but I'm sure there are many mistakes!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tamen autem deus in tibi sit vindex&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; animi&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; masculi et maturi et civis&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; et Romani et imperatoris.&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What changes would you suggest? What errors did I make?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Does &quot;deus in tibi sit&quot; look right to you?  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; I was on the fence between vindex and defensor, but perhaps both are wrong.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; On the fence between animi and vitae, but the latter would necessitate feminine adjectives.   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; The Greek πολιτικός could be &quot;statesman&quot; or &quot;citizen&quot;. How would you say &quot;statesman&quot;?     &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; The adjectives are genitive by analogy to the Greek. But I'm not sure about this choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;^ The five degradations of &lt;strike&gt;Hesiod&lt;/strike&gt; my Latin sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Aur.%203.5&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0641" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5601" RevisionGUID="73d059d9-284e-4bdc-a614-e3dbd582aebe" CreationDate="2017-11-26T15:33:22.903" UserId="13" Comment="added UPDATE in PS; turned PPS to footnote" Text="There are apparently numerous versions of these lines. I only have access to two&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; however: Edmonds':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]· ἀ γὰρ πόλυ περσκόπεισα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κάλλος ἀνθρώπων Ἐλένα τὸν ἄνδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[κρίννε κάλ]ιστον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[ὸς τὸ πὰν] σέβας Τροΐας ὄλεσσε&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Campbell's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]· ἀ γὰρ πόλυ περσκέ̣θ̣ο̣ı̣σα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣άλ̣λο̣ς [ἀνθ]ρώπων Ἐλένα [τὸ]ν ἄνδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τ̣ὸν̣ [πανάρ]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣αλλ[ίποι]σ̣' ἔβα 'σ Τροΐαν πλέοı̣[σα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that is a big difference, even outside lacunas. So I tried looking at Grenfell and Hunt's edition of P.Oxy. 1231, whence the poem mostly comes (see below for more), and found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]ᾱγαρπόλυπερσκο̣π̣ε̣ı̣[.]α&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&lt;sup&gt;λ̣&lt;/sup&gt;ο̣σ̣[...]ωπωνελενα̣[..]νανδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[9 letters]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[7 letters]σ̣εβαστροϊα[..]λεσσ̣[..]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That seems to scream &quot;Go Edmonds, screw Campbell&quot;. But let's look at the notes to the transcription. What I gather from them is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - σκεδοισα and σκοπεισα are equally likely endings for l. 6, and since the notes only mention a «rather high stroke turning over» for the delta, I assume σκεθοισα would also be equally likely; so as far as P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 1 is concerned, Cambpell and Edmonds are equally likely right about that line;&#xD;&#xA; - The other lines have no beginning in the papyrus at hand, so those must come from another papyrus, which we will discuss below;&#xD;&#xA; - The notes don't even mention l. 9 (which is l. 21 in the papyrus), so this papyrus actually has a no-doubt λεσ in that line, whereas Campbell would have that as λεο, and read the doubtful sigma right afterwards as a doubtful iota;&#xD;&#xA; - Neither the notes nor the transcriptions show any other P.Oxy. 1231 fragment that could contain beginnings for those lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when [Bonnaria](http://www.uc.pt/fluc/eclassicos/publicacoes/ficheiros/humanitas25-26/07_Bonnaria.pdf) states that P.Oxy. 1231 reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;τ̣ὸν̣ [&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καλλ[&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]σ̣' ἔβα 'ς Τροΐαν πλέοı̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;they are apparetly giving us a nice bit of bull… err, tauricopria. Or maybe they are mixing up papyri. There are two more papyri this poem comes from. One is PSI 123, 1-2, but that only gives the last line, τ' ἐξ ἀδοκή[τω], which gives no trouble. The second one is P.Oxy. 2166(a), published in volume XXI. Unfortunately, I can't find anything online about this: no images, no transcriptions. Campbell's critical notation suggests it must have read at least:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κ̣αλ̣λο̣σ[]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τ̣ὸν̣[]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣αλλ[&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]σ̣εβαστροϊανπλεοι̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;plus the first 5 letters of the following line and the first 2 of the one after that. This implies a papyrus conflict: l. 9 is different from one papyrus to the other, and doubtfulness cannot solve the problem. So we are faced with two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Either we argue that the two are different poems, which seems viable if 2166(a) only has the little mentioned above (which could actually be even less, since we don't actually need it to read the σ̣εβαστροϊα part;&#xD;&#xA; - Or we have to choose one or the other, and with what arguments do we point our finger at one and say &quot;You're wrong!&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: does anyone have access to anything that can shed light on what was actually on 2166(a), and/or to something pointing out extra margins of doubtfulness in 1231 to settle this dispute?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;I also have a couple slightly different versions (which basically only differ in the lacuna at v. 8), but I kept the above two as prototypical, and also because all others have no critical notation. Researching again only yielded [The Complete Poems of Sappho](http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/), giving Cox's version as reading κρίννεν ἄριστον. Maybe safopoemas.doc contained other versions. But that's beside the point anyways, so I won't look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS If you're thinking of suggesting I buy the Voigt and/or Lobel-Page edition of Sappho, don't. I'm already thinking of getting them for Xmas. UPDATE: The dream is dead, but I may manage to borrow Voigt from a library if I find a way to get it from Brera library to one closer to the places I usually frequent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18576" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5611" RevisionGUID="7f1c9f08-2ee2-4599-86a7-29c538dedefd" CreationDate="2017-11-26T16:58:25.930" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="How would you translate Marcus Aurelius's self-description from Greek into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18577" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5611" RevisionGUID="7f1c9f08-2ee2-4599-86a7-29c538dedefd" CreationDate="2017-11-26T16:58:25.930" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|greek|translation-check|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5609" RevisionGUID="4ca8da49-2e88-45a7-81e0-81af38c86235" CreationDate="2017-11-26T18:32:34.673" UserId="1694" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="As @Draconis mentioned, poetry provides a strong indication of vowel quantity, but the actual Greek tradition of accentuation should not be ignored.  The shortness of the final alpha in μυῖα is guaranteed by the circumflex accent.  While technically the acute accent in γενεά does not guarantee a long vowel, in fact I know of no first-declension nouns with a final short alpha in Greek with an oxytone accent, so it's reasonable to assume the vowel is long.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5610" RevisionGUID="e7f879aa-9a68-423d-9283-6ca0aeb3ab95" CreationDate="2017-11-26T20:32:32.083" UserId="9" Comment="added 1201 characters in body" Text="###μυῖα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned in varro's answer, there are rules about the placement of accent in Greek words. The Wikipedia article on [Ancient Greek accent][4] summarizes a pertinent rule as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; If the ultima is short, accent can be on one of the last three syllables: the antepenult, penult, or ultima. When the antepenult is accented, it must have an acute whether it is long or short. When the penult is accented, it must have an acute if it is short, but a circumflex if it is long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt;**If the ultima is long**, accent can be on one of the last two syllables: the penult or ultima. **The penult must have an acute accent, not a circumflex.** When a one-mora vowel in the ultima changes to a two-mora vowel, or an ending adds a syllable, the accent moves forward in the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia article says &quot;There are a few exceptions to the ultima length rule&quot; (for example, in words where the last syllable is derived from an enclitic) but none of the examples it gives are words with penult circumflex accent and a long ultimate vowel. So the circumflex accent on the penultimate syllable of &quot;μυῖα&quot; seems to be strong evidence that the vowel in the ultimate syllable was short (as suggested in ktm5124's original post).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###γενεά&#xD;&#xA;According to the Wikipedia article on [Ionic Greek][1], the following sound changes applied differently to the Proto-Greek long vowel *ā in different dialects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Proto-Greek ā &gt; Ionic ē; in Doric, Aeolic, ā remains; in Attic, ā after e, i, r, but ē elsewhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary][2] and [Liddell &amp; Scott][3] list &quot;γενεή&quot; as an Ionic variant of &quot;γενεά&quot;. If we assume the two forms are fully cognate, and that nothing else is going on that affects the vowel length, that implies that the Attic form has a long vowel.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_Greek#Phonology&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B3%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%AC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dgenea%2F&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_accent#Rules_relating_to_ultima" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5610" RevisionGUID="415f6443-62fe-4e4b-8907-89b08861a741" CreationDate="2017-11-26T20:41:06.310" UserId="9" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="###μυῖα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned in varro's answer, there are rules about the placement of accent in Greek words. The Wikipedia article on [Ancient Greek accent][4] summarizes a pertinent rule as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; If the ultima is short, accent can be on one of the last three syllables: the antepenult, penult, or ultima. When the antepenult is accented, it must have an acute whether it is long or short. When the penult is accented, it must have an acute if it is short, but a circumflex if it is long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt;**If the ultima is long**, accent can be on one of the last two syllables: the penult or ultima. **The penult must have an acute accent, not a circumflex.** When a one-mora vowel in the ultima changes to a two-mora vowel, or an ending adds a syllable, the accent moves forward in the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia article says &quot;There are a few exceptions to the ultima length rule&quot; (for example, in words where the last syllable is derived from an enclitic) but none of the examples it gives are words with penult circumflex accent and a long ultimate vowel. So, as suggested in ktm5124's original post, the circumflex accent on the penultimate syllable of &quot;μυῖα&quot; seems to be strong evidence that the vowel in the ultimate syllable was short, not long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###γενεά&#xD;&#xA;According to the Wikipedia article on [Ionic Greek][1], the following sound changes applied differently to the Proto-Greek long vowel *ā in different dialects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Proto-Greek ā &gt; Ionic ē; in Doric, Aeolic, ā remains; in Attic, ā after e, i, r, but ē elsewhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary][2] and [Liddell &amp; Scott][3] list &quot;γενεή&quot; as an Ionic variant of &quot;γενεά&quot;. If we assume the two forms are fully cognate, and that nothing else is going on that affects the vowel length, that implies that the Attic form has a long vowel.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_Greek#Phonology&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B3%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%AC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dgenea%2F&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_accent#Rules_relating_to_ultima" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5612" RevisionGUID="e71942e5-86d7-453a-b19a-fb0cbd67a408" CreationDate="2017-11-26T21:17:26.970" UserId="985" Text="My thoughts to get things started:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. _Deus in tibi_ definitely isn't right, because the Latin preposition _in_ never has a dative with it. You want _in te_ (ablative).&#xD;&#xA;2. I have a strong suspicion that the προστάτης bit is meant to render the Latin word _genius_. After all, 'guardian of a living being, male,' is practically the dictionary definition of _genius_. And this word also had special meaning when applied to the emperor and his divinity. In that case, you can probably just say _genius viri_ instead of _vindex animi masculini_.&#xD;&#xA;3. See #2.&#xD;&#xA;4. One way of rendering 'statesman' would be _vir civilis_, so you could likely get away with using just the adjective _civilis_ here, together with your other adjectives. (Or, I suppose you could work in some sort of periphrasis, such as _peritus rei publicae gubernandae_, depending on what you think it means to be statesman.)&#xD;&#xA;5. Grammatically, yes, the words need to be genitive for the way you've phrased this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm not at all sure _tamen_ is correct for ἔτι δέ, but I can't find my copy of Denniston's _Greek particles_ at the moment. Both _tamen_ and ἔτι do translate as 'still' in English, but the English word is ambiguous: _tamen_ is 'still' in the sense of 'nevertheless'; whereas ἔτι is (usually, at least) more temporal (as in 'I'm still here') or even about degree (as in 'still greater rewards'). At any rate, using both _tamen_ and _autem_ as you've done is definite overkill.&#xD;&#xA;- I guess _maturus_ works for πρεσβύτης; _senex_ seems the more obvious choice though, especially because Marcus Aurelius seems to be going for very basic terminology that's rooted in Roman tradition, even though he's expressing it in Greek: man, citizen/statesman, elder, Roman – and even emperor (as an extension of the traditional term _imperator_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5611" RevisionGUID="1151b1cd-edb4-4fae-861d-d23d9e01a2e7" CreationDate="2017-11-26T22:21:06.813" UserId="235" Comment="edited body" Text="Marcus Aurelius describes himself succinctly and humbly in the third book of his *Meditations*. I would like to come up with a Latin translation, but have a few questions on diction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἔτι δὲ ὁ ἐν σοὶ θεὸς ἔστω προστάτης ζῴου ἄρρενος καὶ πρεσβύτου καὶ πολιτικοῦ καὶ Ῥωμαίου καὶ ἄρχοντος, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And yet let the god within thee be a guardian of a living being, male, mature in years, a statesman, a Roman, and a ruler, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([*Meditations* 3.5][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my best shot at a Latin translation, but I'm sure there are many mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tamen autem deus in tibi sit vindex&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; animi&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; masculi et maturi et civis&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; et Romani et imperatoris.&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What changes would you suggest? What errors did I make?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Does &quot;deus in tibi sit&quot; look right to you?  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; I was on the fence between vindex and defensor, but perhaps both are wrong.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; On the fence between animi and vitae, but the latter would necessitate feminine adjectives.   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; The Greek πολιτικός could be &quot;statesman&quot; or &quot;citizen&quot;. How would you say &quot;statesman&quot;?     &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; The adjectives are genitive by analogy to the Greek. But I'm not sure about this choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;^ The five degradations of &lt;strike&gt;Hesiod&lt;/strike&gt; my Latin sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Aur.%203.5&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0641" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5600" RevisionGUID="0dc1329e-c0b7-4120-87b2-677dedf2f38e" CreationDate="2017-11-27T00:07:31.710" UserId="79" Comment="added 310 characters in body" Text="Tom Cotton explained &quot;both&quot; and *erat/fuit* well, so let me only address your last question about &quot;conquerors of&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;While it is true that the adjective *Africanus* means &quot;African&quot; or &quot;related to Africa&quot;, this particular case is very specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publius Cornelius Scipio did not have African origins&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, *Africanus* was an honorary title given to him after a decisive victory by his troops in Africa.&#xD;&#xA;The adjective *Germanicus* has a similar use.&#xD;&#xA;This is not explained in your typical Latin dictionary, so some knowledge of Roman nickname conventions regarding military service is needed.&#xD;&#xA;I should point out that this is an example of a case where to fully understand what the language does, you need to have some understanding of the culture as well.&#xD;&#xA;Culture and language are always related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular context *Africanus* means &quot;conqueror of Africa&quot;, and leaving out an explicit &quot;conqueror of&quot; looks idiomatic to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For someone of African origin, it is better to use *Afer* than *Africanus*.&#xD;&#xA;If you want more details on the relations of different African (or other) adjectives in Latin, ask a separate question.&#xD;&#xA;Many locations have several adjectives, and comparison is not always easy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5613" RevisionGUID="424534c0-913e-4660-afa0-496a02cc9bd7" CreationDate="2017-11-27T00:25:00.553" UserId="118" Text="What do you call an audio recording in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary_ fails me here. It came out in 1870, predating Edison's invention of the phonograph by seven years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I'm asking this during the height of the Internet era, I'm interested not just in a Latin word for a phonograph record, but in a generic term for any audio recording regardless of the form in which the sound is represented." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18585" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5613" RevisionGUID="424534c0-913e-4660-afa0-496a02cc9bd7" CreationDate="2017-11-27T00:25:00.553" UserId="118" Text="What do you call an audio recording?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18586" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5613" RevisionGUID="424534c0-913e-4660-afa0-496a02cc9bd7" CreationDate="2017-11-27T00:25:00.553" UserId="118" Text="|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5614" RevisionGUID="01ae7071-28d2-4cb3-bad2-a69fd188207d" CreationDate="2017-11-27T00:43:36.067" UserId="118" Text="I just said this to a friend:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ecce in hac pagina [vox](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5613/118) **Iohannis Ørbergii** capitula prima usque decima _Linguae Latinae_ **legentis**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://sites.google.com/site/sobrinointroductiontolatin/audio-recordings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've got the genitive _Linguae Latinae_ modifying _capitula_ in between the genitive **Iohannis Ørbergii** and its modifier **legentis**. Can you…_do_ that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18588" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5614" RevisionGUID="01ae7071-28d2-4cb3-bad2-a69fd188207d" CreationDate="2017-11-27T00:43:36.067" UserId="118" Text="Nested genitive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18589" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5614" RevisionGUID="01ae7071-28d2-4cb3-bad2-a69fd188207d" CreationDate="2017-11-27T00:43:36.067" UserId="118" Text="|grammar-choice|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5613" RevisionGUID="1801c102-8277-4607-a9e7-764fb19d3873" CreationDate="2017-11-27T00:44:50.053" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="What do you call an audio recording in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary_ fails me here. It came out in 1870, predating Edison's invention of the phonograph by seven years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I'm asking this during the height of the Internet era, I'm interested not just in a Latin word for a phonograph record, but in a generic term for any audio recording regardless of the form in which the sound is represented.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18591" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5613" RevisionGUID="1801c102-8277-4607-a9e7-764fb19d3873" CreationDate="2017-11-27T00:44:50.053" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|contemporary-latin|technology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5615" RevisionGUID="49dc43a5-81c1-4b20-abdd-bff5d15d18e2" CreationDate="2017-11-27T01:10:27.640" UserId="78" Text="If you're asking if you can next genitives, of course you can. This particular one is a bit extreme, and sounds more poetical to me, but the practice is fine. Compare Cicero's *Republic* 1.13.10:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unius aetatis **clarissimorum ac sapientissimorum nostrae civitatis virorum** disputatio repetenda memoria est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, *clarissimorum ac sapientissimorum* modify *virorum*, with *nostrae civitatis* in the middle: &quot;the most distinguished and wisest men of our commonwealth.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek, I've seen the nesting encompasses quite a lot, too, and in poetry it's not uncommon to see some examples on the extreme side." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5616" RevisionGUID="5d47474a-4e4b-4284-8b92-021f64278066" CreationDate="2017-11-27T01:48:59.947" UserId="118" Text="How do you grammatically denote a range of chapters, like what I'm trying to do in this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ecce in hac pagina [vox](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5613/118) Iohannis Ørbergii **capitula prima usque decima** _Linguae Latinae_ legentis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://sites.google.com/site/sobrinointroductiontolatin/audio-recordings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it be **capitula primum usque decimum** instead? Or **capitulum**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And does **usque** suit denoting a full range rather the just the destination?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;If you're wondering about the nested genitives, see [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5614/118).&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18594" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5616" RevisionGUID="5d47474a-4e4b-4284-8b92-021f64278066" CreationDate="2017-11-27T01:48:59.947" UserId="118" Text="A range of chapters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18595" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5616" RevisionGUID="5d47474a-4e4b-4284-8b92-021f64278066" CreationDate="2017-11-27T01:48:59.947" UserId="118" Text="|grammar-choice|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5617" RevisionGUID="c09608f0-1576-45c8-aae6-0e8a5b9a6388" CreationDate="2017-11-27T02:01:05.603" UserId="79" Text="I would say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp;hellip;capitula a primo usque ad decimum&amp;hellip;*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;hellip;chapters from the first one all the way to the tenth&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When using *usque* to express the length of a range, [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=usque&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) indicate that you should use a preposition.&#xD;&#xA;To be honest, I had hard time parsing the bold part of your sentence.&#xD;&#xA;If nothing else, prepositions make the the range clearer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that you can leave *usque* out if you will, just as you can drop &quot;all the way&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;It is a matter of tone and emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making *prima* and *decima* plural sounds fishy; there are several chapters but only one first and one tenth.&#xD;&#xA;You could say *capitula primum et decimum* for &quot;the first and tenth chapters&quot;, which does not explicitly indicate a range." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5616" RevisionGUID="b43fcd60-8c1f-4e2d-93b1-c88552825ab2" CreationDate="2017-11-27T03:21:59.777" UserId="79" Comment="The html tag sup is for superscripts, not for smaller font." Text="How do you grammatically denote a range of chapters, like what I'm trying to do in this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ecce in hac pagina [vox](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5613/118) Iohannis Ørbergii **capitula prima usque decima** _Linguae Latinae_ legentis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://sites.google.com/site/sobrinointroductiontolatin/audio-recordings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it be **capitula primum usque decimum** instead? Or **capitulum**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And does **usque** suit denoting a full range rather the just the destination?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you're wondering about the nested genitives, see [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5614/118).)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5618" RevisionGUID="c12b4d52-f0d8-41b5-b3ba-2ae82531f450" CreationDate="2017-11-27T04:00:26.947" UserId="79" Text="The best word for &quot;audio&quot; that I could think of is *vox*.&#xD;&#xA;There are several words for sound, but *vox* sounds more neutral to me than *canor*, *clamor*, or *strepitus*, for example.&#xD;&#xA;However, *vox* is not easily recognized as a technical term &quot;audio&quot; as opposed to &quot;sound&quot; or &quot;voice&quot; when the distinction is important, so beware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;audio&quot; of course comes from Latin and has made its way to a number of languages, but I would advice against using the word in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;One could treat it as a noun in analogue to [*volo*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DV%3Aentry+group%3D26%3Aentry%3Dvolo3), but I'm suspicious of that analogy.&#xD;&#xA;I am even more suspicious of the noun *audium*.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use the verb *audire* without losing too much in style or intelligibility, I recommend *audiendum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;recording&quot; is complicated, too.&#xD;&#xA;The best noun I found was *vivarium*, but it might be too colorful for a technical term.&#xD;&#xA;You might be better of a with a verb like *conservare*, *condere*, or similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Collecting these ideas, my suggestion for &quot;audio recording&quot; is ***vox conservata***.&#xD;&#xA;Sure, it sounds quite a bit like &quot;pickled voice&quot;, but I don't see a way around connotations of this kind.&#xD;&#xA;(I would like to see if someone else sees one!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side remark:&#xD;&#xA;I answered the question as stated (and it is an interesting one).&#xD;&#xA;Judging by the linked questions, you wanted to write something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Take a look at this page with an audio recording of Hans Ørberg reading chapters from one to ten of Lingua Latina [per se illustrata].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wording is a matter of taste, but I would work myself around the noun &quot;audio&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;I might render it like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In hac pagina [capitula a primo ad decimum](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5616/79) Linguae Latinae [per se illustratae] a Iohanne Ørbergio recitata invenies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5619" RevisionGUID="b44fa2c8-d155-45eb-919e-61b4ff29a769" CreationDate="2017-11-27T04:23:18.750" UserId="118" Text="I understand (perhaps wrongly) **litterae electronicae** to be a particular piece of email and **cursus electronicus** to be the _way_ that email moves around or perhaps the system of networked computers that transmits email. But what is an appropriate word for the thing you check when you &quot;check your email&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, we express this by using &quot;email&quot; as a mass noun (i.e. by omitting the article), but I don't think that carries over to Latin. Perhaps a word for &quot;mailbox&quot; would make the most sense, but the best I've found in _Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary_ is _tabellarius publicus,_ which I don't think makes sense here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18600" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5619" RevisionGUID="b44fa2c8-d155-45eb-919e-61b4ff29a769" CreationDate="2017-11-27T04:23:18.750" UserId="118" Text="&quot;Email&quot; as a mass noun / mailbox" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18601" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5619" RevisionGUID="b44fa2c8-d155-45eb-919e-61b4ff29a769" CreationDate="2017-11-27T04:23:18.750" UserId="118" Text="|contemporary-latin|technology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5620" RevisionGUID="31aced04-b69d-48ca-9a21-cc8c1cb582b1" CreationDate="2017-11-27T04:32:21.470" UserId="118" Text="To refer to &quot;the first and second chapters&quot;, do I say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; capitula prima et secunda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; capitula primum et secundum?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18603" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5620" RevisionGUID="31aced04-b69d-48ca-9a21-cc8c1cb582b1" CreationDate="2017-11-27T04:32:21.470" UserId="118" Text="Ordinal adjectives for single things modifying plural noun?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18604" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5620" RevisionGUID="31aced04-b69d-48ca-9a21-cc8c1cb582b1" CreationDate="2017-11-27T04:32:21.470" UserId="118" Text="|grammar-choice|adjective|numbers|agreement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5619" RevisionGUID="e4ff390b-6134-4c2e-aeea-d5680646988f" CreationDate="2017-11-27T04:44:10.073" UserId="118" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I understand (perhaps wrongly) **litterae electronicae** to be a particular piece of email and **cursus electronicus** to be the _way_ that email moves around or perhaps the system of networked computers that transmits email. But what is an appropriate word for the thing you check when you &quot;check your email&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, we express this by using &quot;email&quot; as a mass noun (i.e. by omitting the article), but I don't think that carries over to Latin. Perhaps a word for &quot;mailbox&quot; would make the most sense, but the best I've found in _Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary_ is _tabellarius publicus,_ but I'm not sure that makes sense here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5619" RevisionGUID="b29af9fa-50b8-4671-96a7-51ae02be5530" CreationDate="2017-11-27T04:53:17.227" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="I understand (perhaps wrongly) **litterae electronicae** to be a particular piece of email and **cursus electronicus** to be the _way_ that email moves around or perhaps the system of networked computers that transmits email. But what is an appropriate word for the thing you check when you &quot;check your email&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, we express this by using &quot;email&quot; as a mass noun (i.e. by omitting the article), but I don't think that carries over to Latin. Perhaps a word for &quot;mailbox&quot; would make the most sense, but the best I've found in _Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary_ is _tabellarius publicus,_ and I'm not sure that makes sense here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5621" RevisionGUID="ce9f7463-74cf-45c4-a970-3caeb8acda2f" CreationDate="2017-11-27T05:20:19.633" UserId="79" Text="Both options are possible and attested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[§234.1 of Bennett's New Latin Grammar](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect234) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Two Adjectives in the Singular may limit a noun in the Plural, as; **prīma et vīcēsima legiōnēs**, *the first and twentieth legions*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example in the Grammar seems to be lifted from Tacitus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Primam ac vicesimam legiones Caecina legatus in civitatem Vbiorum reduxit&amp;hellip;*  &#xD;&#xA;(*Annales*, 1.37)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is also possible for the noun to be singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Primam et secundam aciem in armis esse&amp;hellip;*  &#xD;&#xA;(Caesar, *De Bello Gallico*, 1.49)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5622" RevisionGUID="65298ca4-9045-4f94-9c4d-b728deb5f1d2" CreationDate="2017-11-27T06:45:27.287" UserId="867" Text="**LATIN**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***senescens*** (from *senescere* - to grow old, weak, feeble; to waste away; to wane, fall off, decline)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can be used literally, naturally, of someone growing weak with old age, but also figuratively:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et Hannibalem ipsum iam et fama senescere et viribus*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and Hannibal himself now was in decline, in both reputation and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; strength&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Livy, *History of Rome*, 29.3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can also be used more figuratively:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *senescet amor*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; love will fade away&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid, *Ars Amatoria*, 3.594&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**GREEK**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**μαραινόμενος** (from μαραίνομαι - to die away; to waste away; to slowly go out; to abate)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can be used of people:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; καὶ τὸ σῶμα … οὐκ ἐμαραίνετο &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the body … was not wasted away&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thucydides, *Peloponnesian War*, 2.49&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can also be used to describe inanimate things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; φλὸξ ἐμαράνθη   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [the] fire died down&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homer, *Iliad*, 9.213&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; μαραινομένου τοῦ πνεύματος &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; with the wind dying away&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plutarch, *Pyrrhus*, 15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1434" RevisionGUID="4b628d73-2c56-4311-bd1c-caaae1f0c63d" CreationDate="2017-11-27T13:55:21.667" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="Page 18 of &quot;Prosodic Phrasing in Adolescents with High-Functioning Autism&quot; by Jessica Mayo, an article that has nothing to do with Latin (but watch for the relevance, it's coming), describes an experiment in which children are presented with a set of toys including a lamb, a flower, and a lamb holding a flower, and given the instruction &quot;Hit the lamb with the flower.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, that sentence is ambiguous because &quot;with the flower&quot; could be meant instrumentally, modifying &quot;hit&quot;, or restrictively, modifying &quot;lamb&quot;. Oh, if only English still had an instrumental case!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin also lost the instrumental case from Proto-Indo-European, but, as I understand it, it got absorbed into the ablative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without using a subordinate clause like _Pulsa agnum qui florem tenet,_ can you disambiguate the two interpretations in Latin? Say, by a different word order, a different preposition, or different noun cases in two (unambiguous) versions of the sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;* &lt;sub&gt;Even &quot;given the instruction&quot; is ambiguous in English, and the most natural interpretation here is wrong. I'm exploiting the ambiguity to avoid going into unnecessary detail about the experiment.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1434" RevisionGUID="65a7ead9-0304-498b-b14a-0e4d4f1a7d5a" CreationDate="2017-11-27T14:01:39.573" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="Page 18 of &quot;[Prosodic Phrasing in Adolescents with High-Functioning Autism](http://opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6836&amp;context=dissertations)&quot; by Jessica Mayo, a doctoral dissertation that has nothing to do with Latin (but watch for the relevance, it's coming), describes an experiment in which children are presented with a set of toys including a lamb, a flower, and a lamb holding a flower, and given the instruction &quot;Hit the lamb with the flower.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, that sentence is ambiguous because &quot;with the flower&quot; could be meant instrumentally, modifying &quot;hit&quot;, or restrictively, modifying &quot;lamb&quot;. Oh, if only English still had an instrumental case!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin also lost the instrumental case from Proto-Indo-European, but, as I understand it, it got absorbed into the ablative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without using a subordinate clause like _Pulsa agnum qui florem tenet,_ can you disambiguate the two interpretations in Latin? Say, by a different word order, a different preposition, or different noun cases in two (unambiguous) versions of the sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;* &lt;sub&gt;Even &quot;given the instruction&quot; is ambiguous in English, and the most natural interpretation here is wrong. I'm exploiting the ambiguity to avoid going into unnecessary detail about the experiment.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5617" RevisionGUID="1f73b548-e3d5-4c7b-be83-4681042b50ff" CreationDate="2017-11-27T14:46:22.647" UserId="79" Comment="added 744 characters in body" Text="I would say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp;hellip;capitula a primo (usque) ad decimum&amp;hellip;*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;hellip;chapters from the first one (all the way) to the tenth&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When using *usque* to express the length of a range, [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=usque&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) indicate that you should use a preposition.&#xD;&#xA;To be honest, I had hard time parsing the bold part of your sentence.&#xD;&#xA;If nothing else, prepositions make the the range clearer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that you can leave *usque* out if you will, just as you can drop &quot;all the way&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;It is a matter of tone and emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making *prima* and *decima* plural sounds fishy; there are several chapters but only one first and one tenth.&#xD;&#xA;You could say *capitula primum et decimum* for &quot;the first and tenth chapters&quot;, which does not explicitly indicate a range.&#xD;&#xA;It is also correct to say *capitulum primum et decimum*.&#xD;&#xA;See [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5620/79) for further details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The agreement of a noun with several adjectives makes it reasonable, to me at least, to use *capitula a primo ad decimum* without repeating *capitulum* in the relevant case after the prepositions.&#xD;&#xA;It is clear what the numerals refer to, so I would consider it clumsy and unnecessary to repeat the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a somewhat similar range expression in *Ab Urbe condita* 31.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp;hellip;tres et sexaginta annos&amp;mdash;tot enim sunt **a primo Punico ad secundum bellum** finitum&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will look for more range examples, but I hope this makes my *a primo ad decimum* more plausible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5614" RevisionGUID="d570ae33-a5a7-4ef2-8bfd-06f26ed04072" CreationDate="2017-11-27T15:45:18.930" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="I just said this to a friend:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ecce in hac pagina [vox](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5613/118) **Iohannis Ørbergii** capitula a primo ad decimum _Linguae Latinae_ **legentis**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://sites.google.com/site/sobrinointroductiontolatin/audio-recordings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've got the genitive _Linguae Latinae_ modifying _capitula_ in between the genitive **Iohannis Ørbergii** and its modifier **legentis**. Can you…_do_ that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5616" RevisionGUID="68185487-9b14-468f-8f39-6c2ccc2e5cb6" CreationDate="2017-11-27T17:18:55.783" UserId="118" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="How do you grammatically denote a range of chapters, like what I'm trying to do in this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ecce in hac pagina [vox](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5613/118) Iohannis Ørbergii **capitula prima usque decima** _Linguae Latinae Per Se Illustratae_ legentis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://sites.google.com/site/sobrinointroductiontolatin/audio-recordings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it be **capitula primum usque decimum** instead? Or **capitulum**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And does **usque** suit denoting a full range rather the just the destination?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you're wondering about the nested genitives, see [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5614/118).)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5614" RevisionGUID="1ab09e5b-f0ad-4eb5-8d69-8afb4692c8f5" CreationDate="2017-11-27T17:19:37.933" UserId="118" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="I just said this to a friend:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ecce in hac pagina [vox](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5613/118) **Iohannis Ørbergii** capitula a primo ad decimum _Linguae Latinae Per Se Illustratae_ **legentis**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://sites.google.com/site/sobrinointroductiontolatin/audio-recordings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've got the genitive _Linguae Latinae_ modifying _capitula_ in between the genitive **Iohannis Ørbergii** and its modifier **legentis**. Can you…_do_ that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5623" RevisionGUID="49cbd581-f6df-44cf-8d5d-7c99f5493bbe" CreationDate="2017-11-27T20:27:27.393" UserId="118" Text="What records are there of Latin speech errors in Ancient Rome?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know of spelling errors, e.g. in graffiti, which provide evidence of sloppy or varied pronunciation, but I'm interested to hear about speech errors of the sort that provide evidence of how deeper features of the language, especially the grammar, were represented in people's minds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The paper &quot;[To Err is Human; To Study Error-Making is Cognitive Science](http://worrydream.com/refs/Hofstadter%20-%20To%20Err%20Is%20Human.pdf)&quot; by Hofstadter and Moser provides a variety of illustrations of this kind of thing. For example, in English, a waiter says &quot;Party for two?&quot;, accidentally combining the common phrases &quot;Party of two?&quot; and &quot;Table for two?&quot; Another: &quot;The French turn down their noses at rosé wine&quot;—confusing the phrases &quot;turn up one's nose&quot;, &quot;look down one's nose&quot;, and &quot;turn down&quot;. Another: &quot;It was pretty upsettling&quot;—this one blending the words &quot;upsetting&quot; and &quot;unsettling&quot; into a nonsense word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Presumably these speech errors result from simultaneous processes activating the related phrases. Normally one would &quot;outcompete&quot; the others and inhibit them before the signal reached the mouth, but occasionally they combine. The combined elements, and how they combine, say a lot about how the language is organized in the brain: what &quot;slips&quot; most easily—the competing elements—and what doesn't—the structural properties that are preserved even in the error, like the way &quot;upsettling&quot; has the structure of an ordinary English word even though it's not a real word.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm driving at grammar, though, so here's a more relevant illustration from English (from [this question](https://ell.stackexchange.com/q/41694/6700) on ELL):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The thing that scares me the most **are** the little oranges in its stomach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This happens a lot in spoken English—sometimes even in written English. The speaker feels a pressure from &quot;thing&quot; to make the verb singular and a pressure from the upcoming word &quot;oranges&quot; to make the verb plural, and fails to sort it out correctly before the word has come out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[So](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4967/118), did anyone record anything like that from native speakers of Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe this will shed some light on a confusion that I was recently relieved of [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5620/118). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt;BTW, I accidentally typed &quot;real world&quot; instead of &quot;real word&quot; while writing that sentence.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18616" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5623" RevisionGUID="49cbd581-f6df-44cf-8d5d-7c99f5493bbe" CreationDate="2017-11-27T20:27:27.393" UserId="118" Text="Speech errors in Ancient Rome" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18617" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5623" RevisionGUID="49cbd581-f6df-44cf-8d5d-7c99f5493bbe" CreationDate="2017-11-27T20:27:27.393" UserId="118" Text="|grammarians|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5624" RevisionGUID="11b877a3-115e-4526-b820-26e70a3b08a0" CreationDate="2017-11-27T22:01:53.420" UserId="645" Text="I've never come across any kind of systematic study of speech errors, but what might be called the *locus classicus* for this kind of thing is the well-known Catullus LXXXIV, in which the poet mocks Arrius for misplaced aitches:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Chommoda dicebat, si quando commoda vellet / &#xD;&#xA;     dicere, et insidias Arrius hinsidias,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *et tum mirifice sperabat se esse locutum, / &#xD;&#xA;      cum quantum poterat dixerat hinsidias.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *credo, sic mater, sic liber avunculus eius. / sic maternus auus dixerat atque avia.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *hoc misso in Syriam requierant omnibus aures / audibant eadem haec leniter et leviter,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*nec sibi postilla metuebant talia verba, / cum subito affertur nuntius horribilis,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ionios fluctus, postquam illuc Arrius isset, / Iam non Ionios esse sed Hionios.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5624" RevisionGUID="c1d28015-6d79-46fd-96e4-2573981bd0f8" CreationDate="2017-11-27T23:28:30.490" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted the poem." Text="I've never come across any kind of systematic study of speech errors, but what might be called the *locus classicus* for this kind of thing is the well-known Catullus LXXXIV, in which the poet mocks Arrius for misplaced aitches:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*Chommoda dicebat, si quando commoda vellet  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp; dicere, et insidias Arrius hinsidias,  &#xD;&#xA;et tum mirifice sperabat se esse locutum,  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp; cum quantum poterat dixerat hinsidias.  &#xD;&#xA;credo, sic mater, sic liber avunculus eius.  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp; sic maternus auus dixerat atque avia.  &#xD;&#xA;hoc misso in Syriam requierant omnibus aures  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp; audibant eadem haec leniter et leviter,  &#xD;&#xA;nec sibi postilla metuebant talia verba,  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp; cum subito affertur nuntius horribilis,  &#xD;&#xA;Ionios fluctus, postquam illuc Arrius isset,  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp; Iam non Ionios esse sed Hionios.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5625" RevisionGUID="53d2c8da-f645-4803-8ebc-51dc5f66ddd3" CreationDate="2017-11-28T01:35:54.017" UserId="867" Text=" - Hmm, it seems that [***vah/uah***][1] was an all-purpose interjection&#xD;&#xA;   that fits some of your purposes.  The Oxford Latin Dictionary notes&#xD;&#xA;   that it was &quot;an exclamation expressing any of various emotions ...&#xD;&#xA;   pain, dismay, vexation, contempt for a person or idea, admiration,&#xD;&#xA;   surprise.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *vah, bella res est volpis uda!*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Huh, a bedraggled fox is a fine creature!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Petronius, *Satyricon*, 58&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *vah! quam vellem etiam noctu amicis operam mos esset dari!*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Oh! How I wish it was the custom to offer services to friends at night&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as well!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terence, *The Brothers*, act 4, scene 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *uah! egone ut ad te ab libertina esse auderem internuntius?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bah! Would I dare to be a go-between for you from a freedwoman?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, *The Braggart Soldier*, act 4, scene 1&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related is ***vaha/uaha***, which can express both pain or gratified surprise.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There's also a plain ***a*** in Plautus, which I interpret, in the&#xD;&#xA;   context, as a sort of &quot;um, what?&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *a, perii? quid ita?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; um, I’m dead? How so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, Casina, act 3, scene 5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Elsewhere, a simple ***quid*** could be construed as &quot;eh?&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *“quid dixisti? quid? ita te fruar?”*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “What did you say? Eh? So shall I enjoy you?”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca the Elder, *Suasoriae*, 7.12&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *“Quid agebas” inquit “frater sanctissime? Quid? Vesticontubernium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; facis?”*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “What are you driving at,” he said, “my ever so pure brother? Eh? Are you for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; partnership-under-the-bedspread?”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Petronius, *Satyricon*, 11&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=uah&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5626" RevisionGUID="0502c8b1-9882-41fa-baa7-bccaa66b4627" CreationDate="2017-11-28T04:43:20.647" UserId="78" Text="I'm not sure hypercorrection is what you're looking for, but if not, have a look at Petronius' *Satyricon*. The work poked fun at a few of the nouveau riche (Trimalchio is chiefly lampooned), including their bad grammar. I only quote from one book, as the night is late and [the author gives examples](http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/petro/satyr/sat01.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another point, the admirably clever adaptation of the language to the social position and character of the persons speaking, merits a word or two more. While both the general narrative, and the conversation of the educated dramatis personae, Eumolpus for instance, are marked by a high degree of correctness of diction and elegance of phrase, the talk of such characters as Trimalchio and his freedmen friends, Habinnas and the rest, and other uneducated or half-educated persons, is full not merely of vulgarisms and popular words, but of positive blunders and downright bad grammar. These mistakes of course are intentional, and it is only another proof of the lack of humor and want of common sense that often marked the industrious and meritorious scholars, particularly German scholars, of the old school, that some commentators have actually gone out of their way to correct these errors in the text of Petronius. There are hundreds of them; two or three examples must suffice here. Libra rubricata says Trimalchio (Ch. VII.--xlvi), meaning libros rubricatos, &quot;lawbooks,&quot; and vetuo &quot;I forbid,&quot; while his guests indulge in such glaring solecisms as malus fatus, exhortavit, naufragarunt. The whole of Chapter VII., where Trimalchio's guests converse freely with one another in the temporary absence of their host, and afterwards Trimalchio harangues the company on various subjects, is full of these diverting &quot;bulls.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5627" RevisionGUID="3d56cbd5-a3f9-4ca3-b651-0a08dce88412" CreationDate="2017-11-28T07:27:03.020" UserId="235" Text="I learned from my textbook (*From Alpha to Omega*, Groton) about articular infinitives, in which a definite article is coupled with an infinitive, to form a phrase of many uses. At first glance, that seems to be the case in the bolded text (bolding mine) but on closer inspection, we see that the article τὰ is plural, so it more likely modifies δέοντα than πραχθῆναι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τὸ ἄρχοντι καὶ πατρὶ ὑποταχθῆναι, ὃς ἔμελλε πάντα τὸν τῦφον ἀφαιρήσειν μου καὶ εἰς ἔννοιαν ἄξειν τοῦ ὅτι δυνατόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐλῇ βιοῦντα μήτε δορυφορήσεων χρῄζειν μήτε ἐσθήτων σημειωδῶν μήτε λαμπάδων καὶ ἀνδριάντων τοιῶνδέ τινων καὶ τοῦ ὁμοίου κόμπου, ἀλλ̓ ἔξεστιν ἐγγυτάτω ἰδιώτου συστέλλειν ἑαυτὸν καὶ μὴ διὰ τοῦτο ταπεινότερον ἢ ῥᾳθυμότερον ἔχειν πρὸς **τὰ ὑπὲρ τῶν κοινῶν ἡγεμονικῶς πραχθῆναι δέοντα.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That I came under a ruler and a father, who intended to take away all of my conceit, and brought me to realize that it is possible to live in a court having need of neither bodyguards, nor fancy clothes, nor candelabra, and statues such as those and of similar vaunt, but that one can reduce oneself very close to the station of a private citizen and not have less dignity or vigor in a ruler’s need to competently effect the common good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My reasoning might be wrong, and if so, please correct me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if not, then could somebody explain how this complex phrase actually works? Why is δέοντα neuter and plural, and what is the term for an article paired with a participle, such as τὰ ... δέοντα? Furthermore, what function and meaning does πρὸς have preceding this phrase?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any other criticisms or improvement of my translation would be very welcome!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18623" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5627" RevisionGUID="3d56cbd5-a3f9-4ca3-b651-0a08dce88412" CreationDate="2017-11-28T07:27:03.020" UserId="235" Text="How to make sense of this articular phrase in Aur 1.17.3?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18624" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5627" RevisionGUID="3d56cbd5-a3f9-4ca3-b651-0a08dce88412" CreationDate="2017-11-28T07:27:03.020" UserId="235" Text="|greek|participle|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5627" RevisionGUID="bb26aa66-0faf-40dc-8653-467d65be3142" CreationDate="2017-11-28T07:32:36.540" UserId="235" Comment="added 214 characters in body" Text="I learned from my textbook (*From Alpha to Omega*, Groton) about articular infinitives, in which a definite article is coupled with an infinitive, to form a phrase of many uses. At first glance, that seems to be the case in the bolded text (bolding mine) but on closer inspection, we see that the article τὰ is plural, so it more likely modifies δέοντα than πραχθῆναι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τὸ ἄρχοντι καὶ πατρὶ ὑποταχθῆναι, ὃς ἔμελλε πάντα τὸν τῦφον ἀφαιρήσειν μου καὶ εἰς ἔννοιαν ἄξειν τοῦ ὅτι δυνατόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐλῇ βιοῦντα μήτε δορυφορήσεων χρῄζειν μήτε ἐσθήτων σημειωδῶν μήτε λαμπάδων καὶ ἀνδριάντων τοιῶνδέ τινων καὶ τοῦ ὁμοίου κόμπου, ἀλλ̓ ἔξεστιν ἐγγυτάτω ἰδιώτου συστέλλειν ἑαυτὸν καὶ μὴ διὰ τοῦτο ταπεινότερον ἢ ῥᾳθυμότερον ἔχειν πρὸς **τὰ ὑπὲρ τῶν κοινῶν ἡγεμονικῶς πραχθῆναι δέοντα.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That I came under a ruler and a father, who intended to take away all of my conceit, and brought me to realize that it is possible to live in a court having need of neither bodyguards, nor fancy clothes, nor candelabra, and statues such as those and of similar vaunt, but that one can reduce oneself very close to the station of a private citizen and not have less dignity or vigor in a ruler’s need to competently effect the common good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;([Aur. 1.17.13][1])&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My reasoning might be wrong, and if so, please correct me. But by comparison with the first clause (τὸ ... ὑποταχθῆναι), which also has an aorist passive articular infinitive, I would expect to see the singular τὸ and not the plural τὰ (although perhaps the number is flexible).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, could somebody explain how this complex phrase actually works? Why is δέοντα neuter and plural, and what is the term for an article paired with a participle, such as τὰ ... δέοντα? Furthermore, what function and meaning does πρὸς have preceding this phrase?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any other criticisms or improvements would be very welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0641%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D17%3Asection%3D3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18626" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5627" RevisionGUID="af46a6d6-4095-4f16-ad33-d16669e26e8b" CreationDate="2017-11-28T07:40:51.123" UserId="235" Comment="edited title" Text="How to make sense of this articular phrase in Aur 1.17.3? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5628" RevisionGUID="bdb34e65-b217-4379-91e0-ee32b690e165" CreationDate="2017-11-28T08:13:18.477" UserId="2126" Text="I am using the Collar and Daniell, Beginner's Latin Book to learn latin on my own and need a bit of help to translate the sentence *Novum equum laudat* (Exercise 48 I 11). I know that *laudat* is praise in the present indicative tense, third person singular (i.e. praises), and that *equum* is the accusative singular of horse (*equus*) (i.e. horse is the direct object). Since adjectives take the ending of the noun they modify, would this sentence translate as &quot;He praises the new horse.&quot;? If so, why." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18628" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5628" RevisionGUID="bdb34e65-b217-4379-91e0-ee32b690e165" CreationDate="2017-11-28T08:13:18.477" UserId="2126" Text="How would one translate the sentence &quot;Novum equum laudat&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18629" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5628" RevisionGUID="bdb34e65-b217-4379-91e0-ee32b690e165" CreationDate="2017-11-28T08:13:18.477" UserId="2126" Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5628" RevisionGUID="d6028e8e-850d-4f7b-b28d-0c4d097c9c72" CreationDate="2017-11-28T08:24:42.480" UserId="2126" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="I am using the [Collar and Daniell, Beginner's Latin Book](https://drive.google.com/open?id=1OQx7YpJ3QUXIQbpet4KGqj8XnG664S5y) to learn latin on my own and need a bit of help to translate the sentence *Novum equum laudat* (Exercise 48.I.11., p 15). I know that *laudat* is praise in the present indicative tense, third person singular (i.e. praises), and that *equum* is the accusative singular of horse (*equus*) (i.e. horse is the direct object). Since adjectives take the ending of the noun they modify, would this sentence translate as &quot;He praises the new horse.&quot;? If so, why." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5629" RevisionGUID="8468d29d-8a70-4e83-bd26-b60750b5827f" CreationDate="2017-11-28T12:02:49.737" UserId="78" Text="You are correct. Doubly so, in have, as your grammatical analysis is spot on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that technically it could also be &quot;She praises&quot; or even &quot;It praises&quot; depending on the subject, which would have been established in previous sentences. In Latin, you don't need an explicit subject if it's already been established. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5629" RevisionGUID="3a898d39-b969-4686-a27f-6bc16c5dbaf9" CreationDate="2017-11-28T14:40:05.160" UserId="78" Comment="edited body" Text="You are correct. Doubly so, in fact, as your grammatical analysis is spot on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that technically it could also be &quot;She praises&quot; or even &quot;It praises&quot; depending on the subject, which would have been established in previous sentences. In Latin, you don't need an explicit subject if it's already been established. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5630" RevisionGUID="6d49103e-168a-4dd5-854e-617997ee1ef4" CreationDate="2017-11-28T14:56:10.883" UserId="45" Text="Your translation is quite good! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the phrase in question, here are a few clarifications:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. it's quite clear that τὰ goes with δέοντα. Using the neuter article with a participle is pretty much the same as using it with an adjective:&#xD;&#xA; * τὰ ἀγαθά = &quot;good things&quot; &#xD;&#xA; * τὰ δέοντα = &quot;things required&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. One common meaning of πρὸς is &quot;in relation to.&quot; In this case, it is explaining what one will not necessarily be &quot;ῥᾳθυμότερον&quot; *about*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the full phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...ἀλλ̓ ἔξεστιν ἐγγυτάτω ἰδιώτου συστέλλειν ἑαυτὸν καὶ μὴ διὰ τοῦτο ταπεινότερον ἢ ῥᾳθυμότερον ἔχειν πρὸς τὰ ὑπὲρ τῶν κοινῶν ἡγεμονικῶς πραχθῆναι δέοντα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...but it is possible to lower oneself very close [to the level] of a private citizen and not, through this, to be meaner or lazier with respect to the things that need to be done authoritatively for the sake of common [interests].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only other minor point I can make has to do with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀνδριάντων τοιῶνδέ τινων καὶ τοῦ ὁμοίου κόμπου&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate this as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [without needing] ...such things as statues and similar bling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;τοιόσδε τις&quot; is simply a more indefinite form of &quot;τοιόσδε.&quot; In fact, it may very well be referring to all the preceding genitives (&quot;such things as status, clothes, etc.&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5627" RevisionGUID="1c340eae-a5f4-43cb-9583-fe32bc25122d" CreationDate="2017-11-29T00:02:50.743" UserId="235" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I learned from my textbook (*From Alpha to Omega*, Groton) about articular infinitives, in which a definite article is coupled with an infinitive, to form a phrase of many uses. At first glance, that seems to be the case in the bolded text (bolding mine) but on closer inspection, we see that the article τὰ is plural, so it more likely modifies δέοντα than πραχθῆναι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τὸ ἄρχοντι καὶ πατρὶ ὑποταχθῆναι, ὃς ἔμελλε πάντα τὸν τῦφον ἀφαιρήσειν μου καὶ εἰς ἔννοιαν ἄξειν τοῦ ὅτι δυνατόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐλῇ βιοῦντα μήτε δορυφορήσεων χρῄζειν μήτε ἐσθήτων σημειωδῶν μήτε λαμπάδων καὶ ἀνδριάντων τοιῶνδέ τινων καὶ τοῦ ὁμοίου κόμπου, ἀλλ̓ ἔξεστιν ἐγγυτάτω ἰδιώτου συστέλλειν ἑαυτὸν καὶ μὴ διὰ τοῦτο ταπεινότερον ἢ ῥᾳθυμότερον ἔχειν πρὸς **τὰ ὑπὲρ τῶν κοινῶν ἡγεμονικῶς πραχθῆναι δέοντα.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That I came under a ruler and a father, who intended to take away all of my conceit, and brought me to realize that it is possible to live in a court having need of neither bodyguards, nor fancy clothes, nor candelabra, and statues such as those and of similar vaunt, but that one can reduce oneself very close to the station of a private citizen and not have less dignity or vigor in a ruler’s need to competently effect the common good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;([Aur. 1.17.13][1])&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My reasoning might be wrong, and if so, please correct me. But by comparison with the first clause (τὸ ... ὑποταχθῆναι), which also has an aorist passive articular infinitive, I would expect to see the singular τὸ and not the plural τὰ (although perhaps the number is flexible).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But regardless, could somebody explain how this complex phrase actually works? Why is δέοντα neuter and plural, and what is the term for an article paired with a participle, such as τὰ ... δέοντα? Furthermore, what function and meaning does πρὸς have preceding this phrase?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any other criticisms or improvements would be welcome. Thanks!&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0641%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D17%3Asection%3D3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2507" RevisionGUID="f556ed99-390a-4e88-ba86-55f49f15323c" CreationDate="2017-11-29T04:18:37.457" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="How would you render:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If Trump bombs us into the Middle Ages, we'll all need to know Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm posting an answer of my own, in hope of constructive criticism (or confirmation that I hit the Latin groove).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18642" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2507" RevisionGUID="f556ed99-390a-4e88-ba86-55f49f15323c" CreationDate="2017-11-29T04:18:37.457" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1990" RevisionGUID="ac39d343-e4fb-48c0-bb21-4d0e56019830" CreationDate="2017-11-29T04:20:20.873" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="I am currently studying Latin in high school (third year), so I do have a mild understanding of how the language works. But I would like to know whether this translation is correct. For various reasons, I can't ask my Latin teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hic fortissimus, primus inter pares.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hoping to mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This most powerful (individual), the first amongst equals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I am looking for an adjective to mean &quot;powerful&quot; as in &quot;with great authority/influential&quot;. Would you recommend any other word besides &quot;fortes&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much for all of your support." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18644" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1990" RevisionGUID="ac39d343-e4fb-48c0-bb21-4d0e56019830" CreationDate="2017-11-29T04:20:20.873" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|word-request|adjective|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4996" RevisionGUID="3478c127-6fa9-41b1-be52-b4ff86022f8a" CreationDate="2017-11-29T13:05:10.663" UserId="118" Comment="&quot;Cost&quot; is the past tense of &quot;cost&quot;." Text="Consider these examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mr. Johnson has been the janitor for God knows how long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Right behind this park is the new bridge that cost God knows how much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can replace &quot;God knows how&quot; with &quot;I don't know how&quot; or &quot;who knows how&quot; without really changing the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;(In Finnish I would use &quot;ties vaikka kuinka&quot;, but I have no idea how to translate that into any other language, but I remark that it has to do with knowing, too.)&#xD;&#xA;You could replace it with &quot;very&quot; or drop it altogether, but that would certainly change the nuance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a similar intensifier in Latin that I could use to tell (in exaggeration) that no one knows the real extent?&#xD;&#xA;The God is irrelevant here; the idiom can refer to some divine entities or not.&#xD;&#xA;An attested classical idiom would be great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I might write something like the following in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hora tertia postmeridiana Professor Smith **nescio quam vetus** acroasim faciet de lingua Latina.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how idiomatic the bold part is and how to replace it with something more suitable.&#xD;&#xA;Of course I could use *vetustissimus* or *valde vetus*, but I prefer indicating (jokingly) somehow that no one knows how old he is.&#xD;&#xA;Is *nescio quam* an idiomatic way to put this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4306" RevisionGUID="7a65e839-0ae8-4101-b33f-ecdd7641165a" CreationDate="2017-11-29T16:39:49.050" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Long story short:&#xD;&#xA;I want to be able to write Latin on my phone, but I don't know how to best do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short story long:&#xD;&#xA;I have an Android (version 6.0.1) phone and I want to write in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Writing Latin is technically possible, but I would prefer to have it as a separate input language.&#xD;&#xA;I mainly write Finnish and English currently, and I can easily switch the input language by swiping the space bar.&#xD;&#xA;Changing the language does two things: It adapts the keyboard and it changes the dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;The English (or Finnish) keyboard is fine, but I don't want to mess with the dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I dislike writing on the phone, so I really appreciate offers to fill or correct a word while typing.&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't work if I'm not writing in the selected language.&#xD;&#xA;What's far worse, the device learns new words as I use them, and the dictionaries become far less useful if I mix different languages together.&#xD;&#xA;That's why I would like to add Latin as a separate language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phone has a long list of possible input languages I could install, but Latin is not on the list.&#xD;&#xA;I see two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Find a Latin input thing somewhere online and install it. I don't know how to add new options to the list.&#xD;&#xA;2. Create a blank language. It's perfectly fine if I can start a &quot;new language&quot; using the English keyboard and a custom name. I can build the vocabulary over time myself as I use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that I don't know how to do either of these.&#xD;&#xA;Could someone help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comment:&#xD;&#xA;This question is experimental; we haven't had this kind here before.&#xD;&#xA;It is very much about using Latin language, so I think it is on-topic.&#xD;&#xA;It might work better on some other SE site, but that does not make it off-topic here &amp;mdash; this is information I would like Latinists to find easily.&#xD;&#xA;And most importantly, this is a question I really want to see answered.&#xD;&#xA;However, anyone is welcome to disagree with the suitability of this question here.&#xD;&#xA;Extended commentary on it should rather be taken to [meta](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/) or [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm), but sharing opinions in comments here is of course allowed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5631" RevisionGUID="841e9c84-388b-426d-904e-ee49de7b41bb" CreationDate="2017-11-29T16:43:30.990" UserId="79" Text="Having taken care of some spam profiles on this site recently, I started to wonder how &quot;spam&quot; might best be translated to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Since the word &quot;spam&quot; itself appears not to have a Latin origin, the best option seems to be start with something like &quot;junk mail&quot; or &quot;unsolicited advertisement&quot; or even just plain &quot;trash&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One might coin the neuter *spamma*, which is (hopefully) easily understood but some might consider it not to be proper Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I thought I could use *nuntius* with an adjective like &quot;trashy&quot;, but I couldn't find anything suitable.&#xD;&#xA;The word [*scrutarius*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=scrutarius&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) seems to refer more to something that deals with trash rather than something that is trash.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you have suggestions?&#xD;&#xA;There are several kinds of spam and several ways to approach the translation of modern concepts like this one (I assume the Romans didn't have this problem), but I don't want to constrain you here.&#xD;&#xA;Any kind of translation suggestion with reasoning is welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18648" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5631" RevisionGUID="841e9c84-388b-426d-904e-ee49de7b41bb" CreationDate="2017-11-29T16:43:30.990" UserId="79" Text="What is &quot;spam&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18649" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5631" RevisionGUID="841e9c84-388b-426d-904e-ee49de7b41bb" CreationDate="2017-11-29T16:43:30.990" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5632" RevisionGUID="b2d14f91-38d1-4366-b5cd-3c46b7f7b1de" CreationDate="2017-11-29T17:11:43.730" UserId="2126" Text="(The question comes from [Collar and Daniell, Beginner's Latin Book](https://drive.google.com/open?id=1OQx7YpJ3QUXIQbpet4KGqj8XnG664S5), Exercise 50.2., p 17.) I know that portatne is carry in the present indicative third person singular, with the ne indicating the sentence is a question. I know that dominō " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18651" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5632" RevisionGUID="b2d14f91-38d1-4366-b5cd-3c46b7f7b1de" CreationDate="2017-11-29T17:11:43.730" UserId="2126" Text="What ways are there to respond to the question &quot;Portatne dominō vīnum et ova?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18652" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5632" RevisionGUID="b2d14f91-38d1-4366-b5cd-3c46b7f7b1de" CreationDate="2017-11-29T17:11:43.730" UserId="2126" Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5632" RevisionGUID="83420e13-08c3-43f3-899d-d8c9d87a1fc5" CreationDate="2017-11-29T17:25:37.500" UserId="2126" Comment="added 709 characters in body" Text="(The question comes from [Collar and Daniell, Beginner's Latin Book](https://drive.google.com/open?id=1OQx7YpJ3QUXIQbpet4KGqj8XnG664S5), Exercise 50.2., p 17.) I know that *portatne* is carry in the present indicative third person singular, with the ne indicating the sentence is a question, possibly translating to &quot;what/who carries [...]&quot;. I know that *dominō* is the dative singular of *dominus* (master). I believe the use of dative here is the 'dativus commŏdi' (or at least that's what wikipedia tells me), indicating this is to be translated as &quot;for the master&quot;. Vīnum et ova means wine and eggs, with vīnum being the accusative singular of vīnum and ova being the accusative plural of ovum. I assume this means the sentence in full translates to &quot;What carries the wine and eggs for the master&quot; Would a correct response be &quot;Equus vīnum et ova portat dominō&quot; or &quot;Servus vīnum et ova portat dominō&quot;, or &quot;The horse carries the wine and eggs for the master&quot; and &quot;The slave carries the wine and eggs for the master&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18654" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5632" RevisionGUID="83420e13-08c3-43f3-899d-d8c9d87a1fc5" CreationDate="2017-11-29T17:25:37.500" UserId="2126" Comment="added 709 characters in body" Text="Is &quot;Equus vīnum et ova portat dominō.&quot; a response one would expect to &quot;Portatne dominō vīnum et ova&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5633" RevisionGUID="06af14e4-fa7f-44b3-8a88-a530b55523d9" CreationDate="2017-11-29T17:46:41.167" UserId="79" Text="You are right that *-ne* indicates a question, but it is only used for binary questions.&#xD;&#xA;If *ille portat* is &quot;he carries&quot;, then *portatne ille?* is &quot;does he carry?&quot; &amp;mdash; the expected answer is either &quot;yes, he does&quot; or &quot;no, he doesn't&quot;, not &quot;the horse carries&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to ask who or what carries, you should use *quis* or *quid* as the subject: *Quis/quid portat vinum et ova?* &quot;Who/what brings wine and eggs?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question does not have an explicit subject:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Portatne dominō vīnum et ova?*  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Does he/she/it carry wine and eggs to the master?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The implicit subject can be a horse, but without context I can't tell.&#xD;&#xA;Presumably the subject of the previous question(s) is repeated.&#xD;&#xA;For example, if you have this kind of pair of questions, it is clear that the subject is the horse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Qualis est equus?* &amp;mdash; &quot;What is the horse like?&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Portatne [ille] vinum domino?* &amp;mdash; &quot;Does it bring wine to the master?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the implied subject could also be someone or something else.&#xD;&#xA;Some possible answers might be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ita vero, vinum et ova ei portat.* &amp;mdash; &quot;Yes indeed, it brings wine and eggs to him.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Servus vinum et ova portat, non equus.* &amp;mdash; &quot;The slave brings the wine and eggs, not the horse.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ita (non) facit.* &amp;mdash; &quot;It does (not do) so.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Vinum et ova domino non portantur.* &amp;mdash; &quot;The wine and eggs are not brought to the master.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5632" RevisionGUID="07e4bcef-b716-45c6-aaa9-c071666a0e08" CreationDate="2017-11-29T17:50:20.687" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="(The question comes from [Collar and Daniell, Beginner's Latin Book](https://drive.google.com/open?id=1OQx7YpJ3QUXIQbpet4KGqj8XnG664S5), Exercise 50.2., p 17.) I know that *portatne* is carry in the present indicative third person singular, with the *-ne* indicating the sentence is a question, possibly translating to &quot;what/who carries [...]&quot;. I know that *dominō* is the dative singular of *dominus* (master). I believe the use of dative here is the 'dativus commŏdi' (or at least that's what wikipedia tells me), indicating this is to be translated as &quot;for the master&quot;. Vīnum et ova means wine and eggs, with vīnum being the accusative singular of vīnum and ova being the accusative plural of ovum. I assume this means the sentence in full translates to &quot;What carries the wine and eggs for the master&quot; Would a correct response be &quot;Equus vīnum et ova portat dominō&quot; or &quot;Servus vīnum et ova portat dominō&quot;, or &quot;The horse carries the wine and eggs for the master&quot; and &quot;The slave carries the wine and eggs for the master&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5634" RevisionGUID="84955b1a-d6c2-47f7-93e9-2d79e82bbd59" CreationDate="2017-11-29T19:36:38.520" UserId="2157" Text="I used a dictionary and read up on declensions but since I have zero knowledge on the language, I have no idea if I translated them correctly (most likely not). I was hoping someone could provide corrections and explain them to me. Thank you so much in advance!&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentences I'm trying to translate are: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;1) An idle mind is the devil's workshop. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2) Idle minds are the devil's workshop. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used the singular genitive for *diabolus* on both to indicate possession, the nominative (singular and plural) for *mens* since they're the object of the verb *sum*, nominative for *inane* and *officina*. Here are my attempts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;i) Mens inanis officina diaboli est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ii) Inanes mentes officina diaboli sunt.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18658" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5634" RevisionGUID="84955b1a-d6c2-47f7-93e9-2d79e82bbd59" CreationDate="2017-11-29T19:36:38.520" UserId="2157" Text="Would these two sentences be grammatically correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18659" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5634" RevisionGUID="84955b1a-d6c2-47f7-93e9-2d79e82bbd59" CreationDate="2017-11-29T19:36:38.520" UserId="2157" Text="|translation|grammar-choice|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5634" RevisionGUID="41de551f-b2e1-4081-b5c3-aa011dbc2307" CreationDate="2017-11-29T19:54:02.687" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I used a dictionary and read up on declensions but since I have zero knowledge on the language, I have no idea if I translated them correctly (most likely not). I was hoping someone could provide corrections and explain them to me. Thank you so much in advance!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentences I'm trying to translate are: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;1) An idle mind is the devil's workshop. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2) Idle minds are the devil's workshop. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used the singular genitive for *diabolus* on both to indicate possession, the nominative (singular and plural) for *mens* since they're the object of the verb *sum*, nominative for *inane* and *officina*. Here are my attempts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;i) Mens inanis officina diaboli est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ii) Inanes mentes officina diaboli sunt.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18661" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5634" RevisionGUID="41de551f-b2e1-4081-b5c3-aa011dbc2307" CreationDate="2017-11-29T19:54:02.687" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|translation-check|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5635" RevisionGUID="bc4fddfc-c03d-49be-80a1-3e99662b9b52" CreationDate="2017-11-30T00:14:35.370" UserId="136" Text="**You are correct!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am thoroughly impressed that you, a person with no knowledge of the language, was able to so successfully translate those sentences! Most novices fall into the trap of using Google Translate, which is inept when it comes to declensions and the sort, so your mastery of them for these purposes is laudable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few things I would adjust, but they are minor, and do not change the correctness of your translations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, *inanis* most nearly means &quot;empty&quot; or &quot;insane,&quot; which is not quite what you were going for, but still works. I would instead perhaps suggest the words *deses*, *otiosus*, *reses*, or *ignavus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, in Latin, adjectives often come after nouns, so *inanes mentes* would usually be *mentes inanes*. Thanks to declensions, however, this is not vital, so your translations still remain fully functional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, these are nit-picky things, and I commend you on your success, and wish you luck in the future!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5636" RevisionGUID="fb0fc341-ad10-4b11-88f9-8d70244a44f7" CreationDate="2017-11-30T02:20:09.513" UserId="136" Text="Inspired by [this question from Joonas Ilmavirta][1], and the seemingly great response, I have decided to ask about the two relevant operating systems in my life: iOS and Windows. I have long detested the red squiggly lines under my Latin text in Microsoft Office, as well as the irritating auto-correct on my phone. I have attempted to download some sort of Latin keyboard/language option onto both devices, but with little success. Apple only recently began opening up to more customization of its keyboards, but I still fear that things like auto-correct are unalterable through ordinary means. I have made slightly more progress with Microsoft-related products, namely Word, for which I found a proofing language download for Latin, but it worked very poorly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any assistance on this front would be interesting to hear about, and it does not have to be a complete solution. I doubt much will come from the Apple side of things, but even if it is a proofing language for Word, I would be glad to hear about it!&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;It does not appear as if these types of questions have been deemed off-topic yet, but this is of course subject to change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4306/writing-in-latin-on-an-android-phone" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18664" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5636" RevisionGUID="fb0fc341-ad10-4b11-88f9-8d70244a44f7" CreationDate="2017-11-30T02:20:09.513" UserId="136" Text="Writing in Latin on an iPhone and/or on Windows" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18665" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5636" RevisionGUID="fb0fc341-ad10-4b11-88f9-8d70244a44f7" CreationDate="2017-11-30T02:20:09.513" UserId="136" Text="|technologia|latin-on-devices|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5636" RevisionGUID="26e59728-ec31-46d8-9a68-85a854739e40" CreationDate="2017-11-30T03:59:45.003" UserId="136" Comment="Limited question to Windows" Text="Inspired by [this question from Joonas Ilmavirta][1], and the seemingly great response, I have decided to ask about a relevant operating system in my life: Windows. I have long detested the red squiggly lines under my Latin text in Microsoft Office. :) I have made slight progress with Word, for which I found a proofing language download for Latin, but it worked very poorly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any assistance on this front would be interesting to hear about, and it does not have to be a complete solution. Even if it is a proofing language for Word, I would be glad to hear about it!&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;It does not appear as if these types of questions have been deemed off-topic yet, but this is of course subject to change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4306/writing-in-latin-on-an-android-phone" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18667" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5636" RevisionGUID="26e59728-ec31-46d8-9a68-85a854739e40" CreationDate="2017-11-30T03:59:45.003" UserId="136" Comment="Limited question to Windows" Text="Writing in Latin on Windows" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5637" RevisionGUID="89736cb2-9280-49d8-a530-f99bad3aeb7d" CreationDate="2017-11-30T04:25:48.407" UserId="867" Text="1.	I agree that τοιαῦτ᾽ refers to the prizes for the reasons you cite.  Also, if we look at the other guy’s response (is it Glaucon?), he also uses neuter plurals to describe them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Καὶ μάλ’, ἔφη, καλά τε καὶ βέβαια&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Indeed, he said, they are both good and sure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	This excerpt comes at the end of a protracted discussion of the rewards a just man receives, from gods and men, which in turn is Socrates’ argument for why justice is worth pursuing.  I think this contextualisation may help translate the end bit.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if we backtrack to 613a, Socrates says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Τῷ δὲ θεοφιλεῖ οὐχ ὁμολογήσομεν, ὅσα γε ἀπὸ θεῶν γίγνεται, πάντα&#xD;&#xA;&gt; γίγνεσθαι ὡς οἷόν τε ἄριστα …&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Did we not agree regarding those loved by the gods, that whatever&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comes from the gods, it is all the best possible …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this and the intervening discussion, I understand the end of your excerpt, and the optative + ἂν combination, as saying: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would they be such as these [that is to say, the best possible things]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, it could be translated as: might they be such as these&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5638" RevisionGUID="3c14599f-db76-476c-bc0d-111931b6494e" CreationDate="2017-11-30T08:11:47.700" UserId="867" Text="I think it's an ACI too, triggered by φημί.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then the question is, can such a construction be used with an imperative?  I couldn't find an answer to that in any of my grammar books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, then my question was, can we find other examples of this?  Looking only for sentences with the imperative φάθι, I did indeed find examples.  All of them were in Plato, except for one.  Examples from Plato:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Τὴν αὐτὴν τοίνυν φάθι τριῶν οὐσῶν χαλεπὴν διαφερόντως γίγνεσθαι καὶ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ῥᾴστην&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Well then, you have to say that of the three forms, the same is both the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hardest and the easiest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plato, *The Statesman*, 302c&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Τοῦτο τοίνυν, ἦν δ’ ἐγώ, φάθι με τότε βούλεσθαι λέγειν ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Then,” I said, “you must say that this is what I meant just now ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plato, *The Republic*, 438e&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Οὐδαμῶς. ἀλλὰ τρίτον φάθι με λέγειν ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; No, not at all. And as to the third class, you must agree that I mean ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plato, *Philebus*, 26d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And one example in Theocritus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; θάρσει· μήτ’ ἀδίκους μήτ’ ἐξ ἀδίκων φάθι λεύσσειν&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Have no fear. You must understand that the men you are looking at are neither lawless nor sons of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lawless parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theocritus, *Idylls*, 22.56&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think these examples show us that it is clearly an accusative/infinitive construction.  I think they also show that the imperative of φημί could be used in an almost idiomatic way to provoke agreement and not just to command someone to say something.  Perhaps it's a bit like when we say in English, &quot;you must see that ...&quot;                  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5639" RevisionGUID="cbc682c5-0856-4399-a53d-ef8e6982687f" CreationDate="2017-11-30T10:42:57.467" UserId="1982" Text="North &amp; Hillard; Ex 215: &quot;There can be little doubt that the guides, whether through treachery or ignorance, were mainly responsible for the disaster.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answe Book: &quot;parum quidem dubitari potest quin huius cladis, seu proditione seu inscientia, auctores in primis fuerint duces.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why deploy the future-perfect, &quot;fuerint&quot;: they-will-have-been (shall be) the creators of the disaster? The English requires &quot;were....responsible&quot;; for me, there is a credible case for &quot;sunt&quot;: they are the creators; even though the disaster has already happened; or, a logical argument can be made for &quot;erant&quot;--giving the English: &quot;they were&quot;; and, presumably, continue to be responsible; yet again: &quot;fuerunt&quot;--they were: a completed process, in the past, now finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts on fuerint?&#xD;&#xA;Thank you&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18671" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5639" RevisionGUID="cbc682c5-0856-4399-a53d-ef8e6982687f" CreationDate="2017-11-30T10:42:57.467" UserId="1982" Text="Future-Perfect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18672" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5639" RevisionGUID="cbc682c5-0856-4399-a53d-ef8e6982687f" CreationDate="2017-11-30T10:42:57.467" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5638" RevisionGUID="0478adfe-1793-454f-ab5f-2963f8530391" CreationDate="2017-11-30T12:24:50.950" UserId="867" Comment="edited body" Text="I think it's an ACI too, triggered by φημί.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then the question is, can such a construction be used with an imperative?  I couldn't find an answer to that in any of my grammar books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, then my question was, can we find other examples of this?  Looking only for sentences with the imperative φάθι, I did indeed find examples.  All of them were in Plato, except for one.  Examples from Plato:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Τὴν αὐτὴν τοίνυν φάθι τριῶν οὐσῶν χαλεπὴν διαφερόντως γίγνεσθαι καὶ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ῥᾴστην&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Well then, you have to say that of the three forms, the same is both the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hardest and the easiest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plato, *The Statesman*, 302c&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Τοῦτο τοίνυν, ἦν δ’ ἐγώ, φάθι με τότε βούλεσθαι λέγειν ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Then,” I said, “you must say that this is what I meant just now ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plato, *The Republic*, 438e&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Οὐδαμῶς. ἀλλὰ τρίτον φάθι με λέγειν ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; No, not at all. And as to the third class, you must agree that I mean ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plato, *Philebus*, 26d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And one example in Theocritus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; θάρσει· μήτ’ ἀδίκους μήτ’ ἐξ ἀδίκων φάθι λεύσσειν&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Have no fear. You must understand that the men you are looking at are neither lawless nor sons of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lawless parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theocritus, *Idylls*, 22.56&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think these examples confirm that an accusative/infinitive construction is being used.  I think they also show that the imperative of φημί could be used in an almost idiomatic way to provoke agreement and not just to command someone to say something.  Perhaps it's a bit like when we say in English, &quot;you must see that ...&quot;                  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5638" RevisionGUID="260cbf62-fab2-42ba-961c-893aecb836ce" CreationDate="2017-11-30T13:22:55.767" UserId="867" Comment="added to my conclusion by including reasons for that conclusion" Text="I think it's an ACI too, triggered by φημί.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then the question is, can such a construction be used with an imperative?  I couldn't find an answer to that in any of my grammar books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, then my question was, can we find other examples of this?  Looking only for sentences with the imperative φάθι, I did indeed find examples.  All of them were in Plato, except for one.  Examples from Plato:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Τὴν αὐτὴν τοίνυν φάθι τριῶν οὐσῶν χαλεπὴν διαφερόντως γίγνεσθαι καὶ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ῥᾴστην&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Well then, you have to say that of the three forms, the same is both the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hardest and the easiest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plato, *The Statesman*, 302c&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Τοῦτο τοίνυν, ἦν δ’ ἐγώ, φάθι με τότε βούλεσθαι λέγειν ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Then,” I said, “you must say that this is what I meant just now ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plato, *The Republic*, 438e&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Οὐδαμῶς. ἀλλὰ τρίτον φάθι με λέγειν ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; No, not at all. And as to the third class, you must agree that I mean ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plato, *Philebus*, 26d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And one example in Theocritus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; θάρσει· μήτ’ ἀδίκους μήτ’ ἐξ ἀδίκων φάθι λεύσσειν&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Have no fear. You must understand that the men you are looking at are neither lawless nor sons of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lawless parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theocritus, *Idylls*, 22.56&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think these examples confirm that an accusative/infinitive construction is being used because of the simple fact that each example contains φημί + accusatives + infinitive.  They also provide evidence that this construction could be used with the imperative φάθι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think they also show that the imperative of φημί could be used in an almost idiomatic way to provoke agreement and not just to command someone to say something.  Perhaps it's a bit like when we say in English, &quot;you must see that ...&quot;                  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5640" RevisionGUID="ebd49a73-009c-4544-844c-83c50bb8e93f" CreationDate="2017-11-30T13:34:40.797" UserId="78" Text="It's actually perfect subjunctive following *quin*. See [A&amp;G 558](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-558.html) for more examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5640" RevisionGUID="a24a2a49-30de-41fc-aab5-09fa1d55e5dc" CreationDate="2017-11-30T14:39:04.557" UserId="78" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="It's actually perfect subjunctive following *quin*, which is permissible since it's a doubting clause. The two forms do look alike, but the *quin* is your giveaway. See [A&amp;G 558](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-558.html) for more examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5639" RevisionGUID="d436cdac-42b8-4c3f-86bc-62e86b4bd11c" CreationDate="2017-11-30T15:44:36.193" UserId="45" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="In North &amp; Hillard, Ex 215, the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There can be little doubt that the guides, whether through treachery or ignorance, were mainly responsible for the disaster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is translated by the answer book as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parum quidem dubitari potest quin huius cladis, seu proditione seu inscientia, auctores in primis **fuerint** duces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why deploy the future-perfect, *fuerint* (&quot;they-will-have-been the creators of the disaster&quot;)?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English requires &quot;were....responsible&quot;; for me, there is a credible case for: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *sunt* (&quot;they are the creators&quot;), even though the disaster has already happened; &#xD;&#xA;* *erant*, giving the English: &quot;they were&quot;; and, presumably, continue to be responsible; &#xD;&#xA;* yet again: *fuerunt* (&quot;they were&quot;): a completed process, in the past, now finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts on why *fuerint* is used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5639" RevisionGUID="15dd5404-1ba0-4bcd-a80f-0d047a61478a" CreationDate="2017-11-30T15:46:40.217" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 47 characters in body; edited tags" Text="North &amp; Hillard; Ex 215: &quot;There can be little doubt that the guides, whether through treachery or ignorance, were mainly responsible for the disaster.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answe Book: &quot;parum quidem dubitari potest quin huius cladis, seu proditione seu inscientia, auctores in primis fuerint duces.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why deploy the future-perfect, &quot;fuerint&quot;: they-will-have-been (shall be) the creators of the disaster? The English requires &quot;were... responsible&quot;; for me, there is a credible case for &quot;sunt&quot;: they are the creators; even though the disaster has already happened; or, a logical argument can be made for &quot;erant&quot;&amp;mdash;giving the English: &quot;they were&quot;; and, presumably, continue to be responsible; yet again: &quot;fuerunt&quot;&amp;mdash;they were: a completed process, in the past, now finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts on fuerint?&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18679" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5639" RevisionGUID="15dd5404-1ba0-4bcd-a80f-0d047a61478a" CreationDate="2017-11-30T15:46:40.217" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 47 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|verbs|grammar-identification|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18680" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="5639" RevisionGUID="bf7d9558-de95-4af2-a685-c5204ec5013c" CreationDate="2017-11-30T16:02:17.700" UserId="45" Comment="Rollback to [d436cdac-42b8-4c3f-86bc-62e86b4bd11c]" Text="In North &amp; Hillard, Ex 215, the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There can be little doubt that the guides, whether through treachery or ignorance, were mainly responsible for the disaster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is translated by the answer book as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parum quidem dubitari potest quin huius cladis, seu proditione seu inscientia, auctores in primis **fuerint** duces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why deploy the future-perfect, *fuerint* (&quot;they-will-have-been the creators of the disaster&quot;)?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English requires &quot;were....responsible&quot;; for me, there is a credible case for: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *sunt* (&quot;they are the creators&quot;), even though the disaster has already happened; &#xD;&#xA;* *erant*, giving the English: &quot;they were&quot;; and, presumably, continue to be responsible; &#xD;&#xA;* yet again: *fuerunt* (&quot;they were&quot;): a completed process, in the past, now finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts on why *fuerint* is used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18681" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="5639" RevisionGUID="bf7d9558-de95-4af2-a685-c5204ec5013c" CreationDate="2017-11-30T16:02:17.700" UserId="45" Comment="Rollback to [d436cdac-42b8-4c3f-86bc-62e86b4bd11c]" Text="|translation|" />
  <row Id="18682" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5639" RevisionGUID="e2fc5b0f-5b8c-4a15-8923-a977258cb6c0" CreationDate="2017-11-30T16:02:51.167" UserId="45" Comment="edited tags" Text="|verbs|grammar-identification|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5641" RevisionGUID="04525943-34c6-427c-b7e9-4811c074e1e0" CreationDate="2017-11-30T17:12:33.970" UserId="1877" Text="Moreland has this sentence in Relative Clause of Purpose (Unit 14):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Properatis quo celerius adveniatis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which it translates as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You hasten by which you may arrive more quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective 'Celerius' here is in the accusative but why is it in the neuter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18684" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5641" RevisionGUID="04525943-34c6-427c-b7e9-4811c074e1e0" CreationDate="2017-11-30T17:12:33.970" UserId="1877" Text="Relative Clause of Purpose with Quo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18685" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5641" RevisionGUID="04525943-34c6-427c-b7e9-4811c074e1e0" CreationDate="2017-11-30T17:12:33.970" UserId="1877" Text="|neuter|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5642" RevisionGUID="667273ad-13e8-42e4-85f2-620a4ccca8a3" CreationDate="2017-11-30T17:32:39.590" UserId="645" Text="There's a word *gerrae (f.pl.)*  which is used to mean 'rubbish' or 'nonsense', which might suit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if that won't do, you may like to reflect the origin of the word 'spam' itself )SPiced + hAM). You might compound something on the same lines, perhaps ARomata + perNA, giving a short, first declension feminine noun, **ARPNA**, retaining the letter P to distinguish from *arna*, a lamb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There must be many analogous possibilities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5643" RevisionGUID="a7196149-16e7-4ce3-9b8d-b9d691bcd9ae" CreationDate="2017-11-30T17:46:07.173" UserId="1496" Text="Celerius is the comparative adverb of *celer,-is,-e* and modifies the subjunctive verb *adveniatis*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5641" RevisionGUID="7a8a8962-4484-4aa3-bead-592932f273b1" CreationDate="2017-11-30T19:34:44.263" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="Moreland has this sentence in Relative Clause of Purpose (Unit 14):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Properatis quo celerius adveniatis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which it translates as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You hasten by which you may arrive more quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective 'celerius' here is in the accusative but why is it in the neuter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18689" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5641" RevisionGUID="7a8a8962-4484-4aa3-bead-592932f273b1" CreationDate="2017-11-30T19:34:44.263" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|syntax|grammar-identification|neuter|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="3f302bb0-69b8-46d7-addf-9ec4c123af4a" CreationDate="2017-11-30T19:41:25.240" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I like reading medieval travel literature and I want to translate a short text (one chapter or two) from medieval Latin into English to improve my translation skills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, most medieval travel literature is written in vernacular languages (e.g. English, French or Italian), not Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only medieval work I know written in Latin is the journey of William Rubruck. Are there any similar works? Where can I find them on the Internet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18691" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="3f302bb0-69b8-46d7-addf-9ec4c123af4a" CreationDate="2017-11-30T19:41:25.240" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Good travel literature written in medieval Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18692" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="3f302bb0-69b8-46d7-addf-9ec4c123af4a" CreationDate="2017-11-30T19:41:25.240" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|medieval-latin|passage-request|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2561" RevisionGUID="2bdb9314-bd71-440a-849e-a47372f36375" CreationDate="2017-11-30T19:43:56.330" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="*Hodie* is a Latin adverb meaning &quot;today&quot; or &quot;at the present time&quot;. I am rather curious as to how this word developed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was it originally a compound of *hōc* and *diē*, which would be translated as &quot;on this day&quot;? That's the only theory I have so far; are there perhaps any definitive pieces of evidence on this topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18694" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2561" RevisionGUID="2bdb9314-bd71-440a-849e-a47372f36375" CreationDate="2017-11-30T19:43:56.330" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5642" RevisionGUID="225fea2c-e0d5-4aa3-bff9-29fe33da5e41" CreationDate="2017-11-30T23:16:14.847" UserId="136" Comment="switched parenthesis direction" Text="There's a word *gerrae (f.pl.)*  which is used to mean 'rubbish' or 'nonsense', which might suit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if that won't do, you may like to reflect the origin of the word 'spam' itself (SPiced + hAM). You might compound something on the same lines, perhaps ARomata + perNA, giving a short, first declension feminine noun, **ARPNA**, retaining the letter P to distinguish from *arna*, a lamb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There must be many analogous possibilities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5644" RevisionGUID="ce96d27f-2216-422a-a199-e3bad6ab0c24" CreationDate="2017-12-01T00:39:22.163" UserId="1118" Text="For “platform”, there's a high-profile precedent (the first place I looked actually): “crepido” is used in *Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis*. The sixth chapter, which in English is *The Journey from Platform Nine and Three-quarters*, is titled by Peter Needham as (Caput Sextem) *Iter a Crepidine Novem cum Tribus Partibus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘hamaxostichum undecima hora abiturum a crepidine novem cum tribus partibus modo conscendam,’ legit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; matertera et a avunculus oculos fixerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'a qua crepidine?'&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'a crepidine novem cum tribus partibus.'&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; noli garrire,' inquit Avunculus Vemon, 'non est crepido novem cum tribus partibus.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5645" RevisionGUID="5b99fa38-1e43-4771-bdf2-72938278c68e" CreationDate="2017-12-01T06:07:12.883" UserId="1996" Text="In English, we can take a verb like `swim` and refer to it as a noun in reference to occurrences.  For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. `&quot;That was a good swim,&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;2. `&quot;I have three swims next week.&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a similar construct for Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The *infinitive* and the *gerund* come to mine.  But in the first example, `&quot;swim&quot;` is nominative, so it doesn't fit the usual gerund pattern.  `&quot;Natare bonum erat&quot;` implies `&quot;swimming was good&quot;` rather than referring to a particular instance of a swim that was good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second example, `&quot;swim&quot;` is accusative.  But references I found about the accusative gerunds indicate this was more commonly used for purpose than to refer to instances of occurrence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18698" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5645" RevisionGUID="5b99fa38-1e43-4771-bdf2-72938278c68e" CreationDate="2017-12-01T06:07:12.883" UserId="1996" Text="Instances of Actions - Verbs into Nouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18699" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5645" RevisionGUID="5b99fa38-1e43-4771-bdf2-72938278c68e" CreationDate="2017-12-01T06:07:12.883" UserId="1996" Text="|verbs|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5645" RevisionGUID="734e73d6-8269-4116-bb98-6636beec122f" CreationDate="2017-12-01T06:19:02.757" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and reformatted slightly. Feel free to rollback or re-edit!" Text="In English, we can take a verb like &quot;swim&quot; and refer to it as a noun in reference to occurrences.  For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;That was a good swim,&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;I have three swims next week.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a similar construct for Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The *infinitive* and the *gerund* come to mine.  But in the first example, &quot;swim&quot; is nominative, so it doesn't fit the usual gerund pattern.  &quot;Natare bonum erat&quot; implies &quot;swimming was good&quot; rather than referring to a particular instance of a swim that was good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second example, &quot;swim&quot; is accusative.  But references I found about the accusative gerunds indicate this was more commonly used for purpose than to refer to instances of occurrence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18701" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5645" RevisionGUID="734e73d6-8269-4116-bb98-6636beec122f" CreationDate="2017-12-01T06:19:02.757" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and reformatted slightly. Feel free to rollback or re-edit!" Text="|verbs|derivation|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5647" RevisionGUID="cd520ab9-e89d-4b33-8e90-0e738414a242" CreationDate="2017-12-01T08:32:12.477" UserId="1743" Text="What is the difference between &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Ne** mea dona tibi studio disperta fideli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;**Nec** mea dona tibi studio disperta fideli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and is the latter version, which differs in the single letter 'c' only,  wrong? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Remarks.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* This is a line from a famous poem of Lucretius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* This line, together with the one immediately following it, appears as the epigraph of quite a few, and quite different, 18th- and 19th century texts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The second version does appear in the epigraph, but more rarely than the first line, which of course suggests that the second version is less correct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* My Latin is sadly much too rusty to understand what the difference between the two versions is. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18704" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5647" RevisionGUID="cd520ab9-e89d-4b33-8e90-0e738414a242" CreationDate="2017-12-01T08:32:12.477" UserId="1743" Text="Is the phrase 'Nec mea dona tibi studio disperta fideli' incorrect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18705" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5647" RevisionGUID="cd520ab9-e89d-4b33-8e90-0e738414a242" CreationDate="2017-12-01T08:32:12.477" UserId="1743" Text="|vocabulary|grammar-choice|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5648" RevisionGUID="67f1a2c8-cd6f-4ee9-8d6e-412d9da5f583" CreationDate="2017-12-01T10:17:11.163" UserId="235" Text="These four verses from *De Rerum Natura* employ a [negative purpose clause][1], which uses the conjunction *nē* + the subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod superest, vacuas auris animumque sagacem  &#xD;&#xA;semotum a curis adhibe veram ad rationem,  &#xD;&#xA;ne mea dona tibi studio disposta fideli,  &#xD;&#xA;intellecta prius quam sint, contempta relinquas.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For the rest, ears unpreoccupied and keen intelligence  &#xD;&#xA;detached from cares you should apply to true philosophy, that my   &#xD;&#xA;gifts, set forth for you with faithful solicitude, may not by you be  &#xD;&#xA;contemptuously discarded before they have been apprehended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;([Loeb Classics, *De Rerum Natura* 1.51][2])&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conjunction *nec* is an apocopated forum of *neque*, which in the context of a negative purpose clause means *et nē*. Thus it translates to the same word but with *et* in front. As far as English translation is concerned, the difference between *nec* and *nē* would respectively be, &quot;and that my gifts... may not by you be...&quot; versus &quot;that my gifts... may not by you be...&quot;. The difference consists of a single word, whether or not to add &quot;and&quot; in front.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, *nec = et nē* (in this context) and the difference is simply &quot;and that&quot; versus &quot;that&quot;. However, I'm not sure why the two versions exist. Perhaps someone else could weigh in on which version is more common and why there are two in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/UtClauses.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/lucretius-de_rerum_natura/1924/pb_LCL181.7.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5648" RevisionGUID="fdc3ce38-8f70-4e46-9506-7093ea8701f5" CreationDate="2017-12-01T10:36:03.027" UserId="235" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="These four verses from *De Rerum Natura* employ a [negative purpose clause][1], which uses the conjunction *nē* + the subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod superest, vacuas auris animumque sagacem  &#xD;&#xA;semotum a curis adhibe veram ad rationem,  &#xD;&#xA;ne mea dona tibi studio disposta fideli,  &#xD;&#xA;intellecta prius quam sint, contempta relinquas.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For the rest, ears unpreoccupied and keen intelligence  &#xD;&#xA;detached from cares you should apply to true philosophy, that my   &#xD;&#xA;gifts, set forth for you with faithful solicitude, may not by you be  &#xD;&#xA;contemptuously discarded before they have been apprehended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;([Loeb Classics, *De Rerum Natura* 1.51][2])&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conjunction *nec* is an apocopated forum of *neque*, which in the context of a negative purpose clause means *et nē*. As far as English translation goes, the difference between *nec* and *nē* would simply be, &quot;and that my gifts... may not by you be...&quot; versus &quot;that my gifts... may not by you be...&quot; The difference consists of a single word, whether or not to add &quot;and&quot; in front.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both versions are metrically correct, the only difference being that *nec* is long by position whereas *nē* is long by nature. I'm not sure why one is more common, or why two versions exist in the first place; I'll leave it for someone else to explain that point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/UtClauses.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/lucretius-de_rerum_natura/1924/pb_LCL181.7.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5648" RevisionGUID="7f743ec5-8a0f-402e-8ead-f640dc675753" CreationDate="2017-12-01T10:43:14.437" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="These four verses from *De Rerum Natura* employ a [negative purpose clause][1], which uses the conjunction *nē* + the subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod superest, vacuas auris animumque sagacem  &#xD;&#xA;semotum a curis adhibe veram ad rationem,  &#xD;&#xA;ne mea dona tibi studio disposta fideli,  &#xD;&#xA;intellecta prius quam sint, contempta relinquas.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For the rest, ears unpreoccupied and keen intelligence  &#xD;&#xA;detached from cares you should apply to true philosophy, that my   &#xD;&#xA;gifts, set forth for you with faithful solicitude, may not by you be  &#xD;&#xA;contemptuously discarded before they have been apprehended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;([Loeb Classics, *De Rerum Natura* 1.51][2])&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conjunction *nec* is an apocopated form of *neque*, which in a negative purpose clause means *et nē*. As far as English translation goes, the difference between *nec* and *nē* would simply be, &quot;and that my gifts... may not by you be...&quot; versus &quot;that my gifts... may not by you be...&quot; The difference consists of a single word, whether or not to add &quot;and&quot; in front.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both versions are metrically correct, the only difference being that *nec* is long by position whereas *nē* is long by nature. I'm not sure why one is more common, or why two versions exist in the first place; I'll leave it for someone else to explain that point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/UtClauses.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/lucretius-de_rerum_natura/1924/pb_LCL181.7.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5649" RevisionGUID="faa842b7-aa00-4772-8636-c5f680cecbdb" CreationDate="2017-12-01T11:29:31.227" UserId="235" Text="The words *suppleo* and *sufficio* both derive from the prefix *sub-* (&quot;under&quot;), in which the 'b' of *sub-* is assimilated into the following consonant. Both these words carry the connotation of &quot;being enough&quot;, or &quot;meeting the needs of something or someone&quot;. This connotation is absent without the prefix, i.e. *facio* and *pleo* do not have the same connotation, or at least, not to the same degree. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This inevitably leads me to wonder how the prefix *sub-* could possibly weigh toward this connotation of &quot;being enough&quot;, when paradoxically it means &quot;under&quot;. To further complicate things, the opposite is achieved in the English word &quot;suboptimal&quot;, which has the implication of something *not* being enough, contrary to words like &quot;supply&quot; and &quot;suffice&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What, then, is the logic of *sub-* contributing to this connotation of &quot;being enough&quot;, or &quot;meeting the needs of something or someone&quot;, in Latin words like *suppleo* and *sufficio*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18710" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5649" RevisionGUID="faa842b7-aa00-4772-8636-c5f680cecbdb" CreationDate="2017-12-01T11:29:31.227" UserId="235" Text="What's the logic of sub- in words like suppleo and sufficio?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18711" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5649" RevisionGUID="faa842b7-aa00-4772-8636-c5f680cecbdb" CreationDate="2017-12-01T11:29:31.227" UserId="235" Text="|classical-latin|etymology|meaning|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5649" RevisionGUID="bf0e6c2a-6ad8-4cf1-bdd6-d59f10228dd2" CreationDate="2017-12-01T12:39:43.193" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body; deleted 21 characters in body; deleted 3 characters in body" Text="The words *suppleo* and *sufficio* both derive from the prefix *sub-* (&quot;under&quot;), in which the 'b' of *sub-* is assimilated into the following consonant. Both these words carry the connotation of &quot;being enough&quot;, or &quot;meeting the needs of something or someone&quot;. This connotation is absent without the prefix, i.e. *facio* and *pleo* do not have the same connotation, or at least, not to the same degree. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads me to wonder how the prefix *sub-* could possibly weigh toward this meaning of &quot;being enough&quot;, when paradoxically it means &quot;under&quot;. To further complicate things, the opposite is achieved in the English word &quot;suboptimal&quot;, which has the implication of something *not* being enough, contrary to words like &quot;supply&quot; and &quot;suffice&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does *sub-* contribute to this connotation of &quot;being enough&quot;, or &quot;meeting the needs of something/someone&quot;, in Latin words like *suppleo* and *sufficio*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5648" RevisionGUID="d1f03cce-9a84-4f41-9d50-5818a25474e2" CreationDate="2017-12-01T13:36:42.440" UserId="235" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]; deleted 4 characters in body; edited body" Text="These four verses from *De Rerum Natura* employ a [negative purpose clause][1], which uses the conjunction *nē* + the subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod superest, vacuas auris animumque sagacem  &#xD;&#xA;semotum a curis adhibe veram ad rationem,  &#xD;&#xA;ne mea dona tibi studio disposta fideli,  &#xD;&#xA;intellecta prius quam sint, contempta relinquas.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For the rest, ears unpreoccupied and keen intelligence  &#xD;&#xA;detached from cares you should apply to true philosophy, that my   &#xD;&#xA;gifts, set forth for you with faithful solicitude, may not by you be  &#xD;&#xA;contemptuously discarded before they have been apprehended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;([Loeb Classics, *De Rerum Natura* 1.51][2])&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conjunction *nec* is an apocopated form of *neque*, which in a negative purpose clause means *et nē*. As far as English translation goes, the difference between *nec* and *nē* would simply be, &quot;and that my gifts... may not by you be...&quot; versus &quot;that my gifts... may not by you be...&quot; The difference consists of a single word, whether or not to add &quot;and&quot; in front.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both versions are metrically correct. It's worth mentioning that *nec* is long by position whereas *nē* is long by nature. I'm not sure why one is more common, or why two versions exist in the first place. I'll leave it for someone else to explain that point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/UtClauses.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/lucretius-de_rerum_natura/1924/pb_LCL181.7.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5650" RevisionGUID="0e18f67a-5f7f-4b09-b4cc-81bc3244df29" CreationDate="2017-12-01T17:46:47.120" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18717" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5650" RevisionGUID="0e18f67a-5f7f-4b09-b4cc-81bc3244df29" CreationDate="2017-12-01T17:46:47.120" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5651" RevisionGUID="817b300e-50c9-41fe-9cb4-f219fb2d44ea" CreationDate="2017-12-01T17:46:47.120" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18719" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5651" RevisionGUID="817b300e-50c9-41fe-9cb4-f219fb2d44ea" CreationDate="2017-12-01T17:46:47.120" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5652" RevisionGUID="ce923f3a-24b2-47ed-900f-17af28c5c961" CreationDate="2017-12-01T17:50:34.437" UserId="2179" Text="«Noctis avem», in Ovid's Metamorphoses XI 24, about (presumably) an owl." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18721" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5391" RevisionGUID="a80aa161-1a52-4a67-a1bb-908a9f67e1f0" CreationDate="2017-12-01T18:20:51.090" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="18722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5653" RevisionGUID="0971d3ea-6d6d-4927-b350-a9a21337e158" CreationDate="2017-12-01T18:39:11.580" UserId="306" Text="My reading of the Lewis and Short entry is that *constitutio* meant an imperial edict, and over time, came to mean any law. The excerpted text of Justinian says:&#xA;&#xA;quodcumque ergo imperator per epistulam promulgavit, vel cognoscens decrevit, vel edicto praecepit, legem esse constat; hae sunt quae constitutiones appellantur.&#xA;&#xA;The Online Etymology Dictionary [entry for “constitution”][1] says that the English word came from that sense of the Latin. &#xA;&#xA;It’s possible that the semantic shift from “a law” to the modern meaning all occurred in English, and Neo-Latin writers just Latinized the English word “constitution”, ignoring the gap between the Roman and modern connotations. &#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.etymonline.com/word/constitution" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5651" RevisionGUID="c8abb300-b569-47a3-8572-0ed1969472ad" CreationDate="2017-12-01T21:23:54.210" UserId="840" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="Questions related to the Roman poet Decimus Iūnius Iuvenālis or Juvenal, who wrote a collection of satirical poems known as the Satires." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18726" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5651" RevisionGUID="c8abb300-b569-47a3-8572-0ed1969472ad" CreationDate="2017-12-01T21:23:54.210" Comment="Proposed by 840 approved by 79 edit id of 218" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5653" RevisionGUID="d428abef-b172-49ec-9fa3-f0889c779c2a" CreationDate="2017-12-01T21:24:21.490" UserId="79" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="My reading of the Lewis and Short entry is that *constitutio* meant an imperial edict, and over time, came to mean any law. The excerpted text of Justinian says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quodcumque ergo imperator per epistulam promulgavit, vel cognoscens decrevit, vel edicto praecepit, legem esse constat; hae sunt quae constitutiones appellantur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Online Etymology Dictionary [entry for “constitution”][1] says that the English word came from that sense of the Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It’s possible that the semantic shift from “a law” to the modern meaning all occurred in English, and Neo-Latin writers just Latinized the English word “constitution”, ignoring the gap between the Roman and modern connotations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.etymonline.com/word/constitution" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5655" RevisionGUID="50d765fc-423e-4792-9723-59cffa7448dc" CreationDate="2017-12-02T01:02:48.333" UserId="1496" Text="The first thing that comes to mind is the *-or* suffix that forms abstract nouns, like `amare` -&gt; `amor`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This probably would not work well with `natare`. I propose `natatio,-onis` . Accoring to [L.S.](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=natatio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), this could convey the meaning of an instance of swimming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same suffix *-tio* also forms nouns from other verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="046dfa11-936a-4f71-9522-2128fec0c948" CreationDate="2017-12-02T01:13:24.723" UserId="118" Text="My semi-educated guess* is that one extended sense of _sub-,_ &quot;under&quot;, is &quot;raised up by something below&quot;, especially to ground level—that is, supported or providing support. The English word &quot;support&quot; might itself illustrate this (see below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is _[suggestum](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=suggestum),_ a raised platform such as a stage or pulpit, or a mound, from _[suggero](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suggero&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)_ &lt; _sub- gero,_ &quot;I carry/bear/hold _from below._&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in Latin, _sub_'s core meaning of &quot;under&quot; is often extended or specialized to mean &quot;exerting a force from underneath the object in question&quot;, especially a force that helps stabilize it or provide it a ground to stand on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of &quot;not enough&quot; is itself just another extension of &quot;under&quot;, equally as reasonable as &quot;providing a stabilizing force from below.&quot; Other extended senses are &quot;pushing down from above, holding below&quot; as in _[supprimo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=supprimo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;I press down, hold in check&quot;, and &quot;sending downward&quot; as in _[subverto](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=subverto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;I overturn, topple, ruin&quot;. The various extended senses often contradict each other, but there's nothing unusual about that. The primary sense of _per_ is &quot;through&quot;, which is extended sometimes to &quot;thoroughly, fully, greatly&quot; as in _[perplaceo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dperplaceo),_ &quot;to please greatly&quot;, and sometimes to &quot;badly, wrongly&quot; as in _[perversus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=perverto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;overthrown, ruined, wrong, evil,&quot; and perhaps &quot;twisted&quot; (in its English sense as a synonym of &quot;perverse&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/word/sub-) suggests that _sub-/sup-_ might come from older roots _ex-upo-,_ meaning &quot;up from under&quot; or perhaps &quot;coming from below&quot;—so _sub-_ in this sense of exerting a force from below might even be felt as more fundamental in Latin than merely &quot;under&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _[Surgo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=surgo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059):_ &quot;I arise&quot;, &quot;I elevate&quot;, from _sub rego._ In an _[insurrectio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=insurrectio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;rebellion&quot;, *sub*ordinate factions in a society &quot;rise up&quot; to overthrow those who are &quot;on top&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _[Supporto](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=supporto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059):_ &quot;bring to a place&quot;, especially to bring supplies. Perhaps the metaphor is that of carrying supplies &quot;up&quot; from where they are to where they are needed. I don't know when &quot;support&quot; got its modern meaning of &quot;lifting up, providing a foundation&quot;, but it would appear that _sub_'s sense of &quot;exerting force from below&quot; itself exerted a lot of force for a long time (though no longer in modern in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _[Suborno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suborno&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;I equip&quot;, &quot;I instigate&quot;, and _[suggesto](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suggero&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;I supply&quot;, &quot;I advise&quot;, &quot;I bring to mind&quot;, the verb at the root of _suggestum_, &quot;a raised platform&quot;, suggests that _sub-_ pairs well with verbs meaning &quot;fill a need&quot;. _[Suppleo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suppleo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)_ would seem to echo this notion (and/or _vice versa_). It's easy to think of &quot;filling&quot; a need similarly to &quot;filling&quot; a bucket—filling tending to start from below until the bucket is full, though I know of no specific evidence of this metaphor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Another sense of _[sufficio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=sufficio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)_ is &quot;I substitute for, I fill in for&quot;. Many of the examples in Lewis &amp; Short seem to involve someone from lower in a hierarchy &quot;coming up&quot; to fill in for a recently vacated higher position. For example, a _[suffectus consul](https://books.google.com/books?id=cyEI5755N2UC&amp;pg=PA364&amp;dq=%22suffectus+consul%22&amp;hl=la&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiG6tXZjurXAhVI5YMKHS_8DUsQuwUIWjAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22suffectus%20consul%22&amp;f=false)_ is a [supplementary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/supplement#Etymology) consul: a vice consul who finishes a consul's term (or perhaps someone appointed to be available to fill in as needed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The many senses of _[subicio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=subicio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)_ seem to illustrate the many Latin ways of extending the core meaning of _sub-,_ generating contradictory senses of the very same word: &quot;I launch downward&quot;, &quot;I supply&quot;, &quot;I lie beneath&quot;, &quot;I place under&quot; (as under a category), &quot;I subject to&quot;, &quot;I forge&quot; (substitute worse for better), etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt;I'm not an expert on Latin, so don't give any authority to my conjecture. Hopefully my answer will provoke either a refutation or a better-documented confirmation from someone _magis doctus._&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="dedfb001-8f9b-4088-a315-f37db830ec92" CreationDate="2017-12-02T01:20:37.070" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="My semi-educated guess is that one extended sense of _sub-,_ &quot;under&quot;, is &quot;raised up by something below&quot;, especially to ground level—that is, supported or providing support. The English word &quot;support&quot; might itself illustrate this (see below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is _[suggestum](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=suggestum),_ a raised platform such as a stage or pulpit, or a mound, from _[suggero](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suggero&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)_ &lt; _sub- gero,_ &quot;I carry/bear/hold _from below._&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in Latin, _sub_'s core meaning of &quot;under&quot; is often extended or specialized to mean &quot;exerting a force from underneath the object in question&quot;, especially a force that helps stabilize it or provide it a ground to stand on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of &quot;not enough&quot; is itself just another extension of &quot;under&quot;, equally as reasonable as &quot;providing a stabilizing force from below.&quot; Other extended senses are &quot;pushing down from above, holding below&quot; as in _[supprimo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=supprimo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;I press down, hold in check&quot;, and &quot;sending downward&quot; as in _[subverto](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=subverto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;I overturn, topple, ruin&quot;. The various extended senses often contradict each other, but there's nothing unusual about that. The primary sense of _per_ is &quot;through&quot;, which is extended sometimes to &quot;thoroughly, fully, greatly&quot; as in _[perplaceo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dperplaceo),_ &quot;I please greatly&quot;, and sometimes to &quot;badly, wrongly&quot; as in _[perversus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=perverto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;overthrown, ruined, wrong, evil,&quot; and perhaps &quot;twisted&quot; (in its English sense as a synonym of &quot;perverse&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/word/sub-) suggests that _sub-/sup-_ might come from older roots _ex-upo-,_ meaning &quot;up from under&quot; or perhaps &quot;coming from below&quot;—so _sub-_ in this sense of exerting a force from below might even be felt as more fundamental in Latin than merely &quot;under&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _[Surgo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=surgo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059):_ &quot;I arise&quot;, &quot;I elevate&quot;, from _sub rego._ In an _[insurrectio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=insurrectio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;rebellion&quot;, *sub*ordinate factions in a society &quot;rise up&quot; to overthrow those who are &quot;on top&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _[Supporto](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=supporto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059):_ &quot;I bring to a place&quot;, especially supplies. Perhaps the metaphor is that of carrying supplies &quot;up&quot; from where they are to where they are needed. I don't know when &quot;support&quot; got its modern meaning of &quot;lifting up, providing a foundation&quot;, but it would appear that _sub_'s sense of &quot;exerting force from below&quot; itself exerted a lot of force for a long time (though no longer in modern in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _[Suborno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suborno&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;I equip&quot;, &quot;I instigate&quot;, and _[suggesto](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suggero&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;I supply&quot;, &quot;I advise&quot;, &quot;I bring to mind&quot;, the verb at the root of _suggestum_, &quot;a raised platform&quot;, suggests that _sub-_ pairs well with verbs meaning &quot;fill a need&quot;. _[Suppleo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suppleo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)_ would seem to echo this notion (and/or _vice versa_). It's easy to think of &quot;filling&quot; a need similarly to &quot;filling&quot; a bucket—filling tending to start from below until the bucket is full, though I know of no specific evidence of this metaphor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Another sense of _[sufficio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=sufficio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)_ is &quot;I substitute for, I fill in for&quot;. Many of the examples in Lewis &amp; Short seem to involve someone from lower in a hierarchy &quot;coming up&quot; to fill a recently vacated higher position. For example, a _[suffectus consul](https://books.google.com/books?id=cyEI5755N2UC&amp;pg=PA364&amp;dq=%22suffectus+consul%22&amp;hl=la&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiG6tXZjurXAhVI5YMKHS_8DUsQuwUIWjAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22suffectus%20consul%22&amp;f=false)_ is a [supplementary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/supplement#Etymology) consul: a vice consul who finishes a consul's term (or perhaps someone appointed to be available to fill in as needed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The many senses of _[subicio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=subicio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)_ seem to illustrate the many Latin ways of extending the core meaning of _sub-,_ generating contradictory senses of the very same word: &quot;I launch downward&quot;, &quot;I supply&quot;, &quot;I lie beneath&quot;, &quot;I place under&quot; (as under a category), &quot;I subject to&quot;, &quot;I forge&quot; (substitute worse for better), etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="4234907b-b3f6-498f-926b-c185bb452686" CreationDate="2017-12-02T02:57:56.027" UserId="118" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="My semi-educated guess is that one extended sense of _sub-,_ &quot;under&quot;, is &quot;raised up by something below&quot;, especially to ground level—that is, supported or providing support. The English word &quot;support&quot; might itself illustrate this (see below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is _[suggestum](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=suggestum),_ a raised platform such as a stage or pulpit, or a mound, from _[suggero](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suggero&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)_ &lt; _sub- gero,_ &quot;I carry/bear/hold _from below._&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in Latin, _sub_'s core meaning of &quot;under&quot; is often extended or specialized to mean &quot;exerting a force from underneath the object in question&quot;, especially a force that helps stabilize it or provide it a ground to stand on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of &quot;not enough&quot; is itself just another extension of &quot;under&quot;, equally as reasonable as &quot;providing a stabilizing force from below.&quot; Other extended senses are &quot;pushing down from above, holding below&quot; as in _[supprimo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=supprimo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;I press down, hold in check&quot;, and &quot;sending downward&quot; as in _[subverto](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=subverto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;I overturn, topple, ruin&quot;. The various extended senses often contradict each other, but there's nothing unusual about that. The primary sense of _per_ is &quot;through&quot;, which is extended sometimes to &quot;thoroughly, fully, greatly&quot; as in _[perplaceo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dperplaceo),_ &quot;I please greatly&quot;, and sometimes to &quot;badly, wrongly&quot; as in _[perversus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=perverto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;overthrown, ruined, wrong, evil,&quot; and perhaps &quot;twisted&quot; (in its English sense as a synonym of &quot;perverse&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/word/sub-) suggests that _sub-/sup-_ might come from older roots _ex-upo-,_ meaning &quot;out from under&quot; or perhaps &quot;coming from below&quot;—so _sub-_ in this sense of exerting a force from below might even be felt as more fundamental in Latin than merely &quot;under&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _[Surgo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=surgo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059):_ &quot;I arise&quot;, &quot;I elevate&quot;, from _sub rego._ In an _[insurrectio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=insurrectio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;rebellion&quot;, *sub*ordinate factions in a society &quot;rise up&quot; to overthrow those who are &quot;on top&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _[Supporto](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=supporto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059):_ &quot;I bring to a place&quot;, especially supplies. Perhaps the metaphor is that of carrying supplies &quot;up&quot; from where they are to where they are needed. I don't know when &quot;support&quot; got its modern meaning of &quot;lifting up, providing a foundation&quot;, but it would appear that _sub_'s sense of &quot;exerting force from below&quot; itself exerted a lot of force for a long time (though no longer in modern in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _[Suborno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suborno&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;I equip&quot;, &quot;I instigate&quot;, and _[suggesto](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suggero&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;I supply&quot;, &quot;I advise&quot;, &quot;I bring to mind&quot;, the verb at the root of _suggestum_, &quot;a raised platform&quot;, suggests that _sub-_ pairs well with verbs meaning &quot;fill a need&quot;. _[Suppleo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suppleo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)_ would seem to echo this notion (and/or _vice versa_). It's easy to think of &quot;filling&quot; a need similarly to &quot;filling&quot; a bucket—filling tending to start from below until the bucket is full, though I know of no specific evidence of this metaphor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Another sense of _[sufficio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=sufficio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)_ is &quot;I substitute for, I fill in for&quot;. Many of the examples in Lewis &amp; Short seem to involve someone from lower in a hierarchy &quot;coming up&quot; to fill a recently vacated higher position. For example, a _[suffectus consul](https://books.google.com/books?id=cyEI5755N2UC&amp;pg=PA364&amp;dq=%22suffectus+consul%22&amp;hl=la&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiG6tXZjurXAhVI5YMKHS_8DUsQuwUIWjAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22suffectus%20consul%22&amp;f=false)_ is a [supplementary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/supplement#Etymology) consul: a vice consul who finishes a consul's term (or perhaps someone appointed to be available to fill in as needed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The many senses of _[subicio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=subicio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)_ seem to illustrate the many Latin ways of extending the core meaning of _sub-,_ generating contradictory senses of the very same word: &quot;I launch downward&quot;, &quot;I supply&quot;, &quot;I lie beneath&quot;, &quot;I place under&quot; (as under a category), &quot;I subject to&quot;, &quot;I forge&quot; (substitute worse for better), etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="19601953-813c-4cdf-8049-5ddccb3b0052" CreationDate="2017-12-02T03:07:13.180" UserId="118" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="My semi-educated guess is that one extended sense of _sub-,_ &quot;under&quot;, is &quot;raised up by something below&quot;, especially to ground level—that is, supported or providing support. The English word &quot;support&quot; might itself illustrate this (see below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is _[suggestum](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=suggestum),_ a [raised platform](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5497/118) such as a stage or pulpit, or a mound, from _[suggero](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suggero&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)_ &lt; _sub- gero,_ &quot;I carry/bear/hold _from below._&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in Latin, _sub_'s core meaning of &quot;under&quot; is often extended or specialized to mean &quot;exerting a force from underneath the object in question&quot;, especially a force that helps stabilize it or provide it a ground to stand on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of &quot;not enough&quot; is itself just another extension of &quot;under&quot;, equally as reasonable as &quot;providing a stabilizing force from below.&quot; Other extended senses are &quot;pushing down from above, holding below&quot; as in _[supprimo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=supprimo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;I press down, hold in check&quot;, and &quot;sending downward&quot; as in _[subverto](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=subverto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;I overturn, topple, ruin&quot;. The various extended senses often contradict each other, but there's nothing unusual about that. The primary sense of _per_ is &quot;through&quot;, which is extended sometimes to &quot;thoroughly, fully, greatly&quot; as in _[perplaceo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dperplaceo),_ &quot;I please greatly&quot;, and sometimes to &quot;badly, wrongly&quot; as in _[perversus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=perverto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;overthrown, ruined, wrong, evil,&quot; and perhaps &quot;twisted&quot; (in its English sense as a synonym of &quot;perverse&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/word/sub-) suggests that _sub-/sup-_ might come from older roots _ex-upo-,_ meaning &quot;out from under&quot; or perhaps &quot;coming from below&quot;—so _sub-_ in this sense of exerting a force from below might even be felt as more fundamental in Latin than merely &quot;under&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _[Surgo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=surgo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059):_ &quot;I arise&quot;, &quot;I elevate&quot;, from _sub rego._ In an _[insurrectio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=insurrectio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;rebellion&quot;, *sub*ordinate factions in a society &quot;rise up&quot; to overthrow those who are &quot;on top&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _[Supporto](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=supporto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059):_ &quot;I bring to a place&quot;, especially supplies. Perhaps the metaphor is that of carrying supplies &quot;up&quot; from where they are to where they are needed. I don't know when &quot;support&quot; got its modern meaning of &quot;lifting up, providing a foundation&quot;, but it would appear that _sub_'s sense of &quot;exerting force from below&quot; itself exerted a lot of force for a long time (though no longer in modern in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _[Suborno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suborno&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;I equip&quot;, &quot;I instigate&quot;, and _[suggesto](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suggero&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;I supply&quot;, &quot;I advise&quot;, &quot;I bring to mind&quot;, the verb at the root of _suggestum_, &quot;a raised platform&quot;, suggests that _sub-_ pairs well with verbs meaning &quot;fill a need&quot;. _[Suppleo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suppleo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)_ would seem to echo this notion (and/or _vice versa_). It's easy to think of &quot;filling&quot; a need similarly to &quot;filling&quot; a bucket—filling tending to start from below until the bucket is full, though I know of no specific evidence of this metaphor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Another sense of _[sufficio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=sufficio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)_ is &quot;I substitute for, I fill in for&quot;. Many of the examples in Lewis &amp; Short seem to involve someone from lower in a hierarchy &quot;coming up&quot; to fill a recently vacated higher position. For example, a _[suffectus consul](https://books.google.com/books?id=cyEI5755N2UC&amp;pg=PA364&amp;dq=%22suffectus+consul%22&amp;hl=la&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiG6tXZjurXAhVI5YMKHS_8DUsQuwUIWjAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22suffectus%20consul%22&amp;f=false)_ is a [supplementary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/supplement#Etymology) consul: a vice consul who finishes a consul's term (or perhaps someone appointed to be available to fill in as needed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The many senses of _[subicio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=subicio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)_ seem to illustrate the many Latin ways of extending the core meaning of _sub-,_ generating contradictory senses of the very same word: &quot;I launch downward&quot;, &quot;I supply&quot;, &quot;I lie beneath&quot;, &quot;I place under&quot; (as under a category), &quot;I subject to&quot;, &quot;I forge&quot; (substitute worse for better), etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5657" RevisionGUID="a62bd6d2-d33e-4203-912f-a9225c206286" CreationDate="2017-12-02T03:43:03.147" UserId="118" Text="Ecce apud [Stationem Segedunensis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallsend_Metro_station) in Britannia exemplum hodiernum unius vocabulorum quæ petis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Libellum apud Stationem Segedunensis][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HQ65l.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5657" RevisionGUID="1c9739e6-869f-47b8-808a-dfbc5f409ea1" CreationDate="2017-12-02T03:48:41.467" UserId="118" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="Ecce apud [Stationem Segedunensis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallsend_Metro_station) in Britannia exemplum hodiernum unius vocabulorum quæ petis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Libellum apud Stationem Segedunensis][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HQ65l.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Præsumo Romanos Antiquos libellum reliquisse, ergo auctoritatem supremam gerit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="ed666d96-dd7e-4ad7-a49e-4d985b25dc26" CreationDate="2017-12-02T04:14:42.837" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="My semi-educated guess is that one extended sense of _sub-,_ &quot;under&quot;, is &quot;raised up by something below&quot;, especially to ground level—that is, supported or providing support. The English word &quot;support&quot; might itself illustrate this (see below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is _[suggestum](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=suggestum),_ a [raised platform](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5497/118) such as a stage or pulpit, or a mound, from _[suggero](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suggero&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)_ &lt; _sub- gero,_ &quot;I carry/bear/hold _from below._&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in Latin, _sub_'s core meaning of &quot;under&quot; is often extended or specialized to mean &quot;exerting a force from underneath the object in question&quot;, especially a force that helps stabilize it or provide it a ground to stand on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of &quot;not enough&quot; is itself just another extension of &quot;under&quot;, equally as reasonable as &quot;providing a stabilizing force from below.&quot; Other extended senses are &quot;pushing down from above&quot; as in _[supprimo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=supprimo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;I press down, hold in check&quot;, and &quot;sending downward&quot; as in _[subverto](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=subverto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;I overturn, topple, ruin&quot;. The various extended senses often contradict each other, but there's nothing unusual about that. The primary sense of _per_ is &quot;through&quot;, which is extended sometimes to &quot;thoroughly, fully, greatly&quot; as in _[perplaceo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dperplaceo),_ &quot;I please greatly&quot;, and sometimes to &quot;badly, wrongly&quot; as in _[perversus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=perverto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;overthrown, ruined, wrong, evil,&quot; and perhaps &quot;twisted&quot; (in its English sense as a synonym of &quot;perverse&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/word/sub-) suggests that _sub-/sup-_ might come from older roots _ex-upo-,_ meaning &quot;out from under&quot; or perhaps &quot;coming from below&quot;—so _sub-_ in this sense of exerting a force from below might even be felt as more fundamental in Latin than merely &quot;under&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _[Surgo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=surgo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059):_ &quot;I arise&quot;, &quot;I elevate&quot;, from _sub rego._ In an _[insurrectio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=insurrectio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;rebellion&quot;, *sub*ordinate factions in a society &quot;rise up&quot; to overthrow those who are &quot;on top&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _[Supporto](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=supporto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059):_ &quot;I bring to a place&quot;, especially supplies. Perhaps the metaphor is that of carrying supplies &quot;up&quot; from where they are to where they are needed. I don't know when &quot;support&quot; got its modern meaning of &quot;lifting up, providing a foundation&quot;, but it would appear that _sub_'s sense of &quot;exerting force from below&quot; itself exerted a lot of force for a long time (though no longer in modern in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _[Suborno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suborno&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;I equip&quot;, &quot;I instigate&quot;, and _[suggesto](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suggero&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059),_ &quot;I supply&quot;, &quot;I advise&quot;, &quot;I bring to mind&quot;, the verb at the root of _suggestum_, &quot;a raised platform&quot;, suggests that _sub-_ pairs well with verbs meaning &quot;fill a need&quot;. _[Suppleo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suppleo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)_ would seem to echo this notion (and/or _vice versa_). It's easy to think of &quot;filling&quot; a need similarly to &quot;filling&quot; a bucket—filling tending to start from below until the bucket is full, though I know of no specific evidence of this metaphor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Another sense of _[sufficio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=sufficio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)_ is &quot;I substitute for, I fill in for&quot;. Many of the examples in Lewis &amp; Short seem to involve someone from lower in a hierarchy &quot;coming up&quot; to fill a recently vacated higher position. For example, a _[suffectus consul](https://books.google.com/books?id=cyEI5755N2UC&amp;pg=PA364&amp;dq=%22suffectus+consul%22&amp;hl=la&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiG6tXZjurXAhVI5YMKHS_8DUsQuwUIWjAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22suffectus%20consul%22&amp;f=false)_ is a [supplementary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/supplement#Etymology) consul: a vice consul who finishes a consul's term (or perhaps someone appointed to be available to fill in as needed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The many senses of _[subicio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=subicio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)_ seem to illustrate the many Latin ways of extending the core meaning of _sub-,_ generating contradictory senses of the very same word: &quot;I launch downward&quot;, &quot;I supply&quot;, &quot;I lie beneath&quot;, &quot;I place under&quot; (as under a category), &quot;I subject to&quot;, &quot;I forge&quot; (substitute worse for better), etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="bc186223-08bb-4a66-96af-7ed11a7341f5" CreationDate="2017-12-02T07:29:23.610" UserId="68" Text="Given an accusative subject of oratio obliqua, if that subject is or words declined with it it are repeated in a subordinate subjunctive, are they accusative or nominative in the subjunctive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exemplī grātiā, would I write&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quīdam scrīpsit, eam plānē īnsciam esse, ejus quod **factūra** esset vēnisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Quīdam scrīpsit, eam plānē īnsciam esse, ejus quod **factūram** esset vēnisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My gut says the first, but my gut is also what has me awake at 2:30 in the morning, so I'm not sure how far I can trust it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18740" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="bc186223-08bb-4a66-96af-7ed11a7341f5" CreationDate="2017-12-02T07:29:23.610" UserId="68" Text="oratio obliqua and case agreement between accusative subject and subject in subordinate subjunctive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18741" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="bc186223-08bb-4a66-96af-7ed11a7341f5" CreationDate="2017-12-02T07:29:23.610" UserId="68" Text="|grammar-choice|conjunctive|oratio-obliqua|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5659" RevisionGUID="bc0eea2f-bb9b-4c20-bc41-d4afb50a2ea3" CreationDate="2017-12-02T07:39:40.567" UserId="68" Text="The living Latinists I know use the verb *incidere*. I've heard both *incisum* and *incisio* as a noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5660" RevisionGUID="d22141bd-aaf9-4218-8bd6-21b6bef9f960" CreationDate="2017-12-02T08:35:07.610" UserId="68" Text="Just for fun, I'll add a version with some other possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Trump sī nōs tormentīs rētrōrsum jaciet in minus ērūdīta sæcula hominum, omnibus sermōnem Latīnum callēre opus fuerit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Trump**: I'll just note that my preferred moniker for the gentleman in question is *Cynocephalus*, but in deference to those who might esteem him differently I'll just use his name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tormentīs**: I was going to go with *pyrobolīs*, but I see that's already in one of the comments, so I threw this in. (*Pyrobolus* is also I realize it does risk creating the image in the listener's mind of Trump as the ringleader at a circus shooting us out of a cannon, but I figure that the idea is fairly clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in minus ērūdīta sæcula hominum**: This is from Cicero, *Rēs Publica*. My computer's being wonky so I can't find the specific passage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**sermōnem Latīnum callēre**: My default here would be *Latīne loquī*, but I offer this as another option. I also considered *Latīne sermōcinārī posse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**jaciet/fuerit**: I put the protasis in future most vivid, given that I think the possibility of this happening is quite likely. For the apodosis I thought it might be fun to use the future perfect, except imagining it as a perfect future, so to speak: &quot;it have will be necessary for us.&quot; That is, in the past, it was necessary that in the future we learn Latin. Obviously *erit* is what's called for here but, hey, it's 3:30 in the morning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5660" RevisionGUID="0e314468-2f05-41b7-9c45-4da96047430f" CreationDate="2017-12-02T08:41:03.433" UserId="68" Comment="added 6 characters in body; added 39 characters in body" Text="Just for fun, I'll add a version with some other possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Trump sī nōs tormentīs rētrōrsum conjiciet in minus ērūdīta sæcula hominum, omnibus sermōnem Latīnum callēre opus fuerit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Trump**: I'll just note that my preferred moniker for the gentleman in question is *Cynocephalus*, but in deference to those who might esteem him differently I'll just use his name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tormentīs**: I was going to go with *pyrobolīs*, but I see that's already in one of the comments, so I threw this in. (I'm not sure I completely buy *pyrobolus* anyway.) I realize *tormenta* does risk creating the image in the listener's mind of Trump as the ringleader at a circus shooting us out of a cannon, but I figure that the idea is fairly clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in minus ērūdīta sæcula hominum**: This is from Cicero, *Rēs Publica*. My computer's being wonky so I can't find the specific passage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**sermōnem Latīnum callēre**: My default here would be *Latīne loquī*, but I offer this as another option. I also considered *Latīne sermōcinārī posse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**conjiciet/fuerit**: I put the protasis in future most vivid, given that I think the possibility of this happening is quite likely. For the apodosis I thought it might be fun to use the future perfect, except imagining it as a perfect future, so to speak: &quot;it have will be necessary for us.&quot; That is, in the past, it was necessary that in the future we learn Latin. Obviously *erit* is what's called for here but, hey, it's 3:30 in the morning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5661" RevisionGUID="30e1019c-31a3-4b0a-a227-9fe9ebf8a968" CreationDate="2017-12-02T09:25:47.007" UserId="2132" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I came across the phrase &quot;ad astra per aspera&quot; -- &quot;to the stars through difficulties.&quot; I think I know what it means, but mt interpretation appears to be at odds with others. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The motto of Kansas, &quot;Ad Astra per Aspera&quot; is Latin for  John James&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ingalls coined the motto in 1861 stating, &quot;**The aspiration of Kansas is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to reach the unattainable; its dream is the realization of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; impossible.&quot; According to the Office of the Governor of Kansas: &quot;This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; motto refers not only to the pioneering spirit of the early settlers,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but also the difficult times Kansas went through before becoming a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; state.** The anti-slavery forces and slavery proponents waged battles in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the electoral process as well as on the battlefield. Kansas earned the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nickname &quot;Bloody Kansas&quot; because of the war regarding slavery, much of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which was fought on Kansas' soil.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, I would agree with this meaning, but this is the context I would like to use it in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, it's an aspirational statement about achieving great things. However, it's just as equally a moral claim that if greatness is acquired without suffering, hardship, ortoil, then something is lost. Yet it also appears to be a claim that it is from these very hardships that one acquires this greatness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I reading into this a little too much? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18746" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5661" RevisionGUID="30e1019c-31a3-4b0a-a227-9fe9ebf8a968" CreationDate="2017-12-02T09:25:47.007" UserId="2132" Text="Is my interpretation of &quot;Ad Astra per Aspera&quot; correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18747" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5661" RevisionGUID="30e1019c-31a3-4b0a-a227-9fe9ebf8a968" CreationDate="2017-12-02T09:25:47.007" UserId="2132" Text="|translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5662" RevisionGUID="660c2046-887d-4a65-beb5-f520ac0339cd" CreationDate="2017-12-02T12:35:00.957" UserId="645" Text="An audio recording is something that is intended for — as you might put it — seeking out and hearing again. This suggests the use of *repeto* for the verbal part, to follow *vox*, which I agree with Joonas is the best word for any recorded sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this basis, I recommend *vox repetenda*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="dc248abe-b0e1-4395-a671-1b7667ef9dac" CreationDate="2017-12-02T13:46:32.657" UserId="68" Comment="added 99 characters in body; deleted 7 characters in body" Text="Given an accusative subject of oratio obliqua, if that subject is or words declined with it it are repeated in a subordinate subjunctive, are they accusative or nominative in the subjunctive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exemplī grātiā, if I wanted to say, &quot;Someone wrote that she had come here entirely unaware of what she would be doing,&quot; would I write&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quīdam scrīpsit, eam plānē īnsciam ejus quod **factūra** esset vēnisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Quīdam scrīpsit, eam plānē īnsciam ejus quod **factūram** esset vēnisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My gut says the first, but my gut is also what has me awake at 2:30 in the morning, so I'm not sure how far I can trust it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="dbe39ee9-7d5c-4f25-ae07-cf3a89347e6d" CreationDate="2017-12-02T13:57:37.547" UserId="68" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Given an accusative subject of oratio obliqua, if that subject is or words declined with it it are repeated in a subordinate subjunctive, are they accusative or nominative in the subjunctive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exemplī grātiā, if I wanted to say, &quot;Someone wrote that she had come here entirely unaware of what she would be doing,&quot; would I write&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quīdam scrīpsit, eam plānē īnsciam ejus, quod **factūra** esset, vēnisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Quīdam scrīpsit, eam plānē īnsciam ejus, quod **factūram** esset, vēnisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My gut says the first, but my gut is also what has me awake at 2:30 in the morning, so I'm not sure how far I can trust it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5615" RevisionGUID="5c7bbef6-d903-4dcc-82c4-dfd3d237fa6b" CreationDate="2017-12-02T15:45:09.923" UserId="118" Comment="Corrected a couple typos" Text="If you're asking if you can nest genitives, of course you can. This particular one is a bit extreme, and sounds more poetical to me, but the practice is fine. Compare Cicero's *Republic* 1.13.10:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unius aetatis **clarissimorum ac sapientissimorum nostrae civitatis virorum** disputatio repetenda memoria est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, *clarissimorum ac sapientissimorum* modify *virorum*, with *nostrae civitatis* in the middle: &quot;the most distinguished and wisest men of our commonwealth.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek, I've seen the nesting encompass quite a lot, too, and in poetry it's not uncommon to see some examples on the extreme side." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5614" RevisionGUID="07c328e9-df6a-47ea-a192-51020a5d25c6" CreationDate="2017-12-02T15:51:38.917" UserId="118" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I just said this to a friend:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ecce in hac pagina [vox](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5613/118) **Iohannis Ørbergii** capitula a primo usque ad decimum _Linguae Latinae Per Se Illustratae_ **legentis**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://sites.google.com/site/sobrinointroductiontolatin/audio-recordings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've got the genitive _Linguae Latinae_ modifying _capitula_ in between the genitive **Iohannis Ørbergii** and its modifier **legentis**. Can you…_do_ that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5618" RevisionGUID="f3faa26b-ab37-4302-8e34-a38b47d5d079" CreationDate="2017-12-02T16:40:39.297" UserId="79" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="The best word for &quot;audio&quot; that I could think of is *vox*.&#xD;&#xA;There are several words for sound, but *vox* sounds more neutral to me than *canor*, *clamor*, or *strepitus*, for example.&#xD;&#xA;However, *vox* is not easily recognized as a technical term &quot;audio&quot; as opposed to &quot;sound&quot; or &quot;voice&quot; when the distinction is important, so beware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;audio&quot; of course comes from Latin and has made its way to a number of languages, but I would advice against using the word in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;One could treat it as a noun in analogue to [*volo*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DV%3Aentry+group%3D26%3Aentry%3Dvolo3), but I'm suspicious of that analogy.&#xD;&#xA;I am even more suspicious of the noun *audium*.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use the verb *audire* without losing too much in style or intelligibility, I recommend *audiendum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;recording&quot; is complicated, too.&#xD;&#xA;The best noun I found was *vivarium*, but it might be too colorful for a technical term.&#xD;&#xA;I used this word in the sense that a recording keeps a sound alive but confined, ready to be released, as if recorded audio was a caged animal.&#xD;&#xA;You might be better off with a verb like *conservare*, *condere*, or similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Collecting these ideas, my suggestion for &quot;audio recording&quot; is ***vox conservata***.&#xD;&#xA;Sure, it sounds quite a bit like &quot;pickled voice&quot;, but I don't see a way around connotations of this kind.&#xD;&#xA;(I would like to see if someone else sees one!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side remark:&#xD;&#xA;I answered the question as stated (and it is an interesting one).&#xD;&#xA;Judging by the linked questions, you wanted to write something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Take a look at this page with an audio recording of Hans Ørberg reading chapters from one to ten of Lingua Latina [per se illustrata].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wording is a matter of taste, but I would work myself around the noun &quot;audio&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;I might render it like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In hac pagina [capitula a primo ad decimum](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5616/79) Linguae Latinae [per se illustratae] a Iohanne Ørbergio recitata invenies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5659" RevisionGUID="e67ea3dd-1372-47c0-8e36-d3485ff10bf2" CreationDate="2017-12-02T16:50:22.960" UserId="68" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="The living Latinists I know use the verb *incīdere*, as in &quot;to cut into [an LP].&quot; Woefully out of date but there's lots of recording terminology that we still use from Ye Olde Days so I figure it's okay. I've heard both *incīsum* and *incīsiō* as a noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5663" RevisionGUID="c400ae72-687d-47c9-a6d8-3cc8fbc61856" CreationDate="2017-12-02T17:25:51.007" UserId="79" Text="The (semantic) subject can only be in the accusative if the verb is in the infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;Your subordinate clause has the personal verb form *esset* (as it should), and therefore the subject of the subordinate clause is in the nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject is often left implicit, as it is often the same as the (semantic) subject of the governing ACI structure.&#xD;&#xA;It is implicit here, too, but agreement with the explicit participle makes the case clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I keep saying that the subject is semantic is that I don't consider it a full-fledged grammatical subject.&#xD;&#xA;I would also never put a comma after *scripsit*, just as I would never separate the object from the predicate by a comma, but I may be misguided by Finnish (regarding both punctuation and whatever &quot;lauseenvastike&quot; is in English).&#xD;&#xA;However, I acknowledge that this is just a point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unrelated to your actual query, I would find it more natural to replace *eius quod* with *quid*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quidam scripsit eam plane insciam, quid factura esset, venisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would make *quid factura esset* an indirect question, which I find more natural here than a relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;Also, I should remark that [I'm not sure whether you could replace *factura esset* with *faceret*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4833/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="0d3eb307-57e2-4ae7-acaa-c425335a3758" CreationDate="2017-12-02T17:26:23.483" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Given an accusative subject of oratio obliqua, if that subject is or words declined with it it are repeated in a subordinate subjunctive, are they accusative or nominative in the subjunctive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exemplī grātiā, if I wanted to say, &quot;Someone wrote that she had come here entirely unaware of what she would be doing,&quot; would I write&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quīdam scrīpsit, eam plānē īnsciam ejus, quod **factūra** esset, vēnisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quīdam scrīpsit, eam plānē īnsciam ejus, quod **factūram** esset, vēnisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My gut says the first, but my gut is also what has me awake at 2:30 in the morning, so I'm not sure how far I can trust it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18757" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="0d3eb307-57e2-4ae7-acaa-c425335a3758" CreationDate="2017-12-02T17:26:23.483" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Oratio obliqua and case agreement between accusative subject and subject in subordinate subjunctive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5664" RevisionGUID="ad65cb82-8d0f-4d93-b6dc-b0cf599252dd" CreationDate="2017-12-02T18:55:34.020" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18759" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5664" RevisionGUID="ad65cb82-8d0f-4d93-b6dc-b0cf599252dd" CreationDate="2017-12-02T18:55:34.020" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5665" RevisionGUID="4d7c19e3-ca8e-4608-a36e-224331d30eb1" CreationDate="2017-12-02T18:55:34.020" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18761" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5665" RevisionGUID="4d7c19e3-ca8e-4608-a36e-224331d30eb1" CreationDate="2017-12-02T18:55:34.020" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5666" RevisionGUID="9a237baa-26ac-473f-88b5-7950329a7634" CreationDate="2017-12-03T04:59:29.973" UserId="1891" Text="I had a Latin teacher who insisted that the long a at the end of ablatives of first declension nouns be pronounced for a noticeably longer time than other vowels. This was the only long vowel she insisted upon and she made a point of it, not only telling us that it was significant, but requiring a very exaggerated lengthening. I'm not qualified to have an opinion about whether this is important, but she made such a big deal of it that when I read to myself I still, 10 years later, attempt to observe the distinction in my subvocalizations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5661" RevisionGUID="7a142dee-1472-4233-a739-1ef968e934ec" CreationDate="2017-12-03T06:10:59.310" UserId="2132" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I came across the phrase &quot;ad astra per aspera&quot; -- &quot;to the stars through difficulties.&quot; I think I know what it means, but my interpretation appears to be at odds with others. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The motto of Kansas, &quot;Ad Astra per Aspera&quot; is Latin for  John James&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ingalls coined the motto in 1861 stating, &quot;**The aspiration of Kansas is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to reach the unattainable; its dream is the realization of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; impossible.&quot; According to the Office of the Governor of Kansas: &quot;This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; motto refers not only to the pioneering spirit of the early settlers,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but also the difficult times Kansas went through before becoming a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; state.** The anti-slavery forces and slavery proponents waged battles in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the electoral process as well as on the battlefield. Kansas earned the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nickname &quot;Bloody Kansas&quot; because of the war regarding slavery, much of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which was fought on Kansas' soil.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, I would agree with this meaning, but this is the context I would like to use it in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, it's an aspirational statement about achieving great things. However, it's just as equally a moral claim that if greatness is acquired without suffering, hardship, ortoil, then something is lost. Yet it also appears to be a claim that it is from these very hardships that one acquires this greatness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I reading into this a little too much? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5663" RevisionGUID="02735047-fdbc-493b-a59a-5129e9983c70" CreationDate="2017-12-03T14:29:37.027" UserId="79" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="The (semantic) subject can only be in the accusative if the verb is in the infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;Your subordinate clause has the personal verb form *esset* (as it should), and therefore the subject of the subordinate clause is in the nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject is often left implicit, as it is often the same as the (semantic) subject of the governing ACI structure.&#xD;&#xA;It is implicit here, too, but agreement with the explicit participle makes the case clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I keep saying that the subject is semantic is that I don't consider it a full-fledged grammatical subject.&#xD;&#xA;I would also never put a comma after *scripsit*, just as I would never separate the object from the predicate by a comma, but I may be misguided by Finnish (regarding both punctuation and whatever &quot;lauseenvastike&quot; is in English).&#xD;&#xA;However, I acknowledge that this is just a point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unrelated to your actual query, I would find it more natural to replace *eius quod* with *quid*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quidam scripsit eam plane insciam, quid factura esset, venisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would make *quid factura esset* an indirect question, which I find more natural here than a relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;Caesar also seems to use the indirect question (De Bello Gallico, 7.77.1: *inscii quid in Haeduis gereretur*).&#xD;&#xA;Also, I should remark that [I'm not sure whether you could replace *factura esset* with *faceret*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4833/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5665" RevisionGUID="eac196ca-85d1-492b-81ff-460a512d6d66" CreationDate="2017-12-03T14:30:38.697" UserId="840" Comment="added 173 characters in body" Text="Questions related to Lucius Apuleius Madaurensis (c. 124 – c. 170 AD) and his work. Apuleius wrote the novel The Golden Ass (or Metamorphoses) and several non-fiction works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18768" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5665" RevisionGUID="eac196ca-85d1-492b-81ff-460a512d6d66" CreationDate="2017-12-03T14:30:38.697" Comment="Proposed by 840 approved by 79 edit id of 219" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5661" RevisionGUID="e9191803-b459-4a78-9e84-99f6a5d5f9ca" CreationDate="2017-12-03T15:43:13.520" UserId="136" Comment="minor change" Text="I came across the phrase &quot;ad astra per aspera&quot; -- &quot;to the stars through difficulties.&quot; I think I know what it means, but my interpretation appears to be at odds with others. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The motto of Kansas, &quot;Ad Astra per Aspera&quot; is Latin for  John James&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ingalls coined the motto in 1861 stating, &quot;**The aspiration of Kansas is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to reach the unattainable; its dream is the realization of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; impossible.&quot; According to the Office of the Governor of Kansas: &quot;This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; motto refers not only to the pioneering spirit of the early settlers,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but also the difficult times Kansas went through before becoming a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; state.** The anti-slavery forces and slavery proponents waged battles in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the electoral process as well as on the battlefield. Kansas earned the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nickname &quot;Bloody Kansas&quot; because of the war regarding slavery, much of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which was fought on Kansas' soil.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, I would agree with this meaning, but this is the context I would like to use it in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, it's an aspirational statement about achieving great things. However, it's just as equally a moral claim that if greatness is acquired without suffering, hardship, or toil, then something is lost. Yet it also appears to be a claim that it is from these very hardships that one acquires this greatness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I reading into this a little too much? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5668" RevisionGUID="6b5af3da-1a70-46df-935f-714725598e36" CreationDate="2017-12-03T15:45:53.417" UserId="68" Text="So I have never, ever, ever been able to grasp fully any explanation in any textbook of the difference between *cum temporal* and *cum circumstantial*, because the examples they give always seem to contradict the explanations, and I'm wondering whether there's a clearer heuristic than just &quot;the time at which something happens&quot; vs. &quot;the circumstances in which something happens,&quot; because a lot of the time I think things should be circumstantial that are actually temporal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following rules have been suggested to me or occurred to me, but they always seem to overdetermine or underdetermine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  In cum temporal, the two clauses have no logical connection with each other. This gets wrong things like *Cum Romae estis, agite sicut Romani,* which I remember being used as an example of cum temporal in a text. If the people addressed weren't in Rome, the reason to advise them to act like the Romans would no longer exist and therefore there would be no need to say the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;-  Cum circumstantial is always susceptible of translation of &quot;since&quot; or &quot;because.&quot; But then you get the example *Caesar cum loqueretur, ab inimics interfectus est.* He wasn't killed because he was speaking; he was killed because he was destroying the Republic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts on a better heuristic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18771" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5668" RevisionGUID="6b5af3da-1a70-46df-935f-714725598e36" CreationDate="2017-12-03T15:45:53.417" UserId="68" Text="how to tell when to use cum temporal and when cum circumtantial" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18772" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5668" RevisionGUID="6b5af3da-1a70-46df-935f-714725598e36" CreationDate="2017-12-03T15:45:53.417" UserId="68" Text="|conjunctive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5669" RevisionGUID="79afa888-f72d-43f2-bbf4-ea8b2d9fc607" CreationDate="2017-12-03T15:59:03.167" UserId="136" Text="As with any ambiguous phrase, there is a lot of room for interpretation. For the phrase *ad astra per aspera*, the meaning that should first come to mind is the very literal one: the accomplishment of great things through the endurance of hardship. Your interpretation breaks down into three claims from what I can tell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;It's an aspirational statement about achieving great things&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I would agree with this, as it most easily matches the literal translation of the phrase, and the meaning that comes from that. Great things can be accomplished if only you work hard. It also is a reference to the past: we are in the great position we are now due to our hard work and dedication through adversity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  &quot;However, it's just as equally a moral claim that if greatness is acquired without suffering, hardship, or toil, then something is lost.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* This is where I feel you get a bit further away from the core message of the phrase as seen in #1. Nowhere do I think it is implied that just happening upon greatness without doing anything for it is a detriment to the greatness itself. The phrase is ambiguous as to whether it is a command that you must achieve great things through hard work, or whether it is a statement of past events that lead to the current situation. One can certainly argue for your point here, but as an argument separate from this specific phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  &quot;Yet it also appears to be a claim that it is from these very hardships that one acquires this greatness.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* This is similar to #1, and again more closely matches the phrase directly. In the example of Kansas, only through terrible struggle and loss were they able to achieve the great state that they are in today (pun not intended). It is important to keep in mind that not all hard work is paid back with equal rewards, so in the context of the motto of Kansas, it is more a reference to the past with an indication to the future, rather than some moral claim or a purely &quot;look to the future&quot; sort of statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said in the beginning, one can interpret this phrase in any number of ways. There may not be one right answer, and the explanations I have put forth here might not be satisfactory to you. It is really a judgement call, but I hope this helps clarify the various arguments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4640" RevisionGUID="0939549f-a9cd-452f-9a23-4e1a4280342a" CreationDate="2017-12-03T16:36:47.397" UserId="13" Comment="added update 2" Text="We're talking about the Gongyla poem. Campbell has it as sourced by P.Oxy. 1231 frr. 12 and 15. Edmonds separates the two. Also, Edmonds' completion is perfectly fine with Grenfell and Hunt's reading of fr. 15, while Campbell has critical notation that seems to exclude it. So on what basis is Campbell putting them together whereas Edmonds splits them? And if Grenfell and Hunt say e.g. l. 1 of fr. 15 ends with `σ[`, why does Campbell have an exta uncertain alpha excluding Edmonds' `κέλομάι σ' [ὄνελθε`? Was something done with the papyrus that revealed more letters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More details**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is Grenfell and Hunt's reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I strip Campbell of all completions, accents and spaces, I get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;.].ϵ.[....].[....]ελομαισα̣[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]γγυλα̣[..]α̣νθιλαβοισανα.[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]κτινασ̣σεδηυτεποθοςτ̣.[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;αμφιποταται&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τανκαλαναγαργατ̣αγωγισαθτα[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;επτοαισιδοισανεγωδεχαιρω&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καιγ̣αραυτ̣αδηπο̣[.]ε̣μεμφ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]υπρογεν[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ω̣σαραμα̣[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τουτοτω[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]ολλομα̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I pair up Grenfell-Hunt &quot;restored&quot; version and Campbell's text, I get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's do some compare&amp;contrast, shall we?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In l. 1, an uncertain near-start nu magically becomes a certain epsilon (!), and, as pointed out above, `σ̣[` at the end of the preserved portion of the line turns to `σα̣[`;&#xD;&#xA; - The totally illegible letter at the start of l. 2 suddenly becomes a certain gamma, and an uncertain letter before the lacuna vanishes; also, the lacuna has 2 letters for GH and only 2 are given as a completion by C; the two last letters of Gongyla become certain; an uncertain alpha is conjured up after the lacuna; the `μ̣α̣` (both uncertain) turns to `να` (both certain);&#xD;&#xA; - A few uncertain letters in l. 3 become certain, and an uncertain nu becomes an uncertain sigma;&#xD;&#xA; - For the rest, it's mostly uncertain letters becoming certain;&#xD;&#xA; - But before the lacuna in l. 8, `δητ[` is suddenly δηπο̣[`; 'xcuse me? How did a certain tau turn to a certain pi with an uncertain omicron suddenly appearing?&#xD;&#xA; - And finally, what about `[.]α̣σ` turning to `ω̣σ`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where did the above changes come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**New info**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Complete Poems of Sappho, by Sean B. Palmer](http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/) is the only one to mention another source, `P. Oxy. XXI (1951) add. p. 125, 11`. Now, I cannot find the volume P.Oxy. XXI on archive.org or elsewhere online, and I cannot seem to find any P.Oxy. XXI images with Sappho (just two commentary fragments I do not really want to transcribe &quot;blind&quot;). So what happened in that source? What does that source give us? What is that source? Is it a papyrus or some kind of scholarly discussion? Is it one of the commentary papyri I found the image of, i.e. [2292](http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH01e4/93fd78cc.dir/POxy.v0021.n2292.a.01.hires.jpg) and [2293](http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH01f6/940d78cc.dir/POxy.v0021.n2293.a.01.hires.jpg)? And if that's the case, how in the world did they give extra certain letters? Quotations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just transcribed 2292 as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     ̩  ̤  ̣‸[...]Ϲ€€ΜΑΚΑΑ̣Τ̣ΑΝΔ[&#xD;&#xA;    ϹΑΓΟΡΓωϹΥΝΔΥΓΑ.ΓΙΤΟΥ̣[&#xD;&#xA;    §A̤[....]ϹΥΞ̣ΗΠΛ€ΙϹΤΑΔΙΚΗ[&#xD;&#xA;    §§§[...]ΗΙΓ[.]ΗΟΙϹΥΝΑΥΞ§€§§[&#xD;&#xA;    §Ṭ§€̣[....]Γ̤ΟΓΓΥΛΗϹΟΝ§§ṆΑϹΘΗ§§[&#xD;&#xA;    §Ϲ€Υ̣[...]ΟΙΝΟΝΓΑΡΤΟΟ§Ρ̣Θ̣Υ̤[.]§[&#xD;&#xA;    §Μ[..]Δ§ΤΑΙΤΙΚΑ̣ΤΑΤΗ  ̣§ ̣  ̣  ̣  ̣  ̣[&#xD;&#xA;    [.]Ạ§[...]ΤΑ[.]ΥΤΟΟ̤ΙΚΚΗ̣§§§Ν§ω̣§[&#xD;&#xA;    [.......]§[...]§§Ι̤Λ̣ΘΗΙ̤€Τ̤§§[.]ϜΥ[               Λ/Ϲ&#xD;&#xA;    [............]  ̣ [......]  ̣ ΑṬ ̣ §   ̣ ΟΥΤ§[&#xD;&#xA;    [19 letters]Ν  ̣ ΑΝ§[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The § indicate blank spaces in the papyrus, giving an estimate of the number of letters that would fit in the blank. The fact that l. 5 seems to read Γογγύλης ὀνέμνασθε, remembered of Gongyla, near the end seems to support the Campbell version of l. 2, so could you guys help me decipher the rest of this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TBd6p.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sekcG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4640" RevisionGUID="14d7071a-c0a3-40e6-b09a-cd4820c7929c" CreationDate="2017-12-03T16:47:47.993" UserId="13" Comment="minor fixes to papyrus transcription and last sentence" Text="We're talking about the Gongyla poem. Campbell has it as sourced by P.Oxy. 1231 frr. 12 and 15. Edmonds separates the two. Also, Edmonds' completion is perfectly fine with Grenfell and Hunt's reading of fr. 15, while Campbell has critical notation that seems to exclude it. So on what basis is Campbell putting them together whereas Edmonds splits them? And if Grenfell and Hunt say e.g. l. 1 of fr. 15 ends with `σ[`, why does Campbell have an exta uncertain alpha excluding Edmonds' `κέλομάι σ' [ὄνελθε`? Was something done with the papyrus that revealed more letters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More details**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is Grenfell and Hunt's reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I strip Campbell of all completions, accents and spaces, I get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;.].ϵ.[....].[....]ελομαισα̣[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]γγυλα̣[..]α̣νθιλαβοισανα.[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]κτινασ̣σεδηυτεποθοςτ̣.[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;αμφιποταται&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τανκαλαναγαργατ̣αγωγισαθτα[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;επτοαισιδοισανεγωδεχαιρω&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καιγ̣αραυτ̣αδηπο̣[.]ε̣μεμφ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]υπρογεν[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ω̣σαραμα̣[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τουτοτω[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]ολλομα̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I pair up Grenfell-Hunt &quot;restored&quot; version and Campbell's text, I get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's do some compare&amp;contrast, shall we?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In l. 1, an uncertain near-start nu magically becomes a certain epsilon (!), and, as pointed out above, `σ̣[` at the end of the preserved portion of the line turns to `σα̣[`;&#xD;&#xA; - The totally illegible letter at the start of l. 2 suddenly becomes a certain gamma, and an uncertain letter before the lacuna vanishes; also, the lacuna has 2 letters for GH and only 2 are given as a completion by C; the two last letters of Gongyla become certain; an uncertain alpha is conjured up after the lacuna; the `μ̣α̣` (both uncertain) turns to `να` (both certain);&#xD;&#xA; - A few uncertain letters in l. 3 become certain, and an uncertain nu becomes an uncertain sigma;&#xD;&#xA; - For the rest, it's mostly uncertain letters becoming certain;&#xD;&#xA; - But before the lacuna in l. 8, `δητ[` is suddenly δηπο̣[`; 'xcuse me? How did a certain tau turn to a certain pi with an uncertain omicron suddenly appearing?&#xD;&#xA; - And finally, what about `[.]α̣σ` turning to `ω̣σ`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where did the above changes come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**New info**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Complete Poems of Sappho, by Sean B. Palmer](http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/) is the only one to mention another source, `P. Oxy. XXI (1951) add. p. 125, 11`. Now, I cannot find the volume P.Oxy. XXI on archive.org or elsewhere online, and I cannot seem to find any P.Oxy. XXI images with Sappho (just two commentary fragments I do not really want to transcribe &quot;blind&quot;). So what happened in that source? What does that source give us? What is that source? Is it a papyrus or some kind of scholarly discussion? Is it one of the commentary papyri I found the image of, i.e. [2292](http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH01e4/93fd78cc.dir/POxy.v0021.n2292.a.01.hires.jpg) and [2293](http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH01f6/940d78cc.dir/POxy.v0021.n2293.a.01.hires.jpg)? And if that's the case, how in the world did they give extra certain letters? Quotations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just transcribed 2292 as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     ̩  ̤  ̣‸[...]Ϲ€€ΜΑΚΑΑ̣Τ̣ΑΝΔ[&#xD;&#xA;    ϹΑΓΟΡΓωϹΥΝΔΥΓΑ.ΓΙΤΟΥ̣[&#xD;&#xA;    §A̤[....]ϹΥΞ̣ΗΠΛ€ΙϹΤỌΔΙΚΗ[&#xD;&#xA;    §§§[...]ΗΙΓ[.]ΗΟΙϹΥΝΑΥΞ§€§§[&#xD;&#xA;    §Ṭ§€̣[....]Γ̤ΟΓΓΥΛΗϹΟΝ§§ṆΑϹΘΗ§§[&#xD;&#xA;    §Ϲ€Υ̣[...]ΟΙΝΟΝΓΑΡΤΟΟ§Ρ̣Θ̣Υ̤[.]§[&#xD;&#xA;    §Μ[..]Δ§ΤΑΙΤΙΚΑ̣ΤΑΤΗ  ̣§ ̣  ̣  ̣  ̣  ̣[               TI/H&#xD;&#xA;    [.]Ạ§[...]ΤΑ[.]ΥΤΟΟ̤ΙΚΚΗ̣§§§Ν§ω̣§[&#xD;&#xA;    [.......]§[...]§§Ι̤Λ̣ΘΗΙ̤€Τ̤§§[.]ϜΥ[               Λ/Ϲ&#xD;&#xA;    [............]  ̣ [......]  ̣ ΑṬ ̣ §   ̣ ΟΥΤ§[&#xD;&#xA;    [19 letters]Ν  ̣ ΑΝ§[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The § indicate blank spaces in the papyrus, giving an estimate of the number of letters that would fit in the blank. The fact that l. 5 seems to read Γογγύλης ὀνεμνάσθη(ν), I/(s)he have/has been reminded of Gongyla, near the end seems to support the Campbell version of l. 2, so could you guys help me decipher the rest of this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TBd6p.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sekcG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5668" RevisionGUID="09c3569e-b982-4f8e-a089-37c950677f8c" CreationDate="2017-12-03T18:14:14.280" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="So I have never, ever, ever been able to grasp fully any explanation in any textbook of the difference between *cum temporal* and *cum circumstantial*, because the examples they give always seem to contradict the explanations, and I'm wondering whether there's a clearer heuristic than just &quot;the time at which something happens&quot; vs. &quot;the circumstances in which something happens,&quot; because a lot of the time I think things should be circumstantial that are actually temporal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following rules have been suggested to me or occurred to me, but they always seem to overdetermine or underdetermine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  In cum temporal, the two clauses have no logical connection with each other. This gets wrong things like *Cum Romae estis, agite sicut Romani,* which I remember being used as an example of cum temporal in a text. If the people addressed weren't in Rome, the reason to advise them to act like the Romans would no longer exist and therefore there would be no need to say the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;-  Cum circumstantial is always susceptible of translation of &quot;since&quot; or &quot;because.&quot; But then you get the example *Caesar cum loqueretur, ab inimics interfectus est.* He wasn't killed because he was speaking; he was killed because he was destroying the Republic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts on a better heuristic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18777" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5668" RevisionGUID="09c3569e-b982-4f8e-a089-37c950677f8c" CreationDate="2017-12-03T18:14:14.280" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="how to tell when to use cum temporal and when cum circumstantial" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18778" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5668" RevisionGUID="09c3569e-b982-4f8e-a089-37c950677f8c" CreationDate="2017-12-03T18:14:14.280" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|syntax|conjunctive|cum|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5601" RevisionGUID="fd250975-ec71-496c-97a2-1fa03fa9be2d" CreationDate="2017-12-03T18:35:23.940" UserId="13" Comment="added update" Text="There are apparently numerous versions of these lines. I only have access to two&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; however: Edmonds':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]· ἀ γὰρ πόλυ περσκόπεισα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κάλλος ἀνθρώπων Ἐλένα τὸν ἄνδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[κρίννε κάλ]ιστον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[ὸς τὸ πὰν] σέβας Τροΐας ὄλεσσε&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Campbell's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]· ἀ γὰρ πόλυ περσκέ̣θ̣ο̣ı̣σα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣άλ̣λο̣ς [ἀνθ]ρώπων Ἐλένα [τὸ]ν ἄνδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τ̣ὸν̣ [πανάρ]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣αλλ[ίποι]σ̣' ἔβα 'σ Τροΐαν πλέοı̣[σα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that is a big difference, even outside lacunas. So I tried looking at Grenfell and Hunt's edition of P.Oxy. 1231, whence the poem mostly comes (see below for more), and found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]ᾱγαρπόλυπερσκο̣π̣ε̣ı̣[.]α&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&lt;sup&gt;λ̣&lt;/sup&gt;ο̣σ̣[...]ωπωνελενα̣[..]νανδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[9 letters]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[7 letters]σ̣εβαστροϊα[..]λεσσ̣[..]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That seems to scream &quot;Go Edmonds, screw Campbell&quot;. But let's look at the notes to the transcription. What I gather from them is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - σκεδοισα and σκοπεισα are equally likely endings for l. 6, and since the notes only mention a «rather high stroke turning over» for the delta, I assume σκεθοισα would also be equally likely; so as far as P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 1 is concerned, Cambpell and Edmonds are equally likely right about that line;&#xD;&#xA; - The other lines have no beginning in the papyrus at hand, so those must come from another papyrus, which we will discuss below;&#xD;&#xA; - The notes don't even mention l. 9 (which is l. 21 in the papyrus), so this papyrus actually has a no-doubt λεσ in that line, whereas Campbell would have that as λεο, and read the doubtful sigma right afterwards as a doubtful iota;&#xD;&#xA; - Neither the notes nor the transcriptions show any other P.Oxy. 1231 fragment that could contain beginnings for those lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when [Bonnaria](http://www.uc.pt/fluc/eclassicos/publicacoes/ficheiros/humanitas25-26/07_Bonnaria.pdf) states that P.Oxy. 1231 reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;τ̣ὸν̣ [&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καλλ[&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]σ̣' ἔβα 'ς Τροΐαν πλέοı̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;they are apparetly giving us a nice bit of bull… err, tauricopria. Or maybe they are mixing up papyri. There are two more papyri this poem comes from. One is PSI 123, 1-2, but that only gives the last line, τ' ἐξ ἀδοκή[τω], which gives no trouble. The second one is P.Oxy. 2166(a), published in volume XXI. Unfortunately, I can't find anything online about this: no images, no transcriptions. Campbell's critical notation suggests it must have read at least:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κ̣αλ̣λο̣σ[]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τ̣ὸν̣[]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣αλλ[&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]σ̣εβαστροϊανπλεοι̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;plus the first 5 letters of the following line and the first 2 of the one after that. This implies a papyrus conflict: l. 9 is different from one papyrus to the other, and doubtfulness cannot solve the problem. So we are faced with two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Either we argue that the two are different poems, which seems viable if 2166(a) only has the little mentioned above (which could actually be even less, since we don't actually need it to read the σ̣εβαστροϊα part;&#xD;&#xA; - Or we have to choose one or the other, and with what arguments do we point our finger at one and say &quot;You're wrong!&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: does anyone have access to anything that can shed light on what was actually on 2166(a), and/or to something pointing out extra margins of doubtfulness in 1231 to settle this dispute?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;I also have a couple slightly different versions (which basically only differ in the lacuna at v. 8), but I kept the above two as prototypical, and also because all others have no critical notation. Researching again only yielded [The Complete Poems of Sappho](http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/), giving Cox's version as reading κρίννεν ἄριστον. Maybe safopoemas.doc contained other versions. But that's beside the point anyways, so I won't look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS If you're thinking of suggesting I buy the Voigt and/or Lobel-Page edition of Sappho, don't. I'm already thinking of getting them for Xmas. UPDATE: The dream is dead, but I may manage to borrow Voigt from a library if I find a way to get it from Brera library to one closer to the places I usually frequent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1163/j.ctt1w76v7d.8.pdf), 2166(a) is not a source for this poem&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, whereas something in P.Oxy. vol. XXI is. I have also managed to find that volume [on Amazon](https://www.amazon.com/OXYRHYNCHUS-PAPYRI-PART-XXI-Lobel/dp/B002EO10LS), so I may buy it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Unless of course 2166(a) is in that volume, which should start at 2292, meaning the numbering doesn't line up with the volumes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5670" RevisionGUID="5a85209d-ba72-4434-89d7-7341ea9ce0f7" CreationDate="2017-12-03T18:39:33.450" UserId="79" Text="Proposal:&#xD;&#xA;Stop trying to classify all subordinate clauses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subordinate clauses with *cum* can express a number of different things, and they often overlap.&#xD;&#xA;Reason, circumstance, and time are very closely related, and drawing boundaries between them is artificial.&#xD;&#xA;Do you think a Roman would have classified, consciously or not, your first example in a specific strict category?&#xD;&#xA;Classifications are artificial and unnecessary if they have no effect on actual usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only really relevant classification to me is what kinds of *cum* clauses take indicative and which ones conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;I think looking for a good rule of thumb for moods in *cum* clauses would make a nice new question, but I will not digress into that here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different grammarians will disagree to some extent on the descriptions and classifications of *cum* clauses.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I consider these grammar entries a way of organizing ideas around *cum* clauses, not as hard facts.&#xD;&#xA;I organize my thoughts differently, but I (mostly) get what others are saying.&#xD;&#xA;I would argue that attempts at very narrow and specific classification is ill-advised unless there is overwhelming text corpus evidence to support it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [Bennett](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect288) considers circumstantial clauses a subclass of temporal clauses. For another example, the grammar material I was taught with made no mention of circumstantial clauses at all; I think I would classify them as causal or temporal. For more views, ask more people or books." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5671" RevisionGUID="d1e1557a-1f84-4245-8133-cf9e0541a4fa" CreationDate="2017-12-03T21:26:09.173" UserId="13" Text="Not solving the problem entirely, but ahem-b-ok-ahem furnished me with an image of P.GC. inv 105, where on fr. 2 one can clearly see the endings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ΟΗϹΘΑΙ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;€ΘΟΙϹΑ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΟΝΑΝ[]&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ϹΑ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΟΚΗωΝ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Α̣Γ̣ΑΥΤΑΝ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ν̣ΟΗΜΜΑ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ν̣Ο̣ΗϹΗ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΝΕΜΝΑΙ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΒΑΜΑ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΝΠΡΟϹωΠω&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΟΙϹΙ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;€Ν€̣ϹΘΑΙ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Χ̣ΗΝΔΑΡΑϹΘΑΙ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[....]ΑΙ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final lacuna is actually not a hole, but no letter can be fully seen before the AI at the end. Vestiges are visible, though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The first vestige strongly suggests a M;&#xD;&#xA; - Then we have what looks like an angle with vertex pointing upward, perhaps the top of an A;&#xD;&#xA; - Then there is some kind of &quot;pit&quot;, perhaps the top of an Y; the bottom of the pit is exactly on the edge of the papyrus;&#xD;&#xA; - Finally, there is a space which seems blank, though looking closely one can see what is either very faint ink, or a fold in the papyrus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that, the ending of that line might be ΜΑΥΤΑ, which suggests comparison with a previously known fragment, a quote by Ap.Dysc., reading ἔγω δ' ἐμαύτᾳ / τοῦτο σύνοιδα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This certainly settles all our problems, modulo the line beginnings, which means the problem of l. 8 stays, but the rest is settled by these endings. However, this papyrus was published in 2014, well after Campbell published, so the problem of why Campbell had these readings remains, and new problems with older restorations are caused by the new endings in stanza 4 and stanza 6 (last one). But that is another story." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5672" RevisionGUID="18da8e68-2579-45d1-9229-9bac26f2b6e0" CreationDate="2017-12-03T22:06:07.933" UserId="1891" Text="&gt;Does tunc suggest that X is no longer the case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems unlikely. At least, if it does, the English and American lawyers didn't know it. The first time I recall coming across the word tunc was in the legal phrase &quot;nunc pro tunc,&quot; which is used about an order that is meant to take effect as of a past time and to remain in effect through the present time and into the indefinite future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5675" RevisionGUID="4792277a-83bb-412b-b906-89c6cdbe3788" CreationDate="2017-12-04T01:04:31.557" UserId="68" Text="So I have never, ever, ever been able to grasp fully any explanation in any textbook of when to use &quot;cum&quot; with the subjunctive and when to use it with the indicative, because the examples they give always seem to contradict the explanations. (To me the question &quot;Is it circumstantial or temporal&quot; only confuses things further, given that it's essentially an order to read the minds of men who have been dead for a couple hundred years.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following rules have been suggested to me or occurred to me, but they always seem to overdetermine or underdetermine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **With cum + indicative, the two clauses have no logical connection with each other**. This gets wrong things like *Cum Romae estis, agite sicut Romani*, which I remember being used as an example in a text. If the people addressed weren't in Rome, the reason to advise them to act like the Romans would no longer exist and therefore there would be no need to say the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;- **Cum + subjunctive is always susceptible of translation as &quot;since&quot; or &quot;because.&quot;** But then you get the example (which I've also seen) *Caesar cum loqueretur, ab inimics interfectus est*. He wasn't killed because he was speaking; he was killed because he was destroying the Republic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts on a better heuristic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18787" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5675" RevisionGUID="4792277a-83bb-412b-b906-89c6cdbe3788" CreationDate="2017-12-04T01:04:31.557" UserId="68" Text="When to use cum + subjunctive and when cum + indicative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18788" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5675" RevisionGUID="4792277a-83bb-412b-b906-89c6cdbe3788" CreationDate="2017-12-04T01:04:31.557" UserId="68" Text="|grammar-choice|conjunctive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5670" RevisionGUID="0de55d0c-5ebf-4c2b-b4a6-33d101ad59e8" CreationDate="2017-12-04T09:53:55.987" UserId="79" Comment="added 284 characters in body" Text="Proposal:&#xD;&#xA;Stop trying to classify all subordinate clauses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subordinate clauses with *cum* can express a number of different things, and they often overlap.&#xD;&#xA;Reason, circumstance, and time are very closely related, and drawing boundaries between them is artificial.&#xD;&#xA;Do you think a Roman would have classified, consciously or not, your first example in a specific strict category?&#xD;&#xA;Classifications are artificial and unnecessary if they have no effect on actual usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only really relevant classification to me is what kinds of *cum* clauses take indicative and which ones conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;I think looking for a good rule of thumb for moods in *cum* clauses would make a nice new question, but I will not digress into that here.&#xD;&#xA;([The new question was asked later.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5675/79))&#xD;&#xA;If I interpret correctly, your question is about semantic distinctions between causal, temporal, and circumstantial clauses, not between indicative and conjunctive per se.&#xD;&#xA;Do correct me if I'm wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different grammarians will disagree to some extent on the descriptions and classifications of *cum* clauses.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I consider these grammar entries a way of organizing ideas around *cum* clauses, not as hard facts.&#xD;&#xA;I organize my thoughts differently, but I (mostly) get what others are saying.&#xD;&#xA;I would argue that attempts at very narrow and specific classification is ill-advised unless there is overwhelming text corpus evidence to support it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [Bennett](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect288) considers circumstantial clauses a subclass of temporal clauses. For another example, the grammar material I was taught with made no mention of circumstantial clauses at all; I think I would classify them as causal or temporal. For more views, ask more people or books." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5676" RevisionGUID="7e8b3591-9b10-4c0a-9e27-27cc397004e1" CreationDate="2017-12-04T16:35:43.477" UserId="68" Text="This isn't a start-from-Mārcus-puer-est resource, but Daniel Pettersson's website [Latīnitium][1] is designed to be a resource for people teaching themselves Latin on their own. It has articles in English and in Latin, really well-done videos and a podcast in Latin, and links to lots of other resources helpful for auto-didacts. He's among the most accomplished Latin speakers in the world, and I find the site incredibly helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latīnitium isn't the only Latin podcast: There's also [Quōmodo Dīcitur][2], put out by Justin Slocum Bailey, Jason Slanga, and Gus Grissom, and [Sermō Rædārius][3], by Alexandro Conti; I know of a few others in the works as well, which I'll come back and add when they come out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latinitium.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://quomododicitur.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://sermonesraedarii.podomatic.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18793" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5676" RevisionGUID="2db0b11c-2517-4633-8186-874d951e60bd" CreationDate="2017-12-04T16:35:43.477" UserId="68" />
  <row Id="18794" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="5676" RevisionGUID="dfc14404-3324-4692-a5ff-0e3e1c7e0c6f" CreationDate="2017-12-04T16:36:26.123" UserId="68" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:68,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joel Derfner&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18795" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="5676" RevisionGUID="22101225-5a60-4d44-aa3e-93f975166cfa" CreationDate="2017-12-04T17:34:31.473" UserId="68" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:68,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joel Derfner&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5675" RevisionGUID="213c37eb-64b0-4538-ae58-9016e17ffaea" CreationDate="2017-12-04T20:08:19.900" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags." Text="So I have never, ever, ever been able to grasp fully any explanation in any textbook of when to use &quot;cum&quot; with the subjunctive and when to use it with the indicative, because the examples they give always seem to contradict the explanations. (To me the question &quot;Is it circumstantial or temporal&quot; only confuses things further, given that it's essentially an order to read the minds of men who have been dead for a couple hundred years.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following rules have been suggested to me or occurred to me, but they always seem to overdetermine or underdetermine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **With cum + indicative, the two clauses have no logical connection with each other**. This gets wrong things like *Cum Romae estis, agite sicut Romani*, which I remember being used as an example in a text. If the people addressed weren't in Rome, the reason to advise them to act like the Romans would no longer exist and therefore there would be no need to say the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;- **Cum + subjunctive is always susceptible of translation as &quot;since&quot; or &quot;because.&quot;** But then you get the example (which I've also seen) *Caesar cum loqueretur, ab inimicis interfectus est*. He wasn't killed because he was speaking; he was killed because he was destroying the Republic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts on a better heuristic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18797" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5675" RevisionGUID="213c37eb-64b0-4538-ae58-9016e17ffaea" CreationDate="2017-12-04T20:08:19.900" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags." Text="|grammar-choice|conjunctive|cum|mood|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5677" RevisionGUID="26211fbe-d52b-4d72-81b5-40be669b7a05" CreationDate="2017-12-04T20:55:22.313" UserId="79" Text="When a new Roman was born, the parents would give their child a name ([*praenomen*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praenomen)).&#xD;&#xA;Since there is a significant number of known names, there must have been variations in their relative popularities across the Roman history.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know more about these variations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do we know about the changes in the popularities of given names in ancient Rome?&#xD;&#xA;**Are there studies or resources on the evolution of relative popularities of Roman *praenomina*?**&#xD;&#xA;A serious study in this direction requires a large number of names and approximate dates, the best source of which are probably inscriptions in graves.&#xD;&#xA;There will certainly be a bias, as the name distribution may depend on wealth, location, and other factors which effect the making and durability of graves.&#xD;&#xA;A good study acknowledges the bias and gives some results about popularity variations within a specific group of people &amp;mdash; whether or not exactly identified &amp;mdash; and that can hopefully give some insight to broader trends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be delighted to find something similar to [the Finnish name service](https://verkkopalvelu.vrk.fi/nimipalvelu/default.asp?L=3) when restricted to first names.&#xD;&#xA;While I understand that information with this level of detail may be unlikely or impossible for the Roman world, I hope it gives an idea of what I am after.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any kind of onomastic databases for ancient Rome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18799" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5677" RevisionGUID="26211fbe-d52b-4d72-81b5-40be669b7a05" CreationDate="2017-12-04T20:55:22.313" UserId="79" Text="How did the popularities of Roman given names evolve over time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18800" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5677" RevisionGUID="26211fbe-d52b-4d72-81b5-40be669b7a05" CreationDate="2017-12-04T20:55:22.313" UserId="79" Text="|language-evolution|names|resource-request|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5678" RevisionGUID="153c4649-1fce-479b-99ce-13117ff83da5" CreationDate="2017-12-04T21:59:30.167" UserId="13" Text="Digging through my computer, I found this image, named `PK8r.jpg`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume `P` stands for &quot;Papyrus&quot; and `K` for &quot;Köln&quot;, but I couldn't find it online, neither on [Kölner Papyri](https://papyri.uni-koeln.de/) nor as a random online image. I am guessing `r` stands for &quot;recto&quot;, so that would be the recto of some `P. Köln 8`, except there are tons of P. Köln 8 if 8 is taken as a volume number, and apparently none (numbers start at 50 [here](http://papyri.info/search?SERIES=P.K%C3%B6ln) in the P. Köln series!). So is that &quot;name&quot; correct, or is there another number I'm missing after the 8? And is it known what the papyrus contains? I mean, has it been linked to something else with more text that is identifiable? With the few letters here, I doubt it is possible to conclude anything about the content from the papyrus alone…&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/72iuV.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18802" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5678" RevisionGUID="153c4649-1fce-479b-99ce-13117ff83da5" CreationDate="2017-12-04T21:59:30.167" UserId="13" Text="Identifying papyrus in image from my computer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18803" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5678" RevisionGUID="153c4649-1fce-479b-99ce-13117ff83da5" CreationDate="2017-12-04T21:59:30.167" UserId="13" Text="|greek|text-corpus|papyrology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5679" RevisionGUID="f45b889e-f2f7-4dbd-b0bd-ada24af7daa6" CreationDate="2017-12-04T23:35:51.197" UserId="78" Text="I found it [here](https://papyri.uni-koeln.de/stueck/tm62697). Tricky, tricky, you have to add the zeroes in front of it to pull it up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5675" RevisionGUID="54b49b98-9e72-4de1-b2c2-461764a5a423" CreationDate="2017-12-05T13:55:34.380" UserId="118" Comment="Linked to the question that this one supersedes." Text="So I have never, ever, ever been able to grasp fully any explanation in any textbook of when to use &quot;cum&quot; with the subjunctive and when to use it with the indicative, because the examples they give always seem to contradict the explanations. (To me the question &quot;[Is it circumstantial or temporal?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5668/118)&quot; only confuses things further, given that it's essentially an order to read the minds of men who have been dead for a couple hundred years.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following rules have been suggested to me or occurred to me, but they always seem to overdetermine or underdetermine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **With cum + indicative, the two clauses have no logical connection with each other**. This gets wrong things like *Cum Romae estis, agite sicut Romani*, which I remember being used as an example in a text. If the people addressed weren't in Rome, the reason to advise them to act like the Romans would no longer exist and therefore there would be no need to say the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;- **Cum + subjunctive is always susceptible of translation as &quot;since&quot; or &quot;because.&quot;** But then you get the example (which I've also seen) *Caesar cum loqueretur, ab inimicis interfectus est*. He wasn't killed because he was speaking; he was killed because he was destroying the Republic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts on a better heuristic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5680" RevisionGUID="54351779-66c1-4e28-a638-8acc80709730" CreationDate="2017-12-05T16:53:06.803" UserId="2211" Text="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/-h%E2%82%83onh%E2%82%82-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Descendants&#xD;&#xA;    Italic:&#xD;&#xA;    ...&#xD;&#xA;    Latin: -iō (from *-i-h₃onh₂-) (e.g. legiō (“group of selected people”))&#xD;&#xA;    Latin: -ō (e.g. Nāsō (“having a conspicuous nose”), poss. Iūnō (“having heavenly authority”))&#xD;&#xA;    ...&#xD;&#xA;    Latin: -tiō (from *-ti-h₃onh₂-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-tio#Suffix&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    dictātiō (“a dictating, dictation”), from dictātum, supine of dictō (“I dictate”)&#xD;&#xA;    quadripartītiō (“a division into four parts”), from quadripartītum, supine of quadripartiō (“I divide in four parts”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you see, this article does not say that dictātiō is from dictō, but it says it is from dictātum, supine of dictō.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supine#Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    There are two supines, I (first) and II (second). They are originally the accusative and ablative forms of a verbal noun in the fourth declension, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#Fourth_declension_(u_stems)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Nominative 	portus&#xD;&#xA;    ...&#xD;&#xA;    Accusative 	portum&#xD;&#xA;    ...&#xD;&#xA;    Ablative 	portū&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dicto#Inflection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    non-finite forms - participles - passive - perfect : dictātus&#xD;&#xA;    verbal nouns - supine&#xD;&#xA;    - accusative : dictātum&#xD;&#xA;    - ablative : dictātū&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- they have common part dictāt, (but most of them has common part dictātu), i can conclude that maybe supine of dictō has stem dictāt, and dictātiō is dictāt + iō.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- most forms of &quot;dicto&quot; have common part &quot;dicta&quot;, so i can conclude that maybe dictātiō is dictā + t + i + ō , where t is passive perfect participle suffix and ō makes agent noun from verb according to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-o#Latin . so, &quot;i&quot; should be a suffix that makes a verb from a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;was there really &quot;i&quot; suffix that makes verb from a noun?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or maybe really dictātiō is not from dictātum, but directly from dictō (infinitive dictāre) as dictā + ti + ō, in that case what is meaning of &quot;ti&quot; suffix that does not consist of t + i ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18807" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5680" RevisionGUID="54351779-66c1-4e28-a638-8acc80709730" CreationDate="2017-12-05T16:53:06.803" UserId="2211" Text="is there &quot;i&quot; suffix that makes verb from noun? etymology of (a)tio suffix" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18808" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5680" RevisionGUID="54351779-66c1-4e28-a638-8acc80709730" CreationDate="2017-12-05T16:53:06.803" UserId="2211" Text="|etymology|suffixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5680" RevisionGUID="b7141f9e-4f09-4d21-ad2e-73145cea0254" CreationDate="2017-12-05T21:33:34.620" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted." Text="Wiktionary says on [PIE -h₃onh₂-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/-h%E2%82%83onh%E2%82%82-):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###Descendants&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Italic:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin: -iō (from *-i-h₃onh₂-) (e.g. legiō (“group of selected people”))  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin: -ō (e.g. Nāsō (“having a conspicuous nose”), poss. Iūnō (“having heavenly authority”))  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin: -tiō (from *-ti-h₃onh₂-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The -tio suffix](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-tio#Suffix):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dictātiō (“a dictating, dictation”), from dictātum, supine of dictō (“I dictate”)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; quadripartītiō (“a division into four parts”), from quadripartītum, supine of quadripartiō (“I divide in four parts”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see, this article does not say that dictātiō is from dictō, but it says it is from dictātum, supine of dictō.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Supine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supine#Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are two supines, I (first) and II (second). They are originally the accusative and ablative forms of a verbal noun in the fourth declension, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Fourth declension](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#Fourth_declension_(u_stems)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nominative 	portus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Accusative 	portum  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ablative 	portū&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Inflection of dicto](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dicto#Inflection):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non-finite forms - participles - passive - perfect : dictātus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbal nouns - supine  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - accusative : dictātum  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ablative : dictātū&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have common part dictāt, (but most of them has common part dictātu), I can conclude that maybe supine of dictō has stem dictāt, and dictātiō is dictāt + iō.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most forms of &quot;dicto&quot; have common part &quot;dicta&quot;, so I can conclude that maybe dictātiō is dictā + t + i + ō , where t is passive perfect participle suffix and ō makes agent noun from verb according to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-o#Latin . so, &quot;i&quot; should be a suffix that makes a verb from a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was there really &quot;i&quot; suffix that makes verb from a noun?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or maybe really dictātiō is not from dictātum, but directly from dictō (infinitive dictāre) as dictā + ti + ō, in that case what is meaning of &quot;ti&quot; suffix that does not consist of t + i?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5679" RevisionGUID="d7f9d027-aa4c-4c39-8b4d-73d3ec81de88" CreationDate="2017-12-06T01:18:08.670" UserId="78" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="You can find it [here](https://papyri.uni-koeln.de/stueck/tm62697). Tricky, tricky, you have to add the zeroes in front of it to pull it up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5498" RevisionGUID="9c02d415-3dbd-4266-8147-fdc0073ae2af" CreationDate="2017-12-06T02:51:10.473" UserId="1407" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="&gt; The “R” sound is hard for some children because&#xD;&#xA;it is difficult to see the tongue when you say it and it is&#xD;&#xA;hard to explain to a child how to make it... Many children can say a correct “R” sound by the time they are five and a half&#xD;&#xA;years old, but some do not produce it until they are seven years old.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;SOURCE: [Why is “R” So Hard to Say?][1]  K.F. Bedsole, M.S., CCC-SLP and C.M. Johnson, M.A., CCC-SLP&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;o&quot; sound is more accessible because the infant can see the shape of the mouth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;ama&quot; is quite common as baby babble, in many ways &quot;ma&quot; is the easiest word because it only requires opening the mouth in a fully relaxed state. As one of the first utterances humans will make, I think it's a reasonable assumption that amare might partly derive from &quot;ma&quot; or &quot;ama&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.superduperinc.com/handouts/pdf/102_RforParents.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5681" RevisionGUID="1afc74d9-86c7-4294-b676-b00530962403" CreationDate="2017-12-06T15:25:21.423" UserId="1982" Text="The rarely observed imperfect-subjunctive-passive creates a knotty problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;North &amp; Hillard; Ex215: &quot;Had we only kept to the main road, we should already be approaching the city.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an example of impossible (mixed) conditions: first part is in the past, requiring pluperf. subj. (tenuissemus); second part--present, requiring imperf. subj. (appropinquaremus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer Book: &quot;si modo certum iter tenuissemus, iam ad urbem appropinquaretur.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the English simply requiring &quot;appropinquaremus&quot;--we-would-be-approaching; the imperf. pass. subj is deployed, in the singular--so it's not &quot;we&quot; anything! The city must be the singular element giving: now to the city &#xD;&#xA;it-would-be-being-approached.&#xD;&#xA;How clumsy is this?&#xD;&#xA;How is this to be written, in English, while retaining the purity of the imperf. subj. pass?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18813" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5681" RevisionGUID="1afc74d9-86c7-4294-b676-b00530962403" CreationDate="2017-12-06T15:25:21.423" UserId="1982" Text="Appropinquaretur" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18814" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5681" RevisionGUID="1afc74d9-86c7-4294-b676-b00530962403" CreationDate="2017-12-06T15:25:21.423" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5682" RevisionGUID="95458a26-2950-4298-b536-c560602a5a3b" CreationDate="2017-12-06T15:42:05.537" UserId="1922" Text="I have a translation for the following latin text &quot;Rex, ne speraveris generum mortali stirpe creatum, ...&quot; that is as follows &quot;King, do not hope for a son in law born as a mortal.&quot;. Is this translation correct and does the text refer to a &quot;son in law&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18816" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5682" RevisionGUID="95458a26-2950-4298-b536-c560602a5a3b" CreationDate="2017-12-06T15:42:05.537" UserId="1922" Text="Does this translate to &quot;son in law&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18817" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5682" RevisionGUID="95458a26-2950-4298-b536-c560602a5a3b" CreationDate="2017-12-06T15:42:05.537" UserId="1922" Text="|translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5683" RevisionGUID="c0c61364-cbfa-495c-92e0-0cee579f55ee" CreationDate="2017-12-06T16:14:27.623" UserId="79" Text="Did the Romans have any kind of a national day, or did the Romans have a name for the national day of some other nation?&#xD;&#xA;Such days go by various names in different countries, and I am wondering what the Romans might have called such a day.&#xD;&#xA;The exact definitions of a nation and a national day are not important; I am looking for attested names for celebrations of one's country (or similar) from ancient Latin literature.&#xD;&#xA;I don't really know how close ancient traditions come to modern national days, and that is part of what I want to figure out.&#xD;&#xA;This question was inspired by Finland celebrating its hundredth independence day today, on December 6, 2017." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18819" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5683" RevisionGUID="c0c61364-cbfa-495c-92e0-0cee579f55ee" CreationDate="2017-12-06T16:14:27.623" UserId="79" Text="Did the Romans have a national day?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18820" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5683" RevisionGUID="c0c61364-cbfa-495c-92e0-0cee579f55ee" CreationDate="2017-12-06T16:14:27.623" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|roman-culture|calendarium|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5684" RevisionGUID="b703067e-dbdf-46e9-95ab-e6d45542808b" CreationDate="2017-12-06T16:23:37.123" UserId="79" Text="A general warning:&#xD;&#xA;A literal translation of a natural Latin expression is not always fluent English, and *vice versa*.&#xD;&#xA;Beware of drawing conclusions on naturality by comparing two languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be perfectly valid to replace *appropinquaretur* by *appropinquaremus*.&#xD;&#xA;Making such a replacement would indeed take the sentence closer to the English original.&#xD;&#xA;The translation tells the same story, but it is not very literal &amp;mdash; and there is nothing wrong with such translations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the answer key suggests is an impersonal passive; *ad urbem appropinquaretur* means more or less &quot;the city would be approached&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The active version with *appropinquaremus* would mean &quot;we would approach the city&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the city is not a subject and would not be the object in the corresponding active clause *ad urbem appropinquaremus*.&#xD;&#xA;The passive clause is impersonal, but it is implicitly clear that a &quot;we&quot; should be understood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5681" RevisionGUID="6afecc2b-5b0f-405f-9d37-6a45e4e8755a" CreationDate="2017-12-06T16:25:00.750" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and removed &quot;Thank you&quot;. It is a network-wide policy to exclude all greetings." Text="The rarely observed imperfect-subjunctive-passive creates a knotty problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;North &amp; Hillard, Ex215: &quot;Had we only kept to the main road, we should already be approaching the city.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an example of impossible (mixed) conditions: first part is in the past, requiring pluperf. subj. (tenuissemus); second part--present, requiring imperf. subj. (appropinquaremus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer Book: &quot;si modo certum iter tenuissemus, iam ad urbem appropinquaretur.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the English simply requiring &quot;appropinquaremus&quot;--we-would-be-approaching; the imperf. pass. subj is deployed, in the singular--so it's not &quot;we&quot; anything! The city must be the singular element giving: now to the city &#xD;&#xA;it-would-be-being-approached.&#xD;&#xA;How clumsy is this?&#xD;&#xA;How is this to be written, in English, while retaining the purity of the imperf. subj. pass?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18823" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5681" RevisionGUID="6afecc2b-5b0f-405f-9d37-6a45e4e8755a" CreationDate="2017-12-06T16:25:00.750" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and removed &quot;Thank you&quot;. It is a network-wide policy to exclude all greetings." Text="|sentence-translation|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5682" RevisionGUID="d54b195e-f5de-44bc-a3d3-593ff4998b44" CreationDate="2017-12-06T16:27:44.823" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="I have a translation for the following Latin text &quot;Rex, ne speraveris generum mortali stirpe creatum, ...&quot; that is as follows &quot;King, do not hope for a son in law born as a mortal.&quot;. Is this translation correct and does the text refer to a &quot;son in law&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18825" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5682" RevisionGUID="d54b195e-f5de-44bc-a3d3-593ff4998b44" CreationDate="2017-12-06T16:27:44.823" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|translation-check|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5685" RevisionGUID="f66e6673-d361-44f4-ab5a-bad596a51570" CreationDate="2017-12-06T19:33:31.037" UserId="1996" Text="I came across this sentence in a fictional dialog in my Latin lesson.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; difficile est mihi hoc credere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context, `hoc` refers to someone else's claim of accomplishment.  I had learned earlier that direct objects of `credere`  are normally expressed in the dative.  But in the examples provided in my earlier lessons, the direct objects were people, not claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked this up in my Mac OS application version of Lewis and Short.  The entry implied that the earlier usage of `credere` was more common in business where it conveyed consignment of goods or money to another person.  In this sense, where it  meant &quot;loan&quot;, &quot;entrust&quot;, or &quot;consign&quot;, the item of interest took the accusative while the person was expressed in the dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing (L &amp; S don't state this) that later, as `credere` became used more generally to convey general trust, confidence, or faith, the accusative was dropped, but the person reference remained in the dative.  However, believing *things*, still takes the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that sound like a good rule of thumb for using `credere` properly?  There is [another credo dative thread on this exchange](https://www.wsj.com/articles/secs-cyber-unit-charges-canadian-firm-with-coin-offering-fraud-1512400168), but it is based on a more subtle example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18827" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5685" RevisionGUID="f66e6673-d361-44f4-ab5a-bad596a51570" CreationDate="2017-12-06T19:33:31.037" UserId="1996" Text="Credere with Dative or Accusative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18828" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5685" RevisionGUID="f66e6673-d361-44f4-ab5a-bad596a51570" CreationDate="2017-12-06T19:33:31.037" UserId="1996" Text="|grammar-choice|verbs|dative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18829" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5683" RevisionGUID="af83d086-6db9-4f22-8b76-81d56d014578" CreationDate="2017-12-06T20:12:01.340" UserId="79" Comment="edited title" Text="Did the Romans have a word for a national day?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5685" RevisionGUID="1fd3abd8-4df9-42ac-adc0-000251fab620" CreationDate="2017-12-06T20:19:14.633" UserId="1996" Comment="Fixed an incorrect link to another post." Text="I came across this sentence in a fictional dialog in my Latin lesson.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; difficile est mihi hoc credere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context, `hoc` refers to someone else's claim of accomplishment.  I had learned earlier that direct objects of `credere`  are normally expressed in the dative.  But in the examples provided in my earlier lessons, the direct objects were people, not claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked this up in my Mac OS application version of Lewis and Short.  The entry implied that the earlier usage of `credere` was more common in business where it conveyed consignment of goods or money to another person.  In this sense, where it  meant &quot;loan&quot;, &quot;entrust&quot;, or &quot;consign&quot;, the item of interest took the accusative while the person was expressed in the dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing (L &amp; S don't state this) that later, as `credere` became used more generally to convey general trust, confidence, or faith, the accusative was dropped, but the person reference remained in the dative.  However, believing *things*, still takes the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that sound like a good rule of thumb for using `credere` properly?  There is [another credo dative thread on this exchange](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2336/credo-with-dative-problem), but it is based on a more subtle example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5498" RevisionGUID="cae39d10-6536-42bc-8c94-d9d0c218ce00" CreationDate="2017-12-06T20:32:25.667" UserId="1407" Comment="added 506 characters in body" Text="Regarding the infinitive specifically, as opposed to conjugated forms of *amare* &quot;to love&quot;, which is a generally accurate definition of mother in relation to her infant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The “R” sound is hard for some children because&#xD;&#xA;it is difficult to see the tongue when you say it and it is&#xD;&#xA;hard to explain to a child how to make it... Many children can say a correct “R” sound by the time they are five and a half&#xD;&#xA;years old, but some do not produce it until they are seven years old.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;SOURCE: [Why is “R” So Hard to Say?][1]  K.F. Bedsole, M.S., CCC-SLP and C.M. Johnson, M.A., CCC-SLP&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;t&quot; sounds would also be quite difficult, but the &quot;o&quot; sound is more accessible because the infant can see the shape of the mouth.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;ama&quot; is quite common as baby babble, in many ways &quot;ma&quot; is the easiest word because it only requires opening the mouth in a fully relaxed state. As one of the first utterances humans will make, I think it's a reasonable assumption that amare might partly derive from &quot;ma&quot; or &quot;ama&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I mean by reasonable assumption is that adults, in my experience, generally try to interpret baby babble.  In this case, the adult might assume the infant is trying to say &quot;you love&quot; (*amas*), which, again, is a generally accurate description of a mother in regards to her infant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.superduperinc.com/handouts/pdf/102_RforParents.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5686" RevisionGUID="e4895173-8038-414b-835a-7288d2d70268" CreationDate="2017-12-06T22:29:22.127" UserId="78" Text="I'm not sure if this is what you have in mind (as &quot;national day&quot; isn't a thing in English), but the festival days for the birth of Rome was, at least in the late Republic, *Parilia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parilia) has more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By the end of the late Republic, the Parilia became associated with the birthday of Rome. Numerous accounts of the founding of Rome exist, but the particular one related to the Parilia is described by Ovid in the Fasti. According to this myth, Romulus, upon reaching Rome on the day of the Parilia, took a stick and engraved a line in the ground that defined the boundaries of the new city (pomerium). He then prayed to the gods Jupiter, Mars, and Vesta asking for protection of this area. However, his brother Remus, unaware of the boundaries, crossed the line and was struck down by Romulus's henchman Celer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Over time, and under the influence of several Roman rulers, the structure of the Parilia changed. First, after Julius Caesar heard the news of Roman Victory at Munda in 45 BC (around the date of the Parilia), he added games to the ceremony. At these games, the citizens would wear crowns in Caesar’s honor. Caligula instituted into the celebration a procession of priests, noblemen, boys and girls of noble birth singing of his virtues while escorting the Golden Shield, previously bestowed upon him by the citizens of Rome, to the Capitol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5683" RevisionGUID="29a7543c-e3b9-43a2-98f8-37bfe5666b88" CreationDate="2017-12-07T09:55:06.610" UserId="79" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="Did the Romans have any kind of a national day, or did the Romans have a name for the national day of some other nation?&#xD;&#xA;Such days go by various names in different countries (e.g. independence day or day of the republic), and I am wondering what the Romans might have called such a day.&#xD;&#xA;The exact definitions of a nation and a national day are not important; I am looking for attested names for celebrations of one's country (or similar) from ancient Latin literature.&#xD;&#xA;I don't really know how close ancient traditions come to modern national days, and that is part of what I want to figure out.&#xD;&#xA;This question was inspired by Finland celebrating its hundredth independence day today, on December 6, 2017." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5687" RevisionGUID="6222abf6-ad6b-4101-9b6f-a5934c8ed6b0" CreationDate="2017-12-07T10:38:39.197" UserId="79" Text="How could I translate the word &quot;clearance&quot; to Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I mean it in the sense of a security clearance, a background check to gain authorization to access some information or a location.&#xD;&#xA;The most fitting words I found are *permissio*, *concessio*, *venia*, and *licentia*, but I'm not sure which (if any) would be good for the kind of use I described.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I should take one of these nouns and supplement it with an adjective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18835" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5687" RevisionGUID="6222abf6-ad6b-4101-9b6f-a5934c8ed6b0" CreationDate="2017-12-07T10:38:39.197" UserId="79" Text="How to translate &quot;clearance&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18836" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5687" RevisionGUID="6222abf6-ad6b-4101-9b6f-a5934c8ed6b0" CreationDate="2017-12-07T10:38:39.197" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5688" RevisionGUID="1b492e83-e845-40ac-ae2c-46621e5f764b" CreationDate="2017-12-07T17:13:40.580" UserId="645" Text="I suggest that *comprobatio cautionalis* is close in meaning to the English phrase. It might be roughly re-translated as 'approval [granted] after taking precautions'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5683" RevisionGUID="c91713d3-35de-4fec-85e3-825cc3a9a876" CreationDate="2017-12-07T22:11:15.127" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Did the Romans have any kind of a national day, or did the Romans have a name for the national day of some other nation?&#xD;&#xA;Such days go by various names in different countries (e.g. independence day or day of the republic), and I am wondering what the Romans might have called such a day.&#xD;&#xA;The exact definitions of a nation and a national day are not important; I am looking for attested names for celebrations of one's country (or similar) in ancient Latin literature.&#xD;&#xA;I don't really know how close ancient traditions come to modern national days, and that is part of what I want to figure out.&#xD;&#xA;This question was inspired by Finland celebrating its hundredth independence day today, on December 6, 2017." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18839" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5683" RevisionGUID="c91713d3-35de-4fec-85e3-825cc3a9a876" CreationDate="2017-12-07T22:11:15.127" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Did the Romans have an expression for a national day?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5686" RevisionGUID="56d4c479-0ca5-4c30-88dc-a533103518d2" CreationDate="2017-12-08T16:05:20.857" UserId="78" Comment="edited body" Text="I'm not sure if this is what you have in mind (as &quot;national day&quot; isn't a thing in America), but the festival days for the birth of Rome was, at least in the late Republic, *Parilia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parilia) has more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By the end of the late Republic, the Parilia became associated with the birthday of Rome. Numerous accounts of the founding of Rome exist, but the particular one related to the Parilia is described by Ovid in the Fasti. According to this myth, Romulus, upon reaching Rome on the day of the Parilia, took a stick and engraved a line in the ground that defined the boundaries of the new city (pomerium). He then prayed to the gods Jupiter, Mars, and Vesta asking for protection of this area. However, his brother Remus, unaware of the boundaries, crossed the line and was struck down by Romulus's henchman Celer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Over time, and under the influence of several Roman rulers, the structure of the Parilia changed. First, after Julius Caesar heard the news of Roman Victory at Munda in 45 BC (around the date of the Parilia), he added games to the ceremony. At these games, the citizens would wear crowns in Caesar’s honor. Caligula instituted into the celebration a procession of priests, noblemen, boys and girls of noble birth singing of his virtues while escorting the Golden Shield, previously bestowed upon him by the citizens of Rome, to the Capitol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5689" RevisionGUID="4815a778-22b9-44a3-a3b9-125ca5260a15" CreationDate="2017-12-08T16:50:41.760" UserId="68" Text="I'll leave this here until somebody writes a more thorough answer, but in short, yes, that's an excellent way of thinking about it: the thing believed is in the accusative, the source of the information on which the belief is based is in the dative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5690" RevisionGUID="537a72c0-6969-44e8-8cd7-10caba4de7b3" CreationDate="2017-12-08T23:05:52.673" UserId="79" Text="There seems to be a large number of verbs derived from *plere*, all meaning &quot;to fill&quot; to some extent:&#xD;&#xA;*plere*, *supplere*, *complere*, *implere*, *explere*, *opplere*.&#xD;&#xA;I understand that *replere* means &quot;to refill&quot; and *deplere* &quot;to empty&quot;, but the the ones I listed seem to mean pretty much the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a rule of thumb for the differences between (some of) these verbs?&#xD;&#xA;Are there major differences that I should be aware of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't have to be very precise; I am looking for a short overview of differences in context, nuance, or other.&#xD;&#xA;If two or more of these seem to be (almost) synonymous, I have nothing against it.&#xD;&#xA;Even if they are all effectively synonyms, so be it; lack of important differences would be useful knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;For a more fine-grained analysis, it is certainly better to compare less words at a time, but I hope my list of verbs is not unfeasibly long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For definiteness, let me restrict this question to uses in classical Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18843" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5690" RevisionGUID="537a72c0-6969-44e8-8cd7-10caba4de7b3" CreationDate="2017-12-08T23:05:52.673" UserId="79" Text="A rough comparison of different derivatives of plere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18844" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5690" RevisionGUID="537a72c0-6969-44e8-8cd7-10caba4de7b3" CreationDate="2017-12-08T23:05:52.673" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|verbs|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5691" RevisionGUID="e19b4e3c-6559-434b-a028-1dc151ec1883" CreationDate="2017-12-09T01:01:35.767" UserId="68" Text="This, from Dumesnil/Gossett, gives us most of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It leaves out *supplēre*; from Jentzen's 1853 *Liber Differentiārum Linguæ Latīnæ in Ūsū Juventūtis Literās Studiōsæ* we get&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Supplemus* id, quod addimus, cum deerat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which, in conjunction with the word &quot;supplement,&quot; I take to comprise the idea of a *needful* or *enhancing* addition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sXkrP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5692" RevisionGUID="26e9dc7f-9dc6-4869-910e-f168248535e4" CreationDate="2017-12-09T09:28:23.320" UserId="68" Text="Lewis &amp; Short does indeed give &quot;son-in-law&quot; as the translation of *gener*, with a few closely-related terms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. Lit.: “cum soceris generi non lavantur,” Cic. Off. 1, 35, 129; cf.: “mei viri gener,” Plaut. Cist. 4, 2, 87: “generum nostrum ire cum adfini suo,” id. Trin. 3, 1, 21: “et gener et affines placent,” Ter. Heaut. 5, 1, 63; cf. id. ib. 4, 8, 25; id. And. 3, 3, 39; id. Hec. 4, 1, 22: “C. Fannium et Quintum Scaevolam, generos Laelii,” Cic. Rep. 1, 12; id. Lael. 1, 3; 8, 26; id. Att. 4, 2, 4; Caes. B. G. 5, 56, 3; Quint. 6 praef. § 13; Hor. C. 2, 4, 13; Ov. F. 3, 202; Vulg. 1 Reg. 18, 18 et saep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;—Also, a daughter's bridegroom, Hor. Epod. 6, 13; Verg. A. 2, 344; cf.: “generi et nurus appellatione sponsus quoque et sponsa continetur,” Dig. 38, 10, 6.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;II. Transf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A. The husband of a granddaughter or greatgranddaughter, for progener, qui conlegam et generum adsciverat Sejanum, Tac. A. 5, 6; 6, 8; cf.: “generi appellatione et neptis et proneptis tam ex filio quam ex filia editarum, ceterarumque maritos contineri manifestum est,” Dig. 50, 16, 136.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;B. A sister's husband, brother-in-law, Just. 18, 4; Nep. Paus. 1.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;C. Comically, of a daughter's paramour: “Villius in Fausta Sullae gener, etc.,” Hor. S. 1, 2, 64.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it looks like your translation is exactly right!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5693" RevisionGUID="cb58f925-4788-4748-b45e-97340c11bc97" CreationDate="2017-12-09T10:42:17.063" UserId="68" Text="So what's going on here is that 19th century Latin textbooks never caught up with the 20th century. Toss all the &quot;would/should&quot; nonsense. That's not how we talk anymore. Here's how we would translate these things today:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Present (potential) subjunctive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Si Marcus Iuliam amet, ea eum amet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If Marcus were to love Julia [which is one of the options open to him], she would love him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperfect (contrafactual) subjunctive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Si Marcus Iuliam amaret, ea eum amaret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If Marcus loved Julia [which he doesn't], she would love him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The crucial difference here is in the protasis (that is, the &quot;if&quot; clause). Though the potential subjunctive here (marked by the present) can be translated *if he loved* or *if he were to love*, the contrafactual subjunctive (marked by the imperfect) **cannot** be translated *if he were to love*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can remember, French and Italian have no equivalent for this use of the present subjunctive. However, my French and Italian are VERY rusty, so I could be completely wrong about this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5694" RevisionGUID="5c095147-0396-49e4-9d66-a0dede4972d0" CreationDate="2017-12-09T14:03:46.143" UserId="845" Text="I want to translate the sentence &quot;Manchester City gets the first place&quot; to Latin, in a sports headline kind of context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I roughly did it as &quot;Manchester Urbe primum positionem tenet&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Urbe part is just a joke, but is &quot;primum positionem tenet&quot; right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOTE: May look as homework but it's not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18849" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5694" RevisionGUID="5c095147-0396-49e4-9d66-a0dede4972d0" CreationDate="2017-12-09T14:03:46.143" UserId="845" Text="Latest sports headlines in Latin: &quot;Manchester City gets the first place&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18850" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5694" RevisionGUID="5c095147-0396-49e4-9d66-a0dede4972d0" CreationDate="2017-12-09T14:03:46.143" UserId="845" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5695" RevisionGUID="9674fe64-d08c-4b09-bc83-11b3a155f5ef" CreationDate="2017-12-09T15:47:43.527" UserId="645" Text="Nearly correct, but *positio* is feminine, so it should be *primam positionem tenet*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that it's all a bit fancy, or even too indirect for a footballing context. I wouldn't say 'gets first place' : after all, it's not a race. You could try *Partes Urbis Mancuniae vincit*, literally '[the team] of the City [of] Manchester wins'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5695" RevisionGUID="af1cae08-ba7f-47a3-97a7-169557571c0a" CreationDate="2017-12-09T16:14:48.210" UserId="645" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="Nearly correct, but *positio* is feminine, so it should be *primam positionem tenet*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel that it's all a bit fancy, or even too indirect for a footballing context. I wouldn't say 'gets first place' : after all, it's not a race. You could try *Partes Urbis Mancuniae vincit*, literally '[the team] of the City [of] Manchester wins'. To show that MC leads the Premiership, *Partes Urbis Mancuniae primarium cursum ducit*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5696" RevisionGUID="808b4ef9-5888-4937-ba00-eb0a926746a0" CreationDate="2017-12-09T16:26:36.043" UserId="2244" Text="I found the following inscription on the cover of a &quot;Codex vinorum&quot;: &quot;Vinicultores Illustrissimi Hungari&quot; (as I would translate: the most excellent Hungarian viticulturists). I would like to give this present to a Latinist and I have the possibility to have this inscription changed. Is it grammatically correct with the two attributives put after the noun? Is it generally used in Latin language &quot;Hungari&quot; as an attributive or &quot;Hungarici&quot; should be used? Isn't it possible that instead of this inscription the following would be better: &quot;Illustrissimi vinicultores Hungariae&quot;? Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18854" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5696" RevisionGUID="808b4ef9-5888-4937-ba00-eb0a926746a0" CreationDate="2017-12-09T16:26:36.043" UserId="2244" Text="Is it &quot;Vinicultores Illustrissimi Hungari&quot; grammatically correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18855" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5696" RevisionGUID="808b4ef9-5888-4937-ba00-eb0a926746a0" CreationDate="2017-12-09T16:26:36.043" UserId="2244" Text="|grammar-choice|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5697" RevisionGUID="cb72e121-778c-4fbe-82d5-1adb449ef579" CreationDate="2017-12-09T18:34:40.593" UserId="118" Text="If you mean that Manchester City just moved into first place:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Urbs Mancuniensis locum primum capit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background: [Manchester](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester#Name) was founded by the ancient Romans in 79 A.D. They called it _Mamucium_ or sometimes _Mancunium._ The latter seems to have won out. [Vicipædia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancunium#Cultura) gives _Mancunium Urbs_ for the name of the football team, but I think _Urbs Mancuniensis_ follows Latin custom better. You can see the usual custom in the established Latin names of [_Universitas Mancuniensis_](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universitas_Mancuniensis) and [_Schola Mancuniensis_](https://books.google.com/books?id=euFgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PR4&amp;lpg=PR4&amp;dq=%22schola+mancuniensis%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1tybQOVcX4&amp;sig=a5KvVi9YnTlcWcSoVo9mIIU_NEY&amp;hl=la&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiT9--yyP3XAhXM4yYKHXEdC_UQ6AEIPTAF#v=onepage&amp;q=%22schola%20mancuniensis%22&amp;f=false) (the Manchester Grammar School).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't find clear-cut precedent for a Latin expression for &quot;first place&quot; in a contest or race, but I did find some where _locus primus_ indicates the most prestigious position, so it seems right. _Positionem primam_ is probably fine, too, as is _tenet._ _Tenet_ is probably better if you just mean that Manchester City is in first place, not that they just got there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If in doubt, you should take Tom Cotton's suggestion over mine. I'm just a little past the beginner stage and getting this from dictionaries and searches. Tom's got a genuine feel for the language from extensive use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5697" RevisionGUID="08cd5ebd-938f-46da-a578-fb0f84fa4b22" CreationDate="2017-12-09T20:07:18.627" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 359 characters in body" Text="If you mean that Manchester City just moved into first place:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Urbs Mancunium locum primum capit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background: [Manchester](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester#Name) was founded by the ancient Romans in 79 A.D. They called it _Mamucium_ or sometimes _Mancunium._ The latter seems to have won out. [Vicipædia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancunium#Cultura) gives _Mancunium Urbs_ for the name of the football team, but I think _Urbs Mancunium_ follows Latin custom a little better (also used by Vicipædia [here](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alanus_Mathison_Turing#Urbs_Mancunium)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't find clear-cut precedent for a Latin expression for &quot;first place&quot; in a contest or race, but I did find some where _locus primus_ indicates the most prestigious position, so it seems right. _Positionem primam_ is probably fine, too, as is _tenet._ _Tenet_ is probably better if you just mean that Manchester City is in first place, not that they just got there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If in doubt, you should take Tom Cotton's suggestion over mine. I'm just a little past the beginner stage and getting this from dictionaries and searches. Tom's got a genuine feel for the language from extensive use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5697" RevisionGUID="8f9c206a-fb9f-4b2e-b586-f67e22635cef" CreationDate="2017-12-09T20:13:01.783" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 359 characters in body" Text="If you mean that Manchester City just moved into first place:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Urbs Mancunium locum primum capit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background: [Manchester](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester#Name) was founded by the ancient Romans in 79 A.D. They called it _Mamucium_ or sometimes _Mancunium._ The latter seems to have won out. [Vicipædia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancunium#Cultura) gives _Mancunium Urbs_ for the name of the football team, but I think _Urbs Mancunium_ follows Latin custom a little better (also used by Vicipædia [here](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alanus_Mathison_Turing#Urbs_Mancunium)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't find clear-cut precedent for a Latin expression for &quot;first place&quot; in a contest or race, but I did find some where _locus primus_ indicates the most prestigious position, so it seems right. _Positionem primam_ is probably fine, too, as is _tenet._ _Tenet_ is probably better if you just mean that Manchester City is in first place, not that they just got there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is very big news and you want to go all-out Roman, either on stone or newsprint, you could make the headline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; VRBS·MANCVNIVM·LOCVM·PRIMVM·CAPIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If in doubt, you should take Tom Cotton's suggestion over mine. I'm just a little past the beginner stage and getting this from dictionaries and searches. Tom's got a genuine feel for the language from extensive use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5698" RevisionGUID="bc81aa44-aafa-4568-8691-61b5fe8e5c65" CreationDate="2017-12-09T22:40:27.203" UserId="79" Text="The pair *Hungarus* (noun) and *Hungaricus* (adjective) in Latin is like &quot;Swede&quot; and &quot;Swedish&quot; or &quot;Briton&quot; and &quot;British&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding pair for Hungary in English would be &quot;Hungarian&quot; and &quot;Hungarian&quot;, but the distinction is clear in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;In this case you want an adjective, as you already have the noun *vinicultor*.&#xD;&#xA;In general, I would advice using the adjective demonym when an attribute is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin prefers adjectives to genitives far more than English.&#xD;&#xA;For example, it would be well justified to translate *Vinicultores Illustrissimi Hungarici* as &quot;the most excellent viticulturists of Hungary&quot;, but your translation is possible, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting two or more attributes next to a noun is indeed possible.&#xD;&#xA;Most adjectives follow the noun, but the ones expressing either size or a good or bad property typically precede it (cf. e.g. Tuomo Pekkanen, *Ars Grammatica*, §130.2).&#xD;&#xA;The adjective *Hungaricus* is neutral, but *illustris* describes something good.&#xD;&#xA;Latin word order is flexible, but there are some tendencies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For these reasons I suggest ***Vinicultores Illustrissimi Hungarici***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5696" RevisionGUID="e4923416-6e16-4659-b3af-394e0c998668" CreationDate="2017-12-09T22:43:14.540" UserId="79" Comment="Rephrased a little. Feel free to re-edit or roll back." Text="I found the following inscription on the cover of a &quot;Codex vinorum&quot;: &quot;Vinicultores Illustrissimi Hungari&quot; (as I would translate: the most excellent Hungarian viticulturists). I would like to give this present to a Latinist and I have the possibility to have this inscription changed. Is it grammatically correct with the two attributives put after the noun? Is &quot;Hungari&quot; generally used in Latin language  as an attributive or should &quot;Hungarici&quot; be used? Isn't it possible that instead of this inscription the following would be better: &quot;Illustrissimi vinicultores Hungariae&quot;? Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18861" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5696" RevisionGUID="e4923416-6e16-4659-b3af-394e0c998668" CreationDate="2017-12-09T22:43:14.540" UserId="79" Comment="Rephrased a little. Feel free to re-edit or roll back." Text="Is &quot;Vinicultores Illustrissimi Hungari&quot; grammatically correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18862" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5696" RevisionGUID="e4923416-6e16-4659-b3af-394e0c998668" CreationDate="2017-12-09T22:43:14.540" UserId="79" Comment="Rephrased a little. Feel free to re-edit or roll back." Text="|grammar-choice|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5691" RevisionGUID="e30e377f-53ab-49f9-b0ba-9c6bded86a4c" CreationDate="2017-12-09T22:59:27.770" UserId="79" Comment="added 301 characters in body" Text="This, from Dumesnil/Gossett, gives us most of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![screenshot from a book][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a transliteration of the key content:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Implere* is to fill what is quite empty.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Exprere*, to complete the filling up, or number. (Also to empty.)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Complere*, to fill up to the top, or with many things.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Replere*, to fill up again.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Opplere*, to fill a surface all over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It leaves out *supplēre*; from Jentzen's 1853 *Liber Differentiārum Linguæ Latīnæ in Ūsū Juventūtis Literās Studiōsæ* we get&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Supplemus* id, quod addimus, cum deerat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which, in conjunction with the word &quot;supplement,&quot; I take to comprise the idea of a *needful* or *enhancing* addition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sXkrP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5698" RevisionGUID="0d19d646-0623-44f8-985d-21435fc779d7" CreationDate="2017-12-10T10:04:30.093" UserId="79" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="The pair *Hungarus* (noun) and *Hungaricus* (adjective) in Latin is like &quot;Swede&quot; and &quot;Swedish&quot; or &quot;Briton&quot; and &quot;British&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding pair for Hungary in English would be &quot;Hungarian&quot; and &quot;Hungarian&quot;, but the distinction is clear in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;In this case you want an adjective, as you already have the noun *vinicultor*.&#xD;&#xA;In general, I would advice using the adjective demonym when an attribute is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin prefers adjectives to genitives far more than English.&#xD;&#xA;For example, it would be well justified to translate *Vinicultores Illustrissimi Hungarici* as &quot;the most excellent viticulturists of Hungary&quot;, but your translation is possible, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting two or more attributes next to a noun is indeed possible.&#xD;&#xA;Most adjectives follow the noun, but the ones expressing either size or a good or bad property typically precede it (cf. e.g. Tuomo Pekkanen, *Ars Grammatica*, §130.2).&#xD;&#xA;The adjective *Hungaricus* is neutral, but *illustris* describes something good.&#xD;&#xA;Latin word order is flexible, but there are some tendencies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For these reasons I suggest ***Vinicultores Illustrissimi Hungarici*** or ***Illustrissimi Vinicultores Hungarici***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18865" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5680" RevisionGUID="beb2871a-8260-4a6b-8232-b7f5b758b2f6" CreationDate="2017-12-10T11:40:44.420" UserId="2211" Comment="i think a is separate from ation and n seems part of it but disappeared in nominative case" Text="is there &quot;i&quot; suffix that makes verb from noun? etymology of tio(n) suffix" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5699" RevisionGUID="291e7df6-fc37-4598-8967-ef19681aeea6" CreationDate="2017-12-10T16:36:35.073" UserDisplayName="user761" Text="I tried to do a Google translate of the word timeline but it just came up with &quot;timeline&quot; again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please can somebody let me know what the ancient and/or modern latin translation is for the concept of a timeline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5699" RevisionGUID="291e7df6-fc37-4598-8967-ef19681aeea6" CreationDate="2017-12-10T16:36:35.073" UserDisplayName="user761" Text="What is the best translation for the word timeline" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5699" RevisionGUID="291e7df6-fc37-4598-8967-ef19681aeea6" CreationDate="2017-12-10T16:36:35.073" UserDisplayName="user761" Text="|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5700" RevisionGUID="28e52055-0631-4a94-a5d6-5f57b3c23ae2" CreationDate="2017-12-10T17:10:59.453" UserId="645" Text="*Linea temporum* is simple and should serve for most situations. This literally means 'line of times', which has 'time' in the plural, rather than singular, to indicate that the times in question are connected by a single line." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5699" RevisionGUID="4bc32879-b6e5-4858-9860-ad88f74dc235" CreationDate="2017-12-10T17:55:42.733" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="I tried to do a Google translation of the word &quot;timeline&quot; but it just came up with &quot;timeline&quot; again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please can somebody let me know what the ancient and/or modern Latin translation is for the concept of a timeline?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18871" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5699" RevisionGUID="4bc32879-b6e5-4858-9860-ad88f74dc235" CreationDate="2017-12-10T17:55:42.733" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the best translation for the word timeline?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5701" RevisionGUID="b2203d68-9301-4d67-9c3c-389f8bf2816b" CreationDate="2017-12-10T18:04:06.683" UserId="79" Text="As an alternative to Tom Cotton's good suggestion, I offer *linea temporalis*, &quot;time-related line&quot; or &quot;temporal line&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Latin uses more adjectives than some other languages, English included, so *linea temporalis* is indeed naturally translated to English as &quot;time line&quot; or &quot;timeline&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5702" RevisionGUID="4725fd68-efda-45ff-8427-50e4366ea461" CreationDate="2017-12-10T20:02:31.543" UserId="2072" Text="Has anybody found the actual database of [&quot;Corpus Latinorum Et Mediaevalium Naturae Scriptorum&quot;][1] instead of just project notes? The descriptions look incredibly promising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CLEMENS, acronym for Corpus Latinorum Et Mediaevalium Naturae Scriptorum, is a new electronic archive of *excerpta* reporting environment-related data contained in the literary and epigraphic sources of classical Roman and Medieval age. The aim is to fill a gap in information about environmental disruptions or memorabilia that occurred in ancient times within the Mediterranean basin, and to verify whether any useful information has eluded our knowledge. One of the main purposes of the systematic gathering and cataloguing carried out by CLEMENS is to become an extensive easy-to-search tool, offering the scientific community complete annotated documentation of what is available inside ancient sources about the natural environment in the Mediterranean. This information, currently dispersed in a variety of publications that may be difficult to access, has often proven essential for hazard assessment in several areas of the former Roman empire. It also contributes significantly to the understanding of changes caused by environmental events over the centuries, and of their incidence on natural habitats and on cultural heritage. The analysis of such interconnections may lead to a much improved understanding of either natural environment, hazards and cultural setting, as shown by interdisciplinary investigations merging together science, archaeology and history or even myth.&#xD;&#xA;Considering the vast amount of documentation, the work is still far from completion. However, the encouraging preliminary results will soon be available on the web.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This citation is from &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[L. Piccardi &amp; W. B. Masse: &quot;Myth and Geology&quot;, The Geological Society: London, 2008, p 51–61.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Soon&quot; should be reached by now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But where is it? Was it renamed, only in Italian, offline only, abandoned?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.de/search?&amp;q=Corpus%20Latinorum%20Et%20Mediaevalium%20Naturae%20Scriptorum&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.1208/abstract" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18874" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5702" RevisionGUID="4725fd68-efda-45ff-8427-50e4366ea461" CreationDate="2017-12-10T20:02:31.543" UserId="2072" Text="Where is the database of &quot;Corpus Latinorum Et Mediaevalium Naturae Scriptorum&quot;, promised 10 years ago" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18875" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5702" RevisionGUID="4725fd68-efda-45ff-8427-50e4366ea461" CreationDate="2017-12-10T20:02:31.543" UserId="2072" Text="|classical-latin|medieval-latin|text-corpus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5703" RevisionGUID="a18b0a66-89b0-48f3-be03-21cff9c4c0f9" CreationDate="2017-12-11T02:59:11.877" UserId="2248" Text="What word could we use to describe someone who doesn't believe in unicorns? Ideally, looking for a (newly made ir existing) latin-based word. Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18877" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5703" RevisionGUID="a18b0a66-89b0-48f3-be03-21cff9c4c0f9" CreationDate="2017-12-11T02:59:11.877" UserId="2248" Text="Latin for one who doesn't believe in unicorns?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18878" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5703" RevisionGUID="a18b0a66-89b0-48f3-be03-21cff9c4c0f9" CreationDate="2017-12-11T02:59:11.877" UserId="2248" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5703" RevisionGUID="e7829c55-f76d-4d99-a660-27dcedb395af" CreationDate="2017-12-11T07:20:45.610" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="What word could we use to describe someone who doesn't believe in unicorns? Ideally, looking for a (newly made or existing) Latin-based word. Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18880" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5703" RevisionGUID="e7829c55-f76d-4d99-a660-27dcedb395af" CreationDate="2017-12-11T07:20:45.610" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5704" RevisionGUID="15056f9f-0aa6-464b-b5f9-44006a8d4dac" CreationDate="2017-12-11T14:40:18.153" UserId="39" Text="You need to read at least Pultrova 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She dismisses Benveniste 1948 proposal (that PIE *ti &gt; Lat. ti-o):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“the lack of convincingness of the Benveniste’s theory for latin nouns in -tiō and -tus follows from a simple fact: the subst. in -tiō probably have nothing in common with the inherited subst. in *-ti-, as is generally believed.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She argues that “Lat. subst. in -tiō originated through secondary derivation by the stressed suf x *-i̯én- from the verbal adjectives in *-tós“ (p. 85)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5705" RevisionGUID="f3dc9324-1722-4d15-a539-1c757eff2ac8" CreationDate="2017-12-11T15:15:54.800" UserId="78" Text="**amonocerista**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*a*- is the alpha privative, which denotes absence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*μονόκερως*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dmono%2Fkerws) (*monokeros*) is the Greek word for [unicorn](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/106/does-the-bible-mention-unicorns).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the ending, the Greeks use -*ιστης* (like in [*οἰκιστής*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Doi\)kisth%2Fs)), which in Latin is *ista*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, the word could be simply &quot;amonocerist.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5704" RevisionGUID="9bc11311-1003-40a0-8e14-bf63934e361e" CreationDate="2017-12-11T17:58:46.280" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="You need to read at least Pultrova 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She dismisses Benveniste 1948 proposal (that PIE *ti &gt; Lat. ti-o):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“the lack of convincingness of the Benveniste’s theory for latin nouns in -tiō and -tus follows from a simple fact: the subst. in -tiō probably have nothing in common with the inherited subst. in *-ti-, as is generally believed.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She argues that “Lat. subst. in -tiō originated through secondary derivation by the stressed suffix *-i̯én- from the verbal adjectives in *-tós“ (p. 85)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4871" RevisionGUID="b8c64019-1661-4d92-a129-b33db59f3e49" CreationDate="2017-12-11T18:34:32.947" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="I recently encountered someone in an online game who had the battlecry &quot;Veni, vidi, calce asinum!&quot;. Now, my Latin's quite rusty, but I'm certain that can only be translated as &quot;I came, I saw, I kicked donkey&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would I express the sentiment &quot;I came, I saw, I kicked ass&quot; in Latin? I'm more interested in preserving the general sentiment than in the literal meaning of kicking someone in the buttocks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18885" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4871" RevisionGUID="b8c64019-1661-4d92-a129-b33db59f3e49" CreationDate="2017-12-11T18:34:32.947" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|idiom|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5704" RevisionGUID="f2371dbf-08e9-47f8-804b-4171f804f13b" CreationDate="2017-12-12T00:47:27.667" UserId="39" Comment="added 535 characters in body" Text="The usual explanation goes back to Benveniste 1948 and it is still the most common analysis that can still be found virtually everywhere, e.g. [Fruyt 2011][1] writes the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;*-tiōn-* fem. is a Latin adaptation of inherited *-ti- (following the zero grade of the root in other IE languages, i.e.the short form of the root with no media *e*), phonetically reinforced by *-ōn- or *-iōn- in order to avoid phonetic disturbances&quot; (p. 159).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, in many cases Lat. -tio is a secondary, athematic suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Pultrova 2011 questions the analysis mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She dismisses Benveniste 1948 proposal (that PIE *ti &gt; Lat. ti-o) on the grounds that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;the subst. in -tiō probably have nothing in common with the inherited subst. in *-ti-, as is generally believed.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She argues that “Lat. subst. in -tiō originated through secondary derivation by the stressed suffix *-i̯én- from the verbal adjectives in *-tós“ (p. 85).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch10/summary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5704" RevisionGUID="c01c5ce9-ff58-41b1-a10b-b07ae4d574ed" CreationDate="2017-12-12T01:01:14.407" UserId="39" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="The usual explanation goes back to [Benveniste 1948][1] and it is still the most common analysis that can still be found virtually everywhere, e.g. [Fruyt 2011][2] writes the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;*-tiōn-* fem. is a Latin adaptation of inherited *-ti- (following the zero grade of the root in other IE languages, i.e.the short form of the root with no media *e*), phonetically reinforced by *-ōn- or *-iōn- in order to avoid phonetic disturbances&quot; (p. 159).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, in many cases Lat. -tio is a secondary, athematic suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Pultrova 2011 questions the analysis mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She dismisses Benveniste 1948 proposal (that PIE *ti &gt; Lat. ti-o) on the grounds that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;the subst. in -tiō probably have nothing in common with the inherited subst. in *-ti-, as is generally believed.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She argues that “Lat. subst. in -tiō originated through secondary derivation by the stressed suffix *-i̯én- from the verbal adjectives in *-tós“ (p. 85).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/BenvenisteNomsDagentEtNomsDactionEnIndoEuropeen1948&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch10/summary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5704" RevisionGUID="57f68085-0e32-4628-b9dc-4dd720d9578d" CreationDate="2017-12-12T01:08:31.740" UserId="39" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="The usual explanation goes back to [Benveniste 1948][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Benveniste 1948: 97).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is still the most common analysis that can still be found virtually everywhere, e.g. [Fruyt 2011][3] writes the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;*-tiōn-* fem. is a Latin adaptation of inherited *-ti- (following the zero grade of the root in other IE languages, i.e.the short form of the root with no media *e*), phonetically reinforced by *-ōn- or *-iōn- in order to avoid phonetic disturbances&quot; (p. 159).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, in many cases Lat. -tio is a secondary, athematic suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Pultrova 2011 questions the analysis mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She dismisses Benveniste 1948 proposal (that PIE *ti &gt; Lat. ti-o) on the grounds that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;the subst. in -tiō probably have nothing in common with the inherited subst. in *-ti-, as is generally believed.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She argues that “Lat. subst. in -tiō originated through secondary derivation by the stressed suffix *-i̯én- from the verbal adjectives in *-tós“ (p. 85).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/BenvenisteNomsDagentEtNomsDactionEnIndoEuropeen1948&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/z1FVs.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch10/summary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5704" RevisionGUID="c1c4ad86-de28-4231-ad44-be9f9d29908f" CreationDate="2017-12-12T01:21:12.850" UserId="39" Comment="added 165 characters in body" Text="The usual explanation goes back to [Benveniste 1948][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Benveniste 1948: 97).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is still the most common analysis that can still be found virtually everywhere, e.g. [Fruyt 2011][3] writes the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;*-tiōn-* fem. is a Latin adaptation of inherited *-ti- (following the zero grade of the root in other IE languages, i.e.the short form of the root with no media *e*), phonetically reinforced by *-ōn- or *-iōn- in order to avoid phonetic disturbances&quot; (p. 159).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, in many cases Lat. -tio is a secondary, athematic suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, [Pultrova 2011][4] questions the analysis mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She dismisses Benveniste 1948 proposal (that PIE *ti &gt; Lat. ti-o) on the grounds that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;the subst. in -tiō probably have nothing in common with the inherited subst. in *-ti-, as is generally believed.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She argues that “Lat. subst. in -tiō originated through secondary derivation by the stressed suffix *-i̯én- from the verbal adjectives in *-tós“ (p. 85).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She also mentions a very interesting proposal by Olsen and Rasmussen 1999, who claimed that the suffixes -to-, -tu- and -ti- are allomorphs of the same morpheme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/BenvenisteNomsDagentEtNomsDactionEnIndoEuropeen1948&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/z1FVs.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch10/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.cupress.cuni.cz/ink2_stat/index.jsp?include=AUC_cislo&amp;predkl=60&amp;casopis=96&amp;zalozkaCas=1&amp;id=2841&amp;zalozka=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5706" RevisionGUID="c4ed49cd-26eb-49a9-a69a-ccf3fc16a216" CreationDate="2017-12-12T11:10:03.240" UserId="584" Text="I found some kind of an answer in this lenghty review of Reginald Foster's book by Michael Fontaine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here he argues that the ways of learning latin can be dividin into&#xD;&#xA;**The Living Tradition** vs. **The Philological Tradition**, &#xD;&#xA;where Reginald Foster belongs to the first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The 2 ways are described like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Living Tradition**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The living tradition, like bodybuilders, aims to increase mass&#xD;&#xA;&gt; overall before refining the fat-muscle mix later on. Instead of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; commentaries, it favors dictionaries, synonyms, hacks, puns,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contemporary English, and extensive reading.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [Reginald Foster] is in the business of teaching us the whole language, not how to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; prepare ourselves to just read chunks of Virgil or Julius Caesar. Make&#xD;&#xA;&gt; no mistake: 99.9% of the book is solid classical or Christian Latin&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that Erasmus or Cicero would have recognized immediately. But Foster&#xD;&#xA;&gt; insists, rightly, that anyone who wants to know Latin needs to know&#xD;&#xA;&gt; its vocabulary. As he points out, this method is like learning the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; piano: “This is the way a new pianist slowly grows in acquaintance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with notes, keys, combinations, harmonies, rhythms, scales — the whole&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reality.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Philological Tradition**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Philology likes things lean and mean from the get-go, so it uses&#xD;&#xA;&gt; commentaries extensively and favors close reading — arguably, because&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it has to; the pace is glacial, so students can comment on individual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; words or maybe a sentence.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://medium.com/hack-your-latin/thats-latin-a-review-of-afb3bdd10711" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18891" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5102" RevisionGUID="c6d8e5ee-e58c-4de7-b5ec-a5e027ad5ca5" CreationDate="2017-12-12T12:03:39.670" UserId="584" Comment="edited tags" Text="|contemporary-latin|teaching-method|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18892" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5103" RevisionGUID="c250a06d-1f3d-45d5-907c-2ed77edaa4ac" CreationDate="2017-12-12T12:05:02.723" UserId="584" Comment="edited tags" Text="|contemporary-latin|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|teaching-method|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5707" RevisionGUID="9c9c768d-d5e8-412f-b492-adeb7d2beb6e" CreationDate="2017-12-12T13:12:28.557" UserId="79" Text="Is there a classical Latin adjective or other similar phrase for &quot;soaking wet&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;I expect that I should take an adjective for &quot;wet&quot; and prefix it with *per-*, but I did not manage to find examples of this or more colorful expressions.&#xD;&#xA;Are there attested mentions of soaking wet things in classical Latin literature?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18894" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5707" RevisionGUID="9c9c768d-d5e8-412f-b492-adeb7d2beb6e" CreationDate="2017-12-12T13:12:28.557" UserId="79" Text="What is &quot;soaking wet&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18895" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5707" RevisionGUID="9c9c768d-d5e8-412f-b492-adeb7d2beb6e" CreationDate="2017-12-12T13:12:28.557" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|word-request|adjective|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5708" RevisionGUID="897a8f81-f048-4722-bb5e-9f3091c72f2c" CreationDate="2017-12-12T13:15:12.513" UserId="78" Text="The word you're looking for is [*madidus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmadidus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **mădĭdus**, a, um, adj. madeo,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I.moist, wet, soaked, drenched (rare until after the Aug. per.).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. Lit.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A. In gen.: fasciculus epistolarum aquā madidus, * Cic. *Q. Fr.* 2, 12, 4:" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5708" RevisionGUID="f4d07059-5e61-4971-9ec8-0b429c9fb2e8" CreationDate="2017-12-12T13:17:15.057" UserId="78" Comment=" " Text="The word you're looking for is [*madidus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmadidus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **mădĭdus**, a, um, adj. madeo,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I.moist, wet, soaked, drenched (rare until after the Aug. per.).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. Lit.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A. In gen.: fasciculus epistolarum aquā madidus, * Cic. *Q. Fr.* 2, 12, 4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare this to [*umidus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dumidus), meaning &quot;a little wet, damp, etc.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1297" RevisionGUID="35e80cb4-3a14-4a02-8aff-4ad28cc294d9" CreationDate="2017-12-12T19:46:28.730" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted the list with what I assume to be the intended indentation." Text="*Animal* is certainly applicable to men, both in classical literary usage and in prevalent philosophical discourse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Classical Literary Usage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Referring to man&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; First, a few examples of *animal* being used to refer to men, all taken from the [Lewis &amp; Short entry for *animal*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Danimal):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **animal hoc** prouidum, sagax, multiplex, acutum, memor, plenum rationis et consilii, **quem uocamus hominem**, praeclara quadam condicione generatum esse a supremo deo. (Cic. Leg. 1.22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Sanctius his animal** mentisque capacius altae  &#xD;&#xA;deerat adhuc et quod dominari in cetera posset.  &#xD;&#xA;Natus homo est... (Ov. M. 1.76-78)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Distinguishing from man&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *Animal* can also be used to **distinguish from men**. In other words, it can be used just as the English word *animal*. One example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Sed ea non ab hominibus modo petitur verum etiam ab animalibus... (Quint. 6, 3, 57)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Philosophical Usage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A strong philosophical current defined man as belong to the genus *animal* and having the specific difference of being *rationale*. This goes back to Aristotle's definition of man as a &quot;zoon logikon.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, Quintillian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Itaque a genere perveniendum ad ultimam species: ut homo est animal non est satis, id enim genus est; mortale, etiamsi est species, cum aliis tamen communis finitio; rationale, nihil supererit ad demonstrandum id quod velis. (Quint. Inst. 5 10.56)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The medieval scholastics took and ran with this Aristotelian current. Aquinas provides a good example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unde etiam in rebus humanis, si quaeratur, quis est iste? Respondetur, Socrates, quod nomen est suppositi, si autem quaeratur, quid est iste? Respondetur, animal rationale et mortale. (*Summa Theologiae* I Q. 31 a. 2 ad 4)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5709" RevisionGUID="061e3243-f172-4d7b-a8b0-323b94299887" CreationDate="2017-12-13T11:52:37.697" UserId="79" Text="The Stack Exchange Christmas celebration is here: [Winter Bash 2017](https://winterbash2017.stackexchange.com/).&#xD;&#xA;If I were to discuss the event in Latin, what should I call it?&#xD;&#xA;I mentioned in [Conloquium (or chat room)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm) and I simply called it *Saturnalia* due to the similarity in timing, but I assume there are better ideas out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many possible ways to approach this, so feel free to be creative.&#xD;&#xA;I added one suggestion below, but I would like to hear more ideas and your thoughts on them.&#xD;&#xA;If you have new ideas based on old answers, please post them as separate answers so people can vote for the best translations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18901" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5709" RevisionGUID="061e3243-f172-4d7b-a8b0-323b94299887" CreationDate="2017-12-13T11:52:37.697" UserId="79" Text="How to translate &quot;Winter Bash&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18902" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5709" RevisionGUID="061e3243-f172-4d7b-a8b0-323b94299887" CreationDate="2017-12-13T11:52:37.697" UserId="79" Text="|contemporary-latin|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5710" RevisionGUID="eda2b3a4-cad5-46bb-baf7-c595654ce31d" CreationDate="2017-12-13T11:52:37.697" UserId="79" Text="A key feature of the Winter Bash is having hats.&#xD;&#xA;A particular kind of hat, [*pilleus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pileus_(hat)) also played a role in the Roman Saturnalia.&#xD;&#xA;To emphasize the role of hats, I would suggest ***Saturnalia pilleata***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5711" RevisionGUID="6f65c95f-e191-4f0d-b9e5-96e9c2062b99" CreationDate="2017-12-13T17:22:18.633" UserId="2253" Text="I'm starting to learn Latin on my own and I have trouble with pronouncing words correctly very often. Does anyone know of a Latin dictionary with the IPA transcriptions of Latin words? Classical or ecclesiastical pronunciation " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18905" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5711" RevisionGUID="6f65c95f-e191-4f0d-b9e5-96e9c2062b99" CreationDate="2017-12-13T17:22:18.633" UserId="2253" Text="Latin phonetic dictionary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18906" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5711" RevisionGUID="6f65c95f-e191-4f0d-b9e5-96e9c2062b99" CreationDate="2017-12-13T17:22:18.633" UserId="2253" Text="|pronunciation|resource-request|dictionary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5712" RevisionGUID="5414f8ed-3fcf-46df-b9f4-132e8deea847" CreationDate="2017-12-13T18:23:38.953" UserId="406" Text="Wiktionary provides IPA transcriptions of Latin words. See for example their entry for [malus][1] (/ˈma.lus/ [ˈma.ɫʊs]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But such a thing is generally less needed for Latin than for English, because Latin pronunciation is fully predictable from the spelling (as long as your dictionary has macra). [This article][2] has a good overview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/malus#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation#Table_of_orthography" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5711" RevisionGUID="58b546f5-d63c-4784-9739-800a3be83029" CreationDate="2017-12-13T21:18:55.833" UserId="79" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="I'm starting to learn Latin on my own and I have trouble with pronouncing words correctly very often. Does anyone know of a Latin dictionary with the IPA transcriptions of Latin words, preferably with classical or ecclesiastical pronunciation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5713" RevisionGUID="d402374c-96a2-4bae-920b-82840f38d141" CreationDate="2017-12-13T23:11:22.760" UserId="79" Text="As Draconis indicates, pronunciation of individual Latin words can be deduced if you know how to spell the words (including vowel lengths) and you know which kind of Latin you want.&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation evolved over the classical period, and especially ecclesiastic pronunciation took many different forms in different eras and places.&#xD;&#xA;There are rare exceptions (see e.g. [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2538/79) and [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/600/79)), but you can quite safely ignore them at first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you need is a good Latin dictionary &amp;mdash; [some are available online](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) &amp;mdash; and a pronunciation guide for the relevant variant of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what is the best source for pronunciation help like this, but [the Wikipedia page for Latin pronunciation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation) should be a good start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone wants to ask for pronunciation guides for different variants of Latin, please suggest the question [in this meta post](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/188/79), as it would probably make a broad resource request." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5714" RevisionGUID="fd579dd0-24bb-4d58-ba24-65f0280f0566" CreationDate="2017-12-14T03:00:47.450" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;### Etymology [[ of (French verb) 'abrier'](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abrier#French) ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;From [Middle French](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_French_language &quot;w:Middle French language&quot;), from [Old French](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French_language &quot;w:Old French language&quot;) _[abrier](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abrier#Old_French &quot;abrier&quot;)_ (“to cover”),    &#xD;&#xA; itself mostly likely from [Late Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin &quot;w:Late Latin&quot;) _[aprīcāre](https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=apricare&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1 &quot;apricare (page does not exist)&quot;)_,    &#xD;&#xA;from [Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin &quot;w:Latin&quot;) _[aprīcārī](https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=apricari&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1 &quot;apricari (page does not exist)&quot;)_, present active infinitive of _[aprīcor](https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=apricor&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1 &quot;apricor (page does not exist)&quot;)_ (“warm in the sun”),     &#xD;&#xA;from _[aprīcus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apricus#Latin &quot;apricus&quot;)_ (“sunny”).     &#xD;&#xA;The form _abrier_ may have been of southern French origin, possibly via Old Provençal _[abriar](https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=abriar&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1 &quot;abriar (page does not exist)&quot;)_ (cf. the dialectal French form _[avrier](https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=avrier&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1 &quot;avrier (page does not exist)&quot;)_). Compare [Occitan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occitan_language &quot;w:Occitan language&quot;), [Catalan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_language &quot;w:Catalan language&quot;), [Spanish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language &quot;w:Spanish language&quot;) and [Portuguese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_language &quot;w:Portuguese language&quot;) _[abrigar](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abrigar#Portuguese &quot;abrigar&quot;)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Etymology [[ of (Latin adjective) 'apricus'](https://https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apricus#Latin) ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;From [Vulgar Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin &quot;w:Vulgar Latin&quot;) _[\*aperīcus](https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Reconstruction:Latin/apericus&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1 &quot;Reconstruction:Latin/apericus (page does not exist)&quot;)_, from _[aperiō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aperio#Latin &quot;aperio&quot;)_ (“to open”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Because the bolded are contrasting notions, is the semantic change [antiphrasis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change#Types)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If so, what might've caused the antiphrasis? What underlies 'open' and 'cover'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can divine 1 possibility: People trying to avoid something warmed in the sun, may cover that something (e.g. themselves if they're sunbathing. They probably didn't use umbrellas back then.). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18912" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5714" RevisionGUID="fd579dd0-24bb-4d58-ba24-65f0280f0566" CreationDate="2017-12-14T03:00:47.450" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Did 'apricus' undergo antiphrasis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18913" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5714" RevisionGUID="fd579dd0-24bb-4d58-ba24-65f0280f0566" CreationDate="2017-12-14T03:00:47.450" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|french|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5714" RevisionGUID="3a7c4cae-4b31-41f3-9fa2-8d2925b84d0e" CreationDate="2017-12-14T07:54:45.633" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="&gt;### Etymology [[ of (French verb) 'abrier'](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abrier#French) ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;From [Middle French](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_French_language &quot;w:Middle French language&quot;), from [Old French](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French_language &quot;w:Old French language&quot;) _[abrier](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abrier#Old_French &quot;abrier&quot;)_ (“**to cover**”),    &#xD;&#xA; itself mostly likely from [Late Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin &quot;w:Late Latin&quot;) _[aprīcāre](https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=apricare&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1 &quot;apricare (page does not exist)&quot;)_,    &#xD;&#xA;from [Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin &quot;w:Latin&quot;) _[aprīcārī](https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=apricari&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1 &quot;apricari (page does not exist)&quot;)_, present active infinitive of _[aprīcor](https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=apricor&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1 &quot;apricor (page does not exist)&quot;)_ (“warm in the sun”),     &#xD;&#xA;from _[aprīcus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apricus#Latin &quot;apricus&quot;)_ (“sunny”).     &#xD;&#xA;The form _abrier_ may have been of southern French origin, possibly via Old Provençal _[abriar](https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=abriar&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1 &quot;abriar (page does not exist)&quot;)_ (cf. the dialectal French form _[avrier](https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=avrier&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1 &quot;avrier (page does not exist)&quot;)_). Compare [Occitan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occitan_language &quot;w:Occitan language&quot;), [Catalan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_language &quot;w:Catalan language&quot;), [Spanish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language &quot;w:Spanish language&quot;) and [Portuguese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_language &quot;w:Portuguese language&quot;) _[abrigar](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abrigar#Portuguese &quot;abrigar&quot;)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Etymology [[ of (Latin adjective) 'apricus'](https://https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apricus#Latin) ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;From [Vulgar Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin &quot;w:Vulgar Latin&quot;) _[\*aperīcus](https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Reconstruction:Latin/apericus&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1 &quot;Reconstruction:Latin/apericus (page does not exist)&quot;)_, from _[aperiō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aperio#Latin &quot;aperio&quot;)_ (“**to open**”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Because the bolded are antonyms, is the semantic change [antiphrasis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change#Types)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If so, what might've caused the antiphrasis? What underlies 'open' and 'cover'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can divine 1 possibility: People trying to avoid something warmed in the sun, may cover that something (e.g. themselves if they're sunbathing. They probably didn't use umbrellas back then.). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="94bc1754-eb1d-489a-9484-3bbe5d1b6b79" CreationDate="2017-12-14T15:43:22.687" UserId="47" Text="I could use a little help with parsing the second verse of this famous Advent hymn:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Veni, O Sapientia,&#xD;&#xA;    Quae hic disponis omnia,&#xD;&#xA;    Veni, viam prudentiae,&#xD;&#xA;    Ut doceas et gloriae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the following three doubts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Quae:** Is this feminine and nominative, taking the place of &quot;Sapientia&quot;?  Or, is neuter and accusative, paired with &quot;omnia&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**hic:** I am lost here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**viam:** This appears to be accusative, but I cannot imagine why it is not nominative/vocative given that choice was made for &quot;Sapientia&quot; in the first line." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18916" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="94bc1754-eb1d-489a-9484-3bbe5d1b6b79" CreationDate="2017-12-14T15:43:22.687" UserId="47" Text="&quot;Veni, O Sapientia...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18917" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="94bc1754-eb1d-489a-9484-3bbe5d1b6b79" CreationDate="2017-12-14T15:43:22.687" UserId="47" Text="|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5716" RevisionGUID="7a4b7bec-28b7-4fd4-92b3-92d1b5acc93b" CreationDate="2017-12-14T16:16:04.377" UserId="580" Text="It is well known that the Romans referred to the Mediterranean Sea as `mare nostrum`, especially after the Punic Wars when they had claimed Iberia, Northern Africa, Sicily, etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what did they call it _before_ the Punic Wars?  For instance, what would they have called the Mediterranean during, say, the Samnite wars?  What about during the Latin wars?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18919" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5716" RevisionGUID="7a4b7bec-28b7-4fd4-92b3-92d1b5acc93b" CreationDate="2017-12-14T16:16:04.377" UserId="580" Text="Mediterranean Sea name" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18920" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5716" RevisionGUID="7a4b7bec-28b7-4fd4-92b3-92d1b5acc93b" CreationDate="2017-12-14T16:16:04.377" UserId="580" Text="|place-names|old-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18921" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5716" RevisionGUID="c2b6343c-40db-4c6d-82eb-08834029a646" CreationDate="2017-12-14T16:21:21.367" UserId="580" Comment="edited title" Text="Mediterranean Sea name in Old Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5715" RevisionGUID="75644530-4ab9-41f6-9f20-c62164ce563f" CreationDate="2017-12-14T17:20:33.437" UserId="45" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="I could use a little help with parsing the second verse of this famous Advent hymn:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Veni, O Sapientia,  &#xD;&#xA;    Quae hic disponis omnia,  &#xD;&#xA;    Veni, viam prudentiae,  &#xD;&#xA;    Ut doceas et gloriae. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the following three doubts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Quae:** Is this feminine and nominative, taking the place of &quot;Sapientia&quot;?  Or, is neuter and accusative, paired with &quot;omnia&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **hic:** I am lost here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **viam:** This appears to be accusative, but I cannot imagine why it is not nominative/vocative given that choice was made for &quot;Sapientia&quot; in the first line." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5717" RevisionGUID="3d897693-55e1-420c-9ccb-80a4ec562b20" CreationDate="2017-12-14T17:27:07.617" UserId="45" Text="The first thing to keep in mind is that hymns like this, which rely on stress and rhyme, often have irregular syntax, so word order can be very strange. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first half, *quae* refers to *sapientia*: with the second person verb, it means, &quot;you who....&quot; *Hic* is just an adverb (not a demonstrative pronoun) meaning &quot;here,&quot; i.e. &quot;on earth.&quot; So, the first part says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Come, O Wisdom, you who arrange all things here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part should be clearer if you rearrange the word-order to the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Veni, ut doceas viam prudentiae et gloriae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translates to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Come, that you may teach [us] the way of prudence and glory." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5718" RevisionGUID="04e76373-2d41-407f-bb50-0d70f42cc4ac" CreationDate="2017-12-14T17:28:22.857" UserId="79" Text="*Quae* refers to *sapientia*.&#xA;This is a relative clause, and it (mostly) only makes sense if the relative pronoun refers to something mentioned before.&#xA;I'm not a native speaker, but I get the impression that English doesn't allow second person relative clauses like the one in the question: &quot;Come here, you who do this and that.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;I'm guessing you are confused because you assume *hic* is the pronoun &quot;this&quot;.&#xA;Instead, it appears to be *h&amp;imacr;c*, the adverb &quot;here&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;The *viam* is the object of *doceas*.&#xA;The essence of the last part is:&#xA;*Veni, ut viam doceas.*&#xA;&quot;Come, so that you may teach the way.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5719" RevisionGUID="34df3bc7-2225-4f75-acc8-a3d25804ca08" CreationDate="2017-12-15T03:50:14.993" UserId="1142" Text="A fellow member of a Latin Discord server I participate in posted [this link](https://areena.yle.fi/1-4256713?autoplay=true) to an article with a question regarding how one would interpret the phrase *&quot;solitō māiōre&quot;*. Despite our efforts to interpret it, we couldn't come up with any meaningful literal(-ish) translation. Google (and other search engines) yielded no fruitful results either, with the only meaningful information gained being the knowledge that it was likely an epigram or idiom of some kind (which was often labeled with &quot;Aus. *Epigr.* 56.3&quot; in the results I could find).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this phrase, *&quot;solitō māiōre&quot;*, mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18926" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5719" RevisionGUID="34df3bc7-2225-4f75-acc8-a3d25804ca08" CreationDate="2017-12-15T03:50:14.993" UserId="1142" Text="What is the meaning of the phrase &quot;solitō māiōre&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18927" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5719" RevisionGUID="34df3bc7-2225-4f75-acc8-a3d25804ca08" CreationDate="2017-12-15T03:50:14.993" UserId="1142" Text="|vocabulary|translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5720" RevisionGUID="1dfc12d0-2257-4e65-8b93-a69a6bbe762b" CreationDate="2017-12-15T04:05:42.613" UserId="2258" Text="I need to know how to say the present, past and future tense of &quot;imply&quot; in Latin. I don't know much latin, I just need the grammatically correct way to say: &quot;Implied ______&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example :&#xD;&#xA;Translate - &quot;Implied Power&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google says: &quot;Sequitur Imperium.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't trust computers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer the classical Latin way of saying it,  but it honestly doesn't matter. In fact I don't even need Latin, it's just a habit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18929" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5720" RevisionGUID="1dfc12d0-2257-4e65-8b93-a69a6bbe762b" CreationDate="2017-12-15T04:05:42.613" UserId="2258" Text="How do you say &quot;imply&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18930" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5720" RevisionGUID="1dfc12d0-2257-4e65-8b93-a69a6bbe762b" CreationDate="2017-12-15T04:05:42.613" UserId="2258" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|new-latin|word-choice|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5721" RevisionGUID="67edb392-b032-43d8-a5ea-9ae25a3c0ea0" CreationDate="2017-12-15T04:41:58.287" UserId="1142" Text="The closest thing I could find to the verb *[to] imply* in my dictionary was *significō, -āre, -āvī, -ātum*. In this case you'd want to use the passive perfect participle, *significātum*. As for the noun *power*, you have a number of options depending on what kind of power you're referring to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *potestās, f.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(strength) vīrēs, fpl.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(excessive) potentia, f.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(supreme) imperium nt.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(divine) nūmen, nt.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(legal) auctōritās, f.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pairs for each participle-noun pair are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *significāta potestās* or *potestās significāta*&#xD;&#xA;* *significātae vīrēs* or *vīrēs significātae*&#xD;&#xA;* *significāta potentia* or *potentia significāta*&#xD;&#xA;* *significātum imperium* or *imperium significātum*&#xD;&#xA;* *significāta auctōritās* or *auctōritās significāta*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5721" RevisionGUID="c22cb042-98ab-4d92-b974-73e358eab203" CreationDate="2017-12-15T05:04:55.783" UserId="1142" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="The closest thing I could find to the verb *[to] imply* in my dictionary was *adfirmō, -āre, -āvī, -ātum*. In this case you'd want to use the passive perfect participle, *adfirmātum*. As for the noun *power*, you have a number of options depending on what kind of power you're referring to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *potestās, f.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(strength) vīrēs, fpl.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(excessive) potentia, f.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(supreme) imperium nt.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(divine) nūmen, nt.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(legal) auctōritās, f.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pairs for each participle-noun pair are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *adfirmāta potestās* or *potestās significāta*&#xD;&#xA;* *adfirmātae vīrēs* or *vīrēs significātae*&#xD;&#xA;* *adfirmāta potentia* or *potentia significāta*&#xD;&#xA;* *adfirmātum imperium* or *imperium significātum*&#xD;&#xA;* *adfirmāta auctōritās* or *auctōritās significāta*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5721" RevisionGUID="e27dd2dc-90d4-433a-9513-94f41222e5d0" CreationDate="2017-12-15T05:10:40.953" UserId="1142" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="The closest thing I could find to the verb *[to] imply* in my dictionary was *adfirmō, -āre, -āvī, -ātum*. It's not a perfect match, but it'll work. In this case you'd want to use the passive perfect participle, *adfirmātum*. As for the noun *power*, you have a number of options depending on what kind of power you're referring to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *potestās, f.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(strength) vīrēs, fpl.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(excessive) potentia, f.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(supreme) imperium nt.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(divine) nūmen, nt.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(legal) auctōritās, f.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pairs for each participle-noun pair are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmāta potestās* or *potestās nōn adfirmāta*&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmātae vīrēs* or *vīrēs nōn adfirmātae*&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmāta potentia* or *potentia nōn adfirmāta*&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmātum imperium* or *imperium nōn adfirmātum*&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmātum nūmen* or *nūmen nōn adfirmātum*&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmāta auctōritās* or *auctōritās nōn adfirmāta*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When all of these are translated *literally*, they come out to mean something along the lines of *&quot;[type of power] having not been stated&quot;*, which isn't perfect, but probably as close as you can get to the English idiom *&quot;implied power&quot;* with Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5721" RevisionGUID="a993d320-6fa8-49dd-ab58-17ad0e756716" CreationDate="2017-12-15T05:20:37.273" UserId="1142" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="The closest thing I could find to the verb *[to] imply* (at least in the way *implied* is used in this context) in my dictionary was *adfirmō, -āre, -āvī, -ātum*. In this case you'd want to use the passive perfect participle, *adfirmātum* plus the adverb *nōn*. As for the noun *power*, you have a number of options depending on what kind of power you're referring to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *potestās, f.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(strength) vīrēs, fpl.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(excessive) potentia, f.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(supreme) imperium nt.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(divine) nūmen, nt.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(legal) auctōritās, f.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pairs for each participle-noun pair are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmāta potestās* or *potestās nōn adfirmāta*&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmātae vīrēs* or *vīrēs nōn adfirmātae*&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmāta potentia* or *potentia nōn adfirmāta*&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmātum imperium* or *imperium nōn adfirmātum*&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmātum nūmen* or *nūmen nōn adfirmātum*&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmāta auctōritās* or *auctōritās nōn adfirmāta*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When all of these are translated *literally*, they come out to mean something along the lines of *&quot;[type of power] having not been stated&quot;*, which isn't perfect, but probably as close as you can get to the English idiom *&quot;implied power&quot;* with Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5722" RevisionGUID="a3b44790-ccb4-4842-ba0d-6a33bd0c6593" CreationDate="2017-12-15T05:55:55.493" UserId="985" Text="The full clause is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Postridie Nonas Decembres (6.12.2017) anniversarium independentiae Finnorum solito maiore pompa celebratum est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_maiore_ is feminine ablative singular and modifies _pompa_ (= _pompā_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_solito_ is a neuter singular ablative (of comparison), and provides the second term in the comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole clause means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On the day before the Nones of December, the anniversary of Finnish independence was celebrated with greater pomp than (what is) usual." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5722" RevisionGUID="3802d742-795c-4279-8d51-1b1e521fa072" CreationDate="2017-12-15T06:41:16.353" UserId="985" Comment="added 368 characters in body" Text="The full clause is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Postridie Nonas Decembres (6.12.2017) anniversarium independentiae Finnorum solito maiore pompa celebratum est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_maiore_ is feminine ablative singular and modifies _pompa_ (= _pompā_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_solito_ is a neuter singular ablative (of comparison), and provides the second term in the comparison. There's the usual amount of pomp, but the pomp on this occasion was greater than that usual amount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole clause means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On the day before the Nones of December, the anniversary of Finnish independence was celebrated with greater pomp than (what is) usual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This use of _solito_ with a comparative is quite common. For example, there's Ovid _Metamorphoses_ 7.84–85 (Jason &amp; Medea):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et casu solito formosior Aesone natus  &#xD;&#xA;illa luce fuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And by chance, the son of Aeson was on that day more handsome than usual." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5722" RevisionGUID="73ede6b2-ad59-4528-9812-8a5af6d3295f" CreationDate="2017-12-15T06:52:34.510" UserId="985" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="For reference, the full clause is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Postridie Nonas Decembres (6.12.2017) anniversarium independentiae Finnorum solito maiore pompa celebratum est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_maiore_ is feminine ablative singular and modifies _pompa_ (= _pompā_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_solito_ is a neuter singular ablative (of comparison), and provides the second term in the comparison. There's the usual amount of pomp, but the pomp on this occasion was greater than that usual amount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole clause means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On the day before the Nones of December, the anniversary of Finnish independence was celebrated with greater pomp than (what is) usual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This use of _solito_ with a comparative is quite common. For example, there's Ovid _Metamorphoses_ 7.84–85 (Jason &amp; Medea):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et casu solito formosior Aesone natus  &#xD;&#xA;illa luce fuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And by chance, the son of Aeson was on that day more handsome than usual." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5719" RevisionGUID="f9f4068a-be1b-4237-978b-8af27c99922c" CreationDate="2017-12-15T07:44:02.877" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="A fellow member of a Latin Discord server I participate in posted [this link](https://areena.yle.fi/1-4256713?autoplay=true) to an article with a question regarding how one would interpret the phrase *&quot;solitō māiōre&quot;*. Despite our efforts to interpret it, we couldn't come up with any meaningful literal(-ish) translation. Google (and other search engines) yielded no fruitful results either, with the only meaningful information gained being the knowledge that it was likely an epigram or idiom of some kind (which was often labeled with &quot;Aus. *Epigr.* 56.3&quot; in the results I could find).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this phrase, *&quot;solitō māiōre&quot;*, mean?&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18939" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5719" RevisionGUID="f9f4068a-be1b-4237-978b-8af27c99922c" CreationDate="2017-12-15T07:44:02.877" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|vocabulary|idiom|grammar-identification|nuntii-latini|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5723" RevisionGUID="a5fc9f02-dbf8-4a92-b187-8cc8784c1e9c" CreationDate="2017-12-15T08:40:53.567" UserId="2258" Text="I am looking for a way to say: &quot;Implied Power&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I say &quot;Implied Power&quot; I mean to say &quot;Implicit Political Authority.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example to walk readers through what I am trying to get at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Explicit Political Authority&quot; is the authority of a governing body to give orders to a department of government, the private sector and the electorate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have decided to use the word &quot;Imperium&quot; instead of saying &quot;Explicit Political Authority&quot; every time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, &quot;Implicit Political Authority&quot; is the authority exerted by a private entity upon someone holding Imperium (explicit political authority). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone with &quot;Implicit Political Authority&quot; holds no political office, but by some means is able to influence the outcomes of political life. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what I need is ONE word to say &quot;Implicit Political Authority.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously Rome had a word for political power,  but did they have a way to say indirect power?  If they did not, how might we say it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance for your help and time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18941" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5723" RevisionGUID="a5fc9f02-dbf8-4a92-b187-8cc8784c1e9c" CreationDate="2017-12-15T08:40:53.567" UserId="2258" Text="Latin &quot;Implication&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18942" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5723" RevisionGUID="a5fc9f02-dbf8-4a92-b187-8cc8784c1e9c" CreationDate="2017-12-15T08:40:53.567" UserId="2258" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|new-latin|word-choice|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4110" RevisionGUID="9561d34e-eeee-41f4-9387-f2bd55925d4b" CreationDate="2017-12-15T13:50:54.737" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted the poem. Add two empty spaces at the end of a line to break it." Text="My suggestions in bold, followed by the classical examples that inspired them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**madidus nasus / a wet nose**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *madidique infantia nasi* / and the wet noses of a child (Juvenal,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Satires, 10.199)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**fluens pituita / streaming snot**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**fluctus nasus / a streaming nose**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**nasus fluxit pituita / a nose streaming with snot**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Pituita* / slime, clammy moisture, phlegm is used to describe phlegm-like bodily discharges, often as one of the four humours.  See, for example Cicero, *Tusc. Disputations*, 4.23 (bad blood, bile and phlegm) or Horace, *Satires*, 2.75 (an overabundance of intestinal “phlegm”).&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;But it is also used to describe a “viscous, gummy moisture that exudes from trees”, which sounds just like snot to me.  Here Catullus uses it in exactly this way: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *mucusque mala pituita nasi* / mucus and bad slime from the nose&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Catullus, Poems, 23.17)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Fluere* / to flow, stream, pour is used for rivers and streams, but also of bodily fluids, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sweat: *sudore fluentia multo bracchia* (Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, 9.57)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tears:  *fluunt lacrimae* (Ovid, *Fasti*, 2.820)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;entrails: *viscera lapsa fluunt* (Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, 8.402)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;soft brains (flowing through hollow nostrils like curdled milk flowing through a pliant oaken sieve – please see a doctor if this describes your runny nose!): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *perque caves nares oculosque auresque cerebrum*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *molle fluit, veluti concretum vimine querno*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *lac solet …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, 12.435-436)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**proluvies nasi / an overflow of the nose**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*proluvies* / an inundation, discharge, overflow.  Used by Cicero (*Letters to Quintus*) to mean an actual flood but here are examples of bodily “floods”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *foedissima ventris proluvies* / foulest discharge from their stomachs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (of the Harpies in *Aeneid*, 3.216-217)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *mucosa ventris proluvies* / a flood of mucus from the stomach&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Columella, *On Agriculture*, 6.7.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**destillatio [nasi] / a dripping down [from the nose]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*destillatio* / a dripping down, distilling, running, from *destillare* / to drip or trickle down&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb can be used of any liquid that trickles down (for example sap from a tree, see Pliny, *Natural History*, 23.72).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But here, Pliny uses it to describe the outpouring of mucus after a sneeze:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *semen tritum et haustum naribus sternumenta movet et distillantiones&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quoque capitis inlitum* / the crushed seed inhaled by the nostrils&#xD;&#xA;&gt; produces sneezing and also as a liniment [it produces] a flow [of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mucus] from the head (Pliny, *Natural History*, 20.123)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Destillare* is used a lot by Celsus in *On Medicine*, for various types of dripping from the body: two examples are the drip, drip, drip of difficult-to-pass urine (2.7.13; 4.2.N); and watery eyes (6.7.A).  However, he uses *destillatio* exclusively to mean a runny-nose cold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tussis, destillatio … sternumentum* / cough, runny nose … sneezing (2.8.22)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tussis, destillatio, raucitas* / cough, runny nose, hoarseness (2.1.16)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, using *destillare*, he is describing the symptoms of a cold: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *destillat autem de capite interdum in nares ...* / moreover, there is dripping from the head sometimes into the nostrils ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *... si in nares destillavit, tenuis per has pituita profluit* / if into the nostrils it has dripped, a thin phlegm flows forth from them&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (4.5.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(note the use of *pituita* and also *profluere* – very close to your suggestion of *perfluere*.  *Profluere* is also used in this sense of snot flowing from the nose by Columella, writing of sick cattle – *pituita a naribus profluent* 6.7.4. &#xD;&#xA; So perhaps we could also use **profluens pituita**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, Pliny also uses *destillatio* to mean a “runny-nose cold” – *asperitatem fauciam et destillationes lenient cochleae* / a sore throat and runny-nose cold are relieved with snails (*Nat. Hist.*, 30.32).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, of all the suggestions, I think *destillatio [nasi]* is probably the most accurate in so far as it is attested to in medical texts, speaking specifically of colds.  However, it was enormous fun to track down all the other possibilities!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, you mentioned *rhinorrhoea*, a Greek term, and so I was interested to read Celsus’ clarification of Greek terms for colds.  First, he distinguishes between a cold where the nose runs and one where the nose is blocked.  A blocked-nose cold he calls *gravedo*, and he notes that the Greeks call this *κορυζας*.  The runny-nose or *destillatio*-type of cold, he says the Greeks call *κατασταγμον* (4.5.2)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5013" RevisionGUID="07020e49-484d-4990-beee-f9c7132d2332" CreationDate="2017-12-15T14:04:05.643" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="I would like help modifying the famous phrase *nil satis nisi optimum* to lower expectations somewhat to &quot;nothing but seventh place is good enough&quot;. Google Translate creates a suspicious range of different suggestions, so I thought I'd ask the experts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18946" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5013" RevisionGUID="07020e49-484d-4990-beee-f9c7132d2332" CreationDate="2017-12-15T14:04:05.643" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|idiom|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5724" RevisionGUID="4109eb94-c542-4089-8c75-e9cfc292227e" CreationDate="2017-12-15T17:38:22.390" UserId="183" Text="When you can read German, [here][1] is a transcript from Theodor Mommsen's work on Roman praenomina. It deals with the time of the Roman republic and the Augustean era.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A list of names with attribution to the Roman gentes is given in [part 5 of the transcript][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.beliebte-vornamen.de/6197-mommsen-1.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.beliebte-vornamen.de/6218-mommsen-5.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5686" RevisionGUID="e1a16ca1-058b-4a6f-9564-a395f7bc36d0" CreationDate="2017-12-15T23:24:36.797" UserId="78" Comment="deleted 92 characters in body" Text="The festival days for the birth of Rome was, at least in the late Republic, the *Parilia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parilia) has more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By the end of the late Republic, the Parilia became associated with the birthday of Rome. Numerous accounts of the founding of Rome exist, but the particular one related to the Parilia is described by Ovid in the Fasti. According to this myth, Romulus, upon reaching Rome on the day of the Parilia, took a stick and engraved a line in the ground that defined the boundaries of the new city (pomerium). He then prayed to the gods Jupiter, Mars, and Vesta asking for protection of this area. However, his brother Remus, unaware of the boundaries, crossed the line and was struck down by Romulus's henchman Celer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Over time, and under the influence of several Roman rulers, the structure of the Parilia changed. First, after Julius Caesar heard the news of Roman Victory at Munda in 45 BC (around the date of the Parilia), he added games to the ceremony. At these games, the citizens would wear crowns in Caesar’s honor. Caligula instituted into the celebration a procession of priests, noblemen, boys and girls of noble birth singing of his virtues while escorting the Golden Shield, previously bestowed upon him by the citizens of Rome, to the Capitol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5601" RevisionGUID="76739c5a-521a-4a0c-8d59-f7df3b0c9f58" CreationDate="2017-12-16T00:45:42.990" UserId="13" Comment="added UPDATE 2 in Update" Text="There are apparently numerous versions of these lines. I only have access to two&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; however: Edmonds':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]· ἀ γὰρ πόλυ περσκόπεισα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κάλλος ἀνθρώπων Ἐλένα τὸν ἄνδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[κρίννε κάλ]ιστον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[ὸς τὸ πὰν] σέβας Τροΐας ὄλεσσε&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Campbell's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]· ἀ γὰρ πόλυ περσκέ̣θ̣ο̣ı̣σα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣άλ̣λο̣ς [ἀνθ]ρώπων Ἐλένα [τὸ]ν ἄνδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τ̣ὸν̣ [πανάρ]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣αλλ[ίποι]σ̣' ἔβα 'σ Τροΐαν πλέοı̣[σα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that is a big difference, even outside lacunas. So I tried looking at Grenfell and Hunt's edition of P.Oxy. 1231, whence the poem mostly comes (see below for more), and found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]ᾱγαρπόλυπερσκο̣π̣ε̣ı̣[.]α&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&lt;sup&gt;λ̣&lt;/sup&gt;ο̣σ̣[...]ωπωνελενα̣[..]νανδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[9 letters]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[7 letters]σ̣εβαστροϊα[..]λεσσ̣[..]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That seems to scream &quot;Go Edmonds, screw Campbell&quot;. But let's look at the notes to the transcription. What I gather from them is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - σκεδοισα and σκοπεισα are equally likely endings for l. 6, and since the notes only mention a «rather high stroke turning over» for the delta, I assume σκεθοισα would also be equally likely; so as far as P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 1 is concerned, Cambpell and Edmonds are equally likely right about that line;&#xD;&#xA; - The other lines have no beginning in the papyrus at hand, so those must come from another papyrus, which we will discuss below;&#xD;&#xA; - The notes don't even mention l. 9 (which is l. 21 in the papyrus), so this papyrus actually has a no-doubt λεσ in that line, whereas Campbell would have that as λεο, and read the doubtful sigma right afterwards as a doubtful iota;&#xD;&#xA; - Neither the notes nor the transcriptions show any other P.Oxy. 1231 fragment that could contain beginnings for those lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when [Bonnaria](http://www.uc.pt/fluc/eclassicos/publicacoes/ficheiros/humanitas25-26/07_Bonnaria.pdf) states that P.Oxy. 1231 reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;τ̣ὸν̣ [&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καλλ[&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]σ̣' ἔβα 'ς Τροΐαν πλέοı̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;they are apparetly giving us a nice bit of bull… err, tauricopria. Or maybe they are mixing up papyri. There are two more papyri this poem comes from. One is PSI 123, 1-2, but that only gives the last line, τ' ἐξ ἀδοκή[τω], which gives no trouble. The second one is P.Oxy. 2166(a), published in volume XXI. Unfortunately, I can't find anything online about this: no images, no transcriptions. Campbell's critical notation suggests it must have read at least:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κ̣αλ̣λο̣σ[]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τ̣ὸν̣[]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣αλλ[&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]σ̣εβαστροϊανπλεοι̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;plus the first 5 letters of the following line and the first 2 of the one after that. This implies a papyrus conflict: l. 9 is different from one papyrus to the other, and doubtfulness cannot solve the problem. So we are faced with two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Either we argue that the two are different poems, which seems viable if 2166(a) only has the little mentioned above (which could actually be even less, since we don't actually need it to read the σ̣εβαστροϊα part;&#xD;&#xA; - Or we have to choose one or the other, and with what arguments do we point our finger at one and say &quot;You're wrong!&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: does anyone have access to anything that can shed light on what was actually on 2166(a), and/or to something pointing out extra margins of doubtfulness in 1231 to settle this dispute?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;I also have a couple slightly different versions (which basically only differ in the lacuna at v. 8), but I kept the above two as prototypical, and also because all others have no critical notation. Researching again only yielded [The Complete Poems of Sappho](http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/), giving Cox's version as reading κρίννεν ἄριστον. Maybe safopoemas.doc contained other versions. But that's beside the point anyways, so I won't look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS If you're thinking of suggesting I buy the Voigt and/or Lobel-Page edition of Sappho, don't. I'm already thinking of getting them for Xmas. UPDATE: The dream is dead, but I may manage to borrow Voigt from a library if I find a way to get it from Brera library to one closer to the places I usually frequent. UPDATE 2: The Voigt dream is dead, but I did buy Lobel-Page, and it's soon gonna be brought to me from England. Lobel is the editor of P.Oxy. XXI, so having an edition of Sappho coauthored by him seems like a good chance of finding answers. Also, Mr. Weimer in the comments offered to check if his library has that volume and look at the pages that may be relevant to this poem and the Gongyla one, and that would be great. And I found that on Amazon, but the cart had already been purchased and this book costs and needs shipping which would be free if it were in that cart, so that will have to wait at least till next Xmas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1163/j.ctt1w76v7d.8.pdf), 2166(a) is not a source for this poem&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, whereas something in P.Oxy. vol. XXI is. I have also managed to find that volume [on Amazon](https://www.amazon.com/OXYRHYNCHUS-PAPYRI-PART-XXI-Lobel/dp/B002EO10LS), so I may buy it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Unless of course 2166(a) is in that volume, which should start at 2292, meaning the numbering doesn't line up with the volumes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5601" RevisionGUID="e0e9837c-73a3-4e89-a066-b5bf3534ffc4" CreationDate="2017-12-16T15:00:28.390" UserId="13" Comment="Reformated PS and added precise references to P.Oxy XXI (and whoops, previous edit was to PS, not to Update)" Text="There are apparently numerous versions of these lines. I only have access to two&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; however: Edmonds':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]· ἀ γὰρ πόλυ περσκόπεισα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κάλλος ἀνθρώπων Ἐλένα τὸν ἄνδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[κρίννε κάλ]ιστον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[ὸς τὸ πὰν] σέβας Τροΐας ὄλεσσε&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Campbell's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]· ἀ γὰρ πόλυ περσκέ̣θ̣ο̣ı̣σα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣άλ̣λο̣ς [ἀνθ]ρώπων Ἐλένα [τὸ]ν ἄνδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τ̣ὸν̣ [πανάρ]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣αλλ[ίποι]σ̣' ἔβα 'σ Τροΐαν πλέοı̣[σα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that is a big difference, even outside lacunas. So I tried looking at Grenfell and Hunt's edition of P.Oxy. 1231, whence the poem mostly comes (see below for more), and found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]ᾱγαρπόλυπερσκο̣π̣ε̣ı̣[.]α&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&lt;sup&gt;λ̣&lt;/sup&gt;ο̣σ̣[...]ωπωνελενα̣[..]νανδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[9 letters]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[7 letters]σ̣εβαστροϊα[..]λεσσ̣[..]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That seems to scream &quot;Go Edmonds, screw Campbell&quot;. But let's look at the notes to the transcription. What I gather from them is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - σκεδοισα and σκοπεισα are equally likely endings for l. 6, and since the notes only mention a «rather high stroke turning over» for the delta, I assume σκεθοισα would also be equally likely; so as far as P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 1 is concerned, Cambpell and Edmonds are equally likely right about that line;&#xD;&#xA; - The other lines have no beginning in the papyrus at hand, so those must come from another papyrus, which we will discuss below;&#xD;&#xA; - The notes don't even mention l. 9 (which is l. 21 in the papyrus), so this papyrus actually has a no-doubt λεσ in that line, whereas Campbell would have that as λεο, and read the doubtful sigma right afterwards as a doubtful iota;&#xD;&#xA; - Neither the notes nor the transcriptions show any other P.Oxy. 1231 fragment that could contain beginnings for those lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when [Bonnaria](http://www.uc.pt/fluc/eclassicos/publicacoes/ficheiros/humanitas25-26/07_Bonnaria.pdf) states that P.Oxy. 1231 reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;τ̣ὸν̣ [&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καλλ[&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]σ̣' ἔβα 'ς Τροΐαν πλέοı̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;they are apparetly giving us a nice bit of bull… err, tauricopria. Or maybe they are mixing up papyri. There are two more papyri this poem comes from. One is PSI 123, 1-2, but that only gives the last line, τ' ἐξ ἀδοκή[τω], which gives no trouble. The second one is P.Oxy. 2166(a), published in volume XXI. Unfortunately, I can't find anything online about this: no images, no transcriptions. Campbell's critical notation suggests it must have read at least:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κ̣αλ̣λο̣σ[]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τ̣ὸν̣[]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣αλλ[&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]σ̣εβαστροϊανπλεοι̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;plus the first 5 letters of the following line and the first 2 of the one after that. This implies a papyrus conflict: l. 9 is different from one papyrus to the other, and doubtfulness cannot solve the problem. So we are faced with two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Either we argue that the two are different poems, which seems viable if 2166(a) only has the little mentioned above (which could actually be even less, since we don't actually need it to read the σ̣εβαστροϊα part;&#xD;&#xA; - Or we have to choose one or the other, and with what arguments do we point our finger at one and say &quot;You're wrong!&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: does anyone have access to anything that can shed light on what was actually on 2166(a), and/or to something pointing out extra margins of doubtfulness in 1231 to settle this dispute?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;I also have a couple slightly different versions (which basically only differ in the lacuna at v. 8), but I kept the above two as prototypical, and also because all others have no critical notation. Researching again only yielded [The Complete Poems of Sappho](http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/), giving Cox's version as reading κρίννεν ἄριστον. Maybe safopoemas.doc contained other versions. But that's beside the point anyways, so I won't look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS If you're thinking of suggesting I buy the Voigt and/or Lobel-Page edition of Sappho, don't. I'm already thinking of getting them for Xmas. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: The dream is dead, but I may manage to borrow Voigt from a library if I find a way to get it from Brera library to one closer to the places I usually frequent.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE 2: The Voigt dream is dead, but I did buy Lobel-Page, and it's soon gonna be brought to me from England. Lobel is the editor of P.Oxy. XXI, so having an edition of Sappho coauthored by him seems like a good chance of finding answers. Also, Mr. Weimer in the comments offered to check if his library has that volume and look at the pages that may be relevant to this poem and the Gongyla one, that is:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt; `P. Oxy. XXI (1951) add. p. 125, 11` for the Gongyla poem;&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt; `P. Oxy. vol. 21, p. 122 [additional fragment of P.Oxy. 1231` for the poem at hand.&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would be great. And I found that on Amazon, but the cart had already been purchased and this book costs and needs shipping which would be free if it were in that cart, so that will have to wait at least till next Xmas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1163/j.ctt1w76v7d.8.pdf), 2166(a) is not a source for this poem&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, whereas something in P.Oxy. vol. XXI is. I have also managed to find that volume [on Amazon](https://www.amazon.com/OXYRHYNCHUS-PAPYRI-PART-XXI-Lobel/dp/B002EO10LS), so I may buy it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Unless of course 2166(a) is in that volume, which should start at 2292, meaning the numbering doesn't line up with the volumes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5601" RevisionGUID="6b0d2de3-9520-4173-ab66-a3f456b1ddc3" CreationDate="2017-12-16T15:07:55.790" UserId="13" Comment="mobile site is stupid and forced me to html my way to a bulleted list and wouldn't get the backticks to work so I had to edit it from the computer; removed the html list in the process; oh, and noticed a missing ] in item 2 of the list in the PS, which I added in" Text="There are apparently numerous versions of these lines. I only have access to two&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; however: Edmonds':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]· ἀ γὰρ πόλυ περσκόπεισα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κάλλος ἀνθρώπων Ἐλένα τὸν ἄνδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[κρίννε κάλ]ιστον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[ὸς τὸ πὰν] σέβας Τροΐας ὄλεσσε&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Campbell's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]· ἀ γὰρ πόλυ περσκέ̣θ̣ο̣ı̣σα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣άλ̣λο̣ς [ἀνθ]ρώπων Ἐλένα [τὸ]ν ἄνδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τ̣ὸν̣ [πανάρ]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣αλλ[ίποι]σ̣' ἔβα 'σ Τροΐαν πλέοı̣[σα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that is a big difference, even outside lacunas. So I tried looking at Grenfell and Hunt's edition of P.Oxy. 1231, whence the poem mostly comes (see below for more), and found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]ᾱγαρπόλυπερσκο̣π̣ε̣ı̣[.]α&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&lt;sup&gt;λ̣&lt;/sup&gt;ο̣σ̣[...]ωπωνελενα̣[..]νανδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[9 letters]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[7 letters]σ̣εβαστροϊα[..]λεσσ̣[..]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That seems to scream &quot;Go Edmonds, screw Campbell&quot;. But let's look at the notes to the transcription. What I gather from them is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - σκεδοισα and σκοπεισα are equally likely endings for l. 6, and since the notes only mention a «rather high stroke turning over» for the delta, I assume σκεθοισα would also be equally likely; so as far as P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 1 is concerned, Cambpell and Edmonds are equally likely right about that line;&#xD;&#xA; - The other lines have no beginning in the papyrus at hand, so those must come from another papyrus, which we will discuss below;&#xD;&#xA; - The notes don't even mention l. 9 (which is l. 21 in the papyrus), so this papyrus actually has a no-doubt λεσ in that line, whereas Campbell would have that as λεο, and read the doubtful sigma right afterwards as a doubtful iota;&#xD;&#xA; - Neither the notes nor the transcriptions show any other P.Oxy. 1231 fragment that could contain beginnings for those lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when [Bonnaria](http://www.uc.pt/fluc/eclassicos/publicacoes/ficheiros/humanitas25-26/07_Bonnaria.pdf) states that P.Oxy. 1231 reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;τ̣ὸν̣ [&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καλλ[&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]σ̣' ἔβα 'ς Τροΐαν πλέοı̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;they are apparetly giving us a nice bit of bull… err, tauricopria. Or maybe they are mixing up papyri. There are two more papyri this poem comes from. One is PSI 123, 1-2, but that only gives the last line, τ' ἐξ ἀδοκή[τω], which gives no trouble. The second one is P.Oxy. 2166(a), published in volume XXI. Unfortunately, I can't find anything online about this: no images, no transcriptions. Campbell's critical notation suggests it must have read at least:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κ̣αλ̣λο̣σ[]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τ̣ὸν̣[]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣αλλ[&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]σ̣εβαστροϊανπλεοι̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;plus the first 5 letters of the following line and the first 2 of the one after that. This implies a papyrus conflict: l. 9 is different from one papyrus to the other, and doubtfulness cannot solve the problem. So we are faced with two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Either we argue that the two are different poems, which seems viable if 2166(a) only has the little mentioned above (which could actually be even less, since we don't actually need it to read the σ̣εβαστροϊα part;&#xD;&#xA; - Or we have to choose one or the other, and with what arguments do we point our finger at one and say &quot;You're wrong!&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: does anyone have access to anything that can shed light on what was actually on 2166(a), and/or to something pointing out extra margins of doubtfulness in 1231 to settle this dispute?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;I also have a couple slightly different versions (which basically only differ in the lacuna at v. 8), but I kept the above two as prototypical, and also because all others have no critical notation. Researching again only yielded [The Complete Poems of Sappho](http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/), giving Cox's version as reading κρίννεν ἄριστον. Maybe safopoemas.doc contained other versions. But that's beside the point anyways, so I won't look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS If you're thinking of suggesting I buy the Voigt and/or Lobel-Page edition of Sappho, don't. I'm already thinking of getting them for Xmas. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: The dream is dead, but I may manage to borrow Voigt from a library if I find a way to get it from Brera library to one closer to the places I usually frequent.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE 2: The Voigt dream is dead, but I did buy Lobel-Page, and it's soon gonna be brought to me from England. Lobel is the editor of P.Oxy. XXI, so having an edition of Sappho coauthored by him seems like a good chance of finding answers. Also, Mr. Weimer in the comments offered to check if his library has that volume and look at the pages that may be relevant to this poem and the Gongyla one, that is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `P. Oxy. XXI (1951) add. p. 125, 11` for the Gongyla poem;&#xD;&#xA; - `P. Oxy. vol. 21, p. 122 [additional fragment of P.Oxy. 1231]` for the&#xD;&#xA;   poem at hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would be great. And I found that on Amazon, but the cart had already been purchased and this book costs and needs shipping which would be free if it were in that cart, so that will have to wait at least till next Xmas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1163/j.ctt1w76v7d.8.pdf), 2166(a) is not a source for this poem&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, whereas something in P.Oxy. vol. XXI is. I have also managed to find that volume [on Amazon](https://www.amazon.com/OXYRHYNCHUS-PAPYRI-PART-XXI-Lobel/dp/B002EO10LS), so I may buy it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Unless of course 2166(a) is in that volume, which should start at 2292, meaning the numbering doesn't line up with the volumes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5671" RevisionGUID="3d3cc1ca-7dac-4ca8-9c34-b0d62e7117e6" CreationDate="2017-12-16T15:12:15.463" UserId="13" Comment="added bracketed part in item 2 of list" Text="Not solving the problem entirely, but ahem-b-ok-ahem furnished me with an image of P.GC. inv 105, where on fr. 2 one can clearly see the endings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ΟΗϹΘΑΙ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;€ΘΟΙϹΑ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΟΝΑΝ[]&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ϹΑ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΟΚΗωΝ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Α̣Γ̣ΑΥΤΑΝ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ν̣ΟΗΜΜΑ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ν̣Ο̣ΗϹΗ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΝΕΜΝΑΙ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΒΑΜΑ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΝΠΡΟϹωΠω&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΟΙϹΙ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;€Ν€̣ϹΘΑΙ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Χ̣ΗΝΔΑΡΑϹΘΑΙ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[....]ΑΙ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final lacuna is actually not a hole, but no letter can be fully seen before the AI at the end. Vestiges are visible, though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The first vestige strongly suggests a M;&#xD;&#xA; - Then we have what looks like an angle with vertex pointing upward (aka a caret or circumflex ^, but I felt like talking complicated :) ), perhaps the top of an A;&#xD;&#xA; - Then there is some kind of &quot;pit&quot;, perhaps the top of an Y; the bottom of the pit is exactly on the edge of the papyrus;&#xD;&#xA; - Finally, there is a space which seems blank, though looking closely one can see what is either very faint ink, or a fold in the papyrus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that, the ending of that line might be ΜΑΥΤΑ, which suggests comparison with a previously known fragment, a quote by Ap.Dysc., reading ἔγω δ' ἐμαύτᾳ / τοῦτο σύνοιδα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This certainly settles all our problems, modulo the line beginnings, which means the problem of l. 8 stays, but the rest is settled by these endings. However, this papyrus was published in 2014, well after Campbell published, so the problem of why Campbell had these readings remains, and new problems with older restorations are caused by the new endings in stanza 4 and stanza 6 (last one). But that is another story." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5726" RevisionGUID="5cff037f-0283-419b-ad9b-e88909b975f0" CreationDate="2017-12-16T16:40:37.377" UserId="2261" Text="Sometime around the middle of the 20th century the Latin orthography of official Roman Catholic liturgical books of the Roman Rite switched from &quot;**j**uxta&quot;, &quot;**J**esus&quot;, &quot;**J**udaei&quot; etc. to &quot;**i**uxta&quot;, &quot;**I**esus&quot;, &quot;**I**udaei&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When exactly did this change happen and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18956" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5726" RevisionGUID="5cff037f-0283-419b-ad9b-e88909b975f0" CreationDate="2017-12-16T16:40:37.377" UserId="2261" Text="Church Latin: when did the orthography change occur?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18957" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5726" RevisionGUID="5cff037f-0283-419b-ad9b-e88909b975f0" CreationDate="2017-12-16T16:40:37.377" UserId="2261" Text="|contemporary-latin|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18958" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5726" RevisionGUID="5dd42fd6-bcb2-4dde-8c1d-88bab2b160ae" CreationDate="2017-12-16T16:47:36.957" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|contemporary-latin|ecclesiastical-latin|orthography|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5727" RevisionGUID="fc5c96a4-f7a0-42cc-b2df-ed53a3fcec95" CreationDate="2017-12-16T21:33:11.003" UserId="2261" Text="I can only give a partial answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning in question definitely isn't of Latin origin, it came to the (Christian) Latin from Greek, together with the word. The (Greek) word &quot;dulia&quot; was used as terminus technicus throughout the struggle over veneration of icons, which was resolved by the Second Council of Nicaea (787) - but I don't know for how long it had been used in this meaning at that time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="67499ce9-a3d1-4a74-be4a-b35927cd4dff" CreationDate="2017-12-16T23:03:42.377" UserId="79" Text="Are there Latin words for friends of different depth?&#xD;&#xA;A more shallow friend might perhaps be called &quot;mate&quot; or &quot;pal&quot;, and a deeper one &quot;friend&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps a shallow friend could also be called &quot;acquaintance&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The distinction I am after is the one between the Finnish &quot;kaveri&quot; and &quot;ystävä&quot;, but I hope my English description is clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;(If anyone knows more descriptive English words for this purpose, I would like to know.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best friend word I know in Latin is *amicus/amica*, but I don't know of any word that would indicate a shallower or deeper degree of friendship than it.&#xD;&#xA;My Finnish&amp;ndash;Latin dictionary does not translate &quot;kaveri&quot; at all.&#xD;&#xA;It does offer the alternative *familiaris*, but I'm not sure if that would work for a distinction like this.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps *socius* and *amiculus/amicula* might work, but *hospes/hospita* seems to be in the wrong direction.&#xD;&#xA;Does any pair of Latin words &amp;mdash; from these or other words &amp;mdash; give a distinction between shallow and deep friends?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me repeat the main question in Finnish for searchability:&#xD;&#xA;Miten tehdään latinaksi ero kaverin ja ystävän välille?&#xD;&#xA;Onko eriasteisille ystäville eri sanoja?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18961" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="67499ce9-a3d1-4a74-be4a-b35927cd4dff" CreationDate="2017-12-16T23:03:42.377" UserId="79" Text="Different levels of friends" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18962" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="67499ce9-a3d1-4a74-be4a-b35927cd4dff" CreationDate="2017-12-16T23:03:42.377" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5601" RevisionGUID="62492ce1-b527-48b5-ad67-131274d318d0" CreationDate="2017-12-16T23:30:25.287" UserId="13" Comment="added bracketed part to item &quot;for the Gongyla porm&quot; in PS." Text="There are apparently numerous versions of these lines. I only have access to two&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; however: Edmonds':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]· ἀ γὰρ πόλυ περσκόπεισα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κάλλος ἀνθρώπων Ἐλένα τὸν ἄνδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[κρίννε κάλ]ιστον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[ὸς τὸ πὰν] σέβας Τροΐας ὄλεσσε&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Campbell's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]· ἀ γὰρ πόλυ περσκέ̣θ̣ο̣ı̣σα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣άλ̣λο̣ς [ἀνθ]ρώπων Ἐλένα [τὸ]ν ἄνδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τ̣ὸν̣ [πανάρ]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣αλλ[ίποι]σ̣' ἔβα 'σ Τροΐαν πλέοı̣[σα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that is a big difference, even outside lacunas. So I tried looking at Grenfell and Hunt's edition of P.Oxy. 1231, whence the poem mostly comes (see below for more), and found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]ᾱγαρπόλυπερσκο̣π̣ε̣ı̣[.]α&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&lt;sup&gt;λ̣&lt;/sup&gt;ο̣σ̣[...]ωπωνελενα̣[..]νανδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[9 letters]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[7 letters]σ̣εβαστροϊα[..]λεσσ̣[..]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That seems to scream &quot;Go Edmonds, screw Campbell&quot;. But let's look at the notes to the transcription. What I gather from them is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - σκεδοισα and σκοπεισα are equally likely endings for l. 6, and since the notes only mention a «rather high stroke turning over» for the delta, I assume σκεθοισα would also be equally likely; so as far as P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 1 is concerned, Cambpell and Edmonds are equally likely right about that line;&#xD;&#xA; - The other lines have no beginning in the papyrus at hand, so those must come from another papyrus, which we will discuss below;&#xD;&#xA; - The notes don't even mention l. 9 (which is l. 21 in the papyrus), so this papyrus actually has a no-doubt λεσ in that line, whereas Campbell would have that as λεο, and read the doubtful sigma right afterwards as a doubtful iota;&#xD;&#xA; - Neither the notes nor the transcriptions show any other P.Oxy. 1231 fragment that could contain beginnings for those lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when [Bonnaria](http://www.uc.pt/fluc/eclassicos/publicacoes/ficheiros/humanitas25-26/07_Bonnaria.pdf) states that P.Oxy. 1231 reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;τ̣ὸν̣ [&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καλλ[&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]σ̣' ἔβα 'ς Τροΐαν πλέοı̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;they are apparetly giving us a nice bit of bull… err, tauricopria. Or maybe they are mixing up papyri. There are two more papyri this poem comes from. One is PSI 123, 1-2, but that only gives the last line, τ' ἐξ ἀδοκή[τω], which gives no trouble. The second one is P.Oxy. 2166(a), published in volume XXI. Unfortunately, I can't find anything online about this: no images, no transcriptions. Campbell's critical notation suggests it must have read at least:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κ̣αλ̣λο̣σ[]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τ̣ὸν̣[]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣αλλ[&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]σ̣εβαστροϊανπλεοι̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;plus the first 5 letters of the following line and the first 2 of the one after that. This implies a papyrus conflict: l. 9 is different from one papyrus to the other, and doubtfulness cannot solve the problem. So we are faced with two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Either we argue that the two are different poems, which seems viable if 2166(a) only has the little mentioned above (which could actually be even less, since we don't actually need it to read the σ̣εβαστροϊα part;&#xD;&#xA; - Or we have to choose one or the other, and with what arguments do we point our finger at one and say &quot;You're wrong!&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: does anyone have access to anything that can shed light on what was actually on 2166(a), and/or to something pointing out extra margins of doubtfulness in 1231 to settle this dispute?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;I also have a couple slightly different versions (which basically only differ in the lacuna at v. 8), but I kept the above two as prototypical, and also because all others have no critical notation. Researching again only yielded [The Complete Poems of Sappho](http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/), giving Cox's version as reading κρίννεν ἄριστον. Maybe safopoemas.doc contained other versions. But that's beside the point anyways, so I won't look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS If you're thinking of suggesting I buy the Voigt and/or Lobel-Page edition of Sappho, don't. I'm already thinking of getting them for Xmas. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: The dream is dead, but I may manage to borrow Voigt from a library if I find a way to get it from Brera library to one closer to the places I usually frequent.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE 2: The Voigt dream is dead, but I did buy Lobel-Page, and it's soon gonna be brought to me from England. Lobel is the editor of P.Oxy. XXI, so having an edition of Sappho coauthored by him seems like a good chance of finding answers. Also, Mr. Weimer in the comments offered to check if his library has that volume and look at the pages that may be relevant to this poem and the Gongyla one, that is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `P. Oxy. XXI (1951) add. p. 125, 11` (and perhaps also P.Oxy. 2292-2293) for the Gongyla poem;&#xD;&#xA; - `P. Oxy. vol. 21, p. 122 [additional fragment of P.Oxy. 1231]` for the&#xD;&#xA;   poem at hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would be great. And I found that on Amazon, but the cart had already been purchased and this book costs and needs shipping which would be free if it were in that cart, so that will have to wait at least till next Xmas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1163/j.ctt1w76v7d.8.pdf), 2166(a) is not a source for this poem&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, whereas something in P.Oxy. vol. XXI is. I have also managed to find that volume [on Amazon](https://www.amazon.com/OXYRHYNCHUS-PAPYRI-PART-XXI-Lobel/dp/B002EO10LS), so I may buy it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Unless of course 2166(a) is in that volume, which should start at 2292, meaning the numbering doesn't line up with the volumes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5729" RevisionGUID="71c6a414-7f6e-4b86-b58e-9a1176d89b37" CreationDate="2017-12-17T00:11:13.803" UserId="985" Text="_Familiaris_ does indeed indicate a deeper, more intimate level of friendship. Pliny the Younger often uses it thus. In the following sentence from letter 4.17, he distinguishes regular friendship (_amicitia_) from intimate friendship (_amicitia familiaris_ = _familiaritas_):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _est quiden mihi cum isto, contra quem me advocas, non plane familiaris sed tamen amicitia._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have with that man (C. Caecilius) against whom you ask me to serve as opposing counsel, obviously not an intimite friendship, true, but a friendship nonetheless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Contubernalis_ sometimes also denotes a very intimate friend. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a shallower level of friendship, such as a casual acquaintance, one could refer to the person as _notus mihi_, 'known to me.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'll try to dig up further attestations when I have a chance.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5729" RevisionGUID="c8c78b97-c5eb-4a66-849b-386015539542" CreationDate="2017-12-17T06:34:10.590" UserId="985" Comment="fixed typo" Text="_Familiaris_ does indeed indicate a deeper, more intimate level of friendship. Pliny the Younger often uses it thus. In the following sentence from letter 4.17, he distinguishes regular friendship (_amicitia_) from intimate friendship (_amicitia familiaris_ = _familiaritas_):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _est quidem mihi cum isto, contra quem me advocas, non plane familiaris sed tamen amicitia._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have with that man (C. Caecilius) against whom you ask me to serve as opposing counsel, obviously not an intimite friendship, true, but a friendship nonetheless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Contubernalis_ sometimes also denotes a very intimate friend. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a shallower level of friendship, such as a casual acquaintance, one could refer to the person as _notus mihi_, 'known to me.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'll try to dig up further attestations when I have a chance.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18966" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="98d69aeb-89e2-43be-8902-eb9cd70b1dc0" CreationDate="2017-12-17T12:12:08.643" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|word-comparison|finnish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5721" RevisionGUID="759bb89c-ce36-4f79-b279-4f0c34268b5b" CreationDate="2017-12-17T17:42:47.413" UserId="1142" Comment="added 249 characters in body; added 12 characters in body" Text="The closest thing I could find to the verb *[to] imply* (at least in the way *implied* is used in this context) in my dictionary was *adfirmō, -āre, -āvī, -ātum*. In this case you'd want to use the passive perfect participle, *adfirmātum* plus the adverb *nōn*. As for the noun *power*, you have a number of options depending on what kind of power you're referring to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *potestās, f.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(strength) vīrēs, fpl.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(excessive) potentia, f.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(supreme) imperium nt.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(divine) nūmen, nt.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(legal) auctōritās, f.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pairs for each participle-noun pair are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmāta potestās* or *potestās nōn adfirmāta*&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmātae vīrēs* or *vīrēs nōn adfirmātae*&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmāta potentia* or *potentia nōn adfirmāta*&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmātum imperium* or *imperium nōn adfirmātum*&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmātum nūmen* or *nūmen nōn adfirmātum*&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmāta auctōritās* or *auctōritās nōn adfirmāta*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When all of these are translated *literally*, they come out to mean something along the lines of *&quot;[type of power] having not been stated&quot;*, which isn't perfect, but probably as close as you can get to the English idiom *&quot;implied power&quot;* with Latin.&#xA;&#xA;**Minor edit:**&#xA;&#xA;If the phrase “implied power” is being used to describe power of a strictly legal kind, then the word *auctōritās* alone would suffice, since from a pragmatic standpoint, this would would have already meant “implied [legal] power” to a Roman." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5730" RevisionGUID="04736d65-23b3-4ff8-97cf-3899f708e587" CreationDate="2017-12-17T19:52:19.680" UserId="2264" Text="Also, is &quot;-is&quot; a grammatically correct suffix for &quot;dolor&quot; in this context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am attempting to shorten a phrase similar to, if not exactly, &quot;Et ratio in dolore est&quot; into 2 words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18969" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5730" RevisionGUID="04736d65-23b3-4ff8-97cf-3899f708e587" CreationDate="2017-12-17T19:52:19.680" UserId="2264" Text="What does &quot;ratio doloris&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18970" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5730" RevisionGUID="04736d65-23b3-4ff8-97cf-3899f708e587" CreationDate="2017-12-17T19:52:19.680" UserId="2264" Text="|vocabulary|translation|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5730" RevisionGUID="e444ffb4-a1cd-4a44-b848-0e726c8a179a" CreationDate="2017-12-17T19:58:21.317" UserId="2264" Comment="added 195 characters in body" Text="Also, is &quot;-is&quot; a grammatically correct suffix for &quot;dolor&quot; in this context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am attempting to shorten a phrase similar to, if not exactly, &quot;Et ratio in dolore est&quot; into 2 words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Credit for the phrase goes to [GIVE_ME_UR_B00BZ][1] on the Latin subreddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/6go2ks/help_with_translating_a_saying_to_the_effect_of/dirzksk/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5601" RevisionGUID="9ee7e22b-74fa-4b77-b1b9-e1ba29a11a3f" CreationDate="2017-12-17T20:40:04.343" UserId="13" Comment="added Update 2" Text="There are apparently numerous versions of these lines. I only have access to two&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; however: Edmonds':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]· ἀ γὰρ πόλυ περσκόπεισα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κάλλος ἀνθρώπων Ἐλένα τὸν ἄνδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[κρίννε κάλ]ιστον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[ὸς τὸ πὰν] σέβας Τροΐας ὄλεσσε&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Campbell's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]· ἀ γὰρ πόλυ περσκέ̣θ̣ο̣ı̣σα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣άλ̣λο̣ς [ἀνθ]ρώπων Ἐλένα [τὸ]ν ἄνδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τ̣ὸν̣ [πανάρ]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣αλλ[ίποι]σ̣' ἔβα 'σ Τροΐαν πλέοı̣[σα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that is a big difference, even outside lacunas. So I tried looking at Grenfell and Hunt's edition of P.Oxy. 1231, whence the poem mostly comes (see below for more), and found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…]ᾱγαρπόλυπερσκο̣π̣ε̣ı̣[.]α&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&lt;sup&gt;λ̣&lt;/sup&gt;ο̣σ̣[...]ωπωνελενα̣[..]νανδρα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[9 letters]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[7 letters]σ̣εβαστροϊα[..]λεσσ̣[..]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That seems to scream &quot;Go Edmonds, screw Campbell&quot;. But let's look at the notes to the transcription. What I gather from them is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - σκεδοισα and σκοπεισα are equally likely endings for l. 6, and since the notes only mention a «rather high stroke turning over» for the delta, I assume σκεθοισα would also be equally likely; so as far as P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 1 is concerned, Cambpell and Edmonds are equally likely right about that line;&#xD;&#xA; - The other lines have no beginning in the papyrus at hand, so those must come from another papyrus, which we will discuss below;&#xD;&#xA; - The notes don't even mention l. 9 (which is l. 21 in the papyrus), so this papyrus actually has a no-doubt λεσ in that line, whereas Campbell would have that as λεο, and read the doubtful sigma right afterwards as a doubtful iota;&#xD;&#xA; - Neither the notes nor the transcriptions show any other P.Oxy. 1231 fragment that could contain beginnings for those lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when [Bonnaria](http://www.uc.pt/fluc/eclassicos/publicacoes/ficheiros/humanitas25-26/07_Bonnaria.pdf) states that P.Oxy. 1231 reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;τ̣ὸν̣ [&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]ι̣στον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καλλ[&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]σ̣' ἔβα 'ς Τροΐαν πλέοı̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;they are apparetly giving us a nice bit of bull… err, tauricopria. Or maybe they are mixing up papyri. There are two more papyri this poem comes from. One is PSI 123, 1-2, but that only gives the last line, τ' ἐξ ἀδοκή[τω], which gives no trouble. The second one is P.Oxy. 2166(a), published in volume XXI. Unfortunately, I can't find anything online about this: no images, no transcriptions. Campbell's critical notation suggests it must have read at least:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κ̣αλ̣λο̣σ[]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τ̣ὸν̣[]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κ̣αλλ[&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]σ̣εβαστροϊανπλεοι̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;plus the first 5 letters of the following line and the first 2 of the one after that. This implies a papyrus conflict: l. 9 is different from one papyrus to the other, and doubtfulness cannot solve the problem. So we are faced with two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Either we argue that the two are different poems, which seems viable if 2166(a) only has the little mentioned above (which could actually be even less, since we don't actually need it to read the σ̣εβαστροϊα part;&#xD;&#xA; - Or we have to choose one or the other, and with what arguments do we point our finger at one and say &quot;You're wrong!&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: does anyone have access to anything that can shed light on what was actually on 2166(a), and/or to something pointing out extra margins of doubtfulness in 1231 to settle this dispute?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;I also have a couple slightly different versions (which basically only differ in the lacuna at v. 8), but I kept the above two as prototypical, and also because all others have no critical notation. Researching again only yielded [The Complete Poems of Sappho](http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/), giving Cox's version as reading κρίννεν ἄριστον. Maybe safopoemas.doc contained other versions. But that's beside the point anyways, so I won't look into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS If you're thinking of suggesting I buy the Voigt and/or Lobel-Page edition of Sappho, don't. I'm already thinking of getting them for Xmas. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: The dream is dead, but I may manage to borrow Voigt from a library if I find a way to get it from Brera library to one closer to the places I usually frequent.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE 2: The Voigt dream is dead, but I did buy Lobel-Page, and it's soon gonna be brought to me from England. Lobel is the editor of P.Oxy. XXI, so having an edition of Sappho coauthored by him seems like a good chance of finding answers. Also, Mr. Weimer in the comments offered to check if his library has that volume and look at the pages that may be relevant to this poem and the Gongyla one, that is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `P. Oxy. XXI (1951) add. p. 125, 11` (and perhaps also P.Oxy. 2292-2293) for the Gongyla poem;&#xD;&#xA; - `P. Oxy. vol. 21, p. 122 [additional fragment of P.Oxy. 1231]` for the&#xD;&#xA;   poem at hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would be great. And I found that on Amazon, but the cart had already been purchased and this book costs and needs shipping which would be free if it were in that cart, so that will have to wait at least till next Xmas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1163/j.ctt1w76v7d.8.pdf), 2166(a) is not a source for this poem&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, whereas something in P.Oxy. vol. XXI is. I have also managed to find that volume [on Amazon](https://www.amazon.com/OXYRHYNCHUS-PAPYRI-PART-XXI-Lobel/dp/B002EO10LS), so I may buy it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Unless of course 2166(a) is in that volume, which should start at 2292, meaning the numbering doesn't line up with the volumes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at Campbell again, I saw that P.Oxy. 2166(a) is said to be in `Ox. Pap. XXI`, so yeah, for some reason, the volume starts with 2292 and contains 2166(a). As if [Oxyrhynchus papyri numbering weren't already weird enough](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4580/how-are-p-oxy-numbers-chosen)…" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5730" RevisionGUID="1056c6fe-a1f5-463d-a8e8-62d3c902328b" CreationDate="2017-12-17T21:50:26.837" UserId="79" Comment="added 233 characters in body; edited tags" Text="What does *ratio doloris* mean?&#xD;&#xA;I want to translate _ratio doloris_ from Latin to English in all contexts for which it would make grammatical sense, because I want to know what _ratio doloris_ means without modifying the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, is *-is* a grammatically correct suffix for *dolor* in this context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am attempting to shorten a phrase similar to, if not exactly, *Et ratio in dolore est* into 2 words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Credit for the phrase goes to [GIVE_ME_UR_B00BZ][1] on the Latin subreddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/6go2ks/help_with_translating_a_saying_to_the_effect_of/dirzksk/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18974" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5730" RevisionGUID="1056c6fe-a1f5-463d-a8e8-62d3c902328b" CreationDate="2017-12-17T21:50:26.837" UserId="79" Comment="added 233 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5730" RevisionGUID="fba3c91b-2d1d-4681-a80d-01f9ebdceb07" CreationDate="2017-12-17T21:54:46.617" UserId="2264" Comment="deleted 66 characters in body" Text="What does *ratio doloris* mean?&#xD;&#xA;I want to translate _ratio doloris_ from Latin to English in all contexts for which it would make grammatical sense, because I want to know if *-is* is the correct suffix for *dolor* in the following context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am attempting to shorten a phrase similar to, if not exactly, *Et ratio in dolore est* into 2 words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Credit for the phrase goes to [GIVE_ME_UR_B00BZ][1] on the Latin subreddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/6go2ks/help_with_translating_a_saying_to_the_effect_of/dirzksk/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5731" RevisionGUID="745d5611-a410-44ae-8fd8-95e238eccd84" CreationDate="2017-12-17T22:10:40.277" UserId="79" Text="The suffix *-is* indicates genitive in the third declension.&#xD;&#xA;That is, *doloris* means &quot;of pain&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *ratio* is complicated.&#xD;&#xA;The dictionary by Lewis and Short lists the following translations under [*ratio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=ratio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059):&#xD;&#xA;reckoning, account, calculation, computation, list, roll, register, sum, number, business matter, transaction, business, matter, affair, interest, advantage, relation, reference, respect, regard, concern, consideration, care, course, conduct, procedure, mode, manner, method, fashion, plan, condition, nature, kind, sort, way, judgment, understanding, reason, ground, motive, showing cause, argument, reasonableness, propriety, law, rule, order, conformity, theory, doctrine, system, science, knowledge, philosophy, view, opinion, proof, argumentation, reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;I may have missed something, but the point should be clear: *ratio* can mean an enormous number of different things, depending on context.&#xD;&#xA;(There are also other online dictionaries; see [this list](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word [*dolor*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=dolor&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is clearer, and &quot;pain&quot; is a good overall translation.&#xD;&#xA;Some translations picked from L&amp;S:&#xD;&#xA;pain, ache, distress, grief, affliction, sorrow, anguish, trouble, vexation, mortification, wrath, animosity, anger, resentment, pathos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase *ratio doloris* means &quot;*ratio* of *dolor*&quot;, but it can also be interpreted as &quot;*ratio* towards *dolor*&quot; or &quot;*ratio* caused by *dolor*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Now if you replace *ratio* and *dolor* with the possible translations offered above, you get a huge number of different readings, and without context any one of them is possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without context, my first guesses at the meaning would be &quot;reason for pain&quot; or &quot;nature/manner of pain&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to know what *Et ratio in dolore est* means and whether that is a good translation for &quot;There is purpose in pain&quot;, I recommend asking a separate question.&#xD;&#xA;It would be a good question, but it's cleaner to keep different questions separate, whether or not related." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5732" RevisionGUID="5eac3976-a9e4-47c7-bc8b-8beecdf08295" CreationDate="2017-12-17T22:55:16.627" UserId="39" Text="There's no need to reinvent the wheel. see [Obbink 2016][1] for further details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789004314832_003&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/r1zJV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5732" RevisionGUID="35ffca70-ccf1-480a-879c-679e34014e2c" CreationDate="2017-12-17T23:02:55.667" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 39 characters in body" Text="see [Obbink 2016][1] for further details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789004314832_003&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/r1zJV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5671" RevisionGUID="40bb300f-705b-4497-abdc-79650e9a08da" CreationDate="2017-12-17T23:58:48.037" UserId="13" Comment="added update" Text="Not solving the problem entirely, but ahem-b-ok-ahem furnished me with an image of P.GC. inv 105, where on fr. 2 one can clearly see the endings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ΟΗϹΘΑΙ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;€ΘΟΙϹΑ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΟΝΑΝ[]&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ϹΑ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΟΚΗωΝ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Α̣Γ̣ΑΥΤΑΝ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ν̣ΟΗΜΜΑ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ν̣Ο̣ΗϹΗ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΝΕΜΝΑΙ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΒΑΜΑ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΝΠΡΟϹωΠω&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΟΙϹΙ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;€Ν€̣ϹΘΑΙ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Χ̣ΗΝΔΑΡΑϹΘΑΙ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[....]ΑΙ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final lacuna is actually not a hole, but no letter can be fully seen before the AI at the end. Vestiges are visible, though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The first vestige strongly suggests a M;&#xD;&#xA; - Then we have what looks like an angle with vertex pointing upward (aka a caret or circumflex ^, but I felt like talking complicated :) ), perhaps the top of an A;&#xD;&#xA; - Then there is some kind of &quot;pit&quot;, perhaps the top of an Y; the bottom of the pit is exactly on the edge of the papyrus;&#xD;&#xA; - Finally, there is a space which seems blank, though looking closely one can see what is either very faint ink, or a fold in the papyrus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that, the ending of that line might be ΜΑΥΤΑ, which suggests comparison with a previously known fragment, a quote by Ap.Dysc., reading ἔγω δ' ἐμαύτᾳ / τοῦτο σύνοιδα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This certainly settles all our problems, modulo the line beginnings, which means the problem of l. 8 stays, but the rest is settled by these endings. However, this papyrus was published in 2014, well after Campbell published, so the problem of why Campbell had these readings remains, and new problems with older restorations are caused by the new endings in stanza 4 and stanza 6 (last one). But that is another story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As AlexB's answer made me notice, the ahem-b-ok-ahem finding mentioned above tells me that this mysterious extra source preserves only a grave accent in l. 12 (aka last line of stanza 3). Interesting info, but doesn't settle the problem of this question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5733" RevisionGUID="29fab65d-8850-4bad-91ec-d69ee4d3c856" CreationDate="2017-12-18T01:53:35.597" UserId="2265" Text="The que suffix has a usage example with momentous consequence.  Filioque was inserted into the Nicene creed in the West sometime in the Middle Ages.  The result was &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“... qui ex Patre Filioque procedat”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making the Spirit proceed from both the father and son.  This is one of the few theological controversies between the Catholic and Eastern churches.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this is medieval, not classical, the relatedness of Father and Son is emphasized by not using et." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5733" RevisionGUID="325068d7-3e7d-4d1b-bab5-64d894228c15" CreationDate="2017-12-18T01:58:51.443" UserId="2265" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="The que suffix has a usage example with momentous consequence.  Filioque was inserted into the Nicene creed in the West sometime in the Middle Ages.  The result was &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“... qui ex Patre Filioque procedat”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making the Spirit proceed from both the father and son.  This is one of the few theological controversies between the Catholic and Eastern churches.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this is medieval, not classical, the relatedness of Father and Son is emphasized by not using et. Two persons cannot be more closely related than being of one substance or being." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5734" RevisionGUID="1612122f-192a-4791-8916-4a99edc5d130" CreationDate="2017-12-18T09:02:09.747" UserId="2267" Text="Would it be correct to translate software (soft-ware) as &quot;mollis mercimonium&quot; ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18983" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5734" RevisionGUID="1612122f-192a-4791-8916-4a99edc5d130" CreationDate="2017-12-18T09:02:09.747" UserId="2267" Text="Latin translation of the word &quot;software&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18984" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5734" RevisionGUID="1612122f-192a-4791-8916-4a99edc5d130" CreationDate="2017-12-18T09:02:09.747" UserId="2267" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5735" RevisionGUID="ea020c69-d629-4f0d-a0aa-5a7e13aa7757" CreationDate="2017-12-18T12:47:02.047" UserId="2268" Text="The etymology of 'virgo' proposed by Ledo-Lemos, and rejected by Vaan (without further explanations), does not explain Lat. *virgo* as a compound from &quot;*uiH-ro- (man) and *gʷén-eH₂- (woman)&quot;, but from *wir- 'young, youthful' (not 'man'!) and '*gʷén- 'woman'. According with this hypothesis, Lat. *virgo* originated as a compound whose original meaning was &quot;young lady&quot; (like German *Jungfrau* 'young lady &gt; virgin').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the question asked here, the second segment of the word *virgo* is not the most important (i.e., if *-go* originate or not from I.E. *gwen- 'woman'). The pertinent to the subject at hand is if the firs segment of *virgo* (*uir-*) was or not related with Lat. *vir* 'man'. If Ledo-Lemos hypothesis is truth, the response is: both words came from an I.E. root whose meaning was 'youthful, young'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a paper published in 2003, Birgitt Anette Olsen reached a very similar conclusion [&quot;Fresh shoots from a vigorous steam: IE wih1ró-, *Language in Time and Space: A Festschrift for Werner Winter on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday* (Walter de Gruyter) pp. 313-330].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following is the explanation as it appears in the article published by Ledo-Lemos in *Indogermanische Forschungeng*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin uir means “male”, and the same could be said of the vast majority of cognates that this word shows in other Indo-European languages (Old Irish fer, Gothic waír, etc.). However, there is a good reason to suppose that the original value of this element was “young”: in Tocharian A, the corresponding cognate (wir) precisely meant “young, juvenile” [cf. A.J. Van Windekens: 1976 1979, vol. I, pp. 574 575)].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is fairly easy to understand that the adjective “young” would finally mean “male”. A parallel semantic evolution can be seen in the protoform that Pokorny [1959, p. 738] reflects as *merio  (with the value of “young”, just as it still appears —among many other possible examples— in Greek μεῖραξ), but in Indo-Iranian it also acquired other values that closely remind us of the ones uir has in Latin: thus, in Sanskrit márya  means “young, male, lover (masculine), free man” and the Sanskrit word maryaká  and the Middle Persian mērak mean “male”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that the semantic value of the etymological group of the word uir would originally be “young” has interesting etymological consequences for other words, although studying them in depth would divert our immediate objectives and so we must limit ourselves to giving a brief outline. Since Schulze, it is generally admitted that there is some kind of relationship between the etymological group of the Latin form uir and the form uīs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[NOTE: W. Schulze (1924), A. Ernout &amp; A. Meillet (1959, words uir and uīs), A. Ernout (1954, p. 196). Also J. Pokorny (1959, pp. 1123-1124) seems to accept this relationship. However, this author also compiles a very unlikely etymology which connects uīs with uia.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, this approach still remains very likely but now we may be able to indicate that the etymological group of uīs would be better placed in the semantic field of “a vigour characteristic of youth” (by the way, this semantic value is still kept as such in the Sanskrit form váyas ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[NOTE: G.R. Solta (1966, especially p. 47) has pointed out the morphological isolation of uiridis with regard to the rest of the Latin adjectives of colour: “Lat. viridis ist ein Außenseiter der Farbterminologie in formaler und semantischer Hinsicht, da es außer dem Farbinhalt auch andere Bedeutungskomponenten enthält”. Those “andere Bedeutungskomponenten” are of course, the meanings of “vigorous, young, healthy”. The subtle but important morphological differences between uiridis and the other colour adjectives can easily be explained, as is obvious, by accepting our hypothesis that the original semantic values had nothing to do with the colour. H.J. Vermeer (1963, especially p. 135), compiles many examples which prove to what extent uiridis and uireo were used in Latin even in contexts that explicitly prevented the meaning of “green”: “Andererseits kann das Farbverb seine Farbkomponente ganz und ganz verlieren, so vielfach in übertragener Bedeutung, wenn ‘virere’ nur so ‘jung, stark sein’ heißt usw.: inter niveos viridisque lapillos Hor S 1, 2, 80; virent metalla Mart 6, 42, 11 (…)”. This author explains such uses as a result of the loss of the meaning of colour, which he considers the original one. However, it is much easier to understand them as evidence that in classical Latin, the central meaning of uireō and uiridis was not in the semantic field of a particular colour but in “vigour, youth, strength”.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming this semantic value of “a vigour characteristic of youth” we can easily understand which is the origin of the Latin word uireō or the form uiridis for that matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[NOTE: Scholars have very often tried to establish a relationship between uirgō and uirga. It is a particularly old hypothesis, which already appears in G. Curtius (1879, p. 185); but Curtius himself refers to Corssen (1870, 2nd ed., Über Aussprache, Voca-lismus, Betonung der lateinischen Sprache vol. II, p. 521). It was quite successful during the last century (thus, for instance, among many other possible citations, K.F. Johansson: 1890, p. 438, note 2). This hypothesis is still compiled by J. Pokorny (1959, pp. 1133-1134) and it is taken into account by A. Walde &amp; J.B. Hofmann (1965, word uirgō). A semantic evolution from “branch” to “young lady” is not impossible; but a priori, rather unlikely. Our hypothesis also establishes a certain etymological kinship which accounts for their formal resemblance, but in a different way: the original meaning of the element from which both finally derive was “youth”.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also very easy to include the form uirga in the same etymological group: the original basis of its meaning (still clearly present in Latin) would have been “shoot, sprout” (a similar semantic evolution could explain the Sanskrit form vayāÏ “branch”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, we are bound to believe that the element *wir (o)  originally meant “young” (as still happens in Tocharian); later it became “young male” (probably due to the semantic polarisation caused by the appearance of uirgō “young woman”), and it finally reached the simple meaning of “male”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[NOTE: The word in Tocharian retains the adjectival value (it even has a feminine form with an a-stem), apart from retaining its original meaning. With regard to this, it may be relevant to remember the etymology compiled by Festus (W.M. Lindsay edition, 1913, p. 314, 15 16): femi¬nas antiqui (…) “viras” appellabant, unde adhuc permanent “virgines” et “viragines”. Despite the long-time belief, the form uira is not likely to be simply some grammarian's invention, because there is a Oscan collective noun form u(e)iro that means “persons, people”, which proves that the words in this family were not used exclusively in reference to men (cf. Eichner: 1985, p. 147). Thus uira could in fact be old and date back to the feminine form of the adjective originally stated as uir. In any case, the forms uirgō and uiragō cannot be put on the same level; uirgō was created in a very old age when uir  still meant “young”, whereas uiragō has a more recent origin, it was derived from uir when this word already meant “male”, by means of a typical Latin suffix (with regard to this suffix, cf. A. Ernout, 1941).]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5735" RevisionGUID="d234f870-3ffe-44b1-8dc1-ded9ec5b70b1" CreationDate="2017-12-18T12:54:16.590" UserId="2268" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="The etymology of 'virgo' proposed by Ledo-Lemos, and rejected by Vaan (without further explanations), does not explain Lat. *virgo* as a compound from &quot;*uiH-ro- (man) and *gʷén-eH₂- (woman)&quot;, but from *wir- 'young, youthful' (not 'man'!) and '*gʷén- 'woman'. According with this hypothesis, Lat. *virgo* originated as a compound whose original meaning was &quot;young lady&quot; (like German *Jungfrau* 'young lady &gt; virgin').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the question asked here, the second segment of the word *virgo* is not the most important (i.e., if *-go* originate or not from I.E. *gwen- 'woman'). The pertinent to the subject at hand is if the firs segment of *virgo* (*uir-*) was or not related with Lat. *vir* 'man'. If Ledo-Lemos hypothesis is truth, the response is: both words came from an I.E. root whose meaning was 'youthful, young'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a paper published in 2003, Birgitt Anette Olsen reached a very similar conclusion [&quot;Fresh shoots from a vigorous steam: IE wih1ró-, *Language in Time and Space: A Festschrift for Werner Winter on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday* (Walter de Gruyter) pp. 313-330].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following is the explanation as it appears in the article published by Ledo-Lemos in *Indogermanische Forschungeng*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin uir means “male”, and the same could be said of the vast majority of cognates that this word shows in other Indo-European languages (Old Irish fer, Gothic waír, etc.). However, there is a good reason to suppose that the original value of this element was “young”: in Tocharian A, the corresponding cognate (wir) precisely meant “young, juvenile” [cf. A.J. Van Windekens: 1976 1979, vol. I, pp. 574 575)].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is fairly easy to understand that the adjective “young” would finally mean “male”. A parallel semantic evolution can be seen in the protoform that Pokorny [1959, p. 738] reflects as *merio  (with the value of “young”, just as it still appears —among many other possible examples— in Greek μεῖραξ), but in Indo-Iranian it also acquired other values that closely remind us of the ones uir has in Latin: thus, in Sanskrit márya  means “young, male, lover (masculine), free man” and the Sanskrit word maryaká  and the Middle Persian mērak mean “male”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that the semantic value of the etymological group of the word uir would originally be “young” has interesting etymological consequences for other words, although studying them in depth would divert our immediate objectives and so we must limit ourselves to giving a brief outline. Since Schulze, it is generally admitted that there is some kind of relationship between the etymological group of the Latin form uir and the form uīs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[NOTE: W. Schulze (1924), A. Ernout &amp; A. Meillet (1959, words uir and uīs), A. Ernout (1954, p. 196). Also J. Pokorny (1959, pp. 1123-1124) seems to accept this relationship. However, this author also compiles a very unlikely etymology which connects uīs with uia.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, this approach still remains very likely but now we may be able to indicate that the etymological group of uīs would be better placed in the semantic field of “a vigour characteristic of youth” (by the way, this semantic value is still kept as such in the Sanskrit form váyas ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming this semantic value of “a vigour characteristic of youth” we can easily understand which is the origin of the Latin word uireō or the form uiridis for that matter.&#xD;&#xA;[NOTE: G.R. Solta (1966, especially p. 47) has pointed out the morphological isolation of uiridis with regard to the rest of the Latin adjectives of colour: “Lat. viridis ist ein Außenseiter der Farbterminologie in formaler und semantischer Hinsicht, da es außer dem Farbinhalt auch andere Bedeutungskomponenten enthält”. Those “andere Bedeutungskomponenten” are of course, the meanings of “vigorous, young, healthy”. The subtle but important morphological differences between uiridis and the other colour adjectives can easily be explained, as is obvious, by accepting our hypothesis that the original semantic values had nothing to do with the colour. H.J. Vermeer (1963, especially p. 135), compiles many examples which prove to what extent uiridis and uireo were used in Latin even in contexts that explicitly prevented the meaning of “green”: “Andererseits kann das Farbverb seine Farbkomponente ganz und ganz verlieren, so vielfach in übertragener Bedeutung, wenn ‘virere’ nur so ‘jung, stark sein’ heißt usw.: inter niveos viridisque lapillos Hor S 1, 2, 80; virent metalla Mart 6, 42, 11 (…)”. This author explains such uses as a result of the loss of the meaning of colour, which he considers the original one. However, it is much easier to understand them as evidence that in classical Latin, the central meaning of uireō and uiridis was not in the semantic field of a particular colour but in “vigour, youth, strength”.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also very easy to include the form uirga in the same etymological group: the original basis of its meaning (still clearly present in Latin) would have been “shoot, sprout” (a similar semantic evolution could explain the Sanskrit form vayāÏ “branch”).&#xD;&#xA;[NOTE: Scholars have very often tried to establish a relationship between uirgō and uirga. It is a particularly old hypothesis, which already appears in G. Curtius (1879, p. 185); but Curtius himself refers to Corssen (1870, 2nd ed., Über Aussprache, Voca-lismus, Betonung der lateinischen Sprache vol. II, p. 521). It was quite successful during the last century (thus, for instance, among many other possible citations, K.F. Johansson: 1890, p. 438, note 2). This hypothesis is still compiled by J. Pokorny (1959, pp. 1133-1134) and it is taken into account by A. Walde &amp; J.B. Hofmann (1965, word uirgō). A semantic evolution from “branch” to “young lady” is not impossible; but a priori, rather unlikely. Our hypothesis also establishes a certain etymological kinship which accounts for their formal resemblance, but in a different way: the original meaning of the element from which both finally derive was “youth”.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, we are bound to believe that the element *wir (o)  originally meant “young” (as still happens in Tocharian); later it became “young male” (probably due to the semantic polarisation caused by the appearance of uirgō “young woman”), and it finally reached the simple meaning of “male”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[NOTE: The word in Tocharian retains the adjectival value (it even has a feminine form with an a-stem), apart from retaining its original meaning. With regard to this, it may be relevant to remember the etymology compiled by Festus (W.M. Lindsay edition, 1913, p. 314, 15 16): femi¬nas antiqui (…) “viras” appellabant, unde adhuc permanent “virgines” et “viragines”. Despite the long-time belief, the form uira is not likely to be simply some grammarian's invention, because there is a Oscan collective noun form u(e)iro that means “persons, people”, which proves that the words in this family were not used exclusively in reference to men (cf. Eichner: 1985, p. 147). Thus uira could in fact be old and date back to the feminine form of the adjective originally stated as uir. In any case, the forms uirgō and uiragō cannot be put on the same level; uirgō was created in a very old age when uir  still meant “young”, whereas uiragō has a more recent origin, it was derived from uir when this word already meant “male”, by means of a typical Latin suffix (with regard to this suffix, cf. A. Ernout, 1941).]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18987" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5584" RevisionGUID="17f672d2-29e9-49fe-b3f3-68dcf01b0f33" CreationDate="2017-12-18T14:34:30.130" UserId="-1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:45,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;brianpck&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;QPaysTaxes&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:144,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;tox123&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:183,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;jknappen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5736" RevisionGUID="d57c660a-859f-4508-9e0a-d657bd238b8b" CreationDate="2017-12-18T22:43:22.223" UserId="79" Text="Is there a colorful Latin term for an uninvited guest?&#xD;&#xA;Of course I can say something like *conviva non invitatus*, but I wonder if there is something less boring, akin to the English &quot;gatecrasher&quot; or the Finnish &quot;kuokkavieras&quot; (lit. &quot;mattock guest&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know a suitable phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18989" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5736" RevisionGUID="d57c660a-859f-4508-9e0a-d657bd238b8b" CreationDate="2017-12-18T22:43:22.223" UserId="79" Text="Is there a colorful term for an uninvited guest?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18990" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5736" RevisionGUID="d57c660a-859f-4508-9e0a-d657bd238b8b" CreationDate="2017-12-18T22:43:22.223" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|idiom|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5735" RevisionGUID="d5a9a98d-1e63-40fd-92e0-c7cd9161e439" CreationDate="2017-12-18T22:57:12.777" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected a typo. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="The etymology of 'virgo' proposed by Ledo-Lemos, and rejected by Vaan (without further explanations), does not explain Lat. *virgo* as a compound from &quot;*uiH-ro- (man) and *gʷén-eH₂- (woman)&quot;, but from *wir- 'young, youthful' (not 'man'!) and '*gʷén- 'woman'. According with this hypothesis, Lat. *virgo* originated as a compound whose original meaning was &quot;young lady&quot; (like German *Jungfrau* 'young lady &gt; virgin').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the question asked here, the second segment of the word *virgo* is not the most important (i.e., if *-go* originate or not from I.E. *gwen- 'woman'). The pertinent to the subject at hand is if the first segment of *virgo* (*uir-*) was or not related with Lat. *vir* 'man'. If Ledo-Lemos hypothesis is truth, the response is: both words came from an I.E. root whose meaning was 'youthful, young'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a paper published in 2003, Birgitt Anette Olsen reached a very similar conclusion [&quot;Fresh shoots from a vigorous steam: IE wih1ró-, *Language in Time and Space: A Festschrift for Werner Winter on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday* (Walter de Gruyter) pp. 313-330].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following is the explanation as it appears in the article published by Ledo-Lemos in *Indogermanische Forschungeng*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin uir means “male”, and the same could be said of the vast majority of cognates that this word shows in other Indo-European languages (Old Irish fer, Gothic waír, etc.). However, there is a good reason to suppose that the original value of this element was “young”: in Tocharian A, the corresponding cognate (wir) precisely meant “young, juvenile” [cf. A.J. Van Windekens: 1976 1979, vol. I, pp. 574 575)].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is fairly easy to understand that the adjective “young” would finally mean “male”. A parallel semantic evolution can be seen in the protoform that Pokorny [1959, p. 738] reflects as *merio  (with the value of “young”, just as it still appears —among many other possible examples— in Greek μεῖραξ), but in Indo-Iranian it also acquired other values that closely remind us of the ones uir has in Latin: thus, in Sanskrit márya  means “young, male, lover (masculine), free man” and the Sanskrit word maryaká  and the Middle Persian mērak mean “male”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that the semantic value of the etymological group of the word uir would originally be “young” has interesting etymological consequences for other words, although studying them in depth would divert our immediate objectives and so we must limit ourselves to giving a brief outline. Since Schulze, it is generally admitted that there is some kind of relationship between the etymological group of the Latin form uir and the form uīs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[NOTE: W. Schulze (1924), A. Ernout &amp; A. Meillet (1959, words uir and uīs), A. Ernout (1954, p. 196). Also J. Pokorny (1959, pp. 1123-1124) seems to accept this relationship. However, this author also compiles a very unlikely etymology which connects uīs with uia.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, this approach still remains very likely but now we may be able to indicate that the etymological group of uīs would be better placed in the semantic field of “a vigour characteristic of youth” (by the way, this semantic value is still kept as such in the Sanskrit form váyas ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming this semantic value of “a vigour characteristic of youth” we can easily understand which is the origin of the Latin word uireō or the form uiridis for that matter.&#xD;&#xA;[NOTE: G.R. Solta (1966, especially p. 47) has pointed out the morphological isolation of uiridis with regard to the rest of the Latin adjectives of colour: “Lat. viridis ist ein Außenseiter der Farbterminologie in formaler und semantischer Hinsicht, da es außer dem Farbinhalt auch andere Bedeutungskomponenten enthält”. Those “andere Bedeutungskomponenten” are of course, the meanings of “vigorous, young, healthy”. The subtle but important morphological differences between uiridis and the other colour adjectives can easily be explained, as is obvious, by accepting our hypothesis that the original semantic values had nothing to do with the colour. H.J. Vermeer (1963, especially p. 135), compiles many examples which prove to what extent uiridis and uireo were used in Latin even in contexts that explicitly prevented the meaning of “green”: “Andererseits kann das Farbverb seine Farbkomponente ganz und ganz verlieren, so vielfach in übertragener Bedeutung, wenn ‘virere’ nur so ‘jung, stark sein’ heißt usw.: inter niveos viridisque lapillos Hor S 1, 2, 80; virent metalla Mart 6, 42, 11 (…)”. This author explains such uses as a result of the loss of the meaning of colour, which he considers the original one. However, it is much easier to understand them as evidence that in classical Latin, the central meaning of uireō and uiridis was not in the semantic field of a particular colour but in “vigour, youth, strength”.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also very easy to include the form uirga in the same etymological group: the original basis of its meaning (still clearly present in Latin) would have been “shoot, sprout” (a similar semantic evolution could explain the Sanskrit form vayāÏ “branch”).&#xD;&#xA;[NOTE: Scholars have very often tried to establish a relationship between uirgō and uirga. It is a particularly old hypothesis, which already appears in G. Curtius (1879, p. 185); but Curtius himself refers to Corssen (1870, 2nd ed., Über Aussprache, Voca-lismus, Betonung der lateinischen Sprache vol. II, p. 521). It was quite successful during the last century (thus, for instance, among many other possible citations, K.F. Johansson: 1890, p. 438, note 2). This hypothesis is still compiled by J. Pokorny (1959, pp. 1133-1134) and it is taken into account by A. Walde &amp; J.B. Hofmann (1965, word uirgō). A semantic evolution from “branch” to “young lady” is not impossible; but a priori, rather unlikely. Our hypothesis also establishes a certain etymological kinship which accounts for their formal resemblance, but in a different way: the original meaning of the element from which both finally derive was “youth”.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, we are bound to believe that the element *wir (o)  originally meant “young” (as still happens in Tocharian); later it became “young male” (probably due to the semantic polarisation caused by the appearance of uirgō “young woman”), and it finally reached the simple meaning of “male”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[NOTE: The word in Tocharian retains the adjectival value (it even has a feminine form with an a-stem), apart from retaining its original meaning. With regard to this, it may be relevant to remember the etymology compiled by Festus (W.M. Lindsay edition, 1913, p. 314, 15 16): femi¬nas antiqui (…) “viras” appellabant, unde adhuc permanent “virgines” et “viragines”. Despite the long-time belief, the form uira is not likely to be simply some grammarian's invention, because there is a Oscan collective noun form u(e)iro that means “persons, people”, which proves that the words in this family were not used exclusively in reference to men (cf. Eichner: 1985, p. 147). Thus uira could in fact be old and date back to the feminine form of the adjective originally stated as uir. In any case, the forms uirgō and uiragō cannot be put on the same level; uirgō was created in a very old age when uir  still meant “young”, whereas uiragō has a more recent origin, it was derived from uir when this word already meant “male”, by means of a typical Latin suffix (with regard to this suffix, cf. A. Ernout, 1941).]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5737" RevisionGUID="8adc1418-448f-4c8a-b39d-9f1bbc93f2c4" CreationDate="2017-12-19T05:31:33.983" UserId="867" Text="I was sure that Catullus or Martial would be full of gate crashers - it seems like something they would love to mock.  Alas, I couldn't find any! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did find the following and it’s interesting to see that Macrobius’ use of *[inruere][1]* (“to fall with violence, rush down; to fall down”) in the following almost parallels the English sense of *crashing* a party:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tunc ille: ‘supervenire fabulis **non evocatos** haud equidem turpe&#xD;&#xA;&gt; existimatur, verum sponte **inruere** in convivium aliis praeparatum … ’*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; then he said: ‘For my part I think there’s nothing disgraceful for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **uninvited** to add to a conversation [already underway], but to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; willingly **crash** a party prepared for others [that’s not acceptable] …’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macrobius, *Saturnalia*, 1.10&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you perhaps create a term from that? -  *inrutus [in convivium]* - one having crashed [into a party].  Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be actually attested anywhere.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note too his use of *non evocatus* for *not invited*, rather than *non invitatus*.  I realise Macrobius is quite late but see also *[invocatus][2]* to mean *uninvited*, which is attested much earlier than Macrobius.  Not a very interesting or colourful term, I admit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps *[asymbolus][3]* would work, defined as not contributing anything to a party or meal.  It’s from the Greek ἀσύμβολος, itself a reference to the custom of [συμβολή][4], “contributions made to provide a common meal; … contribution, subscription to the expenses of a festival, etc.”  This at least captures the free-loading character of the gate crasher if not explicitly referencing their lack of an invitation (because I guess someone could legitimately be at a dinner party yet still arrive empty-handed).       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=inruere&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=invocatus&amp;la=la#Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=invocatus2-contents&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=asumbolum&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=sumbolh%2F&amp;la=greek&amp;can=sumbolh%2F0&amp;prior=on#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5737" RevisionGUID="c9dc425f-b7ba-4b97-b578-36fd28f08d43" CreationDate="2017-12-19T05:50:22.540" UserId="867" Comment="took out unhelpful attempt at translation" Text="I was sure that Catullus or Martial would be full of gate crashers - it seems like something they would love to mock.  Alas, I couldn't find any! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did find the following and it’s interesting to see that Macrobius’ use of *[inruere][1]* (“to fall with violence, rush down; to fall down”) in the following almost parallels the English sense of *crashing* a party:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tunc ille: ‘supervenire fabulis **non evocatos** haud equidem turpe&#xD;&#xA;&gt; existimatur, verum sponte **inruere** in convivium aliis praeparatum … ’*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; then he said: ‘For my part I think there’s nothing disgraceful for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **uninvited** to add to a conversation [already underway], but to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; willingly **crash** a party prepared for others [that’s not acceptable] …’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macrobius, *Saturnalia*, 1.10&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note too his use of *non evocatus* for *not invited*, rather than *non invitatus*.  I realise Macrobius is quite late but see also *[invocatus][2]* to mean *uninvited*, which is attested much earlier than Macrobius.  Not a very interesting or colourful term, I admit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps *[asymbolus][3]* would work, defined as not contributing anything to a party or meal.  It’s from the Greek ἀσύμβολος, itself a reference to the custom of [συμβολή][4], “contributions made to provide a common meal; … contribution, subscription to the expenses of a festival, etc.”  This at least captures the free-loading character of the gate crasher if not explicitly referencing their lack of an invitation (because I guess someone could legitimately be at a dinner party yet still arrive empty-handed).       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=inruere&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=invocatus&amp;la=la#Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=invocatus2-contents&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=asumbolum&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=sumbolh%2F&amp;la=greek&amp;can=sumbolh%2F0&amp;prior=on#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5738" RevisionGUID="e2eb10c0-fdc5-4be1-a36b-b9afdd74f348" CreationDate="2017-12-19T13:05:52.067" UserId="2272" Text="It seems there are two possible etymologies for the name [*Aloys*](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Alo%C3%AFs), whose Latinisation gave rise to the form *Aloysius*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. cognate with German [*Ludwig*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ludwig#German), from Germanic (Frankish) name, a compound of *(h)lūt* (&quot;fame&quot;) + *wīg* (&quot;warrior&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Dutch` *Lodewijk*&#xD;&#xA;- `French` *Louis*&#xD;&#xA;- `Spanish` *Luis*&#xD;&#xA;- `English` *Lewis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. cognate with German [*Alwis*](https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Alwis), composed of the Old High German terms *al* (&quot;wholeheartedly&quot;) and *wîsi* (&quot;wise, knowing&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `English` *Elvis*&#xD;&#xA;- `Occitan` *Aloys*&#xD;&#xA;- `French` *Aloïs*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the second etymology is correct, that would explain the initial *A-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the *y*, though unusual, it is [not unprecedented](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_forms_of_English_given_names) in Latinisation of names when the name ends in *-ys / -is / -ise*. Take, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Aloys* &gt; *Aloysius*&#xD;&#xA;- *Denise* &gt; *Dionysia*&#xD;&#xA;- *Dennis* &gt; *Dionysius*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5739" RevisionGUID="2f908d0b-30fa-4ddf-bdea-e57754020f9f" CreationDate="2017-12-19T16:47:24.253" UserId="2272" Text="According to this etymological dictionary of the cognate Spanish *abrigar*, the meaning of *&quot;to protect against the wind&quot;* was already attested in 4th century AD Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ABRIGAR, del lat. &lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;APRĪCARE&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; 'calentar con el calor del sol', &lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;*I.*&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; *doc.:* Berceo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;La ac. 'proteger contra el viento' ya se halla en en el latín de Paladio (S. IV d. C.: Cabrera). Cuervo, *Dicc.* I, 62-64; Cej. IV, § 73.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; D&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;ERIV.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; *Abrigo* [*Fn. Gonz.*] (postverbal de *abrigar*); el adj. ant. *abrigo* 'abrigado', en Berceo y en Martín Pérez de Ayala (1566: *Mod. Philol.* XXIV, 358) es el lat. &lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;APRĪCUS&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; 'soleado', posteriormente sustituído por '*abrigaño*' [Nebr. *Abrigaños* «lugares guardados del viento», en el vocabulario de med. S. XV. *RFE* XXXV, 336]. *Abrigadal* 'abrigadero' ast. (V). *Desabrigar* [1455 (*BHisp.* LVIII, 85); Nebr.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*Diccionario Crítico Etimológico Castellano e Hispánico*](https://www.scribd.com/document/157203089/Diccionario-Critico-Etimologico-castellano-A-CA-Corominas-Joan-pdf), - Joan Corominas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary [suggests](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abrigo#Etymology_5) this is via extending the meaning *&quot;sunny&quot;* to ***&quot;that which wards off the cold&quot;***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notably, in French (and most other Romance languages) there is a doublet of verbs with contrasting definitions, depending on whether the term came via *aprīcāre* or not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Latin` [*aperīre*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aperio#Latin) (&quot;to uncover, open&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA; - `Spanish` *abrir* (&quot;to open&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - `Vulgar Latin` *\*aperīcus*  &#xD;&#xA; - `Vulgar Latin` *\*operīre*&#xD;&#xA;      - `Old French` *ovrir* (&quot;to open&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;          - `French` ***ouvrir* (&quot;to open&quot;)**&#xD;&#xA;     - `Latin` [*aprīcus*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apricus#Latin)&#xD;&#xA;          - `Latin` *aprīcārī* (&quot;warm in the sun&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;               - `Late Latin` *aprīcāre*&#xD;&#xA;                    - `French` ***abrier* (&quot;to cover&quot;)**&#xD;&#xA;                    - `Spanish` *abrigar* (&quot;to cover&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Latin` [*operīre*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/operio#Latin) (&quot;to cover, shut&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - `Latin` *cooperīre* (&quot;to cover completely&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;      - `Spanish` *cubrir* (&quot;to cover&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;      - `Old French` *covrir*&#xD;&#xA;            - `French` ***couvrir* (&quot;to cover&quot;)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is interesting that *operīre* (&quot;to cover&quot;) seems to have influenced the form of the &quot;to open&quot; verbs of the Romance languages in and immediately bordering modern France, while the version that retains its initial *ab-* has taken on the definition of &quot;to cover&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Via `Vulgar Latin` *\*operīre* / under influence of `Latin` *operīre, cooperīre*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Aragonese` ubrir&#xD;&#xA;- `Catalan` obrir&#xD;&#xA;- `Occitan` obrir, dobrir&#xD;&#xA;- `Old Provençal` obrir&#xD;&#xA;- `French` ouvrir&#xD;&#xA;- `Norman` ouvri (Jersey)&#xD;&#xA;- `Franco-Provençal` uvrir&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Others:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Fala` abril&#xD;&#xA;- `Old Portuguese` abrir&#xD;&#xA;- `Portuguese` abrir&#xD;&#xA;- `Galician` abrir&#xD;&#xA;- `Asturian` abrir&#xD;&#xA;- `Spanish` abrir&#xD;&#xA;- `Italian` aprire&#xD;&#xA;- `Neapolitan` arapì, arape&#xD;&#xA;- `Venetian` averzir, avèrzer, avèrxer, vèrzer, vèrzar, verxar&#xD;&#xA;- `Sicilian` apriri, iàpriri, jàpriri, gràpiri&#xD;&#xA;- `Sardinian` abbèrrere, abèrriri, apèrrere&#xD;&#xA;- `Friulian` avierzi, aviergi, vierzi, viergi&#xD;&#xA;- `Romansch` avrir, arver&#xD;&#xA;- `Dalmatian` apiar, aprer&#xD;&#xA;- `Aromanian` apir, apiriri&#xD;&#xA;- `Walloon` drovi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5740" RevisionGUID="32a2a7d6-b696-4d22-a98b-4859864157eb" CreationDate="2017-12-19T17:59:11.437" UserId="2273" Text="Is seems odd to me even to suggest that hominibus might be the ablative/instrumental case, The Gloria is hardly the greatest work of art from any point of view, but simple balance alone—gloria Deo in excelsis||pax hominibus in terra—would put God and men in the dative. Besides, pax/peace is a state, and pax hominibus(abl) would be meaningless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The important point for me—and I must say it doesn’t keep me awake at night— is that the English (Book of Common Prayer) “…on earth peace, good will towards men” is a gross embellishment and extension of the wish intended in the Latin of the Vulgate, which would have peace only for men of good will and not for men in general—and this would seem to be a more likely wish. Only the most undiscriminating Christian, surely, would wish peace upon men of bad will; and almost certainly the English translators were taking the Christmas spirit a little beyond the reserve of the writers of the Vulgate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5738" RevisionGUID="fad42bf6-e509-42f9-b161-081ca47957df" CreationDate="2017-12-19T20:28:39.363" UserId="2272" Comment="Correcting info on Latinised names." Text="It seems there are two possible etymologies for the name [*Aloys*](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Alo%C3%AFs), whose Latinisation gave rise to the form *Aloysius*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. cognate with German [*Ludwig*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ludwig#German), from Germanic (Frankish) name, a compound of *(h)lūt* (&quot;fame&quot;) + *wīg* (&quot;warrior&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Dutch` *Lodewijk*&#xD;&#xA;- `French` *Louis*&#xD;&#xA;- `Spanish` *Luis*&#xD;&#xA;- `English` *Lewis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. cognate with German [*Alwis*](https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Alwis), composed of the Old High German terms *al* (&quot;wholeheartedly&quot;) and *wîsi* (&quot;wise, knowing&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `English` *Elvis*&#xD;&#xA;- `Occitan` *Aloys*&#xD;&#xA;- `French` *Aloïs*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the second etymology is correct, that would explain the initial *A-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the *y*, though unusual, it is [not unprecedented](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_forms_of_English_given_names) in Latinised Greek names. Modern names descended from those suffixed *-ysius / -ysia* tend to end in *-is(e)*, so it seems reasonable to assume that *Aloysius* was back-formed from *Alo**ys*** by analogy to these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Dionysius* &gt; *Dennis, Dion*&#xD;&#xA;- *Dionysia* &gt; *Denise*&#xD;&#xA;- *Aloysius* &lt; *Aloys*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5739" RevisionGUID="2da4ef03-6988-4fea-9fe2-370beeaa8bf0" CreationDate="2017-12-19T20:40:25.340" UserId="2272" Comment="Improved formatting." Text="According to this etymological dictionary of the cognate Spanish *abrigar*, the meaning of *&quot;to protect against the wind&quot;* was already attested in 4th century AD Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ABRIGAR, del lat. &lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;APRĪCARE&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; 'calentar con el calor del sol', &lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;*I.*&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; *doc.:* Berceo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;La ac. 'proteger contra el viento' ya se halla en en el latín de Paladio (S. IV d. C.: Cabrera). Cuervo, *Dicc.* I, 62-64; Cej. IV, § 73.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; D&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;ERIV.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; *Abrigo* [*Fn. Gonz.*] (postverbal de *abrigar*); el adj. ant. *abrigo* 'abrigado', en Berceo y en Martín Pérez de Ayala (1566: *Mod. Philol.* XXIV, 358) es el lat. &lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;APRĪCUS&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; 'soleado', posteriormente sustituído por '*abrigaño*' [Nebr. *Abrigaños* «lugares guardados del viento», en el vocabulario de med. S. XV. *RFE* XXXV, 336]. *Abrigadal* 'abrigadero' ast. (V). *Desabrigar* [1455 (*BHisp.* LVIII, 85); Nebr.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*Diccionario Crítico Etimológico Castellano e Hispánico*](https://www.scribd.com/document/157203089/Diccionario-Critico-Etimologico-castellano-A-CA-Corominas-Joan-pdf), - Joan Corominas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary [suggests](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abrigo#Etymology_5) this is via extending the meaning *&quot;sunny&quot;* to ***&quot;that which wards off the cold&quot;***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notably, in French (and most other Romance languages) there is a doublet of verbs with contrasting definitions, depending on whether the term came via *aprīcāre* or not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Latin` [*aperīre*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aperio#Latin) (&quot;to uncover, open&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA; - `Spanish` *abrir* (&quot;to open&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - `Vulgar Latin` *\*operīre*&#xD;&#xA;      - `Old French` *ovrir* (&quot;to open&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;          - `French` ***ouvrir* (&quot;to open&quot;)**&#xD;&#xA;     - `Latin` [*aprīcus*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apricus#Latin)&#xD;&#xA;          - `Latin` *aprīcārī* (&quot;warm in the sun&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;               - `Late Latin` *aprīcāre*&#xD;&#xA;                    - `French` ***abrier* (&quot;to cover&quot;)**&#xD;&#xA;                    - `Spanish` *abrigar* (&quot;to cover&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Latin` [*operīre*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/operio#Latin) (&quot;to cover, shut&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - `Latin` *cooperīre* (&quot;to cover completely&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;      - `Spanish` *cubrir* (&quot;to cover&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;      - `Old French` *covrir*&#xD;&#xA;            - `French` ***couvrir* (&quot;to cover&quot;)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is interesting that *operīre* (&quot;to cover&quot;) seems to have influenced the form of the &quot;to open&quot; verbs of the Romance languages in and immediately bordering modern France, while the version that retains its initial *ab-* has taken on the definition of &quot;to cover&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Via `Vulgar Latin` *\*operīre* / under influence of `Latin` *operīre, cooperīre*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Aragonese` ubrir&#xD;&#xA;- `Catalan` obrir&#xD;&#xA;- `Occitan` obrir, dobrir&#xD;&#xA;- `Old Provençal` obrir&#xD;&#xA;- `French` ouvrir&#xD;&#xA;- `Norman` ouvri (Jersey)&#xD;&#xA;- `Franco-Provençal` uvrir&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Others:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Fala` abril&#xD;&#xA;- `Old Portuguese` abrir&#xD;&#xA;- `Portuguese` abrir&#xD;&#xA;- `Galician` abrir&#xD;&#xA;- `Asturian` abrir&#xD;&#xA;- `Spanish` abrir&#xD;&#xA;- `Italian` aprire&#xD;&#xA;- `Neapolitan` arapì, arape&#xD;&#xA;- `Venetian` averzir, avèrzer, avèrxer, vèrzer, vèrzar, verxar&#xD;&#xA;- `Sicilian` apriri, iàpriri, jàpriri, gràpiri&#xD;&#xA;- `Sardinian` abbèrrere, abèrriri, apèrrere&#xD;&#xA;- `Friulian` avierzi, aviergi, vierzi, viergi&#xD;&#xA;- `Romansch` avrir, arver&#xD;&#xA;- `Dalmatian` apiar, aprer&#xD;&#xA;- `Aromanian` apir, apiriri&#xD;&#xA;- `Walloon` drovi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4676" RevisionGUID="2092e155-5770-4b3f-94b8-5d0d7e3d9feb" CreationDate="2017-12-19T21:55:12.627" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="Does Latin have words for the various types of diets, e.g., &quot;vegetarian,&quot; &quot;vegan,&quot; etc.?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;St. Thomas Aquinas, seemingly referring to what we today would call a &quot;vegan,&quot; says ([*Summa Theologica* II-II q. 147 a. 8][1] arg. 1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_abstinentia a carnibus et ovis et lacticiniis_&lt;br&gt;[abstinence from meat, eggs, and milk foods]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not interested in modern coinages of the words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/SS/SS147.html#SSQ147A8THEP1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19000" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4676" RevisionGUID="2092e155-5770-4b3f-94b8-5d0d7e3d9feb" CreationDate="2017-12-19T21:55:12.627" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|vocabulary|word-request|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4476" RevisionGUID="0c9bbcce-b10a-4d39-9aae-465d07abdc52" CreationDate="2017-12-19T22:06:57.800" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="I'm looking at getting a Latin phrase/quote on my arm and I'd like to know if the translation I'm thinking about using is correct. I've pulled some translations from this website ([Protected By God - Latin Discussion][1]) and they seem to be correct but I would like the help of more knowledgeable people to confirm that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the 'phrases' I'm looking to use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Deo Servante (With God protecting)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Deo Custode (With God as a guardian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Deo Aegide (With God as a shield)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Deo Patrocinante (With God protecting)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Deo Patrono (With God as a guardian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Deo Praesite (With God protecting)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Deo Tutamine (With God as a protecting force (trying to illustrate that it is neuter))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Deo Tutante (With God protecting)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Deo Vindicante (With God protecting/seeking vengeance)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just want to know if these are the actual translations, but also if you can give me the translation for 'God is vengeful' or 'God will vindicate' than that is the actual translation I am looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/protected-by-god.1537/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19002" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4476" RevisionGUID="0c9bbcce-b10a-4d39-9aae-465d07abdc52" CreationDate="2017-12-19T22:06:57.800" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|translation-check|sentence-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5741" RevisionGUID="15312875-b3f5-46f6-be03-bfd57d7eb063" CreationDate="2017-12-19T22:13:53.017" UserId="79" Text="What would be a good Latin translation for &quot;fan&quot;, a fanatic supporter or follower of a sports team, an artist, or some such thing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize that the English word is short for &quot;fanatic&quot;, which in turn derives from *fanaticus*, but it is by no means obvious that the etymological origin is the best translation.&#xD;&#xA;It has the benefit of being easily associated, but that alone feels like insufficient grounds to pick it.&#xD;&#xA;According to [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=fanaticus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) *fanaticus* does mean &quot;inspired&quot; or &quot;enthusiastic&quot;, but it also means &quot;pertaining to a temple&quot; and appears to have strong religious connotations unlike the concept I am after." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19004" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5741" RevisionGUID="15312875-b3f5-46f6-be03-bfd57d7eb063" CreationDate="2017-12-19T22:13:53.017" UserId="79" Text="How to translate &quot;fan&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19005" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5741" RevisionGUID="15312875-b3f5-46f6-be03-bfd57d7eb063" CreationDate="2017-12-19T22:13:53.017" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5739" RevisionGUID="7901e57e-3277-4334-bdef-4ba9c843f404" CreationDate="2017-12-19T22:41:04.300" UserId="2272" Comment="Improve formatting of example table." Text="According to this etymological dictionary of the cognate Spanish *abrigar*, the meaning of *&quot;to protect against the wind&quot;* was already attested in 4th century AD Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ABRIGAR, del lat. &lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;APRĪCARE&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; 'calentar con el calor del sol', &lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;*I.*&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; *doc.:* Berceo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;La ac. 'proteger contra el viento' ya se halla en en el latín de Paladio (S. IV d. C.: Cabrera). Cuervo, *Dicc.* I, 62-64; Cej. IV, § 73.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; D&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;ERIV.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; *Abrigo* [*Fn. Gonz.*] (postverbal de *abrigar*); el adj. ant. *abrigo* 'abrigado', en Berceo y en Martín Pérez de Ayala (1566: *Mod. Philol.* XXIV, 358) es el lat. &lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;APRĪCUS&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; 'soleado', posteriormente sustituído por '*abrigaño*' [Nebr. *Abrigaños* «lugares guardados del viento», en el vocabulario de med. S. XV. *RFE* XXXV, 336]. *Abrigadal* 'abrigadero' ast. (V). *Desabrigar* [1455 (*BHisp.* LVIII, 85); Nebr.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*Diccionario Crítico Etimológico Castellano e Hispánico*](https://www.scribd.com/document/157203089/Diccionario-Critico-Etimologico-castellano-A-CA-Corominas-Joan-pdf), - Joan Corominas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary [suggests](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abrigo#Etymology_5) this is via extending the meaning *&quot;sunny&quot;* to ***&quot;that which wards off the cold&quot;***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notably, in French (and most other Romance languages) there is a doublet of verbs with contrasting definitions, depending on whether the term came via *aprīcāre* or not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Latin` [*aperīre*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aperio#Latin) (&quot;to uncover, open&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA; - `Spanish` *abrir* (&quot;to open&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - `Vulgar Latin` *\*operīre*&#xD;&#xA;      - `Old French` *ovrir* (&quot;to open&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;          - `French` ***ouvrir* (&quot;to open&quot;)**&#xD;&#xA;     - `Latin` [*aprīcus*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apricus#Latin)&#xD;&#xA;          - `Latin` *aprīcārī* (&quot;warm in the sun&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;               - `Late Latin` *aprīcāre*&#xD;&#xA;                    - `French` ***abrier* (&quot;to cover&quot;)**&#xD;&#xA;                    - `Spanish` *abrigar* (&quot;to cover&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Latin` [*operīre*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/operio#Latin) (&quot;to cover, shut&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - `Latin` *cooperīre* (&quot;to cover completely&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;      - `Spanish` *cubrir* (&quot;to cover&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;      - `Old French` *covrir*&#xD;&#xA;            - `French` ***couvrir* (&quot;to cover&quot;)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is interesting that *operīre* (&quot;to cover&quot;) seems to have influenced the form of the &quot;to open&quot; verbs of the Romance languages in and immediately bordering modern France, while the version that retains its initial *ab-* has taken on the definition of &quot;to cover&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    |                |   &quot;To open&quot;      |   &quot;To open&quot;   |  &quot;To cover&quot;  |   &quot;To cover&quot;       |&#xD;&#xA;    |   Language     | (via aperīre)    | (via aperīre, |(via aprīcāre)| (via cooperīre)    |&#xD;&#xA;    |                |                  |     *operīre) |              |                    |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Fala           | abril            | -             | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Old Portuguese | abrir            | -             | abrigar      | cobrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Portuguese     | abrir            | -             | abrigar      | cobrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Galician       | abrir            | -             | abrigar      | cubrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Asturian       | abrir            | -             | abrigar      | cubrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Spanish        | abrir            | -             | abrigar      | cubrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Aragonese      | -                | ubrir         | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Old Provençal  | -                | obrir         | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Catalan        | -                | obrir         | abrigar      | cobrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Occitan        | -                | obrir, dobrir | abrigar      | cobrir, cubrir     |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Old French     | -                | ovrir, olvrir,| abrier       | covrir, cuvrir     |&#xD;&#xA;    |                |                  | ouvrir, uvrir |              |                    |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | French         | -                | ouvrir        | abrier       | couvrir            |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Norman         | -                | ouvri (Jersey)| ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    |Franco-Provençal| -                | uvrir         | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Italian        | aprire           | -             | ?            | coprire            |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Neapolitan     | arapì, arape     | -             | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Venetian       | averzir, avèrzer,| -             | ?            | covrir, covèrzar,  |&#xD;&#xA;    |                | avèrxer, vèrzer, |               |              | coèrxar, coèrxer,  |&#xD;&#xA;    |                | vèrzar, verxar   |               |              | covèrxer, cuèrxer, |&#xD;&#xA;    |                |                  |               |              | cuèrzar            |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Sicilian       | apriri, iàpriri, | -             | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    |                | jàpriri, gràpiri |               |              |                    |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Sardinian      | abbèrrere,       | -             | ?            | cobèrrere, cobèrri,|&#xD;&#xA;    |                |abèrriri, apèrrere|               |              |cobèrriri, copèrrere|&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Friulian       | avierzi, aviergi,| -             | ?            | cuvierzi, cuviergi |&#xD;&#xA;    |                | vierzi, viergi   |               |              |                    |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Romansch       | avrir, arver     | -             | ?            | cuvrir, cuvierer,  |&#xD;&#xA;    |                |                  |               |              | cuvreir            |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Dalmatian      | apiar, aprer     | -             | ?            | coprer             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Aromanian      | apir, apiriri    | -             | ?            | acoapir, acupiriri |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Romanian       | ?                | -             | ?            | acoperi            |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Walloon        | drovi            | -             | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5738" RevisionGUID="22f735fd-0510-41a6-bff1-028dcf16bbf9" CreationDate="2017-12-19T22:45:01.530" UserId="2272" Comment="Added clarification on origin of name." Text="It seems there are two possible etymologies for the Occitan name [*Aloys*](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Alo%C3%AFs), whose Latinisation gave rise to the form *Aloysius*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. cognate with German [*Ludwig*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ludwig#German), from Germanic (Frankish) name, a compound of *(h)lūt* (&quot;fame&quot;) + *wīg* (&quot;warrior&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Dutch` *Lodewijk*&#xD;&#xA;- `French` *Louis*&#xD;&#xA;- `Spanish` *Luis*&#xD;&#xA;- `English` *Lewis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. cognate with German [*Alwis*](https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Alwis), composed of the Old High German terms *al* (&quot;wholeheartedly&quot;) and *wîsi* (&quot;wise, knowing&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `English` *Elvis*&#xD;&#xA;- `Occitan` *Aloys*&#xD;&#xA;- `French` *Aloïs*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the second etymology is correct, that would explain the initial *A-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the *y*, though unusual, it is [not unprecedented](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_forms_of_English_given_names) in Latinised Greek names. Modern names descended from those suffixed *-ysius / -ysia* tend to end in *-is(e)*, so it seems reasonable to assume that *Aloysius* was back-formed from *Alo**ys*** by analogy to these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Dionysius* &gt; *Dennis, Dion*&#xD;&#xA;- *Dionysia* &gt; *Denise*&#xD;&#xA;- *Aloysius* &lt; *Aloys*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5742" RevisionGUID="c9ad3b47-7d9f-4572-9643-fc7253103d9f" CreationDate="2017-12-19T23:48:16.157" UserId="1496" Text="The word [*admirator,-oris*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/admirator), which is the agent noun of the deponent verb *admiror,-ari,-atum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In French and Italian the cognates of *admirator* are used to as synonyms of *fan*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5729" RevisionGUID="836d2dc0-9b59-4b29-a1f5-77f7d1e344fc" CreationDate="2017-12-20T05:53:19.817" UserId="985" Comment="Expanded answer with more attestations" Text="_Familiaris_ does indeed indicate a deeper, more intimate level of friendship. Pliny the Younger often uses it thus. In fact, the letters of Pliny offer a wealth of evidence relevant to this topic (therefore, he'll figure quite prominently in this answer). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the following sentence from letter 4.17, he distinguishes regular friendship (_amicitia_) from intimate friendship (_amicitia familiaris_ = _familiaritas_):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _est quidem mihi cum isto, contra quem me advocas, non plane familiaris sed tamen amicitia._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have with that man (C. Caecilius) against whom you ask me to serve as opposing counsel, obviously not intimite friendship, true, but friendship nonetheless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Contubernalis_ can also denote an intimate friend – a bosom buddy, boon companion, mate, or the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example (letter 4.14) contrasts _contubernalis_ and _amicus_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _idem C. Caluisium, contubernalem meum amicum tuum, arta propinquitate complectitur; est enim filius sororis._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This same man (Varisidius Nepos) also has a very close relationship with C. Calvisius, my mate and your friend; for he's his nephew.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example is from letter 2.13. I include it mainly because it also includes the adverbial form of _familiaris_, _familiariter_, which may indicate that _familiaris_ and _contubernalis_ involve similar levels of intimacy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _hunc ego, cum simul studeremus, arte familiariterque dilexi; ille meus in urbe ille in secessu contubernalis, cum hoc seria cum hoc iocos miscui._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When we were students together, I had a close and intimate affection for him (Voconius Romanus); he has been my mate both in Rome and in retirement, and with him I have shared seriousness and levity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also _sodalis_. This example is also from letter 2.13:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _quid enim illo aut fidelius amico aut sodale iucundius?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For what could be more trusty/reliable/loyal than he as a friend or more pleasant than he as a mate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage may contain a hint that one expects different things from an _amicus_ and a _sodalis_: an _amicus_ is someone you can rely on, whereas a _sodalis_ is someone you want to hang out with. And that makes sense, given that _amicus_ and _amicitia_ were used also for things such as client/patron relationships that might not have involved any particularly warm feeling on one or both sides, but did involve obligations. (As an extension, it was also used of the relationship between Rome and foreign kings, such as the Numidian king Micipsa in Sallust, _Bellum Jugurthinum_.) Still, I wouldn't want to press that point too far based on one passage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a shallower level of friendship, such as a casual acquaintance, one could refer to the person as _notus mihi_, 'known to me,' or as Horace says in Satire 1.9, _notus mihi nomine tantum_, 'known to me by name only':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _ibam forte via sacra, sicut meus est mos,  &#xD;&#xA;nescio quid meditans nugarum, totus in illis:  &#xD;&#xA;accurrit quidam notus mihi nomine tantum  &#xD;&#xA;arreptaque manu 'quid agis, dulcissime rerum?'_ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By chance I was going along the Via Sacra, as is my wont, mulling over some sort of trifles, totally absorbed in them: some guy known to me by name only ran up, grasped my hand, and said, 'How are you, sweetest of things?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny also uses (to refer to himself) _homo minime familiaris_, 'a man not at all on intimate terms' in letter 2.6. Given the subject of the letter (a man who serves different food and drink to his guests at dinner parties, to rank them), Pliny is using this to put himself at a level that's not just less than _familiaris_ but significantly below _amicus_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _longum est altius repetere nec refert, quemadmodum acciderit, ut homo minime familiaris cenarem apud quendam, ut sibi uidebatur, lautum et diligentem, ut mihi, sordidum simul et sumptuosum._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It would take too long to go into the back story, and it doesn't much matter any way, how it came about that I, a man not at all on intimate terms with him, was dining at the house of someone who was, at it seemed to him, elegant and yet economical, but as it seemed to me, vulgar and extravagant at the same time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5739" RevisionGUID="abd99769-6074-486b-add2-48f246d8b56f" CreationDate="2017-12-20T12:08:47.993" UserId="2272" Comment="Clarification of paragraph." Text="According to this etymological dictionary of the cognate Spanish *abrigar*, the meaning of *&quot;to protect against the wind&quot;* was already attested in 4th century AD Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ABRIGAR, del lat. &lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;APRĪCARE&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; 'calentar con el calor del sol', &lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;*I.*&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; *doc.:* Berceo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;La ac. 'proteger contra el viento' ya se halla en en el latín de Paladio (S. IV d. C.: Cabrera). Cuervo, *Dicc.* I, 62-64; Cej. IV, § 73.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; D&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;ERIV.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; *Abrigo* [*Fn. Gonz.*] (postverbal de *abrigar*); el adj. ant. *abrigo* 'abrigado', en Berceo y en Martín Pérez de Ayala (1566: *Mod. Philol.* XXIV, 358) es el lat. &lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;APRĪCUS&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; 'soleado', posteriormente sustituído por '*abrigaño*' [Nebr. *Abrigaños* «lugares guardados del viento», en el vocabulario de med. S. XV. *RFE* XXXV, 336]. *Abrigadal* 'abrigadero' ast. (V). *Desabrigar* [1455 (*BHisp.* LVIII, 85); Nebr.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*Diccionario Crítico Etimológico Castellano e Hispánico*](https://www.scribd.com/document/157203089/Diccionario-Critico-Etimologico-castellano-A-CA-Corominas-Joan-pdf), - Joan Corominas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary [suggests](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abrigo#Etymology_5) this is via extending the meaning *&quot;sunny&quot;* to ***&quot;that which wards off the cold&quot;***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notably, in French (and most other Romance languages) there is a doublet of verbs with contrasting definitions, depending on whether the term came via *aprīcāre* or not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Latin` [*aperīre*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aperio#Latin) (&quot;to uncover, open&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA; - `Spanish` *abrir* (&quot;to open&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - `Vulgar Latin` *\*operīre*&#xD;&#xA;      - `Old French` *ovrir* (&quot;to open&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;          - `French` ***ouvrir* (&quot;to open&quot;)**&#xD;&#xA;     - `Latin` [*aprīcus*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apricus#Latin)&#xD;&#xA;          - `Latin` *aprīcārī* (&quot;warm in the sun&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;               - `Late Latin` *aprīcāre*&#xD;&#xA;                    - `French` ***abrier* (&quot;to cover&quot;)**&#xD;&#xA;                    - `Spanish` *abrigar* (&quot;to cover&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Latin` [*operīre*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/operio#Latin) (&quot;to cover, shut&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - `Latin` *cooperīre* (&quot;to cover completely&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;      - `Spanish` *cubrir* (&quot;to cover&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;      - `Old French` *covrir*&#xD;&#xA;            - `French` ***couvrir* (&quot;to cover&quot;)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is interesting that *operīre* (&quot;to cover&quot;) seems to have influenced the form of the *aperīre* (&quot;to open&quot;) descended verbs of many Gallo-Romance languages (see column 3 below); while the cognate *abrigar/abrier* (retaining a similar form to *aperīre*) has flipped in meaning to &quot;to cover&quot; (column 4):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    |                |   &quot;To open&quot;      |   &quot;To open&quot;   |  &quot;To cover&quot;  |   &quot;To cover&quot;       |&#xD;&#xA;    |   Language     | (via aperīre)    | (via aperīre, |(via aprīcāre)| (via cooperīre)    |&#xD;&#xA;    |                |                  |     *operīre) |              |                    |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Fala           | abril            | -             | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Old Portuguese | abrir            | -             | abrigar      | cobrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Portuguese     | abrir            | -             | abrigar      | cobrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Galician       | abrir            | -             | abrigar      | cubrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Asturian       | abrir            | -             | abrigar      | cubrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Spanish        | abrir            | -             | abrigar      | cubrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Aragonese      | -                | ubrir         | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Old Provençal  | -                | obrir         | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Catalan        | -                | obrir         | abrigar      | cobrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Occitan        | -                | obrir, dobrir | abrigar      | cobrir, cubrir     |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Old French     | -                | ovrir, olvrir,| abrier       | covrir, cuvrir     |&#xD;&#xA;    |                |                  | ouvrir, uvrir |              |                    |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | French         | -                | ouvrir        | abrier       | couvrir            |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Norman         | -                | ouvri (Jersey)| ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    |Franco-Provençal| -                | uvrir         | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Italian        | aprire           | -             | ?            | coprire            |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Neapolitan     | arapì, arape     | -             | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Venetian       | averzir, avèrzer,| -             | ?            | covrir, covèrzar,  |&#xD;&#xA;    |                | avèrxer, vèrzer, |               |              | coèrxar, coèrxer,  |&#xD;&#xA;    |                | vèrzar, verxar   |               |              | covèrxer, cuèrxer, |&#xD;&#xA;    |                |                  |               |              | cuèrzar            |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Sicilian       | apriri, iàpriri, | -             | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    |                | jàpriri, gràpiri |               |              |                    |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Sardinian      | abbèrrere,       | -             | ?            | cobèrrere, cobèrri,|&#xD;&#xA;    |                |abèrriri, apèrrere|               |              |cobèrriri, copèrrere|&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Friulian       | avierzi, aviergi,| -             | ?            | cuvierzi, cuviergi |&#xD;&#xA;    |                | vierzi, viergi   |               |              |                    |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Romansch       | avrir, arver     | -             | ?            | cuvrir, cuvierer,  |&#xD;&#xA;    |                |                  |               |              | cuvreir            |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Dalmatian      | apiar, aprer     | -             | ?            | coprer             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Aromanian      | apir, apiriri    | -             | ?            | acoapir, acupiriri |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Romanian       | ?                | -             | ?            | acoperi            |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Walloon        | drovi            | -             | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5739" RevisionGUID="b72207ec-3624-4f01-96cd-9caa25c79649" CreationDate="2017-12-20T12:39:16.517" UserId="2272" Comment="Added Occitan example." Text="According to this etymological dictionary of the cognate Spanish *abrigar*, the meaning of *&quot;to protect against the wind&quot;* was already attested in 4th century AD Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ABRIGAR, del lat. &lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;APRĪCARE&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; 'calentar con el calor del sol', &lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;*I.*&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; *doc.:* Berceo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;La ac. 'proteger contra el viento' ya se halla en en el latín de Paladio (S. IV d. C.: Cabrera). Cuervo, *Dicc.* I, 62-64; Cej. IV, § 73.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; D&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;ERIV.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; *Abrigo* [*Fn. Gonz.*] (postverbal de *abrigar*); el adj. ant. *abrigo* 'abrigado', en Berceo y en Martín Pérez de Ayala (1566: *Mod. Philol.* XXIV, 358) es el lat. &lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;APRĪCUS&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; 'soleado', posteriormente sustituído por '*abrigaño*' [Nebr. *Abrigaños* «lugares guardados del viento», en el vocabulario de med. S. XV. *RFE* XXXV, 336]. *Abrigadal* 'abrigadero' ast. (V). *Desabrigar* [1455 (*BHisp.* LVIII, 85); Nebr.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*Diccionario Crítico Etimológico Castellano e Hispánico*](https://www.scribd.com/document/157203089/Diccionario-Critico-Etimologico-castellano-A-CA-Corominas-Joan-pdf), - Joan Corominas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary [suggests](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abrigo#Etymology_5) this is via extending the meaning *&quot;sunny&quot;* to ***&quot;that which wards off the cold&quot;***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notably, in French (and most other Romance languages) there is a doublet of verbs with contrasting definitions, depending on whether the term came via *aprīcāre* or not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Latin` [*aperīre*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aperio#Latin) (&quot;to uncover, open&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA; - `Spanish` *abrir* (&quot;to open&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - `Vulgar Latin` *\*operīre*&#xD;&#xA;      - `Old French` *ovrir* (&quot;to open&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;          - `French` ***ouvrir* (&quot;to open&quot;)**&#xD;&#xA;     - `Latin` [*aprīcus*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apricus#Latin)&#xD;&#xA;          - `Latin` *aprīcārī* (&quot;warm in the sun&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;               - `Late Latin` *aprīcāre*&#xD;&#xA;                    - `French` ***abrier* (&quot;to cover&quot;)**&#xD;&#xA;                    - `Spanish` *abrigar* (&quot;to cover&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Latin` [*operīre*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/operio#Latin) (&quot;to cover, shut&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - `Latin` *cooperīre* (&quot;to cover completely&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;      - `Spanish` *cubrir* (&quot;to cover&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;      - `Old French` *covrir*&#xD;&#xA;            - `French` ***couvrir* (&quot;to cover&quot;)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is interesting that *operīre* (&quot;to cover&quot;) seems to have influenced the form of the *aperīre* (&quot;to open&quot;) descended verbs of many Gallo-Romance languages (see column 3 below); while the cognate *abrigar/abrier* (retaining a similar form to *aperīre*) has flipped in meaning to &quot;to cover&quot; (column 4):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    |                |   &quot;To open&quot;      |   &quot;To open&quot;   |  &quot;To cover&quot;  |   &quot;To cover&quot;       |&#xD;&#xA;    |   Language     | (via aperīre)    | (via aperīre, |(via aprīcāre)| (via cooperīre)    |&#xD;&#xA;    |                |                  |     *operīre) |              |                    |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Fala           | abril            | -             | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Old Portuguese | abrir            | -             | abrigar      | cobrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Portuguese     | abrir            | -             | abrigar      | cobrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Galician       | abrir            | -             | abrigar      | cubrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Asturian       | abrir            | -             | abrigar      | cubrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Spanish        | abrir            | -             | abrigar      | cubrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Aragonese      | -                | ubrir         | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Old Provençal  | -                | obrir         | ?            | cobrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Catalan        | -                | obrir         | abrigar      | cobrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Occitan        | -                | obrir, dobrir | abrigar      | cobrir, cubrir     |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Old French     | -                | ovrir, olvrir,| abrier       | covrir, cuvrir     |&#xD;&#xA;    |                |                  | ouvrir, uvrir |              |                    |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | French         | -                | ouvrir        | abrier       | couvrir            |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Norman         | -                | ouvri (Jersey)| ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    |Franco-Provençal| -                | uvrir         | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Italian        | aprire           | -             | ?            | coprire            |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Neapolitan     | arapì, arape     | -             | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Venetian       | averzir, avèrzer,| -             | ?            | covrir, covèrzar,  |&#xD;&#xA;    |                | avèrxer, vèrzer, |               |              | coèrxar, coèrxer,  |&#xD;&#xA;    |                | vèrzar, verxar   |               |              | covèrxer, cuèrxer, |&#xD;&#xA;    |                |                  |               |              | cuèrzar            |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Sicilian       | apriri, iàpriri, | -             | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    |                | jàpriri, gràpiri |               |              |                    |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Sardinian      | abbèrrere,       | -             | ?            | cobèrrere, cobèrri,|&#xD;&#xA;    |                |abèrriri, apèrrere|               |              |cobèrriri, copèrrere|&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Friulian       | avierzi, aviergi,| -             | ?            | cuvierzi, cuviergi |&#xD;&#xA;    |                | vierzi, viergi   |               |              |                    |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Romansch       | avrir, arver     | -             | ?            | cuvrir, cuvierer,  |&#xD;&#xA;    |                |                  |               |              | cuvreir            |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Dalmatian      | apiar, aprer     | -             | ?            | coprer             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Aromanian      | apir, apiriri    | -             | ?            | acoapir, acupiriri |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Romanian       | ?                | -             | ?            | acoperi            |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Walloon        | drovi            | -             | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5743" RevisionGUID="0228e1e4-c043-45dc-81f3-de47d32e43e1" CreationDate="2017-12-20T14:29:22.620" UserId="2274" Text="In the *Evil Dead* movies the infamous book is given an inconsistently spelled name, which vanished in the other installments. The scripts for the original movie and the remake titled it &quot;Naturan Demanto&quot; and &quot;Naturom Demonto&quot;, which is not real Latin (or Sumerian). However, I was able to find words with the same string of consonants NTRM and DMNT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [naturam][1] (“nature”)&#xD;&#xA; - [naturum][2] (“about to be born”)&#xD;&#xA; - [noturum][3] (“about to recognize”)&#xD;&#xA; - [demento][4] (“I make mad or crazy”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know any Latin, so I was wondering if *naturam demento*, *naturum demento* or *noturum demento* were grammatically correct phrases that made any sense as the title of an unsavory occult book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/naturam&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/naturum&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/noturum&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/demento" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19013" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5743" RevisionGUID="0228e1e4-c043-45dc-81f3-de47d32e43e1" CreationDate="2017-12-20T14:29:22.620" UserId="2274" Text="A correct title for the book from the Evil Dead movies?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19014" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5743" RevisionGUID="0228e1e4-c043-45dc-81f3-de47d32e43e1" CreationDate="2017-12-20T14:29:22.620" UserId="2274" Text="|vocabulary|idiom|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5744" RevisionGUID="a0ca0541-7194-4cd7-aa6b-8188d615514d" CreationDate="2017-12-20T15:45:30.480" UserId="406" Text="*Nātūra* means &quot;nature&quot; both in the sense of &quot;something's innate properties&quot; (the nature of water is to be wet) and &quot;the world&quot; (all living things are part of nature). So *Nātūram Dēmentō* would mean something like &quot;I distort the true nature [of something]&quot; or &quot;I distort the order of the world&quot;, both implying rather unwholesome magicks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also use a form of *nāturus*, either *nāturum dēmentō*, &quot;I drive mad the male person who is about to be born&quot;, or *nāturam dēmentō*, the same but with a female target. Neither of these has quite the same ring of utterly perverting nature, but I don't really know the context of the movies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5745" RevisionGUID="87f31c96-c07f-425e-8573-554f6bfe21f0" CreationDate="2017-12-20T22:13:46.450" UserId="79" Text="What was the first Latin word or expression used for Christmas, the Christian event in the honor of Jesus' birth?&#xD;&#xA;I know what to call Christmas in Latin, but it occurred to me that there is no guarantee that it wasn't called something entirely different back when the concept was first introduced in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;When you give attested mentions of Christmas, please also give an estimate for time, so that it is easier to put everything on a timeline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19017" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5745" RevisionGUID="87f31c96-c07f-425e-8573-554f6bfe21f0" CreationDate="2017-12-20T22:13:46.450" UserId="79" Text="What was the first name of Christmas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19018" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5745" RevisionGUID="87f31c96-c07f-425e-8573-554f6bfe21f0" CreationDate="2017-12-20T22:13:46.450" UserId="79" Text="|example-request|christianity|passage-request|calendarium|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5746" RevisionGUID="1d02c09b-60ef-4b90-b29a-5819fc678a47" CreationDate="2017-12-20T22:53:41.543" UserId="136" Text="You are right in the etymology and whatnot of &quot;fan,&quot; but that doesn't quite lead to a representative noun. I used the [Morgan and Silva Furman University Lexicon][1] to find some words, which I list here in the order they appear in the lexicon, with some added notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ *admirator studiosissimus*: literally &quot;the most eager admirer,&quot; I would think this would be better for the phrase &quot;#1 fan&quot; instead of just an ordinary fan&#xD;&#xA;+ *fautor*: a favorer, promoter, partisan, or applauder&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above terms come from the Adumbratio, while the following are from the Silva:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ (*fautor*) *fanaticus*: an &quot;enthusiastic one/fan,&quot; here we do see the English root return, but as a substantive adjective, or just an adjective&#xD;&#xA;+ *philathlus*: this appears to be of Greek origin, but I simply cannot find anything about it, so I would avoid it seeing as there are other good options anyway&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's interesting is that *admirator* does not appear alone, despite meaning &quot;admirer.&quot; Perhaps fan is a stronger word, but it depends on what you want to do. Someone who is a fan of art (I'm thinking art as in painting here) is probably not the obnoxious, half-drunken, scream-at-the-top-of-their-lungs sports fan, so maybe this is where such a differentiation would be useful. However, all of the terms from the Adumbratio are not specific to sports, and are therefore the most likely widely applicable terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ia801000.us.archive.org/12/items/TheLexiconAnglumEtLatinumByDavidMorgan/MorganAndSilvaFurmanUniversityLexicon.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5747" RevisionGUID="3406919f-c31f-4b3f-88a3-2f22ac1635e1" CreationDate="2017-12-21T03:19:47.787" UserId="522" Text="TOO DEFINE WHAT IS AT ISSUE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Augustine is focusing on the inflexion, the rise in pitch, *acute, aigu;* in contrast to the lowering of the voice.  &#xD;&#xA;The English phrase 'at least,' is iambic (both in the sense: unstressed/stressed; and also short/long). Now, when it is used as a conjunction, provisory, the final syllable is acute:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had fifty pounds, at léast I thought I did. *(acute)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;But when it is adverbial, qualifying (the number), the final syllable is grave, downward inflexion:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fifty pounds at lèàst  *(grave)* would be needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *or*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At lèàst *(grave)* fifty pounds would be needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example in English anapaests can be heard in '20, 21, 22, ...24, 25.'  'Twenty-one' is acute, 'twenty-five' grave on the final syllable.    &#xD;&#xA;The analysis you quote is talking about stress, as if it were inseparable from pitch. Cloth ears.  &#xD;&#xA;There must be lots of examples of acute/grave variants; it's the comment by Augustine's MASTER that is rare.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5748" RevisionGUID="53417b3a-779c-4b32-84cb-a4443a7161d6" CreationDate="2017-12-21T04:26:54.437" UserId="2099" Text="I stumbled onto the word '*vinola*' or '*vinnola*' and the allegedly related '*vinnus*' in treatises on medieval chant.  I don't see these words in Wiktionary or any online dictionaries.  Does anybody know the meaning, etymology, and history of this word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its provenance spans at least the entirety of the Early Middle Ages.  I have seen it used in two ways so far, both as an adjective describing a &quot;voice&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. According to Joseph Dyer's *The Voice in the Middle Ages*, St. Isidore of Seville includes it in his *Etymologies*, early seventh century, among a number of good and bad &quot;voices&quot; (vocal styles?) in music:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An ingratiating [*vinola*] voice is soft and flexible, and it receives its name from *vinnus*, that is, a softly shaped curl. (p. 167, [link here][1])&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Vinola* est vox mollis atque flexibilis. Et *vinnola* dicta a *vinno*, hoc est cincinno molliter flexo. (p. 255, [link here][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. According to Joseph Perry Ponte III's 1961 *Aureliani Reomensis, Musica Disciplina: A Revised Text, Volume 1*, the chant theorist Aurelian of Rêome, circa 850, employs it as a term for a kind of musical ornament:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; '*vinnola* flexibilisque vox' = quilisma; a repeated note (p. 1)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Vinnola* and *tremula* according to Adhémar de Chabannes [early eleventh century] are synonyms. (p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether Isidore is also talking about '*vinnola*' ornamental music notes is another question, since the word '*vox*' is known to have a second meaning of 'musical note' in certain contexts.  In any case, if I can learn what the word '*vinnola*' or '*vinnus*' itself means and where it came from, then I can make sense of exactly what feature of music this word is describing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/6294342/The_Voice_in_the_Middle_Ages_article_&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.academia.edu/6294330/The_Voice_in_the_Middle_Ages_endnotes_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19023" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5748" RevisionGUID="53417b3a-779c-4b32-84cb-a4443a7161d6" CreationDate="2017-12-21T04:26:54.437" UserId="2099" Text="Meaning and etymology of 'vinnola' or 'vinola' or 'vinnus' (music term)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19024" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5748" RevisionGUID="53417b3a-779c-4b32-84cb-a4443a7161d6" CreationDate="2017-12-21T04:26:54.437" UserId="2099" Text="|vocabulary|medieval-latin|music|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4803" RevisionGUID="b87d37a8-a084-4aa4-852b-a3456c0dddc2" CreationDate="2017-12-21T13:28:33.210" UserId="2272" Comment="Improved readability." Text="The question is if they could differentiate and the answer is yes, of course. One aspect that could be more complicated is how they used it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **blue** (bluish, etc.): *caeruleus, -a, -um.*&#xD;&#xA;- **Origin:** it derivates from *caelum* (sky, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;- **Example:** *mare caeruleum.*&#xD;&#xA;- **Comments:** *Neptune* and *Tetis* were considered blue divinities because they came and represented the sea.&#xD;&#xA;- **Comments:** In Spanish there are many words for the color blue, &quot;*cerúleo*&quot; is conserved, with evident diphthong changes.&#xD;&#xA;- **Comments:** A brain region called *locus coeruleus* was named as by the pigmentation caused by the content of melanin granules in this structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There are different words differentiating between **general**, **matte** and **shiny:** &#xD;&#xA; - **general:** *furvus, -a, -um.*&#xD;&#xA; - **matte:** *ater, -tra, -um.*&#xD;&#xA; - **shiny:** *niger, -gra, -grum.*&#xD;&#xA;- **Example:** *Furvae regna Proserpinae* - The kingdoms of the gloomy Proserpine.&#xD;&#xA;- **Example:** *atra bilis* - black bile (Theory of the four moods of Hippocrates).&#xD;&#xA;- **Example:** *Nec scire utrum sis albus an ater homo* - I'm (not interested) if you're white or black. (Catulo, *Carmina*, 93, 2) &#xD;&#xA;- **Example:** *Candida de nigris et de candentibus atra [...] facere* - Transform black into white and white into black. (Ovidio, *Metamorfosis*, 11, 314)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19026" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4803" RevisionGUID="b87d37a8-a084-4aa4-852b-a3456c0dddc2" CreationDate="2017-12-21T13:28:33.210" Comment="Proposed by 2272 approved by 79 edit id of 220" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5749" RevisionGUID="c49c7a0a-c1a7-4a0f-a8e3-e8dbcd0fcda4" CreationDate="2017-12-21T16:56:26.527" UserId="2280" Text="(Caution: almost all my personal views about etymologies)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fenni, finnoi or phinnoi can be originally from &quot;fen&quot; (&quot;suomi&quot; can be from &quot;suo-maa&quot;, fen-land, which is main feature of finnish coast landscape from the beach inlands). Finnoi might be nordic origin, from the word &quot;finna&quot;, to find -- describing hunter-gatherer. First instance in nordic literature is in Snorri Sturlusson's sagas; some mentions in viking age runestones (900-1000).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The origin of &quot;suomi&quot; term is wildly debated, beginning from loan from estonian, name for finnish folk group &quot;hämäläiset&quot;, (people of häme region) --&gt; estonian dsämä --&gt; back to protofinnish --&gt; sämi, suomi. One version would be &quot;saami&quot;, original inhabitants of far north -- in maps &quot;ruthenian mountains&quot;. Saami as a term is still used today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my conclusion is, there is no latin origin for fenni or finnoi. It is local term picked from travelling. See also &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesta_Hammaburgensis_ecclesiae_pontificum --&gt; the book in latin.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4238" RevisionGUID="2c8408b7-5d94-41d0-b136-b702b46286e9" CreationDate="2017-12-21T20:47:45.793" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and reformatted. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="The phrase &quot;NIL VIRTUS GENEROSA TIMET&quot;, sometimes also found as &quot;Nihil virtus generosa timet&quot;, was, supposedly, the divise or motto of [Bertrand du Guesclin](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Du_Guesclin#Renseignements_compl.C3.A9mentaires), French knight during the Hundred Years' War.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not found any English translation of this, only [contradictory French translations](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22virtus+generosa+timet%22&amp;rlz=1C1AOHY_esES708ES708&amp;oq=%22virtus+generosa+timet%22&amp;aqs=chrome..69i57l2j69i59l4.1550j0j7&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=%22virtus+generosa+timet%22&amp;safe=off&amp;start=0) that don't seem to be quite right (Virtue doesn't learn anything, Generosity doesn't fear anything...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this mean exactly? What would be the correct translation in English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19029" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4238" RevisionGUID="2c8408b7-5d94-41d0-b136-b702b46286e9" CreationDate="2017-12-21T20:47:45.793" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and reformatted. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="|medieval-latin|sentence-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5746" RevisionGUID="f42bb6db-e990-412d-b6c7-028e89ef1d7c" CreationDate="2017-12-21T21:37:33.493" UserId="136" Comment="added better explanation of philathlus" Text="You are right in the etymology and whatnot of &quot;fan,&quot; but that doesn't quite lead to a representative noun. I used the [Morgan and Silva Furman University Lexicon][1] to find some words, which I list here in the order they appear in the lexicon, with some added notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ *admirator studiosissimus*: literally &quot;the most eager admirer,&quot; I would think this would be better for the phrase &quot;#1 fan&quot; instead of just an ordinary fan&#xD;&#xA;+ *fautor*: a favorer, promoter, partisan, or applauder&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above terms come from the Adumbratio, while the following are from the Silva:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ (*fautor*) *fanaticus*: an &quot;enthusiastic one/fan,&quot; here we do see the English root return, but as a substantive adjective, or just an adjective&#xD;&#xA;+ *philathlus*: of Greek origin, &quot;one who is fond of games, a competitor,&quot; not exactly a fan per se&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's interesting is that *admirator* does not appear alone, despite meaning &quot;admirer.&quot; Perhaps fan is a stronger word, but it depends on what you want to do. Someone who is a fan of art (I'm thinking art as in painting here) is probably not the obnoxious, half-drunken, scream-at-the-top-of-their-lungs sports fan, so maybe this is where such a differentiation would be useful. However, all of the terms from the Adumbratio are not specific to sports, and are therefore the most likely widely applicable terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ia801000.us.archive.org/12/items/TheLexiconAnglumEtLatinumByDavidMorgan/MorganAndSilvaFurmanUniversityLexicon.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5750" RevisionGUID="c5488244-b2bc-4ee5-93b3-72b703e9b8bb" CreationDate="2017-12-22T02:51:44.037" UserId="1133" Text="The Wikipedia [section][1] on ablative absolute gives these examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;urbe captā Aenēās fūgit.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ovidiō exule, Mūsae planguntur.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Caesare cōnsule...&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;īrā calefactā, sapientia dormit.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;dominō absente, fūr fenestram penetrāvit.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These (other than 'Caesare cōnsule') seem to fit the mold 'that done' in that we get a substantive followed by a modifier.  (Please excuse the terminology if either 'substantive' or 'modifier' is reserved for something narrower or more technical in Latin grammar.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Am I right to think that 'mutatis mutandis' is also of the same mold, except that the substantive ('mutandis') comes after the modifier ('mutatis')?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If yes to 1, what is motivating the reverse order?  That is, why not say 'mutandis mutatis' after all the other examples?  Does a rule say, for example, that a gerundive must come second?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If no to 1, how else then should I understand the phrase?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Please give other examples of an ablative absolute made of a passive perfect participle followed (or preceded) by a gerundive, if available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_grammar#Ablative_absolute" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19032" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5750" RevisionGUID="c5488244-b2bc-4ee5-93b3-72b703e9b8bb" CreationDate="2017-12-22T02:51:44.037" UserId="1133" Text="Why does the substantive come second in 'mutatis mutandis'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19033" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5750" RevisionGUID="c5488244-b2bc-4ee5-93b3-72b703e9b8bb" CreationDate="2017-12-22T02:51:44.037" UserId="1133" Text="|ablative-absolute|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5709" RevisionGUID="53caa550-9c70-4cfc-9b5e-11a2898c39b8" CreationDate="2017-12-22T10:25:58.627" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The Stack Exchange Christmas celebration is here: [Winter Bash 2017](https://winterbash2017.stackexchange.com/).&#xD;&#xA;If I were to discuss the event in Latin, what should I call it?&#xD;&#xA;I mentioned it in [Conloquium (or chat room)](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm) and I simply called it *Saturnalia* due to the similarity in timing, but I assume there are better ideas out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many possible ways to approach this, so feel free to be creative.&#xD;&#xA;I added one suggestion below, but I would like to hear more ideas and your thoughts on them.&#xD;&#xA;If you have new ideas based on old answers, please post them as separate answers so people can vote for the best translations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5751" RevisionGUID="d3a2f51c-1099-45a4-b798-86c42bbddf1d" CreationDate="2017-12-22T10:34:44.590" UserId="79" Text="How can I say &quot;he did it out of vanity&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The only thing I could see is a causal ablative: *vanitate sua ita fecit*.&#xD;&#xA;Are there other options for doing something &quot;out of vanity&quot;, &quot;out of pity&quot;, or out of any other such thing?&#xD;&#xA;Or is the ablative (essentially) the only possibility?&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if the direct translation *e vanitate* is possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that this question is about structures, not specific words, but in case it matters, the key example is &quot;out of vanity&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19036" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5751" RevisionGUID="d3a2f51c-1099-45a4-b798-86c42bbddf1d" CreationDate="2017-12-22T10:34:44.590" UserId="79" Text="Doing things &quot;out of vanity&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19037" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5751" RevisionGUID="d3a2f51c-1099-45a4-b798-86c42bbddf1d" CreationDate="2017-12-22T10:34:44.590" UserId="79" Text="|grammar-choice|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5752" RevisionGUID="53e10f4e-63a9-4075-ae60-8621338b93c5" CreationDate="2017-12-22T11:18:22.517" UserId="79" Text="Latin word order is free, and the parts of the absolute ablative can be in either order.&#xD;&#xA;One order might be more common than the other, but tendencies should not be taken as hard rules.&#xD;&#xA;To me *capta urbe* is as valid as *urbe capta*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore my answer to 1 is yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding 2, I see no particular reason for the reverse order.&#xD;&#xA;What looks weird to me is Wikipedia's choice to put all examples in the same order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that in some cases the roles of the two parts of the absolute ablative are not clear.&#xD;&#xA;If in *mutatis mutandis* the substantive is *mutandis* and the modifier *mutatis*, it reads &quot;having changed what had to be changed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you reverse the roles, it reads &quot;by changing what had been changed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Both readings are reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;Context and word order can help with ambiguities like this, but word order is not very reliable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For item 4, Ennius (in a fragment of a tragedy, quoted by Cicero in *de Divinatione*) writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *me Apollo **fatis fandis** dementem inuitam ciet*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I take the bold part to mean &quot;having said what had to be said&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;One can regard *fatum* as a noun, but it nevertheless originates from the past participle of *fari*.&#xD;&#xA;There is also *ratis infandis* in *Argonautica* by Gaius Valerius Flaccus.&#xD;&#xA;I found no other hits, but that is no proof of non-existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Unrelated to the actual question, I disagree with the punctuation in Wikipedia. I would never separate an absolute ablative with a comma. However, I recognize that punctuation as we know it is not a classical thing and comma rules in Latin are style preferences more than strict grammatical rules.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5753" RevisionGUID="5fe093dd-c9c2-4707-80d7-4d026607980f" CreationDate="2017-12-22T14:42:51.050" UserId="45" Text="The best equivalent that comes to my mind is **gen. + caus&amp;amacr;**. In this case, I would translate &quot;out of vanity&quot; as **vanitatis caus&amp;amacr;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found no classical examples of this exact phrase, but a [Google Search](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22vanitatis+causa%22) reveals more than a few later examples, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hic ego, Rex Serenissime, res nostras non amplifico, nec **vanitatis causa** ostento, id quod est, nudis verbis expono. (*[Apologeticus pro Societate Iesu](https://books.google.com/books?id=xyFlAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA15&amp;lpg=PA15&amp;dq=%22vanitatis+causa%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1vGU1CX0Dj&amp;sig=yTAnBPUtvmmQtBAxRrPfyu7YBSE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiW-OTq6J3YAhUBMyYKHTm5AbwQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22vanitatis%20causa%22&amp;f=false)*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, Ezra Pound wrote a letter to James Joyce *in English* and used this phrase as a Latin &quot;flourish&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I once did a bad translation of Guido Cavalcanti of which I have a spare copy,&#xD;&#xA; it has the text with it and that might entertain you if you're not fed up with the period, or a Corbiere...or a stray leaf of my own earlier imbecilities,&#xD;&#xA; **vanitatis causa**. ([*Letters of Ezra Pound and James Joyce*](https://books.google.com/books?id=GZMNYLgd5X4C&amp;pg=PA57&amp;lpg=PA57&amp;dq=%22vanitatis+causa%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=LPMHrZ05bi&amp;sig=J8fi5KaXdsk7CN6sbTC6cMsbeE8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiW-OTq6J3YAhUBMyYKHTm5AbwQ6AEIKTAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22vanitatis%20causa%22&amp;f=false))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your other example, &quot;out of pity,&quot; could similarly be translated by **misericordiae caus&amp;amacr;**, and this time there *are* classical examples of this usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cicero:&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Sed haec nescio quo modo frequenter in me congessisti	saneque in eo creber fuisti, te idcirco in ludos causam conicere noluisse ne ego mea consuetudine aliquid de tensis **misericordiae causa** dicerem, quod in aliis aedilibus ante fecissem. (Cicero, *Pro Plancio* 83)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Digesta Iustiniani*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  Si quis ab alio acceperit pecuniam ne mihi negotium faciat, si quidem mandatu meo datum est, uel a procuratore meo &lt;o&gt;mnium rerum, uel ab eo qui negotium meum gerere uolebat et ratum habui: ego dedisse intellegor. si autem non mandatu meo alius ei licet **misericordiae causa** dederit ne fiat neque ratum habui, tunc et ipsum repetere et me in quadruplum agere posse. (Iustinianus, *Digesta Iustiniani* 3.6.7)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2453" RevisionGUID="93d6d322-9581-4db3-8e5a-59b1dcf59068" CreationDate="2017-12-22T16:00:12.420" UserId="79" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="Qua voce Latina tradidi potest vox Anglica &quot;application&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Non de theoria adhibenda ago, sed de programmatis telephonulorum (sive telephonorum mobilium) vel computatrorum hac voce Anglica appellatis.&#xD;&#xA;Nescio an &quot;applicatio&quot;, e quo vox illa Anglica orta est, aptum sit.&#xD;&#xA;Quibus vocibus uteris si hanc rem Latine describere debes, et quare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Hoc rogatum](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/196/79) verbum &quot;to program&quot; sive &quot;to code&quot; petit.&#xD;&#xA;Dissimile mihi videtur vocem &quot;application&quot; Latine reddere, quamvis hae res forsitan connexus inter se habent.&#xD;&#xA;Fieri potest, ut neologismo utendum sit &amp;mdash; Romani antiqui talis technologiae egebant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5754" RevisionGUID="6b95b007-ab49-470a-ba39-e6235ae2d520" CreationDate="2017-12-22T18:26:41.067" UserId="324" Text="The classical Latin word is vinnulus “delightful, sweet”. vinnolus is a misspelling. This (especially the footnote) is perhaps of interest: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=igxC93_A-fIC&amp;pg=PR132&amp;lpg=PR132&amp;dq=vinnola+music&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=k0P30hQ2Pw&amp;sig=nXt_U7I44bPPC8zTdrjES3GdMIk&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiI1OOdnp7YAhUCD8AKHaDwBVQ4ChDoAQg6MAg#v=onepage&amp;q=vinnola%20music&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="8144092c-b3fa-4bd2-a5e2-fb6493d117f5" CreationDate="2017-12-23T10:12:06.647" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and reformatted." Text="I'm a programmer and I regularly write small utility programs for friends and family. Since I like a joke, all those programs have help/about forms that describe the program as having been produced by a completely fictional company. So far so boring. However, I would like my &quot;company&quot; to have a motto* in Latin and the motto I have chosen is &quot;Let's go to work&quot; but specifically in the sense Joe Cabot uses in Reservoir Dogs &amp;mdash; [short clip here](https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=8&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiCxMnG8OfTAhUHilQKHWmrANgQtwIIPDAH&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymotion.com%2Fvideo%2Fx4cbs5u_let-s-go-to-work-reservoir-dogs_shortfilms&amp;usg=AFQjCNHs1Xu67fQagAASoBMXYXfeNogZtg&amp;sig2=1x9s36FiYrLl9uAS1BBFHg]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Refining my searches a bit (my Google-fu must be weak), I keep coming up with &quot;et eamus ad operandum&quot;, so I suppose my question is really: is &quot;et eamus ad operandum&quot; valid, and does it actually mean &quot;let's go to work&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks to @Rafael and @Joonas Ilmavirta for the guidance and for keeping me plugging away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Motto might not even be the right word, but you know what I mean." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19043" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="8144092c-b3fa-4bd2-a5e2-fb6493d117f5" CreationDate="2017-12-23T10:12:06.647" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and reformatted." Text="|idiom|sentence-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5755" RevisionGUID="f28fea53-998a-4471-8eab-0d3330b6c7e0" CreationDate="2017-12-23T11:26:03.983" UserId="2278" Text="&quot;Attero Dominatus&quot; is the title of an album and song by the band Sabaton. According to this article which does not cite any source it means &quot;destroy tyranny&quot;, according to this Wikipedia page it means &quot;I destroy tyrannies&quot;. The band has not provided an official translation of the song. What is the correct translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19045" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5755" RevisionGUID="f28fea53-998a-4471-8eab-0d3330b6c7e0" CreationDate="2017-12-23T11:26:03.983" UserId="2278" Text="What does &quot;Attero Dominatus&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19046" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5755" RevisionGUID="f28fea53-998a-4471-8eab-0d3330b6c7e0" CreationDate="2017-12-23T11:26:03.983" UserId="2278" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5755" RevisionGUID="52183926-0010-4dc1-9cd2-d5a801244a66" CreationDate="2017-12-23T17:02:42.573" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged, and changed &quot;this&quot; to &quot;an&quot;, as there is no link to the article." Text="&quot;Attero Dominatus&quot; is the title of an album and song by the band Sabaton. According to an article which does not cite any source it means &quot;destroy tyranny&quot;, according to this Wikipedia page it means &quot;I destroy tyrannies&quot;. The band has not provided an official translation of the song. What is the correct translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19048" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5755" RevisionGUID="52183926-0010-4dc1-9cd2-d5a801244a66" CreationDate="2017-12-23T17:02:42.573" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged, and changed &quot;this&quot; to &quot;an&quot;, as there is no link to the article." Text="|meaning|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5756" RevisionGUID="10c578b6-278b-4b9e-b7ca-49e1f226c694" CreationDate="2017-12-23T17:21:05.107" UserId="79" Text="The official translation is off.&#xD;&#xA;I am rather annoyed that people put time and money into projects like this but do not take more care with the translation of a name &amp;mdash; but I refrain from ranting further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us start with the verb *atterere*.&#xD;&#xA;It means literally something like &quot;to rub against&quot;, and it also has the sense &quot;to destroy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps &quot;to destroy by rubbing&quot; is a good overall translation.&#xD;&#xA;Check [the dictionary entry in Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=attero&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) for more detail.&#xD;&#xA;There would be far better verbs for destroying tyranny, but asking for them should be taken to a separate question.&#xD;&#xA;If we pick the translation &quot;to destroy&quot; for *atterere*, the form *attero* means indeed &quot;I destroy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see two ways to parse *dominatus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It can be [the noun *dominatus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=dominatus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), which means many kinds of rule or sovereignty.&#xD;&#xA;It does cover tyranny as well, but I would not recognize it as the principal meaning.&#xD;&#xA;In the context of the short sentence *attero dominatus*, it appears to be in the plural accusative, which indeed happens to look like the singular nominative (the basic form given in a dictionary) for this word.&#xD;&#xA;This leads to translation possibilities like these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Attero dominatus.*  &#xD;&#xA;I weaken/destroy sovereignties.  &#xD;&#xA;I wear out the rules. (&amp;approx; I defy the law and break it slowly.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It can be a participle of the verb [*dominari*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DD%3Aentry+group%3D50%3Aentry%3Ddominor), &quot;to rule&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This leads to translation possibilities like these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Attero dominatus.*  &#xD;&#xA;After having been a ruler I rub something.  &#xD;&#xA;I rule and destroy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, there is no unique correct translation without more precise context.&#xD;&#xA;And I admit that some of the suggested translations are quite nonsensical, but I would argue that so is the original phrase, to some extent at least.&#xD;&#xA;The official translation is a possible direction, but the choices of words look unnatural to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5757" RevisionGUID="b333db24-1e57-4f73-b3e2-83f3c6d01823" CreationDate="2017-12-23T21:54:02.570" UserId="79" Text="In English the noun &quot;family&quot; is singular but it means a group (of people).&#xD;&#xA;Syntactically it can be singular or plural: one can say &quot;the family is/are&amp;hellip;&quot; with either choice.&#xD;&#xA;Can this kind of thing happen in Latin at all?&#xD;&#xA;Are there nouns which are morphologically singular but can take a plural syntactical role?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give a concrete example: if I want to say that all my family members are Finns, can I say *tota mea familia Finni sunt*?&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen this, and I would like to know whether anyone else has." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19051" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5757" RevisionGUID="b333db24-1e57-4f73-b3e2-83f3c6d01823" CreationDate="2017-12-23T21:54:02.570" UserId="79" Text="Can a morphologically singular collective noun be syntactically plural?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19052" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5757" RevisionGUID="b333db24-1e57-4f73-b3e2-83f3c6d01823" CreationDate="2017-12-23T21:54:02.570" UserId="79" Text="|grammar-choice|syntax|plural|agreement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5758" RevisionGUID="66f57ac8-9e07-4b23-afe4-186933f9226d" CreationDate="2017-12-24T05:27:41.743" UserId="985" Text="I'm a bit reluctant to add this, because it isn't exactly an online course...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[LatinStudy](http://www.quasillum.com/study/latinstudy.php) is an online learning community that's run as an 'old school' listserv (i.e., everything is done over email). At any time, there are several beginners' groups working through _Wheelock's Latin_ and other textbooks, such as the _Lingua Latina_ series. In addition, there are dozens of reading groups dedicated to a wide range of authors/works from many periods: currently, Catullus, Caesar, Tibullus, Livy, Pliny the Younger, Martial, Suetonius, Apuleius, Augustine, Beeson's _A primer of Medieval Latin_, and Bede, among others. I myself am currently leading a group that's working through Sallust's _Bellum Catilinae_ and _Bellum Iugurthinum_, and I plan shortly to propose a new group to read either Seneca the Younger's tragedies or Statius's epics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The downsides**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first place, the pace is generally quite slow. Most groups have one assignment per week, and the assignments aren't usually very long. (For my Sallust group, I've set the relatively breakneck pace of about 180 words per week; and the group that's reading the _Aeneid_ goes through about a book a year.) So if you want to see a group through to the end (especially a reading group), it's a fairly long-term commitment. (On the other hand, many of the beginners' groups that use _Wheelock's Latin_ do a chapter a week, which is the same pace I've used when I've taught university students and adult learners from that textbook.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, and most importantly, I think, there isn't a 'teacher' who corrects and gives feedback about assignments. The way this works is: group members submit their answers for an assignment to the group's leader, who collates all the responses (including, usually, his or her own) and then sends them back to the group via the listserv. The group leaders are just other list members and basically function as mere coordinators. In most cases, they aren't experts in the author/work that they're leading a group for; nor are they necessarily any more advanced than the other group members in terms of Latin ability – they're just the ones who came up with the idea for the group and/or volunteered to coordinate it. In addition, no sort of answer key is provided. Much of the learning is meant to take place by comparing one's own responses to those of the other group members to try to divine the correct answer/translation and determine why one's responses are more or less correct or appropriate than the rest. Questions can also be submitted to the list for discussion. Therefore, to make this work, one has to be highly self-motivated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Benefits**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I admit that I wouldn't have wanted to learn the basics of Latin this way, I've participated in several of the more advanced groups over the years and have found them all extremely rewarding: _'Bradley's Arnold' Latin Prose Composition_, Pliny the Younger's letters, Tacitus's _Germania_ and _Agricola_, Horace's _Odes_, Catullus, Vergil's _Aeneid_, Sallust. Especially now that I'm not in academia, these groups help me maintain and even expand my Latin skills, and encourage me to expose myself to new authors and/or works (or revisit old favorites), at a pace that fits my schedule. I think of the groups that I participate in as my little weekly doses of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another plus is that new groups form all the time, and anyone can start a group. So if you see a gap, you can fill it yourself. The list's membership is large and diverse enough that most proposed groups end up finding enough participants to make proceeding worth while." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19054" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5758" RevisionGUID="8b5e8ba1-a7be-429c-8844-eb713389e09e" CreationDate="2017-12-24T05:27:41.743" UserId="985" />
  <row Id="19055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5759" RevisionGUID="4a39b9d9-141f-4313-8063-93a3fefecbe5" CreationDate="2017-12-24T09:30:44.013" UserId="867" Text="I have just now stumbled upon an idiomatic word for an uninvited guest: ***umbra*** (see [Lewis &amp; Short][1], definition at I.B.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a description of a disastrous dinner party, Horace mentions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quos Maecenas adduxerat **umbras***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the **uninvited guests** that Maecenas had brought with him&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Horace, *Satires*, 2.8.22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in a dinner party invitation to Torquatus, Horace promises that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *locus est et pluribus **umbris***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; there is room too for several **uninvited guests**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Horace, *Epistles*, 1.5.28&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=umbra&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19056" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1627" RevisionGUID="6c47c32d-603d-41c4-a9e6-f24f492ccc45" CreationDate="2017-12-24T09:55:20.727" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="Aurora Natalis or Aurora Natalicus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19057" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1627" RevisionGUID="6c47c32d-603d-41c4-a9e6-f24f492ccc45" CreationDate="2017-12-24T09:55:20.727" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|vocabulary|adjective|word-choice|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="573" RevisionGUID="36ece60b-1ff9-4b43-a74a-a17e7045f7b1" CreationDate="2017-12-24T10:01:51.957" UserId="79" Comment="Added a link." Text="[Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=subicio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) II.B.5 has this definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. To bring forward, propose, adduce; to bring to mind, prompt, suggest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with these examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;cupio mihi **ab illo**, iudices, **subici**, quoniam de militari eius gloria dico, si quid forte praetereo.&quot; (Cic. *Verr*. 2.5.25)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;I wish, O judges, **to be prompted by him**, since I am speaking of his military renown, if by accident I pass over anything.&quot; (Clark &amp; Peterson translation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  vidi Archidemum, cum quidem idem hic mihi Maeandrius quasi ministrator aderat **subiciens** quid in suos civis civitatemque, si vellem, **dicerem**.&quot; (Cic. *Verr*. Fl 22.53)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I saw Archidemus, when this identical man Maeandrius came to me as a sort of attorney, **suggesting to me what I might say**, if I pleased, against his own fellow-citizens and his own city. (translation Yonge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So prompt/suggest overlaps fine with *suggero*. I think the word though is especially appropriate here, since he is not just suggesting any old thing, but the main thing, the *subject*, if you will, which meaning *subiectum* holds in later Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19059" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="572" RevisionGUID="fd1f588d-5899-4e11-8c2d-b5558837b1e9" CreationDate="2017-12-24T10:02:16.580" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|sentence-translation|example-request|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5760" RevisionGUID="c0613d55-2574-4ff2-b5ec-a58e6e19f479" CreationDate="2017-12-24T10:15:57.497" UserId="79" Text="I just searched for Christmas questions on our site, and ended up reading [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/572/79) and its answer.&#xD;&#xA;There was a mention of the Lewis and Short entry on the verb *subicere*, and I was puzzled by the very beginning of [the entry](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=subicio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sūb-ĭcĭo (less correctly subjĭcĭo ; post-Aug. sometimes sŭb- ), jēci, jectum, 3, v. a. sub-jacio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is *sūbĭcĭo* more correct than *subjĭcĭo*?&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean just that it should be spelled with a single *i* instead of *ii* or *ji*?&#xD;&#xA;Or does it mean that the *u* should be pronounced long?&#xD;&#xA;Or does the macron imply that the first syllable is long (heavy) even though the vowel is short?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding has been that it comes from *sub* and *iacio*, with the *a* weakened into an *i* after the prefix as usual and the /ji/ spelled as a single *i*, and is pronounced more or less as /subjikio:/.&#xD;&#xA;But the L&amp;S entry leads me to think that it should be /su:bikio:/ instead, and that sounds wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that my confusion boils down to these two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **What is the classical pronunciation of *subicio*?**&#xD;&#xA;2. **What is L&amp;S trying to say with &quot;less correctly *subjĭcĭo*&quot;?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19061" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5760" RevisionGUID="c0613d55-2574-4ff2-b5ec-a58e6e19f479" CreationDate="2017-12-24T10:15:57.497" UserId="79" Text="Understanding Lewis and Short: Why sūbĭcĭo and not subjĭcĭo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19062" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5760" RevisionGUID="c0613d55-2574-4ff2-b5ec-a58e6e19f479" CreationDate="2017-12-24T10:15:57.497" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|verbs|pronunciation|vowel-quantity|dictionary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5761" RevisionGUID="c9b0e10b-c5da-4eed-a422-2f1d2377cc3b" CreationDate="2017-12-24T11:19:44.697" UserId="1348" Text="What would be the translation of: *He does not play even with his brother*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it be: *Ne cum fratre suo quidem ludit*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally I have seen the structure *ne ... quidem* with a noun in the nominative case, but how is it when there is a preposition, or when the noun is in other case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19064" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5761" RevisionGUID="c9b0e10b-c5da-4eed-a422-2f1d2377cc3b" CreationDate="2017-12-24T11:19:44.697" UserId="1348" Text="Ne ... quidem with preposition" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19065" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5761" RevisionGUID="c9b0e10b-c5da-4eed-a422-2f1d2377cc3b" CreationDate="2017-12-24T11:19:44.697" UserId="1348" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5761" RevisionGUID="d01bbb1b-34af-4894-b96b-3195719555d0" CreationDate="2017-12-24T12:04:07.790" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="What would be the translation of: *He does not play even with his brother*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it be: *Ne cum fratre suo quidem ludit*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally I have seen the structure *ne ... quidem* with a noun in the nominative case, but how is it when there is a preposition, or when the noun is in another case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19067" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5761" RevisionGUID="d01bbb1b-34af-4894-b96b-3195719555d0" CreationDate="2017-12-24T12:04:07.790" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|syntax|preposition|particle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5763" RevisionGUID="1dc25f3b-5bc6-4981-a97a-e66f015cb250" CreationDate="2017-12-24T22:23:59.187" UserId="645" Text="*attero, attere, attrivi, attritum*, to grind down, wear away, etc., often implying persistence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*dominatus*, 4th decl., here the accusative plural to form the object of the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say that it simply means 'I batter away against tyrannies' (or some equivalent verb)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5764" RevisionGUID="6971b10f-a136-46b3-86e0-f80021ab75f0" CreationDate="2017-12-25T01:25:38.510" UserId="985" Text="_Ne...quidem_ can most definitely surround nouns in cases other than nominative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Apuleius, _Metamorphoses_ 9.27 (genitive):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; non sum barbarus nec agresti morum squalore praeditus nec ad exemplum naccinae truculentiae sulpuris te letali fumo necabo ac **ne iuris quidem** seueritate lege de adulteriis ad discrimen uocabo capitis tam uenustum tamque pulchellum puellum, sed plane cum uxore mea partiario tractabo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Caesar, _De bello gallico_ 1.39.1 (accusative):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; dum paucos dies ad Vesontionem rei frumentariae commeatusque causa moratur, ex percontatione nostrorum vocibusque Gallorum ac mercatorum, qui ingenti magnitudine corporum Germanos, incredibili virtute atque exercitatione in armis esse praedicabant – saepe numero sese cum his congressos **ne vultum quidem** atque aciem oculorum dicebant ferre potuisse – , tantus subito timor omnem exercitum occupavit, ut non mediocriter omnium mentes animosque perturbaret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Livy, _Ab urbe condita_ 4.44.4 (accusative):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; non suis beneficiis, non patrum iniuriis, non denique usurpandi libidine, cum liceat quod ante non licuerit, si non tribunum militarem, **ne quaestorem quidem** quemquam ex plebe factum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro Caelio_ 24 (ablative):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; et, si Asicio causa plus profuit quam nocuit invidia, huic oberit maledictum tuum qui istius facti non modo suspicione sed **ne infamia quidem** est aspersus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't even have to surround nouns. It can even surround verbs and entire clauses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Lucullus_ 49:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; sic enim ascenditis: 'si tale visum obiectum est a deo dormienti ut probabile sit, cur non etiam ut valde veri simile; cur deinde non ut difficiliter a vero internoscatur, deinde ut **ne internoscatur quidem**, postremo ut nihil inter hoc et illud intersit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro Murena_ 36:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; non modo horum nihil ita fore putatum est sed, **ne cum esset factum quidem**, qua re ita factum esset intellegi potuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Seneca the Younger, _Dialogi_ 3.21.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; nihil ergo in ira, **ne cum uidetur quidem** uehemens et deos hominesque despiciens, magnum, nihil nobile est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the noun is modified by an adjective or other modifier (e.g., dependent genitive), it appears that the _ne...quidem_ mostly surrounds either the noun or the modifier. I didn't find any examples where it surrounds both (but I also didn't search on every possible preposition).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro Plancio_ 12 (around adjective):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; semper se dicet rogari voluisse, semper sibi supplicari; se M. Seium, qui **ne equestrem quidem** splendorem incolumem a calamitate iudici retinere potuisset, homini nobilissimo, innocentissimo, eloquentissimo, M. Pisoni, praetulisse; praeposuisse se Q. Catulo, summa in familia nato, sapientissimo et sanctissimo viro, non dico C. Serranum, stultissimum hominem – fuit enim tamen nobilis – non C. Fimbriam, novum hominem – fuit enim et animi satis magni et consili – sed Cn. Mallium, non solum ignobilem verum sine virtute, sine ingenio, vita etiam contempta ac sordida.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For simple prepositional phrases, the _ne...quidem_ surrounds the preposition and noun/substantive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro S. Roscio Amerino_ 52:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; quippe, qui **ne in oppidum quidem** nisi perraro veniret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro Flacco_ 8:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Tmolites ille vicanus, homo non modo nobis sed **ne inter suos quidem** notus, vos docebit qualis sit L. Flaccus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Pliny the Elder, _Naturalis historia_ 16.3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; non pecudem his habere, non lacte ali, ut finitimis, **ne cum feris quidem** dimicare contingit omni procul abacto frutice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Apuleius, _De mundo_ 25:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; talis quippe humilitas deiecti et minus sublimis officii, **ne cum homine quidem** conuenit, qui sit uel paululum conscientiae celsioris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the noun that is the object of the preposition is modified by an adjective or other modifier, it appears once again thatthe _ne...quidem_ surrounds either the preposition + noun or the preposition + modifier. As before, I didn't find any examples where it surrounds the entire prepositional phrase; but such examples may exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Livy, _Ab urbe condita_ 9.19.15 (around preposition + noun):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; non quidem Alexandro duce nec integris Macedonum rebus sed experti tamen sunt Romani Macedonem hostem aduersus Antiochum Philippum Persen non modo cum clade ulla sed **ne&#xD;&#xA;cum periculo quidem** suo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro S. Roscio Amerino_ 39 (around preposition + noun):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; de luxuria purgavit Erucius, cum dixit hunc **ne in convivio quidem** ullo fere interfuisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ P. Rutilius Lupus, _Schemata lexeos_ 1.7 (around preposition + adjective):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; item Hegesiae: 'Miseremini mei, iudices, quem coniurata tanta vis inimicorum oppugnat: miseremini   solitudinis, cui **ne in summo quidem** tempore [periculi] liberos adhibere ad communem calamitatem deprecandam licitum est: miseremini senectutis, quae me etiam sine ceteris malis graviter defatigat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _In Verrem_ 2.1.72 (around preposition + adjective \[gerundive\]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; de quo ne multa disseram tantum dico, secutum id esse Neronem et eius consilium: quod Cornelium lictorem occisum esse constaret, putasse non oportere esse cuiquam **ne in ulciscenda quidem** iniuria hominis occidendi potestatem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _De oratore 1.235 (around preposition + adjective \[demonstrative\]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; sed ego **ne cum ista quidem** arte pugno.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro Quinctio_ 88 (around preposition + dependent genitive):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; postea sum usus adversarii testimonio, qui sibi eum nuper edidit socium quem, quo modo nunc intendit, **ne in vivorum quidem** numero tum demonstrat fuisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Therefore**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your first question, 'He does not play even with his brother' could be _ne cum fratre quidem suo ludit_ or _ne cum suo quidem fratre ludit_ or even _ne ludit quidem cum fratre suo_. As as is typical, the exact version depends on the emphasis that you want to give to the sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5764" RevisionGUID="dbbea83a-459b-4881-8a89-2773473aaaec" CreationDate="2017-12-25T01:42:35.053" UserId="985" Comment="added 348 characters in body" Text="_Ne...quidem_ can most definitely surround nouns in cases other than nominative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Apuleius, _Metamorphoses_ 9.27 (genitive):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; non sum barbarus nec agresti morum squalore praeditus nec ad exemplum naccinae truculentiae sulpuris te letali fumo necabo ac **ne iuris quidem** seueritate lege de adulteriis ad discrimen uocabo capitis tam uenustum tamque pulchellum puellum, sed plane cum uxore mea partiario tractabo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Caesar, _De bello gallico_ 1.39.1 (accusative):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; dum paucos dies ad Vesontionem rei frumentariae commeatusque causa moratur, ex percontatione nostrorum vocibusque Gallorum ac mercatorum, qui ingenti magnitudine corporum Germanos, incredibili virtute atque exercitatione in armis esse praedicabant – saepe numero sese cum his congressos **ne vultum quidem** atque aciem oculorum dicebant ferre potuisse – , tantus subito timor omnem exercitum occupavit, ut non mediocriter omnium mentes animosque perturbaret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Livy, _Ab urbe condita_ 4.44.4 (accusative):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; non suis beneficiis, non patrum iniuriis, non denique usurpandi libidine, cum liceat quod ante non licuerit, si non tribunum militarem, **ne quaestorem quidem** quemquam ex plebe factum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro Caelio_ 24 (ablative):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; et, si Asicio causa plus profuit quam nocuit invidia, huic oberit maledictum tuum qui istius facti non modo suspicione sed **ne infamia quidem** est aspersus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't even have to surround nouns. It can even surround verbs and entire clauses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Lucullus_ 49:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; sic enim ascenditis: 'si tale visum obiectum est a deo dormienti ut probabile sit, cur non etiam ut valde veri simile; cur deinde non ut difficiliter a vero internoscatur, deinde ut **ne internoscatur quidem**, postremo ut nihil inter hoc et illud intersit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro Murena_ 36:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; non modo horum nihil ita fore putatum est sed, **ne cum esset factum quidem**, qua re ita factum esset intellegi potuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Seneca the Younger, _Dialogi_ 3.21.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; nihil ergo in ira, **ne cum uidetur quidem** uehemens et deos hominesque despiciens, magnum, nihil nobile est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the noun is modified by an adjective or other modifier (e.g., dependent genitive), it appears that the _ne...quidem_ mostly surrounds either the noun or the modifier. I didn't find any examples where it surrounds both (but I also didn't search on every possible preposition).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro Plancio_ 12 (around adjective):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; semper se dicet rogari voluisse, semper sibi supplicari; se M. Seium, qui **ne equestrem quidem** splendorem incolumem a calamitate iudici retinere potuisset, homini nobilissimo, innocentissimo, eloquentissimo, M. Pisoni, praetulisse; praeposuisse se Q. Catulo, summa in familia nato, sapientissimo et sanctissimo viro, non dico C. Serranum, stultissimum hominem – fuit enim tamen nobilis – non C. Fimbriam, novum hominem – fuit enim et animi satis magni et consili – sed Cn. Mallium, non solum ignobilem verum sine virtute, sine ingenio, vita etiam contempta ac sordida.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For simple prepositional phrases, the _ne...quidem_ surrounds the preposition and noun/substantive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro S. Roscio Amerino_ 52:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; quippe, qui **ne in oppidum quidem** nisi perraro veniret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro Flacco_ 8:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Tmolites ille vicanus, homo non modo nobis sed **ne inter suos quidem** notus, vos docebit qualis sit L. Flaccus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Pliny the Elder, _Naturalis historia_ 16.3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; non pecudem his habere, non lacte ali, ut finitimis, **ne cum feris quidem** dimicare contingit omni procul abacto frutice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Apuleius, _De mundo_ 25:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; talis quippe humilitas deiecti et minus sublimis officii, **ne cum homine quidem** conuenit, qui sit uel paululum conscientiae celsioris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the noun that is the object of the preposition is modified by an adjective or other modifier, it appears once again thatthe _ne...quidem_ surrounds either the preposition + noun or the preposition + modifier. As before, I didn't find any examples where it surrounds the entire prepositional phrase; but such examples may exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Livy, _Ab urbe condita_ 9.19.15 (around preposition + noun):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; non quidem Alexandro duce nec integris Macedonum rebus sed experti tamen sunt Romani Macedonem hostem aduersus Antiochum Philippum Persen non modo cum clade ulla sed **ne&#xD;&#xA;cum periculo quidem** suo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro S. Roscio Amerino_ 39 (around preposition + noun):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; de luxuria purgavit Erucius, cum dixit hunc **ne in convivio quidem** ullo fere interfuisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ P. Rutilius Lupus, _Schemata lexeos_ 1.7 (around preposition + adjective):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; item Hegesiae: 'Miseremini mei, iudices, quem coniurata tanta vis inimicorum oppugnat: miseremini   solitudinis, cui **ne in summo quidem** tempore [periculi] liberos adhibere ad communem calamitatem deprecandam licitum est: miseremini senectutis, quae me etiam sine ceteris malis graviter defatigat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _In Verrem_ 2.1.72 (around preposition + adjective \[gerundive\]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; de quo ne multa disseram tantum dico, secutum id esse Neronem et eius consilium: quod Cornelium lictorem occisum esse constaret, putasse non oportere esse cuiquam **ne in ulciscenda quidem** iniuria hominis occidendi potestatem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _De oratore 1.235 (around preposition + adjective \[demonstrative\]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; sed ego **ne cum ista quidem** arte pugno.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro Quinctio_ 88 (around preposition + dependent genitive):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; postea sum usus adversarii testimonio, qui sibi eum nuper edidit socium quem, quo modo nunc intendit, **ne in vivorum quidem** numero tum demonstrat fuisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Therefore**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your first question, 'He does not play even with his brother' could be _ne cum fratre quidem suo ludit_ or _ne cum suo quidem fratre ludit_ (or possibly even _ne ludit quidem cum fratre suo_). As is typical, the various arrangements can affect the emphasis of the sentence – for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ _ne cum fratre quidem suo ludit_, 'He doesn't play even with his own _brother_ [much less his own sister].'&#xD;&#xA;+ _ne cum suo quidem fratre ludit_, 'He doesn't play even with _his own_ brother [much less someone else's brother].'&#xD;&#xA;+ _ne ludit quidem cum fratre suo_, 'He doesn't even play with his own brother [much less speak with him].'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5765" RevisionGUID="dd0fe507-b8c3-4470-8f51-a9bbe9bf4160" CreationDate="2017-12-25T05:05:41.730" UserId="9" Text="This is just a guess based on my experience with Lewis and Short; I don't have a citation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that older dictionaries like L&amp;S sometimes use a macron to mark a &quot;heavy&quot; syllable that doesn't have a long vowel when it is not standardly spelled with a doubled consonant after the vowel. I would guess this is based on a desire to indicate how the syllable scans in verse. But perhaps it represents an actual misimpression, or uncertainty, or desire to be noncommittal about how vowel length was realized in Latin. Whatever the reason, when you use a dictionary like this, you can't count on a vowel written with a macron actually corresponding to a long vowel in pronunciation. So if you care about pronunciation, it's good to check other dictionaries and to use your knowledge of etymology and morphology, as you did here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;major&quot; is marked as &quot;[mājor][1]&quot; in L&amp;S; Allen tells us that it was likely pronounced /maj.jor/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;far&quot; is marked as &quot;[fār][2]&quot; in Lewis; [Bennett][3] says it was likely /farr/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Amazon&quot; is marked as &quot;[Ămāzon][4]&quot; in L&amp;S (actually also in [Wiktionary][5] too, currently, with the dubious phonological transcription &quot;/aˈmaː.zon/&quot;: I would guess that that is an error derived from some older dictionary source like L&amp;S). Sources like Allen tell us that intervocalic &quot;z&quot; in loanwords from Greek was likely pronounced in Latin as a geminate consonant like /z.z/, making the previous syllable heavy even if it didn't have a long vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would say it is not safe to assume that &quot;sūb-ĭcĭo&quot; in L&amp;S is meant to represent  /su:bikio:/. Rather, it seems to represents merely that the word is spelled &quot;subicio&quot; and pronounced with a heavy first syllable, and a light second syllable. The &quot;less correctly&quot; seems to mean only that the spelling &quot;subjicio&quot; is considered less correct than the spelling &quot;subicio&quot; by L&amp;S. The entry seems to be consistent with a pronunciation /sub.jikio:/, which I would assume is correct for Classical Latin for the reasons you stated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The note &quot;sometimes sŭb-&quot; should I guess be read as saying &quot;sometimes pronounced with a light initial syllable&quot;. Perhaps /su.bikio:/ was used sometimes? I'm not very sure about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, this is only my guess based on my understanding of Latin pronunciation and my experience with dictionaries like L&amp;S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmajor&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dfar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=N1RfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA118&amp;lpg=PA118&amp;dq=latin%20rhotacism%20farr&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zJZyIcVRGn&amp;sig=18BkOGKVlju5YnjaxJJd189tbMs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjMvMePlrrMAhWHloMKHSeQB_IQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20rhotacism%20farr&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DAmazon&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Amazon#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=J7u6BwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA93&amp;lpg=PA93&amp;dq=Latin%20prefix%20sub%20heavy%20syllable&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=VNzWVMHDlx&amp;sig=h3fjrVovJXbjyRxKoXMgCy4a7l4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiRoKWorqTYAhXF24MKHSe1D1IQ6AEIPDAD#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20prefix%20sub%20heavy%20syllable&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5764" RevisionGUID="a1514617-883e-489b-8cc2-65c39ff9d4e0" CreationDate="2017-12-25T08:25:02.750" UserId="985" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="_Ne...quidem_ can most definitely surround nouns in cases other than nominative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Apuleius, _Metamorphoses_ 9.27 (genitive):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; non sum barbarus nec agresti morum squalore praeditus nec ad exemplum naccinae truculentiae sulpuris te letali fumo necabo ac **ne iuris quidem** seueritate lege de adulteriis ad discrimen uocabo capitis tam uenustum tamque pulchellum puellum, sed plane cum uxore mea partiario tractabo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Caesar, _De bello gallico_ 1.39.1 (accusative):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; dum paucos dies ad Vesontionem rei frumentariae commeatusque causa moratur, ex percontatione nostrorum vocibusque Gallorum ac mercatorum, qui ingenti magnitudine corporum Germanos, incredibili virtute atque exercitatione in armis esse praedicabant – saepe numero sese cum his congressos **ne vultum quidem** atque aciem oculorum dicebant ferre potuisse – , tantus subito timor omnem exercitum occupavit, ut non mediocriter omnium mentes animosque perturbaret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Livy, _Ab urbe condita_ 4.44.4 (accusative):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; non suis beneficiis, non patrum iniuriis, non denique usurpandi libidine, cum liceat quod ante non licuerit, si non tribunum militarem, **ne quaestorem quidem** quemquam ex plebe factum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro Caelio_ 24 (ablative):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; et, si Asicio causa plus profuit quam nocuit invidia, huic oberit maledictum tuum qui istius facti non modo suspicione sed **ne infamia quidem** est aspersus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't even have to surround nouns. It can even surround verbs and entire clauses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Lucullus_ 49:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; sic enim ascenditis: 'si tale visum obiectum est a deo dormienti ut probabile sit, cur non etiam ut valde veri simile; cur deinde non ut difficiliter a vero internoscatur, deinde ut **ne internoscatur quidem**, postremo ut nihil inter hoc et illud intersit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro Murena_ 36:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; non modo horum nihil ita fore putatum est sed, **ne cum esset factum quidem**, qua re ita factum esset intellegi potuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Seneca the Younger, _Dialogi_ 3.21.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; nihil ergo in ira, **ne cum uidetur quidem** uehemens et deos hominesque despiciens, magnum, nihil nobile est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the noun is modified by an adjective or other modifier (e.g., dependent genitive), it appears that the _ne...quidem_ mostly surrounds either the noun or the modifier. I didn't find any examples where it surrounds both, but such examples may exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro Plancio_ 12 (around adjective):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; semper se dicet rogari voluisse, semper sibi supplicari; se M. Seium, qui **ne equestrem quidem** splendorem incolumem a calamitate iudici retinere potuisset, homini nobilissimo, innocentissimo, eloquentissimo, M. Pisoni, praetulisse; praeposuisse se Q. Catulo, summa in familia nato, sapientissimo et sanctissimo viro, non dico C. Serranum, stultissimum hominem – fuit enim tamen nobilis – non C. Fimbriam, novum hominem – fuit enim et animi satis magni et consili – sed Cn. Mallium, non solum ignobilem verum sine virtute, sine ingenio, vita etiam contempta ac sordida.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For simple prepositional phrases, the _ne...quidem_ surrounds the preposition and noun/substantive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro S. Roscio Amerino_ 52:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; quippe, qui **ne in oppidum quidem** nisi perraro veniret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro Flacco_ 8:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Tmolites ille vicanus, homo non modo nobis sed **ne inter suos quidem** notus, vos docebit qualis sit L. Flaccus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Pliny the Elder, _Naturalis historia_ 16.3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; non pecudem his habere, non lacte ali, ut finitimis, **ne cum feris quidem** dimicare contingit omni procul abacto frutice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Apuleius, _De mundo_ 25:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; talis quippe humilitas deiecti et minus sublimis officii, **ne cum homine quidem** conuenit, qui sit uel paululum conscientiae celsioris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the noun that is the object of the preposition is modified by an adjective or other modifier, it appears once again thatthe _ne...quidem_ surrounds either the preposition + noun or the preposition + modifier. As before, I didn't find any examples where it surrounds the entire prepositional phrase, but I didn't check every preposition; so such examples may exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Livy, _Ab urbe condita_ 9.19.15 (around preposition + noun):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; non quidem Alexandro duce nec integris Macedonum rebus sed experti tamen sunt Romani Macedonem hostem aduersus Antiochum Philippum Persen non modo cum clade ulla sed **ne&#xD;&#xA;cum periculo quidem** suo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro S. Roscio Amerino_ 39 (around preposition + noun):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; de luxuria purgavit Erucius, cum dixit hunc **ne in convivio quidem** ullo fere interfuisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ P. Rutilius Lupus, _Schemata lexeos_ 1.7 (around preposition + adjective):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; item Hegesiae: 'Miseremini mei, iudices, quem coniurata tanta vis inimicorum oppugnat: miseremini   solitudinis, cui **ne in summo quidem** tempore [periculi] liberos adhibere ad communem calamitatem deprecandam licitum est: miseremini senectutis, quae me etiam sine ceteris malis graviter defatigat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _In Verrem_ 2.1.72 (around preposition + adjective \[gerundive\]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; de quo ne multa disseram tantum dico, secutum id esse Neronem et eius consilium: quod Cornelium lictorem occisum esse constaret, putasse non oportere esse cuiquam **ne in ulciscenda quidem** iniuria hominis occidendi potestatem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _De oratore 1.235 (around preposition + adjective \[demonstrative\]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; sed ego **ne cum ista quidem** arte pugno.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro Quinctio_ 88 (around preposition + dependent genitive):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; postea sum usus adversarii testimonio, qui sibi eum nuper edidit socium quem, quo modo nunc intendit, **ne in vivorum quidem** numero tum demonstrat fuisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Therefore**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your first question, 'He does not play even with his brother' could be _ne cum fratre quidem suo ludit_ or _ne cum suo quidem fratre ludit_ (or possibly even _ne ludit quidem cum fratre suo_). As is typical, the various arrangements can affect the emphasis of the sentence – for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ _ne cum fratre quidem suo ludit_, 'He doesn't play even with his own _brother_ [much less his own sister].'&#xD;&#xA;+ _ne cum suo quidem fratre ludit_, 'He doesn't play even with _his own_ brother [much less someone else's brother].'&#xD;&#xA;+ _ne ludit quidem cum fratre suo_, 'He doesn't even play with his own brother [much less speak with him].'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5764" RevisionGUID="8ea2a560-b852-4847-87a3-064f840eb937" CreationDate="2017-12-25T08:41:02.740" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="_Ne...quidem_ can most definitely surround nouns in cases other than nominative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Apuleius, _Metamorphoses_ 9.27 (genitive):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; non sum barbarus nec agresti morum squalore praeditus nec ad exemplum naccinae truculentiae sulpuris te letali fumo necabo ac **ne iuris quidem** seueritate lege de adulteriis ad discrimen uocabo capitis tam uenustum tamque pulchellum puellum, sed plane cum uxore mea partiario tractabo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Caesar, _De bello gallico_ 1.39.1 (accusative):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; dum paucos dies ad Vesontionem rei frumentariae commeatusque causa moratur, ex percontatione nostrorum vocibusque Gallorum ac mercatorum, qui ingenti magnitudine corporum Germanos, incredibili virtute atque exercitatione in armis esse praedicabant – saepe numero sese cum his congressos **ne vultum quidem** atque aciem oculorum dicebant ferre potuisse – , tantus subito timor omnem exercitum occupavit, ut non mediocriter omnium mentes animosque perturbaret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Livy, _Ab urbe condita_ 4.44.4 (accusative):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; non suis beneficiis, non patrum iniuriis, non denique usurpandi libidine, cum liceat quod ante non licuerit, si non tribunum militarem, **ne quaestorem quidem** quemquam ex plebe factum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro Caelio_ 24 (ablative):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; et, si Asicio causa plus profuit quam nocuit invidia, huic oberit maledictum tuum qui istius facti non modo suspicione sed **ne infamia quidem** est aspersus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't even have to surround nouns. It can even surround verbs and entire clauses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Lucullus_ 49:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; sic enim ascenditis: 'si tale visum obiectum est a deo dormienti ut probabile sit, cur non etiam ut valde veri simile; cur deinde non ut difficiliter a vero internoscatur, deinde ut **ne internoscatur quidem**, postremo ut nihil inter hoc et illud intersit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro Murena_ 36:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; non modo horum nihil ita fore putatum est sed, **ne cum esset factum quidem**, qua re ita factum esset intellegi potuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Seneca the Younger, _Dialogi_ 3.21.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; nihil ergo in ira, **ne cum uidetur quidem** uehemens et deos hominesque despiciens, magnum, nihil nobile est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the noun is modified by an adjective or other modifier (e.g., dependent genitive), it appears that the _ne...quidem_ mostly surrounds either the noun or the modifier. I didn't find any examples where it surrounds both, but such examples may exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro Plancio_ 12 (around adjective):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; semper se dicet rogari voluisse, semper sibi supplicari; se M. Seium, qui **ne equestrem quidem** splendorem incolumem a calamitate iudici retinere potuisset, homini nobilissimo, innocentissimo, eloquentissimo, M. Pisoni, praetulisse; praeposuisse se Q. Catulo, summa in familia nato, sapientissimo et sanctissimo viro, non dico C. Serranum, stultissimum hominem – fuit enim tamen nobilis – non C. Fimbriam, novum hominem – fuit enim et animi satis magni et consili – sed Cn. Mallium, non solum ignobilem verum sine virtute, sine ingenio, vita etiam contempta ac sordida.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For simple prepositional phrases, the _ne...quidem_ surrounds the preposition and noun/substantive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro S. Roscio Amerino_ 52:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; quippe, qui **ne in oppidum quidem** nisi perraro veniret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro Flacco_ 8:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Tmolites ille vicanus, homo non modo nobis sed **ne inter suos quidem** notus, vos docebit qualis sit L. Flaccus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Pliny the Elder, _Naturalis historia_ 16.3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; non pecudem his habere, non lacte ali, ut finitimis, **ne cum feris quidem** dimicare contingit omni procul abacto frutice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Apuleius, _De mundo_ 25:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; talis quippe humilitas deiecti et minus sublimis officii, **ne cum homine quidem** conuenit, qui sit uel paululum conscientiae celsioris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the noun that is the object of the preposition is modified by an adjective or other modifier, it appears once again that the _ne...quidem_ surrounds either the preposition + noun or the preposition + modifier. As before, I didn't find any examples where it surrounds the entire prepositional phrase, but I didn't check every preposition; so such examples may exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Livy, _Ab urbe condita_ 9.19.15 (around preposition + noun):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; non quidem Alexandro duce nec integris Macedonum rebus sed experti tamen sunt Romani Macedonem hostem aduersus Antiochum Philippum Persen non modo cum clade ulla sed **ne&#xD;&#xA;cum periculo quidem** suo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro S. Roscio Amerino_ 39 (around preposition + noun):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; de luxuria purgavit Erucius, cum dixit hunc **ne in convivio quidem** ullo fere interfuisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ P. Rutilius Lupus, _Schemata lexeos_ 1.7 (around preposition + adjective):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; item Hegesiae: 'Miseremini mei, iudices, quem coniurata tanta vis inimicorum oppugnat: miseremini   solitudinis, cui **ne in summo quidem** tempore [periculi] liberos adhibere ad communem calamitatem deprecandam licitum est: miseremini senectutis, quae me etiam sine ceteris malis graviter defatigat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _In Verrem_ 2.1.72 (around preposition + adjective \[gerundive\]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; de quo ne multa disseram tantum dico, secutum id esse Neronem et eius consilium: quod Cornelium lictorem occisum esse constaret, putasse non oportere esse cuiquam **ne in ulciscenda quidem** iniuria hominis occidendi potestatem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _De oratore_ 1.235 (around preposition + adjective \[demonstrative\]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; sed ego **ne cum ista quidem** arte pugno.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, _Pro Quinctio_ 88 (around preposition + dependent genitive):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; postea sum usus adversarii testimonio, qui sibi eum nuper edidit socium quem, quo modo nunc intendit, **ne in vivorum quidem** numero tum demonstrat fuisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Therefore**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your first question, 'He does not play even with his brother' could be _ne cum fratre quidem suo ludit_ or _ne cum suo quidem fratre ludit_ (or possibly even _ne ludit quidem cum fratre suo_). As is typical, the various arrangements can affect the emphasis of the sentence – for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ _ne cum fratre quidem suo ludit_, 'He doesn't play even with his own _brother_ [much less his own sister].'&#xD;&#xA;+ _ne cum suo quidem fratre ludit_, 'He doesn't play even with _his own_ brother [much less someone else's brother].'&#xD;&#xA;+ _ne ludit quidem cum fratre suo_, 'He doesn't even play with his own brother [much less speak with him].'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5766" RevisionGUID="42f2d095-7415-47fa-a82a-8fcd6c399d70" CreationDate="2017-12-25T09:40:54.300" UserId="867" Text="Does Latin have words for the various types of diets, e.g., &quot;vegetarian,&quot; &quot;vegan,&quot; etc.?&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not really.  There is certainly plenty of discussion of diets in Latin literature, whether for health or religious purposes, or just for anthropological interest.  But there was no single name for any particular type of diet.  A good example of this is vegetarianism.  Vegetarianism was known and even practised.  Yet, in discussions of it, it is always described rather than labelled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca, following Pythagoras' example, was a vegetarian and discusses not only the health benefits of such a diet but also the philosophical reasons behind it.  Below are two typical references to vegetarianism:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sotion dicebat, quare ille **animalibus abstinuisset** …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sotion used to say why Pythagoras **abstained from animals (or living&#xD;&#xA;&gt; things)** …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca the Younger, *Epistles*, 108.17&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Alienigena tum sacra movebantur, sed inter argumenta superstitionis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ponebatur quorundam **animalium abstinentia** …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some foreign rites were at that time being inaugurated, and among the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; proofs of sanctity, the **abstinence from certain kinds of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; animals/living things** was ordained …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca, *Epistles*, 108.22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His vegetarianism is described in terms of what he doesn't eat (which I've translated as *living things* since Seneca and Pythagoras' concerns about meat are that they may be consuming others' souls residing in animals).  Nowhere in this discussion, however, does a noun for 'vegetarian' occur. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Here, Tacitus speaks of Seneca, but in terms of what he does eat, using *[victus][1]*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Seneca … dum persimplici **victu et agrestibus pomis** … vitam tolerat*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Seneca … who sustained life on an extremely simple **diet of fruits from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the fields**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, *Annals*, 15.45&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This use of *victus* to describe a particular diet is common.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Fennis mira feritas, foeda paupertas: non arma, non equi, non penates;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **victui herba**, vestitui pelles, cubile humus*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Fenni live in astonishing barbarism and disgusting misery: no&#xD;&#xA;&gt; arms, no horses, no household; **wild plants for their food**, skins for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their clothing, the ground for their beds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, *Germania*, 46&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Agriculturae non student, maiorque pars eorum **victus in lacte, caseo,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; carne consistit***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For agriculture they [the Germans] have no zeal, and the greater part&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of **their diet consists of milk, cheese, and meat**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caesar, *The Gallic War*, 6.22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much later, and using 'vegetable' (*[h]olus*) specifically, Jerome wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nihilque ita scias conducere Christianis adulescentibus ut **esum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; holerum***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You should know that nothing is so good for young Christians as **a diet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of vegetables**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jerome, *Letters*, 54.10&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the authors are describing vegetarianism (and other types of diet) but clearly they don’t have a convenient one-word label to apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest I could find to such a label is in Pliny.  However, these words don’t seem to occur elsewhere, and they are describing far-flung (sometimes mythical) people.  To that end, I wonder if their Greek etymology was specifically chosen to sound different, exotic, fantastical or perhaps to give a scientific gloss to them, like he’s reporting from field notes.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Ichthyophagos** omnes Alexander vetuit piscibus vivere*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Alexander made an order forbidding a fish diet to all the **Fish-eaters**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny the Elder, *Natural History*, 6.95&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Agriophagi** pantherarum leonumque maxime carnibus viventes, **Pamphagi**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; omnia mandentes, **Anthropophagi** humana carne vescentes*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the **Wild-beast-eaters**, who live chiefly on the flesh of panthers and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lions; the **Everything-eaters**, who devour everything; the **Man-eaters**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whose diet is human flesh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny, *Natural History*, 6.195&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=victus&amp;la=la&amp;can=victus0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5763" RevisionGUID="49ee1262-782f-4aae-a958-ed540a809640" CreationDate="2017-12-25T19:14:27.240" UserId="645" Comment="sp." Text="*attero, atterere, attrivi, attritum*, to grind down, wear away, etc., often implying persistence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*dominatus*, 4th decl., here the accusative plural to form the object of the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say that it simply means 'I batter away against tyrannies' (or some equivalent verb)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5767" RevisionGUID="1ae85387-fde5-46dd-8883-a18cb49f3ee3" CreationDate="2017-12-25T22:45:21.980" UserId="645" Text="Cicero (Att. 8,3) and Pliny (3. 5. 6) each refer to *mare superum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lemprière's Classical Dictionary, which often has a wealth of detail on such topics, has nothing of direct use, but from its rather obscure information I deduce that the name *Tyrrhenum Mare* is reliably old: for example, Tyrrheus was the keeper of flocks for king Latinus, while Tyrrhenus, son of a king of Lydia, having come to Italy, first had what eventually became Etruria named after him." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5768" RevisionGUID="98e62e70-02b1-47ea-8916-993b4ce975c1" CreationDate="2017-12-26T05:54:16.027" UserId="39" Text="Manu Leumann (1977) devotes the whole page to this issue (loss and restoration of  *i̯* before *i* in *iacio* compounds). Below is my summary of section 138.2.b (pp. 128-129).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The metrical data (of Classical Latin) suggest *-i̯icio* in the present stem, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coni̯icit, proi̯icit, subi̯icit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;Im Praesentsstamm dieser Komposita steht, wenn man von der traditionellen Orthographie zunächst absieht, normal und erwartungsgemäß nach klassicher Metrik -*i̯icio* (wie -*ficio* neben *facio*), so als Daktylus einerseits, mit positionsbildenem Kons. i̯.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;the manuscripts and our editions&quot;, Leumann mentions, use the spelling variant with one i,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;Die Handschriften freilich und ihnen folgend unsere Ausgaben schreiben durchweg gegen die metrisch postulierte Aussprache nur ein i.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(will add more details tomorrow)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5755" RevisionGUID="5e7d9809-e5cb-4b75-9fa0-6bf3b869abb8" CreationDate="2017-12-26T06:00:57.847" UserId="2278" Comment="I forgot the links" Text="&quot;Attero Dominatus&quot; is the title of an album and song by the band Sabaton. According to [this](http://www.cosmosgaming.com/music/music-reviews/sabaton-attero-dominatus/) article, which does not cite any source, it means &quot;destroy tyranny&quot;, according to [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attero_Dominatus) Wikipedia page it means &quot;I destroy tyrannies&quot;. The band has not provided an official translation of the song. What is the correct translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5768" RevisionGUID="3fba1f5d-be9b-480e-9129-ed8c684b9950" CreationDate="2017-12-26T06:10:23.733" UserId="39" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="Manu Leumann (1977) devotes the whole page to this issue (loss and restoration of  *i̯* before *i* in *iacio* compounds). Below is my summary of section 138.2.b (pp. 128-129).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The metrical data (of Classical Latin) suggest *-i̯icio* in the present stem, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coni̯icit, proi̯icit, subi̯icit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;Im Praesentsstamm dieser Komposita steht, wenn man von der traditionellen Orthographie zunächst absieht, normal und erwartungsgemäß nach klassicher Metrik -*i̯icio* (wie -*ficio* neben *facio*), so als Daktylus einerseits, mit positionsbildenem Kons. i̯.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;the manuscripts and our editions&quot;, Leumann mentions, use the spelling variant with one i,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;Die Handschriften freilich und ihnen folgend unsere Ausgaben schreiben durchweg gegen die metrisch postulierte Aussprache nur ein i.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if I understand Leumann correctly, the -ii- spelling was never common (although he mentions some exceptions), but in Classical Latin *i̯* was analogically restored in iacio-compounds, the latter was not commonly represented in spelling though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5769" RevisionGUID="8dc27749-3f02-4ae7-b459-ddc2aa11b00d" CreationDate="2017-12-26T07:19:55.880" UserId="1133" Text="I mean that sense of *relate* which we find in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A relates to B as C does to D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or when we speak of A and B's *relation*, meaning whatever may be said of A and B without further specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If forced to give a definition, I would say that A's relation to B is how A *stands to* B, which is a metaphor (is it?) and couldn't possibly tell someone who didn't already know what a *relation* was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Referō][1] does not seem to have this sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Perseus][2] only seems to give Latin words for various senses of narrating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/refero&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/definitionlookup?type=exact&amp;q=relate&amp;target=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19082" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5769" RevisionGUID="8dc27749-3f02-4ae7-b459-ddc2aa11b00d" CreationDate="2017-12-26T07:19:55.880" UserId="1133" Text="What is Latin for &quot;relate&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19083" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5769" RevisionGUID="8dc27749-3f02-4ae7-b459-ddc2aa11b00d" CreationDate="2017-12-26T07:19:55.880" UserId="1133" Text="|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5769" RevisionGUID="2f425895-93e2-4329-aa36-cc6c154537f6" CreationDate="2017-12-26T07:39:32.043" UserId="1133" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="I mean that sense of *relate* which we find in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A relates to B as C does to D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or when we speak of A and B's *relation*, meaning whatever may be said of A and B without further specification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If forced to give a definition, I would say that A's relation to B is how A *stands to* B, which is a metaphor (is it?) and couldn't possibly tell someone who didn't already know what a *relation* was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Referō][1] does not seem to have this sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perseus only seems to give Latin words for other senses:  [relate][2],&#xD;&#xA; [relation][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/refero&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/definitionlookup?type=exact&amp;q=relate&amp;target=la&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/definitionlookup?type=exact&amp;q=relation&amp;target=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5770" RevisionGUID="da0fa7b0-5feb-4fd1-bd24-2970b59de85e" CreationDate="2017-12-26T07:47:26.307" UserId="985" Text="Allen &amp; Greenough, *New Latin grammar*, states (§317, d):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A collective noun commonly takes a verb in the singular; but the plural is often found with collective nouns when *individuals* are though of...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding rule in Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge, *Latin grammar*, states (§211, Remark 1, a):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Substantives of multitude often take the predicate in the Plural: **pars**, *part*; **vis** (*power*), *quantity*; **multitudo**, *crowd*; organized bodies more rarely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nouns such as *familia* in your question would fall under the category of 'organized bodies,' I suppose, and should be somewhat rare, according to G&amp;L. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples (culled from both books):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **pars** ex pacatis praedas **agebant** \[Sallust, *Bellum iugurthinum* 32\]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nam cum tanta **multitudo** lapides ac tela **conicerent**, in muro consistendi potestas erat nulli \[Caesar, *De bello gallico* 2.6\]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ita Crotone excessum est deductique Crotoniatae ad mare naues conscendunt; Locros omnis **multitudo** **abeunt** \[Livy, *Ab urbe condita* 24.3.15\]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; simul ex minoribus navibus magna **vis** eminus missa telorum multa nostris de improviso imprudentibus atque inpeditis vulnera **inferebant** \[Caesar, *De bello civili* 2.6.3\]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A&amp;G goes on to note (Note 1) that 'the point of view may change in the course of a sentence.' The example given is Caesar BG 1.15, where *equitatus* is referred to by a singular relative pronoun in one of the sentence's relative clause but by a plural pronoun + plural verb in the other. This example is notable because it doesn't involve a 'substantive of multitude' but an 'organized body' (to use G&amp;L's terminology), and so is closest to your question about *familia*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; idem facit Caesar **equitatumque** omnem, ad numerum quattuor milium, **quem** ex omni provincia et Haeduis atque eorum sociis coactum habebat, praemittit, **qui videant** quas in partes hostes iter faciant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, A&amp;G 317, e and Note point out that singular pronouns such as *quisque*, *unus quisque*, *uterque*, and the phrases *alius...alium* and *alter...alterum*, 'very often' have a plural verb. (However, it's the opinion of the authors that these singular pronouns 'may be considered as in partitive apposition with a plural subject implied.') G&amp;L (*loc. cit.*) includes *nemo* in the list of such pronouns, but also notes that their use with a plural verb occurs 'also, but not often.' So the two books disagree about how common this is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dum mi abstineant invidere, sibi **quisque** **habeant** quod suom est \[Plautus, *Curculio* 180\]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; eodemque die **uterque** eorum ex castris stativis a flumine Apso exercitum **educunt**, Pompeius clam et noctu, Caesar palam atque interdiu \[Caesar, BC 3.30.3\]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your concrete question about *familia*, the only example I could find of *familia* with a plural verb is in Phaedrus (*Fabulae aesopiae* 3.10.24), where the reference is – as I suspected it would be (though I expected to turn up more such examples) – to the collective group of household slaves specifically, not to family members in our sense of the term:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dum **quaerunt** lumen, dum **concursant** **familia**,  &#xD;&#xA;irae furentis impetum non sustinens  &#xD;&#xA;ad lectum vadit, temptat in tenebris caput.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, if you wanted to use *familia* with a plural verb, you would have one ancient source to back up your choice, even if you're using the noun in a more limited sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Personally, I think the proper translation of 'All my family members are Finns' is something like _mea domus tota Finnica est_ or _meum genus totum Finnicum est_ or even _omnes mei Finni sunt_.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="166" RevisionGUID="03ab5a61-7617-4019-8d72-5efd3a3dd6a8" CreationDate="2017-12-26T10:05:26.447" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 156 characters in body" Text="Resources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A standard reference for Classical Latin pronunciation is W. Sidney Allen's *Vox Latina.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19087" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="166" RevisionGUID="03ab5a61-7617-4019-8d72-5efd3a3dd6a8" CreationDate="2017-12-26T10:05:26.447" Comment="Proposed by 9 approved by 79 edit id of 221" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5771" RevisionGUID="6de7d0cd-26d1-41e0-adac-a3db9af6989f" CreationDate="2017-12-26T14:13:11.127" UserId="79" Text="How about the verb [*contingere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DC%3Aentry+group%3D99%3Aentry%3Dcontingo1)?&#xD;&#xA;One of the meanings (L&amp;S: II.B.2) is &quot;to be connected with or related to, to concern&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I suggest this translation for your example (with slight changes to make cases visible):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The first thing relates to the second as the third one does to the fourth.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Res prima secundam contingit sicut tertia quartam.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say that the first thing relates to the second one in size or some other quality, you can add an *ablativus respectus* to give details: *Res prima magnitudine secundam contingit&amp;hellip;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19089" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5769" RevisionGUID="ce428ba3-5329-4fa4-9a00-7eef8816a292" CreationDate="2017-12-26T14:13:42.437" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5772" RevisionGUID="1fe7b2e1-8a6a-477b-9bcb-21fab878515f" CreationDate="2017-12-26T21:10:40.193" UserId="79" Text="Is there a Latin adjective which means &quot;vegetarian&quot; or &quot;plant-based&quot; and can be applied to food?&#xD;&#xA;In this context, I don't need to make a distinction between vegetarian and vegan, for example; I just want something to indicate that food is based on plants.&#xD;&#xA;I want to apply the adjective to a meal or a food item, not a person or a diet.&#xD;&#xA;There is a separate [question for diets](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4676/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how to derive &quot;plant-based&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;A new coinage is fine, as long as it is based on attested ideas of derivation or borrowing.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it would be easier to derive within Greek and then borrow to Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I pose no era restrictions here.&#xD;&#xA;I just want a way to say &quot;today's dinner is entirely plant-based&quot; and other similar phrases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19091" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5772" RevisionGUID="1fe7b2e1-8a6a-477b-9bcb-21fab878515f" CreationDate="2017-12-26T21:10:40.193" UserId="79" Text="What is plant-based or vegetarian food?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19092" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5772" RevisionGUID="1fe7b2e1-8a6a-477b-9bcb-21fab878515f" CreationDate="2017-12-26T21:10:40.193" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|adjective|derivation|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5768" RevisionGUID="df6318af-fba8-47cc-b952-239645eed6c2" CreationDate="2017-12-27T04:37:16.230" UserId="39" Comment="added 287 characters in body" Text="Manu Leumann (1977) devotes the whole page to this issue (loss and restoration of  *i̯* before *i* in *iacio* compounds). Below is my summary of section 138.2.b (pp. 128-129).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The metrical data (of Classical Latin) suggest *-i̯icio* in the present stem, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coni̯icit, proi̯icit, subi̯icit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;Im Praesentsstamm dieser Komposita steht, wenn man von der traditionellen Orthographie zunächst absieht, normal und erwartungsgemäß nach klassicher Metrik -*i̯icio* (wie -*ficio* neben *facio*), so als Daktylus einerseits, mit positionsbildenem Kons. i̯.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, **&quot;the manuscripts and our editions&quot;**, Leumann mentions, **use the spelling variant with one i**, cf. &quot;Die Handschriften freilich und ihnen folgend unsere Ausgaben schreiben durchweg gegen die metrisch postulierte Aussprache nur ein i.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds some more details (partly based on Leumann 1977 and also drawing on Mather 1895). He writes that in Archaic and Classical Latin &quot;the much more common scansion of the first syllable of the compounds of *iacio* with a consonant-final preverb is heavy (p. 154), whereas in Latin of the Imperial period &quot;light scansion of the initial syllable again becomes possible&quot; (p. 154, footnote 32). How does that affect the pronunciation of *subicio*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Archaic and Classical Latin:** /sub.ji.ki.o:/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Imperial Latin:** /su.bi.ki.o:/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5768" RevisionGUID="c414a008-4b5f-49ef-a4f4-30732efa05c1" CreationDate="2017-12-27T04:43:54.533" UserId="39" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="Manu Leumann (1977) devotes the whole page to this issue (loss and restoration of  *i̯* before *i* in *iacio* compounds). Below is my summary of section 138.2.b (pp. 128-129).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The metrical data (of Classical Latin) suggest *-i̯icio* in the present stem, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coni̯icit, proi̯icit, subi̯icit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;Im Praesentsstamm dieser Komposita steht, wenn man von der traditionellen Orthographie zunächst absieht, normal und erwartungsgemäß nach klassicher Metrik -*i̯icio* (wie -*ficio* neben *facio*), so als Daktylus einerseits, mit positionsbildenem Kons. i̯.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, **&quot;the manuscripts and our editions&quot;**, Leumann mentions, **use the spelling variant with one i**, cf. &quot;Die Handschriften freilich und ihnen folgend unsere Ausgaben schreiben durchweg gegen die metrisch postulierte Aussprache nur ein i.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds some more details (partly based on Leumann 1977 and also drawing on [Mather 1895][1]). He writes that in Archaic and Classical Latin &quot;the much more common scansion of the first syllable of the compounds of *iacio* with a consonant-final preverb is heavy (p. 154), whereas in Latin of the Imperial period &quot;light scansion of the initial syllable again becomes possible&quot; (p. 154, footnote 32). How does that affect the pronunciation of *subicio*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Archaic and Classical Latin:** /sub.ji.ki.o:/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Imperial Latin:** /su.bi.ki.o:/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/310357" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19095" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="5765" RevisionGUID="4288d269-9e28-4e9c-9dbc-82cecf9c3605" CreationDate="2017-12-27T06:26:08.587" UserId="9" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5765" RevisionGUID="34800b97-b274-4fef-a6b3-b8aab463e5d5" CreationDate="2017-12-27T08:11:43.473" UserId="9" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;My impression, based on experience, is that older dictionaries like L&amp;S sometimes use macrons to mark vowel letters in &quot;heavy&quot; syllables that are not followed by two consonant letters, even if the vowel doesn't actually represent a long vowel phoneme. I would guess this is based on a desire to indicate how the syllable scans in verse. But perhaps it represents an actual misimpression, or uncertainty, or desire to be noncommittal about how vowel length was realized in Latin. Whatever the reason, when you use a dictionary like this, you can't count on a vowel written with a macron actually corresponding to a long vowel in pronunciation. So if you care about pronunciation, it's good to check other dictionaries and to use your knowledge of etymology and morphology, as you did here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Misleading macrons are mentioned in the article &quot;[Vowel Quantity: Where your Dictionary is Wrong][1]&quot;, by Johan Winge:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin dictionaries, at least good ones, do their best to mark which vowels are long by means of macrons: āēīōū. However this is an area where many dictionaries (even such as L&amp;S and OLD) not seldom are misleading, if not outright wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;major&quot; is marked as &quot;[mājor][2]&quot; in L&amp;S; Allen tells us that it was likely pronounced /maj.jor/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;far&quot; is marked as &quot;[fār][3]&quot; in Lewis; [Bennett][4] says it was likely /farr/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Amazon&quot; is marked as &quot;[Ămāzon][5]&quot; in L&amp;S (actually also in [Wiktionary][6] too, currently, with the dubious phonological transcription &quot;/aˈmaː.zon/&quot;: I would guess that that is an error derived from some older dictionary source like L&amp;S). Sources like Allen tell us that intervocalic &quot;z&quot; in loanwords from Greek was likely pronounced in Latin as a geminate consonant like /z.z/, making the previous syllable heavy even if it didn't have a long vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would say it is not safe to assume that &quot;sūb-ĭcĭo&quot; in L&amp;S is meant to represent  /su:bikio:/. Rather, it seems to represents merely that the word is spelled &quot;subicio&quot; and pronounced with a heavy first syllable, and a light second syllable. The &quot;less correctly&quot; seems to mean only that the spelling &quot;subjicio&quot; is considered less correct than the spelling &quot;subicio&quot; by L&amp;S. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry seems to be consistent with a pronunciation /sub.jikio:/, which I would assume is correct for Classical Latin for the reasons you stated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The note &quot;sometimes sŭb-&quot; should I guess be read as saying &quot;sometimes pronounced with a light initial syllable&quot;. Perhaps /su.bikio:/ was used sometimes: I'm not very sure about this, but see Alex B.'s answer for an explanation of relevant sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://alatius.com/latin/quantity.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmajor&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dfar&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=N1RfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA118&amp;lpg=PA118&amp;dq=latin%20rhotacism%20farr&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zJZyIcVRGn&amp;sig=18BkOGKVlju5YnjaxJJd189tbMs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjMvMePlrrMAhWHloMKHSeQB_IQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20rhotacism%20farr&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DAmazon&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Amazon#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19097" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="5765" RevisionGUID="e85fe194-4a8d-4136-a854-efae980a7340" CreationDate="2017-12-27T08:11:53.680" UserId="9" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5765" RevisionGUID="44bf4d94-1cbe-4527-80cb-e725d0fca69b" CreationDate="2017-12-27T08:20:40.200" UserId="9" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="My impression, based on experience, is that older dictionaries like L&amp;S sometimes use macrons to mark vowel letters in &quot;heavy&quot; syllables that are not followed by two consonant letters, even if the vowel doesn't actually represent a long vowel phoneme. I would guess this is based on a desire to indicate how the syllable scans in verse. But perhaps it represents an actual misimpression, or uncertainty, or desire to be noncommittal about how vowel length was realized in this position in Latin. (Consider the old tradition of referring to a vowel in a heavy syllable as &quot;long by position&quot;; I have seen things written by people who seem to have had the impression based on this wording that Latin speakers pronounced all vowels in heavy syllables as phonetic long vowels, even though I don't know of any modern scholar who finds that plausible.) Whatever the reason, when you use a dictionary like this, you can't count on a vowel written with a macron actually corresponding to a long vowel in pronunciation. So if you care about pronunciation, it's good to check other dictionaries and to use your knowledge of etymology and morphology, as you did here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Misleading macrons are mentioned in the article &quot;[Vowel Quantity: Where your Dictionary is Wrong][1]&quot;, by Johan Winge:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin dictionaries, at least good ones, do their best to mark which vowels are long by means of macrons: āēīōū. However this is an area where many dictionaries (even such as L&amp;S and OLD) not seldom are misleading, if not outright wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;major&quot; (or &quot;maior&quot;) is marked as &quot;[mājor][2]&quot; in L&amp;S; Allen tells us that it was likely pronounced /maj.jor/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;far&quot; is marked as &quot;[fār][3]&quot; in Lewis; [Bennett][4] says it was likely /farr/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Amazon&quot; is marked as &quot;[Ămāzon][5]&quot; in L&amp;S (actually also in [Wiktionary][6] too, currently, with the dubious phonological transcription &quot;/aˈmaː.zon/&quot;: I would guess that that is an error derived from some older dictionary source like L&amp;S). Sources like Allen tell us that intervocalic &quot;z&quot; in loanwords from Greek was likely pronounced in Latin as a geminate consonant like /z.z/, making the previous syllable heavy even if it didn't have a long vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would say it is not safe to assume that &quot;sūb-ĭcĭo&quot; in L&amp;S is meant to represent  /su:bikio:/. Rather, it seems to represents merely that the word is spelled &quot;subicio&quot; and pronounced with a heavy first syllable, and a light second syllable. The &quot;less correctly&quot; seems to mean only that the spelling &quot;subjicio&quot; (or &quot;subiicio&quot;) is considered less correct than the spelling &quot;subicio&quot; by L&amp;S. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry seems to be consistent with a pronunciation /sub.jikio:/, which I would assume is correct for Classical Latin for the reasons you stated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The note &quot;sometimes sŭb-&quot; should I guess be read as saying &quot;sometimes pronounced with a light initial syllable&quot;. Perhaps /su.bikio:/ was used sometimes: I'm not very sure about this, but see Alex B.'s answer for an explanation of relevant sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://alatius.com/latin/quantity.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmajor&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dfar&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=N1RfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA118&amp;lpg=PA118&amp;dq=latin%20rhotacism%20farr&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zJZyIcVRGn&amp;sig=18BkOGKVlju5YnjaxJJd189tbMs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjMvMePlrrMAhWHloMKHSeQB_IQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20rhotacism%20farr&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DAmazon&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Amazon#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5774" RevisionGUID="5f2a0595-8288-40a8-a3a7-4b099d23a3db" CreationDate="2017-12-27T22:54:51.917" UserId="2286" Text="herbidous, a, um, adj. = grassy;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;herbifer, era, erum, adj. = full of herbs &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5766" RevisionGUID="f03bc00c-2e4a-4255-982e-14ed5073a8d5" CreationDate="2017-12-28T00:52:02.523" UserId="867" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Does Latin have words for the various types of diets, e.g., &quot;vegetarian,&quot; &quot;vegan,&quot; etc.?&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not really.  There is certainly plenty of discussion of diets in Latin literature, whether for health or religious purposes, or just for anthropological interest.  But there was no single name for any particular type of diet.  A good example of this is vegetarianism.  Vegetarianism was known and even practised.  Yet, in discussions of it, it is always described rather than labelled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca, following Pythagoras' example, was a vegetarian and discusses not only the health benefits of such a diet but also the philosophical reasons behind it.  Below are two typical references to vegetarianism:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sotion dicebat, quare ille **animalibus abstinuisset** …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sotion used to say why Pythagoras **abstained from animals (or living&#xD;&#xA;&gt; things)** …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca the Younger, *Epistles*, 108.17&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Alienigena tum sacra movebantur, sed inter argumenta superstitionis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ponebatur quorundam **animalium abstinentia** …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some foreign rites were at that time being inaugurated, and among the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; proofs of sanctity, the **abstinence from certain kinds of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; animals/living things** was ordained …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca, *Epistles*, 108.22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His vegetarianism is described in terms of what he doesn't eat (which I've translated as *living things* since Seneca and Pythagoras' concerns about meat are that they may be consuming others' souls residing in animals).  Nowhere in this discussion, however, does a noun for 'vegetarian' or 'vegetarianism' occur. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Here, Tacitus speaks of Seneca, but in terms of what he does eat, using *[victus][1]*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Seneca … dum persimplici **victu et agrestibus pomis** … vitam tolerat*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Seneca … who sustained life on an extremely simple **diet of fruits from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the fields**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, *Annals*, 15.45&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This use of *victus* to describe a particular diet is common.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Fennis mira feritas, foeda paupertas: non arma, non equi, non penates;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **victui herba**, vestitui pelles, cubile humus*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Fenni live in astonishing barbarism and disgusting misery: no&#xD;&#xA;&gt; arms, no horses, no household; **wild plants for their food**, skins for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their clothing, the ground for their beds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, *Germania*, 46&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Agriculturae non student, maiorque pars eorum **victus in lacte, caseo,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; carne consistit***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For agriculture they [the Germans] have no zeal, and the greater part&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of **their diet consists of milk, cheese, and meat**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caesar, *The Gallic War*, 6.22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much later, and using 'vegetable' (*[h]olus*) specifically, Jerome wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nihilque ita scias conducere Christianis adulescentibus ut **esum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; holerum***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You should know that nothing is so good for young Christians as **a diet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of vegetables**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jerome, *Letters*, 54.10&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the authors are describing vegetarianism (and other types of diet) but clearly they don’t have a convenient one-word label to apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest I could find to such a label is in Pliny.  However, these words don’t seem to occur elsewhere, and they are describing far-flung (sometimes mythical) people.  To that end, I wonder if their Greek etymology was specifically chosen to sound different, exotic, fantastical or perhaps to give a scientific gloss to them, like he’s reporting from field notes.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Ichthyophagos** omnes Alexander vetuit piscibus vivere*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Alexander made an order forbidding a fish diet to all the **Fish-eaters**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny the Elder, *Natural History*, 6.95&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Agriophagi** pantherarum leonumque maxime carnibus viventes, **Pamphagi**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; omnia mandentes, **Anthropophagi** humana carne vescentes*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the **Wild-beast-eaters**, who live chiefly on the flesh of panthers and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lions; the **Everything-eaters**, who devour everything; the **Man-eaters**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whose diet is human flesh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny, *Natural History*, 6.195&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=victus&amp;la=la&amp;can=victus0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5774" RevisionGUID="1c6c4397-2d68-4f06-ba5a-418104c97fbf" CreationDate="2017-12-28T01:49:36.003" UserId="2286" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="herbidous, a, um, adj. = grassy;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;herbifer, era, erum, adj. = full of herbs&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;'hodie cena nostra est herbifera'= today our dinner is herbaceous. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5775" RevisionGUID="990dd1b3-6479-4808-90fa-0e9d6f7362bf" CreationDate="2017-12-28T01:56:42.657" UserId="2287" Text="Both of these terms seem to have the definition of soul, but it is mentioned on numerous sites that they are different from one another. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19106" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5775" RevisionGUID="990dd1b3-6479-4808-90fa-0e9d6f7362bf" CreationDate="2017-12-28T01:56:42.657" UserId="2287" Text="What is the difference between Spiritus and Anima?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19107" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5775" RevisionGUID="990dd1b3-6479-4808-90fa-0e9d6f7362bf" CreationDate="2017-12-28T01:56:42.657" UserId="2287" Text="|classical-latin|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="b7c76c06-2b1d-4219-8110-48473d11ee46" CreationDate="2017-12-28T07:28:24.053" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="I don't understand the Romans' linking of humor, season, and characteristics for Humours 1-3. E.g. for 1: 1.1. Why'd black bile predominate in autumn (which I agree, is cold and dry)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.2. Why'd coldness + dryness, be linked to despondency, thoughfulness? The Romans wouldn't have needed modern science to feel that coldness + dryness hinder human metabolism? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.1. Same two questions each for Humours #2-3. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4 is the only humour with which I can empathize, as [modern science substantiates heat to cause anger](https://www.google.om/search?q=hotter+temperature+anger&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;client=firefox-b&amp;gfe_rd=cr&amp;dcr=0&amp;ei=yZlEWqiNH9LTgQT5rozYAQ). &#xD;&#xA;Picture on [the left](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.slidesharecdn.com%2Ffourhumors-140220092235-phpapp02%2F95%2Ffour-humors-7-638.jpg%3Fcb%3D1392888180&amp;imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.slideshare.net%2Fstewby_123%2Ffour-humors&amp;docid=tXbZ4KAS3FUR0M&amp;tbnid=ignlIVsHcBhFNM%3A&amp;vet=10ahUKEwi6sJrKkKzYAhXKRCYKHZWaA-4QMwhoKAwwDA..i&amp;w=638&amp;h=479&amp;client=firefox-b&amp;bih=620&amp;biw=1280&amp;q=four%20humors&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi6sJrKkKzYAhXKRCYKHZWaA-4QMwhoKAwwDA&amp;iact=mrc&amp;uact=8), [the right](http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/522648-the-four-humors):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ILQSo.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19109" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="b7c76c06-2b1d-4219-8110-48473d11ee46" CreationDate="2017-12-28T07:28:24.053" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Why did the Romans link Autumn with earth and melancholy, Spring with air and sanguine, and Winter with water and phelgm?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19110" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="b7c76c06-2b1d-4219-8110-48473d11ee46" CreationDate="2017-12-28T07:28:24.053" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|humor|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5775" RevisionGUID="de4fe1bb-000a-4134-9280-7233bef47256" CreationDate="2017-12-28T13:57:40.933" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged. Edited the question body for clarity. Feel free to re-edit." Text="Both *spiritus* and *anima* seem to have the definition of soul, but it is mentioned on numerous sites that they are different from one another. What is the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19112" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5775" RevisionGUID="de4fe1bb-000a-4134-9280-7233bef47256" CreationDate="2017-12-28T13:57:40.933" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged. Edited the question body for clarity. Feel free to re-edit." Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5777" RevisionGUID="e895a761-5cee-44c7-b87e-921b8351a3fa" CreationDate="2017-12-28T15:59:37.430" UserId="39" Text="The best reference for such questions is Brills’s New Pauly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eckart Olshausen, the author of the book *Einführung in die Historische Geographie der Alten Welt* (1991) writes that  “[a]s a term of Roman imperialism Mare Nostrum first occurs in Caes. B Gall. 5,1,2, whereas mare mediterraneum is a medieval word formation (cf. Isid. Orig. 13,6,1)” ([Olshausen, 2006][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He also mentions other possible variants, mare internum and mare intestinum (Plin. HN 2,173 and Flor. 2,13,293).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/mare-nostrum-e723320" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5777" RevisionGUID="112e369a-36a0-453a-87c0-fcaf8349986d" CreationDate="2017-12-28T16:13:12.463" UserId="39" Comment="added 173 characters in body" Text="The best reference for such questions is Brills’s New Pauly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eckart Olshausen, the author of the book *Einführung in die Historische Geographie der Alten Welt* (1991) writes that  “[a]s a term of Roman imperialism Mare Nostrum first occurs in Caes. B Gall. 5,1,2, whereas mare mediterraneum is a medieval word formation (cf. Isid. Orig. 13,6,1)” ([Olshausen, 2006][1]). Mare internum seems to be the most common choice in [the Historical Atlas of the Ancient World][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He also mentions other possible variants, mare internum and mare intestinum (Plin. HN 2,173 and Flor. 2,13,293).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World similarly adopts “Internum Mare.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/mare-nostrum-e723320&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://brillonline.nl/browse/brill-s-new-pauly-supplements-i-3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5778" RevisionGUID="3871846d-1091-402a-b2c9-246c6c3dfcbe" CreationDate="2017-12-28T17:05:13.773" UserId="324" Text="The (Pseudo-)Hippocratean treatise “On the nature of man” proposes the theory of the four humous (blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and the imaginary black bile) as an explanation not only for diseases, but for a large number of natural phenomena, including the four seasons, each of which is associated with one of the humours. This association is as logical or illogical as anything else in the theory of humours. Much later Galen expanded the theory by associating the four humours with the four Empedoclean elements (fire, air, water, earth) and the Aristotelean four basic qualities (wet, dry, hot, cold), but this is not part of the original Hippocraten system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5778" RevisionGUID="237d58dd-850a-4bc3-b7b9-8762e0bff157" CreationDate="2017-12-28T17:18:19.780" UserId="324" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The (Pseudo-)Hippocratean treatise “On the nature of man” proposes the theory of the four humous (blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and the imaginary black bile) as an explanation not only for diseases, but for a large number of natural phenomena, including the four seasons, each of which is associated with one of the humours. This association is as logical or illogical as anything else in the theory of humours. Much later Galen expanded the theory by associating the four humours with the four Empedoclean elements (fire, air, water, earth) and the Aristotelean four basic qualities (wet, dry, hot, cold), but this is not part of the original Hippocratean system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5778" RevisionGUID="e39f0fcf-1ae9-428c-a3d5-822870bca0f2" CreationDate="2017-12-28T17:35:46.267" UserId="324" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The (Pseudo-)Hippocratean treatise “On the nature of man” proposes the theory of the four humours (blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and the imaginary black bile) as an explanation not only for diseases, but for a large number of natural phenomena, including the four seasons, each of which is associated with one of the humours. This association is as logical or illogical as anything else in the theory of humours. Much later Galen expanded the theory by associating the four humours with the four Empedoclean elements (fire, air, water, earth) and the Aristotelean four basic qualities (wet, dry, hot, cold), but this is not part of the original Hippocratean system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5777" RevisionGUID="e89395da-7ee7-4d72-80f9-fc511d823444" CreationDate="2017-12-28T17:56:02.397" UserId="39" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="The best reference for such questions is Brills’s New Pauly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Eckart Olshausen][1] (Universität Stuttgart), the author of the book *Einführung in die Historische Geographie der Alten Welt* (1991), writes that  “[a]s a term of Roman imperialism **Mare Nostrum** first occurs in Caes. B Gall. 5,1,2, whereas mare mediterraneum is a medieval word formation (cf. Isid. Orig. 13,6,1)” ([Olshausen, 2006][2]; emphasis mine - Alex B.). *Mare internum* seems to be the most common choice in [the Historical Atlas of the Ancient World][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Olshausen also mentions, besides the above-mentioned *mare nostrum*, some other possible variants, *mare internum* and *mare intestinum* (Plin. HN 2,173 and Flor. 2,13,293).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World* similarly adopts “Internum Mare.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/hi/emeriti/olshausen/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/mare-nostrum-e723320&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://brillonline.nl/browse/brill-s-new-pauly-supplements-i-3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5779" RevisionGUID="1a33e803-ad8c-4033-8d40-cb0389c712ff" CreationDate="2017-12-28T19:41:16.560" UserId="2289" Text="I don't think there has been any concrete time and if so, it was already around the Tridentine Council. I have been working with Cistercian Latin resources from last 200 years, and they all use the newer orthography. And I wouldn't call the Cistercians as the more progressive ones :-) (and I mean it as a compliment)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5774" RevisionGUID="518e2a26-ad91-4e1d-85d6-32e3481035cb" CreationDate="2017-12-28T19:45:17.917" UserId="2286" Comment="changed herbifa to herbosa." Text="herbidous, a, um, adj. = grassy;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;herbifer, era, erum, adj. = full of herbs&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;'hodie cena nostra est herbosa'= today our dinner is herbaceous. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5780" RevisionGUID="b26482ca-ef91-4a6b-9b1b-0019023a3b8f" CreationDate="2017-12-28T21:11:05.957" UserId="79" Text="What would be a good Latin translation for the sauce [pesto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesto)?&#xD;&#xA;I see a couple of possible routes, but it's not clear to me at all what I should call the sauce in a modern context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It seems to come from the Italian verb *pestare* which in turn comes from the Latin [*pistare*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=pisto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the analogous derivative in Latin would be *pistatum*, *pistatus* (fourth declension), or *pistatio*.&#xD;&#xA;2. One could take the word as is or with slight modifications and apply suitable endings.&#xD;&#xA;It could be an undeclinable word, it could be *pestum, -i*, or maybe *pesto, -nis*.&#xD;&#xA;3. One could find a similar sauce used by the Romans and adapt that name, possible with a clarifying adjective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19123" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5780" RevisionGUID="b26482ca-ef91-4a6b-9b1b-0019023a3b8f" CreationDate="2017-12-28T21:11:05.957" UserId="79" Text="How to translate &quot;pesto&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19124" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5780" RevisionGUID="b26482ca-ef91-4a6b-9b1b-0019023a3b8f" CreationDate="2017-12-28T21:11:05.957" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|cibus|italian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5781" RevisionGUID="26270de1-c3ee-46c2-b4c7-9ba9ce7c790a" CreationDate="2017-12-29T06:03:18.220" UserId="985" Text="I had thought that the adjective (*h*)*olitorius*, from the noun (*h*)*olus*, might work, since the meaning is 'of or concerned with vegetables.' But after looking at the attestations in the dictionaries and going through the search results on [PHI](http://latin.packhum.org/index), it doesn't appear that it was ever (at least in the extant literature, of course) used to describe food. It's mostly used as part of the name of the Forum Holitorium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My new suggestion is *hortulanus*, 'of or belonging to a garden.' This is most commonly used, in its masculine forms, as a word for 'gardener'; but it also shows up in the name of a dish in Apicius (*De re coquinaria* 8.7.14):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Porcellum hortulanum**: porcellus hortulanus exossatur per gulam in modum utris. mittitur in eo pullus isiciatus particulatim concisus, turdi, ficetulae, isicia de pulpa sua, lucanicae, dactili exossati, fabriles bulbi, cochleae exemptae, malvae, betae, porri, apium, cauliculi elixi, coriandrum, piper integrum, nuclei, ova XV superinfunduntur, liquamen piperatum [ova mittantur tria]. et consuitur et praeduratur. in furno assatur. deinde a dorso scinditur, et iure hoc perfunditur. piper teritur, ruta, liquamen, passum, mel, oleum modicum. cum bullierit, amulum mittitur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Pig à la Jardinière**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The pig is boned through the throat and filled with quenelles of chicken forcemeat, finely cut roast thrushes, fig-peckers, little sausage cakes, made of the pig's meat, Lucanian sausage, stoned dates, edible bulbs [glazed onions] snails taken out of the shell and poached mallows, leeks, beets, celery, cooked sprouts, coriander, whole pepper, nuts, 15 eggs poured over, broth, which is spiced with pepper, and diluted with 3 eggs; thereupon sew it tight, stiffen, and roast in the oven. When done, open the back of the pig and pour over the following sauce: crushed pepper, rue, broth, raisin wine, honey and a little oil, which when boiling is tied with roux.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Translation from [LacusCurtius](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Apicius/8*.html#VII))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, this dish is hardly vegetarian; however, in modern Italian cookery, dishes that are, if not totally vegetarian, at least very decidedly vegetable-based are sometimes referred to by using the descendent of this word – e.g., *penne ortolano* or *rigatoni all'ortolana*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5782" RevisionGUID="b77a2dca-8cd5-4327-887f-11276f542982" CreationDate="2017-12-29T06:24:54.503" UserId="985" Text="The word *pistatio* already exists; *OLD* defines it as 'the action of ramming down,' which sounds quite unappetizing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the entry for *pistare* that is linked to in the question, the attestation provides one possibility: *herba pistata*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, while researching a comment and an answer for another food-related question, I came across this passage from Ovid's *Fasti* (4.367 ff.):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'non pudet herbosum' dixi 'posuisse moretum  &#xD;&#xA;in dominae mensis: an sua causa subest?'  &#xD;&#xA;'lacte mero veteres usi narrantur et herbis,  &#xD;&#xA;sponte sua siquas terra ferebat' ait;  &#xD;&#xA;'**candidus elisae miscetur caseus herbae**,  &#xD;&#xA;cognoscat priscos ut dea prisca cibos.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'They think no shame,' said I, 'to set a dish of herbs on the tables of the Mistress. Is there a good reason at the bottom of it?' 'People of old,' she answered, 'are reported to have subsisted on pure milk and such herbs as the earth bore of its free will. **White cheese is mixed with pounded herbs**, that the ancient goddess may know the ancient foods.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Loeb Classical Library translation by Frazer \[revised by Goold\]; emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid describes cheese mixed with pounded herbs, whereas pesto is pounded herbs with a bit of cheese mixed in, so a little adaptation might be required – e.g., *herbae elisae caseo (et alio) mixto* or just *herbae elisae*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5732" RevisionGUID="c107dc6f-6d5b-46be-b943-65a26a81b183" CreationDate="2017-12-29T22:40:21.253" UserId="39" Comment="added 259 characters in body" Text="see [Obbink 2016][1] for further details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s Voigt 1971 conjecture:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Testimonia and critical apparatus in Voigt 1971:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789004314832_003&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/r1zJV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yrEP5.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1nq3R.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5732" RevisionGUID="b4a8061d-eef3-4913-ae6b-44713e20abf0" CreationDate="2017-12-29T22:46:55.583" UserId="39" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="see [Obbink 2016][1] for further details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s Voigt 1971 conjecture:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Testimonia and critical apparatus in Voigt 1971:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant pages from P.Oxy. XXI:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789004314832_003&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/r1zJV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yrEP5.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1nq3R.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5732" RevisionGUID="605ba21c-ee46-4d61-b1d2-a92944462901" CreationDate="2017-12-29T23:01:50.637" UserId="39" Comment="added 615 characters in body" Text="see [Obbink 2016][1] for further details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s Voigt 1971 conjecture:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Testimonia and critical apparatus in Voigt 1971:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant pages from P.Oxy. XXI:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][9]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][10]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][11]][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789004314832_003&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/r1zJV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yrEP5.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1nq3R.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VIeix.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/q7GEA.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/weHRC.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tZzYi.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XEMIB.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jVK0J.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rXYj0.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="27548425-3833-4037-9cbc-75f99d659a79" CreationDate="2017-12-29T23:22:40.233" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged. Corrected a typo." Text="I don't understand the Romans' linking of humor, season, and characteristics for Humours 1-3. E.g. for 1: 1.1. Why'd black bile predominate in autumn (which I agree, is cold and dry)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.2. Why'd coldness + dryness, be linked to despondency, thoughtfulness? The Romans wouldn't have needed modern science to feel that coldness + dryness hinder human metabolism? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.1. Same two questions each for Humours #2-3. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4 is the only humour with which I can empathize, as [modern science substantiates heat to cause anger](https://www.google.om/search?q=hotter+temperature+anger&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;client=firefox-b&amp;gfe_rd=cr&amp;dcr=0&amp;ei=yZlEWqiNH9LTgQT5rozYAQ). &#xD;&#xA;Picture on [the left](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.slidesharecdn.com%2Ffourhumors-140220092235-phpapp02%2F95%2Ffour-humors-7-638.jpg%3Fcb%3D1392888180&amp;imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.slideshare.net%2Fstewby_123%2Ffour-humors&amp;docid=tXbZ4KAS3FUR0M&amp;tbnid=ignlIVsHcBhFNM%3A&amp;vet=10ahUKEwi6sJrKkKzYAhXKRCYKHZWaA-4QMwhoKAwwDA..i&amp;w=638&amp;h=479&amp;client=firefox-b&amp;bih=620&amp;biw=1280&amp;q=four%20humors&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi6sJrKkKzYAhXKRCYKHZWaA-4QMwhoKAwwDA&amp;iact=mrc&amp;uact=8), [the right](http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/522648-the-four-humors):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![An illustration of the four humors][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ILQSo.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19131" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="27548425-3833-4037-9cbc-75f99d659a79" CreationDate="2017-12-29T23:22:40.233" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged. Corrected a typo." Text="|philosophy-terms|terminology|philosophy|medicine|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5774" RevisionGUID="b2a750d2-2e02-4e50-8d85-e4558be10f42" CreationDate="2017-12-30T01:56:59.797" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="herbidus, a, um, adj. = grassy;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;herbifer, era, erum, adj. = full of herbs&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;'hodie cena nostra est herbosa'= today our dinner is herbaceous. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5783" RevisionGUID="c4994947-f8b7-4fc6-9882-b50d3c9e1661" CreationDate="2017-12-30T15:51:48.183" UserId="645" Text="The Roman religious principle was, peculiarly, not of worship but of consultation through proper ritual, of an unemotional compact with the gods, bringing to the Romans those senses of duty and security which, together with a fixity of purpose, became their distinguishing characteristics through the republican times and beyond. Words such as *spiritus* and *anima* are parts of a whole set of words from early Roman religious belief, which was basically ‘animist’, in that it recognised a spirit, *anima*, in every natural phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The spirit of a stream, a tree and so on was *anima*. *Anima* did not refer to human life and was not what we might recognize as ‘soul’  (the latter is *animus* and was the essential principle of human life). Every tree and stream had its peculiar spirit, and unseen powers guided or helped the Roman and his family through life’s critical moments. Certain of these ‘spirits’ (as we might now confusingly call them) had their peculiar titles and duties — each household looked to its own Lares and Penates, who respectively watched over the dwelling and the grain-store, while Vesta was the goddess of fire and Mars (in the earliest times) the god who brought crops to life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Spiritus* was more tangible, the very ‘breath of life’, the actual ‘life force’, or ‘life principle’. It became symbolic of the spirit by which men might feel themselves driven, and thus the ‘mental spirit’ related to ardour and courage. It was later used for ‘spirit’, ‘soul’ or ‘mind’, and was close in meaning to *mens*, the active faculty of recollection, intellect and understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words have similar uses, so that *manes, phantasma, umbra, lemures*, and *larva* (the latter two being malevolent) can all be distinguished in technical terms from *spiritus* and *anima*, according to context : apparitions or the shades of the dead, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5784" RevisionGUID="b1bc8f52-e916-44b4-9f01-f75f3c201c16" CreationDate="2017-12-30T20:10:53.147" UserId="30" Text="Lewis and Short have this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *căper, pri,* m. [cf. κάπρος, wild boar], a he-goat, a goat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How come the Greek word means boar, while the Latin means goat? I presume the words are related; how could people confuse two animals so very different? What's the story behind this? My question is a little vague, but I hope someone will understand and be able to clear my confusion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19135" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5784" RevisionGUID="b1bc8f52-e916-44b4-9f01-f75f3c201c16" CreationDate="2017-12-30T20:10:53.147" UserId="30" Text="Is a 'caper' just a goat, or also a boar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19136" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5784" RevisionGUID="b1bc8f52-e916-44b4-9f01-f75f3c201c16" CreationDate="2017-12-30T20:10:53.147" UserId="30" Text="|etymology|greek|meaning|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5785" RevisionGUID="e92c39b5-02b5-4b80-854b-da4365179694" CreationDate="2017-12-30T20:42:51.490" UserId="112" Text="**It's normal, it happens but even there's an anomaly, it's in Greek, not Latin.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The story behind this is that actually quite often cognates (word of common origin) designates related but different concepts in related languages, zoology terminology is no exception. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin word is [reconstructed from from Proto-Indo-European][1], here's an excerpt from the article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From Proto-Indo-European *kápros (“buck, he-goat”); see also Old Norse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hafr (“he-goat”), Old English hæfr, Welsh gafr, Old Irish gabor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is actually not precise. What is more correct to say that we can assume with high probability, we can claim that most likely [this word][2] originally was stood for goats. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most likely (the ancestry we have in Indo-European languages) it indeed meant a goat of something closed to goat. But first, there's still a probability it's not the case. Second, even if it is a case, that proofs nothing. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;What's common between a boar and a goat? Those are big hoofed animals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say, in German we have [Tier][3], an animal, which is cognate to English deer. One can ask why on Earth this happened, but the answer is pretty obvious - it's just that languages evolved in different directions, so that the set of possible meanings for specific root X in language A and set of possible meanings for the same root in language B do not intersect anymore. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/caper#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/k%C3%A1pros&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Tier" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5785" RevisionGUID="1e748611-88fa-46c3-aa70-4d5db037228f" CreationDate="2017-12-30T20:54:14.660" UserId="112" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="**It's normal, it happens but even if there's an anomaly, it's in Greek, not in Latin.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The story behind this is that actually quite often cognates (word of common origin) designates related but different concepts in related languages, zoology terminology is no exception. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin word is [reconstructed from from Proto-Indo-European][1], here's an excerpt from the article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From Proto-Indo-European *kápros (“buck, he-goat”); see also Old Norse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hafr (“he-goat”), Old English hæfr, Welsh gafr, Old Irish gabor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is actually not precise. What is more correct to say that we can assume with high probability, we can claim that most likely [this word][2] originally was stood for goats. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most likely (the ancestry we have in Indo-European languages) it indeed meant a goat of something closed to goat. But first, there's still a probability it's not the case. Second, even if it is a case, that proofs nothing. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;What's common between a boar and a goat? Those are big hoofed animals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say, in German we have [Tier][3], an animal, which is cognate to English deer. One can ask why on Earth this happened, but the answer is pretty obvious - it's just that languages evolved in different directions, so that the set of possible meanings for specific root X in language A and set of possible meanings for the same root in language B do not intersect anymore. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a sidenote, Latin word for boar was [aper][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/caper#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/k%C3%A1pros&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Tier&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aper#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5785" RevisionGUID="536faec2-9b6c-41c2-9b4e-3ce1b2da14f4" CreationDate="2017-12-31T01:12:01.140" UserId="112" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="**It's normal, it happens but even if there's an anomaly, it's in Greek, not in Latin.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The story behind this is that actually quite often cognates (word of common origin) designate related yet different concepts in related languages, and zoology terminology is no exception. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin word is [reconstructed from from Proto-Indo-European][1], here's an excerpt from the article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From Proto-Indo-European *kápros (“buck, he-goat”); see also Old Norse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hafr (“he-goat”), Old English hæfr, Welsh gafr, Old Irish gabor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is actually not precise. What is more correct to say that we can assume with high probability, we can claim that most likely [this word][2] originally was stood for goats. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most likely (the ancestry we have in Indo-European languages) it indeed meant a goat of something close to goat. But first, there's still a probability it's not the case. Second, even if it is a case, that proofs nothing. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;What's common between a boar and a goat? Those are big hoofed animals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say, in German we have [Tier][3], an animal, which is cognate to English deer. One can ask why on Earth this happened, but the answer is pretty obvious - it's just that languages evolved in different directions, so that the set of possible meanings for specific root X in language A and set of possible meanings for the same root in language B do not intersect anymore. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a sidenote, Latin word for boar was [aper][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/caper#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/k%C3%A1pros&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Tier&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aper#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5786" RevisionGUID="56121118-5d63-4811-a17c-b1827ccd1e2f" CreationDate="2017-12-31T03:05:15.583" UserId="2290" Text="In Infinite Jest there is a part where a character says &quot;It strikes me that EXIT signs would look to a native speaker of latin like red-lit signs that say HE LEAVES.&quot; What does this mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19143" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5786" RevisionGUID="56121118-5d63-4811-a17c-b1827ccd1e2f" CreationDate="2017-12-31T03:05:15.583" UserId="2290" Text="Confusion Regarding Infinite Jest" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19144" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5786" RevisionGUID="56121118-5d63-4811-a17c-b1827ccd1e2f" CreationDate="2017-12-31T03:05:15.583" UserId="2290" Text="|translation|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5787" RevisionGUID="305603b5-3f82-4247-84fb-81483e21f26d" CreationDate="2017-12-31T04:47:20.040" UserId="406" Text="*Exit* is a Latin word meaning literally &quot;he/she/it leaves&quot;. It comes from *ex* &quot;out of, away from&quot; + *it* &quot;he/she/it goes&quot;, a form of *eō, īre*, &quot;to go&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5788" RevisionGUID="ac43d40c-8ccb-40da-96b2-d3652eab2cd2" CreationDate="2017-12-31T11:02:39.553" UserId="645" Text="For actual vegetarian comestibles, I'd use something like *oleredenda* (*olus, -eris* + *edo*). It contains the essential ideas of 'vegetables' and (through the gerundive form) 'fitness to be eaten', which seem to me the very essence of vegetarianism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the adjective that you are actually trying to find, surely *oloredendus* would fill the bill?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I realize that you aren't looking for a word for a person or a diet, but for completeness I suggest, if the need should arise, *oloredarius*.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5785" RevisionGUID="d27d99b3-9d23-4c69-9f4a-813c4557c77c" CreationDate="2017-12-31T11:04:02.667" UserId="112" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="**It's normal, it happens but even if there's an anomaly, it's in Greek, not in Latin.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The story behind this is that actually quite often cognates (word of common origin) designate related yet different concepts in related languages, and zoology terminology is no exception. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin word is [reconstructed from from Proto-Indo-European][1], here's an excerpt from the article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From Proto-Indo-European *kápros (“buck, he-goat”); see also Old Norse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hafr (“he-goat”), Old English hæfr, Welsh gafr, Old Irish gabor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is actually not precise. What is more correct to say that we can assume with high probability, we can claim that most likely [this word][2] originally  stood for goats. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most likely (the ancestry we have in Indo-European languages) it indeed meant a goat or something close to goat. But first, there's still a probability it's not the case. Second, even if it is a case, that proofs nothing. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;What's common between a boar and a goat? Those are big hoofed animals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say, in German we have [Tier][3], an animal, which is cognate to English deer. One can ask why on Earth this happened, but the answer is pretty obvious - it's just that languages evolved in different directions, so that the set of possible meanings for specific root X in language A and set of possible meanings for the same root in language B do not intersect anymore. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a sidenote, Latin word for boar was [aper][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/caper#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/k%C3%A1pros&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Tier&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aper#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5788" RevisionGUID="b79618eb-fba1-41d9-8183-9c1427d485b6" CreationDate="2017-12-31T18:14:42.157" UserId="645" Comment="sp." Text="For actual vegetarian comestibles, I'd use something like *oleredenda* (*olus, -eris* + *edo*). It contains the essential ideas of 'vegetables' and (through the gerundive form) 'fitness to be eaten', which seem to me the very essence of vegetarianism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the adjective that you are actually trying to find, surely *oleredendus* would fill the bill?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I realize that you aren't looking for a word for a person or a diet, but for completeness I suggest, if the need should arise, *oleredarius*.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5789" RevisionGUID="a5e18d4a-29a1-405c-8350-3a67b19829ec" CreationDate="2017-12-31T21:53:34.317" UserId="79" Text="It is New Year's Eve today, and there are other eves throughout the year.&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good Latin translation for &quot;eve&quot;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;?&#xD;&#xA;The English word appears to be etymologically related to &quot;evening&quot; and means the day before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two possibilities come to mind: *pridies* (which is not classically attested but which I defended [in relation to another question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1943/79)) and *vigilia* (suggested by Cerberus in chat).&#xD;&#xA;Yet another possibility is taking a Latin expression for Christmas Eve of New Year's Eve and extrapolate from that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My current best guess is to write *pridies sive vigilia* in order to make it clearly understandable, but I'm not entirely satisfied.&#xD;&#xA;How would you translate &quot;eve&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;New coinages are fine if there is a sound reasoning behind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Happy New Year to our site and all its users!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Or the Finnish &quot;aatto&quot;, which I believe to be equivalent with &quot;eve&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;To reiterate the key question in Finnish (as the word I really want translated is the Finnish one): Miten sanotaan &quot;aatto&quot; latinaksi?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19150" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5789" RevisionGUID="a5e18d4a-29a1-405c-8350-3a67b19829ec" CreationDate="2017-12-31T21:53:34.317" UserId="79" Text="What is an eve?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19151" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5789" RevisionGUID="a5e18d4a-29a1-405c-8350-3a67b19829ec" CreationDate="2017-12-31T21:53:34.317" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|calendarium|finnish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5790" RevisionGUID="373a944d-38de-4726-9459-1a1429d4d222" CreationDate="2017-12-31T22:45:28.537" UserId="136" Text="There are three major holidays that come to mind when considering &quot;eve&quot;: Christmas Eve, New Year's Eve, and Halloween (All Hallows' Eve). When one looks up those holidays in the [Morgan and Silva Furman University Lexicon][1], you get the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; + Christmas Eve = *pervigilium Natalis Christi*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; + New Year's Eve = *perviligium anni novi*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; + Halloween = *pervigilium Omnium Sanctorum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, the common thread is *pervigilium*. Classical attestations do not appear to exist as far as I can tell, but there is a poem called &quot;*Pervigilium Veneris*&quot; dated from between the 2nd and 5th centuries that uses the term in the way we would consider &quot;eve&quot; to be used. [Lewis and Short have a brief entry][2] on the term, and it literally means a &quot;watching through the night.&quot; This makes sense when one considers the English term, which, like you mentioned, comes from &quot;evening.&quot; Nowadays, the term &quot;eve&quot; corresponds to the entire day before a holiday, but the tie to &quot;vigil&quot; and the corresponding *vigilia* reflect the idea that this term originally meant the evening before the holiday. This phenomenon still exists in English, as demonstrated by the Easter Vigil, a celebration of Easter during the evening before Easter Day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, I suppose that *vigilia* would work, but I would go with *pervigilium*, as there is more evidence for its usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ia801000.us.archive.org/12/items/TheLexiconAnglumEtLatinumByDavidMorgan/MorganAndSilvaFurmanUniversityLexicon.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=pervigilium&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5768" RevisionGUID="1958da5a-9300-48fc-93d1-cfe135ebc784" CreationDate="2018-01-01T02:25:45.327" UserId="39" Comment="added 572 characters in body" Text="The best quick reference for such questions is Allen's *Vox Latina* (2nd ed., 1978). Here's what he says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;One further peculiarity of spelling concerns compounds of *iacio*, such as *conicio* (also *in-, ad-, ab-, sub-, ob-, dis*). With the exception of a few examples in early and late Latin, **the first syllable is always heavy, which indicates that the *i* here stands for *i*-consonant plus *i*-vowel**, i.e. *coniicio, etc., not simply *i*-vowel (p. 40; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details, we'll need to look it up in e.g. *Lateinische Grammatik*. Manu Leumann (1977) devotes the whole page to this issue (loss and restoration of  *i̯* before *i* in *iacio* compounds). Below is my summary of section 138.2.b (pp. 128-129).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The metrical data (of Classical Latin) suggest *-i̯icio* in the present stem, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coni̯icit, proi̯icit, subi̯icit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;Im Praesentsstamm dieser Komposita steht, wenn man von der traditionellen Orthographie zunächst absieht, normal und erwartungsgemäß nach klassicher Metrik -*i̯icio* (wie -*ficio* neben *facio*), so als Daktylus einerseits, mit positionsbildenem Kons. i̯.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, **&quot;the manuscripts and our editions&quot;**, Leumann mentions, **use the spelling variant with one i**, cf. &quot;Die Handschriften freilich und ihnen folgend unsere Ausgaben schreiben durchweg gegen die metrisch postulierte Aussprache nur ein i.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds some more details (I assume it is partly based on Leumann 1977 and also drawing on [Mather 1895][1]). He writes that in Archaic and Classical Latin &quot;the much more common scansion of the first syllable of the compounds of *iacio* with a consonant-final preverb is heavy (p. 154), whereas in Latin of the Imperial period &quot;light scansion of the initial syllable again becomes possible&quot; (p. 154, footnote 32). How does that affect the pronunciation of *subicio*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Archaic and Classical Latin:** /sub.ji.ki.o:/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Imperial Latin:** /su.bi.ki.o:/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/310357" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5792" RevisionGUID="820a7f21-50a3-48c0-907c-8b48b3729f84" CreationDate="2018-01-01T10:11:13.800" UserId="79" Text="I have been told by several sources that Italian nouns and adjectives that originate from Latin come from accusative forms.&#xD;&#xA;Also the final *-m* is lost and an *u* becomes *o*.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *caro &gt; carnem &gt; carne*.&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems that in many cases one would arrive at the same form by taking the Latin ablative.&#xD;&#xA;The two cases seem to lead to equally reliable rules of thumb for guessing Italian vocabulary based on Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the evidence that the origin is in the accusative case?&#xD;&#xA;Judging by Latin and Italian morphology alone, the ablative looks reasonable as well.&#xD;&#xA;Is there some other context provided by early Italian (and late Latin) attested forms or uses?&#xD;&#xA;Are there illuminating examples?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19158" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5792" RevisionGUID="820a7f21-50a3-48c0-907c-8b48b3729f84" CreationDate="2018-01-01T10:11:13.800" UserId="79" Text="How do we know that Italian words come from accusatives, not ablatives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19159" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5792" RevisionGUID="820a7f21-50a3-48c0-907c-8b48b3729f84" CreationDate="2018-01-01T10:11:13.800" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|ablative|accusative|italian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5793" RevisionGUID="6bb3584d-ca9f-4e6e-bc26-451fbea6dc95" CreationDate="2018-01-01T12:56:03.000" UserId="645" Text="Although the English word 'eve' is often used poetically for 'evening', it is in fact fairly common and far more usually means 'the [whole] day before'; I suspect that its use to mean 'vigil', or something similar, is now almost wholly archaic — or, at most, confined to religious occasions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In newspapers we might (seasonally!) read of what the Queen did on the eve of her departure for Christmas at Sandringham; of ministers arriving in Brussels on the eve of a new round of Brexit negotiations; of celebrations on the village green on May Eve (*sc*. April 30th), or preparations at Stonehenge on the eve of a Solstice; and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sense is exactly that of the Latin *pridie*, a common enough word in that it is used in dates (*prid. kal. Iun* etc) and occasions such as 'the day before battle', *pridie proelium*, and a host of others. Alternatives are also possible, e.g. by using *sub*, as in *sub diem pugnae*, examples of which should be readily found in war histories. Horace (Od. 1, 8, 14) also supports this usage when he has *sub lacrimosa Troiae funera*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5795" RevisionGUID="3f96abd9-febf-436f-8440-d238eeb84792" CreationDate="2018-01-02T04:41:47.370" UserId="39" Text="Just brief notes so far. imho phonetics doesn't help much - all those case distinctions were lost for most nouns, thus creating a new opposition, nominative-oblique.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Syntactic data suggest that the ablative uses were overtaken by the accusative, particularly after prepositions. Clackson and Horrocks (2007/2011), in Chapter VII &quot;Sub-elite Latin in the Empire,&quot; mention the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*con tirones* 'with the recruits' - ACC.PL (Claudius Terentianus) instead of the ablative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*cum discente suos* 'with his pupils' - ACC.PL (CIL IV 698) instead of the ablative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson and Horrocks also mention Banniard 1992, who came up with the following model of the loss of Latin cases in four stages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QSLyk.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="9b73e682-fe25-49db-8181-e8729a884ee9" CreationDate="2018-01-02T04:52:42.993" UserId="9" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification (the nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo*), but it does seem likely that the accusative forms usually had more of an influence than the ablative forms specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to edit this post later with more references and description of the particulars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Singular forms**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/), the second-declension singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/), and the third-declension singular for non-neuter nouns (Latin /em#/ and /e/ both go to Italian /e/ in unstressed syllables).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin word-final unstressed /uː/ (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the last paragraph below). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension neuter nouns are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above. They seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways, which probably reflect phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class shifts, and learned borrowings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Plural forms**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian, but it seems more straightforward to analyze the Italian ending of these words as coming from the Latin nominative plural suffix *-i.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][1]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;, but I doubt that the ablative had an influence in this area, based on what we see with the other types of plural nouns.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular is apparently thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the Old Latin nominative plural ending *-ās* . [Old French][2], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is *-ivo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter plural ending. Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][3]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5795" RevisionGUID="dbd76cd1-6225-4531-8f9b-5773eb6d14e6" CreationDate="2018-01-02T04:58:48.297" UserId="39" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="Just brief notes so far. imho phonetics doesn't help much - all those case distinctions were lost for most nouns, thus creating a new opposition, nominative-oblique - cf. some cases where the final m is preserved in one-syllable words, e.g. Spanish *quien* (Latin *quem*) or French *rien* (Latin *rem*) (Weiss, p. 519).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Syntactic data suggest that the ablative uses were overtaken by the accusative, particularly after prepositions. Clackson and Horrocks (2007/2011), in Chapter VII &quot;Sub-elite Latin in the Empire,&quot; mention the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*con tirones* 'with the recruits' - ACC.PL (Claudius Terentianus) instead of the ablative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*cum discente suos* 'with his pupils' - ACC.PL (CIL IV 698) instead of the ablative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson and Horrocks also mention Banniard 1992, who came up with the following model of the loss of Latin cases in four stages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QSLyk.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="ee15462a-fd6b-4ebc-b39d-9e0bc74ac7c6" CreationDate="2018-01-02T04:59:05.407" UserId="9" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification (the nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo*), but it does seem likely that the accusative forms usually had more of an influence than the ablative forms specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to edit this post later with more references and description of the particulars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Singular forms**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/), the second-declension singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/), and the third-declension singular for non-neuter nouns (Latin /em#/ and /e/ both go to Italian /e/ in unstressed syllables).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin /uː/ in word-final unstressed syllables (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the last paragraph below). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension neuter nouns are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above. They seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways, which probably reflect phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class shifts, and learned borrowings (e.g. *fiume, fiumi* from Latin *flumen*; *corpo, corpi* from Latin *corpus*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Plural forms**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian, but it seems more straightforward to analyze the Italian ending of these words as coming from the Latin nominative plural suffix *-i.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][1]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;, but I doubt that the ablative had an influence in this area, based on what we see with the other types of plural nouns.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular is apparently thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the archaic first-declension nominative plural ending *-ās*. [Old French][2], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is *-ivo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter plural ending. Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][3]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5795" RevisionGUID="2f295f23-151f-4323-a3f1-b1742f4a9cfa" CreationDate="2018-01-02T05:08:05.263" UserId="39" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="**Just brief notes so far.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;imho phonetics doesn't help much - all those case distinctions were lost for most nouns, thus creating a new opposition, nominative-oblique - cf. some cases where the final m is preserved in one-syllable words, e.g. Spanish *quien* (Latin *quem*) or French *rien* (Latin *rem*) (Weiss, p. 519).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Syntactic data suggest that the ablative uses were overtaken by the accusative, particularly after prepositions. Clackson and Horrocks (2007/2011), in Chapter VII &quot;Sub-elite Latin in the Empire,&quot; mention the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*con tirones* 'with the recruits' - ACC.PL instead of the ablative (Claudius Terentianus, first quarter of the second century; see the full text in Adams 2016, *An anthology of informal Latin texts 200 BC - AD 900*, Text 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*cum discente suos* 'with his pupils' - ACC.PL (CIL IV 698) instead of the ablative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson and Horrocks also mention Banniard 1992, who came up with the following model of the loss of Latin cases in four stages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QSLyk.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5797" RevisionGUID="8102acad-b858-44b0-b392-6a73c298a120" CreationDate="2018-01-02T05:36:05.117" UserId="867" Text="For what it's worth, I think both answers above (those of Sam K and Tom Cotton respectively) are correct *depending on what kind of &quot;night before&quot; you mean*.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the Oxford English Dictionary, ***eve*** is indeed a derivation of *evening*.  However, as Tom Cotton notes, *eve* is typically used to mean &quot;the day before&quot;.  This use is apparent quite early, circa 1290.  Later (1780), *eve* was also used to mean &quot;the time immediately before an event&quot;.  Note that *evening* nevertheless remained in use to mean that period between dusk and nightfall which is an indication of how *eve* and *evening* diverged in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not surprising then that the OED uses *eve* in exactly this way to define ***vigil***: &quot;the eve of (i.e. preceding) a festival or holy day, as an occasion of devotional watching or religious observance&quot; (OED).  This is what is meant by Easter Vigil (as in Sam K's answer), when you stay awake in prayerful contemplation of Christ's resurrection the following day.  To that end, Christmas Eve could also be thought of as a sort of vigil, awaiting the birth of Christ.  Indeed, attending Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve is surely a vigil in this sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I have spent time unpacking the English is that I think *eve* is a bit of a quirk of English in that it can mean &quot;the time preceding an event&quot; *tout court* and yet is also applied to events of significance (temporal or religious).  But whereas the English can straddle these two uses, my feeling is that Latin differentiates between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To this end, I think *pridie* does mean &quot;eve&quot; in the practical sense of &quot;the time before&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, *pervigilium* seems more suitable for things like Christmas Eve and even New Year's Eve in that these are a &quot;time of devotional watching&quot; before a festival or holy day.  Further, on reflection, I think that *pervigilium* is preferable to *vigilia* because Lewis &amp; Short specifically note that *[pervigilium][1]* is &quot;a devotional watching&quot;, whereas *vigilia* is more &quot;a keeping awake for the security of a place&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This difference is apparent in Livy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *... castra Campana ut in **pervigilio** neglecta simul omnibus portis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invadit*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... the Campanian camp being unattended because of the vigil he&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invaded via all the gates at once&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*History of Rome*, 23.35&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gracchus is able to invade the Campanian's camp at midnight because they were keeping a vigil (*pervigilium*) before a sacred festival.  The terrible irony is that if they had been keeping vigil (*vigilia*), they would not have been caught unawares!   &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pervigilium%20&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5795" RevisionGUID="0a93cf33-1aeb-41ab-8953-073e23e7b8b1" CreationDate="2018-01-02T05:41:06.770" UserId="39" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="**Just brief notes so far.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Not* ready to comment on phonetics yet - all those Latin case distinctions were lost for most nouns, thus creating a new opposition, nominative-oblique - cf. some cases where the final m is preserved in one-syllable words, e.g. Spanish *quien* (Latin *quem*) or French *rien* (Latin *rem*) (Weiss, p. 519).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Syntactic data suggest that the ablative uses were overtaken by the accusative, particularly after prepositions. Clackson and Horrocks (2007/2011), in Chapter VII &quot;Sub-elite Latin in the Empire,&quot; mention the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*con tirones* 'with the recruits' - ACC.PL instead of the ablative (Claudius Terentianus, first quarter of the second century; see the full text in Adams 2016, *An anthology of informal Latin texts 200 BC - AD 900*, Text 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*cum discente suos* 'with his pupils' - ACC.PL (CIL IV 698) instead of the ablative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson and Horrocks also mention Banniard 1992, who came up with the following model of the loss of Latin cases in four stages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QSLyk.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="b098f22c-773f-4b2c-9692-7ea00cc5076f" CreationDate="2018-01-02T06:45:30.503" UserId="9" Comment="added 1688 characters in body" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification (the nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo*), but it does seem likely that the accusative forms usually had more of an influence than the ablative forms specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to edit this post later with more references and description of the particulars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Singular forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/), the second-declension singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/), and the third-declension singular (non i-stems) for non-neuter nouns (Latin /em#/ and /e/ both go to Italian /e/ in unstressed syllables).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin /uː/ in word-final unstressed syllables (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the last paragraph below). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension neuter nouns are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above. They seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways, which probably reflect phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class shifts, and learned borrowings (e.g. *fiume, fiumi* from Latin *flumen*; *corpo, corpi* from Latin *corpus*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian, but it seems more straightforward to analyze the Italian ending of these words as coming from the Latin nominative plural suffix *-i.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][1]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;, but I doubt that the ablative had an influence in this area, based on what we see with the other types of plural nouns.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular is apparently tricky to explain. But the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, what Wikipedia says is that it is generally thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the archaic first-declension nominative plural ending *-ās*. [Old French][2], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[The Italian Plural Formative *-e*][3]&quot; (Helmut Lüdtke, in *Italic and Romance: Linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo, 1980), the Italian feminine plural article *le* has been proposed to come from either Latin ILLAE, ILLAS or ILLAEC (which he says was proposed by Merlo as a formation on the analogy of HAEC) (p. 122).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lüdtke argues that the  *as &gt; *ai̯ &gt; e explanation cannot account for the existence of syntactic doubling in some Italian dialects after this article, something that usually occurs as the reflex of a former consonant cluster. Because of this, he assumes that the vowel in the suffix changed before the loss of the final consonant; he assumes this vowel change was analogical, but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for some sound change like *as &gt; *ai̯s to occur. In any case, Lüdtke does think that the ultimate source of Italian *-e* is Latin accusative *-as* (p. 123). Interestingly, he also mentions the existence of two &quot;marginal zones ... the northwestern corner of Tuscany ... and the Bregaglia Valley ... where we find the plural type *la porta*&quot; which he says is from ILLAS PORTAS with loss of the final /s/ without a change of the vowel in the final syllable (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No plural *\*-ivo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is *\*-ivo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-a*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter plural ending. Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-o*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][4]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hV5AAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PKzB-2byuE&amp;sig=z3uhJpQbwIYG1hzBGKJcqs_ha44&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiotLaQvLjYAhVDRyYKHa81AHcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="e4b2bf27-e114-4ff6-a9b7-eb6c15d54db0" CreationDate="2018-01-02T06:52:03.320" UserId="9" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification. The nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo.* But it does seem likely that the accusative forms usually had more of an influence than the ablative forms specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to edit this post later with more references and description of the particulars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area mentioned below where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Singular forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/), the second-declension singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/), and the third-declension singular (non i-stems) for non-neuter nouns (Latin /em#/ and /e/ both go to Italian /e/ in unstressed syllables).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin /uː/ in word-final unstressed syllables (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the last paragraph below). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension neuter nouns are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above. They seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways, which probably reflect phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class shifts, and learned borrowings (e.g. *fiume, fiumi* from Latin *flumen*; *corpo, corpi* from Latin *corpus*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Classical Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian, but it seems more straightforward to analyze the Italian ending of these words as coming from the Latin nominative plural suffix *-i.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][1]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;, but I doubt that the ablative had an influence in this area, based on what we see with the other types of plural nouns.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular is apparently tricky to explain. But the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, what Wikipedia says is that it is generally thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the archaic first-declension nominative plural ending *-ās*. [Old French][2], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[The Italian Plural Formative *-e*][3]&quot; (Helmut Lüdtke, in *Italic and Romance: Linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo, 1980), the Italian feminine plural article *le* has been proposed to come from either Latin ILLAE, ILLAS or ILLAEC (which he says was proposed by Merlo as a formation on the analogy of HAEC) (p. 122).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lüdtke argues that the  *as &gt; *ai̯ &gt; e explanation cannot account for the existence of syntactic doubling in some Italian dialects after this article, something that usually occurs as the reflex of a former consonant cluster. Because of this, he assumes that the vowel in the suffix changed before the loss of the final consonant; he assumes this vowel change was analogical, but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for some sound change like *as &gt; *ai̯s to occur. In any case, Lüdtke does think that the ultimate source of Italian *-e* is Latin accusative *-as* (p. 123). Interestingly, he also mentions the existence of two &quot;marginal zones ... the northwestern corner of Tuscany ... and the Bregaglia Valley ... where we find the plural type *la porta*&quot; which he says is from ILLAS PORTAS with loss of the final /s/ without a change of the vowel in the final syllable (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No plural *\*-ivo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is *\*-ivo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-a*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter nominative/singular plural ending. Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-o*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][4]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Classical Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hV5AAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PKzB-2byuE&amp;sig=z3uhJpQbwIYG1hzBGKJcqs_ha44&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiotLaQvLjYAhVDRyYKHa81AHcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="1c100c02-9d98-4376-97f5-6c2d37a70676" CreationDate="2018-01-02T07:01:40.087" UserId="9" Comment="added 202 characters in body" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification. The nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo.* But it does seem likely that the accusative forms usually had more of an influence than the ablative forms specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to edit this post later with more references and description of the particulars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area mentioned below where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Singular forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/), the second-declension singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/), and the third-declension singular (non i-stems) for non-neuter nouns (Latin /em#/ and /e/ both go to Italian /e/ in unstressed syllables, although in some words, like *città,* this was later lost).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin /uː/ in word-final unstressed syllables (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the last paragraph below). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension neuter nouns are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above. They seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways, which probably reflect phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class shifts, and learned borrowings. Misc. examples: *fiume, fiumi* from Latin *flumen*; *corpo, corpi* from Latin *corpus.* The Italian words *femore, -i; crimine, -i; inguine, -i;* and *onere, -i* obviously cannot be from the Classical Latin nominative or accusative singular forms of *femur, crimen, inguen, onus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Classical Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian, but it seems more straightforward to analyze the Italian ending of these words as coming from the Latin nominative plural suffix *-i.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][1]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;, but I doubt that the ablative had an influence in this area, based on what we see with the other types of plural nouns.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular is apparently tricky to explain. But the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, what Wikipedia says is that it is generally thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the archaic first-declension nominative plural ending *-ās*. [Old French][2], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[The Italian Plural Formative *-e*][3]&quot; (Helmut Lüdtke, in *Italic and Romance: Linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo, 1980), the Italian feminine plural article *le* has been proposed to come from either Latin ILLAE, ILLAS or ILLAEC (which he says was proposed by Merlo as a formation on the analogy of HAEC) (p. 122).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lüdtke argues that the  *as &gt; *ai̯ &gt; e explanation cannot account for the existence of syntactic doubling in some Italian dialects after this article, something that usually occurs as the reflex of a former consonant cluster. Because of this, he assumes that the vowel in the suffix changed before the loss of the final consonant; he assumes this vowel change was analogical, but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for some sound change like *as &gt; *ai̯s to occur. In any case, Lüdtke does think that the ultimate source of Italian *-e* is Latin accusative *-as* (p. 123). Interestingly, he also mentions the existence of two &quot;marginal zones ... the northwestern corner of Tuscany ... and the Bregaglia Valley ... where we find the plural type *la porta*&quot; which he says is from ILLAS PORTAS with loss of the final /s/ without a change of the vowel in the final syllable (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No plural *\*-ivo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is *\*-ivo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-a*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter nominative/singular plural ending. Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-o*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][4]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Classical Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hV5AAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PKzB-2byuE&amp;sig=z3uhJpQbwIYG1hzBGKJcqs_ha44&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiotLaQvLjYAhVDRyYKHa81AHcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="e1ee8a0a-507e-4a51-92ae-f129ebf65304" CreationDate="2018-01-02T07:11:49.187" UserId="9" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification. The nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo.* In other cases, neither the Classical Latin nominative nor the Classical Latin accusative seems to be sufficient to explain the form of an Italian word. But it does seem likely that in general/overall, the accusative forms had more of an influence on the development of the Italian forms than the ablative forms specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to edit this post later with more references and description of the particulars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area mentioned below where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Singular forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/), the second-declension singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/), and the third-declension singular (non i-stems) for non-neuter nouns (Latin /em#/ and /e/ both go to Italian /e/ in unstressed syllables, although in some words, like *città,* this was later lost).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin /uː/ in word-final unstressed syllables (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the last paragraph below). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension neuter nouns are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above. They seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways, which probably reflect phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class shifts, and learned borrowings. Misc. examples: *fiume, fiumi* from Latin *flumen*; *corpo, corpi* from Latin *corpus.* The Italian words *femore, -i; crimine, -i; inguine, -i;* and *onere, -i* obviously cannot be from the Classical Latin nominative or accusative singular forms of *femur, crimen, inguen, onus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Classical Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian, but it seems more straightforward to analyze the Italian ending of these words as coming from the Latin nominative plural suffix *-i.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][1]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;, but I doubt that the ablative had an influence in this area, based on what we see with the other types of plural nouns.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular is apparently tricky to explain. But the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, what Wikipedia says is that it is generally thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the archaic first-declension nominative plural ending *-ās*. [Old French][2], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[The Italian Plural Formative *-e*][3]&quot; (Helmut Lüdtke, in *Italic and Romance: Linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo, 1980), the Italian feminine plural article *le* has been proposed to come from either Latin ILLAE, ILLAS or ILLAEC (which he says was proposed by Merlo as a formation on the analogy of HAEC) (p. 122).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lüdtke argues that the  *as &gt; *ai̯ &gt; e explanation cannot account for the existence of syntactic doubling in some Italian dialects after this article, something that usually occurs as the reflex of a former consonant cluster. Because of this, he assumes that the vowel in the suffix changed before the loss of the final consonant; he assumes this vowel change was analogical, but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for some sound change like *as &gt; *ai̯s to occur. In any case, Lüdtke does think that the ultimate source of Italian *-e* is Latin accusative *-as* (p. 123). Interestingly, he also mentions the existence of two &quot;marginal zones ... the northwestern corner of Tuscany ... and the Bregaglia Valley ... where we find the plural type *la porta*&quot; which he says is from ILLAS PORTAS with loss of the final /s/ without a change of the vowel in the final syllable (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No plural *\*-ivo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is *\*-ivo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-a*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter nominative/singular plural ending. Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-o*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][4]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Classical Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hV5AAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PKzB-2byuE&amp;sig=z3uhJpQbwIYG1hzBGKJcqs_ha44&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiotLaQvLjYAhVDRyYKHa81AHcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="f952ec50-0b6d-4091-b820-841ca16ec7ee" CreationDate="2018-01-02T07:18:15.453" UserId="9" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification. The nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo.* In other cases, neither the Classical Latin nominative nor the Classical Latin accusative seems to be sufficient to explain the form of an Italian word. But it does seem likely that in general/overall, the accusative forms had more of an influence on the development of the Italian forms than the ablative forms specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to edit this post later with more references and description of the particulars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area mentioned below where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Singular forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/), the second-declension singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/), and the third-declension singular (non i-stems) for non-neuter nouns (Latin /em#/ and /e/ both go to Italian /e/ in unstressed syllables, although in some words, like *città,* this was later lost).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin /uː/ in word-final unstressed syllables (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the last paragraph below). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any sign of Latin third-declension i-stem ablative singular forms in *-ī* contributing to Italian, but [the use of *-ī* vs. *-e*][1] was somewhat variable even in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension neuter nouns are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above. They seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways, which probably reflect phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class shifts, and learned borrowings. Misc. examples: *fiume, fiumi* from Latin *flumen*; *corpo, corpi* from Latin *corpus.* The Italian words *femore, -i; crimine, -i; inguine, -i;* and *onere, -i* obviously cannot be from the Classical Latin nominative or accusative singular forms of *femur, crimen, inguen, onus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Classical Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian, but it seems more straightforward to analyze the Italian ending of these words as coming from the Latin nominative plural suffix *-i.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][2]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;, but I doubt that the ablative had an influence in this area, based on what we see with the other types of plural nouns.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular is apparently tricky to explain. But the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, what Wikipedia says is that it is generally thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the archaic first-declension nominative plural ending *-ās*. [Old French][3], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[The Italian Plural Formative *-e*][4]&quot; (Helmut Lüdtke, in *Italic and Romance: Linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo, 1980), the Italian feminine plural article *le* has been proposed to come from either Latin ILLAE, ILLAS or ILLAEC (which he says was proposed by Merlo as a formation on the analogy of HAEC) (p. 122).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lüdtke argues that the  *as &gt; *ai̯ &gt; e explanation cannot account for the existence of syntactic doubling in some Italian dialects after this article, something that usually occurs as the reflex of a former consonant cluster. Because of this, he assumes that the vowel in the suffix changed before the loss of the final consonant; he assumes this vowel change was analogical, but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for some sound change like *as &gt; *ai̯s to occur. In any case, Lüdtke does think that the ultimate source of Italian *-e* is Latin accusative *-as* (p. 123). Interestingly, he also mentions the existence of two &quot;marginal zones ... the northwestern corner of Tuscany ... and the Bregaglia Valley ... where we find the plural type *la porta*&quot; which he says is from ILLAS PORTAS with loss of the final /s/ without a change of the vowel in the final syllable (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No plural *\*-ivo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is *\*-ivo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-a*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter nominative/singular plural ending. Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-o*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][5]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Classical Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/675/why-do-ablatives-of-the-3rd-declension-sometimes-end-on-e-at-other-times-on-i&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hV5AAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PKzB-2byuE&amp;sig=z3uhJpQbwIYG1hzBGKJcqs_ha44&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiotLaQvLjYAhVDRyYKHa81AHcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="e7fdfddf-1354-46fb-9b7e-5b887f7eb5fa" CreationDate="2018-01-02T07:25:01.477" UserId="9" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification. The nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo.* In other cases, neither the Classical Latin nominative nor the Classical Latin accusative seems to be sufficient to explain the form of an Italian word. But it does seem likely that in general/overall, the accusative forms had more of an influence on the development of the Italian forms than the ablative forms specifically, because as far as I know there is in the great majority of cases nothing ***particular to Latin ablative forms*** that helps explain the Italian forms. The ablative form is phonetically fairly similar to the accusative form in Latin in many situations, often differing only by the absence of final *m* and/or the length or quality of the vowel in the last syllable; in the situations where the accusative and ablative forms are most distinct (like in the third-declension plural) we don't see a reflex in Italian of the Latin ablative endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to edit this post later with more references and description of the particulars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area mentioned below where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Singular forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/), the second-declension singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/), and the third-declension singular (non i-stems) for non-neuter nouns (Latin /em#/ and /e/ both go to Italian /e/ in unstressed syllables, although in some words, like *città,* this was later lost).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin /uː/ in word-final unstressed syllables (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the last paragraph below). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any sign of Latin third-declension i-stem ablative singular forms in *-ī* contributing to Italian, but [the use of *-ī* vs. *-e*][1] was somewhat variable even in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension neuter nouns are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above. They seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways, which probably reflect phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class shifts, and learned borrowings. Misc. examples: *fiume, fiumi* from Latin *flumen*; *corpo, corpi* from Latin *corpus.* The Italian words *femore, -i; crimine, -i; inguine, -i;* and *onere, -i* obviously cannot be from the Classical Latin nominative or accusative singular forms of *femur, crimen, inguen, onus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Classical Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian, but it seems more straightforward to analyze the Italian ending of these words as coming from the Latin nominative plural suffix *-i.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][2]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;, but I doubt that the ablative had an influence in this area, based on what we see with the other types of plural nouns.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular is apparently tricky to explain. But the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, what Wikipedia says is that it is generally thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the archaic first-declension nominative plural ending *-ās*. [Old French][3], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[The Italian Plural Formative *-e*][4]&quot; (Helmut Lüdtke, in *Italic and Romance: Linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo, 1980), the Italian feminine plural article *le* has been proposed to come from either Latin ILLAE, ILLAS or ILLAEC (which he says was proposed by Merlo as a formation on the analogy of HAEC) (p. 122).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lüdtke argues that the  *as &gt; *ai̯ &gt; e explanation cannot account for the existence of syntactic doubling in some Italian dialects after this article, something that usually occurs as the reflex of a former consonant cluster. Because of this, he assumes that the vowel in the suffix changed before the loss of the final consonant; he assumes this vowel change was analogical, but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for some sound change like *as &gt; *ai̯s to occur. In any case, Lüdtke does think that the ultimate source of Italian *-e* is Latin accusative *-as* (p. 123). Interestingly, he also mentions the existence of two &quot;marginal zones ... the northwestern corner of Tuscany ... and the Bregaglia Valley ... where we find the plural type *la porta*&quot; which he says is from ILLAS PORTAS with loss of the final /s/ without a change of the vowel in the final syllable (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No plural *\*-ivo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is *\*-ivo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-a*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter nominative/singular plural ending. Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-o*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][5]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Classical Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/675/why-do-ablatives-of-the-3rd-declension-sometimes-end-on-e-at-other-times-on-i&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hV5AAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PKzB-2byuE&amp;sig=z3uhJpQbwIYG1hzBGKJcqs_ha44&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiotLaQvLjYAhVDRyYKHa81AHcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="74ee53e6-604e-4d8c-b07d-c0c4aacca000" CreationDate="2018-01-02T07:30:04.803" UserId="9" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification. The nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo.* In other cases, neither the Classical Latin nominative nor the Classical Latin accusative seems to be sufficient to explain the form of an Italian word. But it does seem likely that in general/overall, the accusative forms had more of an influence on the development of the Italian forms than the ablative forms specifically, because as far as I know there is in the great majority of cases nothing ***particular to Latin ablative forms*** that helps explain the Italian forms. Phonetically, the ablative form is fairly similar to the accusative form in Latin in many situations, often differing only by the absence of final *m* and/or the length or quality of the vowel in the last syllable; in the situations where the accusative and ablative forms are most distinct (like in the third-declension plural) we don't see a reflex in Italian of the Latin ablative endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to edit this post later with more references and description of the particulars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area mentioned below where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Singular forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/), the second-declension singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/), and the third-declension singular (non i-stems) for non-neuter nouns (Latin /em#/ and /e/ both go to Italian /e/ in unstressed syllables, although in some words, like *città,* this was later lost).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin /uː/ in word-final unstressed syllables (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the last paragraph below). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any sign of Latin third-declension i-stem ablative singular forms in *-ī* contributing to Italian, but [the use of *-ī* vs. *-e*][1] was somewhat variable even in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension neuter nouns are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above. They seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways, which probably reflect phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class shifts, and learned borrowings. Misc. examples: *fiume, fiumi* from Latin *flumen*; *corpo, corpi* from Latin *corpus.* The Italian words *femore, -i; crimine, -i; inguine, -i;* and *onere, -i* obviously cannot be from the Classical Latin nominative or accusative singular forms of *femur, crimen, inguen, onus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So overall, Italian singular forms seem to give no strong indications of whether they are from the Latin accusative vs. the Latin ablative form; but sound changes explain this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Classical Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian, but it seems more straightforward to analyze the Italian ending of these words as coming from the Latin nominative plural suffix *-i.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][2]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;, but I doubt that the ablative had an influence in this area, based on what we see with the other types of plural nouns.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular is apparently tricky to explain. But the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, what Wikipedia says is that it is generally thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the archaic first-declension nominative plural ending *-ās*. [Old French][3], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[The Italian Plural Formative *-e*][4]&quot; (Helmut Lüdtke, in *Italic and Romance: Linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo, 1980), the Italian feminine plural article *le* has been proposed to come from either Latin ILLAE, ILLAS or ILLAEC (which he says was proposed by Merlo as a formation on the analogy of HAEC) (p. 122).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lüdtke argues that the  *as &gt; *ai̯ &gt; e explanation cannot account for the existence of syntactic doubling in some Italian dialects after this article, something that usually occurs as the reflex of a former consonant cluster. Because of this, he assumes that the vowel in the suffix changed before the loss of the final consonant; he assumes this vowel change was analogical, but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for some sound change like *as &gt; *ai̯s to occur. In any case, Lüdtke does think that the ultimate source of Italian *-e* is Latin accusative *-as* (p. 123). Interestingly, he also mentions the existence of two &quot;marginal zones ... the northwestern corner of Tuscany ... and the Bregaglia Valley ... where we find the plural type *la porta*&quot; which he says is from ILLAS PORTAS with loss of the final /s/ without a change of the vowel in the final syllable (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No plural *\*-ivo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is *\*-ivo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-a*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter nominative/singular plural ending. Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-o*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][5]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Classical Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/675/why-do-ablatives-of-the-3rd-declension-sometimes-end-on-e-at-other-times-on-i&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hV5AAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PKzB-2byuE&amp;sig=z3uhJpQbwIYG1hzBGKJcqs_ha44&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiotLaQvLjYAhVDRyYKHa81AHcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="8b915cc7-5e7e-407d-9a63-83c920d9d39c" CreationDate="2018-01-02T07:38:48.780" UserId="9" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification. The nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo.* In other cases, neither the Classical Latin nominative nor the Classical Latin accusative seems to be sufficient to explain the form of an Italian word. But it does seem likely that in general/overall, the accusative forms had more of an influence on the development of the Italian forms than the ablative forms specifically, because as far as I know there is in the great majority of cases nothing ***particular to Latin ablative forms*** that helps explain the Italian forms. Phonetically, the ablative form is fairly similar to the accusative form in Latin in many situations. They are built on the same stem, and frequently differ only by the presence or absence of final *m* and/or the length or quality of the vowel in the last syllable; in the situations where the accusative and ablative forms are most distinct (like in the first- or third-declension plural) we don't see a reflex in Italian of the Latin ablative endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to edit this post later with more references and description of the particulars. In the meantime, I want to link to this WordReference thread with some prior discussion: [Accusative declension from Latin -&gt; Italian][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area mentioned below where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Singular forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/), the second-declension singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/), and the third-declension singular (non i-stems) for non-neuter nouns (Latin /em#/ and /e/ both go to Italian /e/ in unstressed syllables, although in some words, like *città,* this was later lost).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin /uː/ in word-final unstressed syllables (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the last paragraph below). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any sign of Latin third-declension i-stem ablative singular forms in *-ī* contributing to Italian, but [the use of *-ī* vs. *-e*][2] was somewhat variable even in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension neuter nouns are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above. They seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways, which probably reflect phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class shifts, and learned borrowings. Misc. examples: *fiume, fiumi* from Latin *flumen*; *corpo, corpi* from Latin *corpus.* The Italian words *femore, -i; crimine, -i; inguine, -i;* and *onere, -i* obviously cannot be from the Classical Latin nominative or accusative singular forms of *femur, crimen, inguen, onus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So overall, Italian singular forms seem to give no strong indications of whether they are from the Latin accusative vs. the Latin ablative form; but sound changes explain this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Classical Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian, but it seems more straightforward to analyze the Italian ending of these words as coming from the Latin nominative plural suffix *-i.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][3]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;, but I doubt that the ablative had an influence in this area, based on what we see with the other types of plural nouns.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular is apparently tricky to explain. But the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, what Wikipedia says is that it is generally thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the archaic first-declension nominative plural ending *-ās*. [Old French][4], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[The Italian Plural Formative *-e*][5]&quot; (Helmut Lüdtke, in *Italic and Romance: Linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo, 1980), the Italian feminine plural article *le* has been proposed to come from either Latin ILLAE, ILLAS or ILLAEC (which he says was proposed by Merlo as a formation on the analogy of HAEC) (p. 122).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lüdtke argues that the  *as &gt; *ai̯ &gt; e explanation cannot account for the existence of syntactic doubling in some Italian dialects after this article, something that usually occurs as the reflex of a former consonant cluster. Because of this, he assumes that the vowel in the suffix changed before the loss of the final consonant; he assumes this vowel change was analogical, but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for some sound change like *as &gt; *ai̯s to occur. In any case, Lüdtke does think that the ultimate source of Italian *-e* is Latin accusative *-as* (p. 123). Interestingly, he also mentions the existence of two &quot;marginal zones ... the northwestern corner of Tuscany ... and the Bregaglia Valley ... where we find the plural type *la porta*&quot; which he says is from ILLAS PORTAS with loss of the final /s/ without a change of the vowel in the final syllable (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No plural *\*-ivo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is *\*-ivo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-a*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter nominative/singular plural ending. Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-o*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][6]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Classical Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/accusative-declension-from-latin-italian.2256785/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/675/why-do-ablatives-of-the-3rd-declension-sometimes-end-on-e-at-other-times-on-i&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hV5AAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PKzB-2byuE&amp;sig=z3uhJpQbwIYG1hzBGKJcqs_ha44&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiotLaQvLjYAhVDRyYKHa81AHcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="0625f7b5-0ce7-4c2d-9a09-c8bc20bdc413" CreationDate="2018-01-02T07:51:09.290" UserId="9" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification. The nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo.* In other cases, neither the Classical Latin nominative nor the Classical Latin accusative seems to be sufficient to explain the form of an Italian word. But it does seem likely that in general/overall, the accusative forms had more of an influence on the development of the Italian forms than the ablative forms specifically, because as far as I know there is in the great majority of cases nothing ***particular to Latin ablative forms*** that helps explain the Italian forms. Phonetically, the ablative form is fairly similar to the accusative form in Latin in many situations. They are built on the same stem, and frequently differ only by the presence or absence of final *m* and/or the length or quality of the vowel in the last syllable; in the situations where the accusative and ablative forms are most distinct (like in the first- or third-declension plural) we don't see a reflex in Italian of the Latin ablative endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to edit this post later with more references and description of the particulars. In the meantime, I want to link to this WordReference thread with some prior discussion: [Accusative declension from Latin -&gt; Italian][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area mentioned below where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Singular forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/), the second-declension singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/), and the third-declension singular (non i-stems) for non-neuter nouns (Latin /em#/ and /e/ both go to Italian /e/ in unstressed syllables, although in some words, like *città,* this was later lost).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin /uː/ in word-final unstressed syllables (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the last paragraph below). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any sign of Latin third-declension i-stem ablative singular forms in *-ī* contributing to Italian, but [the use of *-ī* vs. *-e*][2] was somewhat variable even in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension neuter nouns are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above. They seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways, which probably reflect phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class shifts, and learned borrowings. Misc. examples: *fiume, fiumi* from Latin *flumen*; *corpo, corpi* from Latin *corpus.* The Italian words *femore, -i; crimine, -i; inguine, -i;* and *onere, -i* obviously cannot be from the Classical Latin nominative or accusative singular forms of *femur, crimen, inguen, onus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So overall, Italian singular forms seem to give no strong indications of whether they are from the Latin accusative vs. the Latin ablative form; but sound changes explain this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Classical Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian, but it seems more straightforward to analyze the Italian ending of these words as coming from the Latin nominative plural suffix *-i.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][3]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;, but I doubt that the ablative had an influence in this area, based on what we see with the other types of plural nouns.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular is apparently tricky to explain. But the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, what Wikipedia says is that it is generally thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the archaic first-declension nominative plural ending *-ās*. [Old French][4], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[The Italian Plural Formative *-e*][5]&quot; (Helmut Lüdtke, in *Italic and Romance: Linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo, 1980), the Italian feminine plural article *le* has been proposed to come from either Latin ILLAE, ILLAS or ILLAEC (which he says was proposed by Merlo as a formation on the analogy of HAEC) (p. 122).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lüdtke argues that the  *as &gt; *ai̯ &gt; e explanation cannot account for the existence of syntactic doubling in some Italian dialects after this article, something that usually occurs as the reflex of a former consonant cluster. Because of this, he argues that the vowel in the suffix must have changed before the loss of the final consonant; he assumes this vowel change was analogical (suggesting *-as* changed to *-es* under the influence of either third-declension *-es,* the Classical Latin nominative ending *-ae,* or the influence of QUAE on ILLA). In any case, Lüdtke does think that the ultimate source of Italian plural *-e* is Latin accusative *-as* (p. 123). Interestingly, he also mentions the existence of two &quot;marginal zones ... the northwestern corner of Tuscany ... and the Bregaglia Valley ... where we find the plural type *la porta*&quot; which he says is from ILLAS PORTAS with loss of the final /s/ without a change of the vowel in the final syllable (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No plural *\*-ivo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is *\*-ivo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-a*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter nominative/singular plural ending. Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-o*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][6]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Classical Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/accusative-declension-from-latin-italian.2256785/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/675/why-do-ablatives-of-the-3rd-declension-sometimes-end-on-e-at-other-times-on-i&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hV5AAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PKzB-2byuE&amp;sig=z3uhJpQbwIYG1hzBGKJcqs_ha44&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiotLaQvLjYAhVDRyYKHa81AHcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="073cfd23-ae09-4f8c-afea-536700bf4993" CreationDate="2018-01-02T12:31:19.920" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification. The nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo.* In other cases, neither the Classical Latin nominative nor the Classical Latin accusative seems to be sufficient to explain the form of an Italian word. But it does seem likely that in general/overall, the accusative forms had more of an influence on the development of the Italian forms than the ablative forms specifically, because as far as I know there is in the great majority of cases nothing ***particular to Latin ablative forms*** that helps explain the Italian forms. Phonetically, the ablative form is fairly similar to the accusative form in Latin in many situations. They are built on the same stem, and frequently differ only by the presence or absence of final *m* and/or the length or quality of the vowel in the last syllable; in the situations where the accusative and ablative forms are most distinct (like in the first- or third-declension plural) we don't see a reflex in Italian of the Latin ablative endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to edit this post later with more references and description of the particulars. In the meantime, I want to link to this WordReference thread with some prior discussion: [Accusative declension from Latin -&gt; Italian][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area mentioned below where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Singular forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/), the second-declension singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/), and the third-declension singular (non i-stems) for non-neuter nouns (Latin /em#/ and /e/ both go to Italian /e/ in unstressed syllables, although in some words, like *città,* this was later lost).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin /uː/ in word-final unstressed syllables (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the last paragraph below). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any sign of Latin third-declension i-stem ablative singular forms in *-ī* contributing to Italian, but [the use of *-ī* vs. *-e*][2] was somewhat variable even in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension neuter nouns are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above. They seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways, which probably reflect phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class shifts, and learned borrowings. Misc. examples: *fiume, fiumi* from Latin *flumen*; *corpo, corpi* from Latin *corpus.* The Italian words *femore, -i; crimine, -i; inguine, -i;* and *onere, -i* obviously cannot be from the Classical Latin nominative or accusative singular forms of *femur, crimen, inguen, onus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So overall, Italian singular forms seem to give no strong indications of whether they are from the Latin accusative vs. the Latin ablative form; but sound changes explain this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Classical Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian, but it seems more straightforward to analyze the Italian ending of these words as coming from the Latin nominative plural suffix *-i.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][3]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;, but I doubt that the ablative had an influence in this area, based on what we see with the other types of plural nouns.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular is apparently tricky to explain. But the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, what Wikipedia says is that it is generally thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the archaic first-declension nominative plural ending *-ās*. [Old French][4], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[The Italian Plural Formative *-e*][5]&quot; (Helmut Lüdtke, in *Italic and Romance: Linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo, 1980), the Italian feminine plural article *le* has been proposed to come from either Latin ILLAE, ILLAS or ILLAEC (which he says was proposed by Merlo as a formation on the analogy of HAEC) (p. 122).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lüdtke argues that the  *as &gt; *ai̯ &gt; e explanation cannot account for the existence of syntactic doubling in some Italian dialects after this article, something that usually occurs as the reflex of a former consonant cluster. Because of this, he argues that the vowel in the suffix must have changed before the loss of the final consonant; he assumes this vowel change was analogical (suggesting *-as* changed to *-es* under the influence of either third-declension *-es,* the Classical Latin nominative ending *-ae,* or the influence of QUAE on ILLA). In any case, Lüdtke does think that the ultimate source of Italian plural *-e* is Latin accusative *-as* (p. 123). Interestingly, he also mentions the existence of two &quot;marginal zones ... the northwestern corner of Tuscany ... and the Bregaglia Valley ... where we find the plural type *la porta*&quot; which he says is from ILLAS PORTAS with loss of the final /s/ without a change of the vowel in the final syllable (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No plural *\*-evo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is *\*evo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-a*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter nominative/singular plural ending. Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-o*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][6]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Classical Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/accusative-declension-from-latin-italian.2256785/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/675/why-do-ablatives-of-the-3rd-declension-sometimes-end-on-e-at-other-times-on-i&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hV5AAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PKzB-2byuE&amp;sig=z3uhJpQbwIYG1hzBGKJcqs_ha44&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiotLaQvLjYAhVDRyYKHa81AHcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5798" RevisionGUID="592c7f61-e580-4b20-b64d-e499fa2850a0" CreationDate="2018-01-02T14:50:20.893" UserId="2296" Text="[I post anew, since I can't comment or edit.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Integrily excelsior gratitude grethi sealiton&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can be found on a tattoo on the chest of an actor (he's a public person and the tattoo is clearly visible in television so I think I can post this) known from the popular Finnish telenovella &quot;Salatut Elämät&quot;. Look at the picture for example here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![the tattoo][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the picture is taken from: https://www.instagram.com/p/Bc2QzPTDs99/?taken-by=samiuotila&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MYEon.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19184" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5798" RevisionGUID="592c7f61-e580-4b20-b64d-e499fa2850a0" CreationDate="2018-01-02T14:50:20.893" UserId="2296" Text="&quot;Integrily excelsior gratitude grethi sealiton” revisited" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19185" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5798" RevisionGUID="592c7f61-e580-4b20-b64d-e499fa2850a0" CreationDate="2018-01-02T14:50:20.893" UserId="2296" Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5799" RevisionGUID="d38e9fd0-e6c7-4095-a58c-344b8b1c5f6c" CreationDate="2018-01-02T16:11:35.347" UserId="1694" Text="It shouldn't be read as a phrase but as a series of noble sentiments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Integrity&quot;  - a virtue&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;excelsior&quot;  - &quot;[ever] higher&quot; (the only Latin word here, also the motto of New York)&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;gratitude&quot;  - a virtue&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;gnothi seauton&quot; - &quot;know thyself&quot; (the &quot;gnothi&quot; may be misspelt; it's a bit hard to tell)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5799" RevisionGUID="ee07f068-1008-48a7-b3b8-a4e667f0d001" CreationDate="2018-01-02T16:16:14.097" UserId="1694" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="It shouldn't be read as a phrase but as a series of noble sentiments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Integrity&quot;  - a virtue [English]&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;excelsior&quot;  - &quot;[ever] higher&quot; (the only Latin word here, also the motto of New York) [Latin]&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;gratitude&quot;  - a virtue [English]&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;gnothi seauton&quot; - &quot;know thyself&quot; (the &quot;gnothi&quot; may be misspelt; it's a bit hard to tell) [Greek]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5800" RevisionGUID="6ae49f11-03e9-4a49-96ca-4bfa7abf0dc8" CreationDate="2018-01-02T20:39:25.333" UserId="2297" Text="I am on a quest to create a new last name for myself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like the idea of &quot;wildcard,&quot; particularly in the computing sense: as a placeholder for anything, however I want something that sounds more like a last name than just using &quot;wildcard.&quot; (I also don't want my name to be poor translation, like a regrettable tattoo of a Chinese character that actually means &quot;spicy chicken.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is, does the following capture my intention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Feracarta** or **Cartafera**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the searching I've done, &quot;fera&quot; seems to more commonly refer to wild animals in particular, rather than a more general wild: &quot;ferox,&quot; which seems like more of the meaning I'd like to capture (headstrong, courageous, fierce), but &quot;ferox&quot; does not combine together as well into a name, in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't been able to find &quot;carta&quot; in a Latin dictionary, but it came up in the the etymology of &quot;card&quot; on Google, so that part could be totally incorrect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19189" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5800" RevisionGUID="6ae49f11-03e9-4a49-96ca-4bfa7abf0dc8" CreationDate="2018-01-02T20:39:25.333" UserId="2297" Text="Creating a &quot;fictional&quot; last name, meaning &quot;wild card&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19190" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5800" RevisionGUID="6ae49f11-03e9-4a49-96ca-4bfa7abf0dc8" CreationDate="2018-01-02T20:39:25.333" UserId="2297" Text="|vocabulary|translation|translation-check|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5797" RevisionGUID="93d515d9-7e49-49c5-b250-a96be37bacc5" CreationDate="2018-01-02T23:35:42.790" UserId="867" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="*EDIT: Please see my comments below to clarify what I see as the difference between small-e eve and capital-E Eve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, I think both answers above (those of Sam K and Tom Cotton respectively) are correct *depending on what kind of &quot;night before&quot; you mean*.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the Oxford English Dictionary, ***eve*** is indeed a derivation of *evening*.  However, as Tom Cotton notes, *eve* is typically used to mean &quot;the day before&quot;.  This use is apparent quite early, circa 1290.  Later (1780), *eve* was also used to mean &quot;the time immediately before an event&quot;.  Note that *evening* nevertheless remained in use to mean that period between dusk and nightfall which is an indication of how *eve* and *evening* diverged in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not surprising then that the OED uses *eve* in exactly this way to define ***vigil***: &quot;the eve of (i.e. preceding) a festival or holy day, as an occasion of devotional watching or religious observance&quot; (OED).  This is what is meant by Easter Vigil (as in Sam K's answer), when you stay awake in prayerful contemplation of Christ's resurrection the following day.  To that end, Christmas Eve could also be thought of as a sort of vigil, awaiting the birth of Christ.  Indeed, attending Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve is surely a vigil in this sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I have spent time unpacking the English is that I think *eve* is a bit of a quirk of English in that it can mean &quot;the time preceding an event&quot; *tout court* and yet is also applied to events of significance (temporal or religious).  But whereas the English can straddle these two uses, my feeling is that Latin differentiates between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To this end, I think *pridie* does mean &quot;eve&quot; in the practical sense of &quot;the time before&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, *pervigilium* seems more suitable for things like Christmas Eve and even New Year's Eve in that these are a &quot;time of devotional watching&quot; before a festival or holy day.  Further, on reflection, I think that *pervigilium* is preferable to *vigilia* because Lewis &amp; Short specifically note that *[pervigilium][1]* is &quot;a devotional watching&quot;, whereas *vigilia* is more &quot;a keeping awake for the security of a place&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This difference is apparent in Livy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *... castra Campana ut in **pervigilio** neglecta simul omnibus portis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invadit*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... the Campanian camp being unattended because of the vigil he&#xD;&#xA;&gt; invaded via all the gates at once&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*History of Rome*, 23.35&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gracchus is able to invade the Campanian's camp at midnight because they were keeping a vigil (*pervigilium*) before a sacred festival.  The terrible irony is that if they had been keeping vigil (*vigilia*), they would not have been caught unawares!   &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pervigilium%20&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5801" RevisionGUID="1b873b29-7573-4785-abfb-47107d7b495f" CreationDate="2018-01-03T01:29:46.970" UserId="522" Text="**Varius vir, varii viri**&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;There is a board game in (Oxford) Corpus Christi library, Alea Evangelii, with four *special* pawns which (some think) change mid-game; they're called the multicoloured pawns, or the speckled pawns: *varii viri*, *varios viros*. But perhaps that's too far from your original idea. *Varia mulier, Varia femina, Varia iuvenis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Grycarta**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ne gry* is rare Latin for 'not a hint,' 'not a jot.' *Gry* is a non-committal grunt, so the wild idea is preserved. And *'gry'* is a word borrowed from Greek, a grunt; with the alternative roots *'gryx, gryz'* from the verb. So that's quite sophisticated. How about *Grycarta* ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Liber liber**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is a free book, meaning a blank book; so perhaps *Liberacarta.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Feracarta,** suggests wild and slightly out of control. I think it's better than any of my suggestions, all the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5802" RevisionGUID="3d511662-2665-4d55-b28f-d30eb78e6b10" CreationDate="2018-01-03T07:06:17.980" UserId="2299" Text="I'm a beginner and noticing &quot;est,&quot; a present tense verb, being translated in dozens of resources as &quot;was.&quot;  Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est = and without him nothing was made that was made&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19194" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5802" RevisionGUID="3d511662-2665-4d55-b28f-d30eb78e6b10" CreationDate="2018-01-03T07:06:17.980" UserId="2299" Text="Why is &quot;et sine ipso factum est quod factum est translated into past tense?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19195" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5802" RevisionGUID="3d511662-2665-4d55-b28f-d30eb78e6b10" CreationDate="2018-01-03T07:06:17.980" UserId="2299" Text="|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5803" RevisionGUID="f658e5ff-c9ee-4198-a7cc-14a0f37f11dd" CreationDate="2018-01-03T07:51:12.223" UserId="985" Text="It's because the verb in each clause of that sentence isn't really *est*: it's *factum est*, a compound verb form that combines a present tense of the verb 'to be' and the perfect (past) participle of the verb 'to do/make' (or 'to become/happen').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it helps, think of an English clause such as 'the picture has fallen': it uses the present tense 'has' but this, in combination with the past/passive participle 'fallen,' is used to describe an action that was completed earlier in time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both English and Latin, you have to think about the timeframe denoted by whole verbal idea, not the individual elements that constitute it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19197" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5802" RevisionGUID="eccef212-1d5d-4ed3-8b15-828dc303699d" CreationDate="2018-01-03T12:31:32.760" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Why is &quot;et sine ipso factum est quod factum est&quot; translated into past tense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19198" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5802" RevisionGUID="eccef212-1d5d-4ed3-8b15-828dc303699d" CreationDate="2018-01-03T12:31:32.760" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|verbs|syntax|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5804" RevisionGUID="ad3b533a-4201-4f15-b468-7d399db28e18" CreationDate="2018-01-03T15:07:42.590" UserId="79" Text="As pointed out in a comment by cnread, many languages render &quot;wildcard&quot; as &quot;joker&quot; in one way or another.&#xD;&#xA;This happens in both Romance and other languages.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore a good translation for the term &quot;wildcard&quot; itself might be something like *ioculator*, *nugator*, *balatro*, or *scurra*.&#xD;&#xA;Pick [a Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) and look up &quot;joker&quot; or &quot;jester&quot; to find more.&#xD;&#xA;However, these words will not make a good last name, unless you are fine with silly connotations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point raised in the comments (by Hugh) is that *-fer* or *-fera* means a carrier.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *aurifer(a)* carries gold and *ensifer(a)* carries a sword.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, in a Latin context, the ending *-fera* will not be easily connected with the adjective [*fera*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=ferus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to combine these two observations.&#xD;&#xA;A joker is a &quot;joke-bearer&quot;, and that could be rendered in Latin as *iocifera* (as a feminine version).&#xD;&#xA;Instead of [*iocus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=jocus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), you could also try [*nugae*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=nugae&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) or [*ludus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=ludus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;Of these options *ludus* seems least ridiculous, so how about *ludifera*?&#xD;&#xA;It could be understood as &quot;wildcard&quot;, but also as &quot;someone who brings games or spectacles&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If this together with a hint of wildness with *fera* sounds reasonable in your context, this is my suggestion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19201" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5802" RevisionGUID="c2ced83d-949a-40ac-af4e-9a3223c9efab" CreationDate="2018-01-03T17:01:08.023" UserId="45" Comment="edited title" Text="Why is &quot;et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est&quot; translated into past tense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5805" RevisionGUID="ca40b617-4e15-4c9f-8d61-1ec96d38c6ff" CreationDate="2018-01-03T21:00:47.523" UserId="645" Text="Perhaps it's unnecessary to say it but, to be clear, we are dealing not just with the conjunction *cum*  (often *quum* — the distinction is really immaterial). The word has in fact two kinds of usage; either as a causal particle, or as a normal conjunction. To judge by the numerous articles in many grammars, its use is apparently problematic, as the questioner indicates; but this may well be due to nothing more than over-analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, it's quite possible to single out the cases for which a subjunctive is used, leaving the indicative for everything else. That's because, with a single type of exception, *cum* In direct speech most often takes an indicative, and always when followed by a present or future tense. Even in the past, the mood is indicative when expressing the time(s) at which an event took place. *Cum hostem viderat …*, 'whenever he saw an enemy', or *cum Ariovistus in Galliam venit*, 'when Ariovistus entered Gaul'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exception for direct speech is made when simply referring not to time, but to an action in the past that is setting a condition for something that will follow : then, an imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive is used. Caesar is particularly fond of this, in expressions such as *eo cum venisset*, *eo cum ventum esset*, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a causal particle rather than as a conjunction ('as', 'although', 'since', 'seeing as', etc.), *cum* takes a subjunctive, even when the reason is made clear. In such cases, it can appear with *quippe* or *utpote* (e.g. *quippe/utpote quum*, 'inasmuch as', and so on). As an example, *Quum quisquam operam navare cuperent* (Caesar BG 2,25).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally: as a conjunction in *oratio obliqua*, *cum* invariably takes a subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are, as you might expect, a few rare exceptions to the general rules, which students of syntax delight in identifying : if you come across them, ask yourself if they really matter enough to demand a separate rule. The best antidote to any perceived difficulty in using *cum* is reading practice, developing a habit of recognition which also serves in translating from English into Latin. And, as an encouragement to practice, think of Horace's exasperation over Homer's mistakes, and remember that not everybody is perfect!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5806" RevisionGUID="8aab778f-4cfa-419c-918c-d4fdac78bbdc" CreationDate="2018-01-03T23:33:25.860" UserId="2287" Text="I noticed a company's name Libratone emphasizing that their company name meant &quot;set sound free.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;LIBRA•TONE Our mission is in our name; Libratone – set sound free.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Libera work as well here? I don't know Latin nor conjugations - just a curious individual asking.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19204" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5806" RevisionGUID="8aab778f-4cfa-419c-918c-d4fdac78bbdc" CreationDate="2018-01-03T23:33:25.860" UserId="2287" Text="What is the difference between Libera and Libra?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19205" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5806" RevisionGUID="8aab778f-4cfa-419c-918c-d4fdac78bbdc" CreationDate="2018-01-03T23:33:25.860" UserId="2287" Text="|classical-latin|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5807" RevisionGUID="8ff5df3c-04dc-4727-ab83-8d709a4c8ebb" CreationDate="2018-01-04T01:29:42.550" UserId="406" Text="There's in fact quite a significant difference here!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective [*līber, lībera, līberum*][1] means &quot;free&quot;; it's the root of the English words &quot;liberty&quot; and &quot;liberation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun [*lībra, lībrae*][2] means &quot;scales&quot; (for weighing things) or &quot;pound&quot; (as weighed out on a scale). It's the origin of the abbreviations &quot;lb&quot; and &quot;£&quot;, and the constellation Libra.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you want &quot;free&quot;, you need the &quot;e&quot; in there. It doesn't work without it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dliber1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlibra" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5801" RevisionGUID="d12dddc2-4735-4699-9c8b-4f7e4b6c6ea8" CreationDate="2018-01-04T01:40:12.253" UserId="522" Comment="added 264 characters in body" Text="**Varius vir, varii viri**&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;There is a board game in (Oxford) Corpus Christi library, Alea Evangelii, with four *special* pawns which (some think) change mid-game; they're called the multicoloured pawns, or the speckled pawns: *varii viri*, *varios viros*. But perhaps that's too far from your original idea. *Varia mulier, Varia femina, Varia iuvenis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Grycarta**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Ne gry*][1] is rare Latin for 'not a hint,' 'not a jot.' *Gry* is a non-committal grunt, so the wild idea is preserved. And *'gry'* is a word borrowed from Greek, a grunt; with the alternative roots *'gryx, gryz'* from the verb. So that's quite sophisticated. How about *Grycarta* ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Liber liber**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is a free book, meaning a blank book; so perhaps *Liberacarta.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Feracarta,** suggests wild and slightly out of control. I think it's better than any of my suggestions, all the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kXdmAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PP932&amp;lpg=PP932&amp;dq=%22ne%20gry%22%20Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=I3RfqEnEoG&amp;sig=9ljkfwhIuhTijzXN0G2L4EBzNfQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwimkqHslL3YAhWjK8AKHZ18B68Q6AEIQDAF#v=onepage&amp;q=%22ne%20gry%22%20Latin&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5808" RevisionGUID="72a82127-6167-45e8-9adf-b00c5bd24e88" CreationDate="2018-01-04T04:18:16.913" UserId="1133" Text="**(Please do not answer this as yet.  I made a mistake about recession in πολῖται.)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have marked in Green words below in which accentuation is not recessive, namely, ταμίαι, παρθένος, παρθένε, and παρθένοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question:  Should I put the lack of recession in ταμίαι down to the particular word or the group to which it belongs, i.e. masculine nouns in the long alpha declension?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By recession, of course, I mean what one sees in πολῑ́της and πόλεμος.  The accent wants to sit as far away from the end of the word as possible; in πολῖται the stress wants to fall on the first mora of the long vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By 'putting it down to the particular word' I mean what one might do with παρθένος.  I simply accept it as an exception because (1) many other words in the same group show recession, e.g. ἄνεμος, θάνατος, κῡ́ριος, πίθηκος but (2) παρθένος never shows it when it might.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I only know of two masculine nouns in the long alpha declension, ταμίᾱς and νεᾱνίᾱς, which are too few to tell me whether lack of recession should be put down to particular words or some more general principle may be at work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BCUL3.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5808" RevisionGUID="72a82127-6167-45e8-9adf-b00c5bd24e88" CreationDate="2018-01-04T04:18:16.913" UserId="1133" Text="Why isn't accentuation recessive in ταμίαι? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5808" RevisionGUID="72a82127-6167-45e8-9adf-b00c5bd24e88" CreationDate="2018-01-04T04:18:16.913" UserId="1133" Text="|greek|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19211" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="5808" RevisionGUID="dd0e8cb1-26e9-4432-b87c-e1a9e59f7f36" CreationDate="2018-01-04T04:23:12.040" UserId="1133" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1133,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Catomic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19212" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="5808" RevisionGUID="ef9b1686-615e-424e-9fdc-284edfb1d498" CreationDate="2018-01-04T06:06:36.507" UserId="1133" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1133,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Catomic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5808" RevisionGUID="156d6076-92c3-404d-9c9b-fd7c32df0b47" CreationDate="2018-01-04T06:07:00.550" UserId="1133" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="**(Please do not answer this as yet.  I made a mistake about recession in πολῖται.  I am revising it now.)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have marked in Green words below in which accentuation is not recessive, namely, ταμίαι, παρθένος, παρθένε, and παρθένοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question:  Should I put the lack of recession in ταμίαι down to the particular word or the group to which it belongs, i.e. masculine nouns in the long alpha declension?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By recession, of course, I mean what one sees in πολῑ́της and πόλεμος.  The accent wants to sit as far away from the end of the word as possible; in πολῖται the stress wants to fall on the first mora of the long vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By 'putting it down to the particular word' I mean what one might do with παρθένος.  I simply accept it as an exception because (1) many other words in the same group show recession, e.g. ἄνεμος, θάνατος, κῡ́ριος, πίθηκος but (2) παρθένος never shows it when it might.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I only know of two masculine nouns in the long alpha declension, ταμίᾱς and νεᾱνίᾱς, which are too few to tell me whether lack of recession should be put down to particular words or some more general principle may be at work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BCUL3.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5808" RevisionGUID="4a444011-eb24-42ff-b590-998299324f09" CreationDate="2018-01-04T07:46:56.077" UserId="1133" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="I have marked in Green accentuation below which is not recessive, namely, in ταμίαι, πολῖτα, πολῖται, παρθένος, παρθένε, and παρθένοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question:  Is there some general principle to explain the lack of recession in those words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By recession, of course, I mean what one sees in πόλεμος.  The accent wants to sit as far away from the end of the word as possible (given certain rules).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lack of recession in παρθένος, I put down to, as it were, 'the word forming an exception.'  In a manner of speaking, I am assimilating this exception to that found in words such as ἀγορᾱ́, τῑμή, κριτής, ὁδός and κανοῦν.  The accent just 'wants to' fall at the end.  I don't argue or try to explain it.  I only hope I'll remember.  In the same way, the accent just wants to sit on the penult in καρκίνος and παρθένος.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pattern in ταμίᾱς and πολῑ́της however seems more tricky, for two reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It almost seems as if the accent 'forgot to move' in the few places where it might have, each time because the word ended in -αι.&#xD;&#xA; - I don't find nouns in which the accent does move when it could (i.e. when the word ends in -αι).  In other words, the pattern of ταμίᾱς or πολῑ́της seems general.  For example, νεᾱνίᾱς (νεᾱν**ί**αι) and δεσπότης (δεσπ**ό**ται) follow that of ταμίᾱς.  ἰδιώτης (ἰδι**ῶ**ται) and κυβερνήτης (κῠβερν**ῆ**ται), that of πολῑ́της.  As yet, I have not found long vowel first declension words not conforming to one or the other of these two patterns (other than words like κριτής and ποιητής, in which the accent falls on the ultimate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore my going hypothesis is that there is a subgroup level exception to recession for long vowel first declension nouns.  It would go like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;First, let us set aside words accented on the ultimate such as κριτής and μαθητής.  As for the rest, accentuation is recessive for these subgroups except where the word ends in -αι, in which case the accent 'forgets' to recede.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question stated above really stands in for the following diffuse cluster of thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Am I OK to understand the two types of exceptions (word vs. subgroup level) as presented above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If there is a subgroup level exception applicable to words such as ταμίᾱς and πολῑ́της, is there any higher principle of which that exception is an instance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Even for words such as καρκίνος and παρθένος (and perhaps even ἀγορᾱ́, τῑμή, etc.), is there any circumstance to 'motivate' their non-recessive accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general I am trying to 'motivate' these various types of exceptions to recession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/18A2l.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5808" RevisionGUID="2527419f-317e-4cf3-b533-c22ae296aacf" CreationDate="2018-01-04T07:53:56.800" UserId="1133" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="I have marked in Green accentuation below which is not recessive, namely, in ταμίαι, πολῖτα, πολῖται, παρθένος, παρθένε, and παρθένοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question:  Is there some general principle to explain the lack of recession in those words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By recession, of course, I mean what one sees in πόλεμος.  The accent wants to sit as far away from the end of the word as possible (given certain rules).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lack of recession in παρθένος, I put down to, as it were, 'the word forming an exception.'  In a manner of speaking, I am assimilating this exception to that found in words such as ἀγορᾱ́, τῑμή, κριτής, ὁδός and κανοῦν.  The accent just 'wants to' fall at the end.  I don't argue or try to explain it.  I only hope I'll remember.  In the same way, the accent just wants to sit on the penult in καρκίνος and παρθένος.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pattern in ταμίᾱς and πολῑ́της however seems more tricky, for two reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It almost seems as if the accent 'forgot to move' in the few places where it might have, each time (except in πολῖτα) because the word ended in -αι.&#xD;&#xA; - I don't find nouns in which the accent does move when it could (i.e. when the word ends in -αι).  In other words, the pattern of ταμίᾱς or πολῑ́της seems general.  For example, νεᾱνίᾱς (νεᾱν**ί**αι) and δεσπότης (δεσπ**ό**ται) follow that of ταμίᾱς.  ἰδιώτης (ἰδι**ῶ**ται) and κυβερνήτης (κῠβερν**ῆ**ται), that of πολῑ́της.  As yet, I have not found long vowel first declension words not conforming to one or the other of these two patterns (other than words like κριτής and ποιητής, in which the accent falls on the ultimate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore my going hypothesis is that there is a subgroup level exception to recession for long vowel first declension nouns.  It would go like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;First, let us set aside words accented on the ultimate such as κριτής and μαθητής.  As for the rest, accentuation is recessive for these subgroups except where the word ends in -αι, in which case the accent 'forgets' to recede.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question stated above really stands in for the following diffuse cluster of thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Am I OK to understand the two types of exceptions (word vs. subgroup level) as presented above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If there is a subgroup level exception applicable to words such as ταμίᾱς and πολῑ́της, is there any higher principle of which that exception is an instance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Even for words such as καρκίνος and παρθένος (and perhaps even ἀγορᾱ́, τῑμή, etc.), is there any circumstance to 'motivate' their non-recessive accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general I am trying to 'motivate' these various types of exceptions to recession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/18A2l.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5808" RevisionGUID="c4126044-4fb7-4ac5-ad40-e40a2d11f2db" CreationDate="2018-01-04T08:02:03.857" UserId="1133" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I have marked in Green accentuation below which is not recessive, namely, in ταμίαι, πολῖτα, πολῖται, παρθένος, παρθένε, and παρθένοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question:  Is there some general principle to explain the lack of recession in those words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By recession, of course, I mean what one sees in πόλεμος.  The accent wants to sit as far away from the end of the word as possible (given certain rules).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lack of recession in παρθένος, I put down to, as it were, 'the word forming an exception.'  In a manner of speaking, I am assimilating this exception to that found in words such as ἀγορᾱ́, τῑμή, κριτής, ὁδός and κανοῦν.  The accent just 'wants to' fall at the end.  I don't argue or try to explain it.  I only hope I'll remember.  In the same way, the accent just wants to sit on the penult in καρκίνος and παρθένος.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pattern in ταμίᾱς and πολῑ́της however seems more tricky, for two reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It almost seems as if the accent 'forgot to move' in the few places where it might have, each time (except in πολῖτα) because the word ended in -αι.&#xD;&#xA; - I don't find nouns in which the accent does move when it could (i.e. when the word ends in -αι).  In other words, the pattern of ταμίᾱς or πολῑ́της seems general.  For example, νεᾱνίᾱς (νεᾱν**ί**αι) and δεσπότης (δεσπ**ό**ται) follow that of ταμίᾱς.  ἰδιώτης (ἰδι**ῶ**ται) and κυβερνήτης (κῠβερν**ῆ**ται), that of πολῑ́της.  As yet, I have not found long vowel first declension words not conforming to one or the other of these two patterns (other than words like κριτής and ποιητής, in which the accent falls on the ultimate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore my working hypothesis is that there is a subgroup level exception to recession for long vowel first declension nouns.  It would go like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;First, let us set aside words accented on the ultimate such as κριτής and μαθητής.  As for the rest, accentuation is recessive for these subgroups except where the word ends in -αι, in which case the accent 'forgets' to recede.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question stated above really stands in for the following diffuse cluster of thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Am I OK to understand the two types of exceptions (word vs. subgroup level) as presented above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If there is a subgroup level exception applicable to words such as ταμίᾱς and πολῑ́της, is there any higher principle of which that exception is an instance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Even for words such as καρκίνος and παρθένος (and perhaps even ἀγορᾱ́, τῑμή, etc.), is there any circumstance to 'motivate' their non-recessive accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general I am trying to 'motivate' these various types of exceptions to recession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/18A2l.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5808" RevisionGUID="017def5f-2801-41af-8654-aa4926cc22c0" CreationDate="2018-01-04T08:12:07.647" UserId="1133" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="I have marked in Green accentuation below which is not recessive, namely, in ταμίαι, πολῖτα, πολῖται, παρθένος, παρθένε, and παρθένοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question:  Is there some general principle to explain the lack of recession in those words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By recession, of course, I mean what one sees in πόλεμος.  The accent wants to sit as far away from the end of the word as possible (given certain rules).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lack of recession in παρθένος, I put down to, as it were, 'the word forming an exception.'  In a manner of speaking, I am assimilating this exception to that found in words such as ἀγορᾱ́, τῑμή, κριτής and ὁδός.  The accent just 'wants to' fall at the end.  I don't argue or try to explain it.  I only hope I'll remember.  In the same way, the accent just wants to sit on the penult in καρκίνος and παρθένος.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pattern in ταμίᾱς and πολῑ́της however seems more tricky, for two reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It almost seems as if the accent 'forgot to move' in the few places where it might have, each time (except in πολῖτα) because the word ended in -αι.&#xD;&#xA; - I don't find nouns in which the accent does move when it could (i.e. when the word ends in -αι).  In other words, the pattern of ταμίᾱς or πολῑ́της seems general.  For example, νεᾱνίᾱς (νεᾱν**ί**αι) and δεσπότης (δεσπ**ό**ται) follow that of ταμίᾱς.  ἰδιώτης (ἰδι**ῶ**ται) and κυβερνήτης (κῠβερν**ῆ**ται), that of πολῑ́της.  As yet, I have not found long vowel first declension words not conforming to one or the other of these two patterns (other than words like κριτής and ποιητής, in which the accent falls on the ultimate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore my working hypothesis is that there is a subgroup level exception to recession for long vowel first declension nouns.  It would go like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;First, let us set aside words accented on the ultimate such as κριτής and μαθητής.  As for the rest, accentuation is recessive for these subgroups except where the word ends in -αι, in which case the accent 'forgets' to recede.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question stated above really stands in for the following diffuse cluster of thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Am I OK to understand the two types of exceptions (word vs. subgroup level) as presented above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If there is a subgroup level exception applicable to words such as ταμίᾱς and πολῑ́της, is there any higher principle of which that exception is an instance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Even for words such as καρκίνος and παρθένος (and perhaps even ἀγορᾱ́, τῑμή, etc.), is there any circumstance to 'motivate' their non-recessive accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general I am trying to 'motivate' these various types of exceptions to recession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/18A2l.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5809" RevisionGUID="45acfe22-954f-4624-83a4-a95c2aed3c0c" CreationDate="2018-01-04T08:39:18.073" UserId="985" Text="You're actually going about this the wrong way. Although it's true that the accentuation of *verbs* is generally recessive, the accentuation of *nouns* (and *adjectives*) isn't; it's generally persistent instead. The accent will remain the same type and in the same location unless it's forced to move by, e.g., the quantity of the ultima or some special rule. The nominative singular form tells the base accent for a noun or adjective, and that accent doesn't have to go as far back to the beginning of the word as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, for πόλεμος, the base accent is acute over the first ο in the antepenult; however, in the genitive singular, πολέμου, the diphthong in the ultima makes that syllable long; therefore, the accent can't remain on the antepenult but has to move to the penult – still as an acute in this instance. The base accent of παρθένος is an acute over the ε in the penult, and it can stay there in all forms of the noun. The base accent of ταμίας is acute over the ι in the penult; it can stay there in all forms except the genitive plural, where it must move because of a special rule that the genitive plural of all first declension nouns has a circumflex over the ω in the ultima." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5809" RevisionGUID="918dce2f-5d1b-4b9a-be17-46961cd3fcdc" CreationDate="2018-01-04T08:48:17.950" UserId="985" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="You're actually going about this the wrong way. Although it's true that the accentuation of *verbs* is generally recessive, the accentuation of *nouns* (and *adjectives*) isn't; it's generally persistent instead. The accent will remain the same type and in the same location unless it's forced to move or change by, e.g., the quantity of the ultima or some special rule. The nominative singular form tells the base accent for a noun or adjective, and that accent doesn't have to go as far back to the beginning of the word as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, for πόλεμος, the base accent is acute over the first ο in the antepenult; however, in the genitive singular, πολέμου, the diphthong in the ultima makes that syllable long; therefore, the accent can't remain on the antepenult but has to move to the penult – still as an acute in this instance. The base accent of παρθένος is an acute over the ε in the penult, and it can stay there in all forms of the noun. The base accent of ταμίας is acute over the ι in the penult; it can stay there in all forms except the genitive plural, where it must move because of a special rule that the genitive plural of all first declension nouns has a circumflex over the ω in the ultima." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5808" RevisionGUID="2b4e789b-8abd-4da8-8b7c-0907e3feb6d2" CreationDate="2018-01-04T13:56:28.677" UserId="1133" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I have marked in green accentuation below which is not recessive, namely, in ταμίαι, πολῖτα, πολῖται, παρθένος, παρθένε, and παρθένοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question:  Is there some general principle to explain the lack of recession in those words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By recession, of course, I mean what one sees in πόλεμος.  The accent wants to sit as far away from the end of the word as possible (given certain rules).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lack of recession in παρθένος, I put down to, as it were, 'the word forming an exception.'  In a manner of speaking, I am assimilating this exception to that found in words such as ἀγορᾱ́, τῑμή, κριτής and ὁδός.  The accent just 'wants to' fall at the end.  I don't argue or try to explain it.  I only hope I'll remember.  In the same way, the accent just wants to sit on the penult in καρκίνος and παρθένος.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pattern in ταμίᾱς and πολῑ́της however seems more tricky, for two reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It almost seems as if the accent 'forgot to move' in the few places where it might have, each time (except in πολῖτα) because the word ended in -αι.&#xD;&#xA; - I don't find nouns in which the accent does move when it could (i.e. when the word ends in -αι).  In other words, the pattern of ταμίᾱς or πολῑ́της seems general.  For example, νεᾱνίᾱς (νεᾱν**ί**αι) and δεσπότης (δεσπ**ό**ται) follow that of ταμίᾱς.  ἰδιώτης (ἰδι**ῶ**ται) and κυβερνήτης (κῠβερν**ῆ**ται), that of πολῑ́της.  As yet, I have not found long vowel first declension words not conforming to one or the other of these two patterns (other than words like κριτής and ποιητής, in which the accent falls on the ultima).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore my working hypothesis is that there is a subgroup level exception to recession for long vowel first declension nouns.  It would go like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;First, let us set aside words accented on the ultima such as κριτής and μαθητής.  As for the rest, accentuation is recessive for these subgroups except where the word ends in -αι, in which case the accent 'forgets' to recede.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question stated above really stands in for the following diffuse cluster of thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Am I OK to understand the two types of exceptions (word vs. subgroup level) as presented above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If there is a subgroup level exception applicable to words such as ταμίᾱς and πολῑ́της, is there any higher principle of which that exception is an instance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Even for words such as καρκίνος and παρθένος (and perhaps even ἀγορᾱ́, τῑμή, etc.), is there any circumstance to 'motivate' their non-recessive accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general I am trying to 'motivate' these various types of exceptions to recession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/18A2l.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5811" RevisionGUID="f8be4fbe-9ce2-40f1-aa5b-21a1e3e80ebe" CreationDate="2018-01-04T19:15:35.720" UserId="1461" Text="I think the trait that really distinguishes the better part of humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom is the capacity to love and care.  [Homo Sapiens][1] means &quot;wise man&quot;.  How would you say &quot;caring&quot; man in Latin? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19223" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5811" RevisionGUID="f8be4fbe-9ce2-40f1-aa5b-21a1e3e80ebe" CreationDate="2018-01-04T19:15:35.720" UserId="1461" Text="How would you say 'caring man'; Homo ________?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19224" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5811" RevisionGUID="f8be4fbe-9ce2-40f1-aa5b-21a1e3e80ebe" CreationDate="2018-01-04T19:15:35.720" UserId="1461" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5812" RevisionGUID="0cbf2a75-b750-4614-a995-732448789df5" CreationDate="2018-01-04T20:03:47.020" UserId="79" Text="I offer ***homo benignus***.&#xD;&#xA;The adjective [*benignus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=benignus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) means something like &quot;good-willing&quot; or &quot;kind&quot;; see the linked dictionary entry for details.&#xD;&#xA;I think this captures the desired sense of &quot;caring&quot; pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;If you disagree, I or someone else might be able to find something better if you can describe which direction to take it to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5813" RevisionGUID="d52da853-8c39-4461-a86c-0d6489844362" CreationDate="2018-01-05T01:21:10.120" UserId="1343" Text="The Ancient Greek suffix -ίδης was used to form masculine patronymics - that is to say, one combines it with X to create a name meaning &quot;Son of X&quot;. Examples: Ἀλκείδης (&quot;son of Alkaios&quot;), Ἡρακλεῖδαι (&quot;sons of Herakles&quot;; -ῐ́δαι is the plural of -ίδης).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an existing feminine form of this suffix? If not, can such a feminine form be constructed using existing rules in Ancient Greek grammar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19228" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5813" RevisionGUID="d52da853-8c39-4461-a86c-0d6489844362" CreationDate="2018-01-05T01:21:10.120" UserId="1343" Text="Feminine form of -ίδης" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19229" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5813" RevisionGUID="d52da853-8c39-4461-a86c-0d6489844362" CreationDate="2018-01-05T01:21:10.120" UserId="1343" Text="|greek|names|suffixes|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5814" RevisionGUID="1e12e0cb-c1b1-47b6-8a8b-eab352531f37" CreationDate="2018-01-05T02:39:51.853" UserId="985" Text="Yes, feminine forms exist. This is covered in sections 845–848 of Smyth's _Greek Grammar_. Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Βορέας &gt; Βορεάδης, 'son of Boreas'; Βορεάς -δος, 'daughter of Boreas'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Θέστιος &gt; Θεστιάδης, 'son of Thestius'; Θεστιάς -δος, 'daughter of Thestius'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Φέρης &gt; Φερητιάδης, 'son of Pheres'; Φερητιάς -ιάδος, 'daughter of Pheres'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Περσεύς &gt; Περσηιάδης, 'son of Perseus'; Περσηίς -ίδος, 'daughter of Perseus'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Τάνταλος &gt; Τανταλίδης, 'son of Tantalus'; Τανταλίς -ίδος, 'daughter of Tantalus'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Κέκροψ &gt; Κεκροπίδης, 'son of Cecrops'; Κεκροπίς -ίδος, 'daughter of Cecrops'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Οἰνεύς &gt; Οἰνείδης, 'son of Oeneus'; Οἰνηίς -ίδος, 'daughter of Oeneus'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if 'son of Alkaios' is  Ἀλκείδης, 'daughter of Alkaios' should be Άλκείς; and if 'sons of Herakles' is Ἡρακλεῖδαι, 'daughters of Herakles' should be Ἡρακλεῖδες." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5815" RevisionGUID="96f5837f-b94e-4aef-8aff-496740307127" CreationDate="2018-01-05T02:46:24.267" UserId="1343" Text="Διώνη is the name of [a Titaness, a nymph, and Phoenician goddess][1]. And according to [the Wikipedia article on said Titaness][2], it's derived from the feminine form of the genitive of Ζεύς. And according to [Wiktionary][3], **all** of the inflected forms of Ζεύς change Ζ (&quot;z&quot;) to Δ (&quot;d&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Why and how does the initial letter in the word transform into a completely different one in the process of inflection? It's a bizarre anomaly, as in my experience I've never seen any Greek word (modern on ancient) that changes anything other than the last few letters when it's inflected.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is Διώνη truly the only feminine form of the name Ζεύς? Or is there an alternative one? Because unless I'm missing something, one would be hard-pressed to realize the connection between the two names if they aren't already familiar with the aforementioned quirk in the declension of Ζεύς.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dione_(mythology)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dione_(Titaness)&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%96%CE%B5%CF%8D%CF%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19232" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5815" RevisionGUID="96f5837f-b94e-4aef-8aff-496740307127" CreationDate="2018-01-05T02:46:24.267" UserId="1343" Text="Inflections of Ζεύς" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19233" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5815" RevisionGUID="96f5837f-b94e-4aef-8aff-496740307127" CreationDate="2018-01-05T02:46:24.267" UserId="1343" Text="|greek|derivation|names|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5814" RevisionGUID="6533108b-5ea9-48b6-82e2-8fb0b9c14d6f" CreationDate="2018-01-05T02:50:05.750" UserId="985" Comment="added 199 characters in body" Text="Yes, feminine forms exist. This is covered in sections 845–848 of Smyth's _Greek Grammar_. Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Βορέας &gt; Βορεάδης, 'son of Boreas'; Βορεάς -δος, 'daughter of Boreas'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Θέστιος &gt; Θεστιάδης, 'son of Thestius'; Θεστιάς -δος, 'daughter of Thestius'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Φέρης &gt; Φερητιάδης, 'son of Pheres'; Φερητιάς -ιάδος, 'daughter of Pheres'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Περσεύς &gt; Περσηιάδης, 'son of Perseus'; Περσηίς -ίδος, 'daughter of Perseus'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Τάνταλος &gt; Τανταλίδης, 'son of Tantalus'; Τανταλίς -ίδος, 'daughter of Tantalus'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Κέκροψ &gt; Κεκροπίδης, 'son of Cecrops'; Κεκροπίς -ίδος, 'daughter of Cecrops'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Οἰνεύς &gt; Οἰνείδης, 'son of Oeneus'; Οἰνηίς -ίδος, 'daughter of Oeneus'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if 'son of Alkaios' is  Ἀλκείδης, 'daughter of Alkaios' should be Άλκείς; and if 'sons of Herakles' is Ἡρακλεῖδαι, 'daughters of Herakles' should be Ἡρακλεῖδες.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, in most cases, if you know the masculine first declension form, you use the stem, ending in δ, as the stem of a third declension feminine noun whose nominative singular ends in ς." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5817" RevisionGUID="fd7033cf-3af0-44ab-b348-3891b5fc4356" CreationDate="2018-01-05T05:42:56.877" UserId="2303" Text="Jungmann in his magisterial work on the Roman Mass suggests that this is in keeping with a grammatical rule in many languages: from a feeling of reverence, religious terms are apt to be handled as indeclinable.In a footnote he notes the vocative &quot;Deus&quot; (Mass of the Roman Rite, vol. 2 pg. 338)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5812" RevisionGUID="08b645f8-c7d5-4142-8777-e82d7c45751b" CreationDate="2018-01-05T11:48:45.243" UserId="79" Comment="added 159 characters in body" Text="I offer ***homo benignus***.&#xD;&#xA;The adjective [*benignus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=benignus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) means something like &quot;good-willing&quot; or &quot;kind&quot;; see the linked dictionary entry for details.&#xD;&#xA;I think this captures the desired sense of &quot;caring&quot; pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;If you disagree, I or someone else might be able to find something better if you can describe which direction to take it to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjectives *benevolens* and *benevolus* are also possible.&#xD;&#xA;If you want a comparison of these three adjectives, I recommend asking a separate question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5818" RevisionGUID="4735766f-9377-4fa0-9027-99883b924eed" CreationDate="2018-01-05T17:33:59.347" UserId="1694" Text="It's more accurate to ask why the Δ changes to Ζ than vice versa.  Historically Ζεύς comes from a pre-Greek form *Dyeus, and just like in English we sometimes hear a &quot;dy&quot; combination merge into a &quot;j&quot; sound (i.e., [dj]) -&gt; [dʒ]), the same thing happened in Greek, so that the initial consonant was originally pronounced somwthing like [dʒ] (with subsequent development on to [dz], and then, depending on dialect to [zd] or [z]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the original &quot;Dyeus&quot; (or &quot;Dieus&quot; or &quot;Dyews&quot;), it's easily to see where the genitive &quot;Diwos&quot; (later &quot;Dios&quot;/Διός) come from, and then Διόνη (from Dionā &lt; *Diwonā) makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cases, this type of alternation would get levelled out in the passage of time, but in the case of Ζεύς, this didn't happen.  (Or actuall, in some dialects, it did happen, with the development of forms like Ζηνός, &amp;c.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5818" RevisionGUID="b1dcb665-0d8d-4600-9704-91a8f9e9ba30" CreationDate="2018-01-05T17:40:30.913" UserId="1694" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="It's more accurate to ask why the Δ changes to Ζ than vice versa.  Historically Ζεύς comes from a pre-Greek form *Dyeus, and just like in English we sometimes hear a &quot;dy&quot; combination merge into a &quot;j&quot; sound (i.e., [dj]) -&gt; [dʒ]), the same thing happened in Greek, so that the initial consonant was originally pronounced something like [dʒ] (with subsequent development on to [dz], and then, depending on dialect to [zd] or [z]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the original &quot;Dyeus&quot; (or &quot;Dieus&quot; or &quot;Dyews&quot;), it's easily to see where the genitive &quot;Diwos&quot; (later &quot;Dios&quot;/Διός) comes from, and then Διόνη (from Dionā &lt; *Diwonā) makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cases, this type of alternation would get levelled out in the passage of time, but in the case of Ζεύς, this didn't happen.  (Or actually, in some dialects, it did happen, with the development of forms like Ζηνός, &amp;c.,extending the Ζ throughout the inflexion.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5818" RevisionGUID="034af4e4-4e8d-4446-8697-c768e814a40b" CreationDate="2018-01-05T17:59:30.343" UserId="1694" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="It's more accurate to ask why the Δ changes to Ζ than vice versa.  Historically Ζεύς comes from a pre-Greek form *Dyeus, and just like in English we sometimes hear a &quot;dy&quot; combination merge into a &quot;j&quot; sound (i.e., [dj]) -&gt; [dʒ]), the same thing happened in Greek, so that the initial consonant was originally pronounced something like [dʒ] (with subsequent development on to [dz], and then, depending on dialect to [zd] or [z]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the original &quot;Dyeus&quot; (or &quot;Dieus&quot; or &quot;Dyews&quot;), it's easily to see where the genitive &quot;Diwos&quot; (later &quot;Dios&quot;/Διός) comes from, and then Διώνη (from Diōnā &lt; *Diwōnā) makes sense.  (Note that the pan-Greek form of this name would be Διώνᾱ, the final change to Διώνη represents a general replacement of ᾱ by η in Attic/Ionic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cases, this type of alternation would get levelled out in the passage of time, but in the case of Ζεύς, this didn't happen.  (Or actually, in some dialects, it did happen, with the development of forms like Ζηνός, &amp;c.,extending the Ζ throughout the inflexion.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5818" RevisionGUID="47feb77b-b2b7-4d8a-9e54-1ca53b8e71b6" CreationDate="2018-01-05T19:10:27.920" UserId="1694" Comment="added 483 characters in body" Text="It's more accurate to ask why the Δ changes to Ζ than vice versa.  Historically Ζεύς comes from a pre-Greek form *Dyeus, and just like in English we sometimes hear a &quot;dy&quot; combination merge into a &quot;j&quot; sound (i.e., [dj]) -&gt; [dʒ]), the same thing happened in Greek, so that the initial consonant was originally pronounced something like [dʒ] (with subsequent development on to [dz], and then, depending on dialect to [zd] or [z]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the original &quot;Dyeus&quot; (or &quot;Dieus&quot; or &quot;Dyews&quot;), it's easily to see where the genitive &quot;Diwos&quot; (later &quot;Dios&quot;/Διός) comes from, and then Διώνη (from Diōnā &lt; *Diwōnā) makes sense.  (Note that the pan-Greek form of this name would be Διώνᾱ, the final change to Διώνη represents a general replacement of ᾱ by η in Attic/Ionic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cases, this type of alternation would get levelled out in the passage of time, but in the case of Ζεύς, this didn't happen.  (Or actually, in some dialects, it did happen, with the development of forms like Ζηνός, &amp;c.,extending the Ζ throughout the inflexion.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is getting rather far from the original question, but the form Ζηνός is an interesting example of analogic extensions.  The *expected* form, based on purely phonological principles, of the accusative of original form (something like *Dyēm) would be Ζήν, but by analogy with other 3rd-declension nouns it got an additional accusative suffix to yield Ζῆνα (note that the normal Accusative of Ζεύς, Δία, is also formed by analogy).  Then, from Ζῆνα, other inflexional forms were created based on the newly perceived stem Ζην‐.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5818" RevisionGUID="bff32c90-6994-4001-944f-fec12a4054c0" CreationDate="2018-01-05T19:15:31.650" UserId="1694" Comment="added 483 characters in body" Text="It's more accurate to ask why the Δ changes to Ζ than vice versa.  Historically Ζεύς comes from a pre-Greek form *Dyeus, and just like in English we sometimes hear a &quot;dy&quot; combination merge into a &quot;j&quot; sound (i.e., [dj]) -&gt; [dʒ]), the same thing happened in Greek, so that the initial consonant was originally pronounced something like [dʒ] (with subsequent development on to [dz], and then, depending on dialect to [zd] or [z]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the original &quot;Dyeus&quot; (or &quot;Dieus&quot; or &quot;Dyews&quot;), it's easily to see where the genitive &quot;Diwos&quot; (later &quot;Dios&quot;/Διός) comes from, and then Διώνη (from Diōnā &lt; *Diwōnā) makes sense.  (Note that the pan-Greek form of this name would be Διώνᾱ, the final change to Διώνη represents a general replacement of ᾱ by η in Attic/Ionic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cases, this type of alternation would get levelled out in the passage of time, but in the case of Ζεύς, this didn't happen.  (Or actually, in some dialects, it did happen, with the development of forms like Ζηνός, &amp;c.,extending the Ζ throughout the inflexion.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is getting rather far from the original question, but the genitive form Ζηνός is an interesting example of analogic extensions.  The *expected* form, based on purely phonological principles, of the accusative of original form (something like *Dyēm) would be Ζήν, but by analogy with other 3rd-declension nouns it got an additional accusative suffix to yield Ζῆνα (note that the normal Accusative of Ζεύς, Δία, is also formed by analogy).  Then, from Ζῆνα, other inflexional forms were created based on the newly perceived stem Ζην‐.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5819" RevisionGUID="49a486ed-9e21-4624-a576-3979ed64f744" CreationDate="2018-01-05T23:59:20.353" UserId="2305" Text="For Socrates -- and, one might suppose, also for the priests of Delphi -- false opinion chains prisoners to the cave's wall; and also false opinion results *from* moral error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence either of these meaning might apply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *Committing yourself (to false opinion) is ruinous*. &#xD;&#xA; 2. *Committing yourself (to false opinion) comes from folly*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would seek in any case a nonliteral meaning, and probably a skeptical one per&#xD;&#xA;[Diogenes Laertius][1] 9.11.71 (Pyrrho).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0004.tlg001.perseus-eng1:9.11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1555" RevisionGUID="9155098d-827a-463b-af22-b1fe2ef54c83" CreationDate="2018-01-06T17:16:02.470" UserId="406" Comment="Fixed link" Text="***Aestuans intrinsecus...***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is a set of fifty couplets by a medieval (1160) poet which purports to be a heart-felt confession but is in fact a boast to his patron. (Is he asking for forgiveness or permission **veniam**?)  Since his patron was an Archdeacon as well as an Arch-Duke, the poet became known as the Arch-Poet, and his poetry is exceptionally well-crafted (like Lehrer's).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Praesul discretissime, veniam te precor,* [verse 6]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *morte bona morior, dulci nece necor,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  meum pectus sauciat puellarum decor,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  et quas tactu nequeo, saltem corde moechor.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most exceptional Archdeacon, I beseech your forgiveness;  &#xD;&#xA;I die the good death, I am slain by sweet slaughter,  &#xD;&#xA;I am smitten in the breast by the beauty of women;  &#xD;&#xA;and whom I cannot by touch, in my heart at least I take.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's slick, it's mischievous, it is Oh so innocent.&#xD;&#xA;Read the rest on [John Whelpton’s site][1]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://linguae.weebly.com/carmina-mediaevalia.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5821" RevisionGUID="88e35f42-8818-4d4e-97b0-75209f24efab" CreationDate="2018-01-06T18:49:17.893" UserId="30" Text="This is actually a peculiar feature of English, not of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most languages that I know, a form of *be* with a past participle indicates a past verbal phrase; it describes something in the past (or something that precedes something else).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Il **est** vu au cinéma avec un femme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Er **ist** gesehen im Kino mit einer Frau.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hij **is** gezien in de bioscoop met een vrouw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Visus **est** in cinemate cum muliere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all of these examples, the seeing usually happened in the past, it's not still going on or still awaiting repetition. This only makes sense, for the past participle includes a sense of past or preceding (in addition to a sense of passivity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we probably should not translate this literally as *\*he **is** seen at the cinema*, which often implies some relation to the present in modern English, e.g. he is seen at the cinema every week (including this week and the next). The usually way to write a passive verb in the normal past in English is through a past form of *be* with a past participle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He **was** seen at the cinema with a woman." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5822" RevisionGUID="11b8e47f-2523-4243-9290-2f07d4064444" CreationDate="2018-01-06T19:08:28.153" UserId="30" Text="Lewis &amp; Short often use the abbreviation *collat.*, standing for *collateral* according to the appendix of abbreviations. An example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ŭtĕrus, i*, m. (**collat**. form *ŭter*, Caecil. ap. Non. 188, 15; neutr. **collat**. form *ŭtĕ-rum, i*, Plaut. Aul. 4, 7, 10, acc. to Non. 229, 33; Turp. and Afran. ib.) [Sanscr. uttara, later; Gr. ὕστερος; cf. Gr. ὑστέρα, womb; Sanscr. udaram, belly; Engl. udder], the womb, matrix (syn. volva).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is often used for the form of some word. I suspect it simply means &quot;alternative&quot;. But the English word itself can also mean &quot;descended from the same stock, but in a different line&quot; in family relations. So what does it mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19251" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5822" RevisionGUID="11b8e47f-2523-4243-9290-2f07d4064444" CreationDate="2018-01-06T19:08:28.153" UserId="30" Text="What is meant by &quot;collateral&quot; in dictionaries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19252" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5822" RevisionGUID="11b8e47f-2523-4243-9290-2f07d4064444" CreationDate="2018-01-06T19:08:28.153" UserId="30" Text="|morphology|abbreviations|dictionary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5821" RevisionGUID="1dc90dd5-6fa4-44af-9141-18d8e0dadacc" CreationDate="2018-01-06T19:09:47.977" UserId="30" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="This is actually a peculiar feature of English, not of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most languages that I know, a form of *be* with a past participle indicates a past verbal phrase; it describes something in the past (or something that precedes something else).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Il **est** vu au cinéma avec un femme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Er **ist** gesehen (worden) im Kino mit einer Frau.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hij **is** gezien in de bioscoop met een vrouw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Visus **est** in cinemate cum femina.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all of these examples, the seeing usually happened in the past, it's not still going on or still awaiting repetition. This only makes sense, for the past participle includes a sense of past or preceding (in addition to a sense of passivity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we probably should not translate this literally as *\*he **is** seen at the cinema*, which often implies some relation to the present in modern English, e.g. he is seen at the cinema every week (including this week and the next). The usually way to write a passive verb in the normal past in English is through a past form of *be* with a past participle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He **was** seen at the cinema with a woman." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5823" RevisionGUID="6d9f5282-b3f4-44e8-b858-f908fa2fee5f" CreationDate="2018-01-06T19:27:29.043" UserId="79" Text="Judging by examples, it seems to indeed mean &quot;alternative&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Etymology offers a reading of &quot;collateral&quot; that fits the context perfectly:&#xD;&#xA;Combining *con* and *latus*, one can form an adjective *collateralis* which means essentially &quot;side by side&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Compare with the plain [*lateralis* in L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=lateralis&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;If two forms of a word are used side by side, they are alternatives to each other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5824" RevisionGUID="6d0b1bbc-f610-4b6a-8882-b1b2265b8084" CreationDate="2018-01-06T21:16:59.893" UserId="985" Text="The *Oxford new American dictionary* defines as 'additional but subordinate; secondary: *the collateral meanings of a word*.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5825" RevisionGUID="3c4a102b-fd36-46a1-b66c-30ee464c2fd6" CreationDate="2018-01-07T01:24:57.913" UserId="324" Text="As others have noted, “collateral” means “alternative” or “secondary”. Actually, this entry bears witness to the limitations of the venerable L/S. The references for the “collateral” uter and uterum are dubious (post-classical grammarians). Current etymological thinking is that uterus is  certainly not cognate with uttara-, ὕστερος or ὑστέρα,  nor with udder, though it is possibly cognate with Skt. udara-, with an inner-Latin shift of *-der- to -ter-. English udder belongs with Latin uber (IE -dh-)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="ad6c1601-dac5-4dde-b9dd-755610681b50" CreationDate="2018-01-07T01:28:56.860" UserId="9" Comment="added 705 characters in body" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification. The nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo.* In other cases, neither the Classical Latin nominative nor the Classical Latin accusative seems to be sufficient to explain the form of an Italian word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it does seem likely that in general/overall, the accusative forms had more of an influence on the development of the Italian forms than the ablative forms specifically, because as far as I know there is in the great majority of cases nothing ***particular to Latin ablative forms*** that helps explain the Italian forms. Phonetically, the ablative form is fairly similar to the accusative form in Latin in many situations. They are built on the same stem, and frequently differ only by the presence or absence of final *m* and/or the length or quality of the vowel in the last syllable; in the situations where the accusative and ablative forms are most distinct (like in the first- or third-declension plural) we don't see a reflex in Italian of the Latin ablative endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to edit this post later with more references and description of the particulars. In the meantime, I want to link to this WordReference thread with some prior discussion: [Accusative declension from Latin -&gt; Italian][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area mentioned below where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Singular forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/), the second-declension singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/), and the third-declension singular (non i-stems) for non-neuter nouns (Latin /em#/ and /e/ both go to Italian /e/ in unstressed syllables, although in some words, like *città,* this was later lost).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin /uː/ in word-final unstressed syllables (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the last paragraph below). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any sign of Latin third-declension i-stem ablative singular forms in *-ī* contributing to Italian, but [the use of *-ī* vs. *-e*][2] was somewhat variable even in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension neuter nouns are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above. They seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways, which probably reflect phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class shifts, and learned borrowings. Misc. examples: *fiume, fiumi* from Latin *flumen*; *corpo, corpi* from Latin *corpus.* The Italian words *femore, -i; crimine, -i; inguine, -i;* and *onere, -i* obviously cannot be from the Classical Latin nominative or accusative singular forms of *femur, crimen, inguen, onus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So overall, Italian singular forms seem to give no strong indications of whether they are from the Latin accusative vs. the Latin ablative form; but sound changes explain this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Classical Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian, but it seems more straightforward to analyze the Italian ending of these words as coming from the Latin nominative plural suffix *-i.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][3]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;, but I doubt that the ablative had an influence in this area, based on what we see with the other types of plural nouns.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is apparently somewhat tricky to explain the exact development of the Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular, but the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, what Wikipedia says is that the Italian plural ending &quot;-e&quot; is generally thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the archaic first-declension nominative plural ending *-ās*. [Old French][4], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[The Italian Plural Formative *-e*][5]&quot; (Helmut Lüdtke, in *Italic and Romance: Linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo, 1980), the Italian feminine plural article *le* has been proposed to come from either Latin ILLAE, ILLAS or ILLAEC (which he says was proposed by Merlo as a formation on the analogy of HAEC) (p. 122).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lüdtke argues that the  *as &gt; *ai̯ &gt; e sound-change explanation cannot account for the existence of syntactic doubling in some Italian dialects after this article, something that usually occurs as the reflex of a former consonant cluster. Because of this, he argues that the vowel in the suffix must have changed before the loss of the final consonant; he assumes this vowel change was analogical (suggesting *-as* changed to *-es* under the influence of either third-declension *-es,* the Classical Latin nominative ending *-ae,* or the influence of QUAE on ILLA). I'm not sure what to think about this but in any case, Lüdtke agrees with the Wikipedia article about  the ultimate source of Italian plural *-e* being Latin *-as,* although Lüdtke does describe this as an accusative form (p. 123). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, he also mentions the existence of two &quot;marginal zones ... the northwestern corner of Tuscany ... and the Bregaglia Valley ... where we find the plural type *la porta*&quot; which he says is from ILLAS PORTAS with loss of the final /s/ without a change of the vowel in the final syllable (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No plural *\*-evo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is *\*evo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-a*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter nominative/singular plural ending. Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-o*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][6]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Classical Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Notes about notation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my transcriptions of Latin, I am using the same IPA symbols for long and short vowels since the length marker is enough to disambiguate what phoneme I am talking about. I used the symbol &quot;#&quot; to represent a word boundary:  &quot;am&quot; developed to &quot;a&quot; word-finally in Romance, but generally had other developments when it occured in other positions in Latin words (e.g. &quot;amo&quot; or &quot;cambio&quot;). Something like &quot;*as &gt; *ai̯ / _#&quot; means &quot;/as/ became /ai̯/ in word-final contexts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/accusative-declension-from-latin-italian.2256785/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/675/why-do-ablatives-of-the-3rd-declension-sometimes-end-on-e-at-other-times-on-i&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hV5AAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PKzB-2byuE&amp;sig=z3uhJpQbwIYG1hzBGKJcqs_ha44&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiotLaQvLjYAhVDRyYKHa81AHcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="248a38cb-237f-4c92-91a1-c00c3787a660" CreationDate="2018-01-07T01:34:28.330" UserId="9" Comment="added 705 characters in body" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification. The nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo.* In other cases, neither the Classical Latin nominative nor the Classical Latin accusative seems to be sufficient to explain the form of an Italian word (because of things like reanalysis of stems or nouns moving to different noun classes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it does seem likely that in general/overall, the accusative forms had more of an influence on the development of the Italian forms than the ablative forms specifically, because as far as I know there is in the great majority of cases nothing ***particular to Latin ablative forms*** that helps explain the Italian forms. Phonetically, the ablative form is fairly similar to the accusative form in Latin in many situations. They are built on the same stem, and frequently differ only by the presence or absence of final *m* and/or the length or quality of the vowel in the last syllable; in the situations where the accusative and ablative forms are most distinct (like in the first- or third-declension plural) we don't see a reflex in Italian of the Latin ablative endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to edit this post later with more references and description of the particulars. In the meantime, I want to link to this WordReference thread with some prior discussion: [Accusative declension from Latin -&gt; Italian][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area mentioned below where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Singular forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/), the second-declension singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/), and the third-declension singular (non i-stems) for non-neuter nouns (Latin /em#/ and /e/ both go to Italian /e/ in unstressed syllables, although in some words, like *città,* this was later lost).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin /uː/ in word-final unstressed syllables (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the last paragraph below). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any sign of Latin third-declension i-stem ablative singular forms in *-ī* contributing to Italian, but [the use of *-ī* vs. *-e*][2] was somewhat variable even in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension neuter nouns are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above. They seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways, which probably reflect phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class shifts, and learned borrowings. Misc. examples: *fiume, fiumi* from Latin *flumen*; *corpo, corpi* from Latin *corpus.* The Italian words *femore, -i; crimine, -i; inguine, -i;* and *onere, -i* obviously cannot be from the Classical Latin nominative or accusative singular forms of *femur, crimen, inguen, onus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So overall, Italian singular forms seem to give no strong indications of whether they are from the Latin accusative vs. the Latin ablative form; but sound changes explain this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Classical Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian, but it seems more straightforward to analyze the Italian ending of these words as coming from the Latin nominative plural suffix *-i.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][3]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;, but I doubt that the ablative had an influence in this area, based on what we see with the other types of plural nouns.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is apparently somewhat tricky to explain the exact development of the Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular, but the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, what Wikipedia says is that the Italian plural ending &quot;-e&quot; is generally thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the archaic first-declension nominative plural ending *-ās*. [Old French][4], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[The Italian Plural Formative *-e*][5]&quot; (Helmut Lüdtke, in *Italic and Romance: Linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo, 1980), the Italian feminine plural article *le* has been proposed to come from either Latin ILLAE, ILLAS or ILLAEC (which he says was proposed by Merlo as a formation on the analogy of HAEC) (p. 122).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lüdtke argues that the  *as &gt; *ai̯ &gt; e sound-change explanation cannot account for the existence of syntactic doubling in some Italian dialects after this article, something that usually occurs as the reflex of a former consonant cluster. Because of this, he argues that the vowel in the suffix must have changed before the loss of the final consonant; he assumes this vowel change was analogical (suggesting *-as* changed to *-es* under the influence of either third-declension *-es,* the Classical Latin nominative ending *-ae,* or the influence of QUAE on ILLA). I'm not sure what to think about this but in any case, Lüdtke agrees with the Wikipedia article about  the ultimate source of Italian plural *-e* being Latin *-as,* although Lüdtke does describe this as an accusative form (p. 123). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, he also mentions the existence of two &quot;marginal zones ... the northwestern corner of Tuscany ... and the Bregaglia Valley ... where we find the plural type *la porta*&quot; which he says is from ILLAS PORTAS with loss of the final /s/ without a change of the vowel in the final syllable (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No plural *\*-evo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is *\*evo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-a*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter nominative/singular plural ending. Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-o*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][6]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Classical Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Notes about notation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my transcriptions of Latin, I am using the same IPA symbols for long and short vowels since the length marker is enough to disambiguate what phoneme I am talking about. I used the symbol &quot;#&quot; to represent a word boundary:  &quot;am&quot; developed to &quot;a&quot; word-finally in Romance, but generally had other developments when it occured in other positions in Latin words (e.g. &quot;amo&quot; or &quot;cambio&quot;). Something like &quot;*as &gt; *ai̯ / _#&quot; means &quot;/as/ became /ai̯/ in word-final contexts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/accusative-declension-from-latin-italian.2256785/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/675/why-do-ablatives-of-the-3rd-declension-sometimes-end-on-e-at-other-times-on-i&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hV5AAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PKzB-2byuE&amp;sig=z3uhJpQbwIYG1hzBGKJcqs_ha44&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiotLaQvLjYAhVDRyYKHa81AHcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5795" RevisionGUID="d5062df9-489c-42c8-91ca-100f02392a3a" CreationDate="2018-01-07T03:12:05.047" UserId="39" Comment="added 383 characters in body" Text="**Just brief notes so far.** - I'll add more details later&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;History of Italian is not my forte, but here's what the experts say, e.g. Professor [Martin Maiden][1] (Professor of the Romance Languages, Fellow of Trinity College) writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**The overwhelming majority of modern nouns and adjectives** [in Italian - Alex B.] **appear to derive from Latin *accusative* forms**&quot; ([Martin 1995][2]: 98; italics not mine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, syntactic data suggest that the ablative uses were overtaken by the accusative, particularly after prepositions. Clackson and Horrocks (2007/2011), in Chapter VII &quot;Sub-elite Latin in the Empire,&quot; mention the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*con tirones* 'with the recruits' - ACC.PL instead of the ablative (Claudius Terentianus, first quarter of the second century; see the full text in Adams 2016, *An anthology of informal Latin texts 200 BC - AD 900*, Text 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*cum discente suos* 'with his pupils' - ACC.PL (CIL IV 698) instead of the ablative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson and Horrocks also mention Banniard 1992, who came up with the following model of the loss of Latin cases in four stages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/people/martin-maiden&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.routledge.com/Linguistic-History-of-Italian-A/Maiden/p/book/9781315845906&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QSLyk.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5795" RevisionGUID="55cfa078-d37c-4970-b25e-b0426d7a78d1" CreationDate="2018-01-07T03:49:56.853" UserId="39" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="**Just brief notes so far.** - I'll add more details later&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;History of Italian is not my forte, but here's what the experts say, e.g. Professor [Martin Maiden][1] (Professor of the Romance Languages, Fellow of Trinity College) writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**The overwhelming majority of modern nouns and adjectives** [in Italian - Alex B.] **appear to derive from Latin *accusative* forms**&quot; ([Martin 1995][2]: 98; italics not mine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for more details we need to read his 1996 paper, *On the Romance inflectional endings -i and -e* (published in *Romance Philology* 50: 147–82)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, syntactic data suggest that the ablative uses were overtaken by the accusative, particularly after prepositions. Clackson and Horrocks (2007/2011), in Chapter VII &quot;Sub-elite Latin in the Empire,&quot; mention the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*con tirones* 'with the recruits' - ACC.PL instead of the ablative (Claudius Terentianus, first quarter of the second century; see the full text in Adams 2016, *An anthology of informal Latin texts 200 BC - AD 900*, Text 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*cum discente suos* 'with his pupils' - ACC.PL (CIL IV 698) instead of the ablative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson and Horrocks also mention Banniard 1992, who came up with the following model of the loss of Latin cases in four stages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/people/martin-maiden&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.routledge.com/Linguistic-History-of-Italian-A/Maiden/p/book/9781315845906&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QSLyk.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5795" RevisionGUID="f0815d51-23bb-45bb-bb85-2f3d0eaf45fd" CreationDate="2018-01-07T04:06:52.280" UserId="39" Comment="added 387 characters in body" Text="**Just brief notes so far.** - I'll add more details later&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;History of Italian is not my forte, but here's what the experts say, e.g. Professor [Martin Maiden][1] (Professor of the Romance Languages, Fellow of Trinity College) writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**The overwhelming majority of modern nouns and adjectives** [in Italian - Alex B.] **appear to derive from Latin *accusative* forms**&quot; ([Martin 1995][2]: 98; italics not mine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for more details we need to read his 1996 paper, *On the Romance inflectional endings -i and -e* (published in *Romance Philology* 50: 147–82)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adam Ledgeway classifies Italian nouns into three classes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Class 1.** These nouns (and adjectives) continue the Latin second and first declensions in -u(m)/*-i and -a(m)/-as (&gt; *-aj &gt; -e) respectively;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Class 2.** These nouns (and adjectives) continue the Latin third declension in -e(m)/-es (&gt; *-ej &gt; -i);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Class 3.** These nouns (no adjectives) continue Latin second declension neuters in -u(m)/-a ([Ledgeway 2016][3]: 214)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, syntactic data suggest that the ablative uses were overtaken by the accusative, particularly after prepositions. Clackson and Horrocks (2007/2011), in Chapter VII &quot;Sub-elite Latin in the Empire,&quot; mention the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*con tirones* 'with the recruits' - ACC.PL instead of the ablative (Claudius Terentianus, first quarter of the second century; see the full text in Adams 2016, *An anthology of informal Latin texts 200 BC - AD 900*, Text 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*cum discente suos* 'with his pupils' - ACC.PL (CIL IV 698) instead of the ablative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson and Horrocks also mention Banniard 1992, who came up with the following model of the loss of Latin cases in four stages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/people/martin-maiden&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.routledge.com/Linguistic-History-of-Italian-A/Maiden/p/book/9781315845906&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108-chapter-14&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8faQz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QSLyk.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5795" RevisionGUID="8c61967d-5bed-4c59-99af-3877aef524e9" CreationDate="2018-01-07T04:13:57.157" UserId="39" Comment="added 387 characters in body" Text="**Just brief notes so far.** - I'll add more details later&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;History of Italian is not my forte, but here's what the experts say, e.g. Professor [Martin Maiden][1] (Professor of the Romance Languages, Fellow of Trinity College) writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**The overwhelming majority of modern nouns and adjectives** [in Italian - Alex B.] **appear to derive from Latin *accusative* forms**&quot; ([Martin 1995][2]: 98; italics not mine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for more details we need to read his 1996 paper, *On the Romance inflectional endings -i and -e* (published in *Romance Philology* 50: 147–82)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adam Ledgeway classifies Italian nouns into three classes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Class 1.** These nouns (and adjectives) continue the Latin second and first declensions in -u(m)/*-i and -a(m)/-as (&gt; *-aj &gt; -e) respectively;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Class 2.** These nouns (and adjectives) continue the Latin third declension in -e(m)/-es (&gt; *-ej &gt; -i);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Class 3.** These nouns (no adjectives) continue Latin second declension neuters in -u(m)/-a ([Ledgeway 2016][3]: 214)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Benincà, Parry and Pescarini (2016)][5] have the following, extremely informative passage (will summarize later):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, syntactic data suggest that the ablative uses were overtaken by the accusative, particularly after prepositions. Clackson and Horrocks (2007/2011), in Chapter VII &quot;Sub-elite Latin in the Empire,&quot; mention the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*con tirones* 'with the recruits' - ACC.PL instead of the ablative (Claudius Terentianus, first quarter of the second century; see the full text in Adams 2016, *An anthology of informal Latin texts 200 BC - AD 900*, Text 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*cum discente suos* 'with his pupils' - ACC.PL (CIL IV 698) instead of the ablative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson and Horrocks also mention Banniard 1992, who came up with the following model of the loss of Latin cases in four stages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/people/martin-maiden&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.routledge.com/Linguistic-History-of-Italian-A/Maiden/p/book/9781315845906&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108-chapter-14&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8faQz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108-chapter-13&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JmfX2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QSLyk.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19263" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="ff54d3a6-cf78-4695-a99e-0192ae6587d3" CreationDate="2018-01-07T04:51:55.420" UserId="9" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="30eff006-81c2-490e-b7c1-4238cdc10cdd" CreationDate="2018-01-07T05:03:45.407" UserId="9" Comment="added 823 characters in body" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification. The nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo.* In other cases, neither the Classical Latin nominative nor the Classical Latin accusative seems to be sufficient to explain the form of an Italian word (because of things like reanalysis of stems or nouns moving to different noun classes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it does seem likely that in general/overall, the accusative forms had more of an influence on the development of the Italian forms than the ablative forms specifically, because as far as I know there is in the great majority of cases nothing ***particular to Latin ablative forms*** that helps explain the Italian forms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically, the ablative form is fairly similar to the accusative form in Latin in many situations. They are built on the same stem, and frequently differ only by the presence or absence of final *m* and/or the length or quality of the vowel in the last syllable; in the situations where the accusative and ablative forms are most distinct (like in the first- or third-declension plural) we don't see a reflex in Italian of the Latin ablative endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have as many sources in this answer as I would like, but I want to link to this WordReference thread with some prior discussion: [Accusative declension from Latin -&gt; Italian][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area mentioned below where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Singular forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/), the second-declension singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/), and the third-declension singular (non i-stems) for non-neuter nouns (Latin /em#/ and /e/ both go to Italian /e/ in unstressed syllables, although in some words, like *città,* this was later lost).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin /uː/ in word-final unstressed syllables (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the section below about the dialectal Italian plural ending *-o* that appears to come from the Latin fourth-declension nominative/accusative plural ending /uːs/). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any sign of Latin third-declension i-stem ablative singular forms in *-ī* contributing to Italian, but [the use of *-ī* vs. *-e*][2] was somewhat variable even in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension neuter nouns are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above. They seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways, which probably reflect phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class or gender shifts, and learned borrowings. Misc. examples: *fiume, fiumi* from Latin *flumen*; *corpo, corpi* from Latin *corpus.* The Italian words *femore, -i; crimine, -i; inguine, -i;* and *onere, -i* obviously cannot be from the Classical Latin nominative or accusative singular forms of *femur, crimen, inguen, onus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, in the development from Latin to Romance, Latin third-declension neuters seem to have often become assimilated to the conjugation pattern of third-declension masculine and feminine nouns. According to the chapter &quot;Latin&quot;, by Nigel Vincent, in *The Romance Languages,* edited by Martin Harris and Nigel Vincent, one such example is It. &quot;latte&quot;, Fr. &quot;lait&quot;, Spanish &quot;leche&quot; etc. which can be accounted for by reconstructing an accusative form *lacte(m) in Proto-Romance. But Vincent points out that words like It. &quot;cuore&quot; and &quot;nome&quot; do not come from the Latin oblique stems of *cor* and *nomen* (*cord-* and *nomin-* respectively), and must be seen as derived from the Latin nominative/accusative form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So overall, Italian singular forms seem to give no strong indications of whether they are from the Latin accusative vs. the Latin ablative form; but sound changes explain this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Classical Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian, but it seems more straightforward to analyze the Italian ending of these words as coming from the Latin nominative plural suffix *-i.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][3]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;, but I doubt that the ablative had an influence in this area, based on what we see with the other types of plural nouns.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is apparently somewhat tricky to explain the exact development of the Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular, but the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, what Wikipedia says is that the Italian plural ending &quot;-e&quot; is generally thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the archaic first-declension nominative plural ending *-ās*. [Old French][4], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[The Italian Plural Formative *-e*][5]&quot; (Helmut Lüdtke, in *Italic and Romance: Linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo, 1980), the Italian feminine plural article *le* has been proposed to come from either Latin ILLAE, ILLAS or ILLAEC (which he says was proposed by Merlo as a formation on the analogy of HAEC) (p. 122).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lüdtke argues that the  *as &gt; *ai̯ &gt; e sound-change explanation cannot account for the existence of syntactic doubling in some Italian dialects after this article, something that usually occurs as the reflex of a former consonant cluster. Because of this, he argues that the vowel in the suffix must have changed before the loss of the final consonant; he assumes this vowel change was analogical (suggesting *-as* changed to *-es* under the influence of either third-declension *-es,* the Classical Latin nominative ending *-ae,* or the influence of QUAE on ILLA). I'm not sure what to think about this but in any case, Lüdtke agrees with the Wikipedia article about  the ultimate source of Italian plural *-e* being Latin *-as,* although Lüdtke does describe this as an accusative form (p. 123). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, he also mentions the existence of two &quot;marginal zones ... the northwestern corner of Tuscany ... and the Bregaglia Valley ... where we find the plural type *la porta*&quot; which he says is from ILLAS PORTAS with loss of the final /s/ without a change of the vowel in the final syllable (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No plural *\*-evo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is *\*evo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-a*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter nominative/singular plural ending. Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-o*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][6]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Classical Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Notes about notation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my transcriptions of Latin, I am using the same IPA symbols for long and short vowels since the length marker is enough to disambiguate what phoneme I am talking about. I used the symbol &quot;#&quot; to represent a word boundary:  &quot;am&quot; developed to &quot;a&quot; word-finally in Romance, but generally had other developments when it occured in other positions in Latin words (e.g. &quot;amo&quot; or &quot;cambio&quot;). Something like &quot;*as &gt; *ai̯ / _#&quot; means &quot;/as/ became /ai̯/ in word-final contexts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/accusative-declension-from-latin-italian.2256785/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/675/why-do-ablatives-of-the-3rd-declension-sometimes-end-on-e-at-other-times-on-i&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hV5AAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PKzB-2byuE&amp;sig=z3uhJpQbwIYG1hzBGKJcqs_ha44&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiotLaQvLjYAhVDRyYKHa81AHcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="2db3efeb-2218-4e33-8e8a-4c12d4cea8fb" CreationDate="2018-01-07T05:14:55.167" UserId="9" Comment="added 823 characters in body" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification. The nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo.* In other cases, neither the Classical Latin nominative nor the Classical Latin accusative seems to be sufficient to explain the form of an Italian word (because of things like reanalysis of stems or nouns moving to different noun classes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it does seem likely that in general/overall, the accusative forms had more of an influence on the development of the Italian forms than the ablative forms specifically, because as far as I know there is in the great majority of cases nothing ***particular to Latin ablative forms*** that helps explain the Italian forms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically, the ablative form is fairly similar to the accusative form in Latin in many situations. They are built on the same stem, and frequently differ only by the presence or absence of final *m* and/or the length or quality of the vowel in the last syllable; in the situations where the accusative and ablative forms are most distinct (like in the first- or third-declension plural) we don't see a reflex in Italian of the Latin ablative endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have as many sources in this answer as I would like, but I want to link to this WordReference thread with some prior discussion: [Accusative declension from Latin -&gt; Italian][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area mentioned below where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Singular forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/), the second-declension singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/), and the third-declension singular (non i-stems) for non-neuter nouns (Latin /em#/ and /e/ both go to Italian /e/ in unstressed syllables, although in some words, like *città,* this was later lost).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin /uː/ in word-final unstressed syllables (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the section below about the dialectal Italian plural ending *-o* that appears to come from the Latin fourth-declension nominative/accusative plural ending /uːs/). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any sign of Latin third-declension i-stem ablative singular forms in *-ī* contributing to Italian, but [the use of *-ī* vs. *-e*][2] was somewhat variable even in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension masculine or feminine nouns generally ended in *-em* in the accusative, which as mentioned regularly developed to Italian *-e* due to the loss of Latin word-final &quot;m&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[A Linguistic History of Italian][3]* (by Martin Maiden, 2013) points out that because of this sound change, words derived from the nominative/accusative form of Latin third-declension neuters that ended in *-e* in Latin, such as *mare,* came to have the same ending words derived from the accusative form of Latin third-declension masculine/feminine nouns (p. 108). This seems to have contributed to the dissolution of &quot;neuter&quot; as a distinct gender in Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remaining third-declension neuters (which are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above) seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways. In some cases, we phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class or gender shifts, and learned borrowings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Misc. examples: *fiume, fiumi* from Latin *flumen*; *corpo, corpi* from Latin *corpus.* The Italian words *femore, -i; crimine, -i; inguine, -i;* and *onere, -i* obviously cannot be from the Classical Latin nominative or accusative singular forms of *femur, crimen, inguen, onus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, in the development from Latin to Romance, Latin third-declension neuters seem to have often become assimilated to the conjugation pattern of third-declension masculine and feminine nouns. According to the chapter &quot;Latin&quot;, by Nigel Vincent, in *[The Romance Languages][4],* edited by Martin Harris and Nigel Vincent, one such example is It. &quot;latte&quot;, Fr. &quot;lait&quot;, Spanish &quot;leche&quot; etc. which can be accounted for by reconstructing an accusative form *lacte(m) in Proto-Romance (p. 44). But Vincent points out that words like It. &quot;cuore&quot; and &quot;nome&quot; do not come from the Latin oblique stems of *cor* and *nomen* (*cord-* and *nomin-* respectively), and must be seen as derived from the Latin nominative/accusative form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So overall, Italian singular forms seem to give no strong indications of whether they are from the Latin accusative vs. the Latin ablative form; but sound changes explain this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Classical Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian, but it seems more straightforward to analyze the Italian ending of these words as coming from the Latin nominative plural suffix *-i.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][5]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;, but I doubt that the ablative had an influence in this area, based on what we see with the other types of plural nouns.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is apparently somewhat tricky to explain the exact development of the Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular, but the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, what Wikipedia says is that the Italian plural ending &quot;-e&quot; is generally thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the archaic first-declension nominative plural ending *-ās*. [Old French][6], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[The Italian Plural Formative *-e*][7]&quot; (Helmut Lüdtke, in *Italic and Romance: Linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo, 1980), the Italian feminine plural article *le* has been proposed to come from either Latin ILLAE, ILLAS or ILLAEC (which he says was proposed by Merlo as a formation on the analogy of HAEC) (p. 122).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lüdtke argues that the  *as &gt; *ai̯ &gt; e sound-change explanation cannot account for the existence of syntactic doubling in some Italian dialects after this article, something that usually occurs as the reflex of a former consonant cluster. Because of this, he argues that the vowel in the suffix must have changed before the loss of the final consonant; he assumes this vowel change was analogical (suggesting *-as* changed to *-es* under the influence of either third-declension *-es,* the Classical Latin nominative ending *-ae,* or the influence of QUAE on ILLA). I'm not sure what to think about this but in any case, Lüdtke agrees with the Wikipedia article about  the ultimate source of Italian plural *-e* being Latin *-as,* although Lüdtke does describe this as an accusative form (p. 123). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, he also mentions the existence of two &quot;marginal zones ... the northwestern corner of Tuscany ... and the Bregaglia Valley ... where we find the plural type *la porta*&quot; which he says is from ILLAS PORTAS with loss of the final /s/ without a change of the vowel in the final syllable (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No plural *\*-evo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is *\*evo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-a*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter nominative/singular plural ending. Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-o*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][8]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Classical Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Notes about notation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my transcriptions of Latin, I am using the same IPA symbols for long and short vowels since the length marker is enough to disambiguate what phoneme I am talking about. I used the symbol &quot;#&quot; to represent a word boundary:  &quot;am&quot; developed to &quot;a&quot; word-finally in Romance, but generally had other developments when it occured in other positions in Latin words (e.g. &quot;amo&quot; or &quot;cambio&quot;). Something like &quot;*as &gt; *ai̯ / _#&quot; means &quot;/as/ became /ai̯/ in word-final contexts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/accusative-declension-from-latin-italian.2256785/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/675/why-do-ablatives-of-the-3rd-declension-sometimes-end-on-e-at-other-times-on-i&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=J3jJAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA108&amp;lpg=PA108&amp;dq=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ULI1F96Ssj&amp;sig=URlxVIUk6VCaY--2L8Z6vRNNmUg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjC7-no6cTYAhWE14MKHbzIC6oQ6AEIMzAC#v=onepage&amp;q=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=lULWOT1o0SsC&amp;pg=PA44&amp;lpg=PA44&amp;dq=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=MwR9_CEpiO&amp;sig=S_VWBTnxg4MpFJ3dhVGNuW5mZ4M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjC7-no6cTYAhWE14MKHbzIC6oQ6AEITzAK#v=onepage&amp;q=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hV5AAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PKzB-2byuE&amp;sig=z3uhJpQbwIYG1hzBGKJcqs_ha44&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiotLaQvLjYAhVDRyYKHa81AHcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19266" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="4fcfbff9-d3e0-4353-ab4b-62cdb6169eb9" CreationDate="2018-01-07T05:15:17.057" UserId="9" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="2b1b6dbc-c7ff-4f69-9e2e-61315f468a02" CreationDate="2018-01-07T05:30:04.370" UserId="9" Comment="added 499 characters in body" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification. The nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo.* In other cases, neither the Classical Latin nominative nor the Classical Latin accusative seems to be sufficient to explain the form of an Italian word (because of things like reanalysis of stems or nouns moving to different noun classes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it does seem likely that in general/overall, the accusative forms had more of an influence on the development of the Italian forms than the ablative forms specifically, because as far as I know there is in the great majority of cases nothing ***particular to Latin ablative forms*** that helps explain the Italian forms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically, the ablative form is fairly similar to the accusative form in Latin in many situations. They are built on the same stem, and frequently differ only by the presence or absence of final *m* and/or the length or quality of the vowel in the last syllable; in the situations where the accusative and ablative forms are most distinct (like in the first- or third-declension plural) we don't see a reflex in Italian of the Latin ablative endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have as many sources in this answer as I would like, but I want to link to this WordReference thread with some prior discussion: [Accusative declension from Latin -&gt; Italian][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area mentioned below where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Singular forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1st declension &amp; 2nd declension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/) and the second-declension singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###4th declension&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin /uː/ in word-final unstressed syllables (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the section below about the dialectal Italian plural ending *-o* that appears to come from the Latin fourth-declension nominative/accusative plural ending /uːs/). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###3rd declension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension masculine or feminine nouns generally ended in *-em* in the accusative, which regularly developed to Italian *-e* due to the loss of Latin word-final &quot;m&quot;. (Although in some words, like *città,* this was later lost). This is identical to the expected reflex of the third-declension singular ablative ending *-e.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any sign of Latin third-declension i-stem ablative singular forms in *-ī* contributing to Italian, but [the use of *-ī* vs. *-e*][2] was somewhat variable even in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[A Linguistic History of Italian][3]* (by Martin Maiden, 2013) points out that because of the loss of Latin word-final &quot;m&quot;, words derived from the nominative/accusative form of Latin third-declension neuters that ended in *-e* in Latin, such as *mare,* came to have the same ending words derived from the accusative form of Latin third-declension masculine/feminine nouns (p. 108). This seems to have contributed to the dissolution of &quot;neuter&quot; as a distinct gender in Italian; I would guess that it also reinforced the use of &quot;e&quot; as an ending for nouns that were not a-stems or u/o-stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remaining third-declension neuters (which are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above) seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways. In some cases, we phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class or gender shifts, and learned borrowings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Misc. examples: *fiume, fiumi* from Latin *flumen*; *corpo, corpi* from Latin *corpus.* The Italian words *femore, -i; crimine, -i; inguine, -i;* and *onere, -i* obviously cannot be from the Classical Latin nominative or accusative singular forms of *femur, crimen, inguen, onus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, in the development from Latin to Romance, Latin third-declension neuters seem to have often become assimilated to the conjugation pattern of third-declension masculine and feminine nouns. According to the chapter &quot;Latin&quot;, by Nigel Vincent, in *[The Romance Languages][4],* edited by Martin Harris and Nigel Vincent, one such example is It. &quot;latte&quot;, Fr. &quot;lait&quot;, Spanish &quot;leche&quot; etc. which can be accounted for by reconstructing an accusative form *lacte(m) in Proto-Romance (p. 44). But Vincent points out that words like It. &quot;cuore&quot; and &quot;nome&quot; do not come from the Latin oblique stems of *cor* and *nomen* (*cord-* and *nomin-* respectively), and must be seen as derived from the Latin nominative/accusative form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So overall, Italian singular forms seem to give no strong indications of whether they are from the Latin accusative vs. the Latin ablative form; but sound changes are sufficient as an explanation for why the modern Italian forms are often inconclusive for determining if the form of a word comes from the Latin accusative or the Latin ablative. This means that we'd need to look at other sources of information to decide which Latin case-form was likely to have had the most influence on the origin of the singular forms of Italian nouns (and adjectives).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Classical Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian, but it seems more straightforward to analyze the Italian ending of these words as coming from the Latin nominative plural suffix *-i.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][5]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;, but I doubt that the ablative had an influence in this area, based on what we see with the other types of plural nouns.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is apparently somewhat tricky to explain the exact development of the Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular, but the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, what Wikipedia says is that the Italian plural ending &quot;-e&quot; is generally thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the archaic first-declension nominative plural ending *-ās*. [Old French][6], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[The Italian Plural Formative *-e*][7]&quot; (Helmut Lüdtke, in *Italic and Romance: Linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo, 1980), the Italian feminine plural article *le* has been proposed to come from either Latin ILLAE, ILLAS or ILLAEC (which he says was proposed by Merlo as a formation on the analogy of HAEC) (p. 122).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lüdtke argues that the  *as &gt; *ai̯ &gt; e sound-change explanation cannot account for the existence of syntactic doubling in some Italian dialects after this article, something that usually occurs as the reflex of a former consonant cluster. Because of this, he argues that the vowel in the suffix must have changed before the loss of the final consonant; he assumes this vowel change was analogical (suggesting *-as* changed to *-es* under the influence of either third-declension *-es,* the Classical Latin nominative ending *-ae,* or the influence of QUAE on ILLA). I'm not sure what to think about this but in any case, Lüdtke agrees with the Wikipedia article about  the ultimate source of Italian plural *-e* being Latin *-as,* although Lüdtke does describe this as an accusative form (p. 123). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, he also mentions the existence of two &quot;marginal zones ... the northwestern corner of Tuscany ... and the Bregaglia Valley ... where we find the plural type *la porta*&quot; which he says is from ILLAS PORTAS with loss of the final /s/ without a change of the vowel in the final syllable (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No plural *\*-evo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is *\*evo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-a*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter nominative/singular plural ending. Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-o*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][8]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Classical Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Notes about notation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my transcriptions of Latin, I am using the same IPA symbols for long and short vowels since the length marker is enough to disambiguate what phoneme I am talking about. I used the symbol &quot;#&quot; to represent a word boundary:  &quot;am&quot; developed to &quot;a&quot; word-finally in Romance, but generally had other developments when it occured in other positions in Latin words (e.g. &quot;amo&quot; or &quot;cambio&quot;). Something like &quot;*as &gt; *ai̯ / _#&quot; means &quot;/as/ became /ai̯/ in word-final contexts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/accusative-declension-from-latin-italian.2256785/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/675/why-do-ablatives-of-the-3rd-declension-sometimes-end-on-e-at-other-times-on-i&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=J3jJAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA108&amp;lpg=PA108&amp;dq=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ULI1F96Ssj&amp;sig=URlxVIUk6VCaY--2L8Z6vRNNmUg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjC7-no6cTYAhWE14MKHbzIC6oQ6AEIMzAC#v=onepage&amp;q=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=lULWOT1o0SsC&amp;pg=PA44&amp;lpg=PA44&amp;dq=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=MwR9_CEpiO&amp;sig=S_VWBTnxg4MpFJ3dhVGNuW5mZ4M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjC7-no6cTYAhWE14MKHbzIC6oQ6AEITzAK#v=onepage&amp;q=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hV5AAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PKzB-2byuE&amp;sig=z3uhJpQbwIYG1hzBGKJcqs_ha44&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiotLaQvLjYAhVDRyYKHa81AHcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="7058db6a-48fb-4581-932d-ce525467d738" CreationDate="2018-01-07T05:35:59.060" UserId="9" Comment="added 499 characters in body" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification. The nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo.* In other cases, neither the Classical Latin nominative nor the Classical Latin accusative seems to be sufficient to explain the form of an Italian word (because of things like reanalysis of stems or nouns moving to different noun classes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it does seem likely that in general/overall, the accusative forms had more of an influence on the development of the Italian forms than the ablative forms specifically, because as far as I know there is in the great majority of cases nothing ***particular to Latin ablative forms*** that helps explain the Italian forms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically, the ablative form is fairly similar to the accusative form in Latin in many situations. They are built on the same stem, and frequently differ only by the presence or absence of final *m* and/or the length or quality of the vowel in the last syllable; in the situations where the accusative and ablative forms are most distinct (like in the first- or third-declension plural) we don't see a reflex in Italian of the Latin ablative endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have as many sources in this answer as I would like, but I want to link to this WordReference thread with some prior discussion: [Accusative declension from Latin -&gt; Italian][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area mentioned below where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Singular forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1st declension &amp; 2nd declension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/) and the second-declension singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###4th declension&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin /uː/ in word-final unstressed syllables (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the section below about the dialectal Italian plural ending *-o* that appears to come from the Latin fourth-declension nominative/accusative plural ending /uːs/). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###3rd declension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension masculine or feminine nouns generally ended in *-em* in the accusative, which regularly developed to Italian *-e* due to the loss of Latin word-final &quot;m&quot;. (Although in some words, like *città,* this was later lost). This is identical to the expected reflex of the third-declension singular ablative ending *-e.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any sign of Latin third-declension i-stem ablative singular forms in *-ī* contributing to Italian, but [the use of *-ī* vs. *-e*][2] was somewhat variable even in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[A Linguistic History of Italian][3]* (by Martin Maiden, 2013) points out that because of the loss of Latin word-final &quot;m&quot;, words derived from the nominative/accusative form of Latin third-declension neuters that ended in *-e* in Latin, such as *mare,* came to have the same ending words derived from the accusative form of Latin third-declension masculine/feminine nouns (p. 108). This seems to have contributed to the dissolution of &quot;neuter&quot; as a distinct gender in Italian; I would guess that it also reinforced the use of &quot;e&quot; as an ending for nouns that were not a-stems or u/o-stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remaining third-declension neuters (which are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above) seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways. In some cases, we phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class or gender shifts, and learned borrowings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Misc. examples: *fiume, fiumi* from Latin *flumen*; *corpo, corpi* from Latin *corpus.* The Italian words *femore, -i; crimine, -i; inguine, -i;* and *onere, -i* obviously cannot be from the Classical Latin nominative or accusative singular forms of *femur, crimen, inguen, onus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, in the development from Latin to Romance, Latin third-declension neuters seem to have often become assimilated to the conjugation pattern of third-declension masculine and feminine nouns. According to the chapter &quot;Latin&quot;, by Nigel Vincent, in *[The Romance Languages][4],* edited by Martin Harris and Nigel Vincent, one such example is It. &quot;latte&quot;, Fr. &quot;lait&quot;, Spanish &quot;leche&quot; etc. which can be accounted for by reconstructing an accusative form *lacte(m) in Proto-Romance (p. 44). But Vincent points out that words like It. &quot;cuore&quot; and &quot;nome&quot; do not come from the Latin oblique stems of *cor* and *nomen* (*cord-* and *nomin-* respectively), and must be seen as derived from the Latin nominative/accusative form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary&#xD;&#xA;So overall, Italian singular forms seem to give no strong indications of whether they are from the Latin accusative vs. the Latin ablative form; but sound changes are sufficient as an explanation for why the modern Italian forms are often inconclusive for determining if the form of a word comes from the Latin accusative or the Latin ablative. This means that we'd need to look at other sources of information to decide which Latin case-form was likely to have had the most influence on the origin of the singular forms of Italian nouns (substantives and adjectives).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Classical Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian, but it seems more straightforward to analyze the Italian ending of these words as coming from the Latin nominative plural suffix *-i.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][5]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;, but I doubt that the ablative had an influence in this area, based on what we see with the other types of plural nouns.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is apparently somewhat tricky to explain the exact development of the Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular, but the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, what Wikipedia says is that the Italian plural ending &quot;-e&quot; is generally thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the archaic first-declension nominative plural ending *-ās*. [Old French][6], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[The Italian Plural Formative *-e*][7]&quot; (Helmut Lüdtke, in *Italic and Romance: Linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo, 1980), the Italian feminine plural article *le* has been proposed to come from either Latin ILLAE, ILLAS or ILLAEC (which he says was proposed by Merlo as a formation on the analogy of HAEC) (p. 122).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lüdtke argues that the  *as &gt; *ai̯ &gt; e sound-change explanation cannot account for the existence of syntactic doubling in some Italian dialects after this article, something that usually occurs as the reflex of a former consonant cluster. Because of this, he argues that the vowel in the suffix must have changed before the loss of the final consonant; he assumes this vowel change was analogical (suggesting *-as* changed to *-es* under the influence of either third-declension *-es,* the Classical Latin nominative ending *-ae,* or the influence of QUAE on ILLA). I'm not sure what to think about this but in any case, Lüdtke agrees with the Wikipedia article about  the ultimate source of Italian plural *-e* being Latin *-as,* although Lüdtke does describe this as an accusative form (p. 123). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, he also mentions the existence of two &quot;marginal zones ... the northwestern corner of Tuscany ... and the Bregaglia Valley ... where we find the plural type *la porta*&quot; which he says is from ILLAS PORTAS with loss of the final /s/ without a change of the vowel in the final syllable (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No plural *\*-evo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is *\*evo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-a*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns that end in *-o* in the singular end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter nominative/singular plural ending. (No plural adjectives end in *-a*: plural nouns in *-a* trigger the same agreement as feminine plural nouns, so an agreeing adjective will take the suffix *-e* or *-i*). Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-o*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][8]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Classical Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Notes about notation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my transcriptions of Latin, I am using the same IPA symbols for long and short vowels since the length marker is enough to disambiguate what phoneme I am talking about. I used the symbol &quot;#&quot; to represent a word boundary:  &quot;am&quot; developed to &quot;a&quot; word-finally in Romance, but generally had other developments when it occured in other positions in Latin words (e.g. &quot;amo&quot; or &quot;cambio&quot;). Something like &quot;*as &gt; *ai̯ / _#&quot; means &quot;/as/ became /ai̯/ in word-final contexts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/accusative-declension-from-latin-italian.2256785/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/675/why-do-ablatives-of-the-3rd-declension-sometimes-end-on-e-at-other-times-on-i&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=J3jJAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA108&amp;lpg=PA108&amp;dq=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ULI1F96Ssj&amp;sig=URlxVIUk6VCaY--2L8Z6vRNNmUg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjC7-no6cTYAhWE14MKHbzIC6oQ6AEIMzAC#v=onepage&amp;q=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=lULWOT1o0SsC&amp;pg=PA44&amp;lpg=PA44&amp;dq=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=MwR9_CEpiO&amp;sig=S_VWBTnxg4MpFJ3dhVGNuW5mZ4M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjC7-no6cTYAhWE14MKHbzIC6oQ6AEITzAK#v=onepage&amp;q=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hV5AAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PKzB-2byuE&amp;sig=z3uhJpQbwIYG1hzBGKJcqs_ha44&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiotLaQvLjYAhVDRyYKHa81AHcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="4017d698-1789-403b-a278-5c021cf53257" CreationDate="2018-01-07T05:44:57.840" UserId="9" Comment="added 499 characters in body" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification. The nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo.* In other cases, neither the Classical Latin nominative nor the Classical Latin accusative seems to be sufficient to explain the form of an Italian word (because of things like reanalysis of stems or nouns moving to different noun classes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it does seem likely that in general/overall, the accusative forms had more of an influence on the development of the Italian forms than the ablative forms specifically, because as far as I know there is in the great majority of cases nothing ***particular to Latin ablative forms*** that helps explain the Italian forms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically, the ablative form is fairly similar to the accusative form in Latin in many situations. They are built on the same stem, and frequently differ only by the presence or absence of final *m* and/or the length or quality of the vowel in the last syllable; in the situations where the accusative and ablative forms are most distinct (like in the first- or third-declension plural) we don't see a reflex in Italian of the Latin ablative endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have as many sources in this answer as I would like, but I want to link to this WordReference thread with some prior discussion: [Accusative declension from Latin -&gt; Italian][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area mentioned below where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Singular forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1st declension &amp; 2nd declension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/) and the second-declension singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###4th declension&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin /uː/ in word-final unstressed syllables (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the section below about the dialectal Italian plural ending *-o* that appears to come from the Latin fourth-declension nominative/accusative plural ending /uːs/). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###3rd declension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension masculine or feminine nouns generally ended in *-em* in the accusative, which regularly developed to Italian *-e* due to the loss of Latin word-final &quot;m&quot;. (Although in some words, like *città,* this was later lost). This is identical to the expected reflex of the third-declension singular ablative ending *-e.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any sign of Latin third-declension i-stem ablative singular forms in *-ī* contributing to Italian, but [the use of *-ī* vs. *-e*][2] was somewhat variable even in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[A Linguistic History of Italian][3]* (by Martin Maiden, 2013) points out that because of the loss of Latin word-final &quot;m&quot;, words derived from the nominative/accusative form of Latin third-declension neuters that ended in *-e* in Latin, such as *mare,* came to have the same ending words derived from the accusative form of Latin third-declension masculine/feminine nouns (p. 108). This seems to have contributed to the dissolution of &quot;neuter&quot; as a distinct gender in Italian; I would guess that it also reinforced the use of &quot;e&quot; as an ending for nouns that were not a-stems or u/o-stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remaining third-declension neuters (which are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above) seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways. In some cases, we phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class or gender shifts, and learned borrowings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Misc. examples: *fiume, fiumi* from Latin *flumen*; *corpo, corpi* from Latin *corpus.* The Italian words *femore, -i; crimine, -i; inguine, -i;* and *onere, -i* obviously cannot be from the Classical Latin nominative or accusative singular forms of *femur, crimen, inguen, onus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, in the development from Latin to Romance, Latin third-declension neuters seem to have often become assimilated to the conjugation pattern of third-declension masculine and feminine nouns. According to the chapter &quot;Latin&quot;, by Nigel Vincent, in *[The Romance Languages][4],* edited by Martin Harris and Nigel Vincent, one such example is It. &quot;latte&quot;, Fr. &quot;lait&quot;, Spanish &quot;leche&quot; etc. which can be accounted for by reconstructing an accusative form *lacte(m) in Proto-Romance (p. 44). But Vincent points out that words like It. &quot;cuore&quot; and &quot;nome&quot; do not come from the Latin oblique stems of *cor* and *nomen* (*cord-* and *nomin-* respectively), and must be seen as derived from the Latin nominative/accusative form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary&#xD;&#xA;So overall, Italian singular forms seem to give no strong indications of whether they are from the Latin accusative vs. the Latin ablative form; but sound changes are sufficient as an explanation for why the modern Italian forms are often inconclusive for determining if the form of a word comes from the Latin accusative or the Latin ablative. This means that we'd need to look at other sources of information to decide which Latin case-form was likely to have had the most influence on the origin of the singular forms of Italian nouns (substantives and adjectives).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Classical Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian, but it seems more straightforward to analyze the Italian ending of these words as coming from the Latin nominative plural suffix *-i.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][5]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;, but I doubt that the ablative had an influence in this area, based on what we see with the other types of plural nouns.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is apparently somewhat tricky to explain the exact development of the Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular, but the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, what Wikipedia says is that the Italian plural ending &quot;-e&quot; is generally thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the archaic first-declension nominative plural ending *-ās*. [Old French][6], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[The Italian Plural Formative *-e*][7]&quot; (Helmut Lüdtke, in *Italic and Romance: Linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo, 1980), the Italian feminine plural article *le* has been proposed to come from either Latin ILLAE, ILLAS or ILLAEC (which he says was proposed by Merlo as a formation on the analogy of HAEC) (p. 122).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lüdtke argues that the  *as &gt; *ai̯ &gt; e sound-change explanation cannot account for the existence of syntactic doubling in some Italian dialects after this article, something that usually occurs as the reflex of a former consonant cluster. As far as I can tell, his argument is that, if we start from *-as* and assume that the s vocalized to i̯, then [s] would no longer be present to assimilate to the following consonant to cause syntactic doubling, and if we start from *-as* and assume the s assimilated to the following consonant to cause syntactic doubling, then [s] would no longer be present to vocalize to i̯. He seems to argue that the existence of varieties of Italian that have both the vowel &quot;e&quot; in the feminine plural article, and syntactic gemination after the feminine plural article, implies that at some point it ended in -eC, where &quot;C&quot; is some consonant. Because of this, he argues that the vowel in the suffix must have changed before the loss of the final consonant; he assumes this vowel change was analogical (suggesting *-as* changed to *-es* under the influence of either third-declension *-es,* the Classical Latin nominative ending *-ae,* or the influence of QUAE on ILLA). I'm not sure what to think about this but in any case, Lüdtke agrees with the Wikipedia article about  the ultimate source of Italian plural *-e* being Latin *-as,* although Lüdtke does describe this as an accusative form (p. 123). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, he also mentions the existence of two &quot;marginal zones ... the northwestern corner of Tuscany ... and the Bregaglia Valley ... where we find the plural type *la porta*&quot; which he says is from ILLAS PORTAS with loss of the final /s/ without a change of the vowel in the final syllable (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No plural *\*-evo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is *\*evo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-a*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns that end in *-o* in the singular end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter nominative/singular plural ending. (No plural adjectives end in *-a*: plural nouns in *-a* trigger the same agreement as feminine plural nouns, so an agreeing adjective will take the suffix *-e* or *-i*). Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-o*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][8]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Classical Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Notes about notation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my transcriptions of Latin, I am using the same IPA symbols for long and short vowels since the length marker is enough to disambiguate what phoneme I am talking about. I used the symbol &quot;#&quot; to represent a word boundary:  &quot;am&quot; developed to &quot;a&quot; word-finally in Romance, but generally had other developments when it occured in other positions in Latin words (e.g. &quot;amo&quot; or &quot;cambio&quot;). Something like &quot;*as &gt; *ai̯ / _#&quot; means &quot;/as/ became /ai̯/ in word-final contexts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/accusative-declension-from-latin-italian.2256785/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/675/why-do-ablatives-of-the-3rd-declension-sometimes-end-on-e-at-other-times-on-i&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=J3jJAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA108&amp;lpg=PA108&amp;dq=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ULI1F96Ssj&amp;sig=URlxVIUk6VCaY--2L8Z6vRNNmUg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjC7-no6cTYAhWE14MKHbzIC6oQ6AEIMzAC#v=onepage&amp;q=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=lULWOT1o0SsC&amp;pg=PA44&amp;lpg=PA44&amp;dq=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=MwR9_CEpiO&amp;sig=S_VWBTnxg4MpFJ3dhVGNuW5mZ4M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjC7-no6cTYAhWE14MKHbzIC6oQ6AEITzAK#v=onepage&amp;q=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hV5AAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PKzB-2byuE&amp;sig=z3uhJpQbwIYG1hzBGKJcqs_ha44&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiotLaQvLjYAhVDRyYKHa81AHcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="7c3c3fcb-86d7-4678-a882-9cdfef669009" CreationDate="2018-01-07T05:51:32.730" UserId="9" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification. The nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo.* In other cases, neither the Classical Latin nominative nor the Classical Latin accusative seems to be sufficient to explain the form of an Italian word (because of things like reanalysis of stems or nouns moving to different noun classes), although it may be the case that the Italian form corresponds to an accusative form that existed in an intermediate language variety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does seem likely that in general/overall, the accusative forms had more of an influence on the development of the Italian forms than the ablative forms specifically, because as far as I know there is in the great majority of cases nothing ***particular to Latin ablative forms*** that helps explain the Italian forms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically, the ablative form is fairly similar to the accusative form in Latin in many situations. They are built on the same stem, and frequently differ only by the presence or absence of final *m* and/or the length or quality of the vowel in the last syllable; in the situations where the accusative and ablative forms are most distinct (like in the first- or third-declension plural) we don't see a reflex in Italian of the Latin ablative endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have as many sources in this answer as I would like, but I want to link to this WordReference thread with some prior discussion: [Accusative declension from Latin -&gt; Italian][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area mentioned below where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Singular forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1st declension &amp; 2nd declension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/) and the second-declension singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###4th declension&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin /uː/ in word-final unstressed syllables (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the section below about the dialectal Italian plural ending *-o* that appears to come from the Latin fourth-declension nominative/accusative plural ending /uːs/). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###3rd declension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension masculine or feminine nouns generally ended in *-em* in the accusative, which regularly developed to Italian *-e* due to the loss of Latin word-final &quot;m&quot;. (Although in some words, like *città,* this was later lost). This is identical to the expected reflex of the third-declension singular ablative ending *-e.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any sign of Latin third-declension i-stem ablative singular forms in *-ī* contributing to Italian, but [the use of *-ī* vs. *-e*][2] was somewhat variable even in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[A Linguistic History of Italian][3]* (by Martin Maiden, 2013) points out that because of the loss of Latin word-final &quot;m&quot;, words derived from the nominative/accusative form of Latin third-declension neuters that ended in *-e* in Latin, such as *mare,* came to have the same ending words derived from the accusative form of Latin third-declension masculine/feminine nouns (p. 108). This seems to have contributed to the dissolution of &quot;neuter&quot; as a distinct gender in Italian; I would guess that it also reinforced the use of &quot;e&quot; as an ending for nouns that were not a-stems or u/o-stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remaining third-declension neuters (which are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above) seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways. In some cases, we phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class or gender shifts, and learned borrowings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Misc. examples: *fiume, fiumi* from Latin *flumen*; *corpo, corpi* from Latin *corpus.* The Italian words *femore, -i; crimine, -i; inguine, -i;* and *onere, -i* obviously cannot be from the Classical Latin nominative or accusative singular forms of *femur, crimen, inguen, onus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, in the development from Latin to Romance, Latin third-declension neuters seem to have often become assimilated to the conjugation pattern of third-declension masculine and feminine nouns. According to the chapter &quot;Latin&quot;, by Nigel Vincent, in *[The Romance Languages][4],* edited by Martin Harris and Nigel Vincent, one such example is It. &quot;latte&quot;, Fr. &quot;lait&quot;, Spanish &quot;leche&quot; etc. which can be accounted for by reconstructing an accusative form *lacte(m) in Proto-Romance (p. 44). But Vincent points out that words like It. &quot;cuore&quot; and &quot;nome&quot; do not come from the Latin oblique stems of *cor* and *nomen* (*cord-* and *nomin-* respectively), and must be seen as derived from the Latin nominative/accusative form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary&#xD;&#xA;So overall, Italian singular forms seem to give no strong indications of whether they are from the Latin accusative vs. the Latin ablative form; but sound changes are sufficient as an explanation for why the modern Italian forms are often inconclusive for determining if the form of a word comes from the Latin accusative or the Latin ablative. This means that we'd need to look at other sources of information to decide which Latin case-form was likely to have had the most influence on the origin of the singular forms of Italian nouns (substantives and adjectives).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Classical Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian, but it seems more straightforward to analyze the Italian ending of these words as coming from the Latin nominative plural suffix *-i.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][5]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;, but I doubt that the ablative had an influence in this area, based on what we see with the other types of plural nouns.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is apparently somewhat tricky to explain the exact development of the Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular, but the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, what Wikipedia says is that the Italian plural ending &quot;-e&quot; is generally thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the archaic first-declension nominative plural ending *-ās*. [Old French][6], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[The Italian Plural Formative *-e*][7]&quot; (Helmut Lüdtke, in *Italic and Romance: Linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo, 1980), the Italian feminine plural article *le* has been proposed to come from either Latin ILLAE, ILLAS or ILLAEC (which he says was proposed by Merlo as a formation on the analogy of HAEC) (p. 122).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lüdtke argues that the  *as &gt; *ai̯ &gt; e sound-change explanation cannot account for the existence of syntactic doubling in some Italian dialects after this article, something that usually occurs as the reflex of a former consonant cluster. As far as I can tell, his argument is that, if we start from *-as* and assume that the s vocalized to i̯, then [s] would no longer be present to assimilate to the following consonant to cause syntactic doubling, and if we start from *-as* and assume the s assimilated to the following consonant to cause syntactic doubling, then [s] would no longer be present to vocalize to i̯. He seems to argue that the existence of varieties of Italian that have both the vowel &quot;e&quot; in the feminine plural article, and syntactic gemination after the feminine plural article, implies that at some point it ended in -eC, where &quot;C&quot; is some consonant. Because of this, he argues that the vowel in the suffix must have changed before the loss of the final consonant; he assumes this vowel change was analogical (suggesting *-as* changed to *-es* under the influence of either third-declension *-es,* the Classical Latin nominative ending *-ae,* or the influence of QUAE on ILLA). I'm not sure what to think about this but in any case, Lüdtke agrees with the Wikipedia article about  the ultimate source of Italian plural *-e* being Latin *-as,* although Lüdtke does describe this as an accusative form (p. 123). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, he also mentions the existence of two &quot;marginal zones ... the northwestern corner of Tuscany ... and the Bregaglia Valley ... where we find the plural type *la porta*&quot; which he says is from ILLAS PORTAS with loss of the final /s/ without a change of the vowel in the final syllable (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No plural *\*-evo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is *\*evo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-a*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns that end in *-o* in the singular end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter nominative/singular plural ending. (No plural adjectives end in *-a*: plural nouns in *-a* trigger the same agreement as feminine plural nouns, so an agreeing adjective will take the suffix *-e* or *-i*). Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-o*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][8]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Classical Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Notes about notation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my transcriptions of Latin, I am using the same IPA symbols for long and short vowels since the length marker is enough to disambiguate what phoneme I am talking about. I used the symbol &quot;#&quot; to represent a word boundary:  &quot;am&quot; developed to &quot;a&quot; word-finally in Romance, but generally had other developments when it occured in other positions in Latin words (e.g. &quot;amo&quot; or &quot;cambio&quot;). Something like &quot;*as &gt; *ai̯ / _#&quot; means &quot;/as/ became /ai̯/ in word-final contexts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/accusative-declension-from-latin-italian.2256785/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/675/why-do-ablatives-of-the-3rd-declension-sometimes-end-on-e-at-other-times-on-i&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=J3jJAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA108&amp;lpg=PA108&amp;dq=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ULI1F96Ssj&amp;sig=URlxVIUk6VCaY--2L8Z6vRNNmUg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjC7-no6cTYAhWE14MKHbzIC6oQ6AEIMzAC#v=onepage&amp;q=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=lULWOT1o0SsC&amp;pg=PA44&amp;lpg=PA44&amp;dq=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=MwR9_CEpiO&amp;sig=S_VWBTnxg4MpFJ3dhVGNuW5mZ4M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjC7-no6cTYAhWE14MKHbzIC6oQ6AEITzAK#v=onepage&amp;q=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hV5AAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PKzB-2byuE&amp;sig=z3uhJpQbwIYG1hzBGKJcqs_ha44&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiotLaQvLjYAhVDRyYKHa81AHcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5825" RevisionGUID="c6f47268-9d3b-4bb8-b1ed-637d0c6cde4d" CreationDate="2018-01-07T10:28:49.087" UserId="324" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="As others have noted, “collateral” means “alternative” or “secondary”. Actually, this entry bears witness to the limitations of the venerable L/S. The references for the “collateral” uter and uterum are dubious (post-classical grammarians). Current etymological thinking is that uterus is  certainly not cognate with uttara- or ὕστερος,  nor with udder, though it is possibly cognate with Skt. udara-, with an inner-Latin shift of *-der- to -ter-. English udder belongs with Latin uber (IE -dh-)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5826" RevisionGUID="020fb939-e479-4c1b-a77d-2d17d925c927" CreationDate="2018-01-07T14:17:06.430" UserId="1982" Text="Happy New Year. Now it's back to work on the Roman frontier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;North &amp; Hillard Ex. 218: An Indian Chief was taken prisoner by the Spaniards, and because he was a man of influence among the tribes they cut off his hands, with the intention of disabling him from fighting any more against them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the footnotes N &amp; H advise the student to translate &quot;disabling him&quot; as &quot;that he might not be able&quot;:- giving, I think: &quot;ut non posset&quot; (a consequence, as opposed to a purpose; though, an argument may be made for both).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Answer Book: &quot;...utramque manum desecuerunt eo consilio ut eum rursus in se arma ferre prohiberent.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, either the Spaniards OR the having-been-cut-off-hands prevent him (eum) from carrying weapons against them (in se), again (hesitated to translate &quot;rursus&quot; as &quot;on-the-other-hand&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However erudite. this is a long way from &quot;ut non posset&quot;--why issue this ad" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19273" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5826" RevisionGUID="020fb939-e479-4c1b-a77d-2d17d925c927" CreationDate="2018-01-07T14:17:06.430" UserId="1982" Text="Say One Thing, Do another" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19274" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5826" RevisionGUID="020fb939-e479-4c1b-a77d-2d17d925c927" CreationDate="2018-01-07T14:17:06.430" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5795" RevisionGUID="f94d7092-ebe5-470f-915c-476662745d18" CreationDate="2018-01-07T14:25:12.483" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 62 characters in body" Text="History of Italian is not my forte, but here's what the experts say, e.g. Professor [Martin Maiden][1] (Professor of the Romance Languages, Fellow of Trinity College) writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**The overwhelming majority of modern nouns and adjectives** [in Italian - Alex B.] **appear to derive from Latin *accusative* forms**&quot; ([Martin 1995][2]: 98; italics not mine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for more details we need to read his 1996 paper, *On the Romance inflectional endings -i and -e* (published in *Romance Philology* 50: 147–82)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adam Ledgeway classifies Italian nouns into three classes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Class 1.** These nouns (and adjectives) continue the Latin second and first declensions in -u(m)/*-i and -a(m)/-as (&gt; *-aj &gt; -e) respectively;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Class 2.** These nouns (and adjectives) continue the Latin third declension in -e(m)/-es (&gt; *-ej &gt; -i);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Class 3.** These nouns (no adjectives) continue Latin second declension neuters in -u(m)/-a ([Ledgeway 2016][3]: 214)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Benincà, Parry and Pescarini (2016)][5] have the following, extremely informative passage (will summarize later):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, syntactic data suggest that the ablative uses were overtaken by the accusative, particularly after prepositions. Clackson and Horrocks (2007/2011), in Chapter VII &quot;Sub-elite Latin in the Empire,&quot; mention the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*con tirones* 'with the recruits' - ACC.PL instead of the ablative (Claudius Terentianus, first quarter of the second century; see the full text in Adams 2016, *An anthology of informal Latin texts 200 BC - AD 900*, Text 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*cum discente suos* 'with his pupils' - ACC.PL (CIL IV 698) instead of the ablative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson and Horrocks also mention Banniard 1992, who came up with the following model of the loss of Latin cases in four stages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/people/martin-maiden&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.routledge.com/Linguistic-History-of-Italian-A/Maiden/p/book/9781315845906&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108-chapter-14&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8faQz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108-chapter-13&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JmfX2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QSLyk.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5827" RevisionGUID="0d599e51-7696-4ad5-bb95-31727a0b9cb4" CreationDate="2018-01-07T15:08:03.673" UserId="1133" Text="According to Wiktionary, the genitive of [Περικλῆς][1], or Περικλέης, is Περικλέους; and similarly, that of [Σοφοκλῆς][2], or Σοφοκλέης, Σοφοκλέους.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question:  How do we end up with three vowels, εου, at the end of these genitives?  (Or morae if we are going to say ου is *a* vowel.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last vowel, I venture to guess, comes from -ος, the genitive singular suffix for third declension nouns.  I know that it sometimes combines with a stem ending in a vowel and undergoes a change, as in γένους from γένεος.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to have three vowels together, we would need a stem ending in two vowels or somehow get an extra vowel in there between stem and suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Wiktionary, the etymology of Περικλῆς is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;περῐ- (peri-, “very”) +‎ κλέος (kléos, “fame”) +‎ -ής&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it be that between εο (from κλέος) and η (from -ής), we somehow ended up with a stem ending in two vowels?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant too seems the case of of [Σωκράτης][3]. Its stem is Σωκρατε(s) (according to Mastronarde's Introduction to Attic Greek).  The (not necessarily etymological) operation that takes you from word to stem is: (1) remove -ης, yielding Σωκρατ, and (2) add ε(s), yielding Σωκρατε(s).  The same operation on Περικλέης gives you Περικλεε!  Or at least there is some sort consistency here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would note that the question above on the genitive recurs for the dative and the accusative as well, e.g. Περικλεῖ and Περικλέᾱ, where we get three morae at the end, if not vowels. Compare ἀσπίδι and ἀσπίδα; Σωκράτει (Σωκράτεϊ) and  Σωκράτη (Σωκράτεα).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%A0%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%BB%E1%BF%86%CF%82&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%A3%CE%BF%CF%86%CE%BF%CE%BA%CE%BB%E1%BF%86%CF%82&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%A3%CF%89%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%AC%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19277" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5827" RevisionGUID="0d599e51-7696-4ad5-bb95-31727a0b9cb4" CreationDate="2018-01-07T15:08:03.673" UserId="1133" Text="How do we end up with three vowels at the end of Περικλέους? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19278" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5827" RevisionGUID="0d599e51-7696-4ad5-bb95-31727a0b9cb4" CreationDate="2018-01-07T15:08:03.673" UserId="1133" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5825" RevisionGUID="6a2cb6ba-409f-42c3-9b60-6a2f6dd7062b" CreationDate="2018-01-07T15:55:14.210" UserId="324" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="As others have noted, “collateral” means “alternative” or “secondary”. Actually, this entry bears witness to the limitations of the venerable L/S. The references for the “collateral” uter are dubious (post-classical grammarians). Current etymological thinking is that uterus is  certainly not cognate with uttara- or ὕστερος,  nor with udder, though it is possibly cognate with Skt. udara-, with an inner-Latin shift of *-der- to -ter-. English udder belongs with Latin uber (IE -dh-)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5795" RevisionGUID="b23cf1a9-84e2-4060-9b64-76bc29b2a36c" CreationDate="2018-01-07T17:11:42.327" UserId="39" Comment="added 741 characters in body" Text="History of Italian is not my forte - I am not going to pretend to know Italian grammar or its history. Obviously, it takes years and decades to become an expert in such matters, so I can only summarize some relevant research I've been able to find recently. Let's wait what our Italian experts might say - I know we have them here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Professor [Martin Maiden][1] (Professor of the Romance Languages, Fellow of Trinity College) writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**The overwhelming majority of modern nouns and adjectives** [in Italian - Alex B.] **appear to derive from Latin *accusative* forms**&quot; ([Martin 1995][2]: 98; italics not mine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for more details we need to read his 1996 paper, *On the Romance inflectional endings -i and -e* (published in *Romance Philology* 50: 147–82)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Weiss “It is conventional to cite the accusative of all Latin noun types, except the 1st declension, as the virtual proto-form for the Romance reflexes. For 1st-declension nouns the nominative is usually cited” (p. 506).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Phonetic evidence:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;•	Word-final m was retained in one-syllable words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss lists the following examples. Sp. quien &lt; quem; Fr. rien &lt; rem, cf. Italian sono &lt; sum; Ital. notte &lt; noctem (not nox).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence from phonetics and morphology:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adam Ledgeway classifies Italian nouns into three classes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Class 1.** These nouns (and adjectives) continue the Latin second and first declensions in -u(m)/*-i and -a(m)/-as (&gt; *-aj &gt; -e) respectively;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Class 2.** These nouns (and adjectives) continue the Latin third declension in -e(m)/-es (&gt; *-ej &gt; -i);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Class 3.** These nouns (no adjectives) continue Latin second declension neuters in -u(m)/-a ([Ledgeway 2016][3]: 214)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Benincà, Parry and Pescarini (2016)][5] have the following, extremely informative passage (will summarize later):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence from syntax:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, syntactic data suggest that the ablative uses were overtaken by the accusative, particularly after prepositions. Clackson and Horrocks (2007/2011), in Chapter VII &quot;Sub-elite Latin in the Empire,&quot; mention the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*con tirones* 'with the recruits' - ACC.PL instead of the ablative (Claudius Terentianus, first quarter of the second century; see the full text in Adams 2016, *An anthology of informal Latin texts 200 BC - AD 900*, Text 22).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*cum discente suos* 'with his pupils' - ACC.PL (CIL IV 698) instead of the ablative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson and Horrocks also mention Banniard 1992, who came up with the following model of the loss of Latin cases in four stages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/people/martin-maiden&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.routledge.com/Linguistic-History-of-Italian-A/Maiden/p/book/9781315845906&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108-chapter-14&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8faQz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108-chapter-13&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JmfX2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QSLyk.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5826" RevisionGUID="5200ca2f-42a7-4720-a59d-6620c1489289" CreationDate="2018-01-07T20:28:22.593" UserId="1982" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="Happy New Year. Now it's back to work on the Roman frontier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;North &amp; Hillard Ex. 218: An Indian Chief was taken prisoner by the Spaniards, and because he was a man of influence among the tribes they cut off his hands, with the intention of disabling him from fighting any more against them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the footnotes N &amp; H advise the student to translate &quot;disabling him&quot; as &quot;that he might not be able&quot;:- giving, I think: &quot;ut non posset&quot; (a consequence, as opposed to a purpose; though, an argument may be made for both).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Answer Book: &quot;...utramque manum desecuerunt eo consilio ut eum rursus in se arma ferre prohiberent.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, either the Spaniards OR the having-been-cut-off-hands prevent him (eum) from carrying weapons against them (in se), again (hesitated to translate &quot;rursus&quot; as &quot;on-the-other-hand&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However erudite, this is a long way from &quot;ut non posset&quot;--why would N &amp; H issue this advice and ignore it themselves--or, have I missed something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19282" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5827" RevisionGUID="45ae3a60-4b3e-4544-a7a2-0deb99e0fcd2" CreationDate="2018-01-07T20:47:42.673" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|etymology|greek|morphology|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5826" RevisionGUID="5c15e0c3-587d-4a31-a883-0c8196358f85" CreationDate="2018-01-07T20:58:15.233" UserId="79" Comment="added 20 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Happy New Year. Now it's back to work on the Roman frontier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;North &amp; Hillard Ex. 218:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An Indian Chief was taken prisoner by the Spaniards, and because he was a man of influence among the tribes they cut off his hands, with the intention of disabling him from fighting any more against them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the footnotes N &amp; H advise the student to translate &quot;disabling him&quot; as &quot;that he might not be able&quot;:- giving, I think: &quot;ut non posset&quot; (a consequence, as opposed to a purpose; though, an argument may be made for both).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Answer Book:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;...utramque manum desecuerunt eo consilio ut eum rursus in se arma ferre prohiberent.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, either the Spaniards OR the having-been-cut-off-hands prevent him (eum) from carrying weapons against them (in se), again (hesitated to translate &quot;rursus&quot; as &quot;on-the-other-hand&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However erudite, this is a long way from &quot;ut non posset&quot;&amp;mdash;why would N &amp; H issue this advice and ignore it themselves&amp;mdash;or, have I missed something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19284" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5826" RevisionGUID="5c15e0c3-587d-4a31-a883-0c8196358f85" CreationDate="2018-01-07T20:58:15.233" UserId="79" Comment="added 20 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5828" RevisionGUID="73f860aa-cab9-463a-be4f-c214ca87cb40" CreationDate="2018-01-07T21:12:09.210" UserId="79" Text="You should read the instruction in a broader sense:&#xD;&#xA;Translate &quot;disabling&quot; with a subordinate clause (perhaps with *ut*), not with a participle or gerund.&#xD;&#xA;The instruction could have been worded more clearly, but in this reading it makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, a *se* or *suus* in a subordinate clause often refers to the subject of the governing clause.&#xD;&#xA;It can also be used like in a main clause, but you should be actively aware of this behavior in subordinate clauses.&#xD;&#xA;There are almost always (at least) two ways to translate the reflexive pronoun, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Iulia sperat, ut Marcus se amet.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Julia hopes that Marcus loves himself.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Julia hopes that Marcus loves her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only context will tell which one is correct, but the second one (*se* referring to *Iulia*) is a good first guess.&#xD;&#xA;And this is precisely what happens in your example: *se* refers to the subject of the governing clause, the Spaniards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation in the solution key is not unique.&#xD;&#xA;I would have done something simpler, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp;hellip; desecuerunt, ne iam in se arma ferret.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Literally: &amp;hellip; [they] cut off [the hands], so that he would no longer carry arms against them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion &quot;with the intention of&quot; is sufficiently translated by using a final clause.&#xD;&#xA;Using *consilium* adds emphasis to the point, but it's hardly necessary.&#xD;&#xA;The subject of the subordinate clause is implicit, but it's fairly clear that it has to be the chief.&#xD;&#xA;You can use *rursus* for &quot;again&quot;, but I find it more natural to use *non iam*, &quot;not anymore&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5830" RevisionGUID="cbb2dfe7-9f37-4bb1-82f7-02be53218088" CreationDate="2018-01-08T08:15:44.527" UserId="324" Text="These names are compounds of κλέος, earlier κλέϝος (klewos). This is a neuter s-stem, like γένος. So the gen. sing. is *klewesos &gt; *kleweos, regularly contracted to κλέ(ϝ)ους (ε + ο &gt; ου). (Αs it happens, κλέος is attested only in the nom./acc. sing. and plural, but the missing forms can be reconstructed on the basis of other words). The only irregularity is the nom. sing. in -ῆς, which appears to be borrowed from the masc. first-declension nouns, by analogy to the many masc. names of this type." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5831" RevisionGUID="60374f35-1b23-4c5d-90d4-d74857f18a7e" CreationDate="2018-01-08T10:15:07.150" UserId="645" Text="I personally doubt that much headway will ever be made on this subject. The cagey attitude adopted by anyone that I ask about it often seems almost guilty —perhaps as if they *ought* to know, but don't!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anyone interested, the best summary that I've ever found is online at http://www.classicalcoins.com/dies.html&#xD;&#xA;It is worth a look. It’s at least honest about the question, in that being far superior to the evasiveness that I have so widely encountered from alleged “authorities”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, it declares that no-one knows exactly how the ancients made the dies, and suggests that they were of iron or bronze; but the techniques of die-sinking are still debated. There are sensible comments about production rates and so on, which only go to emphasize the formidable difficulties in finding an solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the nature of the engraving tools can only be guessed at. It's the physical strength of the tool, which basically needs to be more durable than the die material, which needs a convincing explanation.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5827" RevisionGUID="61f86518-bd49-4fbc-a112-e077df2cd958" CreationDate="2018-01-08T12:32:24.503" UserId="1133" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="According to Wiktionary, the genitive of [Περικλῆς][1], or Περικλέης, is Περικλέους; and similarly, that of [Σοφοκλῆς][2], or Σοφοκλέης, Σοφοκλέους.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question:  How do we end up with three vowels, εου, at the end of these genitives?  (Or morae if we are going to say ου is *a* vowel.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last vowel, I venture to guess, comes from -ος, the genitive singular suffix for third declension nouns.  I know that it sometimes combines with a stem ending in a vowel and undergoes a change, as in γένους from γένεος.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to have three vowels together, we would need a stem ending in two vowels or somehow get an extra vowel in there between stem and suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Wiktionary, the etymology of Περικλῆς is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;περῐ- (peri-, “very”) +‎ κλέος (kléos, “fame”) +‎ -ής&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it be that between εο (from κλέος) and η (from -ής), we somehow ended up with a stem ending in two vowels?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant too seems the case of of [Σωκράτης][3]. Its stem is Σωκρατε(s) (according to Mastronarde's Introduction to Attic Greek).  The (not necessarily etymological) operation that takes you from word to stem is: (1) remove -ης, yielding Σωκρατ, and (2) add ε(s), yielding Σωκρατε(s).  The same operation on Περικλέης gives you Περικλεε!  Or at least there is some sort consistency here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would note that the question above on the genitive recurs for &lt;strike&gt;the dative and&lt;/strike&gt; the accusative as well, e.g. &lt;strike&gt;Περικλεῖ and&lt;/strike&gt; Περικλέᾱ, where we get three morae at the end, if not vowels. Compare &lt;strike&gt;ἀσπίδι and&lt;/strike&gt;  ἀσπίδα; &lt;strike&gt;Σωκράτει (Σωκράτεϊ) and&lt;/strike&gt;  Σωκράτη (Σωκράτεα).  (Note:  I struck Περικλεῖ because it does not have three morae.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%A0%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%BB%E1%BF%86%CF%82&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%A3%CE%BF%CF%86%CE%BF%CE%BA%CE%BB%E1%BF%86%CF%82&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%A3%CF%89%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%AC%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5831" RevisionGUID="3e4c1255-fb1e-4797-a957-27c38448d0e1" CreationDate="2018-01-08T14:26:09.933" UserId="645" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="I personally doubt that much headway will ever be made on this subject. The cagey attitude adopted by anyone that I ask about it often seems almost guilty —perhaps as if they *ought* to know, but don't!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anyone interested, the best summary that I've ever found is online at http://www.classicalcoins.com/dies.html&#xD;&#xA;It is worth a look. It’s at least honest about the question, in being far superior to the evasiveness that I have so widely encountered from alleged “authorities”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, it declares that no-one knows exactly how the ancients made the dies, and suggests that they were of iron or bronze; but the techniques of die-sinking are still debated. There are sensible comments about production rates and so on, which only go to emphasize the formidable difficulties in finding an solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the nature of the engraving tools can only be guessed at. It's the physical strength of the tool, which basically needs to be more durable than the die material, which needs a convincing explanation.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5832" RevisionGUID="9acaf2ae-b14b-4265-8f33-804e74d8799d" CreationDate="2018-01-08T21:18:43.077" UserId="79" Text="In English and Finnish (and probably most languages) there are different verbs for urination to be used under different circumstances:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- clinical: urinate, mictuate; virtsata&#xD;&#xA;- childish: pee, wee; pissata&#xD;&#xA;- various levels of vulgarity: piss, take a leak; kusta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There also many other aspects, like euphemisms and the level of formality, and the list above is not supposed to be exhaustive.&#xD;&#xA;I realized that my Latin vocabulary is lacking in this respect; I didn't know any verb without consulting a dictionary (I found *mingere* and *meiere*), and I have no idea what others there might be and what their nuances are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What classical Latin verbs are there for urination, and how would you describe their nuance or register?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19296" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5832" RevisionGUID="9acaf2ae-b14b-4265-8f33-804e74d8799d" CreationDate="2018-01-08T21:18:43.077" UserId="79" Text="Different registers of urination" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19297" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5832" RevisionGUID="9acaf2ae-b14b-4265-8f33-804e74d8799d" CreationDate="2018-01-08T21:18:43.077" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|verbs|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="ceb6c08a-050b-4388-b087-280349a377ad" CreationDate="2018-01-08T22:21:16.860" UserId="9" Comment="added 187 characters in body" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification. The nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo.* In other cases, neither the Classical Latin nominative nor the Classical Latin accusative seems to be sufficient to explain the form of an Italian word (because of things like reanalysis of stems or nouns moving to different noun classes), although it may be the case that the Italian form corresponds to an accusative form that existed in an intermediate language variety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does seem likely that in general/overall, the accusative forms had more of an influence on the development of the Italian forms than the ablative forms specifically, because as far as I know there is in the great majority of cases nothing ***particular to Latin ablative forms*** that helps explain the Italian forms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically, the ablative form is fairly similar to the accusative form in Latin in many situations. They are built on the same stem, and frequently differ only by the presence or absence of final *m* and/or the length or quality of the vowel in the last syllable; in the situations where the accusative and ablative forms are most distinct (like in the first- or third-declension plural) we don't see a reflex in Italian of the Latin ablative endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have as many sources in this answer as I would like, but I want to link to this WordReference thread with some prior discussion: [Accusative declension from Latin -&gt; Italian][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area mentioned below where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Singular forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1st declension &amp; 2nd declension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/; in fact, this also merges with the expected reflex of the Latin nominative ending for first-declension nouns, /a/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;THe same goes for the second-declension accusative singular and ablative singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###3rd declension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension masculine or feminine nouns generally ended in *-em* in the accusative, which regularly developed to Italian *-e* due to the loss of Latin word-final &quot;m&quot;. (Although in some words, like *città* &lt; *cīvitātem,* this was later lost). This is identical to the expected reflex of the third-declension singular ablative ending *-e.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any sign of Latin third-declension i-stem ablative singular forms in *-ī* contributing to Italian, but [the use of *-ī* vs. *-e*][2] was somewhat variable even in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[A Linguistic History of Italian][3]* (by Martin Maiden, 2013) points out that because of the loss of Latin word-final &quot;m&quot;, words derived from the nominative/accusative form of Latin third-declension neuters that ended in *-e* in Latin, such as *mare,* came to have the same ending words derived from the accusative form of Latin third-declension masculine/feminine nouns (p. 108). This seems to have contributed to the dissolution of &quot;neuter&quot; as a distinct gender in Italian; I would guess that it also reinforced the use of &quot;e&quot; as an ending for nouns that were not a-stems or u/o-stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remaining third-declension neuters (which are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above) seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways. In some cases, we phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class or gender shifts, and learned borrowings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, in the development from Latin to Romance, Latin third-declension neuters seem to have often become assimilated to the conjugation pattern of third-declension masculine and feminine nouns. According to the chapter &quot;Latin&quot;, by Nigel Vincent, in *[The Romance Languages][4],* edited by Martin Harris and Nigel Vincent (2003), one such example is It. &quot;latte&quot;, Fr. &quot;lait&quot;, Spanish &quot;leche&quot; etc. which can be accounted for by reconstructing an accusative form *lacte(m) in Proto-Romance (p. 44). But Vincent points out that words like It. &quot;cuore&quot; and &quot;nome&quot; do not come from the Latin oblique stems of *cor* and *nomen* (*cord-* and *nomin-* respectively), and must be seen as derived from the Latin nominative/accusative form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Misc. examples: *fiume, fiumi* from Latin *flumen*; *corpo, corpi* from Latin *corpus.* The Italian words *femore, -i; crimine, -i; inguine, -i;* and *onere, -i* obviously cannot be from the Classical Latin nominative or accusative singular forms of *femur, crimen, inguen, onus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###4th declension&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin /uː/ in word-final unstressed syllables (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the section below about the dialectal Italian plural ending *-o* that appears to come from the Latin fourth-declension nominative/accusative plural ending /uːs/). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary&#xD;&#xA;So overall, Italian singular forms seem to give no strong indications of whether they are from the Latin accusative vs. the Latin ablative form; but sound changes are sufficient as an explanation for why the modern Italian forms are often inconclusive for determining if the form of a word comes from the Latin accusative or the Latin ablative. This means that we'd need to look at other sources of information to decide which Latin case-form was likely to have had the most influence on the origin of the singular forms of Italian nouns (substantives and adjectives).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Classical Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian, but it seems more straightforward to analyze the Italian ending of these words as coming from the Latin nominative plural suffix *-i.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][5]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;, but I doubt that the ablative had an influence in this area, based on what we see with the other types of plural nouns.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is apparently somewhat tricky to explain the exact development of the Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular, but the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, what Wikipedia says is that the Italian plural ending &quot;-e&quot; is generally thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the archaic first-declension nominative plural ending *-ās*. [Old French][6], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[The Italian Plural Formative *-e*][7]&quot; (Helmut Lüdtke, in *Italic and Romance: Linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo, 1980), the Italian feminine plural article *le* has been proposed to come from either Latin ILLAE, ILLAS or ILLAEC (which he says was proposed by Merlo as a formation on the analogy of HAEC) (p. 122).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lüdtke argues that the  *as &gt; *ai̯ &gt; e sound-change explanation cannot account for the existence of syntactic doubling in some Italian dialects after this article, something that usually occurs as the reflex of a former consonant cluster. As far as I can tell, his argument is that, if we start from *-as* and assume that the s vocalized to i̯, then [s] would no longer be present to assimilate to the following consonant to cause syntactic doubling, and if we start from *-as* and assume the s assimilated to the following consonant to cause syntactic doubling, then [s] would no longer be present to vocalize to i̯. He seems to argue that the existence of varieties of Italian that have both the vowel &quot;e&quot; in the feminine plural article, and syntactic gemination after the feminine plural article, implies that at some point it ended in -eC, where &quot;C&quot; is some consonant. Because of this, he argues that the vowel in the suffix must have changed before the loss of the final consonant; he assumes this vowel change was analogical (suggesting *-as* changed to *-es* under the influence of either third-declension *-es,* the Classical Latin nominative ending *-ae,* or the influence of QUAE on ILLA). I'm not sure what to think about this but in any case, Lüdtke agrees with the Wikipedia article about  the ultimate source of Italian plural *-e* being Latin *-as,* although Lüdtke does describe this as an accusative form (p. 123). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, he also mentions the existence of two &quot;marginal zones ... the northwestern corner of Tuscany ... and the Bregaglia Valley ... where we find the plural type *la porta*&quot; which he says is from ILLAS PORTAS with loss of the final /s/ without a change of the vowel in the final syllable (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No plural *\*-evo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is *\*evo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-a*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns that end in *-o* in the singular end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter nominative/singular plural ending. (No plural adjectives end in *-a*: plural nouns in *-a* trigger the same agreement as feminine plural nouns, so an agreeing adjective will take the suffix *-e* or *-i*). Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-o*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][8]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Classical Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Notes about notation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my transcriptions of Latin, I am using the same IPA symbols for long and short vowels since the length marker is enough to disambiguate what phoneme I am talking about. I used the symbol &quot;#&quot; to represent a word boundary:  &quot;am&quot; developed to &quot;a&quot; word-finally in Romance, but generally had other developments when it occured in other positions in Latin words (e.g. &quot;amo&quot; or &quot;cambio&quot;). Something like &quot;*as &gt; *ai̯ / _#&quot; means &quot;/as/ became /ai̯/ in word-final contexts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/accusative-declension-from-latin-italian.2256785/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/675/why-do-ablatives-of-the-3rd-declension-sometimes-end-on-e-at-other-times-on-i&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=J3jJAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA108&amp;lpg=PA108&amp;dq=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ULI1F96Ssj&amp;sig=URlxVIUk6VCaY--2L8Z6vRNNmUg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjC7-no6cTYAhWE14MKHbzIC6oQ6AEIMzAC#v=onepage&amp;q=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=lULWOT1o0SsC&amp;pg=PA44&amp;lpg=PA44&amp;dq=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=MwR9_CEpiO&amp;sig=S_VWBTnxg4MpFJ3dhVGNuW5mZ4M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjC7-no6cTYAhWE14MKHbzIC6oQ6AEITzAK#v=onepage&amp;q=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hV5AAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PKzB-2byuE&amp;sig=z3uhJpQbwIYG1hzBGKJcqs_ha44&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiotLaQvLjYAhVDRyYKHa81AHcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="0a91e60b-8169-4cd0-bd61-149f6e18a00b" CreationDate="2018-01-08T22:29:50.697" UserId="9" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification. The nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo.* In other cases, neither the Classical Latin nominative nor the Classical Latin accusative seems to be sufficient to explain the form of an Italian word (because of things like reanalysis of stems or nouns moving to different noun classes), although it may be the case that the Italian form corresponds to an accusative form that existed in an intermediate language variety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does seem likely that in general/overall, the accusative forms had more of an influence on the development of the Italian forms than the ablative forms specifically, because as far as I know there is in the great majority of cases nothing ***particular to Latin ablative forms*** that helps explain the Italian forms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically, the ablative form is fairly similar to the accusative form in Latin in many situations. They are built on the same stem, and frequently differ only by the presence or absence of final *m* and/or the length or quality of the vowel in the last syllable; in the situations where the accusative and ablative forms are most distinct (like in the first- or third-declension plural) we don't see a reflex in Italian of the Latin ablative endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have as many sources in this answer as I would like, but I want to link to this WordReference thread with some prior discussion: [Accusative declension from Latin -&gt; Italian][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area mentioned below where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Singular forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1st declension &amp; 2nd declension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/; in fact, this also merges with the expected reflex of the Latin nominative ending for first-declension nouns, /a/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;THe same goes for the second-declension accusative singular and ablative singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###3rd declension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension masculine or feminine nouns generally ended in *-em* in the accusative, which regularly developed to Italian *-e* due to the loss of Latin word-final &quot;m&quot;. (Although in some words, like *città* &lt; *cīvitātem,* this was later lost). This is identical to the expected reflex of the third-declension singular ablative ending *-e.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any sign of Latin third-declension i-stem ablative singular forms in *-ī* contributing to Italian, but [the use of *-ī* vs. *-e*][2] was somewhat variable even in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[A Linguistic History of Italian][3]* (by Martin Maiden, 2013) points out that because of the loss of Latin word-final &quot;m&quot;, words derived from the nominative/accusative form of Latin third-declension neuters that ended in *-e* in Latin, such as *mare,* came to have the same ending words derived from the accusative form of Latin third-declension masculine/feminine nouns (p. 108). This seems to have contributed to the dissolution of &quot;neuter&quot; as a distinct gender in Italian; I would guess that it also reinforced the use of &quot;e&quot; as an ending for nouns that were not a-stems or u/o-stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remaining third-declension neuters (which are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above) seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways. In some cases, we phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class or gender shifts, and learned borrowings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, in the development from Latin to Romance, Latin third-declension neuters seem to have often become assimilated to the conjugation pattern of third-declension masculine and feminine nouns. According to the chapter &quot;Latin&quot;, by Nigel Vincent, in *[The Romance Languages][4],* edited by Martin Harris and Nigel Vincent (2003), one such example is It. &quot;latte&quot;, Fr. &quot;lait&quot;, Spanish &quot;leche&quot; etc. which can be accounted for by reconstructing an accusative form *lacte(m) in Proto-Romance (p. 44). But Vincent points out that words like It. &quot;cuore&quot; and &quot;nome&quot; do not come from the Latin oblique stems of *cor* and *nomen* (*cord-* and *nomin-* respectively), and must be seen as derived from the Latin nominative/accusative form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Misc. examples: *fiume, fiumi* from Latin *flumen*; *corpo, corpi* from Latin *corpus.* The Italian words *femore, -i; crimine, -i; inguine, -i;* and *onere, -i* obviously cannot be from the Classical Latin nominative or accusative singular forms of *femur, crimen, inguen, onus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###4th declension&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin /uː/ in word-final unstressed syllables (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the section below about the dialectal Italian plural ending *-o* that appears to come from the Latin fourth-declension nominative/accusative plural ending /uːs/). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary&#xD;&#xA;So overall, Italian singular forms seem to give no strong indications of whether they are from the Latin accusative vs. the Latin ablative form; but sound changes are sufficient as an explanation for why the modern Italian forms are often inconclusive for determining if the form of a word comes from the Latin accusative or the Latin ablative. This means that we'd need to look at other sources of information to decide which Latin case-form was likely to have had the most influence on the origin of the singular forms of Italian nouns (substantives and adjectives).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a limited number of singular forms like *nome, fiume, cuore, corpo* that are fairly obviously not derived from the Classical Latin ablative singular forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Classical Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian, but it seems more straightforward to analyze the Italian ending of these words as coming from the Latin nominative plural suffix *-i.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][5]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;, but I doubt that the ablative had an influence in this area, based on what we see with the other types of plural nouns.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is apparently somewhat tricky to explain the exact development of the Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular, but the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, what Wikipedia says is that the Italian plural ending &quot;-e&quot; is generally thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the archaic first-declension nominative plural ending *-ās*. [Old French][6], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[The Italian Plural Formative *-e*][7]&quot; (Helmut Lüdtke, in *Italic and Romance: Linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo, 1980), the Italian feminine plural article *le* has been proposed to come from either Latin ILLAE, ILLAS or ILLAEC (which he says was proposed by Merlo as a formation on the analogy of HAEC) (p. 122).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lüdtke argues that the  *as &gt; *ai̯ &gt; e sound-change explanation cannot account for the existence of syntactic doubling in some Italian dialects after this article, something that usually occurs as the reflex of a former consonant cluster. As far as I can tell, his argument is that, if we start from *-as* and assume that the s vocalized to i̯, then [s] would no longer be present to assimilate to the following consonant to cause syntactic doubling, and if we start from *-as* and assume the s assimilated to the following consonant to cause syntactic doubling, then [s] would no longer be present to vocalize to i̯. He seems to argue that the existence of varieties of Italian that have both the vowel &quot;e&quot; in the feminine plural article, and syntactic gemination after the feminine plural article, implies that at some point it ended in -eC, where &quot;C&quot; is some consonant. Because of this, he argues that the vowel in the suffix must have changed before the loss of the final consonant; he assumes this vowel change was analogical (suggesting *-as* changed to *-es* under the influence of either third-declension *-es,* the Classical Latin nominative ending *-ae,* or the influence of QUAE on ILLA). I'm not sure what to think about this but in any case, Lüdtke agrees with the Wikipedia article about  the ultimate source of Italian plural *-e* being Latin *-as,* although Lüdtke does describe this as an accusative form (p. 123). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, he also mentions the existence of two &quot;marginal zones ... the northwestern corner of Tuscany ... and the Bregaglia Valley ... where we find the plural type *la porta*&quot; which he says is from ILLAS PORTAS with loss of the final /s/ without a change of the vowel in the final syllable (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No plural *\*-evo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is *\*evo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-a*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns that end in *-o* in the singular end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter nominative/singular plural ending. (No plural adjectives end in *-a*: plural nouns in *-a* trigger the same agreement as feminine plural nouns, so an agreeing adjective will take the suffix *-e* or *-i*). Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-o*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][8]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Classical Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Notes about notation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my transcriptions of Latin, I am using the same IPA symbols for long and short vowels since the length marker is enough to disambiguate what phoneme I am talking about. I used the symbol &quot;#&quot; to represent a word boundary:  &quot;am&quot; developed to &quot;a&quot; word-finally in Romance, but generally had other developments when it occured in other positions in Latin words (e.g. &quot;amo&quot; or &quot;cambio&quot;). Something like &quot;*as &gt; *ai̯ / _#&quot; means &quot;/as/ became /ai̯/ in word-final contexts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/accusative-declension-from-latin-italian.2256785/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/675/why-do-ablatives-of-the-3rd-declension-sometimes-end-on-e-at-other-times-on-i&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=J3jJAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA108&amp;lpg=PA108&amp;dq=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ULI1F96Ssj&amp;sig=URlxVIUk6VCaY--2L8Z6vRNNmUg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjC7-no6cTYAhWE14MKHbzIC6oQ6AEIMzAC#v=onepage&amp;q=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=lULWOT1o0SsC&amp;pg=PA44&amp;lpg=PA44&amp;dq=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=MwR9_CEpiO&amp;sig=S_VWBTnxg4MpFJ3dhVGNuW5mZ4M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjC7-no6cTYAhWE14MKHbzIC6oQ6AEITzAK#v=onepage&amp;q=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hV5AAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PKzB-2byuE&amp;sig=z3uhJpQbwIYG1hzBGKJcqs_ha44&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiotLaQvLjYAhVDRyYKHa81AHcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="b620a634-b377-4e45-a867-378fb85b820f" CreationDate="2018-01-08T22:45:37.490" UserId="9" Comment="added 1161 characters in body" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification. The nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo.* In other cases, neither the Classical Latin nominative nor the Classical Latin accusative seems to be sufficient to explain the form of an Italian word (because of things like reanalysis of stems or nouns moving to different noun classes), although it may be the case that the Italian form corresponds to an accusative form that existed in an intermediate language variety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does seem likely that in general/overall, the accusative forms had more of an influence on the development of the Italian forms than the ablative forms specifically, because as far as I know there is in the great majority of cases nothing ***particular to Latin ablative forms*** that helps explain the Italian forms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically, the ablative form is fairly similar to the accusative form in Latin in many situations. They are built on the same stem, and frequently differ only by the presence or absence of final *m* and/or the length or quality of the vowel in the last syllable; in the situations where the accusative and ablative forms are most distinct (like in the first- or third-declension plural) we don't see a reflex in Italian of the Latin ablative endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have as many sources in this answer as I would like, but I want to link to this WordReference thread with some prior discussion: [Accusative declension from Latin -&gt; Italian][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area mentioned below where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Singular forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1st declension &amp; 2nd declension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/; in fact, this also merges with the expected reflex of the Latin nominative ending for first-declension nouns, /a/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;THe same goes for the second-declension accusative singular and ablative singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###3rd declension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension masculine or feminine nouns generally ended in *-em* in the accusative, which regularly developed to Italian *-e* due to the loss of Latin word-final &quot;m&quot;. (Although in some words, like *città* &lt; *cīvitātem,* this was later lost). This is identical to the expected reflex of the third-declension singular ablative ending *-e.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any sign of Latin third-declension i-stem ablative singular forms in *-ī* contributing to Italian, but [the use of *-ī* vs. *-e*][2] was somewhat variable even in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[A Linguistic History of Italian][3]* (by Martin Maiden, 2013) points out that because of the loss of Latin word-final &quot;m&quot;, words derived from the nominative/accusative form of Latin third-declension neuters that ended in *-e* in Latin, such as *mare,* came to have the same ending words derived from the accusative form of Latin third-declension masculine/feminine nouns (p. 108). This seems to have contributed to the dissolution of &quot;neuter&quot; as a distinct gender in Italian; I would guess that it also reinforced the use of &quot;e&quot; as an ending for nouns that were not a-stems or u/o-stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remaining third-declension neuters (which are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above) seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways. In some cases, we phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class or gender shifts, and learned borrowings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, in the development from Latin to Romance, Latin third-declension neuters seem to have often become assimilated to the conjugation pattern of third-declension masculine and feminine nouns. According to the chapter &quot;Latin&quot;, by Nigel Vincent, in *[The Romance Languages][4],* edited by Martin Harris and Nigel Vincent (2003), one such example is It. &quot;latte&quot;, Fr. &quot;lait&quot;, Spanish &quot;leche&quot; etc. which can be accounted for by reconstructing an accusative form *lacte(m) in Proto-Romance (p. 44). But Vincent points out that words like It. &quot;cuore&quot; and &quot;nome&quot; do not come from the Latin oblique stems of *cor* and *nomen* (*cord-* and *nomin-* respectively), and must be seen as derived from the Latin nominative/accusative form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Misc. examples: *fiume, fiumi* from Latin *flumen*; *corpo, corpi* from Latin *corpus.* The Italian words *femore, -i; crimine, -i; inguine, -i;* and *onere, -i* obviously cannot be from the Classical Latin nominative or accusative singular forms of *femur, crimen, inguen, onus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###4th declension&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin /uː/ in word-final unstressed syllables (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the section below about the dialectal Italian plural ending *-o* that appears to come from the Latin fourth-declension nominative/accusative plural ending /uːs/). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary&#xD;&#xA;So overall, Italian singular forms seem to give no strong indications of whether they are from the Latin accusative vs. the Latin ablative form; but sound changes are sufficient as an explanation for why the modern Italian forms are often inconclusive for determining if the form of a word comes from the Latin accusative or the Latin ablative. This means that we'd need to look at other sources of information to decide which Latin case-form was likely to have had the most influence on the origin of the singular forms of Italian nouns (substantives and adjectives).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a limited number of singular forms like *nome, fiume, cuore, corpo* that are fairly obviously not derived from the Classical Latin ablative singular forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Classical Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian, but it seems more straightforward to analyze the Italian ending of these words as coming from the Latin nominative plural suffix *-i.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][5]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;, but I doubt that the ablative had an influence in this area, based on what we see with the other types of plural nouns.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is apparently somewhat tricky to explain the exact development of the Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular, but the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, what Wikipedia says is that the Italian plural ending &quot;-e&quot; is generally thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the archaic first-declension nominative plural ending *-ās*. [Old French][6], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[The Italian Plural Formative *-e*][7]&quot; (Helmut Lüdtke, in *Italic and Romance: Linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo, 1980), the Italian feminine plural article *le* has been proposed to come from either Latin ILLAE, ILLAS or ILLAEC (which he says was proposed by Merlo as a formation on the analogy of HAEC) (p. 122).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lüdtke argues that the  *as &gt; *ai̯ &gt; e sound-change explanation cannot account for the existence of syntactic doubling in some Italian dialects after this article, something that usually occurs as the reflex of a former consonant cluster. As far as I can tell, his argument is that, if we start from *-as* and assume that the s vocalized to i̯, then [s] would no longer be present to assimilate to the following consonant to cause syntactic doubling, and if we start from *-as* and assume the s assimilated to the following consonant to cause syntactic doubling, then [s] would no longer be present to vocalize to i̯. He seems to argue that the existence of varieties of Italian that have both the vowel &quot;e&quot; in the feminine plural article, and syntactic gemination after the feminine plural article, implies that at some point it ended in -eC, where &quot;C&quot; is some consonant. Because of this, he argues that the vowel in the suffix must have changed before the loss of the final consonant; he assumes this vowel change was analogical (suggesting *-as* changed to *-es* under the influence of either third-declension *-es,* the Classical Latin nominative ending *-ae,* or the influence of QUAE on ILLA). I'm not sure what to think about this but in any case, Lüdtke agrees with the Wikipedia article about  the ultimate source of Italian plural *-e* being Latin *-as,* although Lüdtke does describe this as an accusative form (p. 123). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, he also mentions the existence of two &quot;marginal zones ... the northwestern corner of Tuscany ... and the Bregaglia Valley ... where we find the plural type *la porta*&quot; which he says is from ILLAS PORTAS with loss of the final /s/ without a change of the vowel in the final syllable (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No plural *\*-evo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is *\*evo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-a*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns that end in *-o* in the singular end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter nominative/singular plural ending. (No plural adjectives end in *-a*: plural nouns in *-a* trigger the same agreement as feminine plural nouns, so an agreeing adjective will take the suffix *-e* or *-i*). Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-o*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][8]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Classical Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, we see no reflex in Italian of the distinctively formed Classical Latin plural ablative ending *-(i)bus.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form of the Italian plural ending *-i,* corresponding to singular *-o,* seems consistent with a derivation from the Latin second-declension ablative plural ending *-īs,* but it also is consistent with a derivation from the Latin second-declension nominative masculine plural ending *-ī,.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the Italian plural ending *-i* corresponds to singular *-e,* a derivation from the Latin third-declension nominative/accusative masculine/feminine plural ending *-ēs* seems much more plausible than a derivation from any Latin ablative plural ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form of the common Italian feminine plural ending *-e* (corresponding to singular *-a*) seems inconsistent with derivation from any Classical Latin ablative endings. The same goes for the form of the uncommon Italian feminine plural ending *-a* (corresponding to singular *-o*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dialectal Italian plural ending *-o,* corresponding to singular *-o,* also doesn't seem to have a form consistent with a derivation from a Classical Latin ablative ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Notes about notation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my transcriptions of Latin, I am using the same IPA symbols for long and short vowels since the length marker is enough to disambiguate what phoneme I am talking about. I used the symbol &quot;#&quot; to represent a word boundary:  &quot;am&quot; developed to &quot;a&quot; word-finally in Romance, but generally had other developments when it occured in other positions in Latin words (e.g. &quot;amo&quot; or &quot;cambio&quot;). Something like &quot;*as &gt; *ai̯ / _#&quot; means &quot;/as/ became /ai̯/ in word-final contexts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/accusative-declension-from-latin-italian.2256785/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/675/why-do-ablatives-of-the-3rd-declension-sometimes-end-on-e-at-other-times-on-i&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=J3jJAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA108&amp;lpg=PA108&amp;dq=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ULI1F96Ssj&amp;sig=URlxVIUk6VCaY--2L8Z6vRNNmUg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjC7-no6cTYAhWE14MKHbzIC6oQ6AEIMzAC#v=onepage&amp;q=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=lULWOT1o0SsC&amp;pg=PA44&amp;lpg=PA44&amp;dq=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=MwR9_CEpiO&amp;sig=S_VWBTnxg4MpFJ3dhVGNuW5mZ4M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjC7-no6cTYAhWE14MKHbzIC6oQ6AEITzAK#v=onepage&amp;q=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hV5AAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PKzB-2byuE&amp;sig=z3uhJpQbwIYG1hzBGKJcqs_ha44&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiotLaQvLjYAhVDRyYKHa81AHcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5833" RevisionGUID="d5b0bad9-8fd4-461b-80de-5acf61c54429" CreationDate="2018-01-09T02:46:00.567" UserId="1694" Text="Since @cnread hasn't gotten around to it yet, I will make my own reply based on J.N. Adams' _The Latin Sexual Vocabury_ (where urination is treated in an appendix rather than in the main text).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Adams regards _meiere_ and _mingere_ as &quot;not easy to separate in Republican and early Imperial times&quot;, although _mingere_ appears somewhat later and may be a back-formation made on the basis of the perfect of _meiere_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Late Latin developed a 1st conjugation _meiare_, possibly modelled on _cacare_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Although _meiere_ developed a side usage as a word for &quot;ejaculate&quot;, _mingere_ did not, and was not an outright obscenity.  It seems to have been in a higher plane than the more vulgar _meiere_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Lotium_ seems to have developed as a euphemism for &quot;urine&quot;, based on its use in washing clothes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- By the end of the Republic, _urina_ developed as a more polite word for &quot;urine&quot;, perhaps because it was associated with οῦρον.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5833" RevisionGUID="b5270139-c8a1-4b33-9cd3-16b8bc6acebf" CreationDate="2018-01-09T02:52:54.930" UserId="1694" Comment="edited body" Text="Since @cnread hasn't gotten around to it yet, I will make my own reply based on J.N. Adams' _The Latin Sexual Vocabury_ (where urination is treated in an appendix rather than in the main text).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Adams regards _meiere_ and _mingere_ as &quot;not easy to separate in Republican and early Imperial times&quot;, although _mingere_ appears somewhat later and may be a back-formation made on the basis of the perfect of _meiere_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Late Latin developed a 1st conjugation _meiare_, possibly modelled on _cacare_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Although _meiere_ developed a side usage as a word for &quot;ejaculate&quot;, _mingere_ did not, and was not an outright obscenity.  It seems to have been in a higher plane than the more vulgar _meiere_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Lotium_ seems to have developed as a euphemism for &quot;urine&quot;, based on its use in washing clothes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- By the end of the Republic, _urina_ developed as a more polite word for &quot;urine&quot;, perhaps because it was associated with οὖρον.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5834" RevisionGUID="7a437b29-2cf7-456f-8bf7-4ecb383e6165" CreationDate="2018-01-09T03:51:13.920" UserId="235" Text="I'm curious to know whether the Romans had a word for &quot;volcano&quot;, and, more specifically, whether they thought of Mount Vesuvius as a volcano. After the eruption of AD 79, I'm sure they had some choice words for what happened... what words did they use to describe the eruption and particularly the volcano? Feel free to offer evidence on any eruptions predating the one of AD 79, as after skimming the Wikipedia page on Mount Vesuvius, there seem to have been eruptions before then, or at least, descriptions by Greek and Roman writers of its fiery nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?english=volcano" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19304" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5834" RevisionGUID="7a437b29-2cf7-456f-8bf7-4ecb383e6165" CreationDate="2018-01-09T03:51:13.920" UserId="235" Text="Did the Romans have a word for &quot;volcano&quot;, and, how did they describe Vesuvius?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19305" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5834" RevisionGUID="7a437b29-2cf7-456f-8bf7-4ecb383e6165" CreationDate="2018-01-09T03:51:13.920" UserId="235" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5834" RevisionGUID="ed21f1f8-a1ff-45c1-80d8-1ccab861b136" CreationDate="2018-01-09T03:56:34.647" UserId="235" Comment="added 227 characters in body" Text="I'm curious to know whether the Romans had a word for &quot;volcano&quot;, and, more specifically, whether they thought of Mount Vesuvius as a volcano.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; After the eruption of AD 79, I'm sure they had some choice words for what happened... what words did they use to describe the eruption and particularly the volcano? Feel free to offer evidence on any eruptions predating the one of AD 79, as after skimming the Wikipedia page on Mount Vesuvius, there seem to have been eruptions before then, or at least, descriptions by Greek and Roman writers of its fiery nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I found one option on [William Whitaker's words][1], i.e. vulcanus, but I'm not sure if this word is attested from descriptions of Vesuvius, or even when it was first attested, or how commonly used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?english=volcano" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19307" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5834" RevisionGUID="ed21f1f8-a1ff-45c1-80d8-1ccab861b136" CreationDate="2018-01-09T03:56:34.647" UserId="235" Comment="added 227 characters in body" Text="Did the Romans have a word for &quot;volcano&quot;? How did they describe Vesuvius?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5834" RevisionGUID="60785ad7-8ae8-41a5-9e9d-3851d5467bb2" CreationDate="2018-01-09T06:10:15.537" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 27 characters in body" Text="I'm curious to know whether the Romans had a word for &quot;volcano&quot;, and, more specifically, whether they thought of Mount Vesuvius as a volcano.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; After the eruption of AD 79, I'm sure they had some choice words for what happened... what words did they use to describe the eruption and particularly the volcano? Feel free to offer evidence on any eruptions predating the one of AD 79, as after skimming the Wikipedia page on Mount Vesuvius, there seem to have been eruptions before then, or at least, descriptions by Greek and Roman writers of its fiery nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I found one option on [William Whitaker's words][1], i.e. vulcanus, but I'm not sure if this word is attested from descriptions of Vesuvius, or even if it was widely used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?english=volcano" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5836" RevisionGUID="9b51b633-6427-40d4-9284-47998a75610f" CreationDate="2018-01-10T09:59:03.153" UserId="79" Text="I think it is safe to assume that there have been crossword puzzles in Latin, and I think I have seen some in textbooks as well.&#xD;&#xA;But what was the earliest Latin crossword puzzle?&#xD;&#xA;I do not mean word squares like [the Sator square](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sator_Square) used for mystical or other similar purposes, but actual puzzles that are supposed to be filled in with suitably matching words.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how early such puzzles might be &amp;mdash; or how to exactly define a crossword puzzle if there are edge cases &amp;mdash; so any puzzles are welcome as answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19313" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5836" RevisionGUID="9b51b633-6427-40d4-9284-47998a75610f" CreationDate="2018-01-10T09:59:03.153" UserId="79" Text="What is the earliest Latin crossword puzzle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19314" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5836" RevisionGUID="9b51b633-6427-40d4-9284-47998a75610f" CreationDate="2018-01-10T09:59:03.153" UserId="79" Text="|example-request|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5837" RevisionGUID="d1c33ee8-db61-45de-8013-61ab61b53b67" CreationDate="2018-01-10T12:16:25.383" UserId="645" Text="I don't know for how long there have been crosswords in Latin, though I guess that they may date back to the 1920s or 30s, when crosswords were first popularised in newspapers. My teacher in the 1940s used to make them up for us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are easily available, though the quality is variable. Just google &quot;Latin crosswords&quot;: for instance, &#xD;&#xA;https://www.latincrosswords.com/ makes a fairly large claim to being first in the market, but I don't know on what grounds. In the UK, &quot;The Times&quot; newspaper has published a Latin crossword each Saturday for the past couple of years, and the ubiquitous Amazon offers several book titles." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5838" RevisionGUID="fd255023-5161-4c92-b185-85a75365f5a1" CreationDate="2018-01-10T13:01:22.083" UserId="867" Text="I would class the following as reasonably innocuous in tone but only because of the works they appear in.  That is to say, there is no reason for their authors to be scurrilous or vulgar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *lotium facere*, see Cato, *On Agriculture*, CXXVII&#xD;&#xA; - *lotium ire*, see Cato, *On Ag.*, CLVI&#xD;&#xA; - *urinam facere*, see Pliny, *Natural History*, XXVIII.LX; also Columella, *On Agriculture*, VI.XXX &#xD;&#xA; - *urinam reddere*, see Pliny, *Nat. Hist.*, XX.XXIII &amp; VIII.LXVI &amp; VIII.LVI; Celsus, *On Medicine*, 2.14&#xD;&#xA; - *cupiditas urinae*, in Celsus, *On Med.*, 2.12&#xD;&#xA; - *urinam fundere*, in Pliny, *Nat. Hist.*, XXIV.CXI (but note that this is describing dogs)&#xD;&#xA; - *exinanita urina*, in Pliny, VIII.LVI (used of hedgehogs)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;*exonerata vesica* occurs in the *Satyricon* (27) and Macrobius has *ire minctum* in the *Saturnalia* (3), both of which sound reasonably benign to me but the authors make me think we should tread with caution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In truth, it's difficult to clearly define register and tone, possibly because the register was narrower and/or more flexible than our own.  *Lotium* is a case in point.  When Cato uses it in *On Agriculture*, it seems quite straightforward and polite.  It sounds less polite when Catullus uses it to describe a Spaniard brushing his teeth with it (XXXIX.21).  It sounds positively vulgar when Petronius uses it to describe someone who *non valet lotium suum* (*Satyricon*, 57).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly with both *mingere* and *meiere*.  Although they occur across a broad spectrum of genres and authors they are, nevertheless, used liberally by authors of invective and satire, such as Catullus, Juvenal, and especially Martial.  Indeed, Martial's use of *meiere* seems deliberately to play on the ambiguity of its meanings (to ejaculate and to urinate); 46.2, for example, is often translated &quot;to pee&quot; (or similar) but is open for interpretation.  Either way, it's horrendously obscene.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, Catullus uses *meiere* in XCVII to reference a female mule and so can only mean urinating rather than ejaculating.  But, in the context of the poem, Catullus probably means something more like &quot;pissing&quot;.  All of which is to say that *meiere*, in the hands of some authors at least, is clearly meant to be offensive in the extreme.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5839" RevisionGUID="56750f23-f624-45df-9baa-35359e6d2b19" CreationDate="2018-01-10T14:05:22.567" UserId="45" Text="This is a speculative question that (I hope) has a good answer from historical linguistics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My starting observation was that *all* nouns appear to have a plural genitive ending in -um: *-arum*, *-orum*, *-(i)um*, *-uum*, *erum*. Just as I began thinking of this as a kind of ironclad rule, it occurred to me that **certain plural personal pronouns end in *-i***, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *sui*&#xD;&#xA;* *nostri*&#xD;&#xA;* *vestri*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's interesting, though, that two of these examples are only used in a specific case: the *-um* ending (*vestrum/nostrum*) is still used for the partitive genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By all accounts, these words look like they are singular: in fact, the reflexive pronoun is the exact same in the singular and plural. **Am I right to see this *-i* ending in the genitive plural as a bit of an anomaly? If so, do we have a reasonable explanation for why it is there?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19318" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5839" RevisionGUID="56750f23-f624-45df-9baa-35359e6d2b19" CreationDate="2018-01-10T14:05:22.567" UserId="45" Text="Plural genitive endings in -i" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19319" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5839" RevisionGUID="56750f23-f624-45df-9baa-35359e6d2b19" CreationDate="2018-01-10T14:05:22.567" UserId="45" Text="|etymology|genitive|ending|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2335" RevisionGUID="d28314e7-ea21-4ad4-89dd-2a5dae2e8bdc" CreationDate="2018-01-10T14:29:40.577" UserId="324" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Different languages (even closely related ones) have different ways of saying “the town/island/country by the name of NN.” Some use a straightforward apposition between the two nouns (“urbs Roma”, “die Stadt Berlin”); some use a quasi-possessive phrase (“the city of London”, “la ville de Paris”); some actually put the place name in the genitive case (Arabic “madīnatu Baghdāda”). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simpliciter has called our attention to the Vulgate of Acts 8:5 with the rather non-Latin looking “Philippus autem descendens in civitatem Samariae”, which in fact is a literal translation of Φίλιππος δὲ κατελθὼν εἰς πόλιν τῆς Σαμαρείας. Samaria is at least originally the name of a region, not a city, so εἰς πόλιν τῆς Σαμαρείας could be taken to mean “to the (principal) town of the (land) Samaria”. It seems that the Greek text was understood thus by the translator of the Syriac Bible: ܦ݂ܺܝܠܺܝܦ݁ܳܘܣ ܕ݁ܶܝܢ ܢܚܶܬ݂ ܠܶܗ ܠܰܡܕ݂ܺܝܢ݈ܬ݁ܳܐ ܕ݁ܫܳܡܪܳܝܶܐ “Phillip descended to the town of the Samaritans (plural ethnonym)”. If the author intended to say “to the town (called) Samaria” he would not be saying it in very good Greek.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5840" RevisionGUID="a00b20ff-fd53-4def-81aa-ece89a203f02" CreationDate="2018-01-11T05:43:15.620" UserId="2317" Text="I thought neuter noun's accusative and nominative forms are always the same but is there any exception? I need any neuter word that has different nom and acc form. doesn't matter if it's plural or singular. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19322" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5840" RevisionGUID="a00b20ff-fd53-4def-81aa-ece89a203f02" CreationDate="2018-01-11T05:43:15.620" UserId="2317" Text="Is there a neuter noun(word) that has different nominative and accusative form" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19323" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5840" RevisionGUID="a00b20ff-fd53-4def-81aa-ece89a203f02" CreationDate="2018-01-11T05:43:15.620" UserId="2317" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5840" RevisionGUID="171964db-198e-4b39-80d3-fbcc3ddf4c98" CreationDate="2018-01-11T08:50:05.077" UserId="79" Comment="added 14 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I thought neuter noun's accusative and nominative forms are always the same but is there any exception? I need any neuter word that has different nominative and accusative form. Doesn't matter if it's plural or singular. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19325" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5840" RevisionGUID="171964db-198e-4b39-80d3-fbcc3ddf4c98" CreationDate="2018-01-11T08:50:05.077" UserId="79" Comment="added 14 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is there a neuter noun (word) that has different nominative and accusative form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19326" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5840" RevisionGUID="171964db-198e-4b39-80d3-fbcc3ddf4c98" CreationDate="2018-01-11T08:50:05.077" UserId="79" Comment="added 14 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|vocabulary|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5841" RevisionGUID="af35b814-bf9f-4de0-847c-132fe088b3f8" CreationDate="2018-01-11T08:59:59.293" UserId="79" Text="What would be a good Latin word for &quot;women&quot;, &quot;ladies&quot;, &quot;female(s)&quot;, or the like when I want to indicate the gender designation of a sauna or a toilet?&#xD;&#xA;In English I would choose &quot;ladies&quot;, or perhaps in a very informal setting &quot;women&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I specifically want to avoid any offending or pejorative tones in the word, and I am not sure which Latin word would be the best choice.&#xD;&#xA;*Femina*, *mulier*, and *domina* come to mind, but I am unsure about how their tones compare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19328" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5841" RevisionGUID="af35b814-bf9f-4de0-847c-132fe088b3f8" CreationDate="2018-01-11T08:59:59.293" UserId="79" Text="A polite word for female facilities" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19329" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5841" RevisionGUID="af35b814-bf9f-4de0-847c-132fe088b3f8" CreationDate="2018-01-11T08:59:59.293" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5842" RevisionGUID="c74dde7c-de74-47bb-845b-71704102fdbc" CreationDate="2018-01-12T08:14:46.720" UserId="867" Text="Perhaps the adjective *muliebris* would work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *On Architecture*, Vitruvius writes in book 5, chapter 10, 'On Baths', that care should be taken that the hot baths for men and for women be adjacent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *... uti caldaria **muliebria** et virilia coniuncta*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5843" RevisionGUID="d713cdd6-0bbe-4814-9522-843a32ac6368" CreationDate="2018-01-12T10:27:31.207" UserId="79" Text="[Tenure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_tenure) is a permanent academic position.&#xD;&#xA;The position is very safe, as it is far more complicated to fire a tenured professor than an employee who has a permanent contract.&#xD;&#xA;There are variations, and for example in Finland there is no &quot;true tenure&quot;: permanent professors have as much job security as a permanent plumber.&#xD;&#xA;If you want definiteness, you can restrict this question to tenure as understood in most of the US today.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a good Latin word or phrase for &quot;tenure&quot; or &quot;tenured&quot; that would capture the sense of permanence and immutability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19332" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5843" RevisionGUID="d713cdd6-0bbe-4814-9522-843a32ac6368" CreationDate="2018-01-12T10:27:31.207" UserId="79" Text="How to translate &quot;tenure&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19333" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5843" RevisionGUID="d713cdd6-0bbe-4814-9522-843a32ac6368" CreationDate="2018-01-12T10:27:31.207" UserId="79" Text="|word-request|academic-latin|occupation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5844" RevisionGUID="82f421b0-be4a-467c-9cf6-e879b13a3ac9" CreationDate="2018-01-12T10:31:48.683" UserId="645" Text="I don't think that there's any doubt. *Domina* has a suggestion of class, the primary meaning of *femina* is 'female' (of whatever species), *puella* is age-restricted but *mulier* is a general word that can apply to all, with the advantage of the related adjective *muliebris* that Penelope has pointed out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5845" RevisionGUID="7b956586-ffa1-45b9-867c-13734ed63b78" CreationDate="2018-01-12T14:05:43.403" UserId="79" Text="This answer is based on the intuition I have long held: genitives like *nostrum* and *vestri* are not forms of the personal pronouns *nos* and *vos*, but of the substantivized possessive adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;I have no sources to back this up, but I am posting these thoughts here for scrutiny.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some pronouns (*ego, tu, nos, vos, se*) have an associated possessive pronoun (*meus, tuus, noster, vester, suus*) that takes some of the functions of the genitive.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the role of the genitive is not directly comparable to nouns and most pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;These special pronouns do not have a genitive form in the completely usual sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My intuition has always been that *sui, nostri, vestri* and the like are singular genitives of the substantivized neuter adjective *suum/nostrum/vestrum*.&#xD;&#xA;Thus, *sui/nostri/vestri/mei/tui* are not forms of the personal pronouns themselves, but rather of the related possessive pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;The putative noun *nostrum* is almost synonymous with *res nostra*, so you could read *nostri* as *rei nostrae*.&#xD;&#xA;Notice that it is irrelevant that *nos* is plural; the possessive adjective *noster* is only used in the singular here.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the *-i* you see is a singular genitive ending, and the connection to plural comes from the meaning of the word *noster*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reasoning does not extend to all uses of the genitive as such, but the same principle applies.&#xD;&#xA;For partitive genitive, you always have *nostrum/vestrum* &amp;mdash; at least I have never seen *nostri/vestri* partitively.&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;one of us&quot; would be *unus nostrum*, which I read roughly as *unus virorum nostrorum*.&#xD;&#xA;Again, *noster* is substantivized, and here means &quot;a man from our group&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The shorter genitive plural ending *-um* instead of *-orum* [is possible for many words](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/705/79), and *nostrum* and *vestrum* sound just like the kind of thing that I expect to wind up having the shorter variant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, these genitives of the possessive pronouns can start a life of their own and obtain new uses by analogy.&#xD;&#xA;See [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1306/79), for example.&#xD;&#xA;Most instances of *nostrum/vestrum* used a possessive genitive actually make sense when parsed as plural genitives of a substantivized possessive pronoun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19336" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5840" RevisionGUID="2978b241-dcd1-49d7-b3c5-b0757a0fa838" CreationDate="2018-01-12T14:47:53.420" UserId="79" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[18],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:45,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;brianpck&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:985,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;cnread&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5846" RevisionGUID="cbb497c0-cdee-4efe-ab87-bc0b82191b12" CreationDate="2018-01-12T15:33:27.990" UserId="45" Text="I was writing in Latin recently and was remarking to myself how strange &quot;proh dolor&quot; looks. It seems odd to see a Latin word ending in &quot;h,&quot; and a [Perseus search for such words](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=h&amp;lang=la) reveals (beside Semitic loanwords) only the following exclamations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ah&#xD;&#xA;* oh&#xD;&#xA;* proh&#xD;&#xA;* vah&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have two questions about these words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Where does this &quot;h&quot; come from? &#xD;&#xA;2. Do we have any indication of how it was pronounced? My own practice is simply to ignore it, e.g. pronouncing &quot;proh&quot; like &quot;pro.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19338" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5846" RevisionGUID="cbb497c0-cdee-4efe-ab87-bc0b82191b12" CreationDate="2018-01-12T15:33:27.990" UserId="45" Text="Latin exclamations ending in &quot;h&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19339" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5846" RevisionGUID="cbb497c0-cdee-4efe-ab87-bc0b82191b12" CreationDate="2018-01-12T15:33:27.990" UserId="45" Text="|etymology|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5847" RevisionGUID="016e6f92-37af-48da-b5b4-6e173a11da24" CreationDate="2018-01-12T17:35:17.250" UserId="645" Text="It's all too easy to confound the reflexive pronoun (which only exists in the oblique cases) with the possessive adjective *suus, sua, suum* (declined like *bonus*). The genitive plural *suorum* , etc, of the latter is found widely in classical literature, which I personally find more readily acceptable than the singular usage of the reflexive pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not altogether sure about describing this *-i* ending as if for a genitive plural of pronouns. Although the usage certainly seems to exist, I wouldn't resort to it myself — but I think that you're right to suggest an anomaly, or at least an aberration. Maybe someone familiar with these backwaters of grammar will give chapter and verse from a modern analysis, such as Harm Pinkster's 'Oxford Latin Syntax'  (OUP 2015).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(As an aside, I believe that the passage you quote, *quod illi semper sui causa fecerant, cum eos nemo rogaret, . . . .*  is much disputed, with many commentators preferring the reading *sua causa*.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5848" RevisionGUID="8b17463a-f3d4-4f67-866b-0195c8cb7ef6" CreationDate="2018-01-12T17:40:19.930" UserId="1694" Text="I believe that &quot;h&quot; serves simply as an expressive element.  For comparison, in English expressive elements often do not fit into the normal phonetic pattern of English.  For example, the glottal stop is not phonemic in normal English words, but its use in obligatory in expressions like &quot;ouch!&quot;, &quot;uh-oh&quot;, and &quot;unh-uh&quot;.  So also with the un-Latin use of post-vocalic H in your examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for pronunciation, I see no reason why the Romans would have inserted a silent H, so these H's should be taken at face value, so _proh_ should be pronounced [proh].  Since [h] is essentially a devoicing, one can also reanalyse [proh] as [proo̥].  You can hear something phonetically similar in a devoicing of final vowels in French, so that &quot;vertu&quot; can be heard as [vɛʀtyy̥] (alternatively, [vɛʀtyh].)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5849" RevisionGUID="d3b4ba0a-2f8b-4656-a0e7-61cb795df554" CreationDate="2018-01-12T18:35:10.343" UserId="2321" Text="If I were to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The sky is falling! It undeniably false to claim that I am overreacting, as my detractors are sure to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a common Latin phrase that encapsulates that, the tactic or practice of preemptively attempting to discredit rational response to an irrational point of view?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apologies if this is unclear, I'm having a hard enough time attempting to put this in words in English.  Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19343" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5849" RevisionGUID="d3b4ba0a-2f8b-4656-a0e7-61cb795df554" CreationDate="2018-01-12T18:35:10.343" UserId="2321" Text="Attempting to preemptively disqualify retort" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19344" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5849" RevisionGUID="d3b4ba0a-2f8b-4656-a0e7-61cb795df554" CreationDate="2018-01-12T18:35:10.343" UserId="2321" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19345" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5846" RevisionGUID="f6b5cf35-6e9b-4595-880e-a139367d9780" CreationDate="2018-01-12T20:15:03.353" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|etymology|pronunciation|interjection|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5850" RevisionGUID="cb4e757b-d64a-4a81-9cf8-a42ea58a78d0" CreationDate="2018-01-13T04:09:21.740" UserId="867" Text="I know that this question has already been ably answered by @brianpck but I wanted to add a little about the etymology and background of the notion of ‘passing stool’ because it does in fact have links to Latin, and my entry is too big for a comment!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;‘To pass stool’, or ‘stool’ alone to mean a bowel movement, is quite formal and mostly used in a clinical context (including between doctor/nurse and patient).  This turn of phrase dates to the 15th century when a toilet was a chamber pot placed in a chair or stool.  This arrangement was referred to more fully as a ‘close stool’, a ‘privy stool’, or a ‘stool of easement’.  From there, ‘stool’ alone came to refer to the bowel movement itself.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;The etymology of the English word ‘stool’ is Germanic yet French uses the same imagery in the phrase *aller à la selle* which means literally 'to go to/on the seat', and figuratively, 'to pass stool', while *les selles* is 'stool' in the sense of faeces (note that *la selle* (singular) is simply a seat or saddle).  And of course, *selle* is derived from Latin ***sella*** – a seat, chair, or stool or a close-stool ([definition II.E][1]).  This last definition is exactly how Varro uses it in the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *in eoque quidam **sellas** familiaricas ponunt*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and there also they place the toilets for the servants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*On Agriculture*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As does Martial:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***sellas** ante petit Paterclianas*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et pedit deciesque viciesque*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; first he finds Paterclus’ toilets&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and farts ten or twenty times&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Epigrams*, 12.77.9-10&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this in mind, it’s interesting to note that Celsus often uses ***desidere*** (from *sedere*) to mean to open one’s bowels or, as Lewis &amp; Short write, [to go to stool][2].  That is to say, to be seated (sometimes for quite a while) upon a stool.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DS%3Aentry%20group%3D26%3Aentry%3Dsella&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=desideo&amp;toc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5850" RevisionGUID="294cc594-e784-4de0-a1a8-32c59f8c009b" CreationDate="2018-01-13T04:25:18.780" UserId="867" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="I know that this question has already been ably answered by @brianpck but I wanted to add a little about the etymology and background of the notion of ‘passing stool’ because it does in fact have links to Latin, and my entry is too big for a comment!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;‘To pass stool’ to mean 'to open one's bowels'*, or ‘stool’ alone to mean a bowel movement, is quite formal and mostly used in a clinical context (including between doctor/nurse and patient).  This turn of phrase dates to the 15th century when a toilet was a chamber pot placed in a chair or stool.  This arrangement was referred to more fully as a ‘close stool’, a ‘privy stool’, or a ‘stool of easement’.  From there, ‘stool’ alone came to refer to the bowel movement itself.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;The etymology of the English word ‘stool’ is Germanic yet French uses the same imagery in the phrase *aller à la selle* which means literally 'to go to/on the seat', and figuratively, 'to pass stool', while *les selles* is 'stool' in the sense of faeces (note that *la selle* (singular) is simply a seat or saddle).  And of course, *selle* is derived from Latin ***sella*** – a seat, chair, or stool or a close-stool ([definition II.E][1]).  This last definition is exactly how Varro uses it in the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *in eoque quidam **sellas** familiaricas ponunt*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and there also they place the toilets for the servants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*On Agriculture*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As does Martial:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***sellas** ante petit Paterclianas*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et pedit deciesque viciesque*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; first he finds Paterclus’ toilets&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and farts ten or twenty times&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Epigrams*, 12.77.9-10&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this in mind, it’s interesting to note that Celsus often uses ***desidere*** (from *sedere*) to mean to open one’s bowels or, as Lewis &amp; Short write, [to go to stool][2].  That is to say, to be seated (sometimes for quite a while) upon a stool.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*'to strain for a/at stool' is just a variation on 'to pass stool', meaning 'to have difficulty passing stool'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DS%3Aentry%20group%3D26%3Aentry%3Dsella&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=desideo&amp;toc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5851" RevisionGUID="43474ddc-2927-4315-89ee-40d9832bf543" CreationDate="2018-01-13T20:00:37.520" UserId="79" Text="Have regular passive forms of the verb *facere* ever been used?&#xD;&#xA;If so, what is the first occurrence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all of the Latin I have seen, the passive forms of *facere* are replaced by *fieri*.&#xD;&#xA;Regular passive forms are easy to form (*facior, faceris, facitur&amp;hellip;*) but appear to be completely out of use, at least in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Regular passive forms can occur with prefixes like *satis-* or perhaps prepositions, but in this question I am only interested in the plain *facere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Nigidius (Grammatica)](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/590/1/0/990-997@1#0) writes: *uti 'facit' 'ποιεῖ', ita 'facitur' 'ποιεῖται' est.*&#xD;&#xA;I would not count this as proper use in a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my corpus searches are to be trusted, there are no proper classical uses of *faci* and other such forms from the present stem.&#xD;&#xA;But did such forms ever come to use?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, when?&#xD;&#xA;If you think such forms were never used, why do you think so?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19349" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5851" RevisionGUID="43474ddc-2927-4315-89ee-40d9832bf543" CreationDate="2018-01-13T20:00:37.520" UserId="79" Text="Regular passive forms of &quot;facere&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19350" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5851" RevisionGUID="43474ddc-2927-4315-89ee-40d9832bf543" CreationDate="2018-01-13T20:00:37.520" UserId="79" Text="|verbs|example-request|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5691" RevisionGUID="26607501-266a-4dd0-81d4-82ba8f7814f5" CreationDate="2018-01-13T20:20:59.350" UserId="68" Comment="edited body" Text="This, from Dumesnil/Gossett, gives us most of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![screenshot from a book][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a transliteration of the key content:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Implere* is to fill what is quite empty.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Explere*, to complete the filling up, or number. (Also to empty.)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Complere*, to fill up to the top, or with many things.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Replere*, to fill up again.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Opplere*, to fill a surface all over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It leaves out *supplēre*; from Jentzen's 1853 *Liber Differentiārum Linguæ Latīnæ in Ūsū Juventūtis Literās Studiōsæ* we get&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Supplemus* id, quod addimus, cum deerat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which, in conjunction with the word &quot;supplement,&quot; I take to comprise the idea of a *needful* or *enhancing* addition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sXkrP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5852" RevisionGUID="037d30bc-c0a5-4663-8b7b-12bfa1ab818f" CreationDate="2018-01-14T01:37:22.353" UserId="30" Text="There are a couple of masculine (or common) nouns of the first declension. Some are from masculine Greek -ês, like *poeta, nauta*. But others, like *collega, advena, parricida* are natively Latin. What is the origin of this *-a*? And can the same root be observed in other endings / forms? Judging by *parricida*, there might be a conexion with masculine *-as*. But is that also the case with other words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19354" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5852" RevisionGUID="037d30bc-c0a5-4663-8b7b-12bfa1ab818f" CreationDate="2018-01-14T01:37:22.353" UserId="30" Text="What is the origin of the -a in words like &quot;collega, advena&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19355" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5852" RevisionGUID="037d30bc-c0a5-4663-8b7b-12bfa1ab818f" CreationDate="2018-01-14T01:37:22.353" UserId="30" Text="|etymology|morphology|suffixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5853" RevisionGUID="dcc19287-d331-4af1-b5df-64b9a56d01af" CreationDate="2018-01-14T03:25:19.220" UserId="2326" Text="My try is 'in temporibus doloris', with ablative form of 'tempus, temporis' and 'dolor, doloris' in the genitive. Is this right or should I maybe be using the dative for pain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19357" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5853" RevisionGUID="dcc19287-d331-4af1-b5df-64b9a56d01af" CreationDate="2018-01-14T03:25:19.220" UserId="2326" Text="How to translate &quot;In times of pain&quot; to classical Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19358" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5853" RevisionGUID="dcc19287-d331-4af1-b5df-64b9a56d01af" CreationDate="2018-01-14T03:25:19.220" UserId="2326" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5854" RevisionGUID="5d13ae17-5eba-40e0-8d4f-33c9325b6b29" CreationDate="2018-01-14T15:12:55.753" UserId="79" Text="I think your translation is spot-on.&#xD;&#xA;The optimal choice depends on context, so my opinion might change if you give a complete sentence in which you want to use it.&#xD;&#xA;As a general translation this would be my choice, too.&#xD;&#xA;Genitive seems much more appropriate than dative in this phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19360" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5853" RevisionGUID="d6104f90-b57d-4c3b-93a3-059d6e3d8ae8" CreationDate="2018-01-14T15:14:16.300" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="How to translate &quot;In times of pain&quot; to classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19361" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5853" RevisionGUID="d6104f90-b57d-4c3b-93a3-059d6e3d8ae8" CreationDate="2018-01-14T15:14:16.300" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|classical-latin|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5855" RevisionGUID="836ae7d8-40bb-47db-a997-0be3201ae34f" CreationDate="2018-01-14T16:54:25.603" UserId="1133" Text="How can you tell whether a first declension noun ends in a short or long vowel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the word is written and accented, of course I can tell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in trying to recall one, I may have all the letters, e.g. μαχαιρα, but not know the length of the final α (which is to say that I forget where the accent fell).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below, some things that do *not* seem to help.  For example, words referring to an object can go either way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- μάχαιρα (sword) v. θύρᾱ (door) - object&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- ἀλήθεια (truth) v. ἀπορίᾱ (difficulty) - concept&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- βασίλεια (queen) v. θεᾱ́ (goddess) - job title&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- βασίλεια (queen) v. βασιλείᾱ (kingdom) - ends in εια&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- ἀσέβεια (ungodliness) v. ἡσυχίᾱ (peace) - related to adjective (ἀσεβής and ἥσυχος)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- ὁμόνοια (unanimity) v. οἰκίᾱ (household) - related to other nouns (νοῦς and οἶκος)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- δόξα (opinion) v. ἐκδοχή (receiving) - related to verbs (δοκέω and ἐκδέχομαι)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My vocabulary is too limited as yet for any patterns to emerge should they exist.  Knowing them ahead of time would help me to sort new words I believe.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19363" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5855" RevisionGUID="836ae7d8-40bb-47db-a997-0be3201ae34f" CreationDate="2018-01-14T16:54:25.603" UserId="1133" Text="The length of the final vowel in first declension nouns (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19364" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5855" RevisionGUID="836ae7d8-40bb-47db-a997-0be3201ae34f" CreationDate="2018-01-14T16:54:25.603" UserId="1133" Text="|greek|morphology|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5855" RevisionGUID="bab8ac6e-b37d-414e-a97d-360f43008d25" CreationDate="2018-01-14T17:03:34.577" UserId="1133" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="How can you tell whether a first declension noun ends in a short or long vowel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the word is written and accented, I may be able to tell. (Not always.  E.g. θύρᾱ if without the macron).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in trying to recall one, I may have all the letters, e.g. μαχαιρα, but not know the length of the final α.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below, some things that do *not* seem to help.  For example, words referring to an object can go either way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- μάχαιρα (sword) v. θύρᾱ (door) - object&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- ἀλήθεια (truth) v. ἀπορίᾱ (difficulty) - concept&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- βασίλεια (queen) v. θεᾱ́ (goddess) - job title&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- βασίλεια (queen) v. βασιλείᾱ (kingdom) - ends in εια&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- ἀσέβεια (ungodliness) v. ἡσυχίᾱ (peace) - related to adjective (ἀσεβής and ἥσυχος)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- ὁμόνοια (unanimity) v. οἰκίᾱ (household) - related to other nouns (νοῦς and οἶκος)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- δόξα (opinion) v. ἐκδοχή (receiving) - related to verbs (δοκέω and ἐκδέχομαι)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My vocabulary is too limited as yet for any patterns to emerge should they exist.  Knowing them ahead of time would help me to sort new words I believe.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5854" RevisionGUID="927b7a29-9b67-4738-8314-c8167b43b5dc" CreationDate="2018-01-14T20:31:55.713" UserId="79" Comment="added 371 characters in body" Text="I think your translation is spot-on.&#xD;&#xA;The optimal choice depends on context, so my opinion might change if you give a complete sentence in which you want to use it.&#xD;&#xA;As a general translation this would be my choice, too.&#xD;&#xA;Genitive seems much more appropriate than dative in this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also phrase it in terms of the verb *dolere*, &quot;to be in pain&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;As Tom Cotton suggests in a comment, the participle *dolens* is possible.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the gerund *dolendo* might be most appropriate; I might translate &quot;we learn in times of pain&quot; as &quot;dolendo discimus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But if there is no sentence context and you want a standalone phrase, your choice is better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19367" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5855" RevisionGUID="605e1191-15c2-43d5-bc80-88aa2a276efe" CreationDate="2018-01-14T20:33:16.287" UserId="79" Comment="Added the quantity tag." Text="|greek|morphology|noun|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19369" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2857" RevisionGUID="76eb045f-54c1-4f7e-b97a-fc30f396d4b5" CreationDate="2018-01-14T21:01:22.217" UserId="79" Comment="62" />
  <row Id="19373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5856" RevisionGUID="896b6155-3108-464a-a4fe-3e550186ea80" CreationDate="2018-01-15T18:39:39.943" UserId="79" Text="I recently read a booklet called &quot;Wolmar Schildt &amp;mdash; sata uudissanaa&quot; which is built around a list of a hundred neologisms by Wolmar Schildt (1810&amp;ndash;1893), one of the most active promoters of Finnish language of his era.&#xD;&#xA;Among these neologisms (in addition to the word &quot;neologism&quot; itself, &quot;uudissana&quot;) is the verb &quot;sisustaa&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Translations are provided to a couple of languages, and in English it is aptly rendered as &quot;furnish&quot;, in the sense of placing furniture in an apartment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin translation provided is *instruere*, but I'm not convinced.&#xD;&#xA;[Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=instruo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) give &quot;furnish&quot; in the sense of preparation, not in the sense of interior decoration, unless I'm mistaken.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a classical Latin verb (perhaps supported by a noun or two) for furnishing which is attested in the sense of interior decoration or acquisition of furniture?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19374" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5856" RevisionGUID="896b6155-3108-464a-a4fe-3e550186ea80" CreationDate="2018-01-15T18:39:39.943" UserId="79" Text="Is there a classical Latin verb for furnishing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19375" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5856" RevisionGUID="896b6155-3108-464a-a4fe-3e550186ea80" CreationDate="2018-01-15T18:39:39.943" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|word-request|verbs|finnish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="eb2491e4-635e-415e-86b5-665e5cca23c4" CreationDate="2018-01-15T19:49:12.070" UserId="645" Text="*Instruo* is perfectly all right. An alternative is *orno*, or a derivative (*exorno, adorno*), similar in meaning to *instruo*, 'to fit out or 'equip', though it lacks the latter's notion of 'set in order'. Cicero (Verr. II, 2, 84) has *. . . . angebatur animi necessario quod domum eius exornatam et instructam . . . .*, which is a bit like 'having your cake and eating it', as we say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, the general word for furniture in this context, *sc*. the permanent, physical stuff — 'goods and chattels' is the English expression — is *supellex, -ectilis*. You might feel more comfortable in writing *supellectilem instruere* or *ponere* if you need to exclude the idea of decoration implied by *orno*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5858" RevisionGUID="13430cc1-e667-4ed5-94e0-327217f57e26" CreationDate="2018-01-16T05:05:01.030" UserId="235" Text="This is not a hermeneutics question, but rather, a Greek grammar question inspired by a verse from the Bible. Adverbial clauses are common to English, Ancient Greek, and Latin, and I believe there is an adverbial clause in this verse. My question is: how common is it for an accusative noun to stand on its own with a modifying participle, inside an adverbial clause?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Eph. 1:16) οὐ παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν μνείαν ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do not cease giving thanks for you, a remembrance being made in my prayers,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the above verse from Ephesians, the clause μνείαν ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου seems to be adverbial, as it modifies the action of the previous clause. It describes *how* he is giving thanks, by making a remembrance in his prayers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that the noun μνείαν (&quot;remembrance&quot;) is in the accusative, which strikes me as interesting. It is this observation which prompted me to ask my question, of how common it is to find an accusative noun introducing an adverbial dependent clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be interested in the feedback of any Greek scholars here, or any Latin scholars who find a parallel in the Latin language. I have not encountered examples like this of adverbial clauses, but perhaps you have in your readings of Attic Greek, Koine Greek, or Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am also tempted to call it an a.c.p — accusativus cum participium. Is there such a thing!?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19378" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5858" RevisionGUID="13430cc1-e667-4ed5-94e0-327217f57e26" CreationDate="2018-01-16T05:05:01.030" UserId="235" Text="Is there such a thing as the accusativus cum participium (a.c.p)? If not, what is this? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19379" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5858" RevisionGUID="13430cc1-e667-4ed5-94e0-327217f57e26" CreationDate="2018-01-16T05:05:01.030" UserId="235" Text="|greek|participle|accusative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5858" RevisionGUID="4d6aa624-91f8-4bcd-9bed-c17f01036e2f" CreationDate="2018-01-16T05:12:11.563" UserId="235" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="This is not a hermeneutics question, but rather, a Greek grammar question inspired by a verse from the Bible. Adverbial clauses are common to English, Ancient Greek, and Latin, and I believe there is an adverbial clause in this verse. My question is: how common is it for an accusative noun to stand on its own with a modifying participle, inside an adverbial clause?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Eph. 1:16) οὐ παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν μνείαν ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do not cease giving thanks for you, a remembrance being made in my prayers,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the above verse from Ephesians, the clause μνείαν ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου seems to be adverbial, as it modifies the action of the previous clause. It describes *how* he is giving thanks, by making a remembrance in his prayers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that the noun μνείαν (&quot;remembrance&quot;) is in the accusative, which strikes me as interesting. It is this observation which prompted me to ask my question, of how common it is to find an accusative noun introducing an adverbial dependent clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be interested in the feedback of any Greek scholars here, or any Latin scholars who find a parallel in the Latin language. I have not encountered examples like this of adverbial clauses, but perhaps you have in your readings of Attic Greek, Koine Greek, or Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am also tempted to call it an a.c.p — accusativus cum participium. Is there such a thing!?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5859" RevisionGUID="5862c733-83a3-44f8-aa3a-dc8e30d47e48" CreationDate="2018-01-16T10:29:23.280" UserId="324" Text="Ephesians 1:16 - οὐ παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν μνείαν (ὑμῶν) ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου. (The second ὑμῶν is missing in the best Mss.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vulgata has: non cesso gratias agens pro vobis, memoriam vestri faciens in orationibus meis.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;KJV: [I] cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers (continuing the first-person construction in the previous verse).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The participle of a transitive verb can of course take a direct object in the accusative case. Here, μνείαν is the direct object of the middle participle ποιούμενος. Greek often uses the middle voice of the verb ποιέω followed by a deverbal noun to paraphrase the underlying verb; in this case μνείαν ποιούμενος is literally “making memory”, for “remembering”.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5859" RevisionGUID="251cd974-8a4b-4aa5-89f7-8f0efecaaaac" CreationDate="2018-01-16T10:37:50.433" UserId="324" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Ephesians 1:16 - οὐ παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν μνείαν (ὑμῶν) ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου. (The second ὑμῶν is missing in the best Mss.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vulgata has: non cesso gratias agens pro vobis, memoriam vestri faciens in orationibus meis.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;KJV: [I] cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers (continuing the first-person construction in the previous verse).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The participle of a transitive verb can of course take a direct object in the accusative case. Here, μνείαν is the direct object of the middle participle ποιούμενος. Greek often uses the middle voice of the verb ποιέω followed by a deverbal noun to paraphrase the underlying verb; in this case μνείαν ποιούμενος is literally “making for myself memory”, for “remembering”.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5859" RevisionGUID="4f8a2818-702d-4797-8542-c1621ec81225" CreationDate="2018-01-16T10:44:33.970" UserId="324" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Ephesians 1:16: οὐ παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν μνείαν (ὑμῶν) ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου. (The second ὑμῶν is missing in the best Mss.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vulgata has: non cesso gratias agens pro vobis, memoriam vestri faciens in orationibus meis.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;KJV: [I] cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers (continuing the first-person construction in the previous verse).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The participle of a transitive verb can of course take a direct object in the accusative case. Here, μνείαν is the direct object of the middle participle ποιούμενος. Greek often uses the middle voice of the verb ποιέω followed by a deverbal noun to paraphrase the underlying verb; in this case μνείαν ποιούμενος is literally “making for myself memory”, for “remembering”.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19384" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2183" RevisionGUID="e8f65625-ddd9-4fb6-80bf-ad018953f677" CreationDate="2018-01-16T14:02:42.137" UserId="584" Comment="Related to Hans Orberg" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|roman-culture|hans-orberg|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19385" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2183" RevisionGUID="e8f65625-ddd9-4fb6-80bf-ad018953f677" CreationDate="2018-01-16T14:02:42.137" Comment="Proposed by 584 approved by -1 edit id of 222" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19386" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2183" RevisionGUID="e635eb2d-4351-45bb-b6e2-89efae4c4c08" CreationDate="2018-01-16T14:02:42.137" UserId="79" Comment="Added the book tag." Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|roman-culture|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5858" RevisionGUID="d0bf9fc9-d436-4365-8dd1-b1937af475c2" CreationDate="2018-01-16T19:30:53.757" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="This is not a hermeneutics question, but rather, a Greek grammar question inspired by a verse from the Bible. Adverbial clauses are common to English, Ancient Greek, and Latin, and I believe there is an adverbial clause in this verse. My question is: how common is it for an accusative noun to stand on its own with a modifying participle, inside an adverbial clause?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Eph. 1:16) οὐ παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν μνείαν ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do not cease giving thanks for you, a remembrance being made in my prayers,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the above verse from Ephesians, the clause μνείαν ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου seems to be adverbial, as it modifies the action of the previous clause. It describes *how* he is giving thanks, by making a remembrance in his prayers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that the noun μνείαν (&quot;remembrance&quot;) is in the accusative, which strikes me as interesting. It is this observation which prompted me to ask my question, of how common it is to find an accusative noun introducing an adverbial dependent clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be interested in the feedback of any Greek scholars here, or any Latin scholars who find a parallel in the Latin language. I have not encountered examples like this of adverbial clauses, but perhaps you have in your readings of Attic Greek, Koine Greek, or Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am also tempted to call it an a.c.p — accusativus cum participio. Is there such a thing!?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19388" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5858" RevisionGUID="d0bf9fc9-d436-4365-8dd1-b1937af475c2" CreationDate="2018-01-16T19:30:53.757" UserId="235" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Is there such a thing as the accusativus cum participio (a.c.p)? If not, what is this? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5860" RevisionGUID="b6b9aebb-769c-4ff8-a67b-12178b00276e" CreationDate="2018-01-16T22:11:22.240" UserId="79" Text="This question is based on the same book &quot;Wolmar Schildt — sata uudissanaa&quot; [my question yesterday](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5856/79).&#xD;&#xA;The second of the two words that caught my attention was the Finnish verb &quot;mahdollistaa&quot;, which was translated (accurately) in English as &quot;enable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I would describe the Finnish word as &quot;**to make it possible for someone else to do something**&quot;, as in &quot;his book enabled me to solve the problem&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This question is about this bolded meaning, not the English &quot;to enable&quot; in general.&#xD;&#xA;It refers to making something doable, not to helping.&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that the Finnish and English verbs are not exactly synonymous and are syntactically different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin translation given in the book is *effici posse* without further explanation.&#xD;&#xA;This sounds off to me, as it is closer to &quot;to be able to be completed&quot; than &quot;to help someone else complete something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a Latin verb that conveys the bolded idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find circumlocutions to express the same idea if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;What I am after is a verb like &quot;enable&quot; that would allow me to convey the idea concisely and flexibly.&#xD;&#xA;If there is no good Latin word for this, I will have to live with it.&#xD;&#xA;In that case, are there verbs with a nearby meaning that I should keep in mind in this context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Main question in Finnish: Mitä on &quot;mahdollistaa&quot; latinaksi?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19390" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5860" RevisionGUID="b6b9aebb-769c-4ff8-a67b-12178b00276e" CreationDate="2018-01-16T22:11:22.240" UserId="79" Text="Is there a Latin verb for enabling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19391" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5860" RevisionGUID="b6b9aebb-769c-4ff8-a67b-12178b00276e" CreationDate="2018-01-16T22:11:22.240" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|verbs|finnish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5861" RevisionGUID="0f9bcf38-2ae6-456f-9b9f-a0ab615248a8" CreationDate="2018-01-17T13:52:53.780" UserId="2333" Text="I'm trying to translate a sentence &quot;We are her sword&quot;. It's supposed to be a motto for a warriors' guild under leadership of a female elf warrior in our tabletop RPG game. Other than the obvious metaphorical meaning, it's also referring to the fact that the guild's symbol and name were based on said elf's divine sword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like &quot;Gladius eius nos sumus&quot; might be what I'm looking for, but I'm not sure if my translation is correct. Can &quot;nos&quot; be in this sentence, or should I ditch it? Is &quot;gladius&quot; the right word to use for &quot;sword&quot; when it has a metaphorical rather than literal meaning? Also, I would very much like to put extra emphasis on the word &quot;her&quot; by putting it first, but I am not sure if &quot;eius gladius&quot; and &quot;gladius eius&quot; mean the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19393" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5861" RevisionGUID="0f9bcf38-2ae6-456f-9b9f-a0ab615248a8" CreationDate="2018-01-17T13:52:53.780" UserId="2333" Text="&quot;We are her sword&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19394" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5861" RevisionGUID="0f9bcf38-2ae6-456f-9b9f-a0ab615248a8" CreationDate="2018-01-17T13:52:53.780" UserId="2333" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|syntax|sentence-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5862" RevisionGUID="078b4094-15c5-4baa-91c2-9b37a24358f5" CreationDate="2018-01-17T15:30:52.487" UserId="645" Text="Unless you use a noun, there isn't much choice for emphasing the feminine, since neither the genitive nor the dative pronouns are distinguished by gender.  To fulfil the need, you must instead use a preposition with an ablative: *pro illa*, 'for her' (you might prefer *hac* or *ea* instead of *illa* — all three are demonstratives).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gladius is certainly the usual word for a sword, though you might substitute the often-used *ensis* ('cutting edge') or *ferrum* (iron) to suggest the metaphor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; And for a motto — which should be brief and direct — you can probably omit the verb. This all leads me to prefer *pro illa ferrum*, or more fully *pro illa sicut ferrum*, 'for her [we are] as a sword'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5864" RevisionGUID="a9be2402-deda-4b06-be62-530da523357d" CreationDate="2018-01-17T18:30:08.290" UserId="2334" Text="The closest I know would be **adjuvans**, i.e., helping in the sense of making it possible to accomplish something, thus &quot;enabling.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5865" RevisionGUID="4ae54ad3-cb2c-46e4-a5b4-95ab90ef5a99" CreationDate="2018-01-17T20:20:38.770" UserId="645" Text="I should think that the English 'facilitate' is close to what you are looking for, but I can't find a simple verb for it. I hope that what follows is helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Smith (under 'facilitate) suggests *facilius reddo*, 'make easier', then gives three different examples, the first two of which are less than completely satisfactory:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. (Cicero, without reference), *faciliorem (reddere) alicui cognationem rei*, 'facilitate a person's knowledge of a thing'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Cic. Inv. 2, 26, 77 (but not verifiable in either Verr. or Vat): *is locus magno ad persuadendum futurus est*, 'that count will greatly facilitate conviction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Ter. Heaut. Prol. 42: *ut aliqua pars laboris minuatur mihi*, 'to facilitate my labour in some degree'.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5860" RevisionGUID="00647ddf-0988-4b48-b490-69da81818510" CreationDate="2018-01-17T20:39:02.060" UserId="79" Comment="added 117 characters in body" Text="This question is based on the same book &quot;Wolmar Schildt — sata uudissanaa&quot; [my question yesterday](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5856/79).&#xD;&#xA;The second of the two words that caught my attention was the Finnish verb &quot;mahdollistaa&quot;, which was translated (accurately) in English as &quot;enable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I would describe the Finnish word as &quot;**to make it possible for someone else to do something**&quot;, as in &quot;his book enabled me to solve the problem&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The verb is about making things possible, not making them easy, although the two are often related.&#xD;&#xA;This question is about this bolded meaning, not the English &quot;to enable&quot; in general.&#xD;&#xA;It refers to making something doable, not to helping.&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that the Finnish and English verbs are not exactly synonymous and are syntactically different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin translation given in the book is *effici posse* without further explanation.&#xD;&#xA;This sounds off to me, as it is closer to &quot;to be able to be completed&quot; than &quot;to help someone else complete something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a Latin verb that conveys the bolded idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find circumlocutions to express the same idea if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;What I am after is a verb like &quot;enable&quot; or &quot;facilitate&quot; that would allow me to convey the idea concisely and flexibly.&#xD;&#xA;If there is no good Latin word for this, I will have to live with it.&#xD;&#xA;In that case, are there verbs with a nearby meaning that I should keep in mind in this context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Main question in Finnish: Mitä on &quot;mahdollistaa&quot; latinaksi?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5866" RevisionGUID="7fb41e5d-3f61-4974-bd93-943ca1595f6a" CreationDate="2018-01-17T21:33:24.817" UserId="1694" Text="I think Tom Cotton's suggestions are completely reasonable, but I'll offer some alternatives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) _Dominae ensis (nos) summus_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) _Ducatri ensis (nos) sumus_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Domina_ suggests someone to whom one owns loyalty to, so might not be quite what you want if you want to emphasize the idea of leadership, which is conveyed better by _ducatrix_, a feminine form of _dux_.  (Note that _dux_ itself can be applied to a woman, but that would not come out in this brief phrase.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer the word _ensis_ to Tom Cotton's _ferrum_ here as being more poetic and less likely to be misunderstoof." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5866" RevisionGUID="79dde6b2-eb90-4a3b-98e9-29c9bbe3e254" CreationDate="2018-01-17T21:43:38.297" UserId="1694" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I think Tom Cotton's suggestions are completely reasonable, but I'll offer some alternatives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) _Dominae ensis (nos) sumus_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) _Ducatri ensis (nos) sumus_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Domina_ suggests someone to whom one owns loyalty to, so might not be quite what you want if you want to emphasize the idea of leadership, which is conveyed better by _ducatrix_, a feminine form of _dux_.  (Note that _dux_ itself can be applied to a woman, but that would not come out in this brief phrase.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer the word _ensis_ to Tom Cotton's _ferrum_ here as being more poetic and less likely to be misunderstoof." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5866" RevisionGUID="6fc58567-5461-4be8-81c6-0a7ebde580b3" CreationDate="2018-01-17T21:52:55.380" UserId="1694" Comment="edited body" Text="I think Tom Cotton's suggestions are completely reasonable, but I'll offer some alternatives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) _Dominae ensis (nos) sumus_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) _Ducatri ensis (nos) sumus_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Domina_ suggests someone to whom one owns loyalty to, so might not be quite what you want if you want to emphasize the idea of leadership, which is conveyed better by _ducatrix_, a feminine form of _dux_.  (Note that _dux_ itself can be applied to a woman, but that would not come out in this brief phrase.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer the word _ensis_ to Tom Cotton's _ferrum_ here as being more poetic and less likely to be misunderstood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5866" RevisionGUID="6bf44d64-6783-42e0-af0d-17260984c562" CreationDate="2018-01-18T16:18:30.687" UserId="1694" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I think Tom Cotton's suggestions are completely reasonable, but I'll offer some alternatives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) _Dominae ensis (nos) sumus_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) _Ducatrici ensis (nos) sumus_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Domina_ suggests someone to whom one owns loyalty to, so might not be quite what you want if you want to emphasize the idea of leadership, which is conveyed better by _ducatrix_, a feminine form of _dux_.  (Note that _dux_ itself can be applied to a woman, but that would not come out in this brief phrase.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer the word _ensis_ to Tom Cotton's _ferrum_ here as being more poetic and less likely to be misunderstood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5867" RevisionGUID="e8bd1cdf-f569-40b8-a3ac-aecd2b9fa5ea" CreationDate="2018-01-18T21:37:58.787" UserId="1407" Text="**Q: Can the etymology of Πενθεύς truly be divorced from divinity?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a name that even Graves translates merely as &quot;grief&quot;.  But as a student of Graves, this is one his translation may be too conservative.  Allow me to make my case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, -εύς (Πενθεύς) is merely a genitive ending.  There would be no reason to look deeper *were there not a very important story about him*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, when this word form is combined with θ, it becomes cognate with words meaning divinity and god.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [θέωσις][1] (&quot;make divine&quot;) from which we get [apotheosis][2].&#xD;&#xA; - [θύος][3] (&quot;offering, sacrifice&quot;) &#xD;&#xA; - [θεός][4] (&quot;god&quot;) &#xD;&#xA; - [Ζεύς][5] (&quot;Zeus&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[MYTHOPOETICAL][6] ANALYSIS:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffering of Pentheus is not merely human suffering, **it is the suffering of the god Dionysus/Zagreus**, who is ritually torn apart ([σπαραγμός][7]) and consumed raw ([ὠμοφαγέω][8]).  In the case of Dionysus, it is the Titans; in the case of Pentheus, it is the Maenads. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this reason, even under the argument that that -εύς is merely an ending, translation of Pentheus simply as &quot;suffering&quot; is factually inaccurate, based on the circumstances of his death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;*or &quot;false cognate&quot;, although I'm not sure there's a hard distinction when we're dealing with reconstructions, especially in the context of poetry and mythmaking.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dqe%2Fwsis&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apotheosis&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dqu%2Fos&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0073%3Aentry%3Dqeo%2Fs&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3D*zeu%2Fs&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dmuqopoii%2Fa&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sparagmos&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omophagia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19405" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5867" RevisionGUID="e8bd1cdf-f569-40b8-a3ac-aecd2b9fa5ea" CreationDate="2018-01-18T21:37:58.787" UserId="1407" Text="Pentheus as &quot;Divine Suffering&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19406" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5867" RevisionGUID="e8bd1cdf-f569-40b8-a3ac-aecd2b9fa5ea" CreationDate="2018-01-18T21:37:58.787" UserId="1407" Text="|etymology|greek|poetry|mythology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5854" RevisionGUID="b806b5cd-c037-4354-8370-9a4cb2468567" CreationDate="2018-01-18T22:07:44.257" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="I think your translation is spot-on.&#xD;&#xA;The optimal choice depends on context, so my opinion might change if you give a complete sentence in which you want to use it.&#xD;&#xA;As a general translation this would be my choice, too.&#xD;&#xA;Genitive seems much more appropriate than dative in this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also phrase it in terms of the verb *dolere*, &quot;to be in pain&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;As Tom Cotton suggests in a comment, the participle *dolens* is possible.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the gerund *dolendo* might be most appropriate; I might translate &quot;we learn in times of pain&quot; as *dolendo discimus*.&#xD;&#xA;But if there is no sentence context and you want a standalone phrase, your choice is better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="f6b1a54b-b27b-4f65-9290-36110a85f670" CreationDate="2018-01-19T01:43:27.993" UserId="9" Text="I don't know of a way to determine this just from the unaccented spelling of the nominative singular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the genitive, there is a rule that can sometimes be applied.&#xD;&#xA;According to *From Alpha to Omega: A Beginning Course in Classical Greek,* fourth edition, by Anne H. Groton:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  If a noun’s genitive singular ending has an eta, but its nominative singular ending has an alpha (e.g., θάλαττα, -ης), you can be sure that the α in the nominative singular ending is short. (p. 27)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This allows you to deduce that *δόξα* ends in a short vowel, because its genitive singular is *δόξης*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it doesn't help with any of the other words you mention. First declension nouns whose genitive singular ends in *-ᾱς* can have short or long alpha in the singular nominative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5869" RevisionGUID="fda8438b-e616-4422-97ac-5f435402b5d2" CreationDate="2018-01-19T08:36:22.657" UserId="985" Text="Not every theta automatically makes a word cognate with 'god.' If the apparent etymology of the name Pentheus is correct, it's just formed from the noun πένθος, 'grief'/'misery,' and the -εύς suffix (which, according to Smyth's _Greek grammar_, §843, denotes 'the person concerned or occupied by [a] thing'). In this case, the theta belongs to the root itself and is very unlikely also to denote 'god' at the same time. Conversely, if the theta does indeed denote 'god,' it's unlikely also to belong to the root (which would mean that the root is no longer the root that means 'grief'/'misery'). I just don't think it's possible to have it both ways. I'd want to see other examples of words that are widely understood (on the basis of linguistic principles) to work in the manner you're describing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I'm not familiar with any story where Dionysus suffers at the hands of the Titans, and where this suffering is so closely connected to  Pentheus's suffering that it would be 'encoded' in Pentheus's own name. Certainly, in the versions of Pentheus's story that I'm familiar with, Dionysus suffers no consequences at all for what happens to Pentheus. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, though. Perhaps you can expand that section of your question to clarify the connection: how is Pentheus's human suffering also Dionysus's divine suffering? Perhaps you can also indicate where one would go to find the story of Dionysus and the Titans that you refer to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19410" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2857" RevisionGUID="8385e50a-f1b3-4a74-b280-142f508a2472" CreationDate="2018-01-19T14:00:54.853" UserId="79" Comment="62" />
  <row Id="19411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5870" RevisionGUID="aa04e40a-97b6-4f2e-888f-5eefc4b2d1b9" CreationDate="2018-01-19T16:39:51.153" UserId="30" Text="Dido's sister and confidante Anna has a name that I believe to be unusual in Latin. Where did this name come from? Is it perhaps Semitic and related to Hebrew *Hannah* and the derived name *Anna*?  The Carthaginians no doubt spoke a Semitic language. How did it come into Latin: did Virgil make it up based on some other example, or was there truly an historical Anna that he knew about?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus question: why no h, while the Romans did have an h? Did they take the name from Greek stories (which in turn took it from a Semitic language)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Aenedid* IV.20 ff.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anna (fatebor enim) miseri post fata Sychaei   &#xD;&#xA;coniugis et sparsos fraterna caede penatis  &#xD;&#xA;solus hic inflexit sensus animumque labantem  &#xD;&#xA;impulit. agnosco ueteris uestigia flammae.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a great passage, by the way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19412" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5870" RevisionGUID="aa04e40a-97b6-4f2e-888f-5eefc4b2d1b9" CreationDate="2018-01-19T16:39:51.153" UserId="30" Text="What is the etymology and origin of the name of Dido's sister Anna?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19413" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5870" RevisionGUID="aa04e40a-97b6-4f2e-888f-5eefc4b2d1b9" CreationDate="2018-01-19T16:39:51.153" UserId="30" Text="|etymology|names|mythology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5870" RevisionGUID="0df0b757-c2f7-4451-80f4-2861480b48bc" CreationDate="2018-01-19T18:04:26.477" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected a typo and added a tag." Text="Dido's sister and confidante Anna has a name that I believe to be unusual in Latin. Where did this name come from? Is it perhaps Semitic and related to Hebrew *Hannah* and the derived name *Anna*?  The Carthaginians no doubt spoke a Semitic language. How did it come into Latin: did Virgil make it up based on some other example, or was there truly an historical Anna that he knew about?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus question: why no h, while the Romans did have an h? Did they take the name from Greek stories (which in turn took it from a Semitic language)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Aeneid* IV.20 ff.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anna (fatebor enim) miseri post fata Sychaei   &#xD;&#xA;coniugis et sparsos fraterna caede penatis  &#xD;&#xA;solus hic inflexit sensus animumque labantem  &#xD;&#xA;impulit. agnosco ueteris uestigia flammae.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a great passage, by the way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19415" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5870" RevisionGUID="0df0b757-c2f7-4451-80f4-2861480b48bc" CreationDate="2018-01-19T18:04:26.477" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected a typo and added a tag." Text="|etymology|names|aeneis|mythology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="2b180904-7586-487a-bc5b-926f9d54507b" CreationDate="2018-01-19T22:41:13.543" UserId="9" Comment="added 238 characters in body" Text="I don't know of a way to determine this just from the unaccented spelling of the nominative singular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the genitive, there is a rule that can sometimes be applied.&#xD;&#xA;According to *From Alpha to Omega: A Beginning Course in Classical Greek,* fourth edition, by Anne H. Groton:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  If a noun’s genitive singular ending has an eta, but its nominative singular ending has an alpha (e.g., θάλαττα, -ης), you can be sure that the α in the nominative singular ending is short. (p. 27)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This allows you to deduce that *δόξα* ends in a short vowel, because its genitive singular is *δόξης*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it doesn't help with any of the other words you mention. First declension nouns whose genitive singular ends in *-ᾱς* can have short or long alpha in the singular nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Another thing that seems related to this is that &quot;δόξα&quot; is the only one of these words where a letter other than ρ, ι or ε comes before the α. In general, Proto-Greek long /aː/ became η in Attic except for after these three letters.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="c65f63cf-ba35-4668-87c6-639559691b8f" CreationDate="2018-01-20T04:22:08.023" UserId="9" Comment="added 247 characters in body" Text="I don't know of a way to determine if a first-declension feminine noun ends in ᾰ or ᾱ just from the unaccented spelling of the nominative singular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the genitive, there is a rule that can sometimes be applied.&#xD;&#xA;According to *From Alpha to Omega: A Beginning Course in Classical Greek,* fourth edition, by Anne H. Groton:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  If a noun’s genitive singular ending has an eta, but its nominative singular ending has an alpha (e.g., θάλαττα, -ης), you can be sure that the α in the nominative singular ending is short. (p. 27)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This allows you to deduce that *δόξα* ends in a short vowel, because its genitive singular is *δόξης*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it doesn't help with any of the other words you mention. First declension nouns whose genitive singular ends in *-ᾱς* can have short or long alpha in the singular nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Another thing that seems related to this is that &quot;δόξα&quot; is the only one of these words where a letter other than ρ, ι or ε comes before the α. In general, Proto-Greek long /aː/ became η in Attic except for after these three letters. But as mentioned in Alex B.'s answer, there are exceptions to the usual complementary distribution of -ᾱ and -η according to the ρ/ι/ε rule; I don't know exactly how many or if there are any rules about which words can be exceptions.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="cb154c59-6fb6-44bd-aa28-fdb9d615ffd2" CreationDate="2018-01-21T00:15:52.660" UserId="9" Comment="added 2182 characters in body" Text="There doesn't seem to be any single rule that can be used to determine without fail if a first-declension feminine noun ends in ᾰ or ᾱ just from the unaccented spelling of the nominative singular. There seem to be some rules that apply in certain situations, and some rules that apply in general but have exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the genitive, there is a fairly straightforward rule that can sometimes be applied.&#xD;&#xA;According to *From Alpha to Omega: A Beginning Course in Classical Greek,* fourth edition, by Anne H. Groton:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  If a noun’s genitive singular ending has an eta, but its nominative singular ending has an alpha (e.g., θάλαττα, -ης), you can be sure that the α in the nominative singular ending is short. (p. 27)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This allows you to deduce that *δόξα* ends in a short vowel, because its genitive singular is *δόξης*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it doesn't help with any of the other words you mention. First declension nouns whose genitive singular ends in *-ᾱς* can have short or long alpha in the singular nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Another thing that seems related to this is that &quot;δόξα&quot; is the only one of these words where a letter other than ρ, ι or ε comes before the α. In general, Proto-Greek long /aː/ became η in Attic except for after these three letters. But as mentioned in Alex B.'s answer, there are exceptions to the usual complementary distribution of -ᾱ and -η according to the ρ/ι/ε rule; I don't know exactly how many or if there are any rules about which words can be exceptions.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Greek Grammar][1],* First Edition (by H. W. Smyth) hosted online by the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, lists the following rules and tendencies, among others, for the forms of first-declension nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **d.** When the genitive singular has -ης, final α of the nominative singular is always short; when the genitive singular has -ᾱς, the final α is generally long.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Feminines fall into two classes:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**218.** (I) Feminines with ᾱ or η in all the cases of the singular. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**219.**  (II) Feminines with ᾰ in the nominative, accusative, and vocative singular. The quantity of the vowel is generally shown by the accent (163, 164).&#xD;&#xA;In this class are included:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;1. Substantives having σ (ξ, ψ, ττ, or σς), ζ, λλ, or αιν before the final α show ᾰ in nom., accus., and voc. sing., and η in gen. and dat. sing. Thus, μοῦσα muse, μούσης, μούσῃ, ἅμαξα wagon, τράπεζα table, γλῶττα tongue, ῥίζα root, ἅμιλλα contest, λέαινα lioness. Others are τόλμα daring, δίαιτα mode of life, ἄκανθα thorn, μυῖα fly.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;2. Substantives in ᾰ in nom., accus., and voc. sing., and ᾱ in gen. and dat. sing.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**a.** Substantives in -εια and -τρια denoting females, as βασίλεια queen (but βασιλείᾱ kingdom), ψάλτρια female harper; so the fem. of adj. in -υς, as γλυκύς, γλυκεῖα sweet.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**b.** Abstracts in -εια and -οια from adjectives in -ης and -οος, as ἀλήθεια truth (from ἀληθής true), εὔνοια good will (from εὔνους, εὔνοος kind, 290).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**c.** Most substantives in -ρα after a diphthong or ῡ, as μοῖρα fate, γέφῡρα bridge.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**220.**  Exceptions to 219, 1:  κόρση temple (later κόρρη), ἕρση dew; to 2 b:  in Attic poetry, ἀληθείᾱ, εὐνοίᾱ, ἀγνοίᾱ ignorance, which owe their ᾱ to the influence of the genitive and dative ἀληθείᾱς, ἀληθείᾳ, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**221.**  Most, if not all, of the substantives in ᾰ are formed by the addition of the suffix ι ̯α or ια (20); thus, γλῶττα from γλωχ-ι ̯α (cp. γλωχῖν-ες points), γέφῡρα from γεφυρ-ι ̯α, δότειρα giver from δοτερ-ι ̯α (and so φέρουσα bearing from φεροντι ̯α), μοῖρα from μορ-ι ̯α, ψάλτρ-ια.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ccel.org/s/smyth/grammar/html/smyth_2b_uni.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5872" RevisionGUID="a20ac64c-81d0-4c90-8851-0a476f0b8d6f" CreationDate="2018-01-21T06:23:44.463" UserId="2341" Text="As a joke, I'm imagining someone being confused about the US motto, and thinking it was &quot;e unum pluribus&quot;, which hypothetically might mean &quot;out of the one, many&quot; or similar. But I bet that isn't grammatical. So (just as info) what would be grammatical? And could the confused version even sorta, kinda, have the hypothetical meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19426" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5872" RevisionGUID="a20ac64c-81d0-4c90-8851-0a476f0b8d6f" CreationDate="2018-01-21T06:23:44.463" UserId="2341" Text="Joke variant of US motto" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19427" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5872" RevisionGUID="a20ac64c-81d0-4c90-8851-0a476f0b8d6f" CreationDate="2018-01-21T06:23:44.463" UserId="2341" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="6e14b5cb-68c7-4bdf-b3e4-6dbfdf9cfc1d" CreationDate="2018-01-21T06:55:28.407" UserId="645" Text="*E unum pluribus* has just the same meaning as the original (though you might better use the *ex* form of the preposition when it precedes a vowel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reverse, 'many out of one', would merely require the cases to be reversed, giving *ex uno plures*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5874" RevisionGUID="250de924-4813-49fa-a980-3f9621cdbd6b" CreationDate="2018-01-21T06:57:58.693" UserId="867" Text="The entry for Anna in [Wiktionary][1] certainly states that it derives from the Hebrew Hannah.  And this is how Augustine uses it in *The City of God against the Pagans*, in book 17, when referring to Hannah, the mother of Samuel (*mater quoque ipsa Samuelis Anna ...*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is the possibility that Anna is in fact a Latin name, based on the goddess [Anna Perenna][2].  Her festival took place on the Ides of March (March 15th), the beginning of the new year (Ovid, *Fasti*, 3.146).  Macrobius notes that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *... publice et privatim ad Annam Perennam sacrificatum itur, ut annare perennareque commode liceat*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... public and private sacrifice is offered to Anna Perenna, so that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; we might prosperously pass the year [*annare*] and for many years to come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [*perennare*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Saturnalia*, 1.12.6&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;I think that this clearly links the name Anna with *annus*.  She was the goddess of the new year, if you will.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cult of Anna Perenna is also mentioned by Martial (*Epigrams*, 4.64.17). &#xD;&#xA; But it is Ovid who gives us the fullest picture of her and the ribald festivities that took place in her honour in book 3 of the *Fasti*.  Revellers, sitting in the sun, would toast Anna Perenna:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sole tamen vinoque calent annosque precantur*,  &#xD;&#xA;*quot sumant cyathos, ad*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *numerumque bibunt.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But they grow warm with sun and wine, and they pray for as many years&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as they take cups, and they count the cups they drink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid, *Fasti*, 3.531-2&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, among other stories surrounding her, he explicitly links Anna Perenna with Dido's sister Anna (see: *Fasti*, 3.543-654).  After Dido's death, she flees into exile, spending some time in Aeneas' Lavinium but, due to Lavinia's jealousy, she has to leave.  Eventually, finding no refuge, she was turned into a river nymph by Numicius, whereupon she was called Anna Perenna.  This is all highly anecdotal, of course, but it does at least establish that the name Anna was known to the Romans and, moreover, with a seemingly obvious etymological link to *annus*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 1999, the [Fountain of Anna Perenna][3], dating back to 4th century BC, was excavated in Rome, thereby consolidating the evidence that Anna could be Roman in origin.  Although note that it has been suggested that Anna Perenna could have been an Etruscan mother goddess originally and &quot;[her relationship with Aeneas was developed to strengthen her association with Rome.][4]&quot;  Nevertheless, it still stands that Anna does not have to be just the Latin for Hannah.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Anna&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0104%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DA%3Aentry%20group%3D24%3Aentry%3Danna-perenna-bio-1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://archeoroma.beniculturali.it/en/archaeological-site/fountain-anna-perenna&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Perenna" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19430" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5872" RevisionGUID="c9c9028b-93f8-44a8-91f4-8d31b7795b1d" CreationDate="2018-01-21T09:42:35.533" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|translation-check|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5875" RevisionGUID="d0d55659-fcc2-4778-aa51-70e496f5ae02" CreationDate="2018-01-21T10:20:28.543" UserId="79" Text="I like Tom Cotton's suggestion, and I will offer a variant of it.&#xD;&#xA;In the original motto *e pluribus unum* the &quot;one&quot; is neuter.&#xD;&#xA;By analogy, I prefer to make the &quot;many&quot; of the new version neuter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ex uno plura.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; From one, many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason why the translation suggested in the question does not quite work is Latin case inflection.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the preposition *e(x)* requires ablative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5875" RevisionGUID="5d224686-6a56-4f44-92fe-ecdf0d7537ff" CreationDate="2018-01-21T13:28:35.980" UserId="79" Comment="added 208 characters in body" Text="I like Tom Cotton's suggestion, and I will offer a variant of it.&#xD;&#xA;In the original motto *e pluribus unum* the &quot;one&quot; is neuter.&#xD;&#xA;By analogy, I prefer to make the &quot;many&quot; of the new version neuter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ex uno plura.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; From one, many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason why the translation suggested in the question does not quite work is Latin case inflection.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the preposition *e(x)* requires ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this neuter reading &quot;many&quot; means &quot;many things&quot; without further specification.&#xD;&#xA;If you want it to refer to &quot;many people&quot;, &quot;many peoples&quot;, or something in that direction, then Tom's suggestion is better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5876" RevisionGUID="be87ac96-3747-4c2f-b106-1594f47f534b" CreationDate="2018-01-21T14:06:06.443" UserId="79" Text="Before answering [this recent question about the US motto](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5872/79), I had to check whether the neuter version of *plures* is *plura* or *pluria*.&#xD;&#xA;I had recalled right: [*plura*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23plura) appears to be indeed the sole form used in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The same corpus search for [*pluria*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23pluria) gave results of grammarians discussing the choice between *plura* and *pluria*.&#xD;&#xA;Some seem to defend the form *pluria*, but I found no attestations of it in a context that does not discuss the very form itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what's the deal with *pluria*?&#xD;&#xA;Was it a valid alternative spelling, but later all manuscripts were conformed to *plura*?&#xD;&#xA;Is there a good reason to choose *plura* over *pluria*?&#xD;&#xA;Judging by the same corpus, the genitive is exclusively *plurium*, not *plurum*, and this makes me expect *pluria* insead of *plura*.&#xD;&#xA;All this leaves me somewhat confused." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19434" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5876" RevisionGUID="be87ac96-3747-4c2f-b106-1594f47f534b" CreationDate="2018-01-21T14:06:06.443" UserId="79" Text="Plura or pluria?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19435" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5876" RevisionGUID="be87ac96-3747-4c2f-b106-1594f47f534b" CreationDate="2018-01-21T14:06:06.443" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|etymology|declension|morphology|third-declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5874" RevisionGUID="83f02665-e811-4049-98e2-8bf84231c829" CreationDate="2018-01-21T22:46:25.663" UserId="867" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="The entry for Anna in [Wiktionary][1] certainly states that it derives from the Hebrew Hannah.  And this is how Augustine uses it in *The City of God against the Pagans*, in book 17, when referring to Hannah, the mother of Samuel (*mater quoque ipsa Samuelis Anna ...*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is the possibility that Anna is in fact a Latin name, based on the Roman goddess [Anna Perenna][2].  Her festival took place on the Ides of March (March 15th), the beginning of the new year (Ovid, *Fasti*, 3.146).  Macrobius notes that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *... publice et privatim ad Annam Perennam sacrificatum itur, ut annare perennareque commode liceat*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... public and private sacrifice is offered to Anna Perenna, so that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; we might prosperously pass the year [*annare*] and for many years to come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [*perennare*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Saturnalia*, 1.12.6&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;I think that this clearly links the name Anna with *annus*.  She was the goddess of the new year, if you will.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cult of Anna Perenna is also mentioned by Martial (*Epigrams*, 4.64.17). &#xD;&#xA; But it is Ovid who gives us the fullest picture of her and the ribald festivities that took place in her honour in book 3 of the *Fasti*.  Revellers, sitting in the sun, would toast Anna Perenna:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sole tamen vinoque calent annosque precantur*,  &#xD;&#xA;*quot sumant cyathos, ad*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *numerumque bibunt.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But they grow warm with sun and wine, and they pray for as many years&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as they take cups, and they count the cups they drink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid, *Fasti*, 3.531-2&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, among other stories surrounding her, he explicitly links Anna Perenna with Dido's sister Anna (see: *Fasti*, 3.543-654).  After Dido's death, she flees into exile, spending some time in Aeneas' Lavinium but, due to Lavinia's jealousy, she has to leave.  Eventually, finding no refuge, she was turned into a river nymph by Numicius, whereupon she was called Anna Perenna.  This is all highly anecdotal, of course, but it does at least establish that the name Anna was known to the Romans and, moreover, with a seemingly obvious etymological link to *annus*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 1999, the [Fountain of Anna Perenna][3], dating back to 4th century BC, was excavated in Rome, thereby consolidating the evidence that Anna could be Roman in origin.  Although note that it has been suggested that Anna Perenna could even have been an Etruscan mother goddess originally and &quot;[her relationship with Aeneas was developed to strengthen her association with Rome.][4]&quot;  Nevertheless, it still stands that Anna does not have to be just the Latin for Hannah.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Anna&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0104%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DA%3Aentry%20group%3D24%3Aentry%3Danna-perenna-bio-1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://archeoroma.beniculturali.it/en/archaeological-site/fountain-anna-perenna&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Perenna" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5877" RevisionGUID="91aecb53-714f-4e3b-8b59-4a97c5756456" CreationDate="2018-01-22T03:26:56.770" UserId="2345" Text="Is the following translation of &quot;against yourself&quot; correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contra te ipsum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19438" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5877" RevisionGUID="91aecb53-714f-4e3b-8b59-4a97c5756456" CreationDate="2018-01-22T03:26:56.770" UserId="2345" Text="How to translate &quot;against yourself&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19439" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5877" RevisionGUID="91aecb53-714f-4e3b-8b59-4a97c5756456" CreationDate="2018-01-22T03:26:56.770" UserId="2345" Text="|translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5877" RevisionGUID="004445e7-93bd-444f-b171-1972a0746905" CreationDate="2018-01-22T04:15:46.943" UserId="2345" Comment="added 149 characters in body" Text="Is the following translation of &quot;against yourself&quot; correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contra te ipsum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to use the phrase &quot;against yourself&quot; in the following context: &quot;to fight against yourself&quot;, &quot;it's you against yourself&quot;, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5878" RevisionGUID="4813786c-9643-4385-b042-c4030678c4b1" CreationDate="2018-01-22T15:12:03.200" UserId="645" Text="Penelope's survey of available evidence seems to be virtually complete. I chiefly want to observe — with no detriment at all to Penelope's answer — that it relies wholly on mythology, which is really all that we have. Even the mythology may have no more substance than one man's (Ovid's) imagination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it is now mostly disregarded, one of the most useful sources for this kind of thing is Lemprière's *Bibliotheca Classica* of 1788-1825, claimed by its compiler to contain 'a full account of all the proper names mentioned in ancient authors'. Various received opinions about Anna are quoted, the last of which is not among those referred to by Penelope and which, since the background is an episode quite possibly historical, I think worth quoting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;. . . Anna was an old industrious woman of Bovillae, who, when the Roman populace had fled from the city to mount Sacer, brought them cakes every day; for which kind treatment the Romans, when peace was re-established decreed immortal honours to her whom they called Perenna, *ab perennitate cultus*, and who, as they supposed, was to become one of their deities.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly, this supports Penelope's opinion that 'it still stands that Anna does not have to be just the Latin for Hannah'. We might also remember how little, if anything, Romans knew of the Jews before they began to accumulate their empire — which alone casts doubt on any connection with the name Hannah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lastly, I hope it's not too far off-topic to remember that the Conspirators were relying on the people being distracted by the Feast of Anna Perenna while the assassination of the Ides of March took place.]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5879" RevisionGUID="7697c574-484c-47dd-a9ff-13b8fa11883e" CreationDate="2018-01-23T18:12:38.140" UserId="2287" Text="For some reason I was looking through my older notes on Latin translations and saw that *Gloria* worked as a translation for *Butterfly*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been looking all through the net to confirm my suspicions but have stumbled across nothing so far. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that said, is *Gloria* another term for *Butterfly* or is there any other latin term for *Butterfly*? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19444" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5879" RevisionGUID="7697c574-484c-47dd-a9ff-13b8fa11883e" CreationDate="2018-01-23T18:12:38.140" UserId="2287" Text="Is there any other latin translation for the english term, &quot;Butterfly&quot; aside from Papilio?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19445" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5879" RevisionGUID="7697c574-484c-47dd-a9ff-13b8fa11883e" CreationDate="2018-01-23T18:12:38.140" UserId="2287" Text="|classical-latin|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1002" RevisionGUID="ce001af1-6ac7-4b59-8ca9-f3e955d9ffa1" CreationDate="2018-01-23T18:42:38.657" UserId="469" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="Forgive me if I use [IPA][1] notation. As a non-native speaker of English, I still have some difficulty with English vowels and don't really feel comfortable using English-based systems as Webster's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In Classical _reconstructed_ pronuntiation, it would be **['la.ti.ũ:]**. Germans and clasicists prefer this one. Note that this is how Romans _most likely_ pronounced it, since there is only indirect (yet quite convincing) evidence. If you are not familiar with IPA, ũ means _oo_ as in g*oo*se, but _nasalized_.&#xD;&#xA;* In Ecclesiastical pronunciation, it is **['la.tsi.um]**: _ti_+vowel not preceded by s becomes _tsi_. This one was settled down in the 19th century and is well-documented. Although it is most likely not _the original way_ to pronounce Classical Latin, it has ancient roots and enjoys some official status. It is mostly based in how italian latinists and churchmen pronounced Latin at the time, and is consistent with what it likely sounded in medieval times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases: 1) unlike English, _t_ is **not** aspirated (think of the sound of _t_ in Spanish or Italian). 2) _i_ and _u_ do not form a diphthong, hence they are in separate syllables. 3) since the i is short, the stress goes in the third-to-last syllable  (i.e., the first one in this case) 4) _a_ as in father, _i_ as ee in bee, _u_ as oo in boot, but all shorter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding English pronunciation, there is an [intricate set][2] of rules to pronounce Latin in an academic context. It is basically the effect of the same sound changes that affected English plus some academic corrections along history. As a consequence, the very set of rules also changed with time. Following it, you apparently get (thanks Sumelic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Trad. English pronounciation:) **['leɪ.ʃəm]**, admiting some variants, it seems, like **['leɪ.ʃɨəm]**, which is pretty close to (if not the same as) what MW says. As Nathaniel suggests, this is how most English-speaking Latin scholars pronounced Latin *before* the time when _Reconstructed_ and _Ecclesiastical_ pronunciations took force and pushed most local variants close to extinction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that MW offers a different pronunciation may obey the fact that English evolves with use (rather than what academics say), and the current pronunciation of original Latin words may have departed from what scholars say. For what it's worth, Dictionary.com offers the following one: [\[**ley**-shee-*uh* m\]][3], which -correct me if I am wrong- is (almost) consistent with MW's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_English_pronunciation_of_Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/latium?s=t" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5880" RevisionGUID="3aee8e61-a7a5-421d-9d0d-b88eb6488376" CreationDate="2018-01-23T19:38:16.367" UserId="2274" Text="In the multimedia franchise Warhammer 40,000, a space empire known as the Imperium of Man [uses various Latin phrases][1] to name their various government departments. I looked these up in Latin translators and most seem to be untranslatable gibberish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such phrases include Astra Militarum (&quot;imperial guard&quot;), Questor Imperialis (&quot;imperial knights&quot;), Adepta Sororitas (&quot;sisters of battle&quot;), Adeptus Custodes, Militarum Tempestus (&quot;imperial stormtroopers&quot;), Adeptus Astartes (&quot;space marines&quot;), Adeptus Ministorum, Adeptus Mechanicus, Adeptus Astra Telepathica, and Scholastica Psykana.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the correct form of such phrases in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Imperium#Imperial_Organisations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19448" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5880" RevisionGUID="3aee8e61-a7a5-421d-9d0d-b88eb6488376" CreationDate="2018-01-23T19:38:16.367" UserId="2274" Text="Is &quot;adeptus astra telepathica&quot; grammatically correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19449" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5880" RevisionGUID="3aee8e61-a7a5-421d-9d0d-b88eb6488376" CreationDate="2018-01-23T19:38:16.367" UserId="2274" Text="|vocabulary|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="668008e1-adb7-482c-9118-41017f24d9ad" CreationDate="2018-01-23T20:57:43.953" UserId="1977" Text="The term *extemporalis* refers unusual events in time, such as an exceptional snowstorm in spring time. I was wondering if there is an equivalent term which refers, not to a temporal aspect of an unusual event, but rather to a spatial/regional anomaly, e.g. snowing in Florida.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19451" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="668008e1-adb7-482c-9118-41017f24d9ad" CreationDate="2018-01-23T20:57:43.953" UserId="1977" Text="Spatial equivalent to extemporalis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19452" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="668008e1-adb7-482c-9118-41017f24d9ad" CreationDate="2018-01-23T20:57:43.953" UserId="1977" Text="|idiom|time|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="5bde2849-d280-4e16-8a0a-71172684be65" CreationDate="2018-01-23T23:09:43.050" UserId="79" Comment="Added detail from comments." Text="The term *extemporalis* refers unusual events in time, such as an exceptional snowstorm in spring time. I was wondering if there is an equivalent term which refers, not to a temporal aspect of an unusual event, but rather to a spatial/regional anomaly, e.g. snowing in Florida.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found *extemporalis* in Forcellini: *Fors proprie est casus extemporalis et inopinatus; caso, accidente, fortuna*, Cicero 14 Att 13." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="af7de0bd-5bd0-45f7-a79c-c7228744e7cc" CreationDate="2018-01-24T14:24:01.763" UserId="1977" Comment="added 530 characters in body" Text="The term *extemporalis* refers unusual events in time, such as an exceptional snowstorm in spring time. I was wondering if there is an equivalent term which refers, not to a temporal aspect of an unusual event, but rather to a spatial/regional anomaly, e.g. snowing in Florida.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found *extemporalis* in Forcellini: *Fors proprie est casus extemporalis et inopinatus; caso, accidente, fortuna*, Cicero 14 Att 13.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another dictionary indicates that the term is almost exclusively used in rhetorical contexts, as you mentioned. But both in rhetorical and in general contexts, the term is oftentimes associated with fortuitous. Here's an instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Lactantius: Lact. inst. 1, 4, 6 *ut … ne in diem quidem laborarent contenti extemporali cibo quem deus subministrasset*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Synonyms: fortuitus, subitus. Opposite: cogitatus, compositus, praeparatus. Also: extemporāneus, (-a, -um).  secundum extemporalis et (con)temporaneus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="0846707c-1a2e-4a69-9f34-4912584776d8" CreationDate="2018-01-24T14:32:15.287" UserId="1977" Comment="added 530 characters in body" Text="The term *extemporalis* refers unusual events in time, such as an exceptional snowstorm in spring time. I was wondering if there is an equivalent term which refers, not to a temporal aspect of an unusual event, but rather to a spatial/regional anomaly, e.g. snowing in Florida.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found *extemporalis* in Forcellini: *Fors proprie est casus extemporalis et inopinatus; caso, accidente, fortuna*, Cicero 14 Att 13.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT - 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another dictionary indicates that the term is almost exclusively used in rhetorical contexts, as you mentioned. But both in rhetorical and in general contexts, the term is oftentimes associated with fortuitous. Here's an instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Lactantius: Lact. inst. 1, 4, 6 *ut … ne in diem quidem laborarent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contenti extemporali cibo quem deus subministrasset*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Synonyms: fortuitus, subitus. Opposite: cogitatus, compositus, praeparatus. Also: extemporāneus, (-a, -um).  secundum extemporalis et (con)temporaneus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT - 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Intempestivus* seems much more related to my initial idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Paulo Orosius: *temporum turbata temperies, hoc est aut&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **intempestiva** siccitas hiemis aut repentinus calor veris*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5882" RevisionGUID="2f41f57a-a991-44c6-b934-fa624f8069e3" CreationDate="2018-01-24T15:59:07.440" UserId="1142" Text="In most modern writing of Latin, long vowels are distinguished from short vowels by using macrons (e.g, *āēīōū*). As far as I know, however, ancient authors rarely, if ever, distinguished long vowels from short vowels in writing. Even texts as recent as the early 1900s don't include macronized vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did ancient Roman authors ever distinguish long vowels from short vowels in their writing? If so, how so, by who, and how often?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19458" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5882" RevisionGUID="2f41f57a-a991-44c6-b934-fa624f8069e3" CreationDate="2018-01-24T15:59:07.440" UserId="1142" Text="Did the Romans ever distinguish long vowels in writing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19459" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5882" RevisionGUID="2f41f57a-a991-44c6-b934-fa624f8069e3" CreationDate="2018-01-24T15:59:07.440" UserId="1142" Text="|history|orthography|alphabet|vowel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19460" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="f7838b1a-42be-4fbd-9302-9fd57c0fb654" CreationDate="2018-01-24T18:21:41.857" UserId="1977" Comment="edited title" Text="Spatial equivalent to extemporalis/intempestivus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5883" RevisionGUID="3a662fed-4a9e-4a25-817b-1d723379333a" CreationDate="2018-01-24T20:25:17.213" UserId="645" Text="Idiomatically, the English expression 'at arm's length' means something like 'within sight, but avoiding any form of contact'. It can be used either physically or metaphorically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying hard to find a Latin expression for it, but I can neither  trace any English translation from Latin that uses it, nor think of anything plausible that catches the idiom exactly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I'm just trying too hard. Can anyone help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19462" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5883" RevisionGUID="3a662fed-4a9e-4a25-817b-1d723379333a" CreationDate="2018-01-24T20:25:17.213" UserId="645" Text="Latin for 'at arm's length'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19463" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5883" RevisionGUID="3a662fed-4a9e-4a25-817b-1d723379333a" CreationDate="2018-01-24T20:25:17.213" UserId="645" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5884" RevisionGUID="979d787d-58f7-4612-a874-5c2557a4fffc" CreationDate="2018-01-25T00:14:25.793" UserId="985" Text="The word that comes first to mind is *eminus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (of fighting, striking, and sim.) At long range (and not in hand-to-hand combat). **b** (in non-military context) from a distance. [OLD]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is, of course, the antonym of *comminus*, as in in Cicero, _De senectute_ 19:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nec enim excursione nec saltu nec **eminus** hastis aut **comminus** gladiis uteretur, sed consilio ratione sententia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For he [Scipio] would use neither sally, nor leap, nor spears **from a distance**, nor swords **in hand-to-hand combat**, but planning, reason, judgment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though *eminus* would usually, I think, imply a somewhat greater distance than merely 'at arm's length,' it certainly covers the meaning 'within sight, but avoiding any form of contact.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5885" RevisionGUID="9d589151-8b99-408e-b55f-0bb6fc5dd0af" CreationDate="2018-01-25T09:42:25.827" UserId="985" Text="I'm not sure there's a single word for this specifically, though such a phenomenon would likely fit in the general category of a *monstrum*, 'An unnatural thing or event regarded as an omen, a portent, prodigy, sign' (*Oxford Latin Dictionary*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, in a few passages, Seneca the Younger uses the phrase (*in*) *alieno loco*/*alienis locis*, 'in a place where one doesn't belong' or 'in an unnatural place.' This might work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_De providentia_ 1.3:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ne illa quidem quae videntur confusa et incerta, pluvias dico nubesque et elisorum fulminum iactus et incendia ruptis montium verticibus effusa, tremores labantis soli aliaque quae tumultuosa pars rerum circa terras movet, sine ratione, quamvis subita sint, accidunt, sed suas et illa causas habent non minus quam quae **alienis locis** conspecta miraculo sunt, ut in mediis fluctibus calentes aquae et nova insularum in vasto exilientium mari spatia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Even those phenomena which appear to be confused and irregular, I mean showers of rain and clouds, the rush of lightning from the heavens, fire that pours from the riven peaks of mountains, quakings of the trembling earth, and everything else which is produced on earth by the unquiet element in the universe, do not come to pass without reason, though they do so suddenly: but they also have their causes, as also have those things which excite our wonder by **the strangeness of their position**, such as warm springs amidst the waves of the sea, and new islands that spring up in the wide ocean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Trans. Aubrey Stewart; from [Wikisource](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_Providence)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Oedipus_, lines 373–380:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod hoc nefas? conceptus innuptae bovis,  &#xD;&#xA;nec more solito positus **alieno in loco**,  &#xD;&#xA;implet parentem; membra cum gemitu movet,  &#xD;&#xA;rigore tremulo debiles artus micant;  &#xD;&#xA;infecit atras lividus fibras cruor  &#xD;&#xA;temptantque turpes mobilem trunci gradum,  &#xD;&#xA;et inane surgit corpus ac sacros petit  &#xD;&#xA;cornu ministros; viscera effugiunt manum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What monstrosity is this? A foetus in an unmated heifer! nor does it lie in accustomed fashion, but fills its mother **in an unnatural place**. Moaning it moves its limbs, and its weak members twitch with convulsive rigors. Livid gore has stained the entrails black. ... The sadly mangled forms essay to move, and one disembowelled body strives to rise and menaces the priests with its horns; the entrails flee from my hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Trans. Frank Justus Miller; from the 1917 Loeb edition of Seneca's tragedies)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5886" RevisionGUID="ebd93caf-82cd-4038-9d5e-1098bc2c0bea" CreationDate="2018-01-25T09:54:40.263" UserId="2353" Text="I am looking for a name for my newly-formed classical music studio, and I thought a Latin translation or equivalent of &quot;for the love of music&quot; may sound elegant. Would someone be willing to translate this? or perhaps you have suggestions for other appropriate phrases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19467" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5886" RevisionGUID="ebd93caf-82cd-4038-9d5e-1098bc2c0bea" CreationDate="2018-01-25T09:54:40.263" UserId="2353" Text="translation into Latin: &quot;for the love of music&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19468" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5886" RevisionGUID="ebd93caf-82cd-4038-9d5e-1098bc2c0bea" CreationDate="2018-01-25T09:54:40.263" UserId="2353" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5887" RevisionGUID="72e10af9-a7af-4221-8e41-b0d10659fa85" CreationDate="2018-01-25T13:06:18.077" UserId="324" Text="Vergil Georg. IV 205, speaking not of butterflies but of honey bees, mentions their tantus amor florum et generandi gloria mellis. Is there perhaps a confusion of the species?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5886" RevisionGUID="67af295b-6e3a-4b5d-bd4a-be3c159bbc7f" CreationDate="2018-01-25T17:53:38.367" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I am looking for a name for my newly-formed classical music studio, and I thought a Latin translation or equivalent of &quot;for the love of music&quot; may sound elegant. Would someone be willing to translate this? Or perhaps you have suggestions for other appropriate phrases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19471" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5886" RevisionGUID="67af295b-6e3a-4b5d-bd4a-be3c159bbc7f" CreationDate="2018-01-25T17:53:38.367" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Translation into Latin: &quot;for the love of music&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19472" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5886" RevisionGUID="67af295b-6e3a-4b5d-bd4a-be3c159bbc7f" CreationDate="2018-01-25T17:53:38.367" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5888" RevisionGUID="625b2a40-b55a-41c3-a9dd-bda14b2cd653" CreationDate="2018-01-25T17:57:53.733" UserId="79" Text="I suggest ***pro amore musicae***.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase *amor musicae* means &quot;love of music&quot;, where the music can be understood either objectively (music is loved) or subjectively (music loves).&#xD;&#xA;The preposition *pro* requires ablative, whence the form *amore*.&#xD;&#xA;This preposition is a common choice for &quot;for the benefit of&quot;, as in *pro patria*, &quot;for fatherland&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might also want to take a look at [this question about the phrase *ars gratia artis*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1895/79).&#xD;&#xA;If something like that sounds more appropriate, leave a comment below, and perhaps I or someone else can give a new suggestion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5879" RevisionGUID="23ad9d34-6477-41e8-ae1c-04f4218580fc" CreationDate="2018-01-25T17:59:40.070" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="For some reason I was looking through my older notes on Latin translations and saw that *Gloria* worked as a translation for *Butterfly*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been looking all through the net to confirm my suspicions but have stumbled across nothing so far. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that said, is *Gloria* another term for *Butterfly* or is there any other Latin term for *Butterfly*? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19475" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5879" RevisionGUID="23ad9d34-6477-41e8-ae1c-04f4218580fc" CreationDate="2018-01-25T17:59:40.070" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="f5f952c2-c66e-4c86-a3c5-483316240621" CreationDate="2018-01-25T19:09:03.067" UserId="1977" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="The term *extemporalis* refers unusual events in time, such as an exceptional snowstorm in spring time. I was wondering if there is an equivalent term which refers, not to a temporal aspect of an unusual event, but rather to a spatial/regional anomaly, e.g. snowing in Florida.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found *extemporalis* in Forcellini: *Fors proprie est casus extemporalis et inopinatus; caso, accidente, fortuna*, Cicero 14 Att 13.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT - 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another dictionary indicates that the term is almost exclusively used in rhetorical contexts, as you mentioned. But both in rhetorical and in general contexts, the term is oftentimes associated with fortuitous. Here's an instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Lactantius: Lact. inst. 1, 4, 6 *ut … ne in diem quidem laborarent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contenti extemporali cibo quem deus subministrasset*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Synonyms: fortuitus, subitus. Opposite: cogitatus, compositus, praeparatus. Also: extemporāneus, (-a, -um).  secundum extemporalis et (con)temporaneus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT - 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Intempestivus* (unseasonable) seems much more related to my initial idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Paulo Orosius: *temporum turbata temperies, hoc est aut&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **intempestiva** siccitas hiemis aut repentinus calor veris*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5889" RevisionGUID="3d4ec9e7-89f6-4c61-b6b8-21a6c105b77a" CreationDate="2018-01-26T05:33:06.353" UserId="39" Text="brief notes based mostly on [Wallace 2011][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Geminatio vocalium** (the double writing of a long vowel): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - after c. 150 BCE, inspired by Oscan;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - was used only **sometimes**; mostly limited to **the first syllable** of a&#xD;&#xA;   word; mostly restricted to **A** (less so with E and V; extremely rare&#xD;&#xA;   with I and O);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **I longa:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **occasionally**, appeared at the end of of the OL period;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. **the apex:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; appeared at the end of the OL period (104 BCE); various shapes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote about [macrons][2] already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1455/39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5889" RevisionGUID="e82a546e-b286-4123-b635-7fdbaa04dee3" CreationDate="2018-01-26T05:40:41.233" UserId="39" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="brief notes based mostly on [Wallace 2011][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Geminatio vocalium** (the double writing of a long vowel): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - after c. 150 BCE, inspired by Oscan;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - was used only **sometimes**; mostly limited to **the first syllable** of a&#xD;&#xA;   word; mostly restricted to **A** (less so with E and V; extremely rare&#xD;&#xA;   with I and O);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **I longa:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **occasionally**, appeared at the end of of the OL period;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. **the apex:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; appeared at the end of the OL period (104 BCE); various shapes; most common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote about [macrons][2] already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1455/39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5890" RevisionGUID="b1ab2594-ebe5-4d14-9a93-e1f9f65d741a" CreationDate="2018-01-26T17:33:30.947" UserId="79" Text="[Machine learning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning) is a roughly method where a machine learns to perform a certain task by learning on its own.&#xD;&#xA;The machine gains experience and can solve a very specific problem intuitively.&#xD;&#xA;It is not being educated by a teacher (other than its own experience) nor can it (unfortunately) communicate why it does what it does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good Latin translation of &quot;machine learning&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;The key aspect is choosing a suitable concept of learning to match what machine learning is all about.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *educatio*, *studium*, and *eruditio* sound like a wrong kind of learning, but perhaps *cognitio*, *apprehensio*, or *discentia* might work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next step is bringing the machine into the picture.&#xD;&#xA;It is probably easiest to understand if it is close to the English choice, for example *cognitio machinalis*.&#xD;&#xA;Judging by the translations offered by Wikipedia, the word &quot;machine&quot; is included in most languages, and the most nontrivial part is a correct kind of learning.&#xD;&#xA;The Romance languages are somewhat exceptional with &quot;apprendimento automatico&quot;,  &quot;apprentissage automatique&quot;, and similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you translate &quot;machine learning&quot; in Latin and why?&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of important aspects of the translation: understandability (at the cost of elegance if needed) and a descriptive choice of &quot;learning&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was inspired by [a conference I am currently attending](https://earthscience.rice.edu/mathx2018/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19480" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5890" RevisionGUID="b1ab2594-ebe5-4d14-9a93-e1f9f65d741a" CreationDate="2018-01-26T17:33:30.947" UserId="79" Text="How to translate machine learning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19481" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5890" RevisionGUID="b1ab2594-ebe5-4d14-9a93-e1f9f65d741a" CreationDate="2018-01-26T17:33:30.947" UserId="79" Text="|word-comparison|contemporary-latin|technology|science|terminology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5891" RevisionGUID="f3ab9ed2-a91e-4cda-b38d-7c7fb37c0f05" CreationDate="2018-01-26T18:19:08.937" UserId="1142" Text="[Tom Cotton](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/645/tom-cotton) is right in saying that all of the provided &quot;Latin phrases&quot; are nothing but gibberish. However, since you asked for the &quot;correct forms&quot; of the provided phrases (that had corresponding English &quot;translations), I've written them here to the best of my ability:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Imperial Guard&quot;: *custōs imperiālis*&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Imperial Knight&quot;: *eques imperiālis*&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Sisters of Battle&quot;: *proelium sorōris*&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Imperial Soldier&quot;: *mīles imperiālis*&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Space Marine&quot;: *astēr mīles* (technically means &quot;star soldier&quot;, but it's probably as close as you can get to &quot;Space Marine&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5891" RevisionGUID="fafa54a0-8cbb-4676-9adf-393e33f76223" CreationDate="2018-01-26T18:27:24.310" UserId="1142" Comment="added 208 characters in body" Text="[Tom Cotton](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/645/tom-cotton) is right in saying that all of the provided &quot;Latin phrases&quot; are nothing but gibberish. However, since you asked for the &quot;correct forms&quot; of the provided phrases (that had corresponding English &quot;translations), I've written them here to the best of my ability:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Imperial Guard&quot;: *custōs imperiālis*&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Imperial Knight&quot;: *eques imperiālis*&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Sisters of Battle&quot;: *proelium sorōris*&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Imperial Soldier&quot;: *mīles imperiālis*&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Space Marine&quot;: *astēr mīles* (technically means &quot;star soldier&quot;, but it's probably as close as you can get to &quot;Space Marine&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for whether the single phrase &quot;adeptus astra telepathica&quot; is correct (as you asked in the title of your question): it's not. *adeptus* doesn't match the number or gender of *astra*, and &quot;telepathica&quot; isn't even a Latin word, as far as I can tell." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5891" RevisionGUID="bcfab50f-0fd8-48a0-bfc6-6f21e8c4aa22" CreationDate="2018-01-26T19:19:46.107" UserId="1142" Comment="ack, fixed number error" Text="[Tom Cotton](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/645/tom-cotton) is right in saying that all of the provided &quot;Latin phrases&quot; are nothing but gibberish. However, since you asked for the &quot;correct forms&quot; of the provided phrases (that had corresponding English &quot;translations&quot;), I've written them here to the best of my ability:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Imperial Guard&quot;: *custōs imperiālis*&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Imperial Knight&quot;: *eques imperiālis*&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Sisters of Battle&quot;: *sorōrēs proeliī*&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Imperial Soldier&quot;: *mīles imperiālis*&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Space Marine&quot;: *astēr mīles* (technically means &quot;star soldier&quot;, but it's probably as close as you can get to &quot;Space Marine&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for whether the single phrase &quot;adeptus astra telepathica&quot; is correct (as you asked in the title of your question): it's not. *adeptus* doesn't match the number or gender of *astra*, and &quot;telepathica&quot; isn't even a Latin word, as far as I can tell." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5880" RevisionGUID="59c70772-c50f-4f40-aa17-e2ead2a8676a" CreationDate="2018-01-26T19:44:33.107" UserId="2274" Comment="provided more research" Text="In the multimedia franchise Warhammer 40,000, a space empire known as the Imperium of Man [uses various Latin phrases][1] to name their various government departments. I looked these up in Latin translators and most seem to be untranslatable gibberish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such phrases include Astra Militarum (&quot;imperial guard&quot;), Questor Imperialis (&quot;imperial knights&quot;), Adepta Sororitas (&quot;sisters of battle&quot;), Adeptus Custodes, Militarum Tempestus (&quot;imperial stormtroopers&quot;), Adeptus Astartes (&quot;space marines&quot;), Adeptus Ministorum, Adeptus Mechanicus, Adeptus Astra Telepathica, and Scholastica Psykana.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is supposed to simulate how &quot;High Gothic&quot; (a fictitious dead language used for commerce) sounds to citizens of the Imperium, which to us sounds like bad Latin and the phrases seem to be derived from misspelled Latin or by loaning foreign words (as is often done in New Latin). &quot;Adeptus&quot; appears in many such names, as in &quot;Adeptus Astartes&quot; that seems to be derived from the Latin *aster*. I got the impression that the names are supposed to mean &quot;Adept of [insert task]&quot; though this never appears in the English names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where an etymological origin may be discerned (often grammatically nonsensical, if I understand the inflection correctly), the official English name is often completely unrelated in meaning. &quot;Imperial guard&quot; versus *astra mīlitārium* (&quot;the stars the military&quot;), &quot;imperial knight&quot; versus *quaestor imperiālis* (&quot;the questor imperial&quot;),&quot; &quot;sisters of battle&quot; versus *adepta sorōritās* (&quot;the obtained the sisterhood&quot;), &quot;imperial stormtrooper&quot; versus *mīlitārium tempestās* (&quot;the military the weather&quot;), &quot;space marines&quot; versus *adeptus asteris* (&quot;the obtained of the star&quot;), etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the correct form of such phrases in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Imperium#Imperial_Organisations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5880" RevisionGUID="f9b46aa2-ecaf-4c83-b2f9-6ce668eb16cc" CreationDate="2018-01-26T19:50:53.107" UserId="2274" Comment="provided more research" Text="In the multimedia franchise Warhammer 40,000, a space empire known as the Imperium of Man [uses various Latin phrases][1] to name their various government departments. I looked these up in Latin translators and most seem to be untranslatable gibberish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such phrases include Astra Militarum (&quot;imperial guard&quot;), Questor Imperialis (&quot;imperial knights&quot;), Adepta Sororitas (&quot;sisters of battle&quot;), Adeptus Custodes, Militarum Tempestus (&quot;imperial stormtroopers&quot;), Adeptus Astartes (&quot;space marines&quot;), Adeptus Ministorum, Adeptus Mechanicus, Adeptus Astra Telepathica, and Scholastica Psykana.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is supposed to simulate how &quot;High Gothic&quot; (a fictitious dead language used for commerce) sounds to citizens of the Imperium, which to us sounds like bad Latin and the phrases seem to be derived from misspelled Latin or by loaning foreign words (as is often done in New Latin). &quot;Adeptus&quot; appears in many such names, as in &quot;Adeptus Astartes&quot; that seems to be derived from the Latin *aster*. I got the impression that the names are supposed to mean &quot;Adept of [insert task]&quot; though this never appears in the English names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where an etymological origin may be discerned (often grammatically nonsensical, if I understand the inflection correctly), the official English name is often completely unrelated in meaning. &quot;Imperial guard&quot; versus *astra mīlitārium* (&quot;the stars the military&quot;), &quot;imperial knight&quot; versus *quaestor imperiālis* (&quot;the questor imperial&quot;),&quot; &quot;sisters of battle&quot; versus *adepta sorōritās* (&quot;the obtained the sisterhood&quot;), &quot;imperial stormtrooper&quot; versus *mīlitārium tempestās* (&quot;the military the weather&quot;), &quot;space marines&quot; versus *adeptus astertās* (&quot;the obtained the stardom&quot;), etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the correct form of such phrases in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Imperium#Imperial_Organisations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5891" RevisionGUID="5c21acca-625c-4e21-b41c-cbd50b96addc" CreationDate="2018-01-26T21:59:53.240" UserId="1142" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="[Tom Cotton](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/645/tom-cotton) is right in saying that all of the provided &quot;Latin phrases&quot; are nothing but gibberish. However, since you asked for the &quot;correct forms&quot; of the provided phrases (that had corresponding English &quot;translations&quot;), I've written them here to the best of my ability:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Imperial Guard&quot;: *custōs imperiālis*&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Imperial Knight&quot;: *eques imperiālis*&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Sisters of Battle&quot;: *sorōrēs proeliī*&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Imperial Soldier&quot;: *mīles imperiālis*&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Space Marine&quot;: *mīles asterum* (technically means &quot;soldier of the stars&quot;, but it's probably as close as you can get to &quot;Space Marine&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for whether the single phrase &quot;adeptus astra telepathica&quot; is correct (as you asked in the title of your question): it's not. *adeptus* doesn't match the number or gender of *astra*, and &quot;telepathica&quot; isn't even a Latin word, as far as I can tell." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5892" RevisionGUID="c66511ba-599c-4305-a206-3bf0843c09ea" CreationDate="2018-01-27T02:40:28.543" UserId="867" Text="One suggestion is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***arcere*** – to prevent from approaching; to refuse to associate with; to keep off, out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *per ministros agere et **arcere** hostem satis habebat*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; he was content to act through his subordinates and to keep the enemy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **at distance**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, *Annals*, 12.40&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Odi profanum vulgus et **arceo***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I despise the common crowd and **keep it at a distance**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Horace, *Odes*, 3.1.1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I suspect your three men may be inclined to pick up those glasses again or, at the very least, are not averse to wining and dining on another occasion, so perhaps *arcere* is too final.  My second suggestion, therefore, is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***promptus*** – to be at hand; to have ready, at one’s disposal or command; but also to be before the eyes thereby capturing the sense of something at a short distance but still within sight.  Most often seen in the phrase ***in promptu*** – within easy reach for use; or in full view; in a prominent position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nam haec ipsa mihi erunt **in promptu** quae modo audivi*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; for I shall have the arguments I have just heard **ready to hand**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *De Finibus*, 2.35&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ad salutem omnia parata sunt et **in promptu***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Everything conducive to our well-being is prepared and **within our reach**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca the Younger, *Epistles*, 119&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tabernacula aperta et omnia cara **in promptu** relicta; argentum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quibusdam locis temere per vias velut obiectum ad praedam vidisse.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the tents were open and all kinds of valuables were left **in full sight and ready for the taking**; here and there he had seen silver carelessly flung down in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lanes, as if to tempt a pillager.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Livy, *History of Rome*, 22.42 - I like how this passage captures the sense of temptation when something is at arm's length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another, final suggestion which could maybe keep the 'arm' of 'arm's length' imagery is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ad manum*** – close at hand, or as the OLD clarifies, “spatial proximity with additional idea of availability”.  However, I have to concede that this more often than not could also simply mean &quot;to hand&quot;, as in &quot;in one's hand&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ubi **ad manum** venisset hostis, tum coortos tota vi gladiis rem gerere*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; when the enemy had come **within reach**, then they were to assail them&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with all their might, and settle the question with the sword&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Livy, *History of Rome*, 2.30&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *haec arma habere **ad manum***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; these are the weapons he needs to have **within reach**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quintilian, *The Orator’s Education*, 12.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *incedere inter milites, habere **ad manum** centuriones*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [the women] paraded among the soldiers, they had the centurions at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their **beck and call**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, *Annals*, 3.33&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5892" RevisionGUID="a980529f-e2b2-4802-9525-24e3aae30989" CreationDate="2018-01-27T02:49:22.090" UserId="867" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="One suggestion is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***arcere*** – to prevent from approaching; to refuse to associate with; to keep off, out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *per ministros agere et **arcere** hostem satis habebat*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; he was content to act through his subordinates and to keep the enemy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **at distance**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, *Annals*, 12.40&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Odi profanum vulgus et **arceo***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I despise the common crowd and **keep it at a distance**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Horace, *Odes*, 3.1.1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I suspect your three men may be inclined to pick up those glasses again or, at the very least, are not averse to wining and dining on another occasion, so perhaps *arcere* is too final.  My second suggestion, therefore, is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***promptus*** – to be at hand; to have ready, at one’s disposal or command; but also to be before the eyes thereby capturing the sense of something at a short distance but still within sight.  Most often seen in the phrase ***in promptu*** (esse, habere, ponere, etc.) – within easy reach for use; or in full view; in a prominent position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nam haec ipsa mihi erunt **in promptu** quae modo audivi*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; for I shall have the arguments I have just heard **ready to hand**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *De Finibus*, 2.35&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ad salutem omnia parata sunt et **in promptu***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Everything conducive to our well-being is prepared and **within our reach**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca the Younger, *Epistles*, 119&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tabernacula aperta et omnia cara **in promptu** relicta; argentum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quibusdam locis temere per vias velut obiectum ad praedam vidisse.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the tents were open and all kinds of valuables were left **in full sight and ready for the taking**; here and there he had seen silver carelessly flung down in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lanes, as if to tempt a pillager.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Livy, *History of Rome*, 22.42 - I like how this passage captures the sense of temptation when something is at arm's length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another, final suggestion which could maybe keep the 'arm' of 'arm's length' imagery is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ad manum*** – close at hand, or as the OLD clarifies, “spatial proximity with additional idea of availability”.  However, I have to concede that this more often than not could also simply mean &quot;to hand&quot;, as in &quot;in one's hand&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ubi **ad manum** venisset hostis, tum coortos tota vi gladiis rem gerere*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; when the enemy had come **within reach**, then they were to assail them&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with all their might, and settle the question with the sword&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Livy, *History of Rome*, 2.30&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *haec arma habere **ad manum***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; these are the weapons he needs to have **within reach**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quintilian, *The Orator’s Education*, 12.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *incedere inter milites, habere **ad manum** centuriones*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [the women] paraded among the soldiers, they had the centurions at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their **beck and call**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, *Annals*, 3.33&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5892" RevisionGUID="ffa6b8ef-d305-4e40-a279-c374dcee54f2" CreationDate="2018-01-27T03:16:11.377" UserId="867" Comment="added 265 characters in body" Text="It seems to me that 'at arm's length' can be construed in two slightly different ways: 'to keep at a distance' (I want nothing to do with it) or 'to have within reach' (I may have need of it at some point).  Below are suggestions for both interpretations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first suggestion is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***arcere*** – to prevent from approaching; to refuse to associate with; to keep off, out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *per ministros agere et **arcere** hostem satis habebat*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; he was content to act through his subordinates and to keep the enemy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **at distance**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, *Annals*, 12.40&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Odi profanum vulgus et **arceo***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I despise the common crowd and **keep it at a distance**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Horace, *Odes*, 3.1.1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I suspect your three men may be inclined to pick up those glasses again or, at the very least, are not averse to wining and dining on another occasion, so perhaps *arcere* is too final.  My second suggestion, therefore, is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***promptus*** – to be at hand; to have ready, at one’s disposal or command; but also to be before the eyes thereby capturing the sense of something at a short distance but still within sight.  Most often seen in the phrase ***in promptu*** (esse, habere, ponere, etc.) – within easy reach for use; or in full view; in a prominent position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nam haec ipsa mihi erunt **in promptu** quae modo audivi*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; for I shall have the arguments I have just heard **ready to hand**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *De Finibus*, 2.35&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ad salutem omnia parata sunt et **in promptu***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Everything conducive to our well-being is prepared and **within our reach**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca the Younger, *Epistles*, 119&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tabernacula aperta et omnia cara **in promptu** relicta; argentum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quibusdam locis temere per vias velut obiectum ad praedam vidisse.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the tents were open and all kinds of valuables were left **in full sight and ready for the taking**; here and there he had seen silver carelessly flung down in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lanes, as if to tempt a pillager.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Livy, *History of Rome*, 22.42 - I like how this passage captures the sense of temptation when something is at arm's length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another, final suggestion which could maybe keep the 'arm' of 'arm's length' imagery is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ad manum*** – close at hand, or as the OLD clarifies, “spatial proximity with additional idea of availability”.  However, I have to concede that this more often than not could also simply mean &quot;to hand&quot;, as in &quot;in one's hand&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ubi **ad manum** venisset hostis, tum coortos tota vi gladiis rem gerere*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; when the enemy had come **within reach**, then they were to assail them&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with all their might, and settle the question with the sword&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Livy, *History of Rome*, 2.30&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *haec arma habere **ad manum***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; these are the weapons he needs to have **within reach**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quintilian, *The Orator’s Education*, 12.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *incedere inter milites, habere **ad manum** centuriones*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [the women] paraded among the soldiers, they had the centurions at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their **beck and call**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, *Annals*, 3.33&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5893" RevisionGUID="b5cca067-35ca-4ede-ab36-5e3f4524175d" CreationDate="2018-01-27T07:56:14.747" UserId="68" Text="For some reason my computer isn't allowing me to add comments, so I can't add a comment to either answer here, which is what feels more appropriate than a separate answer (a moderator should feel free to turn this into a comment), but I'd like to throw in *vesīcam levāre*, from Pliny the Younger's *Dē Medicīnā* (&quot;vesīcam levāre ūrīnā largiōre&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5894" RevisionGUID="20d69c38-86b6-4fe4-baa5-c58f8acc87de" CreationDate="2018-01-27T08:14:12.707" UserId="68" Text="A friend asked me the other night over dinner how to say &quot;love nest&quot; in Latin. He was joking, but it got me thinking. Obviously one could say &quot;domus/domuncula ubi amatur&quot; or something like that (which is what I ended up offering him), but is there an idiomatic or literary term one could use to express this idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19493" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5894" RevisionGUID="20d69c38-86b6-4fe4-baa5-c58f8acc87de" CreationDate="2018-01-27T08:14:12.707" UserId="68" Text="Is there a Latin expression one could use for &quot;love nest&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19494" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5894" RevisionGUID="20d69c38-86b6-4fe4-baa5-c58f8acc87de" CreationDate="2018-01-27T08:14:12.707" UserId="68" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5895" RevisionGUID="25c5ae1d-0da6-460d-bfe5-2f14bae5d48a" CreationDate="2018-01-27T10:06:21.280" UserId="867" Text="Perhaps *thalamus*?  It doesn't refer to a house or apartment where lovers meet (if that's what you had in mind specifically), but rather the room in which secret assignations occur.  Given that the *thalamus* is typically the bedchamber, it's no wonder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *“Hic fuit, hic cubuit; thalamo dormivimus illo:*   &#xD;&#xA;*Hic mihi lasciva*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *gaudia nocte dedit.”*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Here was she, here she lay; in that chamber did we sleep; here did&#xD;&#xA;&gt; she give me wanton joys at night.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid, *Remedia Amoris*, 727-8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5896" RevisionGUID="99bc69a5-270e-4f84-9590-c0b374168ae6" CreationDate="2018-01-27T12:30:07.957" UserId="2356" Text="Sorry for the vague title but my request is pretty arbitrary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to translate in Latin some kind of poetic quote. I studied Latin in college so I know the basics, but I'd like a confirmation since it is not a simple phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quote is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    In everlasting memory of a nameless soldier,&#xD;&#xA;    foolish enough to try to change the world,&#xD;&#xA;    too strong for the world to change him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which I translated as:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    In perpetua memoria sine nominem militis,&#xD;&#xA;    ut mundum convertere conaretur stultior,&#xD;&#xA;    ut mundus converteret firmior.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I'm not sure about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   - `sine nominem` for `nameless`. I thought there would have been a specific word to express that concept but I couldn't find it.&#xD;&#xA;   - The order of the first verse. Which is more correct, the one above or `sine nominem militis in perpetua memoria`?&#xD;&#xA;   - The construction of the objective clauses in the last two verses. Is it the correct way to translate &quot;(he was) too/enough -adjective- to do this / for this to be done to him&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, I'm not sure the context is enough to distinguish between too much/enough for the two comparative adjectives `firmior` and `stultior`, but I really like the poetic ring it has.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19497" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5896" RevisionGUID="99bc69a5-270e-4f84-9590-c0b374168ae6" CreationDate="2018-01-27T12:30:07.957" UserId="2356" Text="Is my translation (to latin) correct for this burial quote?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19498" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5896" RevisionGUID="99bc69a5-270e-4f84-9590-c0b374168ae6" CreationDate="2018-01-27T12:30:07.957" UserId="2356" Text="|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19499" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5896" RevisionGUID="bb786e8d-f51d-4a7f-88bf-d6315b448b5e" CreationDate="2018-01-27T19:57:30.350" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Is my translation (to Latin) correct for this burial quote?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19500" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5896" RevisionGUID="bb786e8d-f51d-4a7f-88bf-d6315b448b5e" CreationDate="2018-01-27T19:57:30.350" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|translation-check|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5897" RevisionGUID="3dede0d8-15d6-489d-a651-42a0d9868f4d" CreationDate="2018-01-27T20:53:06.387" UserId="79" Text="A couple of comments on your translation first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The preposition *sine* takes the ablative, so it should be *sine nomine* if that phrase is used.&#xD;&#xA;- *In perpetua memoria militis* is grammatically correct, but the adjectives *stultus* and *firmus* need to be in genitive to agree with *militis*.&#xD;&#xA;- The word order is fine in the first line.&#xD;&#xA;- I don't seem to be able to parse the *ut* clauses. Some other structure would be better, unless there is attested precedent to what you suggest.&#xD;&#xA;- I think *mutare* would be more appropriate than *convertere*.&#xD;&#xA;- The adjectives *stultus* and *firmus* look appropriate to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then some suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Sine nomine* means &quot;without a name&quot;. That prepositional phrase is fine, but it does not exactly mean &quot;nameless&quot;. Instead, I would use an adjective like [*innominatus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DI%3Aentry+group%3D47%3Aentry%3Dinnominatus) or [*innominabilis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=innominabilis&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;- I would rephrase &quot;X enough to do Y&quot; as &quot;so X that Y&quot;. If this is acceptable to you, it would allow to use a *tam&amp;ndash;ut* pair, which is a common construction in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;- The comparative can mean &quot;too X&quot; instead of the more familiar &quot;more X&quot;. However, if you go with *tam*, then comparative should not be used, and I hope a sufficiently similar idea is conveyed with the *tam*.&#xD;&#xA;- I would go with the present tense because the statements are somewhat timeless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest something along these lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *In perpetua memoria militis innominati  &#xD;&#xA;tam stulti, ut mundum mutare conetur,  &#xD;&#xA;(et) tam firmi, ut mundus mutare non possit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In everlasting memory of the unknown soldier  &#xD;&#xA;so foolish that he would try to change the world  &#xD;&#xA;(and) so strong that the world could not change [him].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we have a consecutive clause, I chose *ut non* instead of *ne*.&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if something is unclear or unsatisfying, and I can try to adapt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5889" RevisionGUID="1582dc9f-914a-43d8-b2cb-d86f711a15b8" CreationDate="2018-01-27T23:53:48.870" UserId="39" Comment="added 437 characters in body" Text="brief notes based mostly on [Wallace 2011][1] and Leumann 1977.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Geminatio vocalium** (the double writing of a long vowel): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - used primarily between 135-75 BCE, inspired by Oscan; this tradition goes back to &quot;[usque ad] Accium et ultra&quot; (Quint.);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - was used only **sometimes**; mostly limited to **the first syllable** of a&#xD;&#xA;   word; mostly restricted to **A** (less so with E and V; virtually nonexistent&#xD;&#xA;   with I and O): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples from Leumann:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AA: aara, maanium, faato naatam, paastores, Vaalus, Vaarius; famaa;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EE: ree, seedes, Sullai Feelici, leege;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VV: Luucius Puupius, cuurauerunt, iuure, arbitratuu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OO: uootum, Vrsioonis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **I longa:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **occasionally**, appeared at the end of of the OL period;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples: FEL**I**CI, V**I**CVS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. **the apex:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; appeared at the end of the OL period (104 BCE); various shapes; ousted the first two and &quot;aber auch dessen Anwendung ist nur ganz unverbindlich und selten&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote about [macrons][3] already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iCgIE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1455/39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5889" RevisionGUID="4d64e062-b537-4f5f-841a-94e31543343e" CreationDate="2018-01-27T23:59:22.660" UserId="39" Comment="added 437 characters in body" Text="brief notes based mostly on [Wallace 2011][1] and Leumann 1977.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Geminatio vocalium** (the double writing of a long vowel): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - used primarily between 135-75 BCE, inspired by Oscan; this tradition goes back to &quot;[usque ad] Accium et ultra&quot; (Quint.);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - was used only **sometimes**; mostly limited to **the first syllable** of a&#xD;&#xA;   word; mostly restricted to **A** (less so with E and V; virtually nonexistent&#xD;&#xA;   with I and O): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples from Leumann:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AA: aara, maanium, faato naatam, paastores, Vaalus, Vaarius; famaa;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EE: ree, seedes, Sullai Feelici, leege;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VV: Luucius Puupius, cuurauerunt, iuure, arbitratuu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OO: uootum, Vrsioonis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **I longa and diphthongs:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **occasionally**, appeared at the end of of the OL period;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples: FEL**I**CI, V**I**CVS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. **the apex:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; appeared at the end of the OL period (104 BCE); various shapes; ousted the first two; Leumann writes that its use was non-binding and rare, cf. &quot;aber auch dessen Anwendung ist nur ganz unverbindlich und selten&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote about [macrons][3] already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iCgIE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1455/39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5889" RevisionGUID="4de7f2cb-bfa9-4713-8d35-5d257a620608" CreationDate="2018-01-28T00:21:25.250" UserId="39" Comment="added 362 characters in body" Text="brief notes based mostly on [Wallace 2011][1] and Leumann 1977.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Geminatio vocalium** (the double writing of a long vowel): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - used primarily between 135-75 BCE, inspired by Oscan; this tradition goes back to &quot;[usque ad] Accium et ultra&quot; (Quint.);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - was used only **sometimes**; mostly limited to **the first syllable** of a&#xD;&#xA;   word; mostly restricted to **A** (less so with E and V; virtually nonexistent&#xD;&#xA;   with I and O): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples from Leumann:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AA: aara, maanium, faato naatam, paastores, Vaalus, Vaarius; famaa;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EE: ree, seedes, Sullai Feelici, leege;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VV: Luucius Puupius, cuurauerunt, iuure, arbitratuu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OO: uootum, Vrsioonis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **I longa:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **occasionally**, appeared at the end of of the OL period; no longer in use in the imperial period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples: FEL**I**CI, V**I**CVS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 3. **diphthongs:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;long u: (between 100- BCE)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;long i: ei (between 150-70 BCE) Sullae Fel**ei**ci (cf. Fel**i**cei)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **the apex:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; appeared at the end of the OL period (104 BCE); various shapes, **coronis** and **acutus**; ousted the first three; Leumann writes that its use was non-binding and rare, cf. &quot;aber auch dessen Anwendung ist nur ganz unverbindlich und selten&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quint. &quot;longis syllabis omnibus adponere apicem ineptissimum est&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The apex was inscribed over i in exceptional cases only (that's why some researchers choose to say never).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote about [macrons][3] already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iCgIE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1455/39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5889" RevisionGUID="f49f69fe-a225-423a-b940-face4c3c4cb5" CreationDate="2018-01-28T00:27:11.317" UserId="39" Comment="added 362 characters in body" Text="brief notes based mostly on [Wallace 2011][1] and Leumann 1977.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Geminatio vocalium** (the double writing of a long vowel): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - used primarily between 135-75 BCE, inspired by Oscan; this tradition goes back to &quot;[usque ad] Accium et ultra&quot; (Quint.);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - was used only **sometimes**; mostly limited to **the first syllable** of a&#xD;&#xA;   word; mostly restricted to **A** (less so with E and V; virtually nonexistent&#xD;&#xA;   with I and O): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples from Leumann:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AA: aara, maanium, faato naatam, paastores, Vaalus, Vaarius; famaa;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EE: ree, seedes, Sullai Feelici, leege;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VV: Luucius Puupius, cuurauerunt, iuure, arbitratuu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OO: uootum, Vrsioonis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **I longa:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **occasionally**, appeared at the end of of the OL period; no longer in use in the imperial period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples: FEL**I**CI, V**I**CVS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;nec quicquam meliust mihi, ut opinor, quam ex me ut unam faciam litteram longam &lt;meum&gt; laqueo collum quando opstrinxero&quot; (Plautus, Aul. 77); &quot;The best thing for me, I suppose, is to tie a good tight noose around my neck and to stretch myself into one long letter&quot; (transl. by W. de Melo)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 3. **diphthongs:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;long u: (between 100- BCE)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;long i: ei (between 150-70 BCE) Sullae Fel**ei**ci (cf. Fel**i**cei)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **the apex:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; appeared at the end of the OL period (104 BCE); various shapes, **coronis** and **acutus**; ousted the first three; Leumann writes that its use was non-binding and rare, cf. &quot;aber auch dessen Anwendung ist nur ganz unverbindlich und selten&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quint. &quot;longis syllabis omnibus adponere apicem ineptissimum est&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The apex was inscribed over i in exceptional cases only (that's why some researchers choose to say never).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote about [macrons][3] already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iCgIE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1455/39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5898" RevisionGUID="4e3bbcde-fe32-4bc4-80cb-9844bf71bae2" CreationDate="2018-01-28T00:56:52.263" UserId="2357" Text="I'm trying to decipher this text, or find at least part of a sentence so I can find the complete text online (if it exists) I believe it's latin, but stand to be corrected. The primary reason is I wanted to see if there is a recording of this. I suspect it's gregorian chant, and I looked through a lot of such lyrics but couldn't find text that looks similar in any of the books I had. &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/z9JyS.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19507" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5898" RevisionGUID="4e3bbcde-fe32-4bc4-80cb-9844bf71bae2" CreationDate="2018-01-28T00:56:52.263" UserId="2357" Text="Can someone tell me what this text is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19508" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5898" RevisionGUID="4e3bbcde-fe32-4bc4-80cb-9844bf71bae2" CreationDate="2018-01-28T00:56:52.263" UserId="2357" Text="|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5898" RevisionGUID="fc097c50-80e5-4480-9718-9a312adb909b" CreationDate="2018-01-28T01:05:00.130" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="I'm trying to decipher this text, or find at least part of a sentence so I can find the complete text online (if it exists) I believe it's Latin, but stand to be corrected. The primary reason is I wanted to see if there is a recording of this. I suspect it's Gregorian chant, and I looked through a lot of such lyrics but couldn't find text that looks similar in any of the books I had. &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/z9JyS.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19510" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5898" RevisionGUID="fc097c50-80e5-4480-9718-9a312adb909b" CreationDate="2018-01-28T01:05:00.130" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|medieval-latin|paleography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5889" RevisionGUID="0d4b0af2-afbf-4a7b-b6a7-9a2ccefcfcb7" CreationDate="2018-01-28T01:17:32.277" UserId="39" Comment="added 210 characters in body" Text="The following is based mostly on Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011, Leumann 1977, and [Wallace 2011][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Geminatio vocalium** (the double writing of a long vowel): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - used primarily between 135-75 BCE, &quot;sporadically also later&quot; (Clackson and Horrocks); inspired by Oscan; this tradition goes back to &quot;[usque ad] Accium et ultra&quot; (Quint.);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - was used only **sometimes**; mostly limited to **the first syllable** of a&#xD;&#xA;   word; mostly restricted to **A** (less so with E and V; virtually nonexistent&#xD;&#xA;   with I and O): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples from Leumann:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AA: aara, maanium, faato naatam, paastores, Vaalus, Vaarius; famaa;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EE: ree, seedes, Sullai Feelici, leege;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VV: Luucius Puupius, cuurauerunt, iuure, arbitratuu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OO: uootum, Vrsioonis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **I longa:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **occasionally**, in use from around 110 BCE; no longer in use in the imperial period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples: FEL**I**CI, V**I**CVS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;nec quicquam meliust mihi, ut opinor, quam ex me ut unam faciam litteram longam &lt;meum&gt; laqueo collum quando opstrinxero&quot; (Plautus, Aul. 77); &quot;The best thing for me, I suppose, is to tie a good tight noose around my neck and to stretch myself into one long letter&quot; (transl. by W. de Melo)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I longa was also used for other purposes (e.g. decorative short i or the close articulation of short i before another vowel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 3. **diphthongs:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;long u: (between 100- BCE)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;long i: ei (between 150-70 BCE) Sullae Fel**ei**ci (cf. Fel**i**cei)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **the apex:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; in use from the end of the OL period (104 BCE); various shapes, **coronis** and **acutus**; ousted the first three; Leumann writes that its use was non-binding and rare, cf. &quot;aber auch dessen Anwendung ist nur ganz unverbindlich und selten&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quint. &quot;longis syllabis omnibus adponere apicem ineptissimum est&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The apex was inscribed over i in exceptional cases only (that's why some researchers choose to say never).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote about [macrons][3] already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iCgIE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1455/39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5889" RevisionGUID="6c3f6691-3a76-417b-bcae-21a146e528d7" CreationDate="2018-01-28T01:26:57.507" UserId="39" Comment="added 210 characters in body" Text="The following is based mostly on Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011, Leumann 1977, and [Wallace 2011][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, something to keep in mind, as Weiss 2009/2011 puts it, is that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Long vowels **were generally not distinguished** in Latin orthography&quot; (p. 29; emphasis mine - Alex B.). That being said, there were four exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Geminatio vocalium** (the double writing of a long vowel): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - used primarily between 135-75 BCE, &quot;sporadically also later&quot; (Clackson and Horrocks); inspired by Oscan; this tradition goes back to &quot;[usque ad] Accium et ultra&quot; (Quint.), cf. Velius Longus &quot;nam nec Accium secuti sumus semper vocales geminantem, ubicumque producitur syllaba&quot; (&quot;For neither do we follow Accius in always geminating vowels whenever the syllable is long&quot; - transl. by Weiss).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - was used only **sometimes**; mostly limited to **the first syllable** of a&#xD;&#xA;   word; mostly restricted to **A** (less so with E and V; virtually nonexistent&#xD;&#xA;   with I and O): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples from Leumann:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AA: aara, maanium, faato naatam, paastores, Vaalus, Vaarius; famaa;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EE: ree, seedes, Sullai Feelici, leege;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VV: Luucius Puupius, cuurauerunt, iuure, arbitratuu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OO: uootum, Vrsioonis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **I longa:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **occasionally**, in use from around 110 BCE; no longer in use in the imperial period. Weiss calls it &quot;a kind of *i* on steroids.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples: FEL**I**CI, V**I**CVS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;nec quicquam meliust mihi, ut opinor, quam ex me ut unam faciam litteram longam &lt;meum&gt; laqueo collum quando opstrinxero&quot; (Plautus, Aul. 77); &quot;The best thing for me, I suppose, is to tie a good tight noose around my neck and to stretch myself into one long letter&quot; (transl. by W. de Melo)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I longa was also used for other purposes (e.g. decorative short i or the close articulation of short i before another vowel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 3. **diphthongs:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;long u: (between 100- BCE)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;long i: ei (between 150-70 BCE) Sullae Fel**ei**ci (cf. Fel**i**cei)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **the apex:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; in use from the end of the OL period (104 BCE); various shapes, **coronis** and **acutus**; ousted the first three; Leumann writes that its use was non-binding and rare, cf. &quot;aber auch dessen Anwendung ist nur ganz unverbindlich und selten&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quint. &quot;longis syllabis omnibus adponere apicem ineptissimum est&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The apex was inscribed over i in exceptional cases only (that's why some researchers choose to say never).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote about [macrons][3] already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iCgIE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1455/39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5899" RevisionGUID="635bdda8-ccf4-47c1-84b8-c74173e2f334" CreationDate="2018-01-28T01:29:33.600" UserId="79" Text="The text says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Trinum deum et unum pronis men-  &#xD;&#xA;tibus adoremus virginique matri  &#xD;&#xA;gratulantibus animis iugiter iubilemus.  &#xD;&#xA;Venite exultemus domino iubliemus de-  &#xD;&#xA;o salutari nostro praeoccupemus faciem e-  &#xD;&#xA;ius in confessione et in psalmis iubilemus  &#xD;&#xA;ei. Quoniam deus magnus dominus  &#xD;&#xA;et rex magnus super omnes deos quoniam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I failed to find this specific text anywhere, but it certainly looks like some kind of a chant with elements pulled from the Psalms.&#xD;&#xA;The individual parts starting with capital letters might have different origins.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps someone else can point you to the source(s)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5889" RevisionGUID="004a7982-0bd1-45ee-90f9-c74252eff43c" CreationDate="2018-01-28T01:35:00.763" UserId="39" Comment="added 210 characters in body" Text="The following is based mostly on Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011, Leumann 1977, and [Wallace 2011][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, something to keep in mind, as Weiss 2009/2011 puts it, is that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Long vowels **were generally not distinguished** in Latin orthography&quot; (p. 29; emphasis mine - Alex B.). That being said, there were four exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Geminatio vocalium** (the double writing of a long vowel): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - used primarily between 135-75 BCE, &quot;sporadically also later&quot; (Clackson and Horrocks); inspired by Oscan; this tradition goes back to &quot;[usque ad] Accium et ultra&quot; (Quint.), cf. Velius Longus &quot;nam nec Accium secuti sumus semper vocales geminantem, ubicumque producitur syllaba&quot; (&quot;For neither do we follow Accius in always geminating vowels whenever the syllable is long&quot; - transl. by Weiss).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - was used only **sometimes**; mostly limited to **the first syllable** of a&#xD;&#xA;   word; mostly restricted to **A** (less so with E and V; virtually nonexistent&#xD;&#xA;   with I and O): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples from Leumann:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AA: aara, maanium, faato naatam, paastores, Vaalus, Vaarius; famaa;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EE: ree, seedes, Sullai Feelici, leege;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VV: Luucius Puupius, cuurauerunt, iuure, arbitratuu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OO: uootum, Vrsioonis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **I longa:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **occasionally**, in use from around 110 BCE; no longer in use in the imperial period. Weiss calls it &quot;a kind of *i* on steroids.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples: FEL**I**CI, V**I**CVS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;nec quicquam meliust mihi, ut opinor, quam ex me ut unam faciam litteram longam &lt;meum&gt; laqueo collum quando opstrinxero&quot; (Plautus, Aul. 77); &quot;The best thing for me, I suppose, is to tie a good tight noose around my neck and to stretch myself into one long letter&quot; (transl. by W. de Melo)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I longa was also used for other purposes (e.g. decorative short i or the close articulation of short i before another vowel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 3. **diphthongs:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;long u: (between 100- BCE)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;long i: ei (between 150-70 BCE) Sullae Fel**ei**ci (cf. Fel**i**cei)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **the apex:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; in use from the end of the OL period (MV́RVM, 104 BCE); various shapes, **[coronis][2]** and **acutus**; ousted the first three; Leumann writes that its use was non-binding and rare, cf. &quot;aber auch dessen Anwendung ist nur ganz unverbindlich und selten&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quint. &quot;longis syllabis omnibus adponere apicem ineptissimum est&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The apex was inscribed over i in exceptional cases only (that's why some researchers choose to say never).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote about [macrons][3] already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coronis#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1455/39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5900" RevisionGUID="70a57150-ed22-4e79-a99c-548c09b5708e" CreationDate="2018-01-28T01:41:07.413" UserId="985" Text="Lines 4 and following are Psalm 94. As to lines 1–3, I believe what we have is an example of an *antiphon*, where a bit of chant that is extraneous to a psalm precedes, follows, and (I believe) is also repeated between the verses of that psalm. Specifically, this should be an example of an *invitatory*, since it uses Psalm 94. The details from the courses in early music that I took as an undergrad are a bit sketchy, unfortunately, but I just found [this nice-looking illustrated guide](http://cantus.uwaterloo.ca/sites/default/files/documents/1.%20Quick%20Guide%20to%20Liturgy.pdf)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5889" RevisionGUID="1b769e78-5a85-4ce1-99e1-b3d25fc0810a" CreationDate="2018-01-28T01:43:26.357" UserId="39" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="The following is based mostly on Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011, Leumann 1977, and [Wallace 2011][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, something to keep in mind, as Weiss 2009/2011 puts it, is that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Long vowels **were generally not distinguished** in Latin orthography&quot; (p. 29; emphasis mine - Alex B.). That being said, there were four exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Geminatio vocalium** (the double writing of a long vowel): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - used primarily between 135-75 BCE, &quot;sporadically also later&quot; (Clackson and Horrocks); inspired by Oscan; this tradition goes back to &quot;[usque ad] Accium et ultra&quot; (Quint.), cf. Velius Longus &quot;nam nec Accium secuti sumus semper vocales geminantem, ubicumque producitur syllaba&quot; (&quot;For neither do we follow Accius in always geminating vowels whenever the syllable is long&quot; - transl. by Weiss).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - was used only **sometimes**; mostly limited to **the first syllable** of a&#xD;&#xA;   word; mostly restricted to **A** (less so with E and V; virtually nonexistent&#xD;&#xA;   with I and O): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples from Leumann:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AA: aara, maanium, faato naatam, paastores, Vaalus, Vaarius; famaa;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EE: ree, seedes, Sullai Feelici, leege;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VV: Luucius Puupius, cuurauerunt, iuure, arbitratuu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OO: uootum, Vrsioonis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **I longa:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **occasionally**, in use from around 110 BCE; no longer in use in the imperial period. Weiss calls it &quot;a kind of *i* on steroids.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples: FEL**I**CI, V**I**CVS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;nec quicquam meliust mihi, ut opinor, quam ex me ut unam faciam litteram longam &lt;meum&gt; laqueo collum quando opstrinxero&quot; (Plautus, Aul. 77); &quot;The best thing for me, I suppose, is to tie a good tight noose around my neck and to stretch myself into one long letter&quot; (transl. by W. de Melo)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I longa was also used for other purposes (e.g. decorative short i or the close articulation of short i before another vowel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 3. **diphthongs:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;long u: oi, oe, ou (from 100 BCE until the imperial period)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;long i: ei (between 150-70 BCE) Sullae Fel**ei**ci (cf. Fel**i**cei)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **the apex:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; in use from the end of the OL period (MV́RVM, 104 BCE); various shapes, **[coronis][2]** and **acutus**; ousted the first three; Leumann writes that its use was non-binding and rare, cf. &quot;aber auch dessen Anwendung ist nur ganz unverbindlich und selten&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quint. &quot;longis syllabis omnibus adponere apicem ineptissimum est&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The apex was inscribed over i in exceptional cases only (that's why some researchers choose to say never).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote about [macrons][3] already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coronis#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1455/39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5900" RevisionGUID="cb7ac52c-636d-42b3-be67-e640dc1aed5b" CreationDate="2018-01-28T01:48:18.033" UserId="985" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Lines 4 and following are Psalm 94. As to lines 1–3, I believe what we have is an example of an *antiphon*, where a bit of chant that is extraneous to a psalm precedes, follows, and sometimes (I believe) is also repeated between the verses of that psalm. Specifically, this should be an example of an *invitatory*, since it uses Psalm 94. The details from the courses in early music that I took as an undergrad are a bit sketchy, unfortunately, but I just found [this nice-looking illustrated guide](http://cantus.uwaterloo.ca/sites/default/files/documents/1.%20Quick%20Guide%20to%20Liturgy.pdf)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5889" RevisionGUID="2bdbcc3a-8a02-4a9d-adb0-1bda8e1a1ae3" CreationDate="2018-01-28T02:22:41.417" UserId="39" Comment="added 392 characters in body" Text="The following is based mostly on Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011, Leumann 1977, and [Wallace 2011][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, something to keep in mind, as Weiss 2009/2011 puts it, is that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Long vowels **were generally not distinguished** in Latin orthography&quot; (p. 29; emphasis mine - Alex B.). That being said, there were four exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Geminatio vocalium** (the double writing of a long vowel): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - used primarily between 135-75 BCE, &quot;sporadically also later&quot; (Clackson and Horrocks); inspired by Oscan; this tradition goes back to &quot;[usque ad] Accium et ultra&quot; (Quint.), cf. Velius Longus &quot;nam nec Accium secuti sumus semper vocales geminantem, ubicumque producitur syllaba&quot; (&quot;For neither do we follow Accius in always geminating vowels whenever the syllable is long&quot; - transl. by Weiss).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - was used only **sometimes**; mostly limited to **the first syllable** of a&#xD;&#xA;   word; mostly restricted to **A** (less so with E and V; virtually nonexistent&#xD;&#xA;   with I and O): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples from Leumann:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AA: aara, maanium, faato naatam, paastores, Vaalus, Vaarius; famaa;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EE: ree, seedes, Sullai Feelici, leege;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VV: Luucius Puupius, cuurauerunt, iuure, arbitratuu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OO: uootum, Vrsioonis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **I longa:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **occasionally**, in use from around 110 BCE; no longer in use in the imperial period. Weiss calls it &quot;a kind of *i* on steroids.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples: FEL**I**CI, V**I**CVS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;nec quicquam meliust mihi, ut opinor, quam ex me ut unam faciam litteram longam &lt;meum&gt; laqueo collum quando opstrinxero&quot; (Plautus, Aul. 77); &quot;The best thing for me, I suppose, is to tie a good tight noose around my neck and to stretch myself into one long letter&quot; (transl. by W. de Melo)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I longa was also used for other purposes (e.g. decorative short i or the close articulation of short i before another vowel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 3. **diphthongs:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;long u: oi, oe, ou (from 100 BCE until the imperial period)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;long i: ei (between 150-70 BCE) Sullae Fel**ei**ci (cf. Fel**i**cei)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **the apex:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; in use from the end of the OL period (MV́RVM, 104 BCE); various shapes, **[coronis][2]** and **acutus**; ousted the first three; Leumann writes that its use was non-binding and rare, cf. &quot;aber auch dessen Anwendung ist nur ganz unverbindlich und selten&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quint. &quot;longis syllabis omnibus adponere apicem ineptissimum est&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The apex was inscribed over i in exceptional cases only (that's why some researchers choose to say never).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give you an idea how frequent the apex was, let's take a look at a fragment of [the Laudatio Turiae][3] (late 1st century BCE). There are eleven lines in this fragment and only two occurrences of the apex (órnamentis in line 2; domús in line 9).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote about [macrons][5] already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch2/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coronis#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudatio_Turiae&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2HYMH.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1455/39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5901" RevisionGUID="c594573e-06c9-4672-9997-9d8ea16c9b04" CreationDate="2018-01-28T05:32:13.130" UserId="985" Text="As to lines 2 and 3, there are *ut* clauses that follow comparatives (see, for example, Allen &amp; Greenough, *New Latin grammar*, §535, c); however, (1) they require a *quam*; and (2) they mean, e.g., 'too foolish to...' rather than 'foolish enough to....' Therefore, although this construction works for line 3 of your statement, it doesn't work well for line 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, for 'foolish enough to try to change the world,' I suggest *satis stulti* (genitive, to agree with *militis*, as Joonas noted in his answer) + *ut* + subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This use of *satis* + *ut* + subjunctive can be found in, e.g., Livy, *Ab urbe condita* 7.9.11 (granted that *satis* in this example is a predicate adjective, not an adverb):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fabio satis visum ut ovans urbem iniret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To Fabius is seemed sufficient that he enter the city in an *ovatio*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, combining the two constructions, you could say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; satis stulti ut mundum mutare conatus sit,  &#xD;&#xA;firmioris quam ut mundo mutari potuerit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; foolish enough that he tried to change the world,  &#xD;&#xA;stronger than that he was able to be changed by the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, you could balance the *satis* with a *nimis*, replacing the comparative form *firmioris* with the positive form *firmi*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; satis stulti ut mundum mutare conatus sit,  &#xD;&#xA;nimis firmi quam ut mundo mutari potuerit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that I've preferred to use a perfect subjunctive in both lines.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ I'm not sure about *mundus*, though it may be correct; it depends what you mean by 'the world' in this context. *'Bradley's Arnold' Latin prose composition*, §16, b has a nice summary of the issue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Again, we might meet with the word 'world' in an English sentence; but we cannot translate it into Latin till we know whether it means 'the whole universe,' or 'this globe,' or 'the nations of the world,' or 'people generally,' or 'mankind,' or 'life on earth.'&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; *Num cāsū factus est mundus?* Was the world (sun, moon, stars, and earth) made by chance?  &#xD;&#xA;    &gt; *Lūna circum tellūrem movētur.* The moon moves round the world (this planet).  &#xD;&#xA;    &gt; *Orbī terrārum* (or *omnibus gentibus*) *imperābant Rōmānī.* The Romans were rulers of the world.  &#xD;&#xA;    &gt; *Omnēs* (*hominēs*) *īnsānīre eum crēdunt.* The whole world thinks him out of his mind.  &#xD;&#xA;    &gt; *Nēmō usquam.* No one in the world.  &#xD;&#xA;    &gt; *Multum hominibus nocuit.* He did the world much harm.  &#xD;&#xA;    &gt; *In hāc vītā numquam eum sum vīsūrus.* I shall never see him in this world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Joonas's *innominatus* may very well be the best solution for 'nameless'; but again, I think it depends what you mean by 'nameless' in this context. If you mean that the soldier's name just isn't *known*, something like *militis nomine non noti* ('a soldier not known by name') might be more accurate.&#xD;&#xA;+ Finally, I believe *perpetua memoria* (ablative) should be *perpetuam memoriam* (accusative). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5902" RevisionGUID="7d84517f-50d6-43e0-87a1-f170f482719b" CreationDate="2018-01-28T17:18:17.160" UserId="79" Text="There is a contraction from the regular *visne* to *vin*.&#xD;&#xA;Is the same contraction with *-ne* attested with other verbs in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I don't recall seeing questions like *loquerin Latine* or *haben equum* or *en Graecus*.&#xD;&#xA;(Here _*en &lt; esne_; I'm not referring to *en &amp;approx; ecce*.)&#xD;&#xA;Is the phenomenon unique to *velle*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5902" RevisionGUID="7d84517f-50d6-43e0-87a1-f170f482719b" CreationDate="2018-01-28T17:18:17.160" UserId="79" Text="Is visne &gt; vin unique?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5902" RevisionGUID="7d84517f-50d6-43e0-87a1-f170f482719b" CreationDate="2018-01-28T17:18:17.160" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|morphology|suffixes|enclitic|contraction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5903" RevisionGUID="d53485e5-04ab-4362-ac4d-095115af3a08" CreationDate="2018-01-28T19:48:01.083" UserId="985" Text="I know of 2 others off the top of my head. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *satin* from *satisne*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Plautus, *Amphitruo* 604:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; quas, malum, nugas? satin tu sanus es?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Cicero, *De officiis* 3.73:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; quid ergo? satin est hoc, ut non deliquisse videantur?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *scin* from *scisne*, mentioned by Rafael in a comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Plautus, *Amphitruo* 671:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; scin quam bono animo sim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Cicero, *Epistulae ad Atticum* 1.13.4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; tuus autem ille amicus (scin quem dicam? de quo tu ad me scripsisti, postea quam non auderet reprehendere laudare coepisse) nos, ut ostendit, admodum diligit, amplectitur, amat, aperte laudat, occulte, sed ita ut perspicuum sit, invidet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5901" RevisionGUID="b8fc8de1-a239-4006-bd5f-2f650067695d" CreationDate="2018-01-28T19:50:19.837" UserId="985" Comment="deleted 221 characters in body" Text="As to lines 2 and 3, there are *ut* clauses that follow comparatives (see, for example, Allen &amp; Greenough, *New Latin grammar*, §535, c); however, (1) they require a *quam*; and (2) they mean, e.g., 'too foolish to...' rather than 'foolish enough to....' Therefore, although this construction works for line 3 of your statement, it doesn't work well for line 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, for 'foolish enough to try to change the world,' I suggest *satis stulti* (genitive, to agree with *militis*, as Joonas noted in his answer) + *ut* + subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This use of *satis* + *ut* + subjunctive can be found in, e.g., Livy, *Ab urbe condita* 7.9.11 (granted that *satis* in this example is a predicate adjective, not an adverb):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fabio satis visum ut ovans urbem iniret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To Fabius is seemed sufficient that he enter the city in an *ovatio*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, combining the two constructions, you could say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; satis stulti ut mundum mutare conatus sit,  &#xD;&#xA;firmioris quam ut mundo mutari potuerit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; foolish enough that he tried to change the world,  &#xD;&#xA;stronger than that he was able to be changed by the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that I've preferred to use a perfect subjunctive in both lines.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ I'm not sure about *mundus*, though it may be correct; it depends what you mean by 'the world' in this context. *'Bradley's Arnold' Latin prose composition*, §16, b has a nice summary of the issue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Again, we might meet with the word 'world' in an English sentence; but we cannot translate it into Latin till we know whether it means 'the whole universe,' or 'this globe,' or 'the nations of the world,' or 'people generally,' or 'mankind,' or 'life on earth.'&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; *Num cāsū factus est mundus?* Was the world (sun, moon, stars, and earth) made by chance?  &#xD;&#xA;    &gt; *Lūna circum tellūrem movētur.* The moon moves round the world (this planet).  &#xD;&#xA;    &gt; *Orbī terrārum* (or *omnibus gentibus*) *imperābant Rōmānī.* The Romans were rulers of the world.  &#xD;&#xA;    &gt; *Omnēs* (*hominēs*) *īnsānīre eum crēdunt.* The whole world thinks him out of his mind.  &#xD;&#xA;    &gt; *Nēmō usquam.* No one in the world.  &#xD;&#xA;    &gt; *Multum hominibus nocuit.* He did the world much harm.  &#xD;&#xA;    &gt; *In hāc vītā numquam eum sum vīsūrus.* I shall never see him in this world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Joonas's *innominatus* may very well be the best solution for 'nameless'; but again, I think it depends what you mean by 'nameless' in this context. If you mean that the soldier's name just isn't *known*, something like *militis nomine non noti* ('a soldier not known by name') might be more accurate.&#xD;&#xA;+ Finally, I believe *perpetua memoria* (ablative) should be *perpetuam memoriam* (accusative). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5904" RevisionGUID="ed53a705-9588-44a4-914a-0614431c9e55" CreationDate="2018-01-28T20:44:59.277" UserId="39" Text="Weiss writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The interrogative enclitic particle -ne becomes -n in Plautus when apocope produces an acceptable coda&quot; (p. 147, footnote 79), i.e. *-Vsn- &gt; *-V ̅n- (I.B.8.b, p. 169). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He gives the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**scivin** (Pseud. 977), **vin** (Curc. 313).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He also says that &quot;[v]erbal forms ending in -s often lose the s with compensatory lengthening&quot; (p. 147, footnote 79), e.g. **nostin** (found in Terrence and Plautus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More examples from &quot;Syntax and Stilistik&quot; (Szantyr et al. 1965/2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ain** (from ais-ne), **audin**, **censen**, **pergin**, **scin**, **viden**, **vin** (p. 461).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5898" RevisionGUID="e48d8875-5f51-4463-bec9-188294b392f2" CreationDate="2018-01-28T21:17:26.717" UserId="440" Comment="Title that describes the question" Text="I'm trying to decipher this text, or find at least part of a sentence so I can find the complete text online. I believe it's Latin, but stand to be corrected. The primary reason is I wanted to see if there is a recording of this. I suspect it's Gregorian chant, and I looked through a lot of such lyrics but couldn't find text that looks similar in any of the books I had. &#xD;&#xA;[![Image of manuscript with musical notation and lyric][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/z9JyS.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19530" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5898" RevisionGUID="e48d8875-5f51-4463-bec9-188294b392f2" CreationDate="2018-01-28T21:17:26.717" UserId="440" Comment="Title that describes the question" Text="Deciphering Latin text in an illuminated musical manuscript" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19531" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5898" RevisionGUID="e48d8875-5f51-4463-bec9-188294b392f2" CreationDate="2018-01-28T21:17:26.717" Comment="Proposed by 440 approved by 79 edit id of 223" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5905" RevisionGUID="fb36286b-3af4-4800-b1a5-5150acc34150" CreationDate="2018-01-28T23:56:26.257" UserId="2363" Text="Fairly frequently in Latin one encounters a &quot;backwards&quot; comparison, in which the relative pronoun in the ablative precedes the term of comparison. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...philosophiam ad te adlegem, **qua** nec mihi **carior** ulla umquam res in vita fuit ...  (Cic. Fam. 15.4.16)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many similar phrases: quo nihil optatius, qua nihil utilius, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is whether this construction ever occurs without the negative. A&amp;G seems to imply that it does, but the example given in fact contains a negative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Section 407&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 3— Relative pronouns having a definite antecedent never take quam in this construction, but always the ablative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rēx erat Aenēās nōbīs, quō iūstior alter nec, etc. (Aen. 1.544)&#xD;&#xA;Æneas was our king, than whom no other [was] more righteous, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm not even sure what &quot;in this construction&quot; means, unless it's just referring back to &quot;having a definite antecedent.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I think A&amp;G implies that there are such positive constructions is that the very next subsection deals with negatives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have not been able to find one. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19533" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5905" RevisionGUID="fb36286b-3af4-4800-b1a5-5150acc34150" CreationDate="2018-01-28T23:56:26.257" UserId="2363" Text="Ablative of Comparison w/ Relative Pronoun?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19534" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5905" RevisionGUID="fb36286b-3af4-4800-b1a5-5150acc34150" CreationDate="2018-01-28T23:56:26.257" UserId="2363" Text="|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5905" RevisionGUID="aada32f3-a32d-4b0f-a4d9-9cf9244c2350" CreationDate="2018-01-29T00:11:17.767" UserId="30" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Fairly frequently in Latin one encounters a &quot;backwards&quot; comparison, in which the relative pronoun in the ablative precedes the term of comparison. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...philosophiam ad te adlegem, **qua** nec mihi **carior** ulla umquam res in vita fuit ...  (Cic. Fam. 15.4.16)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many similar phrases: *quo nihil optatius, qua nihil utilius,* etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is whether this construction ever occurs without the negative. A&amp;G seems to imply that it does, but the example given in fact contains a negative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Section 407&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note 3— Relative pronouns having a definite antecedent never take quam in this construction, but always the ablative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rēx erat Aenēās nōbīs, quō iūstior alter nec, etc. (Aen. 1.544)&#xD;&#xA;Æneas was our king, than whom no other [was] more righteous, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm not even sure what &quot;in this construction&quot; means, unless it's just referring back to &quot;having a definite antecedent.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I think A&amp;G implies that there are such positive constructions is that the very next subsection deals with negatives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have not been able to find one. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19536" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5905" RevisionGUID="aada32f3-a32d-4b0f-a4d9-9cf9244c2350" CreationDate="2018-01-29T00:11:17.767" UserId="30" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|ablative|comparative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5906" RevisionGUID="feb0eb51-0761-4579-ae5d-c6a0ee9da2dd" CreationDate="2018-01-29T00:19:08.810" UserId="867" Text="Following the trail to Trinity College, Dublin, I found the text online. The caption reads (in part): &quot;This manuscript was created for the Order of the Most Holy Saviour, also known as the Bridgettines, a monastic order of Augustinian nuns.&quot; It dates from the 15th century, second half. You can see it (and the rest of the exhibition) [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The anitphon (lines 1-3) seems to be unusual, even perhaps unique to this order, because all my Googling of it kept taking me back to them and to a book called [&quot;Myroure of Our Ladye&quot;][2], a book of instructions for the nuns. I mention this because you said you wanted to find a recording. But while the Venite/Psalm 94 itself is widely recorded, I couldn't find versions with this antiphon. But now we know the specific order that used this psalter, perhaps you could find it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://embed.culturalspot.org/embed/exhibit/qQICwr7ULHIqKA?position=32%3A0#&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/themyroureofoure00unkwuoft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5906" RevisionGUID="5fe1ff6a-c5ec-4225-8f28-8e89de3aade5" CreationDate="2018-01-29T00:25:37.837" UserId="867" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="Transcribed from the comments section, as per the request of site moderators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following the trail to Trinity College, Dublin, I found the text online. The caption reads (in part): &quot;This manuscript was created for the Order of the Most Holy Saviour, also known as the Bridgettines, a monastic order of Augustinian nuns.&quot; It dates from the 15th century, second half. You can see it (and the rest of the exhibition) [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The anitphon (lines 1-3) seems to be unusual, even perhaps unique to this order, because all my Googling of it kept taking me back to them and to a book called [&quot;Myroure of Our Ladye&quot;][2], a book of instructions for the nuns. I mention this because you said you wanted to find a recording. But while the Venite/Psalm 94 itself is widely recorded, I couldn't find versions with this antiphon. But now we know the specific order that used this psalter, perhaps you could find it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://embed.culturalspot.org/embed/exhibit/qQICwr7ULHIqKA?position=32%3A0#&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/themyroureofoure00unkwuoft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5852" RevisionGUID="8becdfa9-971f-460b-a060-892e5957b701" CreationDate="2018-01-29T00:26:11.807" UserId="30" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="There are a couple of masculine (or common) nouns of the first declension. Some are from masculine Greek -ês, like *poeta, nauta*. But others, like *collega, advena, parricida, incola, agricola* are natively Latin. What is the origin of this *-a*? And can the same root be observed in other endings / forms? Judging by *parricida*, there might be a conexion with masculine *-as*. But is that also the case with other words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5906" RevisionGUID="5ee50fbe-6ce7-4559-91cc-07f7eabf812f" CreationDate="2018-01-29T00:52:13.223" UserId="867" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="In addition to the above answers, the following may provide some further background to your text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following the trail to Trinity College, Dublin, I found the text online. The caption reads (in part): &quot;This manuscript was created for the Order of the Most Holy Saviour, also known as the Bridgettines, a monastic order of Augustinian nuns.&quot; It dates from the 15th century, second half. You can see it (and the rest of the exhibition) [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The anitphon (lines 1-3) seems to be unusual, even perhaps unique to this order, because all my Googling of it kept taking me back to them and to a book called [&quot;Myroure of Our Ladye&quot;][2], a book of instructions for the nuns. I mention this because you said you wanted to find a recording. But while the Venite/Psalm 94 itself is widely recorded, I couldn't find versions with this antiphon. But now we know the specific order that used this psalter, perhaps you could find it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://embed.culturalspot.org/embed/exhibit/qQICwr7ULHIqKA?position=32%3A0#&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/themyroureofoure00unkwuoft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5852" RevisionGUID="682a240b-bf0d-4b14-8986-b7e48e6483d0" CreationDate="2018-01-29T01:03:31.167" UserId="30" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="There are a couple of masculine (or common) nouns of the first declension. Some are from masculine Greek -ês, like *poeta, nauta*. But others, like *collega, advena, parricida, scriba, incola, agricola* are natively Latin. What is the origin of this *-a*? And can the same root be observed in other endings / forms? Judging by *parricida*, there might be a conexion with masculine *-as*. But is that also the case with other words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5907" RevisionGUID="d12db9c4-7cc5-4aae-9199-8a04c06456fc" CreationDate="2018-01-29T02:55:14.550" UserId="2363" Text="Fortunately, there is a straightforward answer. In medieval Latin, the ablative gerund often communicates manner. The result is not so different from a participle or even an adverb or adverbial phrase. For example, you will read that someone is doing something &quot;flendo.&quot; This doesn't mean &quot;by means of weeping,&quot; it just means &quot;while weeping&quot; or &quot;in tears.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the clause in question would mean &quot;Since he looked with pity and election&quot; or &quot;with a pitying, electing gaze.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="278fe5e1-8a43-4667-99a1-2cf843864876" CreationDate="2018-01-29T05:34:10.490" UserId="39" Text="So far, a brief quote re: some cases you've mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Masculine nouns of the first declension that we find in Latin are largely personalizations of feminine abstracts&quot; (p. 228).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, *scriba* originally meant 'writing' and *agricola* originally meant 'fieldwork.'&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5909" RevisionGUID="abbec4fa-e66f-4956-88f2-4e82bd03585f" CreationDate="2018-01-29T07:46:30.373" UserId="985" Text="According to Gildersleeve and Lodge, *Latin grammar* §296, Remark 1.b.2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Abl. [of comparison] is very common in negative sentences, and is used exclusively in negative relative sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, although a noun or pronoun other than a relative pronoun is often used as an ablative of comparison in negative sentences, the relative pronoun is used in this way only in negative sentences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5907" RevisionGUID="e3d875ad-a323-4344-8f4a-9471341bfc93" CreationDate="2018-01-29T13:52:44.190" UserId="2363" Comment="added source" Text="Fortunately, there is a straightforward answer. In medieval Latin, the ablative gerund often communicates manner. The result is not so different from a participle or even an adverb or adverbial phrase. For example, you will read that someone is doing something &quot;flendo.&quot; This doesn't mean &quot;by means of weeping,&quot; it just means &quot;while weeping&quot; or &quot;in tears.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the clause in question would mean &quot;Since he looked with pity and election&quot; or &quot;with a pitying, electing gaze.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From A&amp;G:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ablative of the Gerund and Gerundive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;507. The ablative of the gerund and gerundive is used (1) to express manner, means, cause, etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5 In this [manner] use the ablative of the gerund is, in later writers nearly, and in mediæval writers entirely, equivalent to a present participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cum ūnā diērum FLENDŌ sēdisset, quīdam mīles generōsus iūxtā eam EQUITANDŌ vēnit. (Gesta Romanorum, 66 [58]) As one day she sat weeping, a certain knight came riding by (compare § 507, fourth example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hence come the Italian and Spanish forms of the present participle (as mandando, esperando), the true participial form becoming an adjective in those languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5899" RevisionGUID="07b1fd87-b079-4d7d-8648-288afba23d96" CreationDate="2018-01-29T14:56:43.060" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The text says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Trinum deum et unum pronis men-  &#xD;&#xA;tibus adoremus virginique matri  &#xD;&#xA;gratulantibus animis iugiter iubilemus.  &#xD;&#xA;Venite exultemus domino iublemus de-  &#xD;&#xA;o salutari nostro praeoccupemus faciem e-  &#xD;&#xA;ius in confessione et in psalmis iubilemus  &#xD;&#xA;ei. Quoniam deus magnus dominus  &#xD;&#xA;et rex magnus super omnes deos quoniam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I failed to find this specific text anywhere, but it certainly looks like some kind of a chant with elements pulled from the Psalms.&#xD;&#xA;The individual parts starting with capital letters might have different origins.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps someone else can point you to the source(s)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="887" RevisionGUID="6063bd7f-1d36-4630-8a2d-675a7c261020" CreationDate="2018-01-29T15:09:12.573" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I've been thinking of this one and suddenly remebered the use of *singulis* + period of time in pl. abl. (*singulis annis*, *singulis horis*). ***Singulis quadrienniis*** is even attested a couple of times: [1](https://books.google.cl/books?id=UQNFAAAAcAAJ&amp;lpg=PA454&amp;ots=laIztjXV6M&amp;dq=%22singulis%20quadrienniis%22&amp;pg=PA454#v=onepage&amp;q=%22singulis%20quadrienniis%22&amp;f=false), [2](https://books.google.cl/books?id=THFBAAAAcAAJ&amp;lpg=PA89&amp;ots=UgCuBKSb5y&amp;dq=%22singulis%20quadrienniis%22&amp;pg=PA89#v=onepage&amp;q=%22singulis%20quadrienniis%22&amp;f=false), [3](https://books.google.cl/books/about/Elenchus_tractatuum_et_quaestionum_quas.html?id=Tbg4QwAACAAJ&amp;redir_esc=y).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to be valid to mean an average (yet irregular) frequency, as much as a steady one (e.gr., *singulis annis* may be every 13th of May, or at whatever date but once in every calendar year). However, that doesn't seem to be such big deal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5910" RevisionGUID="618db199-b421-41bb-941c-36f03e313e08" CreationDate="2018-01-29T17:55:10.343" UserId="2363" Text="First, let's just note that the English phrase &quot;machine learning&quot; does not unambiguously communicate its meaning. If you had no context for it, you wouldn't know if it meant using a machine to learn, or learning about machines, or a machine doing the learning, etc. So, you've essentially asked for a translation that's more precise than the original phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, even the field of machine learning trades on a few different meanings. Sometimes it refers more to the efforts of researchers trying to teach machines to learn (&quot;Machine learning is a booming research specialty&quot;), sometimes it denotes the desired result, machines that are self-learning (&quot;AlphaZero is a cutting-edge example of machine learning&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the best I can do without getting either extremely creative and inventing new words or making really unwieldy Latin is to offer you a way to say that a machine is self-taught. There is rare precedent for a Latin transliteration of a Greek term: autodidactus for αυτοδιδακτος. But it is available in Latin only as an adjective, so far as I am aware. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;machina autodidacta (self-taught machine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ars machinae autodidactae (the field of study concerning self-teaching machines)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5910" RevisionGUID="936c7e1d-db86-4544-ae1c-f0a3d28a39c1" CreationDate="2018-01-29T19:16:59.690" UserId="2363" Comment="expanded" Text="First, let's just note that the English phrase &quot;machine learning&quot; does not unambiguously communicate its meaning. If you had no context for it, you wouldn't know if it meant using a machine to learn, or learning about machines, or a machine doing the learning, etc. So, you've essentially asked for a translation that's more precise than the original phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, even the field of machine learning trades on a few different meanings. Sometimes it refers more to the efforts of researchers trying to teach machines to learn (&quot;Machine learning is a booming research specialty&quot;), sometimes it denotes the desired result, machines that are self-learning (&quot;AlphaZero is a cutting-edge example of machine learning&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the best I can do without getting either extremely creative and inventing new words or making really unwieldy Latin is to offer you a way to say that a machine is self-taught. There is rare precedent for a Latin transliteration of a Greek term: autodidactus for αυτοδιδακτος. But it is available in Latin only as an adjective, so far as I am aware. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;machina autodidacta (self-taught machine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ars machinae autodidactae (the field of study concerning self-teaching machines)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you're comfortable creating a new Latin verb, we have more options. Let's take &quot;docere&quot;, the basic verb for teaching, and add our -auto prefix: autodocere, to teach one's self. I think the meaning will be clear to Latinists seeing it for the first time, though there may be some disagreement about whether it's proper to graft a Greek prefix onto a Latin verb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This yields machina autodocta, which is equivalent to the previous suggestion. &#xD;&#xA;But we can play around with the verbal sense: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;machina autodocens (self-teaching machine, a machine that is teaching itself) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ars machinae autodocentis (the field of study related to self-teaching machines)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5911" RevisionGUID="0757d485-467c-4240-8ca6-2eb6266b22a2" CreationDate="2018-01-29T19:24:39.703" UserId="2363" Text="Contra te ipsum is fine. It should work just about anywhere a particular verb doesn't demand a different preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quandiu igitur expugnator libidinis eris, tandiu pro me contra te ipsum judex eris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Augustine, Contra Julianum 3.44.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So then, for as long as you will be a conqueror of inordinate desire, you will be a judge [ruling] in my favor against your own self." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4640" RevisionGUID="9731e0a7-b356-45c7-a5b3-2ce9cded431b" CreationDate="2018-01-29T21:06:16.030" UserId="13" Comment="two typos" Text="We're talking about the Gongyla poem. Campbell has it as sourced by P.Oxy. 1231 frr. 12 and 15. Edmonds separates the two. Also, Edmonds' completion is perfectly fine with Grenfell and Hunt's reading of fr. 15, while Campbell has critical notation that seems to exclude it. So on what basis is Campbell putting them together whereas Edmonds splits them? And if Grenfell and Hunt say e.g. l. 1 of fr. 15 ends with `σ[`, why does Campbell have an exta uncertain alpha excluding Edmonds' `κέλομαί σ' [ὄνελθε`? Was something done with the papyrus that revealed more letters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More details**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is Grenfell and Hunt's reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I strip Campbell of all completions, accents and spaces, I get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;.].ϵ.[....].[....]ελομαισα̣[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]γγυλα̣[..]α̣νθιλαβοισανα.[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]κτινασ̣σεδηυτεποθοςτ̣.[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;αμφιποταται&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τανκαλαναγαργατ̣αγωγισαυτα[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;επτοαισιδοισανεγωδεχαιρω&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καιγ̣αραυτ̣αδηπο̣[.]ε̣μεμφ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]υπρογεν[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ω̣σαραμα̣[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τουτοτω[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]ολλομα̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I pair up Grenfell-Hunt &quot;restored&quot; version and Campbell's text, I get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's do some compare&amp;contrast, shall we?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In l. 1, an uncertain near-start nu magically becomes a certain epsilon (!), and, as pointed out above, `σ̣[` at the end of the preserved portion of the line turns to `σα̣[`;&#xD;&#xA; - The totally illegible letter at the start of l. 2 suddenly becomes a certain gamma, and an uncertain letter before the lacuna vanishes; also, the lacuna has 2 letters for GH and only 2 are given as a completion by C; the two last letters of Gongyla become certain; an uncertain alpha is conjured up after the lacuna; the `μ̣α̣` (both uncertain) turns to `να` (both certain);&#xD;&#xA; - A few uncertain letters in l. 3 become certain, and an uncertain nu becomes an uncertain sigma;&#xD;&#xA; - For the rest, it's mostly uncertain letters becoming certain;&#xD;&#xA; - But before the lacuna in l. 8, `δητ[` is suddenly δηπο̣[`; 'xcuse me? How did a certain tau turn to a certain pi with an uncertain omicron suddenly appearing?&#xD;&#xA; - And finally, what about `[.]α̣σ` turning to `ω̣σ`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where did the above changes come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**New info**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Complete Poems of Sappho, by Sean B. Palmer](http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/) is the only one to mention another source, `P. Oxy. XXI (1951) add. p. 125, 11`. Now, I cannot find the volume P.Oxy. XXI on archive.org or elsewhere online, and I cannot seem to find any P.Oxy. XXI images with Sappho (just two commentary fragments I do not really want to transcribe &quot;blind&quot;). So what happened in that source? What does that source give us? What is that source? Is it a papyrus or some kind of scholarly discussion? Is it one of the commentary papyri I found the image of, i.e. [2292](http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH01e4/93fd78cc.dir/POxy.v0021.n2292.a.01.hires.jpg) and [2293](http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH01f6/940d78cc.dir/POxy.v0021.n2293.a.01.hires.jpg)? And if that's the case, how in the world did they give extra certain letters? Quotations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just transcribed 2292 as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     ̩  ̤  ̣‸[...]Ϲ€€ΜΑΚΑΑ̣Τ̣ΑΝΔ[&#xD;&#xA;    ϹΑΓΟΡΓωϹΥΝΔΥΓΑ.ΓΙΤΟΥ̣[&#xD;&#xA;    §A̤[....]ϹΥΞ̣ΗΠΛ€ΙϹΤỌΔΙΚΗ[&#xD;&#xA;    §§§[...]ΗΙΓ[.]ΗΟΙϹΥΝΑΥΞ§€§§[&#xD;&#xA;    §Ṭ§€̣[....]Γ̤ΟΓΓΥΛΗϹΟΝ§§ṆΑϹΘΗ§§[&#xD;&#xA;    §Ϲ€Υ̣[...]ΟΙΝΟΝΓΑΡΤΟΟ§Ρ̣Θ̣Υ̤[.]§[&#xD;&#xA;    §Μ[..]Δ§ΤΑΙΤΙΚΑ̣ΤΑΤΗ  ̣§ ̣  ̣  ̣  ̣  ̣[               TI/H&#xD;&#xA;    [.]Ạ§[...]ΤΑ[.]ΥΤΟΟ̤ΙΚΚΗ̣§§§Ν§ω̣§[&#xD;&#xA;    [.......]§[...]§§Ι̤Λ̣ΘΗΙ̤€Τ̤§§[.]ϜΥ[               Λ/Ϲ&#xD;&#xA;    [............]  ̣ [......]  ̣ ΑṬ ̣ §   ̣ ΟΥΤ§[&#xD;&#xA;    [19 letters]Ν  ̣ ΑΝ§[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The § indicate blank spaces in the papyrus, giving an estimate of the number of letters that would fit in the blank. The fact that l. 5 seems to read Γογγύλης ὀνεμνάσθη(ν), I/(s)he have/has been reminded of Gongyla, near the end seems to support the Campbell version of l. 2, so could you guys help me decipher the rest of this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TBd6p.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sekcG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4640" RevisionGUID="acd4ba4a-e702-4d8b-b85c-1bf173bfbac2" CreationDate="2018-01-29T21:38:48.250" UserId="13" Comment="added Update 3" Text="We're talking about the Gongyla poem. Campbell has it as sourced by P.Oxy. 1231 frr. 12 and 15. Edmonds separates the two. Also, Edmonds' completion is perfectly fine with Grenfell and Hunt's reading of fr. 15, while Campbell has critical notation that seems to exclude it. So on what basis is Campbell putting them together whereas Edmonds splits them? And if Grenfell and Hunt say e.g. l. 1 of fr. 15 ends with `σ[`, why does Campbell have an exta uncertain alpha excluding Edmonds' `κέλομαί σ' [ὄνελθε`? Was something done with the papyrus that revealed more letters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More details**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is Grenfell and Hunt's reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I strip Campbell of all completions, accents and spaces, I get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;.].ϵ.[....].[....]ελομαισα̣[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]γγυλα̣[..]α̣νθιλαβοισανα.[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]κτινασ̣σεδηυτεποθοςτ̣.[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;αμφιποταται&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τανκαλαναγαργατ̣αγωγισαυτα[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;επτοαισιδοισανεγωδεχαιρω&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καιγ̣αραυτ̣αδηπο̣[.]ε̣μεμφ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]υπρογεν[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ω̣σαραμα̣[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τουτοτω[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]ολλομα̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I pair up Grenfell-Hunt &quot;restored&quot; version and Campbell's text, I get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's do some compare&amp;contrast, shall we?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In l. 1, an uncertain near-start nu magically becomes a certain epsilon (!), and, as pointed out above, `σ̣[` at the end of the preserved portion of the line turns to `σα̣[`;&#xD;&#xA; - The totally illegible letter at the start of l. 2 suddenly becomes a certain gamma, and an uncertain letter before the lacuna vanishes; also, the lacuna has 2 letters for GH and only 2 are given as a completion by C; the two last letters of Gongyla become certain; an uncertain alpha is conjured up after the lacuna; the `μ̣α̣` (both uncertain) turns to `να` (both certain);&#xD;&#xA; - A few uncertain letters in l. 3 become certain, and an uncertain nu becomes an uncertain sigma;&#xD;&#xA; - For the rest, it's mostly uncertain letters becoming certain;&#xD;&#xA; - But before the lacuna in l. 8, `δητ[` is suddenly δηπο̣[`; 'xcuse me? How did a certain tau turn to a certain pi with an uncertain omicron suddenly appearing?&#xD;&#xA; - And finally, what about `[.]α̣σ` turning to `ω̣σ`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where did the above changes come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**New info**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Complete Poems of Sappho, by Sean B. Palmer](http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/) is the only one to mention another source, `P. Oxy. XXI (1951) add. p. 125, 11`. Now, I cannot find the volume P.Oxy. XXI on archive.org or elsewhere online, and I cannot seem to find any P.Oxy. XXI images with Sappho (just two commentary fragments I do not really want to transcribe &quot;blind&quot;). So what happened in that source? What does that source give us? What is that source? Is it a papyrus or some kind of scholarly discussion? Is it one of the commentary papyri I found the image of, i.e. [2292](http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH01e4/93fd78cc.dir/POxy.v0021.n2292.a.01.hires.jpg) and [2293](http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH01f6/940d78cc.dir/POxy.v0021.n2293.a.01.hires.jpg)? And if that's the case, how in the world did they give extra certain letters? Quotations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just transcribed 2292 as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     ̩  ̤  ̣‸[...]Ϲ€€ΜΑΚΑΑ̣Τ̣ΑΝΔ[&#xD;&#xA;    ϹΑΓΟΡΓωϹΥΝΔΥΓΑ.ΓΙΤΟΥ̣[&#xD;&#xA;    §A̤[....]ϹΥΞ̣ΗΠΛ€ΙϹΤỌΔΙΚΗ[&#xD;&#xA;    §§§[...]ΗΙΓ[.]ΗΟΙϹΥΝΑΥΞ§€§§[&#xD;&#xA;    §Ṭ§€̣[....]Γ̤ΟΓΓΥΛΗϹΟΝ§§ṆΑϹΘΗ§§[&#xD;&#xA;    §Ϲ€Υ̣[...]ΟΙΝΟΝΓΑΡΤΟΟ§Ρ̣Θ̣Υ̤[.]§[&#xD;&#xA;    §Μ[..]Δ§ΤΑΙΤΙΚΑ̣ΤΑΤΗ  ̣§ ̣  ̣  ̣  ̣  ̣[               TI/H&#xD;&#xA;    [.]Ạ§[...]ΤΑ[.]ΥΤΟΟ̤ΙΚΚΗ̣§§§Ν§ω̣§[&#xD;&#xA;    [.......]§[...]§§Ι̤Λ̣ΘΗΙ̤€Τ̤§§[.]ϜΥ[               Λ/Ϲ&#xD;&#xA;    [............]  ̣ [......]  ̣ ΑṬ ̣ §   ̣ ΟΥΤ§[&#xD;&#xA;    [19 letters]Ν  ̣ ΑΝ§[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The § indicate blank spaces in the papyrus, giving an estimate of the number of letters that would fit in the blank. The fact that l. 5 seems to read Γογγύλης ὀνεμνάσθη(ν), I/(s)he have/has been reminded of Gongyla, near the end seems to support the Campbell version of l. 2, so could you guys help me decipher the rest of this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 3**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lobel-Page's apparatus criticus does give some info, as highlighted [here](http://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2017/12/a-few-papyri-transcribed.html), but there are still questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Why are the two fragments joined?&#xD;&#xA; 2. How did the extra vestiges and uncertain letters pop up in Lobel-Page's reading?&#xD;&#xA; 3. How does that uncertain nu in l. 1 become an uncertain epsilon?&#xD;&#xA; 4. How does αν̣ turn to αϲ̣ / α[.] in l. 3? And how can it be uncertain whether there is or not a one-letter lacuna there?&#xD;&#xA; 5. How does τ[ turn to πο̣[ in l. 7?&#xD;&#xA; 6. How does l. 9 turn from starting with [.]α̣ϲ to starting with ω̣ϲ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can kinda see how the right half of an omega may be taken for an alpha with a hole to the left containing another letter, but all other questions leave me utterly stumped. Any ideas? Perhaps Voigt's edition can help clarify these mysteries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TBd6p.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sekcG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4640" RevisionGUID="619b75d8-6a43-49af-93cf-65d6620f3aee" CreationDate="2018-01-29T22:32:26.520" UserId="13" Comment="added update 4" Text="We're talking about the Gongyla poem. Campbell has it as sourced by P.Oxy. 1231 frr. 12 and 15. Edmonds separates the two. Also, Edmonds' completion is perfectly fine with Grenfell and Hunt's reading of fr. 15, while Campbell has critical notation that seems to exclude it. So on what basis is Campbell putting them together whereas Edmonds splits them? And if Grenfell and Hunt say e.g. l. 1 of fr. 15 ends with `σ[`, why does Campbell have an exta uncertain alpha excluding Edmonds' `κέλομαί σ' [ὄνελθε`? Was something done with the papyrus that revealed more letters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More details**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is Grenfell and Hunt's reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I strip Campbell of all completions, accents and spaces, I get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;.].ϵ.[....].[....]ελομαισα̣[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]γγυλα̣[..]α̣νθιλαβοισανα.[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]κτινασ̣σεδηυτεποθοςτ̣.[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;αμφιποταται&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τανκαλαναγαργατ̣αγωγισαυτα[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;επτοαισιδοισανεγωδεχαιρω&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καιγ̣αραυτ̣αδηπο̣[.]ε̣μεμφ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]υπρογεν[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ω̣σαραμα̣[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τουτοτω[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]ολλομα̣[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I pair up Grenfell-Hunt &quot;restored&quot; version and Campbell's text, I get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's do some compare&amp;contrast, shall we?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In l. 1, an uncertain near-start nu magically becomes a certain epsilon (!), and, as pointed out above, `σ̣[` at the end of the preserved portion of the line turns to `σα̣[`;&#xD;&#xA; - The totally illegible letter at the start of l. 2 suddenly becomes a certain gamma, and an uncertain letter before the lacuna vanishes; also, the lacuna has 2 letters for GH and only 2 are given as a completion by C; the two last letters of Gongyla become certain; an uncertain alpha is conjured up after the lacuna; the `μ̣α̣` (both uncertain) turns to `να` (both certain);&#xD;&#xA; - A few uncertain letters in l. 3 become certain, and an uncertain nu becomes an uncertain sigma;&#xD;&#xA; - For the rest, it's mostly uncertain letters becoming certain;&#xD;&#xA; - But before the lacuna in l. 8, `δητ[` is suddenly δηπο̣[`; 'xcuse me? How did a certain tau turn to a certain pi with an uncertain omicron suddenly appearing?&#xD;&#xA; - And finally, what about `[.]α̣σ` turning to `ω̣σ`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where did the above changes come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**New info**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Complete Poems of Sappho, by Sean B. Palmer](http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/) is the only one to mention another source, `P. Oxy. XXI (1951) add. p. 125, 11`. Now, I cannot find the volume P.Oxy. XXI on archive.org or elsewhere online, and I cannot seem to find any P.Oxy. XXI images with Sappho (just two commentary fragments I do not really want to transcribe &quot;blind&quot;). So what happened in that source? What does that source give us? What is that source? Is it a papyrus or some kind of scholarly discussion? Is it one of the commentary papyri I found the image of, i.e. [2292](http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH01e4/93fd78cc.dir/POxy.v0021.n2292.a.01.hires.jpg) and [2293](http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH01f6/940d78cc.dir/POxy.v0021.n2293.a.01.hires.jpg)? And if that's the case, how in the world did they give extra certain letters? Quotations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just transcribed 2292 as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     ̩  ̤  ̣‸[...]Ϲ€€ΜΑΚΑΑ̣Τ̣ΑΝΔ[&#xD;&#xA;    ϹΑΓΟΡΓωϹΥΝΔΥΓΑ.ΓΙΤΟΥ̣[&#xD;&#xA;    §A̤[....]ϹΥΞ̣ΗΠΛ€ΙϹΤỌΔΙΚΗ[&#xD;&#xA;    §§§[...]ΗΙΓ[.]ΗΟΙϹΥΝΑΥΞ§€§§[&#xD;&#xA;    §Ṭ§€̣[....]Γ̤ΟΓΓΥΛΗϹΟΝ§§ṆΑϹΘΗ§§[&#xD;&#xA;    §Ϲ€Υ̣[...]ΟΙΝΟΝΓΑΡΤΟΟ§Ρ̣Θ̣Υ̤[.]§[&#xD;&#xA;    §Μ[..]Δ§ΤΑΙΤΙΚΑ̣ΤΑΤΗ  ̣§ ̣  ̣  ̣  ̣  ̣[               TI/H&#xD;&#xA;    [.]Ạ§[...]ΤΑ[.]ΥΤΟΟ̤ΙΚΚΗ̣§§§Ν§ω̣§[&#xD;&#xA;    [.......]§[...]§§Ι̤Λ̣ΘΗΙ̤€Τ̤§§[.]ϜΥ[               Λ/Ϲ&#xD;&#xA;    [............]  ̣ [......]  ̣ ΑṬ ̣ §   ̣ ΟΥΤ§[&#xD;&#xA;    [19 letters]Ν  ̣ ΑΝ§[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The § indicate blank spaces in the papyrus, giving an estimate of the number of letters that would fit in the blank. The fact that l. 5 seems to read Γογγύλης ὀνεμνάσθη(ν), I/(s)he have/has been reminded of Gongyla, near the end seems to support the Campbell version of l. 2, so could you guys help me decipher the rest of this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 3**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lobel-Page's apparatus criticus does give some info, as highlighted [here](http://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2017/12/a-few-papyri-transcribed.html), but there are still questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Why are the two fragments joined?&#xD;&#xA; 2. How did the extra vestiges and uncertain letters pop up in Lobel-Page's reading?&#xD;&#xA; 3. How does that uncertain nu in l. 1 become an uncertain epsilon?&#xD;&#xA; 4. How does αν̣ turn to αϲ̣ / α[.] in l. 3? And how can it be uncertain whether there is or not a one-letter lacuna there?&#xD;&#xA; 5. How does τ[ turn to πο̣[ in l. 7?&#xD;&#xA; 6. How does l. 9 turn from starting with [.]α̣ϲ to starting with ω̣ϲ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can kinda see how the right half of an omega may be taken for an alpha with a hole to the left containing another letter, but all other questions leave me utterly stumped. Any ideas? Perhaps Voigt's edition can help clarify these mysteries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 4**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then Scribd went [SURPRISE MOTH… err, ΜΗΤΡΟΣΥΝΟΎΣΙΕ I suppose](https://www.scribd.com/document/367200424/Voigt-Eva-Maria-Ed-Sappho-Et-Alcaeus-Fragmenta-Athenaeum-Polak-Van-Gennep-1971), presenting me with none other than Voigt's edition of Sappho, online! But the excitement ended there: the apparatus criticus is virtually identical to that of Lobel-Page. It did, however, help me figure out the extra vestige in l. 1 is from fr. 12, which is joined to fr. 12 on who knows what basis, and has 9 lines, the last one fitting into l. 1 of fr. 15.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TBd6p.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sekcG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5912" RevisionGUID="28c68b9a-a90f-4b19-998e-db8b88c18be0" CreationDate="2018-01-30T01:27:11.593" UserId="2368" Text="I'm pretty sure that it is genitive due to description, but I'm not sure. In case it helps, I translated it as, &quot;I stood near the man with the most courage.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19558" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5912" RevisionGUID="28c68b9a-a90f-4b19-998e-db8b88c18be0" CreationDate="2018-01-30T01:27:11.593" UserId="2368" Text="In the sentence, &quot;prope virum summae virtutis sto.&quot; What case is virtutis and why" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19559" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5912" RevisionGUID="28c68b9a-a90f-4b19-998e-db8b88c18be0" CreationDate="2018-01-30T01:27:11.593" UserId="2368" Text="|genitive|case|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5912" RevisionGUID="0f446a7a-774f-4481-80b0-4a11a8a92a23" CreationDate="2018-01-30T01:37:26.830" UserId="79" Comment="Tried to reformat for clarity. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="Consider the sentence, &quot;prope virum summae virtutis sto.&quot; What case is *virtutis* and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm pretty sure that it is genitive due to description, but I'm not sure. In case it helps, I translated it as, &quot;I stood near the man with the most courage.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19561" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5912" RevisionGUID="0f446a7a-774f-4481-80b0-4a11a8a92a23" CreationDate="2018-01-30T01:37:26.830" UserId="79" Comment="Tried to reformat for clarity. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="What case is virtutis in &quot;prope virum summae virtutis sto&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19562" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5912" RevisionGUID="0f446a7a-774f-4481-80b0-4a11a8a92a23" CreationDate="2018-01-30T01:37:26.830" UserId="79" Comment="Tried to reformat for clarity. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="|syntax|translation-check|genitive|case|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5913" RevisionGUID="76999220-d0fa-4606-8ce0-2e3c42641ec4" CreationDate="2018-01-30T01:44:59.880" UserId="79" Text="It is indeed genitive.&#xD;&#xA;First, no other form of *virtus* looks like *virtutis*.&#xD;&#xA;For that reason alone, it has to be genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what is the genitive doing in the sentence?&#xD;&#xA;The *virtus* comes with the adjective *summa*.&#xD;&#xA;[*Virtus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=virtus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) can have many meanings, and &quot;courage&quot; is indeed a possible translation.&#xD;&#xA;Together *summa virtus* means &quot;highest courage&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *vir summae virtutis* means &quot;a man of the highest courage&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this translation is possible in English, it often most natural to translate with an adjective: &quot;a very courageous man&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Your translation &quot;with the most courage&quot; is possible as well.&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that the superlative here is probably absolute; it does not express comparison (&quot;most courageous of all&quot;) but just extent (&quot;very courageous&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Latin construction of using the genitive to express quality is known as *genetivus qualitatis* (the qualitative genitive).&#xD;&#xA;The ablative can be used similarly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, let me remark that *sto* is present tense.&#xD;&#xA;I would translate the sentence to English as &quot;I stand near a very courageous man&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However, this is not **the** correct translation &amp;mdash; there are several ways to go about this translation task." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="e7c01469-a979-4d5e-8f33-3a0739cb0b7a" CreationDate="2018-01-30T05:21:31.263" UserId="39" Comment="added 660 characters in body" Text="It is generally believed is that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The Italic &quot;1st declension&quot; continues PIE feminine formations (&quot;ā-stems&quot;) built with an invariable suffix *-eh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(-)&quot; ([Vine 2017:][1] 755)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Beekes 2011 proposal of an ablauting suffix *eh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(-) ~ *-h&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(-)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss notes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Masculine nouns of the first declension that we find in Latin are largely personalizations of feminine abstracts&quot; (p. 228).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, *scriba* originally meant 'writing' and *agricola* originally meant 'fieldwork.' Clackson adds that such nouns are mostly compound ([Clackson 2011:][2] 106), cf. *agricola* or *indigena*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Greek loans: *nauta*;&#xD;&#xA; 2. (Etruscan) onomastic loans: *Spurinna*;&#xD;&#xA; 3. loans of uncertain origin: *verna* 'house-slave.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110523874/9783110523874-003/9783110523874-003.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch8/summary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="d4c22970-67fe-4370-b30b-d0ac305d374e" CreationDate="2018-01-30T05:34:30.350" UserId="39" Comment="added 660 characters in body" Text="It is generally believed is that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The Italic &quot;1st declension&quot; continues PIE feminine formations (&quot;ā-stems&quot;) built with an invariable suffix *-eh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(-)&quot; ([Vine 2017:][1] 755)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Beekes 2011 proposal of an ablauting suffix *eh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(-) ~ *-h&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(-)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss notes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Masculine nouns of the first declension that we find in Latin are largely personalizations of feminine abstracts&quot; (p. 228).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, *scriba* originally meant 'writing' and *agricola* originally meant 'fieldwork.' Clackson adds that such nouns are mostly **compound** ([Clackson 2011:][2] 106), cf. *advena*, *agricola*, *incola*, or *indigena*. The only simplex native masculine noun is *scriba*. [will rewrite this section later, based on the discussion in Leumann 1977; this is more complicated than it seems]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Greek loans: *nauta*, *poeta*;&#xD;&#xA; 2. (Etruscan) names: *Caecina*, *Perpenna* (*Perperna*), *Sisenna*, *Spurinna* (Leumann 1977: 279);&#xD;&#xA; 3. loans of uncertain origin: *verna* 'house-slave.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110523874/9783110523874-003/9783110523874-003.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch8/summary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="8a0c77f9-d308-42de-862c-458629bd8943" CreationDate="2018-01-30T05:44:58.107" UserId="39" Comment="added 198 characters in body" Text="(answer in progress; to be edited later)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is generally believed is that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The Italic &quot;1st declension&quot; continues PIE feminine formations (&quot;ā-stems&quot;) built with an invariable suffix *-eh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(-)&quot; ([Vine 2017:][1] 755)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Beekes 2011 proposal of an ablauting suffix *eh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(-) ~ *-h&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(-)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss notes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Masculine nouns of the first declension that we find in Latin are largely personalizations of feminine abstracts&quot; (p. 228).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, *scriba* originally meant 'writing' and *agricola* originally meant 'fieldwork.' What evidence Weiss had at his disposal is not quite clear to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson adds that such nouns are mostly **compound** ([Clackson 2011:][2] 106), cf. *advena*, *agricola*, *incola*, or *indigena*. The only simplex native masculine noun is *scriba*. [will rewrite this section later, based on the discussion in Leumann 1977; this is more complicated than it seems]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann explains it with Greek influence, cf. &quot;muss man die ersten lat. mask. Komposita auf -a als Nachbildung griechischer Muster auffasen&quot; (p. 281). For *collega*, he proposes an ad-hoc explanation (*lega, from legatus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Greek loans: *nauta*, *poeta*;&#xD;&#xA; 2. (Etruscan) names: *Caecina*, *Perpenna* (*Perperna*), *Sisenna*, *Spurinna* (Leumann 1977: 279);&#xD;&#xA; 3. loans of uncertain origin: *verna* 'house-slave.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110523874/9783110523874-003/9783110523874-003.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch8/summary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5909" RevisionGUID="6476abfd-f373-41b4-bbfd-69a5e6e8a61d" CreationDate="2018-01-30T05:45:21.583" UserId="985" Comment="Added examples" Text="According to Gildersleeve and Lodge, *Latin grammar* §296, Remark 1.b.2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Abl. [of comparison] is very common in negative sentences, and is used exclusively in negative relative sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, although a noun or pronoun other than a relative pronoun is often used as an ablative of comparison in negative sentences, the relative pronoun is used in this way only in negative sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So according to the second clause of this rule, if the sentence is both negative and relative, only the ablative is used, never *quam*; and according to the first clause, if the sentence is negative but non-relative, either *quam* or ablative can be used (and the ablative is 'very common'). Of course, this rule doesn't address the remaining two permutations: a sentence that is both non-negative and non-relative, and a sentence that is non-negative but relative; in both these cases, the implication is that either *quam* or ablative can also be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are two examples of a non-negative relative sentence that uses the ablative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cicero, *Pro Milone* 33.90:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The relative here is a so-called 'connecting relative.')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an ille praetor, ille vero consul, si modo haec templa atque ipsa moenia stare eo vivo tam diu et consulatum eius exspectare potuissent, ille denique vivus mali nihil fecisset cui mortuo unus ex suis   satellitibus curiam incenderit? **quo quid miserius, quid&#xD;&#xA;acerbius, quid luctuosius vidimus**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Would that man when praetor, much more when consul, provided only that these temples and these walls could have stood so long if he had been alive, and could have remained till his consulship; would he, I say, if alive, have done no harm, when even after he was dead he burned the senate-house, one of his satellites, Sextus Clodius, being the ringleader in the tumult? **What more miserable, more grievous, more bitter sight have we ever seen than that?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cicero, *Philippicae* 1.4.10:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exque eo primum cognovi quae Kalendis Sextilibus in senatu fuisset L. Pisonis oratio: qui quamquam parum erat – id enim ipsum a Bruto audieram – a quibus debuerat adiutus, tamen et Bruti testimonio – **quo quid potest esse gravius?** – et omnium praedicatione quos postea vidi magnam mihi videbatur gloriam consecutus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And it was from him that I first heard what had been the language of Lucius Piso, in the senate of August; who, although he was but little assisted (for that I heard from Brutus himself) by those who ought to have seconded him, still according to the testimony of Brutus, (**and what evidence can be more trustworthy?**) and to the avowal of every one whom I saw afterwards, appeared to me to have gained great credit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Translations by C. D. Yonge; from the [Perseus website](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="2286346d-0450-4c54-b880-f23d0f084abe" CreationDate="2018-01-30T05:52:56.837" UserId="39" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="(answer in progress; to be edited later)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is generally believed is that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The Italic &quot;1st declension&quot; continues PIE feminine formations (&quot;ā-stems&quot;) built with an invariable suffix *-eh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(-)&quot; ([Vine 2017:][1] 755)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Beekes 2011 proposal of an ablauting suffix *eh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(-) ~ *-h&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(-)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss notes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Masculine nouns of the first declension that we find in Latin are largely personalizations of feminine abstracts&quot; (p. 228).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, *scriba* originally meant 'writing' and *agricola* originally meant 'fieldwork.' What evidence Weiss had at his disposal is not quite clear to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson adds that such nouns are mostly **compound** ([Clackson 2011:][2] 106), cf. *advena*, *agricola*, *incola*, or *indigena*. The only simplex native masculine noun is *scriba*. [will rewrite this section later, based on the discussion in Leumann 1977; this is more complicated than it seems]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ernout 1952/2014 calls them **formes archaïques** (p. 12).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann explains it with Greek influence, cf. &quot;muss man die ersten lat. mask. Komposita auf -a als Nachbildung griechischer Muster auffasen&quot; (p. 281). For *collega*, he proposes an ad-hoc explanation (*lega, from legatus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Greek loans: *nauta*, *poeta*;&#xD;&#xA; 2. (Etruscan) names: *Caecina*, *Perpenna* (*Perperna*), *Sisenna*, *Spurinna* (Leumann 1977: 279);&#xD;&#xA; 3. loans of uncertain origin: *verna* 'house-slave.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110523874/9783110523874-003/9783110523874-003.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch8/summary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="0444634a-2d19-49b2-8f51-e566f48470ed" CreationDate="2018-01-30T06:10:13.623" UserId="39" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="(answer in progress; to be edited later)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is generally believed is that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The Italic &quot;1st declension&quot; continues PIE feminine formations (&quot;ā-stems&quot;) built with an invariable suffix *-eh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(-)&quot; ([Vine 2017:][1] 755)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Beekes 2011 proposal of an ablauting suffix *eh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(-) ~ *-h&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(-)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss notes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Masculine nouns of the first declension that we find in Latin are largely personalizations of feminine abstracts&quot; (p. 228).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, *scriba* originally meant 'writing' and *agricola* originally meant 'fieldwork.' What evidence Weiss had at his disposal is not quite clear to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson adds that such nouns are mostly **compound** ([Clackson 2011:][2] 106), cf. *advena*, *agricola*, *conviva*, *incola*, or *indigena*. The only simplex native masculine noun is *scriba*. [will rewrite this section later, based on the discussion in Leumann 1977; this is more complicated than it seems]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ernout 1952/2014 calls them **formes archaïques** (p. 12).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann explains it with Greek influence, cf. &quot;muss man die ersten lat. mask. Komposita auf -a als Nachbildung griechischer Muster auffasen&quot; (p. 281). For *collega*, he proposes an ad-hoc explanation (*lega, from legatus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Greek loans: *nauta*, *poeta*;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Etruscan names: *Caecina*, *Perpenna* (*Perperna*), *Sisenna*, *Spurinna* (Leumann 1977: 279);&#xD;&#xA; 3. loans of uncertain origin: *verna* 'house-slave;'&#xD;&#xA; 4. Etruscan loans: *cacula* 'servant', *sculna* 'arbitrator', *verpa* 'male member' ([Baldi 1999:][3] 317).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110523874/9783110523874-003/9783110523874-003.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch8/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110807110/9783110807110.300b/9783110807110.300b.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5914" RevisionGUID="1092f3b9-5a2f-48de-a4c5-c453f613ce74" CreationDate="2018-01-30T17:03:50.470" UserId="13" Text="So here are the questions left:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Why are the two fragments joined?&#xD;&#xA; 2. How did the extra vestiges and uncertain letters pop up in&#xD;&#xA;    Lobel-Page's reading?&#xD;&#xA; 3. How does that uncertain nu in l. 1 become an uncertain epsilon?&#xD;&#xA; 4. How does αν̣ turn to αϲ̣ / α[.] in l. 3? And how can it be uncertain&#xD;&#xA;    whether there is or not a one-letter lacuna there?&#xD;&#xA; 5. How does τ[ turn to πο̣[ in l. 7?&#xD;&#xA; 6. How does l. 9 turn from starting with [.]α̣ϲ to starting with ω̣ϲ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a couple conjectures that help answer some of those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Either the papyrus of fr. 9 has a blank stretch that reaches the bottom and joins with matching edges of fr. 15, or I have no clue; no argument of &quot;convincing supplements&quot; can be made, as is the case for joining the 2166(a) scraps to fr. 1 col. i, and besides a similarity argument to place the two in the same column, I have no other ideas; perhaps &quot;principle of economy&quot;? But that is just a tad far-fetched IMHO…;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Very faint traces of ink that Grenfell and Hunt just missed but other examiners of the papyrus saw and tried to read?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Weird epsilon with faded middle stroke looking like left half of a nu, plus hole containing supposed second vertical leg of the nu? Then on further examination the faded middle leg came to be barely visible as opposed to completely absent?&#xD;&#xA; 4. Very faint trace of ink right next to a lacuna that could be interpreted as either part of a nu's left leg or the leftmost, almost-vertical part of a sigma, and was reinterpreted as a sigma because the insertion of the Abanthi conjecture created havoc in the grammatical structure and meaning of the text?&#xD;&#xA; 5. Vestige cfr. 2 + the right leg of the pi being precisely a hole in the papyrus?&#xD;&#xA; 6. As written in the question (Update 3), «I can kinda see how the right half of an omega may be taken for an alpha with a hole to the left containing another letter».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that is pretty much all I can do without an image. These are conjectures that, if verified, would satisfyingly answer the question of WTF happened to the papyrus text from Grenfell-Hunt to Lobel-Page, and then Campbell took up Abanthi and interpreted some vestiges consequently. So that would solve the textual problems here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5852" RevisionGUID="39c76516-a15b-47f9-a990-a8f972c25d01" CreationDate="2018-01-30T17:39:40.420" UserId="30" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="There are a couple of masculine (or common) nouns of the first declension. Some are from masculine Greek -ês, like *poeta, nauta*. But others, like *collega, advena, parricida, scriba, incola, agricola* are natively Latin. What is the origin of this *-a*? And can the same root be observed in other endings / forms? Judging by *parricida*, there might be a conexion with masculine *-as*. But is that also the case with other words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis &amp; Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parrĭcīda (pārĭcīda; old collat. form of the nom. sing. PARICIDAS, Fragm. XII. Tab. ap. Fest. s. v. parrici, p. 221 Müll.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5915" RevisionGUID="cf4721bc-0a35-4556-a467-195716f6e69a" CreationDate="2018-01-30T17:46:10.250" UserId="2370" Text="Passive forms of *facio* are rarely written, attestations such as in the Peregrinatio Egeriae and the Latin Dioscorides suggest that this might actually have been somewhat more frequent in spoken (vulgar) language. Also that some (normative) Grammarians insisted that *facior* does not exist may indicate that it was actually used. All known examples are listed in Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, Lipsiae 1900sqq., vol. VI,2 col. 83,1ff." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5916" RevisionGUID="f7c8a413-3ce6-4fa9-98ca-13ced8594f1b" CreationDate="2018-01-30T18:03:54.157" UserId="2370" Text="Just to come back to part of the original question, Virgil did not come up with this part of the story himself. Anna as sister of Dido already occurs in Naevius and Varro; this does of course not invalidate the explanations given. See Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, vol. II col. 108,3." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5917" RevisionGUID="eb558cb5-c1c0-4f32-a56d-a29bb855e67d" CreationDate="2018-01-30T18:27:34.913" UserId="2370" Text="Auctor libri qui inscribitur *Dizionario Storico-Giuridico Romano* nos refert ad philosophos medii aevi, Latham, *Wordlist*, s. v. 'a, ab' annos indicat 'c. 1337, c. 1343' sine auctorum indicatione. Exemplum inveni in Occhami *Dialogo*, III tr. 2 lib. 2 cap.1: &quot;Magister: Ex his verbis habetur quod potestas regis Francorum distincta est a potestate papae. Et per consequens a fortiori potestas imperatoris,&quot; scilicet si potestas regi Fr. non pendet a papa, potestas imperatoris quae maior est quam regis, a papa neutiquam pendet. Elisio quaedam fortasse origini talium locutionum subest; tamen non est quod eam subaudias hoc loco." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5918" RevisionGUID="53d8510a-3a0d-460b-9855-475586ed9dff" CreationDate="2018-01-30T18:55:48.060" UserId="2370" Text="There is a lot of material for you in the *Thesaurus Linguae Latinae*, VI, 3 ('habeo') col. 2454, 53 sqq., in col. 2455,65 sqq. also for the future (which might correspond more to the English 'I have to go' etc.). The secondary literature given in the TLL is probably outdated by now, but the examples are valid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5919" RevisionGUID="bb63c95d-6884-455b-a49d-2158d4e4ebfb" CreationDate="2018-01-30T20:31:12.197" UserId="2373" Text="So I have 3 phrases I’d like to get translated for possible tattoos. I don’t want them to be wrong since they would be permanent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) By myself or for myself, by myself&#xD;&#xA;2) I walk alone or I’m not afraid to walk this world alone. &#xD;&#xA;3) she was whole, all on her own&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or if you guys know any independent/alone Latin quotes :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5919" RevisionGUID="bb63c95d-6884-455b-a49d-2158d4e4ebfb" CreationDate="2018-01-30T20:31:12.197" UserId="2373" Text="English to Latin translation for tattoo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5919" RevisionGUID="bb63c95d-6884-455b-a49d-2158d4e4ebfb" CreationDate="2018-01-30T20:31:12.197" UserId="2373" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5919" RevisionGUID="6ee273cc-ebb6-4793-9168-0f66217082c9" CreationDate="2018-01-30T21:31:05.187" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="So I have 3 phrases I’d like to get translated for possible tattoos. I don’t want them to be wrong since they would be permanent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. By myself or for myself, by myself&#xD;&#xA;2. I walk alone or I’m not afraid to walk this world alone. &#xD;&#xA;3. she was whole, all on her own&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or if you guys know any independent/alone Latin quotes :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19580" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5919" RevisionGUID="6ee273cc-ebb6-4793-9168-0f66217082c9" CreationDate="2018-01-30T21:31:05.187" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5920" RevisionGUID="a3e2b285-2e59-4626-a2c8-caa846228856" CreationDate="2018-01-31T13:59:18.340" UserId="645" Text="I've tried to put these succinctly — and with a certain compassion about the suffering involved in tattooing! — as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ipsi ago* (I act for myself), or *pro me solo* (for me alone, for no-one but me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*solus eo* (I go alone), or *non timeo inter homines ire* (I do not fear to go among men, *sc*. through the world, through life).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*integra erat ac sola*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ire* is a basic verb meaning 'to go' in any sense, which I prefer here to *ambulare*, which is the verb that actually means 'to walk'. Also, for 'the world' I have used *homines*, meaning 'men' or 'mankind', whom you presumably regard as the threat, rather than 'the world' itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB — if you are female, you should change both *solus* and *solo* in the above to *sola*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5921" RevisionGUID="ce2ea0d1-5752-4126-b181-045837ac1d8b" CreationDate="2018-01-31T20:39:24.710" UserId="2377" Text="Is &quot;Ego Peccator&quot; mean &quot;I'm Sinner&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;I use translate on many web but still not sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19583" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5921" RevisionGUID="ce2ea0d1-5752-4126-b181-045837ac1d8b" CreationDate="2018-01-31T20:39:24.710" UserId="2377" Text="Is &quot;Ego Peccator&quot; mean &quot;I'm Sinner&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19584" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5921" RevisionGUID="ce2ea0d1-5752-4126-b181-045837ac1d8b" CreationDate="2018-01-31T20:39:24.710" UserId="2377" Text="|classical-latin|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5921" RevisionGUID="8e19daed-a3bb-4790-9d42-9cb99a2cf530" CreationDate="2018-01-31T20:50:09.673" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted." Text="Does &quot;Ego Peccator&quot; mean &quot;I'm Sinner&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;I used many web translation services but I'm still not sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19586" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5921" RevisionGUID="8e19daed-a3bb-4790-9d42-9cb99a2cf530" CreationDate="2018-01-31T20:50:09.673" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted." Text="|classical-latin|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5922" RevisionGUID="ed1c3e49-63ca-4d9d-a8c3-4676c5d3a3b9" CreationDate="2018-01-31T20:52:57.213" UserId="79" Text="[Google Translate is notoriously bad with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79), and to my knowledge others aren't much better.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore it is always good to ask a Latinist, so I'm glad you found your way to our site instead of relying on online translators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ego* means &quot;I&quot; and *peccator* means &quot;sinner&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In Latin the verb &quot;to be&quot; can be omitted when clear from context, but it is still implicitly there.&#xD;&#xA;That is, *ego [sum] peccator* means &quot;I [am] a sinner&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The translation you have is indeed a valid one, whether the original has *sum* or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5923" RevisionGUID="7ddefb88-725e-4a5f-a8c4-eac811567c5c" CreationDate="2018-01-31T20:59:22.550" UserId="2378" Text="The self-exercises in CAPVT VIII of *Wheelock's Latin (7th Edition)* include the following sentence (#11):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Litterās ad virginem scrībit.*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He is writing a letter to the maiden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused about the use of *ad (+ acc.)* here. The chapter mentions that *ad* is used in the sense of &quot;*to, up to, near to* with verbs of motion&quot;, but *scrībit* doesn't appear to be such a verb. Why do we not use the dative case instead? I would have expected this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Virginī litterās scrībit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the two constructions interchangeable in this context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19589" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5923" RevisionGUID="7ddefb88-725e-4a5f-a8c4-eac811567c5c" CreationDate="2018-01-31T20:59:22.550" UserId="2378" Text="Using &quot;ad&quot; vs. dative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19590" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5923" RevisionGUID="7ddefb88-725e-4a5f-a8c4-eac811567c5c" CreationDate="2018-01-31T20:59:22.550" UserId="2378" Text="|dative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5923" RevisionGUID="a32f59de-307c-4961-8dc3-6232d85963cc" CreationDate="2018-01-31T21:04:24.303" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The self-exercises in CAPVT VIII of *Wheelock's Latin (7th Edition)* include the following sentence (#11):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Litterās ad virginem scrībit.*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He is writing a letter to the maiden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused about the use of *ad (+ acc.)* here. The chapter mentions that *ad* is used in the sense of &quot;*to, up to, near to* with verbs of motion&quot;, but *scrībit* doesn't appear to be such a verb. Why do we not use the dative case instead? I would have expected this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Virginī litterās scrībit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the two constructions interchangeable in this context?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19592" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5923" RevisionGUID="a32f59de-307c-4961-8dc3-6232d85963cc" CreationDate="2018-01-31T21:04:24.303" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|syntax|genitive|dative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5924" RevisionGUID="a3234b5d-3814-4c65-99d6-744bc82787d1" CreationDate="2018-01-31T21:08:25.517" UserId="79" Text="In a context like this both *ad virginem* and *virgini* are possible.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know whether there is a difference in nuance, but certainly nothing severe for such a simple use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps someone else can provide more details.&#xD;&#xA;I will also see if I can find anything more on this later, but now I have a plane to board." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5925" RevisionGUID="358f425a-3379-418e-b85c-1a69b2c30c39" CreationDate="2018-01-31T23:15:58.830" UserId="2379" Text="I saw this sentence on an wall in a prison, and I wonder what's its meaning? I'm not sure if there's any space missing (it was hard to read)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19595" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5925" RevisionGUID="358f425a-3379-418e-b85c-1a69b2c30c39" CreationDate="2018-01-31T23:15:58.830" UserId="2379" Text="Meaning of &quot;peregrinantis desideriumanobis ocasio&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19596" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5925" RevisionGUID="358f425a-3379-418e-b85c-1a69b2c30c39" CreationDate="2018-01-31T23:15:58.830" UserId="2379" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="5e8c147a-861f-4414-82ab-db27df8191cb" CreationDate="2018-01-31T23:40:19.873" UserId="9" Text="In anatomy, the muscles of the buttocks are referred to collectively as the &quot;[glut(a)eal muscles][1]&quot; in English, and are given individual Latin names: *glut(a)eus maximus, glut(a)eus medius* and *glut(a)eus minimus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun &quot;glutaeus&quot; does not appear to exist in Classical or Medieval Latin. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED)'s earliest citation for it in English is from 1681. The OED says the etymology of English &quot;glut(a)eus is &quot;&lt; modern Latin *glūtæus, glūtēus,* &lt; Greek *γλουτός* rump, buttock.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering how exactly *glutaeus* was formed from *γλουτός.* It seems like it would have been most straightforward to Latinize *γλουτός* as *glutus,* but perhaps that didn't happen because *[glutus][2]* was already an existing Latin adjective meaning something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't really understand why the ending *-aeus* occurs in *glutaeus*  Where does the &quot;a&quot; come from? The only idea I have is that, according to [Wiktionary][4], Greek *γλουτός* had a variant neuter plural form *γλουτᾰ́*. So my thought is that maybe *glutaeus* can be analyzed as *gluta* + *-eus.* But I'm a bit unsure if plural forms like this can be used in the formation of Latin derived adjectives. (I guess another possibility, based on the answer to my earlier question about *[Herculeus][3]* and its late variant form *Herculaeus,* is that *glutaeus* is simply an irregular spelling variant of *glut-* + the adjective suffix *-eus.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluteal_muscles&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=glutus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5407/how-can-the-use-of-aeus-as-an-adjective-suffix-in-herculaeus-be-explained&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B3%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%84%CF%8C%CF%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19598" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="5e8c147a-861f-4414-82ab-db27df8191cb" CreationDate="2018-01-31T23:40:19.873" UserId="9" Text="How was the modern anatomical Latin noun &quot;glutaeus&quot; formed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19599" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="5e8c147a-861f-4414-82ab-db27df8191cb" CreationDate="2018-01-31T23:40:19.873" UserId="9" Text="|contemporary-latin|adjective|morphology|suffixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5927" RevisionGUID="3301fc6e-2776-4933-8086-339e66c4380d" CreationDate="2018-02-01T01:08:55.487" UserId="30" Text="&gt; peregrinantis desiderium a nobis oc[c]asio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translated word by word: &quot;of a/the traveller&quot; &quot;desire&quot; &quot;from&quot; &quot;us&quot; &quot;occasion&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could mean several things, and it's hard to translate because the verb is missing. One would supply something like *est* &quot;is&quot;, but then the placement of *est* can change the meaning of the sentence. It could be translated as follows: &quot;the desire of a traveller from us is an opportunity&quot;, as in, whenever a traveller wants something from us, that is an oppportunity (for us)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5927" RevisionGUID="088e8bfb-52e1-4405-8dba-57a1f2ebbd73" CreationDate="2018-02-01T01:27:29.287" UserId="30" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="&gt; peregrinantis desiderium a nobis oc[c]asio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translated word by word: &quot;of a/the traveller&quot; &quot;desire&quot; &quot;from&quot; &quot;us&quot; &quot;occasion&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could mean several things, and it's hard to translate because the verb is missing. One would supply something like *est* &quot;is&quot;, but then the placement of *est* can change the meaning of the sentence. It could be translated as follows: &quot;the desire of a traveller from us is an opportunity&quot;, as in, whenever a traveller wants something from us, that is an oppportunity (for us). Even more freely, it being on a prison wall: needy pilgrims are easy to fleece." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="1cfeb41f-a180-4197-b4bf-555e2c3aa483" CreationDate="2018-02-01T02:25:48.347" UserId="9" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="In anatomy, the muscles of the buttocks are referred to collectively as the &quot;[glut(a)eal muscles][1]&quot; in English, and are individually given the following Latin names: *glut(a)eus maximus, glut(a)eus medius* and *glut(a)eus minimus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun &quot;glutaeus&quot; does not appear to exist in Classical or Medieval Latin. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED)'s earliest citation for it in English is from 1681. The OED says the etymology of English &quot;glut(a)eus is &quot;&lt; modern Latin *glūtæus, glūtēus,* &lt; Greek *γλουτός* rump, buttock.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering how exactly *glutaeus* was formed from *γλουτός.* It seems like it would have been most straightforward to Latinize *γλουτός* as *glutus,* but perhaps that didn't happen because *[glutus][2]* was already an existing Latin adjective meaning something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't really understand why the ending *-aeus* (or perhaps *-ēus*) occurs in *glutaeus.*  The only idea I have is that, according to [Wiktionary][4], Greek *γλουτός* had a variant neuter plural form *γλουτᾰ́*. So my thought is that maybe *glutaeus* can be analyzed as *gluta* + *-eus.* But I'm a bit unsure if plural neuter forms like *gluta* can be used in the formation of Latin derived adjectives. (I guess another possibility, based on the answer to my earlier question about *[Herculeus][3]* and its late variant form *Herculaeus,* is that *glutaeus* is simply an irregular spelling variant of *glut-* + the adjective suffix *-ĕus,* and the quantity of the vowel became long due to confusion with other words.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluteal_muscles&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=glutus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5407/how-can-the-use-of-aeus-as-an-adjective-suffix-in-herculaeus-be-explained&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B3%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%84%CF%8C%CF%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="7640f175-623a-43d4-b926-37cd26b91aa0" CreationDate="2018-02-01T03:59:20.607" UserId="9" Comment="added 658 characters in body; edited title" Text="In anatomy, the muscles of the buttocks are referred to collectively as the &quot;[glut(a)eal muscles][1]&quot; in English, and are individually given the following Latin names: *glut(a)eus maximus, glut(a)eus medius* and *glut(a)eus minimus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun &quot;glutaeus&quot; does not appear to exist in Classical or Medieval Latin. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED)'s earliest citation for it in English is from 1681. The OED says the etymology of English &quot;glut(a)eus is &quot;&lt; modern Latin *glūtæus, glūtēus,* &lt; Greek *γλουτός* rump, buttock.&quot; This entry apparently was first published in 1900 and has not yet been fully updated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The American Heritage Dictionary says English *glut(a)eus* is from &quot;New Latin *glūteus,* from Greek *gloutos,* buttock,&quot; omitting the macron over the E.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering how exactly *gluteus/glutaeus* was formed from *γλουτός.* It seems like it would have been most straightforward to Latinize *γλουτός* as *glutus,* but perhaps that didn't happen because *[glutus][2]* was already an existing Latin adjective meaning something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't really understand why the ending *-aeus* (or perhaps *-ēus* or *-eus*) occurs in *glutaeus.*  The only idea I have is that, according to [Wiktionary][3], Greek *γλουτός* had a variant neuter plural form *γλουτᾰ́*. So my thought is that maybe *glutaeus* can be analyzed as *gluta* + *-eus.* But I'm a bit unsure if plural neuter forms like *gluta* can be used in the formation of Latin derived adjectives. I guess another possibility, based on the AHD's &quot;glūteus&quot; and the answer to my earlier question about *[Herculeus][4]* and its late variant form *Herculaeus,* is that *glutaeus* is simply an irregular spelling variant of *glut-* + the adjective suffix *-ĕus,* and the quantity of the vowel became long due to confusion with other words. But the OED entry from 1900 seems to have been written by somebody who was convinced the word was stressed on the penultimate syllable, which suggests that this syllable was thought of as having a long vowel in Latin (the OED only gives the English pronunciation as /ɡl(j)uːˈtiːəs/, although the AHD says it can be stressed on either the first or the second syllable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Setting aside the matter of *-aeus* vs. *-ēus* vs, *-ĕus,* why would an adjectival suffix be used in this context? Should I think of *glutaeus/gluteus* as an adjective modifying an implied noun *musculus*? On Vicipedia, the article for the &quot;Gluteus maximus muscle&quot; is titled &quot;[Musculus glutaeus maximus][5]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluteal_muscles&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=glutus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B3%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%84%CF%8C%CF%82&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5407/how-can-the-use-of-aeus-as-an-adjective-suffix-in-herculaeus-be-explained&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musculus_glutaeus_maximus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19604" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="7640f175-623a-43d4-b926-37cd26b91aa0" CreationDate="2018-02-01T03:59:20.607" UserId="9" Comment="added 658 characters in body; edited title" Text="How was the modern anatomical Latin noun &quot;glutaeus/gluteus&quot; formed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="851695bf-5936-479c-80f9-c5cd89b24e9e" CreationDate="2018-02-01T04:04:28.000" UserId="9" Comment="added 658 characters in body; edited title" Text="In anatomy, the muscles of the buttocks are referred to collectively as the &quot;[glut(a)eal muscles][1]&quot; in English, and are individually given the following Latin names: *glut(a)eus maximus, glut(a)eus medius* and *glut(a)eus minimus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun &quot;glutaeus&quot; does not appear to exist in Classical or Medieval Latin. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED)'s earliest citation for it in English is from 1681. The OED says the etymology of English &quot;glut(a)eus is &quot;&lt; modern Latin *glūtæus, glūtēus,* &lt; Greek *γλουτός* rump, buttock.&quot; This entry apparently was first published in 1900 and has not yet been fully updated. The American Heritage Dictionary says English *glut(a)eus* is from &quot;New Latin *glūteus,* from Greek *gloutos,* buttock,&quot; omitting a macron over the E.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering how exactly *gluteus/glutaeus* was formed from *γλουτός.* It seems like it would have been most straightforward to Latinize *γλουτός* as *glutus,* but perhaps that didn't happen because *[glutus][2]* was already an existing Latin adjective meaning something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't really understand why the ending *-aeus* (or perhaps *-ēus* or *-eus*) occurs in *glutaeus.*  The only idea I have is that, according to [Wiktionary][3], Greek *γλουτός* had a variant neuter plural form *γλουτᾰ́*. So my thought is that maybe *glutaeus* can be analyzed as *gluta* + *-eus.* But I'm a bit unsure if plural neuter forms like *gluta* can be used in the formation of Latin derived adjectives. I guess another possibility, based on the AHD's &quot;glūteus&quot; and the answer to my earlier question about *[Herculeus][4]* and its late variant form *Herculaeus,* is that *glutaeus* is simply an irregular spelling variant of *glut-* + the adjective suffix *-ĕus,* and the quantity of the vowel became long due to confusion with other words. But the OED entry from 1900 seems to have been written by somebody who was convinced the word was stressed on the penultimate syllable, which suggests that this syllable was thought of as having a long vowel in Latin (the OED only gives the English pronunciation as /ɡl(j)uːˈtiːəs/, although the AHD says it can be stressed on either the first or the second syllable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Setting aside the matter of *-aeus* vs. *-ēus* vs, *-ĕus,* why would an adjectival suffix be used in this context? Should I think of *glutaeus/gluteus* as an adjective modifying an implied substantive noun *musculus*? On Vicipedia, the article for the &quot;Gluteus maximus muscle&quot; is titled &quot;[Musculus glutaeus maximus][5]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluteal_muscles&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=glutus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B3%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%84%CF%8C%CF%82&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5407/how-can-the-use-of-aeus-as-an-adjective-suffix-in-herculaeus-be-explained&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musculus_glutaeus_maximus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="fb5fe078-293e-4c14-b11e-4f9cc8c53f2b" CreationDate="2018-02-01T04:16:08.963" UserId="9" Comment="added 646 characters in body" Text="In anatomy, the muscles of the buttocks are referred to collectively as the &quot;[glut(a)eal muscles][1]&quot; in English, and are individually given the following Latin names: *glut(a)eus maximus, glut(a)eus medius* and *glut(a)eus minimus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun &quot;glutaeus&quot; does not appear to exist in Classical or Medieval Latin. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED)'s earliest citation for it in English is from 1681. The OED says the etymology of English &quot;glut(a)eus is &quot;&lt; modern Latin *glūtæus, glūtēus,* &lt; Greek *γλουτός* rump, buttock.&quot; This entry apparently was first published in 1900 and has not yet been fully updated. The American Heritage Dictionary says English *glut(a)eus* is from &quot;New Latin *glūteus,* from Greek *gloutos,* buttock,&quot; omitting a macron over the E.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering how exactly *gluteus/glutaeus* was formed from *γλουτός.* It seems like it would have been most straightforward to Latinize *γλουτός* as *glutus,* but perhaps that didn't happen because *[glutus][2]* was already an existing Latin adjective meaning something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't really understand why the ending *-aeus* (or perhaps *-ēus* or *-eus*) occurs in *glutaeus.*  The only idea I have is that, according to [Wiktionary][3], Greek *γλουτός* had a variant neuter plural form *γλουτᾰ́*. So my thought is that maybe *glutaeus* can be analyzed as *gluta* + *-eus.* But I'm a bit unsure if plural neuter forms like *gluta* can be used in the formation of Latin derived adjectives. I guess another possibility, based on the AHD's &quot;glūteus&quot; and the answer to my earlier question about *[Herculeus][4]* and its late variant form *Herculaeus,* is that *glutaeus* is simply an irregular spelling variant of *glut-* + the adjective suffix *-ĕus,* and the quantity of the vowel became long due to confusion with other words. But the OED entry from 1900 seems to have been written by somebody who was convinced the word was stressed on the penultimate syllable, which suggests that this syllable was thought of as having a long vowel in Latin (the OED only gives the English pronunciation as /ɡl(j)uːˈtiːəs/, although the AHD says it can be stressed on either the first or the second syllable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Setting aside the matter of *-aeus* vs. *-ēus* vs, *-ĕus,* why would an adjectival suffix be used in this context? Should I think of *glutaeus/gluteus* as an adjective modifying an implied substantive noun *musculus*? On Vicipedia, the article for the &quot;Gluteus maximus muscle&quot; is titled &quot;[Musculus glutaeus maximus][5]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought to do a Google search of &quot;glutea&quot; to see if it has been used as an adjective modifying a feminine substantive, and I found the following examples in *[Elsevier's Dictionary of Medicine and Biology: in English, Greek, German, Italian, and Latin][6],* by G. Konstantinidis (2005):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anterior gluteal line *n,* linea glutea anterior&#xD;&#xA;*TA;* linea glutealis anterior *n*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*g* πρόσθια **γλουτιαία** γραμμή *f -ής*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;*i* linea glutea anteriore *f*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 100)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like in Greek, the adjective derived from *γλουτός* has the form *γλουτιαίος*, which I think would correspond to Latin &quot;glūtiaeus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluteal_muscles&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=glutus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B3%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%84%CF%8C%CF%82&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5407/how-can-the-use-of-aeus-as-an-adjective-suffix-in-herculaeus-be-explained&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musculus_glutaeus_maximus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=lCKRIT-7X6UC&amp;pg=PA774&amp;dq=%22glutea%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwieob-T7IPZAhXRrFkKHd_fBP4Q6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22glutea%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="e611391c-68c2-45c0-a50a-dc4566f4af85" CreationDate="2018-02-01T04:22:33.217" UserId="9" Comment="added 646 characters in body" Text="In anatomy, the muscles of the buttocks are referred to collectively as the &quot;[glut(a)eal muscles][1]&quot; in English, and are individually given the following Latin names: *glut(a)eus maximus, glut(a)eus medius* and *glut(a)eus minimus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun &quot;glutaeus&quot; does not appear to exist in Classical or Medieval Latin. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED)'s earliest citation for it in English is from 1681. The OED says the etymology of English &quot;glut(a)eus is &quot;&lt; modern Latin *glūtæus, glūtēus,* &lt; Greek *γλουτός* rump, buttock.&quot; This entry apparently was first published in 1900 and has not yet been fully updated. The American Heritage Dictionary says English *glut(a)eus* is from &quot;New Latin *glūteus,* from Greek *gloutos,* buttock,&quot; omitting a macron over the E.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering how exactly *gluteus/glutaeus* was formed from *γλουτός.* It seems like it would have been most straightforward to Latinize *γλουτός* as *glutus,* but perhaps that didn't happen because *[glutus][2]* was already an existing Latin adjective meaning something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't really understand why the ending *-aeus* (or perhaps *-ēus* or *-eus*) occurs in *glutaeus.*  The only idea I have is that, according to [Wiktionary][3], Greek *γλουτός* had a variant neuter plural form *γλουτᾰ́*. So my thought is that maybe *glutaeus* can be analyzed as *gluta* + *-eus.* But I'm a bit unsure if plural neuter forms like *gluta* can be used in the formation of Latin derived adjectives. I guess another possibility, based on the AHD's &quot;glūteus&quot; and the answer to my earlier question about *[Herculeus][4]* and its late variant form *Herculaeus,* is that *glutaeus* is simply an irregular spelling variant of *glut-* + the adjective suffix *-ĕus,* and the quantity of the vowel became long due to confusion with other words. But the OED entry from 1900 seems to have been written by somebody who was convinced the word was stressed on the penultimate syllable, which suggests that this syllable was thought of as having a long vowel in Latin (the OED only gives the English pronunciation as /ɡl(j)uːˈtiːəs/, although the AHD says it can be stressed on either the first or the second syllable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Setting aside the matter of *-aeus* vs. *-ēus* vs, *-ĕus,* why would an adjectival suffix be used in this context? Should I think of *glutaeus/gluteus* as an adjective modifying an implied substantive noun *musculus*? On Vicipedia, the article for the &quot;Gluteus maximus muscle&quot; is titled &quot;[Musculus glutaeus maximus][5]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought to do a Google search of &quot;glutea&quot; to see if it has been used as an adjective modifying a feminine substantive, and I found the following examples in *[Elsevier's Dictionary of Medicine and Biology: in English, Greek, German, Italian, and Latin][6],* by G. Konstantinidis (2005):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anterior gluteal line *n,* linea glutea anterior&#xD;&#xA;*TA;* linea glutealis anterior *n*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*g* πρόσθια **γλουτιαία** γραμμή *f -ής*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;*i* linea glutea anteriore *f*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 100)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like in Greek, the adjective derived from *γλουτός* has the form *γλουτιαίος*, which I think would correspond to Latin &quot;glūtiaeus&quot;. But I haven't found much evidence of the spelling *glutiaeus* being used in the Latin alphabet, although I was able to find one example of &quot;der M. glutiaeus maximus&quot; used in a German text (*[Einführung in die physikalische Anatomie, Part 3][7],*&#xD;&#xA;By Hermann Triepel, 1908, p. 86-87.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluteal_muscles&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=glutus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B3%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%84%CF%8C%CF%82&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5407/how-can-the-use-of-aeus-as-an-adjective-suffix-in-herculaeus-be-explained&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musculus_glutaeus_maximus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=lCKRIT-7X6UC&amp;pg=PA774&amp;dq=%22glutea%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwieob-T7IPZAhXRrFkKHd_fBP4Q6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22glutea%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=jkM9AQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA87&amp;lpg=PA87&amp;dq=glutiaeus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=FEskjSHksj&amp;sig=lmr7LFMvFzOC2fKJSwLCGw2hSxI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj9tYen7oPZAhXHrVkKHXEVCZwQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=glutiaeus&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5928" RevisionGUID="05f2da3e-8364-4634-ad57-1393dfad9ec9" CreationDate="2018-02-01T04:25:00.003" UserId="2363" Text="Writing a letter to someone does fit the description you mentioned. It has to travel physically to the recipient. Famous collections of letters usually use ad in their titles. We might understand this as implying &quot;sent to&quot; or &quot;to be sent to.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares, ad Atticum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca, Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, within the text, the dative is common. This makes sense, because a letter is also *intended for* a person, one of the principle uses of the dative case. For instance, the very first letter in Ad Atticum begins with these words: Cicero Attico salutem. And we often find phrases like tibi scripsi. In fact, sometimes we see the dative and ad being used together: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;litteras quas ad Pompeium scripsi tibi misi.  &#xD;&#xA;Cicero, Ad Atticum 3.9.3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least in Cicero, it looks to me that ad is more common than the dative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Epistulam quam ad Brutum ... scripsi misi ad te.&#xD;&#xA;Ad Atticum 12.18.2&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="467053c4-b81b-4409-a970-12cdfdbc9094" CreationDate="2018-02-01T04:36:31.707" UserId="9" Comment="added 646 characters in body" Text="In anatomy, the muscles of the buttocks are referred to collectively as the &quot;[glut(a)eal muscles][1]&quot; in English, and are individually given the following Latin names: *glut(a)eus maximus, glut(a)eus medius* and *glut(a)eus minimus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun &quot;glutaeus&quot; does not appear to exist in Classical or Medieval Latin. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED)'s earliest citation for it in English is from 1681. The OED says the etymology of English &quot;glut(a)eus is &quot;&lt; modern Latin *glūtæus, glūtēus,* &lt; Greek *γλουτός* rump, buttock.&quot; This entry apparently was first published in 1900 and has not yet been fully updated. The American Heritage Dictionary says English *glut(a)eus* is from &quot;New Latin *glūteus,* from Greek *gloutos,* buttock,&quot; omitting a macron over the E.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering how exactly *gluteus/glutaeus* was formed from *γλουτός.* It seems like it would have been most straightforward to Latinize *γλουτός* as *glutus,* but perhaps that didn't happen because *[glutus][2]* was already an existing Latin adjective meaning something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't really understand why the ending *-aeus* (or perhaps *-ēus* or *-eus*) occurs in *glutaeus.*  The only idea I have is that, according to [Wiktionary][3], Greek *γλουτός* had a variant neuter plural form *γλουτᾰ́*. So my thought is that maybe *glutaeus* can be analyzed as *gluta* + *-eus.* But I'm a bit unsure if plural neuter forms like *gluta* can be used in the formation of Latin derived adjectives. I guess another possibility, based on the AHD's &quot;glūteus&quot; and the answer to my earlier question about *[Herculeus][4]* and its late variant form *Herculaeus,* is that *glutaeus* is simply an irregular spelling variant of *glut-* + the adjective suffix *-ĕus,* and the quantity of the vowel became long due to confusion with other words. But the OED entry from 1900 seems to have been written by somebody who was convinced the word was stressed on the penultimate syllable, which suggests that this syllable was thought of as having a long vowel in Latin (the OED only gives the English pronunciation as /ɡl(j)uːˈtiːəs/, although the AHD says it can be stressed on either the first or the second syllable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Setting aside the matter of *-aeus* vs. *-ēus* vs, *-ĕus,* why would an adjectival suffix be used in this context? Should I think of *glutaeus/gluteus* as an adjective modifying an implied substantive noun *musculus*? On Vicipedia, the article for the &quot;Gluteus maximus muscle&quot; is titled &quot;[Musculus glutaeus maximus][5]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought to do a Google search of &quot;glutea&quot; to see if it has been used as an adjective modifying a feminine substantive, and I found the following examples in *[Elsevier's Dictionary of Medicine and Biology: in English, Greek, German, Italian, and Latin][6],* by G. Konstantinidis (2005):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anterior gluteal line *n,* linea glutea anterior&#xD;&#xA;*TA;* linea glutealis anterior *n*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*g* πρόσθια **γλουτιαία** γραμμή *f -ής*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;*i* linea glutea anteriore *f*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 100)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, it looks like in Greek, the adjective derived from *γλουτός* has the form *γλουτιαίος*, which I think would correspond to Latin &quot;glūtiaeus&quot;. But I haven't found much evidence of the spelling *glutiaeus* being used in the Latin alphabet, although I was able to find one example of &quot;der M. glutiaeus maximus&quot; used in a German text (*[Einführung in die physikalische Anatomie, Part 3][7],*&#xD;&#xA;By Hermann Triepel, 1908, p. 86-87.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found a text that seems to suggest *glutiaeus* would somehow be a better formation than *glut(a)eus*: *[Medical Greek: Collection of Papers on Medical Onomatology and a Grammatical Guide to Learn Modern Greek][8],* by Achilles Rose, 1908. Rose says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Further are to be mentioned a number of adjectives of B N A which habe [sic] been found from Greek nouns and to which the ending eus has been attached, as carpeus, laryngeus, oasophageus [sic], etc. Here the correct ending (again according to Papaioannou) is mostly -icus (-ικος), sometimes -ius (-ιος) or -iaeus (-αιος). (p. 187)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is followed by a list of words that Rose thinks are &quot;not free of objection&quot; accompanied by &quot;such terms which, according to my opinion, might be substituted. P., in parentheses, when added to the latter, means Papaioannou.&quot; That list includes &quot;glutaeus glutiaeus (P.).&quot; (p. 189).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone can explain why the suffix &quot;ιαιος&quot; apparently is considered correct in this context in Greek, I would appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluteal_muscles&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=glutus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B3%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%84%CF%8C%CF%82&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5407/how-can-the-use-of-aeus-as-an-adjective-suffix-in-herculaeus-be-explained&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musculus_glutaeus_maximus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=lCKRIT-7X6UC&amp;pg=PA774&amp;dq=%22glutea%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwieob-T7IPZAhXRrFkKHd_fBP4Q6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22glutea%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=jkM9AQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA87&amp;lpg=PA87&amp;dq=glutiaeus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=FEskjSHksj&amp;sig=lmr7LFMvFzOC2fKJSwLCGw2hSxI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj9tYen7oPZAhXHrVkKHXEVCZwQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=glutiaeus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://books.google.com/books?id=eV8SAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA189&amp;lpg=PA189&amp;dq=%22glutiaeus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Oq_EBPFJIm&amp;sig=6N8yxvryO_nDG-Tp12NhEAnO06c&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiT5_nJ74PZAhUvwlkKHZfTA7kQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22glutiaeus%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19611" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="467053c4-b81b-4409-a970-12cdfdbc9094" CreationDate="2018-02-01T04:36:31.707" UserId="9" Comment="added 646 characters in body" Text="How was the modern anatomical Latin noun &quot;glutaeus/gluteus&quot; formed? And would &quot;glutiaeus&quot; be more correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="8d7d0412-acf8-425a-89f9-c7e284ffc9bb" CreationDate="2018-02-01T04:43:49.770" UserId="9" Comment="added 238 characters in body" Text="In anatomy, the muscles of the buttocks are referred to collectively as the &quot;[glut(a)eal muscles][1]&quot; in English, and are individually given the following Latin names: *glut(a)eus maximus, glut(a)eus medius* and *glut(a)eus minimus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun &quot;glutaeus&quot; does not appear to exist in Classical or Medieval Latin. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED)'s earliest citation for it in English is from 1681. The OED says the etymology of English &quot;glut(a)eus is &quot;&lt; modern Latin *glūtæus, glūtēus,* &lt; Greek *γλουτός* rump, buttock.&quot; This entry apparently was first published in 1900 and has not yet been fully updated. The American Heritage Dictionary says English *glut(a)eus* is from &quot;New Latin *glūteus,* from Greek *gloutos,* buttock,&quot; omitting a macron over the E.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering how exactly *gluteus/glutaeus* was formed from *γλουτός.* It seems like it would have been most straightforward to Latinize *γλουτός* as *glutus,* but perhaps that didn't happen because *[glutus][2]* was already an existing Latin adjective meaning something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't really understand why the ending *-aeus* (or perhaps *-ēus* or *-eus*) occurs in *glutaeus.*  The only idea I have is that, according to [Wiktionary][3], Greek *γλουτός* had a variant neuter plural form *γλουτᾰ́*. So my thought is that maybe *glutaeus* can be analyzed as *gluta* + *-eus.* But I'm a bit unsure if plural neuter forms like *gluta* can be used in the formation of Latin derived adjectives. I guess another possibility, based on the AHD's &quot;glūteus&quot; and the answer to my earlier question about *[Herculeus][4]* and its late variant form *Herculaeus,* is that *glutaeus* is simply an irregular spelling variant of *glut-* + the adjective suffix *-ĕus,* and the quantity of the vowel became long due to confusion with other words. But the OED entry from 1900 seems to have been written by somebody who was convinced the word was stressed on the penultimate syllable, which suggests that this syllable was thought of as having a long vowel in Latin (the OED only gives the English pronunciation as /ɡl(j)uːˈtiːəs/, although the AHD says it can be stressed on either the first or the second syllable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Setting aside the matter of *-aeus* vs. *-ēus* vs, *-ĕus,* why would an adjectival suffix be used in this context? Should I think of *glutaeus/gluteus* as an adjective modifying an implied substantive noun *musculus*? On Vicipedia, the article for the &quot;Gluteus maximus muscle&quot; is titled &quot;[Musculus glutaeus maximus][5]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought to do a Google search of &quot;glutea&quot; to see if it has been used as an adjective modifying a feminine substantive, and I found the following examples in *[Elsevier's Dictionary of Medicine and Biology: in English, Greek, German, Italian, and Latin][6],* by G. Konstantinidis (2005):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anterior gluteal line *n,* linea glutea anterior&#xD;&#xA;*TA;* linea glutealis anterior *n*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*g* πρόσθια **γλουτιαία** γραμμή *f -ής*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;*i* linea glutea anteriore *f*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 100)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, it looks like in Greek, the adjective derived from *γλουτός* has the form *γλουτιαίος*, which I think would correspond to Latin &quot;glūtiaeus&quot;. But I haven't found much evidence of the spelling *glutiaeus* being used in the Latin alphabet, although I was able to find one example of &quot;der M. glutiaeus maximus&quot; used in a German text (*[Einführung in die physikalische Anatomie, Part 3][7],*&#xD;&#xA;By Hermann Triepel, 1908, p. 86-87.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found a text that seems to suggest *glutiaeus* would somehow be a better formation than *glut(a)eus.* *[Medical Greek: Collection of Papers on Medical Onomatology and a Grammatical Guide to Learn Modern Greek][8],* by Achilles Rose (1908) contains &quot;Memorial on the Anatomical Nomenclature of the Anatomical Society&quot;, presented at its 22nd meeting on April 22, 1908, by Dr. Hermann Triepel, Professor of Anatomy, University of Breslau. Triepel says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is a fact established long ago that the anatomical technical language is a playground for barbarisms, ungainly words and even expressions which are an offense against elementary rules of word-formation. (p. 179)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Further are to be mentioned a number of adjectives of B N A which habe [sic] been found from Greek nouns and to which the ending eus has been attached, as carpeus, laryngeus, oasophageus [sic], etc. Here the correct ending (again according to Papaioannou) is mostly -icus (-ικος), sometimes -ius (-ιος) or -iaeus (-αιος). (p. 187)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is followed by a list of words that Triepel thinks are &quot;not free of objection&quot; accompanied by &quot;such terms which, according to my opinion, might be substituted. P., in parentheses, when added to the latter, means Papaioannou.&quot; That list includes &quot;glutaeus glutiaeus (P.).&quot; (p. 189).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone can explain exactly why the suffix &quot;ιαιος&quot; apparently is considered correct in this context in Greek, I would appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluteal_muscles&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=glutus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B3%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%84%CF%8C%CF%82&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5407/how-can-the-use-of-aeus-as-an-adjective-suffix-in-herculaeus-be-explained&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musculus_glutaeus_maximus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=lCKRIT-7X6UC&amp;pg=PA774&amp;dq=%22glutea%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwieob-T7IPZAhXRrFkKHd_fBP4Q6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22glutea%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=jkM9AQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA87&amp;lpg=PA87&amp;dq=glutiaeus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=FEskjSHksj&amp;sig=lmr7LFMvFzOC2fKJSwLCGw2hSxI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj9tYen7oPZAhXHrVkKHXEVCZwQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=glutiaeus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://books.google.com/books?id=eV8SAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA189&amp;lpg=PA189&amp;dq=%22glutiaeus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Oq_EBPFJIm&amp;sig=6N8yxvryO_nDG-Tp12NhEAnO06c&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiT5_nJ74PZAhUvwlkKHZfTA7kQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22glutiaeus%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19613" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="9cfd4050-4583-4297-bbdf-e2cb9a442bb9" CreationDate="2018-02-01T04:44:15.727" UserId="9" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19614" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="45026f81-280b-4ae9-8140-646f9c396162" CreationDate="2018-02-01T04:46:14.807" UserId="9" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19615" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="f6498e41-5b28-4686-b14c-f041c64db4e1" CreationDate="2018-02-01T04:53:45.207" UserId="9" Comment="edited title" Text="How did &quot;glutaeus/gluteus&quot; come from Greek &quot;gloutos&quot;? Would &quot;glutiaeus&quot; be more correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="f6498e41-5b28-4686-b14c-f041c64db4e1" CreationDate="2018-02-01T04:53:45.207" UserId="9" Comment="edited title" Text="In anatomy, the muscles of the buttocks are referred to collectively as the &quot;[glut(a)eal muscles][1]&quot; in English, and are individually given the following Latin names: *glut(a)eus maximus, glut(a)eus medius* and *glut(a)eus minimus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun &quot;glutaeus&quot; does not appear to exist in Classical or Medieval Latin. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED)'s earliest citation for it in English is from 1681. The OED says the etymology of English &quot;glut(a)eus is &quot;&lt; modern Latin *glūtæus, glūtēus,* &lt; Greek *γλουτός* rump, buttock.&quot; This entry apparently was first published in 1900 and has not yet been fully updated. The American Heritage Dictionary says English *glut(a)eus* is from &quot;New Latin *glūteus,* from Greek *gloutos,* buttock,&quot; omitting a macron over the E.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering how exactly *gluteus/glutaeus* was formed from *γλουτός.* It seems like it would have been most straightforward to Latinize *γλουτός* as *glutus,* but perhaps that didn't happen because *[glutus][2]* was already an existing Latin adjective meaning something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't really understand why the ending *-aeus* (or perhaps *-ēus* or *-eus*) occurs in *glutaeus.*  The only idea I have is that, according to [Wiktionary][3], Greek *γλουτός* had a variant neuter plural form *γλουτᾰ́*. So my thought is that maybe *glutaeus* can be analyzed as *gluta* + *-eus.* But I'm a bit unsure if plural neuter forms like *gluta* can be used in the formation of Latin derived adjectives. I guess another possibility, based on the AHD's &quot;glūteus&quot; and the answer to my earlier question about *[Herculeus][4]* and its late variant form *Herculaeus,* is that *glutaeus* is simply an irregular spelling variant of *glut-* + the adjective suffix *-ĕus,* and the quantity of the vowel became long due to confusion with other words. But the OED entry from 1900 seems to have been written by somebody who was convinced the word was stressed on the penultimate syllable, which suggests that this syllable was thought of as having a long vowel in Latin (the OED only gives the English pronunciation as /ɡl(j)uːˈtiːəs/, although the AHD says it can be stressed on either the first or the second syllable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Setting aside the matter of *-aeus* vs. *-ēus* vs, *-ĕus,* why would an adjectival suffix be used in this context? Should I think of *glutaeus/gluteus* as an adjective modifying an implied substantive noun *musculus*? On Vicipedia, the article for the &quot;Gluteus maximus muscle&quot; is titled &quot;[Musculus glutaeus maximus][5]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought to do a Google search of &quot;glutea&quot; to see if it has been used as an adjective modifying a feminine substantive, and I found the following examples in *[Elsevier's Dictionary of Medicine and Biology: in English, Greek, German, Italian, and Latin][6],* by G. Konstantinidis (2005):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anterior gluteal line *n,* linea glutea anterior&#xD;&#xA;*TA;* linea glutealis anterior *n*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*g* πρόσθια **γλουτιαία** γραμμή *f -ής*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;*i* linea glutea anteriore *f*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 100)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, it looks like in Greek, the adjective derived from *γλουτός* has the form *γλουτιαίος*, which I think would correspond to Latin &quot;glūtiaeus&quot;. But I haven't found much evidence of the Latin-alphabet spelling *glutiaeus* being used, although I was able to find one example of &quot;der M. glutiaeus maximus&quot; used in a German text (*[Einführung in die physikalische Anatomie, Part 3][7],*&#xD;&#xA;By Hermann Triepel, 1908, p. 86-87.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found a text that seems to suggest *glutiaeus* would somehow be a better formation than *glut(a)eus.* *[Medical Greek: Collection of Papers on Medical Onomatology and a Grammatical Guide to Learn Modern Greek][8],* by Achilles Rose (1908) contains &quot;Memorial on the Anatomical Nomenclature of the Anatomical Society&quot;, presented at its 22nd meeting on April 22, 1908, by Dr. Hermann Triepel, Professor of Anatomy, University of Breslau. Triepel says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is a fact established long ago that the anatomical technical language is a playground for barbarisms, ungainly words and even expressions which are an offense against elementary rules of word-formation. (p. 179)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Further are to be mentioned a number of adjectives of B N A which habe [sic] been found from Greek nouns and to which the ending eus has been attached, as carpeus, laryngeus, oasophageus [sic], etc. Here the correct ending (again according to Papaioannou) is mostly -icus (-ικος), sometimes -ius (-ιος) or -iaeus (-αιος). (p. 187)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is followed by a list of words that Triepel thinks are &quot;not free of objection&quot; accompanied by &quot;such terms which, according to my opinion, might be substituted. P., in parentheses, when added to the latter, means Papaioannou.&quot; That list includes &quot;glutaeus glutiaeus (P.).&quot; (p. 189).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone can explain exactly why the suffix &quot;ιαιος&quot; apparently is considered correct in this context in Greek, I would appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluteal_muscles&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=glutus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B3%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%84%CF%8C%CF%82&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5407/how-can-the-use-of-aeus-as-an-adjective-suffix-in-herculaeus-be-explained&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musculus_glutaeus_maximus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=lCKRIT-7X6UC&amp;pg=PA774&amp;dq=%22glutea%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwieob-T7IPZAhXRrFkKHd_fBP4Q6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22glutea%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=jkM9AQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA87&amp;lpg=PA87&amp;dq=glutiaeus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=FEskjSHksj&amp;sig=lmr7LFMvFzOC2fKJSwLCGw2hSxI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj9tYen7oPZAhXHrVkKHXEVCZwQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=glutiaeus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://books.google.com/books?id=eV8SAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA189&amp;lpg=PA189&amp;dq=%22glutiaeus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Oq_EBPFJIm&amp;sig=6N8yxvryO_nDG-Tp12NhEAnO06c&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiT5_nJ74PZAhUvwlkKHZfTA7kQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22glutiaeus%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="713444ee-ec9b-4df4-b9e0-6a03fd7bb0f3" CreationDate="2018-02-01T04:59:51.307" UserId="9" Comment="edited title" Text="In anatomy, the muscles of the buttocks are referred to collectively as the &quot;[glut(a)eal muscles][1]&quot; in English, and are individually given the following Latin names: *glut(a)eus maximus, glut(a)eus medius* and *glut(a)eus minimus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun &quot;glutaeus&quot; does not appear to exist in Classical or Medieval Latin. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED)'s earliest citation for it in English is from 1681. The OED says the etymology of English &quot;glut(a)eus is &quot;&lt; modern Latin *glūtæus, glūtēus,* &lt; Greek *γλουτός* rump, buttock.&quot; This entry apparently was first published in 1900 and has not yet been fully updated. The American Heritage Dictionary says English *glut(a)eus* is from &quot;New Latin *glūteus,* from Greek *gloutos,* buttock,&quot; omitting a macron over the E.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither of these dictionaries describe the morphological derivation, so I'm wondering how exactly *gluteus/glutaeus* was formed from *γλουτός.* It seems like it would have been most straightforward to latinize *γλουτός* as *glutus.* Perhaps that didn't happen because *[glutus][2]* was a preexisting Latin adjective meaning something else. But I don't really understand why the ending *-aeus* (or maybe *-ēus* or *-eus*) occurs in *glutaeus.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only idea I have is that, according to [Wiktionary][3], Greek *γλουτός* had a variant neuter plural form *γλουτᾰ́*. So my thought is that maybe *glutaeus* can be analyzed as *gluta* + *-eus.* But using a neuter plural form as the base of a Latin derived adjective seems a bit dubious to me. I guess another possibility, based on the AHD's &quot;glūteus&quot; and the answer to my earlier question about *[Herculeus][4]* and its late variant form *Herculaeus,* is that *glutaeus* is simply an irregular spelling variant of *glut-* + the Latin adjective suffix *-ĕus.* But the OED entry from 1900 seems to have been written by somebody who was convinced the word was stressed on the penultimate syllable, which suggests that this syllable was thought of as having a long vowel in Latin (the OED only gives the English pronunciation as /ɡl(j)uːˈtiːəs/, although the AHD says it can be stressed on either the first or the second syllable).  Perhaps the vowel just came to be thought of as long due to analogy with Latin words that ended in *-aeus* or *-ēus* for etymological reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Setting aside the matter of *-aeus* vs. *-ēus* vs, *-ĕus,* why would an adjectival suffix be used in this context? Should I think of *glutaeus/gluteus* as an adjective modifying an implied substantive noun *musculus*? On Vicipedia, the article for the &quot;Gluteus maximus muscle&quot; is titled &quot;[Musculus glutaeus maximus][5]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought to do a Google search of &quot;glutea&quot; to see if it has been used as an adjective modifying a feminine substantive, and I found the following examples in *[Elsevier's Dictionary of Medicine and Biology: in English, Greek, German, Italian, and Latin][6],* by G. Konstantinidis (2005):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anterior gluteal line *n,* linea glutea anterior&#xD;&#xA;*TA;* linea glutealis anterior *n*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*g* πρόσθια **γλουτιαία** γραμμή *f -ής*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;*i* linea glutea anteriore *f*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 100)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, it looks like in Greek, the adjective derived from *γλουτός* has the form *γλουτιαίος*, which I think would correspond to Latin &quot;glūtiaeus&quot;. But I haven't found much evidence of the Latin-alphabet spelling *glutiaeus* being used, although I was able to find one example of &quot;der M. glutiaeus maximus&quot; used in a German text (*[Einführung in die physikalische Anatomie, Part 3][7],*&#xD;&#xA;By Hermann Triepel, 1908, p. 86-87.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found a text that seems to suggest *glutiaeus* would somehow be a better formation than *glut(a)eus.* *[Medical Greek: Collection of Papers on Medical Onomatology and a Grammatical Guide to Learn Modern Greek][8],* by Achilles Rose (1908) contains &quot;Memorial on the Anatomical Nomenclature of the Anatomical Society&quot;, presented at its 22nd meeting on April 22, 1908, by Dr. Hermann Triepel, Professor of Anatomy, University of Breslau. Triepel says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is a fact established long ago that the anatomical technical language is a playground for barbarisms, ungainly words and even expressions which are an offense against elementary rules of word-formation. (p. 179)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Further are to be mentioned a number of adjectives of B N A which habe [sic] been found from Greek nouns and to which the ending eus has been attached, as carpeus, laryngeus, oasophageus [sic], etc. Here the correct ending (again according to Papaioannou) is mostly -icus (-ικος), sometimes -ius (-ιος) or -iaeus (-αιος). (p. 187)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is followed by a list of words that Triepel thinks are &quot;not free of objection&quot; accompanied by &quot;such terms which, according to my opinion, might be substituted. P., in parentheses, when added to the latter, means Papaioannou.&quot; That list includes &quot;glutaeus glutiaeus (P.).&quot; (p. 189).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone can explain exactly why the suffix &quot;ιαιος&quot; apparently is considered correct in this context in Greek, I would appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluteal_muscles&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=glutus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B3%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%84%CF%8C%CF%82&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5407/how-can-the-use-of-aeus-as-an-adjective-suffix-in-herculaeus-be-explained&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musculus_glutaeus_maximus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=lCKRIT-7X6UC&amp;pg=PA774&amp;dq=%22glutea%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwieob-T7IPZAhXRrFkKHd_fBP4Q6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22glutea%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=jkM9AQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA87&amp;lpg=PA87&amp;dq=glutiaeus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=FEskjSHksj&amp;sig=lmr7LFMvFzOC2fKJSwLCGw2hSxI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj9tYen7oPZAhXHrVkKHXEVCZwQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=glutiaeus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://books.google.com/books?id=eV8SAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA189&amp;lpg=PA189&amp;dq=%22glutiaeus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Oq_EBPFJIm&amp;sig=6N8yxvryO_nDG-Tp12NhEAnO06c&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiT5_nJ74PZAhUvwlkKHZfTA7kQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22glutiaeus%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="0ceb2264-7896-4670-b7d0-bd32a8238c5f" CreationDate="2018-02-01T05:05:08.273" UserId="9" Comment="edited title" Text="In anatomy, the muscles of the buttocks are referred to collectively as the &quot;[glut(a)eal muscles][1]&quot; in English, and are individually given the following Latin names: *glut(a)eus maximus, glut(a)eus medius* and *glut(a)eus minimus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun &quot;glutaeus&quot; does not appear to exist in Classical or Medieval Latin. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED)'s earliest citation for it in English is from 1681. The OED says the etymology of English &quot;glut(a)eus is &quot;&lt; modern Latin *glūtæus, glūtēus,* &lt; Greek *γλουτός* rump, buttock.&quot; This entry apparently was first published in 1900 and has not yet been fully updated. The American Heritage Dictionary says English *glut(a)eus* is from &quot;New Latin *glūteus,* from Greek *gloutos,* buttock,&quot; omitting a macron over the E.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither of these dictionaries describe the morphological derivation, so I'm wondering how exactly *gluteus/glutaeus* was formed from *γλουτός.* It seems like it would have been most straightforward to latinize *γλουτός* as *glutus.* Perhaps that didn't happen because *[glutus][2]* was a preexisting Latin adjective meaning something else. But I don't really understand why the ending *-aeus* (or maybe *-ēus* or *-eus*) occurs in *glutaeus.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only idea I have is that, according to [Wiktionary][3], Greek *γλουτός* had a variant neuter plural form *γλουτᾰ́*. So my thought is that maybe *glutaeus* can be analyzed as *gluta* + *-eus.* But using a neuter plural form as the base of a Latin derived adjective seems a bit dubious to me. I guess another possibility, based on the AHD's &quot;glūteus&quot; and the answer to my earlier question about *[Herculeus][4]* and its late variant form *Herculaeus,* is that *glutaeus* is simply an irregular spelling variant of *glut-* + the Latin adjective suffix *-ĕus.* But the OED entry from 1900 seems to have been written by somebody who was convinced the word was stressed on the penultimate syllable, which suggests that this syllable was thought of as having a long vowel in Latin (the OED only gives the English pronunciation as /ɡl(j)uːˈtiːəs/, although the AHD says it can be stressed on either the first or the second syllable).  I wonder if the vowel came to be thought of as long just due to analogy with Latin words that ended in *-aeus* or *-ēus* for etymological reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Setting aside the matter of *-aeus* vs. *-ēus* vs, *-ĕus,* why would an adjectival suffix be used in this context? Should I think of *glutaeus/gluteus* as an adjective modifying an implied substantive noun *musculus*? On Vicipedia, the article for the &quot;Gluteus maximus muscle&quot; is titled &quot;[Musculus glutaeus maximus][5]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought to do a Google search of &quot;glutea&quot; to see if it has been used as an adjective modifying a feminine substantive, and I found the following examples in *[Elsevier's Dictionary of Medicine and Biology: in English, Greek, German, Italian, and Latin][6],* by G. Konstantinidis (2005):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anterior gluteal line *n,* linea glutea anterior&#xD;&#xA;*TA;* linea glutealis anterior *n*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*g* πρόσθια **γλουτιαία** γραμμή *f -ής*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;*i* linea glutea anteriore *f*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 100)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, it looks like in Greek, the adjective derived from *γλουτός* has the form *γλουτιαίος*, which I think would correspond to Latin &quot;glūtiaeus&quot;. But I haven't found much evidence of the Latin-alphabet spelling *glutiaeus* being used, although I was able to find one example of &quot;der M. glutiaeus maximus&quot; used in a German text (*[Einführung in die physikalische Anatomie, Part 3][7],*&#xD;&#xA;By Hermann Triepel, 1908, p. 86-87.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found a text that seems to suggest *glutiaeus* would somehow be a better formation than *glut(a)eus.* *[Medical Greek: Collection of Papers on Medical Onomatology and a Grammatical Guide to Learn Modern Greek][8],* by Achilles Rose (1908) contains &quot;Memorial on the Anatomical Nomenclature of the Anatomical Society&quot;, presented at its 22nd meeting on April 22, 1908, by Dr. Hermann Triepel, Professor of Anatomy, University of Breslau. Triepel says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is a fact established long ago that the anatomical technical language is a playground for barbarisms, ungainly words and even expressions which are an offense against elementary rules of word-formation. (p. 179)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Further are to be mentioned a number of adjectives of B N A which habe [sic] been found from Greek nouns and to which the ending eus has been attached, as carpeus, laryngeus, oasophageus [sic], etc. Here the correct ending (again according to Papaioannou) is mostly -icus (-ικος), sometimes -ius (-ιος) or -iaeus (-αιος). (p. 187)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is followed by a list of words that Triepel thinks are &quot;not free of objection&quot; accompanied by &quot;such terms which, according to my opinion, might be substituted. P., in parentheses, when added to the latter, means Papaioannou.&quot; That list includes &quot;glutaeus glutiaeus (P.).&quot; (p. 189).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone can explain exactly why the suffix &quot;ιαιος&quot; apparently is considered correct in this context in Greek, I would appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluteal_muscles&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=glutus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B3%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%84%CF%8C%CF%82&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5407/how-can-the-use-of-aeus-as-an-adjective-suffix-in-herculaeus-be-explained&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musculus_glutaeus_maximus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=lCKRIT-7X6UC&amp;pg=PA774&amp;dq=%22glutea%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwieob-T7IPZAhXRrFkKHd_fBP4Q6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22glutea%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=jkM9AQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA87&amp;lpg=PA87&amp;dq=glutiaeus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=FEskjSHksj&amp;sig=lmr7LFMvFzOC2fKJSwLCGw2hSxI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj9tYen7oPZAhXHrVkKHXEVCZwQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=glutiaeus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://books.google.com/books?id=eV8SAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA189&amp;lpg=PA189&amp;dq=%22glutiaeus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Oq_EBPFJIm&amp;sig=6N8yxvryO_nDG-Tp12NhEAnO06c&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiT5_nJ74PZAhUvwlkKHZfTA7kQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22glutiaeus%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19619" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5926" RevisionGUID="0ceb2264-7896-4670-b7d0-bd32a8238c5f" CreationDate="2018-02-01T05:05:08.273" UserId="9" Comment="edited title" Text="|greek|contemporary-latin|adjective|morphology|suffixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5925" RevisionGUID="34258035-87e0-463c-a720-a2ac504922d8" CreationDate="2018-02-01T08:06:17.067" UserId="79" Comment="added 40 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I saw the sentence &quot;peregrinantis desideriumanobis ocasio&quot; on an wall in a prison, and I wonder what's its meaning? I'm not sure if there's any space missing (it was hard to read)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19621" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5925" RevisionGUID="34258035-87e0-463c-a720-a2ac504922d8" CreationDate="2018-02-01T08:06:17.067" UserId="79" Comment="added 40 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="a3a3ee7c-a6e2-4659-b29e-45919d94814a" CreationDate="2018-02-01T10:52:02.237" UserId="9" Comment="added 436 characters in body" Text="As usual, a good place to start for questions about Classical Latin pronunciation is W. Sidney Allen's *Vox Latina.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (p. 23) describes several types of evidence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- comparison with other clusters in Latin and their history; historical *\*pn* became *mn* in Latin words such as *somnus.* I would add that there is also evidence of nasal assimilation like this occuring in other languages; in [Korean][1], plosives like p t k were nasalized to m n ng before nasal consonants.&#xD;&#xA;- morphological spelling evidence: words like *cognatus* and *ignobilis* contain the prefixes *con-* and *in-,* which typically end in nasal sounds. Normally, the nasal at the end of the prefix assimilates in place to a following plosive or nasal (as in *co**m**pugno, i**m**possibilis, co**m**mitto, i**m**mortalis*). If &quot;gn&quot; was just pronounced as [gn], it would mean that the nasal in the prefixes was dropped entirely in these words, which seems unlikely. If &quot;gn&quot; was pronounced as [ŋn], then we can instead interpret these words as exhibiting the usual assimilation along with shortening of ŋŋ to a single consonant [ŋ] before the following consonant /n/.&#xD;&#xA;- a vowel change of short e to short i that is commonly seen before the clusters &quot;ng,&quot; &quot;nc,&quot; and &quot;gn&quot;; we can unify the description of these environments as &quot;before [ŋ]&quot; if we assume &quot;gn&quot; represented [ŋn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Allen also says that some Romance words, such as French *lein* from Latin *lignum,* show the same development of &quot;g&quot; &gt; [j] in &quot;gn&quot; as for &quot;g&quot; in other environments, which some see as evidence that the pronunciation [gn] may have been used after Classical times, likely due to influence from the spelling. (*[A Linguistic History of Italian][2],* by Martin Maiden, also suggests this is a piece of evidence against reconstructing [ŋn] in Proto-Romance.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NN-yIdLOkCoC&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qK_8eXcCnu&amp;sig=u4MEiVBbuxhdzAg_rkkNX3D6RbY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiuvsbyo5HLAhXJsIMKHfWIA8UQ6AEIUzAH#v=onepage&amp;q=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=DwTKAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT127&amp;lpg=PT127&amp;dq=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1yMQKpnTe6&amp;sig=0k2p71mE_-YTdkZtyU9t3lvDnyI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNsZS2xITZAhWCzlkKHbbjAvM4ChDoAQhCMAU#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5930" RevisionGUID="d2d73934-4c4d-4e28-9d14-287adf9c5553" CreationDate="2018-02-01T16:34:00.613" UserId="45" Text="Another possibility, with a slight modification of the provided text, would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; peregrinantis desiderium a nobis oc[c]as[um].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Occasus* can refer to the setting of the sun and can also be used as the participle of *occido*, which means &quot;kill&quot; or &quot;fall.&quot; A rough translation of the above is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The desire of a pilgrim [has been] killed by us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, if we can read read &quot;a&quot; spatially:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The desire of a pilgrim [has] fallen away from us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a speculative possibility that admits many speculative explanations. Perhaps it was an outlaw who plagued the route of a popular pilgrimage, or perhaps the inmate started as a pilgrim and then, once imprisoned, renounced his former intention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5922" RevisionGUID="14ad057f-61e1-4a2b-8b01-737673a0a0e9" CreationDate="2018-02-01T17:07:22.880" UserId="79" Comment="added 237 characters in body" Text="[Google Translate is notoriously bad with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79), and to my knowledge others aren't much better.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore it is always good to ask a Latinist, so I'm glad you found your way to our site instead of relying on online translators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ego* means &quot;I&quot; and *peccator* means &quot;sinner&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In Latin the verb &quot;to be&quot; can be omitted when clear from context, but it is still implicitly there.&#xD;&#xA;That is, *ego [sum] peccator* means &quot;I [am] a sinner&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The translation you have is indeed a valid one, whether the original has *sum* or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is another verb, then the *sum* is often no longer implicitly there.&#xD;&#xA;Context, be it from other sentences or from this one being a part of a longer sentence, can change the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;I only discussed the phrase in isolation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19628" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5921" RevisionGUID="836495c2-1bc5-427f-a73e-6228b0afa661" CreationDate="2018-02-01T17:40:09.393" UserId="45" Comment="edited title" Text="Does &quot;Ego Peccator&quot; mean &quot;I'm Sinner&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5931" RevisionGUID="7ef02d40-9238-4fe4-8e67-5f335b66997b" CreationDate="2018-02-01T17:55:07.353" UserId="645" Text="The two constructions are not really interchangeable, though confusing them is hardly much of a crime. Your example *litteras ad virginem scribit* might offend a pedant, who would prefer the dative (reserving the *ad* + *acc* for use with a verb such as *misit*) but would more readily accept *ad virginem scripsit* when the action was in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference is that *ad + acc*. refers to a physical event (as in sending a letter), whereas the dative indicates some kind of benefit (as, for the information of . . .). The correct interpretation is usually clear from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, an introduction such as *Ad M. Brutum* to Cicero's letters can be seen simply as a title to what follows. A greeting such as *salutem* within the same, immediate context merely confirms this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, on the other hand, the writer refers to his own action — past, present or furure — of writing, then the dative is appropriate. For example *Caesari scripsi de Bruto* indicates what the writer said in another letter, where *litteras ad Caesarem de Bruto misi* means that he sent a letter of which Caesar was the recipient. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5932" RevisionGUID="3f672c6e-7ef8-4b36-b5ca-bd713363ece0" CreationDate="2018-02-01T21:39:12.793" UserId="30" Text="From Hugh's comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally the die was 'sculpted' with chisels and punches. It probably means that this artist shaped (*formed*) the design in wax or clay and the die was cast from that. Sculpsit and scripsit are in the perfect tense: So Joonas is certainly right that FORM stands for the perfect **formavit**, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the artist *forms* a wax or clay original, a craftsman could sculpt the die to match. Or, if the clay original is full-size, the die itself can be cast, or (on clay or wax) built up with layers of electroplating, using the artist's original work directly. The die is then used to strike the medal/coin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19631" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5932" RevisionGUID="6c963413-f783-49e2-8c99-ed1d78becddc" CreationDate="2018-02-01T21:39:12.793" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="533" RevisionGUID="698da4d0-23d7-49ac-b998-0c7e198d232d" CreationDate="2018-02-01T21:51:14.137" UserId="30" Comment="added 114 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In Ovid's *Tristia*, [1.2.23&amp;ndash;4][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Nihil est, nisi pontus et aer,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nubibus hic tumidus, fluctibus ille minax...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, this means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...There is nothing, unless the sea and air  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This one swollen with clouds and that one threatening with waves...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I _think_ &quot;this one&quot; means &quot;the air&quot; and &quot;that one&quot; means &quot;the sea&quot;, based on context. Is that right? Is translating &quot;hic&quot; and &quot;ille&quot; like this typical and correct? If so, is there a better way to translate it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0492%3Abook%3D1%3Apoem%3D2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19633" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="533" RevisionGUID="698da4d0-23d7-49ac-b998-0c7e198d232d" CreationDate="2018-02-01T21:51:14.137" UserId="30" Comment="added 114 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|poetry|pronouns|ovidius|demonstrative-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5933" RevisionGUID="4008e915-df2d-44d2-821f-338426ced41d" CreationDate="2018-02-02T16:39:15.140" UserId="79" Text="Are there any attested breakup letters, notes, or similar in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;A great number of relationships must have started and ended in classical antiquity, but I don't recall seeing any passages with the message &quot;I'm breaking up with you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer something written, a letter perhaps, but attestations in plays or other oral forms are a good second choice.&#xD;&#xA;I don't really know whether such notes exist, but there must be some breakup announcements out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was inspired by [this SMBC comic](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/symbols), not by real life events." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19636" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5933" RevisionGUID="4008e915-df2d-44d2-821f-338426ced41d" CreationDate="2018-02-02T16:39:15.140" UserId="79" Text="How to break up in classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19637" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5933" RevisionGUID="4008e915-df2d-44d2-821f-338426ced41d" CreationDate="2018-02-02T16:39:15.140" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5934" RevisionGUID="c712cf6e-219b-43a5-9b4c-0c5a825c9beb" CreationDate="2018-02-02T18:34:02.983" UserId="469" Text="To me it seems that _formavit_ here means that someone _moulded_ (minted, coined) the medal based on what someone else sculpted (_sculpsit_) first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This dictionary][1] supports the idea of _formare_ meaning _to mould_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the dictionary was edited in the XVIII Century, while L&amp;S doesn't even list the verb _formare_ (I think _formam dare_ is more classical.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=2l5gAAAAcAAJ&amp;lpg=PT733&amp;ots=Djudcm2uY0&amp;dq=formare%20latin%20coin&amp;pg=PT733#v=onepage&amp;q=formare%20latin%20coin&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5934" RevisionGUID="b8cfab70-14e1-4b28-805f-1a400ef8df5f" CreationDate="2018-02-02T18:47:28.950" UserId="469" Comment="added 320 characters in body" Text="To me it seems that _formavit_ here means that someone _moulded_ (minted, coined) the medal based on what someone else sculpted (_sculpsit_) first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This dictionary][1] supports the idea of _formare_ meaning _to mould_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the dictionary was edited in the XVIII Century, while L&amp;S doesn't even list the verb _formare_ (I think _formam dare_ is more classical.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can understand from [this article][2] (and what I remember,) coins and medals are designed by sculptors, leaving the serial production to mints, so I would say that **Ericsson was the designer** and **Ovarnström was in charge of the minting process**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=2l5gAAAAcAAJ&amp;lpg=PT733&amp;ots=Djudcm2uY0&amp;dq=formare%20latin%20coin&amp;pg=PT733#v=onepage&amp;q=formare%20latin%20coin&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacagawea_dollar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5935" RevisionGUID="81d45124-63b3-4315-9ba4-39a63e71451b" CreationDate="2018-02-02T20:00:32.007" UserId="645" Text="There are plenty of books by various authorities (Balsdon, Nicolet, Cowell, Dupont . . . ) about life at Rome, covering circumstances of almost every kind imaginable, but I can't recall reading anything that deals with this. There are several attested expressions for rejection, putting aside, even divorcing, but I can find no dictionary reference to something like a &quot;Dear John&quot; letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid first comes to mind with his *Remedia amoris*. He tells how to cool an affair in practical ways, but it's only advice, without sample letters or, indeed, anything in the way of a pro-forma document.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Catullus is the other obvious place in which to look, but it's an unlikely source. It was Lesbia who broke with the poet, not the other way round, and all we have are the poet's resultant expressions of anguish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an interesting, but not an easy question, to which the proper answer may well be 'No'. I offer these observations in the hope that they will provoke a more useful answer.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5936" RevisionGUID="d82612ff-e9c7-4620-9ec2-e40f8310d92b" CreationDate="2018-02-02T20:12:20.400" UserId="469" Text="FWIW,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) in societies where people marry young there is almost no courtship or status of &quot;boyfriend and girlfriend&quot;, so I assume you also mean a breakup between married/engaged couples?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) [NVG Mt 1,19](http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-matthaeum_lt.html) uses _dimittere_ as a verb. [Mt 5,31](http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-matthaeum_lt.html#5) in turn uses &quot;repudium&quot; to mean divorce, which I didn't know, seems to be [Classic][1]. (I thought it was a hebraism.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Drepudium" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5936" RevisionGUID="f6beccf4-419a-43d9-af7d-42f27632134c" CreationDate="2018-02-02T20:23:50.537" UserId="469" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="FWIW,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. in societies where people marry young there is almost no courtship or status of &quot;boyfriend and girlfriend&quot;, so I assume you also mean a breakup between married/engaged couples?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [NVG Mt 1,19](http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-matthaeum_lt.html) uses **dimittere** as a verb. [Mt 5,31](http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-matthaeum_lt.html#5) in turn uses **repudium** to mean divorce as a noun, which I didn't know, seems to be [Classic][1]. (I thought it was a hebraism.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Drepudium" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5937" RevisionGUID="b6321316-4ecc-4fa1-b7b6-7ed535d70c2e" CreationDate="2018-02-02T23:54:01.673" UserId="13" Text="I have come across the phrase &quot;economy principle&quot; somewhere I cannot recall, talking about why some combinations of palyrus fragments were made. What ia thia principle exactly? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19644" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5937" RevisionGUID="b6321316-4ecc-4fa1-b7b6-7ed535d70c2e" CreationDate="2018-02-02T23:54:01.673" UserId="13" Text="What is the &quot;economy principle&quot; in papyrology exactly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19645" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5937" RevisionGUID="b6321316-4ecc-4fa1-b7b6-7ed535d70c2e" CreationDate="2018-02-02T23:54:01.673" UserId="13" Text="|papyrology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5938" RevisionGUID="821d5060-9d54-4846-9fa7-6168330e6793" CreationDate="2018-02-03T00:24:29.017" UserId="79" Text="Perhaps this would qualify as a breakup letter.&#xD;&#xA;By skipping a couple of lines of the second half of Ovid's *Amores* 3.9a we get a decent breakup note.&#xD;&#xA;The rest of the poem is not addressed to the soon-to-be-ex mistress, so it would not fit the format of a breakup note.&#xD;&#xA;Here's the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Quando ego non fixus lateri patienter adhaesi,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;ipse tuus custos, ipse vir, ipse comes?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;scilicet et populo per me comitata placebas;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;causa fuit multis noster amoris amor.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;turpia quid referam vanae mendacia linguae&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;et periuratos in mea damna deos?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;quid iuvenum tacitos inter convivia nutus&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;verbaque conpositis dissimulata notis?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;His et quae taceo duravi saepe ferendis;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;quaere alium pro me, qui queat ista pati.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;iam mea votiva puppis redimita corona&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;lenta tumescentes aequoris audit aquas.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;desine blanditias et verba, potentia quondam,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;perdere &amp;#151; non ego nunc stultus, ut ante fui!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding translation by J. Lewis May:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tell me when I have ever failed to be at your side, your escort, your lover, and your friend. You owe your popularity to going about with me. It's because I loved you that you got so many lovers. What's the use of my telling you about your lying tongue, and all the solemn oaths you've broken to deceive me? What's the good of referring to the ogling and winking that went on at dinner between you and your young admirers, and the code words employed to conceal the true sense of what you were saying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There! there are plenty of other instances I could give, but that's the sort of thing I've had to put up with. Look and see if you can find another man who would stand what I have stood. Already I can hear the water rippling behind my vessel's stern, hung with the votive wreath. Farewell. No, I don't want any more kisses; and it's no good talking like that any more; it's waste of time; your words don't move me now. I'm not the madman I used to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see the rest of the lament in both languages, see [this page](http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/ovid/lboo/lboo53.htm)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5937" RevisionGUID="9208b45c-609f-4384-913c-04f42f960696" CreationDate="2018-02-03T00:25:25.043" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="I have come across the phrase &quot;economy principle&quot; somewhere I cannot recall, talking about why some combinations of papyrus fragments were made. What is this principle exactly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19649" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5937" RevisionGUID="9208b45c-609f-4384-913c-04f42f960696" CreationDate="2018-02-03T00:25:25.043" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|terminology|papyrology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5933" RevisionGUID="8adcc553-e96a-44c3-9116-a5fec0b90569" CreationDate="2018-02-03T00:28:39.227" UserId="79" Comment="added 325 characters in body" Text="Are there any attested breakup letters, notes, or similar in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;A great number of relationships must have started and ended in classical antiquity, but I don't recall seeing any passages with the message &quot;I'm breaking up with you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer something written, a letter perhaps, but attestations in plays or other oral forms are a good second choice.&#xD;&#xA;I don't really know whether such notes exist, but there must be some breakup announcements out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As duly noted in an answer, relationships are different in different cultures.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore this question is not strictly restricted to dating &amp;mdash; although that would be preferred &amp;mdash; but engaged and married couples are also possible.&#xD;&#xA;The key thing is the more or less unilateral ending of a romantic relationship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was inspired by [this SMBC comic](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/symbols), not by real life events." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19652" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5800" RevisionGUID="a579e192-d67a-4262-85f6-f0463e64eb31" CreationDate="2018-02-03T02:35:37.627" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="19653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5939" RevisionGUID="1808df5b-9e23-4ece-9684-a36d7de3ed9c" CreationDate="2018-02-03T04:03:47.800" UserId="867" Text="In poems 24 and 25 of book 3 (which some editors see as together comprising one poem), Propertius breaks up with Cynthia.  He states this most clearly in this excerpt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quinque tibi potui servire fideliter annos:   &#xD;&#xA;ungue meam morso saepe querere fidem.  &#xD;&#xA;nil moveor lacrimis: ista sum captus ab arte;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; semper ab insidiis, Cynthia, flere soles.  &#xD;&#xA;flebo ego discedens, sed fletum iniuria vincit:  &#xD;&#xA;tu bene conveniens non sinis ire iugum.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; limina iam nostris valeant lacrimantia verbis,   &#xD;&#xA;nec tamen irata ianua&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fracta manu.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Propertius, *Elegies*, 3.25.3-10&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation (courtesy of G. P. Goold):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For five years I managed to serve you faithfully: now you will oft&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bite your nails and mourn the loss of my loyalty.  &#xD;&#xA;Your tears move me&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not: it was that trick which ensnared me; always when you weep,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cynthia, you plan to deceive. I shall weep when I go, but wrongs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; outlast tears: it is you who do not allow a well-matched team to run.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Farewell the threshold still tearful at my grievances, and farewell&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the door, never, in spite of all, shattered by my angry fists!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5937" RevisionGUID="8a42e95e-eef0-4846-977c-e6e4e635544c" CreationDate="2018-02-03T10:57:09.060" UserId="13" Comment="added update" Text="I have come across the phrase &quot;economy principle&quot; somewhere I cannot recall, talking about why some combinations of papyrus fragments were made. What is this principle exactly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I typed it, I was on my mobile and close to bedtime, so I couldn't look for my source. Right now, I opened the book &quot;The newest Sappho&quot; by Anton Bierl and André Lardinois, which I suspected to be the source, and found the following quotes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Only the fragments overlapping with Sappho fragment 9 did not seem to fit physically or textually into this sequence. M.L. West posited on grounds of economy that it should be placed in the missing column between fragment 5 and the Brothers Song. (p. 40)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whether πότνιαι or πόντιαι, it is significant that the placement (indepen- dently, on physical grounds of fiber-matching and the principle of economy) of this fragment at this point in the sequence—results in a continuation of the alphabetic sequence of poems by first letter of incipits in π- (p. 41)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[…] and, while they could have come before the ο- sequence of incipits, reasons of economy suggest that they came together in the gap between the ο-π sequence of incipits and the final poem […] (p. 45, footnote)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's where I found this principle mentioned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5940" RevisionGUID="8462f7e4-ebad-4fea-b4ec-e96560d25c99" CreationDate="2018-02-03T12:52:21.193" UserId="324" Text="With all due respect to our learned friends Cerberus and Brianpck, I do not think that any of the proposed translations makes the slightest bit of sense. It might be helpful to have a photograph of the graffito. In the given context one expects something like &quot;The desire for wandering is killing us&quot;, perhaps in very inadequate Latin. &quot;a nobis&quot; can be compared with the use of &quot;a&quot; as a nota accusativi in Ibero-Romance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5941" RevisionGUID="7da8cf85-77b8-48d6-86e9-55ee85dab808" CreationDate="2018-02-03T17:55:23.933" UserId="39" Text="Economy stands here for **economy of material**, i.e. the assumption is that the scribe tried to use the material/space available to its maximum (i.e. economically)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5941" RevisionGUID="13e443e5-64de-4ecc-80d8-f9faf4d88564" CreationDate="2018-02-03T18:08:28.260" UserId="39" Comment="added 249 characters in body" Text="Economy stands here for **economy of material**, i.e. the assumption is that the scribe tried to use the material/space/resources available to its maximum (i.e. economically), cf. Bagnall 1995:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The labor involved in making papyrus was considerable, and its price was therefore significant, most typically several days' average worker's wages for a roll&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Reading Papyri, Writing Ancient History*, p. 13)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5941" RevisionGUID="45ea4521-8308-4446-a499-e012319b955d" CreationDate="2018-02-03T18:46:59.557" UserId="39" Comment="added 433 characters in body" Text="Economy stands here for **economy of material**, i.e. the assumption is that the scribe tried to use the material/space/resources available to its maximum (i.e. economically), cf. Bagnall 1995:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The labor involved in making papyrus was considerable, and its price was therefore significant, most typically several days' average worker's wages for a roll&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Reading Papyri, Writing Ancient History*, p. 13).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. [Catullus 22][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suffenus iste, Vare, quem probe nosti,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;homo est venustus et dicax et urbanus,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;idemque longe plurimos facit versus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Puto esse ego illi milia aut decem aut plura&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;perscripta, nec sic, ut fit, in palimpsesto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;relata: cartae regiae, novi libri,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;novi umbilici, lora rubra, membranae,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;derecta plumbo et pumice omnia aequata.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Catullus_22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5941" RevisionGUID="0596ff9f-62e0-44ec-b6a9-b9cd5c46573b" CreationDate="2018-02-03T18:55:56.163" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted the poem. Feel free to roll back! (To break a row, end the row with a double space or &lt;br&gt;.)" Text="Economy stands here for **economy of material**, i.e. the assumption is that the scribe tried to use the material/space/resources available to its maximum (i.e. economically), cf. Bagnall 1995:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The labor involved in making papyrus was considerable, and its price was therefore significant, most typically several days' average worker's wages for a roll&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Reading Papyri, Writing Ancient History*, p. 13).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. [Catullus 22][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Suffenus iste, Vare, quem probe nosti,  &#xD;&#xA;homo est venustus et dicax et urbanus,  &#xD;&#xA;idemque longe plurimos facit versus.  &#xD;&#xA;Puto esse ego illi milia aut decem aut plura  &#xD;&#xA;perscripta, nec sic, ut fit, in palimpsesto  &#xD;&#xA;relata: cartae regiae, novi libri,  &#xD;&#xA;novi umbilici, lora rubra, membranae,  &#xD;&#xA;derecta plumbo et pumice omnia aequata.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Catullus_22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19660" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="8b0cc525-0393-415a-8903-896063388b50" CreationDate="2018-02-03T20:40:42.490" UserId="79" Comment="63" />
  <row Id="19661" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4901" RevisionGUID="3d5d76ce-c585-4aad-bd52-46354b0dd3cb" CreationDate="2018-02-03T20:41:36.880" UserId="79" Comment="64" />
  <row Id="19662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5941" RevisionGUID="1e3fcfb6-b6e9-4566-9d7f-4e348a04c209" CreationDate="2018-02-03T21:37:38.143" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 799 characters in body" Text="(to be edited)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(to be edited)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(to be edited)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5941" RevisionGUID="d22b90aa-9dea-42aa-80d4-b4b5f2a1454f" CreationDate="2018-02-04T00:40:49.820" UserId="39" Comment="added 198 characters in body" Text="Paul Schubert ([Schubert 2011][1]) explains:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199843695.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199843695-e-009&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9cAWW.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5941" RevisionGUID="6eb3a37d-df89-4528-9a0a-7f14e32334ad" CreationDate="2018-02-04T00:48:58.773" UserId="39" Comment="added 198 characters in body" Text="Economy stands here for the most efficient use of space/materials/other resources at the disposal of the scribe because, as Roger Bagnall puts it, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;the labor involved in making papyrus was considerable, and its price was therefore significant, most typically several days' average worker's wages for a roll&quot; (Bagnall 1995: 13). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paul Schubert ([Schubert 2011][1]) explains it further:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199843695.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199843695-e-009&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9cAWW.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19665" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5201" RevisionGUID="4ab814be-4fea-4a6c-ae5d-c6735ca635ef" CreationDate="2018-02-04T12:49:20.640" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="19666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5942" RevisionGUID="c223b09e-edeb-4d16-ac0d-b9e979c34e83" CreationDate="2018-02-04T15:41:14.990" UserId="2387" Text="I have a friend who asked me for help translating some words into Latin (because I took a few courses over a decade ago...), which the internet does for us, but we're not sure that the web is capturing the meaning and connotation: &#xD;&#xA;Self-respect&#xD;&#xA;Compassion&#xD;&#xA;Curiosity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are coming up with simply: respectu sui. compassio. curiositas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They say they're just interested in the motto, but I'm afraid they might be secretly planning to get a tattoo or something and I'm terrified of giving them bad information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19667" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5942" RevisionGUID="c223b09e-edeb-4d16-ac0d-b9e979c34e83" CreationDate="2018-02-04T15:41:14.990" UserId="2387" Text="How to capture the meaning and connotation of Self-respect, Compassion, Curiosity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19668" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5942" RevisionGUID="c223b09e-edeb-4d16-ac0d-b9e979c34e83" CreationDate="2018-02-04T15:41:14.990" UserId="2387" Text="|translation|meaning|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5942" RevisionGUID="b46759c7-b9d1-4ee6-936e-14aceee71a06" CreationDate="2018-02-04T15:47:25.200" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and reformatted. Feel free to edit further or undo my edits!" Text="I have a friend who asked me for help translating some words into Latin (because I took a few courses over a decade ago...), which the internet does for us, but we're not sure that the web is capturing the meaning and connotation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Self-respect  &#xD;&#xA;Compassion  &#xD;&#xA;Curiosity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are coming up with simply: respectu sui. compassio. curiositas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They say they're just interested in the motto, but I'm afraid they might be secretly planning to get a tattoo or something and I'm terrified of giving them bad information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19670" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5942" RevisionGUID="b46759c7-b9d1-4ee6-936e-14aceee71a06" CreationDate="2018-02-04T15:47:25.200" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and reformatted. Feel free to edit further or undo my edits!" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5943" RevisionGUID="f5d533ab-3062-495f-9269-926b130ab4eb" CreationDate="2018-02-04T16:22:18.933" UserId="79" Text="For a translation task like this one you only need single words in their basic (uninflected) form.&#xD;&#xA;This is best achieved with a good dictionary, and [we have a list of online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate and other such online translation tools are [very unreliable](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79); they will sometimes get it right, but they can also get it disastrously wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have three guesses, and you can now pick a dictionary of your choice and see what they mean.&#xD;&#xA;(Even if you use a dictionary to translate from English to Latin, please always check the back-translations from Latin to English. There might be surprising nuances and connotations.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*Curiositas*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=curiositas&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is translated &quot;desire of knowledge, curiosity, inquisitiveness&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Seems very appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;- [*Compassio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=compassio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) means &quot;fellow-suffering, fellow-feeling&quot;, or maybe &quot;sympathy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is not a bad choice either, but perhaps not as good fit as *curiositas* for &quot;curiosity&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I recommend checking out words like [*clementia*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=clementia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), [*benevolentia*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=benevolentia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), [*misericordia*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=misericordia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) and [*pietas*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=pietas1&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;To find a word that best matches your intention, take a look at these dictionary entries (and others you may find or others might suggest) and see which one seems most appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;- *Respectus sui* means [*respectus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DR%3Aentry+group%3D22%3Aentry%3Drespectus2) towards oneself.&#xD;&#xA;(You had it in the ablative form *respectu*, but the nominative is more appropriate here. If you want a different case, then all your words should share that case.)&#xD;&#xA;This word means &quot;respect&quot; in the sense of consideration, and it means literally &quot;looking back&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure which word would be a good translation for &quot;respect&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested, you could ask a separate question about that point.&#xD;&#xA;My best guess now is [*reverentia*](reverentia), but I suppose there are better options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I would prefer to have a single word so that the three concepts look similar.&#xD;&#xA;This would allow you to drop the *sui*.&#xD;&#xA;How about [*dignitas*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=dignitas&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is finally up to you to choose which words seem most appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;You can also take into consideration how the meanings and sounds of the three words work together.&#xD;&#xA;For example, ***dignitas, pietas, curiositas*** might sound good.&#xD;&#xA;Please let us know of your choice; I would be curious to know what you ended up with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you could do me a favour, tell your friend not to give a list of words to translate into Latin, but describe ideas that he wants to convey in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Words in different languages rarely have a one-to-one correspondence, but the same sentiment can be expressed in many languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5941" RevisionGUID="eeee0147-de4d-4c42-a7a9-c6a56d8ce010" CreationDate="2018-02-04T19:10:51.303" UserId="39" Comment="added 429 characters in body" Text="Economy stands here for the most efficient use of space/materials/other resources at the disposal of the scribe because, as Roger Bagnall puts it, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;the labor involved in making papyrus was considerable, and its price was therefore significant, most typically several days' average worker's wages for a roll&quot; (Bagnall 1995: 13). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paul Schubert ([Schubert 2011][1]) explains it further:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. [Catullus 22][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suffenus iste, Vare, quem probe nosti,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;homo est venustus et dicax et urbanus,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;idemque longe plurimos facit versus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Puto esse ego illi milia aut decem aut plura&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;perscripta, nec sic, ut fit, in palimpsesto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;relata: cartae regiae, novi libri,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;novi umbilici, lora rubra, membranae,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;derecta plumbo et pumice omnia aequata.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199843695.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199843695-e-009&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9cAWW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Catullus_22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5914" RevisionGUID="3dfaf69a-c3a6-4430-aa65-d492bc24fd2e" CreationDate="2018-02-04T21:19:45.467" UserId="13" Comment="added update" Text="So here are the questions left:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Why are the two fragments joined?&#xD;&#xA; 2. How did the extra vestiges and uncertain letters pop up in&#xD;&#xA;    Lobel-Page's reading?&#xD;&#xA; 3. How does that uncertain nu in l. 1 become an uncertain epsilon?&#xD;&#xA; 4. How does αν̣ turn to αϲ̣ / α[.] in l. 3? And how can it be uncertain&#xD;&#xA;    whether there is or not a one-letter lacuna there?&#xD;&#xA; 5. How does τ[ turn to πο̣[ in l. 7?&#xD;&#xA; 6. How does l. 9 turn from starting with [.]α̣ϲ to starting with ω̣ϲ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a couple conjectures that help answer some of those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Either the papyrus of fr. 9 has a blank stretch that reaches the bottom and joins with matching edges of fr. 15, or I have no clue; no argument of &quot;convincing supplements&quot; can be made, as is the case for joining the 2166(a) scraps to fr. 1 col. i, and besides a similarity argument to place the two in the same column, I have no other ideas; perhaps &quot;principle of economy&quot;? But that is just a tad far-fetched IMHO…;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Very faint traces of ink that Grenfell and Hunt just missed but other examiners of the papyrus saw and tried to read?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Weird epsilon with faded middle stroke looking like left half of a nu, plus hole containing supposed second vertical leg of the nu? Then on further examination the faded middle leg came to be barely visible as opposed to completely absent?&#xD;&#xA; 4. Very faint trace of ink right next to a lacuna that could be interpreted as either part of a nu's left leg or the leftmost, almost-vertical part of a sigma, and was reinterpreted as a sigma because the insertion of the Abanthi conjecture created havoc in the grammatical structure and meaning of the text?&#xD;&#xA; 5. Vestige cfr. 2 + the right leg of the pi being precisely a hole in the papyrus?&#xD;&#xA; 6. As written in the question (Update 3), «I can kinda see how the right half of an omega may be taken for an alpha with a hole to the left containing another letter».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that is pretty much all I can do without an image. These are conjectures that, if verified, would satisfyingly answer the question of WTF happened to the papyrus text from Grenfell-Hunt to Lobel-Page, and then Campbell took up Abanthi and interpreted some vestiges consequently. So that would solve the textual problems here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Habemus imaginem. Among the fragments at the following link are both of these two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://blogs.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/164/2015/02/33-Fragments-of-poems-Sappho-1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we can finally actually answer at least most of these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The joining still seems a bit conjectural and rejectable to me: no physical joining is apparent in the image, and sense continuation isn't a valid argument with the sorry state of fr. 12;&#xD;&#xA; 2. The extra alpha on l. 1 is totally cut off, so it just is NOT a thing; the only justification for it is an apparent ink trace very close to the border; I read `. ΓΥΛΑ̣ .`, where the last vestige is just a vertical leg, so it could be a mu, a nu, a beta, a gamma, an eta, a iota, a kappa, a pi, a rho, a tau, an ypsilon, and the first vestige really looks more like a rho or an apostrophe as suggested by Lobel-Page, since it extends vertically; I read `ΝΘΙ`, with not even the slightest hint of an ink trace before the nu; just look at that cut chopping off almost all of ICA! I would be cautious and read `IC̣Ạ . . .`, and MA and NA are both possible; I would read `KTIN .`; the nu turning to a sigma is totally absent, so `KTIN . [.] C̣` is my reading;  in fact, I wouldn't read the sigma at line end as certain: it could pretty well be an epsilon; though the AE combination can't fit the meter there, so maybe that is the reason of the certainty; the omega in l. 5 is definitely uncertain: it's barely even visible; and in IDOISAN the OI are half chopped away by a lacuna, so uncertain; in AYTA I agree with Campbell that both A are certain; where is that phi though? I will just drop it; KYPROGENEA has certain YP IMO; the following line may well start with an omega, because there is a trace of ink at the top, but it could be apparent, and that would be an alpha, perhaps lone, perhaps TA; and the tau of TOYTO is just half a horizontal line;&#xD;&#xA; 3. We have, in that line, three vestiges: one is an underscore _, one looks like the far bottom of a nu, though it is very lowly slanted and there is no left vertical leg, so that apparent going back up that caused the nu reading is probably just a random thing and this is more like an epsilon, and then there is a little dot; if that is taken as an epsilon, then the underscore is the bottom of a delta or beta, as Lobel-Page suggests; or we can suppose that the low-slanting stroke suddenly bent up and came back down to the right end of the underscore, which is just an accidental letter connection; an unlikely thesis, but still;&#xD;&#xA; 4. We discussed that above: `. [.]` is what I see, since the alpha is almost entirely faded away, and no more ink is apparent before the hole;&#xD;&#xA; 5. The uncertain omicron is a microscopic vestige which I read `.`, and the tau/pi is actually doubtful, because the place where the second leg of a pi would be has a bit of no ink and a bit of blue (!) which is probably shadow or some weird damage to the papyrus, so I cannot tell if it is there or not;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Discussed above, `[T]&lt;u&gt;A&lt;/u&gt;C`, `&lt;u&gt;A&lt;/u&gt;C`, `&lt;u&gt;ω&lt;/u&gt;C` are all possible IMO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5944" RevisionGUID="7f5c46df-f1ba-4570-835d-570f784ced43" CreationDate="2018-02-05T21:19:50.040" UserId="79" Text="Cambridge is known in Latin as *Cantabrigia*, and I do not recall seeing other names in use.&#xD;&#xA;What is the etymology of this name and how does it relate to the English one?&#xD;&#xA;It does remotely resemble the English name, but not quite.&#xD;&#xA;Based on what I have managed to find online, the English name has went through a number of different versions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am having hard time telling whether the Latin name is a Latinization of some English version or a translation of some sort (presumably in two parts: *canta+brigia*), and how old the Latin name might be.&#xD;&#xA;Could someone shed some light on the origin of the Latin name?&#xD;&#xA;Due to the nature of the university located in the city, I hope there is a fair chance for this question to be answerable with nice sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19675" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5944" RevisionGUID="7f5c46df-f1ba-4570-835d-570f784ced43" CreationDate="2018-02-05T21:19:50.040" UserId="79" Text="What is the etymology of the Latin name of Cambridge?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19676" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5944" RevisionGUID="7f5c46df-f1ba-4570-835d-570f784ced43" CreationDate="2018-02-05T21:19:50.040" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|academic-latin|place-names|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5941" RevisionGUID="cfe537ad-acce-4879-90be-634ad9342b08" CreationDate="2018-02-05T22:22:51.863" UserId="39" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="It most likely refers to the principle/law of formulaic economy or communicative economy in textology. More on than later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Economy might stand here for the most efficient use of space/materials/other resources at the disposal of the scribe because, as Roger Bagnall puts it, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;the labor involved in making papyrus was considerable, and its price was therefore significant, most typically several days' average worker's wages for a roll&quot; (Bagnall 1995: 13). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paul Schubert ([Schubert 2011][1]) explains it further:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. [Catullus 22][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suffenus iste, Vare, quem probe nosti,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;homo est venustus et dicax et urbanus,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;idemque longe plurimos facit versus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Puto esse ego illi milia aut decem aut plura&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;perscripta, nec sic, ut fit, in palimpsesto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;relata: cartae regiae, novi libri,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;novi umbilici, lora rubra, membranae,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;derecta plumbo et pumice omnia aequata.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199843695.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199843695-e-009&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9cAWW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Catullus_22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5941" RevisionGUID="40917d16-91d5-46bb-b552-d577ded9d852" CreationDate="2018-02-05T23:16:27.980" UserId="39" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="It most likely refers to the principle/law of formulaic economy or communicative economy in textology (Milman Parry). More on than later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s my original answer - turns out it is wrong, but I’ll keep it as a reminder to myself never to write about things I don’t understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Economy might stand here for the most efficient use of space/materials/other resources at the disposal of the scribe because, as Roger Bagnall puts it, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;the labor involved in making papyrus was considerable, and its price was therefore significant, most typically several days' average worker's wages for a roll&quot; (Bagnall 1995: 13). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paul Schubert ([Schubert 2011][1]) explains it further:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. [Catullus 22][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suffenus iste, Vare, quem probe nosti,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;homo est venustus et dicax et urbanus,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;idemque longe plurimos facit versus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Puto esse ego illi milia aut decem aut plura&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;perscripta, nec sic, ut fit, in palimpsesto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;relata: cartae regiae, novi libri,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;novi umbilici, lora rubra, membranae,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;derecta plumbo et pumice omnia aequata.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199843695.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199843695-e-009&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9cAWW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Catullus_22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5945" RevisionGUID="9af3abb4-cb88-4159-9dcc-4716b790b9d9" CreationDate="2018-02-06T00:09:47.493" UserId="1694" Text="I don't know any specifics, but I'll present my best guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Wikipedia, &quot;Cambridge&quot; was known in Anglo-Saxon times as &quot;Grantebrycge&quot;, and the river it was on was known as the &quot;Granta&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, in Middle English times, the town became renamed as &quot;Cambridge&quot;, and part of the river that went through it was renamed the &quot;Cam&quot;, after the town.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, here's what I think is probably a reasonable scenario: the original name was Latinized as *_Grantabrigia_, and when &quot;Cambridge&quot; replaced the original name of the town, the Latin name was according adjusted to &quot;Cantabrigia&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now of course, this leaves unanswered why _Grantebrycge_ became _Cambridge_ in the first place, there being no obvious phonological motivation for the change, but I think it gives motivation for the Latin form given the change in the English name." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5941" RevisionGUID="8846dfdd-ed37-43bf-812c-b13fad0c78c7" CreationDate="2018-02-06T00:15:18.767" UserId="39" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="**UPDATE:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It most likely refers to **the principle/law of formulaic economy** or communicative economy in textology (Milman Parry). More on than later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s my original answer - turns out it is wrong, but I’ll keep it as a reminder to myself never to write about things I don’t understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wrong answer:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Economy might stand here for the most efficient use of space/materials/other resources at the disposal of the scribe because, as Roger Bagnall puts it, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;the labor involved in making papyrus was considerable, and its price was therefore significant, most typically several days' average worker's wages for a roll&quot; (Bagnall 1995: 13). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paul Schubert ([Schubert 2011][1]) explains it further:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. [Catullus 22][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suffenus iste, Vare, quem probe nosti,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;homo est venustus et dicax et urbanus,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;idemque longe plurimos facit versus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Puto esse ego illi milia aut decem aut plura&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;perscripta, nec sic, ut fit, in palimpsesto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;relata: cartae regiae, novi libri,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;novi umbilici, lora rubra, membranae,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;derecta plumbo et pumice omnia aequata.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199843695.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199843695-e-009&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9cAWW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Catullus_22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5945" RevisionGUID="9dcad8ac-fa45-424e-bb0e-4f3f4420375d" CreationDate="2018-02-06T00:19:30.203" UserId="1694" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="I don't know any specifics, but I'll present my best guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Wikipedia, &quot;Cambridge&quot; was known in Anglo-Saxon times as &quot;Grantebrycge&quot;, and the river it was on was known as the &quot;Granta&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, in Middle English times, the town became renamed as &quot;Cambridge&quot;, and part of the river that went through it was renamed the &quot;Cam&quot;, after the town.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, here's what I think is probably a reasonable scenario: the original name was Latinized as *_Grantabrigia_, and when &quot;Cambridge&quot; replaced the original name of the town, the Latin name was according adjusted to &quot;Cantabrigia&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now of course, this leaves unanswered why _Grantebrycge_ became _Cambridge_ in the first place, there being no obvious phonological motivation for the change of [gr] to [k], but I think it gives motivation for the Latin form given the change in the English name." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5941" RevisionGUID="1acf4c33-cda1-42e8-bdce-cd0dcff3f386" CreationDate="2018-02-06T02:39:25.617" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 205 characters in body" Text="**UPDATE:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s my original answer - I believe it is wrong and I am unable to delete it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wrong answer:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Economy might stand here for the most efficient use of space/materials/other resources at the disposal of the scribe because, as Roger Bagnall puts it, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;the labor involved in making papyrus was considerable, and its price was therefore significant, most typically several days' average worker's wages for a roll&quot; (Bagnall 1995: 13). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paul Schubert ([Schubert 2011][1]) explains it further:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. [Catullus 22][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suffenus iste, Vare, quem probe nosti,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;homo est venustus et dicax et urbanus,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;idemque longe plurimos facit versus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Puto esse ego illi milia aut decem aut plura&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;perscripta, nec sic, ut fit, in palimpsesto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;relata: cartae regiae, novi libri,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;novi umbilici, lora rubra, membranae,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;derecta plumbo et pumice omnia aequata.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199843695.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199843695-e-009&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9cAWW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Catullus_22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5945" RevisionGUID="c8945e5c-3816-45b5-ab43-7af93c29cf0c" CreationDate="2018-02-06T03:43:13.813" UserId="1694" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I don't know any specifics, but I'll present my best guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Wikipedia, &quot;Cambridge&quot; was known in Anglo-Saxon times as &quot;Grantebrycge&quot;, and the river it was on was known as the &quot;Granta&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, in Middle English times, the town became renamed as &quot;Cambridge&quot;, and part of the river that went through it was renamed the &quot;Cam&quot;, after the town.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, here's what I think is probably a reasonable scenario: the original name was Latinized as *_Grantabrigia_, and when &quot;Cambridge&quot; replaced the original name of the town, the Latin name was accordingly adjusted to &quot;Cantabrigia&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now of course, this leaves unanswered why _Grantebrycge_ became _Cambridge_ in the first place, there being no obvious phonological motivation for the change of [gr] to [k], but I think it gives motivation for the Latin form given the change in the English name." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5914" RevisionGUID="769eb470-56d4-4768-88b1-1bf05a17032b" CreationDate="2018-02-06T08:06:53.980" UserId="13" Comment="added pic" Text="So here are the questions left:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Why are the two fragments joined?&#xD;&#xA; 2. How did the extra vestiges and uncertain letters pop up in&#xD;&#xA;    Lobel-Page's reading?&#xD;&#xA; 3. How does that uncertain nu in l. 1 become an uncertain epsilon?&#xD;&#xA; 4. How does αν̣ turn to αϲ̣ / α[.] in l. 3? And how can it be uncertain&#xD;&#xA;    whether there is or not a one-letter lacuna there?&#xD;&#xA; 5. How does τ[ turn to πο̣[ in l. 7?&#xD;&#xA; 6. How does l. 9 turn from starting with [.]α̣ϲ to starting with ω̣ϲ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a couple conjectures that help answer some of those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Either the papyrus of fr. 9 has a blank stretch that reaches the bottom and joins with matching edges of fr. 15, or I have no clue; no argument of &quot;convincing supplements&quot; can be made, as is the case for joining the 2166(a) scraps to fr. 1 col. i, and besides a similarity argument to place the two in the same column, I have no other ideas; perhaps &quot;principle of economy&quot;? But that is just a tad far-fetched IMHO…;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Very faint traces of ink that Grenfell and Hunt just missed but other examiners of the papyrus saw and tried to read?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Weird epsilon with faded middle stroke looking like left half of a nu, plus hole containing supposed second vertical leg of the nu? Then on further examination the faded middle leg came to be barely visible as opposed to completely absent?&#xD;&#xA; 4. Very faint trace of ink right next to a lacuna that could be interpreted as either part of a nu's left leg or the leftmost, almost-vertical part of a sigma, and was reinterpreted as a sigma because the insertion of the Abanthi conjecture created havoc in the grammatical structure and meaning of the text?&#xD;&#xA; 5. Vestige cfr. 2 + the right leg of the pi being precisely a hole in the papyrus?&#xD;&#xA; 6. As written in the question (Update 3), «I can kinda see how the right half of an omega may be taken for an alpha with a hole to the left containing another letter».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that is pretty much all I can do without an image. These are conjectures that, if verified, would satisfyingly answer the question of WTF happened to the papyrus text from Grenfell-Hunt to Lobel-Page, and then Campbell took up Abanthi and interpreted some vestiges consequently. So that would solve the textual problems here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Habemus imaginem. Among the fragments at the following link are both of these two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://blogs.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/164/2015/02/33-Fragments-of-poems-Sappho-1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a zoom-in to the relevant fragments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we can finally actually answer at least most of these questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The joining still seems a bit conjectural and rejectable to me: no physical joining is apparent in the image, and sense continuation isn't a valid argument with the sorry state of fr. 12;&#xD;&#xA; 2. The extra alpha on l. 1 is totally cut off, so it just is NOT a thing; the only justification for it is an apparent ink trace very close to the border; I read `. ΓΥΛΑ̣ .`, where the last vestige is just a vertical leg, so it could be a mu, a nu, a beta, a gamma, an eta, a iota, a kappa, a pi, a rho, a tau, an ypsilon, and the first vestige really looks more like a rho or an apostrophe as suggested by Lobel-Page, since it extends vertically; I read `ΝΘΙ`, with not even the slightest hint of an ink trace before the nu; just look at that cut chopping off almost all of ICA! I would be cautious and read `IC̣Ạ . . .`, and MA and NA are both possible; I would read `KTIN .`; the nu turning to a sigma is totally absent, so `KTIN . [.] C̣` is my reading;  in fact, I wouldn't read the sigma at line end as certain: it could pretty well be an epsilon; though the AE combination can't fit the meter there, so maybe that is the reason of the certainty; the omega in l. 5 is definitely uncertain: it's barely even visible; and in IDOISAN the OI are half chopped away by a lacuna, so uncertain; in AYTA I agree with Campbell that both A are certain; where is that phi though? I will just drop it; KYPROGENEA has certain YP IMO; the following line may well start with an omega, because there is a trace of ink at the top, but it could be apparent, and that would be an alpha, perhaps lone, perhaps TA; and the tau of TOYTO is just half a horizontal line;&#xD;&#xA; 3. We have, in that line, three vestiges: one is an underscore _, one looks like the far bottom of a nu, though it is very lowly slanted and there is no left vertical leg, so that apparent going back up that caused the nu reading is probably just a random thing and this is more like an epsilon, and then there is a little dot; if that is taken as an epsilon, then the underscore is the bottom of a delta or beta, as Lobel-Page suggests; or we can suppose that the low-slanting stroke suddenly bent up and came back down to the right end of the underscore, which is just an accidental letter connection; an unlikely thesis, but still;&#xD;&#xA; 4. We discussed that above: `. [.]` is what I see, since the alpha is almost entirely faded away, and no more ink is apparent before the hole;&#xD;&#xA; 5. The uncertain omicron is a microscopic vestige which I read `.`, and the tau/pi is actually doubtful, because the place where the second leg of a pi would be has a bit of no ink and a bit of blue (!) which is probably shadow or some weird damage to the papyrus, so I cannot tell if it is there or not;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Discussed above, `[T]&lt;u&gt;A&lt;/u&gt;C`, `&lt;u&gt;A&lt;/u&gt;C`, `&lt;u&gt;ω&lt;/u&gt;C` are all possible IMO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VEtBF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5946" RevisionGUID="e6fc5072-0a10-483c-bf15-56dd30a549fa" CreationDate="2018-02-06T11:26:20.403" UserId="867" Text="It is a 17th-century Latinisation of the Anglo-Saxon name for the town:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The term is derived from [Cantabrigia][1], a medieval Latin name for Cambridge invented on the basis of the Anglo-Saxon name Cantebrigge.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cantebrigge, also known as [Grentebrige][2], is itself an evolution of the earlier name Grantabrycge - bridge over the Granta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Roman name for the town was in fact [Duroliponte][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantabrigian&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.colc.co.uk/cambridge/cambridge/history.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duroliponte" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5946" RevisionGUID="2c9292da-e319-45f1-9ab0-b2b6984f8b94" CreationDate="2018-02-06T11:39:40.723" UserId="867" Comment="added 329 characters in body" Text="It is a 17th-century Latinisation of the Anglo-Saxon name for the town:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The term is derived from [Cantabrigia][1], a medieval Latin name for Cambridge invented on the basis of the Anglo-Saxon name Cantebrigge.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cantebrigge, also known as [Grentebrige][2], is itself an evolution of the earlier name Grantabrycge - bridge over the Granta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Roman name for the town was in fact [Duroliponte][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ADDIT: Cantebrigge eventually came to be pronounced/spelt Cambridge.  It was only then that the river Granta came to be renamed the Cam in order to fit in with what was, by then, the folk etymology that Cambridge must mean a bridge over the Cam.  See [here][2] and [here][4].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantabrigian&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.colc.co.uk/cambridge/cambridge/history.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duroliponte&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.varsity.co.uk/features/8856" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5947" RevisionGUID="5944507c-0f44-40ec-8db9-bb746110da4f" CreationDate="2018-02-06T11:46:32.150" UserId="324" Text="The “Dictionary of British Place names” writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Grontabricc c.745, Cantebrigie 1086 (db). ‘Bridge on the River&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Granta’. Celtic river-name (see Grantchester) + OE brycg. The change&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from Grant- to Cam- is due to Norman influence. Cambridgeshire (OE&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scīr ‘district’) is first referred to in the 11th cent. The later&#xD;&#xA;&gt; river-name Cam is a back-formation from the place name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And similarly in a lot of other books. I fail to see, however, why “Norman influence” should have caused a shift of Gr- to C-. Perhaps dissimilation under the influence of the -br- in the second syllable? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5947" RevisionGUID="26f63fd5-4d4f-48d4-85e0-b92cc62a0037" CreationDate="2018-02-06T12:17:22.857" UserId="324" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The “Dictionary of British Place names” writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Grontabricc c.745, Cantebrigie 1086 (db). ‘Bridge on the River&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Granta’. Celtic river-name (see Grantchester) + OE brycg. The change&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from Grant- to Cam- is due to Norman influence. Cambridgeshire (OE&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scīr ‘district’) is first referred to in the 11th cent. The later&#xD;&#xA;&gt; river-name Cam is a back-formation from the place name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And similarly in a lot of other books. I fail to see, however, why “Norman influence” should have caused a shift of Gr- to C-. Perhaps dissimilation under the influence of the -br- in the third syllable? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5948" RevisionGUID="00df5744-1326-47d0-af8f-c5f5fd75281f" CreationDate="2018-02-06T13:01:03.097" UserId="324" Text="For the current scholarly thinking on this subject see this article in “Der neue Pauly”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fenni (122 words)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [English version]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ein für Tacitus ‘unzivilisiertes und sehr armes’ (mira feritas, foeda&#xD;&#xA;&gt; paupertas), aber ‘glückliches’ (beatius arbitrantur) Jägervolk im&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Norden, dessen Zuordnung zu den Germanen oder Sarmaten offen bleibt&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Tac. Germ. 46). Sie waren gewiß mit den als “Nachbarn” der Goten&#xD;&#xA;&gt; angesehenen Phínnoi (Φίννοι) in Nordskandinavien identisch (Ptol.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2,11,16: Hs. X; 3,5,8; vgl. Iord. Get. 3,22: mitissimi), nicht aber&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mit den Suomi-Finnen, die erst in der 2. H. des 12. Jh. so benannt&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wurden. Aufgrund der bei Tac. Germ. 46 geschilderten&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lebensgewohnheiten wurden die F. mit den Lappen gleichgesetzt, doch&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ist auch das nicht unumstritten.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dietz, Karlheinz (Würzburg)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bibliography H.H. Bartens, s.v. Finnische Völker, RGA 9, 70-77   A.A.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lund, Kritischer Forsch.-Ber. zur Germania des Tacitus, in: ANRW II&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 33.3, 1989-2222, bes. 2182-2188.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in the English version „offen bleibt“ has been mistranslated as „was left uncertain” (by whom? Tacitus?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/fenni-e410750#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5948" RevisionGUID="0f9fcfde-8597-4561-8c49-1005abb29f3d" CreationDate="2018-02-06T13:07:04.713" UserId="324" Comment="deleted 117 characters in body" Text="For the current scholarly thinking on this subject see this article in “Der neue Pauly”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fenni (122 words)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [English version]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ein für Tacitus ‘unzivilisiertes und sehr armes’ (mira feritas, foeda&#xD;&#xA;&gt; paupertas), aber ‘glückliches’ (beatius arbitrantur) Jägervolk im&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Norden, dessen Zuordnung zu den Germanen oder Sarmaten offen bleibt&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Tac. Germ. 46). Sie waren gewiß mit den als “Nachbarn” der Goten&#xD;&#xA;&gt; angesehenen Phínnoi (Φίννοι) in Nordskandinavien identisch (Ptol.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2,11,16: Hs. X; 3,5,8; vgl. Iord. Get. 3,22: mitissimi), nicht aber&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mit den Suomi-Finnen, die erst in der 2. H. des 12. Jh. so benannt&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wurden. Aufgrund der bei Tac. Germ. 46 geschilderten&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lebensgewohnheiten wurden die F. mit den Lappen gleichgesetzt, doch&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ist auch das nicht unumstritten.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dietz, Karlheinz (Würzburg)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bibliography H.H. Bartens, s.v. Finnische Völker, RGA 9, 70-77   A.A.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lund, Kritischer Forsch.-Ber. zur Germania des Tacitus, in: ANRW II&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 33.3, 1989-2222, bes. 2182-2188.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/fenni-e410750#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5948" RevisionGUID="cb00c722-03e3-4809-bd48-74eb9cf32ca9" CreationDate="2018-02-06T13:24:40.590" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted slightly and added the English version. Feel free to re-edit or undo my edit." Text="For the current scholarly thinking on this subject see [this article in “Der neue Pauly”](http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/fenni-e410750#):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fenni (122 words)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; German:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ein für Tacitus ‘unzivilisiertes und sehr armes’ (mira feritas, foeda&#xD;&#xA;&gt; paupertas), aber ‘glückliches’ (beatius arbitrantur) Jägervolk im&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Norden, dessen Zuordnung zu den Germanen oder Sarmaten offen bleibt&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Tac. Germ. 46). Sie waren gewiß mit den als “Nachbarn” der Goten&#xD;&#xA;&gt; angesehenen Phínnoi (Φίννοι) in Nordskandinavien identisch (Ptol.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2,11,16: Hs. X; 3,5,8; vgl. Iord. Get. 3,22: mitissimi), nicht aber&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mit den Suomi-Finnen, die erst in der 2. H. des 12. Jh. so benannt&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wurden. Aufgrund der bei Tac. Germ. 46 geschilderten&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lebensgewohnheiten wurden die F. mit den Lappen gleichgesetzt, doch&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ist auch das nicht unumstritten.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; English:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to Tacitus ‘an uncivilized and very poor’ (mira feritas, foeda paupertas) but ‘happy’ (beatius arbitrantur) northern people of hunters, whose classification as Germans or Sarmatians was left uncertain (Tac. Germ. 46). They undoubtedly were identical with the Phínnoi (Φίννοι) in northern Scandinavia, who were considered ‘neighbours’ of the Goths (Ptol. 2,11,16: Hs. X; 3,5,8; cf. Jord. Get. 3,22: mitissimi), but not Suomi Finns, who were only named thus in the 2nd half of the 12th cent. Because of the customs described in Tac. Germ. 46, the F. have been equated with the Sami (Lapps) but this is disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dietz, Karlheinz (Würzburg)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bibliography&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- H.H. Bartens, s.v. Finnische Völker, RGA 9, 70-77  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- A.A. Lund, Kritischer Forsch.-Ber. zur Germania des Tacitus, in: ANRW II 33.3, 1989-2222, bes. 2182-2188.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5671" RevisionGUID="128b95f8-dd06-47dc-b461-2690889a882c" CreationDate="2018-02-06T15:43:43.410" UserId="13" Comment="typo" Text="Not solving the problem entirely, but ahem-b-ok-ahem furnished me with an image of P.GC. inv 105, where on fr. 2 one can clearly see the endings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ΟΗϹΑΙ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;€ΘΟΙϹΑ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΟΝΑΝ[]&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ϹΑ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΟΚΗωΝ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Α̣Γ̣ΑΥΤΑΝ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ν̣ΟΗΜΜΑ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ν̣Ο̣ΗϹΗ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΝΕΜΝΑΙ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΒΑΜΑ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΝΠΡΟϹωΠω&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ΟΙϹΙ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;€Ν€̣ϹΘΑΙ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Χ̣ΗΝΔΑΡΑϹΘΑΙ&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[....]ΑΙ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final lacuna is actually not a hole, but no letter can be fully seen before the AI at the end. Vestiges are visible, though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The first vestige strongly suggests a M;&#xD;&#xA; - Then we have what looks like an angle with vertex pointing upward (aka a caret or circumflex ^, but I felt like talking complicated :) ), perhaps the top of an A;&#xD;&#xA; - Then there is some kind of &quot;pit&quot;, perhaps the top of an Y; the bottom of the pit is exactly on the edge of the papyrus;&#xD;&#xA; - Finally, there is a space which seems blank, though looking closely one can see what is either very faint ink, or a fold in the papyrus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that, the ending of that line might be ΜΑΥΤΑ, which suggests comparison with a previously known fragment, a quote by Ap.Dysc., reading ἔγω δ' ἐμαύτᾳ / τοῦτο σύνοιδα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This certainly settles all our problems, modulo the line beginnings, which means the problem of l. 8 stays, but the rest is settled by these endings. However, this papyrus was published in 2014, well after Campbell published, so the problem of why Campbell had these readings remains, and new problems with older restorations are caused by the new endings in stanza 4 and stanza 6 (last one). But that is another story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As AlexB's answer made me notice, the ahem-b-ok-ahem finding mentioned above tells me that this mysterious extra source preserves only a grave accent in l. 12 (aka last line of stanza 3). Interesting info, but doesn't settle the problem of this question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19693" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="5941" RevisionGUID="ea41b507-9561-4f70-869f-b92601b7ab0b" CreationDate="2018-02-07T00:12:45.983" UserId="39" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5949" RevisionGUID="2a2dbe6d-908a-4db9-893c-7ff5148231a8" CreationDate="2018-02-07T05:36:31.050" UserId="39" Text="**an answer in progress - please do NOT accept yet**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Russo reminds us, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Anyone who reads Homer in Greek becomes eventually aware that repetition is constantly at play, some of its forms being more immediately evident than others.&quot; (Russo 1997/2011: 252) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, the formula was understood as &quot;a group of words which is regularly employed under the same metrical conditions to express a given essential idea&quot; (Parry 1928, 1930), and that formula should be &quot;made up of at least four words or five syllables, with the exception of noun-epithets, which may be shorter&quot; (Parry 1971: 272, 275 n1, as cited in Russo 1997/2011). Here's a screenshot of a relevant section from Finkelberg 2012:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later the definition of the formula was revised to &quot;a repeated word group&quot; where &quot;the use of one word created a strong presumption that the other would follow&quot; (Hainsworth 1968, as cited in Edwards 1997/2011: 265).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current consensus seems to be that around sixty-seventy percent of Homeric diction is formulaic. Finkelberg 2012 adds that the formulaic and non-formulaic elements were mutually complementary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sappho - not enough data?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The same forces which created the poetic epic language of Homer created the poetic lyric language of Sappho and Alcaeus. […] Yet while we may feel some doubt as to the way in which they made their verses, there is not the least doubt that their poetic language was drawn from an oral tradition: only in an oral poetry does one ever find such a variety of forms that have each one its own metrical value.&quot; (Parry 1932: 29-30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;From beginning to end, then, Sappho 1 is a work wholly indebted to oral traditional&#xD;&#xA;poetic techniques in terms of its phraseological thematic structuring, its rhetoric, and even its&#xD;&#xA;extralexical encoding of formulaic phraseology, and it was the combination of Sappho's&#xD;&#xA;individual poetic talents with these traditional possibilities that imparted such a powerful impact&#xD;&#xA;to her verses.&quot; (Garner :334)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/meFed.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5949" RevisionGUID="805f153b-70ef-4eb5-818a-31397ef51704" CreationDate="2018-02-07T05:42:06.910" UserId="39" Comment="added 342 characters in body" Text="**an answer in progress - please do NOT accept yet**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Russo reminds us, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Anyone who reads Homer in Greek becomes eventually aware that repetition is constantly at play, some of its forms being more immediately evident than others.&quot; (Russo 1997/2011: 252) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, the formula was understood as &quot;a group of words which is regularly employed under the same metrical conditions to express a given essential idea&quot; (Parry 1928, 1930), and that formula should be &quot;made up of at least four words or five syllables, with the exception of noun-epithets, which may be shorter&quot; (Parry 1971: 272, 275 n1, as cited in Russo 1997/2011). Here's a screenshot of a relevant section from Finkelberg 2012:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later the definition of the formula was revised to &quot;a repeated word group&quot; where &quot;the use of one word created a strong presumption that the other would follow&quot; (Hainsworth 1968, as cited in Edwards 1997/2011: 265).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current consensus seems to be that around sixty-seventy percent of Homeric diction is formulaic. Finkelberg 2012 adds that the formulaic and non-formulaic elements were mutually complementary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Formulaic language in Sappho**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The same forces which created the poetic epic language of Homer created the poetic lyric language of Sappho and Alcaeus. […] Yet while we may feel some doubt as to the way in which they made their verses, there is not the least doubt that their poetic language was drawn from an oral tradition: only in an oral poetry does one ever find such a variety of forms that have each one its own metrical value.&quot; (Parry 1932: 29-30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;From beginning to end, then, Sappho 1 is a work wholly indebted to oral traditional&#xD;&#xA;poetic techniques in terms of its phraseological thematic structuring, its rhetoric, and even its&#xD;&#xA;extralexical encoding of formulaic phraseology, and it was the combination of Sappho's&#xD;&#xA;individual poetic talents with these traditional possibilities that imparted such a powerful impact&#xD;&#xA;to her verses.&quot; (Garner :334)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I offer proof that a composition like Song 44 of Sappho was created by way of a formulaic language that is cognate with the formulaic language used in the compositions that we know as the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey.&quot; ([Nagy 2015, October 22][2]) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/meFed.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://classical-inquiries.chs.harvard.edu/diachronic-sappho-some-prolegomena-2/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5950" RevisionGUID="e589aa32-bafa-4fbf-b012-9e46033640b1" CreationDate="2018-02-07T10:31:47.367" UserId="79" Text="A [well-known mathematician](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Baker_(mathematician)) passed away recently, and I happened to be in the Trinity College on the day after.&#xD;&#xA;As any Cambridge college undoubtedly would, they mourned the loss of a fellow by flying flags at half-mast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I describe this mourning flag in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Is there a set phrase for having a flag below the summit of the pole to express mourning?&#xD;&#xA;I want something that would be applicable for the event mentioned above, but it is of course convenient if it applies more broadly.&#xD;&#xA;I assume *vexillum lugubre* would be understood correctly, but I don't recall seeing it or any other phrase in use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-mast) is to be trusted, the tradition dates back to the 17th century, so I am not expecting ancient attestations.&#xD;&#xA;That said, I would never resist if there are any." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19697" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5950" RevisionGUID="e589aa32-bafa-4fbf-b012-9e46033640b1" CreationDate="2018-02-07T10:31:47.367" UserId="79" Text="Flags flying at half-mast" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19698" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5950" RevisionGUID="e589aa32-bafa-4fbf-b012-9e46033640b1" CreationDate="2018-02-07T10:31:47.367" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|contemporary-latin|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="4d0c6c56-4b2e-45c9-a92a-ccf0f2e6358a" CreationDate="2018-02-07T12:14:42.310" UserId="867" Text="I couldn't find any classical reference to lowered flags, in mourning or otherwise.  The closest I could find was in Catullus. Theseus' father instructs him to lower his black sails and to hoist white sails:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *funestam antennae deponant undique vestem*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; lower your yardarms in their funereal vestments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Catullus, 64.234&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of *deponere* might be useful, especially as it contrasts with the usual and well-attested *vexillum proponere*, raising the flag as a signal for action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, perhaps *insigne maeroris* would work, from:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Maerorem relinquis; maeroris aufers insignia.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You leave them their grief; [yet] you take away their emblems of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; grief.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *In Pisonem*, 8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't normally think of *insigne* as a flag but apparently it can be used to mean [a standard][1] or flag but perhaps you could use the more obvious *signum* or *vexillum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=insigne&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5952" RevisionGUID="a83a2b41-0e3e-4bff-8a1f-0c84307a8545" CreationDate="2018-02-07T12:26:04.407" UserId="645" Text="I suggest *vexillum semidemissum*, which seems a perfectly good usage, even though the idea of a flag at half-mast was probably unknown in classical times. It fits with the practice of the Armed Forces of the UK, which is to raise the flag to the masthead, break (i.e. unfurl) and then to lower it to a position halfway down the staff." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5949" RevisionGUID="96b86ba0-9592-4d4d-a93e-efdfd8191405" CreationDate="2018-02-07T14:13:12.500" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 27 characters in body" Text="**an answer in progress**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Russo reminds us, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Anyone who reads Homer in Greek becomes eventually aware that repetition is constantly at play, some of its forms being more immediately evident than others.&quot; (Russo 1997/2011: 252) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, the formula was understood as &quot;a group of words which is regularly employed under the same metrical conditions to express a given essential idea&quot; (Parry 1928, 1930), and that formula should be &quot;made up of at least four words or five syllables, with the exception of noun-epithets, which may be shorter&quot; (Parry 1971: 272, 275 n1, as cited in Russo 1997/2011). Here's a screenshot of a relevant section from Finkelberg 2012:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Later the definition of the formula was revised to **&quot;a repeated word group&quot; where &quot;the use of one word created a strong presumption that the other would follow&quot;** (Hainsworth 1968, as cited in Edwards 1997/2011: 265; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current consensus seems to be that around sixty-seventy percent of Homeric diction is formulaic. Finkelberg 2012 adds that the formulaic and non-formulaic elements were mutually complementary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Formulaic language in Sappho**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The same forces which created the poetic epic language of Homer created the poetic lyric language of Sappho and Alcaeus. […] Yet while we may feel some doubt as to the way in which they made their verses, there is not the least doubt that their poetic language was drawn from an oral tradition: only in an oral poetry does one ever find such a variety of forms that have each one its own metrical value.&quot; (Parry 1932: 29-30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;From beginning to end, then, Sappho 1 is a work wholly indebted to oral traditional&#xD;&#xA;poetic techniques in terms of its phraseological thematic structuring, its rhetoric, and even its&#xD;&#xA;extralexical encoding of formulaic phraseology, and it was the combination of Sappho's&#xD;&#xA;individual poetic talents with these traditional possibilities that imparted such a powerful impact&#xD;&#xA;to her verses.&quot; (Garner :334)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I offer proof that a composition like Song 44 of Sappho was created by way of a formulaic language that is cognate with the formulaic language used in the compositions that we know as the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey.&quot; ([Nagy 2015, October 22][2]) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/meFed.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://classical-inquiries.chs.harvard.edu/diachronic-sappho-some-prolegomena-2/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5939" RevisionGUID="66785549-bbbf-45d1-be57-0540a0af31f2" CreationDate="2018-02-07T14:40:37.687" UserId="79" Comment="Added some indentation to the pentameter." Text="In poems 24 and 25 of book 3 (which some editors see as together comprising one poem), Propertius breaks up with Cynthia.  He states this most clearly in this excerpt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quinque tibi potui servire fideliter annos:   &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp; ungue meam morso saepe querere fidem.  &#xD;&#xA;nil moveor lacrimis: ista sum captus ab arte;  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp; semper ab insidiis, Cynthia, flere soles.  &#xD;&#xA;flebo ego discedens, sed fletum iniuria vincit:  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp; tu bene conveniens non sinis ire iugum.  &#xD;&#xA;limina iam nostris valeant lacrimantia verbis,   &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp; nec tamen irata ianua fracta manu.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Propertius, *Elegies*, 3.25.3&amp;ndash;10&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation (courtesy of G. P. Goold):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For five years I managed to serve you faithfully: now you will oft&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bite your nails and mourn the loss of my loyalty.  &#xD;&#xA;Your tears move me&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not: it was that trick which ensnared me; always when you weep,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cynthia, you plan to deceive. I shall weep when I go, but wrongs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; outlast tears: it is you who do not allow a well-matched team to run.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Farewell the threshold still tearful at my grievances, and farewell&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the door, never, in spite of all, shattered by my angry fists!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5953" RevisionGUID="545a1aae-0fbb-4cdc-8a2d-60209708ec60" CreationDate="2018-02-07T17:56:42.790" UserId="61" Text="For high school, I am researching some changes in Latin, but finding good scientific sources or papers online is really hard. Locally also isn't an option: the library had nothing of use. Is there somewhere online where one can access papers on Latin (without an expensive membership)? I would like to look into my options before travelling to the library in the big city." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19704" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5953" RevisionGUID="545a1aae-0fbb-4cdc-8a2d-60209708ec60" CreationDate="2018-02-07T17:56:42.790" UserId="61" Text="Where does one find research on Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19705" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5953" RevisionGUID="545a1aae-0fbb-4cdc-8a2d-60209708ec60" CreationDate="2018-02-07T17:56:42.790" UserId="61" Text="|resource-request|research|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19706" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="5953" RevisionGUID="581dd85f-4b87-448b-a631-d0833746f33b" CreationDate="2018-02-07T19:38:11.760" UserId="61" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:61,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yadeses&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19707" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="5953" RevisionGUID="308758f4-1236-423e-9922-91fc7a6e1443" CreationDate="2018-02-07T19:53:28.053" UserId="79" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19708" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5953" RevisionGUID="ebac368c-36e3-4f59-9fe3-bc3f21c1b28f" CreationDate="2018-02-07T19:53:50.250" UserId="79" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1515],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5949" RevisionGUID="8fc71e3e-4575-4cda-8d9b-97eda651fb3d" CreationDate="2018-02-08T01:06:38.287" UserId="39" Comment="added 669 characters in body" Text="**an answer in progress**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Russo reminds us, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Anyone who reads Homer in Greek becomes eventually aware that repetition is constantly at play, some of its forms being more immediately evident than others.&quot; (Russo 1997/2011: 252) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, the formula was understood as &quot;a group of words which is regularly employed under the same metrical conditions to express a given essential idea&quot; (Parry 1928, 1930), and that formula should be &quot;made up of at least four words or five syllables, with the exception of noun-epithets, which may be shorter&quot; (Parry 1971: 272, 275 n1, as cited in Russo 1997/2011). Here's a screenshot of a relevant section from Finkelberg 2012:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Later the definition of [the formula][2] was revised to **&quot;a repeated word group&quot; where &quot;the use of one word created a strong presumption that the other would follow&quot;** (Hainsworth 1968, as cited in Edwards 1997/2011: 265; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current consensus seems to be that around sixty-seventy percent of Homeric diction is formulaic. Finkelberg 2012 adds that the formulaic and non-formulaic elements were mutually complementary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what is this principle of economy proposed by [Milman Parry][3]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Steve Reece ([Reece 2013][2]) writes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;By **economy** Parry meant that generally only one epithet for a character or object was available to fill each common metrical space,&quot; [emphasis mine] thus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Given a particular metrical space to fill, the poet was not required to create a new epithet ex nihilo; he did not even have to pause to consider a choice between two or more inherited epithets – only one epithet was available for that particular metrical space.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Formulaic language in Sappho**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The same forces which created the poetic epic language of Homer created the poetic lyric language of Sappho and Alcaeus. […] Yet while we may feel some doubt as to the way in which they made their verses, there is not the least doubt that their poetic language was drawn from an oral tradition: only in an oral poetry does one ever find such a variety of forms that have each one its own metrical value.&quot; (Parry 1932: 29-30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The majority of Homeric and later poetic repetitions (actually the whole corpus of hexametric poetry (Epic Meter) in Greek, and still further in the lyric and choral poetry) can be defined as more or less formulaic.&quot; ([Létoublon 2013][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;From beginning to end, then, Sappho 1 is a work wholly indebted to oral traditional&#xD;&#xA;poetic techniques in terms of its phraseological thematic structuring, its rhetoric, and even its&#xD;&#xA;extralexical encoding of formulaic phraseology, and it was the combination of Sappho's&#xD;&#xA;individual poetic talents with these traditional possibilities that imparted such a powerful impact&#xD;&#xA;to her verses.&quot; (Garner :334)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I offer proof that a composition like Song 44 of Sappho was created by way of a formulaic language that is cognate with the formulaic language used in the compositions that we know as the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey.&quot; ([Nagy 2015, October 22][5]) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/meFed.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/formulas-COM_00000137?s.num=5&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/brill-s-new-pauly-supplements-i-6/parry-milman-COM_00537?s.num=0&amp;s.q=milman%20parry&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/formulaic-language-COM_00000136?s.num=4&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://classical-inquiries.chs.harvard.edu/diachronic-sappho-some-prolegomena-2/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5949" RevisionGUID="ffe954eb-f1fd-4886-bbaa-072129462992" CreationDate="2018-02-08T01:30:18.327" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 29 characters in body" Text="As Russo reminds us, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Anyone who reads Homer in Greek becomes eventually aware that repetition is constantly at play, some of its forms being more immediately evident than others.&quot; (Russo 1997/2011: 252) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, the formula was understood as &quot;a group of words which is regularly employed under the same metrical conditions to express a given essential idea&quot; (Parry 1928, 1930), and that formula should be &quot;made up of at least four words or five syllables, with the exception of noun-epithets, which may be shorter&quot; (Parry 1971: 272, 275 n1, as cited in Russo 1997/2011). Here's a screenshot of a relevant section from Finkelberg 2012:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Later the definition of [the formula][2] was revised to **&quot;a repeated word group&quot; where &quot;the use of one word created a strong presumption that the other would follow&quot;** (Hainsworth 1968, as cited in Edwards 1997/2011: 265; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current consensus seems to be that around sixty-seventy percent of Homeric diction is formulaic. Finkelberg 2012 adds that the formulaic and non-formulaic elements were mutually complementary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what is this principle of economy proposed by [Milman Parry][3]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Steve Reece ([Reece 2013][2]) writes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;By **economy** Parry meant that generally only one epithet for a character or object was available to fill each common metrical space,&quot; [emphasis mine] thus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Given a particular metrical space to fill, the poet was not required to create a new epithet ex nihilo; he did not even have to pause to consider a choice between two or more inherited epithets – only one epithet was available for that particular metrical space.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Formulaic language in Sappho**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The same forces which created the poetic epic language of Homer created the poetic lyric language of Sappho and Alcaeus. […] Yet while we may feel some doubt as to the way in which they made their verses, there is not the least doubt that their poetic language was drawn from an oral tradition: only in an oral poetry does one ever find such a variety of forms that have each one its own metrical value.&quot; (Parry 1932: 29-30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The majority of Homeric and later poetic repetitions (actually the whole corpus of hexametric poetry (Epic Meter) in Greek, and still further in the lyric and choral poetry) can be defined as more or less formulaic.&quot; ([Létoublon 2013][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;From beginning to end, then, Sappho 1 is a work wholly indebted to oral traditional&#xD;&#xA;poetic techniques in terms of its phraseological thematic structuring, its rhetoric, and even its&#xD;&#xA;extralexical encoding of formulaic phraseology, and it was the combination of Sappho's&#xD;&#xA;individual poetic talents with these traditional possibilities that imparted such a powerful impact&#xD;&#xA;to her verses.&quot; (Garner :334)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I offer proof that a composition like Song 44 of Sappho was created by way of a formulaic language that is cognate with the formulaic language used in the compositions that we know as the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey.&quot; ([Nagy 2015, October 22][5]) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/meFed.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/formulas-COM_00000137?s.num=5&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/brill-s-new-pauly-supplements-i-6/parry-milman-COM_00537?s.num=0&amp;s.q=milman%20parry&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/formulaic-language-COM_00000136?s.num=4&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://classical-inquiries.chs.harvard.edu/diachronic-sappho-some-prolegomena-2/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19711" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5521" RevisionGUID="8754e344-c80c-46de-8f42-70827045a78a" CreationDate="2018-02-08T02:46:17.953" UserId="30" Comment="65" />
  <row Id="19712" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5104" RevisionGUID="9988da4f-bc4a-4b27-80c7-7fb80e94bc0d" CreationDate="2018-02-08T02:48:41.367" UserId="30" Comment="66" />
  <row Id="19713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5949" RevisionGUID="1f4d56b6-ef9c-4428-8592-95ba294e5393" CreationDate="2018-02-08T03:28:52.857" UserId="39" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="Here are my notes so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Russo reminds us, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Anyone who reads Homer in Greek becomes eventually aware that repetition is constantly at play, some of its forms being more immediately evident than others.&quot; ([Russo 1997/2011:][1] 252) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, the formula was understood as &quot;a group of words which is regularly employed under the same metrical conditions to express a given essential idea&quot; (Parry 1928, 1930), and that formula should be &quot;made up of at least four words or five syllables, with the exception of noun-epithets, which may be shorter&quot; (Parry 1971: 272, 275 n1, as cited in [Russo 1997/2011][1]). Here's a screenshot of a relevant section from Finkelberg 2012:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Later the definition of [the formula][3] was revised to **&quot;a repeated word group&quot; where &quot;the use of one word created a strong presumption that the other would follow&quot;** (Hainsworth 1968, as cited in [Edwards 1997/2011:][4] 265; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current consensus seems to be that around sixty-seventy percent of Homeric diction is formulaic. Finkelberg 2012 adds that the formulaic and non-formulaic elements were mutually complementary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what is this principle of economy proposed by [Milman Parry][5]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Steve Reece ([Reece 2013][3]) writes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;By **economy** Parry meant that generally only one epithet for a character or object was available to fill each common metrical space,&quot; [emphasis mine] thus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Given a particular metrical space to fill, the poet was not required to create a new epithet ex nihilo; he did not even have to pause to consider a choice between two or more inherited epithets – only one epithet was available for that particular metrical space.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Formulaic language in Sappho**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The same forces which created the poetic epic language of Homer created the poetic lyric language of Sappho and Alcaeus. […] Yet while we may feel some doubt as to the way in which they made their verses, there is not the least doubt that their poetic language was drawn from an oral tradition: only in an oral poetry does one ever find such a variety of forms that have each one its own metrical value.&quot; (Parry 1932: 29-30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The majority of Homeric and later poetic repetitions (actually the whole corpus of hexametric poetry (Epic Meter) in Greek, and still further in the lyric and choral poetry) can be defined as more or less formulaic.&quot; ([Létoublon 2013][6])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;From beginning to end, then, Sappho 1 is a work wholly indebted to oral traditional&#xD;&#xA;poetic techniques in terms of its phraseological thematic structuring, its rhetoric, and even its&#xD;&#xA;extralexical encoding of formulaic phraseology, and it was the combination of Sappho's&#xD;&#xA;individual poetic talents with these traditional possibilities that imparted such a powerful impact&#xD;&#xA;to her verses.&quot; (Garner :334)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I offer proof that a composition like Song 44 of Sappho was created by way of a formulaic language that is cognate with the formulaic language used in the compositions that we know as the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey.&quot; ([Nagy 2015, October 22][7]) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789004217607s011&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/meFed.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/formulas-COM_00000137?s.num=5&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789004217607s012&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/brill-s-new-pauly-supplements-i-6/parry-milman-COM_00537?s.num=0&amp;s.q=milman%20parry&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/formulaic-language-COM_00000136?s.num=4&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://classical-inquiries.chs.harvard.edu/diachronic-sappho-some-prolegomena-2/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5954" RevisionGUID="63ee1caa-6d08-4cd2-9ef5-4ba055361ffe" CreationDate="2018-02-08T10:20:15.470" UserId="79" Text="What is the Latin word used for a fellow of a college or an academic society?&#xD;&#xA;In particular, are there attested uses somewhere to be found?&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a translation of &quot;fellow&quot; which is or has been in actual use.&#xD;&#xA;I have come up with words that I would happily use (*comes*, *socius*, and *collega*), but I have no idea of any traditional choices." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19715" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5954" RevisionGUID="63ee1caa-6d08-4cd2-9ef5-4ba055361ffe" CreationDate="2018-02-08T10:20:15.470" UserId="79" Text="What is an academic fellow?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19716" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5954" RevisionGUID="63ee1caa-6d08-4cd2-9ef5-4ba055361ffe" CreationDate="2018-02-08T10:20:15.470" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|new-latin|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5955" RevisionGUID="bd68c83e-bfb9-4db5-a348-0b3193672909" CreationDate="2018-02-08T11:48:18.340" UserId="645" Text="The proper word for 'fellow' seems to be *socius*, at least according to John G. Griffith, the former Public Orator at Oxford University (1973-80) and Fellow and Tutor in Classics, Jesus College (1938-80). Here are a couple of instances from his Oratiunculae Oxonienses Selectae of 1985. Note that *socius* is distinct from *sodalis*, which is a mere member:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mihi summo est gaudio vobis praesentare Anatolium Abragam, Academiae Franco-Gallicae sodalem et Collegii Iesu et Collegii Mertonensis socium honoris causa creatum, ut admittatur ad gradum Doctoris in Scientia *honoris causa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[vir] summae modestiae et pietatis, qui Collegii Mertonensis socius honoris causa creatus Horatianum illud ‘hoc erat in votis: nil amplius oro’ Anglice enuntiavisse traditur. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of no better authority!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5955" RevisionGUID="1dfefbb0-31ce-4fb6-9f66-2e6b497f297d" CreationDate="2018-02-08T11:56:09.307" UserId="645" Comment="Added further example" Text="The proper word for 'fellow' seems to be *socius*, at least according to John G. Griffith, the former Public Orator at Oxford University (1973-80) and Fellow and Tutor in Classics, Jesus College (1938-80). Here are a couple of instances from his Oratiunculae Oxonienses Selectae of 1985. Note that *socius* is distinct from *sodalis*, which is a mere member:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mihi summo est gaudio vobis praesentare Anatolium Abragam, Academiae Franco-Gallicae sodalem et Collegii Iesu et Collegii Mertonensis socium honoris causa creatum, ut admittatur ad gradum Doctoris in Scientia *honoris causa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[vir] summae modestiae et pietatis, qui Collegii Mertonensis socius honoris causa creatus Horatianum illud ‘hoc erat in votis: nil amplius oro’ Anglice enuntiavisse traditur. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And from a similar source, Anthony Bowen, the Orator of Cambridge (1993-2007), a feminine example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Praesento vobis Doctorem in Philosopia, Aulae Novae Sociam honoris causa adscitam, SUSANNAM JOCELYN BELL BURNELL&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of no better authorities!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5955" RevisionGUID="aac216bd-a440-4429-8e0e-d367242bbeb2" CreationDate="2018-02-08T19:31:27.477" UserId="45" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="The proper word for 'fellow' seems to be *socius*, at least according to John G. Griffith, the former Public Orator at Oxford University (1973-80) and Fellow and Tutor in Classics, Jesus College (1938-80). Here are a couple of instances from his Oratiunculae Oxonienses Selectae of 1985. Note that *socius* is distinct from *sodalis*, which is a mere member:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mihi summo est gaudio vobis praesentare Anatolium Abragam, Academiae Franco-Gallicae sodalem et Collegii Iesu et Collegii Mertonensis socium honoris causa creatum, ut admittatur ad gradum Doctoris in Scientia *honoris causa*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [vir] summae modestiae et pietatis, qui Collegii Mertonensis socius honoris causa creatus Horatianum illud ‘hoc erat in votis: nil amplius oro’ Anglice enuntiavisse traditur. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And from a similar source, Anthony Bowen, the Orator of Cambridge (1993-2007), a feminine example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Praesento vobis Doctorem in Philosopia, Aulae Novae Sociam honoris causa adscitam, SUSANNAM JOCELYN BELL BURNELL&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of no better authorities!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5956" RevisionGUID="b38ff26e-6c12-421e-8b48-9477ef40f609" CreationDate="2018-02-09T14:47:17.657" UserId="79" Text="I am looking for a word for &quot;cuisine&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I don't know how to say the following in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I like Nepalese cuisine, but I haven't found any suitable restaurants here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know which word to use for &quot;cuisine&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The literal meaning could be anything like &quot;kitchen&quot;, &quot;food&quot;, &quot;food tradition&quot;, or something similar, but I don't know what would be an idiomatic choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To continue with my example, I would like to fill in the blank in the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ______ [Nepalianum](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1328/79) mihi maxime placet, sed tabernam aptam nondum hic inveni.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good choice of words here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19722" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5956" RevisionGUID="b38ff26e-6c12-421e-8b48-9477ef40f609" CreationDate="2018-02-09T14:47:17.657" UserId="79" Text="A word for national and other cuisines" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19723" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5956" RevisionGUID="b38ff26e-6c12-421e-8b48-9477ef40f609" CreationDate="2018-02-09T14:47:17.657" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5957" RevisionGUID="686cf067-0b14-4640-b8a2-2db830b88357" CreationDate="2018-02-09T15:31:22.047" UserId="645" Text="Cuisine is just a fancy word for prepared food. Why not simply cibus Nepalanus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5958" RevisionGUID="9b3f71d9-b6cb-43c6-80ec-d71b97b7a042" CreationDate="2018-02-09T18:10:07.060" UserId="985" Text="According to OLD, *coquina* means 'the art of cookery.' It's the origin of, e.g., Italian *cucina*, which means both 'kitchen' and 'cuisine.'&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19726" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="5949" RevisionGUID="5924f119-35f1-4801-9ea2-1118f386a414" CreationDate="2018-02-09T19:59:28.293" UserId="39" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19727" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="0c31478c-1177-4811-afd9-9c6f36b49d01" CreationDate="2018-02-09T21:03:20.223" UserId="79" Comment="63" />
  <row Id="19728" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4901" RevisionGUID="3885f2da-7570-4e08-99c6-05f59a9f1462" CreationDate="2018-02-09T21:03:33.377" UserId="79" Comment="64" />
  <row Id="19729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5958" RevisionGUID="8c14af10-75f8-443b-af35-3359771177ed" CreationDate="2018-02-09T21:41:22.680" UserId="985" Comment="added 211 characters in body" Text="According to *OLD*, *coquina* means 'The art of cookery.' It's (ultimately) the origin of, e.g., Italian *cucina*, which means both 'kitchen' and 'cuisine.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** I also see that, for *culina*, which has 'kitchen' as its primary meaning, *OLD* gives 'Provision of food or **the food provided, board, fare**' as definition 2 (a) (emphasis added)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5958" RevisionGUID="57546aa8-b8a2-4222-a6ab-b092d569ea2b" CreationDate="2018-02-09T23:03:29.720" UserId="985" Comment="added 447 characters in body" Text="According to *OLD*, *coquina* means 'The art of cookery.' It's (ultimately) the origin of, e.g., Italian *cucina*, which means both 'kitchen' and 'cuisine.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** I also see that, for *culina*, which has 'kitchen' as its primary meaning, *OLD* gives 'Provision of food or **the food provided, board, fare**' as definition 2 (a) (emphasis added).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, given that the word *cuisine* can refer to (a) a specific style, method, or tradition of cooking; or (b) the food that's prepared in a certain style or tradition, or by a certain method, the best Latin word depends on the precise meaning desired. For (a), it looks to me as though *coquina* is the best choice; whereas for (b), either *culina* or Tom Cotton's suggestion of *cibus* is appropriate (I myself would probably go with *cibus*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5959" RevisionGUID="ea36afb9-d926-4935-889d-31bb5fd39d2a" CreationDate="2018-02-10T11:06:48.330" UserId="324" Text="Coquina is the feminine of coquinus “pertaining to cooking”, and is used, in late texts only, to mean “place for cooking, kitchen”, but also “the art of cooking”, in effect “coquina ars”. The forms in modern languages require a Vulgar Latin *cocina, continued by French cuisine, Italian cocina, but also by Germanic forms like kitchen, Küche, etc. It is, however, debated whether English kitchen was inherited from proto-West Germanic (which had it from Latin) or whether it was taken directly from cocina in the Anglo-Saxon period. For the semantics it is noteworthy that cuisine, Küche etc. retain both attested meanings of coquina, while kitchen has only the former. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to reply to your question: Unless we are insisiting on absolutely classical latinitas, I see no problem with the late Latin coquina.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5959" RevisionGUID="a0be68bc-d2d4-40d9-9510-b76fa6022dd4" CreationDate="2018-02-10T11:27:19.690" UserId="324" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Coquina is the feminine of coquinus “pertaining to cooking”, and is used, in late texts only, to mean “place for cooking, kitchen”, but also “the art of cooking”, in effect “coquina ars”. The forms in modern languages derive from Vulgar Latin cocina, continued by French cuisine, Italian cocina, but also by Germanic forms like kitchen, Küche, etc. It is, however, debated whether English kitchen was inherited from proto-West Germanic (which had it from Latin) or whether it was taken directly from cocina in the Anglo-Saxon period. For the semantics it is noteworthy that cuisine, Küche etc. retain both attested meanings of coquina, while kitchen has only the former. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to reply to your question: Unless we are insisiting on absolutely classical latinitas, I see no problem with the late Latin coquina.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5960" RevisionGUID="5aa80e8c-4e9a-489e-8ac8-b5c657df44bf" CreationDate="2018-02-10T22:30:50.620" UserId="79" Text="I am considering reading some Ovid(ius), possibly with some colleagues.&#xD;&#xA;I don't want too much due to time limitations; perhaps something on the order of a single book of *Metamorphoses* should be suitable.&#xD;&#xA;Of course I could pick something at random, but I would like to make a more educated choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What passage of Ovid's work would you consider good quality, representative of his style, and generally worth reading?&#xD;&#xA;And why?&#xD;&#xA;What makes the passage/book/poem/other so representative of Ovid or otherwise worth my time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19734" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5960" RevisionGUID="5aa80e8c-4e9a-489e-8ac8-b5c657df44bf" CreationDate="2018-02-10T22:30:50.620" UserId="79" Text="A representative work of Ovid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19735" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5960" RevisionGUID="5aa80e8c-4e9a-489e-8ac8-b5c657df44bf" CreationDate="2018-02-10T22:30:50.620" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|passage-request|ovidius|soft-question|style|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19736" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="5104" RevisionGUID="bb64d30c-bd31-4313-8cbf-8c6158e7f1ee" CreationDate="2018-02-11T01:10:13.943" UserId="30" Comment="66" />
  <row Id="19737" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="5521" RevisionGUID="0049cd01-e327-44a8-acfa-a492c94a05aa" CreationDate="2018-02-11T01:10:26.360" UserId="30" Comment="65" />
  <row Id="19738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5961" RevisionGUID="25b3ff77-a34a-4993-b1ba-18de33717a73" CreationDate="2018-02-11T08:50:33.167" UserId="867" Text="I wonder if this &quot;principle of economy&quot; concerns the text rather than the physical papyrus itself. That is to say, it is perhaps a principle of textual criticism rather than papyrology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I say this because that was more M. L. West's field and also because the excerpts you give seem to draw a distinction between the physical aspects of the fragments and this economy principle.  Indeed, the argument being made hinges on the agreement between physical *and* textual clues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having read the chapter you cite elsewhere, I understand the argument being made is that Sappho's poems were organised alphabetically (hence the discussion about the incipits).  To this end, and this is only a guess on my part because I cannot find a tidy definition anywhere, the principle of economy may be something like another term used in textual criticism, *lectio brevior* - the shorter reading [is the more likely] (cf *lectio difficilor potior* - the more difficult reading is the stronger).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is to say, perhaps M. L. West's idea is that the fragment in question most easily fits into the alphabetic sequence as anywhere else, given that there is so much evidence that this is indeed the arrangement.  Perhaps the principle of economy is a sort of Ockham's Razor where &quot;one should select the solution that makes the fewest assumptions&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5961" RevisionGUID="075b9da5-0fe8-4003-8e2c-b5ad3271f2de" CreationDate="2018-02-11T09:10:29.607" UserId="867" Comment="added 491 characters in body" Text="I wonder if this &quot;principle of economy&quot; concerns the text rather than the physical papyrus itself. That is to say, it is perhaps a principle of textual criticism rather than papyrology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I say this because that was more M. L. West's field and also because the excerpts you give seem to draw a distinction between the physical aspects of the fragments and this economy principle.  Indeed, the argument being made hinges on the agreement between physical *and* textual clues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having read the chapter you cite elsewhere, I understand the argument being made is that Sappho's poems were organised alphabetically (hence the discussion about the incipits).  To this end, and this is only a guess on my part because I cannot find a tidy definition anywhere, the principle of economy may be something like another term used in textual criticism, *lectio brevior* - the shorter reading [is the more likely] (cf *lectio difficilor potior* - the more difficult reading is the stronger).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is to say, perhaps M. L. West's idea is that the fragment in question most easily fits into the alphabetic sequence as anywhere else, given that there is so much evidence that this is indeed the arrangement.  Perhaps the principle of economy is a sort of Ockham's Razor where &quot;one should select the solution that makes the fewest assumptions&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Addit*: for those interested and with journal access, the M. L. West article cited in &quot;The Newest Sappho&quot; excerpt above is &quot;Nine Poems of Sappho&quot;, in *Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik*, Bd. 191 (2014), pp. 1-12.  His only reference to &quot;economy&quot; is as follows: &quot;When such large pieces from these columns are preserved, it would be a little surprising if there were no remnant of column v.  It is economical to suppose that P.GC fr. 1 is in fact from that missing column.&quot;  (p. 2)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that West's article is indeed an extended piece of textual criticism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5961" RevisionGUID="69c6d30b-2b67-4a53-8b9c-bac631e62fd3" CreationDate="2018-02-11T09:25:42.853" UserId="867" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="I wonder if this &quot;principle of economy&quot; concerns the text rather than the physical papyrus itself. That is to say, it is perhaps a principle of textual criticism rather than papyrology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I say this because that was more M. L. West's field (please see edit below) and also because the excerpts you give seem to draw a distinction between the physical aspects of the fragments and this economy principle.  Indeed, the argument being made hinges on the agreement between physical *and* textual clues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having read the chapter you cite elsewhere, I understand the argument being made is that Sappho's poems were organised alphabetically (hence the discussion about the incipits).  To this end, and this is only a guess on my part because I cannot find a tidy definition anywhere, the principle of economy may be something like another term used in textual criticism, *lectio brevior* - the shorter reading [is the more likely] (cf *lectio difficilor potior* - the more difficult reading is the stronger).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is to say, perhaps M. L. West's idea is that the fragment in question most easily fits into the alphabetic sequence as anywhere else, given that there is so much evidence that this is indeed the arrangement.  Perhaps the principle of economy is a sort of Ockham's Razor where &quot;one should select the solution that makes the fewest assumptions&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Edit***: for those interested and with journal access, the M. L. West article cited in &quot;The Newest Sappho&quot; excerpt above is &quot;Nine Poems of Sappho&quot;, in *Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik*, Bd. 191 (2014), pp. 1-12.  His only reference to &quot;economy&quot; is as follows: &quot;When such large pieces from these columns are preserved, it would be a little surprising if there were no remnant of column v.  It is economical to suppose that P.GC fr. 1 is in fact from that missing column.&quot;  (p. 2)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that West's article is indeed an extended piece of textual criticism.  Further, this quotation highlights how this &quot;principle of economy&quot; is an educated guess, much like both *lectio brevior* and Ockham's Razor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5949" RevisionGUID="07f4478b-42a3-454a-9053-3319100b85aa" CreationDate="2018-02-11T16:34:25.987" UserId="39" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="**I have to admit, I don't know.** I've done some research and I am not entirely sure. So, I offer two explanations - in two different answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Russo reminds us, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Anyone who reads Homer in Greek becomes eventually aware that repetition is constantly at play, some of its forms being more immediately evident than others.&quot; ([Russo 1997/2011:][1] 252) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, the formula was understood as &quot;a group of words which is regularly employed under the same metrical conditions to express a given essential idea&quot; (Parry 1928, 1930), and that formula should be &quot;made up of at least four words or five syllables, with the exception of noun-epithets, which may be shorter&quot; (Parry 1971: 272, 275 n1, as cited in [Russo 1997/2011][1]). Here's a screenshot of a relevant section from Finkelberg 2012:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Later the definition of [the formula][3] was revised to **&quot;a repeated word group&quot; where &quot;the use of one word created a strong presumption that the other would follow&quot;** (Hainsworth 1968, as cited in [Edwards 1997/2011:][4] 265; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current consensus seems to be that around sixty-seventy percent of Homeric diction is formulaic. Finkelberg 2012 adds that the formulaic and non-formulaic elements were mutually complementary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what is this principle of economy proposed by [Milman Parry][5]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Steve Reece ([Reece 2013][3]) writes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;By **economy** Parry meant that generally only one epithet for a character or object was available to fill each common metrical space,&quot; [emphasis mine] thus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Given a particular metrical space to fill, the poet was not required to create a new epithet ex nihilo; he did not even have to pause to consider a choice between two or more inherited epithets – only one epithet was available for that particular metrical space.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Formulaic language in Sappho**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The same forces which created the poetic epic language of Homer created the poetic lyric language of Sappho and Alcaeus. […] Yet while we may feel some doubt as to the way in which they made their verses, there is not the least doubt that their poetic language was drawn from an oral tradition: only in an oral poetry does one ever find such a variety of forms that have each one its own metrical value.&quot; (Parry 1932: 29-30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The majority of Homeric and later poetic repetitions (actually the whole corpus of hexametric poetry (Epic Meter) in Greek, and still further in the lyric and choral poetry) can be defined as more or less formulaic.&quot; ([Létoublon 2013][6])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;From beginning to end, then, Sappho 1 is a work wholly indebted to oral traditional&#xD;&#xA;poetic techniques in terms of its phraseological thematic structuring, its rhetoric, and even its&#xD;&#xA;extralexical encoding of formulaic phraseology, and it was the combination of Sappho's&#xD;&#xA;individual poetic talents with these traditional possibilities that imparted such a powerful impact&#xD;&#xA;to her verses.&quot; (Garner :334)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I offer proof that a composition like Song 44 of Sappho was created by way of a formulaic language that is cognate with the formulaic language used in the compositions that we know as the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey.&quot; ([Nagy 2015, October 22][7]) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789004217607s011&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/meFed.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/formulas-COM_00000137?s.num=5&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789004217607s012&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/brill-s-new-pauly-supplements-i-6/parry-milman-COM_00537?s.num=0&amp;s.q=milman%20parry&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/formulaic-language-COM_00000136?s.num=4&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://classical-inquiries.chs.harvard.edu/diachronic-sappho-some-prolegomena-2/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19742" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="5949" RevisionGUID="8ab7056d-9d2f-40e4-9039-1700c8603263" CreationDate="2018-02-11T16:34:30.730" UserId="39" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5941" RevisionGUID="eb25fc6c-aa9c-4b68-8d4f-9e67f726e285" CreationDate="2018-02-11T16:36:19.013" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 29 characters in body" Text="Here’s my original suggestion - once again, **this is my guess**, and it can be wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Economy might stand here for the most efficient use of space/materials/other resources at the disposal of the scribe because, as Roger Bagnall puts it, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;the labor involved in making papyrus was considerable, and its price was therefore significant, most typically several days' average worker's wages for a roll&quot; (Bagnall 1995: 13). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paul Schubert ([Schubert 2011][1]) explains it further:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. [Catullus 22][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suffenus iste, Vare, quem probe nosti,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;homo est venustus et dicax et urbanus,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;idemque longe plurimos facit versus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Puto esse ego illi milia aut decem aut plura&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;perscripta, nec sic, ut fit, in palimpsesto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;relata: cartae regiae, novi libri,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;novi umbilici, lora rubra, membranae,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;derecta plumbo et pumice omnia aequata.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199843695.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199843695-e-009&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9cAWW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Catullus_22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19744" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="5941" RevisionGUID="c47b5289-e940-4afd-8d76-00de2742a6ba" CreationDate="2018-02-11T16:36:23.670" UserId="39" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5962" RevisionGUID="b37e2df0-8a95-4c36-a01e-4b25f61f3683" CreationDate="2018-02-11T17:16:21.980" UserId="39" Text="Or it could be just **the well-known, general principle of economy from linguistics** (Passy, Martinet, Tauli etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. Valter Tauli argued that an ideal language &quot;must contain the maximum possible economy which is compatible with the absolute clarity and necessary expressiveness.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under his proposal, clarity is more important than economy, and economy is more important than aesthetics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In this sense, economy means economy of linguistic forms, its purpose is to ease the unnecessary burden - both mental or physical - both for the communicator and communicant. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5962" RevisionGUID="ea6f5e04-5d78-4718-8f52-64bf7c0e1724" CreationDate="2018-02-11T17:38:54.120" UserId="39" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="Economy in this context could be **the well-known, general principle of economy from linguistics** (Passy, Martinet, Tauli etc.) - a possibility which I initially discarded as the most obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. Valter Tauli argued that an ideal language &quot;must contain the maximum possible economy which is compatible with the absolute clarity and necessary expressiveness.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under his proposal, clarity is more important than economy, and economy is more important than aesthetics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In this sense, economy means economy of linguistic forms, its purpose is to ease the unnecessary burden - both mental or physical - both for the communicator and communicant. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5963" RevisionGUID="b17003e3-aa07-4b92-9325-9f2835caed79" CreationDate="2018-02-12T01:10:45.780" UserId="1867" Text="My Latin teacher has said that osculum is the diminutive of os, describing the way one puckers one's mouth when kissing, and that the -culus ending is a diminutive. So what is oculus a diminutive of?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19748" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5963" RevisionGUID="b17003e3-aa07-4b92-9325-9f2835caed79" CreationDate="2018-02-12T01:10:45.780" UserId="1867" Text="What is oculus a diminutive of?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19749" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5963" RevisionGUID="b17003e3-aa07-4b92-9325-9f2835caed79" CreationDate="2018-02-12T01:10:45.780" UserId="1867" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5963" RevisionGUID="f291d541-4fca-4502-a5f8-23c3e4f0fe46" CreationDate="2018-02-12T01:50:27.297" UserId="79" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="My Latin teacher has said that *osculum* is the diminutive of *os*, describing the way one puckers one's mouth when kissing, and that the *-culus* ending is a diminutive. So what is *oculus* a diminutive of?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19751" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5963" RevisionGUID="f291d541-4fca-4502-a5f8-23c3e4f0fe46" CreationDate="2018-02-12T01:50:27.297" UserId="79" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|diminutive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5964" RevisionGUID="b90a6aeb-c0ba-4f46-a5c2-fe7bcfe3e0dd" CreationDate="2018-02-12T04:01:16.243" UserId="39" Text="And another hypothesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [a review of *Diodoro Siculo: Biblioteca storica: libro XIII: commento storico. Storia. Ricerche* by Catherine Rubincam][1] we can read the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In addition, brief general treatment is given here to some subjects of importance to the whole commentary on this book, principally, Diodorus' sources and how he used them. Ambaglio reiterates the traditional judgment that, as an &quot;epitomator&quot;, Diodorus observed 'an iron-clad principle of economy' in the use of sources, **&quot;almost never us[ing] more than one source at a time&quot;** (IX)&quot; [emphasis mine - Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little bit further we encounter a more revealing passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ambaglio's statements on this subject seem to me too rigidly dogmatic: first, &quot;On his method of working with the sources, it is my opinion . . . that he [Diodorus] applied an iron-clad principle of economy, or rather of saving himself work, in accordance with which an epitomator . . . almost never uses more than one source at a time;&quot; and then, more specifically, **'it is not the practice of an epitomator to have on his table two rolls** of history **at a time'**&quot; (IX) [emphasis mine - Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010-12-14.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5949" RevisionGUID="410ee3d1-3bd0-43da-b0be-a9f3b157f5ba" CreationDate="2018-02-12T04:05:04.447" UserId="39" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="**I have to admit, I don't know.** I've done some research and I am not entirely sure. So, I offer two explanations - in two different answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The principle of (formulaic) economy**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Russo reminds us, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Anyone who reads Homer in Greek becomes eventually aware that repetition is constantly at play, some of its forms being more immediately evident than others.&quot; ([Russo 1997/2011:][1] 252) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, the formula was understood as &quot;a group of words which is regularly employed under the same metrical conditions to express a given essential idea&quot; (Parry 1928, 1930), and that formula should be &quot;made up of at least four words or five syllables, with the exception of noun-epithets, which may be shorter&quot; (Parry 1971: 272, 275 n1, as cited in [Russo 1997/2011][1]). Here's a screenshot of a relevant section from Finkelberg 2012:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Later the definition of [the formula][3] was revised to **&quot;a repeated word group&quot; where &quot;the use of one word created a strong presumption that the other would follow&quot;** (Hainsworth 1968, as cited in [Edwards 1997/2011:][4] 265; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current consensus seems to be that around sixty-seventy percent of Homeric diction is formulaic. Finkelberg 2012 adds that the formulaic and non-formulaic elements were mutually complementary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what is this principle of economy proposed by [Milman Parry][5]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Steve Reece ([Reece 2013][3]) writes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;By **economy** Parry meant that generally only one epithet for a character or object was available to fill each common metrical space,&quot; [emphasis mine] thus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Given a particular metrical space to fill, the poet was not required to create a new epithet ex nihilo; he did not even have to pause to consider a choice between two or more inherited epithets – only one epithet was available for that particular metrical space.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Formulaic language in Sappho**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The same forces which created the poetic epic language of Homer created the poetic lyric language of Sappho and Alcaeus. […] Yet while we may feel some doubt as to the way in which they made their verses, there is not the least doubt that their poetic language was drawn from an oral tradition: only in an oral poetry does one ever find such a variety of forms that have each one its own metrical value.&quot; (Parry 1932: 29-30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The majority of Homeric and later poetic repetitions (actually the whole corpus of hexametric poetry (Epic Meter) in Greek, and still further in the lyric and choral poetry) can be defined as more or less formulaic.&quot; ([Létoublon 2013][6])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;From beginning to end, then, Sappho 1 is a work wholly indebted to oral traditional&#xD;&#xA;poetic techniques in terms of its phraseological thematic structuring, its rhetoric, and even its&#xD;&#xA;extralexical encoding of formulaic phraseology, and it was the combination of Sappho's&#xD;&#xA;individual poetic talents with these traditional possibilities that imparted such a powerful impact&#xD;&#xA;to her verses.&quot; (Garner :334)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I offer proof that a composition like Song 44 of Sappho was created by way of a formulaic language that is cognate with the formulaic language used in the compositions that we know as the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey.&quot; ([Nagy 2015, October 22][7]) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789004217607s011&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/meFed.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/formulas-COM_00000137?s.num=5&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789004217607s012&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/brill-s-new-pauly-supplements-i-6/parry-milman-COM_00537?s.num=0&amp;s.q=milman%20parry&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/formulaic-language-COM_00000136?s.num=4&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://classical-inquiries.chs.harvard.edu/diachronic-sappho-some-prolegomena-2/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5965" RevisionGUID="f7120d01-4b8a-44df-8019-1089cb0a79a6" CreationDate="2018-02-12T09:16:01.483" UserId="985" Text="According to Sihler, *New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin*, the PIE root is *\*H&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;ek&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;*, 'see'; according to *OLD*, the (theoretical) original Latin form is *\*oquelos*. Presumably, the *(u)lus* that looks like a diminutive suffix is actually one of the suffixes that are added to verb roots and used to indicate instrument/means (Gildersleeve and Lodge, *Latin grammar* §181.6). Therefore, an *oculus* is 'a means of seeing' (cf. *capulus*, 'handle' \[literally, 'a means of taking hold'\], *cingulum*, 'girdle' \[literally, 'a means of encircling'\])." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5966" RevisionGUID="30acba1d-2f60-4bcf-bcfc-fc6a16341e38" CreationDate="2018-02-12T10:53:33.520" UserId="324" Text="Indo-European *ekʷ (or h³ekʷ) is the source of the word for “eye” in many IE languages (possibly including English, though this is debated). The /l/ suffix is found only in Latin, so it is certainly possible that the Latin form is a diminutive. In this case, ocellus “little eye” would be doubly diminutive, like the words discussed here: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2424/can-there-be-double-diminutives-in-latin?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5967" RevisionGUID="370923c6-9fbe-467f-9fea-42b556572c91" CreationDate="2018-02-12T17:00:11.043" UserId="2394" Text="How is time period expressed in Latin, e.g. &quot;from Jan 1 to Mar 31&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I notice there are two prepositions meaning &quot;from&quot;, &quot;ab&quot; and &quot;ex&quot;. What's their difference? Which should I use for time period?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5967" RevisionGUID="370923c6-9fbe-467f-9fea-42b556572c91" CreationDate="2018-02-12T17:00:11.043" UserId="2394" Text="How is time period expressed in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5967" RevisionGUID="370923c6-9fbe-467f-9fea-42b556572c91" CreationDate="2018-02-12T17:00:11.043" UserId="2394" Text="|vocabulary|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19759" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5967" RevisionGUID="fe93036e-3b9d-46b9-9cb1-2d0e4d5975cb" CreationDate="2018-02-12T17:10:27.393" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|word-choice|preposition|time|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5968" RevisionGUID="04f69ffa-9e9d-4f40-b48e-7d75f430afca" CreationDate="2018-02-12T18:12:30.853" UserId="79" Text="In an answer to [the question whether *oculus* is a diminutive](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5963/79), cnread told that this word comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *\*H&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;ek&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;*, &quot;see&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Are there other Latin words from this same root, in particular without the diminutive-looking suffix *-ulus*?&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps *antiquus* (as suggested in a comment)?&#xD;&#xA;I cannot recall any Latin word that looks similar to *oc-* (*oculus* minus the suffix), but of course there may have been bigger sound changes than I can guess." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19761" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5968" RevisionGUID="04f69ffa-9e9d-4f40-b48e-7d75f430afca" CreationDate="2018-02-12T18:12:30.853" UserId="79" Text="Are there other Latin words from the same PIE root as oculus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19762" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5968" RevisionGUID="04f69ffa-9e9d-4f40-b48e-7d75f430afca" CreationDate="2018-02-12T18:12:30.853" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5969" RevisionGUID="7cbfdbc5-abee-4c76-b57d-bc599d5563c5" CreationDate="2018-02-13T00:12:37.123" UserId="985" Text="Both *ex* and *ab* can be used for specific dates. Here are two examples from Cicero's *Epistulae ad Atticum*; the first uses *ex*, and the second uses *a(b)*. For the upper limit of the range, *ad* or *usque ad* can be used, as shown here; I believe I've also seen *in* (+ accusative) used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.17.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; de Quinto fratre nuntii nobis tristes nec varii venerant **ex a. d. iiii. Non. Iun. usque ad prid. Kal. Sept.** eo autem die Livineius, L. Reguli libertus, ad me a Regulo missus venit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...from four days before the Nones of June all the way to the day before the Kalends of September...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.8.2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed cognosce itinera nostra ut statuas ubi nos visurus sis. in Formianum volumus venire Parilibus. inde, quoniam putas praetermittendum nobis esse hoc tempore Cratera illum delicatum, Kal. Mai. de Formiano proficiscemur, ut Anti simus a. d. v. Non. Mai. ludi enim Anti futuri sunt **a iiii. \[Kal.\] ad prid. Non. Mai.** eos Tullia spectare vult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...from four days before to the day before the Nones of May...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5970" RevisionGUID="fcd504c5-b786-4707-83b1-f1db3619d5dc" CreationDate="2018-02-13T05:19:44.273" UserId="39" Text="[NIL][1] mentions the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;atrox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ferox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.winter-verlag.de/de/detail/978-3-8253-5359-9/Wodtko_ua_Hg_Nomina_im_Indogerm_Lexikon/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5970" RevisionGUID="c7367d25-9bec-45a2-b8cd-c79377267f5b" CreationDate="2018-02-13T05:25:45.010" UserId="39" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="[NIL][1] mentions the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**atrox**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ferox**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;de Vaan adds one more, **omen** (?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.winter-verlag.de/de/detail/978-3-8253-5359-9/Wodtko_ua_Hg_Nomina_im_Indogerm_Lexikon/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5970" RevisionGUID="713d5bbe-b724-4353-9721-d5669e5c6eca" CreationDate="2018-02-13T05:36:55.933" UserId="39" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="[NIL][1] mentions the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**atrox**, cf. de Vaan &quot;Probably a derivative of the adj. āter 'black' and the PIE root *h&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;ekw- 'to look', thus 'having a black aspect'.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ferox**, cf. de Vaan &quot;The adj. fer-ōx may be (one of) the source(s) of the suffix -ōx, if from * [f.]ēro-h&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;kw- 'having a fierce aspect'. This can be disputed, but I see no better source for this suffix.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;de Vaan adds one more, **[omen][2]** (?), cf. de Vaan &quot;Proto-Italic	okws-mn- 'sighting, omen'?; Proto-Indo-European	*h3ekw-s- 'to see' [pr.].&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.winter-verlag.de/de/detail/978-3-8253-5359-9/Wodtko_ua_Hg_Nomina_im_Indogerm_Lexikon/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=latin&amp;id=la1143" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5971" RevisionGUID="c5e0626a-61d4-464f-a75d-7c236e678b75" CreationDate="2018-02-13T15:01:42.243" UserId="645" Text="So much the hardest part of your question lies in trying to select something representative of Ovid that I was tempted to reply 'everything and nothing'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid was something of a poet's poet, which is to say that his work is generally of a standard high enough for others to aspire to. In his earlier work he is a source — often the only source — for much of the Romans' mythology. Ovid was born into a life of privilege which was brutally taken from him, and his later compositions in exile show a face different and gloomier than that of the man who earlier wrote so light-heartedly, although he seems to have retained sufficient of the kindly nature that he had been known for at Rome to keep his readability at a high level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My own favourite work is the *Fasti*. It is written, not in Ovid's more usual hexameters, but  in elegiac couplets, pairs of lines which can very often stand on their own. I find the subject matter — the Roman year — fascinating, a kind of mixture of history and mythology. It's a pity that it covers only January to June, but it's 'generally worth reading' and 'worth your time', as your question asks for. The episodes are linked to festival dates and the constellations. I particularly like *Fasti* IV ll.393 - 620, with its quite long account, pegged to the *Cereris Ludi* or *Ludi Ceriales*, (April 12-19) of the rape of Persephone and an explanation for the gloom of the winter months and the Earth's resurgence when she returns to her mother Ceres at the start of spring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read and enjoy!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5972" RevisionGUID="4b207193-b00d-42ed-a1aa-1e7775770a16" CreationDate="2018-02-13T22:00:23.440" UserId="79" Text="I realize that the English word &quot;umbrella&quot; smells like a diminutive of *umbra*, &quot;shadow&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However, all mentions of an &quot;umbrella&quot; from ancient Rome or Greece I have found concern protection from the Sun, whereas I am interested in umbrellas as a means of protection against rain.&#xD;&#xA;(This may have something to do with my being now in Cambridge rather than Texas.)&#xD;&#xA;It appears that this kind of umbrella against rain was not known in ancient Rome &amp;mdash; do correct me if I'm wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good Latin word for an umbrella?&#xD;&#xA;There is no need for it to be classical (unless there is good classical precedent, of course), I just want a useful word for present day.&#xD;&#xA;An attested phrase would be great, but other kinds of suggestions are also welcome.&#xD;&#xA;I have posted one possibility below, but I'm sure there are other ones, or at least better reasoning for mine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19770" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5972" RevisionGUID="4b207193-b00d-42ed-a1aa-1e7775770a16" CreationDate="2018-02-13T22:00:23.440" UserId="79" Text="What is an umbrella in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19771" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5972" RevisionGUID="4b207193-b00d-42ed-a1aa-1e7775770a16" CreationDate="2018-02-13T22:00:23.440" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5973" RevisionGUID="9396a61a-eba0-4da4-9be9-a38eca0c9257" CreationDate="2018-02-13T22:00:23.440" UserId="79" Text="An umbrella can be regarded as a &quot;shadow from rain&quot;, similar to the &quot;shadow from light&quot; expressed by *umbra*.&#xD;&#xA;I think this analogy is clear enough, but it has to be made explicit.&#xD;&#xA;To me it seems that *umbra* or the diminutive *umbrella* means a shadow from light unless specified.&#xD;&#xA;So, we specify it: I suggest ***umbrella pluvialis***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course this would make sense with *umbra* as well, but the diminutive is suitable for this use &amp;mdash; the shadow zone created by an umbrella is rather small &amp;mdash; and it reinforces the meaning by analogy to other languages like English (&quot;umbrella&quot;) and Italian (&quot;ombrello&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;And, as usual, once the concept has been introduced and the context doesn't turn sunny, the adjective *pluvialis* can be dropped to leave a plain *umbrella*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found no attestations of *umbrella pluvialis*, but I think it would be a reasonable choice anyway, especially in modern use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5974" RevisionGUID="750dfa66-7a14-4c9e-8d34-3acddc9de267" CreationDate="2018-02-13T22:20:56.627" UserId="645" Text="I have several times used *parapluvia* (cf. Fr. *parapluie*) in published translations. Nobody has ever objected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5974" RevisionGUID="3a4a9071-ea9f-40b3-91b1-733407eac697" CreationDate="2018-02-14T06:38:56.823" UserId="645" Comment="pluvium (sing.) for pluvia" Text="I have several times used *parapluvium* (cf. Fr. *parapluie*) in published translations. Nobody has ever objected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5973" RevisionGUID="6400e252-8fdf-4bf3-9a02-2cba343cee20" CreationDate="2018-02-14T11:34:25.677" UserId="79" Comment="added 360 characters in body" Text="An umbrella can be regarded as a &quot;shadow from rain&quot;, similar to the &quot;shadow from light&quot; expressed by *umbra*.&#xD;&#xA;I think this analogy is clear enough, but it has to be made explicit.&#xD;&#xA;To me it seems that *umbra* or the diminutive *umbrella* means a shadow from light unless specified.&#xD;&#xA;So, we specify it: I suggest ***umbrella pluvialis***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course this would make sense with *umbra* as well, but the diminutive is suitable for this use &amp;mdash; the shadow zone created by an umbrella is rather small &amp;mdash; and it reinforces the meaning by analogy to other languages like English (&quot;umbrella&quot;) and Italian (&quot;ombrello&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;And, as usual, once the concept has been introduced and the context doesn't turn sunny, the adjective *pluvialis* can be dropped to leave a plain *umbrella*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found no attestations of *umbrella pluvialis*, but I think it would be a reasonable choice anyway, especially in modern use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Penelope remarked in a comment that *umbrella* seems not to be the standard classical choice, whereas *umbella* or *umbraculum* (often in plural) are attested.&#xD;&#xA;These are good options with *pluvialis/pluviale*.&#xD;&#xA;However, despite *umbrella* not being classical, I find it appropriate for modern use.&#xD;&#xA;After all, Latin diminutives are not uniquely determined by the base word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2653" RevisionGUID="dc0537a6-49b3-4558-98b4-55c0060e10c4" CreationDate="2018-02-14T13:22:36.090" UserId="79" Comment="Made small edits to bump this on a Valentine's day." Text="The ancient Romans had many festivals, but did any of them celebrate friendship or love?&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia mentions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine%27s_Day#Lupercalia) similarity to *Lupercalia*, but I consider love to be very different from fertility.&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking if there was a Roman festival (fully or partially) devoted to emotions between people; the ability to breed is irrelevant for this question.&#xD;&#xA;Connection to fertility is fine, as long as there is a pronounced focus on emotion, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there was no such festival, do we know what the Romans would have called such a thing?&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good name?&#xD;&#xA;The best word I could think of is *Amicalia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of Valentine's day varies between countries.&#xD;&#xA;In the English speaking world it is mainly a day of erotic or romantic love, whereas in Finland it is a day of friendship.&#xD;&#xA;Any kind of &quot;Roman Valentine's day&quot; would make a good answer; it can be anything promoting warm feelings between individuals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5975" RevisionGUID="a470508f-00cd-4df5-a184-06e3f7353a8e" CreationDate="2018-02-14T13:32:43.043" UserId="1982" Text="Students of North &amp; Hillard will be aware that Ex. 229 is a passage about Napoleon. In the answer book Ex. 229 is a passage concerning Scipio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know the refs for the Latin trans. of &quot;Napoleon&quot;, and the English of &quot;Scipio&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I can do them myself; but, still like to see the (fully) correct versions--mine hardly ever are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19778" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5975" RevisionGUID="a470508f-00cd-4df5-a184-06e3f7353a8e" CreationDate="2018-02-14T13:32:43.043" UserId="1982" Text="Napoleon/ Scipio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19779" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5975" RevisionGUID="a470508f-00cd-4df5-a184-06e3f7353a8e" CreationDate="2018-02-14T13:32:43.043" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5976" RevisionGUID="aad92a73-405c-4573-829e-1cc61c02a5da" CreationDate="2018-02-14T13:55:05.420" UserId="324" Text="Napoleon has the reputation (in my view, unfounded) of being the greatest general of all time (he did conquer almost the whole of Europe, as did Hitler, but both were defeated after a few years), and Scipio Africanus enjoys a similar (and perhaps better founded) reputation among the Romans. The explicit linking of the two is found in the book *A Greater than Napoleon: Scipio Africanus*,  London, 1926, by the famous English general Liddell Hart." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5977" RevisionGUID="b49a8877-6841-4c07-91b5-cb5f9f631dfb" CreationDate="2018-02-14T14:16:20.173" UserId="1982" Text="In the festival of Lupercalia (15th Feb.) the deities Juno &amp; Faunus were honoured. It was a fertility festival or a lover's holiday, looking forward to the return of Spring. In the C 5th, in an attempt to abolish the pagan festival, Pope Gelasius changed Lupercalia to St. Valentine's Day; and, the date to Feb. 14th., the emphasis continued to be on love. &#xD;&#xA;Valentine was a Christian martyr executed by Emperor, Claudius II, in C 3rd.&#xD;&#xA;In prison, Valentine continued to minister by witnessing to his guards. One of these had adopted a blind girl. The guard asked Valentine if God could help his daughter. V prayed and the girl's sight was restored.&#xD;&#xA;Immediately before his execution, V wrote a note to his jailer's daughter, signing: &quot;From your Valentine&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The first Valentine card!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5976" RevisionGUID="049f749d-e644-427d-862c-e91faf7d77a0" CreationDate="2018-02-14T15:25:37.317" UserId="324" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Napoleon has the reputation (in my view, unfounded) of being the greatest general of all time (he did conquer almost the whole of Europe, as did Hitler, but both were defeated after a few years), and Scipio Africanus enjoys a similar (and perhaps better founded) reputation among the Romans. The explicit linking of the two is found in the book *A Greater than Napoleon: Scipio Africanus*,  London, 1926, by the famous English military historian Liddell Hart." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="07c6aaf9-b356-4c47-8474-1fbaaebb4d8f" CreationDate="2018-02-14T16:05:01.867" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="The first mnemonic for Latin case ending I learnt was that for neuter words, the accusative form is always identical to the nominative form. This applies even to exotic word endings like *animal* or *id,* and so far I am not aware of any counterexample to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This always struck me to be an odd rule. Thus, I am curious:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Do we have any idea why this is the case?&#xD;&#xA;* And related: How strong is this rule? Are there any known exceptions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19784" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="07c6aaf9-b356-4c47-8474-1fbaaebb4d8f" CreationDate="2018-02-14T16:05:01.867" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|history|declension|morphology|accusative|neuter|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19785" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="4c0893c9-a07f-468b-9eba-d1f891925991" CreationDate="2018-02-14T16:06:04.393" UserId="79" Comment="67" />
  <row Id="19786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5978" RevisionGUID="82c9130c-f0c0-44aa-9d44-f233c5494b04" CreationDate="2018-02-14T17:10:08.170" UserId="2402" Text="I have almost zero knowledge of Latin, but have had a crack at it using Google Translate, trying a few similar phrases, and going backwards and forwards between Latin and English to see if I can understand what's going on where it looked totally incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I've got to eventually is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; elephanti homines sunt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I'm right with the nominative plural for elephants, not 100% sure I have the right declension for people, and I think sunt is also right. But as I said, this is a complete beginner's effort. A check would be greatly appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19787" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5978" RevisionGUID="82c9130c-f0c0-44aa-9d44-f233c5494b04" CreationDate="2018-02-14T17:10:08.170" UserId="2402" Text="How would we translate &quot;elephants are people&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19788" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5978" RevisionGUID="82c9130c-f0c0-44aa-9d44-f233c5494b04" CreationDate="2018-02-14T17:10:08.170" UserId="2402" Text="|translation|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5979" RevisionGUID="50c1a87e-fc25-44b8-bed5-3e73a8249fbc" CreationDate="2018-02-14T17:38:59.810" UserId="2403" Text="I'm struggling to read a couple of words in a manuscript.[1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![00000003.jpg](https://s18.postimg.org/je4yiru4p/00000003.jpg)](https://postimg.org/image/fuj0syret/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what I've managed so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        1446 Exitus Acta Probat &#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;        Johannes de Herzelles [aliarn ???]&#xD;&#xA;        [sedim ???] Cappellany&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any idea what the two missing words are, and what they might mean ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Notes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. MS Kassel, Murhardsche Bibliothek der Stadt und Landesbibliothek 4o med" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19790" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5979" RevisionGUID="50c1a87e-fc25-44b8-bed5-3e73a8249fbc" CreationDate="2018-02-14T17:38:59.810" UserId="2403" Text="Help with paleography: What does this manscript say?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19791" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5979" RevisionGUID="50c1a87e-fc25-44b8-bed5-3e73a8249fbc" CreationDate="2018-02-14T17:38:59.810" UserId="2403" Text="|paleography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5978" RevisionGUID="2346cba4-7e7b-41a0-aef3-6f41115ebfe7" CreationDate="2018-02-14T17:55:27.207" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have almost zero knowledge of Latin, but have had a crack at it using Google Translate, trying a few similar phrases, and going backwards and forwards between Latin and English to see if I can understand what's going on where it looked totally incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I've got to eventually is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; elephanti homines sunt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I'm right with the nominative plural for elephants, not 100% sure I have the right declension for people, and I think *sunt* is also right. But as I said, this is a complete beginner's effort. A check would be greatly appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19793" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5978" RevisionGUID="2346cba4-7e7b-41a0-aef3-6f41115ebfe7" CreationDate="2018-02-14T17:55:27.207" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation-check|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5980" RevisionGUID="535d91c3-adaa-4d5a-aae4-9d930a932f47" CreationDate="2018-02-14T18:04:36.890" UserId="79" Text="It has been said over and over again, but I repeat:&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate can get you started, but you are right not to trust it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Elephas* and *homo* are both third declension words.&#xD;&#xA;This means, in particular, that the plural nominative ending is not *-i*.&#xD;&#xA;(It would be if you treat it as *elephantus* instead of *elephas*, but *elephas* sounds more appropriate to me.)&#xD;&#xA;The plurals are *elephantes* and *homines*.&#xD;&#xA;The singular datives would be *elephanti* and *homini*, so the forms ending in *-i* do exist for these words but they mean something different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Syntactically your sentence is correct, so it remains to change the form of the elephant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Elephantes homines sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle you could parse this also as &quot;people are elephants&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of ambiguity is almost inevitable in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The word order is pretty free, but it does suggest the reading &quot;elephants are people&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5980" RevisionGUID="534eab7e-e649-46ab-a5c2-49c231a4f38c" CreationDate="2018-02-14T18:50:16.747" UserId="79" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="It has been said over and over again, but I repeat:&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate can get you started, but you are right not to trust it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Elephas* and *homo* are both third declension words.&#xD;&#xA;This means, in particular, that the plural nominative ending is not *-i*.&#xD;&#xA;(It would be if you treat it as *elephantus* instead of *elephas*, but *elephas* sounds more appropriate to me. *Elephas* is the form used in the scientific name of the Indian elephant and it is also a more &quot;proper&quot; loan from the Greek original.)&#xD;&#xA;The plurals are *elephantes* and *homines*.&#xD;&#xA;The singular datives would be *elephanti* and *homini*, so the forms ending in *-i* do exist for these words but they mean something different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Syntactically your sentence is correct, so it remains to change the form of the elephant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Elephantes homines sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle you could parse this also as &quot;people are elephants&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of ambiguity is almost inevitable in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The word order is pretty free, but it does suggest the reading &quot;elephants are people&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5981" RevisionGUID="9e0bbd26-7ec2-4a29-afe6-91acb813af9a" CreationDate="2018-02-15T05:45:51.097" UserId="2405" Text="What would be the way to say that you don't care about people you don't know? Something like &quot;I don't care about those I don't know&quot; or &quot;I ignore the faceless masses.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19797" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5981" RevisionGUID="9e0bbd26-7ec2-4a29-afe6-91acb813af9a" CreationDate="2018-02-15T05:45:51.097" UserId="2405" Text="Translation of unknown phrase into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19798" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5981" RevisionGUID="9e0bbd26-7ec2-4a29-afe6-91acb813af9a" CreationDate="2018-02-15T05:45:51.097" UserId="2405" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19799" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5981" RevisionGUID="1f4d66e7-ad09-493a-aa3b-74c472726854" CreationDate="2018-02-15T10:25:22.507" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and made the title more descriptive." Text="Translation of a phrase about unknown people into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19800" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5981" RevisionGUID="1f4d66e7-ad09-493a-aa3b-74c472726854" CreationDate="2018-02-15T10:25:22.507" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and made the title more descriptive." Text="|idiom|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5982" RevisionGUID="19453bed-0482-4c64-8a05-4ccee01be5da" CreationDate="2018-02-15T10:35:15.310" UserId="79" Text="There are many words for &quot;unknown&quot;, but many of them have tones you might want to avoid.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *ignobilis* implies low birth and *alienus* implies being foreign or perhaps unwelcome, although both could be used for *unknown*.&#xD;&#xA;The most neutral word I could think of is *ignotus*.&#xD;&#xA;The masculine plural is a good choice for unknown people in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb [*contemnere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=contemno&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) can be translated as &quot;to consider a person or thing as unimportant or of small value&quot;, and I think that's a pretty good fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combining these, I would suggest this phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ignotos contemno.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I consider unknown [people] to be unimportant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English translation is a bit clumsy, but attempts to give a good idea of the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;A more fluent translation might be &quot;I ignore the unknown&quot;, but I shall not endeavor a better English phrase here since the question was about Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5983" RevisionGUID="5de7e72e-7b98-4fd5-8119-f5ab0b97fc56" CreationDate="2018-02-15T13:30:51.463" UserId="45" Text="Cicero has a fun, &quot;pile-on&quot; quote in *Pro Fonteio* 32:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; potestis igitur ignotos notis, iniquos aequis, alienigenas domesticis, cupidos moderatis, mercennarios	gratuitis, impios religiosis, inimicissimos huic imperio ac nomini bonis ac fidelibus et sociis et civibus anteferre?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using him as a model, you could say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **notos ignotis antefero.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I prefer people I know to people I don't know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It puts a slightly more positive spin on your phrase than you may want, but it has a nice ring to it!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5984" RevisionGUID="3cccea80-0604-4643-aab5-f05150ea565f" CreationDate="2018-02-15T14:38:02.643" UserId="645" Text="Catullus XCII is the contemptuous and snappy put-down of Julius Caesar, *nil nimium studeo, Caesar, tibi velle placere, nec scire utrum sis albus an ater homo*, or 'I've not the least wish to please you, Caesar, or even to know whether you are a white man or black'. Leaving out the personal stuff, you might reduce this to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ignotos nil nimium studeo*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— or 'I don't pay too much attention to those I don't know'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5977" RevisionGUID="32e73386-7d05-4d7b-b28c-d709016b6e41" CreationDate="2018-02-15T17:16:00.340" UserId="1982" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="In the festival of Lupercalia (15th Feb.) the deities Juno &amp; Faunus were honoured. It was a fertility festival or a lover's holiday, looking forward to the return of Spring. In the C 5th, in an attempt to abolish the pagan festival, Pope Gelasius changed Lupercalia to St. Valentine's Day; and, the date to Feb. 14th., the emphasis continued to be on love. &#xD;&#xA;Valentine was a Christian martyr executed by Emperor, Claudius II, in C 3rd.&#xD;&#xA;In prison, Valentine continued to minister by witnessing to his guards. One of these had adopted a blind girl. The guard asked Valentine if God could help his daughter. V prayed and the girl's sight was restored.&#xD;&#xA;Immediately before his execution, V wrote a note to his jailer's daughter, signing: &quot;From your Valentine&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The first Valentine card!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5985" RevisionGUID="2a3106a6-4251-4479-9dda-58d1a7ca5f2d" CreationDate="2018-02-16T08:58:16.390" UserId="2406" Text="That is it. What would be the Greek for &quot;Pigasus&quot;? Does one simply replace the eta in &quot;Πήγασος&quot; for an iota?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for your help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19806" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5985" RevisionGUID="2a3106a6-4251-4479-9dda-58d1a7ca5f2d" CreationDate="2018-02-16T08:58:16.390" UserId="2406" Text="Translating &quot;Pigasus&quot; into Greek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19807" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5985" RevisionGUID="2a3106a6-4251-4479-9dda-58d1a7ca5f2d" CreationDate="2018-02-16T08:58:16.390" UserId="2406" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5986" RevisionGUID="81d12fc1-09ad-4f1f-88b1-dd41542f7502" CreationDate="2018-02-16T11:24:00.933" UserId="79" Text="My intuition suggests different word orders with and without the enclitic *-ne*.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Vir canit.* &amp;mdash; The man sings.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Canitne vir?* &amp;mdash; Does the man sing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know full well that Latin word order is fairly free, but nevertheless there are tendencies.&#xD;&#xA;This question is about those tendencies, as I expect there to be no hard rules.&#xD;&#xA;Putting the predicate at the end of the direct statement is common, and I will not contest that here.&#xD;&#xA;However, I am not sure what effect adding *-ne* to the predicate should have on word order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My intuition suggests putting the predicate first when it comes with *-ne*.&#xD;&#xA;Is this actually the case in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Does *-ne* have any observable effect on word order?&#xD;&#xA;For example, are the typical positions of *est* and *estne* different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19809" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5986" RevisionGUID="81d12fc1-09ad-4f1f-88b1-dd41542f7502" CreationDate="2018-02-16T11:24:00.933" UserId="79" Text="Does -ne affect word order?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19810" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5986" RevisionGUID="81d12fc1-09ad-4f1f-88b1-dd41542f7502" CreationDate="2018-02-16T11:24:00.933" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|word-order|enclitic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5987" RevisionGUID="87d96066-f5da-40f9-9532-0ecb34c17cbc" CreationDate="2018-02-16T13:28:13.497" UserId="45" Text="Perhaps there is a more subtle answer, but I will give the naive view: **Yes, -ne affects word order because it moves the principal word (usually the verb) to the beginning of the sentence.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More detail about the word-order imposed by *-ne* is available here: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2781/where-to-put-the-enclitic-ne, the gist of which is that *-ne* is always at the beginning of the sentence (except certain connectives, like *sed*) and usually is added to the verb--though it can also be added to another word that is the focus of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have here three observations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Verbs are *generally* placed at the end of a declarative sentence.&#xD;&#xA;* *-ne* is generally placed at the beginning of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;* *-ne* generally is added to the verb of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These three observations are enough to give a solid &quot;yes&quot; to your question. I'd love to see an answer if there is something more subtle at play, if that is the case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5987" RevisionGUID="efacb084-163f-4192-b19c-a47314337f33" CreationDate="2018-02-16T13:35:40.460" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="Perhaps there is a more subtle answer, but I will give the naive view: **Yes, -ne affects word order because it moves the principal word (usually the verb) to the beginning of the sentence.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More detail about the word-order imposed by *-ne* is available here: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2781/where-to-put-the-enclitic-ne, the gist of which is that *-ne* is always at the beginning of the sentence (except certain connectives, like *sed*) and usually is added to the verb--though it can also be added to another word that is the focus of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have here three observations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Verbs are *generally* placed at the end of a declarative sentence.&#xD;&#xA;* *-ne* is generally placed at the beginning of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;* *-ne* is generally added to the verb of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These three observations are enough to give a solid &quot;yes&quot; to your question. I'd love to see an answer if there is something more subtle at play." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5987" RevisionGUID="72000127-42a3-4706-8afd-5b4f8592b7d6" CreationDate="2018-02-16T13:51:55.880" UserId="45" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="Perhaps there is a more subtle answer, but I will give the naive view: **Yes, -ne affects word order because it moves the principal word (usually the verb) to the beginning of the sentence.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More detail about the word-order imposed by *-ne* is available here: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2781/where-to-put-the-enclitic-ne, the gist of which is that *-ne* is always at the beginning of the sentence (except certain connectives, like *sed*) and usually is added to the verb--though it can also be added to another word that is the focus of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have here three observations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Verbs are *generally* placed at the end of a declarative sentence (cf. Allen &amp; Greenough, [&amp;sect;596](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Asmythp%3D596)).&#xD;&#xA;* *-ne* is generally placed at the beginning of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;* *-ne* is generally added to the verb of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These three observations are enough to give a solid &quot;yes&quot; to your question. I'd love to see an answer if there is something more subtle at play." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5989" RevisionGUID="62f4d317-e841-4992-89f6-a2829022494a" CreationDate="2018-02-16T18:27:30.720" UserId="1982" Text="North &amp; Hillard Ex. 235: &quot;...donec rex audacia legati perterritus promisit se omnia quae Senatus decerneret facturum.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, the rule on reflexive pronouns/ indirect statements requires &quot;facturum esse&quot; eg &quot;dixi me venturum esse&quot; = I said that I would come. Here, king promised that he would do what the Senate decreed.&quot; Is it acceptable to omit &quot;esse&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, I put &quot;decreverat&quot;, which fit the English; N &amp; H have used an imperf. subj., are both correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19817" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5989" RevisionGUID="62f4d317-e841-4992-89f6-a2829022494a" CreationDate="2018-02-16T18:27:30.720" UserId="1982" Text="Reflexive Pronouns &amp; Indirect Statements" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19818" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5989" RevisionGUID="62f4d317-e841-4992-89f6-a2829022494a" CreationDate="2018-02-16T18:27:30.720" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5985" RevisionGUID="d3b19218-36e9-4129-978b-267ae9d330a9" CreationDate="2018-02-16T19:47:31.110" UserId="2406" Comment="added 211 characters in body" Text="That is it. What would be the Greek for &quot;Pigasus&quot;? Does one simply replace the eta in &quot;Πήγασος&quot; for an iota?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By &quot;Pigasus&quot; I refer to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigasus_(literature)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, a transliteration into Koine Greek would be just great!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for your help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigasus_(literature)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5990" RevisionGUID="1300d48f-e9df-4f7a-8fe5-00d6b2e192cc" CreationDate="2018-02-16T20:35:47.713" UserId="985" Text="You could certainly replace the eta with an iota, as you suggest, yielding Πίγασος. Alternatively, if you want to reflect the wordplay of the English somewhat, you could do something like Πηγασῦς, replacing the σος element of the usual word with σῦς, an alternate form of ὗς (which, at least in Homer, can refer to the domestic pig, even though it refers to the wild swine elsewhere)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5989" RevisionGUID="83c2dbc9-7844-4808-b0d1-31f18ee2f21f" CreationDate="2018-02-16T21:19:14.413" UserId="45" Comment="added 231 characters in body" Text="The answer key to North &amp; Hillard, Ex. 235 proposes the following Latin translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...donec rex audacia legati perterritus promisit se omnia quae Senatus decerneret facturum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have two questions about this proposed translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Normally, I would expect in indirect discourse that there should be an &quot;esse&quot; after the future participle, e.g.: &quot;dixi me venturum **esse**&quot; = &quot;I said that I would come.&quot; In the above example, the king promised that he would do what the Senate decreed. **Is it acceptable to omit *esse* after *facturum***?&#xD;&#xA;* Secondly, the answer key uses the imperfect subjunctive *decerneret*, while I used the pluperfect active *decreverat*. **Would both options make grammatical sense?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5989" RevisionGUID="e39eac2f-0ab5-4e99-9331-20976ab91457" CreationDate="2018-02-17T10:25:40.837" UserId="1982" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="The answer key to North &amp; Hillard, Ex. 235 proposes the following Latin translation of:&quot;...until the king, frightened by the ambassador's boldness, promised to do what the Senate decreed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...donec rex audacia legati perterritus promisit se omnia quae Senatus decerneret facturum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have two questions about this proposed translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Normally, I would expect in indirect discourse that there should be an &quot;esse&quot; after the future participle, e.g.: &quot;dixi me venturum **esse**&quot; = &quot;I said that I would come.&quot; In the above example, the king promised that he would do what the Senate decreed. **Is it acceptable to omit *esse* after *facturum***?&#xD;&#xA;* Secondly, the answer key uses the imperfect subjunctive *decerneret*, while I used the pluperfect active *decreverat*. **Would both options make grammatical sense?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5991" RevisionGUID="878da9bc-65d5-419a-bf11-f19f833205cb" CreationDate="2018-02-17T11:51:02.640" UserId="324" Text="Brian has given a good answer, but perhaps it can be expanded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overriding principle is that -ne should occupy the second place in a clause (or, to put it another way: it is attached to the first word). This is a specific example of a famous phenomenon in ancient Indo-European languages known as Wackernagel’s law, which stipulates that certain clitics typically occupy the second place. Other examples are the Greek “men” and “de”, or even the English “however”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in Latin there is second principle, namely that -ne should be attached to the word which is actually put in question, typically the verb. The coexistence of these two principles means that -ne occupies the second place (as Wackernagel decrees) and drags the verb with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5992" RevisionGUID="3c37b402-bb6f-4b54-94ee-fee47a2741e2" CreationDate="2018-02-17T19:03:58.530" UserId="79" Text="Omitting *esse* in future infinitives like *facturum esse* is very common and perfectly acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, if something doesn't seem to quite make sense syntactically, it is often a good idea to check whether there could be an implicit *est* or *esse* somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would consider conjunctive to be slightly more natural.&#xD;&#xA;The decision in this sentence is subordinate to *promisit*, a promise by the king.&#xD;&#xA;When a subordinate clause has someone's point of view &amp;mdash; like king's here &amp;mdash; the predicate is often in conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;The king made a promise based on his knowledge of the decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to emphasize that the decision was a factual event, the indicative is possible.&#xD;&#xA;But here it is a reason for a personal action, so conjunctive is a better choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5993" RevisionGUID="18bb29a1-e1ba-408f-9347-d0c6a1cc48ce" CreationDate="2018-02-18T00:32:37.103" UserId="79" Text="I am looking for an example of a pair of adjectives or nouns (broadly defined) in classical Latin which mean the same thing but one is considered rude and the other one polite.&#xD;&#xA;I could list several such pairs of politically incorrect and correct phrases in English or Finnish, but no Latin ones come to mind and I wonder whether the phenomenon existed then as it does today.&#xD;&#xA;For English examples, consider &quot;blind&quot; vs. &quot;visually impaired&quot; or &quot;nigger&quot; vs. &quot;African-American&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There are many kinds of political (in)correctness and it is also a matter of opinion.&#xD;&#xA;I hope, however, that the concept is clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone give a similar pair in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;How do we know that there is such a difference in tone?&#xD;&#xA;If there are several such pairs, a well-attested or otherwise prominent example would be great." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5993" RevisionGUID="18bb29a1-e1ba-408f-9347-d0c6a1cc48ce" CreationDate="2018-02-18T00:32:37.103" UserId="79" Text="Politically (in)correct Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5993" RevisionGUID="18bb29a1-e1ba-408f-9347-d0c6a1cc48ce" CreationDate="2018-02-18T00:32:37.103" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|word-comparison|example-request|nuance|euphemism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5994" RevisionGUID="69498a33-b3e1-43e9-a641-770b25103dfd" CreationDate="2018-02-18T08:37:52.037" UserId="1051" Text="What might a Greek have called a modern _battery_?  I think a good Latin work&#xD;&#xA;would be _accumulator_ (cf. German), but don't know how well something&#xD;&#xA;corresponding would work in Greek (or what it would be).  _Battery_ seems to be&#xD;&#xA;some sort of military metaphor, which it would perhaps be too recherché to&#xD;&#xA;translate to Greek.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19829" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5994" RevisionGUID="69498a33-b3e1-43e9-a641-770b25103dfd" CreationDate="2018-02-18T08:37:52.037" UserId="1051" Text="Greek word for battery" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19830" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5994" RevisionGUID="69498a33-b3e1-43e9-a641-770b25103dfd" CreationDate="2018-02-18T08:37:52.037" UserId="1051" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5995" RevisionGUID="e4d4c233-e4a4-490b-815e-5f4372f03c78" CreationDate="2018-02-18T12:22:36.473" UserId="1304" Text="Greeks still exist, and they say _bataria_ (spelled μπαταρία) for an electric battery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a more technical/formal registry, the word for _accumulator_ is συσσωρευτής, and another word for _battery_ is συστοιχία. Both words are derivations from roots present in New Testament Greek and would have been easily parsed by any “ancient” Greek, just like an ancient Roman would have recognized the word _accumulator_ without having the faintest clue about what is meant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19832" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5994" RevisionGUID="35487568-f27c-44e5-9a44-022de607a593" CreationDate="2018-02-18T12:34:40.247" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5994" RevisionGUID="2d0675fc-1d03-4af8-85df-7b954dc10bd5" CreationDate="2018-02-18T14:55:50.793" UserId="1051" Comment="edited body" Text="What might a Greek have called a modern _battery_?  I think a good Latin word&#xD;&#xA;would be _accumulator_ (cf. German), but don't know how well something&#xD;&#xA;corresponding would work in Greek (or what it would be).  _Battery_ seems to be&#xD;&#xA;some sort of military metaphor, which it would perhaps be too recherché to&#xD;&#xA;translate to Greek.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5994" RevisionGUID="e89d72c9-bc8c-493f-9a6e-8cba917d9b08" CreationDate="2018-02-18T15:03:45.850" UserId="1051" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="What might a Greek have called a modern _battery_?  I think a good Latin word&#xD;&#xA;would be _accumulator_ (cf. German), but don't know how well something&#xD;&#xA;corresponding would work in Greek (or what it would be).  _Battery_ seems to be&#xD;&#xA;some sort of military metaphor, which it would perhaps be too recherché to&#xD;&#xA;translate to Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please say why the coinage would be plausible in the ancient language.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5995" RevisionGUID="51b9f262-80df-4644-8cc0-4f397e3ec486" CreationDate="2018-02-18T17:37:52.957" UserId="1304" Comment="added 536 characters in body" Text="Greeks still exist, and they say _bataria_ (spelled μπαταρία) for an electric battery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a more technical/formal registry, the word for _accumulator_ is συσσωρευτής, and another word for _battery_ is συστοιχία. Both words are derivations from roots present in New Testament Greek and would have been easily parsed by any “ancient” Greek, just like an ancient Roman would have recognized the word _accumulator_ without having the faintest clue about what is meant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While συσσωρευτής is the exact etymological equivalent of _accumulator,_ συστοιχία and _battery_ have somewhat different origins. _Battery_ comes from the old French word _batterie,_ meaning “a set of metal implements meant to be put together to be used” (from artillery to kitchenware: my  sources explain the relation with the verb _battre,_ ”to beat”, in different ways and that discussion is off-topic here). Συστοιχία comes from the verb συστοιχέω, “to be tied together one after another”, just as power cells in a battery are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5995" RevisionGUID="d0d83249-a99f-47fc-bfdd-612bc4a70383" CreationDate="2018-02-18T18:14:33.427" UserId="1304" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="Greeks still exist, and they say _bataria_ (spelled μπαταρία) for an electric battery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a more technical/formal registry, the word for _accumulator_ is συσσωρευτής, and another word for _battery_ is συστοιχία. Both words are derivations from roots present in New Testament Greek and would have been easily parsed by any “ancient” Greek, just like an ancient Roman would have recognized the word _accumulator_ without having the faintest clue about what is meant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While συσσωρευτής is the exact etymological equivalent of _accumulator,_ συστοιχία and _battery_ have somewhat different origins. _Battery_ comes from the old French word _batterie,_ meaning “a set of metal implements meant to be put together to be used” (from artillery to kitchenware: my  sources explain the relation with the verb _battre,_ ”to beat”, in different ways and that discussion is off-topic here). Συστοιχία comes from the verb συστοιχέω, “to be tied together one after another”, just as power cells in a battery are: most probably, it was first used of batteries by someone who knew the French etymology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5996" RevisionGUID="25d014d0-bc67-42ae-9a91-e54a16c8bb16" CreationDate="2018-02-18T19:26:13.503" UserId="1304" Text="The whole idea of politically correct language derives, ultimately, from the [Sapir-Whorf hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity) and it is as modern a concept as one can imagine. We have a fairly good knowledge of theories about language in the classical world (from Plato’s _Cratylus_ onwards) and the idea that one can shape reality through vocabulary has no place among them. So, the answer to your question must be “no, there are no such pairs in classical Latin”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there were _speech registers:_ you wouldn’t use the same words in the Senate and in the brothel, and the fun is that most ancient Roman taboo words are still alive - and taboo - in one Romance language or another. We know a lot of classical obscene expressions, not only from authors like Plautus or Catullus, but also from graffiti scribbled on walls in Pompeii and elsewhere, and we know that they were considered vulgar. Consider CIL IV, 9246, a graffiti from Pompeii: somebody describes a sexual intercourse, and (possibly someone else) writes: _tales sed versus scribere turpe fuit_ “but to write such verses was a bad thing”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19838" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="2427" RevisionGUID="b38efb4f-e86a-4dff-a267-c02b0a3572fd" CreationDate="2018-02-19T00:11:58.460" UserId="30" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:78,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;C. M. Weimer&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:30,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Cerberus&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5997" RevisionGUID="d49e24b7-bb68-449f-b662-57bacbe9a95c" CreationDate="2018-02-19T11:43:59.913" UserId="79" Text="In the Stack Exchange network questions, answers, and comments can be undeleted.&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good Latin verb for &quot;undelete&quot; in this context?&#xD;&#xA;To &quot;delete&quot; is naturally *delere*, but I see no good way to prefix it into anything understandable.&#xD;&#xA;The best option I could think of is *restituere*.&#xD;&#xA;Is this the best choice?&#xD;&#xA;Are there other good verbs for bringing something back to existence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19840" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5997" RevisionGUID="d49e24b7-bb68-449f-b662-57bacbe9a95c" CreationDate="2018-02-19T11:43:59.913" UserId="79" Text="How to &quot;undelete&quot; in Stack Exchange in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19841" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5997" RevisionGUID="d49e24b7-bb68-449f-b662-57bacbe9a95c" CreationDate="2018-02-19T11:43:59.913" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|verbs|modern-life|technology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5998" RevisionGUID="a91921c2-434d-42e1-94e7-b21abeb6caf4" CreationDate="2018-02-19T15:48:09.630" UserId="183" Text="I'd think of *[reverti][1]* &quot;to bring back&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, *undelete* is very idiomatic English and cannot be translated in a 1-to-1-fashion to many other languages. In German user interfaces the word *rückgängig* ist used (from *rückgängig machen*, for English back-translations see [e.g., this dictionary][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=revertor&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://dict.leo.org/englisch-deutsch/r%C3%BCckg%C3%A4ngig%20machen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19845" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5979" RevisionGUID="3ce97034-fbee-4a4f-b007-6f5380fe6c57" CreationDate="2018-02-19T18:19:35.490" UserId="79" Comment="edited title" Text="Help with paleography: What does this manuscript say?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6000" RevisionGUID="c82fbf97-2908-416c-8e68-452a7a5d31d1" CreationDate="2018-02-19T19:30:33.213" UserId="2414" Text="For what it is worth, declensions have arisen independently in different language families. As mentioned, the Proto Indo-European language had 8 cases, which reduced to 5 in Ancient Greek, 6 in Latin, 6 in Russian, 8 in Sanskrit (but only 3 in Hindi), and 4 in German (and 0 in English, French, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding other language families ... The classical Semitic languages (Arabic, etc.) have 3. Quechua, the language of the Incas, has 7 - 19 (depending on how exactly you define a case). Japanese has 7 (although they are marked with separate particle words). Hungarian has 7. Somali has 4." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="a402b538-4687-48f8-8570-a08723a41b1e" CreationDate="2018-02-20T14:05:05.230" UserId="2416" Text="A phrase that has been on my mind for some time has recently seemed to become a much more prominent maxim is &quot;Great by choice&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;M searches online for something similar only comes to show the book written by James Collin. Having a relatively meagre knowledge of languages, and given the context of it being &quot;choose to be great&quot; or &quot;become great by choice&quot; the classic Google translateations come up with &quot;eligre est magna&quot; - Bit I can't imagine those is correct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any and all help from the experts would be gratefully received " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19848" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="a402b538-4687-48f8-8570-a08723a41b1e" CreationDate="2018-02-20T14:05:05.230" UserId="2416" Text="Contextual Translation - Magna" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19849" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="a402b538-4687-48f8-8570-a08723a41b1e" CreationDate="2018-02-20T14:05:05.230" UserId="2416" Text="|translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6002" RevisionGUID="c260c1ec-7cc9-41fc-9105-622212184c07" CreationDate="2018-02-20T16:17:06.067" UserId="2417" Text="What is the latin expression for &quot;day one&quot;, as expressed as the first day of the rest of your life?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19851" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6002" RevisionGUID="c260c1ec-7cc9-41fc-9105-622212184c07" CreationDate="2018-02-20T16:17:06.067" UserId="2417" Text="What is the latin expression for &quot;day one&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19852" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6002" RevisionGUID="c260c1ec-7cc9-41fc-9105-622212184c07" CreationDate="2018-02-20T16:17:06.067" UserId="2417" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5984" RevisionGUID="0153e05c-a84b-4a5f-8f46-3726fe552d98" CreationDate="2018-02-20T16:44:46.040" UserId="645" Comment="ignotos changed to dat." Text="Catullus XCII is the contemptuous and snappy put-down of Julius Caesar, *nil nimium studeo, Caesar, tibi velle placere, nec scire utrum sis albus an ater homo*, or 'I've not the least wish to please you, Caesar, or even to know whether you are a white man or black'. Leaving out the personal stuff, you might reduce this to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ignotis nil nimium studeo*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— or 'I don't pay too much attention to those I don't know'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19854" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="a619af6f-c992-4d62-948b-67f1c6139007" CreationDate="2018-02-20T17:50:46.820" UserId="79" Comment="67" />
  <row Id="19855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6002" RevisionGUID="96c0c595-a75a-43d4-a14f-b6cbaa6d7f8b" CreationDate="2018-02-20T17:52:29.527" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What is the Latin expression for &quot;day one&quot;, as expressed as the first day of the rest of your life?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19856" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6002" RevisionGUID="96c0c595-a75a-43d4-a14f-b6cbaa6d7f8b" CreationDate="2018-02-20T17:52:29.527" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What is the Latin expression for &quot;day one&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19857" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6002" RevisionGUID="96c0c595-a75a-43d4-a14f-b6cbaa6d7f8b" CreationDate="2018-02-20T17:52:29.527" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="5e544803-d755-4ec3-aeb5-bc0caa67628a" CreationDate="2018-02-20T18:04:34.833" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="A phrase that has been on my mind for some time has recently seemed to become a much more prominent maxim is &quot;Great by choice&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many searches online for something similar only comes to show the book written by James Collin. Having a relatively meagre knowledge of languages, and given the context of it being &quot;choose to be great&quot; or &quot;become great by choice&quot; the classic Google translations come up with &quot;eligre est magna&quot; &amp;mdash; but I can't imagine that is correct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any and all help from the experts would be gratefully received." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19859" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="5e544803-d755-4ec3-aeb5-bc0caa67628a" CreationDate="2018-02-20T18:04:34.833" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Translation of &quot;great by choice&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19860" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="5e544803-d755-4ec3-aeb5-bc0caa67628a" CreationDate="2018-02-20T18:04:34.833" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|translation-check|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6003" RevisionGUID="e4da6153-91a4-4041-823f-c4cdd71607c3" CreationDate="2018-02-20T18:22:59.487" UserId="79" Text="To translate &quot;great by choice&quot;, we first need to find good words for &quot;great&quot; and &quot;choice&quot; (or the corresponding verb &quot;choose&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;The word [*magnus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=magnus1&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is a good one.&#xD;&#xA;It means &quot;great&quot; in size but also in importance, just like the English adjective.&#xD;&#xA;See the linked dictionary entry (especially section II.A) for details.&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;choice&quot; I suggest [*optio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=optio1&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;The listed translations include &quot;choice&quot;, &quot;free choice&quot;, and &quot;liberty to choose&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin adjective *magnus* needs to be in one of the three genders.&#xD;&#xA;If it refers to a male or an unspecified person, it should be masculine.&#xD;&#xA;For females you need feminine and for some inanimate things neuter.&#xD;&#xA;You also need to specify whether you want singular or plural.&#xD;&#xA;English is ambiguous, but in Latin you have to decide.&#xD;&#xA;I have chose singular masculine, so that it could be a male's motto.&#xD;&#xA;For other choices, please ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is ***optione magnus***, &quot;great by choice&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The ablative *optione* can be read as &quot;by choice&quot;, &quot;because of choice&quot;, &quot;by means of choice&quot;, or something similar.&#xD;&#xA;This two-word phrase is very concise and reminiscent of many Latin mottoes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me comment on *eligre est magna*.&#xD;&#xA;First, the verb [*eligere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=eligo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) (not *eligre*) means &quot;choose&quot; in the sense of selecting from options.&#xD;&#xA;This verb is good for choosing your favorite food in the menu, but I would not use it for choosing to become great.&#xD;&#xA;The suggested translation is grammatically wrong, too.&#xD;&#xA;If corrected to *eligere est magnum*, it means roughly &quot;choosing is great&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This seems closer to &quot;I like shopping&quot; than what you are after.&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate is [woefully unreliable with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6004" RevisionGUID="597ba24e-3259-4735-9928-4c539b9a6241" CreationDate="2018-02-20T19:32:20.380" UserId="324" Text="One is inevitably reminded of the Vulgate of Genesis 1,5: factumque est vespere et mane, dies unus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6005" RevisionGUID="2a5065d8-b275-4f19-a91a-69484c9e7abd" CreationDate="2018-02-20T19:51:55.460" UserId="2418" Text="How about diēs prīma? So, &quot;This is the first day of the rest of your life&quot; might go like this: &quot;Haec diēs prīma est residuae vītae tuae.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6007" RevisionGUID="c7a9142d-aa37-4aa4-b0f8-dd7e63fe9fd7" CreationDate="2018-02-20T22:17:52.757" UserId="79" Text="If I want to use the verb *revertere/reverti* transitively (with an object different from the subject), should I choose active or passive forms?&#xD;&#xA;Intuition suggests that active forms are preferred for transitive use, but if the verb is deponent, this does not necessarily apply.&#xD;&#xA;The examples in [L&amp;S for *reverti*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=revertor) seem all intransitive and [the entry for *revertere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aalphabetic+letter%3Dr%3Aentry+group%3D12%3Aentry%3Dreverto) doesn't help much.&#xD;&#xA;Or is the answer that this verb is intransitive and I cannot say *hanc rem reverto* at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the key questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Can the verb be used transitively?&#xD;&#xA;2. Is it deponent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question arose from an answer to [a question regarding the verb &quot;undelete&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5997/79).&#xD;&#xA;I would like to describe turning something back into an earlier state.&#xD;&#xA;If you have ideas for expressing that, please answer the linked question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19870" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6007" RevisionGUID="c7a9142d-aa37-4aa4-b0f8-dd7e63fe9fd7" CreationDate="2018-02-20T22:17:52.757" UserId="79" Text="Revertere or reverti in transitive use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19871" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6007" RevisionGUID="c7a9142d-aa37-4aa4-b0f8-dd7e63fe9fd7" CreationDate="2018-02-20T22:17:52.757" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|verbs|deponent-verbs|object|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6009" RevisionGUID="22d0499a-0763-42f1-956d-f3b8e0bbe7bc" CreationDate="2018-02-21T08:50:46.463" UserId="79" Text="I have no doubt that plagiarism existed in the Greek and Roman antiquity: some authors must have copied material more or less directly from others without attribution.&#xD;&#xA;(The moral requirement to cite your sources is a later invention, as far as I know.)&#xD;&#xA;But are there attested ancient mentions of ancient plagiarism?&#xD;&#xA;For example, a comment like this would count as a mention: &quot;This Marcus doesn't write his own books; he takes others' work and publishes it as his own.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't recall seeing any mentions to that effect, but I assume there are some.&#xD;&#xA;My first guess is to look at satirists, but this is hard to search.&#xD;&#xA;Something like this would fit the overall tone of Juvenal, for example, from what I remember." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19875" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6009" RevisionGUID="22d0499a-0763-42f1-956d-f3b8e0bbe7bc" CreationDate="2018-02-21T08:50:46.463" UserId="79" Text="Ancient plagiarism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19876" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6009" RevisionGUID="22d0499a-0763-42f1-956d-f3b8e0bbe7bc" CreationDate="2018-02-21T08:50:46.463" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19877" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2949" RevisionGUID="5f5c1582-8227-451d-969b-352742dbb6c0" CreationDate="2018-02-21T08:52:31.947" UserId="79" Comment="69" />
  <row Id="19878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6010" RevisionGUID="0261f1c1-58cc-47d1-92dc-3ae399a651bc" CreationDate="2018-02-21T16:03:52.377" UserId="645" Text="Jerome K. Jerome in the preface to his comic novel *Three Men in a Boat* tells us that his characters are not imaginary, but 'things of flesh and blood'. The best I can do so far is the phrase *sunt natura visceri et sanguinis*, but I wonder if there is a better, preferably attested classical phrase for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19879" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6010" RevisionGUID="0261f1c1-58cc-47d1-92dc-3ae399a651bc" CreationDate="2018-02-21T16:03:52.377" UserId="645" Text="A thing of flesh and blood" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19880" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6010" RevisionGUID="0261f1c1-58cc-47d1-92dc-3ae399a651bc" CreationDate="2018-02-21T16:03:52.377" UserId="645" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|idiom|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6011" RevisionGUID="4e6b6815-470b-4183-ba7a-807175d05a6d" CreationDate="2018-02-21T16:21:17.620" UserId="324" Text="The concept, and indeed the word, is in&#xD;&#xA;Martial 1.52 (Inpones plagiario pudorem).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Perhaps someone cleverer than I can get the verses to show up as verses, not as a block of prose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Commendo tibi, Quintiane, nostros—  Nostros dicere si tamen libellos &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Possum, quos recitat tuus poeta—:  Si de servitio gravi queruntur, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Adsertor venias satisque praestes,  Et, cum se dominum vocabit ille, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dicas esse meos manuque missos.  Hoc si terque quaterque clamitaris, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Inpones plagiario pudorem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6011" RevisionGUID="0826d47a-0f02-4ea7-b0b4-b4ce7f230b84" CreationDate="2018-02-21T16:23:51.760" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 101 characters in body" Text="The concept, and indeed the word, is in&#xD;&#xA;Martial 1.52 (Inpones plagiario pudorem).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Commendo tibi, Quintiane, nostros—  &#xD;&#xA;Nostros dicere si tamen libellos  &#xD;&#xA;Possum, quos recitat tuus poeta—:  &#xD;&#xA;Si de servitio gravi queruntur,  &#xD;&#xA;Adsertor venias satisque praestes,  &#xD;&#xA;Et, cum se dominum vocabit ille,  &#xD;&#xA;Dicas esse meos manuque missos.  &#xD;&#xA;Hoc si terque quaterque clamitaris,  &#xD;&#xA;Inpones plagiario pudorem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6012" RevisionGUID="5eecd50f-6dc4-4711-8c22-068a01ba82eb" CreationDate="2018-02-21T23:08:01.397" UserId="2422" Text="To what extent is Classical Latin influenced by Classical Greek? To specify what documents or writing show influences as well as pronunciation and/or grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19884" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6012" RevisionGUID="5eecd50f-6dc4-4711-8c22-068a01ba82eb" CreationDate="2018-02-21T23:08:01.397" UserId="2422" Text="To What Extent Classical Latin Affected by Classical Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19885" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6012" RevisionGUID="5eecd50f-6dc4-4711-8c22-068a01ba82eb" CreationDate="2018-02-21T23:08:01.397" UserId="2422" Text="|classical-latin|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6013" RevisionGUID="a6612a49-8fc0-4494-b0a8-849a4339ee84" CreationDate="2018-02-21T23:12:59.503" UserId="2424" Text="I'm trying to find reasonable translations for the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I think, therefore I evolve&#xD;&#xA; - I think, therefore I progress&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, I'm looking for something short starting with &quot;cogito ergo&quot; but I don't know if that applies in these cases, or if I'm trying to use the wrong english equivalents for what I'm trying to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other synonyms (such as &quot;improve&quot;) that could be elegantly translated and make grammatical sense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19887" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6013" RevisionGUID="a6612a49-8fc0-4494-b0a8-849a4339ee84" CreationDate="2018-02-21T23:12:59.503" UserId="2424" Text="What are the translations for these &quot;cogito ergo sum&quot; variations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19888" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6013" RevisionGUID="a6612a49-8fc0-4494-b0a8-849a4339ee84" CreationDate="2018-02-21T23:12:59.503" UserId="2424" Text="|translation|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6013" RevisionGUID="d37923f0-ebea-4244-b6ec-86d316517fb8" CreationDate="2018-02-21T23:44:32.520" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="I'm trying to find reasonable translations for the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I think, therefore I evolve&#xD;&#xA; - I think, therefore I progress&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, I'm looking for something short starting with &quot;cogito ergo&quot; but I don't know if that applies in these cases, or if I'm trying to use the wrong English equivalents for what I'm trying to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other synonyms (such as &quot;improve&quot;) that could be elegantly translated and make grammatical sense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19890" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6013" RevisionGUID="d37923f0-ebea-4244-b6ec-86d316517fb8" CreationDate="2018-02-21T23:44:32.520" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6014" RevisionGUID="fd9d71dd-816a-4ae3-963a-932f1f655a50" CreationDate="2018-02-22T00:02:25.227" UserId="79" Text="What you need are the verb forms &quot;I evolve&quot; and &quot;I progress&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, many [Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) list verbs in this particular form.&#xD;&#xA;I suggest taking a look at [*procedo*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=procedo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) (roughly &quot;to go forward&quot;) and [*melioresco*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=melioresco&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) (roughly &quot;to become better&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;If they don't look appropriate, please specify what is wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6012" RevisionGUID="dc1bf8b0-d7b9-4905-89fa-ab491feab520" CreationDate="2018-02-22T02:00:10.213" UserId="2422" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="To what extent is Classical Latin influenced by Classical Greek such as pronunciation, grammar, literature, etc.? A quick overview of the influences Greek had on Latin, and a few examples is good for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6012" RevisionGUID="4dbb7c07-f00d-44e2-9560-93029e34973e" CreationDate="2018-02-22T03:10:30.567" UserId="9" Comment="edited title to add missing word; revised body to match information in a comment" Text="To what extent was Classical Latin influenced by Classical Greek in areas such as pronunciation, grammar, literature, etc.? I would appreciate a quick overview of the list of influences Greek had on Latin and a few examples of those known influences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19894" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6012" RevisionGUID="4dbb7c07-f00d-44e2-9560-93029e34973e" CreationDate="2018-02-22T03:10:30.567" UserId="9" Comment="edited title to add missing word; revised body to match information in a comment" Text="To What Extent Was Classical Latin Affected by Classical Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6014" RevisionGUID="78179dad-a96d-4fd6-8315-213994d3b079" CreationDate="2018-02-22T10:30:13.187" UserId="79" Comment="added 653 characters in body" Text="What you need are the verb forms &quot;I evolve&quot; and &quot;I progress&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, many [Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) list verbs in this particular form.&#xD;&#xA;I suggest taking a look at [*procedo*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=procedo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) (roughly &quot;to go forward&quot;) and [*melioresco*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=melioresco&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) (roughly &quot;to become better&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;If they don't look appropriate, please specify what is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the meanings of these verbs are close enough to what you want, I suggest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cogito, ergo procedo.* &amp;mdash; I think, therefore I progress.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cogito, ergo melioresco.* &amp;mdash; I think, therefore I improve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the verb [*evolvo*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=evolvo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), but id doesn't really mean &quot;evolve&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The origin of the word &quot;progress&quot; is [*progredior*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=progredior&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), and that is indeed a possible choice.&#xD;&#xA;The English verb comes from the past participle *progressus*, which also has the form *progresso*, but it doesn't mean &quot;I progress&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The analogy between the different forms is nicer for a non-deponent verb (one ending in *-o* rather than *-or*), but that is only a matter of aesthetics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6015" RevisionGUID="7bee03ce-88c2-4607-9000-0084606d043c" CreationDate="2018-02-22T11:24:43.577" UserId="324" Text="The Greek word for a Black man is Αἰθίοψ, -οπος, and for a Black woman Αἰθιοπίς, -ίδος. So what about “misoaethiopidy”, with stress on the antepaenultima?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6016" RevisionGUID="ccdf9c29-714d-47e7-9dfd-2fa40e086bd6" CreationDate="2018-02-22T11:53:50.660" UserId="867" Text="I have found classical evidence for your own wording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an extended argument for the improbability of imaginary beings such as Centaurs, Scylla, and the Chimera, Lucretius contrasts these with lions and other *real-life beings*:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Flamma quidem vero cum corpora fulva leonum*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tam soleat torrere atque urere quam genus omne*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***visceris** in terris quodcumque **et sanguinis** extet …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Indeed, seeing that fire is accustomed to scorch and to burn the tawny&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bodies of lions as much as every kind in the world that consists of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **flesh and blood** …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lucretius, *De Rerum Natura*, 5.901-903&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6017" RevisionGUID="11e95f5a-baca-4a43-bf1b-64feb056d505" CreationDate="2018-02-22T17:33:53.437" UserId="45" Text="I was reading through Plato's (incomplete) *Critias* yesterday and came across the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; δίκης δὴ κλήροις τὸ φίλον λαγχάνοντες κατῴκιζον τὰς χώρας, καὶ κατοικίσαντες, οἷον νομῆς ποίμνια, κτήματα καὶ θρέμματα **ἑαυτῶν** ἡμᾶς ἔτρεφον, πλὴν οὐ σώμασι σώματα βιαζόμενοι, καθάπερ ποιμένες κτήνη πληγῇ νέμοντες, ἀλλ᾽ ᾗ μάλιστα εὔστροφον ζῷον, ἐκ πρύμνης ἀπευθύνοντες, οἷον οἴακι πειθοῖ ψυχῆς ἐφαπτόμενοι κατὰ τὴν **αὐτῶν** διάνοιαν, οὕτως ἄγοντες τὸ θνητὸν πᾶν ἐκυβέρνων. (*Critias*, 109b-c)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lamb's translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So by just allotments they [i.e. the gods] received each one his own, and they settled their countries; and when they had thus settled them, they reared us up, even as herdsmen rear their flocks, to be **their** cattle and nurslings; only it was not our bodies that they constrained by bodily force, like shepherds guiding their flocks with stroke of staff, but they directed from the stern where the living creature is easiest to turn about, laying hold on the soul by persuasion, as by a rudder, according to **their own** disposition; and thus they drove and steered all the mortal kind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am unsure of the antecedent of the second, non-reflexive &quot;αὐτῶν.&quot; I am unsure if it refers to (1) the gods' disposition or (2) the mortals' disposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In favor of the first reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It makes more intuitive sense of the passage: the gods are directing mortals as they wish.&#xD;&#xA;2. There is no obvious plural antecedent: one would expect &quot;αὐτοῦ&quot; if it was meant to refer to &quot;ζῷον.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In favor of the second:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It's possible that Plato is establishing the contrast between force (&quot;βιαζόμενοι&quot;) and persuasion (&quot;πειθοῖ&quot;) by showing that the effect of the gods' ruling is that mortals will end up with the same disposition, and thus act according to it.&#xD;&#xA;2. Crucially, &quot;αὐτῶν&quot; is not reflexive. Earlier in the same sentence, the reflexive *was* used for the gods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my instincts are correct, this may boil down to a simple question: **are there cases**, such as this syntactically convoluted sentence, **where the reflexive pronoun is not used, even though it is referring to the subject of the sentence?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19899" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6017" RevisionGUID="11e95f5a-baca-4a43-bf1b-64feb056d505" CreationDate="2018-02-22T17:33:53.437" UserId="45" Text="Antecedent of a Greek pronoun in the Critias" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19900" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6017" RevisionGUID="11e95f5a-baca-4a43-bf1b-64feb056d505" CreationDate="2018-02-22T17:33:53.437" UserId="45" Text="|greek|reflexive-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6018" RevisionGUID="c2c83509-07a2-4c9a-b92e-4fe4b8537708" CreationDate="2018-02-22T19:08:23.377" UserId="79" Text="When it comes to historical linguistics (history, prehistory, Indo-European studies, etymology) of Latin and Greek, what are the most important resources?&#xD;&#xA;The resources can be historical grammars, etymological dictionaries, or anything similar.&#xD;&#xA;I am not looking for a full bibliography, but useful reference material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you suggest a source, please indicate **how it is available** (online, in print, free, paid), **what it covers**, and **what makes it useful** in your opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Please give only one resource per answer.**&#xD;&#xA;If you have many resources to suggest, give multiple answers &amp;mdash; but read the other answers to avoid duplication.&#xD;&#xA;This way people can vote on individual resources, causing the best ones to rise up and the worst ones to sink down, so that we can easily find the most useful resources.&#xD;&#xA;If there are many resources listed in a single answer, it is hard to link the answer score to the quality of each listed item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Note about resource questions:**  &#xD;&#xA;Broad resource questions like this are generally **not** allowed on this site.&#xD;&#xA;The community chooses a select few to avoid an overflow of questions of this kind.&#xD;&#xA;If you have an opinion on what resource questions should be asked next, post a suggestion in [this meta post](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) or vote the existing ones.&#xD;&#xA;The ones to be asked will be chosen from that list according to their number of votes.&#xD;&#xA;If you have ideas about listing resources on this site in general, you can contribute to [this meta discussion](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/177/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In particular, if you would like to ask a similar resource request question, do **not** just ask it, but post a suggestion in the [mentioned meta post](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/188/79) instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19902" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6018" RevisionGUID="c2c83509-07a2-4c9a-b92e-4fe4b8537708" CreationDate="2018-02-22T19:08:23.377" UserId="79" Text="What are the most important scholarly resources for Latin and Greek historical linguistics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19903" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6018" RevisionGUID="c2c83509-07a2-4c9a-b92e-4fe4b8537708" CreationDate="2018-02-22T19:08:23.377" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|language-evolution|resource-request|old-latin|research|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19904" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6018" RevisionGUID="2310f27f-441d-4f35-8dcc-80513506d1c9" CreationDate="2018-02-22T19:08:48.437" UserId="79" />
  <row Id="19905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6019" RevisionGUID="75c9d7af-7e4f-49cc-b7ad-4506aaf5eabd" CreationDate="2018-02-23T09:05:28.393" UserId="867" Text="In the 1929 Loeb edition of *Critias* (trans. R. G. Bury, p. 266), there is a rough breathing on the second pronoun of your question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which indicates that it is a contracted reflexive pronoun and, therefore, indeed referring to the gods' disposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PSaW9.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6019" RevisionGUID="1d19d21f-18be-4ce6-8840-789fa2e14c50" CreationDate="2018-02-23T10:09:58.300" UserId="867" Comment="added 1163 characters in body" Text="In the 1929 Loeb edition of *Critias* (trans. R. G. Bury, p. 266), there is a rough breathing on the second pronoun of your question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which indicates that it is a contracted reflexive pronoun and, therefore, indeed referring to the gods' disposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT** Of course, this isn't the definitive argument for a reflexive pronoun - it could be a typo or even an editorial emendation in response to the very questions you raise.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I feel that given your own arguments - the &quot;intuitive sense&quot; of the passage and the lack of any other obvious plural antecedent - it is the most probable interpretation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, looking at your first argument for the second case, I wonder if in fact the contrast Plato wishes to make is not so much between force and persuasion, as between control of the body (as a herdsman controls his cattle) and control of the soul (as the gods control mortals).  If so, then this is a third argument for the reflexive pronoun and the gods' disposition.  For Plato is clearly comparing us to cattle but then contrasting how a herdsman raises his cattle and the gods theirs.  If we take out all the similes, then we get something more like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they reared us up ... to be their cattle and nurslings ... laying hold&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on the soul by persuasion ... according to their disposition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rendering seems to me to make it clearer that only the gods could be the antecedent here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PSaW9.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6019" RevisionGUID="6bf81795-32f9-453d-b0f9-e09f9f5260af" CreationDate="2018-02-23T10:30:27.737" UserId="867" Comment="trying to make my thoughts and argument clearer/stronger" Text="In the 1929 Loeb edition of *Critias* (trans. R. G. Bury, p. 266), there is a rough breathing on the second pronoun of your question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which indicates that it is a contracted reflexive pronoun and, therefore, indeed referring to the gods' disposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT** Of course, this isn't the definitive argument for a reflexive pronoun - it could be a typo or even an editorial emendation in response to the very questions you raise.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I feel that given your own arguments - the &quot;intuitive sense&quot; of the passage and the lack of any other obvious plural antecedent - it is the most probable interpretation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, looking at your first argument for the second case, I wonder if in fact the contrast Plato wishes to make is not so much between force and persuasion, as between control of the body (as a herdsman controls his cattle) and control of the soul (as the gods control mortals) (πλὴν οὐ σώμασι σώματα βιαζόμενοι …  ἀλλ᾽ …πειθοῖ ψυχῆς ἐφαπτόμενοι)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, then this is a third argument for the reflexive pronoun and the gods' disposition.  For Plato is clearly comparing us to cattle but then contrasting how a herdsman raises his cattle and the gods theirs.  If we take out all the similes, then we get something more like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they reared us up ... to be their cattle and nurslings ... laying hold&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on the soul by persuasion ... according to their disposition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rendering seems to me to make it clearer that only the gods could be the antecedent here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PSaW9.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19908" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5975" RevisionGUID="f78f6b3d-0ebe-4d11-977c-4f8612f0b455" CreationDate="2018-02-23T11:48:40.813" UserId="79" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:45,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;brianpck&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1304,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dario&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="1543de52-84f7-4327-a447-dfe0450c36d5" CreationDate="2018-02-24T04:20:12.457" UserId="867" Text="**Are there cases where the reflexive pronoun is not used, even though it is referring to the subject of the sentence?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Smyth, at § 1228.a, notes: “instead of the indirect ἑαυτοῦ etc., there may be used the oblique cases of αὐτός.”  As an example, he gives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἐπειρᾶτο τοὺς Ἀθηναίους τῆς ἐς **αὐτὸν** ὀργῆς παραλύειν&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; he tried to divert the Athenians from their anger against **himself**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same section, he also says that when ἑαυτοῦ etc. occurs earlier in the sentence, αὐτοῦ etc. are “usual” instead of the direct reflexive.  See the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γνώμην** ἀπεφαίνετο Σωκράτης πρὸς τοὺς ὁμιλοῦντας **αὐτῷ**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Socrates was inclined to set forth **his own opinion** to those who&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conversed **with him**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your excerpt does have a preceding ἑαυτῶν but it’s several clauses back which might be too far back for a pronoun acting as a direct reflexive - it's hard to say if Smyth has an upper limit in mind.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**However, does the pronoun have to be a reflexive in order for it to mean “according to the gods’ *own* disposition”, as both Lamb and Bury translate it, and as I’m inclined to favour?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main argument for this is that the pronoun in question, αὐτῶν, is in the attributive position, between τὴν and διάνοιαν.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personal pronouns in the genitive are always placed in the predicate position (outside of the article/noun group) (Morwood, p. 147; Mastronarde, p. 157; Dickey, p. 100; Smyth, § 1185 &amp; 1201.1a).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Reflexive pronouns in the genitive, however, always occur in the attributive position (Morwood, p. 125 &amp; 149; Dickey, p 100; Smyth, § 1184; 1201.2a) Indeed, Smyth notes that, “this is the only way in prose to express *his own, her own*” (§ 1201.2a) and this is what we see in your excerpt and in the example above (τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γνώμην / his own opinion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, in an interesting reversal of your original question (are there cases where the reflexive pronoun is not used, even though it is referring to the subject of the sentence), Smyth states that sometimes the direct reflexive pronoun can refer to the *object* of a sentence (§ 1218)!  He uses the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τοὺς δὲ περιοίκους *ἀφῆκεν* ἐπὶ τὰς **ἑαυτῶν** πόλεις  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; but *he* dismissed the perioiki to **their own** cities&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But note how even though the reflexive ἑαυτῶν is referring to the object of the sentence, it’s in the attributive position, between τὰς and πόλεις, thus conveying the sense of “their *own* cities”.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;REFERENCES&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dickey, Eleanor, *An Introduction to the Composition and Analysis of Greek Prose*, Cambridge University Press, 2016&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mastronarde, Donald J., *Introduction to Attic Greek*, University of California Press, 1993&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Morwood, James, *The Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek*, Oxford University Press, 2001&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Smyth, Herbert Weir, *Greek Grammar*, Harvard University Press, 1956 edition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="da525c1b-5060-4943-9236-715aabfc1590" CreationDate="2018-02-24T04:28:36.157" UserId="867" Comment="mucking around with formatting" Text="**Are there cases where the reflexive pronoun is not used, even though it is referring to the subject of the sentence?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Smyth, at § 1228.a, notes: “instead of the indirect ἑαυτοῦ etc., there may be used the oblique cases of αὐτός.”  As an example, he gives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ἐπειρᾶτο** τοὺς Ἀθηναίους τῆς ἐς **αὐτὸν** ὀργῆς παραλύειν&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **he** **tried** to divert the Athenians from their anger against **himself**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same section, he also says that when ἑαυτοῦ etc. occurs earlier in the sentence, αὐτοῦ etc. are “usual” instead of the direct reflexive.  See the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γνώμην** ἀπεφαίνετο Σωκράτης πρὸς τοὺς ὁμιλοῦντας **αὐτῷ**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Socrates was inclined to set forth **his own opinion** to those who&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conversed **with him**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your excerpt does have a preceding ἑαυτῶν but it’s several clauses back which might be too far back for a pronoun acting as a direct reflexive - it's hard to say if Smyth has an upper limit in mind.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**However, does the pronoun have to be reflexive in order for it to mean “according to the gods’ *own* disposition”, as both Lamb and Bury translate it, and as I’m inclined to favour?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main argument for this is that the pronoun in question, αὐτῶν, is in the attributive position, between τὴν and διάνοιαν.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personal pronouns in the genitive are always placed in the predicate position (outside of the article/noun group) (Morwood, p. 147; Mastronarde, p. 157; Dickey, p. 100; Smyth, § 1185 &amp; 1201.1a).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Reflexive pronouns in the genitive, however, always occur in the attributive position (Morwood, p. 125 &amp; 149; Dickey, p 100; Smyth, § 1184; 1201.2a) Indeed, Smyth notes that, “this is the only way in prose to express *his own, her own*” (§ 1201.2a) and this is what we see in your excerpt and in the example above (τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γνώμην / his own opinion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, in an interesting reversal of your original question (are there cases where the reflexive pronoun is not used, even though it is referring to the subject of the sentence), Smyth states that sometimes the direct reflexive pronoun can refer to the *object* of a sentence (§ 1218)!  He uses the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τοὺς δὲ περιοίκους *ἀφῆκεν* ἐπὶ τὰς **ἑαυτῶν** πόλεις  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; but *he* dismissed the perioiki to **their own** cities&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But note how even though the reflexive ἑαυτῶν is referring to the object of the sentence, it’s in the attributive position, between τὰς and πόλεις, thus conveying the sense of “their *own* cities”.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;REFERENCES&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dickey, Eleanor, *An Introduction to the Composition and Analysis of Greek Prose*, Cambridge University Press, 2016&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mastronarde, Donald J., *Introduction to Attic Greek*, University of California Press, 1993&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Morwood, James, *The Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek*, Oxford University Press, 2001&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Smyth, Herbert Weir, *Greek Grammar*, Harvard University Press, 1956 edition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="b55523df-6d1a-4e81-8cd3-c413abbaf43c" CreationDate="2018-02-24T04:37:54.467" UserId="867" Comment="clarification" Text="**Are there cases where the reflexive pronoun is not used, even though it is referring to the subject of the sentence?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Smyth, at § 1228.a, notes: “instead of the indirect ἑαυτοῦ etc., there may be used the oblique cases of αὐτός.”  As an example, he gives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ἐπειρᾶτο** τοὺς Ἀθηναίους τῆς ἐς **αὐτὸν** ὀργῆς παραλύειν&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **he** **tried** to divert the Athenians from their anger against **himself**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same section, he also says that when ἑαυτοῦ etc. occurs earlier in the sentence, αὐτοῦ etc. are “usual” instead of the direct reflexive.  See the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γνώμην** ἀπεφαίνετο Σωκράτης πρὸς τοὺς ὁμιλοῦντας **αὐτῷ**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Socrates was inclined to set forth **his own opinion** to those who&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conversed **with him**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your excerpt does have a preceding ἑαυτῶν but it’s several clauses back which might be too far back for a pronoun acting as a direct reflexive - it's hard to say if Smyth has an upper limit in mind.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**However, does the pronoun have to be reflexive in order for it to mean “according to the gods’ *own* disposition”, as both Lamb and Bury translate it, and as I’m inclined to favour?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main argument for this is that the pronoun in question, αὐτῶν, is in the attributive position, between τὴν and διάνοιαν.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personal pronouns in the genitive are always placed in the predicate position (outside of the article/noun group) (Morwood, p. 147; Mastronarde, p. 157; Dickey, p. 100; Smyth, § 1185 &amp; 1201.1a).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Reflexive pronouns in the genitive, however, always occur in the attributive position (Morwood, p. 125 &amp; 149; Dickey, p 100; Smyth, § 1184; 1201.2a) Indeed, Smyth notes that, “this is the only way in prose to express *his own, her own*” (§ 1201.2a) and this is what we see in your excerpt and in the example above (τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γνώμην / his own opinion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, in an interesting reversal of your original question (are there cases where the reflexive pronoun is not used, even though it is referring to the subject of the sentence), Smyth states that sometimes the direct reflexive pronoun can refer to the *object* of a sentence (§ 1218)!  He uses the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τοὺς δὲ περιοίκους *ἀφῆκεν* ἐπὶ τὰς **ἑαυτῶν** πόλεις  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; but *he* dismissed the perioiki to **their own** cities&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that this is the situation in your excerpt as there is no obvious plural object nearby to account for the plural αὐτῶν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But note how even though the reflexive ἑαυτῶν in Smyth's example is referring to the object of the sentence, it’s in the attributive position, between τὰς and πόλεις, thus conveying the sense of “their *own* cities”.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;REFERENCES&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dickey, Eleanor, *An Introduction to the Composition and Analysis of Greek Prose*, Cambridge University Press, 2016&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mastronarde, Donald J., *Introduction to Attic Greek*, University of California Press, 1993&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Morwood, James, *The Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek*, Oxford University Press, 2001&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Smyth, Herbert Weir, *Greek Grammar*, Harvard University Press, 1956 edition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6021" RevisionGUID="6eb8c577-7eaf-463f-a58e-be0a8d5c2635" CreationDate="2018-02-24T04:40:12.487" UserId="39" Text="The OLD says the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;usu. dep. in pres. system, active in pf. system. Dep. pf. mostly post-Augustan.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;will slightly revise later, with more examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xYHLr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1434" RevisionGUID="4f43ba13-3fe9-4ceb-bbd7-441256996416" CreationDate="2018-02-24T11:15:45.403" UserId="118" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Page 18 of &quot;[Prosodic Phrasing in Adolescents with High-Functioning Autism](http://opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6836&amp;context=dissertations)&quot; by Jessica Mayo, a doctoral dissertation that has nothing to do with Latin (but watch for the relevance, it's coming), describes an experiment in which children are presented with a set of toys including a lamb, a flower, and a lamb holding a flower, and given the instruction &quot;Hit the lamb with the flower.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, that sentence is ambiguous because &quot;with the flower&quot; could be meant instrumentally, modifying &quot;hit&quot;, or restrictively, modifying &quot;lamb&quot;. Oh, if only English still had an instrumental case!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin also lost the instrumental case from Proto-Indo-European, but, as I understand it, it got absorbed into the ablative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without using a subordinate clause as in _Pulsa agnum qui florem tenet,_ can you disambiguate the two interpretations in Latin? Say, by a different word order, a different preposition, or different noun cases in two (unambiguous) versions of the sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;* &lt;sub&gt;Even &quot;given the instruction&quot; is ambiguous in English, and the most natural interpretation here is wrong. I'm exploiting the ambiguity to avoid going into unnecessary detail about the experiment.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6022" RevisionGUID="0c8ebd96-2db5-4db5-a2bd-a9dcc3bd221e" CreationDate="2018-02-24T15:49:04.207" UserId="30" Text="**De Vaan**'s *[Etymological Dictionary of Latin][1]* is perhaps the most up to date one. He also bases his articles on the other main etymological dictionaries, like Walde-Hofmann and Ernout-Meillet. Sometimes I would have liked his articles to be a bit more expansive, but that would have required a lot more time to write. I think it's normally only available on paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.brill.com/etymological-dictionary-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19916" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6022" RevisionGUID="5f2deb47-9670-4966-a60a-5e794b270b79" CreationDate="2018-02-24T15:49:04.207" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="19917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6023" RevisionGUID="a66331d0-4b27-4250-a273-892e910bfc0f" CreationDate="2018-02-24T17:34:58.457" UserId="2430" Text="French scholar who came across a Latin parody of the Latin hymn *Pange lingua.* I have attempted to translate the following with my rudimentary Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non ex mente Philipina		    &#xD;&#xA;	   haec venit taxation:			  &#xD;&#xA;	Infernalis inimici			&#xD;&#xA;	   Est mera invention.			  &#xD;&#xA;	Occasus Regni Gallici,		&#xD;&#xA;	   Et extrema unction			   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not from the mind of Philippe [II]  &#xD;&#xA; today comes the taxation:  &#xD;&#xA;The infernal enemy  &#xD;&#xA; Is a mere device.  &#xD;&#xA;Sunset and last rites  &#xD;&#xA;of the French kings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context: The satirical French author is criticizing the new 10% tax (the dixième) newly instituted in 1710. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though it seems to make sense to me, any criticism of the translation, shades of meaning, word choice, etc., is greatly appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19918" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6023" RevisionGUID="a66331d0-4b27-4250-a273-892e910bfc0f" CreationDate="2018-02-24T17:34:58.457" UserId="2430" Text="Translation help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19919" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6023" RevisionGUID="a66331d0-4b27-4250-a273-892e910bfc0f" CreationDate="2018-02-24T17:34:58.457" UserId="2430" Text="|translation|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6023" RevisionGUID="4a6595be-f4ae-4144-a209-98f515ecebaf" CreationDate="2018-02-24T18:54:24.810" UserId="78" Comment="Corrected the Latin" Text="French scholar who came across a Latin parody of the Latin hymn *Pange lingua.* I have attempted to translate the following with my rudimentary Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non ex mente Philipina		    &#xD;&#xA;	   haec venit taxatio:			  &#xD;&#xA;	Infernalis inimici			&#xD;&#xA;	   Est vera inventio.			  &#xD;&#xA;	Occasus Regni Gallici,		&#xD;&#xA;	   Et extrema unctio			   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not from the mind of Philippe [II]  &#xD;&#xA; today comes the taxation:  &#xD;&#xA;The infernal enemy  &#xD;&#xA; Is a mere device.  &#xD;&#xA;Sunset and last rites  &#xD;&#xA;of the French kings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context: The satirical French author is criticizing the new 10% tax (the dixième) newly instituted in 1710. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though it seems to make sense to me, any criticism of the translation, shades of meaning, word choice, etc., is greatly appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6024" RevisionGUID="3270c842-a9a9-45a5-9697-4c5707fca529" CreationDate="2018-02-24T19:01:40.183" UserId="78" Text="I fixed your Latin for you, assuming the [text I was using](https://satires18.univ-st-etienne.fr/texte/latin/sans-titre) is right. At the very least, *unction* and *taxation* are English, not Latin, words, but *mera inventio* is a possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's *vera*, like the text I linked to says, than it would be &quot;true device.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other random notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no word for &quot;today&quot; in the poem; *haec* means &quot;this.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Infernalis inimici* looks to me like it should be a genitive, though it's awkward (or just poetic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While *occasus* can mean &quot;sunset,&quot; I wonder if it actually means &quot;downfall&quot; here, as it so often seems to do. There's nothing indicating the &quot;falling down&quot; is related to the sun (cf. *occasum solis* in Caesar)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6025" RevisionGUID="f0f6377b-a21c-4c8e-8160-3baa522f5761" CreationDate="2018-02-24T19:18:57.093" UserId="324" Text="“This taxation does not spring from the mind of Philip. It is the true invention of the Infernal Enemy, the downfall of the Gallic kingdom and its Extreme Unction.”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6023" RevisionGUID="6421afbf-f358-49f5-b487-ce6e40f53b47" CreationDate="2018-02-24T21:30:49.463" UserId="1625" Comment="clarified title, restructuring, formatting" Text="A French scholar who came across a Latin parody of the Latin hymn *Pange Lingua*. The satirical French author is criticizing the new 10% tax (the dixième) newly instituted in 1710.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non ex mente Philipina  &#xD;&#xA;　haec venit taxatio:  &#xD;&#xA;Infernalis inimici  &#xD;&#xA;　Est vera inventio.  &#xD;&#xA;Occasus Regni Gallici,  &#xD;&#xA;　Et extrema unctio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have attempted to translate the following with my rudimentary Latin:			   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not from the mind of Philippe [II]  &#xD;&#xA;　today comes the taxation:  &#xD;&#xA;The infernal enemy  &#xD;&#xA;　Is a mere device.  &#xD;&#xA;Sunset and last rites  &#xD;&#xA;　of the French kings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though it seems to make sense to me, any criticism of the translation, shades of meaning, word choice, etc., is greatly appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19924" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6023" RevisionGUID="6421afbf-f358-49f5-b487-ce6e40f53b47" CreationDate="2018-02-24T21:30:49.463" UserId="1625" Comment="clarified title, restructuring, formatting" Text="Translating a Latin parody of &quot;Pange Lingua&quot; about a critic of the new 10% tax newly instituted in 1710" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19925" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6023" RevisionGUID="6421afbf-f358-49f5-b487-ce6e40f53b47" CreationDate="2018-02-24T21:30:49.463" Comment="Proposed by 1625 approved by 79 edit id of 224" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6026" RevisionGUID="c0ced74a-7957-4ac9-8b59-173c4474ad3c" CreationDate="2018-02-24T22:15:16.543" UserId="79" Text="Are there accounts of traffic in the ancient world written in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;By traffic I mean the behaviour of various vehicles&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; on roads and in intersections, not masses of pedestrians.&#xD;&#xA;If there are multiple mentions of this in the extant classical literature, what is the longest passage on this topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some reason I ended up looking for ways to describe modern car traffic in Latin, and a passage on the analogous topic in the ancient world would help find useful phrases.&#xD;&#xA;In addition, I know almost nothing about ancient traffic, and I would like to get a better picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The concept of &quot;vehicle&quot; might not be well-defined, but I hope the intention is clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;If you want a definition, I would say a vehicle always has wheels and  preferably bigger than a wheelbarrow.&#xD;&#xA;But if there is a great passage about horses or wheelbarrows in traffic, it would still be interesting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19927" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6026" RevisionGUID="c0ced74a-7957-4ac9-8b59-173c4474ad3c" CreationDate="2018-02-24T22:15:16.543" UserId="79" Text="Ancient accounts of traffic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19928" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6026" RevisionGUID="c0ced74a-7957-4ac9-8b59-173c4474ad3c" CreationDate="2018-02-24T22:15:16.543" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|passage-request|traffic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19929" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3053" RevisionGUID="22e1fb0a-88a5-4aac-950e-6e84b88a56bb" CreationDate="2018-02-24T22:16:16.337" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|contemporary-latin|modern-life|traffic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6023" RevisionGUID="afc44cc8-79a8-4a5b-9050-5d56d5b4e4f9" CreationDate="2018-02-24T22:44:59.247" UserId="2430" Comment="deleted 182 characters in body" Text="&gt; Non ex mente Philipina  &#xD;&#xA;　haec venit taxatio:  &#xD;&#xA;Infernalis inimici  &#xD;&#xA;　Est vera inventio.  &#xD;&#xA;Occasus Regni Gallici,  &#xD;&#xA;　Et extrema unctio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have attempted to translate the above:			   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not from the mind of Philippe [II]  &#xD;&#xA;　today comes the taxation:  &#xD;&#xA;The infernal enemy  &#xD;&#xA;　Is a mere device.  &#xD;&#xA;Sunset and last rites  &#xD;&#xA;　of the French kings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though it seems to make sense to me, any criticism of the translation, shades of meaning, word choice, etc., is greatly appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6022" RevisionGUID="c4dec577-8033-4900-9f53-976d35d67689" CreationDate="2018-02-24T23:25:11.827" UserId="30" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="**De Vaan**'s *[Etymological Dictionary of Latin][1]* is perhaps the most up to date one. He also bases his articles on the other main etymological dictionaries, like Walde-Hofmann and Ernout-Meillet. Sometimes I would have liked his articles to be a bit more expansive, but that would have required a lot more time to write. It is available on paper and [online][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.brill.com/etymological-dictionary-latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6027" RevisionGUID="61ad9d80-2943-47cb-9147-c9d154a7157f" CreationDate="2018-02-24T23:34:41.837" UserId="39" Text="In Brill's New Pauly we read the following in the entry [&quot;Traffic&quot;][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whereas traffic on country roads produced few problems, the situation was different in towns and cities. Here, traffic was soon regarded as a nuisance, even requiring special regulation. Thus in Rome, vehicle traffic on the city's streets was forbidden by day (ILS 6085, 56 ff.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scheider writes further that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Despite this restriction, the impression persisted that the streets of major cities were too busy; a series of accounts testify to the fact that this situation was regarded as unsatisfactory (Juv. 3,232-248; Sen. Clem. 1,6,1; cf. Mart. 4,64; Noise). As the situation as regards town planning scarcely changed, the only possibility was to limit traffic, and above all riding and driving in towns and cities (Suet. Claud. 25,2; SHA Hadr. 22,6; SHA Aur. 23,8).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/traffic-e12201510" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6027" RevisionGUID="d5640cf7-162b-4a44-827a-c77c6297472c" CreationDate="2018-02-24T23:41:15.377" UserId="39" Comment="added 309 characters in body" Text="Rome was a very noisy city literally 24/7, cf. *clamosa urbs* (Stat. Silv. 4,4,18) or *inter strepitus nocturnos atque diurnos* (Hor. Epist. 2,2,79); see the entry [&quot;Noise&quot;][1] in Brill's New Pauly for further details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Brill's New Pauly we read the following, in the entry [&quot;Traffic&quot;][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whereas traffic on country roads produced few problems, the situation was different in towns and cities. Here, traffic was soon regarded as a nuisance, even requiring special regulation. Thus in Rome, vehicle traffic on the city's streets was forbidden by day (ILS 6085, 56 ff.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scheider writes further that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Despite this restriction, the impression persisted that the streets of major cities were too busy; a series of accounts testify to the fact that this situation was regarded as unsatisfactory (Juv. 3,232-248; Sen. Clem. 1,6,1; cf. Mart. 4,64; Noise). As the situation as regards town planning scarcely changed, the only possibility was to limit traffic, and above all riding and driving in towns and cities (Suet. Claud. 25,2; SHA Hadr. 22,6; SHA Aur. 23,8).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/noise-e628570&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/traffic-e12201510" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6027" RevisionGUID="4aa8c38b-c061-48ed-91b4-b77d5ba8a552" CreationDate="2018-02-24T23:51:56.703" UserId="39" Comment="added 339 characters in body" Text="Rome was a very noisy city literally 24/7, cf. *clamosa urbs* (Stat. Silv. 4,4,18) or *inter strepitus nocturnos atque diurnos* (Hor. Epist. 2,2,79); see the entry [&quot;Noise&quot;][1] in Brill's New Pauly for further details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Brill's New Pauly we read the following, in the entry [&quot;Traffic&quot;][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whereas traffic on country roads produced few problems, the situation was different in towns and cities. Here, traffic was soon regarded as a nuisance, even requiring special regulation. Thus in Rome, vehicle traffic on the city's streets was forbidden by day (ILS 6085, 56 ff.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scheider writes further that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Despite this restriction, the impression persisted that the streets of major cities were too busy; a series of accounts testify to the fact that this situation was regarded as unsatisfactory (Juv. 3,232-248; Sen. Clem. 1,6,1; cf. Mart. 4,64; Noise). As the situation as regards town planning scarcely changed, the only possibility was to limit traffic, and above all riding and driving in towns and cities (Suet. Claud. 25,2; SHA Hadr. 22,6; SHA Aur. 23,8).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Juvenal:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;raedarum transitus arto vicorum in flexu et stantis convicia mandrae eripient somnum Druso vitulisque marinis. (&quot;The continual traffic of carriages in the narrow twisting streets and the swearing of the drover when his herd has come to a halt would deprive a Drusus or the seals of sleep.&quot; transl. by S. Morton Braund))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/noise-e628570&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/traffic-e12201510" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6027" RevisionGUID="ab2e4040-4351-4e78-9c2c-7c4bc7b28614" CreationDate="2018-02-24T23:58:59.060" UserId="39" Comment="added 339 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;**Juv. 3:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;raedarum transitus arto vicorum in flexu et stantis convicia mandrae eripient somnum Druso vitulisque marinis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The continual traffic of carriages in the narrow twisting streets and the swearing of the drover when his herd has come to a halt would deprive a Drusus or the seals of sleep.&quot; (translated by S. Morton Braund)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sen. Clem. 1.6:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cogitato, in hac civitate, in qua turba per latissima itinera sine intermissione defluens eliditur, quotiens aliquid obstitit, quod cursum eius velut torrentis rapidi moraretur ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Consider this city, in which the throng that streams ceaselessly through its widest streets is crushed to pieces whenever anything gets in the way to check its course as it streams like a rushing torrent...&quot; (translated by J.W. Basore)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/noise-e628570&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/traffic-e12201510" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6028" RevisionGUID="ba9a1a23-a731-445e-9aa6-231b3824d00b" CreationDate="2018-02-25T05:30:20.110" UserId="39" Text="**Michael Weiss**'s [*Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin*][1] is the most comprehensive, well-researched, and balanced historical grammar of Latin. There is [a website][2] with addenda and corrigenda maintained by [the author][3]. It is available on paper only; the second, corrected printing was released in 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.beechstave.com/weiss.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ohcgl.blogspot.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://linguistics.cornell.edu/michael-l-weiss" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19937" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6028" RevisionGUID="e60b3242-4300-4658-a019-2f65fe7fdeb6" CreationDate="2018-02-25T05:30:20.110" UserId="39" />
  <row Id="19938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6029" RevisionGUID="89856968-62e0-4ed5-89a8-a846e420a36a" CreationDate="2018-02-25T13:56:02.837" UserId="79" Text="I have the impression that for a long time scholars thoughts that ancient Greek and Roman sculpture was unpainted, and marble statues would be wholly white, but the modern consensus is that sculpture was indeed painted.&#xD;&#xA;The evidence I have seen mentioned for this is more or less visible trace amounts of paints om various archaeological findings.&#xD;&#xA;But is there any literary evidence on the matter?&#xD;&#xA;Did the Romans or Greeks write about painting their sculpture?&#xD;&#xA;Would written evidence alone be enough to debunk the myth of a white antiquity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19939" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6029" RevisionGUID="89856968-62e0-4ed5-89a8-a846e420a36a" CreationDate="2018-02-25T13:56:02.837" UserId="79" Text="Did the ancients write that their sculpture is painted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19940" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6029" RevisionGUID="89856968-62e0-4ed5-89a8-a846e420a36a" CreationDate="2018-02-25T13:56:02.837" UserId="79" Text="|greek|history|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6027" RevisionGUID="773862b1-1bd6-470a-bd60-30cb13ca1e3d" CreationDate="2018-02-25T16:21:46.523" UserId="39" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="**Juv. 3:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;raedarum transitus arto vicorum in flexu et stantis convicia mandrae eripient somnum Druso vitulisque marinis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The continual traffic of carriages in the narrow twisting streets and the swearing of the drover when his herd has come to a halt would deprive a Drusus or the seals of sleep.&quot; (translated by S. Morton Braund)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sen. Clem. 1.6:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cogitato, in hac civitate, in qua turba per latissima itinera sine intermissione defluens eliditur, quotiens aliquid obstitit, quod cursum eius velut torrentis rapidi moraretur ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Consider this city, in which the throng that streams ceaselessly through its widest streets is crushed to pieces whenever anything gets in the way to check its course as it streams like a rushing torrent...&quot; (translated by J.W. Basore)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’m sure Penelope will find more examples!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/noise-e628570&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/traffic-e12201510" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6029" RevisionGUID="da9afc35-5539-4f2d-8b6a-38b505c3a316" CreationDate="2018-02-25T16:51:59.110" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I have the impression that for a long time scholars thought that ancient Greek and Roman sculpture was unpainted, and marble statues would be wholly white, but the modern consensus is that sculpture was indeed painted.&#xD;&#xA;The evidence I have seen mentioned for this is more or less visible trace amounts of paints on various archaeological findings.&#xD;&#xA;But is there any literary evidence on the matter?&#xD;&#xA;Did the Romans or Greeks write about painting their sculpture?&#xD;&#xA;Would written evidence alone be enough to debunk the myth of a white antiquity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6030" RevisionGUID="ee0915e3-a9c9-4107-85f0-7b5f7626d29b" CreationDate="2018-02-25T19:39:37.283" UserId="645" Text="I doubt that anyone will want 'to debunk the myth of a white antiquity'. There seems to be a lot of evidence that it's not a myth at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to an article &quot;Pictura&quot; by Leonhard Schmitz in the *Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities* (1882, ed. Wm. Smith) the term *polychromy* was apparently unknown to the ancients. Nevertheless, it is mentioned by Plutarch (De Gloria Athen. 6), and if it be true that Plato (De Republ.iv, 420, c) &quot;alludes to painting statues, it is clear that they were occasionally entirely painted, in exact imitation of nature; for he expressly remarks, that it is not by applying a rich or beautiful colour to any particular part, that the whole is made beautiful.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schmitz goes on to say that &quot;the practice of colouring statues is undoubtedly as ancient as the art of statuary itself. . . The Jupiter of the Capitol, placed by Tarquinius Priscus, was coloured with minium* (Plin. H.N. xxxv.45). In later times the custom seems to have been reduced to a system.&quot; The theme is then developed and discussed at some length, with references and examples, proceeding to the Roman habit of painting buildings, followed by a disquisition on vase painting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A long article &quot;Statuaria Ars&quot;  in the same work, also by Schmitz goes into much detail, often very insightful, divided into five periods, of which the fourth covers 336-146 BC and the fifth from 146 BC to the fall of the Western Empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole discussion is reduced to more manageable size, also under the heading &quot;Statuaria Ars&quot;, in the illustrated Concise edition of 1898 (ed. F Warre Cornish) based on Smith's larger dictionary &quot;and incorporating the results of modern research&quot;. Early on, it adds &quot;Where rough stone was used, colour was applied to all parts, more or less conventionally — red for the nude parts, and blue for hair, clothes etc. being the colours most used&quot;. Unfortunately, this edition gives no references, presumably relying on those in the version from which it was condensed — though it concludes with a list of some of the &quot;numerous works bearing on ancient sculpture&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I cannot cite particular sources, I do know that the powerful modern techniques of chemical analysis have been used to identify the pigments used. If they were mixed in an organic medium, and if a sufficiently large sample is available, it may be that carbon dating can be applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Minium is a naturally occurring lead oxide, varying in colour from a brownish yellow to a bright red. Used as a pigment it is reasonably stable, though atmospheric pollution may alter it.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6030" RevisionGUID="a91bf843-6b22-4254-8cc6-d47dfe377c8b" CreationDate="2018-02-26T06:31:14.157" UserId="645" Comment="First para. re-written to clear ambiguity." Text="I doubt that anyone will want 'to debunk the myth of a white antiquity'. There seems to be a lot of evidence that such a myth doesn't have any substance and that, like other ancient civilisations, Roman statues really were painted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to an article &quot;Pictura&quot; by Leonhard Schmitz in the *Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities* (1882, ed. Wm. Smith) the term *polychromy* was apparently unknown to the ancients. Nevertheless, it is mentioned by Plutarch (De Gloria Athen. 6), and if it be true that Plato (De Republ.iv, 420, c) &quot;alludes to painting statues, it is clear that they were occasionally entirely painted, in exact imitation of nature; for he expressly remarks, that it is not by applying a rich or beautiful colour to any particular part, that the whole is made beautiful.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schmitz goes on to say that &quot;the practice of colouring statues is undoubtedly as ancient as the art of statuary itself. . . The Jupiter of the Capitol, placed by Tarquinius Priscus, was coloured with minium* (Plin. H.N. xxxv.45). In later times the custom seems to have been reduced to a system.&quot; The theme is then developed and discussed at some length, with references and examples, proceeding to the Roman habit of painting buildings, followed by a disquisition on vase painting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A long article &quot;Statuaria Ars&quot;  in the same work, also by Schmitz goes into much detail, often very insightful, divided into five periods, of which the fourth covers 336-146 BC and the fifth from 146 BC to the fall of the Western Empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole discussion is reduced to more manageable size, also under the heading &quot;Statuaria Ars&quot;, in the illustrated Concise edition of 1898 (ed. F Warre Cornish) based on Smith's larger dictionary &quot;and incorporating the results of modern research&quot;. Early on, it adds &quot;Where rough stone was used, colour was applied to all parts, more or less conventionally — red for the nude parts, and blue for hair, clothes etc. being the colours most used&quot;. Unfortunately, this edition gives no references, presumably relying on those in the version from which it was condensed — though it concludes with a list of some of the &quot;numerous works bearing on ancient sculpture&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I cannot cite particular sources, I do know that the powerful modern techniques of chemical analysis have been used to identify the pigments used. If they were mixed in an organic medium, and if a sufficiently large sample is available, it may be that carbon dating can be applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Minium is a naturally occurring lead oxide, varying in colour from a brownish yellow to a bright red. Used as a pigment it is reasonably stable, though atmospheric pollution may alter it.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6030" RevisionGUID="25e3a3ef-be1a-48aa-a02a-ce21c7932a05" CreationDate="2018-02-26T06:45:01.430" UserId="645" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I doubt that anyone will want 'to debunk the myth of a white antiquity'. There seems to be a lot of evidence that such a myth doesn't have any substance and that, as in other ancient civilisations, Roman statues really were painted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to an article &quot;Pictura&quot; by Leonhard Schmitz in the *Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities* (1882, ed. Wm. Smith) the term *polychromy* was apparently unknown to the ancients. Nevertheless, it is mentioned by Plutarch (De Gloria Athen. 6), and if it be true that Plato (De Republ.iv, 420, c) &quot;alludes to painting statues, it is clear that they were occasionally entirely painted, in exact imitation of nature; for he expressly remarks, that it is not by applying a rich or beautiful colour to any particular part, that the whole is made beautiful.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schmitz goes on to say that &quot;the practice of colouring statues is undoubtedly as ancient as the art of statuary itself. . . The Jupiter of the Capitol, placed by Tarquinius Priscus, was coloured with minium* (Plin. H.N. xxxv.45). In later times the custom seems to have been reduced to a system.&quot; The theme is then developed and discussed at some length, with references and examples, proceeding to the Roman habit of painting buildings, followed by a disquisition on vase painting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A long article &quot;Statuaria Ars&quot;  in the same work, also by Schmitz goes into much detail, often very insightful, divided into five periods, of which the fourth covers 336-146 BC and the fifth from 146 BC to the fall of the Western Empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole discussion is reduced to more manageable size, also under the heading &quot;Statuaria Ars&quot;, in the illustrated Concise edition of 1898 (ed. F Warre Cornish) based on Smith's larger dictionary &quot;and incorporating the results of modern research&quot;. Early on, it adds &quot;Where rough stone was used, colour was applied to all parts, more or less conventionally — red for the nude parts, and blue for hair, clothes etc. being the colours most used&quot;. Unfortunately, this edition gives no references, presumably relying on those in the version from which it was condensed — though it concludes with a list of some of the &quot;numerous works bearing on ancient sculpture&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I cannot cite particular sources, I do know that the powerful modern techniques of chemical analysis have been used to identify the pigments used. If they were mixed in an organic medium, and if a sufficiently large sample is available, it may be that carbon dating can be applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Minium is a naturally occurring lead oxide, varying in colour from a brownish yellow to a bright red. Used as a pigment it is reasonably stable, though atmospheric pollution may alter it.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6031" RevisionGUID="5493f29c-2545-4b07-a7a4-f01b2acc3437" CreationDate="2018-02-26T09:35:40.040" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="Sentence to translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The inside of the building was beautifully decorated - such striking opposition with the ugly outside appearance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Intus aedificii decore ornatus erat - tantus flictus contra ad aspectus deforis malus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be helpful if you took time to check my attempt for mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;*Intus* probably is wrong - how do you say *the inside*, *an inside* (noun)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19947" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6031" RevisionGUID="5493f29c-2545-4b07-a7a4-f01b2acc3437" CreationDate="2018-02-26T09:35:40.040" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="&quot;The inside of the building was beautifully decorated (...)&quot; - translation to Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19948" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6031" RevisionGUID="5493f29c-2545-4b07-a7a4-f01b2acc3437" CreationDate="2018-02-26T09:35:40.040" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="|translation-check|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6032" RevisionGUID="51d30602-7573-4023-b19d-e5bc1d288304" CreationDate="2018-02-26T10:45:18.017" UserId="79" Text="You are not using &quot;inside&quot; as a preposition or an adverb, but as a noun, so *intus* is not a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;I recommend the word [*interior*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=interior&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;(The English word &quot;interior&quot; is useful for this purpose, too!)&#xD;&#xA;The interior of the house could be called *pars interior* or simply *interiora* (&amp;approx; &quot;everything inside&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;In your example, *interior* can be contrasted with *exterior*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's one possible translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Mire decorata ornataque erat aedificii pars interior &amp;mdash; exterior pars immo turpiter deformis.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The interior of the building was wonderfully decorated and embellished &amp;mdash; but the exterior was disgracefully ugly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The repeated words of quality (*decorata+ornata* and *turpis+deformis*) and the chiastic word order give the comparison emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I rendered &quot;such striking opposition&quot; as simply *immo*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6031" RevisionGUID="f8e1689a-d3bb-4924-8598-7c593f05c0db" CreationDate="2018-02-26T10:47:00.803" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted slightly and added a tag; this is to a large extent a question for &quot;inside (noun)&quot;." Text="Sentence to translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The inside of the building was beautifully decorated &amp;mdash; such striking opposition with the ugly outside appearance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Intus aedificii decore ornatus erat &amp;mdash; tantus flictus contra ad aspectus deforis malus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be helpful if you took time to check my attempt for mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;*Intus* probably is wrong &amp;mdash; how do you say *the inside*, *an inside* (noun)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19951" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6031" RevisionGUID="f8e1689a-d3bb-4924-8598-7c593f05c0db" CreationDate="2018-02-26T10:47:00.803" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted slightly and added a tag; this is to a large extent a question for &quot;inside (noun)&quot;." Text="&quot;The inside of the building was beautifully decorated (...)&quot; — translation to Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19952" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6031" RevisionGUID="f8e1689a-d3bb-4924-8598-7c593f05c0db" CreationDate="2018-02-26T10:47:00.803" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted slightly and added a tag; this is to a large extent a question for &quot;inside (noun)&quot;." Text="|word-request|translation-check|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6033" RevisionGUID="aac89e4e-73d3-4ba2-8575-8f6282b973d9" CreationDate="2018-02-26T10:58:56.487" UserId="79" Text="There is a canonical correspondence between some Greek and Roman gods and goddesses, for example Ares and Mars.&#xD;&#xA;However, these two were originally different deities: Ares represented rage in war and Mars was also a god of agriculture, to mention a difference.&#xD;&#xA;My question concerns pairs of Greek and Roman gods like this, which were originally different but were later identified.&#xD;&#xA;This excludes Apollo(n), as this god seems to have been always the same, not identified later between the two mythologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the first written identification of a Greek and Roman god?&#xD;&#xA;How does the identification manifest itself?&#xD;&#xA;Is it explicit (&quot;We call it Iuppiter, they call it Zeus&quot;), is it a Greek story retold with Roman names, or something else?&#xD;&#xA;An unattested identification is also fine if it is referenced by a later source." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19954" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6033" RevisionGUID="aac89e4e-73d3-4ba2-8575-8f6282b973d9" CreationDate="2018-02-26T10:58:56.487" UserId="79" Text="When was a pair of Greek and Roman gods first identified?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19955" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6033" RevisionGUID="aac89e4e-73d3-4ba2-8575-8f6282b973d9" CreationDate="2018-02-26T10:58:56.487" UserId="79" Text="|passage-request|mythology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6034" RevisionGUID="cf146ba9-db93-47a8-a78b-672a1364054f" CreationDate="2018-02-26T11:01:23.683" UserId="645" Text="There are several ways in which you might translate this, but I suggest *Vero pars aedificii interior in modum contra exteriorem indecorum pulcre ornata est.* This translates the sentiment of the whole sentence, but in a way more natural to Latin in various ways, including the use of word order to imply the intended effect — for which it's often unnecessary to translate every word literally : other replies may be quite different, but equally valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Intus* is an adverb, 'on the inside', etc. To use it isn't exactly wrong, but the inside of anything is generally *pars interior*, the 'inner part', which in this case I've used for contrast with the outside as *(pars) exterior* (in the acc. to follow *contra*). *Vero* is placed first in the sentence to emphasise the difference.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6035" RevisionGUID="9ad8e4f7-16cf-4b4c-9465-7052362791cf" CreationDate="2018-02-26T15:16:38.857" UserId="1496" Text="In mathematics people say that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Evaluate f at x&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What word in Latin means &quot;evaluate&quot;? The construction *ex-valor-are* -&gt; *evaloro,-are,-avi,-atum* seems to be an analogue but I am not sure if this makes sense, and I don't see it used anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Evalora f in x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19958" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6035" RevisionGUID="9ad8e4f7-16cf-4b4c-9465-7052362791cf" CreationDate="2018-02-26T15:16:38.857" UserId="1496" Text="How to translate &quot;evaluate&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19959" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6035" RevisionGUID="9ad8e4f7-16cf-4b4c-9465-7052362791cf" CreationDate="2018-02-26T15:16:38.857" UserId="1496" Text="|vocabulary|translation|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6035" RevisionGUID="60dda2a6-59f1-4317-ba78-8ff37daa643a" CreationDate="2018-02-26T15:28:04.510" UserId="79" Comment="added 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In mathematics people say that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Evaluate *f* at *x*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What word in Latin means &quot;evaluate&quot;? The construction *ex-valor-are* -&gt; *evaloro, -are, -avi, -atum* seems to be an analogue but I am not sure if this makes sense, and I don't see it used anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Evalora *f* in *x*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19961" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6035" RevisionGUID="60dda2a6-59f1-4317-ba78-8ff37daa643a" CreationDate="2018-02-26T15:28:04.510" UserId="79" Comment="added 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|verbs|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6036" RevisionGUID="b5c2747c-0822-464b-b4d4-1b97b2f0c029" CreationDate="2018-02-26T16:04:04.333" UserId="79" Text="Good question!&#xD;&#xA;First, *valor* seems to be indeed a good word for &quot;value&quot; in the sense of mathematics and computer science.&#xD;&#xA;It appears in Newton's [Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica](https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Philosophiae_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica_-_DE_MOTU_CORPORUM_LIBER_SECUNDUS._-_SECT._II._De_motu_corporum_quibus_resistitur_in_duplicata_ratione_velocitatum.) and is also used by [Gauss](http://thelatinlibrary.com/gauss.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I found no hits for a verb containing *-valor-*.&#xD;&#xA;We may need to coin a new verb; I will discuss the reasons for this at the end.&#xD;&#xA;The easiest way out is to borrow the English word, since ***evaluare*** fits Latin very well.&#xD;&#xA;But this doesn't feel quite right to me, as the originally Latin word *valor* has been changed after borrowing to French.&#xD;&#xA;A similar verb can be derived within Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No Romance language seems to use anything with *valor* for this verb, but the verbs are related.&#xD;&#xA;Italian seems to be *valutare*, Spanish *evaluar*, and French *évaluer*, for example.&#xD;&#xA;The simplest Latin verb seems to be ***valorare***, and this is my first suggestion.&#xD;&#xA;(The word *valor* itself comes from *valere*, but for this purpose I think it is best to derive from *valor* instead of the underlying verb. The noun *valor* in this use is abstracted from the meaning of *valere*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to and a prefix.&#xD;&#xA;Since [the verb starts with V, it should be *e-* instead of *ex-*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2466/79).&#xD;&#xA;This prefix can be used to emphasize that the action is carried out completely (cf. *efficere* or *ebibere*), and this sense is appropriate &amp;mdash; although not strictly necessary.&#xD;&#xA;As the Romance examples above show, the prefix may or may not be present in daughter languages.&#xD;&#xA;If such a prefix is used, then the natural choice is ***evalorare***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The different options have different pros and cons.&#xD;&#xA;For anyone who has studied mathematics or programming in English, *evaluare* is easy to understand without much thought.&#xD;&#xA;However, it does sound somewhat non-Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The most Latin option to my ear is *valorare*, but it is further away from other languages.&#xD;&#xA;The middle ground between these is *evalorare*.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is *valorare*, but there is no canonical correct choice as far as I know.&#xD;&#xA;Your suggestion of *evalorare* sounds legitimate, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found no attestations for these three options.&#xD;&#xA;But this is not really surprising; the abstraction level of evaluation (as opposed to using simply the word &quot;value&quot; in some way) seems to have arisen only after Latin fell out of fashion in science.&#xD;&#xA;I would be thrilled to see examples, but there might not be any.&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to contemporary use, there is no council to decide on the correct terminology, and if there is too little precedent to establish a rule, you are free to choose anything reasonable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6037" RevisionGUID="2d443d55-0cea-4927-9c2f-2beee25dc1d0" CreationDate="2018-02-26T18:45:11.303" UserId="2351" Text="Why is there **is** (it) in the following phrase from Ørberg's *Lingua Latina per se Illustrata*, page 118?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ōstium* sīve *ōs'* flūminis dīcitur **is** locus quō flumen in mare īnfluit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literary: By *Ostium* or *os* of the river is called **[it]** place where river in sea flows in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19964" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6037" RevisionGUID="2d443d55-0cea-4927-9c2f-2beee25dc1d0" CreationDate="2018-02-26T18:45:11.303" UserId="2351" Text="Why is there &quot;is&quot; in &quot;... dīcitur is locus...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19965" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6037" RevisionGUID="2d443d55-0cea-4927-9c2f-2beee25dc1d0" CreationDate="2018-02-26T18:45:11.303" UserId="2351" Text="|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6037" RevisionGUID="6e53f2b9-fd01-4fb2-a380-c6a93151b17e" CreationDate="2018-02-26T18:46:43.990" UserId="45" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Why is there **is** (it) in the following phrase from Ørberg's *Lingua Latina per se Illustrata*, page 118?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ōstium* sīve *ōs* flūminis dīcitur **is** locus quō flumen in mare īnfluit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally: By *Ostium* or *os* of the river is called **[it]** place where river in sea flows in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6038" RevisionGUID="8ee9df89-2fde-4c2e-87b3-ff7c3e9b9b56" CreationDate="2018-02-26T18:51:08.553" UserId="79" Text="This is a case where a word-by-word translation is misleading.&#xD;&#xA;If you translate *is* as &quot;that&quot;, it makes more sense.&#xD;&#xA;And here you could translate it as &quot;the&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin you can use *is* like an adjective (e.g. *is locus*), but in English you can't (e.g. &quot;it place&quot; doesn't make sense, but &quot;the place&quot;, &quot;that place&quot;, or &quot;this place&quot; does).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *is* is not strictly necessary in the sentence, but it adds emphasis and gives a clear antecedent for the relative pronoun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6037" RevisionGUID="6031f61d-25de-4db5-a23f-55b30d410989" CreationDate="2018-02-26T18:51:53.237" UserId="79" Comment="Added the book tag." Text="Why is there **is** (it) in the following phrase from Ørberg's *Lingua Latina per se Illustrata*, page 118?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ōstium* sīve *ōs* flūminis dīcitur **is** locus quō flumen in mare īnfluit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally: By *Ostium* or *os* of the river is called **[it]** place where river in sea flows in.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19969" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6037" RevisionGUID="6031f61d-25de-4db5-a23f-55b30d410989" CreationDate="2018-02-26T18:51:53.237" UserId="79" Comment="Added the book tag." Text="|grammar-identification|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="46a7e032-ef55-47e4-98e8-77a50d65d489" CreationDate="2018-02-26T18:53:08.340" UserId="45" Text="In this case, *is, ea, id* is a **demonstrative pronoun** (like *hic, haec, hoc*; *ille, illa, illud*; etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Allen &amp; Greenough &amp;sect;297](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-297.html) says the following about *is, ea, id*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Is* is a weaker demonstrative than the others and is especially common as a personal pronoun.** It does not denote any special object, but refers to one just mentioned, or to be afterwards explained by a relative. **Often it is merely a correlative to the relative quī:**—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; *vēnit mihi obviam tuus puer, is mihi litterās abs tē reddidit* (Att. 2.1.1), your boy met me, he delivered to me a letter from you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; *eum cōnsulem quī nōn dubitet* (Cat. 4.24), a consul who will not hesitate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your sample sentence demonstrates this correlation with a relative pronoun. You could translate as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The** [or: &quot;that&quot;] place by which a river flows into the sea is called the *ostium* [doorway] or *os* [mouth] of the river." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6040" RevisionGUID="22b1f400-1828-4ca3-b130-c276f93bb2fb" CreationDate="2018-02-27T06:03:00.930" UserId="172" Text="The [Wikipedia article][1] on the subject notes that the term *damnatio memoriae*, referring to the relegation of a person's name to oblivion, as if they never existed, is a neo-Latin expression first attested in 1689.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What wording do the ancient sources use when speaking about the practice? While the [German Wikipedia article][2] refers to the term *abolitio nominis*, I seem to be unable to find any direct references to it either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_memoriae&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_memoriae" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19972" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6040" RevisionGUID="22b1f400-1828-4ca3-b130-c276f93bb2fb" CreationDate="2018-02-27T06:03:00.930" UserId="172" Text="damnatio memoriae" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19973" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6040" RevisionGUID="22b1f400-1828-4ca3-b130-c276f93bb2fb" CreationDate="2018-02-27T06:03:00.930" UserId="172" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|example-request|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19974" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2949" RevisionGUID="6fb921ec-17eb-46a2-a6ea-87dc44c316d9" CreationDate="2018-02-27T10:13:48.030" UserId="79" Comment="69" />
  <row Id="19976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6036" RevisionGUID="cf36f8a2-df82-48bb-9944-d78496a4de73" CreationDate="2018-02-27T13:03:21.953" UserId="79" Comment="added 475 characters in body" Text="Good question!&#xD;&#xA;First, *valor* seems to be indeed a good word for &quot;value&quot; in the sense of mathematics and computer science.&#xD;&#xA;It appears in Newton's [Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica](https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Philosophiae_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica_-_DE_MOTU_CORPORUM_LIBER_SECUNDUS._-_SECT._II._De_motu_corporum_quibus_resistitur_in_duplicata_ratione_velocitatum.) and is also used by [Gauss](http://thelatinlibrary.com/gauss.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I found no hits for a verb containing *-valor-*.&#xD;&#xA;We may need to coin a new verb; I will discuss the reasons for this at the end.&#xD;&#xA;The easiest way out is to borrow the English word, since ***evaluare*** fits Latin very well.&#xD;&#xA;But this doesn't feel quite right to me, as the originally Latin word *valor* has been changed after borrowing to French.&#xD;&#xA;A similar verb can be derived within Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No Romance language seems to use anything with *valor* for this verb, but the verbs are related.&#xD;&#xA;Italian seems to be *valutare*, Spanish *evaluar*, and French *évaluer*, for example.&#xD;&#xA;The simplest Latin verb seems to be ***valorare***, and this is my first suggestion.&#xD;&#xA;(The word *valor* itself comes from *valere*, but for this purpose I think it is best to derive from *valor* instead of the underlying verb. The noun *valor* in this use is abstracted from the meaning of *valere*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to and a prefix.&#xD;&#xA;Since [the verb starts with V, it should be *e-* instead of *ex-*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2466/79).&#xD;&#xA;This prefix can be used to emphasize that the action is carried out completely (cf. *efficere* or *ebibere*), and this sense is appropriate &amp;mdash; although not strictly necessary.&#xD;&#xA;As the Romance examples above show, the prefix may or may not be present in daughter languages.&#xD;&#xA;If such a prefix is used, then the natural choice is ***evalorare***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The different options have different pros and cons.&#xD;&#xA;For anyone who has studied mathematics or programming in English, *evaluare* is easy to understand without much thought.&#xD;&#xA;However, it does sound somewhat non-Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The most Latin option to my ear is *valorare*, but it is further away from other languages.&#xD;&#xA;The middle ground between these is *evalorare*.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is *valorare*, but there is no canonical correct choice as far as I know.&#xD;&#xA;Your suggestion of *evalorare* sounds legitimate, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found no attestations for these three options.&#xD;&#xA;But this is not really surprising; the abstraction level of evaluation (as opposed to using simply the word &quot;value&quot; in some way) seems to have arisen only after Latin fell out of fashion in science.&#xD;&#xA;I would be thrilled to see examples, but there might not be any.&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to contemporary use, there is no council to decide on the correct terminology, and if there is too little precedent to establish a rule, you are free to choose anything reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, let me point out that my purpose was to find a verb that would be comfortable to use for a modern scientist who happens to know Latin.&#xD;&#xA;If I were to write lecture notes on functional analysis and distribution theory in Latin and wanted to define an evaluation functional, I would pick one of these three verbs to evaluate with.&#xD;&#xA;Any kind of elegance or classical precedent, while great, is secondary.&#xD;&#xA;For a different perspective, you'll have to ask someone else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="d5693f65-e5b0-4054-a0d4-ce0de41203cb" CreationDate="2018-02-27T22:00:14.140" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="Text to translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Vessel was crafted with great artistry, quality of material and beauty of the form was scrupulously taken care of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Vas cum arte magna factum fuit, qualitas materiae pulchritudoque formae scrupule curam actus fuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be helpful if you took time to check my attempt for mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;What improvements could be made?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19978" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="d5693f65-e5b0-4054-a0d4-ce0de41203cb" CreationDate="2018-02-27T22:00:14.140" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="&quot;Vessel was crafted (...)&quot; translation to Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19979" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="d5693f65-e5b0-4054-a0d4-ce0de41203cb" CreationDate="2018-02-27T22:00:14.140" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="|translation-check|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6042" RevisionGUID="bc6c7000-b454-4513-a3ac-2e4e39e2d244" CreationDate="2018-02-28T01:57:12.163" UserId="118" Text="Does the phrase **orbis terrarum** reflect Ancient Roman knowledge that the Earth is a sphere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some kinds of evidence that might suggest an answer: Did people say **orbis terrarum** for the world before they knew that the Earth is spherical? Does **orbis** in this sense (meaning the world, without **terrarum**) suggest a sphere, or does it only suggest a circle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19982" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6042" RevisionGUID="bc6c7000-b454-4513-a3ac-2e4e39e2d244" CreationDate="2018-02-28T01:57:12.163" UserId="118" Text="Does the phrase &quot;orbis terrarum&quot; reflect Ancient Roman knowledge that the Earth is a sphere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19983" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6042" RevisionGUID="bc6c7000-b454-4513-a3ac-2e4e39e2d244" CreationDate="2018-02-28T01:57:12.163" UserId="118" Text="|etymology|history|science|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6043" RevisionGUID="1ac7de59-741b-4372-a6dd-ce045c15206a" CreationDate="2018-02-28T10:33:30.217" UserId="992" Text="I can not be sure this sentence&#xD;&#xA;&quot;hoc opus; aeterna sibi sit retributo vitae!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if something like that: this work was eternity-immortality for you.&#xD;&#xA;could you help me please? thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19985" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6043" RevisionGUID="1ac7de59-741b-4372-a6dd-ce045c15206a" CreationDate="2018-02-28T10:33:30.217" UserId="992" Text="hoc opus; aeterna sibi sit retributo vitae!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19986" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6043" RevisionGUID="1ac7de59-741b-4372-a6dd-ce045c15206a" CreationDate="2018-02-28T10:33:30.217" UserId="992" Text="|classical-latin|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6043" RevisionGUID="eacd9673-eea7-4bff-ba65-5282339e3bc4" CreationDate="2018-02-28T11:58:45.080" UserId="992" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="I can not be sure this sentence&#xD;&#xA;&quot;hoc opus; aeterna sibi sit retributo vitae!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if something like that: this work was eternity-immortality for you.&#xD;&#xA;could you help me please? thank you.&#xD;&#xA; III Balduini Historia Nicaena vel Antiochena, RHC Occ V, page: 140, from prologue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k51575h/f1.image.r=.langEN" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6044" RevisionGUID="3235ca8b-ff0a-4200-b886-415d285812d7" CreationDate="2018-02-28T12:26:24.863" UserId="79" Text="Your quote is a line of hexameter, not an individual sentence.&#xD;&#xA;The start of each line being capitalized does not mean that they are grammatically independent sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The previous lines discuss the life of Balduinus, and he is also the subject of the verb on the preceding line.&#xD;&#xA;The words *hoc opus* are the object, so the beginning of the line is: &quot;[Balduinus wrote] this work&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What follows after the semicolon is a remark.&#xD;&#xA;The *sibi* refers to Balduinus.&#xD;&#xA;The remark can be translated, for example, like so: &quot;May he have eternal retribution of life!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that it is *retributio*, not *retributo*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact wording is a matter of taste, but I hope this gives you an idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="be7cebd0-5858-45dc-b96c-fef30be43d1b" CreationDate="2018-02-28T16:49:46.513" UserDisplayName="user1846" Comment="More specific questions" Text="Text to translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Vessel was crafted with great artistry, quality of material and beauty of the form was scrupulously taken care of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Vas cum arte magna factum fuit, qualitas materiae pulchritudoque formae scrupule curam actus fuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be helpful if you took time to check my attempt for mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;What improvements could be made?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is *curam actus fuit* correct translation of *taken care* part?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is there other word, more suitable than *vas*?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Is *pulchritudoque formae* correct or maybe it should be *pulchritudo fromaeque*? I think it's ok the way it is, but it would be good if you confirmed it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6045" RevisionGUID="672c3bb2-f91a-43de-a8fa-d4aff4cce4a7" CreationDate="2018-02-28T17:37:02.720" UserId="79" Text="&gt; 1. Is *curam actus fuit* correct translation of *taken care* part?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, this doesn't sound correct to me.&#xD;&#xA;You have a double perfect *actus fuit* (which I believe is rare if not nonexistent in classical Latin); the passive perfect of *agere* is *actus est*.&#xD;&#xA;The intended role of *curam* is not clear to me, although I do see the analogue to the English structure that probably gave rise to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would recommend finding a verb which means &quot;to take care of&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;One option is *curare*.&#xD;&#xA;There may be better choices, but let me go with this one now.&#xD;&#xA;Since both *qualitas* and *pulchritudo* are feminine (this may change if you change your words; see below), the passive perfect is *curatae sunt*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same double perfect appears in *factum fuit*.&#xD;&#xA;It should be *factum est* instead.&#xD;&#xA;If this construction needs more explanation or you want to know exactly how legitimate forms like *factum fuit* are, I recommend asking a separate question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also drop the preposition *cum*; a plain instrumental ablative sounds more natural to me here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Is there other word, more suitable than *vas*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *vas* is a good general word for &quot;vessel&quot;, and I cannot think of a better choice.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I would translate washing dishes to *vasa lavare*.&#xD;&#xA;(This is also convenient if you ever need to wash dishes in hexameter.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Is *pulchritudoque formae* correct or maybe it should be *pulchritudo fromaeque*? I think it's ok the way it is, but it would be good if you confirmed it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, this use of *-que* is correct.&#xD;&#xA;A good way to see this is to drop all attributes: &quot;quality and material&quot; is *qualitas pulchritudoque*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am not convinced that *qualitas* is the best translation here.&#xD;&#xA;It is indeed possible, but it may not be quite as close to the English &quot;quality&quot; as one might think superficially.&#xD;&#xA;You might want to consider *decor* or *subtilitas*, for example.&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that it is the best choice after all, but I want to encourage criticism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="3a41d65c-672d-4d79-9518-cca01a62cdb2" CreationDate="2018-02-28T17:38:49.697" UserId="79" Comment="Edited out the &quot;edit&quot;. The edit history is unimportant, the final version is." Text="Text to translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Vessel was crafted with great artistry, quality of material and beauty of the form was scrupulously taken care of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Vas cum arte magna factum fuit, qualitas materiae pulchritudoque formae scrupule curam actus fuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be helpful if you took time to check my attempt for mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;What improvements could be made?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specific questions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is *curam actus fuit* correct translation of *taken care* part?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is there other word, more suitable than *vas*?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Is *pulchritudoque formae* correct or maybe it should be *pulchritudo fromaeque*? I think it's ok the way it is, but it would be good if you confirmed it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6046" RevisionGUID="1c19aefa-933b-44a5-bd35-3b107b5be036" CreationDate="2018-02-28T19:40:01.390" UserId="2439" Text="I'm a novice interested in the history of reading comprehension, and I'm trying to piece together an English translation of any or all of Erasmus's two-page letter &quot;Qui sit modus repetendae lectionis&quot; -- a nice little guide to reading, from the early 1500s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The piece is included (in the original Latin) in *De conscribendis epistolis*; it appears with some very minimal English translation (or paraphrase; I can't tell) on pages 223-226 of William Harrison Woodward's 1904 [study][1] *Desiderius Erasmus concerning the aim and method of education*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are attempts at the first three paragraphs. I have basically no Latin; using Wiktionary, my extremely naive pass at the first section&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quibusdam prima ac unica fere cura est statim ad verbum  ediscere;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod equidem non probo, est enim **tum** magni laboris, **tum** fructus prope&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nullius. Quorsum enim attinet, psittaci more, verba non intellecta&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reddere? Commodiorem igitur viam accipe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To some people the first and generally only concern is to begin&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately by memorizing the words; for my part, I don't approve of this, because it requires a great deal of work and yields basically no fruit. Why indeed stick to the manner of a parrot, yielding no comprehension of the words? It is more suitable to learn of the right way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really know what &quot;tum&quot; is doing, and I'm not sure I've got the grammatical sense of the last two sentences right. I'm sure there's a more idiomatic translation of the final sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;For the next part,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lectionem quidem auditam continue relege, ita ut universam sententiam&#xD;&#xA;&gt; paulo altius animo infigas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can make out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In fact, a passage having been listened to must be gone over again&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and again, so that the whole meaning will be fixed a little deeper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think I've got the grammatical sense of &quot;paulo altius animo infigas.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the third section,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deinde a calce rursus ad caput redibis, et singula verba excutere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; incipies, ea duntaxat inquirens quae ad grammaticam curam attinent:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; videlicet, si quod verbum obscurum, aut ancipitis derivationis, si&#xD;&#xA;&gt; heteroclitae conjugationis; **quod su pinum, quod praeteritum faciat**: quos habeat maiores, quos **nepotes**, quam constructionem; quid significet; **et huiusmodi  nonnulla**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can make out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Next, from the end one must go back to the beginning, and every word&#xD;&#xA;&gt; must be examined, attending specifically to grammatical concerns: namely,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whether the word is unclear, or has an uncertain derivation, or an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unfamiliar conjugation; [...]: which are the better and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unnecessary constructions; what each means; and similar questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't understand &quot;quod su pinum, quod praeteritum faciat&quot; at all; and I don't know whether I've got the sense of &quot;nepotes&quot; right, and I'm confused by the &quot;nonnulla&quot; after &quot;huiusmodi.&quot; I went with &quot;questions&quot; just because it would make sense of the passage, not because I think it is a translation of &quot;nonnulla.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/stream/desideriuserasmu00woodiala#page/222/mode/2up/search/mastering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19993" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6046" RevisionGUID="1c19aefa-933b-44a5-bd35-3b107b5be036" CreationDate="2018-02-28T19:40:01.390" UserId="2439" Text="English translation of Erasmus's &quot;Qui sit modus repetendae lectionis&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19994" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6046" RevisionGUID="1c19aefa-933b-44a5-bd35-3b107b5be036" CreationDate="2018-02-28T19:40:01.390" UserId="2439" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6047" RevisionGUID="340c3d3e-dc47-4329-9e6d-2a76ada78dcc" CreationDate="2018-02-28T19:52:22.323" UserId="406" Text="Periphrastic verb forms, specifically a participle plus an auxiliary verb, are very common in English (&quot;I am writing now&quot;). They also appear in Latin and Ancient Greek and a number of Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The types I'm most familiar with in Latin are the passives of the perfect system, and the gerundive of obligation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perfect passive participle + present = perfect passive  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perfect passive participle + imperfect = pluperfect passive  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perfect passive participle + future = future perfect passive  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Future passive participle + present = future passive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question][1] indicates that you can also find perfect passive participle + perfect, to emphasize that an action is complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other attested combinations? For example, do we ever see a present participle combined with an auxiliary?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5315/which-grammatical-format-is-the-double-perfect-system-as-found-in-the-vulgate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19996" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6047" RevisionGUID="340c3d3e-dc47-4329-9e6d-2a76ada78dcc" CreationDate="2018-02-28T19:52:22.323" UserId="406" Text="What combinations of tenses appear in periphrasis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19997" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6047" RevisionGUID="340c3d3e-dc47-4329-9e6d-2a76ada78dcc" CreationDate="2018-02-28T19:52:22.323" UserId="406" Text="|verbs|conjugation|participle|perfect-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6048" RevisionGUID="6c0a6a86-3fce-4cf7-993c-1d5867dc8a34" CreationDate="2018-02-28T20:20:51.780" UserId="645" Text="Joonas has correctly pointed out the basic faults, and has included some useful suggestions. However, I'd like to supplement his answer with my own comments and translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To begin with, *vas* is certainly the proper word for 'vessel', but I'm afraid that the rest is a series of errors revealing inexperience in both reading and translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it best to examine the actual meaning to be conveyed before making the attempt. I have re-cast it into the English form *with the highest skill, the body of the vase was made of the best material, resulting in a more beautiful shape*. This allows us to use more compact and standard syntax :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Summa arte corpus vasis ex materia optima factum est , quo pulchrius esset forma.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't be discouraged : this is actually quite a difficult sentence to put into Latin that both looks and sounds authentic.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6048" RevisionGUID="4c961f65-4dcb-4f5a-80d9-ce87de281454" CreationDate="2018-02-28T20:28:29.627" UserId="645" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Joonas has correctly pointed out the basic faults, and has included some useful suggestions. However, I'd like to supplement his answer with my own comments and translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To begin with, *vas* is certainly the proper word for 'vessel', but I'm afraid that the rest is a series of errors revealing inexperience in both reading and translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it best to examine the actual meaning to be conveyed before making the attempt. I have re-cast it into the English form *with the highest skill, the body of the vase was made of the best material, resulting in a more beautiful shape*. This allows us to use more compact and standard syntax :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Summa arte corpus vasis ex materia optima factum est, quo pulchrius esset forma.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't be discouraged : this is actually quite a difficult sentence to put into Latin that both looks and sounds authentic.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6049" RevisionGUID="d60c2b5f-4416-4e0e-b285-cae980dd9f91" CreationDate="2018-02-28T22:36:09.723" UserId="79" Text="When it rains, puddles are formed on the streets.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a classical Latin word for such a small puddle?&#xD;&#xA;The only two examples of &quot;puddle&quot; in L&amp;S are *fetutina* (a dirty and stinking puddle) and *lustrum* (more like a swamp), and both seem to be off the mark.&#xD;&#xA;After more searching, I found [*stagnum*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=stagnum1&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) and [*lacuna*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DL%3Aentry+group%3D3%3Aentry%3Dlacuna), but neither seems to hit the nail on the head.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps *stagnum* sounds most promising, but what word was actually used in classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20001" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6049" RevisionGUID="d60c2b5f-4416-4e0e-b285-cae980dd9f91" CreationDate="2018-02-28T22:36:09.723" UserId="79" Text="Puddles created by rain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20002" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6049" RevisionGUID="d60c2b5f-4416-4e0e-b285-cae980dd9f91" CreationDate="2018-02-28T22:36:09.723" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|weather|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6046" RevisionGUID="2f698134-3745-4c39-82c7-a37f62a3be46" CreationDate="2018-02-28T22:39:54.917" UserId="2439" Comment="deleted 1375 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm a novice interested in the history of reading comprehension, and I'm trying to piece together an English translation of any or all of Erasmus's two-page letter &quot;Qui sit modus repetendae lectionis&quot; -- a nice little guide to learning how to read from the early 1500s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The piece is included (in the original Latin) in *De conscribendis epistolis*; it appears with some very minimal English translation (or paraphrase; I can't tell) on pages 223-226 of William Harrison Woodward's 1904 [study][1] *Desiderius Erasmus concerning the aim and method of education*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my attempt at the first paragraph. I have basically no Latin; using Wiktionary, my extremely naive pass at the first section&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quibusdam prima ac unica fere cura est statim ad verbum  ediscere;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod equidem non probo, est enim **tum** magni laboris, **tum** fructus prope&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nullius. Quorsum enim attinet, psittaci more, verba non intellecta&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reddere? Commodiorem igitur viam accipe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To some people the first and generally only concern is to begin&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately by memorizing the words; for my part, I don't approve of this, because it requires a great deal of work and yields basically no fruit. Why indeed stick to the manner of a parrot, yielding no comprehension of the words? It is more suitable to learn of the right way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what &quot;tum&quot; is doing, and I'm not sure I've got the grammatical sense of the last two sentences right. I'm certain there's a more idiomatic translation of the final sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where have I made straight-up errors, and where have I made tolerable but sensible departures from the grammar?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/stream/desideriuserasmu00woodiala#page/222/mode/2up/search/mastering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20004" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6046" RevisionGUID="2f698134-3745-4c39-82c7-a37f62a3be46" CreationDate="2018-02-28T22:39:54.917" UserId="2439" Comment="deleted 1375 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6050" RevisionGUID="3dc1293f-ad5b-4b1e-b178-f2bc9f325fa1" CreationDate="2018-02-28T22:49:51.063" UserId="2440" Text="Greetings Latin StackExchange. One of my hobbies is to write stories and in one of my stories I would like to incorporate an item called &quot;The Prince's Book&quot;. My ideal goal is that this item is written 100% in Latin and that that poses as a strugle to my characters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I'm a bit stuck in my research here. I would like to describe some parts of the interior of the book and one of them is the first printed page which would have this sentence on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I started out with Google Translate just to get a general feel for which words I could or could not use (and how horrible the syntax would look, eek) and went onto the &quot;Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short&quot; online dictionary to see what I could make of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far what I have is either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Princeps Ex Libro;&#xD;&#xA;2. Liber Princeps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I have a really strong feeling that neither are correct! From the very, very, very little tiny knowledge of Latin that I have, is Libre not related to freedom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am also getting a very ill feeling about the word Princeps. I've found way too many meanings for it that differ from each other a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be really, really grateful if someone could help me properly word the title of the item as to not make it just some cheap prop done with 5 minutes of research and zero respect for the actual language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very, very much in advance for any help that you can provide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kind regards, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Very Amateur Writer " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20006" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6050" RevisionGUID="3dc1293f-ad5b-4b1e-b178-f2bc9f325fa1" CreationDate="2018-02-28T22:49:51.063" UserId="2440" Text="What is the correct way to write &quot;The Prince's Book&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20007" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6050" RevisionGUID="3dc1293f-ad5b-4b1e-b178-f2bc9f325fa1" CreationDate="2018-02-28T22:49:51.063" UserId="2440" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|idiom|syntax|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6051" RevisionGUID="e4513a74-5e67-467b-982c-6b6ba83f9c0f" CreationDate="2018-02-28T23:12:48.633" UserId="9" Text="The word “liber” does mean “book”. It’s also true that “liber” means “free”. They’re just homographs (but in Classical Latin, not homophones: the i in the “free” word is pronounced longer than the i in the “book” word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Priceps” does have various meanings, but one of those is “prince”, so I don’t think it’s a bad choice. To indicate “of”, you should probably use the genitive-case form of the noun: “principis” (although as tox123 points out in a comment, the best translation would depend on what you mean exactly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Together, it would be “liber principis” (or “principis liber”). Genitives in Latin typically follow the modified noun (in this kind of context, at least)—-my understanding is that it is not impossible for them to precede it, but I can’t think of any reason not to use the typical word order in this case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6051" RevisionGUID="dd18b54b-607f-4db1-82df-e332b6871c9c" CreationDate="2018-02-28T23:20:17.963" UserId="9" Comment="added 210 characters in body" Text="The word “liber” does mean “book”. Think of “library”. It’s also true that “liber” means “free”. They’re just homographs (but in Classical Latin, not homophones: the i in the “free” word is pronounced longer than the i in the “book” word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Princeps” does have various meanings, but one of those is “prince”, so I don’t think it’s a bad choice. However, I am still at a low level in my studies of Latin so I can’t give any in-depth advice about word choice here—for that, you’ll have to wait for one of the more knowledgeable site members to make a post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; To indicate “of”, you should probably use the genitive-case form of the noun: “principis” (although as tox123 points out in a comment, the best translation would depend on what you mean exactly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Together, it would be “Liber Principis” (or “Principis Liber”). Genitives in Latin typically follow the modified noun (in this kind of context, at least)—-my understanding is that it is not impossible for them to precede it, but I can’t think of any reason not to use the typical word order in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither “Princeps Ex Libro” nor “Liber Princeps” is a grammatical way of expressing “Book of the Prince”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6051" RevisionGUID="f73ce765-9280-43c0-9111-ce6e4a291c44" CreationDate="2018-02-28T23:25:53.600" UserId="9" Comment="added 210 characters in body" Text="The word “liber” does mean “book”. Think of “library”. It’s also true that “liber” means “free”. They’re just homographs (but in Classical Latin, not homophones: the i in the “free” word is pronounced longer than the i in the “book” word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Princeps” does have various meanings, but one of those is “prince”, so I don’t think it’s a bad choice. However, I am still at a low level in my studies of Latin so I can’t give any in-depth advice about word choice here—for that, you’ll have to wait for one of the more knowledgeable site members to make a post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; To indicate “of”, you should probably use the genitive-case form of the noun: “principis” (although as tox123 points out in a comment, the best translation would depend on what you mean exactly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Together, it would be “Liber Principis” (or “Principis Liber”). Genitives in Latin typically follow the modified noun (in this kind of context, at least)—my understanding is that it is not impossible for them to precede it, but I can’t think of any reason not to use the typical word order in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither “Princeps Ex Libro” nor “Liber Princeps” is a grammatical way of expressing “The Prince’s Book”/“The Book of the Prince”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6052" RevisionGUID="9b286fe2-b2b0-47c0-a867-54b4f3e8690f" CreationDate="2018-02-28T23:48:42.220" UserId="79" Text="*Liber principis* is certainly a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;The genitive &quot;prince's&quot; is best expressed with the Latin genitive, whether the prince owns the book or wrote it.&#xD;&#xA;It is typical to put the genitive after the main word in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Liber* is the typical translation for &quot;book&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Another option is *volumen*, but it usually refers to a book which is rolled open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Princeps* is a good word for a prince, but not the only option.&#xD;&#xA;There is also *regulus* (literally &quot;little king&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;You can also use the word *delphinus* for the crown prince, but I'm not aware of this having been used outside France.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase [*ad usum delphini*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_usum_Delphini) may or may not be familiar.&#xD;&#xA;If you pick this word, be aware that it also means a dolphin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google Translate is very unreliable](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79).&#xD;&#xA;Translated to English, *princeps ex libro* means &quot;the prince from the book&quot; and *liber princeps* &quot;the principal book&quot; or &quot;the free prince&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Neither is close to what you want; the choice of words is fine, but the choice of structures is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the options that came to my mind, collected together:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; prince's book  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *liber/volumen principis/reguli/delphini*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6051" RevisionGUID="60b2704a-88f5-40d4-9f20-611a12dcae1f" CreationDate="2018-02-28T23:52:04.687" UserId="9" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="The word “liber” does mean “book”. Think of “library”. It’s also true that “liber” means “free”. They’re just homographs (but in Classical Latin, not homophones: the i in the “free” word is pronounced longer than the i in the “book” word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Princeps” does have various meanings, but one of those is “prince”, so I don’t think it’s a bad choice. However, I am still at a low level in my studies of Latin so I can’t give any in-depth advice about word choice here—for that, you’ll have to wait for one of the more knowledgeable site members to make a post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; To indicate “of”, you should probably use the genitive-case form of the noun: “principis” (although as tox123 points out in a comment, the best translation would depend on what you mean exactly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Together, it would be “Liber Principis” (or “Principis Liber”). I have the impression that genitives in Latin typically follow the modified noun (in this kind of context, at least)—it is by no means impossible for them to precede it, but I can’t think of any reason not to use the more common noun + genitive  word order in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither “Princeps Ex Libro” nor “Liber Princeps” is a grammatical way of expressing “The Prince’s Book”/“The Book of the Prince”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6051" RevisionGUID="1f10a6e8-a66e-402c-b24d-89f6ec2bf8c3" CreationDate="2018-02-28T23:58:35.667" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 116 characters in body" Text="The word “liber” does mean “book”. Think of “library”. It’s also true that “liber” means “free”. They’re just homographs (but in Classical Latin, not homophones: the i in the “free” word is pronounced longer than the i in the “book” word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Princeps” does have various meanings, but one of those is “prince”, so I don’t think it’s a bad choice. However, I am still at a low level in my studies of Latin so I can’t give any in-depth advice about word choice here—for that, you’ll have to wait for one of the more knowledgeable site members to make a post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; To indicate “of”, you should probably use the genitive-case form of the noun: “principis” (although as tox123 points out in a comment, the best translation would depend on what you mean exactly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Together, it would be “Liber Principis” (or “Principis Liber”). I have the impression that in Latin, genitives of this type typically follow the modified noun (at least, in titles like this), so I would prefer “Liber Principis”, but either word order is grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither “Princeps Ex Libro” nor “Liber Princeps” is a grammatical way of expressing “The Prince’s Book”/“The Book of the Prince”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6021" RevisionGUID="ba01c573-6112-43c0-afb1-2017120e9ee3" CreationDate="2018-03-01T06:32:14.717" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 48 characters in body" Text="The OLD says the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;usu. dep. in pres. system, active in pf. system. Dep. pf. mostly post-Augustan.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xYHLr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6054" RevisionGUID="f98d2952-f844-4001-8735-7043867ff10d" CreationDate="2018-03-01T09:41:47.310" UserId="645" Text="*Lacuna* usually implies some kind of gap — if you like, a gap into which water runs and then stagnates, when it would become a puddle. The verb *stagno, -are* means 'form into pools', and the associated *stagnum* is any sort of standing water, of any shape or area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't see any problem in using *stagnum*. It would surely cause no eyebrows to be raised if you were to modify it to a diminutive, say *stagnulum* or *stagnella*, either of which should be immediately understood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6055" RevisionGUID="ac853ff9-0f1a-4644-ad7e-fee551b0c453" CreationDate="2018-03-01T11:17:42.967" UserId="867" Text="Lucretius uses ***conlectus aquae*** of a shallow puddle between paving stones, much as one would find after a recent downpour: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *At **conlectus aquae** digitum non altior unum,  &#xD;&#xA;qui lapides inter sistit per strata viarum,  &#xD;&#xA;despectum praebet sub terras impete tanto,  &#xD;&#xA;a terris quantum caeli patet altus hiatus,  &#xD;&#xA;nubila despicere et caelum ut videare et aperta  &#xD;&#xA;corpora mirande sub terras abdita cernas.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But a **puddle of water** no deeper than one finger, lying between the stones upon a paved street, offers a view downwards under the earth to as great a reach as the open heavens yawn on high, so that you seem to look down upon the clouds and heaven, and you see manifest objects miraculously buried beneath the earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*De Rerum Natura*, 4.414-419 (trans. W. H. D. Rouse)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, Apuleius uses ***conceptaculum aquae***, specifically in the context of recent rain: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nam forte pluviae pridianae recens **conceptaculum aquae lutulentae** proximum conspicatus ...*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It happened to have rained the day before, and I spotted a new&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **puddle of muddy water** nearby ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Metamorphoses*, 7.20" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6055" RevisionGUID="ec2305fa-d2b0-4b1f-9758-c55aba669461" CreationDate="2018-03-01T11:24:20.823" UserId="867" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="Of the small puddles that collect after rain, classical Latin seems to prefer *a small collection of water*.  For example, Lucretius uses ***conlectus aquae*** of a shallow puddle between paving stones, much as one would find after a recent downpour: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *At **conlectus aquae** digitum non altior unum,  &#xD;&#xA;qui lapides inter sistit per strata viarum,  &#xD;&#xA;despectum praebet sub terras impete tanto,  &#xD;&#xA;a terris quantum caeli patet altus hiatus,  &#xD;&#xA;nubila despicere et caelum ut videare et aperta  &#xD;&#xA;corpora mirande sub terras abdita cernas.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But a **puddle of water** no deeper than one finger, lying between the stones upon a paved street, offers a view downwards under the earth to as great a reach as the open heavens yawn on high, so that you seem to look down upon the clouds and heaven, and you see manifest objects miraculously buried beneath the earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*De Rerum Natura*, 4.414-419 (trans. W. H. D. Rouse)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, Apuleius uses ***conceptaculum aquae***, specifically in the context of recent rain: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nam forte pluviae pridianae recens **conceptaculum aquae lutulentae** proximum conspicatus ...*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It happened to have rained the day before, and I spotted a new&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **puddle of muddy water** nearby ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Metamorphoses*, 7.20" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6056" RevisionGUID="1228c570-2751-4c4d-bfc7-ed81c16c0538" CreationDate="2018-03-01T13:34:05.823" UserId="324" Text="If you are using &quot;prince&quot; in its usual English meaning (&quot;son of a king&quot;), then princeps is definitely the wrong word. The word that the Roman historians use for the son of a (in general: foreign) king is regulus. So a &quot;prince's book&quot; would be Liber reguli." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6056" RevisionGUID="027d5f8a-c1da-4b9b-a9d7-02c689cb20fd" CreationDate="2018-03-01T13:41:32.203" UserId="324" Comment="deleted 27 characters in body" Text="If you are using &quot;prince&quot; in its usual English meaning (&quot;son of a king&quot;), then princeps is definitely the wrong word. The word that Livy uses for the son of a (foreign) king is regulus. So a &quot;prince's book&quot; would be Liber reguli." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6057" RevisionGUID="b24fee91-821f-494a-8259-e1ade746caeb" CreationDate="2018-03-01T17:03:07.873" UserId="79" Text="Your translation is very good, given your description of your Latin background.&#xD;&#xA;The *tum&amp;ndash;tum* can be translated in a number of ways.&#xD;&#xA;Here is a fairly literal one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp;hellip;est enim tum magni laboris, tum fructus prope nullius*.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;hellip;because as often as it is of much work, so often it is of almost no fruit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is common in Latin to say that something is of much work (*magni laboris est*), but it sounds archaic or weird in English.&#xD;&#xA;The same applies to being of little fruit.&#xD;&#xA;Your translations &quot;requires a great deal of work&quot; and &quot;yields basically no fruit&quot; is very idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;The only missing component is the connective *tum&amp;ndash;tum*.&#xD;&#xA;For most natural English, I would simply translate it as &quot;but&quot; instead of your &quot;and&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;A more literal translation is a bit unwieldy, but I think &quot;but&quot; captures the essence of the original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you have slightly misunderstood the second sentence.&#xD;&#xA;I would translate *quorsum attinet* as &quot;what does it reach&quot;, i.e. &quot;what is the purpose/benefit of&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *reddere* has many possible meanings, but here I think it stands for &quot;repeat&quot; (lit. &quot;to give back&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;The participle *intellecta* means understood, so that *verba non intellecta* means &quot;words which have not been understood&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This leads to a new translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quorsum enim attinet, psittaci more, verba non intellecta reddere?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For what does one gain by repeating like a parrot words which have not been understood?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last sentence contains the imperative *accipe*, &quot;take&quot; or &quot;accept&quot; or similar.&#xD;&#xA;The comparative *commodiorem* (&quot;more convenient&quot;) modifies the noun *viam*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Commodiorem igitur viam accipe.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore take the more convenient way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overall story comes across accurately, but there were some missing details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6051" RevisionGUID="04c0a40e-807f-4f82-9287-51ae88f95278" CreationDate="2018-03-01T17:28:37.280" UserId="9" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="The word “liber” does mean “book”. Think of “library”. It’s also true that “liber” means “free”. They’re just homographs (but in Classical Latin, not homophones: the i in the “free” word is pronounced longer than the i in the “book” word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Princeps” does have various meanings, but one of those is “prince” (as in &quot;a ruler&quot; e.g.  Machiavelli's *The Prince*), so I don’t think it’s a bad choice. However, I am still at a low level in my studies of Latin so I can’t give any in-depth advice about word choice here—for that, you’ll have to wait for one of the more knowledgeable site members to make a post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; To indicate “of”, you should probably use the genitive-case form of the noun: “principis” (although as tox123 points out in a comment, the best translation would depend on what you mean exactly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Together, it would be “Liber Principis” (or “Principis Liber”). I have the impression that in Latin, genitives of this type typically follow the modified noun (at least, in titles like this), so I would prefer “Liber Principis”, but either word order is grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither “Princeps Ex Libro” nor “Liber Princeps” is a grammatical way of expressing “The Prince’s Book”/“The Book of the Prince”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6058" RevisionGUID="d542b845-6f0a-4a7c-850b-0cb255adce8f" CreationDate="2018-03-02T00:24:55.053" UserId="2418" Text="So, I'm in the USA, looking to teach my kids Latin, and casting about at different programs. What I'm noticing is that most, if not all, elementary-age Latin books (I'm talking about, say, third grade level) omit macrons, whereas high-school and college-level texts generally include them. I find that bizarre, since macrons are a significant aid to the student. Why would textbook authors for young children leave them out?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20027" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6058" RevisionGUID="d542b845-6f0a-4a7c-850b-0cb255adce8f" CreationDate="2018-03-02T00:24:55.053" UserId="2418" Text="Elementary Grade Latin Programs: Macrons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20028" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6058" RevisionGUID="d542b845-6f0a-4a7c-850b-0cb255adce8f" CreationDate="2018-03-02T00:24:55.053" UserId="2418" Text="|book|teaching-method|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6058" RevisionGUID="15157621-29f7-4811-ba8d-44b78cf09870" CreationDate="2018-03-02T13:37:53.950" UserId="2418" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="So, I'm in the USA, looking to teach my kids Latin, and casting about at different programs. What I'm noticing is that most, if not all, elementary-age Latin books (I'm talking about, say, third grade level) omit macrons, whereas high-school and college-level texts generally include them. I find that bizarre, since macrons are a significant aid to the student. Why would textbook authors for young children leave them out?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[EDIT] I've now seen a few that include them, but still quite a few that don't. It is a mystery to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6059" RevisionGUID="623df46c-8544-488c-a1d5-d039f6ea360f" CreationDate="2018-03-02T14:47:54.617" UserId="1982" Text="North &amp; Hillard Ex. 228 includes: &quot;Next day Caeser had again an army which, though diminished, was prepared to face all dangers manfully.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;A footnote states: &quot;Of the concessive conjunctions quamvis is most frequently used where the verb is omitted.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The Answer Book gives: &quot;postridie igitur Caeser exercitum habuit restitutum, qui, quamvis deminutus, pericula fortiter obire paratus est.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If deploying quamvis why not use the subjunctive as the grammatical rule requires, giving quamvis deminueretur?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20031" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6059" RevisionGUID="623df46c-8544-488c-a1d5-d039f6ea360f" CreationDate="2018-03-02T14:47:54.617" UserId="1982" Text="Obeying the Rules" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20032" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6059" RevisionGUID="623df46c-8544-488c-a1d5-d039f6ea360f" CreationDate="2018-03-02T14:47:54.617" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6060" RevisionGUID="74360e6f-c58f-4ab6-b694-185a9410cc0c" CreationDate="2018-03-02T15:05:01.467" UserId="645" Text="You do need a subjunctive, but here the pluperfect *diminutus esset* rather the imperfect that you propose provides the correct sequence of tenses. Just as the English omits the auxiliary verb, so has this been contracted (in a quite normal way) from 'though it had been diminished' to 'though diminished' by omitting *esset*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6057" RevisionGUID="95d44f63-0edb-4edd-859e-a3d8b14305f9" CreationDate="2018-03-02T19:46:44.943" UserId="79" Comment="added 269 characters in body" Text="Your translation is very good, given your description of your Latin background.&#xD;&#xA;The *tum&amp;ndash;tum* can be translated in a number of ways.&#xD;&#xA;Here is a fairly literal one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp;hellip;est enim tum magni laboris, tum fructus prope nullius*.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;hellip;because as often as it is of much work, so often it is of almost no fruit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is common in Latin to say that something is of much work (*magni laboris est*), but it sounds archaic or weird in English.&#xD;&#xA;The same applies to being of little fruit.&#xD;&#xA;Your translations &quot;requires a great deal of work&quot; and &quot;yields basically no fruit&quot; is very idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;The only missing component is the connective *tum&amp;ndash;tum*.&#xD;&#xA;For most natural English, I would simply translate it as &quot;but&quot; instead of your &quot;and&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;A more literal translation is a bit unwieldy, but I think &quot;but&quot; captures the essence of the original.&#xD;&#xA;(Your &quot;and&quot; is not wrong either. The Latin *tum&amp;ndash;tum* doesn't have a clear unique interpretation here. As brianpck comments, it can be more or less the same as *et&amp;ndash;et* here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you have slightly misunderstood the second sentence.&#xD;&#xA;I would translate *quorsum attinet* as &quot;what does it reach&quot;, i.e. &quot;what is the purpose/benefit of&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *reddere* has many possible meanings, but here I think it stands for &quot;repeat&quot; (lit. &quot;to give back&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;The participle *intellecta* means understood, so that *verba non intellecta* means &quot;words which have not been understood&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This leads to a new translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quorsum enim attinet, psittaci more, verba non intellecta reddere?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For what does one gain by repeating like a parrot words which have not been understood?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last sentence contains the imperative *accipe*, &quot;take&quot; or &quot;accept&quot; or similar.&#xD;&#xA;The comparative *commodiorem* (&quot;more convenient&quot;) modifies the noun *viam*.&#xD;&#xA;An implicit &quot;from me&quot; is a possible addition (thanks brianpck):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Commodiorem igitur viam [a me] accipe.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore take [from me] the more convenient way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overall story comes across accurately, but there were some missing details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6061" RevisionGUID="e22ea317-6add-4b02-8c4e-268aba87adc8" CreationDate="2018-03-02T22:44:20.953" UserId="79" Text="I agree that macrons are useful, but I can also see some reasons why others might oppose them.&#xD;&#xA;Here are some possible reasons to leave macrons out (with my comments):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Real-life Latin texts typically do not contain macrons. A student should learn to read a text without their aid. (This is a valid point, but not so much for elementary courses.)&#xD;&#xA;2. Adding the macrons to the text manually is a good exercise. This is something they will eventually have to do mentally when encountering real-life texts. (This I actually agree with. This assumes that the word lists provided in the textbook contain macrons even if the texts don't.)&#xD;&#xA;3. Macrons can make the text harder and slower to read. The text looks less cluttered in the absence of macrons. (A foreign language is slow and hard to read anyway. Macrons make parsing some things easier and can actually speed up the process. When you become more fluent, macrons can slow you down by visual cluttering, but this will not happen in an introductory course.)&#xD;&#xA;4. Macrons might not be seen as relevant enough. Perhaps it's better for students to focus on something else. (Personally I disagree! Learning vowel lengths correctly from the start is important. I would really hate someone telling that every vowel actually has a specific length, but nobody had told me before my third year of Latin. At least I would like to make the choice to omit myself.)&#xD;&#xA;5. Macrons can be technically hard to produce in print. (When it comes to producing a textbook, complaining that it takes effort to make the book more useful comes across unprofessional. It takes some work, but it's not really that hard. This may not have been so in all eras in the past, though.)&#xD;&#xA;6. Perhaps some see Latin with macrons as somehow impure. If you were thought that the only correct Latin is the kind without any such decorations, wouldn't you want to pass it on in its proper and high form? (I disagree. Learning with macrons help get a better grip of texts written without them.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6055" RevisionGUID="1820412e-8797-4048-9c22-9e226cfa431a" CreationDate="2018-03-03T06:11:46.017" UserId="867" Comment="added in my answer below because it rounds out my argument " Text="Of the small puddles that collect after rain, classical Latin seems to prefer *a small collection of water*.  For example, Lucretius uses ***conlectus aquae*** of a shallow puddle between paving stones, much as one would find after a recent downpour: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *At **conlectus aquae** digitum non altior unum,  &#xD;&#xA;qui lapides inter sistit per strata viarum,  &#xD;&#xA;despectum praebet sub terras impete tanto,  &#xD;&#xA;a terris quantum caeli patet altus hiatus,  &#xD;&#xA;nubila despicere et caelum ut videare et aperta  &#xD;&#xA;corpora mirande sub terras abdita cernas.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But a **puddle of water** no deeper than one finger, lying between the stones upon a paved street, offers a view downwards under the earth to as great a reach as the open heavens yawn on high, so that you seem to look down upon the clouds and heaven, and you see manifest objects miraculously buried beneath the earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*De Rerum Natura*, 4.414-419 (trans. W. H. D. Rouse)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, Apuleius uses ***conceptaculum aquae***, specifically in the context of recent rain: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nam forte pluviae pridianae recens **conceptaculum aquae lutulentae** proximum conspicatus ...*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It happened to have rained the day before, and I spotted a new&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **puddle of muddy water** nearby ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Metamorphoses*, 7.20&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ADDIT ***Stagnum***, on the other hand, seems to refer to something more like a pool of water or, at least, to a body of water larger than a puddle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Columella, writes of the importance of having a supply of water for pigs:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sed cum omni quadrupedi per aestatem sitis sit infesta, tum suillo&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maxime est inimica. Quare non ut capellam vel ovem, sic et hoc animal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bis ad aquam duci praecipimus: sed si fieri potest, iuxta flumen aut&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **stagnum** per ortum Caniculae detineri*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; While thirst in the summer is pernicious to all quadrupeds, it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; specially hurtful to pigs. We, therefore, advise that they should not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be taken to water twice a day, like goats and sheep, but that, if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possible, they should be kept in the neighbourhood of a river or pool&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at the time of the rising of the Dogstar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*On Agriculture*, 10.7.6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here, speaking of fish ponds:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Stagnum** censemus eximie optimum, quod sic positum est, ut insequens&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maris unda priorem submoveat, nec intra conseptum sinat remanere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; veterem*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; We consider that incomparably the best pond [for fish] is one which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is so situated that the incoming tide of the sea expels the water of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the previous tide and does not allow any stale water to remain within&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the enclosure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8.17.1 See also 8.14.2 re: providing water for geese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, in Caesar's *The African War*, he clearly refers to something other than a puddle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Erat **stagnum** salinarum, inter quod et mare angustiae quaedam non&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amplius mille et D passus intererant*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; There was a lagoon of salt water, separated from the sea by a certain&#xD;&#xA;&gt; narrow strip of land not more than a mile and a half wide&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caesar, *The African War*, 80&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid, at *Metamorphoses*, 4.297 (and ff), uses *stagnum* of the pool in which Salmacis bathes her limbs.  And again, at 5.411 (but read 409 ff for story), he speaks of Cyane, standing *up to her waist* in a *stagnum*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Lastly, Virgil specifies that they are deep:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cocyti **stagna alta** vides Stygiamque paludem*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Anchises], you are looking at the deep pools of Cocytus and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stygian marsh,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Aeneid*, 6.323" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6061" RevisionGUID="cf20c1cd-0d4e-4ab6-bdaf-98733bb43785" CreationDate="2018-03-03T11:26:07.657" UserId="79" Comment="added 481 characters in body" Text="I agree that macrons are useful, but I can also see some reasons why others might oppose them.&#xD;&#xA;Here are some possible reasons to leave macrons out (with my comments):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Real-life Latin texts typically do not contain macrons. A student should learn to read a text without their aid. (This is a valid point, but not so much for elementary courses.)&#xD;&#xA;2. Adding the macrons to the text manually is a good exercise. This is something they will eventually have to do mentally when encountering real-life texts. (This I actually agree with. This assumes that the word lists provided in the textbook contain macrons even if the texts don't. And if morphology or vocabulary is taught without macrons, there is no way to learn the correct lengths.)&#xD;&#xA;3. Macrons can make the text harder and slower to read. The text looks less cluttered in the absence of macrons. (A foreign language is slow and hard to read anyway. Macrons make parsing some things easier and can actually speed up the process. When you become more fluent, macrons can slow you down by visual cluttering, but this will not happen in an introductory course.)&#xD;&#xA;4. Macrons might not be seen as relevant enough. Perhaps it's better for students to focus on something else. (Personally I disagree! Learning vowel lengths correctly from the start is important. I would really hate someone telling me that every vowel actually has a specific length, but nobody had told me before my third year of Latin. At least I would like to make the choice to omit them myself.)&#xD;&#xA;5. Macrons can be technically hard to produce in print. (When it comes to producing a textbook, complaining that it takes effort to make the book more useful comes across unprofessional. It takes some work, but it's not really that hard. This may not have been so in all eras in the past, though.)&#xD;&#xA;6. Perhaps some see Latin with macrons as somehow impure. If you were thought that the only correct Latin is the kind without any such decorations, wouldn't you want to pass it on in its proper and high form? (I disagree. Learning with macrons help get a better grip of texts written without them.)&#xD;&#xA;7. There is no point in pronouncing Latin in the first place. If you learn to read old texts, why bother? (Some students might want to speak as well, and the teacher or the textbook author shouldn't make the decision on their behalf. The written and spoken forms also support each other, even if the eventual goal is reading skill. Moreover, classical literature was originally enjoyed by reading it out loud. For the genuine experience you need to be able to pronounce.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6063" RevisionGUID="344268b2-0e28-4286-8e43-fa5b3ad480ad" CreationDate="2018-03-03T14:22:54.413" UserId="79" Text="Is there a good example case where extant ancient literature has helped understand archaeological findings?&#xD;&#xA;This could mean, for example, a Roman author mentioning a tool and its use, which has helped us identify some archaeological findings that may have otherwise been left unexplained, or perhaps literature has helped locate or identify certain cities.&#xD;&#xA;The question in the title is broad, and I am not looking for an extensive description as whole.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I am looking for a single good example from ancient Rome or Greece." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20041" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6063" RevisionGUID="344268b2-0e28-4286-8e43-fa5b3ad480ad" CreationDate="2018-03-03T14:22:54.413" UserId="79" Text="How has literature helped archaeology?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20042" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6063" RevisionGUID="344268b2-0e28-4286-8e43-fa5b3ad480ad" CreationDate="2018-03-03T14:22:54.413" UserId="79" Text="|history|example-request|research|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6064" RevisionGUID="438179cd-ccb7-4473-8c56-d6abfbfc3bb4" CreationDate="2018-03-03T14:34:25.917" UserId="666" Text="There are a lot of words that have been created to describe elements of the internet, but I'm specifically interested in words to describe a web page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would I say web page and web site in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have any other Latin words for webpage elements I'd be interested in seeing those, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20044" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6064" RevisionGUID="438179cd-ccb7-4473-8c56-d6abfbfc3bb4" CreationDate="2018-03-03T14:34:25.917" UserId="666" Text="Latin words for websites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20045" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6064" RevisionGUID="438179cd-ccb7-4473-8c56-d6abfbfc3bb4" CreationDate="2018-03-03T14:34:25.917" UserId="666" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20046" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6064" RevisionGUID="4adef065-1c4e-40f5-88d5-d0d909dbda03" CreationDate="2018-03-03T17:29:44.863" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|vocabulary|word-request|contemporary-latin|modern-life|technology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6064" RevisionGUID="a2814d4e-9bac-4f4b-affc-562b064d5cf4" CreationDate="2018-03-03T19:56:12.807" UserId="666" Comment="More specifically about terms for the internet" Text="How would I refer to 'the web' or 'Internet' in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many words to describe the internet are just reapplied from other objects (e.g. 'page' from a book or 'site' as in a location).  Translating these is pretty straightforward (_page_ is just _pagina_).  But is there a word to use to specifically describe the internet (e.g. to say 'web page' or 'page of the web')?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20048" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6064" RevisionGUID="a2814d4e-9bac-4f4b-affc-562b064d5cf4" CreationDate="2018-03-03T19:56:12.807" UserId="666" Comment="More specifically about terms for the internet" Text="Latin word for 'the web' or 'Internet'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6065" RevisionGUID="7998f559-2531-47c7-b3d5-96dd390b2ec6" CreationDate="2018-03-03T20:26:13.997" UserId="666" Text="### LibreOffice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want spellchecking for Latin, someone's made a pretty decent LibreOffice [Latin spellcheck dictionary][1].  And LibreOffice works on Linux, Window, and Mac, is open source, free, and awesome, so you should have it anyways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After you install [LibreOffice][2], follow these instructions to install the [Latin spellcheck dictionary][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In LibreOffice, select Tools --&gt; Extension Manager from the menu bar.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the Extension Manager dialog click Add.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A file browser window opens. Navigate to the folder where you saved the LibreOffice&#xD;&#xA;&gt; extension file(s) on your system. The extension's files have the file&#xD;&#xA;&gt; extension 'OXT'.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Find and select the extension you want to install and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; click Open.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If this extension is already installed, you'll be prompted&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to press OK to confirm whether to overwrite the current version by the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; new one, or press Cancel to stop the installation.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; After you are asked&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whether to install the extension only for your user or for all users.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you choose the Only for me option, the extension will be installed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; only for your user. If you choose For all users, you need system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; administrator rights. In this case the extension will be available for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; all users. In general, choose Only for me, that doesn't require&#xD;&#xA;&gt; administration rights on the operating system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After this, in your document, go to **Tools &gt; Language &gt; For Selection &gt; More...**, and in the **Language** box select *Latin*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### If you really want to use Word...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Word 2003, you were able to go to **Tools &gt; Language** and change the document language to Latin.  It didn't do any spell checking, but hey, you got a little 'Latin' label in the bottom right instead of 'English' (or whatever language you use).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears they've stripped a bunch of the language options out of more recent versions of Word.  To stop spellcheck, under Tools &gt; Language you can always change it to a language that you don't have a spellcheck dictionary for (Latvian sounds close enough).  Or you can check the box that says _Do not check spelling or grammar_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you want to be really geeky, you can always use Vim...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://extensions.libreoffice.org/extensions/latin-spelling-and-hyphenation-dictionaries&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.libreoffice.org/download/download/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6066" RevisionGUID="1c429818-6a0c-49d5-91d7-138b739eff49" CreationDate="2018-03-03T20:57:57.967" UserId="2443" Text="1.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;My place is by the side of the Empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm waiting for my punishment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;My blood and marrow are yours. Do with them what you will.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, this isn't an English quote, neither is it from an official translation. Literally it should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_My blood and marrow is yours. Do with it what you will._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Blood and marrow&quot; refers to one's life, this is the resason of the the singular, but I don't know whether it would be possible in English and/or Latin.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20051" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6066" RevisionGUID="1c429818-6a0c-49d5-91d7-138b739eff49" CreationDate="2018-03-03T20:57:57.967" UserId="2443" Text="How to translate these sentences to Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20052" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6066" RevisionGUID="1c429818-6a0c-49d5-91d7-138b739eff49" CreationDate="2018-03-03T20:57:57.967" UserId="2443" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6066" RevisionGUID="408f369f-8678-4449-813f-a5c422636e7c" CreationDate="2018-03-04T16:07:17.417" UserId="136" Comment="Added context found in comment on post" Text="These are from a novel written in my native language. This is a fantasy novel with a fictional world, in which there's a language, which isn't elaborated IRL but it has some &quot;Latin-sounding&quot; words, e.g. in the in-world versions of the mentioned sentences. I'm just curious how they sound in the real Latin. I translated these sentences from my native language to English, only for this reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;My place is by the side of the Empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm waiting for my punishment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;My blood and marrow are yours. Do with them what you will.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, this isn't an English quote, neither is it from an official translation. Literally it should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_My blood and marrow is yours. Do with it what you will._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Blood and marrow&quot; refers to one's life, this is the resason of the the singular, but I don't know whether it would be possible in English and/or Latin.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6068" RevisionGUID="cf16318c-5034-4dcb-92db-30dfab0898a5" CreationDate="2018-03-04T18:00:04.123" UserId="2351" Text="How was **consonant + i + vowel** pronounced in Classical Latin - for example, in the words [*Gallia*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gallia) and [*diurnus*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/diurnus)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I googled a bit and found videos with [gallija], [gallia] and even [gallja], the first predominating. W. S. Allen's *Vox Latina—a Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin* ([page 40](https://books.google.ru/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA40)) says in footnote that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The pronunciation *[in some other situation]* may in fact have been no different from that of words like *diurnus*, where the *i* would automatically induce a consonantal *i*-glide before another vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If [ij] is indeed correct, then why neither [Wiktionary pronunciation guide](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_pronunciation#I_and_J) nor other online sources I found mention [j]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20058" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6068" RevisionGUID="cf16318c-5034-4dcb-92db-30dfab0898a5" CreationDate="2018-03-04T18:00:04.123" UserId="2351" Text="GalliJa? Was &quot;i&quot; between consonant and vowel pronounced &quot;ij&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20059" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6068" RevisionGUID="cf16318c-5034-4dcb-92db-30dfab0898a5" CreationDate="2018-03-04T18:00:04.123" UserId="2351" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6068" RevisionGUID="6df7acbd-38f1-4040-b4e3-b354bc4e796c" CreationDate="2018-03-04T18:46:16.527" UserId="2351" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="How was **consonant + i + vowel** pronounced in Classical Latin - for example, in the words [*Gallia*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gallia) and [*diurnus*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/diurnus)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I googled a bit and found videos sounding for me like [gallija], [gallia] and even [gallja], the first predominating. W. S. Allen's *Vox Latina—a Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin* ([page 40](https://books.google.ru/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA40)) says in a footnote that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The pronunciation *[in some other situation]* may in fact have been no different from that of words like *diurnus*, where the *i* would automatically induce a consonantal *i*-glide before another vowel,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but does not mention it in the main text. If [ij] is indeed correct, then why neither [Wiktionary pronunciation guide](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_pronunciation#I_and_J) nor other online sources I found mention [j]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6066" RevisionGUID="825b15e1-f296-4b6b-aa09-5f0d790a1fcc" CreationDate="2018-03-04T20:30:45.777" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and reformatted slightly." Text="These are from a novel written in my native language. This is a fantasy novel with a fictional world, in which there's a language, which isn't elaborated IRL but it has some &quot;Latin-sounding&quot; words, e.g. in the in-world versions of the mentioned sentences. I'm just curious how they sound in the real Latin. I translated these sentences from my native language to English, only for this reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;My place is by the side of the Empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm waiting for my punishment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;My blood and marrow are yours. Do with them what you will.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, this isn't an English quote, neither is it from an official translation. Literally it should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_My blood and marrow is yours. Do with it what you will._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Blood and marrow&quot; refers to one's life, this is the resason of the the singular, but I don't know whether it would be possible in English and/or Latin.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20062" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6066" RevisionGUID="825b15e1-f296-4b6b-aa09-5f0d790a1fcc" CreationDate="2018-03-04T20:30:45.777" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and reformatted slightly." Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6069" RevisionGUID="957a66ef-7614-4d35-9802-aa0e03971b58" CreationDate="2018-03-04T20:45:19.930" UserId="79" Text="The word I have always used and often seen in use for the internet is ***interrete***.&#xD;&#xA;The third declension neuter *rete* means &quot;net&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;A *rete* can be used for catching animals or [fighting on the arena](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retiarius).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix *inter-* is of course of Latin origin, so it makes sense to translate &quot;inter-net&quot; as *inter-rete*.&#xD;&#xA;By analogy to the ancient net-fighter, I like calling internet users *interretiarii*.&#xD;&#xA;Another natural derivative is the adjective *interretialis*, which can be used to describe a &quot;web page&quot;, *pagina interretialis*.&#xD;&#xA;The page in this context is clearly an extension of the page of a book, and *pagina* is the perfect word for that purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to refer to a network other than the internet, one option is [*nexus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DN%3Aentry+group%3D12%3Aentry%3Dnexus2).&#xD;&#xA;That word is often used as a translation for &quot;link&quot;, though, so it might be confusing.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the best general word for &quot;network&quot; or &quot;web&quot; is simply *rete*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One option is to use the word *tela* (a spider's web), but I prefer *interrete* because the prefix reminds of the same word in other languages, whereas *tela* can be harder to grasp if you have never heard it before.&#xD;&#xA;As always with technology, there is no single canonical correct translation to Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20064" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5800" RevisionGUID="48b6ec09-843a-4134-b40b-5d50a18a97f0" CreationDate="2018-03-05T02:54:13.393" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="20065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6070" RevisionGUID="49e40f2d-10ac-4dbd-85a5-a4153499dba8" CreationDate="2018-03-05T10:29:32.620" UserId="2445" Text="Here are few definitions, which I found, of what &quot;et alibi&quot; means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- And elsewhere; used to terminate lists of passages in a text ([link](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/et_alibi)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In lists of places, _et alibi_ (meaning &quot;and elsewhere&quot;) is used in place of _etc._ ([link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_cetera)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A less common variant on _et cetera_ used at the end of a list of locations to denote unlisted places ([link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(E))).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here are few examples of usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;[Quote.]&quot; Letter of Philip to the Bishop of Arras, (February 12, 1559,) ap. Papiers d'État de Granvelle, tom. V. p. 454, et alibi ([link](https://archive.org/stream/historyofreig01pres#page/270/mode/2up)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Casparis Barlæi, rerum per octennium in Brasilia et alibi nuper gestarum, sub præfectura illustrissimi Comitis I. Mauritii, Nassoviæ, &amp;c. comitis, nunc Vesaliæ gubernatoris &amp; equitatus fderatorum Belgii ordd. sub Auriaco ductoris, historia ([link](https://archive.org/stream/casparisbarlirer01baer#page/n5/mode/2up)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand from these examples, _et alibi_ can be used in **both** cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- To refer to unlisted *places in the text* (p. 454, et alibi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ... As well as a reference to unlisted *geographical locations* (Brasilia et alibi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it correct assumption? (It was the first part of the question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, what does the 1st example actually mean? &quot;Tom. V. p. 454, et alibi&quot; - how it could be translated to simple words of modern English? I can't understand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20066" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6070" RevisionGUID="49e40f2d-10ac-4dbd-85a5-a4153499dba8" CreationDate="2018-03-05T10:29:32.620" UserId="2445" Text="What does &quot;et alibi&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20067" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6070" RevisionGUID="49e40f2d-10ac-4dbd-85a5-a4153499dba8" CreationDate="2018-03-05T10:29:32.620" UserId="2445" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20068" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6070" RevisionGUID="fc74c6d2-99a9-46f2-bda6-5db96c36998f" CreationDate="2018-03-05T11:06:14.127" UserId="2445" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|meaning|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6070" RevisionGUID="4916fe18-2223-4609-a9cc-24763ab836cf" CreationDate="2018-03-05T13:36:23.057" UserId="2445" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Here are few definitions, which I found, of what &quot;et alibi&quot; means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- And elsewhere; used to terminate lists of passages in a text ([link](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/et_alibi)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In lists of places, _et alibi_ (meaning &quot;and elsewhere&quot;) is used in place of _etc._ ([link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_cetera)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A less common variant on _et cetera_ used at the end of a list of locations to denote unlisted places ([link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(E))).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here are few examples of usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;[Quote.]&quot; Letter of Philip to the Bishop of Arras, (February 12, 1559,) ap. Papiers d'État de Granvelle, tom. V. p. 454, et alibi ([link](https://archive.org/stream/historyofreig01pres#page/270/mode/2up)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Casparis Barlæi, rerum per octennium in Brasilia et alibi nuper gestarum, sub præfectura illustrissimi Comitis I. Mauritii, Nassoviæ, &amp;c. comitis, nunc Vesaliæ gubernatoris &amp; equitatus fderatorum Belgii ordd. sub Auriaco ductoris, historia ([link](https://archive.org/stream/casparisbarlirer01baer#page/n5/mode/2up)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand from these examples, _et alibi_ can be used in **both** cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- To refer to unlisted *places in the text* (p. 454, et alibi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ... As well as a reference to unlisted *geographical locations* (Brasilia et alibi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it correct assumption? (It was the first part of the question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, what does the 1st example actually mean? &quot;Tom. V. p. 454, et alibi&quot; - how it could be translated to simple words of modern English? I can't understand (see the comments)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6071" RevisionGUID="4d04a7f4-7a7a-41de-ba8e-809f98e95713" CreationDate="2018-03-05T13:43:05.663" UserId="45" Text="[*Alibi*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dalibi) has a pretty straightforward translation, which you mention: &quot;elsewhere,&quot; though there are cases, mentioned in the linked entry, where it can have other meanings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two cases you cite all use this primary meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In a footnote, *alibi* at the end is a Latinate (and, by my reckoning, no longer used) way of indicating that a certain item can also be found &quot;elsewhere&quot; in the text. A more common way of doing the same thing in current scholarship is to write &quot;*et passim*&quot; (&quot;and scattered about&quot;) at the end of a citation. There are [quite a few examples](https://www.google.com/search?q=alibi+passim) of the two combined: &quot;*et alibi, passim*.&quot; This is usually done when one citation is sufficient to make a scholarly point, but you want to emphasize that this is not the only time it occurs.&#xD;&#xA;* The second example is just a part of the Latin title and means &quot;elsewhere,&quot; referring to actual locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that citations by convention are referred to as a *locus* (e.g. *eodem loco*), it should come as no surprise that *alibi* can cover both cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1577" RevisionGUID="b9ea2bc3-6022-4baf-91f6-d86847c0db93" CreationDate="2018-03-05T21:37:10.093" UserId="79" Comment="added 240 characters in body" Text="Let me offer a new transcription and translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In tam perniciosa varietate fanaticarum et pestilentium opinionum, quibus hoc aevo misere orbem concutit Christianum Satan, non minimum eam momenti esse sentio, princeps ilustrissime: quam idem ille velut perditissimum seminarium, mentibus hominum insevit incantamentorum nomine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In such a pernicious variety of fanatic and dangerous beliefs, by which Satan shatters the Christian world in this miserable era, I do not consider this to be of little importance, o glorious prince: he himself, as a corrupted nursery garden, implanted human minds with the name of incantation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a relatively quick translation, and errors and room for improvement can probably be found.&#xD;&#xA;(Let me know if you have suggestions!)&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate can help you get started, sure, but it is often very unreliable with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Your translation includes some peculiar suggestions, like &quot;Chistian Satan&quot;, completely untranslated words, and a weird overall structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many grammatical details of the passage are unclear to me, although the big picture is clear.&#xD;&#xA;I think *minimum* is adverbial, like *minime*.&#xD;&#xA;I guess *eam* means *eam rem* and *quam* is an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;Any insight into these would be welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6072" RevisionGUID="310cfa33-3128-49d0-bd57-256611e0c1f3" CreationDate="2018-03-05T23:12:54.557" UserId="2446" Text="[![IMAGE of Inscription from Caserma dei Vigili in Ostia Antica][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q37NM.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I got the rest of the inscription figured out. It is a dedication to Marcus Aurelius. **But what does the last abbreviation, D.D.P., stand for?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inscription is from a statue base in Caserma dei Vigili&#xD;&#xA;in Ostia Antica." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20076" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6072" RevisionGUID="310cfa33-3128-49d0-bd57-256611e0c1f3" CreationDate="2018-03-05T23:12:54.557" UserId="2446" Text="What does D.D.P. mean in this inscription? (see image)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20077" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6072" RevisionGUID="310cfa33-3128-49d0-bd57-256611e0c1f3" CreationDate="2018-03-05T23:12:54.557" UserId="2446" Text="|abbreviations|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6073" RevisionGUID="9248eb66-bcb3-4edc-b331-a1e109b96198" CreationDate="2018-03-06T02:02:13.053" UserId="45" Text="According to Sandys's [*Latin Epigraphy: An Introduction to the Study of Latin Inscriptions*](https://books.google.com/books?id=Vzc9AAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA298), &quot;D.D.P.&quot; stands for: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **decreto decurionum publice**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last &quot;P&quot; is sometimes replaced with &quot;P.P.&quot; or &quot;PEC PUB&quot;: **pecunia publica**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [*decurio*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decurion_(administrative)) was a public official who, among other things, collected local taxes and was responsible for certain public works. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is essentially the Latin equivalent of, &quot;Your local tax dollars at work!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20081" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5201" RevisionGUID="18b630a0-ffab-4ba9-bbf1-e52c6534efac" CreationDate="2018-03-06T12:56:20.823" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="20085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6075" RevisionGUID="6e20b6fc-d3c5-42ec-b59d-8f1a16675f0d" CreationDate="2018-03-06T17:57:06.253" UserId="2449" Text="I'm in university and in creative writing they asked from us to write a short story. I chose a mistery story and composed this sentence for it: Omni usurpant optimes sapientes virtutes acceptum verum vitam. I tried hard to make it look like the decoded message from the shugborough statue. I know it is not syntactically correct, but does it make any sense? And what should I change to make it grammaticaly better. Thanks in advance, I really appreciate it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20086" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6075" RevisionGUID="6e20b6fc-d3c5-42ec-b59d-8f1a16675f0d" CreationDate="2018-03-06T17:57:06.253" UserId="2449" Text="Is the following sentence grammatically correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20087" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6075" RevisionGUID="6e20b6fc-d3c5-42ec-b59d-8f1a16675f0d" CreationDate="2018-03-06T17:57:06.253" UserId="2449" Text="|grammar-choice|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6075" RevisionGUID="0be22f64-8eec-4d98-afee-67bea687496b" CreationDate="2018-03-06T18:18:20.270" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 36 characters in body" Text="I'm in university and in creative writing they asked us to write a short story. I chose a mystery story and composed this sentence for it: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omni usurpant optimes sapientes virtutes acceptum verum vitam. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried hard to make it look like the decoded message from the Shugborough statue. I know it is not syntactically correct, but does it make any sense? And what should I change to make it grammatically better? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6076" RevisionGUID="cd078e2a-b62e-4bac-828d-01c858b5a255" CreationDate="2018-03-06T23:34:09.883" UserId="79" Text="The forms *ipse*, *ille*, and *iste* look like vocatives instead of nominatives, and one would expect to see *ipsus*, *illus*, and *istus* instead.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a reason for this unusual morphology?&#xD;&#xA;Is it related to the vocative (perhaps having a similar origin) or is the similarity coincidental?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20090" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6076" RevisionGUID="cd078e2a-b62e-4bac-828d-01c858b5a255" CreationDate="2018-03-06T23:34:09.883" UserId="79" Text="Why do some pronoun nominatives look like vocatives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20091" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6076" RevisionGUID="cd078e2a-b62e-4bac-828d-01c858b5a255" CreationDate="2018-03-06T23:34:09.883" UserId="79" Text="|morphology|pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6077" RevisionGUID="1fb68bf5-f40f-4714-a7fa-e810f9221f51" CreationDate="2018-03-07T01:38:57.190" UserId="9" Text="Based on the phonetics of Romance languages, many of which show glides matching the frontness or backness of the preceding vowel between vowels that were in hiatus in Latin (discussed in &quot;[The Development of Latin Hiatus Groups in the Romance Languages][1]&quot;, by Gail Keith Meadows, 1948, an article that Draconis linked to in an answer to this Linguistics SE question: [Etymologically, why is there a v in “Giovanni”][2]) it seems likely that Latin speakers had a [w]-like gliding transition  between /u/ and a following vowel in hiatus rather than a glottal stop transition. That said, I don't know of any clear evidence that absolutely rules out the use of glottal stops to separate vowels in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other thing that is relevant is that in certain time periods, at least, Classical Latin thought to have had a distinction in quality as well as quantity between long /iː, uː/, realized as high [iː, uː], and and short /i, u/ realized as [ ɪ, ʊ]. However, there is speculation that metrically short vowels preceding other vowels were realized with quality closer to the quality of a long vowel. (There is also evidence for the mid vowels having distinct qualities, /e, o/ [ɛ, ɔ] vs. /eː, oː/ [eː, oː], past a certain point—sorry, I forget the timeline.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;parvus&quot; may have been pronounced [ˈparwʊs], and &quot;metuunt&quot; may have been pronounced something like [ˈmɛtuʊnt], [ˈmɛtʊwʊnt] or [ˈmɛtuwʊnt].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/459683?seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/20816/etymologically-why-is-there-a-v-in-giovanni/20818#20818" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6077" RevisionGUID="10428700-b9ff-42d2-95d0-b5f97f976df6" CreationDate="2018-03-07T01:44:30.100" UserId="9" Comment="added 375 characters in body" Text="Based on the phonetics of Romance languages, many of which show glides matching the frontness or backness of the preceding vowel between vowels that were in hiatus in Latin (discussed in &quot;[The Development of Latin Hiatus Groups in the Romance Languages][1]&quot;, by Gail Keith Meadows, 1948, an article that Draconis linked to in an answer to this Linguistics SE question: [Etymologically, why is there a v in “Giovanni”][2]) it seems likely that Latin speakers had a [w]-like gliding transition  between /u/ and a following vowel in hiatus rather than a glottal stop transition. That said, I don't know of any clear evidence that absolutely rules out the use of glottal stops to separate vowels in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other thing that is relevant is that in certain time periods, at least, Classical Latin thought to have had a distinction in quality as well as quantity between long /iː, uː/, realized as high [iː, uː], and and short /i, u/ realized as [ɪ, ʊ]. We have evidence for this in the usual Proto-Romance reflexes of Latin /iː, uː/ as *i, *u vs. the usual reflexes of Latin /i, u/ as *e, *o. I believe there is also some evidence from Roman descriptions of the sounds of Latin, and there is some possible historical support also in that /u/ and /i/ in Classical Latin are often the result of vowel-reduction sound changes. (There is also evidence for the mid vowels having distinct qualities, /e, o/ [ɛ, ɔ] vs. /eː, oː/ [eː, oː], past a certain point—sorry, I forget the timeline.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is speculation that metrically short vowels *preceding other vowels* were however realized with a quality closer to the quality of a long vowel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;parvus&quot; may have been pronounced [ˈparwʊs], and &quot;metuunt&quot; may have been pronounced something like [ˈmɛtuʊnt], [ˈmɛtʊwʊnt] or [ˈmɛtuwʊnt].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/459683?seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/20816/etymologically-why-is-there-a-v-in-giovanni/20818#20818" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6078" RevisionGUID="96985cb5-164e-424c-8492-98417d401bfa" CreationDate="2018-03-07T04:20:59.897" UserId="406" Text="The Greek word for the moon is σελήνη *selēnē*, σελᾱνᾱ *selānā*, or σελάννᾱ *selánnā*, depending on dialect. All seem to come transparently from the same root as σέλας *sélas*, &quot;shine&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But since these both appear to be native words (hence the varying across dialects), why do they show initial /s/? I was taught that initial /s/ became /h/ in early Greek, hence cognates *sept-* versus *hept-*, *semi-* versus *hemi-*, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20095" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6078" RevisionGUID="96985cb5-164e-424c-8492-98417d401bfa" CreationDate="2018-03-07T04:20:59.897" UserId="406" Text="Why σελήνη instead of ἑλήνη?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20096" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6078" RevisionGUID="96985cb5-164e-424c-8492-98417d401bfa" CreationDate="2018-03-07T04:20:59.897" UserId="406" Text="|etymology|greek|phonology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6079" RevisionGUID="5c0f61ce-1a6c-4237-8621-41fb1a32b351" CreationDate="2018-03-07T17:54:04.527" UserId="45" Text="Here is a list of phases that we distinguish in English (taken from [here](http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/java/MoonPhase.html)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Full Moon&#xD;&#xA;* Waning Gibbous Moon&#xD;&#xA;* Last Quarter Moon&#xD;&#xA;* Waning Crescent Moon&#xD;&#xA;* New Moon&#xD;&#xA;* Waxing Crescent Moon&#xD;&#xA;* First Quarter Moon&#xD;&#xA;* Waxing Gibbous Moon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Latin distinguish the same phases of the moon? If so, I'd love a comprehensive list of words (and examples!) that Romans (or later astronomers) would use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20098" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6079" RevisionGUID="5c0f61ce-1a6c-4237-8621-41fb1a32b351" CreationDate="2018-03-07T17:54:04.527" UserId="45" Text="What are the moon phases in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20099" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6079" RevisionGUID="5c0f61ce-1a6c-4237-8621-41fb1a32b351" CreationDate="2018-03-07T17:54:04.527" UserId="45" Text="|vocabulary|nature|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6077" RevisionGUID="b4555975-ef30-4f07-a409-84bd95c7fe32" CreationDate="2018-03-07T19:08:10.520" UserId="9" Comment="added 1027 characters in body" Text="Based on the phonetics of Romance languages, many of which show glides matching the frontness or backness of the preceding vowel between vowels that were in hiatus in Latin (discussed in &quot;[The Development of Latin Hiatus Groups in the Romance Languages][1]&quot;, by Gail Keith Meadows, 1948, an article that Draconis linked to in an answer to this Linguistics SE question: [Etymologically, why is there a v in “Giovanni”][2]) it seems likely that Latin speakers had a [w]-like gliding transition  between /u/ and a following vowel in hiatus rather than a glottal stop transition. That said, I don't know of any clear evidence that absolutely rules out the use of glottal stops to separate vowels in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other thing that is relevant is that in certain time periods, at least, Classical Latin thought to have had a distinction in quality as well as quantity between long /iː, uː/, realized as high [iː, uː], and and short /i, u/ realized as [ɪ, ʊ]. We have evidence for this in the usual Proto-Romance reflexes of Latin /iː, uː/ as *i, *u vs. the usual reflexes of Latin /i, u/ as *e, *o. I believe there is also some evidence from Roman descriptions of the sounds of Latin, and there is some possible historical support also in that /u/ and /i/ in Classical Latin are often the result of vowel-reduction sound changes. (There is also evidence for the mid vowels having distinct qualities, /e, o/ [ɛ, ɔ] vs. /eː, oː/ [eː, oː], past a certain point—sorry, I forget the timeline.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is speculation that metrically short vowels *preceding other vowels* were however realized with a quality closer to the quality of a long vowel. &#xD;&#xA;Meadows in fact wrote article about this topic: &quot;[Hiatus and Vocalic Quality in Classical and Vulgar Latin][3]&quot;. I believe it is also mentioned in Allen's *Vox Latina.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;parvus&quot; may have been pronounced [ˈparwʊs], and &quot;metuunt&quot; may have been pronounced something like [ˈmɛtuʊnt], [ˈmɛtʊwʊnt] or [ˈmɛtuwʊnt].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Alex B points out in the comments, we have evidence that in some varieties of speech vowels that were orginally in hiatus sometimes came to be separated by a glide that wasn't homorganic to the preceding vowel; Meadows mentions evidence for this phenomenon in Romance languages and also mentions other kinds of non-glide epenthetic consonants like *r* in [&quot;afiree&quot; for &quot;afiee&quot;][4] (&quot;promised&quot;) in Old French or *d* in Lombard (example: *füdess* &lt; CL *fuissem*). I don't know if people have identified any regular patterns for epenthesis of that sort in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/459683?seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/20816/etymologically-why-is-there-a-v-in-giovanni/20818#20818&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/267006?seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=yt0qAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA271&amp;lpg=PA271&amp;dq=%22afiree%22%20afiee&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=38doICsNWg&amp;sig=MCqrobeymGFBs_iwDAj8y8_cr3c&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjRx73P89rZAhUDUa0KHUXfCLsQ6AEINDAC#v=onepage&amp;q=%22afiree%22%20afiee&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6078" RevisionGUID="c758a35a-888c-4f7f-9a6e-09c9f5a6af2f" CreationDate="2018-03-07T19:21:46.610" UserId="406" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="The Greek word for the moon is σελήνη *selēnē*, σελᾱνᾱ *selānā*, or σελάννᾱ *selánnā*, depending on dialect. All seem to come transparently from the same root as σέλας *sélas*, &quot;shine&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But since these both appear to be native words (hence the varying across dialects), why do they show initial /s/? I was taught that initial /s/ before a vowel became /h/ in early Greek, hence cognates *sept-* versus *hept-*, *semi-* versus *hemi-*, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6080" RevisionGUID="9287c9fb-5d12-418a-b991-5d6746f3df05" CreationDate="2018-03-07T19:44:11.457" UserId="324" Text="I should think that all of these have names in Latin. From my reading I recall only a passage in Pliny, Nat. 16.190, where he says that the time of conjunction (true new moon) has three names: coitus, dies interlunii and dies silentis lunae. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inter omnes vero convenit utilissime in coitu eius sterni, quem diem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alii interlunii, alii silentis lunae appellant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6081" RevisionGUID="d7ebc379-346c-4363-964d-e05d11a8a59a" CreationDate="2018-03-07T19:55:02.217" UserId="2452" Text="How can I say &quot;sleep debt&quot; or &quot;chronically not sleeping enough&quot; in classical Latin? I have big doubts that this term was not used by doctors, but can not find a correct translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6081" RevisionGUID="d7ebc379-346c-4363-964d-e05d11a8a59a" CreationDate="2018-03-07T19:55:02.217" UserId="2452" Text="What is &quot;Sleep debt&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20105" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6081" RevisionGUID="d7ebc379-346c-4363-964d-e05d11a8a59a" CreationDate="2018-03-07T19:55:02.217" UserId="2452" Text="|classical-latin|translation|medicine|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6081" RevisionGUID="fe1fe358-b7c9-4b23-8d42-d228ba01f3db" CreationDate="2018-03-07T20:01:46.113" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="How can I say &quot;sleep debt&quot; or &quot;chronically not sleeping enough&quot; in classical Latin? I have big doubts that this term was not used by doctors, but can not find a correct translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20107" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6081" RevisionGUID="fe1fe358-b7c9-4b23-8d42-d228ba01f3db" CreationDate="2018-03-07T20:01:46.113" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|medicine|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6082" RevisionGUID="61be3b3c-0003-461b-b88d-69dc3c14acd2" CreationDate="2018-03-07T20:40:27.213" UserId="469" Text="This question makes me recall my childhood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Complete list (medieval)&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [Harmonia Macrocosmica][1] by [Andreas Cellarius][2] (XVII century,) the phases are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* New Moon: **Novilunium** *(Soli coniuncta)*,&#xD;&#xA;* Waxing: **Cornicularis** *(in aspectu sextili)*,&#xD;&#xA;* Quarter: **Dimidiata** *(in aspectu quadrato)*, &#xD;&#xA;* Waning: **In orbem insinuata** *(in aspectu trino vel trigono)* and &#xD;&#xA;* Full: **Plenilunium** *(Soli opposita)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intermediate ones, in turn, may be **crescens** and **decrescens** (remember Carmina Burana/O Fortuna?) He even goes to name the phase for every single day of the lunar cicle (larger image [here][3].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Older uses:&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Novilunium][5] and [plenilunium][6] are postclassical, and according to L&amp;S, classical names were **luna nova** and **luna plena**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Luna][7] entry in L&amp;S lists **crescens** and **decrescens**, as well as instances of **dimidiata** (by Cato,) **extrema** and **prima** (by Varro) and specific days as counted from the last New Moon (e.g. **quinta decima luna**, [Columella, *Res Rustica*, 2, 10][8]), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cellarius_Harmonia_Macrocosmica&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Cellarius&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Typus_selenographicus_Lunae_phases_et_aspectus_varios_adumbrans_-_CBT_5870173.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yQuBb.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnovilunium&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dplenilunium&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=luna1&amp;highlight=luna%2Ccrescens&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Col.%202.10&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0504" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6082" RevisionGUID="b4858655-6263-48d8-84ca-3e64bd105659" CreationDate="2018-03-07T20:47:08.743" UserId="469" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="This question makes me recall my childhood. I see two approaches to an answer: 1. there is a complete list from a XVII century author, and 2. a compilation of names by L&amp;S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Complete list (late Latin)&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [Harmonia Macrocosmica][1] by [Andreas Cellarius][2] (XVII century,) the phases are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* New Moon: **Novilunium** *(Soli coniuncta)*,&#xD;&#xA;* Waxing: **Cornicularis** *(in aspectu sextili)*,&#xD;&#xA;* Quarter: **Dimidiata** *(in aspectu quadrato)*, &#xD;&#xA;* Waning: **In orbem insinuata** *(in aspectu trino vel trigono)* and &#xD;&#xA;* Full: **Plenilunium** *(Soli opposita)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intermediate ones, in turn, may be **crescens** and **decrescens** (remember Carmina Burana/O Fortuna?) He even goes to name the phase for every single day of the lunar cicle (larger image [here][3].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Older uses:&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Novilunium][5] and [plenilunium][6] are postclassical, and according to L&amp;S, classical names were **luna nova** and **luna plena**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Luna][7] entry in L&amp;S lists **crescens** and **decrescens**, as well as instances of **dimidiata** (by Cato,) **extrema** and **prima** (by Varro) and specific days as counted from the last New Moon (e.g. **quinta decima luna**, [Columella, *Res Rustica*, 2, 10][8]), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cellarius_Harmonia_Macrocosmica&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Cellarius&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Typus_selenographicus_Lunae_phases_et_aspectus_varios_adumbrans_-_CBT_5870173.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yQuBb.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnovilunium&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dplenilunium&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=luna1&amp;highlight=luna%2Ccrescens&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Col.%202.10&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0504" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6083" RevisionGUID="f61fe6c9-5a01-411f-b817-00654ef01c9a" CreationDate="2018-03-07T20:56:41.593" UserId="406" Text="The main word I'd use is the same as in English: *insomnia* (first feminine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See for example Pliny 18.115-119:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Praevalens pulmentarii cibo set hebetare sensus existimata, **insomnia** quoque facere, ob haec Pythagoricae sententiae damnata, aut ut alii tradidere, quoniam mortuorum animae sint in ea, qua de causa parentando utique adsumitur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Trans Loeb:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The bean] occupies a high place as a delicacy for the table, but it was thought to have a dulling effect on the senses, and also to cause **sleeplessness**, and it was under a ban with the Pythagorean system on that account—or, as others have reported, because the souls of the dead are contained in a bean, and at all events it is for that reason that beans are employed in memorial sacrifices to dead relatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or 20.190-191:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Insomnia** levat suspensum in pulvino, ut dormientes olefaciant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Trans mine:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Anise] hung over the pillow, so that the sleepers can smell it, relieves **sleeplessness**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difficulty with this word is that *insomnium* (second neuter) can also mean a dream, from *in-* &quot;in&quot; rather than *in-* &quot;not&quot;. But the ambiguity only arises in the nominative and vocative, and context should make it clear that you're referring to sleeplessness and not dreams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another useful word is *vigilia*, &quot;being awake&quot;. To me *vigilia* is a more temporary state, being awake for one night to keep watch for instance, rather than being awake for days on end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one last Pliny quote, showing both the ambiguity and the use of *vigilia*, see 20.84-86:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Insomnia** etiam **vigilias**que tollere decoctam, si ieiuni edint quam plurimam ex oleo et sale…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Trans mine:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [He says that cabbage], boiled, relieves **dreams**(?) and **wakefulness**, if hungry people eat as much as possible with oil and salt…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The case ending indicates that *insomnia* here must mean &quot;dreams&quot;, but the context implies &quot;sleeplessness&quot;. Loeb has a note saying that the &quot;sleeplessness&quot; meaning is the generally accepted one, as though it were *insomniās*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6082" RevisionGUID="1cc6acf5-ee8d-409f-8f3e-ab16323552ca" CreationDate="2018-03-07T20:57:27.533" UserId="469" Comment="corrected error derived from my understanding of the English names of phases, added symbols" Text="This question makes me recall my childhood. I see two approaches to an answer: 1. there is a complete list from a XVII century author, and 2. a compilation of names by L&amp;S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Complete list (late Latin)&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [Harmonia Macrocosmica][1] by [Andreas Cellarius][2] (XVII century,) the phases are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  New Moon: **Novilunium** *(Soli coniuncta)*,&#xD;&#xA;*  Crescent: **Cornicularis** *(in aspectu sextili)*,&#xD;&#xA;*  Quarter: **Dimidiata** *(in aspectu quadrato)*, &#xD;&#xA;*  Gibbous: **In orbem insinuata** *(in aspectu trino vel trigono)* and &#xD;&#xA;*  Full: **Plenilunium** *(Soli opposita)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intermediate ones, in turn, may be **crescens** ( waxing) and **decrescens** ( waning; remember Carmina Burana/O Fortuna?) He even goes to name the phase for every single day of the lunar cicle (larger image [here][3].) Note that in English *crescent* refers to the shape (), while in Latin *crescens* means *growing* (i.e. waxing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Older uses:&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Novilunium][5] and [plenilunium][6] are postclassical, and according to L&amp;S, classical names were **luna nova** and **luna plena**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Luna][7] entry in L&amp;S lists **crescens** and **decrescens**, as well as instances of **dimidiata** (by Cato,) **extrema** and **prima** (by Varro) and specific days as counted from the last New Moon (e.g. **quinta decima luna**, [Columella, *Res Rustica*, 2, 10][8]), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cellarius_Harmonia_Macrocosmica&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Cellarius&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Typus_selenographicus_Lunae_phases_et_aspectus_varios_adumbrans_-_CBT_5870173.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yQuBb.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnovilunium&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dplenilunium&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=luna1&amp;highlight=luna%2Ccrescens&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Col.%202.10&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0504" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6082" RevisionGUID="71af357a-1a67-4d14-a693-a482ea684b64" CreationDate="2018-03-07T21:07:43.800" UserId="469" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="This question makes me recall my childhood. I see two approaches to an answer: 1. there is a complete list from a XVII century author, and 2. a compilation of classical and post-classical names by L&amp;S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Complete list (late Latin)&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [Harmonia Macrocosmica][1] by [Andreas Cellarius][2] (XVII century,) the phases are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  New Moon: **Novilunium** *(Soli coniuncta)*,&#xD;&#xA;*  Crescent: **Cornicularis** *(in aspectu sextili)*,&#xD;&#xA;*  Quarter: **Dimidiata** *(in aspectu quadrato)*, &#xD;&#xA;*  Gibbous: **In orbem insinuata** *(in aspectu trino vel trigono)* and &#xD;&#xA;*  Full: **Plenilunium** *(Soli opposita)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intermediate ones, in turn, may be **crescens** ( waxing) and **decrescens** ( waning; remember Carmina Burana/O Fortuna?) He even goes to name the phase for every single day of the lunar cicle (larger image [here][3].) Note that in English *crescent* refers to the shape (), while in Latin *crescens* means *growing* (i.e. waxing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Older uses:&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Novilunium][5] and [plenilunium][6] are postclassical, and according to L&amp;S, classical names were **luna nova** and **luna plena**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Luna][7] entry in L&amp;S lists **crescens** and **decrescens**, as well as instances of **dimidiata** (by Cato,) **extrema** and **prima** (by Varro) and specific days as counted from the last New Moon (e.g. **quinta decima luna**, [Columella, *Res Rustica*, 2, 10][8]), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cellarius_Harmonia_Macrocosmica&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Cellarius&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Typus_selenographicus_Lunae_phases_et_aspectus_varios_adumbrans_-_CBT_5870173.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yQuBb.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnovilunium&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dplenilunium&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=luna1&amp;highlight=luna%2Ccrescens&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Col.%202.10&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0504" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6084" RevisionGUID="af3853fc-ed1b-414d-8db2-1f5f6e424f11" CreationDate="2018-03-08T05:28:10.063" UserId="2984" Text="My wife and I have built a forever home on 25 acres just outside a small country town (population approximately 8000) in Australia. We have joked over the years that we are doing this because we are hermits or reclusive. I would like to have the property signposted as &quot;Hermit Farm&quot; in latin, probably in the form of a farm that produces hermits, as a farm might produce wheat or pigs. So far the best fit seems to be &quot;Villa Eremita&quot; or &quot;Eremita Agellus&quot;, but the former seems to suggest a grand country estate, whereas the latter just a small field. I'm tending towards the former as it is more recognisable, but could anyone suggest which would be the best translation or perhaps a better alternative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20116" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6084" RevisionGUID="af3853fc-ed1b-414d-8db2-1f5f6e424f11" CreationDate="2018-03-08T05:28:10.063" UserId="2984" Text="How would I write &quot;Hermit Farm&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20117" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6084" RevisionGUID="af3853fc-ed1b-414d-8db2-1f5f6e424f11" CreationDate="2018-03-08T05:28:10.063" UserId="2984" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6085" RevisionGUID="e41ecd0f-c57c-42c2-9781-cf67e680563e" CreationDate="2018-03-08T06:46:42.283" UserId="645" Text="*Eremita* is correct for hermit, and the most appropriate word for farm is *fundus*. You need to use a possessive after 'farm', as in 'Farm of Hermits', which gives us *Fundus Eremitarum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Villa Eremitarum* would be fine, but is very posh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Orwell's novella Animal Farm has similarly been translated as *Fundus Animalium.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6085" RevisionGUID="6c4d17a7-0c93-46c6-82bc-4a75313ad553" CreationDate="2018-03-08T13:45:35.687" UserId="45" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="*Eremita* is correct for hermit, and the most appropriate word for farm is *fundus*. You need to use a possessive after 'farm', as in 'Farm of Hermits', which gives us *Fundus Eremitarum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Villa Eremitarum* would be fine, but is very posh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Orwell's novella Animal Farm has similarly been translated as *Fundus Animalium*.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6086" RevisionGUID="8fad7c52-0d38-4b16-9163-388e965b53e6" CreationDate="2018-03-08T16:04:11.500" UserId="183" Text="There are AFAIK no outer relations for the Greek words  σέλας sélas and σελήνη selēnē attested. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves two possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The words are early loans into Proto-Hellenic from an unknown source language&#xD;&#xA; - The words can still be inherited from Proto-Indogermanic (and just died out in the other branches) and the proto-word started in a more complicated consonant cluster like /ks/. Under such circumstances, an initial /s/ in Greek can be obtained." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6086" RevisionGUID="135da997-6fda-4335-80bb-5df3ad2eceeb" CreationDate="2018-03-08T18:44:43.920" UserId="183" Comment="Added example reacting to the comment" Text="There are AFAIK no outer relations for the Greek words  σέλας sélas and σελήνη selēnē attested. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves two possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The words are early loans into Proto-Hellenic from an unknown source language&#xD;&#xA; - The words can still be inherited from Proto-Indogermanic (and just died out in the other branches) and the proto-word started in a more complicated consonant cluster like /ks/. Under such circumstances, an initial /s/ in Greek can be obtained. An example for this is the prefix συν- that is also found as old Att. ξύν-." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6087" RevisionGUID="3a7f8e0e-4dce-4c26-8a4d-ad8900651784" CreationDate="2018-03-08T20:57:34.677" UserId="2072" Text="Researching the history of the pencil the German speaking web is full of quotes that attribute to Pliny the mentioning of a [*stilus plumbeus*][1] as the historical and etymological source for the word *Bleistift* which is &quot;lead pencil&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the English speaking web seems to be quite unaware of this origin story and searching through the *Historia Naturalis* is equally unfruitful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word itself is obviously no recent modern invention, but any finds I could come up with were unattributable ([example][2]). Even worse, it is my understanding that it is perhaps not classical Latin in origin at all; but a late mediaval or early modern word invention. (Cf. [U. Stöwer: Woher kommt der „Bleistift“? in: Tätigkeitsbericht 2009, Kollegium des Deutschen Wörterbuchs Arbeitsstelle Göttingen, p 16.][3] stating that the Latin word's earliest find was in a manuscript dated to around 1500?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny does write about various metals that could be used for drawing lines, like silver (XXXIII. XXXI. 95-xxxii. 99) and lead:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Altera causa pretii maior, quod minimum usus deterit, cum argento, aere, plumbo lineae praeducantur manusque sordescant decidua materia.    &#xD;&#xA;(Another more important reason for its value is that it gets extremely little worn by use; whereas, with silver, copper and lead, lines may be drawn, and stuff that comes off them dirties the hand.)   &#xD;&#xA;(XXXIII. XIX. 59-62)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have I overlooked a passage where Pliny does write about a *stilus plumbeus* or is this a copy and paste meme in a subsection of the internet? If not Pliny, has any ancient author used the word *stilus plumbeus* or a direct equivalent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(Translation quoted from H. Rackham, M.A.: &quot;Pliny Natural History. With An English Translation. In Ten Volumes, Volume IX, Llbri XXXIII-XXXV&quot;, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, London, 1961.)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleistift#Geschichte&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.de/books?id=IZ0Cu0tnYaoC&amp;pg=PA598&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/document/download/1a6243416c5aa0402cb535fd219ad557.pdf/T%C3%A4tigkeitsbericht-2009.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20123" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6087" RevisionGUID="3a7f8e0e-4dce-4c26-8a4d-ad8900651784" CreationDate="2018-03-08T20:57:34.677" UserId="2072" Text="Where does Pliny, or any ancient author, write about a stilus plumbeus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20124" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6087" RevisionGUID="3a7f8e0e-4dce-4c26-8a4d-ad8900651784" CreationDate="2018-03-08T20:57:34.677" UserId="2072" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6088" RevisionGUID="da8a3a56-94d6-4927-b670-c08f674e8ee5" CreationDate="2018-03-08T21:51:10.853" UserId="79" Text="The PHI corpus shows [only 23 hits for *stil-* in the works of Pliny](http://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23stil+%5BPlinSen%5D).&#xD;&#xA;One can pick the ones that actually come from the word *stilus* and see that the string &quot;plumb&quot; is not contained on any of those linked pages.&#xD;&#xA;That is, *stilus* and *plumb-* are never anywhere close in Pliny.&#xD;&#xA;You can see hits for *stilis ferreis* and *stilo osseo*, but lead is absent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the corpus shows [no hits for *stil-* close to *plumb-* for any author](http://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23stil+~+%23plumb).&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how close is close.&#xD;&#xA;For Pliny I checked all appearances of *stilus* by hand, and I don't want to repeat the exercise for the entire corpus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course the corpus might not cover everything, but there are no hints of *stilus plumbeus*.&#xD;&#xA;However, even though the **phrase** *stilus plumbeus* seems to be absent, the **idea** of *stilus plumbeus* appears in the very passage you quote.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps this has been misinterpreted at some point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6087" RevisionGUID="76d37eea-03ae-4c3d-9aa6-0ded8340ad18" CreationDate="2018-03-08T21:52:18.863" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Researching the history of the pencil the German speaking web is full of quotes that attribute to Pliny the mentioning of a [*stilus plumbeus*][1] as the historical and etymological source for the word *Bleistift* which is &quot;lead pencil&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the English speaking web seems to be quite unaware of this origin story and searching through the *Historia Naturalis* is equally unfruitful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word itself is obviously no recent modern invention, but any finds I could come up with were unattributable ([example][2]). Even worse, it is my understanding that it is perhaps not classical Latin in origin at all; but a late medieval or early modern word invention. (Cf. [U. Stöwer: Woher kommt der „Bleistift“? in: Tätigkeitsbericht 2009, Kollegium des Deutschen Wörterbuchs Arbeitsstelle Göttingen, p 16.][3] stating that the Latin word's earliest find was in a manuscript dated to around 1500?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny does write about various metals that could be used for drawing lines, like silver (XXXIII. XXXI. 95-xxxii. 99) and lead:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Altera causa pretii maior, quod minimum usus deterit, cum argento, aere, plumbo lineae praeducantur manusque sordescant decidua materia.    &#xD;&#xA;(Another more important reason for its value is that it gets extremely little worn by use; whereas, with silver, copper and lead, lines may be drawn, and stuff that comes off them dirties the hand.)   &#xD;&#xA;(XXXIII. XIX. 59-62)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have I overlooked a passage where Pliny does write about a *stilus plumbeus* or is this a copy and paste meme in a subsection of the internet? If not Pliny, has any ancient author used the word *stilus plumbeus* or a direct equivalent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(Translation quoted from H. Rackham, M.A.: &quot;Pliny Natural History. With An English Translation. In Ten Volumes, Volume IX, Llbri XXXIII-XXXV&quot;, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, London, 1961.)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleistift#Geschichte&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.de/books?id=IZ0Cu0tnYaoC&amp;pg=PA598&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/document/download/1a6243416c5aa0402cb535fd219ad557.pdf/T%C3%A4tigkeitsbericht-2009.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20127" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6087" RevisionGUID="76d37eea-03ae-4c3d-9aa6-0ded8340ad18" CreationDate="2018-03-08T21:52:18.863" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Where does Pliny, or any ancient author, write about a stilus plumbeus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20128" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6087" RevisionGUID="76d37eea-03ae-4c3d-9aa6-0ded8340ad18" CreationDate="2018-03-08T21:52:18.863" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|etymology|plinius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6076" RevisionGUID="9976179a-2fce-49d7-ace7-89468e9cef03" CreationDate="2018-03-08T23:18:05.433" UserId="79" Comment="added 798 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The forms *ipse*, *ille*, and *iste* look like vocatives instead of nominatives, and one would expect to see *ipsus*, *illus*, and *istus* instead.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, [*ipsus*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ipsus%23) is attested but far rarer than *ipse*, but the other two forms seem to be entirely absent.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a reason for this unusual morphology?&#xD;&#xA;Is it related to the vocative (perhaps having a similar origin) or is the similarity coincidental?&#xD;&#xA;Is there something analogous in other languages or with other pronouns, or anything else that might shed light on these unexpected forms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some pronoun singular nominatives are quite wild (*is, qui, illud, &amp;hellip;*), but the three I brought up are only mildly weird, and therefore I hope that an explanation actually exists.&#xD;&#xA;If I remember correctly, the singular masculine vocative of the second declension is obtained from the pure stem (without the nominative ending *-s*), with a vowel change *o&gt;e*.&#xD;&#xA;Any evidence for tendency to drop the *-s* for pronouns in singular masculine nominative would be interesting if that is the case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20130" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6076" RevisionGUID="9976179a-2fce-49d7-ace7-89468e9cef03" CreationDate="2018-03-08T23:18:05.433" UserId="79" Comment="added 798 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|language-evolution|morphology|pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6089" RevisionGUID="d8a7a6ac-ef07-4f95-b57c-a8d9ac1a74a1" CreationDate="2018-03-09T02:34:27.027" UserId="2459" Text="I'm looking for something like Duolingo, but for Latin. (By the way, it is a bit upsetting that hardly any of these sites include Latin as a learnable language; although I suspect that it is because the teaching methods of these sites rely heavily on the spoken word.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd be very happy if any of these sites are up to snuff and not obscure, vocabulary sort of resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the books, they needn't be free, but good, established books for learning Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am almost exclusively interested in the written form, and not the spoken version. This is to aid in my reading of philosophy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20132" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6089" RevisionGUID="d8a7a6ac-ef07-4f95-b57c-a8d9ac1a74a1" CreationDate="2018-03-09T02:34:27.027" UserId="2459" Text="Free online resources/established books for learning Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20133" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6089" RevisionGUID="d8a7a6ac-ef07-4f95-b57c-a8d9ac1a74a1" CreationDate="2018-03-09T02:34:27.027" UserId="2459" Text="|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6090" RevisionGUID="ba467f5d-aa5b-4a6f-82fe-7870ddd7f8f6" CreationDate="2018-03-09T11:49:00.590" UserId="324" Text="The usual explanation (e.g. in Beekes) is that selēnē is a Greek formation from selas “light”: *selas-nā &gt; selēnē, with the same suffix (and the same semantics) as in Latin *luk-nā &gt; lūna. For selas there is no adequate etymology and it may well be non Indo-European (borrowing or pre-Greek substrate). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6091" RevisionGUID="ab779787-158a-431f-923e-5da18d799d32" CreationDate="2018-03-09T15:57:42.560" UserId="645" Text="The term *lead pencil* came into use (in Britain, at least) around the start of the seventeenth century. I very much doubt that it was named from any mention in Pliny's Natural History of a *stilus plumbeus*. *Penicillum plumbeum* might be more likely, but I can't find that, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As opposed to the hard-wearing *stilus* (for writing on wax : it had a blunt other end for erasing), *graphis, -idis f*. was a drawing pencil or pen which could leave traces on a board or &quot;membrane&quot;. The material used to make the mark is uncertain, but lead is the strong possibility. Pliny's later books (35, 36) describe all manner of things concerning decoration, including drawing and the instruments used but not, as you have found, any *stilus plumbeus*. Vitruvius (I, I, 3 &amp; 4) mentions the skill needed in handling the *graphis* and, obviously, from this our &quot;graphite&quot; is derived, but I can find no mention of the material used to make the mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly in England, sharpened rods of lead were used for drawing until the discovery of graphite deposits in the sixteenth century, in the Lake District. This graphite was used for making pencils as we now know them. It was substituted for metallic lead, was called &quot;black lead&quot;, and this is why the &quot;lead&quot; in a pencil is still so-named. It may well be that the new pencils were exported to Germany, or that something similar happened separately in that country and elsewhere. However it all came about, a German Bleistift is just the same as an English lead pencil, and my guess is that the meanings have very similar — if not identical — origins that are not directly descended from the Romans.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6092" RevisionGUID="ac44cfbb-7dae-432f-a9d3-4ac71fe06826" CreationDate="2018-03-09T22:58:24.533" UserId="39" Text="fdb already wrote that there is no adequate Indo-European etymology and most likely it is a loan from the Pre-Greek substratum. That being said, another etymology has been in circulation for many decades - highly speculative and thus less reliable. I do not endorse it but it's still worth mentioning. This is what Michel Lejeune wrote in his [&quot;Phonétique historique du mycénien et du grec ancien&quot;][1] (1972/2017, p. 135):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;L'altération de *sw ancien est donc établie par une série d'exemples sûrs. Cependant, on a supposé que, dans quelques racines, le grec aurait conservé le groupe ancien *sw- (comme il aurait, dans quelques racines, conservé le groupe *sm-, §113); aux approches de l'époque historique, ϝ se serait amuï dans ce groupe initial, ainsi réduit a S: par example dans σέλας &quot;éclat&quot; qu'on rapproche de skr. svargáḥ &quot;ciel&quot; [...]. Mais, de ces rapprochements possibles, aucun ne s'impose; ces termes, comme la plupart des mots grecs commençant par σ- devant voyelle, demeurent obscurs. Emprunts?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Sihler (1995) &quot;the usual etymon, PIE *swelH- 'gleam', is well-attested, but **G σ- &lt; *sw is hard to accept**&quot; (p. 216; emphasis mine - A.B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.klincksieck.com/livre/?GCOI=22520100333210" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6092" RevisionGUID="fb0450da-4a36-4c59-9d18-90cd3ecf9e50" CreationDate="2018-03-09T23:25:20.303" UserId="39" Comment="edited body" Text="fdb already wrote that there is no adequate Indo-European etymology and most likely it is a loan from the Pre-Greek substratum. That being said, another etymology has been in circulation for many decades - highly speculative and thus less reliable. I do not endorse it but it's still worth mentioning. This is what Michel Lejeune wrote in his [&quot;Phonétique historique du mycénien et du grec ancien&quot;][1] (1972/2017, p. 135):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;L'altération de *sw ancien est donc établie par une série d'exemples sûrs. Cependant, on a supposé que, dans quelques racines, le grec aurait conservé le groupe ancien *sw- (comme il aurait, dans quelques racines, conservé le groupe *sm-, §113); aux approches de l'époque historique, ϝ se serait amuï dans ce groupe initial, ainsi réduit a σ: par example dans σέλας &quot;éclat&quot; qu'on rapproche de skr. svargáḥ &quot;ciel&quot; [...]. Mais, de ces rapprochements possibles, aucun ne s'impose; ces termes, comme la plupart des mots grecs commençant par σ- devant voyelle, demeurent obscurs. Emprunts?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Sihler (1995) &quot;the usual etymon, PIE *swelH- 'gleam', is well-attested, but **G σ- &lt; *sw is hard to accept**&quot; (p. 216; emphasis mine - A.B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.klincksieck.com/livre/?GCOI=22520100333210" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6092" RevisionGUID="fbf76202-9134-4173-b153-09198cb53894" CreationDate="2018-03-10T03:04:56.260" UserId="39" Comment="added 389 characters in body" Text="fdb already wrote that there is no adequate Indo-European etymology and most likely it is a loan from the Pre-Greek substratum. That being said, another etymology has been in circulation for many decades - highly speculative and thus less reliable. I do not endorse it but it's still worth mentioning. This is what Michel Lejeune wrote in his [&quot;Phonétique historique du mycénien et du grec ancien&quot;][1] (1972/2017, p. 135):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;L'altération de *sw ancien est donc établie par une série d'exemples sûrs. Cependant, on a supposé que, dans quelques racines, le grec aurait conservé le groupe ancien *sw- (comme il aurait, dans quelques racines, conservé le groupe *sm-, §113); aux approches de l'époque historique, ϝ se serait amuï dans ce groupe initial, ainsi réduit a σ: par example dans σέλας &quot;éclat&quot; qu'on rapproche de skr. svargáḥ &quot;ciel&quot; [...]. Mais, de ces rapprochements possibles, aucun ne s'impose; ces termes, comme la plupart des mots grecs commençant par σ- devant voyelle, demeurent obscurs. Emprunts?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Sihler (1995) &quot;the usual etymon, PIE *swelH- 'gleam', is well-attested, but **G σ- &lt; *sw is hard to accept**&quot; (p. 216; emphasis mine - A.B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, different Indo-European cognates have been suggested - the following is mentioned in [NIL][2] under PIE *séh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;u̯el- 'sun':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Avestan x&lt;sup&gt;v&lt;/sup&gt;arənah- 'glory, splendour' (Bader 1995, Janda&#xD;&#xA;   2004);&#xD;&#xA; - Vedic sauvá- 'belonging to the Sun' (Darms 1978).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.klincksieck.com/livre/?GCOI=22520100333210&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.winter-verlag.de/de/detail/978-3-8253-5359-9/Wodtko_ua_Hg_Nomina_im_Indogerm_Lexikon/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6092" RevisionGUID="66e2bb39-1050-4655-8ab0-7482b97cde4f" CreationDate="2018-03-10T03:10:23.547" UserId="39" Comment="added 389 characters in body" Text="fdb already wrote that there is no adequate Indo-European etymology and most likely it is a loan from the Pre-Greek substratum. That being said, another etymology has been in circulation for many decades - highly speculative and thus less reliable. I do not endorse it but it's still worth mentioning. This is what Michel Lejeune wrote in his [&quot;Phonétique historique du mycénien et du grec ancien&quot;][1] (1972/2017, p. 135):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;L'altération de *sw ancien est donc établie par une série d'exemples sûrs. Cependant, on a supposé que, dans quelques racines, le grec aurait conservé le groupe ancien *sw- (comme il aurait, dans quelques racines, conservé le groupe *sm-, §113); aux approches de l'époque historique, ϝ se serait amuï dans ce groupe initial, ainsi réduit a σ: par example dans σέλας &quot;éclat&quot; qu'on rapproche de skr. svargáḥ &quot;ciel&quot; [...]. Mais, de ces rapprochements possibles, aucun ne s'impose; ces termes, comme la plupart des mots grecs commençant par σ- devant voyelle, demeurent obscurs. Emprunts?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Sihler (1995) &quot;the usual etymon, PIE *swelH- 'gleam', is well-attested, but **G σ- &lt; *sw is hard to accept**&quot; (p. 216; emphasis mine - A.B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, different Indo-European cognates have been suggested - the following is mentioned in [NIL][2] under PIE *séh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;u̯el- 'sun':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Avestan x&lt;sup&gt;v&lt;/sup&gt;arənah- 'glory, splendour' (Bader 1995, Janda&#xD;&#xA;   2004);&#xD;&#xA; - Vedic (Sanskrit) sauvá- 'belonging to the Sun' (Darms 1978).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the Indo-Iranian languages are not my area of expertise, we'll have to wait for someone else (e.g. fdb) to comment on that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.klincksieck.com/livre/?GCOI=22520100333210&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.winter-verlag.de/de/detail/978-3-8253-5359-9/Wodtko_ua_Hg_Nomina_im_Indogerm_Lexikon/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6092" RevisionGUID="3e293561-0f36-4fab-ae9f-10bc2378dc70" CreationDate="2018-03-10T03:16:42.023" UserId="39" Comment="added 389 characters in body" Text="fdb already wrote that there is no adequate Indo-European etymology and most likely it is a loan from the Pre-Greek substratum. That being said, another etymology has been in circulation for many decades - highly speculative and thus less reliable. I do not endorse it but it's still worth mentioning. This is what Michel Lejeune wrote in his [&quot;Phonétique historique du mycénien et du grec ancien&quot;][1] (1972/2017, p. 135):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;L'altération de *sw ancien est donc établie par une série d'exemples sûrs. Cependant, on a supposé que, dans quelques racines, le grec aurait conservé le groupe ancien *sw- (comme il aurait, dans quelques racines, conservé le groupe *sm-, §113); aux approches de l'époque historique, ϝ se serait amuï dans ce groupe initial, ainsi réduit a σ: par example dans σέλας &quot;éclat&quot; qu'on rapproche de skr. svargáḥ &quot;ciel&quot; [...]. Mais, de ces rapprochements possibles, aucun ne s'impose; ces termes, comme la plupart des mots grecs commençant par σ- devant voyelle, demeurent obscurs. Emprunts?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Sihler (1995) &quot;the usual etymon, PIE *swelH- 'gleam', is well-attested, but **G σ- &lt; *sw is hard to accept**&quot; (p. 216; emphasis mine - A.B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, different Indo-European cognates have been suggested - the following is mentioned in [NIL][2] under PIE *séh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;u̯el- 'sun':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Avestan x&lt;sup&gt;v&lt;/sup&gt;arənah- 'glory, splendour' (Bader 1995, Janda&#xD;&#xA;   2004);&#xD;&#xA; - Vedic (Sanskrit) sauvá- 'belonging to the Sun' (Darms 1978),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;Anschluß von gr. σέλας n. 'Licht, Glanz' (Il.+) und/oder aav. jav. x&lt;sup&gt;v&lt;/sup&gt;arənah- n. ~ 'Ruhmesglanz' an das Word für 'Sonne' wurde oft erwogen&quot; (NIL, p. 611, note 16).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the Indo-Iranian languages are not my area of expertise, we'll have to wait for someone else (e.g. fdb) to comment on that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.klincksieck.com/livre/?GCOI=22520100333210&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.winter-verlag.de/de/detail/978-3-8253-5359-9/Wodtko_ua_Hg_Nomina_im_Indogerm_Lexikon/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6092" RevisionGUID="fa6bd57a-03a7-4121-bbce-cdadd1dc7e36" CreationDate="2018-03-10T03:25:46.933" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="fdb already wrote that there is no adequate Indo-European etymology and most likely it is a loan from the Pre-Greek substratum. That being said, another etymology has been in circulation for many decades - its connection to the word 'sun' in PIE (i.e. *séh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;u̯el-; see below). This is what Michel Lejeune wrote in his [&quot;Phonétique historique du mycénien et du grec ancien&quot;][1] (1972/2017, p. 135):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;L'altération de *sw ancien est donc établie par une série d'exemples sûrs. Cependant, on a supposé que, dans quelques racines, le grec aurait conservé le groupe ancien *sw- (comme il aurait, dans quelques racines, conservé le groupe *sm-, §113); aux approches de l'époque historique, ϝ se serait amuï dans ce groupe initial, ainsi réduit a σ: par example dans σέλας &quot;éclat&quot; qu'on rapproche de skr. svargáḥ &quot;ciel&quot; [...]. Mais, de ces rapprochements possibles, aucun ne s'impose; ces termes, comme la plupart des mots grecs commençant par σ- devant voyelle, demeurent obscurs. Emprunts?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Sihler (1995) &quot;the usual etymon, PIE *swelH- 'gleam', is well-attested, but **G σ- &lt; *sw is hard to accept**&quot; (p. 216; emphasis mine - A.B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, different Indo-European cognates have been suggested - the following is mentioned in [NIL][2] under PIE *séh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;u̯el- 'sun':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Avestan x&lt;sup&gt;v&lt;/sup&gt;arənah- 'glory, splendour' (Bader 1995, Janda&#xD;&#xA;   2004);&#xD;&#xA; - Vedic (Sanskrit) sauvá- 'belonging to the Sun' (Darms 1978),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;Anschluß von gr. σέλας n. 'Licht, Glanz' (Il.+) und/oder aav. jav. x&lt;sup&gt;v&lt;/sup&gt;arənah- n. ~ 'Ruhmesglanz' an das Word für 'Sonne' wurde oft erwogen&quot; (NIL, p. 611, note 16).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the Indo-Iranian languages are not my area of expertise, we'll have to wait for someone else (e.g. fdb) to comment on that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.klincksieck.com/livre/?GCOI=22520100333210&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.winter-verlag.de/de/detail/978-3-8253-5359-9/Wodtko_ua_Hg_Nomina_im_Indogerm_Lexikon/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6093" RevisionGUID="6b777793-1cdc-4aa2-83de-8cc364c4e2be" CreationDate="2018-03-10T03:28:30.650" UserId="867" Text="Stumbled upon this researching another answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cyprio si addatur plumbum, colos purpurae fit in statuarum praetextis.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The addition of lead to Cyprus copper produces the purple colour seen&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the bordered robes of statues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny the Elder, *Natural History*, 34.20 (trans. H. Rackham)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6094" RevisionGUID="4ad9a72e-f2f9-4967-bf33-382a62e7c4a2" CreationDate="2018-03-10T07:03:25.437" UserId="867" Text="I think Joonas has proved conclusively that neither Pliny nor any other ancient author mentioned a *stilus plumbeus* but nevertheless, for what it's worth, I also couldn't find anything.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then I thought, why would they mention it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A stilus is a [sharp, pointed instrument][1] for scratching into wax tablets.  This is implicit in its primary meaning, a stake or pale.  Stili were placed into moats to impale unwary invaders.  A stilus was also called a *graphium*, from the Greek γράφειν, to scratch, graze, inscribe.  Thus we find references to *stilus ferreus* or *stilus osseus*, both hard materials (see also Martial, 14.21, where he speaks of the iron *graphium*).  Indeed, here we see just how hard and unforgiving a stilus (or here a *graphium*) could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Caesar Cascae brachium arreptum graphio traiecit ...*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar grabbed Casca by the arm and stabbed [it] with his stilus ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suetonius, *Lives of the Caesars (Julius Caesar)*, 82   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *stilus plumbeus*, or stilus made of lead, would be far too soft for the job (both inscribing a wax tablet and stabbing someone!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps because of the references to modern-day lead pencils (and the ambiguity of the English &quot;lead pencil&quot;), I did at first think of the stilus as holding the lead, but this was clearly wrong-headed.  Apart from anything else, the stilus is specific in its function as a &quot;scratcher&quot; of wax.  It was designed to leave indented marks in wax, not traces of a writing material.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If [writing with ink][2], for instance on parchment or papyrus, Romans used a *calamus*, a reed that drew up ink much like a quill pen.  For painting, they used a *penicillus*, a &quot;little tail&quot;, made of bristles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, lead *was* used by the Romans but it would seem not for writing but for light lines on parchment or papyrus.  Your quotation from Pliny highlights this:  &quot;lines drawn with ... lead dirty the hands&quot;.  Catullus (22.8) too mentions this use; mocking Suffenus' verses all &quot;lined up with lead&quot; (*derecta plumbo*).  It's the very impermeability and/or faintness of the lead that makes it perfect for this job *on parchment or papyrus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *stilus plumbeus* seems a sort of oxymoron, then.  A stilus is for writing on wax tablets; lead was used for marking parchment or papyrus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is all to say, I don't think it's surprising to find that *stilus plumbeus* is unattested in the classical sources.        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0063%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DS%3Aentry%20group%3D4%3Aentry%3Dstilus-cn&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1890.3.4.02a00040/pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6094" RevisionGUID="fff5c269-5020-4a97-9ceb-25d51570e8b2" CreationDate="2018-03-10T07:09:24.067" UserId="867" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="I think Joonas has proved conclusively that neither Pliny nor any other ancient author mentioned a *stilus plumbeus* but nevertheless, for what it's worth, I also couldn't find anything.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then I thought, why would they mention it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A stilus is a [sharp, pointed instrument][1] for scratching into wax tablets.  This is implicit in its primary meaning, a stake or pale.  Stili were placed into moats to impale unwary invaders.  A stilus was also called a *graphium*, from the Greek γράφειν, to scratch, graze, inscribe.  Thus we find references to *stilus ferreus* or *stilus osseus*, both hard materials (see also Martial, 14.21, where he speaks of the iron *graphium*).  Indeed, here we see just how hard and unforgiving a stilus (or here a *graphium*) could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Caesar Cascae brachium arreptum graphio traiecit ...*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar grabbed Casca by the arm and stabbed [it] with his stilus ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suetonius, *Lives of the Caesars (Julius Caesar)*, 82   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *stilus plumbeus*, or stilus made of lead, would be far too soft for the job (both inscribing a wax tablet and stabbing someone!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps because of the references to modern-day lead pencils (and the ambiguity of the English &quot;lead pencil&quot;), I did at first think of the stilus as holding the lead, but this was clearly wrong-headed.  Apart from anything else, the stilus is specific in its function as a &quot;scratcher&quot; of wax.  It was designed to leave indented marks in wax, not traces of a writing material.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If [writing with ink][2], for instance on parchment or papyrus, Romans used a *calamus*, a reed that drew up ink much like a quill pen.  For painting, they used a *penicillus*, a &quot;little tail&quot;, made of bristles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, lead *was* used by the Romans but it would seem not for writing but for light lines on parchment or papyrus.  Your quotation from Pliny highlights this:  &quot;lines drawn with ... lead dirty the hands&quot;.  Catullus (22.8) too mentions this use; mocking Suffenus' verses all &quot;lined up with lead&quot; (*derecta plumbo*).  It's the very impermeability and/or faintness of the lead that makes it perfect for this job *on parchment or papyrus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *stilus plumbeus* seems a sort of oxymoron, then.  A stilus was for inscribing wax tablets, its form and function perfectly aligned; lead was used for lightly marking parchment or papyrus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is all to say, I don't think it's surprising to find that *stilus plumbeus* is unattested in the classical sources.        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0063%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DS%3Aentry%20group%3D4%3Aentry%3Dstilus-cn&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1890.3.4.02a00040/pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6095" RevisionGUID="ade4e3d8-2ada-477d-8892-3ecd2856536b" CreationDate="2018-03-10T14:38:08.187" UserId="81" Text="I keep mixing up *animus* and *anima*, and it seems their meanings overlap somewhat. For example, Wiktionary gives the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[animus][1]: mind, soul, life force; courage, will&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[anima][2]: soul, spirit, life; air, breeze; breath&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a definitive way to distinguish these words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/animus#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anima#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20148" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6095" RevisionGUID="ade4e3d8-2ada-477d-8892-3ecd2856536b" CreationDate="2018-03-10T14:38:08.187" UserId="81" Text="Anima vs. Animus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20149" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6095" RevisionGUID="ade4e3d8-2ada-477d-8892-3ecd2856536b" CreationDate="2018-03-10T14:38:08.187" UserId="81" Text="|meaning|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6096" RevisionGUID="28a3a9fa-7cd3-4a82-a52c-b781a5b538f5" CreationDate="2018-03-10T22:36:24.213" UserId="79" Text="Some pieces of Greek literature have survived only through the Arabs.&#xD;&#xA;But is there any classical Latin literature that has survived the same way?&#xD;&#xA;This could mean translations from Latin to Arabic and later back to a European language, palimpsests, or any other means.&#xD;&#xA;It does not have to be a whole book; any small example of Roman literature coming through the Arabs would be great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is easy enough to search online and find discussions of the Arabs preserving Greek literature, but I found no mention of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the absence of mentions is evidence against what I am after, but it is not a very convincing and definitive kind of evidence.&#xD;&#xA;If someone familiar with this kind of thing says that if there were any they would have heard it, I will consider that sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;I trust an expert much more than Google in matters like this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20151" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6096" RevisionGUID="28a3a9fa-7cd3-4a82-a52c-b781a5b538f5" CreationDate="2018-03-10T22:36:24.213" UserId="79" Text="Has any Latin literature survived through the Arabs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20152" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6096" RevisionGUID="28a3a9fa-7cd3-4a82-a52c-b781a5b538f5" CreationDate="2018-03-10T22:36:24.213" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|history|example-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6097" RevisionGUID="42c8ad4e-35c2-430c-999a-6831c2946f8c" CreationDate="2018-03-11T09:48:06.957" UserId="2461" Text="according to https://www.deseretnews.com/article/701979/Roman-god-of-fire-is-root-of-volcano.html the romans didn't have a word for volcano: &quot;Before the Age of Discoveries ... Apparently no need was felt for a generic word to describe a mountain that emitted fire&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6098" RevisionGUID="15dd9658-3b09-44b4-bb44-0b62c48587a4" CreationDate="2018-03-11T12:48:27.233" UserId="2462" Text="I know of three openly accessible Latin corpus with grammatical tags labelled by humans:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PROIEL https://github.com/proiel/proiel-treebank/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perseus https://github.com/PerseusDL/treebank_data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Index Thomisticus http://itreebank.marginalia.it/view/download.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Perseus** is the smallest dataset (~4900 sentences) that covers classical authors. **PROIEL** is larger (at ~18,000 sentences), which also includes some of Vulgate. These two have similar tagging formats. **Index Thomisticus** is larger (20,000+ sentences), but focuses on the works of Thomas Aquinas (hence the name), and has a format rather unusual (to me at least): for instance, *nouns* and *adjectives* are both classified as &quot;nominal&quot;; degree of adjectives and participles are tagged separately; voice (active/passive) and mode (indicative/imperative etc) are tagged together, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6099" RevisionGUID="181d0075-42d0-46c4-91ec-efe2a78b0a4d" CreationDate="2018-03-11T16:12:43.333" UserId="2461" Text="both animus and anima have a broad meaning and mostly overlap. but there's a nuance. they roughly correspond to spanish ánimo and ánima/alma. animus is more about movement, will, the force that moves, about action, change. whilst anima is more about the inner nature, the force that justifies, about being, about knowing the reasons. the expressions in animo habeo for I have the intention to and anima mea when saying my beloved one are good examples" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6097" RevisionGUID="0560a13f-cd90-493e-854d-6e25f712f8bc" CreationDate="2018-03-11T16:47:02.107" UserId="79" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="According to [this article](https://www.deseretnews.com/article/701979/Roman-god-of-fire-is-root-of-volcano.html) the Romans didn't have a word for volcano: &quot;Before the Age of Discoveries ... Apparently no need was felt for a generic word to describe a mountain that emitted fire&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6099" RevisionGUID="5a5f1f60-19f0-4b14-916b-3fd1e3d40a1c" CreationDate="2018-03-11T16:49:23.260" UserId="79" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Both *animus* and *anima* have a broad meaning and mostly overlap. But there's a nuance. They roughly correspond to Spanish ánimo and ánima/alma. *Animus* is more about movement, will, the force that moves, about action, change. Whilst *anima* is more about the inner nature, the force that justifies, about being, about knowing the reasons. The expressions *in animo habeo* for &quot;I have the intention to&quot; and *anima mea* when saying &quot;my beloved one&quot; are good examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6101" RevisionGUID="ebe35084-e74c-45ac-bca2-9f06ed1524d2" CreationDate="2018-03-11T20:14:00.433" UserId="2461" Text="In french, Assimil's &quot;Le Latin sans peine&quot; [here][1] and [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to wikipedia, Assimil's method is about &quot;teaching foreign languages through the listening of records or tapes and the reading of a book with the text that you are listening to, one side native language, one side foreign language. This method is focused on learning whole sentences, for an organic learning of the grammar. It begins with a long passive phase of only reading and listening, and eventually adds active exercises. Most books contain around 100 lessons, with the active phase starting on Lesson 50. The word &quot;Assimil&quot; comes from assimilation.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://booksee.org/book/1128864&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/DesessardLatinSansPeine1page" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20160" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6101" RevisionGUID="691dc727-b489-42e6-a846-5436cd19d189" CreationDate="2018-03-11T20:14:00.433" UserId="2461" />
  <row Id="20161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6102" RevisionGUID="92d3319f-d6ea-4a0b-b32a-cdf52dd34303" CreationDate="2018-03-11T20:24:23.880" UserId="2461" Text="For children, Minimus, [here][1], [here][2] and [here][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to wikipedia &quot;these books espouse some of the principles of the direct method of language teaching, ie refraining from using the learners' native language and using only the target language&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.minimus-etc.co.uk/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://booksee.org/book/1102558&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://booksee.org/book/1119148" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20162" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6102" RevisionGUID="f4aa7276-611a-431e-827c-4b85756d67d7" CreationDate="2018-03-11T20:24:23.880" UserId="2461" />
  <row Id="20163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6103" RevisionGUID="0c52c17b-6e35-4f47-86ca-007f0a05897d" CreationDate="2018-03-12T01:16:35.333" UserId="2463" Text="I know that a common source for the reconstructed pronunciation of latin is Vox Latina by William Sidney Allen, but I've read somewhere that a critical analysis of latin texts and the pronunciation reconstruction started in Germany by the end of the 19th century, but I cannot find any reference on this.&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know when the first works on the reconstruction of latin pronunciation began and who were the authors? Also has there been any changes/ disputes on the reconstructed pronunciation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20164" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6103" RevisionGUID="0c52c17b-6e35-4f47-86ca-007f0a05897d" CreationDate="2018-03-12T01:16:35.333" UserId="2463" Text="Origin of the reconstructed pronunciation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20165" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6103" RevisionGUID="0c52c17b-6e35-4f47-86ca-007f0a05897d" CreationDate="2018-03-12T01:16:35.333" UserId="2463" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6104" RevisionGUID="0b2b6096-e8d3-46a2-ae0b-d439e188699d" CreationDate="2018-03-12T06:18:12.310" UserId="522" Text="If you are asking simply for the earliest discussion of correct Latin pronunciation, then Quintilian (c35-c100CE) deserves a mention. [INSTITUTIO ORATORIA BkI Ch4][1]  The translation here is by HEButler (Loeb 1920). Much gratitude to Bill Thayer for the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**On sounds lacking alphabetical forms:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Aut grammatici saltem omnes in hanc descendent rerum tenuitatem,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; desintne aliquae nobis necessariae litterae, non cum Graeca scribimus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (tum enim ab isdem duas mutuamur), sed proprie in Latinis: ut in his&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;servus&quot; et &quot;vulgus&quot; **VIII**. Aeolicum digammon desideratur, et&#xD;&#xA;&gt; medius est quidam u et i litterae sonus (non enim sic &quot;optimum&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dicimus ut &quot;opimum&quot;), et in &quot;here&quot; neque e plane neque i auditur;*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  But all teachers of literature will condescend to such minutiae: they&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will discuss for instance whether certain necessary letters are absent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from the alphabet, not indeed when we are writing Greek words (for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then we borrow two letters from them), but in the case of genuine&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin words:  for example in words such as seruus and uulgus. **8** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; we feel the lack of the Aeolic digamma; there is also a sound&#xD;&#xA;&gt; intermediate between u and i, (for we do not pronounce optimum as we do&#xD;&#xA;&gt; opimum), while in here the sound is neither exactly e nor i.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**...and on variations in pronouncing consecutive vowels:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quia &quot;iam&quot; sicut &quot;etiam&quot; scribitur et &quot;uos&quot; ut &quot;tuos&quot;. At quae ut&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vocales iunguntur aut unam longam faciunt (ut veteres scripserunt, qui&#xD;&#xA;&gt; geminatione earum velut apice utebantur), aut duas: nisi quis putat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; etiam ex tribus vocalibus syllabam fieri si non aliquae officio&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consonantium fungantur. **XI**. Quaeret hoc etiam, quo modo duabus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; demum vocalibus in se ipsas coeundi natura sit, cum consonantium nulla&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nisi alteram frangat: atqui littera i sibi insidit (&quot;conicit&quot; enim est&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ab illo &quot;iacit&quot;) et u, quo modo nunc scribitur &quot;vulgus&quot; et &quot;servus&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sciat etiam Ciceroni placuisse &quot;aiio&quot; &quot;Maiiam&quot;que geminata i scribere:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod si est, etiam iungetur ut consonans.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For instance iam and etiam are both spelt with an i, uos and tuos both&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with u. Vowels, however, when joined as vowels, either make one long&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vowel (compare the obsolete method of indicating a long vowel by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; doubling it as the equivalent of the circumflex), or a diphthong, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; though some hold that even three vowels can form a single syllable;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this however is only possible if one or more assume the role of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consonants.  [Ch.11] He will also inquire why it is that there are two&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vowels which may be repeated, while a consonant can only be followed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and modified by a different consonant. But i can follow i (for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coniicit is derived from iacit): so too does u, witness the modern&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spelling of seruus and uulgus.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He should also know that Cicero preferred to write aiio and Maiiam with a   double i; in that case one *[p69]* of them is consonantalised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman%20%20/Texts/Quintilian/Institutio_Oratoria/1B*.html#%20%205" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6105" RevisionGUID="e8eeaf24-f9a5-4b16-a78b-08480fc7dae4" CreationDate="2018-03-12T06:31:46.437" UserId="172" Text="If you allow the answer to be a bit wider in scope than the question (this is not Physics.SE, and we have this leeway in humanities), and talk about how *linguistic evidence* in general, not only written or traditionally transmitted evidence, which is the scope of your question, I should mention a book that is considered somewhat controversial among archeologists, but strikes the right chords in me as a linguist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book in the spotlight here is: Anthony, David W. *The horse, the wheel, and language : how Bronze-Age riders from the Eurasian steppes shaped the modern world.* Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2007. A conventional archeology uses excavated evidence as the first class, and linguistic and other types of evidence are treated as circumstantial. Anthony's approach is exactly the reverse: He puts the linguistic evidence up front, and then beads the physical, unearthed data from the archeology on this string.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not get me wrong when I mention a “controversy.” Anthony is the first class archeologist, and there is nothing going on even close to the so called “fringe science;” this is just the approach to the evidence that is felt by some archeologists as a quite non-conventional. And to me, his picture of the ancient IE society looks quite compelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not trying to write this answer to review the book or retell it's story; it's hard to compress a monograph into a SE answer. I just want to mention his approach to the raw data, necessary simplified fo fit it in this format. Suppose you study the archeology of a culture that had words (according to sound linguistics) for “snow” or “bronze”--such that all, all nearly all daughter languages hav inherited them . Already (be careful here, looking for parallel borrowings, though), you can start with a quite a strong hypothesis that the culture that spoke that language dwelt far off the equator enough to experience snowy winters, and their metallurgy knew bronze. This essentially excludes populations living in too lower latitudes or not showing archeological traces of bronze metallurgy from being associated with the speakers of the language in question. An example of two main concepts that are unquestionably made in in the daughter vocabularies are the ttile words for *horse* and *wheel*. Also, there is a great deal of other literary evidence of linguistic archeology is analyzed by Anthony, such as Rigvedic texts (and this connects it indeed to your question) that proves a very strong connection that archeology of physical things, namely burial practices. This also constitutes a very strong part in his arguments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not personally say that the monograph is very accessible; far from being a pop-sci work, it requires you to dive into the references and learn a lot of things archeological (but as linguist, again, I am distanced far more away from that than the workings of language). But even without that, a claim to the very close match between literary Rigvedic burial prescription to those physically unearthed graves seems to me to be a very compelling evidence of the cultural connection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So even reading the work while skimming about the deep foray in archeology (which, I admit, sometimes fly over my linguist's head) is id indeed very enlightening." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6105" RevisionGUID="e93cb3b1-c31e-45e7-b112-4f8533e28e2b" CreationDate="2018-03-12T06:47:21.350" UserId="172" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="If you allow the answer to be a bit wider in scope than the question (this is not Physics.SE, and we have this leeway in humanities), and talk about how *linguistic evidence* in general, not only written or traditionally transmitted evidence, which is the scope of your question, I should mention a book that is considered somewhat controversial among archeologists, but strikes the right chords in me as a linguist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book in the spotlight here is: Anthony, David W. *The horse, the wheel, and language : how Bronze-Age riders from the Eurasian steppes shaped the modern world.* Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2007. The conventional archeology uses excavated evidence as the first class, and linguistic and other types of evidence are treated as circumstantial. Anthony's approach is exactly the reverse: He puts the linguistic evidence up front, and then beads the physical, unearthed data from the archeology on this string.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not get me wrong when I mention a “controversy.” Anthony is the first class archeologist, and there is nothing going on even close to the so called “fringe science;” this is just the approach to the evidence that is felt by some archeologists as a quite non-conventional. And to me, his picture of the ancient IE society looks quite compelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not trying to write this answer to review the book or retell it's story; it's hard to compress a monograph into a SE answer. I just want to mention his approach to the raw data, necessary simplified fo fit it in this format. Suppose you study the archeology of a culture that had words (according to sound linguistics) for “snow” or “bronze”--such that all, or nearly all daughter languages have inherited them . Already (be careful here, looking for parallel borrowings, though), you can start with a quite a strong hypothesis that the culture that spoke that language dwelt far off the equator enough to experience snowy winters, and their metallurgy knew bronze. This essentially excludes populations living in too lower latitudes or not showing archeological traces of bronze metallurgy from being associated with the speakers of the language in question. An example of two main concepts that are unquestionably made in in the daughter vocabularies are the ttile words for *horse* and *wheel*. Also, there is a great deal of other literary evidence of linguistic archeology is analyzed by Anthony, such as Rigvedic texts (and this connects it indeed to your question) that proves a very strong connection that archeology of physical things, namely burial practices. This also constitutes a very strong part in his arguments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not personally say that the monograph is very accessible; far from being a pop-sci work, it requires you to dive into the references and learn a lot of things archeological (but as linguist, again, I am distanced far more away from that than the workings of language). But even without that, a claim to the very close match between literary Rigvedic burial prescription to those physically unearthed graves seems to me to be a very compelling evidence of the cultural connection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So even reading the work while skimming about the deep foray in archeology (which, I admit, sometimes fly over my linguist's head) is id indeed very enlightening." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6105" RevisionGUID="77ef6e15-d2d2-45d4-95a0-06ad8c70f1cc" CreationDate="2018-03-12T06:58:05.690" UserId="172" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="If you allow the answer to be a bit wider in scope than the question (this is not Physics.SE, and we have this leeway in humanities), and talk about how *linguistic evidence* in general, not only written or traditionally transmitted evidence, which is the scope of your question, I should mention a book that is considered somewhat controversial among archeologists, but strikes the right chords in me as a linguist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book in the spotlight here is: Anthony, David W. *The horse, the wheel, and language : how Bronze-Age riders from the Eurasian steppes shaped the modern world.* Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2007. The conventional archeology uses excavated evidence as the first class, and linguistic and other types of evidence are treated as circumstantial. Anthony's approach is exactly the reverse: He puts the linguistic evidence up front, and then beads the physical, unearthed data from the archeology on this string.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not get me wrong when I mention a “controversy.” Anthony is the first class archeologist, and there is nothing going on even close to the so called “fringe science;” this is just the approach to the evidence that is felt by some archeologists as a quite non-conventional. And to me, his picture of the ancient IE society looks quite compelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not trying to write this answer to review the book or retell it's story; it's hard to compress a monograph into a SE answer. I just want to mention his approach to the raw data, necessary simplified fo fit it in this format. Suppose you study the archeology of a culture that had words (according to sound linguistics) for “snow” or “bronze”--such that all, or nearly all daughter languages have inherited them . Already (be careful here, looking for parallel borrowings, though), you can start with a quite a strong hypothesis that the culture that spoke that language dwelt far off the equator enough to experience snowy winters, and their metallurgy knew bronze. This essentially excludes populations living in too lower latitudes or not showing archeological traces of bronze metallurgy from being associated with the speakers of the language in question. An example of two main concepts that are unquestionably made in in the daughter vocabularies are the ttile words for *horse* and *wheel*. Also, there is a great deal of other literary evidence of linguistic archeology is analyzed by Anthony, such as Rigvedic texts (and this connects it indeed to your question) that proves a very strong connection that archeology of physical things, namely burial practices. This also constitutes a very strong part in his arguments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not personally say that the monograph is very accessible; far from being a pop-sci work, it requires you to dive into the references and learn a lot of things archeological (but as linguist, again, I am distanced far more away from that than the workings of language). But even without that, a claim to the very close match between literary Rigvedic burial prescription to those physically unearthed graves seems to me to be a very compelling evidence of the cultural connection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So even reading the work while skimming about the parts with a deep foray in archeology (which, I admit, could sometimes fly over my linguist's head) is indeed very enlightening." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6106" RevisionGUID="4962164b-09dd-46d2-8dee-1e1a0bbb97bf" CreationDate="2018-03-12T10:16:05.050" UserId="324" Text="The answer to your question is basically no. The books translated into Arabic in the famous translation movement of the 9th and 10th centuries were mainly Greek works on philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, natural sciences, medicine and to a very limited degree a few works of Hellenistic fictional literature. These translations were made by Syriac-speaking Christians and they were translated from Syriac into Arabic, not directly from Greek. (A very small number of Greek books were translated not via Syriac but via Middle Persian). The eastern Christians did not know Latin and did not read the Latin classics (not even Latin patristic writers like Augustine) and consequently could not translate them into Arabic. Even in the case of the Greek classics the oriental Christian scholars were very selective. They did not read Homer, the dramatists, the historians etc., so these books were not translated into Arabic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6076" RevisionGUID="fcc755d6-2d74-41be-9c55-4fba45e99035" CreationDate="2018-03-12T12:00:13.910" UserId="79" Comment="added 307 characters in body" Text="The forms *ipse*, *ille*, and *iste* look like vocatives instead of nominatives, and one would expect to see *ipsus*, *illus*, and *istus* instead.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, [*ipsus*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ipsus%23) is attested but far rarer than *ipse*, but the other two forms seem to be entirely absent.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a reason for this unusual morphology?&#xD;&#xA;Is it related to the vocative (perhaps having a similar origin) or is the similarity coincidental?&#xD;&#xA;Is there something analogous in other languages or with other pronouns, or anything else that might shed light on these unexpected forms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some pronoun singular nominatives are quite wild (*is, qui, illud, &amp;hellip;*), but the three I brought up are only mildly weird, and therefore I hope that an explanation actually exists.&#xD;&#xA;If I remember correctly, the singular masculine vocative of the second declension is obtained from the pure stem (without the nominative ending *-s*), with a vowel change *o&gt;e*.&#xD;&#xA;Any evidence for tendency to drop the *-s* for pronouns in singular masculine nominative would be interesting if that is the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that *ipsus* was more popular in pre-classical Latin, and kkm remarks in a comment that *olle* and *ollus* are attested for *ille* in old Latin.&#xD;&#xA;This gives the impression that the expected *-us* ending was there but was later lost.&#xD;&#xA;Any insight as to why or how this happened would be great." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6107" RevisionGUID="0170e5e3-a386-4c6e-b59c-e7fad956de7e" CreationDate="2018-03-12T21:19:04.510" UserId="79" Text="The adjective *paganus* is derived from *pagus* and seems to originally mean roughly &quot;belonging to a village&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;According to the [L&amp;S entry](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DP%3Aentry+group%3D3%3Aentry%3Dpaganus) the sense &quot;non-military&quot; is also classically attested.&#xD;&#xA;In Christian use the word means &quot;pagan&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;To what extent is this meaning a Christian invention?&#xD;&#xA;Did the adjective *paganus* mean any kind of non-believer or something similar enough before the advent of Christianity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could also be that the original Christian meaning of the adjective was different from how we understand &quot;pagan&quot; today, and the change occurred within Christian use.&#xD;&#xA;However, there seems to be a sharp contrast between the Christian meaning and the pre-Christian one, judging by the attestations I recall seeing.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps intermediate examples of some kind would help bridge the gap between the two." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20173" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6107" RevisionGUID="0170e5e3-a386-4c6e-b59c-e7fad956de7e" CreationDate="2018-03-12T21:19:04.510" UserId="79" Text="Did &quot;paganus&quot; mean a non-believer before Christianity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20174" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6107" RevisionGUID="0170e5e3-a386-4c6e-b59c-e7fad956de7e" CreationDate="2018-03-12T21:19:04.510" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|language-evolution|nuance|christianity|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6108" RevisionGUID="449e29a7-5ab2-4533-93b6-6e25b81a7c1b" CreationDate="2018-03-12T21:31:25.600" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[abound (v.)](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=abound&amp;searchmode=none)     &#xD;&#xA;    early 14c., from Old French abonder &quot;to abound, be abundant, come together in great numbers&quot; (12c.),    &#xD;&#xA;from Latin abundare &quot;overflow, run over,&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;from Latin ***ab-* &quot;off&quot;** (see [ab-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ab-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + *undare* &quot;rise in a wave,&quot; from unda &quot;water, wave&quot; (see [water](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=water&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.1)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the meaning of &quot;off&quot;, while during a &quot;rise in a wave&quot; ? Is there some [hypotaxis](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/hypotaxis)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't understand Prof. John Lawler's [example with coffee sloshing in a cup held by walkers](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/12420/what-does-the-prefix-ab-mean-in-the-latin-verb-abundare#comment33255_12420):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ever tried to walk fast carrying a full cup of coffee? The coffee rises in waves set off by the motion and sloshes over from the top of the cup, if you're not careful. BTW, _hypotaxis_ is a literary term, not a linguistic one. You've got to stop trying to learn grammar from a dictionary. Greek terms were coined for Greek by ancient Greek grammarians, who had extremely odd notions about language (where 'language' = 'Homeric Greek'; other people spoke barbaric languages, not real ones), and are rarely useful. But they do impress people, for sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20176" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6108" RevisionGUID="449e29a7-5ab2-4533-93b6-6e25b81a7c1b" CreationDate="2018-03-12T21:31:25.600" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What does the prefix 'ab-' mean in the Latin verb 'abundare'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20177" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6108" RevisionGUID="449e29a7-5ab2-4533-93b6-6e25b81a7c1b" CreationDate="2018-03-12T21:31:25.600" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6109" RevisionGUID="0521209b-54cb-423a-a21b-7a9c8aa9e545" CreationDate="2018-03-12T21:41:30.753" UserId="406" Text="*Unda* is a noun meaning &quot;wave&quot; (in a liquid). This led to a verb *undāre*, &quot;to rise in a wave&quot; as your dictionary put it, or I would say &quot;to have waves&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lawler was right on the mark. Consider liquid in a container. Move the container around and you get waves. If the waves get high enough, the liquid spills out of the container.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Lawler is also right in saying that hypotaxis has nothing to do with this. Hypotaxis is the Greek literary term that encompasses several different linguistic ideas, but afaik all of them have to do with syntax. It's not meaningful to talk about hypotaxis in a single word.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6110" RevisionGUID="60d8dc0d-05c0-4045-bf20-2c6b26333b94" CreationDate="2018-03-12T23:10:51.110" UserId="79" Text="The Latin verb means quite literally &quot;flow over&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;When a liquid is spilled from a container, it flows over the edges and waves away from its vessel.&#xD;&#xA;Spilling means going over an edge, and that requires creating a sufficiently high wave.&#xD;&#xA;Spilling also means having too much.&#xD;&#xA;I see no problem connecting the *ab-* with the listed meanings of *abundare* and descendants; the literal meaning is what *ab-* and *unda* suggest, and the rest seems natural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6111" RevisionGUID="f745a6e0-1e5e-4ed4-9f74-66eccdc66cb3" CreationDate="2018-03-12T23:19:36.110" UserId="324" Text="“Paganus” is a religious term only in Christianity, where it is a calque on ἐθνικός, which in turn is a calque on Hebrew gōyīm “nations” (thus already in the Septuagint). If you have access to jstor you might want to look at (the second half of) this article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.jstor.org/stable/4145899?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6111" RevisionGUID="7a650f55-d25b-4d82-848c-8fefa0a54f88" CreationDate="2018-03-12T23:26:14.480" UserId="324" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="“Paganus” is a religious term only in Christianity, where it is a calque on ἐθνικός, which in turn is a calque on Hebrew gōyīm “nations” (thus already in the Septuagint). If you have access to jstor you might want to look at (the second half of) this article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.jstor.org/stable/4145899?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;especially footnote 110.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6112" RevisionGUID="74b8f595-a564-40b5-b277-7ff4ca212727" CreationDate="2018-03-13T04:20:58.863" UserId="39" Text="&gt;Because the second element is the **PIE deictic pronoun *so-/*to-**, which gave Latin -se;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so we may reconstruct PIE nom. sg. mas. as *só (Weiss, p. 337).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *is-so &gt; *is-se &gt; ipse (Weiss, pp. 346-347); cf. de Vaan *e(s)-pe-so &gt; *ispse &gt; ipse;&#xD;&#xA; - *is-to (or *es-to) &gt; *is-te &gt; iste (Weiss, p. 345);&#xD;&#xA; - *ol-so &gt; olle &gt; ille.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20184" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4083" RevisionGUID="39e60c06-bce0-4951-9871-24b8e18adadc" CreationDate="2018-03-13T10:34:39.230" UserId="79" Comment="70" />
  <row Id="20188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6117" RevisionGUID="e4ac68be-0262-4b30-9572-e3a5898f500c" CreationDate="2018-03-13T21:04:09.503" UserId="81" Text="I can't figure out how the phrase &quot;*et audito eo multa faciebat*&quot; in the following sentence should be parsed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Herodes enim metuebat Ioannem, sciens eum virum iustum et sanctum, et&#xD;&#xA;&gt; custodiebat eum: *et audito eo multa faciebat*, et libenter eum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; audiebat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation which was given for that phrase is &quot;And he heard that he was accomplishing many things...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the title suggest, I'm interpreting it as an ablative absolute having its own subphrase, so it seems like it should have a subordinating conjunction or relative pronoun to link &quot;multa faciebat&quot; to &quot;audito eo&quot;, but I'm guessing that I'm probably wrong about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it seems like &quot;multa&quot; should be the direct object of &quot;audito&quot; (with many things heard which he was doing), but the construction suggests that it has to be &quot;eo&quot; (with him heard...the many things he was doing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I can't figure out how it should be parsed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20189" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6117" RevisionGUID="e4ac68be-0262-4b30-9572-e3a5898f500c" CreationDate="2018-03-13T21:04:09.503" UserId="81" Text="Parsing a subphrase of an ablative absolute" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20190" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6117" RevisionGUID="e4ac68be-0262-4b30-9572-e3a5898f500c" CreationDate="2018-03-13T21:04:09.503" UserId="81" Text="|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6118" RevisionGUID="ed583302-83d4-44b5-8211-0195e81c6d80" CreationDate="2018-03-13T21:19:13.767" UserId="2461" Text="french -&gt; latin: Gaffiot, the [old][1] and the [new][2] (pdf below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;latin -&gt; french: Quicherat [here][3] and [here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Benefits: both in french, gaffiot has illustrations and maps, both cover nearly all of classical latin. Have been the dictionaries by excellence for latin studies for all the french speaking world for generations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Drawbacks: both massive and awkward to handle and carry around&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gerardgreco.free.fr/spip.php?article43&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5833461r&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/stream/latin_dict#page/n0/mode/2up" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20192" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6118" RevisionGUID="f540aef5-1e2e-4040-8c47-8b42007d9e24" CreationDate="2018-03-13T21:19:13.767" UserId="2461" />
  <row Id="20193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6117" RevisionGUID="877eb12b-501a-476b-9a70-777227ac1ff1" CreationDate="2018-03-13T21:59:11.820" UserId="81" Comment="deleted 220 characters in body" Text="I can't figure out how the phrase &quot;*et audito eo multa faciebat*&quot; in the following sentence should be parsed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Herodes enim metuebat Ioannem, sciens eum virum iustum et sanctum, et&#xD;&#xA;&gt; custodiebat eum: *et audito eo multa faciebat*, et libenter eum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; audiebat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation which was given for that phrase is &quot;And he heard that he was accomplishing many things...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the title suggest, I'm interpreting it as an ablative absolute having its own subphrase, so it seems like it should have a subordinating conjunction or relative pronoun to link &quot;multa faciebat&quot; to &quot;audito eo&quot;, but I'm guessing that I might be wrong about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I can't figure out how it should be parsed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6101" RevisionGUID="57c11209-fa78-46be-bd14-ecaf6ad39309" CreationDate="2018-03-13T22:44:56.063" UserId="136" Comment="Minor fixes" Text="In French, Assimil's &quot;Le Latin sans peine&quot; [here][1] and [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Wikipedia, Assimil's method is about &quot;teaching foreign languages through the listening of records or tapes and the reading of a book with the text that you are listening to, one side native language, one side foreign language. This method is focused on learning whole sentences, for an organic learning of the grammar. It begins with a long passive phase of only reading and listening, and eventually adds active exercises. Most books contain around 100 lessons, with the active phase starting on Lesson 50. The word &quot;Assimil&quot; comes from assimilation.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://booksee.org/book/1128864&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/DesessardLatinSansPeine1page" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6119" RevisionGUID="f2efac19-05e2-4c11-8926-660b6a8c6e29" CreationDate="2018-03-14T08:29:25.883" UserId="867" Text="Quintilian, in *The Orator's Education* (1.1), writes at some length about teaching children, in particular children under the age of seven, how to read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He feels that they should learn to recognise the shapes of letters as well as their names and, to this end, he recommends they use **ivory letter-shapes** (*eburneas litterarum formas*) or anything they enjoy looking at and handling and naming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once they have mastered letters, they should then learn syllables, and this by drill.  Further, Quintilian emphasises that syllables should be learnt before words, and before reading proper:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quin immo ne primae quidem memoriae temere credendum: **repetere et diu inculcare** fuerit utilius, et in lectione quoque non properare ad&#xD;&#xA;&gt; continuandam eam vel adcelerandam, nisi cum inoffensa atque indubitata&#xD;&#xA;&gt; litterarum inter se coniunctio suppeditare sine ulla cogitandi saltem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mora poterit. Tunc ipsis syllabis verba complecti et his sermonem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conectere incipiat ...*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; We must beware also of trusting the first memory too readily: it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; better to have **repeated syllable-drill over a long period**, and not be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a hurry to achieve continuity or speed in reading either, unless&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the sequences of letters are produced without hesitation or doubt, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; anyway without the child having to stop and think. Only then let him&#xD;&#xA;&gt; begin to construct words with the syllables themselves and form&#xD;&#xA;&gt; connected sentences with the words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next step is to then start teaching the child vocabulary.  This can be done by giving them sentences to copy (preferably with a moral lesson therein) and also to have them learn the sayings of famous men and selected passages from the poets because, Quintilian tells us, children quite enjoy this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Etiam **dicta clarorum virorum** et **electos ex poetis** maxime (namque eorum cognitio parvis gratior est) locos ediscere inter lusum licet.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The child may also be allowed to learn, as a game, the sayings of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; famous men and especially selected passages from the poets (which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; children particularly like to know).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that this all indicates an understanding of the learning needs of a child.  Quintilian notes too that it is best to keep things fun, make learning a game, praise the child often, and perhaps add an element of competition to the tasks to motivate them.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He also gives hints of learning materials adapted for children learning to read - the ivory letters to play with, syllable drills, and excerpts from the poets.  However, it's not clear that this would necessarily lead to a market for children's books as such.  Syllable drills and the dicta of famous men could easily be devised by an individual tutor.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, for all his understanding of the child, the methods Quintilian describes seem to favour a rote-learning approach - *repetere et diu inculcare* - and memorisation is a big part of learning to read: *Ingenii signum in parvis praecipuum memoria est* / In children, the principal sign of talent is memory (1.3).  And so it's not clear that stories written for children to practice (and enjoy) reading would have been deemed necessary.   &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20203" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6102" RevisionGUID="c0089bb9-ddd5-4d50-a2b4-5357eb66fa76" CreationDate="2018-03-14T08:36:23.197" UserId="2461" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2461,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;aper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20204" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6101" RevisionGUID="8c97c097-df32-4d6d-aa28-9c1a6eb9bd18" CreationDate="2018-03-14T08:36:28.703" UserId="2461" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2461,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;aper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20206" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6097" RevisionGUID="3ed2ff70-e88b-44f8-9a27-c8498b67960a" CreationDate="2018-03-14T08:36:52.857" UserId="2461" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2461,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;aper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20207" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6099" RevisionGUID="eb1da488-7beb-41a5-9134-b27728992db7" CreationDate="2018-03-14T08:37:06.163" UserId="2461" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2461,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;aper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6119" RevisionGUID="0829ed91-30a3-478f-b5f6-a9dcb9d5a8ee" CreationDate="2018-03-14T10:51:06.957" UserId="867" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Quintilian, in *The Orator's Education* (1.1), writes at some length about teaching children, in particular children under the age of seven, how to read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He feels that they should learn to recognise the shapes of letters as well as their names and, to this end, he recommends they use **ivory letter-shapes** (*eburneas litterarum formas*) or anything they enjoy looking at and handling and naming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once they have mastered letters, they should then learn syllables, and this by drill.  Further, Quintilian emphasises that syllables should be learnt before words, and before reading proper:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quin immo ne primae quidem memoriae temere credendum: **repetere et diu inculcare** fuerit utilius, et in lectione quoque non properare ad&#xD;&#xA;&gt; continuandam eam vel adcelerandam, nisi cum inoffensa atque indubitata&#xD;&#xA;&gt; litterarum inter se coniunctio suppeditare sine ulla cogitandi saltem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mora poterit. Tunc ipsis syllabis verba complecti et his sermonem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conectere incipiat ...*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; We must beware also of trusting the first memory too readily: it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; better to have **repeated syllable-drill over a long period**, and not be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a hurry to achieve continuity or speed in reading either, unless&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the sequences of letters are produced without hesitation or doubt, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; anyway without the child having to stop and think. Only then let him&#xD;&#xA;&gt; begin to construct words with the syllables themselves and form&#xD;&#xA;&gt; connected sentences with the words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next step is to then start teaching the child vocabulary.  This can be done by giving them sentences to copy (preferably with a moral lesson therein) and also to have them learn **the sayings of famous men** and **selected passages from the poets** because, Quintilian tells us, children quite enjoy this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Etiam **dicta clarorum virorum** et **electos ex poetis** maxime (namque eorum cognitio parvis gratior est) locos ediscere inter lusum licet.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The child may also be allowed to learn, as a game, the sayings of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; famous men and especially selected passages from the poets (which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; children particularly like to know).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that this all indicates an understanding of the learning needs of a child.  Quintilian notes too that it is best to keep things fun, make learning a game, praise the child often, and perhaps add an element of competition to the tasks to motivate them.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He also gives hints of learning materials adapted for children learning to read - the ivory letters to play with, syllable drills, and excerpts from the poets.  However, it's not clear that this would necessarily lead to a market for children's books as such.  Syllable drills and the dicta of famous men could easily be devised by an individual tutor.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, for all his understanding of the child, the methods Quintilian describes seem to favour a rote-learning approach - *repetere et diu inculcare* - and memorisation is a big part of learning to read: *Ingenii signum in parvis praecipuum memoria est* / In children, the principal sign of talent is memory (1.3).  And so it's not clear that stories written for children to practice (and enjoy) reading would have been deemed necessary.   &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6120" RevisionGUID="c919a027-9c32-4ba4-b809-c01ba9dca012" CreationDate="2018-03-14T12:50:26.893" UserId="45" Text="The passage in question is taken from Mark 6:20. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὁ γὰρ Ἡρῴδης ἐφοβεῖτο τὸν Ἰωάννην, εἰδὼς αὐτὸν ἄνδρα δίκαιον καὶ ἅγιον, καὶ συνετήρει αὐτόν, καὶ **ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ** πολλὰ ἐποίει*, καὶ ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* N.B. Current critical editions favor a reading &quot;ἠπόρει&quot; (&quot;he was perplexed&quot;), not ἐποίει (&quot;he was doing&quot;), but that's not material to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek, the meaning is quite clear. *ἀκούσας* is an aorist active participle literally translated as &quot;having heard,&quot; and if takes a genitive object when it refers to a person: *αὐτοῦ*. Literally, therefore, we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...and **having heard him** he did many things, and he heard him gladly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin always has a problem translating aorist active participles because **it does not have perfect active participles.** The usual strategy for dealing with this is to flip the voice and make it an ablative absolute. Thus, instead of saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having heard the news...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin will often say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The news having been heard...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is exactly what is done in the passage you cite. Instead of &quot;having heard him,&quot; the Vulgate switches the voice and makes it an ablative absolute. *Audito eo* means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Him having been heard...**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6120" RevisionGUID="5d7bf97b-8fc6-47de-a89e-1226c6e8a723" CreationDate="2018-03-14T13:44:54.837" UserId="45" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="The passage in question is taken from Mark 6:20. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὁ γὰρ Ἡρῴδης ἐφοβεῖτο τὸν Ἰωάννην, εἰδὼς αὐτὸν ἄνδρα δίκαιον καὶ ἅγιον, καὶ συνετήρει αὐτόν, καὶ **ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ** πολλὰ ἐποίει*, καὶ ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* N.B. Current critical editions favor a reading &quot;ἠπόρει&quot; (&quot;he was perplexed&quot;), not ἐποίει (&quot;he was doing&quot;), but that's not material to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek, the meaning is quite clear. *ἀκούσας* is an aorist active participle literally translated as &quot;having heard,&quot; and if takes a genitive object when it refers to a person: *αὐτοῦ*. Literally, therefore, we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...and **having heard him [i.e. John]** he [i.e. Herod] did many things, and he heard him gladly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin always has a problem translating aorist active participles because **it does not have perfect active participles.** The usual strategy for dealing with this is to flip the voice and make it an ablative absolute. Thus, instead of saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having heard the news...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin will often say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The news having been heard...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is exactly what is done in the passage you cite. Instead of &quot;having heard him,&quot; the Vulgate switches the voice and makes it an ablative absolute. *Audito eo* means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Him having been heard...**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6117" RevisionGUID="60aa91e7-c183-4ad4-a18e-9aab62b4d750" CreationDate="2018-03-14T14:32:00.497" UserId="81" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="I can't figure out how the phrase &quot;*et audito eo multa faciebat*&quot; in the following sentence should be parsed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Herodes enim metuebat Ioannem, sciens eum virum iustum et sanctum, et&#xD;&#xA;&gt; custodiebat eum: *et audito eo multa faciebat*, et libenter eum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; audiebat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [translation][1] which was given for that phrase is &quot;And he heard that he was accomplishing many things...&quot; (From the answer provided below by brianpck, I now understand that this translation is most likely incorrect.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the title suggest, I'm interpreting it as an ablative absolute having its own subphrase, so it seems like it should have a subordinating conjunction or relative pronoun to link &quot;multa faciebat&quot; to &quot;audito eo&quot;, but I'm guessing that I might be wrong about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I can't figure out how it should be parsed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sacredbible.org/studybible/NT-02_Mark.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6121" RevisionGUID="2f5d589c-e924-412e-ace4-59dbbacb8670" CreationDate="2018-03-14T15:36:51.533" UserId="645" Text="I'm trying to express 'clockwise' and 'anti-clockwise' in Latin, for which there are not likely to be classical precedents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other languages generally seem to lack such brief and simple expressions : in German and French, for example, it's necessary to employ phrases using the movement of a clock's hands, which in comparison with the English feel long and clumsy.  In Russian it's a little neater, по часовой стрелке 'arrow of time', comparable with *modo solarii*, 'in the same way as the sundial'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose *modo solarii* works after a fashion, but it's somehow unsatisfying. Can anyone suggest something better?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20213" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6121" RevisionGUID="2f5d589c-e924-412e-ace4-59dbbacb8670" CreationDate="2018-03-14T15:36:51.533" UserId="645" Text="Latin for clockwise/anticlockwise?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20214" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6121" RevisionGUID="2f5d589c-e924-412e-ace4-59dbbacb8670" CreationDate="2018-03-14T15:36:51.533" UserId="645" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6122" RevisionGUID="f70fed10-94e5-42ba-a07f-ee0b0dd50d92" CreationDate="2018-03-14T15:48:13.897" UserId="2468" Text="This grid on [Wiktionary][1] gives **quem** for the singular feminine accusative of the relative pronoun **quis**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Wiktionary][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to books by Kennedy, Gwynne and Henry Cullen this should be quam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please can you tell me which is right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quis#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fFPV7.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OMEV5.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20216" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6122" RevisionGUID="f70fed10-94e5-42ba-a07f-ee0b0dd50d92" CreationDate="2018-03-14T15:48:13.897" UserId="2468" Text="Is the female accusative singular relative pronoun quem or quam?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20217" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6122" RevisionGUID="f70fed10-94e5-42ba-a07f-ee0b0dd50d92" CreationDate="2018-03-14T15:48:13.897" UserId="2468" Text="|relative-pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6123" RevisionGUID="3748f1db-6e16-4ff5-a4e0-91e65fa4ea9e" CreationDate="2018-03-14T17:01:16.803" UserId="81" Text="In [botanical latin][1], the following terms are used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- helicte - clockwise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- antihelicte - counter-clockwise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cambridge.org/br/academic/subjects/life-sciences/botanical-reference/primer-botanical-latin-vocabulary?format=PB&amp;isbn=9781107693753#qD7hAqghe7MQ7Y7m.97" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6123" RevisionGUID="3262d71f-2a40-4828-850d-4c6632fdde16" CreationDate="2018-03-14T17:07:29.507" UserId="81" Comment="edited body" Text="In [botanical Latin][1], the following terms are used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- helicte - clockwise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- antihelicte - counter-clockwise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cambridge.org/br/academic/subjects/life-sciences/botanical-reference/primer-botanical-latin-vocabulary?format=PB&amp;isbn=9781107693753#qD7hAqghe7MQ7Y7m.97" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6124" RevisionGUID="3abc015d-fba7-486d-91e3-f08ace54a8dd" CreationDate="2018-03-14T18:29:50.200" UserId="2470" Text="I believe 'sinister' and 'dexter' may be viable choices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/35129/sinister-sinistra&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/17327/dexter-dextera&#xD;&#xA; - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinistral_and_dextral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6125" RevisionGUID="2453fbbb-5d14-4174-9ef4-601985631800" CreationDate="2018-03-14T21:40:21.320" UserId="2472" Text="A couple of years ago I stumbled across the phrase &quot;mors omnia solvit&quot;, and I got the impression that it was a rather well establihed saying. Now I started to research the source of this phrase (for the screenplay it inspired me to), but when I search for it, I find hardly anything, except the literal translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a proverb or a saying that has been used before, or is it nothing more than a sentence? There are some search results that lead to law dictionaries, but there is no more information there except the literal translation. Could it be a legal term?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: I remembered the phrase as &quot;mors solvit omnia&quot;. Would it be correct to put the words in that order, or have I just confused myself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20222" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6125" RevisionGUID="2453fbbb-5d14-4174-9ef4-601985631800" CreationDate="2018-03-14T21:40:21.320" UserId="2472" Text="Where does the phrase &quot;mors omnia solvit&quot; come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20223" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6125" RevisionGUID="2453fbbb-5d14-4174-9ef4-601985631800" CreationDate="2018-03-14T21:40:21.320" UserId="2472" Text="|idiom|legal-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6126" RevisionGUID="005e6069-cc70-469d-a548-ff19383d3083" CreationDate="2018-03-15T03:19:43.030" UserId="81" Text="I believe the earliest reference is in Jenkin's *[Eight Centuries of Reports][1]*. At the end of Case II on page 160, the text appears:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mors omnia solvit, infinitum in jure reprobatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*Death dissolves all things; that which is endless is reprehensible in law.*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=SkdfAAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6126" RevisionGUID="bab8abe5-b144-409a-8a02-6f7a767ed2fc" CreationDate="2018-03-15T03:25:07.080" UserId="81" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="I believe the earliest reference is in Jenkin's *[Eight Centuries of Reports][1]*. At the end of Case II (from the 4th century) on page 160, the text appears:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mors omnia solvit, infinitum in jure reprobatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*Death dissolves all things; that which is endless is reprehensible in law.*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=SkdfAAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6127" RevisionGUID="6eb1bf6f-8062-4073-a2d9-12873bec7feb" CreationDate="2018-03-15T04:24:13.130" UserId="867" Text="This most certainly seems to be a legal phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I can't find the exact *phrase* in the classical corpus, as Pé de Leão shows above, it had passed into formal, legal terminology by the eighteenth century in the form you give.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the legal *concept* certainly existed before this.  The verb *solvere*, which gives us the *solvit* in your phrase, could mean, amongst other things, [to remove, cancel; to destroy the force of a legal or moral obligation][1].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific idea of death cancelling a legal obligation is illustrated in the *Institutes of Gaius*, dating from about AD 161:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Item si adhuc integro mandato **mors** alterutrius interveniat, id est vel eius, qui mandaverit, eius, qui mandatum susceperit,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **solvitur** mandatum.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Again, if before a mandate was begun to be executed, **the death** of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; either of the parties should take place, that is the death of either him&#xD;&#xA;&gt; who gave the mandate, or of him who received it, the mandate is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **cancelled**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3.160)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=solvere&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6126" RevisionGUID="1079d00e-7774-4fed-9e74-fdb878899ecb" CreationDate="2018-03-15T09:27:14.190" UserId="81" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="I believe the earliest reference is in Jenkin's *[Eight Centuries of Reports][1]*. At the end of Case II on page 160, the text appears:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mors omnia solvit, infinitum in jure reprobatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*Death dissolves all things; that which is endless is reprehensible in law.*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=SkdfAAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6128" RevisionGUID="f50ab63d-9283-4bd0-b840-30dc8e0451df" CreationDate="2018-03-15T12:56:14.110" UserId="469" Text="[**Dextro**(ve)**rsum**][1] for *clockwise* and [**sinistro**(ve)**rsum**][2] for *counter/anticlockwise* are accepted in a number of scientific fields (e.g. [physics][3], [botanic][4].) Their respective meaning, *stricto sensu*, is to the right (or left.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The association between *to the right* and a *clockwise* movement seems old and hard to document. Present day explanations include a natural trend to observe the [movement from the top][5] and the fact that [clocks descend from sundials][6], which in the northern hemisphere cast shadows that move both to the right and clockwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddextrorsum&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DS%3Aentry%20group%3D46%3Aentry%3Dsinistrorsus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2alpha/alpha-eng.html?lang=eng&amp;i=1&amp;index=frb&amp;srchtxt=DEXTRORSUM&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.mobot.org/mobot/latindict/keyDetail.aspx?keyWord=dextrorsum&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/404295/why-does-right-mean-clockwise/404591#404591&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwise" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6129" RevisionGUID="0007fd7b-cea5-4d50-a878-e95b45a8516c" CreationDate="2018-03-15T14:36:48.550" UserId="2477" Text="I want to make a coat of arms for my father in law, and we always refer to him doing anything with the phrase  - &quot;**that'll do**&quot;. Is there a latin phrase that this translates to? Google translate has suggested 'hoc faciam' but reverse translating it changes the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help much appreciated!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20231" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6129" RevisionGUID="0007fd7b-cea5-4d50-a878-e95b45a8516c" CreationDate="2018-03-15T14:36:48.550" UserId="2477" Text="Mock up of Coat of Arms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20232" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6129" RevisionGUID="0007fd7b-cea5-4d50-a878-e95b45a8516c" CreationDate="2018-03-15T14:36:48.550" UserId="2477" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6129" RevisionGUID="4b196785-dc4b-4203-9a0b-b3524cb174e7" CreationDate="2018-03-15T17:52:35.303" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="I want to make a coat of arms for my father in law, and we always refer to him doing anything with the phrase  - &quot;**that'll do**&quot;. Is there a Latin phrase that this translates to? Google translate has suggested 'hoc faciam' but reverse translating it changes the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help much appreciated!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20234" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6129" RevisionGUID="4b196785-dc4b-4203-9a0b-b3524cb174e7" CreationDate="2018-03-15T17:52:35.303" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|idiom|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6130" RevisionGUID="46cd4dc7-b0ce-405b-808f-10c9a5e882a7" CreationDate="2018-03-15T17:57:54.563" UserId="79" Text="I'm not aware of a perfect match, but here are two alternatives to express that the situation is good enough:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ***Satis.*** &amp;mdash; &quot;Enough.&quot; (See [this dictionary entry](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2052897) for *satis*.)&#xD;&#xA;2. ***Satisfacit.*** &amp;mdash; &quot;[It] suffices.&quot; (See [this dictionary entry](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2052902) for the verb *satisfacio*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar effect to the first alternative is reached with the adverb [*sufficienter*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2057342), but it's rarer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20237" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6118" RevisionGUID="968e88f1-9926-478d-9ce4-ef82b1155f16" CreationDate="2018-03-15T18:08:07.127" UserId="2461" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2461,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;aper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6130" RevisionGUID="ec9bd699-bda3-451f-b07a-ee21e8de1ea4" CreationDate="2018-03-15T18:12:00.057" UserId="79" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="I'm not aware of a perfect match, but here are two alternatives to express that the situation is good enough:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ***Satis.*** &amp;mdash; &quot;Enough.&quot; (See [this dictionary entry](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2052897) for *satis*.)&#xD;&#xA;2. ***Satisfacit.*** &amp;mdash; &quot;[It] suffices.&quot; (See [this dictionary entry](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2052902) for the verb *satisfacio*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar effect to the first alternative is reached with the adverb [*sufficienter*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2057342), but it's rarer.&#xD;&#xA;However, the tone might be better, as *satis* can be read as &quot;too much&quot; or &quot;stop&quot;, whereas *sufficienter* is more neutral." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6131" RevisionGUID="78fada7e-0825-4098-aea8-33ea388244bb" CreationDate="2018-03-15T20:06:59.183" UserId="469" Text="Correct me if I'm wrong, but _that'll do_ is slang/an idiom for that's enough (pretty much in the speaker's subjective point of view.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* On one hand, we know little about slang Latin although vulgar and medieval Latin could somehow do the job. I'm no expert in any of those, although what I have is a quote from the Vulgate (Latin translation of the Bible from the IV century,) which is late Latin. At least it is not Classical, in which case you would have what is arguably the opposite of slang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* On the other hand, *that's enough* may have more than one reading, judging from what I read [here][1]: from a soft *that's ok, thank you* to a hard *stop it!*. In the later case I would recommend Joonas' *satis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what came to my mind is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Sufficit** mihi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sufficit* is a conjugated form of the verb [sufficio][2], which among its meanings includes: *to be sufficient, to suffice, avail for, meet the need of, satisfy*, and is attested in this sense in [2 Cor 12, 9][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sufficit tibi gratia mea* // [My grace is enough for you][4],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is in 3rd person singular, meaning that the *it* (as in *it*'s enough) is (arguably) explicit. The cite above also implies that you can use the personal pronoun in dative to remark for whom is something enough, hence *sufficit mihi*-it's enough for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/that%27ll+do&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsufficio&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.biblestudytools.com/vul/2-corinthians/12-9.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?bible_chapter=12&amp;id=54#9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6131" RevisionGUID="731e5767-7347-4fe6-baf9-c9d904544448" CreationDate="2018-03-15T20:13:33.960" UserId="469" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="Correct me if I'm wrong, but _that'll do_ is slang/an idiom for that's enough (pretty much in the speaker's subjective point of view.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* On one hand, we know little about slang Latin although vulgar and medieval Latin could somehow do the job. I'm no expert in any of those, although what I have is a quote from the Vulgate (Latin translation of the Bible from the IV century,) which is late Latin. At least it is not Classical, in which case you would have what is arguably the opposite of slang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* On the other hand, *that'll do* in the sense of *that's enough* may have more than one reading, judging from what I read [here][1]: from a soft *that's ok, thank you* to a hard *stop it!*. In the later case I would recommend Joonas' *satis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what came to my mind is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Sufficit** mihi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sufficit* is a conjugated form of the verb [sufficio][2], which among its meanings includes: *to be sufficient, to suffice, avail for, meet the need of, satisfy*, and is attested in this sense in the Vulgate e.g. in [2 Cor 12, 9][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sufficit tibi gratia mea* // [My grace is enough for you][4],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is in 3rd person singular, meaning that the *it* (as in *it*'s enough) is (arguably) explicit. The cite above also implies that you can use the personal pronoun in dative to remark for whom is something enough, hence *sufficit mihi*-it's enough for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, using the first person in a real coat of arms would be daring, but given it's a satirical one, it's more of a matter of choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/that%27ll+do&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsufficio&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.biblestudytools.com/vul/2-corinthians/12-9.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?bible_chapter=12&amp;id=54#9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6132" RevisionGUID="50515c1c-2a81-43a5-bf62-205888dd60ac" CreationDate="2018-03-15T20:17:23.073" UserId="79" Text="This is more of a comment than an answer, but perhaps someone will find it interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The words *mors omnia solvit* would scan perfectly as a part of a hexameter or pentameter line.&#xD;&#xA;This made me wonder whether this or something similar appears in classical poetry.&#xD;&#xA;The exact phrase is not attested in classical literature, but similar ideas do appear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Publius Ovidius Naso, *Amores* 2.10.35&amp;ndash;38:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &#xD;&#xA;At mihi contingat Veneris languescere motu,  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp; cum moriar, medium solvar et inter opus;  &#xD;&#xA;atque aliquis nostro lacrimans in funere dicat:  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp; 'conveniens vitae mors fuit ista tuae!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Publius Ovidius Naso, *Epicedion Drusi* 359&amp;ndash;360:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &#xD;&#xA;Tendimus huc omnes, metam properamus ad unam,  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp; Omnia sub leges Mors vocat atra suas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Titus Lucretius Carus, *De Rerum Natura* 3.214:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; [...] mors omnia praestat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6133" RevisionGUID="00169bb2-dae1-4019-bbe7-90378768af2e" CreationDate="2018-03-16T05:48:34.353" UserId="2478" Text="These are my attempted translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Locus meus prope imperium est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Me manebit supplicium. Or, more literally: Poenam meam exspecto.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Tua est vis vitae meae. Cum ea fac ad libitum." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6134" RevisionGUID="cabc90f2-faac-4804-a504-6d74a66ea5d4" CreationDate="2018-03-16T06:25:01.600" UserId="2478" Text="I propose **homo diligens**. My dictionary (Latin/Spanish) defines diligens as appreciative or committed. I particularly like this word because the verb it comes from, diligo, is defined as love stemming from choice and reflection (as opposed to amo, which is defined as love stemming from spontaneous inclination). So **homo diligens** would be a creature that loves rationally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6135" RevisionGUID="af3660d5-781c-4ee5-aa2f-51ca3a131ecd" CreationDate="2018-03-16T12:47:37.183" UserId="118" Text="Here are some relevant verbs to choose from, depending on the exact sense of &quot;caring&quot; that you have in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Homo curans** means &quot;Caring man&quot; in the sense of actively taking care of people or things because one is concerned about them. The verb [_cūrō_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=curo) suggests devoting attention to the object of your care, to protect that person or thing from harm and ensure its well-being. Sometimes it suggests worry. It lives on in English in the words &quot;curator&quot;, &quot;curate&quot;, and &quot;curiosity&quot;—the last from _[cūriōsus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=curiosus),_ meaning &quot;tending to take great care or interest in something&quot; or even being anxious about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Homo amans**, &quot;Loving man&quot;, would mean only feeling affection or fondness for someone, not necessarily attending to their needs. The verb [_amō_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=amo), &quot;I like, I love&quot;, lives on in English  &quot;amorous&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb [dīligō](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=diligo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), in **Homo diligens**, suggested by Carlos Arturo Serrano, means to love someone in the sense of favoring them specially, regarding them highly as compared to others. _Quem di diligo,_ for example, means &quot;Whom the gods favor.&quot; The _dī-_ at the beginning is a shortened _dis-_, meaning to separate or break apart, as in English &quot;distinguish&quot; and &quot;disperse&quot;. The _-ligo_ at the end is a shortened _lego,_ here meaning to choose, which lives in English also in the word &quot;elect&quot;. When I look up the present participle _[diligens](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=diligens),_ though, I just find &quot;diligent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;You probably already know how the binomial nomenclature for species works, but I'll mention a few things here just in case. The first word (capitalized) is the genus: the kind of living thing that the species is distinguished from. The second word is the differentia: the &quot;specific difference&quot;, i.e. what makes it essentially different from other species _of the same genus._ So, whichever differentia you choose would mean that other human species _aren't_ that way, because that's the distinction that you're drawing. If you call our species, for example, _Homo amans,_ that suggests that, say, _Homo neanderthalensis,_ was _not_ loving because loving would be what sets us apart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The unique word in species names is actually the first word, the genus (always a noun). Many different species can have the same differentia (usually but not necessarily an adjective): for example, _Lavandula officinalis_ (lavender), _Rosmarinus officinalis_ (rosemary), and _Salvia officinalis_ (sage) are all species that stand out because they are used in medicine or cooking (hence typically kept in a monastery's storeroom, an _officina_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figure that you're only planning to choose a phrase for rhetorical effect, to provoke thought, so precise adherence to scientific terminology probably isn't crucial. It helps to know a bit about the customs and connotations, though. And the naming of the genus _Homo_ has an unusual history. When Linnaeus named _Homo sapiens,_ he didn't think that there were any other human species to distinguish us from. So, _sapiens_ actually _is_ meant as the quality that separates humans from all other genera. Also, even the scientific naming of species tends toward the poetic. _Homo erectus_ isn't the only human species to walk upright; it was the first, and that was good enough for its differentia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6135" RevisionGUID="e575a272-f8d8-43f2-b87a-57c8477cc392" CreationDate="2018-03-16T13:24:37.197" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Here are some relevant verbs to choose from, depending on the exact sense of &quot;caring&quot; that you have in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Homo curans** means &quot;Caring man&quot; in the sense of actively taking care of people or things because one is concerned about them. The verb [_cūrō_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=curo) suggests devoting attention to the object of your care, to protect that person or thing from harm and ensure its well-being. Sometimes it suggests worry. It lives on in English in the words &quot;curator&quot;, &quot;curate&quot;, and &quot;curiosity&quot;—the last from _[cūriōsus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=curiosus),_ meaning &quot;tending to take great care or interest in something&quot; or even being anxious about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Homo amans**, &quot;Loving man&quot;, would mean only feeling affection or fondness for someone, not necessarily attending to their needs. The verb [_amō_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=amo), &quot;I like, I love&quot;, lives on in English  &quot;amorous&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb [dīligō](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=diligo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), in **Homo diligens**, suggested by Carlos Arturo Serrano, means to love someone in the sense of favoring them specially, regarding them highly as compared to others. _Quem di diligo,_ for example, means &quot;Whom the gods favor.&quot; The _dī-_ at the beginning is a shortened _dis-_, meaning to separate or break apart, as in English &quot;distinguish&quot; and &quot;disperse&quot;. The _-ligo_ at the end is a shortened _lego,_ here meaning to choose, which lives in English also in the word &quot;elect&quot;. When I look up the present participle _[diligens](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=diligens),_ though, I just find &quot;diligent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;You probably already know how the binomial nomenclature for species works, but I'll mention a few things here just in case. The first word (capitalized) is the genus: the kind of living thing that the species is distinguished from. The second word is the differentia: the &quot;specific difference&quot;, i.e. what makes it essentially different from other species _of the same genus._ So, whichever differentia you choose would mean that other human species _aren't_ that way, because that's the distinction that you're drawing. If you call our species, for example, _Homo amans,_ that suggests that, say, _Homo neanderthalensis_ was _not_ loving because loving would be what sets us apart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The unique word in species names is actually the first word, the genus (always a noun). Many different species can have the same differentia (usually but not necessarily an adjective): for example, _Lavandula officinalis_ (lavender), _Rosmarinus officinalis_ (rosemary), and _Salvia officinalis_ (sage) are all species that stand out because they are used in medicine or cooking (hence typically kept in a monastery's storeroom, an _officina_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figure that you're only planning to choose a phrase for rhetorical effect, to provoke thought, so precise adherence to scientific terminology probably isn't crucial. It helps to know a bit about the customs and connotations, though. And the naming of the genus _Homo_ has an unusual history. When Linnaeus named _Homo sapiens,_ he didn't think that there were any other human species to distinguish us from. So, _sapiens_ actually _is_ meant as the quality that separates humans from all other genera. Also, even the scientific naming of species tends toward the poetic. _Homo erectus_ isn't the only human species to walk upright; it was the first, and that was good enough for its differentia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6135" RevisionGUID="570e518b-6053-4bf0-b798-8d876c675276" CreationDate="2018-03-16T16:41:36.333" UserId="118" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Here are some relevant verbs to choose from, depending on the exact sense of &quot;caring&quot; that you have in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Homo curans** means &quot;Caring man&quot; in the sense of actively taking care of people or things because one is concerned about them. The verb [_cūrō_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=curo) suggests devoting attention to the object of your care, to protect that person or thing from harm and ensure its well-being. Sometimes it suggests worry. It lives on in English in the words &quot;curator&quot;, &quot;curate&quot;, and &quot;curiosity&quot;—the last from _[cūriōsus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=curiosus),_ meaning &quot;tending to take great care or interest in something&quot; or even being anxious about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Homo amans**, &quot;Loving man&quot;, would mean only feeling affection or fondness for someone, not necessarily attending to their needs. The verb [_amō_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=amo), &quot;I like, I love&quot;, lives on in English  &quot;amorous&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb [dīligō](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=diligo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), in **Homo diligens**, suggested by Carlos Arturo Serrano, means to love someone in the sense of favoring them specially, regarding them highly as compared to others. _Quem di diligunt,_ for example, means &quot;Whom the gods favor.&quot; The _dī-_ at the beginning is a shortened _dis-_, meaning to separate or break apart, as in English &quot;distinguish&quot; and &quot;disperse&quot;. The _-ligo_ at the end is a shortened _lego,_ here meaning to choose, which lives in English also in the word &quot;elect&quot;. When I look up the present participle _[diligens](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=diligens),_ though, I just find &quot;diligent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;You probably already know how the binomial nomenclature for species works, but I'll mention a few things here just in case. The first word (capitalized) is the genus: the kind of living thing that the species is distinguished from. The second word is the differentia: the &quot;specific difference&quot;, i.e. what makes it essentially different from other species _of the same genus._ So, whichever differentia you choose would mean that other human species _aren't_ that way, because that's the distinction that you're drawing. If you call our species, for example, _Homo amans,_ that suggests that, say, _Homo neanderthalensis_ was _not_ loving because loving would be what sets us apart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The unique word in species names is actually the first word, the genus (always a noun). Many different species can have the same differentia (usually but not necessarily an adjective): for example, _Lavandula officinalis_ (lavender), _Rosmarinus officinalis_ (rosemary), and _Salvia officinalis_ (sage) are all species that stand out because they are used in medicine or cooking (hence typically kept in a monastery's storeroom, an _officina_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figure that you're only planning to choose a phrase for rhetorical effect, to provoke thought, so precise adherence to scientific terminology probably isn't crucial. It helps to know a bit about the customs and connotations, though. And the naming of the genus _Homo_ has an unusual history. When Linnaeus named _Homo sapiens,_ he didn't think that there were any other human species to distinguish us from. So, _sapiens_ actually _is_ meant as the quality that separates humans from all other genera. Also, even the scientific naming of species tends toward the poetic. _Homo erectus_ isn't the only human species to walk upright; it was the first, and that was good enough for its differentia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6136" RevisionGUID="5f6ee062-efd3-4929-85cc-b798117e38c4" CreationDate="2018-03-16T20:59:21.037" UserId="118" Text="***Spoiler alert!!*** *This question gives away a plot point from late in the story of Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata. If you're working your way through that book and haven't yet gotten to Chapter XXXI, you should probably stop reading this question right now.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;In Chapter XXXI, p. 251, Cornelius says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid? Herī quendam servum tuum vīdī in viā Latīnā. Faciem recognōvī, saepe eum hīc **vīdī**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not **vidēbam**? Is it optional to use the imperfect here? Or does the perfect tense convey a distinction here, like &quot;I saw him here several times in the past&quot; vs. &quot;I used to see him here often&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20256" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6136" RevisionGUID="5f6ee062-efd3-4929-85cc-b798117e38c4" CreationDate="2018-03-16T20:59:21.037" UserId="118" Text="Saepe eum hic vidi/videbam" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20257" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6136" RevisionGUID="5f6ee062-efd3-4929-85cc-b798117e38c4" CreationDate="2018-03-16T20:59:21.037" UserId="118" Text="|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6137" RevisionGUID="5dbcf97a-ef43-4f4d-a7d6-6316ae1e1646" CreationDate="2018-03-16T21:31:17.530" UserId="2480" Text="As most people with historical interests know, the English word &quot;emperor&quot; is derived from Old French *empereor* which is derived from Latin *imperator*.  IMHO it seems more correct to refer to a Roman Emperor by the full phrase *imperator caesar augustus* than as a plain *imperator*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, during the later Roman Republic victorious generals were acclaimed by their troops with the title of *imperator* which gave them the right to a triumph in Rome, if the Senate agreed.  I read once that the title was first used by Scipio Africanus in Spain, when Spanish leaders called him king and he said no, call him *imperator*, but I don't know if this is true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the first Romans to say *imperator* probably didn't just string together random sounds, it probably had some literal meaning in ancient Latin.  So what did *imperator* mean in ancient Latin before the beginning of the empire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20260" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6137" RevisionGUID="5dbcf97a-ef43-4f4d-a7d6-6316ae1e1646" CreationDate="2018-03-16T21:31:17.530" UserId="2480" Text="What is the meaning and history of the word Imperator?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20261" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6137" RevisionGUID="5dbcf97a-ef43-4f4d-a7d6-6316ae1e1646" CreationDate="2018-03-16T21:31:17.530" UserId="2480" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6138" RevisionGUID="db366384-ce34-4b0b-a8f7-a0d48c84ae04" CreationDate="2018-03-16T22:05:07.153" UserId="406" Text="Very literally, *imperātor* comes from *imperāt-*, fourth stem of *imperō*, &quot;to give a command&quot;. Compare English &quot;imperious&quot;. So the original straightforward meaning was &quot;commander, one who commands&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally it was a military term, equivalent to &quot;general&quot;: the one who gives commands to the soldiers. Later this meaning spread to encompass the people in charge of all sorts of other things. But the original and overall most common meaning was military.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caesar, in particular, was *imperātor* of his troops in Gallia. When he came back to Rome and won the civil war, he insisted on keeping this title rather than becoming *rex*, a king (because Rome had a bad history with kings). Augustus followed his example, and it eventually became a standard title: hence, &quot;emperor&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="aae8aabd-34be-42f9-b403-937e99922d36" CreationDate="2018-03-16T22:27:01.993" UserId="118" Text="**Imperātor** means &quot;commander&quot; in Latin. It comes from the same root as the English word &quot;imperative&quot;, as in &quot;imperative mood&quot;, i.e. the grammatical form of a verb used as a command. **Imperō** means &quot;I command&quot;. Originally, [_imperator_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=imperator) meant a high-ranking military officer, what we would call a commander-in-chief or a general. And originally, **imperium** meant the region under a commander's or magistrate's authority, not an empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my understanding of how [_imperator_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imperator#Latin) came to mean emperor. (_Nota bene:_ I'm not an expert on Roman history, and I had to hit Wikipedia several times to check what follows, so take this _cum grano salis_.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the Roman Republic, the Romans were proud that they had a republic—something like the way Americans today are proud to have a republic rather than a kingdom. A position of leadership, such as Consul, had to be earned, on the basis of merit, and chosen (somewhat) democratically by the Senate, and only for a one-year term. When that came to an end with Julius Caesar's accession to perpetual dictatorship, the Romans didn't rename the nation. They continued saying that they had a republic. They kept making flags that said SPQR. Caesar styled himself _imperator_ to retain the fiction that he was just a military commander, not a monarch. It was a bit like Qadafi calling himself a retired &quot;Colonel&quot; in Libya even as he held ultimate political power. _Imperator,_ as you said, was a title often bestowed on military leaders in honor of an important victory, and was often an important credential for appointing someone Consul. So, calling the monarch _imperator_ helped the Romans pretend that they still had a republic. _De jure,_ it still was a republic, _de jure_ the (rubber-stamp) Senate still held ultimate authority, but _de facto_ it was a monarchy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the years after Octavian put the, er, empire back together, _imperator_ came to be used less and less to mean military commander and more and more to mean the person who held the position of _de facto_ monarch of Rome. When Charlemagne started the Holy Roman Empire in 800 A.D., he styled himself _imperator_ to establish continuity with the Roman emperors. That anchored the word's meaning in &quot;top monarch&quot; to the present day, whence English &quot;imperial&quot;, &quot;empire&quot;, and &quot;emperor&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="bf20d741-ca43-45c2-9000-9c6b0fbda973" CreationDate="2018-03-16T22:32:24.083" UserId="118" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="**Imperātor** originally meant &quot;commander&quot; in Latin. It comes from the same root as the English word &quot;imperative&quot;, as in &quot;imperative mood&quot;, i.e. the grammatical form of a verb used as a command. **Imperō** means &quot;I command&quot;. Originally, [_imperator_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=imperator) meant a high-ranking military officer, what we would call a commander-in-chief or a general. And originally **imperium** meant the region under a commander's or magistrate's authority, not an empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my understanding of how [_imperator_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imperator#Latin) came to mean emperor. (_Nota bene:_ I'm not an expert on Roman history, and I had to hit Wikipedia several times to check what follows, so take this _cum grano salis_.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the Roman Republic, the Romans were proud that they had a republic—something like the way Americans today are proud to have a republic rather than a kingdom. A position of leadership, such as Consul, had to be earned, on the basis of merit, and chosen (somewhat) democratically by the Senate, and only for a one-year term. When that came to an end with Julius Caesar's accession to perpetual dictatorship, the Romans didn't rename the nation. They continued saying that they had a republic. They kept making flags that said SPQR. Caesar styled himself _imperator_ to retain the fiction that he was just a military commander, not a monarch. It was a bit like Qadafi calling himself a retired &quot;Colonel&quot; in Libya even as he held ultimate political power. _Imperator,_ as you said, was a title often bestowed on military leaders in honor of an important victory, and was often an important credential for appointing someone Consul. So, calling the monarch _imperator_ helped the Romans pretend that they still had a republic. _De jure_ it still was a republic, _de jure_ the (rubber-stamp) Senate still held ultimate authority, but _de facto_ it was a monarchy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the years after Octavian put the, er, empire back together, _imperator_ came to be used less and less to mean military commander and more and more to mean the person who held the position of _de facto_ monarch of Rome. When Charlemagne started the Holy Roman Empire in 800 A.D., he styled himself _imperator_ to establish continuity with the Roman emperors. That anchored the word's meaning in &quot;top monarch&quot; to the present day, whence English &quot;imperial&quot;, &quot;empire&quot;, and &quot;emperor&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="611ec1c5-1441-430e-86e7-2488412192e3" CreationDate="2018-03-16T22:38:35.703" UserId="118" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="**Imperātor** originally meant &quot;commander&quot; in Latin. It comes from **imperō**, meaning &quot;I command&quot;—the same root as the English word &quot;imperative&quot;, as in &quot;imperative mood&quot;, the grammatical form of a verb used as a command, and &quot;categorical imperative&quot;, a moral precept without conditions, thus a sort of moral command. Originally, [_imperator_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=imperator) meant a high-ranking military officer, what we would call a commander-in-chief or a general. And originally **imperium** meant the region under a commander's or magistrate's authority, not an empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my understanding of how [_imperator_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imperator#Latin) came to mean emperor. (_Nota bene:_ I'm not an expert on Roman history, and I had to hit Wikipedia several times to check what follows, so take this _cum grano salis_.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the Roman Republic, the Romans were proud that they had a republic—something like the way Americans today are proud to have a republic rather than a kingdom. A position of leadership, such as Consul, had to be earned, on the basis of merit, and chosen (somewhat) democratically by the Senate, and only for a one-year term. When that came to an end with Julius Caesar's accession to perpetual dictatorship, the Romans didn't rename the nation. They continued saying that they had a republic. They kept making flags that said SPQR. Caesar styled himself _imperator_ to retain the fiction that he was just a military commander, not a monarch. It was a bit like Qadafi calling himself a retired &quot;Colonel&quot; in Libya even as he held ultimate political power. _Imperator,_ as you said, was a title often bestowed on military leaders in honor of an important victory, and was often an important credential for appointing someone Consul. So, calling the monarch _imperator_ helped the Romans pretend that they still had a republic. _De jure_ it still was a republic, _de jure_ the (rubber-stamp) Senate still held ultimate authority, but _de facto_ it was a monarchy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the years after Octavian put the, er, empire back together, _imperator_ came to be used less and less to mean military commander and more and more to mean the person who held the position of _de facto_ monarch of Rome. When Charlemagne started the Holy Roman Empire in 800 A.D., he styled himself _imperator_ to establish continuity with the Roman emperors. That anchored the word's meaning in &quot;top monarch&quot; to the present day, whence English &quot;imperial&quot;, &quot;empire&quot;, and &quot;emperor&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="efbf15c9-bb19-4ede-8035-de0fb5d738b7" CreationDate="2018-03-16T22:48:13.837" UserId="118" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="**Imperātor** originally meant &quot;commander&quot; in Latin. It comes from **imperō**, meaning &quot;I command&quot;—the same root as the English word &quot;imperative&quot;, as in &quot;imperative mood&quot;, the grammatical form of a verb used as a command, and &quot;categorical imperative&quot;, a moral precept without conditions, thus a sort of moral command. Originally, [_imperator_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=imperator) meant a high-ranking military officer, what we would call a commander-in-chief or a general. And originally **imperium** meant the region under a commander's or magistrate's authority, not an empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my understanding of how [_imperator_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imperator#Latin) came to mean emperor. (_Nota bene:_ I'm not an expert on Roman history, and I had to hit Wikipedia several times to check what follows, so take this _cum grano salis_.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the Roman Republic, the Romans were proud that they had a republic—something like the way Americans today are proud to have a republic rather than a kingdom. A position of leadership, such as Consul, had to be earned, on the basis of merit, and chosen (somewhat) democratically by the Senate, and only for a one-year term. When that came to an end with Julius Caesar's accession to perpetual dictatorship, the Romans didn't rename the nation. They continued saying that they had a republic. They kept making flags that said SPQR. Caesar styled himself _imperator_ to retain the fiction that he was just a military commander, not a monarch. It was a bit like Qadafi calling himself a retired &quot;Colonel&quot; in Libya even as he held ultimate political power. _Imperator,_ as you said, was a title often bestowed on military leaders in honor of an important victory, and was often an important credential for appointing someone Consul. So, calling the monarch _imperator_ helped the Romans pretend that they still had a republic. _De jure_ it still was a republic, _de jure_ the (rubber-stamp) Senate still held ultimate authority, but _de facto_ it was a monarchy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the years after Octavian put the, er, empire back together, _imperator_ came to be used less and less to mean military commander and more and more to mean the person who held the position of _de facto_ monarch of Rome. When Charlemagne started the Holy Roman Empire in 800 A.D., he styled himself _imperator_ to establish continuity with the Roman emperors. This time it was _de jure,_ even invested with Papal authority. That anchored the word's meaning in &quot;top monarch&quot; to the present day, whence English &quot;imperial&quot;, &quot;empire&quot;, and &quot;emperor&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6136" RevisionGUID="9964cc7c-731f-4d96-b31d-48ea9743164d" CreationDate="2018-03-16T22:52:05.833" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="***Spoiler alert!!*** *This question gives away a plot point from late in the story of Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata. If you're working your way through that book and haven't yet gotten to Chapter XXXI, you should probably stop reading this question right now.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;In Chapter XXXI, p. 251, Cornelius says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! Quid? Herī quendam servum tuum vīdī in viā Latīnā. Faciem recognōvī, saepe eum hīc **vīdī**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not **vidēbam**? Is it optional to use the imperfect here? Or does the perfect tense convey a distinction here, like &quot;I saw him here several times in the past&quot; vs. &quot;I used to see him here often&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20268" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6136" RevisionGUID="9964cc7c-731f-4d96-b31d-48ea9743164d" CreationDate="2018-03-16T22:52:05.833" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|tenses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6136" RevisionGUID="c7186a92-16ab-4caf-8519-d3ca7ccf55e3" CreationDate="2018-03-16T23:00:05.860" UserId="118" Comment="Rolling back spoiler-blanking. I figure that beginners won't be able to read the line easily anyway. The spoiler alert tells them not to put in the effort to read it." Text="***Spoiler alert!!*** *This question gives away a plot point from late in the story of Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata. If you're working your way through that book and haven't yet gotten to Chapter XXXI, you should probably stop reading this question right now.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;In Chapter XXXI, p. 251, Cornelius says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid? Herī quendam servum tuum vīdī in viā Latīnā. Faciem recognōvī, saepe eum hīc **vīdī**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not **vidēbam**? Is it optional to use the imperfect here? Or does the perfect tense convey a distinction here, like &quot;I saw him here several times in the past&quot; vs. &quot;I used to see him here often&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="a95d08e9-3754-4c76-a707-ec1a82fa4b4f" CreationDate="2018-03-16T23:14:12.437" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="**Imperātor** originally meant &quot;commander&quot; in Latin. It comes from **imperō**, meaning &quot;I command&quot;—the same root as the English word &quot;imperative&quot;, as in &quot;imperative mood&quot;, the grammatical form of a verb used as a command, and &quot;categorical imperative&quot;, a moral precept without conditions, a sort of moral command. Originally, [_imperator_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=imperator) meant a high-ranking military officer, what we would call a commander-in-chief or a general. And originally **imperium** meant the region under a commander's or magistrate's authority, not an empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my understanding of how [_imperator_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imperator#Latin) came to mean emperor. (_Nota bene:_ I'm not an expert on Roman history, and I had to hit Wikipedia several times to check what follows, so take this _cum grano salis_.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the Roman Republic, the Romans were proud that they had a republic—something like the way Americans today are proud to have a republic rather than a kingdom. A position of leadership, such as Consul, had to be earned, on the basis of merit, and chosen (somewhat) democratically by the Senate, and only for a one-year term. When that came to an end with Julius Caesar's accession to perpetual dictatorship, the Romans didn't rename the nation. They continued saying that they had a republic. They kept making flags that said SPQR. Caesar styled himself _imperator_ to retain the fiction that he was just a military commander, not a monarch. It was a bit like Qadafi calling himself a retired &quot;Colonel&quot; in Libya even as he held ultimate political power. _Imperator,_ as you said, was a title often bestowed on military leaders in honor of an important victory, and was often an important credential for appointing someone Consul. So, calling the monarch _imperator_ helped the Romans pretend that they still had a republic. _De jure_ it still was a republic, _de jure_ the (rubber-stamp) Senate still held ultimate authority, but _de facto_ it was a monarchy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the years after Octavian put the, er, empire back together, _imperator_ came to be used less and less to mean military commander and more and more to mean the person who held the position of _de facto_ monarch of Rome. When Charlemagne started the Holy Roman Empire in 800 A.D., he styled himself _imperator_ to establish continuity with the Roman emperors. This time it was _de jure,_ even invested with Papal authority. That anchored the word's meaning in &quot;top monarch&quot; to the present day, whence English &quot;imperial&quot;, &quot;empire&quot;, and &quot;emperor&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6140" RevisionGUID="6c4df105-9f38-41de-b31a-4d685198f677" CreationDate="2018-03-16T23:27:57.433" UserId="79" Text="This answer is based on my intuition, so it is to be taken *cum grano salis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The seeing is stated as a fact from the point of view of an action in the present, or so it seems to me.&#xD;&#xA;(I have never seen LLPSI!)&#xD;&#xA;This relation to present is a reason to prefer perfect over imperfect in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;Using the imperfect often describes circumstances of the past (&quot;I used to see him every day&quot; as opposed to &quot;I saw him every day&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the act being completed makes a good case for the perfect tense.&#xD;&#xA;It was repeated, yes, but repetition typically requires imperfect when the point of view is in the past.&#xD;&#xA;The perfect gives an impression of change, as the old action (described by the second *vidi*) is over: the slave was often seen here, but the last time I saw him someplace else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="2e92aeb6-cd8a-4251-b2ec-7505955f103c" CreationDate="2018-03-17T03:36:44.767" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="**Imperātor** originally meant &quot;commander&quot; in Latin. It comes from **imperō**, meaning &quot;I command&quot;—the same root as the English word &quot;imperative&quot;, as in &quot;imperative mood&quot;, the grammatical form of a verb used as a command, and &quot;categorical imperative&quot;, a moral precept without conditions, a sort of moral command. Originally, [_imperator_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=imperator) meant a high-ranking military officer, what we would call a commander-in-chief or a general. And originally **imperium** meant the region under a commander's or magistrate's authority, not an empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my understanding of how [_imperator_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imperator#Latin) came to mean emperor. (_Nota bene:_ I'm not an expert on Roman history, and I had to hit Wikipedia several times to check what follows, so take this _cum grano salis_.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the Roman Republic, the Romans were proud that they had a republic—something like the way Americans today are proud to have a republic rather than a kingdom. A position of leadership, such as Consul, had to be earned, on the basis of merit, and chosen (somewhat) democratically by the Senate, and only for a one-year term. When that came to an end with Julius Caesar's accession to perpetual dictatorship, the Romans didn't rename the nation. They continued saying that they had a republic. They kept making flags that said SPQR. Caesar styled himself _imperator_ to retain the fiction that he was just a military commander, not a monarch. It was a bit like Qadafi calling himself a mere &quot;Colonel&quot; in Libya even as he held ultimate political power. _Imperator,_ as you said, was a title often bestowed on military leaders in honor of an important victory, and was often an important credential for appointing someone Consul. So, calling the monarch _imperator_ helped the Romans pretend that they still had a republic. _De jure_ it still was a republic, _de jure_ the (rubber-stamp) Senate still held ultimate authority, but _de facto_ it was a monarchy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the years after Octavian put the, er, empire back together, _imperator_ came to be used less and less to mean military commander and more and more to mean the person who held the position of _de facto_ monarch of Rome. When Charlemagne started the Holy Roman Empire in 800 A.D., he styled himself _imperator_ to establish continuity with the Roman emperors. This time it was _de jure,_ even invested with Papal authority. That anchored the word's meaning in &quot;top monarch&quot; to the present day, whence English &quot;imperial&quot;, &quot;empire&quot;, and &quot;emperor&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="43bf7e6b-4a49-43cc-8dde-47803cec2db4" CreationDate="2018-03-17T03:47:06.137" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body" Text="**Imperātor** originally meant &quot;[_commander_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=imperator)&quot; in Latin—a high-ranking military officer, what we would call a commander-in-chief or a general. It comes from **imperō**, meaning &quot;I command&quot;, the same root as the English word &quot;imperative&quot;, as in &quot;imperative mood&quot;, the grammatical form of a verb used as a command, and &quot;categorical imperative&quot;, a moral precept without conditions, a sort of moral command. And originally **imperium** meant the region under a commander's or magistrate's authority, not an empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my understanding of how [_imperator_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imperator#Latin) came to mean emperor. (_Nota bene:_ I'm not an expert on Roman history, and I had to hit Wikipedia several times to check what follows, so take this _cum grano salis_.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the Roman Republic, the Romans were proud that they had a republic—something like the way Americans today are proud to have a republic rather than a kingdom. A position of leadership, such as Consul, had to be earned, on the basis of merit, and chosen (somewhat) democratically by the Senate, and only for a one-year term. When that came to an end with Julius Caesar's accession to perpetual dictatorship, the Romans didn't rename the nation. They continued saying that they had a republic. They kept making flags that said SPQR. Caesar styled himself _imperator_ to retain the fiction that he was just a military commander, not a monarch. It was a bit like Qadafi calling himself a mere &quot;Colonel&quot; in Libya even as he held ultimate political power. _Imperator,_ as you said, was a title bestowed on military leaders in honor of an important victory, and was often an important credential for someone running for Consul. So, calling the monarch _imperator_ helped the Romans pretend that they still had a republic. _De jure_ it still was a republic, _de jure_ the (rubber-stamp) Senate still held ultimate authority, but _de facto_ it was a monarchy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the years after Octavian got the, er, empire on a solid footing, _imperator_ came to be used less and less to mean military commander and more and more to mean the person who held the position of _de facto_ monarch of Rome. When Charlemagne started the Holy Roman Empire in 800 A.D., he styled himself _imperator_ to establish continuity with the Roman emperors. This time it was _de jure,_ even invested with Papal authority. That anchored the word's meaning in &quot;top monarch&quot; to the present day, whence English &quot;imperial&quot;, &quot;empire&quot;, and &quot;emperor&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="ee032f9f-73e8-4449-8015-217772d7148f" CreationDate="2018-03-17T03:56:07.543" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 52 characters in body" Text="**Imperātor** originally meant &quot;commander&quot; in Latin—a high-ranking military officer, what we would call a commander-in-chief or a general. It comes from **imperō**, meaning &quot;I command&quot;, the same root as the English word &quot;imperative&quot;, as in &quot;imperative mood&quot;, the grammatical form of a verb used as a command, and &quot;categorical imperative&quot;, a moral precept without conditions, a sort of moral command. And originally **imperium** meant the region under a commander's or magistrate's authority, not an empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my understanding of how [_imperator_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=imperator) came to mean emperor. (_Nota bene:_ I'm not an expert on Roman history, and I had to hit Wikipedia several times to check what follows, so take this _cum grano salis_.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the Roman Republic, the Romans were proud that they had a republic—something like the way Americans today are proud to have a republic rather than a kingdom. A position of leadership, such as Consul, had to be earned, on the basis of merit, and chosen (somewhat) democratically by the Senate, and only for a one-year term. When that came to an end with Julius Caesar's accession to perpetual dictatorship, the Romans didn't rename the nation. They continued saying that they had a republic. They kept making flags that said SPQR. Caesar styled himself _imperator_ to retain the fiction that he was just a military commander, not a monarch. It was a bit like Qadafi calling himself a mere &quot;Colonel&quot; in Libya even as he held ultimate political power. _Imperator,_ as you said, was a title bestowed on military leaders in honor of an important victory, and was often an important credential for someone running for Consul. So, calling the monarch _imperator_ helped the Romans pretend that they still had a republic. _De jure_ it still was a republic, _de jure_ the (rubber-stamp) Senate still held ultimate authority, but _de facto_ it was a monarchy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the years after Octavian got the, er, empire on a solid footing, _imperator_ came to be used less and less to mean military commander and more and more to mean the person who held the position of _de facto_ monarch of Rome. When Charlemagne started the Holy Roman Empire in 800 A.D., he styled himself _imperator_ to establish continuity with the Roman emperors. This time it was _de jure,_ even invested with Papal authority. That anchored the word's meaning in &quot;top monarch&quot; to the present day, whence English &quot;imperial&quot;, &quot;empire&quot;, and &quot;emperor&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="8e02c583-3967-45dd-89ca-faf3f3ea98f7" CreationDate="2018-03-17T04:22:26.397" UserId="118" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="**Imperātor** originally meant &quot;commander&quot; in Latin—a high-ranking military officer, what we would call a commander-in-chief or a [general](https://archive.org/stream/cicerodeoratore01ciceuoft#page/148/mode/2up). It comes from **imperō**, meaning &quot;I command&quot;, the same root as the English word &quot;imperative&quot;, as in &quot;imperative mood&quot;, the grammatical form of a verb used as a command, and &quot;categorical imperative&quot;, a moral precept without conditions, a sort of moral command. And originally **imperium** meant the region under a commander's or magistrate's authority, not an empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my understanding of how [_imperator_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=imperator) came to mean emperor. (_Nota bene:_ I'm not an expert on Roman history, and I had to hit Wikipedia several times to check what follows, so take this _cum grano salis_.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the Roman Republic, the Romans were proud that they had a republic—something like the way Americans today are proud to have a republic rather than a kingdom. A position of leadership, such as Consul, had to be earned, on the basis of merit, and chosen (somewhat) democratically by the Senate, and only for a one-year term. When that came to an end with Julius Caesar's accession to perpetual dictatorship, the Romans didn't rename the nation. They continued saying that they had a republic. They kept making flags that said SPQR. Caesar styled himself _imperator_ to retain the fiction that he was just a military commander, not a monarch. It was a bit like Qadafi calling himself a mere &quot;Colonel&quot; in Libya even as he held ultimate political power. _Imperator,_ as you said, was a title bestowed on military leaders in honor of an important victory, and was often an important credential for someone running for Consul. So, calling the monarch _imperator_ helped the Romans pretend that they still had a republic. _De jure_ it still was a republic, _de jure_ the (rubber-stamp) Senate still held ultimate authority, but _de facto_ it was a monarchy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the years after Octavian got the, er, empire on a solid footing, _imperator_ came to be used less and less to mean military commander and more and more to mean the person who held the position of _de facto_ monarch of Rome. When Charlemagne started the Holy Roman Empire in 800 A.D., he styled himself _imperator_ to establish continuity with the Roman emperors. This time it was _de jure,_ even invested with Papal authority. That anchored the word's meaning in &quot;top monarch&quot; to the present day, whence English &quot;imperial&quot;, &quot;empire&quot;, and &quot;emperor&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6140" RevisionGUID="fb45f0b2-59d1-4d64-8d90-e3bd46c08b72" CreationDate="2018-03-17T10:34:39.663" UserId="79" Comment="added 192 characters in body; added 110 characters in body" Text="This answer is based on my intuition, so it is to be taken *cum grano salis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The seeing is stated as a fact from the point of view of an action in the present, or so it seems to me.&#xD;&#xA;(I have never seen LLPSI!)&#xD;&#xA;This relation to present is a reason to prefer perfect over imperfect in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;Using the imperfect often describes circumstances of the past (&quot;I used to see him every day&quot; as opposed to &quot;I saw him every day&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the act being completed makes a good case for the perfect tense.&#xD;&#xA;It was repeated, yes, but repetition typically requires imperfect when the point of view is in the past.&#xD;&#xA;The perfect gives an impression of change, as the old action (described by the second *vidi*) is over: the slave was often seen here, but the last time I saw him someplace else.&#xA;&#xA;The repetition is a good reason to pick the imperfect.&#xA;The two tenses emphasize different sides and both are possible.&#xA;I would consider this particular tense choice to be a matter of nuance.&#xA;I would have probably chosen the imperfect, but my point was to argue that there are reasons to do otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6141" RevisionGUID="e47ffe96-bf31-44d1-9f74-224a456416af" CreationDate="2018-03-17T14:02:24.087" UserId="81" Text="The relative pronoun *quem* in the following seems to function in a way that I wouldn't normally associate with relative pronouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et accipiens puerum, statuit eum in medio eorum: *quem cum complexus esset*, ait illis:...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What strikes me as odd is that the dependent clause seems to be set off by both *quem* and *cum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point becomes clearer when the phrase &quot;*quem cum complexus esset*&quot; is compared with the Greek for which it is a translation: καὶ ἐναγκαλισάμενος αὐτὸ. In the Greek, instead of a relative pronoun, a personal pronoun is used; i.e. αὐτὸ instead of *quem*, and the clause is set of by the participle without any interference by a relative pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of this, I'm led to think that *quem*, in this particular case, should be thought of more as a personal pronoun than a relative pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it seems to refer back to an antecedent, it doesn't seem to set off the dependent clause (which seems to be the role of *cum*) as relative pronouns often do, i.e. by establishing it as a dependent clause and tying it with the rest of the sentence. I hope that makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My question is:** Am I thinking about this correctly? Should pronouns such as *quem* sometimes be thought of as more like personal pronouns?  Is this a frequent type of construction in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20278" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6141" RevisionGUID="e47ffe96-bf31-44d1-9f74-224a456416af" CreationDate="2018-03-17T14:02:24.087" UserId="81" Text="Concerning the use of relative pronouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20279" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6141" RevisionGUID="e47ffe96-bf31-44d1-9f74-224a456416af" CreationDate="2018-03-17T14:02:24.087" UserId="81" Text="|relative-clause|relative-pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6142" RevisionGUID="cbd4539e-955b-4bf7-8db0-8a06754f8508" CreationDate="2018-03-17T16:09:12.883" UserId="79" Text="The relative pronoun can also be used to start a new independent clause, and in this use it doesn't really function as a relative pronoun in the usual sense.&#xD;&#xA;This is sometimes known as a connecting or connective relative pronoun, and is often best translated as if it was *is*, *ille*, or similar.&#xD;&#xA;The same applies to relative adverbs like *quo* as well.&#xD;&#xA;See part F of [Allen &amp; Greenough §308](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-308.html) for an explanation and examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a contrived example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Amici mei mihi occurrerunt. **Quos** cum salutavissem, domum reversus sum.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I ran into my friends. Having greeted **them**, I returned home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your passage, you can read *quem* as if it was *eum* (= *puerum*), but the use or relative instead of demonstrative is indeed idiomatic and pretty common in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of connecting relative seems to be quite common with *cum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20281" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6141" RevisionGUID="a69bb9e4-7a5d-4587-afa5-179379dcd5a7" CreationDate="2018-03-17T17:49:08.337" UserId="81" Comment="edited title" Text="How to understand quem and cum in the same dependent clause" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20282" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6141" RevisionGUID="b5f9a2e1-3d17-478f-8502-39b015ab9131" CreationDate="2018-03-17T20:29:18.943" UserId="81" Comment="edited title" Text="Concerning the use of relative pronouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6143" RevisionGUID="0705bc80-1265-447a-a008-c0aec0ab81e6" CreationDate="2018-03-17T21:29:42.447" UserId="79" Text="The Etruscans had a written language, and they must have had some kind of literature.&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_civilization#Literature) gives a short mention.&#xD;&#xA;What is the largest known piece of Etruscan literature?&#xD;&#xA;It could be an epic poem, a play, or anything &amp;mdash; I don't know what kinds of things they had.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is very little extant Etruscan text.&#xD;&#xA;What I am looking for does not have to be extant, but just believed to have existed.&#xD;&#xA;My question can be rephrased like so:&#xD;&#xA;What is the most significant item in Etruscan literature that we have indirect evidence of?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20284" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6143" RevisionGUID="0705bc80-1265-447a-a008-c0aec0ab81e6" CreationDate="2018-03-17T21:29:42.447" UserId="79" Text="What is the largest known piece of Etruscan literature?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20285" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6143" RevisionGUID="0705bc80-1265-447a-a008-c0aec0ab81e6" CreationDate="2018-03-17T21:29:42.447" UserId="79" Text="|reference-request|etruscan|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6144" RevisionGUID="ed1b4dcf-c0e4-4232-aa2a-3aed96e64103" CreationDate="2018-03-17T21:45:41.210" UserId="469" Text="To answer to your question directly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why not **vidēbam**? Is it optional to use the imperfect here? Or does the perfect tense convey a distinction here, like &quot;I saw him here several times in the past&quot; vs. &quot;I used to see him here often&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just as you thought, imperfect is not compulsory because there is a distinction that may be made. You could actually use a different tense (e.g. pluperfect.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both perfect and imperfect may have different translations in English: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **vīdī** ⇒ *I have seen* (also, *I saw*.)&#xD;&#xA;* **vidēbam** ⇒ *I used to see* (also, *I was seeing*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first translation given for each tense is the one I think is more relevant in the example you give. Both tenses are compatible with seeing someone often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Perfect** means that the action being talked about [has been completed][1], as if clear boundaries in time were being given. It also may refer to something that has ended recently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imperfect**, in turn, does not necessarily mean the action hasn't been completed, but that the boundaries aren't clear. Information about [when the action did start or end][2] (or whether it actually ended) is not available. The lack of clarity (in my opinion) makes the tense suitable for actions somehow more remote in time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence could also have been *Faciem recognōvī, saepe eum hīc **vīderam*** (with [pluperfect][3].) **Pluperfect** involves an action that was already completed when another action in the past took place: I recognized his face [because,] I *had seen* him here several times [before that.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Latin/Lesson_5-Perfect_Indicative&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Latin/Lesson_1-Imperfect&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Latin/Lesson_7-Future_and_Past_Perfect#Pluperfect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6145" RevisionGUID="af5e2f35-51db-4160-a0d4-f6fde56d833d" CreationDate="2018-03-17T22:12:42.297" UserId="406" Text="My guess would be their religious works, particularly pertaining to divination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his *De Divinatione* 33.72, Cicero mentions these books:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quorum alia sunt posata in monumentis et disciplina, quod Etruscorum declarant, et haruspicini et fulgurales et rituales libri, vestri etiam augurales…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Trans. mine)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Others of these [divination methods] are cemented in records and traditions, which are made clear by the Etruscan books on entrail reading and lightning omens and rituals, and also your own books on augury…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Literally, &quot;which the haruspicine and fulgural and ritual books of the Etruscans make clear&quot;.)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20288" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="6122" RevisionGUID="2d47021c-dec1-4819-a54e-e8170900432f" CreationDate="2018-03-17T23:00:52.977" UserId="79" Comment="71" />
  <row Id="20289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6146" RevisionGUID="360dc08c-1766-4e0a-a9c0-a1a47c7326de" CreationDate="2018-03-18T02:35:44.597" UserId="2482" Text="I have heard that Latin does not lengthen stressed syllables. If so, are they pronounced louder or with altered articulation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20290" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6146" RevisionGUID="360dc08c-1766-4e0a-a9c0-a1a47c7326de" CreationDate="2018-03-18T02:35:44.597" UserId="2482" Text="How is stress realized in Latin phonetically?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20291" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6146" RevisionGUID="360dc08c-1766-4e0a-a9c0-a1a47c7326de" CreationDate="2018-03-18T02:35:44.597" UserId="2482" Text="|pronunciation|stress|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6146" RevisionGUID="e07a2008-2a08-4785-a0a8-3cfc09035cf9" CreationDate="2018-03-18T02:46:20.077" UserId="2482" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="I have heard that Latin does not lengthen stressed syllables. If so, are they pronounced louder or with altered articulation, maybe a higher pitch?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6147" RevisionGUID="5ed2c253-6965-4a15-af25-42c32fd675a8" CreationDate="2018-03-18T03:58:51.997" UserId="39" Text="answer in progress:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The common form for the interrogative-indefinite and relative pronouns is quem&quot; (Tronskii 1960: 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neue et al. (volume 2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/e0KCS.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6147" RevisionGUID="d69a3374-04fd-49a5-9440-f07cba65d41c" CreationDate="2018-03-18T04:04:31.207" UserId="39" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="answer in progress:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The common form for the interrogative-indefinite and relative pronouns is quem&quot; (Tronskii 1960: 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sommer 1902:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neue et al. (volume 2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/myCrA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/e0KCS.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6148" RevisionGUID="cfb2c4e3-748c-43b0-b8c3-67562d4f1f55" CreationDate="2018-03-18T08:43:36.760" UserId="9" Text="Partial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mentioned this in the comments, but the question hasn't been edited, so I wanted to repeat in an answer post that the linked Wiktionary entry does not in fact appear to give *quem* as the singular feminine accusative of the relative pronoun, but as the singular feminine accusative of the **interrogative** pronoun *quis.* I don't know if it's actually relevant or not, but this topic seems confusing enough that I think it's worth it to be particular about the wording of sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following information from the Latin Discussion thread [&quot;Qui, quae, quod&quot; vs. &quot;quis, quid&quot;][1] about the interrogative pronoun also seems relevant, although it only specifically mentions the nominative form *quis,* and the post doesn't seem to have a list of references:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quis* was initially common gender and may be used for a woman as well. Thus, &quot;Who's that woman?&quot; may translate to either *Quae est illa mulier?* or *Quis est illa mulier?* The feminine use of *quis,* however, appears to have been more common in early Latin than in classical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is consistent with the &quot;(quis)&quot; in the table given by Kennedy, Gwynne and Henry Cullen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/qui-quae-quod-vs-quis-quid.25914/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6148" RevisionGUID="8731a980-d8ac-4174-ae7f-449db48c28c8" CreationDate="2018-03-18T08:52:15.207" UserId="9" Comment="added 567 characters in body" Text="Partial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mentioned this in the comments, but the question hasn't been edited, so I wanted to repeat in an answer post that the linked Wiktionary entry does not in fact appear to give *quem* as the singular feminine accusative of the relative pronoun, but as the singular feminine accusative of the **[interrogative** pronoun *quis][1].* There is in fact no Wiktionary entry for a relative pronoun &quot;quis&quot;. There is an Wiktionary entry for the [relative pronoun &quot;qui&quot;][2], which shows &quot;quam&quot; as the feminine accusative singular form. I don't know if it's actually relevant or not, but this topic seems confusing enough that I think it's worth it to be particular about the wording of sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following information from the Latin Discussion thread [&quot;Qui, quae, quod&quot; vs. &quot;quis, quid&quot;][3], by Pacifica, about the interrogative pronoun also seems relevant, although it only specifically mentions the nominative form *quis,* and the post doesn't seem to have a list of references:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quis* was initially common gender and may be used for a woman as well. Thus, &quot;Who's that woman?&quot; may translate to either *Quae est illa mulier?* or *Quis est illa mulier?* The feminine use of *quis,* however, appears to have been more common in early Latin than in classical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence is consistent with the &quot;(quis)&quot; in the table given by Kennedy, Gwynne and Henry Cullen. A literal reading of Kennedy, Gwynne and Cullen seems to say that while &quot;(quis)&quot; was the feminine nominative form, &quot;quam&quot; was the feminine accusative form, but I wonder if they actually meant to imply that the existence of a distinct form for the feminine interrogative pronoun was dependent on the case of the pronoun. I certainly can't say it's impossible that this was the situation in the form of Latin that Kennedy, Gwynne and Cullen are aiming to describe, but Pacifica's post indicates that Kennedy, Gwynne and Cullen may have omitted some possible usages from their table (like the use of *quae* as a nominative interrogative pronoun).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quis#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/qui#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/qui-quae-quod-vs-quis-quid.25914/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6148" RevisionGUID="4665f170-1480-4ea3-865c-60d9cb443aa2" CreationDate="2018-03-18T08:57:44.513" UserId="9" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="Partial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mentioned this in the comments, but the question hasn't been edited, so I wanted to repeat in an answer post that the linked Wiktionary entry does not in fact appear to give *quem* as the singular feminine accusative of the relative pronoun, but as the singular feminine accusative of the **[interrogative** pronoun *quis][1].* There is in fact no Wiktionary entry for a relative pronoun &quot;quis&quot;. There is an Wiktionary entry for the [relative pronoun &quot;qui&quot;][2], which shows &quot;quam&quot; as the feminine accusative singular form. I don't know if it's actually relevant or not, but this topic seems confusing enough that I think it's worth it to be particular about the wording of sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following information from the Latin Discussion thread [&quot;Qui, quae, quod&quot; vs. &quot;quis, quid&quot;][3], by Pacifica, about the interrogative pronoun also seems relevant, although it only specifically mentions the nominative form *quis,* and the post doesn't seem to have a list of references:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quis* was initially common gender and may be used for a woman as well. Thus, &quot;Who's that woman?&quot; may translate to either *Quae est illa mulier?* or *Quis est illa mulier?* The feminine use of *quis,* however, appears to have been more common in early Latin than in classical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence is consistent with the &quot;(quis)&quot; in the table given by Kennedy, Gwynne and Henry Cullen. A literal reading of Kennedy, Gwynne and Cullen seems to say that while &quot;(quis)&quot; was the feminine nominative form, &quot;quam&quot; was the feminine accusative form, but I wonder if they actually meant to imply that the existence of a distinct feminine, as opposed to masculine form for the interrogative pronoun was dependent on the case of the pronoun. I certainly can't say it's impossible that this was the situation in the form of Latin that Kennedy, Gwynne and Cullen are aiming to describe, but Pacifica's post indicates that Kennedy, Gwynne and Cullen may have omitted some possible usages from their table (like the use of *quae* as a nominative interrogative feminine singular pronoun).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quis#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/qui#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/qui-quae-quod-vs-quis-quid.25914/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6148" RevisionGUID="cdfe6fa0-ccec-4128-962d-263c5c9bc614" CreationDate="2018-03-18T09:04:30.327" UserId="9" Comment="added 234 characters in body" Text="Partial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mentioned this in the comments, but the question hasn't been edited, so I wanted to repeat in an answer post that the linked Wiktionary entry does not in fact appear to give *quem* as the singular feminine accusative of the relative pronoun, but as the singular feminine accusative of the **[interrogative** pronoun *quis][1].* There is in fact no Wiktionary entry for a relative pronoun &quot;quis&quot;. There is an Wiktionary entry for the [relative pronoun &quot;qui&quot;][2], which shows &quot;quam&quot; as the feminine accusative singular form. I don't know if it's actually relevant or not, but this topic seems confusing enough that I think it's worth it to be particular about the wording of sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following information from the Latin Discussion thread [&quot;Qui, quae, quod&quot; vs. &quot;quis, quid&quot;][3], by Pacifica, about the interrogative pronoun also seems relevant, although it only specifically mentions the nominative form *quis,* and the post doesn't seem to have a list of references:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quis* was initially common gender and may be used for a woman as well. Thus, &quot;Who's that woman?&quot; may translate to either *Quae est illa mulier?* or *Quis est illa mulier?* The feminine use of *quis,* however, appears to have been more common in early Latin than in classical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence is consistent with the &quot;(quis)&quot; in the table given by Kennedy, Gwynne and Henry Cullen. A literal reading of Kennedy, Gwynne and Cullen seems to say that while &quot;(quis)&quot; was the feminine nominative form, &quot;quam&quot; was the feminine accusative form, but I wonder if they actually meant to imply that the existence of a distinct feminine, as opposed to masculine form for the interrogative pronoun was dependent on the case of the pronoun. I certainly can't say it's impossible that this was the situation in the form of Latin that Kennedy, Gwynne and Cullen are aiming to describe, but Pacifica's post indicates that Kennedy, Gwynne and Cullen may have omitted some possible usages from their table (like the use of *quae* as a nominative interrogative feminine singular pronoun).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found another Latin Discussion thread that looks like it might be relevant that I still have to finish processing: [feminine of interrogative pronoun][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original poster, socratidion, says in the opening post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Until recently I blithely believed that the interrogative pronoun quis had feminine singular forms cuius (gen.), cui (dat.), quam (acc.), qua (abl.), but that the nominative was quis like the masculine. From Shelmerdine I learned that this is by no means the universal view, and that many books maintain that the feminine forms do not exist in the singular (i.e. one would always use the masculine), but do exist in the plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Among those who list feminine singular forms for the interrogative pronoun are: Jones/Sidwell &quot;Reading Latin&quot;, Betts &quot;Teach yourself Latin', Kennedy &quot;Latin primer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Those who deny the existence of the feminine singular include: Shelmerdine, Moreland &amp; Fleischer &quot;Latin: an intensive course&quot;; Gildersleeve and Lodge &quot;Latin grammar&quot;; Bennett &quot;Latin Grammar&quot;; Allen &amp; Greenough &quot;New Latin grammar&quot;. Also, both the English-language and German-language Wikipedia articles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quis#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/qui#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/qui-quae-quod-vs-quis-quid.25914/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/feminine-of-interrogative-pronoun.11644/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6148" RevisionGUID="23fe6f9d-d80f-41e6-8326-10849cc931d2" CreationDate="2018-03-18T09:09:32.223" UserId="9" Comment="added 234 characters in body" Text="Partial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mentioned this in the comments, but the question hasn't been edited, so I wanted to repeat in an answer post that the linked Wiktionary entry does not in fact appear to give *quem* as the singular feminine accusative of the **relative** pronoun (as the title and first sentence of this question say), but as the singular feminine accusative of the **[interrogative** pronoun *quis][1].* There is in fact no Wiktionary entry for a relative pronoun &quot;quis&quot;. There is an Wiktionary entry for the [relative pronoun &quot;qui&quot;][2], which shows &quot;quam&quot; as the feminine accusative singular form. I don't know if it's actually relevant or not, but this topic seems confusing enough that I think it's worth it to be particular about the wording of sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following information from the Latin Discussion thread [&quot;Qui, quae, quod&quot; vs. &quot;quis, quid&quot;][3], by Pacifica, about the interrogative pronoun also seems relevant, although it only specifically mentions the nominative form *quis,* and the post doesn't seem to have a list of references:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quis* was initially common gender and may be used for a woman as well. Thus, &quot;Who's that woman?&quot; may translate to either *Quae est illa mulier?* or *Quis est illa mulier?* The feminine use of *quis,* however, appears to have been more common in early Latin than in classical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence is consistent with the &quot;(quis)&quot; in the table given by Kennedy, Gwynne and Henry Cullen. A literal reading of Kennedy, Gwynne and Cullen seems to say that while &quot;(quis)&quot; was the feminine nominative form, &quot;quam&quot; was the feminine accusative form, but I wonder if they actually meant to imply that the existence of a distinct feminine, as opposed to masculine form for the interrogative pronoun was dependent on the case of the pronoun. I certainly can't say it's impossible that this was the situation in the form of Latin that Kennedy, Gwynne and Cullen are aiming to describe, but Pacifica's post indicates that Kennedy, Gwynne and Cullen may have omitted some possible usages from their table (like the use of *quae* as a nominative interrogative feminine singular pronoun).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found another Latin Discussion thread that looks like it might be relevant that I still have to finish processing: [feminine of interrogative pronoun][4]. The original poster, socratidion, says in the opening post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Until recently I blithely believed that the interrogative pronoun quis had feminine singular forms cuius (gen.), cui (dat.), quam (acc.), qua (abl.), but that the nominative was quis like the masculine. From Shelmerdine I learned that this is by no means the universal view, and that many books maintain that the feminine forms do not exist in the singular (i.e. one would always use the masculine), but do exist in the plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Among those who list feminine singular forms for the interrogative pronoun are: Jones/Sidwell &quot;Reading Latin&quot;, Betts &quot;Teach yourself Latin', Kennedy &quot;Latin primer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Those who deny the existence of the feminine singular include: Shelmerdine, Moreland &amp; Fleischer &quot;Latin: an intensive course&quot;; Gildersleeve and Lodge &quot;Latin grammar&quot;; Bennett &quot;Latin Grammar&quot;; Allen &amp; Greenough &quot;New Latin grammar&quot;. Also, both the English-language and German-language Wikipedia articles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quis#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/qui#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/qui-quae-quod-vs-quis-quid.25914/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/feminine-of-interrogative-pronoun.11644/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6148" RevisionGUID="4f5b2736-b769-4c7b-8e24-4e78cbe2a3ef" CreationDate="2018-03-18T09:14:59.427" UserId="9" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Partial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mentioned this in the comments, but the question hasn't been edited, so I wanted to repeat in an answer post that the linked Wiktionary entry does not in fact appear to give *quem* as the singular feminine accusative of the **relative** pronoun (as the title and first sentence of this question say), but as the singular feminine accusative of the **[interrogative** pronoun *quis][1].* There is in fact no Wiktionary entry for a relative pronoun &quot;quis&quot;. There is an Wiktionary entry for the [relative pronoun &quot;qui&quot;][2], which shows &quot;quam&quot; as the feminine accusative singular form. I don't know if it's actually relevant or not, but this topic seems confusing enough that I think it's worth it to be particular about the wording of sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following information from the Latin Discussion thread [&quot;Qui, quae, quod&quot; vs. &quot;quis, quid&quot;][3], by Pacifica, about the interrogative pronoun also seems relevant, although it only specifically mentions the nominative form *quis,* and the post doesn't seem to have a list of references:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quis* was initially common gender and may be used for a woman as well. Thus, &quot;Who's that woman?&quot; may translate to either *Quae est illa mulier?* or *Quis est illa mulier?* The feminine use of *quis,* however, appears to have been more common in early Latin than in classical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence is consistent with the &quot;(quis)&quot; in the table given by Kennedy, Gwynne and Henry Cullen. A literal reading of Kennedy, Gwynne and Cullen seems to say that while &quot;quis&quot; could be used as the feminine nominative form, &quot;quam&quot; was used as the feminine accusative form; I certainly can't say it's impossible that this was the situation in the form of Latin that Kennedy, Gwynne and Cullen are aiming to describe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found another Latin Discussion thread that looks like it might be relevant that I still have to finish processing: [feminine of interrogative pronoun][4]. The original poster, socratidion, says in the opening post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Until recently I blithely believed that the interrogative pronoun quis had feminine singular forms cuius (gen.), cui (dat.), quam (acc.), qua (abl.), but that the nominative was quis like the masculine. From Shelmerdine I learned that this is by no means the universal view, and that many books maintain that the feminine forms do not exist in the singular (i.e. one would always use the masculine), but do exist in the plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Among those who list feminine singular forms for the interrogative pronoun are: Jones/Sidwell &quot;Reading Latin&quot;, Betts &quot;Teach yourself Latin', Kennedy &quot;Latin primer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Those who deny the existence of the feminine singular include: Shelmerdine, Moreland &amp; Fleischer &quot;Latin: an intensive course&quot;; Gildersleeve and Lodge &quot;Latin grammar&quot;; Bennett &quot;Latin Grammar&quot;; Allen &amp; Greenough &quot;New Latin grammar&quot;. Also, both the English-language and German-language Wikipedia articles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quis#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/qui#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/qui-quae-quod-vs-quis-quid.25914/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/feminine-of-interrogative-pronoun.11644/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6148" RevisionGUID="3b4f9aef-e25e-427e-b39a-e9e24edb1c76" CreationDate="2018-03-18T09:20:49.150" UserId="9" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Partial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mentioned this in the comments, but the question hasn't been edited, so I wanted to repeat in an answer post that the linked Wiktionary entry does not in fact appear to give *quem* as the singular feminine accusative of the **relative** pronoun (as the title and first sentence of this question say), but as the singular feminine accusative of the **[interrogative** pronoun *quis][1].* There is in fact no Wiktionary entry for a relative pronoun &quot;quis&quot;. There is an Wiktionary entry for the [relative pronoun &quot;qui&quot;][2], which shows &quot;quam&quot; as the feminine accusative singular form. I don't know if it's actually relevant or not, but this topic seems confusing enough that I think it's worth it to be particular about the wording of sources. From this point on, I will treat the question as being about the interrogative rather than the relative pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following information from the Latin Discussion thread [&quot;Qui, quae, quod&quot; vs. &quot;quis, quid&quot;][3], by Pacifica seems relevant, although it only specifically mentions the nominative form *quis,* and the post doesn't seem to have a list of references:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quis* was initially common gender and may be used for a woman as well. Thus, &quot;Who's that woman?&quot; may translate to either *Quae est illa mulier?* or *Quis est illa mulier?* The feminine use of *quis,* however, appears to have been more common in early Latin than in classical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence is consistent with the &quot;(quis)&quot; in the table given by Kennedy, Gwynne and Henry Cullen. A literal reading of Kennedy, Gwynne and Cullen seems to say that while &quot;quis&quot; could be used as the feminine nominative form, &quot;quam&quot; was used as the feminine accusative form; I certainly can't say it's impossible that this was the situation in the form of Latin that Kennedy, Gwynne and Cullen are aiming to describe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found another Latin Discussion thread that looks like it might be relevant that I still have to finish processing: [feminine of interrogative pronoun][4]. The original poster, socratidion, says in the opening post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Until recently I blithely believed that the interrogative pronoun quis had feminine singular forms cuius (gen.), cui (dat.), quam (acc.), qua (abl.), but that the nominative was quis like the masculine. From Shelmerdine I learned that this is by no means the universal view, and that many books maintain that the feminine forms do not exist in the singular (i.e. one would always use the masculine), but do exist in the plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Among those who list feminine singular forms for the interrogative pronoun are: Jones/Sidwell &quot;Reading Latin&quot;, Betts &quot;Teach yourself Latin', Kennedy &quot;Latin primer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Those who deny the existence of the feminine singular include: Shelmerdine, Moreland &amp; Fleischer &quot;Latin: an intensive course&quot;; Gildersleeve and Lodge &quot;Latin grammar&quot;; Bennett &quot;Latin Grammar&quot;; Allen &amp; Greenough &quot;New Latin grammar&quot;. Also, both the English-language and German-language Wikipedia articles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quis#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/qui#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/qui-quae-quod-vs-quis-quid.25914/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/feminine-of-interrogative-pronoun.11644/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6149" RevisionGUID="6671c0a9-9898-4929-b436-038f08bc2c3d" CreationDate="2018-03-18T11:12:20.967" UserId="118" Text="Why is **atque** preferred before a vowel? Isn't the _-e_ just asking to be elided there? Why not just go with **ac**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20303" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6149" RevisionGUID="6671c0a9-9898-4929-b436-038f08bc2c3d" CreationDate="2018-03-18T11:12:20.967" UserId="118" Text="Why is &quot;atque&quot; preferred before a vowel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20304" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6149" RevisionGUID="6671c0a9-9898-4929-b436-038f08bc2c3d" CreationDate="2018-03-18T11:12:20.967" UserId="118" Text="|elision|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6150" RevisionGUID="0c79c866-c687-49f4-bad5-eabef4a0dc05" CreationDate="2018-03-18T11:35:28.510" UserId="79" Text="The shorter *ac* is not the same thing as *atque* with elision.&#xD;&#xA;The former is a short (light) syllable, the latter a long (heavy) one.&#xD;&#xA;Latin seems to want to preserve syllable length in sound changes, so its importance is not limited to poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course this would be circumvented by pronouncing *ac* as *acc*, but that would probably be more confusing than using *atque* with elision, which makes pronunciation self-evident.&#xD;&#xA;Remember that [elision is not specific to verse, but is also a feature of prose in classical Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/489/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't explain why or how *atque* is shortened to *ac* before a consonant, but that wasn't your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6149" RevisionGUID="25d4baac-6b66-4fd0-838e-f27add701c96" CreationDate="2018-03-18T12:05:07.543" UserId="118" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="Why is **atque** preferred before a vowel? Isn't the _-e_ just asking to be elided there (in ordinary speech, not just poetry)? Why not just go with **ac**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6150" RevisionGUID="724552b6-490f-46df-98aa-e72276891493" CreationDate="2018-03-18T12:15:40.697" UserId="79" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="The shorter *ac* is not the same thing as *atque* with elision.&#xD;&#xA;The former is a short (light) syllable, the latter a long (heavy) one.&#xD;&#xA;Latin seems to want to preserve syllable length in sound changes, so its importance is not limited to poetry.&#xD;&#xA;So yes, the *-e* will be elided, but there still is a difference between *atqu'* and *ac*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course this would be circumvented by pronouncing *ac* as *acc*, but that would probably be more confusing than using *atque* with elision, which makes pronunciation self-evident.&#xD;&#xA;Remember that [elision is not specific to verse, but is also a feature of prose in classical Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/489/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't explain why or how *atque* is shortened to *ac* before a consonant, but that wasn't your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6150" RevisionGUID="995ffabf-3694-4434-add4-6ef3b7b54126" CreationDate="2018-03-18T13:17:39.233" UserId="79" Comment="added 623 characters in body" Text="The shorter *ac* is not the same thing as *atque* with elision.&#xD;&#xA;The former is a short (light) syllable, the latter a long (heavy) one.&#xD;&#xA;Latin seems to want to preserve syllable length in sound changes, so its importance is not limited to poetry.&#xD;&#xA;So yes, the *-e* will be elided, but there still is a difference between *atqu'* and *ac*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a concrete example, take Vergil's Aeneid I.464:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sic ait atque animum pictura pascit inani*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fourth syllable of the verse &amp;mdash; the first of *atque* &amp;mdash; is long because it is followed by a consonant cluster.&#xD;&#xA;If you were to replace it with *ac*, the syllable count would be the same, but the fourth syllable would become short, invalidating the hexameter.&#xD;&#xA;The single syllable of *ac* is short when followed by a vowel, and this is precisely the setting you asked about.&#xD;&#xA;I chose an example in poetry so that the effect of syllable length is emphasized, although the effect is not limited to verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course this would be circumvented by pronouncing *ac* as *acc*, but that would probably be more confusing than using *atque* with elision, which makes pronunciation self-evident.&#xD;&#xA;Remember that [elision is not specific to verse, but is also a feature of prose in classical Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/489/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't explain why or how *atque* is shortened to *ac* before a consonant, but that wasn't your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6151" RevisionGUID="eed42ce6-9bfd-4ece-be97-6896049c878b" CreationDate="2018-03-18T17:07:07.903" UserId="645" Text="This question has been asked and answered before:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1371/what-is-the-difference-between-ac-or-atque-and-et&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To save you time, Allen's book on the subject is online at a url in the second of the answers given there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20310" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6149" RevisionGUID="67767579-acf8-4d90-afb7-50bdc32d3077" CreationDate="2018-03-18T17:34:06.010" UserId="118" Comment="edited title" Text="Why is &quot;atque&quot; preferred over &quot;ac&quot; before a vowel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6150" RevisionGUID="46669000-4f49-4d8e-9249-b6e62c27a5e9" CreationDate="2018-03-18T19:32:41.133" UserId="79" Comment="added 403 characters in body" Text="The shorter *ac* is not the same thing as *atque* with elision.&#xD;&#xA;The former is a short (light) syllable, the latter a long (heavy) one.&#xD;&#xA;Latin seems to want to preserve syllable length in sound changes, so its importance is not limited to poetry.&#xD;&#xA;So yes, the *-e* will be elided, but there still is a difference between *atqu'* and *ac*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original form is *atque* (*at+que*), and when words are changed, Latin has a tendency to preserve syllable length.&#xD;&#xA;There is nothing wrong with *ac* per se, but there is something wrong with **turning** *atqu'* into *ac*, because such a change would turn a long syllable into a short one.&#xD;&#xA;The reason is historical; it has to do with where the word comes from and how sounds can change in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a concrete example, take Vergil's Aeneid I.464:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sic ait atque animum pictura pascit inani*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fourth syllable of the verse &amp;mdash; the first of *atque* &amp;mdash; is long because it is followed by a consonant cluster.&#xD;&#xA;If you were to replace it with *ac*, the syllable count would be the same, but the fourth syllable would become short, invalidating the hexameter.&#xD;&#xA;The single syllable of *ac* is short when followed by a vowel, and this is precisely the setting you asked about.&#xD;&#xA;I chose an example in poetry so that the effect of syllable length is emphasized, although the effect is not limited to verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course this would be circumvented by pronouncing *ac* as *acc*, but that would probably be more confusing than using *atque* with elision, which makes pronunciation self-evident.&#xD;&#xA;Remember that [elision is not specific to verse, but is also a feature of prose in classical Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/489/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't explain why or how *atque* is shortened to *ac* before a consonant, but that wasn't your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20313" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4083" RevisionGUID="2aab2582-2bc6-4189-b42b-09fc81d47873" CreationDate="2018-03-19T11:31:51.537" UserId="79" Comment="70" />
  <row Id="20314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6152" RevisionGUID="25e1bfc4-388d-4ee5-b466-42bfe9ae80e0" CreationDate="2018-03-19T12:57:59.633" UserId="324" Text="If I may play the role of arbiter between sumelic and Alex B: For a question like this it is much better to adduce citations from classical authors rather than quote a plethory of pedagogical grammars (to say nothing of Wikipedia). If Neue apud Alex B is right, the acc. sing. fem. of the interrogative pronoun occurs as quem **exactly once**, namely in the cited passage from Plautus’ Miles gloriosus. I think this decides the question. The canonical Latin form is quam. Quem is a unique archaic variant.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6153" RevisionGUID="92cc1758-fec6-4613-aed1-a7652f72b71e" CreationDate="2018-03-19T20:10:48.063" UserId="118" Text="This [wonderful book](https://archive.org/stream/doctrinacopularu00alle#page/n5/mode/2up), _Doctrina Copularum Linguæ Latinæ Sive De Vi Atque Usu Elegantiori Particularum AC, ATQUE, ET, -QUE Deque Earum Formulis, Commentarius_ by Henry Ellis Allen, A.B., published in 1830,* contains accents galore. What do they mean? Why are some vowels given an accent and others not? What's the difference in meaning between the accent grave and the circumflex? Is this system named or documented anywhere? I haven't been able to infer any simple rules other than that the diæresis indicates that two consecutive vowels should be pronounced as separate syllables rather than as a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nimirùm, _ac_ est ipsum _atque_ decurtatum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two vowels in _nimirùm_ are long and the _ù_ is short, so there goes the theory that the accent grave marks a long vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Copulativè _ac_ et _atque_ in iis ferè rebus adhibentur, quæ, naturâ quaddamodò conjunctæ, facilè ac lubenter inter se congruant consentiantque; cùm _et_ et _que,_ rerum delectu omni omisso, aurium arbitrium ponantur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could the circumflex mean only a long vowel that marks the ablative case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Quârè moneo vos, adolescentes, atque hoc meo jure præcipio.—” _Cic. pro Sext._ 23.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Hîc, ne quid mihi prorogetur, **quod** ne intercessor quidem sustinere possit, horreo; atque eò magis, **quòd** to abes, qui consilio, gratiâ, multîs rebus occurreres.” _Cic. ad Att._ v. 21.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that one _quod_ has an accent and the other doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt;Thanks to Tom Cotton for bringing it to my attention.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20316" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6153" RevisionGUID="92cc1758-fec6-4613-aed1-a7652f72b71e" CreationDate="2018-03-19T20:10:48.063" UserId="118" Text="Qua ratione in hoc libro Henrici Allen notæ diacriticæ ponuntur?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20317" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6153" RevisionGUID="92cc1758-fec6-4613-aed1-a7652f72b71e" CreationDate="2018-03-19T20:10:48.063" UserId="118" Text="|diacritics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6153" RevisionGUID="c5573e48-7d8c-48fa-8ae2-e45eb6912d85" CreationDate="2018-03-19T20:16:44.703" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="This [wonderful book](https://archive.org/stream/doctrinacopularu00alle#page/n5/mode/2up), _Doctrina Copularum Linguæ Latinæ Sive De Vi Atque Usu Elegantiori Particularum AC, ATQUE, ET, -QUE Deque Earum Formulis, Commentarius_ by Henry Ellis Allen, A.B., published in 1830,* contains accents galore. What do they mean? Why are some vowels given an accent and others not? What's the difference in meaning between the accent grave and the circumflex? Is this system named or documented anywhere? I haven't been able to infer any simple rules other than that the diæresis indicates that two consecutive vowels should be pronounced as separate syllables rather than as a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nimirùm, _ac_ est ipsum _atque_ decurtatum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two vowels in _nimirùm_ are long and the _ù_ is short, so there goes the theory that the accent grave marks a long vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Copulativè _ac_ et _atque_ in iis ferè rebus adhibentur, quæ, naturâ quaddamodò conjunctæ, facilè ac lubenter inter se congruant consentiantque; cùm _et_ et _que,_ rerum delectu omni omisso, aurium arbitrium ponantur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could the circumflex mean only a long vowel that marks the ablative case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Quârè moneo vos, adolescentes, atque hoc meo jure præcipio.—” _Cic. pro Sext._ 23.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Hîc, ne quid mihi prorogetur, **quod** ne intercessor quidem sustinere possit, horreo; atque eò magis, **quòd** tu abes, qui consilio, gratiâ, multis rebus occurreres.” _Cic. ad Att._ v. 21.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that one _quod_ has an accent and the other doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt;Thanks to Tom Cotton for bringing it to my attention.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6154" RevisionGUID="21829a7b-7d8f-4a4d-b06d-6f2e3c55c018" CreationDate="2018-03-19T22:48:11.500" UserId="2488" Text="I've met this phrase in some book:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui cupit, capit omnia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate states that it is &quot;who desires to do the earth holds everything&quot; which i don't understand. After reading some web-sites i understood it to mean something like &quot;if you try hard to solve the problem then you'll succeed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone explain the meaning of this phrase? It's also interesting to find the source. It doesn't seem to be a well-known citation like &quot;veni, vidi, vici&quot;. Google offers some 17th century books but they are written in Latin and i don't know Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20320" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6154" RevisionGUID="21829a7b-7d8f-4a4d-b06d-6f2e3c55c018" CreationDate="2018-03-19T22:48:11.500" UserId="2488" Text="What &quot;qui cupit, capit omnia&quot; means?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20321" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6154" RevisionGUID="21829a7b-7d8f-4a4d-b06d-6f2e3c55c018" CreationDate="2018-03-19T22:48:11.500" UserId="2488" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6155" RevisionGUID="6967cddd-89fe-4dfa-baac-a9f05d977a61" CreationDate="2018-03-19T22:54:43.970" UserId="136" Text="So, I do not know the source, but I do know what it means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *qui cupit, capit omnia*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He who wants, takes all things&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are pretty much correct on the more metaphorical meaning, as it is trying (in my opinion) to convey that if you want something (and presumably work for it), you can accomplish anything you want. The *qui* is a relative pronoun, and the *cupit, capit* is most likely an intentional choice to bring together the alliterating elements and make it sound nice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone knows the source, that would be greatly appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6156" RevisionGUID="f3ebfad4-9218-40a1-aa51-be897be5af6a" CreationDate="2018-03-19T22:56:47.790" UserId="406" Text="Google Translate's answer is, as usual, nonsense. Google is particularly bad with Latin and its responses tend to be meaningless or wildly inaccurate or both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase literally means &quot;he who desires, takes everything&quot;. *Qvī* is a masculine relative pronoun &quot;[the man] who&quot;; *cupit* means &quot;longs for&quot;; *capit* means &quot;takes&quot;; *omnia* means &quot;everything&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6154" RevisionGUID="d9ae004b-ffc3-4f9d-8467-0f28652cd3fe" CreationDate="2018-03-19T23:19:43.200" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I've met this phrase in some book:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui cupit, capit omnia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate states that it is &quot;who desires to do the earth holds everything&quot; which I don't understand. After reading some web-sites I understood it to mean something like &quot;if you try hard to solve the problem then you'll succeed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone explain the meaning of this phrase? It's also interesting to find the source. It doesn't seem to be a well-known citation like &quot;veni, vidi, vici&quot;. Google offers some 17th century books but they are written in Latin and I don't know Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20325" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6154" RevisionGUID="d9ae004b-ffc3-4f9d-8467-0f28652cd3fe" CreationDate="2018-03-19T23:19:43.200" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What does &quot;qui cupit, capit omnia&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20326" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6154" RevisionGUID="d9ae004b-ffc3-4f9d-8467-0f28652cd3fe" CreationDate="2018-03-19T23:19:43.200" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6155" RevisionGUID="b808c975-a9d5-4ab8-80b2-eb688fd3ee68" CreationDate="2018-03-19T23:49:51.183" UserId="136" Comment="Added new information I found upon further research" Text="So, I do not know the source, but I do know what it means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *qui cupit, capit omnia*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He who wants, takes all things&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are pretty much correct on the more metaphorical meaning, as it is trying (in my opinion) to convey that if you want something (and presumably work for it), you can accomplish anything you want. The *qui* is a relative pronoun, and the *cupit, capit* is most likely an intentional choice to bring together the alliterating elements and make it sound nice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone knows the source, that would be greatly appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the source! It appears to have come from a book by John Amos Comenius called *Janua Linguarum Reserata*. This was a Latin textbook for learning the language (as far as I can tell) and the quote itself can be found [here][1]. The English translation found in this copy reverses the clause order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He conceiveth [catcheth] all things, who desireth to do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quote actually continues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Etiam quae prima aggressione captum superant.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Even those things which at the first undertaking go beyond his reach or capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This again implies the sense of &quot;he who sets his mind to it can accomplish anything.&quot; Rather inspiration, I would think!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=P_9mAAAAcAAJ&amp;dq=janua%20linguarum%20reserata&amp;pg=PP44#v=onepage&amp;q=qui%20cupit&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6157" RevisionGUID="7cdaafb6-d01a-458d-b463-4894b327e64c" CreationDate="2018-03-20T03:23:07.387" UserId="81" Text="This is known as the **Humanist Latin Orthography**. A dissertation describing this and other forms of orthography was written by Mindaugas Strockis: &quot;Accent Notation in the Classical Languages and its Influence on Lithuanian Accent Notation&quot;. Quoting from this dissertation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The archaic genitive singular -ās of the ā-stems (the first declension) is marked with a circumflex: aurâs, Majâs, paterfamiliâs,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; materfamiliâs, in imitation of Greek gen. sg. -ᾶς.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The genitive singular of the u-stems (the fourth declension) is marked with a circumflex, such as domûs, as if in imitation of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek εὐτυχοῦς, Σαπφοῦς, αἰδοῦς or similar.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The nominative singular -ūs of the Greek names ending in -οῦς in the original, is also written with a circumflex: Trapezûs, Hierichûs.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The genitive plural ending -um (= -ōrum) was written with a circumflex mark, such as deûm (versus unmarked acc. sg. deum), in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; imitation of the Greek gen. pl. ending -ῶν.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The genitive partitive of the personal pronouns nos, vos was marked with circumflex: nostrûm, vestrûm (versus unmarked acc. sg. masc. and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nom./acc. sg. neuter of the possessive nostrum, vestrum), in imitation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of Greek ἡµῶν, ὑµῶν.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The ablative singular of the ā-stems (the first declension) was marked with a circumflex: linguâ, Româ, versus unmarked nom. sg.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lingua, Roma. This particular case is likely to have been indirectly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; influenced (or at least a posteriori justified) by Quintilian’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; teaching (1.7.3) about the usage of the apex mark.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sometimes the explicative diacritic of the humanist Latin orthography coincided with the actual word accent: nostrâs, Samnîs,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which, according to Roman grammarians, could have been accented on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The grave mark on the last syllable was often used to distinguish adverbs, prepositions, and some other, usually indeclinable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Steenbakkers 1994, Burkard 2003), words: maximè (adverb) versus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maxime (vocative), cùm (conjunction) versus cum (preposition), verò&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (conjunction) versus vero (dat./abl. sg.), quòd (conjunction) versus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod (pronoun) etc. For the logic of such orthography, compare also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian’s mention (1.5.26) of the oxytonesis of auxiliary words,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the Greek oxytonic grave, especially frequent in prepositions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (ἀνὰ, κατὰ, µετὰ, ὑπὸ etc).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Various humanist grammarians proposed also other orthographic rules to distinguish homographs, such as to mark the accent on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; penultimate syllable according to the Greek third mora rule, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to write lăbor and lābor respectively lábor and lâbor, or to write&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pône (imperative of a verb) but ponè (preposition).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sometimes contracted or syncopated word forms were written with a circumflex (dî = dii, nîl = nihil, mî = mihi, nôrat = noverat, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in imitation of the Greek contracted forms with the circumflex from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first mora accent: νόος &gt; νοῦς, φάος &gt; φῶς etc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The system of explicative diacritics in Latin orthography was abandoned between 18th and early 19th centuries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6147" RevisionGUID="ed11276c-7693-4391-8153-bf09f93778fa" CreationDate="2018-03-20T03:45:27.247" UserId="39" Comment="added 1646 characters in body" Text="answer in progress:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The common form for the interrogative-indefinite and relative pronouns is quem&quot; (Tronskii 1960: 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sommer 1902:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neue et al. (volume 2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following part is my summary of different sections found in Pinkster 2015 (all the examples are chosen from Pinkster 2015, too)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1.	**Interrogative pronouns** *quis/qui*, *quae* ‘who?’, *quid* ‘what?’:&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2.	**Interrogative determiners** (often called adjectival forms) *qui*, *quae*, *quod* ‘what?’ ‘which?’:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Quam** meam matrem? (Pl. Epid. 570-2) FEM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. **Relative pronouns** *qui*, *quae*, *quod*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In nutricatu, **quam** *porculationem* appella[ba]nt, binis mensibus porcos&#xD;&#xA;   sinunt cum matribus. (Var. R. 2.4.13) FEM.&#xD;&#xA; - Huc enim pertinent, animal hoc providum … plenum rationis et&#xD;&#xA;   consilii, **quem** vocamus *hominem*, praeclara quadam condicione generatum&#xD;&#xA;   esse a supremo deo. (Cic. Leg. 1.22) MASC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **Indefinite pronoun** quis (also qui);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. **Indefinite determiner** qui(s):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Omnium primum salutem dicito matri et patri/et cognatis et si **quem**&#xD;&#xA;   alium benevolentem videris. (Pl. Capt. 389-90)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, the difference between a pronoun and a determiner was not always observed. Pinkster 2015 writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“the distinction between masc./fem. quis and masc. qui / fem. quae (normally the determiner forms) is not clear-cut” (p. 1124) or “the sg. nom. masc. forms of the interrogative determiner and the interrogative pronouns (qui and quis) are in practice not well distinguished” (p. 974):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quis enim umquam orator magnus et gravis … haesitavit … (Cic. de&#xD;&#xA;   Orat. 1.220) – normally, we would expect to see “qui” here.&#xD;&#xA; - Ergasilum qui vocat? … Sed quis est? (Pl. Capt. 833-5) - normally, we&#xD;&#xA;   would expect to see “quis” in both cases here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/myCrA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/e0KCS.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6147" RevisionGUID="cf606efe-9c56-4717-9b94-ce87638f2fff" CreationDate="2018-03-20T04:05:06.913" UserId="39" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="answer in progress - **I encourage you to make comments or edits, or add examples** -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The common form for the interrogative-indefinite and relative pronouns is quem&quot; (Tronskii 1960: 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sommer 1902:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neue et al. (volume 2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following part is my summary of different sections found in Pinkster 2015 (all the examples are chosen from Pinkster 2015, too)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1.	**Interrogative pronouns** *quis/qui*, *quae* ‘who?’, *quid* ‘what?’:&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2.	**Interrogative determiners** (often called adjectival forms) *qui*, *quae*, *quod* ‘what?’ ‘which?’:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Quam** meam matrem? (Pl. Epid. 570-2) FEM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. **Relative pronouns** *qui*, *quae*, *quod*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In nutricatu, **quam** *porculationem* appella[ba]nt, binis mensibus porcos&#xD;&#xA;   sinunt cum matribus. (Var. R. 2.4.13) FEM.&#xD;&#xA; - Huc enim pertinent, animal hoc providum … plenum rationis et&#xD;&#xA;   consilii, **quem** vocamus *hominem*, praeclara quadam condicione generatum&#xD;&#xA;   esse a supremo deo. (Cic. Leg. 1.22) MASC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **Indefinite pronoun** quis (also qui);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. **Indefinite determiner** qui(s):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Omnium primum salutem dicito matri et patri/et cognatis et si **quem**&#xD;&#xA;   alium benevolentem videris. (Pl. Capt. 389-90)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, the difference between a pronoun and a determiner was not always observed. Pinkster 2015 writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“the distinction between masc./fem. quis and masc. qui / fem. quae (normally the determiner forms) is not clear-cut” (p. 1124) or “the sg. nom. masc. forms of the interrogative determiner and the interrogative pronouns (qui and quis) are in practice not well distinguished” (p. 974):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quis enim umquam orator magnus et gravis … haesitavit … (Cic. de&#xD;&#xA;   Orat. 1.220) – normally, we would expect to see “qui” here.&#xD;&#xA; - Ergasilum qui vocat? … Sed quis est? (Pl. Capt. 833-5) - normally, we&#xD;&#xA;   would expect to see “quis” in both cases here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/myCrA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/e0KCS.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6147" RevisionGUID="c4a10735-9026-4c86-843f-22ca0b6bc238" CreationDate="2018-03-20T04:23:32.197" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 27 characters in body" Text="answer in progress - **I encourage you to make comments or edits, or add examples** -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The common form for the interrogative-indefinite and relative pronouns is quem&quot; (Tronskii 1960: 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sommer 1902:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neue et al. (volume 2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following part is my summary of different sections found in Pinkster 2015 (all the examples are chosen from Pinkster 2015, too)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1.	**Interrogative pronouns** *quis*, *quid*:&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2.	**Interrogative determiners** (often called adjectival forms) *qui*, *quae*, *quod* ‘what?’ ‘which?’:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Quam** meam matrem? (Pl. Epid. 570-2) FEM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. **Relative pronouns** *qui*, *quae*, *quod*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In nutricatu, **quam** *porculationem* appella[ba]nt, binis mensibus porcos&#xD;&#xA;   sinunt cum matribus. (Var. R. 2.4.13) FEM.&#xD;&#xA; - Huc enim pertinent, animal hoc providum … plenum rationis et&#xD;&#xA;   consilii, **quem** vocamus *hominem*, praeclara quadam condicione generatum&#xD;&#xA;   esse a supremo deo. (Cic. Leg. 1.22) MASC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **Indefinite pronoun** quis (also qui);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. **Indefinite determiner** qui(s):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Omnium primum salutem dicito matri et patri/et cognatis et si **quem**&#xD;&#xA;   alium benevolentem videris. (Pl. Capt. 389-90)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, the difference between a pronoun and a determiner was not always observed. Pinkster 2015 writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“the distinction between masc./fem. quis and masc. qui / fem. quae (normally the determiner forms) is not clear-cut” (p. 1124) or “the sg. nom. masc. forms of the interrogative determiner and the interrogative pronouns (qui and quis) are in practice not well distinguished” (p. 974):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quis enim umquam orator magnus et gravis … haesitavit … (Cic. de&#xD;&#xA;   Orat. 1.220) – normally, we would expect to see “qui” here.&#xD;&#xA; - Ergasilum qui vocat? … Sed quis est? (Pl. Capt. 833-5) - normally, we&#xD;&#xA;   would expect to see “quis” in both cases here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/myCrA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/e0KCS.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6147" RevisionGUID="791315a2-bb23-43db-b8c6-a71a1ca20202" CreationDate="2018-03-20T04:54:12.013" UserId="39" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="answer in progress - **I encourage you to make comments or edits, or add examples** -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The common form for the interrogative-indefinite and relative pronouns is quem&quot; (Tronskii 1960: 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sommer 1902:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neue et al. (volume 2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following part is my summary of different sections found in Pinkster 2015 (all the examples are chosen from Pinkster 2015, too)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1.	**Interrogative pronouns** *quis*, *quid*:&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Videon Cliniam an non? #**Quem** vides? (Terence, Hau.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2.	**Interrogative determiners** (often called adjectival forms) *qui*, *quae*, *quod* ‘what?’ ‘which?’:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Quam** meam matrem? (Pl. Epid. 570-2) FEM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. **Relative pronouns** *qui*, *quae*, *quod*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In nutricatu, **quam** *porculationem* appella[ba]nt, binis mensibus porcos&#xD;&#xA;   sinunt cum matribus. (Var. R. 2.4.13) FEM.&#xD;&#xA; - Huc enim pertinent, animal hoc providum … plenum rationis et&#xD;&#xA;   consilii, **quem** vocamus *hominem*, praeclara quadam condicione generatum&#xD;&#xA;   esse a supremo deo. (Cic. Leg. 1.22) MASC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **Indefinite pronoun** quis (also qui);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. **Indefinite determiner** qui(s):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Omnium primum salutem dicito matri et patri/et cognatis et si **quem**&#xD;&#xA;   alium benevolentem videris. (Pl. Capt. 389-90)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, the difference between a pronoun and a determiner was not always observed. Pinkster 2015 writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“the distinction between masc./fem. quis and masc. qui / fem. quae (normally the determiner forms) is not clear-cut” (p. 1124) or “the sg. nom. masc. forms of the interrogative determiner and the interrogative pronouns (qui and quis) are in practice not well distinguished” (p. 974):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quis enim umquam orator magnus et gravis … haesitavit … (Cic. de&#xD;&#xA;   Orat. 1.220) – normally, we would expect to see “qui” here.&#xD;&#xA; - Ergasilum qui vocat? … Sed quis est? (Pl. Capt. 833-5) - normally, we&#xD;&#xA;   would expect to see “quis” in both cases here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/myCrA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/e0KCS.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6147" RevisionGUID="8353fec1-1993-4cac-9b8c-99c7c4c3e3b2" CreationDate="2018-03-20T05:04:46.093" UserId="39" Comment="added 214 characters in body" Text="answer in progress - **I encourage you to make comments or edits, or add examples** -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**My hypothesis** (to be tested)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Interrogative pronoun (ACC. FEM.SG): quem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Interrogative determiner/adjective (ACC. FEM.SG): quam (quem is attested only once in Plautus, see the quote from Neue at al. below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Relative pronoun (ACC. FEM.SG): quam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The common form for the interrogative-indefinite and relative pronouns is quem&quot; (Tronskii 1960: 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sommer 1902:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neue et al. (volume 2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following part is my summary of different sections found in Pinkster 2015 (all the examples are chosen from Pinkster 2015, too)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1.	**Interrogative pronouns** *quis*, *quid*:&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Videon Cliniam an non? #**Quem** vides? (Terence, Hau.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2.	**Interrogative determiners** (often called adjectival forms) *qui*, *quae*, *quod* ‘what?’ ‘which?’:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Quam** meam matrem? (Pl. Epid. 570-2) FEM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. **Relative pronouns** *qui*, *quae*, *quod*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In nutricatu, **quam** *porculationem* appella[ba]nt, binis mensibus porcos&#xD;&#xA;   sinunt cum matribus. (Var. R. 2.4.13) FEM.&#xD;&#xA; - Huc enim pertinent, animal hoc providum … plenum rationis et&#xD;&#xA;   consilii, **quem** vocamus *hominem*, praeclara quadam condicione generatum&#xD;&#xA;   esse a supremo deo. (Cic. Leg. 1.22) MASC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. **Indefinite pronoun** quis (also qui);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. **Indefinite determiner** qui(s):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Omnium primum salutem dicito matri et patri/et cognatis et si **quem**&#xD;&#xA;   alium benevolentem videris. (Pl. Capt. 389-90)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, the difference between a pronoun and a determiner was not always observed. Pinkster 2015 writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“the distinction between masc./fem. quis and masc. qui / fem. quae (normally the determiner forms) is not clear-cut” (p. 1124) or “the sg. nom. masc. forms of the interrogative determiner and the interrogative pronouns (qui and quis) are in practice not well distinguished” (p. 974):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Quis enim umquam orator magnus et gravis … haesitavit … (Cic. de&#xD;&#xA;   Orat. 1.220) – normally, we would expect to see “qui” here.&#xD;&#xA; - Ergasilum qui vocat? … Sed quis est? (Pl. Capt. 833-5) - normally, we&#xD;&#xA;   would expect to see “quis” in both cases here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/myCrA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/e0KCS.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6148" RevisionGUID="89dd69ca-b26f-4ba1-8038-4e7e3d0d8251" CreationDate="2018-03-20T05:44:07.870" UserId="9" Comment="added a few examples of relative feminine &quot;quem&quot; that seem to be considered mistakes" Text="Partial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mentioned this in the comments, but the question hasn't been edited, so I wanted to repeat in an answer post that the linked Wiktionary entry does not in fact appear to give *quem* as the singular feminine accusative of the **relative** pronoun (as the title and first sentence of this question say), but as the singular feminine accusative of the **[interrogative** pronoun *quis][1].* There is in fact no Wiktionary entry for a relative pronoun &quot;quis&quot;. There is an Wiktionary entry for the [relative pronoun &quot;qui&quot;][2], which shows &quot;quam&quot; as the feminine accusative singular form. I don't know if it's actually relevant or not, but this topic seems confusing enough that I think it's worth it to be particular about the wording of sources. So for the first part of my post, I will treat the question as being about the interrogative rather than the relative pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Interrogative pronouns&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following information from the Latin Discussion thread [&quot;Qui, quae, quod&quot; vs. &quot;quis, quid&quot;][3], by Pacifica seems relevant, although it only specifically mentions the nominative form *quis,* and the post doesn't seem to have a list of references:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quis* was initially common gender and may be used for a woman as well. Thus, &quot;Who's that woman?&quot; may translate to either *Quae est illa mulier?* or *Quis est illa mulier?* The feminine use of *quis,* however, appears to have been more common in early Latin than in classical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence is consistent with the &quot;(quis)&quot; in the table given by Kennedy, Gwynne and Henry Cullen. A literal reading of Kennedy, Gwynne and Cullen seems to say that while &quot;quis&quot; could be used as the feminine nominative form, &quot;quam&quot; was used as the feminine accusative form; I certainly can't say it's impossible that this was the situation in the form of Latin that Kennedy, Gwynne and Cullen are aiming to describe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found another Latin Discussion thread that looks like it might be relevant that I still have to finish processing: [feminine of interrogative pronoun][4]. The original poster, socratidion, says in the opening post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Until recently I blithely believed that the interrogative pronoun quis had feminine singular forms cuius (gen.), cui (dat.), quam (acc.), qua (abl.), but that the nominative was quis like the masculine. From Shelmerdine I learned that this is by no means the universal view, and that many books maintain that the feminine forms do not exist in the singular (i.e. one would always use the masculine), but do exist in the plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Among those who list feminine singular forms for the interrogative pronoun are: Jones/Sidwell &quot;Reading Latin&quot;, Betts &quot;Teach yourself Latin', Kennedy &quot;Latin primer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Those who deny the existence of the feminine singular include: Shelmerdine, Moreland &amp; Fleischer &quot;Latin: an intensive course&quot;; Gildersleeve and Lodge &quot;Latin grammar&quot;; Bennett &quot;Latin Grammar&quot;; Allen &amp; Greenough &quot;New Latin grammar&quot;. Also, both the English-language and German-language Wikipedia articles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Relative pronouns&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I mentioned in the first paragraph, I actually don't think I have yet read any sources that talk about *quem* being used as a feminine relative pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this usage called a mistake in a document &quot;[Notes from Carthage][5]&quot;, by David R. Jordan (aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 111 (1996) 115–123), which discusses some inscriptions found on curse tablets from the Roman Imperial period:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As is common in magical texts from as early as the 1st century of our era, the intended victim is given maternal lineage *[I removed irrelevant notes about Greek spelling errors, which Jordan says may be compared to]* mistakes on other curse tablets from Carthage, e.g. [...] *quem* for *quam* in the Latin expression of this phrase in 3 below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 119)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; After a feminine name in the expression of maternal lineage we expect not *quen* but a *quam.* The same mistake in gender occurs on three curse tablets from Hadrumetum, *DefixTabAud* 264–65 (*Victoria, quem peperit sua uulua*) and 266 (*Vettiam, quem peperit Optata*). In formularies the words *quem* (or *quam*) *peperit* were often abbreviated to *q p* (Jordan 1976), and in fact the abbreviation occurs, unresolved, at 248.6, [*Ades*]*icla, q p Victoria* (Carthage); cf. 300(B).2 [*S*]*iluanu*[*m,*] *q p uulua* (Cirta). Use of a formulary and careless resolution of its *q p* could explain the mistakes here and in 266.&lt;sup&gt;13&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; For *quam* &gt; *quem* Jeanneret 1918:79 attempts a phonetic explanation, invoking the early history of the French language. It is striking that from the Hadrumetine curse tablets he is able to cite only one instance of *quam*&gt;*quem* (*Bonosa quem uobis . . . commendo, DefixTabAud* 268.10) in a phrase that is not part of the formula for maternal lineage.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 121)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize this is a kind of weird and obscure source for information about Latin relative pronoun usage, and it's not the main topic of the notes, but based on what Jordan says here it seems that the use of *quem* for a feminine accusative relative pronoun is apparently quite uncommon, not expected, and treated as a mistake, at least in the time period when these tablets are supposed to have been written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My conclusion would be that &quot;quam&quot;, not &quot;quem&quot;, is certainly the correct feminine accusative singular relative pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quis#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/qui#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/qui-quae-quod-vs-quis-quid.25914/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/feminine-of-interrogative-pronoun.11644/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/zpe/downloads/1996/111pdf/111115.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6148" RevisionGUID="3ca02673-e5c2-452e-903f-3247cefa0fed" CreationDate="2018-03-20T05:49:50.950" UserId="9" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Partial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mentioned this in the comments, but the question hasn't been edited, so I wanted to repeat in an answer post that the linked Wiktionary entry does not in fact appear to give *quem* as the singular feminine accusative of the **relative** pronoun (as the title and first sentence of this question say), but as the singular feminine accusative of the **[interrogative** pronoun *quis][1].* There is in fact no Wiktionary entry for a relative pronoun &quot;quis&quot;. There is an Wiktionary entry for the [relative pronoun &quot;qui&quot;][2], which shows &quot;quam&quot; as the feminine accusative singular form. I don't know if it's actually relevant or not, but this topic seems confusing enough that I think it's worth it to be particular about the wording of sources. So for the first part of my post, I will treat the question as being about the interrogative rather than the relative pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Interrogative pronouns&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following information from the Latin Discussion thread [&quot;Qui, quae, quod&quot; vs. &quot;quis, quid&quot;][3], by Pacifica seems relevant, although it only specifically mentions the nominative form *quis,* and the post doesn't seem to have a list of references:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quis* was initially common gender and may be used for a woman as well. Thus, &quot;Who's that woman?&quot; may translate to either *Quae est illa mulier?* or *Quis est illa mulier?* The feminine use of *quis,* however, appears to have been more common in early Latin than in classical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence is consistent with the &quot;(quis)&quot; in the table given by Kennedy, Gwynne and Henry Cullen. A literal reading of Kennedy, Gwynne and Cullen seems to say that while &quot;quis&quot; could be used as the feminine nominative form, &quot;quam&quot; was used as the feminine accusative form; I certainly can't say it's impossible that this was the situation in the form of Latin that Kennedy, Gwynne and Cullen are aiming to describe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found another Latin Discussion thread that looks like it might be relevant that I still have to finish processing: [feminine of interrogative pronoun][4]. The original poster, socratidion, says in the opening post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Until recently I blithely believed that the interrogative pronoun quis had feminine singular forms cuius (gen.), cui (dat.), quam (acc.), qua (abl.), but that the nominative was quis like the masculine. From Shelmerdine I learned that this is by no means the universal view, and that many books maintain that the feminine forms do not exist in the singular (i.e. one would always use the masculine), but do exist in the plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Among those who list feminine singular forms for the interrogative pronoun are: Jones/Sidwell &quot;Reading Latin&quot;, Betts &quot;Teach yourself Latin', Kennedy &quot;Latin primer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Those who deny the existence of the feminine singular include: Shelmerdine, Moreland &amp; Fleischer &quot;Latin: an intensive course&quot;; Gildersleeve and Lodge &quot;Latin grammar&quot;; Bennett &quot;Latin Grammar&quot;; Allen &amp; Greenough &quot;New Latin grammar&quot;. Also, both the English-language and German-language Wikipedia articles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Relative pronouns&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I mentioned in the first paragraph, I actually don't think I have yet read any sources that say that it is correct to use *quem* as a feminine relative pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this usage called a mistake in a document &quot;[Notes from Carthage][5]&quot;, by David R. Jordan (aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 111 (1996) 115–123), which discusses some inscriptions found on curse tablets from the Roman Imperial period:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As is common in magical texts from as early as the 1st century of our era, the intended victim is given maternal lineage *[I removed irrelevant notes about Greek spelling errors, which Jordan says may be compared to]* mistakes on other curse tablets from Carthage, e.g. [...] *quem* for *quam* in the Latin expression of this phrase in 3 below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 119)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; After a feminine name in the expression of maternal lineage we expect not *quen* but a *quam.* The same mistake in gender occurs on three curse tablets from Hadrumetum, *DefixTabAud* 264–65 (*Victoria, quem peperit sua uulua*) and 266 (*Vettiam, quem peperit Optata*). In formularies the words *quem* (or *quam*) *peperit* were often abbreviated to *q p* (Jordan 1976), and in fact the abbreviation occurs, unresolved, at 248.6, [*Ades*]*icla, q p Victoria* (Carthage); cf. 300(B).2 [*S*]*iluanu*[*m,*] *q p uulua* (Cirta). Use of a formulary and careless resolution of its *q p* could explain the mistakes here and in 266.&lt;sup&gt;13&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; For *quam* &gt; *quem* Jeanneret 1918:79 attempts a phonetic explanation, invoking the early history of the French language. It is striking that from the Hadrumetine curse tablets he is able to cite only one instance of *quam*&gt;*quem* (*Bonosa quem uobis . . . commendo, DefixTabAud* 268.10) in a phrase that is not part of the formula for maternal lineage.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 121)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize this is a kind of weird and obscure source for information about Latin relative pronoun usage, and it's not the main topic of the notes, but based on what Jordan says here it seems that the use of *quem* for a feminine accusative relative pronoun is apparently quite uncommon, not expected, and treated as a mistake, at least in the time period when these tablets are supposed to have been written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My conclusion would be that &quot;quam&quot;, not &quot;quem&quot;, is certainly the correct feminine accusative singular relative pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quis#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/qui#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/qui-quae-quod-vs-quis-quid.25914/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/feminine-of-interrogative-pronoun.11644/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/zpe/downloads/1996/111pdf/111115.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="73" RevisionGUID="e9f929fe-c6f6-497f-84ac-48d7b8e80317" CreationDate="2018-03-20T11:07:31.443" UserId="78" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Simply, vel is inclusive and aut is exclusive. As [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.04.0059) put it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In general *aut* puts in the place of a previous assertion another, objectively and absolutely antithetical to it, while vel indicates that the contrast rests upon subjective opinion or choice; i. e. aut is objective, vel subjective, or aut excludes one term, vel makes the two indifferent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Vel] As disjunctive conjunction, to introduce an alternative as a matter of choice or preference, or as not affecting the principal assertion (while *aut* introduces an absolute or essential opposition...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going off your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet tibi habere aut vim aut laetitiam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means, &quot;You are allowed to have either power or happiness **but not both**.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet tibi habere vel vim vel laetitiam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;You are allowed to have power, or perhaps happiness, *or both*, should you wish.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The enclitic *-ve* is the same as *vel*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett's [example](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect341) I think is more illustrative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **quī aethēr vel caelum nōminātur**, *which is called aether or heaven*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, both *aether* and *caelum* as the name for the sky is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in your example, *aut* is the best word to use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6157" RevisionGUID="288b81ae-8b4f-4394-b913-9c909fee3b27" CreationDate="2018-03-20T11:11:29.203" UserId="81" Comment="deleted 69 characters in body" Text="This is known as the **Humanist Latin Orthography**. The following is from a dissertation, &quot;Accent Notation in the Classical Languages and its Influence on Lithuanian Accent Notation&quot; by Mindaugas Strockis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The archaic genitive singular -ās of the ā-stems (the first declension) is marked with a circumflex: aurâs, Majâs, paterfamiliâs,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; materfamiliâs, in imitation of Greek gen. sg. -ᾶς.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The genitive singular of the u-stems (the fourth declension) is marked with a circumflex, such as domûs, as if in imitation of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek εὐτυχοῦς, Σαπφοῦς, αἰδοῦς or similar.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The nominative singular -ūs of the Greek names ending in -οῦς in the original, is also written with a circumflex: Trapezûs, Hierichûs.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The genitive plural ending -um (= -ōrum) was written with a circumflex mark, such as deûm (versus unmarked acc. sg. deum), in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; imitation of the Greek gen. pl. ending -ῶν.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The genitive partitive of the personal pronouns nos, vos was marked with circumflex: nostrûm, vestrûm (versus unmarked acc. sg. masc. and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nom./acc. sg. neuter of the possessive nostrum, vestrum), in imitation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of Greek ἡµῶν, ὑµῶν.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The ablative singular of the ā-stems (the first declension) was marked with a circumflex: linguâ, Româ, versus unmarked nom. sg.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lingua, Roma. This particular case is likely to have been indirectly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; influenced (or at least a posteriori justified) by Quintilian’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; teaching (1.7.3) about the usage of the apex mark.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sometimes the explicative diacritic of the humanist Latin orthography coincided with the actual word accent: nostrâs, Samnîs,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which, according to Roman grammarians, could have been accented on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The grave mark on the last syllable was often used to distinguish adverbs, prepositions, and some other, usually indeclinable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Steenbakkers 1994, Burkard 2003), words: maximè (adverb) versus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maxime (vocative), cùm (conjunction) versus cum (preposition), verò&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (conjunction) versus vero (dat./abl. sg.), quòd (conjunction) versus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod (pronoun) etc. For the logic of such orthography, compare also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian’s mention (1.5.26) of the oxytonesis of auxiliary words,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the Greek oxytonic grave, especially frequent in prepositions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (ἀνὰ, κατὰ, µετὰ, ὑπὸ etc).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Various humanist grammarians proposed also other orthographic rules to distinguish homographs, such as to mark the accent on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; penultimate syllable according to the Greek third mora rule, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to write lăbor and lābor respectively lábor and lâbor, or to write&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pône (imperative of a verb) but ponè (preposition).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sometimes contracted or syncopated word forms were written with a circumflex (dî = dii, nîl = nihil, mî = mihi, nôrat = noverat, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in imitation of the Greek contracted forms with the circumflex from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first mora accent: νόος &gt; νοῦς, φάος &gt; φῶς etc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The system of explicative diacritics in Latin orthography was abandoned between 18th and early 19th centuries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6157" RevisionGUID="9f86c489-28a5-448f-a1c0-10c5670cd09b" CreationDate="2018-03-20T11:39:15.687" UserId="81" Comment="added 276 characters in body" Text="This is known as the **Humanist Latin Orthography**. An example of a grammar written with this type of orthography is *[An Introduction to the Latin Tongue][1]* by G. N. Wright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the use of these diacritics, the following is from a dissertation, &quot;Accent Notation in the Classical Languages and its Influence on Lithuanian Accent Notation&quot; by Mindaugas Strockis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The archaic genitive singular -ās of the ā-stems (the first declension) is marked with a circumflex: aurâs, Majâs, paterfamiliâs,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; materfamiliâs, in imitation of Greek gen. sg. -ᾶς.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The genitive singular of the u-stems (the fourth declension) is marked with a circumflex, such as domûs, as if in imitation of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek εὐτυχοῦς, Σαπφοῦς, αἰδοῦς or similar.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The nominative singular -ūs of the Greek names ending in -οῦς in the original, is also written with a circumflex: Trapezûs, Hierichûs.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The genitive plural ending -um (= -ōrum) was written with a circumflex mark, such as deûm (versus unmarked acc. sg. deum), in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; imitation of the Greek gen. pl. ending -ῶν.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The genitive partitive of the personal pronouns nos, vos was marked with circumflex: nostrûm, vestrûm (versus unmarked acc. sg. masc. and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nom./acc. sg. neuter of the possessive nostrum, vestrum), in imitation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of Greek ἡµῶν, ὑµῶν.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The ablative singular of the ā-stems (the first declension) was marked with a circumflex: linguâ, Româ, versus unmarked nom. sg.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lingua, Roma. This particular case is likely to have been indirectly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; influenced (or at least a posteriori justified) by Quintilian’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; teaching (1.7.3) about the usage of the apex mark.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sometimes the explicative diacritic of the humanist Latin orthography coincided with the actual word accent: nostrâs, Samnîs,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which, according to Roman grammarians, could have been accented on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The grave mark on the last syllable was often used to distinguish adverbs, prepositions, and some other, usually indeclinable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Steenbakkers 1994, Burkard 2003), words: maximè (adverb) versus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maxime (vocative), cùm (conjunction) versus cum (preposition), verò&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (conjunction) versus vero (dat./abl. sg.), quòd (conjunction) versus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod (pronoun) etc. For the logic of such orthography, compare also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian’s mention (1.5.26) of the oxytonesis of auxiliary words,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the Greek oxytonic grave, especially frequent in prepositions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (ἀνὰ, κατὰ, µετὰ, ὑπὸ etc).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Various humanist grammarians proposed also other orthographic rules to distinguish homographs, such as to mark the accent on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; penultimate syllable according to the Greek third mora rule, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to write lăbor and lābor respectively lábor and lâbor, or to write&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pône (imperative of a verb) but ponè (preposition).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sometimes contracted or syncopated word forms were written with a circumflex (dî = dii, nîl = nihil, mî = mihi, nôrat = noverat, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in imitation of the Greek contracted forms with the circumflex from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first mora accent: νόος &gt; νοῦς, φάος &gt; φῶς etc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The system of explicative diacritics in Latin orthography was abandoned between 18th and early 19th centuries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=MkAyAF8aAD4C&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6158" RevisionGUID="d222e928-7459-4f3e-a6af-acc7d26e472a" CreationDate="2018-03-20T11:41:49.897" UserId="79" Text="Greek is not a single language, but it had various dialects and evolved significantly over time.&#xD;&#xA;What form of Greek did the Romans who spoke classical Latin study?&#xD;&#xA;Was it contemporary for the purpose of interacting with Greeks or historical for the purpose of reading old literature?&#xD;&#xA;Did the Romans focus on a specific dialect or form (Attic, Homeric, Koine)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably different Romans studied somewhat different things and anyone who studied Greek new a mixture of different forms.&#xD;&#xA;What I'm looking for is a big picture of what kind of Greek the Romans studied." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20341" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6158" RevisionGUID="d222e928-7459-4f3e-a6af-acc7d26e472a" CreationDate="2018-03-20T11:41:49.897" UserId="79" Text="What form of Greek was studied by ancient Romans?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20342" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6158" RevisionGUID="d222e928-7459-4f3e-a6af-acc7d26e472a" CreationDate="2018-03-20T11:41:49.897" UserId="79" Text="|greek|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6153" RevisionGUID="6911e9d3-61a1-4dd4-9b29-2cbce748df4d" CreationDate="2018-03-20T19:02:19.523" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="This wonderful [book](https://archive.org/stream/doctrinacopularu00alle#page/n5/mode/2up), _Doctrina Copularum Linguæ Latinæ Sive De Vi Atque Usu Elegantiori Particularum AC, ATQUE, ET, -QUE Deque Earum Formulis, Commentarius_ by Henry Ellis Allen, A.B., published in 1830,* contains accents galore. What do they mean? Why are some vowels given an accent and others not? What's the difference in meaning between the accent grave and the circumflex? Is this system named or documented anywhere? I haven't been able to infer any simple rules other than that the diæresis indicates that two consecutive vowels should be pronounced as separate syllables rather than as a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nimirùm, _ac_ est ipsum _atque_ decurtatum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two vowels in _nimirùm_ are long and the _ù_ is short, so there goes the theory that the accent grave marks a long vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Copulativè _ac_ et _atque_ in iis ferè rebus adhibentur, quæ, naturâ quaddamodò conjunctæ, facilè ac lubenter inter se congruant consentiantque; cùm _et_ et _que,_ rerum delectu omni omisso, aurium arbitrium ponantur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could the circumflex mean only a long vowel that marks the ablative case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Quârè moneo vos, adolescentes, atque hoc meo jure præcipio.—” _Cic. pro Sext._ 23.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Hîc, ne quid mihi prorogetur, **quod** ne intercessor quidem sustinere possit, horreo; atque eò magis, **quòd** tu abes, qui consilio, gratiâ, multis rebus occurreres.” _Cic. ad Att._ v. 21.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that one _quod_ has an accent and the other doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt;Thanks to Tom Cotton for bringing it to my attention.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6159" RevisionGUID="951618a9-2ee1-4183-8872-a7928133bff1" CreationDate="2018-03-20T19:54:34.627" UserId="469" Text="The sentence seems to paraphrase one of two New Testament ideas (or combine them in purpose?):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Deum nemo vidit umquam** ([Ioh 1, 18][1]; [1 Ioh 4, 12][2].)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Oculus non vidit nec auris audivit** nec in cor hominis ascendit quae praeparavit Deus his qui diligunt illum ([1 Cor 2, 9][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is part of Christian teaching that no one can see God by their own means, but He wanted to reveal himself, first through the prophets, then through his Son ([[to] anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him][4].) It is also part of Christian teaching that some (*the sons of God*, i.e. *his qui diligunt illum*) will see him in eternal life (*videbimus eum, sicuti est* [1 Ioh 3, 2][5].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ioannes%201%3A18&amp;version=VULGATE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Ioannis%204%3A12&amp;version=VULGATE&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%202%3A9&amp;version=VULGATE&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2011%3A27&amp;version=VULGATE&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%203%3A2&amp;version=VULGATE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1266" RevisionGUID="f5184b98-39f2-414c-87f3-34766f1ba262" CreationDate="2018-03-20T21:35:23.100" UserId="118" Comment="added 253 characters in body" Text="In [pagina 132ª](https://books.google.com/books?id=MFowBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA132#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) primi libri _Linguae Latinae Per Se Illustratae,_ auctoris Iohannis Ørbergi, est scriptum:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus ab hominibus nec vidētur nec audītur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Estne deducta a scriptura antiqua haec sententia? Si est, quanam?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quaero quia scio nonnullos locos huius libri ab antiquitatis operibus celebribus deductos redditosque ad simplices esse, ac mihi huic libro insolitum videtur in narratoris voce—id est, in voce impartiali omniaque animadvertenti—tale dictum affirmare nisi eum inter deorum &quot;scientiam communem&quot; illius temporis erat quandoquidem nonnullas disputationes subabsurdas inter Christianos paganos atheosque narrantur in quibus praestat nullum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1266" RevisionGUID="3404a719-1e25-4886-843f-fe46a3019e53" CreationDate="2018-03-20T21:48:17.547" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="In [pagina 132ª](https://books.google.com/books?id=MFowBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA132#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) primi libri _Linguae Latinae Per Se Illustratae,_ auctoris Iohannis Ørbergi, est scriptum:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus ab hominibus nec vidētur nec audītur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Estne deducta a scriptura antiqua haec sententia? Si est, quanam?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quaero quia scio nonnullos locos huius libri ab antiquitatis operibus celebribus deductos redditosque ad simplices esse, ac huic libro insolitum mihi videtur in narratoris voce—id est, in voce impartiali omniaque animadvertenti—tale dictum affirmare nisi eum inter deorum &quot;scientiam communem&quot; illius temporis erat quandoquidem nonnullas disputationes subabsurdas inter Christianos paganos atheosque narrantur in quibus praestat nullum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1273" RevisionGUID="95a85d02-ca7a-4611-a9fd-8a5bb94a3917" CreationDate="2018-03-20T22:00:56.160" UserId="45" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="Quamquam difficile sit, talem orationem a quodam auctore antiquiore esse scriptam annon comprobare, cum haud ornatis verbis utatur, mihi videtur illam potius ex Orbergi inventione quam ex operibus antiquis tolli, ex duobus rationibus, quarum altera practica, altera theoretica:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Patet in contextu orationem hanc vocis passivae discendae caus&amp;amacr; scriptam esse. Quamobrem? Capitula libri *Familia Romana* semper a lectione incipiunt; deinde sequitur pars grammatica, cui adiiciuntur pensa. Haec &quot;pars grammatica&quot; ex qua tua oratio carpitur manifeste componitur ad monstrandam vocem passivam tribus personis grammaticis pertinentem, scilicet: 2o, &quot;nec videris nec audiris,&quot; 1o, &quot;nec videor nec audior&quot;, et 3o, &quot;nec videtur nec auditur.&quot; Haec duo paragrapha perlegenti, dubium haud oriri potest quin auctor hoc modo breviter illustrare tabulam grammaticam (supra positam in libro) conetur. His ex rationibus, non intelligo quare &quot;insolitam&quot; esse hanc docendi formam dicas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Sicut @TKR iam indicavit, Romani non arbitrantur deos esse invisibiles: immo invisibilitas Dei magis eis incommoda et mira videretur, exorita ex traditione iudaica (et hac via ad christianitatem). Deis esse formas, corpora, libidines, habitacula, et cetera huiusmodi non dubitant attribuere. Fabulae antiquae deorum, ex quibus [Orci galea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_of_invisibility) mihi in memoria venit exempli gratia, nonnumquam asserunt deis opus esse huiusmodi artificia ut sese ab hominum visu occultent. Quomodo di invisibiles *effici* possunt, qui iam tales sunt? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6159" RevisionGUID="de263f62-60a1-478c-b675-d5f287c69d07" CreationDate="2018-03-20T23:59:27.077" UserId="469" Comment="corrected typo" Text="The sentence seems to paraphrase one of two New Testament ideas (or combine them on purpose?):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Deum nemo vidit umquam** ([Ioh 1, 18][1]; [1 Ioh 4, 12][2].)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Oculus non vidit nec auris audivit** nec in cor hominis ascendit quae praeparavit Deus his qui diligunt illum ([1 Cor 2, 9][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is part of Christian teaching that no one can see God by their own means, but He wanted to reveal himself, first through the prophets, then through his Son ([[to] anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him][4].) It is also part of Christian teaching that some (*the sons of God*, i.e. *his qui diligunt illum*) will see him in eternal life (*videbimus eum, sicuti est* [1 Ioh 3, 2][5].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ioannes%201%3A18&amp;version=VULGATE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Ioannis%204%3A12&amp;version=VULGATE&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%202%3A9&amp;version=VULGATE&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2011%3A27&amp;version=VULGATE&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%203%3A2&amp;version=VULGATE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6160" RevisionGUID="c3d1a391-77ce-44ef-9802-98a5dcaf5bdd" CreationDate="2018-03-21T01:39:06.620" UserId="118" Text="I just learned (from Pé de Leão [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6157/118)) that in Humanist Latin Orthography, Latin words that come from Greek names that end in -οῦς get a circumflex in imitation of the Greek circumflex, e.g. Trapezûs, Hierichûs. See, for example, p. 16 of [this summary](http://www.flf.vu.lt/dokumentai/mokslas/Disertacijos/Strockis_Dissertation_Summary.pdf) of Mindaugas Strockis's doctoral dissertation, *Accent Notation in the Classical Languages and its Influence on Lithuanian Accent Notation.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, does _octopus_ get a circumflex?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20352" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6160" RevisionGUID="c3d1a391-77ce-44ef-9802-98a5dcaf5bdd" CreationDate="2018-03-21T01:39:06.620" UserId="118" Text="Does &quot;octopus&quot; get a circumflex?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20353" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6160" RevisionGUID="c3d1a391-77ce-44ef-9802-98a5dcaf5bdd" CreationDate="2018-03-21T01:39:06.620" UserId="118" Text="|orthography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6161" RevisionGUID="1e7307f7-4d0b-4c31-bfab-72b075827880" CreationDate="2018-03-21T15:11:51.370" UserId="79" Text="Some study or teach Latin with the sole intent of reading old texts.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore some restrict studying Latin to mostly reading and the prerequisite grammar.&#xD;&#xA;It is quite clear that writing one's own texts helps develop skills that aid reading comprehension, but it is far less clear whether writing is a good time investment if the sole goal is in reading.&#xD;&#xA;**What is the effect of writing on learning outcomes in reading?**&#xD;&#xA;Are there any studies on this subject?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if I taught two classes for 4 hours a week, one spending 2+1+1 hours on reading, grammar, and writing (in that order), and the other one spending 3+1+0 hours on the same topics, would there be a difference in the ability to read Latin between the two groups?&#xD;&#xA;It does not have to be this very setting, but something concrete in this spirit would be great.&#xD;&#xA;If it helps, you can replace &quot;writing&quot; with any other productive use of the language, but I wanted to phrase the question narrowly enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20356" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6161" RevisionGUID="1e7307f7-4d0b-4c31-bfab-72b075827880" CreationDate="2018-03-21T15:11:51.370" UserId="79" Text="Does writing improve reading comprehension?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20357" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6161" RevisionGUID="1e7307f7-4d0b-4c31-bfab-72b075827880" CreationDate="2018-03-21T15:11:51.370" UserId="79" Text="|study-strategies|teaching-method|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6162" RevisionGUID="9a1de047-10e8-48c4-96ab-c7fc5be45f10" CreationDate="2018-03-21T15:26:20.813" UserId="2492" Text="Dux servit? Dux ministrat? Something else? I would like to use this as a motto for a club." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20359" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6162" RevisionGUID="9a1de047-10e8-48c4-96ab-c7fc5be45f10" CreationDate="2018-03-21T15:26:20.813" UserId="2492" Text="What is the preferred translation of &quot;A leader serves&quot; into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20360" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6162" RevisionGUID="9a1de047-10e8-48c4-96ab-c7fc5be45f10" CreationDate="2018-03-21T15:26:20.813" UserId="2492" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6163" RevisionGUID="9ca06e71-c67d-4216-8ba6-25ab0b037419" CreationDate="2018-03-21T15:27:35.297" UserId="324" Text="We had a very detailed (if somewhat ill-tempered) discussion of this issue in another forum. It is not easy to summarise the line of thought, so it might be better to have a look at it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/missa.2529289/ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6163" RevisionGUID="f20a0293-7bc3-4d6f-8942-84d0a8129733" CreationDate="2018-03-21T15:33:54.053" UserId="324" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="We had a very detailed (if somewhat ill-tempered) discussion of this issue in another forum. It is not easy to summarise the line of thought, so it might be better just to have a look at it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/missa.2529289/ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6162" RevisionGUID="65887610-e8e4-4446-9978-9db6e6a676ab" CreationDate="2018-03-21T15:56:46.567" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="*Dux servit*? *Dux ministrat*? Something else? I would like to use this as a motto for a club." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20364" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6162" RevisionGUID="65887610-e8e4-4446-9978-9db6e6a676ab" CreationDate="2018-03-21T15:56:46.567" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6162" RevisionGUID="34eeb0e8-104c-43bb-8881-28324dc7b422" CreationDate="2018-03-21T16:08:45.483" UserId="79" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="*Dux servit*? *Dux ministrat*? Something else? I would like to use this as a motto for a club.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am using leader in the sense of &quot;Someone in a leadership position serves&quot; or &quot;One of the characteristics of a leader is that he serves the people around him&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6164" RevisionGUID="5993c370-c3e5-4273-8a1b-ce55942b2b6c" CreationDate="2018-03-21T17:15:21.287" UserId="118" Text="**Dux servit** was the first thought that came to my (non-expert) mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Less terse but still epigrammatic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Etiam servit qui ducit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reversed word order might give it the kind of poignancy that you're looking for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6165" RevisionGUID="5d20e0f0-d762-49eb-9a26-fcca029e2738" CreationDate="2018-03-21T18:19:28.660" UserId="118" Text="I don't know of any studies specifically about this, but I can give you two reasons for expecting writing to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Here is classic psychological experiment from the days of behaviorism.* One group of rats, the &quot;active rats&quot;, was allowed to explore a maze and find food in the usual fashion—learning by reinforcement. Another group, the &quot;passive rats&quot;, was put in wire cages and pulled through the maze along the exact same paths as the active rats. Then both groups of rats were tested on how well they could navigate the maze. The purpose of this experiment was to test the behaviorist thesis that learning can only happen under reinforcement. And indeed it showed that &quot;latent learning&quot; happens: the passive rats did learn the maze. But in the absence of cues from outside the maze (e.g. when the room was painted black), the passive rats did not learn the maze as well. The active rats learned the maze better than the passive rats.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;You don't really need carefully controlled scientific experiments to see what's going on here. The same kind of observation is ubiquitous in common experience. If you're driving a car, for example, you can probably learn a route in one or two iterations, whereas the passenger will usually barely learn the route at all. Drawing a picture of someone's face makes you see their face much better than photographing it or just coming to recognize that person by their face. People tend to learn more richly from active behavior, such as speaking and writing, than from relatively passive behavior such as reading, though of course we learn from both, and of course there's no simple rule. A passive participant is usually less attentive to the cues that inform decisions because the passive participant is under no pressure to attend to them. An active participant cannot escape the pressure to focus attention on the most relevant cues.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. When you go through the process of framing and expressing your thoughts in a language, you become better at understanding the language. You gain the ability to empathize with the author of speech or text that you hear or read, because now you've gone through that process yourself. Understanding language is mainly learning to empathize with the speaker: &quot;What is the speaker trying to point out? Why is the speaker choosing these words or this sequence or this grammar to help a listener see what he is trying to point out?&quot; Even in your own native language, writing makes you a better reader than reading alone.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;To put this another way, language is _communication._ If you only practice receiving, you miss out on the insights that arise from sending—and consequently you're less prepared to infer a sender's intended message. When you put your own thoughts into language, you cannot avoid attending to such matters as what knowledge you are assuming that your listener already has, whereas it's easy for reader to read obliviously to these things—especially a reader who doesn't know the language's conventions for conveying them.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ultimate test, of course, is to try it yourself. Case studies and anecdotal reports from other teachers might save you a lot of trial and error on your own, as long as they include rich descriptions of what happened rather than only the author's conclusions. Maybe another answer can provide those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* McNamara, H. J., Long, J. B., &amp; Wike, E. L. (1956). &quot;Learning without response under two conditions of external cues.&quot; _Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology,_ 49(5), 477–480." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6165" RevisionGUID="fa56eada-e9c0-402d-8fb1-e8480972f801" CreationDate="2018-03-21T18:24:51.683" UserId="118" Comment="added 137 characters in body" Text="I don't know of any studies specifically about this, but I can give you two reasons for expecting writing to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Here is classic psychological experiment from the days of behaviorism.* One group of rats, the &quot;active rats&quot;, was allowed to explore a maze and find food in the usual fashion—learning by reinforcement. Another group, the &quot;passive rats&quot;, was put in wire cages and pulled through the maze along the exact same paths as the active rats. Then both groups of rats were tested on how well they could navigate the maze. The purpose of this experiment was to test the behaviorist thesis that learning can only happen under reinforcement. And indeed it showed that &quot;latent learning&quot; happens: the passive rats did learn the maze. But in the absence of cues from outside the maze (e.g. when the room was painted black), the passive rats did not learn the maze as well. The active rats learned the maze better than the passive rats.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;You don't really need carefully controlled scientific experiments to see what's going on here. The same kind of observation is ubiquitous in common experience. If you're driving a car, for example, you can probably learn a route in one or two iterations, whereas the passenger will usually barely learn the route at all. Drawing a picture of someone's face makes you see their face much better than photographing it or just coming to recognize that person by their face. People tend to learn more richly from active behavior, such as speaking and writing, than from relatively passive behavior such as reading, though of course we learn from both, and of course there's no simple rule. A passive participant is usually less attentive to the cues that inform decisions because the passive participant is under no pressure to attend to them. An active participant cannot escape the pressure to focus attention on the most relevant cues.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. When you go through the process of framing and expressing your thoughts in a language, you become better at understanding the language. You gain the ability to empathize with the author of speech or text that you hear or read, because now you've gone through that process yourself. Understanding language is mainly learning to empathize with the speaker: &quot;What is the speaker trying to point out? Why is the speaker choosing these words or this sequence or this grammar to help a listener see what he is trying to point out?&quot; Even in your own native language, writing makes you a better reader than reading alone.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;To put this another way, language is _communication._ If you only practice receiving, you miss out on the insights that arise from sending—and consequently you're less prepared to infer a sender's intended message. When you put your own thoughts into language, you cannot avoid attending to such matters as what knowledge you are assuming that your listener already has, whereas it's easy for reader to read obliviously to these things—especially a reader who doesn't know the language's conventions for conveying them.†&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ultimate test, of course, is to try it yourself. Case studies and anecdotal reports from other teachers might save you a lot of trial and error on your own, as long as they include rich descriptions of what happened rather than only the author's conclusions. Maybe another answer can provide those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* McNamara, H. J., Long, J. B., &amp; Wike, E. L. (1956). &quot;Learning without response under two conditions of external cues.&quot; _Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology,_ 49(5), 477–480.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;† See the [introduction](https://books.google.com/books?id=WY2Nhc3HY3sC&amp;pg=PA3) to _Latin Word Order_ by Devine and Stephens (2006)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6166" RevisionGUID="c5c98be9-4185-4a61-b667-a5987e88cc86" CreationDate="2018-03-21T19:32:59.107" UserId="469" Text="Caveat: *you may or may not feel comfortable with a motto with religious background, but the concept we have today of a leader as a servant has had a strong influence from Christianity, so personally I don't see any harm in using it even if you/your club is not religious at all. Moreover, there is precedent of this specific motto being used by non-religious groups*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Non ministrari sed ministrare** ([Mt 20:28][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally means [I have come] *not to be served but to serve*. The context is Jesus explaining his disciples that *anyone who wants to become great among you must be* [each other's] *servant* (Mt 20:26.) This is the base of the western concept of exerting leadership/power by serving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has been the motto of a number of educational institutions from different, Christian and non-Christian backgrounds (e.g. [1][2], [2][3], [3][4], [4][5]) and at least one [bishop][6] (presumably more.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In Spanish it is common to call a country's President *Primer Mandatario* (something in the line of *first mandatary/trustee*, first one being mandated, even at the point that *mandatario* has kind of lost its original meaning and is at times translated as *leader*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Most Popes, as well as some Western civil rules have considered themselves *servants* at the point of coining and using the title *servus servorum Dei* ([servant of the servants of God][7].) Of course some have used the title just as a formality but also some have trully meant it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mateo%2020%3A28&amp;version=VULGATE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cmisabel.com/Saludo.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenox_School_for_Boys&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens_University_of_Charlotte&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellesley_College&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolfo_Rodriguez_Vidal&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_the_servants_of_God" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6167" RevisionGUID="c24a2edc-a5c8-458a-8f02-ed44817ffdb8" CreationDate="2018-03-21T19:40:08.127" UserId="79" Text="My suggestion is ***dux servit ductis***, &quot;leader serves those (s)he leads&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;A mere *dux servit* is also fine, but adding the people being served and lead gives it more nuance.&#xD;&#xA;And it sounds better if you ask me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a similar spirit, you could say ***ducere est servire***, &quot;to lead is to serve&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6166" RevisionGUID="80204014-7e1f-4284-b051-7201bff5e26a" CreationDate="2018-03-21T22:00:57.800" UserId="469" Comment="corrected typo" Text="Caveat: *you may or may not feel comfortable with a motto with religious background, but the concept we have today of a leader as a servant has had a strong influence from Christianity, so personally I don't see any harm in using it even if you/your club is not religious at all. Moreover, there is precedent of this specific motto being used by non-religious groups*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Non ministrari sed ministrare** ([Mt 20:28][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally means [I have come] *not to be served but to serve*. The context is Jesus explaining his disciples that *anyone who wants to become great among you must be* [each other's] *servant* (Mt 20:26.) This is the base of the western concept of exerting leadership/power by serving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has been the motto of a number of educational institutions from different, Christian and non-Christian backgrounds (e.g. [1][2], [2][3], [3][4], [4][5]) and at least one [bishop][6] (presumably more.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In Spanish it is common to call a country's President *Primer Mandatario* (something in the line of *first mandatary/trustee*, first one being mandated, even at the point that *mandatario* has kind of lost its original meaning and is at times translated as *leader*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Most Popes, as well as some Western civil rulers have considered themselves *servants* at the point of coining and using the title *servus servorum Dei* ([servant of the servants of God][7].) Of course some have used the title just as a formality but also some have trully meant it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mateo%2020%3A28&amp;version=VULGATE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cmisabel.com/Saludo.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenox_School_for_Boys&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens_University_of_Charlotte&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellesley_College&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolfo_Rodriguez_Vidal&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_the_servants_of_God" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6168" RevisionGUID="7c870014-1c62-4207-a267-7873a304f3e3" CreationDate="2018-03-22T10:13:05.663" UserId="79" Text="The Greek letter sigma (&amp;sigma;) has a different form (&amp;varsigma;) when used at the end of a word.&#xD;&#xA;This distinction seems unnecessary to me, and it's not clear why it would emerge.&#xD;&#xA;Do we know why and when this distinction came to be?&#xD;&#xA;Was there a benefit for making this distinction?&#xD;&#xA;Does the evolution of the character or the literature explain how we ended up having two forms?&#xD;&#xA;This distinction seems to only appear in lowercase text, but I am not sufficiently familiar with the evolution of the Greek alphabet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20373" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6168" RevisionGUID="7c870014-1c62-4207-a267-7873a304f3e3" CreationDate="2018-03-22T10:13:05.663" UserId="79" Text="How and when did we get two forms of sigma?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20374" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6168" RevisionGUID="7c870014-1c62-4207-a267-7873a304f3e3" CreationDate="2018-03-22T10:13:05.663" UserId="79" Text="|greek|language-evolution|orthography|alphabet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6157" RevisionGUID="7d54fbad-96c5-47a2-b64a-e2142e0f4b5b" CreationDate="2018-03-22T10:29:22.590" UserId="81" Comment="added 877 characters in body" Text="This has been referred to as the **[Neo-Latin Orthography][1]**. An example of a grammar written with this type of orthography is *[An Introduction to the Latin Tongue][2]* by G. N. Wright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the use of these diacritics, the following is from a dissertation, &quot;Accent Notation in the Classical Languages and its Influence on Lithuanian Accent Notation&quot; by Mindaugas Strockis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The archaic genitive singular -ās of the ā-stems (the first declension) is marked with a circumflex: aurâs, Majâs, paterfamiliâs,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; materfamiliâs, in imitation of Greek gen. sg. -ᾶς.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The genitive singular of the u-stems (the fourth declension) is marked with a circumflex, such as domûs, as if in imitation of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek εὐτυχοῦς, Σαπφοῦς, αἰδοῦς or similar.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The nominative singular -ūs of the Greek names ending in -οῦς in the original, is also written with a circumflex: Trapezûs, Hierichûs.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The genitive plural ending -um (= -ōrum) was written with a circumflex mark, such as deûm (versus unmarked acc. sg. deum), in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; imitation of the Greek gen. pl. ending -ῶν.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The genitive partitive of the personal pronouns nos, vos was marked with circumflex: nostrûm, vestrûm (versus unmarked acc. sg. masc. and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nom./acc. sg. neuter of the possessive nostrum, vestrum), in imitation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of Greek ἡµῶν, ὑµῶν.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The ablative singular of the ā-stems (the first declension) was marked with a circumflex: linguâ, Româ, versus unmarked nom. sg.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lingua, Roma. This particular case is likely to have been indirectly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; influenced (or at least a posteriori justified) by Quintilian’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; teaching (1.7.3) about the usage of the apex mark.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sometimes the explicative diacritic of the humanist Latin orthography coincided with the actual word accent: nostrâs, Samnîs,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which, according to Roman grammarians, could have been accented on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The grave mark on the last syllable was often used to distinguish adverbs, prepositions, and some other, usually indeclinable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Steenbakkers 1994, Burkard 2003), words: maximè (adverb) versus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maxime (vocative), cùm (conjunction) versus cum (preposition), verò&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (conjunction) versus vero (dat./abl. sg.), quòd (conjunction) versus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod (pronoun) etc. For the logic of such orthography, compare also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian’s mention (1.5.26) of the oxytonesis of auxiliary words,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the Greek oxytonic grave, especially frequent in prepositions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (ἀνὰ, κατὰ, µετὰ, ὑπὸ etc).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Various humanist grammarians proposed also other orthographic rules to distinguish homographs, such as to mark the accent on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; penultimate syllable according to the Greek third mora rule, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to write lăbor and lābor respectively lábor and lâbor, or to write&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pône (imperative of a verb) but ponè (preposition).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sometimes contracted or syncopated word forms were written with a circumflex (dî = dii, nîl = nihil, mî = mihi, nôrat = noverat, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in imitation of the Greek contracted forms with the circumflex from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first mora accent: νόος &gt; νοῦς, φάος &gt; φῶς etc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The system of explicative diacritics in Latin orthography was abandoned between 18th and early 19th centuries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit note:** When I first posted this, I referred to this as the &quot;Humanistic Latin Orthography&quot; as Strockis called it. However, I later came across the following remark by Piet Steenbakkers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;With hindsight we can perceive that it was humanistic research into&#xD;&#xA;&gt; classical Latin which brought about the downfall of this unhistorical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; orthography. The movement *ad fontes* and the scrutiny of ancient&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inscriptions made humanists keenly aware of the examples they had to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; follow in reforming their spelling and pronunciation of Latin.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would, of course, be inaccurate to attribute this orthography to the humanists when they were the ones that led to its demise, so I felt it was better to use Steenbakkers' designation, &quot;Neo-Latin Orthography.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/stream/hafniactaconvent00inteuoft#page/924/mode/2up/search/Steenbakkers&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=MkAyAF8aAD4C&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6157" RevisionGUID="20b6e55e-3af5-4086-ba2b-8c2d9e429914" CreationDate="2018-03-22T11:25:32.627" UserId="81" Comment="deleted 74 characters in body" Text="This has been referred to as the **[Neo-Latin Orthography][1]**. An example of a grammar written with this type of orthography is *[An Introduction to the Latin Tongue][2]* by G. N. Wright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the use of these diacritics, the following is from a dissertation, &quot;Accent Notation in the Classical Languages and its Influence on Lithuanian Accent Notation&quot; by Mindaugas Strockis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The archaic genitive singular -ās of the ā-stems (the first declension) is marked with a circumflex: aurâs, Majâs, paterfamiliâs,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; materfamiliâs, in imitation of Greek gen. sg. -ᾶς.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The genitive singular of the u-stems (the fourth declension) is marked with a circumflex, such as domûs, as if in imitation of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek εὐτυχοῦς, Σαπφοῦς, αἰδοῦς or similar.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The nominative singular -ūs of the Greek names ending in -οῦς in the original, is also written with a circumflex: Trapezûs, Hierichûs.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The genitive plural ending -um (= -ōrum) was written with a circumflex mark, such as deûm (versus unmarked acc. sg. deum), in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; imitation of the Greek gen. pl. ending -ῶν.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The genitive partitive of the personal pronouns nos, vos was marked with circumflex: nostrûm, vestrûm (versus unmarked acc. sg. masc. and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nom./acc. sg. neuter of the possessive nostrum, vestrum), in imitation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of Greek ἡµῶν, ὑµῶν.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The ablative singular of the ā-stems (the first declension) was marked with a circumflex: linguâ, Româ, versus unmarked nom. sg.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lingua, Roma. This particular case is likely to have been indirectly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; influenced (or at least a posteriori justified) by Quintilian’s&#xD;&#xA;&gt; teaching (1.7.3) about the usage of the apex mark.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sometimes the explicative diacritic of the humanist Latin orthography coincided with the actual word accent: nostrâs, Samnîs,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which, according to Roman grammarians, could have been accented on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The grave mark on the last syllable was often used to distinguish adverbs, prepositions, and some other, usually indeclinable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Steenbakkers 1994, Burkard 2003), words: maximè (adverb) versus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maxime (vocative), cùm (conjunction) versus cum (preposition), verò&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (conjunction) versus vero (dat./abl. sg.), quòd (conjunction) versus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod (pronoun) etc. For the logic of such orthography, compare also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quintilian’s mention (1.5.26) of the oxytonesis of auxiliary words,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the Greek oxytonic grave, especially frequent in prepositions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (ἀνὰ, κατὰ, µετὰ, ὑπὸ etc).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Various humanist grammarians proposed also other orthographic rules to distinguish homographs, such as to mark the accent on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; penultimate syllable according to the Greek third mora rule, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to write lăbor and lābor respectively lábor and lâbor, or to write&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pône (imperative of a verb) but ponè (preposition).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sometimes contracted or syncopated word forms were written with a circumflex (dî = dii, nîl = nihil, mî = mihi, nôrat = noverat, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in imitation of the Greek contracted forms with the circumflex from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first mora accent: νόος &gt; νοῦς, φάος &gt; φῶς etc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The system of explicative diacritics in Latin orthography was abandoned between 18th and early 19th centuries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit note:** When I first posted this, I referred to this as the &quot;Humanistic Latin Orthography&quot; as Strockis called it. However, I later came across the following remark by Piet Steenbakkers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;With hindsight we can perceive that it was humanistic research into&#xD;&#xA;&gt; classical Latin which brought about the downfall of this unhistorical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; orthography. The movement *ad fontes* and the scrutiny of ancient&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inscriptions made humanists keenly aware of the examples they had to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; follow in reforming their spelling and pronunciation of Latin.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the humanists led to the demise of this orthography, I felt it was better to use Steenbakkers' designation, &quot;Neo-Latin Orthography.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/stream/hafniactaconvent00inteuoft#page/924/mode/2up/search/Steenbakkers&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=MkAyAF8aAD4C&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6160" RevisionGUID="f7c77224-30e1-4dbf-be41-9928ff9fa75f" CreationDate="2018-03-22T12:52:36.957" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="I just learned (from Pé de Leão [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6157/118)) that in Neo-Latin orthography, Latin words that come from Greek names that end in -οῦς get a circumflex in imitation of the Greek circumflex, e.g. Trapezûs, Hierichûs. See, for example, p. 16 of [this summary](http://www.flf.vu.lt/dokumentai/mokslas/Disertacijos/Strockis_Dissertation_Summary.pdf) of Mindaugas Strockis's doctoral dissertation, *Accent Notation in the Classical Languages and its Influence on Lithuanian Accent Notation.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, does _octopus_ get a circumflex?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5203" RevisionGUID="be37a631-d071-479c-8d52-e80d7381a179" CreationDate="2018-03-22T13:34:19.740" UserId="469" Comment="Added newly found, attested, modern Latin equivalent" Text="Some ideas that occurred to me after posting the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A translation of the second Spanish proverb:&#xD;&#xA; &gt; qui mane surgit adiuvat Deus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (I think _adiuvo_ is more common in Ecclesiastical than _iuvo_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* That translation remembered me a quote from [Psalm 127 (126)][1], 1:&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem frustra vigilavit qui custodit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Another option was to adapt one of Augustine's:&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Sine voluntate tua non erit in te *adiutorium* Dei&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But none of them seems to fulfill what I was looking for as good as *ora et labora, Deus adest sine mora.* The context is much closer to the sense I'm looking for than I imagined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*Centro Virtual Cervantes*][2], maintained by the Cervantes Institute (Spanish governmental institution for the diffusion of Spanish language) keeps something called *Refranero multilingüe*, a multilingual sayings collection, with translations of popular Spanish proverbs into several languages. In the entry for [*a Dios rogando y con el mazo dando*][3] lists the following [Latin equivalent][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dii facientes adiuvant,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; apparently attested in a number of pretty modern sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks good, and if it were attested in earlier times, I would consider using a singular version of it: *Deus facientem adiuvat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_psalmorum_lt.html#PSALMUS%20127&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://cvc.cervantes.es/portada.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/refranero/Ficha.aspx?Par=58061&amp;Lng=0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/refranero/Ficha.aspx?Par=58061&amp;Lng=14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5203" RevisionGUID="6c7e2066-8115-47fa-8bd2-42cb6070d3e1" CreationDate="2018-03-22T18:47:21.453" UserId="469" Comment="added 149 characters in body" Text="Some ideas that occurred to me after posting the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A translation of the second Spanish proverb:&#xD;&#xA; &gt; qui mane surgit adiuvat Deus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (I think _adiuvo_ is more common in Ecclesiastical than _iuvo_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* That translation remembered me a quote from [Psalm 127 (126)][1], 1:&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem frustra vigilavit qui custodit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Another option was to adapt one of Augustine's:&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Sine voluntate tua non erit in te *adiutorium* Dei&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But none of them seems to fulfill what I was looking for as good as *ora et labora, Deus adest sine mora.* The context is much closer to the sense I'm looking for than I imagined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*Centro Virtual Cervantes*][2], maintained by the Cervantes Institute (Spanish governmental institution for the diffusion of Spanish language) keeps something called *Refranero multilingüe*, a multilingual sayings collection, with translations of popular Spanish proverbs into several languages. In the entry for [*a Dios rogando y con el mazo dando*][3] lists the following [Latin equivalent][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dii facientes adiuvant,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; apparently attested in a number of pretty modern sources. The same equivalent is given for *[a quien madruga, Dios le ayuda][5]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks good, and if it were attested in earlier times, I would consider using a singular version of it: *Deus facientem adiuvat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_psalmorum_lt.html#PSALMUS%20127&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://cvc.cervantes.es/portada.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/refranero/Ficha.aspx?Par=58061&amp;Lng=0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/refranero/Ficha.aspx?Par=58061&amp;Lng=14&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/refranero/Ficha.aspx?Par=58122&amp;Lng=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5210" RevisionGUID="3ec53512-8ebd-4ecd-8041-16f165cd8517" CreationDate="2018-03-22T21:25:08.473" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What does word *emeo* mean? &#xD;&#xA;As in: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Heri, ad tabernam eō. In tabernā sunt trēs rēs quārum amō duas sōleās et unam mensam. Habeō trēs denariōs, sīc ego **emeō** mensam sōlum quod sum nōn dīvīnitās&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;taken from [here](https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Latin/Lesson_6-Irregular_Verbs), emphasis by myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not found this word in wiktionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has been suggested by Joonas Ilmavirta in chat that it is in fact misspelled word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a probable right word then?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20381" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5210" RevisionGUID="3ec53512-8ebd-4ecd-8041-16f165cd8517" CreationDate="2018-03-22T21:25:08.473" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Emeo – possibly misspelled word" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20382" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5210" RevisionGUID="3ec53512-8ebd-4ecd-8041-16f165cd8517" CreationDate="2018-03-22T21:25:08.473" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|vocabulary|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2776" RevisionGUID="58ef2540-ce1e-48a6-8ed1-d280ddf794b9" CreationDate="2018-03-22T21:28:10.520" UserId="79" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="The C is a *-que*.&#xD;&#xA;It is quite common to abbreviate *neque* (= *ne+que*) as *nec*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see two ways to parse that verse and interpret the C:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. And he noticed the goddess and said: &quot;Don't go further!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. And he noticed the goddess, said: &quot;And don't go further!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I didn't read around that verse, so the translation may not be optimal. But that's beside the point.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is in the position of &quot;and&quot;, which is the *-c* of *nec*.&#xD;&#xA;In the second option the &quot;and&quot; is inside the quote, so it makes sense to punctuate it that way.&#xD;&#xA;In the first option it is not, so it makes sense to pull it out of the quotation.&#xD;&#xA;This is problematic in Latin because the &quot;and&quot; is a suffix (enclitic) *-c*, leading to that awkward separate C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as we know, Ovidius did not use any such punctuation, so the quotation marks are a more recent addition to aid modern readers.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore there was nothing awkward in his time, but modern punctuation makes it look a little silly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2775" RevisionGUID="4797b910-d6df-4d53-a9b5-62707d76cc68" CreationDate="2018-03-22T21:29:17.527" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted the quotes." Text="I'm writing this Latin verse parser/scanner, and all is fine and dandy until I load up Ov. Met. V. This book features the following verse in my [source text](http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lsante01/Ovidius/ovi_me05.html), which is usually very good:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adgnovitque deam 'ne' c 'longius ibitis!' inquit; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My parser balks at this because it is not designed to handle `c`, a 'syllable' without a vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found other versions of the text online, by Googling [&quot;adgnovitque deam&quot;](https://www.google.com/search?q=adgnovitque+deam) and [&quot;agnovitque deam&quot;](https://www.google.com/search?q=agnovitque+deam), which represent a more sensible version (also, it scans properly!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agnovitque deam 'nec longius ibitis!' inquit; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to solve my original question, which was 'what does this even mean and how is this pronounced', but I'm confused as to why multiple reputed online resources would feature the `'ne' c` version at all. Can this make sense, or is it just an OCR artifact or typo that was copied around by some of the available online resources?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm basically looking for a decent explanation and/or someone with access to an annotated text, preferably something like a dusty old Loeb or OCT book, which might shed some light on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20385" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2775" RevisionGUID="4797b910-d6df-4d53-a9b5-62707d76cc68" CreationDate="2018-03-22T21:29:17.527" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted the quotes." Text="|classical-latin|orthography|ovidius|scansion|metre|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="188" RevisionGUID="ca91bbb7-1a53-4580-98a1-8c78d5230f1d" CreationDate="2018-03-22T21:33:00.143" UserId="79" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="Metric analysis of classical poetry is enough to show that both vowels are short and belong to two different syllables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider Vergilius's [Aeneis I.595](http://thelatinlibrary.com/vergil/aen1.shtml):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; improvisus ait: 'Coram, quem quaeritis, adsum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be able to read this as a hexameter verse, *ait* must be pronounced as two syllables, the first of which is short.&#xD;&#xA;This is not an isolated example, but I only chose to give one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the ending *-it* is generally pronounced with a short 'i' (see e.g. verse 45 in the cited source), we have a good reason to believe that also the 'i' is short.&#xD;&#xA;And since we already know that there are two syllables, the verse 142 shows that the 'i' must be short in *ait*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rhythmic considerations alone will not tell about the exact phonetic values of the vowels.&#xD;&#xA;[This question on ancient pronunciation](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/66/79) might be a good starting point with such finer details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6169" RevisionGUID="1d5d39b8-da1b-4ba5-a08b-ade04739c8b9" CreationDate="2018-03-23T03:53:11.373" UserId="39" Text="[Thompson 1912][1] mentions the following on page 189:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a full answer but at least something to start with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/greeklatin00thomuoft&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/euMoR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6170" RevisionGUID="7f53d1a9-494d-449c-9465-345ecac418de" CreationDate="2018-03-23T09:53:34.033" UserId="79" Text="In a comment to [my recent question on the origin of the two forms of sigma](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6168/79), Rafael pointed out that in Arabic most letters have separate forms for initial, middle, and final positions.&#xD;&#xA;However, in Greek only sigma seems to have different forms for different positions.&#xD;&#xA;Did any other Greek letters ever have different forms for the end of a word?&#xD;&#xA;In the Greek I know sigma is unique in this respect, but was this always the case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20389" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6170" RevisionGUID="7f53d1a9-494d-449c-9465-345ecac418de" CreationDate="2018-03-23T09:53:34.033" UserId="79" Text="Did any other letters than sigma ever have separate end-of-word variants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20390" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6170" RevisionGUID="7f53d1a9-494d-449c-9465-345ecac418de" CreationDate="2018-03-23T09:53:34.033" UserId="79" Text="|greek|alphabet|typography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6171" RevisionGUID="69781947-a5a5-4783-8d48-c1fc7006948d" CreationDate="2018-03-23T15:28:39.567" UserId="1304" Text="_Beta_ comes to mind. From [wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta#Typography)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In some high-quality typesetting, especially in the French tradition, a typographic variant of the lowercase letter without a descender is used within a word for ancient Greek: βίβλος is printed βίϐλος,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I hope you can see in the bove quote, there is even a special Unicode point for it, incorrectly named GREEK BETA SYMBOL. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This case is different from ϖ, GREEK PI SYMBOL, which is exclusively used for scientific formulas and never made it to Greek typography, and from φ and ϕ, which have two different Unicode points because they are distinguished in some scientific notations, but have never been considered different letters when it comes to writing Greek texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll expand this answer with more details later today..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6172" RevisionGUID="a3ccbca9-b28b-4ce6-a6e7-2c4870a7d831" CreationDate="2018-03-23T17:56:03.350" UserId="13" Text="The manuscript tradition for the fragment in the title gives us:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;έλθοντ΄ εξ οράνω πορφυρίαν έχοντα προϊέμενον χλάμυν&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reasons of meter, deleting the έχοντα is basically mandatory. However, why do Lobel-Page and Campbell emend the participle προϊέμενον to the very different περθέμενον instead of simply removing the troublesome umlaut and reading προιέμενον like Edmonds does? This reading is closer to the tradition, so why discard it? Is there any critical or linguistic reason to do so, or is it just that &quot;clad in&quot; a mantle is in a sense easier to picture than &quot;sending forth&quot; a mantle? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20394" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6172" RevisionGUID="a3ccbca9-b28b-4ce6-a6e7-2c4870a7d831" CreationDate="2018-03-23T17:56:03.350" UserId="13" Text="About Sappho Edmobds 69 Lobel-Page 54 Campbell 54: why the emendation of the participle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20395" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6172" RevisionGUID="a3ccbca9-b28b-4ce6-a6e7-2c4870a7d831" CreationDate="2018-03-23T17:56:03.350" UserId="13" Text="|greek|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6173" RevisionGUID="7c0bb790-d45c-4305-88a6-e176f045f562" CreationDate="2018-03-23T18:12:11.297" UserId="985" Text="The following is from the 'Variant forms' section of [From Unicode to Typography, a Case Study: the Greek Script](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yannis_Haralambous/publication/2417759_From_Unicode_to_Typography_a_Case_Study_the_Greek_Script/links/540777ec0cf23d9765aa310a.pdf), by Yannis Haralambous (p 7–9). The paper was presented at the 14th International Unicode Conference (Boston, 1999). (I've added some bold font for presentation purposes and italic for emphasis.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The beta without descender: ϐ.** Sometimes the following rule is applied: *β is used at the beginning of words, and ϐ otherwise*, as in the words βλάϐη, βιϐλίο, βάρϐαρος. This rule seems to be geographically very restricted: the author has seen it applied in Greek books of the late 19th and early 20th century...; it seems to be applied, rigorously and continuously until today, only in France... all *Budé* and *Le Cerf* editions of classical Greek texts apply it as well. On the other hand, this rule is unknown in the rest of the world....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The &quot;open&quot; and &quot;closed&quot; letter pairs theta and phi: ϑ/θ, φ/ϕ (Unicode U+03D1, U+03B8, U+03C6, U+03D5).** These variant forms are mentionned in most grammars and dictionaries, but the author was not able to detect any contextual rule involving them. It is interesting to note that *[Imp, p. 95] suggests that the open theta ϑ be used at the beginning of words*; this rule is mentioned only by [Imp] and the author has never seen it applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The &quot;curly&quot; capital Upsilon ϒ (U+03D2) and lowercase kappa ϰ (U+03F0).** These are purely stylistic; in fact they are the normal versions of uppercase upsilon and lowercase kappa in the *aplá* font, while the &quot;standard&quot; versions Υ κ of the letters, in other words the glyphs shown in the Unicode book, belong to the Times family of fonts...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The &quot;curly tail&quot; rho ϱ (U+03F1).** The difference between ρ and ϱ is simply that the latter is used mainly in italic fonts: τώρα vs. τώϱα. Again, in mathematics, the choice between ρ and ϱ seems to be purely stylistic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The &quot;round&quot; pi ϖ (U+03D6).** This letter has been a variant of π from the very first days of Greek typography: in Figure 2, the reader can see an excerpt of...a book printed in 1489 (!). In this excerpt both versions of pi have been used, apparently randomly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Once again, *[Imp, p. 95] suggests that the round pi be used only at the beginning of word*. According to [Tre], this rule has been applied in certain French journals (for example the Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique in the late 19th and early 20th century) ; [Tre] applies it in all of his writings...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are Haralambous's bibliographical references for the preceding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Imp] = *Lexique des règles typographiques en usage à l'Imprimerie nationale*, Imprimerie nationale, 1990. (*Typographical guide.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Tre] = Tremblay, Felix, personal communication" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6173" RevisionGUID="b41c90e8-3751-4891-bfae-f9da408d7a48" CreationDate="2018-03-23T19:29:47.893" UserId="985" Comment="Added summary paragraph" Text="The following is from the 'Variant forms' section of [From Unicode to Typography, a Case Study: the Greek Script](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yannis_Haralambous/publication/2417759_From_Unicode_to_Typography_a_Case_Study_the_Greek_Script/links/540777ec0cf23d9765aa310a.pdf), by Yannis Haralambous (p 7–9). The paper was presented at the 14th International Unicode Conference (Boston, 1999). (I've added some bold font for presentation purposes and italic for emphasis.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The beta without descender: ϐ.** Sometimes the following rule is applied: *β is used at the beginning of words, and ϐ otherwise*, as in the words βλάϐη, βιϐλίο, βάρϐαρος. This rule seems to be geographically very restricted: the author has seen it applied in Greek books of the late 19th and early 20th century...; it seems to be applied, rigorously and continuously until today, only in France... all *Budé* and *Le Cerf* editions of classical Greek texts apply it as well. On the other hand, this rule is unknown in the rest of the world....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The &quot;open&quot; and &quot;closed&quot; letter pairs theta and phi: ϑ/θ, φ/ϕ (Unicode U+03D1, U+03B8, U+03C6, U+03D5).** These variant forms are mentionned in most grammars and dictionaries, but the author was not able to detect any contextual rule involving them. It is interesting to note that *[Imp, p. 95] suggests that the open theta ϑ be used at the beginning of words*; this rule is mentioned only by [Imp] and the author has never seen it applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The &quot;curly&quot; capital Upsilon ϒ (U+03D2) and lowercase kappa ϰ (U+03F0).** These are purely stylistic; in fact they are the normal versions of uppercase upsilon and lowercase kappa in the *aplá* font, while the &quot;standard&quot; versions Υ κ of the letters, in other words the glyphs shown in the Unicode book, belong to the Times family of fonts...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The &quot;curly tail&quot; rho ϱ (U+03F1).** The difference between ρ and ϱ is simply that the latter is used mainly in italic fonts: τώρα vs. τώϱα. Again, in mathematics, the choice between ρ and ϱ seems to be purely stylistic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The &quot;round&quot; pi ϖ (U+03D6).** This letter has been a variant of π from the very first days of Greek typography: in Figure 2, the reader can see an excerpt of...a book printed in 1489 (!). In this excerpt both versions of pi have been used, apparently randomly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Once again, *[Imp, p. 95] suggests that the round pi be used only at the beginning of word*. According to [Tre], this rule has been applied in certain French journals (for example the Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique in the late 19th and early 20th century) ; [Tre] applies it in all of his writings...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are Haralambous's bibliographical references for the preceding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Imp] = *Lexique des règles typographiques en usage à l'Imprimerie nationale*, Imprimerie nationale, 1990. (*Typographical guide.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Tre] = Tremblay, Felix, personal communication&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, although only sigma has a different form for the end of a word vs. the beginning or middle (unless the so-called lunate sigma is used for all sigmas), in the typographical practices of certain places and/or certain times, some letters have different forms for the beginning of a word vs. the middle and end.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6161" RevisionGUID="477be755-f8d1-4b0d-a619-23e3f007c9dd" CreationDate="2018-03-23T19:37:38.963" UserId="79" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="Some study or teach Latin with the sole intent of reading old texts.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore some restrict studying Latin to mostly reading and the prerequisite grammar.&#xD;&#xA;It is quite clear that writing &amp;mdash; or composition, but I will not make distinction in this question &amp;mdash; one's own texts helps develop skills that aid reading comprehension, but it is far less clear whether writing is a good time investment if the sole goal is in reading.&#xD;&#xA;**What is the effect of writing on learning outcomes in reading?**&#xD;&#xA;Are there any studies on this subject?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if I taught two classes for 4 hours a week, one spending 2+1+1 hours on reading, grammar, and writing (in that order), and the other one spending 3+1+0 hours on the same topics, would there be a difference in the ability to read Latin between the two groups?&#xD;&#xA;It does not have to be this very setting, but something concrete in this spirit would be great.&#xD;&#xA;If it helps, you can replace &quot;writing&quot; with any other productive use of the language, but I wanted to phrase the question narrowly enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6171" RevisionGUID="e03c8ad8-eefc-4449-b25b-73033e6e1908" CreationDate="2018-03-23T20:48:56.180" UserId="1304" Comment="added 873 characters in body" Text="_Beta_ comes to mind. From [wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta#Typography)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In some high-quality typesetting, especially in the French tradition, a typographic variant of the lowercase letter without a descender is used within a word for ancient Greek: βίβλος is printed βίϐλος,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I hope you can see in the above quote, there is even a special Unicode point for it, incorrectly named GREEK BETA SYMBOL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this case different from the many variant glyphs listed in @cnread’s answer from Haralambous’ excerpt (ϖ, φ, ϕ, ...)? While in some scientific notations those variants are considered different symbols, and, as documented by Haralambous, there were attempts to establish typographical rules about their usage, in fact such attempts mostly failed, and, when it comes to writing Greek texts as opposed to mathematical formulas, they remained a matter of font design, like roman vs. italic (even if it is funny to use those names for Greek letters...) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other side, in the case of β vs. ϐ a rule was established and applied consistently for decades, even if only in French editions of Greek Classics and, for a short period, even in Greece.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, in early Greek typography, a huge number of ligatures and variant forms were taken over from handwiting. In the course of time, most of those ligatures disappeared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is enough to visit some Greek websites to see that nowadays, in Greece itself, everybody uses β, Unicode U+03B2 (or some equivalent 8-bit encoding) and leaves it to the font to decide if there has to be a descender or not. Normal Greek keyboards don’t have a simple way to produce ϐ, U+03D0, so perhaps it is not so incorrect to name it SYMBOL, _pace_ those French typesetters.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6173" RevisionGUID="4e759f14-f505-4093-b820-7d1bda19bf2d" CreationDate="2018-03-24T01:32:35.187" UserId="985" Comment="Reorganized somewhat. Removed quotation of material that didn't pertain to position-based variants" Text="The following is from the 'Variant forms' section of [From Unicode to Typography, a Case Study: the Greek Script](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yannis_Haralambous/publication/2417759_From_Unicode_to_Typography_a_Case_Study_the_Greek_Script/links/540777ec0cf23d9765aa310a.pdf), by Yannis Haralambous (p 7–9). The paper was presented at the 14th International Unicode Conference (Boston, 1999). In the following instances, different letterforms have, at some times and in some places, been used, depending on the letter's position in the word. (I've added some bold font for presentation purposes and italic for emphasis.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The beta without descender: ϐ.** Sometimes the following rule is applied: *β is used at the beginning of words, and ϐ otherwise*, as in the words βλάϐη, βιϐλίο, βάρϐαρος. This rule seems to be geographically very restricted: the author has seen it applied in Greek books of the late 19th and early 20th century...; it seems to be applied, rigorously and continuously until today, only in France... all *Budé* and *Le Cerf* editions of classical Greek texts apply it as well. On the other hand, this rule is unknown in the rest of the world....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The &quot;open&quot; and &quot;closed&quot; letter pairs theta and phi: ϑ/θ, φ/ϕ (Unicode U+03D1, U+03B8, U+03C6, U+03D5).** These variant forms are mentionned in most grammars and dictionaries, but the author was not able to detect any contextual rule involving them. It is interesting to note that *[Imp, p. 95] suggests that the open theta ϑ be used at the beginning of words*; this rule is mentioned only by [Imp] and the author has never seen it applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The &quot;round&quot; pi ϖ (U+03D6).** This letter has been a variant of π from the very first days of Greek typography: in Figure 2, the reader can see an excerpt of...a book printed in 1489 (!). In this excerpt both versions of pi have been used, apparently randomly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Once again, *[Imp, p. 95] suggests that the round pi be used only at the beginning of word*. According to [Tre], this rule has been applied in certain French journals (for example the *Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique* in the late 19th and early 20th century) ; [Tre] applies it in all of his writings...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are Haralambous's bibliographical references for the preceding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Imp] = *Lexique des règles typographiques en usage à l'Imprimerie nationale*, Imprimerie nationale, 1990. (*Typographical guide.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Tre] = Tremblay, Felix, personal communication&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, Haralambous discusses the variant forms of uppercase upsilon (ϒ/Υ), lowercase kappa (κ/ϰ), and lowercase rho (ρ/ϱ). In these instances, though, the variations depend merely on the typeface or font, and seem never to depend on position in the word. He also discusses the so-called lunate sigma (Ϲ, ϲ); as far as I'm aware, if lunate sigma is used at all, it's used for all sigmas in all positions, both uppercase and lowercase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, although only sigma has a different form for the *end* of a word vs. the beginning or middle (unless lunate sigma is used for all sigmas), in the typographical practices of certain places and/or certain times, some letters have different forms for the *beginning* of a word vs. the middle and end.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20401" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="6122" RevisionGUID="70a35412-1e73-469f-bbc8-c085de863475" CreationDate="2018-03-24T15:18:16.760" UserId="79" Comment="71" />
  <row Id="20402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6174" RevisionGUID="4eb8e5b5-045e-44d6-8c55-0ebf342464ff" CreationDate="2018-03-24T15:40:54.217" UserId="2499" Text="I need to have the following translated into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It came out carrying infants&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone help please. The context is a description of an illustration showing something coming out of a small cabin carrying two small infants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20403" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6174" RevisionGUID="4eb8e5b5-045e-44d6-8c55-0ebf342464ff" CreationDate="2018-03-24T15:40:54.217" UserId="2499" Text="Translation into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20404" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6174" RevisionGUID="4eb8e5b5-045e-44d6-8c55-0ebf342464ff" CreationDate="2018-03-24T15:40:54.217" UserId="2499" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6175" RevisionGUID="652df3f3-612c-4be2-97f9-619ede4ba21f" CreationDate="2018-03-24T15:42:28.773" UserId="645" Text="He's Odysseus in Homer, but how did he become Ulixes/Ulysses when he arrived (so to speak) in Rome, where there were many people who knew him from the Iliad and the Odyssey?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And was there a separate Latin name for the Odyssey?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20406" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6175" RevisionGUID="652df3f3-612c-4be2-97f9-619ede4ba21f" CreationDate="2018-03-24T15:42:28.773" UserId="645" Text="Where did the name Ulixes come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20407" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6175" RevisionGUID="652df3f3-612c-4be2-97f9-619ede4ba21f" CreationDate="2018-03-24T15:42:28.773" UserId="645" Text="|etymology|homeric|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6176" RevisionGUID="282d1ad8-0ca1-42c6-aa72-e00d36d5060e" CreationDate="2018-03-24T15:57:17.593" UserId="136" Text="Welcome to the site! Although generally we appreciate evidence of self-translation before asking your question, I will provide my suggestion below. Please keep that in mind moving forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It came out carrying infants.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ferens infantes emersit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Grammatical Breakdown**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ *Ferens*: This is a present active participle meaning &quot;carrying&quot; and modifies the implied subject of *emersit*&#xD;&#xA;+ *infantes*: This is a accusative plural noun that is the object of *ferens* and means &quot;infants&quot;&#xD;&#xA;+ *emersit*: This is a singular perfect active indicative verb meaning &quot;it came out&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6174" RevisionGUID="d764053a-1e00-4424-a9f0-30a4da2ec4b9" CreationDate="2018-03-24T16:01:59.170" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged a little." Text="I need to have the following translated into Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It came out carrying infants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone help please. The context is a description of an illustration showing something coming out of a small cabin carrying two small infants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20410" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6174" RevisionGUID="d764053a-1e00-4424-a9f0-30a4da2ec4b9" CreationDate="2018-03-24T16:01:59.170" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged a little." Text="Translating &quot;It came out carrying infants&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20411" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6174" RevisionGUID="d764053a-1e00-4424-a9f0-30a4da2ec4b9" CreationDate="2018-03-24T16:01:59.170" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged a little." Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20412" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6175" RevisionGUID="3b22dd09-1cc0-49c0-8831-08df615f3145" CreationDate="2018-03-24T16:03:52.020" UserId="79" Comment="Changed the tags a little." Text="|etymology|greek|names|homer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6177" RevisionGUID="a61d7130-6e32-448b-be21-8c58a03abe17" CreationDate="2018-03-24T19:54:41.253" UserId="81" Text="According to the scholar, Karl Otfried Müller, Odysseus and Ulysses are versions of the same name being pass down by two different races. On the one hand, Ulysses or *Ulixes* (also written Οὐλίξου) was the name spoken by the descendents of the [Sicels][1] (or Sicilians), the original inhabitants of Sicily. Odysseus (Ὀδυσσεύς), on the other hand, comes to us from the [Etruscans][2], the inhabitants of the Italian peninsula whose culture was significantly influenced by the Greeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Müller assserts that the difference between the names is thus due to the different ways these cultures pronounced it, especially with respect to the letters Λ and Δ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;La raison de cette modification de nom n'est à chercher ailleurs que&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dans la bouche de ces races, qui confondaient aisément par une&#xD;&#xA;&gt; prononciation impure les lettres Λ et Δ, l'une avec l'autre, ce que&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nous savons notamment à l'égard des Latins. A cause de cette confusion&#xD;&#xA;&gt; s'explique le mot latin *lacruma* de δάχρυ, *levir* de δαήρ avec le&#xD;&#xA;&gt; digamma δαFήρ, *oleo* de la racine ΟΔ (ὄξω *odor*) etc. Plus tard,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selon Varron, par suite d'une corruption, on fit *Melica avis* du mot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; grec Μηδιχή, et même *Thelis* du nom de Θέτις. C'est ainsi que&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ὀδυσσεύς s'appelait aussi Ulysses et Ulixes, et non - seulement chez&#xD;&#xA;&gt; les Romains, puisque aussi sur un monument sicilien on lisait Οὐλίξου&#xD;&#xA;&gt; au lieu d'Ὀδυσσέως.&quot; (&quot;[Sur La Forme Olyseus du Nom D'Ulysse][3]&quot;, pg 377)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Translation coming]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicels&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_civilization&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=Ysc7AQAAMAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=snippet&amp;q=Forme%20Olyseus&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6177" RevisionGUID="e14ffc7a-7b03-4c14-83c5-2a63af6a9115" CreationDate="2018-03-24T20:14:07.747" UserId="81" Comment="added 732 characters in body" Text="According to the scholar, Karl Otfried Müller, Odysseus and Ulysses are versions of the same name being pass down by two different races. On the one hand, Ulysses or *Ulixes* (also written Οὐλίξου) was the name spoken by the descendents of the [Sicels][1] (or Sicilians), the original inhabitants of Sicily. Odysseus (Ὀδυσσεύς), on the other hand, comes to us from the [Etruscans][2], the inhabitants of the Italian peninsula whose culture was significantly influenced by the Greeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Müller assserts that the difference between the names is thus due to the different ways these cultures pronounced it, especially with respect to the letters Λ and Δ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;La raison de cette modification de nom n'est à chercher ailleurs que&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dans la bouche de ces races, qui confondaient aisément par une&#xD;&#xA;&gt; prononciation impure les lettres Λ et Δ, l'une avec l'autre, ce que&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nous savons notamment à l'égard des Latins. A cause de cette confusion&#xD;&#xA;&gt; s'explique le mot latin *lacruma* de δάχρυ, *levir* de δαήρ avec le&#xD;&#xA;&gt; digamma δαFήρ, *oleo* de la racine ΟΔ (ὄξω *odor*) etc. Plus tard,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selon Varron, par suite d'une corruption, on fit *Melica avis* du mot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; grec Μηδιχή, et même *Thelis* du nom de Θέτις. C'est ainsi que&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ὀδυσσεύς s'appelait aussi Ulysses et Ulixes, et non - seulement chez&#xD;&#xA;&gt; les Romains, puisque aussi sur un monument sicilien on lisait Οὐλίξου&#xD;&#xA;&gt; au lieu d'Ὀδυσσέως.&quot; (&quot;[Sur La Forme Olyseus du Nom D'Ulysse][3]&quot;, pg 377)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Translation:** The reason for this change in names is found nowhere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other than in the mouths of these races, which easily confused them by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an impure pronunciation of the letters Λ and Δ, one for the other,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which we know especially with respect to the Latins. Because of this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; confusion, one can explain the Latin word *lacruma* from δάχρυ,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *levir* from δαήρ with the digamma δαFήρ, *oleo* from the root ΟΔ (ὄξω *odor*) etc. Later, according to Varron, as a result of this corruption, we have *Melica avis* from the Greek Μηδιχή, and even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Thelis* from the name of Θέτις. Thus Ὀδυσσεύς was also called Ulysses and Ulixes, and not only among the Romans, since on a Sicilian&#xD;&#xA;&gt; monument one also reads Οὐλίξου instead of Ὀδυσσέως.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicels&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_civilization&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=Ysc7AQAAMAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=snippet&amp;q=Forme%20Olyseus&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6177" RevisionGUID="8977cf8b-cdb4-47b7-8745-4578492e224a" CreationDate="2018-03-24T20:32:07.690" UserId="81" Comment="added 624 characters in body" Text="According to the scholar, Karl Otfried Müller, Odysseus and Ulysses are versions of the same name being pass down by two different races. On the one hand, Ulysses or *Ulixes* (also written Οὐλίξου) was the name spoken by the descendents of the [Sicels][1] (or Sicilians), the original inhabitants of Sicily. Odysseus (Ὀδυσσεύς), on the other hand, comes to us from the [Etruscans][2], the inhabitants of the Italian peninsula whose culture was significantly influenced by the Greeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Müller assserts that the difference between the names is thus due to the different ways these cultures pronounced it, especially with respect to the letters Λ and Δ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;La raison de cette modification de nom n'est à chercher ailleurs que&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dans la bouche de ces races, qui confondaient aisément par une&#xD;&#xA;&gt; prononciation impure les lettres Λ et Δ, l'une avec l'autre, ce que&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nous savons notamment à l'égard des Latins. A cause de cette confusion&#xD;&#xA;&gt; s'explique le mot latin *lacruma* de δάχρυ, *levir* de δαήρ avec le&#xD;&#xA;&gt; digamma δαFήρ, *oleo* de la racine ΟΔ (ὄξω *odor*) etc. Plus tard,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selon Varron, par suite d'une corruption, on fit *Melica avis* du mot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; grec Μηδιχή, et même *Thelis* du nom de Θέτις. C'est ainsi que&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ὀδυσσεύς s'appelait aussi *Ulysses* et *Ulixes*, et non - seulement chez&#xD;&#xA;&gt; les Romains, puisque aussi sur un monument sicilien on lisait Οὐλίξου&#xD;&#xA;&gt; au lieu d'Ὀδυσσέως.&quot; (&quot;[Sur La Forme Olyseus du Nom D'Ulysse][3]&quot;, pg 377)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Translation:** The reason for this change in names is found nowhere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other than in the mouths of these races, which easily confused them by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an impure pronunciation of the letters Λ and Δ, one for the other,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which we know especially with respect to the Latins. Because of this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; confusion, one can explain the Latin word *lacruma* from δάχρυ,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *levir* from δαήρ with the digamma δαFήρ, *oleo* from the root ΟΔ (ὄξω *odor*) etc. Later, according to Varron, as a result of this corruption, we have *Melica avis* from the Greek Μηδιχή, and even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Thelis* from the name of Θέτις. Thus Ὀδυσσεύς was also called *Ulysses* and *Ulixes*, and not only among the Romans, since on a Sicilian&#xD;&#xA;&gt; monument one also reads Οὐλίξου instead of Ὀδυσσέως.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Müller goes on to provide more evidence to substantiate his claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;L'Uluxe des Etrusques se trouve sur plus d'une pierre gravée. Le&#xD;&#xA;&gt; poete lyrique Ibycus, natif de *Rhegium*, et qui se rattache à l'école&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sicilienne de Stésichore, doit avoir connu ce nom du héros, au point&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qu'il prétendit que c'était son véritable et propre nom; car il&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chantait que le héros s'appelait primitivement *Ulysses* ou *Ulixes*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et que plus tard on lui donna l'épithéte d'Ὀδυσσεύς; probablement à&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cause de la colére divine qu'il devait subir ou à cause de sa propre&#xD;&#xA;&gt; colère contre les prétendans de Pénélope.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicels&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_civilization&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=Ysc7AQAAMAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=snippet&amp;q=Forme%20Olyseus&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6177" RevisionGUID="1bb4a63e-e222-46c4-9322-9e1a82a29c9a" CreationDate="2018-03-24T20:52:37.980" UserId="81" Comment="added 765 characters in body" Text="According to the scholar, Karl Otfried Müller, Odysseus and Ulysses are versions of the same name being pass down by two different races. On the one hand, Ulysses or *Ulixes* (also written Οὐλίξου) was the name spoken by the descendents of the [Sicels][1] (or Sicilians), the original inhabitants of Sicily. Odysseus (Ὀδυσσεύς), on the other hand, comes to us from the [Etruscans][2], the inhabitants of the Italian peninsula whose culture was significantly influenced by the Greeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Müller assserts that the difference between the names is thus due to the different ways these cultures pronounced it, especially with respect to the letters Λ and Δ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;La raison de cette modification de nom n'est à chercher ailleurs que&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dans la bouche de ces races, qui confondaient aisément par une&#xD;&#xA;&gt; prononciation impure les lettres Λ et Δ, l'une avec l'autre, ce que&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nous savons notamment à l'égard des Latins. A cause de cette confusion&#xD;&#xA;&gt; s'explique le mot latin *lacruma* de δάχρυ, *levir* de δαήρ avec le&#xD;&#xA;&gt; digamma δαFήρ, *oleo* de la racine ΟΔ (ὄξω *odor*) etc. Plus tard,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selon Varron, par suite d'une corruption, on fit *Melica avis* du mot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; grec Μηδιχή, et même *Thelis* du nom de Θέτις. C'est ainsi que&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ὀδυσσεύς s'appelait aussi *Ulysses* et *Ulixes*, et non - seulement chez&#xD;&#xA;&gt; les Romains, puisque aussi sur un monument sicilien on lisait Οὐλίξου&#xD;&#xA;&gt; au lieu d'Ὀδυσσέως.&quot; (&quot;[Sur La Forme Olyseus du Nom D'Ulysse][3]&quot;, pg 377)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Translation:** The reason for this change in names is found nowhere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other than in the mouths of these races, which easily confused them by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an impure pronunciation of the letters Λ and Δ, one for the other,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which we know especially with respect to the Latins. Because of this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; confusion, one can explain the Latin word *lacruma* from δάχρυ,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *levir* from δαήρ with the digamma δαFήρ, *oleo* from the root ΟΔ (ὄξω *odor*) etc. Later, according to Varron, as a result of this corruption, we have *Melica avis* from the Greek Μηδιχή, and even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Thelis* from the name of Θέτις. Thus Ὀδυσσεύς was also called *Ulysses* and *Ulixes*, and not only among the Romans, since on a Sicilian&#xD;&#xA;&gt; monument one also reads Οὐλίξου instead of Ὀδυσσέως.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Müller goes on to provide more evidence to substantiate his claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;L'Uluxe des Etrusques se trouve sur plus d'une pierre gravée. Le&#xD;&#xA;&gt; poete lyrique Ibycus, natif de *Rhegium*, et qui se rattache à l'école&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sicilienne de Stésichore, doit avoir connu ce nom du héros, au point&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qu'il prétendit que c'était son véritable et propre nom; car il&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chantait que le héros s'appelait primitivement *Ulysses* ou *Ulixes*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et que plus tard on lui donna l'épithéte d'Ὀδυσσεύς; probablement à&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cause de la colére divine qu'il devait subir ou à cause de sa propre&#xD;&#xA;&gt; colère contre les prétendants de Pénélope.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Translation:** The *Uluxe* of the Etruscans is found engraved upon more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; than one stone. The lyrical poet Ibycus, a native of *Rhegium*, who&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also was attached to the Sicilian school of Stésichore, must have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; known that name of the hero, to the extent that he claimed that it was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; his true and proper name; for he sang he was originally called&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ulysses* or *Ulixes*, and that later he was given the epithet of Ὀδυσσεύς; probably because of the divine wrath he was to suffer or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because of his own anger against the suitors of Penelope.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Müller's final comments concerning Ulysses' anger is in reference to the common etymological connection made between the name Odysseus and the Greek word ὀδύσσομαι (to be wrathful against or to hate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicels&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_civilization&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=Ysc7AQAAMAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=snippet&amp;q=Forme%20Olyseus&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6178" RevisionGUID="b00a7b24-75b1-4d54-9868-7da4e3276d83" CreationDate="2018-03-24T21:01:32.083" UserId="79" Text="Is there an edition of Ovid's *Metamorphoses* in Latin that comes with auxiliary features to make it an easier read?&#xD;&#xA;I want to read it in Latin, but to make it more pleasurable, I would like support especially for harder passages and confirmation that my interpretations are correct &amp;mdash; if they are.&#xD;&#xA;Features that would help reading include be a prose&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; translation to English (perhaps side by side), syntactical and grammatical discussion of unusual constructions, and some context for the stories when not self-evident.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cambridge University Press has books [XIII](http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/classical-studies/classical-literature/ovid-metamorphoses-book-xiii?format=PB&amp;isbn=9780521556200#TyRjbXRwudld8eTW.97) and [XIV](http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/classical-studies/classical-literature/ovid-metamorphoses-book-xiv?format=PB&amp;isbn=9780521007931#contentsTabAnchor), but nothing more.&#xD;&#xA;Something like this is in the right direction, but the commentary would not have to be so extensive and all the books together would cost a significant amount of money bought this way.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to have *Metamorphoses* in its entirety.&#xD;&#xA;I have read the whole thing as a Finnish translation over a decade ago and English translations are easy to find.&#xD;&#xA;Would it be best to simply buy a Latin text and a translation and read them side by side?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does not have to be perfect, but I hope these criteria give an idea of what I am looking for.&#xD;&#xA;I know some Latin, I want to read *Metamorphoses*, but I do not want it to feel like work.&#xD;&#xA;How would you recommend approaching this goal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer prose over verse, so that it respects the original language better.&#xD;&#xA;I want to use it as an aid to enjoy Latin verse, not as the main text." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20418" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6178" RevisionGUID="b00a7b24-75b1-4d54-9868-7da4e3276d83" CreationDate="2018-03-24T21:01:32.083" UserId="79" Text="An edition of the whole Metamorphoses for easy reading?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20419" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6178" RevisionGUID="b00a7b24-75b1-4d54-9868-7da4e3276d83" CreationDate="2018-03-24T21:01:32.083" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|resource-request|ovidius|metamorphoses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6177" RevisionGUID="13fe3f37-681d-4d5a-a947-946433fa0e29" CreationDate="2018-03-24T21:04:55.287" UserId="81" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="According to Karl Otfried Müller, Odysseus and Ulysses are versions of the same name being pass down by two different races. On the one hand, Ulysses or *Ulixes* (also written Οὐλίξου) was the name spoken by the descendents of the [Sicels][1] (or Sicilians), the original inhabitants of Sicily. Odysseus (Ὀδυσσεύς), on the other hand, comes to us from the [Etruscans][2], the inhabitants of the Italian peninsula whose culture was significantly influenced by the Greeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Müller assserts that the difference between the names is thus due to the different ways these cultures pronounced it, especially with respect to the letters Λ and Δ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;La raison de cette modification de nom n'est à chercher ailleurs que&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dans la bouche de ces races, qui confondaient aisément par une&#xD;&#xA;&gt; prononciation impure les lettres Λ et Δ, l'une avec l'autre, ce que&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nous savons notamment à l'égard des Latins. A cause de cette confusion&#xD;&#xA;&gt; s'explique le mot latin *lacruma* de δάχρυ, *levir* de δαήρ avec le&#xD;&#xA;&gt; digamma δαFήρ, *oleo* de la racine ΟΔ (ὄξω *odor*) etc. Plus tard,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selon Varron, par suite d'une corruption, on fit *Melica avis* du mot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; grec Μηδιχή, et même *Thelis* du nom de Θέτις. C'est ainsi que&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ὀδυσσεύς s'appelait aussi *Ulysses* et *Ulixes*, et non - seulement chez&#xD;&#xA;&gt; les Romains, puisque aussi sur un monument sicilien on lisait Οὐλίξου&#xD;&#xA;&gt; au lieu d'Ὀδυσσέως.&quot; (&quot;[Sur La Forme Olyseus du Nom D'Ulysse][3]&quot;, pg 377)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Translation:** The reason for this change in names is found nowhere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other than in the mouths of these races, which easily confused them by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an impure pronunciation of the letters Λ and Δ, one for the other,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which we know especially with respect to the Latins. Because of this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; confusion, one can explain the Latin word *lacruma* from δάχρυ,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *levir* from δαήρ with the digamma δαFήρ, *oleo* from the root ΟΔ (ὄξω *odor*) etc. Later, according to Varron, as a result of this corruption, we have *Melica avis* from the Greek Μηδιχή, and even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Thelis* from the name of Θέτις. Thus Ὀδυσσεύς was also called *Ulysses* and *Ulixes*, and not only among the Romans, since on a Sicilian&#xD;&#xA;&gt; monument one also reads Οὐλίξου instead of Ὀδυσσέως.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Müller goes on to provide more evidence to substantiate his claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;L'Uluxe des Etrusques se trouve sur plus d'une pierre gravée. Le&#xD;&#xA;&gt; poete lyrique Ibycus, natif de *Rhegium*, et qui se rattache à l'école&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sicilienne de Stésichore, doit avoir connu ce nom du héros, au point&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qu'il prétendit que c'était son véritable et propre nom; car il&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chantait que le héros s'appelait primitivement *Ulysses* ou *Ulixes*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et que plus tard on lui donna l'épithéte d'Ὀδυσσεύς; probablement à&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cause de la colére divine qu'il devait subir ou à cause de sa propre&#xD;&#xA;&gt; colère contre les prétendants de Pénélope.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Translation:** The *Uluxe* of the Etruscans is found engraved upon more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; than one stone. The lyrical poet Ibycus, a native of *Rhegium*, who&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also was attached to the Sicilian school of Stésichore, must have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; known that name of the hero, to the extent that he claimed that it was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; his true and proper name; for he sang he was originally called&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ulysses* or *Ulixes*, and that later he was given the epithet of Ὀδυσσεύς; probably because of the divine wrath he was to suffer or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because of his own anger against the suitors of Penelope.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Müller's final comments concerning Ulysses' anger is in reference to the common etymological connection made between the name Odysseus and the Greek word ὀδύσσομαι (to be wrathful against or to hate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicels&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_civilization&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=Ysc7AQAAMAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=snippet&amp;q=Forme%20Olyseus&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6179" RevisionGUID="3588b888-67b8-43ee-a6a7-b3a3947e75e9" CreationDate="2018-03-24T21:06:59.320" UserId="136" Text="I have never used this specific text myself, but Loeb Classical Library has some really great texts with side by side translation and some helpful notes. I personally have some of these texts for some of Cicero's works and they are really nice in that way, and the translation provided is not so literal where it sounds mechanical, but literal enough where you can follow along. Here are the links to Ovid's *Metamorphoses*, which comes in two volumes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ [Books 1-8][1]&#xD;&#xA;+ [Books 9-15][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I testify to how easy it is to read? Not necessarily. But, if I extrapolate from what I know about the company and the works I do have, I think this is a good resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674990463&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674990470" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6177" RevisionGUID="ffead0e3-4257-4882-ac22-e1ef7e05a4ae" CreationDate="2018-03-24T21:15:02.443" UserId="81" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="According to Karl Otfried Müller, Odysseus and Ulysses are versions of the same name being passed down by two different races. On the one hand, Ulysses or *Ulixes* (also written Οὐλίξου) was the name spoken by the descendents of the [Sicels][1] (or Sicilians), the original inhabitants of Sicily. Odysseus (Ὀδυσσεύς), on the other hand, comes to us from the [Etruscans][2], the inhabitants of the Italian peninsula whose culture was significantly influenced by the Greeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Müller assserts that the difference between the names is thus due to the different ways these cultures pronounced it, especially with respect to the letters Λ and Δ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;La raison de cette modification de nom n'est à chercher ailleurs que&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dans la bouche de ces races, qui confondaient aisément par une&#xD;&#xA;&gt; prononciation impure les lettres Λ et Δ, l'une avec l'autre, ce que&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nous savons notamment à l'égard des Latins. A cause de cette confusion&#xD;&#xA;&gt; s'explique le mot latin *lacruma* de δάχρυ, *levir* de δαήρ avec le&#xD;&#xA;&gt; digamma δαFήρ, *oleo* de la racine ΟΔ (ὄξω *odor*) etc. Plus tard,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selon Varron, par suite d'une corruption, on fit *Melica avis* du mot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; grec Μηδιχή, et même *Thelis* du nom de Θέτις. C'est ainsi que&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ὀδυσσεύς s'appelait aussi *Ulysses* et *Ulixes*, et non - seulement chez&#xD;&#xA;&gt; les Romains, puisque aussi sur un monument sicilien on lisait Οὐλίξου&#xD;&#xA;&gt; au lieu d'Ὀδυσσέως.&quot; (&quot;[Sur La Forme Olyseus du Nom D'Ulysse][3]&quot;, pg. 377)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Translation:** The reason for this change in names is found nowhere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other than in the mouths of these races, which easily confused them by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an impure pronunciation of the letters Λ and Δ, one for the other,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which we know especially with respect to the Latins. Because of this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; confusion, one can explain the Latin word *lacruma* from δάχρυ,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *levir* from δαήρ with the digamma δαFήρ, *oleo* from the root ΟΔ (ὄξω *odor*) etc. Later, according to Varron, as a result of this corruption, we have *Melica avis* from the Greek Μηδιχή, and even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Thelis* from the name of Θέτις. Thus Ὀδυσσεύς was also called *Ulysses* and *Ulixes*, and not only among the Romans, since on a Sicilian&#xD;&#xA;&gt; monument one also reads Οὐλίξου instead of Ὀδυσσέως.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Müller goes on to provide more evidence to substantiate his claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;L'Uluxe des Etrusques se trouve sur plus d'une pierre gravée. Le&#xD;&#xA;&gt; poete lyrique Ibycus, natif de *Rhegium*, et qui se rattache à l'école&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sicilienne de Stésichore, doit avoir connu ce nom du héros, au point&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qu'il prétendit que c'était son véritable et propre nom; car il&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chantait que le héros s'appelait primitivement *Ulysses* ou *Ulixes*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et que plus tard on lui donna l'épithéte d'Ὀδυσσεύς; probablement à&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cause de la colére divine qu'il devait subir ou à cause de sa propre&#xD;&#xA;&gt; colère contre les prétendants de Pénélope.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Translation:** The *Uluxe* of the Etruscans is found engraved upon more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; than one stone. The lyrical poet Ibycus, a native of *Rhegium*, who&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also was attached to the Sicilian school of Stésichore, must have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; known that name of the hero, to the extent that he claimed that it was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; his true and proper name; for he sang he was originally called&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ulysses* or *Ulixes*, and that later he was given the epithet of Ὀδυσσεύς; probably because of the divine wrath he was to suffer or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because of his own anger against the suitors of Penelope.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Müller's final comments concerning Ulysses' anger is in reference to the common etymological connection made between the name Odysseus and the Greek word ὀδύσσομαι (to be wrathful against or to hate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicels&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_civilization&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=Ysc7AQAAMAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=snippet&amp;q=Forme%20Olyseus&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6179" RevisionGUID="7a7924ff-6483-4174-9573-331f5dd3deeb" CreationDate="2018-03-24T21:20:39.563" UserId="136" Comment="Added picture" Text="I have never used this specific text myself, but Loeb Classical Library has some really great texts with side by side translation and some helpful notes. I personally have some of these texts for some of Cicero's works and they are really nice in that way, and the translation provided is not so literal where it sounds mechanical, but literal enough where you can follow along. Here are the links to Ovid's *Metamorphoses*, which comes in two volumes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ [Books 1-8][1]&#xD;&#xA;+ [Books 9-15][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I testify to how easy it is to read? Not necessarily. But, if I extrapolate from what I know about the company and the works I do have, I think this is a good resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an sample image of the inside:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674990463&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674990470&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/60Qk0.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20424" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6177" RevisionGUID="1222ae2a-f088-4f9d-bd50-4599b16c5a2b" CreationDate="2018-03-25T01:23:56.960" UserId="81" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:81,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Pé de Leão&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="ab6b0e0b-78a9-4d3f-979e-8287f2f3a6b2" CreationDate="2018-03-25T01:53:50.883" UserId="258" Text="I was browsing through the Czech-Latin dictionary *Glossarius* by *Magister Bohemarius Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus*, which also lists an impressive collection of zoology terms, and I found some ornithology terms which are quite hard to find other dictionary records of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[(II.1.) De \[altilibus\] domesticis (203-244)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;203. Mentibus altilia prius ipsa domestica signa.&#xD;&#xA;204. Altile *krzidlatko*, *kacze* tintarus, alta *letatko*,&#xD;&#xA;205. *Letka* volatile, *noss* rostrum, *ten* frendula hic *koss*,&#xD;&#xA;206. *Kossinye* pennatum, ceix *cziss*, *zlutek*que vitellum,&#xD;&#xA;207. Pes *noha*, penna *pero*, sit penniletum *holopero*.&#xD;&#xA;208. Aculeus *zehadlo*, *trup* assillus et alaque *krzidlo*;&#xD;&#xA;209. Ruffilus *czrmak*, milvus *lunak*, sit avis *ptak*; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The are words *tintarus* (duck), *frendula* (blackbird), *ceix* (siskin, looks like a cognate), and *ruffilus* (redstart), which seem to be quite uncommon. Actually, the only bird from this list that corresponds to its contemporary Latin name is *milvus* (kite). Some of these words resemble hapax legomena, which isn't actually that much unlikely in this text (there are some uncommon Czech words too in other parts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I wonder, where can I find more information about these words? Quick googling doesn't let me anywhere (aside from this text), and Wiktionary doesn't have contain any of these words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/slavica/bohemica/klaret/klaret06.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20426" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="ab6b0e0b-78a9-4d3f-979e-8287f2f3a6b2" CreationDate="2018-03-25T01:53:50.883" UserId="258" Text="References of medieval ornithology terms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20427" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6180" RevisionGUID="ab6b0e0b-78a9-4d3f-979e-8287f2f3a6b2" CreationDate="2018-03-25T01:53:50.883" UserId="258" Text="|medieval-latin|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6171" RevisionGUID="82174c90-97d0-4fee-8811-fc664ba03152" CreationDate="2018-03-25T07:56:30.230" UserId="1304" Comment="improved wording" Text="_Beta_ comes to mind. From [wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta#Typography)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In some high-quality typesetting, especially in the French tradition, a typographic variant of the lowercase letter without a descender is used within a word for ancient Greek: βίβλος is printed βίϐλος,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I hope you can see in the above quote, there is even a special Unicode point for it, incorrectly named GREEK BETA SYMBOL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this case different from the many variant glyphs listed in @cnread’s answer from Haralambous’ excerpt (ϖ, φ, ϕ, ...)? While in some scientific notations those variants are considered different symbols, and, as documented by Haralambous, there were attempts to establish typographical rules about their usage, in fact such attempts mostly failed, and, when it comes to writing Greek texts as opposed to mathematical formulas, they remained a matter of font design, like roman vs. italic (even if it is funny to use those names for Greek letters...) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other side, in the case of β vs. ϐ a rule was established and applied consistently for decades, even if only in French editions of Greek Classics and, for a short period, in Greece itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, in early Greek typography, a huge number of ligatures and variant forms were taken over from handwiting. In the course of time, most of those ligatures disappeared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is enough to visit some Greek websites to see that nowadays, in Greece itself, everybody uses β, Unicode U+03B2 (or some equivalent 8-bit encoding) and leaves it to the font to decide if there has to be a descender or not. Normal Greek keyboards don’t have a simple way to produce ϐ, U+03D0, so perhaps it is not so incorrect to name it SYMBOL, _pace_ those French typesetters.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6181" RevisionGUID="4257525f-ea82-4f61-a721-3af1a43009ca" CreationDate="2018-03-25T14:36:08.373" UserId="645" Text="[I think is is more properly a comment, but I'm making it an answer because it's too long, yet supplements Ben Kovitz's excellent contribution.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the years I've discussed this very topic with members of a Latin reading group, which includes teachers of Latin. All agree that, to beginners, the compressive effect of 'doing into Latin' from English is hard to accept : the biggest problem from the outset is to persuade students to be less word-by-word literal in composition than instinct tells them. The difficulty is intensified by having to learn a quite alien system of grammar in order to accomplish it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any study on it, but for what it's worth my own experience is that translating from one language  to another deepens the understanding of both. Complete mastery of the language requires fluency in both reading and writing Latin : you can't have the one without the other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6181" RevisionGUID="d7b944be-38e0-4534-a460-3d2ccd4fb4d0" CreationDate="2018-03-25T14:44:47.013" UserId="645" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="[I think this is more properly a comment, but I'm making it an answer because it's too long, yet supplements Ben Kovitz's excellent contribution.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the years I've discussed this very topic with members of a Latin reading group, which includes teachers of Latin. All agree that, to beginners, the compressive effect of 'doing into Latin' from English is hard to accept : the biggest problem from the outset is to persuade students to be less word-by-word literal in composition than instinct tells them. The difficulty is intensified by having to learn a quite alien system of grammar in order to accomplish it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any study on it, but for what it's worth my own experience is that translating from one language  to another deepens the understanding of both. Complete mastery of the language requires fluency in both reading and writing Latin : you can't have the one without the other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6182" RevisionGUID="23098c5a-7db0-4e7d-8e31-bf7580643ff8" CreationDate="2018-03-25T22:54:29.583" UserId="79" Text="Out of idle curiosity, how would you translate &quot;traffic circle&quot; or &quot;roundabout&quot; into Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I assume the Romans did not have them, but there must be some analogues to draw on.&#xD;&#xA;The best I could think of is a small *circus* of roads, *circulus viarius*.&#xD;&#xA;But is there something better, or should I go with this one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20432" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6182" RevisionGUID="23098c5a-7db0-4e7d-8e31-bf7580643ff8" CreationDate="2018-03-25T22:54:29.583" UserId="79" Text="What would be a traffic circle in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20433" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6182" RevisionGUID="23098c5a-7db0-4e7d-8e31-bf7580643ff8" CreationDate="2018-03-25T22:54:29.583" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|modern-life|traffic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6183" RevisionGUID="fa952ae2-17e1-4a64-9d90-468351a11f44" CreationDate="2018-03-26T12:09:23.950" UserId="183" Text="The Latin Wikipedia has [dissaeptum orbiculatum][1] (a particularly clumsy term, but backed with a dictionary reference).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissaeptum_orbiculatum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6184" RevisionGUID="82ada607-cf3d-4cef-a79a-f02086a64a56" CreationDate="2018-03-26T16:08:41.190" UserId="79" Text="I spend much of my time travelling, and that brings all kinds of challenges.&#xD;&#xA;For example, it can be hard to follow my preferred diet and I don't have access to my books.&#xD;&#xA;How could I express such laments of &quot;life on the road&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I could use an idiom that has a similar effect as &quot;on the road&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there classical attested phrases for this kind of thing?&#xD;&#xA;For example, Caesar must have &quot;lived out of a suitcase&quot; for quite a while during military campaigns, but did he ever comment on organizing life under those circumstances?&#xD;&#xA;What would be an idiomatic way to express things like &quot;life on the road&quot; or &quot;living out of a suitcase&quot; in classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20436" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6184" RevisionGUID="82ada607-cf3d-4cef-a79a-f02086a64a56" CreationDate="2018-03-26T16:08:41.190" UserId="79" Text="An idiom for &quot;on the road&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20437" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6184" RevisionGUID="82ada607-cf3d-4cef-a79a-f02086a64a56" CreationDate="2018-03-26T16:08:41.190" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20438" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6182" RevisionGUID="87117d5e-899c-45b8-b7ba-2974a56e32da" CreationDate="2018-03-26T16:54:32.943" UserId="-1" Comment="Improved word choice " Text="What would be a roundabout in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20439" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6182" RevisionGUID="87117d5e-899c-45b8-b7ba-2974a56e32da" CreationDate="2018-03-26T16:54:32.943" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by -1 edit id of 228" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20440" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6182" RevisionGUID="7c80b661-e5a4-45f1-a87e-024ca6ebd4fe" CreationDate="2018-03-26T16:54:32.943" UserId="79" Comment="Reworded the title to include both." Text="What would be a traffic circle or roundabout in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6185" RevisionGUID="18537b64-39bf-4c2a-8348-fbbc9debbde8" CreationDate="2018-03-26T17:20:49.530" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;[enjoin (v.)](https://www.etymonline.com/word/enjoin)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;c. 1200, engoinen, &quot;to prescribe, impose&quot; (penance, etc.),      &#xD;&#xA;from stem of Old French enjoindre (12c.) &quot;impose (on), inflict; subject to; assign (to),&quot;    &#xD;&#xA;from Latin *iniungere* **&quot;to join, fasten, attach;&quot; figuratively &quot;to inflict, to attack, impose,&quot;**          &#xD;&#xA;from in- &quot;on&quot; (from PIE root *en &quot;in&quot;) + iungere &quot;to join together&quot; (from nasalized form of PIE root *yeug- &quot;to join&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dispassion and insipidity of the verbs &quot;to join, fasten, attach&quot;, hinder me from discerning their shift to the more startling, rapacious figurative meanings? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know of one phrase ([attaching bank accounts](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Al16021)) that connotes the figurative meaning with the literal, but 'attach' here still sounds too wimpy: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Attaching a debtor's bank account(s) is a very effective way for creditors to recover the amount owed to them. Most Member States have legislation which provides for the attachment of bank accounts. Debtors can, however, transfer funds very quickly to other accounts that the creditor may not know about. The creditor is often not able to block such movements of funds as quickly and therefore loses a powerful weapon against recalcitrant debtors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20442" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6185" RevisionGUID="18537b64-39bf-4c2a-8348-fbbc9debbde8" CreationDate="2018-03-26T17:20:49.530" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How did 'iniungere' semantically generalize &quot;to inflict, to attack, impose&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20443" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6185" RevisionGUID="18537b64-39bf-4c2a-8348-fbbc9debbde8" CreationDate="2018-03-26T17:20:49.530" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6186" RevisionGUID="3afb9df9-118f-4f68-b185-e25570815a72" CreationDate="2018-03-26T20:54:18.683" UserId="2503" Text="I'm interested in getting a Latin translation of the following: &quot;The way forward is the way through.&quot; (Think of having to overcome a difficulty -- to move forward you have to go through the difficulty.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came up with *est via deinceps quod est via per* but I feel like this is not correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions would be appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20445" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6186" RevisionGUID="3afb9df9-118f-4f68-b185-e25570815a72" CreationDate="2018-03-26T20:54:18.683" UserId="2503" Text="Help getting a terse Latin translation of a semi-idiomatic English phrase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20446" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6186" RevisionGUID="3afb9df9-118f-4f68-b185-e25570815a72" CreationDate="2018-03-26T20:54:18.683" UserId="2503" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6186" RevisionGUID="7ee079aa-e683-4a57-8b52-2663f885a43f" CreationDate="2018-03-26T20:57:41.690" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm interested in getting a Latin translation of the following: &quot;The way forward is the way through.&quot; (Think of having to overcome a difficulty &amp;mdash; to move forward you have to go through the difficulty.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came up with *est via deinceps quod est via per* but I feel like this is not correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions would be appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20448" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6186" RevisionGUID="7ee079aa-e683-4a57-8b52-2663f885a43f" CreationDate="2018-03-26T20:57:41.690" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6187" RevisionGUID="2d6c3138-637e-4d23-a378-5b68c16bac11" CreationDate="2018-03-26T21:07:20.440" UserId="79" Text="How about ***prodire est transire***, &quot;to go forward is to go through&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Instead of &quot;way&quot;, I used the verb *ire*, which I think fits nicely.&#xD;&#xA;You should check whether [*prodire*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2047914) and [*transire*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2060343) sounds suitable either using the links or picking any of [the many online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be tempting to translate &quot;to go through&quot; as *perire*, but this verb actually means &quot;to die&quot;, &quot;to perish&quot;, and similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your translation suggestion sounds much like Google Translate, and [it is horrible for Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79).&#xD;&#xA;A far more reliable way to come up with mottoes in Latin is to find two words in an actual Latin dictionary and translate &quot;X is Y&quot; as *X est Y*.&#xD;&#xA;And of course the best option of all is to ask on this site&amp;hellip;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20451" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6185" RevisionGUID="502bb447-f033-46cd-b5cd-44891addc6fc" CreationDate="2018-03-27T08:23:11.420" UserId="79" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20452" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="6102" RevisionGUID="0f28ad31-0aaf-4da6-ab57-54d57dd18fdb" CreationDate="2018-03-27T08:33:38.673" UserId="79" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20453" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="6101" RevisionGUID="92cc7c3c-194a-460f-92b5-74037cbe2a85" CreationDate="2018-03-27T08:34:31.173" UserId="79" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6097" RevisionGUID="fd64c76d-94ac-499b-9d05-15a78880f28a" CreationDate="2018-03-27T08:36:19.923" UserId="79" Comment="added 265 characters in body" Text="According to [this article](https://www.deseretnews.com/article/701979/Roman-god-of-fire-is-root-of-volcano.html) the Romans didn't have a word for volcano: &quot;Before the Age of Discoveries ... Apparently no need was felt for a generic word to describe a mountain that emitted fire&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently the Romans referred to Vesuvius as a *mons*.&#xD;&#xA;See [here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;all_words=vesuvius&amp;all_words_expand=on&amp;phrase=&amp;any_words=&amp;exclude_words=&amp;documents=) for examples.&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks for noting this, Rafael!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20455" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="6097" RevisionGUID="939e8ae4-3659-4489-81a6-9d6c31449b52" CreationDate="2018-03-27T08:36:33.583" UserId="79" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20456" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="6099" RevisionGUID="654dfdcd-11f1-4a33-b754-7c8b355b6dbd" CreationDate="2018-03-27T08:37:12.597" UserId="79" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6188" RevisionGUID="6c2d56db-b6d9-4bc8-8db4-defb9662f8ac" CreationDate="2018-03-27T09:31:41.030" UserId="79" Text="The English terms credit and debit seem to come from the Latin verbs *credere* and *debere*.&#xD;&#xA;However, it is not clear to me what forms of these verbs are behind these English words.&#xD;&#xA;It could be that they used to be the third person singular forms *credit* and *debet* and the second one was changed by analogy.&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps they are abbreviated from *creditor* and *debitor*, both of which make sense in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Do we know what exact Latin forms of these verbs are behind these two financial terms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20458" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6188" RevisionGUID="6c2d56db-b6d9-4bc8-8db4-defb9662f8ac" CreationDate="2018-03-27T09:31:41.030" UserId="79" Text="What are the Latin forms behind credit and debit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20459" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6188" RevisionGUID="6c2d56db-b6d9-4bc8-8db4-defb9662f8ac" CreationDate="2018-03-27T09:31:41.030" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|money|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6189" RevisionGUID="7e627ad8-95c0-466d-9ed0-d6dc9bad2d5a" CreationDate="2018-03-27T09:45:34.417" UserId="324" Text="From French débit and crédit, which are from Latin debitum and creditum respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the latter the OED writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Etymology: &lt; (i) Middle French credit (French crédit ) belief, faith,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trust (a1450), reputation, influence, esteem (c1470 or earlier), money&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lent or borrowed with an agreement as to repayment (1481), trust or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; confidence in a customer's ability and intention to pay at some future&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time (1508 in a credit on credit), confidence that someone or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; something inspires (1539),     and its etymon (ii) Italian credito&#xD;&#xA;&gt; financial transaction in which payment is deferred (1353), position of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a creditor, right of a creditor (a1375), belief, fact of being&#xD;&#xA;&gt; believed (14th cent.), reputation for solvency and probity in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; financial dealings, ability to obtain money, etc., on this basis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a1400), reputation, esteem (a1498), money placed at a person's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposal in the books of a bank (mid 16th cent.) &lt; classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&gt; crēditum loan or debt, in also post-classical Latin article of faith&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (14th cent. in a British source), use as noun of neuter past&#xD;&#xA;&gt; participle of crēdere to trust, to believe (see credit v.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20461" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6172" RevisionGUID="c7074cd8-3b52-411f-868d-8a0c160cabc2" CreationDate="2018-03-27T10:11:18.677" UserId="13" Comment="Typo in title" Text="About Sappho Edmonds 69 Lobel-Page 54 Campbell 54: why the emendation of the participle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6185" RevisionGUID="b37a854c-f783-4da6-b098-118e7a52f4f1" CreationDate="2018-03-27T17:43:25.347" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="&gt;[enjoin (v.)](https://www.etymonline.com/word/enjoin)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;c. 1200, engoinen, &quot;to prescribe, impose&quot; (penance, etc.),      &#xD;&#xA;from stem of Old French enjoindre (12c.) &quot;impose (on), inflict; subject to; assign (to),&quot;    &#xD;&#xA;from Latin *iniungere* **&quot;to join, fasten, attach;&quot; figuratively &quot;to inflict, to attack, impose,&quot;**          &#xD;&#xA;from in- &quot;on&quot; (from PIE root *en &quot;in&quot;) + iungere &quot;to join together&quot; (from nasalized form of PIE root *yeug- &quot;to join&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't understand how the dispassionate verbs &quot;to join, fasten, attach&quot; shifted to the more startling, rapacious figurative meanings in bold? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know of one phrase ([attaching bank accounts](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Al16021)) that connotes the figurative meaning with the literal, but 'attach' here still sounds too wimpy: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Attaching a debtor's bank account(s) is a very effective way for creditors to recover the amount owed to them. Most Member States have legislation which provides for the attachment of bank accounts. Debtors can, however, transfer funds very quickly to other accounts that the creditor may not know about. The creditor is often not able to block such movements of funds as quickly and therefore loses a powerful weapon against recalcitrant debtors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6190" RevisionGUID="1ff586ff-2c6a-49a9-988e-db0bf0cd9788" CreationDate="2018-03-27T20:29:08.837" UserId="469" Text="*added for completeness*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Epsilon&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Epsilon also has two lowercase forms: **ε** and **ϵ** (also called *lunate*, just like the rounded sigma, or [uncial][1].) The distinction seems to be mainly one of periods. Uncial form was apparently predominant between IV and VIII centuries AD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ligatures&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly enough, in medieval times, many letters developed not exactly end-of-word variants, but a number of [ligatures][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;[This book][3] (p. 191 ss.) shows different forms of Greek letters by centuries along the I millenium AD&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncial_script&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_minuscule&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/greeklatin00thomuoft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6190" RevisionGUID="4a57f562-0e1c-4cf0-ae89-776883c9d4cf" CreationDate="2018-03-27T20:33:00.340" UserId="469" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="*added for completeness*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Epsilon&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Epsilon also has two lowercase forms: **ε** and **ϵ** (also called *lunate*, just like the rounded sigma, or [uncial][1].) The distinction seems to be mainly one of periods, not position. Uncial form was apparently predominant between IV and VIII centuries AD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ligatures&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly enough, in medieval times, many letters developed not end-of-word variants, but a number of [ligatures][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;[This book][3] (p. 191 ss.) shows different forms of Greek letters by centuries along the I millenium AD&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncial_script&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_minuscule&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/greeklatin00thomuoft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6094" RevisionGUID="2ac1b679-d3fd-4a07-8cfd-c208aae83648" CreationDate="2018-03-28T04:06:23.143" UserId="867" Comment="added 1461 characters in body" Text="I think Joonas has proved conclusively that neither Pliny nor any other ancient author mentioned a *stilus plumbeus* but nevertheless, for what it's worth, I also couldn't find anything.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then I thought, why would they mention it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A stilus is a [sharp, pointed instrument][1] for scratching into wax tablets.  This is implicit in its primary meaning, a stake or pale.  Stili were placed into moats to impale unwary invaders.  A stilus was also called a *graphium*, from the Greek γράφειν, to scratch, graze, inscribe.  Thus we find references to *stilus ferreus* or *stilus osseus*, both hard materials (see also Martial, 14.21, where he speaks of the iron *graphium*).  Indeed, here we see just how hard and unforgiving a stilus (or here a *graphium*) could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Caesar Cascae brachium arreptum graphio traiecit ...*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar grabbed Casca by the arm and stabbed [it] with his stilus ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suetonius, *Lives of the Caesars (Julius Caesar)*, 82   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *stilus plumbeus*, or stilus made of lead, would be far too soft for the job (both inscribing a wax tablet and stabbing someone!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps because of the references to modern-day lead pencils (and the ambiguity of the English &quot;lead pencil&quot;), I did at first think of the stilus as holding the lead, but this was clearly wrong-headed.  Apart from anything else, the stilus is specific in its function as a &quot;scratcher&quot; of wax.  It was designed to leave indented marks in wax, not traces of a writing material.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If [writing with ink][2], for instance on parchment or papyrus, Romans used a *calamus*, a reed that drew up ink much like a quill pen.  For painting, they used a *penicillus*, a &quot;little tail&quot;, made of bristles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, lead *was* used by the Romans but it would seem not for writing but for light lines on parchment or papyrus.  Your quotation from Pliny highlights this:  &quot;lines drawn with ... lead dirty the hands&quot;.  Catullus (22.8) too mentions this use; mocking Suffenus' verses all &quot;lined up with lead&quot; (*derecta plumbo*).  It's the very impermeability and/or faintness of the lead that makes it perfect for this job *on parchment or papyrus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *stilus plumbeus* seems a sort of oxymoron, then.  A stilus was for inscribing wax tablets, its form and function perfectly aligned; lead was used for lightly marking parchment or papyrus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is all to say, I don't think it's surprising to find that *stilus plumbeus* is unattested in the classical sources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ADDENDUM:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve been asked, which classical noun do you think is best for &quot;pencil&quot; as in &quot;lead pencil&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it depends on what characteristic of the pencil you want to emphasise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Penicillus* looks like the precursor of our [English] pencil and, although it is strictly speaking a brush, I think that if you want to emphasise **the thinness or fineness of a pencil mark**, it could work.  A skilled artist could draw extremely thin, fine lines with a *penicillus*, as evidenced in Pliny’s anecdote about the contest between Apelles and Protogenes as to who could draw the finest line - see Pliny, *NH*, 35.81ff.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If, however, you want to emphasise **the quality of the pencil mark – it’s smudgy, powdery quality** –  then I think we may have to accept that materials like lead, chalk, and charcoal were simply held in the hand and referred to as &quot;lead&quot;, “chalk”, etc. Hence why in Catullus (a/a) the lines are drawn simply *plumbo*, that is to say using the ablative of instrument/means of lead. Similarly, Apelles quickly sketches someone on the wall *carbone* (with charcoal) (Pliny, *NH*, 35.89) and Martial reads graffiti on the toilet walls written *carbone* and *creta carmina* (with red chalk) (*Epigrams*, 12.61.9-10). More specific to writing, both Horace and Persius make reference to marks in a list made with both chalk and charcoal, again using just the ablative (Horace, *Satires*, 2.3.246; and Persius, *Satires*, 5.108).&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0063%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DS%3Aentry%20group%3D4%3Aentry%3Dstilus-cn&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1890.3.4.02a00040/pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6094" RevisionGUID="b13c7c30-c75c-4eb3-9cbc-97bab61065c1" CreationDate="2018-03-28T04:16:04.853" UserId="867" Comment="added 1461 characters in body" Text="I think Joonas has proved conclusively that neither Pliny nor any other ancient author mentioned a *stilus plumbeus* but nevertheless, for what it's worth, I also couldn't find anything.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then I thought, why would they mention it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A stilus is a [sharp, pointed instrument][1] for scratching into wax tablets.  This is implicit in its primary meaning, a stake or pale.  Stili were placed into moats to impale unwary invaders.  A stilus was also called a *graphium*, from the Greek γράφειν, to scratch, graze, inscribe.  Thus we find references to *stilus ferreus* or *stilus osseus*, both hard materials (see also Martial, 14.21, where he speaks of the iron *graphium*).  Indeed, here we see just how hard and unforgiving a stilus (or here a *graphium*) could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Caesar Cascae brachium arreptum graphio traiecit ...*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar grabbed Casca by the arm and stabbed [it] with his stilus ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suetonius, *Lives of the Caesars (Julius Caesar)*, 82   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *stilus plumbeus*, or stilus made of lead, would be far too soft for the job (both inscribing a wax tablet and stabbing someone!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps because of the references to modern-day lead pencils (and the ambiguity of the English &quot;lead pencil&quot;), I did at first think of the stilus as holding the lead, but this was clearly wrong-headed.  Apart from anything else, the stilus is specific in its function as a &quot;scratcher&quot; of wax.  It was designed to leave indented marks in wax, not traces of a writing material.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If [writing with ink][2], for instance on parchment or papyrus, Romans used a *calamus*, a reed that drew up ink much like a quill pen.  For painting, they used a *penicillus*, a &quot;little tail&quot;, made of bristles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, lead *was* used by the Romans but it would seem not for writing but for light lines on parchment or papyrus.  Your quotation from Pliny highlights this:  &quot;lines drawn with ... lead dirty the hands&quot;.  Catullus (22.8) too mentions this use; mocking Suffenus' verses all &quot;lined up with lead&quot; (*derecta plumbo*).  It's the very impermeability and/or faintness of the lead that makes it perfect for this job *on parchment or papyrus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *stilus plumbeus* seems a sort of oxymoron, then.  A stilus was for inscribing wax tablets, its form and function perfectly aligned; lead was used for lightly marking parchment or papyrus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is all to say, I don't think it's surprising to find that *stilus plumbeus* is unattested in the classical sources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ADDENDUM:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve been asked, which classical noun do you think is best for &quot;pencil&quot; as in &quot;lead pencil&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it depends on what characteristic of the pencil you want to emphasise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Penicillus* looks like the precursor of our [English] pencil and, although it is strictly speaking a brush, I think that if you want to emphasise **the thinness or fineness of a pencil mark**, it could work.  A skilled artist could draw extremely thin, fine lines with a *penicillus*, as evidenced in Pliny’s anecdote about the contest between Apelles and Protogenes as to who could draw the finest line - see Pliny, *NH*, 35.81ff.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If, however, you want to emphasise **the quality of the pencil mark – it’s smudgy, powdery quality** –  then I think we may have to accept that materials like lead, chalk, and charcoal were simply held in the hand and referred to as &quot;lead&quot;, “chalk”, etc. This may be why in Catullus (a/a) the lines are drawn simply *plumbo*, that is to say using the ablative of instrument/means of lead. Similarly, Apelles quickly sketches someone on the wall *carbone* (with charcoal) (Pliny, *NH*, 35.89) and Martial reads graffiti on the toilet walls written *carbone* and *creta carmina* (with red chalk) (*Epigrams*, 12.61.9-10). More specific to writing, both Horace and Persius make reference to marks in a list made with both chalk and charcoal, again using just the ablative (Horace, *Satires*, 2.3.246; and Persius, *Satires*, 5.108).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if I were to say in Latin that &quot;he writes with a pencil&quot;, I personally would choose to emphasise the quality of the pencil mark and, therefore, write &quot;he writes with lead / *scribit plumbo*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0063%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DS%3Aentry%20group%3D4%3Aentry%3Dstilus-cn&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1890.3.4.02a00040/pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6191" RevisionGUID="ea0f7191-9df3-493d-b018-5919cf029611" CreationDate="2018-03-28T08:09:14.397" UserId="2505" Text="The words 'pre-' and 'ante-' both have the same meaning of 'before' in place or time. Why is the existence of both words necessary? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20468" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6191" RevisionGUID="ea0f7191-9df3-493d-b018-5919cf029611" CreationDate="2018-03-28T08:09:14.397" UserId="2505" Text="Pre- &amp; Ante- (before)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20469" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6191" RevisionGUID="ea0f7191-9df3-493d-b018-5919cf029611" CreationDate="2018-03-28T08:09:14.397" UserId="2505" Text="|meaning|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6191" RevisionGUID="9830d022-94bd-4af1-b196-83d048f83220" CreationDate="2018-03-28T08:26:58.127" UserId="79" Comment="Made some small edits. Feel free to rollback (undo) or re-edit!" Text="The prefixes *pre-* and *ante-* both have the same meaning of 'before' in place or time. Why is the existence of both words necessary? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20471" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6191" RevisionGUID="9830d022-94bd-4af1-b196-83d048f83220" CreationDate="2018-03-28T08:26:58.127" UserId="79" Comment="Made some small edits. Feel free to rollback (undo) or re-edit!" Text="|meaning|word-comparison|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20472" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="6087" RevisionGUID="534ebfed-7573-4f93-98ff-23eef481d500" CreationDate="2018-03-28T08:28:49.047" UserId="79" Comment="72" />
  <row Id="20473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6185" RevisionGUID="e02957dc-6d0c-4223-a4db-b05c25c4824f" CreationDate="2018-03-28T08:34:57.070" UserId="79" Comment="Rewrote the question compactly." Text="The verb *iniungere* is a compound of *in-* and *iungere*, literally meaning &quot;to join, fasten, attach&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However, an [Etymonline entry](https://www.etymonline.com/word/enjoin) also gives it a figurative meaning &quot;to inflict, to attack, impose&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;How was the meaning generalized from the neutral literal meaning to the somewhat hostile figurative one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20474" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6185" RevisionGUID="e02957dc-6d0c-4223-a4db-b05c25c4824f" CreationDate="2018-03-28T08:34:57.070" UserId="79" Comment="Rewrote the question compactly." Text="How did the figurative meaning of 'iniungere' develop from the literal one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20475" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6185" RevisionGUID="e02957dc-6d0c-4223-a4db-b05c25c4824f" CreationDate="2018-03-28T08:34:57.070" UserId="79" Comment="Rewrote the question compactly." Text="|etymology|meaning|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20476" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="6185" RevisionGUID="63069c7b-177a-4767-8e5b-eb703989ff00" CreationDate="2018-03-28T08:34:57.427" UserId="79" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:37,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Canada - Area 51 Proposal&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6192" RevisionGUID="eb2f942d-f2af-4314-98e2-0cb38dc4ddce" CreationDate="2018-03-28T08:59:36.213" UserId="79" Text="There was a great cultural borrowing of ideas from Greece to Rome, and a number of Greek words ended up being borrowed to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;But it must have happened the other way, too, at some point.&#xD;&#xA;What is the earliest known word borrowed from Latin to Greek?&#xD;&#xA;I am not looking for cognates, but something that came from Latin to Greek." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20478" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6192" RevisionGUID="eb2f942d-f2af-4314-98e2-0cb38dc4ddce" CreationDate="2018-03-28T08:59:36.213" UserId="79" Text="What is the earliest known word borrowed from Latin to Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20479" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6192" RevisionGUID="eb2f942d-f2af-4314-98e2-0cb38dc4ddce" CreationDate="2018-03-28T08:59:36.213" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6193" RevisionGUID="33cb441d-c066-44ce-a3f8-10bef52a5657" CreationDate="2018-03-28T17:24:12.003" UserId="2506" Text="What is the meaning of amicus omnium amicus nullorum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everybody's friend is nobody's friend&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20481" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6193" RevisionGUID="33cb441d-c066-44ce-a3f8-10bef52a5657" CreationDate="2018-03-28T17:24:12.003" UserId="2506" Text="Meaning of amicus omnium amicus nullorum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20482" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6193" RevisionGUID="33cb441d-c066-44ce-a3f8-10bef52a5657" CreationDate="2018-03-28T17:24:12.003" UserId="2506" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6193" RevisionGUID="a9281ccf-0ca4-4c4b-bb2b-d47978d32421" CreationDate="2018-03-28T17:31:38.973" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="What is the meaning of *amicus omnium amicus nullorum*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everybody's friend is nobody's friend?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20484" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6193" RevisionGUID="a9281ccf-0ca4-4c4b-bb2b-d47978d32421" CreationDate="2018-03-28T17:31:38.973" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6194" RevisionGUID="9276c6a6-ec63-474c-b170-257f7c9eeceb" CreationDate="2018-03-28T17:32:51.327" UserId="79" Text="That is correct!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an implicit *est* (&quot;is&quot;) between *amicus omnium* and *amicus nullorum*.&#xD;&#xA;It is quite typical to leave this word out; otherwise the translation is very straightforward.&#xD;&#xA;*Amicus* is a friend, and then we have the plural genitives *omnium* and *nullorum*, &quot;of everybody&quot; and &quot;of nobody&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6191" RevisionGUID="48d5c40c-aa82-4c5c-a89e-bd4a14d61a06" CreationDate="2018-03-28T18:11:44.430" UserId="2505" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="The prefixes *prae-* and *ante-* both have the same meaning of 'before' in place or time. Why is the existence of both words necessary? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20487" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6191" RevisionGUID="48d5c40c-aa82-4c5c-a89e-bd4a14d61a06" CreationDate="2018-03-28T18:11:44.430" UserId="2505" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Prae- &amp; Ante- (before)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6195" RevisionGUID="5377b00c-d0d2-4376-8391-e1f579d9b863" CreationDate="2018-03-28T22:18:34.163" UserId="2508" Text="I'm preparing invitations to my thesis defence and I thought writing the invitations in latin (as a joke). However my latin is very poor. A friend of mine helped me, but I doubt it is very good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English original:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Francis kindly requests your company at the defence of his doctoral thesis, &quot;Spectral tuning of light-sensitive proteins explained through electrostatic theory&quot;, on an undetermined date at the end of the year 2018, at the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Saarstr. 21, followed by a cold buffet diner at the kitchen of the institute of theoretical physics. Examination committee &amp; reviewers: ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proposed latin translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Franciscus orat vestra praesentia ad rigorosum ad thesis doctoralis &quot;Accommodatio spectral ex luce absorbere proteinum explicavit per theoria electrostaticum&quot; in dies incerto anno exeunte MMXVIII in Universitas Iohannes Gutenberg Moguntiacum, via saravus XXI, secuti per prandium in culina institutis physico theoretico. Examinatio curatio &amp; arbitres: ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how far we are from something correct and how it could be improved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20489" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6195" RevisionGUID="5377b00c-d0d2-4376-8391-e1f579d9b863" CreationDate="2018-03-28T22:18:34.163" UserId="2508" Text="Invitation to a thesis defence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20490" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6195" RevisionGUID="5377b00c-d0d2-4376-8391-e1f579d9b863" CreationDate="2018-03-28T22:18:34.163" UserId="2508" Text="|sentence-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6196" RevisionGUID="6a3276eb-4796-4ff2-b344-0c537dff73dd" CreationDate="2018-03-28T22:53:28.580" UserId="2499" Text="I need to ask for a check on the correctness of the Latin translations I have, to see whether they are correct in context with the English phrases I had translated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Animae celare bestias exiguae laxis vestibus illicitus est. This is translated from - It is forbidden to conceal beasts of little intellect within the folds of your garment. This is spoken by a saint to a man who wants to take up holy orders but is attempting to smuggle animals into the monastery.&#xD;&#xA;2. Nam eum hinc ferunt. Translated from - For they beareth him hence. This refers to a group of men carrying another man away from danger.&#xD;&#xA;3. Diabolo se agnosci non placet. Translated from - The Devil does not like to be recognised. &#xD;&#xA;4. Nam idem quod eos edit edunt. Translated from - For they eateth that which eateth them. Refers to people who eat things which are capable of eating them, such as worms and parasites.&#xD;&#xA;5. Ferens infantes exit. Translated from - It came out carrying infants. Refers to a sinister old woman emerging from a small cottage carrying infants under her arms. I have also been given - Ferens infantes emersit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any help in this matter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chris&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20492" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6196" RevisionGUID="6a3276eb-4796-4ff2-b344-0c537dff73dd" CreationDate="2018-03-28T22:53:28.580" UserId="2499" Text="Need a check on Latin translation to see whether correct in context with English version" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20493" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6196" RevisionGUID="6a3276eb-4796-4ff2-b344-0c537dff73dd" CreationDate="2018-03-28T22:53:28.580" UserId="2499" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6185" RevisionGUID="ffd47337-1e5b-45df-b20f-eedfb9893ed2" CreationDate="2018-03-29T00:08:17.887" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="The verb *iniungere* (a compound of *in-* and *iungere*) literally means &quot;to join, fasten, attach&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However, an [Etymonline entry](https://www.etymonline.com/word/enjoin) also gives it a figurative meaning &quot;to inflict, to attack, impose&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;How was the meaning generalized from the neutral literal meaning to the somewhat hostile figurative one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="0eab951f-4cd4-4ce3-b864-c7317e9b9452" CreationDate="2018-03-29T04:19:18.220" UserId="2509" Text="I’m getting a tattoo of the line from the Aeneid “The descent into hell is easy” and wasn’t sure if it is “fascilis descensus averno” or “fascilis descensus averni”. Which one is it? What’s the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20496" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="0eab951f-4cd4-4ce3-b864-c7317e9b9452" CreationDate="2018-03-29T04:19:18.220" UserId="2509" Text="The Aeneid “facilis descensus averno” or “facilis descensus averni”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20497" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="0eab951f-4cd4-4ce3-b864-c7317e9b9452" CreationDate="2018-03-29T04:19:18.220" UserId="2509" Text="|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20498" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="0bb90b61-0675-4372-bdc9-6daa1293750c" CreationDate="2018-03-29T07:18:16.260" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|motto|aeneis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6198" RevisionGUID="a6865587-8464-4dcb-81da-384210421d28" CreationDate="2018-03-29T07:48:29.460" UserId="79" Text="I checked [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0055%3Abook%3D6%3Acard%3D124) and [The Latin Library](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/vergil/aen6.shtml).&#xD;&#xA;Both use *facilis descensus Averno*.&#xD;&#xA;You misspelled *facilis* (&quot;easy&quot;); it is not related to *fascis*.&#xD;&#xA;Did you find the version *Averni* somewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, both forms make sense.&#xD;&#xA;I would read *descensus Averno* as &quot;descent through the entrance of the underworld&quot; and *descensus Averni* as &quot;descent of the entrance of the underworld&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The word [*Avernus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DA%3Aentry+group%3D94%3Aentry%3DAvernus) actually means literally &quot;birdless&quot; and refers to a place considered to be an entrance to the underworld.&#xD;&#xA;It does not mean &quot;hell&quot; directly, but by metonymy it makes sense to say that *descensus Averni/Averno* is &quot;descent to hell&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would recommend *facilis descensus Averno*.&#xD;&#xA;As I said, the difference to *Averni* is insignificant, but I wouldn't use that before finding it in an edition of the Aeneid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6199" RevisionGUID="de382155-2d0f-4a23-bc10-4a69867dd69e" CreationDate="2018-03-29T08:05:08.043" UserId="79" Text="There are differences between the two words.&#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short give a detailed account of both [*prae*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DP%3Aentry+group%3D82%3Aentry%3Dprae) and [*ante*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DP%3Aentry+group%3D82%3Aentry%3Dprae).&#xD;&#xA;There are situations where they are interchangeable, but they are not synonymous everywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details, see the two dictionary entries.&#xD;&#xA;Here are some points to highlight the difference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Both *ante* and *prae* mean &quot;before&quot; in a spatial sense, but *ante* is used for objects at rest and *prae* for objects in motion.&#xD;&#xA;- *Prae* has the sense &quot;because&quot;, *ante* does not.&#xD;&#xA;- When it comes to time, *ante* seems to be far more common for &quot;before&quot;. (I get the impression that *prae* isn't possible at all, apart from giving that sense in compounds.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you look at a dictionary that gives a couple of English words for a Latin word as translation options, they can look identical.&#xD;&#xA;When you look at a dictionary that gives detailed explanations, much more nuance emerges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the two prepositions are different.&#xD;&#xA;Used as prefixes they are much closer to each other than as prepositions.&#xD;&#xA;But even if it was not necessary to have both, they can still coexist; synonyms are not that rare.&#xD;&#xA;The meanings of the two words have certainly evolved through time, and that might explain how we ended up having these two very similar prepositions.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps *ante* was more &quot;against&quot; and *prae* more &quot;before&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I would say that it is not necessary to have both *ante* and *prae*, but we still do, and it does allow expressing some things more accurately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6200" RevisionGUID="066d81e2-7620-47cc-90af-51c1f5f4c5c6" CreationDate="2018-03-29T08:25:30.367" UserId="79" Text="Suppose a university sends a periodic magazine or gazette out to alumni, companies, and other stakeholders.&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good Latin word for this kind of a publication?&#xD;&#xA;Would it be simply *nuntii*?&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps something like *acta diurna* would be appropriate, but I don't want to imply that it is published every day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What phrase would you use and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20502" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6200" RevisionGUID="066d81e2-7620-47cc-90af-51c1f5f4c5c6" CreationDate="2018-03-29T08:25:30.367" UserId="79" Text="How to describe a gazette to stakeholders in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20503" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6200" RevisionGUID="066d81e2-7620-47cc-90af-51c1f5f4c5c6" CreationDate="2018-03-29T08:25:30.367" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6201" RevisionGUID="be6732cc-9da6-4977-82b3-c8a85b1ac6d2" CreationDate="2018-03-29T11:43:45.080" UserId="79" Text="My suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Franciscus te/vos libenter vocat in dissertationem, in qua thesem suam nomine &quot;Aptatio spectralis proteinorum lucipetorum theoria electrostatica explicata&quot; defendet die inedita anno MMXVIII exeunte in Universitate Iohannis Gutenberg Moguntina, Saarstr. XXI, atque in merendam sequentem in culina instituti physicae theoreticae. Membra comitiae et existimatores sunt&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Choose *te* (singular) or *vos* (plural) depending on whether the invitation goes to an individual or more people.&#xD;&#xA;- I think *libenter invitare* (&quot;to invite with pleasure&quot;) captures the idea of kindly requesting one's company but flows better than a more literal translation.&#xD;&#xA;- *Dissertatio* is the event in which *thesis* is defended.&#xD;&#xA;- Literal retranslation of the title: &quot;Spectral adjustment of light-seeking proteins explained by electrostatic theory&quot;. It's not perfect.&#xD;&#xA;- *Editus* is a participle or adjective meaning (among other things) &quot;announced&quot;, and *ineditus* is &quot;not (yet) announced&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- The adjective &quot;of Mainz&quot; or &quot;Mainzian&quot; seems to be *Moguntinus*. I am translating the university as &quot;Johannes Gutenberg's Mainzian university&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Like the [Latin Wikipedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iohannes_Gutenberg), I'm treating the last name as undeclinable.&#xD;&#xA;- I left the street name untranslated, as it is a proper name. If you want to translate it, you need an adjective related to the name *Saravus*. Something like *via Saravia*, but I'm not sure of the best choice.&#xD;&#xA;- I think *merenda* is a decent word for the kind of buffet after the event.&#xD;&#xA;- I reworded the structure: not &quot;followed by a buffet&quot; but &quot;and the following buffet&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- The end is &quot;members of the committee and the evaluators are&quot;. I think *existimator* is a decent choice here, since I didn't want anything that sounds like a judge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if I got something wrong or unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to continue with same seriousness through the defense itself, I have a recommendation from [XKCD](https://xkcd.com/1403/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![XKCD 1403](https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/thesis_defense_2x.png)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6195" RevisionGUID="520eabb9-a511-4c7b-a62a-eb524c292432" CreationDate="2018-03-29T11:44:09.820" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="I'm preparing invitations to my thesis defence and I thought writing the invitations in Latin (as a joke). However my Latin is very poor. A friend of mine helped me, but I doubt it is very good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English original:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Francis kindly requests your company at the defence of his doctoral thesis, &quot;Spectral tuning of light-sensitive proteins explained through electrostatic theory&quot;, on an undetermined date at the end of the year 2018, at the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Saarstr. 21, followed by a cold buffet diner at the kitchen of the institute of theoretical physics. Examination committee &amp; reviewers: ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proposed latin translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Franciscus orat vestra praesentia ad rigorosum ad thesis doctoralis &quot;Accommodatio spectral ex luce absorbere proteinum explicavit per theoria electrostaticum&quot; in dies incerto anno exeunte MMXVIII in Universitas Iohannes Gutenberg Moguntiacum, via saravus XXI, secuti per prandium in culina institutis physico theoretico. Examinatio curatio &amp; arbitres: ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how far we are from something correct and how it could be improved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20506" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6195" RevisionGUID="520eabb9-a511-4c7b-a62a-eb524c292432" CreationDate="2018-03-29T11:44:09.820" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|translation-check|sentence-translation|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6202" RevisionGUID="f74d2adb-4941-4a7d-b753-63bb79015424" CreationDate="2018-03-29T21:09:53.777" UserId="136" Text="**1.** What you have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Animae celare bestias exiguae laxis vestibus illicitus est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you are trying to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It is forbidden to conceal beasts of little intellect within the folds of your garment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I think it should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Celare bestias animi exigui in sinibus vestis tuae illicitus est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Changes: I moved some words to be closer to the ones they modify. I tried to preserve the word choices you made, since nearly all of them were near in meaning to the sense you are getting at. I changed *animae* to *animi* because you want the word *animus* not *anima*. The former means &quot;intellect&quot; while the latter refers to the spirit. You could also use *mens* (*mentis* in this case) to mean &quot;intellect&quot; as well. I changed *laxis* to *sinibus* because *laxus* means &quot;empty,&quot; where as *sinus* means &quot;fold.&quot; Finally, I changed *vestibus* to *vestis* because you are saying &quot;of the garment,&quot; which requires a genitive. I added *tuae* after *vestis* to convey the &quot;your.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** What you have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nam eum hinc ferunt.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you are trying to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For they beareth him hence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I think it should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one seems fine to me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3.** What you have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Diabolo se agnosci non placet*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you are trying to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Devil does not like to be recognized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I think it should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Diabolo agnosci non placet.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Changes: I only removed *se* because it is a reflexive pronoun in the accusative (i.e. the direct object), but passive verbs usually do not take objects. Literally, this one translates to &quot;It is not pleasing for the devil to be recognized (himself).&quot; You can see why the *se* (himself) does not seem to fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4.** What you have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nam idem quod eos edit edunt.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you are trying to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For they eateth that which eateth them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I think it should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks fine to me. Just note that it literally translates from Latin as &quot;For they eat the same thing which eats them&quot; (*idem* means &quot;same&quot;). This slightly different but I think it works well with what you are trying to accomplish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**5.** What you have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ferens infantes exit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you are trying to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It came out carrying infants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I think it should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ferens infantes emersit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Changes: Now, you've already received commentary on this one in a [separate question][1], but that's okay, I guess. The reason I prefer *emersit* over *exit* is that of connotations. *Exit* means &quot;to go out/away, to become visible,&quot; but it also can mean &quot;to die&quot; or &quot;to sprout.&quot; It would probably be pretty clear from context which one you mean, but *emersit* lacks these other connotations. One can also look at the English derivatives of the two words. *Exeo* (*exit*) leads to the word &quot;exit&quot; which usually means &quot;to go away&quot; or &quot;to go out of the current place&quot; which implies a motion away (not always, though). *Emergo* (*emersit*), on the other hand, leads to &quot;emerge&quot; which means &quot;to come into view.&quot; I think this more accurately captures the picture you are painting. you obviously cannot rely solely on English derivatives when making word choices, but it can be a useful tool sometimes. If you are dead set on using *exit*, you should put it in the perfect *exivit* because it is in the past tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6174/translating-it-came-out-carrying-infants/6176#6176" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6201" RevisionGUID="b1a7c3af-1d7f-457c-b2fb-e5e1b4cd3d1e" CreationDate="2018-03-29T21:18:55.823" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="My suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Franciscus te/vos libenter invitat in dissertationem, in qua thesem suam nomine &quot;Aptatio spectralis proteinorum lucipetorum theoria electrostatica explicata&quot; defendet die inedita anno MMXVIII exeunte in Universitate Iohannis Gutenberg Moguntina, Saarstr. XXI, atque in merendam sequentem in culina instituti physicae theoreticae. Membra comitiae et existimatores sunt&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Choose *te* (singular) or *vos* (plural) depending on whether the invitation goes to an individual or more people.&#xD;&#xA;- I think *libenter invitare* (&quot;to invite with pleasure&quot;) captures the idea of kindly requesting one's company but flows better than a more literal translation.&#xD;&#xA;- *Dissertatio* is the event in which *thesis* is defended.&#xD;&#xA;- Literal retranslation of the title: &quot;Spectral adjustment of light-seeking proteins explained by electrostatic theory&quot;. It's not perfect.&#xD;&#xA;- *Editus* is a participle or adjective meaning (among other things) &quot;announced&quot;, and *ineditus* is &quot;not (yet) announced&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- The adjective &quot;of Mainz&quot; or &quot;Mainzian&quot; seems to be *Moguntinus*. I am translating the university as &quot;Johannes Gutenberg's Mainzian university&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Like the [Latin Wikipedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iohannes_Gutenberg), I'm treating the last name as undeclinable.&#xD;&#xA;- I left the street name untranslated, as it is a proper name. If you want to translate it, you need an adjective related to the name *Saravus*. Something like *via Saravia*, but I'm not sure of the best choice.&#xD;&#xA;- I think *merenda* is a decent word for the kind of buffet after the event.&#xD;&#xA;- I reworded the structure: not &quot;followed by a buffet&quot; but &quot;and the following buffet&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- The end is &quot;members of the committee and the evaluators are&quot;. I think *existimator* is a decent choice here, since I didn't want anything that sounds like a judge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if I got something wrong or unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to continue with same seriousness through the defense itself, I have a recommendation from [XKCD](https://xkcd.com/1403/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![XKCD 1403](https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/thesis_defense_2x.png)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6203" RevisionGUID="4bbf7051-93c7-4abd-ae84-a25e260178e1" CreationDate="2018-03-30T09:36:42.620" UserId="645" Text="I suggest *acta ordinaria*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *ordo* means not just 'a series', but an orderly or even a regular series. The derived adjective *ordinarius* neatly fits the idea of a regular series of publications; and when the subjects of these are things done or decisions made, the better word is *acta* rather than *nuntii*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="749e5d0f-4a0f-4b7b-90cd-8406fabcf6e5" CreationDate="2018-03-30T12:46:14.177" UserId="79" Text="It occurred to me that this kind of thing could be simply called ***acta*** when it comes with the name of the university.&#xD;&#xA;For example, for the University of Jyväskylä we could have *Acta Granivicensia* or *Acta Universitatis Granivicensis*.&#xD;&#xA;(Or you can replace *Granivicensis* with *Jyväskyläensis*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *acta* won't work alone and isn't a good overall name for the concept, but I think this word communicates the type of publication sufficiently well.&#xD;&#xA;For a standalone word that could be used for this kind of publication irrespective of the institution, Tom Cotton's suggestion is excellent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should remark that *acta* is also used for scientific journals.&#xD;&#xA;One of the highest-ranking ones in mathematics is *Acta Mathematica*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6205" RevisionGUID="140c3038-c7b3-4c7e-b538-b12d575caa3f" CreationDate="2018-03-30T13:53:19.257" UserId="79" Text="Judging by [Vicipaedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dies_Passionis_Domini) (I know, I know), Good Friday is known as *Dies Passionis Domini* in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;This is a very direct name.&#xD;&#xA;In English it is Good Friday, in Nordic countries Long Friday and [other names in other places](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday#Name).&#xD;&#xA;Latin is the only language I know which describes the day so directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Latin have a more indirect name for the day?&#xD;&#xA;**In particular, is it called any kind of a Friday in Latin?**&#xD;&#xA;Is *Dies Pessionis Domini* the only (common) one?&#xD;&#xA;I know Latin does not have equally convenient names of weekdays as many other languages, so perhaps calling it a Friday would be awkward." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20513" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6205" RevisionGUID="140c3038-c7b3-4c7e-b538-b12d575caa3f" CreationDate="2018-03-30T13:53:19.257" UserId="79" Text="Latin name of Good Friday" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20514" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6205" RevisionGUID="140c3038-c7b3-4c7e-b538-b12d575caa3f" CreationDate="2018-03-30T13:53:19.257" UserId="79" Text="|christianity|calendarium|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6206" RevisionGUID="eff8c054-1be3-4f74-be65-fc4b88c4f140" CreationDate="2018-03-30T16:34:40.497" UserId="136" Text="You know, I wasn't expecting to find a wide variety of answers to this question in my search, but in just the [Morgan and Silva Furman University Lexicon][1] there are a good number of answers. Let's take a look at them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ *parasceve*, *-es* f. = a day of preparation, the day before the Sabbath (Note: the Sabbath is Saturday in the Jewish tradition)&#xD;&#xA;+ *dies parasceves* = the day of the day before the Sabbath (essentially the equivalent of the previous)&#xD;&#xA;+  *sexta feria parasceves* = the sixth holiday of the day before the Sabbath (this one makes less to me, but I believe it refers to the fact that Good Friday is the sixth day of Holy Week)&#xD;&#xA;+ *Feria Sexta in Parasceve* = the sixth holiday on the day before the Sabbath (similar to the previous)&#xD;&#xA;+ *Feria Sexta in Passione et Morte Domini* = the sixth holiday on the passion and death of the Lord&#xD;&#xA;+ *Passio Christi* = the passion of Christ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the question becomes, which one do you use? I think if one looks at the original sources of these translations, then you can get a better idea as to the answer of this question. The very first answer comes from the 2nd-3rd century Christian writer Tertullian. This man wrote a great deal about the early Church, so this lends credibility that *parasceve* is perhaps the best option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second option comes from Ronald Latham, the third Christian Helfer, and the rest Edwin Levine. These are all more modern writers, but nearly all of them use that original *parasceve*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a quick look online corroborates this. Two pages on the Catholic website New Advent ([here][2] and [here][3]) state that the day on which Jesus was crucified was called *parasceve* in the Bible, but in the Roman Missal it is called *Feria VI in Parasceve*. It therefore seems like one of these two options is your best bet for the Latin name of this holiday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ia801000.us.archive.org/12/items/TheLexiconAnglumEtLatinumByDavidMorgan/MorganAndSilvaFurmanUniversityLexicon.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06643a.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11476a.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5389" RevisionGUID="64827674-e3b7-465c-93c7-4bf91bb53b28" CreationDate="2018-03-30T17:32:07.570" UserId="271" Comment="Removed erroneous copypasta duplication" Text="This [answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2050/where-can-i-hear-the-original-pronunciation-of-the-latin-alphabet/2055#2055) already gave the answer as pointed by sumelic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, in archaic Latin, there were three letters , , and , corresponding to C, K and Q. All those letters were used for both the sound /k/ and /g/. Later the letter G was used for the sound /g/ so C was the only letter for /k/. The letter K became rare and remained only before /a/ (Kalenda…) and Q, which was used in Etruscan before rounded vowels /kʷ/, remained only before /u/ and was therefore only conserved in QV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. also [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Etruscans used Q in conjunction with V to represent /kʷ/, and this usage was copied by the Romans with the rest of their alphabet. In the earliest Latin inscriptions, the letters C, K and Q were all used to represent the two sounds /k/ and /ɡ/, which were not differentiated in writing. Of these, Q was used before a rounded vowel (e.g. ⟨EQO⟩ 'ego'), K before /a/, and C elsewhere. Later, the use of C (and its variant G) replaced most usages of K and Q: Q survived only to represent /k/ when immediately followed by a /w/ sound." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20517" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5389" RevisionGUID="64827674-e3b7-465c-93c7-4bf91bb53b28" CreationDate="2018-03-30T17:32:07.570" Comment="Proposed by 271 approved by 79 edit id of 230" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20518" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="6207" RevisionGUID="c4b49a36-5775-49d7-a89e-d3a9a8d50dc6" CreationDate="2018-03-31T09:31:21.580" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/3480/why-does-latin-use-declensions-instead-of-just-cases-and-gender" />
  <row Id="20519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6207" RevisionGUID="51ef43b3-5254-4c67-ba3b-e60fb315a3e4" CreationDate="2018-03-30T20:49:23.020" UserId="2513" UserDisplayName="user180969" Text="What is the purpose of declensions? I know that 1st declensions is female second is male and 3rd is neuter, but then why 4 and 5? What is the purpose of several declensions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20520" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6207" RevisionGUID="51ef43b3-5254-4c67-ba3b-e60fb315a3e4" CreationDate="2018-03-30T20:49:23.020" UserId="2513" UserDisplayName="user180969" Text="Why does Latin use declensions instead of just cases and gender?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20521" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6207" RevisionGUID="51ef43b3-5254-4c67-ba3b-e60fb315a3e4" CreationDate="2018-03-30T20:49:23.020" UserId="2513" UserDisplayName="user180969" Text="|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6201" RevisionGUID="5db6f2af-7d2d-428b-8bc6-f23912f82de4" CreationDate="2018-03-31T09:37:29.200" UserId="79" Comment="added 262 characters in body" Text="My suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Franciscus te/vos libenter invitat in dissertationem, in qua thesem suam nomine &quot;Aptatio spectralis proteinorum lucipetorum theoria electrostatica explicata&quot; defendet die inedita anno MMXVIII exeunte in Universitate Iohannis Gutenberg Moguntina, Saarstr. XXI, atque in merendam sequentem in culina instituti physicae theoreticae. Membra comitiae et existimatores sunt&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Choose *te* (singular) or *vos* (plural) depending on whether the invitation goes to an individual or more people.&#xD;&#xA;- I think *libenter invitare* (&quot;to invite with pleasure&quot;) captures the idea of kindly requesting one's company but flows better than a more literal translation.&#xD;&#xA;- *Dissertatio* is the event in which *thesis* is defended. (Following your comments, it is possible to say *in examen rigorosum, in quo thesem* and so on. This makes sense in Latin, is easily recognizable in your locale, and leaves little room for misinterpretation, since the text says that a thesis is to be defended.)&#xD;&#xA;- Literal retranslation of the title: &quot;Spectral adjustment of light-seeking proteins explained by electrostatic theory&quot;. It's not perfect.&#xD;&#xA;- *Editus* is a participle or adjective meaning (among other things) &quot;announced&quot;, and *ineditus* is &quot;not (yet) announced&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- The adjective &quot;of Mainz&quot; or &quot;Mainzian&quot; seems to be *Moguntinus*. I am translating the university as &quot;Johannes Gutenberg's Mainzian university&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Like the [Latin Wikipedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iohannes_Gutenberg), I'm treating the last name as undeclinable.&#xD;&#xA;- I left the street name untranslated, as it is a proper name. If you want to translate it, you need an adjective related to the name *Saravus*. Something like *via Saravia*, but I'm not sure of the best choice.&#xD;&#xA;- I think *merenda* is a decent word for the kind of buffet after the event.&#xD;&#xA;- I reworded the structure: not &quot;followed by a buffet&quot; but &quot;and the following buffet&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- The end is &quot;members of the committee and the evaluators are&quot;. I think *existimator* is a decent choice here, since I didn't want anything that sounds like a judge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if I got something wrong or unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to continue with same seriousness through the defense itself, I have a recommendation from [XKCD](https://xkcd.com/1403/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![XKCD 1403](https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/thesis_defense_2x.png)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6207" RevisionGUID="5cc8cfdb-04fb-4deb-90f7-37e731ca67ba" CreationDate="2018-03-31T09:40:06.787" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="What is the purpose of declensions? I know that 1st declension is female second is male and 3rd is neuter, but then why 4 and 5? What is the purpose of several declensions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20524" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6207" RevisionGUID="5cc8cfdb-04fb-4deb-90f7-37e731ca67ba" CreationDate="2018-03-31T09:40:06.787" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|declension|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6208" RevisionGUID="e17fec20-ee07-4e47-9c5c-c1ae126cb322" CreationDate="2018-03-31T10:01:43.633" UserId="79" Text="The relation between genders and declensions is more complicated than you list.&#xD;&#xA;The first declension contains mostly feminines, but there are also feminine-looking masculines like *nauta* and some masculine-looking Greek male names like *Aeneas* and *Anchises*.&#xD;&#xA;The second declension contains mostly masculines and neuters, but also some masculine-looking feminines.&#xD;&#xA;The third declension has all genders.&#xD;&#xA;The fourth one has mainly masculines, but also a couple of neuters like *cornu* and masculine-looking feminines like *quercus*.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the purest declension in this respect is the fifth one, which has almost exclusively feminines, with the exception of the [genderfluid word *res*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/333/79). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this only makes your question ever more important: Why make it so complicated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Languages are not rationally designed and optimized.&#xD;&#xA;They evolve when used by a community.&#xD;&#xA;Things like this don't have anything I would call purpose, but we can still understand how they came to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The morphology of nouns was quite complicated already in [Proto-Indo-European](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_nominals).&#xD;&#xA;Latin inherited this structure and it evolved in Latin and its predecessors.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, Latin was quite good at regularizing inflection, dividing words into a small number of categories with clear endings for each form.&#xD;&#xA;You can find a good description of the origin of Latin's five-declension system in [this older question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4212/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that Romance languages derive from Latin, but they have lost much of the complications with nouns in Latin, dropping many forms and declensions.&#xD;&#xA;This suggests that those peoples and perhaps already the speakers of vulgar Latin in antiquity agreed with you and saw that they can make do with less." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6209" RevisionGUID="6b744076-55d7-456e-a891-6e8599d7d328" CreationDate="2018-03-31T14:04:58.800" UserId="79" Text="The typical Easter greetings are different in different languages.&#xD;&#xA;In some languages it's &quot;Happy Easter&quot; or &quot;Good Easter&quot;, while some say &quot;Christ has risen&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Any of these phrases could be translated to Latin and probably understood.&#xD;&#xA;But what would be an idiomatic choice?&#xD;&#xA;Do we have attestations of one or more preferred Easter greetings in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20527" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6209" RevisionGUID="6b744076-55d7-456e-a891-6e8599d7d328" CreationDate="2018-03-31T14:04:58.800" UserId="79" Text="Is there a typical Easter greeting in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20528" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6209" RevisionGUID="6b744076-55d7-456e-a891-6e8599d7d328" CreationDate="2018-03-31T14:04:58.800" UserId="79" Text="|christianity|calendarium|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6208" RevisionGUID="d29e6653-725f-454a-8177-26d282c0c041" CreationDate="2018-03-31T18:07:36.860" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The relation between genders and declensions is more complicated than you list.&#xD;&#xA;The first declension contains mostly feminines, but there are also feminine-looking masculines like *nauta* and some masculine-looking Greek male names like *Aeneas* and *Anchises*.&#xD;&#xA;The second declension contains mostly masculines and neuters, but also some masculine-looking feminines.&#xD;&#xA;The third declension has all genders.&#xD;&#xA;The fourth one has mainly masculines, but also a couple of neuters like *cornu* and masculine-looking feminines like *quercus*.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the purest declension in this respect is the fifth one, which has almost exclusively feminines, with the exception of the [genderfluid word *dies*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/333/79). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this only makes your question ever more important: Why make it so complicated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Languages are not rationally designed and optimized.&#xD;&#xA;They evolve when used by a community.&#xD;&#xA;Things like this don't have anything I would call purpose, but we can still understand how they came to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The morphology of nouns was quite complicated already in [Proto-Indo-European](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_nominals).&#xD;&#xA;Latin inherited this structure and it evolved in Latin and its predecessors.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, Latin was quite good at regularizing inflection, dividing words into a small number of categories with clear endings for each form.&#xD;&#xA;You can find a good description of the origin of Latin's five-declension system in [this older question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4212/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that Romance languages derive from Latin, but they have lost much of the complications with nouns in Latin, dropping many forms and declensions.&#xD;&#xA;This suggests that those peoples and perhaps already the speakers of vulgar Latin in antiquity agreed with you and saw that they can make do with less." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6210" RevisionGUID="ed850db5-cd14-4b65-91b2-afc9133970fe" CreationDate="2018-03-31T18:18:49.447" UserId="2508" Text="As a follow-up question to https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6195/invitation-to-a-thesis-defence/ I would like to ask what would be a good long formulation in latin for a dotoral thesis defence, like &quot;defence of the doctoral thesis&quot; or &quot;oral examination of the doctoral thesis&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I know _dissertatio_ but it is to short and I do not find it obvious that it **only** refers to the defence (oral part) since in many languages Dissertatio/DIssertation is a synonym for the whole doctoral thesis.&#xD;&#xA;- In german you have the word [Rigorosum][1], a short version of the new latin termius *examen rigorosum* (hard exam) used to designate a thesis defence. It doesn't seem to be a proper latin word that would be understandable for non-german speaking people (or at least understandable as a thesis defence).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigorosum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20531" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6210" RevisionGUID="ed850db5-cd14-4b65-91b2-afc9133970fe" CreationDate="2018-03-31T18:18:49.447" UserId="2508" Text="Good long formulation for &quot;defence of the doctoral thesis&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20532" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6210" RevisionGUID="ed850db5-cd14-4b65-91b2-afc9133970fe" CreationDate="2018-03-31T18:18:49.447" UserId="2508" Text="|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6211" RevisionGUID="fd6381e7-9364-4b1e-8796-86f74c8f1e25" CreationDate="2018-03-31T19:31:35.960" UserId="2514" Text="I'm building the brand for a web development company, and I'm using Latin for the name and slogan. However, as I am not familiar with the language, I would like some help clarifying meanings to avoid ending up like a failed tattoo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lux Astrum - Perfectiō jacet inter astra&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which, according to my research so far, translates to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bright Star - Perfection lies between the stars&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I know `lux` can also translate to `light`, which is kinda redundant for a star, but at the same time I understand words can have different meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more pressing matter however, is the usage of a diacritic (macron) on the `o`. I've found it in various places used like that, but I've also found it without it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question therefore is: **Is the phrase in the first blockquote correctly translated in the second one? Can `Lux Astrum` translate to `Bright Star` and is `perfectiō` an acceptable written form of the word `perfection`?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The reason for using Latin, as well as more details about the company are out of scope. I'm only interested in the validity of the name and slogan.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20534" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6211" RevisionGUID="fd6381e7-9364-4b1e-8796-86f74c8f1e25" CreationDate="2018-03-31T19:31:35.960" UserId="2514" Text="Is it acceptable/regular to use diacritics (macron) in written texts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20535" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6211" RevisionGUID="fd6381e7-9364-4b1e-8796-86f74c8f1e25" CreationDate="2018-03-31T19:31:35.960" UserId="2514" Text="|translation|grammar-choice|diacritics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6212" RevisionGUID="3749ea46-4361-41d5-9bf4-b2f8bff8c083" CreationDate="2018-03-31T20:50:41.163" UserId="9" Text="Latin doesn't have a single standardized orthography. The spelling &quot;perfectio&quot; is a fine way to write the Latin word for &quot;perfection&quot;. In fact, a number of people would prefer &quot;perfectio&quot; over &quot;perfectiō&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not recommend using a macron in a slogan, especially since you are also spelling the word *jacet* with the letter J. This isn't incorrect from a traditional standpoint, but the use of the letter J has fallen out of favor (for rather silly, pedantic reasons in my opinion) in written Latin text in recent years, so a modern Latinist would be more likely to write *iacet.*  (By now this preference, like most preferences about Latin orthography, seems to be mostly just based on what people are used to, but as far as I can tell the original motivation for eliminating J from modern Latin orthography was just the argument that the Romans didn't distinguish J from I in writing, so we shouldn't either. I think I've also seen some people argue that it's better to not use J because English-speakers associate the letter with the sound /dʒ/, and in the Restored Pronunciation of Latin you're supposed to use the pronunciation /j/. I think these are both pretty weak arguments though.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macrons are used in running text in certain educational texts, but they aren't considered a standard, required feature of Latin writing. In fact, some people dislike the look of text with macrons. (As with the preference for never using J, this is probably based mainly on what people are used to, but some people try to justify their preference for text without macrons by implying that macrons are &quot;crutches&quot; that supposedly inhibit the development of a Latin student's ability to read text without macrons: I don't find this objection particularly convincing.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since your slogan is not any kind of educational text, there isn't much point to using a macron to mark the long vowel. Not many of the people who are going to be seeing it will even know what the mark is meant to indicate. For comparison, [Latin heraldic mottos][1] are not traditionally written with macrons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see some comments/discussion about (mostly Anglophone) preferences for Latin orthography at the following forum thread: unfortunately, the results of the mentioned survey were mostly presented in the form of images that now seem to be lost. [Survey of Latin orthography preferences][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not qualified to comment on the accuracy of the translation, but I will just say that I don't understand the grammatical structure of &quot;Lux Astrum&quot;. You say &quot;I know lux can ***also*** translate to light&quot;; actually, the translation of *lux* as light is the **only** one that I am familiar with. I hadn't heard before that it could be used to mean &quot;bright&quot;, and I'm having trouble finding a resource that supports that idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ngw.nl/heraldrywiki/index.php?title=Mottoes_in_Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=10614" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6212" RevisionGUID="99bdda06-03cf-4c77-aad5-d685fa4de926" CreationDate="2018-03-31T20:58:03.133" UserId="9" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="Latin doesn't have a single standardized orthography. The spelling &quot;perfectio&quot; is a fine way to write the Latin word for &quot;perfection&quot;. In fact, a number of people would prefer &quot;perfectio&quot; over &quot;perfectiō&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not recommend using a macron in a slogan, especially since you are also spelling the word *jacet* with the letter J. This isn't incorrect from a traditional standpoint, but the use of the letter J has fallen out of favor (for rather silly, pedantic reasons in my opinion) in written Latin text in recent years, so a modern Latinist would be more likely to write *iacet.*  (By now this preference, like most preferences about Latin orthography, seems to be mostly just based on what people are used to, but as far as I can tell the original motivation for eliminating J from modern Latin orthography was just the argument that the Romans didn't distinguish J from I in writing, so we shouldn't either. I think I've also seen some people argue that it's better to not use J because English-speakers associate the letter with the sound /dʒ/, and in the restored pronunciation of Latin you're supposed to use the sound /j/. I think these are both pretty weak arguments though.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macrons are used in running text in certain educational texts, as they provide information about pronunciation that may be considered useful for a student of Latin, but they aren't considered a standard, required feature of Latin writing. In fact, some people dislike the look of text with macrons. (As with the preference for never using J, this is probably based mainly on what people are used to, but some people try to justify their preference for text without macrons by implying that macrons are &quot;crutches&quot; that supposedly inhibit the development of a Latin student's ability to read text without macrons: I don't find this objection particularly convincing.) Many reference materials such as dictionaries use macrons (sometimes alongside breves, sometimes just alongside unmarked vowel letters) to indicate some information about the pronunciation of words: the fact that a word is spelled in a dictionary with a macron doesn't mean that it has to be written with a macron in running text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since your slogan is not any kind of educational text, there isn't much point to using a macron to mark the long vowel. Not many of the people who are going to be seeing it will even know what the mark is meant to indicate. For comparison, [Latin heraldic mottos][1] are not traditionally written with macrons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see some comments/discussion about (mostly Anglophone) preferences for Latin orthography at the following forum thread: unfortunately, the results of the mentioned survey were mostly presented in the form of images that now seem to be lost. [Survey of Latin orthography preferences][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not qualified to comment on the accuracy of the translation, but I will just say that I don't understand the grammatical structure of &quot;Lux Astrum&quot;. You say &quot;I know lux can ***also*** translate to light&quot;; actually, the translation of *lux* as light is the **only** one that I am familiar with. I hadn't heard before that it could be used to mean &quot;bright&quot;, and I'm having trouble finding a resource that supports that idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ngw.nl/heraldrywiki/index.php?title=Mottoes_in_Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=10614" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20538" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6211" RevisionGUID="bb5b4f44-729b-409a-a3d6-0c481e6d2fb6" CreationDate="2018-03-31T21:02:37.153" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|translation-check|motto|diacritics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6211" RevisionGUID="d8e2cdc5-cc82-4b18-8719-5f29a5e6fe17" CreationDate="2018-03-31T21:12:03.170" UserId="79" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="I'm building the brand for a web development company, and I'm using Latin for the name and slogan. However, as I am not familiar with the language, I would like some help clarifying meanings to avoid ending up like a failed tattoo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lux Astrum &amp;mdash; Perfectiō jacet inter astra&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which, according to my research so far, translates to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bright Star &amp;mdash; Perfection lies between the stars&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I know `lux` can also translate to `light`, which is kinda redundant for a star, but at the same time I understand words can have different meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more pressing matter however, is the usage of a diacritic (macron) on the `o`. I've found it in various places used like that, but I've also found it without it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question therefore is: **Is the phrase in the first blockquote correctly translated in the second one? Can `Lux Astrum` translate to `Bright Star` and is `perfectiō` an acceptable written form of the word `perfection`?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The reason for using Latin, as well as more details about the company are out of scope. I'm only interested in the validity of the name and slogan.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6213" RevisionGUID="facddd54-204a-44ec-ad1f-628005ab08f0" CreationDate="2018-03-31T21:26:46.890" UserId="79" Text="Since sumelic gave a good description of spelling conventions, let me focus on translation alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't quite understand how *lux astrum* is supposed to work.&#xD;&#xA;The only way I can make sense of it is that *astrum* is the plural genitive (longer form *astrorum*) and the name means &quot;light of stars&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This isn't a bad phrase or name, but it's not &quot;bright star&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to go with this name, I suggest the form *astrorum*, as it will be easier to parse correctly.&#xD;&#xA;After all, I hope you are still trying to communicate something with the name, no matter how few people actually understand Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Lux*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=lux&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is a good word for light, especially the light of a star.&#xD;&#xA;From this noun is derived the verb *lucere*, &quot;to shine&quot;, and its participle *lucens*, &quot;shining&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This *lucens* is a good adjective for &quot;bright&quot; when referring to a star.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of words for a star.&#xD;&#xA;*Sidus*, *stella*, and *astrum* come to mind.&#xD;&#xA;Your choice of *astrum* is a fine one.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to compare the nuances, I recommend checking these (and possibly other) words in [a Latin dictionary of your choice](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, ***astrum lucens*** would be my recommendation for &quot;bright star&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;How does this sound?&#xD;&#xA;I know that appearance is important in addition to meaning when it comes to names, so your word matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;Perfection lies between the stars&quot;, I think your translation *Perfectio inter astra iacet* is good.&#xD;&#xA;I made three small modifications: Spelling *iacet* instead of *jacet*, losing the macron, and putting the verb to the end.&#xD;&#xA;All of this is optional, but it makes it look more appropriate in my eyes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6213" RevisionGUID="cac9af95-6990-4993-b6da-9d20b6ea2aa1" CreationDate="2018-03-31T21:35:15.733" UserId="79" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Since sumelic gave a good description of spelling conventions, let me focus on translation alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't quite understand how *lux astrum* is supposed to work.&#xD;&#xA;The only way I can make sense of it is that *astrum* is the plural genitive (longer form *astrorum*) and the name means &quot;light of stars&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This isn't a bad phrase or name, but it's not &quot;bright star&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to go with this name, I suggest the form *astrorum*, as it will be easier to parse correctly.&#xD;&#xA;After all, I hope you are still trying to communicate something with the name, no matter how few people actually understand Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Lux*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=lux&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is a good word for light, especially the light of a star.&#xD;&#xA;From this noun (not an adjective) is derived the verb *lucere*, &quot;to shine&quot;, and its participle *lucens*, &quot;shining&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This *lucens* is a good adjective for &quot;bright&quot; when referring to a star.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of words for a star.&#xD;&#xA;*Sidus*, *stella*, and *astrum* come to mind.&#xD;&#xA;Your choice of *astrum* is a fine one.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to compare the nuances, I recommend checking these (and possibly other) words in [a Latin dictionary of your choice](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, ***astrum lucens*** would be my recommendation for &quot;bright star&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;How does this sound?&#xD;&#xA;I know that appearance is important in addition to meaning when it comes to names, so your word matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;Perfection lies between the stars&quot;, I think your translation *Perfectio inter astra iacet* is good.&#xD;&#xA;I made three small modifications: Spelling *iacet* instead of *jacet*, losing the macron, and putting the verb to the end.&#xD;&#xA;All of this is optional, but it makes it look more appropriate in my eyes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6214" RevisionGUID="49327975-901b-4e10-bb43-4f1a222c5417" CreationDate="2018-04-01T04:20:29.733" UserId="867" Text="This started out as a comment to comments made to Sam K's answer above but it ran away from itself a little so I'm posting it here!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to clarify, *parasceve* does refer to preparations for the Jewish Sabbath (and hence, Friday) but also to preparations for the Jewish Pesach/Passover, which can fall on any day of the week. Indeed, [New Advent][1] notes, “the Parasceve of the Pasch, whatever day of the week it fell on, was kept even more religiously than the ordinary Friday …” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word was then adopted by Greek ecclesiastical writers although New Advent is not clear in what manner (was it to mean Friday? or some other day or period of preparation?)  It seems that *parasceve* as used in the Catholic church, refers [“chiefly”][2] to Good Friday (see also [here][3], where *parasceve* is used for Good Friday and, moreover, in English law is a *dies non juridicus*).  And indeed, Good Friday of course *is* preparation for Pasch (Pesach); it just happens to always fall on Friday. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Feria][4]* is used in Catholic liturgy for any day of the week except Sunday, each day being counted out from the Sabbath – *feria prima, feria secunda,* etc. Thus, *Feria sexta (VI)* simply means Friday. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Feria VI in Parasceve* seems a curious redundancy then (*pace* the Roman Missal!) if *parasceve* alone is understood to mean Good Friday - it's like saying Friday on Good Friday!  Unless *parasceve* is actually considered to be the whole period of Holy Week. Unfortunately, I can’t find anywhere that *parasceve* *is* used in that way; it’s always specific to the Friday of Easter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *[Sacrosanctum Concilium][5]* uses *Feria VI in Passione et Morte Domini* (see point no. 110 - English [here][6]) which I think better *describes* Good Friday but clearly *Feria VI in Parasceve* is the accepted use in Catholic Latin liturgy and has the added recommendation of referencing the Jewish origins of Pasch and Christianity itself.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11476a.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/parasceve&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://thelawdictionary.org/parasceve/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feria&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_lt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6215" RevisionGUID="f2b82612-1ef9-43f7-bf66-664c59e8da45" CreationDate="2018-04-01T08:52:59.197" UserId="79" Text="Did you know that Lewis and Short's dictionary doesn't contain the word &quot;gullible&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;That is an appropriate question for the first of April, but it turns out that I indeed found no trace of that word.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I'm missing English synonyms for someone who is naive and easily fooled.&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good classical Latin word, noun or adjective, for this kind of a person?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20545" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6215" RevisionGUID="f2b82612-1ef9-43f7-bf66-664c59e8da45" CreationDate="2018-04-01T08:52:59.197" UserId="79" Text="What is &quot;gullible&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20546" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6215" RevisionGUID="f2b82612-1ef9-43f7-bf66-664c59e8da45" CreationDate="2018-04-01T08:52:59.197" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6216" RevisionGUID="7fbeb647-cb3c-44b1-92f0-ce67e96248b4" CreationDate="2018-04-01T09:16:54.977" UserId="867" Text="Perhaps *[credulus][1]*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *credula nec ravos timeant armenta leones*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; gullible cattle no longer fear tawny lions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Horace, *Epodes*, 16.33  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Credula si fueris, aliae tua gaudia carpent*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you are gullible, other women will seize your joys&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid, *Ars Amatoria*, 3.661 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Haec enim etiam in fabulis stultissima persona est improvidorum et&#xD;&#xA;&gt; credulorum senum.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For even on the stage the silliest characters are improvident and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gullible old men.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *De Amicitia*, 26.100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=credulus&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6217" RevisionGUID="58d5bad5-fcde-4bd3-b90e-b9389974a309" CreationDate="2018-04-01T14:47:23.640" UserId="645" Text="The English verb 'gull' means 'deceive', and 'gullible' is derived from it. Penelope's *credulus* is excellent (and, indeed, is the word that I would choose), but I should like to point out *decipiendus* as an apt alternative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6213" RevisionGUID="543eb074-6184-44ae-9123-0c36d4c7acb2" CreationDate="2018-04-01T16:23:17.190" UserId="79" Comment="added 543 characters in body" Text="Since sumelic gave a good description of spelling conventions, let me focus on translation alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't quite understand how *lux astrum* is supposed to work.&#xD;&#xA;The only way I can make sense of it is that *astrum* is the plural genitive (longer form *astrorum*) and the name means &quot;light of stars&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This isn't a bad phrase or name, but it's not &quot;bright star&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to go with this name, I suggest the form *astrorum*, as it will be easier to parse correctly.&#xD;&#xA;After all, I hope you are still trying to communicate something with the name, no matter how few people actually understand Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Lux*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=lux&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is a good word for light, especially the light of a star.&#xD;&#xA;From this noun (not an adjective) is derived the verb *lucere*, &quot;to shine&quot;, and its participle *lucens*, &quot;shining&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This *lucens* is a good adjective for &quot;bright&quot; when referring to a star.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of words for a star.&#xD;&#xA;*Sidus*, *stella*, and *astrum* come to mind.&#xD;&#xA;Your choice of *astrum* is a fine one.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to compare the nuances, I recommend checking these (and possibly other) words in [a Latin dictionary of your choice](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, ***astrum lucens*** would be my recommendation for &quot;bright star&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;How does this sound?&#xD;&#xA;I know that appearance is important in addition to meaning when it comes to names, so your word matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;Perfection lies between the stars&quot;, I think your translation *Perfectio inter astra iacet* is good.&#xD;&#xA;I made three small modifications: Spelling *iacet* instead of *jacet*, losing the macron, and putting the verb to the end.&#xD;&#xA;All of this is optional, but it makes it look more appropriate in my eyes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to go with *lux astrum* or something similar, I recommend caution.&#xD;&#xA;The form *astrum* as a plural genitive is prone to misinterpretation.&#xD;&#xA;Especially some who have studied Latin are likely to mock it as a grammatical error, as the short form of the first and second declension plural genitive ending is not that well known.&#xD;&#xA;If people read *astrum* as singular (as was my first thought), *lux astrum* does not make sense.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I recommend changing it to *lux astrorum* (&quot;light of stars&quot;) or *lux astri* (&quot;light of star&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6198" RevisionGUID="d32d218f-d7d5-41b7-a5e5-147dbf3c65d2" CreationDate="2018-04-01T22:17:41.413" UserId="79" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="I checked [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0055%3Abook%3D6%3Acard%3D124) and [The Latin Library](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/vergil/aen6.shtml).&#xD;&#xA;Both use *facilis descensus Averno*.&#xD;&#xA;You misspelled *facilis* (&quot;easy&quot;); it is not related to *fascis*.&#xD;&#xA;Did you find the version *Averni* somewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, both forms make sense.&#xD;&#xA;I would read *descensus Averno* as &quot;descent through the entrance of the underworld&quot; and *descensus Averni* as &quot;descent of the entrance of the underworld&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The word [*Avernus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DA%3Aentry+group%3D94%3Aentry%3DAvernus) actually means literally &quot;birdless&quot; and refers to a place considered to be an entrance to the underworld.&#xD;&#xA;It does not mean &quot;hell&quot; directly, but by metonymy it makes sense to say that *descensus Averni/Averno* is &quot;descent to hell&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would recommend *facilis descensus Averno*.&#xD;&#xA;As I said, the difference to *Averni* is insignificant, but I wouldn't use that before finding it in an edition of the Aeneid.&#xD;&#xA;[As noted in the comments, there are editions with *Averni*, but *Averno* seems to be preferred. Both are valid choices.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6218" RevisionGUID="f36bb319-93ca-435e-8f47-56ba6b6195d9" CreationDate="2018-04-02T10:15:24.413" UserId="2522" Text="Optimis facinoribus variis in conspectu omnium 'praestandis' rex apud populum famam pietatis ac sapientiae possedit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is praestandis a gerund or gerundive or both?&#xD;&#xA;And does it matter for the translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20553" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6218" RevisionGUID="f36bb319-93ca-435e-8f47-56ba6b6195d9" CreationDate="2018-04-02T10:15:24.413" UserId="2522" Text="Is 'praestandis' in this sentence a gerund (gerundium) or a gerundive (gerundivum)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20554" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6218" RevisionGUID="f36bb319-93ca-435e-8f47-56ba6b6195d9" CreationDate="2018-04-02T10:15:24.413" UserId="2522" Text="|gerundive|gerund|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6218" RevisionGUID="625bf274-57e8-4574-b168-736a73d08c0b" CreationDate="2018-04-02T10:26:41.753" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="&gt; Optimis facinoribus variis in conspectu omnium **praestandis** rex apud populum famam pietatis ac sapientiae possedit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is *praestandis* a gerund or gerundive or both?&#xD;&#xA;And does it matter for the translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6219" RevisionGUID="f7f85c32-89c3-4703-b1cc-7e0cc5ce80ec" CreationDate="2018-04-02T10:36:04.033" UserId="79" Text="The gerund is only used in the singular, so for that reason alone *praestandis* has to be a gerundive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerund is a verbal noun (and as a subject or object is replaced by the infinitive).&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive is a verbal adjective; it adapts its form to the gender, number, and case of whatever it modifies.&#xD;&#xA;There is no good analogue for this distinction in English, so typically a fluent translation to English shows no signs of whether a gerund or a gerundive was used.&#xD;&#xA;But to get the translation right it is important to understand the function of the gerund or gerundive in the sentence, and therefore the distinction is important to maintain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6220" RevisionGUID="bc023c2a-4a36-4a78-8423-553619865800" CreationDate="2018-04-02T11:53:13.690" UserId="1304" Text="_Applicatio,_ id est _programma informaticum cum interfacie ad utentes,_ ab omnibus facile intellegitur, mihique tantum sufficit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6221" RevisionGUID="11d59768-d212-47fa-96bf-a6f5bf0acdce" CreationDate="2018-04-02T13:23:53.250" UserId="297" Text="In the comments to an [answer involving the adjective _credulus_](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6215/what-is-gullible-in-latin) the question has arisen if this word is to be parsed as a diminutive, even if the form of which it would be a diminutive (say, *_credus_, like _fidus_) isn't attested. On the other hand, there are adjectives like _tremulus_ and especially [_sedulus_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=sedulus&amp;la=la&amp;can=sedulus0&amp;prior=rubicundulus#lexicon) that don't seem to involve a sense of smallness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is the _-ulus_ suffix in _credulus_ a trace of a diminutive or not? Is the answer the same for the other adjectives mentioned?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen that there are other questions on apparent diminutives ([_angulus_](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1932/is-angulus-a-diminutive), [_oculus_](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5963/what-is-oculus-a-diminutive-of), [_ulula_](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5385/is-ulula-a-diminutive)), but it doesn't seem that the answer to the present question can be extrapolated from those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20559" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6221" RevisionGUID="11d59768-d212-47fa-96bf-a6f5bf0acdce" CreationDate="2018-04-02T13:23:53.250" UserId="297" Text="Is _credulus_ a diminutive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20560" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6221" RevisionGUID="11d59768-d212-47fa-96bf-a6f5bf0acdce" CreationDate="2018-04-02T13:23:53.250" UserId="297" Text="|etymology|diminutive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6222" RevisionGUID="eb3bee47-7681-4675-906d-eb6b76f5e954" CreationDate="2018-04-02T13:31:03.857" UserId="13" Text="In 1972, [Greek composer Μάνος Χατζιδάκις](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manos_Hatzidakis) released an album called Ο Μεγάλος Ερωτικός. This album featured [a version of the Gongyla poem](http://stixo-mythia.blogspot.it/2010/11/blog-post_5355.html) (LP-Campbell 22 part 2, Edmonds 45, P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 15 - and 12 for LP-Campbell part 1) which, instead of filling the lacuna at the start of line 2 with [Ἄβ]ανθι (LP, Campbell, I guess Voigt too) or β[ρόδ]ανθι (Edmonds), proposed the perfect imperative π[έφ]ανθι. Interpretation problems aside (for which cfr., at a opportune time, [my blog post on this poem](http://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2017/12/gongyla-difficult-reconstruction.html)), I was wondering: where did this idea come from? Who proposed this restoration? Was it Manos himself who had an illumination from above and came up with this, or were there one or more critics who proposed it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20562" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6222" RevisionGUID="eb3bee47-7681-4675-906d-eb6b76f5e954" CreationDate="2018-04-02T13:31:03.857" UserId="13" Text="About the &quot;Gongyla poem&quot;: who proposed the perfect imperative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20563" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6222" RevisionGUID="eb3bee47-7681-4675-906d-eb6b76f5e954" CreationDate="2018-04-02T13:31:03.857" UserId="13" Text="|greek|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6223" RevisionGUID="07fbdc18-66db-472f-914d-ddd5d64fb0eb" CreationDate="2018-04-02T15:46:18.873" UserId="469" Text="Here I answer a my pending comments, and give an answer from the POV of current Catholic liturgy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good Friday is **Feria VI in Passione Domini**. This is the title given for the corresponding day in the [Roman Missal][1] (p. 313,) as well as the name used to refer to the day in every cross reference on it. Penelope is right if you consider older versions of the Missal, or look from the outside of Catholic liturgy. I was wrong in thinking parasceve was an exclusively Jewish term, however:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * The word *parasceve* does not occur a single time in the 2002 Missal (this excludes readings.)&#xD;&#xA;     * In the 1962 one (last *tridentine* version,) it is interchangeable with Passione Domini, and is used exclusively for Good Friday.&#xD;&#xA;     * In the Clementine Vulgate, *parasceve* occurs 6 times ([according to this][2].) and every time it refers to the day of the passion of the Lord in the sense it was the day of preparation of the Jewish passover.&#xD;&#xA; * The word *feria* as in feria secunda to feria sexta is common church Latin for weekdays (obviously names honouring pagan gods were inappropriate.) Only Saturday (*[sabbatum][3]*, from Hebrew) and Sunday (*dominica*) have *special* names. If *feria prima* was ever used to refer to Sunday, I can't find a single use in the Missal.&#xD;&#xA; * Hebdomada as n. for week, is accepted as per [L&amp;S][2]. It is equivalent to *hebdomas*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://media.musicasacra.com/books/latin_missal2002.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/vulsearch&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsabbatum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20565" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6221" RevisionGUID="aff6407a-0afb-4385-bde2-2a6c0b35c01c" CreationDate="2018-04-02T16:17:54.733" UserId="136" Comment="fixed minor formatting issue in title" Text="Is credulus a diminutive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6224" RevisionGUID="b548b82c-bffc-4b26-8418-f02eef17f871" CreationDate="2018-04-02T16:29:24.193" UserId="2514" Text="While asking [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6211/is-it-acceptable-regular-to-use-diacritics-macron-in-written-texts) where I was asking about building a brand name and motto using Latin, I realized that my choice of name is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you want to go with lux astrum or something similar, I recommend caution. The form astrum as a plural genitive is prone to misinterpretation. Especially some who have studied Latin are likely to mock it as a grammatical error, as the short form of the first and second declension plural genitive ending is not that well known. If people read astrum as singular (as was my first thought), lux astrum does not make sense. Therefore I recommend changing it to lux astrorum (&quot;light of stars&quot;) or lux astri (&quot;light of star&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- [Joonas Ilmavirta](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6213/2514)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question therefore becomes this: To avoid changing any material already created, **is there an acceptable translation for the phrase Lux Astrum, that doesn't stretch too much - i.e. can actually be considered correct form by a somebody with complete lack of relevant information?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20567" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6224" RevisionGUID="b548b82c-bffc-4b26-8418-f02eef17f871" CreationDate="2018-04-02T16:29:24.193" UserId="2514" Text="Is there any acceptable translation for &quot;Lux Astrum&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20568" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6224" RevisionGUID="b548b82c-bffc-4b26-8418-f02eef17f871" CreationDate="2018-04-02T16:29:24.193" UserId="2514" Text="|translation|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6223" RevisionGUID="1c88a70b-f49f-4e40-938a-de3627d53458" CreationDate="2018-04-02T16:42:14.037" UserId="469" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="Here I answer a my pending comments, and give an answer from the POV of current Catholic liturgy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good Friday is **Feria Sexta in Passione Domini**. This is the title given for the corresponding day in the [Roman Missal][1] (p. 313,) as well as the name used to refer to the day in every cross reference on it. Penelope is right if you consider older versions of the Missal, or look from the outside of Catholic liturgy. I was wrong in thinking parasceve was an exclusively Jewish term, however:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * The word *parasceve* does not occur a single time in the 2002 Missal (this excludes readings.)&#xD;&#xA;     * In the 1962 one (last *tridentine* version,) it is interchangeable with Passione Domini, and is used exclusively for Good Friday.&#xD;&#xA;     * In the Clementine Vulgate, *parasceve* occurs 6 times ([according to this][2].) and every time it refers to the day of the passion of the Lord in the sense it was the day of preparation of the Jewish passover.&#xD;&#xA; * The word **feria** as in feria secunda to feria sexta is common church Latin for weekdays (obviously names honouring pagan gods aren't quite appropriate.) Only Saturday (*[sabbatum][3]*, from Hebrew) and Sunday (*dominica* from... er... you guessed, *Dominus*) have *special* names. If *feria prima* was ever used to refer to Sunday, I can't find a single use in the Missal. So, answering that part of the question, calling it a Friday (feria VI) is not awkward at all.&#xD;&#xA; * Hebdomada as n. for week, is accepted as per [L&amp;S][2]. It is equivalent to *hebdomas*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://media.musicasacra.com/books/latin_missal2002.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/vulsearch&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsabbatum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6225" RevisionGUID="a472729a-9f41-47f8-9728-c287cacff5bc" CreationDate="2018-04-02T18:17:00.127" UserId="1304" Text="The question is very strange: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;can actually be considered correct form by a somebody with complete lack of relevant information?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those who completely lack any relevant information, i.e. don’t know Latin, are clueless and won’t question your wording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those who know some Latin know that this phrase is not “normal” Latin, and will mark it as incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those who have a very good knowledge of Latin might try to save the situation by remembering that there could possibly exist a secundary form _astrum,_ instead of the regular _astrorum,_ whence the translation “light of the stars”, or “starlight”. (I am not sure of the actual existence of such a form for the word _astrum,_ but let’s say it doesn’t matter...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is it. Ways out? I can think of three of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) ___Lux asterum___ does work and means “starlight”. It uses the word [_aster, -eris_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=aster&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) instead of _astrum, -i._ It is rare, but Macrobius used it with the meaning “star” and Plinius used it with the meaning [“aster”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aster_(genus)). Maybe you can superimpose the missing “e” somewhere above/between “t” and “r” in the existing material and call it an original graphic twist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) ___Lucis astrum___ does work and means “Star of light”, which is very close to the “bright star” you mentioned in your first question. This expression exists and was used in the Middle Ages in reference to the Virgin Mary (source: [Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi](https://books.google.it/books?id=7V-LbO4ECBQC&amp;dq=Analecta+hymnica+medii+aevi&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjxk-XFl5zaAhVH_KQKHUlGC1cQ6AEINjAC), II.,n. 58, 24: _nomen matris, lucis astrum, vel odoris alabastrum..._) Of course, it is difficult to transform “x” into “cis”...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) If J.K.Rowling could get away with _riddiculus,_ and a lot of similar “wrong” Latin expressions, you probably shouldn’t care either...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6222" RevisionGUID="1abc56cd-0013-489c-920f-e8ebd6989dcb" CreationDate="2018-04-02T22:16:31.157" UserId="13" Comment="added update" Text="In 1972, [Greek composer Μάνος Χατζιδάκις](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manos_Hatzidakis) released an album called Ο Μεγάλος Ερωτικός. This album featured [a version of the Gongyla poem](http://stixo-mythia.blogspot.it/2010/11/blog-post_5355.html) (LP-Campbell 22 part 2, Edmonds 45, P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 15 - and 12 for LP-Campbell part 1) which, instead of filling the lacuna at the start of line 2 with [Ἄβ]ανθι (LP, Campbell, I guess Voigt too) or β[ρόδ]ανθι (Edmonds), proposed the perfect imperative π[έφ]ανθι. Interpretation problems aside (for which cfr., at a opportune time, [my blog post on this poem](http://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2017/12/gongyla-difficult-reconstruction.html)), I was wondering: where did this idea come from? Who proposed this restoration? Was it Manos himself who had an illumination from above and came up with this, or were there one or more critics who proposed it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Googling the perfect imperative, I found out [Οδυσσέας Ελύτης](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odysseas_Elytis) translated all of Sappho to modern Greek in 1984 according to [this](http://texnografia.blogspot.it/2012/11/blog-post_22.html), and his text of the Gongyla poem had the perfect imperative (and the translation in the link of the 1972 musical version is in fact his). Now the dates suggest he wasn't responsible for the invention, but maybe he was in touch with Manos and they both had the text, perhaps they came up with it together or one of them came up with it and told the other one about it before Manos's disc was released?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6222" RevisionGUID="e839bd65-b483-4020-974a-133a711da568" CreationDate="2018-04-02T22:30:04.990" UserId="13" Comment="added update 2… and update 3 was so quick it couldn't be distinguished!" Text="In 1972, [Greek composer Μάνος Χατζιδάκις](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manos_Hatzidakis) released an album called Ο Μεγάλος Ερωτικός. This album featured [a version of the Gongyla poem](http://stixo-mythia.blogspot.it/2010/11/blog-post_5355.html) (LP-Campbell 22 part 2, Edmonds 45, P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 15 - and 12 for LP-Campbell part 1) which, instead of filling the lacuna at the start of line 2 with [Ἄβ]ανθι (LP, Campbell, I guess Voigt too) or β[ρόδ]ανθι (Edmonds), proposed the perfect imperative π[έφ]ανθι. Interpretation problems aside (for which cfr., at a opportune time, [my blog post on this poem](http://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2017/12/gongyla-difficult-reconstruction.html)), I was wondering: where did this idea come from? Who proposed this restoration? Was it Manos himself who had an illumination from above and came up with this, or were there one or more critics who proposed it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Googling the perfect imperative, I found out [Οδυσσέας Ελύτης](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odysseas_Elytis) translated all of Sappho to modern Greek in 1984 according to [this](http://texnografia.blogspot.it/2012/11/blog-post_22.html), and his text of the Gongyla poem had the perfect imperative (and the translation in the link of the 1972 musical version is in fact his). Now the dates suggest he wasn't responsible for the invention, but maybe he was in touch with Manos and they both had the text, perhaps they came up with it together or one of them came up with it and told the other one about it before Manos's disc was released?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further in the Google search, [here is](http://www.irenenavarra.it/index.php?pag=ssubact&amp;aut=saffo&amp;cat=traduzioni) that text again, with the following annotation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;L’interpretazione del testo segue l’accreditata traduzione di Gianfranco Nuzzo e l’apparato critico contenuto ne “L’amore in Grecia” di Claude Calame (Laterza, edizione 2015).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The interpretation of the text follows the credited translation by Gianfranco Nuzzo and the apparatus criticus contained in &quot;Love in Greece&quot; by Claude Calame (Laterza, 2015 edition).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the &quot;culprit&quot; for this perfect imperative appears to be Claude Calame. Now, I haven't found this book online, except as [a Google book](https://books.google.it/books/about/L_Amore_in_Grecia.html?id=HYqgAAAAMAAJ&amp;redir_esc=y) I cannot access, and I don't expect to find it in a nearby library, so does anyone have access to that book?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE 3**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scratch UPDATE 2. I mean, who is this ***** who posts a translation, then a Greek original that _blatantly does NOT_ match the translation (which indeed matches the Campbell text far better), and then an English version matching the Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6226" RevisionGUID="704f713f-22e9-4e5f-adfe-71425f58085f" CreationDate="2018-04-02T22:54:25.357" UserId="13" Text="Google search has finally paid off: it says [here](http://tinker-tinker-tinker.blogspot.it/2011/12/blog-post.html) that the culprit is [Παναγής Λεκατσάς](https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A0%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B3%CE%AE%CF%82_%CE%9B%CE%B5%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%84%CF%83%CE%AC%CF%82), a Greek «φιλόλογος και από τους θεμελιωτές της θρησκειολογίας και εθνολογίας στην Ελλάδα» (philologist and among the founders of religion and ethnology in Greece). Unfortunately, scribd has deleted his Sapphous Hapanta, formerly [here](https://www.scribd.com/doc/61731392/%CE%9B%CE%B5%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%84%CF%83%CE%AC%CF%82-%CE%A0%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B3%CE%AE%CF%82-%CE%A3%CE%B1%CF%80%CF%86%CE%BF%CF%8D%CF%82-%CE%86%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B1), but this is probably the inventor of the perfect imperative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, [this other site](http://lyk-lechain.ilei.sch.gr/lyklec/stuff/ancient/sap001.pdf) still has that book, and I am certainly going to look at the apparatus criticus and post it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh so the culprit is Wilamowitz, with Panagis following suit and spreading this text to Manos and Odisseas and thus to me via the internet. Case closed.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ynXpy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6227" RevisionGUID="b96c359e-fc34-4819-8888-0d2301c2053a" CreationDate="2018-04-03T06:04:10.267" UserId="2524" Text="What is a good Latin translation for No Rulers? Only thing I can find is Nec Principes. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20575" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6227" RevisionGUID="b96c359e-fc34-4819-8888-0d2301c2053a" CreationDate="2018-04-03T06:04:10.267" UserId="2524" Text="What is a good Latin translation for No Rulers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20576" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6227" RevisionGUID="b96c359e-fc34-4819-8888-0d2301c2053a" CreationDate="2018-04-03T06:04:10.267" UserId="2524" Text="|translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6224" RevisionGUID="33cb2e4c-251e-4c65-95d2-f3335726d3a8" CreationDate="2018-04-03T06:13:25.777" UserId="2514" Comment="Clarification on the question" Text="While asking [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6211/is-it-acceptable-regular-to-use-diacritics-macron-in-written-texts) where I was asking about building a brand name and motto using Latin, I realized that my choice of name is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you want to go with lux astrum or something similar, I recommend caution. The form astrum as a plural genitive is prone to misinterpretation. Especially some who have studied Latin are likely to mock it as a grammatical error, as the short form of the first and second declension plural genitive ending is not that well known. If people read astrum as singular (as was my first thought), lux astrum does not make sense. Therefore I recommend changing it to lux astrorum (&quot;light of stars&quot;) or lux astri (&quot;light of star&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- [Joonas Ilmavirta](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6213/2514)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question therefore becomes this: To avoid changing any material already created, **is there an acceptable translation for the phrase Lux Astrum, that doesn't stretch too much - i.e. can actually be considered correct form by somebody with complete lack of project-relevant information?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20578" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6227" RevisionGUID="27821927-abe5-43c3-a4c9-8ce6cacfb356" CreationDate="2018-04-03T07:58:31.397" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20579" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="6087" RevisionGUID="642b25a8-0b4c-4020-8a07-81ec5abb4c17" CreationDate="2018-04-03T09:57:38.777" UserId="79" Comment="72" />
  <row Id="20580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6223" RevisionGUID="5be7484f-ba6b-41d8-93c3-7ec267b5e402" CreationDate="2018-04-03T12:51:00.653" UserId="469" Comment="Corrected typo. Added details on feria prima. Changed to numbered list and other formatting" Text="Here I answer my pending comments, and give an answer from the POV of current Catholic liturgy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good Friday is **Feria Sexta in Passione Domini**. This is the title given for the corresponding day in the [Roman Missal][1] (p. 313,) as well as the name used to refer to the day in every cross reference on it. Penelope is right if you consider older versions of the Missal, or look from the outside of Catholic liturgy. I was wrong in thinking parasceve was an exclusively Jewish term, however:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The word *parasceve* does not occur a single time in the 2002 Missal (this excludes readings.)&#xD;&#xA;     * In the 1962 one (last *tridentine* version,) it is interchangeable with Passione Domini, and is used exclusively for Good Friday.&#xD;&#xA;     * In the Clementine Vulgate, *parasceve* occurs 6 times ([according to this][2].) and every time it refers to the day of the passion of the Lord in the sense it was the day of preparation of the Jewish passover.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The word **feria** as in feria secunda to feria sexta is common church Latin for weekdays (obviously names honouring pagan gods aren't quite appropriate.) Only Saturday (*[sabbatum][3]*, from Hebrew) and Sunday (*dominica* from... er... you guessed, *Dominus*) have *special* names.&#xD;&#xA;  * If *feria prima* was ever used to refer to Sunday, I can't find a single use in the Missal.&#xD;&#xA;  * Specific Sundays (like the day of the Resurrection) in the Gospels are called *prima sabbati*, the first day after Saturday, possibly omitting *feria*. Its morning is also called *mane prima sabbati* where *mane* could be acting either [as a noun or as an adverb][4]. This sounds like a precedent of *feria prima* that was quickly replaced by *dies Domini(ca)* and did't survive in liturgy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So, answering that part of the question, **calling Good Friday a Friday** (feria VI) **is not awkward at all**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Hebdomada as n. for week, is accepted as per [L&amp;S][2]. It is equivalent to *hebdomas*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://media.musicasacra.com/books/latin_missal2002.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/vulsearch&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsabbatum&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmane" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6228" RevisionGUID="64a544cb-e7b6-45f9-a26e-27e5b5d5218b" CreationDate="2018-04-03T13:20:36.937" UserId="2525" Text="Maybe this is what you are searching for?&#xD;&#xA;Collatinus:&#xD;&#xA;http://outils.biblissima.fr/en/collatinus/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6225" RevisionGUID="1e3b1989-d340-4cdd-8747-a1c1c8b8d591" CreationDate="2018-04-03T13:48:32.547" UserId="1304" Comment="adapted to edited text of question" Text="&gt;can actually be considered correct form by somebody with complete lack of project-relevant information?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those who don’t know Latin are clueless and won’t question your wording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those who know some Latin know that this phrase is not “normal” Latin, and will mark it as incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those who have a very good knowledge of Latin might try to save the situation by remembering that there could possibly exist a secundary form _astrum,_ instead of the regular _astrorum,_ whence the translation “light of the stars”, or “starlight”. (I am not sure of the actual existence of such a form for the word _astrum,_ but let’s say it doesn’t matter...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is it. Ways out? I can think of three of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) ___Lux asterum___ does work and means “starlight”. It uses the word [_aster, -eris_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=aster&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) instead of _astrum, -i._ It is rare, but Macrobius used it with the meaning “star” and Plinius used it with the meaning [“aster”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aster_(genus)). Maybe you can superimpose the missing “e” somewhere above/between “t” and “r” in the existing material and call it an original graphic twist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) ___Lucis astrum___ does work and means “Star of light”, which is very close to the “bright star” you mentioned in your first question. This expression exists and was used in the Middle Ages in reference to the Virgin Mary (source: [Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi](https://books.google.it/books?id=7V-LbO4ECBQC&amp;dq=Analecta+hymnica+medii+aevi&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjxk-XFl5zaAhVH_KQKHUlGC1cQ6AEINjAC), II.,n. 58, 24: _nomen matris, lucis astrum, vel odoris alabastrum..._) Of course, it is difficult to transform “x” into “cis”...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) If J.K.Rowling could get away with _riddiculus,_ and a lot of similar “wrong” Latin expressions, you probably shouldn’t care either...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6229" RevisionGUID="3b191903-44f1-4f43-a110-6622f056c829" CreationDate="2018-04-03T13:50:20.490" UserId="645" Text="I think the appropriate word for 'rulers' here is *domini*. Assuming your mood to be imperative, you could simply say *Domini absint* : 'let there be no rulers  here'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or you might address those whom you wish to ban by following Virgil's *procul, o procul este profani* (loosely, 'begone, begone, you who don't belong here') with *o procul este domini*, 'be off with you rulers'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6230" RevisionGUID="dca0bbd7-bced-46f0-866d-7358d0ee4cde" CreationDate="2018-04-03T13:53:37.190" UserId="79" Text="Various words for professions end in -logist or -nomist.&#xD;&#xA;These seem to come from the Greek words *logos* and *nomos* and the suffix *-istes*.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes they can both appear with the same initial segment (astrologist/astronomist or arologist/agronomist), but the meaning is often different.&#xD;&#xA;However, the differences in meaning appear inconsistent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did the ancient Greeks have both -logists and -nomists?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, what was the difference?&#xD;&#xA;I know that the underlying two nouns are different, but I am specifically looking for differences between the corresponding derivations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20585" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6230" RevisionGUID="dca0bbd7-bced-46f0-866d-7358d0ee4cde" CreationDate="2018-04-03T13:53:37.190" UserId="79" Text="Comparing -logists and -nomists" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20586" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6230" RevisionGUID="dca0bbd7-bced-46f0-866d-7358d0ee4cde" CreationDate="2018-04-03T13:53:37.190" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|greek|profession|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4604" RevisionGUID="ec49f76e-0be7-4be4-89eb-33fa07c9cb78" CreationDate="2018-04-03T14:02:46.267" UserId="13" Comment="added update" Text="**Cross-post notice**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A week ago, I asked [the exact same question](https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/2704/who-put-forward-this-completion-to-sappho-94-and-what-is-it-actually-supposed-t) (modulo the title) on Literature. It was met with an uproar of upvotes (alliteration casual, 9 upvotes), but not answers. I discussed the matter with [Literature meta](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/763/my-sappho-questions-best-way-to-handle) and on [this site's CONLOQVIVM chatroom](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/38188833#38188833), and I was recommended to cross-post, so I am copy-pasting the question here to see if it gets an answer here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The question**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Sappho 94 (τεθνάκην δ' ἀδόλως θέλω), there is this tercet at ll. 25-27, which is very incomplete, which [Edmonds](https://ia600209.us.archive.org/25/items/lyragraecabeing00edmogoog/lyragraecabeing00edmogoog.pdf) doesn't even have, and which [Bibliotheca Augustana](https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/graeca/Chronologia/S_ante06/Sappho/sap_me05.html) and [Campbell p. 69](https://www.scribd.com/doc/34720745/Sappho-and-Alcaeus-Loeb) both read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κωὔτε τις [^ ^ οὔ]τε τι&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ἶρων οὐδ᾽ ὐ[^ – ^ ^&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      ἔπλετ᾽, ὄππ[οθεν ἄμ]μες ἀπέσκομεν·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wharton](https://ia802704.us.archive.org/22/items/sapphomemoirtex00bunngoog/sapphomemoirtex00bunngoog.pdf) seems to not even have the fragment, just like [Bergk](https://ia600207.us.archive.org/18/items/poetaelyricigrae00berguoft/poetaelyricigrae00berguoft.pdf). [Diehl p. 49](https://ia600201.us.archive.org/0/items/supplementumlyri00diehuoft/supplementumlyri00diehuoft.pdf) also has an incomplete (in fact, even more incomplete than the others) version. Can't seem to get ahold of Voigt online. Then safopoemas. This weird doc full of horrid typos, which is no longer available at [the link it was at](http://www.b3ta.cr3ation.co.uk/data/doc/safopoemas.doc), which is now broken, but can be found as a pdf [here](http://ftp.utalca.cl/intercambio/plataforma/lgc/Dani/Libros/Para%20imprimir/Poemas_completos_Safo.pdf), with the same garbage typos as the doc version, and is based on a Spanish edition of Sappho, has this semi-garbage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χωΰτε τις[λόγος οδ]τε τι Τρον ούδ' ύ[δατος ρ6χ]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ϊπλετ' όπ π [όθεν Εμ]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;μες άπέσχομεν&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very messy, but it allows us to almost complete the above as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κωὔτε τις [λόγος οὔ]τε τι&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ἶρον οὐδ᾽ ὔ[δατος †ρ6χ†&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      ἔπλετ᾽, ὄππ[οθεν ἄμ]μες ἀπέσκομεν·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The safopoemas translation reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Y no hubo colina profana | And there was no sacred hill&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;o sagrada, ni fuentes de aguas | Or profane, nor springs of water&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a donde no hayamos ido | Where we haven't gone to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tells us that `λόγος` is probably a typo/mojibake for `λόφος`, given by [LSJ as quoted by Perseus's Greek Word Study Tool](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=lofos&amp;la=greek#lexicon) as various things including `crest of a hill`, and that the incomprehensible `ρ6χ` must somehow mean `spring`. I looked for all possible combinations of vowels substituted for the 6 and endings, and found nothing on Perseus, but found [`ραχία`](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=raxia&amp;la=greek), `flood-tide`, on the Rocci dictionary. Not too fitting, but maybe. Back in the days when I translated Sappho, I had temporarily settled for `ῥέον`, but now I guess a better way to do this would be `ῥόος`, both meaning `stream` and keeping the initial consonant and possibly a vowel. Analysing other fragments in that safopoemas, 6 is almost certainly an omicron, and the chi could be a kappa, so we could have `ροχ` or `ροκ`, neither of which yields anything interesting on Perseus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked around for another source for this completion (possibly Reinach, which this document claims to be following in the [quote at the other post](https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/2704/who-put-forward-this-completion-to-sappho-94-and-what-is-it-actually-supposed-t)), but was unable to find any. So my question is: what was this reconstruction supposed to look like, and who proposed it, and of course, how supported is this amongst critics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at Voigt, I still have λόφος (admitting that is what it was) unsourced, but ρ6χ might be the ῤόα (river, stream, =ῥοή) reported by Voigt as &quot;Edm. '27 18&quot;, that is… Edmonds? But Edmonds' text stops at the preceding verse… then again, my Edmonds dates 1922, and here I read &quot;'27&quot;, so was there a second edition by Edmonds in 1927 where this was suggested?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, looking better, I see χόρος suggested by &quot;Dl.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; p. 223&quot;, which I assume means on page 223 of a &quot;D[ieh]l&quot; edition, though the &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; is wholly obscure to me. Could a terrible OCR actually turn χόρος to λόγος, thus leading me to misinterpret it as λόφος, and giving the &quot;Spaniards' completion&quot; a source at last?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6230" RevisionGUID="41657843-5a21-4153-872a-c67271a2e9e0" CreationDate="2018-04-03T15:10:28.430" UserId="79" Comment="added 85 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Various words for professions end in -logist or -nomist.&#xD;&#xA;I hope I do not do terrible injustice by treating -nomer as a synonym for -nomist.&#xD;&#xA;These seem to come from the Greek words *logos* and *nomos* and the suffix *-istes*.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes they can both appear with the same initial segment (astrologist/astronomist or agrologist/agronomist), but the meaning is often different.&#xD;&#xA;However, the differences in meaning appear inconsistent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did the ancient Greeks have both -logists and -nomists?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, what was the difference?&#xD;&#xA;I know that the underlying two nouns are different, but I am specifically looking for differences between the corresponding derivations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20589" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6230" RevisionGUID="41657843-5a21-4153-872a-c67271a2e9e0" CreationDate="2018-04-03T15:10:28.430" UserId="79" Comment="added 85 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|etymology|greek|occupation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6230" RevisionGUID="0ddbbc3c-2cd7-44d3-ae75-07cb587ce2a4" CreationDate="2018-04-03T16:48:01.857" UserId="79" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="Various words for professions end in -logist or -nomist.&#xD;&#xA;I hope I do not do terrible injustice by treating -nomer as a synonym for -nomist.&#xD;&#xA;These seem to come from the Greek words *logos* and *nomos* and the suffix *-istes*.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes they can both appear with the same initial segment (astrologist/astronomist or agrologist/agronomist or ecologist/economist), but the meaning is often different.&#xD;&#xA;However, the differences in meaning appear inconsistent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did the ancient Greeks have both -logists and -nomists?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, what was the difference?&#xD;&#xA;I know that the underlying two nouns are different, but I am specifically looking for differences between the corresponding derivations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6231" RevisionGUID="8c09eeac-5708-4c12-80f8-c7d75fe8592a" CreationDate="2018-04-03T22:38:55.057" UserId="1182" Text="The most likely answer is that 'Ulixes' arrived in Rome (so to speak) before the Odyssey did.  In Franz Altheim's _[A History of Roman Religion][1]_, he writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Older still [*than the fifth-century BC legend of Aeneas*] was the appearance of Odysseus in Italy.  Even in Rome Odysseus is an early figure. All the more significant is it that he cannot have got there by means of the Homeric epic.  The form of the name, Ulixes, shows that possibly the Messapians, certainly Illyrian tribes, were the intermediaries.  Their homes were in the immediate neighbourhood of the home of Odysseus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also of note, the [Liddell–Scott–Jones dictionary][2] gives variant forms of the name that were found in the original Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (also Οὐλιξεύς Hdn. Gr.1.14, Οὐλίξης prob. in Ibyc. ap. Diom.p.321 K., Ὀλυσεύς, Ὀλυσσεύς, Ὀλυτεύς, Ὀλυττεύς, Ὀλισεύς, Ὠλυσσεύς Kretschmer Griech.Vaseninschr.pp.146,147, al.; cf. Ὀλισσεῖδαι, οἱ, a φάτρα (q. v.) at Thebes and Argos, prob. in IG7.3659, Mnemos.43.372, 47.164)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Roman transliteration those would be Ulixeus, Ulixes, Olyseus, Olysseus, Olyteus, Olytteus, Oliseus, and Ōlysseus, with a reference to some people called 'the Olissidae'—suggesting that the Latin forms are not as farfetched of variants as they might seem at face value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the poem, Lewis and Short only list its Latin name as '[Odyssea][3]', an ordinary transliteration of Ὀδυσσεία.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.281794/2015.281794.A-History#page/n49/mode/2up/search/ulixes&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#%E1%BD%88%CE%B4%CF%85%CF%83%CF%83%CE%B5%CF%8D%CF%82&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#Odyssea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="9e254da3-45a7-4f3e-bd92-6530e4a62569" CreationDate="2018-04-04T03:28:21.423" UserId="9" Text="There was a question a little while back on the English SE asking about the &quot;[plural form of i.e.][1]&quot; (unfortunately, it got closed because the author didn't clarify what they meant).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I was trying to answer that question, I faced the problem of not being familar with exactly how &quot;id est&quot; is and has been used in Latin. I know it is the source of the abbreviation &quot;i.e.&quot; that is commonly used in English texts today; it also seems to be equivalent in general to the English expression &quot;that is&quot;. As I say in my answer post, my understanding is that the Latin expression, like the English one, is invariant in form, although at the time I was only able to find one example of &quot;id est&quot; being used between two plural noun phrases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To increase my confidence in my answer there, I thought I'd just ask a more general question here: are there any differences in usage to be aware of between Latin &quot;id est&quot; and English &quot;that is&quot;? If there are any differences in the usage of &quot;id est&quot; between different periods of Latin, I would also be interested in learning about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/431740/plural-form-of-i-e" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20593" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="9e254da3-45a7-4f3e-bd92-6530e4a62569" CreationDate="2018-04-04T03:28:21.423" UserId="9" Text="Is the usage of &quot;id est&quot; in Latin exactly like the usage of &quot;i.e.&quot; or &quot;that is&quot; in English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20594" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="9e254da3-45a7-4f3e-bd92-6530e4a62569" CreationDate="2018-04-04T03:28:21.423" UserId="9" Text="|vocabulary|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6233" RevisionGUID="2f080a4e-d33e-4dc5-a3d8-4bb8a25b6686" CreationDate="2018-04-04T07:11:25.927" UserId="2524" Text="Does this actually translate to we gather strength as we go, or, he gathers strength as he goes, or he gathers strength along the way? This is part of a possible tattoo design so obviously I need clarification. :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20596" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6233" RevisionGUID="2f080a4e-d33e-4dc5-a3d8-4bb8a25b6686" CreationDate="2018-04-04T07:11:25.927" UserId="2524" Text="Does Vires acquirit eundo translate to &quot;He gathers...&quot; or &quot;We gather...&quot; ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20597" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6233" RevisionGUID="2f080a4e-d33e-4dc5-a3d8-4bb8a25b6686" CreationDate="2018-04-04T07:11:25.927" UserId="2524" Text="|vocabulary|translation|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6234" RevisionGUID="db41b3d4-970d-4c7f-bc9b-9e62d18b448a" CreationDate="2018-04-04T07:26:04.980" UserId="13" Text="Here is the relevant part of Voigt's apparatus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The λόγος, which I amended to λόφος, is the suggestion of χόρος by &quot;Dl.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; p. 223&quot;, i.e. p. 223 of Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, second edition (1936), by Diehl; I guess the corruption is due to a very bad OCR software that scanned the image and terribly misinterpreted it; see the black rectangle;&#xD;&#xA; - The ρ6χ, which I amended to ῥόος/ῥέον, was the suggestion of ῥόα=ῥοή by &quot;Edm. '27, 18&quot;, that is (p. 18 of?): see the red rectangles;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ms8OD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zq5HV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6227" RevisionGUID="a23ad8fc-cd8b-40d0-9f06-b207ef50dac3" CreationDate="2018-04-04T10:04:58.950" UserId="79" Comment="added 24 characters in body; edited tags" Text="What is a good Latin translation for &quot;No Rulers&quot; as an isolated motto? Only thing I can find is *Nec Principes*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20600" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6227" RevisionGUID="a23ad8fc-cd8b-40d0-9f06-b207ef50dac3" CreationDate="2018-04-04T10:04:58.950" UserId="79" Comment="added 24 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation-check|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6233" RevisionGUID="0a6c4223-59f0-47f0-a5d9-63b88a42233c" CreationDate="2018-04-04T10:08:05.663" UserId="79" Comment="added 24 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Does *Vires acquirit eundo* actually translate to &quot;we gather strength as we go&quot;, or, &quot;he gathers strength as he goes&quot;, or &quot;he gathers strength along the way&quot;? This is part of a possible tattoo design so obviously I need clarification. :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20602" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6233" RevisionGUID="0a6c4223-59f0-47f0-a5d9-63b88a42233c" CreationDate="2018-04-04T10:08:05.663" UserId="79" Comment="added 24 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Does Vires acquirit eundo translate to &quot;He gathers...&quot; or &quot;We gather...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20603" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6233" RevisionGUID="0a6c4223-59f0-47f0-a5d9-63b88a42233c" CreationDate="2018-04-04T10:08:05.663" UserId="79" Comment="added 24 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|vocabulary|sentence-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6235" RevisionGUID="c01626ec-c383-4c71-b5f6-9c23e7a882d9" CreationDate="2018-04-04T10:31:54.993" UserId="79" Text="The phrase could be translated literally as &quot;he/she/it gathers strength by going&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;English and Latin have different grammatical structures available, so a direct translation isn't a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;Both &quot;he gathers strength as he goes&quot; and &quot;he gathers strength along the way&quot; are good translations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The for *acquirit* is third person singular, but no pronoun is present.&#xD;&#xA;The subject can be understood as &quot;he&quot;, &quot;she&quot;, &quot;it&quot;, or similar, but not &quot;we&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Originally the subject is &quot;it&quot; or &quot;she&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us take a look at the phrase in it's original context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Extemplo Libyae magnas it Fama per urbes—  &#xD;&#xA;Fama, malum qua non aliud velocius ullum;  &#xD;&#xA;mobilitate viget, **vires**que **adquirit eundo**,  &#xD;&#xA;parva metu primo, mox sese attollit in auras,  &#xD;&#xA;ingrediturque solo, et caput inter nubila condit&amp;hellip;  &#xD;&#xA;([Vergilius, *Aeneis* IV.173&amp;ndash;177](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0055%3Abook%3D4%3Acard%3D173))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If used in isolation, it makes sense to drop the enclitic *-que* which means &quot;and&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There are spelling differences in different editions.&#xD;&#xA;Some have *viris* instead of *vires* and some *adquirit* instead of *acquirit*.&#xD;&#xA;Your choice *vires acquirit eundo* represents a typical modern spelling choice of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same site has an [English translation by Theodore C. Williams, 1910](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0054%3Abook%3D4%3Acard%3D173):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Swift through the Libyan cities Rumor sped.  &#xD;&#xA;Rumor! What evil can surpass her speed?  &#xD;&#xA;In movement she grows mighty, and achieves  &#xD;&#xA;strength and dominion as she swifter flies&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage describes the personified Rumor, who grows bigger and stronger as she goes across the land from mouth to mouth.&#xD;&#xA;So, while in isolation your phrase can be taken legitimately as &quot;he gathers strength along the way&quot;, it can also be interpreted as a shorthand for &quot;rumors grow when they spread&quot; or something similar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6236" RevisionGUID="24207857-01d6-4b01-b0bd-549b89848250" CreationDate="2018-04-04T11:01:48.107" UserId="79" Text="Do we know why the Greek letter [digamma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digamma) (*&amp;#989;*) fell out of use?&#xD;&#xA;The letter continued to have indirect effects despite disappearing from writing.&#xD;&#xA;Was it still pronounced despite not being written, or did it perhaps stop being written precisely because it was no longer pronounced?&#xD;&#xA;I currently have practically no understanding of the circumstances surrounding the extinction of this letter, and any increase would be welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20606" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6236" RevisionGUID="24207857-01d6-4b01-b0bd-549b89848250" CreationDate="2018-04-04T11:01:48.107" UserId="79" Text="The disappearance of digamma" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20607" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6236" RevisionGUID="24207857-01d6-4b01-b0bd-549b89848250" CreationDate="2018-04-04T11:01:48.107" UserId="79" Text="|greek|language-evolution|alphabet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6237" RevisionGUID="75a86c51-2f8f-478a-b2f5-90b895247d88" CreationDate="2018-04-04T11:13:27.367" UserId="324" Text="The phoneme /w/ survived in some Greek dialects (Doric, Aeolic and others) but not in Ionic/Attic. It is written in inscriptions, but not (for example) in the manuscripts of Pindar (Doric) or in the surviving fragments of Sappho (Aeolic), which are written with the signs of the Ionic alphabet. In the Hellenistic period all spoken Greek dialects (including Attic) were pushed aside by Koine, which had lost /w/ in all positions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20610" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="6177" RevisionGUID="ae598e5a-c1d7-41ba-9762-2f2554021704" CreationDate="2018-04-04T14:41:58.760" UserId="81" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:81,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Pé de Leão&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6196" RevisionGUID="7780d38a-0815-4d2e-9588-c1c15184b48d" CreationDate="2018-04-04T16:16:47.087" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I need to ask for a check on the correctness of the Latin translations I have, to see whether they are correct in context with the English phrases I had translated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Animae celare bestias exiguae laxis vestibus illicitus est. This is translated from - It is forbidden to conceal beasts of little intellect within the folds of your garment. This is spoken by a saint to a man who wants to take up holy orders but is attempting to smuggle animals into the monastery.&#xD;&#xA;2. Nam eum hinc ferunt. Translated from - For they beareth him hence. This refers to a group of men carrying another man away from danger.&#xD;&#xA;3. Diabolo se agnosci non placet. Translated from - The Devil does not like to be recognised. &#xD;&#xA;4. Nam idem quod eos edit edunt. Translated from - For they eateth that which eateth them. Refers to people who eat things which are capable of eating them, such as worms and parasites.&#xD;&#xA;5. Ferens infantes exit. Translated from - It came out carrying infants. Refers to a sinister old woman emerging from a small cottage carrying infants under her arms. I have also been given - Ferens infantes emersit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any help in this matter!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20612" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6196" RevisionGUID="7780d38a-0815-4d2e-9588-c1c15184b48d" CreationDate="2018-04-04T16:16:47.087" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5800" RevisionGUID="7c75a082-ef89-4707-b848-a96cbcb9d6e7" CreationDate="2018-04-04T16:18:29.750" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am on a quest to create a new last name for myself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like the idea of &quot;wildcard,&quot; particularly in the computing sense: as a placeholder for anything, however I want something that sounds more like a last name than just using &quot;wildcard.&quot; (I also don't want my name to be poor translation, like a regrettable tattoo of a Chinese character that actually means &quot;spicy chicken.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is, does the following capture my intention?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Feracarta** or **Cartafera**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the searching I've done, &quot;fera&quot; seems to more commonly refer to wild animals in particular, rather than a more general wild: &quot;ferox,&quot; which seems like more of the meaning I'd like to capture (headstrong, courageous, fierce), but &quot;ferox&quot; does not combine together as well into a name, in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't been able to find &quot;carta&quot; in a Latin dictionary, but it came up in the the etymology of &quot;card&quot; on Google, so that part could be totally incorrect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20614" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5800" RevisionGUID="7c75a082-ef89-4707-b848-a96cbcb9d6e7" CreationDate="2018-04-04T16:18:29.750" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|translation-check|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="c0e0179a-97df-4dc4-8a49-95f0b9327c1f" CreationDate="2018-04-04T21:28:20.780" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged. Feel free to reretag if you disagree!" Text="There was a question a little while back on the English SE asking about the &quot;[plural form of i.e.][1]&quot; (unfortunately, it got closed because the author didn't clarify what they meant).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I was trying to answer that question, I faced the problem of not being familiar with exactly how &quot;id est&quot; is and has been used in Latin. I know it is the source of the abbreviation &quot;i.e.&quot; that is commonly used in English texts today; it also seems to be equivalent in general to the English expression &quot;that is&quot;. As I say in my answer post, my understanding is that the Latin expression, like the English one, is invariant in form, although at the time I was only able to find one example of &quot;id est&quot; being used between two plural noun phrases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To increase my confidence in my answer there, I thought I'd just ask a more general question here: are there any differences in usage to be aware of between Latin &quot;id est&quot; and English &quot;that is&quot;? If there are any differences in the usage of &quot;id est&quot; between different periods of Latin, I would also be interested in learning about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/431740/plural-form-of-i-e" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20616" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="c0e0179a-97df-4dc4-8a49-95f0b9327c1f" CreationDate="2018-04-04T21:28:20.780" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged. Feel free to reretag if you disagree!" Text="|vocabulary|idiom|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6239" RevisionGUID="ece53946-e0dc-473a-ab4d-72b5f48c8101" CreationDate="2018-04-05T10:20:56.737" UserId="1133" Text="The question is whether the phrase (a) denies there being more than one faith or (b) excludes there being any other means of salvation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BACKGROUND**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am [assuming][1] that the phrase is intended to accomplish (b).  To express that in English, one might have to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;only by means of faith&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;sōlā fidē&quot; on the surface looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;by means of faith whose number is one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which would not exclude any other means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for clarity, let me offer this analogy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) The screw can be tightened with a screw driver, of which there is but one instance (but there may be any number of other means to tighten a screw).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) The screw can be tightened only with a screw driver (but there may be any number of screw drivers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer I expect might look like one of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Sōlus&quot; generally qualifies the noun and sets its number at one, and &quot;sōlā fidē&quot; is no exception.  That is, the only thing &quot;sōlā&quot; does in it is to set the number of faith at one, i.e. (a) above.  If some Christians use it to exclude other means, i.e. (b), that is done through something other than strict meaning.  For example, &quot;sōlā fidē&quot; has become a slogan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Sōlus&quot; generally qualifies the noun and sets its number at one, but in some rare cases the word (as it were) comes out of the ablative context and qualifies the whole phrase to achieve the exclusion of other means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Sōlus&quot; generally has two functions, setting the number of the qualified noun at one or (as it were from outside the ablative context) exclude the availability of other means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20626" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6239" RevisionGUID="ece53946-e0dc-473a-ab4d-72b5f48c8101" CreationDate="2018-04-05T10:20:56.737" UserId="1133" Text="How &quot;sōlā fidē&quot; means what it is supposed to mean" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20627" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6239" RevisionGUID="ece53946-e0dc-473a-ab4d-72b5f48c8101" CreationDate="2018-04-05T10:20:56.737" UserId="1133" Text="|meaning|ablative-absolute|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6239" RevisionGUID="abc1d8c6-3331-4ae7-bf9e-8ac1de5635a2" CreationDate="2018-04-05T10:31:33.417" UserId="1133" Comment="added 403 characters in body" Text="The question is whether the phrase (a) denies there being more than one faith or (b) excludes there being any other means of salvation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BACKGROUND**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am [assuming][1] that the phrase is intended to accomplish (b).  To express that in English, one might have to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;only by means of faith&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;sōlā fidē&quot; on the surface looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;by means of faith whose number is one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which would not exclude any other means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for clarity, let me offer this analogy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) The screw can be tightened with a screw driver, of which there is but one instance (but there may be any number of other means to tighten a screw).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) The screw can be tightened only with a screw driver (but there may be any number of screw drivers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer I expect might look like one of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Sōlus&quot; generally qualifies the noun and sets its number at one, and &quot;sōlā fidē&quot; is no exception.  That is, the only thing &quot;sōlā&quot; does in it is to set the number of faith at one, i.e. (a) above.  If some Christians use it to exclude other means, i.e. (b), that is done through something other than strict meaning.  For example, &quot;sōlā fidē&quot; has become a slogan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Sōlus&quot; generally qualifies the noun and sets its number at one, but in some rare cases the word (as it were) comes out of the ablative context and qualifies the whole phrase to achieve the exclusion of other means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Sōlus&quot; generally has two functions, setting the number of the qualified noun at one or (as it were from outside the ablative context) exclude the availability of other means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ADDENDUM**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or maybe I am totally wrong to be fixated on the number of anything?  Perhaps &quot;sōlus&quot; here just means &quot;unaccompanied&quot; and the whole phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;by means of faith that is unaccompanied by anything else&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so the phrase in and of itself would allow there being any number of faiths and any number of means of salvation, but simply assert that faith unaccompanied by anything is *a* means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6239" RevisionGUID="40e1a74b-751a-40b1-85b2-2782a12bddbf" CreationDate="2018-04-05T10:38:22.377" UserId="1133" Comment="added 403 characters in body" Text="The question is whether the phrase (a) denies there being more than one faith or (b) excludes there being any other means of salvation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BACKGROUND**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am [assuming][1] that the phrase is intended to accomplish (b).  To express that in English, one might have to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;only by means of faith&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;sōlā fidē&quot; on the surface looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;by means of faith whose number is one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which would not exclude any other means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for clarity, let me offer this analogy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) The screw can be tightened with a screw driver, of which there is but one instance (but there may be any number of other means to tighten a screw).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) The screw can be tightened only with a screw driver (but there may be any number of screw drivers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer I expect might look like one of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Sōlus&quot; generally qualifies the noun and sets its number at one, and &quot;sōlā fidē&quot; is no exception.  That is, the only thing &quot;sōlā&quot; does in it is to set the number of faith at one, i.e. (a) above.  If some Christians use it to exclude other means, i.e. (b), that is done through something other than strict meaning.  For example, &quot;sōlā fidē&quot; has become a slogan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Sōlus&quot; generally qualifies the noun and sets its number at one, but in some rare cases the word (as it were) comes out of the ablative context and qualifies the whole phrase to achieve the exclusion of other means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Sōlus&quot; generally has two functions, setting the number of the qualified noun at one or (as it were from outside the ablative context) exclude the availability of other means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ADDENDUM**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or maybe I am totally wrong to be fixated on the number of anything?  Perhaps &quot;sōlus&quot; here just means &quot;unaccompanied&quot; and the whole phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;by means of faith that is unaccompanied by anything else&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so the phrase in and of itself would allow there being any number of faiths and any number of means of salvation, but simply assert that faith unaccompanied by anything is *a* means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this view, &quot;sōlī Deō glōria&quot; too would just mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;glory to god as unaccompanied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is to say, you can separately give glory to to your own nose.  Just don't give it to god and your nose together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In sum, &quot;sōlus&quot; seems to be doing a job that it cannot do if it is confined to qualifying the noun either as to its number or state of being accompanied or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6240" RevisionGUID="4c43529f-98ba-4885-b489-69b8a90462c3" CreationDate="2018-04-05T11:17:13.640" UserId="79" Text="The word [*solus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=solus1&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is a little ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;While it has been discussed before ([here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1120/79) and [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/992/79)), the topic is certainly not exhausted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of several translations of *sola fide*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;By means of the only faith  &#xD;&#xA;Only by means of (a) faith  &#xD;&#xA;By means of (a/the) lonely faith&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison, observe the effect of articles in the following, all of which could look the same in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Only faith can save you.  &#xD;&#xA;The only faith can save you.  &#xD;&#xA;Only the faith can save you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only context will tell how to parse *sola*.&#xD;&#xA;This is somewhat similar to how *summus mons* can mean the highest mountain or the highest peak of a single mountain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your option 3 is closest to truth in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;The word just has several meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:&#xD;&#xA;You tagged the question as [tag:ablativus-absolutus], but I think this is instrumental rather than absolute ablative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6239" RevisionGUID="b66020cb-916b-4c8b-9785-93be7b691857" CreationDate="2018-04-05T11:19:13.380" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The question is whether the phrase (a) denies there being more than one faith or (b) excludes there being any other means of salvation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BACKGROUND**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am [assuming][1] that the phrase is intended to accomplish (b).  To express that in English, one might have to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;only by means of faith&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;sōlā fidē&quot; on the surface looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;by means of faith whose number is one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which would not exclude any other means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for clarity, let me offer this analogy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) The screw can be tightened with a screw driver, of which there is but one instance (but there may be any number of other means to tighten a screw).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(b) The screw can be tightened only with a screw driver (but there may be any number of screw drivers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer I expect might look like one of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Sōlus&quot; generally qualifies the noun and sets its number at one, and &quot;sōlā fidē&quot; is no exception.  That is, the only thing &quot;sōlā&quot; does in it is to set the number of faith at one, i.e. (a) above.  If some Christians use it to exclude other means, i.e. (b), that is done through something other than strict meaning.  For example, &quot;sōlā fidē&quot; has become a slogan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Sōlus&quot; generally qualifies the noun and sets its number at one, but in some rare cases the word (as it were) comes out of the ablative context and qualifies the whole phrase to achieve the exclusion of other means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Sōlus&quot; generally has two functions, setting the number of the qualified noun at one or (as it were from outside the ablative context) exclude the availability of other means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ADDENDUM**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or maybe I am totally wrong to be fixated on the number of anything?  Perhaps &quot;sōlus&quot; here just means &quot;unaccompanied&quot; and the whole phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;by means of faith that is unaccompanied by anything else&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so the phrase in and of itself would allow there being any number of faiths and any number of means of salvation, but simply assert that faith unaccompanied by anything is *a* means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this view, &quot;sōlī Deō glōria&quot; too would just mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;glory to god as unaccompanied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is to say, you can separately give glory to to your own nose.  Just don't give it to god and your nose together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In sum, &quot;sōlus&quot; seems to be doing a job that it cannot do if it is confined to qualifying the noun either as to its number or state of being accompanied or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20632" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6239" RevisionGUID="b66020cb-916b-4c8b-9785-93be7b691857" CreationDate="2018-04-05T11:19:13.380" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|meaning|christianity|ambiguity|ablative-absolute|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6240" RevisionGUID="17ad898b-f9f5-4bd9-a432-eed5ef86680f" CreationDate="2018-04-05T15:28:19.370" UserId="79" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="The word [*solus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=solus1&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is a little ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;While it has been discussed before ([here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1120/79) and [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/992/79)), the topic is certainly not exhausted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of several translations of *sola fide*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;By means of the only faith  &#xD;&#xA;Only by means of (a) faith  &#xD;&#xA;By means of (a/the) lonely faith&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison, observe the effect of articles in the following, all of which could look the same in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Only faith can save you.  &#xD;&#xA;The only faith can save you.  &#xD;&#xA;Only the faith can save you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only context will tell how to parse *sola*.&#xD;&#xA;This is somewhat similar to how *summus mons* can mean the highest mountain or the highest peak of a single mountain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your option 3 is closest to truth in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;The word just has several meanings.&#xD;&#xA;(Of course, in the context of Christianity the meaning is specific. My point is that the language alone does not indicate it as specifically as you might expect. See fdb's comment below for more Christian context.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:&#xD;&#xA;You tagged the question as [tag:ablativus-absolutus], but I think this is instrumental rather than absolute ablative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6241" RevisionGUID="cae67598-4e61-44e9-9a90-572887a317b8" CreationDate="2018-04-05T22:08:59.460" UserId="2533" Text="I worked an estate sale a few years ago and the experience has never left me. The man who passed away left this note on a chalk board and I found a photo of it the other day. I have wondered what it says ever since! I took latin in college, but it was so long ago and I don't have my books anymore. I believe it says something about speaking or praying to God. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ora deo sed ab saxis remiga&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20635" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6241" RevisionGUID="cae67598-4e61-44e9-9a90-572887a317b8" CreationDate="2018-04-05T22:08:59.460" UserId="2533" Text="Please help translate this short latin phrase left behind by a deceased man" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20636" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6241" RevisionGUID="cae67598-4e61-44e9-9a90-572887a317b8" CreationDate="2018-04-05T22:08:59.460" UserId="2533" Text="|translation|meaning|poetry|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6242" RevisionGUID="ac36dd15-8d69-4c16-9825-78c0913ecf6d" CreationDate="2018-04-05T22:16:42.630" UserId="136" Text="**Pray to God but row away from the rocks.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are correct in that *ora* means &quot;pray&quot; (it is the singular imperative of *oro*). *Deo* (dative of *Deus*) is the &quot;to God&quot; bit. *Sed* means &quot;but,&quot; *ab saxis* (ablative plural) means &quot;away from the rocks,&quot; and finally *remiga* is the singular imperative of *remigo* meaning &quot;row.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the meaning of the quote, as I take it, is thus: look to God if you are in trouble, but do not expect a sudden, divine intervention to occur. You have to take matters into your own hands if you have a problem (row away from the rocks). I cannot find if this comes from somewhere specific, so if someone does find that, it would be interesting to hear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6241" RevisionGUID="1589367a-3de0-469c-9664-50a7c779e541" CreationDate="2018-04-05T22:42:52.620" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I worked an estate sale a few years ago and the experience has never left me. The man who passed away left this note on a chalk board and I found a photo of it the other day. I have wondered what it says ever since! I took Latin in college, but it was so long ago and I don't have my books anymore. I believe it says something about speaking or praying to God. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;ora deo sed ab saxis remiga&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20639" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6241" RevisionGUID="1589367a-3de0-469c-9664-50a7c779e541" CreationDate="2018-04-05T22:42:52.620" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Please help translate this short Latin phrase left behind by a deceased man" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20640" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6241" RevisionGUID="1589367a-3de0-469c-9664-50a7c779e541" CreationDate="2018-04-05T22:42:52.620" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|meaning|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6242" RevisionGUID="83470a29-6618-4a71-a53a-bd99131cad79" CreationDate="2018-04-06T01:03:18.677" UserId="136" Comment="Added alternative meaning" Text="**Pray to God but row away from the rocks.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are correct in that *ora* means &quot;pray&quot; (it is the singular imperative of *oro*). *Deo* (dative of *Deus*) is the &quot;to God&quot; bit. *Sed* means &quot;but,&quot; *ab saxis* (ablative plural) means &quot;away from the rocks,&quot; and finally *remiga* is the singular imperative of *remigo* meaning &quot;row.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the meaning of the quote, as I take it, is thus: look to God if you are in trouble, but do not expect a sudden, divine intervention to occur. You have to take matters into your own hands if you have a problem (row away from the rocks). I cannot find if this comes from somewhere specific, so if someone does find that, it would be interesting to hear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user Rafael proposes this slightly different meaning of the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although the adversative sed might have been put there intentionally&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to twist the sense of the original meaning, I find more likely that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the intention was to just go with it. If the deceased man who left the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; note was a believer, he probably meant that even if God does not need&#xD;&#xA;&gt; our help, he expects us to do our part while asking Him for help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6243" RevisionGUID="b8731882-6012-4ecf-9c48-bd6328636be7" CreationDate="2018-04-06T10:04:30.620" UserId="79" Text="In Latin there is only one type of R and as far as I know the combination RH does not appear in native Latin words.&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding Greek letter rho can have two kinds of breathing (rough &amp;#8165;, smooth &amp;#8164;).&#xD;&#xA;When a word (incl. name) is transliterated from Latin to Greek, which rho is used?&#xD;&#xA;Is it always smooth?&#xD;&#xA;I assume smooth is closer to the pronunciation in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20643" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6243" RevisionGUID="b8731882-6012-4ecf-9c48-bd6328636be7" CreationDate="2018-04-06T10:04:30.620" UserId="79" Text="When transliterating from Latin to Greek, what kind of rho is used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20644" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6243" RevisionGUID="b8731882-6012-4ecf-9c48-bd6328636be7" CreationDate="2018-04-06T10:04:30.620" UserId="79" Text="|greek|orthography|alphabet|transliteration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6245" RevisionGUID="4b3a53a2-7f6c-4874-b8c9-1e0e91d81ebb" CreationDate="2018-04-06T14:34:58.327" UserId="45" Text="First, a pretty banal orthographic point. In Greek, only *initial* rho has a breathing mark, and there are only [two recorded words](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4516) (ῤάρος and its diminutive ῤάριον) that use a smooth breathing. Though it's not entirely clear why these words have a smooth breathing, they are obviously anomalies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above strongly suggests that smooth rho wouldn't have been used to transcribe Latin words beginning with &quot;r.&quot; It becomes even more convincing if we introduce the most basic of counterexamples: &quot;Roma&quot;: [Ῥώμη](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D*\(rw%2Fmh) (= Rhōmē)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6246" RevisionGUID="3f39cbe4-0088-446a-8a4a-bf8095e16a27" CreationDate="2018-04-06T14:43:50.083" UserId="94" Text="Christianity traditionally marks out from the calendar the week (Sunday to Saturday) before Easter Sunday. We call it Holy Week, *hebdomada sancta*. The Sunday before Easter Sunday and the three days immediately preceding it are particularly important : Palm Sunday, on which the entry of Jesus Christ into Jerusalem is celebrated; Holy, or Maundy, Thursday, on which his Last Supper is celebrated; Good Friday, on which his death is remembered; and Holy Saturday, in which we wait expectantly for his resurrection. These last three days are called (in both Latin and English) the Triduum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Maxima Redemptionis&quot;, a general decree of the [Sacred Congregation of Rites][1] issued in 1955, discusses the observations of Holy Week, and in the process gives (presumably typical) names for them. It states in its discussion of the Divine Office (the daily prayers said by religious and many lay Catholics):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Dominica II Passionis seu in palmis, feria II, III, et IV hebdomadae sanctae, officium divinum horis consuetis persolvitur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In triduo sacro, id est: feria V in Cena Domini, feria VI in Passione et Morte Domini&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;, et sabbato sancto, si officium peragatur *in choro*, vel *in communi*, haec serventur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[&quot;Maxima Redemptionis&quot;][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On the Second Sunday of the Passion, or in the Palms, [and on] the second, third, and fourth [weekday] of Holy Week, the Divine Office is to be performed at the usual hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;During the Sacred Triduum, that is: on the fifth weekday [Thursday], at the Supper of the Lord; on the sixth weekday [Friday], at the Passion and Death of the Lord; and on Holy Saturday, if the Office may be performed in choir, or in common, let them [i.e. the group reciting the Hours] observe it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I conclude, then, that the &quot;Feria N&quot; is an ablative of time referring to the day *purely as a weekday name*, and the &quot;in cena...&quot;, &quot;in passione...&quot;, &quot;in parasceve&quot; are appositive phrases describing the feast observed on that day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the names of the days of the Triduum are therefore&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Feria V, in cena domini [Thursday, on the Supper of the Lord]&#xD;&#xA; * Feria VI, in passione et morte Domini (or in parasceve) [Friday, on the passion and death of the Lord; or on the Passover]&#xD;&#xA; * Sabbatum sanctum [Holy Saturday]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;The phrase &quot;feria VI in parasceve&quot; does not occur in this document; however, it does in, for example, the encyclicals [&quot;Redemptoris Nostri Cruciatus&quot;][2] of Pope Pius XII and [&quot;Fides et Ratio&quot;][3] of Pope John Paul II.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Congregation_of_Rites&#xD;&#xA;[2]:http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/la/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-enc_19490415_redemptoris-nostri-cruciatus.html&#xD;&#xA; [3]:http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/la/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html&#xD;&#xA;[4]:http://vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_19551116_maximaredemptionis_la.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6242" RevisionGUID="1d11528c-4ee7-4256-a1a8-ed730c47abef" CreationDate="2018-04-06T14:56:59.297" UserId="136" Comment="Changed alternative meaning" Text="**Pray to God but row away from the rocks.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are correct in that *ora* means &quot;pray&quot; (it is the singular imperative of *oro*). *Deo* (dative of *Deus*) is the &quot;to God&quot; bit. *Sed* means &quot;but,&quot; *ab saxis* (ablative plural) means &quot;away from the rocks,&quot; and finally *remiga* is the singular imperative of *remigo* meaning &quot;row.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the meaning of the quote, as I take it, is thus: look to God if you are in trouble, but do not expect a sudden, divine intervention to occur. You have to take matters into your own hands if you have a problem (row away from the rocks). I cannot find if this comes from somewhere specific, so if someone does find that, it would be interesting to hear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user Jay says this, which is what I was trying to get at in my original answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This seems a pretty routine Christian belief. There's a common saying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; among Christians today, &quot;Pray as if everything depended on God; work&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as if everything depended on you.&quot; In the Bible, God routinely&#xD;&#xA;&gt; expected people to do all they could even if he performed a miracle.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Like he would promise victory in battle, but the soldiers still had to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; go out and fight. Even if there was nothing practical a person could&#xD;&#xA;&gt; do, God often demanded a token effort. Like Naaman had to dunk himself&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the Jordan River before God would cure his leprosy. Etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6246" RevisionGUID="68bfb492-e615-4a1d-853f-2012e7ef7a05" CreationDate="2018-04-06T15:16:38.110" UserId="94" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="Christianity traditionally marks out from the calendar the week (Sunday to Saturday) before Easter Sunday. We call it Holy Week, *hebdomada sancta*. The Sunday before Easter Sunday and the three days immediately preceding it are particularly important : Palm Sunday, on which the entry of Jesus Christ into Jerusalem is celebrated; Holy, or Maundy, Thursday, on which his Last Supper is celebrated; Good Friday, on which his death is remembered; and Holy Saturday, in which we wait expectantly for his resurrection. These last three days are called (in both Latin and English) the Triduum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Maxima Redemptionis&quot;, a general decree of the [Sacred Congregation of Rites][1] issued in 1955, discusses the observations of Holy Week, and in the process gives (presumably typical) names for them. It states in its discussion of the Divine Office (the daily prayers said by religious and many lay Catholics):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Dominica II Passionis seu in palmis, feria II, III, et IV hebdomadae sanctae, officium divinum horis consuetis persolvitur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In triduo sacro, id est: feria V in Cena Domini, feria VI in Passione et Morte Domini&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;, et sabbato sancto, si officium peragatur *in choro*, vel *in communi*, haec serventur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[&quot;Maxima Redemptionis&quot;][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On the Second Sunday of the Passion, or in the Palms, [and on] the second, third, and fourth [weekday] of Holy Week, the Divine Office is to be performed at the usual hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;During the Sacred Triduum, that is: on the fifth weekday [Thursday], at the Supper of the Lord; on the sixth weekday [Friday], at the Passion and Death of the Lord; and on Holy Saturday, if the Office may be performed in choir, or in common, let them [i.e. the group reciting the Hours] observe it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I conclude, then, that the &quot;Feria N&quot; is an ablative of time referring to the day *purely as a weekday name*, and the &quot;in cena...&quot;, &quot;in passione...&quot;, &quot;in parasceve&quot; are appositive phrases describing the feast observed on that day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the names of the days of the Triduum are therefore&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Feria V, in cena domini** [*Thursday, on the Supper of the Lord*]&#xD;&#xA; * **Feria VI, in passione et morte Domini** (or in parasceve) [*Friday, on the passion and death of the Lord*; or *Friday, on the Passover*]&#xD;&#xA; * **Sabbatum sanctum** [*Holy Saturday*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;The phrase &quot;feria VI in parasceve&quot; does not occur in this document; however, it does in, for example, the encyclicals [&quot;Redemptoris Nostri Cruciatus&quot;][2] of Pope Pius XII and [&quot;Fides et Ratio&quot;][3] of Pope John Paul II.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Congregation_of_Rites&#xD;&#xA;[2]:http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/la/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-enc_19490415_redemptoris-nostri-cruciatus.html&#xD;&#xA; [3]:http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/la/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html&#xD;&#xA;[4]:http://vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_19551116_maximaredemptionis_la.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6247" RevisionGUID="fb4a479c-6c13-439d-9599-865fff1aa95f" CreationDate="2018-04-06T17:10:20.857" UserId="2046" Text="At the beginning of every book, there is the name of the author followed by the title itself. However, the case, in which the author's name is written may vary. Let me illustrate with two examples:  &#xD;&#xA;1) **Ioannis Kepleri** *Harmonices Mundi*, which is the genitive, and  &#xD;&#xA;2) **Carolo F. Gausso** *Disquisitiones arithmeticae*, which is (probably) the ablative.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My theory is that the first example means *The Harmony of the World* **of** Johannes Kepler, but the second is *Arithmetical investigations* **by** C. F. Gauss. Is this correct?  &#xD;&#xA;And is there some &quot;righter&quot; option, or can you use both? My guess would be that both are possible, but the ablative case seems to be much more frequent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20655" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6247" RevisionGUID="fb4a479c-6c13-439d-9599-865fff1aa95f" CreationDate="2018-04-06T17:10:20.857" UserId="2046" Text="In which case should book authors be written?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20656" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6247" RevisionGUID="fb4a479c-6c13-439d-9599-865fff1aa95f" CreationDate="2018-04-06T17:10:20.857" UserId="2046" Text="|declension|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20657" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="415d5b66-51ed-4e59-8d02-f2cbee2e92f2" CreationDate="2018-04-06T17:21:01.643" UserId="79" Comment="73" />
  <row Id="20658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6248" RevisionGUID="1b5f8b9f-08e7-46e8-a82f-7a6e89733edc" CreationDate="2018-04-06T17:33:11.420" UserId="324" Text="The title page of Gauss's book says &quot;auctore D. Carolo Friderico Gauss&quot;. It is an ablative absolute: &quot;the author being C.F.G.&quot; Without &quot;auctore&quot; it would make no sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disquisitiones_Arithmeticae#/media/File:Disqvisitiones-800.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6247" RevisionGUID="cf9d0b44-9a78-4f27-beb3-fdaf3181d911" CreationDate="2018-04-06T17:51:10.137" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="At the beginning of every book, there is the name of the author followed by the title itself. However, the case, in which the author's name is written may vary. Let me illustrate with two examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Ioannis Kepleri** *Harmonices Mundi*, which is the genitive, and&#xD;&#xA;2. **Carolo F. Gausso** *Disquisitiones arithmeticae*, which is (probably) the ablative.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My theory is that the first example means *The Harmony of the World* **of** Johannes Kepler, but the second is *Arithmetical investigations* **by** C. F. Gauss. Is this correct?  &#xD;&#xA;And is there some &quot;righter&quot; option, or can you use both? My guess would be that both are possible, but the ablative case seems to be much more frequent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20660" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6247" RevisionGUID="cf9d0b44-9a78-4f27-beb3-fdaf3181d911" CreationDate="2018-04-06T17:51:10.137" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|declension|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6247" RevisionGUID="3e76ed1c-4808-4927-b851-cac46ea517ab" CreationDate="2018-04-06T17:56:18.080" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="At the beginning of every book, there is the name of the author followed by the title itself. However, the case, in which the author's name is written may vary. Let me illustrate with two examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Ioannis Kepleri** *Harmonices Mundi*, which is the genitive, and&#xD;&#xA;2. **Carolo F. Gausso** *Disquisitiones arithmeticae*, which is (probably) the ablative.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My theory is that the first example means *The Harmony of the World* **of** Johannes Kepler, but the second is *Arithmetical investigations* **by** C. F. Gauss. Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And is there some &quot;righter&quot; option, or can you use both? My guess would be that both are possible, but the ablative case seems to be much more frequent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6249" RevisionGUID="c18b6359-a4fe-4c6e-8687-2001445730ee" CreationDate="2018-04-06T17:57:14.423" UserId="79" Text="It depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could use *Medea Ovidii* (Ovid's *Medea*) in most contexts.&#xD;&#xA;In the title page of a book, it is typical to write something like *Medea actore ovidio* (*Medea*, the author being Ovid).&#xD;&#xA;This is an absolute ablative as mentioned in fdb's answer.&#xD;&#xA;It would also be grammatical to write *Medea ab Ovidio scripta* (*Medea* written by Ovid).&#xD;&#xA;A plain ablative is not grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;If you are listing authors and their books, you can simply use nominatives: *Ovidius: Medea*.&#xD;&#xA;This only works if the names are not part of a sentence, but items on a list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience the most common choice for title pages is *auctore* with ablative.&#xD;&#xA;If you want a safe choice that works in just about any context, use the genitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6250" RevisionGUID="97d5a7d8-4fdc-4e2a-b63d-4353b27c867a" CreationDate="2018-04-07T00:29:34.433" UserId="1304" Text="Many details show that this sentence cannot be ancient (and in fact there is no trace of it in the usual places). While there are no obvious mistakes, it is clear that it is a literal translation from English with no attempt to produce idiomatic Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, it is the translation of&#xD;&#xA;[___Call on God but row away from the rocks.___](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22call+on+god+but+row+away+from+the+rocks%22&amp;oq=%22) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, it is a rather popular quote whose origin might prove hard to trace. Some sites claim it is an American Indian proverb. I seriously doubt it, because, as other users have explained marvelously, the idea is deeply rooted in Christianity. I don’t think it is of Southern European origin either: on our shores, the one to pray for safety at sea is [_Maria, Stella Maris._](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady,_Star_of_the_Sea)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one particular point which I’d like to discuss in this context.&#xD;&#xA;In English (and many related languages), the normal way to express motion is to choose a verb which shows the mode of displacement, while the direction is expressed by a complement. In English _you walk down the hill._ In Latin (and in Romance languages) _pedibus a colle descendis,_ with a directional verb and a complement of manner. So, when translating _row away from the rocks,_ it is not idiomatic to use the very specific verb _remigo,_ which is meant for a situation with a very strong focus on rowing. My own translation of the same sentence would be something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Precibus Deum invocans remis a rupibus navem averte._&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6240" RevisionGUID="51b0d6bd-6584-4be1-b2ae-f890135bd85c" CreationDate="2018-04-07T09:28:18.380" UserId="79" Comment="added 500 characters in body" Text="The word [*solus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=solus1&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is a little ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;While it has been discussed before ([here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1120/79) and [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/992/79)), the topic is certainly not exhausted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of several translations of *sola fide*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;By means of the only faith  &#xD;&#xA;Only by means of (a) faith  &#xD;&#xA;By means of (a/the) lonely faith&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison, observe the effect of articles in the following, all of which could look the same in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Only faith can save you.  &#xD;&#xA;The only faith can save you.  &#xD;&#xA;Only the faith can save you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only context will tell how to parse *sola*.&#xD;&#xA;This is somewhat similar to how *summus mons* can mean the highest mountain or the highest peak of a single mountain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your option 3 is closest to truth in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;The word just has several meanings.&#xD;&#xA;(Of course, in the context of Christianity the meaning is specific. My point is that the language alone does not indicate it as specifically as you might expect. See fdb's comment below for more Christian context.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:&#xD;&#xA;You tagged the question as [tag:ablativus-absolutus], but I think this is instrumental rather than absolute ablative.&#xD;&#xA;Parsing it as absolute sounds convoluted; it would be something like &quot;because/when the faith is alone&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The absolute ablative can give a reason or a time, but it is not instrumental.&#xD;&#xA;(One could argue that the canonical classification of different ablatives is pointless, but that makes both the question &quot;is it absolute or instrumental&quot; and its answer moot. I made this point for [subordinate clauses](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5668/79) earlier, and it makes sense for ablatives as well.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6251" RevisionGUID="5ee62929-939a-44df-826b-46836c08d26d" CreationDate="2018-04-07T09:45:35.503" UserId="79" Text="How can I say idiomatically in classical Latin that someone is old but still looks young?&#xD;&#xA;Should I say *bene senuit* (&quot;he has aged well&quot;), should I use a participle like *bene reservatus/retentatus*, or should I maybe use the verb *perennare*?&#xD;&#xA;By idiomatic classical Latin I do not mean that it has to be necessarily attested as such.&#xD;&#xA;Well justified unattested answers are very much welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20669" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6251" RevisionGUID="5ee62929-939a-44df-826b-46836c08d26d" CreationDate="2018-04-07T09:45:35.503" UserId="79" Text="An idiom for a young-looking older person" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20670" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6251" RevisionGUID="5ee62929-939a-44df-826b-46836c08d26d" CreationDate="2018-04-07T09:45:35.503" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6252" RevisionGUID="fea0044a-7215-48b2-9bf8-ca7baa35b8a7" CreationDate="2018-04-07T15:48:30.930" UserId="1432" Text="A famous quote of Dido's from _Aeneid_ 4.625 is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exoriare aliquis nostris ex ossibus ultor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;of which my preferred poetic translation is Fitzgerald's &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rise up from by bones, avenging spirit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I've seen the translation done several ways, and some of them use 'ashes' instead of 'bones' presumably for _ossibus_. I'm under the impression from a latin dictionary that _ossibus_ refers strictly to bones. So why are there variant translations of this seemingly simple word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess there are two sub-questions, any of which could answer the main question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Did the meaning of _ossibus_ change over time? If so, what was the meaning of the word at the time of Virgil's writing.&#xD;&#xA; - Is 'ashes' used only in translations where they want the two syllables for poetic meter or something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20672" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6252" RevisionGUID="fea0044a-7215-48b2-9bf8-ca7baa35b8a7" CreationDate="2018-04-07T15:48:30.930" UserId="1432" Text="Does the avenger arise from bones or ashes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20673" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6252" RevisionGUID="fea0044a-7215-48b2-9bf8-ca7baa35b8a7" CreationDate="2018-04-07T15:48:30.930" UserId="1432" Text="|translation|aeneis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6252" RevisionGUID="331a9da6-7efa-4f62-b5b5-a836b536e9a4" CreationDate="2018-04-07T16:25:11.840" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and edited slightly. Feel free to reretag if you want to!" Text="A famous quote of Dido's from _Aeneid_ 4.625 is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exoriare aliquis nostris ex ossibus ultor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;of which my preferred poetic translation is Fitzgerald's &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rise up from by bones, avenging spirit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I've seen the translation done several ways, and some of them use 'ashes' instead of 'bones' presumably for _ossibus_. I'm under the impression from a Latin dictionary that _ossibus_ refers strictly to bones. So why are there variant translations of this seemingly simple word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess there are two sub-questions, any of which could answer the main question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Did the meaning of _ossibus_ change over time? If so, what was the meaning of the word at the time of Virgil's writing.&#xD;&#xA; - Is 'ashes' used only in translations where they want the two syllables for poetic meter or something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20676" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6252" RevisionGUID="331a9da6-7efa-4f62-b5b5-a836b536e9a4" CreationDate="2018-04-07T16:25:11.840" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and edited slightly. Feel free to reretag if you want to!" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|meaning|aeneis|vergilius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6254" RevisionGUID="3407fd2c-e13a-4690-a3dc-a889fc6df7af" CreationDate="2018-04-07T17:19:35.540" UserId="79" Text="Perseus offers two translations of Aeneid, including [your passage](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0055%3Abook%3D4%3Acard%3D584).&#xD;&#xA;It also comes with two English translations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Theodore C. Williams, 1910](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0054%3Abook%3D4%3Acard%3D584), writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arise, Out of my dust, unknown Avenger, rise!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[John Dryden](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0052%3Abook%3D4%3Acard%3D584) writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rise some avenger of our Libyan blood&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They both take poetic license in expressing the same idea.&#xD;&#xA;The word [*os*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DO%3Aentry+group%3D31%3Aentry%3Dos2) indeed means only bones, not ashes.&#xD;&#xA;The point is not taking it literally.&#xD;&#xA;I think the Latin original and the two English translation are equivalent: here &quot;ashes&quot;, &quot;bones&quot;, and &quot;blood&quot; mean the same thing (metonymically)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6255" RevisionGUID="ba510901-077d-4265-9c81-1cba2a786a7d" CreationDate="2018-04-07T19:58:25.997" UserId="2459" Text="I understand that this might come down to personal preference, but which is considered to be a better resource for learning the language from a novice? I've heard a fair bit of criticism about Wheelock, but almost everyone seems to be in agreement that Lingua Latina is good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is either of them a good enough book--if read properly and thoroughly--to make one conversational?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If it is relevant, I am only interested in the written aspect of Latin, and I am not interested whatever in the spoken bit.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20679" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6255" RevisionGUID="ba510901-077d-4265-9c81-1cba2a786a7d" CreationDate="2018-04-07T19:58:25.997" UserId="2459" Text="Wheelock vs Lingua Latina?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20680" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6255" RevisionGUID="ba510901-077d-4265-9c81-1cba2a786a7d" CreationDate="2018-04-07T19:58:25.997" UserId="2459" Text="|resource-request|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6254" RevisionGUID="c7f1d082-8889-4f45-b080-c87bd2c9b429" CreationDate="2018-04-07T20:06:59.713" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 38 characters in body" Text="Perseus offers two English translations of Aeneid, including [your passage](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0055%3Abook%3D4%3Acard%3D584).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Theodore C. Williams, 1910](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0054%3Abook%3D4%3Acard%3D584), writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arise, Out of my dust, unknown Avenger, rise!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[John Dryden](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0052%3Abook%3D4%3Acard%3D584) writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rise some avenger of our Libyan blood&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They both take poetic license in expressing the same idea.&#xD;&#xA;The word [*os*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DO%3Aentry+group%3D31%3Aentry%3Dos2) indeed means only bones, not ashes.&#xD;&#xA;The point is not taking it literally.&#xD;&#xA;I think the Latin original and the two English translation are equivalent: here &quot;ashes&quot;, &quot;bones&quot;, and &quot;blood&quot; mean the same thing (metonymically)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6255" RevisionGUID="2a207d3d-b7d7-42f4-8c08-140c43b6d269" CreationDate="2018-04-07T20:11:09.540" UserId="79" Comment="added 89 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I would like to compare Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata and Wheelock's Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I understand that this might come down to personal preference, but which is considered to be a better resource for learning the language from a novice? I've heard a fair bit of criticism about Wheelock, but almost everyone seems to be in agreement that Lingua Latina is good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is either of them a good enough book&amp;mdash;if read properly and thoroughly&amp;mdash;to make one conversational?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If it is relevant, I am only interested in the written aspect of Latin, and I am not interested whatever in the spoken bit.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20683" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6255" RevisionGUID="2a207d3d-b7d7-42f4-8c08-140c43b6d269" CreationDate="2018-04-07T20:11:09.540" UserId="79" Comment="added 89 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|resource-request|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|wheelocks-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6256" RevisionGUID="d0d0013c-07e4-4773-ba9f-5960ecdf8431" CreationDate="2018-04-07T20:13:05.657" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20685" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6256" RevisionGUID="d0d0013c-07e4-4773-ba9f-5960ecdf8431" CreationDate="2018-04-07T20:13:05.657" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6257" RevisionGUID="f820225e-2dfd-453f-8c49-b0c77a5a704e" CreationDate="2018-04-07T20:13:05.657" UserId="79" Text="For questions about Wheelock's Latin and related study material." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20687" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6257" RevisionGUID="f820225e-2dfd-453f-8c49-b0c77a5a704e" CreationDate="2018-04-07T20:13:05.657" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6255" RevisionGUID="bf3c905b-5d58-4394-910c-98ca34dec685" CreationDate="2018-04-07T20:58:53.733" UserId="79" Comment="added 137 characters in body" Text="I would like to compare Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata and Wheelock's Latin. I understand that this might come down to personal preference, but I would like to know which one is a better resource for learning the language for a novice. I've heard a fair bit of criticism about Wheelock, but almost everyone seems to be in agreement that Lingua Latina is good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make the question more precise and answerable:&#xD;&#xA;What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the two books in comparison?&#xD;&#xA;If I read one but not the other&amp;mdash;properly and thoroughly&amp;mdash;, what would I be missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am mostly interested in written Latin, not spoken, but I would nevertheless like to see a big picture comparison of the two famous textbooks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6252" RevisionGUID="366bca13-bdab-4d12-9431-d79c642c1ad8" CreationDate="2018-04-07T21:38:45.510" UserId="9" Comment="fixed typo in quotation of Fitzgerald" Text="A famous quote of Dido's from _Aeneid_ 4.625 is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exoriare aliquis nostris ex ossibus ultor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;of which my preferred poetic translation is Fitzgerald's &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rise up from my bones, avenging spirit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I've seen the translation done several ways, and some of them use 'ashes' instead of 'bones' presumably for _ossibus_. I'm under the impression from a Latin dictionary that _ossibus_ refers strictly to bones. So why are there variant translations of this seemingly simple word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess there are two sub-questions, any of which could answer the main question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Did the meaning of _ossibus_ change over time? If so, what was the meaning of the word at the time of Virgil's writing.&#xD;&#xA; - Is 'ashes' used only in translations where they want the two syllables for poetic meter or something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6258" RevisionGUID="93e1bba4-1764-48a2-afa0-39f2b01fdcf2" CreationDate="2018-04-07T22:20:57.280" UserId="1087" Text="I found this prescription in which the word &quot;**Scat.**&quot;  is found. What does this abbreviation stand for? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried googling, and [I found][1] that in Latin there is a word &quot;**scatula**&quot; which means **box**. I'm not sure if this word stands for this abbreviation. Normally, many prescription structures don't use this word, but &quot;D.t.d&quot; (detur talis dosis) exactly in the place of &quot;D. Scat.&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=t3fLBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA909&amp;lpg=PA909&amp;dq=scat.%20abbreviation%20latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=SeCrl9r7ei&amp;sig=6E7LnpcXVN-hcecy0pkf4WObWOk&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjlgbPol6naAhUCh6YKHXOoD4kQ6AEISTAF#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/moLdVm.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20691" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6258" RevisionGUID="93e1bba4-1764-48a2-afa0-39f2b01fdcf2" CreationDate="2018-04-07T22:20:57.280" UserId="1087" Text="What does &quot;Scat.&quot; stands for in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20692" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6258" RevisionGUID="93e1bba4-1764-48a2-afa0-39f2b01fdcf2" CreationDate="2018-04-07T22:20:57.280" UserId="1087" Text="|abbreviations|medicine|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6259" RevisionGUID="0cbb51a4-6053-4e7a-8f1b-161158e31ef5" CreationDate="2018-04-07T22:35:19.787" UserId="1304" Text="If _immortal_ is good enough for _old, but still young-looking,_ you can refer to Virgil, who wrote&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _iam senior, sed cruda deo viridisque senectus_ (Verg. Aen. 6, 304) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The god in question is Charon, whose old age is fresh and green. This verse is very famous. Tacitus cited it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _cruda ac viridis senectus_ (Tac. Agr. 29)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and there is a long tradition of explanations. After reading [the _crudus_ entry in L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=crudus&amp;highlight=senectus%2Cviridis) (look for the second occurrence of β), you can choose your commentary. I found [Conington](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0050:book=6:commline=304&amp;highlight=senectus%2Cviridis) particularly insightful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You asked about classical Latin, but it is interesting to note that, doubtless because of Virgil and Tacitus, _senectus viridis_ became a set expression in later periods:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _At tibi senectus / Sit semper viridis_ (Marco Antonio Flaminio, 1498 - 1550, [Carmina](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:2011.01.0700:section=1&amp;highlight=senectus%2Cviridis))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you can say _adhuc viridis senex._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6250" RevisionGUID="e19183ef-90ab-49a7-9fa5-b9d46e2f70eb" CreationDate="2018-04-07T23:02:38.377" UserId="1304" Comment="added 471 characters in body" Text="Many details show that this sentence cannot be ancient (and in fact there is no trace of it in the usual places). While there are no obvious mistakes, it is clear that it is a literal translation from English with no attempt to produce idiomatic Latin. This does not mean that the translator didn’t know enough Latin: the purpose might have been humoristic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, it is the translation of&#xD;&#xA;[___Call on God but row away from the rocks.___](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22call+on+god+but+row+away+from+the+rocks%22&amp;oq=%22) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, it is a rather popular quote whose origin might prove hard to trace. Some sites claim it is an American Indian proverb. I seriously doubt it, because, as other users have explained marvelously, the idea is deeply rooted in Christianity. I don’t think it is of Southern European origin either: on our shores, the one to pray for safety at sea is [_Maria, Stella Maris._](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady,_Star_of_the_Sea)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one particular point which I’d like to discuss in this context.&#xD;&#xA;In English (and many related languages), the normal way to express motion is to choose a verb which shows the mode of displacement, while the direction is expressed by a complement. In English _you walk down the hill._ In Latin (and in Romance languages) _pedibus a colle descendis,_ with a directional verb and a complement of manner. So, when translating _row away from the rocks,_ it is not idiomatic to use the very specific verb _remigo,_ which is meant for a situation with a very strong focus on rowing. My own translation of the same sentence would be something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Precibus Deum invocans remis a rupibus navem averte._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OP asked in a comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  He canoed all the time and even invented a canoe paddle... so I wonder if he specifically chose that verb _remigo_ for this translation given his love of canoeing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, it’s difficult to say. Most probably his love of canoeing influenced his choice of a quote, but no, I don’t think his literal translation was also influenced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6260" RevisionGUID="3108973b-add0-4f59-8a9a-ac3b948d962c" CreationDate="2018-04-07T23:46:23.247" UserId="1304" Text="In a word, __yes.__ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_D.scat._ means _detur scatula_ (“let a box be given”) just like the following _S._ means _signetur_ or _scribatur_ (“let the following be prescribed”). It is also possible to interpret them as imperatives addressing the chemist: _Da!, Signa!, ..._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Googling yielded [this informative document from a Bulgarian University](http://www.medpharm-sofia.eu/files/DIR%205/Section%209/Structure%20of%20Rp.doc) which clarifies all Latin abbreviations traditionally used in medical prescriptions. In Italy, and I’d bet in many other Western countries, such abbreviations are not used any more. Apparently, this is not the case for other parts of the world." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6261" RevisionGUID="c448d0f2-706c-4f9d-82e4-677084529d91" CreationDate="2018-04-08T05:29:48.903" UserId="1877" Text="Moreland has this adapted paragraph from Cicero's *De Senectute*. I'm slightly confused about the use of infinitive over here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Moriens Cyrus maior haec dicit: &quot;nolite arbitrari, o mihi carissimi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filii, me, cum a vobis discessero, nusquam aut nullum **fore**. Nec enim,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dum eram vobiscum, animum meum videbatis, sed eum **esse** in hoc corpore&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex his rebus quas gerebam intellegebatis. Eundem igitur **esse** credite,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; etiam si nullum videbitis. *Nec vero clarorum virorum post mortem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; honores manerent, si nihil eorum ipsorum animi efficerent, quo diutius&#xD;&#xA;&gt; memoriam sui teneremus.* Mihi quidem numquam persuaderi potuit animos&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dum in corporibus essent mortalibus **vivere**, cum excessissent ex eis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **mori**.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was translating these in the usual manner: 'to be' for instance. But the translation I saw turns the infinitive into the relevant tense as if it were indirect speech. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is it indirect speech? &#xD;&#xA; 2. If it is then why doesn't the line in italics use infinitives?&#xD;&#xA; 3. I understand that there were no inverted commas in the old days but I'd still treated it as direct at first. How did you quote someone verbatim in those days?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20697" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6261" RevisionGUID="c448d0f2-706c-4f9d-82e4-677084529d91" CreationDate="2018-04-08T05:29:48.903" UserId="1877" Text="Use of Infinitive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20698" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6261" RevisionGUID="c448d0f2-706c-4f9d-82e4-677084529d91" CreationDate="2018-04-08T05:29:48.903" UserId="1877" Text="|indirect-question|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6261" RevisionGUID="7c7b9062-a45b-43ba-b1e6-2cd556c789ad" CreationDate="2018-04-08T10:18:08.160" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Moreland has this adapted paragraph from Cicero's *De Senectute*. I'm slightly confused about the use of infinitive over here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Moriens Cyrus maior haec dicit: &quot;nolite arbitrari, o mihi carissimi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; filii, me, cum a vobis discessero, nusquam aut nullum **fore**. Nec enim,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dum eram vobiscum, animum meum videbatis, sed eum **esse** in hoc corpore&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex his rebus quas gerebam intellegebatis. Eundem igitur **esse** credite,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; etiam si nullum videbitis. *Nec vero clarorum virorum post mortem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; honores manerent, si nihil eorum ipsorum animi efficerent, quo diutius&#xD;&#xA;&gt; memoriam sui teneremus.* Mihi quidem numquam persuaderi potuit animos&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dum in corporibus essent mortalibus **vivere**, cum excessissent ex eis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **mori**.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was translating these in the usual manner: 'to be' for instance. But the translation I saw turns the infinitive into the relevant tense as if it were indirect speech. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is it indirect speech?&#xD;&#xA; 2. If it is then why doesn't the line in italics use infinitives?&#xD;&#xA; 3. I understand that there were no inverted commas in the old days but I'd still treated it as direct at first. How did you quote someone verbatim in those days?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20700" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6261" RevisionGUID="7c7b9062-a45b-43ba-b1e6-2cd556c789ad" CreationDate="2018-04-08T10:18:08.160" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|syntax|indirect-question|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6262" RevisionGUID="947836fa-202e-450c-9586-857999e7d409" CreationDate="2018-04-08T10:40:48.087" UserId="79" Text="Are you familiar with *accusativus cum infinitivo* (ACI)?&#xD;&#xA;All of the bolded infinitives in your quote belong to an ACI structure, and should not be treated in isolation from other parts of the structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the name suggests, ACI comes with an accusative and an infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;In English it is often best translated as a subordinate clause starting with &quot;that&quot;, and it can be regarded as a form of indirect speech.&#xD;&#xA;I think it is best not to think of ACI as indirect speech, but as a peculiar syntactical construction in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The use of ACI has nothing to do with the fact that you are within a direct quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The structure is typically governed with a verb of seeing, hearing, thinking, believing, or some other such form of observation (in a broad sense).&#xD;&#xA;Also other kinds of verbs are possible, like speaking.&#xD;&#xA;Judging by the frequency, I believe this segment in your textbook introduces ACI, and I hope the structure is explained in the material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a very simple first example, consider this sentence: *Audio te canere.*&#xD;&#xA;The ACI is *te canere*; the verb is in infinitive and the subject *te* is in accusative.&#xD;&#xA;This ACI is the object of the verb *audio*.&#xD;&#xA;The whole sentence can be translated as &quot;I hear that you sing&quot; or &quot;I hear you sing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The tense of the infinitive indicates when the event happened with respect to the observation.&#xD;&#xA;*Video te cecinisse* is &quot;I see that you have sung&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every ACI has the three main parts: the actual accusative and infinitive, and the governing verb.&#xD;&#xA;I will point these parts out in your passage, stripped of all other structure.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the governing verb or accusative is not explicitly there due to ellipsis to avoid repetition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *nolite arbitrari me fore* &amp;mdash; &quot;do not think that I have been&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. *videbatis eum esse in hoc corpore* &amp;mdash; &quot;you saw that it was in this body&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. *eundem esse credite* &amp;mdash; &quot;believe that it is&quot;&#xD;&#xA;4. *persuaderi potuit animos vivere* &amp;mdash; &quot;could persuade me that souls live&quot;&#xD;&#xA;5. *persuaderi potuit animos mori* &amp;mdash; &quot;could persuade me that souls die&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To quote someone verbatim, you can do as is done in your quote.&#xD;&#xA;Start with &quot;He said:&quot; and tell what he said.&#xD;&#xA;The Romans did not have quotation marks, but they did certainly have quotes.&#xD;&#xA;The ACI can also be used to quote someone (although not verbatim).&#xD;&#xA;Consider these two ways to quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ille dixit: Marcus abest.* &amp;mdash; He said: Marcus is away.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ille dixit Marcum abesse*. &amp;mdash; He said that Marcus is away." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6263" RevisionGUID="36a8026b-da34-4d45-b29c-3f665e5516a5" CreationDate="2018-04-08T17:08:49.460" UserId="30" Text="[Wikipaedia][1] has the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lex Valeria Horatia **de senatus consulta** ordered that the senatus consulta (the decrees of the senate) had to be kept in the temple of Ceres by the plebeian aediles, the assistants of the plebeian tribunes. This meant that the plebeian tribunes and aediles had knowledge of these decrees (previously they were kept secret).This put them in the public domain. Previously, the consuls had been in the habit of suppressing or altering them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct? As far as I know, the term is always *senatus( )consultum* as a neuter substantive: I've never seen it used adjectivally, as would be required if we read *de senatus consulta* adjectivally (and elliptically: what omitted noun would the ablative *consulta* agree with?). I would therefore not expect *de senatus consulta* to be correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found some other phrasings of the same law:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lex Valeria Horatia [de senatus consultum custodia][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could work if *consultum* is the archaic plural genetive, although I don't recall ever seeing this genitive used with (substantive nouns derived from) past pasticiples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lex Valeria Horatia [de senatus consultorum custodia][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be standard Latin. But the source is of (to me) unknown quality. Perhaps the real phrase is irregular and this website couldn't resist changing the spelling on its own account into standard Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is the proper spelling, and is there a way for the spelling at Wikipaedia to work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessio_plebis&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.nl/books?id=Z2pSrnYV4GwC&amp;pg=PA147&amp;lpg=PA147&amp;dq=%22Lex%20Valeria%20Horatia%20de%20senatus%22%20-%22ordered%20that%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=f6kxtWgKBs&amp;sig=UER5fAgLBD6xLUeva0FYDJ3LfLk&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjQooDWiqvaAhURK1AKHbQYBqwQ6AEIPjAG#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Lex%20Valeria%20Horatia%20de%20senatus%22%20-%22ordered%20that%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.oteripedia.de/R%C3%B6mische_Republik_450_BC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20703" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6263" RevisionGUID="36a8026b-da34-4d45-b29c-3f665e5516a5" CreationDate="2018-04-08T17:08:49.460" UserId="30" Text="Lex Valeria Horatia de senatus consulta - spelling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20704" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6263" RevisionGUID="36a8026b-da34-4d45-b29c-3f665e5516a5" CreationDate="2018-04-08T17:08:49.460" UserId="30" Text="|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6264" RevisionGUID="f80fb07f-2ffa-424c-8d4d-68f40d2ebe99" CreationDate="2018-04-08T17:46:33.340" UserId="79" Text="The same paragraph contains *lex Valeria Horatia de plebiscìtis* (note the grave accent), *lex Valeria Horatia de senatus consulta*, and *lex Valeria Horatia de provocatio*.&#xD;&#xA;Not a single one is correct: the first one has a spurious grave accent, the second one does not make sense as you say, and the third one is missing a *-ne* for ablative.&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be a case of insufficient *Latinitas* by a Wikipedia editor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a separate [Wikipedia article on these laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerio-Horatian_Laws), and there they are called *lex Valeria Horatia de plebiscitis*, *lex Valeria Horatia de provocatione*, and *lex Valeria Horatia de tribunicia potestate*.&#xD;&#xA;These make sense, so I am tempted to assume that these are right and the other article was sloppily edited." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6262" RevisionGUID="72906cf3-b414-4739-9a7d-edbfc395679e" CreationDate="2018-04-08T20:54:07.247" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Are you familiar with *accusativus cum infinitivo* (ACI)?&#xD;&#xA;All of the bolded infinitives in your quote belong to an ACI structure, and should not be treated in isolation from other parts of the structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the name suggests, ACI comes with an accusative and an infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;In English it is often best translated as a subordinate clause starting with &quot;that&quot;, and it can be regarded as a form of indirect speech.&#xD;&#xA;I think it is best not to think of ACI as indirect speech, but as a peculiar syntactical construction in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The use of ACI has nothing to do with the fact that you are within a direct quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The structure is typically governed with a verb of seeing, hearing, thinking, believing, or some other such form of observation (in a broad sense).&#xD;&#xA;Also other kinds of verbs are possible, like speaking.&#xD;&#xA;Judging by the frequency, I believe this segment in your textbook introduces ACI, and I hope the structure is explained in the material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a very simple first example, consider this sentence: *Audio te canere.*&#xD;&#xA;The ACI is *te canere*; the verb is in infinitive and the subject *te* is in accusative.&#xD;&#xA;This ACI is the object of the verb *audio*.&#xD;&#xA;The whole sentence can be translated as &quot;I hear that you sing&quot; or &quot;I hear you sing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The tense of the infinitive indicates when the event happened with respect to the observation.&#xD;&#xA;*Video te cecinisse* is &quot;I see that you have sung&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every ACI has the three main parts: the actual accusative and infinitive, and the governing verb.&#xD;&#xA;I will point these parts out in your passage, stripped of all other structure.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the governing verb or accusative is not explicitly there due to ellipsis to avoid repetition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *nolite arbitrari me fore* &amp;mdash; &quot;do not think that I will be&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. *videbatis eum esse in hoc corpore* &amp;mdash; &quot;you saw that it was in this body&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. *eundem esse credite* &amp;mdash; &quot;believe that it is&quot;&#xD;&#xA;4. *persuaderi potuit animos vivere* &amp;mdash; &quot;could persuade me that souls live&quot;&#xD;&#xA;5. *persuaderi potuit animos mori* &amp;mdash; &quot;could persuade me that souls die&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To quote someone verbatim, you can do as is done in your quote.&#xD;&#xA;Start with &quot;He said:&quot; and tell what he said.&#xD;&#xA;The Romans did not have quotation marks, but they did certainly have quotes.&#xD;&#xA;The ACI can also be used to quote someone (although not verbatim).&#xD;&#xA;Consider these two ways to quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ille dixit: Marcus abest.* &amp;mdash; He said: Marcus is away.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ille dixit Marcum abesse*. &amp;mdash; He said that Marcus is/was away." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6265" RevisionGUID="43e805fb-53ec-4019-9443-8ba6df74d5f7" CreationDate="2018-04-09T06:56:49.150" UserId="1348" Text="My native language is also Spanish, and I first found a book called *Método para aprender Latín* of Hermann Schnitzler. It covers the fundamental grammar, but some explanations are brief and sometimes the examples are somewhat complicated. However, it was helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would recommend you *Wheelock's Latin* to learn the grammar and *Lingva Latina* for practicing reading and learning the vocabulary. I think that it is preferable to start reading *Lingva Latina* when you have some knowledge of grammar because the difficulty of that book increases exponentially (in my opinion), so even if it seems to be easy at first, it really gets more demanding by the end of the first book, not to mention the second volume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question, my personal experience was that even though you may find useful books in Spanish, you will find more comprehensive ones in English, and also they are easier to get." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6266" RevisionGUID="4882d547-9cf8-45d0-b5e8-71c922be7e7c" CreationDate="2018-04-09T07:22:10.613" UserId="13" Text="This is l. 28 (the last line) of P.Sapph. Obbink:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ΝΘ̣€Ρ+ . . +Ι̣&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where the uncertain theta could be an epsilon (Obbink reads €̣) and the pluses denote a blank spot in the papyrus, thus equivalent to a lacuna, but not due to a hole in the papyrus AFAICT. I am pretty sure I saw ἔερθαι or something like that (perhaps ἔερθε) somewhere, so I go ahead and complete:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;]ν ἔ̣ερ+θα+ι̣.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, there is a problem: I cannot for the life of me find a citation form for this supposed verb. Perseus gives nothing for εερθαι, ερθαι, ηρθαι, and my dictionary has nothing that suggests this form as far as I could find yesterday. The closest thing I can find is αἴρω &gt; ἀέρθαι, but that alpha would probably not turn to an epsilon in Sappho (by whom the poems on the papyrus are), and I even found a contraction of this to ἆρθαι in the line Οὔδεν ἄδομ' ἔπαρθ' ἄγα[ν ἐπ' ὄλβῳ (aka Οὔδεν ἄδομ' ἔπερθα γᾶ[ς ἔοισα if you're reading Campbell), found in [this poem](http://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2018/01/i-wish-to-visit-underworld.html). So is this actually a valid Greek verb form, or did I dream of seeing it? And if the former, what is the dictionary form of this verb? And is this an aorist infinitive as I would guess from the -αι at the end? What voice (active, middle, passive)?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pStZJ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20711" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6266" RevisionGUID="4882d547-9cf8-45d0-b5e8-71c922be7e7c" CreationDate="2018-04-09T07:22:10.613" UserId="13" Text="ἔερθαι: valid verb form? What verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20712" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6266" RevisionGUID="4882d547-9cf8-45d0-b5e8-71c922be7e7c" CreationDate="2018-04-09T07:22:10.613" UserId="13" Text="|greek|verbs|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6267" RevisionGUID="9fa6a6df-7400-48c8-b2a1-07e2b463af0b" CreationDate="2018-04-09T07:39:03.493" UserId="1348" Text="I know that translating texts from Latin is the traditional way to learn the language (and for many people the main goal), but I think that being able to translate a piece of text, however complicated it is, does not necessarily mean that one may construct phrases just as one constructs everyday phrases in the native language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if it would be a good idea to follow an inverse translation method. This would consist of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get a text that is not extremely complicated and translate it into Latin, and look for the missing words in a dictionary. I think that if the goal is to handle everyday language, then a text with everyday language would be fine, because using literature or poetry may be extremely difficult. It would be like if one wanted to learn German by reading *Faust* of Goethe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if one wants to be able to construct rather than to read or translate (from Latin), a main problem is that if one wants to write a text about modern topics, the vocabulary proves to be insufficient. Frequently it is because the missing word is something that simply did not exist in the past, and it is hard to find a translation for it. Even if there is *Vicipaedia* or *Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis*, there are things for which there is no convention in order to have an official New Latin word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there something that can be done or should I resign?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20715" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6267" RevisionGUID="9fa6a6df-7400-48c8-b2a1-07e2b463af0b" CreationDate="2018-04-09T07:39:03.493" UserId="1348" Text="Is translating texts from Latin really necessary to learn the language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20716" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6267" RevisionGUID="9fa6a6df-7400-48c8-b2a1-07e2b463af0b" CreationDate="2018-04-09T07:39:03.493" UserId="1348" Text="|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6268" RevisionGUID="db4c3a76-444f-4100-bb6f-7f62ca7b23a4" CreationDate="2018-04-09T07:55:03.723" UserId="1348" Text="*Wheelock's Latin* focuses mainly on grammar, and it explains it in an ordered manner and explicitly. Although it has translation exercises, they really don't give you the feeling that you are able to read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Lingva Latina*, on the oder hand, gives you from the beginning the feeling that you are really interacting with the language and that you can read a text without having to consult a dictionary (in the first lessons). However, I consider that it does not explain grammar explicitly, so if you are not learning it in a separate way, as you continue with the book, it gets significantly harder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, as you said, it is a matter of perception and preference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6267" RevisionGUID="3fc1f08f-164b-4611-acbc-acc3ee47a6a6" CreationDate="2018-04-09T11:33:05.373" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="I know that translating texts from Latin is the traditional way to learn the language (and for many people the main goal), but I think that being able to translate a piece of text, however complicated it is, does not necessarily mean that one may construct phrases just as one constructs everyday phrases in the native language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if it would be a good idea to follow an inverse translation method. This would consist of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get a text that is not extremely complicated and translate it into Latin, and look for the missing words in a dictionary. I think that if the goal is to handle everyday language, then a text with everyday language would be fine, because using literature or poetry may be extremely difficult. It would be like if one wanted to learn German by reading *Faust* of Goethe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if one wants to be able to construct rather than to read or translate (from Latin), a main problem is that if one wants to write a text about modern topics, the vocabulary proves to be insufficient. Frequently it is because the missing word is something that simply did not exist in the past, and it is hard to find a translation for it. Even if there is *Vicipaedia* or *Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis*, there are things for which there is no convention in order to have an official New Latin word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there something that can be done or should I resign?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20719" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6267" RevisionGUID="3fc1f08f-164b-4611-acbc-acc3ee47a6a6" CreationDate="2018-04-09T11:33:05.373" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|contemporary-latin|study-strategies|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6269" RevisionGUID="871fbc37-fce1-4631-a3a4-b8a36504c2d4" CreationDate="2018-04-09T11:51:04.677" UserId="79" Text="To learn a language properly, I would argue that it is necessary to read texts in that language.&#xD;&#xA;If you only ever translate from your native language to the new language, your view is too limited.&#xD;&#xA;Every language has features you would hardly think of if you only translated to that language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not enough to produce (be it speaking or writing), but you must also consume (hearing and reading).&#xD;&#xA;That is the only way to become idiomatic and learn what options the new language has available.&#xD;&#xA;For example, Latin can do a number of things flexibly with participles or the *accusativus cum infinitivo*.&#xD;&#xA;By far the best way to see the potential of Latin syntax and vocabulary is to read Latin and figure out how things work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think careful reading is necessary to obtain any kind of fluency and flexibility beyond very basic sentence structure.&#xD;&#xA;Translation is a good tool for that, as it forces you to think of every detail.&#xD;&#xA;If you can read thoroughly without translating, I see no issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your proposed inverse translation is useful and can reduce the need for direct translation, but it does not eliminate the need to carefully read Latin produced by someone else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6266" RevisionGUID="65645640-29eb-40eb-997a-f03864c76382" CreationDate="2018-04-09T13:54:59.087" UserId="13" Comment="added note" Text="This is l. 28 (the last line) of P.Sapph. Obbink:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ΝΘ̣€Ρ+ . . +Ι̣&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where the uncertain theta could be an epsilon (Obbink reads €̣) and the pluses denote a blank spot in the papyrus, thus equivalent to a lacuna, but not due to a hole in the papyrus AFAICT. I am pretty sure I saw ἔερθαι or something like that (perhaps ἔερθε) somewhere, so I go ahead and complete:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;]ν ἔ̣ερ+θα+ι̣.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, there is a problem: I cannot for the life of me find a citation form for this supposed verb. Perseus gives nothing for εερθαι, ερθαι, ηρθαι, and my dictionary has nothing that suggests this form as far as I could find yesterday. The closest thing I can find is αἴρω &gt; ἀέρθαι, but that alpha would probably not turn to an epsilon in Sappho (by whom the poems on the papyrus are), and I even found a contraction of this to ἆρθαι in the line Οὔδεν ἄδομ' ἔπαρθ' ἄγα[ν ἐπ' ὄλβῳ (aka Οὔδεν ἄδομ' ἔπερθα γᾶ[ς ἔοισα if you're reading Campbell), found in [this poem](http://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2018/01/i-wish-to-visit-underworld.html). So is this actually a valid Greek verb form, or did I dream of seeing it? And if the former, what is the dictionary form of this verb? And is this an aorist infinitive as I would guess from the -αι at the end? What voice (active, middle, passive)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I say &quot;somewhere&quot;, I'm not implying it should be in something related to this poem, or even to Sappho. In fact, my vague memory suggests Iliad or Odyssey. I ruled out the former by searching each and every book of it as present on [Greek Wikisource](https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%99%CE%BB%CE%B9%CE%AC%CF%82/%CE%A9) for ερθ and coming back with loads of ύπερθε (with or without prefixes) and other irrelevant words, and Googling έρθ on `site:el.wikisource.org` and not finding anything from Homer. Googling [ἔερθαι](https://www.google.it/search?q=%E1%BC%94%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%B8%CE%B1%CE%B9&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;client=firefox-b&amp;gfe_rd=cr&amp;dcr=0&amp;ei=RorKWrC6DefBXs2mvNAO) returns no results, and Googling [ἔερθε](https://www.google.it/search?client=firefox-b&amp;dcr=0&amp;ei=RorKWvyQF9CdkwWL-rWQCQ&amp;q=%E1%BC%94%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%B8%CE%B5&amp;oq=%E1%BC%94%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%B8%CE%B5&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...58911128.58911128.0.58911286.1.1.0.0.0.0.76.76.1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.I2MpVJ7ENF4) returns stuff I have yet to browse through.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pStZJ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6270" RevisionGUID="6547147e-6750-48d2-9b2c-d8f8d4e456fa" CreationDate="2018-04-09T17:05:24.897" UserId="469" Text="When learning/teaching a _foreign_ language, reading, writing, listening and speaking -even if they have a lot in common (the language itself)- are considered different skills. That's the reason why, for example, the [TOEFL is structured the way it is][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opportunities to *listen* to native or fluent Latin speakers are (depending on what you call *fluent*) rather scarce to say the least. Thus, the effort is usually focused in *reading* and *writing*. For **reading**, and at the same time learn grammar and vocabulary (which is part of what is common to all four skills), **translating** from the rich corpus of available texts written by native speakers is one good option, but **not the only one**. Of course, translating from Latin, as you note, does not cover well the writing part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To improve **writing**, the method you propose is used in real life, but you need either someone more skilled than you to check your writing, or a text in Latin to compare to. (In the later case, you loose some freedom, since you probably have access to only one correct answer, and language may offer more than one.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for alternative methods for learning (other than translating texts) that have actually been used by living people, I can think of two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Immersion**. Not available to most people nowadays (if at all,) but I've met a couple of Catholic priests in their 70s/80s that actually had that opportunity during their studies in Rome.&#xD;&#xA; - **Reading/listening to texts you are already familiar with**. No need to translate, since you actually *know* the translation. I know this one from very close. There are lots of works from antiquity to the Renaissance that were either written in Latin or translated to it before modern languages took their current form: from the Greeks to the Latin Classics, to the Bible, to early scientific texts.) And there is also a number of modern literary works that have been translated to Latin by (somewhat?) skilled scholars. (Think of [Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis][2], to cite a funny example.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_of_English_as_a_Foreign_Language#Formats_and_content&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.amazon.com/Harrius-Potter-Philosophi-Lapis-Philosophers/dp/1582348251" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6269" RevisionGUID="7ead1eb7-c966-4537-957d-5065e61851b7" CreationDate="2018-04-09T17:09:52.913" UserId="79" Comment="added 188 characters in body" Text="To learn a language properly, I would argue that it is necessary to read texts in that language.&#xD;&#xA;If you only ever translate from your native language to the new language, your view is too limited.&#xD;&#xA;Every language has features you would hardly think of if you only translated to that language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not enough to produce (be it speaking or writing), but you must also consume (hearing and reading).&#xD;&#xA;That is the only way to become idiomatic and learn what options the new language has available.&#xD;&#xA;For example, Latin can do a number of things flexibly with participles or the *accusativus cum infinitivo*.&#xD;&#xA;By far the best way to see the potential of Latin syntax and vocabulary is to read Latin and figure out how things work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think careful reading is necessary to obtain any kind of fluency and flexibility beyond very basic sentence structure.&#xD;&#xA;But it doesn't have to be as complicated as possible; the simplified classical texts found in textbooks are excellent, while poetry might feel unnecessarily complex if you are not a fan.&#xD;&#xA;Translation is a good tool for that, as it forces you to think of every detail.&#xD;&#xA;If you can read thoroughly without translating, I see no issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your proposed inverse translation is useful and can reduce the need for direct translation, but it does not eliminate the need to carefully read Latin produced by someone else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6270" RevisionGUID="2cdcbec8-1996-4ba1-89d5-cde00942d0e3" CreationDate="2018-04-09T17:12:01.267" UserId="469" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="When learning/teaching a _foreign_ language, reading, writing, listening and speaking -even if they have a lot in common (the language itself)- are considered different skills. That's the reason why, for example, the [TOEFL is structured the way it is][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opportunities to *listen* to native or fluent Latin speakers are (depending on what you call *fluent*) rather scarce to say the least. Thus, the effort is usually focused in *reading* and *writing*. For **reading**, and at the same time learn grammar and vocabulary (which is part of what is common to all four skills), **translating** from the rich corpus of available texts written by native speakers is one good option, but **not the only one**. Of course, translating from Latin, as you note, does not cover well the writing part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To improve **writing**, the method you propose is used in real life, but you need either someone more skilled than you to check your writing, or a text in Latin to compare to. (In the later case, you loose some freedom, since you probably have access to only one correct answer, and the beauty of language may offer more than one.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for alternative methods for learning (other than translating texts) that have actually been used by living people, I can think of two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Immersion**. Not available to most people nowadays (if at all,) but I've met a couple of Catholic priests in their 70s/80s that actually had that opportunity during their studies in Rome.&#xD;&#xA; - **Reading/listening to texts you are already familiar with**. No need to translate, since you actually *know* the translation. I know this one from very close. There are lots of works from antiquity to the Renaissance that were either written in Latin or translated to it before modern languages took their current form: from the Greeks to the Latin Classics, to the Bible, to early scientific texts.) And there is also a number of modern literary works that have been translated to Latin by (somewhat?) skilled scholars. (Think of [Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis][2], to cite a funny example.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_of_English_as_a_Foreign_Language#Formats_and_content&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.amazon.com/Harrius-Potter-Philosophi-Lapis-Philosophers/dp/1582348251" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6270" RevisionGUID="bf4ae5f8-663b-4111-a8f7-4daa75a33d2c" CreationDate="2018-04-09T18:43:44.873" UserId="469" Comment="style correction" Text="When learning/teaching a _foreign_ language, reading, writing, listening and speaking -even if they have a lot in common, i.e., the language itself- are considered different skills. That's the reason why, for example, the [TOEFL is structured the way it is][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opportunities to *listen* to native or fluent Latin speakers are (depending on what you call *fluent*) rather scarce to say the least. Thus, the effort is usually focused in *reading* and *writing*. For **reading**, and at the same time learning grammar and vocabulary (which is part of what is common to all four skills), **translating** from the rich corpus of available texts written by native speakers is one good option, but **not the only one**. Of course, translating from Latin, as you note, does not cover well the writing part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To improve **writing**, the method you propose is used in real life, but you need either someone more skilled than you to check your writing, or a text in Latin to compare to. (In the later case, you loose some freedom, since you probably have access to only one correct answer, and the beauty of language may offer more than one.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for alternative methods for learning (other than translating texts) that have actually been used by living people, I can think of two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Immersion**. Not available to most people nowadays (if at all,) but I've met a couple of Catholic priests in their 70s/80s that actually had that opportunity during their studies in Rome.&#xD;&#xA; - **Reading/listening to texts you are already familiar with**. No need to translate, since you actually *know* the translation. I know this one from very close. There are lots of works from antiquity to the Renaissance that were either written in Latin or translated to it before modern languages took their current form: from the Greeks to the Latin Classics, to the Bible, to early scientific texts.) And there is also a number of modern literary works that have been translated to Latin by (somewhat?) skilled scholars. (Think of [Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis][2], to cite a funny example.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_of_English_as_a_Foreign_Language#Formats_and_content&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.amazon.com/Harrius-Potter-Philosophi-Lapis-Philosophers/dp/1582348251" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="8f300c6f-3787-40c0-a699-50901829e01d" CreationDate="2018-04-09T20:24:16.510" UserId="79" Text="I just saw an episode of Mr Bean and once again heard the choir sing in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Based on what I remember hearing and what I found online, the four segments sung are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Start: *Ecce homo qui est faba* &amp;mdash; Behold the man who is a bean&#xD;&#xA;2. End of first half: *Finis partis primae* &amp;mdash; End of first part&#xD;&#xA;3. Start of second half: *Pars secunda* &amp;mdash; Part two&#xD;&#xA;4. End: *Vale homo qui **est** faba* &amp;mdash; Farewell, man who is a bean&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all sources I saw the last line has *est*.&#xD;&#xA;I would expect *es*, since *vale* is addressed to Mr Bean (second person singular).&#xD;&#xA;I recall seeing second person verbs in relative clauses, for example: *Tibi, qui amicus es, donum do.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the *est* in the fourth line grammatical?&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to use third person verbs in a relative clause to refer to second person this way?&#xD;&#xA;Is it indeed supposed to be *est* instead of *es*?&#xD;&#xA;I found no authoritative sources for the lyrics, and I cannot hear the difference clearly enough to judge by ear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20728" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="8f300c6f-3787-40c0-a699-50901829e01d" CreationDate="2018-04-09T20:24:16.510" UserId="79" Text="Mr Bean's Latin lyrics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20729" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="8f300c6f-3787-40c0-a699-50901829e01d" CreationDate="2018-04-09T20:24:16.510" UserId="79" Text="|grammar-choice|syntax|relative-clause|song-lyrics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6272" RevisionGUID="495cb95a-2d99-45ed-9ecc-c153958ef888" CreationDate="2018-04-10T20:03:21.593" UserId="79" Text="The English word &quot;obituary&quot; seems to come from the Latin verb *obire*.&#xD;&#xA;One can derive the adjective *obituarius* from that verb, and using the neuter *obituarium* would make possible translation.&#xD;&#xA;However, I have not found this or any other word used in Latin to mean an obituary.&#xD;&#xA;I can think of other ways to render &quot;obituary&quot; in Latin, including *scriptura memorialis* (a direct translation from Finnish), but I don't know what would be idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;There is also the phrase *in memoriam*, but it requires an accompanying noun to make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good Latin phrase for &quot;obituary&quot; and why?&#xD;&#xA;Is it attested, or are there other good reasons to use it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20731" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6272" RevisionGUID="495cb95a-2d99-45ed-9ecc-c153958ef888" CreationDate="2018-04-10T20:03:21.593" UserId="79" Text="What is &quot;obituary&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20732" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6272" RevisionGUID="495cb95a-2d99-45ed-9ecc-c153958ef888" CreationDate="2018-04-10T20:03:21.593" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6273" RevisionGUID="8a7f4b05-581f-41de-85d1-65a965fd7bd9" CreationDate="2018-04-10T20:47:31.600" UserId="2415" Text="For the verb *puto -are*, Cassell's and Lewis &amp; Short give a primary meaning of &quot;to clean, cleanse&quot; and a literal meaning of &quot;to trim, prune or lop trees or vines&quot;. I can easily imagine the path that led from that to the figurative sense of clearing up, setting in order, or arranging, settling and adjusting. The image is not so clear when the usage becomes more generalised, when the verb starts being applied to a broad range of cognitive processes. The dictionary entries give not only specific-sounding processes of judging, esteeming, computing, accounting and suspecting as legitimate readings, but also broader processes of thinking, imagining, supposing and believing. To me, this relation between &quot;cleansing, pruning, trimming&quot; and &quot;judging, reckoning, thinking, etc.&quot; is not obvious. I assume it was obvious to the Romans, so I am sure my failure to make a connection is just due to a lapse of imagination and a lack of reading on my part. Nevertheless, how do we account for this development? Do the Romans themselves have any explanations to offer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20734" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6273" RevisionGUID="8a7f4b05-581f-41de-85d1-65a965fd7bd9" CreationDate="2018-04-10T20:47:31.600" UserId="2415" Text="How did the literal meaning of &quot;putare&quot; develop into &quot;to judge, to think, etc.&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20735" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6273" RevisionGUID="8a7f4b05-581f-41de-85d1-65a965fd7bd9" CreationDate="2018-04-10T20:47:31.600" UserId="2415" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6273" RevisionGUID="07e55c5c-2098-47b8-ac8a-94fffa504680" CreationDate="2018-04-10T20:55:24.130" UserId="2415" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="For the verb *puto -are*, Cassell's and Lewis &amp; Short give a primary meaning of &quot;to clean, cleanse&quot; and a literal meaning of &quot;to trim, prune or lop trees or vines&quot;. I can easily imagine the path that led from that to the figurative sense of clearing up, setting in order, or arranging, settling and adjusting. The image is not so clear when the usage becomes more generalised, when the verb starts being applied to a broad range of cognitive processes. The dictionary entries give not only specific-sounding processes of judging, esteeming, computing, accounting and suspecting as legitimate readings, but also broader processes of thinking, imagining, supposing and believing. To me, this relation between &quot;cleansing, pruning, trimming&quot; and &quot;judging, reckoning, thinking, etc.&quot; is not obvious. I assume it was obvious to the Romans, so I am sure my failure in making a connection is due to a lapse of imagination (and a lack of reading) on my part. Nevertheless, how do we account for this development? Do the Romans themselves have any explanations to offer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6273" RevisionGUID="a4c731be-5799-457c-bab1-848f0bf87ca4" CreationDate="2018-04-10T21:48:16.523" UserId="2415" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="For the verb *puto -are*, Cassell's and Lewis &amp; Short give a primary meaning of &quot;to clean, cleanse&quot; and a literal meaning of &quot;to trim, prune or lop trees or vines&quot;. I can easily imagine the path that led from that to the figurative sense of clearing up, setting in order, or arranging, settling and adjusting. The image is not so clear when the usage becomes more generalised, when the verb starts being applied to a wide range of cognitive processes. The dictionary entries give not only specific-sounding processes of judging, esteeming, computing, accounting and suspecting as legitimate readings, but also broader processes of thinking, imagining, supposing and believing. To me, this relation between &quot;cleansing, pruning, trimming&quot; and &quot;judging, reckoning, thinking, etc.&quot; is not obvious. I assume it was obvious to the Romans, so I am sure my failure in making a connection is due to a lapse of imagination (and a lack of reading) on my part. At any rate, how do we account for this development? Do the Romans themselves have any explanations to offer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6273" RevisionGUID="25fb5429-dc9a-4451-92a0-f255336e7a94" CreationDate="2018-04-10T21:56:46.393" UserId="2415" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="For the verb *puto -are*, Cassell's and Lewis &amp; Short give a primary meaning of &quot;to clean, cleanse&quot; and a literal meaning of &quot;to trim, prune or lop trees or vines&quot;. I can easily imagine the path that led from that to the figurative sense of clearing up, setting in order, or arranging, settling and adjusting. However, the image is not so clear when the usage becomes more generalised, when the verb starts being applied to a wide range of cognitive processes. The dictionary entries give not only specific-sounding processes of judging, esteeming, computing, accounting and suspecting as legitimate readings, but also broader processes of thinking, imagining, supposing and believing. To me, this relation between &quot;cleansing, pruning, trimming&quot; and &quot;judging, reckoning, thinking, etc.&quot; is not obvious. I assume it was obvious to the Romans, so I am sure my failure in making a connection is just due to a lapse of imagination (and a lack of reading) on my part. At any rate, how do we account for this development? Do the Romans themselves have any explanations to offer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6273" RevisionGUID="265fc60b-31a6-4cd8-9315-7a119accab16" CreationDate="2018-04-11T00:51:00.430" UserId="2415" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="For the verb *puto -are*, Cassell's and Lewis &amp; Short give a primary meaning of &quot;to clean, cleanse&quot; and a literal meaning of &quot;to trim, prune or lop trees or vines&quot;. I can easily imagine the path that led from that to the figurative sense of clearing up, setting in order, or arranging, settling and adjusting. However, the image is not so clear when the usage becomes more generalised, when the verb starts being applied to a wide range of cognitive processes. The dictionary entries give not only specific processes like judging, esteeming, computing, accounting and suspecting as legitimate readings, but also broader processes like thinking, imagining, supposing and believing. To me, this relation between &quot;cleansing, pruning, trimming&quot; and &quot;judging, reckoning, thinking, etc.&quot; is not obvious. I assume it was obvious to the Romans, so I am sure my failure in making a connection is just due to a lapse of imagination (and a lack of reading) on my part. At any rate, how do we account for this development? Do the Romans themselves have any explanations to offer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6274" RevisionGUID="be7e4709-ecbd-4619-8cea-df779928bd44" CreationDate="2018-04-11T11:20:39.967" UserId="645" Text="Smith gives as a fifth meaning of *vita*  &quot;a life, i.e. course of life, as the subject of biography&quot;. Since an obituary is essentially a review of someone's life, *vita* alone would probably supply your need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To expand this a little: I would say that accounts of the lives of great (or notable) men are plentiful  in classical literature. Probably the best known collection of such is usually published as &quot;Corneli Nepotis Vitae&quot;; Gellius also provides a good deal of similar information. Nepos concludes his introduction with *et in hoc exponemus libro de vita excellentium imperatorum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you would like something more descriptive, you might consider something on the lines of *recensio vitae memorialis* or *vita obiter recensa*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6275" RevisionGUID="67d3a09c-ba5a-4f35-ad29-45203d594b88" CreationDate="2018-04-11T17:53:36.210" UserId="469" Text="Not a perfect match, but I just remembered about the [**Acta martyrum**][1], as Wikipedia describes it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  are accounts of the suffering and death of a Christian martyr or group of martyrs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are compilations of them, and many are considered reliable and of historic value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Acta][2] (n. pl. of Perfect participle of the verb **ago**) has a number of uses related to records of different types, including storytelling and arguably early forms of journalism (e.g. in *diurna urbis acta* and *acta populi*, see the last section of the L&amp;S entry for [ago][3],) hence it is not surprising it was used for the Acts of the Apostles and the Acts of the Martyrs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since a martyr is someone dead in a specific way, I think you could go with acta + *n. gen.*, or acta + *adj.*, as in **acta mortui**, **acta Ioannis Doe**, **acta vitae** or **acta mortualia** (but I think the last one sounds like the corpse's deeds, I don't know.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;In turn, following Tom's line of thinking, Perseus lists [a number of biographies][4] from antiquity to the XVI century that include either **vita**, **vitae** or **de vita**. Some of the oldest titles I can catch at a glance: **de vita Caesarum**, **de vita Iulii Agricolae**, **vitae decem oratorum**, **vita apolonii**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Martyrs&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dacta2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dago&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AGreco-Roman&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AArabic&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AGermanic&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3Acwar&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3ARenaissance&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3ARichTimes&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3APDILL&amp;all_words=&amp;phrase=&amp;any_words=vita%20vitae&amp;exclude_words=&amp;search=Search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6276" RevisionGUID="c78e2f41-9ca7-43af-b9b7-f4383e6bbff6" CreationDate="2018-04-11T18:09:54.407" UserId="324" Text="I think the closest you will get is &quot;laudatio&quot; or &quot;laudatio funebris&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6273" RevisionGUID="52aeecde-be27-4e55-9ed5-591346766708" CreationDate="2018-04-12T02:03:34.603" UserId="2415" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="For the verb *puto -are*, Cassell's and Lewis &amp; Short give a primary meaning of &quot;to clean, cleanse&quot; and a literal meaning of &quot;to trim, prune or lop trees or vines&quot;. I can easily imagine the path that led from that to the figurative sense of clearing up, setting in order, or arranging, settling and adjusting. But the image is not so clear when the usage becomes more generalised, when the verb starts being applied to a wide range of cognitive processes. The dictionary entries give not only specific processes like judging, esteeming, computing, accounting and suspecting as legitimate readings, but also broader processes like thinking, imagining, supposing and believing. To me, this relation between &quot;cleansing, pruning, trimming&quot; and &quot;judging, reckoning, thinking, etc.&quot; is not obvious. I assume it was obvious to the Romans, so I am sure my failure in making a connection is just due to a lapse of imagination (and a lack of reading) on my part. At any rate, how do we account for this development? Do the Romans themselves have any explanations to offer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6277" RevisionGUID="e4661591-f351-4645-8010-404cc00f29e4" CreationDate="2018-04-12T16:48:19.380" UserId="79" Text="The word &quot;analysis&quot; is found in some form in a number of languages, and it is of Greek origin.&#xD;&#xA;I could not think of a Latin term meaning &quot;analysis&quot; (as the word is used today, which may or may not be the same as the original Greek meaning).&#xD;&#xA;The word can be adapted to Latin easily enough, but I am looking for a more Latinate word, if any.&#xD;&#xA;I would assume that at least Cicero found a word for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;What classical Latin word would be good for &quot;analysis&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20745" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6277" RevisionGUID="e4661591-f351-4645-8010-404cc00f29e4" CreationDate="2018-04-12T16:48:19.380" UserId="79" Text="What is analysis in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20746" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6277" RevisionGUID="e4661591-f351-4645-8010-404cc00f29e4" CreationDate="2018-04-12T16:48:19.380" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6278" RevisionGUID="9d09b611-1d01-421c-9f57-78462adc4b5e" CreationDate="2018-04-13T00:04:31.843" UserId="2560" Text="I came across an abbreviation in a text that I'd like to typeset as diplomatically as possible, but I've come across a single abbreviation for *gens* that I'm not entirely sure how it's being abbreviated (regrettably, the quality isn't very good either).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've checked in Cappelli's dictionary of abbreviations, but there isn't an G + superscript letter or G + symbol that means *gens*.  Here's the letter in context (and a transcription)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Excerpt of incunable][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ſuſpitio: qꝛ in egypto fuerũt ſemp̱ maximi malefici ⁊ incãta-  &#xD;&#xA;toꝛes ⁊ in oĩ arte peſſimꝫ eruditi: poſſet **[?]** ꝺici ꝺe xp̃o ꝙ ibi ꝺi  &#xD;&#xA;diciſſet artẽ magicã. Et oẽ genꝰ maleficij ꝑ qd̃ faceret miracu-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't like an *n* (for which I naively would anyways expect *g̃*), but I feel like it could just as easily be an *e* or an *s* over it, that is, *gͤ* or *gᷤ*.  What could it be?  (It's used frequently in the text)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BfGyX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20748" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6278" RevisionGUID="9d09b611-1d01-421c-9f57-78462adc4b5e" CreationDate="2018-04-13T00:04:31.843" UserId="2560" Text="Medieval abbreviation for gens" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20749" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6278" RevisionGUID="9d09b611-1d01-421c-9f57-78462adc4b5e" CreationDate="2018-04-13T00:04:31.843" UserId="2560" Text="|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6278" RevisionGUID="d76a5dd7-da89-4b13-aeef-e2d6f7c5842c" CreationDate="2018-04-13T00:33:04.517" UserId="2560" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I came across an abbreviation in a text that I'd like to typeset as diplomatically as possible, but I've come across a single abbreviation for *gens* that I'm not entirely sure how it's being abbreviated (regrettably, the quality isn't very good either).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've checked in Cappelli's dictionary of abbreviations, but there isn't an G + superscript letter or G + symbol that means *gens*.  Here's the letter in context (and a transcription)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Excerpt of incunable][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ſuſpitio: qꝛ in egypto fuerũt ſemꝑ maximi malefici ⁊ incãta-  &#xD;&#xA;toꝛes ⁊ in oĩ arte peſſimꝫ eruditi: poſſet **[?]** ꝺici ꝺe xp̃o ꝙ ibi ꝺi  &#xD;&#xA;diciſſet artẽ magicã. Et oẽ genꝰ maleficij ꝑ qd̃ faceret miracu-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't like an *n* (for which I naively would anyways expect *g̃*), but I feel like it could just as easily be an *e* or an *s* over it, that is, *gͤ* or *gᷤ*.  What could it be?  (It's used frequently in the text)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BfGyX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="c751110c-2a6a-495e-bd1b-9f1610fff0cd" CreationDate="2018-04-13T01:27:44.833" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="Yes, Cappelli is basically right (which is perhaps not surprising, he being an authoritative figure in the field of palaeography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every third word is probably above average, but in most documents one seldom finds a sentence without any abbreviations. Parchment was not cheap, nor was scribal labour. The same applies to manuscripts in any European language, at least in my experience (mostly Latin and Dutch). Some genres are more likely to contain fewer abbreviations than others, such as literary works written in book script; but even an illustrated Bible will usually be full of them. A few arbitrary examples, with abbreviations in bold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.sothebys.com/content/dam/stb/lots/L12/L12242/009L12242_6CB6T.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Regnante d**omi**no n**ost**ro ih**s**u xp**ist**o cum post passionem sua**m** resurrectione**m** et ascensione**m** eius co**n**uersis  ad d**omi**n**u**m cunctis finib**us** terre nec in angulo occeani aliquis se a colore fidei absconderet in co**n**veniendo p**o**p**u**lo**s** in unu**m** et reges ut servirent d**omi**no. fuit in britanni(a)e partib**us** rex quidam d**e**o notus tam uita qua**m** nomine qui religiosus...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's 32% of words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.villa.culture.fr/mediatheque/communs/images/grandFormat/0/21_2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pars **est** p**ri**ma prudencie: ip**s**am cui p**re**ceptur**us** sis estimare p**er**sonam. Neq**ue** enim formator ag**ri**cole deb**et** artib**us** **et** eloquencia rethores emulari q**uo**d a plerisq**ue** factum **est** q**ui** dum diserte loqunt**ur** rusticis assecuti sunt, ut eorum doct**ri**na n**on** a dis?tissimis possit intelligi. S**ed** nos recidam**us** p**re**fationis moram: ne quos rep**re**hendim**us** imitemur. ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That makes 43%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there are also manuscripts that use few abbreviations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.europeanaregia.eu/sites/www.europeanaregia.eu/files/manuscripts/regiacarol_lat_5763.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gallia est omnis diuisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt belgae, aliam aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua celtae, N**ost**ra galli appellantur. Hi omnes lingua institutis legibus inter se differunt. Gallos ab aquitanis garunna flumen a belgis matrona **et** sequana diuidit. Horum omnium fortissimi sunt belgae propter ea q**uo**d a cultu atq**ue** humanitate provinciae longissime absunt minimeque ad eos mercatores saepe com**m**eant atq**ue** ea quae ad effeminandos animos pertinent inportant proximique s**un**t germanis qui trans renu**m** incolunt quib**us**cum continenter bellum gerunt ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's 11%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overall ratio is difficult to establish (and perhaps less necessary), but you can get a fair impression by looking at a couple of documents in Google Images." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6278" RevisionGUID="dc7c9295-5655-47e0-8ec1-56713df9122f" CreationDate="2018-04-13T01:55:40.313" UserId="2560" Comment="added information about the text" Text="I came across an abbreviation in a text that I'd like to typeset as diplomatically as possible, but I've come across an abbreviation for *gens* that I'm not entirely sure how it's being abbreviated (regrettably, the quality of the scan isn't very good either).  The incunable was published in Spain in the late 15th century and is a biblical commentary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've checked in Cappelli's dictionary of abbreviations, but there isn't an G + superscript letter or G + symbol that means *gens*.  Here's the letter in context (and a transcription)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Excerpt of incunable][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ſuſpitio: qꝛ in egypto fuerũt ſemꝑ maximi malefici ⁊ incãta-  &#xD;&#xA;toꝛes ⁊ in oĩ arte peſſimꝫ eruditi: poſſet **[?]** ꝺici ꝺe xp̃o ꝙ ibi ꝺi  &#xD;&#xA;diciſſet artẽ magicã. Et oẽ genꝰ maleficij ꝑ qd̃ faceret miracu-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't like an *n* (for which I naively would anyways expect *g̃*), but I feel like it could just as easily be an *e* or an *s* over it, that is, *gͤ* or *gᷤ*.  What could it be?  It's used frequently in the text, but the abbreviation mark, be it letter or diacritic, seems to be unique to this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BfGyX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20753" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6278" RevisionGUID="8c1ffdc5-67ce-4cd9-9424-5decb654e4b5" CreationDate="2018-04-13T02:58:32.603" UserId="2560" Comment="edited title" Text="Medieval abbreviation for gens [actually, igitur]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6279" RevisionGUID="98abcb40-3f22-4c44-9814-e183f0a7c038" CreationDate="2018-04-13T05:31:39.460" UserId="1348" Text="Whenever I see Classical texts, the syntax of almost every sentence is really complex. On the other hand, medieval or Renaissance texts seem to have a word order that is more similar to modern Romance languages. How could people of Ancient Rome read those texts with fluency? Was it just the gift of being born as a native speaker and immediately have been instructed in the language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that declensions enable the language to have diversity in the word order, but, for example, modern Russian has also declensions and even more cases than Latin, and even so it does not have an extremely complex syntax.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, were Classical authors sophisticated when writing just because that style was really natural and easy to understand, or was it just for the sake of elegance and for showing off that they were part of an elite?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20755" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6279" RevisionGUID="98abcb40-3f22-4c44-9814-e183f0a7c038" CreationDate="2018-04-13T05:31:39.460" UserId="1348" Text="Was Classical Latin syntax complex on purpose?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20756" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6279" RevisionGUID="98abcb40-3f22-4c44-9814-e183f0a7c038" CreationDate="2018-04-13T05:31:39.460" UserId="1348" Text="|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20757" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6279" RevisionGUID="47f236b9-8139-4bb8-b5f8-28c7146acbfd" CreationDate="2018-04-13T07:44:44.593" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|classical-latin|syntax|style|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6280" RevisionGUID="61b70874-8bd9-4c47-9a2d-013d087fc3c6" CreationDate="2018-04-13T12:46:24.757" UserId="45" Text="As mentioned in a comment, Cappelli 1.54 lists several possibilities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree, however, that this is &quot;gͥ&quot; (*g* with an *i* superscript). To my eye, it looks much more like a *g* with an ***o*** superscript, which comes out to **ergo**. An &quot;o&quot; does a much better job explaining the &quot;e&quot; shape (at least in the provided scan) than an &quot;i.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is at least one error with the &quot;literal&quot; transcription you provided: at the end of *pessima*, the last letter is an *a*, not a &quot;3-sign.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more standard transliteration of the whole passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; suspicio, quia in Aegypto fuerunt semper maximi malefici et incanta-  &#xD;&#xA;tores et in omni arte pessima eruditi: posset ergo dici de Christo quod ibi di-  &#xD;&#xA;dicissset artem magicam. Et omne genus maleficii per quod faceret miracu- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6281" RevisionGUID="cc542b61-6d19-4a3a-90fa-31ad7ba334a6" CreationDate="2018-04-13T13:36:06.220" UserId="45" Text="The first thing to note is that the meaning of &quot;analysis&quot; has developed considerably from its Greek origin. [Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/word/analysis) notes that its use for a &quot;statement presenting results of an analytic process&quot; started in the 1660s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek verb, ἀναλύω, means, &quot;unloose, undo.&quot; It was used, for instance, of Penelope's &quot;undoing&quot; of her web every night in the *Odyssey*. From this it developed the extended meaning (provided by the [LSJ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da\)na%2Flusis)) of &quot;resolution of a problem by the analysis of its conditions.&quot; It is opposed to σύνθεσις (&quot;synthesis&quot;), which is a kind of composition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of its component parts, the precise Latin equivalent is [*resolutio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dresolutio): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* re- = ανα- (ana-)&#xD;&#xA;* solvo = λύω (ly&amp;omacr;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, *resolutio* cleaves much more closely to the original, literal meaning of ἀναλύω. The dictionary entry provided glosses it as &quot;an untying, unbinding, loosening&quot; and only provides a couple entries that approach the &quot;solution&quot; meaning we expect in English. *Solutio* is a little more promising, and, in medieval Latin, meant pretty much the same thing as English &quot;solution.&quot; (Reading Latin manuscripts, a common trope is to get a long list of objections, after which comes a &quot;solutio&quot; in which the author answers the objections.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want something more akin to the current (post-1660s) meaning, which emphasizes the &quot;*statement* of the results&quot; rather than the actual &quot;breaking down process,&quot; the first word that comes to mind is [*expositio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dexpositio)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20760" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="bef6ca33-51fa-4f14-a35c-ac7d155cc6fa" CreationDate="2018-04-13T13:40:45.553" UserId="79" Comment="73" />
  <row Id="20761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6280" RevisionGUID="6d7c00a2-b654-4879-9152-241188be1c07" CreationDate="2018-04-13T13:41:05.403" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="As mentioned in a comment, Cappelli 1.54 lists several possibilities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree, however, that this is &quot;gͥ&quot; (*g* with an *i* superscript). To my eye, it looks much more like a *g* with an ***o*** superscript, which comes out to **ergo**. An &quot;o&quot; does a much better job explaining the &quot;e&quot; shape (at least in the provided scan) than an &quot;i.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is at least one error with the &quot;literal&quot; transcription you provided: at the end of *pessima*, the last letter is an *a*, not a &quot;3-sign.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more standard transliteration of the whole passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; suspicio, quia in Aegypto fuerunt semper maximi malefici et incanta-  &#xD;&#xA;tores et in omni arte pessima eruditi: posset ergo dici de Christo quod ibi di-  &#xD;&#xA;dicisset artem magicam. Et omne genus maleficii per quod faceret miracu- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6282" RevisionGUID="c4e10946-6247-44d4-9991-7acf6054d007" CreationDate="2018-04-13T16:29:55.370" UserId="13" Text="Given I couldn't find ἔερθαι or ἔερθε via Google nor on [the TLG](http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/index.php), and the commenters have no miraculous ideas as of now, I must conclude I imagined this form. Too bad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6283" RevisionGUID="2d01a701-c5e5-4814-ae7b-7a42577e893f" CreationDate="2018-04-13T23:29:08.523" UserId="522" Text="Here are examples from an earlier, insular, manuscript (Oxford CCC 122) which led me to think that this siglum is not *gens,* but *igitur.*  &#xD;&#xA;**Perge igitur add...** from Alea Evangelium&#xD;&#xA;[![Perge igitur ad... (fr Alea Ev)][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Videamus igitur quomodo...** (fr Alea Evang.)&#xD;&#xA;[![Videamus igitur quomodo... (fr Alea Evang.)[2]][2]  &#xD;&#xA;In the line above there are three superscripts 'O' (77nd), 't' ut, 'P tilde' praediximus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this manuscript **ergo** siglum has a clear 'o' superscript in place of 'i.'               &#xD;&#xA;**Cum ergo natus esset IHS** (from Mt2:1)&#xD;&#xA;[![Cum ergo natus esset IHS (from Mt2:1)][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were three reasons for thinking your siglum stood for *igitur.*  &#xD;&#xA;.1.frequent occurence.  &#xD;&#xA;.2.occuring second word in the clause.  &#xD;&#xA;.3.finally, the excerpt,  after describing the number of magicians in Egypt, continues: &quot;...it might be possible for it to be stated  concerning Christ that in that place he was instructed in magic arts.&quot; The argument suggested 'so,' 'hence,' 'therefore.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DNv8x.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9zEWm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8PLwK.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6283" RevisionGUID="91b24569-4cd4-4a8b-8be4-329b2e853d83" CreationDate="2018-04-13T23:36:25.763" UserId="522" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Here are examples from an earlier, insular, manuscript (Oxford CCC 122) which led me to think that this siglum is not *gens,* but *igitur.*  &#xD;&#xA;**Perge igitur ad...** from Alea Evangelium&#xD;&#xA;[![Perge igitur ad... (fr Alea Ev)][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Videamus igitur quomodo...** (fr Alea Evang.)&#xD;&#xA;[![Videamus igitur quomodo... (fr Alea Evang.)[2]][2]  &#xD;&#xA;In the line above there are three superscripts 'O' (72nd), 't' ut, 'P tilde' praediximus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this manuscript **ergo** siglum has a clear 'o' superscript in place of 'i.'               &#xD;&#xA;**Cum ergo natus esset IHS** (from Mt2:1)&#xD;&#xA;[![Cum ergo natus esset IHS (from Mt2:1)][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were three reasons for thinking your siglum stood for *igitur.*  &#xD;&#xA;.1.frequent occurence.  &#xD;&#xA;.2.occuring second word in the clause.  &#xD;&#xA;.3.finally, the excerpt,  after describing the number of magicians in Egypt, continues: &quot;...it might be possible for it to be stated  concerning Christ that in that place he was instructed in magic arts.&quot; The argument suggested 'so,' 'hence,' 'therefore.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DNv8x.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9zEWm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8PLwK.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6284" RevisionGUID="6f00669b-5560-415b-9351-97be9238c310" CreationDate="2018-04-14T00:25:30.057" UserId="522" Text="Smiths shorter English:Latin has an odd extended vocabulary designed to help Sixth-formers compose Hexameters on any given subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It mentions explicatio, but suggests the field of the 'unfolding' of complications needs to be specified. As ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *subtilis alicujus rei*;  Cic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Chemical analysis, Bacon: *'corporum separatio et solutio.'*&#xD;&#xA;also M.L. *'compositum ad principia redigere.'*  &#xD;&#xA;*Analysis, -eos* is appropriate in the context of *analysis,* and *synthesis*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6285" RevisionGUID="d3556c29-03ac-4ab7-9198-c988a6cb953b" CreationDate="2018-04-14T11:23:10.763" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="Verse in question is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Funes ceciderunt mihi in praeclaris; etenim haereditas mea praeclara est mihi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would seem to me that meaning is something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Funes - ropes, bonds, chains&#xD;&#xA; ceciderunt mihi - ceased, fallen of me&#xD;&#xA; in praeclaris - in fame (?) - as in: it was bright, glorious (?)&#xD;&#xA; etenim - because&#xD;&#xA; haereditas mea praeclara est mihi - I have my bright/great inheritance`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please offer a translation of this verse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20767" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6285" RevisionGUID="d3556c29-03ac-4ab7-9198-c988a6cb953b" CreationDate="2018-04-14T11:23:10.763" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="Translation of Ps 16(15), 6 (Vulgata)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20768" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6285" RevisionGUID="d3556c29-03ac-4ab7-9198-c988a6cb953b" CreationDate="2018-04-14T11:23:10.763" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20769" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6285" RevisionGUID="0dbfee6a-ce42-4f2b-bfd3-9db964eb555a" CreationDate="2018-04-14T12:46:44.563" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|christianity|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6286" RevisionGUID="02c83121-406b-4c06-906b-abe47a989b82" CreationDate="2018-04-14T13:43:25.480" UserId="522" Text="*Funis* seems to be used in its metaphorical meaning of duty, service. Compare the 'lig-' in 'obligation,' and 'religion,' where 'ligo' is also to tie, to bind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'My duties fell to me amongst the *'praeclari:'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take *praeclarus* as &quot;super brilliant.&quot; The *praeclari* are 'super brilliant people.' And *praeclara mihi* describes *Hereditas,* my Heritage, as 'super brilliant for me, to me,'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etenim here is epexegetic, rather than a causal explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6287" RevisionGUID="be0be91c-4153-42e5-b5ba-03a2b080f2d8" CreationDate="2018-04-14T13:56:56.560" UserId="81" Text="Since the biggest difficulty seems to be how to translate *funes*, I thought the following interpretations offer some interesting insights:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Well might David say, '*Funes ceciderunt mihi in praeclaris*,' 'The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cords' of my tent, my ropes, and the sorrow of my pilgrimage, 'fell to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; me in a good ground, and I have a goodly heritage.'&quot; (Jeremy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taylor, *The Whole Works of the Rt. Rev. Jeremy Taylor*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's Augustine's take on it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;'The lines have fallen to me in glorious places' (ver. 6). The boundaries of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; my possession have fallen in Your glory as it were by lot, like as God&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is the possession of the Priests and Levites. Numbers 18:20 'For Mine inheritance is glorious to Me.' 'For Mine inheritance is glorious,' not to all, but to them that see; in whom because I am, 'it is to Me.'&quot; (Augustine, *Commentary on the Psalms*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6287" RevisionGUID="acf658cd-e299-4479-9519-fbc5cce6ac63" CreationDate="2018-04-14T14:12:16.223" UserId="81" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="Since the biggest difficulty seems to be how to translate *funes*, I thought the following interpretations offer some interesting insights:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Well might David say, '*Funes ceciderunt mihi in praeclaris*,' 'The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cords' of my tent, my ropes, and the sorrow of my pilgrimage, 'fell to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; me in a good ground, and I have a goodly heritage.'&quot; (Jeremy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taylor, *The Whole Works of the Rt. Rev. Jeremy Taylor*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's Augustine's take on it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;'The lines have fallen to me in glorious places' (ver. 6). The boundaries of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; my possession have fallen in Your glory as it were by lot, like as God&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is the possession of the Priests and Levites. Numbers 18:20 'For Mine inheritance is glorious to Me.' 'For Mine inheritance is glorious,' not to all, but to them that see; in whom because I am, 'it is to Me.'&quot; (Augustine, *Commentary on the Psalms*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another translation for *funes* that I came across was &quot;lot&quot;, so whether its translated as &quot;lines&quot;, &quot;cords&quot; or &quot;lot&quot;, the idea seems to be a descriptive way of referring to his inheritance or heritage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6288" RevisionGUID="a3a20667-a3d4-4d5f-9c8f-a5ffec35a00e" CreationDate="2018-04-14T20:38:07.773" UserId="79" Text="I recently obtained formal qualifications to teach Latin (and mathematics and physics) in a number of Finnish schools and I got my diploma yesterday.&#xD;&#xA;How should I go about expressing this in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Is there a good translation for &quot;qualifications&quot; (which I would use together with &quot;teacher's&quot; or &quot;pedagogical&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;Or would it be best to go with something like *mihi linguam Latinam docere licet* (which does not seem to communicate the formal qualifications)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20774" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6288" RevisionGUID="a3a20667-a3d4-4d5f-9c8f-a5ffec35a00e" CreationDate="2018-04-14T20:38:07.773" UserId="79" Text="How to describe qualifications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20775" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6288" RevisionGUID="a3a20667-a3d4-4d5f-9c8f-a5ffec35a00e" CreationDate="2018-04-14T20:38:07.773" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6289" RevisionGUID="2f107dbd-66d3-4498-8102-406cff9ad3f2" CreationDate="2018-04-15T12:05:59.683" UserId="1304" Text="While I know a lot of people in several countries who have such formal qualifications to teach _aut_ maths and physics _aut_ Latin (symmetric difference) in various schools, you are the only person I know of who has them for _et_ Latin _et_ maths and physics (intersection). So congratulations!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, my mother got her _abilitazione_ to teach Latin in Italian upper schools in the 1950’s. For that, she had to write an original essay in Latin (_quantum mutata tempora!_), and the glorious dictionary she used is in my hands right now: Luigi Luciano, _Nuovissimo Vocabolario Fraseologico Italiano-Latino_, G.B. Paravia &amp; C., Torino, 1924. (_Fraseologico_ is the key: the focus is on translating phrases, not words.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The formal Italian name of that qualification was, and still is, _abilitazione all’insegnamento._ Luciano has no translation for it, but it does translate the verb _abilitare all’insegnamento: __“Ius docendi concedere (alicui)”___ and the participle _abilitato all’insegnamento: __“Cui ius docendi concessum est.”___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any term you choose is loaded of different meaning in different countries. ___Idoneitas,___ for instance, would have no specific meaning for Italian high-school teachers, but academics would understand it as the particular step in their career when the State has already declared that they can be professors, but no University has called them for the post yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always with _recens latinitas,_ you have to choose what you want: either a general term to capture most equivalent terminology in as many countries as possible, or just Latin shapes for the different national terms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My 2¢, or my II if you prefer: use ___concessio iuris docendi.___" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6286" RevisionGUID="98653c41-c697-4a7d-99bf-61cdc701525d" CreationDate="2018-04-15T18:42:05.583" UserId="522" Comment="Epexegesis of two terms." Text="*Funis,* literally a rope or chain, seems to be used in its metaphorical meaning of duty, service. *Sequor Funes* and *duco funes* are both conventional phrases for doing ones duty, as if the *funis* was a line of duty. Compare the 'lig-' in 'obligation,' and 'religion,' where 'ligo' is to tie, to bind a person to their duties. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'My duties fell to me amongst the *'praeclari:'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take *praeclarus* as &quot;super brilliant.&quot; The *praeclari* are 'super brilliant people,' or 'asuper brilliant state of affairs.' And *praeclara mihi* describes *Hereditas,* my Heritage, as 'super brilliant for me, to me,'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etenim here is epexegetic, rather than a causal explanation. Rather than 'because,' it should be translated as 'And so...' / 'Which means,' or, as my dictionary (Smiths1880) says 'Wherefore...'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6290" RevisionGUID="743744da-235b-452c-917d-11eaebacafc8" CreationDate="2018-04-15T21:13:10.413" UserId="1304" Text="This question is old, and I think that nobody has answered it until now because there are no strong opinions about it. _Telephonulum_ and _status_ are good choices. My only objection is _aeroplanarius._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not an expert, but as far as I can gather from _Vicipaedia,_ Ebbe Vilborg and David Morgan, the best proposers of Latin terms for modern stuff, were careful in distinguishing Greek words like _aeroplanum,_ where they kept the connecting _-o-,_ from purely Latin words, _aeriportus_ and _aerinavis,_ where they preferred the connecting _-i-_ required by _apophonia Latina._ Following the same line of thought, I’d rather use a Greek suffix for a Greek word, and say _status aeroplanicus_ instead of _aeroplanarius._ (Symmetrically, I’d say _aerinavalis._) [_Αεροπλανικός_](http://greek_greek.enacademic.com/9024/%CE%B1%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%BB%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C%CF%82) exists in Modern Greek. However, it is not used in this context, because the set phrase is _λειτουργία πτήσης_ “flight mode”. I will definitely __not__ propose _status volitatorius._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Romance languages have no such adjectives: they use a simple noun after “mode”: _modo vuelo_ (Sp.), _mode avion_ (Fr.), _modo aereo_ (It.)... and cannot be used as examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6290" RevisionGUID="b12a76b1-72fa-4817-8f00-efc7bc0cb687" CreationDate="2018-04-16T03:23:29.180" UserId="1304" Comment="edited body" Text="This question is old, and I think that nobody has answered it until now because there are no strong opinions about it. _Telephonulum_ and _status_ are good choices. My only objection is _aeroplanarius._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not an expert, but as far as I can gather from _Vicipaedia,_ Ebbe Vilborg and David Morgan, the best proposers of Latin terms for modern stuff, were careful in distinguishing Greek words like _aeroplanum,_ where they kept the connecting _-o-,_ from purely Latin words, _aeriportus_ and _aerinavis,_ where they preferred the connecting _-i-_ required by _apophonia Latina._ Following the same line of thought, I’d rather use a Greek suffix for a Greek word, and say _status aeroplanicus_ instead of _aeroplanarius._ (Symmetrically, I’d say _aerinavalis._) [_Αεροπλανικός_](http://greek_greek.enacademic.com/9024/%CE%B1%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%BB%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C%CF%82) exists in Modern Greek. However, it is not used in this context, because the set phrase is _λειτουργία πτήσης_ “flight mode”. I will definitely __not__ propose _status volitatorius._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Romance languages have no such adjectives: they use a simple noun after “mode”: _modo avión_ (Sp.), _mode avion_ (Fr.), _modo aereo_ (It.)... and cannot be used as examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6284" RevisionGUID="473b4c68-2bac-4e93-9941-e3a6bb0d9f24" CreationDate="2018-04-16T12:42:38.873" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Smiths shorter English:Latin has an odd extended vocabulary designed to help Sixth-formers compose Hexameters on any given subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It mentions *explicatio*, but suggests the field of the 'unfolding' of complications needs to be specified. As ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *subtilis alicujus rei*;  Cic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Chemical analysis, Bacon: *'corporum separatio et solutio.'*&#xD;&#xA;also M.L. *'compositum ad principia redigere.'*  &#xD;&#xA;*Analysis, -eos* is appropriate in the context of *analysis,* and *synthesis*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6293" RevisionGUID="dc84d541-4a78-46cc-b23c-6ba2c53d7bdc" CreationDate="2018-04-16T14:27:45.893" UserId="79" Text="What would be the best Latin word(s) for &quot;career&quot;, to be used together with a specification such as &quot;academic&quot;, &quot;military&quot;, or &quot;industrial&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;The Roman phrase *cursus honorum* might refer too specifically to the sequence of public offices (perhaps closer to &quot;political career&quot; than &quot;career&quot;), but that is up to debate.&#xD;&#xA;Another related concept, *curriculum vitae*, refers to a specific kind of document, not the career itself.&#xD;&#xA;The most suitable words I could think of are *curriculum*, *decursus*, and *cursus*, but I may be missing some good options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am currently inclined towards *cursus academicus/militaris/industrialis*.&#xD;&#xA;(I don't know whether *industria* is a good word for &quot;industry&quot;. If anyone is interested, please take it to a separate question. You can also ask and answer yourself!)&#xD;&#xA;What do you suggest for &quot;career&quot; and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20788" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6293" RevisionGUID="dc84d541-4a78-46cc-b23c-6ba2c53d7bdc" CreationDate="2018-04-16T14:27:45.893" UserId="79" Text="What is the best Latin word for &quot;career&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20789" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6293" RevisionGUID="dc84d541-4a78-46cc-b23c-6ba2c53d7bdc" CreationDate="2018-04-16T14:27:45.893" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6295" RevisionGUID="75ae74e1-efe5-46c5-8ab4-e4e9f48b924f" CreationDate="2018-04-16T16:52:26.217" UserId="645" Text="The adjective *analyticus* seems perfectly acceptable in modern Latin. If I'm allowed to introduce a personal note, the first paper that I ever published (in 1960) was in the journal *Analytica Chimica Acta*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/analytica-chimica-acta" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6296" RevisionGUID="20081264-9e28-47b8-82f2-a11a32a74fb7" CreationDate="2018-04-17T13:55:33.640" UserId="2478" Text="I'm trying to translate Thomas Jefferson's sentence &quot;priests dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After several discussions with my dictionary, I've come to a version that sounds pleasing to me, but I need to check whether the structure is right:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Fugitur ut strigibus diluculum sic veritas presbyteris.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found no good word for witch, so I settled on *strix*, which seems to have meant a nightly beast resembling an owl, a vampire or a witch. Also, ancient Latin didn't have an equivalent for our *science*; their *scientia* was more like our *knowledge*. Does my translation work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20795" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6296" RevisionGUID="20081264-9e28-47b8-82f2-a11a32a74fb7" CreationDate="2018-04-17T13:55:33.640" UserId="2478" Text="Translating Jefferson's quote on priests and science" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20796" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6296" RevisionGUID="20081264-9e28-47b8-82f2-a11a32a74fb7" CreationDate="2018-04-17T13:55:33.640" UserId="2478" Text="|sentence-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6297" RevisionGUID="c908a73d-1260-4bea-87f0-fbee33bf6080" CreationDate="2018-04-17T17:24:38.083" UserId="2571" Text="I'm trying to helping out my friend to write a story, the story has a scene where there is latin sentences which I the only sentence that suppose to be written in latin in the story but I can't figure it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So.. can anyone of you translate this?&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;Don't wake me up from my sleep.&#xD;&#xA;And yet.. will I see the light again?&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to use google translate, but it seems something off / odd with the &quot;wake&quot; and &quot;sleep&quot; part. So please let me know the correct translation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6297" RevisionGUID="c908a73d-1260-4bea-87f0-fbee33bf6080" CreationDate="2018-04-17T17:24:38.083" UserId="2571" Text="What is the correct translation and usage of &quot;sleep&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6297" RevisionGUID="c908a73d-1260-4bea-87f0-fbee33bf6080" CreationDate="2018-04-17T17:24:38.083" UserId="2571" Text="|translation|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6298" RevisionGUID="24d984ec-6684-413b-a242-4d3ca29a53ca" CreationDate="2018-04-17T20:47:00.900" UserId="406" Text="I would say it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nē mē ē quiēte cieās. Sed…rursus lūcem aspiciam?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence is fairly straightforward. Instead of the harsh *nōlī*+inf &quot;don't…&quot; I used *nē*+subj &quot;please don't…&quot;, with the verb *cieō* &quot;to move, to rouse&quot;. For sleep I used the rather poetic *quiēs* &quot;rest, quiet&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second sentence I'm less happy with. *Sed* and *rursus* are both rather prosaic words, and I feel there *must* be a more poetic way to say &quot;ever again&quot;, but I don't know it. (*Rursus* is closer to &quot;a second time&quot;.) *Lūcem* comes from *lūx* &quot;light, daylight&quot;, often used figuratively to mean &quot;life&quot; (as in Aeneid 4, *Anna refert, o lūci magis dilēcta sorōri* &quot;Anna replies, 'oh, you, more beloved to your sister than her own life'&quot;) and the verb is *aspiciō* &quot;behold&quot; in the subjunctive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6299" RevisionGUID="9045a4f6-e8e5-4395-87c6-b0f20255c465" CreationDate="2018-04-17T20:47:10.673" UserId="9" Text="As Joonas said in his answer, the *anti-* found in *anticipāre* and *anticipātiō* seems to be merely a variant of the Latin adverb *ante*/prefix *ante-,* not a Greek prefix. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the PHI Latin Texts search, I was able to find an isolated example of *antilucanam* used in place of *antelucanam* in L. Iunius Moderatus Columella, De Re Rustica 11.2.4.1. This is mentioned in &quot;Emendationes in Collumellam&quot; by Vilelmus Lundström (in *[Eranos](https://books.google.com/books?id=-A4MAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA76&amp;lpg=PA76&amp;dq=%22+antilucanam%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=l3YgTce9AF&amp;sig=O9r8hSe8LEbzbpnSIbBuNM_EXPY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjw1Y-r8cHaAhWo6IMKHW5FBucQ6AEITjAH#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%20antilucanam%22&amp;f=false),* 1907):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;XI, 2, 12 *antilucanam* hunc locum editurus scribendum curaui cum **S A**. Vix enim crediderim librarios *ante-* in *anti-,* quod iis alienum esset, mutauisse; contra *anti-* in *ante-* ut sponte mutarent, consuetudo facile persuadebat (cfr I, 10 *antestites* **S** m. pr., quod librarius exemplari suo diligentius inspecto ipse correxit). Quam ob rem si quis infra 2. 55 *antilucanis* (ubi *antelucanis* **S A R**) restituere uelit, equidem neque alteri dissuadere neque tamen ipse facere ausim. Nam inter -ĕ- et -ĭ- uacillare auctorem ipsum credo (cfr *beneuolentia* et *beniuolentia* sat multis locis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I can't read Latin well enough to give a translation of this text, but it seems to me that Lundström says here that it was more common for scribes to change *anti-* into *ante-* than vice versa, so he doesn't think that we can say for sure that *anti-* in *antilucanis* is just a scribal error (although Lundström also doesn't seem to feel that he can completely rule out that possibility). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this passage, Lundström also mentions a similar word that may be of interest: *[antistes][1],* which Lewis and Short say is from the verb *antisto,* a variant of *[ante-sto](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dantesto).* Apparently, scribes did fairly often replace the spelling *antistes* with *antestes,* but the spelling with &quot;i&quot; seems to be considered more standard or more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are my guesses about possible factors that contributed to the change of *ante-* to *anti-* in *anticipāre* and *anticipātiō:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##*e* and *i* are phonetically similar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, *e* and *i* in Classical Latin were fairly similar phonetically, both being front non-low vowels. This may have made it easier in general for them to interchange. Another odd case of /i/ occurring where /e/ might be expected is [&quot;decim&quot; in words related to *decem](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5150/comparing-decem-and-decim).* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *anticipāre,* the following syllable also has *i,* so it seems possible to me that regressive assimilation might have played some role in the development of *ante* to *anti-* here. But it's very unclear to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##*i* is common in internal open syllables in Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an open syllable that is not the first or last syllable of a word, a short vowel not followed by /r/ or a consonant cluster containing /r/ will often be /i/, because of processes of vowel reduction that occurred in older stages of Latin. In the time of Classical Latin, this reduction of short vowels in word-internal syllables to /i/ did not apply as an automatic, exceptionless rule. But the existence of this type of weakening may be relevant to the development of the *anti-* form used in *anticipāre.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We see this kind of vowel reduction for example in the &quot;cip&quot; part of *anticipātiō,* and in the second part of a number of prefixed verbs such as *assideō* &lt;  *ad-* +‎ *sedeō.* We also see &quot;short i&quot; as a vowel coming after the first element of a compound in words like *[artifex](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=artifex),* from *ars* and *facio.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of &quot;i&quot; as a generic &quot;linking vowel&quot; in Latin compound words (e.g. &quot;[altispex](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daltispex)&quot; and &quot;[extispex](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dextispex)&quot;) may have provided some analogical basis for changing *ante-* to *anti-* in *anticipāre* (and, apparently, *antistes,* where the vowel isn't even in an open syllable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possibly similar variant is *mali-* in place of *male-* in the word *[maleficus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=maleficus);* Lewis and Short say that *malificus* occurs as a variant spelling used in manuscripts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Some words that are morphologically related to *ante* have *i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymologically, the *e* in *ante* actually comes from *i,* and there are still remnants of this in some words: de Vaan says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; original *i* is still visible in *antiae,* in the inflexion of *antēs,* and in *antīquus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan also mentions the compounding form *antid-,* which he says is &quot;probably on the analogy of *postid*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if this is at all relevant to the use of &quot;i&quot; in *anticipāre,* but it seems vaguely possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dantistes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6300" RevisionGUID="919f234e-0ff8-4b97-bf6d-aa48e04c07e9" CreationDate="2018-04-17T20:56:18.893" UserId="406" Text="The structure seems good to me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, your sentence means &quot;just as the dawn is fled by the *strigēs*, so is the truth by the elders&quot;. *Strigēs* is a good translation for &quot;witches&quot; because it captures both the malevolence and the nocturnal-ness; Ovid describes them as witches who transformed themselves with dark magic into blood-drinking owls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main concern I have is with *presbyterīs*, literally &quot;elders&quot;. I'm not familiar with that word being used for priests in Classical Latin (though it might have taken on that meaning in Ecclesiastical); when I think of a &quot;priest&quot;, my mind jumps to *sacerdos* or *flāmen*. You also used *fugiō* &quot;flee from&quot; instead of a verb like *timeō*, *horreō*, or *metuō* for &quot;fear&quot;, which changes the meaning a bit but is an editorial decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *vēritās* &quot;truth&quot; is a good translation of &quot;science&quot; in this sense, but it doesn't have any implication of an approach or advancement. Again, that's an editorial decision, and it is certainly more concise without that extra word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6299" RevisionGUID="909f49e3-2331-4120-a1ed-4ca6213cb062" CreationDate="2018-04-17T21:51:03.790" UserId="9" Comment="added 736 characters in body" Text="As Joonas said in his answer, the *anti-* found in *anticipāre* and *anticipātiō* seems to be merely a variant of the Latin adverb *ante*/prefix *ante-,* not a Greek prefix. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to have been at least one more word that often had this variant of the prefix *ante-*: *[antistes][1],* which Lewis and Short say is from the verb *antisto,* a variant of *[ante-sto](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dantesto).* Apparently, scribes did fairly often replace the spelling *antistes* with *antestes,* but the spelling with &quot;i&quot; seems to be considered more standard or more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[Aspects of the phonology and morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot; by András Cser,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8.2.1.7. *ante-*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This prefix appears as *ante-* or *anti-* without any discernable regularity:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(74) Words prefixed with *ante-/anti*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;antecellere 'surpass'&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;antecedere 'precede'&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;antesignani 'troops in front'&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;anteferre 'carry in front'&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;anticipare 'anticipate'&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;antistes 'high priest'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...] It would be interesting to see how the final vowel of *anti-/ante-* behaves in the environment of lowering before [r] (see 5.1.2.2), but this prefix does not combine with stems beginning with [r] at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 150)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the PHI Latin Texts search, I was able to find an isolated example of *antilucanam* used in place of *antelucanam* in L. Iunius Moderatus Columella, De Re Rustica 11.2.4.1. This is mentioned in &quot;Emendationes in Collumellam&quot; by Vilelmus Lundström (in *[Eranos](https://books.google.com/books?id=-A4MAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA76&amp;lpg=PA76&amp;dq=%22+antilucanam%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=l3YgTce9AF&amp;sig=O9r8hSe8LEbzbpnSIbBuNM_EXPY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjw1Y-r8cHaAhWo6IMKHW5FBucQ6AEITjAH#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%20antilucanam%22&amp;f=false),* 1907):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;XI, 2, 12 *antilucanam* hunc locum editurus scribendum curaui cum **S A**. Vix enim crediderim librarios *ante-* in *anti-,* quod iis alienum esset, mutauisse; contra *anti-* in *ante-* ut sponte mutarent, consuetudo facile persuadebat (cfr I, 10 *antestites* **S** m. pr., quod librarius exemplari suo diligentius inspecto ipse correxit). Quam ob rem si quis infra 2. 55 *antilucanis* (ubi *antelucanis* **S A R**) restituere uelit, equidem neque alteri dissuadere neque tamen ipse facere ausim. Nam inter -ĕ- et -ĭ- uacillare auctorem ipsum credo (cfr *beneuolentia* et *beniuolentia* sat multis locis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I can't read Latin well enough to give a translation of this text, but it seems to me that Lundström says here that it was more common for scribes to change *anti-* into *ante-* than vice versa, so he doesn't think that we can say for sure that *anti-* in *antilucanis* is just a scribal error (although Lundström also doesn't seem to feel that he can completely rule out that possibility). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are my guesses about possible factors that contributed to the change of *ante-* to *anti-* in *anticipāre* and *anticipātiō:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##*e* and *i* are phonetically similar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, *e* and *i* in Classical Latin were fairly similar phonetically, both being front non-low vowels. This may have made it easier in general for them to interchange. Another odd case of /i/ occurring where /e/ might be expected is [&quot;decim&quot; in words related to *decem](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5150/comparing-decem-and-decim).* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *anticipāre,* the following syllable also has *i,* so it seems possible to me that regressive assimilation might have played some role in the development of *ante* to *anti-* here. But it's very unclear to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##*i* is common in internal open syllables in Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an open syllable that is not the first or last syllable of a word, a short vowel not followed by /r/ or a consonant cluster containing /r/ will often be /i/, because of processes of vowel reduction that occurred in older stages of Latin. In the time of Classical Latin, this reduction of short vowels in word-internal syllables to /i/ did not apply as an automatic, exceptionless rule. But the existence of this type of weakening may be relevant to the development of the *anti-* form used in *anticipāre.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We see this kind of vowel reduction for example in the &quot;cip&quot; part of *anticipātiō,* and in the second part of a number of prefixed verbs such as *assideō* &lt;  *ad-* +‎ *sedeō.* We also see &quot;short i&quot; as a vowel coming after the first element of a compound in words like *[artifex](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=artifex),* from *ars* and *facio.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of &quot;i&quot; as a generic &quot;linking vowel&quot; in Latin compound words (e.g. &quot;[altispex](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daltispex)&quot; and &quot;[extispex](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dextispex)&quot;) may have provided some analogical basis for changing *ante-* to *anti-* in *anticipāre* (and, apparently, *antistes,* where the vowel isn't even in an open syllable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possibly similar variant is *mali-* in place of *male-* in the word *[maleficus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=maleficus);* Lewis and Short say that *malificus* occurs as a variant spelling used in manuscripts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Some words that are morphologically related to *ante* have *i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymologically, the *e* in *ante* actually comes from *i,* and there are still remnants of this in some words: de Vaan says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; original *i* is still visible in *antiae,* in the inflexion of *antēs,* and in *antīquus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan also mentions the compounding form *antid-,* which he says is &quot;probably on the analogy of *postid*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if this is at all relevant to the use of &quot;i&quot; in *anticipāre,* but it seems vaguely possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dantistes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5852" RevisionGUID="1cc48a8c-7080-421b-b3f5-29282640144c" CreationDate="2018-04-17T23:36:00.850" UserId="30" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="There are a couple of masculine (or common) nouns of the first declension. Some are from masculine Greek -ês, like *poeta, nauta*. But others, like *collega, advena, parricida, scriba, incola, agricola, indigena, conviva, auriga* are natively Latin. What is the origin of this *-a*? And can the same root be observed in other endings / forms? Judging by *parricida*, there might be a conexion with masculine *-as*. But is that also the case with other words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis &amp; Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parrĭcīda (pārĭcīda; old collat. form of the nom. sing. PARICIDAS, Fragm. XII. Tab. ap. Fest. s. v. parrici, p. 221 Müll.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5852" RevisionGUID="76466ee0-41f5-44cf-9b99-68b2514a081f" CreationDate="2018-04-17T23:41:50.237" UserId="30" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="There are a couple of masculine (or common) nouns of the first declension. Some are from masculine Greek -ês, like *poeta, nauta*. But others, like *collega, advena, parricida, scriba, incola, agricola, indigena, conviva, auriga* are natively Latin. What is the origin of this native *-a*? And can the same root be observed in other endings / forms? Judging by *parricida*, there might be a conexion with masculine *-as*. But is that also the case with other words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis &amp; Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parrĭcīda (pārĭcīda; old collat. form of the nom. sing. PARICIDAS, Fragm. XII. Tab. ap. Fest. s. v. parrici, p. 221 Müll.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6298" RevisionGUID="92a1f1fb-ea19-4fee-8a0d-9f8e761a5efd" CreationDate="2018-04-18T05:08:23.423" UserId="406" Comment="added 189 characters in body" Text="I would say it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nē mē ē quiēte cieās. Sed…rursus lūcem aspiciam?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(EDIT: Standard disclaimer: the lines over the vowels are optional. I use them but many other people don't; they represent a distinction between sounds that disappeared in later Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence is fairly straightforward. Instead of the harsh *nōlī*+inf &quot;don't…&quot; I used *nē*+subj &quot;please don't…&quot;, with the verb *cieō* &quot;to move, to rouse&quot;. For sleep I used the rather poetic *quiēs* &quot;rest, quiet&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second sentence I'm less happy with. *Sed* and *rursus* are both rather prosaic words, and I feel there *must* be a more poetic way to say &quot;ever again&quot;, but I don't know it. (*Rursus* is closer to &quot;a second time&quot;.) *Lūcem* comes from *lūx* &quot;light, daylight&quot;, often used figuratively to mean &quot;life&quot; (as in Aeneid 4, *Anna refert, o lūci magis dilēcta sorōri* &quot;Anna replies, 'oh, you, more beloved to your sister than her own life'&quot;) and the verb is *aspiciō* &quot;behold&quot; in the subjunctive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6301" RevisionGUID="4bd89645-c74e-4f72-94da-5bb73095c4c2" CreationDate="2018-04-18T12:24:53.467" UserId="324" Text="&gt; חֲבָלִים נָפְלוּ־לִי בַּנְּעִמִים אַף־נַחֲלָת שָׁפְרָה עָלָי׃&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; σχοινία ἐπέπεσάν μοι ἐν τοῖς κρατίστοις καὶ γὰρ ἡ κληρονομία μου&#xD;&#xA;&gt; κρατίστη μοί ἐστιν&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Funes ceciderunt mihi in præclaris ; etenim hæreditas mea præclara est&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mihi.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (KJV)The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; goodly heritage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Psalm 16 (LXX and Vulgata: 15), verse 6.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ḥăḇālīm is literally “ropes”, but it also has a specialised meaning of “ropes used to delimit fields”, and then of “the delimited fields (portions)” themselves. The first half of the verse (“the ropes have fallen to me in excellent places”) is paraphrased more prosaically in the second (“my inheritance is excellent for me”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic meaning of the Hebrew word (“ropes”) is rendered literally by σχοινία and by funes.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6301" RevisionGUID="1f51c62d-d063-4750-b493-a90d22fed843" CreationDate="2018-04-18T12:32:11.187" UserId="324" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; חֲבָלִים נָפְלוּ־לִי בַּנְּעִמִים אַף־נַחֲלָת שָׁפְרָה עָלָי׃&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; σχοινία ἐπέπεσάν μοι ἐν τοῖς κρατίστοις καὶ γὰρ ἡ κληρονομία μου&#xD;&#xA;&gt; κρατίστη μοί ἐστιν&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Funes ceciderunt mihi in præclaris ; etenim hæreditas mea præclara est&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mihi.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (KJV)The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; goodly heritage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Psalm 16 (LXX and Vulgata: 15), verse 6.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ḥăḇālīm is literally “ropes”, but it also has a specialised meaning of “ropes used to delimit fields”, and then of “the delimited fields (portions)” themselves. The first half of the verse (“the ropes have fallen for me in excellent places”) is paraphrased more prosaically in the second (“my inheritance is excellent for me”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic meaning of the Hebrew word (“ropes”) is rendered literally by σχοινία and by funes.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5739" RevisionGUID="dee6adcf-77be-4ec0-8ec7-3849ba4374ab" CreationDate="2018-04-18T13:07:45.547" UserId="2272" Comment="Added some missing examples." Text="According to this etymological dictionary of the cognate Spanish *abrigar*, the meaning of *&quot;to protect against the wind&quot;* was already attested in 4th century AD Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ABRIGAR, del lat. &lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;APRĪCARE&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; 'calentar con el calor del sol', &lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;*I.*&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; *doc.:* Berceo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;La ac. 'proteger contra el viento' ya se halla en en el latín de Paladio (S. IV d. C.: Cabrera). Cuervo, *Dicc.* I, 62-64; Cej. IV, § 73.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; D&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;ERIV.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; *Abrigo* [*Fn. Gonz.*] (postverbal de *abrigar*); el adj. ant. *abrigo* 'abrigado', en Berceo y en Martín Pérez de Ayala (1566: *Mod. Philol.* XXIV, 358) es el lat. &lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;APRĪCUS&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; 'soleado', posteriormente sustituído por '*abrigaño*' [Nebr. *Abrigaños* «lugares guardados del viento», en el vocabulario de med. S. XV. *RFE* XXXV, 336]. *Abrigadal* 'abrigadero' ast. (V). *Desabrigar* [1455 (*BHisp.* LVIII, 85); Nebr.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*Diccionario Crítico Etimológico Castellano e Hispánico*](https://www.scribd.com/document/157203089/Diccionario-Critico-Etimologico-castellano-A-CA-Corominas-Joan-pdf), Joan Corominas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary [suggests](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abrigo#Etymology_5) this is via extending the meaning *&quot;sunny&quot;* to ***&quot;that which wards off the cold&quot;***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notably, in French (and most other Romance languages) there is a doublet of verbs with contrasting definitions, depending on whether the term came via *aprīcāre* or not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Latin` [*aperīre*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aperio#Latin) (&quot;to uncover, open&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA; - `Spanish` *abrir* (&quot;to open&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - `Vulgar Latin` *\*operīre*&#xD;&#xA;      - `Old French` *ovrir* (&quot;to open&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;          - `French` ***ouvrir* (&quot;to open&quot;)**&#xD;&#xA;     - `Latin` [*aprīcus*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apricus#Latin)&#xD;&#xA;          - `Latin` *aprīcārī* (&quot;warm in the sun&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;               - `Late Latin` *aprīcāre*&#xD;&#xA;                    - `French` ***abrier* (&quot;to cover&quot;)**&#xD;&#xA;                    - `Spanish` *abrigar* (&quot;to cover&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Latin` [*operīre*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/operio#Latin) (&quot;to cover, shut&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - `Latin` *cooperīre* (&quot;to cover completely&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;      - `Spanish` *cubrir* (&quot;to cover&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;      - `Old French` *covrir*&#xD;&#xA;            - `French` ***couvrir* (&quot;to cover&quot;)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is interesting that *operīre* (&quot;to cover&quot;) seems to have influenced the form of the *aperīre* (&quot;to open&quot;) descended verbs of many Gallo-Romance languages (see column 3 below); while the cognate *abrigar/abrier* (retaining a similar form to *aperīre*) has flipped in meaning to &quot;to cover&quot; (column 4):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    |                |   &quot;To open&quot;      |   &quot;To open&quot;   |  &quot;To cover&quot;  |   &quot;To cover&quot;       |&#xD;&#xA;    |   Language     | (via aperīre)    | (via aperīre, |(via aperīre, | (via aperīre,      |&#xD;&#xA;    |                |                  |     *operīre) |     aprīcāre)|     *operīre,      |&#xD;&#xA;    |                |                  |               |              |    cooperīre)      |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Fala           | abril            | -             | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Old Portuguese | abrir            | -             | abrigar      | cobrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Portuguese     | abrir            | -             | abrigar      | cobrir, acobertar  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Galician       | abrir            | -             | abrigar      | cubrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Asturian       | abrir            | -             | abrigar      | cubrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Spanish        | abrir            | -             | abrigar      | cubrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Aragonese      | -                | ubrir         | abrigar      | cubrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Old Provençal  | -                | obrir         | ?            | cobrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Catalan        | -                | obrir         | abrigar      | cobrir             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Occitan        | -                | obrir, dobrir | abrigar      | cobrir, cubrir     |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Old French     | -                | ovrir, olvrir,| abrier       | covrir, cuvrir     |&#xD;&#xA;    |                |                  | ouvrir, uvrir |              |                    |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | French         | -                | ouvrir        | abrier       | couvrir            |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Norman         | -                | ouvri (Jersey)| ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    |Franco-Provençal| -                | uvrir         | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Italian        | aprire           | -             | ?            | coprire            |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Neapolitan     | arapì, arape     | -             | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Venetian       | averzir, avèrzer,| -             | ?            | covrir, covèrzar,  |&#xD;&#xA;    |                | avèrxer, vèrzer, |               |              | coèrxar, coèrxer,  |&#xD;&#xA;    |                | vèrzar, verxar   |               |              | covèrxer, cuèrxer, |&#xD;&#xA;    |                |                  |               |              | cuèrzar            |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Sicilian       | apriri, iàpriri, | -             | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    |                | jàpriri, gràpiri |               |              |                    |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Sardinian      | abbèrrere,       | -             | ?            | cobèrrere, cobèrri,|&#xD;&#xA;    |                |abèrriri, apèrrere|               |              |cobèrriri, copèrrere|&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Friulian       | avierzi, aviergi,| -             | ?            | cuvierzi, cuviergi |&#xD;&#xA;    |                | vierzi, viergi   |               |              |                    |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Romansch       | avrir, arver     | -             | ?            | cuvrir, cuvierer,  |&#xD;&#xA;    |                |                  |               |              | cuvreir            |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Dalmatian      | apiar, aprer     | -             | ?            | coprer             |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Aromanian      | apir, apiriri    | -             | ?            | acoapir, acupiriri |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Romanian       | ?                | -             | ?            | acoperi            |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    | Walloon        | drovi            | -             | ?            | ?                  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----------------+------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6302" RevisionGUID="2567aaef-1358-4d80-b13a-57a5572b939d" CreationDate="2018-04-18T13:21:59.913" UserId="9" Text="When I was trying to find information to answer [ktm5124's question about &#xD;&#xA;“anticipātiō, anticipātiōnis”](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5562/how-did-the-mixed-root-anticipātiō-anticipātiōnis-form), I came across a passage that I am not advanced enough to understand fully. I'd like to ask for some help with the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following paragraph comes from &quot;Emendationes in Collumellam&quot; by Vilelmus Lundström (in *[Eranos](https://books.google.com/books?id=-A4MAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA76&amp;lpg=PA76&amp;dq=%22+antilucanam%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=l3YgTce9AF&amp;sig=O9r8hSe8LEbzbpnSIbBuNM_EXPY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjw1Y-r8cHaAhWo6IMKHW5FBucQ6AEITjAH#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%20antilucanam%22&amp;f=false),* 1907):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;XI, 2, 12 *antilucanam* hunc locum editurus scribendum curaui cum **S A**. Vix enim crediderim librarios *ante-* in *anti-,* quod iis alienum esset, mutauisse; contra *anti-* in *ante-* ut sponte mutarent, consuetudo facile persuadebat (cfr I, 10 *antestites* **S** m. pr., quod librarius exemplari suo diligentius inspecto ipse correxit). Quam ob rem si quis infra 2. 55 *antilucanis* (ubi *antelucanis* **S A R**) restituere uelit, equidem neque alteri dissuadere neque tamen ipse facere ausim. Nam inter -ĕ- et -ĭ- uacillare auctorem ipsum credo (cfr *beneuolentia* et *beniuolentia* sat multis locis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having particular trouble understanding how to read the first sentence. My attempt so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    XI, 2, 12 *antilucanam*  - &quot;XI, 2, 12 *antilucanam*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    hunc locum               - &quot;this place (here)&quot;-acc.&#xD;&#xA;    editurus                 - m-s-nom. fut active part. of &quot;edo&quot; = &quot;going to publish&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;    scribendum               - acc. gerund or gerundive of &quot;scribo&quot; = &quot;for writing&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;    curaui                   - 1s-perf of &quot;curo&quot; = &quot; I took care of&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;    cum S A.                 - &quot;with SA&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to have the first person singular as the subject, with the main verb &quot;curavi&quot;, but I don't understand the grammatical roles of the other words in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I have the gist of the rest of the sentences, with a few difficult spots bolded below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I believe scribes very rarely changed *ante-* into *anti-,* which was alien to them; contrariwise they freely changed *anti-* into *ante-,* **as convention persuaded (?)** [***consuetudo facile persuadebat***] (compare I, 10 *antestites* S **m. pr.**, **which I consider a more diligent scribe corrected himself by his copy** (?) [*quod librarius exemplari suo **diligentius** inspecto ipse correxit*]). And therefore, if anyone wants to restore below 2. 55 *antilucanis* (where *antelucanis* S A R), certainly I dare **neither to dissuade the one nor however do so [him?]self** [*neque alteri dissuadere neque **tamen ipse facere***]. For I believe the author himself vacillates between -ĕ- et -ĭ- (compare *beneuolentia* and *beniuolentia* in many places)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20814" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6302" RevisionGUID="2567aaef-1358-4d80-b13a-57a5572b939d" CreationDate="2018-04-18T13:21:59.913" UserId="9" Text="What do the future active participle &quot;editurus&quot; and the gerundive or gerund &quot;scribendum&quot; mean in this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20815" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6302" RevisionGUID="2567aaef-1358-4d80-b13a-57a5572b939d" CreationDate="2018-04-18T13:21:59.913" UserId="9" Text="|translation|sentence-translation|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6302" RevisionGUID="6b6e4068-b816-44d4-aba0-e7ea20b73364" CreationDate="2018-04-18T13:37:04.533" UserId="9" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="When I was trying to find information to answer [ktm5124's question about &#xD;&#xA;“anticipātiō, anticipātiōnis”](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5562/how-did-the-mixed-root-anticipātiō-anticipātiōnis-form), I came across a passage that I am not advanced enough to understand fully. I'd like to ask for some help with the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following paragraph comes from &quot;Emendationes in Collumellam&quot; by Vilelmus Lundström (in *[Eranos](https://books.google.com/books?id=-A4MAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA76&amp;lpg=PA76&amp;dq=%22+antilucanam%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=l3YgTce9AF&amp;sig=O9r8hSe8LEbzbpnSIbBuNM_EXPY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjw1Y-r8cHaAhWo6IMKHW5FBucQ6AEITjAH#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%20antilucanam%22&amp;f=false),* 1907):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;XI, 2, 12 *antilucanam* hunc locum editurus scribendum curaui cum **S A**. Vix enim crediderim librarios *ante-* in *anti-,* quod iis alienum esset, mutauisse; contra *anti-* in *ante-* ut sponte mutarent, consuetudo facile persuadebat (cfr I, 10 *antestites* **S** m. pr., quod librarius exemplari suo diligentius inspecto ipse correxit). Quam ob rem si quis infra 2. 55 *antilucanis* (ubi *antelucanis* **S A R**) restituere uelit, equidem neque alteri dissuadere neque tamen ipse facere ausim. Nam inter -ĕ- et -ĭ- uacillare auctorem ipsum credo (cfr *beneuolentia* et *beniuolentia* sat multis locis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having particular trouble understanding how to read the first sentence. My attempt so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    XI, 2, 12 *antilucanam*  - &quot;XI, 2, 12 *antilucanam*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    hunc locum               - &quot;this place (here)&quot;-acc.&#xD;&#xA;    editurus                 - m-s-nom. fut active part. of &quot;edo&quot; = &quot;going to publish&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;    scribendum               - acc. gerund or gerundive of &quot;scribo&quot; = &quot;for writing&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;    curaui                   - 1s-perf of &quot;curo&quot; = &quot; I took care of&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;    cum S A.                 - &quot;with SA&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to have the first person singular as the subject, with the main verb &quot;curavi&quot;, but I don't understand the grammatical roles of the other words in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I have the gist of the rest of the sentences, with a few difficult spots bolded below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I believe scribes very rarely changed *ante-* into *anti-,* which was alien to them; contrariwise that they freely changed *anti-* into *ante-,* **convention easily persuaded (?)** [***consuetudo facile persuadebat***] (compare I, 10 *antestites* S **m. pr.**, **which I consider a scribe more diligently corrected himself by his copy** (?) [*quod librarius exemplari suo **diligentius** inspecto ipse correxit*]). And therefore, if anyone wants to restore below 2. 55 *antilucanis* (where *antelucanis* S A R), certainly I dare **neither to dissuade the one nor however do so [him?]self** [*neque alteri dissuadere neque **tamen ipse facere***]. For I believe the author himself vacillates between -ĕ- et -ĭ- (compare *beneuolentia* and *beniuolentia* in many places)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6302" RevisionGUID="75791423-9a82-44ca-a09e-2a814b909a9a" CreationDate="2018-04-18T13:47:51.723" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="When I was trying to find information to answer [ktm5124's question about &#xD;&#xA;“anticipātiō, anticipātiōnis”](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5562/how-did-the-mixed-root-anticipātiō-anticipātiōnis-form), I came across a passage that I am not advanced enough to understand fully. I'd like to ask for some help with the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following paragraph comes from &quot;Emendationes in Collumellam&quot; by Vilelmus Lundström (in *[Eranos](https://books.google.com/books?id=-A4MAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA76&amp;lpg=PA76&amp;dq=%22+antilucanam%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=l3YgTce9AF&amp;sig=O9r8hSe8LEbzbpnSIbBuNM_EXPY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjw1Y-r8cHaAhWo6IMKHW5FBucQ6AEITjAH#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%20antilucanam%22&amp;f=false),* 1907):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;XI, 2, 12 *antilucanam* hunc locum editurus scribendum curaui cum **S A**. Vix enim crediderim librarios *ante-* in *anti-,* quod iis alienum esset, mutauisse; contra *anti-* in *ante-* ut sponte mutarent, consuetudo facile persuadebat (cfr I, 10 *antestites* **S** m. pr., quod librarius exemplari suo diligentius inspecto ipse correxit). Quam ob rem si quis infra 2. 55 *antilucanis* (ubi *antelucanis* **S A R**) restituere uelit, equidem neque alteri dissuadere neque tamen ipse facere ausim. Nam inter -ĕ- et -ĭ- uacillare auctorem ipsum credo (cfr *beneuolentia* et *beniuolentia* sat multis locis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having particular trouble understanding how to read the first sentence. My attempt so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    XI, 2, 12 *antilucanam*  - &quot;XI, 2, 12 *antilucanam*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    hunc locum               - &quot;this place (here)&quot;-acc.&#xD;&#xA;    editurus                 - m-s-nom. fut active part. of &quot;edo&quot; = &quot;going to publish&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;    scribendum               - acc. gerund or gerundive of &quot;scribo&quot; = &quot;for writing&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;    curaui                   - 1s-perf of &quot;curo&quot; = &quot; I took care of&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;    cum S A.                 - &quot;with SA&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to have the first person singular as the subject, with the main verb &quot;curavi&quot;, but I don't understand the grammatical roles of the other words in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I have the gist of the rest of the sentences, with a few difficult spots bolded below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I believe scribes very rarely changed *ante-* into *anti-,* which was alien to them; contrariwise **convention easily persuaded (?)** [***consuetudo facile persuadebat***] that they freely changed *anti-* into *ante-* (compare I, 10 *antestites* S **m. pr.**, **which I consider a scribe more diligently corrected himself by his copy** (?) [*quod librarius exemplari suo **diligentius** inspecto ipse correxit*]). And therefore, if anyone wants to restore below 2. 55 *antilucanis* (where *antelucanis* S A R), certainly I dare **neither to dissuade the one nor however do so [him?]self** [*neque alteri dissuadere neque **tamen ipse facere***]. For I believe the author himself vacillates between -ĕ- et -ĭ- (compare *beneuolentia* and *beniuolentia* in many places)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6303" RevisionGUID="c520d758-a53f-46f6-8dd7-4e181108707b" CreationDate="2018-04-18T14:08:58.517" UserId="469" Text="Here's my attempt. I'm not specially good with translations, but I want to give it a try. Due to the way in which I have learnt Latin, it will have a post-classical flavor:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Noli me de somno meo suscitare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Numquid autem lucem denuo videbo?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* As you may note, Draconis preferred not to use _noli_ because it sounds harsh. The alternative here would be _ne me a somno suscites_. _Noli_ is the imperative form of a verb meaning _not to want_, and, as far as I know, is a standard form of saying _don't_. I agree that _ne_ is more polite, but I perceive _noli_ just as neutral as the original _don't_.&#xD;&#xA;* [Somnus][1] means primarily _sleep_, but also *dream, drowsiness, night, death*, in a wider sense. _To sleep_ is _dormire_ (_I sleep_, _dormio_.)&#xD;&#xA;* The verb *suscitare* literally means *to raise* sth *up* but is commonly used in the context of someone sleeping to mean _to wake someone up_ (e.g. [VG Act 12:7][2], and also classically.) Another verb is _evigilare_, but I'm hesitant about its proper usage. I also thought of _educere_ as saying _take me out of my dream_, but I now think its further apart from what you originally meant.&#xD;&#xA;* The way to link _suscitare_ with _I_ is through the accusative _me_.&#xD;&#xA;* The way to link _suscitare_ with _somnus_ is with one of two prepositions: either _de somno_ (cf. [Gen 28:16][3]) or _e(x) somno_ (as suggested by [L&amp;S][4], probably the Classical way to do it.)&#xD;&#xA;* *Numquid* is a standard interrogatory particle. *Num* is equivalent, and I think more used in classical times.&#xD;&#xA;* [*Autem*][5] is an adversative conjunction than can perfectly translate to *but*, and (usually?) needs to be the second word of the sentence. Both _num autem_ and _numquid autem_ are attested at some point in Latin history. Particularly, _num autem_ is attested by Pliny the Younger (I-II cent. AD.)&#xD;&#xA;* *[Denuo][6]* is a rather uncommon adverb, but its primary meanings are *anew, afresh, again*.&#xD;&#xA;* *Videbo* and *aspiciam* are both 1st person singular, future tense of verbs meaning *to see* (I will/will I see.) To me it seems that *[aspicio][7]* is more prone to mean to look at (with attention, in detail), while [*video*][8] is more directly to see/perceive with the eyes, just as your phrase seems to be desperately looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsomnus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_actus-apostolorum_lt.html#12&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0060:book=Genesis:chapter=28&amp;highlight=somno%2Csomnis%2Cevigilasset&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsuscito&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dautem&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddenuo&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daspicio&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvideo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6303" RevisionGUID="0c5437be-1140-49c4-a68b-4a58720320c1" CreationDate="2018-04-18T14:40:23.177" UserId="469" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Here's my attempt. I'm not specially good with translations, but I want to give it a try. Due to the way in which I have learnt Latin, it will have a post-classical flavor:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Noli me de somno meo suscitare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Numquid autem lucem denuo videbo?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* As you may note, Draconis preferred not to use _noli_ because it sounds harsh. The alternative here would be _ne me de somno suscites_. _Noli_ is the imperative form of a verb meaning _not to want_, and, as far as I know, is a standard form of saying _don't_. I agree that _ne_ is more polite, but I perceive _noli_ just as neutral as the original _don't_.&#xD;&#xA;* [Somnus][1] means primarily _sleep_, but also *dream, drowsiness, night, death*, in a wider sense. _To sleep_ is _dormire_ (_I sleep_, _dormio_.)&#xD;&#xA;* The verb *suscitare* literally means *to raise* sth *up* but is commonly used in the context of someone sleeping to mean _to wake someone up_ (e.g. [VG Act 12:7][2], and also classically.) Another verb is _evigilare_, but I'm hesitant about its proper usage. I also thought of _educere_ as saying _take me out of my dream_, but I now think its further apart from what you originally meant.&#xD;&#xA;* The way to link _suscitare_ with _I_ is through the accusative _me_.&#xD;&#xA;* The way to link _suscitare_ with _somnus_ is with one of two prepositions: either _de somno_ (cf. [Gen 28:16][3]) or _e(x) somno_ (as suggested by [L&amp;S][4], probably the Classical way to do it.)&#xD;&#xA;* *Numquid* is a standard interrogatory particle. *Num* is equivalent, and I think more used in classical times.&#xD;&#xA;* [*Autem*][5] is an adversative conjunction than can perfectly translate to *but*, and (usually?) needs to be the second word of the sentence. Both _num autem_ and _numquid autem_ are attested at some point in Latin history. Particularly, _num autem_ is attested by Pliny the Younger (I-II cent. AD.)&#xD;&#xA;* *[Denuo][6]* is a rather uncommon adverb, but its primary meanings are *anew, afresh, again*.&#xD;&#xA;* *Videbo* and *aspiciam* are both 1st person singular, future tense of verbs meaning *to see* (I will/will I see.) To me it seems that *[aspicio][7]* is more prone to mean to look at (with attention, in detail), while [*video*][8] is more directly to see/perceive with the eyes, just as your phrase seems to be desperately looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsomnus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_actus-apostolorum_lt.html#12&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0060:book=Genesis:chapter=28&amp;highlight=somno%2Csomnis%2Cevigilasset&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsuscito&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dautem&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddenuo&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daspicio&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvideo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6297" RevisionGUID="fa81b588-9003-4cea-9635-b93ee65c87cd" CreationDate="2018-04-18T17:04:30.100" UserId="2571" Comment="edited body" Text="I'm trying to helping out my friend to write a story, the story has a scene where there is latin sentences which the only sentence that I suppose to be written in latin in the story but I can't figure it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So.. can anyone of you translate this?&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;Don't wake me up from my sleep.&#xD;&#xA;And yet.. will I see the light again?&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to use google translate, but it seems something off / odd with the &quot;wake&quot; and &quot;sleep&quot; part. So please let me know the correct translation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6282" RevisionGUID="e4f01384-3c85-4ec3-8389-9a47d1bcd248" CreationDate="2018-04-18T17:06:56.550" UserId="13" Comment="added second paragraph" Text="Given I couldn't find ἔερθαι or ἔερθε via Google nor on [the TLG](http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/index.php), and the commenters have no miraculous ideas as of now, I must conclude I imagined this form. Too bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Supposing this is a verb form, the ending -αι is likely. Starting from εερ . αι, one can feed in μ, σ, τ, getting ἔερμαι, ἔερσαι, ἔερται. These are the singular indicative perfect middle-passive of εἴρω, respectively first, second, and third person. This verb means &quot;to fasten in rows&quot; or &quot;to say&quot; or &quot;to ask&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6283" RevisionGUID="ca9514e3-2c3b-4cde-bf1e-2144a021c0ea" CreationDate="2018-04-18T17:29:33.763" UserId="522" Comment="Revision in order to address 'ergo' 'igitur' dispute." Text="Here are examples from an earlier, insular, manuscript (Oxford CCC 122) which led me to think that this siglum is not *gens,* but *igitur.*  &#xD;&#xA;**Perge igitur ad** from an Insular manuscript:  &#xD;&#xA;[!['Perge igitur ad' from Ale Evang. ][1]][1]  &#xD;&#xA;**Videamus igitur quomodo...** (fr Alea Evang.)  &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]  &#xD;&#xA;In the following line there are three superscripts. The 'o' changes 'seventy-two' to 'seventy-second;' 'u' superscript t, is simply ut; and the tilde over the p is an fairly unusual abbreviation for 'prae' in 'praediximus.'  &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this manuscript **ergo** siglum has a clear 'o' superscript in place of 'i.'               &#xD;&#xA;**Cum ergo natus esset IHS** (from Mt2:1)  &#xD;&#xA;[![Cum ergo natus esset][4]][4]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three reasons for thinking your siglum stood for *igitur.*  &#xD;&#xA;.1.frequent occurence.  &#xD;&#xA;.2.occuring second word in the clause.  &#xD;&#xA;.3.finally, the excerpt,  after describing the number of magicians in Egypt, continues: &quot;...it might be possible for it to be stated  concerning Christ that in that place he was instructed in magic arts.&quot; The argument suggested 'so,' 'hence,' 'therefore.'  &#xD;&#xA;.4. the marks are more easily explained as a chunky 'i' with displaced dot cut on the printer's steel punch, than as a faulty 'o'.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here either *Ergo* or *Igitur* would be suitable; my manuscript consistently preferred *igitur;* Duns Scotus, for example, prefers *ergo.* You could hedge your bets and state that it is unclear. The problem could be solved by searching for a passage where your source quotes *ergo* or *igitur* in the Gospel which he is commenting on. The final Chapter of Matthew would settle it.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qeu7l.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YJYoa.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gp7V8.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2ws1B.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6304" RevisionGUID="2493242c-4a52-42c9-9f46-384c15dd041e" CreationDate="2018-04-18T18:18:01.513" UserId="576" Text="Is *autem* an adversative or copulative particle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20824" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6304" RevisionGUID="2493242c-4a52-42c9-9f46-384c15dd041e" CreationDate="2018-04-18T18:18:01.513" UserId="576" Text="Is &quot;autem&quot; an adversative or copulative particle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20825" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6304" RevisionGUID="2493242c-4a52-42c9-9f46-384c15dd041e" CreationDate="2018-04-18T18:18:01.513" UserId="576" Text="|conjunction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6305" RevisionGUID="5bfc03a7-59f3-4994-9669-b1c288a46238" CreationDate="2018-04-18T19:08:43.800" UserId="469" Text="Well, to my surprise, [L&amp;S][1] says it's *both*, literally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I.** *conj.* [v. aut init.], *on the other hand, but, yet, however, nevertheless;* sometimes an emphasized *and*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Primarily, *autem*, it's adversative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dautem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1378" RevisionGUID="e3db59d5-ba2b-49f3-a974-733aecd74b8c" CreationDate="2018-04-18T20:04:41.657" UserId="576" Comment="added 269 characters in body" Text="*Atque*, [according to L&amp;S][1], means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a copulative particle, *and also*, *and besides*, *and even*, *and*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Bennett's *New Latin Grammar* ch. 6 §&quot;Coordinate Conjunctions&quot;][2], &quot;*atque* is used before vowels and consonants; *ac* never before vowels, and seldom before *c*, *g*, *qu*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[L&amp;S][1] continue, saying that *atque*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;indicat[es] a close internal connection between single words or whole clauses; while *et* designates an external connection of diff. objects with each other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it seems these would make sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;mulier ***atque*** mater&lt;br&gt;(a woman *and also* a mother ← related)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;pater ***et*** arbor&lt;br&gt;(a father *and* a tree ← unrelated)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett also mentions that *-que* binds more tightly than *atque*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems this analogy would hold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[*vel* : *aut*][3] :: *atque* : *et***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;inclusive disjunction&quot; : &quot;exclusive disjunction&quot; :: &quot;inclusive conjunction&quot; : &quot;exclusive conjunction&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;As I mention in [my comment here][4], *L&amp;S* §C of &quot;[***sive***][5]/***seu***&quot; says it's disjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Interestingly, [*L&amp;S*][5] also says *vel* was sometimes used in a &quot;purely disjunctive sense,&quot; so there is some evolution in these &quot;or&quot; words.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=atque&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15665/15665-h/15665-h.htm#sect341&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/73/576&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/40/whats-the-difference-between-vel-aut-ve-et-cetera/73#comment7674_278&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=sive&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6306" RevisionGUID="e3335ef9-5200-486e-8948-b74b32a40e20" CreationDate="2018-04-18T20:13:01.380" UserId="576" Text="Is δέ an adversative or copulative particle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;This is the Greek analogue of my Latin question &quot;[Is 'autem' an adversative or copulative particle?][1]&quot;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6304/576" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20829" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6306" RevisionGUID="e3335ef9-5200-486e-8948-b74b32a40e20" CreationDate="2018-04-18T20:13:01.380" UserId="576" Text="Is δέ an adversative or copulative particle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20830" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6306" RevisionGUID="e3335ef9-5200-486e-8948-b74b32a40e20" CreationDate="2018-04-18T20:13:01.380" UserId="576" Text="|greek|conjunction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6306" RevisionGUID="425d798b-4e79-4c3e-a2e7-a13ea8155519" CreationDate="2018-04-18T20:28:07.317" UserId="576" Comment="edited body" Text="Is δέ an adversative or copulative particle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;This is the Greek analogue of my Latin question &quot;[Is *autem* an adversative or copulative particle?][1]&quot;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6304/576" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6307" RevisionGUID="fcd1b7df-7159-41fc-950e-30d3d714f33d" CreationDate="2018-04-18T21:18:24.420" UserId="1304" Text="The simple answer is _both._ Here is the outline of what [Perseus’ word study tool](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%CE%B4%CE%AD&amp;la=greek#lexicon) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; δέ , &lt;br/&gt; A. _but_: adversative and copulative Particle,&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. answering to μέν [... _(adversative)_ ...]  &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. without preceding μέν,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      &lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;adversative, expressing dist. opposition [...]&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      &lt;li&gt;copulative, [...]&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B. POSITION of δέ [...] &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is that we should accept these classifications _grano salis addito._ _Autem_ is much stronger, δέ is much weaker, but they both escape our rigid grids. There isn’t an _adversative_ δέ contrasted to a _copulative_ one. There is only one δέ which occupies its own area of possible uses, happily ignoring the fact that some grammarians have drawn boundaries through that area. I’d say that _δέ adds new elements to the discourse._ Those new elements might be in sharp contrast to the old ones (a contrast possibly anticipated by μέν), or be simply a rather unexpected addition, or even be a consequence of the preceding material, provided that there is an element of novelty. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6308" RevisionGUID="4f8e356e-9567-4113-8731-dec0a51c36ab" CreationDate="2018-04-18T21:50:48.907" UserId="1304" Text="I felt like image-editing tonight and I put together some abbreviations from pages 147 and 148 of Cappelli (1973, anastatic reprint of the 1929 edition), to compare them with the siglum in question.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/laoB1.png&quot;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;These are all the relevant sigla listed there. Note the last one for _igitur:_ it’s _g&lt;sup&gt;r&lt;/sup&gt;_, not _g&lt;sup&gt;i&lt;/sup&gt;_, and I find it particularly convincing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is not enough for me to cast my vote for _igitur_ with 100% certainty. In this case, _igitur_ and _ergo_ are almost synonyms, so you have really no problem to understand what is being said, and my advice is to go on to find further examples of either _igitur_ or _ergo,_ which might be clearer and would be helpful to settle the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OTOH, I agree with Brianpck’s other observation, that we have _omni arte pessima_ here, and not _peſſimꝫ = pessimorum._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6309" RevisionGUID="feb02c16-a60d-4d4b-9898-1eda355d5541" CreationDate="2018-04-18T22:20:50.380" UserId="2574" Text="I've been learning Latin on my own for the last 4 months or so using Wheelock and Moreland &amp; Fleischer. I've not been able to find answers to the following accentuation questions in either of those texts. Hoping someone here can help&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Where do you put the accent in a compound Latin word like &quot;circumeo&quot;. Taken separately, the accent is on the first syllable for both circum and eo. The accentuation rules that I've learned suggest that the accent on circumeo should be on the second syllable (cu) - i.e. the antepenult. But, as an English speaker, that sounds funny.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  How about when there's an enclitic? Where's the accent in animusque? Taken separately, the accent in animus is on the first syllable, the antepenult (a). The accentuation rules suggest that the accent in animusque should be on the penult (mus). Is that right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20836" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6309" RevisionGUID="feb02c16-a60d-4d4b-9898-1eda355d5541" CreationDate="2018-04-18T22:20:50.380" UserId="2574" Text="Accents in compound words and words with enclitics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20837" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6309" RevisionGUID="feb02c16-a60d-4d4b-9898-1eda355d5541" CreationDate="2018-04-18T22:20:50.380" UserId="2574" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6307" RevisionGUID="a2806b04-d86a-41b8-9ae6-2a96fde5642e" CreationDate="2018-04-18T22:51:07.210" UserId="1304" Comment="added 418 characters in body" Text="The simple answer is _both._ Here is the outline of what [Perseus’ word study tool](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%CE%B4%CE%AD&amp;la=greek#lexicon) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; δέ , &lt;br/&gt; A. _but_: adversative and copulative Particle,&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. answering to μέν [... _(adversative)_ ...]  &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. without preceding μέν,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      &lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;adversative, expressing dist. opposition [...]&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      &lt;li&gt;copulative, [...]&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B. POSITION of δέ [...] &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is that we should accept these classifications _grano salis addito._ _Autem_ is much stronger, δέ is much weaker, but they both escape our rigid grids. There isn’t an _adversative_ δέ contrasted to a _copulative_ one. There is only one δέ which occupies its own area of possible uses, happily ignoring the fact that some grammarians have drawn boundaries through that area. I’d say that _δέ adds new elements to the discourse._ Those new elements might be in sharp contrast to the old ones (a contrast possibly anticipated by μέν), or be simply a rather unexpected addition, or even be a consequence of the preceding material, provided that there is an element of novelty. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Edit:__ I would like to clarity that the “novelty” I am talking about has nothing to do with a linguistic analysis based on [topics and comments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic_and_comment). Sometimes _comments_ are referred to as _new information,_ but in fact noun phrases marked with δέ are very often _topics._ When using the word “new”, I assume nothing about the theme-rheme structure of the sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6308" RevisionGUID="9f0f27b4-5d20-4bb4-99d2-bf0a469c8659" CreationDate="2018-04-18T23:04:25.017" UserId="1304" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="I felt like image-editing tonight and I put together some abbreviations from pages 147 and 148 of Cappelli (1973, anastatic reprint of the 1929 edition), to compare them with the siglum in question.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/laoB1.png&quot;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;These are all the relevant sigla listed there. Note the last one for _igitur:_ it’s _g&lt;sup&gt;r&lt;/sup&gt;_, not _g&lt;sup&gt;i&lt;/sup&gt;_, it comes from 15th-Century Rome, and I find it particularly convincing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is not enough for me to cast my vote for _igitur_ with 100% certainty. In this case, _igitur_ and _ergo_ are almost synonyms, so you have really no problem to understand what is being said, and my advice is to go on to find further examples of either _igitur_ or _ergo,_ which might be clearer and would be helpful to settle the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OTOH, I agree with Brianpck’s other observation, that we have _omni arte pessima_ here, and not _peſſimꝫ = pessimorum._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6310" RevisionGUID="b165be92-8263-47fa-80c5-ef8cc6e16180" CreationDate="2018-04-18T23:24:39.747" UserId="1348" Text="Is there an online dictionary that contains many New Latin words with macrons?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there is already a post about dictionaries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/867/which-online-latin-dictionaries-should-i-use-and-why&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the dictionaries mentioned there sometimes don't have a certain New Latin word or they have it, but they don't have macrons, thus making sometimes difficult to guess the pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tools I have found most useful are Pons online dictionary, which has some New Latin words, but often without macrons; Numen, the latin lexicon, which also has a lot of New Latin words and even with macrons, but it does not have always the words; Wikipedia in Latin, which has a lot of New Latin words, but rarely with macrons. Glosbe dictionary, which has a lot of words, but often without macrons; Kindle version of Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis, which is one of the most useful ones, but it is a german edition and the translations frequently don't have macrons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as one can find a word and it is in Wiktionary, it is possible to see the words with macrons, but unfortunately Wiktionary also has its limits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is there an online dictionary that is to some extent specialized in New Latin words and that has macrons?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20841" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6310" RevisionGUID="b165be92-8263-47fa-80c5-ef8cc6e16180" CreationDate="2018-04-18T23:24:39.747" UserId="1348" Text="Dictionary for New Latin words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20842" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6310" RevisionGUID="b165be92-8263-47fa-80c5-ef8cc6e16180" CreationDate="2018-04-18T23:24:39.747" UserId="1348" Text="|dictionary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6311" RevisionGUID="727a4290-c78d-4017-9448-da4439fbbb51" CreationDate="2018-04-19T01:51:10.380" UserId="522" Text="There is an editorial rule of thumb: 'The more difficult reading is to be preferred,' and in this case the author, Lundström, prefers *antilucanam* and *antilucanis*(line 4), when the other versions **S A,**  and (line 4) **S A** and **R** are in favour of the dictionary preference *antelucanus.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; XI  2, 12 *antilucanam:* when preparing this locus for publication I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (curavi) gave special attention to **S** and **A**.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;In this statement of the *Difficilius melius* principle, he uses a 1st person negative imperative: *vix* plus the perfect subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me not believe that copyists have changed *anti-* into *ante-,* which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would have been alien to them; By contrast, *anti-* into&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *anti-*, common practice easily persuades *(imperfect habitual)* that they  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; might change spontaneously.  (compare...**source 'S'**...which the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; copyist himself has corrected,  his own exemplar having been inspected&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (ablative absolute)  more closely.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last two sentences are almost what you have written:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...if anyone should wish to replace the [difficult] antilucanis, with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [easy] antelucanis, as **S A R** [do], I [supply *velim]* would not wish to dissuade that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'other person (dative),' but I would not, riskily, do so myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6311" RevisionGUID="1b335afa-2f49-4385-b0db-1ee520c1fc8a" CreationDate="2018-04-19T02:06:40.733" UserId="522" Comment="omissions restored" Text="There is an editorial rule of thumb: 'The more difficult reading is to be preferred,' and in this case the author, Lundström, prefers *antilucanam* and *antilucanis*(line 4), when the other versions **S A,**  and (line 4) **S A** and **R** are in favour of the dictionary preference *antelucanus.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; XI  2, 12 *antilucanam:* when preparing this locus for publication I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (curavi) gave special attention to the writing of **S** and **A**.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;In this statement of the *Difficilius melius* principle, he uses a 1st person negative imperative: *vix* plus the perfect subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me not believe that copyists have changed *anti-* into *ante-,* which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would have been alien to them; By contrast, *anti-* into&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *anti-*, common practice easily persuades *(imperfect habitual)* that they  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; might change spontaneously.  (compare...**source 'S'**...which the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; copyist himself has corrected,  his own exemplar having been inspected&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (ablative absolute)  more closely.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last two sentences are almost what you have written:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...if anyone should wish to replace the [difficult] antilucanis, with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [easy] antelucanis, as **S A R** [do], I [supply *velim]* would not wish to dissuade that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'other person (dative),' but I would not, riskily, wish to do so myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6312" RevisionGUID="c1ed4b39-bcfd-4b19-8109-4a42f1b05716" CreationDate="2018-04-19T02:48:34.033" UserId="1432" Text="In Barbara Tuchman's _A Distant Mirror_; in chapter 2, in her description of the Medieval church, she uses the phrase '_Salvandorum paucitas, damnadorum multitudo_' to describe the general opinion of the time. Tuchman translates the phrase as 'few saved, many damned.' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A google search of the phrase mostly turns up references to that book and document in Latin which I can't read. What is the origin of this phrase? Is it written by an eminent theologian? Is it a common figure of speech of Medieval times?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20846" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6312" RevisionGUID="c1ed4b39-bcfd-4b19-8109-4a42f1b05716" CreationDate="2018-04-19T02:48:34.033" UserId="1432" Text="Few are saved, many are damned" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20847" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6312" RevisionGUID="c1ed4b39-bcfd-4b19-8109-4a42f1b05716" CreationDate="2018-04-19T02:48:34.033" UserId="1432" Text="|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6307" RevisionGUID="8b45eabe-73fa-4cab-a68c-e87ef4030689" CreationDate="2018-04-19T05:57:58.823" UserId="1304" Comment="edited body" Text="The simple answer is _both._ Here is the outline of what [Perseus’ word study tool](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%CE%B4%CE%AD&amp;la=greek#lexicon) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; δέ , &lt;br/&gt; A. _but_: adversative and copulative Particle,&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. answering to μέν [... _(adversative)_ ...]  &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. without preceding μέν,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      &lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;adversative, expressing dist. opposition [...]&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      &lt;li&gt;copulative, [...]&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B. POSITION of δέ [...] &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is that we should accept these classifications _grano salis addito._ _Autem_ is much stronger, δέ is much weaker, but they both escape our rigid grids. There isn’t an _adversative_ δέ contrasted to a _copulative_ one. There is only one δέ which occupies its own area of possible uses, happily ignoring the fact that some grammarians have drawn boundaries through that area. I’d say that _δέ adds new elements to the discourse._ Those new elements might be in sharp contrast to the old ones (a contrast possibly anticipated by μέν), or be simply a rather unexpected addition, or even be a consequence of the preceding material, provided that there is an element of novelty. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Edit:__ I would like to clarify that the “novelty” I am talking about has nothing to do with a linguistic analysis based on [topics and comments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic_and_comment). Sometimes _comments_ are referred to as _new information,_ but in fact noun phrases marked with δέ are very often _topics._ When using the word “new”, I assume nothing about the theme-rheme structure of the sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6313" RevisionGUID="5ffedf45-de90-4276-9491-8784671f0af6" CreationDate="2018-04-19T10:31:54.923" UserId="1348" Text="How do you say in Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That place is like a paradise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading is like travelling with the mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Love is like when you use a credit card: you are not aware that most likely you will spend a lot of money.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a citizen, you have rights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you already know, he will not come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You look as if you had seen a ghost. (Counterfactual concerning the past)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You speak as if you were not going to come back. (Counterfactual concerning the future)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the latter I have seen an example with *tamquam* + future active participle. In *De Brevitate Vitae*, it says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tamquam semper victuri vivitis - You live as if you were going to live forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there another structure for that? In this case the part with participle has no verb (only *semper victuri*). Does it have to be always that way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there is a quote with quasi + future active participle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Disce quasi semper victurus; vive quasi cras moriturus - Learn as if you were going to live forever; live as if you were going to die tomorrow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there another possible connector?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20850" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6313" RevisionGUID="5ffedf45-de90-4276-9491-8784671f0af6" CreationDate="2018-04-19T10:31:54.923" UserId="1348" Text="Translation of like, like when, as, as if" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20851" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6313" RevisionGUID="5ffedf45-de90-4276-9491-8784671f0af6" CreationDate="2018-04-19T10:31:54.923" UserId="1348" Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6314" RevisionGUID="d168d7dd-1ed0-47d2-941d-c9ebefcd2394" CreationDate="2018-04-19T12:12:54.260" UserId="469" Text="It is a way to read the Gospels, although it could be argued that it's not what they say _literatim_. However, it's not particularly medieval, but has been around since early Christianity to our days. Take e.g., [NVG Mt 7:13-14][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Intrate per angustam portam, quia lata porta et spatiosa **via, quae ducit ad perditionem, et multi sunt, qui intrant per eam**; quam angusta porta et arta **via, quae ducit ad vitam, et pauci sunt, qui inveniunt eam**!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Contemporary English Version][2] of the Bible translates this as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and **the road** is easy **that leads to destruction**, and **there are many who take it**. 14 For the gate is narrow and **the road** is hard **that leads to life**, and **there are few who find it**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Christian teaching has always seen _life_ here as meaning _eternal life_, Heaven, and _destruction_ (actually [_perdition, ruin_][3],) as hell (or at least not-Heaven in more lax interpretations.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jesus also gave a hint of this at other times, at the point that the disciples ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Quis ergo poterit salvus esse?&quot;. Aspiciens autem Iesus dixit illis: &quot;Apud homines hoc impossibile est, apud Deum autem omnia possibilia sunt&quot;. ([NVG Mt. 19:25-26][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;How can anyone ever be saved?&quot; Jesus looked straight at them and said, &quot;There are some things that people cannot do, but God can do anything.&quot; ([CEV][5])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence your quote, ***salvandorum paucitas, damnadorum multitudo***, can be seen as a condensed form of a way to read that aspect of the Gospels. I believe the important part of the message is not how many go into each group, but that Jesus taught the way, and that although it's impossible for the strength of man alone to achieve it, with the help of God anyone can. But we have to let God help us, and confront our pride and self-reliance (which are in fact very common.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-matthaeum_lt.html#7&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207&amp;version=CEV&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dperditio&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-matthaeum_lt.html#19&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019&amp;version=CEV" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20853" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6312" RevisionGUID="5c5b7366-a059-4d97-ac5f-f49c678130e0" CreationDate="2018-04-19T12:14:30.020" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|medieval-latin|christianity|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6314" RevisionGUID="189b46b3-7897-4855-9627-b1155c5515c5" CreationDate="2018-04-19T12:18:45.897" UserId="469" Comment="added 270 characters in body" Text="It is a way to read the Gospels, although it could be argued that it's not what they say _literatim_. However, it's not particularly medieval, but has been around since early Christianity to our days. Take e.g., [NVG Mt 7:13-14][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Intrate per angustam portam, quia lata porta et spatiosa **via, quae ducit ad perditionem, et multi sunt, qui intrant per eam**; quam angusta porta et arta **via, quae ducit ad vitam, et pauci sunt, qui inveniunt eam**!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Contemporary English Version][2] of the Bible translates this as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and **the road** is easy **that leads to destruction**, and **there are many who take it**. 14 For the gate is narrow and **the road** is hard **that leads to life**, and **there are few who find it**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Christian teaching has always seen _life_ here as meaning _eternal life_, Heaven, and _destruction_ (actually [_perdition, ruin_][3],) as hell (or at least not-Heaven in more lax interpretations.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jesus also gave a hint of this at other times, at the point that the disciples ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Quis ergo poterit salvus esse?&quot;. Aspiciens autem Iesus dixit illis: &quot;Apud homines hoc impossibile est, apud Deum autem omnia possibilia sunt&quot;. ([NVG Mt. 19:25-26][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;How can anyone ever be saved?&quot; Jesus looked straight at them and said, &quot;There are some things that people cannot do, but God can do anything.&quot; ([CEV][5])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence your quote, ***salvandorum paucitas, damnadorum multitudo***, can be seen as a condensed form of a way to read that aspect of the Gospels. I believe the important part of the message is not how many go into each group, but that Jesus taught the way, and that although it's impossible for the strength of man alone to achieve it, with the help of God anyone can. But we have to let God help us, and confront our pride and self-reliance (which are in fact very common.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, the only results I get when looking for the full sentence are the lyrics of a heavy-metal band's song, and a book from the XVIII century whose contents I can't reach. If you could provide a link to these Latin documents you mention, it could help too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-matthaeum_lt.html#7&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207&amp;version=CEV&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dperditio&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-matthaeum_lt.html#19&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019&amp;version=CEV" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6315" RevisionGUID="22a13c69-9f7e-41c6-b292-076609b8763d" CreationDate="2018-04-19T12:36:11.860" UserId="79" Text="There are a number of ways to express this kind of comparison in Latin, and no one solution will be sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;The simplest word is probably *sicut* or *ut*.&#xD;&#xA;For example, you can insert the comment &quot;as everyone knows&quot; in Latin as *sicut omnes sciunt* (e.g. Cicero, *In Q. Caecilium* 41).&#xD;&#xA;&quot;As you wish&quot; can be translated as *ut vis* (common in Plautus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say &quot;X is like Y&quot;, then I suggest *similis* or *par*.&#xD;&#xA;*Locus ille Elysii similis/par est* would be a good way to describe a paradise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to add a counterfactual tone with something like the English &quot;as if&quot;, I recommend using *quasi*.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I might translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You speak as if you were not going to come back.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Loqueris quasi numquam rediturus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you have noticed, it is often most convenient to use participles for things like this in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Participles are good at setting up circumstances under which something is done; e.g. *edens ausculto* is &quot;I listen while I eat&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Adding *quasi* or *tamquam* can bring the desired counterfactual tone.&#xD;&#xA;Another similar word is *proinde*, which seems to be a common choice when a subordinate clause is used instead of a participle; see [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=proinde&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) for examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want help with translating a specific sentence nicely, please ask a separate question.&#xD;&#xA;Your question is somewhat broad, so I won't try to go through all individual examples in detail.&#xD;&#xA;Overall, my suggestion is to consider the words *(sic)ut, tamquam, proinde, similis, par, quasi*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6313" RevisionGUID="72f420ec-49d1-4826-a59a-24db8d6e9ebc" CreationDate="2018-04-19T12:37:06.390" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted the list." Text="How do you say the following in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. That place is like a paradise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Reading is like travelling with the mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Love is like when you use a credit card: you are not aware that most likely you will spend a lot of money.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. As a citizen, you have rights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. As you wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. As you already know, he will not come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. You look as if you had seen a ghost. (Counterfactual concerning the past)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. You speak as if you were not going to come back. (Counterfactual concerning the future)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the latter I have seen an example with *tamquam* + future active participle. In *De Brevitate Vitae*, it says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tamquam semper victuri vivitis - You live as if you were going to live forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there another structure for that? In this case the part with participle has no verb (only *semper victuri*). Does it have to be always that way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there is a quote with quasi + future active participle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Disce quasi semper victurus; vive quasi cras moriturus - Learn as if you were going to live forever; live as if you were going to die tomorrow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there another possible connector?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6316" RevisionGUID="d3a1e14b-54c7-4d72-a412-e943feee520e" CreationDate="2018-04-19T12:43:25.617" UserId="79" Text="To complement Rafael's answer, let me give a translation of the phrase (which was missing an N):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Salvandorum paucitas, damna**N**dorum multitudo*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Small number of those to be saved, great number of those to be damned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just a nominal phrase.&#xD;&#xA;*Paucitas* means &quot;smallness&quot;, &quot;small amount&quot;, or similar, and *multitudo* is the opposite.&#xD;&#xA;The most natural translation depends on context, for example whether there is an implied *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;The translation &quot;few saved, many damned&quot; is a good overall translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6316" RevisionGUID="b8e750e1-e64d-4127-98c3-fa3673c614ba" CreationDate="2018-04-19T13:18:33.950" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 29 characters in body" Text="To complement Rafael's answer, let me give a translation of the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Salvandorum paucitas, damnandorum multitudo*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Small number of those to be saved, great number of those to be damned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just a nominal phrase.&#xD;&#xA;*Paucitas* means &quot;smallness&quot;, &quot;small amount&quot;, or similar, and *multitudo* is the opposite.&#xD;&#xA;The most natural translation depends on context, for example whether there is an implied *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;The translation &quot;few saved, many damned&quot; is a good overall translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6312" RevisionGUID="7bdf0e8e-2395-4e1b-b851-aa62d5e5dc7a" CreationDate="2018-04-19T13:19:59.560" UserId="79" Comment="Added an N as in the original quote." Text="In Barbara Tuchman's _A Distant Mirror_; in chapter 2, in her description of the Medieval church, she uses the phrase '_Salvandorum paucitas, damnandorum multitudo_' to describe the general opinion of the time. Tuchman translates the phrase as 'few saved, many damned.' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A google search of the phrase mostly turns up references to that book and document in Latin which I can't read. What is the origin of this phrase? Is it written by an eminent theologian? Is it a common figure of speech of Medieval times?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6311" RevisionGUID="61ccab15-961a-408c-bcee-692ecb883f47" CreationDate="2018-04-19T13:34:17.773" UserId="522" Comment="typo e/i" Text="There is an editorial rule of thumb: 'The more difficult reading is to be preferred,' and in this case the author, Lundström, prefers *antilucanam* and *antilucanis*(line 4), when the other versions **S A,**  and (line 4) **S A** and **R** are in favour of the dictionary preference *antelucanus.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; XI  2, 12 *antilucanam:* when preparing this locus for publication I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (curavi) gave special attention to the writing of **S** and **A**.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;In this statement of the *Difficilius melius* principle, he uses a 1st person negative imperative: *vix* plus the perfect subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me not believe that copyists have changed *anti-* into *ante-,* which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would have been alien to them; By contrast, *ante-* into&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *anti-*, common practice easily persuades *(imperfect habitual)* that they  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; might change spontaneously.  (compare...**source 'S'**...which the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; copyist himself has corrected,  his own exemplar having been inspected&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (ablative absolute)  more closely.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last two sentences are almost what you have written:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...if anyone should wish to replace the [difficult] antilucanis, with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [easy] antelucanis, as **S A R** [do], I [supply *velim]* would not wish to dissuade that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'other person (dative),' but I would not, riskily, wish to do so myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6305" RevisionGUID="9dbac427-7fe6-4a82-80aa-fa299f4f204b" CreationDate="2018-04-19T13:37:53.337" UserId="469" Comment="added 1909 characters in body" Text="Well, to my surprise, [L&amp;S][1] says it's *both*, literally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I.** *conj.* [v. aut init.], *on the other hand, but, yet, however, nevertheless;* sometimes an emphasized *and*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Primarily, *autem*, it's adversative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** to answer the question about which (copulative or adversative) is more frequent, I did the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Searched *autem* in the [Clementine Vulgate][2]. Unfortunately in Perseus it is a [stop word][3], so it is excluded from searches and won't yield any results.&#xD;&#xA;2. Chose two books: namely Genesis and the Gospel of St. John.&#xD;&#xA;3. Picked ten occurrences of _autem_ from each book: the 1st, and then every tenth, i.e., the 11th, 21st, 31st,... until the 101st.&#xD;&#xA;4. Saw how were them translated in the New American Bible.&#xD;&#xA;5. Summarized&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Methodological* caveat: *N=20 is too small a sample size, especially considering that I'm just using two books involving one (or a few) [human] writers each, and maybe two or three translators that lead to a unitary translation.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My results are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Genesis:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 6 occurrences of *autem* were simply lost in the translation&#xD;&#xA;* 1 and (Gen 1,2, I recall this one being translated as *but* somewhere else)&#xD;&#xA;* 1 yet&#xD;&#xA;* 1 but&#xD;&#xA;* 1 however (totaling 3 adversatives)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**John:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 4 buts&#xD;&#xA;* 2 lost&#xD;&#xA;* 1 now&#xD;&#xA;* 1 for&#xD;&#xA;* 1 [while], with brackets (Io 7,12)&#xD;&#xA;* 1 then&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the last three, none is listed as a meaning by L&amp;S, and only the *while* is arguably adversative (it is used in the sense of *in turn*.) Maybe it's just my idea that they were translated at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My opinion has gone from *adversative is obviously more frequent*, to *look!, there is this very frequent, ambiguous meaning that may be easily seen as any, or both at the same time..., or none*. Note that there is only 1/20 plain *and*. L&amp;S put it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it joins to a preceding thought a new one, either entirely antithetical or simply different&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's use is actually very common (almost as a *pet word*) to join two separate episodes in storytelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dautem&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/vulsearch&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/stopwords" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6305" RevisionGUID="e861c16f-360a-45f8-9e3c-2fe3ade2c57f" CreationDate="2018-04-19T13:45:56.913" UserId="469" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="Well, to my surprise, [L&amp;S][1] says it's *both*, literally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I.** *conj.* [v. aut init.], *on the other hand, but, yet, however, nevertheless;* sometimes an emphasized *and*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Primarily, *autem*, it's adversative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** to answer the question about which (copulative or adversative) is more frequent, I did the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Searched *autem* in the [Clementine Vulgate][2]. Unfortunately in Perseus it is a [stop word][3], so it is excluded from searches and won't yield any results.&#xD;&#xA;2. Chose two books: namely Genesis and the Gospel of St. John.&#xD;&#xA;3. Picked ten occurrences of _autem_ from each book: the 1st, and then every tenth, i.e., the 11th, 21st, 31st,... until the 101st.&#xD;&#xA;4. Saw how were them translated in the New American Bible.&#xD;&#xA;5. Summarized&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Methodological* caveat: *N=20 is too small a sample size, especially considering that I'm just using two books involving one (or a few) [human] writers each, and maybe two or three translators that lead to a unitary translation.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My results are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Genesis:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 6 occurrences of *autem* were simply lost in the translation&#xD;&#xA;* 1 and (Gen 1,2, I recall this one being translated as *but* somewhere else)&#xD;&#xA;* 1 yet&#xD;&#xA;* 1 but&#xD;&#xA;* 1 however (totaling 3 adversatives)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**John:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 4 buts&#xD;&#xA;* 2 lost&#xD;&#xA;* 1 now&#xD;&#xA;* 1 for&#xD;&#xA;* 1 [while], with brackets (Io 7,12)&#xD;&#xA;* 1 then&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the last three, none is listed as a meaning by L&amp;S, and only the *while* is arguably adversative (it is used in the sense of *in turn*.) Maybe it's just my idea that they were translated at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My opinion has gone from *adversative is obviously more frequent*, to *look!, there is this very frequent, ambiguous meaning that may be easily seen as any, or both at the same time..., or none*. Note that there is only 1/20 plain *and*. L&amp;S put it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it joins to a preceding thought a new one, either entirely antithetical or simply different&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This usage is actually very common (almost as a *pet word*) to join two separate episodes in storytelling, and sometimes it's not even necessary in the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dautem&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/vulsearch&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/stopwords" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6305" RevisionGUID="15457c87-eccc-40b2-b233-79490778b71a" CreationDate="2018-04-19T13:52:17.313" UserId="469" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Well, to my surprise, [L&amp;S][1] says it's *both*, literally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I.** *conj.* [v. aut init.], *on the other hand, but, yet, however, nevertheless;* sometimes an emphasized *and*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Primarily, *autem*, it's adversative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** to answer the question about which (copulative or adversative) is more *frequent*, I did the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Searched *autem* in the [Clementine Vulgate][2]. Unfortunately in Perseus it is a [stop word][3], so it is excluded from searches and won't yield any results.&#xD;&#xA;2. Chose two books: namely Genesis and the Gospel of St. John.&#xD;&#xA;3. Picked ten occurrences of _autem_ from each book: the 1st, and then every tenth, i.e., the 11th, 21st, 31st,... until the 101st.&#xD;&#xA;4. Saw how were them translated in the New American Bible.&#xD;&#xA;5. Summarized&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Methodological* caveat: *N=20 is too small a sample size, especially considering that I'm just using two books involving one (or a few) [human] writers each, and maybe two or three translators that lead to a unitary translation.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My results are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Genesis:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 6 occurrences of *autem* were simply lost in the translation&#xD;&#xA;* 1 and (Gen 1,2, I recall this one being translated as *but* somewhere else)&#xD;&#xA;* 1 yet&#xD;&#xA;* 1 but&#xD;&#xA;* 1 however (totaling 3 adversatives)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**John:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 4 buts&#xD;&#xA;* 2 lost&#xD;&#xA;* 1 now&#xD;&#xA;* 1 for&#xD;&#xA;* 1 [while], with brackets (Io 7,12)&#xD;&#xA;* 1 then&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the last three, none is listed as a meaning by L&amp;S, and only the *while* is arguably adversative (it is used in the sense of *in turn*.) Maybe it's just my idea that they were translated at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My opinion has gone from *adversative is obviously more frequent*, to *look!, there is this very frequent, ambiguous meaning that may be easily seen as any, or both at the same time..., or none*. Note that there is only 1/20 plain *and*. L&amp;S put it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it joins to a preceding thought a new one, either entirely antithetical or simply different&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This usage is actually very common (almost as a *pet word*) to join two separate episodes in storytelling, and sometimes it's not even necessary in the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dautem&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/vulsearch&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/stopwords" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6317" RevisionGUID="6fd1b79c-7d00-48f8-a03a-27f1f73ca325" CreationDate="2018-04-19T14:15:04.470" UserId="45" Text="The [*Lexicon Morganianum*](http://neolatinlexicon.org/home) (with a new website as of only a few months ago) is an excellent resource. It was originally compiled by David Morgan and Patrick Owens. It includes macrons and is exclusively for neo-Latin words, like [&quot;radio.&quot;](http://neolatinlexicon.org/search/latin?search=radio) It also includes macrons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The search-utility is not terribly good (as you can see from the above example). It certainly beats what I did earlier: saving a large Word document and using the &quot;Find&quot; function." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20865" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6317" RevisionGUID="6fd1b79c-7d00-48f8-a03a-27f1f73ca325" CreationDate="2018-04-19T14:15:04.470" UserId="45" />
  <row Id="20866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6318" RevisionGUID="eea3b10c-59da-4d0f-ac1a-14329e39a419" CreationDate="2018-04-19T14:36:56.157" UserId="1459" Text="The full relevant quote is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;No one doubted in the Middle Ages that the vast majority would be eternally damned. *Salvandorum paucitas, damnandorum multitudo* (Few saves, many damned) was the stern principle maintained from Augustine to Aquinas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Rafael that the Gospel itself lends to be understood in line with such phrase. Now, if the claim by the author is true, it is reasonable to assume an important influence of theologians also contributed to it. Expectedly, these theologians should feed strongly from the Gospel. This is at least what I found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can gather, it seems Augustine did not write specifically about this topic (for instance, he did not in his book about [Christian Doctrine](http://www.augustinus.it/latino/dottrina_cristiana/index2.htm)), but was quite aware of Matthew 22:14 &quot;_[Multi enim sunt vocati, pauci vero electi](http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-matthaeum_lt.html#22)_&quot; (English [here](https://biblehub.com/matthew/22-14.htm)), which he quotes many times, e.g. in _[De correptione et gratia liber unus](http://www.augustinus.it/latino/correzione_grazia/index.htm)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thomas Aquinas did also write tangentially about this. From _[Summa Theologiae](http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article7)_ (English [here](http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article7)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ad tertium dicendum quod bonum proportionatum communi statui naturae, accidit ut in pluribus; et defectus ab hoc bono, ut in paucioribus. Sed bonum quod excedit communem statum naturae, invenitur ut in paucioribus; et defectus ab hoc bono, ut in pluribus. Sicut patet quod plures homines sunt qui habent sufficientem scientiam ad regimen vitae suae, pauciores autem qui hac scientia carent, qui moriones vel stulti dicuntur, sed paucissimi sunt, respectu aliorum, qui attingunt ad habendam profundam scientiam intelligibilium rerum. Cum igitur beatitudo aeterna, in visione Dei consistens, excedat communem statum naturae, et praecipue secundum quod est gratia destituta per corruptionem originalis peccati, **pauciores sunt qui salvantur**. Et in hoc etiam maxime misericordia Dei apparet, quod aliquos in illam salutem erigit, a qua plurimi deficiunt secundum communem cursum et inclinationem naturae. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly is the analysis from Bonaventura (e.g. page 593 [here](https://www.archive.org/stream/operaomniasixtiv10bonauoft#page/592/mode/2up/search/salvandorum)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Cornelius a Lapide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_a_Lapide) suggests in [this book](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ucm.5317979734;view=1up;seq=103) that the idea of &quot;_salvandorum paucitas&quot;_ is also found in Church Fathers like Origin, Irenaeus, Dyonisius, Bede, and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this I think it is natural to expect that the thought of the Medieval Church oriented toward such theme. Now, regarding the &quot;origin of the phrase itself&quot;? It is perhaps impossible to tell. In Latin the order of words is secondary, also, the verbal time could be changed. For example, the (reordered) phrase &quot;_Paucitas Salvandorum et Multitudo Damnandorum_&quot; is the title of [this 1705's book](https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Paucitas_Salvandorum_et_Multitudo_Damnan.html?id=Ig2RXwAACAAJ&amp;redir_esc=y).  According to [this article](http://www.reformed.org/eschaton/few_saved.pdf) (published in 1952), this doctrine was also taught by reformed theologians in the 17th century. Thus, given the possible combinations available and the fact that the phrase is present in a proto-form elsewhere makes identifying the origin of such a common theme a rather impossible task." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6318" RevisionGUID="eeca14bb-3ab9-4649-aeed-7e6d2c73e8f0" CreationDate="2018-04-19T14:42:11.713" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The full relevant quote is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;No one doubted in the Middle Ages that the vast majority would be eternally damned. *Salvandorum paucitas, damnandorum multitudo* (Few saves, many damned) was the stern principle maintained from Augustine to Aquinas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Rafael that the Gospel itself lends to be understood in line with such phrase. Now, if the claim by the author is true, it is reasonable to assume an important influence of theologians also contributed to it. Expectedly, these theologians should feed strongly from the Gospel. This is at least what I found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can gather, it seems Augustine did not write specifically about this topic (for instance, he did not in his book about [Christian Doctrine](http://www.augustinus.it/latino/dottrina_cristiana/index2.htm)), but was quite aware of Matthew 22:14 &quot;_[Multi enim sunt vocati, pauci vero electi](http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-matthaeum_lt.html#22)_&quot; (English [here](https://biblehub.com/matthew/22-14.htm)), which he quotes many times, e.g. in _[De correptione et gratia liber unus](http://www.augustinus.it/latino/correzione_grazia/index.htm)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thomas Aquinas did also write tangentially about this. From _[Summa Theologiae](http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article7)_ (English [here](http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article7)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ad tertium dicendum quod bonum proportionatum communi statui naturae, accidit ut in pluribus; et defectus ab hoc bono, ut in paucioribus. Sed bonum quod excedit communem statum naturae, invenitur ut in paucioribus; et defectus ab hoc bono, ut in pluribus. Sicut patet quod plures homines sunt qui habent sufficientem scientiam ad regimen vitae suae, pauciores autem qui hac scientia carent, qui moriones vel stulti dicuntur, sed paucissimi sunt, respectu aliorum, qui attingunt ad habendam profundam scientiam intelligibilium rerum. Cum igitur beatitudo aeterna, in visione Dei consistens, excedat communem statum naturae, et praecipue secundum quod est gratia destituta per corruptionem originalis peccati, **pauciores sunt qui salvantur**. Et in hoc etiam maxime misericordia Dei apparet, quod aliquos in illam salutem erigit, a qua plurimi deficiunt secundum communem cursum et inclinationem naturae. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly is the analysis from Bonaventura (e.g. page 593 [here](https://www.archive.org/stream/operaomniasixtiv10bonauoft#page/592/mode/2up/search/salvandorum)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Cornelius a Lapide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_a_Lapide) suggests in [this book](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ucm.5317979734;view=1up;seq=103) that the idea of &quot;_salvandorum paucitas&quot;_ is also found in Church Fathers like Origin, Irenaeus, Dyonisius, Bede, and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this I think it is natural to expect that the thought of the Medieval Church oriented toward such theme. Now, regarding the &quot;origin of the phrase itself&quot;? It is perhaps impossible to tell. In Latin the order of words is secondary; the verbal time could be changed too. For example, the (reordered) phrase &quot;_Paucitas Salvandorum et Multitudo Damnandorum_&quot; is the title of [this 1705's book](https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Paucitas_Salvandorum_et_Multitudo_Damnan.html?id=Ig2RXwAACAAJ&amp;redir_esc=y).  According to [this article](http://www.reformed.org/eschaton/few_saved.pdf) (published in 1952), this doctrine was also taught by reformed theologians in the 17th century. Thus, given the possible combinations available and the fact that the phrase is present in a proto-form elsewhere makes identifying the origin of such a common theme a rather impossible task." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6318" RevisionGUID="122d2070-f5b1-47d0-affd-693e321bd077" CreationDate="2018-04-19T14:58:00.303" UserId="1459" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="The full relevant quote is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;No one doubted in the Middle Ages that the vast majority would be eternally damned. *Salvandorum paucitas, damnandorum multitudo* (Few saves, many damned) was the stern principle maintained from Augustine to Aquinas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Rafael that the Gospel itself lends to be understood in line with such phrase. Now, if the claim by the author is true, it is reasonable to assume an important influence of theologians also contributed to it. Expectedly, these theologians should feed strongly from the Gospel. This is at least what I found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can gather, it seems Augustine did not write specifically about this topic (for instance, he did not in his book about [Christian Doctrine](http://www.augustinus.it/latino/dottrina_cristiana/index2.htm)), but was quite aware of Matthew 22:14 &quot;_[Multi enim sunt vocati, pauci vero electi](http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-matthaeum_lt.html#22)_&quot; (English [here](https://biblehub.com/matthew/22-14.htm), and also jerome's Vulgate [here](http://vulgate.org/nt/gospel/matthew_22.htm)), which he quotes many times, e.g. in _[De correptione et gratia liber unus](http://www.augustinus.it/latino/correzione_grazia/index.htm)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thomas Aquinas did also write tangentially about this. From _[Summa Theologiae](http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article7)_ (English [here](http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article7)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ad tertium dicendum quod bonum proportionatum communi statui naturae, accidit ut in pluribus; et defectus ab hoc bono, ut in paucioribus. Sed bonum quod excedit communem statum naturae, invenitur ut in paucioribus; et defectus ab hoc bono, ut in pluribus. Sicut patet quod plures homines sunt qui habent sufficientem scientiam ad regimen vitae suae, pauciores autem qui hac scientia carent, qui moriones vel stulti dicuntur, sed paucissimi sunt, respectu aliorum, qui attingunt ad habendam profundam scientiam intelligibilium rerum. Cum igitur beatitudo aeterna, in visione Dei consistens, excedat communem statum naturae, et praecipue secundum quod est gratia destituta per corruptionem originalis peccati, **pauciores sunt qui salvantur**. Et in hoc etiam maxime misericordia Dei apparet, quod aliquos in illam salutem erigit, a qua plurimi deficiunt secundum communem cursum et inclinationem naturae. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly is the analysis from Bonaventura (e.g. page 593 [here](https://www.archive.org/stream/operaomniasixtiv10bonauoft#page/592/mode/2up/search/salvandorum)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Cornelius a Lapide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_a_Lapide) suggests in [this book](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ucm.5317979734;view=1up;seq=103) that the idea of &quot;_salvandorum paucitas&quot;_ is also found in Church Fathers like Origin, Irenaeus, Dyonisius, Bede, and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this I think it is natural to expect that the thought of the Medieval Church oriented toward such theme. Now, regarding the &quot;origin of the phrase itself&quot;? It is perhaps impossible to tell. In Latin the order of words is secondary; the verbal time could be changed too. For example, the (reordered) phrase &quot;_Paucitas Salvandorum et Multitudo Damnandorum_&quot; is the title of [this 1705's book](https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Paucitas_Salvandorum_et_Multitudo_Damnan.html?id=Ig2RXwAACAAJ&amp;redir_esc=y).  According to [this article](http://www.reformed.org/eschaton/few_saved.pdf) (published in 1952), this doctrine was also taught by reformed theologians in the 17th century. Thus, given the possible combinations available and the fact that the phrase is present in a proto-form elsewhere makes identifying the origin of such a common theme a rather impossible task." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6316" RevisionGUID="5967fb41-740c-438c-a1c1-a669164ac307" CreationDate="2018-04-20T01:10:27.843" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="To complement the other answers, let me give a translation of the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Salvandorum paucitas, damnandorum multitudo*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Small number of those to be saved, great number of those to be damned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just a nominal phrase.&#xD;&#xA;*Paucitas* means &quot;smallness&quot;, &quot;small amount&quot;, or similar, and *multitudo* is the opposite.&#xD;&#xA;The most natural translation depends on context, for example whether there is an implied *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;The translation &quot;few saved, many damned&quot; is a good overall translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6319" RevisionGUID="2393f59a-f00e-4011-9d0b-000581bcc498" CreationDate="2018-04-20T02:56:04.523" UserId="79" Text="I was recently working on a little translation project and my intuition and memory suggested that &quot;evening comes&quot; is *vesperescit*.&#xD;&#xA;Checking dictionaries corrected me: it is *vesperascit* instead.&#xD;&#xA;Why is that?&#xD;&#xA;Should I have been able to guess that there is an *-a-* instead of an *-e-* before the incohative *-sc-*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, what determines the vowel before the incohative *-sc-*?&#xD;&#xA;My understanding was that if no vowel is already there (assuming my verb comes from *vesper* instead of *vespera*), one should expect an *-e-*.&#xD;&#xA;There is clearly a hole in my intuition when it comes to the incohative derivatives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20871" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6319" RevisionGUID="2393f59a-f00e-4011-9d0b-000581bcc498" CreationDate="2018-04-20T02:56:04.523" UserId="79" Text="Why vesperascit instead of vesperescit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20872" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6319" RevisionGUID="2393f59a-f00e-4011-9d0b-000581bcc498" CreationDate="2018-04-20T02:56:04.523" UserId="79" Text="|verbs|morphology|derivation|vowel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6320" RevisionGUID="1cb7ab61-20ff-4f1a-86ec-71e49f6458f8" CreationDate="2018-04-20T09:52:27.587" UserId="324" Text="vesper (m.) occurs both as an -o stem (gen. vesperi) and as a consonant stem (gen. vesperis), and then there is the -a stem vespera (fem.) with the same meaning. The verb vesperasco is formed from the latter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6320" RevisionGUID="abb85e2c-4834-4e22-8c1f-83ccf7be7761" CreationDate="2018-04-20T10:42:13.567" UserId="324" Comment="edited body" Text="vesper (m.) occurs both as an -o stem (gen. vesperi) and as a consonant stem (gen. vesperis), and then there is the -ā stem vespera (fem.) with the same meaning. The verb vesperasco is formed from the latter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6317" RevisionGUID="b2fedf91-34b2-4fd8-a374-911579ad0ec9" CreationDate="2018-04-20T12:20:57.787" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 26 characters in body" Text="The [*Lexicon Morganianum*](http://neolatinlexicon.org/home) (with a new website as of only a few months ago) is an excellent resource. It was originally compiled by David Morgan and Patrick Owens. It includes macrons and is exclusively for neo-Latin words, like [&quot;radio.&quot;](http://neolatinlexicon.org/search/latin?search=radio)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The search-utility is not terribly good (as you can see from the above example). It certainly beats what I did earlier: saving a large Word document and using the &quot;Find&quot; function." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6310" RevisionGUID="3fe04c25-7247-4ed1-9201-b12376e379c8" CreationDate="2018-04-20T12:50:37.040" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Is there an online dictionary that contains many New Latin words with macrons?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there is already a post about dictionaries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/867/which-online-latin-dictionaries-should-i-use-and-why&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the dictionaries mentioned there sometimes don't have a certain New Latin word or they have it, but they don't have macrons, thus making sometimes difficult to guess the pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tools I have found most useful are Pons online dictionary, which has some New Latin words, but often without macrons; Numen, the Latin lexicon, which also has a lot of New Latin words and even with macrons, but it does not have always the words; Wikipedia in Latin, which has a lot of New Latin words, but rarely with macrons. Glosbe dictionary, which has a lot of words, but often without macrons; Kindle version of Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis, which is one of the most useful ones, but it is a German edition and the translations frequently don't have macrons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as one can find a word and it is in Wiktionary, it is possible to see the words with macrons, but unfortunately Wiktionary also has its limits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is there an online dictionary that is to some extent specialized in New Latin words and that has macrons?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20877" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6310" RevisionGUID="3fe04c25-7247-4ed1-9201-b12376e379c8" CreationDate="2018-04-20T12:50:37.040" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|resource-request|dictionary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6321" RevisionGUID="73050667-64f6-4993-8c1c-c32aa7623bc6" CreationDate="2018-04-21T00:43:26.880" UserId="845" Text="I was planning to enhance a bit my profile here, and I thought of using the default StackExchange message, only in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google Translate][1] turns the well known:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apparently, this user prefers to keep an air of mystery about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;into this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Videtur quod hoc sacramentum ex aere, circa user potius ut per eas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the limitations of a tool like Google Translate and appreciate it for what it is, but, what would be a real translation of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apparently, this user prefers to keep an air of mystery about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Made some attempts of translating it by myself from the Google example, but the metaphor of &quot;keep an air of mystery about&quot; is just too much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://translate.google.com/?hl=es&amp;tab=wT&amp;authuser=0#en/la/Apparently%2C%20this%20user%20prefers%20to%20keep%20an%20air%20of%20mystery%20about%20them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20879" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6321" RevisionGUID="73050667-64f6-4993-8c1c-c32aa7623bc6" CreationDate="2018-04-21T00:43:26.880" UserId="845" Text="Apparently, this user prefers to keep an air of mystery about them (in Latin)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20880" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6321" RevisionGUID="73050667-64f6-4993-8c1c-c32aa7623bc6" CreationDate="2018-04-21T00:43:26.880" UserId="845" Text="|translation|contemporary-latin|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6322" RevisionGUID="55a47391-7b8e-4c0e-a06b-dcf28b6dcfd1" CreationDate="2018-04-21T02:22:07.200" UserId="406" Text="Google Translate is actually slightly less wrong than usual! It got &quot;apparently&quot; correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Off the top of my head, I would say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Vidētur malle tenēre sibi auram mystēriōsam.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He/she seems to prefer to keep a mysterious air about him/her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Vidētur* is the passive of *videt* &quot;he/she sees&quot;; in the passive, it means &quot;he/she seems&quot;. *Malle* means &quot;to prefer&quot; and takes an infinitive, *tenēre* means &quot;to hold&quot;, *sibi* means &quot;to him/herself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not fully happy with either of the last two words, though; I chose them to look similar to the English ones but the meanings aren't quite the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Auram* is accusative of *aura* which is a Greek borrowing that literally means &quot;breeze&quot; (related to &quot;air&quot;). According to Lewis and Short it can also mean something closer to the English meaning of &quot;aura&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *mystēriōsam* is &quot;pertaining to a *mystērium*&quot;, which originally meant a religious mystery (think the Eleysinian Mysteries) but later came to mean any secret thing. There are other words for &quot;mysterious&quot; that are closer to the English meaning, such as *tenēbrōsus* &quot;shadowy&quot;, but all the ones I know have rather negative connotations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6316" RevisionGUID="b886f129-e63c-415b-9f35-630d08c2c976" CreationDate="2018-04-21T06:18:59.317" UserId="79" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="To complement the other answers, let me give a translation of the phrase.&#xA;Perhaps a discussion about the meaning and structure will be useful for context, even though that is not what you ask.&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Salvandorum paucitas, damnandorum multitudo*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Small number of those to be saved, great number of those to be damned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just a nominal phrase.&#xD;&#xA;*Paucitas* means &quot;smallness&quot;, &quot;small amount&quot;, or similar, and *multitudo* is the opposite.&#xD;&#xA;The most natural translation depends on context, for example whether there is an implied *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;The translation &quot;few saved, many damned&quot; is a good overall translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6321" RevisionGUID="375d599d-8b3a-496e-8938-92d450045e93" CreationDate="2018-04-21T06:22:11.873" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I was planning to enhance a bit my profile here, and I thought of using the default StackExchange message, only in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google Translate][1] turns the well known:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apparently, this user prefers to keep an air of mystery about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;into this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Videtur quod hoc sacramentum ex aere, circa user potius ut per eas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the limitations of a tool like Google Translate and appreciate it for what it is, but, what would be a real translation of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apparently, this user prefers to keep an air of mystery about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Made some attempts of translating it by myself from the Google example, but the metaphor of &quot;keep an air of mystery about&quot; is just too much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://translate.google.com/?hl=es&amp;tab=wT&amp;authuser=0#en/la/Apparently%2C%20this%20user%20prefers%20to%20keep%20an%20air%20of%20mystery%20about%20them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20885" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6321" RevisionGUID="375d599d-8b3a-496e-8938-92d450045e93" CreationDate="2018-04-21T06:22:11.873" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|contemporary-latin|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6323" RevisionGUID="783c2e60-3795-422d-8428-5c4a728355ed" CreationDate="2018-04-21T09:54:40.213" UserId="79" Text="I am preparing for a large academic event where Latin is used.&#xD;&#xA;Latin will be used in the spoken ceremonies and, more importantly for this question, in written diplomas.&#xD;&#xA;The gender of the recipient of the diploma will have an effect on the text: for example, a master will be *maigster* or *magistra*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a chance that some of the participants have non-binary gender identity and do not see themselves as clearly male or clearly female.&#xD;&#xA;This presents an issue for Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I see two main options here: using masculine (as people of unspecified gender are treated masculine in Latin) or neuter (more emphatically neither masculine nor feminine).&#xD;&#xA;I think masculine is the best choice, but I have no experience about the reception of such a choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone share experiences about how people with non-binary gender identity prefer to be gendered in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Experience from other languages and extrapolation to Latin is fine, but in that case I prefer languages with masculine, feminine, and neuter.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for **actual experiences of people with non-binary gender identity in relation to Latin** (or other gender-wise comparable language).&#xD;&#xA;I do not want anyone to feel misgendered, provided that they understand how gender works in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;For example, if you took a Latin class with such a person, do you remember how they preferred to be gendered in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the question is whether people prefer masculine or neuter (there are probably both), but I want to leave the question a little open-ended, as I might not be aware of all aspects of the issue.&#xD;&#xA;Probably different people have different preferences, but I would like to have at least a small sample of opinions.&#xD;&#xA;The best thing imaginable is a study on this matter, but I doubt it exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There is also a [question about pronouns](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/757/79) for such cases.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20887" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6323" RevisionGUID="783c2e60-3795-422d-8428-5c4a728355ed" CreationDate="2018-04-21T09:54:40.213" UserId="79" Text="Latin gender and non-binary gender identity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20888" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6323" RevisionGUID="783c2e60-3795-422d-8428-5c4a728355ed" CreationDate="2018-04-21T09:54:40.213" UserId="79" Text="|grammar-choice|academic-latin|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6324" RevisionGUID="a4a99907-a47e-4c72-afdb-30f72c10d7a4" CreationDate="2018-04-21T13:18:24.703" UserId="79" Text="If I may take some more freedom, I would like to use the verb *cognoscere*, meaning &quot;to know&quot;, &quot;to be acquainted with&quot;, &quot;to identify&quot;, and similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming I have understood correctly (which is not guaranteed by any means), the preferred classical adjective would be *mysticus* instead of *mysteriosus*, although both are clearly understandable.&#xD;&#xA;I also prefer the former one for brevity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would render &quot;apparently&quot; with *apparet* with an accusative and an infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;I think I currently favour the translation *sodalis* for &quot;user&quot; (there is an [older question about users and accounts](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/742/79)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combining these ideas leads me to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Apparet hunc sodalem mystice cognosci malle.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This user seems to prefer beeing seen mysteriously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me attempt to translate what Google Translate gave you back to English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Videtur quod hoc sacramentum ex aere, circa user potius ut per eas.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *It seems that this sacrament from air, around sodalis so that better you through go.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is nonsensical in Latin, and I tried to keep the translation at the same level.&#xD;&#xA;I am reminded of [English as she is spoke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_As_She_Is_Spoke), which is usually not a good sign.&#xD;&#xA;There is also a whole [question exploring the absurdity of Google Translate](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79) if you want details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6324" RevisionGUID="f0ebace9-3f14-4843-8630-6ace32d8469f" CreationDate="2018-04-21T14:17:14.323" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="If I may take some more freedom, I would like to use the verb *cognoscere*, meaning &quot;to know&quot;, &quot;to be acquainted with&quot;, &quot;to identify&quot;, and similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming I have understood correctly (which is not guaranteed by any means), the preferred classical adjective would be *mysticus* instead of *mysteriosus*, although both are clearly understandable.&#xD;&#xA;I also prefer the former one for brevity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would render &quot;apparently&quot; with *apparet* with an accusative and an infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;I think I currently favour the translation *sodalis* for &quot;user&quot; (there is an [older question about users and accounts](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/742/79)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combining these ideas leads me to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Apparet hunc sodalem mystice cognosci malle.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This user seems to prefer beeing seen mysteriously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me attempt to translate what Google Translate gave you back to English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Videtur quod hoc sacramentum ex aere, circa user potius ut per eas.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It seems that this sacrament from air, around sodalis so that better you through go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is nonsensical in Latin, and I tried to keep the translation at the same level.&#xD;&#xA;I am reminded of [English as she is spoke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_As_She_Is_Spoke), which is usually not a good sign.&#xD;&#xA;There is also a whole [question exploring the absurdity of Google Translate](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79) if you want details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6321" RevisionGUID="c610645b-c70e-4f8c-b2e8-40731293ba29" CreationDate="2018-04-21T14:20:25.880" UserId="845" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited title" Text="I was planning to enhance a bit my profile here, and I thought of using the default StackExchange message, only in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google Translate][1] turns the well known:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apparently, this user prefers to keep an air of mystery about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;into this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Videtur quod hoc sacramentum ex aere, circa user potius ut per eas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the limitations of a tool like Google Translate and appreciate it for what it is, but, what would be a real translation of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apparently, this user prefers to keep an air of mystery about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made some attempts of translating it by myself from the Google example, but the metaphor of &quot;keep an air of mystery about&quot; is just too much for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://translate.google.com/?hl=es&amp;tab=wT&amp;authuser=0#en/la/Apparently%2C%20this%20user%20prefers%20to%20keep%20an%20air%20of%20mystery%20about%20them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20892" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6321" RevisionGUID="c610645b-c70e-4f8c-b2e8-40731293ba29" CreationDate="2018-04-21T14:20:25.880" UserId="845" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;Apparently, this user prefers to keep an air of mystery about them&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6325" RevisionGUID="318b2961-2eab-41e3-8b01-a3b9e977d0e0" CreationDate="2018-04-21T16:09:59.010" UserId="2578" Text="What is the correct way to say the following in Latin: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;when in doubt, withhold tax&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(or &quot;when in doubt, deduct tax&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for your help&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vulcanoid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20894" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6325" RevisionGUID="318b2961-2eab-41e3-8b01-a3b9e977d0e0" CreationDate="2018-04-21T16:09:59.010" UserId="2578" Text="latin to deduct or withhold taxes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20895" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6325" RevisionGUID="318b2961-2eab-41e3-8b01-a3b9e977d0e0" CreationDate="2018-04-21T16:09:59.010" UserId="2578" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6323" RevisionGUID="fb7d53a1-07eb-4717-b045-1ae0bae86fb6" CreationDate="2018-04-21T16:19:41.613" UserId="45" Comment="edited body" Text="I am preparing for a large academic event where Latin is used.&#xD;&#xA;Latin will be used in the spoken ceremonies and, more importantly for this question, in written diplomas.&#xD;&#xA;The gender of the recipient of the diploma will have an effect on the text: for example, a master will be *magister* or *magistra*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a chance that some of the participants have non-binary gender identity and do not see themselves as clearly male or clearly female.&#xD;&#xA;This presents an issue for Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I see two main options here: using masculine (as people of unspecified gender are treated masculine in Latin) or neuter (more emphatically neither masculine nor feminine).&#xD;&#xA;I think masculine is the best choice, but I have no experience about the reception of such a choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone share experiences about how people with non-binary gender identity prefer to be gendered in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Experience from other languages and extrapolation to Latin is fine, but in that case I prefer languages with masculine, feminine, and neuter.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for **actual experiences of people with non-binary gender identity in relation to Latin** (or other gender-wise comparable language).&#xD;&#xA;I do not want anyone to feel misgendered, provided that they understand how gender works in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;For example, if you took a Latin class with such a person, do you remember how they preferred to be gendered in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the question is whether people prefer masculine or neuter (there are probably both), but I want to leave the question a little open-ended, as I might not be aware of all aspects of the issue.&#xD;&#xA;Probably different people have different preferences, but I would like to have at least a small sample of opinions.&#xD;&#xA;The best thing imaginable is a study on this matter, but I doubt it exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There is also a [question about pronouns](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/757/79) for such cases.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6325" RevisionGUID="e0c1dbed-ad08-461b-a613-67fcfc106fac" CreationDate="2018-04-21T17:44:20.193" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What is the correct way to say the following in Latin: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;when in doubt, withhold tax&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (or &quot;when in doubt, deduct tax&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for your help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20898" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6325" RevisionGUID="e0c1dbed-ad08-461b-a613-67fcfc106fac" CreationDate="2018-04-21T17:44:20.193" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Latin to deduct or withhold taxes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20899" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6325" RevisionGUID="e0c1dbed-ad08-461b-a613-67fcfc106fac" CreationDate="2018-04-21T17:44:20.193" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20900" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4564" RevisionGUID="78306f6d-cff7-4061-ae70-cfb7e16f786c" CreationDate="2018-04-21T18:15:46.890" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6326" RevisionGUID="f8d15d2b-382b-4f48-9176-45d769dcfee2" CreationDate="2018-04-21T21:16:21.427" UserId="645" Text="Whichever the English version of the two that you propose, *quandoque dubium sit, tributum retine* should (if you'll forgive the pun) fill the bill : literally, 'whenever there may be doubt, retain the tax'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6327" RevisionGUID="c3ca1c1f-15fa-4ac0-af26-01833c3d3765" CreationDate="2018-04-22T21:48:59.230" UserId="79" Text="I have seen both present and perfect forms of the conjunctive for negative orders or requests, for example *ne canas* and *ne cecineris*.&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference?&#xD;&#xA;Is one more an order and the other more a request?&#xD;&#xA;Are they interchangeable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in these as orders, either as separate exclamations or as part of a governing clause, not subordinate to anything else.&#xD;&#xA;The standard I have learned for negative imperative is either *noli(te)* with infinitive or *ne* with perfect conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;I have the impression that *ne* with present conjunctive is more of a request, but I am unsure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is [a similar earlier comparison for hesitation](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2488/79), but it does not cover orders or requests." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20903" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6327" RevisionGUID="c3ca1c1f-15fa-4ac0-af26-01833c3d3765" CreationDate="2018-04-22T21:48:59.230" UserId="79" Text="What is the difference between conjunctive present and perfect with ne?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20904" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6327" RevisionGUID="c3ca1c1f-15fa-4ac0-af26-01833c3d3765" CreationDate="2018-04-22T21:48:59.230" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|nuance|conjunctive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="993" RevisionGUID="2b8e9e6c-492a-4014-82ed-cb1eeef69f05" CreationDate="2018-04-23T00:36:35.043" UserId="79" Comment="added 416 characters in body" Text="The word *sic* means &quot;thus&quot; and is not tied to written contexts.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say &quot;thus it was said&quot;, a simple and analogous option is to say *sic erat dictum*.&#xD;&#xA;The underlying verbs are *scribere* (to write) and *dicere* (to say).&#xD;&#xA;If you only use the short form *sic* as is typical, it is valid for both contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side note:&#xD;&#xA;In fact, *sic erat scriptum* is pluperfect, so it is closer to &quot;thus it had been written&quot; than &quot;thus it was written&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In some cases the perfect *sic est scriptum* would make more sense, but this is mostly tangential to your question.&#xD;&#xA;However, it is another good reason to stick with the plain *sic*, especially when using the Latin adverb as a comment to text written or spoken in another language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="fdb682a0-d585-4009-b737-543dda95687a" CreationDate="2018-04-23T00:45:23.240" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The present, perfect, and participle stems&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; of the verb *struere* are *stru-*, *strux-*, and *struct-*.&#xD;&#xA;The *-s-* in the perfect stem and the *-t-* in the participle stem are nothing unusual, but they seem to follow a consonant that is absent from the present stem, perhaps *-c-*, *-g-*, or *-h-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The situation is similar to, for example, *trah-/trax-/tract-* and *dic-/dix-/dict-*.&#xD;&#xA;A partial example with a *-g-* is *tang-/tetig-/tact-*, which could all naturally come from a single stem *tag-*.&#xD;&#xA;**The thing I don't understand is why there is no consonant at the end of the present stem of *struere*.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was there ever a consonant that was later dropped &amp;mdash; was it *struhere* or *strucere* or something similar?&#xD;&#xA;If not, what explains the discrepancy between the present stem *stru-* and the two other stems?&#xD;&#xA;Or is this just an irregularity I should accept without explanation?&#xD;&#xA;I fail to see a story behind the paradigm *stru-/strux-/struct-*, although I can justify most Latin verb paradigms at least to myself.&#xD;&#xA;Any explanation about the background of the stems of *struere* would be welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know the canonical names of these stems, but that's tangential.&#xD;&#xA;I hope the terminology is clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;I prefer short names for fluency." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20907" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="fdb682a0-d585-4009-b737-543dda95687a" CreationDate="2018-04-23T00:45:23.240" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|verbs|language-evolution|morphology|grammar-identification|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4656" RevisionGUID="c5e7265c-ef03-4562-8467-b957443f9f61" CreationDate="2018-04-23T01:11:04.640" UserId="9" Comment="fixed Wikipedia for Wiktionary typo" Text="The form *structum* seems to have &quot;c&quot; by analogy to stems that had labiovelar consonants in Proto-Indo-European, as Alex B. says.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In *frūctus* (from *fruor*) the Indo-European present stem ended in a labio-velar *gʷ,* but various analogies no doubt account for *strūctus, flūxus,* old *flūctus, uīctum* (from *struo, fluo, uīuo*)&#xD;&#xA;(*Vox Latina,* W. Sidney Allen, Second Edition, p. 69) (First published 1965, Second edition 1978)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a relevant footnote on this page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Old Latin [for *fīgo*] is in fact *fīuo,* with *u* from Indo-European *gʷ.* But note *nīxus* (and *nictare*) from *(co)nīveo,* where *u* is from Indo-European *gʷh.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Latin and Greek Accidence][1],* by John Perkins, I found the following examples of verbs that have a velar consonant only in non-present stems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- fluo, fluxi, fluctum/fluxum&#xD;&#xA;- struo, struxi, structum&#xD;&#xA;- vivo, vixi, victum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p 36)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- fruor, fructus/fruitus&#xD;&#xA;- nitor, nisus/nixus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p 37)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary (accessed 24 June 2017) gives the following etymologies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [fluo][2]: &quot;From Proto-Italic *flowō&quot; (cites De Vaan), &quot;from Proto-Indo-European *\*bʰlewgʷ-,* from *\*bʰlew-*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- [struo][3]: &quot;From Proto-Italic *strowō&quot; (cites De Vaan) &quot;with spurious *c* in *struxī* and *structum*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- [vivo][4]: &quot;From Proto-Italic *gʷīwō [...] The *x* and *c* in *vīxī* and *vīctum* were introduced by analogy with other verbs.&quot; I left out what Wiktionary says about the Indo-European etymology because my understanding is that this is a somewhat troublesome root to analyze &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [fruor][5]: &quot;From the Proto-Indo-European *\*bʰruHg-*&quot; (De Vaan is listed in the &quot;references&quot; section, but there's no explicit citation and no Proto-Italic form given)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [nitor][6]: &quot;From Proto-Indo-European *\*kneygʷʰ-* (“to bend, to droop”). Cognate with *nicō, connīveō, nictō*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you might have noticed, Wiktionary, unlike Allen, doesn't write a macron on *structum,* and there is a note in the Wiktionary entry for *struo* saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please note that there is a disagreement over whether or not there is a macron on the third and fourth principal parts and the subsequent verb forms from these (*strūxī* for *struxī* and *strūctum* for *structum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is no citation for this statement, so I don't know what the basis for the disagreement would be. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Latin language; a historical outline of its sounds, inflections, and syntax][7],* by Charles E. Bennett (1907) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gellius [...] testifies (*Noctes Atticae,* &#xD;&#xA;ix. 6) to the quantity of the vowels of *āctus, lēctus, ūnctus,* and in &#xD;&#xA;xii. 3. 4 to that of ***strūctus*** (p. 52)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Romance languages [...] point to *cīnxī, distīnxī, exstīnxī, fīnxī, pīnxī, **strūxī,** tīnxī, ūnxī* (p. 53)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but perhaps there are some issues with this evidence, or opposing pieces of evidence. Bennet doesn't indicate any inscriptional evidence (e.g. use of the [apex][8]) for vowel length in this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Further reading &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some links to further literature that seems relevant that I found by Googling, but that I haven't processed yet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;[Latin Verbs in -uo, -uere][9]&quot;, Oswald Szemerényi, in *Italic and Romance Linguistic Studies in Honor of Ernst Pulgram* (1980). This seems pretty detailed! I can only see part of it through Google Books, but it looks worth a read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;[On some Slavic words in *-č*: *k* from laryngeal?][11]&quot;, by Jens Elmegård Rasmussen (1988)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;[Lachmann's Law (Part 2)][12]&quot;, by Roman Sukač (2013)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;[On Latin *strāgulum* and *strāges*: *-g-* and analogy][10]&quot;, by Kanehiro Nishimura, in *Words and Dictionaries: A Festschrift for Professor Stanisław Stachowski on the Occassion of his 85&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; Birthday* (2015)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=KwZyJh3QgDEC&amp;pg=PA36&amp;lpg=PA36&amp;dq=fluo%20fluxum%20fluctum%20fruor%20fructus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ZXCASg4GJQ&amp;sig=fMotdFecey-Rwu5FVMOYhRmFwyQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjjyZud5dfUAhUL5oMKHSpYCBsQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=fructus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fluo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/struo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vivo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fruor#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nitor#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://archive.org/stream/latinlanguagehis00benn#page/52/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_(diacritic)&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://books.google.com/books?id=1mVwAuuC8GoC&amp;pg=PA12&amp;lpg=PA12&amp;dq=vowel%20length%20%22struxi%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-LmXUZCyDT&amp;sig=2uwMYrKtuV_XXFA-xrqOdclpYCA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjLwrn6odjUAhVExoMKHZhxDbkQ6AEINDAF#v=snippet&amp;q=struo&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://books.google.com/books?id=SoQIDgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA234&amp;lpg=PA234&amp;dq=vowel%20length%20%22struxi%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XVqslgIwak&amp;sig=ufCsDbYWCXFelNLOLVQfkdFcGt4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjLwrn6odjUAhVExoMKHZhxDbkQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=vowel%20length%20%22struxi%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://books.google.com/books?id=--ssbDUSJfIC&amp;pg=PA344&amp;lpg=PA344&amp;dq=vowel%20length%20%22struxi%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=OnRD8wQlyO&amp;sig=LXJvc7ZmMZalhjEHkOk5TfjlpD8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjLwrn6odjUAhVExoMKHZhxDbkQ6AEIMTAE#v=onepage&amp;q=vowel%20length%20%22struxi%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://digilib.phil.muni.cz/bitstream/handle/11222.digilib/127146/1_LinguisticaBrunensia_14-2013-1_2.pdf?sequence=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4656" RevisionGUID="837ee121-80fa-4f00-ac45-24682d42a70f" CreationDate="2018-04-23T01:22:08.213" UserId="9" Comment="fixed Wikipedia for Wiktionary typo" Text="The form *structum* seems to have &quot;c&quot; by analogy to stems that had labiovelar consonants in Proto-Indo-European, as Alex B. says.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In *frūctus* (from *fruor*) the Indo-European present stem ended in a labio-velar *gʷ,* but various analogies no doubt account for *strūctus, flūxus,* old *flūctus, uīctum* (from *struo, fluo, uīuo*)&#xD;&#xA;(*Vox Latina,* W. Sidney Allen, Second Edition, p. 69) (First published 1965, Second edition 1978)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a relevant footnote on this page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Old Latin [for *fīgo*] is in fact *fīuo,* with *u* from Indo-European *gʷ.* But note *nīxus* (and *nictare*) from *(co)nīveo,* where *u* is from Indo-European *gʷh.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Latin and Greek Accidence][1],* by John Perkins, I found the following examples of verbs that have a velar consonant only in non-present stems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- fluo, fluxi, fluctum/fluxum&#xD;&#xA;- struo, struxi, structum&#xD;&#xA;- vivo, vixi, victum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p 36)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- fruor, fructus/fruitus&#xD;&#xA;- nitor, nisus/nixus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p 37)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Latin Verbs in -uo, -uere&quot;, by Oswald Szemerényi, says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Two [*of the verbs ending in -uo, -uere*] show in the perfect and the PPP a velar stem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *fluo -ere fluxī fluctum* (later *fluxus*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; &lt;br&gt;*struo -ere struxī structum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No doubt ... the same type is seen in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *fruor fruī frūctus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary (accessed 24 June 2017) gives the following etymologies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [fluo][2]: &quot;From Proto-Italic *flowō&quot; (cites De Vaan), &quot;from Proto-Indo-European *\*bʰlewgʷ-,* from *\*bʰlew-*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- [struo][3]: &quot;From Proto-Italic *strowō&quot; (cites De Vaan) &quot;with spurious *c* in *struxī* and *structum*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- [vivo][4]: &quot;From Proto-Italic *gʷīwō [...] The *x* and *c* in *vīxī* and *vīctum* were introduced by analogy with other verbs.&quot; I left out what Wiktionary says about the Indo-European etymology because my understanding is that this is a somewhat troublesome root to analyze &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [fruor][5]: &quot;From the Proto-Indo-European *\*bʰruHg-*&quot; (De Vaan is listed in the &quot;references&quot; section, but there's no explicit citation and no Proto-Italic form given)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [nitor][6]: &quot;From Proto-Indo-European *\*kneygʷʰ-* (“to bend, to droop”). Cognate with *nicō, connīveō, nictō*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you might have noticed, Wiktionary, unlike Allen, doesn't write a macron on *structum,* and there is a note in the Wiktionary entry for *struo* saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please note that there is a disagreement over whether or not there is a macron on the third and fourth principal parts and the subsequent verb forms from these (*strūxī* for *struxī* and *strūctum* for *structum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is no citation for this statement, so I don't know what the basis for the disagreement would be. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Latin language; a historical outline of its sounds, inflections, and syntax][7],* by Charles E. Bennett (1907) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gellius [...] testifies (*Noctes Atticae,* &#xD;&#xA;ix. 6) to the quantity of the vowels of *āctus, lēctus, ūnctus,* and in &#xD;&#xA;xii. 3. 4 to that of ***strūctus*** (p. 52)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Romance languages [...] point to *cīnxī, distīnxī, exstīnxī, fīnxī, pīnxī, **strūxī,** tīnxī, ūnxī* (p. 53)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but perhaps there are some issues with this evidence, or opposing pieces of evidence. Bennet doesn't indicate any inscriptional evidence (e.g. use of the [apex][8]) for vowel length in this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Further reading &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some links to further literature that seems relevant that I found by Googling, but that I haven't processed yet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;[Latin Verbs in -uo, -uere][9]&quot;, Oswald Szemerényi, in *Italic and Romance Linguistic Studies in Honor of Ernst Pulgram* (1980). This seems pretty detailed! I can only see part of it through Google Books, but it looks worth a read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;[On some Slavic words in *-č*: *k* from laryngeal?][11]&quot;, by Jens Elmegård Rasmussen (1988)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;[Lachmann's Law (Part 2)][12]&quot;, by Roman Sukač (2013)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;[On Latin *strāgulum* and *strāges*: *-g-* and analogy][10]&quot;, by Kanehiro Nishimura, in *Words and Dictionaries: A Festschrift for Professor Stanisław Stachowski on the Occassion of his 85&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; Birthday* (2015)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=KwZyJh3QgDEC&amp;pg=PA36&amp;lpg=PA36&amp;dq=fluo%20fluxum%20fluctum%20fruor%20fructus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ZXCASg4GJQ&amp;sig=fMotdFecey-Rwu5FVMOYhRmFwyQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjjyZud5dfUAhUL5oMKHSpYCBsQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=fructus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fluo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/struo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vivo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fruor#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nitor#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://archive.org/stream/latinlanguagehis00benn#page/52/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_(diacritic)&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://books.google.com/books?id=1mVwAuuC8GoC&amp;pg=PA12&amp;lpg=PA12&amp;dq=vowel%20length%20%22struxi%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-LmXUZCyDT&amp;sig=2uwMYrKtuV_XXFA-xrqOdclpYCA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjLwrn6odjUAhVExoMKHZhxDbkQ6AEINDAF#v=snippet&amp;q=struo&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://books.google.com/books?id=SoQIDgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA234&amp;lpg=PA234&amp;dq=vowel%20length%20%22struxi%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XVqslgIwak&amp;sig=ufCsDbYWCXFelNLOLVQfkdFcGt4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjLwrn6odjUAhVExoMKHZhxDbkQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=vowel%20length%20%22struxi%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://books.google.com/books?id=--ssbDUSJfIC&amp;pg=PA344&amp;lpg=PA344&amp;dq=vowel%20length%20%22struxi%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=OnRD8wQlyO&amp;sig=LXJvc7ZmMZalhjEHkOk5TfjlpD8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjLwrn6odjUAhVExoMKHZhxDbkQ6AEIMTAE#v=onepage&amp;q=vowel%20length%20%22struxi%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://digilib.phil.muni.cz/bitstream/handle/11222.digilib/127146/1_LinguisticaBrunensia_14-2013-1_2.pdf?sequence=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4656" RevisionGUID="5d427c43-2f22-42c5-8aa9-9dcb52f84bc5" CreationDate="2018-04-23T01:29:23.573" UserId="9" Comment="fixed Wikipedia for Wiktionary typo" Text="The form *structum* seems to have &quot;c&quot; by analogy to stems that had labiovelar consonants in Proto-Indo-European, as Alex B. says.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In *frūctus* (from *fruor*) the Indo-European present stem ended in a labio-velar *gʷ,* but various analogies no doubt account for *strūctus, flūxus,* old *flūctus, uīctum* (from *struo, fluo, uīuo*)&#xD;&#xA;(*Vox Latina,* W. Sidney Allen, Second Edition, p. 69) (First published 1965, Second edition 1978)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a relevant footnote on this page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Old Latin [for *fīgo*] is in fact *fīuo,* with *u* from Indo-European *gʷ.* But note *nīxus* (and *nictare*) from *(co)nīveo,* where *u* is from Indo-European *gʷh.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Perkins (1875) I found the following examples of verbs that have a velar consonant only in non-present stems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - fluo, fluxi, fluctum/fluxum&#xD;&#xA; - struo, struxi, structum&#xD;&#xA; - vivo, vixi, victum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p 36)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- fruor, fructus/fruitus&#xD;&#xA;- nitor, nisus/nixus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p 37)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Latin Verbs in -uo, -uere&quot;, by Oswald Szemerényi, says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Two [*of the verbs ending in -uo, -uere*] show in the perfect and the PPP a velar stem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *fluo -ere fluxī fluctum* (later *fluxus*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; &lt;br&gt;*struo -ere struxī structum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No doubt ... the same type is seen in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *fruor fruī frūctus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary (accessed 24 June 2017) gives the following etymologies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [fluo][2]: &quot;From Proto-Italic *flowō&quot; (cites De Vaan), &quot;from Proto-Indo-European *\*bʰlewgʷ-,* from *\*bʰlew-*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- [struo][3]: &quot;From Proto-Italic *strowō&quot; (cites De Vaan) &quot;with spurious *c* in *struxī* and *structum*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- [vivo][4]: &quot;From Proto-Italic *gʷīwō [...] The *x* and *c* in *vīxī* and *vīctum* were introduced by analogy with other verbs.&quot; I left out what Wiktionary says about the Indo-European etymology because my understanding is that this is a somewhat troublesome root to analyze &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [fruor][5]: &quot;From the Proto-Indo-European *\*bʰruHg-*&quot; (De Vaan is listed in the &quot;references&quot; section, but there's no explicit citation and no Proto-Italic form given)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [nitor][6]: &quot;From Proto-Indo-European *\*kneygʷʰ-* (“to bend, to droop”). Cognate with *nicō, connīveō, nictō*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you might have noticed, Wiktionary, unlike Allen, doesn't write a macron on *structum,* and there is a note in the Wiktionary entry for *struo* saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please note that there is a disagreement over whether or not there is a macron on the third and fourth principal parts and the subsequent verb forms from these (*strūxī* for *struxī* and *strūctum* for *structum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is no citation for this statement, so I don't know what the basis for the disagreement would be. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett (1907) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gellius [...] testifies (*Noctes Atticae,* &#xD;&#xA;ix. 6) to the quantity of the vowels of *āctus, lēctus, ūnctus,* and in &#xD;&#xA;xii. 3. 4 to that of ***strūctus*** (p. 52)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Romance languages [...] point to *cīnxī, distīnxī, exstīnxī, fīnxī, pīnxī, **strūxī,** tīnxī, ūnxī* (p. 53)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but perhaps there are some issues with this evidence, or opposing pieces of evidence. Bennet doesn't indicate any inscriptional evidence (e.g. use of the [apex][8]) for vowel length in this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Allen, W. Sidney. *Vox Latina,* Second Edition (First published 1965, Second edition 1978)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Bennet, Charles E. *[The Latin language; a historical outline of its sounds, inflections, and syntax][7]* (1907)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Perkins, John. *[Latin and Greek Accidence][1]* (1875)&#xD;&#xA;-  Szemerényi, Oswald. &quot;[Latin Verbs in -uo, -uere][9]&quot;, in *Italic and Romance Linguistic Studies in Honor of Ernst Pulgram* (1980). This seems pretty detailed! I can only see part of it through Google Books, but it looks worth a read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Further reading &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some links to further literature that seems relevant that I found by Googling, but that I haven't processed yet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;[On some Slavic words in *-č*: *k* from laryngeal?][11]&quot;, by Jens Elmegård Rasmussen (1988)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;[Lachmann's Law (Part 2)][12]&quot;, by Roman Sukač (2013)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;[On Latin *strāgulum* and *strāges*: *-g-* and analogy][10]&quot;, by Kanehiro Nishimura, in *Words and Dictionaries: A Festschrift for Professor Stanisław Stachowski on the Occassion of his 85&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; Birthday* (2015)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=KwZyJh3QgDEC&amp;pg=PA36&amp;lpg=PA36&amp;dq=fluo%20fluxum%20fluctum%20fruor%20fructus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ZXCASg4GJQ&amp;sig=fMotdFecey-Rwu5FVMOYhRmFwyQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjjyZud5dfUAhUL5oMKHSpYCBsQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=fructus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fluo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/struo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vivo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fruor#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nitor#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://archive.org/stream/latinlanguagehis00benn#page/52/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_(diacritic)&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://books.google.com/books?id=1mVwAuuC8GoC&amp;pg=PA12&amp;lpg=PA12&amp;dq=vowel%20length%20%22struxi%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-LmXUZCyDT&amp;sig=2uwMYrKtuV_XXFA-xrqOdclpYCA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjLwrn6odjUAhVExoMKHZhxDbkQ6AEINDAF#v=snippet&amp;q=struo&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://books.google.com/books?id=SoQIDgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA234&amp;lpg=PA234&amp;dq=vowel%20length%20%22struxi%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XVqslgIwak&amp;sig=ufCsDbYWCXFelNLOLVQfkdFcGt4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjLwrn6odjUAhVExoMKHZhxDbkQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=vowel%20length%20%22struxi%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://books.google.com/books?id=--ssbDUSJfIC&amp;pg=PA344&amp;lpg=PA344&amp;dq=vowel%20length%20%22struxi%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=OnRD8wQlyO&amp;sig=LXJvc7ZmMZalhjEHkOk5TfjlpD8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjLwrn6odjUAhVExoMKHZhxDbkQ6AEIMTAE#v=onepage&amp;q=vowel%20length%20%22struxi%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://digilib.phil.muni.cz/bitstream/handle/11222.digilib/127146/1_LinguisticaBrunensia_14-2013-1_2.pdf?sequence=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6328" RevisionGUID="4d28fde2-3bf3-4a4a-ba7e-664743232f20" CreationDate="2018-04-23T13:25:41.490" UserId="2581" Text="I love the Stoic doctrine and I would like to know from the original text (see excerpt under), the sentence that can capture the essence of one of the Stoic doctine, that can be translated in modrn language as : &quot;'to be chosen' but not 'to be desired.'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From De Finibus III.6 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed ex hoc primum error tollendus est, ne quis sequi existimet, ut duo sint ultima bonorum. Etenim, si cui propositum sit conliniare hastam aliquo aut sagittam, sicut nos ultimum in bonis dicimus, sic illi facere omnia, quae possit, ut conliniet huic in eius modi similitudine  omnia sint facienda, ut conliniet, et tamen, ut omnia faciat, quo propositum adsequatur, sit hoc quasi ultimum, quale nos summum in vita bonum dicimus, illud autem, ut feriat, quasi seligendum, non expetendum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from an english translation (just the end of the text)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;his 'ultimate End,' so to speak, would be what corresponded to what&#xD;&#xA;&gt; we call the Chief Good in the conduct of life, whereas the actual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hitting of the mark would be in our phrase 'to be chosen' but not 'to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be desired.' &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe this sentence capture the idea ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ut omnia faciat, quo propositum adsequatur, sit hoc quasi ultimum,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quale nos summum in vita bonum dicimus, illud autem, ut feriat, quasi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seligendum, non expetendum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think ? and what is a litteral translation of this latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can you specifically translate &quot;to be chosen but not to be desired&quot; in &quot;Cicero's style&quot; ? :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20912" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6328" RevisionGUID="4d28fde2-3bf3-4a4a-ba7e-664743232f20" CreationDate="2018-04-23T13:25:41.490" UserId="2581" Text="Cicero's De Finibus (looking for the original sentence that translate to &quot;to be chosen but not to be desired.&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20913" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6328" RevisionGUID="4d28fde2-3bf3-4a4a-ba7e-664743232f20" CreationDate="2018-04-23T13:25:41.490" UserId="2581" Text="|classical-latin|cicero|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6329" RevisionGUID="6208e151-65b8-45d8-b8da-c123884ff5dc" CreationDate="2018-04-23T15:06:19.133" UserId="645" Text="I guess that Cic. de Finibus IV, xvii [48] may be near to what you are looking for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ea, quae secundum naturam sunt, petenda, sed ab iis et appetitio et actio commovetur,* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— but if that isn't the exact reference, then I'm afraid that to locate the exact sentence would need either luck, or some closer reading than I have time to give it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6328" RevisionGUID="2ad0fbea-821d-4969-a915-f38c7171847a" CreationDate="2018-04-23T19:30:00.387" UserId="79" Comment="Improved spelling." Text="I love the Stoic doctrine and I would like to know from the original text (see excerpt under), the sentence that can capture the essence of one of the Stoic doctrine, that can be translated in modern language as : &quot;'to be chosen' but not 'to be desired.'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From De Finibus III.6:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed ex hoc primum error tollendus est, ne quis sequi existimet, ut duo sint ultima bonorum. Etenim, si cui propositum sit conliniare hastam aliquo aut sagittam, sicut nos ultimum in bonis dicimus, sic illi facere omnia, quae possit, ut conliniet huic in eius modi similitudine  omnia sint facienda, ut conliniet, et tamen, ut omnia faciat, quo propositum adsequatur, sit hoc quasi ultimum, quale nos summum in vita bonum dicimus, illud autem, ut feriat, quasi seligendum, non expetendum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From an English translation (just the end of the text):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;his 'ultimate End,' so to speak, would be what corresponded to what&#xD;&#xA;&gt; we call the Chief Good in the conduct of life, whereas the actual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hitting of the mark would be in our phrase 'to be chosen' but not 'to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be desired.' &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe this sentence captures the idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ut omnia faciat, quo propositum adsequatur, sit hoc quasi ultimum,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quale nos summum in vita bonum dicimus, illud autem, ut feriat, quasi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seligendum, non expetendum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think? And what is a literal translation of this Latin passage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can you specifically translate &quot;to be chosen but not to be desired&quot; in &quot;Cicero's style&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6331" RevisionGUID="eec3ea19-ae74-403e-b2f6-0fe7f91ca5f8" CreationDate="2018-04-23T20:27:06.133" UserId="1304" Text="Let me distinguish possible meanings of the original:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* __They are a danger:__&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If they are dangerous as a couple, they are a _dangerous union:_ ___NN et NN: iugum periculosum___ (Bonnie and Clyde? Or like two wild horses attached to a _biga..._)&lt;br/&gt; If they are separately dangerous, and might even be a danger to each other, then ___NN et NN: par periculosorum___ (a pair of dangerous people, or change to ___periculosarum___ if they both identify as female: _par gladiatorum_ is attested, a pair of gladiators fighting with each other... but Cicero has also _paria amicorum,_ couples of friends...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* __They are in danger__&lt;br/&gt; ___NN et NN: periclitantes iuncti___ (___iunctae___ if appropriate). We get a __very__ slight difference in emphasis reversing the word order. ___Periclitantes iuncti___ is somewhat concessive: _even in danger, they stand together_; ___iuncti periclitantes___ is somewhat final: _they are together to face danger,_ (but this is probably too subjective to be proven outside context).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After ___NN et NN___ a nominative is practically obligatory: good Latin style wouldn’t tolerate an adverbial apposition like _together_ in English.  ___Iuncti___ is enough in this case: ___coniuncti___ reminds of ___coniuges___ and the English doesn’t say they are married." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20918" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="6332" RevisionGUID="93a165fc-9a57-4a84-a33e-4520048e7e59" CreationDate="2018-04-24T07:26:30.150" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/27759/why-doesnt-caesar-use-the-subjunctive-consistently" />
  <row Id="20919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6333" RevisionGUID="76802023-c732-4f2e-be1c-48be637eba41" CreationDate="2018-04-21T13:46:43.393" UserId="30" Text="The answer is perhaps surprisingly simple: they're all indicatives! *Commeant* is from *commeare*, which is of the first conjugation: the a is part of the present stem of the verb, so the *a* does not indicate a subjunctive. The imperative, for example, is *commea*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The present indicative goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; commeo, commeas, commeat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The present subjunctive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; commeem, commees, commeet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperfect indicative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; commeabam, commeabas, commeabat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6332" RevisionGUID="7b7cb6de-71df-420b-b962-6d563aebbdd3" CreationDate="2018-04-21T12:39:38.687" UserId="1495" Text="In the Commentaries, Caesar writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae, propterea quod a cultu atque humanitate provinciae longissime absunt, minimeque ad eos mercatores saepe commeant atque ea quae ad effeminandos animos pertinent important&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I am guessing he is using the subjunctive with `commeant` because it is an explanation or reason for the primary thought, however, in that case shouldn't he also be using the subjunctive with importo and write &quot;importent&quot;? Instead he just uses the normal active &quot;important&quot;, which does not seem to be parallel with commeant which is subjunctive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20921" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6332" RevisionGUID="7b7cb6de-71df-420b-b962-6d563aebbdd3" CreationDate="2018-04-21T12:39:38.687" UserId="1495" Text="Why doesn't Caesar use the subjunctive consistently?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20922" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6332" RevisionGUID="7b7cb6de-71df-420b-b962-6d563aebbdd3" CreationDate="2018-04-21T12:39:38.687" UserId="1495" Text="|conjunctive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20923" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="6333" RevisionGUID="9f8792ec-0e55-4da5-8750-c604d3c8c034" CreationDate="2018-04-24T07:26:30.150" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/27759/why-doesnt-caesar-use-the-subjunctive-consistently/27760#27760" />
  <row Id="20924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6334" RevisionGUID="8b55178d-cc1a-48dd-9c8e-7df952999058" CreationDate="2018-04-24T12:58:23.640" UserId="13" Text="In Sappho Edmonds 76 Campbell 147, the tradition gives μνάσασθαί τινα φάμη καὶ ἔτερον ἀμμέων. I can see why one would amend this to μνάσασθαί τινά φαμι καὶ ὔστερον/ἄψερον ἀμμέων on metrical grounds, but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - φαμι is typically (by which I mean Edmonds, Lobel-Page and Campbell) further modified to φαιμι;&#xD;&#xA; - Campbell proposes μνάσεσθαι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On what grounds is that iota added in item 1? And what arguments are there pro or contra the tradition's μνάσασθαι, which Lobel-Page says «potest fieri ut etiam […] recte se habeat»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20925" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6334" RevisionGUID="8b55178d-cc1a-48dd-9c8e-7df952999058" CreationDate="2018-04-24T12:58:23.640" UserId="13" Text="About certain emendations to Sappho Edmonds 76 Campbell 147" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20926" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6334" RevisionGUID="8b55178d-cc1a-48dd-9c8e-7df952999058" CreationDate="2018-04-24T12:58:23.640" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6335" RevisionGUID="f783771d-5ce0-48e3-8adb-e8d04f583acd" CreationDate="2018-04-25T02:16:43.160" UserId="47" Text="The traditional Latin prayer, 'Angel of God', goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ángele Dei,&#xD;&#xA;    qui custos es mei,&#xD;&#xA;    me, tibi commissum pietáte supérna,&#xD;&#xA;    hodie illúmina, custódi, rege et gubérna.&#xD;&#xA;    Amen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English translations abound, but I would like some help with mechanics of translating the parenthetical, &quot;tibi commissum pietáte supérna&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Tibi&quot; is obviously the dative of &quot;tu&quot;, which we would translate &quot;to you&quot; or &quot;for you&quot; depending upon context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Commissum&quot;, according to [wiktionary][1], is either a supine verb, or a participle.  If it is a participle, it is either nominative, accusative, or vocative.  **Here is where I am most confused.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Pietate&quot;, according to wiktionary, must be ablative singular, which we would translate &quot;[from/with/in/by] love/devotion&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;Superna&quot;, if it is linked to &quot;pietate&quot;, must be an ablative singular adjective: &quot;celestial&quot; or &quot;heavenly&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These four words are just a little too fuzzy for me at my level for me to assemble them into a single thought.  I would appreciate some expert help!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/commissum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20928" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6335" RevisionGUID="f783771d-5ce0-48e3-8adb-e8d04f583acd" CreationDate="2018-04-25T02:16:43.160" UserId="47" Text="From 'Angel of God': &quot;tibi commissum pietate superna&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20929" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6335" RevisionGUID="f783771d-5ce0-48e3-8adb-e8d04f583acd" CreationDate="2018-04-25T02:16:43.160" UserId="47" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6336" RevisionGUID="8d7f24c0-db0b-4a7e-861c-8ee12c9a6ebd" CreationDate="2018-04-25T04:04:06.193" UserId="406" Text="I'm not familiar with the prayer, but looking at the text you posted, I would take this phrase as modifying *mē*: literally, &quot;[me, who is] committed to thee by heavenly love&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Commissum* is a masculine singular accusative perfect passive participle, &quot;committed&quot;: it might also be neuter from its form, but given its proximity to *mē*, masculine is more likely. And if it's masculine, it has to be accusative. (The neuter nominative, accusative, and vocative all look like the masculine accusative here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it's a *passive* participle, the ablative (which you have correctly identified) is the agent or means of the action. And *tibi*, in the dative, is the target of that action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a rough translation of the entire prayer would be &quot;Angel of God, who art my guardian, shine light on me today, I who am committed to thee by heavenly love, protect me, rule me, and govern me. Amen.&quot; It's difficult because English doesn't really like modifying &quot;me&quot; with full phrases; as you can see, I had to use the nominative &quot;I&quot; to make the English work. I also had to insert that phrase into the middle of the next line, since English *really* doesn't like putting an accusative at the start of a phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6335" RevisionGUID="30e7ef40-372c-4544-aac8-a01f9c64158b" CreationDate="2018-04-25T07:30:32.857" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted the quote and retagged." Text="The traditional Latin prayer, 'Angel of God', goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ángele Dei,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui custos es mei,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; me, tibi commissum pietáte supérna,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; hodie illúmina, custódi, rege et gubérna.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Amen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English translations abound, but I would like some help with mechanics of translating the parenthetical, &quot;tibi commissum pietáte supérna&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Tibi&quot; is obviously the dative of &quot;tu&quot;, which we would translate &quot;to you&quot; or &quot;for you&quot; depending upon context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Commissum&quot;, according to [wiktionary][1], is either a supine verb, or a participle.  If it is a participle, it is either nominative, accusative, or vocative.  **Here is where I am most confused.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Pietate&quot;, according to wiktionary, must be ablative singular, which we would translate &quot;[from/with/in/by] love/devotion&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;Superna&quot;, if it is linked to &quot;pietate&quot;, must be an ablative singular adjective: &quot;celestial&quot; or &quot;heavenly&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These four words are just a little too fuzzy for me at my level for me to assemble them into a single thought.  I would appreciate some expert help!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/commissum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20932" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6335" RevisionGUID="30e7ef40-372c-4544-aac8-a01f9c64158b" CreationDate="2018-04-25T07:30:32.857" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted the quote and retagged." Text="|sentence-translation|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6337" RevisionGUID="40db6314-f79c-4c9c-bcd6-ecc050866abe" CreationDate="2018-04-26T07:24:25.503" UserId="1459" Text="I am looking for the most literal translation possible of any Latin bible, either to English or Spanish. I want to use it to improve my Latin by reading both simultaneously. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know the [Douay-Rheims Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay–Rheims_Bible) is a translation of the (Clementine) Vulgate, which has then been &quot;updated&quot; multiple times, like in the [Challoner Revision](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible#Challoner_Revision), the [Cofraternity Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confraternity_Bible), the [Knox Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knox_Bible), and more recently the [Catholic Public Domain Version](http://www.sacredbible.org/catholic/version.htm). I have compared the last one with the Clementine Vulgate (using [this smartphone app](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.radjewski.latinvulgatebiblepreview), which has  interlinear bibles), and the match is &quot;quite good&quot;. However, the translation is not always literal, since the English translation is also intended to be a useful bible in itself, and thus it accommodates phrases to the English usage, changing the order of sentences (not only of words, knowing that Latin is quite flexible on ordering), and sometimes even the verbal times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples, with emphasis to signal the instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Genesis 20:7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vulgate: Nunc ergo redde viro suo uxorem, quia propheta est : et orabit pro te, et vives : si autem nolueris reddere, scito quod morte morieris tu, et omnia quæ tua sunt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CPDV: Now therefore, return his wife to the man, for he is a prophet. And he will pray for you, and you will live. But if you are not willing to return her, know this: you shall die a death, **you** and all that is yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter adds an extra you which is not in the original, but it helps the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Genesis 20:9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Vulgate: Vocavit autem Abimelech etiam Abraham, et dixit ei : Quid fecisti nobis ? quid peccavimus in te, quia induxisti super me et super regnum meum peccatum grande ? **quæ non debuisti facere, fecisti nobis.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;CPDV: Then Abimelech called also for Abraham, and he said to him: “What have you done to us? How have we sinned against you, so that you would bring so great a sin upon me and upon my kingdom? **You have done to us what you ought not to have done.**”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The order of the sentences is changed. A more literal English translation would have been &quot;what you should not [to] have done, you have done to us&quot; (in Spanish is even closer to the original Latin (hidden pronoun), &quot;_lo que no has debido hacer, lo has hecho a nosotros_&quot;). This is surely less clear than the English translation, reflecting again the reasonable fact that in any translation literalism can be overrun by improved understanding, when necessary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have spotted these and others given my current (limited) understanding of Latin, but I am surely missing many others. Hence my question, which I repeat: Which is &quot;the most literal&quot; translation of any Latin bible available?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20934" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6337" RevisionGUID="40db6314-f79c-4c9c-bcd6-ecc050866abe" CreationDate="2018-04-26T07:24:25.503" UserId="1459" Text="Literal translation of Vulgate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20935" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6337" RevisionGUID="40db6314-f79c-4c9c-bcd6-ecc050866abe" CreationDate="2018-04-26T07:24:25.503" UserId="1459" Text="|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6338" RevisionGUID="f6608423-186c-4f42-8522-6a5884cda404" CreationDate="2018-04-26T12:31:36.230" UserId="45" Text="The Douay-Rheims and its progeny are well known for being literal translations of the Vulgate, and certainly fit the bill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, you seem to be adopting a very extreme notion of &quot;literal&quot; that includes identical sentence structure. In your first example, the &quot;you&quot; reflects the fact that Latin includes the pronoun *tu* instead of just having the second-person verb-ending in *morieris*. It would arguably be *less* literal to translate without the repetition. In the second example, such an order would simply be awkward (Yoda-like) English, only fitting in a poetic context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider a less controversial example of the same principle: &quot;In the beginning, God created heaven and earth.&quot; Notice that Latin reverses the S-O order: &quot;creavit Deus.&quot; There is nothing to be gained by being so slavishly literal to the text, and I am unaware of anyone who has made the effort to provide a translate that is so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6338" RevisionGUID="3f4083c0-2a8a-47a2-862f-673502aef855" CreationDate="2018-04-26T13:15:59.047" UserId="45" Comment="edited body" Text="The Douay-Rheims and its progeny are well known for being literal translations of the Vulgate, and certainly fit the bill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, you seem to be adopting a very extreme notion of &quot;literal&quot; that includes identical sentence structure. In your first example, the &quot;you&quot; reflects the fact that Latin includes the pronoun *tu* instead of just having the second-person verb-ending in *morieris*. It would arguably be *less* literal to translate without the repetition. In the second example, such an order would simply be awkward (Yoda-like) English, only fitting in a poetic context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider a less controversial example of the same principle: &quot;In the beginning, God created heaven and earth.&quot; Notice that Latin reverses the S-V order: &quot;creavit Deus.&quot; There is nothing to be gained by being so slavishly literal to the text, and I am unaware of anyone who has made the effort to provide a translate that is so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6338" RevisionGUID="c8bd0243-e629-4539-ba6d-2156cf46e5f0" CreationDate="2018-04-26T13:41:25.853" UserId="45" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The Douay-Rheims and its progeny are well known for being literal translations of the Vulgate, and certainly fit the bill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, you seem to be adopting a very extreme notion of &quot;literal&quot; that includes identical sentence structure. In your first example, the &quot;you&quot; reflects the fact that Latin includes the pronoun *tu* instead of just having the second-person verb-ending in *morieris*. It would arguably be *less* literal to translate without the repetition. In the second example, such an order would simply be awkward (Yoda-like) English, only fitting in a poetic context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider a less controversial example of the same principle: &quot;In the beginning, God created heaven and earth.&quot; Notice that Latin reverses the S-V order: &quot;creavit Deus.&quot; There is nothing to be gained by being so slavishly literal to the text, and I am unaware of anyone who has made the effort to provide a translation that is so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6339" RevisionGUID="c8cccbdf-d827-4072-b907-697be706b174" CreationDate="2018-04-26T15:29:10.513" UserId="79" Text="What would be a good Latin noun or verb to translate &quot;chat&quot; in the sense that would apply to [our chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm), for example?&#xD;&#xA;There are verbs like *garrire*, *fabulari*, *verbigerare*, and simply *colloqui* but I don't know which one would have the most suitable tone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20940" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6339" RevisionGUID="c8cccbdf-d827-4072-b907-697be706b174" CreationDate="2018-04-26T15:29:10.513" UserId="79" Text="What is chat in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20941" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6339" RevisionGUID="c8cccbdf-d827-4072-b907-697be706b174" CreationDate="2018-04-26T15:29:10.513" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|modern-life|technology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6340" RevisionGUID="bc178e15-3cab-477f-b850-d9872f0fd51a" CreationDate="2018-04-26T16:13:49.887" UserId="645" Text="Your suggestion *garrire* is perfectly all right for inconsequential chatter. *Colloqui* is pretty generally applicable, but there's really no shortage of options to use for 'chat'. A few are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*res cum aliquo agitare; de rebus cum aliquo colloqui; &#xD;&#xA;sermonem cum aliquo conferre.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I particularly like [*inter sese*] *rus et urbem laudare*, which I remember from my schooldays and which think is from Horace, though I can't place it immediately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6340" RevisionGUID="f85c98d6-99d9-4520-aa88-5a0ab82ba80e" CreationDate="2018-04-26T16:19:33.673" UserId="645" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Your suggestion *garrire* is perfectly all right for inconsequential chatter. *Colloqui* is pretty generally applicable, but there's really no shortage of options to use for 'chat'. A few are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*res cum aliquo agitare; de rebus cum aliquo colloqui; &#xD;&#xA;sermonem cum aliquo conferre.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I particularly like [*inter sese*] *vicos et urbem laudare*, which I remember from my schooldays and which think is from Horace, though I can't place it immediately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6340" RevisionGUID="92ae56e4-86c1-4a12-ab64-6f8479436f0e" CreationDate="2018-04-26T16:22:07.843" UserId="645" Comment="corrected quotation" Text="Your suggestion *garrire* is perfectly all right for inconsequential chatter. *Colloqui* is pretty generally applicable, but there's really no shortage of options to use for 'chat'. A few are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*res cum aliquo agitare; de rebus cum aliquo colloqui; &#xD;&#xA;sermonem cum aliquo conferre.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I particularly like [*inter sese*] *vicos et urbem laudare*, which I remember from my schooldays and which think is from Horace, Ser. I, 9." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6341" RevisionGUID="ae261212-a992-497b-a3b4-59b586aedce3" CreationDate="2018-04-26T22:07:52.683" UserId="2586" Text="The letter V in Classical Latin was pronounced as /w/, unless another V came after it, in which case it'd be pronounced /wu/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering this, what would be the need to use both v and u in the same word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eg. **venus, adiuvo, vulgus**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why couldn't these be written instead as **venvs, adivvo, vvlgvs** or **uenus, adiuuo, uulgus**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20946" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6341" RevisionGUID="ae261212-a992-497b-a3b4-59b586aedce3" CreationDate="2018-04-26T22:07:52.683" UserId="2586" Text="Why do many write Latin words with both letters v &amp; u?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20947" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6341" RevisionGUID="ae261212-a992-497b-a3b4-59b586aedce3" CreationDate="2018-04-26T22:07:52.683" UserId="2586" Text="|orthography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6342" RevisionGUID="7a543a3d-d56a-4656-8ebe-933fa021221e" CreationDate="2018-04-26T22:14:52.047" UserId="406" Text="A classic diminutive suffix in Ancient Greek is *-ίδιον*, which forms a neuter second noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what happens when this is applied to a noun with a vowel in the stem? For a concrete example, if I wanted to talk about a &quot;little sea monster&quot; (using the noun *κητε-*), would that be a *κητίδιον*, a *κητείδιον*, or something else entirely?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm most curious about Attic, with its patterns of vowel contraction, but answers for other dialects would be interesting as well!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20949" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6342" RevisionGUID="7a543a3d-d56a-4656-8ebe-933fa021221e" CreationDate="2018-04-26T22:14:52.047" UserId="406" Text="What is the diminutive of κῆτος?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20950" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6342" RevisionGUID="7a543a3d-d56a-4656-8ebe-933fa021221e" CreationDate="2018-04-26T22:14:52.047" UserId="406" Text="|greek|derivation|noun|suffixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6343" RevisionGUID="06317ddb-e70b-488e-a4f5-53376ec9d655" CreationDate="2018-04-26T22:17:46.897" UserId="406" Text="They certainly could be! In Classical times, there was no distinction between the letters V and U (or between I and J). The name &quot;Venus&quot; would be written in inscriptions as VENVS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there was a difference in *pronunciation*: sometimes the letter V represented /w/, and sometimes /u/. And those pronunciations stayed distinct in the Romance languages, leading to the difference between modern &quot;u&quot; and &quot;v&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So modern editors typically show this distinction by writing the consonant as &quot;V&quot; and the vowel as &quot;U&quot;, and similarly for the consonant &quot;J&quot; and the vowel &quot;I&quot; (though for some reason editors are now going back to using &quot;I&quot; for both).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One exception to the rule, in modern editions, is that &quot;U&quot; is typically used after &quot;Q&quot; (even though there was no /u/ vowel there). So we see &quot;equus&quot; instead of the expected &quot;eqvus&quot; (compare &quot;flavus&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6343" RevisionGUID="8aa30671-e9ae-49d4-a826-addb27a2328b" CreationDate="2018-04-26T22:32:40.943" UserId="406" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="They certainly could be! In Classical times, there was no distinction between the letters V and U (or between I and J). The name &quot;Venus&quot; would be written in inscriptions as VENVS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there was a difference in *pronunciation*: sometimes the letter V represented /w/, and sometimes /u/. And those pronunciations stayed distinct in the Romance languages, leading to the difference between modern &quot;u&quot; and &quot;v&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So modern editors typically show this distinction by writing the consonant as &quot;V&quot; and the vowel as &quot;U&quot;, and similarly for the consonant &quot;J&quot; and the vowel &quot;I&quot; (though for some reason editors are now going back to using &quot;I&quot; for both: &quot;adiuvo&quot; instead of my preferred &quot;adjuvo&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One exception to the rule, in modern editions, is that &quot;U&quot; is typically used after &quot;Q&quot; (even though there was no /u/ vowel there). So we see &quot;equus&quot; instead of the expected &quot;eqvus&quot; (compare &quot;flavus&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6344" RevisionGUID="a37bca2f-05a3-49c8-82e5-c30e8958c377" CreationDate="2018-04-26T22:38:26.333" UserId="79" Text="There is no **need** to have two separate symbols U and V.&#xD;&#xA;The distinction between the two is relatively new; the Romans seemed to treat them as the same letter, and especially in inscriptions it is always V.&#xD;&#xA;So yes, the words could well be written as you suggest, and to an extent were written like that.&#xD;&#xA;The same applies to the letters I and J.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it is not strictly necessary to use U or J, it is **convenient**.&#xD;&#xA;U and I are pronounced differently in different contexts (sometimes vowel, sometimes consonant), and it can be useful to signal the type of pronunciation to the reader." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6345" RevisionGUID="e349e54f-773b-4017-bdf5-7d28e6f6d7e7" CreationDate="2018-04-26T22:52:29.433" UserId="2586" Text="In Classical Latin, the diphthongs **ae** and **oe** were pronounced as /ai̯/ and /oi̯/, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why was the letter e in these cases pronounced as /i/ instead of with an /e/ or /ɛ/?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20955" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6345" RevisionGUID="e349e54f-773b-4017-bdf5-7d28e6f6d7e7" CreationDate="2018-04-26T22:52:29.433" UserId="2586" Text="Why were the pronunciation of ae and oe special cases in Classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20956" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6345" RevisionGUID="e349e54f-773b-4017-bdf5-7d28e6f6d7e7" CreationDate="2018-04-26T22:52:29.433" UserId="2586" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6346" RevisionGUID="bb01b7a9-56e6-4bcd-a276-74bf2afff823" CreationDate="2018-04-26T23:03:05.627" UserId="9" Text="I wonder what the source is for your statement. The sources I have looked at say that in the Classical Period, the pronunciation of &quot;ae&quot; is likely to have been more like [ae̯] or [aɪ̯]; part of the reason for thinking this is the change in spelling from the older &quot;ai&quot; digraph.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6346" RevisionGUID="4c3c5f1b-b065-4503-857a-42e0a1fc8ba2" CreationDate="2018-04-26T23:07:08.277" UserId="9" Comment="added 358 characters in body" Text="I wonder what the source is for your statement. The sources I have looked at say that in the Classical Period, the pronunciation of &quot;ae&quot; is likely to have been closer to [ae̯] or [aɪ̯] than [ai̯] (the difference between [e] and [ɪ] in the IPA is very small; people don't always agree about which of these two symbols is more appropriate even for vowels in living languages, so it's doubtful that we can determine with certainty the better transcription for Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the reason for thinking this is the change in spelling from the older &quot;ai&quot; digraph. Another reason is the eventual monophthongization of &#xD;&#xA;&quot;ae&quot; to /ɛ/ in Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen less discussion of &quot;oe&quot; in the literature, as this was a less common sound in Classical Latin, but [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation#Diphthongs) marks &quot;oe&quot; as &quot;oi̯ ~ oe̯&quot;, citing Allen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6346" RevisionGUID="705dc482-f23d-4cfb-9108-86f077adb68b" CreationDate="2018-04-26T23:12:45.067" UserId="9" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I wonder what the source is for your statement. The sources I remember reading say that in the Classical Period, the pronunciation of &quot;ae&quot; is likely to have been closer to [ae̯] or [aɪ̯] than [ai̯] (the difference between [e] and [ɪ] in the IPA is very small; people don't always agree about which of these two symbols is more appropriate even for vowels in living languages, so it's doubtful that we can determine with certainty the better transcription for Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the reason for thinking this is the change in spelling from the older &quot;ai&quot; digraph. Another reason is the eventual monophthongization of &#xD;&#xA;&quot;ae&quot; to /ɛ/ in Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen less discussion of &quot;oe&quot; in the literature, as this was a less common sound in Classical Latin, but [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation#Diphthongs) marks &quot;oe&quot; as &quot;oi̯ ~ oe̯&quot;, citing Allen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose some sources may write /ai̯/ as a phonemic transcription of [ae̯] or [aɪ̯]; similarly to how, when we're dealing with Latin accents that had contrastive vowel length, the &quot;short i&quot; phoneme can be transcribed as /i/ even if we reconstruct its phonetic quality as [ɪ]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6346" RevisionGUID="ab0a8179-e4f5-4b8a-bd91-a29bdfb37294" CreationDate="2018-04-26T23:19:08.700" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="The sources I remember reading say that in the Classical Period, the pronunciation of &quot;ae&quot; is likely to have been closer to [ae̯] or [aɪ̯] than [ai̯] (the difference between [e] and [ɪ] in the IPA is very small; people don't always agree about which of these two symbols is more appropriate even for vowels in living languages, so it's doubtful that we can determine with certainty the better transcription for Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the reason for thinking this is the change in spelling from the older &quot;ai&quot; digraph. Another reason is the eventual monophthongization of &#xD;&#xA;&quot;ae&quot; to /ɛ/ in Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen less discussion of &quot;oe&quot; in the literature, as this was a less common sound in Classical Latin, but [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation#Diphthongs) marks &quot;oe&quot; as &quot;oi̯ ~ oe̯&quot;, citing Allen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose some sources may write /ai̯/ as a phonemic transcription of the diphthong, similarly to how, when we're dealing with Latin accents that had contrastive vowel length, the &quot;short i&quot; phoneme can be transcribed as /i/ even if we reconstruct its phonetic quality as [ɪ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6346" RevisionGUID="56deb4aa-e952-4470-918f-779efadc3daf" CreationDate="2018-04-26T23:25:48.663" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="The sources I remember reading say that in the Classical Period, the pronunciation of &quot;ae&quot; is likely to have been closer to [ae̯] or [aɪ̯] than [ai̯] (the difference between [e] and [ɪ] in the IPA is very small; people don't always agree about which of these two symbols is more appropriate even for vowels in living languages, so it's doubtful that we can determine with certainty the better transcription for Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the reason for thinking this is the change in spelling from the older &quot;ai&quot; digraph. Another reason is the eventual monophthongization of &#xD;&#xA;&quot;ae&quot; to /ɛ/ in Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen less discussion of &quot;oe&quot; in the literature, as this was a less common sound in Classical Latin, but [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation#Diphthongs) marks &quot;oe&quot; as &quot;oi̯ ~ oe̯&quot;, citing Allen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose some sources may write /ai̯/ as a phonemic transcription of the diphthong, similarly to how, when we're dealing with Latin accents that had contrastive vowel length, the &quot;short i&quot; phoneme can be transcribed as /i/ even if we reconstruct its phonetic quality as [ɪ]. This doesn't necessarily constitute a claim that a Classical Latin speaker would have thought of the sound as containing the independent vowel /i/, any more than transcribing the English diphthong in the word &quot;price&quot; as /aɪ/ constitutes a claim that an English speaker thinks of the sound as containing the vowel found in the word &quot;kit&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6347" RevisionGUID="389ed708-9c18-4960-a2c2-a3711bafc1a8" CreationDate="2018-04-27T07:22:48.480" UserId="1459" Text="In the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate, [Genesis 22:4](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Gn.html) reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;die autem tertio, **elevatis oculis**, vidit locum procul&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Douay-Rheims](http://www.drbo.org/chapter/01022.htm) translates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And on the third day, **lifting up his eyes**, he saw the place afar off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am confused about the person in the Latin original. The English translation reads fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/elevatis):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is, _elevatis_ is the second person plural in present tense. So the expression &quot;_elevatis oculis_&quot; seems to be something like &quot;lift[ing] up **your** eyes&quot;. But that doesn't make sense in the phrase and context, which is a narration from a third-person point of view of what Abraham is doing: He got up during the night, took a donkey, some servants, some wood, and his son, Isaac, and departed to the place God had told him to go. And then the paragraph above comes. It would be natural to expect a continuation of the third person. Instead, it switches to the second person plural, which in my opinion makes no sense. Notice how the third component of the phrase reverts to the third person (&quot;_vidit_&quot;). So that second person in the middle is very strange! I would have expected something like &quot;_elevavit oculis [suis]_&quot; (keeping the past tense of the next line), or &quot;_elevat oculis [suis]_&quot; (keeping the more natural present continuous tense of the English translation [I read there is [no explicit differentiation](http://www.livelatin.org/grammar/verbs-tenses.html) between present simple and continuous in Latin] ).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Interestingly enough, there is a similar issue in [Luke 6:20](http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/49006.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Et ipse **elevatis oculis** in discipulis suis, dicebat: Beati pauperes, quia vestrum est regnum Dei.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And he, **lifting up his eyes** on his disciples, said: Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, the Latin plural second person present active has been translated as a singular third person present (continuous) active. I am puzzled. Is wiktionary wrong? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that looking for the &quot;tis&quot; declension in the [First Conjugation](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_first_conjugation) in Wiktionary gives 15 hits, all of them in the second person plural. So I am not sure I am missing a special case here. Unfortunately, Google does not help with the translation either, as it seems to have a particular Bible translation embedded! (else, where does the Abraham come from below? odd!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jBvqz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BHlrM.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20963" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6347" RevisionGUID="389ed708-9c18-4960-a2c2-a3711bafc1a8" CreationDate="2018-04-27T07:22:48.480" UserId="1459" Text="elevatis oculis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20964" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6347" RevisionGUID="389ed708-9c18-4960-a2c2-a3711bafc1a8" CreationDate="2018-04-27T07:22:48.480" UserId="1459" Text="|translation|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6348" RevisionGUID="0540860e-ff42-4980-9186-3d089b2f8f1a" CreationDate="2018-04-27T08:26:33.917" UserId="79" Text="The second person plural form is *elevat&amp;#301;s*, &quot;you lift&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However, in the passage you quote it is *elevat&amp;imacr;s*, which is a plural ablative of the perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is in the same form as *oculis*, which is a hint.&#xD;&#xA;*Oculis* is not an accusative, so the translation &quot;lift your eyes&quot; doesn't quite make sense with &quot;eyes&quot; as the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you have here is an absolute ablative *elevatis oculis*, &quot;with eyes lifted&quot;, &quot;having lifted his/her/their/our/its eyes&quot;, or similar.&#xD;&#xA;As *ablativus absolutus* typically, this is impersonal, so the best translation (especially choice of pronoun) depends on context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6347" RevisionGUID="9d68f876-4047-4564-ba71-c933e01e9779" CreationDate="2018-04-27T08:28:27.673" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="In the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate, [Genesis 22:4](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Gn.html) reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;die autem tertio, **elevatis oculis**, vidit locum procul&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Douay-Rheims](http://www.drbo.org/chapter/01022.htm) translates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And on the third day, **lifting up his eyes**, he saw the place afar off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am confused about the person in the Latin original. The English translation reads fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/elevatis):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Dictionary description of elevatis][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is, _elevatis_ is the second person plural in present tense. So the expression &quot;_elevatis oculis_&quot; seems to be something like &quot;lift[ing] up **your** eyes&quot;. But that doesn't make sense in the phrase and context, which is a narration from a third-person point of view of what Abraham is doing: He got up during the night, took a donkey, some servants, some wood, and his son, Isaac, and departed to the place God had told him to go. And then the paragraph above comes. It would be natural to expect a continuation of the third person. Instead, it switches to the second person plural, which in my opinion makes no sense. Notice how the third component of the phrase reverts to the third person (&quot;_vidit_&quot;). So that second person in the middle is very strange! I would have expected something like &quot;_elevavit oculis [suis]_&quot; (keeping the past tense of the next line), or &quot;_elevat oculis [suis]_&quot; (keeping the more natural present continuous tense of the English translation [I read there is [no explicit differentiation](http://www.livelatin.org/grammar/verbs-tenses.html) between present simple and continuous in Latin] ).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Interestingly enough, there is a similar issue in [Luke 6:20](http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/49006.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Et ipse **elevatis oculis** in discipulis suis, dicebat: Beati pauperes, quia vestrum est regnum Dei.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And he, **lifting up his eyes** on his disciples, said: Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, the Latin plural second person present active has been translated as a singular third person present (continuous) active. I am puzzled. Is Wiktionary wrong? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that looking for the &quot;tis&quot; declension in the [First Conjugation](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_first_conjugation) in Wiktionary gives 15 hits, all of them in the second person plural. So I am not sure I am missing a special case here. Unfortunately, Google does not help with the translation either, as it seems to have a particular Bible translation embedded! (else, where does the Abraham come from below? odd!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Google Translate excerpt][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jBvqz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BHlrM.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20968" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6347" RevisionGUID="9d68f876-4047-4564-ba71-c933e01e9779" CreationDate="2018-04-27T08:28:27.673" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Elevatis oculis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6348" RevisionGUID="f257735b-568c-4037-9fdc-c7bc7cdb1187" CreationDate="2018-04-27T08:31:53.757" UserId="79" Comment="added 538 characters in body" Text="The second person plural form is *elevat&amp;#301;s*, &quot;you lift&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However, in the passage you quote it is *elevat&amp;imacr;s*, which is a plural ablative of the perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is in the same form as *oculis*, which is a hint.&#xD;&#xA;*Oculis* is not an accusative, so the translation &quot;lift your eyes&quot; doesn't quite make sense with &quot;eyes&quot; as the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you have here is an absolute ablative *elevatis oculis*, &quot;with eyes lifted&quot;, &quot;having lifted his/her/their/our/its eyes&quot;, or similar.&#xD;&#xA;As *ablativus absolutus* typically, this is impersonal, so the best translation (especially choice of pronoun) depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The weird thing you observed with Google Translate has been explored in [this older question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79).&#xD;&#xA;The point is that Google does not translate structurally and procedurally, so to say, but by comparing the text you give to a large corpus of Latin texts and their translations.&#xD;&#xA;The corpus is not large enough to reach sensible results with Latin and the algorithm doesn't take inflection into account as well as it should.&#xD;&#xA;It is comparison to Bible passages that produces the spurious Abraham." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6349" RevisionGUID="9a3ea8d4-067b-47f9-b95b-f6e93770c188" CreationDate="2018-04-27T08:45:13.017" UserId="79" Text="A number of books were written in the Roman antiquity, and I would like to understand how they came to be.&#xD;&#xA;This question does not concern Latin language directly, but a technical aspect related to its history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider an author who writes a book in ancient Rome.&#xD;&#xA;What happens after the writing process is over and the book needs to be published?&#xD;&#xA;Who would have copies made and sell them?&#xD;&#xA;Would the author be expected to invest their own money and also get any profits to themselves?&#xD;&#xA;Would the costs be covered by a wealthy supporter (such as Maecenas) who would keep the profits but reward the author somehow?&#xD;&#xA;Were there publishing companies specializing in this process?&#xD;&#xA;Or was it something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20971" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6349" RevisionGUID="9a3ea8d4-067b-47f9-b95b-f6e93770c188" CreationDate="2018-04-27T08:45:13.017" UserId="79" Text="Who produced and sold ancient Roman literature?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20972" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6349" RevisionGUID="9a3ea8d4-067b-47f9-b95b-f6e93770c188" CreationDate="2018-04-27T08:45:13.017" UserId="79" Text="|history|book|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6350" RevisionGUID="437c7014-43ed-4179-8f51-ebe73ec4de6e" CreationDate="2018-04-27T09:17:49.937" UserId="79" Text="Typically the direction of movement is expressed with accusative (perhaps with *in* or *ad*).&#xD;&#xA;While *quo* is originally an ablative of the interrogative pronoun, it should not be treated as an ablative here.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, just take it as an adverb, not as an inflected pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be interesting to know *why* the ablative form evolved into this pronoun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6351" RevisionGUID="8f8fd683-e608-44f6-84d8-373071d12bc9" CreationDate="2018-04-27T09:42:49.347" UserId="79" Text="The supine indeed appears to be the relic of a verbal noun.&#xD;&#xA;You can derive fourth declension nouns from the perfect participle stem, and the [meaning is similar to the third declension derivative in *-io*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/891/79): e.g. *movere* &gt; *mot-* &gt; *motus* &amp; *motio*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This fourth declension noun (e.g. *motus*) was used flexibly as a noun.&#xD;&#xA;Plautine Latin shows far more flexibility than classical authors.&#xD;&#xA;By the classical era it seems that all forms but the accusative and ablative (and maybe a rare dative) had fallen out of use.&#xD;&#xA;Since most forms were lost, it no longer behaved as a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [How is the supine related to the derived fourth declension noun?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4182/79)&#xD;&#xA;- [Can the supine ablative be used for motion?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4177/79)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6349" RevisionGUID="8296909b-58cd-448d-a324-d2e78ac13eec" CreationDate="2018-04-27T09:51:01.403" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="A number of books were written in the Roman antiquity, and I would like to understand how they came to be.&#xD;&#xA;This question does not concern Latin language directly, but a technical aspect related to its history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider an author who writes a book in ancient Rome.&#xD;&#xA;What happens after the writing process is over and the book needs to be copied and sold?&#xD;&#xA;Who would have copies made and sell them?&#xD;&#xA;Would the author be expected to invest their own money and also get any profits to themselves?&#xD;&#xA;Would the costs be covered by a wealthy supporter (such as Maecenas) who would keep the profits but reward the author somehow?&#xD;&#xA;Were there publishing companies specializing in this process?&#xD;&#xA;Or was it something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6352" RevisionGUID="cfdad528-9f50-468f-b818-6f7b20301f07" CreationDate="2018-04-27T10:23:40.197" UserId="2587" Text="I'm looking for a modification of the famous slogan `E pluribus unum` which translates to `Out of many, one` and is the traditional motto of the United States. Instead I want to say `Out of few, many`. What would be the correct translation for that? &#xD;&#xA;How about   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    E paucis pluria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    paucis -&gt; from pucum,pauci -&gt; ablative plural neuter -&gt; few&#xD;&#xA;    pluria -&gt; from plus, pluris -&gt; accusative plural neuter -&gt; many&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20977" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6352" RevisionGUID="cfdad528-9f50-468f-b818-6f7b20301f07" CreationDate="2018-04-27T10:23:40.197" UserId="2587" Text="What would be the correct translation for &quot;Out of few, many&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20978" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6352" RevisionGUID="cfdad528-9f50-468f-b818-6f7b20301f07" CreationDate="2018-04-27T10:23:40.197" UserId="2587" Text="|translation|sentence-translation|translation-check|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6352" RevisionGUID="b03b136e-1f78-4c84-aaff-1b16c414aee3" CreationDate="2018-04-27T10:26:06.120" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted a little." Text="I'm looking for a modification of the famous slogan `E pluribus unum` which translates to `Out of many, one` and is the traditional motto of the United States. Instead I want to say `Out of few, many`. What would be the correct translation for that? &#xD;&#xA;How about   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; E paucis pluria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; paucis -&gt; from pucum,pauci -&gt; ablative plural neuter -&gt; few  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; pluria -&gt; from plus, pluris -&gt; accusative plural neuter -&gt; many&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20980" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6352" RevisionGUID="b03b136e-1f78-4c84-aaff-1b16c414aee3" CreationDate="2018-04-27T10:26:06.120" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted a little." Text="|sentence-translation|translation-check|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6353" RevisionGUID="19879e63-5ebe-444a-9b71-3447bb926fcd" CreationDate="2018-04-27T10:32:28.540" UserId="79" Text="Your suggested translation is good!&#xD;&#xA;The only correction is that I would change *pluria* to *plura*.&#xD;&#xA;(See [this unanswered question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5876/79) for a brief discussion of the two.)&#xD;&#xA;I like your word choices *paucus* and *plus*, so I would go with ***e paucis plura***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth noting that *plura* is neuter, meaning that the &quot;many&quot; are things.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to refer to many people insted, use *plures*.&#xD;&#xA;The ablative *paucis* looks the same in all genders.&#xD;&#xA;The words *paucus* and *plus* do not seem to refer to any specific nouns in this use, so the distinction is between things and people.&#xD;&#xA;The actual US motto has the neuter *unum*, so *plura* is the most analogous choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another [joke variant of the US motto](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5872/79) was discussed in an earlier question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6354" RevisionGUID="46330d50-53e9-42a0-9f8c-6f026726dcde" CreationDate="2018-04-27T11:29:56.290" UserId="324" Text="The adjective κήτειος for kēte(s)-ios, with the usual contraction of ε + ι &gt; ει suggests that we should expect *κητείδιον as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6355" RevisionGUID="221fd0ef-a7ee-4f37-bf44-68ef071f5f06" CreationDate="2018-04-27T12:19:33.733" UserId="324" Text="You ask where Abraham comes from. Abraham is mentioned by name in the Hebrew original, in the LXX, and most other translations, including the KJV. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place&#xD;&#xA;&gt; afar off.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  	בַּיֹּום הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וַיִּשָּׂא אַבְרָהָם אֶת־עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא&#xD;&#xA;&gt; אֶת־הַמָּקֹום מֵרָחֹק׃ 	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ καὶ ἀναβλέψας αβρααμ τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς εἶδεν τὸν τόπον&#xD;&#xA;&gt; μακρόθεν&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6353" RevisionGUID="f6a48ec5-be32-4e95-9354-5fbb0254252a" CreationDate="2018-04-27T15:12:56.677" UserId="79" Comment="added 217 characters in body" Text="Your suggested translation is good!&#xD;&#xA;The only correction is that I would change *pluria* to *plura*.&#xD;&#xA;(See [this unanswered question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5876/79) for a brief discussion of the two.)&#xD;&#xA;I like your word choices *paucus* and *plus*, so I would go with ***e paucis plura***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The plural *plures/plura* is a good translation for &quot;many&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The singular *plus* is close to &quot;much&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin and English words don't match exactly, but this rule of thumb should take you to the right direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth noting that *plura* is neuter, meaning that the &quot;many&quot; are things.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to refer to many people insted, use *plures*.&#xD;&#xA;The ablative *paucis* looks the same in all genders.&#xD;&#xA;The words *paucus* and *plus* do not seem to refer to any specific nouns in this use, so the distinction is between things and people.&#xD;&#xA;The actual US motto has the neuter *unum*, so *plura* is the most analogous choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another [joke variant of the US motto](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5872/79) was discussed in an earlier question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6356" RevisionGUID="fd5daf44-c136-47f3-a3d7-f83aee29caf5" CreationDate="2018-04-27T16:01:51.440" UserId="2588" Text="This is an [ablative absolute][1] clause of the past participle.&#xD;&#xA;So, the most adhrent translation would be: &quot;And on the third day, [his] **eyes lifted up**, he saw the place afar off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_grammar#Ablative_absolute" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6348" RevisionGUID="ee0ce3cd-b18b-4fe9-a8bc-9b4cbe0595b0" CreationDate="2018-04-27T16:39:25.830" UserId="79" Comment="added 1538 characters in body" Text="The second person plural form is *elevat&amp;#301;s*, &quot;you lift&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However, in the passage you quote it is *elevat&amp;imacr;s*, which is a plural ablative of the perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is in the same form as *oculis*, which is a hint.&#xD;&#xA;*Oculis* is not an accusative, so the translation &quot;lift your eyes&quot; doesn't quite make sense with &quot;eyes&quot; as the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you have here is an absolute ablative *elevatis oculis*, &quot;with eyes lifted&quot;, &quot;having lifted his/her/their/our/its eyes&quot;, or similar.&#xD;&#xA;As *ablativus absolutus* typically, this is impersonal, so the best translation (especially choice of pronoun) depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;Nothing in *elevatis* implies second person (when it is read as the participle it is here) &amp;mdash; or third person.&#xD;&#xA;The third person appears in the translation, but it is inferred from context.&#xD;&#xA;The subject of the verb *elevare* is that of the verb *vidit* and therefore third person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The weird thing you observed with Google Translate has been explored in [this older question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79).&#xD;&#xA;The point is that Google does not translate structurally and procedurally, so to say, but by comparing the text you give to a large corpus of Latin texts and their translations.&#xD;&#xA;The corpus is not large enough to reach sensible results with Latin and the algorithm doesn't take inflection into account as well as it should.&#xD;&#xA;It is comparison to Bible passages that produces the spurious Abraham.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should one be able to figure all of this out, then?&#xD;&#xA;A Latin Bible is unlikely to have a breve or macron to indicate vowel quantity.&#xD;&#xA;It is important to be aware of the options, as it is not unusual that two or more forms look alike.&#xD;&#xA;*Elevatis* can be the second person plural form or an ablative of the participle and *oculis* can be dative or ablative.&#xD;&#xA;Only context will tell.&#xD;&#xA;I guessed absolute ablative because it is a typical structure.&#xD;&#xA;It turns out that it makes perfect sense, too.&#xD;&#xA;I was unable to make sense of the alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;Awareness of options gets you started, trial and error gets you to your goal.&#xD;&#xA;Experience provides hints and makes it faster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can consider participles as adjectives derived from verbs.&#xD;&#xA;They have case, number, and gender.&#xD;&#xA;Verbs have different kinds of forms, and it is good to keep the categories separate.&#xD;&#xA;Personal forms like *fers* do not have a case but participles like *ferentis* do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are not familiar with *ablativus absolutus* (the absolute ablative), I recommend reading on it.&#xD;&#xA;The construction is weird at first, and getting used to it is the key to this question.&#xD;&#xA;If you have trouble figuring out how this kind of ablative works, I recommend asking a follow-up question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20987" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="711" RevisionGUID="47b53408-84fa-473a-a349-b39d9f552d2d" CreationDate="2018-04-27T19:20:53.183" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20988" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="132" RevisionGUID="b72d78c0-7af7-4cdc-8865-f41897ea3b16" CreationDate="2018-04-27T20:22:13.717" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="Technique to find first principal parts when later parts change spelling? E.g. find 'nanciscor' from 'nactus'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20989" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="132" RevisionGUID="b72d78c0-7af7-4cdc-8865-f41897ea3b16" CreationDate="2018-04-27T20:22:13.717" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|verbs|morphology|orthography|conjugation|dictionary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1357" RevisionGUID="cccaa190-8e4f-4015-a438-0234c4b6fd8a" CreationDate="2018-04-27T20:39:30.343" UserId="79" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="There are two (main) classes of adjectives in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Some adjectives use the first declension for feminines (e.g. *Romana*, &quot;Roman&quot;) and the second declension for masculines and neuters (e.g. *Romanus* and *Romanum*).&#xD;&#xA;For adjectives like this masculine forms look different from feminine forms &amp;mdash; with the exception of plural dative and ablative.&#xD;&#xA;- Some adjectives use the third declension for all genders (e.g. *Mediolanensis/Mediolanensis/Mediolanense*, &quot;Milanese&quot;, for feminine/masculine/neuter).&#xD;&#xA;For these adjectives masculine and feminine forms look almost always the same.&#xD;&#xA;The only exception can be in the singular nominative, but only for some adjectives (e.g. *celeris/celer/celere*, &quot;fast&quot;, for feminine/masculine/neuter).&#xD;&#xA;For *Mediolanensis* there is no difference between feminine and masculine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short:&#xD;&#xA;**Some adjectives look different in masculine and feminine, some don't.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is also true in Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;In Italian you have the two forms *romana* and *romano* (&quot;Roman&quot;) for the two genders (Italian has no neuter) but *milanese* (&quot;Milanese&quot;) is both feminine and masculine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6357" RevisionGUID="b0ce52a1-f7f1-4ee0-b63c-1ade2c2b89d8" CreationDate="2018-04-27T22:05:08.400" UserId="406" Text="To supplement Joonas's excellent answer, Latin has five classes of adjectives, which are generally put into two main groups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;First/Second Adjectives&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  - &quot;Normal&quot; adjectives: these take the standard endings for the first and second declensions, and look different in all three genders. *Bonus* is one of these: *bonus*, *bona*, *bonum*.&#xD;&#xA;  - &quot;Irregular&quot; adjectives: these are the same as the normal ones, except that the masculine genitive and dative singular use the older endings *-ius* and *-ī* instead of *-ī* and *-ō*. There are only nine of them in the entire language, which are commonly learned with the mnemonic UNUS NAUTA.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Third Adjectives&quot;: these ones decline like third-declension nouns.&#xD;&#xA;  - One termination: these adjectives look the same in all three genders, like *atrox*, *atrox*, *atrox*. The only gender differences are the standard rules for the neuter (*-ia* in the plural, accusative matches the nominative). Present participles are in this class.&#xD;&#xA;  - Two terminations: these are the most common &quot;third&quot; adjectives. They have one form in the masculine and feminine, and a different form in the neuter, like *omnis*, *omnis*, *omne*. Comparative adjectives also tend to be in this class, like *melior*, *melior*, *melius*.&#xD;&#xA;  - Three terminations: these are the rarest ones. They have different forms in each different gender, and the masculine always ends in *r*, such as *celer*, *celeris*, *celere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, you've found a *third two-termination* adjective, so the masculine and feminine look the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6358" RevisionGUID="59d2beb6-53d7-48bd-8ea9-0fe1be1e65e4" CreationDate="2018-04-28T11:19:20.167" UserId="79" Text="Participles behave much like adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;Do they also have comparative and superlative forms?&#xD;&#xA;They are easy enough to form: *ferentior*, *dicturissimus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More precisely, are any comparatives or superlatives of participles attested in classical Latin literature?&#xD;&#xA;Some participles have started a new life as independent adjectives (e.g. *latus* meaning &quot;wide&quot; instead of &quot;carried&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;I prefer to leave such adjectives out if the distinction is sensible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can fathom use contexts for compared participles.&#xD;&#xA;Using my two examples from above, I might want to describe someone who carries more cargo than his friend or someone who is going to give an awfully long speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20993" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6358" RevisionGUID="59d2beb6-53d7-48bd-8ea9-0fe1be1e65e4" CreationDate="2018-04-28T11:19:20.167" UserId="79" Text="Comparison of participles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20994" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6358" RevisionGUID="59d2beb6-53d7-48bd-8ea9-0fe1be1e65e4" CreationDate="2018-04-28T11:19:20.167" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|participle|comparative|superlatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6358" RevisionGUID="e5870dc0-0e38-41e5-a88a-6f6caaf94f61" CreationDate="2018-04-28T14:52:48.387" UserId="79" Comment="added 239 characters in body" Text="Participles behave much like adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;Do they also have comparative and superlative forms?&#xD;&#xA;They are easy enough to form: *ferentior*, *dicturissimus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More precisely, are any comparatives or superlatives of participles attested in classical Latin literature?&#xD;&#xA;Some participles have started a new life as independent adjectives (e.g. *latus* meaning &quot;wide&quot; instead of &quot;carried&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;I prefer to leave participles that are often used as adjectives out &amp;mdash; if the distinction is sensible.&#xD;&#xA;One could argue that comparison always requires treating a participle as an adjective, but I would prefer to see cases where this treatment is *ad hoc* rather than widespread (as it is with *latus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can fathom use contexts for compared participles.&#xD;&#xA;Using my two examples from above, I might want to describe someone who carries more cargo than his friend or someone who is going to give an awfully long speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6358" RevisionGUID="85862790-7286-4f20-ad19-a0e2d24b7a11" CreationDate="2018-04-28T15:56:48.777" UserId="79" Comment="added 221 characters in body" Text="Participles behave much like adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;Do they also have comparative and superlative forms?&#xD;&#xA;They are easy enough to form: *ferentior*, *dicturissimus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More precisely, are any comparatives or superlatives of participles attested in classical Latin literature?&#xD;&#xA;Some participles have started a new life as independent adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;I prefer to leave participles that are often used as adjectives out &amp;mdash; if the distinction is sensible.&#xD;&#xA;One could argue that comparison always requires treating a participle as an adjective, but I would prefer to see cases where this treatment is *ad hoc* rather than widespread.&#xD;&#xA;I leave it to you to judge what counts as adjective and what as participle; I hope the intent of my question is clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can fathom use contexts for compared participles.&#xD;&#xA;Using my two examples from above, I might want to describe someone who carries more cargo than his friend or someone who is going to give an awfully long speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I had used *latus* as an example of a participle which has become an adjective, bud fdb indicated in a comment that they are in fact etymologically separate words.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6359" RevisionGUID="5cf4dbc6-381e-4c11-9686-4b2eea23ce6c" CreationDate="2018-04-28T16:22:57.867" UserId="845" Text="I have a &quot;Escape from New York&quot; movie poster over my desk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1997.&lt;br&gt;New York City is a walled maximum security prison.&lt;br&gt;Breaking&#xD;&#xA;&gt; out is impossible.&lt;br&gt;Breaking in is insane.**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin translation I made, just for the kicks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **MCMXCVII** (or maybe) **MMDCCL (Ab urbe condita)&lt;br&gt;Civitas Novus Eboracus muratus maxima securitas carcer est.&lt;br&gt;Erumpere est&#xD;&#xA;&gt; impossibile.&lt;br&gt;Irrumppere est insanum.**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **EVADERE NOVO EBORACO**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that correct? I'm not sure about the second line (*Civitas Novus Eboracus...*) and if the use of the ablative case in the title is pertinent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there may be a better translation for &quot;breaking in / out&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20998" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6359" RevisionGUID="5cf4dbc6-381e-4c11-9686-4b2eea23ce6c" CreationDate="2018-04-28T16:22:57.867" UserId="845" Text="&quot;Escape from New York&quot; movie - title and tagline translation check" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20999" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6359" RevisionGUID="5cf4dbc6-381e-4c11-9686-4b2eea23ce6c" CreationDate="2018-04-28T16:22:57.867" UserId="845" Text="|contemporary-latin|sentence-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6360" RevisionGUID="78338250-98bd-4e81-82c0-2dc98c015429" CreationDate="2018-04-29T00:28:16.980" UserId="2378" Text="I recently came across the aphorism *Nam illa tumultū gaudēns nōn est industria*, from Seneca's epistle &quot;On True and False Friendship&quot;. A literal translation is &quot;For rejoicing in tumult is not industry&quot;; a more idiomatic translation is &quot;For a love of bustle is not industry.&quot; But I'm confused about what *illa* is doing in the sentence. Does anyone know why it's there? I can't figure out what it refers to, nor why it's feminine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21001" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6360" RevisionGUID="78338250-98bd-4e81-82c0-2dc98c015429" CreationDate="2018-04-29T00:28:16.980" UserId="2378" Text="Translation question for a Seneca epistle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21002" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6360" RevisionGUID="78338250-98bd-4e81-82c0-2dc98c015429" CreationDate="2018-04-29T00:28:16.980" UserId="2378" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6361" RevisionGUID="a4eae32e-21f2-4258-99ad-dce491e0dc46" CreationDate="2018-04-29T00:45:26.513" UserId="1141" Text="I would probably say *civitas carcer maximus securitate*, using the ablative of respect. Using the nominative *securitas* is wrong. In English, the phrase “maximum security” is functioning as an adjective and properly should be hyphenated (“maximum-security prison”).&#xA;&#xA;Don’t translate it word-for-word, but try to capture the *meaning* of the words.&#xA;&#xA;Just saying." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6362" RevisionGUID="50882ca0-19c4-4354-b01c-fda637ee7ebd" CreationDate="2018-04-29T02:12:56.757" UserId="30" Text="I would translate it thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For **that** which rejoices in tumult is not industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What may be confusing is the feminine gender of *illa*: in English (and some other Germanic languages), we'd use a neuter pronoun (*that*) in constructions such as this where a (to us) indeterminate pronoun refers forward. But, in Latin, the pronoun referring forward to *industria* agrees with that word, at least in this case. I suspect that *illud* would also be possible, though I think I'd prefer *illa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6362" RevisionGUID="f9248e1b-dcf3-486b-8304-821470561d24" CreationDate="2018-04-29T02:18:43.813" UserId="30" Comment="added 455 characters in body" Text="I would translate it thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For **that** which rejoices in tumult is not industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What may be confusing is the feminine gender of *illa*: in English (and some other Germanic languages), we'd use a neuter pronoun (*that*) in constructions such as this where a (to us) indeterminate pronoun refers forward. But, in Latin, the pronoun referring forward to *industria* agrees with that word, at least in this case. I suspect that *illud* would also be possible, though I think I'd prefer *illa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explained in a more general way: when the subject is a pronoun (*illa*), and the subject complement is a noun (*industria*), I believe the subject would normally agree with the subject complement, even if the complement comes some ways *after* the subject, as here. In Germanic languages, I believe such a pronoun-subject is less likely to agree forward with a complement that it hasn't 'seen' yet, and we would be more likely to use an indeterminate (neuter) pronoun for the subject instead (*that*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6363" RevisionGUID="ee8ee182-a1a7-4f92-8ace-0ebc7f57934c" CreationDate="2018-04-29T02:24:24.683" UserId="985" Text="It refers back to the basic idea of being always restless, as expressed by *eos qui semper inquieti sunt* in the previous sentence. So the basic clause in English is 'That isn't industry.' Although we might expect the pronoun to be neuter, *illud*, in Latin, a demonstrative is very often assimilated to the gender (and number) of any predicate noun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule as given in Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge, *Latin grammar* (§211, remark 5) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The demonstrative pronoun is commonly attracted into the gender of the predicate...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following examples are cited:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at negat **Epicurus** – **hoc** enim vestrum **lumen** est – quemquam, qui honeste non vivat, iucunde posse vivere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'But **Epicurus** – for **he** is your **light** - denies that anyone who doesn't live honorably can live pleasantly.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, although the *hoc* refers back to the masculine singular noun Epicurus, so it seems as though it should really be masculine too (as in the English translation), it's neuter in Latin through assimilation or attraction to the neuter singular predicate noun *lumen*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nam **quod** Cleomedon modo tamquam mediam et tutissimam uobis viam consilii, ut quiesceretis abstineretisque armis, ostendebat, **ea** non media sed nulla **via** est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'As for that which Cleomedon was just now pointing out as the middle and safest course of a plan for you – namely, that you sit tight and refrain from arms – that is not a middle course but no course at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, *ea* refers back to *quod* (which encapsulates the whole substance of Cleomedon's suggestion) but is feminine singular through attraction to *via*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same thing happens with *haec* in the continuation of this sentence: *et **haec*** [referring to *eos qui semper quiescunt* in the previous sentence] *non est **quies** quae motum omnem molestiam iudicat, sed dissolutio et languor*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relative pronouns often work the same way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6362" RevisionGUID="dd04384b-3dca-42ef-8090-f394f6b41a74" CreationDate="2018-04-29T02:39:51.117" UserId="30" Comment="added 427 characters in body" Text="I would translate it thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For **that** which rejoices in tumult is not industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What may be confusing is the feminine gender of *illa*: in English (and some other Germanic languages), we'd use a neuter pronoun (*that*) in constructions such as this where a (to us) indeterminate pronoun refers forward. But, in Latin, the pronoun referring forward to *industria* agrees with that word, at least in this case. I suspect that *illud* would also be possible, though I think I'd prefer *illa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explained in a more general way: when the subject is a pronoun (*illa*), and the subject complement is a noun (*industria*), I believe the subject would normally agree with the subject complement, even if the complement comes some ways *after* the subject, as here. In Germanic languages, I believe such a pronoun-subject is less likely to agree forward with a complement that it hasn't 'seen' yet, and we would be more likely to use an indeterminate (neuter) pronoun for the subject instead (*that*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text continues like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam illa tumultu gaudens non est industria sed exagitatae mentis concursatio, et **haec** non est quies quae motum omnem molestiam iudicat, sed dissolutio et languor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;... and **that** which judges all movement to be a nuisance is not quiet.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the pronoun is *haec*, agreeing with *quies*. The relative clause *quae...* agrees in turn with *haec* (whence also with *quies*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6363" RevisionGUID="073054e9-56a3-4742-b85c-ebbfddbbe618" CreationDate="2018-04-29T03:02:12.070" UserId="985" Comment="Added citations for examples" Text="It refers back to the basic idea of being always restless, as expressed by *eos qui semper inquieti sunt* in the previous sentence. So the basic clause in English is 'That isn't industry.' Although we might expect the pronoun to be neuter, *illud*, in Latin, a demonstrative is very often assimilated to the gender (and number) of any predicate noun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule as given in Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge, *Latin grammar* (§211, remark 5) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The demonstrative pronoun is commonly attracted into the gender of the predicate...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following examples are cited:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at negat **Epicurus** – **hoc** enim vestrum **lumen** est – quemquam, qui honeste non vivat, iucunde posse vivere. (Cicero, *De finibus* 2.22.70)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'But **Epicurus** – for **he** is your **light** - denies that anyone who doesn't live honorably can live pleasantly.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, although the *hoc* refers back to the masculine singular noun Epicurus, so it seems as though it should really be masculine too (as in the English translation), it's neuter in Latin through assimilation or attraction to the neuter singular predicate noun *lumen*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nam **quod** Cleomedon modo tamquam mediam et tutissimam uobis viam consilii, ut quiesceretis abstineretisque armis, ostendebat, **ea** non media sed nulla **via** est. (Livy, *Ab urbe condita* 33.21.33)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'As for **what** Cleomedon was just now pointing out as the middle and safest course of a plan for you – namely, that you sit tight and refrain from arms – **that** isn't a middle **course** but no course at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, *ea* refers back to *quod* (which encapsulates the whole substance of Cleomedon's suggestion) but is feminine singular through attraction to *via*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same thing happens with *haec* in the continuation of this sentence: *et **haec*** [referring to *eos qui semper quiescunt* in the previous sentence] *non est **quies** quae motum omnem molestiam iudicat, sed dissolutio et languor*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relative pronouns often work the same way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6356" RevisionGUID="4cba0190-ddd9-4f17-974a-6f0e0a6ff730" CreationDate="2018-04-29T09:40:32.557" UserId="2588" Comment="added 192 characters in body" Text="This is an [ablative absolute][1] clause of the past participle.&#xD;&#xA;So, the most adhrent translation would be: &quot;And on the third day, with [his] **eyes lifted up**, he saw the place afar off&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Joonas' answer] [2] for a detailed explanation, including why the second plural form is incorrect and why Google suggests it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_grammar#Ablative_absolute&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6348/2588" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6364" RevisionGUID="55554fd9-8249-409c-9aac-876963629645" CreationDate="2018-04-29T11:15:30.107" UserId="79" Text="It is not unusual to attempt to say something humorous but it is mistaken for as serious statement.&#xD;&#xA;In this situation I might say &quot;Just kidding!&quot;, &quot;I wasn't serious!&quot;, &quot;it was a joke!&quot;, or something along those lines.&#xD;&#xA;What would be an idiomatic way to say so in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not recall seeing such a phrase.&#xD;&#xA;I assume this could be found in Plautus, but any kinds of suggestions are welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21011" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6364" RevisionGUID="55554fd9-8249-409c-9aac-876963629645" CreationDate="2018-04-29T11:15:30.107" UserId="79" Text="How to say that you were just kidding?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21012" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6364" RevisionGUID="55554fd9-8249-409c-9aac-876963629645" CreationDate="2018-04-29T11:15:30.107" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|plautus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21013" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6360" RevisionGUID="0e6d26ea-710e-4c3d-b5bc-34bceb043e73" CreationDate="2018-04-29T11:17:18.757" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|sentence-translation|seneca-iunior|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6365" RevisionGUID="f19c3eb1-592c-4668-a86d-acfb7e0033e3" CreationDate="2018-04-29T18:05:56.927" UserId="2589" Text="I have some troubles in understanding the syntax of a sentence from Plauto's Captivi, line 580, I need to add glosses. The sentence is &quot;Nam is est servos ipse, neque praeter se umquam ei servos fuit&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;The translations for that sentence in different languages I have found are something like &quot;because he is a slave himself, and there was never any slave in his posession except himself&quot;. However, I dont understand why &quot;servos&quot; is in accusative plural and not in nominative singular, as &quot;is&quot; is in the first part of the sentence. As far as I undertand, the verb &quot;sum&quot; does not accept an accusative complement, even in it possesive meaning. It plural number is also for me really mysterious. Are these two uses of sum with servos examples in which sum takes accusative?, Am I confusing the case of servos? In the second part of the sentence, is servos the subject or it's an impersonal sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21017" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6365" RevisionGUID="f19c3eb1-592c-4668-a86d-acfb7e0033e3" CreationDate="2018-04-29T18:05:56.927" UserId="2589" Text="Is &quot;servos&quot; accusative plural in Plauto's &quot;is est servos ipse&quot; and, if that's the case, why does &quot;esse&quot; takes accusative case there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21018" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6365" RevisionGUID="f19c3eb1-592c-4668-a86d-acfb7e0033e3" CreationDate="2018-04-29T18:05:56.927" UserId="2589" Text="|classical-latin|translation|accusative|esse|plautus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6365" RevisionGUID="26cb3bbd-b241-48b5-a4c5-2ab81b41a4bf" CreationDate="2018-04-29T18:28:31.560" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have some troubles in understanding the syntax of a sentence from Plauto's Captivi, line 580, I need to add glosses. The sentence is &quot;Nam is est servos ipse, neque praeter se umquam ei servos fuit&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;The translations for that sentence in different languages I have found are something like &quot;because he is a slave himself, and there was never any slave in his possession except himself&quot;. However, I don't understand why &quot;servos&quot; is in accusative plural and not in nominative singular, as &quot;is&quot; is in the first part of the sentence. As far as I understand, the verb &quot;sum&quot; does not accept an accusative complement, even in it possessive meaning. It plural number is also for me really mysterious. Are these two uses of sum with servos examples in which sum takes accusative?, Am I confusing the case of servos? In the second part of the sentence, is servos the subject or it's an impersonal sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21020" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6365" RevisionGUID="26cb3bbd-b241-48b5-a4c5-2ab81b41a4bf" CreationDate="2018-04-29T18:28:31.560" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|sentence-translation|accusative|esse|plautus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6366" RevisionGUID="2695f09f-c508-4a7d-8aa3-923d0964bb89" CreationDate="2018-04-29T18:31:50.560" UserId="79" Text="It is *serv&amp;#335;s* in both instances, not *serv&amp;omacr;s*.&#xD;&#xA;The old form of the nominative has the ending *-os* instead of the later *-us*.&#xD;&#xA;What you see is indeed the singular nominative, but not in the form you are used to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6367" RevisionGUID="295d1266-9349-41d4-bb75-50753042e7ca" CreationDate="2018-04-29T19:04:30.060" UserId="79" Text="Here is my offer for a translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A. D. MCMXCVII  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Urbs Novum Eboracum carcer penitus munitus at maximae securitatis est.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fugere nequibis.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Introrumpens insanies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fuga Novo Eboraco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern context it is clear that the year means the typical modern years, not *ab urbe condita*; counting years *a.u.c.* would be confusing and hard to put in context, whereas 1997 immediately means something to most.&#xD;&#xA;The abbreviation for *Anno Domini* is not absolutely necessary, but clears ambiguity &amp;mdash; if there ever was any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if it is necessary to emphasize that it is the city instead of the state of New York.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to make the distinction, I suggest *urbs*.&#xD;&#xA;My first interpretation of *civitas* was that it meant state, but this is probably not what you wanted to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote that the prison is &quot;thoroughly fortified&quot; (*penitus munitus*, where *penitus* is an adverb) and &quot;of maximum security&quot; (*maximae securitatis*).&#xD;&#xA;The ablative of quality is a possible alternative for the genitive I chose, but I find the genitive somehow more natural here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took more liberty with the last two lines.&#xD;&#xA;They say &quot;You will not be able to escape&quot; and &quot;Breaking in, you will be insane&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I think these capture the spirit.&#xD;&#xA;I could not find a neat impersonal way to phrase it as in English, so I put it in the second person singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The structure &quot;infinitive *est* adjective&quot; is possible, but I did not find an adjective for &quot;impossible&quot; that I would like.&#xD;&#xA;If you want something with this structure, I recommend:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fugere est inane.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Introrumpere est insanum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While *erumpere* and *irrumpere* are possible, I think the message is clearer (but the comparison weaker) with *fugere* and *introrumpere*.&#xD;&#xA;These seem to be less prone to misinterpretation, which is often an issue with prefixed verbs in Latin; also *evadere* can be misread all too easily.&#xD;&#xA;*Introrumpere* means pretty narrowly &quot;to break in&quot; and *fugere* is &quot;to escape&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the title I chose the noun *fuga* for &quot;escape&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;At least I read the first word of &quot;escape from New York&quot; as a noun, not a verb.&#xD;&#xA;If you want it to be a verb, an infinitive doesn't sound assertive enough for a title.&#xD;&#xA;I would expect an imperative instead, but I find the noun most appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;The plain ablative of separation without prepositions is what I expect for a city." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6368" RevisionGUID="87981727-3f6a-468a-9b96-cdfc59bf6b91" CreationDate="2018-04-29T19:45:08.743" UserId="9" Text="To expand a little on Joonas's answer, the nominative singular ending in Latin was originally /os/ for all masculine nouns of the second declension, but this developed to /us/ (part of a more general sound change of /o/ to /u/ in certain positions). However, for a while both &quot;us&quot; and &quot;os&quot; were used in writing, with the spelling &quot;os&quot; generally being conditioned by a preceding /w/ sound (written V; in modern texts usually written &quot;v&quot; or as &quot;u&quot; in &quot;qu&quot; or &quot;gu&quot;). The same variation applied to [the ending &quot;-om&quot;/&quot;-um&quot;](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/2nd-declension-stem-paradigm-and-gender).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if &quot;o&quot; represented the sound /o/ or /u/ when used in this context; I suspect that it was /u/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;[Orthography](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/orthography)&quot; section of Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The spelling of the first century A.D. (known chiefly from inscriptions) is tolerably uniform, and is commonly used in modern editions of the classics.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;***a.*** After **v** (consonantal **u**), **o** was anciently used instead of **u** (***voltus, servos***). This spelling was not entirely given up until the middle of the first century A.D.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;***b.*** The older ***quo*** became ***cu*** in the Augustan period; in the second century A.D. the spelling ***quu-*** established itself in some words:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;***cum*** (older ***quom***&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;&lt;br&gt;***equos, ecus*** (later ***equus***)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;&lt;br&gt;***sequontur, secuntur*** (later ***sequuntur***)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Similarly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;***exstinguont, exstingunt*** (later ***exstinguunt***)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Note— In most modern editions the spelling quu- is adopted, except in cum.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. The spelling ***quum*** is very late and without authority." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6368" RevisionGUID="bc0557ee-2ae5-45fd-b254-221be98c4d50" CreationDate="2018-04-29T19:50:55.237" UserId="9" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="To expand a little on Joonas's answer, the nominative singular ending in Latin was originally /os/ for all masculine nouns of the second declension, but this developed to /us/ (part of a more general sound change of /o/ to /u/ in certain positions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for a while, both &quot;us&quot; and &quot;os&quot; were used in writing, with the spelling &quot;os&quot; generally being conditioned by a preceding /w/ sound (written V; in modern texts usually written &quot;v&quot; or as &quot;u&quot; in &quot;qu&quot; or &quot;gu&quot;). The same variation applied to [the ending &quot;-om&quot;/&quot;-um&quot;](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/2nd-declension-stem-paradigm-and-gender).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;[Orthography](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/orthography)&quot; section of Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The spelling of the first century A.D. (known chiefly from inscriptions) is tolerably uniform, and is commonly used in modern editions of the classics.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;***a.*** After **v** (consonantal **u**), **o** was anciently used instead of **u** (***voltus, servos***). This spelling was not entirely given up until the middle of the first century A.D.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;***b.*** The older ***quo*** became ***cu*** in the Augustan period; in the second century A.D. the spelling ***quu-*** established itself in some words:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;***cum*** (older ***quom***&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;&lt;br&gt;***equos, ecus*** (later ***equus***)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;&lt;br&gt;***sequontur, secuntur*** (later ***sequuntur***)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Similarly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;***exstinguont, exstingunt*** (later ***exstinguunt***)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Note— In most modern editions the spelling quu- is adopted, except in cum.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. The spelling ***quum*** is very late and without authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if &quot;o&quot; represented the sound /o/ or /u/ when used in this context; I suspect that it was /u/ in the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Plautus was an Old Latin writer so it seems that his pronunciation actually did have /o/, and it looks like he may have used this in all positions (not just after /w/). [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plautus#Archaic_features) says one of the &quot;archaic features&quot; of Plautus's plays is &quot;the retention of short -ǒ in noun endings in the second declension for later -ŭ&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was an earlier question about the words &quot;secundus&quot; and &quot;equus&quot; that touched on some of this: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4901/why-sequundus-secundus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6368" RevisionGUID="475188e1-fff0-4005-a68f-f69c8443209f" CreationDate="2018-04-29T20:01:09.493" UserId="9" Comment="added 442 characters in body" Text="To expand a little on Joonas's answer, the nominative singular ending in Latin was originally /os/ for all masculine nouns of the second declension, but this developed to /us/ (part of a more general sound change of /o/ to /u/ in certain positions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for a while, both &quot;us&quot; and &quot;os&quot; were used in writing, with the spelling &quot;os&quot; generally being conditioned by a preceding /w/ sound (written V; in modern texts usually written &quot;v&quot; or as &quot;u&quot; in &quot;qu&quot; or &quot;gu&quot;). The same variation applied to [the ending &quot;-om&quot;/&quot;-um&quot;](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/2nd-declension-stem-paradigm-and-gender).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;[Orthography](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/orthography)&quot; section of Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The spelling of the first century A.D. (known chiefly from inscriptions) is tolerably uniform, and is commonly used in modern editions of the classics.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;***a.*** After **v** (consonantal **u**), **o** was anciently used instead of **u** (***voltus, servos***). This spelling was not entirely given up until the middle of the first century A.D.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;***b.*** The older ***quo*** became ***cu*** in the Augustan period; in the second century A.D. the spelling ***quu-*** established itself in some words:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;***cum*** (older ***quom***&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;&lt;br&gt;***equos, ecus*** (later ***equus***)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;&lt;br&gt;***sequontur, secuntur*** (later ***sequuntur***)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Similarly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;***exstinguont, exstingunt*** (later ***exstinguunt***)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Note— In most modern editions the spelling quu- is adopted, except in cum.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. The spelling ***quum*** is very late and without authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if &quot;o&quot; represented the sound /o/ or /u/ when used in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus was an Old Latin writer, and I'm not sure whether that means he used *-os* in all positions, or just after /w/. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plautus#Archaic_features) says one of the &quot;archaic features&quot; of Plautus's plays is &quot;the retention of short -ǒ in noun endings in the second declension for later -ŭ&quot;, not mentioning any kind of conditioning factors. But the Introduction to *[Plautus' Poenulus: A Student Commentary](https://books.google.com/books?id=V9wfCwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA27&amp;lpg=PA27&amp;dq=Plautus+second+declension+of+us&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=MD6u3YZq7S&amp;sig=dRP5Vos31ohjY_X7c7wEE2HuKNs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjd2rL8oeDaAhXh6oMKHT0FAaAQ6AEIgQEwDg#v=onepage&amp;q=Plautus%20second%20declension%20of%20us&amp;f=false),* by Erin Moodie, says &quot;The nominative singular ending for nouns in the second declension is *-os* (with a short o) not *-us,* after consonantal *u*&quot; (p. 27). I'm not sure how well extant manuscripts correspond to Old Latin pronunciation; according to *[An Introduction to Latin Textual Emendation](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0071%3Achapter%3D1%3Aparagraph%3D7)* by W. M. Lindsay, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The modernising of archaic forms is carried out to a great extent in the MSS. of Plautus, and the student of Plautine textual criticism must bestow great attention on this point. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;-os, -om for -us, -um.—In Late Latin, as we have seen, u and o were in certain cases interchanged in pronunciation and writing; e.g. vinum was pronounced and written vino (cf. Italian vino). A Carolingian scribe might easily mistake a genuine form like equom or servos, nominative singular, for a Merovingian misspelling, and substitute equum, servus. In classical Latin o, the older vowel, was used after another u or after the consonant v, but in the Latin of Plautus' time the old spelling was retained in many other situations beside. It is not always easy to feel certain that an o which takes the place of u in the MSS. of Plautus is a genuine survival of the Old Latin form (e.g. opos sit for opus sit, which has become corrupted to possit in **Stich. 573**; see above, p. 3), or a mere instance of the Late Latin use of o for ŭ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was an earlier question about the words &quot;secundus&quot; and &quot;equus&quot; that touched on some of this: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4901/why-sequundus-secundus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6368" RevisionGUID="555083ea-be95-4b8e-9c5c-912393f84c84" CreationDate="2018-04-29T20:07:58.270" UserId="9" Comment="added 442 characters in body" Text="To expand a little on Joonas's answer, the nominative singular ending in Latin was originally /os/ for all masculine nouns of the second declension, but this developed to /us/ (part of a more general sound change of /o/ to /u/ in certain positions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for a while, both &quot;us&quot; and &quot;os&quot; were used in writing, with the spelling &quot;os&quot; generally being conditioned by a preceding /w/ sound (written V; in modern texts usually written &quot;v&quot; or as &quot;u&quot; in &quot;qu&quot; or &quot;gu&quot;). The same variation applied to [the ending &quot;-om&quot;/&quot;-um&quot;](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/2nd-declension-stem-paradigm-and-gender). I don't know whether &quot;o&quot; represented the sound /o/ or /u/ in texts where it occurs as a conditioned variant of &quot;u&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;[Orthography](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/orthography)&quot; section of Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The spelling of the first century A.D. (known chiefly from inscriptions) is tolerably uniform, and is commonly used in modern editions of the classics.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;***a.*** After **v** (consonantal **u**), **o** was anciently used instead of **u** (***voltus, servos***). This spelling was not entirely given up until the middle of the first century A.D.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;***b.*** The older ***quo*** became ***cu*** in the Augustan period; in the second century A.D. the spelling ***quu-*** established itself in some words:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;***cum*** (older ***quom***&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;&lt;br&gt;***equos, ecus*** (later ***equus***)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;&lt;br&gt;***sequontur, secuntur*** (later ***sequuntur***)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Similarly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;***exstinguont, exstingunt*** (later ***exstinguunt***)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Note— In most modern editions the spelling ***quu-*** is adopted, except in ***cum***.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. The spelling ***quum*** is very late and without authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus was an Old Latin writer (Wikipedia says &quot;c. 254 – 184 BC&quot;), and I haven't yet found a clear description of whether his use of *-os* is thought to have been mostly unconditional or mostly conditioned by /w/. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plautus#Archaic_features) says one of the &quot;archaic features&quot; of Plautus's plays is &quot;the retention of short -ǒ in noun endings in the second declension for later -ŭ&quot;, not mentioning any kind of conditioning factors. But the Introduction to *[Plautus' Poenulus: A Student Commentary](https://books.google.com/books?id=V9wfCwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA27&amp;lpg=PA27&amp;dq=Plautus+second+declension+of+us&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=MD6u3YZq7S&amp;sig=dRP5Vos31ohjY_X7c7wEE2HuKNs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjd2rL8oeDaAhXh6oMKHT0FAaAQ6AEIgQEwDg#v=onepage&amp;q=Plautus%20second%20declension%20of%20us&amp;f=false),* by Erin Moodie, says &quot;The nominative singular ending for nouns in the second declension is *-os* (with a short o) not *-us,* after consonantal *u*&quot; (p. 27). I'm not sure how well extant manuscripts correspond to Old Latin pronunciation; according to *[An Introduction to Latin Textual Emendation](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0071%3Achapter%3D1%3Aparagraph%3D7),* by W. M. Lindsay (1896),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The modernising of archaic forms is carried out to a great extent in the MSS. of Plautus, and the student of Plautine textual criticism must bestow great attention on this point. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;-os, -om for -us, -um.—In Late Latin, as we have seen, u and o were in certain cases interchanged in pronunciation and writing; e.g. vinum was pronounced and written vino (cf. Italian vino). A Carolingian scribe might easily mistake a genuine form like equom or servos, nominative singular, for a Merovingian misspelling, and substitute equum, servus. In classical Latin o, the older vowel, was used after another u or after the consonant v, but in the Latin of Plautus' time the old spelling was retained in many other situations beside. It is not always easy to feel certain that an o which takes the place of u in the MSS. of Plautus is a genuine survival of the Old Latin form (e.g. opos sit for opus sit, which has become corrupted to possit in **Stich. 573**; see above, p. 3), or a mere instance of the Late Latin use of o for ŭ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was an earlier question about the words &quot;secundus&quot; and &quot;equus&quot; that touched on some of this: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4901/why-sequundus-secundus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6368" RevisionGUID="b0ae39cd-d1d1-430d-a84e-9b13bec60f34" CreationDate="2018-04-29T20:22:16.667" UserId="9" Comment="added 451 characters in body" Text="To expand a little on Joonas's answer, the nominative singular ending in Latin was originally /os/ for all masculine nouns of the second declension, which developed to /us/ as part of a more general sound change of /o/ to /u/ in certain positions. (Somewhat confusingly, Latin /u/ in turn corresponds to /o/ in a number of Romance languages. It's thought that Latin /u/ was phonetically realized as [ʊ], at least in certain accents and at certain time periods, while /o/ in Latin is thought to have had an open-mid quality like [ɔ] rather than a close-mid quality like [o]—I don't know to what extent these phonetic details are considered relevant to the interpretation of the /o/ &gt; /u/ sound change.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a while, both &quot;us&quot; and &quot;os&quot; were used in writing, with the spelling &quot;os&quot; generally being conditioned by a preceding /w/ sound (written V; in modern texts usually written &quot;v&quot; or as &quot;u&quot; in &quot;qu&quot; or &quot;gu&quot;). The same variation applied to [the ending &quot;-om&quot;/&quot;-um&quot;](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/2nd-declension-stem-paradigm-and-gender). I don't know whether &quot;o&quot; represented the sound /o/ or /u/ in texts where it occurs as a conditioned variant of &quot;u&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;[Orthography](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/orthography)&quot; section of Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The spelling of the first century A.D. (known chiefly from inscriptions) is tolerably uniform, and is commonly used in modern editions of the classics.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;***a.*** After **v** (consonantal **u**), **o** was anciently used instead of **u** (***voltus, servos***). This spelling was not entirely given up until the middle of the first century A.D.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;***b.*** The older ***quo*** became ***cu*** in the Augustan period; in the second century A.D. the spelling ***quu-*** established itself in some words:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;***cum*** (older ***quom***&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;&lt;br&gt;***equos, ecus*** (later ***equus***)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;&lt;br&gt;***sequontur, secuntur*** (later ***sequuntur***)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Similarly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;***exstinguont, exstingunt*** (later ***exstinguunt***)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Note— In most modern editions the spelling ***quu-*** is adopted, except in ***cum***.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. The spelling ***quum*** is very late and without authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus was an Old Latin writer (Wikipedia says &quot;c. 254 – 184 BC&quot;), and I haven't yet found a clear description of whether his use of *-os* is thought to have been mostly unconditional or mostly conditioned by /w/. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plautus#Archaic_features) says one of the &quot;archaic features&quot; of Plautus's plays is &quot;the retention of short -ǒ in noun endings in the second declension for later -ŭ&quot;, not mentioning any kind of conditioning factors. But the Introduction to *[Plautus' Poenulus: A Student Commentary](https://books.google.com/books?id=V9wfCwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA27&amp;lpg=PA27&amp;dq=Plautus+second+declension+of+us&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=MD6u3YZq7S&amp;sig=dRP5Vos31ohjY_X7c7wEE2HuKNs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjd2rL8oeDaAhXh6oMKHT0FAaAQ6AEIgQEwDg#v=onepage&amp;q=Plautus%20second%20declension%20of%20us&amp;f=false),* by Erin Moodie, says &quot;The nominative singular ending for nouns in the second declension is *-os* (with a short o) not *-us,* after consonantal *u*&quot; (p. 27). I'm not sure how well extant manuscripts correspond to Old Latin pronunciation; according to *[An Introduction to Latin Textual Emendation](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0071%3Achapter%3D1%3Aparagraph%3D7),* by W. M. Lindsay (1896),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The modernising of archaic forms is carried out to a great extent in the MSS. of Plautus, and the student of Plautine textual criticism must bestow great attention on this point. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;-os, -om for -us, -um.—In Late Latin, as we have seen, u and o were in certain cases interchanged in pronunciation and writing; e.g. vinum was pronounced and written vino (cf. Italian vino). A Carolingian scribe might easily mistake a genuine form like equom or servos, nominative singular, for a Merovingian misspelling, and substitute equum, servus. In classical Latin o, the older vowel, was used after another u or after the consonant v, but in the Latin of Plautus' time the old spelling was retained in many other situations beside. It is not always easy to feel certain that an o which takes the place of u in the MSS. of Plautus is a genuine survival of the Old Latin form (e.g. opos sit for opus sit, which has become corrupted to possit in **Stich. 573**; see above, p. 3), or a mere instance of the Late Latin use of o for ŭ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was an earlier question about the words &quot;secundus&quot; and &quot;equus&quot; that touched on some of this: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4901/why-sequundus-secundus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6369" RevisionGUID="dad8c2bf-a668-45ce-9ae8-969b931be401" CreationDate="2018-04-29T20:28:33.770" UserId="985" Text="It's not as succinct as 'Just kidding,' but I think that what Plautus uses at *Amphitruo* 919–920 has a nice ring to it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; si quid dictum est per iocum,  &#xD;&#xA;non aequom est id te serio praevortier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If anything has been said in jest, it isn't fair for you to take it seriously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, *te* could be changed to *vos* to suit the audience. Or you could shorten the whole thing to *dictum (est) per iocum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can just say *lusi*. An example of this use of *ludere* is found in letter 1.11 of Pliny the Younger. After complaining that he hasn't received any letters from Fabius Justus for quite a while, Pliny asks that he write just to tell him that he has nothing to say, or even that he write simply *si vales, bene est; ego valeo*, which was traditionally used as the mere opening to letters. He then says, *ludere me putas? serio peto*, 'Do you think I'm joking? I'm asking in all seriousness.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6365" RevisionGUID="fdad7b51-540a-40bc-957c-2a8806610e60" CreationDate="2018-04-29T21:12:29.037" UserId="31" Comment="Proofreading" Text="I have some troubles in understanding the syntax of a sentence from Plautus's *Captivi*, line 580; I need to add glosses. The sentence is &quot;Nam is est servos ipse, neque praeter se umquam ei servos fuit&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;The translations for that sentence in different languages I have found are something like &quot;because he is a slave himself, and there was never any slave in his possession except himself&quot;. However, I don't understand why &quot;servos&quot; is in accusative plural and not in nominative singular, as &quot;is&quot; is in the first part of the sentence. As far as I understand, the verb &quot;sum&quot; does not accept an accusative complement, even in it possessive meaning. The plural number is also for me really mysterious. Are these two uses of &quot;sum&quot; with &quot;servos&quot; examples in which &quot;sum&quot; takes the accusative? Am I confusing the case of &quot;servos&quot;? In the second part of the sentence, is &quot;servos&quot; the subject, or is it an impersonal sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21030" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6365" RevisionGUID="fdad7b51-540a-40bc-957c-2a8806610e60" CreationDate="2018-04-29T21:12:29.037" UserId="31" Comment="Proofreading" Text="Is &quot;servos&quot; accusative plural in Plautus's &quot;is est servos ipse&quot; and, if that's the case, why does &quot;esse&quot; takes accusative case there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21031" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6365" RevisionGUID="fdad7b51-540a-40bc-957c-2a8806610e60" CreationDate="2018-04-29T21:12:29.037" Comment="Proposed by 31 approved by 79 edit id of 231" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6369" RevisionGUID="52f3c37c-e7a9-49c4-ba4f-d00ded1eab0e" CreationDate="2018-04-29T21:45:52.083" UserId="985" Comment="added 686 characters in body" Text="It's not as succinct as 'Just kidding,' but I think that what Plautus uses at *Amphitruo* 919–920 has a nice ring to it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; si quid dictum est per iocum,  &#xD;&#xA;non aequom est id te serio praevortier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If anything has been said in jest, it isn't fair for you to take it seriously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, *te* could be changed to *vos* to suit the audience. Or you could shorten the whole thing to *dictum (est) per iocum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can just say *lusi*. An example of this use of *ludere* is found in letter 1.11 of Pliny the Younger. After complaining that he hasn't received any letters from Fabius Justus for quite a while, Pliny asks that he write just to tell him that he has nothing to say, or even that he write simply *si vales, bene est; ego valeo*, which was traditionally used as the mere opening to letters. He then says, *ludere me putas? serio peto*, 'Do you think I'm joking? I'm asking in all seriousness.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** Another possibility, also less succinct than the original English, is an adaptation of Pliny's whole *ludere me putas? serio peto* statement, producing something like *serio dicere me puta(ti)s? ludo*, or *serio dixisse me puta(ti)s? lusi*. For *serio dicere*, see, for example, Plautus, *Epidicus* 31:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [EPIDICUS] serione dicis tu? [THESPRIO] serio, inquam: hostes habent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Epidicus:** Are you speaking in earnest?  &#xD;&#xA;**Thesprio:** In earnest, I say: the enemy has them [the arms of Stratippocles].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course, this passage opens up further possibilities, such as *haud serio dixi* – you could even through in an *edepol* or *mehercle* for good measure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6369" RevisionGUID="0e41a768-426c-42a7-bede-1a5860dee097" CreationDate="2018-04-30T04:10:39.413" UserId="985" Comment="fixed spelling mistake" Text="It's not as succinct as 'Just kidding,' but I think that what Plautus uses at *Amphitruo* 919–920 has a nice ring to it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; si quid dictum est per iocum,  &#xD;&#xA;non aequom est id te serio praevortier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If anything has been said in jest, it isn't fair for you to take it seriously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, *te* could be changed to *vos* to suit the audience. Or you could shorten the whole thing to *dictum (est) per iocum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can just say *lusi*. An example of this use of *ludere* is found in letter 1.11 of Pliny the Younger. After complaining that he hasn't received any letters from Fabius Justus for quite a while, Pliny asks that he write just to tell him that he has nothing to say, or even that he write simply *si vales, bene est; ego valeo*, which was traditionally used as the mere opening to letters. He then says, *ludere me putas? serio peto*, 'Do you think I'm joking? I'm asking in all seriousness.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** Another possibility, also less succinct than the original English, is an adaptation of Pliny's whole *ludere me putas? serio peto* statement, producing something like *serio dicere me puta(ti)s? ludo*, or *serio dixisse me puta(ti)s? lusi*. For *serio dicere*, see, for example, Plautus, *Epidicus* 31:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [EPIDICUS] serione dicis tu? [THESPRIO] serio, inquam: hostes habent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Epidicus:** Are you speaking in earnest?  &#xD;&#xA;**Thesprio:** In earnest, I say: the enemy has them [the arms of Stratippocles].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course, this passage opens up further possibilities, such as *haud serio dixi* – you could even throw in an *edepol* or *mehercle* for good measure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6337" RevisionGUID="ed37ea0b-0b91-4cbf-bc9f-617a2144a726" CreationDate="2018-04-30T08:10:23.980" UserId="1459" Comment="added 622 characters in body" Text="I am looking for the most literal translation possible of any Latin bible, either to English or Spanish. I want to use it to improve my Latin by reading both simultaneously. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know the [Douay-Rheims Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay–Rheims_Bible) is a translation of the (Clementine) Vulgate, which has then been &quot;updated&quot; multiple times, like in the [Challoner Revision](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible#Challoner_Revision), the [Cofraternity Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confraternity_Bible), the [Knox Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knox_Bible), and more recently the [Catholic Public Domain Version](http://www.sacredbible.org/catholic/version.htm). I have compared the last one with the Clementine Vulgate (using [this smartphone app](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.radjewski.latinvulgatebiblepreview), which has  interlinear bibles), and the match is &quot;quite good&quot;. However, the translation is not always literal, since the English translation is also intended to be a useful bible in itself, and thus it accommodates phrases to the English usage, changing the order of sentences (not only of words, knowing that Latin is quite flexible on ordering), and sometimes even the verbal times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples, with emphasis to signal the instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Genesis 20:7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vulgate: Nunc ergo redde viro suo uxorem, quia propheta est : et orabit pro te, et vives : si autem nolueris reddere, scito quod morte morieris tu, et omnia quæ tua sunt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CPDV: Now therefore, return his wife to the man, for he is a prophet. And he will pray for you, and you will live. But if you are not willing to return her, know this: you shall die a death, **you** and all that is yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter adds an extra you which is not in the original, but it helps the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Genesis 20:9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Vulgate: Vocavit autem Abimelech etiam Abraham, et dixit ei : Quid fecisti nobis ? quid peccavimus in te, quia induxisti super me et super regnum meum peccatum grande ? **quæ non debuisti facere, fecisti nobis.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;CPDV: Then Abimelech called also for Abraham, and he said to him: “What have you done to us? How have we sinned against you, so that you would bring so great a sin upon me and upon my kingdom? **You have done to us what you ought not to have done.**”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The order of the sentences is changed. A more literal English translation would have been &quot;what you should not [to] have done, you have done to us&quot; (in Spanish is even closer to the original Latin (hidden pronoun), &quot;_lo que no has debido hacer, lo has hecho a nosotros_&quot;). This is surely less clear than the English translation, reflecting again the reasonable fact that in any translation literalism can be overrun by improved understanding, when necessary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Genesis 24:19:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vulgate: Cumque ille bibisset, adiecit: “Quin et camelis tuis hauriam aquam, donec cuncti bibant”. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CPDV: And after he drank, she added, “In fact, I will draw water for your camels also, until they all drink.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But _[bibisset](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bibisset)_ is the third-person singular pluperfect active subjunctive of to drink. So it is not &quot;he drank&quot; (which is _bibit_). Similarly, _[bibant](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bibant#Latin)_ is the third-person plural present active subjunctive of &quot;to drink&quot;, but the translation seems not to be in subjuntive (looks more like indicative to me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have spotted these and others given my current (limited) understanding of Latin, but I am surely missing many others. Hence my question, which I repeat: Which is &quot;the most literal&quot; translation of any Latin bible available?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6370" RevisionGUID="bc837cba-c805-4357-9527-5329638449fb" CreationDate="2018-04-30T08:44:09.547" UserId="79" Text="When looking at the [L&amp;S entry for *percipio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=percipio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), I came across a surprising perfect form: *percepset*.&#xD;&#xA;The contraction *percepisset &gt; percepset* lookst similar to *cogitavisset &gt; cogitasset*.&#xD;&#xA;Are contractions similar to *percepset* common for verbs whose perfect stem does not end in V?&#xD;&#xA;I do not recall ever seeing any.&#xD;&#xA;If such forms are found, is it specific to some eras, verbs, forms, or contexts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6370" RevisionGUID="bc837cba-c805-4357-9527-5329638449fb" CreationDate="2018-04-30T08:44:09.547" UserId="79" Text="Understanding 'percepset' instead of 'percepisset'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6370" RevisionGUID="bc837cba-c805-4357-9527-5329638449fb" CreationDate="2018-04-30T08:44:09.547" UserId="79" Text="|verbs|morphology|conjugation|perfect-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6371" RevisionGUID="24aa597e-05ef-4936-8a2e-2625f803429a" CreationDate="2018-04-30T09:33:47.333" UserId="2591" Text="I study latin and greek: a LOT of phrases cannot and should not be changed, as they must be used &quot;as is&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;No one will try to modify an english like &quot;Beat around the bush&quot; in &quot;bushes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for grammar, answer from Henry is CLEAN.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6371" RevisionGUID="e2236eba-55cc-4047-903e-c23967c8242c" CreationDate="2018-04-30T09:37:19.357" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I study Latin and Greek: a *lot* of phrases cannot and should not be changed, as they must be used &quot;as is&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;No one will try to modify an English like &quot;Beat around the bush&quot; in &quot;bushes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For grammar, answer from Henry is *clean*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6372" RevisionGUID="a4ee74c9-bb19-4041-b48e-4bdc68489d7f" CreationDate="2018-04-30T09:39:17.627" UserId="1459" Text="Interestingly, the 1895 (or 1896) book _Latin Inscriptions_ by [James Egbert Jr.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Chidester_Egbert_Jr.) provides a through study of, well, Latin inscriptions, including acronyms. An online version of the book can be found [here](https://archive.org/details/introductiontost00egberich).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A relevant quote, in my opinion (pages 415-6):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Certain general principles will be found of advantage in the &#xD;&#xA;interpretation of abbreviations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Words written in abbreviated form consist either of the initial &#xD;&#xA;letter (_si(n)g(u)la_) or of a continuous group of letters more or less &#xD;&#xA;restricted in number. In the latter case the final letter of the &#xD;&#xA;abbreviation is the first consonant of a syllable, but this is not an &#xD;&#xA;exact rule. T= _Titus_; TIB = _Tiberius_; CLAVD, CLAV, CLA = _Claudia_; QVIR, QVI, Q = _Quirina_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. If a word is composed of several members, the above rule &#xD;&#xA;applies either to the word treated as a whole or to each of the component parts regarded as individual words. Thus _signifer_ may be &#xD;&#xA;abbreviated synthetically SIG or SIGN, or analytically SIGF for &#xD;&#xA;_signum_ and _fer_, so BENEFlC, BENEF, B, or again B F = _beneficiarius_, DVMTAX or D T = _dum taaxxt_, Q Q V = _quoquoversns_, **P Q = _populusque_.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**This in theory is the system of abbreviations up to the end of &#xD;&#xA;the third century A.D.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When a disregard of these principles first made itself felt in the formation of abbreviations cannot be exactly determined, but it is probable that ignorance or a misunderstanding of the second rule, combined with a lack of knowledge of the component parts of words as determining the abbreviated forms, led to the violation of the principle of continuity of the letters....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pages 417 to 460 provide a list of acronyms, where we can see several adding the Q when the word includes a _que_ suffix, albeit this is not a universal rule. Examples include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- D.N.M.Q.E: devotus numini maiestatique eius&#xD;&#xA;- E.Q.D.D: eademque dedicavit&#xD;&#xA;- F.Q.E.E.V: fideque el esse videbitur&#xD;&#xA;- H.H.Q: heres heredesque&#xD;&#xA;- IMP.P.Q.R: imperium populusque Romanus&#xD;&#xA;- L.L.Q: liberis liberabusque&#xD;&#xA;- P.Q.S: posterisque suis&#xD;&#xA;- S.ET S.L.P.Q.E: sibi et suis libertis, libertabus posterisque eorum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, _SPQR_ was not the only SPQ-based abbreviation. The book above lists also several SPQ+X, where X includes: A (Albensis), C (Corsiolanus), L (Lavininus), T (Tiburs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe there are some further analysis in the book relevant for the question at hand, but don't have the time at the moment. All I can conclude from this however is that &quot;in theory&quot;, up until the third century AD the rule was to add Q for _que_ in an acronym. Hence the SPQR, which predates third century AD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6372" RevisionGUID="758109e9-f015-455e-8fc4-019e07c129a6" CreationDate="2018-04-30T09:45:36.990" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Interestingly, the 1895 (or 1896) book _Latin Inscriptions_ by [James Egbert Jr.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Chidester_Egbert_Jr.) provides a through study of, well, Latin inscriptions, including acronyms. An online version of the book can be found [here](https://archive.org/details/introductiontost00egberich).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A relevant quote, in my opinion (pages 415-6):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Certain general principles will be found of advantage in the &#xD;&#xA;interpretation of abbreviations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Words written in abbreviated form consist either of the initial &#xD;&#xA;letter (_si(n)g(u)la_) or of a continuous group of letters more or less &#xD;&#xA;restricted in number. In the latter case the final letter of the &#xD;&#xA;abbreviation is the first consonant of a syllable, but this is not an &#xD;&#xA;exact rule. T= _Titus_; TIB = _Tiberius_; CLAVD, CLAV, CLA = _Claudia_; QVIR, QVI, Q = _Quirina_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. If a word is composed of several members, the above rule &#xD;&#xA;applies either to the word treated as a whole or to each of the component parts regarded as individual words. Thus _signifer_ may be &#xD;&#xA;abbreviated synthetically SIG or SIGN, or analytically SIGF for &#xD;&#xA;_signum_ and _fer_, so BENEFlC, BENEF, B, or again B F = _beneficiarius_, DVMTAX or D T = _dum taxat_, Q Q V = _quoquoversus_, **P Q = _populusque_.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**This in theory is the system of abbreviations up to the end of &#xD;&#xA;the third century A.D.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When a disregard of these principles first made itself felt in the formation of abbreviations cannot be exactly determined, but it is probable that ignorance or a misunderstanding of the second rule, combined with a lack of knowledge of the component parts of words as determining the abbreviated forms, led to the violation of the principle of continuity of the letters....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pages 417 to 460 provide a list of acronyms, where we can see several adding the Q when the word includes a _que_ suffix, albeit this is not a universal rule. Examples include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- D.N.M.Q.E: devotus numini maiestatique eius&#xD;&#xA;- E.Q.D.D: eademque dedicavit&#xD;&#xA;- F.Q.E.E.V: fideque el esse videbitur&#xD;&#xA;- H.H.Q: heres heredesque&#xD;&#xA;- IMP.P.Q.R: imperium populusque Romanus&#xD;&#xA;- L.L.Q: liberis liberabusque&#xD;&#xA;- P.Q.S: posterisque suis&#xD;&#xA;- S.ET S.L.P.Q.E: sibi et suis libertis, libertabus posterisque eorum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, _SPQR_ was not the only SPQ-based abbreviation. The book above lists also several SPQ+X, where X includes: A (Albensis), C (Corsiolanus), L (Lavininus), T (Tiburs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe there are some further analysis in the book relevant for the question at hand, but don't have the time at the moment. All I can conclude from this however is that &quot;in theory&quot;, up until the third century AD the rule was to add Q for _que_ in an acronym. Hence the SPQR, which predates third century AD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="140" RevisionGUID="0fe77e2f-f6f5-47ee-a926-894838c50b9d" CreationDate="2018-04-30T11:10:50.160" UserId="79" Comment="added 413 characters in body" Text="To be able to generate a list of candidates, one should know some common ways to produce different principal parts from a given stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To produce the present stem (the first principal part as you call it) one might add a nasal before the last consonant.&#xD;&#xA;To produce the perfect stem one might reduplicate the first syllable, with possibility for vowel gradation.&#xD;&#xA;To produce the perfect participle stem one might add a *t*, with possibility for assimilation in the preceding consonant.&#xD;&#xA;Using these rules to the stem *tag-*, one obtains the stems *tang-*, *tetig-* and *tact-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find more possible ways to play with the stems in many Latin grammars, and I will not attempt to list them here.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, let me try to detail the process I would take to find *nancisci* from *nacti*.&#xD;&#xA;First, the perfect participle stem seems to be *nact-*.&#xD;&#xA;There is no sign of reduplication (we couldn't remove a syllable anyway since there is only one &amp;mdash; and reduplication should only appear in the active perfect stem anyway), so the present stem might be *nac-*.&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that the *t* has caused some assimilation, so it could be *nag-* or *nah-* instead.&#xD;&#xA;There could also be a nasal in the present stem, so also *nanc-* and *nang-* might be possible.&#xD;&#xA;If you manage to conclude that one option is *nanc-*, you will find the verb in a dictionary; you won't need to guess the incohative *-isc-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short:&#xD;&#xA;To see the first principal form, know the rules to generate later principal forms and try to guess which ones may have been used.&#xD;&#xA;If I see a perfect participle of a new verb, I will not know the first principal part for certain, but I can make a number of guesses.&#xD;&#xA;And know your irregular verbs &amp;mdash; they may also come with prefixes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6373" RevisionGUID="d9ad626c-0b67-48f4-8356-5b227520da73" CreationDate="2018-04-30T18:05:47.643" UserId="2593" Text="Can someone please show me how the Latin Iesus came from Iesous? It sounds like a shorter form of it. Is it just because certain sounds from the Greek wasn't in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21045" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6373" RevisionGUID="d9ad626c-0b67-48f4-8356-5b227520da73" CreationDate="2018-04-30T18:05:47.643" UserId="2593" Text="Latin transliteration of Ιησούς" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21046" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6373" RevisionGUID="d9ad626c-0b67-48f4-8356-5b227520da73" CreationDate="2018-04-30T18:05:47.643" UserId="2593" Text="|transliteration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6374" RevisionGUID="dddc8d24-008c-4886-a5bd-52a9b5e8b419" CreationDate="2018-04-30T18:56:49.850" UserId="406" Text="The consistency of Greek spelling tends to hide the sound changes that happened within the language. Greek originally had three different &quot;o-like&quot; sounds, written ο, ω, ου. Since they had only two &quot;o-like&quot; letters, they needed to use two letters together for the third one. The same thing happened with their three &quot;e-like&quot; sounds, ε, η, ει.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's thought that these originally corresponded to the sounds /o ɔː oː/, which would be written as *o ō ō* in Latin, which only had two &quot;o-like&quot; sounds. Similarly, ε η ει were /e ɛː eː/, *e ē ē* in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in later Greek, ου shifted to /uː/, and ει shifted to /iː/. So these sounds were then written as *ū* and *ī* in Latin. (Compare how *ou* is pronounced as /u/ in modern French.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Iēsūs* was then the best way to transcribe the Greek word into Latin, matching the sound of the Greek word as closely as possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21048" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6373" RevisionGUID="e5ccb5d4-ba0a-4c15-93cb-322e36e8b0b7" CreationDate="2018-04-30T18:59:42.747" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|names|transliteration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6375" RevisionGUID="cbe160b3-6e8b-4787-bada-d7047b0eb617" CreationDate="2018-04-30T20:17:54.327" UserId="2594" Text="How could we translate &quot;associative movement&quot; in latin ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know &quot;association&quot; is usually &quot;consociatio&quot;, but what about the adjective ? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21050" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6375" RevisionGUID="cbe160b3-6e8b-4787-bada-d7047b0eb617" CreationDate="2018-04-30T20:17:54.327" UserId="2594" Text="How to translate &quot;associative movement&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21051" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6375" RevisionGUID="cbe160b3-6e8b-4787-bada-d7047b0eb617" CreationDate="2018-04-30T20:17:54.327" UserId="2594" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6374" RevisionGUID="5c4732cc-7d34-4c8b-9530-6ea3a02380c8" CreationDate="2018-04-30T22:10:01.060" UserId="406" Comment="added 306 characters in body" Text="The consistency of Greek spelling tends to hide the sound changes that happened within the language. Greek originally(*) had three different &quot;o-like&quot; sounds, written ο, ω, ου. Since they had only two &quot;o-like&quot; letters, they needed to use two letters together for the third one. The same thing happened with their three &quot;e-like&quot; sounds, ε, η, ει.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's thought that these originally corresponded to the sounds /o ɔː oː/, which would be written as *o ō ō* in Latin, which only had two &quot;o-like&quot; sounds. Similarly, ε η ει were /e ɛː eː/, *e ē ē* in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in later Greek, ου shifted to /uː/, and ει shifted to /iː/. So these sounds were then written as *ū* and *ī* in Latin. (Compare how *ou* is pronounced as /u/ in modern French.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Iēsūs* was then the best way to transcribe the Greek word into Latin, matching the sound of the Greek word as closely as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) As fdb quite rightly points out, &quot;original&quot; is a tricky word to apply to Greek. I'm referring here to the Attic dialect, at the time when it was first recorded in writing; this is the dialect that eventually became the Koine used in the New Testament, and (much later) the Modern Greek of today." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6376" RevisionGUID="60213e43-4bdf-4fa2-8134-87086f97389e" CreationDate="2018-04-30T22:14:26.713" UserId="2595" Text="I've seen the languages' names like _lingua Latīna_ and _lingua Hispānica_, but I've read that it's more common to say _Latīne_ and _Hispāne_. I was wondering if someone had a list of the languages in latin, since I haven't found in anywhere on internet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer the adverb ones (those that end in -e) but all way to say it are accepted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21054" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6376" RevisionGUID="60213e43-4bdf-4fa2-8134-87086f97389e" CreationDate="2018-04-30T22:14:26.713" UserId="2595" Text="What are the Latin names for the languages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21055" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6376" RevisionGUID="60213e43-4bdf-4fa2-8134-87086f97389e" CreationDate="2018-04-30T22:14:26.713" UserId="2595" Text="|classical-latin|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6377" RevisionGUID="e7878e18-6a07-421f-bc15-a154cee5a548" CreationDate="2018-04-30T22:44:29.480" UserId="79" Text="The language names are adjectives in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;From *Hispanicus* you get *lingua Hispanica* and the adverb *Hispanice*.&#xD;&#xA;The name of the language itself is *lingua Hispanica* (&quot;the Spanish language&quot;), but typically the best choice for &quot;in Spanish&quot; is the adverb *Hispanice*.&#xD;&#xA;The other forms of the adjective can come in handy, too; languages are simply described differently in Latin than in English.&#xD;&#xA;What you need is a list of adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get started, I recommend taking a look at [names of countries in Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1328/79).&#xD;&#xA;The list in the answer includes the adjectives, so you can easily find what it means to speak *Danice* or *Polonice*.&#xD;&#xA;Of course not all country names are associated with a language and there are languages whose names are not related to a country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6376" RevisionGUID="9dd31828-f09a-471d-b238-8954cc248b94" CreationDate="2018-04-30T22:45:06.190" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="I've seen the languages' names like _lingua Latīna_ and _lingua Hispānica_, but I've read that it's more common to say _Latīne_ and _Hispāne_. I was wondering if someone had a list of the languages in Latin, since I haven't found in anywhere on internet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer the adverb ones (those that end in -e) but all way to say it are accepted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6378" RevisionGUID="72f6fe6d-a627-45e8-a050-bfd0744a3102" CreationDate="2018-05-01T07:49:04.100" UserId="1987" Text="In this example: (Male name) τοῦ/τὸν (Title), in which circumstance do I use the genitive τοῦ and in which circumstance do I use the accusative τὸν?&#xA;&#xA;Also: the Titles' ending changes? When I use τοῦ the Title ends with νοῦ (in the particular Title I'm looking at) and when I use τὸν the Title ends with νὸν. Correct?&#xA;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21059" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6378" RevisionGUID="72f6fe6d-a627-45e8-a050-bfd0744a3102" CreationDate="2018-05-01T07:49:04.100" UserId="1987" Text="τοῦ/τὸν; when to use the accusative/genitive in titles (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21060" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6378" RevisionGUID="72f6fe6d-a627-45e8-a050-bfd0744a3102" CreationDate="2018-05-01T07:49:04.100" UserId="1987" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6375" RevisionGUID="e2d50656-f402-4f61-a81b-03e31dc6a2ab" CreationDate="2018-05-01T09:02:27.750" UserId="79" Comment="Added details from an answer." Text="How could we translate &quot;associative movement&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know &quot;association&quot; is usually &quot;consociatio&quot;, but what about the adjective? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Associative movement&quot; means (more or less) the fact that people tend to form associations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example: &quot;Without pretending to be an exhaustive study of the associative fabric in the rural environment, this report concerns the participation of women in the **associative movement**.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or: &quot;This subsidy supports the businesswomen's **associative movement** of AFAEMME by means of the financing expenses of supporting staff.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or: &quot;By tracing the development of the **associative movement** since the early twentieth century, including the notorious fractiousness of associations, this chapter argues...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6378" RevisionGUID="c33b0b09-fcbe-4026-a195-255b401d1d99" CreationDate="2018-05-01T09:30:07.770" UserId="1987" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In this example: (Male name) τοῦ/τὸν (Title), in which circumstance do I use the genitive τοῦ and in which circumstance do I use the accusative τὸν?&#xA;&#xA;Also: the Titles' ending changes? When I use τοῦ the Title's suffix is νοῦ (in the particular Title I'm looking at) and when I use τὸν the Title ends with νὸν. Correct?&#xA;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6380" RevisionGUID="0f88cf96-1d19-46a4-8b39-5436329492eb" CreationDate="2018-05-01T13:14:42.847" UserId="79" Text="I have understood that [*urbs*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=urbs&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is not just a &quot;city&quot;, but more properly a &quot;major city&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The L&amp;S entry implies that it refers to a walled town, but city walls are rare nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;What makes a city an *urbs* in the modern world?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, when answering [a question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6359/79), I referred to New York as *urbs* (to distinguish the city from the state).&#xD;&#xA;I think I would call New York an *urbs*, but it got me wondering about the word.&#xD;&#xA;Where would you draw the line?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that there is not going to be a hard definition, but some examples, counterexamples, or other insights would be illuminating.&#xD;&#xA;Is it just a matter of size, or do cultural or administrative considerations enter the picture?&#xD;&#xA;Or should I just call whatever would be a &quot;city&quot; in English an *urbs* in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21066" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6380" RevisionGUID="0f88cf96-1d19-46a4-8b39-5436329492eb" CreationDate="2018-05-01T13:14:42.847" UserId="79" Text="Which modern cities are urbes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21067" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6380" RevisionGUID="0f88cf96-1d19-46a4-8b39-5436329492eb" CreationDate="2018-05-01T13:14:42.847" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|contemporary-latin|modern-life|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6381" RevisionGUID="de4586be-5241-4e32-a09a-db42855a9369" CreationDate="2018-05-01T14:57:30.233" UserId="1763" Text="Finding an answer on that question already heavily depends, in my oppinion, on what you consider as a Latin *urbs*. I understand &quot;Rome&quot; as the most prominent translation, since you could reffer to Rome, using *urbs*, without anymore further words needed for clarification. You may argue about the translation of *urbs*, but I'll use mine as a starting point for now.&#xA;&#xA;Rome probably played an enormous  important role in the whole imperium, or even figured as a role model.&#xA;&#xA;I would consider so called **Global Cities** as a modern equivalent.&#xA;&#xA;Here are some characteristics of global cities [from Wikipedia][1] (that even fit the ancient rome):&#xA;&#xA; &#xA; &#xA;&#xA; - dominance of the national region with great international significance&#xA;&#xA; - financial headquarters&#xA; &#xA; - diversity in language, culture, religion, and ideologies&#xA; &#xA; - multi-functional infrastructure&#xA; &#xA; - high-quality educational institutions&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;So New York totaly fits, other examples would be London, Singapore, Paris, Tokyo, Mumbai, Franfurt, but because world population has grown since ancient Rome, there are too many to be mentioned here.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city?wprov=sfla1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6380" RevisionGUID="786a8ee4-d24a-4ce4-8951-c3f145284fa0" CreationDate="2018-05-01T15:00:10.390" UserId="79" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="I have understood that [*urbs*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=urbs&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is not just a &quot;city&quot;, but more properly a &quot;major city&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The L&amp;S entry implies that it refers to a walled town, but city walls are rare nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;What makes a city an *urbs* in the modern world?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, when answering [a question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6359/79), I referred to New York as *urbs* (to distinguish the city from the state).&#xD;&#xA;I think I would call New York an *urbs*, but it got me wondering about the word.&#xD;&#xA;Where would you draw the line?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that there is not going to be a hard definition, but some examples, counterexamples, or other insights would be illuminating.&#xD;&#xA;I am not looking for a list of all *urbes*, but a rule of thumb.&#xD;&#xA;Is it just a matter of size, or do cultural or administrative considerations enter the picture?&#xD;&#xA;Or should I just call whatever would be a &quot;city&quot; in English an *urbs* in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6382" RevisionGUID="d5c38239-9074-426b-909b-00c23a2ee1ba" CreationDate="2018-05-01T20:23:44.667" UserId="1821" Text="I know I have heard this expression before, and that it's quite a common one.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a widely-used Latin term which describes a position which one holds, automatically, by dint of holding another position.  From memory, it consists of two words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example would be:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As  Archishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby is ***** **** a member of the House of Lords and of the Privy Council.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the missing expression? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21071" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6382" RevisionGUID="d5c38239-9074-426b-909b-00c23a2ee1ba" CreationDate="2018-05-01T20:23:44.667" UserId="1821" Text="Latin term for a position which someone holds by dint of holding another position" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21072" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6382" RevisionGUID="d5c38239-9074-426b-909b-00c23a2ee1ba" CreationDate="2018-05-01T20:23:44.667" UserId="1821" Text="|legal-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6383" RevisionGUID="3acfe542-d682-461b-9046-61146fc612c3" CreationDate="2018-05-01T20:37:01.980" UserId="985" Text="You would say that Welby is an *ex officio member* (or a *member ex officio*) of those two bodies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6384" RevisionGUID="df06da6b-1036-4dde-9d74-8afeee8076a4" CreationDate="2018-05-01T20:42:00.520" UserId="2600" Text="A 1988 Norwegian pop album has the title &quot;Seculum Seculi&quot;. I have tried to figure out what it means, but google translate cannot really help. It translates it into &quot;toung&quot; (not to be confused with &quot;tongue&quot;), but I can't really find any definition of toung either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Playing around, and translating back and forth, tweaking and prodding for another result, gives me the impression that the term is related to time and/or space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know what it means?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21075" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6384" RevisionGUID="df06da6b-1036-4dde-9d74-8afeee8076a4" CreationDate="2018-05-01T20:42:00.520" UserId="2600" Text="What does Seculum Seculi mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21076" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6384" RevisionGUID="df06da6b-1036-4dde-9d74-8afeee8076a4" CreationDate="2018-05-01T20:42:00.520" UserId="2600" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6384" RevisionGUID="c92435b9-6141-477d-a5cf-9419c16a759c" CreationDate="2018-05-01T20:57:31.693" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="A 1988 Norwegian pop album has the title &quot;Seculum Seculi&quot;. I have tried to figure out what it means, but Google Translate cannot really help. It translates it into &quot;toung&quot; (not to be confused with &quot;tongue&quot;), but I can't really find any definition of toung either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Playing around, and translating back and forth, tweaking and prodding for another result, gives me the impression that the term is related to time and/or space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know what it means?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21078" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6384" RevisionGUID="c92435b9-6141-477d-a5cf-9419c16a759c" CreationDate="2018-05-01T20:57:31.693" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6385" RevisionGUID="35dcfd93-a4f6-4592-af14-2ed38cb3ab28" CreationDate="2018-05-01T20:59:13.357" UserId="79" Text="The proper spelling would be *saeculum saeculi*.&#xD;&#xA;The *ae* is pronounced like a long *e*, and I would not be surprised if *ae* was occasionally spelled as *e* in post-classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Saeculum* is &quot;century&quot;, so *saeculum saeculi* is &quot;century of the century&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6385" RevisionGUID="486f73f8-1290-4f9a-96b6-f300e776ce20" CreationDate="2018-05-01T21:57:42.460" UserId="79" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="The classical spelling would be *saeculum saeculi*.&#xD;&#xA;The *ae* is pronounced like a long *e*, and it is not unusual to spell *ae* as *e* in post-classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I assume the album title is inspired by medieval Latin sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Saeculum* is &quot;century&quot;, so *saeculum saeculi* is literally &quot;[the ]century of [the] century&quot;, but apparently actually means &quot;forever&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for the comments, sumelic and brianpck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6383" RevisionGUID="1e681d65-d0df-45f6-994c-2aa2fcae28b8" CreationDate="2018-05-01T22:07:15.313" UserId="985" Comment="added 830 characters in body" Text="You would say that Welby is an *ex officio member* (or a *member ex officio*) of those two bodies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, the Latin noun *officium* means 'A regular (esp. official) employment, charge or position, post, office' (definition 6 in the *Oxford Latin Dictionary*) – or perhaps 'What one has to do to fulfil one's role, a person's function or job' (def. 4). The preposition *ex* is expressing cause, I suppose: 'As a result of, in consequence of'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *New Oxford American Dictionary* defines the term as 'by virtue of one's position or status.' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eugene Ehrlich, *Amo, amas, amat and more: how to use Latin to your own advantage and to the astonishment of others* (Harper &amp; Row, 1985) has this summary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Officers of an institution usually serve on many of its committees not because they have personal qualifications needed on the committees, but because they hold certain offices. Thus, the chief executive officer of a corporation usually is a member *ex officio* of all the important committees of the corporation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6386" RevisionGUID="a1a979d9-f204-4b95-bbd4-8f7441ff5a1f" CreationDate="2018-05-01T22:25:24.147" UserId="406" Text="This is a partial answer, because I'm more familiar with Classical Latin than that of Calvin's time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in classical times, *mōtus* was specifically &quot;passion&quot;, in the sense of a strong and sudden emotion: love or hatred would qualify, but not contentedness. L&amp;S suggest the translations &quot;agitation&quot; and &quot;disturbance&quot;, among others, and it was particularly used of political movements and rebellions. Literally, it means a &quot;movement&quot; of the mind or the heart, and was metaphorically applied to emotions strong enough to &quot;move&quot; you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if I were translating Calvin's commentary, I would take this simply as emphasizing God's impassibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of a Classical word that encompasses all of what we call &quot;emotions&quot; today. For something less strong than *mōtus* I might use *sententia*, perhaps, though it's not a perfect fit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6378" RevisionGUID="8a2f2c83-c3cf-4771-8240-9b31728b386b" CreationDate="2018-05-02T04:55:01.857" UserId="1987" Comment="added 742 characters in body; edited title" Text="Reading the Book of Mark, I come across these references to Jesus:&#xA;&#xA;Mark 1:24 Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ&#xA;&#xA;Mark 14:67 τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ&#xA;&#xA;Mark 16:6 τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν&#xA;&#xA;And elsewhere in the Bible the common:&#xA;&#xA;Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος&#xA;&#xA;These geonyms are common also in Classical Greek, such as:&#xA;Φίλιππος Β΄ ὁ Μακεδών (Philip II of Macedon),&#xA;Ἀθηναγόρας ὁ Ἀθηναῖος (Athenagoras of Athens)&#xA;&#xA;Can someone please explain to me **in Classical Greek Grammar** when to use the particle **ὁ** and when to use the genitive **τοῦ** and when to use the accusative **τὸν** and *when to exclude a particle altogether* (eg. Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ, Maria Magdalene, Saulos Tarseus)? And how does this affects the Geonym's suffix (eg. Ναζαρ-ηνέ, Ναζαρη-νοῦ, Ναζαρη-νὸν)?&#xA;&#xA;As a hypothetical example to demonstrate please could you write the name &quot;Ἰωάννης τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ&quot; in it's various mutations.&#xA;&#xA;(Are the particles τοῦ &amp; τὸν only used when the person in question is being referred to but their name isn't mentioned, so that &quot;Ἰωάννης τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ&quot; would be incorrect and should rightly be &quot;Ἰωάννης ὁ Ναζαρηνοῦ&quot;?)&#xA;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21084" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6378" RevisionGUID="8a2f2c83-c3cf-4771-8240-9b31728b386b" CreationDate="2018-05-02T04:55:01.857" UserId="1987" Comment="added 742 characters in body; edited title" Text="The Particles ὁ/τοῦ/τὸν in Classical Greek Names (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6378" RevisionGUID="1e6cf60a-edc1-486f-8467-badb8a9da1be" CreationDate="2018-05-02T05:01:58.177" UserId="1987" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Reading the Book of Mark, I come across these references to Jesus:&#xA;&#xA;Mark 1:24 Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ&#xA;&#xA;Mark 14:67 τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ&#xA;&#xA;Mark 16:6 τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν&#xA;&#xA;And elsewhere in the Bible the common:&#xA;&#xA;Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος&#xA;&#xA;These geonyms are common also in Classical Greek, such as:&#xA;Φίλιππος Β΄ ὁ Μακεδών (Philip II of Macedon),&#xA;Ἀθηναγόρας ὁ Ἀθηναῖος (Athenagoras of Athens)&#xA;&#xA;Can someone please explain to me **in Classical Greek Grammar** when to use the particle **ὁ** and when to use the genitive **τοῦ** and when to use the accusative **τὸν** and *when to exclude a particle altogether* (eg. Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ, Maria Magdalene, Saulos Tarseus)? And how does this affect the Geonym's suffix (eg. Ναζαρ-ηνέ, Ναζαρη-νοῦ, Ναζαρη-νὸν)?&#xA;&#xA;As a hypothetical example to demonstrate please could you write the name &quot;Ἰωάννης τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ&quot; in it's various mutations.&#xA;&#xA;(Are the particles τοῦ &amp; τὸν only used when the person in question is being referred to but their name isn't mentioned, so that &quot;Ἰωάννης τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ&quot; would be incorrect and should rightly be &quot;Ἰωάννης ὁ Ναζαρηνοῦ&quot;?)&#xA;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="248386a1-05c2-4dec-b021-7b52b59f0234" CreationDate="2018-05-02T06:53:16.473" UserId="2601" Text="quemcunque miserum videris nominem scias.  Please help as to the meaning of the phrase? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21091" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="248386a1-05c2-4dec-b021-7b52b59f0234" CreationDate="2018-05-02T06:53:16.473" UserId="2601" Text="quemcunque miserum videris nominem scias. Please help as to the meaning of the phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21092" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="248386a1-05c2-4dec-b021-7b52b59f0234" CreationDate="2018-05-02T06:53:16.473" UserId="2601" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="8e3802d6-51d5-445f-a83f-88a021d8be44" CreationDate="2018-05-02T09:25:27.037" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged. Feel free to edit further or undo my edits!" Text="Can someone help me find the meaning of this phrase?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quemcunque miserum videris nominem scias." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21094" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="8e3802d6-51d5-445f-a83f-88a021d8be44" CreationDate="2018-05-02T09:25:27.037" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged. Feel free to edit further or undo my edits!" Text="&quot;Quemcunque miserum videris nominem scias&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21095" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="8e3802d6-51d5-445f-a83f-88a021d8be44" CreationDate="2018-05-02T09:25:27.037" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged. Feel free to edit further or undo my edits!" Text="|idiom|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6389" RevisionGUID="a0074a88-26f0-49cf-997f-721dcaf1ece5" CreationDate="2018-05-02T11:32:29.280" UserId="1459" Text="cnread is correct. The correct phrase is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quemcunque miserum videris hominem scias&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the motto of the [Royal Life Saving Society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Life_Saving_Society_UK), founded in 1891.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; According to [Wiki](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RLSS_Bronze_Medallion.jpg), it translates as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whomever you see in distress, recognize his humanity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, according to the [website of the society itself](Whomsoever you see in distress, recognise in them a fellow human being), it translates as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whomsoever you see in distress, recognise in them a fellow human being &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3uofm.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6389" RevisionGUID="67545d67-69ac-4c29-8391-b6986af29218" CreationDate="2018-05-02T11:37:50.910" UserId="1459" Comment="added 596 characters in body" Text="cnread is correct. The correct phrase is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quemcunque miserum videris hominem scias&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the motto of the [Royal Life Saving Society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Life_Saving_Society_UK), founded in 1891.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; According to [Wiki](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RLSS_Bronze_Medallion.jpg), it translates as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whomever you see in distress, recognize his humanity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, according to the [website of the society itself](Whomsoever you see in distress, recognise in them a fellow human being), it translates as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whomsoever you see in distress, recognise in them a fellow human being &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A translation in [this book](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EZJoSq45EPQC&amp;pg=PA95&amp;lpg=PA95&amp;dq=%22Quemcunque+miserum+videris+hominem+scias%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=cAj5ELztnj&amp;sig=9vXodrWZamLDqwO1NNTU33h5f-c&amp;hl=es-419&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiyz8Si9ubaAhXGkCwKHc5qDIoQ6AEwBHoECAAQSA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Quemcunque%20miserum%20videris%20hominem%20scias%22&amp;f=false) (about Latin phrases and their translations) however translates as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;whenever you see a fellow creature in distress, remember that he is a man&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are [many other](https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=%22Quemcunque+miserum+videris+hominem+scias%22+seneca) translations available too. As you can see, there is no a unique one, but you get a clear idea of what the phrase means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3uofm.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6389" RevisionGUID="ffa38817-a475-48a8-a47f-61c60d8d9ae4" CreationDate="2018-05-02T11:43:09.753" UserId="1459" Comment="added 596 characters in body" Text="@cnread is correct. The [original phrase](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:2007.01.0003:card=457&amp;highlight=Quemcumque+miserum%2C) comes from Seneca's _Hercules Furens_, and reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quemcumque miserum videris hominem scias&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are [many](https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=bks&amp;q=%22Quemcunque+miserum+videris+hominem+scias%22+seneca) translations available, not all of them equivalent. For instance, [this book](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EZJoSq45EPQC&amp;pg=PA95&amp;lpg=PA95&amp;dq=%22Quemcunque+miserum+videris+hominem+scias%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=cAj5ELztnj&amp;sig=9vXodrWZamLDqwO1NNTU33h5f-c&amp;hl=es-419&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiyz8Si9ubaAhXGkCwKHc5qDIoQ6AEwBHoECAAQSA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Quemcunque%20miserum%20videris%20hominem%20scias%22&amp;f=false) (about Latin phrases and their translations) translates as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;whenever you see a fellow creature in distress, remember that he is a man&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice there seems to be no text containing the phrase you mention (which doesn't make much sense, actually). The version with _quemcunque_ is the motto of the [Royal Life Saving Society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Life_Saving_Society_UK), founded in 1891.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Wiki](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RLSS_Bronze_Medallion.jpg), it translates as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whomever you see in distress, recognize his humanity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, according to the [website of the society itself](http://www.rlsscommonwealth.org/about/), it translates as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whomsoever you see in distress, recognise in them a fellow human being &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, there is no a unique translation (not surprising, as far as I can tell), but you get a clear idea of what the phrase means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3uofm.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21099" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6347" RevisionGUID="9b4b8d1a-a8f7-4a8e-a46a-1d0e5d46d1a0" CreationDate="2018-05-02T12:09:20.467" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|christianity|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6390" RevisionGUID="d9e18b96-dc4f-426c-b1e0-0f143d4bb872" CreationDate="2018-05-02T12:12:52.363" UserId="79" Text="The Hellenistic era was launched by Alexander the Great, and his death is usually defined as the starting point.&#xD;&#xA;The Greek word *Hellenes* (*Ἕλληνες*) was in use before, during, and after the Hellenistic era as far as I can tell.&#xD;&#xA;I wonder whether Alexander's conquests and the onset of the Hellenistic era had an effect on the meaning of the Greek word itself.&#xD;&#xA;Was there a change in meaning from the time before Alexander to the time after him in the meaning of *Ἕλληνες* or related words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21101" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6390" RevisionGUID="d9e18b96-dc4f-426c-b1e0-0f143d4bb872" CreationDate="2018-05-02T12:12:52.363" UserId="79" Text="Did Alexander the Great change the meaning of &quot;Hellenes&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21102" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6390" RevisionGUID="d9e18b96-dc4f-426c-b1e0-0f143d4bb872" CreationDate="2018-05-02T12:12:52.363" UserId="79" Text="|greek|meaning|language-evolution|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6391" RevisionGUID="bc5ac079-c730-4f02-87fd-88576a8f5148" CreationDate="2018-05-02T14:20:24.303" UserId="522" Text="Just in case ***nominem*** was an intentional/ smart replacement for ***hominem,***  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new version is more sociable than Seneca's original;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quemcunque miserum videris nominem scias.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whoever you may see in distress...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *miser, miserum (accusative)* could mean unhappy, or unfortunate, wretched, pitiful, distressed, in distress.  (Smiths Dictionary 1895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...get to know their name." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6391" RevisionGUID="2c5eb6e4-f9a3-478a-8b9d-4ba9ae3304f5" CreationDate="2018-05-02T15:02:05.500" UserId="522" Comment="hasty retreat. As picasso said, if you can't hide a fault, exaggerate it" Text="Just in case ***nominem*** was an intentional/ smart replacement for ***hominem,***  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new version is more media-savvy than Seneca's original;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quemcunque miserum videris nominem scias.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whoever you may see in distress...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *miser, miserum (accusative)* could mean unhappy, or unfortunate, wretched, pitiful, distressed, in distress.  (Smiths Dictionary 1895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...let me make them famous, you know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nomino* **II** make famous, to nominate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(and *scias* could be those 'knowing women.')" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6391" RevisionGUID="ac893f8b-fbda-4c5e-9216-a612fb105642" CreationDate="2018-05-02T15:09:26.263" UserId="522" Comment="update" Text="Just in case ***nominem*** was an intentional/ smart replacement for ***hominem,***  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new version is more media-savvy than Seneca's original;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quemcunque miserum videris nominem scias.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whoever you may see in distress...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *miser, miserum (accusative)* could mean unhappy, or unfortunate, wretched, pitiful, distressed, in distress.  (Smiths Dictionary 1895)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...let me make them famous, you know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nomino* **II** make famous, to nominate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(and *scias* could be those 'knowing women.')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or it could have been an attempt to say (this was my first thought): *nomen scias,* 'Get to know their name.'  That would be the sociable response to someone miserable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6392" RevisionGUID="b8d31cae-7789-4d3a-bb98-a9d08c0e81cd" CreationDate="2018-05-02T15:22:07.363" UserId="1459" Text="Sed translatione error hic est? In Genesis 25:11 ([Vulgata](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+25&amp;version=VULGATE)) dicit: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;et post obitum illius benedixit Deus Isaac filio eius qui habitabat iuxta puteum nomine Viventis et videntis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anglicus autem ([Douay Rheims](http://www.drbo.org/chapter/01025.htm)) dicit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And after his death, God blessed Isaac his son, who dwelt by the well named Of the living and seeing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tempus verbum autem [habitabat](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/habitabat) &quot;imperfect&quot; est, neque &quot;perfect&quot;, quod Anglicus translatione (&quot;dwelt&quot;). Credo &quot;was dwelling/living&quot; melior/verum translatione est. Hoc est rectam? Etiam, in Anglicus versum, &quot;perfect&quot; tempus verbum perfecte legit!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am confused withthe translation of _habitabat_. The English translation is in the perfect indicative (dwelt, or lived on other translations), rather than in the perfect indicative, as it is supposed to be. Is this an error of translation? Notice that the English verse using the perfect mood makes perfect sense!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21107" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6392" RevisionGUID="b8d31cae-7789-4d3a-bb98-a9d08c0e81cd" CreationDate="2018-05-02T15:22:07.363" UserId="1459" Text="habitabat = dwelt?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21108" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6392" RevisionGUID="b8d31cae-7789-4d3a-bb98-a9d08c0e81cd" CreationDate="2018-05-02T15:22:07.363" UserId="1459" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6392" RevisionGUID="b4caf3ec-647c-4252-8830-9b61d4f3ee68" CreationDate="2018-05-02T15:27:54.837" UserId="1459" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Sed translatione error hic est? In Genesis 25:11 ([Vulgata](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+25&amp;version=VULGATE)) dicit: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;et post obitum illius benedixit Deus Isaac filio eius qui habitabat iuxta puteum nomine Viventis et videntis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anglicus autem ([Douay Rheims](http://www.drbo.org/chapter/01025.htm)) dicit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And after his death, God blessed Isaac his son, who dwelt by the well named Of the living and seeing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tempus verbum autem [habitabat](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/habitabat) &quot;imperfect&quot; est, neque &quot;perfect&quot;, quod Anglicus translatione (&quot;dwelt&quot;). Credo &quot;was dwelling/living&quot; melior/verum translatione est. Hoc est rectam? Etiam, in Anglicus versum, &quot;perfect&quot; tempus verbum perfecte legit!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am confused with the translation of _habitabat_. The English translation is in the perfect indicative (dwelt, or lived on other translations), rather than in the perfect indicative, as it is supposed to be. Is this an error of translation? Notice that the English verse using the perfect mood makes perfect sense!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6393" RevisionGUID="6972fe1b-1932-4de9-9b27-8d86fa4f03e0" CreationDate="2018-05-02T17:24:59.830" UserId="406" Text="This is an idiom peculiar to Latin: *habitāre* in the imperfect means &quot;dwelt&quot;, and in the perfect means &quot;used to dwell (but no longer does)&quot;. I've seen it frequently in the imperfect, but almost never in the perfect. That is, in Latin, &quot;dwelling&quot; is seen as an action which has to take place over a period of time, rather than just at an instant. So the imperfect is more commonly used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Septuagint, on the other hand, uses the Greek word *κατῴκησεν* *katō'kēsen*, which is in the aorist tense (roughly equivalent to the Latin perfect). So it seems that the Vulgate is simply using a specifically Latin idiom." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6392" RevisionGUID="e7b80cec-b47e-4339-95b6-2c0acb2dbd17" CreationDate="2018-05-02T17:36:25.283" UserId="79" Comment="Attempted to improve the Latin. Feel free to make further edits or rollback!" Text="Estne hic error translationis? Genesis 25:11 ([Vulgata](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+25&amp;version=VULGATE)) dicit: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;et post obitum illius benedixit Deus Isaac filio eius qui habitabat iuxta puteum nomine Viventis et videntis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anglice autem ([Douay Rheims](http://www.drbo.org/chapter/01025.htm)) dicitur:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And after his death, God blessed Isaac his son, who dwelt by the well named Of the living and seeing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tempus verbi autem [habitabat](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/habitabat) &quot;imperfect&quot; est, neque &quot;perfect&quot;, quod in Anglica translatione (&quot;dwelt&quot;). Credo &quot;was dwelling/living&quot; meliorem/veram translationem esse. Hoc est recte? Etiam, in Anglico verso, &quot;perfect&quot; tempus verbum perfecte legit!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am confused with the translation of _habitabat_. The English translation is in the perfect indicative (dwelt, or lived on other translations), rather than in the perfect indicative, as it is supposed to be. Is this an error of translation? Notice that the English verse using the perfect mood makes perfect sense!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21112" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6392" RevisionGUID="e7b80cec-b47e-4339-95b6-2c0acb2dbd17" CreationDate="2018-05-02T17:36:25.283" UserId="79" Comment="Attempted to improve the Latin. Feel free to make further edits or rollback!" Text="|sentence-translation|translation-explanation|vulgata|tenses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6394" RevisionGUID="e74cd374-545d-421f-89c1-d425f5a7632c" CreationDate="2018-05-02T17:41:47.117" UserId="79" Text="I am not sure I parse your question right.&#xD;&#xA;Do you suggest that *dwelt* is in perfect tense?&#xD;&#xA;Both *habitabat* and *dwelt* are in what I have been taught to call the imperfect tense.&#xD;&#xA;(I take it the English equivalent is called past simple, but never encountered that terminology when studying English.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin imperfect describes past circumstances, not a sharp action, and it is really the only possible Latin tense for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;This could have been translated as &quot;was living&quot; or &quot;was dwelling&quot; in English, but it may have felt unnecessarily heavy.&#xD;&#xA;In this context it seems to me that &quot;lived&quot; or &quot;dwelt&quot; communicate the same idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6396" RevisionGUID="5b4c2409-5bfe-4cad-b762-6e37a26fbb43" CreationDate="2018-05-02T18:41:50.633" UserId="2602" Text="While trying to begin to read Marracci's 'Refutatio Alcorani' (https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_-KZEAAAAcAAJ), I noticed that certain words were written with an accent grave on the vowel of their last syllable. Thinking this was a Late Latin feature, I searched for 'accent grave late latin' and found your question here on the Latin language version of something called a stack exchange, so I've just subscribed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that Saint Augustine in your quote is describing the same phenomenon that we can see consistently marked in later Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like you, I was surprised to see a reference to word-final stress, because I had always learned that 'Latin accent falls on the penult if it is long, and on the antepenult if the penult is short'. Even the otherwise brilliant Ørberg's Lingua Latina doesn't teach that the 'ultima' or 'oxytone' syllable can be accented as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess asking 'why' some Latin adverbs have stress on the final syllable is like asking why Latin uses the letter p: it is just the way it is. You could find a Proto-Indo-European 'reason' for it, but this won't explain 'why' this was the case in Proto-Indo-European itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it would be nice to find a pattern, or to describe exactly what the way it is, is. So I did a quick check of the kind of words that have their last syllable accented, and this is what I found: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in è ##&#xD;&#xA;Parcè, ferè, penè, propè, validissimè, doctè, validè, Arabicè, Latinè, Italicè, sanè, eruditè, praecipuè, probè, publicè, novissimè, penitissimè, nervosè, temerè, strenuè, modestè, fortassè, ingenuè, minimè, modestè, quotidiè, impunè, saepè, nempè, exactè, obnixè (the adverb 'ponè' would belong to this class).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in ò ##&#xD;&#xA;Adeò, ideò, verò, omninò, rarò, multò, primò, idcircò, postremò, porrò, mutuò, imò, tantummodò.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in ùs ##&#xD;&#xA;Penitùs, prorsùs, promptiùs, faciliùs, superiùs, copiosiùs, potiùs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in ùm ##&#xD;&#xA;Verùm ('but', not 'true thing'), solùm ('only', not 'only thing'), tantùm ('only', not 'so much'), primùm ('firstly', not 'first thing'), nimirùm, potissimùm, demùm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that at least all adverbs in -o, -e, -us and -um, are accented on the last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other adverbs, conjunctions and prepositions ##&#xD;&#xA;Diù, unà, praetereà, contrà (exercitum immensum, but contra se?), frustrà, quòd ('because' or 'that', not 'what'), hìc ('here', not 'this (masc. nom.)'), illùc, quàm ('than' and 'how ...', not 'what (fem. acc.)'), tàm, cùm ('when' or 'though', not 'with'), licèt, à, è.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these words only have a final accent with certain meanings, while they don't with other meanings. I doubt that Latin speakers consistently added accents to certain final vowels merely to distinguish homophones in writing, if there were no actual difference in pronunciation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that even some monosyllabic words are 'accented'. I don't know whether it means that there is some type of stress on à, è, hìc, quàm, tàm, cùm, and quòd, relative to nearby words, or whether it means that the final accent in polysyllabic words is not the same as in other languages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure that this research has been done by others in more detail, but for some reason it hasn't reached any of the Latin language books and classes at my high school and university, while the living and active knowledge of Latin pronunciation shown by Late Latin writers has been lost." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6392" RevisionGUID="1d425f7a-c456-4d50-8de9-2b685defc9f4" CreationDate="2018-05-02T19:57:45.940" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Estne hic error translationis? Genesis 25:11 ([Vulgata](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+25&amp;version=VULGATE)) dicit: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;et post obitum illius benedixit Deus Isaac filio eius qui habitabat iuxta puteum nomine Viventis et videntis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anglice autem ([Douay Rheims](http://www.drbo.org/chapter/01025.htm)) dicitur:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And after his death, God blessed Isaac his son, who dwelt by the well named Of the living and seeing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tempus verbi autem [habitabat](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/habitabat) &quot;imperfect&quot; est, neque &quot;perfect&quot;, quod in Anglica translatione (&quot;dwelt&quot;). Credo &quot;was dwelling/living&quot; meliorem/veram translationem esse. Hoc est recte? Etiam, in Anglico verso, &quot;perfect&quot; tempus verbum perfecte legit!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am confused with the translation of _habitabat_. The English translation is in the perfect indicative (dwelt, or lived on other translations), rather than in the imperfect indicative, as it is supposed to be. Is this an error of translation? Notice that the English verse using the perfect mood makes perfect sense!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="54e9969f-5ef9-4353-9d10-2a30ef1e113c" CreationDate="2018-05-02T21:24:39.660" UserId="9" Text="This is just a guess, but I wonder if there may be a connection to the phenomenon of *cliticization.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't read any recent literature that gives a full explanation of this phenomenon and how it might relate to adverb stress, but Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in certain expressions, disyllabic verb forms with light initial syllables may have been pronounced without stress, as enclitics, with the last syllable of the preceding word being stressed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought this might be relevant because adverbs often come immediately before the verb in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen mentions the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds utrắque, plerắque, after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="10b41163-35b7-4123-8cc5-f004344c9b7f" CreationDate="2018-05-02T21:29:44.263" UserId="9" Comment="added 251 characters in body" Text="This is just a guess, but I wonder if there may be a connection to the phenomenon of *cliticization.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't read any recent literature that gives a full explanation of this phenomenon and how it might relate to adverb stress, but Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in certain expressions, disyllabic verb forms with light initial syllables may have been pronounced without stress, as enclitics, with the last syllable of the preceding word being stressed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought this might be relevant because adverbs often come immediately before the verb in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen mentions the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So maybe it's possible that the pattern of stressing the last syllable of certain adverbs originated in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="694e86d4-1c31-4358-bc81-6ee3d60f4b47" CreationDate="2018-05-02T21:37:26.830" UserId="9" Comment="added 251 characters in body" Text="This is just a guess, but I wonder if there may be a connection to the phenomenon of *cliticization.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't read any recent literature that gives a full explanation of this phenomenon and how it might relate to adverb stress, but Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in certain word-groups, disyllabic verb forms with light initial syllables may have been pronounced without stress, as enclitics,  with the last syllable of the preceding word apparently being stressed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought this might be relevant because adverbs often come immediately before the verb in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen mentions the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So maybe it's possible that the pattern of stressing the last syllable of certain adverbs originated in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="bb4fd1fe-f6b4-4e4f-8926-41530ebdbd76" CreationDate="2018-05-02T22:05:11.813" UserId="9" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="This is just a guess, but I wonder if there may be a connection to the phenomenon of *cliticization.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't read any recent literature that gives a full explanation of this phenomenon and how it might relate to adverb stress, but Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in certain word-groups, disyllabic verb forms with light initial syllables may have been pronounced without stress, as enclitics,  with the last syllable of the preceding word apparently being stressed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought this might be relevant because adverbs often come immediately before the verb in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen mentions the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So maybe it's possible that the pattern of stressing the last syllable of certain adverbs originated in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="95d3a5ab-15d0-4b29-826f-331fef4a6fba" CreationDate="2018-05-02T22:33:07.080" UserId="9" Comment="added 2348 characters in body" Text="*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just a guess, but I wonder if there may be a connection to the phenomenon of *cliticization.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't read any recent literature that gives a full explanation of this phenomenon and how it might relate to adverb stress, but Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in certain word-groups, disyllabic verb forms with light initial syllables may have been pronounced without stress, as enclitics,  with the last syllable of the preceding word apparently being stressed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought this might be relevant because adverbs often come immediately before the verb in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen mentions the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So maybe it's possible that the pattern (if it really existed) of stressing the last syllable of certain adverbs originated in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="8d67769a-285a-4e22-973b-0917d0460624" CreationDate="2018-05-02T22:49:26.330" UserId="9" Comment="added 275 characters in body" Text="*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just a guess, but I wonder if there may be a connection to the phenomenon of *cliticization.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't read any recent literature that gives a full explanation of this phenomenon and how it might relate to adverb stress, but Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words; specifically, in certain prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light initial syllables, the verbs may have been pronounced without stress, as enclitics (and consequently, the stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought this might be relevant because adverbs often come immediately before the verb in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen mentions the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So maybe it's possible that the pattern (if it really existed) of stressing the last syllable of certain adverbs originated in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="801c5cfc-6870-467a-9a49-e339f59f67d6" CreationDate="2018-05-02T22:54:49.593" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just a guess, but I wonder if there may be a connection to the phenomenon of *cliticization.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't read any recent literature that gives a full explanation of this phenomenon and how it might relate to adverb stress, but Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, the stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought this might be relevant because adverbs often come immediately before the verb in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen mentions the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So maybe it's possible that the pattern (if it really existed) of stressing the last syllable of certain adverbs originated in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="89fa80b4-3762-4100-bd72-c12acf1f6ac2" CreationDate="2018-05-02T22:59:58.337" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just a guess, but I wonder if there may be a connection to the phenomenon of *cliticization.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't read any recent literature that gives a full explanation of this phenomenon and how it might relate to adverb stress, but Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought this might be relevant because adverbs often come immediately before the verb in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen mentions the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So maybe it's possible that the pattern (if it really existed) of stressing the last syllable of certain adverbs originated in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="998b17bf-870a-41b4-bde8-43aa8f6157be" CreationDate="2018-05-02T23:24:43.647" UserId="9" Comment="added 1777 characters in body" Text="*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just speculation, as I haven't seen any literature that explicitly connects the putative adverb final-stress phenomenon with possible lack of stress on the following word, but I wonder if there may be a connection to the phenomenon of *cliticization.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’. His data suggest that ‘the monosyllabic particles...like all other independent words, have originally an accent, as in fact the grammarians expressly declare; if they very frequently lose this accent, this happens simply because they are subordinated in sense to the other words of the sentence and, at the same time, in the majority of cases, cannot preserve their accent through the operation of the three-syllable law’ (1904: 160).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought this might be relevant because adverbs often come immediately before the verb in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen mentions the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So maybe it's possible that the pattern (if it really existed) of stressing the last syllable of certain adverbs originated in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="df5509dd-93ec-4e1d-aa6e-3226999e17b6" CreationDate="2018-05-03T02:06:43.153" UserId="9" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just speculation, as I haven't seen any literature that explicitly connects the putative adverb final-stress phenomenon with possible lack of stress on the following word, but I wonder if there may be a connection to the phenomenon of *cliticization.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’. His data suggest that ‘the monosyllabic particles...like all other independent words, have originally an accent, as in fact the grammarians expressly declare; if they very frequently lose this accent, this happens simply because they are subordinated in sense to the other words of the sentence and, at the same time, in the majority of cases, cannot preserve their accent through the operation of the three-syllable law’ (1904: 160).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought this might be relevant because adverbs often come immediately before the verb in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen mentions the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So maybe it's possible that the pattern (if it really existed) of stressing the last syllable of certain adverbs originated in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="060e79e5-6e7b-4a59-8f65-e4575041f597" CreationDate="2018-05-03T02:26:24.597" UserId="9" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen an explanation for this, beyond the mention of the supposed value in avoiding homophony with words belonging to other categories that is referenced in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just speculation, as I haven't seen any literature that explicitly connects the putative adverb final-stress phenomenon with possible lack of stress on the following word, but I wonder if there may be a connection to the phenomenon of *cliticization.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’. His data suggest that ‘the monosyllabic particles...like all other independent words, have originally an accent, as in fact the grammarians expressly declare; if they very frequently lose this accent, this happens simply because they are subordinated in sense to the other words of the sentence and, at the same time, in the majority of cases, cannot preserve their accent through the operation of the three-syllable law’ (1904: 160).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought this might be relevant because adverbs often come immediately before the verb in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen mentions the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So maybe it's possible that the pattern (if it really existed) of stressing the last syllable of certain adverbs originated in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="efa99f26-3bbb-48ce-b512-1faed3b8eb39" CreationDate="2018-05-03T03:16:41.957" UserId="9" Comment="added 3687 characters in body" Text="##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [as the Priscian passage quoted above] are to be found in Donatus's *Ars maior* 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and Priscian's *Inst. gram* (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too, when he discusses (and rejects) the notion that the need to distinguish between words sometimes requires a shift of accent: 'Ceterum scio quosdam eruditos, nonnullus etiam grammaticos sic docere ac loqui ut propter  quaedam uocum discrimina uerbum interim acuto sono finiant [..]; quod tamen in aduerbiis fere solis ac pronominibus uindicant, in ceteris ueterem legem secuntur' (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati* (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen an explanation for this, beyond the mention of the supposed value in avoiding homophony with words belonging to other categories that is referenced in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just speculation, as I haven't seen any literature that explicitly connects the putative adverb final-stress phenomenon with possible lack of stress on the following word, but I wonder if there may be a connection to the phenomenon of *cliticization.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’. His data suggest that ‘the monosyllabic particles...like all other independent words, have originally an accent, as in fact the grammarians expressly declare; if they very frequently lose this accent, this happens simply because they are subordinated in sense to the other words of the sentence and, at the same time, in the majority of cases, cannot preserve their accent through the operation of the three-syllable law’ (1904: 160).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought this might be relevant because adverbs often come immediately before the verb in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen mentions the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So maybe it's possible that the pattern (if it really existed) of stressing the last syllable of certain adverbs originated in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="24cf6b59-c82a-4341-829e-2893129c4129" CreationDate="2018-05-03T04:00:33.083" UserId="9" Comment="added 798 characters in body" Text="##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [as the Priscian passage quoted above] are to be found in Donatus's *Ars maior* 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and Priscian's *Inst. gram* (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too, when he discusses (and rejects) the notion that the need to distinguish between words sometimes requires a shift of accent: 'Ceterum scio quosdam eruditos, nonnullus etiam grammaticos sic docere ac loqui ut propter  quaedam uocum discrimina uerbum interim acuto sono finiant [..]; quod tamen in aduerbiis fere solis ac pronominibus uindicant, in ceteris ueterem legem secuntur' (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati* (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen an explanation for this, beyond the mention of the supposed value in avoiding homophony with words belonging to other categories that is referenced in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just speculation, as I haven't seen any literature that explicitly connects the putative adverb final-stress phenomenon with possible lack of stress on the following word, but I wonder if there may be a connection to the phenomenon of *cliticization.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’. His data suggest that ‘the monosyllabic particles...like all other independent words, have originally an accent, as in fact the grammarians expressly declare; if they very frequently lose this accent, this happens simply because they are subordinated in sense to the other words of the sentence and, at the same time, in the majority of cases, cannot preserve their accent through the operation of the three-syllable law’ (1904: 160).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought this might be relevant because adverbs often come immediately before the verb in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen mentions the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So maybe it's possible that the pattern (if it really existed) of stressing the last syllable of certain adverbs originated in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical work&quot; that Allen alludes to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="a7fbb58e-1692-492a-907b-32a7bed323d7" CreationDate="2018-05-03T04:06:16.180" UserId="9" Comment="added 798 characters in body" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. There seems to be some idea that descriptions of accent in old Latin texts are unreliable because they may have been influenced by people's ideas about Greek accentuation, or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [as the Priscian passage quoted above] are to be found in Donatus's *Ars maior* 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and Priscian's *Inst. gram* (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too, when he discusses (and rejects) the notion that the need to distinguish between words sometimes requires a shift of accent: 'Ceterum scio quosdam eruditos, nonnullus etiam grammaticos sic docere ac loqui ut propter  quaedam uocum discrimina uerbum interim acuto sono finiant [..]; quod tamen in aduerbiis fere solis ac pronominibus uindicant, in ceteris ueterem legem secuntur' (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati* (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen an explanation for this, beyond the mention of the supposed value in avoiding homophony with words belonging to other categories that is referenced in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just speculation, as I haven't seen any literature that explicitly connects the putative adverb final-stress phenomenon with possible lack of stress on the following word, but I wonder if there may be a connection to the phenomenon of *cliticization.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’. His data suggest that ‘the monosyllabic particles...like all other independent words, have originally an accent, as in fact the grammarians expressly declare; if they very frequently lose this accent, this happens simply because they are subordinated in sense to the other words of the sentence and, at the same time, in the majority of cases, cannot preserve their accent through the operation of the three-syllable law’ (1904: 160).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought this might be relevant because adverbs often come immediately before the verb in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen mentions the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So maybe it's possible that the pattern (if it really existed) of stressing the last syllable of certain adverbs originated in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5747" RevisionGUID="81a3aee6-3a78-4921-97b2-6eb5bcc61823" CreationDate="2018-05-03T04:09:20.517" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="TO DEFINE WHAT IS AT ISSUE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Augustine is focusing on the inflexion, the rise in pitch, *acute, aigu;* in contrast to the lowering of the voice.  &#xD;&#xA;The English phrase 'at least,' is iambic (both in the sense: unstressed/stressed; and also short/long). Now, when it is used as a conjunction, provisory, the final syllable is acute:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had fifty pounds, at léast I thought I did. *(acute)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;But when it is adverbial, qualifying (the number), the final syllable is grave, downward inflexion:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fifty pounds at lèàst  *(grave)* would be needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *or*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At lèàst *(grave)* fifty pounds would be needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example in English anapaests can be heard in '20, 21, 22, ...24, 25.'  'Twenty-one' is acute, 'twenty-five' grave on the final syllable.    &#xD;&#xA;The analysis you quote is talking about stress, as if it were inseparable from pitch. Cloth ears.  &#xD;&#xA;There must be lots of examples of acute/grave variants; it's the comment by Augustine's MASTER that is rare.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="ca5888db-3442-4d7f-9db6-d86c5e7fc984" CreationDate="2018-05-03T04:14:46.263" UserId="9" Comment="added 278 characters in body" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. There seems to be some idea that descriptions of accent in old Latin texts are unreliable because they may have been influenced by people's ideas about Greek accentuation, or something like that. And the question of how much we can learn about stress from Latin poetry is apparently unsolved to this day. So there seems to be relatively little uncontroversial evidence about aspects of Latin stress and prosody beyond the well-known penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [as the Priscian passage quoted above] are to be found in Donatus's *Ars maior* 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and Priscian's *Inst. gram* (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too, when he discusses (and rejects) the notion that the need to distinguish between words sometimes requires a shift of accent: 'Ceterum scio quosdam eruditos, nonnullus etiam grammaticos sic docere ac loqui ut propter  quaedam uocum discrimina uerbum interim acuto sono finiant [..]; quod tamen in aduerbiis fere solis ac pronominibus uindicant, in ceteris ueterem legem secuntur' (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati* (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen an explanation for this, beyond the mention of the supposed value in avoiding homophony with words belonging to other categories that is referenced in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just speculation, as I haven't seen any literature that explicitly connects the putative adverb final-stress phenomenon with possible lack of stress on the following word, but I wonder if there may be a connection to the phenomenon of *cliticization.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’. His data suggest that ‘the monosyllabic particles...like all other independent words, have originally an accent, as in fact the grammarians expressly declare; if they very frequently lose this accent, this happens simply because they are subordinated in sense to the other words of the sentence and, at the same time, in the majority of cases, cannot preserve their accent through the operation of the three-syllable law’ (1904: 160).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought this might be relevant because adverbs often come immediately before the verb in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen mentions the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So maybe it's possible that the pattern (if it really existed) of stressing the last syllable of certain adverbs originated in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="3fc1afac-0388-4802-a084-461d2ceb9e26" CreationDate="2018-05-03T04:51:01.680" UserId="9" Comment="added 423 characters in body" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. There seems to be some idea that descriptions of accent in old Latin texts are unreliable because they may have been influenced by people's ideas about Greek accentuation, or something like that. And the question of how much we can learn about stress from Latin poetry is apparently unsolved to this day. So there seems to be relatively little uncontroversial evidence about aspects of Latin stress and prosody beyond the well-known penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [as the Priscian passage quoted above] are to be found in Donatus's *Ars maior* 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and Priscian's *Inst. gram* (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too, when he discusses (and rejects) the notion that the need to distinguish between words sometimes requires a shift of accent: 'Ceterum scio quosdam eruditos, nonnullus etiam grammaticos sic docere ac loqui ut propter  quaedam uocum discrimina uerbum interim acuto sono finiant [..]; quod tamen in aduerbiis fere solis ac pronominibus uindicant, in ceteris ueterem legem secuntur' (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati* (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen an explanation for this, beyond the mention of the supposed value in avoiding homophony with words belonging to other categories that is referenced in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just speculation, as I haven't seen any literature that explicitly connects the putative adverb final-stress phenomenon with possible lack of stress on the following word, but I wonder if there may be a connection to the phenomenon of *cliticization.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’. His data suggest that ‘the monosyllabic particles...like all other independent words, have originally an accent, as in fact the grammarians expressly declare; if they very frequently lose this accent, this happens simply because they are subordinated in sense to the other words of the sentence and, at the same time, in the majority of cases, cannot preserve their accent through the operation of the three-syllable law’ (1904: 160).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought this might be relevant because adverbs often come immediately before the verb in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen mentions the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So maybe it's possible that the pattern (if it really existed) of stressing the last syllable of certain adverbs originated in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson also has a section about verbs where he says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a sequence of iambic word followed by iambic verb (the type *pater petit*) barely ever fills a measure of Plautine verse, as discussed in Ch. 3, which indicates rather strongly that such a sequence was not prosodically equivalent to a four-syllable word of the same metrical shape, and that therefore the verb did not cliticize to the preceding word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 265)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="ae404c25-cc51-4a32-859f-3600ba840b28" CreationDate="2018-05-03T05:06:31.497" UserId="9" Comment="added 191 characters in body" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. There seems to be some idea that descriptions of accent in old Latin texts are unreliable because they may have been influenced by people's ideas about Greek accentuation, or something like that. And the question of how much we can learn about stress from Latin poetry is apparently unsolved to this day. So there seems to be relatively little uncontroversial evidence about aspects of Latin stress and prosody beyond the well-known penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [as the Priscian passage quoted above] are to be found in Donatus's *Ars maior* 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and Priscian's *Inst. gram* (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too, when he discusses (and rejects) the notion that the need to distinguish between words sometimes requires a shift of accent: 'Ceterum scio quosdam eruditos, nonnullus etiam grammaticos sic docere ac loqui ut propter  quaedam uocum discrimina uerbum interim acuto sono finiant [..]; quod tamen in aduerbiis fere solis ac pronominibus uindicant, in ceteris ueterem legem secuntur' (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati* (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen an explanation for this, beyond the mention of the supposed value in avoiding homophony with words belonging to other categories that is referenced in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just speculation, as I haven't seen any literature that explicitly connects the putative adverb final-stress phenomenon with possible lack of stress on the following word, but I wonder if there may be a connection to the phenomenon of *cliticization.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’. His data suggest that ‘the monosyllabic particles...like all other independent words, have originally an accent, as in fact the grammarians expressly declare; if they very frequently lose this accent, this happens simply because they are subordinated in sense to the other words of the sentence and, at the same time, in the majority of cases, cannot preserve their accent through the operation of the three-syllable law’ (1904: 160).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought this might be relevant because adverbs often come immediately before the verb in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen mentions the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So maybe it's possible that the pattern (if it really existed) of stressing the last syllable of certain adverbs originated in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson also has a section about verbs where he says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a sequence of iambic word followed by iambic verb (the type *pater petit*) barely ever fills a measure of Plautine verse, as discussed in Ch. 3, which indicates rather strongly that such a sequence was not prosodically equivalent to a four-syllable word of the same metrical shape, and that therefore the verb did not cliticize to the preceding word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 265)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Fortson doesn't seem to discuss adverbs in much detail, and it seems somewhat plausible to me that an adverb would be more likely than a noun to univerbate with a following verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6378" RevisionGUID="fcf4c3be-dce1-4aa6-b908-293e1df7e193" CreationDate="2018-05-03T06:29:57.260" UserId="1987" Comment="added 9 characters in body; added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Reading the Book of Mark, I come across these references to Jesus:&#xA;&#xA;Mark 1:24 Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ&#xA;&#xA;Mark 14:67 τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ&#xA;&#xA;Mark 16:6 τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν&#xA;&#xA;And elsewhere in the Bible the common:&#xA;&#xA;Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος&#xA;&#xA;These geonyms are common also in Classical Greek, such as:&#xA;Φίλιππος Β΄ ὁ Μακεδών (Philip II of Macedon),&#xA;Ἀθηναγόρας ὁ Ἀθηναῖος (Athenagoras of Athens)&#xA;&#xA;Can someone please explain to me **in Classical Greek Grammar** when to use the article **ὁ** and when to use the genitive **τοῦ** and when to use the accusative **τὸν** and *when to exclude these articles altogether* (eg. Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ, Maria Magdalene, Saulos Tarseus)? And how does this affect the case/suffix (eg. Ναζαρ-ηνέ, Ναζαρη-νοῦ, Ναζαρη-νὸν)?&#xA;&#xA;As a hypothetical example to demonstrate please could you write the hypothetical name &quot;Ἰωάννης τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ&quot; in it's various mutations.&#xA;&#xA;(Are the articles τοῦ &amp; τὸν only used when the person in question is being referred to but their name isn't mentioned, so that &quot;Ἰωάννης τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ&quot; would be incorrect and should rightly be &quot;Ἰωάννης ὁ Ναζαρηνοῦ&quot;?)&#xA;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21138" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6378" RevisionGUID="fcf4c3be-dce1-4aa6-b908-293e1df7e193" CreationDate="2018-05-03T06:29:57.260" UserId="1987" Comment="added 9 characters in body; added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="The Articles ὁ/τοῦ/τὸν in Classical Greek Names (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6398" RevisionGUID="73b8a6c0-6f4a-4d06-92c9-7d2bf1524fec" CreationDate="2018-05-03T13:16:42.243" UserId="39" Text="a short screenshot from [Hendrickson 2017][1] so far - more to come later:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://brill.com/view/title/34288&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Kf1xm.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6399" RevisionGUID="31da646d-20bf-40a8-81d3-4b1e9868b96c" CreationDate="2018-05-03T14:25:32.763" UserId="79" Text="There is a legal thing called arbitration in modern world, and the Romans seem to have had the word [*arbitratio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=arbitratio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;I wonder whether the modern arbitration and the Roman *arbitratio* (and the related words like *arbiter*) are similar in any meaningful way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand correctly, modern arbitration is all about using a third party which is not a court to solve disputes.&#xD;&#xA;Does *arbitratio*, *arbiter*, or other related words have this flavour at all?&#xD;&#xA;Or should I just think that one of the many legal Latin words was selected to name this modern legal arrangement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was inspired by the [recently announced](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/309746/321340) change to terms of service on this network (including Latin Language Stack Exchange).&#xD;&#xA;The changes introduce arbitration, and that has caused quite a lot of unrest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21141" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6399" RevisionGUID="31da646d-20bf-40a8-81d3-4b1e9868b96c" CreationDate="2018-05-03T14:25:32.763" UserId="79" Text="How does ancient and modern arbitration differ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21142" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6399" RevisionGUID="31da646d-20bf-40a8-81d3-4b1e9868b96c" CreationDate="2018-05-03T14:25:32.763" UserId="79" Text="|word-comparison|modern-life|legal-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21143" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4625" RevisionGUID="efa7eefb-c7ba-4d01-99ac-0e747cdd8891" CreationDate="2018-05-03T15:08:56.957" UserId="648" Comment="tags edited" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21144" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4625" RevisionGUID="efa7eefb-c7ba-4d01-99ac-0e747cdd8891" CreationDate="2018-05-03T15:08:56.957" Comment="Proposed by 648 approved by 79 edit id of 232" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6396" RevisionGUID="c9bdc5ce-a512-4c60-9eb0-b566786ce027" CreationDate="2018-05-03T15:51:07.920" UserId="2602" Comment="improved formatting, corrections, adding a point" Text="It seems that Saint Augustine in your quote is describing the same phenomenon that we can see consistently marked in later Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While trying to begin to read Marracci's 'Refutatio Alcorani' (https://books.google.nl/books?id=ye40VChDL6gC and https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_-KZEAAAAcAAJ), I noticed that certain words were written with an accent grave on the vowel of their last syllable. Thinking this was a Late Latin feature, I searched for 'accent grave late latin' and found your question here on the Latin language version of something called a stack exchange, so I subscribed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like you, I was surprised to see a reference to word-final stress, because I had always learned that 'Latin accent falls on the penult if it is long, and on the antepenult if the penult is short'. Even the otherwise brilliant Ørberg's Lingua Latina doesn't teach that the 'ultima' or 'oxytone' syllable can be accented as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess asking 'why' some Latin adverbs have stress on the final syllable is like asking why Latin uses the letter p: it is just the way it is. You could find a Proto-Indo-European 'reason' for it, but this won't explain 'why' this was the case in Proto-Indo-European itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it would be nice to find a pattern, or to describe exactly what the way it is, is. So I did a quick check of the kind of words that have their last syllable accented in Marracci's 'Praefatio ad lectorem' (on Google Books), a sample of competent Late Latin, and this is what I found: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in è ##&#xD;&#xA;Parcè, ferè, penè, propè, validissimè, doctè, validè, Arabicè, Latinè, Italicè, sanè, eruditè, praecipuè, probè, publicè, novissimè, penitissimè, nervosè, temerè, strenuè, modestè, fortassè, ingenuè, minimè, modestè, quotidiè, impunè, saepè, nempè, exactè, obnixè (the adverb 'ponè' would belong to this class).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in ò ##&#xD;&#xA;Adeò, ideò, verò, omninò, rarò, multò, primò, idcircò, postremò, porrò, mutuò, imò, tantummodò.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in ùs ##&#xD;&#xA;Penitùs, prorsùs, promptiùs, faciliùs, superiùs, copiosiùs, potiùs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So not just some, but in fact *all* adverbs in -o, -e and -us are accented on the last syllable.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs and conjunctions ending in ùm ##&#xD;&#xA;Verùm ('but', not 'true thing'), solùm ('only', not 'only thing'), tantùm ('only', not 'so much'), primùm ('firstly', not 'first thing'), nimirùm, potissimùm, demùm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other adverbs, conjunctions and prepositions ##&#xD;&#xA;Diù, unà, praetereà, contrà (exercitum immensum, but contra se?), frustrà, quòd ('because' or 'that', not 'what'), hìc ('here', not 'this (masc. nom.)'), illùc, quàm ('than' and 'how ...', not 'what (fem. acc.)'), tàm, cùm ('when' or 'though', not 'with'), licèt, à, è.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these words only have a final accent with certain meanings, while they don't with other meanings. I don't think that Latin speakers consistently added accents to certain final vowels merely to distinguish homophones in writing, if there were no actual difference in pronunciation, especially when Saint Augustine expected a Latin student to hear a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that even some monosyllabic words are 'accented'. I don't know whether it means that there is some type of stress on à, è, hìc, quàm, tàm, cùm, and quòd, relative to nearby words, or whether it means that the final accent in polysyllabic words is not the same as in other languages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure that this research has been done by others in more detail, but for some reason it hasn't reached any of the Latin language books and classes at my high school and university, while the living and active knowledge of Latin pronunciation apparently shown by Late Latin writers has been lost." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6400" RevisionGUID="154b3b6f-b669-4b2d-88ae-ff904887ef6c" CreationDate="2018-05-03T16:25:44.733" UserId="406" Text="Looking back at this, it seems like a shorter answer might be more appropriate, but my other one's been seen enough I don't want to completely gut it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, every sound in &quot;Iēsūs&quot; exists in both Greek and Latin. But both Koine (Biblical) Greek and Latin didn't have enough letters to represent all of their vowel sounds. So Latin spelled both the long and the short vowels the same (the long marks I'm using weren't common in Classical times), and the Greeks sometimes used two letters together to represent a single sound (like how we right &quot;ee&quot; in English for a single vowel). In particular, the letters *ου* together represented the sound of Latin *ū*. So the Greek and Latin spellings are equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there were actually two sounds lost in the translation. The Biblical Hebrew version of the name was *Yēšūaʕ*, where *š* is the first sound in &quot;ship&quot; and *ʕ* is a sound English doesn't have. And neither Koine Greek nor Latin had these sounds. So *š* turned into *s*, and *ʕ* just disappeared." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6396" RevisionGUID="f996f02a-d146-4e77-a54d-2fd994f80382" CreationDate="2018-05-03T16:29:22.683" UserId="2602" Comment="page number" Text="It seems that Saint Augustine in your quote is describing the same phenomenon that we can see consistently marked in later Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While trying to begin to read Marracci's 'Refutatio Alcorani' (https://books.google.nl/books?id=ye40VChDL6gC and https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_-KZEAAAAcAAJ), I noticed that certain words were written with an accent grave on the vowel of their last syllable. Thinking this was a Late Latin feature, I searched for 'accent grave late latin' and found your question here on the Latin language version of something called a stack exchange, so I subscribed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like you, I was surprised to see a reference to word-final stress, because I had always learned that 'Latin accent falls on the penult if it is long, and on the antepenult if the penult is short'. Even the otherwise brilliant Ørberg's Lingua Latina doesn't teach that the 'ultima' or 'oxytone' syllable can be accented as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess asking 'why' some Latin adverbs have stress on the final syllable is like asking why Latin uses the letter p: it is just the way it is. You could find a Proto-Indo-European 'reason' for it, but this won't explain 'why' this was the case in Proto-Indo-European itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it would be nice to find a pattern, or to describe exactly what the way it is, is. So I did a quick check of the kind of words that have their last syllable accented in a sample of competent Late Latin prose. This is what I found in Marracci's 'Praefatio ad lectorem' (from page iv in the Google Books version linked above):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in è ##&#xD;&#xA;Parcè, ferè, penè, propè, validissimè, doctè, validè, Arabicè, Latinè, Italicè, sanè, eruditè, praecipuè, probè, publicè, novissimè, penitissimè, nervosè, temerè, strenuè, modestè, fortassè, ingenuè, minimè, modestè, quotidiè, impunè, saepè, nempè, exactè, obnixè (the adverb 'ponè' would belong to this class).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in ò ##&#xD;&#xA;Adeò, ideò, verò, omninò, rarò, multò, primò, idcircò, postremò, porrò, mutuò, imò, tantummodò.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in ùs ##&#xD;&#xA;Penitùs, prorsùs, promptiùs, faciliùs, superiùs, copiosiùs, potiùs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So not just some, but in fact *all* adverbs in -o, -e and -us are accented on the last syllable.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs and conjunctions ending in ùm ##&#xD;&#xA;Verùm ('but', not 'true thing'), solùm ('only', not 'only thing'), tantùm ('only', not 'so much'), primùm ('firstly', not 'first thing'), nimirùm, potissimùm, demùm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other adverbs, conjunctions and prepositions ##&#xD;&#xA;Diù, unà, praetereà, contrà (exercitum immensum, but contra se?), frustrà, quòd ('because' or 'that', not 'what'), hìc ('here', not 'this (masc. nom.)'), illùc, quàm ('than' and 'how ...', not 'what (fem. acc.)'), tàm, cùm ('when' or 'though', not 'with'), licèt, à, è.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these words only have a final accent with certain meanings, while they don't with other meanings. I don't think that Latin speakers consistently added accents to certain final vowels merely to distinguish homophones in writing, if there were no actual difference in pronunciation, especially when Saint Augustine expected a Latin student to hear a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that even some monosyllabic words are 'accented'. I don't know whether it means that there is some type of stress on à, è, hìc, quàm, tàm, cùm, and quòd, relative to nearby words, or whether it means that the final accent in polysyllabic words is not the same as in other languages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure that this research has been done by others in more detail, but for some reason it hasn't reached any of the Latin language books and classes at my high school and university, while the living and active knowledge of Latin pronunciation apparently shown by Late Latin writers has been lost." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6400" RevisionGUID="a6042ffa-25a1-4757-9875-965cadf1007b" CreationDate="2018-05-03T16:38:02.070" UserId="406" Comment="added 684 characters in body" Text="Looking back at this, it seems like a simpler answer might be more appropriate, but my other one's been seen enough I don't want to completely gut it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, every sound in &quot;Iēsūs&quot; exists in both Greek and Latin. But neither Koine (Biblical) Greek nor Latin had enough letters to represent all of their vowel sounds. Both languages had twelve individual vowel sounds, not counting combinations like &quot;ae&quot;. But Latin had only six letters for them (a e i o u y), and Greek seven (α ε ι ο υ η ω).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Latin spelled both the long and the short vowels the same: the long marks I'm using weren't common in Classical times, and *ū* and *u* would usually have been spelled just the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek did that too, for some vowels: they didn't distinguish long and short alpha, for instance. But in other cases they used two letters together to represent a completely different sound. And in particular, *ου* was pronounced like Latin *ū*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reasons for this are harder to explain (see my other answer for the details) but basically, when you run out of letters, using combinations is a good way to get more mileage out of the alphabet you have. Consider how English uses &quot;sh&quot; for a sound that's not the same as either &quot;s&quot; or &quot;h&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *Iēsūs* and *Ιησούς* were pronounced pretty much the same, except that the Greek was accented on the last syllable (see the accent mark) and the Latin wasn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there were actually two sounds lost in the translation. The Biblical Hebrew version of the name was *Yēšūaʕ*, where *š* is the first sound in &quot;ship&quot; and *ʕ* is a sound English doesn't have. And neither Koine Greek nor Latin had these sounds. So *š* turned into *s*, and *ʕ* just disappeared." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6398" RevisionGUID="91b86d9d-4f85-4067-9221-9492affc0f05" CreationDate="2018-05-03T20:15:56.693" UserId="39" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="a short screenshot from [Hendrickson 2017][1] so far - more to come later:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers 1994 writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;”As a general rule, we might say that *the grave is the mark of the indeclinable forms” (p. 73).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://brill.com/view/title/34288&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Kf1xm.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="8d0300c1-631b-409f-844f-d4e5865c7498" CreationDate="2018-05-03T20:48:02.140" UserId="9" Comment="added 631 characters in body" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. There seems to be some idea that descriptions of accent in old Latin texts are unreliable because they may have been influenced by people's ideas about Greek accentuation, or something like that. And the question of how much we can learn about stress from Latin poetry is apparently unsolved to this day. So there seems to be relatively little uncontroversial evidence about aspects of Latin stress and prosody beyond the well-known penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [as the Priscian passage quoted above] are to be found in Donatus's *Ars maior* 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and Priscian's *Inst. gram* (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too, when he discusses (and rejects) the notion that the need to distinguish between words sometimes requires a shift of accent: 'Ceterum scio quosdam eruditos, nonnullus etiam grammaticos sic docere ac loqui ut propter  quaedam uocum discrimina uerbum interim acuto sono finiant [..]; quod tamen in aduerbiis fere solis ac pronominibus uindicant, in ceteris ueterem legem secuntur' (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati* (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen an explanation for this, beyond the mention of the supposed value in avoiding homophony with words belonging to other categories that is referenced in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just speculation, as I haven't seen any literature that attempts to explain the putative adverb final-stress phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some features of Latin adverbs that seem like they might possibly be relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adverbs are &quot;indeclinable&quot;: unlike verbs, substantives, or adjectives, they don't end in agreement suffixes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Adverbs often come immediately before the modified word in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; - adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ideas about Latin prosody that seem relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’. His data suggest that ‘the monosyllabic particles...like all other independent words, have originally an accent, as in fact the grammarians expressly declare; if they very frequently lose this accent, this happens simply because they are subordinated in sense to the other words of the sentence and, at the same time, in the majority of cases, cannot preserve their accent through the operation of the three-syllable law’ (1904: 160).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these quotes, I wonder if the supposed stress on the last syllable of adverbs might be connected to possible lack of stress on the following word; for example, in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A serious problem with my suggestion here is that it would only explain this stress pattern in very particular phonological environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen does mention the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think it seems pretty far-fetched to suppose that sequences of adverb + iambic verb form were so common in Latin as to provide the basis for analogical extension of word-final stress to adverbs in general, in any position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that iambic verb forms in Classical Latin could be pronounced enclitic to the preceding word also seems to rest on fairly doubtful evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson also has a section about verbs where he says that there was probably no tendency to pronounce iambic verbs as enclitics after other iambic words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a sequence of iambic word followed by iambic verb (the type *pater petit*) barely ever fills a measure of Plautine verse, as discussed in Ch. 3, which indicates rather strongly that such a sequence was not prosodically equivalent to a four-syllable word of the same metrical shape, and that therefore the verb did not cliticize to the preceding word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 265)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, Fortson doesn't seem to discuss adverbs in much detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="a9cd4b19-7983-481a-ade0-4709f6bf8c49" CreationDate="2018-05-03T20:53:30.347" UserId="9" Comment="added 631 characters in body" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. There seems to be some idea that descriptions of accent in old Latin texts are unreliable because they may have been influenced by people's ideas about Greek accentuation, or something like that. And the question of how much we can learn about stress from Latin poetry is apparently unsolved to this day. So there seems to be relatively little uncontroversial evidence about aspects of Latin stress and prosody beyond the well-known penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [as the Priscian passage quoted above] are to be found in Donatus's *Ars maior* 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and Priscian's *Inst. gram* (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too, when he discusses (and rejects) the notion that the need to distinguish between words sometimes requires a shift of accent: 'Ceterum scio quosdam eruditos, nonnullus etiam grammaticos sic docere ac loqui ut propter  quaedam uocum discrimina uerbum interim acuto sono finiant [..]; quod tamen in aduerbiis fere solis ac pronominibus uindicant, in ceteris ueterem legem secuntur' (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati* (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen an explanation for this, beyond the mention of the supposed value in avoiding homophony with words belonging to other categories that is referenced in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just speculation, as I haven't seen any literature that attempts to explain the putative adverb final-stress phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some features of Latin adverbs that seem like they might possibly be relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adverbs are &quot;indeclinable&quot;: unlike adjectives, substantives, or verbs, they don't end in inflectional suffixes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Adverbs often come immediately before the modified word in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; - adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ideas about Latin prosody that seem relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’. His data suggest that ‘the monosyllabic particles...like all other independent words, have originally an accent, as in fact the grammarians expressly declare; if they very frequently lose this accent, this happens simply because they are subordinated in sense to the other words of the sentence and, at the same time, in the majority of cases, cannot preserve their accent through the operation of the three-syllable law’ (1904: 160).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these quotes, I wonder if the supposed stress on the last syllable of adverbs might be connected to possible lack of stress on the following word; for example, in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A serious problem with my suggestion here is that it would only explain this stress pattern in very particular phonological environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen does mention the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think it seems pretty far-fetched to suppose that sequences of adverb + iambic verb form were so common in Latin as to provide the basis for analogical extension of word-final stress to adverbs in general, in any position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that iambic verb forms in Classical Latin could be pronounced enclitic to the preceding word also seems to rest on fairly doubtful evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson also has a section about verbs where he says that there was probably no tendency to pronounce iambic verbs as enclitics after other iambic words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a sequence of iambic word followed by iambic verb (the type *pater petit*) barely ever fills a measure of Plautine verse, as discussed in Ch. 3, which indicates rather strongly that such a sequence was not prosodically equivalent to a four-syllable word of the same metrical shape, and that therefore the verb did not cliticize to the preceding word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 265)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, Fortson doesn't seem to discuss adverbs in much detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6401" RevisionGUID="94f969b4-dae4-485e-8189-a6c0497cfb25" CreationDate="2018-05-03T21:09:47.503" UserId="645" Text="You may be interested to learn of 'Latin Proverbs and Quotations' by  Alfred Henderson, of which I'm the fortunate owner of a first edition.. It was originally published in London by Sampson, Low, Son and Martin in April, 1869, running to nearly 500 pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Google Books, *'This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible'*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="61e9aa80-9f3c-45e5-9a8a-e06f71aa5eeb" CreationDate="2018-05-03T21:10:23.410" UserId="9" Comment="added reference to relevant Quintilian quote" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. There seems to be some idea that descriptions of accent in old Latin texts are unreliable because they may have been influenced by people's ideas about Greek accentuation, or something like that. (For example, Latin authors often describe Latin syllables as being able to be pronounced with either an &quot;acute&quot; or &quot;circumflex&quot; accent, as in Greek, although there doesn't actually seem to have been a *contrast* between acute and circumflex accentuation in Latin the way that there was in Greek.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the question of how much we can learn about stress from Latin poetry is apparently unsolved to this day. So there seems to be relatively little uncontroversial evidence about aspects of Latin stress and prosody beyond the well-known penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a passage where Quintilian talks about the accentuation of &quot;circum litora&quot; that often seems to be quoted by people who are arguing against the idea that the last syllable of an adverb took stress in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I am well aware that certain learned men and some professed teachers of literature, to ensure that certain words may be kept distinct, sometimes place an acute accent on the last syllable, both when they are teaching and in ordinary speech: as, for instance, in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; quae circus litora, circum piscosos scopulos,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *Aen. iv. 254.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[26] where they make the last syllable of *circum* acute on the ground that, if that syllable were given the grave accent, it might be thought that they meant *circus* not *circuitus.* Similarly when *quale* is interrogative, they give the final syllable a grave accent, but when using it in a comparison, make it acute. This practice, however, they restrict almost entirely to adverbs and pronouns; in other cases they follow the old usage. [27] Personally I think that in such phrases as these the circumstances are almost entirely altered by the fact that we join two words together. For when I say *circum litora* I pronounce the phrase as one word, concealing the fact that it is composed of two, consequently it contains but one acute accent, as though it were a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Quint. Inst. 1 5, from Quintilian. With an English Translation. Harold Edgeworth Butler. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1920. Accessed through [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0059%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D5#note13))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quintilian also says a little later:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For in every word the acute accent is restricted to three syllables, whether these be the only syllables in the word or the three last, and will fall either on the penultimate or the antepenultimate. The middle of the three syllables of which I speak will be acute or circumflexed, if long, while if it be short, it will have a grave accent and the acute will be thrown back to the preceding syllable, that is to say the antepenultimate. [31] Every word has an acute accent, but never more than one. Further the acute never falls on the last syllable and therefore in dissyllabic words marks the first syllable. Moreover the acute accent and the circumflex are never found in one and the same word, since the circumflex itself contains an acute accent. Neither the circumflex nor the acute, therefore, will ever be found in the last syllable of a Latin word, with this exception, that monosyllables must either be acute or circumflexed; otherwise we should find words without an acute accent at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [as the Priscian passage quoted above] are to be found in Donatus's *Ars maior* 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and Priscian's *Inst. gram* (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too, when he discusses (and rejects) the notion that the need to distinguish between words sometimes requires a shift of accent: 'Ceterum scio quosdam eruditos, nonnullus etiam grammaticos sic docere ac loqui ut propter  quaedam uocum discrimina uerbum interim acuto sono finiant [..]; quod tamen in aduerbiis fere solis ac pronominibus uindicant, in ceteris ueterem legem secuntur' (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati* (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen an explanation for this, beyond the mention of the supposed value in avoiding homophony with words belonging to other categories that is referenced in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just speculation, as I haven't seen any literature that attempts to explain the putative adverb final-stress phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some features of Latin adverbs that seem like they might possibly be relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adverbs are &quot;indeclinable&quot;: unlike adjectives, substantives, or verbs, they don't end in inflectional suffixes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Adverbs often come immediately before the modified word in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; - adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ideas about Latin prosody that seem relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’. His data suggest that ‘the monosyllabic particles...like all other independent words, have originally an accent, as in fact the grammarians expressly declare; if they very frequently lose this accent, this happens simply because they are subordinated in sense to the other words of the sentence and, at the same time, in the majority of cases, cannot preserve their accent through the operation of the three-syllable law’ (1904: 160).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these quotes, I wonder if the supposed stress on the last syllable of adverbs might be connected to possible lack of stress on the following word; for example, in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A serious problem with my suggestion here is that it would only explain this stress pattern in very particular phonological environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen does mention the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think it seems pretty far-fetched to suppose that sequences of adverb + iambic verb form were so common in Latin as to provide the basis for analogical extension of word-final stress to adverbs in general, in any position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that iambic verb forms in Classical Latin could be pronounced enclitic to the preceding word also seems to rest on fairly doubtful evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson also has a section about verbs where he says that there was probably no tendency to pronounce iambic verbs as enclitics after other iambic words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a sequence of iambic word followed by iambic verb (the type *pater petit*) barely ever fills a measure of Plautine verse, as discussed in Ch. 3, which indicates rather strongly that such a sequence was not prosodically equivalent to a four-syllable word of the same metrical shape, and that therefore the verb did not cliticize to the preceding word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 265)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, Fortson doesn't seem to discuss adverbs in much detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="b86a70de-2895-4eb6-81b4-190d3b03ae3c" CreationDate="2018-05-03T21:15:34.203" UserId="9" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. There seems to be some idea that descriptions of accent in old Latin texts are unreliable because they may have been influenced by people's ideas about Greek accentuation, or something like that. (For example, Latin authors often describe Latin syllables as being able to be pronounced with either an &quot;acute&quot; or &quot;circumflex&quot; accent, as in Greek, although there doesn't actually seem to have been a *contrast* between acute and circumflex accentuation in Latin the way that there could be in Greek.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the question of how much we can learn about stress from Latin poetry is apparently unsolved to this day. So there seems to be relatively little uncontroversial evidence about aspects of Latin stress and prosody beyond the well-known penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a passage where Quintilian talks about the accentuation of &quot;circum litora&quot; that often seems to be quoted by people who are arguing against the idea that the last syllable of an adverb took stress in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I am well aware that certain learned men and some professed teachers of literature, to ensure that certain words may be kept distinct, sometimes place an acute accent on the last syllable, both when they are teaching and in ordinary speech: as, for instance, in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; quae circus litora, circum piscosos scopulos,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *Aen. iv. 254.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[26] where they make the last syllable of *circum* acute on the ground that, if that syllable were given the grave accent, it might be thought that they meant *circus* not *circuitus.* Similarly when *quale* is interrogative, they give the final syllable a grave accent, but when using it in a comparison, make it acute. This practice, however, they restrict almost entirely to adverbs and pronouns; in other cases they follow the old usage. [27] Personally I think that in such phrases as these the circumstances are almost entirely altered by the fact that we join two words together. For when I say *circum litora* I pronounce the phrase as one word, concealing the fact that it is composed of two, consequently it contains but one acute accent, as though it were a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Quint. Inst. 1 5, from Quintilian. With an English Translation. Harold Edgeworth Butler. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1920. Accessed through [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0059%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D5#note13))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quintilian also says a little later:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For in every word the acute accent is restricted to three syllables, whether these be the only syllables in the word or the three last, and will fall either on the penultimate or the antepenultimate. The middle of the three syllables of which I speak will be acute or circumflexed, if long, while if it be short, it will have a grave accent and the acute will be thrown back to the preceding syllable, that is to say the antepenultimate. [31] Every word has an acute accent, but never more than one. Further the acute never falls on the last syllable and therefore in dissyllabic words marks the first syllable. Moreover the acute accent and the circumflex are never found in one and the same word, since the circumflex itself contains an acute accent. Neither the circumflex nor the acute, therefore, will ever be found in the last syllable of a Latin word, with this exception, that monosyllables must either be acute or circumflexed; otherwise we should find words without an acute accent at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [as the Priscian passage quoted above] are to be found in Donatus's *Ars maior* 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and Priscian's *Inst. gram* (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too, when he discusses (and rejects) the notion that the need to distinguish between words sometimes requires a shift of accent: 'Ceterum scio quosdam eruditos, nonnullus etiam grammaticos sic docere ac loqui ut propter  quaedam uocum discrimina uerbum interim acuto sono finiant [..]; quod tamen in aduerbiis fere solis ac pronominibus uindicant, in ceteris ueterem legem secuntur' (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati* (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen an explanation for this, beyond the mention of the supposed value in avoiding homophony with words belonging to other categories that is referenced in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just speculation, as I haven't seen any literature that attempts to explain the putative adverb final-stress phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some features of Latin adverbs that seem like they might possibly be relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adverbs are &quot;indeclinable&quot;: unlike adjectives, substantives, or verbs, they don't end in inflectional suffixes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Adverbs often come immediately before the modified word in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; - adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ideas about Latin prosody that seem relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’. His data suggest that ‘the monosyllabic particles...like all other independent words, have originally an accent, as in fact the grammarians expressly declare; if they very frequently lose this accent, this happens simply because they are subordinated in sense to the other words of the sentence and, at the same time, in the majority of cases, cannot preserve their accent through the operation of the three-syllable law’ (1904: 160).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these quotes, I wonder if the supposed stress on the last syllable of adverbs might be connected to possible lack of stress on the following word; for example, in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A serious problem with my suggestion here is that it would only explain this stress pattern in very particular phonological environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen does mention the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think it seems pretty far-fetched to suppose that sequences of adverb + iambic verb form were so common in Latin as to provide the basis for analogical extension of word-final stress to adverbs in general, in any position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that iambic verb forms in Classical Latin could be pronounced enclitic to the preceding word also seems to rest on fairly doubtful evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson also has a section about verbs where he says that there was probably no tendency to pronounce iambic verbs as enclitics after other iambic words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a sequence of iambic word followed by iambic verb (the type *pater petit*) barely ever fills a measure of Plautine verse, as discussed in Ch. 3, which indicates rather strongly that such a sequence was not prosodically equivalent to a four-syllable word of the same metrical shape, and that therefore the verb did not cliticize to the preceding word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 265)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, Fortson doesn't seem to discuss adverbs in much detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="74f310a0-441a-43ba-92ad-5762dcfa445c" CreationDate="2018-05-03T21:26:51.497" UserId="9" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. There seems to be some idea that descriptions of accent in old Latin texts are unreliable because they may have been influenced by people's ideas about Greek accentuation, or something like that. (For example, Latin authors often describe Latin syllables as being able to be pronounced with either an &quot;acute&quot; or &quot;circumflex&quot; accent, as in Greek, although there doesn't actually seem to have been a *contrast* between acute and circumflex accentuation in Latin the way that there could be in Greek ultima syllables.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the question of how much we can learn about stress from Latin poetry is apparently unsolved to this day. So there seems to be relatively little uncontroversial evidence about aspects of Latin stress and prosody beyond the well-known penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a passage where Quintilian talks about the accentuation of &quot;circum litora&quot; that often seems to be quoted by people who are arguing against the idea that the last syllable of an adverb took stress in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I am well aware that certain learned men and some professed teachers of literature, to ensure that certain words may be kept distinct, sometimes place an acute accent on the last syllable, both when they are teaching and in ordinary speech: as, for instance, in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; quae circus litora, circum piscosos scopulos,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *Aen. iv. 254.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[26] where they make the last syllable of *circum* acute on the ground that, if that syllable were given the grave accent, it might be thought that they meant *circus* not *circuitus.* Similarly when *quale* is interrogative, they give the final syllable a grave accent, but when using it in a comparison, make it acute. This practice, however, they restrict almost entirely to adverbs and pronouns; in other cases they follow the old usage. [27] Personally I think that in such phrases as these the circumstances are almost entirely altered by the fact that we join two words together. For when I say *circum litora* I pronounce the phrase as one word, concealing the fact that it is composed of two, consequently it contains but one acute accent, as though it were a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Quint. Inst. 1 5, from Quintilian. With an English Translation. Harold Edgeworth Butler. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1920. Accessed through [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0059%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D5#note13))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quintilian also says a little later:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For in every word the acute accent is restricted to three syllables, whether these be the only syllables in the word or the three last, and will fall either on the penultimate or the antepenultimate. The middle of the three syllables of which I speak will be acute or circumflexed, if long, while if it be short, it will have a grave accent and the acute will be thrown back to the preceding syllable, that is to say the antepenultimate. [31] Every word has an acute accent, but never more than one. Further the acute never falls on the last syllable and therefore in dissyllabic words marks the first syllable. Moreover the acute accent and the circumflex are never found in one and the same word, since the circumflex itself contains an acute accent. Neither the circumflex nor the acute, therefore, will ever be found in the last syllable of a Latin word, with this exception, that monosyllables must either be acute or circumflexed; otherwise we should find words without an acute accent at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [as the Priscian passage quoted above] are to be found in Donatus's *Ars maior* 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and Priscian's *Inst. gram* (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too, when he discusses (and rejects) the notion that the need to distinguish between words sometimes requires a shift of accent: 'Ceterum scio quosdam eruditos, nonnullus etiam grammaticos sic docere ac loqui ut propter  quaedam uocum discrimina uerbum interim acuto sono finiant [..]; quod tamen in aduerbiis fere solis ac pronominibus uindicant, in ceteris ueterem legem secuntur' (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati* (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen an explanation for this, beyond the mention of the supposed value in avoiding homophony with words belonging to other categories that is referenced in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just speculation, as I haven't seen any literature that attempts to explain the putative adverb final-stress phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some features of Latin adverbs that seem like they might possibly be relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adverbs are &quot;indeclinable&quot;: unlike adjectives, substantives, or verbs, they don't end in inflectional suffixes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Adverbs often come immediately before the modified word in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; - adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ideas about Latin prosody that seem relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’. His data suggest that ‘the monosyllabic particles...like all other independent words, have originally an accent, as in fact the grammarians expressly declare; if they very frequently lose this accent, this happens simply because they are subordinated in sense to the other words of the sentence and, at the same time, in the majority of cases, cannot preserve their accent through the operation of the three-syllable law’ (1904: 160).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these quotes, I wonder if the supposed stress on the last syllable of adverbs might be connected to possible lack of stress on the following word; for example, in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A serious problem with my suggestion here is that it would only explain this stress pattern in very particular phonological environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen does mention the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think it seems pretty far-fetched to suppose that sequences of adverb + iambic verb form were so common in Latin as to provide the basis for analogical extension of word-final stress to adverbs in general, in any position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that iambic verb forms in Classical Latin could be pronounced enclitic to the preceding word also seems to rest on fairly doubtful evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson also has a section about verbs where he says that there was probably no tendency to pronounce iambic verbs as enclitics after other iambic words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a sequence of iambic word followed by iambic verb (the type *pater petit*) barely ever fills a measure of Plautine verse, as discussed in Ch. 3, which indicates rather strongly that such a sequence was not prosodically equivalent to a four-syllable word of the same metrical shape, and that therefore the verb did not cliticize to the preceding word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 265)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, Fortson doesn't seem to discuss adverbs in much detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="e0588715-915d-4171-9516-4c4fee736c68" CreationDate="2018-05-03T21:51:48.940" UserId="9" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. There seems to be some idea that descriptions of accent in old Latin texts are unreliable because they may have been influenced by people's ideas about Greek accentuation, or something like that. (For example, Latin authors often describe Latin syllables as being able to be pronounced with either an &quot;acute&quot; or &quot;circumflex&quot; accent, as in Greek, although there doesn't actually seem to have been a *contrast* between acute and circumflex accentuation in Latin the way that there could be in Greek ultima syllables.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the question of how much we can learn about stress from Latin poetry is apparently unsolved to this day. So there seems to be relatively little uncontroversial evidence about aspects of Latin stress and prosody beyond the well-known penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a passage where Quintilian talks about the accentuation of &quot;circum litora&quot; that often seems to be quoted by people who are arguing against the idea that the last syllable of an adverb took stress in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I am well aware that certain learned men and some professed teachers of literature, to ensure that certain words may be kept distinct, sometimes place an acute accent on the last syllable, both when they are teaching and in ordinary speech: as, for instance, in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; quae circus litora, circum piscosos scopulos,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *Aen. iv. 254.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[26] where they make the last syllable of *circum* acute on the ground that, if that syllable were given the grave accent, it might be thought that they meant *circus* not *circuitus.* Similarly when *quale* is interrogative, they give the final syllable a grave accent, but when using it in a comparison, make it acute. This practice, however, they restrict almost entirely to adverbs and pronouns; in other cases they follow the old usage. [27] Personally I think that in such phrases as these the circumstances are almost entirely altered by the fact that we join two words together. For when I say *circum litora* I pronounce the phrase as one word, concealing the fact that it is composed of two, consequently it contains but one acute accent, as though it were a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Quint. Inst. 1 5, *from* Quintilian. With an English Translation. Harold Edgeworth Butler. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1920. *Accessed through* [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0059%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D5#note13))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quintilian also says a little later:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For in every word the acute accent is restricted to three syllables, whether these be the only syllables in the word or the three last, and will fall either on the penultimate or the antepenultimate. The middle of the three syllables of which I speak will be acute or circumflexed, if long, while if it be short, it will have a grave accent and the acute will be thrown back to the preceding syllable, that is to say the antepenultimate. [31] Every word has an acute accent, but never more than one. Further the acute never falls on the last syllable and therefore in dissyllabic words marks the first syllable. Moreover the acute accent and the circumflex are never found in one and the same word, since the circumflex itself contains an acute accent. Neither the circumflex nor the acute, therefore, will ever be found in the last syllable of a Latin word, with this exception, that monosyllables must either be acute or circumflexed; otherwise we should find words without an acute accent at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [as the Priscian passage quoted above] are to be found in Donatus's *Ars maior* 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and Priscian's *Inst. gram* (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too, when he discusses (and rejects) the notion that the need to distinguish between words sometimes requires a shift of accent: 'Ceterum scio quosdam eruditos, nonnullus etiam grammaticos sic docere ac loqui ut propter  quaedam uocum discrimina uerbum interim acuto sono finiant [..]; quod tamen in aduerbiis fere solis ac pronominibus uindicant, in ceteris ueterem legem secuntur' (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati* (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen an explanation for this, beyond the mention of the supposed value in avoiding homophony with words belonging to other categories that is referenced in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just speculation, as I haven't seen any literature that attempts to explain the putative adverb final-stress phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some features of Latin adverbs that seem like they might possibly be relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adverbs are &quot;indeclinable&quot;: unlike adjectives, substantives, or verbs, they don't end in inflectional suffixes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Adverbs often come immediately before the modified word in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; - adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ideas about Latin prosody that seem relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’. His data suggest that ‘the monosyllabic particles...like all other independent words, have originally an accent, as in fact the grammarians expressly declare; if they very frequently lose this accent, this happens simply because they are subordinated in sense to the other words of the sentence and, at the same time, in the majority of cases, cannot preserve their accent through the operation of the three-syllable law’ (1904: 160).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these quotes, I wonder if the supposed stress on the last syllable of adverbs might be connected to possible lack of stress on the following word; for example, in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A serious problem with my suggestion here is that it would only explain this stress pattern in very particular phonological environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen does mention the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think it seems pretty far-fetched to suppose that sequences of adverb + iambic verb form were so common in Latin as to provide the basis for analogical extension of word-final stress to adverbs in general, in any position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that iambic verb forms in Classical Latin could be pronounced enclitic to the preceding word also seems to rest on fairly doubtful evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson also has a section about verbs where he says that there was probably no tendency to pronounce iambic verbs as enclitics after other iambic words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a sequence of iambic word followed by iambic verb (the type *pater petit*) barely ever fills a measure of Plautine verse, as discussed in Ch. 3, which indicates rather strongly that such a sequence was not prosodically equivalent to a four-syllable word of the same metrical shape, and that therefore the verb did not cliticize to the preceding word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 265)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, Fortson doesn't seem to discuss adverbs in much detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6396" RevisionGUID="354d443e-f2fe-4fc7-b668-a277ad497577" CreationDate="2018-05-03T22:12:13.260" UserId="2602" Comment="removed waffle, addressed sumelic, corrections, possibly added waffle" Text="It seems that Saint Augustine in your quote is describing the same phenomenon that we can see consistently marked in later Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While trying to read Marracci's 'Refutatio Alcorani' (https://books.google.nl/books?id=ye40VChDL6gC and https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_-KZEAAAAcAAJ), I noticed that certain words were written with an accent grave on the vowel of their last syllable. Thinking this was a Late Latin feature, I searched for 'accent grave late latin' and found your question here on the Latin language version of something called a stack exchange, so I subscribed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like you, I was surprised to see a reference to word-final stress, because I had always learned that Latin accent falls on the penult if it is long, and on the antepenult if the penult is short. Even the otherwise brilliant Ørberg's Lingua Latina doesn't teach that the 'ultima' or 'oxytone' syllable can be accented as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pedantically speaking, asking 'why' some Latin adverbs have stress on the final syllable is like asking why Latin uses the letter p: it is just the way it is. You could find a Proto-Indo-European 'reason' for it, but this won't explain 'why' this was the case in Proto-Indo-European itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it would be nice to find a pattern, or to describe exactly what the way it is, is. So I did a quick check of the kind of words that have their last syllable accented in a sample of competent Late Latin prose. This is what I found in Marracci's 'Praefatio ad lectorem' (from page iv in the Google Books version linked above):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in è ##&#xD;&#xA;Parcè, ferè, penè, propè, validissimè, doctè, validè, Arabicè, Latinè, Italicè, sanè, eruditè, praecipuè, probè, publicè, novissimè, penitissimè, nervosè, temerè, strenuè, modestè, fortassè, ingenuè, minimè, modestè, quotidiè, impunè, saepè, nempè, exactè, obnixè (the adverb 'ponè' would belong to this class).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in ò ##&#xD;&#xA;Adeò, ideò, verò, omninò, rarò, multò, primò, idcircò, postremò, porrò, mutuò, imò, tantummodò.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in ùs ##&#xD;&#xA;Penitùs, prorsùs, promptiùs, faciliùs, superiùs, copiosiùs, potiùs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So not just some, but in fact *all* adverbs in -o, -e and -us are accented on the last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs and conjunctions ending in ùm ##&#xD;&#xA;Verùm ('but', not 'true thing'), solùm ('only', not 'only thing'), tantùm ('only', not 'so much'), primùm ('firstly', not 'first thing'), nimirùm, potissimùm, demùm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other adverbs, conjunctions and prepositions ##&#xD;&#xA;Diù, unà, praetereà, contrà (exercitum immensum, but contra se?), frustrà, quòd ('because' or 'that', not 'what'), hìc ('here', not 'this (masc. nom.)'), illùc, quàm ('than' and 'how ...', not 'what (fem. acc.)'), tàm, cùm ('when' or 'though', not 'with'), licèt, à, è.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these words only have a final accent with certain meanings, while they don't with other meanings. I don't think that Latin speakers consistently added accents to certain final vowels merely to distinguish homophones in writing, if there were no actual difference in pronunciation, especially when Saint Augustine expected a Latin student to hear a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If grave accents were indeed used to mark actual stress, then there probably was an audible difference even between monosyllabic words with accent (hìc, quàm, cùm, quòd), and without. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding sumelic's answer: it seems to depend on whether we trust Priscian, Donatus, Pseudo-Priscian, Manutius, many or most people who spoke Latin in Muret's time according to Muret, and Saint Augustine; or Quintillian and humanists like Lipsius, Muret, Henning and Vossius. I prefer ecclesiastical Latin and I would be especially interested in any statements by 16th and 17th century Catholic grammarians on this issue. In my opinion Latin has always been kept most alive in the Catholic Church." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6396" RevisionGUID="7922d1f7-6c7d-424b-b3a0-5556d4efebf3" CreationDate="2018-05-03T22:18:29.900" UserId="2602" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It seems that Saint Augustine in your quote is describing the same phenomenon that we can see consistently marked in later Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While trying to read Marracci's 'Refutatio Alcorani' (https://books.google.nl/books?id=ye40VChDL6gC and https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_-KZEAAAAcAAJ), I noticed that certain words were written with an accent grave on the vowel of their last syllable. Thinking this was a Late Latin feature, I searched for 'accent grave late latin' and found your question here on the Latin language version of something called a stack exchange, so I subscribed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like you, I was surprised to see a reference to word-final stress, because I had always learned that Latin accent falls on the penult if it is long, and on the antepenult if the penult is short. Even the otherwise brilliant Ørberg's Lingua Latina doesn't teach that the 'ultima' or 'oxytone' syllable can be accented as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pedantically speaking, asking 'why' some Latin adverbs have stress on the final syllable is like asking why Latin uses the letter p: it is just the way it is. You could find a Proto-Indo-European 'reason' for it, but this won't explain 'why' this was the case in Proto-Indo-European itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it would be nice to find a pattern, or to describe exactly what the way it is, is. So I did a quick check of the kind of words that have their last syllable accented in a sample of competent Late Latin prose. This is what I found in Marracci's 'Praefatio ad lectorem' (from page iv in the Google Books version linked above):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in è ##&#xD;&#xA;Parcè, ferè, penè, propè, validissimè, doctè, validè, Arabicè, Latinè, Italicè, sanè, eruditè, praecipuè, probè, publicè, novissimè, penitissimè, nervosè, temerè, strenuè, modestè, fortassè, ingenuè, minimè, modestè, quotidiè, impunè, saepè, nempè, exactè, obnixè (the adverb 'ponè' would belong to this class).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in ò ##&#xD;&#xA;Adeò, ideò, verò, omninò, rarò, multò, primò, idcircò, postremò, porrò, mutuò, imò, tantummodò.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in ùs ##&#xD;&#xA;Penitùs, prorsùs, promptiùs, faciliùs, superiùs, copiosiùs, potiùs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So not just some, but in fact *all* adverbs in -o, -e and -us are accented on the last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs and conjunctions ending in ùm ##&#xD;&#xA;Verùm ('but', not 'true thing'), solùm ('only', not 'only thing'), tantùm ('only', not 'so much'), primùm ('firstly', not 'first thing'), nimirùm, potissimùm, demùm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other adverbs, conjunctions and prepositions ##&#xD;&#xA;Diù, unà, praetereà, contrà (exercitum immensum, but contra se?), frustrà, quòd ('because' or 'that', not 'what'), hìc ('here', not 'this (masc. nom.)'), illùc, quàm ('than' and 'how ...', not 'what (fem. acc.)'), tàm, cùm ('when' or 'though', not 'with'), licèt, à, è.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these words only have a final accent with certain meanings, while they don't with other meanings. I don't think that Latin speakers consistently added accents to certain final vowels merely to distinguish homophones in writing, if there were no actual difference in pronunciation, especially when Saint Augustine expected a Latin student to hear a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If grave accents were indeed used to mark actual stress, then there may have been an audible difference even between monosyllabic words with accent (hìc, quàm, cùm, quòd), and without. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding sumelic's answer: it seems to depend on whether we trust Priscian, Donatus, Pseudo-Priscian, Manutius, many or most people who spoke Latin in Muret's time according to Muret, and Saint Augustine; or Quintillian and humanists like Lipsius, Muret, Henning and Vossius. I prefer ecclesiastical Latin and I would be especially interested in any statements by 16th and 17th century Catholic grammarians on this issue. In my opinion Latin has always been kept most alive in the Catholic Church." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6396" RevisionGUID="f58863ca-3b23-41a7-9439-74730ad83b70" CreationDate="2018-05-03T22:25:19.710" UserId="2602" Comment="removed opinion" Text="It seems that Saint Augustine in your quote is describing the same phenomenon that we can see consistently marked in later Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While trying to read Marracci's 'Refutatio Alcorani' (https://books.google.nl/books?id=ye40VChDL6gC and https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_-KZEAAAAcAAJ), I noticed that certain words were written with an accent grave on the vowel of their last syllable. Thinking this was a Late Latin feature, I searched for 'accent grave late latin' and found your question here on the Latin language version of something called a stack exchange, so I subscribed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like you, I was surprised to see a reference to word-final stress, because I had always learned that Latin accent falls on the penult if it is long, and on the antepenult if the penult is short. Even the otherwise brilliant Ørberg's Lingua Latina doesn't teach that the 'ultima' or 'oxytone' syllable can be accented as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pedantically speaking, asking 'why' some Latin adverbs have stress on the final syllable is like asking why Latin uses the letter p: it is just the way it is. You could find a Proto-Indo-European 'reason' for it, but this won't explain 'why' this was the case in Proto-Indo-European itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it would be nice to find a pattern, or to describe exactly what the way it is, is. So I did a quick check of the kind of words that have their last syllable accented in a sample of competent Late Latin prose. This is what I found in Marracci's 'Praefatio ad lectorem' (from page iv in the Google Books version linked above):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in è ##&#xD;&#xA;Parcè, ferè, penè, propè, validissimè, doctè, validè, Arabicè, Latinè, Italicè, sanè, eruditè, praecipuè, probè, publicè, novissimè, penitissimè, nervosè, temerè, strenuè, modestè, fortassè, ingenuè, minimè, modestè, quotidiè, impunè, saepè, nempè, exactè, obnixè (the adverb 'ponè' would belong to this class).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in ò ##&#xD;&#xA;Adeò, ideò, verò, omninò, rarò, multò, primò, idcircò, postremò, porrò, mutuò, imò, tantummodò.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in ùs ##&#xD;&#xA;Penitùs, prorsùs, promptiùs, faciliùs, superiùs, copiosiùs, potiùs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So not just some, but in fact *all* adverbs in -o, -e and -us are accented on the last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs and conjunctions ending in ùm ##&#xD;&#xA;Verùm ('but', not 'true thing'), solùm ('only', not 'only thing'), tantùm ('only', not 'so much'), primùm ('firstly', not 'first thing'), nimirùm, potissimùm, demùm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other adverbs, conjunctions and prepositions ##&#xD;&#xA;Diù, unà, praetereà, contrà (exercitum immensum, but contra se?), frustrà, quòd ('because' or 'that', not 'what'), hìc ('here', not 'this (masc. nom.)'), illùc, quàm ('than' and 'how ...', not 'what (fem. acc.)'), tàm, cùm ('when' or 'though', not 'with'), licèt, à, è.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these words only have a final accent with certain meanings, while they don't with other meanings. I don't think that Latin speakers consistently added accents to certain final vowels merely to distinguish homophones in writing, if there were no actual difference in pronunciation, especially when Saint Augustine expected a Latin student to hear a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If grave accents were indeed used to mark actual stress, then there may have been an audible difference even between monosyllabic words with accent (hìc, quàm, cùm, quòd), and without. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding sumelic's answer: it seems to depend on whether we trust Priscian, Donatus, Pseudo-Priscian, Manutius, many or most people who spoke Latin in Muret's time according to Muret, and Saint Augustine; or Quintillian and humanists like Lipsius, Muret, Henning and Vossius. I prefer ecclesiastical Latin and I would be especially interested in any statements by 16th and 17th century Catholic grammarians on this issue. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6396" RevisionGUID="b63a2638-e60b-467c-9969-0af9eb3f383a" CreationDate="2018-05-03T22:54:57.450" UserId="2602" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="It seems that Saint Augustine in your quote is describing the same phenomenon that we can see consistently marked in later Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While trying to read Marracci's 'Refutatio Alcorani' (https://books.google.nl/books?id=ye40VChDL6gC and https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_-KZEAAAAcAAJ), I noticed that certain words were written with an accent grave on the vowel of their last syllable. Thinking this was a Late Latin feature, I searched for 'accent grave late latin' and found your question here on the Latin language version of something called a stack exchange, so I subscribed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like you, I was surprised to see a reference to word-final stress, because I had always learned that Latin accent falls on the penult if it is long, and on the antepenult if the penult is short. Even the otherwise brilliant Ørberg's Lingua Latina doesn't teach that the 'ultima' or 'oxytone' syllable can be accented as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pedantically speaking, asking 'why' some Latin adverbs have stress on the final syllable is like asking why Latin uses the letter p: it is just the way it is. You could find a Proto-Indo-European 'reason' for it, but this won't explain 'why' this was the case in Proto-Indo-European itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it would be nice to find a pattern, or to describe exactly what the way it is, is. So I did a quick check of the kind of words that have their last syllable accented in a sample of competent Late Latin prose. This is what I found in Marracci's 'Praefatio ad lectorem' (from page iv in the Google Books version linked above):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in è ##&#xD;&#xA;Parcè, ferè, penè, propè, validissimè, doctè, validè, Arabicè, Latinè, Italicè, sanè, eruditè, praecipuè, probè, publicè, novissimè, penitissimè, nervosè, temerè, strenuè, modestè, fortassè, ingenuè, minimè, modestè, quotidiè, impunè, saepè, nempè, exactè, obnixè (the adverb 'ponè' would belong to this class).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in ò ##&#xD;&#xA;Adeò, ideò, verò, omninò, rarò, multò, primò, idcircò, postremò, porrò, mutuò, imò, tantummodò.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in ùs ##&#xD;&#xA;Penitùs, prorsùs, promptiùs, faciliùs, superiùs, copiosiùs, potiùs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So not just some, but in fact *all* adverbs in -o, -e and -us are accented on the last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs and conjunctions ending in ùm ##&#xD;&#xA;Verùm ('but', not 'true thing'), solùm ('only', not 'only thing'), tantùm ('only', not 'so much'), primùm ('firstly', not 'first thing'), nimirùm, potissimùm, demùm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other adverbs, conjunctions and prepositions ##&#xD;&#xA;Diù, unà, praetereà, contrà (exercitum immensum, but contra se?), frustrà, quòd ('because' or 'that', not 'what'), hìc ('here', not 'this (masc. nom.)'), illùc, quàm ('than' and 'how ...', not 'what (fem. acc.)'), tàm, cùm ('when' or 'though', not 'with'), licèt, à, è.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these words only have a final accent with certain meanings, while they don't with other meanings. I don't think that Latin speakers consistently added accents to certain final vowels merely to distinguish homophones in writing, if there were no actual difference in pronunciation, especially when Saint Augustine expected a Latin student to hear a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If grave accents were indeed used to mark actual stress, then there may have been an audible difference even between monosyllabic words with accent (hìc, quàm, cùm, quòd), and without. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding sumelic's answer: it seems to depend on whether we trust Priscian, Donatus, Pseudo-Priscian, Manutius, many or most people who spoke Latin in Muret's time according to Muret, and Saint Augustine; or Quintilian and humanists like Lipsius, Muret, Henning and Vossius. I prefer ecclesiastical Latin and I would be especially interested in any statements by 16th and 17th century Catholic grammarians on this issue. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5508" RevisionGUID="e369fe7b-204e-4d87-881e-40095a1952a8" CreationDate="2018-05-03T23:53:26.630" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="In the opening chapter of *De Musica* (written 387-391), St. Augustine gives an example of a Latin oxytone, i.e. a word with accentual stress on the ultimate syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;MASTER:  Now when we pronounce the verb ‘*pōne*’ and the adverb ‘*pōne*’, except for the difference in meaning, do you perceive no difference in sound?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;DISCIPLE:  There is quite a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;MASTER:  What is the difference, since both consist of the same times and the same letters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;DISCIPLE:  The difference is they have the acute accent in different places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;M. Quid? cum enuntiamus, ‘pone’ verbum, et ‘pone’ adverbium; praeter id quod significatio diversa est, nihil tibi videtur sonus distare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;D. Distat omnino.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;M. Unde distat, cum et iisdem temporibus utrumque, et iisdem litteris constet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;D. Eo distat quod in diversis locis habent acumen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's going on here?  Why would the adverb '*pōne*' be pronounced *poné* rather than *póne*?  I read in [this answer][1] that it's an exception to the rule of accent-always-on-the-penult-or-antepenult, and applies to certain other adverbs too (or at least it did in the fourth century):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... ancient grammarians insisted on oxytone stress in some conjunctions: pone (after), sine, ergo, verum (but), in some cases arguably to distinguish those from other homophones. Mancini 1997, however, seems to dispute this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the reasoning behind it?  Is it a shift in grammatical prescription, or was it always that way?  Is it due to some etymological development of those particular words?  I am also looking for particular sources to cite &amp;mdash; down to page number if possible &amp;mdash; to convince others who might ask, especially since this is scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: /questions/600/are-there-exceptions-to-the-latin-stress-rules/604#604" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5183" RevisionGUID="eab5d51e-e33f-4963-ab71-d93f24c34560" CreationDate="2018-05-03T23:55:23.663" UserId="79" Comment="Replaced &quot;syntax&quot; with &quot;word order&quot;, as I assume you meant this. Please correct if I'm wrong!" Text="I want to translate the following as a passive periphrastic:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You must give your money to me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt so far is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;pecunia tua tibi danda est mihi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because Latin rarely acknowledges word order, that is the same as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;pecunia tua mihi danda est tibi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which could be misinterpreted as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I must give your money to you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which has an entirely separate meaning, completely different from what I want to say. Is it possible to differentiate in this scenario the difference between the indirect object and the agent? Would syntax take over in this case? Or is it impossible to have such a structure?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: This is about the grammar, not the vocabulary. I am **not** interested in a solution that involves different vocabulary or uses anything other than the passive periphrastic. Other cases are allowed if they also involve conflicting datives in the passive periphrastic structure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21163" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5183" RevisionGUID="eab5d51e-e33f-4963-ab71-d93f24c34560" CreationDate="2018-05-03T23:55:23.663" UserId="79" Comment="Replaced &quot;syntax&quot; with &quot;word order&quot;, as I assume you meant this. Please correct if I'm wrong!" Text="Passive periphrastic with two datives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="4ab44234-16ad-424b-bd6c-be23ab15ce07" CreationDate="2018-05-04T00:03:45.247" UserId="9" Comment="added 720 characters in body" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. There seems to be some idea that descriptions of accent in old Latin texts are unreliable because they may have been influenced by people's ideas about Greek accentuation, or something like that. (For example, Latin authors often describe Latin syllables as being able to be pronounced with either an &quot;acute&quot; or &quot;circumflex&quot; accent, as in Greek, although there doesn't actually seem to have been a *contrast* between acute and circumflex accentuation in Latin the way that there could be in Greek ultima syllables.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the question of how much we can learn about stress from Latin poetry is apparently unsolved to this day. So there seems to be relatively little uncontroversial evidence about aspects of Latin stress and prosody beyond the well-known penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that Latin adverbs were stressed on the last syllable seems to be considered so implausible by modern linguists that no modern linguistic source that I have found has contained either an explanation of why they might have had this stress pattern, or a detailed argument making the case for why they did not have this stress pattern. (In contrast, I have seen a  a number of sources talking about how to analyze the penult-weight-based stressed rule in terms of modern linguistic theories like Optimality Theory.) Unfortunately, I don't know if the apparently widespread modern rejection of this idea is based on some kind of earlier arguments with more detailed coverage of the evidence for and against.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a passage where Quintilian talks about the accentuation of &quot;circum litora&quot; that often seems to be quoted by people who are arguing against the idea that the last syllable of an adverb took stress in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I am well aware that certain learned men and some professed teachers of literature, to ensure that certain words may be kept distinct, sometimes place an acute accent on the last syllable, both when they are teaching and in ordinary speech: as, for instance, in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; quae circus litora, circum piscosos scopulos,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *Aen. iv. 254.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[26] where they make the last syllable of *circum* acute on the ground that, if that syllable were given the grave accent, it might be thought that they meant *circus* not *circuitus.* Similarly when *quale* is interrogative, they give the final syllable a grave accent, but when using it in a comparison, make it acute. This practice, however, they restrict almost entirely to adverbs and pronouns; in other cases they follow the old usage. [27] Personally I think that in such phrases as these the circumstances are almost entirely altered by the fact that we join two words together. For when I say *circum litora* I pronounce the phrase as one word, concealing the fact that it is composed of two, consequently it contains but one acute accent, as though it were a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Quint. Inst. 1 5, *from* Quintilian. With an English Translation. Harold Edgeworth Butler. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1920. *Accessed through* [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0059%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D5#note13))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quintilian also says a little later:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For in every word the acute accent is restricted to three syllables, whether these be the only syllables in the word or the three last, and will fall either on the penultimate or the antepenultimate. The middle of the three syllables of which I speak will be acute or circumflexed, if long, while if it be short, it will have a grave accent and the acute will be thrown back to the preceding syllable, that is to say the antepenultimate. [31] Every word has an acute accent, but never more than one. Further the acute never falls on the last syllable and therefore in dissyllabic words marks the first syllable. Moreover the acute accent and the circumflex are never found in one and the same word, since the circumflex itself contains an acute accent. Neither the circumflex nor the acute, therefore, will ever be found in the last syllable of a Latin word, with this exception, that monosyllables must either be acute or circumflexed; otherwise we should find words without an acute accent at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [as the Priscian passage quoted above] are to be found in Donatus's *Ars maior* 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and Priscian's *Inst. gram* (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too, when he discusses (and rejects) the notion that the need to distinguish between words sometimes requires a shift of accent: 'Ceterum scio quosdam eruditos, nonnullus etiam grammaticos sic docere ac loqui ut propter  quaedam uocum discrimina uerbum interim acuto sono finiant [..]; quod tamen in aduerbiis fere solis ac pronominibus uindicant, in ceteris ueterem legem secuntur' (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati* (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen an explanation for this, beyond the mention of the supposed value in avoiding homophony with words belonging to other categories that is referenced in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just speculation, as I haven't seen any literature that attempts to explain the putative adverb final-stress phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some features of Latin adverbs that seem like they might possibly be relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adverbs are &quot;indeclinable&quot;: unlike adjectives, substantives, or verbs, they don't end in inflectional suffixes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Adverbs often come immediately before the modified word in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; - adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ideas about Latin prosody that seem relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’. His data suggest that ‘the monosyllabic particles...like all other independent words, have originally an accent, as in fact the grammarians expressly declare; if they very frequently lose this accent, this happens simply because they are subordinated in sense to the other words of the sentence and, at the same time, in the majority of cases, cannot preserve their accent through the operation of the three-syllable law’ (1904: 160).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these quotes, I wonder if the supposed stress on the last syllable of adverbs might be connected to possible lack of stress on the following word; for example, in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A serious problem with my suggestion here is that it would only explain this stress pattern in very particular phonological environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen does mention the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think it seems pretty far-fetched to suppose that sequences of adverb + iambic verb form were so common in Latin as to provide the basis for analogical extension of word-final stress to adverbs in general, in any position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that iambic verb forms in Classical Latin could be pronounced enclitic to the preceding word also seems to rest on fairly doubtful evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson also has a section about verbs where he says that there was probably no tendency to pronounce iambic verbs as enclitics after other iambic words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a sequence of iambic word followed by iambic verb (the type *pater petit*) barely ever fills a measure of Plautine verse, as discussed in Ch. 3, which indicates rather strongly that such a sequence was not prosodically equivalent to a four-syllable word of the same metrical shape, and that therefore the verb did not cliticize to the preceding word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 265)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, Fortson doesn't seem to discuss adverbs in much detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6398" RevisionGUID="f241b90c-ec8e-49e1-a9e0-d85726def0c8" CreationDate="2018-05-04T00:59:44.723" UserId="39" Comment="added 1311 characters in body" Text="There are several issues at stake here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oxytones** in Classical Latin **were extremely rare** - and in many cases resulted from apocope or syncope. See [my answer][1] for more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, accent marks (acutus, gravis, circumflexus etc.) in Post-Classical times were used for a number of reasons. Stotz (1996), in the third volume of his magisterial five volume *Handbuch zur lateinische Sprache des Mittelalters* , mentions that loans from Aramaic and Hebrew were written as manná, Adám, Sión, Iesús etc. (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, he writes the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Wenn ein hmal. Theoriker bei den Präpositionen penes oder sine Endebtonung verlangt, könnte zwar eine syntagmatisch bedingte akzentmäßige Worteinung ('mot métrique') vom Typus *apúd-me* (s. oben) der Ausgangspunkt sein, doch geht es ihm - und so auch bei *circúm*, palám u.ä. - darum, Homographa (bzw. Wörter, die mehreren Wortarten zugehören) eindeutig zu machen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Es geht ihm mithin nicht um Beschreibung hergebrachter Sprachwirklichkeit, sondern um deren spekulativ-differenzierende Veränderung**&quot; (p. 124; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;He is therefore not concerned with the description of language reality, but with its speculative-differentiating change (English translation by Google)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- will make small changes later-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a short screenshot from [Hendrickson 2017][2] so far - more to come later:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers 1994 writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;”As a general rule, we might say that *the grave is the mark of the indeclinable forms” (p. 73).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/604/39&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://brill.com/view/title/34288&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Kf1xm.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6398" RevisionGUID="91485018-fbf2-4b38-b085-712c471fbf2f" CreationDate="2018-05-04T01:11:40.167" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 39 characters in body" Text="There are *several* issues at stake here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oxytones** in Classical Latin **were extremely rare** - and in many cases resulted from apocope or syncope. See [my answer][1] for more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, accent marks (acutus, gravis, circumflexus etc.) in Post-Classical times were used for a number of reasons. Stotz (1996), in the third volume of his magisterial five volume *Handbuch zur lateinische Sprache des Mittelalters* , mentions that, for example, loans from Aramaic and Hebrew were written as manná, Adám, Sión, Iesús etc. (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, he writes the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Wenn ein hmal. Theoriker bei den Präpositionen penes oder sine Endebtonung verlangt, könnte zwar eine syntagmatisch bedingte akzentmäßige Worteinung ('mot métrique') vom Typus *apúd-me* (s. oben) der Ausgangspunkt sein, doch geht es ihm - und so auch bei *circúm*, palám u.ä. - darum, Homographa (bzw. Wörter, die mehreren Wortarten zugehören) eindeutig zu machen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Es geht ihm mithin nicht um Beschreibung hergebrachter Sprachwirklichkeit, sondern um deren spekulativ-differenzierende Veränderung**&quot; (p. 124; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;He is therefore not concerned with the description of language reality, but with its speculative-differentiating change (English translation by Google)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- will make small changes later-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Steenbakkers 1994 &quot;As a general rule, we might say that *the grave* is the mark of the indeclinable forms” (p. 73) or [Hendrickson 2017][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/604/39&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://brill.com/view/title/34288&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Kf1xm.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="f90144bc-4dec-448d-958b-04a2619fd3e6" CreationDate="2018-05-04T01:27:25.820" UserId="9" Comment="added 501 characters in body" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. There seems to be some idea that descriptions of accent in old Latin texts are unreliable because they may have been influenced by people's ideas about Greek accentuation, or something like that. (For example, Latin authors often describe Latin syllables as being able to be pronounced with either an &quot;acute&quot; or &quot;circumflex&quot; accent, as in Greek, although there doesn't actually seem to have been a *contrast* between acute and circumflex accentuation in any context in Latin the way that there could be in Greek ultima syllables with long vowels. Rather, the described distribution of acute and circumflex accents in Latin is predictable based on the vowel length and the position of the accent: supposedly, short accented vowels  were pronounced with the acute accent (as in Greek), while long accented vowels were pronounced with an acute accent in antepenultimate syllables (again as in Greek), and with a circumflex accent in penultimate syllables or in monosyllabic words.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the question of how much we can learn about stress from Latin poetry is apparently unsolved to this day. So there seems to be relatively little uncontroversial evidence about aspects of Latin stress and prosody beyond the well-known penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that Latin adverbs (and certain other words) were stressed on the last syllable seems to be considered so implausible by modern linguists that no modern linguistic source that I have found has contained either an explanation of why they might have had this stress pattern, or a detailed argument making the case for why they did not have this stress pattern. (In contrast, I have seen a  a number of sources that try to provide detailed analyses of the penult-weight-based stressed rule in terms of modern linguistic theories like Optimality Theory.) Unfortunately, I don't know if the apparently widespread modern rejection of this idea is based on some kind of earlier arguments with more detailed coverage of the evidence for and against.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a passage where Quintilian talks about the accentuation of &quot;circum litora&quot; that often seems to be quoted by people who are arguing against the idea that the last syllable of an adverb took stress in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I am well aware that certain learned men and some professed teachers of literature, to ensure that certain words may be kept distinct, sometimes place an acute accent on the last syllable, both when they are teaching and in ordinary speech: as, for instance, in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; quae circus litora, circum piscosos scopulos,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *Aen. iv. 254.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[26] where they make the last syllable of *circum* acute on the ground that, if that syllable were given the grave accent, it might be thought that they meant *circus* not *circuitus.* Similarly when *quale* is interrogative, they give the final syllable a grave accent, but when using it in a comparison, make it acute. This practice, however, they restrict almost entirely to adverbs and pronouns; in other cases they follow the old usage. [27] Personally I think that in such phrases as these the circumstances are almost entirely altered by the fact that we join two words together. For when I say *circum litora* I pronounce the phrase as one word, concealing the fact that it is composed of two, consequently it contains but one acute accent, as though it were a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Quint. Inst. 1 5, *from* Quintilian. With an English Translation. Harold Edgeworth Butler. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1920. *Accessed through* [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0059%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D5#note13))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quintilian also says a little later:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For in every word the acute accent is restricted to three syllables, whether these be the only syllables in the word or the three last, and will fall either on the penultimate or the antepenultimate. The middle of the three syllables of which I speak will be acute or circumflexed, if long, while if it be short, it will have a grave accent and the acute will be thrown back to the preceding syllable, that is to say the antepenultimate. [31] Every word has an acute accent, but never more than one. Further the acute never falls on the last syllable and therefore in dissyllabic words marks the first syllable. Moreover the acute accent and the circumflex are never found in one and the same word, since the circumflex itself contains an acute accent. Neither the circumflex nor the acute, therefore, will ever be found in the last syllable of a Latin word, with this exception, that monosyllables must either be acute or circumflexed; otherwise we should find words without an acute accent at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [as the Priscian passage quoted above] are to be found in Donatus's *Ars maior* 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and Priscian's *Inst. gram* (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too, when he discusses (and rejects) the notion that the need to distinguish between words sometimes requires a shift of accent: 'Ceterum scio quosdam eruditos, nonnullus etiam grammaticos sic docere ac loqui ut propter  quaedam uocum discrimina uerbum interim acuto sono finiant [..]; quod tamen in aduerbiis fere solis ac pronominibus uindicant, in ceteris ueterem legem secuntur' (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati* (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen an explanation for this, beyond the mention of the supposed value in avoiding homophony with words belonging to other categories that is referenced in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just speculation, as I haven't seen any literature that attempts to explain the putative adverb final-stress phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some features of Latin adverbs that seem like they might possibly be relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adverbs are &quot;indeclinable&quot;: unlike adjectives, substantives, or verbs, they don't end in inflectional suffixes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Adverbs often come immediately before the modified word in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; - adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ideas about Latin prosody that seem relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’. His data suggest that ‘the monosyllabic particles...like all other independent words, have originally an accent, as in fact the grammarians expressly declare; if they very frequently lose this accent, this happens simply because they are subordinated in sense to the other words of the sentence and, at the same time, in the majority of cases, cannot preserve their accent through the operation of the three-syllable law’ (1904: 160).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these quotes, I wonder if the supposed stress on the last syllable of adverbs might be connected to possible lack of stress on the following word; for example, in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A serious problem with my suggestion here is that it would only explain this stress pattern in very particular phonological environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen does mention the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think it seems pretty far-fetched to suppose that sequences of adverb + iambic verb form were so common in Latin as to provide the basis for analogical extension of word-final stress to adverbs in general, in any position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that iambic verb forms in Classical Latin could be pronounced enclitic to the preceding word also seems to rest on fairly doubtful evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson also has a section about verbs where he says that there was probably no tendency to pronounce iambic verbs as enclitics after other iambic words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a sequence of iambic word followed by iambic verb (the type *pater petit*) barely ever fills a measure of Plautine verse, as discussed in Ch. 3, which indicates rather strongly that such a sequence was not prosodically equivalent to a four-syllable word of the same metrical shape, and that therefore the verb did not cliticize to the preceding word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 265)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, Fortson doesn't seem to discuss adverbs in much detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6396" RevisionGUID="645f5fcc-7490-4d3a-9edf-2a2dd2e581be" CreationDate="2018-05-04T01:36:43.227" UserId="2602" Comment="added 621 characters in body" Text="It seems that Saint Augustine in your quote is describing the same phenomenon that we can see consistently marked in later Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While trying to read Marracci's 'Refutatio Alcorani' (https://books.google.nl/books?id=ye40VChDL6gC and https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_-KZEAAAAcAAJ), I noticed that certain words were written with an accent grave on the vowel of their last syllable. Thinking this was a Late Latin feature, I searched for 'accent grave late latin' and found your question here on the Latin language version of something called a stack exchange, so I subscribed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like you, I was surprised to see a reference to word-final stress, because I had always learned that Latin accent falls on the penult if it is long, and on the antepenult if the penult is short. Even the otherwise brilliant Ørberg's Lingua Latina doesn't teach that the 'ultima' or 'oxytone' syllable can be accented as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pedantically speaking, asking 'why' some Latin adverbs have stress on the final syllable is like asking why Latin uses the letter p: it is just the way it is. You could find a Proto-Indo-European 'reason' for it, but this won't explain 'why' this was the case in Proto-Indo-European itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it would be nice to find a pattern, or to describe exactly what the way it is, is. So I did a quick check of the kind of words that have their last syllable accented in a sample of competent Late Latin prose. This is what I found in Marracci's 'Praefatio ad lectorem' (from page iv in the Google Books version linked above):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in è ##&#xD;&#xA;Parcè, ferè, penè, propè, validissimè, doctè, validè, Arabicè, Latinè, Italicè, sanè, eruditè, praecipuè, probè, publicè, novissimè, penitissimè, nervosè, temerè, strenuè, modestè, fortassè, ingenuè, minimè, modestè, quotidiè, impunè, saepè, nempè, exactè, obnixè (the adverb 'ponè' would belong to this class).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in ò ##&#xD;&#xA;Adeò, ideò, verò, omninò, rarò, multò, primò, idcircò, postremò, porrò, mutuò, imò, tantummodò.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in ùs ##&#xD;&#xA;Penitùs, prorsùs, promptiùs, faciliùs, superiùs, copiosiùs, potiùs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So not just some, but in fact *all* adverbs in -o, -e and -us are accented on the last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs and conjunctions ending in ùm ##&#xD;&#xA;Verùm ('but', not 'true thing'), solùm ('only', not 'only thing'), tantùm ('only', not 'so much'), primùm ('firstly', not 'first thing'), nimirùm, potissimùm, demùm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other adverbs, conjunctions and prepositions ##&#xD;&#xA;Diù, unà, praetereà, contrà (exercitum immensum, but contra se?), frustrà, quòd ('because' or 'that', not 'what'), hìc ('here', not 'this (masc. nom.)'), illùc, quàm ('than' and 'how ...', not 'what (fem. acc.)'), tàm, cùm ('when' or 'though', not 'with'), licèt, à, è.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these words only have a final accent with certain meanings, while they don't with other meanings. I don't think that Latin speakers consistently added accents to certain final vowels merely to distinguish homophones in writing, if there were no actual difference in pronunciation, especially when Saint Augustine expected a Latin student to hear a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If grave accents were indeed used to mark actual stress, then there may have been an audible difference even between monosyllabic words with accent (hìc, quàm, cùm, quòd), and without. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding sumelic's answer: it seems to depend on whether we trust Priscian, Donatus, Pseudo-Priscian, Manutius, many or most people who spoke Latin in Muret's time according to Muret, and Saint Augustine; or Quintilian and humanists like Lipsius, Muret, Henning and Vossius. I prefer ecclesiastical Latin and I would be especially interested in any statements by 16th and 17th century Catholic grammarians on this issue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding Alex B.'s answer: In both of these quotes by Hendrickson 2017 and Stotz 1996, they only assert that the 16th and 17th century final accent grave had nothing to do with phonology, but their sources are unclear. In the OP's quote by Saint Augustine, I see a clear reference to a phonological difference in early late Latin, which matches a later difference in orthography. In order to overrule this evidence, I would need a primary source from a preferably non-humanist Late Latin writer who mentions the orthographic convention of the final accent grave, and warns that it should be ignored in pronunciation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="56d8d87d-4899-4467-80b0-a68bd7e7e2bd" CreationDate="2018-05-04T01:47:20.670" UserId="9" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. There seems to be some idea that ancient grammarians' descriptions of Latin accent are unreliable because they may have been influenced by people's ideas about Greek accentuation, or something like that. (For example, Latin authors often describe Latin syllables as being able to be pronounced with either an &quot;acute&quot; or &quot;circumflex&quot; accent, as in Greek, although there doesn't actually seem to have been a *contrast* between acute and circumflex accentuation in any context in Latin the way that there could be in Greek ultima syllables with long vowels. Rather, the described distribution of acute and circumflex accents in Latin is apparently predictable based on the vowel length and the position of the accent: supposedly, short accented vowels  were pronounced with the acute accent (as in Greek), while long accented vowels were pronounced with an acute accent in antepenultimate syllables (again as in Greek), and with a circumflex accent in penultimate syllables or in monosyllabic words.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the question of how much we can learn about stress from Latin poetry is apparently unsolved to this day. So there seems to be relatively little uncontroversial evidence about aspects of Latin stress and prosody beyond the well-known penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that Latin adverbs (and certain other words) were stressed on the last syllable seems to be considered so implausible by modern linguists that no modern linguistic source that I have found has contained either an explanation of why they might have had this stress pattern, or a detailed argument making the case for why they did not have this stress pattern. (In contrast, I have seen a  a number of sources that try to provide detailed analyses of the penult-weight-based stressed rule in terms of modern linguistic theories like Optimality Theory.) Unfortunately, I don't know if the apparently widespread modern rejection of this idea is based on some kind of earlier arguments with more detailed coverage of the evidence for and against.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a passage where Quintilian talks about the accentuation of &quot;circum litora&quot; that often seems to be quoted by people who are arguing against the idea that the last syllable of an adverb took stress in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I am well aware that certain learned men and some professed teachers of literature, to ensure that certain words may be kept distinct, sometimes place an acute accent on the last syllable, both when they are teaching and in ordinary speech: as, for instance, in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; quae circus litora, circum piscosos scopulos,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *Aen. iv. 254.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[26] where they make the last syllable of *circum* acute on the ground that, if that syllable were given the grave accent, it might be thought that they meant *circus* not *circuitus.* Similarly when *quale* is interrogative, they give the final syllable a grave accent, but when using it in a comparison, make it acute. This practice, however, they restrict almost entirely to adverbs and pronouns; in other cases they follow the old usage. [27] Personally I think that in such phrases as these the circumstances are almost entirely altered by the fact that we join two words together. For when I say *circum litora* I pronounce the phrase as one word, concealing the fact that it is composed of two, consequently it contains but one acute accent, as though it were a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Quint. Inst. 1 5, *from* Quintilian. With an English Translation. Harold Edgeworth Butler. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1920. *Accessed through* [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0059%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D5#note13))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quintilian also says a little later:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For in every word the acute accent is restricted to three syllables, whether these be the only syllables in the word or the three last, and will fall either on the penultimate or the antepenultimate. The middle of the three syllables of which I speak will be acute or circumflexed, if long, while if it be short, it will have a grave accent and the acute will be thrown back to the preceding syllable, that is to say the antepenultimate. [31] Every word has an acute accent, but never more than one. Further the acute never falls on the last syllable and therefore in dissyllabic words marks the first syllable. Moreover the acute accent and the circumflex are never found in one and the same word, since the circumflex itself contains an acute accent. Neither the circumflex nor the acute, therefore, will ever be found in the last syllable of a Latin word, with this exception, that monosyllables must either be acute or circumflexed; otherwise we should find words without an acute accent at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [as the Priscian passage quoted above] are to be found in Donatus's *Ars maior* 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and Priscian's *Inst. gram* (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too, when he discusses (and rejects) the notion that the need to distinguish between words sometimes requires a shift of accent: 'Ceterum scio quosdam eruditos, nonnullus etiam grammaticos sic docere ac loqui ut propter  quaedam uocum discrimina uerbum interim acuto sono finiant [..]; quod tamen in aduerbiis fere solis ac pronominibus uindicant, in ceteris ueterem legem secuntur' (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati* (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen an explanation for this, beyond the mention of the supposed value in avoiding homophony with words belonging to other categories that is referenced in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just speculation, as I haven't seen any literature that attempts to explain the putative adverb final-stress phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some features of Latin adverbs that seem like they might possibly be relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adverbs are &quot;indeclinable&quot;: unlike adjectives, substantives, or verbs, they don't end in inflectional suffixes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Adverbs often come immediately before the modified word in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; - adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ideas about Latin prosody that seem relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’. His data suggest that ‘the monosyllabic particles...like all other independent words, have originally an accent, as in fact the grammarians expressly declare; if they very frequently lose this accent, this happens simply because they are subordinated in sense to the other words of the sentence and, at the same time, in the majority of cases, cannot preserve their accent through the operation of the three-syllable law’ (1904: 160).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these quotes, I wonder if the supposed stress on the last syllable of adverbs might be connected to possible lack of stress on the following word; for example, in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A serious problem with my suggestion here is that it would only explain this stress pattern in very particular phonological environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen does mention the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think it seems pretty far-fetched to suppose that sequences of adverb + iambic verb form were so common in Latin as to provide the basis for analogical extension of word-final stress to adverbs in general, in any position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that iambic verb forms in Classical Latin could be pronounced enclitic to the preceding word also seems to rest on fairly doubtful evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson also has a section about verbs where he says that there was probably no tendency to pronounce iambic verbs as enclitics after other iambic words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a sequence of iambic word followed by iambic verb (the type *pater petit*) barely ever fills a measure of Plautine verse, as discussed in Ch. 3, which indicates rather strongly that such a sequence was not prosodically equivalent to a four-syllable word of the same metrical shape, and that therefore the verb did not cliticize to the preceding word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 265)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, Fortson doesn't seem to discuss adverbs in much detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6396" RevisionGUID="80810076-a9ce-4cb2-a99b-efadb0b182a8" CreationDate="2018-05-04T01:48:33.020" UserId="2602" Comment="added 621 characters in body" Text="It seems that Saint Augustine in your quote is describing the same phenomenon that we can see consistently marked in later Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While trying to read Marracci's 'Refutatio Alcorani' (https://books.google.nl/books?id=ye40VChDL6gC and https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_-KZEAAAAcAAJ), I noticed that certain words were written with an accent grave on the vowel of their last syllable. Thinking this was a Late Latin feature, I searched for 'accent grave late latin' and found your question here on the Latin language version of something called a stack exchange, so I subscribed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like you, I was surprised to see a reference to word-final stress, because I had always learned that Latin accent falls on the penult if it is long, and on the antepenult if the penult is short. Even the otherwise brilliant Ørberg's Lingua Latina doesn't teach that the 'ultima' or 'oxytone' syllable can be accented as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pedantically speaking, asking 'why' some Latin adverbs have stress on the final syllable is like asking why Latin uses the letter p: it is just the way it is. You could find a Proto-Indo-European 'reason' for it, but this won't explain 'why' this was the case in Proto-Indo-European itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it would be nice to find a pattern, or to describe exactly what the way it is, is. So I did a quick check of the kind of words that have their last syllable accented in a sample of competent Late Latin prose. This is what I found in Marracci's 'Praefatio ad lectorem' (from page iv in the Google Books version linked above):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in è ##&#xD;&#xA;Parcè, ferè, penè, propè, validissimè, doctè, validè, Arabicè, Latinè, Italicè, sanè, eruditè, praecipuè, probè, publicè, novissimè, penitissimè, nervosè, temerè, strenuè, modestè, fortassè, ingenuè, minimè, modestè, quotidiè, impunè, saepè, nempè, exactè, obnixè (the adverb 'ponè' would belong to this class).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in ò ##&#xD;&#xA;Adeò, ideò, verò, omninò, rarò, multò, primò, idcircò, postremò, porrò, mutuò, imò, tantummodò.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in ùs ##&#xD;&#xA;Penitùs, prorsùs, promptiùs, faciliùs, superiùs, copiosiùs, potiùs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So not just some, but in fact *all* adverbs in -o, -e and -us are accented on the last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs and conjunctions ending in ùm ##&#xD;&#xA;Verùm ('but', not 'true thing'), solùm ('only', not 'only thing'), tantùm ('only', not 'so much'), primùm ('firstly', not 'first thing'), nimirùm, potissimùm, demùm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other adverbs, conjunctions and prepositions ##&#xD;&#xA;Diù, unà, praetereà, contrà (exercitum immensum, but contra se?), frustrà, quòd ('because' or 'that', not 'what'), hìc ('here', not 'this (masc. nom.)'), illùc, quàm ('than' and 'how ...', not 'what (fem. acc.)'), tàm, cùm ('when' or 'though', not 'with'), licèt, à, è.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these words only have a final accent with certain meanings, while they don't with other meanings. I don't think that Latin speakers consistently added accents to certain final vowels merely to distinguish homophones in writing, if there were no actual difference in pronunciation, especially when Saint Augustine expected a Latin student to hear a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If grave accents were indeed used to mark actual stress, then there may have been an audible difference even between monosyllabic words with accent (hìc, quàm, cùm, quòd), and without. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding sumelic's answer: it seems to depend on whether we trust Priscian, Donatus, Pseudo-Priscian, Manutius, many or most people who spoke Latin in Muret's time according to Muret, and Saint Augustine; or Quintilian and humanists like Lipsius, Muret, Henning and Vossius. I prefer ecclesiastical Latin and I would be especially interested in any statements by 16th and 17th century Catholic grammarians on this issue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding Alex B.'s answer: In both of these quotes by Hendrickson 2017 and Stotz 1996, they only assert that the 16th and 17th century final accent grave had nothing to do with phonology, but their sources are unclear, and you acknowledge that modern Latin grammars never try to make the case for why this written accent must not have been pronounced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the OP's quote by Saint Augustine shows a clear reference to a phonological difference in early late Latin, which matches a later difference in orthography. In order to overrule this evidence, I would need a primary source from a preferably non-humanist Late Latin writer who mentions the orthographic convention of the final accent grave, and also warns that it should be ignored in pronunciation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="49ae6fa0-c5db-41fd-bf08-519dc964c8fc" CreationDate="2018-05-04T01:55:07.557" UserId="9" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. The idea that Latin adverbs (and certain other words) were stressed on the last syllable seems to be considered so implausible by modern linguists that no modern linguistic source that I have found has contained either an explanation of why they might have had this stress pattern, or a detailed argument making the case for why they did not have this stress pattern. (In contrast, I have seen a  a number of sources that try to provide detailed analyses of the penult-weight-based stressed rule in terms of modern linguistic theories like Optimality Theory.) Unfortunately, I don't know if the apparently widespread modern rejection of this idea is based on some kind of earlier arguments with more detailed coverage of the evidence for and against.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The types of evidence that I know of, and why they are controversial&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are apparently a number of descriptions of Latin accent in ancient grammarians, but sources I have read often suggest that these are unreliable because they may have been influenced by people's ideas about Greek accentuation, or something like that. For example, Latin authors often describe Latin syllables as being able to be pronounced with either an &quot;acute&quot; or &quot;circumflex&quot; accent, as in Greek, although there doesn't actually seem to have been a *contrast* between acute and circumflex accentuation in any context in Latin the way that there could be in Greek ultima syllables with long vowels. Rather, the described distribution of acute and circumflex accents in Latin is apparently predictable based on the vowel length and the position of the accent: supposedly, short accented vowels  were pronounced with the acute accent (as in Greek), while long accented vowels were pronounced with an acute accent in antepenultimate syllables (again as in Greek), and with a circumflex accent in penultimate syllables or in monosyllabic words. Mainstream modern scholarship on Latin seems to reject this account of Latin accent, which casts a bit of a shadow on anything else that the ancient grammarians have to say about the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, later accounts of Latin accent are often written by people who were influenced by the ancient grammarians' accounts, so the same suspicion seems to attach to post-classical sources that reference this kind of accentuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be supposed that ancient poetry could provide some relevant evidence, but the question of how much we can learn about stress/accent from Latin poetry is apparently highly complex and disputed to this day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So there seems to be relatively little uncontroversial evidence about aspects of Latin stress and prosody beyond the well-known penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a passage where Quintilian talks about the accentuation of &quot;circum litora&quot; that often seems to be quoted by people who are arguing against the idea that the last syllable of an adverb took stress in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I am well aware that certain learned men and some professed teachers of literature, to ensure that certain words may be kept distinct, sometimes place an acute accent on the last syllable, both when they are teaching and in ordinary speech: as, for instance, in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; quae circus litora, circum piscosos scopulos,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *Aen. iv. 254.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[26] where they make the last syllable of *circum* acute on the ground that, if that syllable were given the grave accent, it might be thought that they meant *circus* not *circuitus.* Similarly when *quale* is interrogative, they give the final syllable a grave accent, but when using it in a comparison, make it acute. This practice, however, they restrict almost entirely to adverbs and pronouns; in other cases they follow the old usage. [27] Personally I think that in such phrases as these the circumstances are almost entirely altered by the fact that we join two words together. For when I say *circum litora* I pronounce the phrase as one word, concealing the fact that it is composed of two, consequently it contains but one acute accent, as though it were a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Quint. Inst. 1 5, *from* Quintilian. With an English Translation. Harold Edgeworth Butler. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1920. *Accessed through* [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0059%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D5#note13))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quintilian also says a little later:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For in every word the acute accent is restricted to three syllables, whether these be the only syllables in the word or the three last, and will fall either on the penultimate or the antepenultimate. The middle of the three syllables of which I speak will be acute or circumflexed, if long, while if it be short, it will have a grave accent and the acute will be thrown back to the preceding syllable, that is to say the antepenultimate. [31] Every word has an acute accent, but never more than one. Further the acute never falls on the last syllable and therefore in dissyllabic words marks the first syllable. Moreover the acute accent and the circumflex are never found in one and the same word, since the circumflex itself contains an acute accent. Neither the circumflex nor the acute, therefore, will ever be found in the last syllable of a Latin word, with this exception, that monosyllables must either be acute or circumflexed; otherwise we should find words without an acute accent at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [as the Priscian passage quoted above] are to be found in Donatus's *Ars maior* 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and Priscian's *Inst. gram* (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too, when he discusses (and rejects) the notion that the need to distinguish between words sometimes requires a shift of accent: 'Ceterum scio quosdam eruditos, nonnullus etiam grammaticos sic docere ac loqui ut propter  quaedam uocum discrimina uerbum interim acuto sono finiant [..]; quod tamen in aduerbiis fere solis ac pronominibus uindicant, in ceteris ueterem legem secuntur' (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati* (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen an explanation for this, beyond the mention of the supposed value in avoiding homophony with words belonging to other categories that is referenced in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just speculation, as I haven't seen any literature that attempts to explain the putative adverb final-stress phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some features of Latin adverbs that seem like they might possibly be relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adverbs are &quot;indeclinable&quot;: unlike adjectives, substantives, or verbs, they don't end in inflectional suffixes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Adverbs often come immediately before the modified word in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; - adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ideas about Latin prosody that seem relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’. His data suggest that ‘the monosyllabic particles...like all other independent words, have originally an accent, as in fact the grammarians expressly declare; if they very frequently lose this accent, this happens simply because they are subordinated in sense to the other words of the sentence and, at the same time, in the majority of cases, cannot preserve their accent through the operation of the three-syllable law’ (1904: 160).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these quotes, I wonder if the supposed stress on the last syllable of adverbs might be connected to possible lack of stress on the following word; for example, in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A serious problem with my suggestion here is that it would only explain this stress pattern in very particular phonological environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen does mention the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think it seems pretty far-fetched to suppose that sequences of adverb + iambic verb form were so common in Latin as to provide the basis for analogical extension of word-final stress to adverbs in general, in any position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that iambic verb forms in Classical Latin could be pronounced enclitic to the preceding word also seems to rest on fairly doubtful evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson also has a section about verbs where he says that there was probably no tendency to pronounce iambic verbs as enclitics after other iambic words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a sequence of iambic word followed by iambic verb (the type *pater petit*) barely ever fills a measure of Plautine verse, as discussed in Ch. 3, which indicates rather strongly that such a sequence was not prosodically equivalent to a four-syllable word of the same metrical shape, and that therefore the verb did not cliticize to the preceding word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 265)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, Fortson doesn't seem to discuss adverbs in much detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="50b35f93-922e-4672-8d74-fdd26789f584" CreationDate="2018-05-04T02:00:08.697" UserId="9" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. The idea that Latin adverbs (and certain other words) were stressed or accented on the last syllable seems to be considered so implausible by modern linguists that no modern linguistic source that I have found has contained either an explanation of why they might have had this stress pattern, or a detailed argument making the case for why they did not have this stress pattern. (In contrast, I have seen a  a number of sources that try to provide detailed analyses of the penult-weight-based stressed rule in terms of modern linguistic theories like Optimality Theory.) Unfortunately, I don't know if the apparently widespread modern rejection of this idea is based on some kind of earlier arguments with more detailed coverage of the evidence for and against.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The types of evidence that I know of, and why they are controversial&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are apparently a number of descriptions of Latin accent in ancient grammarians, but sources I have read often suggest that these are unreliable because they may have been influenced by people's ideas about Greek accentuation, or something like that. For example, Latin authors often describe Latin syllables as being able to be pronounced with either an &quot;acute&quot; or &quot;circumflex&quot; accent, as in Greek, although there doesn't actually seem to have been a *contrast* between acute and circumflex accentuation in any context in Latin the way that there could be in Greek ultima syllables with long vowels. Rather, the described distribution of acute and circumflex accents in Latin is apparently predictable based on the vowel length and the position of the accent: supposedly, short accented vowels  were pronounced with the acute accent (as in Greek), while long accented vowels were pronounced with an acute accent in antepenultimate syllables (again as in Greek), and with a circumflex accent in penultimate syllables or in monosyllabic words. Mainstream modern scholarship on Latin seems to reject this account of Latin accent, which casts a bit of a shadow on anything else that the ancient grammarians have to say about the subject. (This kind of concern also seems to be part of the reason for the controversy about the rule that a light syllable could be accented before a monosyllabic enclitic that is mentioned in C. M. Weimer's answer to the linked question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, later accounts of Latin accent are often written by people who were influenced by the ancient grammarians' accounts, so the same suspicion seems to attach to post-classical sources that reference this kind of accentuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be supposed that ancient poetry could provide some relevant evidence, but the question of how much we can learn about stress/accent from Latin poetry is apparently highly complex and disputed to this day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So there seems to be relatively little uncontroversial evidence about aspects of Latin stress and prosody beyond the well-known penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a passage where Quintilian talks about the accentuation of &quot;circum litora&quot; that often seems to be quoted by people who are arguing against the idea that the last syllable of an adverb took stress in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I am well aware that certain learned men and some professed teachers of literature, to ensure that certain words may be kept distinct, sometimes place an acute accent on the last syllable, both when they are teaching and in ordinary speech: as, for instance, in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; quae circus litora, circum piscosos scopulos,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *Aen. iv. 254.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[26] where they make the last syllable of *circum* acute on the ground that, if that syllable were given the grave accent, it might be thought that they meant *circus* not *circuitus.* Similarly when *quale* is interrogative, they give the final syllable a grave accent, but when using it in a comparison, make it acute. This practice, however, they restrict almost entirely to adverbs and pronouns; in other cases they follow the old usage. [27] Personally I think that in such phrases as these the circumstances are almost entirely altered by the fact that we join two words together. For when I say *circum litora* I pronounce the phrase as one word, concealing the fact that it is composed of two, consequently it contains but one acute accent, as though it were a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Quint. Inst. 1 5, *from* Quintilian. With an English Translation. Harold Edgeworth Butler. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1920. *Accessed through* [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0059%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D5#note13))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quintilian also says a little later:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For in every word the acute accent is restricted to three syllables, whether these be the only syllables in the word or the three last, and will fall either on the penultimate or the antepenultimate. The middle of the three syllables of which I speak will be acute or circumflexed, if long, while if it be short, it will have a grave accent and the acute will be thrown back to the preceding syllable, that is to say the antepenultimate. [31] Every word has an acute accent, but never more than one. Further the acute never falls on the last syllable and therefore in dissyllabic words marks the first syllable. Moreover the acute accent and the circumflex are never found in one and the same word, since the circumflex itself contains an acute accent. Neither the circumflex nor the acute, therefore, will ever be found in the last syllable of a Latin word, with this exception, that monosyllables must either be acute or circumflexed; otherwise we should find words without an acute accent at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [as the Priscian passage quoted above] are to be found in Donatus's *Ars maior* 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and Priscian's *Inst. gram* (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too, when he discusses (and rejects) the notion that the need to distinguish between words sometimes requires a shift of accent: 'Ceterum scio quosdam eruditos, nonnullus etiam grammaticos sic docere ac loqui ut propter  quaedam uocum discrimina uerbum interim acuto sono finiant [..]; quod tamen in aduerbiis fere solis ac pronominibus uindicant, in ceteris ueterem legem secuntur' (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati* (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen an explanation for this, beyond the mention of the supposed value in avoiding homophony with words belonging to other categories that is referenced in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just speculation, as I haven't seen any literature that attempts to explain the putative adverb final-stress phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some features of Latin adverbs that seem like they might possibly be relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adverbs are &quot;indeclinable&quot;: unlike adjectives, substantives, or verbs, they don't end in inflectional suffixes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Adverbs often come immediately before the modified word in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; - adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ideas about Latin prosody that seem relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’. His data suggest that ‘the monosyllabic particles...like all other independent words, have originally an accent, as in fact the grammarians expressly declare; if they very frequently lose this accent, this happens simply because they are subordinated in sense to the other words of the sentence and, at the same time, in the majority of cases, cannot preserve their accent through the operation of the three-syllable law’ (1904: 160).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these quotes, I wonder if the supposed stress on the last syllable of adverbs might be connected to possible lack of stress on the following word; for example, in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A serious problem with my suggestion here is that it would only explain this stress pattern in very particular phonological environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen does mention the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think it seems pretty far-fetched to suppose that sequences of adverb + iambic verb form were so common in Latin as to provide the basis for analogical extension of word-final stress to adverbs in general, in any position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that iambic verb forms in Classical Latin could be pronounced enclitic to the preceding word also seems to rest on fairly doubtful evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson also has a section about verbs where he says that there was probably no tendency to pronounce iambic verbs as enclitics after other iambic words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a sequence of iambic word followed by iambic verb (the type *pater petit*) barely ever fills a measure of Plautine verse, as discussed in Ch. 3, which indicates rather strongly that such a sequence was not prosodically equivalent to a four-syllable word of the same metrical shape, and that therefore the verb did not cliticize to the preceding word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 265)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, Fortson doesn't seem to discuss adverbs in much detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="c39748d4-f622-44ea-950d-500f57eda458" CreationDate="2018-05-04T02:08:16.097" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. The idea that Latin adverbs (and certain other words) were stressed or accented on the last syllable seems to be considered so implausible by modern linguists that no modern linguistic source that I have found has contained either an explanation of why they might have had this stress pattern, or a detailed argument making the case for why they did not have this stress pattern. (In contrast, I have seen a  a number of sources that try to provide detailed analyses of the penult-weight-based stressed rule in terms of modern linguistic theories like Optimality Theory.) Unfortunately, I don't know if the apparently widespread modern rejection of this idea is based on some kind of earlier arguments with more detailed coverage of the evidence for and against.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The types of evidence that I know of, and why they are controversial&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are apparently a number of descriptions of Latin accent in ancient grammarians, but sources I have read often suggest that these are unreliable because they may have been influenced by people's ideas about Greek accentuation, or something like that. For example, Latin authors often describe Latin syllables as being able to be pronounced with either an &quot;acute&quot; or &quot;circumflex&quot; accent, as in Greek, although there doesn't actually seem to have been a *contrast* between acute and circumflex accentuation in any context in Latin the way that there could be in Greek ultima syllables with long vowels. Rather, the described distribution of acute and circumflex accents in Latin is apparently predictable based on the vowel length and the position of the accent: supposedly, short accented vowels  were pronounced with the acute accent (as in Greek), while long accented vowels were pronounced with an acute accent in antepenultimate syllables (again as in Greek), and with a circumflex accent in penultimate syllables or in monosyllabic words. Mainstream modern scholarship on Latin seems to reject this account of Latin accent, which casts a bit of a shadow on anything else that the ancient grammarians have to say about the subject. (This kind of concern also seems to be part of the reason for the controversy mentioned in C. M. Weimer's answer to the linked question about the rule that a light syllable was stressed (or according to the traditional account, took an acute accent) before a monosyllabic enclitic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, later accounts of Latin accent are often written by people who were influenced by the ancient grammarians' accounts, so the same suspicion seems to attach to post-classical sources that reference this kind of accentuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be supposed that ancient poetry could provide some relevant evidence, but the question of how much we can learn about stress/accent from Latin poetry is apparently highly complex and disputed to this day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So there seems to be relatively little uncontroversial evidence about aspects of Latin stress and prosody beyond the well-known penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a passage where Quintilian talks about the accentuation of &quot;circum litora&quot; that often seems to be quoted by people who are arguing against the idea that the last syllable of an adverb took stress in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I am well aware that certain learned men and some professed teachers of literature, to ensure that certain words may be kept distinct, sometimes place an acute accent on the last syllable, both when they are teaching and in ordinary speech: as, for instance, in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; quae circus litora, circum piscosos scopulos,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *Aen. iv. 254.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[26] where they make the last syllable of *circum* acute on the ground that, if that syllable were given the grave accent, it might be thought that they meant *circus* not *circuitus.* Similarly when *quale* is interrogative, they give the final syllable a grave accent, but when using it in a comparison, make it acute. This practice, however, they restrict almost entirely to adverbs and pronouns; in other cases they follow the old usage. [27] Personally I think that in such phrases as these the circumstances are almost entirely altered by the fact that we join two words together. For when I say *circum litora* I pronounce the phrase as one word, concealing the fact that it is composed of two, consequently it contains but one acute accent, as though it were a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Quint. Inst. 1 5, *from* Quintilian. With an English Translation. Harold Edgeworth Butler. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1920. *Accessed through* [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0059%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D5#note13))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quintilian also says a little later:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For in every word the acute accent is restricted to three syllables, whether these be the only syllables in the word or the three last, and will fall either on the penultimate or the antepenultimate. The middle of the three syllables of which I speak will be acute or circumflexed, if long, while if it be short, it will have a grave accent and the acute will be thrown back to the preceding syllable, that is to say the antepenultimate. [31] Every word has an acute accent, but never more than one. Further the acute never falls on the last syllable and therefore in dissyllabic words marks the first syllable. Moreover the acute accent and the circumflex are never found in one and the same word, since the circumflex itself contains an acute accent. Neither the circumflex nor the acute, therefore, will ever be found in the last syllable of a Latin word, with this exception, that monosyllables must either be acute or circumflexed; otherwise we should find words without an acute accent at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [as the Priscian passage quoted above] are to be found in Donatus's *Ars maior* 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and Priscian's *Inst. gram* (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too, when he discusses (and rejects) the notion that the need to distinguish between words sometimes requires a shift of accent: 'Ceterum scio quosdam eruditos, nonnullus etiam grammaticos sic docere ac loqui ut propter  quaedam uocum discrimina uerbum interim acuto sono finiant [..]; quod tamen in aduerbiis fere solis ac pronominibus uindicant, in ceteris ueterem legem secuntur' (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati* (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen an explanation for this, beyond the mention of the supposed value in avoiding homophony with words belonging to other categories that is referenced in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything that follows is just speculation, as I haven't seen any literature that attempts to explain the putative adverb final-stress phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some features of Latin adverbs that seem like they might possibly be relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adverbs are &quot;indeclinable&quot;: unlike adjectives, substantives, or verbs, they don't end in inflectional suffixes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Adverbs often come immediately before the modified word in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; - adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ideas about Latin prosody that seem relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’. His data suggest that ‘the monosyllabic particles...like all other independent words, have originally an accent, as in fact the grammarians expressly declare; if they very frequently lose this accent, this happens simply because they are subordinated in sense to the other words of the sentence and, at the same time, in the majority of cases, cannot preserve their accent through the operation of the three-syllable law’ (1904: 160).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these quotes, I wonder if the supposed stress on the last syllable of adverbs might be connected to possible lack of stress on the following word; for example, in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A serious problem with my suggestion here is that it would only explain this stress pattern in very particular phonological environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen does mention the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think it seems pretty far-fetched to suppose that sequences of adverb + iambic verb form were so common in Latin as to provide the basis for analogical extension of word-final stress to adverbs in general, in any position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that iambic verb forms in Classical Latin could be pronounced enclitic to the preceding word also seems to rest on fairly doubtful evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson also has a section about verbs where he says that there was probably no tendency to pronounce iambic verbs as enclitics after other iambic words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a sequence of iambic word followed by iambic verb (the type *pater petit*) barely ever fills a measure of Plautine verse, as discussed in Ch. 3, which indicates rather strongly that such a sequence was not prosodically equivalent to a four-syllable word of the same metrical shape, and that therefore the verb did not cliticize to the preceding word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 265)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, Fortson doesn't seem to discuss adverbs in much detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6398" RevisionGUID="a9468ba0-f883-4ea4-9f48-4eec0b47bc9d" CreationDate="2018-05-04T02:10:16.810" UserId="39" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="There are *several* issues at stake here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oxytones** in Classical Latin **were extremely rare** - and in many cases resulted from apocope or syncope. See [my answer][1] for more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, accent marks (acutus, gravis, circumflexus etc.) in Post-Classical times were used for a number of reasons. Stotz (1996), in the third volume of his magisterial five volume *Handbuch zur lateinische Sprache des Mittelalters* , mentions that, for example, loans from Aramaic and Hebrew were written as manná, Adám, Sión, Iesús etc. (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, he writes the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Wenn ein hmal. Theoriker bei den Präpositionen penes oder sine Endebtonung verlangt, könnte zwar eine syntagmatisch bedingte akzentmäßige Worteinung ('mot métrique') vom Typus *apúd-me* (s. oben) der Ausgangspunkt sein, doch geht es ihm - und so auch bei *circúm*, palám u.ä. - darum, Homographa (bzw. Wörter, die mehreren Wortarten zugehören) eindeutig zu machen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Es geht ihm mithin nicht um Beschreibung hergebrachter Sprachwirklichkeit, sondern um deren spekulativ-differenzierende Veränderung**&quot; (p. 124; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;He is therefore not concerned with the description of language reality, but with its speculative-differentiating change (English translation by Google)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- will make small changes later-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Steenbakkers 1994 &quot;As a general rule, we might say that *the grave* is the mark of the indeclinable forms” (p. 73) or [Hendrickson 2017][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in what ancient grammarians thought on this, everything that was written on Latin accent was collected in Schöll, F. (1876). *De accentu linguae Latinae veterum grammaticorum testimonia*. Lipsiae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/604/39&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://brill.com/view/title/34288&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Kf1xm.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6402" RevisionGUID="db4e6bde-e4d3-4162-8542-9f8b0dc65efb" CreationDate="2018-05-04T03:56:28.440" UserId="30" Text="I'll offer a partial/praeliminary answer. I don't know about those Biblical names—that is, I don't know how they are declined, because they're from Hebrew.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two situations that spring to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Athenagoras the Athenian (using the adjective &quot;Athenian&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Athenagoras of Athens (using the noun &quot;Athens&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In classical Greek, I believe the adjective is preferred, if one is available. So you would rather say Ἀθηναγόρας ὁ Ἀθηναῖος, &quot;Athenagoras the Athenian&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that case, the adjective needs to agree with the head of the noun group, the noun Ἀθηναγόρας. Since Ἀθηναγόρας is in the nominative case, it probably being subject or subject complement in the sentence, both the article ὁ and the adjective Ἀθηναῖος are also in the nominative. Had it been an object Ἀθηναγόραν, as in &quot;she saw Athenagoras the Athenian&quot;, the whole would be in the accusative case: Ἀθηναγόραν τὸν Ἀθηναῖον. The same applies mutatis mutandis to a possible genitive or dative. I'm not sure when the article would be omitted: I think it's possible, but probably only where there is some specific reason for brevity, or when it is used attributively, as in &quot;the Athenian Platonists are rubbish&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no adjective is available, or the second construction chosen is for some reason, *of Athens* is not adjectival, but it is its own noun with article. By the translation *of*, you can see that both must then be in the genitive case. The head noun *Athenagoras* keeps whatever case is warranted by its function in the sentence: if it's subject, nominative, if it is *I gave a present to Athenagoras of Athens*, then *to Athenagoras* would be a dative, while *of Athens* always remains a genitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6402" RevisionGUID="36278e5a-1d52-4868-b215-b09537802b7e" CreationDate="2018-05-04T04:01:34.967" UserId="30" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="I'll offer a partial/praeliminary answer. I don't know about those Biblical names—that is, I don't know how they are declined, because they're from Hebrew.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two situations that spring to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Athenagoras the Athenian (using the adjective &quot;Athenian&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Athenagoras of Athens (using the noun &quot;Athens&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In classical Greek, I believe the adjective is preferred, if one is available. So you would rather say Ἀθηναγόρας ὁ Ἀθηναῖος, &quot;Athenagoras the Athenian&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that case, the adjective needs to agree with the head of the noun group, the noun Ἀθηναγόρας. Since Ἀθηναγόρας is in the nominative case, it probably being subject or subject complement in the sentence, both the article ὁ and the adjective Ἀθηναῖος are also in the nominative. Had it been an object Ἀθηναγόραν, as in &quot;she saw Athenagoras the Athenian&quot;, the whole would be in the accusative case: Ἀθηναγόραν τὸν Ἀθηναῖον. The same applies mutatis mutandis to a possible genitive or dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure when the article would be omitted: I think it's possible, but probably only where there is some specific reason for brevity, or when it is used attributively, as in &quot;the Athenian Platonists are rubbish&quot;. When you translate such names into Latin, like *Athenagoras Atheniensis*, of course the article disappears, since Latin has no articles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no adjective is available, or the second construction chosen is for some other reason, *of Athens* is not adjectival, but it is its own noun with article. Then you would not use the adjective, but you would use whatever the relevant noun is of the town. By the translation *of*, you can see that both must then be in the genitive case. The head noun *Athenagoras* keeps whatever case is warranted by its function in the sentence: if it's subject, it is a nominative; if it is *I gave a present to Athenagoras of Athens*, then *to Athenagoras* would be a dative; while *of Athens* always remains a genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A third option is perhaps *Athenagoras, he of Athens*, but then I would expect two articles between the nouns. I'm not sure whether this construction even exists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6403" RevisionGUID="cf5fbd42-2746-4865-9a26-41c10d9ad5b8" CreationDate="2018-05-04T04:26:26.380" UserId="30" Text="I believe they are rare, but it is possible to find some others. I have found *vixet* in the Aeneid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [Publius Vergilius Maro, *Aeneis* 11.118]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparat, his mecum decuit concurrere telis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **uixet** cui uitam deus aut sua dextra dedisset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nunc ite et miseris supponite ciuibus ignem.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On which Maurus Servius Honoratus comments, a late fourth-century and early fifth-century grammarian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Maurus Servius Honoratus, *In Vergilii Aeneidos Libros*:]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  11.118.1 **vixet** pro 'vixisset': et est syncope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  3.152.1 INSERTAS aut clatratas; aut non seratas, ut sit quasi 'inseratas', id est non clausas, et dictum, quomodo 'asprosque molares' pro 'asperos', conpostus' pro 'conpositus', '**vixet**' pro 'vixisset'. {⁴³vel 'insertas fenestras' quas lumine suo luna inseruerat, ab inserendo, quod se per rimas insereret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So he considers it simply a syncope. As I can only find any forms on *-ixet* in the Aeneid, it may have been invented by Virgil *metri causa*, but probably with some licence based not only on poetry but also on ancient variants, when morphology had been less fixed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6403" RevisionGUID="8859b0ba-76cb-4175-8e20-6e8a39469a54" CreationDate="2018-05-04T04:32:18.153" UserId="30" Comment="added 465 characters in body" Text="I believe they are very rare, but it is possible to find some others. I have found *vixet* in the Aeneid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [Publius Vergilius Maro, *Aeneis* 11.118]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparat, his mecum decuit concurrere telis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **uixet** cui uitam deus aut sua dextra dedisset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nunc ite et miseris supponite ciuibus ignem.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On which comments Maurus Servius Honoratus, a late fourth-century and early fifth-century grammarian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Maurus Servius Honoratus, *In Vergilii Aeneidos Libros*:]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  11.118.1 **vixet** pro 'vixisset': et est syncope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  3.152.1 INSERTAS aut clatratas; aut non seratas, ut sit quasi 'inseratas', id est non clausas, et dictum, quomodo 'asprosque molares' pro 'asperos', conpostus' pro 'conpositus', '**vixet**' pro 'vixisset'. {⁴³vel 'insertas fenestras' quas lumine suo luna inseruerat, ab inserendo, quod se per rimas insereret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So he considers it simply a syncope. As I can only find any forms on *-ixet* in the Aeneid, it may have been invented by Virgil *metri causa*, but possibly with some licence based not only on poetry but also on ancient variants, when morphology had been less fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find *-pset* only in two sources (one of whom is Cicero):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Officiis 3.98.9]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod ni Palamedi perspicax prudentia&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Istius **percepset** malitiosam audaciam&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fide sacratae ius perpetuo falleret.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Anonymi Comici et Tragici, Tragoediae Poetarum Incertorum 59]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod ní Palamedi pérspicax prudéntia&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Istíus **percepset** málitiosam audáciam,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fidé sacratae iús perpetuo fálleret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6403" RevisionGUID="3a9c1606-8b71-4e90-893a-b1f32b7a1b9e" CreationDate="2018-05-04T07:33:49.697" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="I believe they are very rare, but it is possible to find some others. I have found *vixet* in the Aeneid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [Publius Vergilius Maro, *Aeneis* 11.118]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparat, his mecum decuit concurrere telis:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **uixet** cui uitam deus aut sua dextra dedisset.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; nunc ite et miseris supponite ciuibus ignem.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On which comments Maurus Servius Honoratus, a late fourth-century and early fifth-century grammarian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Maurus Servius Honoratus, *In Vergilii Aeneidos Libros*:]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  11.118.1 **vixet** pro 'vixisset': et est syncope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  3.152.1 INSERTAS aut clatratas; aut non seratas, ut sit quasi 'inseratas', id est non clausas, et dictum, quomodo 'asprosque molares' pro 'asperos', conpostus' pro 'conpositus', '**vixet**' pro 'vixisset'. {⁴³vel 'insertas fenestras' quas lumine suo luna inseruerat, ab inserendo, quod se per rimas insereret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So he considers it simply a syncope. As I can only find any forms on *-ixet* in the Aeneid, it may have been invented by Virgil *metri causa*, but possibly with some licence based not only on poetry but also on ancient variants, when morphology had been less fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find *-pset* only in two sources (one of whom is Cicero):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Officiis 3.98.9]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod ni Palamedi perspicax prudentia  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Istius **percepset** malitiosam audaciam  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fide sacratae ius perpetuo falleret.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Anonymi Comici et Tragici, Tragoediae Poetarum Incertorum 59]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod ní Palamedi pérspicax prudéntia  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Istíus **percepset** málitiosam audáciam,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fidé sacratae iús perpetuo fálleret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6404" RevisionGUID="147c65c0-9812-496f-b22d-337866619f2b" CreationDate="2018-05-04T12:34:28.807" UserId="2602" Text="In ancient Greek, there is no article in the vocative, such as Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ in Mark 1:24. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mary Magdalene is written without article in English because it comes from the Latin Maria Magdalena. In Greek, her name does have an article in non-vocative cases: ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ Μαρία (Luke 24:10 - http://biblehub.com/text/luke/24-10.htm), Μαριὰμ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ (Matthew 27:61 - http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/27-61.htm) or Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ (Mark 16:4 - http://biblehub.com/text/mark/16-1.htm). I can't find a vocative of her full name in the Bible, but I would expect it to have no article. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Saul of Tarsus' in Acts 9:11 (http://biblehub.com/text/acts/9-11.htm) has Tarsus in the genitive, not as an adjective like 'Tarsean', Magdalene and Nazarene." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6404" RevisionGUID="43a622d7-d65c-4b5d-b090-a1b0b79ba304" CreationDate="2018-05-04T12:49:07.927" UserId="2602" Comment="tarsea is an adjective" Text="In ancient Greek, there is no article in the vocative, such as Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ in Mark 1:24. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mary Magdalene is written without article in English because it comes from the Latin Maria Magdalena. In Greek, her name does have an article in non-vocative cases: ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ Μαρία (Luke 24:10 - http://biblehub.com/text/luke/24-10.htm), Μαριὰμ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ (Matthew 27:61 - http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/27-61.htm) or Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ (Mark 16:4 - http://biblehub.com/text/mark/16-1.htm). I can't find a vocative of her full name in the Bible, but I would expect it to have no article. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Saul of Tarsus' in Acts 9:11 (http://biblehub.com/text/acts/9-11.htm) qualifies 'Tarsean' with ὀνόματι, so maybe the article is not used then. I can't find another instance of ὀνόματι in the sense of 'by/with the name ...' combined with an adjective, to confirm this (http://biblehub.com/greek/onomati_3686.htm)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6404" RevisionGUID="ef743bf0-6b81-4824-adcc-b61474b49b11" CreationDate="2018-05-04T13:04:17.840" UserId="2602" Comment="tarsea is an adjective" Text="In ancient Greek, there is no article in the vocative, such as Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ in Mark 1:24. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mary Magdalene is written without article in English because it comes from the Latin Maria Magdalena. In Greek, her name does have an article in non-vocative cases: ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ Μαρία (Luke 24:10 - http://biblehub.com/text/luke/24-10.htm), Μαριὰμ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ (Matthew 27:61 - http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/27-61.htm) or Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ (Mark 16:4 - http://biblehub.com/text/mark/16-1.htm). I can't find a vocative of her full name in the Bible, but I would expect it to have no article. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Saul of Tarsus' in Acts 9:11 (http://biblehub.com/text/acts/9-11.htm) qualifies 'Tarsean' with ὀνόματι, so maybe the article is not used then. I can't find another instance of ὀνόματι in the sense of 'by/with the name ...' combined with an adjective, to confirm this (http://biblehub.com/greek/onomati_3686.htm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'John the Nazarene' would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - nom. Ἰωάννης ὁ Ναζαρηνός, &#xD;&#xA; - gen. Ἰωάννου τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ, &#xD;&#xA; - dat. Ἰωάννῃ τῷ Ναζαρηνῷ,&#xD;&#xA; - acc. Ἰωάννην τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν,&#xD;&#xA; - but voc. Ἰωάννη Ναζαρηνέ without article." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6398" RevisionGUID="f54ddc13-5c02-4308-9eb2-da10aa6f523e" CreationDate="2018-05-04T13:19:53.173" UserId="39" Comment="added 449 characters in body" Text="**An important note about my sources:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A libelous statement has been made by another user re: sources in my answer. Anyone can easily check the accuracy of my statements and sources. [Dr. Stotz][1] is an expert in Medieval Philology (i.e. post-Classical Latin); he is a professional linguist. Obviously, he has provided necessary bibliography about all the sources in his Handbuch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are *several* issues at stake here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oxytones** in Classical Latin **were extremely rare** - and in many cases resulted from apocope or syncope. See [my answer][2] for more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, accent marks (acutus, gravis, circumflexus etc.) in Post-Classical times were used for a number of reasons. Stotz (1996), in the third volume of his magisterial five volume *Handbuch zur lateinische Sprache des Mittelalters* , mentions that, for example, loans from Aramaic and Hebrew were written as manná, Adám, Sión, Iesús etc. (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, he writes the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Wenn ein hmal. Theoriker bei den Präpositionen penes oder sine Endebtonung verlangt, könnte zwar eine syntagmatisch bedingte akzentmäßige Worteinung ('mot métrique') vom Typus *apúd-me* (s. oben) der Ausgangspunkt sein, doch geht es ihm - und so auch bei *circúm*, palám u.ä. - darum, Homographa (bzw. Wörter, die mehreren Wortarten zugehören) eindeutig zu machen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Es geht ihm mithin nicht um Beschreibung hergebrachter Sprachwirklichkeit, sondern um deren spekulativ-differenzierende Veränderung**&quot; (p. 124; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;He is therefore not concerned with the description of language reality, but with its speculative-differentiating change (English translation by Google)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- will make small changes later-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Steenbakkers 1994 &quot;As a general rule, we might say that *the grave* is the mark of the indeclinable forms” (p. 73) or [Hendrickson 2017][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in what ancient grammarians thought on this, everything that was written on Latin accent was collected in Schöll, F. (1876). *De accentu linguae Latinae veterum grammaticorum testimonia*. Lipsiae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sglp.uzh.ch/de/aboutus/personen/stotz.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/604/39&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://brill.com/view/title/34288&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Kf1xm.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6404" RevisionGUID="d3873733-7ae3-493f-8162-d028b05c87c4" CreationDate="2018-05-04T13:25:59.633" UserId="2602" Comment="typo, rephrasing" Text="In ancient Greek, there is no article in the vocative, such as Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ in Mark 1:24. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mary Magdalene is written without article in English because it comes from the Latin Maria Magdalena. In Greek, her name does have an article in non-vocative cases: ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ Μαρία (Luke 24:10 - http://biblehub.com/text/luke/24-10.htm), Μαριὰμ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ (Matthew 27:61 - http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/27-61.htm) or Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ (Mark 16:1 - http://biblehub.com/text/mark/16-1.htm). If there were a vocative of her full name in the Bible, I would expect it to have no article. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Saul of Tarsus' in Acts 9:11 (http://biblehub.com/text/acts/9-11.htm) qualifies 'Tarsean' with ὀνόματι, so maybe the article is not used then. I can't find another instance of ὀνόματι in the sense of 'by/with the name ...' combined with an adjective, to confirm this (http://biblehub.com/greek/onomati_3686.htm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'John the Nazarene' would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - nom. Ἰωάννης ὁ Ναζαρηνός, &#xD;&#xA; - gen. Ἰωάννου τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ, &#xD;&#xA; - dat. Ἰωάννῃ τῷ Ναζαρηνῷ,&#xD;&#xA; - acc. Ἰωάννην τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν,&#xD;&#xA; - but voc. Ἰωάννη Ναζαρηνέ without article." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6405" RevisionGUID="7862ca11-bf44-451e-b5a4-9934a4552617" CreationDate="2018-05-04T14:11:20.447" UserId="2602" Text="In this Latin StackExchange, Ørberg's method has been voted the best for autodidacts (https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/957/how-can-i-study-latin-on-my-own/1218). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is used, for example, by the Dutch Latin teacher Caspar Porton (https://addisco.nl/blog/lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata-llpsi-hans-orberg.htm), the summer school in Madrid (http://www.culturaclasica.com/?q=caelum), the summer school in Rome (https://vivariumnovum.net/en/summer-school) and several high schools and universities around the world. &#xD;&#xA; - Much anecdotal evidence suggests that it does work, but I have no statistics.&#xD;&#xA; - I have found a minor drawback in that the 1st and 2nd person singular and plural of the perfect subjunctive, and those of the future perfect, are not distinguished by macrons as they are e.g. in Henle and Teach Yourself Latin.&#xD;&#xA; - Other authors have expanded it by adding Fabulae Syrae at the level of chapters 26-35, Epitome Historiae Sacrae at 36, and the Bucolica by Vergil, De Rerum Natura by Lucretius and Elegiae by Tibullus at 45. There is also a &quot;A College Companion: Based on Hans Oerberg's Latine Disco&quot; written by Jeanne Marie Neumann." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6405" RevisionGUID="25d8dd4e-e993-4cab-b360-87b7b07e0642" CreationDate="2018-05-04T14:34:05.757" UserId="2602" Comment="noted that it may be difficult for beginners without a teacher" Text="In this Latin StackExchange, Ørberg's Lingua Latina has been voted the best method for learning Latin (https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/957/how-can-i-study-latin-on-my-own/1218). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is used, for example, by the Dutch Latin teacher Caspar Porton (https://addisco.nl/blog/lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata-llpsi-hans-orberg.htm), the summer school in Madrid (http://www.culturaclasica.com/?q=caelum), the summer school in Rome (https://vivariumnovum.net/en/summer-school) and several high schools and universities around the world. &#xD;&#xA; - Much anecdotal evidence suggests that it does work, but I have no statistics.&#xD;&#xA; - It may be a bit difficult for absolute beginners without a teacher. I have found a minor drawback in that the 1st and 2nd person singular and plural of the perfect subjunctive, and those of the future perfect, are not distinguished by macrons as they are e.g. in Henle and Teach Yourself Latin. &#xD;&#xA; - Other authors have expanded it by adding Fabulae Syrae at the level of chapters 26-35, Epitome Historiae Sacrae at 36, and the Bucolica by Vergil, De Rerum Natura by Lucretius and Elegiae by Tibullus at 45. There is also a &quot;A College Companion: Based on Hans Oerberg's Latine Disco&quot; written by Jeanne Marie Neumann." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6405" RevisionGUID="13da9617-2f54-47f9-9655-55e37870920f" CreationDate="2018-05-04T15:03:14.290" UserId="2602" Comment="corr." Text="In this Latin StackExchange, Ørberg's Lingua Latina has been voted the best method for learning Latin (https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/957/how-can-i-study-latin-on-my-own/1218). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It is used, for example, by the Dutch Latin teacher Caspar Porton (https://addisco.nl/blog/lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata-llpsi-hans-orberg.htm), the summer school in Madrid (http://www.culturaclasica.com/?q=caelum), the summer school in Rome (https://vivariumnovum.net/en/summer-school) and several high schools and universities around the world. &#xD;&#xA; - Much anecdotal evidence suggests that it does work, but I have no statistics.&#xD;&#xA; - It may be a bit difficult for absolute beginners without a teacher. A minor drawback is that the 2nd person singular and 1st and 2nd person plural of the perfect subjunctive are not distinguished from those of the future perfect by macrons, as they are e.g. in Henle and Teach Yourself Latin. &#xD;&#xA; - Other authors have expanded it by adding Fabulae Syrae at the level of chapters 26-35, Epitome Historiae Sacrae at 36, and the Bucolica by Vergil, De Rerum Natura by Lucretius and Elegiae by Tibullus at 45. There is also a &quot;A College Companion: Based on Hans Oerberg's Latine Disco&quot; written by Jeanne Marie Neumann." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6396" RevisionGUID="e93fb217-6146-476f-84cf-38c276efe375" CreationDate="2018-05-04T15:15:25.097" UserId="2602" Comment="clarified a statement interpreted as libelous; correctly attributed the opinion that modern Latin grammars don't explain why Late Latin oxytones are so implausible, to sumelic (not Alex. B.)" Text="It seems that Saint Augustine in your quote is describing the same phenomenon that we can see consistently marked in later Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While trying to read Marracci's 'Refutatio Alcorani' (https://books.google.nl/books?id=ye40VChDL6gC and https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_-KZEAAAAcAAJ), I noticed that certain words were written with an accent grave on the vowel of their last syllable. Thinking this was a Late Latin feature, I searched for 'accent grave late latin' and found your question here on the Latin language version of something called a stack exchange, so I subscribed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like you, I was surprised to see a reference to word-final stress, because I had always learned that Latin accent falls on the penult if it is long, and on the antepenult if the penult is short. Even the otherwise brilliant Ørberg's Lingua Latina doesn't teach that the 'ultima' or 'oxytone' syllable can be accented as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pedantically speaking, asking 'why' some Latin adverbs have stress on the final syllable is like asking why Latin uses the letter p: it is just the way it is. You could find a Proto-Indo-European 'reason' for it, but this won't explain 'why' this was the case in Proto-Indo-European itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it would be nice to find a pattern, or to describe exactly what the way it is, is. So I did a quick check of the kind of words that have their last syllable accented in a sample of competent Late Latin prose. This is what I found in Marracci's 'Praefatio ad lectorem' (from page iv in the Google Books version linked above):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in è ##&#xD;&#xA;Parcè, ferè, penè, propè, validissimè, doctè, validè, Arabicè, Latinè, Italicè, sanè, eruditè, praecipuè, probè, publicè, novissimè, penitissimè, nervosè, temerè, strenuè, modestè, fortassè, ingenuè, minimè, modestè, quotidiè, impunè, saepè, nempè, exactè, obnixè (the adverb 'ponè' would belong to this class).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in ò ##&#xD;&#xA;Adeò, ideò, verò, omninò, rarò, multò, primò, idcircò, postremò, porrò, mutuò, imò, tantummodò.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in ùs ##&#xD;&#xA;Penitùs, prorsùs, promptiùs, faciliùs, superiùs, copiosiùs, potiùs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So not just some, but in fact *all* adverbs in -o, -e and -us are accented on the last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs and conjunctions ending in ùm ##&#xD;&#xA;Verùm ('but', not 'true thing'), solùm ('only', not 'only thing'), tantùm ('only', not 'so much'), primùm ('firstly', not 'first thing'), nimirùm, potissimùm, demùm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other adverbs, conjunctions and prepositions ##&#xD;&#xA;Diù, unà, praetereà, contrà (exercitum immensum, but contra se?), frustrà, quòd ('because' or 'that', not 'what'), hìc ('here', not 'this (masc. nom.)'), illùc, quàm ('than' and 'how ...', not 'what (fem. acc.)'), tàm, cùm ('when' or 'though', not 'with'), licèt, à, è.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these words only have a final accent with certain meanings, while they don't with other meanings. I don't think that Latin speakers consistently added accents to certain final vowels merely to distinguish homophones in writing, if there were no actual difference in pronunciation, especially when Saint Augustine expected a Latin student to hear a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If grave accents were indeed used to mark actual stress, then there may have been an audible difference even between monosyllabic words with accent (hìc, quàm, cùm, quòd), and without. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding sumelic's answer: it seems to depend on whether we trust Priscian, Donatus, Pseudo-Priscian, Manutius, many or most people who spoke Latin in Muret's time according to Muret, and Saint Augustine; or Quintilian and humanists like Lipsius, Muret, Henning and Vossius. You acknowledge that modern Latin grammars never try to make the case for why this written accent must not have been pronounced. I prefer ecclesiastical Latin and I would be especially interested in any statements by 16th and 17th century Catholic grammarians on this issue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding Alex B.'s answer: In both of these quotes by Hendrickson 2017 and Stotz 1996, they only assert that the 16th and 17th century final accent grave had nothing to do with phonology, but their sources are unclear (i.e. they are not given in your citation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the OP's quote by Saint Augustine shows a clear reference to a phonological difference in early late Latin, which matches a later difference in orthography. In order to overrule this evidence, I would need a primary source from a preferably non-humanist Late Latin writer who mentions the orthographic convention of the final accent grave, and also warns that it should be ignored in pronunciation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6406" RevisionGUID="b773c4a9-c497-4e9b-b423-b0256086d794" CreationDate="2018-05-04T16:36:55.827" UserId="2602" Text="This may be useful: Eleanor Dickey (https://www.academia.edu/8113495/Latin_loanwords_in_Greek_A_preliminary_analysis_2012_, footnote 36, page 67) distinguishes between Latin words as foreign words, and Latin words as integrated loanwords. Her corpus of these Latin loanwords integrated into Greek is 'not yet finalized' but she claims there are 52 first attested in the second and first centuries BC . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Panagiotis Filos (https://books.google.nl/books?id=Xl8pjHVUNlgC, from page xxxix) lists many Latin loanwords, but he doesn't sort them by date. Apparently there are corpora by Hofmann and Daris that are sorted by date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6402" RevisionGUID="fd7f4247-035a-445d-8b14-f80956037182" CreationDate="2018-05-04T18:38:16.360" UserId="30" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="I'll offer a partial/praeliminary answer. I don't know about those Biblical names—that is, I don't know how they are declined, because they're from Hebrew.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two situations that spring to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Athenagoras the Athenian (using the adjective &quot;Athenian&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Athenagoras of Athens (using the noun &quot;Athens&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In classical Greek, I believe the adjective is generally preferred, if one is available. So you would rather say Ἀθηναγόρας ὁ Ἀθηναῖος, &quot;Athenagoras the Athenian&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that case, the adjective needs to agree with the head of the noun group, the noun Ἀθηναγόρας. Since Ἀθηναγόρας is in the nominative case, it probably being subject or subject complement in the sentence, both the article ὁ and the adjective Ἀθηναῖος are also in the nominative. Had it been an object Ἀθηναγόραν, as in &quot;she saw Athenagoras the Athenian&quot;, the whole would be in the accusative case: Ἀθηναγόραν τὸν Ἀθηναῖον. The same applies mutatis mutandis to a possible genitive or dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no adjective is available, or the second construction chosen is for some other reason, *of Athens* is not adjectival, but it is its own noun with article. Then you would not use the adjective, but you would use whatever the relevant noun is of the town. By the translation *of*, you can see that both must then be in the genitive case. The head noun *Athenagoras* keeps whatever case is warranted by its function in the sentence: if it's subject, it is a nominative; if it is *I gave a present to Athenagoras of Athens*, then *to Athenagoras* would be a dative; while *of Athens* always remains a genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible in either case to omit the article where there is some specific reason for brevity, or when it is used attributively, as in &quot;the Athenian Platonists are rubbish&quot;, or for other reasons that I'd have to think about. An example is the beginning of the *History* of Thucydides, Θουκυδίδης Ἀθηναῖος. When you translate such names into Latin, like *Athenagoras Atheniensis*, of course the article disappears, since Latin has no articles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A third option is perhaps *Athenagoras, he of Athens*, but then I would expect two articles between the nouns. I'm not sure whether this construction even exists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6406" RevisionGUID="7c0eb2d2-54d0-4071-bcbe-b5933caaae28" CreationDate="2018-05-04T19:01:10.273" UserId="2602" Comment="e-mail to prof. Dickey" Text="This may be useful: Eleanor Dickey (https://www.academia.edu/8113495/Latin_loanwords_in_Greek_A_preliminary_analysis_2012_, footnote 36, page 67) distinguishes between Latin words as foreign words, and Latin words as integrated loanwords. Her corpus of these Latin loanwords integrated into Greek is 'not yet finalized' but she claims there are 52 first attested in the second and first centuries BC. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Panagiotis Filos (https://books.google.nl/books?id=Xl8pjHVUNlgC, from page xxxix) lists many Latin loanwords, but he doesn't sort them by date. Apparently there are corpora by Hofmann and Daris that are sorted by date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought Professor Dickey might be able to answer this question, as someone whose 'main current research project is a study of the influence of Latin on Greek during the Roman empire, particularly Latin loanwords that were integrated into Greek to the extent of being used by Greek speakers who did not speak Latin' (https://www.reading.ac.uk/classics/about/staff/e-dickey.aspx). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So on 4-5-'18 at 20:45 Dutch time I wrote to her (*omissis salutationibus*): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do you happen to know what the single earliest known Latin loanword or mention of a Latin word in Greek is? I'm asking for the people at https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6192/what-is-the-earliest-known-word-borrowed-from-latin-to-greek (and for myself). In trying to answer this question, I came across your work(https://www.academia.edu/8113495/Latin_loanwords_in_Greek_A_preliminary_analysis_2012_). You write (in footnote 36 on page 67), that you have an unfinalized corpus of around 650 integrated loanwords, of which around 52 are first seen in the second and first centuries BC. Have you since finalized that corpus? If it's not possible to name the very earliest attestation, would you please share your list of the 52 oldest loanwords, or just the oldest few? Do you know what Daris and Hofmann consider to be the earliest Latin loanwords (according to their broader definition which apparently includes 'non-integrated' loanwords or mentions of Latin words as foreign words)? May I cite your reply in my public answer at the Latin language StackExchange? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll let you know what she says, if she gives permission." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6406" RevisionGUID="b8a8755f-7dfe-4264-8e5e-890948a38d2a" CreationDate="2018-05-04T19:31:08.327" UserId="2602" Comment="examples from Dickey" Text="This may be useful: Eleanor Dickey (https://www.academia.edu/8113495/Latin_loanwords_in_Greek_A_preliminary_analysis_2012_, footnote 36, page 67) distinguishes between Latin words as foreign words, and Latin words as integrated loanwords. Her corpus of these Latin loanwords integrated into Greek is 'not yet finalized' but she claims there are 52 first attested in the second and first centuries BC. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Panagiotis Filos (https://books.google.nl/books?id=Xl8pjHVUNlgC, from page xxxix) lists many Latin loanwords, but he doesn't sort them by date. Apparently there are corpora by Hofmann and Daris that are sorted by date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought Professor Dickey might be able to answer this question, as someone whose 'main current research project is a study of the influence of Latin on Greek during the Roman empire, particularly Latin loanwords that were integrated into Greek to the extent of being used by Greek speakers who did not speak Latin' (https://www.reading.ac.uk/classics/about/staff/e-dickey.aspx). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So on 4-5-'18 at 20:45 Dutch time I wrote to her (*omissis salutationibus*): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do you happen to know what the single earliest known Latin loanword or mention of a Latin word in Greek is? I'm asking for the people at https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6192/what-is-the-earliest-known-word-borrowed-from-latin-to-greek (and for myself). In trying to answer this question, I came across your work(https://www.academia.edu/8113495/Latin_loanwords_in_Greek_A_preliminary_analysis_2012_). You write (in footnote 36 on page 67), that you have an unfinalized corpus of around 650 integrated loanwords, of which around 52 are first seen in the second and first centuries BC. Have you since finalized that corpus? If it's not possible to name the very earliest attestation, would you please share your list of the 52 oldest loanwords, or just the oldest few? Do you know what Daris and Hofmann consider to be the earliest Latin loanwords (according to their broader definition which apparently includes 'non-integrated' loanwords or mentions of Latin words as foreign words)? May I cite your reply in my public answer at the Latin language StackExchange? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll let you know what she says, if she gives permission. Until then, here are some examples from Dickey 2012 (pages 61-65): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - πατέλλα 'dish' &lt; *patella*&#xD;&#xA; - κοχλιάριον 'spoon' &lt; *cochleare* &#xD;&#xA; - ἀργεντάριον 'bank' &lt; *argentaria*&#xD;&#xA; - στρικτόν and καλίγια 'types of footwear' &lt; *strictus* and *caliga* &#xD;&#xA; - ἄρουλαν 'brazier' &lt; *arula*&#xD;&#xA; - πιγκέρνης 'bar-keeper' &lt; *pincerna*&#xD;&#xA; - φίβλα 'safety pin' &lt; *fibula*&#xD;&#xA; - ὁ/ὀσπίτιον 'house' &lt; *hospitium*&#xD;&#xA; - σουδάρια 'handkerchiefs' &lt; *sudarium*&#xD;&#xA; - σιμικίνθια 'aprons' &lt; *semicinctum*&#xD;&#xA; - φραγελλώσας 'having whipped' &lt; *flagellare*&#xD;&#xA; - βράκας 'breeches' &lt; *bracae*&#xD;&#xA; - μαρούλια 'lettuce' &lt; *amarus* 'bitter'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="ba38047a-a415-4584-8e85-5bf24b2066d7" CreationDate="2018-05-04T19:32:21.843" UserId="9" Comment="added 416 characters in body" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that Latin adverbs (and certain other words) were stressed or accented on the last syllable seems to be considered so implausible by modern linguists that no modern linguistic source that I have found has contained either an explanation of why they might have had this stress pattern, or a detailed argument making the case for why they did not have this stress pattern. (I have not read all modern linguistic literature about Latin, so it's possible that such an explanation exists in some source that I wasn't able to find.) In contrast, I have seen a  a number of sources that try to provide detailed analyses of the penult-weight-based stressed rule in terms of modern linguistic theories like Optimality Theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I don't know if the apparently widespread modern rejection of this idea is based on some kind of earlier arguments with more detailed coverage of the evidence for and against.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The types of evidence that I know of, and why they are controversial&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Descriptions of Latin accent in ancient grammarians&#xD;&#xA;There are apparently a number of descriptions of Latin accent in ancient grammarians, but sources I have read often suggest that these are unreliable because they may have been overly influenced by the traditional terminology and description of Greek accentuation. For example, Latin authors often describe Latin syllables as being able to be pronounced with either an &quot;acute&quot; or &quot;circumflex&quot; accent, as in Greek, although there doesn't actually seem to have been a *contrast* between acute and circumflex accentuation in any context in Latin the way that there could be in Greek ultima syllables with long vowels. Rather, the described distribution of acute and circumflex accents in Latin is apparently predictable based on the vowel length and the position of the accent: supposedly, short accented vowels  were pronounced with the acute accent (as in Greek), while long accented vowels were pronounced with an acute accent in antepenultimate syllables (again as in Greek), and with a circumflex accent in penultimate syllables or in monosyllabic words. Mainstream modern scholarship on Latin seems to reject this account of Latin accent, which casts a bit of a shadow on anything else that the ancient grammarians have to say about the subject. (This kind of concern also seems to be part of the reason for the controversy mentioned in C. M. Weimer's answer to the linked question about the rule that a light syllable was stressed (or according to the traditional account, took an acute accent) before a monosyllabic enclitic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, later accounts of Latin accent are often written by people who were influenced by the ancient grammarians' accounts, so the same suspicion seems to attach to post-classical sources that reference this kind of accentuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Ancient poetry&#xD;&#xA;It might be supposed that ancient poetry could provide some relevant evidence, but the question of how much we can learn about stress/accent from Latin poetry is apparently highly complex and disputed to this day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So there seems to be relatively little uncontroversial evidence about aspects of Latin stress and prosody beyond the well-known penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People who are arguing against the idea that the last syllable of an adverb took stress in Latin often seem to reference a passage by Quintilian where he says that, even though some people place an acute on the last syllable of the adverb &quot;circum&quot; in order to differentiate it from the noun form, he only hears one accented syllable in &quot;circum litora&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I am well aware that certain learned men and some professed teachers of literature, to ensure that certain words may be kept distinct, sometimes place an acute accent on the last syllable, both when they are teaching and in ordinary speech: as, for instance, in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; quae circus litora, circum piscosos scopulos,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *Aen. iv. 254.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[26] where they make the last syllable of *circum* acute on the ground that, if that syllable were given the grave accent, it might be thought that they meant *circus* not *circuitus.* Similarly when *quale* is interrogative, they give the final syllable a grave accent, but when using it in a comparison, make it acute. This practice, however, they restrict almost entirely to adverbs and pronouns; in other cases they follow the old usage. [27] Personally I think that in such phrases as these the circumstances are almost entirely altered by the fact that we join two words together. For when I say *circum litora* I pronounce the phrase as one word, concealing the fact that it is composed of two, consequently it contains but one acute accent, as though it were a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Quint. Inst. 1 5, *from* Quintilian. With an English Translation. Harold Edgeworth Butler. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1920. *Accessed through* [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0059%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D5#note13))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Quintilian's description of the position of the accent mentions only one exception to the general rule that the accent does not fall on the ultima in Latin words (the exception is for monosyllabic words):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For in every word the acute accent is restricted to three syllables, whether these be the only syllables in the word or the three last, and will fall either on the penultimate or the antepenultimate. The middle of the three syllables of which I speak will be acute or circumflexed, if long, while if it be short, it will have a grave accent and the acute will be thrown back to the preceding syllable, that is to say the antepenultimate. [31] Every word has an acute accent, but never more than one. Further the acute never falls on the last syllable and therefore in dissyllabic words marks the first syllable. Moreover the acute accent and the circumflex are never found in one and the same word, since the circumflex itself contains an acute accent. Neither the circumflex nor the acute, therefore, will ever be found in the last syllable of a Latin word, with this exception, that monosyllables must either be acute or circumflexed; otherwise we should find words without an acute accent at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [*as the Priscian passage quoted above*] are to be found in **Donatus's *Ars maior*** 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and **Priscian's *Inst. gram*** (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too [*here Steenbakkers quotes a bit of the Quintilian passage mentioned above*] (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, **Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati*** (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say in your question, there seems to be a certain idea that this pattern of accentuation exists to differentiate homophones, which is the kind of explanation that modern linguists tend to regard with skepticism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not seen any attempts to provide a different kind of explanation for this stress pattern, so unfortunately, I don't know how to answer the &quot;why&quot; part of your question with sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefor, everything that follows from this point on is just speculation,&#xD;&#xA;and the references in the following sections are to literature that is about other topics that I think might possibly be relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some features of Latin adverbs that seem like they might possibly be relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adverbs are &quot;indeclinable&quot;: unlike adjectives, substantives, or verbs, they don't end in inflectional suffixes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Adverbs often come immediately before the modified word in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; - adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ideas about Latin prosody that seem relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’. His data suggest that ‘the monosyllabic particles...like all other independent words, have originally an accent, as in fact the grammarians expressly declare; if they very frequently lose this accent, this happens simply because they are subordinated in sense to the other words of the sentence and, at the same time, in the majority of cases, cannot preserve their accent through the operation of the three-syllable law’ (1904: 160).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these quotes, I wonder if the supposed stress on the last syllable of adverbs might be connected to possible lack of stress on the following word; for example, in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A serious problem with my suggestion here is that it would only explain this stress pattern in very particular phonological environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen does mention the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think it seems pretty far-fetched to suppose that sequences of adverb + iambic verb form were so common in Latin as to provide the basis for analogical extension of word-final stress to adverbs in general, in any position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that iambic verb forms in Classical Latin could be pronounced enclitic to the preceding word also seems to rest on fairly doubtful evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson also has a section about verbs where he says that there was probably no tendency to pronounce iambic verbs as enclitics after other iambic words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a sequence of iambic word followed by iambic verb (the type *pater petit*) barely ever fills a measure of Plautine verse, as discussed in Ch. 3, which indicates rather strongly that such a sequence was not prosodically equivalent to a four-syllable word of the same metrical shape, and that therefore the verb did not cliticize to the preceding word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 265)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, Fortson doesn't seem to discuss adverbs in much detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="d7de2767-a8fe-429e-92e5-3a233c08cae7" CreationDate="2018-05-04T19:38:12.493" UserId="9" Comment="added 416 characters in body" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that Latin adverbs (and certain other words) were stressed or accented on the last syllable seems to be considered so implausible by modern linguists that no modern linguistic source that I have found has contained either an explanation of why they might have had this stress pattern, or a detailed argument making the case for why they did not have this stress pattern. (I have not read all modern linguistic literature about Latin, so it's possible that such an explanation exists in some source that I wasn't able to find.) In contrast, I have seen a  a number of sources that try to provide detailed analyses of the penult-weight-based stressed rule in terms of modern linguistic theories like Optimality Theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I don't know if the apparently widespread modern rejection of this idea is based on some kind of earlier arguments with more detailed coverage of the evidence for and against.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The types of evidence that I know of, and why they are controversial&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Descriptions of Latin accent in ancient grammarians&#xD;&#xA;There are apparently a number of descriptions of Latin accent in ancient grammarians, but sources I have read often suggest that these are unreliable because they may have been overly influenced by the traditional terminology and description of Greek accentuation. For example, Latin authors often describe Latin syllables as being able to be pronounced with either an &quot;acute&quot; or &quot;circumflex&quot; accent, as in Greek, although there doesn't actually seem to have been a *contrast* between acute and circumflex accentuation in any context in Latin the way that there could be in Greek ultima syllables with long vowels. Rather, the described distribution of acute and circumflex accents in Latin is apparently predictable based on the vowel length and the position of the accent: supposedly, short accented vowels  were pronounced with the acute accent (as in Greek), while long accented vowels were pronounced with an acute accent in antepenultimate syllables (again as in Greek), and with a circumflex accent in penultimate syllables or in monosyllabic words. Mainstream modern scholarship on Latin seems to reject this account of Latin accent, which casts a bit of a shadow on anything else that the ancient grammarians have to say about the subject. (This kind of concern also seems to be part of the reason for the controversy mentioned in C. M. Weimer's answer to the linked question about the rule that a light syllable was stressed (or according to the traditional account, took an acute accent) before a monosyllabic enclitic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, later accounts of Latin accent are often written by people who were influenced by the ancient grammarians' accounts, so the same suspicion seems to attach to post-classical sources that reference this kind of accentuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Ancient poetry&#xD;&#xA;It might be supposed that ancient poetry could provide some relevant evidence, but the question of how much we can learn about stress/accent from Latin poetry is apparently highly complex and disputed to this day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So there seems to be relatively little uncontroversial evidence about aspects of Latin stress and prosody beyond the well-known penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People who are arguing against the idea that the last syllable of an adverb took stress in Latin often seem to reference a passage by Quintilian where he says that, even though some people in his time apparently used an acute accent on the last syllable of the adverb &quot;circum&quot; in order to differentiate it from the noun form, he only hears one accented syllable in his own pronunciation of &quot;circum litora&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I am well aware that certain learned men and some professed teachers of literature, to ensure that certain words may be kept distinct, sometimes place an acute accent on the last syllable, both when they are teaching and in ordinary speech: as, for instance, in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; quae circus litora, circum piscosos scopulos,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *Aen. iv. 254.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[26] where they make the last syllable of *circum* acute on the ground that, if that syllable were given the grave accent, it might be thought that they meant *circus* not *circuitus.* Similarly when *quale* is interrogative, they give the final syllable a grave accent, but when using it in a comparison, make it acute. This practice, however, they restrict almost entirely to adverbs and pronouns; in other cases they follow the old usage. [27] Personally I think that in such phrases as these the circumstances are almost entirely altered by the fact that we join two words together. For when I say *circum litora* I pronounce the phrase as one word, concealing the fact that it is composed of two, consequently it contains but one acute accent, as though it were a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Quint. Inst. 1 5, *from* Quintilian. With an English Translation. Harold Edgeworth Butler. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1920. *Accessed through* [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0059%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D5#note13))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Quintilian's description of the position of the accent in Latin words mentions only one exception to the general rule that the accent does not fall on the ultima in Latin words (the exception is for monosyllabic words):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For in every word the acute accent is restricted to three syllables, whether these be the only syllables in the word or the three last, and will fall either on the penultimate or the antepenultimate. The middle of the three syllables of which I speak will be acute or circumflexed, if long, while if it be short, it will have a grave accent and the acute will be thrown back to the preceding syllable, that is to say the antepenultimate. [31] Every word has an acute accent, but never more than one. Further the acute never falls on the last syllable and therefore in dissyllabic words marks the first syllable. Moreover the acute accent and the circumflex are never found in one and the same word, since the circumflex itself contains an acute accent. Neither the circumflex nor the acute, therefore, will ever be found in the last syllable of a Latin word, with this exception, that monosyllables must either be acute or circumflexed; otherwise we should find words without an acute accent at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [*as the Priscian passage quoted above*] are to be found in **Donatus's *Ars maior*** 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and **Priscian's *Inst. gram*** (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too [*here Steenbakkers quotes a bit of the Quintilian passage mentioned above*] (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, **Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati*** (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say in your question, there seems to be a certain idea that this pattern of accentuation exists to differentiate homophones, which is the kind of explanation that modern linguists tend to regard with skepticism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not seen any attempts to provide a different kind of explanation for this stress pattern, so unfortunately, I don't know how to answer the &quot;why&quot; part of your question with sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefor, everything that follows from this point on is just speculation,&#xD;&#xA;and the references in the following sections are to literature that is about other topics that I think might possibly be relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some features of Latin adverbs that seem like they might possibly be relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adverbs are &quot;indeclinable&quot;: unlike adjectives, substantives, or verbs, they don't end in inflectional suffixes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Adverbs often come immediately before the modified word in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; - adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ideas about Latin prosody that seem relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’. His data suggest that ‘the monosyllabic particles...like all other independent words, have originally an accent, as in fact the grammarians expressly declare; if they very frequently lose this accent, this happens simply because they are subordinated in sense to the other words of the sentence and, at the same time, in the majority of cases, cannot preserve their accent through the operation of the three-syllable law’ (1904: 160).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these quotes, I wonder if the supposed stress on the last syllable of adverbs might be connected to possible lack of stress on the following word; for example, in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A serious problem with my suggestion here is that it would only explain this stress pattern in very particular phonological environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen does mention the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think it seems pretty far-fetched to suppose that sequences of adverb + iambic verb form were so common in Latin as to provide the basis for analogical extension of word-final stress to adverbs in general, in any position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that iambic verb forms in Classical Latin could be pronounced enclitic to the preceding word also seems to rest on fairly doubtful evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson also has a section about verbs where he says that there was probably no tendency to pronounce iambic verbs as enclitics after other iambic words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a sequence of iambic word followed by iambic verb (the type *pater petit*) barely ever fills a measure of Plautine verse, as discussed in Ch. 3, which indicates rather strongly that such a sequence was not prosodically equivalent to a four-syllable word of the same metrical shape, and that therefore the verb did not cliticize to the preceding word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 265)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, Fortson doesn't seem to discuss adverbs in much detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="0bf91fd8-643d-4b41-ab5e-0e46f1e33acc" CreationDate="2018-05-04T19:44:11.317" UserId="9" Comment="added 416 characters in body" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that Latin adverbs (and certain other words) were stressed or accented on the last syllable seems to be considered so implausible by modern linguists that no modern linguistic source that I have found has contained either an explanation of why they might have had this stress pattern, or a detailed argument making the case for why they did not have this stress pattern. (I have not read all modern linguistic literature about Latin, so it's possible that such an explanation exists in some source that I wasn't able to find.) In contrast, I have seen a  a number of sources that try to provide detailed analyses of the penult-weight-based stressed rule in terms of modern linguistic theories like Optimality Theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I don't know if the apparently widespread modern rejection of this idea is based on some kind of earlier arguments with more detailed coverage of the evidence for and against.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The types of evidence that I know of, and why they are controversial&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Descriptions of Latin accent in ancient grammarians&#xD;&#xA;There are apparently a number of descriptions of Latin accent in ancient grammarians, but sources I have read often suggest that these are unreliable because they may have been overly influenced by the traditional terminology and description of Greek accentuation. For example, Latin authors often describe Latin syllables as being able to be pronounced with either an &quot;acute&quot; or &quot;circumflex&quot; accent, as in Greek, although there doesn't actually seem to have been a *contrast* between acute and circumflex accentuation in any context in Latin the way that there could be in Greek ultima syllables with long vowels. Rather, the described distribution of acute and circumflex accents in Latin is apparently predictable based on the vowel length and the position of the accent: supposedly, short accented vowels  were pronounced with the acute accent (as in Greek), while long accented vowels were pronounced with an acute accent in antepenultimate syllables (again as in Greek), and with a circumflex accent in penultimate syllables or in monosyllabic words. Mainstream modern scholarship on Latin seems to reject this account of Latin accent, which casts a bit of a shadow on anything else that the ancient grammarians have to say about the subject. (This kind of concern also seems to be part of the reason for the controversy mentioned in C. M. Weimer's answer to the linked question about the rule that a light syllable was stressed (or according to the traditional account, took an acute accent) before a monosyllabic enclitic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, later accounts of Latin accent are often written by people who were influenced by the ancient grammarians' accounts, so the same suspicion seems to attach to post-classical sources that reference this kind of accentuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Ancient poetry&#xD;&#xA;It might be supposed that ancient poetry could provide some relevant evidence, but the question of how much we can learn about stress/accent from Latin poetry is apparently highly complex and disputed to this day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So there seems to be relatively little uncontroversial evidence about aspects of Latin stress and prosody beyond the well-known penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People who are arguing against the idea that the last syllable of an adverb took stress in Latin often seem to reference a passage by Quintilian where he says that, even though some people in his time apparently used an acute accent on the last syllable of the adverb &quot;circum&quot; in order to differentiate it from the noun form, he only hears one accented syllable in his own pronunciation of &quot;circum litora&quot; (by which he presumably means that he said &quot;circum lī́tora&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I am well aware that certain learned men and some professed teachers of literature, to ensure that certain words may be kept distinct, sometimes place an acute accent on the last syllable, both when they are teaching and in ordinary speech: as, for instance, in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; quae circus litora, circum piscosos scopulos,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *Aen. iv. 254.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[26] where they make the last syllable of *circum* acute on the ground that, if that syllable were given the grave accent, it might be thought that they meant *circus* not *circuitus.* Similarly when *quale* is interrogative, they give the final syllable a grave accent, but when using it in a comparison, make it acute. This practice, however, they restrict almost entirely to adverbs and pronouns; in other cases they follow the old usage. [27] Personally I think that in such phrases as these the circumstances are almost entirely altered by the fact that we join two words together. For when I say *circum litora* I pronounce the phrase as one word, concealing the fact that it is composed of two, consequently it contains but one acute accent, as though it were a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Quint. Inst. 1 5, *from* Quintilian. With an English Translation. Harold Edgeworth Butler. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1920. *Accessed through* [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0059%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D5#note13))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Quintilian's description of the position of the accent in Latin words mentions only one exception to the general rule that the accent does not fall on the ultima in Latin words (the exception is for monosyllabic words):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For in every word the acute accent is restricted to three syllables, whether these be the only syllables in the word or the three last, and will fall either on the penultimate or the antepenultimate. The middle of the three syllables of which I speak will be acute or circumflexed, if long, while if it be short, it will have a grave accent and the acute will be thrown back to the preceding syllable, that is to say the antepenultimate. [31] Every word has an acute accent, but never more than one. Further the acute never falls on the last syllable and therefore in dissyllabic words marks the first syllable. Moreover the acute accent and the circumflex are never found in one and the same word, since the circumflex itself contains an acute accent. Neither the circumflex nor the acute, therefore, will ever be found in the last syllable of a Latin word, with this exception, that monosyllables must either be acute or circumflexed; otherwise we should find words without an acute accent at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [*as the Priscian passage quoted above*] are to be found in **Donatus's *Ars maior*** 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and **Priscian's *Inst. gram*** (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too [*here Steenbakkers quotes a bit of the Quintilian passage mentioned above*] (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, **Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati*** (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say in your question, there seems to be a certain idea that this pattern of accentuation exists to differentiate homophones, which is the kind of explanation that modern linguists tend to regard with skepticism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not seen any attempts to provide a different kind of explanation for this stress pattern, so unfortunately, I don't know how to answer the &quot;why&quot; part of your question with sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefor, **everything that follows from this point on is just speculation**,&#xD;&#xA;and the references in the following sections are to literature that is about other topics that I think might possibly be relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some features of Latin adverbs that seem like they might possibly be relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adverbs are &quot;indeclinable&quot;: unlike adjectives, substantives, or verbs, they don't end in inflectional suffixes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Adverbs often come immediately before the modified word in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; - adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ideas about Latin prosody that seem relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these quotes, I wonder if the supposed stress on the last syllable of adverbs might be connected to possible lack of stress on the following word; for example, in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A serious problem with my suggestion here is that it would only explain this stress pattern in very particular phonological environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen does mention the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think it seems pretty far-fetched to suppose that sequences of adverb + iambic verb form were so common in Latin as to provide the basis for analogical extension of word-final stress to adverbs in general, in any position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that iambic verb forms in Classical Latin could be pronounced enclitic to the preceding word also seems to rest on fairly doubtful evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson also has a section about verbs where he says that there was probably no tendency to pronounce iambic verbs as enclitics after other iambic words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a sequence of iambic word followed by iambic verb (the type *pater petit*) barely ever fills a measure of Plautine verse, as discussed in Ch. 3, which indicates rather strongly that such a sequence was not prosodically equivalent to a four-syllable word of the same metrical shape, and that therefore the verb did not cliticize to the preceding word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 265)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, Fortson doesn't seem to discuss adverbs in much detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="1ce12541-0c53-4f74-bd12-24e154551ff9" CreationDate="2018-05-04T19:52:22.427" UserId="9" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that Latin adverbs (and certain other words) were stressed or accented on the last syllable seems to be considered so implausible by modern linguists that no modern linguistic source that I have found has contained either an explanation of why they might have had this stress pattern, or a detailed argument making the case for why they did not have this stress pattern. (I have not read all (or anything close to all) modern linguistic literature about Latin, so it's quite possible that such an explanation or argument exists in some source that I wasn't able to find.) In contrast, I have seen a  a number of sources that try to provide detailed analyses of the penult-weight-based stressed rule in terms of modern linguistic theories like Optimality Theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I don't know if the apparently widespread modern rejection of this idea is based on some kind of earlier arguments with more detailed coverage of the evidence for and against.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The types of evidence that I know of, and why they are controversial&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Descriptions of Latin accent in ancient grammarians&#xD;&#xA;There are apparently a number of descriptions of Latin accent in ancient grammarians, but sources I have read often suggest that these are unreliable because they may have been overly influenced by the traditional terminology and description of Greek accentuation. For example, Latin authors often describe Latin syllables as being able to be pronounced with either an &quot;acute&quot; or &quot;circumflex&quot; accent, as in Greek, although there doesn't actually seem to have been a *contrast* between acute and circumflex accentuation in any context in Latin the way that there could be in Greek ultima syllables with long vowels. Rather, the described distribution of acute and circumflex accents in Latin is apparently predictable based on the vowel length and the position of the accent: supposedly, short accented vowels  were pronounced with the acute accent (as in Greek), while long accented vowels were pronounced with an acute accent in antepenultimate syllables (again as in Greek), and with a circumflex accent in penultimate syllables or in monosyllabic words. Mainstream modern scholarship on Latin seems to reject this account of Latin accent, which casts a bit of a shadow on anything else that the ancient grammarians have to say about the subject. (This kind of concern also seems to be part of the reason for the controversy mentioned in C. M. Weimer's answer to the linked question about the rule that a light syllable was stressed (or according to the traditional account, took an acute accent) before a monosyllabic enclitic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, later accounts of Latin accent are often written by people who were influenced by the ancient grammarians' accounts, so the same suspicion seems to attach to post-classical sources that reference this kind of accentuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Ancient poetry&#xD;&#xA;It might be supposed that ancient poetry could provide some relevant evidence, but the question of how much we can learn about stress/accent from Latin poetry is apparently highly complex and disputed to this day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So there seems to be relatively little uncontroversial evidence about aspects of Latin stress and prosody beyond the well-known penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People who are arguing against the idea that the last syllable of an adverb took stress in Latin often seem to reference a passage by Quintilian where he says that, even though some people in his time apparently used an acute accent on the last syllable of the adverb &quot;circum&quot; in order to differentiate it from the noun form, he only hears one accented syllable in his own pronunciation of &quot;circum litora&quot; (by which he presumably means that he said &quot;circum lī́tora&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I am well aware that certain learned men and some professed teachers of literature, to ensure that certain words may be kept distinct, sometimes place an acute accent on the last syllable, both when they are teaching and in ordinary speech: as, for instance, in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; quae circus litora, circum piscosos scopulos,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *Aen. iv. 254.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[26] where they make the last syllable of *circum* acute on the ground that, if that syllable were given the grave accent, it might be thought that they meant *circus* not *circuitus.* Similarly when *quale* is interrogative, they give the final syllable a grave accent, but when using it in a comparison, make it acute. This practice, however, they restrict almost entirely to adverbs and pronouns; in other cases they follow the old usage. [27] Personally I think that in such phrases as these the circumstances are almost entirely altered by the fact that we join two words together. For when I say *circum litora* I pronounce the phrase as one word, concealing the fact that it is composed of two, consequently it contains but one acute accent, as though it were a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Quint. Inst. 1 5, *from* Quintilian. With an English Translation. Harold Edgeworth Butler. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1920. *Accessed through* [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0059%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D5#note13))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Quintilian's description of the position of the accent in Latin words mentions only one exception to the general rule that the accent does not fall on the ultima in Latin words (the exception is for monosyllabic words):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For in every word the acute accent is restricted to three syllables, whether these be the only syllables in the word or the three last, and will fall either on the penultimate or the antepenultimate. The middle of the three syllables of which I speak will be acute or circumflexed, if long, while if it be short, it will have a grave accent and the acute will be thrown back to the preceding syllable, that is to say the antepenultimate. [31] Every word has an acute accent, but never more than one. Further the acute never falls on the last syllable and therefore in dissyllabic words marks the first syllable. Moreover the acute accent and the circumflex are never found in one and the same word, since the circumflex itself contains an acute accent. Neither the circumflex nor the acute, therefore, will ever be found in the last syllable of a Latin word, with this exception, that monosyllables must either be acute or circumflexed; otherwise we should find words without an acute accent at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [*as the Priscian passage quoted above*] are to be found in **Donatus's *Ars maior*** 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and **Priscian's *Inst. gram*** (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too [*here Steenbakkers quotes a bit of the Quintilian passage mentioned above*] (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, **Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati*** (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say in your question, there seems to be a certain idea that this pattern of accentuation exists to differentiate homophones, which is the kind of explanation that modern linguists tend to regard with skepticism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not seen any attempts to provide a different kind of explanation for this stress pattern, so unfortunately, I don't know how to answer the &quot;why&quot; part of your question with sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefor, **everything that follows from this point on is just speculation**,&#xD;&#xA;and the references in the following sections are to literature that is about other topics that I think might possibly be relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some features of Latin adverbs that seem like they might possibly be relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adverbs are &quot;indeclinable&quot;: unlike adjectives, substantives, or verbs, they don't end in inflectional suffixes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Adverbs often come immediately before the modified word in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; - adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ideas about Latin prosody that seem relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these quotes, I wonder if the supposed stress on the last syllable of adverbs might be connected to possible lack of stress on the following word; for example, in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A serious problem with my suggestion here is that it would only explain this stress pattern in very particular phonological environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen does mention the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think it seems pretty far-fetched to suppose that sequences of adverb + iambic verb form were so common in Latin as to provide the basis for analogical extension of word-final stress to adverbs in general, in any position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that iambic verb forms in Classical Latin could be pronounced enclitic to the preceding word also seems to rest on fairly doubtful evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson also has a section about verbs where he says that there was probably no tendency to pronounce iambic verbs as enclitics after other iambic words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a sequence of iambic word followed by iambic verb (the type *pater petit*) barely ever fills a measure of Plautine verse, as discussed in Ch. 3, which indicates rather strongly that such a sequence was not prosodically equivalent to a four-syllable word of the same metrical shape, and that therefore the verb did not cliticize to the preceding word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 265)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, Fortson doesn't seem to discuss adverbs in much detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="cbf3ad8e-60ac-4739-ac02-229b73a5e04b" CreationDate="2018-05-04T19:59:23.900" UserId="9" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that Latin adverbs (and certain other words) were stressed or accented on the last syllable seems to be considered so implausible by modern linguists that no modern linguistic source that I have found has contained either an explanation of why they might have had this stress pattern, or a detailed argument making the case for why they did not have this stress pattern. (I have not read all (or anything close to all) modern linguistic literature about Latin, so it's quite possible that such an explanation or argument exists in some source that I wasn't able to find.) In contrast, I have seen a  a number of sources that try to provide detailed analyses of the penult-weight-based stressed rule in terms of modern linguistic theories like Optimality Theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I don't know if the apparently widespread modern rejection of this idea is based on some kind of earlier arguments with more detailed coverage of the evidence for and against.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The types of evidence that I know of, and why they are controversial&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Descriptions of Latin accent in ancient grammarians&#xD;&#xA;There are apparently a number of descriptions of Latin accent in ancient grammarians, but sources I have read often suggest that these are unreliable because they may have been overly influenced by the traditional terminology and description of Greek accentuation. For example, a number of Latin authors describe Latin syllables as being able to be pronounced with either an &quot;acute&quot; or &quot;circumflex&quot; accent, as in Greek, although there doesn't actually seem to have been a *contrast* in any context between acute and circumflex accentuation in Latin the way that there could be in Greek ultima syllables with long vowels. Rather, the described distribution of acute and circumflex accents in Latin is apparently predictable based on the vowel length and the position of the accent: supposedly, short accented vowels were pronounced with the acute accent (as in Greek), while long accented vowels were pronounced with an acute accent in antepenultimate syllables (again as in Greek), and with a circumflex accent in penultimate syllables or in monosyllabic words. Mainstream modern scholarship on Latin seems to reject this account of Latin accent, which casts a bit of a shadow on anything else that the ancient grammarians have to say about the subject. (This kind of concern also seems to be part of the reason for the controversy mentioned in C. M. Weimer's answer to the linked question about the rule that a light syllable was stressed (or according to the traditional account, took an acute accent) before a monosyllabic enclitic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, later accounts of Latin accent are often written by people who were influenced by the ancient grammarians' accounts, so the same suspicion seems to attach to post-classical sources that reference this kind of accentuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Ancient poetry&#xD;&#xA;It might be supposed that ancient poetry could provide some relevant evidence, but the question of how much we can learn about stress/accent from Latin poetry is apparently highly complex and disputed to this day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So there seems to be relatively little uncontroversial evidence about aspects of Latin stress and prosody beyond the well-known penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People who are arguing against the idea that the last syllable of an adverb took stress in Latin often seem to reference a passage by Quintilian where he says that, even though some people in his time apparently used an acute accent on the last syllable of the adverb &quot;circum&quot; in order to differentiate it from the noun form, he only hears one accented syllable in his own pronunciation of &quot;circum litora&quot; (by which he presumably means that he said &quot;circum lī́tora&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I am well aware that certain learned men and some professed teachers of literature, to ensure that certain words may be kept distinct, sometimes place an acute accent on the last syllable, both when they are teaching and in ordinary speech: as, for instance, in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; quae circus litora, circum piscosos scopulos,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *Aen. iv. 254.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[26] where they make the last syllable of *circum* acute on the ground that, if that syllable were given the grave accent, it might be thought that they meant *circus* not *circuitus.* Similarly when *quale* is interrogative, they give the final syllable a grave accent, but when using it in a comparison, make it acute. This practice, however, they restrict almost entirely to adverbs and pronouns; in other cases they follow the old usage. [27] Personally I think that in such phrases as these the circumstances are almost entirely altered by the fact that we join two words together. For when I say *circum litora* I pronounce the phrase as one word, concealing the fact that it is composed of two, consequently it contains but one acute accent, as though it were a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Quint. Inst. 1 5, *from* Quintilian. With an English Translation. Harold Edgeworth Butler. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1920. *Accessed through* [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0059%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D5#note13))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Quintilian's description of the position of the accent in Latin words mentions only one exception to the general rule that the accent does not fall on the ultima in Latin words (the exception is for monosyllabic words):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For in every word the acute accent is restricted to three syllables, whether these be the only syllables in the word or the three last, and will fall either on the penultimate or the antepenultimate. The middle of the three syllables of which I speak will be acute or circumflexed, if long, while if it be short, it will have a grave accent and the acute will be thrown back to the preceding syllable, that is to say the antepenultimate. [31] Every word has an acute accent, but never more than one. Further the acute never falls on the last syllable and therefore in dissyllabic words marks the first syllable. Moreover the acute accent and the circumflex are never found in one and the same word, since the circumflex itself contains an acute accent. Neither the circumflex nor the acute, therefore, will ever be found in the last syllable of a Latin word, with this exception, that monosyllables must either be acute or circumflexed; otherwise we should find words without an acute accent at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [*as the Priscian passage quoted above*] are to be found in **Donatus's *Ars maior*** 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and **Priscian's *Inst. gram*** (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too [*here Steenbakkers quotes a bit of the Quintilian passage mentioned above*] (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, **Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati*** (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say in your question, there seems to be a certain idea that this pattern of accentuation exists to differentiate homophones, which is the kind of explanation that modern linguists tend to regard with skepticism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not seen any attempts to provide a different kind of explanation for this stress pattern, so unfortunately, I don't know how to answer the &quot;why&quot; part of your question with sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, **everything that follows from this point on is just speculation**,&#xD;&#xA;and the references in the following sections are to literature that is about other topics that I think might possibly be relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some features of Latin adverbs that seem like they might possibly be relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adverbs are &quot;indeclinable&quot;: unlike adjectives, substantives, or verbs, they don't end in inflectional suffixes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Adverbs often come immediately before the modified word in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; - adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ideas about Latin prosody that seem relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these quotes, I wonder if the supposed stress on the last syllable of adverbs might be connected to possible lack of stress on the following word; for example, in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A serious problem with my suggestion here is that it would only explain this stress pattern in very particular phonological environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen does mention the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think it seems pretty far-fetched to suppose that sequences of adverb + iambic verb form were so common in Latin as to provide the basis for analogical extension of word-final stress to adverbs in general, in any position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that iambic verb forms in Classical Latin could be pronounced enclitic to the preceding word also seems to rest on fairly doubtful evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson also has a section about verbs where he says that there was probably no tendency to pronounce iambic verbs as enclitics after other iambic words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a sequence of iambic word followed by iambic verb (the type *pater petit*) barely ever fills a measure of Plautine verse, as discussed in Ch. 3, which indicates rather strongly that such a sequence was not prosodically equivalent to a four-syllable word of the same metrical shape, and that therefore the verb did not cliticize to the preceding word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 265)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find much discussion of the prosodic behavior of adverbs in Fortson.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6396" RevisionGUID="9ede286e-d830-4e4f-8a76-51cb81fbc480" CreationDate="2018-05-04T20:24:13.323" UserId="2602" Comment="clarification" Text="It seems that Saint Augustine in your quote is describing the same phenomenon that we can see consistently marked in later Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While trying to read Marracci's 'Refutatio Alcorani' (https://books.google.nl/books?id=ye40VChDL6gC and https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_-KZEAAAAcAAJ), I noticed that certain words were written with an accent grave on the vowel of their last syllable. Thinking this was a Late Latin feature, I searched for 'accent grave late latin' and found your question here on the Latin language version of something called a stack exchange, so I subscribed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like you, I was surprised to see a reference to word-final stress, because I had always learned that Latin accent falls on the penult if it is long, and on the antepenult if the penult is short. Even the otherwise brilliant Ørberg's Lingua Latina doesn't teach that the 'ultima' or 'oxytone' syllable can be accented as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pedantically speaking, asking 'why' some Latin adverbs have stress on the final syllable is like asking why Latin uses the letter p: it is just the way it is. You could find a Proto-Indo-European 'reason' for it, but this won't explain 'why' this was the case in Proto-Indo-European itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it would be nice to find a pattern, or to describe exactly what the way it is, is. So I did a quick check of the kind of words that have their last syllable accented in a sample of competent Late Latin prose. This is what I found in Marracci's 'Praefatio ad lectorem' (from page iv in the Google Books version linked above):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in è ##&#xD;&#xA;Parcè, ferè, penè, propè, validissimè, doctè, validè, Arabicè, Latinè, Italicè, sanè, eruditè, praecipuè, probè, publicè, novissimè, penitissimè, nervosè, temerè, strenuè, modestè, fortassè, ingenuè, minimè, modestè, quotidiè, impunè, saepè, nempè, exactè, obnixè (the adverb 'ponè' would belong to this class).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in ò ##&#xD;&#xA;Adeò, ideò, verò, omninò, rarò, multò, primò, idcircò, postremò, porrò, mutuò, imò, tantummodò.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs ending in ùs ##&#xD;&#xA;Penitùs, prorsùs, promptiùs, faciliùs, superiùs, copiosiùs, potiùs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So not just some, but in fact *all* adverbs in -o, -e and -us are accented on the last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Adverbs and conjunctions ending in ùm ##&#xD;&#xA;Verùm ('but', not 'true thing'), solùm ('only', not 'only thing'), tantùm ('only', not 'so much'), primùm ('firstly', not 'first thing'), nimirùm, potissimùm, demùm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other adverbs, conjunctions and prepositions ##&#xD;&#xA;Diù, unà, praetereà, contrà (exercitum immensum, but contra se?), frustrà, quòd ('because' or 'that', not 'what'), hìc ('here', not 'this (masc. nom.)'), illùc, quàm ('than' and 'how ...', not 'what (fem. acc.)'), tàm, cùm ('when' or 'though', not 'with'), licèt, à, è.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these words only have a final accent with certain meanings, while they don't with other meanings. I don't think that Latin speakers consistently added accents to certain final vowels merely to distinguish homophones in writing, if there were no actual difference in pronunciation, especially when Saint Augustine expected a Latin student to hear a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If grave accents were indeed used to mark actual stress, then there may have been an audible difference even between monosyllabic words with accent (hìc, quàm, cùm, quòd), and without. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding sumelic's answer: it seems to depend on whether we trust Priscian, Donatus, Pseudo-Priscian, Manutius, many or most people who spoke Latin in Muret's time according to Muret, and Saint Augustine; or Quintilian and humanists like Lipsius, Muret, Henning and Vossius. I prefer ecclesiastical Latin and I would be especially interested in any statements by 16th and 17th century Catholic grammarians on this issue. Sumelic rightly observes that modern Latin grammars don't try to prove why this written accent must not have been pronounced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding Alex B.'s answer: In both of these quotes by Hendrickson 2017 and Stotz 1996, they only assert that the 16th and 17th century final accent grave had nothing to do with phonology, but their sources are unclear (i.e. they are not given in Alex B.'s citation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the OP's quote by Saint Augustine shows a clear phonological difference in early late Latin, which matches a later difference in orthography. In order to overrule this evidence, I would need a primary source from a preferably non-humanist Late Latin writer who mentions the orthographic convention of the final accent grave, and also warns that it should be ignored in pronunciation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6398" RevisionGUID="cfc290ff-1760-40ad-84f6-a025cfbada6b" CreationDate="2018-05-04T20:43:38.080" UserId="39" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="**An important note about my sources:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question has been raised by another user re: sources in my answer. Anyone can easily check the accuracy of my statements and sources. [Dr. Stotz][1] is an expert in Medieval Philology (i.e. post-Classical Latin); he is a professional linguist. Obviously, he has provided necessary bibliography about all the sources in his Handbuch. I encourage you to read the mentioned sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are *several* issues at stake here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oxytones** in Classical Latin **were extremely rare** - and in many cases resulted from apocope or syncope. See [my answer][2] for more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, accent marks (acutus, gravis, circumflexus etc.) in Post-Classical times were used for a number of reasons. Stotz (1996), in the third volume of his magisterial five volume *Handbuch zur lateinische Sprache des Mittelalters* , mentions that, for example, loans from Aramaic and Hebrew were written as manná, Adám, Sión, Iesús etc. (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, he writes the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Wenn ein hmal. Theoriker bei den Präpositionen penes oder sine Endebtonung verlangt, könnte zwar eine syntagmatisch bedingte akzentmäßige Worteinung ('mot métrique') vom Typus *apúd-me* (s. oben) der Ausgangspunkt sein, doch geht es ihm - und so auch bei *circúm*, palám u.ä. - darum, Homographa (bzw. Wörter, die mehreren Wortarten zugehören) eindeutig zu machen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Es geht ihm mithin nicht um Beschreibung hergebrachter Sprachwirklichkeit, sondern um deren spekulativ-differenzierende Veränderung**&quot; (p. 124; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;He is therefore not concerned with the description of language reality, but with its speculative-differentiating change (English translation by Google)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- will make small changes later-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Steenbakkers 1994 &quot;As a general rule, we might say that *the grave* is the mark of the indeclinable forms” (p. 73) or [Hendrickson 2017][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in what ancient grammarians thought on this, everything that was written on Latin accent was collected in Schöll, F. (1876). *De accentu linguae Latinae veterum grammaticorum testimonia*. Lipsiae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sglp.uzh.ch/de/aboutus/personen/stotz.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/604/39&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://brill.com/view/title/34288&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Kf1xm.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6192" RevisionGUID="2a81f04d-81a5-4d81-b087-1a4236095e6b" CreationDate="2018-05-04T21:01:21.680" UserId="79" Comment="added 343 characters in body" Text="There was a great cultural borrowing of ideas from Greece to Rome, and a number of Greek words ended up being borrowed to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;But it must have happened the other way, too, at some point.&#xD;&#xA;What is the earliest known word borrowed from Latin to Greek?&#xD;&#xA;I am not looking for cognates, but something that came from Latin to Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there cannot be a decisive answer to &quot;what is the first word of this kind?&quot;, but there can be good hints.&#xD;&#xA;The goal is to understand the earliest loans through examples, so the question could be reworded more carefully as:&#xD;&#xA;What are some examples of early (as early as possible) loan words from Latin to Greek, and how old are they?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6406" RevisionGUID="ea4afe8d-1e2c-4253-97c7-a95c9016bfec" CreationDate="2018-05-04T21:35:52.693" UserId="2602" Comment="prof. Dickey's e-mail" Text="This may be useful: Eleanor Dickey (https://www.academia.edu/8113495/Latin_loanwords_in_Greek_A_preliminary_analysis_2012_, footnote 36, page 67) distinguishes between Latin words as foreign words, and Latin words as integrated loanwords. Her corpus of these Latin loanwords integrated into Greek is 'not yet finalized' but she claims there are 52 first attested in the second and first centuries BC. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Panagiotis Filos (https://books.google.nl/books?id=Xl8pjHVUNlgC, from page xxxix) lists many Latin loanwords, but he doesn't sort them by date. Apparently there are corpora by Hofmann and Daris that are sorted by date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought Professor Dickey might be able to answer this question, as someone whose 'main current research project is a study of the influence of Latin on Greek during the Roman empire, particularly Latin loanwords that were integrated into Greek to the extent of being used by Greek speakers who did not speak Latin' (https://www.reading.ac.uk/classics/about/staff/e-dickey.aspx). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So on 4-5-'18 at 20:45 Dutch time I wrote to her (*omissis salutationibus*): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do you happen to know what the single earliest known Latin loanword or mention of a Latin word in Greek is? I'm asking for the people at https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6192/what-is-the-earliest-known-word-borrowed-from-latin-to-greek (and for myself). In trying to answer this question, I came across your work(https://www.academia.edu/8113495/Latin_loanwords_in_Greek_A_preliminary_analysis_2012_). You write (in footnote 36 on page 67), that you have an unfinalized corpus of around 650 integrated loanwords, of which around 52 are first seen in the second and first centuries BC. Have you since finalized that corpus? If it's not possible to name the very earliest attestation, would you please share your list of the 52 oldest loanwords, or just the oldest few? Do you know what Daris and Hofmann consider to be the earliest Latin loanwords (according to their broader definition which apparently includes 'non-integrated' loanwords or mentions of Latin words as foreign words)? May I cite your reply in my public answer at the Latin language StackExchange? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And she answered at 23:15 (my emphasis):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is a debated question; for example Cervenka-Ehrenstrasser thinks the earliest loan is διάριον, and Daris would no doubt agree: that is the earliest loan in the papyri, from the 2nd century BC. But **the earliest one I have so far found anywhere is οὐγγία** 'one-twelfth', from Latin **uncia**: this goes back to the **5th century BC** (see LSJ). There are a couple of other very early words that could rival it chronologically, but they are not certainly from Latin: **λίτρα** 'pound', **Ἰταλία** 'Italy'. Hofmann probably has more very early words, because he includes words from all the pre-Roman languages of Italy, but he doesn't give dates and doesn't say which word he thinks is earliest.   &#xD;&#xA;Yes, you may cite my answer. I attach my entry for οὐγγία as it currently stands.   &#xD;&#xA;I am still plugging away at that corpus, which is close to finalized but not quite there yet, so it is still possible that I'll find an earlier word somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Attached was a pdf with this text: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; οὐγγία, οὐγκία, οὐνκία, ὀγκία, ὀνκία, γουγκία, ὠνκία, or ὠκία (-ας, ἡ) ‘one-twelfth’ (esp. of an inheritance) is from ūncia ‘one-twelfth’. Papyri/ostraca: common including P.Oxy. 33.2679 line 8 (2nd), P.Oxy. 12.1449 line 49 (3rd), P.Lond. 5.1823 line 7 (4th), P.Gen. 4.186 line 29 (5th), P.Oxy. 44.3204 line 23 (6th). Inscriptions: common including SEG 45:1423.1 lines 1 etc. (5th/4th BC), Agora 21 Hb 3 (3rd BC), Agora 21 He 7 (1st), SEG 9:176 lines 9 etc. (2nd), IK Arykanda 122 (3rd), Agora 21 Hb 22 (4th), IGPannonia Add. p. 47,1 (5th), SEG 51:1392 line 4 (6th). Literature: very common including Epicharmus fr. 203 Kaibel (cited in Pausanias ο 3) (5th BC); Aristotle, frag. 510 (4th BC, marked as Sicilian); Dioscorides, De materia medica 1.10.2 (1st); Galen vi.451.2 Kühn (2nd); Zosimus, Περὶ καύσεως σωμάτων vol. 2 p. 181.1 (3rd/4th); Oribasius, Collectiones medicae 5.25.36 (4th); Sozomenus, Historia ecclesiastica 6.29.5 (5th); Hesychius often as part of glosses (e.g. δ 1486, δ 2352) (5/6th); Cyrillus, Vita Sabae p. 107.25 (6th); Theophilus Antecessor once in Latin script (2.14.5 uncia) and often in Greek script (e.g. 2.14.5) (6th). Post-antique: common; see LBG s.v. ὀγγία. Modern οὐγγιά ‘ounce’ (Pring 1965; Meyer 1895: 50). Notes: Enters Greek very early, via Sicily, but unlike other words with this history does seem to come from Latin and also seems to become an integrated loan in Greek of all regions. Cf. Chantraine (1968-80 s.v.), Beekes (2009 s.v.), Lejeune (1993: 2-3), Tribulato (2012: 174, 255-6), Hofmann (1989: 301-2), Daris (1991: 79), Immisch (1885: 344), Triantaphyllides (1892: 268), Frisk (1954-72: III.159), LSJ (specifically saying it’s Latin and comes via&#xD;&#xA;Sicilian Greek), LSJ supplement, Lampe (1961 s.v. ὀγκία).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some other examples from Dickey 2012 (pages 61-65): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - πατέλλα 'dish' &lt; *patella*&#xD;&#xA; - κοχλιάριον 'spoon' &lt; *cochleare* &#xD;&#xA; - ἀργεντάριον 'bank' &lt; *argentaria*&#xD;&#xA; - στρικτόν and καλίγια 'types of footwear' &lt; *strictus* and *caliga* &#xD;&#xA; - ἄρουλαν 'brazier' &lt; *arula*&#xD;&#xA; - πιγκέρνης 'bar-keeper' &lt; *pincerna*&#xD;&#xA; - φίβλα 'safety pin' &lt; *fibula*&#xD;&#xA; - ὁ/ὀσπίτιον 'house' &lt; *hospitium*&#xD;&#xA; - σουδάρια 'handkerchiefs' &lt; *sudarium*&#xD;&#xA; - σιμικίνθια 'aprons' &lt; *semicinctum*&#xD;&#xA; - φραγελλώσας 'having whipped' &lt; *flagellare*&#xD;&#xA; - βράκας 'breeches' &lt; *bracae*&#xD;&#xA; - μαρούλια 'lettuce' &lt; *amarus* 'bitter'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6398" RevisionGUID="43c5511e-cdb8-4af7-9713-be4dd3496a41" CreationDate="2018-05-04T22:03:56.800" UserId="39" Comment="added 1095 characters in body" Text="**An important note about my sources:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question has been raised by another user re: sources in my answer. Anyone can easily check the accuracy of my statements and sources. [Dr. Stotz][1] is an expert in Medieval Philology (i.e. post-Classical Latin); he is a professional linguist. Obviously, he has provided necessary bibliography about all the sources in his Handbuch. I encourage you to read the mentioned sources - why not go to the library?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are *several* issues at stake here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oxytones** in Classical Latin **were extremely rare** - and in many cases resulted from apocope or syncope. See [my answer][2] for more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, why would some syntactic word classes in Latin be oxytones, **contrary to the accentual system of the whole language**? It would not make much sense at all. Moreover, it would be **absurd** to claim that polysyllabic adverbs (containing three or more syllables) were oxytones in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, accent marks (acutus, gravis, circumflexus etc.) in Post-Classical times were used for a number of reasons. Stotz (1996), in the third volume of his magisterial five volume *Handbuch zur lateinische Sprache des Mittelalters* , mentions that, for example, loans from Aramaic and Hebrew were written as manná, Adám, Sión, Iesús etc. (p. 124). To put it differently, there is absolutely **no reliable evidence** to the claim that such diacritics represented stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One has to be extremely **critical of post-Classical Latin sources**: the authors and editors of such texts were no linguists, and language theory was very **rudimentary** at best and **ascientific** at that time. To make things worse, their understanding of even basic language concepts was highly **idiosyncratic**. You should never assume that any term, if it is still used in modern linguistics research, meant the same thing in the post-Classical era.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stotz specifically addresses our question in his monograph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Wenn ein hmal. Theoriker bei den Präpositionen penes oder sine Endebtonung verlangt, könnte zwar eine syntagmatisch bedingte akzentmäßige Worteinung ('mot métrique') vom Typus *apúd-me* (s. oben) der Ausgangspunkt sein, doch geht es ihm - und so auch bei *circúm*, palám u.ä. - darum, Homographa (bzw. Wörter, die mehreren Wortarten zugehören) eindeutig zu machen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Es geht ihm mithin nicht um Beschreibung hergebrachter Sprachwirklichkeit, sondern um deren spekulativ-differenzierende Veränderung&quot; (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**He** [a person insisting on the special accentual status of such words - Alex B.] **is therefore not concerned with the description of language reality, but with a speculative differentiating change** [emphasis mine - Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stotz remarks that such words could have been oxytones in the French sprachraum, but to make such a claim about (Classical) Latin would be **ahistorical**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in what ancient grammarians thought on this, everything that was written on Latin accent was collected in Schöll, F. (1876). *De accentu linguae Latinae veterum grammaticorum testimonia*. Lipsiae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such evidence from classical authors (native speakers of Latin) is more reliable than coming from the post-Classical &quot;grammarians&quot;, but, once again, you have to read it with a critical eye.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sglp.uzh.ch/de/aboutus/personen/stotz.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/604/39&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://brill.com/view/title/34288&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Kf1xm.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6406" RevisionGUID="53e1d5ae-6c3e-4ff3-9f97-8256ef695b93" CreationDate="2018-05-04T22:13:55.703" UserId="2602" Comment="examples" Text="This may be useful: Eleanor Dickey (https://www.academia.edu/8113495/Latin_loanwords_in_Greek_A_preliminary_analysis_2012_, footnote 36, page 67) distinguishes between Latin words as foreign words, and Latin words as integrated loanwords. Her corpus of these Latin loanwords integrated into Greek is 'not yet finalized' but she claims there are 52 first attested in the second and first centuries BC. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Panagiotis Filos (https://books.google.nl/books?id=Xl8pjHVUNlgC, from page xxxix) lists many Latin loanwords, but he doesn't sort them by date. Apparently there are corpora by Hofmann and Daris that are sorted by date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought Professor Dickey might be able to answer this question, as someone whose 'main current research project is a study of the influence of Latin on Greek during the Roman empire, particularly Latin loanwords that were integrated into Greek to the extent of being used by Greek speakers who did not speak Latin' (https://www.reading.ac.uk/classics/about/staff/e-dickey.aspx). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So on 4-5-'18 at 20:45 Dutch time I wrote to her (*omissis salutationibus*): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do you happen to know what the single earliest known Latin loanword or mention of a Latin word in Greek is? I'm asking for the people at https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6192/what-is-the-earliest-known-word-borrowed-from-latin-to-greek (and for myself). In trying to answer this question, I came across your work(https://www.academia.edu/8113495/Latin_loanwords_in_Greek_A_preliminary_analysis_2012_). You write (in footnote 36 on page 67), that you have an unfinalized corpus of around 650 integrated loanwords, of which around 52 are first seen in the second and first centuries BC. Have you since finalized that corpus? If it's not possible to name the very earliest attestation, would you please share your list of the 52 oldest loanwords, or just the oldest few? Do you know what Daris and Hofmann consider to be the earliest Latin loanwords (according to their broader definition which apparently includes 'non-integrated' loanwords or mentions of Latin words as foreign words)? May I cite your reply in my public answer at the Latin language StackExchange? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And she answered at 23:15 (my emphasis):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is a debated question; for example Cervenka-Ehrenstrasser thinks the earliest loan is διάριον, and Daris would no doubt agree: that is the earliest loan in the papyri, from the 2nd century BC. But **the earliest one I have so far found anywhere is οὐγγία** 'one-twelfth', from Latin **uncia**: this goes back to the **5th century BC** (see LSJ). There are a couple of other very early words that could rival it chronologically, but they are not certainly from Latin: **λίτρα** 'pound', **Ἰταλία** 'Italy'. Hofmann probably has more very early words, because he includes words from all the pre-Roman languages of Italy, but he doesn't give dates and doesn't say which word he thinks is earliest.   &#xD;&#xA;Yes, you may cite my answer. I attach my entry for οὐγγία as it currently stands.   &#xD;&#xA;I am still plugging away at that corpus, which is close to finalized but not quite there yet, so it is still possible that I'll find an earlier word somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Attached was a pdf with this text: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; οὐγγία, οὐγκία, οὐνκία, ὀγκία, ὀνκία, γουγκία, ὠνκία, or ὠκία (-ας, ἡ) ‘one-twelfth’ (esp. of an inheritance) is from ūncia ‘one-twelfth’. Papyri/ostraca: common including P.Oxy. 33.2679 line 8 (2nd), P.Oxy. 12.1449 line 49 (3rd), P.Lond. 5.1823 line 7 (4th), P.Gen. 4.186 line 29 (5th), P.Oxy. 44.3204 line 23 (6th). Inscriptions: common including SEG 45:1423.1 lines 1 etc. (5th/4th BC), Agora 21 Hb 3 (3rd BC), Agora 21 He 7 (1st), SEG 9:176 lines 9 etc. (2nd), IK Arykanda 122 (3rd), Agora 21 Hb 22 (4th), IGPannonia Add. p. 47,1 (5th), SEG 51:1392 line 4 (6th). Literature: very common including Epicharmus fr. 203 Kaibel (cited in Pausanias ο 3) (5th BC); Aristotle, frag. 510 (4th BC, marked as Sicilian); Dioscorides, De materia medica 1.10.2 (1st); Galen vi.451.2 Kühn (2nd); Zosimus, Περὶ καύσεως σωμάτων vol. 2 p. 181.1 (3rd/4th); Oribasius, Collectiones medicae 5.25.36 (4th); Sozomenus, Historia ecclesiastica 6.29.5 (5th); Hesychius often as part of glosses (e.g. δ 1486, δ 2352) (5/6th); Cyrillus, Vita Sabae p. 107.25 (6th); Theophilus Antecessor once in Latin script (2.14.5 uncia) and often in Greek script (e.g. 2.14.5) (6th). Post-antique: common; see LBG s.v. ὀγγία. Modern οὐγγιά ‘ounce’ (Pring 1965; Meyer 1895: 50). Notes: Enters Greek very early, via Sicily, but unlike other words with this history does seem to come from Latin and also seems to become an integrated loan in Greek of all regions. Cf. Chantraine (1968-80 s.v.), Beekes (2009 s.v.), Lejeune (1993: 2-3), Tribulato (2012: 174, 255-6), Hofmann (1989: 301-2), Daris (1991: 79), Immisch (1885: 344), Triantaphyllides (1892: 268), Frisk (1954-72: III.159), LSJ (specifically saying it’s Latin and comes via&#xD;&#xA;Sicilian Greek), LSJ supplement, Lampe (1961 s.v. ὀγκία).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some other examples from Dickey 2012 (pages 61-66): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - πατέλλα 'dish' &lt; *patella*&#xD;&#xA; - κοχλιάριον 'spoon' &lt; *cochleare* &#xD;&#xA; - ἀργεντάριον 'bank' &lt; *argentaria*&#xD;&#xA; - στρικτόν and καλίγια 'types of footwear' &lt; *strictus* and *caliga* &#xD;&#xA; - ἄρουλαν 'brazier' &lt; *arula*&#xD;&#xA; - πιγκέρνης 'bar-keeper' &lt; *pincerna*&#xD;&#xA; - φίβλα 'safety pin' &lt; *fibula*&#xD;&#xA; - ὁ/ὀσπίτιον 'house' &lt; *hospitium*&#xD;&#xA; - σουδάρια 'handkerchiefs' &lt; *sudarium*&#xD;&#xA; - σιμικίνθια 'aprons' &lt; *semicinctum*&#xD;&#xA; - φραγελλώσας 'having whipped' &lt; *flagellare*&#xD;&#xA; - βράκας 'trousers' &lt; *bracae*&#xD;&#xA; - μαρούλια 'lettuce' &lt; *amarus* 'bitter'&#xD;&#xA; - κῶδιξ 'book' &lt; *codex*&#xD;&#xA; - τίτλoς 'title' &lt; *titulus*&#xD;&#xA; - μεμβράνα 'parchment' &lt; *membrana*&#xD;&#xA; - ταβέλλα 'writing tablet, note' &lt; *tabella*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6407" RevisionGUID="21cc08e1-370d-419c-b4f6-bb1501b8363d" CreationDate="2018-05-04T22:34:15.937" UserId="13" Text="I just saw a Quora post stating the Romanian spelling &quot;cvorum&quot;, &quot;cvintuplu&quot;, &quot;cvartet&quot; proves the Romans pronounced qu as kv. I tried to back up the contrary claim with Latin-to-Greek transliterations, but the only name I could think of was Quintilianus, whose modern Greek name is Koïntilianós (typing from mobile, pardon my romanization), which I cannot be sure to trace back to Ancient Greek as opposed to being borrowed from a modern language. I used similar comparisons with Italian words and the fact /w/ changed to v (supported by onomatopoeic vagire and vagitus, and Greek Oualeérios for Valerius) to demolish that claim, but I'm still wondering: what was Quintilian called in AG? And more in general, what transliterations of Roman names with Qu into AG do we know of? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21206" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6407" RevisionGUID="21cc08e1-370d-419c-b4f6-bb1501b8363d" CreationDate="2018-05-04T22:34:15.937" UserId="13" Text="Quintilian's name in Ancient Greek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21207" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6407" RevisionGUID="21cc08e1-370d-419c-b4f6-bb1501b8363d" CreationDate="2018-05-04T22:34:15.937" UserId="13" Text="|greek|transliteration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6408" RevisionGUID="616d497b-8c70-499d-97ca-96cf491faa6c" CreationDate="2018-05-04T23:37:18.753" UserId="30" Text="It is indeed possible: in such cases, one uses *a/ab/abs* with the person who is to act, to avoid ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weimer (above) provides a reference, Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge 355:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To avoid ambiguity, especially when the verb itself takes the Dat., the Abl. with *ab (a)* is employed for the sake of clearness...When there is no ambiguity, there is no need of *ab*. [then he gives the example] *Linguae moderandum est mihi*, &quot;I must put bounds to my tongue&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21209" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6408" RevisionGUID="25bcca36-7657-43f0-838e-2c97b6a19bc7" CreationDate="2018-05-04T23:37:18.753" UserId="30" />
  <row Id="21210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6409" RevisionGUID="912b0ccc-7609-4987-b039-c017ceea6fa7" CreationDate="2018-05-05T00:48:45.563" UserId="522" Text="**Luke 2:2** Greek genitive, Latin ablative absolutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας **Κυρηνίου**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2 haec descriptio prima facta est praeside Syriae **Cyrino** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;King James Bible: Purple Letter Edition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1And it came to pass, in those days, that there went out a decree from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be registered {taxed}.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2(And this registration {taxing} was first made when **Quirinius** was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; governor of Syria.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NET Bible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Census and the Birth of Jesus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus to register&#xD;&#xA;&gt; all the empire for taxes. 2This was the first registration, taken when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quirinius** was governor of Syria." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6409" RevisionGUID="6cc3ac54-aebb-40fd-9c56-196397cd31f2" CreationDate="2018-05-05T00:58:22.980" UserId="522" Comment="App crit " Text="**Luke 2:2** Greek genitive, Latin ablative absolutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας **Κυρηνίου** / Κυρείνου (h)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2 haec descriptio prima facta est praeside Syriae **Cyrino** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;King James Bible: Purple Letter Edition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1And it came to pass, in those days, that there went out a decree from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be registered {taxed}.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2(And this registration {taxing} was first made when **Quirinius** was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; governor of Syria.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NET Bible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Census and the Birth of Jesus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus to register&#xD;&#xA;&gt; all the empire for taxes. 2This was the first registration, taken when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quirinius** was governor of Syria." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6410" RevisionGUID="ae11ac55-5ea9-4417-8098-49763519840a" CreationDate="2018-05-05T02:36:21.890" UserId="2602" Text="I think they are quite identical. Lewis &amp; Short has for arbiter (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DA%3Aentry+group%3D68%3Aentry%3Darbiter): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;II. Esp. A. In judic. lang., t. t., prop., he that is appointed to inquire into a cause (cf. adire hiberna, Tac. H. 1, 52, and intervenio) and settle it; hence, an umpire, arbiter, a judge, in an actio bonae fidei (**i. e. who decides acc. to equity, while the judex decides acc. to laws**).&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6411" RevisionGUID="dbdeca2e-aa94-4e7e-873a-2bff696e5c59" CreationDate="2018-05-05T02:38:27.297" UserId="985" Text="For a Classical example, threre's this dedicatory inscription from the sanctuary in Olympia, from the second century BCE (perhaps 143 or 142):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Δάμων Νικάνδρος Μακεδὼν ἀπὸ  &#xD;&#xA;Θεσσαλονίκης **Κόιντον Καεκέλιον  &#xD;&#xA;Κοΐντου Μέτελλον**, στρατηγὸν ὓπατον  &#xD;&#xA;Ῥωμαίων, Διὶ Ὀλυμπίῳ,  &#xD;&#xA;ἀρετῆς ἕνεκεν καὶ εὐνοίας ἧς ἔχων διατε-  &#xD;&#xA;λεῖ εἴς τε αὐτὸν καὶ τὴν πατρίδα καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς  &#xD;&#xA;Μακεδόνας καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους Ἕλληνας.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Damon, son of Nikanor, a Macedonian from Thessalonika, (dedicated the statue) of **Quintus Caecilius Metellus, son of Quintus**, consul of the Romans, to Olympian Zeus, because of his excellence and the kindness that he always showed toward him, his country, the rest of the Macedonians, and the other Greeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Text from M. Guarducci, *L'epigrafia greca dalle origini al tardo impero* [Rome, 1987], p 59–60)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6403" RevisionGUID="7b4c63e0-1b3d-499d-af58-5b58ceb1fd6f" CreationDate="2018-05-05T03:34:32.787" UserId="30" Comment="edited body" Text="I believe they are very rare, but it is possible to find some others. I have found *vixet* in the Aeneid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [Publius Vergilius Maro, *Aeneis* 11.118]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparat, his mecum decuit concurrere telis:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **uixet** cui uitam deus aut sua dextra dedisset.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; nunc ite et miseris supponite ciuibus ignem.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On which comments Maurus Servius Honoratus, a late fourth-century and early fifth-century grammarian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Maurus Servius Honoratus, *In Vergilii Aeneidos Libros*:]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  11.118.1 **vixet** pro 'vixisset': et est syncope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  3.152.1 INSERTAS aut clatratas; aut non seratas, ut sit quasi 'inseratas', id est non clausas, et dictum, quomodo 'asprosque molares' pro 'asperos', conpostus' pro 'conpositus', '**vixet**' pro 'vixisset'. {⁴³vel 'insertas fenestras' quas lumine suo luna inseruerat, ab inserendo, quod se per rimas insereret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So he considers it simply a syncope. As I can only find any forms on *-ixet* in the Aeneid, it may have been invented by Virgil *metri causa*, but possibly with some licence based not only on poetry but also on archaic variants, when morphology had been less fixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find *-pset* only in two sources (one of whom is Cicero):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Officiis 3.98.9]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod ni Palamedi perspicax prudentia  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Istius **percepset** malitiosam audaciam  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fide sacratae ius perpetuo falleret.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Anonymi Comici et Tragici, Tragoediae Poetarum Incertorum 59]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod ní Palamedi pérspicax prudéntia  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Istíus **percepset** málitiosam audáciam,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fidé sacratae iús perpetuo fálleret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6412" RevisionGUID="4d777c63-eadc-4dec-b572-9400d4237b50" CreationDate="2018-05-05T10:39:10.383" UserId="1459" Text="I could find one example from the Vulgata:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [1st book of Samuel, 23:23 (Regum I in Vulgata)](http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=9&amp;ch=23&amp;l=23-#x)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Vulgata: Considerate et videte omnia latibula ejus, in quibus absconditur : et revertimini ad me ad rem certam, ut vadam vobiscum. **Quod si etiam in terram se abstruserit, perscrutabor eum in cunctis millibus Juda.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Douay Rheims: Consider and see all his lurking holes, wherein he is bid, and return to me with the certainty of the thing, that I may go with you. **And if be should even go down into the earth to hide himself, I will search him out in all the thousands of Juda.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also this second verse, where I think the meaning is also closer to &quot;even if&quot; than to &quot;also if&quot;, but I might be wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [2nd book of Samuel, 5:2 (Regnum II in Vulgata)](http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=28&amp;ch=5&amp;l=2-#x)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Vulgata: Quod si etiam, Vivit Dominus, dixerunt, et hac falso jurabunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Douay Rheims: And though they say: The Lord liveth; this also they will swear falsely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, although the latter is not exactly &quot;even if&quot;, it's meaning is in my view more or less equivalent to it. For example, the translation &quot;And even if they say &quot;The Lord liveth&quot;, this also they will swear falsely&quot; conveys imo a very close meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: [Douay Rheims](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible) version is perhaps the most important translation into English of the Vulgata." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6413" RevisionGUID="7171e4ee-a5b7-4840-a786-a8e328a1a310" CreationDate="2018-05-05T10:55:34.000" UserId="1459" Text="[Hathi Trust]() is a large database of digitilised texts from universities all over the world (kind of an academic version of archive.org). Everything is searchable. For &quot;Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum&quot;, [there are many results](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=Corpus%20Inscriptionum%20Latinarum;a=srchls;lmt=ft). I can see volume 1, " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6413" RevisionGUID="d7f18eb8-225b-4c5b-9371-1e026f4496e1" CreationDate="2018-05-05T11:01:53.597" UserId="1459" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="[Hathi Trust](https://www.hathitrust.org/) is a large database of digitilised texts from universities all over the world (kind of an academic version of archive.org). Everything (as far as I know) is searchable. For &quot;_Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum_&quot;, [there are many results](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=Corpus%20Inscriptionum%20Latinarum;a=srchls;lmt=ft). The first page shows volume 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6394" RevisionGUID="3120ac96-fafb-45a8-b7c5-3288e83b83c7" CreationDate="2018-05-05T11:25:06.443" UserId="79" Comment="added 456 characters in body" Text="&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure I parse your question right.&#xD;&#xA;Do you suggest that *dwelt* is in perfect tense?&#xD;&#xA;Both *habitabat* and *dwelt* are in what I have been taught to call the imperfect tense.&#xD;&#xA;(I take it the English equivalent is called past simple, but never encountered that terminology when studying English.)&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin imperfect describes past circumstances, not a sharp action, and it is really the only possible Latin tense for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;This could have been translated as &quot;was living&quot; or &quot;was dwelling&quot; in English, but it may have felt unnecessarily heavy.&#xD;&#xA;In this context it seems to me that &quot;lived&quot; or &quot;dwelt&quot; communicate the same idea.&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;was dwelling&quot; would indeed be a good translation, but not the only correct choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin and English tenses do not match perfectly, so the Latin imperfect is not exactly the same as the English past continuous.&#xD;&#xA;A judgement call is needed, and in this case I agree that it feels most natural to say &quot;dwelt&quot; instead of &quot;was dwelling&quot;, although I find both acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;What is important is that the two languages tell the same story." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6414" RevisionGUID="e91fa191-bf58-4005-b5ac-84d07ad86307" CreationDate="2018-05-05T11:34:41.113" UserId="79" Text="I want to compare future perfect active indicative (f.p.a.i.) and perfect active conjunctive (p.a.c.).&#xD;&#xA;They look identical, apart from first person singular (*cogitavero* &amp;ne; *cogitaverim*).&#xD;&#xA;But is there a difference in the length of the last *-i-*?&#xD;&#xA;It has to be short in third person singular and plural due to its position, but the remaining three persons (*cogitaveris*, *cogitaverimus*, *cogitaveritis*) are less clear to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the length of the *-i-* in these forms for future perfect and perfect conjunctive?&#xD;&#xA;Are the lengths different?&#xD;&#xA;I was taught that they are all short, but I have seen some sources mark the conjunctive long and the future perfect short, and I think I have also seen both marked long." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21221" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6414" RevisionGUID="e91fa191-bf58-4005-b5ac-84d07ad86307" CreationDate="2018-05-05T11:34:41.113" UserId="79" Text="Vowel length in future perfect indicative and perfect conjunctive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21222" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6414" RevisionGUID="e91fa191-bf58-4005-b5ac-84d07ad86307" CreationDate="2018-05-05T11:34:41.113" UserId="79" Text="|morphology|conjugation|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6415" RevisionGUID="0dcf404a-2637-45e7-8bc0-cf52d09319fa" CreationDate="2018-05-05T13:33:10.470" UserId="2602" Text="Ørberg doesn't mark a difference, but e.g. Henle and Teach Yourself Latin do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *future perfect* ends in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - -erō&#xD;&#xA; - -eris&#xD;&#xA; - -erit&#xD;&#xA; - -erimus&#xD;&#xA; - -eritis&#xD;&#xA; - -erint&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Note the similarity to the future of 'esse': erō, eris... except er**u**nt]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *perfect subjunctive* ends in: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - -erim&#xD;&#xA; - -erīs&#xD;&#xA; - -erit&#xD;&#xA; - -erīmus&#xD;&#xA; - -erītis&#xD;&#xA; - -erint&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Note the similarity to the present subjunctive of 'esse': sim, sīs...]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6414" RevisionGUID="984ee6e2-77fc-4bd6-991d-cb08ee9e8a31" CreationDate="2018-05-05T13:58:59.027" UserId="79" Comment="added 231 characters in body" Text="I want to compare future perfect active indicative and perfect active conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;They look identical, apart from first person singular (*cogitavero* &amp;ne; *cogitaverim*).&#xD;&#xA;But is there a difference in the length of the last *-i-*?&#xD;&#xA;It has to be short in third person singular and plural due to its position, but the remaining three persons (*cogitaveris*, *cogitaverimus*, *cogitaveritis*) are less clear to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the length of the *-i-* in these forms for future perfect and perfect conjunctive?&#xD;&#xA;Are the lengths different?&#xD;&#xA;I was taught that they are all short, but I have seen some sources mark the conjunctive long and the future perfect short, and I think I have also seen both marked long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References to reputable grammars are welcome, but arguments about how we know the lengths would be most useful.&#xD;&#xA;My experience is that grammars disagree &amp;mdash; although some may be in the minority &amp;mdash; and it is not easy to tell what to trust." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6415" RevisionGUID="dcbc05aa-88ab-49f8-8ebf-879f1e1d33dc" CreationDate="2018-05-05T14:52:00.703" UserId="2602" Comment="Ørberg doesn't mark a difference, but e.g. Henle and Betts' Teach Yourself Latin do. This Utah State University teacher's commentary on Wheelock's chapter 30 () is:" Text="Ørberg doesn't mark a difference, but e.g. Henle and Teach Yourself Latin do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *future perfect* ends in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - -erō&#xD;&#xA; - -eris&#xD;&#xA; - -erit&#xD;&#xA; - -erimus&#xD;&#xA; - -eritis&#xD;&#xA; - -erint&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Note the similarity to the future of 'esse': erō, eris, erit, erimus, eritis, er**u**nt.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *perfect subjunctive* ends in: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - -erim&#xD;&#xA; - -erīs&#xD;&#xA; - -erit&#xD;&#xA; - -erīmus&#xD;&#xA; - -erītis&#xD;&#xA; - -erint&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Note the similarity to the present subjunctive of 'esse': sim, sīs, sit, sīmus, sītis, sint. The s here turned into r between vowels, like in floris &lt; *flosis.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6416" RevisionGUID="7d59a1e6-3f17-4150-a90a-51f56b402f39" CreationDate="2018-05-05T14:58:16.857" UserId="2606" Text="Suppose you have a fair coin. Then tossing it has two possible outcomes: heads and tails. These are equally likely. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of these possibilities must occur (assuming that the coin doesn't land on its side)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before you flip the coin, these possibilities are *undecided*. If you flip the coin without looking at the result, then the outcome is *decided*, but which of the two possibilities has occurred is still *unknown*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus one type of possibility is *present* or *decided*, while another is *future* or *undecided*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result of the coin toss is also such that exactly one outcome must be the case. In other words, one of the outcomes must occur (assuming the coin doesn't land on its side), but both of them cannot occur. It can therefore be said that the possibilities are *dichotomous*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a Latin word or phrase meaning *decided dichotomous possibility* (such as the result of a coin toss before you look at it)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21227" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6416" RevisionGUID="7d59a1e6-3f17-4150-a90a-51f56b402f39" CreationDate="2018-05-05T14:58:16.857" UserId="2606" Text="Latin word for &quot;decided dichotomous possibility&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21228" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6416" RevisionGUID="7d59a1e6-3f17-4150-a90a-51f56b402f39" CreationDate="2018-05-05T14:58:16.857" UserId="2606" Text="|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6415" RevisionGUID="3f86a43b-1682-4b82-a0ae-3f7253f28083" CreationDate="2018-05-05T15:04:57.457" UserId="2602" Comment="teacher's comment" Text="The *future perfect* ends in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - -erō&#xD;&#xA; - -eris&#xD;&#xA; - -erit&#xD;&#xA; - -erimus&#xD;&#xA; - -eritis&#xD;&#xA; - -erint&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the similarity to the future of 'esse': erō, eris, erit, erimus, eritis, er**u**nt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *perfect subjunctive* ends in: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - -erim&#xD;&#xA; - -erīs&#xD;&#xA; - -erit&#xD;&#xA; - -erīmus&#xD;&#xA; - -erītis&#xD;&#xA; - -erint&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the similarity to the present subjunctive of 'esse': sim, sīs, sit, sīmus, sītis, sint. The s here turned into r between vowels, like in floris &lt; *flosis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of grammars that use macrons, Ørberg doesn't mark a difference between the future perfect and the perfect subjunctive, but e.g. Henle and TY Latin do. This Utah State University teacher comments on Wheelock's chapter 30 (http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/Latin1000/Presentation/transcriptions/30T.pdf, page 2):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the perfect subjunctive features long marks in its second-person forms and first-person plural (-erīs, -erītis, and -erīmus), whereas all those&#xD;&#xA;ī’s are short in the future perfect indicative. In other words, the Romans could hear a difference between “you have loved” (amaverīs) and “you will have loved” (amaverĭs) and so the long ī’s in the subjunctive should be mandatory long marks, technically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He then recommends students not to worry about them in the beginning, but I assume your goal is to progress beyond the beginning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6415" RevisionGUID="db46c375-3a93-46bb-8344-d487cb32368d" CreationDate="2018-05-05T15:32:13.293" UserId="2602" Comment="Wheelock also distinguishes fut. pf. and pf. subj. with macrons" Text="The *future perfect* ends in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - -erō&#xD;&#xA; - -eris&#xD;&#xA; - -erit&#xD;&#xA; - -erimus&#xD;&#xA; - -eritis&#xD;&#xA; - -erint&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the similarity to the future of 'esse': erō, eris, erit, erimus, eritis, er**u**nt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *perfect subjunctive* ends in: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - -erim&#xD;&#xA; - -erīs&#xD;&#xA; - -erit&#xD;&#xA; - -erīmus&#xD;&#xA; - -erītis&#xD;&#xA; - -erint&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the similarity to the present subjunctive of 'esse': sim, sīs, sit, sīmus, sītis, sint. The s here turned into r between vowels, like in floris &lt; *flosis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of grammars that use macrons, Ørberg doesn't mark a difference between the future perfect and the perfect subjunctive, but e.g. Henle, TY Latin and Wheelock do. This Utah State University teacher comments on Wheelock's chapter 30 (http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/Latin1000/Presentation/transcriptions/30T.pdf, page 2):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the perfect subjunctive features long marks in its second-person forms and first-person plural (-erīs, -erītis, and -erīmus), whereas all those&#xD;&#xA;ī’s are short in the future perfect indicative. In other words, the Romans could hear a difference between “you have loved” (amaverīs) and “you will have loved” (amaverĭs) and so the long ī’s in the subjunctive should be mandatory long marks, technically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He then recommends students not to worry about them in the beginning, but I assume your goal is to progress beyond the beginning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6417" RevisionGUID="c2974984-c267-4067-a4b0-fbda5283ebba" CreationDate="2018-05-05T15:36:10.050" UserId="79" Text="Latin does indeed have the adjective *dichotomos*, but the meaning is different from English.&#xD;&#xA;It means &quot;split in two&quot; or &quot;halved&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is quite common that concrete things in Greek and Latin have been borrowed to other languages as abstract concepts, and as a consequence distinguishing levels of abstraction is harder in Latin than in English.&#xD;&#xA;For example, you might have hard time articulating the difference between &quot;pulling away&quot; and &quot;abstracting&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best adjective I could think of to communicate the dichotomous nature here is *binarius*, meaning roughly &quot;consisting of two&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The Greek loan *dichotomos* is also possible, but I find myself preferring *binarius*, perhaps for being more Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin has the word *possibilitas*, but it means &quot;ability or power to do something&quot;, not &quot;chance of something happening&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;While it is an obvious etymological predecessor of &quot;possibility&quot;, it looks like a bad translation.&#xD;&#xA;The word *probabilitas* is much closer, although it does have the flavor of &quot;credibility&quot; as well.&#xD;&#xA;This noun comes from [*probare*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DP%3Aentry+group%3D103%3Aentry%3Dprobo) (&quot;to probe&quot;, if you will) and can be seen &quot;examinability&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This sounds reasonable for your purposes, especially since it is about the revelation of a decided random event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;decided&quot; I would use some variant of the participle *factum*, meaning &quot;done&quot;, &quot;that which has happened&quot;, or similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With these ingredients, I suggest ***probabilitas binaria facti***, roughly &quot;two-pieced probability of what has happened&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Of course no translation can exactly capture the naturalness (or lack thereof) of the Latin phrase, but I hope my explanation gives you an idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6418" RevisionGUID="e20644c0-98a0-4f14-a6d3-a9e24edd013d" CreationDate="2018-05-05T16:57:29.837" UserId="39" Text="short notes/quotes from professional, serious, research-based sources (will make small changes later):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009/2011: &quot;Although etymologically the stem vowel of the perfect subjunctive should be ī and the stem vowel of the future perfect should be ĭ, **Classical Latin poets use both long and short -i- indiscriminately** in the 2nd sg., 1st pl., and 2nd pl. of both paradigms&quot; (p. 420; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wallace 1988/9][1]: &quot;**In the literary dialect of Latin** - the dialect which forms the base of our teaching grammars - **the PS and the FP are distinct only in the 1SG**&quot; (p. 164; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster 2015: &quot;**From roughly Cicero's time onwards**, the future perfect indicative forms and the perfect subjunctive forms **were no longer morphologically distinct**, except in the passive&quot; (p. 462; emphasis mine - Alex B.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3297571" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6418" RevisionGUID="1d01e693-0ae1-47ff-96d9-c3101869efbc" CreationDate="2018-05-05T17:09:12.143" UserId="39" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="short notes/quotes from professional, serious, research-based sources (I thought it was clear to everyone what kind of sources I use; will make small changes later):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Weiss 2009/2011][1]: &quot;Although etymologically the stem vowel of the perfect subjunctive should be ī and the stem vowel of the future perfect should be ĭ, **Classical Latin poets use both long and short -i- indiscriminately** in the 2nd sg., 1st pl., and 2nd pl. of both paradigms&quot; (p. 420; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wallace 1988/9][2]: &quot;**In the literary dialect of Latin** - the dialect which forms the base of our teaching grammars - **the PS and the FP are distinct only in the 1SG**&quot; (p. 164; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Pinkster 2015][3]: &quot;**From roughly Cicero's time onwards**, the future perfect indicative forms and the perfect subjunctive forms **were no longer morphologically distinct**, except in the passive&quot; (p. 462; emphasis mine - Alex B.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Neue and Wagener][4] for further details (in German).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.beechstave.com/weiss.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3297571&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613-chapter-7&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/details/formenlehrederla03neueuoft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6418" RevisionGUID="477e16b7-6105-46a9-9884-0d87785c629d" CreationDate="2018-05-05T17:31:26.513" UserId="39" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="short notes/quotes from professional, serious, research-based sources (I thought it was clear to everyone what kind of sources I use; will make small changes later):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The paradigm from Tronskii 1960:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Weiss 2009/2011][1]: &quot;Although etymologically the stem vowel of the perfect subjunctive should be ī and the stem vowel of the future perfect should be ĭ, **Classical Latin poets use both long and short -i- indiscriminately** in the 2nd sg., 1st pl., and 2nd pl. of both paradigms&quot; (p. 420; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wallace 1988/9][2]: &quot;**In the literary dialect of Latin** - the dialect which forms the base of our teaching grammars - **the PS and the FP are distinct only in the 1SG**&quot; (p. 164; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Pinkster 2015][3]: &quot;**From roughly Cicero's time onwards**, the future perfect indicative forms and the perfect subjunctive forms **were no longer morphologically distinct**, except in the passive&quot; (p. 462; emphasis mine - Alex B.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Neue and Wagener][4] for further details (in German).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.beechstave.com/weiss.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3297571&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613-chapter-7&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/details/formenlehrederla03neueuoft![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fKN51.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6402" RevisionGUID="4a5cb410-fb21-4d57-8b07-c6ffe65ee7f4" CreationDate="2018-05-05T18:00:46.657" UserId="30" Comment="edited body" Text="I'll offer a partial/praeliminary answer. I don't know about those Biblical names—that is, I don't know how they are declined, because they're from Hebrew.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two situations that spring to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Athenagoras the Athenian (using the adjective &quot;Athenian&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Athenagoras of Athens (using the noun &quot;Athens&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In classical Greek, I believe the adjective is generally preferred, if one is available. So you would rather say Ἀθηναγόρας ὁ Ἀθηναῖος, &quot;Athenagoras the Athenian&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that case, the adjective needs to agree with the head of the noun group, the noun Ἀθηναγόρας. Since Ἀθηναγόρας is in the nominative case, it probably being subject or subject complement in the sentence, both the article ὁ and the adjective Ἀθηναῖος are also in the nominative. Had it been an object Ἀθηναγόραν, as in &quot;she saw Athenagoras the Athenian&quot;, the whole would be in the accusative case: Ἀθηναγόραν τὸν Ἀθηναῖον. The same applies mutatis mutandis to a possible genitive or dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no adjective is available, or the second construction is chosen for some other reason, *of Athens* is not adjectival, but it is its own noun with article. Then you would not use the adjective, but you would use whatever the relevant noun is of the town. By the translation *of*, you can see that both Athens and the article must then be in the genitive case. The head noun *Athenagoras* keeps whatever case is warranted by its function in the sentence: if it's subject, it is a nominative; if it is *I gave a present to Athenagoras of Athens*, then *to Athenagoras* would be a dative; while *of Athens* remains a genitive in both cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible in either case to omit the article where there is some specific reason for brevity, or when it is used attributively, as in &quot;the Athenian Platonists are rubbish&quot;, or for other reasons that I'd have to think about. An example is the beginning of the *History* of Thucydides, Θουκυδίδης Ἀθηναῖος.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you translate any such phrase into Latin, like *Athenagoras Atheniensis*, of course the article disappears, since Latin has no articles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A third option is perhaps *Athenagoras, he of Athens*, but then I would expect two articles between the nouns. I'm not sure whether this construction even exists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6418" RevisionGUID="8da08865-50c0-4561-88bc-8523bd72e26f" CreationDate="2018-05-05T19:50:01.157" UserId="406" Comment="Fix Markdown" Text="short notes/quotes from professional, serious, research-based sources (I thought it was clear to everyone what kind of sources I use; will make small changes later):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The paradigm from Tronskii 1960:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Weiss 2009/2011][1]: &quot;Although etymologically the stem vowel of the perfect subjunctive should be ī and the stem vowel of the future perfect should be ĭ, **Classical Latin poets use both long and short -i- indiscriminately** in the 2nd sg., 1st pl., and 2nd pl. of both paradigms&quot; (p. 420; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wallace 1988/9][2]: &quot;**In the literary dialect of Latin** - the dialect which forms the base of our teaching grammars - **the PS and the FP are distinct only in the 1SG**&quot; (p. 164; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Pinkster 2015][3]: &quot;**From roughly Cicero's time onwards**, the future perfect indicative forms and the perfect subjunctive forms **were no longer morphologically distinct**, except in the passive&quot; (p. 462; emphasis mine - Alex B.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Neue and Wagener][4] for further details (in German).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fKN51.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.beechstave.com/weiss.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3297571&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613-chapter-7&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/details/formenlehrederla03neueuoft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6418" RevisionGUID="a12103cf-fc9f-48d5-a3dd-11d15780d3f0" CreationDate="2018-05-05T20:42:36.553" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="short notes/quotes from professional, serious, research-based sources (I thought it was clear to everyone what kind of sources I use; will make small changes later):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The paradigm from Tronskii 1960:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![scan from Tronskii](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fKN51.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Weiss 2009/2011][1]: &quot;Although etymologically the stem vowel of the perfect subjunctive should be ī and the stem vowel of the future perfect should be ĭ, **Classical Latin poets use both long and short -i- indiscriminately** in the 2nd sg., 1st pl., and 2nd pl. of both paradigms&quot; (p. 420; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wallace 1988/9][2]: &quot;**In the literary dialect of Latin** - the dialect which forms the base of our teaching grammars - **the PS and the FP are distinct only in the 1SG**&quot; (p. 164; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Pinkster 2015][3]: &quot;**From roughly Cicero's time onwards**, the future perfect indicative forms and the perfect subjunctive forms **were no longer morphologically distinct**, except in the passive&quot; (p. 462; emphasis mine - Alex B.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Neue and Wagener][4] for further details (in German).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.beechstave.com/weiss.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3297571&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613-chapter-7&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/details/formenlehrederla03neueuoft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6419" RevisionGUID="4da8ec99-8c4c-4a0e-99eb-a4d318624603" CreationDate="2018-05-05T21:05:22.963" UserId="985" Text="My initial, extremely rough idea is an adaptation of a phrase from Cicero's *Pro Marcello* 15:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex quo nemo erit tam iniustus rerum existimator qui dubitet quae Caesaris de bello voluntas fuerit, cum pacis auctores conservandos statim censuerit, ceteris fuerit iratior. Atque id minus mirum fortasse tum cum esset **incertus exitus et anceps fortuna belli**: qui vero victor pacis auctores diligit, is profecto declarat maluisse se non dimicare quam vincere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, Cicero says that the actual outcome (of war) isn't decided (*incertus exitus*) and the side that fortune favors is either one or the other of two but still up in the air (*fortuna anceps*). In the case that he describes, those two circumstances are broadly equivalent or coextensive. In your case, though, the outcome *is* decided but the side that fortune favors is still up in the air. So we could say **certus exitus sed anceps fortuna**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps the two ideas could be combined into a single noun phrase such as *certus exitus ancipitis fortunae* – or maybe that should be *anceps fortuna certi exitus*? or maybe *anceps fortuna in certo exitu* or *certus exitus in ancipiti fortuna*? Or maybe use an ablative absolute for one of the ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6420" RevisionGUID="7a4db015-9ed9-472e-b818-a7e7ae7e5353" CreationDate="2018-05-06T01:04:52.467" UserId="406" Text="Many Latin and a few Greek phrases are now used in English, even by people who don't necessarily know the original language, as proverbs, phrases, mottos, and so on. Many short fragments from ancient authors are also preserved through this sort of quotation, even when the original work they come from has been lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were any snippets of Etruscan, Oscan, or other non-Latin languages of Italy preserved in this way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21240" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6420" RevisionGUID="7a4db015-9ed9-472e-b818-a7e7ae7e5353" CreationDate="2018-05-06T01:04:52.467" UserId="406" Text="Do any Latin authors preserve Etruscan quotations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21241" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6420" RevisionGUID="7a4db015-9ed9-472e-b818-a7e7ae7e5353" CreationDate="2018-05-06T01:04:52.467" UserId="406" Text="|idiom|etruscan|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6421" RevisionGUID="80f04097-0b12-49fe-820c-3fb3c4ab37c9" CreationDate="2018-05-06T06:01:06.607" UserId="1348" Text="Is there a school or group of people where you can have a teacher of Latin by email?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there is *Accademia Vivarium Novum*, where you can go and learn Latin by immersion into the language, but I think it requires a considerable investment of money and time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The method I would be looking for would be writing an email in Latin and receiving an answer from the teacher and also the correction. Also that you can ask for translations if you don't know how to say something. The topics would be more modern things rather than focusing on translation of ancient authors or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does such a system exist? What could be the price?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that does not exist, is there a site where you can have a penfriend in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21243" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6421" RevisionGUID="80f04097-0b12-49fe-820c-3fb3c4ab37c9" CreationDate="2018-05-06T06:01:06.607" UserId="1348" Text="Latin teacher via email" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21244" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6421" RevisionGUID="80f04097-0b12-49fe-820c-3fb3c4ab37c9" CreationDate="2018-05-06T06:01:06.607" UserId="1348" Text="|teaching-method|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6415" RevisionGUID="74241c73-f70a-4dd8-beff-3ea9d2d0da80" CreationDate="2018-05-06T08:57:40.160" UserId="2602" Comment="voted for Alex B." Text="*[I've voted for Alex. B.'s answer because he lists the research on classical Latin. My answer discusses several respected pedagogical grammars, but I don't know why and when these started to prescribe the distinction.]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *future perfect* ends in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - -erō&#xD;&#xA; - -eris&#xD;&#xA; - -erit&#xD;&#xA; - -erimus&#xD;&#xA; - -eritis&#xD;&#xA; - -erint&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the similarity to the future of 'esse': erō, eris, erit, erimus, eritis, er**u**nt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *perfect subjunctive* ends in: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - -erim&#xD;&#xA; - -erīs&#xD;&#xA; - -erit&#xD;&#xA; - -erīmus&#xD;&#xA; - -erītis&#xD;&#xA; - -erint&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the similarity to the present subjunctive of 'esse': sim, sīs, sit, sīmus, sītis, sint. The s here turned into r between vowels, like in floris &lt; *flosis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of grammars that use macrons, Ørberg doesn't mark a difference between the future perfect and the perfect subjunctive, but e.g. Henle, TY Latin and Wheelock do. This Utah State University teacher comments on Wheelock's chapter 30 (http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/Latin1000/Presentation/transcriptions/30T.pdf, page 2):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the perfect subjunctive features long marks in its second-person forms and first-person plural (-erīs, -erītis, and -erīmus), whereas all those&#xD;&#xA;ī’s are short in the future perfect indicative. In other words, the Romans could hear a difference between “you have loved” (amaverīs) and “you will have loved” (amaverĭs) and so the long ī’s in the subjunctive should be mandatory long marks, technically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He then recommends students not to worry about them in the beginning, but I assume your goal is to progress beyond the beginning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6061" RevisionGUID="66e88b68-b9d1-4d9a-bac7-bef9ec020af6" CreationDate="2018-05-06T10:46:50.217" UserId="79" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="I agree that macrons are useful, but I can also see some reasons why others might oppose them.&#xD;&#xA;Here are some possible reasons to leave macrons out (with my comments):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Real-life Latin texts typically do not contain macrons. A student should learn to read a text without their aid. (This is a valid point, but not so much for elementary courses.)&#xD;&#xA;2. Adding the macrons to the text manually is a good exercise. This is something they will eventually have to do mentally when encountering real-life texts. (This I actually agree with. This assumes that the word lists provided in the textbook contain macrons even if the texts don't. And if morphology or vocabulary is taught without macrons, there is no way to learn the correct lengths.)&#xD;&#xA;3. Macrons can make the text harder and slower to read. The text looks less cluttered in the absence of macrons. (A foreign language is slow and hard to read anyway. Macrons make parsing some things easier and can actually speed up the process. When you become more fluent, macrons can slow you down by visual cluttering, but this will not happen in an introductory course.)&#xD;&#xA;4. Macrons might not be seen as relevant enough. Perhaps it's better for students to focus on something else. (Personally I disagree! Learning vowel lengths correctly from the start is important. I would really hate someone telling me that every vowel actually has a specific length, but nobody had told me before my third year of Latin. At least I would like to make the choice to omit them myself.)&#xD;&#xA;5. Macrons can be technically hard to produce in print. (When it comes to producing a textbook, complaining that it takes effort to make the book more useful comes across unprofessional. It takes some work, but it's not really that hard. This may not have been so in all eras in the past, though.)&#xD;&#xA;6. Perhaps some see Latin with macrons as somehow impure. If you were taught that the only correct Latin is the kind without any such decorations, wouldn't you want to pass it on in its proper and high form? (I disagree. Learning with macrons help get a better grip of texts written without them. Purity arguments are not pedagogically convincing.)&#xD;&#xA;7. There is no point in pronouncing Latin in the first place. If you learn to read old texts, why bother? (Some students might want to speak as well, and the teacher or the textbook author shouldn't make the decision on their behalf. The written and spoken forms also support each other, even if the eventual goal is reading skill. Moreover, classical literature was originally enjoyed by reading it out loud. For the genuine experience you need to be able to pronounce.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6422" RevisionGUID="551c56e1-2878-4d48-828f-a9e49b9afcb1" CreationDate="2018-05-06T13:14:51.043" UserId="79" Text="Many forms formed from the perfect stem (*habitav-*, *fec-*, *tetig-*, and others) resemble forms of *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;It looks as if a form of *esse* was directly attached to the perfect stem.&#xD;&#xA;In perfect conjunctive an *-e-* seems to be added and the *s&gt;r* is explained by rhotacism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this similarity between *esse* and perfect stem forms a coincidence?&#xD;&#xA;How did it come about?&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding forms of *esse* are used explicitly in the passive counterparts of these forms.&#xD;&#xA;Were the active forms originally perhaps a combination of an active perfect participle and *esse*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The active perfect indicative forms (*feci*, *fecisti*, &amp;hellip;) do not have this similarity to *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;I will completely ignore those forms for this question; they can be explored in separate questions.&#xD;&#xA;This question concerns pluperfect and future perfect of indicative and perfect and pluperfect of conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a separate [question about the vowel length in *feceris* and similar forms](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6414/79).&#xD;&#xA;Whether the vowel lengths match perfectly between *esse* and perfect stem forms, the similarity is striking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21249" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6422" RevisionGUID="551c56e1-2878-4d48-828f-a9e49b9afcb1" CreationDate="2018-05-06T13:14:51.043" UserId="79" Text="Active perfect stem conjugation and forms of esse" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21250" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6422" RevisionGUID="551c56e1-2878-4d48-828f-a9e49b9afcb1" CreationDate="2018-05-06T13:14:51.043" UserId="79" Text="|verbs|language-evolution|morphology|conjugation|esse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6423" RevisionGUID="262eafcc-9594-477f-854e-9acc5b540094" CreationDate="2018-05-06T20:18:04.070" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="[Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/word/scour) states 'ex-' to signify 'out' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;cleanse by hard rubbing,&quot; c. 1200, from Middle Dutch scuren, schuren &quot;to polish, to clean,&quot; and from Old French escurer, both from Late Latin excurare &quot;clean off,&quot; literally &quot;take good care of,&quot; from Latin *ex* &quot;out&quot; (see ex-) + *curare* &quot;care for, take care of&quot; (see cure (v.)). [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scour#Etymology_1) states it to signify 'throughly':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Probably from Old French escurer, from Medieval Latin scūrō, escūrō, excūrō (“I clean off”), from Latin ex (“thoroughly”) + cūrō (“I take care of”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I understand the rightness of 'thoroughly', but not 'out'. In English, we can say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;to take care of someone/something **thoroughly**, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but not &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;to take care of something **out**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if Etymonline's wrong, is there any possibility for 'out' (Germanic, and not Latinate) to fit here? Which exactly does 'out' signify? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21252" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6423" RevisionGUID="262eafcc-9594-477f-854e-9acc5b540094" CreationDate="2018-05-06T20:18:04.070" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Can 'ex' in 'excurare' signify 'out'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21253" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6423" RevisionGUID="262eafcc-9594-477f-854e-9acc5b540094" CreationDate="2018-05-06T20:18:04.070" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6424" RevisionGUID="735f3bc1-a41c-4396-bef3-9fe42f70553b" CreationDate="2018-05-06T20:43:50.427" UserId="406" Text="You're right that *ex* is a preposition meaning &quot;out from&quot;. But when used as prefixes, a great many Latin prepositions are just intensifiers, without any remnant of their original meaning. This is much more common in Later Latin but also happens in Classical times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be one of those cases. *Ex* here intensifies the verb but doesn't have any sense of &quot;out of&quot;. The verb was created in Mediaeval times, when prefixes were much more likely to lose their original meaning like this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6422" RevisionGUID="5ac44d25-a221-4b2f-b1c5-c971eacd7576" CreationDate="2018-05-06T22:35:03.657" UserId="79" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="Many forms formed from the perfect stem (*habitav-*, *fec-*, *tetig-*, and others) resemble forms of *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;It looks as if a form of *esse* was directly attached to the perfect stem.&#xD;&#xA;In perfect conjunctive an *-e-* seems to be added and the *s&gt;r* is explained by rhotacism.&#xD;&#xA;In pluperfect conjunctive the *-ess-* is replaced with *-iss-*.&#xD;&#xA;These sound changes are easy to accept, so the analogy between the two conjugations is clearly similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this similarity between *esse* and perfect stem forms a coincidence?&#xD;&#xA;How did it come about?&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding forms of *esse* are used explicitly in the passive counterparts of these forms.&#xD;&#xA;Were the active forms originally perhaps a combination of an active perfect participle and *esse*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The active perfect indicative forms (*feci*, *fecisti*, &amp;hellip;) do not have this similarity to *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;I will completely ignore those forms for this question; they can be explored in separate questions.&#xD;&#xA;This question concerns pluperfect and future perfect of indicative and perfect and pluperfect of conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a separate [question about the vowel length in *feceris* and similar forms](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6414/79).&#xD;&#xA;Whether the vowel lengths match perfectly between *esse* and perfect stem forms, the similarity is striking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6425" RevisionGUID="1e6fbd44-0c39-475b-8e3b-3259c57f2283" CreationDate="2018-05-07T14:14:21.493" UserId="2607" Text="How to express that one thing is more important in latin. As an example, voice of the people over voice of the king can be stated in latin as *Vox populi supra vox regis*. Sorry for my broken English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21257" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6425" RevisionGUID="1e6fbd44-0c39-475b-8e3b-3259c57f2283" CreationDate="2018-05-07T14:14:21.493" UserId="2607" Text="How to express one thing is more important than another?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21258" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6425" RevisionGUID="1e6fbd44-0c39-475b-8e3b-3259c57f2283" CreationDate="2018-05-07T14:14:21.493" UserId="2607" Text="|legal-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21259" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6425" RevisionGUID="3e945eff-0b0e-4dc6-97fb-70ff2f77eb15" CreationDate="2018-05-07T14:32:43.567" UserId="2607" Comment="edited tags" Text="|academic-latin|vulgar-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6425" RevisionGUID="62dc6d95-5dba-4963-8707-938864493cff" CreationDate="2018-05-07T14:41:21.727" UserId="2607" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="How to express that one thing is more important in latin. As an example, voice of the people over voice of the king can be stated in latin as *Vox populi supra vox regem*. Sorry for my broken English and terrible latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6425" RevisionGUID="28a59775-5c57-4b19-997b-83f7084fe971" CreationDate="2018-05-07T14:48:54.257" UserId="2607" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="How to express that one thing is more important in latin. As an example, voice of the people over voice of the king can be stated in latin as *Vox populi supra vox regem*. Sorry for my broken English and terrible latin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6425" RevisionGUID="c0680585-a502-4297-922d-8df306e074ff" CreationDate="2018-05-07T15:04:32.827" UserId="79" Comment="added 28 characters in body; edited tags" Text="How to express that one thing is more important in Latin? As an example, voice of the people over voice of the king can be stated in Latin as *Vox populi supra vox regem*. I interested in expressing things like &quot;family is more important than work&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21263" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6425" RevisionGUID="c0680585-a502-4297-922d-8df306e074ff" CreationDate="2018-05-07T15:04:32.827" UserId="79" Comment="added 28 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6426" RevisionGUID="11b97d41-e0f8-4bc0-a692-7b9e2e9207ea" CreationDate="2018-05-07T15:12:53.723" UserId="79" Text="Here are two ways to say &quot;X is more important than Y&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *X plus valet quam Y*. (Literally: &quot;X is stronger than Y.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;2. *X maioris momenti/gravitatis/ponderis est quam Y.* (Literally: &quot;X is of more weight or importance than Y.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both of these the words X and Y are in the nominative.&#xD;&#xA;For plurals you need to pluralize the verbs (*valent*, *sunt*).&#xD;&#xA;The verb *est* or *sunt* can be left out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also possible to say &quot;X is above Y&quot; as you suggest.&#xD;&#xA;In that case Y should be in accusative.&#xD;&#xA;In your example the genitives &quot;of the people&quot; and &quot;of the king&quot; stay in genitive: *populi*, *regis*.&#xD;&#xA;It should be *vox populi supra vocem regis*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6425" RevisionGUID="21734cf1-8d74-4933-8524-4963c0a1efe8" CreationDate="2018-05-07T15:23:06.833" UserId="2607" Comment="edited body" Text="How to express that one thing is more important in Latin? As an example, voice of the people over voice of the king can be stated in Latin as *Vox populi supra vox regis*. I interested in expressing things like &quot;family is more important than work&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6426" RevisionGUID="83a60ba3-4226-4d1d-8f6b-113897078cfa" CreationDate="2018-05-07T15:33:26.863" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Here are two ways to say &quot;X is more important than Y&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *X plus valet quam Y*. (Literally: &quot;X is stronger than Y.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;2. *X maioris momenti/gravitatis/ponderis est quam Y.* (Literally: &quot;X is of more weight or importance than Y.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both of these the words X and Y are in the nominative.&#xD;&#xA;For plurals you need to pluralize the verbs (*valent*, *sunt*).&#xD;&#xA;The verb *est* or *sunt* can be left out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also possible to say &quot;X is above Y&quot; as you suggest.&#xD;&#xA;In that case Y should be in accusative.&#xD;&#xA;In your example the genitives &quot;of the people&quot; and &quot;of the king&quot; stay in genitive: *populi*, *regis*.&#xD;&#xA;It should be *vox populi [est] supra vocem regis*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6427" RevisionGUID="d17bf180-5a1f-4857-a4ee-71ca4bb2beb3" CreationDate="2018-05-07T15:58:01.567" UserId="79" Text="What are the etymologies of the adjective *latus* (&quot;wide&quot;) and the participle *latus* (&quot;carried&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;I had assumed that they are the same and the participle just started a new life as an adjective after a semantic shift.&#xD;&#xA;However, fdb commented on [my earlier question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6358/79) and told that these two words are etymologically distinct.&#xD;&#xA;So, what are these etymologies and what evidence has lead to accepting that they are distinct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I will leave the noun *latus* to the side, as it seems to be unrelated to these two with a long *a*.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21268" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6427" RevisionGUID="d17bf180-5a1f-4857-a4ee-71ca4bb2beb3" CreationDate="2018-05-07T15:58:01.567" UserId="79" Text="Comparing the etymologies of the adjective and participle 'latus'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21269" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6427" RevisionGUID="d17bf180-5a1f-4857-a4ee-71ca4bb2beb3" CreationDate="2018-05-07T15:58:01.567" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|word-comparison|adjective|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6428" RevisionGUID="c40e31f9-7a3e-4275-97e3-f5c8158c98f6" CreationDate="2018-05-07T15:58:50.933" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21271" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6428" RevisionGUID="c40e31f9-7a3e-4275-97e3-f5c8158c98f6" CreationDate="2018-05-07T15:58:50.933" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6429" RevisionGUID="fba67720-b8fa-4b04-9d1e-e048e0f6b109" CreationDate="2018-05-07T15:58:50.933" UserId="79" Text="For questions about participles, such as &quot;amans&quot;, &quot;amatus&quot; and &quot;amaturus&quot; from the verb &quot;amare&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21273" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6429" RevisionGUID="fba67720-b8fa-4b04-9d1e-e048e0f6b109" CreationDate="2018-05-07T15:58:50.933" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6430" RevisionGUID="6b30fe56-959d-4b8a-bcbc-0b63e05c2d04" CreationDate="2018-05-07T16:20:07.630" UserId="2608" Text="Where other men blindly follow the truth, Remember, nothing is true. &#xD;&#xA;Where other men are limited by morality or law, Remember, everything is permitted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ubi vero sequitur aliis caecus, mementote, nihil est verum.&#xD;&#xA;Ubi homines sunt a moribus neque lege est solum, mementote, omnia licent&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21275" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6430" RevisionGUID="6b30fe56-959d-4b8a-bcbc-0b63e05c2d04" CreationDate="2018-05-07T16:20:07.630" UserId="2608" Text="Did I translate this correctly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21276" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6430" RevisionGUID="6b30fe56-959d-4b8a-bcbc-0b63e05c2d04" CreationDate="2018-05-07T16:20:07.630" UserId="2608" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6430" RevisionGUID="5b558798-018d-4fe5-9bcc-39294e37b2a4" CreationDate="2018-05-07T16:22:25.103" UserId="79" Comment="added 139 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Did I translate this passage correctly?&#xD;&#xA;Is there something that could be corrected or improved?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Original:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where other men blindly follow the truth, remember, nothing is true. &#xD;&#xA;Where other men are limited by morality or law, remember, everything is permitted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ubi vero sequitur aliis caecus, mementote, nihil est verum.&#xD;&#xA;Ubi homines sunt a moribus neque lege est solum, mementote, omnia licent.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21278" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6430" RevisionGUID="5b558798-018d-4fe5-9bcc-39294e37b2a4" CreationDate="2018-05-07T16:22:25.103" UserId="79" Comment="added 139 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6432" RevisionGUID="8943b871-c7b0-4ece-8c1e-1fee8bcc696f" CreationDate="2018-05-07T20:59:27.287" UserId="406" Text="Suppose I want to discuss an algorithm in Latin: that is, a series of steps to calculate a result from an input, usually involving mathematical formulae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would I say this? The English word came from Arabic through Late Latin, but was its Late Latin meaning at all similar to how it's used now? And even if the Romans didn't do advanced mathematics, they certainly must have had algorithms to calculate everything from festival days to the size of arches." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21282" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6432" RevisionGUID="8943b871-c7b0-4ece-8c1e-1fee8bcc696f" CreationDate="2018-05-07T20:59:27.287" UserId="406" Text="How would one talk about an &quot;algorithm&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21283" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6432" RevisionGUID="8943b871-c7b0-4ece-8c1e-1fee8bcc696f" CreationDate="2018-05-07T20:59:27.287" UserId="406" Text="|word-request|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6433" RevisionGUID="310dfc60-b957-4209-9960-e7b70f761865" CreationDate="2018-05-07T21:22:37.080" UserId="79" Text="Let me offer a commentary on your translation.&#xD;&#xA;First, a translation from your first Latin sentence with small emendations (in bold) text back to English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ubi vero sequitur **alios** caecus, mementote, nihil est verum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When a blind man follows others, remember, nothing is true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I left *vero* untranslated.&#xD;&#xA;It is a tricky word, and I cannot judge whether it is good here, but I have nothing against it based on first impressions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *ubi* can indeed refer to time in addition to space, and it sounds like an appropriate word here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The deponent verb *sequi* takes an accusative object, so I replaced *aliis* with *alios*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence *mementote* is a side remark, not a governing verb.&#xD;&#xA;If it is promoted to a higher status, then *nihil est verum* should be replaced by an *accusativus cum infinitivo* as Jasper May does: *nihil esse verum*.&#xD;&#xA;Either choice is fine, but the tone is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The start of the sentence does not seem to be what you wanted.&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest this modification:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ubi alii caeci veritatem sequuntur, memento, nihil est verum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When others follow blindly (literally: &quot;as blind&quot;) the truth, remember, nothing is true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have trouble parsing your second sentence.&#xD;&#xA;The part *sunt a moribus neque lege est solum* does not seem to make sense, but it could be just my being slow.&#xD;&#xA;The ending works well.&#xD;&#xA;You can have either *omnia licent* (&quot;all is possible&quot;) or *omne licet* (&quot;anything is possible&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many possible verbs for limiting.&#xD;&#xA;I suggest *restringere*, &quot;to constrain&quot; or &quot;to bind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;With this, I would suggeset the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ubi homines a moribus legibusque restringuntur, mementote, omnia licent.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When people are bound (or held back or constrained) by customs (or moral) and laws, remember, all things are possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are addressing a single person, the imperative *mementote* should be replaced with the singular form *memento*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6434" RevisionGUID="be502bd0-60fc-4411-b6cb-943149c6c8ec" CreationDate="2018-05-08T00:40:14.883" UserId="406" Text="Someone asked me recently about the conjugation of the obscene verb *futuō, futuere, futuī, futūtus*—and in particular about the quantity of the *ū* in the participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I intended to look at some other *-uō* verbs to compare them, but realized I couldn't think of any others off the top of my head. The only one that came to mind was *renuō*, which is intransitive and doesn't have a passive participle. (L&amp;S don't list a future participle either, which I'm taking to mean that form is unattested.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other verbs in *-uō*? And if so, do they have participles in *-ūtus*? (Intransitive verbs with participles in *-ūturus* are also welcome!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21286" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6434" RevisionGUID="be502bd0-60fc-4411-b6cb-943149c6c8ec" CreationDate="2018-05-08T00:40:14.883" UserId="406" Text="Are there other verbs in -uō?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21287" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6434" RevisionGUID="be502bd0-60fc-4411-b6cb-943149c6c8ec" CreationDate="2018-05-08T00:40:14.883" UserId="406" Text="|verbs|conjugation|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6435" RevisionGUID="7744b491-9c34-47ad-bda5-f00a455fe6bd" CreationDate="2018-05-08T02:28:27.377" UserId="30" Text="If you will accept **volvo, voluere, volvi, volutus**, considering that u/v was one letter in Latin script (though not sound), perhaps *vŏlūtus* will do? At least the participle has a real, vocalic *u*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The participle *locūtus/loquūtus* could also be interesting, if you will accept  a verb with first person singular present *-quo-.* (*loquor*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6435" RevisionGUID="c8d26dec-3aa4-4c66-80fd-5d10474b32af" CreationDate="2018-05-08T02:33:40.920" UserId="30" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="If you will accept **volvo, voluere, volvi, volutus**, considering that u/v was one letter in Latin script (though not sound), perhaps *vŏlūtus* will do? At least the participle has a real, vocalic *u*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The participle *locūtus/loquūtus* could also be interesting, if you will accept  a verb with first person singular present *-quo-.* (*loquor*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies to *sĕcūtus* from *sequor*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6435" RevisionGUID="9d16688c-cd40-4982-9c78-5e082cfcae4d" CreationDate="2018-05-08T02:43:19.423" UserId="30" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="There is *spŭo, spui, spūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you will accept *volvo, voluere, volvi, volutus*, considering that u/v was one letter in Latin script (though not sound), perhaps *vŏlūtus* will do? At least the participle has a real, vocalic *u*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The participle *locūtus/loquūtus* could also be interesting, if you will accept  a verb with first person singular present *-quo-.* (*loquor*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies to *sĕcūtus* from *sequor*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6435" RevisionGUID="b32c197b-6260-42a8-b161-fab91ec567c2" CreationDate="2018-05-08T02:50:05.313" UserId="30" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="There is *spŭo, spuere, spui, spūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *acuō, acuere, acuī, acūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *abluō, abluere, abluī, ablūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *rŭo, ruere, rŭi, rŭtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *arguō, arguere, arguī, argūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *suō, suere, suī, sūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *statuō, statuere, statuī, statūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *tribuō, tribuere, tribuī, tribūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many future participles of the above verbs go *-uitūrus* rather than *-uturus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you will accept *volvo, voluere, volvi, volutus*, considering that u/v was one letter in Latin script (though not sound), perhaps *vŏlūtus* will do? At least the participle has a real, vocalic *u*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The participle *locūtus/loquūtus* could also be interesting, if you will accept  a verb with first person singular present *-quo-.* (*loquor*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies to *sĕcūtus* from *sequor*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6435" RevisionGUID="95d204f6-7ab7-44e4-b5fc-b0de3924e51b" CreationDate="2018-05-08T03:00:20.440" UserId="30" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="There is *abluō, abluere, abluī, ablūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *acuō, acuere, acuī, acūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *arguō, arguere, arguī, argūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *compluō, compluere, compluī, complūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *exuō, exuere, exuī, exūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *futuō, futuere, futuī, futūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *imbuō, imbuere, imbuī, imbūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *minuō, minuere, minuī, minūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *rŭo, ruere, rŭi, rŭtus*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *spŭo, spuere, spui, spūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *statuō, statuere, statuī, statūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *suō, suere, suī, sūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *tribuō, tribuere, tribuī, tribūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many future participles of the above verbs go *-uitūrus* rather than *-uturus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you will accept *volvo, voluere, volvi, volutus*, considering that u/v was one letter in Latin script (though not sound), perhaps *vŏlūtus* will do? At least the participle has a real, vocalic *u*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The participle *locūtus/loquūtus* could also be interesting, if you will accept  a verb with first person singular present *-quo-.* (*loquor*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies to *sĕcūtus* from *sequor*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are all participles on -utus that I could find. So the *only* participle with a short -ŭ- is *rŭo*. I wonder why!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6436" RevisionGUID="1828f045-3e0a-4bbe-b8e7-2708fc77752b" CreationDate="2018-05-08T03:23:52.003" UserId="30" Text="As Draconis says, some praefixes can be used to express some extra nuance to a verb. *Ex-* and *per-*, for example, can express an added sense of completion, thoroughness, or intensity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not that surprising that *ex-* &quot;out&quot; should lead to &quot;completion&quot;, though. Cf. English *outlast, outlive*: when you perform a certain activity long enough, you emerge out of the group of average people. Something that sticks out is or leads to the end of some object, so &quot;out&quot; and &quot;end&quot; may be felt to be semantically related, if vaguely. Cf. also *existo* &quot;to stand out, to be in the outside, to be in reality, to exist&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Per* and English *through* both signify some sort of movement through an opening or surrounding circumstance. When you go through something, you come out at the end, so you're finished with it. So it makes sense for both words to also indicate thoroughness or completion, cf. *perterreo* &quot;to frighten through and through&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6423" RevisionGUID="5dc794a3-eff9-4286-8f17-f7efd0ef5997" CreationDate="2018-05-08T03:27:40.280" UserId="30" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="[Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/word/scour) states 'ex-' to signify 'out' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Scour:** &quot;cleanse by hard rubbing,&quot; c. 1200, from Middle Dutch scuren, schuren &quot;to polish, to clean,&quot; and from Old French escurer, both from Late Latin excurare &quot;clean off,&quot; literally &quot;take good care of,&quot; from Latin *ex* &quot;out&quot; (see ex-) + *curare* &quot;care for, take care of&quot; (see cure (v.)). [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scour#Etymology_1) states it to signify 'throughly':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Scour:** Probably from Old French escurer, from Medieval Latin scūrō, escūrō, excūrō (“I clean off”), from Latin ex (“thoroughly”) + cūrō (“I take care of”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I understand the rightness of 'thoroughly', but not 'out'. In English, we can say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;to take care of someone/something **thoroughly**, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but not &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;to take care of something **out**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if Etymonline's wrong, is there any possibility for 'out' (Germanic, and not Latinate) to fit here? Which exactly does 'out' signify? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6436" RevisionGUID="02278df7-d357-4371-8ed4-8f978f440faf" CreationDate="2018-05-08T03:30:42.790" UserId="30" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="As Draconis says, some praefixes can be used to express some extra nuance to a verb. *Ex-* and *per-*, for example, can express an added sense of completion, thoroughness, or intensity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not that surprising that *ex-* &quot;out&quot; should lead to &quot;completion&quot;, though. Cf. English *outlast, outlive*: when you perform a certain activity long enough, you emerge out of the group of average people. Something that sticks out is or leads to the end of some object, so &quot;out&quot; and &quot;end&quot; may be felt to be semantically related, if vaguely. Cf. also *existo* &quot;to stand out, to be in the outside, to be in reality, to exist&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Per* and English *through* both signify some sort of movement through an opening or surrounding circumstance. When you go through something, you come out at the end, so you're finished with it. So it makes sense for both words to also indicate thoroughness or completion, cf. *perterreo* &quot;to frighten through and through&quot;. Note also that English *through* and *thorough* are cognates." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6436" RevisionGUID="857665e9-407f-484a-97d6-96ee1b41f27e" CreationDate="2018-05-08T15:10:39.993" UserId="30" Comment="added 180 characters in body" Text="As Draconis says, some praefixes can be used to express an extra nuance to a verb. *Ex-* and *per-*, for example, can express an added sense of completion, thoroughness, or intensity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not so extremely surprising that *ex-* &quot;out&quot; should lead to &quot;completion&quot;, though. Cf. English *outlast, outlive*: when you perform a certain activity long enough, you emerge out of the group of average people. Something that sticks out is or leads to the end of some object, so &quot;out&quot; and &quot;end&quot; may be felt to be semantically related, if vaguely. Cf. also *existo* &quot;to stand out(side), to be in the outside world, to be in reality, to exist&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Per* and English *through* both signify some sort of movement through an opening or surrounding circumstance. When you go through something, you come out at the end, so you're finished with it. So it makes some sense for both words to also indicate thoroughness or completion, cf. *perterreo* &quot;to frighten through and through&quot;. Note also that English *through* and *thorough* are cognates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course the semantic developments above are somewhat arbitrary: they could have gone in various different ways. I'm just showing how it probably happened in these cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6426" RevisionGUID="045f24a9-0312-431a-a634-07cc6c74fc01" CreationDate="2018-05-08T16:19:16.343" UserId="79" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="Here are two ways to say &quot;X is more important than Y&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *X plus valet quam Y*. (Literally: &quot;X is stronger than Y.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;2. *X maioris momenti/gravitatis/ponderis est quam Y.* (Literally: &quot;X is of more weight or importance than Y.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both of these the words X and Y are in the nominative.&#xD;&#xA;For plurals you need to pluralize the verbs (*valent*, *sunt*).&#xD;&#xA;The verb *est* or *sunt* can be left out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also possible to say &quot;X is above Y&quot; as you suggest.&#xD;&#xA;In that case Y should be in accusative.&#xD;&#xA;In your example the genitives &quot;of the people&quot; and &quot;of the king&quot; stay in genitive: *populi*, *regis*.&#xD;&#xA;It should be *vox populi [est] supra vocem regis*.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *est* can be left out, but it is still understood to be there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6437" RevisionGUID="9e8c2eb1-c264-4981-8d23-1b0da51a3576" CreationDate="2018-05-08T16:42:48.750" UserId="1224" Text="The title of the character Shadow the Hedgehog is *The Ultimate Lifeform*. As for a translation of this, I *ultimately* decided upon &quot;Ens Ultimatus.&quot; But, should &quot;ens&quot; be masculine or neuter? It seems to describe a particular masculine being, but perhaps it should be neuter to describe him as compared to other organisms of either gender, usually neuter as being animals. Basically, is a being expressed as neuter because it is merely an existence of a thing, or is it masculine because of the aforementioned being?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not exactly dying to hear that it doesn't matter, so feel free to delete this question if there are no usages of this word to describe a person or personified being.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: I'm back!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21304" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6437" RevisionGUID="9e8c2eb1-c264-4981-8d23-1b0da51a3576" CreationDate="2018-05-08T16:42:48.750" UserId="1224" Text="The Ultimate Lifeform" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21305" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6437" RevisionGUID="9e8c2eb1-c264-4981-8d23-1b0da51a3576" CreationDate="2018-05-08T16:42:48.750" UserId="1224" Text="|contemporary-latin|adjective|gender|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6438" RevisionGUID="72932514-0554-43b1-a22a-02973fbcf904" CreationDate="2018-05-08T18:34:50.733" UserId="79" Text="Welcome back!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *ens* is a present participle of *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;That tells what the word means (&quot;being&quot;, &quot;something that is&quot;, &quot;thing&quot;) and how it's declined.&#xD;&#xA;The declension is that of a participle: all genders look alike in singular nominative, so *ens* could be any gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both genders are grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;The question is which one is a better semantic fit.&#xD;&#xA;Either one is possible, depending on what you want to emphasize.&#xD;&#xA;I vote for neuter.&#xD;&#xA;The best analogous word I can think of is *chaos*, which is neuter and could be used to mean something close to &quot;the ultimate lifeform&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Choosing neuter seems to emphasize the primordial and shapeless nature of the being, if that's accurate here.&#xD;&#xA;If it's closer to a human or any other typical animal, then masculine is more appropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6439" RevisionGUID="ed1d60b0-4769-43d5-b386-504bd93758bc" CreationDate="2018-05-08T19:08:56.340" UserId="79" Text="A [garden path sentence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_path_sentence) is a sentence that leads the reader astray and forces them to reanalyze.&#xD;&#xA;The obvious first interpretation when one starts reading is a red herring and it comes clear that the sentence doesn't parse to anything sensible before rereading the whole thing a couple of times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in &quot;time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana&quot; one is lead to believe that the second &quot;flies&quot; is also a verb, but in retrospect it turns out to be a noun.&#xD;&#xA;For another example, in &quot;the old man the boat&quot; one first reads &quot;man&quot; as a noun but it turns out to be a verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I started to wonder whether there are examples of this in classical Latin literature.&#xD;&#xA;Classical Latin sentences can be hard to parse, but that is not quite the same as leading astray.&#xD;&#xA;A garden path sentence should offer the reader an obvious interpretation which turns out to be wrong.&#xD;&#xA;In English many of these sentences are built around ambiguity between nouns and verbs, and in Latin that ambiguity is much weaker.&#xD;&#xA;Latin can certainly mislead, but how badly can it do that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be good examples of garden path sentences in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Or in other words:&#xD;&#xA;What is do you think the most misleading classical Latin sentence (in the aforementioned sense) and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21310" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6439" RevisionGUID="ed1d60b0-4769-43d5-b386-504bd93758bc" CreationDate="2018-05-08T19:08:56.340" UserId="79" Text="Garden path sentences in classical Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21311" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6439" RevisionGUID="ed1d60b0-4769-43d5-b386-504bd93758bc" CreationDate="2018-05-08T19:08:56.340" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|passage-request|style|soft-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6440" RevisionGUID="ba6dd37b-06c0-4bdd-9212-b6f6e0af9c93" CreationDate="2018-05-08T20:07:38.970" UserId="1407" Text="I like [ossea][1] very much because it immediately made me think of an [ossuary][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;*Gene Wolfe probably first made me aware of this term. If your intent is literary, you may want to look at Wolfe, who is famous partly for [resurrecting old terms][3], and has a reputation as a &quot;writer's writer&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dosseus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossuary&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.pannis.com/SFDG/specific-Shadow-2.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6441" RevisionGUID="19a845b4-31a4-4092-8a87-5db37a0479cb" CreationDate="2018-05-08T20:20:56.720" UserId="2609" Text="REGINAM NOLITE OCCIDERE TIMERE BONUM EST SI OMNES CONSENTIUNT EGO NON CONTRADICO - though that one is less about multiple meanings in one word, and more about multiple possible locations for a comma, making the sentence's meaning vacillate between &quot;kill the queen&quot; and &quot;don't kill the queen&quot;. There are more examples of these kinds of amiguities, but a sentence that actually depends on one of the (many! too many?) word-ambiguities in latin (e.g. &quot;liber&quot; = &quot;free&quot; and  = &quot;book&quot;   - there is a double meaning sentence about the price of books/freedom being high) and really is from antiquity i don't know about (the example with the queen that i cite is also not from antiquity, but there is a very similar one that hails from that time: Ibis redibis nunquam per bella peribis)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6435" RevisionGUID="8dd5d114-14e6-48e4-b207-58bafe7aa1b6" CreationDate="2018-05-08T23:16:02.553" UserId="30" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="There is *abluō, abluere, abluī, ablūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *acuō, acuere, acuī, acūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *arguō, arguere, arguī, argūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *compluō, compluere, compluī, complūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *exuō, exuere, exuī, exūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *futuō, futuere, futuī, futūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *imbuō, imbuere, imbuī, imbūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *minuō, minuere, minuī, minūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *rŭo, ruere, rŭi, rŭtus*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *spŭo, spuere, spui, spūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *statuō, statuere, statuī, statūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *suō, suere, suī, sūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *tribuō, tribuere, tribuī, tribūtus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that some/many future participles of the above verbs go *-uitūrus* rather than *-uturus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you will accept *volvo, voluere, volvi, volutus*, considering that u/v was one letter in Latin script (though not sound), perhaps *vŏlūtus* will do? At least the participle has a real, vocalic *u*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The participle *locūtus/loquūtus* could also be interesting, if you will accept  a verb with first person singular present *-quo-.* (*loquor*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies to *sĕcūtus* from *sequor*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are all participles on -utus that I could find. So the *only* participle with a short -ŭ- is *rŭo*. I wonder why!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6442" RevisionGUID="5439dfa1-6bcd-4429-a341-5643431b9c0a" CreationDate="2018-05-09T00:10:33.250" UserId="406" Text="In [his answer to another question][1], Cerberus remarked that many verbs with perfect participles in *-ūtus* had future active participles in *-uitūrus*. This struck me as odd, as I had been taught that those two forms were always built off the same stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other verbs which use different stems for these participles? And is that an irregularity of those particular verbs, or some predictable pattern, or is it sheer coincidence that the two forms look the same for so many words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6435/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21319" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6442" RevisionGUID="5439dfa1-6bcd-4429-a341-5643431b9c0a" CreationDate="2018-05-09T00:10:33.250" UserId="406" Text="Do other verbs use different stems for their perfect passive and future active participles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21320" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6442" RevisionGUID="5439dfa1-6bcd-4429-a341-5643431b9c0a" CreationDate="2018-05-09T00:10:33.250" UserId="406" Text="|verbs|conjugation|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6441" RevisionGUID="95a47dcd-f936-4432-b5f1-c1799082d7d5" CreationDate="2018-05-09T01:32:31.983" UserId="522" Comment="Heavy-footedly explaining ambiguities." Text="REGINAM NOLITE OCCIDERE TIMERE BONUM EST SI OMNES CONSENTIUNT EGO NON CONTRADICO - though that one is less about multiple meanings in one word, and more about multiple possible locations for a comma, making the sentence's meaning vacillate between &quot;kill the queen&quot; and &quot;don't kill the queen&quot;. There are more examples of these kinds of amiguities, but a sentence that actually depends on one of the (many! too many?) word-ambiguities in latin (e.g. &quot;liber&quot; = &quot;free&quot; and  = &quot;book&quot;   - there is a double meaning sentence about the price of books/freedom being high) and really is from antiquity i don't know about (the example with the queen that i cite is also not from antiquity, but there is a very similar one that hails from that time: Ibis redibis nunquam per bella peribis)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Parsing of example 'A' (Marlowe's version is yet another variant) was given in London Magazine 1826 (11 March)[Google e-books][1] &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; London Magazine  1826 Mar. 11.—discussion of ambiguities of punctuation, “*Ibis redibis*” has turned up. There is one example not so trite, and almost as good. Adam, Bishop of Westminster, consulted on the expediency of putting Edward the Second to death, answered, “*Edwardum regem occidere nolite timere bonum est.*” With a comma after *nolite* it would be dissuasive; with one after *occidere*, and another after *timere*, it is persuasive. The priest knew where to stop, the regicides did not; instead of commas after *nolite &amp; timere*, they put a full stop to the King’s existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Parsing of Example 'B,' which is oracular is either optimistictic:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ibis; redibis. Nunquam per bella peribis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...or it is pessimistic:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *Ibis. Redibis nunquam. Per bella peribis*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZMUEXvxlax4C&amp;lpg=PA376&amp;ots=9YVlcd02kq&amp;dq=Nolite%20timere%20regem%20occidere&amp;pg=PA376#v=onepage&amp;q=Nolite%20timere%20regem%20occidere&amp;f=false]]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6439" RevisionGUID="caf096d9-09a1-4dbc-b103-0e8e2ca6871e" CreationDate="2018-05-09T09:03:45.750" UserId="79" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="A [garden path sentence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_path_sentence) is a sentence that leads the reader astray and forces them to reanalyze.&#xD;&#xA;The obvious first interpretation when one starts reading is a red herring and it comes clear that the sentence doesn't parse to anything sensible before rereading the whole thing a couple of times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in &quot;time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana&quot; one is lead to believe that the second &quot;flies&quot; is also a verb, but in retrospect it turns out to be a noun.&#xD;&#xA;For another example, in &quot;the old man the boat&quot; one first reads &quot;man&quot; as a noun but it turns out to be a verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I started to wonder whether there are examples of this in classical Latin literature.&#xD;&#xA;Classical Latin sentences can be hard to parse, but that or even ambiguity is not quite the same as leading astray.&#xD;&#xA;A garden path sentence should offer the reader an obvious interpretation which turns out to be wrong.&#xD;&#xA;In English many of these sentences are built around ambiguity between nouns and verbs, and in Latin that ambiguity is much weaker.&#xD;&#xA;Latin can certainly mislead, but how badly can it do that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be good examples of garden path sentences in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Or in other words:&#xD;&#xA;What is do you think the most misleading classical Latin sentence (in the aforementioned sense) and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6443" RevisionGUID="e045aaac-0e5f-4755-b315-fc8d289997d4" CreationDate="2018-05-09T10:16:42.187" UserId="645" Text="*Ens ut nomen* and  *ens ut participium* are found in medieval works, used in both metaphysical and descriptive senses: &quot;existence or reality thought of as things&quot; as opposed to &quot;existence or reality thought of as action/process&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But, as an attempt at classical Latin, your version looks completely wrong to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In classical Latin the verb *sum* famously has no present participle although, had it existed, it would very probably have been *ens, entis*, which is echoed in, for instance, *praesens*. Lewis &amp; Short quote *ens* as &quot;a thing; formed, like *essentia*, after the Gr.* ousia*, by Flavius (or Fabianus), [and] acc. to Quint. 8, 3, 33 its first recorded appearance was in an attribution by Priscian to Caesar.&quot; Smith and (earlier) Riddle, their predecessors, follow Forcellini with something similar. All refer, I believe, to the first recorded usage from classical literature of *ens* in the sense *ens ut participium*. I can't give chapter and verse for this without a deal of research, but the source may be Caesar's supposed regretting the lack of a present participle for *sum* in his lost treatise on grammatical analogy. It seems to me quite wrong to rely on this single reference; perhaps the better word to use is *animal* or even *animans*, as Ovid (Met. XV, 90) has in *alterius animantem animantis vivere leto* (there are similar usages in other authors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective that you were thinking of is not *ultimatus*, but *ultimus* (the superlative of a supposed obselete word *ultus*). However, *postremus*, the superlative of *posterus* is nearer to what you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that a more apt translation would be *animans postremus*, for which you can vary the gender according to your actual context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6443" RevisionGUID="164b1d32-cc24-4b47-93a1-335f930c5c3f" CreationDate="2018-05-09T10:49:29.423" UserId="645" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="*Ens ut nomen* and  *ens ut participium* are found in medieval works, used in both metaphysical and descriptive senses: &quot;existence or reality thought of as things&quot; as opposed to &quot;existence or reality thought of as action/process&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But, as an attempt at classical Latin, your version looks completely wrong to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In classical Latin the verb *sum* famously has no present participle although, had it existed, it would very probably have been *ens, entis*, which is echoed in, for instance, *praesens*. Lewis &amp; Short quote *ens* as &quot;a thing; formed, like *essentia*, after the Gr. *ousia*, by Flavius (or Fabianus), [and] acc. to Quint. 8, 3, 33 its first recorded appearance was in an attribution by Priscian to Caesar.&quot; Smith and (earlier) Riddle, their predecessors, follow Forcellini with something similar. All refer, I believe, to the first recorded usage from classical literature of *ens* in the sense *ens ut participium*. I can't give chapter and verse for this without a deal of research, but the source may be Caesar's supposed regretting the lack of a present participle for *sum* in his lost treatise on grammatical analogy. It seems to me quite wrong to rely on this single reference; perhaps the better word to use is *animal* or even *animans*, as Ovid (Met. XV, 90) has in *alterius animantem animantis vivere leto* (there are similar usages in other authors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective that you were thinking of is not *ultimatus*, but *ultimus* (the superlative of a supposed obselete word *ultus*). However, *postremus*, the superlative of *posterus* is nearer to what you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that a more apt translation would be *animans postremus*, for which you can vary the gender according to your actual context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6444" RevisionGUID="946d681a-61e3-4225-938f-4d25fc72617a" CreationDate="2018-05-09T12:58:25.483" UserId="1459" Text="This is perhaps not what you request, but it might make up for what you need: a Latin-friendly chat room! Indeed, there are at least three that I am aware of, one being in this site. They are free, and cannot assure you of always a response, or immediate help, but at least you can try your Latin!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;##Latin&quot;: this IRC chat room can be accessed online [here](http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=##Latin). You can write both in English and Latin, asking for help too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;##Latinitas&quot;: this IRC chat room can also be accessed online, [here](http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=##Latinitas). You are asked to only write (and &quot;well enough to be understood&quot;) in Latin, so it's more advanced that the one above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Latin.Stackexchange&quot;: this is the local chatroom, available [here](https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&amp;host=latin.stackexchange.com) (select CONLOQVIVM). I get the impression it is not as highly visited as the others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if you are still interested in an email conversation, you can go to the first chat room and ask for someone willing to take part on it. If you are willing to pay, maybe you can motivate someone to become your email-friend for a bit of Latin exchange!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="156" RevisionGUID="5a2a9aac-1be2-4975-9ebd-58a5c7785a60" CreationDate="2018-05-09T15:12:54.073" UserId="52" Comment="Link ressurected." Text="I at least partially understand all the invocations in [Litaniae in omni tribulatione][1], but one stays mysterious: &quot;Angelórum planta ágmini&quot; It's quite Google-proof, a quoted search for it returned only references to the litanies. The oldest surviving record of the litanies is from circa 1400 AD, but they are older, perhaps even composed in the first generations of Dominican friars in 13th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Analyzing the text, I understand the first word for certain (plural genitive of &quot;angelus&quot;). The second word could be either singular vocative of noun &quot;planta&quot; or singular imperative of verb &quot;planto, plantare&quot; (the verb seems to fit the context better, but I'm not sure), and I have no idea with the third word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rytdominikanski.pl/litania-dominikanska-in-omnibus-tribulationibus-lac/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21327" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4061" RevisionGUID="4afdf2b5-fde6-4d80-a18a-d138f1affbfa" CreationDate="2018-05-09T17:18:49.297" UserId="469" Comment="tagged Vulgata" Text="|grammar-choice|vulgata|perfect-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6445" RevisionGUID="7c9755c1-1fd9-4141-98ca-8d6f9f6c048a" CreationDate="2018-05-10T02:10:32.947" UserId="406" Text="In Cerberus's [list of u-stem verbs][1], *rŭō, rŭere, rŭī, rŭtus* is the only one with a short *ŭ* in the participle stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is this? Does it go back to different types of verbs in PIE, as with *stătus* versus *amātus*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6435/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21330" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6445" RevisionGUID="7c9755c1-1fd9-4141-98ca-8d6f9f6c048a" CreationDate="2018-05-10T02:10:32.947" UserId="406" Text="Why is there a short ŭ in rŭtus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21331" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6445" RevisionGUID="7c9755c1-1fd9-4141-98ca-8d6f9f6c048a" CreationDate="2018-05-10T02:10:32.947" UserId="406" Text="|etymology|verbs|conjugation|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6446" RevisionGUID="2a56a6ea-b60a-4f5a-b65b-bd1e9996db42" CreationDate="2018-05-10T08:01:10.283" UserId="2613" Text="How to say &quot;Obeying the law&quot; or &quot;we will obey the law&quot; in latin, as something like a slogan. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank-you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21333" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6446" RevisionGUID="2a56a6ea-b60a-4f5a-b65b-bd1e9996db42" CreationDate="2018-05-10T08:01:10.283" UserId="2613" Text="Translation please English-Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21334" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6446" RevisionGUID="2a56a6ea-b60a-4f5a-b65b-bd1e9996db42" CreationDate="2018-05-10T08:01:10.283" UserId="2613" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6446" RevisionGUID="f38ebf81-da84-4a7a-b420-76add9db4b6e" CreationDate="2018-05-10T11:16:21.390" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 33 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How to say &quot;Obeying the law&quot; or &quot;we will obey the law&quot; in Latin, as something like a slogan?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21336" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6446" RevisionGUID="f38ebf81-da84-4a7a-b420-76add9db4b6e" CreationDate="2018-05-10T11:16:21.390" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 33 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&quot;Obeying the law&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21337" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6446" RevisionGUID="f38ebf81-da84-4a7a-b420-76add9db4b6e" CreationDate="2018-05-10T11:16:21.390" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 33 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2085" RevisionGUID="c013389e-b702-4642-b9e8-6d34acf5c19e" CreationDate="2018-05-10T11:21:38.250" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="As Eleshar pointed out in a comment, the Roman numeral system is more flexible than many sources let you believe.&#xD;&#xA;However, the rigid system usually taught in schools actually **does** have a kind of positional notation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, 43 is XLIII, or 40+3 is XL+III.&#xD;&#xA;The decimal in the first position is fully expressed before moving to the next one.&#xD;&#xA;For example, 1994 = 1000+900+90+4 = M+CM+XC+IV = MCMXCIV.&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, this is not fully positional notation since a varying number of symbols (from zero to four) is used to express each decimal.&#xD;&#xA;However, after playing with Roman numerals for a while you will learn to recognize quickly where the decimal changes.&#xD;&#xA;In reality the Romans used many variants, and not all of them had this positional property.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Roman **words for numbers** were no less sophisticated than the modern English ones.&#xD;&#xA;Actually quite the opposite: Latin had (and still has!) four kinds of numerals for different uses whereas English has two or three.&#xD;&#xA;For number one, the words are *unus*, *primus*, *semel*, and *singuli*.&#xD;&#xA;In English these are &quot;one&quot;, &quot;first&quot;, &quot;once&quot; and &quot;one at a time&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(Not all numbers have the third version in English; you have to say &quot;ten times&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;Observe also that the Roman numeral words do follow the decimal system.&#xD;&#xA;Roman oral numerals were hardly &quot;arcane numerology&quot; &amp;mdash; or if they were, so are the English ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Roman **symbols for numbers** were clumsier than our modern ones, but they have little to do with how the numbers were pronounced.&#xD;&#xA;It is worth observing that the Romans did not have separate symbols for numbers like we do, but they used letters from their alphabet.&#xD;&#xA;(For large numbers they used some additional symbols, but let me not digress.)&#xD;&#xA;Had they had separate symbols, I believe they would have come up with a simpler system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6447" RevisionGUID="9755ce86-bf4b-43da-ab7a-7e027d14d51f" CreationDate="2018-05-10T12:26:05.863" UserId="79" Text="In English one can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Without you I would not be here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is roughly the same thing as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you had not helped, I would not be here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact wording depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;In the second example the irreal condition (which is not met) is expressed by a conditional clause, whereas in the first one it is expressed by a prepositional phrase.&#xD;&#xA;It occurred to me that I do not recall seeing the first kind of construction in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there examples of an irreal condition expressed by a prepositional phrase in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The basic example would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sine te hic non essem.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or more generally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sine X fieret Y.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb can by anything.&#xD;&#xA;I find *sine* to be the most likely preposition in this use, but it can be any.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for an irreal conjunctive (imperfect or pluperfect) where the condition (which is not met) is expressed not by a conditional clause but by a prepositional clause.&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer examples concerning present time (conjunctive perfect), but past (pluperfect) is also possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no clue how to search for structures like this, so the best I can do is to ask whether someone here has seen this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21340" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6447" RevisionGUID="9755ce86-bf4b-43da-ab7a-7e027d14d51f" CreationDate="2018-05-10T12:26:05.863" UserId="79" Text="Irreal condition expressed by a prepositional phrase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21341" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6447" RevisionGUID="9755ce86-bf4b-43da-ab7a-7e027d14d51f" CreationDate="2018-05-10T12:26:05.863" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|syntax|example-request|conditions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6448" RevisionGUID="542a1cbb-ef1e-40f0-a25a-e8b8c3788fc9" CreationDate="2018-05-10T14:23:35.243" UserId="469" Text="[VG Ioh 15:5][1] has&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Sine me nihil potestis facere** / *without me you can do nothing*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is put by John in the mouth of Jesus preaching. I'm not aware of any Classical examples, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&amp;b=4&amp;c=15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6448" RevisionGUID="7884ff9d-e8ca-4473-9bb1-5ada48d7dd96" CreationDate="2018-05-10T14:29:50.107" UserId="469" Comment="added 334 characters in body" Text="[VG Ioh 15:5][1] has&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Sine me nihil potestis facere** / *without me you can do nothing*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is put by John in the mouth of Jesus preaching. I'm not aware of any Classical examples, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update in progress:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I googled [sine+nihil][2] and found a number of sentences, one of them is attributed to Horace (I cent. BC):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Sine labore nihil** / *without work [there is] nothing*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm still looking for the source. Most of the sentences are short: three words.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&amp;b=4&amp;c=15&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=sine%20nihil" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6448" RevisionGUID="9ec77914-75d7-410d-a8f3-22ca4ca71cb4" CreationDate="2018-05-10T14:42:02.270" UserId="469" Comment="added 334 characters in body" Text="The first example that came to my mind was, [VG Ioh 15:5][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Sine me nihil potestis facere** / *without me you can do nothing*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is put by John in the mouth of Jesus preaching. This, of course, does not meet the Classical requirement...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then I started searching for sine+nihil and found a number&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google][2] gave a number of sentences, one of them is attributed to Horace (I cent. BC):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Sine labore nihil** / *without work [there is] nothing*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm still looking for the source. Most of the sentences are short: three words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Perseus][3], in turn, led me to [Cic. Mur. 9][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [talking about Lucius Lucullus] maximo in bello sic est versatus ut hic multas res et magnas sine imperatore gesserit, **nullam sine hoc imperator** /  *in a most important war he so behaved himself that he performed many glorious exploits without the commander-in-chief; **but the commander-in-chief did nothing without him***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first it made me doubt, but *nullam sine hoc imperator* stands by itself as an example of what you are looking for, since *imperator* is nominative, *nullam* in accusative, and the elided verb seems obviously *gesserit*: *imperator sine hoc nullam gesserit*, if parsed in a more modern-day-friendly word order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&amp;b=4&amp;c=15&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=sine%20nihil&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AGreco-Roman&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AArabic&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AGermanic&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3Acwar&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3ARenaissance&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3ARichTimes&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3APDILL&amp;all_words=sine%20nihil&amp;phrase=&amp;any_words=&amp;exclude_words=&amp;search=Search&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0010:text=Mur.:chapter=9&amp;highlight=sine%2Cnihil%2Clabore" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6448" RevisionGUID="fe42c797-e414-44ce-b4a4-e4629f69772f" CreationDate="2018-05-10T14:48:16.163" UserId="469" Comment="added 334 characters in body" Text="1. The first example that came to my mind was, [VG Ioh 15:5][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Sine me nihil potestis facere** / *without me you can do nothing*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It is put by John in the mouth of Jesus preaching. This, of course, does not meet the Classical requirement...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then I started searching for sine+nihil, restricting the search to something concrete...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [Google][2] gave a number of sentences, most of them short, one of them attributed to Horace (I cent. BC):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Sine labore nihil** / *without work [there is] nothing*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Wikiquote][3] argues that the original is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Nil sine magno vita labore dedit mortalibus** / *Life grants nothing to us mortals without hard work* (Horace, Book I, satire ix, line 59)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. [Perseus][4], in turn, led me to [Cic. Mur. 9][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; [talking about Lucius Lucullus] maximo in bello sic est versatus ut hic multas res et magnas sine imperatore gesserit, **nullam sine hoc imperator** /  *in a most important war he so behaved himself that he performed many glorious exploits without the commander-in-chief; **but the commander-in-chief did nothing without him***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; At first it made me doubt, but *nullam sine hoc imperator* stands by itself as an example of what you are looking for, since *imperator* is nominative, *nullam* in accusative, and the elided verb seems to be *gesserit*: *imperator sine hoc nullam gesserit*, if parsed in a more modern-day-friendly word order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&amp;b=4&amp;c=15&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=sine%20nihil&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Horace&amp;oldid=2371597&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AGreco-Roman&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AArabic&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AGermanic&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3Acwar&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3ARenaissance&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3ARichTimes&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3APDILL&amp;all_words=sine%20nihil&amp;phrase=&amp;any_words=&amp;exclude_words=&amp;search=Search&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0010:text=Mur.:chapter=9&amp;highlight=sine%2Cnihil%2Clabore" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4790" RevisionGUID="38743dbc-b50e-46f9-81a4-bfc797382cdf" CreationDate="2018-05-10T15:28:29.647" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Apparently, [anti](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anti-) is a word already available in [Greek](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%80%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%AF#Ancient_Greek), meaning against. However, it seems this word [did not reach Latin](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=exact&amp;lookup=anti&amp;lang=la). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, Wikipedia entries of common English words that have anti as prefix are incorporated into Latin, keeping the anti prefix. For example, [anticapitalismus](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticapitalismus), [antivirus](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus), [antiglobalisation](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motus_antiglobalisticus), etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine these words adapt the English word that does exist in Latin (e.g. capitalism to capitalismum), but keep the _anti_ prefix for simplicity, or maybe because there is no such prefix in Latin. **Is there?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, if you were to translate anticapitalism literally, how would you say it? Something like _in capitalismi_ or _adversus capitalismi_? For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Modus in capitalismi est in cresente&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5802" RevisionGUID="038025d6-46b1-422f-ab51-8439df1f5a66" CreationDate="2018-05-10T16:56:55.750" UserId="1459" Comment="minor changes" Text="I'm a beginner and noticing &quot;_est_&quot; a present tense verb, being translated in dozens of resources as &quot;was.&quot;  Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est_ = and without him nothing was made that was made&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6448" RevisionGUID="243ace20-298c-4643-9dc5-01a12e2f16bf" CreationDate="2018-05-10T19:26:46.303" UserId="469" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="1. The first example that came to my mind was, [VG Ioh 15:5][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Sine me nihil potestis facere** / *without me you can do nothing*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It is put by John in the mouth of Jesus preaching. This, of course, does not meet the Classical requirement...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then I started searching for sine+nihil, restricting the search to something concrete...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [Google][2] gave a number of sentences, most of them short, one of them attributed to Horace (I cent. BC):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Sine labore nihil** / *without work [there is] nothing*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Wikiquote][3] argues that the original is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Nil sine magno vita labore dedit mortalibus** / *Life grants nothing to us mortals without hard work* (Horace, Book I, satire ix, line 59)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. [Perseus][4], in turn, led me to [Cic. Mur. 9][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; [talking about Lucius Lucullus] maximo in bello sic est versatus ut hic multas res et magnas sine imperatore gesserit, **nullam sine hoc imperator** /  *in a most important war he so behaved himself that he performed many glorious exploits without the commander-in-chief; **but the commander-in-chief did nothing without him***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; At first it made me doubt, but *nullam sine hoc imperator* stands by itself as an example of what you are looking for, since *imperator* is nominative, *nullam* in accusative, and the fact the verb is *gesserit* seems pretty obvious: *imperator sine hoc nullam gesserit*, if parsed in a more modern-day-Western-friendly word order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&amp;b=4&amp;c=15&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=sine%20nihil&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Horace&amp;oldid=2371597&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AGreco-Roman&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AArabic&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AGermanic&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3Acwar&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3ARenaissance&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3ARichTimes&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3APDILL&amp;all_words=sine%20nihil&amp;phrase=&amp;any_words=&amp;exclude_words=&amp;search=Search&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0010:text=Mur.:chapter=9&amp;highlight=sine%2Cnihil%2Clabore" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5821" RevisionGUID="04ca4f78-fcb2-4f2a-8c34-9693c95962fb" CreationDate="2018-05-10T21:21:48.833" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="This is actually a peculiar feature of English, not of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most languages that I know, a form of *be* with a past participle indicates a past verbal phrase; it describes something in the past (or something that precedes something else).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Il **est** vu au cinéma avec un femme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Er **ist** gesehen (worden) im Kino mit einer Frau.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hij **is** gezien in de bioscoop met een vrouw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Visus **est** in cinemate cum femina.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all of these examples, the seeing usually happened in the past, it's not still going on or still awaiting repetition. This only makes sense, for the past participle includes a sense of past or preceding (in addition to a sense of passivity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we probably should not translate this literally as *\*he **is** seen at the cinema*, which often implies some relation to the present in modern English, e.g. he is seen at the cinema every week (including this week and the next). The usual way to write a passive verb in the normal past in English is through a past form of *be* with a past participle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He **was** seen at the cinema with a woman." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6449" RevisionGUID="edacfaf0-3fce-4e61-9c36-8bddec624d38" CreationDate="2018-05-10T22:09:10.297" UserId="985" Text="Here's an example from Cicero, *Academica* 1.24 (it even uses the preposition *sine*). The general parallelism of the ideas introduced by *neque...neque* makes it clear that the prepositional phrase is equivalent to or encapsulates an 'if' clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; de natura autem (id enim sequebatur) ita dicebant ut eam dividerent in res duas, ut altera esset efficiens, altera autem quasi huic se praebens, eaque efficeretur aliquid. in eo quod efficeret vim esse censebant, in eo autem quod efficeretur tantum modo materiam quandam; in utroque tamen utrumque: **neque enim materiam ipsam cohaerere potuisse si nulla vi contineretur, neque vim sine aliqua materia**; nihil est enim quod non alicubi esse cogatur. sed quod ex utroque, id iam corpus et quasi qualitatem quandam nominabant—dabitis enim profecto ut in rebus inusitatis, quod Graeci ipsi faciunt a quibus haec iam diu tractantur, utamur verbis interdum inauditis.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...for matter would not have been able to cling together on its own if it weren't held fast by some force, nor would there be able to be a force without [i.e., if there weren't = *nisi essent*] some matter.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6449" RevisionGUID="3ea537f2-770a-4e72-b76e-443186764f64" CreationDate="2018-05-10T22:34:42.853" UserId="985" Comment="added 1093 characters in body" Text="Here's an example from Cicero, *Academica* 1.24 (it even uses the preposition *sine*). The general parallelism of the ideas introduced by *neque...neque* makes it clear that the prepositional phrase is equivalent to or encapsulates an 'if' clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; de natura autem (id enim sequebatur) ita dicebant ut eam dividerent in res duas, ut altera esset efficiens, altera autem quasi huic se praebens, eaque efficeretur aliquid. in eo quod efficeret vim esse censebant, in eo autem quod efficeretur tantum modo materiam quandam; in utroque tamen utrumque: **neque enim materiam ipsam cohaerere potuisse si nulla vi contineretur, neque vim sine aliqua materia**; nihil est enim quod non alicubi esse cogatur. sed quod ex utroque, id iam corpus et quasi qualitatem quandam nominabant—dabitis enim profecto ut in rebus inusitatis, quod Graeci ipsi faciunt a quibus haec iam diu tractantur, utamur verbis interdum inauditis.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...for matter would not have been able to cling together on its own if it weren't held fast by some force, nor would there be able to be a force without [i.e., if there weren't = *nisi essent*] some matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** In Gildersleeve &amp; Lodge, *Latin grammar*, this subject is discussed in section 593, 'Other Forms of the Protasis.' Subsection 3 states, 'The Protasis may be involved in a modifier.' Although this is pretty vague, all three examples that are cited (one of which is actually the passage from the *Academica* that I've used) involve prepositional phrases. The other two are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Cicero, *Pro Milone* 29:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt;  fecerunt id servi Milonis...quod suos quisque servos in tali re facere voluisset, 'Milo's slaves did what every man would have wanted his own slaves to do in such a situation.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Here, G&amp;L say that *in tali re* is equivalent to *si quid tale accidisset*, 'if any such thing had occurred.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Lucretius, *De rerum natura* 5.18:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; at bene non poterat sine puro pectore vivi, 'But it wouldn't have been possible to live well without a pure heart.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Here, *sine puro pectore* = *nisi purum pectus esset*, 'if the heart weren't pure.' (As is not uncommon, the imperfect indicative of *possum* is used in place of the subjunctive for a contrafactual condition.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6450" RevisionGUID="4ab77a87-b082-47fd-8e82-3c507f6c6927" CreationDate="2018-05-11T01:14:04.113" UserId="406" Text="Verbs conjugated in -a- (amō, amāre, amāvī, amātus), in -e- (habeō, habēre, habuī, habitus), and in -i- (audio, audīre, audīvī, auditus) are common and well-known. Verbs in -u- (acuō, acuere, acuī, acūtus) are less common and grouped in with the third (consonant) conjugation, but [they definitely exist][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But are there any verbs in -o-? They're not common but certainly not unheard of in Greek (e.g. *δηλόω dēlóō* &quot;show&quot;) and their complete absence seems odd in Latin. If there really aren't any, what happened to them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6435/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21356" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6450" RevisionGUID="4ab77a87-b082-47fd-8e82-3c507f6c6927" CreationDate="2018-05-11T01:14:04.113" UserId="406" Text="Are there verbs in -o-?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21357" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6450" RevisionGUID="4ab77a87-b082-47fd-8e82-3c507f6c6927" CreationDate="2018-05-11T01:14:04.113" UserId="406" Text="|verbs|conjugation|vowel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6451" RevisionGUID="a604a4f1-33a6-4a54-9fd0-7fbc5c2e4ffc" CreationDate="2018-05-11T01:25:19.817" UserId="79" Text="Lewis and Short give only three Latin words ending in *-oo*, all of them verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*boare/boere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dboo), &quot;to cry&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- [*reboare*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dreboo), &quot;to echo&quot; (the previous one with *re-*)&#xD;&#xA;- [*inchoare*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dinchoo), an alternative spelling of *incohare*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6451" RevisionGUID="0c653be2-c111-4b08-956b-f41444627484" CreationDate="2018-05-11T01:40:27.420" UserId="79" Comment="added 402 characters in body" Text="Lewis and Short give only three Latin words ending in *-oo*, all of them verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*boare/boere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dboo), &quot;to cry&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- [*reboare*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dreboo), &quot;to echo&quot; (the previous one with *re-*)&#xD;&#xA;- [*inchoare*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dinchoo), an alternative spelling of *incohare*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from *boere*, these are all first conjugation verbs and their present stem ends in *a*.&#xD;&#xA;They are not what you asked for, but they seem to be the closest thing there is in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The form *boare* also appears as *bovare*, but *boere* only without the *-v-*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the closest thing to *o*-stem verbs in Latin is *boere*, but there may be too few attestations to draw strong conclusions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6452" RevisionGUID="48b8d81b-f5b4-4768-b529-e04dc2e33df0" CreationDate="2018-05-11T20:58:52.760" UserId="79" Text="There seem to be a lot of pairs of words in Latin where a &quot;question&quot; starts with *qu-* and the corresponding &quot;answer&quot; by *t-*.&#xD;&#xA;For example: *quot/tot*, *quantum/tantum*, *qualis/talis*, *quotiens/totiens*.&#xD;&#xA;The pattern is pretty clear, although there are some holes (e.g. *quis* and *quando* but no *_tis_ or *_tando_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the origin of this *qu-/t-* duality?&#xD;&#xA;Does it go all the way to PIE, or is it an Italic invention?&#xD;&#xA;Do we know the origin of the elements *qu-* and *t-*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21361" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6452" RevisionGUID="48b8d81b-f5b4-4768-b529-e04dc2e33df0" CreationDate="2018-05-11T20:58:52.760" UserId="79" Text="Pairs like quot/tot and quantum/tantum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21362" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6452" RevisionGUID="48b8d81b-f5b4-4768-b529-e04dc2e33df0" CreationDate="2018-05-11T20:58:52.760" UserId="79" Text="|word-comparison|language-evolution|pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6453" RevisionGUID="72a75649-d6fc-42b3-bb59-5b20df5d5146" CreationDate="2018-05-12T01:40:04.403" UserId="406" Text="In Attic Greek in particular, there are well-understood patterns of &quot;vowel contraction&quot; that replace two vowels in hiatus with a single vowel or diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in Latin, contraction seems much more mysterious: the only example I can think of is what happens to vowel-stem verbs in the first principal part. That is, *ama-* + *-ō* = *amō*, but *habe-* + *-ō* = *habeō*, *audi-* + *-ō* = *audiō*, *acu-* + *-ō* = *acuō*, and [I haven't been able to find a single verb stem actually ending in *-o-*][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like *something* is also making vowels long in the fourth principal parts of verbs: *ama-* + *-Xtus* = *amātus*, *acu-* + *-Xtus* = *acūtus*, *audi-* + *-Xtus* = *audītus*. On the other hand, *habe-* + *-Xtus* = *hab**ĭ**tus*. I might speculate that this *X* was some vowel that contracted into the preceding one. But this is speculation, nothing more. (And [Joonas suggests that the underlying vowels might be long][2] instead.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there well-understood rules for this sort of vowel contraction? And if so, how long did they remain productive? Loans like *Danaōs* certainly didn't contract, but are they the exception or the rule?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6450/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4335/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21364" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6453" RevisionGUID="72a75649-d6fc-42b3-bb59-5b20df5d5146" CreationDate="2018-05-12T01:40:04.403" UserId="406" Text="Which vowel combinations contract?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21365" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6453" RevisionGUID="72a75649-d6fc-42b3-bb59-5b20df5d5146" CreationDate="2018-05-12T01:40:04.403" UserId="406" Text="|vowel-quantity|vowel|phonology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6454" RevisionGUID="142237a4-5611-49f9-bdd6-c23af084b766" CreationDate="2018-05-12T02:12:37.140" UserId="406" Text="This pattern seems to go all the way back to Proto-Indo-European.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Sumelic pointed out in a comment, we actually see this same alternation in English: when~then, what~that, where~there, and so on. This wh~th alternation comes from older Germanic hʷ~þ(*), which comes from PIE kʷ~t by Grimm's Law (which weakened stops into fricatives at the beginning of words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) þ (&quot;thorn&quot;) was probably pronounced like English &quot;th&quot; in &quot;thin&quot;, IPA /θ/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like the former ones come from PIE *_kʷi-_/_kʷe-_/_kʷo-_, the interrogative-indefinite pronoun (surviving as *quis* in Latin and *tís* in Ancient Greek); the latter ones come from PIE *_to-_, the neuter demonstrative pronoun (which only survived with suffixes in Latin, but in Greek became the definite article *tó*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Various suffixes were added to derive specific meanings, like &quot;which time&quot; or &quot;which quantity&quot;, and the forms with these suffixes turned into the *qu-*~*t-* pairs. It's not always clear what these suffixes *were*; for example, the second half of *quālis*~*tālis* can only be guessed at. But the roots themselves seem clear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6455" RevisionGUID="9220afd9-1594-4b18-845b-7910cbbcdaee" CreationDate="2018-05-12T03:18:58.110" UserId="9" Text="Szemerényi (1980) says that the following &quot;descriptive rule&quot; summarizes the conjugation pattern for verbs ending in *-uo*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbs in *-uo* in general form their perfect in *-uī,* their PPP in *-ūtus* (even *tuor/tūtus* would conform to this rule!); a list would have to specify four exceptions: *ruo* has *rūtus,* but in the compounds  *-rŭtus*; two verbs which have a velar in the perfect (*fluxī, struxī*) show it in the PPP, too, as does *frūctus* from *fruor.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 11-12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a bit confused by the rule for *ruo;* the explanation actually seems to be that there are two different verbs that have *ruo* as the first principal part. Szemerényi refers to them as ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo.* For more details, see the section &quot;The two *ruo*s&quot; further below.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;##Lists of verbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On p. 11, before giving the rule that I quoted earlier in this answer,  Szemerényi lists and categorizes the verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.1. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br&gt;(a) A small group has no forms for the PPP and in some cases not even for the perfect. Here belong:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    battuo      -ere     -uī     --&#xD;&#xA;    ¹cluo       -ere     --      --&#xD;&#xA;    ²cluo       -ere     --      --&#xD;&#xA;    (con)gruo   -ere     -uī     --&#xD;&#xA;    gruo        -ere     --      --   &#xD;&#xA;    pluit       -ere    -uit     --  &#xD;&#xA;    sternuo     -ere    -uit     --  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) The great majority – fifteen verbs – show *-uī* and *-ūtum* in these forms. They are: *acuo, arguo, futuo, imbuo, induo, (ē)luo, metuo, minuo, nuo, polluo,* ²*ruo, spuo, statuo, suo, tribuo.* We should perhaps add here *dēlibūtus,* and certainly also ²*luo* as shown by *solūtum* (see fn. 2).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(c) Two verbs deviate from this main type in that they show *-ŭtum.* One of them is attested in Classical times: ¹*ruo-rutum.* For the other, ¹*cluo,* the form *clutus* is indirectly attested by *inclutus* 'famous'.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(d) Two other verbs show in the perfect and the PPP a velar stem:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    fluo       -ere     fluxī      fluctum (later fluxus)&#xD;&#xA;    struo      -ere     struxī     structum.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; No doubt (see also 3.1 (8) further down) the same type is seen in &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    fruor      fruī     frūctus;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;the form *frūctus* was the norm in Classical times, *fruitus* is a later innovation, perhaps preceded by  *fruitūrus* (Cicero).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The same formation as in *fruitus* is seen in *tuitus,* which again seems later than *tūtus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is more discussion of the forms and their probable development in the paper. Unfortunately, I can't really summarize it (partly because it is very detailed, and partly because I haven't been able to read it through yet because I've only accessed it through Google Books).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But at the end, there is a categorization of the verbs according to etymology and a passage that seems to explain the long vowel in the ending *-ūtus* for many of the verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.2. On the strength of our findings in 3.1, we can group the twenty-nine verbs in *-uo* according to the original formations as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(a) thematic root-formations (*-ewō,* one instance *-owō*): ²*cluo,* ¹*luo, pluit,* ¹*ruo, struo*;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(b) thematized nasal-infix formation: *sternuo*;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(c) primary *-yo*: *induo (\*end-au-yō); fluo (\*bhleug-yō); fruor (\*bhrūg-yō-r);* ¹*gruo (\*grū-yō,* or *gruwō?);* ²*gruo (\*grū-yō,* or *gru-it?);* ²*luo (\*lū̆-yō); polluo (\*lŭ-yō,* or *\*lowō?);* ²*ruo (\*rū-yō); spuo (\*spyū-yō); suo (\*syū-yō);*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(d) denominative *-yo*: *acuo, arguo, futuo, metuo, minuo, statuo, tribuo* (all *-ŭyō* or *-ūyō?);*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(e) pairs of basic verb and intensive (cf. *σπένδω: spondeo; \*tendo, tondeo*): &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;*nuo : nueo (\*newō : \*noweyō)*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;*tuor : tueor (\*tewōr : \*toweyōr)*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;*?cluo : clueo (\*klewō : \*kloweyō?* but rather late innovation ¹*cluo* beside old *clueo*);&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(f): of obscure structure: *battuo, dēlibūtus, imbuo.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;a&gt;4. The PPP has, as we have seen (2.1), *-ūtus* in the denominatives. This is what we should expect in any case, seeing that before the suffix *-to* the stem-final vowel is lengthened even in purely adjectival forms; c.f. *aurītus, crīnītus, turrītus,* on the one hand, *argūtus, cinctūtus, cornūtus, versūtus, verūtus,* on the other, and, outside Italy, e.g., Greek *δακρῡτός* 'wept over, tearful'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 28)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The two *ruo*s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi gives different vowel lengths in the PPP for ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;¹*ruo -uī -ŭtum* 'rush, overthrow' (Palatus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;²*ruo -uī -ūtus* 'root, rake, scrape' (Lucretius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two corresponding entries for *ruo* in [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ruo#Latin) and in De Vaan (2008), but they give conflicting information about the perfect and supine forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For ¹*ruo*, Wiktionary says &quot;*perfect active* **ruī**, *supine* **rutum**&quot; (Wiktionary doesn't use breves in its Latin entries, so the lack of a macron is supposed to imply that the vowel is short). De Vaan also gives the perfect as *ruī,* but gives the PPP as *rū̆tum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For ²*ruo*, Wiktionary says &quot;*no perfect or supine forms*&quot;. De Vaan gives no perfect form, but gives the PPP as *rūtum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Etymology of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi says *¹ruo* is from IE *\*ereu-* (I don't understand the reason for the initial *\*e* in this reconstruction, but it seems irrelevant to the development of the vowel after the *\*r*)  which is also supposed to be the source of Sanskrit *r̥ṇōmi* and Greek *ὀρούω* (p. 23). Wiktionary says that the verb that Szemerényi calls *¹ruo* is from PIE *h₃rew-. For Italic specifically, Szemerényi gives the reconstruction *\*rewō,* and says &quot;The form of the Latin verb would then be due to the compounds&quot; (p. 24). I'm not sure what this means. De Vaan gives the Proto-Italic form as *\*rowe/o-,* and the PIE form as *h₃reu-e/o-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For ²*ruo*, after listing some cognates, Szemerényi suggests that it comes from IE &quot;*\*rūyō*&quot; (comparing the form to Old Church Slavonic *ryjo*). Wiktionary says that what  Szemerényi calls ²*ruo* is from &quot;*(H)rewH-&quot;, which seems consistent with Szemerényi's suggestion (PIE *uH developed to IE *ū). De Vaan gives the Proto-Italic form as *\*rowe/o-* (the same as for  *¹ruo,* apparently), and the PIE form as *(H)reuH-e/o-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the sources don't agree on all the details, it seems fairly clear that the reason for the (at least potential) length difference between the vowels in the PPPs of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo* is the laryngeal that comes after the w~u in the reconstructed ancestor of ²*ruo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Vowel length in words related to ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;Some weird things seem to happen with vowel length in related words or derivatives of these words. De Vaan's entry for ²*ruo* lists *rutus, -ūs, rutābulum, rutellum, rutrum, rūta caesa* (as well as some verbs) as derivatives, and says &quot;It seems that the derivatives of *ruō* 'to rush' and *ruō* 'to dig' have become mixed up: we find short-vowel forms meaning 'dig', in spite of the PIE root etymology *(H)ruH-&quot; (p. 531). Likewise, Szemerényi says in a footnote on p. 23 that &quot;*rutrum, rutābulum,* 'Schaufel', *rūta caesa* [...] belong with ²*ruo*&quot;. ([Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=rutrum) use a macron on the first syllable of *rutrum,* but I'm inclined to think that this is an example of the use of the macron to mark metrical weight.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. (*rūtrum* in L&amp;S). Because *rutrum* has a medial consonant cluster, it could scan in poetry as rut.rum with a heavy first syllable. That doesn't make the vowel in the first syllable long (despite the confusing old description of such vowels as &quot;long by position&quot;), but Lewis and Short seem to have considered syllable weight sufficient reason to mark a vowel with a macron, at least in certain contexts where the weight of the syllable would otherwise be somewhat non-obvious—e.g., as far as I know, L&amp;S don't use macrons like this on vowel letters before double consonant letters, but they do seem to use them on vowel letters before single consonant letters that scan long, like the *j* in *[mājor](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmajor)* (which is thought to have been pronounced [majjor] in Latin) and the *z* in *[trăpēzīta](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtrapezita)* (which comes from Greek *τραπεζίτης,* with epsilon; L&amp;S mention an alternative spelling with *tarpess-* which provides further support for the idea that it was the consonant rather than the vowel that was long in this word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi, Oswald. 1980. &quot;[Latin Verbs in uo, uere](https://books.google.com/books?id=1mVwAuuC8GoC&amp;pg=PA12&amp;lpg=PA12&amp;d#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&quot;. *Italic and Romance Linguistic Studies in Honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan, Michiel. 2008. *Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6456" RevisionGUID="0c0282af-ef01-491c-be47-9dfa289f64fa" CreationDate="2018-05-12T03:26:18.190" UserId="9" Text="Szemerényi (1980) says that the following &quot;descriptive rule&quot; summarizes the conjugation pattern for verbs ending in *-uo*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbs in *-uo* in general form their perfect in *-uī,* their PPP in *-ūtus* (even *tuor/tūtus* would conform to this rule!); a list would have to specify four exceptions: ***ruo* has *rūtus,* but in the compounds  *-rŭtus***; two verbs which have a velar in the perfect (*fluxī, struxī*) show it in the PPP, too, as does *frūctus* from *fruor.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 11-12) (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a bit confused by the rule saying that the length of the vowel in *-rutus* depends on whether the word is a compound. The explanation actually seems to be that there are two different verbs that have *ruo* as the first principal part. Szemerényi refers to them as ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo.* &#xD;&#xA;##The two *ruo*s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi gives different vowel lengths in the PPP for ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;¹*ruo -uī -ŭtum* 'rush, overthrow' (Palatus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;²*ruo -uī -ūtus* 'root, rake, scrape' (Lucretius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two corresponding entries for *ruo* in [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ruo#Latin) and in De Vaan (2008), but they give conflicting information about the perfect and supine forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For ¹*ruo*, Wiktionary says &quot;*perfect active* **ruī**, *supine* **rutum**&quot; (Wiktionary doesn't use breves in its Latin entries, so the lack of a macron is supposed to imply that the vowel is short). De Vaan also gives the perfect as *ruī,* but gives the PPP as *rū̆tum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For ²*ruo*, Wiktionary says &quot;*no perfect or supine forms*&quot;. De Vaan gives no perfect form, but gives the PPP as *rūtum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Etymology of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi says *¹ruo* is from IE *\*ereu-* (I don't understand the reason for the initial *\*e* in this reconstruction, but it seems irrelevant to the development of the vowel after the *\*r*)  which is also supposed to be the source of Sanskrit *r̥ṇōmi* and Greek *ὀρούω* (p. 23). Wiktionary says that the verb that Szemerényi calls *¹ruo* is from PIE *h₃rew-. For Italic specifically, Szemerényi gives the reconstruction *\*rewō,* and says &quot;The form of the Latin verb would then be due to the compounds&quot; (p. 24). I'm not sure what this means. De Vaan gives the Proto-Italic form as *\*rowe/o-,* and the PIE form as *h₃reu-e/o-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For ²*ruo*, after listing some cognates, Szemerényi suggests that it comes from IE &quot;*\*rūyō*&quot; (comparing the form to Old Church Slavonic *ryjo*). Wiktionary says that what  Szemerényi calls ²*ruo* is from &quot;*(H)rewH-&quot;, which seems consistent with Szemerényi's suggestion (PIE *uH developed to IE *ū). De Vaan gives the Proto-Italic form as *\*rowe/o-* (the same as for  *¹ruo,* apparently), and the PIE form as *(H)reuH-e/o-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the sources don't agree on all the details, it seems fairly clear that the reason for the (at least potential) length difference between the vowels in the PPPs of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo* is the laryngeal that comes after the w~u in the reconstructed ancestor of ²*ruo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Vowel length in words related to ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;Some weird things seem to happen with vowel length in related words or derivatives of these words. De Vaan's entry for ²*ruo* lists *rutus, -ūs, rutābulum, rutellum, rutrum, rūta caesa* (as well as some verbs) as derivatives, and says &quot;It seems that the derivatives of *ruō* 'to rush' and *ruō* 'to dig' have become mixed up: we find short-vowel forms meaning 'dig', in spite of the PIE root etymology *(H)ruH-&quot; (p. 531). Likewise, Szemerényi says in a footnote on p. 23 that &quot;*rutrum, rutābulum,* 'Schaufel', *rūta caesa* [...] belong with ²*ruo*&quot;. ([Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=rutrum) use a macron on the first syllable of *rutrum,* but I'm inclined to think that this is an example of the use of the macron to mark metrical weight.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. (*rūtrum* in L&amp;S). Because *rutrum* has a medial consonant cluster, it could scan in poetry as rut.rum with a heavy first syllable. That doesn't make the vowel in the first syllable long (despite the confusing old description of such vowels as &quot;long by position&quot;), but Lewis and Short seem to have considered syllable weight sufficient reason to mark a vowel with a macron, at least in certain contexts where the weight of the syllable would otherwise be somewhat non-obvious—e.g., as far as I know, L&amp;S don't use macrons like this on vowel letters before double consonant letters, but they do seem to use them on vowel letters before single consonant letters that scan long, like the *j* in *[mājor](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmajor)* (which is thought to have been pronounced [majjor] in Latin) and the *z* in *[trăpēzīta](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtrapezita)* (which comes from Greek *τραπεζίτης,* with epsilon; L&amp;S mention an alternative spelling with *tarpess-* which provides further support for the idea that it was the consonant rather than the vowel that was long in this word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi, Oswald. 1980. &quot;[Latin Verbs in uo, uere](https://books.google.com/books?id=1mVwAuuC8GoC&amp;pg=PA12&amp;lpg=PA12&amp;d#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&quot;. *Italic and Romance Linguistic Studies in Honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan, Michiel. 2008. *Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6455" RevisionGUID="551dd3e7-5b47-4805-9a0a-1b3655a6c0b5" CreationDate="2018-05-12T03:27:32.627" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 4178 characters in body" Text="Szemerényi (1980) says that the following &quot;descriptive rule&quot; summarizes the conjugation pattern for verbs ending in *-uo*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbs in *-uo* in general form their perfect in *-uī,* their PPP in *-ūtus* (even *tuor/tūtus* would conform to this rule!); a list would have to specify four exceptions: *ruo* has *rūtus,* but in the compounds  *-rŭtus*; two verbs which have a velar in the perfect (*fluxī, struxī*) show it in the PPP, too, as does *frūctus* from *fruor.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 11-12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a bit confused by the rule saying that the length of the vowel in *-rutus* depends on whether the word is a compound. The explanation actually seems to be that there are two different verbs that have *ruo* as the first principal part. Szemerényi refers to them as ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo.* For more details, see the section &quot;The two *ruo*s&quot; in [my answer to the related question &quot;Why is there a short ŭ in rŭtus?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6456/9)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;##Lists of verbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On p. 11, before giving the rule that I quoted earlier in this answer,  Szemerényi lists and categorizes the verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.1. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br&gt;(a) A small group has no forms for the PPP and in some cases not even for the perfect. Here belong:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    battuo      -ere     -uī     --&#xD;&#xA;    ¹cluo       -ere     --      --&#xD;&#xA;    ²cluo       -ere     --      --&#xD;&#xA;    (con)gruo   -ere     -uī     --&#xD;&#xA;    gruo        -ere     --      --   &#xD;&#xA;    pluit       -ere    -uit     --  &#xD;&#xA;    sternuo     -ere    -uit     --  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) The great majority – fifteen verbs – show *-uī* and *-ūtum* in these forms. They are: *acuo, arguo, futuo, imbuo, induo, (ē)luo, metuo, minuo, nuo, polluo,* ²*ruo, spuo, statuo, suo, tribuo.* We should perhaps add here *dēlibūtus,* and certainly also ²*luo* as shown by *solūtum* (see fn. 2).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(c) Two verbs deviate from this main type in that they show *-ŭtum.* One of them is attested in Classical times: ¹*ruo-rutum.* For the other, ¹*cluo,* the form *clutus* is indirectly attested by *inclutus* 'famous'.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(d) Two other verbs show in the perfect and the PPP a velar stem:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    fluo       -ere     fluxī      fluctum (later fluxus)&#xD;&#xA;    struo      -ere     struxī     structum.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; No doubt (see also 3.1 (8) further down) the same type is seen in &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    fruor      fruī     frūctus;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;the form *frūctus* was the norm in Classical times, *fruitus* is a later innovation, perhaps preceded by  *fruitūrus* (Cicero).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The same formation as in *fruitus* is seen in *tuitus,* which again seems later than *tūtus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is more discussion of the forms and their probable development in the paper. Unfortunately, I can't really summarize it (partly because it is very detailed, and partly because I haven't been able to read it through yet because I've only accessed it through Google Books).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But at the end, there is a categorization of the verbs according to etymology and a passage that seems to explain the long vowel in the ending *-ūtus* for many of the verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.2. On the strength of our findings in 3.1, we can group the twenty-nine verbs in *-uo* according to the original formations as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(a) thematic root-formations (*-ewō,* one instance *-owō*): ²*cluo,* ¹*luo, pluit,* ¹*ruo, struo*;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(b) thematized nasal-infix formation: *sternuo*;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(c) primary *-yo*: *induo (\*end-au-yō); fluo (\*bhleug-yō); fruor (\*bhrūg-yō-r);* ¹*gruo (\*grū-yō,* or *gruwō?);* ²*gruo (\*grū-yō,* or *gru-it?);* ²*luo (\*lū̆-yō); polluo (\*lŭ-yō,* or *\*lowō?);* ²*ruo (\*rū-yō); spuo (\*spyū-yō); suo (\*syū-yō);*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(d) denominative *-yo*: *acuo, arguo, futuo, metuo, minuo, statuo, tribuo* (all *-ŭyō* or *-ūyō?);*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(e) pairs of basic verb and intensive (cf. *σπένδω: spondeo; \*tendo, tondeo*): &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;*nuo : nueo (\*newō : \*noweyō)*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;*tuor : tueor (\*tewōr : \*toweyōr)*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;*?cluo : clueo (\*klewō : \*kloweyō?* but rather late innovation ¹*cluo* beside old *clueo*);&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(f): of obscure structure: *battuo, dēlibūtus, imbuo.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;a&gt;4. The PPP has, as we have seen (2.1), *-ūtus* in the denominatives. This is what we should expect in any case, seeing that before the suffix *-to* the stem-final vowel is lengthened even in purely adjectival forms; c.f. *aurītus, crīnītus, turrītus,* on the one hand, *argūtus, cinctūtus, cornūtus, versūtus, verūtus,* on the other, and, outside Italy, e.g., Greek *δακρῡτός* 'wept over, tearful'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 28)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi, Oswald. 1980. &quot;[Latin Verbs in uo, uere](https://books.google.com/books?id=1mVwAuuC8GoC&amp;pg=PA12&amp;lpg=PA12&amp;d#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&quot;. *Italic and Romance Linguistic Studies in Honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan, Michiel. 2008. *Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6456" RevisionGUID="75a60de5-2026-42ef-bb50-cb43e43f32e8" CreationDate="2018-05-12T03:31:41.070" UserId="9" Comment="added 262 characters in body" Text="Szemerényi (1980) says that the following &quot;descriptive rule&quot; summarizes the conjugation pattern for verbs ending in *-uo*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbs in *-uo* in general form their perfect in *-uī,* their PPP in *-ūtus* (even *tuor/tūtus* would conform to this rule!); a list would have to specify four exceptions: ***ruo* has *rūtus,* but in the compounds  *-rŭtus***; two verbs which have a velar in the perfect (*fluxī, struxī*) show it in the PPP, too, as does *frūctus* from *fruor.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 11-12) (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a bit confused by the rule saying that the length of the vowel in *-rutus* depends on whether the word is a compound. The explanation actually seems to be that there are two different verbs that have *ruo* as the first principal part. Szemerényi refers to them as ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo.* The form *rūtus* seems to occur primarily as the PPP of the ²*ruo,* which is thought to come from a PIE root ending in *\*w~u* followed by a laryngeal. In Indo-European languages, *u* (=syllabic *\*w*) followed by a laryngeal developed into the long vowel *ū.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Principal parts of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi gives different vowel lengths in the PPP for ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;¹*ruo -uī -ŭtum* 'rush, overthrow' (Palatus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;²*ruo -uī -ūtus* 'root, rake, scrape' (Lucretius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two corresponding entries for *ruo* in [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ruo#Latin) and in De Vaan (2008), but they give conflicting information about the perfect and supine forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For ¹*ruo*, Wiktionary says &quot;*perfect active* **ruī**, *supine* **rutum**&quot; (Wiktionary doesn't use breves in its Latin entries, so the lack of a macron is supposed to imply that the vowel is short). De Vaan also gives the perfect as *ruī,* but gives the PPP as *rū̆tum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For ²*ruo*, Wiktionary says &quot;*no perfect or supine forms*&quot;. De Vaan gives no perfect form, but gives the PPP as *rūtum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Etymology of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi says *¹ruo* is from IE *\*ereu-* (I don't understand the reason for the initial *\*e* in this reconstruction, but it seems irrelevant to the development of the vowel after the *\*r*)  which is also supposed to be the source of Sanskrit *r̥ṇōmi* and Greek *ὀρούω* (p. 23). Wiktionary says that the verb that Szemerényi calls *¹ruo* is from PIE *h₃rew-. For Italic specifically, Szemerényi gives the reconstruction *\*rewō,* and says &quot;The form of the Latin verb would then be due to the compounds&quot; (p. 24). I'm not sure what this means. De Vaan gives the Proto-Italic form as *\*rowe/o-,* and the PIE form as *h₃reu-e/o-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For ²*ruo*, after listing some cognates, Szemerényi suggests that it comes from IE &quot;*\*rūyō*&quot; (comparing the form to Old Church Slavonic *ryjo*). Wiktionary says that what  Szemerényi calls ²*ruo* is from &quot;*(H)rewH-&quot;, which seems consistent with Szemerényi's suggestion (PIE *uH developed to IE *ū). De Vaan gives the Proto-Italic form as *\*rowe/o-* (the same as for  *¹ruo,* apparently), and the PIE form as *(H)reuH-e/o-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the sources don't agree on all the details, it seems fairly clear that the reason for the (at least potential) length difference between the vowels in the PPPs of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo* is the laryngeal that comes after the w~u in the reconstructed ancestor of ²*ruo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Vowel length in words related to ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;Some weird things seem to happen with vowel length in related words or derivatives of these words. De Vaan's entry for ²*ruo* lists *rutus, -ūs, rutābulum, rutellum, rutrum, rūta caesa* (as well as some verbs) as derivatives, and says &quot;It seems that the derivatives of *ruō* 'to rush' and *ruō* 'to dig' have become mixed up: we find short-vowel forms meaning 'dig', in spite of the PIE root etymology *(H)ruH-&quot; (p. 531). Likewise, Szemerényi says in a footnote on p. 23 that &quot;*rutrum, rutābulum,* 'Schaufel', *rūta caesa* [...] belong with ²*ruo*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A (long) side note: [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=rutrum) use a macron on the first syllable of *rutrum,* but I'm inclined to think that this is an example of the use of the macron to mark metrical weight. Because *rutrum* has a medial consonant cluster, it could scan in poetry as rut.rum with a heavy first syllable. That doesn't make the vowel in the first syllable long (despite the confusing old description of such vowels as &quot;long by position&quot;), but Lewis and Short seem to have considered syllable weight sufficient reason to mark a vowel with a macron, at least in certain contexts where the weight of the syllable would otherwise be somewhat non-obvious—e.g., as far as I know, L&amp;S don't use macrons like this on vowel letters before double consonant letters, but they do seem to use them on vowel letters before single consonant letters that scan long, like the *j* in *[mājor](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmajor)* (which is thought to have been pronounced [majjor] in Latin) and the *z* in *[trăpēzīta](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtrapezita)* (which comes from Greek *τραπεζίτης,* with epsilon; L&amp;S mention an alternative spelling with *tarpess-* which provides further support for the idea that it was the consonant rather than the vowel that was long in this word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi, Oswald. 1980. &quot;[Latin Verbs in uo, uere](https://books.google.com/books?id=1mVwAuuC8GoC&amp;pg=PA12&amp;lpg=PA12&amp;d#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&quot;. *Italic and Romance Linguistic Studies in Honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan, Michiel. 2008. *Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6456" RevisionGUID="81ecfdd6-1b7a-43df-8c01-2a57303a5157" CreationDate="2018-05-12T03:51:23.203" UserId="9" Comment="added 621 characters in body" Text="Szemerényi (1980) says that the following &quot;descriptive rule&quot; summarizes the conjugation pattern for verbs ending in *-uo*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbs in *-uo* in general form their perfect in *-uī,* their PPP in *-ūtus* (even *tuor/tūtus* would conform to this rule!); a list would have to specify four exceptions: ***ruo* has *rūtus,* but in the compounds  *-rŭtus***; two verbs which have a velar in the perfect (*fluxī, struxī*) show it in the PPP, too, as does *frūctus* from *fruor.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 11-12) (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a bit confused by the rule saying that the length of the vowel in *-rutus* depends on whether the word is a compound. The explanation actually seems to be that there are two different verbs that have *ruo* as the first principal part. Szemerényi refers to them as ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo.* The form *rūtus* seems to occur primarily as the PPP of the ²*ruo,* which is thought to come from a PIE root ending in *\*w~u* followed by a laryngeal. In Indo-European languages, *u* (=syllabic *\*w*) followed by a laryngeal developed into the long vowel *ū.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the other *-uo* verbs with PPPs ending in *-ūtus* (*acuo, arguo, futuo, metuo, minuo, statuo, tribuo*) seem to be &quot;denominative&quot;, which somehow explains the length of the vowel. Szemerényi says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The PPP has, as we have seen (2.1), *-ūtus* in the denominatives. This is what we should expect in any case, seeing that before the suffix *-to* the stem-final vowel is lengthened even in purely adjectival forms; c.f. *aurītus, crīnītus, turrītus,* on the one hand, *argūtus, cinctūtus, cornūtus, versūtus, verūtus,* on the other, and, outside Italy, e.g., Greek *δακρῡτός* 'wept over, tearful'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 28)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Principal parts of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi gives different vowel lengths in the PPP for ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;¹*ruo -uī -ŭtum* 'rush, overthrow' (Palatus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;²*ruo -uī -ūtus* 'root, rake, scrape' (Lucretius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two corresponding entries for *ruo* in [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ruo#Latin) and in De Vaan (2008), but they give conflicting information about the perfect and supine forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For ¹*ruo*, Wiktionary says &quot;*perfect active* **ruī**, *supine* **rutum**&quot; (Wiktionary doesn't use breves in its Latin entries, so the lack of a macron is supposed to imply that the vowel is short). De Vaan also gives the perfect as *ruī,* but gives the PPP as *rū̆tum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For ²*ruo*, Wiktionary says &quot;*no perfect or supine forms*&quot;. De Vaan gives no perfect form, but gives the PPP as *rūtum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Etymology of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi says *¹ruo* is from IE *\*ereu-* (I don't understand the reason for the initial *\*e* in this reconstruction, but it seems irrelevant to the development of the vowel after the *\*r*)  which is also supposed to be the source of Sanskrit *r̥ṇōmi* and Greek *ὀρούω* (p. 23). Wiktionary says that the verb that Szemerényi calls *¹ruo* is from PIE *h₃rew-. For Italic specifically, Szemerényi gives the reconstruction *\*rewō,* and says &quot;The form of the Latin verb would then be due to the compounds&quot; (p. 24). I'm not sure what this means. De Vaan gives the Proto-Italic form as *\*rowe/o-,* and the PIE form as *h₃reu-e/o-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For ²*ruo*, after listing some cognates, Szemerényi suggests that it comes from IE &quot;*\*rūyō*&quot; (comparing the form to Old Church Slavonic *ryjo*). Wiktionary says that what  Szemerényi calls ²*ruo* is from &quot;*(H)rewH-&quot;, which seems consistent with Szemerényi's suggestion (PIE *uH developed to IE *ū). De Vaan gives the Proto-Italic form as *\*rowe/o-* (the same as for  *¹ruo,* apparently), and the PIE form as *(H)reuH-e/o-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the sources don't agree on all the details, it seems fairly clear that the reason for the (at least potential) length difference between the vowels in the PPPs of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo* is the laryngeal that comes after the w~u in the reconstructed ancestor of ²*ruo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Vowel length in words related to ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;Some weird things seem to happen with vowel length in related words or derivatives of these words. De Vaan's entry for ²*ruo* lists *rutus, -ūs, rutābulum, rutellum, rutrum, rūta caesa* (as well as some verbs) as derivatives, and says &quot;It seems that the derivatives of *ruō* 'to rush' and *ruō* 'to dig' have become mixed up: we find short-vowel forms meaning 'dig', in spite of the PIE root etymology *(H)ruH-&quot; (p. 531). Likewise, Szemerényi says in a footnote on p. 23 that &quot;*rutrum, rutābulum,* 'Schaufel', *rūta caesa* [...] belong with ²*ruo*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A (long) side note: [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=rutrum) use a macron on the first syllable of *rutrum,* but I'm inclined to think that this is an example of the use of the macron to mark metrical weight. Because *rutrum* has a medial consonant cluster, it could scan in poetry as rut.rum with a heavy first syllable. That doesn't make the vowel in the first syllable long (despite the confusing old description of such vowels as &quot;long by position&quot;), but Lewis and Short seem to have considered syllable weight sufficient reason to mark a vowel with a macron, at least in certain contexts where the weight of the syllable would otherwise be somewhat non-obvious—e.g., as far as I know, L&amp;S don't use macrons like this on vowel letters before double consonant letters, but they do seem to use them on vowel letters before single consonant letters that scan long, like the *j* in *[mājor](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmajor)* (which is thought to have been pronounced [majjor] in Latin) and the *z* in *[trăpēzīta](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtrapezita)* (which comes from Greek *τραπεζίτης,* with epsilon; L&amp;S mention an alternative spelling with *tarpess-* which provides further support for the idea that it was the consonant rather than the vowel that was long in this word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi, Oswald. 1980. &quot;[Latin Verbs in uo, uere](https://books.google.com/books?id=1mVwAuuC8GoC&amp;pg=PA12&amp;lpg=PA12&amp;d#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&quot;. *Italic and Romance Linguistic Studies in Honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan, Michiel. 2008. *Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6457" RevisionGUID="ad1f02c6-d31e-438a-8916-e55f33ee9c8a" CreationDate="2018-05-12T03:51:28.347" UserId="1407" Text="I'd propose some form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [mechanisma][1] (in the sense of &quot;mechanism&quot;) &#xD;&#xA;- [mechanicus][2] (in the sense of &quot;belonging to mechanics&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- [mechanema][3] (in the sense of &quot;a trick&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third form seems most apt, as mathematics can be understood to constitute &quot;tricks to doing things&quot; (not restricted to [machination][4] in the pejorative, but as &quot;noun of action from past participle stem of *machinari* 'contrive skillfully, to design; to scheme, to plot,'--one can plot the course of a celestial body.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why the *mech-* root?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Aristotle's [Μηχανικά][5] (pre-calculus, but the ball is rolling, as they say;)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;See: *[Mechanical Problems][6]*, Aristotle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Machines can absolutely be regarded as [algorithms][7]--think not of the physical machine but of the plans that dictate it's construction and function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: [Euclid's Algorithm][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Mechanica][9], Leohnard Euler (aka *e*;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Derivation, Latin: *Mechanica Sive Motus Scientia Analytice Exposita*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “For a long time in the past, a discourse on mechanics involved two possible different meanings, and indeed at that time two sciences were called by that name : on the one hand as an account of the principles, or wholly as an account of the interactions of different materials between each other, [as in simple machines and structures]. Indeed the name mechanics is usually applied to that science which deals with the equilibrium of forces, and comparisons between them, rather than to these circumstance in which the nature of the motion, its generation and changes, can also be explained. Although indeed, in these more recent discussions too on the general principles, forces especially are to be considered, since it is from these that motion can be both generated and changed ; yet there is much disagreement in the early science, on account of their derivations. Therefore it is best to avoid all the ambiguity that arises from the comparison and equilibrium of forces, which is to be called Statics here, and truly the name Mechanics alone remains for that science of motion, and for which it is understood that these names are always to be applied.” &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;EULER'S *MECHANICA* VOL. 1. Preface. ([English][10]) ([Latin][11])&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Euler predates computers, but, then again, so does [minimax][15], *(at least in the pre-[ENIAC][16] sense.)*  See: [Computers (pre-20th century)][17], and note their mechanical nature in the physical sense, and; [difference engine][18] in the sense of [Babbage][19].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternately, you could look to [Leibniz][20] and his *[Nova **Methodus** pro Maximis et Minimis][21]*.  Leibniz' work on binary arithmetic is credited to be at the foundation of digital computing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[methodus][22] &quot;a way of teaching, mode of proceeding, method (post-class.)&quot; &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;[μέθοδος][23] &quot;mode of prosecuting [the pursuit of knowledge], method, system&quot;; &quot;the doctrine of motion, [Pl.Tht.183c.][24]&quot;; &quot;mode of treating the subject-matter&quot;; &quot;stratagem&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you could use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Medieval Latin *algorismus* (a mangled transliteration of Arabic al-Khwarizmi &quot;native of Khwarazm&quot;;)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[Algorithm][12], Online Etymological Dictionary&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: [Algorism][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As important as al-Khwārizmī ([محمد بن موسى خوارزمی][14]) is, I would nevertheless go the Euler direction, because *algorismus* refers to a surname, where *mechanica* refers to a mathematical concept and the usage predates Caesar. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmechanisma&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmechanicus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmechanema&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.etymonline.com/word/machination&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dmhxa%2Fnhma&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Aristotle/Mechanica*.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_algorithm&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanica&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.17centurymaths.com/contents/euler/mechvol1/preface.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://eulerarchive.maa.org/docs/originals/E015intro.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://www.etymonline.com/word/algorithm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorism&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Musa_al-Khwarizmi&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax_theorem&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer#Pre-20th_century&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_engine&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_Methodus_pro_Maximis_et_Minimis&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmethodus&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=me%2Fqodos&amp;la=greek&amp;can=me%2Fqodos0&amp;prior=m%C4%95th%C5%8Fdos&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=methodus&amp;i=1#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0171%3Atext%3DTheaet.%3Asection%3D183c" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6455" RevisionGUID="37cec82b-c64c-419b-b6c3-d64bae654127" CreationDate="2018-05-12T04:40:50.490" UserId="9" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Szemerényi (1980) says that the following &quot;descriptive rule&quot; summarizes the conjugation pattern for verbs ending in *-uo*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbs in *-uo* in general form their perfect in *-uī,* their PPP in *-ūtus* (even *tuor/tūtus* would conform to this rule!); a list would have to specify four exceptions: *ruo* has *rūtus,* but in the compounds  *-rŭtus*; two verbs which have a velar in the perfect (*fluxī, struxī*) show it in the PPP, too, as does *frūctus* from *fruor.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 11-12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a bit confused by the rule saying that the length of the vowel in *-rutus* depends on whether the word is a compound. The explanation actually seems to be that there are two different verbs that have *ruo* as the first principal part. Szemerényi refers to them as ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo.* For more details, see the section &quot;The two *ruo*s&quot; in [my answer to the related question &quot;Why is there a short ŭ in rŭtus?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6456/9)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;##Lists of verbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On p. 11, before giving the rule that I quoted earlier in this answer,  Szemerényi lists and categorizes the verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.1. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br&gt;(a) A small group has no forms for the PPP and in some cases not even for the perfect. Here belong:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    battuo      -ere     -uī     --&#xD;&#xA;    ¹cluo       -ere     --      --&#xD;&#xA;    ²cluo       -ere     --      --&#xD;&#xA;    (con)gruo   -ere     -uī     --&#xD;&#xA;    gruo        -ere     --      --   &#xD;&#xA;    pluit       -ere    -uit     --  &#xD;&#xA;    sternuo     -ere    -uit     --  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) The great majority – fifteen verbs – show *-uī* and *-ūtum* in these forms. They are: *acuo, arguo, futuo, imbuo, induo, (ē)luo, metuo, minuo, nuo, polluo,* ²*ruo, spuo, statuo, suo, tribuo.* We should perhaps add here *dēlibūtus,* and certainly also ²*luo* as shown by *solūtum* (see fn. 2).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(c) Two verbs deviate from this main type in that they show *-ŭtum.* One of them is attested in Classical times: ¹*ruo-rutum.* For the other, ¹*cluo,* the form *clutus* is indirectly attested by *inclutus* 'famous'.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(d) Two other verbs show in the perfect and the PPP a velar stem:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    fluo       -ere     fluxī      fluctum (later fluxus)&#xD;&#xA;    struo      -ere     struxī     structum.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; No doubt (see also 3.1 (8) further down) the same type is seen in &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    fruor      fruī     frūctus;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;the form *frūctus* was the norm in Classical times, *fruitus* is a later innovation, perhaps preceded by  *fruitūrus* (Cicero).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The same formation as in *fruitus* is seen in *tuitus,* which again seems later than *tūtus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is more discussion of the forms and their probable development in the paper. Unfortunately, I can't really summarize it (partly because it is very detailed, and partly because I haven't been able to read it through yet because I've only accessed it through Google Books).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But at the end, there is a categorization of the verbs according to etymology and a passage that seems to explain the long vowel in the ending *-ūtus* for many of the verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.2. On the strength of our findings in 3.1, we can group the twenty-nine verbs in *-uo* according to the original formations as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(a) thematic root-formations (*-ewō,* one instance *-owō*): ²*cluo,* ¹*luo, pluit,* ¹*ruo, struo*;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(b) thematized nasal-infix formation: *sternuo*;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(c) primary *-yo*: *induo (\*end-au-yō); fluo (\*bhleug-yō); fruor (\*bhrūg-yō-r);* ¹*gruo (\*grū-yō,* or *gruwō?);* ²*gruo (\*grū-yō,* or *gru-it?);* ²*luo (\*lū̆-yō); polluo (*\*³*lŭ-yō,* or *\*lowō?);* ²*ruo (\*rū-yō); spuo (\*spyū-yō); suo (\*syū-yō);*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(d) denominative *-yo*: *acuo, arguo, futuo, metuo, minuo, statuo, tribuo* (all *-ŭyō* or *-ūyō?);*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(e) pairs of basic verb and intensive (cf. *σπένδω: spondeo; \*tendo, tondeo*): &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;*nuo : nueo (\*newō : \*noweyō)*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;*tuor : tueor (\*tewōr : \*toweyōr)*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;*?cluo : clueo (\*klewō : \*kloweyō?* but rather late innovation ¹*cluo* beside old *clueo*);&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(f): of obscure structure: *battuo, dēlibūtus, imbuo.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;a&gt;4. The PPP has, as we have seen (2.1), *-ūtus* in the denominatives. This is what we should expect in any case, seeing that before the suffix *-to* the stem-final vowel is lengthened even in purely adjectival forms; c.f. *aurītus, crīnītus, turrītus,* on the one hand, *argūtus, cinctūtus, cornūtus, versūtus, verūtus,* on the other, and, outside Italy, e.g., Greek *δακρῡτός* 'wept over, tearful'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 28)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi, Oswald. 1980. &quot;[Latin Verbs in uo, uere](https://books.google.com/books?id=1mVwAuuC8GoC&amp;pg=PA12&amp;lpg=PA12&amp;d#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&quot;. *Italic and Romance Linguistic Studies in Honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan, Michiel. 2008. *Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6456" RevisionGUID="e506b105-c9ac-412b-aa70-5dca4cb507b4" CreationDate="2018-05-12T05:04:57.340" UserId="9" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Szemerényi (1980) says that the following &quot;descriptive rule&quot; summarizes the conjugation pattern for verbs ending in *-uo*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbs in *-uo* in general form their perfect in *-uī,* their PPP in *-ūtus* (even *tuor/tūtus* would conform to this rule!); a list would have to specify four exceptions: ***ruo* has *rūtus,* but in the compounds  *-rŭtus***; two verbs which have a velar in the perfect (*fluxī, struxī*) show it in the PPP, too, as does *frūctus* from *fruor.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 11-12) (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a bit confused by the rule saying that the length of the vowel in *-rutus* depends on whether the word is a compound. The explanation actually seems to be that there are two different verbs that have *ruo* as the first principal part. Szemerényi refers to them as ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo.* The form *rūtus* seems to occur primarily as the PPP of the ²*ruo,* which is thought to come from a PIE root ending in *\*w~u* followed by a laryngeal. In Indo-European languages, *u* (=syllabic *\*w*) followed by a laryngeal developed into the long vowel *ū.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the other *-uo* verbs with PPPs ending in *-ūtus* (*acuo, arguo, futuo, metuo, minuo, statuo, tribuo*) seem to be &quot;denominative&quot;, which somehow explains the length of the vowel. Szemerényi says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The PPP has, as we have seen (2.1), *-ūtus* in the denominatives. This is what we should expect in any case, seeing that before the suffix *-to* the stem-final vowel is lengthened even in purely adjectival forms; c.f. *aurītus, crīnītus, turrītus,* on the one hand, *argūtus, cinctūtus, cornūtus, versūtus, verūtus,* on the other, and, outside Italy, e.g., Greek *δακρῡτός* 'wept over, tearful'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 28)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Principal parts of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi gives different vowel lengths in the PPP for ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;¹*ruo -uī -ŭtum* 'rush, overthrow' (Palatus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;²*ruo -uī -ūtus* 'root, rake, scrape' (Lucretius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two corresponding entries for *ruo* in [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ruo#Latin) and in De Vaan (2008), but they give conflicting information about the perfect and supine forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For ¹*ruo*, Wiktionary says &quot;*perfect active* **ruī**, *supine* **rutum**&quot; (Wiktionary doesn't use breves in its Latin entries, so the lack of a macron is supposed to imply that the vowel is short). De Vaan also gives the perfect as *ruī,* but gives the PPP as *rū̆tum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For ²*ruo*, Wiktionary says &quot;*no perfect or supine forms*&quot;. De Vaan gives no perfect form, but gives the PPP as *rūtum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Etymology of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi says *¹ruo* is from IE *\*ereu-* (I don't understand the reason for the initial *\*e* in this reconstruction, but it seems irrelevant to the development of the vowel after the *\*r*)  which is also supposed to be the source of Sanskrit *r̥ṇōmi* and Greek *ὀρούω* (p. 23). Wiktionary says that the verb that Szemerényi calls *¹ruo* is from PIE *h₃rew-. For Italic specifically, Szemerényi gives the reconstruction *\*rewō,* and says &quot;The form of the Latin verb would then be due to the compounds&quot; (p. 24). I'm not sure what this means. De Vaan gives the Proto-Italic form as *\*rowe/o-,* and the PIE form as *h₃reu-e/o-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For ²*ruo*, after listing some cognates, Szemerényi suggests that it comes from IE &quot;*\*rūyō*&quot; (comparing the form to Old Church Slavonic *ryjo*). Wiktionary says that what  Szemerényi calls ²*ruo* is from &quot;*(H)rewH-&quot;, which seems consistent with Szemerényi's suggestion (PIE *uH developed to IE *ū). De Vaan gives the Proto-Italic form as *\*rowe/o-* (the same as for  *¹ruo,* apparently), and the PIE form as *(H)reuH-e/o-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the sources don't agree on all the details, it seems fairly clear that the reason for the (at least potential) length difference between the vowels in the PPPs of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo* is the laryngeal that comes after the w~u in the reconstructed ancestor of ²*ruo* in PIE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Vowel length in words related to ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;Some weird things seem to happen with vowel length in related words or derivatives of these words. De Vaan's entry for ²*ruo* lists *rutus, -ūs, rutābulum, rutellum, rutrum, rūta caesa* (as well as some verbs) as derivatives, and says &quot;It seems that the derivatives of *ruō* 'to rush' and *ruō* 'to dig' have become mixed up: we find short-vowel forms meaning 'dig', in spite of the PIE root etymology *(H)ruH-&quot; (p. 531). Likewise, Szemerényi says in a footnote on p. 23 that &quot;*rutrum, rutābulum,* 'Schaufel', *rūta caesa* [...] belong with ²*ruo*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A (long) side note: [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=rutrum) use a macron on the first syllable of *rutrum,* but I'm inclined to think that this is an example of the use of the macron to mark metrical weight. Because *rutrum* has a medial consonant cluster, it could scan in poetry as rut.rum with a heavy first syllable. That doesn't make the vowel in the first syllable long (despite the confusing old description of such vowels as &quot;long by position&quot;), but Lewis and Short seem to have considered syllable weight sufficient reason to mark a vowel with a macron, at least in certain contexts where the weight of the syllable would otherwise be somewhat non-obvious—e.g., as far as I know, L&amp;S don't use macrons like this on vowel letters before double consonant letters, but they do seem to use them on vowel letters before single consonant letters that scan long, like the *j* in *[mājor](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmajor)* (which is thought to have been pronounced [majjor] in Latin) and the *z* in *[trăpēzīta](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtrapezita)* (which comes from Greek *τραπεζίτης,* with epsilon; L&amp;S mention an alternative spelling with *tarpess-* which provides further support for the idea that it was the consonant rather than the vowel that was long in this word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi, Oswald. 1980. &quot;[Latin Verbs in uo, uere](https://books.google.com/books?id=1mVwAuuC8GoC&amp;pg=PA12&amp;lpg=PA12&amp;d#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&quot;. *Italic and Romance Linguistic Studies in Honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan, Michiel. 2008. *Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17" RevisionGUID="30fc0be7-74e4-45c0-a360-29bc4473fa6c" CreationDate="2018-05-12T05:14:48.990" UserId="9" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="In most modern texts, the whole purpose of using macrons is to clearly indicate pronunciation, so they're usually pretty straightforward. (Macrons were not used classically, although there were some older devices used for indicating vowel length such as the [apex][1] and &quot;i longa&quot;, a taller I.) However, it's true that they can indicate several aspects of pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contrastive Vowel Quantity (i.e. Length)&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A macron usually indicates that the modified vowel is long. Literally, that is: it's held for a more extended period of time than a regular, short vowel. Vowel length was what is called phonemic in Classical Latin, which means that there were pairs of words for which the only difference in pronunciation was the length of some vowel: for example, *liber* &quot;book&quot; vs. *līber* &quot;free.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that at one point, duration may have been the only difference between long and short vowels. In the International Phonetic Alphabet, we transcribe vowel length with a triangular colon ː after the vowel; so we could say that the early Classical Latin pronunciation of the vowels we spell *a ā e ē i ī o ō u ū* would be /a aː e eː i iː o oː u uː/. We don't know for sure the precise phonetic quality of these vowels. Andrea Calabrese has proposed that they were [ɑ ɑː ɛ ɛː i iː ɔ ɔː u uː] ([*On the Evolution of the Short High Vowels of Latin into Romance*][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowel Quality&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is known is that at some point during Classical Latin or between Classical and Vulgar Latin, the corresponding long and short vowels also became distinguished in quality. (Calabrese mentions Allen and Sturtevant as linguists who reconstruct these quality distinctions back to the Classical Latin stage.) The non-low vowels (all but a aː) clearly show distinct qualities for short vs. long in some of the Romance languages descended from Vulgar Latin, which causes us to reconstruct something like [a aː ɛ eː ɪ iː ɔ oː ʊ uː]. I believe I've read some accounts that also reconstruct a difference in quality for short a and long a along the lines of [ɐ aː], but I don't know what evidence this is based on. Short unstressed i between a consonant and a vowel (which in Romance often developed to some kind of glide, or palatalized the preceding consonant and was lost entirely) may have had a slightly different quality more like [i] or [ij], at least for some speakers or some of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Vulgar Latin is also believed to have had long [ɛː], but as the realization of *ae* rather than of *ē.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Metrical Weight (which is not the same as real vowel quantity)&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that sometimes when dealing with poetry or old dictionaries, you might see macrons used (or misused) just to mark heavy syllables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, a syllable is &quot;heavy&quot; if it has a long vowel, or ends in a consonant, or both. Heavy syllables are relevant to rules of word stress and poetic scansion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Syllables that end in a consonant can have either long or short vowels; in either case they are heavy because they end with a consonant. There is a confusing old tradition of referrring to the vowels in such syllables as being &quot;long by position&quot;, but they aren't necessarily actual long vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the vowel in such syllables has a &quot;[hidden quantity][3],&quot; so be careful in situations like this and try to check several sources that distinguish between short and long in closed syllables to see if they agree on the length of the vowel. We cannot reconstruct vowel length here based on metrical evidence, but we sometimes can based on inscriptions that use the apex, vowel quality in descended Romance words, or descriptions of ancient grammarians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's usually fairly obvious if a syllable ends in a consonant in Latin, but there are a few tricky cases where a single letter may represent a double consonant (which is always divided between two syllables for metrical purposes). In particular, the consonants *j* and *z* are not written double, but generally represent double consonants in Latin, so a vowel preceding either of these will have hidden quantity (and might be written with a macron even if the vowel is short, to indicate that the syllable is heavy). I actually just found an apparent example of this in a recent question (https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/14/when-is-an-i-not-an-i): apparently the word most dictionaries write as *māiŏr* was, according to the linguist W. Sidney Allen, actually pronounced as /majjor/ with *short* &quot;a,&quot; but a long /jj/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also some cases where it seems word-final consonants in Latin were pronounced long, and you may see this written as a macron on the preceding vowel. According to *[The Latin Language: A Historical Outline of Its Sounds, Inflections, and Syntax][4],* by Charles Edwin Bennett (1907), a long final consonant may have occurred in some words where original *-s* was assimilated to a preceding *s, l,* or *r* (as in [*far, farris*][5], possibly pronounced /farr, farris/). Another word that is believed to have had a long final consonant is *hoc* (sometimes written *hōc*) which Bennett says was pronounced /hokk/ and not /hoːk/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Automatic (but real) Quantity&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another related point of pronunciation: macrons are generally always used on vowels that occur in the combinations Vnf and Vns (where &quot;V&quot; stands for any vowel). Although this means there is no contrast here between short and long, it does appear that these vowels were phonetically long (*[The Latin Language: A Historical Outline of Its Sounds, Inflections, and Syntax][6],* by Charles Edwin Bennett). In languages descended from Latin, the consonantal /n/ sound was actually regularly dropped from Vns clusters (example: Italian *[isola][7]* &lt; Latin *īnsula*). However, when &quot;ns&quot; occurred due to a prefix ending in &quot;n&quot; coming before a stem starting with &quot;s&quot;, analogical retention or restoration of /n/ in Romance languages is common. And since pretty much all instances of &quot;nf&quot; in Latin are due to prefixation, I don't actually know of any word in a Romance language that has denasalized a Latin &quot;nf&quot; cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't remember if there is any consensus on if a nasal consonant was phonetically present in these sequences in Latin. In any case, it is believed that in classical times the preceding vowel in such words was pronounced with nasalization, so sequences like *īnf* would still have contrasted with sequences like *īf* in Classical Latin even if the consonant /n/ was already elided: it would be [ı̃ːf] vs. [iːf]. (If a nasal consonant was present, it was likely assimilated to the [labiodental][8] articulation of the following /f/, giving the pronunciation [ı̃ːɱf].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect evidence for other pronunciation features&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, a macron doesn't affect the pronunciation of any other sound directly. But knowing that a vowel is long may help you apply the regular Latin stress rule, whereby a word is stressed on the second-to-last syllable if it is heavy (contains a long vowel or diphthong or ends in a consonant) and on the third-to-last if the the second-to-last is light (contains a short vowel and doesn't end with a consonant). In addition, as jwodder pointed out in a [comment][9], a macron on either vowel in a sequence like *ae, oe, au, eu* tells you that the two vowels are pronounced separately rather than as a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_(diacritic)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=o9wpGIF0JWcC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA63&amp;dq=%22Latin%22%20vowel%20quality%20e%20o%20advanced%20tongue%20root&amp;ots=ND1tWjhtE5&amp;sig=SwcVUHalU_QmM6ZMBER2nw7Fzxg#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zJEQAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA34&amp;lpg=PA34&amp;dq=hidden%20quantity&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GOCpxL3sp7&amp;sig=GOCXZHN762CFUSUgqlIJYRkw7hY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi-nrOlx47LAhVCkYMKHekGDTIQ6AEIMDAD#v=onepage&amp;q=hidden%20quantity&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=N1RfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA118&amp;lpg=PA118&amp;dq=latin%20rhotacism%20farr&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zJZyIcVRGn&amp;sig=18BkOGKVlju5YnjaxJJd189tbMs&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjMvMePlrrMAhWHloMKHSeQB_IQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20rhotacism%20farr&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/810/9&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=N1RfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA40&amp;lpg=PA40&amp;dq=Latin%20quantity%20before%20ns&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zJYCJcYXCm&amp;sig=_2DOx92MQseKIE_fkhkVLjmDltY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjTudCVyI7LAhWrtIMKHc4pDzYQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20quantity%20before%20ns&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/isola#Italian&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labiodental_nasal&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5/what-effect-should-a-macron-have-on-the-sound-of-a-letter-and-its-word#comment15_5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6456" RevisionGUID="4f5cf5b3-49bd-4f24-af13-8964da278d03" CreationDate="2018-05-12T08:25:21.897" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Szemerényi (1980) says that the following &quot;descriptive rule&quot; summarizes the conjugation pattern for verbs ending in *-uo*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbs in *-uo* in general form their perfect in *-uī,* their PPP in *-ūtus* (even *tuor/tūtus* would conform to this rule!); a list would have to specify four exceptions: ***ruo* has *rūtus,* but in the compounds  *-rŭtus***; two verbs which have a velar in the perfect (*fluxī, struxī*) show it in the PPP, too, as does *frūctus* from *fruor.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 11-12) (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a bit confused by the rule saying that the length of the vowel in *-rutus* depends on whether the word is a compound. The explanation actually seems to be that there are two different verbs that have *ruo* as the first principal part. Szemerényi refers to them as ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo.* The form *rūtus* seems to occur primarily as the PPP of ²*ruo,* which is thought to come from a PIE root ending in *\*w~u* followed by a laryngeal. In Indo-European languages, *u* (=syllabic *\*w*) followed by a laryngeal developed into the long vowel *ū.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the other *-uo* verbs with PPPs ending in *-ūtus* (*acuo, arguo, futuo, metuo, minuo, statuo, tribuo*) seem to be &quot;denominative&quot;, which somehow explains the length of the vowel. Szemerényi says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The PPP has, as we have seen (2.1), *-ūtus* in the denominatives. This is what we should expect in any case, seeing that before the suffix *-to* the stem-final vowel is lengthened even in purely adjectival forms; c.f. *aurītus, crīnītus, turrītus,* on the one hand, *argūtus, cinctūtus, cornūtus, versūtus, verūtus,* on the other, and, outside Italy, e.g., Greek *δακρῡτός* 'wept over, tearful'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 28)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Principal parts of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi gives different vowel lengths in the PPP for ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;¹*ruo -uī -ŭtum* 'rush, overthrow' (Palatus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;²*ruo -uī -ūtus* 'root, rake, scrape' (Lucretius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two corresponding entries for *ruo* in [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ruo#Latin) and in De Vaan (2008), but they give conflicting information about the perfect and supine forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For ¹*ruo*, Wiktionary says &quot;*perfect active* **ruī**, *supine* **rutum**&quot; (Wiktionary doesn't use breves in its Latin entries, so the lack of a macron is supposed to imply that the vowel is short). De Vaan also gives the perfect as *ruī,* but gives the PPP as *rū̆tum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For ²*ruo*, Wiktionary says &quot;*no perfect or supine forms*&quot;. De Vaan gives no perfect form, but gives the PPP as *rūtum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Etymology of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi says *¹ruo* is from IE *\*ereu-* (I don't understand the reason for the initial *\*e* in this reconstruction, but it seems irrelevant to the development of the vowel after the *\*r*)  which is also supposed to be the source of Sanskrit *r̥ṇōmi* and Greek *ὀρούω* (p. 23). Wiktionary says that the verb that Szemerényi calls *¹ruo* is from PIE *h₃rew-. For Italic specifically, Szemerényi gives the reconstruction *\*rewō,* and says &quot;The form of the Latin verb would then be due to the compounds&quot; (p. 24). I'm not sure what this means. De Vaan gives the Proto-Italic form as *\*rowe/o-,* and the PIE form as *h₃reu-e/o-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For ²*ruo*, after listing some cognates, Szemerényi suggests that it comes from IE &quot;*\*rūyō*&quot; (comparing the form to Old Church Slavonic *ryjo*). Wiktionary says that what  Szemerényi calls ²*ruo* is from &quot;*(H)rewH-&quot;, which seems consistent with Szemerényi's suggestion (PIE *uH developed to IE *ū). De Vaan gives the Proto-Italic form as *\*rowe/o-* (the same as for  *¹ruo,* apparently), and the PIE form as *(H)reuH-e/o-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the sources don't agree on all the details, it seems fairly clear that the reason for the (at least potential) length difference between the vowels in the PPPs of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo* is the laryngeal that comes after the w~u in the reconstructed ancestor of ²*ruo* in PIE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Vowel length in words related to ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;Some weird things seem to happen with vowel length in related words or derivatives of these words. De Vaan's entry for ²*ruo* lists *rutus, -ūs, rutābulum, rutellum, rutrum, rūta caesa* (as well as some verbs) as derivatives, and says &quot;It seems that the derivatives of *ruō* 'to rush' and *ruō* 'to dig' have become mixed up: we find short-vowel forms meaning 'dig', in spite of the PIE root etymology *(H)ruH-&quot; (p. 531). Likewise, Szemerényi says in a footnote on p. 23 that &quot;*rutrum, rutābulum,* 'Schaufel', *rūta caesa* [...] belong with ²*ruo*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A (long) side note: [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=rutrum) use a macron on the first syllable of *rutrum,* but I'm inclined to think that this is an example of the use of the macron to mark metrical weight. Because *rutrum* has a medial consonant cluster, it could scan in poetry as rut.rum with a heavy first syllable. That doesn't make the vowel in the first syllable long (despite the confusing old description of such vowels as &quot;long by position&quot;), but Lewis and Short seem to have considered syllable weight sufficient reason to mark a vowel with a macron, at least in certain contexts where the weight of the syllable would otherwise be somewhat non-obvious—e.g., as far as I know, L&amp;S don't use macrons like this on vowel letters before double consonant letters, but they do seem to use them on vowel letters before single consonant letters that scan long, like the *j* in *[mājor](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmajor)* (which is thought to have been pronounced [majjor] in Latin) and the *z* in *[trăpēzīta](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtrapezita)* (which comes from Greek *τραπεζίτης,* with epsilon; L&amp;S mention an alternative spelling with *tarpess-* which provides further support for the idea that it was the consonant rather than the vowel that was long in this word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi, Oswald. 1980. &quot;[Latin Verbs in uo, uere](https://books.google.com/books?id=1mVwAuuC8GoC&amp;pg=PA12&amp;lpg=PA12&amp;d#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&quot;. *Italic and Romance Linguistic Studies in Honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan, Michiel. 2008. *Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6458" RevisionGUID="49d4a3fa-9725-44d0-9a42-e5b46cef4a72" CreationDate="2018-05-12T09:58:05.600" UserId="2129" Text="I would like to check translation of a motto that would read &quot;[we] persevere in endeavours/resolve&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider using either ***persto*** or ***persevero***. The latter seems better to me as it resonates with Modern English &quot;to persevere&quot;. What are the lexical differences between these two words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm completely zero in Latin grammar, but as far as I understand I should use ablative case here. So I came up with the following options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perseverantia in conatibus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Conatibus perseverantia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perseveramus in conatibus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Conatibus perseveramus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perseverantes in conatibus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Conatibus perseverantes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these grammatically correct? Maybe there are any better variants? Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21378" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6458" RevisionGUID="49d4a3fa-9725-44d0-9a42-e5b46cef4a72" CreationDate="2018-05-12T09:58:05.600" UserId="2129" Text="&quot;Persevere in endeavours&quot; motto for coat of arms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21379" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6458" RevisionGUID="49d4a3fa-9725-44d0-9a42-e5b46cef4a72" CreationDate="2018-05-12T09:58:05.600" UserId="2129" Text="|translation-check|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6458" RevisionGUID="52b4d69b-256d-4c4d-9415-50aef8123e22" CreationDate="2018-05-12T10:12:18.613" UserId="2129" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="I would like to check translation of a motto that would read &quot;[we] persevere in endeavours/resolve&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider using either ***persto*** or ***persevero***. The latter seems better to me as it resonates with Modern English &quot;to persevere&quot;. What are the lexical differences between these two words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm completely zero in Latin grammar, but as far as I understand I should use ablative case here. So I came up with the following options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perseverantia in conatibus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Conatibus perseverantia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perseverantia conatibum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perseveramus in conatibus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Conatibus perseveramus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perseverantes in conatibus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Conatibus perseverantes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these grammatically correct? Maybe there are any better variants? Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6459" RevisionGUID="41b3ad5f-f16d-466a-be65-f8d59f72af08" CreationDate="2018-05-12T12:54:34.163" UserId="79" Text="What is the origin of the infinitive *fieri*?&#xD;&#xA;It is unusual in many respects.&#xD;&#xA;The stem seems to be *fi-* and the infinitive ending *-eri* is only found in the second conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;However, the second conjugation has a long *e* and *fieri* seems to follow the third rather than the second conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best explanation I can think of is that it was originally *fiere*.&#xD;&#xA;The present stem conjugation of *fieri* is morphologically active (although semantically passive if you see it as passive of *facere*), so the active infinitive ending *-ere* would make sense.&#xD;&#xA;If the form was later passivized, one would expect *fii* or perhaps even *fi* according to the third conjugation, but by analogy to conjugations 1, 2, and 4 the change *-re &gt; -ri* makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;This is only a guess on my part, as convincing analogies are hard to find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what do we know about the origin of the infinitive *fieri*?&#xD;&#xA;Are there any attested alternative or earlier forms of the infinitive *fieri* that could shed light on its history?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21382" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6459" RevisionGUID="41b3ad5f-f16d-466a-be65-f8d59f72af08" CreationDate="2018-05-12T12:54:34.163" UserId="79" Text="Where does the infinitive 'fieri' come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21383" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6459" RevisionGUID="41b3ad5f-f16d-466a-be65-f8d59f72af08" CreationDate="2018-05-12T12:54:34.163" UserId="79" Text="|morphology|conjugation|irregular-words|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6454" RevisionGUID="963cc8bd-8edd-4818-871d-643382c882b0" CreationDate="2018-05-12T16:00:01.383" UserId="406" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="This pattern seems to go all the way back to Proto-Indo-European.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Sumelic pointed out in a comment, we actually see this same alternation in English: when~then, what~that, where~there, and so on. This wh~th alternation comes from older Germanic \*hʷ~\*þ(*), which comes from PIE \*kʷ~\*t by Grimm's Law (which weakened stops into fricatives at the beginning of words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) þ (&quot;thorn&quot;) was probably pronounced like English &quot;th&quot; in &quot;thin&quot;, IPA /θ/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like the former ones come from PIE *_kʷi-_/_kʷe-_/_kʷo-_, the interrogative-indefinite pronoun (surviving as *quis* in Latin and *tís* in Ancient Greek); the latter ones come from PIE *_to-_, the neuter demonstrative pronoun (which only survived with suffixes in Latin, but in Greek became the definite article *tó*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Various suffixes were added to derive specific meanings, like &quot;which time&quot; or &quot;which quantity&quot;, and the forms with these suffixes turned into the *qu-*~*t-* pairs. It's not always clear what these suffixes *were*; for example, the second half of *quālis*~*tālis* can only be guessed at. But the roots themselves seem clear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6454" RevisionGUID="9085a0f1-7880-4e76-8b2d-4f13c9bc2f72" CreationDate="2018-05-12T16:08:19.630" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="This pattern seems to go all the way back to Proto-Indo-European.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Sumelic pointed out in a comment, we actually see this same alternation in English: when~then, what~that, where~there, and so on. This wh~th alternation comes from older Germanic \*hʷ~\*þ(*), which comes from PIE \*kʷ~\*t by Grimm's Law (which weakened stops into fricatives at the beginning of words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) þ (&quot;thorn&quot;) was probably pronounced like English &quot;th&quot; in &quot;thin&quot;, IPA /θ/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like the former ones come from PIE *_kʷi-_/_kʷe-_/_kʷo-_, the interrogative-indefinite pronoun (surviving as *quis* in Latin and *tís* in Ancient Greek); the latter ones come from PIE *_to-_, the neuter demonstrative pronoun (the second half of *iste* in Latin, the definite article *tó* in Greek).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Various suffixes were added to derive specific meanings, like &quot;which time&quot; or &quot;which quantity&quot;, and the forms with these suffixes turned into the *qu-*~*t-* pairs. It's not always clear what these suffixes *were*; for example, the second half of *quālis*~*tālis* can only be guessed at. But the roots themselves seem clear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6460" RevisionGUID="7bfcbce5-8e71-4d89-a30d-bca910be86ba" CreationDate="2018-05-12T17:11:15.973" UserId="406" Text="I haven't been able to find any solid information on the etymology of the Latin infinitive, which is frustrating. I'm sure it's out there, so this will be only a partial answer (containing a decent helping of speculation) for now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But one thing seems fairly clear: PIE didn't have an infinitive per se. Different language groups developed it independently post-PIE. In Italic in particular, a verbal noun with the suffix *-si* developed: *_dōnā-_ &quot;give&quot; → *_dōnāsi_ &quot;to give&quot;. In Latin, this developed into the active and passive infinitives *dōnāre* and *dōnārī* through rhotacism (and presumably an extra suffix on the passive, though I can't find any details on this part).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In what became the third and fourth conjugations, there were three different types of verbs: the consonant-stem thematic verbs, the *_i_-stem thematic verbs, and the *_y_-suffix verbs. The first of these had infinitives like *_edesi_ (from *_ed-_ &quot;eat&quot;), the second had infinitives like *_fakiesi_ (from *_faki-_ &quot;make&quot;) the last had infinitives like *_gwenyesi_ (from *_gweny-_ &quot;come&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the verb that would become *fiō* was special. Its stem was originally *_fui-_ from PIE *_bʰuH-_ &quot;become, come into being&quot;, and this led to an infinitive *_fuiesi_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *_u_ ended up disappearing from the present forms (but not the perfect, which became Latin *fuī*). But its presence stopped the ending *_-iesi_ from contracting into * _-esi_, which happened in the other third-conjugation i-stems (* _fakiesi_ &gt; * _fakesi_ &gt; _facere_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This left an infinitive *_fiesi_ &gt; *_fiere, fierī_, with an extra *i* before the ending. And this *i* then prevented the passive from contracting into *_fiī_ as would be expected in the third conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *fierī* looks special because of a series of accidents, stemming from an extra vowel that later disappeared. As for why it uses only the passive infinitive, I really can't say (&quot;it's semi-deponent&quot; is a cop-out)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6460" RevisionGUID="b39a97b8-3869-4ec9-9576-02d89ef1b336" CreationDate="2018-05-12T17:16:54.700" UserId="406" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I haven't been able to find any solid information on the etymology of the Latin infinitive, which is frustrating. I'm sure it's out there, so this will be only a partial answer (containing a decent helping of speculation) for now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But one thing seems fairly clear: PIE didn't have an infinitive per se. Different language groups developed it independently post-PIE. In Italic in particular, a verbal noun with the suffix *-si* developed: *_dōnā-_ &quot;give&quot; → *_dōnāsi_ &quot;to give&quot;. In Latin, this developed into the active and passive infinitives *dōnāre* and *dōnārī* through rhotacism (and presumably an extra suffix on the passive, though I can't find any details on this part).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In what became the third and fourth conjugations, there were three different types of verbs: the consonant-stem thematic verbs, the *_i_-stem thematic verbs, and the *_y_-suffix verbs. The first of these had infinitives like *_edesi_ (from *_ed-_ &quot;eat&quot;), the second had infinitives like *_θakiesi_ (from *_θaki-_ &quot;make&quot;), and the last had infinitives like *_gwenyesi_ (from *_gweny-_ &quot;come&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the verb that would become *fiō* was special. Its stem was originally *_fui-_ from PIE *_bʰuH-_ &quot;become, come into being&quot;, and this led to an infinitive *_fuiesi_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *_u_ ended up disappearing from the present forms (but not the perfect, which became Latin *fuī*). But its presence stopped the ending *_-iesi_ from contracting into * _-esi_, which happened in the other third-conjugation i-stems (* _θakiesi_ &gt; * _θakesi_ &gt; _facere_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This left an infinitive *_fiesi_ &gt; *_fiere, fierī_, with an extra *i* before the ending. And this *i* then prevented the passive from contracting into *_fiī_ as would be expected in the third conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *fierī* looks special because of a series of accidents, stemming from an extra vowel that later disappeared. As for why it uses only the passive infinitive, I really can't say (&quot;it's semi-deponent&quot; is a cop-out)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6460" RevisionGUID="3e9aa45d-828d-4c7b-b57f-bcc19bb0152e" CreationDate="2018-05-12T17:28:24.533" UserId="406" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="I haven't been able to find any solid information on the etymology of the Latin infinitive, which is frustrating. I'm sure it's out there, so this will be only a partial answer (containing a decent helping of speculation) for now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But one thing seems fairly clear: PIE didn't have an infinitive per se. Different language groups developed it independently post-PIE. In Italic in particular, a verbal noun with the suffix *-si* developed: *_dōnā-_ &quot;give&quot; → *_dōnāsi_ &quot;to give&quot;. In Latin, this developed into the active and passive infinitives *dōnāre* and *dōnārī* through rhotacism (and presumably an extra suffix on the passive, though I can't find any details on this part—but final short *_i_ &gt; *e* is regular).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In what became the third and fourth conjugations, there were three different types of verbs: the consonant-stem thematic verbs, the *_i_-stem thematic verbs, and the *_y_-suffix verbs. The first of these had infinitives like *_edesi_ (from *_ed-_ &quot;eat&quot;), the second had infinitives like *_θakiesi_ (from *_θaki-_ &quot;make&quot;), and the last had infinitives like *_gwenyesi_ (from *_gweny-_ &quot;come&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the verb that would become *fiō* was special. Its stem was originally *_fui-_ from PIE *_bʰuH-_ &quot;become, come into being&quot;, and this led to an infinitive *_fuiesi_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin didn't like having sequences of short vowels together. So the *_u_ ended up disappearing from the present forms (but not the perfect, which became Latin *fuī*). But this stopped the ending *_-iesi_ from contracting into * _-esi_, which happened in the other third-conjugation i-stems (* _θakiesi_ &gt; * _θakesi_ &gt; _facere_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This left infinitives *_fiesi_ &gt; *_fiere, fierī_, with an extra *i* before the ending. And this *i* then prevented the passive from contracting into *_fiī_ as happened in the rest of the third conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *fierī* looks special simply because of an accident: it had an extra vowel that later disappeared. As for why it uses only the passive infinitive, I really can't say (&quot;it's semi-deponent&quot; is a cop-out)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21389" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="6458" RevisionGUID="04db7908-ed63-4593-9802-737547feaa16" CreationDate="2018-05-12T20:33:47.420" UserId="2129" Comment="Rollback to [49d4a3fa-9725-44d0-9a42-e5b46cef4a72]" Text="I would like to check translation of a motto that would read &quot;[we] persevere in endeavours/resolve&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider using either ***persto*** or ***persevero***. The latter seems better to me as it resonates with Modern English &quot;to persevere&quot;. What are the lexical differences between these two words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm completely zero in Latin grammar, but as far as I understand I should use ablative case here. So I came up with the following options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perseverantia in conatibus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Conatibus perseverantia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perseveramus in conatibus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Conatibus perseveramus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perseverantes in conatibus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Conatibus perseverantes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these grammatically correct? Maybe there are any better variants? Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="3a7b83b7-7f39-4e26-827a-52672c4736b7" CreationDate="2018-05-12T22:07:12.017" UserId="9" Text="I don't know enough to give a complete answer, but there seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. Also, I'm not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the verb and another for the adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9)  mention two other possible examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- stō: stătus vs. stātūrus (Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- părĭō: partus (but it seems părĭtus was also used) vs. părĭtūrus (I have found a few sources that indicate that partūrus was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and],* by J.R. (1705), gives other examples (along with three specific -uo verbs, arguo: arguiturus, luo: luiturus, and eruo: eruiturus):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- nascor: nasciturus *instead of* naturus&#xD;&#xA;- nosco: nosciturus *instead of* noturus&#xD;&#xA;- morior: moriturus *instead of* morturus&#xD;&#xA;- orior: oriturus *instead of* orturus&#xD;&#xA;- sono: sonaturus *instead of* soniturus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Johnson (1718) has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples, like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adduco: adduciturus *instead of* adducturus&#xD;&#xA;- frico: fricaturus *instead of* fricturus ([Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/frico#Latin) says *fricatum* is a possible supine form, but *frictum* is more common)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="e6bfc496-a3e1-4935-95d0-253749a09cd0" CreationDate="2018-05-12T22:18:10.957" UserId="9" Comment="added 785 characters in body" Text="I don't know anywhere near enough to give a complete, or even a definitely correct answer, but there seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the verb and another for the adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. Similarly, the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as verb forms) and adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples&#xD;&#xA; [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9)  mention two other possible examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- stō: stătus vs. stātūrus (Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- părĭō: partus (but it seems părĭtus was also used) vs. părĭtūrus (I have found a few sources that indicate that partūrus was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and],* by J.R. (1705), gives other examples (along with three specific -uo verbs, arguo: arguiturus, luo: luiturus, and eruo: eruiturus):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- nascor: nasciturus *instead of* naturus&#xD;&#xA;- nosco: nosciturus *instead of* noturus&#xD;&#xA;- morior: moriturus *instead of* morturus&#xD;&#xA;- orior: oriturus *instead of* orturus&#xD;&#xA;- sono: sonaturus *instead of* soniturus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Johnson (1718) has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples, like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adduco: adduciturus *instead of* adducturus&#xD;&#xA;- frico: fricaturus *instead of* fricturus ([Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/frico#Latin) says *fricatum* is a possible supine form, but *frictum* is more common)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6462" RevisionGUID="2345e659-b2e3-4dae-9423-c528fdf15ed0" CreationDate="2018-05-12T23:07:58.720" UserId="9" Text="Many modern linguistic analyses of languages like English draw a sharp theoretical distinction between **participles**, which are analyzed as inflected forms belonging to the paradigm of some verb, and **deverbal adjectives** (also called verbal adjectives, participial adjectives, or departicipial adjectives), which are seen as adjectives derived from verbs. (There are certainly disputes about the validity of the inflection/derivation  dichotomy, but it nevertheless seems to have wide acceptance. There are also disputes about whether participles should be analyzed as verbs, adjectives, neither or both, but I don't think that's as relevant to my question. Also, the word &quot;participle&quot; is often used in a broad sense that covers both inflected and derived words with the same form, but that just seems like a matter of terminology.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it can be tricky to determine which category a word belongs to in a specific example sentence. There are some syntactic tests, but often they only work in particular situations and only work one way; e.g., in English, if an *-ing* word has a direct object, that is considered to be proof that it is a participle and not a deverbal adjective, but if it doesn't have a direct object, it might be a participle or a deverbal adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know about any such syntactic tests that have been noted or proposed for distinguishing Latin participles (in the sense of &quot;inflected forms&quot;) from derived adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21393" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6462" RevisionGUID="2345e659-b2e3-4dae-9423-c528fdf15ed0" CreationDate="2018-05-12T23:07:58.720" UserId="9" Text="How can participles (inflected forms) be distinguished from deverbal adjectives (derived forms) in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21394" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6462" RevisionGUID="2345e659-b2e3-4dae-9423-c528fdf15ed0" CreationDate="2018-05-12T23:07:58.720" UserId="9" Text="|syntax|adjective|derivation|conjugation|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6462" RevisionGUID="3ae18e13-5fe8-48f8-82a8-e019532100a6" CreationDate="2018-05-12T23:13:11.693" UserId="9" Comment="added 260 characters in body" Text="Many modern linguistic analyses of languages like English draw a sharp theoretical distinction between **participles**, which are analyzed as inflected forms belonging to the paradigm of some verb, and **deverbal adjectives** (also called verbal adjectives, participial adjectives, or departicipial adjectives), which are seen as adjectives derived from verbs. (There are certainly disputes about the validity of the inflection/derivation  dichotomy, but it nevertheless seems to have wide acceptance. There are also disputes about whether participles should be analyzed as verbs, adjectives, neither or both, but I don't think that's as relevant to my question. Also, the word &quot;participle&quot; is often used in a broad sense that covers both an inflected form and a derived word with an identical form, but the broad vs. narrow definitions of &quot;participle&quot; just seem to be a matter of terminology.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it can be tricky to determine which category a word belongs to in a specific example sentence. There are some syntactic tests, but often they only work in particular situations and only work one way. (E.g., in English, if an *-ing* word has a direct object, that is considered to be proof that it is a participle and not a deverbal adjective, but if it doesn't have a direct object, it might be either a participle or a deverbal adjective. If an *-ing* word is modified by the word *very,* that is considered to be proof that it is a deverbal adjective and not a participle, but if it is not or cannot be modified by the word *very,* it might be either a participle or a deverbal adjective.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know about any such syntactic tests that have been noted or proposed for distinguishing Latin participles (in the sense of &quot;inflected forms&quot;) from derived adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="b259afeb-2b95-423f-a8ad-0ec2932d76ec" CreationDate="2018-05-12T23:36:10.020" UserId="9" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="I don't know anywhere near enough to give a complete, or even a definitely correct answer, but there seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. Similarly, the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples&#xD;&#xA; [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9)  mention two other possible examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- stō: stătus vs. stātūrus (Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- părĭō: partus (but it seems părĭtus was also used) vs. părĭtūrus (I have found a few sources that indicate that partūrus was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and],* by J.R. (1705), gives other examples (along with three specific -uo verbs, arguo: arguiturus, luo: luiturus, and eruo: eruiturus):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- nascor: nasciturus *instead of* naturus&#xD;&#xA;- nosco: nosciturus *instead of* noturus&#xD;&#xA;- morior: moriturus *instead of* morturus&#xD;&#xA;- orior: oriturus *instead of* orturus&#xD;&#xA;- sono: sonaturus *instead of* soniturus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Johnson (1718) has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples, like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adduco: adduciturus *instead of* adducturus&#xD;&#xA;- frico: fricaturus *instead of* fricturus ([Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/frico#Latin) says *fricatum* is a possible supine form, but *frictum* is more common)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5205" RevisionGUID="75e6b5bb-288a-4ba4-98be-37ed1321568b" CreationDate="2018-05-12T23:51:19.700" UserId="79" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="I learned from [this question about *sequundus* &gt; *secundus*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4901/79) that *-quus* was in fact pronounced as if it was *-cus*.&#xD;&#xA;However, words like *equus* were not spelled as *ecus*, since most oblique cases would still have the original stem *equ-* since *qu&gt;c* only occurred before a *u*.&#xD;&#xA;That is, *equus* was pronounced *ecus* but was spelled *equus* by analogy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would assume that at some point the spelling *equus* caused the pronunciation to become *equus* instead of *ecus* again.&#xD;&#xA;At least this is the case in the contemporary Finnish pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea when this change happened, other than &quot;somewhere between imperial Rome and present day Finland&quot;, but I suspect this *equus* pronunciation (as opposed to *ecus*) was not unusual in some form of medieval or later Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Do we know when &amp;mdash; if ever &amp;mdash; this change took place?&#xD;&#xA;When was *equus* pronounced as *equus* and no longer *ecus*?&#xD;&#xA;Any examples or a *terminus ante/post quem* are most welcome; I don't expect anyone to be able to point a precise point in time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6463" RevisionGUID="804b3fc4-0a1f-4c9b-979e-ba027fd4e6fe" CreationDate="2018-05-12T23:51:27.353" UserId="406" Text="The etymology of the present active infinitive seems well-documented. Proto-Italic had an infinitive-like suffix *_-si_, so *_dōnā-_ + *_-si_ = *_dōnāsi_ &gt; *dōnāre* by regular sound changes (*s* → *z* → *r* between vowels, and all short vowels → *i* word-finally).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But where did the passive infinitive come from? It looks like the active infinitive with some sort of suffix added, but where would such a suffix come from? And for that matter, where did *_-si_ come from? It doesn't seem to line up with anything from PIE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This came up while investigating [the infinitive of *fierī*][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6460/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21399" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6463" RevisionGUID="804b3fc4-0a1f-4c9b-979e-ba027fd4e6fe" CreationDate="2018-05-12T23:51:27.353" UserId="406" Text="Where did the passive infinitive come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21400" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6463" RevisionGUID="804b3fc4-0a1f-4c9b-979e-ba027fd4e6fe" CreationDate="2018-05-12T23:51:27.353" UserId="406" Text="|etymology|verbs|vowel|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6460" RevisionGUID="96f1df3d-162c-4987-98bb-fe225d17b5d2" CreationDate="2018-05-12T23:54:44.453" UserId="406" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="I haven't been able to find any solid information on the etymology of the Latin infinitive, which is frustrating. I'm sure it's out there, so this will be only a partial answer (containing a decent helping of speculation) for now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But one thing seems fairly clear: PIE didn't have an infinitive per se. Different language groups developed it independently post-PIE. In Italic in particular, a verbal noun with the suffix *-si* developed: *_dōnā-_ &quot;give&quot; → *_dōnāsi_ &quot;to give&quot;. In Latin, this developed into the active and passive infinitives *dōnāre* and *dōnārī* through rhotacism (and presumably an extra suffix on the passive, though I can't find any details on this part—but final short *_i_ &gt; *e* is regular).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In what became the third and fourth conjugations, there were three different types of verbs: the consonant-stem thematic verbs, the *_i_-stem thematic verbs, and the *_y_-suffix verbs. The first of these had infinitives like *_edesi_ (from *_ed-_ &quot;eat&quot;), the second had infinitives like *_θakiesi_ (from *_θaki-_ &quot;make&quot;), and the last had infinitives like *_gwenyesi_ (from *_gweny-_ &quot;come&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the verb that would become *fiō* was special. Its stem was originally *_fui-_ from PIE *_bʰuH-_ &quot;become, come into being&quot;, and this led to an infinitive *_fuiesi_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin didn't like having sequences of short vowels together. So the *_u_ ended up disappearing from the present forms (but not the perfect, which became Latin *fuī*). But this stopped the ending *_-iesi_ from contracting into * _-esi_, which happened in the other third-conjugation i-stems (* _θakiesi_ &gt; * _θakesi_ &gt; _facere_). The vowel deletion only applied once, and since it deleted the *u*, it never went back and deleted the *i*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This left infinitives *_fiesi_ &gt; *_fiere, fierī_, with an extra *i* before the ending. And this *i* then prevented the passive from contracting into *_fiī_ as happened in the rest of the third conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *fierī* looks special simply because of an accident: it had an extra vowel that later disappeared. As for why it uses only the passive infinitive, I really can't say (&quot;it's semi-deponent&quot; is a cop-out)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6463" RevisionGUID="f77f6d35-1b40-4c2e-8c95-5e4af26ed55e" CreationDate="2018-05-13T00:01:28.687" UserId="406" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="The etymology of the present active infinitive seems well-documented. Proto-Italic had an infinitive-like suffix *_-si_, so *_dōnā-_ + *_-si_ = *_dōnāsi_ &gt; *dōnāre* by regular sound changes (*s* → *z* → *r* between vowels, and all short vowels → *i* word-finally).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But where did the passive infinitive come from? It looks like the active infinitive with some sort of suffix added, but where would such a suffix come from? Why does it look different in the third conjugation? And for that matter, where did *_-si_ come from in the first place? It doesn't seem to line up with anything from PIE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This came up while investigating [the infinitive of *fierī*][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6460/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6464" RevisionGUID="0b810144-9b3d-47a8-a36f-67a9b70e552b" CreationDate="2018-05-13T00:25:08.633" UserId="406" Text="Partial answer while I search for a copy of De Vaan…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two words were distinct in Old Latin. The word for &quot;wide&quot; was originally *stlātus*, while &quot;borne&quot; was *tlātus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Stlātus*, according to Lewis and Short, is connected to Sanskrit *strnāmi*, Greek *stórnymi* and *stratós*, Latin *sternō* and *stratus*, and English *strew*. The *st-* is still visible in the Latin word *stlāt(t)a*, &quot;barge&quot;. All of these come from PIE *_sterh₃-_ &quot;extend, stretch&quot;. Unfortunately, L&amp;S don't specify how the *_r_ turned into *l*, but *d* turning into *l* is well-attested (see *lacrima*, *lingua*), and this might be a similar process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Tlātus*, on the other hand, was originally the fourth principal part of *tollō*, *tollere*, *tulī*, *tlātus*. (In Classical times the third and fourth parts were stolen by the unrelated verb *ferō*, so *tollō* needed to add prefixes to keep them distinct.) This verb came from the PIE root *_telh₂_ &quot;bear&quot;. The varying vowels go back to the patterns of PIE ablaut: *tlātus* in particular is from the zero-grade *_tlh₂_, with the laryngeal turning into the *ā*, while the other parts come from a full grade. The present stem gets its extra *l* from a nasal infix that assimilated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of these words then got simplified when Latin stopped allowing the combination *tl*, and ended up looking the same by pure coincidence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6464" RevisionGUID="3723d423-8f3b-4215-8c2d-f0fe9d93e70d" CreationDate="2018-05-13T00:31:20.010" UserId="406" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Partial answer while I search for a copy of De Vaan…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two words were distinct in Old Latin. The word for &quot;wide&quot; was originally *stlātus*, while &quot;borne&quot; was *tlātus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Stlātus*, according to Lewis and Short, is connected to Sanskrit *strnāmi*, Greek *stórnymi* and *stratós*, Latin *sternō* and *stratus*, and English *strew*. The *st-* is still visible in the archaic word *stlāt(t)a*, &quot;barge&quot;. All of these come from PIE *_sterh₃-_ &quot;extend, stretch&quot;. Unfortunately, L&amp;S don't specify how the *_r_ turned into *l*, but *d* turning into *l* is well-attested (see *lacrima*, *lingua*), and this might be a similar process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Tlātus*, on the other hand, was originally the fourth principal part of *tollō*, *tollere*, *tulī*, *tlātus*, cognate with Greek *tlētos* &quot;steadfast&quot;. (In Classical times the third and fourth parts were stolen by the unrelated verb *ferō*, so *tollō* needed to add prefixes to keep them distinct.) This verb came from the PIE root *_telh₂_ &quot;bear&quot;. The varying vowels go back to the patterns of PIE ablaut: *tlātus* in particular is from the zero-grade *_tlh₂_, with the laryngeal turning into the *ā*, while the other parts come from a full grade. The present stem gets its extra *l* from a nasal infix that assimilated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of these words then got simplified when Latin stopped allowing the combination *tl*, and ended up looking the same by pure coincidence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6465" RevisionGUID="e714006f-ab07-43cb-99f3-b5220992db31" CreationDate="2018-05-13T01:47:28.627" UserId="39" Text="Latin **lātus** 'having been carried' (a suppletive participle form of fero) &lt; PIt. ***tlātos** &gt; PIE ***tl̩tós**, a participle of the PIE verb ***telh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-** (aorist)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin **lātus** 'broad' &gt; PIt. ***slātos** &gt; PIE ***stl̩h&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;tós**, a participle of the PIE verb ***stel(h&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;)-** 'spread' (at least, according to Weiss 2009/2011: 292)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6465" RevisionGUID="1baa6ae1-7136-4af0-9e41-a4c54b8e3ad3" CreationDate="2018-05-13T01:55:55.480" UserId="39" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="Latin **lātus** 'having been carried' (a suppletive participle form of fero) &lt; PIt. ***tlātos** &gt; PIE ***tl̩tós**, a participle of the PIE verb ***telh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-** (aorist)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin **lātus** 'broad' &gt; PIt. ***slātos** &gt; PIE ***stl̩h&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;tós**, a participle of the PIE verb ***stel(h&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;)-** 'spread' (at least, according to Weiss 2009/2011: 292), the more usual notation is PIE ***stl̩Htós**. de Vaan adopts the LIV reconstruction of that root, *stel-, i.e. without the laryngeal, which would make this etymological connection impossible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6465" RevisionGUID="ebec4b6e-0109-4d20-92db-3246cd9a9a42" CreationDate="2018-05-13T02:02:37.400" UserId="39" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="Latin **lātus** 'having been carried' (a suppletive participle form of fero) &lt; PIt. ***tlātos** &gt; PIE ***tl̩tós**, an adjective of the PIE verb ***telh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-** (aorist)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sound changes/correspondences are well-known: PIE lH &gt; Latin lā;  the zero grade because of the accented suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin **lātus** 'broad' &gt; PIt. ***slātos** &gt; PIE ***stl̩h&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;tós**, an adjective of the PIE verb ***stel(h&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;)-** 'spread' (at least, according to Weiss 2009/2011: 292), the more usual notation is PIE ***stl̩Htós**. However, de Vaan adopts the LIV reconstruction of that root, *stel-, i.e. without the laryngeal, which would make this etymological connection impossible. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6465" RevisionGUID="f7ea8052-5c4e-4c94-8d33-3166f69f6ecd" CreationDate="2018-05-13T02:11:19.530" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 36 characters in body" Text="Latin **lātus** 'having been carried' (a suppletive participle form of fero) &lt; PIt. ***tlātos** &gt; PIE ***tl̩tós**, an adjective of the PIE verb ***telh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-** (aorist)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sound changes/correspondences are well-known: PIE lH &gt; Latin lā; zero-grade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin **lātus** 'broad' &gt; PIt. ***slātos** &gt; PIE ***stl̩h&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;tós**, an adjective of the PIE verb ***stel(h&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;)-** 'spread' (at least, according to Weiss 2009/2011: 292), the more usual notation is PIE ***stl̩Htós**. However, de Vaan adopts the LIV reconstruction of that root, *stel-, i.e. without the laryngeal, which would make this etymological connection impossible. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21409" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2193" RevisionGUID="dfea58f3-e0ac-4b3a-95fd-a288bb4b35d8" CreationDate="2018-05-13T02:17:24.850" UserId="9" Comment="edited typo in title" Text="Can the gerundive be used like an adjective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6465" RevisionGUID="b139741f-ce60-411d-a98e-bb91b073b6bf" CreationDate="2018-05-13T02:20:18.753" UserId="39" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="Latin **lātus** 'having been carried' (a suppletive participle form of fero) &lt; PIt. ***tlātos** &gt; PIE ***tl̩h&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;tós**, an adjective from the PIE verb ***telh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-** (aorist), since the reconstructed present form is *tl̩-neh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;- (LIV).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sound changes/correspondences are well-known: PIE lH &gt; Latin lā; zero-grade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin **lātus** 'broad' &gt; PIt. ***slātos** &gt; PIE ***stl̩h&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;tós**, an adjective from the PIE verb ***stel(h&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;)-** 'spread' (at least, according to Weiss 2009/2011: 292), the more usual notation is PIE ***stl̩Htós**. However, de Vaan adopts the LIV reconstruction of that root, *stel-, i.e. without the laryngeal, which would make this etymological connection impossible. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6462" RevisionGUID="17d79255-2590-4a2d-8e5a-d844f8a8c857" CreationDate="2018-05-13T02:22:31.100" UserId="9" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="Many modern linguistic analyses of languages like English draw a sharp theoretical distinction between **participles**, which are analyzed as inflected forms belonging to the paradigm of some verb, and **deverbal adjectives** (also called verbal adjectives, participial adjectives, or departicipial adjectives), which are seen as adjectives derived from verbs. (There are certainly disputes about the validity of the inflection/derivation  dichotomy, but it nevertheless seems to have wide acceptance. There are also disputes about whether participles should be analyzed as verbs, adjectives, neither or both, but I don't think that's as relevant to my question. Also, the word &quot;participle&quot; is often used in a broad sense that covers both an inflected form and a derived word with an identical form, but the broad vs. narrow definitions of &quot;participle&quot; just seem to be a matter of terminology.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it can be tricky to determine which category a word belongs to in a specific example sentence. There are some syntactic tests, but often they only work in particular situations and can only give a definite answer in one direction. (E.g., in English, if an *-ing* word has a direct object, that is considered to be proof that it is a participle and not a deverbal adjective, but if it doesn't have a direct object, it might be either a participle or a deverbal adjective. If an *-ing* word is modified by the word *very,* that is considered to be proof that it is a deverbal adjective and not a participle, but if it is not or cannot be modified by the word *very,* it might be either a participle or a deverbal adjective.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know about any such syntactic tests that have been noted or proposed for distinguishing Latin participles (in the sense of &quot;inflected forms&quot;) from derived adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6465" RevisionGUID="44cda3f1-29a6-44f5-8062-40796ea12fef" CreationDate="2018-05-13T02:28:12.343" UserId="39" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="Latin **lātus** 'having been carried' (a suppletive participle form of fero) &lt; PIt. ***tlātos** &gt; PIE ***tl̩h&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;tós**, an adjective from the PIE verb ***telh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-** (aorist), since the reconstructed present form is *tl̩-neh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;- (LIV).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sound changes/correspondences are well-known: PIE lH &gt; Latin lā; zero-grade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin **lātus** 'broad' &gt; PIt. ***slātos** &gt; PIE ***stl̩h&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;tós**, an adjective from the PIE verb ***stel(h&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;)-** 'spread' (at least, according to Weiss 2009/2011: 292), the more usual notation is PIE ***stl̩Htós**. The sound change is also known: word-initial *sl- &gt; l- (cf. lubricus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, de Vaan adopts the LIV reconstruction of that root, *stel-, i.e. without the laryngeal, which would make this etymological connection problematic. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6465" RevisionGUID="fece251b-9462-46f1-9cac-3b62e1f1d35a" CreationDate="2018-05-13T02:44:47.317" UserId="39" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="Latin **lātus** 'having been carried' (a suppletive participle form of fero) &lt; PIt. ***tlātos** &gt; PIE ***tl̩h&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;tós**, an adjective from the PIE verb ***telh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-** (aorist), since the reconstructed present form is *tl̩-neh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;- (LIV).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sound changes/correspondences are well-known: PIE lH &gt; Latin lā; zero-grade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin **lātus** 'broad' &gt; PIt. ***slātos** &gt; PIE ***stl̩h&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;tós**, an adjective from the PIE verb ***stel(h&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;)-** 'spread' (at least, according to Weiss 2009/2011: 292), the more usual notation is PIE ***stl̩Htós**. The sound change is also known, cf. &quot;*stl*- is retained into the OL period but is normally simplified to just *l*-&quot; (Weiss 2009/2011: 177), cf. locus &lt; stlocus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, de Vaan adopts the LIV reconstruction of that root, *stel-, i.e. without the laryngeal, which would make this etymological connection problematic. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6465" RevisionGUID="b58d625d-6bed-4bd9-95a9-843636281a3e" CreationDate="2018-05-13T03:20:46.443" UserId="39" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="Latin **lātus** 'having been carried' (originally from tollo, already in Old Latin a suppletive participle form of fero) &lt; PIt. ***tlātos** &gt; PIE ***tl̩h&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;tós**, an adjective from the PIE verb ***telh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-** (aorist), since the reconstructed present form is *tl̩-neh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;- (LIV).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sound changes/correspondences are well-known: PIE lH &gt; Latin lā; zero-grade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin **lātus** 'broad' &gt; PIt. ***slātos** &gt; PIE ***stl̩h&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;tós**, an adjective from the PIE verb ***stel(h&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;)-** 'spread' (at least, according to Weiss 2009/2011: 292), the more usual notation is PIE ***stl̩Htós**. The sound change is also known, cf. &quot;*stl*- is retained into the OL period but is normally simplified to just *l*-&quot; (Weiss 2009/2011: 177), cf. locus &lt; stlocus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, de Vaan adopts the LIV reconstruction of that root, *stel-, i.e. without the laryngeal, which would make this etymological connection problematic. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6464" RevisionGUID="7cb1f40c-2ef3-4e91-8a84-fb677877b8b8" CreationDate="2018-05-13T04:05:07.850" UserId="406" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="Partial answer while I search for a copy of De Vaan…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two words were distinct in Old Latin. The word for &quot;wide&quot; was originally *stlātus*, while &quot;borne&quot; was *tlātus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Stlātus*, according to Lewis and Short, is connected to Sanskrit *strnāmi*, Greek *stórnymi* and *stratós*, Latin *sternō* and *stratus*, and English *strew*. The *st-* is still visible in the archaic word *stlāt(t)a*, &quot;barge&quot;. All of these come from PIE *_sterh₃-_ &quot;extend, stretch&quot;. Unfortunately, L&amp;S don't specify how the *_r_ turned into *l*, but *d* turning into *l* is well-attested (see *lacrima*, *lingua*), and this might be a similar process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Tlātus*, on the other hand, was originally the fourth principal part of *tollō*, *tollere*, *tulī*, *tlātus*, cognate with Greek *tlētos* &quot;steadfast&quot;. (In Classical times the third and fourth parts were stolen by the unrelated verb *ferō*, so *tollō* needed to add prefixes to keep them distinct.) This verb came from the PIE root *_telh₂_ &quot;bear&quot;. The varying vowels go back to the patterns of PIE ablaut: *tlātus* in particular is from the zero-grade *_tlh₂_, with the laryngeal turning into the *ā*, while the other parts come from a full grade. The present stem gets its extra *l* from a nasal infix that assimilated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of these words then got simplified when Latin stopped allowing the combination *tl*, and ended up looking the same by pure coincidence. As Alex B points out in his own answer, this is a known sound change: *locus* comes from *stlocus*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6458" RevisionGUID="6a3addb4-bf92-452e-9740-9ee22bbef317" CreationDate="2018-05-13T10:29:27.190" UserId="2129" Comment="deleted 112 characters in body" Text="I would like to check translation of a motto that would read &quot;[we] persevere in endeavours/resolve&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider using either ***persto*** or ***persevero***. The latter seems better to me as it resonates with Modern English &quot;to persevere&quot;. What are the lexical differences between these two words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm completely zero in Latin grammar, but as far as I understand I should use genitive/ablative case here. So I came up with the following options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perseverantia in impetibus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Impetuum perseverantia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these grammatically correct? Maybe there are any better variants? Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6458" RevisionGUID="86a52e10-3309-4bd0-94f5-35ca24d353ef" CreationDate="2018-05-13T10:51:10.307" UserId="2129" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="I would like to check translation of a motto that would read &quot;[we] persevere in endeavours/resolve&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider using either ***persto*** or ***persevero***. The latter seems better to me as it resonates with Modern English &quot;to persevere&quot;. What are the lexical differences between these two words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm completely zero in Latin grammar, but as far as I understand I should use genitive/ablative case here. So I came up with the following options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perseverantia in impetibus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Impetuum perseverantia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Impetibus perseverantia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these grammatically correct? Maybe there are any better variants? Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6466" RevisionGUID="de1b684e-4e5d-43f7-b6e9-d2efab459a8e" CreationDate="2018-05-13T11:38:59.933" UserId="645" Text="I have long puzzled over the Romans’ banking system, and how large sums of cash were, say, put out at interest. I can see that, say, a million denarii at about a gram each would weigh about 1,000 kg. It could be counted (laborious and subject to error), or weighed, but was it packed and transported in such quantities, or was there some method of guarantee or accounting that obviated the need for much of the physical handling and protection *en route*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to me an interesting and important topic. Although I can find plentiful references to large financial movements and transactions, I'm baffled to find any description of means.  Is there any standard work on this? Have I just been reading the wrong books?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone help me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21419" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6466" RevisionGUID="de1b684e-4e5d-43f7-b6e9-d2efab459a8e" CreationDate="2018-05-13T11:38:59.933" UserId="645" Text="How was Roman money handled in bulk?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21420" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6466" RevisionGUID="de1b684e-4e5d-43f7-b6e9-d2efab459a8e" CreationDate="2018-05-13T11:38:59.933" UserId="645" Text="|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="26e14673-7c3f-4c55-a54d-c1afb1f1dd25" CreationDate="2018-05-13T14:54:41.143" UserId="645" Text="For a motto there are several snappier, more 'Latiny', phrases that you might consider. If you want to pursue a steadfast course — which is how I interpret your motto's purpose — you should probably indicate an  objective in some way, for which I suggest the word *propositum*. There are many first-rank classical writers who use the word, adding an adjective or verb in some form to indicate the required persistence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caesar, for example, uses *propositum tenere*, 'to stick to the objective' (B. Civ. III, 42 : *ubi propositum tenere non potuit*, 'when he was unable to hold to his plan'). Rather more weakly, the verb *habere* is used instead of *tenere*, meaning merely to have a goal in mind. Suetonius (de Gramm. 24) has *in proposito mansit*, 'remained on his objective', meaning that [M. Valerius Probus] did not give up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the first person singular, the form of verb to use in those phrases is either *teneo*, *habeo* or *maneo*. In a jussive sense, you might use the subjunctive: *propositum teneamus* is 'let us hold to our plan/task/objective' etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want your motto to state its intention as a matter of principle, you could choose an adjective, as in *tenax ad propositum* or *tenax in proposito*, 'tenacious in endeavour ' (the plural is *tenaces*). This is what I should prefer for myself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6468" RevisionGUID="244db93c-6186-45d5-89c4-d5e52bea867f" CreationDate="2018-05-13T16:40:53.950" UserId="406" Text="When I [asked about verbs in *-o-*][1], Rafael and Joonas both brought up a wonderfully useful tool: [using Perseus to find all words matching the pattern `*oo`][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what if I don't want to find the dictionary forms of words? For instance, I suspect that an actual *-o-* verb (if one existed) would contract in the dictionary form, because that's what they do in Greek (and what first-conjugation verbs do in Latin too). I would like to search for verbs ending in `*oere` instead, but since the infinitive isn't the dictionary form, Perseus's tool is no help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there another tool which can search for non-dictionary forms? Searching a large enough corpus would also work, though it's not ideal (since not every form of every verb would turn up in the corpus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6450/are-there-verbs-in-o&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=oo&amp;lang=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21423" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6468" RevisionGUID="244db93c-6186-45d5-89c4-d5e52bea867f" CreationDate="2018-05-13T16:40:53.950" UserId="406" Text="How can I find words matching a particular pattern?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21424" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6468" RevisionGUID="244db93c-6186-45d5-89c4-d5e52bea867f" CreationDate="2018-05-13T16:40:53.950" UserId="406" Text="|resource-request|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6469" RevisionGUID="5d8e9d05-67d7-4914-80d0-4f52761c655f" CreationDate="2018-05-13T17:12:15.247" UserId="79" Text="The verb *mori* (&quot;to die&quot;) has the unusual past participle *mortuus* (&quot;dead&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;The stem of the participle is *mortu-*, the only example of a past participle stem ending in a vowel I can think of.&#xD;&#xA;(If my memory fails, please let me know!)&#xD;&#xA;I would instead expect *mortus* or perhaps *moritus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future participle is *moriturus*.&#xD;&#xA;This would give a little discrepancy between *mortus* (from which one might expect *morturus*) and the future participle, but this is not unique.&#xD;&#xA;While usually the future participle comes directly from the past one by adding *-ur-*, there are examples of similar behaviour, like *ortus* and *oriturus*.&#xD;&#xA;See [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6442/79) for discrepancies between past and future participles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I never understood why *mortuus* has two Us instead of being simply *mortus*.&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone explain how this form came about?&#xD;&#xA;Was this participle always like this before the classical times?&#xD;&#xA;Are there other similar past participles in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21426" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6469" RevisionGUID="5d8e9d05-67d7-4914-80d0-4f52761c655f" CreationDate="2018-05-13T17:12:15.247" UserId="79" Text="What's the deal with the extra U in 'mortuus'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21427" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6469" RevisionGUID="5d8e9d05-67d7-4914-80d0-4f52761c655f" CreationDate="2018-05-13T17:12:15.247" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|language-evolution|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6470" RevisionGUID="484e5695-4583-4a2f-9220-d365e723900b" CreationDate="2018-05-13T19:27:45.790" UserId="406" Text="This is an interesting relic of the PIE conjugation system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Proto-Indo-European, there were quite a lot of different &quot;participles&quot; (or derived adjectives, it's not clear how much they were considered &quot;the same as&quot; the source verbs). One of these was *-tós*, which became the perfect passive participle *-tus* in Latin and the adjectivizer *-tós* in Greek (as well as, eventually, *-ed* in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there was another one, which changed significantly in Latin: *-wós*, the perfect *active* participle. In Latin, this was the source of *-v-* in the perfect stems. But in a few specific verbs, the perfect active participle survived on its own as an adjective. *Mortuus* is one of those. *Vīvus* is another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb that would become *morior* also had its own *-tós* participle, which would have been something like *_mortus_ by the time it reached Latin. (We know this from cognates like Sanskrit *mṛtá* &quot;dead&quot;.) But the *-wós* adjective that would become *mortuus* was far more popular and ended up displacing it. *Vīvus*, whose corresponding verb (ironically) died out completely, just continued to be an adjective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6470" RevisionGUID="b7f4dd6b-751f-4352-9f79-e02ee960ddf1" CreationDate="2018-05-13T19:42:53.720" UserId="406" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="This is an interesting relic of the PIE conjugation system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Proto-Indo-European, there were quite a lot of different &quot;participles&quot; (or derived adjectives, it's not clear how much they were considered &quot;the same as&quot; the source verbs). One of these was *-tós*, which became the perfect passive participle *-tus* in Latin and the adjectivizer *-tós* in Greek (as well as, eventually, *-ed* in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there was another one, which changed significantly in Latin: *-wós*, the perfect *active* participle. In Latin, this was the source of *-v-* in the perfect stems. But in a few specific verbs, the perfect active participle survived on its own as an adjective. *Mortuus* is one of those. *Vīvus* is another. (The suffix *-wós* itself survived as [*-uus*/*-vus*][1], so a Roman might analyze *mortuus* as *mort-* + *-uus*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb that would become *morior* also had its own *-tós* participle, which would have been something like *_mortus_ by the time it reached Latin. (We know this from cognates like Sanskrit *mṛtá* &quot;dead&quot;.) But the *-wós* adjective that would become *mortuus* was far more popular and ended up displacing it. *Vīvus*, whose corresponding verb (ironically) died out completely, just continued to be an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/3055/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6471" RevisionGUID="3b5cec53-98be-4588-b72b-684a3d4aa8a0" CreationDate="2018-05-13T20:13:28.480" UserId="2619" Text="Title says it all:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking to translate the English motto &quot;Only when you forget you are human will you remember you are a god.&quot; to Latin. Due to the grammar and phrasing of the clauses, translate.google.com which I usually turn to is completely unhelpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any insight!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21431" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6471" RevisionGUID="3b5cec53-98be-4588-b72b-684a3d4aa8a0" CreationDate="2018-05-13T20:13:28.480" UserId="2619" Text="How would you say &quot;only when you forget you are human will you remember you are a god&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21432" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6471" RevisionGUID="3b5cec53-98be-4588-b72b-684a3d4aa8a0" CreationDate="2018-05-13T20:13:28.480" UserId="2619" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6471" RevisionGUID="bb34a9ab-6323-4cbc-80b4-324b4677d2de" CreationDate="2018-05-13T20:21:41.627" UserId="79" Comment="added 27 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Title says it all:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking to translate the English motto &quot;Only when you forget you are human will you remember you are a god.&quot; to Latin. Due to the grammar and phrasing of the clauses, [Google Translate](http://translate.google.com) which I usually turn to is completely unhelpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any insight!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21434" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6471" RevisionGUID="bb34a9ab-6323-4cbc-80b4-324b4677d2de" CreationDate="2018-05-13T20:21:41.627" UserId="79" Comment="added 27 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6472" RevisionGUID="014a0a8c-34c1-4ed9-815d-959708504135" CreationDate="2018-05-13T21:50:19.843" UserId="79" Text="I suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Modo te hominem esse oblitus recordaberis te deum [esse].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key words are the participle *oblitus* (&quot;one who has forgotten&quot;) and the verb *recordaberis* (&quot;you will remember&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;It says &quot;only as someone who has forgotten you will remember&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forgetting and remembering have objects expressed by an accusative with infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;I put the objects around the two key verbs to create a chiastic effect.&#xD;&#xA;You could translate *te hominem esse* as &quot;that you are human&quot; and *the deum esse* as &quot;that you are god&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The second *esse* is optional.&#xD;&#xA;So is the first one, really, but I would keep it for clarity.&#xD;&#xA;Choose what sounds best to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google Translate is indeed horrible](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79) even with simple sentences.&#xD;&#xA;The only thing it seems to translate semi-reliably is individual words, and for that purpose [online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) are far better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6472" RevisionGUID="fa31d90a-ba1b-4086-b767-22f866e3211d" CreationDate="2018-05-13T22:08:19.483" UserId="79" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="I suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Modo te hominem esse oblitus recordaberis te deum [esse].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key words are the participle *oblitus* (&quot;one who has forgotten&quot;) and the verb *recordaberis* (&quot;you will remember&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;It says &quot;only as someone who has forgotten you will remember&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forgetting and remembering have objects expressed by an accusative with infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;I put the objects around the two key verbs to create a chiastic effect.&#xD;&#xA;You could translate *te hominem esse* as &quot;that you are human&quot; and *the deum esse* as &quot;that you are god&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The second *esse* is optional.&#xD;&#xA;So is the first one, really, but I would keep it for clarity.&#xD;&#xA;Choose what sounds best to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should add that what I wrote can be said to a man.&#xD;&#xA;If the addressee is female, then replace *oblitus* with *oblita* and *deum* with *deam*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google Translate is indeed horrible](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79) even with simple sentences.&#xD;&#xA;The only thing it seems to translate semi-reliably is individual words, and for that purpose [online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) are far better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6472" RevisionGUID="21a04b21-a399-4a6b-a4d6-3f2c2a059d08" CreationDate="2018-05-13T22:14:24.340" UserId="406" Comment="Typo" Text="I suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Modo te hominem esse oblitus recordaberis te deum [esse].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key words are the participle *oblitus* (&quot;one who has forgotten&quot;) and the verb *recordaberis* (&quot;you will remember&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;It says &quot;only as someone who has forgotten you will remember&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forgetting and remembering have objects expressed by an accusative with infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;I put the objects around the two key verbs to create a chiastic effect.&#xD;&#xA;You could translate *te hominem esse* as &quot;that you are human&quot; and *te deum esse* as &quot;that you are god&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The second *esse* is optional.&#xD;&#xA;So is the first one, really, but I would keep it for clarity.&#xD;&#xA;Choose what sounds best to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should add that what I wrote can be said to a man.&#xD;&#xA;If the addressee is female, then replace *oblitus* with *oblita* and *deum* with *deam*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google Translate is indeed horrible](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79) even with simple sentences.&#xD;&#xA;The only thing it seems to translate semi-reliably is individual words, and for that purpose [online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) are far better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21438" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2364" RevisionGUID="20e7c050-4e91-4f7c-b717-d5564dd3b57b" CreationDate="2018-05-13T23:47:16.163" UserId="79" Comment="75" />
  <row Id="21439" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4549" RevisionGUID="621de8be-def0-437f-b832-2b34e74ad204" CreationDate="2018-05-13T23:48:20.557" UserId="79" Comment="76" />
  <row Id="21440" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2401" RevisionGUID="6ba676bc-fe4c-40ae-a3db-44eb542d66b9" CreationDate="2018-05-13T23:50:36.297" UserId="79" Comment="77" />
  <row Id="21441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6473" RevisionGUID="8b40f3f3-6ff3-4c67-b346-a7393f2a9ae4" CreationDate="2018-05-14T00:55:13.503" UserId="406" Text="##It's probably a coincidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preface: My main source for this entire answer is [*The Origin of the Italic Imperfect Subjunctive* by Vandenhoek and Ruprecht, 1991][1]. If this is contradicted by more recent scholarship, please feel free to correct me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All but one of the example words given are in the second person singular, because this shows off the vowel lengths more reliably (and because it's what Vandenhoek and Ruprecht do).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Imperfect Subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperfect subjunctive in Latin was formed from a Proto-Italic morpheme reconstructed as *_-sē-_. Where this morpheme comes from is unclear, since it doesn't line up with anything in PIE, but it doesn't seem to be related to *sim, sīs, sit* (Proto-Italic *_si-ēm_, *_si-ēs_, *_si-ēd_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most verbs, this rhotacized: *_amā-sē-s_ &gt; *amārēs*, *_face-sē-s_ &gt; *facerēs*, and so on. But in the rare athematic verbs, the *s* appears as itself or assimilates: *_es-sē-s_ &gt; *essēs*, *_vel-sē-s_ &gt; *vellēs*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was first learning, I was taught to form the imperfect subjunctive by attaching personal endings to the infinitive. But this isn't correct either: the infinitive was formed with an ending *_-si_, with a short vowel. So using this rule will get the vowel lengths wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Future Perfect Indicative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tense comes from &quot;the S-future of the perfect&quot;. In other words, the future morpheme *-(i)s-* attached to the perfect stem. (The &quot;S-future&quot; is very common for the actual future tense in Ancient Greek: present *lyō* → future *lysō*. But in Latin, a relative of *fiō* and the PIE subjunctive turned into a new future tense.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a form like *amāveris* comes from *amā-v-is-(i)s*. The similarity to *eris* seems to be coincidence: vowel reduction and rhotacism turned *-is-is* into *-eris*. But I'm not sure where *eris* itself comes from, so I can't be sure they're unrelated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Perfect Subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This comes from the optative of the S-future of the perfect: the optative morpheme *-ī-* added on to the future perfect stem. The long vowel distinguished this from the future perfect indicative at first, but [as Alex B points out][2], the distinction vanished by Classical times. So this *amāveris* comes from older *amāverīs*, from *amā-v-is-ī-s*. Once again, the similarity seems coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notably, the S-future of the present used to be used for the actual future in Old Latin (*faxō* &quot;I will do&quot; &lt; *fac-s-ō* is attested), while the optative of the S-future of the present was used for the present subjunctive (*faxīs* &quot;you should do&quot; &lt; *fac-s-īs*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Pluperfect Subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is formed from the subjunctive morpheme *_-sē-_ (as seen in the imperfect) combined with the S-future of the perfect (as seen in the future perfect). *Amāvissēs* comes from *amā-v-is-sē-s*, and the additional consonant prevents both vowel reduction and rhotacism. So this one is actually half-cognate with *essēs*: the *-sēs* ending is the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~jasanoff/pdf/Origin%20of%20Italic%20imperfect%20subjunctive.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6418/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6473" RevisionGUID="7019a912-685f-416a-a588-c14d8726cf12" CreationDate="2018-05-14T01:07:30.273" UserId="406" Comment="added 214 characters in body" Text="##It's probably a coincidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preface: My main source for this entire answer is [*The Origin of the Italic Imperfect Subjunctive* by Vandenhoek and Ruprecht, 1991][1]. If this is contradicted by more recent scholarship, please feel free to correct me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All but one of the example words given are in the second person singular, because this shows off the vowel lengths more reliably (and because it's what Vandenhoek and Ruprecht do).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Imperfect Subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperfect subjunctive in Latin was formed from a Proto-Italic morpheme reconstructed as *_-sē-_. Where this morpheme comes from is unclear, since it doesn't line up with anything in PIE, but it doesn't seem to be related to *sim, sīs, sit* (Proto-Italic *_si-ēm_, *_si-ēs_, *_si-ēd_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most verbs, this rhotacized: *_amā-sē-s_ &gt; *amārēs*, *_face-sē-s_ &gt; *facerēs*, and so on. But in the rare athematic verbs, the *s* appears as itself or assimilates: *_es-sē-s_ &gt; *essēs*, *_vel-sē-s_ &gt; *vellēs*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was first learning, I was taught to form the imperfect subjunctive by attaching personal endings to the infinitive. But this isn't correct either: the infinitive was formed with an ending *_-si_, with a short vowel. So using this rule will get the vowel lengths wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Future Perfect Indicative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tense comes from &quot;the S-future of the perfect&quot;. In other words, the future morpheme *-(i)s-* attached to the perfect stem. (The &quot;S-future&quot; is very common for the actual future tense in Ancient Greek: present *lyō* → future *lysō*. But in Latin, a relative of *fiō* and the PIE subjunctive turned into a new future tense.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a form like *amāveris* comes from *amā-v-is-(i)s*. The similarity to *eris* seems to be coincidence: vowel reduction and rhotacism turned *-is-is* into *-eris*. But I'm not sure where *eris* itself (as in &quot;you will be&quot;) comes from, so I can't be sure they're unrelated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Perfect Subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This comes from the optative of the S-future of the perfect: the optative morpheme *-ī-* added on to the future perfect stem. The long vowel distinguished this from the future perfect indicative at first, but [as Alex B points out][2], the distinction vanished by Classical times. So this *amāveris* comes from older *amāverīs*, from *amā-v-is-ī-s*. Once again, the similarity seems coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notably, the S-future of the present used to be used for the actual future in Old Latin (*faxō* &quot;I will do&quot; &lt; *fac-s-ō* is attested), while the optative of the S-future of the present was used for the present subjunctive (*faxīs* &quot;you should do&quot; &lt; *fac-s-īs*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Pluperfect Subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is formed from the subjunctive morpheme *_-sē-_ (as seen in the imperfect) combined with the S-future of the perfect (as seen in the future perfect). *Amāvissēs* comes from *amā-v-is-sē-s*, and the additional consonant prevents both vowel reduction and rhotacism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this one is actually half-cognate with *essēs*: the *-sēs* ending is the same. But once again I was taught wrong: the perfect infinitive comes from *amā-v-is-si*, with a short vowel. That *-si* is (probably) not related to the subjunctive *-sē* except by coincidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~jasanoff/pdf/Origin%20of%20Italic%20imperfect%20subjunctive.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6418/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6473" RevisionGUID="79196c66-95f3-491e-b400-099a59d484d2" CreationDate="2018-05-14T01:17:00.570" UserId="406" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="##It's probably a coincidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preface: My main source for this entire answer is [*The Origin of the Italic Imperfect Subjunctive* by Vandenhoek and Ruprecht, 1991][1]. If this is contradicted by more recent scholarship, please feel free to correct me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All but one of the example words given are in the second person singular, because this shows off the vowel lengths more reliably (and because it's what Vandenhoek and Ruprecht do).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Imperfect Subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperfect subjunctive in Latin was formed from a Proto-Italic morpheme reconstructed as *_-sē-_. Where this morpheme comes from is unclear, since it doesn't line up with anything in PIE, but it doesn't seem to be related to *sim, sīs, sit* (Proto-Italic *_si-ēm_, *_si-ēs_, *_si-ēd_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most verbs, this rhotacized: *_amā-sē-s_ &gt; *amārēs*, *_face-sē-s_ &gt; *facerēs*, and so on. But in the rare athematic verbs, the *s* appears as itself or assimilates: *_es-sē-s_ &gt; *essēs*, *_vel-sē-s_ &gt; *vellēs*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was first learning, I was taught to form the imperfect subjunctive by attaching personal endings to the infinitive. But this isn't correct either: the infinitive was formed with an ending *_-si_, with a short vowel. So using this rule will get the vowel lengths wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Future Perfect Indicative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tense comes from &quot;the S-future of the perfect&quot;. In other words, the future morpheme *-(i)s-* attached to the perfect stem. (The &quot;S-future&quot; is very common for the actual future tense in Ancient Greek: present *lyō* → future *lysō*. But in Latin, a relative of *fiō* and the PIE subjunctive turned into a new future tense.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a form like *amāveris* comes from *amā-v-is-(i)s*. The similarity to *eris* seems to be coincidence: vowel reduction and rhotacism turned *-is-is* into *-eris*. But I'm not sure where *eris* itself (as in &quot;you will be&quot;) comes from, so I can't be sure they're unrelated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Perfect Subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This comes from the optative of the S-future of the perfect: the optative morpheme *-ī-* added on to the future perfect stem. The long vowel distinguished this from the future perfect indicative at first, but [as Alex B points out][2], the distinction vanished by Classical times. So this *amāveris* comes from older *amāverīs*, from *amā-v-is-ī-s*. Once again, the similarity seems coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notably, the S-future of the present used to be used for the actual future in Old Latin (*faxō* &quot;I will do&quot; &lt; *fac-s-ō* is attested), while the optative of the S-future of the present was used for the present subjunctive (*faxīs* &quot;you should do&quot; &lt; *fac-s-īs*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Pluperfect Subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is formed from the subjunctive morpheme *_-sē-_ (as seen in the imperfect) combined with the S-future of the perfect (as seen in the future perfect). *Amāvissēs* comes from *amā-v-is-sē-s*, and the additional consonant prevents both vowel reduction and rhotacism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this one is actually half-cognate with *essēs*: the *-sēs* ending is the same. But once again I was taught wrong: the perfect infinitive comes from *amā-v-is-si*, with a short vowel. That *-si* is (probably) not related to the subjunctive *-sē* except by coincidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Pluperfect Indicative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TODO: I don't actually know where this one comes from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~jasanoff/pdf/Origin%20of%20Italic%20imperfect%20subjunctive.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6418/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6474" RevisionGUID="67a753c9-e0cf-4f02-b515-3e4eefafe280" CreationDate="2018-05-14T06:11:43.870" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Source: *[The Well-Educated Mind](https://www.amazon.com/Well-Educated-Mind-Classical-Education-Expanded/dp/039308096X/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=RB0SQWWEWRN053RYJ13F)* (2 edn 2016), pp. 254-255.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides wrote tragedies; Aristophanes &#xD;&#xA;wrote comedies. Comedy, depending as it does on contemporary man- &#xD;&#xA;ners and morals to set up the jarring contrasts at its center, always dates &#xD;&#xA;more quickly than tragedy; a joke about politics loses its kick (try watch- &#xD;&#xA;ing a Jay Leno monologue from the Bill Clinton era), but the danger &#xD;&#xA;of wrong choices never goes away. **The Romans, who came after the &#xD;&#xA;Greeks and stole most of their literary principles**, wrote more comedies &#xD;&#xA;than tragedies—which is why neither the Roman playwrights nor Aristophanes are so widely read today as the Greek tragedians.     &#xD;&#xA;  **But even the tragedies of the Romans were inferior to those of the &#xD;&#xA;Greeks. Drama generally held a lower place in the Roman social scheme.** &#xD;&#xA;Roman theater groups, like Greek troupes, acted at festivals. But while the &#xD;&#xA;Greek festival tended to be centered around play performance, Roman &#xD;&#xA;dramas had to compete with the more spectacular performances of lion &#xD;&#xA;fights, chariot races, and stadium sea battles. (In one of his prefaces, the &#xD;&#xA;tragedian Terence complains that the first two performances of his play &#xD;&#xA;were canceled because the audience left halfway through to go see the &#xD;&#xA;gladiator shows.) The Romans made no innovations in dramatic themes; &#xD;&#xA;these would come during the Middle Ages, when the Greek dramas had &#xD;&#xA;entirely slipped from view. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre_of_ancient_Rome) alleges the same scorn of Roman actors compared to Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The public opinion of actors was very low, placing them within the same social status as criminals and prostitutes, and acting as a profession was considered illegitimate and repulsive. Many Roman actors were slaves, and it was not unusual for a performer to be beaten by his master as punishment for an unsatisfactory performance. These actions and opinions differ greatly from those demonstrated during the time of ancient Greek theatre, a time when actors were regarded as respected professionals, and were granted citizenship in Athens.[14][1]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21445" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6474" RevisionGUID="67a753c9-e0cf-4f02-b515-3e4eefafe280" CreationDate="2018-05-14T06:11:43.870" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Why were Roman dramas and actors judged inferior to Greek ones, when the former based on the latter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21446" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6474" RevisionGUID="67a753c9-e0cf-4f02-b515-3e4eefafe280" CreationDate="2018-05-14T06:11:43.870" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6422" RevisionGUID="f3d9a6fa-0dca-4b04-aee6-e078fc15bd0e" CreationDate="2018-05-14T08:29:46.297" UserId="79" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="Many forms formed from the perfect stem (*habitav-*, *fec-*, *tetig-*, and others) resemble forms of *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;It looks as if a form of *esse* was directly attached to the perfect stem.&#xD;&#xA;In perfect conjunctive an *-e-* seems to be added and the *s&gt;r* is explained by rhotacism.&#xD;&#xA;In pluperfect conjunctive the *-ess-* is replaced with *-iss-*.&#xD;&#xA;These sound changes are easy to accept, so the analogy between the two conjugations is clearly similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this similarity between *esse* and perfect stem forms a coincidence?&#xD;&#xA;How did it come about?&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding forms of *esse* are used explicitly in the passive counterparts of these forms.&#xD;&#xA;Were the active forms originally perhaps a combination of an active perfect participle and *esse*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The active perfect indicative forms (*feci*, *fecisti*, &amp;hellip;) do not have this similarity to *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;I will completely ignore those forms for this question; they can be explored in separate questions.&#xD;&#xA;This question concerns pluperfect and future perfect of indicative and perfect and pluperfect of conjunctive.&#xA;Probably the perfect active infinitive should be included as well.&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a separate [question about the vowel length in *feceris* and similar forms](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6414/79).&#xD;&#xA;Whether the vowel lengths match perfectly between *esse* and perfect stem forms, the similarity is striking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6471" RevisionGUID="5ba780c9-be69-47e2-a270-e36a36bbb134" CreationDate="2018-05-14T09:14:20.050" UserId="1459" Comment="no needed" Text="Title says it all:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking to translate the English motto &quot;Only when you forget you are human will you remember you are a god.&quot; to Latin. Due to the grammar and phrasing of the clauses, [Google Translate](http://translate.google.com) which I usually turn to is completely unhelpful.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6456" RevisionGUID="7a9f2f8d-4d30-4e80-8126-05bf3bc21818" CreationDate="2018-05-14T10:38:59.097" UserId="9" Comment="added 1074 characters in body" Text="Szemerényi (1980) says that the following &quot;descriptive rule&quot; summarizes the conjugation pattern for verbs ending in *-uo*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbs in *-uo* in general form their perfect in *-uī,* their PPP in *-ūtus* (even *tuor/tūtus* would conform to this rule!); a list would have to specify four exceptions: ***ruo* has *rūtus,* but in the compounds  *-rŭtus***; two verbs which have a velar in the perfect (*fluxī, struxī*) show it in the PPP, too, as does *frūctus* from *fruor.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 11-12) (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a bit confused by the rule saying that the length of the vowel in *-rutus* depends on whether the word is a compound. Some 17th-century books on Latin grammar seem to indicate that the form *ruitum* is used as the supine of *ruo* 'to rush', but that *-ruitum* is not used in derived compound words (*[The Royal Grammar, Commonly Called Lilie's Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=oT4RSnRciEwC&amp;pg=PA413&amp;lpg=PA413&amp;dq=%22rutum%22+%22ruitum%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=jrufNSJ4ey&amp;sig=9cIBfuyzx5N0mqZiLXUePuW7qOM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjMhtnR_oTbAhXJx4MKHa3GD1oQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22rutum%22%20%22ruitum%22&amp;f=false),* explained by William Walker (1695); *[A Compleat System of Grammar, English and Latin](https://books.google.com/books?id=pfjtpNsCz7QC&amp;pg=PA86&amp;lpg=PA86&amp;dq=%22rutum%22+%22ruitum%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=t6581PUzSt&amp;sig=eqCAqx-yV2O9yHzknQTx21vLazg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi0v8Xr_4TbAhWB5oMKHT4NC8gQ6AEIOTAF#v=onepage&amp;q=%22rutum%22%20%22ruitum%22&amp;f=false),* by William Clare (1699)); however, I don't know whether *ruitum* is a post-Classical form—it doesn't seem to be mentioned in [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Druo).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A further complication is that apparently, there are two different verbs that have *ruo* as the first principal part. Szemerényi refers to them as ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo.* The form *rūtus* seems to occur primarily as the PPP of ²*ruo,* which is thought to come from a PIE root ending in *\*w~u* followed by a laryngeal. In Indo-European languages, *u* (=syllabic *\*w*) followed by a laryngeal developed into the long vowel *ū.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the other *-uo* verbs with PPPs ending in *-ūtus* (*acuo, arguo, futuo, metuo, minuo, statuo, tribuo*) seem to be &quot;denominative&quot;, which somehow explains the length of the vowel. Szemerényi says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The PPP has, as we have seen (2.1), *-ūtus* in the denominatives. This is what we should expect in any case, seeing that before the suffix *-to* the stem-final vowel is lengthened even in purely adjectival forms; c.f. *aurītus, crīnītus, turrītus,* on the one hand, *argūtus, cinctūtus, cornūtus, versūtus, verūtus,* on the other, and, outside Italy, e.g., Greek *δακρῡτός* 'wept over, tearful'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 28)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Principal parts of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi gives different vowel lengths in the PPP for ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;¹*ruo -uī -ŭtum* 'rush, overthrow' (Palatus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;²*ruo -uī -ūtus* 'root, rake, scrape' (Lucretius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two corresponding entries for *ruo* in [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ruo#Latin) and in De Vaan (2008), but they give conflicting information about the perfect and supine forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For ¹*ruo*, Wiktionary says &quot;*perfect active* **ruī**, *supine* **rutum**&quot; (Wiktionary doesn't use breves in its Latin entries, so the lack of a macron is supposed to imply that the vowel is short). De Vaan also gives the perfect as *ruī,* but gives the PPP as *rū̆tum.* As I mentioned above, I've also seen the form *ruitum* in a few sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For ²*ruo*, Wiktionary says &quot;*no perfect or supine forms*&quot;. De Vaan gives no perfect form, but gives the PPP as *rūtum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Etymology of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi says *¹ruo* is from IE *\*ereu-* (I don't understand the reason for the initial *\*e* in this reconstruction, but it seems irrelevant to the development of the vowel after the *\*r*)  which is also supposed to be the source of Sanskrit *r̥ṇōmi* and Greek *ὀρούω* (p. 23). Wiktionary says that the verb that Szemerényi calls *¹ruo* is from PIE *h₃rew-. For Italic specifically, Szemerényi gives the reconstruction *\*rewō,* and says &quot;The form of the Latin verb would then be due to the compounds&quot; (p. 24). I'm not sure what this means. De Vaan gives the Proto-Italic form as *\*rowe/o-,* and the PIE form as *h₃reu-e/o-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For ²*ruo*, after listing some cognates, Szemerényi suggests that it comes from IE &quot;*\*rūyō*&quot; (comparing the form to Old Church Slavonic *ryjo*). Wiktionary says that what  Szemerényi calls ²*ruo* is from &quot;*(H)rewH-&quot;, which seems consistent with Szemerényi's suggestion (PIE *uH developed to IE *ū). De Vaan gives the Proto-Italic form as *\*rowe/o-* (the same as for  *¹ruo,* apparently), and the PIE form as *(H)reuH-e/o-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the sources don't agree on all the details, it seems fairly clear that the reason for the (at least potential) length difference between the vowels in the PPPs of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo* is the laryngeal that comes after the w~u in the reconstructed ancestor of ²*ruo* in PIE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Vowel length in words related to ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;Some weird things seem to happen with vowel length in related words or derivatives of these words. De Vaan's entry for ²*ruo* lists *rutus, -ūs, rutābulum, rutellum, rutrum, rūta caesa* (as well as some verbs) as derivatives, and says &quot;It seems that the derivatives of *ruō* 'to rush' and *ruō* 'to dig' have become mixed up: we find short-vowel forms meaning 'dig', in spite of the PIE root etymology *(H)ruH-&quot; (p. 531). Likewise, Szemerényi says in a footnote on p. 23 that &quot;*rutrum, rutābulum,* 'Schaufel', *rūta caesa* [...] belong with ²*ruo*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A (long) side note: [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=rutrum) use a macron on the first syllable of *rutrum,* but I'm inclined to think that this is an example of the use of the macron to mark metrical weight. Because *rutrum* has a medial consonant cluster, it could scan in poetry as rut.rum with a heavy first syllable. That doesn't make the vowel in the first syllable long (despite the confusing old description of such vowels as &quot;long by position&quot;), but Lewis and Short seem to have considered syllable weight sufficient reason to mark a vowel with a macron, at least in certain contexts where the weight of the syllable would otherwise be somewhat non-obvious—e.g., as far as I know, L&amp;S don't use macrons like this on vowel letters before double consonant letters, but they do seem to use them on vowel letters before single consonant letters that scan long, like the *j* in *[mājor](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmajor)* (which is thought to have been pronounced [majjor] in Latin) and the *z* in *[trăpēzīta](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtrapezita)* (which comes from Greek *τραπεζίτης,* with epsilon; L&amp;S mention an alternative spelling with *tarpess-* which provides further support for the idea that it was the consonant rather than the vowel that was long in this word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi, Oswald. 1980. &quot;[Latin Verbs in uo, uere](https://books.google.com/books?id=1mVwAuuC8GoC&amp;pg=PA12&amp;lpg=PA12&amp;d#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&quot;. *Italic and Romance Linguistic Studies in Honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan, Michiel. 2008. *Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6456" RevisionGUID="9d04d01c-c50b-4956-a80a-fd28eaf1ccd3" CreationDate="2018-05-14T10:44:52.683" UserId="9" Comment="added 1074 characters in body" Text="Szemerényi (1980) says that the following &quot;descriptive rule&quot; summarizes the conjugation pattern for verbs ending in *-uo*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbs in *-uo* in general form their perfect in *-uī,* their PPP in *-ūtus* (even *tuor/tūtus* would conform to this rule!); a list would have to specify four exceptions: ***ruo* has *rūtus,* but in the compounds  *-rŭtus***; two verbs which have a velar in the perfect (*fluxī, struxī*) show it in the PPP, too, as does *frūctus* from *fruor.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 11-12) (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a bit confused by the rule saying that the length of the vowel in *-rutus* depends on whether the word is a compound. Some 17th-century books on Latin grammar seem to indicate that the form *ruitum* is used as the supine of *ruo* 'to rush', but that *-ruitum* is not used in derived compound words (*[The Royal Grammar, Commonly Called Lilie's Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=oT4RSnRciEwC&amp;pg=PA413&amp;lpg=PA413&amp;dq=%22rutum%22+%22ruitum%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=jrufNSJ4ey&amp;sig=9cIBfuyzx5N0mqZiLXUePuW7qOM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjMhtnR_oTbAhXJx4MKHa3GD1oQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22rutum%22%20%22ruitum%22&amp;f=false),* explained by William Walker (1695); *[A Compleat System of Grammar, English and Latin](https://books.google.com/books?id=pfjtpNsCz7QC&amp;pg=PA86&amp;lpg=PA86&amp;dq=%22rutum%22+%22ruitum%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=t6581PUzSt&amp;sig=eqCAqx-yV2O9yHzknQTx21vLazg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi0v8Xr_4TbAhWB5oMKHT4NC8gQ6AEIOTAF#v=onepage&amp;q=%22rutum%22%20%22ruitum%22&amp;f=false),* by William Clare (1699)); however, I don't know whether *ruitum* is a post-Classical form—it doesn't seem to be mentioned in [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Druo).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A further complication is that apparently, there are two different verbs that have *ruo* as the first principal part. Szemerényi refers to them as ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo.* The form *rūtus* seems to occur primarily as the PPP of ²*ruo,* which is thought to come from a PIE root ending in *\*w~u* followed by a laryngeal. In Indo-European languages, *u* (=syllabic *\*w*) followed by a laryngeal developed into the long vowel *ū.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the other *-uo* verbs with PPPs ending in *-ūtus* (*acuo, arguo, futuo, metuo, minuo, statuo, tribuo*) seem to be &quot;denominative&quot;, which somehow explains the length of the vowel. Szemerényi says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The PPP has, as we have seen (2.1), *-ūtus* in the denominatives. This is what we should expect in any case, seeing that before the suffix *-to* the stem-final vowel is lengthened even in purely adjectival forms; c.f. *aurītus, crīnītus, turrītus,* on the one hand, *argūtus, cinctūtus, cornūtus, versūtus, verūtus,* on the other, and, outside Italy, e.g., Greek *δακρῡτός* 'wept over, tearful'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 28)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Principal parts of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi gives different vowel lengths in the PPP for ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;¹*ruo -uī -ŭtum* 'rush, overthrow' (Palatus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;²*ruo -uī -ūtus* 'root, rake, scrape' (Lucretius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two corresponding entries for *ruo* in [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ruo#Latin) and in De Vaan (2008), but they give conflicting information about the perfect and supine forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For ¹*ruo*, Wiktionary says &quot;*perfect active* **ruī**, *supine* **rutum**&quot; (Wiktionary doesn't use breves in its Latin entries, so the lack of a macron is supposed to imply that the vowel is short). De Vaan also gives the perfect as *ruī,* but gives the PPP as *rū̆tum.* As I mentioned above, I've also seen the form *ruitum* in a few sources. The Latin Wiktionary (&quot;[Victionarium](https://la.wiktionary.org/wiki/ruo)&quot;) says &quot; **rutum** *vel* **rūtum** *vel* **ruitum**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For ²*ruo*, Wiktionary says &quot;*no perfect or supine forms*&quot;. De Vaan gives no perfect form, but gives the PPP as *rūtum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Etymology of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi says *¹ruo* is from IE *\*ereu-* (I don't understand the reason for the initial *\*e* in this reconstruction, but it seems irrelevant to the development of the vowel after the *\*r*)  which is also supposed to be the source of Sanskrit *r̥ṇōmi* and Greek *ὀρούω* (p. 23). Wiktionary says that the verb that Szemerényi calls *¹ruo* is from PIE *h₃rew-. For Italic specifically, Szemerényi gives the reconstruction *\*rewō,* and says &quot;The form of the Latin verb would then be due to the compounds&quot; (p. 24). I'm not sure what this means. De Vaan gives the Proto-Italic form as *\*rowe/o-,* and the PIE form as *h₃reu-e/o-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For ²*ruo*, after listing some cognates, Szemerényi suggests that it comes from IE &quot;*\*rūyō*&quot; (comparing the form to Old Church Slavonic *ryjo*). Wiktionary says that what  Szemerényi calls ²*ruo* is from &quot;*(H)rewH-&quot;, which seems consistent with Szemerényi's suggestion (PIE *uH developed to IE *ū). De Vaan gives the Proto-Italic form as *\*rowe/o-* (the same as for  *¹ruo,* apparently), and the PIE form as *(H)reuH-e/o-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the sources don't agree on all the details, it seems fairly clear that the reason for the (at least potential) length difference between the vowels in the PPPs of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo* is the laryngeal that comes after the w~u in the reconstructed ancestor of ²*ruo* in PIE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Vowel length in words related to ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;Some weird things seem to happen with vowel length in related words or derivatives of these words. De Vaan's entry for ²*ruo* lists *rutus, -ūs, rutābulum, rutellum, rutrum, rūta caesa* (as well as some verbs) as derivatives, and says &quot;It seems that the derivatives of *ruō* 'to rush' and *ruō* 'to dig' have become mixed up: we find short-vowel forms meaning 'dig', in spite of the PIE root etymology *(H)ruH-&quot; (p. 531). Likewise, Szemerényi says in a footnote on p. 23 that &quot;*rutrum, rutābulum,* 'Schaufel', *rūta caesa* [...] belong with ²*ruo*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A (long) side note: [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=rutrum) use a macron on the first syllable of *rutrum,* but I'm inclined to think that this is an example of the use of the macron to mark metrical weight. Because *rutrum* has a medial consonant cluster, it could scan in poetry as rut.rum with a heavy first syllable. That doesn't make the vowel in the first syllable long (despite the confusing old description of such vowels as &quot;long by position&quot;), but Lewis and Short seem to have considered syllable weight sufficient reason to mark a vowel with a macron, at least in certain contexts where the weight of the syllable would otherwise be somewhat non-obvious—e.g., as far as I know, L&amp;S don't use macrons like this on vowel letters before double consonant letters, but they do seem to use them on vowel letters before single consonant letters that scan long, like the *j* in *[mājor](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmajor)* (which is thought to have been pronounced [majjor] in Latin) and the *z* in *[trăpēzīta](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtrapezita)* (which comes from Greek *τραπεζίτης,* with epsilon; L&amp;S mention an alternative spelling with *tarpess-* which provides further support for the idea that it was the consonant rather than the vowel that was long in this word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi, Oswald. 1980. &quot;[Latin Verbs in uo, uere](https://books.google.com/books?id=1mVwAuuC8GoC&amp;pg=PA12&amp;lpg=PA12&amp;d#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&quot;. *Italic and Romance Linguistic Studies in Honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan, Michiel. 2008. *Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6455" RevisionGUID="69a4b13c-60ed-4d71-b4c3-3959d46b8ed4" CreationDate="2018-05-14T10:47:36.673" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body" Text="Szemerényi (1980) says that the following &quot;descriptive rule&quot; summarizes the conjugation pattern for verbs ending in *-uo*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbs in *-uo* in general form their perfect in *-uī,* their PPP in *-ūtus* (even *tuor/tūtus* would conform to this rule!); a list would have to specify four exceptions: *ruo* has *rūtus,* but in the compounds  *-rŭtus*; two verbs which have a velar in the perfect (*fluxī, struxī*) show it in the PPP, too, as does *frūctus* from *fruor.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 11-12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a bit confused by the rule saying that the length of the vowel in *-rutus* depends on whether the word is a compound. The explanation actually seems to be that there are two different verbs that have *ruo* as the first principal part. Szemerényi refers to them as ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo.* For more details, see [my answer to the related question &quot;Why is there a short ŭ in rŭtus?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6456/9)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;##Lists of verbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On p. 11, before giving the rule that I quoted earlier in this answer,  Szemerényi lists and categorizes the verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.1. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br&gt;(a) A small group has no forms for the PPP and in some cases not even for the perfect. Here belong:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    battuo      -ere     -uī     --&#xD;&#xA;    ¹cluo       -ere     --      --&#xD;&#xA;    ²cluo       -ere     --      --&#xD;&#xA;    (con)gruo   -ere     -uī     --&#xD;&#xA;    gruo        -ere     --      --   &#xD;&#xA;    pluit       -ere    -uit     --  &#xD;&#xA;    sternuo     -ere    -uit     --  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) The great majority – fifteen verbs – show *-uī* and *-ūtum* in these forms. They are: *acuo, arguo, futuo, imbuo, induo, (ē)luo, metuo, minuo, nuo, polluo,* ²*ruo, spuo, statuo, suo, tribuo.* We should perhaps add here *dēlibūtus,* and certainly also ²*luo* as shown by *solūtum* (see fn. 2).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(c) Two verbs deviate from this main type in that they show *-ŭtum.* One of them is attested in Classical times: ¹*ruo-rutum.* For the other, ¹*cluo,* the form *clutus* is indirectly attested by *inclutus* 'famous'.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(d) Two other verbs show in the perfect and the PPP a velar stem:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    fluo       -ere     fluxī      fluctum (later fluxus)&#xD;&#xA;    struo      -ere     struxī     structum.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; No doubt (see also 3.1 (8) further down) the same type is seen in &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    fruor      fruī     frūctus;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;the form *frūctus* was the norm in Classical times, *fruitus* is a later innovation, perhaps preceded by  *fruitūrus* (Cicero).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The same formation as in *fruitus* is seen in *tuitus,* which again seems later than *tūtus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although Szemerényi doesn't seem to mention it, the supine of ¹*ruo* likewise seems to have had the variant form *ruitum* at some point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is more discussion of the forms and their probable development in the paper. Unfortunately, I can't really summarize it (partly because it is very detailed, and partly because I haven't been able to read it through yet because I've only accessed it through Google Books).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But at the end, there is a categorization of the verbs according to etymology and a passage that seems to explain the long vowel in the ending *-ūtus* for many of the verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.2. On the strength of our findings in 3.1, we can group the twenty-nine verbs in *-uo* according to the original formations as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(a) thematic root-formations (*-ewō,* one instance *-owō*): ²*cluo,* ¹*luo, pluit,* ¹*ruo, struo*;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(b) thematized nasal-infix formation: *sternuo*;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(c) primary *-yo*: *induo (\*end-au-yō); fluo (\*bhleug-yō); fruor (\*bhrūg-yō-r);* ¹*gruo (\*grū-yō,* or *gruwō?);* ²*gruo (\*grū-yō,* or *gru-it?);* ²*luo (\*lū̆-yō); polluo (*\*³*lŭ-yō,* or *\*lowō?);* ²*ruo (\*rū-yō); spuo (\*spyū-yō); suo (\*syū-yō);*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(d) denominative *-yo*: *acuo, arguo, futuo, metuo, minuo, statuo, tribuo* (all *-ŭyō* or *-ūyō?);*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(e) pairs of basic verb and intensive (cf. *σπένδω: spondeo; \*tendo, tondeo*): &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;*nuo : nueo (\*newō : \*noweyō)*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;*tuor : tueor (\*tewōr : \*toweyōr)*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;*?cluo : clueo (\*klewō : \*kloweyō?* but rather late innovation ¹*cluo* beside old *clueo*);&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(f): of obscure structure: *battuo, dēlibūtus, imbuo.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;a&gt;4. The PPP has, as we have seen (2.1), *-ūtus* in the denominatives. This is what we should expect in any case, seeing that before the suffix *-to* the stem-final vowel is lengthened even in purely adjectival forms; c.f. *aurītus, crīnītus, turrītus,* on the one hand, *argūtus, cinctūtus, cornūtus, versūtus, verūtus,* on the other, and, outside Italy, e.g., Greek *δακρῡτός* 'wept over, tearful'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 28)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi, Oswald. 1980. &quot;[Latin Verbs in uo, uere](https://books.google.com/books?id=1mVwAuuC8GoC&amp;pg=PA12&amp;lpg=PA12&amp;d#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&quot;. *Italic and Romance Linguistic Studies in Honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan, Michiel. 2008. *Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6456" RevisionGUID="d52616a1-116d-423f-99cc-7c4bccf7bc7e" CreationDate="2018-05-14T10:53:17.107" UserId="9" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Szemerényi (1980) says that the following &quot;descriptive rule&quot; summarizes the conjugation pattern for verbs ending in *-uo*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbs in *-uo* in general form their perfect in *-uī,* their PPP in *-ūtus* (even *tuor/tūtus* would conform to this rule!); a list would have to specify four exceptions: ***ruo* has *rūtus,* but in the compounds  *-rŭtus***; two verbs which have a velar in the perfect (*fluxī, struxī*) show it in the PPP, too, as does *frūctus* from *fruor.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 11-12) (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a bit confused by the rule saying that the length of the vowel in *-rutus* depends on whether the word is a compound. Some 17th-century books on Latin grammar seem to indicate that the form *ruitum* is used as the supine of *ruo* 'to rush', but that *-ruitum* is not used in derived compound words (*[The Royal Grammar, Commonly Called Lilie's Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=oT4RSnRciEwC&amp;pg=PA413&amp;lpg=PA413&amp;dq=%22rutum%22+%22ruitum%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=jrufNSJ4ey&amp;sig=9cIBfuyzx5N0mqZiLXUePuW7qOM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjMhtnR_oTbAhXJx4MKHa3GD1oQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22rutum%22%20%22ruitum%22&amp;f=false),* explained by William Walker (1695); *[A Compleat System of Grammar, English and Latin](https://books.google.com/books?id=pfjtpNsCz7QC&amp;pg=PA86&amp;lpg=PA86&amp;dq=%22rutum%22+%22ruitum%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=t6581PUzSt&amp;sig=eqCAqx-yV2O9yHzknQTx21vLazg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi0v8Xr_4TbAhWB5oMKHT4NC8gQ6AEIOTAF#v=onepage&amp;q=%22rutum%22%20%22ruitum%22&amp;f=false),* by William Clare (1699)); however, I don't know whether *ruitum* is a post-Classical form—it doesn't seem to be mentioned in [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Druo).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A further complication is that apparently, there are two different verbs that have *ruo* as the first principal part. Szemerényi refers to them as ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo.* The form *rūtus* seems to occur primarily as the PPP of ²*ruo,* which is thought to come from a PIE root ending in *\*w~u* followed by a laryngeal. In Indo-European languages, *u* (=syllabic *\*w*) followed by a laryngeal developed into the long vowel *ū.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the other *-uo* verbs with PPPs ending in *-ūtus* (*acuo, arguo, futuo, metuo, minuo, statuo, tribuo*) seem to be &quot;denominative&quot;, which somehow explains the length of the vowel. Szemerényi says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. The PPP has, as we have seen (2.1), *-ūtus* in the denominatives. This is what we should expect in any case, seeing that before the suffix *-to* the stem-final vowel is lengthened even in purely adjectival forms; c.f. *aurītus, crīnītus, turrītus,* on the one hand, *argūtus, cinctūtus, cornūtus, versūtus, verūtus,* on the other, and, outside Italy, e.g., Greek *δακρῡτός* 'wept over, tearful'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 28)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Principal parts of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi gives different vowel lengths in the PPP for ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;¹*ruo -uī -ŭtum* 'rush, overthrow' (Palatus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;²*ruo -uī -ūtus* 'root, rake, scrape' (Lucretius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two corresponding entries for *ruo* in [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ruo#Latin) and in De Vaan (2008), but they give conflicting information about the perfect and supine forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For ¹*ruo*, Wiktionary says &quot;*perfect active* **ruī**, *supine* **rutum**&quot; (Wiktionary doesn't use breves in its Latin entries, so the lack of a macron is supposed to imply that the vowel is short). De Vaan also gives the perfect as *ruī,* but gives the PPP as *rū̆tum.* As I mentioned above, I've also seen the form *ruitum* in a few sources. The Latin Wiktionary (&quot;[Victionarium](https://la.wiktionary.org/wiki/ruo)&quot;) says &quot; **rutum** *vel* **rūtum** *vel* **ruitum**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For ²*ruo*, Wiktionary says &quot;*no perfect or supine forms*&quot;. De Vaan gives no perfect form, but gives the PPP as *rūtum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Etymology of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi says *¹ruo* is from IE *\*ereu-* (I don't understand the reason for the initial *\*e* in this reconstruction, but it seems irrelevant to the development of the vowel after the *\*r*)  which is also supposed to be the source of Sanskrit *r̥ṇōmi* and Greek *ὀρούω* (p. 23). Wiktionary says that the verb that Szemerényi calls *¹ruo* is from PIE *h₃rew-. For Italic specifically, Szemerényi gives the reconstruction *\*rewō,* and says &quot;The form of the Latin verb would then be due to the compounds&quot; (p. 24). I'm not sure what this means. De Vaan gives the Proto-Italic form as *\*rowe/o-,* and the PIE form as *h₃reu-e/o-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For ²*ruo*, after listing some cognates, Szemerényi suggests that it comes from IE &quot;*\*rūyō*&quot; (comparing the form to Old Church Slavonic *ryjo*). Wiktionary says that what  Szemerényi calls ²*ruo* is from &quot;*(H)rewH-&quot;, which seems consistent with Szemerényi's suggestion (PIE *uH developed to IE *ū). De Vaan gives the Proto-Italic form as *\*rowe/o-* (the same as for  *¹ruo,* apparently), and the PIE form as *(H)reuH-e/o-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the sources don't agree on all the details, I think it seems fairly clear that the reason for the (at least potential) length difference between the vowels in the PPPs of ¹*ruo* and ²*ruo* is the laryngeal that comes after the w~u in the reconstructed ancestor of ²*ruo* in PIE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Vowel length in words related to ²*ruo*&#xD;&#xA;Some weird things seem to happen with vowel length in related words or derivatives of these words. De Vaan's entry for ²*ruo* lists *rutus, -ūs, rutābulum, rutellum, rutrum, rūta caesa* (as well as some verbs) as derivatives, and says &quot;It seems that the derivatives of *ruō* 'to rush' and *ruō* 'to dig' have become mixed up: we find short-vowel forms meaning 'dig', in spite of the PIE root etymology *(H)ruH-&quot; (p. 531). Likewise, Szemerényi says in a footnote on p. 23 that &quot;*rutrum, rutābulum,* 'Schaufel', *rūta caesa* [...] belong with ²*ruo*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A (long) side note: [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=rutrum) use a macron on the first syllable of *rutrum,* but I'm inclined to think that this is an example of the use of the macron to mark metrical weight. Because *rutrum* has a medial consonant cluster, it could scan in poetry as rut.rum with a heavy first syllable. That doesn't make the vowel in the first syllable long (despite the confusing old description of such vowels as &quot;long by position&quot;), but Lewis and Short seem to have considered syllable weight sufficient reason to mark a vowel with a macron, at least in certain contexts where the weight of the syllable would otherwise be somewhat non-obvious—e.g., as far as I know, L&amp;S don't use macrons like this on vowel letters before double consonant letters, but they do seem to use them on vowel letters before single consonant letters that scan long, like the *j* in *[mājor](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmajor)* (which is thought to have been pronounced [majjor] in Latin) and the *z* in *[trăpēzīta](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtrapezita)* (which comes from Greek *τραπεζίτης,* with epsilon; L&amp;S mention an alternative spelling with *tarpess-* which provides further support for the idea that it was the consonant rather than the vowel that was long in this word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szemerényi, Oswald. 1980. &quot;[Latin Verbs in uo, uere](https://books.google.com/books?id=1mVwAuuC8GoC&amp;pg=PA12&amp;lpg=PA12&amp;d#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&quot;. *Italic and Romance Linguistic Studies in Honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan, Michiel. 2008. *Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="b3e3bbd5-3f18-470f-99b3-5100c572f33d" CreationDate="2018-05-14T11:17:11.697" UserId="9" Comment="added 1161 characters in body" Text="I don't know anywhere near enough to give a complete, or even a definitely correct answer, but there seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false)* (1903) says as much, and gives some examples of exceptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**182. The Future Active Participle.** This is formed with the suffix *-tūro-,* and is declined like an Adjective of the First and Second Declensions. As regards the form of the stem to which the suffix is added, it usually follows the formation of the Perfect Passive Participle; e.g. **amātūrus,** like **amātus**. But there are occasional variations, as :&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**moritūrus** beside **mortuus**, from **morior**, *die*, **morī**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br&gt;**oritūrus** &quot; **ortuus**, &quot; **orior**, *arise*, **orīrī**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br&gt;**paritūrus** &quot; **partus**, &quot; **pario**, *bring forth*, **parere**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br&gt;**ruitūrus** &quot; **-rutus**, &quot; **ruo**, *tumble down*, **ruere**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. Similarly, the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples&#xD;&#xA; [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9)  mention two other possible examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- stō: stătus vs. stātūrus (Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- părĭō: partus (but it seems părĭtus was also used) vs. părĭtūrus (I have found a few sources that indicate that partūrus was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and],* by J.R. (1705), gives other examples (along with three specific -uo verbs, arguo: arguiturus, luo: luiturus, and eruo: eruiturus):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- nascor: nasciturus *instead of* naturus&#xD;&#xA;- nosco: nosciturus *instead of* noturus&#xD;&#xA;- morior: moriturus *instead of* morturus&#xD;&#xA;- orior: oriturus *instead of* orturus&#xD;&#xA;- sono: sonaturus *instead of* soniturus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Johnson (1718) has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples, like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adduco: adduciturus *instead of* adducturus&#xD;&#xA;- frico: fricaturus *instead of* fricturus ([Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/frico#Latin) says *fricatum* is a possible supine form, but *frictum* is more common)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="ccd08ec8-8b78-488c-8b94-962ed97a87ce" CreationDate="2018-05-14T11:22:34.873" UserId="9" Comment="added 1161 characters in body" Text="I don't know anywhere near enough to give a complete, or even a definitely correct answer, but there seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb that is true for &quot;regular&quot; verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false)* (1903) says as much, and gives some examples of exceptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**182. The Future Active Participle.** This is formed with the suffix *-tūro-,* and is declined like an Adjective of the First and Second Declensions. As regards the form of the stem to which the suffix is added, it usually follows the formation of the Perfect Passive Participle; e.g. **amātūrus,** like **amātus**. But there are occasional variations, as :&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **moritūrus** beside **mortuus**, from **morior**, *die*, **morī**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **oritūrus** &quot; **ortuus**, &quot; **orior**, *arise*, **orīrī**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **paritūrus** &quot; **partus**, &quot; **pario**, *bring forth*, **parere**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **ruitūrus** &quot; **-rutus**, &quot; **ruo**, *tumble down*, **ruere**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.* (On the other hand, I have found a few sources that indicate that &quot;partūrus&quot; was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. Similarly, the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples&#xD;&#xA; [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9)  mention *partus* vs. *părĭtūrus* as well as one other possible example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- stō: stătus vs. stātūrus (Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and],* by J.R. (1705), gives other examples (along with three specific -uo verbs, arguo: arguiturus, luo: luiturus, and eruo: eruiturus, and the already-mentioned moriturus and oriturus):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- nascor: nasciturus *instead of* naturus&#xD;&#xA;- nosco: nosciturus *instead of* noturus&#xD;&#xA;- sono: sonaturus *instead of* soniturus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Johnson (1718) has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples, like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adduco: adduciturus *instead of* adducturus&#xD;&#xA;- frico: fricaturus *instead of* fricturus ([Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/frico#Latin) says *fricatum* is a possible supine form, but *frictum* is more common)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6475" RevisionGUID="2e1e7d84-3bbd-4c85-b220-d46430ba6a56" CreationDate="2018-05-14T11:46:11.930" UserId="79" Text="I asked yesterday [why the participle *mortuus* has two *u*s](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6469/79).&#xD;&#xA;When Rafael asked whether one of the *u*s were consonantal, I had no other evidence than being taught that they are both vocalic.&#xD;&#xA;Arguing by analogies is tricky as there seem to be no other verbs with the past participle stem ending in a vowel.&#xD;&#xA;This also makes it reasonable to conjecture that it might be /mortwus/ instead of /mortu.us/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, do we know how *mortuus* was pronounced in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Did it have two or three syllables?&#xD;&#xA;Were the two adjacent *u*s both vocalic?&#xD;&#xA;And most importantly, how do we know?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21456" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6475" RevisionGUID="2e1e7d84-3bbd-4c85-b220-d46430ba6a56" CreationDate="2018-05-14T11:46:11.930" UserId="79" Text="How many syllables are there in 'mortuus'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21457" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6475" RevisionGUID="2e1e7d84-3bbd-4c85-b220-d46430ba6a56" CreationDate="2018-05-14T11:46:11.930" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|consonants|vowel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6476" RevisionGUID="79640d4b-8fa5-4637-a534-c0b10b792659" CreationDate="2018-05-14T11:46:11.930" UserId="79" Text="Here is metric evidence in support of three syllables.&#xD;&#xA;I went through all occurrences of *mortuu-* in Vergil(ius) and Ovid(ius), and I found no occurrences that would require scanning *mortuus* or *mortuum* as a two-syllable word.&#xD;&#xA;Such situations are possible, so absence of such evidence is evidence to the contrary.&#xD;&#xA;The examples below require three syllables to scan right.&#xD;&#xA;In addition there were cases where either reading is possible; I left those out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Vergilius, *Eclogae*, 3.15:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *et si non aliqua nocuisses, **mortuus** esses*  &#xD;&#xA;(hexameter)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Ovidius, *Amores*, 3.14.40:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *tunc ego, sed tecum, **mortuus** esse velim*  &#xD;&#xA;(pentameter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Ovidius, *Tristia*, 3.3.66:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *sic ego non etiam **mortuus** exul ero*  &#xD;&#xA;(pentameter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Ovidius, *Tristia*, 4.3.47:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *denique, ut et vixi, sine crimine **mortuus** essem*  &#xD;&#xA;(hexameter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Ovidius, *Ibis*, 161:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *his vivus furiis agitabere, **mortuus** isdem*  &#xD;&#xA;(hexameter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fifth foot of hexameter is always a dactyl, and dactyl is also necessary in the second half of pentameter.&#xD;&#xA;There are exceptions to these rules of course, but they are observed very well in my experience of classical metric poetry.&#xD;&#xA;This is fairly conclusive evidence that the two adjacent *u*s are both vocalic in *mortuus* in classical pronunciation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6477" RevisionGUID="23bf1c6d-af17-43b8-846b-1615dc67a5f9" CreationDate="2018-05-14T16:45:05.353" UserId="406" Text="According to [Yellow Sky's description][1] (which lacks citations but lines up with all the words I can think of), the suffix *-vus* (from PIE *_-wós_) has three different forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *-vus* after A, E, I, O, L, or R&#xD;&#xA; - *-us* after U or V, including QV&#xD;&#xA; - *-uus* after anything else&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since *mort-* ends with a T, it falls into the &quot;anything else&quot; category, and the two-syllable suffix *-uus* is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/3055/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6478" RevisionGUID="b7121045-414b-4df2-bf85-8aea33587e00" CreationDate="2018-05-14T21:07:45.613" UserId="406" Text="In Greek, verbs are classified as &quot;consonant-stem&quot; or &quot;vowel-stem&quot;. Vowel-stem verbs, aptly, have a vowel at the end of their stem. And in the Attic dialect, if this vowel is a short alpha, epsilon, or omicron, it contracts into the endings and makes a very distinctive conjugation pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the vowel is long, I would assume no contraction happens. But what about verbs ending in short iota or hypsilon? It seems likely that such stems exist, because Latin has quite a lot of i-stem verbs (the third conjugation -iō with short i, and the fourth conjugation with long ī)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21462" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6478" RevisionGUID="b7121045-414b-4df2-bf85-8aea33587e00" CreationDate="2018-05-14T21:07:45.613" UserId="406" Text="Are there iota or hypsilon contract verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21463" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6478" RevisionGUID="b7121045-414b-4df2-bf85-8aea33587e00" CreationDate="2018-05-14T21:07:45.613" UserId="406" Text="|greek|conjugation|vowel|contraction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="1fa9e2a9-5129-4629-894c-8a936dffef1e" CreationDate="2018-05-14T22:10:44.843" UserId="9" Comment="added juvaturus and secaturus" Text="I don't know anywhere near enough to give a complete, or even a definitely correct answer, but there seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb that is true for &quot;regular&quot; verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false)* (1903) says as much, and gives some examples of exceptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**182. The Future Active Participle.** This is formed with the suffix *-tūro-,* and is declined like an Adjective of the First and Second Declensions. As regards the form of the stem to which the suffix is added, it usually follows the formation of the Perfect Passive Participle; e.g. **amātūrus,** like **amātus**. But there are occasional variations, as :&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **moritūrus** beside **mortuus**, from **morior**, *die*, **morī**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **oritūrus** &quot; **ortuus**, &quot; **orior**, *arise*, **orīrī**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **paritūrus** &quot; **partus**, &quot; **pario**, *bring forth*, **parere**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **ruitūrus** &quot; **-rutus**, &quot; **ruo**, *tumble down*, **ruere**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.* (On the other hand, I have found a few sources that indicate that &quot;partūrus&quot; was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. Similarly, the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples&#xD;&#xA; [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9)  mention *partus* vs. *părĭtūrus* as well as one other possible example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- stō: stătus vs. stātūrus (Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found some lists of (possible) exceptions in some books, such as *[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and],* by J.R. (1705) and *[A Latin grammar][Leonard],* by J Russell Leonard. (I removed the examples with *-uiturus,* since you already mentioned them in the question, as well as *moriturus* and *oriturus,* which I mentioned earlier in this answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nasciturus** beside **natus** from **nascor** (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **nosciturus** beside **notus** from **nosco** (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **sonaturus** beside **sonitus** from **sono** (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **juvaturus** beside **jutum** from **juvo** (Leonard, p. 51)&#xD;&#xA;- **secaturus** beside **sectum** from **seco** (Leonard, p. 51)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Johnson (1718) has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples, like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adduco: adduciturus *instead of* adducturus (once, in Plautus)&#xD;&#xA;- frico: fricaturus *instead of* fricturus ([Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/frico#Latin) says *fricatum* is a possible supine form, but *frictum* is more common)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leonard]: &#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=EZACAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=moriturus+oriturus+pariturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-bBNdzFRHw&amp;sig=wgji1qbBOqFDyxCBhaoAiTDEE9s&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilhPa8mIXbAhVJm-AKHfWKA94Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moriturus%20oriturus%20pariturus&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="359edc11-31df-4b64-98d4-e249ff0a1eba" CreationDate="2018-05-14T22:22:08.690" UserId="9" Comment="added 305 characters in body" Text="I don't know anywhere near enough to give a complete, or even a definitely correct answer, but there seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb that is true for &quot;regular&quot; verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false)* (1903) says as much, and gives some examples of exceptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**182. The Future Active Participle.** This is formed with the suffix *-tūro-,* and is declined like an Adjective of the First and Second Declensions. As regards the form of the stem to which the suffix is added, it usually follows the formation of the Perfect Passive Participle; e.g. **amātūrus,** like **amātus**. But there are occasional variations, as :&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **moritūrus** beside **mortuus**, from **morior**, *die*, **morī**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **oritūrus** &quot; **ortuus**, &quot; **orior**, *arise*, **orīrī**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **paritūrus** &quot; **partus**, &quot; **pario**, *bring forth*, **parere**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **ruitūrus** &quot; **-rutus**, &quot; **ruo**, *tumble down*, **ruere**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.* (On the other hand, I have found a few sources that indicate that &quot;partūrus&quot; was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. Similarly, the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples&#xD;&#xA; [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9)  mention *partus* vs. *părĭtūrus* as well as one other possible example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- stō: stătus vs. stātūrus (Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found some lists of (possible) exceptions in some books, such as *[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and],* by J.R. (1705) and *[A Latin grammar][Leonard],* by J Russell Leonard. (I removed the examples with *-uiturus,* since you already mentioned them in the question, as well as *moriturus* and *oriturus,* which I mentioned earlier in this answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nasciturus** beside **natus** from **nascor** (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **nosciturus** beside **notus** from **nosco** (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **sonaturus** beside **sonitus** from **sono** (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **juvaturus** beside **jutum** from **juvo** (Leonard, p. 51)&#xD;&#xA;- **secaturus** beside **sectum** from **[seco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dseco)** (Leonard, p. 51); however, Bede's *[De Orthographia][Bede]* seems to say &quot;secturus, non secaturus&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Johnson (1718) has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples, like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adduco: adduciturus *instead of* adducturus (once, in Plautus)&#xD;&#xA;- frico: fricaturus *instead of* fricturus ([Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/frico#Latin) says *fricatum* is a possible supine form, but *frictum* is more common)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leonard]: &#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=EZACAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=moriturus+oriturus+pariturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-bBNdzFRHw&amp;sig=wgji1qbBOqFDyxCBhaoAiTDEE9s&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilhPa8mIXbAhVJm-AKHfWKA94Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moriturus%20oriturus%20pariturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bede]: https://books.google.com/books?id=tOQHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=%22secaturus%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22secaturus%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="16c5b734-f143-4ed3-9982-8a306867df92" CreationDate="2018-05-14T22:30:20.050" UserId="9" Comment="added 305 characters in body" Text="I don't know anywhere near enough to give a complete, or even a definitely correct answer, but there seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb that is true for &quot;regular&quot; verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false)* (1903) says as much, and gives some examples of exceptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**182. The Future Active Participle.** This is formed with the suffix *-tūro-,* and is declined like an Adjective of the First and Second Declensions. As regards the form of the stem to which the suffix is added, it usually follows the formation of the Perfect Passive Participle; e.g. **amātūrus,** like **amātus**. But there are occasional variations, as :&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **moritūrus** beside **mortuus**, from **morior**, *die*, **morī**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **oritūrus** &quot; **ortuus**, &quot; **orior**, *arise*, **orīrī**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **paritūrus** &quot; **partus**, &quot; **pario**, *bring forth*, **parere**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **ruitūrus** &quot; **-rutus**, &quot; **ruo**, *tumble down*, **ruere**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.* (On the other hand, I have found a few sources that indicate that &quot;partūrus&quot; was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. Similarly, the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples&#xD;&#xA; [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9)  mention *partus* vs. *părĭtūrus* as well as one other possible example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- stō: stătus vs. stātūrus (Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found some lists of (possible) exceptions in some books, such as *[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and],* by J.R. (1705) and *[A Latin grammar][Leonard],* by J Russell Leonard. (I removed the examples with *-uiturus,* since you already mentioned them in the question, as well as *moriturus* and *oriturus,* which I mentioned earlier in this answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nāscĭtūrus** beside **nātus** from **nāscor** (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **nōscĭtūrus** beside **nōtus** from **nōsco** (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **sŏnātūrus** beside **sŏnĭtus** from **[sŏno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsono)** (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **jŭvātūrus** beside **jūtum** from **[jŭvo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Djuvo)** (Leonard, p. 51); however, [Peter Bullions](https://books.google.com/books?id=cxoPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=juvaturus#v=onepage&amp;q=juvaturus&amp;f=false) (1867) and [Albert Harkness](https://books.google.com/books?id=n4sAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=juvaturus) (1867) say that *jūtūrus* is used in compounds&#xD;&#xA;- **sĕcātūrus** beside **sectum** from **[sĕco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dseco)** (Leonard, p. 51); however, Bede's *[De Orthographia][Bede]* seems to say &quot;secturus, non secaturus&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Johnson (1718) has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples, like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adduco: adduciturus *instead of* adducturus (once, in Plautus)&#xD;&#xA;- frico: fricaturus *instead of* fricturus ([Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/frico#Latin) says *fricatum* is a possible supine form, but *frictum* is more common)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leonard]: &#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=EZACAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=moriturus+oriturus+pariturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-bBNdzFRHw&amp;sig=wgji1qbBOqFDyxCBhaoAiTDEE9s&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilhPa8mIXbAhVJm-AKHfWKA94Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moriturus%20oriturus%20pariturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bede]: https://books.google.com/books?id=tOQHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=%22secaturus%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22secaturus%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6479" RevisionGUID="6d8c0161-9348-422f-be57-d8234ff68d1a" CreationDate="2018-05-14T22:36:15.717" UserId="406" Text="###In Classical times, few digraphs were used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letters *K*, *Y*, and *Z* were used for Greek words, along with the digraphs *Ph*, *Th*, *Ch* for aspirated stops, but other words were generally assimilated to Latin phonology. (Source: searching for the combinations below in the Packhum corpus and finding nothing.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*Z* was used for more foreign sounds in Late Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jordanes' *De Origine Actibusque Getarum* uses *Z* when transcribing the sounds /ts/ and /dz/ in foreign languages, as well as on its own for /z/:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ***Tz***: *Emnetzur*, *Ultzindur*, *Dintzic*, etc&#xD;&#xA; - ***Dz***: *Scandza*, *Augandzi*, *Tadzans*, etc&#xD;&#xA; - ***Z***: *Boz*, *Bizzim*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other foreign sounds were still assimilated, but these particular combinations weren't utterly impossible in Latin (e.g. the compound *etsi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tradition seems to have gotten slowly broader and broader over the next several centuries, as people with native Slavic names were mentioned in Latin texts (e.g. the 12th-century [*Bull of Gniezno*][1] with *rz* for a retroflex sibilant, *ch* for some sort of affricate, and *z* for various other Polish consonants; the 12th-century *Chronica Slavorum* with *zc* for /tʃ/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, my sources are sparse, and more data from Classical or Late Latin would be appreciated: surely other writers than Jordanes mentioned foreign names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://pl.wikisource.org/wiki/Bulla_gnie%C5%BAnie%C5%84ska" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="edaac24c-be74-4d98-9ed6-c56a9de7587a" CreationDate="2018-05-14T22:45:47.437" UserId="9" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I don't know anywhere near enough to give a complete, or even a definitely correct answer, but there seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb that is true for &quot;regular&quot; verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false)* (1903) says as much, and gives some examples of exceptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**182. The Future Active Participle.** This is formed with the suffix *-tūro-,* and is declined like an Adjective of the First and Second Declensions. As regards the form of the stem to which the suffix is added, it usually follows the formation of the Perfect Passive Participle; e.g. **amātūrus,** like **amātus**. But there are occasional variations, as :&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **moritūrus** beside **mortuus**, from **morior**, *die*, **morī**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **oritūrus** &quot; **ortuus**, &quot; **orior**, *arise*, **orīrī**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **paritūrus** &quot; **partus**, &quot; **pario**, *bring forth*, **parere**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **ruitūrus** &quot; **-rutus**, &quot; **ruo**, *tumble down*, **ruere**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.* (On the other hand, I have found a few sources that indicate that &quot;partūrus&quot; was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. Similarly, the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples&#xD;&#xA; [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9)  mention *partus* vs. *părĭtūrus* as well as one other possible example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- stō: stătus vs. stātūrus (Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found some lists of (possible) exceptions in some books, such as *[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and],* by J.R. (1705) and *[A Latin grammar][Leonard],* by J Russell Leonard. (I removed the examples with *-uiturus,* since you already mentioned them in the question, as well as *moriturus* and *oriturus,* which I mentioned earlier in this answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nāscĭtūrus** beside **nātus** from **nāscor** (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **nōscĭtūrus** beside **nōtus** from **nōsco** (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **sŏnātūrus** beside **sŏnĭtus** from **[sŏno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsono)** (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **jŭvātūrus** beside **jūtum** from **[jŭvo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Djuvo)** (Leonard, p. 51); however, [Peter Bullions](https://books.google.com/books?id=cxoPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=juvaturus#v=onepage&amp;q=juvaturus&amp;f=false) (1867) and [Albert Harkness](https://books.google.com/books?id=n4sAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=juvaturus) (1867) say that in compounds, *jūtūrus* is also used &#xD;&#xA;- **sĕcātūrus** beside **sectum** from **[sĕco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dseco)** (Leonard, p. 51); however, Bede's *[De Orthographia][Bede]* seems to say &quot;secturus, non secaturus&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Johnson (1718) has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples, like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adduco: adduciturus *instead of* adducturus (once, in Plautus)&#xD;&#xA;- frico: fricaturus *instead of* fricturus ([Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/frico#Latin) says *fricatum* is a possible supine form, but *frictum* is more common)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leonard]: &#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=EZACAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=moriturus+oriturus+pariturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-bBNdzFRHw&amp;sig=wgji1qbBOqFDyxCBhaoAiTDEE9s&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilhPa8mIXbAhVJm-AKHfWKA94Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moriturus%20oriturus%20pariturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bede]: https://books.google.com/books?id=tOQHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=%22secaturus%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22secaturus%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6480" RevisionGUID="474f79e8-67b3-4783-a31b-7236d445c922" CreationDate="2018-05-15T01:07:09.353" UserId="39" Text="Weiss writes that “there was no general anaptyxis between a consonant and u” (p. 145). The outcome is different and seems to be unpredictable. In some cases Cu &gt; Cu or CC or C:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;equus (*h1ekuos), Minerva (*menesua)&#xD;&#xA;sollus (*soluos);&#xD;&#xA;probus (*probhuos), suavis (*suaduis);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009/2011 adds that “*tu apparently did become *tuu with gemination of the t if it was in the coda” (p. 145):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*mor.tuos &gt; mortuus (no gemination of t) but *kwat.uor &gt; quattuor (geminated t)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan adds that “the change from PIE *mrtuo- to *mrtuuo (conditioned by t?) was PIt.” (p. 390).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6481" RevisionGUID="c9eacb56-d34b-4337-b778-56f9c8b54bad" CreationDate="2018-05-15T14:34:08.797" UserId="12" Text="As a good pessimist, I frequently wish to humorously convey extremely low probabilities.  I'll often use the phrase &quot;a snowball's chance in hell,&quot; or a variation of it, to express this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's a snowball's chance in hell that my candidate gets elected&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's a snowball's chance in the Sahara that my efforts accomplish anything&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so forth.  Are there any common Latin expressions used for such situations? &#xD;&#xA; I'm particularly interested in phrases attested in Classical Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I checked [Wikipedia's list of Latin phrases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(full)) but didn't find anything suitable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21475" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6481" RevisionGUID="c9eacb56-d34b-4337-b778-56f9c8b54bad" CreationDate="2018-05-15T14:34:08.797" UserId="12" Text="How would one convey &quot;a snowball's chance in hell&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21476" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6481" RevisionGUID="c9eacb56-d34b-4337-b778-56f9c8b54bad" CreationDate="2018-05-15T14:34:08.797" UserId="12" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6473" RevisionGUID="0b4b3297-3da9-4104-b8e2-eb62b6ceefd4" CreationDate="2018-05-15T16:16:05.520" UserId="183" Comment="The author is named Jasanoff; Vandenhoek and Rupprecht is the publishing house" Text="##It's probably a coincidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preface: My main source for this entire answer is [*The Origin of the Italic Imperfect Subjunctive* by J. H. Jasanoff (Vandenhoek and Ruprecht, 1991)][1]. If this is contradicted by more recent scholarship, please feel free to correct me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All but one of the example words given are in the second person singular, because this shows off the vowel lengths more reliably (and because it's what Jasanoff does).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Imperfect Subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperfect subjunctive in Latin was formed from a Proto-Italic morpheme reconstructed as *_-sē-_. Where this morpheme comes from is unclear, since it doesn't line up with anything in PIE, but it doesn't seem to be related to *sim, sīs, sit* (Proto-Italic *_si-ēm_, *_si-ēs_, *_si-ēd_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most verbs, this rhotacized: *_amā-sē-s_ &gt; *amārēs*, *_face-sē-s_ &gt; *facerēs*, and so on. But in the rare athematic verbs, the *s* appears as itself or assimilates: *_es-sē-s_ &gt; *essēs*, *_vel-sē-s_ &gt; *vellēs*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was first learning, I was taught to form the imperfect subjunctive by attaching personal endings to the infinitive. But this isn't correct either: the infinitive was formed with an ending *_-si_, with a short vowel. So using this rule will get the vowel lengths wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Future Perfect Indicative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tense comes from &quot;the S-future of the perfect&quot;. In other words, the future morpheme *-(i)s-* attached to the perfect stem. (The &quot;S-future&quot; is very common for the actual future tense in Ancient Greek: present *lyō* → future *lysō*. But in Latin, a relative of *fiō* and the PIE subjunctive turned into a new future tense.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a form like *amāveris* comes from *amā-v-is-(i)s*. The similarity to *eris* seems to be coincidence: vowel reduction and rhotacism turned *-is-is* into *-eris*. But I'm not sure where *eris* itself (as in &quot;you will be&quot;) comes from, so I can't be sure they're unrelated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Perfect Subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This comes from the optative of the S-future of the perfect: the optative morpheme *-ī-* added on to the future perfect stem. The long vowel distinguished this from the future perfect indicative at first, but [as Alex B points out][2], the distinction vanished by Classical times. So this *amāveris* comes from older *amāverīs*, from *amā-v-is-ī-s*. Once again, the similarity seems coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notably, the S-future of the present used to be used for the actual future in Old Latin (*faxō* &quot;I will do&quot; &lt; *fac-s-ō* is attested), while the optative of the S-future of the present was used for the present subjunctive (*faxīs* &quot;you should do&quot; &lt; *fac-s-īs*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Pluperfect Subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is formed from the subjunctive morpheme *_-sē-_ (as seen in the imperfect) combined with the S-future of the perfect (as seen in the future perfect). *Amāvissēs* comes from *amā-v-is-sē-s*, and the additional consonant prevents both vowel reduction and rhotacism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this one is actually half-cognate with *essēs*: the *-sēs* ending is the same. But once again I was taught wrong: the perfect infinitive comes from *amā-v-is-si*, with a short vowel. That *-si* is (probably) not related to the subjunctive *-sē* except by coincidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Pluperfect Indicative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TODO: I don't actually know where this one comes from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~jasanoff/pdf/Origin%20of%20Italic%20imperfect%20subjunctive.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6418/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21478" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6473" RevisionGUID="0b4b3297-3da9-4104-b8e2-eb62b6ceefd4" CreationDate="2018-05-15T16:16:05.520" Comment="Proposed by 183 approved by 406 edit id of 233" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6482" RevisionGUID="d378f8cb-79c1-423c-ba87-6a8086a8352a" CreationDate="2018-05-15T17:02:20.347" UserId="406" Text="When I was learning Ancient Greek, I was taught that most verbs had three basic stems corresponding to the different aspects: imperfective *-λυ-*, aoristic *-λυσ-*, and perfective *-λελυκ-*. Adding an augment made them past-tense, removing it made them non-past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was a useful mnemonic. But historically, was there actually any connection between the sigmas in the future *λύσ-ω* (&quot;non-past aoristic&quot;) and the aorist *ἔ-λυσ-α* (&quot;past aoristic&quot;)? I had always assumed so, but then I came across the &quot;S-future&quot; while researching [the Latin future perfect][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6473/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21480" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6482" RevisionGUID="d378f8cb-79c1-423c-ba87-6a8086a8352a" CreationDate="2018-05-15T17:02:20.347" UserId="406" Text="Is the sigmatic future related to the sigmatic aorist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21481" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6482" RevisionGUID="d378f8cb-79c1-423c-ba87-6a8086a8352a" CreationDate="2018-05-15T17:02:20.347" UserId="406" Text="|etymology|greek|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6483" RevisionGUID="ebaddf75-a220-4080-9a36-d6ba7c1a779f" CreationDate="2018-05-15T19:10:50.770" UserId="469" Text="Not being specially familiar with Classical works, I would use something in the line of [VG Mt 19:24][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Facilius est camelum per foramen acus transire, quam divitem intrare in regnum Dei&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has been argued that the original Greek text may have used a slightly different image, but the surviving codices and those from which St. Jerome translated seem to put it that way. This means, at least, that the image was not too foreign at some point between the writing of the Septuagint and Jerome's translation. (And certainly become [well known later][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Missing a more Classical or so-to-say *pure Latin* (as in *more confidently not influenced by Greek or Hebrew*) quote, I'd say **facilius est camelum per foramen acus transire, quam [sth]** or the inverse, **difficilius est** (e.g.) **studium meum aliquod perficere quam camelum per foramen acus transire**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/mat019.htm#024&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22camel%20through%20the%20eye%20of%20a%20needle%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6473" RevisionGUID="d652b199-fdb6-4fc3-903d-bf4828bab31f" CreationDate="2018-05-15T19:12:25.193" UserId="406" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="##It's probably a coincidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preface: My main source for this entire answer is [*The Origin of the Italic Imperfect Subjunctive* by J. H. Jasanoff (Vandenhoek and Ruprecht, 1991)][1]. If this is contradicted by more recent scholarship, please feel free to correct me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All but one of the example words given are in the second person singular, because this shows off the vowel lengths more reliably (and because it's what Jasanoff does).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Imperfect Subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperfect subjunctive in Latin was formed from a Proto-Italic morpheme reconstructed as *_-sē-_. Where this morpheme comes from is unclear, since it doesn't line up with anything in PIE, but it doesn't seem to be related to *sim, sīs, sit* (Proto-Italic *_si-ēm_, *_si-ēs_, *_si-ēd_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most verbs, this rhotacized: *_amā-sē-s_ &gt; *amārēs*, *_face-sē-s_ &gt; *facerēs*, and so on. But in the rare athematic verbs, the *s* appears as itself or assimilates: *_es-sē-s_ &gt; *essēs*, *_vel-sē-s_ &gt; *vellēs*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was first learning, I was taught to form the imperfect subjunctive by attaching personal endings to the infinitive. But this isn't correct either: the infinitive was formed with an ending *_-si_, with a short vowel. So using this rule will get the vowel lengths wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Future Perfect Indicative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tense comes from &quot;the S-future of the perfect&quot;. In other words, the future morpheme *-(i)s-* attached to the perfect stem. (The &quot;S-future&quot; is very common for the actual future tense in Ancient Greek: present *lyō* → future *lysō*. But in Latin, it was replaced with a relative of *fiō* in the first and second conjugations, and the original subjunctive in the third and fourth.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a form like *amāveris* comes from *amā-v-is-(i)s*. The similarity to *eris* seems to be coincidence: vowel reduction and rhotacism turned *-is-is* into *-eris*. But I'm not sure where *eris* itself (as in &quot;you will be&quot;) comes from, so I can't be sure they're unrelated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Perfect Subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This comes from the optative of the S-future of the perfect: the optative morpheme *-ī-* added on to the future perfect stem. The long vowel distinguished this from the future perfect indicative at first, but [as Alex B points out][2], the distinction vanished by Classical times. So this *amāveris* comes from older *amāverīs*, from *amā-v-is-ī-s*. Once again, the similarity seems coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notably, the S-future of the present used to be used for the actual future in Old Latin (*faxō* &quot;I will do&quot; &lt; *fac-s-ō* is attested), while the optative of the S-future of the present was used for the present subjunctive (*faxīs* &quot;you should do&quot; &lt; *fac-s-īs*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Pluperfect Subjunctive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is formed from the subjunctive morpheme *_-sē-_ (as seen in the imperfect) combined with the S-future of the perfect (as seen in the future perfect). *Amāvissēs* comes from *amā-v-is-sē-s*, and the additional consonant prevents both vowel reduction and rhotacism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this one is actually half-cognate with *essēs*: the *-sēs* ending is the same. But once again I was taught wrong: the perfect infinitive comes from *amā-v-is-si*, with a short vowel. That *-si* is (probably) not related to the subjunctive *-sē* except by coincidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Pluperfect Indicative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TODO: I don't actually know where this one comes from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~jasanoff/pdf/Origin%20of%20Italic%20imperfect%20subjunctive.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6418/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6484" RevisionGUID="9466cec8-5dcc-4438-87bf-2fb59b31d415" CreationDate="2018-05-15T19:30:12.760" UserId="30" Text="I read in [this answer][1] that there may be a relation between the future endings *-bo, -bis,* etc. on the one hand and the verb *fio* &quot;become&quot; on the other. Is this true? If so, do we have any more details on how that happened&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus side question: are *fio* and *facio* related, cf. utriusque participle *factus*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6422/active-perfect-stem-conjugation-and-forms-of-esse/6473" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21487" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6484" RevisionGUID="9466cec8-5dcc-4438-87bf-2fb59b31d415" CreationDate="2018-05-15T19:30:12.760" UserId="30" Text="What is the origin of the future suffix -b-?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21488" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6484" RevisionGUID="9466cec8-5dcc-4438-87bf-2fb59b31d415" CreationDate="2018-05-15T19:30:12.760" UserId="30" Text="|language-evolution|morphology|conjugation|future-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6485" RevisionGUID="1382ddbf-61d4-4466-9d57-08be72a24f1c" CreationDate="2018-05-15T19:44:16.693" UserId="406" Text="##Side question: *fīō* and *faciō* seem to be unrelated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Faciō* &quot;to make&quot; comes from the Proto-Italic root *_θaki-_, probably from PIE *_dheh₁_ &quot;put&quot; (compare Greek *tí-thē-mi*, English &quot;do&quot;). I haven't seen a good explanation of the *_k_, but the *_θ_ seems to be attested in other Italic languages. In Latin, *_θ_ at the start of words later turned into *f*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Fīō* &quot;to become&quot; comes from the Proto-Italic root *fui-*, from PIE *_bhuH-_ &quot;become&quot;. This verb was eventually &quot;scrapped for parts&quot; in Latin: its perfect forms (with the stem *fu-*) were stolen by *esse* &quot;to be&quot; to act as its past tense, while its present forms (with the stem *fi-*) were stolen by *faciō* to act as its passive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6486" RevisionGUID="0a3aec36-9092-4c26-8e98-fcf9abcb635f" CreationDate="2018-05-15T20:00:30.520" UserId="406" Text="##Main question: they come from the same PIE root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *fīō* comes from (the zero-grade of) the PIE root *_bhuH-_, &quot;to become&quot;. This led to a Proto-Italic verb *_fui-_. In Proto-Italic, the phoneme *_f_ is thought to have been a bilabial fricative, voiceless [ɸ] at the start of a word and voiced [β] everywhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somewhere around Proto-Italic, this verb *_fui-_ started to be used for certain periphrastic formations: *_fuā-_ (subjunctive) for the imperfect, and *_fui-_ (indicative) for the future. Then, just as in the verb *fīō* itself, the *_u_ disappeared before these other vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This left Proto-Italic (or Post-Proto-Italic) forms like *_amā-fā-s_ &quot;you were loving&quot; and *_amā-fi-s_ &quot;you will love&quot;. In other Italic languages, this medial *_f_ remained: Oscan *fufans* &quot;they were&quot; (= Latin *_fubant_ = _erant_), Faliscan *carefo* (= Latin *carēbō*). But in Latin, medial *_f_ [β] hardened into a stop *b*, giving the endings *-bās* and *-bis* and separating them thoroughly from the verb *fīō*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6485" RevisionGUID="c77f1699-c341-4ae1-867d-1d483201b1d5" CreationDate="2018-05-15T20:02:19.850" UserId="406" Comment="added 220 characters in body" Text="##Side question: *fīō* and *faciō* seem to be unrelated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Faciō* &quot;to make&quot; comes from the Proto-Italic root *_θaki-_, probably from PIE *_dheh₁_ &quot;put&quot; (compare Greek *tí-thē-mi*, English &quot;do&quot;). I haven't seen a good explanation of the *_k_, but the *_θ_ seems to be attested in other Italic languages. In Latin, *_θ_ at the start of words later turned into *f*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Fīō* &quot;to become&quot; comes from the Proto-Italic root *fui-*, from PIE *_bhuH-_ &quot;become&quot;. This verb was rather defective even in Proto-Italic, and only had three tenses: the present indicative, present subjunctive, and perfect indicative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since *fīō* was so useful, and not a full verb, it was eventually &quot;scrapped for parts&quot; in Latin: its perfect forms (with the stem *fu-*) were stolen by *esse* &quot;to be&quot; to act as its past tense, while its present indicative and subjunctive forms (with the stem *fi-*) were stolen by *faciō* to act as its passive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6486" RevisionGUID="86741083-ed83-43d9-b830-a24d9adc07bd" CreationDate="2018-05-15T20:07:44.607" UserId="406" Comment="added 286 characters in body" Text="##Main question: they come from the same PIE root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *fīō* comes from (the zero-grade of) the PIE root *_bhuH-_, &quot;to become&quot;. This led to a Proto-Italic verb *_fui-_. In Proto-Italic, the phoneme *_f_ is thought to have been a bilabial fricative, voiceless [ɸ] at the start of a word and voiced [β] everywhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somewhere around Proto-Italic, this verb *_fui-_ started to be used for certain periphrastic formations: *_fuā-_ (subjunctive) for the imperfect, and *_fui-_ (indicative) for the future. Then, just as in the verb *fīō* itself, the *_u_ disappeared before these other vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This left Proto-Italic (or Post-Proto-Italic) forms like *_amā-fā-s_ &quot;you were loving&quot; and *_amā-fi-s_ &quot;you will love&quot;. In other Italic languages, this medial *_f_ remained: Oscan *fufans* &quot;they were&quot; (= Latin *_fubant_ = _erant_), Faliscan *carefo* (= Latin *carēbō*). But in Latin, medial *_f_ [β] hardened into a stop *b*, giving the endings *-bās* and *-bis* and separating them thoroughly from the verb *fīō*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [this paper][1] for more information. This paper also points out that these tenses are also seen in Celtic, and that their origin is much less cut-and-dry than I make it sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-UL0WUMHF/b5f71191-1211-413f-aec2-7080a96668f4/PDF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6487" RevisionGUID="d6a49137-b8da-4b81-baed-14164bd1a88c" CreationDate="2018-05-15T20:31:21.343" UserId="79" Text="I learned from [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6484/79) and its answers that the imperfect marker *-ba-* comes from the same root as *fui* and *fio*.&#xD;&#xA;What about the form *fiebam* (and other persons) then?&#xD;&#xA;Does it contain the same stem twice (*fi-* and *-ba-*)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, how is this possible?&#xD;&#xA;It certainly does not look like reduplication.&#xD;&#xA;I imagine that the similarity of the two elements was forgotten and the imperfect form of *fieri* was introduced by analogy to the rest of Latin conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps it arose through periphrasis, with the same verb as the auxiliary and the main verb (cf. Italian *ho avuto*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this a little confusing, so I would appreciate if someone could set me on the right track here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21494" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6487" RevisionGUID="d6a49137-b8da-4b81-baed-14164bd1a88c" CreationDate="2018-05-15T20:31:21.343" UserId="79" Text="Does 'fiebam' contain the same root twice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21495" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6487" RevisionGUID="d6a49137-b8da-4b81-baed-14164bd1a88c" CreationDate="2018-05-15T20:31:21.343" UserId="79" Text="|language-evolution|morphology|conjugation|irregular-words|imperfectum|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4899" RevisionGUID="7ad14f26-1b71-4545-8886-4b52c6f20481" CreationDate="2018-05-15T21:44:30.647" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="I strolled around [Tampere](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampere) today, and I noticed an inscription in the wall of [The Classical High School of Tampere](http://clasu.net/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;FENNIA VOS GENUIT  &#xD;&#xA;GREMIO VOS INTIMA FOVIT.  &#xD;&#xA;ARBORIS AUSCULTET  &#xD;&#xA;MURMURA QUISQUE SUAE.  &#xD;&#xA;FENNI VOS MANEATIS.  &#xD;&#xA;AT HOC ANIMIS RETINETE  &#xD;&#xA;GRAECIA QUID DEDERIT  &#xD;&#xA;VOBIS ET HESPERIA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!--&#xD;&#xA;For a photo, see [here](https://clasu-yhdistysavain-fi-bin.directo.fi/@Bin/faa588bf37e8e014524f4c243a61a618/1500919871/image/jpeg/181205/1.DSC_0122_2%20Fennia%20von%20genuit....jpeg).&#xD;&#xA;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This raises a couple of questions.&#xD;&#xA;Let me focus on scansion here; I might return to other issues later.&#xD;&#xA;(Anyone is free to ask questions about the content, of course!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is inscription contains quite obviously two elegiac couplets;&#xD;&#xA;the line breaks match the *caesurae*.&#xD;&#xA;I have two questions regarding scansion in comparison to classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It appears that *hoc* is intended to be *ho&amp;#x306;cc* (neuter singular) instead of the ablative *h&amp;omacr;c*; at least I see no support for an ablative. I recall that it has been mentioned on this site before that *hoc* can be pronounced this way, but I forget where.&#xD;&#xA;**Are there classical examples where *hoc* is clearly neuter nominative or accusative (not ablative) but scansion requires that the *c* is long like in this poem?**&#xD;&#xA;2. I have learned that *v&amp;omacr;b&amp;imacr;s* always has two long vowels, but the *i* appears to be short here.&#xD;&#xA;**Is there classical precedent for such a short *i* in *vobis* or *nobis*?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you think these questions should rather be asked separately, I'll be happy to do so. I'm not sure what's best.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this might be of local interest, let me repeat the question briefly in Finnish: Tampereen klassillisen lukion seinässä on piirtokirjoitus, joka on kirjoitettu elegisellä säeparilla. Miten sanat *hoc* ja *vobis* on tarkoitus ääntää, ja vastaako se klassista runomittaoppia? Katso yksityiskohdat yltä." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6488" RevisionGUID="40a11aa3-eb03-4f23-ba75-230477515ffd" CreationDate="2018-05-15T21:53:51.710" UserId="79" Text="## Hoc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is indeed classical precedent to pronounce *hoc* as *hocc*.&#xD;&#xA;Velius Longus in *De Orthographia* 53 writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At cum dicimus 'hic est ille', unum c cribimus et duo audimus, quod apparet in metro. Nam:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Hoc erat alma parens, quod me per tela, per ignes  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; eripis&amp;hellip;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; (Aeneis 2.664&amp;ndash;665)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si unum c hanc syllabam exciperet, acephalus esset versus nec posset a longa syllaba incipere, quae est heroico metro necessaria. ergo scribendum per duo c 'hocc erat alma parens' aut confitendum quaedam aliter scribi,	&#xD;&#xA;aliter enuntiari.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, in *hic est ille* we write one *c* but we hear two.&#xD;&#xA;This is made evident in the quoted verse from the Aeneid: the *hoc* has a double *c* although it is not written.&#xD;&#xA;Velius remarks that one should write *hocc erat alma parens* or accept that some things are written differently from their pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Vobis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I went through all occurrences of *vobis* and *nobis* in Vergilius.&#xD;&#xA;There were plenty of cases when they appear before a vowel, making the quantity of the second vowel clear.&#xD;&#xA;All cases point to a long *i*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps scanning the *i* short is modeled after [*brevis brevians*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4089/79) or iambic shortening, but that would require the preceding syllable to be short (light).&#xD;&#xA;It is not clear whether this is a slip, conscious poetic license, or something else, but I would consider it a mistake in classical verse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6489" RevisionGUID="4a6b3ad5-4f51-46eb-86db-79d5a813d2f9" CreationDate="2018-05-15T22:00:32.643" UserId="79" Text="My suggestion is to simply use the adjective *matutinus* either alone or with an appropriate noun.&#xD;&#xA;The entry in [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=matutinus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) gives examples in the right spirit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *cliens matutinus* &amp;mdash; a client who comes early in the morning&#xD;&#xA;- *Aeneas se matutinus agebat* &amp;mdash; Aeneas was up early&#xD;&#xA;- Iuppiter and Ianus were greeted early in the morning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A morning person would be aptly called *homo matutinus* in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;There may be something more colorful, but this is certainly an idiomatic choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6490" RevisionGUID="19f912e1-a654-49d0-955f-034a2a3b17b9" CreationDate="2018-05-15T22:23:39.017" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21500" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6490" RevisionGUID="19f912e1-a654-49d0-955f-034a2a3b17b9" CreationDate="2018-05-15T22:23:39.017" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6491" RevisionGUID="b8b0c4b0-e84c-471d-ba73-6233c7a77e01" CreationDate="2018-05-15T22:23:39.017" UserId="79" Text="For questions concerning the imperfect tense, tempus imperfectum." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21502" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6491" RevisionGUID="b8b0c4b0-e84c-471d-ba73-6233c7a77e01" CreationDate="2018-05-15T22:23:39.017" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6492" RevisionGUID="d30865a8-07b7-47a3-9595-f2635774ef4d" CreationDate="2018-05-16T00:13:31.670" UserId="406" Text="##It seems so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Hriberšek][1], the imperfect and future were most likely periphrastic constructions, with forms of *_fu(i)-_ following the main verb. He cites Sihler 1995 comparing this to the future tense in Romance: Late Latin *cantāre habeō* &gt; Romance *_cantare-habjo_ &gt; French *chanterai*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like this periphrasis is very old (probably dating from Proto-Italic), because Oscan also preserves *fufans*, an imperfect formed on the stem *fu-*. Just like *fiēbās*, this has two forms of the same morpheme in it. But whether the Oscans or Romans saw it as such is unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the imperfect marker shifted from *_-fā-_ to *-bā-* in Latin, that disguised the similarity significantly. And even so, *esse* is the one and only Latin root that didn't take this imperfect marker. On the other hand, Oscan clearly had no trouble with *fu-fa-ns* &lt; *_bhu-bhu-ā-_, just like English doesn't mind &quot;had had&quot; and similar forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, whether or not the Romans considered the two morphemes similar, they definitely did come from the same PIE root *_bhuH-_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-UL0WUMHF/b5f71191-1211-413f-aec2-7080a96668f4/PDF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="b8bf3ee4-4262-48d6-a8aa-f566a041a569" CreationDate="2018-05-16T07:37:27.323" UserId="9" Comment="removed reference to deleted answer" Text="There doesn't seem to be any single rule that can be used to determine without fail if a first-declension feminine noun ends in ᾰ or ᾱ just from the unaccented spelling of the nominative singular. (I would recommend learning the accented spelling of words, though, since it seems like something that you should know for other reasons.)There are apparently certain rules that apply in certain situations, and certain rules that apply in general but have exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the genitive, there is a fairly straightforward rule that can sometimes be applied.&#xD;&#xA;According to *From Alpha to Omega: A Beginning Course in Classical Greek,* fourth edition, by Anne H. Groton:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  If a noun’s genitive singular ending has an eta, but its nominative singular ending has an alpha (e.g., θάλαττα, -ης), you can be sure that the α in the nominative singular ending is short. (p. 27)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This allows you to deduce that *δόξα* ends in a short vowel, because its genitive singular is *δόξης*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it doesn't help with any of the other words you mention. First declension nouns whose genitive singular ends in *-ᾱς* can have short or long alpha in the singular nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Another thing that seems related to this is that &quot;δόξα&quot; is the only one of these words where a letter other than ρ, ι or ε comes before the α. In general, Proto-Greek long /aː/ became η in Attic except for after these three letters. But there are exceptions to the usual complementary distribution of -ᾱ and -η according to the ρ/ι/ε rule; I don't know exactly how many or if there are any rules about which words can be exceptions.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Greek Grammar][1],* First Edition (by H. W. Smyth) hosted online by the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, lists the following rules and tendencies, among others, for the forms of first-declension nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **d.** When the genitive singular has -ης, final α of the nominative singular is always short; when the genitive singular has -ᾱς, the final α is generally long.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Feminines fall into two classes:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**218.** (I) Feminines with ᾱ or η in all the cases of the singular. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**219.**  (II) Feminines with ᾰ in the nominative, accusative, and vocative singular. The quantity of the vowel is generally shown by the accent (163, 164).&#xD;&#xA;In this class are included:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;1. Substantives having σ (ξ, ψ, ττ, or σς), ζ, λλ, or αιν before the final α show ᾰ in nom., accus., and voc. sing., and η in gen. and dat. sing. Thus, μοῦσα muse, μούσης, μούσῃ, ἅμαξα wagon, τράπεζα table, γλῶττα tongue, ῥίζα root, ἅμιλλα contest, λέαινα lioness. Others are τόλμα daring, δίαιτα mode of life, ἄκανθα thorn, μυῖα fly.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;2. Substantives in ᾰ in nom., accus., and voc. sing., and ᾱ in gen. and dat. sing.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**a.** Substantives in -εια and -τρια denoting females, as βασίλεια queen (but βασιλείᾱ kingdom), ψάλτρια female harper; so the fem. of adj. in -υς, as γλυκύς, γλυκεῖα sweet.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**b.** Abstracts in -εια and -οια from adjectives in -ης and -οος, as ἀλήθεια truth (from ἀληθής true), εὔνοια good will (from εὔνους, εὔνοος kind, 290).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**c.** Most substantives in -ρα after a diphthong or ῡ, as μοῖρα fate, γέφῡρα bridge.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**220.**  Exceptions to 219, 1:  κόρση temple (later κόρρη), ἕρση dew; to 2 b:  in Attic poetry, ἀληθείᾱ, εὐνοίᾱ, ἀγνοίᾱ ignorance, which owe their ᾱ to the influence of the genitive and dative ἀληθείᾱς, ἀληθείᾳ, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**221.**  Most, if not all, of the substantives in ᾰ are formed by the addition of the suffix ι ̯α or ια (20); thus, γλῶττα from γλωχ-ι ̯α (cp. γλωχῖν-ες points), γέφῡρα from γεφυρ-ι ̯α, δότειρα giver from δοτερ-ι ̯α (and so φέρουσα bearing from φεροντι ̯α), μοῖρα from μορ-ι ̯α, ψάλτρ-ια.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ccel.org/s/smyth/grammar/html/smyth_2b_uni.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6493" RevisionGUID="ccfbbbab-0e0c-4e36-a45f-de26cd33d99f" CreationDate="2018-05-16T09:21:50.423" UserId="172" Text="There is a program called WORDS by one Whitaker, apparently no longer maintained since early 2000s (his home page has disappeared, too), but the copies [are still floating around][1]. I am using it all the time. It uses some semi-empirical rules to deduct all possible forms for a word. Personally I find it very useful, and even thinking about rewriting and maintaining it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Distributed with the program is a [file LISTALL][2] which is a list of all word forms in the dictionary that can possibly be generated. A caveat here is that the dictionary is quite large, and contains medieval Latin words and forms. There are markings in the database, but in LISTALL the distinction is lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archives.nd.edu/whitaker/words.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://archives.nd.edu/whitaker/wordsoth.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6487" RevisionGUID="4905a1ca-6ae2-4c91-9f42-3f40640d3e03" CreationDate="2018-05-16T09:48:15.220" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I learned from [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6484/79) and its answers that the imperfect marker *-ba-* comes from the same PIE root as *fui* and *fio*.&#xD;&#xA;What about the form *fiebam* (and other persons) then?&#xD;&#xA;Does it contain the same root twice (*fi-* and *-ba-*)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, how is this possible?&#xD;&#xA;It certainly does not look like reduplication.&#xD;&#xA;I imagine that the similarity of the two elements was forgotten and the imperfect form of *fieri* was introduced by analogy to the rest of Latin conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps it arose through periphrasis, with the same verb as the auxiliary and the main verb (cf. Italian *ho avuto*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this a little confusing, so I would appreciate if someone could set me on the right track here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6494" RevisionGUID="174a83da-9924-4eae-8a2a-1c8ee5dede5e" CreationDate="2018-05-16T14:53:23.070" UserId="645" Text="It's notoriously difficult to find a precise classical equivalent for this kind of thing — though some apt examples certainly exist (*caelum digito attingit* for 'he's over the moon' is one such).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you might best translate it fairly simply. The meaning/intention behind *sortem habet niviglobi Gehennae* should be pretty obvious, after all!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6495" RevisionGUID="254efcae-93de-48f6-a110-839bbfce91a1" CreationDate="2018-05-16T15:50:46.143" UserId="1987" Text="There are different theories on the etymology of Asclepius, **all of which** I want to understand.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;According to [Wikipedia][1]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The etymology of the name is unknown. In his revised version of Frisk's Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Greek Etymological Dictionary), R. S. P. Beekes gives this summary of the different attempts:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; &quot;H. Grégoire (with R. Goossens and M. Mathieu) in Asklépios, Apollon Smintheus et Rudra 1949 (Mém. Acad. Roy. de Belgique. Cl. d. lettres. 2. sér. 45), explains the name as 'the mole-hero', connecting σκάλοψ, ἀσπάλαξ 'mole' and refers to the resemblance of the Tholos in Epidauros and the building of a mole. (Thus Puhvel, Comp. Mythol. 1987, 135.) But the variants of Asklepios and those of the word for 'mole' do not agree.**The name is typical for Pre-Greek words**; apart from minor variations (β for π, αλ(α)for λα) we find α/αι (a well known variation; Fur. 335–339) followed by -γλαπ- or -σκλαπ-/-σχλαπ/β-, i.e. a voiced velar(without -σ-) or a voiceless velar (or an aspirated one: we know that there was no distinction between the three in the substr. language) with a -σ-. I think that the -σ-renders an original affricate, which (prob. as δ) was lost before the -γ- (in Greek the group -σγ- is rare, and certainly before another consonant).Szemerényi's etymology (JHS 94, 1974, 155) from Hitt. assula(a)- 'well-being' and piya- 'give' cannot be correct, as it does not explain the velar.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Beekes suggested a Pre-Greek proto-form *Atyklap-.&#xA;&#xA;The Cult of Asclepius was already popular by the 5th Century **BC** so why would the god derive his name from a [Tholoi][2] built in 360 **AD/CE**? Does that theory sound plausible or far-fetched?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;According to [Wiktionary][3]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; From ἀ- (a-, “&quot;negative prefix&quot;”), σκέλλω (skéllō, “I dry”) and ποιέω (poiéō, “I do, make”).&#xA;&#xA;Does that seem reasonable to *anybody*? And I'm not sure what exactly it means, and how on earth that would relate to the god Asclepius, or how his name could derive from that?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;According to [H.G.Liddell, RS][4]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; D. is said to have made it proparox. Ἀσκλήπιος, deriving it from ἤπιος,Plu.2.845b.)&#xA;&#xA;And concerning  [**ἤπιος**][5] says: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1.of persons, gentle, mild, kind, πατὴρ δ᾽ ὣς ἤπιος ἦεν Hom.:—c. dat. pers., id=Hom., Trag.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 2.of sentiments, ἤπια εἰδέναι to have kindly feelings, Hom.; πρὸςτὸ ἠπιώτερον καταστῆσαί τινα to bring him to a milder mood, Thuc.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; II.act. soothing, assuaging, of medicines, Il., etc.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 2.ἤπιον ἦμαρ, c. inf., a day favourable for beginning a thing, Hes.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; III.adv. ἠπίως, Hdt., Soph&#xA;&#xA;This last theory, of *HGL,RS*, seems the most plausible to me, but leaves me  wondering what they think the beginning *Ἀσκλ-* derives from?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius&#xA;  [2]: https://www.coastal.edu/intranet/ashes2art/delphi2/misc-essays/other_tholoi.html&#xA;  [3]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ἀσκληπιός&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=*)asklhpio/s&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dh)%2Fpios" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21509" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6495" RevisionGUID="254efcae-93de-48f6-a110-839bbfce91a1" CreationDate="2018-05-16T15:50:46.143" UserId="1987" Text="Etymology of Ἀσκληπιός (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21510" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6495" RevisionGUID="254efcae-93de-48f6-a110-839bbfce91a1" CreationDate="2018-05-16T15:50:46.143" UserId="1987" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6496" RevisionGUID="423c0f5d-8398-4652-86ae-c8207f429856" CreationDate="2018-05-16T15:51:05.543" UserId="2623" Text="I want to know the differences between `conlis` and `collis`. In French, there are gender nouns. So I was wondering if these were gender words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7u08.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21512" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6496" RevisionGUID="423c0f5d-8398-4652-86ae-c8207f429856" CreationDate="2018-05-16T15:51:05.543" UserId="2623" Text="What is the difference between conlis and collis? (mountain)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21513" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6496" RevisionGUID="423c0f5d-8398-4652-86ae-c8207f429856" CreationDate="2018-05-16T15:51:05.543" UserId="2623" Text="|differences|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6495" RevisionGUID="ce52072b-3878-4550-a633-1974a8e900fa" CreationDate="2018-05-16T15:55:49.870" UserId="1987" Comment="added 4 characters in body; added 1 character in body" Text="There are different theories on the etymology of Asclepius, **all of which** I want to understand.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;According to [Wikipedia][1]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The etymology of the name is unknown. In his revised version of Frisk's Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Greek Etymological Dictionary), R. S. P. Beekes gives this summary of the different attempts:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; &quot;H. Grégoire (with R. Goossens and M. Mathieu) in Asklépios, Apollon Smintheus et Rudra 1949 (Mém. Acad. Roy. de Belgique. Cl. d. lettres. 2. sér. 45), explains the name as 'the mole-hero', connecting σκάλοψ, ἀσπάλαξ 'mole' and refers to the resemblance of the Tholos in Epidauros and the building of a mole. (Thus Puhvel, Comp. Mythol. 1987, 135.) But the variants of Asklepios and those of the word for 'mole' do not agree.**The name is typical for Pre-Greek words**; apart from minor variations (β for π, αλ(α)for λα) we find α/αι (a well known variation; Fur. 335–339) followed by -γλαπ- or -σκλαπ-/-σχλαπ/β-, i.e. a voiced velar(without -σ-) or a voiceless velar (or an aspirated one: we know that there was no distinction between the three in the substr. language) with a -σ-. I think that the -σ-renders an original affricate, which (prob. as δ) was lost before the -γ- (in Greek the group -σγ- is rare, and certainly before another consonant). **Szemerényi's etymology (JHS 94, 1974, 155) from Hitt. assula(a)- 'well-being' and piya- 'give' cannot be correct, as it does not explain the velar.**&quot;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Beekes suggested a Pre-Greek proto-form *Atyklap-.&#xA;&#xA;The Cult of Asclepius was already popular by the 5th Century **BC** so why would the god derive his name from a [Tholoi][2] built in 360 **AD/CE**? Does that theory sound plausible or far-fetched?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;According to [Wiktionary][3]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; From ἀ- (a-, “&quot;negative prefix&quot;”), σκέλλω (skéllō, “I dry”) and ποιέω (poiéō, “I do, make”).&#xA;&#xA;Does that seem reasonable to *anybody*? And I'm not sure what exactly it means, and how on earth that would relate to the god Asclepius, or how his name could derive from that?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;According to [H.G.Liddell, RS][4]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; D. is said to have made it proparox. Ἀσκλήπιος, deriving it from ἤπιος,Plu.2.845b.)&#xA;&#xA;And concerning  [**ἤπιος**][5] says: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1.of persons, gentle, mild, kind, πατὴρ δ᾽ ὣς ἤπιος ἦεν Hom.:—c. dat. pers., id=Hom., Trag.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 2.of sentiments, ἤπια εἰδέναι to have kindly feelings, Hom.; πρὸςτὸ ἠπιώτερον καταστῆσαί τινα to bring him to a milder mood, Thuc.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; II.act. soothing, assuaging, of medicines, Il., etc.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 2.ἤπιον ἦμαρ, c. inf., a day favourable for beginning a thing, Hes.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; III.adv. ἠπίως, Hdt., Soph&#xA;&#xA;This last theory, of *HGL,RS*, seems the most plausible to me, but leaves me  wondering what they think the beginning *Ἀσκλ-* derives from?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius&#xA;  [2]: https://www.coastal.edu/intranet/ashes2art/delphi2/misc-essays/other_tholoi.html&#xA;  [3]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ἀσκληπιός&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=*)asklhpio/s&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dh)%2Fpios" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6495" RevisionGUID="7487a6c9-eb31-44eb-8105-123e82867d97" CreationDate="2018-05-16T16:29:14.710" UserId="79" Comment="added 44 characters in body; edited tags" Text="There are different theories on the etymology of Asclepius, **all of which** I want to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Wikipedia][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The etymology of the name is unknown. In his revised version of Frisk's Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Greek Etymological Dictionary), R. S. P. Beekes gives this summary of the different attempts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;H. Grégoire (with R. Goossens and M. Mathieu) in Asklépios, Apollon Smintheus et Rudra 1949 (Mém. Acad. Roy. de Belgique. Cl. d. lettres. 2. sér. 45), explains the name as 'the mole-hero', connecting σκάλοψ, ἀσπάλαξ 'mole' and refers to the resemblance of the Tholos in Epidauros and the building of a mole. (Thus Puhvel, Comp. Mythol. 1987, 135.) But the variants of Asklepios and those of the word for 'mole' do not agree.**The name is typical for Pre-Greek words**; apart from minor variations (β for π, αλ(α)for λα) we find α/αι (a well known variation; Fur. 335–339) followed by -γλαπ- or -σκλαπ-/-σχλαπ/β-, i.e. a voiced velar(without -σ-) or a voiceless velar (or an aspirated one: we know that there was no distinction between the three in the substr. language) with a -σ-. I think that the -σ-renders an original affricate, which (prob. as δ) was lost before the -γ- (in Greek the group -σγ- is rare, and certainly before another consonant). **Szemerényi's etymology (JHS 94, 1974, 155) from Hitt. assula(a)- 'well-being' and piya- 'give' cannot be correct, as it does not explain the velar.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Beekes suggested a Pre-Greek proto-form *Atyklap-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Cult of Asclepius was already popular by the 5th Century **BC** so why would the god derive his name from a [Tholoi][2] built in 360 **AD/CE**? Does that theory sound plausible or far-fetched?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Wiktionary][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From ἀ- (a-, “&quot;negative prefix&quot;”), σκέλλω (skéllō, “I dry”) and ποιέω (poiéō, “I do, make”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that seem reasonable to *anybody*? And I'm not sure what exactly it means, and how on earth that would relate to the god Asclepius, or how his name could derive from that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [H.G.Liddell, RS][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; D. is said to have made it proparox. Ἀσκλήπιος, deriving it from ἤπιος,Plu.2.845b.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And concerning  [**ἤπιος**][5] says: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.of persons, gentle, mild, kind, πατὴρ δ᾽ ὣς ἤπιος ἦεν Hom.:—c. dat. pers., id=Hom., Trag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.of sentiments, ἤπια εἰδέναι to have kindly feelings, Hom.; πρὸςτὸ ἠπιώτερον καταστῆσαί τινα to bring him to a milder mood, Thuc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II.act. soothing, assuaging, of medicines, Il., etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.ἤπιον ἦμαρ, c. inf., a day favourable for beginning a thing, Hes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; III.adv. ἠπίως, Hdt., Soph&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last theory, of *HGL,RS*, seems the most plausible to me, but leaves me  wondering what they think the beginning *Ἀσκλ-* derives from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.coastal.edu/intranet/ashes2art/delphi2/misc-essays/other_tholoi.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ἀσκληπιός&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=*)asklhpio/s&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dh)%2Fpios" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21516" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6495" RevisionGUID="7487a6c9-eb31-44eb-8105-123e82867d97" CreationDate="2018-05-16T16:29:14.710" UserId="79" Comment="added 44 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|etymology|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6497" RevisionGUID="8b051f5e-24aa-4698-962f-8d8eef6ad673" CreationDate="2018-05-16T17:18:08.470" UserId="9" Text="I think Google Translate has messed up here (as it [often does](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4353/9)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm by no means a Latin expert, so there may be some entirely legitimate but obscure word *conlis* that I just haven't heard of, but to me it just looks like a misspelling of *collis,* possibly based on analogy with the [variation between *conl-* and *coll-*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2434/nl-and-ll-in-classical-latin) that can be found in words that start the prefix *con-/col-* (for example, *conloquium* and *colloquium,* or *conlīsus* and *collīsus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis &amp; Short have an entry for *[collis](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcollis),* but not for *conlis* (and the form &quot;conlis&quot; is not mentioned as a possible variant form of *collis*).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming *conlis,* if it really existed as a Latin word, would decline like *collis,* but I found no results in the PHI Classical Latin Texts Database for any of &quot;conlis&quot;, &quot;conli&quot;, &quot;conles&quot;, &quot;conle&quot;, &quot;conlem&quot;, &quot;conlibus&quot;, &quot;conlium&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found one mention of the spelling in a book where it occurs in a list of errors of some kind: &quot;Emendationes Novissimae&quot; in *[Tractatus Origenis de Libris Ss. Scripturarum](https://archive.org/stream/tractatusorigen00batigoog#page/n244/mode/2up),* detexit et edidit Petrus Batiffol, sociatis curis Andreae Wilmart (1900; [Google Books link](https://books.google.com/books?id=OZZU8DOgV48C&amp;pg=PA214&amp;lpg=PA214&amp;dq=%22conlis%22+collis&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=aytGDfmwxy&amp;sig=PJE0kPpHEEH_tnS5BS_52jWsudo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj-89CQ1YrbAhWly4MKHe83DdQQ6AEINjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22conlis%22%20collis&amp;f=false)), says &quot;*scribe* collis, *non* conlis&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparison with other languages indicates that the first L in the Latin word *collis* 'hill' comes from Proto-Indo-European *\*l*: unlike words with the prefix *col-,* this does not appear to be a word where -&amp;#8288;LL- in Classical Latin is the result of assimilation of earlier -NL-. (It seems the -LL- in *collis* may be the result of assimilation of etymological *\*-ln-,* but this doesn't seem like it would do much to explain a form in -NL-.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems unlikely to me that *collis* was ever pronounced with [nl], and the only evidence that I have been able to find indicating that it was ever spelled with &quot;NL&quot; at any point (Batiffol 1900) explicitly refers to this as an error.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;*Collis* is a masculine noun. As far as I know, there aren't any Latin words that use a contrast of -NL- vs. -LL- to indicate a difference in grammatical gender; in Latin, gender usually affects the end of the word (if it affects the form at all: there are a number of Latin words that use the same form for masculine and feminine, or for masculine, feminine, and neuter, where the gender is only apparent in the form of other words that agree with the antecedent)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6496" RevisionGUID="0d2220bd-db9f-4f4b-80b4-6eee6d7af213" CreationDate="2018-05-16T17:20:40.950" UserId="2623" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="I want to know the differences between `conlis` and `collis`. In French, there are gender nouns (Grammatical gender). So I was wondering if these were gender words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7u08.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6497" RevisionGUID="de792698-622e-456d-8dc0-44e3892744e6" CreationDate="2018-05-16T17:23:17.880" UserId="9" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="I think Google Translate has messed up here (as it [often does](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4353/9)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm by no means a Latin expert, so there may be some entirely legitimate but obscure word *conlis* that I just haven't heard of, but to me it just looks like a misspelling of *collis,* possibly based on analogy with the [variation between *conl-* and *coll-*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2434/nl-and-ll-in-classical-latin) that can be found in words that start the prefix *con-/col-* (for example, *conloquium* and *colloquium,* or *conlīsus* and *collīsus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis &amp; Short have an entry for *[collis](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcollis),* but not for *conlis* (and the form &quot;conlis&quot; is not mentioned as a possible variant form of *collis*).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming *conlis,* if it really existed as a Latin word, would decline like *collis,* but I found no results in the PHI Classical Latin Texts Database for any of &quot;conlis&quot;, &quot;conli&quot;, &quot;conles&quot;, &quot;conle&quot;, &quot;conlem&quot;, &quot;conlibus&quot;, &quot;conlium&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found one mention of the spelling in a book where it occurs in a list of errors of some kind: &quot;Emendationes Novissimae&quot; in *[Tractatus Origenis de Libris Ss. Scripturarum](https://archive.org/stream/tractatusorigen00batigoog#page/n244/mode/2up),* detexit et edidit Petrus Batiffol, sociatis curis Andreae Wilmart (1900; [Google Books link](https://books.google.com/books?id=OZZU8DOgV48C&amp;pg=PA214&amp;lpg=PA214&amp;dq=%22conlis%22+collis&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=aytGDfmwxy&amp;sig=PJE0kPpHEEH_tnS5BS_52jWsudo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj-89CQ1YrbAhWly4MKHe83DdQQ6AEINjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22conlis%22%20collis&amp;f=false)), says &quot;*scribe* collis, *non* conlis&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparison with other languages indicates that the first L in the Latin word *collis* 'hill' comes from Proto-Indo-European *\*l*: unlike words with the prefix *col-,* this does not appear to be a word where -&amp;#8288;LL- in Classical Latin is the result of assimilation of earlier -NL-. (It seems the -LL- in *collis* may be the result of assimilation of etymological *\*-ln-,* but this doesn't seem like it would do much to explain a form in -NL-.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems unlikely to me that *collis* was ever pronounced with [nl], and the only evidence that I have been able to find indicating that it was ever spelled with &quot;NL&quot; at any point (Batiffol 1900) explicitly refers to this as an error.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;*Collis* is a masculine noun. As far as I know, there aren't any Latin words that use a contrast of word-internal -NL- vs. -LL- to indicate a difference in grammatical gender. In Latin, gender usually affects the end of the word (if it affects the form at all: there are a number of Latin words that use the same form for masculine and feminine, or for masculine, feminine, and neuter, where the gender is only apparent in the form of other words that agree with the antecedent)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6497" RevisionGUID="a62c033c-9501-49e0-afe0-34df8fd18f1a" CreationDate="2018-05-16T17:24:53.873" UserId="9" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="I think Google Translate has messed up here (as it [often does](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4353/9)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##&quot;conlis&quot; doesn't seem to exist&#xD;&#xA;I'm by no means a Latin expert, so there may be some entirely legitimate but obscure word *conlis* that I just haven't heard of, but to me it just looks like a misspelling of *collis,* possibly based on analogy with the [variation between *conl-* and *coll-*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2434/nl-and-ll-in-classical-latin) that can be found in words that start the prefix *con-/col-* (for example, *conloquium* and *colloquium,* or *conlīsus* and *collīsus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis &amp; Short have an entry for *[collis](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcollis),* but not for *conlis* (and the form &quot;conlis&quot; is not mentioned as a possible variant form of *collis*).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming *conlis,* if it really existed as a Latin word, would decline like *collis,* but I found no results in the PHI Classical Latin Texts Database for any of &quot;conlis&quot;, &quot;conli&quot;, &quot;conles&quot;, &quot;conle&quot;, &quot;conlem&quot;, &quot;conlibus&quot;, &quot;conlium&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found one mention of the spelling in a book where it occurs in a list of errors of some kind: &quot;Emendationes Novissimae&quot; in *[Tractatus Origenis de Libris Ss. Scripturarum](https://archive.org/stream/tractatusorigen00batigoog#page/n244/mode/2up),* detexit et edidit Petrus Batiffol, sociatis curis Andreae Wilmart (1900; [Google Books link](https://books.google.com/books?id=OZZU8DOgV48C&amp;pg=PA214&amp;lpg=PA214&amp;dq=%22conlis%22+collis&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=aytGDfmwxy&amp;sig=PJE0kPpHEEH_tnS5BS_52jWsudo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj-89CQ1YrbAhWly4MKHe83DdQQ6AEINjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22conlis%22%20collis&amp;f=false)), says &quot;*scribe* collis, *non* conlis&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparison with other languages indicates that the first L in the Latin word *collis* 'hill' comes from Proto-Indo-European *\*l*: unlike words with the prefix *col-,* this does not appear to be a word where -&amp;#8288;LL- in Classical Latin is the result of assimilation of earlier -NL-. (It seems the -LL- in *collis* may be the result of assimilation of etymological *\*-ln-,* but this doesn't seem like it would do much to explain a form in -NL-.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems unlikely to me that *collis* was ever pronounced with [nl], and the only evidence that I have been able to find indicating that it was ever spelled with &quot;NL&quot; at any point (Batiffol 1900) explicitly refers to this as an error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##&quot;collis&quot; is a masculine noun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Collis* is a masculine noun. As far as I know, there aren't any Latin words that use a contrast of word-internal -NL- vs. -LL- to indicate a difference in grammatical gender. In Latin, gender usually affects the ending of the word, if it affects the form at all. (There are a number of Latin words that use the same form for masculine and feminine, or for masculine, feminine, and neuter. The gender of those words is only apparent from the form of other words that show gender agreement.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6498" RevisionGUID="6176faa2-987b-451f-a20c-fd5bdc277dbf" CreationDate="2018-05-16T17:25:44.090" UserId="469" Text="**Collis** is a masculine noun [meaning][1] *hill* and also *high ground*. It is used in plural, as well, to mean a *chain of hills*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conlis, in turn, does not show up in L&amp;S, which is a good dictionary, nor in the main Classic works presently known (here I leave a [link][2] to a disappointing search with no results). Therefore I'd advise against using it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think Google Translate's AI just wrongly classified it as a valid word. If it existed at all, it could be a form of *overcorrection* (correcting what is not wrong by generalizing a common rule), since many words starting with co+(double consontant)- come from the root con (e.g. colloquium and conloquium were both valid at some point in time). But it's not the case with collis, which comes from Proto-Indo-Eurpean root [*_kolǝn_-][3] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcollis&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AGreco-Roman&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AArabic&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AGermanic&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3Acwar&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3ARenaissance&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3ARichTimes&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3APDILL&amp;all_words=conlis&amp;all_words_expand=on&amp;phrase=&amp;any_words=&amp;exclude_words=&amp;search=Search&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&amp;morpho=0&amp;basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cpiet&amp;first=1&amp;off=&amp;text_proto=&amp;method_proto=substring&amp;ic_proto=on&amp;text_meaning=&amp;method_meaning=substring&amp;ic_meaning=on&amp;text_hitt=&amp;method_hitt=substring&amp;ic_hitt=on&amp;text_tokh=&amp;method_tokh=substring&amp;ic_tokh=on&amp;text_ind=&amp;method_ind=substring&amp;ic_ind=on&amp;text_avest=&amp;method_avest=substring&amp;ic_avest=on&amp;text_iran=&amp;method_iran=substring&amp;ic_iran=on&amp;text_arm=&amp;method_arm=substring&amp;ic_arm=on&amp;text_greek=&amp;method_greek=substring&amp;ic_greek=on&amp;text_slav=&amp;method_slav=substring&amp;ic_slav=on&amp;text_balt=&amp;method_balt=substring&amp;ic_balt=on&amp;text_germ=&amp;method_germ=substring&amp;ic_germ=on&amp;text_lat=collis&amp;method_lat=substring&amp;ic_lat=on&amp;text_ital=&amp;method_ital=substring&amp;ic_ital=on&amp;text_celt=&amp;method_celt=substring&amp;ic_celt=on&amp;text_alb=&amp;method_alb=substring&amp;ic_alb=on&amp;text_rusmean=&amp;method_rusmean=substring&amp;ic_rusmean=on&amp;text_refer=&amp;method_refer=substring&amp;ic_refer=on&amp;text_comment=&amp;method_comment=substring&amp;ic_comment=on&amp;text_any=&amp;method_any=substring&amp;sort=proto&amp;ic_any=on" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6497" RevisionGUID="2167825e-5a4f-4b1c-9a39-7a5de5239e9b" CreationDate="2018-05-16T17:58:49.130" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="I think Google Translate has messed up here (as it [often does](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4353/9)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##&quot;conlis&quot; doesn't seem to exist&#xD;&#xA;I'm by no means a Latin expert, so there may be some entirely legitimate but obscure word *conlis* that I just haven't heard of, but to me it just looks like a misspelling of *collis,* possibly based on analogy with the [variation between *conl-* and *coll-*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2434/nl-and-ll-in-classical-latin) that can be found in words that start the prefix *con-/col-* (for example, *conloquium* and *colloquium,* or *conlīsus* and *collīsus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis &amp; Short have an entry for *[collis](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcollis),* but not for *conlis* (and the form &quot;conlis&quot; is not mentioned as a possible variant form of *collis*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume *conlis,* if it really existed as a Latin word, would decline like *collis,* but I found no results in the PHI Classical Latin Texts Database for any of &quot;conlis&quot;, &quot;conli&quot;, &quot;conles&quot;, &quot;conle&quot;, &quot;conlem&quot;, &quot;conlibus&quot;, &quot;conlium&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found one mention of the spelling in a book where it occurs in a list of errors of some kind: &quot;Emendationes Novissimae&quot; in *[Tractatus Origenis de Libris Ss. Scripturarum](https://archive.org/stream/tractatusorigen00batigoog#page/n244/mode/2up),* detexit et edidit Petrus Batiffol, sociatis curis Andreae Wilmart (1900; [Google Books link](https://books.google.com/books?id=OZZU8DOgV48C&amp;pg=PA214&amp;lpg=PA214&amp;dq=%22conlis%22+collis&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=aytGDfmwxy&amp;sig=PJE0kPpHEEH_tnS5BS_52jWsudo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj-89CQ1YrbAhWly4MKHe83DdQQ6AEINjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22conlis%22%20collis&amp;f=false)), says &quot;*scribe* collis, *non* conlis&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparison with other languages indicates that the first L in the Latin word *collis* 'hill' comes from Proto-Indo-European *\*l*: unlike words with the prefix *col-,* this does not appear to be a word where -&amp;#8288;LL- in Classical Latin is the result of assimilation of earlier -NL-. (It seems the -LL- in *collis* may be the result of assimilation of etymological *\*-ln-,* but this doesn't seem like it would do much to explain a form in -NL-.) So it seems unlikely to me that *collis* was ever pronounced with [nl], and the only evidence that I have been able to find indicating that it was ever spelled with &quot;NL&quot; at any point (Batiffol 1900) explicitly refers to this as an error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##&quot;collis&quot; is a masculine noun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Collis* is a masculine noun. As far as I know, there aren't any Latin words that use a contrast of word-internal -NL- vs. -LL- to indicate a difference in grammatical gender. In Latin, gender usually affects the ending of the word, if it affects the form at all. (There are a number of Latin words that use the same form for masculine and feminine, or for masculine, feminine, and neuter. The gender of those words is only apparent from the form of other words that show gender agreement.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6496" RevisionGUID="b6ca241e-143b-4917-9c89-cbf74f69c5d6" CreationDate="2018-05-16T18:03:37.347" UserId="9" Comment="edited to add information from a comment by the original poster" Text="I want to know the differences between &quot;conlis&quot; and &quot;collis&quot;. Are these the same noun with different gender, or do they have different meanings? (I know that in French, there are nouns with different grammatical gender.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7u08.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6497" RevisionGUID="db9cd21c-8c93-45a7-9f0a-7b1f17cc733f" CreationDate="2018-05-16T18:06:38.627" UserId="9" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="I think Google Translate has messed up here (as it [often does](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4353/9)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##&quot;conlis&quot; doesn't seem to exist&#xD;&#xA;I'm by no means a Latin expert, so there may be some entirely legitimate but obscure word *conlis* that I just haven't heard of, but to me it just looks like a misspelling of *collis,* possibly based on analogy with the [variation between *conl-* and *coll-*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2434/nl-and-ll-in-classical-latin) that can be found in words that start the prefix *con-/col-* (for example, *conloquium* and *colloquium,* or *conlīsus* and *collīsus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis &amp; Short have an entry for *[collis](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcollis),* but not for *conlis* (and the form &quot;conlis&quot; is not mentioned as a possible variant form of *collis*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume *conlis,* if it really existed as a Latin word, would decline like *collis,* but I found no results in the PHI Classical Latin Texts Database for any of &quot;conlis&quot;, &quot;conli&quot;, &quot;conles&quot;, &quot;conle&quot;, &quot;conlem&quot;, &quot;conlibus&quot;, &quot;conlium&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found one mention of the spelling in a book where it occurs in a list of errors of some kind: &quot;Emendationes Novissimae&quot; in *[Tractatus Origenis de Libris Ss. Scripturarum](https://archive.org/stream/tractatusorigen00batigoog#page/n244/mode/2up),* detexit et edidit Petrus Batiffol, sociatis curis Andreae Wilmart (1900; [Google Books link](https://books.google.com/books?id=OZZU8DOgV48C&amp;pg=PA214&amp;lpg=PA214&amp;dq=%22conlis%22+collis&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=aytGDfmwxy&amp;sig=PJE0kPpHEEH_tnS5BS_52jWsudo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj-89CQ1YrbAhWly4MKHe83DdQQ6AEINjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22conlis%22%20collis&amp;f=false)), says &quot;*scribe* collis, *non* conlis&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparison with other languages indicates that the first L in the Latin word *collis* 'hill' comes from Proto-Indo-European *\*l*: unlike words with the prefix *col-,* this does not appear to be a word where -&amp;#8288;LL- in Classical Latin is the result of assimilation of earlier -NL-. (It seems the -LL- in *collis* may be the result of assimilation of etymological *\*-ln-,* but this doesn't seem like it would do much to explain a form in -NL-.) So it seems unlikely to me that *collis* was ever pronounced with [nl], and the only evidence that I have been able to find indicating that it was ever spelled with &quot;NL&quot; at any point (Batiffol 1900) explicitly refers to this as an error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##&quot;collis&quot; is a masculine noun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Collis* is a masculine noun (typically translated into English as &quot;hill&quot;, although Lewis &amp; Short say &quot;in plur.: colles, for *a chain of mountains*&quot;). As far as I know, there aren't any Latin words that use a contrast of word-internal -NL- vs. -LL- to indicate a difference in grammatical gender. In Latin, gender usually affects the ending of the word, if it affects the form at all. (There are a number of Latin words that use the same form for masculine and feminine, or for masculine, feminine, and neuter. The gender of those words is only apparent from the form of other words that show gender agreement.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6493" RevisionGUID="ca6a3495-6f90-4ed0-951a-1c791d346289" CreationDate="2018-05-16T19:37:32.377" UserId="172" Comment="Add  usage example" Text="There is a program called WORDS by one Whitaker, apparently no longer maintained since early 2000s (his home page has disappeared, too), but the copies [are still floating around][1]. I am using it all the time. It uses some semi-empirical rules to deduct all possible forms for a word. Personally I find it very useful, and even thinking about rewriting and maintaining it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Distributed with the program is a [file LISTALL][2] which is a list of all word forms in the dictionary that can possibly be generated. A caveat here is that the dictionary is quite large, and contains medieval Latin words and forms. There are markings in the database, but in LISTALL the distinction is lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as the technique goes, you first grep the LISTALL file, then copy interesting forms and paste then to WORDS as input. This way it is possible to understand the algorithm's &quot;idea&quot; how the possible form was produced. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $ grep -P 'oo$' listall&#xD;&#xA;    aizoo&#xD;&#xA;    antoo&#xD;&#xA;    arctoo&#xD;&#xA;    Arctoo&#xD;&#xA;    arctoo&#xD;&#xA;    . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May of these are not verbs. It makes sense to just copy the list, and paste it to WORDS as input (the program accepts whitespace and newline as word separator, so many words at once, or a sentence, can be given to it). Here's the output from pasting a few words into its console from the above list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    =&gt;curotrophoo&#xD;&#xA;    curotrophoo                    ========   UNKNOWN&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    =&gt;Eoo&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 N      2 1 DAT S M                   Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 N      2 1 ABL S M                   Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    Eous, Eoi  N (2nd) M   [XXXDX]      lesser&#xD;&#xA;    morning star; Oriental, dweller in the east; one of the horses of the Sun;&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 ADJ    1 1 DAT S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 ADJ    1 1 DAT S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 ADJ    1 1 ABL S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 ADJ    1 1 ABL S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    Eous, Eoa, Eoum  ADJ   [XXXDX]      lesser&#xD;&#xA;    eastern; of the dawn; belonging to/of/set in the morning;&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;    =&gt;epogdoo&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    1 1 DAT S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    1 1 DAT S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    1 1 ABL S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    1 1 ABL S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdous, epogdoa, epogdoum  ADJ   [DDXES]    Late  uncommon&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    2 6 DAT S C POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    2 6 ABL S C POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdoos, epogdoos, -  ADJ   [DDXES]    Late  uncommon&#xD;&#xA;    nine-eighths; (music); whole and eighth;&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;    =&gt;euroo&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    euro.o               ADJ    1 1 DAT S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    euro.o               ADJ    1 1 DAT S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    euro.o               ADJ    1 1 ABL S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    euro.o               ADJ    1 1 ABL S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eurous, euroa, euroum  ADJ   [XXXDX]      lesser&#xD;&#xA;    eastern;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So naturally none of these are verb forms, and one was not even understood by the parser. In fact, this simple example only found the same *[re]boo* and *inchoo* as the above link. But more complex searches on a local file can be as complex as you fancy, not limited by Web application interfaces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archives.nd.edu/whitaker/words.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://archives.nd.edu/whitaker/wordsoth.htm&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6493" RevisionGUID="ab48ec14-70d5-43c6-8176-49990a4dc2b7" CreationDate="2018-05-16T19:44:26.833" UserId="172" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="There is a program called WORDS by one Whitaker, apparently no longer maintained since early 2000s (his home page has disappeared, too), but the copies [are still floating around][1]. I am using it all the time. It uses some semi-empirical rules to deduct all possible forms for a word. Personally I find it very useful, and even thinking about rewriting and maintaining it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Distributed with the program is a [file LISTALL][2] which is a list of all word forms in the dictionary that can possibly be generated. A caveat here is that the dictionary is quite large, and contains medieval Latin words and forms. There are markings in the database, but in LISTALL the distinction is lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as the technique goes, you first grep the LISTALL file, then copy interesting forms and paste then to WORDS as input. This way it is possible to understand the algorithm's &quot;idea&quot; how the possible form was produced. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $ grep -P 'oo$' listall&#xD;&#xA;    aizoo&#xD;&#xA;    antoo&#xD;&#xA;    arctoo&#xD;&#xA;    Arctoo&#xD;&#xA;    arctoo&#xD;&#xA;    . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May of these are not verbs. It makes sense to copy the grep result and paste it to WORDS as input (the program accepts whitespace and newline as word separator, so many words at once, or a sentence, can be given to it). Here's the output from pasting a few words into its console from the above list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    =&gt;curotrophoo&#xD;&#xA;    curotrophoo                    ========   UNKNOWN&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    =&gt;Eoo&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 N      2 1 DAT S M                   Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 N      2 1 ABL S M                   Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    Eous, Eoi  N (2nd) M   [XXXDX]      lesser&#xD;&#xA;    morning star; Oriental, dweller in the east; one of the horses of the Sun;&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 ADJ    1 1 DAT S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 ADJ    1 1 DAT S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 ADJ    1 1 ABL S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 ADJ    1 1 ABL S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    Eous, Eoa, Eoum  ADJ   [XXXDX]      lesser&#xD;&#xA;    eastern; of the dawn; belonging to/of/set in the morning;&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;    =&gt;epogdoo&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    1 1 DAT S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    1 1 DAT S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    1 1 ABL S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    1 1 ABL S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdous, epogdoa, epogdoum  ADJ   [DDXES]    Late  uncommon&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    2 6 DAT S C POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    2 6 ABL S C POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdoos, epogdoos, -  ADJ   [DDXES]    Late  uncommon&#xD;&#xA;    nine-eighths; (music); whole and eighth;&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;    =&gt;euroo&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    euro.o               ADJ    1 1 DAT S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    euro.o               ADJ    1 1 DAT S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    euro.o               ADJ    1 1 ABL S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    euro.o               ADJ    1 1 ABL S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eurous, euroa, euroum  ADJ   [XXXDX]      lesser&#xD;&#xA;    eastern;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So naturally none of these are verb forms, and one was not even understood by the parser. In fact, this simple example only found the same *[re]boo* and *inchoo* as the above link. But searches on the local file can be as complex as you fancy, not limited by a Web application interface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archives.nd.edu/whitaker/words.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://archives.nd.edu/whitaker/wordsoth.htm&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6493" RevisionGUID="8aa7b1b1-c258-48c3-80b4-43b6f2b06056" CreationDate="2018-05-16T20:32:48.013" UserId="172" Comment="edited body" Text="There is a program called WORDS by one Whitaker, apparently no longer maintained since early 2000s (his home page has disappeared, too), but the copies [are still floating around][1]. I am using it all the time. It uses some semi-empirical rules to deduct all possible forms for a word. Personally I find it very useful, and even thinking about rewriting and maintaining it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Distributed with the program is a [file LISTALL][2] which is a list of all word forms in the dictionary that can possibly be generated. A caveat here is that the dictionary is quite large, and contains medieval Latin words and forms. There are markings in the database, but in LISTALL the distinction is lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as the technique goes, you first grep the LISTALL file, then copy interesting forms and paste then to WORDS as input. This way it is possible to understand the algorithm's &quot;idea&quot; how the possible form was produced. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $ grep -P 'oo$' listall&#xD;&#xA;    aizoo&#xD;&#xA;    antoo&#xD;&#xA;    arctoo&#xD;&#xA;    Arctoo&#xD;&#xA;    arctoo&#xD;&#xA;    . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May of these are not verbs. It makes sense to copy the grep result and paste it to WORDS as input (the program accepts whitespace and newline as word separator, so many words at once, or a sentence, can be given to it). Here's the output from pasting a few words into its console from the above list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    =&gt;curotrophoo&#xD;&#xA;    curotrophoo                    ========   UNKNOWN&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    =&gt;Eoo&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 N      2 1 DAT S M                   Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 N      2 1 ABL S M                   Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    Eous, Eoi  N (2nd) M   [XXXDX]      lesser&#xD;&#xA;    morning star; Oriental, dweller in the east; one of the horses of the Sun;&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 ADJ    1 1 DAT S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 ADJ    1 1 DAT S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 ADJ    1 1 ABL S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 ADJ    1 1 ABL S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    Eous, Eoa, Eoum  ADJ   [XXXDX]      lesser&#xD;&#xA;    eastern; of the dawn; belonging to/of/set in the morning;&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;    =&gt;epogdoo&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    1 1 DAT S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    1 1 DAT S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    1 1 ABL S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    1 1 ABL S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdous, epogdoa, epogdoum  ADJ   [DDXES]    Late  uncommon&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    2 6 DAT S C POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    2 6 ABL S C POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdoos, epogdoos, -  ADJ   [DDXES]    Late  uncommon&#xD;&#xA;    nine-eighths; (music); whole and eighth;&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;    =&gt;euroo&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    euro.o               ADJ    1 1 DAT S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    euro.o               ADJ    1 1 DAT S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    euro.o               ADJ    1 1 ABL S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    euro.o               ADJ    1 1 ABL S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eurous, euroa, euroum  ADJ   [XXXDX]      lesser&#xD;&#xA;    eastern;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So naturally none of these are verb forms, and one was not even understood by the parser. In fact, this simple example only found the same *[re]boo* and *inchoo* as the above link. But searches in the local file can be as complex as you fancy, not limited by a Web application interface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archives.nd.edu/whitaker/words.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://archives.nd.edu/whitaker/wordsoth.htm&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6493" RevisionGUID="8d062d3a-0ed4-42e6-8c55-d220ae5bfc60" CreationDate="2018-05-16T22:10:23.447" UserId="172" Comment="Remove parenthesiszed remarks to footnotes for readability." Text="There is a program called WORDS by one Whitaker, apparently no longer maintained since early 2000s (his home page has disappeared, too), but the copies [are still floating around][1]. I am using it all the time. It uses some semi-empirical rules to deduct all possible forms for a word. Personally I find it very useful, and even thinking about rewriting and maintaining it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Distributed with the program is a [file LISTALL][2] which is a list of all word forms in the dictionary that can possibly be generated. A caveat here is that the dictionary is quite large, and contains medieval Latin words and forms. There are markings in the database, but in LISTALL the distinction is lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as the technique goes, you first grep the LISTALL¹ file, then copy interesting forms and paste then to WORDS as input. This way it is possible to understand the algorithm's &quot;idea&quot; how the possible form was produced. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $ grep -P 'oo$' listall&#xD;&#xA;    aizoo&#xD;&#xA;    antoo&#xD;&#xA;    arctoo&#xD;&#xA;    Arctoo&#xD;&#xA;    arctoo&#xD;&#xA;    . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May of these are not verbs. It makes sense to copy the grep result and paste it to WORDS as input². Here's the output from pasting a few words into its console from the above list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    =&gt;curotrophoo&#xD;&#xA;    curotrophoo                    ========   UNKNOWN&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    =&gt;Eoo&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 N      2 1 DAT S M                   Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 N      2 1 ABL S M                   Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    Eous, Eoi  N (2nd) M   [XXXDX]      lesser&#xD;&#xA;    morning star; Oriental, dweller in the east; one of the horses of the Sun;&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 ADJ    1 1 DAT S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 ADJ    1 1 DAT S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 ADJ    1 1 ABL S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 ADJ    1 1 ABL S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    Eous, Eoa, Eoum  ADJ   [XXXDX]      lesser&#xD;&#xA;    eastern; of the dawn; belonging to/of/set in the morning;&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;    =&gt;epogdoo&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    1 1 DAT S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    1 1 DAT S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    1 1 ABL S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    1 1 ABL S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdous, epogdoa, epogdoum  ADJ   [DDXES]    Late  uncommon&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    2 6 DAT S C POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    2 6 ABL S C POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdoos, epogdoos, -  ADJ   [DDXES]    Late  uncommon&#xD;&#xA;    nine-eighths; (music); whole and eighth;&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;    =&gt;euroo&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    euro.o               ADJ    1 1 DAT S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    euro.o               ADJ    1 1 DAT S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    euro.o               ADJ    1 1 ABL S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    euro.o               ADJ    1 1 ABL S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eurous, euroa, euroum  ADJ   [XXXDX]      lesser&#xD;&#xA;    eastern;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So naturally none of these are verb forms, and one was not even understood by the parser. In fact, this simple example only found the same *[re]boo* and *inchoo* as the above link. But searches in the local file can be as complex as you fancy, not limited by a Web application interface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_______&#xD;&#xA;¹ The file is referred to as `LISTALL` in the documentation, but the actual file name as distributed is lowercase `listall`. I am keeping it consistent with the documentation, except in actual usage examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;² The program accepts whitespace and newline as word separator, so that many words at once, a sentence, or even whole paragraph can be pasted to its input console.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archives.nd.edu/whitaker/words.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://archives.nd.edu/whitaker/wordsoth.htm&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6499" RevisionGUID="a4e84454-2f2a-4b8a-ab69-18cb603cae8a" CreationDate="2018-05-17T02:24:41.813" UserId="406" Text="The verb *meminī, meminisse, \*mementus* ever have any sort of (morphologically) present tense? If not, why not? If so, at what point was it lost in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus points: if the present tense had survived to Classical Latin, what would it have looked like?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21532" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6499" RevisionGUID="a4e84454-2f2a-4b8a-ab69-18cb603cae8a" CreationDate="2018-05-17T02:24:41.813" UserId="406" Text="Did meminisse ever had a present tense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21533" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6499" RevisionGUID="a4e84454-2f2a-4b8a-ab69-18cb603cae8a" CreationDate="2018-05-17T02:24:41.813" UserId="406" Text="|etymology|verbs|irregular-words|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6500" RevisionGUID="eb4e8c6d-287f-4f10-b1f3-0c36d2a53380" CreationDate="2018-05-17T02:31:03.093" UserId="406" Text="I've seen the sound /ʃ/ represented in a few different ways in Greek writing: *σ* in Hebrew names in the LXX, *σχ* in modern Tsakonian, *ψ* in Sappho's name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't think I've ever seen /ʃ/ transcribed into Latin. My guess is that it would be written *s*, but I don't know where I would find examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know of any Latin transcriptions (Old, Classical, or Late, but not Medieval or later) of words containing /ʃ/? Direct transcriptions of naturalized Greek words like *Iēsūs* don't count." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21535" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6500" RevisionGUID="eb4e8c6d-287f-4f10-b1f3-0c36d2a53380" CreationDate="2018-05-17T02:31:03.093" UserId="406" Text="Did the Romans ever transcribe /ʃ/?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21536" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6500" RevisionGUID="eb4e8c6d-287f-4f10-b1f3-0c36d2a53380" CreationDate="2018-05-17T02:31:03.093" UserId="406" Text="|alphabet|phonetics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6500" RevisionGUID="02e5e2e3-7054-481d-89c1-f13b5a9892b1" CreationDate="2018-05-17T04:01:40.903" UserId="406" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="(Note: [ʃ] is the first sound in English &quot;ship&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen the sound [ʃ] represented in a few different ways in Greek writing: *σ* in Hebrew names in the LXX, *σχ* in modern Tsakonian, *ψ* in Sappho's name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't think I've ever seen [ʃ] transcribed into Latin. My guess is that it would be written *s*, but I don't know where I would find examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know of any Latin transcriptions (Old, Classical, or Late, but not Medieval or later) of words containing [ʃ]? Direct transcriptions of naturalized Greek words like *Iēsūs* don't count." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6501" RevisionGUID="5508cef8-a7be-434e-bc5f-b00236410a80" CreationDate="2018-05-17T05:42:47.760" UserId="406" Text="It seems unlikely that there's a connection between these two: if *modo* came from the ablative of *modus* (which is indeed a common source of adverbs), we would expect *modō*, not *modŏ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most recent source I could find on this was the Rev. J. W. Donaldson, &quot;On the Etymology of the Latin particle *modo*&quot;, in the *Transactions of the Philological Society* from 1854 (!). I'm sure there are more reliable and recent sources out there: in particular, De Vaan might have a much more reliable Proto-Indo-European origin for the adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But Donaldson agrees with me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With this [evidence] before us, we may as well take leave of the old etymology, as absolutely irreconcileable with the use of the adverb. I will only add, that if *modŏ* had in the slightest degree the sense of *modō*, Cicero would not have written (De Orat. ii.34.146.), *&quot;qui ea mediocriter modo consideraverit,&quot;* nor would Sallust have composed such a sentence as the following (Cat. xxxix. 6.) : *&quot;Cujusque modi genus hominum, quod modo bello usui foret.&quot;* And although there is no difference in the forms of the two words, it must not be forgotten, that while the last syllable of the ablative *mŏdō* is regularly and properly long, the usage of all the poets confirms the doctrine of Probus (p. 1424), and Festus (p. 140, Müller), that the particle *mŏdŏ* is a pyrrhichius [that is, two short syllables].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And he doubles down on this when responding to critics of his work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A Member maintained that all the meanings of *mŏdŏ* could be deduced naturally from the original one of &quot;by measure, only.&quot; If this can be done, it is a pity that it has not been done. All the attempts, with which I am acquainted, are utter failures […]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His suggested etymology is from Greek *μοὶ δός* or the Latin equivalent *_mihi dō_ &quot;give me&quot; &gt; *_mīdō_ &gt; *modo*, comparing it to *cĕdŏ* from *_ce_ &quot;here&quot; + *dō*, and explaining the *_ī_ &gt; *ŏ* by comparison to *_hī diē_ &gt; *hŏdiē* &quot;today&quot;. But I don't buy his analogy: surely *_hī_ would be in the ablative, *_hō_, to agree with *diē*? He has other analogies, but all of them go back to PIE ablaut patterns in verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Anyone with access to more recent scholarship is welcome to supplant this answer! I'm also interested to see if there's a strong PIE etymology for mŏdŏ.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="b59a15a5-1980-422a-bc24-4c24085ab01d" CreationDate="2018-05-17T08:25:28.847" UserId="9" Text="As far as I know, the letter M in Latin is though to have represented the consonant /m/ in any position but word-final. So *sumus, summus, amplecti, sumpsisti* are something like [sʊmʊs], [sʊmːʊs], [amplɛktiː], [suːmpsɪstiː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pronunciation like [sũːmʊs] for *summus* in Classical Latin seems rather unlikely considering that the Italian reflex is *[sommo](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/sommo)* [somːo] and not [suːmo].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems possible that Latin had allophonic nasalization without  lengthening of any vowel before a nasal consonant, e.g. [sʊ̃mmʊs], but as Alex B.'s answer says there doesn't really seem to be any positive evidence for reconstructing this instead of [sʊmmʊs].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix *com-/con-/co-/cog-* has some interesting behavior that somewhat goes against your hypothesis that a nasal consonant would tend to be preserved between vowels to avoid hiatus. It actually loses its nasal consonant before a vowel or H (in general), and retains it before a plosive (with assimilation to the place of articulation). Oddly, in classical Latin, it seems the form *cō-* was used before /n/, but this ended up being replaced later by *con-n-.* There seems to be a paper by András Cser that discusses this, but I was only able to find the abstract: &quot;[The phonology of the Latin placeless nasal](http://seas3.elte.hu/ocp13/abstracts/16_Cser_OCP13_submission_20.pdf)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only places where I have seen long nasal vowels in place of short vowel &#xD;&#xA;+ nasal consonant sequences suggested as a possibility in word-internal contexts are before /s/ and /f/; such sequences are typically spelled with NS and NF. But Allen seems to indicate that it is unclear whether the possible contrast in pronunciation between, e.g. *-ēns-* and *-ēs-* Classical Latin was really a matter of a nasal vowel vs. an oral vowel (i.e. [ẽːs] vs. [eːs]) or whether orthographic variation between spellings like ES and ENS indicates instead that neutralization with complete loss of nasality was one possible pronunciation (*-ēns-* &gt; *-ēs-* [eːs]) and a pronunciation with a restored nasal consonant *-ēns-* &gt; *-ēns-* [eːns~ẽːns]) was the other main pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21540" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="6c7dfbb4-6748-42ad-a45f-68dfda1b7d3e" CreationDate="2018-05-17T08:28:09.323" UserId="9" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="21541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6503" RevisionGUID="61e6ef96-b81a-46c9-89e4-5f197f97fbde" CreationDate="2018-05-17T08:43:09.047" UserId="1348" Text="I found in a book that *quā ... qua* means *on the one hand ... on the other hand*, but I found no example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please provide a simple example? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should a specific mood be used (subjunctive or indicative)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there another conjunction to express that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21542" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6503" RevisionGUID="61e6ef96-b81a-46c9-89e4-5f197f97fbde" CreationDate="2018-05-17T08:43:09.047" UserId="1348" Text="How do you say on the one hand ... on the other hand?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21543" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6503" RevisionGUID="61e6ef96-b81a-46c9-89e4-5f197f97fbde" CreationDate="2018-05-17T08:43:09.047" UserId="1348" Text="|conjunction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6504" RevisionGUID="70be2eb6-1d80-4966-b14a-6bd80d000319" CreationDate="2018-05-17T11:43:34.363" UserId="2626" Text="I have a few Latin sentences from very old mathematical works by Leonard Euler. There is no their translation in the net. I do have their rough interpretation but need more precise and careful one. This is because the translation (in English) will be quoted in a scientific paper. All the job is very easy to translate and I hope for your help. Thanks a lot in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.&#xD;&#xA;*Quaeris porro, Vir Amplissime, cum quantitates imaginariae neque nihil sint, neque majores, neque minores nihilo, quid turn sint? Ego respondeo, quod ideo sint imaginariae, nam si essent vel nihil, vel majores, vel minores nihilo, turn certe forent reales ideoque non imaginariae.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The case in point here is real and so-called imaginary numbers in mathematics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &#xD;&#xA;*Si igitur eae res, quas decet numeris negativis exprimantur, additio&#xD;&#xA;et subtractio consueto more peracta nullis premitur difficultatibus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is about addition and subtraction of numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21546" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6504" RevisionGUID="70be2eb6-1d80-4966-b14a-6bd80d000319" CreationDate="2018-05-17T11:43:34.363" UserId="2626" Text="A few L. Euler phrases to translate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21547" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6504" RevisionGUID="70be2eb6-1d80-4966-b14a-6bd80d000319" CreationDate="2018-05-17T11:43:34.363" UserId="2626" Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21548" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6504" RevisionGUID="d8110c05-704c-4d2c-897b-65ca307efe4f" CreationDate="2018-05-17T11:50:23.870" UserId="2626" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2626,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user2626&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="21550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6505" RevisionGUID="ca3942d8-da59-4287-85d5-a066a4ab2386" CreationDate="2018-05-17T12:28:02.283" UserId="522" Text="**.A.** If there is a **contrast** of 'activity,' use  *hīc, illic;* for example ‘to go or to stay,’ &#xD;&#xA;*hīc abire, illic manere.*  &#xD;&#xA;If there is a contrast of ‘groups’ then *hic, haec, hoc,* and *ille, illa, illud,* as in this example from Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ergo ut hi miseri, sic illi contra beati.*  &#xD;&#xA;accordingly, as on the one hand these are wretched, so on the other these are happy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, by any chance, you mean literally on the one hand...on the other/ on this side...on the other  &#xD;&#xA;***Ex hac parte... ex alia parte...*** &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ezekiel 41;19 *faciem hominis iuxta palmam **ex hac parte** et faciem leonis iuxta palmam **ex alia parte** expressam per omnem domum in circuitu.&quot;*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the face of a man next to a palm on this side and the face of a lion next to a palm on the other side portrayed throughout the house all round.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**.B.** If there is **no real contrast**, *et...et* would be suitable. &#xD;&#xA;If there are several 'on the other hand's, then the following example from the Surtees Society publication on Finchale Priory for 1331 (p.xiv) is better.  &#xD;&#xA;***Imprimis...,   item...,   item...***  also with indicative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Inprimis, apud Fynchal vj equi. Item xij boves. Item xvj porci. Item de frumento seminato xj qu. Item de pisis seminatis ij qu.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; On the one hand, at Fynchale six horses. On the other hand twelve oxen.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then sixteen pigs. Then eleven qu. of wheat for sowing. Then two qu.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of peas for sowing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Indicative** for statements; or direct questions. But maybe not if the alternatives are possible or hypothetical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6506" RevisionGUID="1d8e6ea9-8e82-4bbe-b02a-ea01cd5f678c" CreationDate="2018-05-17T13:13:19.890" UserId="81" Text="I found the following translation exercise [online][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To say nothing of Philip, whom he rendered an enemy to the Romans,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; though at a distance from him, Antiochus was the most powerful of all&#xD;&#xA;&gt; kings at that period; and him he so inflamed with a desire for war,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that he endeavoured to bring troops against Italy even from the Red&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what I came up with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De nihil dicendo Philippo, quem ipse inimicum Romanorum habebat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quamquam longinquum ab eo, Antiochus rex potentissimus erat saeculi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regibus omnibus illius: is cum bello cupiendo tam incensus ut conatus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; esset copias de mari Rubro contra Italiam trahere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the exercise concerns the use of gerunds and gerundives, I'm mostly concerned with the correctness of the phrase *cum bello cupiendo*. This was an attempt to apply a principle which the author expressed as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin prefers to attract the direct object into the case of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gerund, which in turns adopts the gender and number of the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to verify that I understood it right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~univ2665/MILC/L_HT2.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21552" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6506" RevisionGUID="1d8e6ea9-8e82-4bbe-b02a-ea01cd5f678c" CreationDate="2018-05-17T13:13:19.890" UserId="81" Text="Translation help, especially with &quot;cum bello cupiendo&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21553" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6506" RevisionGUID="1d8e6ea9-8e82-4bbe-b02a-ea01cd5f678c" CreationDate="2018-05-17T13:13:19.890" UserId="81" Text="|translation-check|gerundive|gerund|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21554" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="6504" RevisionGUID="1d122f62-36fe-4230-97c4-c90f67051fc9" CreationDate="2018-05-17T13:47:07.053" UserId="2626" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2626,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user2626&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="21555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6504" RevisionGUID="4261d915-20ec-48c3-ae8e-56a37159e8b0" CreationDate="2018-05-17T13:53:41.467" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="I have a few Latin sentences from very old mathematical works by Leonard Euler. There is no their translation in the net. I do have their rough interpretation but need more precise and careful one. This is because the translation (in English) will be quoted in a scientific paper. All the job is very easy to translate and I hope for your help. Thanks a lot in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &#xD;&#xA;*Quaeris porro, Vir Amplissime, cum quantitates imaginariae neque nihil sint, neque majores, neque minores nihilo, quid turn sint? Ego respondeo, quod ideo sint imaginariae, nam si essent vel nihil, vel majores, vel minores nihilo, turn certe forent reales ideoque non imaginariae.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The case in point here is real and so-called imaginary numbers in mathematics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &#xD;&#xA;*Si igitur eae res, quas decet numeris negativis exprimantur, additio&#xD;&#xA;et subtractio consueto more peracta nullis premitur difficultatibus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is about addition and subtraction of numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21556" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6504" RevisionGUID="4261d915-20ec-48c3-ae8e-56a37159e8b0" CreationDate="2018-05-17T13:53:41.467" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6507" RevisionGUID="e031c967-d1c9-42fb-b5b9-f853dd8d1f1b" CreationDate="2018-05-17T15:10:09.827" UserId="469" Text="*(Partial answer, pending a better/more complete one)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a native English speaker, so you may want to correct my English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. You further ask, great man, if imaginary numbers are neither zero, nor greater nor less than zero, what are they then? I respond that this is why they are imaginary. Were they either zero or greater than or less than zero, [then] certainly they would be real and therefore not imaginary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Vir Amplissime* seems to have been a common addressing formula at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one is a bit more obscure, and I can't make complete sense of it yet. The best I've got so far is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Then, if those things that have to be represented by negative numbers, addition and subtraction [are] executed by usual practice, *is* held without difficulty [lit.: with no difficulties]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some of the words chosen have a lot of meanings, and I have tried my best to make sense of them in a mathematical context. &#xD;&#xA;* The sentence is clearly missing a verb, or maybe its intended to be read using the same verb twice, but I can't figure it out.&#xD;&#xA;* I'm puzzled by *premitur*: I think the subject is _addition and subtraction_, and hence it should be the plural *premuntur*. I can't see a singular subject either, but it is common (at least, it is a common mistake) in some languages to treat a copula of singulars as singular for the purpose of cojugation.&#xD;&#xA;* Maybe the word order is tricking me and _si_ (if) may be seen as inside the relative clause: _that if those things have to be expressed in negative numbers_, but it could only be valid with more context (e.g. a previous sentence giving it).&#xD;&#xA;* Maybe I'm also tricked by a feature of Latin grammar that allows long sentences that are often untranslatable as such, and I should just split it, as I did in the first example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I'm getting the sense right, the main idea is that addition and subtraction of negative numbers offer no difficulty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6507" RevisionGUID="0949fd84-f048-41ec-80c9-d1e613a4cb9c" CreationDate="2018-05-17T15:17:11.977" UserId="469" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="*(Partial answer, pending a better/more complete one)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a native English speaker, so you may want to correct my English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. You further ask, great man, if imaginary numbers are neither zero, nor greater nor less than zero, what are they then? I respond that this is why they are imaginary. Were they either zero or greater than or less than zero, [then] certainly they would be real and therefore not imaginary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Vir Amplissime* seems to have been a common addressing formula at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one is a bit more obscure, and I can't make complete sense of it yet. The best I've got so far is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Then, if those things that have to be represented by negative numbers, addition and subtraction [are] executed by usual practice, *is* held without difficulty [lit.: with no difficulties]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some of the words chosen have a lot of meanings, and I have tried my best to make sense of them in a mathematical context. &#xD;&#xA;* The sentence is clearly missing a verb, or maybe it is intended to be read using the same verb twice, but I can't figure it out.&#xD;&#xA;* I'm puzzled by *premitur*: I think the subject is _addition and subtraction_, and hence it should be the plural *premuntur*. I can't see a singular subject either, but it is common (at least, it is a common mistake) in some languages to treat a copula of singulars as singular for the purpose of cojugation.&#xD;&#xA;* Maybe the word order is tricking me and _si_ (if) may be seen as inside the relative clause: _that if those things have to be expressed in negative numbers_, but it could only be valid with more context (e.g. a previous sentence giving it).&#xD;&#xA;* Maybe I'm also tricked by a feature of Latin grammar that allows long sentences that are often untranslatable as such, and I should just split it, as I did in the first example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I'm getting the sense right, the main idea is that addition and subtraction of negative numbers offer no difficulty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6508" RevisionGUID="b2a07c14-6d5b-4ecd-874b-729b934ded4e" CreationDate="2018-05-17T15:34:46.883" UserId="79" Text="Here are my suggested translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You ask further, esteemed colleague, if imaginary quantities are neither nothing nor bigger or smaller than zero, what can they be? I reply that they are imaginary for just that reason; for if they were zero, or bigger or smaller than zero, they would be real and therefore not imaginary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I translated the salutation *vir amplissime* as &quot;esteemed colleague&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There might be something more idiomatic, but I'm not sure what would fit.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps &quot;good man&quot; would also work and be less dependent on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *turn* should be *tum*; it is easy to mistake *m* for *rn* in old printed or handwritten text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I translated *nihil* as &quot;zero&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You can also use &quot;nothing&quot; which is more literal, but it is clear that here the zero of the field of real numbers (and by extension of complex numbers) is meant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If then there are those things that ought to be expressed by negative numbers, addition and subtraction carried out in the usual manner is pressed by no difficulties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A verb seems to be missing.&#xD;&#xA;I supplied *sunt* (a form of *esse* is typical to leave out).&#xD;&#xA;It would be useful if you could show the original printed text so we could take a closer look at some details.&#xD;&#xA;It is also possible that some other verb was intended, but for that we should look at the original text, including that surrounding this sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point of this passage is clearly that addition and subtraction work in the usual manner with complex numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a mathematician myself and I would be interested in seeing how these quotes are used.&#xD;&#xA;Please share when you are ready to do so!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6508" RevisionGUID="1b0df936-bca8-4141-a8a0-62f1bd0e7fce" CreationDate="2018-05-17T15:43:49.270" UserId="79" Comment="added 347 characters in body" Text="Here are my suggested translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You ask further, esteemed colleague, if imaginary quantities are neither nothing nor bigger or smaller than zero, what can they be? I reply that they are imaginary for just that reason; for if they were zero, or bigger or smaller than zero, they would be real and therefore not imaginary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I translated the salutation *vir amplissime* as &quot;esteemed colleague&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There might be something more idiomatic, but I'm not sure what would fit.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps &quot;good man&quot; would also work and be less dependent on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *turn* should be *tum*; it is easy to mistake *m* for *rn* in old printed or handwritten text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I translated *nihil* as &quot;zero&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You can also use &quot;nothing&quot; which is more literal, but it is clear that here the zero of the field of real numbers (and by extension of complex numbers) is meant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If then there are those things that ought to be expressed by negative numbers, addition and subtraction carried out in the usual manner is pressed by no difficulties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A verb seems to be missing.&#xD;&#xA;I supplied *sunt* (a form of *esse* is typical to leave out) in the meaning &quot;there are&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It would be useful if you could show the original printed text so we could take a closer look at some details.&#xD;&#xA;It is also possible that some other verb was intended, but for that we should look at the original text, including that surrounding this sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subjects of *premitur* are *additio* and *subtractio*.&#xD;&#xA;I would read it as *additio premitur et subtractio premitur*, &quot;addition is pressed and subtraction is pressed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is why I chose &quot;is&quot; instead of &quot;are&quot; in the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point of this passage is clearly that addition and subtraction work in the usual manner with complex numbers &amp;mdash; in the presence of things expressed by (square roots of) negative numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a mathematician myself and I would be interested in seeing how these quotes are used.&#xD;&#xA;Please share when you are ready to do so!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6509" RevisionGUID="a87ff51c-d6f4-418e-8b31-d56c42c6df63" CreationDate="2018-05-17T16:35:02.203" UserId="1694" Text="There are plenty of examples of a foreign [ʃ] being transcribed by Latin &quot;s&quot; (or medially &quot;ss&quot;) but the vast majority come via Greek.  Apart from the numerous Hebrew names found in the Greek Bible, there are various Parthian or Sassanian names that contained [ʃ], for examples &quot;Arsaces&quot; for the Parthian king &quot;Arshak&quot;, but this too comes via Greek Ἀρσάκης.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sound [ʃ] did not apparently occur in the Celtic and Germanic dialects the Romans encountered, so there are unlikely to be any examples from that direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, of course, Punic, and one may perhaps point to the alternate name for Dido &quot;Elissa&quot;, with seems to come from a Punic &quot;Elishat&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6509" RevisionGUID="7eea087e-a6c3-4267-9fcb-d3d1b4c37af2" CreationDate="2018-05-17T16:51:09.107" UserId="1694" Comment="added 306 characters in body" Text="There are plenty of examples of a foreign [ʃ] being transcribed by Latin &quot;s&quot; (or medially &quot;ss&quot;) but the vast majority come via Greek.  Apart from the numerous Hebrew names found in the Greek Bible, there are various Parthian or Sassanian names that contained [ʃ], for examples &quot;Arsaces&quot; for the Parthian king &quot;Arshak&quot;, but this too comes via Greek Ἀρσάκης.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sound [ʃ] did not apparently occur in the Celtic and Germanic dialects the Romans encountered, so there are unlikely to be any examples from that direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, of course, Punic, and one may perhaps point to the alternate name for Dido &quot;Elissa&quot;, with seems to come from a Punic &quot;Elishat&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A further note on the medial &quot;ss&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's highly likely that originally Greek σσ had a distinct sound from σ which made it a closer match to a foreign [ʃ] than σ would have been, which is why it turns up in μεσσίας (and perhaps &quot;Elissa&quot;), but I have no reason to think the same applies to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6510" RevisionGUID="28999174-f6c7-4ce3-9ee2-c4c59c4fd68d" CreationDate="2018-05-17T17:23:14.710" UserId="406" Text="Varro mentioned in [this answer][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think it's highly likely that originally Greek σσ had a distinct sound from σ which made it a closer match to a foreign [ʃ] than σ would have been, which is why it turns up in μεσσίας (and perhaps &quot;Elissa&quot;), but I have no reason to think the same applies to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd never heard of this before, but it would make sense with the transcriptions of *messías* and *Elissa*. On the other hand, we see *Iēsous* with a single sigma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the consensus on this? Is there other evidence for σσ having a distinct sound? And if so, what might it have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6509/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21564" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6510" RevisionGUID="28999174-f6c7-4ce3-9ee2-c4c59c4fd68d" CreationDate="2018-05-17T17:23:14.710" UserId="406" Text="How did σσ differ from σ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21565" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6510" RevisionGUID="28999174-f6c7-4ce3-9ee2-c4c59c4fd68d" CreationDate="2018-05-17T17:23:14.710" UserId="406" Text="|greek|alphabet|phonology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6511" RevisionGUID="a160c613-ab98-434d-ba4d-a58b3cc0a85c" CreationDate="2018-05-17T17:48:24.617" UserId="1694" Text="There are certainly verbs whose stems end (or used to end) in -i- and -u-, but what would contraction with a following stem vowel mean?  &quot;Contraction&quot; here should be expected to result in a rising diphthong: -ye/o- or -we/o-. but these would be transformed according to well-known phonological principles within Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For /u/, consider on one hand the form κάω, from *καύω (root καυ‐), and on the other, δεικνύω, where the complex consonant cluster prevents a transformation /knu/ to /knw/, and hence no &quot;contraction&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of stems ending in -i- are numerous in the present tense system, but the result of the contraction is disguised subsequent transformations, e.g., *βαλιω ‐› *βαλjω ‐› βάλλω." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6511" RevisionGUID="dc512d00-d887-4485-9251-278320abdf02" CreationDate="2018-05-17T17:55:17.387" UserId="1694" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="There are certainly verbs whose stems end (or used to end) in -i- and -u-, but what would contraction with a following stem vowel mean?  &quot;Contraction&quot; here should be expected to result in a rising diphthong: -ye/o- or -we/o-. but these would be transformed according to well-known phonological principles within Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For /u/, consider on one hand the form κάω, from *καύω (root καυ‐), where a former /w/ simply disappears, and on the other, δεικνύω, where the complex consonant cluster prevents a transformation /knu/ to /knw/, and hence no &quot;contraction&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of stems ending in -i- are numerous in the present tense system, but the result of the contraction is disguised by subsequent transformations, e.g., *βαλιω ‐› *βαλjω ‐› βάλλω.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only time I would expect true contractinn is where (hypothetically) a sequence like ιι -&gt; ι, but this is not found as a normal part of the conjugational pattern." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="cd3b7a4f-82bc-4f48-99fd-16d50fe4aa4e" CreationDate="2018-05-17T17:57:52.157" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 690 characters in body" Text="As far as I know, the letter M in Latin is though to have represented the consonant /m/ in any position but word-final. So *sumus, summus, amplecti, sumpsisti* are something like [sʊmʊs], [sʊmːʊs], [amplɛktiː], [suːmpsɪstiː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pronunciation like [sũːmʊs] for *summus* in Classical Latin seems rather unlikely considering that the Italian reflex is *[sommo](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/sommo)* [somːo] and not [suːmo].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems possible that Latin had allophonic nasalization without  lengthening of any vowel before a nasal consonant, e.g. [sʊ̃mmʊs], but as Alex B.'s answer says there doesn't really seem to be any positive evidence for reconstructing this instead of [sʊmmʊs].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only places where I have seen long nasal vowels in place of short vowel &#xD;&#xA;+ nasal consonant sequences suggested as a possibility in word-internal contexts are before /s/ and /f/; such sequences are typically spelled with NS and NF. But Allen seems to indicate that it is unclear whether the possible contrast in pronunciation between, e.g. *-ēns-* and *-ēs-* Classical Latin was really a matter of a nasal vowel vs. an oral vowel (i.e. [ẽːs] vs. [eːs]) or whether orthographic variation between spellings like ES and ENS indicates instead that neutralization with complete loss of nasality was one possible pronunciation (*-ēns-* &gt; *-ēs-* [eːs]) and a pronunciation with a restored nasal consonant *-ēns-* &gt; *-ēns-* [eːns~ẽːns]) was the other main pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6511" RevisionGUID="c3f36647-6507-4a38-89c5-0d50cf1c7ba1" CreationDate="2018-05-17T18:00:57.823" UserId="1694" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="There are certainly verbs whose stems end (or used to end) in -i- and -u-, but what would contraction with a following stem vowel mean?  &quot;Contraction&quot; here should be expected to result in a rising diphthong: -ye/o- or -we/o-. but these would be transformed according to well-known phonological principles within Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For /u/, consider on one hand the form κάω, from *καύω (root καυ‐), where a former /w/ simply disappears, and on the other, δεικνύω, where the complex consonant cluster prevents a transformation /knu/ to /knw/, and hence no &quot;contraction&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of stems ending in -i- are numerous in the present tense system, but the result of the contraction is disguised by subsequent transformations, e.g., *βαλιω ‐› *βαλjω ‐› βάλλω.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only time I would expect true contractinn is in a (hypothetical) sequence like ιι -&gt; ι, but this is not found as a normal part of the conjugational pattern." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6512" RevisionGUID="8a02b1cc-510f-4648-be1a-b5681917ef3f" CreationDate="2018-05-17T18:47:13.527" UserId="1407" Text="I'm asking here because I think the [In Praise of Folly wiki][1] may have an error in the Greek transliteration:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Μωρίας ἐγκώμιον *(Morias enkomion)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I will be undertaking the necessary research to correct this typo, in either the English of the Greek, one way or the other, but wanted to know if anyone knows offhand.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*My initial thought was the gamma is the typo, and that they meant a nu, but in googling [Μωρίας ἐγκώμιον][2] I'm finding may sites that use the gamma, as well as sites that use the nu [Μωρίας ἐνκώμιον][3].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Praise_of_Folly&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CAFB_enUS703US703&amp;ei=V839Ws3_DI7U5gLv3brQCw&amp;q=%CE%9C%CF%89%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82%20%E1%BC%90%CE%B3%CE%BA%CF%8E%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD&amp;oq=%CE%9C%CF%89%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82%20%E1%BC%90%CE%B3%CE%BA%CF%8E%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1l3.86750.86750.0.87584.1.1.0.0.0.0.75.75.1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.74....0.ejrI7Sl3Sj8&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CAFB_enUS703US703&amp;ei=r8z9WuXiLImQ5wL6ua_YCw&amp;q=%CE%9C%CF%89%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82%20%E1%BC%90%CE%BD%CE%BA%CF%8E%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD&amp;oq=%CE%9C%CF%89%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82%20%E1%BC%90%CE%BD%CE%BA%CF%8E%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...3500.3916.0.4698.2.2.0.0.0.0.68.132.2.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.7KkKh7WuxT0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21571" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6512" RevisionGUID="8a02b1cc-510f-4648-be1a-b5681917ef3f" CreationDate="2018-05-17T18:47:13.527" UserId="1407" Text="What is the proper Greek title for the Moriae Encomium of Erasmus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21572" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6512" RevisionGUID="8a02b1cc-510f-4648-be1a-b5681917ef3f" CreationDate="2018-05-17T18:47:13.527" UserId="1407" Text="|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6513" RevisionGUID="c9109e8a-ae29-454d-a29e-4ecb7c955747" CreationDate="2018-05-17T18:54:36.973" UserId="79" Text="It is not a typo.&#xD;&#xA;It's just that neither Greek nor English spelling is phonetically perfectly accurate, and they have chosen a different way to represent a sound that has no separate letter.&#xD;&#xA;Transliteration should not work letter by letter, but sound by sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter &amp;gamma; is not always pronounced as [g].&#xD;&#xA;Before &amp;kappa;, &amp;gamma;, &amp;xi;, and &amp;chi; (velars) it is pronounced as [ŋ], the same sound as found in the English word ki**ng**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6512" RevisionGUID="b608db80-4747-4682-840d-bf4876521f93" CreationDate="2018-05-17T18:57:33.113" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged. Feel free to rollback or edit further!" Text="I'm asking here because I think the [In Praise of Folly wiki][1] may have an error in the Greek transliteration:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Μωρίας ἐγκώμιον *(Morias enkomion)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I will be undertaking the necessary research to correct this typo, in either the English of the Greek, one way or the other, but wanted to know if anyone knows offhand.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My initial thought was the gamma is the typo, and that they meant a nu, but in googling [Μωρίας ἐγκώμιον][2] I'm finding may sites that use the gamma, as well as sites that use the nu [Μωρίας ἐνκώμιον][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Praise_of_Folly&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CAFB_enUS703US703&amp;ei=V839Ws3_DI7U5gLv3brQCw&amp;q=%CE%9C%CF%89%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82%20%E1%BC%90%CE%B3%CE%BA%CF%8E%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD&amp;oq=%CE%9C%CF%89%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82%20%E1%BC%90%CE%B3%CE%BA%CF%8E%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1l3.86750.86750.0.87584.1.1.0.0.0.0.75.75.1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.74....0.ejrI7Sl3Sj8&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CAFB_enUS703US703&amp;ei=r8z9WuXiLImQ5wL6ua_YCw&amp;q=%CE%9C%CF%89%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82%20%E1%BC%90%CE%BD%CE%BA%CF%8E%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD&amp;oq=%CE%9C%CF%89%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82%20%E1%BC%90%CE%BD%CE%BA%CF%8E%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...3500.3916.0.4698.2.2.0.0.0.0.68.132.2.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.7KkKh7WuxT0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21575" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6512" RevisionGUID="b608db80-4747-4682-840d-bf4876521f93" CreationDate="2018-05-17T18:57:33.113" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged. Feel free to rollback or edit further!" Text="|greek|transliteration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6514" RevisionGUID="67d6abc9-8657-4336-8f6c-6a6b8066092c" CreationDate="2018-05-17T18:58:13.980" UserId="406" Text="##As far as I know, *Μωρίᾱς Ἐγκώμιον* is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be standard Attic Greek for &quot;Encomium [praise-ode] of Folly&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither Greek nor Latin had a letter for the sound [ŋ] (as in &quot;sing&quot;). So in Greek, they wrote it with a gamma before the velar consonants *κ χ γ*. The Romans instead used the letter *n* before the velar consonants *c g*, as in *i**n**cohāre*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, it seems that the Romans also used the letter *g* for this sound before another nasal, as in *magnus*. In this case, it's because the underlying phoneme is /g/, and this pronunciation died out before being transmitted to Romance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6512" RevisionGUID="4ba9ae46-f8c8-4e6a-8dda-bf6bc73fea94" CreationDate="2018-05-17T19:05:44.233" UserId="1407" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="I'm asking here because I think the [In Praise of Folly wiki][1] may have an error in the Greek transliteration:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Μωρίας ἐγκώμιον *(Morias enkomion)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will be undertaking the necessary research to correct this, (if it is indeed a  typo,) but wanted to know if anyone knows offhand because I don't have much experience in medieval. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My initial thought was the gamma is the typo, and that they meant a nu, but in googling [Μωρίας ἐγκώμιον][2] I'm finding may sites that use the gamma, as well as sites that use the nu [Μωρίας ἐνκώμιον][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Praise_of_Folly&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CAFB_enUS703US703&amp;ei=V839Ws3_DI7U5gLv3brQCw&amp;q=%CE%9C%CF%89%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82%20%E1%BC%90%CE%B3%CE%BA%CF%8E%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD&amp;oq=%CE%9C%CF%89%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82%20%E1%BC%90%CE%B3%CE%BA%CF%8E%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1l3.86750.86750.0.87584.1.1.0.0.0.0.75.75.1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.74....0.ejrI7Sl3Sj8&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CAFB_enUS703US703&amp;ei=r8z9WuXiLImQ5wL6ua_YCw&amp;q=%CE%9C%CF%89%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82%20%E1%BC%90%CE%BD%CE%BA%CF%8E%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD&amp;oq=%CE%9C%CF%89%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82%20%E1%BC%90%CE%BD%CE%BA%CF%8E%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...3500.3916.0.4698.2.2.0.0.0.0.68.132.2.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.7KkKh7WuxT0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6513" RevisionGUID="3da3d209-7af0-44a9-bbac-91aac28953f9" CreationDate="2018-05-17T19:16:45.650" UserId="79" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="It is not a typo.&#xD;&#xA;It's just that neither Greek nor English spelling is phonetically perfectly accurate, and they have chosen a different way to represent a sound that has no separate letter.&#xD;&#xA;Transliteration should not work letter by letter, but sound by sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter &amp;gamma; is not always pronounced as [g].&#xD;&#xA;Before &amp;kappa;, &amp;gamma;, &amp;xi;, and &amp;chi; (velars) it is pronounced as [ŋ], the same sound as found in the English word &quot;ki**ng**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However, it is not necessary to use the letter 'g' to produce the velar nasal in English.&#xD;&#xA;The standard transliteration would indeed match '&amp;gamma;&amp;kappa;' with 'nk' or 'nc'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6513" RevisionGUID="1cbf9e72-8b80-43c3-8cde-c26335d6abef" CreationDate="2018-05-17T19:24:30.397" UserId="79" Comment="added 258 characters in body" Text="It is not a typo.&#xD;&#xA;It's just that neither Greek nor English spelling is phonetically perfectly accurate, and they have chosen a different way to represent a sound that has no separate letter.&#xD;&#xA;Transliteration should not work letter by letter, but sound by sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter &amp;gamma; is not always pronounced as [g].&#xD;&#xA;Before &amp;kappa;, &amp;gamma;, &amp;xi;, and &amp;chi; (velars) it is pronounced as [ŋ], the same sound as found in the English word &quot;ki**ng**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However, it is not necessary to use the letter 'g' to produce the velar nasal in English.&#xD;&#xA;The standard transliteration would indeed match '&amp;gamma;&amp;kappa;' with 'nk' or 'nc'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to communicate the pronunciation precisely, use IPA.&#xD;&#xA;If you just want a simple transliteration, then it's correct as written (Μωρίας ἐγκώμιον = Morias enkomion).&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not to include accents in the transliteration is a matter of taste." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6512" RevisionGUID="e035f40b-f40c-4356-9f0e-e09247d7c804" CreationDate="2018-05-17T19:25:28.797" UserId="1407" Comment="deleted 186 characters in body" Text="I'm asking here because I think the [In Praise of Folly wiki][1] may have an error in the Greek transliteration:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Μωρίας ἐγκώμιον *(Morias enkomion)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My initial thought was the gamma is the typo, and that they meant a nu, but in googling [Μωρίας ἐγκώμιον][2] I'm finding may sites that use the gamma, as well as sites that use the nu [Μωρίας ἐνκώμιον][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Praise_of_Folly&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CAFB_enUS703US703&amp;ei=V839Ws3_DI7U5gLv3brQCw&amp;q=%CE%9C%CF%89%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82%20%E1%BC%90%CE%B3%CE%BA%CF%8E%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD&amp;oq=%CE%9C%CF%89%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82%20%E1%BC%90%CE%B3%CE%BA%CF%8E%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1l3.86750.86750.0.87584.1.1.0.0.0.0.75.75.1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.74....0.ejrI7Sl3Sj8&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CAFB_enUS703US703&amp;ei=r8z9WuXiLImQ5wL6ua_YCw&amp;q=%CE%9C%CF%89%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82%20%E1%BC%90%CE%BD%CE%BA%CF%8E%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD&amp;oq=%CE%9C%CF%89%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82%20%E1%BC%90%CE%BD%CE%BA%CF%8E%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...3500.3916.0.4698.2.2.0.0.0.0.68.132.2.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.7KkKh7WuxT0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6509" RevisionGUID="9bceab20-2161-43b2-b2e7-9b63903b1bc8" CreationDate="2018-05-17T21:52:20.257" UserId="1694" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="There are plenty of examples of a foreign [ʃ] being transcribed by Latin &quot;s&quot; (or medially &quot;ss&quot;) but the vast majority come via Greek.  Apart from the numerous Hebrew names found in the Greek Bible, there are various Parthian or Sassanian names that contained [ʃ], for examples &quot;Arsaces&quot; for the Parthian king &quot;Arshak&quot;, but this too comes via Greek Ἀρσάκης.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sound [ʃ] did not apparently occur in the Celtic and Germanic dialects the Romans encountered, so there are unlikely to be any examples from that direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, of course, Punic, and one may perhaps point to the alternate name for Dido &quot;Elissa&quot;, which seems to come from a Punic &quot;Elishat&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A further note on the medial &quot;ss&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's highly likely that originally Greek σσ had a distinct sound from σ which made it a closer match to a foreign [ʃ] than σ would have been, which is why it turns up in μεσσίας (and perhaps &quot;Elissa&quot;), but I have no reason to think the same applies to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6515" RevisionGUID="6df2d06c-480f-4314-8ab2-154048533f70" CreationDate="2018-05-17T21:57:19.327" UserId="79" Text="The active perfect stem conjugation in Latin resembles the conjugation of *esse* a lot, but [I recently learned that it is likely to be a coincidence](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6422/79).&#xD;&#xA;However, the active perfect indicative forms do not resemble *esse* &amp;mdash; or any other Latin conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the origin of the personal endings (*-i*, *-isti*, *-it*, *-imus*, *-istis*, *-erunt*)?&#xD;&#xA;Do they come from the same place (PIE perfect, for example), or is it a collection of elements from a number of sources?&#xD;&#xA;There are familiar elements (*-t* in third person singular, *-mus* in first person plural, *-tis* in second person plural, *-nt* in third person plural), but the combination of all six is unlike other personal endings.&#xD;&#xA;There are also elements that are totally unexpected based on other Latin conjugation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21583" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6515" RevisionGUID="6df2d06c-480f-4314-8ab2-154048533f70" CreationDate="2018-05-17T21:57:19.327" UserId="79" Text="What is the origin of the active perfect indicative personal endings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21584" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6515" RevisionGUID="6df2d06c-480f-4314-8ab2-154048533f70" CreationDate="2018-05-17T21:57:19.327" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|language-evolution|conjugation|perfect-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6511" RevisionGUID="bc073fae-3364-4cea-9236-5b83d4734d53" CreationDate="2018-05-17T22:00:07.653" UserId="1694" Comment="edited body" Text="There are certainly verbs whose stems end (or used to end) in -i- and -u-, but what would contraction with a following stem vowel mean?  &quot;Contraction&quot; here should be expected to result in a rising diphthong: -ye/o- or -we/o-. but these would be transformed according to well-known phonological principles within Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For /u/, consider on one hand the form κάω, from *καύω (root καυ‐), where a former /w/ simply disappears, and on the other, δεικνύω, where the complex consonant cluster prevents a transformation /knu/ to /knw/, and hence no &quot;contraction&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of stems ending in -i- are numerous in the present tense system, but the result of the contraction is disguised by subsequent transformations, e.g., *βαλιω ‐› *βαλjω ‐› βάλλω.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only time I would expect true contraction is in a (hypothetical) sequence like ιι -&gt; ι, but this is not found as a normal part of the conjugational pattern." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6516" RevisionGUID="356ad40d-c80e-45be-b683-c0413f06eb85" CreationDate="2018-05-17T22:18:48.310" UserId="30" Text="I know this is a long shot, one word being Greek and the other Latin, but is it at all possible for there to be a relation between *Bellerophon*, the slayer of beasts, and *belua* &quot;beast&quot;? A cursory glance at Wikipaedia informs us that the etymology of Bellerophon is not quit certain:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One possible etymology that has been suggested is: Βελλεροφόντης from βέλεμνον, βελόνη, βέλος (&quot;projectile, dart, javelin, needle, arrow, bullet&quot;) and -φόντης (&quot;slayer&quot;) from φονεύω (&quot;to slay&quot;). However, Geoffrey Kirk says that &quot;Βελλεροφόντης means 'slayer of Belleros'&quot;.[3] Belleros could have been a Lycian, a local daimon or a Corinthian nobleman—Bellerophon's name &quot;clearly invited all sorts of speculation&quot;.[3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see a stem βέλ- &quot;projectile&quot; mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis &amp; Short invite speculation with their comment on *belua*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [perh. kindr. with θήρ, fera, as uber with οὖθαρ, and paulus with παῦρος] ... cf.: &quot;bestia&quot; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I won't ask about any conexions with *beast*..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21587" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6516" RevisionGUID="356ad40d-c80e-45be-b683-c0413f06eb85" CreationDate="2018-05-17T22:18:48.310" UserId="30" Text="Is there any relation between Bellerophon and belua?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21588" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6516" RevisionGUID="356ad40d-c80e-45be-b683-c0413f06eb85" CreationDate="2018-05-17T22:18:48.310" UserId="30" Text="|etymology|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6515" RevisionGUID="2518a515-d718-4f61-a6bc-bd11fc478184" CreationDate="2018-05-17T22:23:39.570" UserId="79" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="The active perfect stem conjugation in Latin resembles the conjugation of *esse* a lot, but [I recently learned that it is likely to be a coincidence](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6422/79).&#xD;&#xA;However, the active perfect indicative forms do not resemble *esse* &amp;mdash; or any other Latin conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the origin of the personal endings (*-i*, *-isti*, *-it*, *-imus*, *-istis*, *-erunt*/*-ere*)?&#xD;&#xA;Do they come from the same place (PIE perfect, for example), or is it a collection of elements from a number of sources?&#xD;&#xA;There are familiar elements (*-t* in third person singular, *-mus* in first person plural, *-tis* in second person plural, *-nt* in third person plural), but the combination of all six is unlike other personal endings.&#xD;&#xA;There are also elements that are totally unexpected based on other Latin conjugation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="800cfa98-af31-4c0d-97c9-c225fdca2215" CreationDate="2018-05-17T22:28:28.177" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 1036 characters in body" Text="As far as I know, the letter M in Latin is though to have represented the consonant /m/ in any position but word-final. So *sumus, summus, amplecti, sumpsisti* are something like [sʊmʊs], [sʊmːʊs], [amplɛktiː], [suːmpsɪstiː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pronunciation like [sũːmʊs] for *summus* in Classical Latin seems rather unlikely considering that the Italian reflex is *[sommo](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/sommo)* [somːo] and not [suːmo].&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21591" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="62482663-445a-412c-8f28-21c33b05e627" CreationDate="2018-05-17T22:28:30.970" UserId="9" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="21592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6517" RevisionGUID="6a765b33-78af-48d5-af50-e7e04a12053c" CreationDate="2018-05-17T23:07:11.190" UserId="9" Text="I don't know exactly why you have heard pronunciations of Italian *amata* with a long /tː/, but I would guess this is just a case of different speakers using different phonetic durations for geminate consonants. The exact realization of gemination is not the same in all languages/language varieties, so some Italian speakers may use something that sounds like /tt/ to you, but that sounds like /t/ to them (and that is distinct from their /tt/). I think that's what's going on in this case. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a study that directly compares the phonetic correlates of phonemic consonant length in Finnish and Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we don't have access to ancient Latin speakers, we don't know much about the phonetic details of how they pronounced geminate consonants. We only know that there was a phonological distinction between geminates and singleton consonants, and that there was also a distinct phonemic contrast between long and short vowels (Latin vowel length, unlike Italian vowel length, was not completely conditioned by the phonological context). The way modern Latin speakers pronounce geminates is probably heavily dependent on their L1s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to what TKR said about the &quot;littera&quot; rule (which is about cases of alternation between long vowel + singleton consonant and short vowel + geminate consonant that seem to date back to early Latin), there were some cases where a singleton consonant of Classical Latin developed into a geminate in an ancestor of some Romance variety, but there doesn't ever seem to have been a sound law of the form &quot;VːC&quot; &gt; &quot;VːCː&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One ***isolated example*** that I know of where a consonant appears to have been lengthened after a stressed long vowel is French *tout,* Italian *tutto* from Latin *tōtus;* the [CNRTL](http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/tout) says this came from a form &quot;tōttus&quot; that was called a &quot;barbarism&quot; by the grammarian  Consentius. It's supposedly an example of &quot;expressive gemination&quot;, which is not a regular sound change.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6517" RevisionGUID="ace28687-8473-4675-b819-926bc5e6a72d" CreationDate="2018-05-17T23:22:43.007" UserId="9" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="I don't know exactly why you have heard pronunciations of Italian *amata* with a long /tː/, but I would guess this is just a case of different speakers using different phonetic durations for geminate consonants. The exact realization of gemination is not the same in all languages/language varieties, so some Italian speakers may use something that sounds like /tt/ to you, but that sounds like /t/ to them (and that is distinct from their /tt/). I think that's what's going on in this case. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a study that directly compares the phonetic correlates of phonemic consonant length in Finnish and Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we don't have access to ancient Latin speakers, we don't know much about the phonetic details of how they pronounced geminate consonants. We only know that there was a phonological distinction between geminates and singleton consonants, and that there was also a distinct phonemic contrast between long and short vowels (Latin vowel length, unlike Italian vowel length, was not completely conditioned by the phonological context). The way modern Latin speakers pronounce geminates is probably heavily dependent on their L1s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to what TKR said about the &quot;littera&quot; rule (which is about cases of alternation between long vowel + singleton consonant and short vowel + geminate consonant that seem to date back to early Latin), there were some cases where a singleton consonant of Classical Latin developed into a geminate in an ancestor of some Romance variety, but there doesn't ever seem to have been a sound law of the form &quot;VːC&quot; &gt; &quot;VːCː&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One ***isolated example*** that I know of where a consonant appears to have been lengthened after a stressed long vowel is French *tout,* Italian *tutto* from Latin *tōtus;* the [CNRTL](http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/tout) says this came from a form &quot;tōttus&quot; that was called a &quot;barbarism&quot; by the grammarian  Consentius. It's supposedly an example of &quot;expressive gemination&quot;, which is not a regular sound change. The Weiss handout that TKR's answer mentioned ([Observations on the *Littera* Rule&quot;](http://conf.ling.cornell.edu/weiss/Observations_on_the_littera_rule.pdf)) &#xD;&#xA; seems to treat &quot;tottus&quot; as an example of the &quot;littera&quot; rule, but I'm not sure if it is quite the same because I don't think Latin *ŏ*/Proto-Romance *ɔ would be expected to evolve to French *ou* /u/.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6517" RevisionGUID="a7061a2c-41f6-4fde-9ea4-8dc12f17ff3f" CreationDate="2018-05-17T23:29:01.700" UserId="9" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="I don't know exactly why you have heard pronunciations of Italian *amata* with a long /tː/, but I would guess this is just a case of different speakers using different phonetic durations for geminate consonants. The exact realization of gemination is not the same in all languages/language varieties, so some Italian speakers may use something that sounds like /tt/ to you, but that sounds like /t/ to them (and that is distinct from their /tt/). I think that's what's going on in this case. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a study that directly compares the phonetic correlates of phonemic consonant length in Finnish and Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we don't have access to ancient Latin speakers, we don't know much about the phonetic details of how they pronounced geminate consonants. We only know that there was a phonological distinction between geminates and singleton consonants, and that there was also a distinct phonemic contrast between long and short vowels (Latin vowel length, unlike Italian vowel length, was not completely conditioned by the phonological context). The way modern Latin speakers pronounce geminates is probably heavily dependent on their L1s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to what TKR said about the &quot;littera&quot; rule (which is about cases of alternation between long vowel + singleton consonant and short vowel + geminate consonant that seem to date back to early Latin), there were some cases where a singleton consonant of Classical Latin developed into a geminate in an ancestor of some Romance variety, but there doesn't ever seem to have been a sound law of the form &quot;VːC&quot; &gt; &quot;VːCː&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One ***isolated example*** that I know of where a consonant appears to have been lengthened after a stressed long vowel is French *tout,* Italian *tutto* from Latin *tōtus;* the [CNRTL](http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/tout) says this came from a form &quot;tōttus&quot; that was called a &quot;barbarism&quot; by the grammarian  Consentius. According to the CNRTL, it's an example of &quot;expressive gemination&quot;, which is not a regular sound change. The Weiss handout that TKR's answer mentioned ([Observations on the *Littera* Rule&quot;](http://conf.ling.cornell.edu/weiss/Observations_on_the_littera_rule.pdf)) &#xD;&#xA; seems to treat &quot;tottus&quot; as an example of the &quot;littera&quot; rule, but I'm not sure if it is quite the same because I don't think Latin *ŏ*/Proto-Romance *ɔ would be expected to evolve to French *ou* /u/.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6517" RevisionGUID="935462c1-fb2e-4721-a178-874b6c4e4d29" CreationDate="2018-05-17T23:39:54.640" UserId="9" Comment="added 835 characters in body" Text="I don't know exactly why you have heard pronunciations of Italian *amata* with a long /tː/, but I would guess this is just a case of different speakers using different phonetic durations for geminate consonants. The exact realization of gemination is not the same in all languages/language varieties, so some Italian speakers may use something that sounds like /tt/ to you, but that sounds like /t/ to them (and that is distinct from their /tt/). I think that's what's going on in this case. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a study that directly compares the phonetic correlates of phonemic consonant length in Finnish and Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we don't have access to ancient Latin speakers, we don't know much about the phonetic details of how they pronounced geminate consonants. We only know that there was a phonological distinction between geminates and singleton consonants, and that there was also a distinct phonemic contrast between long and short vowels (Latin vowel length, unlike Italian vowel length, was not completely conditioned by the phonological context). The way modern Latin speakers pronounce geminates is probably heavily dependent on their L1s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to what TKR said about the &quot;littera&quot; rule (which is about cases of alternation between long vowel + singleton consonant and short vowel + geminate consonant that seem to date back to early Latin), there were some cases where a singleton consonant of Classical Latin developed into a geminate in an ancestor of some Romance variety, but there doesn't ever seem to have been a sound law of the form &quot;VːC&quot; &gt; &quot;VːCː&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One ***isolated example*** that I know of where a consonant appears to have been lengthened after a stressed long vowel is French *tout,* Italian *tutto* from Latin *tōtus.* The exact explanation of these forms seems a bit disputed, but the [CNRTL](http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/tout) says this came from a form &quot;tōttus&quot; that was called a &quot;barbarism&quot; by the grammarian  Consentius. According to the CNRTL, it's an example of &quot;expressive gemination&quot;, which is not a regular sound change. The Weiss handout that TKR's answer mentioned ([Observations on the *Littera* Rule&quot;](http://conf.ling.cornell.edu/weiss/Observations_on_the_littera_rule.pdf)) &#xD;&#xA; seems to treat &quot;tottus&quot; as an example of the &quot;littera&quot; rule, but I'm not sure if it is quite the same because I don't think Latin *ŏ*/Proto-Romance *ɔ would be expected to evolve to French *ou* /u/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Quantity and Quality in the Vowel-System of&#xD;&#xA;Vulgar Latin](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00437956.1965.11435415),* by N. C. W. Spence (2015) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is worth noting that the early examples of vowel reduction in combination with consonant groups (*cŭppa* alongside *cūpa*, *bŭcca* alongside *būca*, etc.) are not on a par with the reductions exemplified by *stēlla &gt; stẹ̆lla, tōtus &gt; tọ̆ttus*, Italian *villa, mille, anguilla, zitto,* etc.: the *ŭ* of *cŭppa* and *bŭcca* has merged in W. Romance with the continuant of Classical Latin *ō*, whereas the reduced *i* of *villa*, etc., has *not* merged with the continuant of Classical Latin *ē*. That is to say that the vowels in the words of the second group were adapted to a system in which vocalic quality, rather than length, was already distinctive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 7)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6514" RevisionGUID="b32438cf-346a-4eb0-b480-a0a70f3f0dd1" CreationDate="2018-05-18T00:31:19.773" UserId="406" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="##As far as I know, *Μωρίᾱς Ἐγκώμιον* is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be standard Attic Greek for &quot;Encomium [praise-ode] of Folly&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither Greek nor Latin had a letter for the sound [ŋ] (as in &quot;sing&quot;). So in Greek, they wrote it with a gamma before the velar consonants *κ χ γ*. The Romans instead used the letter *n* before the velar consonants *c g*, as in *i**n**cohāre*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, it seems that the Romans also used the letter *g* for this sound before another nasal, as in *magnus*. In this case, it's because the underlying phoneme is /g/, which assimilates in quality to [ŋ] (rather than /n/ assimilating in place)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6514" RevisionGUID="87dc23be-eb13-4995-b997-527a0f18c50f" CreationDate="2018-05-18T00:38:12.667" UserId="406" Comment="added 211 characters in body" Text="##As far as I know, *Μωρίᾱς Ἐγκώμιον* is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be standard Attic Greek for &quot;Encomium [praise-ode] of Folly&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither Greek nor Latin had a letter for the sound [ŋ] (which English writes with &quot;ng&quot; as in &quot;sing&quot;). This sound is a velar nasal, so the closest equivalents are the velar stop /g/ and the alveolar nasal /n/. In Greek, they thought it was more like /g/, so they wrote it with a gamma before the velar consonants *κ χ γ*. The Romans thought it was more like /n/, so they instead used the letter *n* before the velar consonants *c g*, as in *i**n**cohāre*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, it seems that the Romans also used the letter *g* for this sound before another nasal, as in *magnus*. In this case, it's because the underlying phoneme is /g/, which assimilates in quality to [ŋ] (rather than /n/ assimilating in place)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="66544832-beb9-4956-804d-937da1a46c57" CreationDate="2018-05-18T01:40:33.373" UserId="2368" Text="In the sentence, &quot;centurio nos rogavit ut captivos custodiremus,&quot; what is the use of the subjunctive. It's not a cum clause, indirect question, or result clause. That leaves purpose and indirect command. They would be translated as &quot;we asked the centurion in order that we might guard the prisoners,&quot; or &quot;we asked the centurion that we should guard the prison,&quot; respectively. I think it's an indirect question based on the &quot;rogavit,&quot; but then the translation is weird. Please help.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21599" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="66544832-beb9-4956-804d-937da1a46c57" CreationDate="2018-05-18T01:40:33.373" UserId="2368" Text="Help finding the use of the subjunctive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21600" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="66544832-beb9-4956-804d-937da1a46c57" CreationDate="2018-05-18T01:40:33.373" UserId="2368" Text="|conjunctive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6519" RevisionGUID="c8374a1f-17eb-4b06-82c4-94ae4596a2a4" CreationDate="2018-05-18T02:16:28.307" UserId="406" Text="This is an indirect command (entirely separate from indirect questions). The key is the word *ut*, which indirect questions don't use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ut* in Latin can introduce four types of clauses: purpose, result, fear, and indirect command.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Purpose clauses indicate why the main verb happens, and are the most common.&#xD;&#xA; - Result clauses are only found with &quot;so&quot;-words (so big, so great, so small…) and indicate what happens because of the main verb.&#xD;&#xA; - Fear clauses are only found with verbs of fearing and indicate what the subject is afraid of.&#xD;&#xA; - Indirect commands are only found with verbs of commanding or requesting and indicate what the subject wants the object to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these can be translated as &quot;that&quot; (though the meaning is inverted in a fear clause, for historical reasons):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I went to Rome *so that* I could see the Curia.&#xD;&#xA; - The fire was so big *that* it destroyed half the city.&#xD;&#xA; - I am afraid *that* you won't come back.&#xD;&#xA; - I'm requesting *that* you do this for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case you have the verb *rogāvit*, &quot;he asked&quot;—this is third person singular, and *centuriō* is nominative, so it must be the centurion doing the asking. And since this is a requesting verb, it must be an indirect command: the *ut*-clause is what he wants the object (*nōs*) to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate the whole sentence literally as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The centurion made a request of us, that we might watch over the prisoners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or in idiomatic English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The centurion asked us to watch over the prisoners." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6517" RevisionGUID="64ad85b5-63b2-4c1a-aaf8-f927e8d47df2" CreationDate="2018-05-18T03:42:10.107" UserId="9" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="I don't know exactly why you have heard pronunciations of Italian *amata* with a long /tː/, but I would guess this is just a case of different speakers using different phonetic durations for phonemically singleton consonants. The exact realization of gemination is not the same in all languages/language varieties, so some Italian speakers may use something that sounds like /tt/ to you, but that sounds like /t/ to them (and that is distinct from their /tt/). I think that's what's going on in this case. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a study that directly compares the phonetic correlates of phonemic consonant length in Finnish and Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we don't have access to ancient Latin speakers, we don't know much about the phonetic details of how they pronounced geminate consonants. We only know that there was a phonological distinction between geminates and singleton consonants, and that there was also a distinct phonemic contrast between long and short vowels (Latin vowel length, unlike Italian vowel length, was not completely conditioned by the phonological context). The way modern Latin speakers pronounce geminates is probably heavily dependent on their L1s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to what TKR said about the &quot;littera&quot; rule (which is about cases of alternation between long vowel + singleton consonant and short vowel + geminate consonant that seem to date back to early Latin), there were some cases where a singleton consonant of Classical Latin developed into a geminate in an ancestor of some Romance variety, but there doesn't ever seem to have been a sound law of the form &quot;VːC&quot; &gt; &quot;VːCː&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One ***isolated example*** that I know of where a consonant appears to have been lengthened after a stressed long vowel is French *tout,* Italian *tutto* from Latin *tōtus.* The exact explanation of these forms seems a bit disputed, but the [CNRTL](http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/tout) says this came from a form &quot;tōttus&quot; that was called a &quot;barbarism&quot; by the grammarian  Consentius. According to the CNRTL, it's an example of &quot;expressive gemination&quot;, which is not a regular sound change. The Weiss handout that TKR's answer mentioned ([Observations on the *Littera* Rule&quot;](http://conf.ling.cornell.edu/weiss/Observations_on_the_littera_rule.pdf)) &#xD;&#xA; seems to treat &quot;tottus&quot; as an example of the &quot;littera&quot; rule, but I'm not sure if it is quite the same because I don't think Latin *ŏ*/Proto-Romance *ɔ would be expected to evolve to French *ou* /u/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Quantity and Quality in the Vowel-System of&#xD;&#xA;Vulgar Latin](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00437956.1965.11435415),* by N. C. W. Spence (2015) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is worth noting that the early examples of vowel reduction in combination with consonant groups (*cŭppa* alongside *cūpa*, *bŭcca* alongside *būca*, etc.) are not on a par with the reductions exemplified by *stēlla &gt; stẹ̆lla, tōtus &gt; tọ̆ttus*, Italian *villa, mille, anguilla, zitto,* etc.: the *ŭ* of *cŭppa* and *bŭcca* has merged in W. Romance with the continuant of Classical Latin *ō*, whereas the reduced *i* of *villa*, etc., has *not* merged with the continuant of Classical Latin *ē*. That is to say that the vowels in the words of the second group were adapted to a system in which vocalic quality, rather than length, was already distinctive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 7)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6520" RevisionGUID="21aaaf7a-d04b-4407-8eb5-558868d65a35" CreationDate="2018-05-18T05:12:48.937" UserId="9" Text="Recently on ELU, a question was asked about the meaning of three rhetorical terms that are obviously based on Greek: [“macrologia”, “periergia” and “bomphiologia”](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/446528/difference-in-meaning-and-usage-between-macrologia-periergia-and-bomphiolo).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek etymologies of &quot;[macrologia](http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/M/macrologia.htm)&quot; and &quot;[periergia](http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/P/periergia.htm)&quot; seem fairly straightforward and are summarized by the *Silva Rhetoricae* (Gideon Burton, [rhetoric.byu.edu](http://rhetoric.byu.edu/)) entries referenced in the linked post, but Burton does not provide any etymology for &quot;[bomphiologia](http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/B/bomphiologia.htm)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my research so far, it appears that the earliest known occurrence of this word is in Richard Sherry's *[Treatise of Schemes and Tropes](http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Primary%20Texts/Sherry.htm)* (1550, 1555). For context, Sherry seems to systematically give two versions of each rhetorical term, one in Greek and one in Latin. &quot;Bomphiologia&quot; is presented as the Greek equivalent of Latin &quot;Verborum bombus&quot;.  There is a suggestive similarity between the first parts of ***bom**bus* and ***bom**phiologia*, but I don't know of any reason why the second &quot;b&quot; of *bombus* would change to &quot;ph&quot; in a longer word, and through Google Books, I found a footnote about the term *bomphiologia* that seems to present even more words with related meanings and similar forms (bolding added by me):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Bomphiologia, or Pompous Speech&quot; (in right margin)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Others there be that fall into the contrary vice by using such bombasted&lt;sup&gt;66&lt;/sup&gt; words, as seem altogether farced&lt;sup&gt;67&lt;/sup&gt; full of wind, being a great deal too high and lofty for the matter, whereof ye may find too many in all popular rhymers.&lt;sup&gt;68&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Editorial footnotes:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;66. **bombasted** stuffed, as with padding.&#xD;&#xA;67. **farced** stuffed (a cooking term).&#xD;&#xA;68.  On *bomphiologia*, see Sherry 61. Sherry appears to be coining this term, which he also calls *verborum bombus* (booming words) and exemplifies by reference to Terence's braggart soldier. This is probably a slip for Plautus' Pyrgopolinices, the title character in the *Miles Gloriosus*, who refers to a commander of his named Bombomachides (&quot;booming fighter,&quot; 1.14).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;—*[The Art of English Poesy, Critical Edition](https://books.google.com/books?id=MPVrKXncybgC&amp;pg=PA345&amp;dq=%22bomphiologia%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22bomphiologia%22&amp;f=false)* (original by George Puttenham, 1590; edited by Frank Whigham and Wayne A. Rebhorn, 2007), p. 345&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this passage, I'm wondering if *bomphiologia* was perhaps originally associated with words like *pomp(ous)* and *bombast,* or the name *Bombomachides* (which is ultimately related to the noun *bombus*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, here are the three apparently distinct Greek roots that seem to me like they might possibly be relevant:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1. ###Greek *βόμβος* (as in Latin &quot;bombus&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The Latin word *bombus* seems to be from Ancient Greek *βόμβος,* which is also the first element in the name *Bombomachides* that occurs in Plautus's play about a boastful soldier, *Miles Gloriosus* (but not as the name of the title character).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ###Greek *βόμβυξ* (as in English &quot;bombast&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The Oxford English Dictionary tells me that English *bombast,* a variant of *bombace,* has an etymology that does ultimately go back to Greek, but that doesn't seem to have any certain connection to *bombus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt; Old French *bombace* cotton, cotton wadding &lt; late Latin *bombāce-m,* accusative of *bombax* cotton, a corruption and transferred use of Latin *bombyx* silk, &lt; Greek *βόμβυξ* silkworm, silk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The association of the English word &quot;bombast&quot; with &quot;turgid language&quot; seems to have existed at least as early as 1589, according to the OED:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 1589   T. Nashe *To Students* in R. Greene *Menaphon* Epist. sig. **   To outbraue better pens with the swelling **bumbast** of a bragging blanke verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I don't know if we have any evidence of similar metaphorical uses of a word like *bombacem* or *bombacium* in the Latin of this century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. ###Greek *πομπή* (as in Latin &quot;pompa&quot;, English &quot;pomp&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The OED says the word &quot;pomp&quot; also has a Greek origin, which unsuprisingly seems to be separate from the origin of *βόμβος* or *βόμβυξ*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;classical Latin *pompa* ceremonial procession, ostentation, display &lt; ancient Greek *πομπή* a sending away, solemn procession, parade, display &lt; *πέμπειν* to send, of unknown origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know whether there are any other possible Greek roots that might be relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know of any further information that would shed light on the etymology of this rhetorical term? Can anyone think of an explanation for the &quot;ph&quot; (and the following &quot;i&quot;) in *bomphiologia*? Of course, it's impossible to go back in time and look into Sherry's head to see what he was thinking when he coined the word (if that is what happened), but I thought it seemed possible that someone here would know something that might provide useful context that would increase my understanding of how the word might have been formed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6520" RevisionGUID="21aaaf7a-d04b-4407-8eb5-558868d65a35" CreationDate="2018-05-18T05:12:48.937" UserId="9" Text="Is there any explanation for the formation of &quot;bomphiologia&quot; as a Greek word for &quot;verborum bombus&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6520" RevisionGUID="21aaaf7a-d04b-4407-8eb5-558868d65a35" CreationDate="2018-05-18T05:12:48.937" UserId="9" Text="|etymology|greek|rhetoric|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6520" RevisionGUID="cfc0c7a2-fd6c-4e87-a193-cdf884139ed4" CreationDate="2018-05-18T05:18:20.170" UserId="9" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]; added 253 characters in body" Text="Recently on ELU, a question was asked about the meaning of three rhetorical terms that are obviously based on Greek: [“macrologia”, “periergia” and “bomphiologia”](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/446528/difference-in-meaning-and-usage-between-macrologia-periergia-and-bomphiolo).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek etymologies of &quot;[macrologia](http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/M/macrologia.htm)&quot; and &quot;[periergia](http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/P/periergia.htm)&quot; seem fairly straightforward and are summarized by the *Silva Rhetoricae* (Gideon Burton, [rhetoric.byu.edu](http://rhetoric.byu.edu/)) entries referenced in the linked post, but Burton does not provide any etymology for &quot;[bomphiologia](http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/B/bomphiologia.htm)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my research so far, it appears that the earliest known occurrence of this word is in Richard Sherry's *[Treatise of Schemes and Tropes](http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Primary%20Texts/Sherry.htm)* (1550, 1555). For context, Sherry seems to systematically give two versions of each rhetorical term, one in Greek and one in Latin. &quot;Bomphiologia&quot; is presented as the Greek equivalent of Latin &quot;Verborum bombus&quot;.  There is a suggestive similarity between the first parts of ***bom**bus* and ***bom**phiologia*, but I don't know of any reason why the second &quot;b&quot; of *bombus* would change to &quot;ph&quot; in a longer word, and through Google Books, I found a footnote about the term *bomphiologia* that seems to present even more words with related meanings and similar forms (bolding added by me):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Bomphiologia, or Pompous Speech&quot; (in right margin)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Others there be that fall into the contrary vice by using such bombasted&lt;sup&gt;66&lt;/sup&gt; words, as seem altogether farced&lt;sup&gt;67&lt;/sup&gt; full of wind, being a great deal too high and lofty for the matter, whereof ye may find too many in all popular rhymers.&lt;sup&gt;68&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Editorial footnotes:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;66. **bombasted** stuffed, as with padding.&#xD;&#xA;67. **farced** stuffed (a cooking term).&#xD;&#xA;68.  On *bomphiologia*, see Sherry 61. Sherry appears to be coining this term, which he also calls *verborum bombus* (booming words) and exemplifies by reference to Terence's braggart soldier. This is probably a slip for Plautus' Pyrgopolinices, the title character in the *Miles Gloriosus*, who refers to a commander of his named Bombomachides (&quot;booming fighter,&quot; 1.14).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;—*[The Art of English Poesy, Critical Edition](https://books.google.com/books?id=MPVrKXncybgC&amp;pg=PA345&amp;dq=%22bomphiologia%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22bomphiologia%22&amp;f=false)* (original by George Puttenham, 1590; edited by Frank Whigham and Wayne A. Rebhorn, 2007), p. 345&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this passage, I'm wondering if *bomphiologia* was perhaps originally associated with words like *pomp(ous)* and *bombast,* or the name *Bombomachides* (which is ultimately related to the noun *bombus*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, here are the three apparently distinct Greek roots that seem to me like they might possibly be relevant:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1. ###Greek *βόμβος* (as in Latin &quot;bombus&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The Latin word *bombus* seems to be from Ancient Greek *βόμβος,* which is also the first element in the name *Bombomachides* that occurs in Plautus's play about a boastful soldier, *Miles Gloriosus* (but not as the name of the title character).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ###Greek *βόμβυξ* (as in English &quot;bombast&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The Oxford English Dictionary tells me that English *bombast,* a variant of *bombace,* has an etymology that does ultimately go back to Greek, but that doesn't seem to have any certain connection to *bombus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt; Old French *bombace* cotton, cotton wadding &lt; late Latin *bombāce-m,* accusative of *bombax* cotton, a corruption and transferred use of Latin *bombyx* silk, &lt; Greek *βόμβυξ* silkworm, silk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The association of the English word &quot;bombast&quot; with &quot;turgid language&quot; seems to have existed at least as early as 1589, according to the OED:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 1589   T. Nashe *To Students* in R. Greene *Menaphon* Epist. sig. **   To outbraue better pens with the swelling **bumbast** of a bragging blanke verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I don't know if we have any evidence of similar metaphorical uses of a word like *bombacem* or *bombacium* in the Latin of this century. I guess this root is technically *bombyc-* or *bombac-,* with a final velar that would have to be truncated to serve as as base for *bomphiologia,* but the formation of the rhetorical term seems irregular in any case so I'm not sure I can rule out the possibility of some kind of truncation like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. ###Greek *πομπή* (as in Latin &quot;pompa&quot;, English &quot;pomp&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The OED says the word &quot;pomp&quot; also has a Greek origin, which unsuprisingly seems to be separate from the origin of *βόμβος* or *βόμβυξ*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;classical Latin *pompa* ceremonial procession, ostentation, display &lt; ancient Greek *πομπή* a sending away, solemn procession, parade, display &lt; *πέμπειν* to send, of unknown origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know whether there are any other possible Greek roots that might be relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know of any further information that would shed light on the etymology of this rhetorical term? Can anyone think of an explanation for the &quot;ph&quot; (and the following &quot;i&quot;) in *bomphiologia*? Of course, it's impossible to go back in time and look into Sherry's head to see what he was thinking when he coined the word (if that is what happened), but I thought it seemed possible that someone here would know something that might provide useful context that would increase my understanding of how the word might have been formed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6520" RevisionGUID="38994535-deab-4581-8153-fe7556fd3cba" CreationDate="2018-05-18T05:23:38.190" UserId="9" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Recently on ELU, a question was asked about the meaning of three rhetorical terms that are obviously based on Greek: [“macrologia”, “periergia” and “bomphiologia”](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/446528/difference-in-meaning-and-usage-between-macrologia-periergia-and-bomphiolo).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek etymologies of &quot;[macrologia](http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/M/macrologia.htm)&quot; and &quot;[periergia](http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/P/periergia.htm)&quot; seem fairly straightforward and are summarized by the *Silva Rhetoricae* (Gideon Burton, [rhetoric.byu.edu](http://rhetoric.byu.edu/)) entries referenced in the linked post, but Burton does not provide any etymology for &quot;[bomphiologia](http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/B/bomphiologia.htm)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my research so far, it appears that the earliest known occurrence of this word is in Richard Sherry's *[Treatise of Schemes and Tropes](http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Primary%20Texts/Sherry.htm)* (1550, 1555). For context, Sherry seems to systematically give two versions of each rhetorical term, one in Greek and one in Latin. &quot;Bomphiologia&quot; is presented as the Greek equivalent of Latin &quot;Verborum bombus&quot;.  There is a suggestive similarity between the first parts of ***bom**bus* and ***bom**phiologia*, but I don't know of any reason why the second &quot;b&quot; of *bombus* would change to &quot;ph&quot; in a longer word, and through Google Books, I found a footnote about the term *bomphiologia* that seems to present even more words with related meanings and similar forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Bomphiologia, or Pompous Speech&quot; (in right margin)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Others there be that fall into the contrary vice by using such bombasted&lt;sup&gt;66&lt;/sup&gt; words, as seem altogether farced&lt;sup&gt;67&lt;/sup&gt; full of wind, being a great deal too high and lofty for the matter, whereof ye may find too many in all popular rhymers.&lt;sup&gt;68&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Editorial footnotes:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;66. **bombasted** stuffed, as with padding.&#xD;&#xA;67. **farced** stuffed (a cooking term).&#xD;&#xA;68.  On *bomphiologia*, see Sherry 61. Sherry appears to be coining this term, which he also calls *verborum bombus* (booming words) and exemplifies by reference to Terence's braggart soldier. This is probably a slip for Plautus' Pyrgopolinices, the title character in the *Miles Gloriosus*, who refers to a commander of his named Bombomachides (&quot;booming fighter,&quot; 1.14).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;—*[The Art of English Poesy, Critical Edition](https://books.google.com/books?id=MPVrKXncybgC&amp;pg=PA345&amp;dq=%22bomphiologia%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22bomphiologia%22&amp;f=false)* (original by George Puttenham, 1590; edited by Frank Whigham and Wayne A. Rebhorn, 2007), p. 345&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this passage, I'm wondering if *bomphiologia* was perhaps originally associated with words like *pomp(ous)* and *bombast,* or the name *Bombomachides* (which is ultimately related to the noun *bombus*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, here are the three apparently distinct Greek roots that seem to me like they might possibly be relevant:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1. ###Greek *βόμβος* (as in Latin &quot;bombus&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The Latin word *bombus* seems to be from Ancient Greek *βόμβος,* which is also the first element in the name *Bombomachides* that occurs in Plautus's play about a boastful soldier, *Miles Gloriosus* (but not as the name of the title character).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ###Greek *βόμβυξ* (as in English &quot;bombast&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The Oxford English Dictionary tells me that English *bombast,* a variant of *bombace,* has an etymology that does ultimately go back to Greek, but that doesn't seem to have any certain connection to *bombus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt; Old French *bombace* cotton, cotton wadding &lt; late Latin *bombāce-m,* accusative of *bombax* cotton, a corruption and transferred use of Latin *bombyx* silk, &lt; Greek *βόμβυξ* silkworm, silk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The association of the English word &quot;bombast&quot; with &quot;turgid language&quot; seems to have existed at least as early as 1589, according to the OED:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 1589   T. Nashe *To Students* in R. Greene *Menaphon* Epist. sig. **   To outbraue better pens with the swelling **bumbast** of a bragging blanke verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I don't know if we have any evidence of similar metaphorical uses of a word like *bombacem* or *bombacium* in the Latin of this century. I guess this root is technically *bombyc-* or *bombac-,* with a final velar that would have to be truncated to serve as as base for *bomphiologia,* but the formation of the rhetorical term seems irregular in any case, so I'm not sure I can rule out the possibility of some kind of truncation like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. ###Greek *πομπή* (as in Latin &quot;pompa&quot;, English &quot;pomp&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The OED says the word &quot;pomp&quot; also has a Greek origin, which unsuprisingly seems to be separate from the origin of *βόμβος* or *βόμβυξ*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;classical Latin *pompa* ceremonial procession, ostentation, display &lt; ancient Greek *πομπή* a sending away, solemn procession, parade, display &lt; *πέμπειν* to send, of unknown origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know whether there are any other possible Greek roots that might be relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know of any further information that would shed light on the etymology of this rhetorical term? Can anyone think of an explanation for the &quot;ph&quot; (and the following &quot;i&quot;) in *bomphiologia*? Of course, it's impossible to go back in time and look into Sherry's head to see what he was thinking when he coined the word (if that is what happened), but I thought it seemed possible that someone here would know something that might provide useful context that would increase my understanding of how the word might have been formed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6521" RevisionGUID="7da9d18f-3169-472f-a4a5-9a8c4ffb930a" CreationDate="2018-05-18T11:56:40.670" UserId="79" Text="In today's western culture the color black is associated with mourning.&#xD;&#xA;Did the Romans have a mourning color?&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in a color that was physically present in time of mourning, for example in clothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word [*ater*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=ater1&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is the closest I can think of, but I haven't found an association with mourning.&#xD;&#xA;It does figuratively mean &quot;dark&quot; or &quot;unfortunate&quot;, but a physical presence is lacking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one or more colors were associated with the loss of a loved one or other mourning, was it mentioned in the literature?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21612" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6521" RevisionGUID="7da9d18f-3169-472f-a4a5-9a8c4ffb930a" CreationDate="2018-05-18T11:56:40.670" UserId="79" Text="Did the Romans have a color of mourning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21613" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6521" RevisionGUID="7da9d18f-3169-472f-a4a5-9a8c4ffb930a" CreationDate="2018-05-18T11:56:40.670" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|roman-culture|color|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6508" RevisionGUID="d7aaba3a-f6bd-4eb4-b1ce-e9cc95b26f37" CreationDate="2018-05-18T13:26:47.697" UserId="79" Comment="added 489 characters in body" Text="Here are my suggested translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You ask further, esteemed colleague, if imaginary quantities are neither nothing nor bigger or smaller than zero, what can they be? I reply that they are imaginary for just that reason; for if they were zero, or bigger or smaller than zero, they would be real and therefore not imaginary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I translated the salutation *vir amplissime* as &quot;esteemed colleague&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There might be something more idiomatic, but I'm not sure what would fit.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps &quot;good man&quot; would also work and be less dependent on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *turn* should be *tum*; it is easy to mistake *m* for *rn* in old printed or handwritten text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I translated *nihil* as &quot;zero&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You can also use &quot;nothing&quot; which is more literal, but it is clear that here the zero of the field of real numbers (and by extension of complex numbers) is meant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If then there are those things that ought to be expressed by negative numbers, addition and subtraction carried out in the usual manner is hindered by no difficulties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A verb seems to be missing.&#xD;&#xA;I supplied *sunt* (a form of *esse* is typical to leave out) in the meaning &quot;there are&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It would be useful if you could show the original printed text so we could take a closer look at some details.&#xD;&#xA;It is also possible that some other verb was intended, but for that we should look at the original text, including that surrounding this sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subjects of *premitur* are *additio* and *subtractio*.&#xD;&#xA;I would read it as *additio premitur et subtractio premitur*, &quot;addition is pressed and subtraction is pressed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is why I chose &quot;is&quot; instead of &quot;are&quot; in the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More literally it would be &quot;pressed&quot; rather than &quot;hindered&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I will leave it for others to judge what would make the most idiomatic English translation.&#xD;&#xA;Mine is pretty faithful to the Latin original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;del&gt;The point of this passage is clearly that addition and subtraction work in the usual manner with complex numbers &amp;mdash; in the presence of things expressed by (square roots of) negative numbers.&lt;/del&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Upon seeing it in context, this passage is about arithmetic operations on positive and negative real numbers.&#xD;&#xA;Either way, the point is: Once a number system is extended (from positive reals to all reals or from reals to complex numbers), the operations stay &quot;the same&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a mathematician myself and I would be interested in seeing how these quotes are used.&#xD;&#xA;Please share when you are ready to do so!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6522" RevisionGUID="a9284aba-f8d5-4025-8cde-8344fd6937e9" CreationDate="2018-05-18T16:08:27.380" UserId="469" Text="Ok, here is what I found in the Wikipedia article on [color black][1] (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Latin, the word for black, *ater* and to darken, *atere*, were associated with cruelty, brutality and evil. They were the root of the English words &quot;atrocious&quot; and &quot;atrocity&quot;. \[1\]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Black was also the Roman color of death and mourning. **In the 2nd century BC Roman magistrates began to wear a dark toga, called a toga pulla, to funeral ceremonies. Later, under the Empire, the family of the deceased also wore dark colors for a long period; then, after a banquet to mark the end of mourning, exchanged the black for a white toga**. In Roman poetry, death was called the *hora nigra*, the black hour. \[2\]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sources are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, New York: World Publishing Company, 1964&#xD;&#xA;2. Michel Pastoureau, Noir – Histoire d'une couleur, p. 34.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I don't have access to these books to tell if the quotations are reliable, or if they account for all or only part of the ideas expressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FWIW, it seems that black is also the traditional color for mourning in [Japan][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Catholic Church has observed the use of black in Liturgy when praying for the dead (among other uses) since [at least the XII century][3] and quite probably earlier, but apparently not earlier than the VI century, according to a book by [Pope Benedict XIV][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black#Ancient_history&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mourning#Japan&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nnc1.cu53277481;view=1up;seq=82&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XIV" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21616" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6522" RevisionGUID="e0ff627b-bce2-47b5-9396-7c8ef8ecad4c" CreationDate="2018-05-18T16:08:27.380" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="21617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6508" RevisionGUID="b09cc4fa-8788-4e65-9e01-512fdaf55cad" CreationDate="2018-05-18T18:03:18.883" UserId="79" Comment="added 202 characters in body" Text="Here are my suggested translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You ask further, esteemed colleague, if imaginary quantities are neither nothing nor bigger or smaller than zero, what can they be? I reply that they are imaginary for just that reason; for if they were zero, or bigger or smaller than zero, they would be real and therefore not imaginary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I translated the salutation *vir amplissime* as &quot;esteemed colleague&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There might be something more idiomatic, but I'm not sure what would fit.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps &quot;good man&quot; would also work and be less dependent on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *turn* should be *tum*; it is easy to mistake *m* for *rn* in old printed or handwritten text.&#xD;&#xA;Both humans and computers make this mistake.&#xD;&#xA;Checking the original indeed shows that it's *tum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I translated *nihil* as &quot;zero&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You can also use &quot;nothing&quot; which is more literal, but it is clear that here the zero of the field of real numbers (and by extension of complex numbers) is meant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If then there are those things that ought to be expressed by negative numbers, addition and subtraction carried out in the usual manner is hindered by no difficulties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A verb seems to be missing.&#xD;&#xA;I supplied *sunt* (a form of *esse* is typical to leave out) in the meaning &quot;there are&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It would be useful if you could show the original printed text so we could take a closer look at some details.&#xD;&#xA;It is also possible that some other verb was intended, but for that we should look at the original text, including that surrounding this sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subjects of *premitur* are *additio* and *subtractio*.&#xD;&#xA;I would read it as *additio premitur et subtractio premitur*, &quot;addition is pressed and subtraction is pressed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is why I chose &quot;is&quot; instead of &quot;are&quot; in the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More literally it would be &quot;pressed&quot; rather than &quot;hindered&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I will leave it for others to judge what would make the most idiomatic English translation.&#xD;&#xA;Mine is pretty faithful to the Latin original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;del&gt;The point of this passage is clearly that addition and subtraction work in the usual manner with complex numbers &amp;mdash; in the presence of things expressed by (square roots of) negative numbers.&lt;/del&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Upon seeing it in context, this passage is about arithmetic operations on positive and negative real numbers.&#xD;&#xA;Either way, the point is: Once a number system is extended (from positive reals to all reals or from reals to complex numbers), the operations stay &quot;the same&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;He does discuss complex numbers too, but in my reading the quote you picked is not about them per se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a mathematician myself and I would be interested in seeing how these quotes are used.&#xD;&#xA;Please share when you are ready to do so!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6523" RevisionGUID="61d95363-53f4-47ad-8252-4cc34ad79c9e" CreationDate="2018-05-19T03:36:51.783" UserId="867" Text="**Black** is mentioned as the colour of mourning in several places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upon hearing of the death of her sister, Procne:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *induiturque **atras** vestes* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; put on black clothes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, 6.568a&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Althaea did the same when she saw her slaughtered sons in the temple - 8.448&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, when Vitellius heard of the defection of his soldiers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***pullo** amictu*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; having thrown on a dark toga&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;came down from his palace, surrounded by his household in tears, his son carried in a litter as if in a funeral procession - Tacitus, *Histories*, 3.67&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting image is that of the last threads of a dying man's life on the Fates' spindle in Martial as: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *stamina **pulla***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; black threads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Epigrams*, 4.73 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, Tibullus writes of Persephone's warning to him of an imminent death:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *at mihi Persephone **nigram** denuntiat horam*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; but Persephone announces to me the black hour&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Elegies*, 3.5.5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6523" RevisionGUID="8dc4bfba-efff-49b1-ac9c-c0d39340cf55" CreationDate="2018-05-19T03:44:04.300" UserId="867" Comment="added 191 characters in body" Text="**Black** is mentioned as the colour of mourning in several places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upon hearing of the death of her sister, Procne:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *induiturque **atras** vestes* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; put on black clothes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, 6.568a&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Althaea did the same when she saw her slaughtered sons in the temple - 8.448&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, when Vitellius heard of the defection of his soldiers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***pullo** amictu*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; having thrown on a dark toga&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;came down from his palace, surrounded by his household in tears, his son carried in a litter as if in a funeral procession - Tacitus, *Histories*, 3.67&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The black toga of mourning and its exchange for a white one after a ritual bath and then worn at a banquet (mentioned in the above answer) can be found in Cicero, *Against Vatinius*, 13.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;An interesting image is that of the last threads of a dying man's life on the Fates' spindle in Martial as: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *stamina **pulla***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; black threads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Epigrams*, 4.73 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, Tibullus writes of Persephone's warning to him of an imminent death:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *at mihi Persephone **nigram** denuntiat horam*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; but Persephone announces to me the black hour&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Elegies*, 3.5.5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6524" RevisionGUID="8a21b838-5e7a-4240-8053-2eb5013ee465" CreationDate="2018-05-19T12:47:19.590" UserId="2628" Text="Some time ago I came across a Latin sentence that roughly came down to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*He who is able to laugh at himself, is invincible*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the time I thought: Oh well, this must be a well known Roman saying (easy to find later). Unfortunately, I can't seem to find it any more... Hence why I came here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've searched G.J.M. Bartelink's *Latin citations and sayings* (Dutch: *Latijnse citaten en gezegden*), but could not find anything in this direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is anyone familiar with this phrase in Latin? If so, what is the earliest source? If not, would someone mind providing a (classical) Latin translation of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21623" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6524" RevisionGUID="8a21b838-5e7a-4240-8053-2eb5013ee465" CreationDate="2018-05-19T12:47:19.590" UserId="2628" Text="Is there a Latin source for &quot;He who is able to laugh at himself, is invincible&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21624" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6524" RevisionGUID="8a21b838-5e7a-4240-8053-2eb5013ee465" CreationDate="2018-05-19T12:47:19.590" UserId="2628" Text="|idiom|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4891" RevisionGUID="99026202-4ae0-4d20-979a-80d0f73d5306" CreationDate="2018-05-19T13:27:42.547" UserId="845" Comment="Minor spelling revision" Text="So I am getting a tattoo of my two boys names - Vincent and Alexander. To make it interesting I am going with the meaning of the names in Latin rather than the names themselves. So I understand Vincent derives its meaning from &quot;to conquer&quot;, and Alexander from &quot;protector/defender of men&quot;. As the space I am tattooing is limited, I want to write &quot;CONQUER DEFEND&quot; in capitals. At present, VINCERE seems pretty straight forward, but I am having issues with the Alexander side. I think I could use SANCTUM, FORTIS, SPIRITUS, SERVO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, does this all change if you want it to read as one instead of two separate words? E.g. translate &quot;to protect &amp; conquer&quot;. Remember limited space.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21626" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4891" RevisionGUID="99026202-4ae0-4d20-979a-80d0f73d5306" CreationDate="2018-05-19T13:27:42.547" UserId="845" Comment="Minor spelling revision" Text="How to say protect &amp; conquer in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21627" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4891" RevisionGUID="99026202-4ae0-4d20-979a-80d0f73d5306" CreationDate="2018-05-19T13:27:42.547" UserId="845" Comment="Minor spelling revision" Text="|translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21628" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4891" RevisionGUID="99026202-4ae0-4d20-979a-80d0f73d5306" CreationDate="2018-05-19T13:27:42.547" Comment="Proposed by 845 approved by 406, 79 edit id of 234" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6525" RevisionGUID="fe702773-0b98-44b3-935d-0272288f83b9" CreationDate="2018-05-19T13:42:04.670" UserId="79" Text="I don't recall seeing that saying anywhere, but here is a translation suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Insuperabilis est qui se ridere potest.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One might expect *ridere sibi* instead of *ridere se*, but *ridere* appears to work with the accusative rather than the dative.&#xD;&#xA;Other possible translations of &quot;invincible&quot; would be *invictus* and *invincibilis*, but I like *insuperabilis* better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a tweaked word order this becomes a pentameter verse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Qui ridere potest se insuperabilis est.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6524" RevisionGUID="609eab3e-7487-4f13-b020-20825f226c0d" CreationDate="2018-05-19T13:43:01.010" UserId="79" Comment="Added the classical tag. Feel free to rollback or re-edit!" Text="Some time ago I came across a Latin sentence that roughly came down to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*He who is able to laugh at himself, is invincible*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the time I thought: Oh well, this must be a well known Roman saying (easy to find later). Unfortunately, I can't seem to find it any more&amp;hellip; Hence why I came here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've searched G.J.M. Bartelink's *Latin citations and sayings* (Dutch: *Latijnse citaten en gezegden*), but could not find anything in this direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is anyone familiar with this phrase in Latin? If so, what is the earliest source? If not, would someone mind providing a (classical) Latin translation of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21631" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6524" RevisionGUID="609eab3e-7487-4f13-b020-20825f226c0d" CreationDate="2018-05-19T13:43:01.010" UserId="79" Comment="Added the classical tag. Feel free to rollback or re-edit!" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6520" RevisionGUID="eaf249bc-2c4d-4f21-8a9b-d8d8a165cb37" CreationDate="2018-05-19T15:36:30.297" UserId="9" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Recently on ELU, a question was asked about the meaning of three rhetorical terms that are obviously based on Greek: [“macrologia”, “periergia” and “bomphiologia”](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/446528/difference-in-meaning-and-usage-between-macrologia-periergia-and-bomphiolo).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek etymologies of &quot;[macrologia](http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/M/macrologia.htm)&quot; and &quot;[periergia](http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/P/periergia.htm)&quot; seem fairly straightforward and are summarized by the *Silva Rhetoricae* (Gideon Burton, [rhetoric.byu.edu](http://rhetoric.byu.edu/)) entries referenced in the linked post, but Burton does not provide any etymology for &quot;[bomphiologia](http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/B/bomphiologia.htm)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my research so far, it appears that the earliest known occurrence of this word is in Richard Sherry's *[Treatise of Schemes and Tropes](http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Primary%20Texts/Sherry.htm)* (1550, 1555). For context, Sherry seems to systematically give two versions of each rhetorical term, one in Greek and one in Latin. &quot;Bomphiologia&quot; is presented as the Greek equivalent of Latin &quot;Verborum bombus&quot;.  There is a suggestive similarity between the first parts of ***bom**bus* and ***bom**phiologia*, but I don't know of any reason why the second &quot;b&quot; of *bombus* would change to &quot;ph&quot; in a longer word, and through Google Books, I found a footnote about the term *bomphiologia* that seems to present even more words with related meanings and similar forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Bomphiologia, or Pompous Speech&quot; [*in right margin*]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Others there be that fall into the contrary vice by using such bombasted&lt;sup&gt;66&lt;/sup&gt; words, as seem altogether farced&lt;sup&gt;67&lt;/sup&gt; full of wind, being a great deal too high and lofty for the matter, whereof ye may find too many in all popular rhymers.&lt;sup&gt;68&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[*Editorial footnotes:*]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;66. **bombasted** stuffed, as with padding.&#xD;&#xA;67. **farced** stuffed (a cooking term).&#xD;&#xA;68.  On *bomphiologia*, see Sherry 61. Sherry appears to be coining this term, which he also calls *verborum bombus* (booming words) and exemplifies by reference to Terence's braggart soldier. This is probably a slip for Plautus' Pyrgopolinices, the title character in the *Miles Gloriosus*, who refers to a commander of his named Bombomachides (&quot;booming fighter,&quot; 1.14).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;—*[The Art of English Poesy, Critical Edition](https://books.google.com/books?id=MPVrKXncybgC&amp;pg=PA345&amp;dq=%22bomphiologia%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22bomphiologia%22&amp;f=false)* (original by George Puttenham, 1590; edited by Frank Whigham and Wayne A. Rebhorn, 2007), p. 345&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this passage, I'm wondering if *bomphiologia* was perhaps originally associated with words like *pomp(ous)* and *bombast,* or the name *Bombomachides* (which is ultimately related to the noun *bombus*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, here are the three apparently distinct Greek roots that seem to me like they might possibly be relevant:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1. ###Greek *βόμβος* (as in Latin &quot;bombus&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The Latin word *bombus* seems to be from Ancient Greek *βόμβος,* which is also the first element in the name *Bombomachides* that occurs in Plautus's play about a boastful soldier, *Miles Gloriosus* (but not as the name of the title character).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ###Greek *βόμβυξ* (as in English &quot;bombast&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The Oxford English Dictionary tells me that English *bombast,* a variant of *bombace,* has an etymology that does ultimately go back to Greek, but that doesn't seem to have any certain connection to *bombus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &lt; Old French *bombace* cotton, cotton wadding &lt; late Latin *bombāce-m,* accusative of *bombax* cotton, a corruption and transferred use of Latin *bombyx* silk, &lt; Greek *βόμβυξ* silkworm, silk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The association of the English word &quot;bombast&quot; with &quot;turgid language&quot; seems to have existed at least as early as 1589, according to the OED:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 1589   T. Nashe *To Students* in R. Greene *Menaphon* Epist. sig. **   To outbraue better pens with the swelling **bumbast** of a bragging blanke verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I don't know if we have any evidence of similar metaphorical uses of a word like *bombacem* or *bombacium* in the Latin of this century. I guess this root is technically *bombyc-* or *bombac-,* with a final velar that would have to be truncated to serve as as base for *bomphiologia,* but the formation of the rhetorical term seems irregular in any case, so I'm not sure I can rule out the possibility of some kind of truncation like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. ###Greek *πομπή* (as in Latin &quot;pompa&quot;, English &quot;pomp&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The OED says the word &quot;pomp&quot; also has a Greek origin, which unsuprisingly seems to be separate from the origin of *βόμβος* or *βόμβυξ*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;classical Latin *pompa* ceremonial procession, ostentation, display &lt; ancient Greek *πομπή* a sending away, solemn procession, parade, display &lt; *πέμπειν* to send, of unknown origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know whether there are any other possible Greek roots that might be relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know of any further information that would shed light on the etymology of this rhetorical term? Can anyone think of an explanation for the &quot;ph&quot; (and the following &quot;i&quot;) in *bomphiologia*? Of course, it's impossible to go back in time and look into Sherry's head to see what he was thinking when he coined the word (if that is what happened), but I thought it seemed possible that someone here would know something that might provide useful context that would increase my understanding of how the word might have been formed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6525" RevisionGUID="05d1519c-d360-442d-be1f-6f73bd40d43e" CreationDate="2018-05-19T18:13:41.897" UserId="79" Comment="added 287 characters in body" Text="I don't recall seeing that saying anywhere, but here is a translation suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Insuperabilis est qui se ridere potest.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One might expect *ridere sibi* instead of *ridere se*, but *ridere* appears to work with the accusative rather than the dative.&#xD;&#xA;Other possible translations of &quot;invincible&quot; would be *invictus* and *invincibilis*, but I like *insuperabilis* better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a tweaked word order this becomes a pentameter verse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Qui ridere potest se insuperabilis est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest thing I could find with corpus searches is from Seneca's *Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium* 78: *Non vincetur dolor ratione, qui victus est risu?*&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I was trying the wrong words, but it seemed hard to find anything related to laughing and victory close to each other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6526" RevisionGUID="de711259-6e1f-49b4-8c55-3d520e04e605" CreationDate="2018-05-19T23:37:46.673" UserId="172" Text="The subjunctive use *per se* reveals how in the Roman mind *facts in the word* separated from opinions, inferences and other things, the unifying theme being these occurring *in the mind* of the speaker. The *ut* construction shows that very clearly. *Rogavit* here expresses a fact: the commander *in fact* requested something, the event of reuesting did in fact happen. But the thing he is ordering is happening only in the mind yet: at the time of his request no one is guarding the prisoners, and the goal he is setting is passed on from his mind to the mind of those whom he's ordering to do the guarding. Therefore, the action of *custodio* is, at the moment of speech, is still imaginary, therefore the subjunctive. Granted, in the typical use of the *ut*/*ne* constriction, the thing ordered is not yet a fact of the world, so they almost always subjunctive. This development reflect's the parent PIE speech *optative* mood, expressing something desired or chosen by the speaker as a course of action, but not yet carried out (or with the focus on the act of choosing, not its performance). He orders that the captives *must* be guarded--you see, English is also using a different mood for this. &quot;I order the prison *be* guarded&quot; is the English subjunctive, now less common than a century ago, but still fancied by purists like your truly :). So this construction has nearly grammaticalized the use of  subjunctive, but the process has not been yet set in stone by the classical times, and you'll find *ut* with indicative in classical corpora, where the emphasis is on the devised action having been already applied to the real world, i. e. has became a *fact in reality* in a larger degree than being just a thought, or when the writer emphasizing the action itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;School grammars usually talk very little about the subjunctive being modal in itself, and focus on its typical usages presented as hard and fast rules; this, in my opinion, later becomes one of the things that are important to unlearn when advancing to the higher level of developing the *feel* of what the live Latin language really is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6527" RevisionGUID="0a1ec7ff-713c-4530-8ea8-c65a55e52a84" CreationDate="2018-05-20T00:50:56.713" UserId="522" Text="The Glasgow University collection of [emblem books][1] (with their translations) is an accessible source for mottos and adages. This one refers to Heraclitus, the weeping philosopher, and Democritus, the laughing philosopher. The closest I came to the adage you remember comes in lines 3 and 4.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plus solito humanae nunc defle incommoda vitae  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heraclite: scatet pluribus illa malis.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Tu rursus, si quando aliàs, extolle cachinum,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Democrite: illa magis ludicra facta fuit.**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Interea haec cernens meditor, qua denique tecum  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fine fleam, aut tecum quo modo splene iocer.  &#xD;&#xA;( https://www.emblems.arts.gla.ac.uk/alciato/facsimile.php?id=sm1225_yy5v  )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that's not what you had in mind, here are two leads:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Juvenal, Satires][2] 10, 28ff  (Satire 10 paragraph 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then will you not commend the two wise men, one of whom [[4. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Democritus of Abdera.]]  would laugh while the opposite sage [[5. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heraclitus of Ephesus]] would weep every time he set a foot outside&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the door? To condemn by a cutting laugh comes readily to us all; the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wonder is how the other sage's eyes were supplied with all that water.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The sides of Democritus shook with unceasing laughter...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Juvenal's Sources are discussed in:  &#xD;&#xA;**Juvenal's Tenth Satire** (Paul Murgatroyd)&#xD;&#xA;(Sources p.17 Note 19)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; .**19**. Juvenal's knowledge of Democritus may have come (at least in part)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from Seneca.  In his *Tranq. Animi* (at 2.3), Seneca translated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Democritus *euthymia* as *tranquilitas.* ...and at 15.2 he made the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contrast between laughing Democritus and the weeping Heraclitus and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; advised imitating the former (cf Juv. 10: 28ff.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.emblems.arts.gla.ac.uk/alciato/emblem.php?id=A15a150&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/juvenal_satires_10.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6528" RevisionGUID="509e1dda-4e8c-4e58-8c65-40a8540d83fc" CreationDate="2018-05-20T07:46:24.043" UserId="867" Text="I can't find the exact phrase but perhaps the following capture the spirit of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nemo risum praebuit qui ex se cepit*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; no one becomes a laughing-stock who laughs at himself &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca, *De Constantia*, 17.3 - this is the translation of J. W. Basore (1928); my own (clunky) translation is: no one provided [themselves] as an object of laughter who seized it to their own advantage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *eum gaudere, qui ridet*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; he who laughs has joy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca, *Epistles*, 23.3 – bearing in mind that joy for Seneca is a very serious business (*verum gaudium res severa est*) because true joy will help you face life’s ups and downs, even death, with equanimity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21637" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2401" RevisionGUID="8a514860-5b40-466c-98ec-0ec80013f412" CreationDate="2018-05-20T08:19:37.860" UserId="79" Comment="77" />
  <row Id="21638" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4549" RevisionGUID="5e680327-d373-42ed-a17f-65b4acf9dd80" CreationDate="2018-05-20T08:19:59.027" UserId="79" Comment="76" />
  <row Id="21639" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2364" RevisionGUID="17bf4f68-1bb4-4901-93f3-07f20b171d64" CreationDate="2018-05-20T08:20:19.540" UserId="79" Comment="75" />
  <row Id="21640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6529" RevisionGUID="81d2b876-bbe4-4256-ba38-c4b010d663bb" CreationDate="2018-05-20T18:54:17.830" UserId="2630" Text="I would like to translate this english curse into latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Whoever takes my freedom will burn in hell forever.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21641" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6529" RevisionGUID="81d2b876-bbe4-4256-ba38-c4b010d663bb" CreationDate="2018-05-20T18:54:17.830" UserId="2630" Text="I would like to translate an english curse into proper latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21642" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6529" RevisionGUID="81d2b876-bbe4-4256-ba38-c4b010d663bb" CreationDate="2018-05-20T18:54:17.830" UserId="2630" Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6530" RevisionGUID="2d1dbe92-1883-4035-bf65-5735a7c70c36" CreationDate="2018-05-20T22:54:26.110" UserId="406" Text="There are a variety of ways to translate this, but I would go with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quīcumque lībertātem meam abripiat, flammīs ācribus addīcatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The marks over the vowels represent different sounds that merged together in later Latin; if you're going for an Ecclesiastical style, like your tag indicates, feel free to leave them off.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Quīcumque* is a masculine singular pronoun: &quot;whoever&quot;. It's conventional to use the masculine in Latin if you don't know the gender of the person, but if you're more worried about a woman taking your freedom than a man, you could use *quaecumque*.&#xD;&#xA; - *Lībertātem* is &quot;freedom&quot;, plain and simple.&#xD;&#xA; - *Meam* is &quot;my&quot;, in the feminine accusative to agree with *lībertātem*.&#xD;&#xA; - *Abripiat* is a subjunctive from *abripiō*, &quot;to tear away by force&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - *Flammīs* is &quot;flames&quot;, dative.&#xD;&#xA; - *Ācribus* is &quot;piercing&quot;, also dative.&#xD;&#xA; - *Addīcatur* is the passive subjunctive of *addīcō*, &quot;to consign&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - The two present subjunctives here are something like &quot;if anyone should…then may they…&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - I'm not very familiar with phrases for Hell in Ecclesiastical Latin, so the second half of the phrase is borrowed from verse 16 of the Dies Irae: *cōnfūtātīs maledictīs flammīs ācribus addictīs, vocā mē cum benedictīs* &quot;with the damned having been silenced [and] consigned to the piercing flames, call me with the blessed&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6531" RevisionGUID="045f2700-c4e7-4d77-8adf-0b8635de3743" CreationDate="2018-05-21T02:56:27.207" UserId="9" Text="András Cser's &quot;[The nature of phonological conditioning in Latin inflectional allomorphy](https://akademiai.com/doi/pdf/10.1556/ALing.62.2015.1.1)&quot; seems to say this kind of contraction occurs somewhat often with verbs where the perfect stem ends in /s/ (as in Cerberus's example *vixet ~ vixisset*), and gives a few examples. Cser doesn't mention any patterns of variation, but he does offer a phonological analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###2.3.2.2. Vowel deletion after [s]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One minor point of complication involves *s*-final perfective stems (excluding *-ls-, -rs-*) combining with *is*-affixes. In more than just a handful of cases the vowelless affix variant appears, and the number of adjacent [s]’s is reduced.&#xD;&#xA;Thus *derexisti ∼ derexti* ‘arrange’ PresPerf2Sing, *divisisse ∼ divisse*&#xD;&#xA;‘divide’ PerfInf, *accessistis ∼ accestis* ‘approach’ PresPerf2Plur,&#xD;&#xA;*admisisse ∼ admisse* ‘send to’ PerfInf, and many others. On the face of&#xD;&#xA;it this looks like the loss of an [is] sequence specifically after [s] in these&#xD;&#xA;particular constructions (as is the tradition, see Leumann 1977, 598), but it&#xD;&#xA;is more economical to analyse the disappearance of the vowel as being the&#xD;&#xA;same allomorphic variation as that seen after vowel-final stems, and the&#xD;&#xA;disappearance of [s] as resulting from an independently motivated phonological process of degemination, because in this case we do not need any&#xD;&#xA;extra processes – apart from stipulating the somewhat odd context [s]&#xD;&#xA;for the otherwise postvocalic morpheme variants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 13)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4891" RevisionGUID="725d508d-b700-48c1-bbe4-9402cf481451" CreationDate="2018-05-21T08:13:01.260" UserId="1459" Comment="minor changes" Text="I am getting a tattoo of my two boys names - Vincent and Alexander. To make it interesting I am going with the meaning of the names in Latin rather than the names themselves. So I understand Vincent derives its meaning from &quot;to conquer&quot;, and Alexander from &quot;protector/defender of men&quot;. As the space I am tattooing is limited, I want to write &quot;CONQUER DEFEND&quot; in capitals. At present, _VINCERE_ seems pretty straight forward, but I am having issues with the Alexander side. I think I could use _SANCTUM, FORTIS, SPIRITUS, SERVO_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, does this all change if you want it to read as one instead of two separate words? E.g. translate &quot;to protect &amp; conquer&quot;. Remember limited space.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6531" RevisionGUID="c2906ab2-db77-49fc-9240-894243648799" CreationDate="2018-05-21T09:31:27.373" UserId="9" Comment="added 455 characters in body" Text="András Cser's &quot;[The nature of phonological conditioning in Latin inflectional allomorphy](https://akademiai.com/doi/pdf/10.1556/ALing.62.2015.1.1)&quot; seems to say this kind of contraction occurs somewhat often with verbs where the perfect stem ends in /s/ (as in Cerberus's example *vixet ~ vixisset*), and gives a few examples. Cser doesn't mention any patterns of variation, but he does offer a phonological analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###2.3.2.2. Vowel deletion after [s]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One minor point of complication involves *s*-final perfective stems (excluding *-ls-, -rs-*) combining with *is*-affixes. In more than just a handful of cases the vowelless affix variant appears, and the number of adjacent [s]’s is reduced.&#xD;&#xA;Thus *derexisti ∼ derexti* ‘arrange’ PresPerf2Sing, *divisisse ∼ divisse*&#xD;&#xA;‘divide’ PerfInf, *accessistis ∼ accestis* ‘approach’ PresPerf2Plur,&#xD;&#xA;*admisisse ∼ admisse* ‘send to’ PerfInf, and many others. On the face of&#xD;&#xA;it this looks like the loss of an [is] sequence specifically after [s] in these&#xD;&#xA;particular constructions (as is the tradition, see Leumann 1977, 598), but it&#xD;&#xA;is more economical to analyse the disappearance of the vowel as being the&#xD;&#xA;same allomorphic variation as that seen after vowel-final stems, and the&#xD;&#xA;disappearance of [s] as resulting from an independently motivated phonological process of degemination, because in this case we do not need any&#xD;&#xA;extra processes – apart from stipulating the somewhat odd context [s]&#xD;&#xA;for the otherwise postvocalic morpheme variants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Latin Hexameter Verse: An Aid to Composition](https://books.google.com/books?id=NvkVAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA212&amp;lpg=PA212&amp;dq=%22vixti%22+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GF__v8UKLn&amp;sig=b8os1zhh8i9oDbLkjd9vaF_Kknw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi37-HtvpbbAhVizIMKHWy3A8UQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22vixti%22%20Latin&amp;f=false),* by Samuel Edward Winbolt (1903), I found mention of the forms *vixti* (for *vixisti*), *extinxem* (for *extinxissem*), and *finxe* (for *finxisse*) (p. 212)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6531" RevisionGUID="27e6e5cd-7c4a-41fd-8b37-0f4bc6ebe9f4" CreationDate="2018-05-21T09:37:38.027" UserId="9" Comment="added 455 characters in body" Text="András Cser's &quot;[The nature of phonological conditioning in Latin inflectional allomorphy](https://akademiai.com/doi/pdf/10.1556/ALing.62.2015.1.1)&quot; seems to say contraction like this occurs somewhat often in the perfect forms of verbs that have perfect stems ending in /s/ (as in Cerberus's example *vixet ~ vixisset*), and gives a few examples. Cser doesn't mention any patterns of variation, but he does offer a phonological analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###2.3.2.2. Vowel deletion after [s]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One minor point of complication involves *s*-final perfective stems (excluding *-ls-, -rs-*) combining with *is*-affixes. In more than just a handful of cases the vowelless affix variant appears, and the number of adjacent [s]’s is reduced.&#xD;&#xA;Thus *derexisti ∼ derexti* ‘arrange’ PresPerf2Sing, *divisisse ∼ divisse*&#xD;&#xA;‘divide’ PerfInf, *accessistis ∼ accestis* ‘approach’ PresPerf2Plur,&#xD;&#xA;*admisisse ∼ admisse* ‘send to’ PerfInf, and many others. On the face of&#xD;&#xA;it this looks like the loss of an [is] sequence specifically after [s] in these&#xD;&#xA;particular constructions (as is the tradition, see Leumann 1977, 598), but it&#xD;&#xA;is more economical to analyse the disappearance of the vowel as being the&#xD;&#xA;same allomorphic variation as that seen after vowel-final stems, and the&#xD;&#xA;disappearance of [s] as resulting from an independently motivated phonological process of degemination, because in this case we do not need any&#xD;&#xA;extra processes – apart from stipulating the somewhat odd context [s]&#xD;&#xA;for the otherwise postvocalic morpheme variants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Latin Hexameter Verse: An Aid to Composition](https://books.google.com/books?id=NvkVAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA212&amp;lpg=PA212&amp;dq=%22vixti%22+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GF__v8UKLn&amp;sig=b8os1zhh8i9oDbLkjd9vaF_Kknw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi37-HtvpbbAhVizIMKHWy3A8UQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22vixti%22%20Latin&amp;f=false),* by Samuel Edward Winbolt (1903), I found mention of the forms *vixti* (for *vixisti*), *extinxem* (for *extinxissem*), and *finxe* (for *finxisse*) (p. 212).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find any examples of *derexet* for *derexisset,* though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6526" RevisionGUID="16f47834-b5c4-49d0-9f64-ff05267c8d00" CreationDate="2018-05-21T09:46:29.247" UserId="172" Comment="Correct a few typos and missing words; add more emphasis on the distinction between the domains of fact and imaginaion." Text="The subjunctive use *per se* reveals how in the Roman mind *facts in the word* separated from opinions, inferences and other things, the unifying theme being these occurring *in the mind* of the speaker. The *ut* construction shows that very clearly. *Rogavit* here expresses the fact: the commander *in fact* requested something, the event of requesting did *in fact* happen. But the thing he is ordering is happening only *in the mind* yet: at the time of his request no one is guarding the prisoners, and the goal he is setting is passed on from his mind to the minds of those whom he's ordering to do the guarding. Therefore, the action of *custodio* is, at the moment of his speech, is still *imaginary*, therefore the subjunctive. Granted, in the typical use of the *ut*/*ne* constriction, the thing ordered is not yet a fact of the world, so they almost always subjunctive. This development reflects the parent PIE speech *optative* mood, expressing something desired or chosen by the speaker as a course of action, but not yet carried out (or with the focus on the *act of choosing*, not its *performance*). He orders that the captives *must* be guarded--you see already, the verb *must* is modal: English is also using a different mood for this. &quot;I order the prison *be* guarded&quot; is the English subjunctive, now less common than a century ago, but still fancied by purists like your truly :). So this construction has nearly grammaticalized the use of  subjunctive, but the process has not been yet set in stone by the classical times, and you'll find *ut* with indicative in classical corpora, where the emphasis is on the devised action having been already carried out in the real world, i. e. such that has became a *fact in reality* to a larger degree than being just a thought, or when the writer is emphasizing the action itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;School-level grammars usually talk very little about the subjunctive being modal in itself, and focus on its typical uses presented as hard and fast rules; this, in my opinion, later becomes one of the things that are important to unlearn when advancing to the higher level of developing the *feel* of what the live Latin language really is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6531" RevisionGUID="bac2d792-0310-4fc9-9184-78016d7821f9" CreationDate="2018-05-21T12:17:13.143" UserId="9" Comment="added 2345 characters in body" Text="András Cser's &quot;[The nature of phonological conditioning in Latin inflectional allomorphy](https://akademiai.com/doi/pdf/10.1556/ALing.62.2015.1.1)&quot; seems to say contraction like this occurs somewhat often in the perfect forms of verbs that have perfect stems ending in /s/ (as in Cerberus's example *vixet ~ vixisset*), and gives a few examples. Cser doesn't mention any patterns of variation, but he does offer a phonological analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###2.3.2.2. Vowel deletion after [s]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One minor point of complication involves *s*-final perfective stems (excluding *-ls-, -rs-*) combining with *is*-affixes. In more than just a handful of cases the vowelless affix variant appears, and the number of adjacent [s]’s is reduced.&#xD;&#xA;Thus *derexisti ∼ derexti* ‘arrange’ PresPerf2Sing, *divisisse ∼ divisse*&#xD;&#xA;‘divide’ PerfInf, *accessistis ∼ accestis* ‘approach’ PresPerf2Plur,&#xD;&#xA;*admisisse ∼ admisse* ‘send to’ PerfInf, and many others. On the face of&#xD;&#xA;it this looks like the loss of an [is] sequence specifically after [s] in these&#xD;&#xA;particular constructions (as is the tradition, see Leumann 1977, 598), but it&#xD;&#xA;is more economical to analyse the disappearance of the vowel as being the&#xD;&#xA;same allomorphic variation as that seen after vowel-final stems, and the&#xD;&#xA;disappearance of [s] as resulting from an independently motivated phonological process of degemination, because in this case we do not need any&#xD;&#xA;extra processes – apart from stipulating the somewhat odd context [s]&#xD;&#xA;for the otherwise postvocalic morpheme variants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Latin Hexameter Verse: An Aid to Composition](https://books.google.com/books?id=NvkVAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA212&amp;lpg=PA212&amp;dq=%22vixti%22+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GF__v8UKLn&amp;sig=b8os1zhh8i9oDbLkjd9vaF_Kknw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi37-HtvpbbAhVizIMKHWy3A8UQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22vixti%22%20Latin&amp;f=false),* by Samuel Edward Winbolt (1903), I found mention of the forms *vixti* (for *vixisti*), *extinxem* (for *extinxissem*), and *finxe* (for *finxisse*) (p. 212).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find any examples of *derexet* for *derexisset,* though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other sources that seem to have relevant information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ancient forms of a future perfect in *so*, a perfect and pluperfect subjunctive in *sim* and *sem*, and a perfect infinitive in *se* sometimes occur. They may, in general, be formed by adding these terminations to the second root of the verb; as, *recepso, emissim, ausim* from the obsolete perfect, *ausi*, from *audeo, confexim* and *promissem*: *divisse* and *promisse*. But when the root ends in *x*, and frequently when it ends in *s*, only *o, im, em*, and *e*, etc. are added; as, *jusso, dixis; intellexes, percepset; surrexe, sumse.* *V*, at the end of the root, in the first conjugation, is changed into *s;* as, *levasso, locassim.* *U,* at the end of the root, in the second conjugation, is changed into *es;* as, *habesso, licessit.*  Sometimes the vowel of the present is retained in these forms, though changed in the other parts derived from the second root; as, *capso, faxo (facso), faxim (facsim).* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[A grammar of the Latin language; for the use of schools and colleges](https://archive.org/stream/grammaroflatinla00andr_0#page/122),* by E.A. Andrews and S. Stoddard, 1857, p. 122)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some similar-looking forms seem to have been used as archaic future subjunctives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [A &quot;future pluperfect&quot; tense] occurs in Virgil, Aenid, 11, 467, *Jusso,* and was found in Cicero, de Legg. 2, 9, *Jussit,* until altered to *Jusserit* by modern editors.--Not satisfied with Vossius'es formation of it from the future in *ERO,* I derive it from the (contracted*) pluperfect subjunctive, as *Ama'ssem, Amasso* -- *Summo'ssem, Sumosso* -- *Recep'sem, Recepso* -- *Effec'sem,* or *Effexem, Effexo* -- *Jus'sem, Jusso* -- *Audi'ssem, Audisso.* -- The verbs in *UI* took *ESSO,* as *Habesso,* in Cicero, de Legg. 2, 8.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[Latin prosody made easy](https://books.google.com/books?id=RLNWAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA94&amp;lpg=PA94&amp;dq=habesso&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=eoQCJfCYPn&amp;sig=Et2XUD1yHtgKnlEB52ozUkkPhJA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj7np3L4JbbAhUQ71MKHSFlDrwQ6AEITzAL#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false),* by John Carey, 1819, p.93-94)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is more about this in *[The Art of Latin Poetry](https://books.google.com/books?id=xEgQAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA41&amp;lpg=PA41&amp;dq=habesso&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=JYaKRduxcQ&amp;sig=IqXryodVDW8yth67WqZuAX6CpoY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj7np3L4JbbAhUQ71MKHSFlDrwQ6AEIUjAM#v=onepage&amp;q=habesso&amp;f=false)* (1828)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6531" RevisionGUID="ee28086b-fd0f-43a7-8e4d-21ea4e6a57fc" CreationDate="2018-05-21T12:32:39.047" UserId="9" Comment="added 774 characters in body" Text="András Cser's &quot;[The nature of phonological conditioning in Latin inflectional allomorphy](https://akademiai.com/doi/pdf/10.1556/ALing.62.2015.1.1)&quot; seems to say contraction like this occurs somewhat often in the perfect forms of verbs that have perfect stems ending in /s/ (as in Cerberus's example *vixet ~ vixisset*), and gives a few examples. Cser doesn't mention any patterns of variation, but he does offer a phonological analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###2.3.2.2. Vowel deletion after [s]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One minor point of complication involves *s*-final perfective stems (excluding *-ls-, -rs-*) combining with *is*-affixes. In more than just a handful of cases the vowelless affix variant appears, and the number of adjacent [s]’s is reduced.&#xD;&#xA;Thus *derexisti ∼ derexti* ‘arrange’ PresPerf2Sing, *divisisse ∼ divisse*&#xD;&#xA;‘divide’ PerfInf, *accessistis ∼ accestis* ‘approach’ PresPerf2Plur,&#xD;&#xA;*admisisse ∼ admisse* ‘send to’ PerfInf, and many others. On the face of&#xD;&#xA;it this looks like the loss of an [is] sequence specifically after [s] in these&#xD;&#xA;particular constructions (as is the tradition, see Leumann 1977, 598), but it&#xD;&#xA;is more economical to analyse the disappearance of the vowel as being the&#xD;&#xA;same allomorphic variation as that seen after vowel-final stems, and the&#xD;&#xA;disappearance of [s] as resulting from an independently motivated phonological process of degemination, because in this case we do not need any&#xD;&#xA;extra processes – apart from stipulating the somewhat odd context [s]&#xD;&#xA;for the otherwise postvocalic morpheme variants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Latin Hexameter Verse: An Aid to Composition](https://books.google.com/books?id=NvkVAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA212&amp;lpg=PA212&amp;dq=%22vixti%22+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GF__v8UKLn&amp;sig=b8os1zhh8i9oDbLkjd9vaF_Kknw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi37-HtvpbbAhVizIMKHWy3A8UQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22vixti%22%20Latin&amp;f=false),* by Samuel Edward Winbolt (1903), I found mention of the forms *vixti* (for *vixisti*), *extinxem* (for *extinxissem*), and *finxe* (for *finxisse*) (p. 212).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find any examples of *derexet* for *derexisset,* though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other sources that seem to have relevant information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ancient forms of a future perfect in *so*, a perfect and pluperfect subjunctive in *sim* and *sem*, and a perfect infinitive in *se* sometimes occur. They may, in general, be formed by adding these terminations to the second root of the verb; as, *recepso, emissim, ausim* from the obsolete perfect, *ausi*, from *audeo, confexim* and *promissem*: *divisse* and *promisse*. But when the root ends in *x*, and frequently when it ends in *s*, only *o, im, em*, and *e*, etc. are added; as, *jusso, dixis; intellexes, percepset; surrexe, sumse.* *V*, at the end of the root, in the first conjugation, is changed into *s;* as, *levasso, locassim.* *U,* at the end of the root, in the second conjugation, is changed into *es;* as, *habesso, licessit.*  Sometimes the vowel of the present is retained in these forms, though changed in the other parts derived from the second root; as, *capso, faxo (facso), faxim (facsim).* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[A grammar of the Latin language; for the use of schools and colleges](https://archive.org/stream/grammaroflatinla00andr_0#page/122),* by E.A. Andrews and S. Stoddard, 1857, p. 122)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some similar-looking forms seem to have been used as archaic future subjunctives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [A &quot;future pluperfect&quot; tense] occurs in Virgil, Aenid, 11, 467, *Jusso,* and was found in Cicero, de Legg. 2, 9, *Jussit,* until altered to *Jusserit* by modern editors.--Not satisfied with Vossius'es formation of it from the future in *ERO,* I derive it from the (contracted*) pluperfect subjunctive, as *Ama'ssem, Amasso* -- *Summo'ssem, Sumosso* -- *Recep'sem, Recepso* -- *Effec'sem,* or *Effexem, Effexo* -- *Jus'sem, Jusso* -- *Audi'ssem, Audisso.* -- The verbs in *UI* took *ESSO,* as *Habesso,* in Cicero, de Legg. 2, 8.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 93-94)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Many preterites likewise suffered a syncope of *IS, ISS,* or *SIS.* I here give several examples, which may be compared with those in page 94, and others that will occur in reading.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Scripsti, Scripse, Conscripsti, Praescripsti, Subrepsti, Erepsemus, Carpse, Sumpse, Consumpse, Consumpsti, Coepsti, Cepse, Peraepset, Mansti, Sensti, Misti, Promisti, Amisti, Promisse, Elisse, Divisse, Admisse, Decesse, Recesset, Dixti, Intellexti, Advexti, Prospexti, Aspexti, Luxti, Abduxti, Adduxti, Induxti, Subduxti, Instruxti, Depinxti, Devinxti, Emunxti, Immersti, Tersti, Exclusti, Conclussem, Percusti, Faxem, Interdixem, Revixti, Exstinxti, Exstinxem, Intellexes, Dixe, Illuxe, Illexe, Advexe, Circumspexe, Surrexe, Abstraxe, Prospexe, Despexe, Accestis.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;From these examples (all found in classic authors)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 220)&#xD;&#xA;(*[Latin prosody made easy](https://books.google.com/books?id=RLNWAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA94&amp;lpg=PA94&amp;dq=habesso&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=eoQCJfCYPn&amp;sig=Et2XUD1yHtgKnlEB52ozUkkPhJA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj7np3L4JbbAhUQ71MKHSFlDrwQ6AEITzAL#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false),* by John Carey, 1819)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that despite what Cser says about *-rs-* being excluded, Carey mentions some contracted words ending in *-rsti.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is more about this in *[The Art of Latin Poetry](https://books.google.com/books?id=xEgQAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA41&amp;lpg=PA41&amp;dq=habesso&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=JYaKRduxcQ&amp;sig=IqXryodVDW8yth67WqZuAX6CpoY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj7np3L4JbbAhUQ71MKHSFlDrwQ6AEIUjAM#v=onepage&amp;q=habesso&amp;f=false)* (1828)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6532" RevisionGUID="dfa14add-4898-45ca-958f-f6a98775e6c9" CreationDate="2018-05-21T12:41:46.820" UserId="79" Text="In English or Finnish I can say that I was touched by something or an experience was touching, meaning that I was touched emotionally, not physically.&#xD;&#xA;How can I express the same in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Does *tangere* work this way, or should I use some other verb or perhaps other kind of word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21652" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6532" RevisionGUID="dfa14add-4898-45ca-958f-f6a98775e6c9" CreationDate="2018-05-21T12:41:46.820" UserId="79" Text="Touching emotionally" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21653" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6532" RevisionGUID="dfa14add-4898-45ca-958f-f6a98775e6c9" CreationDate="2018-05-21T12:41:46.820" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|idiom|word-request|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6533" RevisionGUID="9528195d-f35e-4d77-9db0-b0369c1c39ff" CreationDate="2018-05-21T13:32:41.793" UserId="522" Text="For fiercely tragic emotions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**plango, plangere, planxi, planctum.** means both strike, hit;  and bewail, cry, lament.  &#xD;&#xA;(Cicero and Virgil)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6534" RevisionGUID="c4447d54-2dd9-4854-9b80-18375e22746e" CreationDate="2018-05-21T13:36:34.467" UserId="645" Text="Certainly you may use *tangere*, though in this situation it and other verbs (*moveo, commoveo, afficio, pelli* and so on) usually have some sort of qualification:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  *amore puellae pelli* ; *amore fraterni commotus erat*; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This type of usage is actually quite common. And (of course!) it applies to emotions other than love:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  *pudore affixus est*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have made up the examples. I hope that's sufficient explanation, without the need to quote actual instances?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6535" RevisionGUID="20465cc2-4dec-4ba0-ab1e-12569f122ba7" CreationDate="2018-05-21T13:36:41.557" UserId="324" Text="The figurative use of tango &quot;to touch, move, affect, impress&quot; is very common in Latin. You can find lots of examples in L/S, s.v. &quot;tango II A&quot;, or in any other Latin dictionary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6536" RevisionGUID="f514a266-80eb-4fce-8df0-ed5aab1225ec" CreationDate="2018-05-21T14:24:10.093" UserId="1459" Text="I offer a quote from the _Laudato Si_ encyclical, an official document of the Vatican (the country where Latin is, well, the official language). [In English](http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html), it says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;With **moving** tenderness he [Jesus] would remind them [his disciples] that each one of them is important in God’s eyes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Latin version](http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/la/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;atque ipsis **moventi** blandimento memorabat quomodo suos ob oculos unaquaeque earum magnum habeat pondus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, _moventi_, from the adjective _[movens](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/movens#Latin)_, seems to be the word you are looking for. Wiktionary translate it exactly as &quot;moving&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6537" RevisionGUID="5cf702c2-f27c-49b9-93ba-35ffa999db51" CreationDate="2018-05-21T15:08:25.377" UserId="1459" Text="Some quotes from _Amoris Laetitia_ (by Pope Francis) might give some hints (English [here](http://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf), Latin [here](http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/la/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia.html)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Point 49:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; English: For example, if a single mother has to raise a child by herself ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin: Exempli gratia, si mulier quaedam sola suum filium alere debet ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Point 197: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; English: This larger family should provide love&#xD;&#xA;and support to teenage mothers, children without&#xD;&#xA;parents, single mothers left to raise children, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin: Amplificata haec familia oporteret puellas matres amantius accipiat atque pueros parentibus carentes, mulieres solas, quarum est educationem filiis tradere ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Point 252:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; English: Single-parent families often result from ... Whatever the cause, single parents must receive encouragement ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin: Familiae monoparentales saepe oriuntur e ... Quaecumque est causa, parens qui cum filio habitat sustentaculum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is remarkable that [monoparental](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monoparental) is also recognised (perhaps instituted) by the Vatican as a valid Latin word! [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monoparental) does not do so. So there you go, you can use monoparental in Latin, it seems. (Although, the plural as monoparent+ _ales_ might well be an inheritance from Pope Francis's native Spanish, since the plural in English is monoparentals)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6538" RevisionGUID="30539d7f-2f0a-404a-95b9-9dffdc126ee5" CreationDate="2018-05-21T17:27:07.880" UserId="2634" Text="I know that *ora pro me* means &quot;pray for me&quot;, but how would I express my request politely, such as in the English equivalent &quot;Please pray for me&quot; ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21662" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6538" RevisionGUID="30539d7f-2f0a-404a-95b9-9dffdc126ee5" CreationDate="2018-05-21T17:27:07.880" UserId="2634" Text="How to say &quot;please pray for me&quot; in ecclesiastical latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21663" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6538" RevisionGUID="30539d7f-2f0a-404a-95b9-9dffdc126ee5" CreationDate="2018-05-21T17:27:07.880" UserId="2634" Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6539" RevisionGUID="943a6d7a-9e11-4271-9b07-bfeaac8b8059" CreationDate="2018-05-21T18:04:42.653" UserId="469" Text="*(work in progress, examples and sources will come)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd offer two possible variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Peto ut pro me ores&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ora, quaeso, pro me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6540" RevisionGUID="14de5ea2-609f-4268-95ab-540f4c6f266c" CreationDate="2018-05-21T18:20:55.630" UserId="406" Text="The simple imperative in Latin is significantly more polite than it is in English. It's even used when making requests to God in Ecclesiastical Latin: *pie Iēsū domine, **dōnā** eīs requiem sempiternam* &quot;good lord Jesus, **give** them eternal rest&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you want to avoid the imperative, there are a few different ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One is to use a subjunctive instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ōrēs prō mē*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; May you pray for me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another is to add a verb to indicate the request:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Precor tē ōrāre prō mē*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I beseech you to pray for me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure which would be more fitting for an Ecclesiastical style, though my guess would be the second: the bits of Ecclesiastical Latin I've read tend to prefer extra verbs instead of subjunctives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6539" RevisionGUID="bd432dc3-d317-4d5f-be6a-a66efe770d75" CreationDate="2018-05-21T18:21:07.117" UserId="469" Comment="added 1143 characters in body" Text="*(work in progress, examples and sources will come)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin there is no equivalent for *please*, you use some form of *I ask*, instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd offer two possible variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Ora, [quaeso][1], pro me** *(or with a different word order:* ora pro me, quaeso _)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb quaeso is a favorite in Liturgy, although it is usually in plural _(quaesumus)_. Liturgy is the prayer of the Church as a whole, and hence it is natural for the Celebrant to ask in plural in the name of the assembly. It means *to seek to obtain*, but also *to beg, pray*. It is the choice in many prominent prayers, such as the [*Angelus*][2],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Gratiam Tuam, quæsumus, Domine, mentibus nostris infunde...*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the Mass itself (e.g. during the [Embolism][3], after the Lord's prayer),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Libera nos, quæsumus, Domine, ab omnibus malis...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Peto ut pro me ores**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other possible verbs meaning *to ask for* something are: *rogo* and *oro* (both are already conjugated in 1st person singular, present tense, i.e. they already mean *I ask*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquaeso&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelus#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embolism_(liturgy)#In_the_Roman_Rite" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6539" RevisionGUID="91a312e2-fd60-47d0-9403-ddba26fda67c" CreationDate="2018-05-21T18:32:33.947" UserId="469" Comment="added 1143 characters in body" Text="*(work in progress)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin there is no equivalent for *please*, you use some form of *I ask*, instead. Aparently, having specific words for _please_ and _thank you_ comes from the [Renaissance][1], and in many languages it comes from more elaborate formulas like _if it pleases you_, _if you are so kind_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd offer two possible variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Ora, [quaeso][2], pro me** *(or with a different word order:* ora pro me, quaeso, *or even with the subjunctive*, quaeso ut ores pro me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb quaeso is a favorite in Liturgy, although it is usually in plural _(quaesumus)_. Liturgy is the prayer of the Church as a whole, and hence it is natural for the Celebrant to ask in plural in the name of the assembly. It means *to seek to obtain*, but also *to beg, pray*. It is the choice in many prominent prayers, such as the [*Angelus*][3],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Gratiam Tuam, quæsumus, Domine, mentibus nostris infunde...*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the Mass itself (e.g. during the [Embolism][4], after the Lord's prayer),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Libera nos, quæsumus, Domine, ab omnibus malis...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second option is,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **[Peto][5] ut pro me ores**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask *that* you pray from me. The verb peto (in singular) was the choice of Saint Thomas Aquinas (XIII century) for his Eucharistic hymn [*Adoro te devote*][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *peto quod petivit latro poenitens*, I ask for what the [penitent thief][7] asked. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other possible verbs meaning *to ask for* something are: *rogo* and *precor* (both are already conjugated in 1st person singular, present tense, i.e. they already mean *I ask*). You could use *oro* as well, but then you'd be repeating it, since *ora* is a form of the same verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/07/25/origin-of-please-and-thank-you/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquaeso&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelus#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embolism_(liturgy)#In_the_Roman_Rite&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpeto&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoro_te_devote#Text_and_literal_translation&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penitent_thief" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6539" RevisionGUID="44dc5709-e499-4a02-bb39-fadd6b9d0c6c" CreationDate="2018-05-21T18:42:10.140" UserId="469" Comment="added 1143 characters in body" Text="*(work in progress)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin there is no equivalent for *please*, you use some form of *I ask*, instead. Aparently, having specific words for _please_ and _thank you_ comes from the [Renaissance][1], and in many languages it comes from more elaborate formulas like _if it pleases you_, _if you are so kind_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd offer two possible variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Ora, [quaeso][2], pro me** *(or with a different word order:* ora pro me, quaeso, *or even with the subjunctive*, quaeso ut ores pro me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The verb quaeso is a favorite in Liturgy, although it is usually in plural _(quaesumus)_. Liturgy is the prayer of the Church as a whole, and hence it is natural for the Celebrant to ask in plural in the name of the assembly. It means *to seek to obtain*, but also *to beg, pray*. It is the choice in many prominent prayers, such as the [*Angelus*][3],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Gratiam Tuam, quæsumus, Domine, mentibus nostris infunde...*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and the Mass itself (e.g. during the [Embolism][4], after the Lord's prayer),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Libera nos, quæsumus, Domine, ab omnibus malis...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second option is,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **[Peto][5] ut pro me ores**/I ask *that* you pray from me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The verb peto (in singular) was the choice of Saint Thomas Aquinas (XIII century) for his Eucharistic hymn [*Adoro te devote*][6]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *peto quod petivit latro poenitens*/ I ask for what the [penitent thief][7] asked. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This verb is also used several times in the Gospels, the third time being as early as Mt 7:7:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Petite et dabitur vobis*/ ask and it will be given to you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Four more examples of the verb follow in the next four verses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other possible verbs meaning *to ask for* something are: *rogo* and *precor* (both are already conjugated in 1st person singular, present tense, i.e. they already mean *I ask*). You could use *oro* as well, but then you'd be repeating it, since *ora* is a form of the same verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/07/25/origin-of-please-and-thank-you/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquaeso&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelus#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embolism_(liturgy)#In_the_Roman_Rite&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpeto&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoro_te_devote#Text_and_literal_translation&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penitent_thief" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6539" RevisionGUID="9092d6c3-1b22-4a8d-8e84-375d2d9d26da" CreationDate="2018-05-21T19:00:05.780" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body" Text="In Latin there is no equivalent for *please*, you use some form of *I ask*, instead. Aparently, having specific words for _please_ and _thank you_ comes from the [Renaissance][1], and in many languages it comes from more elaborate formulas like _if it pleases you_, _if you are so kind_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd offer two possible variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Ora, [quaeso][2], pro me** *(or with a different word order:* ora pro me, quaeso, *or even with the subjunctive*, quaeso ut ores pro me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The verb quaeso is a favorite in Liturgy, although it is usually in plural _(quaesumus)_. Liturgy is the prayer of the Church as a whole, and hence it is natural for the Celebrant to ask in plural in the name of the assembly. It means *to seek to obtain*, but also *to beg, pray*. It is the choice in many prominent prayers, such as the [*Angelus*][3],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Gratiam Tuam, quæsumus, Domine, mentibus nostris infunde...*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and the Mass itself (e.g. during the [Embolism][4], after the Lord's prayer),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Libera nos, quæsumus, Domine, ab omnibus malis...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second option is,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **[Peto][5] ut pro me ores**/I ask *that* you pray from me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The verb peto (in singular) was the choice of Saint Thomas Aquinas (XIII century) for his Eucharistic hymn [*Adoro te devote*][6]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *peto quod petivit latro poenitens*/ I ask for what the [penitent thief][7] asked. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This verb is also used several times in the Gospels, the third time being as early as Mt 7:7:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Petite et dabitur vobis*/ ask and it will be given to you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Four more examples of the verb follow in the next four verses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other possible verbs meaning *to ask for* something are: *rogo* and *precor* (both are already conjugated in 1st person singular, present tense, i.e. they already mean *I ask*). You could use *oro* as well, but then you'd be repeating it, since *ora* is a form of the same verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/07/25/origin-of-please-and-thank-you/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquaeso&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelus#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embolism_(liturgy)#In_the_Roman_Rite&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpeto&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoro_te_devote#Text_and_literal_translation&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penitent_thief" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6538" RevisionGUID="9d3ebe7b-c66b-4743-956c-70544ce44528" CreationDate="2018-05-21T19:21:08.500" UserId="1459" Comment="minor changes" Text="I know that *ora pro me* means &quot;pray for me&quot;, but how would I express my request politely, such as in the English equivalent &quot;Please pray for me&quot; ?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21671" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6538" RevisionGUID="bad86563-8eb3-4ba8-8136-0d46bd5b1153" CreationDate="2018-05-21T20:44:07.810" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|ecclesiastical-latin|politeness|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6539" RevisionGUID="e32382b1-bfa2-48a1-9d87-8ece24494074" CreationDate="2018-05-21T21:17:34.163" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="In Latin there is no equivalent for *please*, you use some form of *I ask*, instead. Aparently, having a specific word for _please_ dates back just to the [Renaissance][1], and in many languages it comes from more elaborate formulas like _if it pleases you_, _if you are so kind_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd offer two possible variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Ora, [quaeso][2], pro me** *(or with a different word order:* ora pro me, quaeso, *or even with the subjunctive*, quaeso ut ores pro me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The verb quaeso is a favorite in Liturgy, although it is usually in plural _(quaesumus)_. Liturgy is the prayer of the Church as a whole, and hence it is natural for the Celebrant to ask in plural in the name of the assembly. It means *to seek to obtain*, but also *to beg, pray*. It is the choice in many prominent prayers, such as the [*Angelus*][3],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Gratiam Tuam, quæsumus, Domine, mentibus nostris infunde...*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and the Mass itself (e.g. during the [Embolism][4], after the Lord's prayer),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Libera nos, quæsumus, Domine, ab omnibus malis...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second option is,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **[Peto][5] ut pro me ores**/I ask *that* you pray from me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The verb peto (in singular) was the choice of Saint Thomas Aquinas (XIII century) for his Eucharistic hymn [*Adoro te devote*][6]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *peto quod petivit latro poenitens*/ I ask for what the [penitent thief][7] asked. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This verb is also used several times in the Gospels, the third time being as early as Mt 7:7:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Petite et dabitur vobis*/ ask and it will be given to you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Four more examples of the verb follow in the next four verses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other possible verbs meaning *to ask for* something are: *rogo* and *precor* (both are already conjugated in 1st person singular, present tense, i.e. they already mean *I ask*). You could use *oro* as well, but then you'd be repeating it, since *ora* is a form of the same verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/07/25/origin-of-please-and-thank-you/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquaeso&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelus#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embolism_(liturgy)#In_the_Roman_Rite&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpeto&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoro_te_devote#Text_and_literal_translation&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penitent_thief" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6531" RevisionGUID="7d0803be-13c7-4935-a473-ddc211956138" CreationDate="2018-05-21T22:09:46.833" UserId="9" Comment="added 729 characters in body" Text="András Cser's &quot;[The nature of phonological conditioning in Latin inflectional allomorphy](https://akademiai.com/doi/pdf/10.1556/ALing.62.2015.1.1)&quot; seems to say contraction like this occurs somewhat often in the perfect forms of verbs that have perfect stems ending in /s/ (as in Cerberus's example *vixet ~ vixisset*), and gives a few examples. Cser doesn't mention any patterns of variation, but he does offer a phonological analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###2.3.2.2. Vowel deletion after [s]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One minor point of complication involves *s*-final perfective stems (excluding *-ls-, -rs-*) combining with *is*-affixes. In more than just a handful of cases the vowelless affix variant appears, and the number of adjacent [s]’s is reduced.&#xD;&#xA;Thus *derexisti ∼ derexti* ‘arrange’ PresPerf2Sing, *divisisse ∼ divisse*&#xD;&#xA;‘divide’ PerfInf, *accessistis ∼ accestis* ‘approach’ PresPerf2Plur,&#xD;&#xA;*admisisse ∼ admisse* ‘send to’ PerfInf, and many others. On the face of&#xD;&#xA;it this looks like the loss of an [is] sequence specifically after [s] in these&#xD;&#xA;particular constructions (as is the tradition, see Leumann 1977, 598), but it&#xD;&#xA;is more economical to analyse the disappearance of the vowel as being the&#xD;&#xA;same allomorphic variation as that seen after vowel-final stems, and the&#xD;&#xA;disappearance of [s] as resulting from an independently motivated phonological process of degemination, because in this case we do not need any&#xD;&#xA;extra processes – apart from stipulating the somewhat odd context [s]&#xD;&#xA;for the otherwise postvocalic morpheme variants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Latin Hexameter Verse: An Aid to Composition](https://books.google.com/books?id=NvkVAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA212&amp;lpg=PA212&amp;dq=%22vixti%22+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GF__v8UKLn&amp;sig=b8os1zhh8i9oDbLkjd9vaF_Kknw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi37-HtvpbbAhVizIMKHWy3A8UQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22vixti%22%20Latin&amp;f=false),* by Samuel Edward Winbolt (1903), I found mention of the forms *vixti* (for *vixisti*), *extinxem* (for *extinxissem*), and *finxe* (for *finxisse*) (p. 212).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find any examples of *derexet* for *derexisset,* though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other sources that seem to have relevant information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ancient forms of a future perfect in *so*, a perfect and pluperfect subjunctive in *sim* and *sem*, and a perfect infinitive in *se* sometimes occur. They may, in general, be formed by adding these terminations to the second root of the verb; as, *recepso, emissim, ausim* from the obsolete perfect, *ausi*, from *audeo, confexim* and *promissem*: *divisse* and *promisse*. But when the root ends in *x*, and frequently when it ends in *s*, only *o, im, em*, and *e*, etc. are added; as, *jusso, dixis; intellexes, percepset; surrexe, sumse.* *V*, at the end of the root, in the first conjugation, is changed into *s;* as, *levasso, locassim.* *U,* at the end of the root, in the second conjugation, is changed into *es;* as, *habesso, licessit.*  Sometimes the vowel of the present is retained in these forms, though changed in the other parts derived from the second root; as, *capso, faxo (facso), faxim (facsim).* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[A grammar of the Latin language; for the use of schools and colleges](https://archive.org/stream/grammaroflatinla00andr_0#page/122),* by E.A. Andrews and S. Stoddard, 1857, p. 122)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some similar-looking forms seem to have been used as archaic future subjunctives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [A &quot;future pluperfect&quot; tense] occurs in Virgil, Aenid, 11, 467, *Jusso,* and was found in Cicero, de Legg. 2, 9, *Jussit,* until altered to *Jusserit* by modern editors.--Not satisfied with Vossius'es formation of it from the future in *ERO,* I derive it from the (contracted*) pluperfect subjunctive, as *Ama'ssem, Amasso* -- *Summo'ssem, Sumosso* -- *Recep'sem, Recepso* -- *Effec'sem,* or *Effexem, Effexo* -- *Jus'sem, Jusso* -- *Audi'ssem, Audisso.* -- The verbs in *UI* took *ESSO,* as *Habesso,* in Cicero, de Legg. 2, 8.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[Latin prosody made easy](https://books.google.com/books?id=RLNWAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA94&amp;lpg=PA94&amp;dq=habesso&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=eoQCJfCYPn&amp;sig=Et2XUD1yHtgKnlEB52ozUkkPhJA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj7np3L4JbbAhUQ71MKHSFlDrwQ6AEITzAL#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false),* by John Carey, 1819, pp. 93-94)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On p. 220, Carey gives a list of a number of other forms &quot;all found in classic authors&quot; that show this kind of &quot;syncope of *IS, ISS,* or *SIS*&quot;; I have rearranged them into groups by their endings, and bolded the ones where the standard perfect stem doesn't seem to end in /s/:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- -sti (active perf. ind. 2s): &lt;br&gt;*Scripsti, Conscripsti, Praescripsti, Subrepsti, Consumpsti, **Cœpsti**, Mansti, Sensti, Misti, Promisti, Amisti,  Dixti, Intellexti, Advexti, Prospexti, Aspexti, Luxti, Abduxti, Adduxti, Induxti, Subduxti, Instruxti, Depinxti, Devinxti, Emunxti, Immersti, Tersti, Exclusti, Revixti, Exstinxti, Percusti*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- -stis (active perf. ind. 2p) &lt;br&gt;*Accestis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- -se (active perf. inf.): &lt;br&gt;*Scripse, Carpse, Sumpse, Consumpse, **Cepse**,  Promisse, Elisse, Divisse, Admisse, Decesse, Dixe, Illuxe, Illexe, Advexe, Circumspexe, Surrexe, Abstraxe, Prospexe, Despexe*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- -sem (active pluperf. subj. 1s): &lt;br&gt;*Conclussem, Faxem, Interdixem,  Exstinxem*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- -ses (active pluperf. subj. 2s): &lt;br&gt;*Intellexes*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- -set (active pluperf. subj. 3s): &lt;br&gt;***Percepset**, Recesset*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- -semus (active pluperf. subj. 1p): &lt;br&gt;*Erepsemus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that despite what Cser says about *-rs-* being excluded, Carey mentions some contracted words ending in *-rsti.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Art of Latin Poetry](https://books.google.com/books?id=xEgQAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA41&amp;lpg=PA41&amp;dq=habesso&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=JYaKRduxcQ&amp;sig=IqXryodVDW8yth67WqZuAX6CpoY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj7np3L4JbbAhUQ71MKHSFlDrwQ6AEIUjAM#v=onepage&amp;q=habesso&amp;f=false)* (1828) specifically mentions &quot;omitting the syllable *si* before *sti*&quot; as a &quot;contraction chiefly used by the comic writers ; but Vergil has accestis, for accessistis, Æn. i 205; and Horace evasti for evasisti, *Sat.* ii. 7. 68&quot; and gives a separate description of &quot;rejecting *is* or *iss* , after *x*,; Direxti, for direxisti, *Virg. Æn.* vi. 57. Extinxtem, for extinxissem, *Id. Æn.* iv. 606. Surrexe, for surrexisse, *Hor. Sat.* i. 9. 73&quot; (p. 41)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6541" RevisionGUID="9b656efb-8240-4819-9271-1dedb0aaafa8" CreationDate="2018-05-21T22:26:59.380" UserId="406" Text="For something like this, I would use the verb *moveō*, or one of its derivatives. This can either take the emotion/result as its direct object (*movet lacrimās* &quot;it moved [me] to tears&quot;), or a metonymy like *animum*; when a person is the object, the verb is more often in the passive (*movetur verbīs* &quot;he was moved by these words&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Moveō* itself certainly works, but *commoveō* can be used for added intensity, and *permoveō* was seldom used for anything except this meaning (i.e. it almost never meant literal motion)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6543" RevisionGUID="a2ce6d43-0e35-4bc5-a415-b1599b1c608f" CreationDate="2018-05-21T23:06:41.687" UserId="406" Text="##We don't exactly know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek, we have a pretty good idea of how the accent worked: it involved a change in pitch, which was supposedly close to the interval of a fifth (as the grammarians laid out the accent system quite precisely in musical terms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, however, it's much less clear. Some of the grammarians talk about it, but never in clear terms: Priscian claims that every vowel has &quot;height/depth, width/breadth, and length&quot; (*altitūdō, lātitūdō, longitūdō*), for instance, and uses these to lay out ten varieties of the letter *A*. It seems that his &quot;height&quot; is the accent, divided into acute, grave, and circumflex; &quot;length&quot; is vowel length, as we measure it today; and &quot;width&quot; is whether or not there's an *H* before it (!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Priscian's acute, grave, and circumflex accents are obviously inspired by Greek. His examples (when unaspirated and long) are *árae àrārum âra*, and (when unaspirated and short) *ábeō àbīmus*. So it seems like &quot;grave&quot; means unaccented, and there's some sort of distinction between &quot;acute&quot; and &quot;circumflex&quot; that only happens for long vowels. This could imply a pitch accent like in Ancient Greek, since that's what the diacritics originally meant, and only a pitch accent can be expected to vary between the first and second mora of a long vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the oldest Latin grammarian (Donatus) gives a simpler explanation of the accent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *accentus in ea syllaba est quae plus sonat*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The accent is on that syllable which is sounded more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies that the difference could involve amplitude rather than frequency: stressed syllables are louder, as in English, rather than pitched differently. Donatus was also writing much &quot;closer to the source&quot; than Priscian was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main source on all of this is [Key's &quot;Language: its Origin and Development&quot;][1]. Various other sources also cite Priscian's ten varieties of *A* and three distinctions, but Key is the first one I found to provide quotes (since I can't find Priscian's actual text anywhere online).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=frZFAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA446" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6543" RevisionGUID="2fc77381-7566-4fbb-98f1-87689c48b8ff" CreationDate="2018-05-21T23:14:02.877" UserId="406" Comment="added 180 characters in body" Text="##We don't exactly know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek, we have a pretty good idea of how the accent worked: it involved a change in pitch, which was supposedly close to the interval of a fifth (as the grammarians laid out the accent system quite precisely in musical terms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, however, it's much less clear. Some of the grammarians talk about it, but never in clear terms: Priscian claims that every vowel has &quot;height/depth, width/breadth, and length&quot; (*altitūdō, lātitūdō, longitūdō*), for instance, and uses these to lay out ten varieties of the letter *A*. It seems that his &quot;height&quot; is the accent, divided into acute, grave, and circumflex; &quot;length&quot; is vowel length, as we measure it today; and &quot;width&quot; is whether or not there's an *H* before it (!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Priscian's acute, grave, and circumflex accents are obviously inspired by Greek. His examples (when unaspirated and long) are *árae àrārum âra*, and (when unaspirated and short) *ábeō àbīmus*. So it seems like &quot;grave&quot; means unaccented, and there's some sort of distinction between &quot;acute&quot; and &quot;circumflex&quot; that only happens for long vowels. This could imply a pitch accent like in Ancient Greek, since that's what the diacritics originally meant, and only a pitch accent can be expected to vary between the first and second mora of a long vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the oldest Latin grammarian (Donatus) gives a simpler explanation of the accent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *accentus in ea syllaba est quae plus sonat*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The accent is on that syllable which is sounded more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies that the difference could involve amplitude rather than frequency: stressed syllables are louder, rather than pitched differently. Donatus was also writing much &quot;closer to the source&quot; than Priscian was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, it's possible that the Latin accent involved both amplitude and frequency, like in English. The only thing we can be fairly sure of is that it didn't involve lengthening the vowel at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main source on all of this is [Key's &quot;Language: its Origin and Development&quot;][1]. Various other sources also cite Priscian's ten varieties of *A* and three distinctions, but Key is the first one I found to provide quotes (since I can't find Priscian's actual text anywhere online).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=frZFAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA446" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6543" RevisionGUID="cb01ff66-a5de-494e-bfff-2c7734abfb34" CreationDate="2018-05-21T23:22:24.690" UserId="406" Comment="added 439 characters in body" Text="##We don't exactly know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek, we have a pretty good idea of how the accent worked: it involved a change in pitch, which was supposedly close to the interval of a fifth (as the grammarians laid out the accent system quite precisely in musical terms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, however, it's much less clear. Some of the grammarians talk about it, but never in clear terms: Priscian claims that every vowel has &quot;height/depth, width/breadth, and length&quot; (*altitūdō, lātitūdō, longitūdō*), for instance, and uses these to lay out ten varieties of the letter *A*. It seems that his &quot;height&quot; is the accent, divided into acute, grave, and circumflex; &quot;length&quot; is vowel length, as we measure it today; and &quot;width&quot; is whether or not there's an *H* before it (!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Priscian's acute, grave, and circumflex accents are obviously inspired by Greek. His examples (when unaspirated and long) are *árae àrārum âra*, and (when unaspirated and short) *ábeō àbīmus*. So it seems like &quot;grave&quot; means unaccented, and there's some sort of distinction between &quot;acute&quot; and &quot;circumflex&quot; that only happens for long vowels. This could imply a pitch accent like in Ancient Greek, since that's what the diacritics originally meant, and only a pitch accent can be expected to vary between the first and second mora of a long vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the oldest Latin grammarian (Donatus) gives a simpler explanation of the accent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *accentus in ea syllaba est quae plus sonat*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The accent is on that syllable which is sounded more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies that the difference could involve amplitude rather than frequency: stressed syllables are louder, rather than pitched differently. Donatus was also writing much &quot;closer to the source&quot; than Priscian was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, it's possible that the Latin accent involved both amplitude and frequency, like in English. The only thing we can be fairly sure of is that it didn't involve lengthening the vowel at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Can we learn anything from PIE?&quot; you might ask, and this is a good thought. But the Latin accent was completely separate from the PIE one: PIE's pitch accent died out in pre-Latin, and was replaced by a different system (stress always on the first syllable like in Etruscan), and then this system died out too and was replaced by the rules we know today. So PIE can't tell us anything useful about how the later accent systems worked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main source on all of this is [Key's &quot;Language: its Origin and Development&quot;][1]. Various other sources also cite Priscian's ten varieties of *A* and three distinctions, but Key is the first one I found to provide quotes (since I can't find Priscian's actual text anywhere online).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=frZFAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA446" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6543" RevisionGUID="700efd76-2340-4d60-944e-3164c2cc2f4f" CreationDate="2018-05-21T23:36:08.337" UserId="406" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="##We don't exactly know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek, we have a pretty good idea of how the accent worked: it involved a change in pitch, which was supposedly close to the interval of a fifth (as the grammarian Dionysius laid out the accent system quite precisely in musical terms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, however, it's much less clear. Some of the grammarians talk about it, but never in clear terms: Priscian claims that every vowel has &quot;height/depth, width/breadth, and length&quot; (*altitūdō, lātitūdō, longitūdō*), for instance, and uses these to lay out ten varieties of the letter *A*. It seems that his &quot;height&quot; is the accent, divided into acute, grave, and circumflex; &quot;length&quot; is vowel length, as we measure it today; and &quot;width&quot; is whether or not there's an *H* before it (!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Priscian's acute, grave, and circumflex accents are obviously inspired by Greek. His examples (when unaspirated and long) are *árae àrārum âra*, and (when unaspirated and short) *ábeō àbīmus*. So it seems like &quot;grave&quot; means unaccented, and there's some sort of distinction between &quot;acute&quot; and &quot;circumflex&quot; that only happens for long vowels. This could imply a pitch accent like in Ancient Greek, since that's what the diacritics originally meant, and only a pitch accent can be expected to vary between the first and second mora of a long vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the oldest Latin grammarian (Donatus) gives a simpler explanation of the accent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *accentus in ea syllaba est quae plus sonat*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The accent is on that syllable which is sounded more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies that the difference could involve amplitude rather than frequency: stressed syllables are louder, rather than pitched differently. Donatus was also writing much &quot;closer to the source&quot; than Priscian was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, it's possible that the Latin accent involved both amplitude and frequency, like in English. The only thing we can be fairly sure of is that it didn't involve lengthening the vowel at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Can we learn anything from PIE?&quot; you might ask, and this is a good thought. But the Latin accent was completely separate from the PIE one: PIE's pitch accent died out in pre-Latin, and was replaced by a different system (stress always on the first syllable like in Etruscan), and then this system died out too and was replaced by the rules we know today. So PIE can't tell us anything useful about how the later accent systems worked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main source on all of this is [Key's &quot;Language: its Origin and Development&quot;][1]. Various other sources also cite Priscian's ten varieties of *A* and three distinctions, but Key is the first one I found to provide quotes (since I can't find Priscian's actual text anywhere online).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=frZFAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA446" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6530" RevisionGUID="53b820e0-17f3-44e6-9154-51ebe67b286e" CreationDate="2018-05-22T01:46:32.893" UserId="406" Comment="added 199 characters in body" Text="There are a variety of ways to translate this, but I would go with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quīcumque lībertātem meam abripiat, flammīs ācribus addīcatur.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whosoever might take away my liberty shall be consigned to the piercing flames.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The marks over the vowels represent different sounds that merged together in later Latin; if you're going for an Ecclesiastical style, like your tag indicates, feel free to leave them off.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Quīcumque* is a masculine singular pronoun: &quot;whoever&quot;. It's conventional to use the masculine in Latin if you don't know the gender of the person, but if you're more worried about a woman taking your freedom than a man, you could use *quaecumque*.&#xD;&#xA; - *Lībertātem* is &quot;freedom&quot;, plain and simple.&#xD;&#xA; - *Meam* is &quot;my&quot;, in the feminine accusative to agree with *lībertātem*.&#xD;&#xA; - *Abripiat* is a subjunctive from *abripiō*, &quot;to tear away by force&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - *Flammīs* is &quot;flames&quot;, dative.&#xD;&#xA; - *Ācribus* is &quot;piercing&quot;, also dative.&#xD;&#xA; - *Addīcatur* is the passive subjunctive of *addīcō*, &quot;to consign&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - The two present subjunctives here are something like &quot;if anyone should…then may they…&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - I'm not very familiar with phrases for Hell in Ecclesiastical Latin, so the second half of the phrase is borrowed from verse 16 of the Dies Irae: *cōnfūtātīs maledictīs flammīs ācribus addictīs, vocā mē cum benedictīs* &quot;with the damned having been silenced [and] consigned to the piercing flames, call me with the blessed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: If you want to state it as a fact (&quot;this will happen&quot;) you can use the simple future rather than the subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quīcumque lībertātem meam **abripiet**, flammīs ācribus **addīcētur**.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whosoever will take away my liberty, he will be consigned to the piercing flames." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6516" RevisionGUID="96247380-6117-4ce3-864e-05dbbf801082" CreationDate="2018-05-22T03:52:37.347" UserId="30" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="I know this is a long shot, one word being Greek and the other Latin, but is it at all possible for there to be a relation between *Bellerophon*, the slayer of beasts, and *belua* &quot;beast&quot;? A cursory glance at Wikipaedia informs us that the etymology of Bellerophon is not quite certain:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One possible etymology that has been suggested is: Βελλεροφόντης from βέλεμνον, βελόνη, βέλος (&quot;projectile, dart, javelin, needle, arrow, bullet&quot;) and -φόντης (&quot;slayer&quot;) from φονεύω (&quot;to slay&quot;). However, Geoffrey Kirk says that &quot;Βελλεροφόντης means 'slayer of Belleros'&quot;.[3] Belleros could have been a Lycian, a local daimon or a Corinthian nobleman—Bellerophon's name &quot;clearly invited all sorts of speculation&quot;.[3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see a stem βέλ- &quot;projectile&quot; mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis &amp; Short invite speculation with their etymological comment on *belua*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [perh. kindr. with θήρ, fera, as uber with οὖθαρ, and paulus with παῦρος] ... cf.: &quot;bestia&quot; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I won't ask about any conexions with *beast*..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6544" RevisionGUID="0f26e60e-75d8-46be-8dc5-5954c7f016e4" CreationDate="2018-05-22T13:08:23.557" UserId="1459" Text="I came across the _Fiat ivstitia_ motto. The [Wikipedia entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_justitia) translates it as &quot;Let justice be done&quot;. I need a bit of help to understand this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know _justitia_ is a noun (like _justicia_, in Spanish, or justice in English). But _fiat_, according to [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fiat#Latin), is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. third-person singular present active subjunctive of fiō  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. third-person singular present passive subjunctive of faciō &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems, it is the second one being used here, since it is passive (justice _be done_) rather than active (_do_ justice).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to me, the English translation is more of an imperative. For instance, the second person singular active could be &quot;do justice&quot;, or _face justitia_. So the translation &quot;Let justice be done&quot; feels like a third person singular passive imperative, rather than subjunctive. However, it seems there is no such third person present imperative for _facio_! Actually, it seems there is no third person present imperative for most Latin verbs! How do you translate an imperative order like &quot;Let justice be done!&quot;, or perhaps more clearly in Spanish: &quot;Hagase justicia!&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21686" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6544" RevisionGUID="0f26e60e-75d8-46be-8dc5-5954c7f016e4" CreationDate="2018-05-22T13:08:23.557" UserId="1459" Text="Fiat justitia, imperative mood?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21687" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6544" RevisionGUID="0f26e60e-75d8-46be-8dc5-5954c7f016e4" CreationDate="2018-05-22T13:08:23.557" UserId="1459" Text="|translation|imperative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6545" RevisionGUID="5e527a6b-4ea2-4f0a-92bc-4d9862a91ee5" CreationDate="2018-05-22T13:51:25.173" UserId="81" Text="In the *Vulgate* (*Acts* 26:22-23), I came across the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...nihil extra dicens quam ea quæ prophetæ locuti sunt futura esse, et&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Moyses, **si** passibilis Christus, **si** primus ex resurrectione&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mortuorum, lumen annuntiaturus est populo et gentibus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both instances of the word *si* are translations of the Greek εἰ: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...οὐδὲν ἐκτὸς λέγων ὧν τε οἱ προφῆται ἐλάλησαν μελλόντων γίνεσθαι καὶ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; μωϊσῆς, **εἰ** παθητὸς ὁ χριστός, **εἰ** πρῶτος ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν&#xD;&#xA;&gt; φῶς μέλλει καταγγέλλειν τῶ τε λαῶ καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I would normally expect the translation for *si* and εἰ to be &quot;if&quot;, in almost every [translation][1] into English I found for this verse, it is translated as &quot;that&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone please elaborate on this usage of *si* (and perhaps of εἰ as well)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://biblehub.com/acts/26-23.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21690" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6545" RevisionGUID="5e527a6b-4ea2-4f0a-92bc-4d9862a91ee5" CreationDate="2018-05-22T13:51:25.173" UserId="81" Text="When does si mean &quot;that&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21691" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6545" RevisionGUID="5e527a6b-4ea2-4f0a-92bc-4d9862a91ee5" CreationDate="2018-05-22T13:51:25.173" UserId="81" Text="|word-usage|particle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6545" RevisionGUID="8e733f38-8d40-4da8-ae58-b419f33ad55b" CreationDate="2018-05-22T13:57:52.843" UserId="81" Comment="added 152 characters in body" Text="In the *Vulgate* (*Acts* 26:22-23), I came across the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...nihil extra dicens quam ea quæ prophetæ locuti sunt futura esse, et&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Moyses, **si** passibilis Christus, **si** primus ex resurrectione&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mortuorum, lumen annuntiaturus est populo et gentibus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both instances of the word *si* are translations of the Greek εἰ: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...οὐδὲν ἐκτὸς λέγων ὧν τε οἱ προφῆται ἐλάλησαν μελλόντων γίνεσθαι καὶ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; μωϊσῆς, **εἰ** παθητὸς ὁ χριστός, **εἰ** πρῶτος ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν&#xD;&#xA;&gt; φῶς μέλλει καταγγέλλειν τῶ τε λαῶ καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I would normally expect the translation for *si* and εἰ to be &quot;if&quot;, in almost every [translation][1] into English I found for this verse, it is translated as &quot;that&quot;. For example, the *King James Version* has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **That** Christ should suffer, and **that** he should be the first that should&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rise from the dead...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone please elaborate on this usage of *si* (and perhaps of εἰ as well)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://biblehub.com/acts/26-23.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6545" RevisionGUID="5fa5913c-a5f4-4072-a2fa-29c2374481e3" CreationDate="2018-05-22T14:20:59.580" UserId="81" Comment="added 215 characters in body" Text="In the *Vulgate* (*Acts* 26:22-23), I came across the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...nihil extra dicens quam ea quæ prophetæ locuti sunt futura esse, et&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Moyses, **si** passibilis Christus, **si** primus ex resurrectione&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mortuorum, lumen annuntiaturus est populo et gentibus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both instances of the word *si* are translations of the Greek εἰ: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...οὐδὲν ἐκτὸς λέγων ὧν τε οἱ προφῆται ἐλάλησαν μελλόντων γίνεσθαι καὶ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; μωϊσῆς, **εἰ** παθητὸς ὁ χριστός, **εἰ** πρῶτος ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν&#xD;&#xA;&gt; φῶς μέλλει καταγγέλλειν τῶ τε λαῶ καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I would normally expect the translation for *si* and εἰ to be &quot;if&quot;, in almost every [translation][1] into English I found for this verse, it is translated as &quot;that&quot; (and I agree that it makes the most sense for the context).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the *King James Version* has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses&#xD;&#xA;&gt; did say should come: **That** Christ should suffer, and **that** he&#xD;&#xA;&gt; should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew&#xD;&#xA;&gt; light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone please elaborate on this usage of *si* (and perhaps of εἰ as well)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://biblehub.com/acts/26-23.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6539" RevisionGUID="dda2c331-0d9f-4dda-bbe9-b41987862b49" CreationDate="2018-05-22T15:18:02.010" UserId="469" Comment="better examples, deeper explanation, addressed comments" Text="In Latin there is no equivalent for *please*, you use some form of *I ask*, instead. Aparently, having a specific word for _please_ dates back just to the [Renaissance][1], and in many languages it comes from more elaborate formulas like _if it pleases you_, _if you are so kind_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd offer two possible variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Ora, [quaeso][2], pro me** *(or with a different word order:* ora pro me, quaeso, *or even with the subjunctive*, quaeso ut ores pro me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The verb quaeso is a favorite in Liturgy, although it is usually in plural _(quaesumus)_. Liturgy is the prayer of the Church as a whole, and hence it is natural for the Celebrant to ask in plural in the name of the assembly. It means *to seek to obtain*, but also *to beg, pray*. It is the choice in many prominent prayers, such as the [*Angelus*][3],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Gratiam Tuam, quæsumus, Domine, mentibus nostris infunde...*,/ Pour forth, we beseech Thee, O Lord, Thy grace into our hearts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and the Mass itself (e.g. during the [Embolism][4], after the Lord's prayer),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Libera nos, quæsumus, Domine, ab omnibus malis...*/ Deliver us, Lord, we pray, from every evil...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second option is,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **[Peto][5] ut pro me ores**/I ask *that* you pray from me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The verb peto (in singular) was the choice of Saint Thomas Aquinas (XIII century) for his Eucharistic hymn [*Adoro te devote*][6]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *peto quod petivit latro poenitens*/ I ask for what the [penitent thief][7] asked. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This verb is also used several times in the Gospels, the third time being as early as Mt 7:7:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Petite et dabitur vobis*/ ask and it will be given to you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Four more examples of the verb follow in the next four verses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** Draconis notes two important things: that the imperative in Latin is already more polite than in modern languages, and that ut + *(subjunctive)* is not the most frequent construction in this context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Peto/quaeso + *(imperative)* is perfectly valid, adding politeness to the imperative. In singular it sounds a little strange to me, but maybe just because I'm more used to the plural form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Peto/quaeso (or command verbs) + ut (or its negative form, *ne*) + *(subjunctive)* is called an *[ut clause of indirect command][8]*. As infrequent as it is, it remains well attested in both classical and ecclesiastical sources. In order not to make this answer too long, I cite one from the Vulgate,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***praecepit** illis, **ne** cui, quae vidissent, **narrarent***/ **He charged** them **to tell no one** what they had seen ([Mc 9:9][9])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and one from the Missal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ipsis, Dómine, et ómnibus in Christo quiescéntibus, locum refrigérii, lucis et pacis, **ut indúlgeas, deprecamur***/ **Grant them**, O Lord, **we pray**, and all who sleep in Christ, a place of refreshment, light and peace. (Liturgy of the Eucharist, memento of the dead).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Other possible verbs meaning *to ask for* something are: *rogo* and *precor* (both are already conjugated in 1st person singular, present tense, i.e. they already mean *I ask*). You could use *oro* as well, but then you'd be repeating it, since *ora* is a form of the same verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** as noted by dbmag9, it is worth to remember, either for you or for future readers, that *ora pro me* means *pray for me* as directed to a single person: sencond person singular (thou) and plural (you all, you guys) in Latin are different and you are usually forced to distinguish. If you are asking more than one person to pray for you, you should say **_orate_, quaeso, pro me**, or **peto ut pro me _oretis_**, or another variant using *orate* instead of *ora* or *oretis* instead of *ores*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/07/25/origin-of-please-and-thank-you/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquaeso&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelus#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embolism_(liturgy)#In_the_Roman_Rite&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpeto&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoro_te_devote#Text_and_literal_translation&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penitent_thief&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/UtClauses.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%209%3A9&amp;version=RSVCE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6546" RevisionGUID="2c6a182e-fcdc-445d-b49d-33b7fa9efcf1" CreationDate="2018-05-22T15:22:25.043" UserId="79" Text="Orders in second person are typically expressed with imperative, but orders in third person with conjunctive (=subjunctive).&#xD;&#xA;Second and third person orders look different in English, too.&#xD;&#xA;Compare &quot;jump!&quot; and &quot;may he jump!&quot; or other similar constructions.&#xD;&#xA;There is no &quot;direct third person imperative&quot; in English, but you have to find a circumlocution.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I find *fiat* and &quot;may/let it be done&quot; to be very similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You list two meanings of *fieri*.&#xD;&#xA;One is the active of &quot;to happen&quot; and the other is the passive of &quot;to do/make&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;To be honest, I see no difference between these interpretations.&#xD;&#xA;You can read *fiat iustitia* as &quot;may justice happen&quot; or &quot;may justice be done&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The meaning is essentially the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The present imperative (or first imperative) is only for the second person singular and plural.&#xD;&#xA;The future imperative (or second imperative) also has third persons.&#xD;&#xA;For *facere* and *fio* the first imperatives are *fac/facite* and *fi/fite*.&#xD;&#xA;The second imperatives are *facito/facitote* and *fito/fitote* (second person) and *facito/faciunto* and *fito/fiunto* (third person).&#xD;&#xA;In the second imperative the second and third persons look alike in singular (*-to*).&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use the third person singular second imperative, you get *fito iustitia*.&#xD;&#xA;The conjunctive is far more common in my experience." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6544" RevisionGUID="2943f442-2587-418b-946b-5d8ea3280f9a" CreationDate="2018-05-22T15:25:23.317" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I came across the _Fiat ivstitia_ motto. The [Wikipedia entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_justitia) translates it as &quot;Let justice be done&quot;. I need a bit of help to understand this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know _justitia_ is a noun (like _justicia_, in Spanish, or justice in English). But _fiat_, according to [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fiat#Latin), is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. third-person singular present active subjunctive of fiō  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. third-person singular present passive subjunctive of faciō &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems, it is the second one being used here, since it is passive (justice _be done_) rather than active (_do_ justice).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to me, the English translation is more of an imperative. For instance, the second person singular active could be &quot;do justice&quot;, or _face justitia_. So the translation &quot;Let justice be done&quot; feels like a third person singular passive imperative, rather than subjunctive. However, it seems there is no such third person present imperative for _facio_! Actually, it seems there is no third person present imperative for most Latin verbs! How do you translate an imperative order like &quot;Let justice be done!&quot;, or perhaps more clearly in Spanish: &quot;Hagase justicia!&quot;? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21697" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6544" RevisionGUID="2943f442-2587-418b-946b-5d8ea3280f9a" CreationDate="2018-05-22T15:25:23.317" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Fiat justitia in imperative mood?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21698" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6544" RevisionGUID="2943f442-2587-418b-946b-5d8ea3280f9a" CreationDate="2018-05-22T15:25:23.317" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|syntax|motto|imperative|mood|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6547" RevisionGUID="364339b8-0183-40ed-89ab-5020ef22d86a" CreationDate="2018-05-22T19:58:27.373" UserId="79" Text="My impression is that there are no hard rules in Latin that force you to pick a specific mood in the presence of some adverbs.&#xD;&#xA;There are certainly correlations: many adverbs can be used to indicate probability, and so can the conjunctive mood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the question should not be whether an adverb warrants the conjunctive but whether the situation warrants it.&#xD;&#xA;If something is unlikely, counterfactual, or subjective, the conjunctive mood is often a better fit than indicative.&#xD;&#xA;In some situations the conjunctive is required clearly (e.g. indirect questions), but sometimes it's more ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if someone has information about certain adverbs going typically together with certain moods, I would be happy to stand corrected.&#xD;&#xA;But if so, it should be argued that there is something beyond the correlation I explained in the first paragraph: the conjunctive and the adverbs you mention can be used to express the same tone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6548" RevisionGUID="30c3b95a-1b07-437a-96a2-89d47ff0904b" CreationDate="2018-05-22T20:46:07.570" UserId="79" Text="I have no hard evidence to support this answer, but I guess that is somewhat inevitable as the question itself feels soft.&#xD;&#xA;But it is nevertheless a perfectly valid question, and I hope this answer can at least give some food for thought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On the other hand, medieval or Renaissance texts seem to have a word order that is more similar to modern Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is no surprise at all.&#xD;&#xA;Latin and her daughters have evolved over time like any language.&#xD;&#xA;Later forms of Latin are closer to modern Romance languages because Romance languages were not born from Plautine Latin.&#xD;&#xA;It is also very likely that even after the emergence of Romance languages they and Latin developed in a somewhat similar direction.&#xD;&#xA;They were (to some extent) used by the same communities and under the same pressures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simply put: Things change over time, so the further you go back into the past, the further you can expect things to be from their modern day form as a rule of thumb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whenever I see Classical texts, the syntax of almost every sentence is really complex.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that a sentence is a different kind of semantic unit in English and Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The English concept of a sentence is pretty clear: it is indicated with capitalization and punctuation without much ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;Classical Latin [used almost no punctuation at all](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/33/79).&#xD;&#xA;Splitting ancient texts to sentences was a later editorial process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English and many other modern languages sentence boundaries are clear and hard.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the Romans did not feel the need to fully stop one sentence before starting the next one, but allowed sentences to fade into each other.&#xD;&#xA;When you try to punctuate that without changing word order so that you conform to modern definitions of a sentence, you end up with horribly long sentences.&#xD;&#xA;Many translations split Latin sentences into shorter ones.&#xD;&#xA;This shortening could often be done to the Latin originals, but this has probably been considered as too much of an injustice towards the originals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am by no means sure that this is what actually happened, but this way it seems to make sense to me.&#xD;&#xA;I think the Romans simply had a different view to structuring language, and perhaps sentence was not as crucial a concept as it is to us.&#xD;&#xA;It would be very interesting to hear how the Romans understood a sentence if there are any extant accounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also good to remember that there is a genre bias.&#xD;&#xA;We do not have short newspaper articles, shopping lists, or tweets from the antiquity.&#xD;&#xA;The language that has been conserved consists of high prose, which is not identical to every day language in any culture I know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How could people of Ancient Rome read those texts with fluency?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin that has survived to us from antiquity is the language of the elite.&#xD;&#xA;Literacy levels were not where they are now, and there has been a significant bias in choosing what texts to save.&#xD;&#xA;Most of the Latin produced in the classical era is lost.&#xD;&#xA;Inscriptions and other archaeologically found texts (as opposed to those preserved by two millennia of philological tradition) may be more &quot;honest&quot; in preserving everything equally, but written text in any form was not in everyone's reach.&#xD;&#xA;And those texts are far shorter than the usual kind of Latin literature, not leaving room for the kind of elaborate sentences you will encounter in Cicero or Livy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most people of Ancient Rome could not read those texts with fluency.&#xD;&#xA;I would assume written language to develop quite differently from the modern world when used by only a small fraction of the population.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, were Classical authors sophisticated when writing just because that style was really natural and easy to understand, or was it just for the sake of elegance and for showing off that they were part of an elite?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would probably have been more efficient to communicate in shorter and simpler sentences, but literature is not only communication but also art.&#xD;&#xA;The authors and their audience were well educated, and would probably appreciate elaborate structures more than the average modern reader.&#xD;&#xA;The artistic preferences are different when the art form is shared by the entire population.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't always choose the simplest possible way to express myself.&#xD;&#xA;I enjoy using more sophisticated and nuanced language when possible.&#xD;&#xA;So did the Romans, but to varying extents.&#xD;&#xA;If you read different authors, you will see big differences in syntactical complexity.&#xD;&#xA;The authors had to appeal to the taste of the elite, as there was nobody else to read their work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6549" RevisionGUID="de33ee54-e4ab-44e9-9078-3c550b9ef954" CreationDate="2018-05-22T21:05:18.407" UserId="469" Text="Although it could be read as _whether_, translations are almost&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; consistent in translating these particular instances of _si_ as _that_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of meanings of _si_ that are equivalent to _quod_ (that) according to [L&amp;S][1]. The one I find more applicable here is I.B.2:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In particular, in substantive clauses, **to denote a** doubtful assumption or **future event** (cf. quod)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think one of the examples cited clarifies it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Laelius Fulviusque adiecerunt et Scipionem in eo positam habuisse spem pacis, **si** Hannibal et Mago ex Italia non revocarentur* / Laelius and Fulvius supported this proposal and stated that Scipio thought that the only hope of peace lay in Mago and Hannibal not being recalled ([Liv. 30, 23][2], 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a more literal (but less idiomatic) translation, &quot;Laelius and Fulvius added that Scipio had put his hope for peace in [the fact] **that** Hannibal and Mago were not recalled from Italy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In your example**, the event of Christ suffering and being the first to raise from the dead, is future to the prophets, as confirmed by the future active participle _annuntiaturus_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Another** meaning of _si_ that could fit the bill is I.a.&amp;alpha;, except that it seems to require very specific verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; especially after *mirum est* or *miror*, as expressing reality (= *quod* or *cum*; cf. Gr. εἰ)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; An example being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *noli mirari, **si** hoc a me non impetras* / Do not marvel, **that** you do not obtain this from me ([Cic. Verr. 2.2.29][3], translation by [Yonge, 1903][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;(1): I used biblegateway.com to check some fifteen English and Spanish translations, maybe more, and only one added Spanish _si_ (*whether*) as a note.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?met=up&amp;ord=si&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Liv.%2030.23&amp;lang=original&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0012%3Atext%3DVer.%3Aactio%3D2%3Abook%3D2%3Asection%3D29&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.%20Ver.%202.2.29&amp;lang=original" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21703" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6545" RevisionGUID="6e9a32a9-c7c9-44b1-96ee-2d9c38b5b35c" CreationDate="2018-05-23T09:57:03.573" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vulgata|word-usage|particle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6550" RevisionGUID="db426fb1-8421-456d-967a-9ebc6c7b4f68" CreationDate="2018-05-23T13:30:06.513" UserId="324" Text="The easy part of your question is the part about Latin. “si” is simply a literal translation of εἰ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difficult part is why the Greek original uses εἰ (“if”) when it clearly intends “that”. There are situations where classical Greek uses εἰ is this way. Liddell and Scott write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; after Verbs denoting wonder, delight, indignation, disappointment,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contentment, and similar emotions, εἰ c. ind. is used instead of ὅτι,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to express the object of the feeling in a hypothetical form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with examples like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; θαυμάζω εἰ μηδεὶς ὑμῶν μήτ' ἐνθυμεῖται μήτ' ὀργίζεται, ὁρῶν . . I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wonder that (literally: “if”) no one of you is either concerned or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; angry when he sees . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks as though the author of Acts has expanded this usage to a context that does not express “wonder, delight, indignation” etc. This seems to be the only passage in the NT to use εἰ in this way.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6551" RevisionGUID="5fe96278-e05e-4e96-8d76-5941708e0060" CreationDate="2018-05-23T15:30:10.890" UserId="2640" Text="I'm trying to say &quot;No one but [i.e. except] love provokes me with impunity.&quot; where _love_ is a metonymic stand-in for _the person I love_. I hope it makes sense. (You can read it as a personification if it makes things easier.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what I've come up with so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nemo nisi amor me impune lacessit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems wrong, though. A little help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21706" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6551" RevisionGUID="5fe96278-e05e-4e96-8d76-5941708e0060" CreationDate="2018-05-23T15:30:10.890" UserId="2640" Text="I'm really having trouble with &quot;but&quot; (as in &quot;except&quot;) in this phrase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21707" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6551" RevisionGUID="5fe96278-e05e-4e96-8d76-5941708e0060" CreationDate="2018-05-23T15:30:10.890" UserId="2640" Text="|syntax|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6552" RevisionGUID="5f3ee139-a2af-4605-a4b0-6b529f869cbc" CreationDate="2018-05-23T16:57:32.487" UserId="406" Text="As Rafael points out in the comments, the pattern *nēmō nisi* is attested Classically, though personally I would use *nisi quam amō* or the like rather than *nisi amor*. To use Rafael's example, from [Cicero's *In Pisonem* 7][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *…ut nemo, **nisi qui mecum esset**, civium esse in numero videretur.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; …that nobody seemed to be among the citizens, **unless they were with me**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nisi* literally means &quot;unless&quot;, so it needs to be followed by a full verbal phrase. Your *nisi amor* is perfectly valid, as a shorthand for *nisi quī est amor*, but the full phrase sounds better to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a word for &quot;except&quot; which is followed by a noun, I would use *praeter*. The &quot;except&quot; meaning is more common in Later Latin, but also shows up in Classical times. For instance, from Cicero's *Letters to his Brother Quintus* 1.1.5:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *…etiam e Graecis ipsis diligenter cavendae sunt quaedam familiaritates, **praeter hominum perpaucorum**…*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And even from the Greeks themselves, certain intimacies must be carefully guarded against, **except those of a very few people**…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, *praeter* with this meaning is an adverb, not a preposition: the noun following it takes its normal case. So for your sentence, I would say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nēmō praeter amor mē impūnē lacessit.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nobody except Love provokes me with impunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0013%3Atext%3DPis.%3Asection%3D7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6552" RevisionGUID="7baa76b2-bf85-411e-8903-2f1b80b37cc9" CreationDate="2018-05-23T17:37:48.203" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="As Rafael points out in the comments, the pattern *nēmō nisi* is attested Classically, though personally I would use *nisi quam amō* or the like rather than *nisi amor*. To use Rafael's example, from [Cicero's *In Pisonem* 7][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *…ut nemo, **nisi qui mecum esset**, civium esse in numero videretur.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; …that nobody seemed to be among the citizens, **unless they were with me**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nisi* literally means &quot;unless&quot;, so it needs to be followed by a full verbal phrase. Your *nisi amor* is perfectly valid, as a shorthand for *nisi quī est amor*, but the full phrase sounds better to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a word for &quot;except&quot; which is followed by a noun, I would use *praeter*. The &quot;except&quot; meaning is more common in Later Latin, but also shows up in Classical times. For instance, from Cicero's *Letters to his Brother Quintus* 1.1.5:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *…etiam e Graecis ipsis diligenter cavendae sunt quaedam familiaritates, **praeter hominum perpaucorum**…*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And even from the Greeks themselves, certain intimacies must be carefully guarded against, **except those of a very few people**…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, *praeter* with this meaning can be either an adverb or a preposition taking the accusative. So for your sentence, I would say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nēmō praeter Amorem mē impūnē lacessit.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nobody except Love provokes me with impunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0013%3Atext%3DPis.%3Asection%3D7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6554" RevisionGUID="6267638c-9230-4bd4-b07b-55dc80fae73f" CreationDate="2018-05-23T22:01:16.020" UserId="79" Text="The locative is used to express a location in a city or a small island, e.g. *Romae* instead of *in Roma*.&#xD;&#xA;But it's not entirely clear which islands are small.&#xD;&#xA;I am currently on Malta and I'm curious to know which category this island belongs to.&#xD;&#xA;This island was known to (and occupied by) the Romans, so there must be classical examples.&#xD;&#xA;Do they all agree on the way to say &quot;on Malta&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21712" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6554" RevisionGUID="6267638c-9230-4bd4-b07b-55dc80fae73f" CreationDate="2018-05-23T22:01:16.020" UserId="79" Text="Does Malta use the locative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21713" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6554" RevisionGUID="6267638c-9230-4bd4-b07b-55dc80fae73f" CreationDate="2018-05-23T22:01:16.020" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|place-names|locative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6555" RevisionGUID="20865f87-f182-4406-8c20-0fb46cafb8b8" CreationDate="2018-05-23T22:01:16.020" UserId="79" Text="Both *Melitae* and *in Melita* seem to appear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cicero, *Epistulae ad Atticum* 3.4.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Statim iter Brunddisium versus contuli ante diem rogationis, ne et Sicca, apud quem eram, periret et quod **Melitae** esse non licebat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cicero, *Epistulae ad Atticum* 10.7.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &amp;hellip;**Melitae** aut alio in loco simili&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cicero, *Epistulae ad Atticum* 5.19.3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; De Patrone et tuis condiscipulis, quae de parietinis **in Melita** laboravi ea tibi grata esse gaudeo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick corpus search suggests that *Melitae* is more common, but there are not enough attestations of either one to draw very strong conclusions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6556" RevisionGUID="c1f6568f-200a-4543-b481-711f3416b6ca" CreationDate="2018-05-24T10:34:53.603" UserId="2642" Text="I'm looking for a translation for &quot;To have is better than not to have&quot;, which I want to use as a sort of motto for a project I'm doing. I have already asked some friends to help me, and they proposed &quot;Habere melius est cum caret&quot;. But they also said, that there are likely some mistakes. So I'm hoping that someone on here can help me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21717" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6556" RevisionGUID="c1f6568f-200a-4543-b481-711f3416b6ca" CreationDate="2018-05-24T10:34:53.603" UserId="2642" Text="What would be a translation for &quot;To have is better than not to have&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21718" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6556" RevisionGUID="c1f6568f-200a-4543-b481-711f3416b6ca" CreationDate="2018-05-24T10:34:53.603" UserId="2642" Text="|classical-latin|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6556" RevisionGUID="644ef3f6-c626-45aa-924c-15b708861892" CreationDate="2018-05-24T10:59:26.403" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm looking for a translation for &quot;To have is better than not to have&quot;, which I want to use as a sort of motto for a project I'm doing. I have already asked some friends to help me, and they proposed &quot;Habere melius est cum caret&quot;. But they also said, that there are likely some mistakes. So I'm hoping that someone on here can help me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21720" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6556" RevisionGUID="644ef3f6-c626-45aa-924c-15b708861892" CreationDate="2018-05-24T10:59:26.403" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|sentence-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6557" RevisionGUID="5dbcdbb2-4567-46a8-bc26-b45766291ed1" CreationDate="2018-05-24T11:07:10.660" UserId="79" Text="You can translate it very literally if you want:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Habere melius est quam non habere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of *non habere*, &quot;not to have&quot;, you can use *egere* or *carere* which mean roughly &quot;to lack&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;To compare the nuances of these two, please refer to [any of the several online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;This gives two more translation options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Habere melius est quam carere.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Habere melius est quam egere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any of these three is a possible choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me then comment on the suggested *Habere melius est cum caret*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The simplest basic structure here is *X melius est quam Y*, &quot;X is better than Y&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Here X and Y can be almost anything.&#xD;&#xA;If they are verbs, they should both be infinitives.&#xD;&#xA;That is, not *caret* but *carere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *cum* has a number of different meanings.&#xD;&#xA;The most relevant one here seems to be &quot;when&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Your suggestion can be read as &quot;it is better to have when [it] has not&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This seems to go into a very different direction than what the English phrase suggests you want." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6558" RevisionGUID="3fb5561a-2fd7-4632-a7f1-89f20c7418b9" CreationDate="2018-05-24T17:41:32.237" UserId="406" Text="##It's possible, though the evidence is lacking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nobody really knows where *bēlūa/bellua* comes from. De Vaan suggests that it would have to come from *_-lVwa_, but cites Pokorny as pointing out that the only real proposal, PIE *_dhwes-lo-weh₂_, would be expected to give *f-* instead of *b-*. (Generally, PIE *_dh-_ gives Latin *f-*, while PIE *_dw-_ gives Latin *b*.) Its derivatives in Latin indicate that it was re-analyzed as a *u*-stem later on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wherever it came from, it's possible that the same stem *bell-* arose in Hellenic. It might then have gained a *-ro-* and become a standard *o*-stem noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But unfortunately, there's no real evidence either way for this. I don't know of any attestation for a word *_belleros_ in Greek at any point. So while it's entirely possible, there's no way to say for certain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6559" RevisionGUID="c6af52ec-a876-4e03-9a0c-0895370c0e20" CreationDate="2018-05-24T17:57:54.273" UserId="406" Text="On the other hand, now that I've gotten access to de Vaan…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan points out that both *modŏ* and *modō* are attested, and suggests that the adverb did in fact originate from the noun. He derives *modus* from PIE *_med-_ &quot;measure out&quot; (albeit with an unexpected vowel change), which would make &quot;measure&quot; the original meaning of the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also seems to have had the connotation of &quot;limit&quot;: see the related *moderāre* &quot;to set limits&quot; (&gt;moderate), *modestus* &quot;limited&quot; (&gt;modest). So the adverb *modõ* &quot;only&quot; would come from the ablative singular, something like &quot;by the limit&quot;. The connection between &quot;only this and nothing more&quot; and &quot;limit&quot; does make sense, and the shortening of final vowels is certainly attested: as sumelic points out, *brevis brevians* is a well-known phenomenon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6560" RevisionGUID="f2e5dd0b-d2b9-40e4-9554-468233c7bd49" CreationDate="2018-05-24T19:48:26.157" UserId="1407" Text="Immediately makes me think of a combination of  [βέλ-][1] and [φονά][2] / [φον-][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My sense is that the idea of names like this referring to lost stories, potentially involving real people subsequently mythologized, comes largely from Frazer, and is a worthwhile speculation, however&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Greek professors emphasized the intentional meaning of names in Greek mythology.  Confusion arises when we can't find Greek referents, as in the case of the first part of Cassandra *(although I think Graves makes the strongest case for &quot;engangler of men&quot;, based on the nature of her curse and the depiction of Agamemnon bound up with nets in the bath.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literal meaning of Bellerophon as some form of martial &quot;darter&quot; (per Pegasus) is so apt that it has to seriously undermine alternate hypotheses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I think it's quite possible *belua* has that form because hunting wild beasts often involved casting spears or shooting arrows, which is less risky that melee with the wild beasts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this must be taken as a soft anwer, pending etymological connections to back up the semantic analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=bel&amp;lang=greek&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0072%3Aentry%3Dfona%2F&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=fon&amp;lang=greek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6560" RevisionGUID="f9c761e6-744a-446e-a4e5-d4342b25839e" CreationDate="2018-05-24T20:47:01.900" UserId="1407" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="Immediately makes me think of a combination of  [βέλ-][1] and [φονά][2] / [φον-][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My sense is that the idea of names like this referring to lost stories, potentially involving real people subsequently mythologized, comes largely from Frazer, and is a worthwhile speculation, however&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Greek professors emphasized the intentional meaning of names in Greek mythology.  Confusion arises when we can't find Greek referents, as in the case of the first part of Cassandra *(although I think Graves makes the strongest case for &quot;engangler of men&quot;, based on the nature of her curse and the depiction of Agamemnon bound up with nets in the bath.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literal meaning of Bellerophon as some form of martial &quot;darter&quot; (per Pegasus) is so apt that it has to seriously undermine alternate hypotheses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I think it's quite possible *[belua][4]* has that form because hunting wild beasts often involved casting spears or shooting arrows, which is less risky that melee with the wild beasts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this must be taken as a soft answer, pending etymological connections to back up the semantic analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=bel&amp;lang=greek&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0072%3Aentry%3Dfona%2F&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=fon&amp;lang=greek&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dbelua" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6561" RevisionGUID="ab15e97d-b731-4090-b1f9-8d72de22a7da" CreationDate="2018-05-24T20:52:19.843" UserId="79" Text="I saw a great number of Latin inscriptions in a cathedral [on Malta](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6554/79), dating roughly between 1500 and 1800 BC.&#xD;&#xA;There were at least a couple of instances of the word *monimentum*, but saw no *monumentum*.&#xD;&#xA;Is the spelling with I instead of U common in the Latin of that era?&#xD;&#xA;I do not recall seeing it before, and I am under the impression that it is classically exclusively *monumentum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21729" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6561" RevisionGUID="ab15e97d-b731-4090-b1f9-8d72de22a7da" CreationDate="2018-05-24T20:52:19.843" UserId="79" Text="Monumentum spelled as monimentum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21730" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6561" RevisionGUID="ab15e97d-b731-4090-b1f9-8d72de22a7da" CreationDate="2018-05-24T20:52:19.843" UserId="79" Text="|new-latin|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6560" RevisionGUID="3982fa34-261c-42a2-9c64-1d371f620f00" CreationDate="2018-05-24T21:21:19.530" UserId="30" Comment="edited body" Text="Immediately makes me think of a combination of  [βέλ-][1] and [φονά][2] / [φον-][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My sense is that the idea of names like this referring to lost stories, potentially involving real people subsequently mythologized, comes largely from Frazer, and is a worthwhile speculation, however&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Greek professors emphasized the intentional meaning of names in Greek mythology.  Confusion arises when we can't find Greek referents, as in the case of the first part of Cassandra *(although I think Graves makes the strongest case for &quot;entangler of men&quot;, based on the nature of her curse and the depiction of Agamemnon bound up with nets in the bath.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literal meaning of Bellerophon as some form of martial &quot;darter&quot; (per Pegasus) is so apt that it has to seriously undermine alternate hypotheses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I think it's quite possible *[belua][4]* has that form because hunting wild beasts often involved casting spears or shooting arrows, which is less risky that melee with the wild beasts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this must be taken as a soft answer, pending etymological connections to back up the semantic analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=bel&amp;lang=greek&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0072%3Aentry%3Dfona%2F&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=fon&amp;lang=greek&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dbelua" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6560" RevisionGUID="9022c6d7-b90c-4f22-b758-6d21c9159f28" CreationDate="2018-05-24T21:22:29.433" UserId="1407" Comment="added 908 characters in body" Text="Immediately makes me think of a combination of  [βέλ-][1] and [φονά][2] / [φον-][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My sense is that the idea of names like this referring to lost stories, potentially involving real people subsequently mythologized, comes largely from Frazer, and is a worthwhile speculation, however&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Greek professors emphasized the intentional meaning of names in Greek mythology.  Confusion arises when we can't find Greek referents, as in the case of the first part of Cassandra *(although I think Graves makes the strongest case for &quot;engangler of men&quot;, based on the nature of her curse and the depiction of Agamemnon bound up with nets in the bath.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literal meaning of Bellerophon as some form of martial &quot;darter&quot; (per Pegasus) is so apt that it has to seriously undermine alternate hypotheses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I think it's quite possible *[belua][4]* has that form because hunting wild beasts often involved casting spears or shooting arrows, which is less risky that melee with the wild beasts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this must be taken as a soft answer, pending etymological connections to back up the semantic analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European roots lists:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‌‌[*bhel-²*][5] &quot;To blow, swell; with derivatives referring to various round objects and to the notion of tumescent masculinity&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is not inconsistent with Bellerephon's role, in the sense that Pegasus may be understood as anti-[chthonic][6], and on his flying mount he would surely come like the wind, but *bhel-²* may shed light on the beast connection via &quot;[bull][7]&quot;.  *(The ancients didn't have the same detailed taxonomy of species as the moderns, so words for types of animals could be used generically.  Thus, the root might have been used for anything &quot;beastlike&quot;.)*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a relationship of this root, via &quot;blow&quot; with &quot;roaring&quot; (more on that tomorrow:) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=bel&amp;lang=greek&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0072%3Aentry%3Dfona%2F&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=fon&amp;lang=greek&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dbelua&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/indoeurop.html#bhel-&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chthonic&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.etymonline.com/word/bull" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6560" RevisionGUID="2059263f-5006-4601-91ac-c3f804b4a8f4" CreationDate="2018-05-24T21:27:49.133" UserId="1407" Comment="added 908 characters in body" Text="Immediately makes me think of a combination of  [βέλ-][1] and [φονά][2] / [φον-][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My sense is that the idea of names like this referring to lost stories, potentially involving real people subsequently mythologized, comes largely from Frazer, and is a worthwhile speculation, however&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Greek professors emphasized the intentional meaning of names in Greek mythology.  Confusion arises when we can't find Greek referents, as in the case of the first part of Cassandra *(although I think Graves makes the strongest case for &quot;engangler of men&quot;, based on the nature of her curse and the depiction of Agamemnon bound up with nets in the bath.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literal meaning of Bellerophon as some form of martial &quot;darter&quot; (per Pegasus) is so apt that it has to seriously undermine alternate hypotheses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I think it's quite possible *[belua][4]* has that form because hunting wild beasts often involved casting spears or shooting arrows, which is less risky that melee with the wild beasts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this must be taken as a soft answer, pending etymological connections to back up the semantic analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European roots lists:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‌‌[*bhel-²*][5] &quot;To blow, swell; with derivatives referring to various round objects and to the notion of tumescent masculinity&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is not inconsistent with Bellerephon's role, in the sense that Pegasus may be understood as anti-[chthonic][6], and on his flying mount he would surely come like the wind, but *bhel-²* may shed light on the beast connection via &quot;[bull][7]&quot;.  *(The ancients didn't have the same detailed taxonomy of species as the moderns, so words for types of animals could be used generically.  Thus, the root might have been used for anything &quot;beastlike&quot;.)*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a relationship of this root, via &quot;blow&quot;, with &quot;roaring&quot;. *(More on that tomorrow, but think &quot;[bullroarers][8]&quot;:)* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=bel&amp;lang=greek&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0072%3Aentry%3Dfona%2F&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=fon&amp;lang=greek&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dbelua&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/indoeurop.html#bhel-&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chthonic&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.etymonline.com/word/bull&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullroarer#Ancient_Greece" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6562" RevisionGUID="6afbc085-0e21-4292-ad48-fe671f0a20d0" CreationDate="2018-05-24T21:42:02.213" UserId="469" Text="It is a fun exercise to apply some math to the issue (statistics/Bayesian inference specifically). I'll try to avoid technical language, for the sake of readability. Of course, math is not magic, so we need some assumptions and simplifications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the following, I'll assume,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The only evidence we have is what brianpck says in the comments, that Cicero uses the locative **Melitae** 5 times and **in Melita** only once. &#xD;&#xA;* Every time Cicero wanted to say what we would translate as _in Malta_, he chose **at random** between _Melitae_ and _in Melita_, but the chances are not even, let's say he had p% probabilities of choosing _Melitae_ and (100-p)% probabilities of choosing _in Malta_ (e.g. 60% and 40%)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With these assumptions, math can help us tell whether a specific value of p is plausible or not (thanks to the [binomial distribution][1]), but for that we need two more definitions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A small value of p is implausible if there is less than 5% chances that the outcome of Cicero choosing at random gave the evidence we have or something better (i.e., more instances of _Melitae_)&#xD;&#xA;* A big value of p is implausible if there is less than 5% chances that the outcome of Cicero choosing at random gave the evidence we have or something worse (i.e., more _in Melita_'s)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Note** that these assumptions could have been wildly different, leading to wildly different results.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question on whether the choice of _in Melita_ was forced by disambiguation remains open, so I'll solve the two extreme problems I can identify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Assuming Cicero didn't really care about disambiguation, and his choice of _in Melita_ was just one more random instance, and&#xD;&#xA;2. Assuming disambiguation was the only explanation for choosing _in Melita_ in that occasion. I.e., he was forced to do so, and only had a choice in the other five. In this second problem, all the evidence we have is 5 times _Melitae_, but we may still be interested in knowing to which extent we can rule out that he could have chosen otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Assuming no disambiguation wanted&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a value of p less than **41.8%** is implausible. P(Melitae&gt;=5 out of 6 given p=41.8%)=5%&#xD;&#xA;* a value of p greater than **99.1%** is implausible. P(Melitae&lt;=5 out of 6 given p=99.1%)=5%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves us with *plausible* values of p as defined above **between 41.8% and 99.1%**. Of course, **statistics cannot tell with 100% certainty that p was not outside this range**, it is just saying what is more reasonable to expect given our assumptions and the evidence we have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is undoubtedly disappointing since with such little evidence as we have, we cannot even tell whether one was actually preferred over the other. Had we more examples, we could narrow down that range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Assuming disambiguation unquestioned&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like a safe assumption to say that Cicero chose to use _in Melita_ to avoid an ambiguous _Melitae_ that could have been read as a genitive. Given that, we only have 5 choices out of 5 of _Melitae_. I'd blame no one if they say that's enough evidence for them to think Cicero would have chosen _Melitae_ every time there was no ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a skeptic could ask whether there was any chance that Cicero would have chosen differently in a lost text or in speech, and we have no answer. The best we can do (in the absence of further evidence or any other reasonable assumption) is to ask math for help. Not that you can blindly rely on it, but it gives meaning answers if we keep our assumptions in mind. In this case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a value of p less than **60.7%** is implausible, P(Melitae=5 out of 5 given p=60.7%)=5%&#xD;&#xA;* a value of p of 100% is still plausible! Did I mention I'd blame no one? P(Melitae&lt;5 out of 5 given p=100%)=0%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves us with plausible values of p **between 60.7% and 100%**. In this case, we *could* say (with a lot of caveats, starting form the very assumptions), that it is reasonable to think that Cicero preferred _Melitae_, but still can't rule out he wouldn't have used _in Melita_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6562" RevisionGUID="bc991655-b9c0-4480-81d8-39089eef5232" CreationDate="2018-05-24T22:28:38.987" UserId="469" Comment="answered the title question" Text="It is a fun exercise to apply some math to the issue (statistics/Bayesian inference specifically). I'll try to avoid technical language, for the sake of readability. Of course, math is not magic, so we need some assumptions and simplifications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the following, I'll assume,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The only evidence we have is what brianpck says in the comments, that Cicero uses the locative **Melitae** 5 times and **in Melita** only once. &#xD;&#xA;* Every time Cicero wanted to say what we would translate as _in Malta_, he chose **at random** between _Melitae_ and _in Melita_, but the chances are not even, let's say he had p% probabilities of choosing _Melitae_ and (100-p)% probabilities of choosing _in Malta_ (e.g. 60% and 40%)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With these assumptions, math can help us tell whether a specific value of p is plausible or not (thanks to the [binomial distribution][1]), but for that we need two more definitions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A small value of p is implausible if there is less than 5% chances that the outcome of Cicero choosing at random gave the evidence we have or something better (i.e., more instances of _Melitae_)&#xD;&#xA;* A big value of p is implausible if there is less than 5% chances that the outcome of Cicero choosing at random gave the evidence we have or something worse (i.e., more _in Melita_'s)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Note** that these assumptions could have been wildly different, leading to wildly different results.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question on whether the choice of _in Melita_ was forced by disambiguation remains open, so I'll solve the two extreme problems I can identify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Assuming Cicero didn't really care about disambiguation, and his choice of _in Melita_ was just one more random instance, and&#xD;&#xA;2. Assuming disambiguation was the only explanation for choosing _in Melita_ in that occasion. I.e., he was forced to do so, and only had a choice in the other five. In this second problem, all the evidence we have is 5 times _Melitae_, but we may still be interested in knowing to which extent we can rule out that he could have chosen otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Assuming no disambiguation wanted&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a value of p less than **41.8%** is implausible. P(Melitae&gt;=5 out of 6 given p=41.8%)=5%&#xD;&#xA;* a value of p greater than **99.1%** is implausible. P(Melitae&lt;=5 out of 6 given p=99.1%)=5%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves us with *plausible* values of p as defined above **between 41.8% and 99.1%**. Of course, **statistics cannot tell with 100% certainty that p was not outside this range**, it is just saying what is more reasonable to expect given our assumptions and the evidence we have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is undoubtedly disappointing since with such little evidence as we have, we cannot even tell whether one was actually preferred over the other. Had we more examples, we could narrow down that range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Assuming disambiguation unquestioned&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like a safe assumption to say that Cicero chose to use _in Melita_ to avoid an ambiguous _Melitae_ that could have been read as a genitive. Given that, we only have 5 choices out of 5 of _Melitae_. I'd blame no one if they say that's enough evidence for them to think Cicero would have chosen _Melitae_ every time there was no ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a skeptic could ask whether there was any chance that Cicero would have chosen differently in a lost text or in speech, and we have no answer. The best we can do (in the absence of further evidence or any other reasonable assumption) is to ask math for help. Not that you can blindly rely on it, but it gives meaning answers if we keep our assumptions in mind. In this case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a value of p less than **60.7%** is implausible, P(Melitae=5 out of 5 given p=60.7%)=5%&#xD;&#xA;* a value of p of **100%** is still plausible! Did I mention I'd blame no one? P(Melitae&lt;5 out of 5 given p=100%)=0%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves us with plausible values of p **between 60.7% and 100%**. In this case, we *could* say (with a lot of caveats, starting form the very assumptions), that it is reasonable to think that Cicero preferred _Melitae_, but still can't rule out he wouldn't have used _in Melita_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** regarding the title question, I think at least the **optional** use of the locative is out of question. Concerning its **normative** use, it seems more reasonable if we accept the disambiguation hypothesis (but p=99% sounds pretty much like normative, so we can't rule it out if we don't accept it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6562" RevisionGUID="92eddb55-1f77-4dba-981e-3196cc7ddfc0" CreationDate="2018-05-24T22:39:05.677" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="It is a fun exercise to apply some math to the issue (statistics/Bayesian inference specifically). I'll try to avoid technical language, for the sake of readability. Of course, math is not magic, so we need some assumptions and simplifications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the following, I'll assume,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The only evidence we have is what brianpck says in the comments, that Cicero uses the locative **Melitae** 5 times and **in Melita** only once. &#xD;&#xA;* Every time Cicero wanted to say what we would translate as _in Malta_, he chose **at random** between _Melitae_ and _in Melita_, but the chances are not even, let's say he had p% probabilities of choosing _Melitae_ and (100-p)% probabilities of choosing _in Malta_ (e.g. 60% and 40%)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With these assumptions, math can help us tell whether a specific value of p is plausible or not (thanks to the [binomial distribution][1]), but for that we need two more definitions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A small value of p is implausible if there is less than 5% chances that the outcome of Cicero choosing at random gave the evidence we have or something better (i.e., more instances of _Melitae_)&#xD;&#xA;* A big value of p is implausible if there is less than 5% chances that the outcome of Cicero choosing at random gave the evidence we have or something worse (i.e., more _in Melita_'s)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Note** that these assumptions could have been wildly different, leading to wildly different results.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question on whether the choice of _in Melita_ was forced by disambiguation remains open, so I'll solve the two extreme problems I can identify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Assuming Cicero didn't really care about disambiguation, and his choice of _in Melita_ was just one more random instance, and&#xD;&#xA;2. Assuming disambiguation was the only explanation for choosing _in Melita_ in that occasion, i.e., he was forced to do so, and only had a choice in the other five. In this second problem, all the evidence we have is 5 times _Melitae_, but we may still be interested to know to which extent we can rule out that he could have chosen otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Assuming no disambiguation wanted&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a value of p less than **41.8%** is implausible. P(Melitae&gt;=5 out of 6 given p=41.8%)=5%&#xD;&#xA;* a value of p greater than **99.1%** is implausible. P(Melitae&lt;=5 out of 6 given p=99.1%)=5%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves us with *plausible* values of p as defined above **between 41.8% and 99.1%**. Of course, **statistics cannot tell with 100% certainty that p was not outside this range**, it is just saying what is more reasonable to expect given our assumptions and the evidence we have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is undoubtedly disappointing since with as little evidence as we have, we cannot even tell whether one was actually preferred over the other. Had we more examples, we could narrow down that range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Assuming disambiguation unquestioned&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like a safe assumption to say that Cicero chose to use _in Melita_ to avoid an ambiguous _Melitae_ that could have been read as a genitive. Given that, we only have 5 choices out of 5 of _Melitae_. I'd blame no one if they say that's enough evidence for them to think Cicero would have chosen _Melitae_ every time there was no ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a skeptic could ask whether there was any chance that Cicero would have chosen differently in a lost text or in speech, and we have no answer. The best we can do (in the absence of further evidence or any other reasonable assumption) is to ask math for help. Not that you cannot blindly rely on it, but it gives meaning answers if we keep our assumptions in mind. In this case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a value of p less than **60.7%** is implausible, P(Melitae=5 out of 5 given p=60.7%)=5%&#xD;&#xA;* a value of p of **100%** is still plausible! Did I mention I'd blame no one? P(Melitae&lt;5 out of 5 given p=100%)=0%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves us with plausible values of p **between 60.7% and 100%**. In this case, we *could* say (with a lot of caveats, starting form the very assumptions), that it is reasonable to think that Cicero preferred _Melitae_, but still can't rule out he wouldn't have used _in Melita_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** regarding the title question, I think at least the **optional** use of the locative is out of question. Concerning its **normative** use, it seems more reasonable if we accept the disambiguation hypothesis (but p=99% sounds pretty much like normative, so we can't rule it out if we don't accept it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6563" RevisionGUID="9d81f3ba-16f2-4c7a-affd-4506a6156f33" CreationDate="2018-05-25T02:17:22.277" UserId="522" Text="Robert Ainsworth's Dictionary, MDCCXXVII,lists *mŏnĭmentum* first with *mŏnŭmentum* second, and included in only one of the quotations (Cic.).    &#xD;&#xA;*mŏnĭmentum* examples (various meanings) from Horace, Virgil, Cicero, Tacitus, Ovid, Plautus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is followed by entries (sharing etymology from *moneo*) for *monitor, monitio, monitus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*mŏnŭmentum* gets a shorter entry. It gives *doceo* as the paradigm for that formation, but points out that derivatives of *doceo* form *docu-*&#xD;&#xA;(*videlicet:* *dŏcŭmen, dŏcŭmentum,*) For meanings and citations it refers back to *monimentum.* But Ainsworth may be eccentric, or obstinately pedantic in his preference; I don't have access to 16th, 17th, 18th Century editions of Latin authors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sir Christopher Wren's tomb in St Paul's Cathedral, 1723, bears the inscription *Lector, si monumentum requiris, circumspice.* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6564" RevisionGUID="540cbd49-a8ce-4b30-b15a-5686b95deec5" CreationDate="2018-05-25T03:19:58.520" UserId="9" Text="Considering that this is a word-internal short vowel before a labial consonant, this looks like a case of the &quot;[sonus medius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation#Sonus_medius)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I don't know that much about the patterns of variation in the use of *u* vs. *i* in the spelling of words like this. I was able to find the following passage in B. Kennedy's *[Latin grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=tVruAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA31&amp;lpg=PA31&amp;dq=monimentum+sonus+medius&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=h4I2BlZMLo&amp;sig=vP0mmhznvLm9k_EKhwj2WHCUeoc&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwibrMzC6J_bAhWOuVkKHQDPCksQ6AEISjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=monimentum%20sonus%20medius&amp;f=false),* Fifth Edition (1879):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the middle sound between **ĭ** and **ŭ** [...] exists almost exclusively before labials [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Inscriptions shew that the forms with **ŭ** prevailed in E. L., and R. L., those with **ĭ** in and after the Augustan age, for which the Monument of Ancyra, as edited by Mommsen, is the best authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 31-32, §12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen's *Vox Latina* also says that *u* variants tend to be older, and *i* variants more recent: he says &quot;the earliest example for this change is from 117 B.C., with inscr. *infimo* beside *infumum*&quot; and &quot;in some cases, although the change took place, the older *u* form came to be preferred (e.g. *documentum*)&quot; (p. 57).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking generally, Allen writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The change of official orthography from *u* to *i* in such words is said to have been due to Caesar (†Varro, cited in Cassiodor(i)us, K. vii, 150; cf. Quintilian, i, 7, 21); and Cicero is said to have considered the older pronunciation and spelling as 'rusticanum' (Velius Longus, K. vii, 49). Velius Longus (67) also mentions that Augustan inscriptions still showed *u*; but *i* is in fact regular in the *Monumentum Ancyranum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 58)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find the word *monumentum/monimentum* anywhere in the text of *[Res Gestae Divi Augusti](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Augustus/Res_Gestae/home.html),* so the  *Monumentum Ancyranum* doesn't seem to provide any evidence about this particular word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lewis and Short entry for *[monimentum](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dmonimentum)* simply says &quot;see monumentum&quot; without any further comment; the entry for *[monumentum](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmonumentum)* includes some quotations that use the *monim-* form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a fair number of hits for both *monum-* and *monim-* in the PHI Classical Latin Texts database: there were 581 matches for`$monum`, but also 123 matches for `#monim`, including some from the works of Cato, Plautus, Caesar, Cicero, Ovid, Pliny, and Virgil. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, it seems to me that *monimentum* existed in the classical period, and it doesn't seem to have been extremely rare or considered an improper form.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6561" RevisionGUID="85b2e309-cf51-4d59-9e74-39f1565e2832" CreationDate="2018-05-25T05:43:19.227" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="I saw a great number of Latin inscriptions in a cathedral [on Malta](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6554/79), dating roughly between 1500 and 1800 CE.&#xD;&#xA;There were at least a couple of instances of the word *monimentum*, but saw no *monumentum*.&#xD;&#xA;Is the spelling with I instead of U common in the Latin of that era?&#xD;&#xA;I do not recall seeing it before, and I am under the impression that it is classically exclusively *monumentum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6564" RevisionGUID="24c7f0dd-e2f0-4a55-a883-c5c7e8c880fb" CreationDate="2018-05-25T07:24:14.513" UserId="9" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Considering that this is a word-internal short vowel before a labial consonant, it looks like this vowel comes from the &quot;[sonus medius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation#Sonus_medius)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I don't know that much about the patterns of variation in the use of *u* vs. *i* in the spelling of words like this. I was able to find the following passage in B. Kennedy's *[Latin grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=tVruAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA31&amp;lpg=PA31&amp;dq=monimentum+sonus+medius&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=h4I2BlZMLo&amp;sig=vP0mmhznvLm9k_EKhwj2WHCUeoc&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwibrMzC6J_bAhWOuVkKHQDPCksQ6AEISjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=monimentum%20sonus%20medius&amp;f=false),* Fifth Edition (1879):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the middle sound between **ĭ** and **ŭ** [...] exists almost exclusively before labials [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Inscriptions shew that the forms with **ŭ** prevailed in E. L., and R. L., those with **ĭ** in and after the Augustan age, for which the Monument of Ancyra, as edited by Mommsen, is the best authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 31-32, §12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen's *Vox Latina* also says that *u* variants tend to be older, and *i* variants more recent: he says &quot;the earliest example for this change is from 117 B.C., with inscr. *infimo* beside *infumum*&quot; and &quot;in some cases, although the change took place, the older *u* form came to be preferred (e.g. *documentum*)&quot; (p. 57).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking generally, Allen writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The change of official orthography from *u* to *i* in such words is said to have been due to Caesar (†Varro, cited in Cassiodor(i)us, K. vii, 150; cf. Quintilian, i, 7, 21); and Cicero is said to have considered the older pronunciation and spelling as 'rusticanum' (Velius Longus, K. vii, 49). Velius Longus (67) also mentions that Augustan inscriptions still showed *u*; but *i* is in fact regular in the *Monumentum Ancyranum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 58)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find the word *monumentum/monimentum* anywhere in the text of *[Res Gestae Divi Augusti](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Augustus/Res_Gestae/home.html),* so the  *Monumentum Ancyranum* doesn't seem to provide any evidence about this particular word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lewis and Short entry for *[monimentum](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dmonimentum)* simply says &quot;see monumentum&quot; without any further comment; the entry for *[monumentum](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmonumentum)* includes some quotations that use the *monim-* form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a fair number of hits for both *monum-* and *monim-* in the PHI Classical Latin Texts database: there were 581 matches for`$monum`, but also 123 matches for `#monim`, including some from the works of Cato, Plautus, Caesar, Cicero, Ovid, Pliny, and Virgil. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, it seems to me that *monimentum* existed in the classical period, and it doesn't seem to have been extremely rare or considered an improper form.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6565" RevisionGUID="2482ae9a-70c0-4449-9190-126e972bf02b" CreationDate="2018-05-25T09:02:19.343" UserId="1459" Text="I bought yesterday a bottled mineral water, of the Harrogate brand, which label states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Harrogate's _motto_ 'Arx celebris fontibus' translates as 'a citadel famous for its springs'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(this is the _motto_ of the [city of the same name](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrogate), where the water is bottled)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That translation seems odd to me. [This article](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/jan/28/martinwainwright1) suggests instead that the _motto_ translates as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Citadel of the Famous Springs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes much more sense. [_celebris_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/celebris#Latin) is, according to Wiktionary, the **genitive singular** of _celeber_, hence the &quot;of the famous&quot; bit. Maybe, the &quot;official&quot; translation is more accurate for something like _arx celeber quia fontibus_? Or is it still an &quot;accurate&quot; translation? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21742" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6565" RevisionGUID="2482ae9a-70c0-4449-9190-126e972bf02b" CreationDate="2018-05-25T09:02:19.343" UserId="1459" Text="Arx celebris fontibus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21743" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6565" RevisionGUID="2482ae9a-70c0-4449-9190-126e972bf02b" CreationDate="2018-05-25T09:02:19.343" UserId="1459" Text="|translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6566" RevisionGUID="586b5af3-617b-442a-a828-debe96b0243d" CreationDate="2018-05-25T09:15:20.530" UserId="2646" Text="A friend of mine and I are trying to create a Latin language equivalent of the English acronym &quot;NSFW&quot;, meaning &quot;not safe for work&quot;. So far we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non tutus ad officina&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if this is proper Latin, but it is supposed to mean &quot;unsafe at the workplace&quot;. According to some dictionaries I've researched, the Latin word *tutus.a.um* means &quot;safe, prudent&quot; in the sense of &quot;not risky&quot; or &quot;no danger present&quot;. And we have used the word *officina* as it reminds of *office* even though it seems to mean &quot;factory&quot; or &quot;workshop&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So our current acronym in Latin would be NTAO, but I don't really know if that is properly declined and/or those are the proper words to use. Do you have any better translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21745" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6566" RevisionGUID="586b5af3-617b-442a-a828-debe96b0243d" CreationDate="2018-05-25T09:15:20.530" UserId="2646" Text="How to say &quot;not safe for work&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21746" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6566" RevisionGUID="586b5af3-617b-442a-a828-debe96b0243d" CreationDate="2018-05-25T09:15:20.530" UserId="2646" Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6567" RevisionGUID="9579b3a4-8f36-4c33-ac19-31b0bde38138" CreationDate="2018-05-25T09:32:19.430" UserId="2648" Text="Salve! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Rereading: &#xD;&#xA;One of the best speakers I know, Daniel Petterson from [Latinitium][1], read, and reread (and reread and reread) the works of Plautus and Terence. It basically comes down to a lot of rereading of texts that you know and enjoy, and when you start. The focus isn't on a lot of texts, but rather a lot of rereading of specific texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Listen to Latin: &#xD;&#xA;Justin Slocum Bailey talks about rereading at the Paideia Institute's Living Latin in New York event. He is one of 3 friends who have a podcast on which they chat in Latin about different topics called &quot;[Quomodo Dicitur][2]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Join a Latin conversation group: &#xD;&#xA;There are a few Latin conversation groups out there. I know of 3 that take place on Google Hangouts at different times of the week. They use the same links every week, so you can join the group and it stays on your Hangouts. These groups encourage speakers and listeners of all levels to join. So you can join and mute your mic if you so wish, just listening to the others.&#xD;&#xA;[Latine Loquamur][3]&#xD;&#xA;[Greek &amp; Latin chats][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Attend a spoken Latin immersion event: &#xD;&#xA;One thing that has helped me most in a short period is attending a Latin immersion event. Amongst others, there are some which are 5-6 weeks (Paideia's [Living Latin in Rome][5]), and some that are one week or even a single weekend (SALVI's [Rusticationes][6] and [Bidua][7]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just some suggestions, there are so many sources once one knows where to look.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortuna tibi faveat!&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.latinitium.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://quomododicitur.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://hangouts.google.com/?action=group&amp;key=ZRbf9areAKU0NQY83&amp;pli=1&amp;authuser=1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latinandgreekchats.weebly.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.paideiainstitute.org/living_latin_in_rome&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://latin.org/wordpress/rusticatio/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://latin.org/wordpress/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6568" RevisionGUID="dc826787-eb56-4531-83da-a3cbae2a97c4" CreationDate="2018-05-25T11:12:23.460" UserId="9" Text="The linked Wiktionary page says that &quot;celebris&quot; is both the genitive singular of &quot;celeber&quot; (for all genders) and the **feminine nominative singular**. Since &quot;arx&quot; is a feminine noun, I don't think it's possible to tell just from the first two words of the motto whether the adjective &quot;celebris&quot; modifies &quot;arx&quot; or some following singular noun in the genitive case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, once we get to the third word, I think the interpretation of &quot;celebris&quot; as a genitive appears less likely. &quot;Fontibus&quot; is a dative/ablative plural form; therefore, if we wanted to speak of &quot;famous springs&quot;, we would have to put the adjective into the dative/ablative plural form as well and write &quot;**celebribus** fontibus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, Lewis and Short say that *[celeber](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dceleber)* can take a complement in the ablative case, so it seems to me that the translation &quot;a citadel famous for its springs&quot; is indeed correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see how the motto could be parsed as &quot;Citadel of the Famous Springs&quot;: for that, I would expect *famous* and *springs* to both be inflected for the genitive plural, giving us something like &quot;arx celebrium fontium&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6568" RevisionGUID="0411e124-b354-418e-b202-128800fc0015" CreationDate="2018-05-25T11:19:33.907" UserId="9" Comment="added 341 characters in body" Text="The linked Wiktionary page says that &quot;celebris&quot; is both the genitive singular of &quot;celeber&quot; (for all genders) and the **feminine nominative singular**. *Celeber* is a &quot;[adjective of three terminations](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-classification-and-paradigms)&quot;, with  a masculine nominative singular form *celeber,* a feminine nominative singular form *celebris,* and a neuter nominative form *celebre*; because &quot;arx&quot; is a feminine noun, it's not correct to say &quot;arx celeber&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically, I guess it's not possible to tell just from the first two words of the motto whether the adjective &quot;celebris&quot; modifies &quot;arx&quot; or some following singular noun in the genitive case. However, once we get to the third word, I think the interpretation of &quot;celebris&quot; as a genitive appears less likely. &quot;Fontibus&quot; is a dative/ablative plural form; therefore, if we wanted to speak of &quot;famous springs&quot;, we would have to put the adjective into the dative/ablative plural form as well and write &quot;**celebribus** fontibus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, Lewis and Short say that *[celeber](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dceleber)* can take a complement in the ablative case, so it seems to me that the translation &quot;a citadel famous for its springs&quot; is indeed correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see how the motto could be parsed as &quot;Citadel of the Famous Springs&quot;: for that, I would expect *famous* and *springs* to both be inflected for the genitive plural, giving us something like &quot;arx celebrium fontium&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6568" RevisionGUID="0db4be3d-bb6f-4253-816c-7a6cf7a5f5b2" CreationDate="2018-05-25T11:30:14.760" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="The linked Wiktionary page says that &quot;celebris&quot; is both the genitive singular of &quot;celeber&quot; (for all genders) and the feminine nominative singular. *Celeber* is a third-declension &quot;[adjective of three terminations](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-classification-and-paradigms)&quot;, with  a masculine nominative singular form *celeber,* a feminine nominative singular form *celebris,* and a neuter nominative singular form *celebre*; because &quot;arx&quot; is a feminine noun, it's not correct to say &quot;arx celeber&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically, I guess it's not possible to tell just from the first two words of the motto whether the adjective &quot;celebris&quot; modifies &quot;arx&quot; or some following singular noun in the genitive case. However, once we get to the third word, I think the interpretation of &quot;celebris&quot; as a genitive appears less likely. &quot;Fontibus&quot; is a dative/ablative plural form; therefore, if we wanted to speak of &quot;famous springs&quot;, we would have to put the adjective into the dative/ablative plural form as well and write &quot;**celebribus** fontibus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, Lewis and Short say that *[celeber](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dceleber)* can take a complement in the ablative case, so it seems to me that the translation &quot;a citadel famous for its springs&quot; is indeed correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see how the motto could be parsed as &quot;Citadel of the Famous Springs&quot;: for that, I would expect *famous* and *springs* to both be inflected for the genitive plural, giving us something like &quot;arx celebrium fontium&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6569" RevisionGUID="86ea1a4b-bd9e-4b16-bef2-1c0db8b1bbee" CreationDate="2018-05-25T13:56:40.603" UserId="45" Text="I would translate &quot;not safe&quot; with *inconveniens* or *haud opportunus*. I have always found &quot;work&quot; difficult to translate, since it reflects a post-industrial cultural division between &quot;work&quot; and &quot;life&quot; that the Romans would not have understood very well. My best shot would be personalize it: *operantes* (=&quot;those who are working&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gives us:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Operantibus inconveniens**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Operantibus haud opportunum**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6570" RevisionGUID="bd5059e1-6d5f-4f77-a9a4-448be2c86bbb" CreationDate="2018-05-25T16:19:28.703" UserId="79" Text="One option is to use the adjective *turpis*, which means many things like &quot;shameful&quot; and &quot;dishonorable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is perhaps more blunt than the English variant, but at least pretty unambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As brianpck points out, &quot;work&quot; is not easy to translate.&#xD;&#xA;I will use *opus*, but *labor* and some verbs (like *operari* as brianpck chose) work as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With these ingredients, I suggest **turpe apud opus**, &quot;shameful in the midst of work&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6570" RevisionGUID="ce965486-7675-4cd0-87f7-59bed12d185f" CreationDate="2018-05-25T19:28:05.023" UserId="79" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="One option is to use the adjective *turpis*, which means many things like &quot;shameful&quot; and &quot;dishonorable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is perhaps more blunt than the English variant, but at least pretty unambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As brianpck points out, &quot;work&quot; is not easy to translate.&#xD;&#xA;I will use *opus*, but *labor* and some verbs (like *operari* as brianpck chose) work as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With these ingredients, I suggest **turpe inter opus**, &quot;shameful in the midst of work&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(I accidentally first wrote *apud* instead of *inter*.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="eea08b82-301b-47ea-b79c-fd47aa3aeb8e" CreationDate="2018-05-25T19:54:57.650" UserId="79" Text="Continuing my series of questions about Malta ([locative vs. *in*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6554/79) and [*monumentum/monimentum*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6561/79)), I would like to ask about an inscription I saw in [St. John's co-cathedral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_John%27s_Co-Cathedral) in Valletta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The floor was tiled with tombstones with inscriptions in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The one in the picture below starts: *Heic in pulvere dormit fr[ater] Hieronymus de nobilibus Cataciensis qui omnibus equitis religiosi numeris absolutus gravissima sacro ordini praestitit&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![A tombstone in Latin][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What immediately caught my attention is the first word *heic*, which seems to stand for *hic*, &quot;here&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Is this variation common?&#xD;&#xA;Does it already appear in older Latin, or is it a medieval or later thing?&#xD;&#xA;I think this tomb is from the 18th century although the date is just outside the frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you have trouble parsing the text, please ask a separate question!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ltzv6.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21755" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="eea08b82-301b-47ea-b79c-fd47aa3aeb8e" CreationDate="2018-05-25T19:54:57.650" UserId="79" Text="Heic instead of hic in a Maltese tomb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21756" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="eea08b82-301b-47ea-b79c-fd47aa3aeb8e" CreationDate="2018-05-25T19:54:57.650" UserId="79" Text="|new-latin|spelling|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6572" RevisionGUID="a40c6abe-996d-4d20-9819-0132ccdea8d2" CreationDate="2018-05-25T22:06:13.170" UserId="45" Text="You're right: [***heic***](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dheic) is an archaic form of the adverb [***hīc***](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dhic). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the latter entry at III.2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hīc (old form heic; and with the interrog. part. ne, hicine ), adv. loci, *in this place, here.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A corpus search reveals 0 results for that form. I did find at least one other inscription from Spain that uses the same form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; heus viator si ulla tibi / pietas inest verte huc / ora / heic sunt cineres c canii / poetae qui ad quart us/que olimp in urbe omnib / karus vix deinde in hispan / revers nemin laes tand / cum ad veteres cuper sodal / in latium remeare per/petuoq cum populo quir / viv dura nimium fata prae/ripuere et in itin occub / l albinus cit hisp proc hoc / marmore texit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6573" RevisionGUID="9aae099e-7711-433a-83f0-1514a193e66f" CreationDate="2018-05-26T10:02:06.243" UserId="79" Text="To finish my Maltese question series before boarding a plane off the island, here is another question about [Latin inscriptions in tombstones in St. John's co-cathedral at Valletta](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6571/79).&#xD;&#xA;In many tombs, including the one below, the inscription begins with the abbreviation &quot;D. O. M.&quot; in a fashion very similar to Roman grave inscriptions starting with &quot;D. M.&quot; much earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this abbreviation mean?&#xD;&#xA;I did not find any graves with this abbreviation expanded (starting with three words with initial letters DOM).&#xD;&#xA;I assume it is a Christian counterpart of the Roman *Dis Manibus* and that the D stands for some form of *Deus*.&#xD;&#xA;Is &quot;D. O. M.&quot; related to &quot;D. M.&quot; at all, or is the similarity a complete coincidence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![A tombstone in Latin][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eaNqu.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21760" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6573" RevisionGUID="9aae099e-7711-433a-83f0-1514a193e66f" CreationDate="2018-05-26T10:02:06.243" UserId="79" Text="Abbreviation &quot;D. O. M.&quot; on tombstones" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21761" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6573" RevisionGUID="9aae099e-7711-433a-83f0-1514a193e66f" CreationDate="2018-05-26T10:02:06.243" UserId="79" Text="|new-latin|abbreviations|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6574" RevisionGUID="bcfa8fe5-ac03-44eb-b0ac-f407a928ca97" CreationDate="2018-05-26T10:05:39.947" UserId="52" Text="I consulted the litannies and [Cerberus' translation][1] with my Latin teacher and he offered an alternative translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other invocations in the strophe make rhymes by *dativus commodi sive incommodi*, so the dative should be of this kind in &quot;angelorum planta agmini&quot; as well. &quot;Planta&quot; means a sprout or shoot (as in Cerberus' translation) and &quot;angelorum agmini&quot; means &quot;**for** the angelic army&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The theological interpretation is that though the number of angels is constant (since the fall of angels, when some became demons), new celestials and thus other members of &quot;the angelic army&quot; grow in us, who can hope in joining angels in heaven. Eternal life somehow starts now, so the metaphor of a plant growing from a sprout here on Earth to a tree in Heaven can be applied to every Christian (including &quot;[anonymous Christians][2]&quot;). Mary is the best one and a perfect example in this way (she become not just equal to angels, but a queen of angels!), and growing of others into the angelic level may be seen as possible only through Mary's help (or better, through her son Jesus Christ who wouldn't grant us this privilege without being born of Mary), so this title can be applied to her in some stronger sense than to anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/158/52&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6575" RevisionGUID="a77d9e72-f068-4ee9-9cc0-c7809201b777" CreationDate="2018-05-26T11:25:26.973" UserId="324" Text="It stands for Domino Optimo Maximo." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6575" RevisionGUID="6d200468-188c-4fc4-81a2-9e3a6ee0977a" CreationDate="2018-05-26T12:07:22.790" UserId="324" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="Domino Optimo Maximo. It is the motto of the Benedictine order." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6576" RevisionGUID="382b7cf6-9d81-4bd6-ab0b-639955aa4427" CreationDate="2018-05-26T12:51:07.453" UserId="469" Text="A Google search gives results for both _Domino_ and _Deo Optimo Maximo_. However the former offers results for both, suggesting it is a variation of the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Deo Optimo Maximo**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in turn, has its own [Wikipedia article](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deo_optimo_maximo) and seems to be the preferred form. According to the article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Deo optimo maximo***, often abbreviated D.O.M. or Deo Opt. Max., is a Latin phrase which means &quot;to the greatest and best god&quot;, or &quot;to God, most good, most great&quot;. It was originally used as a pagan formula addressed to Jupiter. [And later adopted by Christianity.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6575" RevisionGUID="ea091140-8968-4c2f-9ece-f74d821b6eae" CreationDate="2018-05-26T12:55:50.323" UserId="324" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Deo (or Domino) Optimo Maximo. It is the motto of the Benedictine order." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6576" RevisionGUID="5f6cb570-c623-4c49-b73d-02aa2d439a30" CreationDate="2018-05-26T14:20:35.680" UserId="469" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="A Google search gives results for both _Domino_ and _Deo Optimo Maximo_. However the former offers results for both, suggesting it is a variation of the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Deo Optimo Maximo**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in turn, has its own [Wikipedia article](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deo_optimo_maximo) and seems to be the preferred form. According to the article,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Deo optimo maximo***, often abbreviated D.O.M. or Deo Opt. Max., is a Latin phrase which means &quot;to the greatest and best god&quot;, or &quot;to God, most good, most great&quot;. It was originally used as a pagan formula addressed to Jupiter. [And later adopted by Christianity.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also common in ancient tombstones in Rome, both Christian and pagan. I recall seeing a lot of them in the _scavi Vatican_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6576" RevisionGUID="cbef380d-7759-4dff-b8bd-145cabfc5b67" CreationDate="2018-05-26T14:31:12.480" UserId="469" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="A Google search gives results for both _Domino_ and _Deo Optimo Maximo_. However the former offers results for both, suggesting it is a variation of the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Deo Optimo Maximo**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in turn, has its own [Wikipedia article](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deo_optimo_maximo) and seems to be the preferred form. According to the article,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Deo optimo maximo***, often abbreviated D.O.M. or Deo Opt. Max., is a Latin phrase which means &quot;to the greatest and best god&quot;, or &quot;to God, most good, most great&quot;. It was originally used as a pagan formula addressed to Jupiter. [And later adopted by Christianity.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It dates from antiquity and is also common in ancient tombstones in Rome, both Christian and pagan. I recall seeing a lot of them in the _scavi Vatican_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6576" RevisionGUID="2b92fdc6-b918-45fa-883c-9b9d843e89c4" CreationDate="2018-05-26T14:38:19.720" UserId="469" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="A Google search gives results for both _Domino_ and _Deo Optimo Maximo_. However the former offers results for both, suggesting it is a variation of the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Deo Optimo Maximo**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in turn, has its own [Wikipedia article](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deo_optimo_maximo) and seems to be the preferred form. According to the article,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Deo optimo maximo***, often abbreviated D.O.M. or Deo Opt. Max., is a Latin phrase which means &quot;to the greatest and best god&quot;, or &quot;to God, most good, most great&quot;. It was originally used as a pagan formula addressed to Jupiter. [And later adopted by Christianity.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It dates from antiquity and is also common in ancient tombstones in Rome, both Christian and pagan. I recall seeing a lot of them in the _scavi Vaticani_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6577" RevisionGUID="32d10c3f-db6e-463c-8a1e-6cc5e06dc960" CreationDate="2018-05-26T17:05:13.497" UserId="136" Text="I recently can across the following phrase when watching a video about the Battle of Ilerda:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;With Caesar still weeks away...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This got me to wondering how one would translate such a phrase. It is relatively common in English to measure distances in terms of the time it would take for one to travel that distance, but I am unaware of a similar construction in Latin. Below is my best attempt at translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Caesare diviso a hebdomadibus multis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't quite satisfy me, however, for a few reasons. First, it seems a bit ambiguous as to from what Caesar is separated. *a hebdomadibus multis* is being used as an ablative of agent (With Caesar separated by many weeks), but it could also be perceived as an ablative of separation (With Caesar separated from many weeks). This leads to a problem if, say, the phrase was &quot;with Caesar still weeks away from the city.&quot; You could then feasibly have two *a(b)* s present in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My second qualm with my translation is the use of a perfect passive participle to indicate separation. Typically when I think separation I think of an ablative of separation, but that would not really work here. The ablative absolute made sense for this construction due to the &quot;with...&quot; part of the phrase, but I am not sure how to reconcile these ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that I think about it, I am not sure how to say the phrase if it was &quot;with Caesar many **miles** away.&quot; There are a lot of things to think about here, so I hope someone can shed some light on a construction for this instance. The question of whether this is idiomatic or not does not much concern me. Thank you in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21771" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6577" RevisionGUID="32d10c3f-db6e-463c-8a1e-6cc5e06dc960" CreationDate="2018-05-26T17:05:13.497" UserId="136" Text="Time as a Measure of Separation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21772" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6577" RevisionGUID="32d10c3f-db6e-463c-8a1e-6cc5e06dc960" CreationDate="2018-05-26T17:05:13.497" UserId="136" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6578" RevisionGUID="a276c219-d290-4c32-bb9c-a54e30f5a7ce" CreationDate="2018-05-26T19:14:19.443" UserId="320" Text="How would one translate “sexy” into Latin? In particular, I’m looking for a word or phrase that has a similar “slangy” feel to the English version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve considered a few possibilities: Catullus 10 lead me to the word _invenustum_, and thus to [_venustus_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/venustus#Latin) (“attractive”), which seems to be a decent fit. I’ve also considered _voluptuosus_ and _sensualis_, but I don’t think they mean quite the same thing as “sexy.”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21774" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6578" RevisionGUID="a276c219-d290-4c32-bb9c-a54e30f5a7ce" CreationDate="2018-05-26T19:14:19.443" UserId="320" Text="How to translate &quot;sexy&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21775" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6578" RevisionGUID="a276c219-d290-4c32-bb9c-a54e30f5a7ce" CreationDate="2018-05-26T19:14:19.443" UserId="320" Text="|translation|word-request|slang|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6578" RevisionGUID="1a288e97-691c-453e-a74a-bbe4effa7820" CreationDate="2018-05-26T19:20:37.153" UserId="320" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="How would one translate “sexy” into Latin? In particular, I’m looking for a word or phrase that has a similar “slangy” feel to the English version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve considered a few possibilities: Catullus 10 lead me to the word _invenustum_, and thus to [_venustus_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/venustus#Latin) (“attractive”), which seems to be a decent fit. I’ve also considered _voluptuosus_ and _sensualis_, but I don’t think they mean quite the same thing as “sexy.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also tried to see if modern Italian has a word for “sexy” that could be traced back to Latin, but it seems “sexy” is used as a loanword instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6579" RevisionGUID="5d824d3d-2356-4972-9b26-5e69d432665d" CreationDate="2018-05-26T20:51:14.757" UserId="2606" Text="Similar to how *in vino veritas* means &quot;in wine, truth.&quot; I don't know much about Latin and Google Translate wasn't very helpful. It suggested *vero forma*, but this didn't translate back to English properly. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21778" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6579" RevisionGUID="5d824d3d-2356-4972-9b26-5e69d432665d" CreationDate="2018-05-26T20:51:14.757" UserId="2606" Text="How to translate &quot;in truth, beauty&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21779" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6579" RevisionGUID="5d824d3d-2356-4972-9b26-5e69d432665d" CreationDate="2018-05-26T20:51:14.757" UserId="2606" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21780" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6578" RevisionGUID="84ed1b57-6b23-4980-97f8-d49d0ca7d08e" CreationDate="2018-05-26T20:59:37.857" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|slang|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6579" RevisionGUID="c0da148b-57d3-4064-80d1-1ae520774608" CreationDate="2018-05-26T21:01:30.087" UserId="79" Comment="Attempted to clarify the question." Text="How should I translate &quot;in truth, beauty&quot; to Latin? It is similar to how *in vino veritas* means &quot;in wine, truth.&quot; I don't know much about Latin and Google Translate wasn't very helpful. It suggested *vero forma*, but this didn't translate back to English properly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21782" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6579" RevisionGUID="c0da148b-57d3-4064-80d1-1ae520774608" CreationDate="2018-05-26T21:01:30.087" UserId="79" Comment="Attempted to clarify the question." Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6580" RevisionGUID="d26e3a10-8fa3-461a-9a1b-dcace957ee96" CreationDate="2018-05-26T21:19:46.193" UserId="79" Text="[Google Translate is horrible with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79), and this is yet another piece of evidence.&#xD;&#xA;The correct way to translate by analogy is to understand the structure and replace the words.&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate seems to be incapable of this, which is bewildering.&#xD;&#xA;The suggested translation seems to have nothing to do with what you wanted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the phrase *in vino veritas* (&quot;truth [is] in wine&quot;) we have &quot;wine&quot; in ablative and &quot;truth&quot; in nominative.&#xD;&#xA;To translate &quot;beauty [is] in truth&quot;, we need &quot;beauty&quot; in nominative and &quot;truth&quot; in ablative.&#xD;&#xA;(The word &quot;is&quot;, *est*, is often left implicit in Latin, and Latin word order is different from English. Therefore I find &quot;truth is in wine&quot; or &quot;there is truth in wine&quot; to be an accurate translation of *in vino veritas*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially if you want to do something similar to the well known Latin quote, *veritas* is a good choice for &quot;truth&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of options for &quot;beauty&quot;, and I suggest starting with *pulchritudo* and *amoenitas* (coming from *pulcher* and *amoenus*).&#xD;&#xA;You can check the two words [in any online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) and compare how the translations back to English differ.&#xD;&#xA;For a quick comparison, I would say that a person can be *pulcher* and a scenery can be *amoenus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on what kind of beauty you mean, I suggest: ***In veritate pulchritudo/amoenitas.***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2743" RevisionGUID="fedb39c6-2c1a-4a2e-9b47-8e3bc3d98c2a" CreationDate="2018-05-26T21:47:11.070" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="The Greek word *Christos* (Χριστός) and the Hebrew word *Messiah* (many similar words exist in related languages, and I don't claim to make an accurate transliteration of any of them) are titles used of Jesus, and they both mean &quot;anointed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It occurred to me that I have never heard a similar title in Latin &amp;mdash; apart from Latinized versions of these two foreign words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is twofold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Was a title of similar literal meaning and of Latin origin ever used of Jesus? If yes, what was it or what were they?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. What would be a good classical Latin translation of &quot;anointed&quot; in a context like this? It may or may not be an actual title used, so I this question is not trivially equivalent with the previous one. I found some candidates, but I can't judge which would be most appropriate: *unctus*, *litus*, *illitus*, *circumlitus*, *delibutus*. If I had to guess, I would go with *unctus*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21785" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2743" RevisionGUID="fedb39c6-2c1a-4a2e-9b47-8e3bc3d98c2a" CreationDate="2018-05-26T21:47:11.070" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|vocabulary|word-request|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6581" RevisionGUID="b060307f-3fbf-4f60-aada-7a3c9f2779e2" CreationDate="2018-05-26T22:20:46.733" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="The English version of Wiktionary's page on ['trou'](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trou#French) (French for 'hole') avers that it's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;From Medieval Latin *traugus*, a &quot;barbarous&quot; Latin word first attested in the Ripuarian Law, probably related to [*torus*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/torus#Latin) (“round hill”).&lt;sup&gt;[[1]](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trou#cite_note-1)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Related to Catalan [*trauc*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trauc#Catalan), Occitan [*trauc*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trauc#Occitan). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But [the French version](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/trou) avers a different etymology, one that's pre-Celtic. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21787" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6581" RevisionGUID="b060307f-3fbf-4f60-aada-7a3c9f2779e2" CreationDate="2018-05-26T22:20:46.733" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What semantic notions underlie 'hole' and 'round hill'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21788" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6581" RevisionGUID="b060307f-3fbf-4f60-aada-7a3c9f2779e2" CreationDate="2018-05-26T22:20:46.733" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|french|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6583" RevisionGUID="72ef7c75-ad21-42a2-b4cf-d8192027c1e5" CreationDate="2018-05-27T02:26:06.927" UserId="39" Text="Since your question is about the use of i-u in *Post-Classical* Latin, I will address that point only and not its use in Old or Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have enough information - yet - about the specified time period (1500-1700), but here's' what I've been able to find about **Medieval Latin**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peter Stotz (Stotz 1996, *Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters*, volume 3, p. 42) writes the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Das Schwanken von i und u for Labialen im röm. Latein äußert sich im MA nur noch in Form vereinzelter Schreibung, welche durch den uneinheitlichen Befund in den damals vorliegenden älteren Texten verursacht sind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in English: The alternation of i and u before labials [found] in Classical Latin manifests itself in the Middle Ages  only in the form of isolated spellings, which is caused by the inconsistent findings in the older texts available at that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;Gewisse Schwankungen zwischen ĭ und ŭ in älterer Zeit haben sich durch ihr Vorkommen in den älteren Texten ins MA fortgeschrieben&quot; (p. 69).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the relevant entry from Niermeyer's Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oraSX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6583" RevisionGUID="f0fde638-c631-41d1-b775-a45209f51c87" CreationDate="2018-05-27T02:32:37.087" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Since your question is about the use of i-u in *Post-Classical* Latin, I will address that point only and not its use in Old or Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have enough information - yet - about the specified time period (1500-1700), but here's what I've been able to find about **Medieval Latin**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peter Stotz (Stotz 1996, *Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters*, volume 3, p. 42) writes the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Das Schwanken von i und u for Labialen im röm. Latein äußert sich im MA nur noch in Form vereinzelter Schreibung, welche durch den uneinheitlichen Befund in den damals vorliegenden älteren Texten verursacht sind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in English: The alternation of i and u before labials [found] in Classical Latin manifests itself in the Middle Ages  only in the form of isolated spellings, which is caused by the inconsistent findings in the older texts available at that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;Gewisse Schwankungen zwischen ĭ und ŭ in älterer Zeit haben sich durch ihr Vorkommen in den älteren Texten ins MA fortgeschrieben&quot; (p. 69).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the relevant entry from Niermeyer's Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oraSX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6564" RevisionGUID="ddcdf1e6-1ac2-4a18-ac4e-73876bbad757" CreationDate="2018-05-27T02:53:17.873" UserId="9" Comment="added 232 characters in body" Text="Considering that this is a word-internal short vowel before a labial consonant, it looks like this vowel comes from the &quot;[sonus medius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation#Sonus_medius)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I don't know that much about the patterns of variation in the use of *u* vs. *i* in the spelling of words like this. I was able to find the following passage in B. Kennedy's *[Latin grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=tVruAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA31&amp;lpg=PA31&amp;dq=monimentum+sonus+medius&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=h4I2BlZMLo&amp;sig=vP0mmhznvLm9k_EKhwj2WHCUeoc&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwibrMzC6J_bAhWOuVkKHQDPCksQ6AEISjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=monimentum%20sonus%20medius&amp;f=false),* Fifth Edition (1879):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the middle sound between **ĭ** and **ŭ** [...] exists almost exclusively before labials [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Inscriptions shew that the forms with **ŭ** prevailed in E. L., and R. L., those with **ĭ** in and after the Augustan age, for which the Monument of Ancyra, as edited by Mommsen, is the best authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 31-32, §12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen's *Vox Latina* also says that *u* variants tend to be older, and *i* variants more recent: he says &quot;the earliest example for this change is from 117 B.C., with inscr. *infimo* beside *infumum*&quot; and &quot;in some cases, although the change took place, the older *u* form came to be preferred (e.g. *documentum*)&quot; (p. 57).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking generally, Allen writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The change of official orthography from *u* to *i* in such words is said to have been due to Caesar (†Varro, cited in Cassiodor(i)us, K. vii, 150; cf. Quintilian, i, 7, 21); and Cicero is said to have considered the older pronunciation and spelling as 'rusticanum' (Velius Longus, K. vii, 49). Velius Longus (67) also mentions that Augustan inscriptions still showed *u*; but *i* is in fact regular in the *Monumentum Ancyranum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 58)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wasn't able to find the word *monumentum/monimentum* anywhere in the text of *[Res Gestae Divi Augusti](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Augustus/Res_Gestae/home.html),* so the  *Monumentum Ancyranum* doesn't seem to provide any evidence about this particular word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lewis and Short entry for *[monimentum](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dmonimentum)* simply says &quot;see monumentum&quot; without any further comment; the entry for *[monumentum](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmonumentum)* includes some quotations that use the *monim-* form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a fair number of hits for both *monum-* and *monim-* in the PHI Classical Latin Texts database: there were 581 matches for`$monum`, but also 123 matches for `#monim`, including some from the works of Cato, Plautus, Caesar, Cicero, Ovid, Pliny, and Virgil. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, it seems to me that *monimentum* existed in the classical period, and it doesn't seem to have been extremely rare or considered an improper form. Since there was apparently a general trend towards using *i* rather than *u* in words like this, I would guess that the relative frequency of *monimentum* vs. *monumentum* in the second millenium was just as high as or higher than its frequency in classical times." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6564" RevisionGUID="f7a3f292-e4ed-4311-a3c5-f43a37708c3a" CreationDate="2018-05-27T03:01:06.187" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 265 characters in body" Text="Considering that this is a word-internal short vowel before a labial consonant, it looks like this vowel comes from the &quot;[sonus medius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation#Sonus_medius)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I don't know that much about the patterns of variation in the use of *u* vs. *i* in the spelling of words like this. I was able to find the following passage in B. Kennedy's *[Latin grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=tVruAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA31&amp;lpg=PA31&amp;dq=monimentum+sonus+medius&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=h4I2BlZMLo&amp;sig=vP0mmhznvLm9k_EKhwj2WHCUeoc&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwibrMzC6J_bAhWOuVkKHQDPCksQ6AEISjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=monimentum%20sonus%20medius&amp;f=false),* Fifth Edition (1879):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the middle sound between **ĭ** and **ŭ** [...] exists almost exclusively before labials [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Inscriptions shew that the forms with **ŭ** prevailed in E. L., and R. L., those with **ĭ** in and after the Augustan age, for which the Monument of Ancyra, as edited by Mommsen, is the best authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 31-32, §12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen's *Vox Latina* also says that *u* variants tend to be older, and *i* variants more recent: he says &quot;the earliest example for this change is from 117 B.C., with inscr. *infimo* beside *infumum*&quot; and &quot;in some cases, although the change took place, the older *u* form came to be preferred (e.g. *documentum*)&quot; (p. 57).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking generally, Allen writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The change of official orthography from *u* to *i* in such words is said to have been due to Caesar (†Varro, cited in Cassiodor(i)us, K. vii, 150; cf. Quintilian, i, 7, 21); and Cicero is said to have considered the older pronunciation and spelling as 'rusticanum' (Velius Longus, K. vii, 49). Velius Longus (67) also mentions that Augustan inscriptions still showed *u*; but *i* is in fact regular in the *Monumentum Ancyranum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 58)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wasn't able to find the word *monumentum/monimentum* anywhere in the text of *[Res Gestae Divi Augusti](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Augustus/Res_Gestae/home.html),* so the  *Monumentum Ancyranum* doesn't seem to provide any evidence about this particular word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lewis and Short entry for *[monimentum](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dmonimentum)* simply says &quot;see monumentum&quot; without any further comment; the entry for *[monumentum](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmonumentum)* includes some quotations that use the *monim-* form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a fair number of hits for both *monum-* and *monim-* in the PHI Classical Latin Texts database: there were 581 matches for`$monum`, but also 123 matches for `#monim`, including some from the works of Cato, Plautus, Caesar, Cicero, Ovid, Pliny, and Virgil. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, it seems to me that *monimentum* existed in the classical period, and it doesn't seem to have been extremely rare or considered an improper form. I'm not sure how its frequency changed in later time periods." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6584" RevisionGUID="ec2ee73a-bcb7-4c9f-b638-1ea5819da9f5" CreationDate="2018-05-27T03:01:14.287" UserId="2655" Text="So i'm just learning Latin, and I'm not sure if i got this translation right. Whenever you use 'in' in latin, the predicate noun is refers to and the noun the follows it has to have the same form right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if i made a mistake:&#xD;&#xA;Fōturnam multam in tuam vītam fīllarum vidēmus, meus amīcus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21796" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6584" RevisionGUID="ec2ee73a-bcb7-4c9f-b638-1ea5819da9f5" CreationDate="2018-05-27T03:01:14.287" UserId="2655" Text="Translating &quot;We see great fortune in your daughters' lives, my friend&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21797" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6584" RevisionGUID="ec2ee73a-bcb7-4c9f-b638-1ea5819da9f5" CreationDate="2018-05-27T03:01:14.287" UserId="2655" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6585" RevisionGUID="24bb561b-b9c4-4263-848f-659d878352a2" CreationDate="2018-05-27T03:14:56.030" UserId="406" Text="In [this answer][1], fdb suggested that Greek *selēnē* &lt; *selannā* &lt; *_selas-nā_ and Latin *lūna* &lt; *losnā* &lt; *_lowks-nā_ share a suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is this noun-forming *-nā*, and is it the same one that's seen in e.g. *ruina*? How long did it remain productive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6090/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21799" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6585" RevisionGUID="24bb561b-b9c4-4263-848f-659d878352a2" CreationDate="2018-05-27T03:14:56.030" UserId="406" Text="Where does -na come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21800" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6585" RevisionGUID="24bb561b-b9c4-4263-848f-659d878352a2" CreationDate="2018-05-27T03:14:56.030" UserId="406" Text="|etymology|suffixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6581" RevisionGUID="6e3650c9-771d-47df-9a14-3c5bf4abe4ec" CreationDate="2018-05-27T03:52:51.167" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="added 116 characters in body; edited title" Text="The English version of Wiktionary's page on ['trou'](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trou#French) (French for 'hole') avers that it's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;From Medieval Latin *traugus*, a &quot;barbarous&quot; Latin word first attested in the Ripuarian Law, probably related to [*torus*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/torus#Latin) (“round hill”).&lt;sup&gt;[[1]](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trou#cite_note-1)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Related to Catalan [*trauc*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trauc#Catalan), Occitan [*trauc*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trauc#Occitan). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That Wiktionary page for 'torus' lists its most general meaning as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. a swelling, protuberance, bulge, knot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But [the French version](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/trou) avers a different etymology, one that's pre-Celtic. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21802" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6581" RevisionGUID="6e3650c9-771d-47df-9a14-3c5bf4abe4ec" CreationDate="2018-05-27T03:52:51.167" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="added 116 characters in body; edited title" Text="What semantic notions underlie 'hole' and a swelling, bulge'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6586" RevisionGUID="063289ac-3bd6-473a-b7ac-26b85bd26f37" CreationDate="2018-05-27T03:58:15.553" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="[Etymonline](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=adjacent&amp;searchmode=none) avers the etymology for 'exert' to be from: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1660s, &quot;thrust forth, push out,&quot; from Latin *exertus/exsertus*, past participle of *exerere/exserere* `&quot;thrust out, put forth,&quot;` from ***ex-* &quot;out&quot;** (see [ex-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ex-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + ***serere* &quot;attach, join&quot;** (see [series](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=series&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)). Meaning &quot;put into use&quot; is 1680s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ [OED](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/66113?rskey=mN3GMj&amp;result=2&amp;isAdvanced=false): ] [...] The formation is probably due to antithesis with inserĕre ([to insert v.](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/96769)) [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ***ex-*** + ***serere*** literally signifies 'to attach or join out', which doesn't make sense. How did they compound to signify `&quot;thrust out, put forth&quot;`? How ought this compound be understood?  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21804" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6586" RevisionGUID="063289ac-3bd6-473a-b7ac-26b85bd26f37" CreationDate="2018-05-27T03:58:15.553" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How did 'ex-' + 'serere' compound to signify 'thrust out, put forth'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21805" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6586" RevisionGUID="063289ac-3bd6-473a-b7ac-26b85bd26f37" CreationDate="2018-05-27T03:58:15.553" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6109" RevisionGUID="643da08f-918a-4b70-b54d-b614683ad08f" CreationDate="2018-05-27T04:14:21.343" UserId="406" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="*Unda* is a noun meaning &quot;wave&quot; (in a liquid). This led to a verb *undāre*, &quot;to rise in a wave&quot; as your dictionary put it, or I would say &quot;to have waves&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lawler was right on the mark. Consider liquid in a container. Move the container around and you get waves. If the waves get high enough, the liquid spills out of the container.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Lawler is also right in saying that hypotaxis has nothing to do with this. Hypotaxis is the Greek literary term that encompasses several different linguistic ideas, but afaik all of them have to do with syntax. It's not meaningful to talk about hypotaxis in a single word.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: To clarify, if liquid spills out, it's moving out and away from its container, hence *ab*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6583" RevisionGUID="182b8dbc-63a7-45f6-8b32-4ac486547217" CreationDate="2018-05-27T04:28:32.353" UserId="39" Comment="added 219 characters in body" Text="Since your question is about the use of i-u in *Post-Classical* Latin, I will address that point only and not its use in Old or Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have enough information - yet - about the specified time period (1500-1700, i.e. Neo-Latin), but here's what I've been able to find about **Medieval Latin**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peter Stotz (Stotz 1996, *Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters*, volume 3, p. 42) writes the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Das Schwanken von i und u for Labialen im röm. Latein äußert sich im MA nur noch in Form vereinzelter Schreibung, welche durch den uneinheitlichen Befund in den damals vorliegenden älteren Texten verursacht sind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in English: The alternation of i and u before labials [found] in Classical Latin manifests itself in the Middle Ages  only in the form of isolated spellings, which is caused by the inconsistent findings in the older texts available at that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;Gewisse Schwankungen zwischen ĭ und ŭ in älterer Zeit haben sich durch ihr Vorkommen in den älteren Texten ins MA fortgeschrieben&quot; (p. 69).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the relevant entry from Niermeyer's Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to look it up in part 2 of Ijsewijn and Sacré 1998 [Companion to Neo-Latin Studies][2] for Neo-Latin data - I don't have a copy at home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oraSX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://upers.kuleuven.be/en/book/9789061868590" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6587" RevisionGUID="aac50e95-7238-4c97-b3a3-edba295b9d6f" CreationDate="2018-05-27T04:47:36.887" UserId="406" Text="My guess would be, Wiktionary is flat-out wrong. The only source for that statement is a century and a half old and, while I don't have access to it to check, the connection between *torus* and *traugus* seems tenuous (both phonologically and semantically).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;fdb's source, from CNRTL, has a much more plausible explanation (please pardon my translation, I'm very bad at French):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From a Vulgar Latin word *traucum* attested in the Lex Ripuaria as *traugum* […] probably originally Gaulish. But the other Celtic languages don't show cognate forms, and it's been proposed that the Gauls received this word from a languages spoken in Gaul before their arrival.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;French Wiktionary agrees, citing significantly more recent sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6583" RevisionGUID="40373f20-98a0-4ddf-a19d-bb3d138386b7" CreationDate="2018-05-27T04:56:20.067" UserId="39" Comment="added 849 characters in body" Text="Since your question is about the use of i-u in *Post-Classical* Latin, I will address that point only and not its use in Old or Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have enough information - yet - about the specified time period and place (1500-1700, i.e. Neo-Latin in Malta), but here's what I've been able to find about **Medieval Latin**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peter Stotz (Stotz 1996, *Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters*, volume 3, p. 42) writes the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Das Schwanken von i und u for Labialen im röm. Latein äußert sich im MA nur noch in Form vereinzelter Schreibung, welche durch den uneinheitlichen Befund in den damals vorliegenden älteren Texten verursacht sind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in English: The alternation of i and u before labials [found] in Classical Latin manifests itself in the Middle Ages  only in the form of isolated spellings, which is caused by the inconsistent findings in the older texts available at that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;Gewisse Schwankungen zwischen ĭ und ŭ in älterer Zeit haben sich durch ihr Vorkommen in den älteren Texten ins MA fortgeschrieben&quot; (p. 69).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the relevant entry from Niermeyer's Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to look it up in part 2 of Ijsewijn and Sacré 1998 [Companion to Neo-Latin Studies][2] for Neo-Latin data - I don't have a copy at home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: Neo-Latin editorial (spelling) practices, here's what Tom Deneire ([Deneire 2014][3]) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Unlike classical texts, for which the original spelling can almost never be ascertained, **Neo-Latin texts often** exist in authorial copies (either in manuscript or in print) that **reflect the author’s particular spelling of the Latin language**. This spelling might be based on a consciously adopted system [...] or be completely haphazard [..] . In this way, one may encounter mediaeval remnants (lachryma), forms inspired by the vernacular (ottinere), hypercorrections (caeteri), just typical Neo-Latin spellings (caussa), or as regular a phenomenon as the reversal of u and v that produces spellings like vua (‘grape’)&quot; [emphasis mine - Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oraSX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://upers.kuleuven.be/en/book/9789061868590&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004271296_enlo_B9789004271029_0020" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6110" RevisionGUID="e1c89a38-2fcf-48db-b77e-44c2d790013e" CreationDate="2018-05-27T11:37:56.373" UserId="79" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="The Latin verb means quite literally &quot;flow over&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;When a liquid is spilled from (&quot;from&quot; = *ab-*) a container, it flows over the edges and waves away from its vessel.&#xD;&#xA;Spilling means going over an edge, and that requires creating a sufficiently high wave.&#xD;&#xA;Spilling also means having too much.&#xD;&#xA;I see no problem connecting the *ab-* with the listed meanings of *abundare* and descendants; the literal meaning is what *ab-* and *unda* suggest, and the rest seems natural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6584" RevisionGUID="ab35ca0e-45c2-4b8a-86d6-6ad1c2bc8634" CreationDate="2018-05-27T11:40:00.827" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="So I'm just learning Latin, and I'm not sure if I got this translation right. Whenever you use 'in' in Latin, the predicate noun is refers to and the noun the follows it has to have the same form right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if I made a mistake:&#xD;&#xA;*Fōturnam multam in tuam vītam fīllarum vidēmus, meus amīcus.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21813" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6584" RevisionGUID="ab35ca0e-45c2-4b8a-86d6-6ad1c2bc8634" CreationDate="2018-05-27T11:40:00.827" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6588" RevisionGUID="8b04423e-f295-4205-bec6-f183c46d6c36" CreationDate="2018-05-27T11:56:59.750" UserId="79" Text="Your translation is certainly in the right direction, but it needs some polishing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I'm not sure whether *multam* is a good way to say &quot;great&quot; here. You could also consider *magnam*, *grandem*, *tantam*.&#xD;&#xA;You can compare these words in [any online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't say *multam* is wrong; it's just that there may be better options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you want to say &quot;in X&quot; (location) rather than &quot;into X&quot; (movement), the word following *in* should be in ablative rather than accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. There are typos: &quot;daughter&quot; is *filia*, not *filla*, and &quot;fortune&quot; is *fortuna*, not *foturna*. (Some words do have legitimate spelling variants, but I haven't seen these before.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The word *tua* modifies the daughters.&#xD;&#xA;After all, it is the *filiae* that are yours, not the *vita*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *tua* should have the form of the noun it modifies: *tuarum*.&#xD;&#xA;Because these two words go together, it is natural to place them next to each other, although it is not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. When you address someone, the addressee is not in nominative but in vocative.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *meus amicus* should be *mi amice*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. If you want to keep track of vowel quantity (which is a good practice!), the *a* in the plural genitive ending *-arum* is long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With these corrections, your sentence becomes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fort&amp;umacr;nam multam in vīt&amp;amacr; fīli&amp;amacr;rum tu&amp;amacr;rum vidēmus, m&amp;imacr; amīce." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6587" RevisionGUID="e89e74fc-2ac1-47a5-806b-96ef1ad9abf7" CreationDate="2018-05-27T16:08:07.020" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="My guess would be, Wiktionary is flat-out wrong. The only source for that statement is a century and a half old and, while I don't have access to it to check, the connection between *torus* and *traugus* seems tenuous (both phonologically and semantically).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;fdb's source, from CNRTL, has a much more plausible explanation (please pardon my translation, I'm very bad at French):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From a Vulgar Latin word *traucum* attested in the Lex Ripuaria as *traugum* […] probably originally Gaulish. But the other Celtic languages don't show cognate forms, and it's been proposed that the Gauls received this word from a language spoken in Gaul before their arrival.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;French Wiktionary agrees, citing significantly more recent sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6589" RevisionGUID="70a1f538-d11d-4c09-b3c7-fca2f94def44" CreationDate="2018-05-27T16:57:29.147" UserId="324" Text="The idea is that *lowks-nā is originally a feminine (hence -ā) adjective meaning “shining”. The suffix *no commonly forms adjectives, e.g. dignus, magnus, plenus etc. It is the exact equivalent of Avestan raoxšna- “bright”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6590" RevisionGUID="121e0ccc-4562-4025-bb23-4f509e45fa2b" CreationDate="2018-05-28T05:05:49.773" UserId="1495" Text="In the medieval hymn, [Dies Irae][1], there is a stanza:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rex tremendæ majestatis,&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qui salvandos salvas gratis,&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Salva me, fons pietatis.&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which I guess is intended to be understood as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*King of awesome majesty,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Who freely saves those who are to be saved,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Save me, fountain of justice.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I don't understand how salveo is getting conjugated here. First of all, the imperative of salveo is *salve*, not *salva*, I thought. Secondly, the present indicative of salveo I thought was salvet ('he saves'), not *salvas*. Neither *salvas* nor *salva* even appear in [standard conjugations of salveo][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the explanation for these forms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dies_irae&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/go.php?D1=9&amp;H1=109&amp;T1=salveo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21819" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6590" RevisionGUID="121e0ccc-4562-4025-bb23-4f509e45fa2b" CreationDate="2018-05-28T05:05:49.773" UserId="1495" Text="Medieval irregularities in the conjugation of salveo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21820" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6590" RevisionGUID="121e0ccc-4562-4025-bb23-4f509e45fa2b" CreationDate="2018-05-28T05:05:49.773" UserId="1495" Text="|medieval-latin|irregular-words|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6591" RevisionGUID="a531e77b-5344-4b75-a606-523e059eb3d5" CreationDate="2018-05-28T05:19:10.677" UserId="985" Text="This is a different verb: not *salveō, salvēre* (2nd conjugation), but *salvō, salvāre* (1st conjugation), a late Latin word meaning 'to save.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; salvo , āvi, ātum, 1, v. a. salvus,  &#xD;&#xA;I. to save (late Lat.; opp. perdere; &quot;syn.: servo, conservo),&quot; Veg. Vet. 3, 23, 3; Lact. de Ira Dei, 5, 7; Hier. Ep. 20, 4; Vulg. Isa. 4, 2; id. Amos, 2, 14; Sedul. 1, 109.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Lewis &amp; Short, *A Latin dictionary*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6592" RevisionGUID="ab9d2ed2-dbc0-449d-9df3-3d1c8a814fe5" CreationDate="2018-05-28T09:38:05.067" UserId="2646" Text="The Spanish language has two words for *kiss*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Beso*, from Latin *basium*.&#xD;&#xA;* *Ósculo*, from Latin *oscŭlum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one is very seldom used, and only in literature as it is a cultured word. Nonetheless, it seems that in Latin the two words were used for different kind of kisses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Basium* was used for the lovers, as the kisses you gave to your wife or husband.&#xD;&#xA;* *Oscŭlum* was used for the rest of kisses that showed affection or respect, as the ones you gave to friends or family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know when the *oscŭlum* word began being considered a cultured word in Spanish, so my question is: was the aforementioned difference effectively used in Latin? Or was the *oscŭlum* word already considered a cultured one in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus: was there any other word for *kiss* in Latin? I've seen *suavium*, maybe? Did I get their uses right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21823" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6592" RevisionGUID="ab9d2ed2-dbc0-449d-9df3-3d1c8a814fe5" CreationDate="2018-05-28T09:38:05.067" UserId="2646" Text="Was &quot;oscŭlum&quot; a cultured word in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21824" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6592" RevisionGUID="ab9d2ed2-dbc0-449d-9df3-3d1c8a814fe5" CreationDate="2018-05-28T09:38:05.067" UserId="2646" Text="|noun|differences|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6593" RevisionGUID="42eabb06-032a-4fa8-92a3-76ade7659575" CreationDate="2018-05-28T09:53:49.680" UserId="79" Text="This is an answer to your bonus question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, there are a number of kissing words in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Based on *basium* there are *basiolum* (&quot;little kiss&quot;) and *basiatio* (&quot;the act of kissing&quot;, also &quot;kiss&quot; by metonymy).&#xD;&#xA;AS you recalled *suavium* is used, and so is the diminutive *suaviolum*.&#xD;&#xA;In addition to *osculum* and words related to the ones you mentioned, there are unrelated ones: *gustulum*, *philema*.&#xD;&#xA;There are also a number of kissing verbs in Latin with a wide range of prefixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found no evidence in Lewis and Short to support the distinction you make between *osculum* and *basium*.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, it explicitly mentions that these two and *suavium* are synonymous.&#xD;&#xA;There may well be a difference in nuance, but based on what I've seen in texts and dictionaries, I'm not sufficiently convinced yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6592" RevisionGUID="77a34a4e-8572-48bc-8df8-be14c9f20ca3" CreationDate="2018-05-28T09:54:56.177" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="The Spanish language has two words for *kiss*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Beso*, from Latin *basium*.&#xD;&#xA;* *Ósculo*, from Latin *oscŭlum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one is very seldom used, and only in literature as it is a cultured word. Nonetheless, it seems that in Latin the two words were used for different kind of kisses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Basium* was used for the lovers, as the kisses you gave to your wife or husband.&#xD;&#xA;* *Oscŭlum* was used for the rest of kisses that showed affection or respect, as the ones you gave to friends or family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know when the *oscŭlum* word began being considered a cultured word in Spanish, so my question is: was the aforementioned difference effectively used in Latin? Or was the *oscŭlum* word already considered a cultured one in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus: Was there any other word for *kiss* in Latin? I've seen *suavium*, maybe? Did I get their uses right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21827" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6592" RevisionGUID="77a34a4e-8572-48bc-8df8-be14c9f20ca3" CreationDate="2018-05-28T09:54:56.177" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|word-comparison|nuance|noun|differences|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6593" RevisionGUID="93856312-0486-424c-a90f-0badbc8163cb" CreationDate="2018-05-28T10:00:21.990" UserId="79" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="This is an answer to your bonus question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, there are a number of kissing words in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Based on *basium* there are *basiolum* (&quot;little kiss&quot;) and *basiatio* (&quot;the act of kissing&quot;, also &quot;kiss&quot; by metonymy).&#xD;&#xA;AS you recalled *suavium* is used, and so is the diminutive *suaviolum*.&#xD;&#xA;In addition to *osculum* and words related to the ones you mentioned, there are unrelated ones: *gustulum*, *philema*.&#xD;&#xA;There are also a number of kissing verbs in Latin with a wide range of prefixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found no evidence in Lewis and Short to support the distinction you make between *osculum* and *basium*.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, it explicitly mentions that these two and *suavium* are synonymous.&#xD;&#xA;There may well be a difference in nuance, but based on what I've seen in texts and dictionaries, I'm not sufficiently convinced yet.&#xD;&#xA;However, my impression is based on classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;It is no surprise if new nuances have developed afterwards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6594" RevisionGUID="1e4b57fa-a40b-4899-800f-a20bf0ddf286" CreationDate="2018-05-28T11:28:23.127" UserId="324" Text="To answer the other part of your question: salvas is of course 2nd (not 3rd) person singular, addressing God." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6595" RevisionGUID="7e59ea47-63f3-4033-b246-52c5487eb418" CreationDate="2018-05-28T13:34:37.893" UserId="1495" Text="In his translation of the following passage from Seneca's *De Ira*, John Basore renders *nucibus* as &quot;toys&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non pietas illam iram sed infirmitas movet, sicut pueris, qui tam&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parentibus amissis flebunt quam nucibus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought *nux* meant a nut. Can it also mean a toy, or is the translator using poetic license?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21831" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6595" RevisionGUID="7e59ea47-63f3-4033-b246-52c5487eb418" CreationDate="2018-05-28T13:34:37.893" UserId="1495" Text="Does nux also mean a toy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21832" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6595" RevisionGUID="7e59ea47-63f3-4033-b246-52c5487eb418" CreationDate="2018-05-28T13:34:37.893" UserId="1495" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6596" RevisionGUID="99796dd8-73ed-4d4e-8494-fd66393be28d" CreationDate="2018-05-28T13:40:26.050" UserId="79" Text="Take a look at [*nux* in Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=nux&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;It does mean &quot;nut&quot;, but children played with nuts and for example *nuces relinquere* meant &quot;to give up childish sports, to betake one's self to the serious business of life, to throw away our rattles&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English word &quot;nut&quot; does not have such connotations (at least not equally strongly), so it makes sense to translate it as &quot;toy&quot; instead.&#xD;&#xA;It is not poetic license but an accurate translation: it conveys the idea correctly in English, whereas &quot;nuts&quot; would have been misleading." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6597" RevisionGUID="5f6a5056-5006-42d7-af3c-e1de23ce805b" CreationDate="2018-05-28T15:03:17.613" UserId="469" Text="*Another partial answer.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tl;dr**: kissing had a social role in Judaism that was inherited into Christianity (as *osculum* in the Vulgate), where it even had/acquired a ceremonial role (not sure if this one existed among Jews). Maybe&amp;mdash;and this is pure speculation&amp;mdash;this ceremonial role was what later made the word _osculum_ a matter of respect and created the need for another one for its more common use. Maybe _basium_ was a matter of pudity, but later extended its semantic field to encompass any kind of kiss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**Kisses** (not those between lovers) seem to have had an important role in Jewish culture. At least it was so in the I century and was inherited into Christianity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Clementine Vulgate][1] lists 53 occurrences of *osculum*, of which 38 are in the Old Testament, 9 in the Gospels, and 6 in other books of the New Testament. In turn, no occurrences of *basium* can be found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering these occurrences, a word of two can be said about the role of kisses in Ist Century Judaism/early Christianity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Kissing welcome to a guest was somewhat expected (Lc 7:45)&#xD;&#xA;* Kissing even the feet of someone with a higher social/religious rank was not weird at all (7:38,45)&#xD;&#xA;* A disciple kissing a master was a common, yet warm, greeting (Mt 26:48-49, Mc 14:44-45, Lc 22:47-48), and was the sign chosen by Judas to betray Jesus&#xD;&#xA;* A kiss was also an obvious sing of affection from a father to a grown-up son (Lc 15:20)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the Ascension of Jesus, the kisses mentioned in the New Testament belong to two classes:&#xD;&#xA;* When St. Paul paid what he knew what his last visit to the Ephesians, they were sad, and wished him farewell with kisses&#xD;&#xA;* St. Paul ends four of his letters, and St. Peter one, commending their readers to greet each other *in osculo sancto*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This ***osculum sanctum*** became part of the Mass and was later known as [*osculum pacis*][2], after centuries of social change and enculturation of Christianity in different times and places, kissing was not always the most appropriate sign of fraternal peace (perhaps sometimes too intimate) and so the signs&amp;mdash;and name&amp;mdash;adapted to what is today known as *signum pacis* (which may still be a kiss, a handshake or even a hug), and is observed on Sunday Masses and optional the rest of the days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My intuition is that this ceremonial meaning before and during the formation of Romance languages might have triggered the need for another word for the *common* kiss: hence *beso* in Spanish, *bacio* in Italian, *baiser/embrasser* in French, *beijo* in Portuguese, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/vulsearch&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_of_peace" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6597" RevisionGUID="4b8c7c88-a5f2-4d75-a712-7f7d22904e22" CreationDate="2018-05-28T15:15:27.897" UserId="469" Comment="edited body" Text="*Another partial answer.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tl;dr**: kissing had a social role in Judaism that was inherited into Christianity (as *osculum* in the Vulgate), where it even had/acquired a ceremonial role (not sure if this one existed among Jews). Maybe&amp;mdash;and this is pure speculation&amp;mdash;this ceremonial role was what later made the word _osculum_ a matter of respect and created the need for another one for its more common use. Maybe _basium_ was a matter of pudity, but later extended its semantic field to encompass any kind of kiss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**Kisses** (not those between lovers) seem to have had an important role in Jewish culture. At least it was so in the I century and was inherited into Christianity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Clementine Vulgate][1] lists 53 occurrences of *osculum*, of which 38 are in the Old Testament, 9 in the Gospels, and 6 in other books of the New Testament. In turn, no occurrences of *basium* can be found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering these occurrences, a word of two can be said about the role of kisses in I Century Judaism/early Christianity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Kissing welcome to a guest was somewhat expected (Lc 7:45)&#xD;&#xA;* Kissing even the feet of someone with a higher social/religious rank was not weird at all (7:38,45)&#xD;&#xA;* A disciple kissing a master was a common, yet warm, greeting (Mt 26:48-49, Mc 14:44-45, Lc 22:47-48), and was the sign chosen by Judas to betray Jesus&#xD;&#xA;* A kiss was also an obvious sing of affection from a father to a grown-up son (Lc 15:20)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the Ascension of Jesus, the kisses mentioned in the New Testament belong to two classes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* When St. Paul paid what he knew what his last visit to the Ephesians, they were sad, and wished him farewell with kisses&#xD;&#xA;* St. Paul ends four of his letters, and St. Peter one, commending their readers to greet each other *in osculo sancto*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This ***osculum sanctum*** became part of the Mass and was later known as [*osculum pacis*][2]. After centuries of social change and enculturation of Christianity in different times and places, kissing was not always the most appropriate sign of fraternal peace (perhaps sometimes too intimate) and so the signs&amp;mdash;and name&amp;mdash;adapted to what is today known as *signum pacis* (which may still be a kiss, a handshake or even a hug), and is observed on Sunday Masses and optional the rest of the days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My intuition is that this ceremonial meaning before and during the formation of Romance languages might have triggered the need for another word for the *common* kiss: hence *beso* in Spanish, *bacio* in Italian, *baiser/embrasser* in French, *beijo* in Portuguese, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/vulsearch&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_of_peace" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6598" RevisionGUID="2fb5b97b-7072-4769-ac4f-e1c16bbc55a1" CreationDate="2018-05-28T16:41:51.430" UserId="39" Text="Here's **counter-evidence** for you, from Ovid *Amores* (2,5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;inproba tum vero iungentes oscula vidi—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;illa mihi lingua nexa fuisse liquet—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;qualia non fratri tulerit germana severo,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sed tulerit cupido mollis amica viro;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;qualia credibile est non Phoebo ferre Dianam,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sed Venerem Marti saepe tulisse suo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who would think there's an entire article on [Kiss][1] in Brill's New Pauly, but it's there and it's quite an interesting reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e625090" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6598" RevisionGUID="562605d7-f98f-4b7c-8fee-0e26fa984619" CreationDate="2018-05-28T16:42:56.530" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Here's **counter-evidence** for you, from Ovid *Amores* (2,5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;inproba tum vero iungentes oscula vidi—  &#xD;&#xA;illa mihi lingua nexa fuisse liquet—  &#xD;&#xA;qualia non fratri tulerit germana severo,  &#xD;&#xA;sed tulerit cupido mollis amica viro;  &#xD;&#xA;qualia credibile est non Phoebo ferre Dianam,  &#xD;&#xA;sed Venerem Marti saepe tulisse suo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who would think there's an entire article on [Kiss][1] in Brill's New Pauly, but it's there and it's quite an interesting reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e625090" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6599" RevisionGUID="039e6109-1ad3-4a7f-bbb7-eccdf5bf7474" CreationDate="2018-05-28T16:43:06.203" UserId="645" Text="Smith's Copious &amp; Critical English-Latin Dictionary (p. 430) in longish articles is good on this, giving *suavium* as the &quot;most suitable word for ordinary use&quot;, *osculor* as &quot;the term most suitable for the highest composition&quot; (*cf.* the original question) and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his arch, Victorian way, Smith cites *basium* as &quot;esp. an amorous or lewd kiss&quot; and, in fact, Catullus in the poems to his mistress Lesbia uses *basium, basatio* etc. to cloak  a great deal more than that in the language of decency. We might compare this use to the French *baiser* with its range of usage, or to the obsolete (English) *buss* used by *inter alios*, Shakespeare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6600" RevisionGUID="5793c90f-37ae-4e58-aa46-5e7b14ee23ce" CreationDate="2018-05-28T18:33:01.077" UserId="427" Text="The verb *disto, distare* 'stand apart, be distant, be different' may be used this way, with an accusative of extent to show how far away one is, either in time or in space:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Caesare adhuc multas hebdomades distante, ...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;'With Caesar still many weeks distant, ...'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Caesare adhuc multa milia passuum distante, ...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;'With Caesar still many miles distant, ...'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to show the thing from which Caesar is distant, you may do so either with *ab, a* or the bare ablative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Caesar a Roma viginti milia passuum distat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Caesar is twenty miles distant from Rome.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, if the subject is plural, with *inter se* and a distributive number:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Oppida inter se vicena milia passuum distant.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;'The towns are twenty miles distant from each other.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6601" RevisionGUID="035c849d-c47d-46dc-90fa-1a6ca54df68f" CreationDate="2018-05-28T23:12:24.077" UserId="1694" Text="I've already commented on this, but I'll add this as (another) partial answer:  _ósculo_ is a learned borrowing from Latin from _osculum_, rather than having been descended from its Latin origin in popular speech, unlike the case of Sp. _beso_ &lt; L. _basium_, so it's natural that it started out (in Spanish) with a more literary feel to it than the common _beso_.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6598" RevisionGUID="48b8de32-896d-4685-91ab-96d8b40bf4d5" CreationDate="2018-05-29T00:48:40.027" UserId="39" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="Here's **counter-evidence** for you, from Ovid *Amores* (2,5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;inproba tum vero iungentes oscula vidi—  &#xD;&#xA;illa mihi lingua nexa fuisse liquet—  &#xD;&#xA;qualia non fratri tulerit germana severo,  &#xD;&#xA;sed tulerit cupido mollis amica viro;  &#xD;&#xA;qualia credibile est non Phoebo ferre Dianam,  &#xD;&#xA;sed Venerem Marti saepe tulisse suo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or here's an excerpt from Platus *Mercator* (744-745):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;nam qui amat quod amat si habet, id habet pro cibo:   &#xD;&#xA;uidere, amplecti, osculari, alloqui;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who would think there's an entire article on [Kiss][1] in Brill's New Pauly, but it's there and it's quite an interesting reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e625090" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6598" RevisionGUID="0c8b28b2-e1e5-415d-94f7-72c8b06fba13" CreationDate="2018-05-29T01:02:51.300" UserId="39" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="Here's **counter-evidence** for you, from Ovid *Amores* (2,5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;inproba tum vero iungentes oscula vidi—  &#xD;&#xA;illa mihi lingua nexa fuisse liquet—  &#xD;&#xA;qualia non fratri tulerit germana severo,  &#xD;&#xA;sed tulerit cupido mollis amica viro;  &#xD;&#xA;qualia credibile est non Phoebo ferre Dianam,  &#xD;&#xA;sed Venerem Marti saepe tulisse suo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or here's an excerpt from Platus *Mercator* (744-745):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;nam qui amat quod amat si habet, id habet pro cibo:   &#xD;&#xA;uidere, amplecti, osculari, alloqui;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Fordyce 1961:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who would think there's an entire article on [Kiss][2] in Brill's New Pauly, but it's there and it's quite an interesting reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iobla.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e625090" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6598" RevisionGUID="be41b9c0-a710-49ca-8653-2b0c5b869168" CreationDate="2018-05-29T01:29:33.493" UserId="39" Comment="added 275 characters in body" Text="Here's **counter-evidence** for you, from Ovid *Amores* (2,5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;inproba tum vero iungentes oscula vidi—  &#xD;&#xA;illa mihi lingua nexa fuisse liquet—  &#xD;&#xA;qualia non fratri tulerit germana severo,  &#xD;&#xA;sed tulerit cupido mollis amica viro;  &#xD;&#xA;qualia credibile est non Phoebo ferre Dianam,  &#xD;&#xA;sed Venerem Marti saepe tulisse suo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or here's an excerpt from Platus *Mercator* (744-745):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;nam qui amat quod amat si habet, id habet pro cibo:   &#xD;&#xA;uidere, amplecti, osculari, alloqui;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Fordyce 1961:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or de Vaan:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The original meaning of *basium* included an erotic connotation absent from *osculum*; in Imperial Latin, basium became the general word for 'kiss'.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who would think there's an entire article on [Kiss][2] in Brill's New Pauly, but it's there and it's quite an interesting reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For real data we'll have to look it up in TLL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems a lot of the sources from &quot;ye goode olde days&quot; merely recycle the idea expressed by Servius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iobla.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e625090" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6602" RevisionGUID="c0979f8c-e11e-46c3-b9f9-0a42c7473fbb" CreationDate="2018-05-29T01:34:28.107" UserId="172" Text="I cannot provide a complete answer either, but perhaps a few points one the subject of kissing, and the semantics of the words for it. I cannot, unfortunately, provide immediate literature references for these, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The elder word for the kiss is *osculum*, attested in the earliest writing, and with a very transparent meaning (“little mouth”). Romans had a greeting ritual of kissing each other, but only when the people were related clansmen. This *strongly suggests* (although I cannot recall either Fustel de Coulanges or Pierre Grimal directly mentioning the custom) the religious origin of this ritual: The significant unifying force within the Roman extended family was the religion, a cult of the household deities, well guarded against even sights of the outsiders. The parallel I see here is the very ancient, perhaps pre-Roman origin of both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It is likely that Romans did not kiss each other on the cheek, or in any other way; the original kiss was on the lips only. There was not a distinction between same or different sexes in the appropriateness of this “family” kiss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*ius osculi*][1], “the right to kiss,” was apparently an ancient law that allowed a Roman man to kiss his wife anytime he wishes. It is said to be related to the prohibition of drinking the first harvest wine by women (a religious offense, punishable by death: Romans were gravely serious about their relationship with the higher-ups!). However, this law was apparently being invoked by Agrippina to get kisses from his husband Emperor Claudius, so we can assume the law mentioned both spouses right to demand kisses, not only that husband's of the wife. This goes against the drinking-detection rationale (we modern people rationalize too much; I am always skeptical about any rationalization of a religion, and the ancient one doubly so). We do not know, AFAIK, any written form of this law. Apparently, this was also part from early Roman or pre-Roman cults, not understand any more by the literate times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The [last kiss][2] was given to a person dying in the presence of their relatives. I cannot readily find any sources; google searches for &quot;osculum funeri[s]&quot; or &quot;funebris&quot; do not reveal much. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Oh, but these searches, however, [did uncover a summary][3], which appears more of original research than a scholarly paper on Roman kissing. Unfortunately, the bibliography consists of primary sources more than research papers, so take it with a grain of salt, naturally. But it might be an excellent compendium of primary references to start one's own research, so I think I should mention it here too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *suavium*, another word for “a kiss,” according to L&amp;S, is mostly ante-classical, although is found in Cic. The etymology is also quite transparent, cf. *suave*. I cannot comment on semantic differences with *osculum*. FWIW, it might have started as a stylistic one, but I confess drawing a blank here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *basium* is the most interesting one, perhaps an example of the language in the process of conscious making. L&amp;S provides a good clue: *(rare and mostly poet.; most freq. in Cat.; &quot;not in Plaut. or Ter.)*. The origin is uncertain; the only connection I can come up with is the PCelt. *guss- “lip, kiss,” and, while the *g* would phonologically match the Latin *b*, if I am not mistaken the *u* and *a* cannot be related here. (But a relation to Eng. *kiss* is possible; perhaps a good question for Linguistics.SE.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Again, unsourced for now (I'll try to find references later): apparently, the word was introduced by Catullus, who needed an expression for a passionate lover's kiss, unquestionably distinct from *osculum* and *suavium*. Indeed, there is a lot of passionate kissing in Catullus' poetry. In a span of the next couple centuries, the meaning mingled of that with *osculum* (and growing usage of *savium*) to the point of an apparent loss of distinction. However, the distinction might have survived better in the Vulgar language, with the words derived from *osculum* taking the formal register, and the derivatives of *basium* the lower one (and the peculiar French development is undoubtedly of a  relatively recent origin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider this a WIP; I'll try to find references for these points. I make notes on topics that interest me, but sometimes they are in an excellent disarray, so this is only how much I can provide now off my old notebooks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ius_osculi&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_funerary_practices&amp;oldid=837970204#Preparation_of_the_body&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Kiss" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6493" RevisionGUID="d77e1a0b-90f2-4ca2-a156-9b6c0a19e670" CreationDate="2018-05-29T01:50:54.920" UserId="172" Comment="Add a note on the late author of the program." Text="There is a program called WORDS by one Whitaker, apparently no longer maintained since early 2000s (his home page has disappeared, too), but the copies [are still floating around][1]. I am using it all the time. It uses some semi-empirical rules to deduct all possible forms for a word. Personally I find it very useful, and even thinking about rewriting and maintaining it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Distributed with the program is a [file LISTALL][2] which is a list of all word forms in the dictionary that can possibly be generated. A caveat here is that the dictionary is quite large, and contains medieval Latin words and forms. There are markings in the database, but in LISTALL the distinction is lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as the technique goes, you first grep the LISTALL¹ file, then copy interesting forms and paste then to WORDS as input. This way it is possible to understand the algorithm's &quot;idea&quot; how the possible form was produced. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $ grep -P 'oo$' listall&#xD;&#xA;    aizoo&#xD;&#xA;    antoo&#xD;&#xA;    arctoo&#xD;&#xA;    Arctoo&#xD;&#xA;    arctoo&#xD;&#xA;    . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May of these are not verbs. It makes sense to copy the grep result and paste it to WORDS as input². Here's the output from pasting a few words into its console from the above list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    =&gt;curotrophoo&#xD;&#xA;    curotrophoo                    ========   UNKNOWN&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    =&gt;Eoo&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 N      2 1 DAT S M                   Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 N      2 1 ABL S M                   Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    Eous, Eoi  N (2nd) M   [XXXDX]      lesser&#xD;&#xA;    morning star; Oriental, dweller in the east; one of the horses of the Sun;&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 ADJ    1 1 DAT S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 ADJ    1 1 DAT S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 ADJ    1 1 ABL S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eo.o                 ADJ    1 1 ABL S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    Eous, Eoa, Eoum  ADJ   [XXXDX]      lesser&#xD;&#xA;    eastern; of the dawn; belonging to/of/set in the morning;&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;    =&gt;epogdoo&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    1 1 DAT S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    1 1 DAT S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    1 1 ABL S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    1 1 ABL S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdous, epogdoa, epogdoum  ADJ   [DDXES]    Late  uncommon&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    2 6 DAT S C POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdo.o             ADJ    2 6 ABL S C POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    epogdoos, epogdoos, -  ADJ   [DDXES]    Late  uncommon&#xD;&#xA;    nine-eighths; (music); whole and eighth;&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;    =&gt;euroo&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    euro.o               ADJ    1 1 DAT S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    euro.o               ADJ    1 1 DAT S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    euro.o               ADJ    1 1 ABL S M POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    euro.o               ADJ    1 1 ABL S N POS               Always    mostfreq&#xD;&#xA;    eurous, euroa, euroum  ADJ   [XXXDX]      lesser&#xD;&#xA;    eastern;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So naturally none of these are verb forms, and one was not even understood by the parser. In fact, this simple example only found the same *[re]boo* and *inchoo* as the above link. But searches in the local file can be as complex as you fancy, not limited by a Web application interface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ADDENDUM:** Col. William A. Whitaker (USAF-Retired), who worked on the ADA language while at DARPA and wrote the WORDS program in his retirement, [passed away in December 2010][3]. As far as I can tell, nobody is supporting the original version at this time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_______&#xD;&#xA;¹ The file is referred to as `LISTALL` in the documentation, but the actual file name as distributed is lowercase `listall`. I am keeping it consistent with the documentation, except in actual usage examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;² The program accepts whitespace and newline as word separator, so that many words at once, a sentence, or even whole paragraph can be pasted to its input console.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archives.nd.edu/whitaker/words.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://archives.nd.edu/whitaker/wordsoth.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/mrt/obituary.aspx?&amp;pid=147336402" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6602" RevisionGUID="9aa0adbc-5301-4e26-9231-6002b7260e37" CreationDate="2018-05-29T02:15:08.633" UserId="172" Comment="Fix typo s/suave/suavis/." Text="I cannot provide a complete answer either, but perhaps a few points one the subject of kissing, and the semantics of the words for it. I cannot, unfortunately, provide immediate literature references for these, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The elder word for the kiss is *osculum*, attested in the earliest writing, and with a very transparent meaning (“little mouth”). Romans had a greeting ritual of kissing each other, but only when the people were related clansmen. This *strongly suggests* (although I cannot recall either Fustel de Coulanges or Pierre Grimal directly mentioning the custom) the religious origin of this ritual: The significant unifying force within the Roman extended family was the religion, a cult of the household deities, well guarded against even sights of the outsiders. The parallel I see here is the very ancient, perhaps pre-Roman origin of both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It is likely that Romans did not kiss each other on the cheek, or in any other way; the original kiss was on the lips only. There was not a distinction between same or different sexes in the appropriateness of this “family” kiss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*ius osculi*][1], “the right to kiss,” was apparently an ancient law that allowed a Roman man to kiss his wife anytime he wishes. It is said to be related to the prohibition of drinking the first harvest wine by women (a religious offense, punishable by death: Romans were gravely serious about their relationship with the higher-ups!). However, this law was apparently being invoked by Agrippina to get kisses from his husband Emperor Claudius, so we can assume the law mentioned both spouses right to demand kisses, not only that husband's of the wife. This goes against the drinking-detection rationale (we modern people rationalize too much; I am always skeptical about any rationalization of a religion, and the ancient one doubly so). We do not know, AFAIK, any written form of this law. Apparently, this was also part from early Roman or pre-Roman cults, not understand any more by the literate times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The [last kiss][2] was given to a person dying in the presence of their relatives. I cannot readily find any sources; google searches for &quot;osculum funeri[s]&quot; or &quot;funebris&quot; do not reveal much. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Oh, but these searches, however, [did uncover a summary][3], which appears more of original research than a scholarly paper on Roman kissing. Unfortunately, the bibliography consists of primary sources more than research papers, so take it with a grain of salt, naturally. But it might be an excellent compendium of primary references to start one's own research, so I think I should mention it here too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *suavium*, another word for “a kiss,” according to L&amp;S, is mostly ante-classical, although is found in Cic. The etymology is also quite transparent, cf. *suavis*. I cannot comment on semantic differences with *osculum*. FWIW, it might have started as a stylistic one, but I confess drawing a blank here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *basium* is the most interesting one, perhaps an example of the language in the process of conscious making. L&amp;S provides a good clue: *(rare and mostly poet.; most freq. in Cat.; &quot;not in Plaut. or Ter.)*. The origin is uncertain; the only connection I can come up with is the PCelt. *guss- “lip, kiss,” and, while the *g* would phonologically match the Latin *b*, if I am not mistaken the *u* and *a* cannot be related here. (But a relation to Eng. *kiss* is possible; perhaps a good question for Linguistics.SE.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Again, unsourced for now (I'll try to find references later): apparently, the word was introduced by Catullus, who needed an expression for a passionate lover's kiss, unquestionably distinct from *osculum* and *suavium*. Indeed, there is a lot of passionate kissing in Catullus' poetry. In a span of the next couple centuries, the meaning mingled of that with *osculum* (and growing usage of *savium*) to the point of an apparent loss of distinction. However, the distinction might have survived better in the Vulgar language, with the words derived from *osculum* taking the formal register, and the derivatives of *basium* the lower one (and the peculiar French development is undoubtedly of a  relatively recent origin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider this a WIP; I'll try to find references for these points. I make notes on topics that interest me, but sometimes they are in an excellent disarray, so this is only how much I can provide now off my old notebooks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ius_osculi&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_funerary_practices&amp;oldid=837970204#Preparation_of_the_body&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Kiss" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6603" RevisionGUID="1ac710ee-4527-4345-a4d0-fa3f67c189b2" CreationDate="2018-05-29T02:39:34.477" UserId="172" Text="I may be misunderstanding what is exactly unclear here, so I am sorry if I misinterpriting the question. The *sĕro*, *sertus* has the semantics of binding into a bunch: “wreath; join, entwine, interweave, bind together; compose; contrive;” [Whit.] (There is also an irrelevant lemma of *sēro*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*in-serere*, with the regular semantics of *in-*, directs the action of the verb inward, giving it the force of *bundling in, adding to the bunch, wreath or bundle*: “to put, bring, or introduce into, to insert” [L&amp;S]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ex-serere*, with the  *ex-* expectedly directing the action outward, essentially means *un-bundle, separate or protrude from, be taken away from the bunch*: “to stretch out or forth, to thrust out, put forth, to take out; to protrud[e] from the dress, [to be] bare, uncovered” [L&amp;S]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6602" RevisionGUID="7d75dc08-3b84-4a02-a15f-a75da9236dc4" CreationDate="2018-05-29T07:32:44.730" UserId="172" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I cannot provide a complete answer either, but perhaps a few points one the subject of kissing, and the semantics of the words for it. I cannot, unfortunately, provide immediate literature references for these, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The elder word for the kiss is *osculum*, attested in the earliest writing, and with a very transparent meaning (“little mouth”). Romans had a greeting ritual of kissing each other, but only when the people were related clansmen. This *strongly suggests* (although I cannot recall either Fustel de Coulanges or Pierre Grimal directly mentioning the custom) the religious origin of this ritual: The significant unifying force within the Roman extended family was the religion, a cult of the household deities, well guarded against even sights of the outsiders. The parallel I see here is the very ancient, perhaps pre-Roman origin of both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It is likely that Romans did not kiss each other on the cheek, or in any other way; the original kiss was on the lips only. There was not a distinction between same or different sexes in the appropriateness of this “family” kiss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*ius osculi*][1], “the right to kiss,” was apparently an ancient law that allowed a Roman man to kiss his wife anytime he wishes. It is said to be related to the prohibition of drinking the first harvest wine by women (a religious offense, punishable by death: Romans were gravely serious about their relationship with the higher-ups!). However, this law was apparently being invoked by Agrippina to get kisses from his husband Emperor Claudius, so we can assume the law mentioned both spouses right to demand kisses, not only that husband's of the wife. This goes against the drinking-detection rationale (we modern people rationalize too much; I am always skeptical about any rationalization of a religion, and the ancient one doubly so). We do not know, AFAIK, any written form of this law. Apparently, this was also part from early Roman or pre-Roman cults, not understand any more by the literate times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The [last kiss][2] was given to a person dying in the presence of their relatives. I cannot readily find any sources; google searches for &quot;osculum funeri[s]&quot; or &quot;funebris&quot; do not reveal much. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Oh, but these searches, however, [did uncover a summary][3], which appears more of original research than a scholarly paper on Roman kissing. Unfortunately, the bibliography consists of primary sources more than research papers, so take it with a grain of salt, naturally. But it might be an excellent compendium of primary references to start one's own research, so I think I should mention it here too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *suavium*, another word for “a kiss,” according to L&amp;S, is mostly ante-classical, although is found in Cic. The etymology is also quite transparent, cf. *suavis*. I cannot comment on semantic differences with *osculum*. FWIW, it might have started as a stylistic one, but I confess to drawing a blank here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *basium* is the most interesting one, perhaps an example of the language in the process of conscious making. L&amp;S provides a good clue: *(rare and mostly poet.; most freq. in Cat.; not in Plaut. or Ter.)*. The origin is uncertain; the only connection I can come up with is the PCelt. *guss- “lip, kiss,” and, while the *g* would phonologically match the Latin *b*, if I am not mistaken the *u* and *a* cannot be related here. (But a relation to Eng. *kiss* is possible; perhaps a good question for Linguistics.SE.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Again, unsourced for now (I'll try to find references later): apparently, the word was introduced by Catullus, who needed an expression for a passionate lover's kiss, unquestionably distinct from *osculum* and *suavium*. Indeed, there is a lot of passionate kissing in Catullus' poetry. In a span of the next couple centuries, the meaning mingled of that with *osculum* (and growing usage of *suavium*) to the point of an apparent loss of distinction. However, the distinction might have survived better in the Vulgar language, with the words derived from *osculum* taking the formal register, and the derivatives of *basium* the lower one (and the peculiar French development is undoubtedly of a  relatively recent origin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider this a WIP; I'll try to find references for these points. I make notes on topics that interest me, but sometimes they are in an excellent disarray, so this is only how much I can provide now off my old notebooks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ius_osculi&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_funerary_practices&amp;oldid=837970204#Preparation_of_the_body&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Kiss" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6604" RevisionGUID="63a5756f-0f5c-42c9-a30c-7eb4fc8beb06" CreationDate="2018-05-29T08:40:54.063" UserId="172" Text="Since this question received no answers in more than a month, let me make a feeble attempt at coming up with one. When we enter the realm of semantics, it is easy to concoct an *ex post* explanation, a just-so story; theories are scarce though. But let me start with the quote from the OP:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But the image is not so **clear** when the usage becomes more generalised, when the verb starts being applied to a wide range of cognitive processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The boldface is mine. Is not it **clear** how the semantics of clearing up a space or view (say by trimming trees) translates into that of mental clarity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a common pattern, at the least in the IE languages, when the terms of clearing out space translate metaphorically into those of mental clarity, and those of understanding are from grasping (*grasping* in the sense of understanding, as also in Rus. понять ponyat' = “to understand, to realize”, literally ,“to seize-PERF”), or reaching a locus in space as the end of a thinking &quot;path&quot; (both *understand* = “stand under” and ἐπίστᾰμαι = “stand over/upon” are clear examples of this pattern). Yes, we *reach* a conclusion. And the *conclusion* itself is from *con-claudere*, something we lock up and make immovable. The metaphor is but the most productive vehicle for the creation of new concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for @Cerberus' additional question, the words of decision come from the root meaninig “cut” in so many IE languages as well. decide = cut off. Rus. решить reshyt' = to cut. *Resolve* also contains the PIE root of *leu- with the similar semantics of cutting. This is another common theme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wish I could come up with a more scientific explanation, but there is no theory on how mind produces language worth calling scientific, and not even one of semantics development only. I can only share some partial generalizations I came across as important in my field of research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps, an accessible and popular book emphasizing the workings of the metaphor, among other topics of language development (many of them fascinating, a few possibly controversial), would be *The Unfolding of Language* by Guy Deutscher." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6602" RevisionGUID="18b70e7e-53e7-478c-88b5-ab033a40ee2d" CreationDate="2018-05-29T10:44:29.993" UserId="172" Comment="edited body" Text="I cannot provide a complete answer either, but perhaps a few points one the subject of kissing, and the semantics of the words for it. I cannot, unfortunately, provide immediate literature references for these, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The elder word for the kiss is *osculum*, attested in the earliest writing, and with a very transparent meaning (“little mouth”). Romans had a greeting ritual of kissing each other, but only when the people were related clansmen. This *strongly suggests* (although I cannot recall either Fustel de Coulanges or Pierre Grimal directly mentioning the custom) the religious origin of this ritual: The significant unifying force within the Roman extended family was the religion, a cult of the household deities, well guarded against even sights of the outsiders. The parallel I see here is the very ancient, perhaps pre-Roman origin of both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It is likely that Romans did not kiss each other on the cheek, or in any other way; the original kiss was on the lips only. There was not a distinction between same or different sexes in the appropriateness of this “family” kiss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*ius osculi*][1], “the right to kiss,” was apparently an ancient law that allowed a Roman man to kiss his wife anytime he wishes. It is said to be related to the prohibition of drinking the first harvest wine by women (a religious offense, punishable by death: Romans were gravely serious about their relationship with the higher-ups!). However, this law was apparently being invoked by Agrippina to get kisses from her husband Emperor Claudius, so we can assume the law mentioned both spouses right to demand kisses, not only that husband's of the wife. This goes against the drinking-detection rationale (we modern people rationalize too much; I am always skeptical about any rationalization of a religion, and the ancient one doubly so). We do not know, AFAIK, any written form of this law. Apparently, this was also part from early Roman or pre-Roman cults, not being understood any more by the literate times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The [last kiss][2] was given to a person dying in the presence of their relatives. I cannot readily find any sources; google searches for &quot;osculum funeri[s]&quot; or &quot;funebris&quot; do not reveal much. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Oh, but these searches, however, [did uncover a summary][3], which appears more of original research than a scholarly paper on Roman kissing. Unfortunately, the bibliography consists of primary sources more than research papers, so take it with a grain of salt, naturally. But it might be an excellent compendium of primary references to start one's own research, so I think I should mention it here too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *suavium*, another word for “a kiss,” according to L&amp;S, is mostly ante-classical, although is found in Cic. The etymology is also quite transparent, cf. *suavis*. I cannot comment on semantic differences with *osculum*. FWIW, it might have started as a stylistic one, but I confess to drawing a blank here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *basium* is the most interesting one, perhaps an example of the language in the process of conscious making. L&amp;S provides a good clue: *(rare and mostly poet.; most freq. in Cat.; not in Plaut. or Ter.)*. The origin is uncertain; the only connection I can come up with is the PCelt. *guss- “lip, kiss,” and, while the *g* would phonologically match the Latin *b*, if I am not mistaken the *u* and *a* cannot be related here. (But a relation to Eng. *kiss* is possible; perhaps a good question for Linguistics.SE.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Again, unsourced for now (I'll try to find references later): apparently, the word was introduced by Catullus, who needed an expression for a passionate lover's kiss, unquestionably distinct from *osculum* and *suavium*. Indeed, there is a lot of passionate kissing in Catullus' poetry. In a span of the next couple centuries, the meaning mingled with that of *osculum* (and growing usage of *suavium*) to the point of an apparent loss of distinction. However, the distinction might have survived better in the Vulgar language, with the words derived from *osculum* taking the formal register, and the derivatives of *basium* the lower one (and the peculiar French development is undoubtedly of a  relatively recent origin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider this a WIP; I'll try to find references for these points. I make notes on topics that interest me, but sometimes they are in an excellent disarray, so this is only how much I can provide now off my old notebooks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ius_osculi&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_funerary_practices&amp;oldid=837970204#Preparation_of_the_body&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Kiss" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6605" RevisionGUID="5f9e7c6f-2cc4-4459-bc53-3dd1d15a606e" CreationDate="2018-05-29T12:29:27.900" UserId="2659" Text="I'm trying to understand the following sentence from Leonhard Eulers  *Institutionum calculi integralis Vol. III* Chap. 2, bottom of [p.40][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Huiusmodi functiones arbitrarias, prouti hic feci, eiusmodi signandi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; modo *f:y* indicabo, unde cauendum erit ne littera *f* pro quantitate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; habitur, quocirca ipsi *colon* suffigere visum est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A translation can be found [here][3], but I'm unable to make sense of the second half:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arbitrary functions of this kind, as I have made here, I will indicate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by being marked in this way *f:y* , from which there will be a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; caution, without the letter *f* for the quantity that may be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; considered, concerning which a colon is considered sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd appreciate your help rephrasing this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Some context: The passage is interesting since Euler is largely considered responsible for introducing and popularising the *f(x)* notation in mathematics, which he at that time wrote as *f:x*. This is one of the few instances where he explains something about it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/titleinfo/9549650&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/pageview/9549703&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.17centurymaths.com/contents/euler/intcalvol1/part6ch2.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6605" RevisionGUID="5f9e7c6f-2cc4-4459-bc53-3dd1d15a606e" CreationDate="2018-05-29T12:29:27.900" UserId="2659" Text="A phrase of L. Euler on functions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6605" RevisionGUID="5f9e7c6f-2cc4-4459-bc53-3dd1d15a606e" CreationDate="2018-05-29T12:29:27.900" UserId="2659" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6606" RevisionGUID="d9f91fdc-1b70-49fd-9692-5783f91b8328" CreationDate="2018-05-29T13:08:19.207" UserId="469" Text="If I get you right, the part you have trouble with is the one starting with *unde*, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation seems clumsy to me. Euler is explaining the notation he will use for functions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *unde*: hence/from where&#xD;&#xA;* *Cauendum erit*: it is to be taken care of&#xD;&#xA;* *ne*: that not/so that not/not to&#xD;&#xA;* *littera f pro quantitate habitur*: letter f be taken as a quantity (i.e., constant)&#xD;&#xA;* [*quocirca*][1]: for which reason&#xD;&#xA;* *ipsi*: to itself&#xD;&#xA;* *colon*: colon (:)&#xD;&#xA;* *suffigere*: suffix (as a verb)&#xD;&#xA;* *visum est*: has been seen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible, idiomatic(-ish) translation, could be,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hence, care is to be taken not to consider letter f as a constant, that is why [it is seen that] a colon was suffixed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a native English speaker, but I hope at least the idea is clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquocirca" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6605" RevisionGUID="7e81925f-b506-425b-860c-8baa044e3480" CreationDate="2018-05-29T13:15:23.567" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="I'm trying to understand the following sentence from Leonhard Euler's  *Institutionum calculi integralis Vol. III* Chap. 2, bottom of [p.40][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Huiusmodi functiones arbitrarias, prouti hic feci, eiusmodi signandi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; modo *f:y* indicabo, unde cauendum erit ne littera *f* pro quantitate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; habitur, quocirca ipsi *colon* suffigere visum est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A translation can be found [here][3], but I'm unable to make sense of the second half:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arbitrary functions of this kind, as I have made here, I will indicate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by being marked in this way *f:y* , from which there will be a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; caution, without the letter *f* for the quantity that may be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; considered, concerning which a colon is considered sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd appreciate your help rephrasing this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Some context: The passage is interesting since Euler is largely considered responsible for introducing and popularising the *f(x)* notation in mathematics, which he at that time wrote as *f:x*. This is one of the few instances where he explains something about it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/titleinfo/9549650&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/pageview/9549703&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.17centurymaths.com/contents/euler/intcalvol1/part6ch2.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21859" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6605" RevisionGUID="7e81925f-b506-425b-860c-8baa044e3480" CreationDate="2018-05-29T13:15:23.567" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|sentence-translation|new-latin|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4496" RevisionGUID="042beaf6-f57d-4609-8556-d304f5bbd2e0" CreationDate="2018-05-29T13:23:33.850" UserId="1459" Comment="minor changes" Text="I was thinking about the famous Phrase &quot;_alea iacta est_&quot;, and I was wondering: how would be the plural version of it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought about&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ALEAS IACTA SUNT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because _aleas_ needs to be in the accusative declination since it's the object and not the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Sunt_ because &quot;they are&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am just stuck on &quot;_iacta_&quot; which should be conjugated with _sunt_ and _aleas_, right? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it be _IACENT_?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6329" RevisionGUID="285c5c26-6db0-4ea2-9766-5352077e65b0" CreationDate="2018-05-29T13:24:41.257" UserId="1459" Comment="minor changes" Text="I guess that Cic. de Finibus IV, xvii [48] may be near to what you are looking for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*ea, quae secundum naturam sunt, petenda, sed ab iis et appetitio et actio commovetur,* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that isn't the exact reference, then I'm afraid that to locate the exact sentence would need either luck, or some closer reading than I have time to give it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1332" RevisionGUID="b45082e9-8612-476e-a1d5-340dc1d47109" CreationDate="2018-05-29T13:25:00.597" UserId="1459" Comment="minor changes" Text="I'm looking for the latin translation of the Serenity Prayer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; God,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The courage to change the things I can,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the wisdom to know the difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what [Wikipedia][1] says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dona mihi serenitatem accipere res quae non possum,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fortitudinem mutare res quae possum,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Atque sapientiam differentiam cognoscere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A change I might make is to use &quot;Domine&quot; instead of &quot;Deus&quot;, what do you think?&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pri%C3%A8re_de_la_S%C3%A9r%C3%A9nit%C3%A9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4688" RevisionGUID="4bafbd4e-12c0-46ff-a49c-b3e2b1d596e7" CreationDate="2018-05-29T13:25:30.803" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body" Text="Obviously, I don't trust Google translate, or I wouldn't be here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to clarify: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By &quot;The will&quot;, I mean &quot;a deliberate or fixed desire or intention&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4281" RevisionGUID="8e5855fb-d5de-40f8-854a-bfd9bbdb083e" CreationDate="2018-05-29T13:25:52.057" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body" Text="Please can someone help me translate the following into Latin as correctly as possible, or if other suggestions, all welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am not alone,  &#xD;&#xA;I live with the memories,  &#xD;&#xA;regret is my home,  &#xD;&#xA;this is my true freedom&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2509" RevisionGUID="994e94bc-8a5a-4ecd-b81c-c37ba7922b31" CreationDate="2018-05-29T13:26:59.950" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="I'm trying to find the most valid translation for &quot;I make, therefore I am&quot;. The closest I've seen is &quot;_ego creo ergo sum_&quot; But have also seen just &quot;_creo ergo sum_&quot;. Also seen many places stating that &quot;_Facio ergo sum_&quot; was correct but google translate seems to think that's actually &quot;I do, therefore I am&quot;&#xD;&#xA;So, is the beginning &quot;ego&quot; required? Would it be possible for someone to translate &quot;[text]&quot; into Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contextually, just going for a modification of the Descarte &quot;I think, therefore I am&quot; thing. For which google translate is fine with &quot;_Cogito ergo sum_&quot; without the beginning &quot;_ego_&quot; and it still includes the &quot;I&quot; at the start...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Planning to use with some PR material for a Maker Faire&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2516" RevisionGUID="83a17bde-8cb9-4614-b645-adc617836b87" CreationDate="2018-05-29T13:27:28.350" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="Asked the inverse of this [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2509/i-make-create-therefore-i-am) but when I thought about it I preferred the opposite sentiment. Not that one exists because they make things but that they make things because they exist, as in there is no other choice. It is a compulsion of existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, would there be a proper translation that would make sense for &quot;I exist, therefore I make&quot;? (So the inverse of &quot;_Facio Ergo Sum_&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1158" RevisionGUID="b52e3938-9cc7-4b66-a987-af6c82f4f047" CreationDate="2018-05-29T13:27:57.853" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="I am writing a blog and I want to have the title in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;It's a personal blog and I want to share about my personal experiences, the thing to do when there is no one else to share it with ;)&#xD;&#xA;I want to name it in Latin (don't know why I want to, but that's not the point, I like Latin), and the title in English would be &#xD;&#xA;&quot;A life, mine!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you please help to translate this to Latin? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried Google Translate but since obviously I do not know Latin, it's better not to risk being a butt of jokes using a strange translation by Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4496" RevisionGUID="64a8c3db-54e4-4dd4-bcc7-b60b84ffe9bb" CreationDate="2018-05-29T13:27:59.237" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="I was thinking about the famous Phrase &quot;_alea iacta est_&quot;, and I was wondering: how would be the plural version of it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought about&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ALEAS IACTA SUNT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because _aleas_ needs to be in the accusative declination since it's the object and not the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Sunt_ because &quot;they are&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am just stuck on &quot;_iacta_&quot; which should be conjugated with _sunt_ and _aleas_, right? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it be _IACENT_?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21870" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4496" RevisionGUID="64a8c3db-54e4-4dd4-bcc7-b60b84ffe9bb" CreationDate="2018-05-29T13:27:59.237" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|verbs|sentence-translation|plural|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4281" RevisionGUID="1860e873-e3a7-4c79-b7eb-fd5fdb8bb6b4" CreationDate="2018-05-29T13:31:12.667" UserId="79" Comment="added 20 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Please can someone help me translate the following into Latin as correctly as possible?&#xD;&#xA;Or if there are other suggestions, they are all welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am not alone,  &#xD;&#xA;I live with the memories,  &#xD;&#xA;regret is my home,  &#xD;&#xA;this is my true freedom&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21872" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4281" RevisionGUID="1860e873-e3a7-4c79-b7eb-fd5fdb8bb6b4" CreationDate="2018-05-29T13:31:12.667" UserId="79" Comment="added 20 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|song-lyrics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2509" RevisionGUID="1b817bd2-f733-4cd4-9b8e-f2f411cfedea" CreationDate="2018-05-29T13:37:21.263" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="I'm trying to find the most valid translation for &quot;I make, therefore I am&quot;. The closest I've seen is &quot;_ego creo ergo sum_&quot; But have also seen just &quot;_creo ergo sum_&quot;. Also seen many places stating that &quot;_Facio ergo sum_&quot; was correct but google translate seems to think that's actually &quot;I do, therefore I am&quot;&#xD;&#xA;So, is the beginning &quot;ego&quot; required? Would it be possible for someone to translate &quot;[text]&quot; into Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contextually, just going for a modification of the Descarte &quot;I think, therefore I am&quot; thing. For which google translate is fine with &quot;_Cogito ergo sum_&quot; without the beginning &quot;_ego_&quot; and it still includes the &quot;I&quot; at the start...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Planning to use with some PR material for a Maker Faire." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21874" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2509" RevisionGUID="1b817bd2-f733-4cd4-9b8e-f2f411cfedea" CreationDate="2018-05-29T13:37:21.263" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21875" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2516" RevisionGUID="d6fe1cc5-3646-4765-ac8c-b5a0d4ac07ca" CreationDate="2018-05-29T13:39:21.803" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6607" RevisionGUID="62bcacea-60fc-46fb-a5bc-ba9cb6a2d215" CreationDate="2018-05-29T14:03:45.827" UserId="45" Text="There are a lot of Latin words that begin with [*se-*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dse2). It adds the notion of being &quot;apart&quot; or &quot;separated&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- secerno&#xD;&#xA;- secludo&#xD;&#xA;- secubo&#xD;&#xA;- seduco&#xD;&#xA;- seiungo&#xD;&#xA;- sepono&#xD;&#xA;- etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The linked entry calls it an &quot;inseparable prefix&quot; meaning &quot;aside / by itself.&quot; [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/se-#Latin) associates it with the reflexive pronoun *se*. There also seems to be a separate (apparently unrelated) meaning where *se* is a contraction of *sine*, e.g. *securus* = *sine cura*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These options provoked some questions for me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If *se-* is related to the reflexive pronoun, how do we make sense of the &quot;apart&quot; meaning? &#xD;&#xA;- If *se-* is a preposition, why does it only appear as a prefix? It reminds me of *secus*, but seems to have the opposite meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21877" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6607" RevisionGUID="62bcacea-60fc-46fb-a5bc-ba9cb6a2d215" CreationDate="2018-05-29T14:03:45.827" UserId="45" Text="What is the meaning and origin of the &quot;se-&quot; prefix?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21878" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6607" RevisionGUID="62bcacea-60fc-46fb-a5bc-ba9cb6a2d215" CreationDate="2018-05-29T14:03:45.827" UserId="45" Text="|etymology|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6606" RevisionGUID="ef6a1139-3035-4731-b58d-3e202c46ad08" CreationDate="2018-05-29T19:21:50.117" UserId="469" Comment="edited body" Text="If I get you right, the part you have trouble with is the one starting with *unde*, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation seems clumsy to me. Euler is explaining the notation he will use for functions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *unde*: hence/from where&#xD;&#xA;* *cauendum erit*: it is to be taken care of&#xD;&#xA;* *ne*: that not/so that not/not to&#xD;&#xA;* *littera f pro quantitate habitur*: letter f be taken as a quantity (i.e., constant)&#xD;&#xA;* [*quocirca*][1]: for which reason&#xD;&#xA;* *ipsi*: to itself&#xD;&#xA;* *colon*: colon (:)&#xD;&#xA;* *suffigere*: suffix (as a verb)&#xD;&#xA;* *visum est*: has been seen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible, idiomatic(-ish) translation, could be,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hence, care is to be taken not to consider letter f as a constant, that is why [it is seen that] a colon was suffixed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a native English speaker, but I hope at least the idea is clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquocirca" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6608" RevisionGUID="98db5a4c-5422-4f75-9706-6c3a46882d86" CreationDate="2018-05-29T19:42:33.533" UserId="406" Text="To complement Rafael's excellent answer, here's my own translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original, as copied from above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Huiusmodi functiones arbitrarias, prouti hic feci, eiusmodi signandi modo **f:y** indicabo, unde cauendum erit ne littera **f** pro quantitate habitur, quocirca ipsi **colon** suffigere visum est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somewhat literally:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arbitrary functions of this sort, just as I have made here, I will indicate, as they must be marked in this way: *f:y*. Care must be taken for the letter *f* not to be used (read?) as a quantity (variable?), for which reason a colon is seen to have been appended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much more idiomatically, taking some liberties with the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will indicate functions like these by writing them in the form *f:y*. Be careful not to take *f* as a simple variable; to keep them separate, functions have a colon after their name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One particular point: the Latin text you've cited has *suffigere visum est* &quot;is seen appended to [the letter]&quot; in the last clause. But the fact that the translation says &quot;is considered sufficient&quot; makes me wonder: that would be a better translation of ***sufficere** visum est*, with a *c* instead of a *g*. If I saw this in an ancient text, I'd attribute it to different manuscripts; in this case, it seems like a straight-up error." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6608" RevisionGUID="b32417ca-eb7f-4211-978c-81d29a14e6c7" CreationDate="2018-05-30T03:35:14.533" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="To complement Rafael's excellent answer, here's my own translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original, as copied from above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Huiusmodi functiones arbitrarias, prouti hic feci, eiusmodi signandi modo **f:y** indicabo, unde cauendum erit ne littera **f** pro quantitate habitur, quocirca ipsi **colon** suffigere visum est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somewhat literally:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arbitrary functions of this sort, just as I have made here, I will indicate, as they must be marked in this way: *f:y*. Care must be taken for the letter *f* not to be used (read?) as a quantity (number?), for which reason a colon is seen to have been appended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much more idiomatically, taking some liberties with the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will indicate functions like these by writing them in the form *f:y*. Be careful not to take *f* as a simple number; to keep them separate, functions have a colon after their name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One particular point: the Latin text you've cited has *suffigere visum est* &quot;is seen appended to [the letter]&quot; in the last clause. But the fact that the translation says &quot;is considered sufficient&quot; makes me wonder: that would be a better translation of ***sufficere** visum est*, with a *c* instead of a *g*. If I saw this in an ancient text, I'd attribute it to different manuscripts; in this case, it seems like a straight-up error." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6609" RevisionGUID="f3ae2fcf-1567-4623-9c33-a4902b2bf956" CreationDate="2018-05-30T13:05:41.123" UserId="324" Text="There is a (rare) preposition sēd, sē “without” with the ablative (as in Old Latin sed fraude), and (more commonly) a prefix sē- “without, apart from” (as in securus etc.), and also the conjunction sed “but”. The commonly accepted theory is that these derive from some case form (ablative?) of the reflexive pronoun IE *s(w)e-, as in Latin se, suus. The semantic development would have been something along the lines of “on one’s own” &gt; “without”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6609" RevisionGUID="1ee5ebd2-8a11-4f4f-a8d1-2faa734428e1" CreationDate="2018-05-30T13:24:20.113" UserId="324" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="There is a (rare) preposition sēd, sē “without” with the ablative (as in Old Latin sed fraude), and (more commonly) a prefix sē- “without, apart from” (as in securus etc.), and also the conjunction sed “but”. The commonly accepted theory is that these derive from some case form (ablative?) of the reflexive pronoun IE *swe-, as in Latin se, suus. The semantic development would have been something along the lines of “on one’s own” &gt; “without”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6560" RevisionGUID="78dd65ad-e379-461e-b68d-2ecad8b0e2f4" CreationDate="2018-05-30T17:08:20.723" UserId="1407" Comment="added 413 characters in body" Text="Immediately makes me think of a combination of  [βέλ-][1] and [φονά][2] / [φον-][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My sense is that the idea of names like this referring to lost stories, potentially involving real people subsequently mythologized, comes largely from Frazer, and is a worthwhile speculation, however&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Greek professors emphasized the intentional meaning of names in Greek mythology.  Confusion arises when we can't find Greek referents, as in the case of the first part of Cassandra *(although I think Graves makes the strongest case for &quot;engangler of men&quot;, based on the nature of her curse and the depiction of Agamemnon bound up with nets in the bath.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literal meaning of Bellerophon as some form of martial &quot;darter&quot; (per Pegasus) is so apt that it has to seriously undermine alternate hypotheses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I think it's quite possible *[belua][4]* has that form because hunting wild beasts often involved casting spears or shooting arrows, which is less risky that melee with the wild beasts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this must be taken as a soft answer, pending etymological connections to back up the semantic analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European roots lists:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‌‌[*bhel-²*][5] &quot;To blow, swell; with derivatives referring to various round objects and to the notion of tumescent masculinity&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is not inconsistent with Bellerephon's role, in the sense that Pegasus may be understood as anti-[chthonic][6], and on his flying mount he would surely come like the wind, but *bhel-²* may shed light on the beast connection via &quot;[bull][7]&quot;.  *(The ancients didn't have the same detailed taxonomy of species as the moderns, so words for types of animals could be used generically.  Thus, the root might have been used for anything &quot;beastlike&quot;.)*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a relationship of this root, via &quot;blow&quot;, with &quot;roaring&quot; [see: &quot;[bullroarers][8]&quot;].  This meaning seems to have persisted in words like &quot;bellow&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[bellow][9]*, verb, (of a person or animal) emit a deep loud roar, typically in pain or anger.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;SOURCE: Oxford Living Dictionary&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relationship of wind/breath and roaring is not random, and Bellerephon can certainly be understood to &quot;roar like the wind&quot; when swooping to the attack atop Pegasus. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=bel&amp;lang=greek&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0072%3Aentry%3Dfona%2F&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=fon&amp;lang=greek&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dbelua&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/indoeurop.html#bhel-&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chthonic&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.etymonline.com/word/bull&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullroarer#Ancient_Greece&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bellow" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6608" RevisionGUID="e432d8af-0985-49fb-a4b1-7758612df54d" CreationDate="2018-05-30T18:14:16.517" UserId="406" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="To complement Rafael's excellent answer, here's my own translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original, as copied from above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Huiusmodi functiones arbitrarias, prouti hic feci, eiusmodi signandi modo **f:y** indicabo, unde cauendum erit ne littera **f** pro quantitate habitur, quocirca ipsi **colon** suffigere visum est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somewhat literally:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arbitrary functions of this sort, just as I have made here, I will indicate, as they must be marked in this way: *f:y*. Care must be taken for the letter *f* not to be used (read?) as a quantity (number?), for which reason a colon is seen to have been appended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much more idiomatically, taking some liberties with the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will indicate functions like these by writing them in the form *f:y*. Be careful not to take *f* as a simple number; to keep them separate, function symbols have a colon after their name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One particular point: the Latin text you've cited has *suffigere visum est* &quot;is seen appended to [the letter]&quot; in the last clause. But the fact that the translation says &quot;is considered sufficient&quot; makes me wonder: that would be a better translation of ***sufficere** visum est*, with a *c* instead of a *g*. If I saw this in an ancient text, I'd attribute it to different manuscripts; in this case, it seems like a straight-up error." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6610" RevisionGUID="945ecde6-06ca-4f1f-9fd9-3496b89dc580" CreationDate="2018-05-30T19:08:01.340" UserId="79" Text="Is there a Latin phrase similar to the English &quot;well done!&quot; to be used to congratulate someone for achieving something?&#xD;&#xA;Translating from English, one might expect *bene factum!* or *bene fecisti!* or something similar, but I have never encountered any such thing in use.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a set phrase for this purpose?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21888" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6610" RevisionGUID="945ecde6-06ca-4f1f-9fd9-3496b89dc580" CreationDate="2018-05-30T19:08:01.340" UserId="79" Text="How to say &quot;well done&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21889" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6610" RevisionGUID="945ecde6-06ca-4f1f-9fd9-3496b89dc580" CreationDate="2018-05-30T19:08:01.340" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6611" RevisionGUID="38d17b12-e191-48ac-ade4-df5993938f47" CreationDate="2018-05-30T19:41:46.290" UserId="136" Text="I was recently taking a sort of multiple choice quiz on just general Latin knowledge, and I came upon one question that threw me for a loop, so to speak. The question asked which of the options best described the differences between the question words -_ne_, _nonne_, and _num_. Using process of elimination, I found that there was only one answer where _nonne_ was expecting an affirmative answer and _num_ was expecting a negative answer. The problem was, however, that -_ne_ was labelled as being used to express fear in the question. I have never really thought of using -_ne_ in this way, and a quick lookup of the enclitic in [Lewis and Short][1] reveals just what I thought: that -_ne_ was used for a question expecting a yes or no answer, or for emphasis. The word _ne_ (negative of _ut_) can be used for fear clauses, but the question specifically had the enclitic form -_ne_. -_ne_ is also used to add emphasis to a question, so one can see how this could be translated to fear in some way, but this seems rather a broad stroke to paint if one is trying to point out the distinctions between each of the words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, my question is: **can the enclitic -_ne_ add specific connotations of fear to a question, and if so, are there examples of this in classical literature?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DN%3Aentry%20group%3D6%3Aentry%3Dne2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21891" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6611" RevisionGUID="38d17b12-e191-48ac-ade4-df5993938f47" CreationDate="2018-05-30T19:41:46.290" UserId="136" Text="-ne as an Indication of Fear in a Question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21892" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6611" RevisionGUID="38d17b12-e191-48ac-ade4-df5993938f47" CreationDate="2018-05-30T19:41:46.290" UserId="136" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|word-comparison|enclitic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6610" RevisionGUID="c839fef2-1164-482b-9c02-cb9829d12994" CreationDate="2018-05-30T20:20:35.983" UserId="79" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="Is there a Latin phrase similar to the English &quot;well done!&quot; to be used to congratulate someone for achieving something?&#xD;&#xA;Translating from English, one might expect *bene factum!* or *bene fecisti!* or something similar, or just a plain adverb (*bene!*, *egregie!*, *optime!*...), but I have never encountered any such thing in use.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a set phrase for this purpose?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6612" RevisionGUID="7fafe927-db7d-4c2f-afd8-a300aa4f1072" CreationDate="2018-05-30T20:44:31.240" UserId="45" Text="In questions of spoken Latin, Plautus is my go-to. One good term for this, frequent in Plautus, is [***euge***](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Deuge), from the Greek [εὖγε](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Deu\)%3Dge). A [corpus search](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23euge%23) reveals quite a few examples, often with native Latin repetitions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **Euge euge, lepide, laudo** commentum tuom. (*Miles Gloriosus*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **Euge, euge**, exornatu's basilice;	(*Persa*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(great adverb!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many other excellent choices, but I'll leave those for other answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6613" RevisionGUID="d4fbeeb5-3ece-485a-83b1-382b69cdaf9d" CreationDate="2018-05-30T21:11:14.187" UserId="79" Text="The quiz seems to be wrong.&#xD;&#xA;The triplet *nonne*, *num*, *-ne* is indeed important for Latin questions, and therefore naturally studied together.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that at some point the author of the quiz mistook *-ne* for *ne* &amp;mdash; perhaps they looked at the wrong dictionary entry by accident.&#xD;&#xA;(Although it should be noted that even the conjunction *ne* doesn't refer exclusively to fear the way the question makes it look.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen *-ne* expressing fear not seen any grammar or dictionary mention it.&#xD;&#xA;If I wanted to make a fearful question, I would specifically use one of the other two words mentioned: *Num leo me edet?* *Nonne pater revertatur?*&#xD;&#xA;Using *-ne* makes the question neutral, whereas in case of fear one type of answer is expected or hoped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that there are ways to use *-ne* to indicate fear.&#xD;&#xA;Even if such examples are found, that is very rare and makes a silly question for a quiz.&#xD;&#xA;The main role of *-ne* in questions as opposed to those of *nonne* and *num* is quite clear and has nothing to do with fear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6613" RevisionGUID="cc0ce125-f78f-420b-a0ea-c1ee6d7657ed" CreationDate="2018-05-30T23:05:27.357" UserId="79" Comment="added 160 characters in body" Text="The quiz seems to be wrong.&#xD;&#xA;The triplet *nonne*, *num*, *-ne* is indeed important for Latin questions, and therefore naturally studied together.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that at some point the author of the quiz mistook *-ne* for *ne* &amp;mdash; perhaps they looked at the wrong dictionary entry by accident.&#xD;&#xA;And even for *ne* it is a case of overinterpretation; the conjunction has many uses and is used also for many subordinate clauses expressing fear, but the word itself does not imply fear.&#xD;&#xA;I would say that *ne* has a connection to fear, *-ne* does not, but neither expresses fear in itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen *-ne* expressing fear not seen any grammar or dictionary mention it.&#xD;&#xA;If I wanted to make a fearful question, I would specifically use one of the other two words mentioned: *Num leo me edet?* *Nonne pater revertatur?*&#xD;&#xA;Using *-ne* makes the question neutral, whereas in case of fear one type of answer is expected or hoped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that there are ways to use *-ne* to indicate fear.&#xD;&#xA;Even if such examples are found, that is very rare and makes a silly question for a quiz.&#xD;&#xA;The main role of *-ne* in questions as opposed to those of *nonne* and *num* is quite clear and has nothing to do with fear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6614" RevisionGUID="08cb209c-bb72-40da-aed0-95dfe9d5e44b" CreationDate="2018-05-31T00:20:10.663" UserId="2157" Text="I’m wondering whether my translation is correct. &#xD;&#xA;I wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Tempus fugit, sed muscis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I meant for this to mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Time flies, but flies (also).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no clue what declension to use for flies, though. All hep appreciated. Thank you &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21898" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6614" RevisionGUID="08cb209c-bb72-40da-aed0-95dfe9d5e44b" CreationDate="2018-05-31T00:20:10.663" UserId="2157" Text="Which declension should I use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21899" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6614" RevisionGUID="08cb209c-bb72-40da-aed0-95dfe9d5e44b" CreationDate="2018-05-31T00:20:10.663" UserId="2157" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6614" RevisionGUID="623352dd-0599-4be9-88b2-4e9012274625" CreationDate="2018-05-31T02:23:48.377" UserId="136" Comment="Changed declensions to cases" Text="I’m wondering whether my translation is correct. &#xD;&#xA;I wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Tempus fugit, sed muscis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I meant for this to mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Time flies, but flies (also).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no clue what case to use for flies, though. All help appreciated. Thank you.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21901" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6614" RevisionGUID="623352dd-0599-4be9-88b2-4e9012274625" CreationDate="2018-05-31T02:23:48.377" UserId="136" Comment="Changed declensions to cases" Text="Which case should I use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21902" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6614" RevisionGUID="623352dd-0599-4be9-88b2-4e9012274625" CreationDate="2018-05-31T02:23:48.377" UserId="136" Comment="Changed declensions to cases" Text="|translation|grammar-choice|case|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6614" RevisionGUID="4175a69c-8469-4959-803a-2aa5a715e582" CreationDate="2018-05-31T06:49:32.267" UserId="2157" Comment="added 31 characters in body; edited title" Text="I’m wondering whether my translation is correct. &#xD;&#xA;I wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;tempus fugit; sed muscae fugiunt etiam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I meant for this to mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Time flies, but flies fly too.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really don't have any knowledge of latin, just a general liking for languages. Thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21904" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6614" RevisionGUID="4175a69c-8469-4959-803a-2aa5a715e582" CreationDate="2018-05-31T06:49:32.267" UserId="2157" Comment="added 31 characters in body; edited title" Text="Translation verification" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6616" RevisionGUID="33f47c8b-9d84-4158-b485-a7dd41375b34" CreationDate="2018-05-31T10:29:21.700" UserId="1982" Text="North &amp; Hillard, Ex. 189; Q5:&quot;The citizens were almost dead of starvation, when relief arrived.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Answer: &quot;cives fame paene mortui sunt cum auxilium advenit.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, I put mortui erant--the-citizens-had-nearly-died: (two actions, in the past, the one following the other).&#xD;&#xA;Is this still correct? Latin seems reluctant to deploy pluperfects; when, English-speakers, instinctively &amp; naturally wish to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, when &quot;cum&quot;= &quot;when&quot; it should only take the indicative (advenit) when the tense is present or future; otherwise, it takes imperf. subj., or pluperf. subj. The tense is past (when relief arrived) so is the use of &quot;advenit&quot; a mistake?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21910" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6616" RevisionGUID="33f47c8b-9d84-4158-b485-a7dd41375b34" CreationDate="2018-05-31T10:29:21.700" UserId="1982" Text="Cum plus Subjunctive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21911" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6616" RevisionGUID="33f47c8b-9d84-4158-b485-a7dd41375b34" CreationDate="2018-05-31T10:29:21.700" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6617" RevisionGUID="7f79818d-b331-412d-856e-9a4890f91656" CreationDate="2018-05-31T13:02:08.587" UserId="2667" Text="Length and stress, as they have said above, are different things in Latin. Whether to lengthen long syllables is really a choice of the speaker, but you should keep in mind we can hardly know how length was originally applied in oral Latin. We do understand stressed syllables, because we have them in English, and those should follow the rules we know (https://www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/languages/classical/latin/tchmat/grammar/g-accnt.html). To answer your question: pronounce it /'fakio/ and pay no mind to length." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6618" RevisionGUID="9f9352ad-0314-4c3f-926a-6f6802dc0ee8" CreationDate="2018-05-31T13:04:58.490" UserId="867" Text="*Macte* (abl. of *[mactus][1]* - from Greek [μάκαρ][2]) is used in this way, with or without with *esto*.  According to Lewis &amp; Short, it can be used alone (*Macte!*) but it is much more commonly used with *virtute*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *“macte virtute esto” sanguinolentis ex acie redeuntibus dicitur*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; it is to the blood-stained soldier returning from the front that men&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cry: “Well done!”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca the Younger, *Epistles*, 66&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *‘Oratorem’ legas? macte virtute!* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You're reading *The Orator*?  Well done!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Letters to Atticus*, 243 (XII.6a) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=macte&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ma%2Fkar&amp;la=greek&amp;can=ma%2Fkar0&amp;prior=mak" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6618" RevisionGUID="ada45fcc-07ee-444b-bcfa-d513b9c0ea72" CreationDate="2018-05-31T13:22:20.290" UserId="867" Comment="edited body" Text="*Macte* (voc. of *[mactus][1]* - from Greek [μάκαρ][2]) is used in this way, with or without with *esto*.  According to Lewis &amp; Short, it can be used alone (*Macte!*) but it is much more commonly used with *virtute*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *“macte virtute esto” sanguinolentis ex acie redeuntibus dicitur*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; it is to the blood-stained soldier returning from the front that men&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cry: “Well done!”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca the Younger, *Epistles*, 66&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *‘Oratorem’ legas? macte virtute!* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You're reading *The Orator*?  Well done!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Letters to Atticus*, 243 (XII.6a) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=macte&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ma%2Fkar&amp;la=greek&amp;can=ma%2Fkar0&amp;prior=mak" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6619" RevisionGUID="6ee4f917-6909-4735-9a95-34eda2abb05d" CreationDate="2018-05-31T13:49:20.667" UserId="45" Text="As indicated in [another answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6618/45), *macte virtute* is a common way of saying, &quot;Well done.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The consensus seems to be that *macte* is the vocative of [*mactus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmactus1), in which entry L&amp;S states (contradictorily?):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (only in the voc. macte, and rarely in the nom.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is the case, it's a grammatical unicorn: I have never heard of cases where you can use the vocative with *esse*, e.g. *macte virtute esto*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, however, the quantity of the final *-e* cannot be established, so it's also possible that *macte* is an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there any scholarly consensus about how we should parse *macte*?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21916" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6619" RevisionGUID="6ee4f917-6909-4735-9a95-34eda2abb05d" CreationDate="2018-05-31T13:49:20.667" UserId="45" Text="What is the proper parsing of &quot;macte virtute&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21917" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6619" RevisionGUID="6ee4f917-6909-4735-9a95-34eda2abb05d" CreationDate="2018-05-31T13:49:20.667" UserId="45" Text="|vocabulary|irregular-words|vocative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6620" RevisionGUID="3b4e8e85-d294-4ce5-a258-88bd40354a5a" CreationDate="2018-05-31T15:56:42.457" UserId="1982" Text="How about: te laudo; or, if you are really proud of your student: te amo; but, in the current climate, that could be misunderstood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6621" RevisionGUID="4257e1f2-6c35-42e9-9961-ada2ac8e2468" CreationDate="2018-05-31T17:30:53.287" UserId="406" Text="Your translation is quite good! I don't think I would use both *sed* and *etiam* here; *etiam* on its own seems sufficient. And it typically comes second in the clause. So I would say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tempus fugit; muscae etiam fugiunt*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pun, unfortunately, doesn't work in Latin. The verb *fugere* means to flee or run away, the noun *musca* means the insect, and the verb *volāre* means to move through the air. None of the three words are related or look particularly similar. (The translation above assumes that the flies are running away, e.g. from a flyswatter; if you want to say that flies move through the air, you would need *volant*.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6622" RevisionGUID="a8375f97-4a03-42e2-8c77-7cf763ff3fcc" CreationDate="2018-05-31T18:39:16.550" UserId="645" Text="It's always difficult to recommend a 'best' translation in a case like this, when there is no real context. However, I see that North &amp; Hillard in this chapter are introducing the use of *cum*, about which a degree of care is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are right that Latin 'seems' reluctant to deploy pluperfects, but that's because it very often shows an approach to a sequence of actions that is different, more rigid than English (this partly explains the tendency for Latin to use fewer words than English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, as you might recognize, N&amp;H might equally well have written 'When the citizens had almost died of starvation, relief arrived.' Then, I think, you might more naturally accept *cum cives fame paene mortui essent, auxilium advenit*. That's the translation which I would choose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a very familiar construction in Latin when a sequence of events is being described. Caesar, for example, seems to have been very fond of expressions such as *eo cum venisset . . .*, 'when he had got there', and *Romae cum ventum esset . . .*, 'at Rome when the journey was over', or (which means the same thing) 'when they had got to Rome'. I don't know the answer supplied in the key to N&amp;H, but it won't necessarily be the only, nor indeed the best translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will leave it there so as not to confuse you, but you might like to consider what you would write if the sentence to translate had been 'relief arrived when the citizens had almost died of hunger.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6623" RevisionGUID="b49c9be9-687c-445a-8880-660ea1577fef" CreationDate="2018-05-31T20:51:31.540" UserId="985" Text="What you have here is an example of a so-called 'inverted *cum* clause' where what we might more logically consider the main action is expressed in the form of a *cum* clause, and what we might consider the circumstances surrounding that action is expressed as the main clause. So the sentence could be expressed more logically as 'When the citizens were almost dead of starvation, relief arrived' or 'Relief arrived when the citizens were almost dead of starvation.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an inverted *cum* clause, the indicative is always used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Cum inversum* is discussed in Allen &amp; Greenough,  *New Latin grammar*, section 546.a, for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6623" RevisionGUID="c2082955-c3c9-4568-bb14-12281db3b0e8" CreationDate="2018-05-31T21:58:53.657" UserId="985" Comment="grammar" Text="What you have here is an example of a so-called 'inverted *cum* clause,' where what we might more logically consider the main action is expressed in the form of a *cum* clause, and what we might consider the circumstances surrounding that action are expressed as the main clause. So the sentence could be expressed more logically as 'When the citizens were almost dead of starvation, relief arrived' or 'Relief arrived when the citizens were almost dead of starvation.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an inverted *cum* clause, the indicative is always used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Cum inversum* is discussed in Allen &amp; Greenough,  *New Latin grammar*, section 546.a, for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21924" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6592" RevisionGUID="d26fb02c-e370-4e25-a69b-d8306806b5ec" CreationDate="2018-06-01T00:04:12.043" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|word-comparison|nuance|noun|differences|spanish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21925" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5143" RevisionGUID="fb5bc2bb-c9fb-490a-959b-12f488bb98cd" CreationDate="2018-06-01T00:05:14.037" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|motto|ecclesiastical-latin|spanish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21926" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4146" RevisionGUID="71606c6b-f116-4049-b142-0fafb45a8d38" CreationDate="2018-06-01T01:20:58.897" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|verbs|translation-explanation|plural|agreement|spanish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21927" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4200" RevisionGUID="d7702298-224d-42eb-8bd4-187ebac4a34b" CreationDate="2018-06-01T01:21:55.040" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|etymology|origin|english|spanish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21928" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4220" RevisionGUID="1ff28347-236d-4bad-9264-4da4b8b20cf1" CreationDate="2018-06-01T01:24:20.640" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation-explanation|english|late-latin|augustinus|spanish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="d3c51c52-0342-474c-88bc-a007709d96c7" CreationDate="2018-06-01T04:45:57.120" UserId="985" Text="While researching an answer for another question, I came across these passages and thought I'd throw them into the mix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is Caesar, *De bello gallico* 6.7.2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iamque ab eo **non longius bidui via aberant**, cum duas venisse legiones missu Caesaris cognoscunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, *via* is ablative of comparison with *longius*, and it has a genitive (*bidui*) to define the extent (in time) of the journey; so literally, 'they were not farther away than the journey of a two-day period' (i.e., 'they were no more than a two days' journey away' or 'they were, at most, two days away').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Ad Atticum* 5.16.4 has something similar, but without the comparative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nos in castra properabamus, quae **aberant bidui**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the genitive *bidui* is dependent on an implied accusative (*iter* or *viam*), showing extent; so 'which were a journey of two days away.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6617" RevisionGUID="75679894-8b27-4fae-b14a-68f45b470543" CreationDate="2018-06-01T13:21:41.123" UserId="1459" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Length and stress, as they have said above, are different things in Latin. Whether to lengthen long syllables is really a choice of the speaker, but you should keep in mind we can hardly know how length was originally applied in oral Latin. We do understand stressed syllables, because we have them in English, and those should follow the [rules we know](https://www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/languages/classical/latin/tchmat/grammar/g-accnt.html). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question: pronounce it /'fakio/ and pay no mind to length." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4316" RevisionGUID="d6647d58-7551-4531-ae97-c51edcdcc9d7" CreationDate="2018-06-01T13:29:07.600" UserId="1459" Comment="minor changes" Text="When pronouncing a word in classical Latin, should the heavy syllable and all other long vowels be lengthened, or just the heavy syllable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: fació, is it pronounced [fa:kio:] or [fa:kio] ? (in) Európá [ɛʊ̯roːpa] or [ɛʊ̯ro:pa:]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5412" RevisionGUID="9d5be07a-20c4-4200-b815-edcccf823361" CreationDate="2018-06-01T13:30:02.360" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body" Text="I'm in need of translating this expression to Latin for a project of mine. I really tried figuring this out using Google but I came to a short end. Could anyone help me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5703" RevisionGUID="b2c3aa03-7d03-4728-bf79-d52873b822bc" CreationDate="2018-06-01T13:31:38.440" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="What word could we use to describe someone who doesn't believe in unicorns? Ideally, looking for a (newly made or existing) Latin-based word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2016" RevisionGUID="4162bed3-81cc-4d25-b37e-12a634bb4005" CreationDate="2018-06-01T13:32:02.390" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="How to pronounce _Mons Mensae_? Could you write it in international phonetic alphabet? I think that will be [Mʌns Mensæ]... Is that right? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I intended the constellation known as Mons Mensae.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6031" RevisionGUID="303f99d0-e5b4-4d41-9a77-09fe5df7db6a" CreationDate="2018-06-01T13:33:40.183" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="Sentence to translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The inside of the building was beautifully decorated &amp;mdash; such striking opposition with the ugly outside appearance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Intus aedificii decore ornatus erat &amp;mdash; tantus flictus contra ad aspectus deforis malus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be helpful if you took time to check my attempt for mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;*Intus* probably is wrong &amp;mdash; how do you say *the inside*, *an inside* (noun)?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6285" RevisionGUID="65608141-e0fc-4795-8a4d-e5c136759b9e" CreationDate="2018-06-01T13:34:57.757" UserId="1459" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Verse in question is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Funes ceciderunt mihi in praeclaris; etenim haereditas mea praeclara est mihi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would seem to me that meaning is something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Funes_: ropes, bonds, chains  &#xD;&#xA; _ceciderunt mihi_ - ceased, fallen of me  &#xD;&#xA; _in praeclaris_ - in fame (?) - as in: it was bright, glorious (?)  &#xD;&#xA; _etenim_ - because  &#xD;&#xA; _haereditas mea praeclara est mihi_ - I have my bright/great inheritance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please offer a translation of this verse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2963" RevisionGUID="d3431a96-023e-4187-b2bb-bcb63848fec7" CreationDate="2018-06-01T13:35:10.847" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="A quote by John Owen:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if you could tell me the difference between *mutantur* and *mutamur*?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2906" RevisionGUID="3c8d74ff-a339-44cd-a129-910d9f8ff77b" CreationDate="2018-06-01T13:36:46.003" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="In the Latin version of the *Gloria*, the name Jesus is rendered as &quot;_Domine Fili unigenite Jesu Christe_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in the Latin Vulgate, the name of Jesus is rendered as &quot;_Iesus_&quot;. What is the name of Jesus Christ in Latin? Why the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="954" RevisionGUID="4f6965f1-46a5-4237-84cb-5f38703701c4" CreationDate="2018-06-01T13:37:24.863" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="My girlfriend asked me to translate the phrase &quot;I live for my family&quot; for her. As I found out, it is much more difficult than I thought, so I am asking you for help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really believe online translators and based on my amateurish research I constructed the translation as &quot;_Vivo per meus familiae (cognatio?)_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you know what should be the proper translation for this phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5975" RevisionGUID="d7a5236d-9b6c-414a-82d8-6fa1f02c4004" CreationDate="2018-06-01T13:38:15.330" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="Students of North &amp; Hillard will be aware that Ex. 229 is a passage about Napoleon. In the answer book Ex. 229 is a passage concerning Scipio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know the refs for the Latin trans. of &quot;Napoleon&quot;, and the English of &quot;Scipio&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I can do them myself; but, still like to see the (fully) correct versions - mine hardly ever are.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2503" RevisionGUID="bf0942f1-b7e0-494c-8db1-783e5d1c1eaf" CreationDate="2018-06-01T13:39:11.500" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="I am trying to translate one quote from Estee Lauder, that goes as following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have never dreamed about success. I worked for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translator returned this result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Numquam viderat elit. Et fecerunt pro ea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you consider the last sentence to be grammatically and stylistically correct? If not, please suggest how you would re-phrase it, ideally with a bit of an explanation.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6043" RevisionGUID="4fd49d0e-f0dc-44e4-bb84-b6269c5248e2" CreationDate="2018-06-01T13:42:59.347" UserId="1459" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="I can not be sure of the meaning of this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_hoc opus; aeterna sibi sit retributo vitae!_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if it is something like this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;this work was eternity-immortality for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you help me please?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [page 140](http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k51575h/f301.image) in III Balduini Historia Nicaena vel Antiochena, RHC Occ V&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6619" RevisionGUID="8ef215d1-d9cb-46d0-b6a7-e2ad9fe4f008" CreationDate="2018-06-01T14:00:44.787" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="As indicated in [another answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6618/45), *macte virtute* is a common way of saying, &quot;Well done.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The consensus seems to be that *macte* is the vocative of [*mactus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmactus1). L&amp;S states (contradictorily?):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (only in the voc. macte, and rarely in the nom.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is the case, it's a grammatical unicorn: I have never heard of cases where you can use the vocative with *esse*, e.g. *macte virtute esto*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, however, the quantity of the final *-e* cannot be established, so it's also possible that *macte* is an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there any scholarly consensus about how we should parse *macte*?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6360" RevisionGUID="951d5c1e-cdfa-4e7e-8b65-fe1c5d667d54" CreationDate="2018-06-01T19:35:39.323" UserId="2378" Comment="Soften confidence level" Text="I recently came across the aphorism *Nam illa tumultū gaudēns nōn est industria*, from Seneca's epistle &quot;On True and False Friendship&quot;. As far as I can tell, a literal translation would be &quot;For rejoicing in tumult is not industry&quot;; the standard idiomatic translation is &quot;For a love of bustle is not industry.&quot; But I'm confused about what *illa* is doing in the sentence. Does anyone know why it's there? I can't figure out what it refers to, nor why it's feminine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="72476531-b53e-4ee1-a3da-76c775c9d74c" CreationDate="2018-06-01T20:50:40.073" UserId="985" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="While researching an answer for another question, I came across these passages and thought I'd throw them into the mix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is Caesar, *De bello gallico* 6.7.2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iamque ab eo **non longius bidui via aberant**, cum duas venisse legiones missu Caesaris cognoscunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, *via* is ablative of comparison with *longius*, and it has a genitive (*bidui*) to define the extent (in time) of the journey; so literally, 'they were not farther away than the journey of a two-day period' (i.e., 'they were no more than a two days' journey away' or 'they were, at most, two days away').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Ad Atticum* 5.16.4 has something similar, but without the comparative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nos in castra properabamus, quae **aberant bidui**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the genitive *bidui* is dependent on an implied accusative (*iter* or *viam*), showing extent; so '[our camp] which was a journey of two days away.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6625" RevisionGUID="f0f3c902-d848-4833-bc72-4a1be02676c7" CreationDate="2018-06-02T05:24:50.080" UserId="203" Text="I read - I believe on here - that a Roman child's equivalent for, eg &quot;Daddy, Pop&quot; etc was **tata**. Was there an equivalent for &quot;Mummy&quot;? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21949" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6625" RevisionGUID="f0f3c902-d848-4833-bc72-4a1be02676c7" CreationDate="2018-06-02T05:24:50.080" UserId="203" Text="Children's diminutive for parents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21950" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6625" RevisionGUID="f0f3c902-d848-4833-bc72-4a1be02676c7" CreationDate="2018-06-02T05:24:50.080" UserId="203" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5975" RevisionGUID="9a50c5e3-e50d-48de-805f-ad71ebdf9e0e" CreationDate="2018-06-02T09:21:25.640" UserId="1982" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Students of North &amp; Hillard will be aware that Ex. 229 is a passage about Napoleon. In the answer book Ex. 229 is a passage concerning Scipio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know the refs for the Latin trans. of &quot;Napoleon&quot;, and the English of &quot;Scipio&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I can do them myself; but, still like to see the correct versions - mine hardly ever are.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6129" RevisionGUID="08c53e24-0b66-4426-a5f9-d778b13fa68e" CreationDate="2018-06-02T13:42:38.777" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body" Text="I want to make a coat of arms for my father in law, and we always refer to him doing anything with the phrase  - &quot;**that'll do**&quot;. Is there a Latin phrase that this translates to? Google translate has suggested '_hoc faciam_' but reverse translating it changes the meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21953" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6625" RevisionGUID="85451fdc-741c-481b-be4e-cd6884a7a3dd" CreationDate="2018-06-02T13:52:45.607" UserId="203" Comment="edited title" Text="Roman children's diminutive for parents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6587" RevisionGUID="0d4007ef-d0fd-4170-95bd-65d0f0f8d6a3" CreationDate="2018-06-02T15:41:24.970" UserId="406" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="My guess would be, Wiktionary is flat-out wrong. The only source for that statement is a century and a half old and, while I don't have access to it to check, the connection between *torus* and *traugus* seems tenuous (both phonologically and semantically).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[fdb's source][1], from CNRTL, has a much more plausible explanation (please pardon my translation, I'm very bad at French):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From a Vulgar Latin word *traucum* attested in the Lex Ripuaria as *traugum* […] probably originally Gaulish. But the other Celtic languages don't show cognate forms, and it's been proposed that the Gauls borrowed this word from a language spoken in Gaul before their arrival.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;French Wiktionary agrees, citing significantly more recent sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/trou" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21955" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="2026" RevisionGUID="e1ad5b43-ecce-4374-a8e6-d31da044e69e" CreationDate="2018-06-02T18:07:48.013" UserId="9" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="21956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6626" RevisionGUID="4b4d03ea-456b-44d5-bb83-f22afb8b0cc9" CreationDate="2018-06-02T19:25:20.067" UserId="79" Text="Having read [a question (and answer) about flies flying](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6614/79), I started to wonder whether flies would really fly with the verb *volare*.&#xD;&#xA;I had always somehow imagined that *volare* referred to more elegant flight, such as that of birds or mythological characters, rather than flapping small wings at very high frequency and making a buzzing sound like an insect would.&#xD;&#xA;I may well have misunderstood the nuance, and the point of this question is to set that straight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **which Latin verb(s) do insects fly with in classical Latin?**&#xD;&#xA;Is *volare* applicable to them as well, or is some other choice more idiomatic?&#xD;&#xA;A quote or two from classical authors would be great.&#xD;&#xA;I assume the Romans would mention a fly flying somewhere in the extant literature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21957" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6626" RevisionGUID="4b4d03ea-456b-44d5-bb83-f22afb8b0cc9" CreationDate="2018-06-02T19:25:20.067" UserId="79" Text="Which verb to insects fly with?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21958" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6626" RevisionGUID="4b4d03ea-456b-44d5-bb83-f22afb8b0cc9" CreationDate="2018-06-02T19:25:20.067" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|verbs|word-choice|passage-request|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6626" RevisionGUID="57c87dbf-6c3a-4724-af1f-1192d8c2f35e" CreationDate="2018-06-02T21:27:19.607" UserId="79" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Having read [a question (and answer) about flies flying](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6614/79), I started to wonder whether flies would really fly with the verb *volare*.&#xD;&#xA;I had always somehow imagined that *volare* referred to more elegant and graceful flight, such as that of birds or mythological characters, rather than flapping small wings at very high frequency and making a buzzing sound like an insect.&#xD;&#xA;I may well have misunderstood the nuance, and the point of this question is to set that straight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **which Latin verb(s) do insects fly with in classical Latin?**&#xD;&#xA;Is *volare* applicable to them as well, or is some other choice more idiomatic?&#xD;&#xA;A quote or two from classical authors would be great.&#xD;&#xA;I assume the Romans would mention a fly flying somewhere in the extant literature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6627" RevisionGUID="4e5fdf3f-69f1-49ba-b612-85257753ed47" CreationDate="2018-06-02T22:30:59.300" UserId="2642" Text="I'm currently doing a project for which I'd love to use some latin phrases as mottos. One of these would be &quot;Forwards, into a standardized world&quot;. Using some dictionaries and wild guesswork, the best i've been able to come up with is &quot;Procede, in normus mundus&quot;, but I suspect that that's not correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know the right translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21961" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6627" RevisionGUID="4e5fdf3f-69f1-49ba-b612-85257753ed47" CreationDate="2018-06-02T22:30:59.300" UserId="2642" Text="Latin translation for &quot;Forwards, into a standardized world&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21962" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6627" RevisionGUID="4e5fdf3f-69f1-49ba-b612-85257753ed47" CreationDate="2018-06-02T22:30:59.300" UserId="2642" Text="|classical-latin|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21963" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6626" RevisionGUID="fd81788e-21cf-4dbc-a262-d5cadeebe269" CreationDate="2018-06-03T01:02:47.263" UserId="30" Comment="edited title" Text="Which verb do insects fly with?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6627" RevisionGUID="d9be418b-7151-444f-a460-79885ae941f9" CreationDate="2018-06-03T08:30:22.140" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="I'm currently doing a project for which I'd love to use some Latin phrases as mottos. One of these would be &quot;Forwards, into a standardized world&quot;. Using some dictionaries and wild guesswork, the best I've been able to come up with is &quot;Procede, in normus mundus&quot;, but I suspect that that's not correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know the right translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6628" RevisionGUID="36dd384d-6ed6-45f8-8b0c-689c376eb8a8" CreationDate="2018-06-03T08:38:36.317" UserId="79" Text="Mottoes like this are a little tricky to translate, and there will not be a unique correct translation.&#xD;&#xA;Here is one suggestion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most suitable translation that comes to mind for &quot;forward!&quot; is *porro!* and it is quite literal.&#xD;&#xA;You can also use an imperative like *procede/procedite*, &quot;go forward&quot; (singular/plural), but an adverb like *porro* preserves the impersonal nature of the original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not clear how to best translate &quot;standardized&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I would work with the word *norma*, which also means &quot;standard&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The one needs to derive &quot;standardized&quot; from this choice of &quot;standard&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;One can use the adjective *normalis* and derive *normalizatus*, but that does not feel very classical.&#xD;&#xA;As the question is tagged [tag:classical-latin], I suggest the more classical *normatus*.&#xD;&#xA;More literally, *norma* means a measurement square (which can well be considered a standard) and *normatus* means &quot;made according to the square&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, my suggestion is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Porro, in mundum normatum!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6629" RevisionGUID="20a867ff-e343-4a54-ac10-c63b7cf2b2e4" CreationDate="2018-06-03T11:19:10.027" UserId="1982" Text="There's &quot;avolo&quot; (fly off); &quot;provolo&quot; (fly out); &quot;subvolo&quot; (fly up). in Betty Halifax's book of (elementary) translations, remember; &quot;vespa ter volavit circum puellam.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Prosaic but effective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6630" RevisionGUID="23a67561-03d5-439d-a705-aebd7ffa6da8" CreationDate="2018-06-03T12:24:04.463" UserId="203" Text="With thanks to @Draconis,found the answer, which is indeed *&quot;mamma&quot;*. http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#mamma" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6631" RevisionGUID="93eee510-791e-4e2a-a642-4237c1258435" CreationDate="2018-06-03T17:17:54.593" UserId="79" Text="Most Latin adjectives related to [names of countries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1328/79) and languages are of first and second declension: *Latinus*, *Graecus*, *Anglicus*&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to express that I speak in any such language, I will simply use the derived adverb: *Latine/Graece/Anglice loquor.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how does it work if the adjective belongs to the third declension?&#xD;&#xA;The list in the linked question contains, for example, *Islandiensis*, *Melitensis*, and *Thailandiensis*.&#xD;&#xA;If I want to express speaking or otherwise using these languages, do I use the adverb normally?&#xD;&#xA;Saying *Islandiensiter/Melitensiter/Thailandiensiter loquor* sounds weird.&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen such adjectives in such use, so I have no intuition.&#xD;&#xA;(I don't know whether the Romans ever had third declension adjectives together with *lingua*, so there may or may not be classical help.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the *-iter* ending used under such circumstances?&#xD;&#xA;Is a first and second declension alternative always used instead (*Islandice*, *Melitice* etc.)?&#xD;&#xA;Or should I simply use the ablative like *lingua Melitensi loquor*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21970" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6631" RevisionGUID="93eee510-791e-4e2a-a642-4237c1258435" CreationDate="2018-06-03T17:17:54.593" UserId="79" Text="How to speak a language with a third declension adjective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21971" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6631" RevisionGUID="93eee510-791e-4e2a-a642-4237c1258435" CreationDate="2018-06-03T17:17:54.593" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6632" RevisionGUID="2973e9ef-d6ee-47e7-b208-79a4d1cde6fb" CreationDate="2018-06-04T06:00:55.377" UserId="68" Text="When I'm reading macronized texts, the prefix &quot;pro&quot; always seems to be marked long, with the exception of a few words in which it's followed by the letter &quot;f&quot;: *profugus*, for example, and *proficīscī*, but not *prōficere* or *prōferre*. I've seen a handful of others that aren't coming to mind at the moment. Harm Pinkster's 2003 Latin-Dutch dictionary, which I believe corrects a lot of the vowel-length errors in earlier dictionaries (I'm looking at you, Lewis &amp; Short), lists the &quot;o&quot;s in *profugus* and *proficiscī* as short. Ernout-Meillet isn't any help on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this shortening follow a rule of which I'm unaware, or does it just, you know, happen sometimes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21973" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6632" RevisionGUID="2973e9ef-d6ee-47e7-b208-79a4d1cde6fb" CreationDate="2018-06-04T06:00:55.377" UserId="68" Text="vowel length in &quot;pro&quot; before &quot;f&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21974" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6632" RevisionGUID="2973e9ef-d6ee-47e7-b208-79a4d1cde6fb" CreationDate="2018-06-04T06:00:55.377" UserId="68" Text="|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6633" RevisionGUID="2d251c76-e681-4a7a-b917-6cd55a58a44e" CreationDate="2018-06-04T06:35:30.643" UserId="9" Text="There appears to be a significant amount of variability in the length of the vowel in *pro-*, and it seems to originate at least in part from different etymological vowel lengths inherited from PIE (or some common ancestor of Latin and Greek) rather than just from a process of shortening that applied in the history of Latin itself. I would guess that analogy may have played a role in the eventual distribution of the variant forms, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=g49fAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA10)* (1903) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Prō** has a short vowel before another vowel or **h**, and before **f** followed by a vowel, except in **prō-ferō** and **prō-ficiō**. So **pro-avus, pro-inde, pro-hibeō, pro-fugiō, pro-fundō,** etc. But before vowels **prōd-** is commonly used; e.g. **prōd-eō, prōd-esse, prōd-igo**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*a.* The form with the short vowel appears also in **pro-cella, pro-nepōs, pro-pāgō** (usually) and, in some other less obvious compounds, as **pro-cul, pro-pe, pro-bus.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;NOTE. Although before a vowel or **h** the short vowel may be the result of regular shortening (**21**), in the other cases **pro** represents an inherited variety of **prō** (Greek has regularly the short vowel). In Early Latin the demarcation in the use of the two forms was less fixed than later, and even in classical poetry there are occasional departures from the normal usage; e.g. **pro-cūrō** beside the usual **prō-curō**, and, *vice versa,* **prō-fundō** beside the usual **pro-fundō**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6633" RevisionGUID="d9214849-1c5f-4806-8da6-f70322894ea1" CreationDate="2018-06-04T06:46:31.180" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body" Text="There appears to be a significant amount of variability in the length of the vowel in *pro-*, and the short variant seems to originate at least in part from some common ancestor of Latin and Greek, rather than just from a process of shortening that applied in the history of Latin itself. I would guess that analogy may have played a role in the eventual distribution of the variant forms, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=g49fAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA10)* (1903) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Prō** has a short vowel before another vowel or **h**, and before **f** followed by a vowel, except in **prō-ferō** and **prō-ficiō**. So **pro-avus, pro-inde, pro-hibeō, pro-fugiō, pro-fundō,** etc. But before vowels **prōd-** is commonly used; e.g. **prōd-eō, prōd-esse, prōd-igo**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*a.* The form with the short vowel appears also in **pro-cella, pro-nepōs, pro-pāgō** (usually) and, in some other less obvious compounds, as **pro-cul, pro-pe, pro-bus.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;NOTE. Although before a vowel or **h** the short vowel may be the result of regular shortening (**21**), in the other cases **pro** represents an inherited variety of **prō** (Greek has regularly the short vowel). In Early Latin the demarcation in the use of the two forms was less fixed than later, and even in classical poetry there are occasional departures from the normal usage; e.g. **pro-cūrō** beside the usual **prō-curō**, and, *vice versa,* **prō-fundō** beside the usual **pro-fundō**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2026" RevisionGUID="915107f8-4216-4a32-89be-9fc236979fb5" CreationDate="2018-06-04T07:11:48.463" UserId="9" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="Because of Latin's long history of use, there are many traditions for how to pronounce it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation(s)&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this is a site about Latin, I'll start with the Latin pronunciations. The Classical Latin pronunciation was something like /moːns ˈmeːnsa͡e/, phonemically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically, there are a few further details that it may be useful to know about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Many scholars believe that the evidence indicates that at some point in Latin, /n/ before the sounds /s/ or /f/ was not pronounced as the consonant [n], but coalesced with the preceding vowel to form a nasalized long vowel. (Vowels before **nf** or **ns** are always long as a rule in Classical Latin.) However, Allen (1978) says that a nasal consonant sound ([n] before [s]; possibly a labiodental [ɱ] before [f]) was subsequently reintroduced into the pronunciation of words that were spelled in Classical Latin with **nf** and **ns** (pp. 28-30, p. 66). Other words came to lose the **n** in spelling, and presumably also in pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The precise quality of /oː/ (&quot;long o&quot;) and /eː/ (&quot;long e&quot;) is only known approximately, and it probably changed slightly over time. It's clear that they were more or less [mid vowels][1]. The evidence seems to point to these vowels being realized in earlier stages of Latin with relatively open qualities such as [o̞ː] and [e̞ː], or even [ɔː] and [ɛː], since in [Old Latin][2] there was a vowel written *ei*, thought to be close-mid [eː], that contrasted with both &quot;long e&quot; and &quot;long i&quot; (by the time of Classical Latin, *ei* had merged with &quot;long i&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;However, in later stages, it seems fairly clear they were realized as [oː] and [eː] with a closer quality than the corresponding short vowels [ɔ] and [ɛ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The vowel sound represented by “ae”, which I’ve transcribed phonemically as /ae̯/, also changed over time. Originally, it was a diphthong pronounced more or less as /ai̯/ or /aɪ̯/ (and written as &quot;ai&quot;), which could be phonemically analyzed as a vowel-glide sequence /aj/. The offglide seems to have become more open over time, so [ae̯] was probably used at some point (explaining the change in spelling). In later stages of the language, it became a long monophthong, open-mid [ɛː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So phonetically, it would probably be something like [moːns ˈmeːnsae̯] or [moːns ˈmeːnsɛː]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been vague in my description of the dating of these sound changes because &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm not very familiar with the timeline of these changes&#xD;&#xA;- In some cases, even scholars are unsure&#xD;&#xA;- You haven't indicated that you're trying to emulate the pronunciation of any particular time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation(s)&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not as familiar with Ecclesiastical pronunciation of Latin (which is mostly Italian-influenced), so I might get something wrong here, but it seems it would be pronounced /mɔns ˈmɛnsɛ/ in this tradition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main thing I'm not sure about is the vowels. Some varieties of Italian have a phonemic distinction between close-mid /e o/ and open-mid /ɛ ɔ/ in stressed syllables. However, it seems that there is no such distinction in the Italian pronunciation of Latinate words; or at least, I have not found any agreement about which would be used where (see the talk on this Wiktionary page: [Template talk:la-IPA][3] for an example of the confusion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most sources I've found seem to indicate that Ecclesiastical Latin only uses open-mid [ɛ ɔ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in Italian at least the distinction is neutralized in unstressed syllables to close-mid [e o], so I don't know if the usual Italian pronunciation would phonetically be [mɔns ˈmɛnse].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English pronunciations&#xD;&#xA;----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The traditional English pronunciation would be /mɒnz mɛnsiː/. I won’t focus too much on describing dialectal and sub-phonemic variations of this since this is a site about Latin, not about English, but the most notable points of variation might be the vowel in “mons” (which would be /ɑ/ in General American English) and a possible epenthetic [t] between /n/ and /s/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The “restored” English pronunciation, using the usual vowel equivalences described e.g. here (http://www.txclassics.org/old/PronunciationGuide.pdf) would be /moʊns meɪnsaɪ/. However, in English-language contexts, many people use an inconsistent mix of restored pronunciation and more traditional English pronunciation, so you’re probably more likely to hear things like /mɒnz mɛnsaɪ/, /moʊnz mɛnsaɪ/ or /mɔːnz mɛnsaɪ/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin#Vowels_and_diphthongs&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Template_talk:la-IPA#Ecclesiastical_fixes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2026" RevisionGUID="e96eacd0-a2ec-4909-9273-da32d3e8fa63" CreationDate="2018-06-04T07:17:11.330" UserId="9" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="Because of Latin's long history of use, there are many traditions for how to pronounce it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation(s)&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this is a site about Latin, I'll start with the Latin pronunciations. The Classical Latin pronunciation was something like /moːns ˈmeːnsa͡e/, phonemically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically, there are a few further details that it may be useful to know about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Many scholars believe that the evidence indicates that at some point in Latin, /n/ before the sounds /s/ or /f/ was not pronounced as the consonant [n], but coalesced with the preceding vowel to form a nasalized long vowel. (Vowels before **nf** or **ns** are always long as a rule in Classical Latin.) However, Allen (1978) says that a nasal consonant sound ([n] before [s]; possibly a labiodental [ɱ] before [f]) was subsequently reintroduced into the pronunciation of words that were spelled in Classical Latin with **nf** and **ns** (pp. 28-30, p. 66). Other words came to lose the **n** in spelling, and presumably also in pronunciation. A fair amount of variability seems to have persisted throughout the Classical period and we see reflexes in the Romance languages of forms with loss of **n** corresponding to Classical Latin forms that Allen indicates would have been pronounced with restored **n** (e.g. Italian *isola* corresponding to Classical Latin *insula*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The precise quality of /oː/ (&quot;long o&quot;) and /eː/ (&quot;long e&quot;) is only known approximately, and it probably changed slightly over time. It's clear that they were more or less [mid vowels][1]. The evidence seems to point to these vowels being realized in earlier stages of Latin with relatively open qualities such as [o̞ː] and [e̞ː], or even [ɔː] and [ɛː], since in [Old Latin][2] there was a vowel written *ei*, thought to be close-mid [eː], that contrasted with both &quot;long e&quot; and &quot;long i&quot; (by the time of Classical Latin, *ei* had merged with &quot;long i&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;However, in later stages, it seems fairly clear they were realized as [oː] and [eː] with a closer quality than the corresponding short vowels [ɔ] and [ɛ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The vowel sound represented by “ae”, which I’ve transcribed phonemically as /a͡e/ (a fairly arbitrary decision), also changed over time. Originally, it was a phonetic diphthong pronounced more or less as /ai̯/ or /aɪ̯/ (and written as &quot;ai&quot;), which could be phonemically analyzed as a vowel-glide sequence /aj/. The offglide seems to have become more open over time, so [ae̯] was probably used at some point (which would explain the change in spelling to &quot;ae&quot;). In later stages of the language, it became a long monophthong, open-mid [ɛː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So phonetically, it would probably be something like [moːns ˈmeːnsae̯] or [moːns ˈmeːnsɛː]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been vague in my description of the dating of these sound changes because &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm not very familiar with the timeline of these changes&#xD;&#xA;- In some cases, even scholars are unsure&#xD;&#xA;- You haven't indicated that you're trying to emulate the pronunciation of any particular time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation(s)&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not as familiar with Ecclesiastical pronunciation of Latin (which is mostly Italian-influenced), so I might get something wrong here, but it seems it would be pronounced /mɔns ˈmɛnsɛ/ in this tradition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main thing I'm not sure about is the vowels. Some varieties of Italian have a phonemic distinction between close-mid /e o/ and open-mid /ɛ ɔ/ in stressed syllables. However, it seems that there is no such distinction in the Italian pronunciation of Latinate words; or at least, I have not found any agreement about which would be used where (see the talk on this Wiktionary page: [Template talk:la-IPA][3] for an example of the confusion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most sources I've found seem to indicate that Ecclesiastical Latin only uses open-mid [ɛ ɔ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in Italian at least the distinction is neutralized in unstressed syllables to close-mid [e o], so I don't know if the usual Italian pronunciation would phonetically be [mɔns ˈmɛnse].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English pronunciations&#xD;&#xA;----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The traditional English pronunciation would be /mɒnz mɛnsiː/. I won’t focus too much on describing dialectal and sub-phonemic variations of this since this is a site about Latin, not about English, but the most notable points of variation might be the vowel in “mons” (which would be /ɑ/ in General American English) and a possible epenthetic [t] between /n/ and /s/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The “restored” English pronunciation, using the usual vowel equivalences described e.g. here (http://www.txclassics.org/old/PronunciationGuide.pdf) would be /moʊns meɪnsaɪ/. However, in English-language contexts, many people use an inconsistent mix of restored pronunciation and more traditional English pronunciation, so you’re probably more likely to hear things like /mɒnz mɛnsaɪ/, /moʊnz mɛnsaɪ/ or /mɔːnz mɛnsaɪ/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin#Vowels_and_diphthongs&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Template_talk:la-IPA#Ecclesiastical_fixes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2026" RevisionGUID="6afa9438-2a0e-403c-ba64-986c3be80183" CreationDate="2018-06-04T07:22:35.940" UserId="9" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="Because of Latin's long history of use, there are many traditions for how to pronounce it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation(s)&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this is a site about Latin, I'll start with the Latin pronunciations. The Classical Latin pronunciation was something like /moːns ˈmeːnsa͡e/, phonemically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically, there are a few further details that it may be useful to know about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Many scholars believe that the evidence indicates that at some point in Latin, /n/ before the sounds /s/ or /f/ was not pronounced as the consonant [n], but coalesced with the preceding vowel to form a nasalized long vowel. (Vowels before **nf** or **ns** are always long as a rule in Classical Latin.) However, Allen (1978) says that a nasal consonant sound ([n] before [s]; possibly a labiodental [ɱ] before [f]) was subsequently reintroduced into the pronunciation of words that were spelled in Classical Latin with **nf** and **ns** (pp. 28-30, p. 66). Other words came to lose the **n** in spelling, and presumably also in pronunciation. A fair amount of variability seems to have persisted throughout the Classical period and we see reflexes in the Romance languages of forms with loss of **n** corresponding to Classical Latin forms that Allen indicates would have been pronounced with restored **n** (e.g. Italian *isola* corresponding to Classical Latin *insula*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The precise quality of /oː/ (&quot;long o&quot;) and /eː/ (&quot;long e&quot;) is only known approximately, and it probably changed slightly over time. It's clear that they were more or less [mid vowels][1]. The evidence seems to point to these vowels being realized in earlier stages of Latin with relatively open qualities such as [o̞ː] and [e̞ː], or even [ɔː] and [ɛː], since in [Old Latin][2] there was a vowel written *ei*, thought to be close-mid [eː], that contrasted with both &quot;long e&quot; and &quot;long i&quot; (by the time of Classical Latin, *ei* had merged with &quot;long i&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;However, in later stages, it seems fairly clear they were realized as [oː] and [eː] with a closer quality than the corresponding short vowels [ɔ] and [ɛ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The vowel sound represented by “ae”, which I’ve transcribed phonemically as /a͡e/ (a fairly arbitrary decision), also changed over time. Originally, it was a phonetic diphthong pronounced more or less as /ai̯/ or /aɪ̯/ (and written as &quot;ai&quot;), which could be phonemically analyzed as a vowel-glide sequence /aj/. The offglide seems to have become more open over time, so [ae̯] was probably used at some point (which would explain the change in spelling to &quot;ae&quot;). In later stages of the language, it became a long monophthong, open-mid [ɛː], which merged with the reflex of short &quot;e&quot; to become *ɛ in Proto-Romance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So phonetically, &quot;mons mensae&quot; would probably be something like [moːns ˈmeːnsae̯] or [moːns ˈmeːnsɛː]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been vague in my description of the dating of these sound changes because &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm not very familiar with the timeline of these changes&#xD;&#xA;- In some cases, even scholars are unsure&#xD;&#xA;- You haven't indicated that you're trying to emulate the pronunciation of any particular time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation(s)&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not as familiar with Ecclesiastical pronunciation of Latin (which is mostly Italian-influenced), so I might get something wrong here, but it seems it would be pronounced /mɔns ˈmɛnsɛ/ in this tradition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main thing I'm not sure about is the vowels. Some varieties of Italian have a phonemic distinction between close-mid /e o/ and open-mid /ɛ ɔ/ in stressed syllables. However, it seems that there is no such distinction in the Italian pronunciation of Latinate words; or at least, I have not found any agreement about which would be used where (see the talk on this Wiktionary page: [Template talk:la-IPA][3] for an example of the confusion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most sources I've found seem to indicate that Ecclesiastical Latin only uses open-mid [ɛ ɔ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in Italian at least the distinction is neutralized in unstressed syllables to close-mid [e o], so I don't know if the usual Italian pronunciation would phonetically be [mɔns ˈmɛnse].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English pronunciations&#xD;&#xA;----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The traditional English pronunciation would be /mɒnz mɛnsiː/. I won’t focus too much on describing dialectal and sub-phonemic variations of this since this is a site about Latin, not about English, but the most notable points of variation might be the vowel in “mons” (which would be /ɑ/ in General American English) and a possible epenthetic [t] between /n/ and /s/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The “restored” English pronunciation, using the usual vowel equivalences described e.g. here (http://www.txclassics.org/old/PronunciationGuide.pdf) would be /moʊns meɪnsaɪ/. However, in English-language contexts, many people use an inconsistent mix of restored pronunciation and more traditional English pronunciation, so you’re probably more likely to hear things like /mɒnz mɛnsaɪ/, /moʊnz mɛnsaɪ/ or /mɔːnz mɛnsaɪ/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin#Vowels_and_diphthongs&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Template_talk:la-IPA#Ecclesiastical_fixes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21980" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="2026" RevisionGUID="a99c212d-666e-4cd1-b1a4-433b56b7cdc6" CreationDate="2018-06-04T07:23:37.373" UserId="9" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="21981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5598" RevisionGUID="86a87c86-7f66-4649-9e56-6e179347bb4f" CreationDate="2018-06-04T08:05:26.200" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Thank you friends/colleagues for the contributions to &quot;Epistemic Modality&quot;. These certainly helped to clear up frustrating confusions. Apologies to brianpck: I should have defined/explained EM - point taken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, with your permission, I have another Q: N &amp; H Ex 222: &quot;If ever a man deserved to be well-treated by his fellow citizens it was Tib. Gracchus.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer: &quot;_Tib. Gracchus (TB) si quis alius dignus fuit qui a suis civibus beneficiis afficeretur_.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I put &quot;_dignus erat_&quot;. To me &quot;_dignus fuit_&quot; implies that his worthiness ended at some point; and, or TB is now dead: he, like his worthiness, is a completed action in the past. Thus, &quot;_dignus erat_&quot; - he is still alive: his worthiness was; presumably still is; therefore, continues to be... .Is this a correct interpretation of the effects of _erat_ &amp; _fuit_ in this context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same passage, if I may, please; &quot;...and connected by birth with both the conquerors of Africa,...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N &amp; H advised the student (footnotes) to deploy &quot;_uterque Africanus_&quot; for &quot;the conquerors of Africa&quot;, giving:- &quot;..._et natu coniunctus cum utroque Africano_,...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Given that uterque means &quot;each of the two&quot;, how is the required: &quot;conquerors of&quot; achieved by this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1990" RevisionGUID="c57766fc-57e1-4e77-818b-c3bed8e9657f" CreationDate="2018-06-04T08:05:37.927" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 46 characters in body" Text="I am currently studying Latin in high school (third year), so I do have a mild understanding of how the language works. But I would like to know whether this translation is correct. For various reasons, I can't ask my Latin teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hic fortissimus, primus inter pares.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hoping to mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This most powerful (individual), the first amongst equals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I am looking for an adjective to mean &quot;powerful&quot; as in &quot;with great authority/influential&quot;. Would you recommend any other word besides &quot;fortes&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1064" RevisionGUID="8bf5206c-db04-46a7-b3ac-87a53218141c" CreationDate="2018-06-04T08:06:45.473" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 43 characters in body" Text="&gt; Nisi Dominus ædificaverit domum, in vanum laboraverunt qui ædificant eam. [psalm 126:1]    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;I am pretty sure that classical Hebrew has no future perfect tense, so how did Jerome arrive at his decision to employ it, and other un-Hebraic tenses, as above in the Vulgate?    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;(I apologize in advance if my question is somewhat elementary; the last time I had instruction in Latin was during my undistinguished high school career in 1958.)    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Addendum 2016·6·22 (original text without introductory descriptive phrase):  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;אִם־יְהוָ֤ה׀ לֹא־יִבְנֶ֬ה בַ֗יִת שָׁ֤וְא׀ עָמְל֣וּ בוֹנָ֣יו בּ֑וֹ&#xD;&#xA;[psalm 127:1]    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will notice that the _תנ&quot;ך_ numbers the cited passage as 127:1, whereas the Vulgate numbers it as 126:1. Is Jerome trying to drive me crazy or something?    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6616" RevisionGUID="e5d34551-730a-43f1-a306-09e564fc7e9c" CreationDate="2018-06-04T08:08:08.737" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="North &amp; Hillard, Ex. 189; Q5:&quot;The citizens were almost dead of starvation, when relief arrived.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer: &quot;_cives fame paene mortui sunt cum auxilium advenit_.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, I put _mortui erant_ - the-citizens-had-nearly-died: (two actions, in the past, the one following the other).&#xD;&#xA;Is this still correct? Latin seems reluctant to deploy pluperfects; when, English-speakers, instinctively &amp; naturally wish to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, when &quot;cum&quot;= &quot;when&quot; it should only take the indicative (advenit) when the tense is present or future; otherwise, it takes imperf. subj., or pluperf. subj. The tense is past (when relief arrived) so is the use of &quot;advenit&quot; a mistake?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5315" RevisionGUID="99420a96-c5f1-4ad6-a954-507736824616" CreationDate="2018-06-04T08:08:48.473" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body; edited tags" Text="**Question:** Please show me a grammar resource that explains what the following construction is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John 1:24 &quot;missi fuerant&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;John 1:40 &quot;secuti fuerant&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;John 2:10 &quot;inebriati fuerint&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;John 3:3 &quot;natus fuerit&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;John 3:5 &quot;renatus fuerit&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;John 3:24 &quot;missus fuerat&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My speculation:** I'm reading through the Vulgate, and I've found a construction I'd like identified. I'm hoping it's actually a construction and not just two separate words. It looks similar to the Perfect System Indicative Passive, so I've speculated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** It's a variation on the **Perfect System Subjunctive Passive.** Normally, I thought the Perfect System Subjunctive was formed by combining the *&quot;4th PP&quot;* + *&quot;Sum: Present System&quot;* . Instead this looks like some sort of double-perfect-system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** Since the Vulgate is **a translation from Koine Greek**, it's some variation on a Greek periphrastic construction that Jerome took directly into account when translating it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21986" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5315" RevisionGUID="99420a96-c5f1-4ad6-a954-507736824616" CreationDate="2018-06-04T08:08:48.473" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|greek|vulgata|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2692" RevisionGUID="981c80b7-04dd-4ffc-b20c-884a10e366fa" CreationDate="2018-06-04T08:10:42.067" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="I am trying to translate from Bartolf of Nangis, Gesta Francorum expugnantium Iherusalem. This sentence is below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Quo viso, ignorantes quid esset, Deo se commitentes, inde ad oppidum quod Marescum dicitur profecti sunt, ubi mora et quiete tribus diebus facta, versus Antiocham, Syria urbem quam maximam._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence that I made translate: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... They moved to toward city of Marash and rested there for 3 days, then they were on the road to Antioch which is the biggest center of Syria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Is this a correct translation or not? Could someone examine this sentence, please? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2225" RevisionGUID="44f8db42-6f21-4d5c-92c9-716601febae5" CreationDate="2018-06-04T08:11:26.917" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="Where I come from, we have an ironic saying about love, it could be translated into English as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Love is warming, but coal is coal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Or perhaps less literally as &quot;_Love is heartwarming, but coal will always be coal._&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to translate that into Latin. So far I've come up with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Amor calefacit, sed carbo est carbo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Amor calefaciēbat, sed carbo erat carbo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm really uncertain whether the present or imperfect is appropriate. Would someone be so kind as to improve on my attempt? I'd probably prefer a plain and simple translation over eloquent / poetic ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4056" RevisionGUID="f4cea597-cb90-4464-8084-d831ba505995" CreationDate="2018-06-04T08:12:00.500" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 68 characters in body" Text="I am currently studying Latin (3rd year in high school); so I do have a mild understanding of the language. I would like to know whether this translation is correct, makes sense and sounds at least a bit natural. Unfortunately, I can't ask my classroom teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have come up with this _motto_ in English, call it a _title_ or _heading_ if you'd like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All lost things, found.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (All things which had been lost, have now been found) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going by my somehow limited knowledge of Latin, and consulting the Wiktionary, I crafted this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnes perditae res, inventus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I don't know if **inveniēns** should be used here, as an active present participle, or **inventus** as a passive perfect participle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are your thoughts on this? Any other approach is warmly welcomed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2197" RevisionGUID="858cf380-0d84-4b28-8b6f-0cc52ac603ae" CreationDate="2018-06-04T08:12:46.690" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="The Cambridge Latin Course Dictionary lists the words&#xD;&#xA;*pauci, paucae, pauca*&#xD;&#xA;which I assume are adjectives, and it is defined as &quot;few, a few&quot;. I cannot find this listing in the same form on wikitionary, which instead defines it as an adjective *paucus, pauca, paucum* meaning *few, little*. Now, this in itself is strange, but then I searched up the term in Latdict (online dictionary) and it came up with this: *paucus, pauci (noun)* with a definition of *&quot;a few&quot;* and masculine. Latdict also supplied another noun on the same search, (this time neuter), *paucum, pauci* meaning &quot;only a small/an indefinite number of/few things (pl.), a few words/points&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What I want to know is whether there are multiple words, or these are the same words except with different forms, and what the correct (actual) forms of these words are.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Search on Latdict [here](http://latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/pauci))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Search on Wikitionary [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paucus#Latin))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2243" RevisionGUID="e6787b27-a64b-43b3-a341-f8b728e6a874" CreationDate="2018-06-04T08:14:21.333" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Here I have the depondent word&#xD;&#xA;[*persequor, persequi, persecutus sum, persecutum*]. Following standard depondent rules, I am able to form the following (Apparently these active participles are active in both form and meaning)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Present Active participle: *persequire* -&gt;_persequins_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Future passive participle: *persequire* -&gt; *persequindus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfect Passive participle: *persectum* -&gt; *persectus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Future Active Participle: *persectum* -&gt; *persecturus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have used the presumed infinitive and the presumed perfect passive participles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, objectively all the above are wrong and I cannot find them listed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions is **where I went wrong in the above and is it possible to form case-specific, gender specific, tense specific participles from the principle parts of a depondent verb in the same way done with standard verbs**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I just realised that the stem should be *persequ-*, but *persequns* is still incorrect for the Present Active Participle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21992" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="156" RevisionGUID="3af7f36b-b7de-4704-b6fd-64dc1864984d" CreationDate="2018-06-04T08:55:34.350" UserId="52" Comment="Retagged according to the new policy on [tag:translation]" Text="|sentence-translation|medieval-latin|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2934" RevisionGUID="edc63930-5101-4c2f-bff8-2c0b0837a66a" CreationDate="2018-06-04T12:16:07.297" UserId="845" Comment="Minor spelling revision, added 'grammar-identification' tag" Text="I am learning Latin. I have bought a grammar book, which is not that great. My professor is using words like adversative conjunction, comparative, conditional, and so on. I can't find any long list over these types online. Can you help me? Here is what I have gotten till now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conjunctions can be separated into hypotaxis and parataxis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hypotaxis: (connecting) introducing a subordinate clause&#xD;&#xA; - Parataxis: connecting to independent clause&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subcategories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Copulative/Additive&#xD;&#xA; - Adversative&#xD;&#xA; - Explicative&#xD;&#xA; - Final&#xD;&#xA; - Causal&#xD;&#xA; - Comparative&#xD;&#xA; - Conditional&#xD;&#xA; - Consecutive&#xD;&#xA; - Concessive&#xD;&#xA; - Temporal&#xD;&#xA; - Modal&#xD;&#xA; - Local&#xD;&#xA; - Disjunctive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need help to get the whole list, what each of the terms means and in which Latin words/sentences are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21994" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2934" RevisionGUID="edc63930-5101-4c2f-bff8-2c0b0837a66a" CreationDate="2018-06-04T12:16:07.297" UserId="845" Comment="Minor spelling revision, added 'grammar-identification' tag" Text="|grammar-identification|conjunction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21995" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2934" RevisionGUID="edc63930-5101-4c2f-bff8-2c0b0837a66a" CreationDate="2018-06-04T12:16:07.297" Comment="Proposed by 845 approved by 1459, 79 edit id of 236" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2694" RevisionGUID="6125507e-b786-47d4-86e0-30c4e5ff0d27" CreationDate="2018-06-04T12:29:51.857" UserId="79" Comment="added 188 characters in body" Text="My guess is that the people described in the sentence saw a divine omen of some kind.&#xD;&#xA;The sentence starts with an absolute ablative *quo viso*, &quot;that thing having been seen&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In more fluent English it is best adapted to the subject of the sentence: &quot;Having seen that thing, they&amp;hellip;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the people had seen something.&#xD;&#xA;They were *ignorantes*, ignoring, of the fact indicated by a short indirect question: *quid esset*.&#xD;&#xA;That is, they ignored or did not know what it was that they saw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to *ignorantes*, they were *committentes* (two Ts in classical Latin), &quot;committing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;They committed themselves (*se*) to the God (*Deo*).&#xD;&#xA;I don't know the most idiomatic English phrasing in this situation, but they entrusted themselves in God's hands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting the beginning of the sentence together, the had seen something, they didn't know what it was, and they trusted the God.&#xD;&#xA;Your translation starts from this point.&#xD;&#xA;It is good, but I want to clarify some points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- They went towards &quot;a city (which is) called Marescum&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- They made a pause and rest (*mora et quies*, again an absolute ablative).&#xD;&#xA;- The superlative *maximam* does not mean that it was the biggest city; especially with *quam* it means that the city was very large, but no comparison is implied. One could read *urbs quam maxima* as &quot;largest possible city&quot;, but &quot;an extremely large city&quot; sounds much more likely to me. (Literally, *urbs quam maxima* can be read as &quot;a city as big as possible&quot;, but such a hyperbole is not idiomatic English. There are many choices for the exact phrasing, but I don't think a strict comparison is intended.)&#xD;&#xA;- I assume it is *Syriae*, not *Syria*, since I cannot parse a nominative or an ablative here, and a genitive would make sense (and you translate it as a genitive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more natural English, I prefer to split the sentence in two.&#xD;&#xA;Combining all this, I would translate your sentence as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; After seeing it but not knowing what it was, they, leaving themselves in God's hands, set out [from there] towards a city called Marescum/Marash.&#xD;&#xA;After pausing there to rest for three days, they continued towards Antioch, a very large city of Syria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assumed that the predicate *profecti sunt* is implied to cover also *versus Antiocham*.&#xD;&#xA;For fluency, I translated this (implicit) second occurrence with &quot;they continued&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I might be able to offer a better translation for the start if I knew what they had seen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a worse alternative (mis)reading that I did originally.&#xD;&#xA;I include it here for completeness.&#xD;&#xA;If you read *commitentes* as *comitantes*, then the people were &quot;accompanying&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;They accompanied themselves (*se*) to the God (*Deo*).&#xD;&#xA;That is, they were in the company of the God." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6634" RevisionGUID="fce0e6cb-8247-4378-8e16-c41ec06b1a50" CreationDate="2018-06-04T13:33:51.350" UserId="79" Text="The active infinitive is uniform (*-re* from *-se* by rhotacism) across the regular Latin conjugations, but the passive one is not: the third conjugation loses the consonant.&#xD;&#xA;We have *amare/amari*, *habere/haberi*, *audire/audiri*, and *trahere/trahi*.&#xD;&#xA;By analogy one would expect *traheri* instead of *trahi*.&#xD;&#xA;Why is the third conjugation passive infinitive ending like this, while other regular conjugations have *-re/-ri* for active/passive?&#xD;&#xA;Is there a reason, context, or anything that would help understand this apparent loss of a consonant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a subquestion of [this older question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6463/79).&#xD;&#xA;The broader question remains unanswered, but perhaps this is more tractable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21998" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6634" RevisionGUID="fce0e6cb-8247-4378-8e16-c41ec06b1a50" CreationDate="2018-06-04T13:33:51.350" UserId="79" Text="Third conjugation passive infinitive: why not -ri?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21999" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6634" RevisionGUID="fce0e6cb-8247-4378-8e16-c41ec06b1a50" CreationDate="2018-06-04T13:33:51.350" UserId="79" Text="|verbs|language-evolution|morphology|conjugation|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2937" RevisionGUID="8f094cba-ddef-4cdd-8bae-e37383809279" CreationDate="2018-06-04T18:48:23.233" UserId="30" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Here is the stub of an answer. Many conjunctions can be used in two or more different ways. And I've only given an example for each category, not an exhaustive list. But this should be enough for you to be able to categorise other conjunctions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Copulative/Additive**: connects two clauses without indicating any specific kind of relation between them: *et*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Adversative**: indicates opposition: *sed*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Explicative**: explicates or elaborates on the previous clause: *quod/ut* &quot;that&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Final**: indicates a purpose or end: *ut, ne*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Causal**: indicates a cause: *nam* &quot;for&quot;, *quia, quoniam, quod* &quot;because&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Comparative**: indicates what the preceding is compared with: *quam* &quot;than&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conditional**: indicates a condition: *si*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Consecutive**: indicates a result that was not specifically intended: *ut*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Concessive**: indicates a concession: *quamquam, quamvis, etsi, ut/cum* &quot;although&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Temporal**: indicates a time at/after/before which the main clause happens: *ut/cum/ubi* &quot;when&quot;, *postquam, priusquam, antequam, dum, donec*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Modal**: probably indicates circumstances or methods, but I can't think of what those would be. Perhaps *(sic)ut* &quot;(such) as&quot;, but one might as well call that comparative. Or *prout* &quot;to the extent that&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Local**: indicates a location: *ubi* &quot;where*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Disjunctive**: separates two possibilities: *sive, aut*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Interrogative**: introduces the content of a question: *utrum, an*. Or perhaps others would have this fall under &quot;explicative&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no necessary or complete list of different  kinds of conjunctions: any categorisation is a choice. But most of the terms above are indeed fairly commonly used for conjunctions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6635" RevisionGUID="8da25397-6eb9-4b54-98bb-8d5bc0901e7e" CreationDate="2018-06-04T23:25:22.040" UserId="30" Text="I believe *volare* is used indeed with various insects, such as bees, flies, and cicadas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publius Ovidius Naso, Ars Amatoria 1.95, 1.96:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Granifero solitum cum vehit ore cibum,   &#xD;&#xA;Aut ut **apes** saltusque suos et olentia nactae   &#xD;&#xA;Pascua per flores et thyma summa **volant**,   &#xD;&#xA;Sic ruit ad celebres cultissima femina ludos:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  L. Iunius Moderatus Columella, De Re Rustica 6.17.9.5:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sed quotiensque mel 	9.1&#xD;&#xA;aliusue sucus remediis adhibetur, circumlinendus erit oculus 	&#xD;&#xA;pice liquida cum oleo, ne a muscis infestetur. nam et ad dulcedinem et ad odorem mellis aliorumque medicamentorum non eae [i.e. **muscae**] solae, sed et **apes aduolant**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Gaius Plinius Secundus, Naturalis Historia 11.96.2, 11.96.3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Insectorum autem quaedam binas gerunt pinnas, ut muscae, quaedam quaternas, ut apes. membranis et **cicadae volant**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Apuleius Madaurensis, Metamorphoses 10.15.8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *... nec utique cellulam suam tam immanes **inuolare muscas**, ut olim Harpyiae fuere, quae diripiebant Phineias dapes.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6635" RevisionGUID="33465afa-0a61-4c31-b9f3-80dd2f120ba2" CreationDate="2018-06-04T23:40:23.117" UserId="30" Comment="added 296 characters in body" Text="I believe *volare* is used indeed with various insects, such as bees, flies, and cicadas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publius Ovidius Naso, Ars Amatoria 1.95, 1.96:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Granifero solitum cum vehit ore cibum,   &#xD;&#xA;Aut ut **apes** saltusque suos et olentia nactae   &#xD;&#xA;Pascua per flores et thyma summa **volant**,   &#xD;&#xA;Sic ruit ad celebres cultissima femina ludos:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  L. Iunius Moderatus Columella, De Re Rustica 6.17.9.5:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sed quotiensque mel 	9.1&#xD;&#xA;aliusue sucus remediis adhibetur, circumlinendus erit oculus 	&#xD;&#xA;pice liquida cum oleo, ne a muscis infestetur. nam et ad dulcedinem et ad odorem mellis aliorumque medicamentorum non eae [i.e. **muscae**] solae, sed et **apes aduolant**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Gaius Plinius Secundus, Naturalis Historia 11.96.2, 11.96.3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Insectorum autem quaedam binas gerunt pinnas, ut muscae, quaedam quaternas, ut apes. membranis et **cicadae volant**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Apuleius Madaurensis, Metamorphoses 10.15.8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *... nec utique cellulam suam tam immanes **inuolare muscas**, ut olim Harpyiae fuere, quae diripiebant Phineias dapes.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I've looked at all other entries meaning &quot;to fly&quot; in my dictionary, and it seems (composite) forms of *volare* are the only ones used with insects; that is, the other ones all seemed to be used poetically c.q. metaphorically for flying, such as *curro, findo, labor* and a swarm of others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6635" RevisionGUID="74c1b65c-a5e2-4a89-94a8-2e0ba5f54101" CreationDate="2018-06-04T23:46:12.383" UserId="30" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="I believe *volare* is used indeed with various insects, such as bees, flies, and cicadas. From the HP corpus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publius Ovidius Naso, Ars Amatoria 1.95, 1.96:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Granifero solitum cum vehit ore cibum,   &#xD;&#xA;Aut ut **apes** saltusque suos et olentia nactae   &#xD;&#xA;Pascua per flores et thyma summa **volant**,   &#xD;&#xA;Sic ruit ad celebres cultissima femina ludos:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  L. Iunius Moderatus Columella, De Re Rustica 6.17.9.5:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sed quotiensque mel 	9.1&#xD;&#xA;aliusue sucus remediis adhibetur, circumlinendus erit oculus 	&#xD;&#xA;pice liquida cum oleo, ne a muscis infestetur. nam et ad dulcedinem et ad odorem mellis aliorumque medicamentorum non eae [i.e. **muscae**] solae, sed et **apes aduolant**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Gaius Plinius Secundus, Naturalis Historia 11.96.2, 11.96.3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Insectorum autem quaedam binas gerunt pinnas, ut muscae, quaedam quaternas, ut apes. membranis et **cicadae volant**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Apuleius Madaurensis, Metamorphoses 10.15.8:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *... nec utique cellulam suam tam immanes **inuolare muscas**, ut olim Harpyiae fuere, quae diripiebant Phineias dapes.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I've looked at all other entries meaning &quot;to fly&quot; in my dictionary, and it seems (composite) forms of *volare* are the only ones used with insects; that is, the other ones all seemed to be used poetically c.q. metaphorically for flying, such as *curro, findo, labor* and a swarm of others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6636" RevisionGUID="61a2af78-eaf8-428d-877c-7b4b2f3b90c4" CreationDate="2018-06-05T00:04:43.013" UserId="2671" Text="I have little knowledge of Latin grammar - and few resources in Japan. I am attempting to create a fictional agency in a novel and its accompanying motto: From Secrecy, Unity &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used a few &quot;Ex (X) (X)&quot; mottos as a pattern, using the ablative tense of the masculine 1st/2nd dec OCCULTUS to match the away from image of 'EX'. I'm unsure if it should stay masculine or if it should change to feminine or neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am much less confident on what tense UNITAS should be in. I assume it should be the Nominative... ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22005" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6636" RevisionGUID="61a2af78-eaf8-428d-877c-7b4b2f3b90c4" CreationDate="2018-06-05T00:04:43.013" UserId="2671" Text="Ex Occulto Unitas - is that the correct syntax for a motto?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22006" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6636" RevisionGUID="61a2af78-eaf8-428d-877c-7b4b2f3b90c4" CreationDate="2018-06-05T00:04:43.013" UserId="2671" Text="|motto|grammarians|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6636" RevisionGUID="418af21e-f152-4fe0-a99d-d7854db1dd20" CreationDate="2018-06-05T07:52:29.150" UserId="79" Comment="added 51 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I have little knowledge of Latin grammar &amp;mdash; and few resources in Japan. I am attempting to create a fictional agency in a novel and its accompanying motto: From Secrecy, Unity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempted translation is &quot;Ex Occulto Unitas&quot;. I used a few &quot;Ex (X) (X)&quot; mottos as a pattern, using the ablative tense of the masculine 1st/2nd dec OCCULTUS to match the away from image of 'EX'. I'm unsure if it should stay masculine or if it should change to feminine or neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am much less confident on what tense UNITAS should be in. I assume it should be the Nominative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22008" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6636" RevisionGUID="418af21e-f152-4fe0-a99d-d7854db1dd20" CreationDate="2018-06-05T07:52:29.150" UserId="79" Comment="added 51 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Ex Occulto Unitas — is that the correct syntax for a motto?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22009" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6636" RevisionGUID="418af21e-f152-4fe0-a99d-d7854db1dd20" CreationDate="2018-06-05T07:52:29.150" UserId="79" Comment="added 51 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|translation-check|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6637" RevisionGUID="05bb27e3-6722-4869-8cde-dae307667321" CreationDate="2018-06-05T08:05:45.267" UserId="79" Text="The adjective *occultus* means &quot;hidden&quot;, &quot;secret&quot;, and other such things.&#xD;&#xA;It is normal to use the neuter *occultum* for &quot;secrecy&quot; or &quot;a secret thing&quot;, and this meaning is listed separately in some dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;The word *occultum* should be in neuter, but in ablative it looks just like masculine.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I think your word choices for &quot;secrecy&quot; and &quot;unity&quot; are perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pattern &quot;*ex* X(abl) Y(nom)&quot; for &quot;Y from X&quot; is very common in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;(Latin word order is different from English, so the translation &quot;from X, Y&quot; feels a little forced to me, but it is a matter of taste. And this question concerns Latin, so the English phrasing is tangential.)&#xD;&#xA;Thus *ex occulto unitas* is a great translation of your motto.&#xD;&#xA;It also has the added benefit of being understandable to many who don't know much Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6638" RevisionGUID="b282e6fd-79f1-4860-ac92-7a80626f8617" CreationDate="2018-06-05T09:29:22.027" UserId="1459" Text="Actually, the Vatican dictionary for recent and new words uses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; doctor machinarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be found [here](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/rc_latinitas_20040601_lexicon_it.html), as a translation from the Italian word _ingegnere_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6639" RevisionGUID="b1436be8-2c67-4ca1-9e46-e583daa870f8" CreationDate="2018-06-05T10:05:35.007" UserId="1459" Text="1. The Vatican _Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis_ uses (in Ecclesiastical Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;pecúniae male partae collocátio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (taken from the online subsample of words, found [here](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/rc_latinitas_20040601_lexicon_it.html), with Italian translation (_riciclaggio_ being the world recycling).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This seems however a rather odd phrase, which could be translated as &quot;the setting up of wrongly born wealth/money&quot;?  No clue how this relates to recycling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The [wikipedia entry](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacyclismus) calls it (as noun; see [discussion](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputatio:Anacyclismus)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Anacyclismus, seu regyratio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The first term seems to have been proposed by [Stephanus Berard](http://boreoccidentales.com/english/about-stephanus-berard/) (again, see discussion page). This seems to be originated from the term [Anacyclic](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anacyclic), which means [palindromic](palindromic), which itself comes from Ancient Greek [_palindromos_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/palindrome), meaning &quot;running back again&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The [discussion page](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputatio:Anacyclismus) of the above wiki entry also mentions the following (as noun):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;ad utilitatem redactio, ad usum iteratum aptatio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The website says this is also a translation from the _Lexicon ..._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6640" RevisionGUID="38fdecf9-92e3-4f97-9a2e-7b483ccd5127" CreationDate="2018-06-05T10:18:56.053" UserId="1459" Text="In Spanish the expression &quot;_casilla electrónica_&quot; is used to refer to the &quot;e-mailbox&quot;. Hence, I would propose something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;arca electronica&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where _arca_ (nominative singular, feminine), according to [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/arca#Latin), is used to refer to a box to store safe things, and _electronica_ is the nom. s. f. of _[electronicus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/electronicus#Latin)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option could be to use _[capsa](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/capsa#Latin)_ instead of _arca_.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6641" RevisionGUID="d05414be-5963-4a87-9d3a-60097f89ce2c" CreationDate="2018-06-05T11:40:48.557" UserId="79" Text="I would simply say *cursus electronicus*.&#xD;&#xA;While it also stands for the system, it is not unusual to use metonymy like this.&#xD;&#xA;Compare to English, where we use the word &quot;email&quot; liberally for all aspects of email." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6642" RevisionGUID="5301690e-0061-42ca-bb4b-ff638025a083" CreationDate="2018-06-05T14:53:47.143" UserId="79" Text="The word *aquaeductus* can also be spelled *aquae ductus* or *ductus aquae*, possibly with the plural *aquarum* (see [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=aquaeductus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)).&#xD;&#xA;Spelling it separately in either order makes sense, as the aqueduct is a conductor (*ductus*) of water (*aquae*).&#xD;&#xA;But why is it also spelled together in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be more precise, is there classical evidence for spelling *aqueductus* as a single word?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, what does that even mean?&#xD;&#xA;Word boundaries were not as clearly defined and marked as today, but they were not entirely non-existent either.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps this is just a later editorial decision and has nothing to do with classical spelling, but it's hard for me to judge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22017" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6642" RevisionGUID="5301690e-0061-42ca-bb4b-ff638025a083" CreationDate="2018-06-05T14:53:47.143" UserId="79" Text="Spelling aquaeductus together" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22018" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6642" RevisionGUID="5301690e-0061-42ca-bb4b-ff638025a083" CreationDate="2018-06-05T14:53:47.143" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="724" RevisionGUID="dc693e0a-51da-4300-a1e2-b7825d6f6a1c" CreationDate="2018-06-05T14:58:53.980" UserId="79" Comment="added 281 characters in body" Text="The name *Iesus* has [peculiar declension](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/620/79) in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The declension of this word in every source that I have seen only gives singular forms.&#xD;&#xA;However, I can imagine situations where a plural is needed: a story might include several Jesuses.&#xD;&#xA;I have hard time believing that a plural form would never have been used in Latin literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the plural of *Iesus*?&#xD;&#xA;Where has this plural been used?&#xD;&#xA;It would be great to have all cases, but the nominative would already be interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest fit in regular Latin declension is the fourth declension, but it does not fit all that well.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, the singular forms seem to be best explained by considering it a late loan from Greek (which it evidently is), not conforming to Latin's five regular declensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was inspired by today's [SMBC](http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4081).&#xD;&#xA;If you click the red button below the comic, you will see a tongue-in-cheek suggestion: singular *Jesus*, plural *Jesupodes*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6643" RevisionGUID="f1c8d70a-f5b3-4666-a8d3-e6d522d99986" CreationDate="2018-06-05T21:50:52.803" UserId="118" Text="How do you propose an idea for someone else to accept, reject, or counteroffer, as in this conversation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A. Where would you like to have dinner tonight?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B. How about [_Rex Azteca_](https://www.yelp.com/biz/el-rey-azteca-bloomington) on Fourth Street?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking that **visne** is not quite right, because the idea here is not simply to ask if the other person would like do it, but to toss out an idea, perhaps to elicit a better idea. Also, I think **visne** wants an accusative object, whereas often this type of construction fills in a blank that would go in another case. The example above seems to want to be in the ablative case, as does, &quot;When would you like to meet?&quot; &quot;How about Tuesday morning?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, one can indicate that one is offering an idea to kick around, perhaps in hopes of eliciting alternatives, rather than merely asking &quot;yes or no&quot;, by the &quot;vaguifying&quot; particle _about,_ as in &quot;How about 8:00?&quot; or &quot;What about seeing a movie?&quot; The relevant sense of _about_ seems to be that of directing attention to its object, made infamous in the last couple years in the phrase &quot;What about Hillary?&quot;—i.e. &quot;Please direct your attention to Hillary Clinton&quot; (and away from whatever iniquity of Trump's was just described). Another way to make this conversational distinction is to say &quot;How does ____ sound?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these _can_ receive an answer of yes or no, though, as well as elicit alternatives. They give the other person a way to indicate consent to a shared decision immediately without pushing for it. In English, &quot;Do you want to eat at 8:00?&quot; is really a yes-or-no question, not a request to negotiate a time to eat favorable to both you and your interlocutor. The conditional mood with no apodosis also changes the meaning from yes-or-no to &quot;Please give consent or suggest an alternative&quot;, as in &quot;Would you like to eat at 8:00?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, maybe **visne** can carry the meaning of asking for alternatives as much as for consent; I'm afraid I still haven't read Plautus or Terence, so I don't yet have a feeling for this sort of conversational subtlety. ;) Does conversational Latin have a way to make this distinction? Does it work with cases other than the accusative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22021" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6643" RevisionGUID="f1c8d70a-f5b3-4666-a8d3-e6d522d99986" CreationDate="2018-06-05T21:50:52.803" UserId="118" Text="&quot;How about&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22022" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6643" RevisionGUID="f1c8d70a-f5b3-4666-a8d3-e6d522d99986" CreationDate="2018-06-05T21:50:52.803" UserId="118" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6644" RevisionGUID="403a3adb-e617-49f6-b0ec-c1d2d6197aaa" CreationDate="2018-06-05T22:05:05.243" UserId="118" Text="In Spanish, _azteca_ as an adjective doesn't seem to inflect for gender, though it does for number: _azteca, aztecas._ Hence the phrase [_el rey azteca_](https://www.yelp.com/biz/el-rey-azteca-bloomington).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Italian, _azteco_ seems to be a perfectly regular adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What precedent is there for preferring one or the other of these in Latin? I gather from looking at [the etymology](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-teca#Etymology_2_2) that Spanish _azteca_ comes from a Nahuatl suffix _-tecatl_, which perhaps people then treated grammatically by analogy with the Latin/Greek suffix [_-thēca_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-theca#Latin)/[θήκη](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B8%CE%AE%CE%BA%CE%B7#Ancient_Greek).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22024" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6644" RevisionGUID="403a3adb-e617-49f6-b0ec-c1d2d6197aaa" CreationDate="2018-06-05T22:05:05.243" UserId="118" Text="Aut &quot;rex Azteca&quot; aut &quot;rex aztecus&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22025" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6644" RevisionGUID="403a3adb-e617-49f6-b0ec-c1d2d6197aaa" CreationDate="2018-06-05T22:05:05.243" UserId="118" Text="|borrowing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6644" RevisionGUID="ed2685c0-fe71-4239-9f09-0c17ec06cea0" CreationDate="2018-06-05T22:22:09.833" UserId="118" Comment="added 595 characters in body" Text="In Spanish, _azteca_ as an adjective doesn't seem to inflect for gender, though it does for number: _azteca, aztecas._ Hence the phrase [_el rey azteca_](https://www.yelp.com/biz/el-rey-azteca-bloomington).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Italian, _azteco_ seems to be a perfectly regular adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What precedent is there for preferring one or the other of these in Latin? [The etymology](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-teca#Etymology_2_2) says that Spanish _azteca_ comes from a Nahuatl suffix _-tecatl._ Perhaps people then treated the Nahuatl suffix grammatically by analogy with the Latin/Greek suffix [_-thēca_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-theca#Latin)/[θήκη](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B8%CE%AE%CE%BA%CE%B7#Ancient_Greek). Coming from classical roots, this suffix only forms nouns, like **bibliotheca** and **discotheca**, not adjectives, so the analogy is imperfect, but that's often how it is when extending precedents to new cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reasonable possibility is to reject the analogy as false to begin with, since [the Nahuatl suffix](https://books.google.com/books?id=nRUJDW2tW1YC&amp;pg=PA115#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) means &quot;inhabitant&quot;, whereas the Latin suffix means something more like &quot;container for a collection&quot;. But it's also reasonable to think of an ethnic group or civilization as a sort of contained collection.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22027" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6644" RevisionGUID="810bf98a-ca8e-4050-a423-a003c8dbc50d" CreationDate="2018-06-05T22:30:34.837" UserId="118" Comment="edited title" Text="Aut &quot;rex Azteca&quot; aut &quot;rex Aztecus&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6643" RevisionGUID="7bf7e815-fd45-43b4-a2d6-a4a45ddc1c59" CreationDate="2018-06-05T22:59:13.077" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="How do you propose an idea for someone else to accept, reject, or counteroffer, as in this conversation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A. Where would you like to have dinner tonight?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B. How about [_Rex Azteca_](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6644/118) on Fourth Street?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking that **visne** is not quite right, because the idea here is not simply to ask if the other person would like do it, but to toss out an idea, perhaps to elicit a better idea. Also, I think **visne** wants an accusative object, whereas often this type of construction fills in a blank that would go in another case. The example above seems to want to be in the ablative case, as does, &quot;When would you like to meet?&quot; &quot;How about Tuesday morning?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, one can indicate that one is offering an idea to kick around, perhaps in hopes of eliciting alternatives, rather than merely asking &quot;yes or no&quot;, by the &quot;vaguifying&quot; particle _about,_ as in &quot;How about 8:00?&quot; or &quot;What about seeing a movie?&quot; The relevant sense of _about_ seems to be that of directing attention to its object, made infamous in the last couple years in the phrase &quot;What about Hillary?&quot;—i.e. &quot;Please direct your attention to Hillary Clinton&quot; (and away from whatever iniquity of Trump's was just described). Another way to make this conversational distinction is to say &quot;How does ____ sound?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these _can_ receive an answer that accepts the proposal, though. They give the other person a way to indicate consent to a shared decision immediately without pushing for it. In English, &quot;Do you want to eat at 8:00?&quot; is really a yes-or-no question, not a request to negotiate a time to eat favorable to both you and your interlocutor. The conditional mood with no apodosis also changes the meaning from yes-or-no to &quot;Please give consent or suggest an alternative&quot;, as in &quot;Would you like to eat at 8:00?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, maybe **visne** can carry the meaning of asking for alternatives as much as for consent; I'm afraid I still haven't read Plautus or Terence, so I don't yet have a feeling for this sort of conversational subtlety. ;) Does conversational Latin have a way to make this distinction? Does it work with cases other than the accusative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6644" RevisionGUID="6deda107-ed52-470c-a492-a378852c2731" CreationDate="2018-06-05T23:04:25.753" UserId="118" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="In Spanish, [_azteca_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/azteca#Spanish) as an adjective doesn't seem to inflect for gender, though it does for number: _azteca, aztecas._ Hence the phrase [_el rey azteca_](https://www.yelp.com/biz/el-rey-azteca-bloomington).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Italian, _azteco_ seems to be a perfectly regular adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What precedent is there for preferring one or the other of these in Latin? [The etymology](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-teca#Etymology_2_2) says that Spanish _azteca_ comes from a Nahuatl suffix _-tecatl._ Perhaps people then treated the Nahuatl suffix grammatically by analogy with the Latin/Greek suffix [_-thēca_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-theca#Latin)/[θήκη](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B8%CE%AE%CE%BA%CE%B7#Ancient_Greek). Coming from classical roots, this suffix only forms nouns, like **bibliotheca** and **discotheca**, not adjectives, so the analogy is imperfect, but that's often how it is when extending precedents to new cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reasonable possibility is to reject the analogy as false to begin with, since [the Nahuatl suffix](https://books.google.com/books?id=nRUJDW2tW1YC&amp;pg=PA115#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) means &quot;inhabitant&quot;, whereas the Latin suffix means something more like &quot;container for a collection&quot;. But it's also reasonable to think of an ethnic group or civilization as a sort of contained collection.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6645" RevisionGUID="6c06e4ea-9244-4594-9e60-3e1d8c827d82" CreationDate="2018-06-06T04:50:48.900" UserId="9" Text="I don't think *-theca* is relevant. To me, it seems that Italian *azteco* and Latin *aztecus* just represent an analysis where the last &quot;a&quot; in the original Nahuatl word is removed, giving the root *aztec-*,  and then this is &#xD;&#xA;treated like the root of a regular first/second adjective, taking the thematic vowel *-o-* for the stem of the masculine and neuter forms and the thematic vowel *-a-* for the stem of the feminine forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Aztecus* is definitely used, but most of the examples I was able to find are in [species names](https://books.google.com/books?id=YSBAAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA557&amp;lpg=PA557&amp;dq=Latin+%22azteca%22+%22aztecus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=IODu6cVLZt&amp;sig=AifZ0-EfWCv_epds6feryEQqRkc&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiu64aqnr7bAhUCGnwKHew5CbsQ6AEIQjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20%22azteca%22%20%22aztecus%22&amp;f=false), and biological Latin isn't always &quot;correct&quot; from a Classical perspective. Nonetheless, I don't see any strong reason to reject the form *aztecus* (and the other forms based on the stem *azteco-*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6646" RevisionGUID="9ea7eebc-b0bb-4d58-9d18-3229b04580cd" CreationDate="2018-06-06T06:22:03.540" UserId="79" Text="Your description of the Spanish treatment of &quot;azteca&quot; reminds me of the classical Latin noun *Belga*, &quot;a Belgian&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;*Belga* is masculine, although it looks feminine and follows the first declension.&#xD;&#xA;In addition to that noun, there is the perfectly normally behaving adjective *Belgicus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are similar pairs of nouns and adjectives in English, too, like &quot;Swede&quot; and &quot;Swedish&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You can say &quot;Swedish king&quot;, but &quot;Swede king&quot; doesn't quite seem to work.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of juxtaposition of two nouns works even worse in Latin in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds reasonable to treat *Azteca* just like *Belga* in Latin &amp;mdash; but I would not be opposed to the separate nouns *Azteca* and *Aztecus* either.&#xD;&#xA;When used together with *rex*, what you need is not a noun but an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;A masculine adjective has to look masculine&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, so *rex Azteca* sounds definitely wrong to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you have to decide is what to take as the adjective for Aztecs.&#xD;&#xA;As sumelic mentions, the adjective *Aztecus* is already in use, so it is definitely a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;You could also use *Aztecicus* if you want; there are plenty of such adjectives in Latin formed with *-icus*, including *Belgicus*.&#xD;&#xA;I find myself preferring *-icus* over *-us*, but that is a personal opinion.&#xD;&#xA;Either way, my suggestion is ***Rex Aztecus/Aztecicus***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think comparison with *-theca* is not fruitful here.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I would simply take the stem *Aztec-* as given.&#xD;&#xA;This stem was formed when the Nahuatl word was reanalyzed and conformed to Spanish, and I see no compelling reason to choose otherwise in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin masculine nouns can look feminine or vice versa.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how Spanish works in that respect, nor whether they see &quot;azteca&quot; as a noun or an adjective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6646" RevisionGUID="5858b573-185b-4030-a2e4-92fbd16657cd" CreationDate="2018-06-06T07:25:44.267" UserId="79" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="Your description of the Spanish treatment of &quot;azteca&quot; reminds me of the classical Latin noun *Belga*, &quot;a Belgian&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;*Belga* is masculine, although it looks feminine and follows the first declension.&#xD;&#xA;In addition to that noun, there is the perfectly normally behaving adjective *Belgicus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are similar pairs of nouns and adjectives in English, too, like &quot;Swede&quot; and &quot;Swedish&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You can say &quot;Swedish king&quot;, but &quot;Swede king&quot; doesn't quite seem to work.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of juxtaposition of two nouns works even worse in Latin in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds reasonable to treat *Azteca* just like *Belga* in Latin &amp;mdash; but I would not be opposed to the separate nouns *Azteca* and *Aztecus* either.&#xD;&#xA;When used together with *rex*, what you need is not a noun but an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;A masculine adjective has to look masculine&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, so *rex Azteca* sounds definitely wrong to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you have to decide is what to take as the adjective for Aztecs.&#xD;&#xA;As sumelic mentions, the adjective *Aztecus* is already in use, so it is definitely a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;You could also use *Aztecicus* if you want; there are plenty of such adjectives in Latin formed with *-icus*, including *Belgicus*.&#xD;&#xA;I find myself preferring *-icus* over *-us*, but that is a personal opinion.&#xD;&#xA;Either way, my suggestion is ***Rex Aztecus/Aztecicus***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think comparison with *-theca* is not fruitful here.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I would simply take the stem *Aztec-* as given.&#xD;&#xA;This stem was formed when the Nahuatl word was reanalyzed and conformed to Spanish, and I see no compelling reason to choose otherwise in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin masculine nouns can look feminine or vice versa.&#xD;&#xA;Spanish is more flexible in that respect; the adjective &quot;azteca&quot; can be used for either gender in the same form.&#xA;In Latin this is impossible in the first declension." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6648" RevisionGUID="133040c4-1675-43f8-8320-2710fb56da1c" CreationDate="2018-06-06T10:21:25.363" UserId="172" Text="While many romanizations of ethnonyms take the 2nd declension noun pattern (*Germani, Galli, Veneti, Helvetii* and so on), the 1st declension, as Joonas noted, also occurs, although I am struggling to come up with any examples beyond *Belgae*. 3rd declension is also found, but is rare and seems to always be of pre-classical origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the main reason I am writing this answer is to stress that the Latin idiomatic way of expressing the “king of *X*” concept is not to name the *land*, but rather the *people* over whom the said king reigns, with the noun for the people taking, naturally, the genitive plural. That is, the pattern is not the “German (Swedish, Belgian, American) king,” but instead “the king of the Germans (Swedes, Belgians, Americans).” There are many examples of this very idiomatic pattern, for example, in Caesar [B. G.]: *Ariovistus rex Germanorum* [1, 31, 10] (masc., 2nd decl.); *Teutomatus, Olloviconis filius, rex Nitiobrogum* [7, 31, 5] (masc., 3rd decl.); or in Cicero where he acrimoniously mocks Caesar himself as *rex populi Romani* [Off. 3, 83], “the king of the Roman people;” there are many many others. Incidentally, the modern title of the Belgian king is also the “king of the Belgians” (*koning der Belgen*, *roi des Belges*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whichever declension of the word for Aztec people you would pick, the idiomatic Latin is to title the king as the “King of the Aztecs,” *rex Aztecarum/Aztecorum*. Personally I would go with the 2nd declension *Aztecus, -i* as the most common pattern, but this is really your call. Neither way would be wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6649" RevisionGUID="91543c1d-2a2b-4591-af7e-ea79e875f57e" CreationDate="2018-06-06T13:08:13.937" UserId="45" Text="The &quot;slam dunk&quot; evidence we'd want in a case like this is an inscription with word boundaries that does not separate *aquaeductus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though I can't find any such evidence after a brief search, one piece of indirect evidence makes the supposition likely, especially given the fact that scholars much smarter than me have adopted the convention of spelling it as a compound. This indirect evidence is that the word is likely an imitation of the Greek equivalents: [*ὑδραγωγία*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Du\(dragw%2Fgion) or [*ὑδραγώγιον*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Du\(dragw%2Fgion). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, unlike in Latin, the compounding behavior is much more evident. Latin wasn't quite as productive as Greek with compounds of this kind, but it certainly seems to be a point in favor!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6650" RevisionGUID="1c74d940-82f1-480a-a6c9-6ac233671cae" CreationDate="2018-06-06T13:08:17.280" UserId="406" Text="Latin, as a general rule, has two different types of words. The first type inflect fully, and for adjectives that means a full set of case, number, and gender forms. The second type don't inflect at all and use the same form for every case (usually these are only foreign names). And as far as I know, every adjective in the language falls into the first category: there's no adjective which doesn't have a full case-number-gender inflection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while the *noun* &quot;Aztec person&quot; might be borrowed as *Astecatl* (undeclined) or *Asteca* (first declension), the adjective would have to decline in some way. Either *Astecus -a -um* or *Astecicus -a -um* would make sense, though I'd go with the first (back-formed from the noun *Asteca*) to avoid the pattern *-ecic-* in the middle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6650" RevisionGUID="599fa856-3d71-4831-bcac-7785aba40d5e" CreationDate="2018-06-06T13:38:43.817" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Latin, as a general rule, has two different types of words. The first type inflect fully, and for adjectives that means a full set of case, number, and gender forms. The second type don't inflect at all and use the same form for every case (usually these are only foreign names). And as far as I know, every adjective in the language falls into the first category: there's no adjective which doesn't have a full case-number-gender inflection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while the *noun* &quot;Aztec person&quot; might be borrowed as *Astecat* (undeclined) or *Asteca* (first declension), the adjective would have to decline in some way. Either *Astecus -a -um* or *Astecicus -a -um* would make sense, though I'd go with the first (back-formed from the noun *Asteca*) to avoid the pattern *-ecic-* in the middle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6650" RevisionGUID="e370b515-05cb-443c-9ad0-eada45a32fbc" CreationDate="2018-06-06T13:41:27.430" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Latin, as a general rule, has two different types of words. The first type inflect fully, and for adjectives that means a full set of case, number, and gender forms. The second type don't inflect at all and use the same form for every case (usually these are only foreign names). And as far as I know, every adjective in the language falls into the first category: there's no adjective which doesn't have a full case-number-gender inflection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while the *noun* &quot;Aztec person&quot; might be borrowed as *Astecat* (undeclined) or *Asteca* (first declension), the adjective would have to decline in some way. Either *Astecus -a -um* or *Astecicus -a -um* would make sense, though I'd go with the first (back-formed from the noun *Asteca*) to avoid the pattern *-ecic-* in the middle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Brianpck has pointed out the adjective *nēquam* &quot;worthless&quot; is, in fact, indeclinable. I stand corrected! But I believe my point is still valid for foreign/borrowed adjectives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6643" RevisionGUID="6d991fd6-6cb8-4fe5-9789-ac1c868b0188" CreationDate="2018-06-06T13:47:17.443" UserId="118" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="How do you propose an idea for someone else to accept, reject, or counteroffer, as in this conversation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A. Where would you like to have dinner tonight?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B. How about [_Rex Aztecorum_](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6644/118) on Fourth Street?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking that **visne** is not quite right, because the idea here is not simply to ask if the other person would like do it, but to toss out an idea, perhaps to elicit a better idea. Also, I think **visne** wants an accusative object, whereas often this type of construction fills in a blank that would go in another case. The example above seems to want to be in the ablative case, as does, &quot;When would you like to meet?&quot; &quot;How about Tuesday morning?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, one can indicate that one is offering an idea to kick around, perhaps in hopes of eliciting alternatives, rather than merely asking &quot;yes or no&quot;, by the &quot;vaguifying&quot; particle _about,_ as in &quot;How about 8:00?&quot; or &quot;What about seeing a movie?&quot; The relevant sense of _about_ seems to be that of directing attention to its object, made infamous in the last couple years in the phrase &quot;What about Hillary?&quot;—i.e. &quot;Please direct your attention to Hillary Clinton&quot; (and away from whatever iniquity of Trump's was just described). Another way to make this conversational distinction is to say &quot;How does ____ sound?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these _can_ receive an answer that accepts the proposal, though. They give the other person a way to indicate consent to a shared decision immediately without pushing for it. In English, &quot;Do you want to eat at 8:00?&quot; is really a yes-or-no question, not a request to negotiate a time to eat favorable to both you and your interlocutor. The conditional mood with no apodosis also changes the meaning from yes-or-no to &quot;Please give consent or suggest an alternative&quot;, as in &quot;Would you like to eat at 8:00?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, maybe **visne** can carry the meaning of asking for alternatives as much as for consent; I'm afraid I still haven't read Plautus or Terence, so I don't yet have a feeling for this sort of conversational subtlety. ;) Does conversational Latin have a way to make this distinction? Does it work with cases other than the accusative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6651" RevisionGUID="f1654660-609b-498d-9a7f-5ea9cca99365" CreationDate="2018-06-06T14:23:38.490" UserId="118" Text="Why doesn't the adjective _vetus_ inflect for gender?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I checked the [etymology](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vetus#Etymology) and _vetus_ appears to have been inherited from Proto-Indo-European by the usual route. So why is it irregular?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt; OK, strictly speaking, it's marked for neuter vs. masculine/feminine (_vetus_ vs. _veterem_), following the [exceptionless pan-Indo-European rule](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/18/118) that neuters don't distinguish between nominative and accusative. And the neuter nominative/accusative plural is _vetera,_ following the (pseudo-)rule that the neuter plural is the same as the nominative feminine singular—except that in this case, the nominative feminine singular is _vetus._&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22045" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6651" RevisionGUID="f1654660-609b-498d-9a7f-5ea9cca99365" CreationDate="2018-06-06T14:23:38.490" UserId="118" Text="Cur nullum genus adiectivo &quot;vetus&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22046" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6651" RevisionGUID="f1654660-609b-498d-9a7f-5ea9cca99365" CreationDate="2018-06-06T14:23:38.490" UserId="118" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6652" RevisionGUID="0046dc3f-8b70-476a-9b45-c523ae9d3f1e" CreationDate="2018-06-06T16:15:21.237" UserId="9" Text="My impression is that in this regard, *vetus* is like the other third-declension adjectives &quot;of one termination&quot;, such as *[fēlīx](http://latin-dictionary.net/grammar/adjectives/declensions/third-declension), [atrōx](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-classification-and-paradigms),* or *-ns* present participles. While adjectives like this are fairly uncommon, I don't think they're considered to be irregular just because of the way they (don't) inflect for gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what the historical origins of this conjugation pattern are, though, or whether *vetus* is actually like the other mentioned words from a diachronic perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another oddity about the inflection of *vetus* that it doesn't share with *fēlīx* and *atrōx* is that it apparently has no *i*-stem forms: even though third-declension adjectives usually end in *-ī* in the ablative singular, *-ia* in the neuter plural, and *-ium* in the genitive plural, with *vetus* we have *vetere, vetera, veterum.* In this regard, its inflection seems to be similar to that of comparative adjectives, which have two terminations in the nominative singular: m/f *-ior* and n. *-ius*. There do seem to be a few more non-comparative third-declension adjectives of one termination that are not i-stems, though: a page from &quot;[Introductory Latin](http://www.cultus.hk/latin_lessons/declension/adj_3.html#one2)&quot; on Louis Ha's website lists *compos, compotis; dives, divitis; particeps, participis; pauper, pauperis; princeps, principis;* and *superstes, superstitis* alongside *vetus, veteris.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;András Cser's *[The nature of phonological conditioning in Latin inflectional allomorphy](https://akademiai.com/doi/pdf/10.1556/ALing.62.2015.1.1)* (2015), which tries to give a synchronic account of Classical Latin inflectional morphology, contains the following footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;36. Some adjectives do not mark gender in the singular at all (e.g., *vetus* ‘old’, *audax* ‘bold’). More precisely, they only mark gender by using the NomSing form for the neuter accusative (Masc/Fem *veterem, audacem* vs. Neutr *vetus, audax*). Note that in these neuter nominative-accusative forms the animate NomSing affix *-s* appears on adjectives like *audax* or all the *-ns*-final participles, which is very unusual from a systemic – and also from an Indo-European – point of view&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 24)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The existence of the *s~r* alternation in *vetus, veteris* seems to be a sign that that from an ***etymological*** perspective, the &quot;s&quot; in the form *vetus* doesn't necessarily have to be identified as the suffix *-s.* The Wiktionary entry for the PI etymon &quot;[wetos](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/wetos)&quot; describes it as a neuter consonant-stem noun, like PI &quot;[genos](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/genos)&quot; (the etymon of CL *genus, generis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I don't know enough to say whether Cser's analysis of the morphology of these adjectives (where the &quot;animate NomSing affix *-s*&quot; is interpreted as appearing in the nominative singular for all three genders) is correct from a synchronic point of view. Kyle Gorman's &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf)&quot; may be relevant, as it tries to give a synchronic account of the phenomenon traditionally referred to as &quot;rhotacism&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan's entry for this adjective notes  &quot;P1.+; Enn. nom.sg. *veter*&quot;, so it looks like a masculine/feminine nominative singular form that was distinct from the neuter did arise at one point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6652" RevisionGUID="3f4291c7-c0ff-457e-80d8-b70d2a224db8" CreationDate="2018-06-06T16:21:32.183" UserId="9" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="My impression is that in this regard, *vetus* is like the other third-declension adjectives &quot;of one termination&quot;, such as *[fēlīx](http://latin-dictionary.net/grammar/adjectives/declensions/third-declension), [atrōx](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-classification-and-paradigms),* or *-ns* present participles. While adjectives like this are fairly uncommon, I don't think they're considered to be irregular just because of the way they (don't) inflect for gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what the historical origins of this conjugation pattern are, though, or whether *vetus* is actually like the other mentioned words from a diachronic perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another oddity about the inflection of *vetus* that it doesn't share with *fēlīx* and *atrōx* is that it apparently has no *i*-stem forms: even though third-declension adjectives usually end in *-ī* in the ablative singular, *-ia* in the neuter plural, and *-ium* in the genitive plural, with *vetus* we have *vetere, vetera, veterum.* In this regard, its inflection seems to be similar to that of comparative adjectives (which have two terminations in the nominative singular: m/f *-ior* and n. *-ius*). There do seem to be a few more non-comparative third-declension adjectives that are not i-stems, though; a page from &quot;[Introductory Latin](http://www.cultus.hk/latin_lessons/declension/adj_3.html#one2)&quot; on Louis Ha's website gives the following list of examples (all of one termination): *compos, compotis; dives, divitis; particeps, participis; pauper, pauperis; princeps, principis;* and *superstes, superstitis* and *vetus, veteris.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;András Cser's *[The nature of phonological conditioning in Latin inflectional allomorphy](https://akademiai.com/doi/pdf/10.1556/ALing.62.2015.1.1)* (2015), which tries to give a synchronic account of Classical Latin inflectional morphology, contains the following footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;36. Some adjectives do not mark gender in the singular at all (e.g., *vetus* ‘old’, *audax* ‘bold’). More precisely, they only mark gender by using the NomSing form for the neuter accusative (Masc/Fem *veterem, audacem* vs. Neutr *vetus, audax*). Note that in these neuter nominative-accusative forms the animate NomSing affix *-s* appears on adjectives like *audax* or all the *-ns*-final participles, which is very unusual from a systemic – and also from an Indo-European – point of view&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 24)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The existence of the *s~r* alternation in *vetus, veteris* seems to be a sign that that from an ***etymological*** perspective, the &quot;s&quot; in the form *vetus* doesn't necessarily have to be identified as the suffix *-s.* The Wiktionary entry for the PI etymon &quot;[wetos](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/wetos)&quot; describes it as a neuter consonant-stem noun, like PI &quot;[genos](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/genos)&quot; (the etymon of CL *genus, generis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I don't know enough to say whether Cser's analysis of the morphology of these adjectives (where the &quot;animate NomSing affix *-s*&quot; is interpreted as appearing in the nominative singular for all three genders) is correct from a synchronic point of view. Kyle Gorman's &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf)&quot; may be relevant, as it tries to give a synchronic account of the phenomenon traditionally referred to as &quot;rhotacism&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan's entry for this adjective notes  &quot;P1.+; Enn. nom.sg. *veter*&quot;, so it looks like a masculine/feminine nominative singular form that was distinct from the neuter did arise at one point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22049" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5229" RevisionGUID="1ad5bdda-9805-424a-b166-7b68ed99789d" CreationDate="2018-06-06T17:08:12.503" UserId="9" Comment="79" />
  <row Id="22050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6652" RevisionGUID="f853bb43-e1e2-49ba-b4a0-8fe33bbe34aa" CreationDate="2018-06-06T17:23:03.797" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="My impression is that in this regard, *vetus* is like the other third-declension adjectives &quot;of one termination&quot;, such as *[fēlīx](http://latin-dictionary.net/grammar/adjectives/declensions/third-declension), [atrōx](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-classification-and-paradigms),* or *-ns* present participles. While adjectives like this are fairly uncommon, I don't think they're considered to be irregular just because of the way they (don't) inflect for gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what the historical origins of this conjugation pattern are, though, or whether *vetus* is actually like the other mentioned words from a diachronic perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another oddity about the inflection of *vetus* that it doesn't share with *fēlīx* and *atrōx* is that it apparently has no *i*-stem forms: even though third-declension adjectives usually end in *-ī* in the ablative singular, *-ia* in the neuter plural, and *-ium* in the genitive plural, with *vetus* we have *vetere, vetera, veterum.* In this regard, its inflection seems to be similar to that of comparative adjectives (which have two terminations in the nominative singular: m/f *-ior* and n. *-ius*). There do seem to be a few more non-comparative third-declension adjectives that are not i-stems, though; a page from &quot;[Introductory Latin](http://www.cultus.hk/latin_lessons/declension/adj_3.html#one2)&quot; on Louis Ha's website gives the following list of examples (all of one termination): *compos, compotis; dives, divitis; particeps, participis; pauper, pauperis; princeps, principis;* *superstes, superstitis* and *vetus, veteris.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;András Cser's *[The nature of phonological conditioning in Latin inflectional allomorphy](https://akademiai.com/doi/pdf/10.1556/ALing.62.2015.1.1)* (2015), which tries to give a synchronic account of Classical Latin inflectional morphology, contains the following footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;36. Some adjectives do not mark gender in the singular at all (e.g., *vetus* ‘old’, *audax* ‘bold’). More precisely, they only mark gender by using the NomSing form for the neuter accusative (Masc/Fem *veterem, audacem* vs. Neutr *vetus, audax*). Note that in these neuter nominative-accusative forms the animate NomSing affix *-s* appears on adjectives like *audax* or all the *-ns*-final participles, which is very unusual from a systemic – and also from an Indo-European – point of view&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 24)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The existence of the *s~r* alternation in *vetus, veteris* seems to be a sign that that from an ***etymological*** perspective, the &quot;s&quot; in the form *vetus* doesn't necessarily have to be identified as the suffix *-s.* The Wiktionary entry for the PI etymon &quot;[wetos](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/wetos)&quot; describes it as a neuter consonant-stem noun, like PI &quot;[genos](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/genos)&quot; (the etymon of CL *genus, generis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I don't know enough to say whether Cser's analysis of the morphology of these adjectives (where the &quot;animate NomSing affix *-s*&quot; is interpreted as appearing in the nominative singular for all three genders) is correct from a synchronic point of view. Kyle Gorman's &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf)&quot; may be relevant, as it tries to give a synchronic account of various phenomena that are traditionally explained in terms of &quot;rhotacism&quot; of **s**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan's entry for this adjective notes  &quot;P1.+; Enn. nom.sg. *veter*&quot;, so it looks like a masculine/feminine nominative singular form that was distinct from the neuter did arise at one point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6653" RevisionGUID="bdc5b9d8-f398-4dca-a22e-64120f2be9eb" CreationDate="2018-06-06T19:27:08.920" UserId="406" Text="*Vetus* is in fact completely regular: it does inflect for case, number, and gender. It just happens to look the same in the masculine and the feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To quote from [this other answer][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin has five classes of adjectives, which are generally put into two main groups.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - &quot;First/Second Adjectives&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - &quot;Normal&quot; adjectives: these take the standard endings for the first and second declensions, and look different in all three genders. *Bonus* is one of these: *bonus*, *bona*, *bonum*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - &quot;Irregular&quot; adjectives: these are the same as the normal ones, except that the masculine genitive and dative singular use the older endings *-ius* and *-ī* instead of *-ī* and *-ō*. There are only nine of them in the entire language, which are commonly learned with the mnemonic UNUS NAUTA.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - &quot;Third Adjectives&quot;: these ones decline like third-declension nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - One termination: these adjectives look the same in all three genders, like *atrox*, *atrox*, *atrox*. The only gender differences are the standard rules for the neuter (*-ia* in the plural, accusative matches the nominative). Present participles are in this class.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - Two terminations: these are the most common &quot;third&quot; adjectives. They have one form in the masculine and feminine, and a different form in the neuter, like *omnis*, *omnis*, *omne*. Comparative adjectives also tend to be in this class, like *melior*, *melior*, *melius*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - Three terminations: these are the rarest ones. They have different forms in each different gender, and the masculine always ends in *r*, such as *celer*, *celeris*, *celere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Vetus* is an adjective of one termination, which means the masculine, feminine, and neuter look the same in many (but not all!) forms. The disagreements show that there's still agreement, even if it's not visible: the singular accusative *veterem* versus *vetus*, and the plural nominative *veterēs* versus *veteria*, for instance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6357/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6654" RevisionGUID="592c9735-95ef-4a23-abe8-0a6f36b6a537" CreationDate="2018-06-06T19:36:59.727" UserId="406" Text="I had until recently believed that only nouns could be &quot;declinable&quot; versus &quot;indeclinable&quot;: most nouns follow set declensions patterns, while a few (mostly foreign, like *Abraham* from Hebrew, but some native, like *fas*) look the same in every form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, brianpck corrected me in his comment on [this answer][1], pointing out that the adjective *nēquam* is also indeclinable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other indeclinable adjectives out there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6650/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22053" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6654" RevisionGUID="592c9735-95ef-4a23-abe8-0a6f36b6a537" CreationDate="2018-06-06T19:36:59.727" UserId="406" Text="Are there any indeclinable adjectives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22054" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6654" RevisionGUID="592c9735-95ef-4a23-abe8-0a6f36b6a537" CreationDate="2018-06-06T19:36:59.727" UserId="406" Text="|adjective|declension|borrowing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6652" RevisionGUID="ece8d18e-5100-4ee8-b5bc-c3723b5ccaf5" CreationDate="2018-06-06T19:55:41.620" UserId="9" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="My impression is that in this regard, *vetus* is like the other third-declension adjectives &quot;of one termination&quot;, such as *[fēlīx](http://latin-dictionary.net/grammar/adjectives/declensions/third-declension), [atrōx](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-classification-and-paradigms),* or *-ns* present participles. While adjectives like this are fairly uncommon, I don't think they're considered to be irregular just because of the way they (don't) inflect for gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what the historical origins of this conjugation pattern are, though, or whether *vetus* is actually like the other mentioned words from a diachronic perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another oddity about the inflection of *vetus* that it doesn't share with *fēlīx* and *atrōx* is that it apparently is (at least typically) conjugated as a consonant-stem rather than as an i-stem in all forms: even though third-declension adjectives usually end in *-ī* in the ablative singular, *-ia* in the neuter plural, and *-ium* in the genitive plural, with *vetus* we have *vetere, vetera, veterum.* In this regard, its inflection seems to be similar to that of comparative adjectives (which have two terminations in the nominative singular: m/f *-ior* and n. *-ius*). There do seem to be a few more non-comparative third-declension adjectives that are not i-stems, though; a page from &quot;[Introductory Latin](http://www.cultus.hk/latin_lessons/declension/adj_3.html#one2)&quot; on Louis Ha's website gives the following list of examples (all of one termination): *compos, compotis; dives, divitis; particeps, participis; pauper, pauperis; princeps, principis;* *superstes, superstitis* and *vetus, veteris.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;András Cser's *[The nature of phonological conditioning in Latin inflectional allomorphy](https://akademiai.com/doi/pdf/10.1556/ALing.62.2015.1.1)* (2015), which tries to give a synchronic account of Classical Latin inflectional morphology, contains the following footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;36. Some adjectives do not mark gender in the singular at all (e.g., *vetus* ‘old’, *audax* ‘bold’). More precisely, they only mark gender by using the NomSing form for the neuter accusative (Masc/Fem *veterem, audacem* vs. Neutr *vetus, audax*). Note that in these neuter nominative-accusative forms the animate NomSing affix *-s* appears on adjectives like *audax* or all the *-ns*-final participles, which is very unusual from a systemic – and also from an Indo-European – point of view&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 24)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The existence of the *s~r* alternation in *vetus, veteris* seems to be a sign that that from an ***etymological*** perspective, the &quot;s&quot; in the form *vetus* doesn't necessarily have to be identified as the suffix *-s.* The Wiktionary entry for the PI etymon &quot;[wetos](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/wetos)&quot; describes it as a neuter consonant-stem noun, like PI &quot;[genos](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/genos)&quot; (the etymon of CL *genus, generis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I don't know enough to say whether Cser's analysis of the morphology of these adjectives (where the &quot;animate NomSing affix *-s*&quot; is interpreted as appearing in the nominative singular for all three genders) is correct from a synchronic point of view. Kyle Gorman's &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf)&quot; may be relevant, as it tries to give a synchronic account of various phenomena that are traditionally explained in terms of &quot;rhotacism&quot; of **s**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan's entry for this adjective notes  &quot;P1.+; Enn. nom.sg. *veter*&quot;, so it looks like a masculine/feminine nominative singular form that was distinct from the neuter did arise at one point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6655" RevisionGUID="03d2a159-1bd8-49d2-8132-1245d383910a" CreationDate="2018-06-06T20:22:20.980" UserId="45" Text="There certainly are other indeclinable adjectives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*damnas*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddamnas)&#xD;&#xA;* [*frugi*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=frux) (gramatically, this is really a &quot;dative of service&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;* [*nēquam*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=nequam)&#xD;&#xA;* [*potis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dpotis) (though *pote* sometimes occurs in the neuter)&#xD;&#xA;* [*quot*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquot) (also: *aliquot*)&#xD;&#xA;* [*tŏt*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=tot) (also: *totidem*)&#xD;&#xA;* And, after *tres*, almost every numerical adjective, e.g. *quatuor*, *decem*, *viginti*, *mille*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen &amp; Greenough discusses this, along with many of the above examples, in [&amp;sect;122](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/irregularities-and-special-uses-adjectives), along with a mention of defective and common adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6652" RevisionGUID="40c34556-9e42-4bbd-9d0c-d9be346971b8" CreationDate="2018-06-06T20:36:05.143" UserId="9" Comment="added 1842 characters in body" Text="My impression is that in this regard, *vetus* is like the other third-declension adjectives &quot;of one termination&quot;, such as *[fēlīx](http://latin-dictionary.net/grammar/adjectives/declensions/third-declension), [atrōx](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-classification-and-paradigms),* or *-ns* present participles. While adjectives like this are fairly uncommon, I don't think they're considered to be irregular just because of the way they (don't) inflect for gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what the historical origins of this conjugation pattern are, though, or whether *vetus* is actually like the other mentioned words from a diachronic perspective. Another oddity about the inflection of *vetus,* which it doesn't share with *fēlīx* and *atrōx,* is that it apparently is  declined as a consonant-stem rather than as an i-stem in all forms&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, but I don't know if this is at all related to the way it forms the nominative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;András Cser's *[The nature of phonological conditioning in Latin inflectional allomorphy](https://akademiai.com/doi/pdf/10.1556/ALing.62.2015.1.1)* (2015), which tries to give a synchronic account of Classical Latin inflectional morphology, contains the following footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;36. Some adjectives do not mark gender in the singular at all (e.g., *vetus* ‘old’, *audax* ‘bold’). More precisely, they only mark gender by using the NomSing form for the neuter accusative (Masc/Fem *veterem, audacem* vs. Neutr *vetus, audax*). Note that in these neuter nominative-accusative forms the animate NomSing affix *-s* appears on adjectives like *audax* or all the *-ns*-final participles, which is very unusual from a systemic – and also from an Indo-European – point of view&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 24)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The existence of the *s~r* alternation in *vetus, veteris* seems to be a sign that that from an ***etymological*** perspective, the &quot;s&quot; in the form *vetus* doesn't necessarily have to be identified as the suffix *-s.* The Wiktionary entry for the PI etymon &quot;[wetos](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/wetos)&quot; describes it as a neuter consonant-stem noun, like PI &quot;[genos](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/genos)&quot; (the etymon of CL *genus, generis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I don't know enough to say whether Cser's analysis of the morphology of these adjectives (where the &quot;animate NomSing affix *-s*&quot; is interpreted as appearing in the nominative singular for all three genders) is correct from a synchronic point of view. Kyle Gorman's &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf)&quot; may be relevant, as it tries to give a synchronic account of various phenomena that are traditionally explained in terms of &quot;rhotacism&quot; of **s**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan's entry for this adjective notes  &quot;P1.+; Enn. nom.sg. *veter*&quot;, so it looks like a masculine/feminine nominative singular form that was distinct from the neuter did arise at one point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1. The unusual consonant-stem declension pattern of *vetus,* and some other adjectives that may show a similar pattern&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third-declension adjectives usually end in *-ī* in the ablative singular, *-ia* in the neuter plural, and *-ium* in the genitive plural, but with *vetus* we have *vetere, vetera, veterum*  (at least typically; I don't know if any i-stem forms are attested as variants in the classical or pre-classical period). In this regard, its inflection seems to be similar to that of comparative adjectives (which have two terminations in the nominative singular: m/f *-ior* and n. *-ius*). There do seem to be a few more non-comparative third-declension adjectives that are not i-stems, though; a page from &quot;[Introductory Latin](http://www.cultus.hk/latin_lessons/declension/adj_3.html#one2)&quot; on Louis Ha's website gives the following list of examples (all of one termination): *compos, compotis; dives, divitis; particeps, participis; pauper, pauperis; princeps, principis;* *superstes, superstitis* and *vetus, veteris.* &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Charles E. Bennett's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=pQD1AQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;lpg=PA39&amp;dq=%22vetera%22)* gives a similar list, and mentions a complication with regard to *dives*: apparently no nominative or accusative neuter plural form based on the stem *dīvit-* is used (e.g. we don't find either *dīvita or *dīvitia; [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=dives) also agree that forms like this do not occur) but we instead always find the contracted i-stem form *dītia* (for other forms of the word, it seems the contracted forms like *dīs* and *dītis* coexist with the uncontracted forms like *dīvitis*). I have also found an old French source (*[Grammaire de la langue latine](https://books.google.com/books?id=TFdhHTcJk3EC&amp;pg=PA133&amp;lpg=PA133&amp;dq=%22divita%22+%22divitia%22),* &#xD;&#xA;By J. M. Guardia and Justynian Wierzejski, 1875) that says that *pauper,* along with some other third-declension adjectives of one termination, is defective in the nominative and accusative neuter plural: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Beaucoup d'adjectifs a une seule finale n'ont point les cas de pluriel en **a** : **puber, pauper, sons, suplex, trux, inops, memor, deses,** etc., qui ne s'appliquent qu'a seule personne. **Dives** fait **ditia** (et non *divita* ou *divitia*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(My translation: &quot;Many adjectives of one termination do not have the plural cases in *-a*: [...] etc., which only apply to a single person. **Dives** makes **ditia** (and not *divita* or *divitia*).&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 133-134)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6655" RevisionGUID="5999ce52-8405-4b4d-a094-5a75f6be4674" CreationDate="2018-06-06T20:37:12.117" UserId="45" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="There certainly are other indeclinable adjectives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*damnas*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddamnas)&#xD;&#xA;* [*frugi*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=frux) (gramatically, this is really a &quot;dative of service&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;* [*nēquam*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=nequam)&#xD;&#xA;* [*potis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dpotis) (though *pote* sometimes occurs in the neuter)&#xD;&#xA;* [*quot*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquot) (also: *aliquot*)&#xD;&#xA;* [*tŏt*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=tot) (also: *totidem*)&#xD;&#xA;* And, after *tres*, almost every numerical adjective, e.g. *quattuor*, *decem*, *viginti*, *mille*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen &amp; Greenough discusses this, along with many of the above examples, in [&amp;sect;122](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/irregularities-and-special-uses-adjectives), along with a mention of defective and common adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6652" RevisionGUID="02cf4435-4d4f-49c2-826e-af2d877d517c" CreationDate="2018-06-06T20:41:08.193" UserId="9" Comment="added 1842 characters in body" Text="My impression is that in this regard, *vetus* is like the other third-declension adjectives &quot;of one termination&quot;, such as *[fēlīx](http://latin-dictionary.net/grammar/adjectives/declensions/third-declension), [atrōx](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-classification-and-paradigms),* or *-ns* present participles. While adjectives like this are fairly uncommon, I don't think they're considered to be irregular just because of the way they (don't) inflect for gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what the historical origins of this conjugation pattern are, though, or whether *vetus* is actually like the other mentioned words from a diachronic perspective. Another oddity about the inflection of *vetus,* which it doesn't share with *fēlīx* and *atrōx,* is that it apparently is  declined as a consonant-stem rather than as an i-stem in all forms&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, but I don't know if this is at all related to the way it forms the nominative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;András Cser's *[The nature of phonological conditioning in Latin inflectional allomorphy](https://akademiai.com/doi/pdf/10.1556/ALing.62.2015.1.1)* (2015), which tries to give a synchronic account of Classical Latin inflectional morphology, contains the following footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;36. Some adjectives do not mark gender in the singular at all (e.g., *vetus* ‘old’, *audax* ‘bold’). More precisely, they only mark gender by using the NomSing form for the neuter accusative (Masc/Fem *veterem, audacem* vs. Neutr *vetus, audax*). Note that in these neuter nominative-accusative forms the animate NomSing affix *-s* appears on adjectives like *audax* or all the *-ns*-final participles, which is very unusual from a systemic – and also from an Indo-European – point of view&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 24)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The existence of the *s~r* alternation in *vetus, veteris* seems to be a sign that that from an ***etymological*** perspective, the &quot;s&quot; in the form *vetus* doesn't necessarily have to be identified as the suffix *-s.* The Wiktionary entry for the PI etymon &quot;[wetos](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/wetos)&quot; describes it as a neuter consonant-stem noun, like PI &quot;[genos](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/genos)&quot; (the etymon of CL *genus, generis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I don't know enough to say whether Cser's analysis of the morphology of these adjectives (where the &quot;animate NomSing affix *-s*&quot; is interpreted as appearing in the nominative singular for all three genders) is correct from a synchronic point of view. Kyle Gorman's &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf)&quot; may be relevant, as it tries to give a synchronic account of various phenomena that are traditionally explained in terms of &quot;rhotacism&quot; of **s**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan's entry for this adjective notes  &quot;P1.+; Enn. nom.sg. *veter*&quot;, so it looks like a masculine/feminine nominative singular form that was distinct from the neuter did arise at one point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1. The unusual consonant-stem declension pattern of *vetus,* and some other adjectives that may show a similar pattern&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third-declension adjectives usually end in *-ī* in the ablative singular, *-ia* in the neuter plural, and *-ium* in the genitive plural, but with *vetus* we have *vetere, vetera, veterum*  (at least typically; I don't know if any i-stem forms are attested as variants in the classical or pre-classical period). In this regard, its inflection seems to be similar to that of comparative adjectives (which have two terminations in the nominative singular: m/f *-ior* and n. *-ius,* and have the abl. singular *-iōre,* n. plural *-iōra* and gen. plural *-iōrum*). There do seem to be a few more non-comparative third-declension adjectives that are not i-stems, though; a page from &quot;[Introductory Latin](http://www.cultus.hk/latin_lessons/declension/adj_3.html#one2)&quot; on Louis Ha's website gives the following list of examples (all of one termination): *compos, compotis; dives, divitis; particeps, participis; pauper, pauperis; princeps, principis;* *superstes, superstitis* and *vetus, veteris.* &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Charles E. Bennett's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=pQD1AQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;lpg=PA39&amp;dq=%22vetera%22)* gives a similar list, and mentions a complication with regard to *dives*: apparently no nominative or accusative neuter plural form based on the stem *dīvit-* is used (e.g. we don't find either *dīvita or *dīvitia; [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=dives) also agree that forms like this do not occur) but we instead always find the contracted i-stem form *dītia* (for other forms of the word, it seems the contracted forms like *dīs* and *dītis* coexist with the uncontracted forms like *dīvitis*). I have also found an old French source (*[Grammaire de la langue latine](https://books.google.com/books?id=TFdhHTcJk3EC&amp;pg=PA133&amp;lpg=PA133&amp;dq=%22divita%22+%22divitia%22),* &#xD;&#xA;By J. M. Guardia and Justynian Wierzejski, 1875) that says that *pauper,* along with some other third-declension adjectives of one termination, is defective in the nominative and accusative neuter plural: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Beaucoup d'adjectifs a une seule finale n'ont point les cas de pluriel en **a** : **puber, pauper, sons, suplex, trux, inops, memor, deses,** etc., qui ne s'appliquent qu'a seule personne. **Dives** fait **ditia** (et non *divita* ou *divitia*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(My translation: &quot;Many adjectives of one termination do not have the plural cases in *-a*: [...] etc., which only apply to a single person. **Dives** makes **ditia** (and not *divita* or *divitia*).&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 133-134)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6652" RevisionGUID="f3df1af4-dab6-47fa-8878-84b3f214ca8f" CreationDate="2018-06-06T20:50:12.420" UserId="9" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="My impression is that in this regard, *vetus* is like the other third-declension adjectives &quot;of one termination&quot;, such as *[fēlīx](http://latin-dictionary.net/grammar/adjectives/declensions/third-declension), [atrōx](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-classification-and-paradigms),* or *-ns* present participles. While adjectives like this are fairly uncommon, I don't think they're considered to be irregular just because of the way they (don't) inflect for gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what the historical origins of this conjugation pattern are, though, or whether *vetus* is actually like the other mentioned words from a diachronic perspective. Another oddity about the inflection of *vetus,* which it doesn't share with *fēlīx* and *atrōx,* is that it apparently is  declined as a consonant-stem rather than as an i-stem in all forms&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, but I don't know if this is at all related to the way it forms the nominative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;András Cser's *[The nature of phonological conditioning in Latin inflectional allomorphy](https://akademiai.com/doi/pdf/10.1556/ALing.62.2015.1.1)* (2015), which tries to give a synchronic account of Classical Latin inflectional morphology, contains the following footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;36. Some adjectives do not mark gender in the singular at all (e.g., *vetus* ‘old’, *audax* ‘bold’). More precisely, they only mark gender by using the NomSing form for the neuter accusative (Masc/Fem *veterem, audacem* vs. Neutr *vetus, audax*). Note that in these neuter nominative-accusative forms the animate NomSing affix *-s* appears on adjectives like *audax* or all the *-ns*-final participles, which is very unusual from a systemic – and also from an Indo-European – point of view&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 24)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The existence of the *s~r* alternation in *vetus, veteris* seems to be a sign that that from an ***etymological*** perspective, the &quot;s&quot; in the form *vetus* doesn't necessarily have to be identified as the suffix *-s.* The Wiktionary entry for the PI etymon &quot;[wetos](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/wetos)&quot; describes it as a neuter consonant-stem noun, like PI &quot;[genos](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/genos)&quot; (the etymon of CL *genus, generis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I don't know enough to say whether Cser's analysis of the morphology of these adjectives (where the &quot;animate NomSing affix *-s*&quot; is interpreted as appearing in the nominative singular for all three genders) is correct from a synchronic point of view. Kyle Gorman's &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf)&quot; may be relevant, as it tries to give a synchronic account of various phenomena that are traditionally explained in terms of &quot;rhotacism&quot; of **s**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan's entry for this adjective notes  &quot;P1.+; Enn. nom.sg. *veter*&quot;, so it looks like a masculine/feminine nominative singular form that was distinct from the neuter did arise at one point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1. The unusual consonant-stem declension pattern of *vetus,* and some other adjectives that may show a similar pattern&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third-declension adjectives usually end in *-ī* in the ablative singular, *-ia* in the neuter plural, and *-ium* in the genitive plural, but with *vetus* we have *vetere, vetera, veterum*  (at least typically; I don't know if any i-stem forms are attested as variants in the classical or pre-classical period). In this regard, its inflection seems to be similar to that of comparative adjectives (which have two terminations in the nominative singular: m/f *-ior* and n. *-ius,* and have the abl. singular *-iōre,* n. plural *-iōra* and gen. plural *-iōrum*). There do seem to be a few more non-comparative third-declension adjectives that are not i-stems, though; a page from &quot;[Introductory Latin](http://www.cultus.hk/latin_lessons/declension/adj_3.html#one2)&quot; on Louis Ha's website gives the following list of examples (all of one termination): *compos, compotis; dives, divitis; particeps, participis; pauper, pauperis; princeps, principis;* *superstes, superstitis* and *vetus, veteris.* &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Charles E. Bennett's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=pQD1AQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;lpg=PA39&amp;dq=%22vetera%22)* gives a similar list, and mentions a complication with regard to *dives*: apparently no nominative or accusative neuter plural form based on the stem *dīvit-* is used (e.g. we don't find either *dīvita or *dīvitia; [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=dives) also agree that forms like this do not occur) but we instead always find the contracted i-stem form *dītia* (for other forms of the word, it seems the contracted forms like nom. sing. *dīs* and gen. sing. *dītis* coexist with the uncontracted forms like gen. sing. *dīvitis*). I have also found an old French source (*[Grammaire de la langue latine](https://books.google.com/books?id=TFdhHTcJk3EC&amp;pg=PA133&amp;lpg=PA133&amp;dq=%22divita%22+%22divitia%22),* &#xD;&#xA;by J. M. Guardia and Justynian Wierzejski, 1875) that says that *pauper,* along with some other third-declension adjectives of one termination, is defective in the nominative and accusative neuter plural: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Beaucoup d'adjectifs a une seule finale n'ont point les cas de pluriel en **a** : **puber, pauper, sons, suplex, trux, inops, memor, deses,** etc., qui ne s'appliquent qu'a seule personne. **Dives** fait **ditia** (et non *divita* ou *divitia*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(My translation: &quot;Many adjectives of one termination do not have the plural cases in *-a*: [...] etc., which only apply to a single person. **Dives** makes **ditia** (and not *divita* or *divitia*).&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 133-134)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6653" RevisionGUID="8d9358a2-8799-4ad8-99b7-7d61810bb4c1" CreationDate="2018-06-06T20:56:46.243" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="*Vetus* is in fact completely regular: it does inflect for case, number, and gender. It just happens to look the same in the masculine and the feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To quote from [this other answer][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin has five classes of adjectives, which are generally put into two main groups.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - &quot;First/Second Adjectives&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - &quot;Normal&quot; adjectives: these take the standard endings for the first and second declensions, and look different in all three genders. *Bonus* is one of these: *bonus*, *bona*, *bonum*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - &quot;Irregular&quot; adjectives: these are the same as the normal ones, except that the masculine genitive and dative singular use the older endings *-ius* and *-ī* instead of *-ī* and *-ō*. There are only nine of them in the entire language, which are commonly learned with the mnemonic UNUS NAUTA.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - &quot;Third Adjectives&quot;: these ones decline like third-declension nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - One termination: these adjectives look the same in all three genders, like *atrox*, *atrox*, *atrox*. The only gender differences are the standard rules for the neuter (*-ia* in the plural, accusative matches the nominative). Present participles are in this class.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - Two terminations: these are the most common &quot;third&quot; adjectives. They have one form in the masculine and feminine, and a different form in the neuter, like *omnis*, *omnis*, *omne*. Comparative adjectives also tend to be in this class, like *melior*, *melior*, *melius*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - Three terminations: these are the rarest ones. They have different forms in each different gender, and the masculine always ends in *r*, such as *celer*, *celeris*, *celere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Vetus* is an adjective of one termination, which means the masculine, feminine, and neuter look the same in many (but not all!) forms. The disagreements show that there's still agreement, even if it's not visible: the singular accusative *veterem* versus *vetus*, and the plural nominative *veterēs* versus *vetera*, for instance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6357/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6652" RevisionGUID="4dbdad6f-b24c-4850-8269-b9e07ed43854" CreationDate="2018-06-06T21:03:04.810" UserId="9" Comment="added 434 characters in body" Text="My impression is that in this regard, *vetus* is like the other third-declension adjectives &quot;of one termination&quot;, such as *[fēlīx](http://latin-dictionary.net/grammar/adjectives/declensions/third-declension), [atrōx](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-classification-and-paradigms),* or *-ns* present participles. While adjectives like this are fairly uncommon, I don't think they're considered to be irregular just because of the way they (don't) inflect for gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what the historical origins of this conjugation pattern are, though, or whether *vetus* is actually like the other mentioned words from a diachronic perspective. Another oddity about the inflection of *vetus,* which it doesn't share with *fēlīx* and *atrōx,* is that it apparently is  declined as a consonant-stem rather than as an i-stem in all forms&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, but I don't know if this is at all related to the way it forms the nominative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;András Cser's *[The nature of phonological conditioning in Latin inflectional allomorphy](https://akademiai.com/doi/pdf/10.1556/ALing.62.2015.1.1)* (2015), which tries to give a synchronic account of Classical Latin inflectional morphology, contains the following footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;36. Some adjectives do not mark gender in the singular at all (e.g., *vetus* ‘old’, *audax* ‘bold’). More precisely, they only mark gender by using the NomSing form for the neuter accusative (Masc/Fem *veterem, audacem* vs. Neutr *vetus, audax*). Note that in these neuter nominative-accusative forms the animate NomSing affix *-s* appears on adjectives like *audax* or all the *-ns*-final participles, which is very unusual from a systemic – and also from an Indo-European – point of view&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 24)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The existence of the *s~r* alternation in *vetus, veteris* seems to be a sign that that from an ***etymological*** perspective, the &quot;s&quot; in the form *vetus* doesn't necessarily have to be identified as the suffix *-s.* The Wiktionary entry for the PI etymon &quot;[wetos](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/wetos)&quot; describes it as a neuter consonant-stem noun, like PI &quot;[genos](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/genos)&quot; (the etymon of CL *genus, generis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I don't know enough to say whether Cser's analysis of the morphology of these adjectives (where the &quot;animate NomSing affix *-s*&quot; is interpreted as appearing in the nominative singular for all three genders) is correct from a synchronic point of view. Kyle Gorman's &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf)&quot; may be relevant, as it tries to give a synchronic account of various phenomena that are traditionally explained in terms of &quot;rhotacism&quot; of **s**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan's entry for this adjective notes  &quot;P1.+; Enn. nom.sg. *veter*&quot;, so it looks like a masculine/feminine nominative singular form that was distinct from the neuter did arise at one point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1. The unusual consonant-stem declension pattern of *vetus,* and some other adjectives that may show a similar pattern&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third-declension adjectives usually end in *-ī* in the ablative singular, *-ia* in the neuter plural, and *-ium* in the genitive plural, but with *vetus* we have *vetere, vetera, veterum*  (at least typically; I don't know if any i-stem forms are attested as variants in the classical or pre-classical period). In this regard, its inflection seems to be similar to that of comparative adjectives (which have two terminations in the nominative singular: m/f *-ior* and n. *-ius,* and have the abl. singular *-iōre,* n. plural *-iōra* and gen. plural *-iōrum*). There do seem to be a few more non-comparative third-declension adjectives that are not i-stems, though; a page from &quot;[Introductory Latin](http://www.cultus.hk/latin_lessons/declension/adj_3.html#one2)&quot; on Louis Ha's website gives the following list of examples (all of one termination): *compos, compotis; dives, divitis; particeps, participis; pauper, pauperis; princeps, principis;* *superstes, superstitis* and *vetus, veteris.* &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Charles E. Bennett's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=pQD1AQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;lpg=PA39&amp;dq=%22vetera%22)* gives a similar list, and mentions a complication with regard to *dives*: apparently no nominative or accusative neuter plural form based on the stem *dīvit-* is used (e.g. we don't find either *dīvita or *dīvitia; [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=dives) also agree that forms like this do not occur) but we instead always find the contracted i-stem form *dītia* (for other forms of the word, it seems the contracted forms like nom. sing. *dīs* and gen. sing. *dītis* coexist with the uncontracted forms like gen. sing. *dīvitis*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have also found an old French source (*[Grammaire de la langue latine](https://books.google.com/books?id=TFdhHTcJk3EC&amp;pg=PA133&amp;lpg=PA133&amp;dq=%22divita%22+%22divitia%22),* &#xD;&#xA;by J. M. Guardia and Justynian Wierzejski, 1875) that says that *pauper,* along with some other third-declension adjectives of one termination, is defective in the nominative and accusative neuter plural: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Beaucoup d'adjectifs à une seule finale n'ont point les cas de pluriel en **a** : **puber, pauper, sons, suplex, trux, inops, memor, deses,** etc., qui ne s'appliquent qu'à seule personne. **Dives** fait **ditia** (et non *divita* ou *divitia*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(My translation: &quot;Many adjectives of one termination do not have the plural cases in *-a*: [...] etc., which only apply to a person (to one person?). **Dives** makes **ditia** (and not *divita* or *divitia*).&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 133-134)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have just read the [Allen &amp; Greenough §122 page](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/irregularities-and-special-uses-adjectives) that you linked to in your answer to the question [Are there any indeclinable adjectives?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6655/9), which mentions *inops* as an example of an adjective where the non-occurrence of a neuter plural form is just a consequence of the meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6656" RevisionGUID="c4a2b423-cdfa-4b44-a842-68456422ba8c" CreationDate="2018-06-06T21:53:18.323" UserId="79" Text="Is there a poem or other passage of classical Latin about the following sentiment?&#xD;&#xA;I prefer poetry, but good hits in prose are also welcome.&#xD;&#xA;It need not &amp;mdash; and indeed should not &amp;mdash; be the same word for word, but capture the essence of a similar set of emotions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A loved one has been ill for a long time and has finally passed away.&#xD;&#xA;Although there is sorrow of loss, the relief for their suffering coming to an end is far stronger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is not something I am going through at the moment, but someone else I know.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22064" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6656" RevisionGUID="c4a2b423-cdfa-4b44-a842-68456422ba8c" CreationDate="2018-06-06T21:53:18.323" UserId="79" Text="A quote for a relieving loss of a loved one" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22065" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6656" RevisionGUID="c4a2b423-cdfa-4b44-a842-68456422ba8c" CreationDate="2018-06-06T21:53:18.323" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6652" RevisionGUID="efed7009-0e30-4f48-ba1f-fc176eca035e" CreationDate="2018-06-07T00:09:52.373" UserId="9" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="My impression is that in this regard, *vetus* is like the other third-declension adjectives &quot;of one termination&quot;, such as *[fēlīx](http://latin-dictionary.net/grammar/adjectives/declensions/third-declension), [atrōx](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-classification-and-paradigms),* or *-ns* present participles. While adjectives like this are fairly uncommon, I don't think they're considered to be irregular just because of the way they (don't) inflect for gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what the historical origins of this conjugation pattern are, though, or whether *vetus* is actually like the other mentioned words from a diachronic perspective. Another oddity about the inflection of *vetus,* which it doesn't share with *fēlīx* and *atrōx,* is that it apparently is  declined as a consonant-stem rather than as an i-stem in all forms&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, but I don't know if this is at all related to the way it forms the nominative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;András Cser's *[The nature of phonological conditioning in Latin inflectional allomorphy](https://akademiai.com/doi/pdf/10.1556/ALing.62.2015.1.1)* (2015), which tries to give a synchronic account of Classical Latin inflectional morphology, contains the following footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;36. Some adjectives do not mark gender in the singular at all (e.g., *vetus* ‘old’, *audax* ‘bold’). More precisely, they only mark gender by using the NomSing form for the neuter accusative (Masc/Fem *veterem, audacem* vs. Neutr *vetus, audax*). Note that in these neuter nominative-accusative forms the animate NomSing affix *-s* appears on adjectives like *audax* or all the *-ns*-final participles, which is very unusual from a systemic – and also from an Indo-European – point of view&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 24)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The existence of the *s~r* alternation in *vetus, veteris* seems to be a sign that that from an ***etymological*** perspective, the &quot;s&quot; in the form *vetus* doesn't necessarily have to be identified as the suffix *-s.* The Wiktionary entry for the PI etymon &quot;[wetos](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/wetos)&quot; describes it as a neuter consonant-stem noun, like PI &quot;[genos](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/genos)&quot; (the etymon of CL *genus, generis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I don't know enough to say whether Cser's analysis of the morphology of these adjectives (where the &quot;animate NomSing affix *-s*&quot; is interpreted as appearing in the nominative singular for all three genders) is correct from a synchronic point of view. Kyle Gorman's &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf)&quot; may be relevant, as it tries to give a synchronic account of various phenomena that are traditionally explained in terms of &quot;rhotacism&quot; of **s**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan's entry for this adjective notes  &quot;P1.+; Enn. nom.sg. *veter*&quot;, so it looks like a masculine/feminine nominative singular form that was distinct from the neuter did arise at one point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1. The unusual consonant-stem declension pattern of *vetus,* and some other adjectives that may show a similar pattern&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third-declension adjectives usually end in *-ī* in the ablative singular, *-ia* in the neuter plural, and *-ium* in the genitive plural, but with *vetus* we have *vetere, vetera, veterum*  (at least typically; I don't know if any i-stem forms are attested as variants in the classical or pre-classical period). In this regard, its inflection seems to be similar to that of comparative adjectives (which have two terminations in the nominative singular: m/f *-ior* and n. *-ius,* and have the abl. singular *-iōre,* n. plural *-iōra* and gen. plural *-iōrum*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There do seem to be a few more non-comparative third-declension adjectives that are not i-stems, a page from &quot;[Introductory Latin](http://www.cultus.hk/latin_lessons/declension/adj_3.html#one2)&quot; on Louis Ha's website gives the following list of examples (all of one termination): *compos, compotis; dives, divitis; particeps, participis; pauper, pauperis; princeps, principis;* *superstes, superstitis* and *vetus, veteris.* Unlike *vetus,* many of these seem to lack attested nominative/accusative neuter plural forms in *-Ca*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Charles E. Bennett's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=pQD1AQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;lpg=PA39&amp;dq=%22vetera%22)* gives a similar list, and mentions a complication with regard to *dives*: apparently no nominative or accusative neuter plural form based on the stem *dīvit-* is used (e.g. we don't find either *dīvita or *dīvitia; [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=dives) also agree that forms like this do not occur) but we instead always find the contracted i-stem form *dītia* (for other forms of the word, it seems the contracted forms like nom. sing. *dīs* and gen. sing. *dītis* coexist with the uncontracted forms like gen. sing. *dīvitis*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have also found an old French source (*[Grammaire de la langue latine](https://books.google.com/books?id=TFdhHTcJk3EC&amp;pg=PA133&amp;lpg=PA133&amp;dq=%22divita%22+%22divitia%22),* &#xD;&#xA;by J. M. Guardia and Justynian Wierzejski, 1875) that says that *pauper,* along with some other third-declension adjectives of one termination, is defective in the nominative and accusative neuter plural: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Beaucoup d'adjectifs à une seule finale n'ont point les cas de pluriel en **a** : **puber, pauper, sons, suplex, trux, inops, memor, deses,** etc., qui ne s'appliquent qu'à seule personne. **Dives** fait **ditia** (et non *divita* ou *divitia*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(My translation: &quot;Many adjectives of one termination do not have the plural cases in *-a*: [...] etc., which only apply to a person (to one person?). **Dives** makes **ditia** (and not *divita* or *divitia*).&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 133-134)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have just read the [Allen &amp; Greenough §122 page](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/irregularities-and-special-uses-adjectives) that you linked to in your answer to the question [Are there any indeclinable adjectives?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6655/9), which mentions *inops* as an example of an adjective where the non-occurrence of a neuter plural form is just a consequence of the meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6657" RevisionGUID="d7f072eb-4b80-4bd4-8957-9e8ca07e9e85" CreationDate="2018-06-07T00:47:46.037" UserId="9" Text="From what I have read, most third-declension Latin adjectives other than comparatives take the i-stem endings *-ī,* *ium* and *-ia* in the ablative singular, genitive plural and neuter nominative/accusative plural, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Allen and Greenough &amp;sect;114-119](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-classification-and-paradigms#fn2) discuss the general patterns, and [Allen and Greenough &amp;sect;121](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-case-forms-consonant-stems) discusses *-e* vs. *-ī* in the ablative singular,  *-ium* vs. *-um* in the genitive plural, and a few other variations like *-īs* vs. *-ēs* in the masculine/feminine accusative plural and feminine nominative singular forms in *-a,* like *clienta* and *hospita.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adjectives that take *-a* in the neuter plural nominative/accusative appear to be even less common than adjectives that take *-um* or *-e,* though. It seems that many third-declension adjectives of one ending lack attested neuter plural forms at all (discussed to some extent in [Allen and Greenough §122](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/irregularities-and-special-uses-adjectives)); of those that have them, I have only been able to find the following that decline as consonant stems in this form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the class of comparative-declined adjectives, such as neuter plural nominative/accusative adjectives ending in *-iōra* (including *maiora/majora*) and *minora*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *vetera*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *plura* (despite genitive *plurium*). It seems [*pluria* was maybe a very uncommon variant form, but the typical form was *plura*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5876/plura-or-pluria). The derived word *complura/compluria* apparently exists in both forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *ubera.* Of course, this exists as a plural substantive, but according to Allen and Greenough §119, it also exists as a neuter plural adjective (although the ablative singular form of this adjective is usually *uberi*). [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uber#Adjective_2) gives &quot;uberia&quot;, but that form doesn't show up anywhere in the PHI Latin Texts corpus, so I'm guessing Wiktionary is just showing an incorrect declension table for this  word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any more?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22069" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6657" RevisionGUID="d7f072eb-4b80-4bd4-8957-9e8ca07e9e85" CreationDate="2018-06-07T00:47:46.037" UserId="9" Text="Adjectives that decline as consonant stems in the neuter plural nominative/accusative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22070" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6657" RevisionGUID="d7f072eb-4b80-4bd4-8957-9e8ca07e9e85" CreationDate="2018-06-07T00:47:46.037" UserId="9" Text="|adjective|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6657" RevisionGUID="ceba52de-14b1-4ac4-b6e9-5d4962079f5d" CreationDate="2018-06-07T00:58:23.997" UserId="9" Comment="added 662 characters in body" Text="From what I have read, most third-declension Latin adjectives other than comparatives take the i-stem endings *-ī,* *ium* and *-ia* in the ablative singular, genitive plural and neuter nominative/accusative plural, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Allen and Greenough &amp;sect;114-119](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-classification-and-paradigms#fn2) discuss the general patterns, and [Allen and Greenough &amp;sect;121](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-case-forms-consonant-stems) discusses *-e* vs. *-ī* in the ablative singular,  *-ium* vs. *-um* in the genitive plural, and a few other variations like *-īs* vs. *-ēs* in the masculine/feminine accusative plural and feminine nominative singular forms in *-a,* like *clienta* and *hospita.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adjectives that take *-a* in the neuter plural nominative/accusative appear to be even less common than adjectives that take *-um* or *-e,* though. It seems that many third-declension adjectives of one ending lack attested neuter plural forms at all (discussed to some extent in [Allen and Greenough §122](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/irregularities-and-special-uses-adjectives)); of those that have them, I have only been able to find the following that decline as consonant stems in this form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the class of comparative-declined adjectives, such as neuter plural nominative/accusative adjectives ending in *-iōra* (including *maiora/majora*) and *minora*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *vetera*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *plura* (despite genitive *plurium*). It seems [*pluria* was maybe a very uncommon variant form, but the typical form was *plura*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5876/plura-or-pluria). The derived word *complura/compluria* apparently exists in both forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *ubera.* Of course, this exists as a plural substantive, but according to Allen and Greenough §119, it also exists as a neuter plural adjective (although the ablative singular form of this adjective is usually *uberi*). [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uber#Adjective_2) gives &quot;uberia&quot;, but that form doesn't show up anywhere in the PHI Latin Texts corpus, so I'm guessing Wiktionary is just showing an incorrect declension table for this  word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any more?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found an old book (&quot;[Some improvements to the art of teaching...](https://books.google.com/books?id=Ms1lAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA13&amp;lpg=PA13&amp;dq=%22complura%22+%22plura%22+%22vetera%22+%22ubera%22+%22minora%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=UbW9Jh5IIg&amp;sig=aFVFEYoIZy338kgS6YSe9DJtcgY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiaorWdqsDbAhVLr1QKHcJxBpMQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22complura%22%20%22plura%22%20%22vetera%22%20%22ubera%22%20%22minora%22&amp;f=false),&quot; Fifth Edition, by William Walker, 1693) that also mentions compound adjectives ending in *-corpora* or *-colora,* like *bicolora,* but it seems to say that these actually originated as o-stem forms (corresponding to masc. singular nominative *-corporus, -colorus*), not as consonant-stem forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6657" RevisionGUID="1bc6e5b1-795b-4b89-bf23-4abaacffd9c8" CreationDate="2018-06-07T01:03:25.567" UserId="9" Comment="added 662 characters in body" Text="From what I have read, most third-declension Latin adjectives other than comparatives take the i-stem endings *-ī,* *ium* and *-ia* in the ablative singular, genitive plural and neuter nominative/accusative plural, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Allen and Greenough &amp;sect;114-119](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-classification-and-paradigms#fn2) discuss the general patterns, and [Allen and Greenough &amp;sect;121](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-case-forms-consonant-stems) discusses *-e* vs. *-ī* in the ablative singular,  *-ium* vs. *-um* in the genitive plural, and a few other variations like *-īs* vs. *-ēs* in the masculine/feminine accusative plural and feminine nominative singular forms in *-a,* like *clienta* and *hospita.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adjectives that take *-a* in the neuter plural nominative/accusative appear to be even less common than adjectives that take *-um* or *-e,* though. It seems that many third-declension adjectives of one ending lack attested neuter plural forms at all (discussed to some extent in [Allen and Greenough §122](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/irregularities-and-special-uses-adjectives)); of those that have them, I have only been able to find the following that decline as consonant stems in this form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the class of comparative-declined adjectives, such as neuter plural nominative/accusative adjectives ending in *-iōra* (including *maiōra/majōra*) and *minōra*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *vetera*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *plūra* (despite genitive *plurium*). It seems [*pluria* was maybe a very uncommon variant form, but the typical form was *plura*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5876/plura-or-pluria). The derived word *complura/compluria* apparently exists in both forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *ūbera.* Of course, this exists as a plural substantive, but according to Allen and Greenough §119, it also exists as a neuter plural adjective (although the ablative singular form of this adjective is usually *ūberī*). [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uber#Adjective_2) gives &quot;ūberia&quot;, but that form doesn't show up anywhere in the PHI Latin Texts corpus, so I'm guessing Wiktionary is just showing an incorrect declension table for this  word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any more?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found an old book (&quot;[Some improvements to the art of teaching...](https://books.google.com/books?id=Ms1lAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA13&amp;lpg=PA13&amp;dq=%22complura%22+%22plura%22+%22vetera%22+%22ubera%22+%22minora%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=UbW9Jh5IIg&amp;sig=aFVFEYoIZy338kgS6YSe9DJtcgY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiaorWdqsDbAhVLr1QKHcJxBpMQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22complura%22%20%22plura%22%20%22vetera%22%20%22ubera%22%20%22minora%22&amp;f=false),&quot; Fifth Edition, by William Walker, 1693) that also mentions compound adjectives ending in *-corpora* or *-colōra,* like *bicolōra,* but it seems to say that these actually originated as o-stem forms (corresponding to masc. singular nominative *-corporus, -colōrus*), not as consonant-stem forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6658" RevisionGUID="81bc0f00-fd1e-4351-ba9b-5d9f681cce24" CreationDate="2018-06-07T03:26:33.370" UserId="1142" Text="I am currently struggling to figure out the &quot;proper/idiomatic&quot; way to translate the following phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] derivative of *f(x)* [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had a couple of initial ideas, namely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. deductiva [functio] de *f(x)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. deductiva [functio] functionis de *x*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And while these are (IIRC) correct Latin phrases, I am unsure as to whether or not they are similar (or the same as) the ways in which authors in mathematics (e.g, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, etc.) would have expressed it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, what is the &quot;proper/idiomatic&quot; way in which the phrase &quot;derivative of *f(x)*&quot; should be translated?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22074" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6658" RevisionGUID="81bc0f00-fd1e-4351-ba9b-5d9f681cce24" CreationDate="2018-06-07T03:26:33.370" UserId="1142" Text="Quomodo recte &quot;derivative of f(x)&quot; dicere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22075" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6658" RevisionGUID="81bc0f00-fd1e-4351-ba9b-5d9f681cce24" CreationDate="2018-06-07T03:26:33.370" UserId="1142" Text="|translation|new-latin|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6658" RevisionGUID="9013edde-6830-4fd5-a05d-f284214fec96" CreationDate="2018-06-07T03:31:38.027" UserId="1142" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="I am currently struggling to figure out the &quot;proper/idiomatic&quot; way to translate the following phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] derivative of *f(x)* [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had a couple of initial ideas, namely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. deductiva [functio] de *f(x)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. deductiva [functio] functionis de *x*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. deductiva functionis *f(x)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And while these are (IIRC) correct Latin phrases, I am unsure as to whether or not they are similar (or the same as) the ways in which authors in mathematics (e.g, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, etc.) would have expressed it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, what is the &quot;proper/idiomatic&quot; way in which the phrase &quot;derivative of *f(x)*&quot; should be translated?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6652" RevisionGUID="7269b7f3-d51b-4633-ab56-e649b004ee3b" CreationDate="2018-06-07T05:36:29.897" UserId="9" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="My impression is that in this regard, *vetus* is like the other third-declension adjectives &quot;of one termination&quot;, such as *[fēlīx](http://latin-dictionary.net/grammar/adjectives/declensions/third-declension), [atrōx](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-classification-and-paradigms),* or *-ns* present participles. While adjectives like this are fairly uncommon, I don't think they're considered to be irregular just because of the way they (don't) inflect for gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what the historical origins of this conjugation pattern are, though, or whether *vetus* is actually like the other mentioned words from a diachronic perspective. Another oddity about the inflection of *vetus,* which it doesn't share with *fēlīx* and *atrōx,* is that it apparently is  declined as a consonant-stem rather than as an i-stem in all forms&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, but I don't know if this is at all related to the way it forms the nominative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;András Cser's *[The nature of phonological conditioning in Latin inflectional allomorphy](https://akademiai.com/doi/pdf/10.1556/ALing.62.2015.1.1)* (2015), which tries to give a synchronic account of Classical Latin inflectional morphology, contains the following footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;36. Some adjectives do not mark gender in the singular at all (e.g., *vetus* ‘old’, *audax* ‘bold’). More precisely, they only mark gender by using the NomSing form for the neuter accusative (Masc/Fem *veterem, audacem* vs. Neutr *vetus, audax*). Note that in these neuter nominative-accusative forms the animate NomSing affix *-s* appears on adjectives like *audax* or all the *-ns*-final participles, which is very unusual from a systemic – and also from an Indo-European – point of view&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 24)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The existence of the *s~r* alternation in *vetus, veteris* seems to be a sign that that from an ***etymological*** perspective, the &quot;s&quot; in the form *vetus* doesn't necessarily have to be identified as the suffix *-s.* The Wiktionary entry for the PI etymon &quot;[wetos](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/wetos)&quot; describes it as a neuter consonant-stem noun, like PI &quot;[genos](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/genos)&quot; (the etymon of CL *genus, generis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I don't know enough to say whether Cser's analysis of the morphology of these adjectives (where the &quot;animate NomSing affix *-s*&quot; is interpreted as appearing in the nominative singular for all three genders) is correct from a synchronic point of view. Kyle Gorman's &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf)&quot; may be relevant, as it tries to give a synchronic account of various phenomena that are traditionally explained in terms of &quot;rhotacism&quot; of **s**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan's entry for this adjective notes  &quot;P1.+; Enn. nom.sg. *veter*&quot;, so it looks like a masculine/feminine nominative singular form that was distinct from the neuter did arise at one point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1. The unusual consonant-stem declension pattern of *vetus,* and some other adjectives that may show a similar pattern&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third-declension adjectives usually end in *-ī* in the ablative singular, *-ia* in the neuter plural, and *-ium* in the genitive plural, but with *vetus* we have *vetere, vetera, veterum*  (at least typically; I don't know if any i-stem forms are attested as variants in the classical or pre-classical period). In this regard, its inflection seems to be similar to that of comparative adjectives (which have two terminations in the nominative singular: m/f *-ior* and n. *-ius,* and have the abl. singular *-iōre,* n. plural *-iōra* and gen. plural *-iōrum*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There do seem to be a few more non-comparative third-declension adjectives that are not i-stems, a page from &quot;[Introductory Latin](http://www.cultus.hk/latin_lessons/declension/adj_3.html#one2)&quot; on Louis Ha's website gives the following list of examples (all of one termination): *compos, compotis; dives, divitis; particeps, participis; pauper, pauperis; princeps, principis;* *superstes, superstitis* and *vetus, veteris.* Unlike *vetus,* many of these seem to lack attested nominative/accusative neuter plural forms in *-Ca*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Charles E. Bennett's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=pQD1AQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;lpg=PA39&amp;dq=%22vetera%22)* gives a similar list, and mentions a complication with regard to *dives*: apparently no nominative or accusative neuter plural form based on the stem *dīvit-* is used (e.g. we don't find either *dīvita or *dīvitia; [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=dives) also agree that forms like this do not occur) but we instead always find the contracted i-stem form *dītia* (for other forms of the word, it seems the contracted forms like nom. sing. *dīs* and gen. sing. *dītis* coexist with the uncontracted forms like gen. sing. *dīvitis*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have also found an old French source (*[Grammaire de la langue latine](https://books.google.com/books?id=TFdhHTcJk3EC&amp;pg=PA133&amp;lpg=PA133&amp;dq=%22divita%22+%22divitia%22),* &#xD;&#xA;by J. M. Guardia and Justynian Wierzejski, 1875) that says that *pauper,* along with some other third-declension adjectives of one termination, is defective in the nominative and accusative neuter plural: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Beaucoup d'adjectifs à une seule finale n'ont point les cas de pluriel en **a** : **puber, pauper, sons, suplex, trux, inops, memor, deses,** etc., qui ne s'appliquent qu'à une seule personne. **Dives** fait **ditia** (et non *divita* ou *divitia*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(My translation: &quot;Many adjectives of one termination do not have the plural cases in *-a*: [...] etc., which only apply to a person (to one person?). **Dives** makes **ditia** (and not *divita* or *divitia*).&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 133-134)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have just read the [Allen &amp; Greenough §122 page](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/irregularities-and-special-uses-adjectives) that you linked to in your answer to the question [Are there any indeclinable adjectives?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6655/9), which mentions *inops* as an example of an adjective where the non-occurrence of a neuter plural form is just a consequence of the meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22078" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6634" RevisionGUID="01860e53-a069-4f57-b8ff-f9fdd76653a5" CreationDate="2018-06-07T07:32:33.207" UserId="79" Comment="edited title" Text="Third conjugation passive infinitive: why -i and not -eri?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6659" RevisionGUID="cc1d4136-4944-43c8-aae0-4081cc31ceb8" CreationDate="2018-06-07T08:33:39.427" UserId="1459" Text="[Wikipedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivativum) defines derivative as _derivativum_. So maybe  _derivativum de f(x)_ would do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6659" RevisionGUID="b7b7ae4b-8eb0-4ea5-8174-aaf9df6b66a5" CreationDate="2018-06-07T08:43:29.553" UserId="1459" Comment="added 385 characters in body" Text="[Wikipedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivativum) defines derivative as _derivativum_. So maybe  _derivativum de f(x)_ would do. According to [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/derivativus#Latin), derivativum is the neuter, nominative, singular of the noun _derivativus_, from which the English derivative comes from. However, the mathematical derivative is a noun, not an adjective. So I think we could **not** just translate the declination of the adjective, and write something like _derivativi f(x)_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6659" RevisionGUID="b426e5f9-3607-48f5-8a38-13ca184ec9b4" CreationDate="2018-06-07T08:48:58.633" UserId="1459" Comment="added 385 characters in body" Text="[Wikipedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivativum) defines derivative as _derivativum_. So maybe  _derivativum de f(x)_ would do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, according to [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/derivativus#Latin), derivativum is the neuter, nominative, singular of the noun _derivativus_, from which the English derivative comes from. However, the mathematical derivative is a noun, not an adjective. So I think we could **not** just translate the declination of the adjective, and write something like _derivativi f(x)_. However, if we decline it as other nouns ending in &quot;-um&quot;, like _[somnium](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/somnium)_, then _derivativi f(x)_ might be in fact correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: I'm just a beginner. Beware." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6660" RevisionGUID="b7b24d26-2f21-448d-aa2e-fd7f9d3f1d60" CreationDate="2018-06-07T09:32:48.697" UserId="324" Text="My understanding is that our modern notation was invented by Leibniz, who used the term &quot;differentia&quot;, abbreviated as d. Someone ought to look up Leibniz's mathematical writings, which are in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6660" RevisionGUID="ac17aaa6-95bb-4483-aa2c-fd543124ef9e" CreationDate="2018-06-07T09:47:35.190" UserId="324" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="My understanding is that our modern notation was invented by Leibniz, who used the term &quot;differentia&quot;, abbreviated as d. Someone ought to look up Leibniz's mathematical writings, which are in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some discussion here: https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/1914/use-of-h-in-the-newton-quotient/1917#1917&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6658" RevisionGUID="cf1e6515-a14f-49c5-bb2c-5746c72a164f" CreationDate="2018-06-07T12:08:34.253" UserId="1142" Comment="Once again forgetting things. Sleep deprivation is just lovely ‍♂️" Text="I am currently struggling to figure out how to translate the following phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] derivative of *f(x)* [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had a couple of initial ideas, namely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. deductiva [functio] de *f(x)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. deductiva [functio] functionis de *x*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. deductiva [functio] functionis *f(x)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And while these are (IIRC) correct Latin phrases, I am unsure as to whether or not they are similar (or the same as) the ways in which authors in mathematics (e.g, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, etc.) would have expressed it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, what is the &quot;proper/idiomatic&quot; way in which the phrase &quot;derivative of *f(x)*&quot; should be translated?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6653" RevisionGUID="67a5a7a5-40b7-407a-a084-e13dfdefd4df" CreationDate="2018-06-07T17:13:15.847" UserId="406" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="*Vetus* is in fact completely regular: it does inflect for case, number, and gender. It just happens to look the same in the masculine and the feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To quote from [this other answer][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin has five classes of adjectives, which are generally put into two main groups.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - &quot;First/Second Adjectives&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - &quot;Normal&quot; adjectives: these take the standard endings for the first and second declensions, and look different in all three genders. *Bonus* is one of these: *bonus*, *bona*, *bonum*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - &quot;Irregular&quot; adjectives: these are the same as the normal ones, except that the masculine genitive and dative singular use the older endings *-ius* and *-ī* instead of *-ī* and *-ō*. There are only nine of them in the entire language, which are commonly learned with the mnemonic UNUS NAUTA.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - &quot;Third Adjectives&quot;: these ones decline like third-declension nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - One termination: these adjectives look the same in all three genders, like *atrox*, *atrox*, *atrox*. The only gender differences are the standard rules for the neuter (*-ia* in the plural, accusative matches the nominative). Present participles are in this class.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - Two terminations: these are the most common &quot;third&quot; adjectives. They have one form in the masculine and feminine, and a different form in the neuter, like *omnis*, *omnis*, *omne*. Comparative adjectives also tend to be in this class, like *melior*, *melior*, *melius*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - Three terminations: these are the rarest ones. They have different forms in each different gender, and the masculine always ends in *r*, such as *celer*, *celeris*, *celere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Vetus* is an adjective of one termination, which means the masculine, feminine, and neuter look the same in many (but not all!) forms. The cases where they diverge show that there's still agreement, even if it's not visible: the singular accusative *veterem* versus *vetus*, and the plural nominative *veterēs* versus *vetera*, for instance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6357/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6661" RevisionGUID="73253af0-7e97-4dd7-8ac6-04e10223eeb6" CreationDate="2018-06-07T23:33:40.880" UserId="79" Text="Many Latin nouns end *-r*, like *honor*.&#xD;&#xA;However, this word seems to have been originally *honos*, which became *honor-* in oblique cases due to rhotacism and the *-r* made its way to nominative by analogy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples of final *-r* that I can think of either come from *-s* or are of an unclear origin to me.&#xD;&#xA;Are there any Latin nouns with a final *-r* that does not come from rhotacism?&#xD;&#xA;An example or two with a brief explanation of how we know that would be great." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22088" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6661" RevisionGUID="73253af0-7e97-4dd7-8ac6-04e10223eeb6" CreationDate="2018-06-07T23:33:40.880" UserId="79" Text="Does any Latin noun originally end in -r?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22089" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6661" RevisionGUID="73253af0-7e97-4dd7-8ac6-04e10223eeb6" CreationDate="2018-06-07T23:33:40.880" UserId="79" Text="|language-evolution|consonants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6662" RevisionGUID="09323e3d-7967-43dd-ab82-0e9fe167c77e" CreationDate="2018-06-08T02:57:41.137" UserId="39" Text="*vetus* is a unique adjective and, despite a number of solid IE cognates (see de Vaan), its internal etymology in Latin &quot;remains unexplained to date&quot; (Sihler 1995: 353).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only hypothesis I am aware of is that originally it was a neuter noun, cf. Leumann et al. 1977: 269:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ein Wandel Subst. -&gt; Adj. ist ganz selten und untypisch&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(English translation: The change Noun -&gt; Adjective is rather rare and atypical).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6662" RevisionGUID="331eac48-c6fb-4abf-9789-acb2404a7fdc" CreationDate="2018-06-08T03:14:42.373" UserId="39" Comment="added 400 characters in body" Text="*vetus* is a unique adjective and, despite a number of solid IE cognates (see de Vaan), its internal etymology in Latin &quot;remains unexplained to date&quot; (Sihler 1995: 353).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only hypothesis I am aware of is that **originally it was a neuter noun**, cf. Leumann et al. 1977: 269:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ein Wandel Subst. -&gt; Adj. ist ganz selten und untypisch&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(English translation: The change Noun -&gt; Adjective is rather rare and atypical). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Szantyr and Hoffman 1972/1997:158 (&quot;Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ein Fall der Adjektivierung eines Subst., allerdings anders geartet, liegt auch bei *vetus* vor; falls formal = gr. έτος (ursprünglich also 'ein Jahr sc. alt'), wäre  es zu seiner Bedeutung und adjektivischen Verwendung wahrscheinlich zunächst in Verbundungen mit Worten wie *vinum* (vgl. die alte Formel bei Varro ling. 6, 21 *novum vetus vinum bibo*) und *morbus* gekommen [...]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6662" RevisionGUID="bba06843-cef8-4585-8c8b-f6c3185571aa" CreationDate="2018-06-08T03:32:24.680" UserId="39" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="*vetus* is a unique adjective and, despite a number of solid IE cognates (see de Vaan or Walde-Hofmann), its internal etymology in Latin &quot;remains unexplained to date&quot; (Sihler 1995: 353).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only hypothesis I am aware of is that **originally it was a neuter noun**, cf. Leumann et al. 1977: 269:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ein Wandel Subst. -&gt; Adj. ist ganz selten und untypisch&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(English translation: The change Noun -&gt; Adjective is rather rare and atypical) or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walde-Hofmann 2007: &quot;*vetus* ist neutraler -*os*-St&quot; or &quot;Formell ist *vetus* ein adjektiviertes Subst.*u̯etos&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Szantyr and Hoffman 1972/1997:158 (&quot;Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ein Fall der Adjektivierung eines Subst., allerdings anders geartet, liegt auch bei *vetus* vor; falls formal = gr. έτος (ursprünglich also 'ein Jahr sc. alt'), wäre  es zu seiner Bedeutung und adjektivischen Verwendung wahrscheinlich zunächst in Verbundungen mit Worten wie *vinum* (vgl. die alte Formel bei Varro ling. 6, 21 *novum vetus vinum bibo*) und *morbus* gekommen [...]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6662" RevisionGUID="2bd77771-ea20-4fa2-aac3-ab279c274285" CreationDate="2018-06-08T03:38:16.723" UserId="39" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="*vetus* is a unique adjective and, despite a number of solid IE cognates (see de Vaan or Walde-Hofmann), its internal etymology in Latin &quot;remains unexplained to date&quot; (Sihler 1995: 353).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only hypothesis I am aware of is that **originally it was a neuter noun**, cf. Leumann et al. 1977: 269:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ein Wandel Subst. -&gt; Adj. ist ganz selten und untypisch&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(English translation: The change Noun -&gt; Adjective is rather rare and atypical) or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walde-Hofmann 1938/2007: &quot;*vetus* ist neutraler -*os*-St&quot; or &quot;Formell ist *vetus* ein adjektiviertes Subst.*u̯etos&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Szantyr and Hoffman 1972/1997:158 (&quot;Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ein Fall der Adjektivierung eines Subst., allerdings anders geartet, liegt auch bei *vetus* vor; falls formal = gr. έτος (ursprünglich also 'ein Jahr sc. alt'), wäre  es zu seiner Bedeutung und adjektivischen Verwendung wahrscheinlich zunächst in Verbundungen mit Worten wie *vinum* (vgl. die alte Formel bei Varro ling. 6, 21 *novum vetus vinum bibo*) und *morbus* gekommen [...]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6662" RevisionGUID="645f049c-1d6c-4e3c-b9e1-4adbbd9d6128" CreationDate="2018-06-08T03:52:10.560" UserId="39" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="*vetus*, even though being of the &quot;one-ending&quot; adjectival type, is still a unique adjective and, despite a number of solid IE cognates (see de Vaan or Walde-Hofmann), its internal etymology in Latin &quot;remains unexplained to date&quot; (Sihler 1995: 353).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only hypothesis I am aware of is that **originally it was a neuter noun**, cf. Leumann et al. 1977: 269:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ein Wandel Subst. -&gt; Adj. ist ganz selten und untypisch&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(English translation: The change Noun -&gt; Adjective is rather rare and atypical) or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walde-Hofmann 1938/2007: &quot;*vetus* ist neutraler -*os*-St&quot; or &quot;Formell ist *vetus* ein adjektiviertes Subst.*u̯etos&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Szantyr and Hoffman 1972/1997:158 (&quot;Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ein Fall der Adjektivierung eines Subst., allerdings anders geartet, liegt auch bei *vetus* vor; falls formal = gr. έτος (ursprünglich also 'ein Jahr sc. alt'), wäre  es zu seiner Bedeutung und adjektivischen Verwendung wahrscheinlich zunächst in Verbundungen mit Worten wie *vinum* (vgl. die alte Formel bei Varro ling. 6, 21 *novum vetus vinum bibo*) und *morbus* gekommen [...]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6602" RevisionGUID="35a310de-0f91-4980-b951-4cfbf2d5b303" CreationDate="2018-06-08T06:36:40.883" UserId="172" Comment="Added Harper and Starostin etymology references" Text="I cannot provide a complete answer either, but perhaps a few points one the subject of kissing, and the semantics of the words for it. I cannot, unfortunately, provide immediate literature references for these, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The elder word for the kiss is *osculum*, attested in the earliest writing, and with a very transparent meaning (“little mouth”). Romans had a greeting ritual of kissing each other, but only when the people were related clansmen. This *strongly suggests* (although I cannot recall either Fustel de Coulanges or Pierre Grimal directly mentioning the custom) the religious origin of this ritual: The significant unifying force within the Roman extended family was the religion, a cult of the household deities, well guarded against even sights of the outsiders. The parallel I see here is the very ancient, perhaps pre-Roman origin of both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It is likely that Romans did not kiss each other on the cheek, or in any other way; the original kiss was on the lips only. There was not a distinction between same or different sexes in the appropriateness of this “family” kiss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*ius osculi*][1], “the right to kiss,” was apparently an ancient law that allowed a Roman man to kiss his wife anytime he wishes. It is said to be related to the prohibition of drinking the first harvest wine by women (a religious offense, punishable by death: Romans were gravely serious about their relationship with the higher-ups!). However, this law was apparently being invoked by Agrippina to get kisses from her husband Emperor Claudius, so we can assume the law mentioned both spouses right to demand kisses, not only that husband's of the wife. This goes against the drinking-detection rationale (we modern people rationalize too much; I am always skeptical about any rationalization of a religion, and the ancient one doubly so). We do not know, AFAIK, any written form of this law. Apparently, this was also part from early Roman or pre-Roman cults, not being understood any more by the literate times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The [last kiss][2] was given to a person dying in the presence of their relatives. I cannot readily find any sources; google searches for &quot;osculum funeri[s]&quot; or &quot;funebris&quot; do not reveal much. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Oh, but these searches, however, [did uncover a summary][3], which appears more of original research than a scholarly paper on Roman kissing. Unfortunately, the bibliography consists of primary sources more than research papers, so take it with a grain of salt, naturally. But it might be an excellent compendium of primary references to start one's own research, so I think I should mention it here too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *suavium*, another word for “a kiss,” according to L&amp;S, is mostly ante-classical, although is found in Cic. The etymology is also quite transparent, cf. *suavis*. I cannot comment on semantic differences with *osculum*. FWIW, it might have started as a stylistic one, but I confess to drawing a blank here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *basium* is the most interesting one, perhaps an example of the language in the process of conscious making. L&amp;S provides a good clue: *(rare and mostly poet.; most freq. in Cat.; not in Plaut. or Ter.)*. The origin is uncertain; the only connection I can come up with is the PCelt. *guss- “lip, kiss,” and, while the *g* would phonologically match the Latin *b*, if I am not mistaken the *u* and *a* cannot be related here. (But a relation to Eng. *kiss* is possible; perhaps a good question for Linguistics.SE.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Again, unsourced for now (I'll try to find references later): apparently, the word was introduced by Catullus, who needed an expression for a passionate lover's kiss, unquestionably distinct from *osculum* and *suavium*. Indeed, there is a lot of passionate kissing in Catullus' poetry. In a span of the next couple centuries, the meaning mingled with that of *osculum* (and growing usage of *suavium*) to the point of an apparent loss of distinction. However, the distinction might have survived better in the Vulgar language, with the words derived from *osculum* taking the formal register, and the derivatives of *basium* the lower one (and the peculiar French development is undoubtedly of a  relatively recent origin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider this a WIP; I'll try to find references for these points. I make notes on topics that interest me, but sometimes they are in an excellent disarray, so this is only how much I can provide now off my old notebooks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ADDED:** Although [Harper notes][4] that “[t]here appears to be no common Indo-European root word for ‘kiss’,” [Starostin provides one][5], and relates *basium* to the same root (and, as a side note, indicates that the PCelt root may possibly be a Germanic borrowing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ius_osculi&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_funerary_practices&amp;oldid=837970204#Preparation_of_the_body&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Kiss&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.etymonline.com/word/kiss&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/etymology.cgi?single=1&amp;basename=%2Fdata%2Fie%2Fpiet&amp;text_number=2967&amp;root=config" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6663" RevisionGUID="d687156c-6ceb-4a65-86df-b70be8b350a2" CreationDate="2018-06-08T08:02:55.490" UserId="324" Text="Pater, Mater, Frater etc. are IE -r stems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6664" RevisionGUID="41c76d23-2c1b-460a-978d-a85e9d72547b" CreationDate="2018-06-08T08:48:18.500" UserId="79" Text="There are many Latin verbs meaning roughly &quot;continue&quot;, but I failed to find a description how to use any of them with another verb.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to say things like &quot;Keep walking!&quot; and &quot;She continues to study Greek.&quot; and other similar thing having to do with continuing to do something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which verb should I use and how?&#xD;&#xA;Should I use infinitive, gerund, participle, or something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22099" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6664" RevisionGUID="41c76d23-2c1b-460a-978d-a85e9d72547b" CreationDate="2018-06-08T08:48:18.500" UserId="79" Text="How to continue doing something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22100" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6664" RevisionGUID="41c76d23-2c1b-460a-978d-a85e9d72547b" CreationDate="2018-06-08T08:48:18.500" UserId="79" Text="|grammar-choice|verbs|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6665" RevisionGUID="23f54501-88c4-4253-98ca-f5d8d40bec8d" CreationDate="2018-06-08T10:05:04.713" UserId="2678" Text="As far as I know `adeptus` means _the one who achieved something_, in form of participle. `meta` means _goal_ or _turning point_ figuratively. What is the proper combination of them with the meaning _the one who achieved the goal_? `metae adeptus`, or maybe `metam adeptus`? If `meta` is improper word, then maybe other word will fit better with `adeptus` to express the same meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6665" RevisionGUID="23f54501-88c4-4253-98ca-f5d8d40bec8d" CreationDate="2018-06-08T10:05:04.713" UserId="2678" Text="The proper phrase with &quot;adeptus&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6665" RevisionGUID="23f54501-88c4-4253-98ca-f5d8d40bec8d" CreationDate="2018-06-08T10:05:04.713" UserId="2678" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6665" RevisionGUID="dc1fdb34-f9b4-4acc-a524-2a6569f76642" CreationDate="2018-06-08T12:39:34.670" UserId="2678" Comment="Added macron marks" Text="As far as I know `adeptus` means _the one who achieved something_, in form of participle. `mēta` means _goal_ or _turning point_ figuratively. What is the proper combination of them with the meaning _the one who achieved the goal_? `mētae adeptus`, or maybe `mētam adeptus`? If `mēta` is improper word, then maybe other word will fit better with `adeptus` to express the same meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6663" RevisionGUID="10e7de28-a5b2-470d-b726-5b0bdb1ed7b3" CreationDate="2018-06-08T13:03:33.023" UserId="324" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="Pater, mater, frater etc. are IE -r stems; compare pater with English father, Sanskrit (acc. s.) pitaram etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iecur is an IE -r/n heteroclit, like Avestan yakarə.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6665" RevisionGUID="fe6a1ac1-6505-4b6b-a6d5-f71cfb4894a4" CreationDate="2018-06-08T13:37:26.913" UserId="45" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="As far as I know *adeptus* means &quot;the one who achieved something,&quot; in participial form. *mēta* means &quot;goal&quot; or &quot;turning point,&quot; figuratively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the proper combination of them with the meaning &quot;the one who achieved the goal&quot;? *mētae adeptus*, or maybe *mētam adeptus*? If *mēta* is an irregular word, then maybe another word would fit better with *adeptus* to express the same meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6666" RevisionGUID="bdebfa53-f840-44f8-9afc-36b68319b3eb" CreationDate="2018-06-08T14:35:44.290" UserId="45" Text="Here is a somewhat roundabout possibility: ***non desinere* + infinitive.** I think this captures the common emphasis of &quot;continue&quot; in your examples: &quot;despite X, I don't stop....&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Keep walking!&quot; = *ne desinas ambulare!*&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;She continues to study Greek.&quot; = *Graecis studere litteris non desinit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6667" RevisionGUID="45033639-7cd5-4090-a089-b86222e07f75" CreationDate="2018-06-08T15:11:19.670" UserId="45" Text="One part of Evander's speech of mourning for his son Pallas can be taken out of context to convey the sentiment you are aiming for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'non haec, o Palla, dederas promissa parenti,	 &#xD;&#xA;cautius ut saeuo uelles te credere Marti.	&#xD;&#xA;haud ignarus eram quantum noua gloria in armis	&#xD;&#xA;et praedulce decus primo certamine posset.  &#xD;&#xA;primitiae iuuenis miserae bellique propinqui	&#xD;&#xA;dura rudimenta, et nulli exaudita deorum	&#xD;&#xA;uota precesque meae! **tuque, o sanctissima coniunx,	&#xD;&#xA;felix morte tua neque in hunc seruata dolorem!**	&#xD;&#xA;contra ego uiuendo uici mea fata, superstes	 &#xD;&#xA;restarem ut genitor. (*Aeneid* XI.152-61)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In context, Evander means that his wife is lucky that death spared her from the sorry of seeing her son die. I see no reason, though, that we can't construe &quot;in hunc servata dolorem&quot; as referring to the difficult last days of an illness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6668" RevisionGUID="406e3fcf-a31f-4319-a75f-67ae78b42221" CreationDate="2018-06-08T20:23:39.333" UserId="427" Text="Since *adeptus, adepta, adeptum* is the perfect participle of the deponent verb *adispiscor, adipisci, adeptus sum,* it can be used with the accusative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*metam adeptus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;'he who has achieved the goal'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Adeptus, adeptus* is also a fourth-declension verbal noun (supine), and so if used with the genitive it is likely to be misunderstood:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*metae adeptus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;'the attainment of the goal'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6669" RevisionGUID="1281f4d4-eebf-44a0-a267-0ebc1138581f" CreationDate="2018-06-09T07:46:01.643" UserId="1459" Text="Consider the following two phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _noli timere: exaudivit **enim** Deus vocem pueri de loco in quo est_ ([Genesis 21:17b](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+21&amp;version=VULGATE))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_et benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes terrae, **quia** obedisti voci meae_ ([Genesis 22:18](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+22&amp;version=VULGATE))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand them, both are used in the sense of &quot;for/because&quot;, but _quia_ normally appears at the beginning of a sentence, whereas _enim_ appears second in the sentence. Is this the only relevant difference, when it comes to the for/because meaning? (They have other meanings too, but my question is not about them)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22111" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6669" RevisionGUID="1281f4d4-eebf-44a0-a267-0ebc1138581f" CreationDate="2018-06-09T07:46:01.643" UserId="1459" Text="What is the difference between &quot;enim&quot; and &quot;quia&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22112" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6669" RevisionGUID="1281f4d4-eebf-44a0-a267-0ebc1138581f" CreationDate="2018-06-09T07:46:01.643" UserId="1459" Text="|conjunction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6670" RevisionGUID="43396c46-0682-46bb-99ab-cfa98c37c930" CreationDate="2018-06-09T11:49:08.573" UserId="79" Text="Their semantic role is similar, but the syntactical one is not exactly.&#xD;&#xA;I would say that *quia* is a conjunction, *enim* a particle.&#xD;&#xA;In L&amp;S [*quia*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=quia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is indeed called a conjunction, and [*enim*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=enim&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) a &quot;demonstrative corroborative particle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Reading the two dictionary entries will shed some light on their use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *quia* corresponds to &quot;because&quot; quite accurately.&#xD;&#xA;The word *enim* is more nuanced.&#xD;&#xA;It can be used to strengthen many assertions, similarly to *vero*.&#xD;&#xA;In addition to &quot;because&quot; or &quot;for&quot;, it can stand for &quot;certainly&quot;, &quot;indeed&quot;, &quot;in fact&quot; and other.&#xD;&#xA;You can also use *enimvero*, which is stronger than *enim* or *vero* alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To condense the comparison to a single sentence, I would say that *quia* is a conjunction that gives a reason and *enim* is a particle that gives emphasis and reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6669" RevisionGUID="3913652d-e79b-47ab-a5f2-d551b4f76ebb" CreationDate="2018-06-09T11:49:51.047" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="Consider the following two phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _noli timere: exaudivit **enim** Deus vocem pueri de loco in quo est_ ([Genesis 21:17b](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+21&amp;version=VULGATE))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_et benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes terrae, **quia** obedisti voci meae_ ([Genesis 22:18](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+22&amp;version=VULGATE))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand them, both are used in the sense of &quot;for/because&quot;, but _quia_ normally appears at the beginning of a sentence, whereas _enim_ appears second in the sentence. Is this the only relevant difference, when it comes to the for/because meaning? (They have other meanings too, but my question is not about them.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22115" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6669" RevisionGUID="3913652d-e79b-47ab-a5f2-d551b4f76ebb" CreationDate="2018-06-09T11:49:51.047" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|word-comparison|conjunction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6671" RevisionGUID="84b211ec-93ff-4f69-b603-1595052ae834" CreationDate="2018-06-09T12:17:54.493" UserId="79" Text="There are cases where a word in another language means something else in another one.&#xD;&#xA;I do not mean cognates or loan words having close but not identical meanings, but two words in different languages ending up looking or sounding the same.&#xD;&#xA;This can lead to misunderstandings, humor, or awkward situations.&#xD;&#xA;For one example, Finns are instructed to avoid saying &quot;katso!&quot; (&quot;look!&quot;) when in Italy.&#xD;&#xA;(I prefer not to give the corresponding Italian word explicitly in an attempt to keep my language clean.)&#xD;&#xA;For another example, here is a Finnish comic about &quot;chat customer service&quot;, playing with the meaning of &quot;chat&quot; in French:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Chat-asiakaspalvelija](https://hs.mediadelivery.io/img/1920/41c952ea35624b44bf1149b87d8e1cd5.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there similar recorded cases between Latin and other ancient languages?&#xD;&#xA;Surely there must be some similarities with unexpected words between Latin and, say, Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I am not happy with my wording of the title. Suggestions for something more concise are welcome. This is also a hard one for tagging.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22117" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6671" RevisionGUID="84b211ec-93ff-4f69-b603-1595052ae834" CreationDate="2018-06-09T12:17:54.493" UserId="79" Text="Misunderstandings due to random similarities between Latin and other ancient languages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22118" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6671" RevisionGUID="84b211ec-93ff-4f69-b603-1595052ae834" CreationDate="2018-06-09T12:17:54.493" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6672" RevisionGUID="35472be2-fe85-4633-b94f-5de955960607" CreationDate="2018-06-09T20:04:14.497" UserId="2680" Text="The narrowest and most interesting way to interpret your question is that you want anecdotes exemplifying _language-based misunderstandings between ancient individuals_; like, if Caesar said &quot;Ave&quot; and Cleopatra thought he was talking about birds. Sadly I'm not aware of any such anecdotes myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interpreting the question broadly, there are literally hundreds of examples of scholars holding incorrect beliefs based on coincidental similarities of pronunciation between words in different languages. I'm thinking of _false etymologies_. The Wikipedia page on [folk etymology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_etymology) lists many examples from all kinds of languages, but most notably&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the word **baceler** or **bacheler** ... referred to a junior knight. It is attested from the eleventh century, though its ultimate origin is uncertain. By the late Middle Ages its meaning was extended to the holder of a university degree inferior to master or doctor. This was later re-spelled **baccalaureus**, probably reflecting a false derivation from *bacca laurea* &quot;laurel berry&quot; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Also, an intra-Latin example:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sincerity)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **sincere** is derived from the Latin *sincerus* ... from *sin-* (one) and *crescere* (to grow) ... An often repeated folk etymology proposes that *sincere* is derived from the Latin **sine** (without), **cera** (wax). According to one popular explanation, dishonest sculptors in Rome or Greece would cover flaws in their work with wax to deceive the viewer; therefore, a sculpture &quot;without wax&quot; would mean honesty in its perfection. ... Another explanation is that this etymology &quot;is derived from a Greeks-bearing-gifts story of deceit and betrayal. For the feat of victory, the Romans demanded the handing over of obligatory tributes. Following bad advice, the Greeks resorted to some faux-marble statues made of wax, which they offered as tribute. These promptly melted in the warm Greek sun.&quot; The Oxford English Dictionary states, however, that &quot;there is no probability in the old explanation from *sine cera* 'without wax'&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, for a perennial case of cultural confusion between a Scandinavian-derived word and a similar-sounding Latin-derived word, look no further than ***[niggardly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_%22niggardly%22)***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6671" RevisionGUID="f5285a9f-5d24-4448-b97a-b7fb222404a9" CreationDate="2018-06-09T20:18:33.127" UserId="79" Comment="added 32 characters in body; edited title" Text="There are cases where a word in another language means something else in another one.&#xD;&#xA;I do not mean cognates or loan words having close but not identical meanings, but two words in different languages with no etymological connection ending up looking or sounding the same.&#xD;&#xA;This can lead to misunderstandings, humor, or awkward situations.&#xA;&#xA;For one example, Finns are instructed to avoid saying &quot;katso!&quot; (&quot;look!&quot;) when in Italy.&#xD;&#xA;(I prefer not to give the corresponding Italian word explicitly in an attempt to keep my language clean.)&#xD;&#xA;For another example, here is a Finnish comic about &quot;chat customer service&quot;, playing with the meaning of &quot;chat&quot; in French:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Chat-asiakaspalvelija](https://hs.mediadelivery.io/img/1920/41c952ea35624b44bf1149b87d8e1cd5.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there similar recorded cases between Latin and other ancient languages?&#xD;&#xA;Surely there must be some similarities with unexpected words between Latin and, say, Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I am not happy with my wording of the title. Suggestions for something more concise are welcome. This is also a hard one for tagging.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22121" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6671" RevisionGUID="f5285a9f-5d24-4448-b97a-b7fb222404a9" CreationDate="2018-06-09T20:18:33.127" UserId="79" Comment="added 32 characters in body; edited title" Text="Coincidental similarities between Latin and other ancient languages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6673" RevisionGUID="16b3d694-039b-4bd4-b614-1342e0ff4cae" CreationDate="2018-06-09T20:30:22.080" UserId="2680" Text="I'm looking at the footnotes in [John Jewel's ''Defense of the Apology of the Church of England''](https://books.google.com/books?id=WVlXAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA340) and I see this abbreviation repeated in many citations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcellin. Condemn. **in eod.** Tom. I. p. 192, 4, 6, 7; where *unus autem de episcopis nomine Quirinus,* and *et moram eum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Innoc. III. **in eod.** Decretal. Gregor. IX. Lib. III. Tit. xlii. cap. 3. cols. 1386, &amp;c.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this abbreviation mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22123" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6673" RevisionGUID="16b3d694-039b-4bd4-b614-1342e0ff4cae" CreationDate="2018-06-09T20:30:22.080" UserId="2680" Text="What does &quot;in eod.&quot; stand for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22124" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6673" RevisionGUID="16b3d694-039b-4bd4-b614-1342e0ff4cae" CreationDate="2018-06-09T20:30:22.080" UserId="2680" Text="|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6670" RevisionGUID="3ae0d1ba-7f98-456e-83fa-fcc8ef2b03ca" CreationDate="2018-06-09T20:32:11.147" UserId="79" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="Their semantic role is similar, but the syntactical one is not exactly.&#xD;&#xA;I would say that *quia* is a conjunction, *enim* a particle.&#xD;&#xA;In L&amp;S [*quia*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=quia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is indeed called a conjunction, and [*enim*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=enim&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) a &quot;demonstrative corroborative particle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Reading the two dictionary entries will shed some light on their use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *quia* corresponds to &quot;because&quot; quite accurately.&#xD;&#xA;The word *enim* is more nuanced.&#xD;&#xA;It can be used to strengthen many assertions, similarly to *vero*.&#xD;&#xA;In addition to &quot;because&quot; or &quot;for&quot;, it can stand for &quot;certainly&quot;, &quot;indeed&quot;, &quot;in fact&quot; and other.&#xD;&#xA;You can also use *enimvero*, which is stronger than *enim* or *vero* alone.&#xA;&#xA;The clause introduced by *quia* is a subordinate one and cannot stand independently.&#xA;The particle *enim* does not have this restriction.&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To condense the comparison to a single sentence, I would say that *quia* is a subordinating conjunction that gives a reason and *enim* is a coordinating particle that gives emphasis and reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6674" RevisionGUID="7cb1446b-1ecf-4d21-b43c-c91f15293340" CreationDate="2018-06-09T21:22:01.537" UserId="406" Text="I haven't actually seen that abbreviation before, but I would guess that that's short for *in eōdem*: &quot;in the same [place]&quot;. *In* is the preposition &quot;in&quot;, while *eōdem* is *eō* (ablative of *id* &quot;it&quot;) + *-dem* (combines with *id* to form *idem* &quot;same&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6673" RevisionGUID="7b545a68-7085-457e-a4d3-769eba637c1e" CreationDate="2018-06-09T21:50:00.633" UserId="1694" Comment="edited body" Text="I'm looking at the footnotes in [John Jewel's ''Defence of the Apology of the Church of England''](https://books.google.com/books?id=WVlXAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA340) and I see this abbreviation repeated in many citations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marcellin. Condemn. **in eod.** Tom. I. p. 192, 4, 6, 7; where *unus autem de episcopis nomine Quirinus,* and *et moram eum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Innoc. III. **in eod.** Decretal. Gregor. IX. Lib. III. Tit. xlii. cap. 3. cols. 1386, &amp;c.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this abbreviation mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6675" RevisionGUID="f541f630-8cba-49a4-901b-0df095f084c8" CreationDate="2018-06-09T22:09:56.077" UserId="1694" Text="One example that I think fits is L. _Roma_ vs Gk. ῥώμη.  (Presumably the latter in the Doric dialect would be ῥώμα, as even closer match.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6675" RevisionGUID="f595404b-0bcb-44b3-b9ad-8801717f43f1" CreationDate="2018-06-09T22:10:48.403" UserId="1694" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="One example that I think fits is L. _Roma_ vs Gk. ῥώμη (&quot;might&quot;).  (Presumably the latter in the Doric dialect would be ῥώμα, as even closer match.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6674" RevisionGUID="6c2eba58-b214-4277-8805-a0dad93b43e3" CreationDate="2018-06-09T22:16:56.327" UserId="406" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="I haven't actually seen that abbreviation before, but I would guess that that's short for *in eōdem*: &quot;in the same [place]&quot;. *In* is the preposition &quot;in&quot;, while *eōdem* is *eō* (ablative of *id* &quot;it&quot;) + *-dem* (combines with *id* to form *idem* &quot;same&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(L&amp;S do seem to have a note about this abbreviation in particular, under the entry `eodem`. Unfortunately, Perseus is down, so I can't actually read it.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6675" RevisionGUID="9e23ce51-2daf-4e4c-ab8c-14a7f5891b0a" CreationDate="2018-06-09T22:19:15.297" UserId="1694" Comment="edited body" Text="One example that I think fits is L. _Roma_ vs Gk. ῥώμη (&quot;might&quot;).  (Presumably the latter in the Doric dialect would be ῥώμα, an even closer match.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6602" RevisionGUID="e0f8b2b6-1bd3-4059-84a3-cac417e5e917" CreationDate="2018-06-10T02:58:40.313" UserId="172" Comment="Sourced de Vaan's confirmation that basioum was introduced by Catullus" Text="I cannot provide a complete answer either, but perhaps a few points one the subject of kissing, and the semantics of the words for it. I cannot, unfortunately, provide immediate literature references for these, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The elder word for the kiss is *osculum*, attested in the earliest writing, and with a very transparent meaning (“little mouth”). Romans had a greeting ritual of kissing each other, but only when the people were related clansmen. This *strongly suggests* (although I cannot recall either Fustel de Coulanges or Pierre Grimal directly mentioning the custom) the religious origin of this ritual: The significant unifying force within the Roman extended family was the religion, a cult of the household deities, well guarded against even sights of the outsiders. The parallel I see here is the very ancient, perhaps pre-Roman origin of both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It is likely that Romans did not kiss each other on the cheek, or in any other way; the original kiss was on the lips only. There was not a distinction between same or different sexes in the appropriateness of this “family” kiss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*ius osculi*][1], “the right to kiss,” was apparently an ancient law that allowed a Roman man to kiss his wife anytime he wishes. It is said to be related to the prohibition of drinking the first harvest wine by women (a religious offense, punishable by death: Romans were gravely serious about their relationship with the higher-ups!). However, this law was apparently being invoked by Agrippina to get kisses from her husband Emperor Claudius, so we can assume the law mentioned both spouses right to demand kisses, not only that husband's of the wife. This goes against the drinking-detection rationale (we modern people rationalize too much; I am always skeptical about any rationalization of a religion, and the ancient one doubly so). We do not know, AFAIK, any written form of this law. Apparently, this was also part from early Roman or pre-Roman cults, not being understood any more by the literate times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The [last kiss][2] was given to a person dying in the presence of their relatives. I cannot readily find any sources; google searches for &quot;osculum funeri[s]&quot; or &quot;funebris&quot; do not reveal much. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Oh, but these searches, however, [did uncover a summary][3], which appears more of original research than a scholarly paper on Roman kissing. Unfortunately, the bibliography consists of primary sources more than research papers, so take it with a grain of salt, naturally. But it might be an excellent compendium of primary references to start one's own research, so I think I should mention it here too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *suavium*, another word for “a kiss,” according to L&amp;S, is mostly ante-classical, although is found in Cic. The etymology is also quite transparent, cf. *suavis*. I cannot comment on semantic differences with *osculum*. FWIW, it might have started as a stylistic one, but I confess to drawing a blank here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *basium* is the most interesting one, perhaps an example of the language in the process of conscious making. L&amp;S provides a good clue: *(rare and mostly poet.; most freq. in Cat.; not in Plaut. or Ter.)*. The origin is uncertain; the only connection I can come up with is the PCelt. *guss- “lip, kiss,” and, while the *g* would phonologically match the Latin *b*, if I am not mistaken the *u* and *a* cannot be related here. (But a relation to Eng. *kiss* is possible; perhaps a good question for Linguistics.SE.) According to (de Vaan, 2008), the word has been introduced by Catullus, who needed an expression for a passionate lover's kiss, unquestionably distinct from *osculum* and *suavium*. He also proposes the Celtic origin for it, but I would not accept that unquestionably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Indeed, there is a lot of passionate kissing in Catullus' poetry. In a span of the next couple centuries, the meaning mingled with that of *osculum* (and growing usage of *suavium*) to the point of an apparent loss of distinction. However, the distinction might have survived better in the Vulgar language, with the words derived from *osculum* taking the formal register, and the derivatives of *basium* the lower one (and the peculiar French development is undoubtedly of a  relatively recent origin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider this a WIP; I'll try to find references for these points. I make notes on topics that interest me, but sometimes they are in an excellent disarray, so this is only how much I can provide now off my old notebooks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ADDED:** Although [Harper notes][4] that “[t]here appears to be no common Indo-European root word for ‘kiss’,” [Starostin provides one][5], and relates *basium* to the same root (and, as a side note, indicates that the PCelt root may possibly be a Germanic borrowing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ius_osculi&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_funerary_practices&amp;oldid=837970204#Preparation_of_the_body&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Kiss&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.etymonline.com/word/kiss&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/etymology.cgi?single=1&amp;basename=%2Fdata%2Fie%2Fpiet&amp;text_number=2967&amp;root=config" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6676" RevisionGUID="9f739672-9a66-45db-9121-1c4f986cd8e7" CreationDate="2018-06-10T06:16:06.763" UserId="172" Text="If we are to focus on very old formations, (Beekes 2011, 13.1.2) discusses substantive derivatives of PIE suffixes in *-r-*, which have indeed yielded many original Latin substantives in *-r*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We shall take the forms in *-r* and *-n* as examples to discuss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; r-suffixes:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [1] __*-er-*__‚ is used for the nominative of the neuter *r/n*-stems: ∗iekʷ-r ‘liver’; ∗h₁ésh₂-r ‘blood’: Skt. _ásr̥-k_, Hitt. _eshar_, Gr. _éar_. Adverbs in __*-er*__: ∗(s)uper ‘above’: Skt. _upári_, Gr. _húper_, Lat. _super_.  &#xD;&#xA;[2] __*-ro-*__‚ we find in a number of old words: ∗h₂eǵro-‚ ‘acre’; ∗uiHro-‚ ‘man’: Skt. _vīrá-_, Lith. _výras_, Lat. _vir_, OIr. _fer_, Goth. _wair_ [...].  &#xD;&#xA;[3] __*-ro-*__‚ also forms primary adjectives: ∗h₂ugró-‚ ‘strong’: Skt. _ugráâ-_; ∗h₁rudhró-‚ ‘red’.  &#xD;&#xA;[4] __*-ter-*__‚ in words indicating kinship: ∗ph₂tá-r, and nomina agentis: ∗ǵenh₁-tōr ‘conceiver, father’: Skt. _janitár-_.  &#xD;&#xA;[5] __*-tro-*__‚ is used for neuters which indicate the instrument: *h₂(e)rh₃trom ‘plough’: Gr. *árotron*.  &#xD;&#xA;[6] __*-tero-*__: see the comparative[...]. Compare also *kʷoteros ‘who of two’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(enumeration is mine -kkm)*. So this is a very good clue where to look for the substantives in Latin with the inherited *-r*. Under the same categories, the examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Often body parts are in this inherited neuters category: *cor*, *venter*, *iecur*, *uber*, *uter*, *viscer*, *femur*; emotional states: *sopor*, *timor*, *torpor*, *pauor*, *moeror*; abstracts of quality *vigor*, *squalor*; names of perceptibles: aural *clamor*, *squalor*, *nurmur*, *fragor*, *fremor*, visual *nitor*, *fulgor*, olfactory *odor*, *fetor*, tactile *fervor*, *caldor*, *tepor*, *algor*.&#xD;&#xA;2. Also *ager*, *arbor*. Seasons and parts of day: *ver*¹, *vesper*. There are very old tree names that probably belong to this category: *acer*, *robor*, etc. Meteorological: *fulgur*, *imber*.&#xD;&#xA;3. *rubor*, *niger*, *ater*. There are many primary adjectives in *-r* in Latin in general, but the question, as I understand, is focused more on nouns.&#xD;&#xA;4. *pater*, *mater*, *frater*²; cannot think of more. Both PIE and Latin are rich in kinship terms, but they did not end up ending in *-r* in Latin (as *sobrinus/sobrina* or *socrus*—although *∗socer* would not be unexpected here).&#xD;&#xA;5. These mostly gave *-trum* in Latin. E. g... well, *computatrum*. :)&#xD;&#xA;6. *uter*, *neuter*, and many comparatives (*citior, altior, fortior*... I shall stop here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is an interesting [conference paper by Gorman][1]³ discussing how certain words managed to possibly escape the rhotic change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_____&#xD;&#xA;Footnotes:  &#xD;&#xA;1. *ver* should have been etymologically _*veror_, and might have undergone rhotacism before shortening.  &#xD;&#xA;2. *soror* and *uxor* are not in this category, but they do indeed end in *-r*, so why not mention them? Also, *mulier* does not belong also, because the stem would originally end in *s*, later lost. Not clear why it escaped rhotacism, as the loss should pre-date it. Let's just do not count it in.  &#xD;&#xA;3. The link is directly to paper, so in case it disappears, here's the cication: Gorman, Kyle. &quot;Exceptions to rhotacism.&quot; Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Vol. 48. No. 1. Chicago Linguistic Society, 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.252.9798&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6648" RevisionGUID="58a797a9-9253-4617-abd9-816f327ac1c4" CreationDate="2018-06-10T06:26:13.257" UserId="172" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="While many romanizations of ethnonyms take the 2nd declension noun pattern (*Germani, Galli, Veneti, Helvetii* and so on), the 1st declension, as Joonas noted, also occurs, although I am struggling to come up with any examples beyond *Belgae*. 3rd declension is also found, but is rare and seems to always be of pre-classical origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the main reason I am writing this answer is to stress that the Latin idiomatic way of expressing the “king of *X*” concept is not to name the *land*, but rather the *people* over whom the said king reigns, with the noun for the people taking, naturally, the genitive plural. That is, the pattern is not the “German (Swedish, Belgian, American) king,” but instead “the king of the Germans (Swedes, Belgians, Americans).” There are many examples of this very idiomatic pattern, for example, in Caesar [B. G.]: *Ariovistus rex Germanorum* [1, 31, 10] (masc., 2nd decl.); *Teutomatus, Olloviconis filius, rex Nitiobrogum* [7, 31, 5] (masc., 3rd decl.); or in Cicero where he acrimoniously mocks Caesar himself as *rex populi Romani* [Off. 3, 83], “king of the Roman people;” there are many many others. Incidentally, the modern title of the Belgian king is also the “king of the Belgians” (*koning der Belgen*, *roi des Belges*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whichever declension of the word for Aztec people you would pick, the idiomatic Latin is to title the king as “King of the Aztecs,” *rex Aztecarum/Aztecorum*. Personally I would go with the 2nd declension *Aztecus, -i* as the most common pattern, but this is really your call. Neither way would be wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6495" RevisionGUID="12e1f0bf-540e-4b85-ad11-28283b168c29" CreationDate="2018-06-10T13:22:28.653" UserId="1987" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="There are different theories on the etymology of Asclepius, **all of which** I want to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Wikipedia][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The etymology of the name is unknown. In his revised version of Frisk's Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Greek Etymological Dictionary), R. S. P. Beekes gives this summary of the different attempts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;H. Grégoire (with R. Goossens and M. Mathieu) in Asklépios, Apollon Smintheus et Rudra 1949 (Mém. Acad. Roy. de Belgique. Cl. d. lettres. 2. sér. 45), explains the name as 'the mole-hero', connecting σκάλοψ, ἀσπάλαξ 'mole' and refers to the resemblance of the Tholos in Epidauros and the building of a mole. (Thus Puhvel, Comp. Mythol. 1987, 135.) But the variants of Asklepios and those of the word for 'mole' do not agree.**The name is typical for Pre-Greek words**; apart from minor variations (β for π, αλ(α)for λα) we find α/αι (a well known variation; Fur. 335–339) followed by -γλαπ- or -σκλαπ-/-σχλαπ/β-, i.e. a voiced velar(without -σ-) or a voiceless velar (or an aspirated one: we know that there was no distinction between the three in the substr. language) with a -σ-. I think that the -σ-renders an original affricate, which (prob. as δ) was lost before the -γ- (in Greek the group -σγ- is rare, and certainly before another consonant). **Szemerényi's etymology (JHS 94, 1974, 155) from Hitt. assula(a)- 'well-being' and piya- 'give' cannot be correct, as it does not explain the velar.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Beekes suggested a Pre-Greek proto-form *Atyklap-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Cult of Asclepius was already popular by the 5th Century **BC** so why would the god derive his name from a [Tholoi][2] built in 360 **AD/CE**? Does that theory sound plausible or far-fetched?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Wiktionary][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From ἀ- (a-, “&quot;negative prefix&quot;”), σκέλλω (skéllō, “I dry”) and ποιέω (poiéō, “I do, make”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that seem reasonable to *anybody*? And I'm not sure what exactly it means, and how on earth that would relate to the god Asclepius, or how his name could derive from that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [H.G.Liddell, RS][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; D. is said to have made it proparox. Ἀσκλήπιος, deriving it from ἤπιος,Plu.2.845b.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And concerning  [**ἤπιος**][5] says: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.of persons, gentle, mild, kind, πατὴρ δ᾽ ὣς ἤπιος ἦεν Hom.:—c. dat. pers., id=Hom., Trag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.of sentiments, ἤπια εἰδέναι to have kindly feelings, Hom.; πρὸςτὸ ἠπιώτερον καταστῆσαί τινα to bring him to a milder mood, Thuc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II.act. soothing, assuaging, of medicines, Il., etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.ἤπιον ἦμαρ, c. inf., a day favourable for beginning a thing, Hes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; III.adv. ἠπίως, Hdt., Soph&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last theory, of *HGL,RS*, seems the most plausible to me, **but leaves me  wondering what they think the beginning *Ἀσκλ-* derives from?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.coastal.edu/intranet/ashes2art/delphi2/misc-essays/other_tholoi.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ἀσκληπιός&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=*)asklhpio/s&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dh)%2Fpios" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6677" RevisionGUID="60ed09ae-22b5-4bc9-a408-70df60461385" CreationDate="2018-06-10T13:47:21.733" UserId="1982" Text="North &amp; Hillard Ex. 190; Q1: &quot;While they were cutting down the wood the enemy came upon them.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The answer: &quot;dum silvam succidunt eos hostis adoritur.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The instruction given by N &amp; H, p.146: dum (= while) regularly takes present indicative, even of past time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly: &quot;were cutting down&quot; must be imperfect yet the answer gives the perfect &quot;succidunt&quot;--why?&#xD;&#xA;This sometimes occurs when the following verb is pluperf; but, then, these are completed actions, in the past.&#xD;&#xA;Secondly: dum (= while) governs &quot;succidunt&quot;; so, from N-&amp;-H's instruction the writer could choose to put this in the present tense; but, not &quot;adoritur&quot;--which is in the present?&#xD;&#xA;Thirdly: &quot;adoritur&quot; means &quot;he attacks&quot;; perfectly valid in the circumstances given, in the Q, but the student is asked for &quot;came upon them&quot;--assuming that this is acceptable artistic license?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22137" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6677" RevisionGUID="60ed09ae-22b5-4bc9-a408-70df60461385" CreationDate="2018-06-10T13:47:21.733" UserId="1982" Text="Seeing The Wood For The Trees" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22138" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6677" RevisionGUID="60ed09ae-22b5-4bc9-a408-70df60461385" CreationDate="2018-06-10T13:47:21.733" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6678" RevisionGUID="0b0db1c4-cb80-4088-b7d2-d9c7c314fad9" CreationDate="2018-06-10T16:10:04.147" UserId="30" Text="1. *Succidunt* is present, not perfect, which would be *succiderunt*. Present and perfect stem are identical for this verb, but in this case the difference is visible in the present ending *-unt*. so the present indicative is used after *dum* as per the instruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Adoritur* should probably be read as *[praesens historicum][1]*. You could use a past tense instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. I would say *attacked* and *came upon* are both fine, with a similar meaning. From Lewis &amp; Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **adorior:** ... *to rise up for the purpose of going to some one or something*, or *of undertaking something great, difficult*, or *hazardous* (clandestinely, artfully, when a hostile approach is spoken of; while *aggredi* indicates a direct, open attack from a distance ...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_present" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6679" RevisionGUID="ee9cdf88-04f1-47a3-9e95-a53d6367e69f" CreationDate="2018-06-10T21:44:24.477" UserId="522" Text="**Ibid.** short for **Ibidem,** 'in the same place' is the usual term.  &#xD;&#xA;And it may be that **&quot;in eodem&quot;** also means 'in the same book, source.' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However,from the examples and lexical references so far shown it is possible that **in eodem** means &quot;on the **same** rationale,&quot; &quot;upon the **same** grounds.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The footnotes would then be drawing attention to other examples of the same argument, the same style of reasoning, rather than examples of the same topic. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6679" RevisionGUID="0bfb1248-1696-4d53-b439-558067b92fe8" CreationDate="2018-06-10T23:20:03.357" UserId="522" Comment="revisions and citations" Text="**Ibid.** short for **Ibidem,** 'in the same place' is the usual term.  &#xD;&#xA;And it may be that **&quot;in eodem&quot;** also means 'in the same book, source.' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For **'ibid.'** see footnotes p 353, *The Defence of the Apology*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; giving (3)further references to Gratian as a source. This is the usual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; usage.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; p. 158 footnote 6 [Id. **/idem/** ad deuter. Epist. ccxxxvi.2.Tom.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. col. 848.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, from the examples and lexical references so far shown it is possible that **in eodem** means &quot;upon the **same** rationale,&quot; &quot;upon the **same** grounds.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ainsworth: 1783  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **in,** +ABLAT. (20) Concerning.    (example for  20) ***Idem in servo dici solet,***  &#xD;&#xA;The same can be said **in respect of, with regard to,**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a slave.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar examples can be found in Lewis and Short: **In** +Ablative. 'On the subject of..'  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The footnotes would then be drawing attention to other examples of the same argument, the same style of reasoning, the same principle, rather than quotations from the same book. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6679" RevisionGUID="5ce2c3ec-af6a-4530-af22-7b64a1029122" CreationDate="2018-06-11T02:16:50.917" UserId="522" Comment="developments" Text="**Ibid.** short for **Ibidem,** 'in the same place' is the usual term for 'from the same source.'  &#xD;&#xA;But it may be that **&quot;in eodem&quot;** also means 'in the same book, source.' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For **'ibid.'** see footnotes p 353, *The Defence of the Apology*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; giving (3)further references to Gratian as a source. This is the usual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; usage.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; p. 158 footnote 6 [Id. **/idem/** ad deuter. Epist. ccxxxvi.2.Tom.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. col. 848.]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, 'in eodem' and 'ibid.' appear on the same footnote on p.203 note10  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ ..neminem potest iniqua gravare sententia- Gelas. in eodem ibid. Caus. xi. Quaest. iii. can. 47. col 938.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And from the examples and lexical references so far shown it is possible that **in eodem** means &quot;upon the **same** rationale,&quot; &quot;upon the **same** grounds.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ainsworth: 1783  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **in,** +ABLAT. (20) Concerning.    (example for  20) ***Idem in servo dici solet,***  &#xD;&#xA;The same can be said **in respect of, with regard to,**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a slave.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar examples can be found in Lewis and Short: **In** +Ablative. 'On the subject of..'  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The footnotes would then be drawing attention to other examples of the same argument, the same style of reasoning, the same principle, rather than quotations from the same book. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet it must be said that there is no reference to **'in eodem'** as a set phrase in:  &#xD;&#xA;Smith: 'in,' 'idem,' 'eodem.'  &#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short: 'in,' 'idem,' 'eodem.'  &#xD;&#xA;Ainsworth: 'in,' 'idem,' 'eodem.'  &#xD;&#xA;Prefaces to all these lexicons, and to English dictionaries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6495" RevisionGUID="2c819ba4-8084-4aef-8968-5cc25bd118ec" CreationDate="2018-06-11T12:34:17.347" UserId="1987" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; deleted 8 characters in body" Text="There are different theories on the etymology of Asclepius, **all of which** I want to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Wikipedia][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The etymology of the name is unknown. In his revised version of Frisk's Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Greek Etymological Dictionary), R. S. P. Beekes gives this summary of the different attempts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;H. Grégoire (with R. Goossens and M. Mathieu) in Asklépios, Apollon Smintheus et Rudra 1949 (Mém. Acad. Roy. de Belgique. Cl. d. lettres. 2. sér. 45), explains the name as 'the mole-hero', connecting σκάλοψ, ἀσπάλαξ 'mole' and refers to the resemblance of the Tholos in Epidauros and the building of a mole. (Thus Puhvel, Comp. Mythol. 1987, 135.) But the variants of Asklepios and those of the word for 'mole' do not agree.**The name is typical for Pre-Greek words**; apart from minor variations (β for π, αλ(α)for λα) we find α/αι (a well known variation; Fur. 335–339) followed by -γλαπ- or -σκλαπ-/-σχλαπ/β-, i.e. a voiced velar(without -σ-) or a voiceless velar (or an aspirated one: we know that there was no distinction between the three in the substr. language) with a -σ-. I think that the -σ-renders an original affricate, which (prob. as δ) was lost before the -γ- (in Greek the group -σγ- is rare, and certainly before another consonant). **Szemerényi's etymology (JHS 94, 1974, 155) from Hitt. assula(a)- 'well-being' and piya- 'give' cannot be correct, as it does not explain the velar.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Beekes suggested a Pre-Greek proto-form *Atyklap-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Cult of Asclepius was already popular by the 5th Century BC so why would the god derive his name from a [Tholoi][2] built in 360 BC? Does that theory sound plausible or far-fetched?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Wiktionary][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From ἀ- (a-, “&quot;negative prefix&quot;”), σκέλλω (skéllō, “I dry”) and ποιέω (poiéō, “I do, make”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that seem reasonable to *anybody*? And I'm not sure what exactly it means, and how on earth that would relate to the god Asclepius, or how his name could derive from that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [H.G.Liddell, RS][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; D. is said to have made it proparox. Ἀσκλήπιος, deriving it from ἤπιος,Plu.2.845b.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And concerning  [**ἤπιος**][5] says: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.of persons, gentle, mild, kind, πατὴρ δ᾽ ὣς ἤπιος ἦεν Hom.:—c. dat. pers., id=Hom., Trag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.of sentiments, ἤπια εἰδέναι to have kindly feelings, Hom.; πρὸςτὸ ἠπιώτερον καταστῆσαί τινα to bring him to a milder mood, Thuc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II.act. soothing, assuaging, of medicines, Il., etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.ἤπιον ἦμαρ, c. inf., a day favourable for beginning a thing, Hes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; III.adv. ἠπίως, Hdt., Soph&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last theory, of *HGL,RS*, seems the most plausible to me, **but leaves me  wondering what they think the beginning *Ἀσκλ-* derives from?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.coastal.edu/intranet/ashes2art/delphi2/misc-essays/other_tholoi.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ἀσκληπιός&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=*)asklhpio/s&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dh)%2Fpios" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6680" RevisionGUID="52b4c969-d61e-43f7-8dbc-07e8401071a5" CreationDate="2018-06-11T12:39:11.400" UserId="867" Text="I think ***quid si*** will work.  Plautus uses this a lot.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It reminds me of the French construction *si on + imparfait?* for making suggestions to do something: *si on allait à l’exposition?* / how about we go to the exhibition?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it's also exactly like the English &quot;what if ...?&quot; which can sometimes be used in the sense of &quot;how about ...?&quot;  So, using your example above, in reply to A, B could say &quot;what if we tried Rex Aztecorum?&quot;  All of the Plautus examples below could be translated like this.  The Terence excerpt uses both options to sound natural.  The Cicero examples only sound right using &quot;what about&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quid si evocemus huc foras Agorastoclem, ut ipsus testis sit sibi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; certissumus?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; How about we call Agorastocles out, so that he himself may be his star&#xD;&#xA;&gt; witness?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, *The Little Carthaginian*, 708-9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quid si eamus illis obviam?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; How about we go meet them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, *The Little Carthaginian*, 1163&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quid si igitur reddatur illi unde empta est?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; How about we return her then to the guy I bought her from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus, *The Merchant*, 418&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here it is in Terence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Antipho: *obsecro, **quid si** assimulo? satinest?* I beseech you, **what if** I pretend [to be brave]?  Would that do?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Geta: *garris.* You're joking.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Antipho: *voltum contemplamini. em, satine sic est?*  Look at my face.  There, will that do? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Geta: *non.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Antipho: ***quid si** sic?*  **How about** this?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Geta: *propemodum.*  Close enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terence, *Phormio*, 210-215&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And two examples from Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quid si utroque? num peius est?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; What about each of the two?  Isn’t that as good?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Academica*, II.60&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quid Servilia? iamne venit?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; What about Servilia?  Has she arrived yet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Letters to Atticus*, 323 (XIII.16) Arpinum, 26 June 45, Cicero to Atticus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6681" RevisionGUID="3b35cfa6-c0f7-4f3d-bce4-37fc499c1560" CreationDate="2018-06-11T20:07:34.733" UserId="469" Text="Better late than never. For completeness I add here what I originally asked as a comment, and later researched.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently there is this reconstructed PIE [*(é)-tōr][1] root, from which the [-tor, -toris][2] agents and other words in Latin seem to derive, as well as Greek -τωρ and Sanskrit -tṛ suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This includes a [huge category of words][3], including&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **factor, actor, lector, pictor, ianitor, dictator, salvator, sensor**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/-t%C5%8Dr&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-tor#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Latin_words_suffixed_with_-tor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6682" RevisionGUID="5fe4faaf-662f-46cc-ae91-016b0d6ff34c" CreationDate="2018-06-11T21:32:40.757" UserId="79" Text="Consider a person who is not a medical professional but spends a substantial amount of time taking care of someone close to them suffering from a medical condition such as Alzheimer's disease or cancer.&#xD;&#xA;In Finnish we have the specific term &quot;omaishoitaja&quot; for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of anything closer than &quot;caregiver&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How could one describe such a person in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;It does not have to explain the situation unambiguously, but it should be a suitable word when referring to such a person.&#xD;&#xA;The best words I can think of are *curator* and *custos*.&#xD;&#xA;I added further thoughts as an answer, and I would be happy to see more ideas if there are any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(To make this searchable, let me repeat the main question in Finnish: Miten sanotaan &quot;omaishoitaja&quot; latinaksi?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22149" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6682" RevisionGUID="5fe4faaf-662f-46cc-ae91-016b0d6ff34c" CreationDate="2018-06-11T21:32:40.757" UserId="79" Text="What is a caregiver in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22150" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6682" RevisionGUID="5fe4faaf-662f-46cc-ae91-016b0d6ff34c" CreationDate="2018-06-11T21:32:40.757" UserId="79" Text="|word-request|finnish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6683" RevisionGUID="07071082-3fa1-4c1f-9287-7b9b43fe37ff" CreationDate="2018-06-11T21:32:40.757" UserId="79" Text="I think *curator* or *custos* is a good starting point, but insufficient as such.&#xD;&#xA;It is better to add an adjective or some other description.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is to mention the person take care of explicitly, as in *curator matris suae*.&#xD;&#xA;This should communicate the intent well enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6684" RevisionGUID="437165c2-dda0-48c2-82e3-c288f3f78dfb" CreationDate="2018-06-11T22:24:19.037" UserId="79" Text="My impression is this:&#xD;&#xA;Augustus was a real and contemporary person, so it would be difficult to credibly fabricate a story of his works, adventures, and greatness.&#xD;&#xA;This restraint was removed by writing of his remote ancestors (Anchises, Aeneas, and Ascanius/Iulus from whom the Iulius family allegedly descends).&#xD;&#xA;Then there is a freedom to fabricate and bend some facts due to the historical distance but Augustus could share some of the glory by being a &quot;direct heir&quot; of these great and mythical men.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have no proof of this.&#xD;&#xA;I may have read something along these lines long ago, but I am not aware of any existing evidence, so there may be nothing we can do besides speculating.&#xD;&#xA;(I would be happy to be proven wrong, though!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6685" RevisionGUID="8bc22f7e-5d8e-4682-b5e7-770f3b5d4706" CreationDate="2018-06-12T07:57:23.747" UserId="79" Text="I was in Bologna last week, and a couple of churches had an inscription about their dedication to a saint.&#xD;&#xA;To my surprise, they used the word *divus* instead of *sanctus*.&#xD;&#xA;For example, a church may be dedicated to *divus Paulus* instead of *sanctus Paulus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this typical?&#xD;&#xA;Is *sanctus* in this use as well?&#xD;&#xA;I faintly recall so.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference between these words, or is it just a matter of preference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22154" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6685" RevisionGUID="8bc22f7e-5d8e-4682-b5e7-770f3b5d4706" CreationDate="2018-06-12T07:57:23.747" UserId="79" Text="Saints: sanctus or divus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22155" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6685" RevisionGUID="8bc22f7e-5d8e-4682-b5e7-770f3b5d4706" CreationDate="2018-06-12T07:57:23.747" UserId="79" Text="|word-comparison|word-choice|christianity|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6488" RevisionGUID="5d67cc68-1d2b-4d1a-a8bb-27fc327b16b6" CreationDate="2018-06-12T07:58:40.823" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="## Hoc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is indeed classical precedent to pronounce *hoc* as *hocc*.&#xD;&#xA;Velius Longus in *De Orthographia* 53 writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At cum dicimus 'hic est ille', unum c scribimus et duo audimus, quod apparet in metro. Nam:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Hoc erat alma parens, quod me per tela, per ignes  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; eripis&amp;hellip;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; (Aeneis 2.664&amp;ndash;665)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si unum c hanc syllabam exciperet, acephalus esset versus nec posset a longa syllaba incipere, quae est heroico metro necessaria. ergo scribendum per duo c 'hocc erat alma parens' aut confitendum quaedam aliter scribi,	&#xD;&#xA;aliter enuntiari.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, in *hic est ille* we write one *c* but we hear two.&#xD;&#xA;This is made evident in the quoted verse from the Aeneid: the *hoc* has a double *c* although it is not written.&#xD;&#xA;Velius remarks that one should write *hocc erat alma parens* or accept that some things are written differently from their pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Vobis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I went through all occurrences of *vobis* and *nobis* in Vergilius.&#xD;&#xA;There were plenty of cases when they appear before a vowel, making the quantity of the second vowel clear.&#xD;&#xA;All cases point to a long *i*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps scanning the *i* short is modeled after [*brevis brevians*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4089/79) or iambic shortening, but that would require the preceding syllable to be short (light).&#xD;&#xA;It is not clear whether this is a slip, conscious poetic license, or something else, but I would consider it a mistake in classical verse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6686" RevisionGUID="33500340-b732-44d7-a67c-7d6007131ed5" CreationDate="2018-06-12T09:57:07.747" UserId="52" Text="&quot;Sanctus&quot; is the most common term for a saint, used universally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Beatus&quot; used to be a common synonym in Middle Ages, but was slightly broader (it could be used for people venerated but not canonized as saints) and [later][1] it became a technical term for the &quot;blessed&quot; - a &quot;lower degree of sanctity&quot; necessary before being proclaimed saint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know much about &quot;divus&quot;, I never saw it except for the title of [&quot;Divus Thomas&quot;][2] journal. The word had [a pre-Christian][3] meaning somewhat similar to a Catholic &quot;saint&quot;. As far as I know, it was popular in some regions only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatification#History&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.edizionistudiodomenicano.it/rivista.php?id=2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_ancient_Roman_religion#divus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6687" RevisionGUID="13c3658c-7052-4f52-ab78-f9ee767aae4a" CreationDate="2018-06-12T13:06:39.403" UserId="1459" Text="Superb question! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[Divus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divus)_ is a term used to refer to Roman deities or highly esteemed individuals (e.g. emperors). [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddivus) give some classic Latin quotes, and you can also see books about [Divus Augustus](https://archive.org/details/divusaugustus00shucgoog), [Divus Titus](https://archive.org/details/devitacaesaruml00pricgoog), [Divus Claudius](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Suet.%20Cl.), and etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as many things in Christianity inherited from Roman customs and language, it seems _divos_ was also used for saints. A partial analysis of this, related specifically to the word _divos_, seems to be in [this pamphlet](https://archive.org/details/sulladeificazion00tacc), published in 1865 in Italian, titled &quot;_Sulla deificazione nel senso pagano e nel senso cattolico ... relativi all'uso della voce latina &quot;divus&quot; nell'epigrafia cristiana_&quot;. This can be translated as &quot;On the deification of the pagan meaning and the catholic meaning ... relative to the use of the Latin term &quot;divus&quot; in christian epigraphy.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I do not know Italian, but some few hints from a quick glance at it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a famous ephigraphist, [Stefano Morcelli](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefano_Antonio_Morcelli), wrote &quot;expressly condemning in Christian epigraphy the use of the word _divus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;in this writing we have set out to do with greater clarity those same reasons, for which it seems to us however, the Latin word Divus for &quot;Saint in paradise&quot; is appropriate.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the author refers to an inscription in a certain Church of Saint Francis, stating _DIVO FRANCISCO ASSISIATI SACRUM_. There are also many churches with such epigraphs, e.g. [here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Gaeta%2C_Tempio_di_San_Francesco_-_Iscrizioni_del_portale.jpg) (bottom right), [here](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiesa_di_San_Francesco_d%27Assisi_(Boscotrecase))).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- apparently, part of the argument against the use of _divus_ was that _Divi_ is to similar to _Dei_, and thus it might lead to the indication of the deification of saints to the level of God. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, what can I gather from all this? There were indeed many books in Latin using _divus_ to denote saints (e.g. [here](https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_dv2KxVXcfHsC), [here](https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009343176), and many more [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=divus;a=srchls&amp;facet=language008_full:%22Latin%22)). This might have been a &quot;late&quot; practice (I only found books or inscriptions dated from the second millennium), and might have died out after a debate (reflected in the text above) emerged. Still, more needs to be researched to reach a comprehensive answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6688" RevisionGUID="87e87ede-34cc-4d98-a514-5b1cfad635fc" CreationDate="2018-06-12T13:15:47.733" UserId="1459" Text="The Lewis and Short dictionary seem ubiquitous in this site. I have yet to get used to use it, being Wiktionary my main source of reference. However, when reading in Wikipedia about the [Oxford Latin Dictionary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Latin_Dictionary), I read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Although Lewis and Short's Latin Dictionary was widely used in the English world by the end of the nineteenth century, its faults were widely felt among classicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase has a reference to [this 1899 article](http://www.jstor.org/stable/287803), which provides a one page commentary (not very precise and referenceing other texts), followed by 15 pages of corrections for particular words. As such this is not very useful to gather a scope of what is not good in L&amp;S. Also, the references are very old (more than a century!). I wonder if someone - perhaps well aware of such and more modern literature - can come up with a simple but effective list of shortcomings, to have in mind when using such dictionary for translations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22160" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6688" RevisionGUID="87e87ede-34cc-4d98-a514-5b1cfad635fc" CreationDate="2018-06-12T13:15:47.733" UserId="1459" Text="What is L&amp;S not good for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22161" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6688" RevisionGUID="87e87ede-34cc-4d98-a514-5b1cfad635fc" CreationDate="2018-06-12T13:15:47.733" UserId="1459" Text="|dictionary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6689" RevisionGUID="e49f9696-3f4b-4d3b-9973-7fdb7c7ac972" CreationDate="2018-06-12T13:16:19.090" UserId="469" Text="Besides confirming (by experience, though) what Pavel and luchonacho say, I can add a couple of ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In Greek tradition, there are two words for Saint: άγιος ([h]agios) and ὅσιος ([h]osios). The latter means is specifically reserved for [monastic][1] saints.&#xD;&#xA;* The same cannot be said of the pair divus/-a, sanctus/-a. Although I can't rule out an ancient correlation between *divus* and *hosios*, in its origin the former means someone that has become of divine nature. On one hand, iif interpreted literally, calling a saint *divus* is plain heresy in Christianity. On the other hand, people can only become holy by the help of God, who makes men somewhat god-like, so it could be used as an analogy. I think that is the reason why *divus* could have been used in antiquity, and why it became less and less used with time to avoid confusion (especially perhaps after the Reformation, to remark the veneration of saints is not intended as a form of idolatry?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I was writing this answer as luchonacho's popped up. I think it still adds a nuance, so I chose to finish it anyway.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russianicons.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/making-greek-speak-icon-saint-titles/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6687" RevisionGUID="0942d97d-4b0a-4b66-9643-10c51f52c205" CreationDate="2018-06-12T13:18:33.527" UserId="1459" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Superb question! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[Divus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divus)_ is a term used to refer to Roman deities or highly esteemed individuals (e.g. emperors). [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddivus) give some classic Latin quotes, and you can also see books about [Divus Augustus](https://archive.org/details/divusaugustus00shucgoog), [Divus Titus](https://archive.org/details/devitacaesaruml00pricgoog), [Divus Claudius](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Suet.%20Cl.), and etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as many things in Christianity inherited from Roman customs and language, it seems _divos_ was also used for saints. A partial analysis of this, related specifically to the word _divos_, seems to be in [this pamphlet](https://archive.org/details/sulladeificazion00tacc), published in 1865 in Italian, titled &quot;_Sulla deificazione nel senso pagano e nel senso cattolico ... relativi all'uso della voce latina &quot;divus&quot; nell'epigrafia cristiana_&quot;. This can be translated as &quot;On the deification of the pagan meaning and the catholic meaning ... relative to the use of the Latin term &quot;divus&quot; in christian epigraphy.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I do not know Italian, but some few hints from a quick glance at it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a famous ephigraphist, [Stefano Morcelli](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefano_Antonio_Morcelli), wrote &quot;expressly condemning in Christian epigraphy the use of the word _divus_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;in this writing we have set out to do with greater clarity those same reasons, for which it seems to us however, the Latin word Divus for &quot;Saint in paradise&quot; is appropriate.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the author refers to an inscription in a certain Church of Saint Francis, stating _DIVO FRANCISCO ASSISIATI SACRUM_. There are also many churches with such epigraphs (e.g. [here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Gaeta%2C_Tempio_di_San_Francesco_-_Iscrizioni_del_portale.jpg) (bottom right) and [here](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiesa_di_San_Francesco_d%27Assisi_(Boscotrecase))).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- apparently, part of the argument against the use of _divus_ was that _Divi_ is to similar to _Dei_, and thus it might lead to the indication of the deification of saints to the level of God, a clear heresy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, what can I gather from all this? There were indeed many books in Latin using _divus_ to denote saints (e.g. [here](https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_dv2KxVXcfHsC), [here](https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009343176), and many more [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=divus;a=srchls&amp;facet=language008_full:%22Latin%22)). This might have been a &quot;late&quot; practice (I only found books or inscriptions dated from the second millennium), and might have died out after a debate (reflected in the text above) emerged. Still, more needs to be researched to reach a comprehensive answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6689" RevisionGUID="b52b897e-20c6-4811-b3b8-2dcbdf7d5574" CreationDate="2018-06-12T13:44:21.843" UserId="469" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="Besides confirming (by experience, though) what Pavel and luchonacho say, I can add a couple of ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In Greek tradition, there are two words for Saint: άγιος ([h]agios) and ὅσιος ([h]osios). The latter means is specifically reserved for [monastic][1] saints.&#xD;&#xA;* The same cannot be said of the pair divus/-a, sanctus/-a. Although I can't rule out an ancient correlation between *divus* and *hosios*, in its origin the former means someone that has become of divine nature. On one hand, iif interpreted literally, calling a saint *divus* is plain heresy in Christianity. On the other hand, people can only become holy by the help of God, who makes men somewhat god-like, so it could be used as an analogy. I think that is the reason why *divus* could have been used in antiquity, and why it became less and less used with time to avoid confusion (especially perhaps after the Reformation, to remark the veneration of saints is not intended as a form of idolatry?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I was writing this answer as luchonacho's popped up. I think it still adds a nuance, so I chose to finish it anyway, trying not to repeat was he already said.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russianicons.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/making-greek-speak-icon-saint-titles/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6688" RevisionGUID="755aeefb-df72-4bb3-8b2f-4f8a2c8892fc" CreationDate="2018-06-12T14:01:17.087" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The Lewis and Short dictionary seem ubiquitous in this site. I have yet to get used to use it, being Wiktionary my main source of reference. However, when reading in Wikipedia about the [Oxford Latin Dictionary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Latin_Dictionary), I read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Although Lewis and Short's Latin Dictionary was widely used in the English world by the end of the nineteenth century, its faults were widely felt among classicists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase has a reference to [this 1899 article](http://www.jstor.org/stable/287803), which provides a one page commentary (not very precise and referencing other texts), followed by 15 pages of corrections for particular words. As such this is not very useful to gather a scope of what is not good in L&amp;S. Also, the references are very old (more than a century!). I wonder if someone - perhaps well aware of such and more modern literature - can come up with a simple but effective list of shortcomings, to have in mind when using such dictionary for translations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22166" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6677" RevisionGUID="1bc6e256-6e1f-402c-a9dd-4e82308973cd" CreationDate="2018-06-12T14:02:46.177" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22167" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6665" RevisionGUID="5f9b3b45-5e5f-48a4-94f6-fceecd2ceaaa" CreationDate="2018-06-12T14:05:21.710" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22168" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6658" RevisionGUID="72f509be-f676-4b63-8042-46f2309a2150" CreationDate="2018-06-12T14:07:48.170" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|new-latin|mathematics|english-to-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6690" RevisionGUID="3ef143e6-f492-406e-92ec-0eeac1c30e94" CreationDate="2018-06-12T15:00:35.560" UserId="324" Text="Lewis and Short was published in 1879 and of course knowledge of Latin has progressed since then. It has been superseded by the Oxford Latin Dictionary, to say nothing of the multi-volume Thesaurus Linguae Latinae of the Berlin Academy. But these books are protected by copyright and are not available on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is L&amp;S not good for? It is not good for etymologies, but as a basic guide to Latin vocabulary it is certainly serviceable. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6687" RevisionGUID="963322d0-1c81-4ac7-b3ac-af272345b5e4" CreationDate="2018-06-12T15:32:27.620" UserId="1459" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Superb question! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[Divus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divus)_ is a term used to refer to Roman deities or highly esteemed individuals (e.g. emperors). [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddivus) give some classic Latin quotes, and you can also see books about [Divus Augustus](https://archive.org/details/divusaugustus00shucgoog), [Divus Titus](https://archive.org/details/devitacaesaruml00pricgoog), [Divus Claudius](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Suet.%20Cl.), and etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as many things in Christianity inherited from Roman customs and language, it seems _divos_ was also used for saints. A partial analysis of this, related specifically to the word _divos_, seems to be in [this pamphlet](https://archive.org/details/sulladeificazion00tacc), published in 1865 in Italian, titled &quot;_Sulla deificazione nel senso pagano e nel senso cattolico ... relativi all'uso della voce latina &quot;divus&quot; nell'epigrafia cristiana_&quot;. This can be translated as &quot;On the deification of the pagan meaning and the catholic meaning ... relative to the use of the Latin term &quot;divus&quot; in christian epigraphy.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I do not know Italian, but some few hints from a quick glance at it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a famous ephigraphist, [Stefano Morcelli](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefano_Antonio_Morcelli), wrote &quot;expressly condemning in Christian epigraphy the use of the word _divus_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;in this writing we have set out to do with greater clarity those same reasons, for which it seems to us however, the Latin word Divus for &quot;Saint in paradise&quot; is appropriate.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the author refers to an inscription in a certain Church of Saint Francis, stating _DIVO FRANCISCO ASSISIATI SACRUM_. There are also many churches with such epigraphs (e.g. [here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Gaeta%2C_Tempio_di_San_Francesco_-_Iscrizioni_del_portale.jpg) (bottom right) and [here](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiesa_di_San_Francesco_d%27Assisi_(Boscotrecase))).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- apparently, part of the argument against the use of _divus_ was that _Divi_ is too similar to _Dei_, and thus it might lead to the indication of the deification of saints to the level of God, a clear heresy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, what can I gather from all this? There were indeed many books in Latin using _divus_ to denote saints (e.g. [here](https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_dv2KxVXcfHsC), [here](https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009343176), and many more [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=divus;a=srchls&amp;facet=language008_full:%22Latin%22)). This might have been a &quot;late&quot; practice (I only found books or inscriptions dated from the second millennium), and might have died out after a debate (reflected in the text above) emerged. Still, more needs to be researched to reach a comprehensive answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6691" RevisionGUID="ad46a75a-2e6d-44ad-a7e9-24167d942de4" CreationDate="2018-06-12T19:27:21.567" UserId="9" Text="This isn't really relevant to translation, but one thing that I would consider a fault in the L&amp;S entries is the lack of a clear distinction between the marking of heavy syllables and long vowels (that is, vowels that are long &quot;by nature&quot;, not just long &quot;by position&quot;). This particularly leads to difficulty with interpreting the meaning of a macron in L&amp;S on a vowel before &quot;j&quot;, &quot;z&quot;, a mute + liquid cluster, and possibly in some cases before a single word-final consonant letter. For example, L&amp;S use macrons in words like  *[mājor][1]* and *[rūtrum](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Drutrum),* even though modern scholarly sources say that these words had short vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmajor&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtrapezita" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6692" RevisionGUID="da21945b-273f-44ac-9657-7f2d60e2d0d6" CreationDate="2018-06-12T19:33:19.800" UserId="645" Text="In the UK, there is just one word for what you describe, and it's 'carer'. It is used indiscriminately for anyone looking after someone in difficulty, whether physical, mental or sometimes even financial. I have seldom, if ever, seen 'caregiver' actually used, either in this sort of context or any other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There doesn't seem to be a real alternative to *curator*. We might speak of 'nursing back to health', but that isn't much different in meaning (and you certainly wouldn't use *nutrix*, etc. to mean 'nurse' other than when speaking of a suckling infant). I realize that *curator* by the Romans was more usually reserved for public affairs and so on, but I suspect that we don't see it much in the sense that you need, simply because there are few surviving documents dealing with the lower orders from which different examples might have been culled during the compiling of dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could get round it by a phrase like *donor sollicitudinis*. More flowery alternatives might include *diligenter auxilium alicui (pro)videt*. In the end, though, if you want one word, plain and simple, it surely has to be *curator*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6691" RevisionGUID="c28191c7-5d80-4df2-b33c-7e8a58d79bbb" CreationDate="2018-06-12T20:02:03.360" UserId="9" Comment="added 443 characters in body" Text="This isn't really relevant to translation, but one thing that I would consider a fault in the L&amp;S entries is the lack of a clear distinction between the marking of heavy syllables and long vowels (that is, vowels that are long &quot;by nature&quot;, not just long &quot;by position&quot;). This particularly leads to difficulty with interpreting the meaning of a macron in L&amp;S on a vowel before &quot;j&quot;, &quot;z&quot;, a mute + liquid cluster, and possibly in some cases before a single word-final consonant letter. For example, L&amp;S use macrons in words like  *[mājor][1]* and *[rūtrum](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Drutrum),* even though modern scholarly sources say that these words had short vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article &quot;[Vowel Quantity: Where your Dictionary is Wrong][3]&quot;, by Johan Winge, mentions this as a shortcoming of the Lewis and Short dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin dictionaries, at least good ones, do their best to mark which vowels are long by means of macrons: āēīōū. However this is an area where many dictionaries (even such as L&amp;S and OLD) not seldom are misleading, if not outright wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmajor&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtrapezita&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://alatius.com/latin/quantity.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6693" RevisionGUID="defdb8dc-de4d-4089-b381-dd4453316167" CreationDate="2018-06-13T08:29:46.003" UserId="79" Text="I would suggest using a quadruplet of words that is obviously etymologically related.&#xD;&#xA;This underlines that the four words refer to the same phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;Of course other options could be used in a longer text for variation, but too much variation can be confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to lead to two main options (with some derivatives of *molestare* not listed in the OP):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *molestare/molestatio/molestator/molestatus*&#xD;&#xA;2. *vexare/vexatio/vexator/vexatus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the dictionaries I looked at, *molestare* seems to be milder.&#xD;&#xA;It is closer to &quot;annoying&quot; than &quot;bullying&quot;, and using it can downplay the effect bullying has.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would go with ***vexare* and its derivatives**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6687" RevisionGUID="55955306-7dd9-4c3c-a68a-418dbeedae94" CreationDate="2018-06-13T16:24:03.050" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Superb question! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[Divus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divus)_ is a term used to refer to Roman deities or highly esteemed individuals (e.g. emperors). [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddivus) give some classic Latin quotes, and you can also see books about [Divus Augustus](https://archive.org/details/divusaugustus00shucgoog), [Divus Titus](https://archive.org/details/devitacaesaruml00pricgoog), [Divus Claudius](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Suet.%20Cl.), and etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as many things in Christianity inherited from Roman customs and language, it seems _divos_ was also used for saints. A partial analysis of this, related specifically to the word _divos_, seems to be in [this pamphlet](https://archive.org/details/sulladeificazion00tacc), published in 1865 in Italian, titled &quot;_Sulla deificazione nel senso pagano e nel senso cattolico ... relativi all'uso della voce latina &quot;divus&quot; nell'epigrafia cristiana_&quot;. This can be translated as &quot;On the deification of the pagan meaning and the catholic meaning ... relative to the use of the Latin term &quot;divus&quot; in christian epigraphy.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I do not know Italian, but some few hints from a quick glance at it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a famous epigraphist, [Stefano Morcelli](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefano_Antonio_Morcelli), wrote &quot;expressly condemning in Christian epigraphy the use of the word _divus_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;in this writing we have set out to do with greater clarity those same reasons, for which it seems to us however, the Latin word Divus for &quot;Saint in paradise&quot; is appropriate.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the author refers to an inscription in a certain Church of Saint Francis, stating _DIVO FRANCISCO ASSISIATI SACRUM_. There are also many churches with such epigraphs (e.g. [here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Gaeta%2C_Tempio_di_San_Francesco_-_Iscrizioni_del_portale.jpg) (bottom right) and [here](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiesa_di_San_Francesco_d%27Assisi_(Boscotrecase))).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- apparently, part of the argument against the use of _divus_ was that _Divi_ is too similar to _Dei_, and thus it might lead to the indication of the deification of saints to the level of God, a clear heresy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, what can I gather from all this? There were indeed many books in Latin using _divus_ to denote saints (e.g. [here](https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_dv2KxVXcfHsC), [here](https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009343176), and many more [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=divus;a=srchls&amp;facet=language008_full:%22Latin%22)). This might have been a &quot;late&quot; practice (I only found books or inscriptions dated from the second millennium), and might have died out after a debate (reflected in the text above) emerged. Still, more needs to be researched to reach a comprehensive answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22179" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2692" RevisionGUID="2035df5e-8ccb-4271-9795-77db8f62c561" CreationDate="2018-06-13T22:31:14.223" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|sentence-translation|medieval-latin|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22180" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4056" RevisionGUID="a44acb79-266c-47fc-b5ee-6fdead70ed37" CreationDate="2018-06-13T22:32:23.173" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|motto|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22181" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2225" RevisionGUID="c7ae3b53-8063-4c41-9020-f480cb6b2616" CreationDate="2018-06-13T22:33:58.513" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|idiom|sentence-translation|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22182" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6616" RevisionGUID="848505c8-f676-4555-b636-21ade7a82e58" CreationDate="2018-06-13T22:36:09.580" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6694" RevisionGUID="612113bd-bddc-4395-9f14-25fcd1bb64f6" CreationDate="2018-06-14T03:05:40.337" UserId="39" Text="from Thompson (1997) comments to Erasmus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/h3q0j.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aIxlP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XyLNl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22184" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="5229" RevisionGUID="c810b11e-f5d0-45dc-9c55-7d6f02ab9798" CreationDate="2018-06-14T04:49:33.417" UserId="9" Comment="79" />
  <row Id="22185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6694" RevisionGUID="83cff12c-00ac-4fec-bbe3-3811f66417ec" CreationDate="2018-06-14T04:58:47.693" UserId="39" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="Based on preliminary research, it seems safe to say that **divus** - and not sanctus - **was the preferred choice in Neo-Latin**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are [not the first person][1] to come up with this observation - sorry to disappoint you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from Thompson (1997) comments to Erasmus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=G2oWRJhkU4UC&amp;lpg=PA293&amp;ots=MxSoA3Xlxb&amp;dq=divus%20sanctus%20latin%20renaissance&amp;pg=PA293#v=onepage&amp;q=divus%20sanctus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HSuLz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/h3q0j.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aIxlP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XyLNl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6695" RevisionGUID="c235f27f-1e47-493a-bf8c-057f776693ac" CreationDate="2018-06-14T05:01:19.287" UserId="2689" Text="So, I took a couple years of Latin in school, but it's been awhile. I was trying to create this motto, and I'm not sure if I'm declining the nouns properly. Also not sure I remember if word order is important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This motto is pretty NSFW, so, you have been warned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crīsāte Mentulas Fēminārum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22187" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6695" RevisionGUID="c235f27f-1e47-493a-bf8c-057f776693ac" CreationDate="2018-06-14T05:01:19.287" UserId="2689" Text="NSFW - Trying to create a Latin motto for a coat of arms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22188" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6695" RevisionGUID="c235f27f-1e47-493a-bf8c-057f776693ac" CreationDate="2018-06-14T05:01:19.287" UserId="2689" Text="|grammar-choice|declension|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6696" RevisionGUID="141b1943-d7dd-41a7-9df2-f0690307ee4f" CreationDate="2018-06-14T09:12:56.313" UserId="1459" Text="The Vulgata, in [Numbers 5:2-3](http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/04005.htm), says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[2] Praecipe filiis Israel, ut ejiciant de castris omnem leprosum, et qui semine fluit, pollutusque est super mortuo:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;[3] tam masculum quam feminam ejicite de castris, **ne contaminent ea cum habitaverint vobiscum**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [equivalent](http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/04005.htm) Douay-Rheims verses (in English) say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[2] Command the children of Israel, that they cast out of the camp every leper, and whosoever hath an issue of seed, or is defiled by the dead:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;[3] Whether it be man or woman, cast ye them out of the camp, **lest they defile it when I shall dwell with you**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I highlighted the bit I am puzzled about. The two verbs used in the sentence are in third-person plural (_-nt_, [_contaminent_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/contaminent#Latin), [_habitaverint_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/habitaverint)). Thus, I am puzzled where the &quot;I&quot; comes in the to dwell verb. Wouldn't the &quot;correct&quot; Latin verb be the first person single? Also, the verb seems to be translated as subjunctive future, whereas _habitaverint_ seems to be perfect, either indicative or subjunctive (perhaps depending on the missing accent). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation seems to be correct when one looks at the [English versions](http://biblehub.com/numbers/5-3.htm) of the verse, where all use first person, and most use present instead of (future) perfect. But I just cannot recognise the person and the tense in the Vulgate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22190" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6696" RevisionGUID="141b1943-d7dd-41a7-9df2-f0690307ee4f" CreationDate="2018-06-14T09:12:56.313" UserId="1459" Text="Is this translation of Numbers 5:3 from the Vulgate correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22191" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6696" RevisionGUID="141b1943-d7dd-41a7-9df2-f0690307ee4f" CreationDate="2018-06-14T09:12:56.313" UserId="1459" Text="|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6697" RevisionGUID="942c9069-01db-493a-99eb-865601825d13" CreationDate="2018-06-14T10:37:25.637" UserId="1202" Text="I am attempting to translate the following, and I'm feeling completely lost:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τὸν ἐκείνου φίλον οὐ περὶ πολλοῦ ποιεῖσθε&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best I've come up with is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not concerning many women you all consider the friend of that guy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you could break down the form and syntax of the words that would be much appreciated. (I can't quite work out how many substantives are flying around here)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22193" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6697" RevisionGUID="942c9069-01db-493a-99eb-865601825d13" CreationDate="2018-06-14T10:37:25.637" UserId="1202" Text="Help translate some attic greek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22194" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6697" RevisionGUID="942c9069-01db-493a-99eb-865601825d13" CreationDate="2018-06-14T10:37:25.637" UserId="1202" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22195" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6697" RevisionGUID="4fab3203-424d-4a4c-b858-ee391ba0d403" CreationDate="2018-06-14T11:40:43.923" UserId="1202" Comment="edited title" Text="Help translate some attic greek (τὸν ἐκείνου φίλον οὐ περὶ πολλοῦ ποιεῖσθε)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6698" RevisionGUID="1dd3036f-cba4-47d1-80b0-6bc01d8b1c6b" CreationDate="2018-06-14T11:44:25.327" UserId="522" Text="περὶ πολλοῦ with ποιουμαι in (Middle mood)  &#xD;&#xA;is a set phrase meaning **value highly**.&#xD;&#xA;example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; περὶ πολλοῦ ἐποιοῦντο  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; they ...valued highly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;οὐ means 'not;' the -εῖσθε ending menas 'you:'  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; οὐ περὶ πολλοῦ ποιεῖσθε  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; you do not value highly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you have worked out, τὸν ἐκείνου φίλον means the friend of that guy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22197" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="6697" RevisionGUID="e42025eb-6d81-4056-9881-a688a33d165e" CreationDate="2018-06-14T11:44:42.670" UserId="1459" Comment="Rollback to [942c9069-01db-493a-99eb-865601825d13]" Text="Help translate some attic greek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22198" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6697" RevisionGUID="c4d5db18-7bd3-421e-9cfc-0e47f5154c93" CreationDate="2018-06-14T11:45:10.327" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="Help translating some Attic Greek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6698" RevisionGUID="b6e65410-5949-4c8b-a37b-d40bd9797e8b" CreationDate="2018-06-14T11:51:53.507" UserId="522" Comment="edited body" Text="περὶ πολλοῦ with ποιουμαι in (Middle mood)  &#xD;&#xA;is a set phrase meaning **value highly**.&#xD;&#xA;example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; περὶ πολλοῦ ἐποιοῦντο  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; they ...valued highly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;οὐ means 'not;' the -εῖσθε ending means 'you:'  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; οὐ περὶ πολλοῦ ποιεῖσθε  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; you do not value highly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you have worked out, τὸν ἐκείνου φίλον means the friend of that guy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6698" RevisionGUID="98039af3-87ee-46e9-835b-eb164c780ea6" CreationDate="2018-06-14T12:01:51.257" UserId="522" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="περὶ πολλοῦ with ποιουμαι in (Middle mood)  &#xD;&#xA;is a set phrase meaning **value highly**.&#xD;&#xA;example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; χρήματα περὶ πολλοῦ ἐποιοῦντο  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; they ...valued money highly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;οὐ means 'not;' the -εῖσθε ending means 'you:'  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; οὐ περὶ πολλοῦ ποιεῖσθε  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; you do not value highly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you have worked out, τὸν ἐκείνου φίλον means the friend of that guy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22201" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6581" RevisionGUID="c6af251a-839b-4ec0-ba20-2caf3c1e2bae" CreationDate="2018-06-14T20:53:29.193" UserId="79" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:144,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;tox123&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1459,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;luchonacho&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6695" RevisionGUID="8be490a7-e6a2-40ba-a225-dd24eff72c0c" CreationDate="2018-06-15T02:10:41.393" UserId="2689" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="So, I took a couple years of Latin in school, but it's been awhile. I was trying to create this motto, and I'm not sure if I'm declining the nouns properly. Also not sure I remember if word order is important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This motto is pretty NSFW, so, you have been warned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crīsāte Mentulas Fēminārum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intended translation in English is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;!Grind on the Dicks of Women. Or, roughly, Ride Girl Cock." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6695" RevisionGUID="b800bfae-1141-4af7-91c2-5958d3599034" CreationDate="2018-06-15T06:04:59.023" UserId="2689" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="So, I took a couple years of Latin in school, but it's been awhile. I was trying to create this motto, and I'm not sure if I'm declining the nouns properly. Also not sure I remember if word order is important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This motto is pretty NSFW, so, you have been warned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;!In Mentulīs Fēminārum Crīsāte&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intended translation in English is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;!Grind on the Dicks of Women. Or, roughly, Ride Girl Cock." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22204" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6695" RevisionGUID="b800bfae-1141-4af7-91c2-5958d3599034" CreationDate="2018-06-15T06:04:59.023" UserId="2689" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="NSFW - Trying to create a Latin motto for a coat of arms - Edited for clarity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6699" RevisionGUID="f3214ace-7ea8-4fb3-ad5b-384b9a862f06" CreationDate="2018-06-15T07:43:37.193" UserId="2646" Text="Nowadays in Spanish the verb used for &quot;to speak&quot; or &quot;to talk&quot; is *hablar*, which comes directly from Latin ***fābŭlor***, meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1** to talk familiarly, to chat, to converse  &#xD;&#xA;**2** to invent a story, to make up a fable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact this verb also derived into today's *fábula* (English: 'fable'). Nonetheless, I have seen some other options in an old Spanish-Latin dictionary from 1495 when I looked up *hablar*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***collŏquor***: &quot;to talk, to speak to or to speak with&quot;, &quot;to talk together or to talk over&quot;, &quot;to converse&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;***allŏquor***: &quot;to speak to&quot;, &quot;to address, to harangue, to make a speech (to)&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;***ēlŏquor***: &quot;to speak out, utter&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that the verb I am looking for is indeed *fābŭlor* as it is the verb that derived into today's most used (and generic) verb in Spanish meaning &quot;to speak&quot; or &quot;to talk&quot;, and it seems it was used for casual chats with family and friends, but as there are other options, I would like to ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What was the most basic, generic and commonly used word that meant &quot;to speak&quot; or &quot;to talk&quot; in the Latin language?&#xD;&#xA;* What were the differences between the mentioned options? Are there any other ones?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22206" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6699" RevisionGUID="f3214ace-7ea8-4fb3-ad5b-384b9a862f06" CreationDate="2018-06-15T07:43:37.193" UserId="2646" Text="What was the most commonly and generic word used in classic Latin that meant &quot;to speak&quot; or &quot;to talk&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22207" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6699" RevisionGUID="f3214ace-7ea8-4fb3-ad5b-384b9a862f06" CreationDate="2018-06-15T07:43:37.193" UserId="2646" Text="|word-request|verbs|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6699" RevisionGUID="e06abc79-3586-424f-a430-8453ef359409" CreationDate="2018-06-15T07:50:46.983" UserId="2646" Comment="added 311 characters in body" Text="Nowadays in Spanish the verb used for &quot;to speak&quot; or &quot;to talk&quot; is *hablar*, which comes directly from Latin ***fābŭlor***, meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1** to talk familiarly, to chat, to converse  &#xD;&#xA;**2** to invent a story, to make up a fable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact this verb also derived into today's *fábula* (English: 'fable'). Nonetheless, I have seen some other options in an old Spanish-Latin dictionary from 1495 when I looked up *hablar*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***collŏquor***: &quot;to talk, to speak to or to speak with&quot;, &quot;to talk together or to talk over&quot;, &quot;to converse&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;***allŏquor***: &quot;to speak to&quot;, &quot;to address, to harangue, to make a speech (to)&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;***ēlŏquor***: &quot;to speak out, utter&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in another Spanish dictionary from 1734 the verb *hablar* is translated into Latin as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***for***: &quot;to speak, to talk&quot;, &quot;to say&quot;  &#xD;&#xA; ***sermōcĭnor***: &quot;to discuss, to argue with wit, to treat scholarly&quot;, &quot;to talk&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;***lŏquor***: &quot;to speak&quot;, &quot;to tell&quot;, &quot;to mention&quot;, &quot;to say, to utter&quot;, &quot;to phrase&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that the verb I am looking for is indeed *fābŭlor* as it is the verb that derived into today's most used (and generic) verb in Spanish meaning &quot;to speak&quot; or &quot;to talk&quot;, and it seems it was used for casual chats with family and friends, but as there are other options, I would like to ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What was the most basic, generic and commonly used word that meant &quot;to speak&quot; or &quot;to talk&quot; in the Latin language?&#xD;&#xA;* What were the differences between the mentioned options? Are there any other ones?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22209" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6699" RevisionGUID="e06abc79-3586-424f-a430-8453ef359409" CreationDate="2018-06-15T07:50:46.983" UserId="2646" Comment="added 311 characters in body" Text="What was the most common and generic word used in classic Latin that meant &quot;to speak&quot; or &quot;to talk&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6700" RevisionGUID="6a65a165-78d5-4e32-b090-9b6c83637fed" CreationDate="2018-06-15T10:42:16.947" UserId="406" Text="Your overall phrasing seems reasonable, though the words *ceveō* and *crīsō* are rare enough that I've never seen them used with any description of an object (even in the entirety of the Packhum corpus). The main questions are to do with vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Mentula* is a very standard obscene word for the male genitalia. Alternatives include *verpus* (specifically when erect) and *pēnis* (slang, but common enough that Cicero notes it couldn't be used for its original meaning any more).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Fēmina* is a somewhat scientific word for &quot;woman&quot;, used in biology and grammar. Alternatives include *uxor* (literally &quot;wife&quot;) and *mulier* (the most common out of the three). But rather than using the genitive for this, I would go with an adjective: *muliebris* &quot;of a woman, feminine&quot; or *fēminīnus* (less common and more technical).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Crīsō* is a rather rare word, but is definitely attested. *Crīsō* means to take an active role while being penetrated vaginally; *ceveō* means the same thing anally. Or maybe *crīsō* was always used for women and *ceveō* with men: the words aren't common enough to be sure (since e.g. there's no instance of either being unambiguously used for anal sex with a woman). Both are typically translated as &quot;ride&quot; in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6700" RevisionGUID="e4e02056-10c8-4055-9eb6-aceebd2c6c68" CreationDate="2018-06-15T10:50:59.693" UserId="406" Comment="added 314 characters in body" Text="Your overall phrasing seems reasonable, though the words *ceveō* and *crīsō* are rare enough that I've never seen them used with any description of an object (even in the entirety of the Packhum corpus). The main questions are to do with vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Mentula* is a very standard obscene word for the male genitalia. Alternatives include *verpus* (specifically when erect) and *pēnis* (slang, but common enough that Cicero notes it couldn't be used for its original meaning any more). Alternatively, Martial has a satirical epigram about a woman penetrating another woman (I.90). He uses the word *landīca* &quot;clitoris&quot;, though this word was never found in any of the other poets, and seems to have been incredibly obscene. (It's not that it's just rare, because it's also found in various graffiti, and Cicero (Ad Familiares 9.22) comments on a scandal when someone said it in the Senate by accident.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Fēmina* is a somewhat scientific word for &quot;woman&quot;, used in biology and grammar. Alternatives include *uxor* (literally &quot;wife&quot;) and *mulier* (the most common out of the three). But rather than using the genitive for this, I would go with an adjective: *muliebris* &quot;of a woman, feminine&quot; or *fēminīnus* (less common and more technical).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Crīsō* is a rather rare word, but is definitely attested. *Crīsō* means to take an active role while being penetrated vaginally; *ceveō* means the same thing anally. Or maybe *crīsō* was always used for women and *ceveō* with men: the words aren't common enough to be sure (since e.g. there's no instance of either being unambiguously used for anal sex with a woman). Both are typically translated as &quot;ride&quot; in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22212" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6699" RevisionGUID="fffdc1a0-6866-4167-aa6c-cc8aabb1e16c" CreationDate="2018-06-15T14:04:58.687" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|word-request|verbs|word-comparison|spanish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6701" RevisionGUID="b89e6e51-1533-4305-9f67-f74ba443fe42" CreationDate="2018-06-15T14:15:05.397" UserId="469" Text="**Dico** is by far the most frequent semantically related verb, but it [means][1] *to say* (and in some contexts could be read as to speak in specific senses, but not to talk).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among the ones meaning talk and/or speak, the verb **loquor** is way more frequent than its nearest contender as per the available corpora (a sample search for [loquor][2] gives 11k results, [*colloquor*][3] and [*fabulor*][3] about 100, *fabulo* redirects to fabulor, which means that it's probably the less common alternative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Eloquor* is less frequent ([~ 1700][4] hits) than loquor, yet more than the others, but it has a number of more specific [meanings][5]: *to speak out, speak plainly, to utter; to pronounce, declare, state, express*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding *for*, my response is necessarily less informed, since I'm not very familiar with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* L&amp;S says it is mostly poetic, and does not mention to talk among [its meanings][6].&#xD;&#xA;* The respective [search][7] gives a maximum frequency about 2.5 as high as that of loquor, but a minimum 1/10th as high. The problem is that being such a short and irregular verb, a bunch of other words get mixed up in the results (e.g. [*fas*][8], [*fere*][9]).&#xD;&#xA;* My gut feeling is that it is mainly (if not only) Classical, and got lost with the centuries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddico2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=exact&amp;lookup=loquor&amp;lang=la&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=colloqu&amp;lang=la&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=eloqu&amp;lang=la&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Deloquor&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfor&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=exact&amp;lookup=for&amp;lang=la&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfas&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6665" RevisionGUID="5908a557-07b0-4410-843f-e79d55e99c4c" CreationDate="2018-06-15T14:55:45.980" UserId="2678" Comment="Minor fix" Text="As far as I know *adeptus* means &quot;the one who achieved something&quot;, in participial form. *mēta* means &quot;goal&quot; or &quot;turning point&quot;, figuratively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the proper combination of them with the meaning &quot;the one who achieved the goal&quot;? *mētae adeptus*, or maybe *mētam adeptus*? If *mēta* is an irregular word, then maybe another word would fit better with *adeptus* to express the same meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6702" RevisionGUID="36a482f3-f772-44bc-bf79-ca119a3dc27b" CreationDate="2018-06-16T03:24:52.650" UserId="2693" Text="What Latin I know I've sort-of assimilated from being fluent in Spanish and having some knowledge of French, as well as a life-long interest in English etymology (not a strong foundation for Latin, I know :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to come up with a succinct translation of the English phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [It] tastes like chicken  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly the dog-latin used on [509th Bomb Wing Insignia](http://www.ufoinfo.com/news/balthaser0402.shtml)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gustatus similis pullus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is likely incorrect, and the best I've been able to do after some research on the web (NOT Google Translate) is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gustat similis pullum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since ***&quot;Gustare&quot;*** is first conjugation, third person singular (he/it) would be ***&quot;Gustat&quot;***.  However, I don't know if ***&quot;gustare&quot;*** is even the right verb here.  In English we overload &quot;taste&quot; with both a transitive sense (to perform an action towards an object that results in a sensation of flavor of that object) and one that I guess is idiomatic and intransitive meaning &quot;to have the flavor of&quot;.  I have no idea if &quot;gustare&quot; can have both meanings or only the first.  Maybe &quot;gustat similis pullum&quot; means &quot;he tastes things the way a chicken would&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&quot;similis&quot;*** seems like it might be appropriate, would &quot;par&quot; be better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&quot;pullum&quot;*** (accusative) seems to be what is called for here, but again, I'm not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a better way to express this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22217" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6702" RevisionGUID="36a482f3-f772-44bc-bf79-ca119a3dc27b" CreationDate="2018-06-16T03:24:52.650" UserId="2693" Text="Tastes Like Chicken" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22218" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6702" RevisionGUID="36a482f3-f772-44bc-bf79-ca119a3dc27b" CreationDate="2018-06-16T03:24:52.650" UserId="2693" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6703" RevisionGUID="d920d6f7-0066-433f-a8c4-f627480a9023" CreationDate="2018-06-16T20:12:19.997" UserId="1142" Text="In English, when a person who is deceased is being discussed, specifically when ascribing an attribute, concept, thing, etc. to them with a copulative verb, the simple past is typically used. E.g:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Julius Caesar *was* a conqueror.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LLPSI *was* written by Hans Ørberg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas when discussing a person who is still living, the simple present is typically used (unless the attribute, concept, thing, etc. being ascribed is something that the subject no longer is).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Latin make this same distinction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22220" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6703" RevisionGUID="d920d6f7-0066-433f-a8c4-f627480a9023" CreationDate="2018-06-16T20:12:19.997" UserId="1142" Text="Estne tempus perfectum/imperfectum aut presens usum cum de homine mortuo loqueris?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22221" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6703" RevisionGUID="d920d6f7-0066-433f-a8c4-f627480a9023" CreationDate="2018-06-16T20:12:19.997" UserId="1142" Text="|perfect-tense|tenses|imperfectum|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6704" RevisionGUID="21e213f8-c2dc-46de-812f-3398a1e46221" CreationDate="2018-06-16T20:36:31.400" UserId="469" Text="[Gusto/gustare means][1] to taste, but in the sense of someone having a taste of something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb you are looking for, IMO is [sapio/sapire][2]. It can be accompanied by a noun in the accusative case to mean to taste *like* something. (*Piscis saperet ipsum mare* being an example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this *like* is somewhat idiomatic in English. You can translate it literally to other languages and it will most probably be understood, but it is not necessarily the most natural way to say it (take, for example, Spanish *sabe a pollo*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now [pullus means chicken][3], but it's a pretty ambiguous word, meaning also foal or even any young animal. In the context of *eating*, though, it is indeed less ambiguous, but anyway you may want to disambiguate by saying *pullus gallinae* (a hen's young offspring) or even *gallina* (since until before the Industrial Revolution it was common to eat hen as well as chicken).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All said, my recommendation would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Pullum sapit** (or with the alternative word order *sapit pullum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgusto&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsapio&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpullus1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6704" RevisionGUID="0c7a1a10-8cca-4336-ac10-7ae38e09b039" CreationDate="2018-06-16T21:27:08.853" UserId="469" Comment="added 376 characters in body" Text="[Gusto/gustare means][1] to taste, but in the sense of *someone having a taste* of something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb you are looking for, IMO is [sapio/sapire][2]. It can be accompanied by a noun in the accusative case to mean to taste *like* something. (*Piscis saperet ipsum mare* being an example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this *like* is somewhat idiomatic in English. You can translate it literally to other languages and it will most probably be understood, but it is not necessarily the most natural way to say it (take, for example, Spanish *sabe a pollo*). Anyway, if you want to force it, I'd suggest [*ut*][3]&amp;mdash;an adverb&amp;mdash;rather than *par* or *similis*&amp;mdash;which are adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now [pullus means chicken][4], but it's a pretty ambiguous word, meaning also foal or even any young animal. In the context of *eating*, though, it is indeed less ambiguous, but anyway you may want to disambiguate by saying *pullus gallinae* (a hen's young offspring) or even *gallina* (since until before the Industrial Revolution it was common to eat hen as well as chicken).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All said, my recommendation would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Pullum sapit** (or with the alternative word order *sapit pullum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Pullum* is in fact the accusative of *pullus*, the accusatives of the alternatives I offered are *pullu**m** gallinae sapit* and *gallina**m** sapit*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgusto&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsapio&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dut&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpullus1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22224" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6703" RevisionGUID="24142ed3-e4bd-4096-bbfc-280371cac66b" CreationDate="2018-06-16T21:27:39.073" UserId="1142" Comment="updated title" Text="Adhibeturne tempus perfectum/imperfectum aut presens cum de homine mortuo loqueris?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22225" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6702" RevisionGUID="9eada213-49f6-4c4b-b7d3-51e9527f0e3a" CreationDate="2018-06-16T22:21:35.320" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|motto|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6705" RevisionGUID="b61ec30e-ea35-4eae-89cd-23cd87c74648" CreationDate="2018-06-16T23:06:06.160" UserId="144" Text="I am 99.9999% confident there is no purpose for a vocative gerund. Yet nothing seems to specifically disallow for such a construction. In theory something such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; odi te currendum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In English:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I hate you, running!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;) should be perfectly acceptable, albeit strange, ridiculous, and unnecessary. But is there ever a recorded instance of such a construction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22227" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6705" RevisionGUID="b61ec30e-ea35-4eae-89cd-23cd87c74648" CreationDate="2018-06-16T23:06:06.160" UserId="144" Text="Vocative Gerund" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22228" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6705" RevisionGUID="b61ec30e-ea35-4eae-89cd-23cd87c74648" CreationDate="2018-06-16T23:06:06.160" UserId="144" Text="|example-request|gerund|vocative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6705" RevisionGUID="7d938153-2137-4c75-bc11-78dc0b353111" CreationDate="2018-06-17T11:27:13.347" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="I am 99.9999% confident there is no purpose for a vocative gerund. Yet nothing seems to specifically disallow for such a construction. In theory something such as &quot;_odi te currendum_&quot; (in English, &quot;I hate you, running!&quot;) should be perfectly acceptable, albeit strange, ridiculous, and unnecessary. But is there ever a recorded instance of such a construction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6706" RevisionGUID="0f294428-47c7-42e0-bd56-25ec861aa518" CreationDate="2018-06-17T13:38:28.320" UserId="2695" Text="The translation comes from Google Translate, but I can't find any proof or usage of the sentence which kind of makes me a bit skeptic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22231" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6706" RevisionGUID="0f294428-47c7-42e0-bd56-25ec861aa518" CreationDate="2018-06-17T13:38:28.320" UserId="2695" Text="Is &quot;responsum est dilectio&quot; the correct translation for &quot;love is the answer&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22232" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6706" RevisionGUID="0f294428-47c7-42e0-bd56-25ec861aa518" CreationDate="2018-06-17T13:38:28.320" UserId="2695" Text="|classical-latin|contemporary-latin|medieval-latin|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6707" RevisionGUID="b44381ac-734a-4d5c-9e38-6ddeae246eda" CreationDate="2018-06-17T14:08:19.543" UserId="406" Text="Unfortunately, Google Translate is notoriously bad at Latin. But in this case it came fairly close. That phrase is grammatically correct and means something like &quot;the response is affection&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a proper translation, it depends what you mean by &quot;love&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most standard word for love is *amor*, as in *amor omnia vincit* &quot;love conquers all&quot; (Vergil). This traditionally refers to romantic love, but not always: the word for &quot;friendship&quot;, *amicitia*, comes from the same root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another potential word is the one Google chose, *dilectio*. This literally means &quot;choosing&quot; or &quot;favoring&quot;, and is more commonly translated as &quot;affection&quot;. It's more common than *amor* for love between family members, as in *o luci magis dilecta sorori* &quot;you [are] more beloved to your sister than life itself&quot; (Vergil).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third option is the more Christian one, *caritas*, usually translated as &quot;caring&quot;. This is the one used in John 4:8, *qui non diligit non novit Deum quoniam Deus caritas est* &quot;he who does not love does not know God, for God is love&quot; (Vulgate). (Notably, the *verb* used for &quot;love&quot; here is related to *dilectio* instead.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as &quot;answer&quot; goes, *responsum* is a literal answer (as in the thing you say when someone asks you a question). An *exitus* is literally a departure or exit, but can also mean the solution to something difficult. And an *explicatio* is literally an unfolding or uncoiling, but can also mean an explanation or solution to a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whichever you choose, the simplest phrasing is *[love] est [answer]*, *[love] [answer] est*, or even just *[love] [answer]*. In mottos especially it's common to leave out forms of &quot;to be&quot; for brevity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6706" RevisionGUID="c0bfecda-0f73-4e8d-a072-11dba1bd809f" CreationDate="2018-06-17T14:30:40.023" UserId="79" Comment="Added the main question to the question body and retagged." Text="Is &quot;responsum est dilectio&quot; the correct translation for &quot;love is the answer&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;The translation comes from Google Translate, but I can't find any proof or usage of the sentence which kind of makes me a bit skeptic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22235" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6706" RevisionGUID="c0bfecda-0f73-4e8d-a072-11dba1bd809f" CreationDate="2018-06-17T14:30:40.023" UserId="79" Comment="Added the main question to the question body and retagged." Text="|sentence-translation|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6708" RevisionGUID="c022d7c4-c48a-4f2a-9a1e-05b1921551c2" CreationDate="2018-06-17T14:42:33.510" UserId="406" Text="I've never seen the gerund used in the vocative, and a search for *-ende* in the Packhum corpus turned up nothing but imperatives. But I would be very surprised if such a form existed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerund in general is defective, in that it has no nominative. If this missing form is needed, it's replaced by the infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the vocative is almost always identical to the nominative in Latin (the only exceptions being the masculine second declension, and a few scattered foreign words like *Iēsus*), I would expect the vocative of the gerund to also be identical to the nominative: that is, nonexistent, and replaced by the infinitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6709" RevisionGUID="ebc0459e-d12b-4f21-8643-01845f70a5ac" CreationDate="2018-06-17T15:31:46.057" UserId="406" Text="As a native English speaker, I would use a past tense to describe something that was once true but no longer is, and the present to describe something that is still true. Barack Obama *was* the president; Donald Trump *is* the president (as of the time of writing). Similarly, Julius Caesar *was* a conqueror, because he hasn't conquered anything for a few thousand years now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would do the same in Latin: *Obama **erat** praesidens*, but *Trump **est** praesidens*. The choice of imperfect versus imperfect depends on whether I'm describing a state or an event; since being president lasts for a significant period of time, the imperfect feels more natural. On the other hand, *Caesar **perivit***, not *perebat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second example is a bit misleading: the full verb is &quot;was written&quot;, since most passives in English are formed with a form of &quot;be&quot; with the passive participle. Latin sometimes does the same, but uses the tenses a bit differently: the direct equivalent would be *scriptus **est***, with a present-tense form of *esse*. But the compound verb is still in the perfect tense, since the writing is over and done with now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6709" RevisionGUID="83ba7bcb-0386-4109-99a9-2446b8db9f3c" CreationDate="2018-06-17T15:39:17.723" UserId="406" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="As a native English speaker, I would use a past tense to describe something that was once true but no longer is, and the present to describe something that is still true. Barack Obama *was* the president; Donald Trump *is* the president (as of the time of writing). Similarly, Julius Caesar *was* a conqueror, because he hasn't conquered anything for a few thousand years now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would do the same in Latin: *Obama **erat** praesidens*, but *Trump **est** praesidens*. The choice of perfect versus imperfect depends on whether I'm describing a state or an event; since being president lasts for a significant period of time, the imperfect feels more natural. On the other hand, *Caesar **perivit***, not *perebat*, since I consider it a single event rather than a state of being.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second example is a bit misleading: the full verb in English is &quot;was written&quot;, since most passives in English are formed with a form of &quot;be&quot; with the passive participle. Latin sometimes does the same, but uses the tenses a bit differently: the direct equivalent would be *scriptus **est***, with a present-tense form of *esse*. But the compound verb is still in the perfect tense, since the writing is over and done with now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="2ae61f28-a0ed-45ac-818b-a2f434947db4" CreationDate="2018-06-17T21:45:59.543" UserId="39" Comment="added 645 characters in body" Text="(answer in progress; to be edited later)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is generally believed is that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The Italic &quot;1st declension&quot; continues PIE feminine formations (&quot;ā-stems&quot;) built with an invariable suffix *-eh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(-)&quot; ([Vine 2017:][1] 755)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Beekes 2011 proposal of an ablauting suffix *eh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(-) ~ *-h&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(-)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss notes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Masculine nouns of the first declension that we find in Latin are largely personalizations of feminine abstracts&quot; (p. 228), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Klingenschmitt 1992 (&quot;Die lateinische Nominalflexion&quot; in O. Pangal and Th. Krisch (eds.), *Latein und Indogermanisch: Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Salzburg 23. - 26. September 1986*. Innsbruck, 1992):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Das Vorhandensein maskuliner *ā*-Stämme stellt eine nach grundsprachliche Neuerung dar. Die maskulinen *ā*-Stämme sind, soweit es sich um einheimische Elemente handelt,  durch metonymischen Gebrauch ursprünglicher Feminina sekundär entstanden. So sind etwa * *skrīfā*- 'das Schreiben' oder alte Determinativkomposita wie * *agro-k&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;olā*- 'Feldbau' zur Bezeichnung der die betreffende Tätigkeit ausübenden Person verwendet worden, was dann eine Maskulinisierung dieser Wörter nach sich zog (lat. *scrība* m. 'Schreiber', *agricola* m. 'Bauer')&quot; (p. 89).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson adds that such nouns are mostly **compound** ([Clackson 2011:][2] 106), cf. *advena*, *agricola*, *conviva*, *incola*, or *indigena*. The only simplex native masculine noun is *scriba*. [will rewrite this section later, based on the discussion in Leumann 1977; this is more complicated than it seems]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ernout 1952/2014 calls them **formes archaïques** (p. 12).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann explains it with Greek influence, cf. &quot;muss man die ersten lat. mask. Komposita auf -a als Nachbildung griechischer Muster auffasen&quot; (p. 281). For *collega*, he proposes an ad-hoc explanation (*lega, from legatus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Greek loans: *nauta*, *poeta*;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Etruscan names: *Caecina*, *Perpenna* (*Perperna*), *Sisenna*, *Spurinna* (Leumann 1977: 279);&#xD;&#xA; 3. loans of uncertain origin: *verna* 'house-slave;'&#xD;&#xA; 4. Etruscan loans: *cacula* 'servant', *sculna* 'arbitrator', *verpa* 'male member' ([Baldi 1999:][3] 317).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110523874/9783110523874-003/9783110523874-003.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch8/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110807110/9783110807110.300b/9783110807110.300b.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6710" RevisionGUID="23f38758-e928-4e66-851b-9b2690ecdc00" CreationDate="2018-06-18T02:22:49.287" UserId="406" Text="I'd always heard that the gerund had no nominative, with the present active infinitive taking the place of the missing form: *volāre difficile est*, rather than *_volāndum_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in the comments on [this answer][1], I was surprised when Alex B. mentioned a possible example of a nominative gerund.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the nominative gerund ever attested in literature or inscription? If so, from what time period (was it pre- or post-Classical)? And was it considered &quot;correct&quot; (e.g. Cicero as opposed to graffiti)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6708/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22241" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6710" RevisionGUID="23f38758-e928-4e66-851b-9b2690ecdc00" CreationDate="2018-06-18T02:22:49.287" UserId="406" Text="Is the nominative gerund attested?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22242" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6710" RevisionGUID="23f38758-e928-4e66-851b-9b2690ecdc00" CreationDate="2018-06-18T02:22:49.287" UserId="406" Text="|example-request|gerund|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22243" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5975" RevisionGUID="cdaa763d-26ce-4bf5-b2db-239e668e3f85" CreationDate="2018-06-18T12:42:04.200" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|translation-check|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22244" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6043" RevisionGUID="26fe67a5-793a-48cc-94fc-5504e929e5f9" CreationDate="2018-06-18T12:42:42.047" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|sentence-translation|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22245" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2503" RevisionGUID="251bb753-498e-40a9-8244-538ba1023a1a" CreationDate="2018-06-18T12:43:15.810" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation-check|style|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6707" RevisionGUID="0ca7b731-71d6-490f-9d53-6936c966cb40" CreationDate="2018-06-18T13:42:59.730" UserId="45" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately, Google Translate is notoriously bad at Latin. But in this case it came fairly close. That phrase is grammatically correct and means something like &quot;the response is affection&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a proper translation, it depends what you mean by &quot;love&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most standard word for love is *amor*, as in *amor omnia vincit* &quot;love conquers all&quot; (Vergil). This traditionally refers to romantic love, but not always: the word for &quot;friendship&quot;, *amicitia*, comes from the same root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another potential word is the one Google chose, *dilectio*. This literally means &quot;choosing&quot; or &quot;favoring&quot;, and is more commonly translated as &quot;affection&quot;. It's more common than *amor* for love between family members, as in *o luci magis dilecta sorori* &quot;you [are] more beloved to your sister than life itself&quot; (Vergil).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third option is the more Christian one, *caritas*, usually translated as &quot;caring&quot;. This is the one used in I John 4:8, *qui non diligit non novit Deum quoniam Deus caritas est* &quot;he who does not love does not know God, for God is love&quot; (Vulgate). (Notably, the *verb* used for &quot;love&quot; here is related to *dilectio* instead.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as &quot;answer&quot; goes, *responsum* is a literal answer (as in the thing you say when someone asks you a question). An *exitus* is literally a departure or exit, but can also mean the solution to something difficult. And an *explicatio* is literally an unfolding or uncoiling, but can also mean an explanation or solution to a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whichever you choose, the simplest phrasing is *[love] est [answer]*, *[love] [answer] est*, or even just *[love] [answer]*. In mottos especially it's common to leave out forms of &quot;to be&quot; for brevity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6707" RevisionGUID="577f7e31-51fc-48f2-8b42-768befb1f679" CreationDate="2018-06-18T14:06:57.503" UserId="406" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately, Google Translate is notoriously bad at Latin. But in this case it came fairly close. That phrase is grammatically correct and means something like &quot;the response is affection&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a proper translation, it depends what you mean by &quot;love&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most standard word for love is *amor*, as in *amor omnia vincit* &quot;love conquers all&quot; (Vergil). This traditionally refers to romantic love, but not always: the word for &quot;friendship&quot;, *amicitia*, comes from the same root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another potential word is the one Google chose, *dilectio*. This literally means &quot;choosing&quot; or &quot;favoring&quot;, and is more commonly translated as &quot;affection&quot;. It's more common than *amor* for love between family members, as in *o luci magis dilecta sorori* &quot;you [are] more beloved to your sister than life itself&quot; (Vergil).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third option is the more Christian one, *caritas*, usually translated as &quot;caring&quot;. This is the one used in I John 4:8, *qui non diligit non novit Deum quoniam Deus caritas est* &quot;he who does not love does not know God, for God is love&quot; (Vulgate). (Notably, the *verb* used for &quot;love&quot; here is related to *dilectio* instead.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as &quot;answer&quot; goes, *responsum* is a literal answer (as in the thing you say when someone asks you a question). An *exitus* is literally a departure or exit, but can also mean the solution to something difficult. And an *explicatio* is literally an unfolding or uncoiling, but can also mean an explanation or solution to a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whichever you choose, the simplest phrasing is *[love] est [answer]*, *[love] [answer] est*, or even just *[love] [answer]*. (In mottos especially it's common to leave out forms of &quot;to be&quot; for brevity.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So putting it all together, my preference would be for *caritas explicatio est*. Literally, &quot;caring is the solution&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6711" RevisionGUID="bbd08d0d-ed99-4bb7-85f2-9efbd97b5087" CreationDate="2018-06-18T17:21:01.197" UserId="30" Text="Cancer &quot;crab&quot; and cancer &quot;lattice&quot; look related, but it could be a coincidence. They are not very close in meaning, but one could perhaps imagine a crab's collection of legs to be somewhat similar to a lattice, or crab legs could have been used to make some kind of lattice—I have no idea. Could those two words possibly be related?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22249" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6711" RevisionGUID="bbd08d0d-ed99-4bb7-85f2-9efbd97b5087" CreationDate="2018-06-18T17:21:01.197" UserId="30" Text="Could (postclassical) cancer &quot;lattice&quot; be at all related to cancer &quot;crab&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22250" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6711" RevisionGUID="bbd08d0d-ed99-4bb7-85f2-9efbd97b5087" CreationDate="2018-06-18T17:21:01.197" UserId="30" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6712" RevisionGUID="240b5988-40a5-4b84-bf1e-2a5b04096567" CreationDate="2018-06-18T17:46:47.050" UserId="406" Text="I've heard a theory that the &quot;lattice&quot; meaning is actually the original. According to this theory, *cancer* comes from Proto-Italic *_kar-kr-_ by dissimilation. If this is true, then *cancer* and *carcer* would be doublets, and the original meaning of both would be something like &quot;cage&quot;. *Carcer* then shifted to mean &quot;entrapping cage&quot; and thus &quot;jail&quot;, while *cancer* first shifted to &quot;claws&quot; (which hold something) and thus to &quot;crab&quot; by metonymy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't, unfortunately, currently have access to De Vaan or another reputable source, so I can't say how well-accepted this theory is. But the Ancient Greek *karkínos* &quot;crab&quot; might show a similar development from the original *_kar-_, which lends a bit of weight." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6713" RevisionGUID="0a66e933-9db3-4318-83d4-447c3352f6ab" CreationDate="2018-06-19T00:53:35.533" UserId="2696" Text="In Slavic languages (at least, East-Slavic), the word &quot;рак&quot; (&quot;rak&quot;) can mean either &quot;crayfish&quot; or &quot;cancer&quot;. Also, we have the word &quot;краб&quot; (&quot;crab&quot;) but it only means the crustacean crabs. This is somehow related with cancer, i.e. &quot;краб&quot; related to &quot;рак&quot; as both can refer to a crustacean, but &quot;рак&quot; also can refer to &quot;cancer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is kind of an interesting linguistic thing that bothered me from the childhood, I mean why &quot;рак&quot; can refer to both the strange (even scary) looking animal and the disease. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I see that Draconis is right with regard to the Greek &quot;καρκίνος&quot; (&quot;karkinos&quot;) meaning &quot;crab&quot;. And, by the way, the Zodiac Sign which is supposed to look like a crayfish is called Cancer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I didn't quite get how the question raised in your head, because we speak different languages. To me, &quot;cancer&quot; and &quot;crab&quot; are kind of related, but I don't understand how &quot;lattice&quot; associates with both &quot;cancer&quot; and &quot;crab&quot;. Can you explain once more please what &quot;Cancer &quot;crab&quot; and cancer &quot;lattice&quot;&quot; mean to you?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6711" RevisionGUID="30f6134d-55ba-41e5-84d8-6e13e78d43c2" CreationDate="2018-06-19T09:25:26.610" UserId="79" Comment="Tried to clarify by formatting that it's the Latin word &quot;cancer&quot;, not the English word." Text="*Cancer* &quot;crab&quot; and *cancer* &quot;lattice&quot; look related, but it could be a coincidence. They are not very close in meaning, but one could perhaps imagine a crab's collection of legs to be somewhat similar to a lattice, or crab legs could have been used to make some kind of lattice—I have no idea. Could those two words possibly be related?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="6b5a7d33-162e-484c-b8df-7860041481e5" CreationDate="2018-06-19T09:34:52.630" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I'm currently reading Horace's _Odes_ 1.5, and on lines 10–11 there's an odd construction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Miseri, quibus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; intemptata nites...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as far as I can tell, this literally means &quot;Wretched people, to whom you shine untried.&quot; That doesn't make sense &amp;mdash; &quot;shine untried&quot; is a thing that just doesn't work in English, or if it does, I'm too tired to tell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's a good colloquial translation of that phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22257" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="6b5a7d33-162e-484c-b8df-7860041481e5" CreationDate="2018-06-19T09:34:52.630" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What does &quot;quibus intemptata nites&quot; (Odes 1.5.10–11) mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22258" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="6b5a7d33-162e-484c-b8df-7860041481e5" CreationDate="2018-06-19T09:34:52.630" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|classical-latin|poetry|horatius|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="248" RevisionGUID="bd4a325c-0f0d-47d9-888c-12fea4b1956b" CreationDate="2018-06-19T09:38:05.750" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In VII.346-7 of the *Æneid*, when Juno sics Allecto on Amata, we have &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hic dea cæruleís únum dé crínibus anguem  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Conjicit inque sinum præcordia ad intima subdit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allecto's &amp;hellip; blue hair? Hunh? Are they blue snakes? Or can *cæruleus* refer not just to lighter blue but also to midnight-blue-black?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What gives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22260" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="248" RevisionGUID="bd4a325c-0f0d-47d9-888c-12fea4b1956b" CreationDate="2018-06-19T09:38:05.750" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|poetry|aeneis|vergilius|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="253" RevisionGUID="acb46d5d-c800-4856-b919-2116a5edbf93" CreationDate="2018-06-19T09:39:20.413" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted lines." Text="Allecto, one of the Furies, is commonly associated with dark colours and snakes (see *Pauly–Wissowa* on the Furies). Furies often have snake hair too, and snakes are often blue; they don't look like ordinary women. So Allecto took a snake from her dark-blue snake hair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Caerulus* can mean &quot;dark&quot; as an epithet to words like *death* and *rain*, but Lewis &amp; Short connect it with snakes and the Furies under the sub-sense &quot;of other darkblue objects&quot;, in a quotation from Virgil's *Georgics*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quin ipsae stupuere domus atque intima Leti  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; tartara **caeruleosque implexae crinibus angues**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eumenides, tenuitque inhians tria Cerberus ora&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Virgil, *Georgics* 4.481–483.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even the Eumenids (a common euphemism for the Furies) themselves are stupefied as Orpheus enters the underworld. They are entwined with *caeruleae* snakes in their hair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ennius mentions a *caerulea anguis* in his lost play about Alcmaeon. Cicero quotes Ennius's play when discussing madness, in which Alcmaeon is attacked or oppressed by the Furies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Fer mi auxilium, pestem abige a me, flammiferam  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; hanc vim, quae me excruciat!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Caerulea incinctae angui** incedunt, circumstant  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum ardentibus taedis.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Ennius, *Alcmeo* (lost), in: Cicero, *Academicae Quaestiones* 2.28.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Furies are coming towards him, surrounded with a *caerulea* snake. So this is an old collocation. Presumably snakes surround the Furies' heads, and even their entire bodies. I, too, am often seen with snakes all over my body, and they and I are all associated with Tartarus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid, too, describes the hair of the Furies as containing or consisting of serpents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obstitit infelix aditumque obsedit Erinys,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; nexaque vipereis distendens bracchia nodis  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **caesariem** excussit. Motae sonuere **colubrae**,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; parsque iacent umeris, pars circum pectora lapsae  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; sibila dant saniemque vomunt linguisque coruscant.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Inde **duos mediis abrumpit crinibus angues**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; pestiferaque manu raptos inmisit. At illi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Ovid, *Metamorphoses* 4.490–496.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you will see a few pictures of the Erinyes and me from Greek vases (6th to 3rd centuries BC):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Orestes at Delphi flanked by Athena and Pylades among the Erinyes and priestesses of the oracle, perhaps including Pythia behind the tripod - Paestan red-figured bell-krater, c. 330 BC.][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*— Orestes at Delphi flanked by Athena and Pylades among the Erinyes and priestesses of the oracle, perhaps including Pythia behind the tripod - Paestan red-figured bell-krater, c. 330 BC.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;[![Erinyes, Apulian red figure krater C4th B.C., Badishes Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe.][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*— Erinyes, Apulian red figure krater C4th B.C., Badishes Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;[![Collection: TBA (Taranto?), Laconian Black Figure, Kylix, C6th BC: Kerberos, the three-headed guard dog of Haides, is depicted draped in a mane of snakes. The bird flying above him probably represents a flittering soul. Herakles enters the scene on the right with only his club and foot showing.][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*— Collection: TBA (Taranto?), Laconian Black Figure, Kylix, C6th BC: Kerberos, the three-headed guard dog of Haides, is depicted draped in a mane of snakes. The bird flying above him probably represents a flittering soul. Herakles enters the scene on the right with only his club and foot showing.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fc1ML.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JUEfd.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tTmdS.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6714" RevisionGUID="47cbf7ae-0953-42e8-8ef5-a16a07fe2c55" CreationDate="2018-06-19T10:12:54.313" UserId="324" Text="For reference, de Vaan writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latin word can only be connected with evidence outside Italic if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; we assume a dissimilation of earlier *karkros 'enclosure' (cf. carcer)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to *kankros. Since the pincers of a crab form a circle, this may have been the cause of its denomination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not perhaps the very last word on the matter.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6715" RevisionGUID="0ab235a7-fcd9-48c4-bd4b-694a42ce7556" CreationDate="2018-06-19T13:41:08.930" UserId="45" Text="Latin tends to be more concrete than English, and there is no really satisfying substantive for &quot;answer.&quot; I would therefore recast this sentence with a verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One option, reminiscent of the popular phrase &quot;[*omnia vincit amor*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0056%3Apoem%3D10),&quot; is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Omnia explicat amor.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Explico*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dexplico) literally means &quot;unwrinkle&quot; or &quot;unfold,&quot; but its (common) extended meaning, according to L&amp;S, is &quot;to disentangle, set in order, arrange, regulate, settle, adjust any thing complicated or difficult.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22264" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4349" RevisionGUID="48c0d4e1-38a0-422f-a13f-f05ac86ae180" CreationDate="2018-06-19T13:48:05.713" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|resource-request|english-to-latin-translation|latin-on-devices|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22265" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="203" RevisionGUID="3803ea42-487b-4796-a2b7-319acb12c23f" CreationDate="2018-06-19T13:49:46.680" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|translation-check|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22266" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2153" RevisionGUID="7aed751a-0a0c-4900-9e5f-daeaa6ab2b77" CreationDate="2018-06-19T13:50:37.143" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation-check|genitive|noun|aeneis|vergilius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="253" RevisionGUID="6b3cb043-c53f-4908-86d7-9f645d4420d0" CreationDate="2018-06-19T13:51:27.050" UserId="30" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="Allecto, one of the Furies, is commonly associated with dark colours and snakes (see *Pauly–Wissowa* on the Furies). Furies often have snake hair too, and snakes are often blue; they don't look like ordinary women. So Allecto took a snake from her dark-blue snake hair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Caerulus* can mean &quot;dark&quot; as an epithet to words like *death* and *rain*, but Lewis &amp; Short connect it with snakes and the Furies under the sub-sense &quot;of other darkblue objects&quot;, in a quotation from Virgil's *Georgics*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quin ipsae stupuere domus atque intima Leti  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; tartara **caeruleosque implexae crinibus angues**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eumenides, tenuitque inhians tria Cerberus ora&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Virgil, *Georgics* 4.481–483.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even the Eumenids (a common euphemism for the Furies) themselves are stupefied as Orpheus enters the underworld. They are entwined with *caeruleae* snakes in their hair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ennius mentions a *caerulea anguis* in his lost play about Alcmaeon. Cicero quotes Ennius's play when discussing madness, in which Alcmaeon is attacked or oppressed by the Furies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Fer mi auxilium, pestem abige a me, flammiferam  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; hanc vim, quae me excruciat!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Caerulea incinctae angui** incedunt, circumstant  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum ardentibus taedis.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Ennius, *Alcmeo* (lost), in: Cicero, *Academicae Quaestiones* 2.28.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Furies are coming towards him, surrounded with a *caerulea* snake. So this is an old collocation. Presumably snakes surround the Furies' heads, and even their entire bodies. I, too, am often seen with snakes all over my body, and they and I are all associated with Tartarus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid, too, describes the hair of the Furies as containing or consisting of serpents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obstitit infelix aditumque obsedit Erinys,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; nexaque vipereis distendens bracchia nodis  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **caesariem** excussit. Motae sonuere **colubrae**,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; parsque iacent umeris, pars circum pectora lapsae  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; sibila dant saniemque vomunt linguisque coruscant.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Inde **duos mediis abrumpit crinibus angues**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; pestiferaque manu raptos inmisit. At illi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Ovid, *Metamorphoses* 4.490–496.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you will see a few pictures of the Erinyes and an old selfie I had lying around (from Greek vases, 6th to 3rd centuries BC):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Orestes at Delphi flanked by Athena and Pylades among the Erinyes and priestesses of the oracle, perhaps including Pythia behind the tripod - Paestan red-figured bell-krater, c. 330 BC.][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*— Orestes at Delphi flanked by Athena and Pylades among the Erinyes and priestesses of the oracle, perhaps including Pythia behind the tripod - Paestan red-figured bell-krater, c. 330 BC.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;[![Erinyes, Apulian red figure krater C4th B.C., Badishes Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe.][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*— Erinyes, Apulian red figure krater C4th B.C., Badishes Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;[![Collection: TBA (Taranto?), Laconian Black Figure, Kylix, C6th BC: Kerberos, the three-headed guard dog of Haides, is depicted draped in a mane of snakes. The bird flying above him probably represents a flittering soul. Herakles enters the scene on the right with only his club and foot showing.][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*— Collection: TBA (Taranto?), Laconian Black Figure, Kylix, C6th BC: Kerberos, the three-headed guard dog of Haides, is depicted draped in a mane of snakes. The bird flying above him probably represents a flittering soul. Herakles enters the scene on the right with only his club and foot showing.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fc1ML.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JUEfd.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tTmdS.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6713" RevisionGUID="e7c33b87-1f72-4cb2-8bd9-dfbbf617e63a" CreationDate="2018-06-19T13:56:59.340" UserId="30" Comment="edited body" Text="In Slavic languages (at least, East-Slavic), the word *рак* (/rak/) can mean either &quot;crayfish&quot; or &quot;cancer&quot;. Also, we have the word *краб* (&quot;crab&quot;) but it only means the crustacean crabs. This is somehow related with cancer, i.e. *краб* related to *рак* as both can refer to a crustacean, but *рак* also can refer to &quot;cancer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is kind of an interesting linguistic thing that bothered me from the childhood, I mean why *рак* can refer to both the strange (even scary) looking animal and the disease. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I see that Draconis is right with regard to the Greek *καρκίνος* (/karkinos/) meaning &quot;crab&quot;. And, by the way, the Zodiac Sign which is supposed to look like a crayfish is called Cancer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I didn't quite get how the question raised in your head, because we speak different languages. To me, &quot;cancer&quot; and &quot;crab&quot; are kind of related, but I don't understand how &quot;lattice&quot; associates with both &quot;cancer&quot; and &quot;crab&quot;. Can you explain once more please what &quot;Cancer &quot;crab&quot; and cancer &quot;lattice&quot;&quot; mean to you?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22269" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6710" RevisionGUID="af1e5b9b-b300-4a58-afeb-4f5caa9d5c91" CreationDate="2018-06-19T13:59:58.980" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|verbs|example-request|gerund|nominativus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6716" RevisionGUID="b21c1e47-b4bd-4d97-bc71-23fc96f03693" CreationDate="2018-06-19T19:08:55.067" UserId="2287" Text="While I believe there may have not been a term of &quot;Free Spirit&quot; in Latin, if we were to translate it and retain its English meaning using Latin words, what would it be? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22272" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6716" RevisionGUID="b21c1e47-b4bd-4d97-bc71-23fc96f03693" CreationDate="2018-06-19T19:08:55.067" UserId="2287" Text="How would you say &quot;Free Spirit&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22273" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6716" RevisionGUID="b21c1e47-b4bd-4d97-bc71-23fc96f03693" CreationDate="2018-06-19T19:08:55.067" UserId="2287" Text="|classical-latin|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6716" RevisionGUID="608937cb-b6fd-4f44-bfec-befbc11d480d" CreationDate="2018-06-19T19:11:01.957" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body; edited tags" Text="While I believe there may have not been a term of &quot;Free Spirit&quot; in Latin, if we were to translate it and retain its English meaning using Latin words, what would it be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22275" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6716" RevisionGUID="608937cb-b6fd-4f44-bfec-befbc11d480d" CreationDate="2018-06-19T19:11:01.957" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6717" RevisionGUID="31082122-4639-4095-8b65-25989b8a429d" CreationDate="2018-06-19T19:14:52.970" UserId="79" Text="I would translate that as ***animus liber***.&#xD;&#xA;I think *liber* (free, unrestrained, not subordinate to anything) and *animus* (soul, mind, will, consciousness, intellect, rationality) match what &quot;free spirit&quot; means, assuming I parse it correctly.&#xD;&#xA;To get a better feeling of these two Latin words, I suggest taking a look at [any online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5294" RevisionGUID="1d77ace4-1722-490b-a646-efd823c6deea" CreationDate="2018-06-19T20:17:19.180" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body" Text="How would you say &quot;teaching man&quot; in Latin, in the same way as &quot;homo sapiens&quot; (thinking man) or &quot;homo economicus&quot; (economic man)? It would be for an essay discussing modern education and the role of a teacher, as if one were looking at an &quot;exhibit&quot; of a species that is &quot;teaching man&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1285" RevisionGUID="53770e58-0485-4b81-885b-009957af99ed" CreationDate="2018-06-19T20:17:57.567" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="In English, and most modern European languages, we have one single word, &quot;very,&quot; which is accepted as the regular way to make an adjective more extreme.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a common way to do this in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Ways I can think of are just using the superlative, or using some adjective like *nimis*, *multum* or *magnopere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. (something) is very cold: maybe *est frigidissimus*, *est multum frigidus* or *est nimis frigidus*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what I'm really interested in is whether there's a &quot;regular&quot; way of doing this.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps different ways were idiomatic in different eras.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the same sort of emphasis as moving the adjective to the start of the sentence &amp;mdash; that emphasizes the importance of the word, whereas I want to change the meaning of it, make it more extreme." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1286" RevisionGUID="3911e30e-da7f-4b4c-b924-12350b8e454a" CreationDate="2018-06-19T20:25:41.343" UserId="79" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="Using *nimis* (or related words) before an adjective strengthens it, but in a specific direction: *nimis frigidus* is &quot;too cold&quot;, not &quot;very cold&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You can also reach a similar tone with comparative: *frigidior* can mean &quot;too cold&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest three ways to emphasize an adjective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Superlative:&#xD;&#xA;*Frigidissimus* is a very idiomatic way to say &quot;too cold&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The absolute superlative (superlative without a comparison to anything else) is common.&#xD;&#xA;The absolute comparative (see above) is less common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Valde*:&#xD;&#xA;*Valde frigidus* is one way to go.&#xD;&#xA;It should be noticed, though, that *valde* is a contraction from *valide*.&#xD;&#xA;This gives the word a tone&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; different from the English &quot;very&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However, *valde* is a good translation of &quot;very&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Prefix:&#xD;&#xA;Many adjectives can be emphasized with a prefix.&#xD;&#xA;A typical choice for emphasis is *per-*, and it can also be used for verbs.&#xD;&#xA;This prefix is so common that I would encourage using it productively.&#xD;&#xA;But for your example this is not needed, since [*perfrigidus*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2043484) is attested in ancient literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combining all three suggestions to *valde perfrigidissimus* would sound very overexaggerated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am unsure about *multum*.&#xD;&#xA;It sounds less idiomatic to me, but it may turn out to be valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that *val(i)de* means also &quot;strongly&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The English &quot;very&quot; is not connected to an adjective like *validus*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore &quot;very&quot; and *valde* are not exactly alike, but they are very close." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6717" RevisionGUID="550daf6f-c47b-4bb9-b6d3-8f5405e03898" CreationDate="2018-06-19T20:43:29.420" UserId="79" Comment="added 265 characters in body" Text="I would translate that as ***animus liber***.&#xD;&#xA;I think *liber* (free, unrestrained, not subordinate to anything) and *animus* (soul, mind, will, consciousness, intellect, rationality) match what &quot;free spirit&quot; means.&#xD;&#xA;To get a better feeling of these two Latin words, I suggest taking a look at [any online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Calling a person an *animus* in Latin seems analogous to calling a person a &quot;spirit&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;It is the same kind of metonymy, and works well in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;This is not an attested classical idiom as far as I know, but should be easily understandable to the Romans in a suitable context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6713" RevisionGUID="dc2a124b-783a-4270-abbc-dc612d1c0620" CreationDate="2018-06-19T22:02:00.507" UserId="2696" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="In Slavic languages (at least, East-Slavic), the word *рак* (/rak/) can mean either &quot;crayfish&quot; or &quot;cancer&quot;. Also, we have the word *краб* (/krab/) but it only means the crustacean crabs. This is somehow related with cancer, i.e. *краб* related to *рак* as both can refer to a crustacean, but *рак* also can refer to &quot;cancer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is kind of an interesting linguistic thing that bothered me from the childhood, I mean why *рак* can refer to both the strange (even scary) looking animal and the terrible, often fatal, disease. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I see that Draconis is right with regard to the Greek *καρκίνος* (/karkinos/) meaning &quot;crab&quot;. And, by the way, the Zodiac Sign which is supposed to look like a crayfish is called Cancer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I didn't quite get how the question raised in your head, because we speak different languages. To me, &quot;cancer&quot; and &quot;crab&quot; are kind of related, but I don't understand how &quot;lattice&quot; associates with both &quot;cancer&quot; and &quot;crab&quot;. Can you explain once more please what &quot;Cancer &quot;crab&quot; and cancer &quot;lattice&quot;&quot; mean to you?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6719" RevisionGUID="e59d475d-6c8b-4648-a7c6-e6872b75a0d6" CreationDate="2018-06-20T10:32:43.357" UserId="79" Text="I have learned that the neuter nominative and accusative *hoc* is actually pronounced as if it were *hocc*.&#xD;&#xA;But was it exclusively *hocc*?&#xD;&#xA;Was it ever pronounced as the *hoc* that it looks like in the classical era?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22286" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6719" RevisionGUID="e59d475d-6c8b-4648-a7c6-e6872b75a0d6" CreationDate="2018-06-20T10:32:43.357" UserId="79" Text="Is 'hoc' ever pronounced short?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22287" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6719" RevisionGUID="e59d475d-6c8b-4648-a7c6-e6872b75a0d6" CreationDate="2018-06-20T10:32:43.357" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6720" RevisionGUID="80605b65-f2d6-48fa-92fd-7f30bd6527a0" CreationDate="2018-06-20T10:32:43.357" UserId="79" Text="Based on metric evidence, it was always pronounced &quot;*hocc*&quot; with a geminated *c*, but still spelled *hoc*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I went through [all the 124 appearances of the *hoc* in Virgil's works](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23hoc%23+%5Bverg%5D).&#xD;&#xA;Whenever *hoc* was followed by a vowel, the scansion unambiguously required that the syllable be long.&#xD;&#xA;Many of the 124 instances occurred before consonants and there were cases of the ablative *h&amp;omacr;c*, but there was still a substantial amount of cases of the nominative or accusative before a vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also checked about half of the [552 appearances of *hoc* in Ovid's works](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23hoc%23+%5Bov%5D&amp;first=81), and the conclusion was identical.&#xD;&#xA;There were plenty of cases where the length (weight) of the sole syllable of *hoc* was visible before a vowel, and in every single case the syllable had to be scanned long.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I feel I can confidently conclude that one always pronounced *hoc* with a geminated (long) *c* in classical Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22289" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5315" RevisionGUID="1ab1b50b-48f7-4627-8d9c-72723daf2a34" CreationDate="2018-06-20T10:34:18.563" UserId="79" Comment="80" />
  <row Id="22290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6721" RevisionGUID="328609a9-6f44-4f9d-a487-135717f638ee" CreationDate="2018-06-20T11:09:07.690" UserId="324" Text="The English “free spirit” is  a bahuvrihi compound meaning “whose spirit is free; having a free spirit”, of the same structure as Latin magnanimus “whose spirit is great”. The German equivalent of “free spirit” is “Freigeist” – patently a compound – which Grimm &amp; Grimm &amp; alii, “Deutsches Wörterbuch”, gloss as “liberioris judicii in rebus divinis”. I think “liberioris judicii” works quite well for “free spirit”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.dwds.de/wb/dwb/freigeist" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6721" RevisionGUID="bd52c139-b2a2-4868-b743-b6ccedad0c53" CreationDate="2018-06-20T11:15:49.583" UserId="324" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="The English “free spirit” is  a bahuvrihi compound meaning “whose spirit is free; having a free spirit”, of the same structure as Latin magnanimus “whose spirit is great”. The German equivalent of “free spirit” is “Freigeist” – patently a compound – which Grimm &amp; Grimm &amp; alii, “Deutsches Wörterbuch”, gloss as “liberioris judicii in rebus divinis”. I think “liberi judicii” works quite well for “free spirit”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.dwds.de/wb/dwb/freigeist" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22292" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="856" RevisionGUID="b41678db-24e9-4d11-b814-9887379e1612" CreationDate="2018-06-20T16:07:55.483" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="What does 'ad tantam mollem' refer to in this context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22293" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="856" RevisionGUID="b41678db-24e9-4d11-b814-9887379e1612" CreationDate="2018-06-20T16:07:55.483" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|vocabulary|meaning|sentence-translation|new-latin|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6720" RevisionGUID="a0515201-6fde-474c-8a37-217b8c294110" CreationDate="2018-06-20T19:02:56.377" UserId="79" Comment="added 337 characters in body" Text="Based on metric evidence, it was always pronounced &quot;*hocc*&quot; with a geminated *c*, but still spelled *hoc*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I went through [all the 124 appearances of the *hoc* in Virgil's works](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23hoc%23+%5Bverg%5D).&#xD;&#xA;Whenever *hoc* was followed by a vowel, the scansion unambiguously required that the syllable be long.&#xD;&#xA;Many of the 124 instances occurred before consonants and there were cases of the ablative *h&amp;omacr;c*, but there was still a substantial amount of cases of the nominative or accusative before a vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also checked about half of the [552 appearances of *hoc* in Ovid's works](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23hoc%23+%5Bov%5D&amp;first=81), and the conclusion was identical.&#xD;&#xA;There were plenty of cases where the length (weight) of the sole syllable of *hoc* was visible before a vowel, and in every single case the syllable had to be scanned long.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I feel I can confidently conclude that one always pronounced *hoc* with a geminated (long) *c* in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gemination concerns pronunciation of *hoc* before a vowel.&#xD;&#xA;Metric evidence will tell nothing about the length of the *c* when followed by another consonant.&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that the *c* was short in such cases, or that the length was not such a meaningful concept in that context.&#xD;&#xA;The pronoun is scanned long anyway in poetry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6722" RevisionGUID="8ec7fd28-9d03-4e82-a7c4-bf787aee1ea9" CreationDate="2018-06-21T07:15:51.180" UserId="79" Text="Not all words have had a single spelling across all eras and contexts.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the past participle of the English word &quot;cleave&quot; can be written as &quot;cleft&quot;, &quot;cleaved&quot;, or &quot;cloven&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Rare misspellings do not count; I am interested in intentional spellings.&#xD;&#xA;In some cases the spelling variations extend through all inflection, sometimes they are restricted to few individual forms.&#xD;&#xA;Either kind is fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whi Latin word has the most spelling variants?&#xD;&#xA;The spellings can be from different eras." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22298" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6722" RevisionGUID="8ec7fd28-9d03-4e82-a7c4-bf787aee1ea9" CreationDate="2018-06-21T07:15:51.180" UserId="79" Text="Which Latin word has the most spelling variants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22299" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6722" RevisionGUID="8ec7fd28-9d03-4e82-a7c4-bf787aee1ea9" CreationDate="2018-06-21T07:15:51.180" UserId="79" Text="|orthography|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6722" RevisionGUID="d0c5beff-3ff3-41d6-95ee-e09e17d2cba5" CreationDate="2018-06-21T07:25:19.283" UserId="79" Comment="added 281 characters in body" Text="Not all words have had a single spelling across all eras and contexts.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the past participle of the English word &quot;cleave&quot; can be written as &quot;cleft&quot;, &quot;cleaved&quot;, or &quot;cloven&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Rare misspellings do not count; I am interested in intentional spellings.&#xD;&#xA;In some cases the spelling variations extend through all inflection, sometimes they are restricted to few individual forms.&#xD;&#xA;Either kind is fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which Latin word has the most spelling variants?&#xD;&#xA;The spellings can be from different eras.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main reasons for spelling variations (that I can think of) are  hypercorrection (e.g. *c &gt; ch*) and changes in pronunciation (e.g. *-os &gt; -us* or *ae &gt; e*).&#xD;&#xA;But it is not obvious which word has the most attested variants just by looking at the general possible patterns." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6723" RevisionGUID="6642f94f-b161-4fec-870d-a693a7268a7f" CreationDate="2018-06-21T07:36:36.360" UserId="79" Text="The best word I know in this sense is *lacrima* with **five** variants.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen these spellings in dictionaries and elsewhere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *lacrima*&#xD;&#xA;- *lacruma*&#xD;&#xA;- *lachryma*&#xD;&#xA;- *lacryma*&#xD;&#xA;- *dacrima*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These variations are due to the regular sound change *d &gt; l* and the typical hypercorrections *c &gt; ch* and *i &gt; y*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="384" RevisionGUID="9090a05f-3add-4ce6-abe5-4ead0d4f1ec0" CreationDate="2018-06-21T07:43:34.487" UserId="79" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Erasmus's letter 1756 (readable in its entirety [here][1]) describes an explosion of gunpowder in a castle at Basel. I'm having trouble understanding a five-word phrase in the letter. This is the passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Vidisses immania fragmenta turris, avium ritu, volitare per aera; quaedam ad ducentos passus deferri, qua dabatur liberum aeris spatium; alia civium domos longo tractu demoliri.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;You would have seen huge fragments of the tower, like birds, flying through the air; some of which were carried up to two hundred paces away, *qua dabatur liberum aeris spatium*; others destroyed the houses of citizens over a wide area.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is meant by *qua dabatur liberum aeris spatium*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost16/Erasmus/era_ep21.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22303" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="384" RevisionGUID="9090a05f-3add-4ce6-abe5-4ead0d4f1ec0" CreationDate="2018-06-21T07:43:34.487" UserId="79" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6723" RevisionGUID="670989c5-da6f-4bb0-9004-31687de52d76" CreationDate="2018-06-21T07:45:13.390" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="The best word I know in this sense is *lacrima* with **five** variants.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen these spellings in dictionaries and elsewhere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *lacrima*&#xD;&#xA;- *lacruma*&#xD;&#xA;- *lachryma*&#xD;&#xA;- *lacryma*&#xD;&#xA;- *dacrima*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These variations are due to the sound change *d &gt; l* and the typical hypercorrections *c &gt; ch* and *i &gt; y*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6723" RevisionGUID="eb1ea288-9ddc-4a4b-a8eb-1e5da2726359" CreationDate="2018-06-21T08:42:55.153" UserId="79" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="The best word I know in this sense is *lacrima* with **six** variants.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen these spellings in dictionaries and elsewhere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *lacrima*&#xD;&#xA;- *lacruma*&#xD;&#xA;- *lachryma*&#xD;&#xA;- *lacryma*&#xD;&#xA;- *dacrima*&#xA;- *dacruma*&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These variations are due to the sound change *d &gt; l* and the typical hypercorrections *c &gt; ch* and *i &gt; y*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6724" RevisionGUID="563b2aa1-e094-4920-8991-2497e79eaeae" CreationDate="2018-06-21T10:19:21.330" UserId="1982" Text="North &amp; Hillard Ex 191; Q3: &quot;While the conspitators gathered round Caeser, Antonius was led aside by Trebonius.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The Answer: &quot;dum coniurati Caeserem cingunt Antonius a Trebonio clam deductus est.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The answer includes &quot;clam&quot;; but, the Q does not state that anything was done secretly/ clandestinely/ furtively. Is this a mistake? This adverb takes abl., presumably covered by &quot;a Trebonio&quot;; but, could it be  &quot;Antonio&quot; who was the person being furtively led away; or, could it be either?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22308" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6724" RevisionGUID="563b2aa1-e094-4920-8991-2497e79eaeae" CreationDate="2018-06-21T10:19:21.330" UserId="1982" Text="North &amp; Hillard Waxing Poetry?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22309" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6724" RevisionGUID="563b2aa1-e094-4920-8991-2497e79eaeae" CreationDate="2018-06-21T10:19:21.330" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6724" RevisionGUID="eb391d14-f797-4269-9646-4267d7c6781f" CreationDate="2018-06-21T12:44:12.383" UserId="1459" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="North &amp; Hillard Ex 191; Q3: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;While the conspitators gathered round Caeser, Antonius was led aside by Trebonius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Answer: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_dum coniurati Caeserem cingunt Antonius a Trebonio clam deductus est._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer includes &quot;_clam_&quot;; but, the Q does not state that anything was done secretly/clandestinely/furtively. Is this a mistake? This adverb takes abl., presumably covered by &quot;_a Trebonio_&quot;; but, could it be Antonius who was the person being furtively led away; or, could it be either?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22311" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6724" RevisionGUID="afb695ae-61f1-4adf-8c2f-265bb50bfa78" CreationDate="2018-06-21T12:45:11.633" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation-check|word-choice|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6725" RevisionGUID="c9024362-e1aa-4297-96ee-d9d945871dac" CreationDate="2018-06-21T12:45:56.530" UserId="79" Text="When Antonius was led by Trebonius in passive voice, the subject is Antonius and the agent is Trebonius: *Antonius a Trebonio ductus est*.&#xD;&#xA;The one being lead is Antonius, and the one leading is Trebonius.&#xD;&#xA;The agent in a Latin passive is indicated with ablative, and the preposition *a/ab/abs* [when the agent is &quot;human&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/840/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adverb *clam* is not directly included in the English original, but it fits well in the translation.&#xD;&#xA;The English phrase &quot;to lead aside&quot; has a stronger nuance of secrecy than the Latin *deducere*, so emphasizing this aspect with an adverb makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;The translation may not be &quot;clinically accurate&quot;, but it tells the same story with the same nuance quite accurately, and that is what matters most." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6724" RevisionGUID="d571c4a0-638f-4b83-85d7-ba4dde18a0b3" CreationDate="2018-06-21T12:47:02.727" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="North &amp; Hillard Ex 191; Q3: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;While the conspitators gathered round Caesar, Antonius was led aside by Trebonius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Answer: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_dum coniurati Caesarem cingunt Antonius a Trebonio clam deductus est._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer includes &quot;_clam_&quot;; but, the Q does not state that anything was done secretly/clandestinely/furtively. Is this a mistake? This adverb takes abl., presumably covered by &quot;_a Trebonio_&quot;; but, could it be Antonius who was the person being furtively led away; or, could it be either?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22314" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6724" RevisionGUID="d571c4a0-638f-4b83-85d7-ba4dde18a0b3" CreationDate="2018-06-21T12:47:02.727" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|word-choice|translation-explanation|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22315" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5294" RevisionGUID="2dbb441c-e308-40f3-9ee3-2e69f2d35666" CreationDate="2018-06-21T12:48:19.627" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|scientific-names|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22316" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="954" RevisionGUID="8770ebac-69dc-41f1-b973-e5d453098970" CreationDate="2018-06-21T12:49:01.937" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6725" RevisionGUID="bae98f84-1151-4f4e-a153-4c72e94ed106" CreationDate="2018-06-21T12:49:21.630" UserId="645" Comment="led for lead in l.3" Text="When Antonius was led by Trebonius in passive voice, the subject is Antonius and the agent is Trebonius: *Antonius a Trebonio ductus est*.&#xD;&#xA;The one being led is Antonius, and the one leading is Trebonius.&#xD;&#xA;The agent in a Latin passive is indicated with ablative, and the preposition *a/ab/abs* [when the agent is &quot;human&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/840/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adverb *clam* is not directly included in the English original, but it fits well in the translation.&#xD;&#xA;The English phrase &quot;to lead aside&quot; has a stronger nuance of secrecy than the Latin *deducere*, so emphasizing this aspect with an adverb makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;The translation may not be &quot;clinically accurate&quot;, but it tells the same story with the same nuance quite accurately, and that is what matters most." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6726" RevisionGUID="a2d5ccf4-a1a3-49ad-9299-e435f27d23c4" CreationDate="2018-06-21T13:14:07.063" UserId="645" Text="*Animus* is perfectly appropriate in this context but I think that, rather than *liber*, either *effrenatus* or *effusus* would better express the idea of a spirit that is 'free' here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two adjectives are very close in meaning. *Effrenatus*, 'unbridled'  means 'lacking (external) control', while *effusus* indicates that the spirit enjoys an extraordinary freedom of expression." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6724" RevisionGUID="73c15fad-6ea6-49ab-93a8-bf7a4d2e8c51" CreationDate="2018-06-21T14:13:46.650" UserId="45" Comment="added 101 characters in body; edited title" Text="In *North &amp; Hillard*, Ex. 191, q. 3, the following English sentence needs to be translated into Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;While the conspirators gathered round Caesar, Antonius was led aside by Trebonius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer key gives us:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_dum coniurati Caesarem cingunt Antonius a Trebonio clam deductus est._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer includes &quot;_clam_&quot;; but, the question does not state that anything was done secretly/clandestinely/furtively. Is this a mistake? This adverb takes the ablative, presumably covered by &quot;_a Trebonio_&quot;; but, could it be Antonius who was the person being furtively led away; or, could it be either?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22320" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6724" RevisionGUID="73c15fad-6ea6-49ab-93a8-bf7a4d2e8c51" CreationDate="2018-06-21T14:13:46.650" UserId="45" Comment="added 101 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why is &quot;clam deductus est&quot; used to translate &quot;was led aside&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6727" RevisionGUID="82f1ff02-38c5-4bd1-912e-1f293a24877b" CreationDate="2018-06-21T14:23:11.817" UserId="45" Text="Joonas's answer responds to your main question, but, to recap: *clam deductus est&quot; is an additive, but certainly not inaccurate, translation of &quot;was led aside.&quot; You are correct that it adds the notion of &quot;secretly,&quot; but there is no arcane reason, besides translator's license, that is operative here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to add a quick note about *clam*, since one of your comments shows a little confusion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This adverb takes the ablative, presumably covered by &quot;a Trebonio.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**As an adverb**, *clam* does not take the ablative. It's a simple adverb that modifies the verb (*deductus est*) and functions in the same way as English. Antonius was led away secretly by Trebonius: there is no way to construe it the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your comment about the ablative makes me think that you are considering *clam* **as a preposition**, which can take either the ablative or the accusative ([meaning II in L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dclam)). This is rare and (as far as I know) only found in the older, more colloquial writers Plautus and Terence. For purposes of prose composition, you probably shouldn't use this form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6728" RevisionGUID="493a30e9-748c-45c1-9a4c-80b06e017eaa" CreationDate="2018-06-21T14:48:03.613" UserId="1459" Text="A partial answer here. The fountain was built in 1762, at a time where Italian was already in &quot;[full use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_language#Renaissance)&quot; in Italy, including Rome. Without doubt the original name of the fountain was in Italian. As such, it is not surprising that Latin simply used the original name in Italian. For instance, [in this publication](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015082485585;view=1up;seq=272), in Latin, the name is written in Italian, signified by the emphasis. There are other similar examples in the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, this does not mean it might not have been translated by someone, but my point is simply that its use in Italian might have been common even in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6729" RevisionGUID="8c29a7ad-7350-4be0-be44-a5901c77fe5f" CreationDate="2018-06-21T16:51:21.307" UserId="769" Text="In Institutio oratorio book 7, chapter 9, Quintilian comments on the ambiguity that arises in many accusative plus infinitive constructions. His example is the famous &quot;Aio te, Aeacida, Romanos uincere posse&quot;, where one cannot say whether Romans will defeat or be defeated. The solution proposed by Quintilian is the one suggested by some of you, i.e., using the passive voice...&#xD;&#xA;  I have touched myself the topic of ambiguity in relation with homonymy in a paper with the title:  &#xD;&#xA;Quintilian on “grammatical homonymy”: The linguistic sensibility of a Roman lawyer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/joll.2017.16.issue-1/joll-2017-0004/joll-2017-0004.xml&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interested readers can ask for a copy privately (juria@unizar.es)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6729" RevisionGUID="af25d445-801a-443d-a077-cda3062c883a" CreationDate="2018-06-21T16:57:52.900" UserId="769" Comment="edited body" Text="In Institutio oratoria book 7, chapter 9, Quintilian comments on the ambiguity that arises in many accusative plus infinitive constructions. His example is the famous &quot;Aio te, Aeacida, Romanos uincere posse&quot;, where one cannot say whether Romans will defeat or be defeated. The solution proposed by Quintilian is the one suggested by some of you, i.e., using the passive voice...&#xD;&#xA;  I have touched myself the topic of ambiguity in relation with homonymy in a paper with the title:  &#xD;&#xA;Quintilian on “grammatical homonymy”: The linguistic sensibility of a Roman lawyer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/joll.2017.16.issue-1/joll-2017-0004/joll-2017-0004.xml&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interested readers can ask for a copy privately (juria@unizar.es)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22325" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5595" RevisionGUID="3f1c8569-9359-4682-b7b2-502ab8e9d79d" CreationDate="2018-06-21T20:21:50.343" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="22326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5973" RevisionGUID="f57b5edb-ad6b-4243-bf23-9f5a15bbe1e8" CreationDate="2018-06-21T20:31:29.880" UserId="79" Comment="added 271 characters in body" Text="An umbrella can be regarded as a &quot;shadow from rain&quot;, similar to the &quot;shadow from light&quot; expressed by *umbra*.&#xD;&#xA;I think this analogy is clear enough, but it has to be made explicit.&#xD;&#xA;To me it seems that *umbra* or the diminutive *umbrella* means a shadow from light unless specified.&#xD;&#xA;So, we specify it: I suggest ***umbrella pluvialis***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course this would make sense with *umbra* as well, but the diminutive is suitable for this use &amp;mdash; the shadow zone created by an umbrella is rather small &amp;mdash; and it reinforces the meaning by analogy to other languages like English (&quot;umbrella&quot;) and Italian (&quot;ombrello&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;And, as usual, once the concept has been introduced and the context doesn't turn sunny, the adjective *pluvialis* can be dropped to leave a plain *umbrella*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found no attestations of *umbrella pluvialis*, but I think it would be a reasonable choice anyway, especially in modern use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Penelope remarked in a comment that *umbrella* seems not to be the standard classical choice, whereas *umbella* or *umbraculum* (often in plural) are attested.&#xD;&#xA;[Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/rc_latinitas_20040601_lexicon_it.html) agrees.&#xD;&#xA;These are good options with *pluvialis/pluviale*.&#xD;&#xA;However, despite *umbrella* not being classical, I find it appropriate for modern use.&#xD;&#xA;After all, Latin diminutives are not uniquely determined by the base word.&#xD;&#xA;And the analogy to other languages is not to be neglected; making use of them often makes communication smoother." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6730" RevisionGUID="b4478483-67d9-4f14-8f6a-6a78489b48d3" CreationDate="2018-06-22T00:51:47.423" UserId="1142" Text="# Indicative present system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Latin present system (*present, imperfect, and future tenses*), verb endings for each tense in each conjugation differ from each other quite a bit. In the present indicative (*active and passive*), 1st, 2nd, and 4th conjugation verbs largely retain the vowel present in their infinitive: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1st: *-ō/-or, -ās/-āris, -at/-ātur, -āmus/-āmur, -ātis/-āminī, -ant/-antur*&#xD;&#xA;* 2nd: *-eō/-eor, -ēs/-ēris, -et/-ētur, -ēmus/-ēmur, -ētis/-ēminī, -ent/-entur*&#xD;&#xA;* 4th: *-iō/-ior, -īs/-īris, -it/-ītur, -īmus/-īmur, -ītis/-īminī, -iunt/-iuntur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas in the 3rd and 3rd-io present indicative conjugations, the vowels in their infinitives are not retained at all:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  * 3rd: *-ō/-or, -is/-eris, -it/-itur, -imus/-imur, -itis/iminī, -unt/-untur*&#xD;&#xA;  * 3rd-io: *-iō/-ior, -is/-eris, -it/-itur, -imus/-imur, -itis/-iminī, -iunt/-iuntur*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperfect indicative tense (*active and passive*) is slightly more regular, as the endings of all conjugations will ultimately terminate with *-bam/-bar, -bās/-bāris, -bat/-bātur, -bāmus/-bāmur, -bātis/-bāminī*, and *-bant/-bantur*. However, even with slightly more regularity, each conjugation will still insert a certain thematic vowel or vowels between the present stem and imperfect endings, those being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1st: *-ā-*&#xD;&#xA;* 2nd &amp; 3rd: *-ē-*&#xD;&#xA;* 3rd-io &amp; 4th: *-iē-*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which ultimately results in verb endings which differ between the conjugations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future indicative tense (*active and passive*), while being somewhat more regular than the present, verb endings once again vary between conjugations. In the 1st and 2nd conjugations, the future endings are almost identical to each other with the only difference being the vowel retained from the infinitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1st: *-ābō/-ābor, -ābis/-āberis, -ābit/-ābitur, -ābimus/-ābimur, -ābitis/-ābiminī, -ābunt/-ābuntur*&#xD;&#xA;* 2nd: *-ēbō/-ēbor, -ēbis/-ēberis, -ēbit/-ēbitur, -ēbimus/-ēbimur, -ēbitis/-ēbiminī, -ēbunt/-ēbuntur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas in the 3rd, 3rd-io, and 4th conjugations the future indicative endings are completely different from those of the 1st and 2nd conjugations and contain no vowels retained from the infinitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 3rd: *-am/-ar, -ēs/-ēris, -et/-ētur, -ēmus/-ēmur, -ētis/-ēminī -ent/-entur*&#xD;&#xA;* 3rd-io &amp; 4th: *-iam/-iar, -iēs/-iēris, -iet/-iētur, -iēmus/-iēmur, -iētis/-iēminī -ient/-ientur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Subjunctive present system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to the subjunctive present system, more regularity can generally be found than what would be found in the indicative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the subjunctive present tense (*active and passive*), the endings of all conjugations (*except for 1st*) will always end with *-am/-ar, -ās/-āris, -at/-ātur, -āmus/-āmur, -ātis/-āminī*, and *-ant/-antur*. Thematic vowels will then be inserted between the present stem and present endings for the 2nd, 3rd-io, and 4th conjugations, those being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 2nd: *-e-*&#xD;&#xA;* 3rd-io &amp; 4th: *-i-*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the 3rd conjugation, the previously stated endings are used without a thematic vowel. In the 1st conjugation, the endings *-em/-er, -ēs/-ēris, -et/-ētur, -ēmus/-ēmur, -ētis/-ēminī*, and *-ent/-entur* are used instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subjunctive imperfect (*active and passive*) is much like the indicative imperfect. The endings for each conjugation will always terminate with *-rem/-rer, -rēs/-rēris, -ret/-rētur, -rēmus/-rēmur, -rētis/-rēminī*, and *-rent/-rentur*. However, like the indicative imperfect, each conjugation will insert a certain thematic vowel or vowels between the present stem and the imperfect endings, those being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1st: *-ā-*&#xD;&#xA;* 2nd: *-ē-*&#xD;&#xA;* 3rd &amp; 3rd-io: *-e-*&#xD;&#xA;* 4th: *-ī-*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which once again, like the indicative imperfect, results in verb endings which differ between conjugations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Indicative &amp; subjunctive perfect system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike the present system, the perfect system (*perfect, pluperfect, and future perfect tenses*) is *extremely* regular. The endings for each tense in the active voice will **always** be the same for each conjugation, with no differences of any kind (*e.g, differing thematic vowels; completely different endings, like those of the future indicative; etc.*). The perfect active system endings for the indicative and subjunctive moods are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Perfect active indicative: *-ī, -istī, -it, -imus, -istis, -ērunt*&#xD;&#xA;* Perfect active subjunctive: *-erim, -erīs, -erit, -erīmus, -erītis, -erint*&#xD;&#xA;* Pluperfect active indicative: *-eram, -erās, -erat, -erāmus, -erātis, -erant*&#xD;&#xA;* Pluperfect active subjunctive: *-issem, -issēs, -isset, -issēmus, -issētis, -issent*&#xD;&#xA;* Future perfect active indicative: *-erō, -eris, -erit, -erimus, -eritis, -erint*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like the perfect system in the active voice, the perfect system in the passive voice is equally regular. However, instead of using the perfect stem and specific endings, the perfect passive participle of the verb and the conjugation of *sum, esse, fuī, futūrus* in a present system tense corresponding to a perfect system tense (*i.e, present ↔ perfect, imperfect ↔ pluperfect, future ↔ future perfect*) are used instead, like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Perfect passive indicative: *perfect passive participle + present active indicative of sum*&#xD;&#xA;* Perfect passive subjunctive: *perfect passive participle + present active subjunctive of sum*&#xD;&#xA;* Pluperfect passive indicative: *perfect passive participle + imperfect active indicative of sum*&#xD;&#xA;* Pluperfect passive subjunctive: *perfect passive participle + imperfect active subjunctive of sum*&#xD;&#xA;* Future perfect passive indicative: *perfect passive participle + future active indicative of sum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# TL;DR &amp; the actual question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all explanation complete, my final question is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why, when compared to the perfect system and its extremely regular endings for each tense between conjugations (*i.e, 1st, 2nd, etc.*), are the present system and its endings for each tense so dissimilar between conjugations? Irregular verbs are obviously exempt from this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it a result of some change verbs underwent while evolving from Proto-Italic predecessors of Latin? Is it an artifact which arose due to the way(s) by which Proto-Indo-European verbs worked? Or is it something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22328" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6730" RevisionGUID="b4478483-67d9-4f14-8f6a-6a78489b48d3" CreationDate="2018-06-22T00:51:47.423" UserId="1142" Text="Cur coniugationes systematis praesentis sunt tam dissimiles cum eae cum coniugationibus systematis perfecti comparentur?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22329" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6730" RevisionGUID="b4478483-67d9-4f14-8f6a-6a78489b48d3" CreationDate="2018-06-22T00:51:47.423" UserId="1142" Text="|verbs|language-evolution|conjugation|tenses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6730" RevisionGUID="ebbba103-fa2e-4803-82e7-be4c4db574c8" CreationDate="2018-06-22T01:13:41.733" UserId="1142" Comment="Moved question to top (it is a Q&amp;A site after all) and added some minor details to it; fixed headings." Text="# TL;DR &amp; the actual question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those who don't need an explanation of all verb endings and the ways in which they differ from each other, my question follows below. For those who might need a refresher or explanation, jump to *&quot;The indicative present system&quot;* heading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why, when compared to the perfect system and its extremely regular endings for each tense between conjugations (*i.e, 1st, 2nd, etc.*), are the present system and its endings for each tense so dissimilar between conjugations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it a result of some change verbs underwent while evolving from Proto-Italic predecessors of Latin? Is it an artifact which arose due to the way(s) by which Proto-Indo-European verbs worked? Or is it something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Irregular verbs are, obviously, exempt from this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# The indicative present system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Latin present system (*present, imperfect, and future tenses*), verb endings for each tense in each conjugation differ from each other quite a bit. In the present indicative (*active and passive*), 1st, 2nd, and 4th conjugation verbs largely retain the vowel present in their infinitive: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1st: *-ō/-or, -ās/-āris, -at/-ātur, -āmus/-āmur, -ātis/-āminī, -ant/-antur*&#xD;&#xA;* 2nd: *-eō/-eor, -ēs/-ēris, -et/-ētur, -ēmus/-ēmur, -ētis/-ēminī, -ent/-entur*&#xD;&#xA;* 4th: *-iō/-ior, -īs/-īris, -it/-ītur, -īmus/-īmur, -ītis/-īminī, -iunt/-iuntur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas in the 3rd and 3rd-io present indicative conjugations, the vowels in their infinitives are not retained at all:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  * 3rd: *-ō/-or, -is/-eris, -it/-itur, -imus/-imur, -itis/iminī, -unt/-untur*&#xD;&#xA;  * 3rd-io: *-iō/-ior, -is/-eris, -it/-itur, -imus/-imur, -itis/-iminī, -iunt/-iuntur*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperfect indicative tense (*active and passive*) is slightly more regular, as the endings of all conjugations will ultimately terminate with *-bam/-bar, -bās/-bāris, -bat/-bātur, -bāmus/-bāmur, -bātis/-bāminī*, and *-bant/-bantur*. However, even with slightly more regularity, each conjugation will still insert a certain thematic vowel or vowels between the present stem and imperfect endings, those being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1st: *-ā-*&#xD;&#xA;* 2nd &amp; 3rd: *-ē-*&#xD;&#xA;* 3rd-io &amp; 4th: *-iē-*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which ultimately results in verb endings which differ between the conjugations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future indicative tense (*active and passive*), while being somewhat more regular than the present, verb endings once again vary between conjugations. In the 1st and 2nd conjugations, the future endings are almost identical to each other with the only difference being the vowel retained from the infinitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1st: *-ābō/-ābor, -ābis/-āberis, -ābit/-ābitur, -ābimus/-ābimur, -ābitis/-ābiminī, -ābunt/-ābuntur*&#xD;&#xA;* 2nd: *-ēbō/-ēbor, -ēbis/-ēberis, -ēbit/-ēbitur, -ēbimus/-ēbimur, -ēbitis/-ēbiminī, -ēbunt/-ēbuntur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas in the 3rd, 3rd-io, and 4th conjugations the future indicative endings are completely different from those of the 1st and 2nd conjugations and contain no vowels retained from the infinitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 3rd: *-am/-ar, -ēs/-ēris, -et/-ētur, -ēmus/-ēmur, -ētis/-ēminī -ent/-entur*&#xD;&#xA;* 3rd-io &amp; 4th: *-iam/-iar, -iēs/-iēris, -iet/-iētur, -iēmus/-iēmur, -iētis/-iēminī -ient/-ientur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# The subjunctive present system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to the subjunctive present system, more regularity can generally be found than what would be found in the indicative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the subjunctive present tense (*active and passive*), the endings of all conjugations (*except for 1st*) will always end with *-am/-ar, -ās/-āris, -at/-ātur, -āmus/-āmur, -ātis/-āminī*, and *-ant/-antur*. Thematic vowels will then be inserted between the present stem and present endings for the 2nd, 3rd-io, and 4th conjugations, those being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 2nd: *-e-*&#xD;&#xA;* 3rd-io &amp; 4th: *-i-*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the 3rd conjugation, the previously stated endings are used without a thematic vowel. In the 1st conjugation, the endings *-em/-er, -ēs/-ēris, -et/-ētur, -ēmus/-ēmur, -ētis/-ēminī*, and *-ent/-entur* are used instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subjunctive imperfect (*active and passive*) is much like the indicative imperfect. The endings for each conjugation will always terminate with *-rem/-rer, -rēs/-rēris, -ret/-rētur, -rēmus/-rēmur, -rētis/-rēminī*, and *-rent/-rentur*. However, like the indicative imperfect, each conjugation will insert a certain thematic vowel or vowels between the present stem and the imperfect endings, those being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1st: *-ā-*&#xD;&#xA;* 2nd: *-ē-*&#xD;&#xA;* 3rd &amp; 3rd-io: *-e-*&#xD;&#xA;* 4th: *-ī-*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which once again, like the indicative imperfect, results in verb endings which differ between conjugations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# The indicative &amp; subjunctive perfect system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike the present system, the perfect system (*perfect, pluperfect, and future perfect tenses*) is *extremely* regular. The endings for each tense in the active voice will **always** be the same for each conjugation, with no differences of any kind (*e.g, differing thematic vowels; completely different endings, like those of the future indicative; etc.*). The perfect active system endings for the indicative and subjunctive moods are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Perfect active indicative: *-ī, -istī, -it, -imus, -istis, -ērunt*&#xD;&#xA;* Perfect active subjunctive: *-erim, -erīs, -erit, -erīmus, -erītis, -erint*&#xD;&#xA;* Pluperfect active indicative: *-eram, -erās, -erat, -erāmus, -erātis, -erant*&#xD;&#xA;* Pluperfect active subjunctive: *-issem, -issēs, -isset, -issēmus, -issētis, -issent*&#xD;&#xA;* Future perfect active indicative: *-erō, -eris, -erit, -erimus, -eritis, -erint*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like the perfect system in the active voice, the perfect system in the passive voice is equally regular. However, instead of using the perfect stem and specific endings, the perfect passive participle of the verb and the conjugation of *sum, esse, fuī, futūrus* in a present system tense corresponding to a perfect system tense (*i.e, present ↔ perfect, imperfect ↔ pluperfect, future ↔ future perfect*) are used instead, like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Perfect passive indicative: *perfect passive participle + present active indicative of sum*&#xD;&#xA;* Perfect passive subjunctive: *perfect passive participle + present active subjunctive of sum*&#xD;&#xA;* Pluperfect passive indicative: *perfect passive participle + imperfect active indicative of sum*&#xD;&#xA;* Pluperfect passive subjunctive: *perfect passive participle + imperfect active subjunctive of sum*&#xD;&#xA;* Future perfect passive indicative: *perfect passive participle + future active indicative of sum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22332" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6724" RevisionGUID="079ee526-40e3-4132-8a40-1ec955f51cdd" CreationDate="2018-06-22T10:33:47.163" UserId="1982" Comment="edited title" Text="N &amp; H Waxing Poetry: Why is &quot;clam deductus est&quot; used to translate &quot;was led aside&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6731" RevisionGUID="fc3353ed-00ee-41ac-b721-9daf06740a27" CreationDate="2018-06-22T18:24:40.947" UserId="2709" Text="Once I found online an old (I believe 16th century, but not sure) list of simple sentences, Latin and their English translation side by side. I've tried with no avail to find them again through google, and I looked through my old Latin folders because I knew I had a few pages printed out at one point. But I guess threw them out. Any help with this is greatly appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22334" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6731" RevisionGUID="fc3353ed-00ee-41ac-b721-9daf06740a27" CreationDate="2018-06-22T18:24:40.947" UserId="2709" Text="Trying to find Latin resource I used to have years ago" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22335" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6731" RevisionGUID="fc3353ed-00ee-41ac-b721-9daf06740a27" CreationDate="2018-06-22T18:24:40.947" UserId="2709" Text="|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6732" RevisionGUID="7f616b18-306a-48d9-a021-d57cafe34ae4" CreationDate="2018-06-22T20:16:51.333" UserId="235" Text="In Plato's *Republic*, Socrates sets forth the following idea, which he later refutes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τὸ τὰ αὑτοῦ πράττειν καὶ μὴ πολυπραγμονεῖν δικαιοσύνη ἐστί, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; justice is to do one's own business and not to do too much,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([4.433a][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's odd, grammatically speaking, is that the compound verb πολυπραγμονεῖν (&quot;to do a lot&quot;) doesn't use the verb stem πράττειν, which appears earlier in the clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why does the compound verb πολυπραγμονεῖν use the noun stem instead of the verb stem? Is this common? I would expect to see πολυπράττειν instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0167%3Abook%3D4%3Asection%3D433a" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22337" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6732" RevisionGUID="7f616b18-306a-48d9-a021-d57cafe34ae4" CreationDate="2018-06-22T20:16:51.333" UserId="235" Text="Why does the verb πολυπραγμονεῖν use the noun stem and not the verb stem? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22338" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6732" RevisionGUID="7f616b18-306a-48d9-a021-d57cafe34ae4" CreationDate="2018-06-22T20:16:51.333" UserId="235" Text="|greek|verbs|plato|compound-verb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2243" RevisionGUID="ee0d6e4b-0f7f-4468-801e-7906510f3d61" CreationDate="2018-06-22T21:32:00.437" UserId="1142" Comment="Fixed a large number of grammar, spelling, and punctuation issues; cleaned up formatting." Text="Here I have the deponent verb&#xD;&#xA;*persequor, persequi, persecutus sum, persecutum*. Following standard deponent rules, I am able to form the following (apparently these active participles are active in both form and meaning):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Present active participle: *persequire* → *persequins*&#xD;&#xA;* Future active participle: *persectum* → *persecturus*&#xD;&#xA;* Future passive participle: *persequire* → *persequindus*&#xD;&#xA;* Perfect passive participle: *persectum* → *persectus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have used the presumed infinitive and the presumed perfect passive participles. However, all of the above are objectively wrong and I am unable to find the correct participles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where did I go wrong in the above, and is it possible to form case-specific, gender-specific, tense-specific participles from the principal parts of a deponent verb in the same way done with non-deponent verbs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I just realized that the stem should be *persequ-*, but *persequns* is still incorrect for the present active participle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22340" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2243" RevisionGUID="ee0d6e4b-0f7f-4468-801e-7906510f3d61" CreationDate="2018-06-22T21:32:00.437" UserId="1142" Comment="Fixed a large number of grammar, spelling, and punctuation issues; cleaned up formatting." Text="Formation of participles from deponent verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22341" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2243" RevisionGUID="ee0d6e4b-0f7f-4468-801e-7906510f3d61" CreationDate="2018-06-22T21:32:00.437" Comment="Proposed by 1142 approved by 1459, 79 edit id of 237" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="696" RevisionGUID="4cb50950-e74e-444a-80fd-5f1a09a302fe" CreationDate="2018-06-22T21:38:53.553" UserId="79" Comment="Reworded more clearly, I hope. Feel free to rollback or re-edit!" Text="Both *gaudium* and *laetitia* denote joy, but appear to be used differently depending on the circumstances. What is the distinction between the two (or more) Latin words for joy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22343" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="696" RevisionGUID="4cb50950-e74e-444a-80fd-5f1a09a302fe" CreationDate="2018-06-22T21:38:53.553" UserId="79" Comment="Reworded more clearly, I hope. Feel free to rollback or re-edit!" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="697" RevisionGUID="b483c009-35e9-4a4f-a32b-19b4a2bc227f" CreationDate="2018-06-22T21:42:33.030" UserId="79" Comment="added 399 characters in body" Text="One of the differences is the way of expressing joy.&#xD;&#xA;This is not the only difference, but let me focus on this aspect.&#xD;&#xA;The aspect of expressing joy is not always present, but my understanding is that these words have such tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*Gaudium*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1006709) is inward joy that you keep to yourself.&#xD;&#xA;It is about feeling something inside, not about showing it.&#xD;&#xA;- [*Exsultatio*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1005921) is more like jumping around in joy.&#xD;&#xA;It emphasizes showing the joy to everyone &amp;mdash; which to me at least includes a mild connotation of a shallower feeling.&#xD;&#xA;- [*Laetitia*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1008998) is somewhere between these two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These words can express a difference in the way of expressing joy, but this aspect is not the only one and may well be entirely absent in some cases.&#xD;&#xA;As Alex B. commented, Hermann Menge (Menge 2011, Lateinische Synonymik) says basically this.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the words are used indiscriminately to mean &quot;joy&quot;, and sometimes rhythmic considerations lead to preferring one word over its near synonyms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6733" RevisionGUID="35e848e3-60f6-43f1-be41-03cf9f099a19" CreationDate="2018-06-22T22:15:55.140" UserId="985" Text="I don't think the verb really means simply 'to do many things' – which could conceivably be rendered as πολυπράττειν or πολλὰ πράττειν. It seems instead to be a denominative verb built on πολυπράγμων, 'meddlesome,' 'officious,' 'a busybody' (per LSJ), and therefore means something more like 'to be a busybody.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** I posted too quickly. In fact, I see that the LSJ entry for πολυπραγμονέω cites this passage as an example of the meaning 'to be a meddlesome, inquisitive busybody.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6733" RevisionGUID="c9698302-d3e5-40a1-8373-afd3ec1b7c5f" CreationDate="2018-06-22T22:39:54.317" UserId="985" Comment="added 480 characters in body" Text="I don't think the verb really means simply 'to do many things' – which could conceivably be rendered as πολυπράττειν or πολλὰ πράττειν. It seems instead to be a denominative verb built on πολυπράγμων, 'meddlesome,' 'officious,' 'a busybody,' and therefore means something more like 'to be a busybody.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** I posted too quickly. In fact, I see that the LSJ entry for πολυπραγμονέω cites this passage as an example of the meaning 'to be a meddlesome, inquisitive busybody.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2 (for completeness):** The section of Smyth's Greek grammar about denominative verbs (sections 866-868) lists -εω is one of the principle terminations for denominative verbs (866.2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **-εω:** derived chiefly from ο/ε-stems (384 f), and thence extended to all kinds of stems. Verbs in -εω denote a *condition* or an *activity*, and are often intransitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example in Smyth that offers the closest parallel with πολυπραγμονέω is σωφρονέω, 'to be temperate (σώφρων).'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6733" RevisionGUID="3c6c0577-fc1f-4531-8db9-d60661b4449e" CreationDate="2018-06-23T04:12:48.220" UserId="985" Comment="Incorporated previous updates" Text="The verb doesn't actually mean simply 'to do many things' – though that idea could conceivably be rendered by πολυπράττειν, if such a verb existed (it isn't attested in LSJ), or by πολλὰ πράττειν. Instead, it's a denominative verb (a verb formed from the stem of a substantive or adjective). In this case, it's formed from the adjective πολυπράγμων, 'meddlesome,' 'officious,' 'a busybody,' and therefore means something like 'to be a busybody.' (In fact, the LSJ entry for πολυπραγμονέω cites this passage from the *Republic* as an example of the meaning 'to be a meddlesome, inquisitive busybody.')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The section of Smyth's Greek grammar about denominative verbs (§866-868) lists -εω is one of the principle terminations for denominative verbs (§866.2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **-εω:** derived chiefly from ο/ε-stems (384 f), and thence extended to all kinds of stems. Verbs in -εω denote a *condition* or an *activity*, and are often intransitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example in Smyth that offers the closest parallel with πολυπραγμονέω (&lt; πολυπράγμων) is σωφρονέω, 'to be temperate' (&lt; σώφρων)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6734" RevisionGUID="14e71b12-7de0-4261-8d20-263ef7ad5f0e" CreationDate="2018-06-23T10:14:58.010" UserId="81" Text="Mathurin Cordier was a theologian and teacher of the 16th century, and his work, known as the [*Corderii Colloquiorum*][1], sounds a lot like what you're describing. Here's a screenshot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Mathurin_CORDIER_Corderii_colloquiorum_centuria_se?id=daZgAAAAcAAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3PNY1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6735" RevisionGUID="b2101fc2-922f-4bb9-82e3-e6e6eef3452a" CreationDate="2018-06-23T11:28:00.393" UserId="645" Text="It's quite possible that you remember the Eton Latin Grammar of (Arthur?) Hay, in widespread use in English public schools a couple of hundred years ago. It was adapted from the sixteenth century Eton instruction manual, but was much revised over the years and published in two parts. I remember from years ago an edition published in the 1880s by John Murray (London), which was partly constructed in the way you describe. You could begin your search by looking at https://www.forgottenbooks.com/en/books/TheEtonLatinGrammar_10853396" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22351" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2963" RevisionGUID="87ecbe5c-f2e9-48f2-b4ae-ffa7d0a5eb09" CreationDate="2018-06-23T19:57:13.853" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|verbs|grammar-identification|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22352" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5143" RevisionGUID="ad3981e7-401e-4a9a-b7a2-c5066a7bac84" CreationDate="2018-06-23T19:57:30.357" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|motto|ecclesiastical-latin|spanish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22353" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6614" RevisionGUID="644ddb7f-8c76-4b13-9bef-4a603dcab0ad" CreationDate="2018-06-23T19:58:31.097" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|sentence-translation|translation-check|case|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6735" RevisionGUID="cdf62833-f88a-4ec5-913c-619ba264da22" CreationDate="2018-06-23T19:59:04.710" UserId="645" Comment="material added" Text="It's quite possible that you remember the Eton Latin Grammar of (Arthur?) Hay, in widespread use in English public schools a couple of hundred years ago. It was adapted from the sixteenth century Eton instruction manual, but was much revised over the years and published in two parts. I remember from years ago an edition published in the 1880s by John Murray (London), which was partly constructed in the way you describe. You could begin your search by looking at https://www.forgottenbooks.com/en/books/TheEtonLatinGrammar_10853396&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Added later] This is a sample from the source I suggested, returned to the two-column form used by Hay, as nearly as I can manage it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(246) Qui signiﬁcans causam éxigit ut es stultus qui crédas huic (homini). //&#xD;&#xA;*Who, signifying the cause, requires a subjunctivum (modum) subjunctive mood as, you are a fool who can beliéve, that is, for beliéving  this fellow*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ut pro postquam sicut quomodo jungitur indicativo (modo) autém cum dénotat quamquam utpoté ﬁnitem causam jungitur subjunctivo (modo) ut, ut sumus in Ponto, Ister constitit frigoro tér. // *That or after that, or, since that, as, at and how, is joined to an indicative mood, but when it implies or signiﬁes although, for as much as,or the final cause, it is joined to a subjunctive 	mood: as, since that we are in Pontus, the 	Danube has stood with cold, that is, has been frozen three times.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that this is helpful to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="3bef3f75-a9a7-4602-93ee-0560e193ead4" CreationDate="2018-06-23T20:09:58.717" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Could anyone help me understand the meaning of the Latin in this [Jodocus Hondius map](https://www.loc.gov/item/2010592453/) from the early 1600s?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Exquisita &amp; magno aliquot mensium periculo lustrata et iam retecta Freti Magellanici Facies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know very little Latin but have managed to figure out via Google Translate that &quot;Freti Magellanici&quot; is the Strait of Magellan (which is what this map is), but the rest of it is unclear, something about &quot;exquisite and great danger for several months examined and already unveiled&quot; which doesn't quite make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![A map.][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for what it's worth: from looking at C.M. Weimer's answer, the Dutch that follows may be the same text in both languages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Eijgentlicke afbeeldinghe der Magellanisher Strate die nu met veel gevaers ettelijeke Maenden doorsien, van nieus ondecktis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I'm not sure about either, except that &quot;Eijgentlicke afbeeldinghe der Magellanisher Strate&quot; means something like &quot;authentic image of the Strait of Magellan&quot;. &quot;Maanden&quot; (not Maenden) in modern Dutch is &quot;months&quot;, &quot;gevaarlijk&quot; (not gevaers) is &quot;dangerous&quot;, &quot;ettelijke&quot; is several/some, and &quot;ondeckt&quot; is &quot;discovered&quot;... &quot;nu&quot; is &quot;now&quot;, &quot;met&quot; is with, &quot;veel&quot; is &quot;many&quot;, &quot;nieuw&quot; is new/recent, but I can't figure out what &quot;doorsien&quot; is, so a literal translation would be something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Authentic image of the Strait of Magellan, that now with many dangerous several months ???, from recent discoveries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ooh: here we go, [I found something about *doorsien*](http://www.essentialvermeer.com/glossary/glossary_d_i.html#doorsien):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Doorsien is a Dutch word that literally means &quot;plunge through.&quot;  Dutch painters were particularly interested in views into the distance, which they called doorsien&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so I can get it to something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Authentic image of the Strait of Magellan, that now with many dangerous several months of observation, from recent discoveries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WWamr.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22356" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="3bef3f75-a9a7-4602-93ee-0560e193ead4" CreationDate="2018-06-23T20:09:58.717" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="652" RevisionGUID="73043580-4757-4ed0-9811-c9594053fff0" CreationDate="2018-06-23T20:13:21.733" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="I'm translating the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pluto, qui de Hercule famam acceperat, eum benigne excepit &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ([*Fabulae Faciles*, 53](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/ritchie.html))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I chose to translate it as &quot;Pluto, who had heard stories about Hercules, received him kindly&quot;. But I realize this is a loose translation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more literal translation would be, &quot;Pluto, who had heard of the reputation concerning Hercules, received him with kindness&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I assume that the phrase &quot;famam acceperat&quot; is repeated a lot in Latin literature, I'm curious, what are some popular ways of translating it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22358" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="652" RevisionGUID="73043580-4757-4ed0-9811-c9594053fff0" CreationDate="2018-06-23T20:13:21.733" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|translation-check|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6736" RevisionGUID="ffefdc0f-698d-4acc-8cb7-ebc3772ab761" CreationDate="2018-06-23T21:52:25.537" UserId="235" Text="The English word *madam* can mean &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A polite form of address for a woman or lady.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - (slang) A woman who runs a brothel, particularly one that specializes in finding prostitutes for rich and important clients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([Wiktionary][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two meanings stand in great contrast. One is a civilized form of address, and the other connotes an uncivilized activity (i.e. prostitution).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any Latin words with sharply contrasting meanings, like the contrast we see above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/madam" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22360" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6736" RevisionGUID="ffefdc0f-698d-4acc-8cb7-ebc3772ab761" CreationDate="2018-06-23T21:52:25.537" UserId="235" Text="Are there any Latin words with sharply contrasting meanings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22361" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6736" RevisionGUID="ffefdc0f-698d-4acc-8cb7-ebc3772ab761" CreationDate="2018-06-23T21:52:25.537" UserId="235" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="e92083e7-b521-4b6b-abe7-9122f29b46fd" CreationDate="2018-06-24T10:16:07.363" UserId="79" Text="Is it idiomatic in classical Latin to combine the verb *abesse* with *hinc*, *inde*, or other such pronouns meaning &quot;from somewhere&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;This is surely an at least intelligible way to say &quot;to be away from here/there&quot;, but what I do not know is whether that would strike anyone as odd.&#xD;&#xA;Of course I could find a way around such combinations, but I would like to know whether they are possible, not least because *inde abest* is such a compact expression." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22365" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="e92083e7-b521-4b6b-abe7-9122f29b46fd" CreationDate="2018-06-24T10:16:07.363" UserId="79" Text="Can I use abesse with hinc, inde, and others?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22366" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="e92083e7-b521-4b6b-abe7-9122f29b46fd" CreationDate="2018-06-24T10:16:07.363" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6738" RevisionGUID="8cfd8bbf-70e5-4e49-bda3-8f0106d078a7" CreationDate="2018-06-24T10:52:39.670" UserId="79" Text="My suggestion is ***testis***, which means both &quot;testicle&quot; and &quot;witness&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The two meanings of &quot;madam&quot; seem related; both refer to &quot;a female with a significant status&quot; or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;The two meanings of *testis* seem unrelated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The potential for humor did not go unnoticed in antiquity.&#xD;&#xA;In *Curculio* Plautus writes *quod amas amato testibus praesentibus*.&#xD;&#xA;To love in the presence of witnesses seems to mean getting formally married or something similar.&#xD;&#xA;I will let you figure out the other meaning&amp;hellip;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6739" RevisionGUID="12284ec7-043a-44a0-861c-79dce72f47e7" CreationDate="2018-06-24T11:07:42.270" UserId="213" Text="I've found mentions of *Christi nativitas* (Christ's birth) in Tertullian and Cyprian (late 2nd to mid-3rd century), but Christmas was not widely celebrated before the 4th century ([source][1]), and it was called Christ's *dies natalis*. Augustine calls it *dies natalis Domini nostri Iesu Christi*, or simply *dies natalis Domini*. Later mentions of it, e.g. by Pope Leo, are similarly worded, though sometimes omitting *dies*—the origin of the Italian and Portuguese *Natale/Natal*. See the footnotes on [this][2] and the following page for citations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NBF6M5BCiB8C&amp;pg=PA100&amp;lpg=PA100&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=HPX0F6LMlosC&amp;pg=PA242&amp;lpg=PA24" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6740" RevisionGUID="d3cd5e9b-cdcf-448f-87df-b6765eaedff2" CreationDate="2018-06-24T17:17:35.493" UserId="2713" Text="In my latin-italian dictionary i found this expression:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; arva sanguineo gyro scribo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I draw a blood circle on the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, *gyro* is an ablative, why is it considered as an accusative ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22370" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6740" RevisionGUID="d3cd5e9b-cdcf-448f-87df-b6765eaedff2" CreationDate="2018-06-24T17:17:35.493" UserId="2713" Text="Ablative considered as an accusative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22371" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6740" RevisionGUID="d3cd5e9b-cdcf-448f-87df-b6765eaedff2" CreationDate="2018-06-24T17:17:35.493" UserId="2713" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6740" RevisionGUID="394d195f-1c86-4361-86d6-484d0ebd625c" CreationDate="2018-06-24T20:38:05.213" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="In my Latin-Italian dictionary I found this expression:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; arva sanguineo gyro scribo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I draw a blood circle on the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, *gyro* is an ablative. Why is it considered as an accusative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6741" RevisionGUID="020eb956-a5c8-4ee4-9197-dea913f671ba" CreationDate="2018-06-25T00:50:47.350" UserId="2714" Text="I would argue that the consonant V by itself was never pronounced as a W, and that something near to the W sound only occurred depending on the position of the letter within a word, of which V [ U ] would then act as a semi-vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking of consonantal V, Walter Blair says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...the evidence which we have to adduce points to a normal sound for this consonant, which is a medium between English _v_ and _w_. It is soft like _w_ when, after _s_, _g_, and _q_, in the same syllable, it is followed by a vowel; hard like _v_ in other situations. Thus, _suetus_, _sanguis_, _quisquam_, sounded _swetus_, _sangwis_, _qwisqwam_, and _seruus_, _uulgus_, _servus_, _vulgus_.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Blair, Walter. _Latin Pronunciation: An Inquriy into the Proper Sounds of the Latin Language During the Classical Period_. New York and Chicago: A. S. Barnes &amp; Company, 1873. [Page 40](https://books.google.com/books?id=s3NXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA40#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is comparable to the English words [_queen_](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/queen) and [_suite_](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/suite), which are pronounced “qween” and “sweet”, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blair also points out how the Roman grammarians state that V as a consonant is quite different from V as a vowel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Nigidius (ap. Gell. XIX, 14, 6): “_V_ in Valerius, Volusius, etc., is not a vowel at all.” Quintilian (I, 7, 26) says that the writing _ceruum_ with the sign which belongs to the vowel _u_, does not represent the sound that is _heard_.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;[Ibid](https://books.google.com/books?id=s3NXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA40#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blair goes on for several pages, pointing out how the Roman grammarians compare V directly to the Greek digamma, and then concludes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In view of all that has been said, therefore, we infer, that in Latin the consonant _V_ sounded like English _V_ when it began a word or a syllable (unless in combination with preceding _s_, _g_, or _q_). When, after _s_, _g_, and _q_, it began a syllable, the intonation of the vowel _u_ was partially supplied to it, yielding a sound like English _w_.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Ibid, [Page 48](https://books.google.com/books?id=s3NXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA48#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin consonantal V corresponded to the Greek digamma. The Greek alphabet descends from the Hebrew / Phoenician, with the ancient [Greek digamma Ϝ corresponding directly with the Hebrew Vav](https://books.google.com/books?id=zNrTAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PR10-IA1#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Digamma][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though the proponents of the W sound will argue otherwise, evidence for the pronunciation of the digamma points more to the sound of the English V:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In addition to the smooth and aspirated breathings, the _ancient_ [Greek] language had another, which remained longest among the _Æolians_. This is most commonly called, from the appearance of the character Ϝ, used to denote it, Digamma, that is a double Γ [Gamma]. It was a true consonant, and appears to have had the force of _f_ or _v_. [...] The whole doctrine, however, of the Digamma, for want of literary monuments remaining from the period when it was most in use, is exceedingly obscure.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Buttman, Philip[p]. _Greek Grammar For The Use Of Schools_. Second Edition. Translated by Edward Everett. Boston: Cummings, Hillard, and Company, 1826. [Page 340](https://hdl.handle.net/2027/pst.000004747024?urlappend=%3Bseq=340).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sounds that the letters F and V make are very close to each other. Say the following syllables and notice how your lips and mouth assume almost the same positions for each:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- fa, va&#xD;&#xA;- fe, ve&#xD;&#xA;- fi, vi&#xD;&#xA;- fo, vo&#xD;&#xA;- fu, vu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the digamma fell out of use, other Greek letters were used in its place. Casper Frederic Hachenberg includes a note in the appendix of his Greek Grammar about the digamma:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *It cannot be ascertained with precision, what was the pronunciation of the digamma, which in its origin had something of the guttural. The general opinion is, that it resembled our W.—But the frequent recurrence of this sound must have produced an effect so harsh and inelegant, that our V appears a more natural pronunciation of the latter digamma. This is more congenial to the sound of the figure Ϝ, which it assumed. It was expressed in Latin by V ; and the Italians, with the other nations, whose language is derived from the Latin, pronounce that letter in _vino_, _vento_, [etc.] like our V. It must have been nearly similar to the sound of B, which was frequently substituted for it, as in [_ferveo_, _ferbui_,](http://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/ferveo) as it is still in the southern provinces of France. The Latin V was frequently expressed in Greek by Β, as, _Βάῤῥον_ for _Varro ;_ and the Greek Β was changed in Latin into V, as _Βάδω_, _vado_. V was indeed sometimes changed into _ου_, as, _Οὐλία_ for _Velia_. _Virgilius_ was written in Greek _Βιργίλιος_ and _Οὐιργίλιος_, _Nervii_, _Νέρϐιοι_ [note that ϐ is an alternate form of β] and _Νερούιοι :_ but the Β was not pronounced like W, but like V ; and [Vossius](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Gerardus-Johannes-Vossius) and other eminent critics have given the preference to B in those words. To this it should be added, that _ου_ was often pronounced V, and some modern Greeks pronounce _οὐλομένην_, _**V**λομένην [**V**lomenen]_. In the Lacedemonian dialect, a branch of the Æolic, the digamma was always pronounced, and generally written, like B. As this letter is so nearly allied to V in sound, and so remote from W, it may be considered as some argument in favor of the former.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to these principles, it is probable that the digamma final or before a consonant was pronounced like our F, and before a vowel like our V. It has been observed that _Βασιλεύς_ is pronounced _vasilefs_. The analogy subsists in French, _neuf_, _neuve_ ; and in English, _half_, _halves_. But our pronunciation of the Greek and Latin language is so different from what it was in Greece and Rome, that it is perhaps as unnecessary, as it is difficult, to fix the genuine sound of the digamma, which probably underwent some changes.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form of it was at first that of a Gamma reversed, then of a Gamma [ Γ ]; afterwards it assumed the shape of a double Gamma, Ϝ, whence it derives its name. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Used for the original digamma, _Γ [Gamma]_ had not the sound of our G, but a soft guttural sound, like the German _g_ final in _Wenig_. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The German _g_, commonly expressed by _gh_ in the English language, has shared, in South Britain, the fate which the digamma experienced in many parts of Greece, and has been disused. The few instances in which it is sounded, follow the principle of the digamma Ϝ, as, _cough_, _enough_, _rough_, _tough_.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is not improbable that this guttural sound of _Γ [Gamma]_, softened by common use, may have given rise to the opinion that the digamma was pronounced like our W. The difference of the two sounds may be exemplified in the modern word _αὐγόν_, _an egg_, which the Greeks pronounce _of one_, gutturalizing _one_.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Goodrich, Chauncey A., and Casper Frederic Hachenberg. _Elements of Greek Grammar_. Sixth Edition. Hartford: Cooke and CO., 1833. [Page 181-182](https://books.google.com/books?id=_bQRAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA181#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frances Ellen Lord addresses the Cicero anecdote commonly used to promote the W sound of the Latin V:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Dic. de Div. XL. 84.] Dum M. Crassus exercitum Brundisii imponeret, quidam in portu caricas Cauno advectas vendens “Cauneas!” clamitabat. Dicamus, si placet, monitum ab eo Crassum _caveret ne iret_, non fuisse periturum si omini paruisset.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [When Marcus Crassus was embarking his army at Brundisium a man who was selling Caunian figs at the harbour, repeatedly cried out 'Cauneas, Cauneas.'&lt;sup&gt;231&lt;/sup&gt; Let us say, if you will, that this was a warning to Crassus to bid him 'Beware of going,' and that if he had obeyed the omen he would not have perished.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;231 _i.e._ &quot;Caunian figs,&quot; but might be heard as **cave ne eas**. This illustration of the identity of sound between **cavneas**, _i.e._ **cave ne eas**, and **cauneas** has been the subject of some interesting discussion in Latin phonetics. _Cf_. Moser, _Div_., _ad loc_.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; (English translation by [Bill Thayer](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cicero/de_Divinatione/2*.html))]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now when we remember that Caunos, whence these particular figs came, was a Greek town; that the fig-seller was very likely a Greek himself (Brundisium being a Greek port so to speak), but at any rate probably pronounced the name as it was doubtless always heard; and that **u** in such a connection is at present pronounced like our **f** or **v,**&lt;sup&gt;[*]&lt;/sup&gt; and we know of no time when it was pronounced like our **u,** it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the fig-seller was crying “Cafneas!”—a sound far more suggestive of _Cave-ne-eas!_ than _“Cauneas!”_ of _Cawe ne eas!_&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But beyond the testimony, direct or indirect, of grammarians and classic writers, an argument against the **w** sound appears in the fact that this sound is not found in Greek (from which the _vau [digamma]_ is borrowed), nor in Italian or kindred Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Lord, Frances Ellen. _The Roman Pronunciation of Latin: Why We Use It and How to Use It_. Boston: Ginn &amp; Company, 1894. [Page 35](https://books.google.com/books?id=5R0BAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA35#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;[* The modern Greek diphthong alpha upsilon `αυ` has an “af” or “av” sound, depending on which letter follows the diphthong. See any modern Greek grammar about this, such as _Essential Modern Greek Grammar_ by Douglas Q. Adams, [page 7](https://books.google.com/books?id=aZMrAQAAQBAJ&amp;dq=%222.%20The%20same%20symbol%20may%20have%20different%20sounds%22&amp;pg=PA7#v=onepage&amp;q=%222.%20The%20same%20symbol%20may%20have%20different%20sounds%22&amp;f=false) (if you get a message saying the page is unavailable for viewing, reload the page and it should display).]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally the Hebrew words [גַּו gav](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1458) and [גַּב gab](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1354) (transliterated as “gab” but pronounced ‘gav’) are both used to mean “back” in several places (_“gav”_ 1 Kings 14:9 / Nehemiah 9:26 / Ezekiel 23:35; _“gab”_ Psalm 129:3 / Ezekiel 10:12). The letter ב without a dagesh, or dot (such as בּ), having more of a soft V sound instead of its normal B sound (this is a simplified explanation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as [Gesenius](https://books.google.com/books?id=zNrTAAAAMAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) shows, they are “of the same sense” as each other:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Gesenius_gav_gab][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Gesenius, Wilheim. _Gesenius's Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures_. Translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. New York: John Wiley &amp; Sons; London: Samuel Bagster &amp; Sons, 1893.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very strong evidence for the Hebrew ו vav, the Greek Ϝ digamma, and the Latin consonantal V having the English V sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the most definitive evidence of all, that is completely absolute and irrefutable, is Julius Caeser's famous line of [“Veni, vidi, vici”](https://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/veni-vidi-vici.php) (_vay-nee, vee-dee, vee-kee_), I came, I saw, I conquered. No world conqueror would ever say something so dumb-sounding as _way-nee, wee-dee, wee-kee._&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Just a joke for anyone who managed to read to the end.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sILwt.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EvZws.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="160" RevisionGUID="8156923a-425b-4879-9db9-db4296c7a579" CreationDate="2018-06-25T06:14:39.667" UserId="66" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="To me the &quot;[processes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_%28anatomy%29)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![vertebra](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Gray93.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;look like thorns&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![spine](https://www.bartleby.com/107/Images/large/image111.gif)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6742" RevisionGUID="13393b83-14db-4fe4-9d18-a75e0c2934f1" CreationDate="2018-06-25T06:55:01.853" UserId="79" Text="The future tense of third and fourth conjugation verbs is marked by *-&amp;emacr;-*, as in *trahes* and *audies*.&#xD;&#xA;The regular personal endings are added after this vowel.&#xD;&#xA;But in the first person singular the vowel is changed; it is *traham* and *audiam* instead of _*trahem_ and _*audiem_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is this?&#xD;&#xA;Words ending in *-em* are by no means forbidden in Latin, so this strikes me as very odd.&#xD;&#xA;What is the origin of this different vowel?&#xD;&#xA;Are similar changes observed elsewhere in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Any help in making sense of this vowel change would be great." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22376" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6742" RevisionGUID="13393b83-14db-4fe4-9d18-a75e0c2934f1" CreationDate="2018-06-25T06:55:01.853" UserId="79" Text="Future: why -am instead of -em?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22377" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6742" RevisionGUID="13393b83-14db-4fe4-9d18-a75e0c2934f1" CreationDate="2018-06-25T06:55:01.853" UserId="79" Text="|verbs|language-evolution|morphology|conjugation|future-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22378" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="325" RevisionGUID="09f2fec4-c2d0-4a35-9489-7e9d1c135406" CreationDate="2018-06-25T14:45:05.873" UserId="469" Comment="81" />
  <row Id="22379" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6740" RevisionGUID="72d37f64-be18-4413-9080-938177ec7a7f" CreationDate="2018-06-25T15:41:27.280" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|sentence-translation|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22380" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1158" RevisionGUID="e2e9c1fc-0854-47fa-8223-50811c903e97" CreationDate="2018-06-25T15:42:28.593" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22381" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4688" RevisionGUID="82441645-fb07-4af2-9a46-2fe980d9f00d" CreationDate="2018-06-25T15:42:54.240" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6743" RevisionGUID="11c3d936-f4a6-43b8-91be-0cf02397e613" CreationDate="2018-06-25T15:46:38.853" UserId="45" Text="The Latin you provide is actually incomplete (though not incomprehensible). The English translation is not accurate at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quote in question, which appears in the [L&amp;S entry for *scribo*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=scribo), meaning I.B., is from [Statius's *Thebaid*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Stat.%20Theb.%2011.514&amp;lang=original). Here is some more context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hasta subit velox equitis femur inter equique ilia,  &#xD;&#xA;letum utrique volens; sed plaga sedentis  &#xD;&#xA;laxato vitata genu, tamen inrita voti  &#xD;&#xA;cuspis in obliquis invenit volnera costis.  &#xD;&#xA;it praeceps sonipes strictae contemptor habenae  &#xD;&#xA;**arvaque sanguineo scribit rutilantia gyro.** (XI.509-514)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A literal translation of the sad spectacle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The swift spear approaches between the horseman's thigh and the horse's flank,  &#xD;&#xA;wishing the death of both; extending his knee,   &#xD;&#xA;the rider avoided the blow, but the tip, missing its desired mark,  &#xD;&#xA;wounds [the horse] on its side ribs.  &#xD;&#xA;[The horse] goes headlong and loud-hoofed, disregarding the tightened reins,  &#xD;&#xA;**and imprints the red ground with its bloody course.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A less literal translation of this last line that captures the meaning better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **...and stains the ground red with its bloody course.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two notes about the last line that may be helpful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *scribo* is used in a less common sense. L&amp;S suggests &quot;engrave&quot; or &quot;imprint.&quot; The image is like that of a pen imparting ink. &#xD;&#xA;* [*gyrus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgyrus) is literally a &quot;circle,&quot; but is very frequently used to describe the &quot;careering&quot; of a horse, as in a race.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the motivating question, the ablative is not functioning as an accusative. *rutilantia arva* is the object of *scribo*, and *sanguineo gyro* is the ablative of means, showing what actually caused the red ground to be imprinted in this way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="653" RevisionGUID="89f511b3-df3e-4a6f-8156-b49a86f2a125" CreationDate="2018-06-25T18:05:06.780" UserId="79" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In the introduction to the original, English version of *Leviathan*, Thomas Hobbes says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;hellip; there is another saying not of late understood, by which they&#xD;&#xA;&gt; might learn truly to read one another, if they would take the pains;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and that is, ***Nosce Teipsum [sic], Read Thy Self***: which was not meant, as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it is now used, to countenance, either the barbarous state of men in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; power, towards their inferiors; or to encourage men of low degree, to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a sawcie behaviour towards their betters; &amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But *nosce* is not usually translated as &quot;read&quot; but &quot;know&quot;. It's Greek counterpart in the original phrase meant &quot;know&quot; too. Could this have been a reasonable translation at one point in time? Is it a valid but uncommon translation today? Is he just bad at Latin (I'm in no position to judge), or deliberately stretching the definition to make his point? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone clarify this for me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22384" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="653" RevisionGUID="89f511b3-df3e-4a6f-8156-b49a86f2a125" CreationDate="2018-06-25T18:05:06.780" UserId="79" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|new-latin|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="ffc2e448-b187-4875-b06c-175b1036a17d" CreationDate="2018-06-25T18:07:17.443" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="The following quote by Tacitus (extract from [*Agricola*](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/tacitus/tac.agri.shtml#30)) is very famous, particularly for its catchy second part, but here I'm interested in the first part:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium atque ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has been translated either by:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Oxford Revised Translation&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Loeb Classical Library edition&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the latter translation, what is the justification for attributing *falsis nominibus* to *imperium* rather than to *rapere*? Shouldn't the pluralization and the case used preclude it from being an attribute of *imperium*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22387" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="ffc2e448-b187-4875-b06c-175b1036a17d" CreationDate="2018-06-25T18:07:17.443" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|classical-latin|translation-explanation|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6744" RevisionGUID="677b87fa-65d7-41b9-afb7-d4c537197905" CreationDate="2018-06-25T18:38:32.530" UserId="469" Text="I could find a couple of examples for hinc+abesse. At least, the construction is attested in Classical times. Not sure whether there were other more frequent, equivalent constructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  nunc contra et vidisse mihi multum videris, cum prope desperatis his rebus te in Graeciam contulisti, et hoc tempore non solum sapiens, qui **hinc absis**, sed etiam beatus. ([Cic. Fam. 7.28][1]) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Now, however, on the contrary you seem to me to have been long-sighted for having settled in Greece when things here were in a desperate condition, and at the present crisis not only to be wise for **being abroad**, but happy as well* (Shuckburgh, 1908)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quo nihil invitus addas: talentum magnum. non potest triobolum **hinc abesse**. proin tu vel aias vel neges. ([Pl. Rud. 5.2][2].40:45)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *That you mayn't be adding anything against your inclination, a great talent; it's not possible for three obols **to be bated thence**; then do you say either &quot;yes&quot; or &quot;no&quot; at once.* (Riley, 1912)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0009:book=7:letter=28&amp;highlight=absis%2Chinc&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0108%3Aact%3D5%3Ascene%3D2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="29f7b3f2-c15c-4bbe-98bb-dec3a7451fd6" CreationDate="2018-06-25T22:23:07.517" UserId="9" Comment="added example of *kn to gn; added info about phonological analysis of gn" Text="As usual, a good place to start for questions about Classical Latin pronunciation is W. Sidney Allen's *Vox Latina.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (p. 23) describes several types of evidence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- comparison with other clusters in Latin and their history. Allen gives as an example the change of original *\*pn* to **mn** in Latin words such as *somnus.* Note that etymological comparison with other languages and internal reconstruction shows that in some cases Classical Latin **gn** seems to have originated from assimilation of *\*k* to a following *\*n* (for example, [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dignus) says that the word *dignus* comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *deḱ-). There is evidence of assimilation like this of plosives to nasals before nasal consonants occurring in other languages; for example, in [Korean][1], plosives like **p t k** were nasalized to **m n ŋ** before nasal consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- morphological spelling evidence: words like *cognatus* and *ignobilis* contain the prefixes *con-* and *in-,* which typically end in nasal sounds. Normally, the nasal at the end of the prefix assimilates in place to a following plosive or nasal (as in *co**m**pugno, i**m**possibilis, co**m**mitto, i**m**mortalis*). If **gn** was just pronounced as [gn], it would mean that the nasal in the prefixes was dropped entirely in these words, which seems unlikely. If **gn** was pronounced as [ŋn], then we can instead interpret these words as exhibiting the usual assimilation along with shortening of ŋŋ to a single consonant [ŋ] before the following consonant /n/.&#xD;&#xA;- a vowel change of short **e** to short **i** that is commonly seen before the clusters **ng**, **nc,** and **gn**; we can unify the description of these environments as &quot;before [ŋ]&quot; if we assume **gn** represented [ŋn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Allen also says that some Romance words, such as French *lein* from Latin *lignum,* show the same development of **g** &gt; [j] in **gn** as for **g** in other environments, which some see as evidence that the pronunciation [gn] may have been used after Classical times, likely due to influence from the spelling. (*[A Linguistic History of Italian][2],* by Martin Maiden, also suggests this is a piece of evidence against reconstructing [ŋn] in Proto-Romance.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, all of the preceding discussion is about the phonetic realization of **gn**. As far as I know, from a phonological perspective it's standard to analyze **gn** as /gn/, and it seems to behave this way in contexts like the formation of diminutives: for example, the nouns *signum, tignum* correspond to the diminutive forms *sigillum, tigillum* where the **g** would have been pronounced [g]. (I don't know how old these diminutive formations are thought to be.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NN-yIdLOkCoC&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qK_8eXcCnu&amp;sig=u4MEiVBbuxhdzAg_rkkNX3D6RbY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiuvsbyo5HLAhXJsIMKHfWIA8UQ6AEIUzAH#v=onepage&amp;q=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=DwTKAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT127&amp;lpg=PT127&amp;dq=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1yMQKpnTe6&amp;sig=0k2p71mE_-YTdkZtyU9t3lvDnyI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNsZS2xITZAhWCzlkKHbbjAvM4ChDoAQhCMAU#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="99accf3c-e54d-47b5-bbfe-906c5d12aa48" CreationDate="2018-06-25T22:31:35.270" UserId="9" Comment="added 315 characters in body" Text="We don't know for sure, but there are a few arguments for reconstructing [ŋn] as the pronunciation of **gn**. As usual, a good place to start for questions about Classical Latin pronunciation is W. Sidney Allen's *Vox Latina.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (p. 23) describes several types of evidence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- comparison with other clusters in Latin and their history. Allen gives as an example the change of original *\*pn* to **mn** in Latin words such as *somnus.* Note that etymological comparison with other languages and internal reconstruction shows that in some cases Classical Latin **gn** seems to have originated from assimilation of *\*k* to a following *\*n* (for example, [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dignus) says that the word *dignus* comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *deḱ-). There is evidence of assimilation like this of plosives to nasals before nasal consonants occurring in other languages; for example, in [Korean][1], plosives like **p t k** were nasalized to **m n ŋ** before nasal consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- morphological spelling evidence: words like *cognatus* and *ignobilis* contain the prefixes *con-* and *in-,* which typically end in nasal sounds. Normally, the nasal at the end of the prefix assimilates in place to a following plosive or nasal (as in *co**m**pugno, i**m**possibilis, co**m**mitto, i**m**mortalis*). If **gn** was just pronounced as [gn], it would mean that the nasal in the prefixes was dropped entirely in these words, which seems unlikely. If **gn** was pronounced as [ŋn], then we can instead interpret these words as exhibiting the usual assimilation along with shortening of ŋŋ to a single consonant [ŋ] before the following consonant /n/.&#xD;&#xA;- a vowel change of short **e** to short **i** that is commonly seen before the clusters **ng**, **nc,** and **gn**; we can unify the description of these environments as &quot;before [ŋ]&quot; if we assume **gn** represented [ŋn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Allen also says that some Romance words, such as French *lein* from Latin *lignum,* show the same development of **g** &gt; [j] in **gn** as for **g** in other environments, which some see as evidence that the pronunciation [gn] may have been used after Classical times, likely due to influence from the spelling. (*[A Linguistic History of Italian][2],* by Martin Maiden, also suggests this is a piece of evidence against reconstructing [ŋn] in Proto-Romance.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, all of the preceding discussion is about the phonetic realization of **gn**. As far as I know, from a phonemic perspective it's standard to analyze **gn** as /gn/, and it seems to behave this way in contexts like the formation of diminutives: for example, the nouns *signum, tignum* correspond to the diminutive forms *sigillum, tigillum* where the **g** would have been pronounced [g]. (I don't know how old these diminutive formations are thought to be.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A side note about vowel length: unless [vowels were always long before **gn**](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/786/are-vowels-long-before-gn) (which Allen argues against), *magnus* was probably pronounced with short **a**, so it would have been [maŋnʊs], not [maːŋnʊs].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NN-yIdLOkCoC&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qK_8eXcCnu&amp;sig=u4MEiVBbuxhdzAg_rkkNX3D6RbY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiuvsbyo5HLAhXJsIMKHfWIA8UQ6AEIUzAH#v=onepage&amp;q=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=DwTKAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT127&amp;lpg=PT127&amp;dq=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1yMQKpnTe6&amp;sig=0k2p71mE_-YTdkZtyU9t3lvDnyI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNsZS2xITZAhWCzlkKHbbjAvM4ChDoAQhCMAU#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="2a9a5751-a5c2-4bbd-89c1-b52f9f2e0a7a" CreationDate="2018-06-25T22:45:49.543" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 297 characters in body" Text="We don't know for sure, but there are a few arguments for reconstructing [ŋn] as the pronunciation of **gn**. As usual, a good place to start for questions about Classical Latin pronunciation is W. Sidney Allen's *Vox Latina.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (p. 23) describes several types of evidence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- comparison with other clusters in Latin and their history. Allen gives as an example the change of original *\*pn* to **mn** in Latin words such as *somnus.* Note that etymological comparison with other languages and internal reconstruction shows that in some cases Classical Latin **gn** seems to have originated from assimilation of *\*k* to a following *\*n* (for example, [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dignus) says that the word *dignus* comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *deḱ-). There is evidence of assimilation like this of plosives to nasals before nasal consonants occurring in other languages; for example, in [Korean][1], plosives like **p t k** were nasalized to **m n ŋ** before nasal consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- morphological spelling evidence: words like *cognatus* and *ignobilis* contain the prefixes *con-* and *in-,* which typically end in nasal sounds. Normally, the nasal at the end of the prefix assimilates in place to a following plosive or nasal (as in *co**m**pugno, i**m**possibilis, co**m**mitto, i**m**mortalis*). If **gn** was just pronounced as [gn], it would mean that the nasal in the prefixes was dropped entirely in these words, which seems unlikely. If **gn** was pronounced as [ŋn], then we can instead interpret these words as exhibiting the usual assimilation along with shortening of ŋŋ to a single consonant [ŋ] before the following consonant /n/.&#xD;&#xA;- a vowel change of short **e** to short **i** that is commonly seen before the clusters **ng**, **nc,** and **gn**; we can unify the description of these environments as &quot;before [ŋ]&quot; if we assume **gn** represented [ŋn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Allen also says that some Romance words, such as French *lein* from Latin *lignum,* show the same development of **g** &gt; [j] in **gn** as for **g** in other environments, which some see as evidence that the pronunciation [gn] may have been used after Classical times, likely due to influence from the spelling. (*[A Linguistic History of Italian][2],* by Martin Maiden, also suggests this is a piece of evidence against reconstructing [ŋn] in Proto-Romance.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, all of the preceding discussion is about the phonetic realization of **gn**. As far as I know, from a phonemic perspective it's standard to analyze **gn** as /gn/, and it seems to behave this way in contexts like the formation of diminutives: for example, the nouns *signum, tignum* correspond to the diminutive forms *sigillum, tigillum* where the **g** would have been pronounced [g]. (I don't know how old these diminutive formations are thought to be.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NN-yIdLOkCoC&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qK_8eXcCnu&amp;sig=u4MEiVBbuxhdzAg_rkkNX3D6RbY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiuvsbyo5HLAhXJsIMKHfWIA8UQ6AEIUzAH#v=onepage&amp;q=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=DwTKAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT127&amp;lpg=PT127&amp;dq=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1yMQKpnTe6&amp;sig=0k2p71mE_-YTdkZtyU9t3lvDnyI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNsZS2xITZAhWCzlkKHbbjAvM4ChDoAQhCMAU#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1254" RevisionGUID="fbfa7495-c7eb-4922-87c1-edf11a7b211f" CreationDate="2018-06-26T09:51:59.933" UserId="79" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="This answer covers only Finland, but covers it completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin pronunciation is very uniform throughout Finland.&#xD;&#xA;Rather than describing the pronunciation in words, let me give you a sample: [Nuntii Latini](http://areena.yle.fi/1-1931339) is a Latin news broadcast from Finland, and the podcast is freely available online.&#xD;&#xA;For example, my own pronunciation is (to reasonable accuracy) exactly like the one in the news.&#xD;&#xA;This pronunciation is taught throughout Finland, with one exception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Turku 'ae' and 'oe' or pronounced as the diphthongs /ɑi/ and /oi/ whereas elsewhere they are both the long /e:/.&#xD;&#xA;[I have previously asked about the origin of this difference](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/562/79), and I still crave to understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that the general Finnish pronunciation is very close the pronunciation of early imperial era, whereas the one in Turku is more late republic.&#xD;&#xA;Both fall in the category &quot;classical&quot; in the classification of your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quick summary of the Finnish pronunciation (let me know if I forgot to address something important):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- NG and GN are pronounced /ŋ:/ and /ŋn/, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;- C and G are otherwise always /k/ and /g/.&#xD;&#xA;- AE and OE are both /e:/ (or /ɑi/ and /oi/, see above).&#xD;&#xA;- Vowel length is always clearly indicated.&#xD;&#xA;- Word-final M is always a full consonant, not mere nasalization." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2141" RevisionGUID="ed19d181-9651-4aff-a4cd-714f08a260d8" CreationDate="2018-06-26T09:58:03.150" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="I’ve yet another question on the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). (I did find another instance of the gerundive—I believe with a preceding *ad* indicating purpose—and Cerebrus’ instruction certainly helped me translating that.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Latin][1] text of the CCC, Prologue, Ch. 1, Sec. 3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Illi qui, Deo iuvante, hanc vocationem Christi acceperunt eique libere responderunt, impulsi sunt et ipsi Christi amore ad Bonum Nuntium ubique terrarum proclamandum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is translated by the Vatican into [English][2] as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Those who with God’s help have welcomed Christ’s call and freely responded to it are urged on by love of Christ to proclaim the Good News everywhere in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question regards the phrase «*[impulsi sunt et] ipsi Christi amore*». Is it more accurately translated as “[are urged on] by the love **of** Christ” (*per Vaticanus*) or “[are impelled] by the love **in** Christ [himself]” (*per me*)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question concerns the bolded word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, is the *et* functioning as equivalent to the English “also”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My proposed translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Those who, with the help of God, have accepted this calling of Christ and responded to it freely, are impelled by the love in Christ himself to proclaim the Good News everywhere in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/prologue_lt.htm#I.%20Vita%20hominis%20%E2%80%93%20Deum%20cognoscere%20Illumque%20amare&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2.HTM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22396" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2141" RevisionGUID="ed19d181-9651-4aff-a4cd-714f08a260d8" CreationDate="2018-06-26T09:58:03.150" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|christianity|translation-explanation|latin-to-english-translation|catechism-catholic-church|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22397" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="5315" RevisionGUID="c57f3d80-eec8-4273-ae39-b09fb3232c83" CreationDate="2018-06-26T11:21:50.090" UserId="79" Comment="80" />
  <row Id="22398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6667" RevisionGUID="32d76d89-cabf-4450-93d3-2e53fed626b1" CreationDate="2018-06-26T13:20:51.460" UserId="45" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="One part of Evander's speech of mourning for his son Pallas can be taken out of context to convey the sentiment you are aiming for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'non haec, o Palla, dederas promissa parenti,	 &#xD;&#xA;cautius ut saeuo uelles te credere Marti.	&#xD;&#xA;haud ignarus eram quantum noua gloria in armis	&#xD;&#xA;et praedulce decus primo certamine posset.  &#xD;&#xA;primitiae iuuenis miserae bellique propinqui	&#xD;&#xA;dura rudimenta, et nulli exaudita deorum	&#xD;&#xA;uota precesque meae! **tuque, o sanctissima coniunx,	&#xD;&#xA;felix morte tua neque in hunc seruata dolorem!**	&#xD;&#xA;contra ego uiuendo uici mea fata, superstes	 &#xD;&#xA;restarem ut genitor. (*Aeneid* XI.152-61)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In context, Evander means that his wife is lucky that death spared her from the sorrow of seeing her son die. I see no reason, though, that we can't construe &quot;in hunc servata dolorem&quot; as referring to the difficult last days of an illness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22399" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="325" RevisionGUID="c2273bd4-f7c7-41c1-a7a2-1422d71b9924" CreationDate="2018-06-26T15:03:21.837" UserId="469" Comment="81" />
  <row Id="22400" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1332" RevisionGUID="007376c7-6dab-485b-95c2-d8c0cf57b89f" CreationDate="2018-06-26T20:20:32.237" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|christianity|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22401" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6565" RevisionGUID="d3bc18b7-c329-4b9c-9602-f4d7e36ac0b7" CreationDate="2018-06-26T20:21:29.260" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|idiom|translation-check|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22402" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6538" RevisionGUID="a6decd4c-23c6-4659-a515-0f8e931ad75d" CreationDate="2018-06-26T20:22:04.753" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|idiom|ecclesiastical-latin|politeness|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6745" RevisionGUID="f2d75daf-6934-4f8c-82e0-06e12d3c57f2" CreationDate="2018-06-26T21:24:57.023" UserId="469" Text="After almost two years without an answer for all of Europe, I'll venture a guess. I'll go from what I'm most certain to what I just think is most likely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have better informed knowledge about a specific country, **feel free to comment or edit** it in. If enough contributions arrive (or if I happen to be horribly wrong), I'll happily make this a community wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Before the XX century, most languages (and in Europe that is correlated to countries) had their own rules to pronounce Latin which in some cases reflected their own sound changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; During the XX century, two systems of pronunciation acquired momentum, namely *Reconstructed* and *Ecclesiastical*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Ecclesiastical** Latin pronunciation is mostly based in the former Italian system, was recommended by Pope St. Pius X and became a *de facto* (or maybe *de Iure*?) standard in the Catholic world. It includes special rules like c and g having a different sound in front of e and i, which has a common pattern with most Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Reconstructed** pronunciation is a lot more regular (&quot;simple&quot; so to say)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. There was a number (bigger than today) of countries where more than 90% of the population and institutions considered themselves Catholic (many European Countries had in fact **Catholicism as their [State Religion][1]** by the beginning of the XX century, including Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Unsourced Wikipedia text argues that: &#xD;&#xA; * Latin still in use today is more often **pronounced according to context, rather than geography**&#xD;&#xA; * Ecclesiastical Latin [is] the official pronunciation of the Catholic Church [and] the default of many singers and choirs.&#xD;&#xA; * In Western university classics departments the reconstructed classical pronunciation has been general since around 1945, &lt;sup&gt;[citation needed]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; * In the Anglo-American legal professions the older style of academic Latin (i.e., the former English system) survives to this day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. My **guess** is that while the Wikipedia statement on context rather than geography is generally true, **there is also a geopolitical divide**, where the countries prone to a more Catholic or Romance tradition tend to prefer Ecclesiastical, while those more historically close to Protestantism and Germanic languages are closer to the Reconstructed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Of course, this is nothing but a rule of thumb. I'm leaving out languages out of those two language families (Finnish!), an important part of Eastern Europe which is historically Orthodox. I'm also leaving in ambiguity regions like Bavaria, that have reasons to belong to both of my categories. In fact, I remember Pope Benedict XVI having a mostly-Ecclesiastical pronunciation, but saying the compound qu+[ae,e,i] clearly as [kw] or even [kv].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Established_churches_and_former_state_churches" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6746" RevisionGUID="f6475472-d09a-4956-8d2b-f18073260f3a" CreationDate="2018-06-26T22:12:47.580" UserId="406" Text="According to [this other question][1], the Romans used various digraphs with the letter Z in them, for sounds which might have been /ts/, /dz/, and /z/. If the letter Z was used for /z/ at the time, the latter two make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why use Z when writing the sound /ts/, especially when this same combination appears in native words like *e**ts**i*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't seem to have been a solely Latin phenomenon, as one Byzantine emperor was called ***Τζ**ιμισκής* (***Tz**imiscēs*) in Greek, possibly transcribing Armenian /tʃ/. On the other hand, Modern Greek seems happy to use *τσ* (*ts*) for this sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1930/what-digraphs-did-the-romans-use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22405" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6746" RevisionGUID="f6475472-d09a-4956-8d2b-f18073260f3a" CreationDate="2018-06-26T22:12:47.580" UserId="406" Text="Why was Z used in digraphs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22406" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6746" RevisionGUID="f6475472-d09a-4956-8d2b-f18073260f3a" CreationDate="2018-06-26T22:12:47.580" UserId="406" Text="|orthography|spelling|foreign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22407" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6746" RevisionGUID="a4b5501e-fb9f-4397-bf85-127a76de6607" CreationDate="2018-06-26T23:07:32.787" UserId="406" Comment="edited tags" Text="|orthography|spelling|late-latin|foreign|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6746" RevisionGUID="a4b5501e-fb9f-4397-bf85-127a76de6607" CreationDate="2018-06-26T23:07:32.787" UserId="406" Comment="edited tags" Text="According to [this other question][1], Late Latin used various digraphs with the letter Z in them, for sounds which might have been /ts/, /dz/, and /z/. If the letter Z was used for /z/ at the time, the latter two make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why use Z when writing the sound /ts/, especially when this same combination appears in native words like *e**ts**i*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't seem to have been a solely Latin phenomenon, as one Byzantine emperor was called ***Τζ**ιμισκής* (***Tz**imiscēs*) in Greek, possibly transcribing Armenian /tʃ/. On the other hand, Modern Greek seems happy to use *τσ* (*ts*) for this sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1930/what-digraphs-did-the-romans-use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6745" RevisionGUID="33bd758b-38ef-4f2c-80be-e219bd90c28c" CreationDate="2018-06-27T00:07:21.173" UserId="469" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="After almost two years without an answer for all of Europe, I'll venture a guess. I'll go from what I'm most certain to what I just think is most likely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have better informed knowledge about a specific country, **feel free to comment or edit** it in. If enough contributions arrive (or if I happen to be horribly wrong), I'll happily make this a community wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Before the XX century, most languages (and in Europe that is correlated to countries) had their own rules to pronounce Latin which in some cases reflected their own sound changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; During the XX century, two systems of pronunciation acquired momentum, namely *Reconstructed* and *Ecclesiastical*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Ecclesiastical** Latin pronunciation is mostly based in the former Italian system, was recommended by Pope St. Pius X and became a *de facto* (or maybe *de Iure*?) standard in the Catholic world. It includes special rules like c and g having a different sound in front of e and i, which has a common pattern with most Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Reconstructed** pronunciation is a lot more regular (&quot;simple&quot; so to say)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. There was a number (bigger than today) of countries where more than 90% of the population and institutions considered themselves Catholic (many European Countries had in fact **Catholicism as their [State Religion][1]** by the beginning of the XX century, including Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Unsourced Wikipedia text argues that: &#xD;&#xA; * Latin still in use today is more often **pronounced according to context, rather than geography**&#xD;&#xA; * Ecclesiastical Latin [is] the official pronunciation of the Catholic Church [and] the default of many singers and choirs.&#xD;&#xA; * In Western university classics departments the reconstructed classical pronunciation has been general since around 1945, &lt;sup&gt;[citation needed]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; * In the Anglo-American legal professions the older style of academic Latin (i.e., the former English system) survives to this day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. My **educated guess** (based in some experience but not unlikely to be biased) is that while the Wikipedia statement on context rather than geography is generally true, **there is also a geopolitical divide**, where the countries prone to a more Catholic or Romance tradition tend to prefer Ecclesiastical, while those more historically close to Protestantism and Germanic languages are closer to the Reconstructed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Of course, this is nothing but a rule of thumb. I'm leaving out languages out of those two language families (Finnish!), an important part of Eastern Europe which is historically Orthodox. I'm also leaving in ambiguity regions like Bavaria, that have reasons to belong to both of my categories. In fact, I remember Pope Benedict XVI having a mostly-Ecclesiastical pronunciation, but saying the compound qu+[ae,e,i] clearly as [kw] or even [kv].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Established_churches_and_former_state_churches" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6747" RevisionGUID="e8c73171-f161-4407-b34b-30c37cf5a36f" CreationDate="2018-06-27T00:28:38.283" UserId="9" Text="Note that the letter Z has been associated with affricate sounds like /ts/ for a very long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Ancient use of &quot;Z&quot; for affricate sounds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Zeta in Classical Attic Greek](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeta#Letter) is thought to have represented /zd/, but there is some evidence for /dz/ as another pronunciation that existed in different dialects or stages of Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this site, [Alex B's answer to &quot;Why are there no native Latin words with a Z?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/193/9) mentions that &quot;Weiss 2009/2011 [...]  hypothesizes that originally Z was probably pronounced as [ts] [in the context of Italic/Latin orthography]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia article on Etruscan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language#Consonants) indicates that it used Z to represent an affricate sound transcribed by the article as &quot;ts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Modern use of &quot;Z&quot; for affricate sounds&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there are a number of modern languages that use &quot;Z&quot; to represent an affricate, such as Italian and German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###I would guess &quot;Z&quot; has been associated with affricates throughout its history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this information, I have the impression that &quot;Z&quot; has always been associated with affricates to some degree, so even in eras or places where its usual value was a simple fricative /z/, it would be available for use in digraphs for foreign affricates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;Ts&quot; isn't necessarily the obvious choice for representing an affricate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that in Classical Latin, &quot;ts&quot; occurs only in morphologically transparent compounds where one word ends in &quot;t&quot; and the other starts with &quot;s&quot; (see the comments beneath [TKR's answer here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/818/9)). Furthermore, this means that Latin &quot;ts&quot; can always be analyzed as a heterosyllabic sequence /t.s/. It isn't necessarily possible to analyze a foreign affricate in these terms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6747" RevisionGUID="bb2562ff-8709-45b8-9fea-099feff30542" CreationDate="2018-06-27T00:35:17.027" UserId="9" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Note that the letter Z has been associated with affricate sounds like /ts/ for a very long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Ancient use of &quot;Z&quot; for affricate sounds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Zeta in Classical Attic Greek](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeta#Letter) is thought to have represented /zd/, but there is some evidence for /dz/ as another pronunciation that existed in different dialects or stages of Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this site, [Alex B's answer to &quot;Why are there no native Latin words with a Z?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/193/9) mentions that &quot;Weiss 2009/2011 [...]  hypothesizes that originally Z was probably pronounced as [ts] [in the context of Italic/Latin orthography]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia article on Etruscan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language#Consonants) indicates that it used Z to represent an affricate sound transcribed by the article as &quot;ts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Modern use of &quot;Z&quot; for affricate sounds&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there are a number of modern languages that use &quot;Z&quot; to represent an affricate, such as Italian and German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###I would guess &quot;Z&quot; has been associated with affricates throughout its history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this information, I have the impression that &quot;Z&quot; has always been associated with affricates to some degree, so even in eras or places where its usual value was a simple fricative /z/, it would be available for use in digraphs for foreign affricates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;Ts&quot; isn't necessarily the obvious choice for representing an affricate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that in Classical Latin, &quot;ts&quot; occurs only in morphologically transparent compounds where the first par ends in &quot;t&quot; and the second part starts with &quot;s&quot; (see the comments beneath [TKR's answer here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/818/9)). Furthermore, this means that Latin &quot;ts&quot; can always be analyzed as a heterosyllabic sequence /t.s/. It isn't necessarily possible to analyze a foreign affricate in these terms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6748" RevisionGUID="1f7ef006-e712-4b27-84bf-b6655508bbff" CreationDate="2018-06-27T00:58:51.447" UserId="2719" Text="hope you guys don't mind helping me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking to translate three mottoes into Latin, and while I'm studying the whole thing (most recently up to the instrumental ablative haha) I think these are beyond my capability to naturally translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Do not be too kind; do not be too angry; do not be too proud.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise that &quot;questions should show some effort&quot; but I assume this is a case or construction I'm not familiar with, and I'd love to learn it through relevant and memorable examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would anybody be willing to translate these into Latin and tell me how the grammar works for the construction, or point me to which specific tense/case/etc I should be looking at?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks very much!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22413" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6748" RevisionGUID="1f7ef006-e712-4b27-84bf-b6655508bbff" CreationDate="2018-06-27T00:58:51.447" UserId="2719" Text="Three (very similar) mottoes and a general grammar question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22414" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6748" RevisionGUID="1f7ef006-e712-4b27-84bf-b6655508bbff" CreationDate="2018-06-27T00:58:51.447" UserId="2719" Text="|translation|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6745" RevisionGUID="ecf7f767-cc7f-4536-8d97-104235764189" CreationDate="2018-06-27T01:11:39.303" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 150 characters in body" Text="After almost two years without an answer for all of Europe, I'll venture a guess. I'll go from what I'm most certain to what I just think is most likely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have better informed knowledge about a specific country, **feel free to comment or edit** it in. If enough contributions arrive (or if I happen to be horribly wrong), I'll happily make this a community wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Before the XX century, most languages (and in Europe that is correlated to countries) had their own rules to pronounce Latin which in some cases reflected their own sound changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; During the XX century, two systems of pronunciation acquired momentum, namely *Reconstructed* and *Ecclesiastical*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Ecclesiastical** Latin pronunciation is mostly based in the former Italian system, was recommended by Pope St. Pius X and became a *de facto* (or maybe *de Iure*?) standard in the Catholic world. It includes special rules like c and g having a different sound in front of e and i, which has a common pattern with most Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Reconstructed** pronunciation is a lot more regular (&quot;simple&quot; so to say)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. There was a number (bigger than today) of countries where more than 90% of the population and institutions considered themselves Catholic (many European Countries had in fact **Catholicism as their [State Religion][1]** by the beginning of the XX century, including Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Unsourced Wikipedia text argues that: &#xD;&#xA; * Latin still in use today is more often **pronounced according to context, rather than geography**&#xD;&#xA; * Ecclesiastical Latin [is] the official pronunciation of the Catholic Church [and] the default of many singers and choirs.&#xD;&#xA; * In Western university classics departments the reconstructed classical pronunciation has been general since around 1945, &lt;sup&gt;[citation needed]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; * In the Anglo-American legal professions the older style of academic Latin (i.e., the former English system) survives to this day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. My **educated guess** (based in some experience but not unlikely to be biased) is that while the Wikipedia statement on context rather than geography is generally true, **there is also a geopolitical divide**, where the countries prone to a more Catholic or Romance tradition tend to prefer Ecclesiastical, while those more historically close to Protestantism and Germanic languages are closer to the Reconstructed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Of course, this is nothing but a rule of thumb. I'm leaving out languages out of those two language families (Finnish!), an important part of Eastern Europe which is historically Orthodox. I'm also leaving in ambiguity regions like Bavaria, that have reasons to belong to both of my categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Established_churches_and_former_state_churches" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6749" RevisionGUID="5d604bd1-c87b-46aa-af84-3ef2e4edd6dc" CreationDate="2018-06-27T01:12:09.967" UserId="9" Text="Partial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These mottoes reminds me of Ecclesiastes 7:16-17, which in the NKJV English Bible are given as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;Do not be overly righteous,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Nor be overly wise:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Why should you destroy yourself?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;Do not be overly wicked,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Nor be foolish:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Why should you die before your time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if you want the mottoes to sound like they are alluding to this passage. In any case, it might serve as a model for a possible translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;[Nova Vulgata](http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_ecclesiastes_lt.html)&quot; from the http://www.vatican.va/ website gives the following for these verses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;Noli esse nimis iustus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;neque sapiens supra modum!&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Cur te perdere vis?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;Ne agas nimis impie&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;et noli esse stultus!&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Cur mori debeas in tempore non tuo?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This suggests to me that the word &quot;nimis&quot; may be an appropriate translation of &quot;too&quot; in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22417" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6748" RevisionGUID="6e427511-5f08-43d2-b967-5dd6edc2bd2d" CreationDate="2018-06-27T01:15:03.000" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-identification|motto|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22418" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6749" RevisionGUID="f592940a-8bd9-4fab-882b-1e1b83b3328f" CreationDate="2018-06-27T01:21:14.523" UserId="9" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="Partial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These mottoes reminds me of Ecclesiastes 7:16-17, which in the NKJV English Bible are given as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;Do not be overly righteous,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Nor be overly wise:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Why should you destroy yourself?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;Do not be overly wicked,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Nor be foolish:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Why should you die before your time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if you want the mottoes to sound like they are alluding to this passage. In any case, it might serve as a model for a possible translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;[Nova Vulgata](http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_ecclesiastes_lt.html)&quot; from the http://www.vatican.va/ website gives the following for these verses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;Noli esse nimis iustus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;neque sapiens supra modum!&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Cur te perdere vis?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;Ne agas nimis impie&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;et noli esse stultus!&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Cur mori debeas in tempore non tuo?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This suggests to me that the word &quot;nimis&quot; may be an appropriate translation of &quot;too&quot; in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know enough Latin to have any suggestions for good translations of &quot;kind&quot;, &quot;angry&quot; and &quot;proud&quot;. I feel like the translation of &quot;kind&quot; in particular will probably depend on what exactly you mean to express with &quot;Do not be too kind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6748" RevisionGUID="ba8dd1dc-4af3-4931-a9f1-856b6e4d0060" CreationDate="2018-06-27T01:41:51.137" UserId="2719" Comment="Attempted translation following comments" Text="Hope you guys don't mind helping me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking to translate three mottoes into Latin, and while I'm studying the whole thing (most recently up to the instrumental ablative haha) I think these are beyond my capability to naturally translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Do not be too kind; do not be too angry; do not be too proud.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are meant in a sense of checking and moderation, e.g. **&quot;Be kind when[/to the extent] they deserve it; be angry when[/to the extent] they deserve it; be proud when[/to the extent] you deserve it&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise that &quot;questions should show some effort&quot; but I assume this is a case or construction I'm not familiar with, and I'd love to learn it through relevant and memorable examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would anybody be willing to translate these into Latin and tell me how the grammar works for the construction, or point me to which specific tense/case/etc I should be looking at?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having taken a look, and thanks to the generous suggestions below, I currently have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Noli esse nimis indulgens; noli esse nimis iratus; noli esse superbus [/nimis sublatus].&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... but I don't know if these actually work, as it seems most constructions e.g. &quot;too x&quot; are covered by individual words in Latin. This is vocab I don't know, so if anyone has any further comments (or if the above is wrong), please let me know!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks very much!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6748" RevisionGUID="eb895b34-a83d-453e-817a-695042e25190" CreationDate="2018-06-27T01:53:14.563" UserId="2719" Comment="Added alternative transliteration option" Text="Hope you guys don't mind helping me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking to translate three mottoes into Latin, and while I'm studying the whole thing (most recently up to the instrumental ablative haha) I think these are beyond my capability to naturally translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Do not be too kind; do not be too angry; do not be too proud.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are meant in a sense of checking and moderation, e.g. **&quot;Be kind when[/to the extent] they deserve it; be angry when[/to the extent] they deserve it; be proud when[/to the extent] you deserve it&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose these could also be rendered: **&quot;Be judiciously kind; be judiciously angry; be judiciously proud.&quot;** I imagine this is covered by **sapienter** but I'd prefer these in the negative as a warning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise that &quot;questions should show some effort&quot; but I assume this is a case or construction I'm not familiar with, and I'd love to learn it through relevant and memorable examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would anybody be willing to translate these into Latin and tell me how the grammar works for the construction, or point me to which specific tense/case/etc I should be looking at?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having taken a look, and thanks to the generous suggestions below, I currently have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Noli esse nimis indulgens; noli esse nimis iratus; noli esse superbus [/nimis sublatus].&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... but I don't know if these actually work, as it seems most constructions e.g. &quot;too x&quot; are covered by individual words in Latin. This is vocab I don't know, so if anyone has any further comments (or if the above is wrong), please let me know!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks very much!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6748" RevisionGUID="694fc141-092e-4aa6-b6b8-b8f9c0696f6a" CreationDate="2018-06-27T02:21:23.773" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 132 characters in body" Text="I'm looking to translate three mottoes into Latin, and I think these are beyond my capability to naturally translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Do not be too kind; do not be too angry; do not be too proud.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are meant in a sense of checking and moderation, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Be kind when[/to the extent] they deserve it; be angry when[/to the extent] they deserve it; be proud when[/to the extent] you deserve it**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose these could also be rendered: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Be judiciously kind; be judiciously angry; be judiciously proud. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine this is covered by *sapienter*, but I'd prefer these in the negative as a warning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise that &quot;questions should show some effort&quot; but I assume this is a case or construction I'm not familiar with, and I'd love to learn it through relevant and memorable examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would anybody be willing to translate these into Latin and tell me how the grammar works for the construction, or point me to which specific tense/case/etc I should be looking at?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having taken a look, and thanks to the generous suggestions below, I currently have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Noli esse nimis indulgens; noli esse nimis iratus; noli esse superbus [/nimis sublatus].**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... but I don't know if these actually work, as it seems most constructions e.g. &quot;too x&quot; are covered by individual words in Latin. This is vocabulary I don't know, so if anyone has any further comments (or if the above is wrong), please let me know!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6748" RevisionGUID="90e7b3b2-68f1-4e49-a32f-46dadb92df86" CreationDate="2018-06-27T03:27:16.660" UserId="2719" Comment="Re-added my thanks; DO NOT remove this, holy cow. Not everyone needs to sound blunt as hell" Text="I'm looking to translate three mottoes into Latin, and I think these are beyond my capability to naturally translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Do not be too kind; do not be too angry; do not be too proud.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are meant in a sense of checking and moderation, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Be kind when[/to the extent] they deserve it; be angry when[/to the extent] they deserve it; be proud when[/to the extent] you deserve it**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose these could also be rendered: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Be judiciously kind; be judiciously angry; be judiciously proud. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine this is covered by *sapienter*, but I'd prefer these in the negative as a warning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise that &quot;questions should show some effort&quot; but I assume this is a case or construction I'm not familiar with, and I'd love to learn it through relevant and memorable examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would anybody be willing to translate these into Latin and tell me how the grammar works for the construction, or point me to which specific tense/case/etc I should be looking at?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having taken a look, and thanks to the generous suggestions below, I currently have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Noli esse nimis indulgens; noli esse nimis iratus; noli esse superbus [/nimis sublatus].**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... but I don't know if these actually work, as it seems most constructions e.g. &quot;too x&quot; are covered by individual words in Latin. This is vocabulary I don't know, so if anyone has any further comments (or if the above is wrong), please let me know!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that any indication of proper gratefulness was removed in some kind of ruthless, paring-to-the-pragmatic moderator edit (at which I am frankly incensed, because the kindness of this community is very relevant to me; **NOLI ME TANGERE** mate, please leave the below in):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm extremely grateful to everyone for helping me out! I'm currently learning Latin, and this is a huge boost." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6750" RevisionGUID="d93c1ccd-d5c2-4593-9897-6b3265ef8696" CreationDate="2018-06-27T03:56:17.800" UserId="406" Text="In the Vatican's [Nova Vulgata][1], Ecclesiastes 7:16-17 reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Noli esse nimis iustus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; neque sapiens supra modum!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cur te perdere vis?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ne agas nimis impie  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et noli esse stultus!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cur mori debeas in tempore non tuo?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As soon as I saw this, the *nolī esse* in the first line felt jarring. But I don't know why; I certainly never learned that this particular construction was ungrammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this one of the various Graecisms and Hebraisms scattered throughout the Vulgate? Or is it actually an attested phrase in Classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_ecclesiastes_lt.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22425" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6750" RevisionGUID="d93c1ccd-d5c2-4593-9897-6b3265ef8696" CreationDate="2018-06-27T03:56:17.800" UserId="406" Text="Is &quot;nolī esse&quot; grammatical?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22426" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6750" RevisionGUID="d93c1ccd-d5c2-4593-9897-6b3265ef8696" CreationDate="2018-06-27T03:56:17.800" UserId="406" Text="|grammar-choice|ecclesiastical-latin|vulgata|imperative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="8b8e1e79-309d-4aef-aad7-f9357df0ab14" CreationDate="2018-06-27T04:08:13.660" UserId="39" Text="Neither the letter Z nor its hypothetical digraphs were particularly common in Classical Latin. The only known exceptions are Greek and some other (proper nouns?). Leumann et al. (§9a) mention the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="4b952bd4-79eb-45f9-a751-bf69f0dc508d" CreationDate="2018-06-27T04:21:27.987" UserId="39" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="Neither the letter Z (&quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur&quot;) nor its hypothetical digraphs were particularly common in Classical Latin. The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (proper nouns?). Leumann et al. (§9a) mention the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6752" RevisionGUID="28b1efb1-2ad8-4e98-b8b5-8ffb0f89d67c" CreationDate="2018-06-27T09:18:33.207" UserId="324" Text="In Byzantine and Modern Greek τζ is used for /dʒ/ and τσ for /tʃ/ in foreign words, in MG especially in loans from Turkish, e.g. τζαμί &lt; T. cami /dʒami/ “mosque”, and τσάι for çay  /tʃaj/ “tea”. This does not really have anything to do with Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6753" RevisionGUID="4089f693-1790-4a8f-9510-4bcbbad071e1" CreationDate="2018-06-27T11:12:01.073" UserId="79" Text="The construction *noli* with infinitive is widely attested in classical Latin, and I have never seen anyone mention that *esse* or any other word would be ineligible.&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example from Cicero (*Pro Murena* 9&amp;ndash;10):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nam si tibi&#xD;&#xA;necesse putas etiam adversariis amicorum tuorum de iure&#xD;&#xA;consulentibus respondere, et si turpe existimas te advocato&#xD;&#xA;illum ipsum quem contra veneris causa cadere, **noli** tam&#xD;&#xA;**esse** iniustus ut, cum tui fontes vel inimicis tuis pateant,&#xD;&#xA;nostros etiam amicis putes clausos esse oportere.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am less familiar with ecclesiastic Latin, but if it is classically valid, it should be valid in later Latin as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22431" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1987" RevisionGUID="1c6f6ce3-604e-4997-8a2b-4b681f264c9e" CreationDate="2018-06-27T11:31:56.260" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|medieval-latin|history|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22432" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2600" RevisionGUID="84e1c104-ad34-410a-bda4-e213f3ed7112" CreationDate="2018-06-27T13:06:43.597" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|familia|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22433" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4891" RevisionGUID="cbe98c94-9520-4665-9b7d-b46dc9eeab2f" CreationDate="2018-06-27T13:07:15.263" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|motto|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22434" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6384" RevisionGUID="0a8ace71-2b22-4d93-8d45-1593b916cfde" CreationDate="2018-06-27T13:09:09.330" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|motto|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6748" RevisionGUID="346df288-33e7-4a44-873b-f454fd8a6f42" CreationDate="2018-06-27T14:03:51.553" UserId="45" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="Hope you guys don't mind helping me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking to translate three mottoes into Latin, and I think these are beyond my capability to naturally translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Do not be too kind; do not be too angry; do not be too proud.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are meant in a sense of checking and moderation, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Be kind when[/to the extent] they deserve it; be angry when[/to the extent] they deserve it; be proud when[/to the extent] you deserve it**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose these could also be rendered: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Be judiciously kind; be judiciously angry; be judiciously proud. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine this is covered by *sapienter*, but I'd prefer these in the negative as a warning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise that &quot;questions should show some effort&quot; but I assume this is a case or construction I'm not familiar with, and I'd love to learn it through relevant and memorable examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would anybody be willing to translate these into Latin and tell me how the grammar works for the construction, or point me to which specific tense/case/etc I should be looking at?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having taken a look, and thanks to the generous suggestions below, I currently have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Noli esse nimis indulgens; noli esse nimis iratus; noli esse superbus [/nimis sublatus].**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... but I don't know if these actually work, as it seems most constructions e.g. &quot;too x&quot; are covered by individual words in Latin. This is vocabulary I don't know, so if anyone has any further comments (or if the above is wrong), please let me know!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm extremely grateful to everyone for helping me out! I'm currently learning Latin, and this is a huge boost." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6745" RevisionGUID="d1887110-02dd-4b89-b929-a224dc7a9a34" CreationDate="2018-06-27T15:08:57.427" UserId="469" Comment="added 584 characters in body" Text="After almost two years without an answer for all of Europe, I'll venture a guess. I'll go from what I'm most certain to what I just think is most likely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have better informed knowledge about a specific country, **feel free to comment or edit** it in. If enough contributions arrive (or if I happen to be horribly wrong), I'll happily make this a community wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Before the XX century, most languages (and in Europe that is correlated to countries) had their own rules to pronounce Latin which in some cases reflected their own sound changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; During the XX century, two systems of pronunciation acquired momentum, namely *Reconstructed* and *Ecclesiastical*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Ecclesiastical** Latin pronunciation is mostly based in the former Italian system, was recommended by Pope St. Pius X and became a *de facto* (or maybe *de Iure*?) standard in the Catholic world. It includes special rules like c and g having a different sound in front of e and i, which has a common pattern with most Romance languages. While it likely gathers features of actual Latin sounds at different points in history, it is not necessarily representative of *native* Latin as spoken by any individual or time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Reconstructed** pronunciation is a lot more regular (&quot;simple&quot; so to say). It is a scholarly attempt to tell what cultured Classical Latin sounded like, based in evidence both written in Latin and of loanwords to/from other languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. There was a number (bigger than today) of countries where more than 90% of the population and institutions considered themselves Catholic (many European Countries had in fact **Catholicism as their [State Religion][1]** by the beginning of the XX century, including Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Unsourced Wikipedia text argues that: &#xD;&#xA; * Latin still in use today is more often **pronounced according to context, rather than geography**&#xD;&#xA; * Ecclesiastical Latin [is] the official pronunciation of the Catholic Church [and] the default of many singers and choirs.&#xD;&#xA; * In Western university classics departments the reconstructed classical pronunciation has been general since around 1945, &lt;sup&gt;[citation needed]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; * In the Anglo-American legal professions the older style of academic Latin (i.e., the former English system) survives to this day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. My **educated guess** (based in some experience but not unlikely to be biased) is that while the Wikipedia statement on context rather than geography is generally true, **there is also a geopolitical divide**, where the countries prone to a more Catholic or Romance tradition tend to prefer Ecclesiastical, while those more historically close to Protestantism and Germanic languages are closer to the Reconstructed. These groups don't have any particular reason to prefer the Ecclesiastical pronunciation, so the reconstructed, with an arguable more systematic approach and most likely to better resemble Classical Latin, seems like a better choice for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Of course, this is nothing but a rule of thumb. I'm leaving out languages out of those two language families (Finnish!), an important part of Eastern Europe which is historically Orthodox. I'm also leaving in ambiguity regions like Bavaria, that have reasons to belong to both of my categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Established_churches_and_former_state_churches" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22438" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6746" RevisionGUID="2a5d4de2-c361-4ca7-a8d0-1763a8d03651" CreationDate="2018-06-27T15:35:37.667" UserId="406" Comment="edited tags" Text="|orthography|spelling|late-latin|transliteration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6755" RevisionGUID="34635243-9bb8-4a3c-97f1-3260e7b4f009" CreationDate="2018-06-27T17:22:54.763" UserId="2720" Text="Looking at the BHS Hebrew, there's a definite first person singular pronoun, and then in the LXX as well. And even though I have the Clementine... apparently an older version of it, by 1588, [Google book textual commentary],[1] there was already a change... which apparently was back to the original if the LXX and BHS are any indication. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=uPCazh5eLCYC&amp;dq=vetus%20testamentum%20numeros&amp;source=gbs_navlinks_s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6756" RevisionGUID="4889aae6-de2c-4f75-b798-85394e4b2d61" CreationDate="2018-06-27T18:23:41.913" UserId="2720" Text="Looking at other posts on *quippe*+relatives (particularly, at this link:[1]), there seems to be a consensus that it will usually show up with *qui*/... but not with *quod*, but I'm currently looking at a Latin text, &quot;Non enim utiliter exposueris ascensum Christi in coelum et sessionem eius ad dexterarri Dei patris sui, nisi antea incarnationem seu unionem personalem recte et pie intellexeris, quippe quod ex huius cognitione illa omnino pendeant,&quot; from the Early Modern period that seems to go against previous comments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had this in my head as &quot;The ascension of Christ to heaven and his seating at the right hand of God his father is not usefully explained, unless beforehand the Incarnation or personal union is rightly understood, because out of/on this understanding they depend completely&quot; but that doesn't seem quite right... thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/598/how-can-i-use-quippe-properly/6754#6754" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22443" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6756" RevisionGUID="4889aae6-de2c-4f75-b798-85394e4b2d61" CreationDate="2018-06-27T18:23:41.913" UserId="2720" Text="Quippe+quod (Early Modern period)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22444" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6756" RevisionGUID="4889aae6-de2c-4f75-b798-85394e4b2d61" CreationDate="2018-06-27T18:23:41.913" UserId="2720" Text="|grammar-choice|new-latin|relative-clause|quippe|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6757" RevisionGUID="8e5221b2-0c21-4632-8a7d-d2cbf3e3c3af" CreationDate="2018-06-28T01:08:39.297" UserId="1157" Text="The motto of the Roman Republic was, of course, *Senatus Populusque Romanus*, or *SPQR*. However, *Romanus* is a masculine, **singular** adjective. What confuses me is that it is referencing *Senatus Populusque*. While each might individually be singular, together as a combined nominative, they are considered plural. So, shouldn't the adjective be the *romanus* but plural, in this case *romani*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22448" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6757" RevisionGUID="8e5221b2-0c21-4632-8a7d-d2cbf3e3c3af" CreationDate="2018-06-28T01:08:39.297" UserId="1157" Text="SPQR: Why not Romani?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22449" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6757" RevisionGUID="8e5221b2-0c21-4632-8a7d-d2cbf3e3c3af" CreationDate="2018-06-28T01:08:39.297" UserId="1157" Text="|grammar-choice|adjective|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="e58d6739-580f-4a5a-80af-f5cfb1eebef5" CreationDate="2018-06-28T02:09:31.247" UserId="39" Comment="added 500 characters in body" Text="Neither the letter Z (&quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur&quot;) nor its hypothetical digraphs were particularly common in Classical Latin. The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (mostly proper nouns?). After all, as Gary Miller puts it, &quot;The letters Y and Z at the end of the alphabet were borrowed directly from Greek to represent Attic /ü/ and /zd/ (or /d&lt;sup&gt;z&lt;/sup&gt;/)&quot; (Miller 2014: 38).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann et al. (§9a) mention the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I agree with fdb that it has nothing to do with Latin per se. The possible explanation might come from the history of Greek. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, Allen mentions the following two arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	“at the time when the Semitic alphabet was adopted by Greek the ‘zayin’ symbol was at first applied to a still existing affricate type of combination;”&#xD;&#xA;-	 “the affricated combination was at this early period a single phoneme and so preferably represented by a single phoneme” (Allen 1987: 57).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="0d46d2f6-de07-46b6-8834-e11dddded8df" CreationDate="2018-06-28T02:15:20.447" UserId="39" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="Neither the letter Z (a letter that was despised by some because it &quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur&quot;) nor its hypothetical digraphs were particularly common in Classical Latin. The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (mostly proper nouns?). After all, as Gary Miller puts it, &quot;The letters Y and Z at the end of the alphabet were borrowed directly from Greek to represent Attic /ü/ and /zd/ (or /d&lt;sup&gt;z&lt;/sup&gt;/)&quot; (Miller 2014: 38). Note that originally ζ &quot;was normally borrowed as s&quot; (Miller), cf. both sona and zona in Plautus mss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann et al. (§9a) mention the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I agree with fdb that it has nothing to do with Latin per se. The possible explanation might come from the history of Greek. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, Allen mentions the following two arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	“at the time when the Semitic alphabet was adopted by Greek the ‘zayin’ symbol was at first applied to a still existing affricate type of combination;”&#xD;&#xA;-	 “the affricated combination was at this early period a single phoneme and so preferably represented by a single phoneme” (Allen 1987: 57).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="b445b9f5-d75b-43a2-969d-9f6968b503de" CreationDate="2018-06-28T03:28:10.983" UserId="39" Comment="added 366 characters in body" Text="Neither the letter Z (a letter that was despised by some because it &quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur&quot;) nor its hypothetical digraphs were particularly common in Classical Latin. The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (mostly proper nouns?). After all, as Gary Miller puts it, &quot;The letters Y and Z at the end of the alphabet were borrowed directly from Greek to represent Attic /ü/ and /zd/ (or /d&lt;sup&gt;z&lt;/sup&gt;/)&quot; (Miller 2014: 38). Note that originally ζ &quot;was normally borrowed as s&quot; (Miller), cf. both *sona* and *zona* in Plautus mss, or ss, as in *massa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann et al. (§9a) mention the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story. Peter Stotz (Stotz 1996, vol. 3, §283) mentions the following phonetic realizations of the letter z in post-Classical (i.e. Late and Medieval) Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dz]: *zebus* (CL diebus), *zabulus* (CL diabolus), *oze* (CL hodie);&#xD;&#xA; - [z]: *zona*, *zmurdus* (smurdus or smordus), *thezauraria*;&#xD;&#xA; - [tʃ]: *zelum* (CL caelum), *zesa* (CL caesa);&#xD;&#xA; - [ts]: *zinamomum*, *zynamomum*, or even *çinamomum* (CL cinnamomum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I agree with fdb that it has nothing to do with Latin per se. The possible explanation might come from the history of Greek. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, Allen mentions the following two arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	“at the time when the Semitic alphabet was adopted by Greek the ‘zayin’ symbol was at first applied to a still existing affricate type of combination;”&#xD;&#xA;-	 “the affricated combination was at this early period a single phoneme and so preferably represented by a single phoneme” (Allen 1987: 57).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="85a31fb4-a79c-4600-89e3-195e981cf096" CreationDate="2018-06-28T03:34:08.563" UserId="39" Comment="added 366 characters in body" Text="Neither the letter Z (a letter that was despised by some because it &quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur&quot;) nor its hypothetical digraphs were particularly common in Classical Latin. The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (mostly proper nouns?). After all, as Gary Miller puts it, &quot;The letters Y and Z at the end of the alphabet were borrowed directly from Greek to represent Attic /ü/ and /zd/ (or /d&lt;sup&gt;z&lt;/sup&gt;/)&quot; (Miller 2014: 38). Note that originally ζ &quot;was normally borrowed as s&quot; (Miller), cf. both *sona* and *zona* in Plautus mss, or ss, as in *massa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann et al. (§9a) mention the following epigraphic evidence of the digraphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story. Peter Stotz (Stotz 1996, vol. 3, §283) mentions the following phonetic realizations of the letter z in post-Classical (i.e. Late and Medieval) Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dz]: *zebus* (CL diebus), *zabulus* (CL diabolus), *oze* (CL hodie);&#xD;&#xA; - [z]: *zona*, *zmurdus* (smurdus or smordus), *thezauraria*;&#xD;&#xA; - [tʃ]: *zelum* (CL caelum), *zesa* (CL caesa);&#xD;&#xA; - [ts]: *zinamomum*, *zynamomum*, or even *çinamomum* (CL cinnamomum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I agree with fdb that it has nothing to do with Latin per se. The possible explanation might come from the history of Greek. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, Allen mentions the following two arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	“at the time when the Semitic alphabet was adopted by Greek the ‘zayin’ symbol was at first applied to a still existing affricate type of combination;”&#xD;&#xA;-	 “the affricated combination was at this early period a single phoneme and so preferably represented by a single phoneme” (Allen 1987: 57).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="0f12f4cb-4afc-46eb-9e5d-b145b18443f1" CreationDate="2018-06-28T03:42:04.653" UserId="39" Comment="added 366 characters in body" Text="Neither the letter Z (a letter that was despised by some because it &quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur&quot;) nor its hypothetical digraphs were particularly common in Classical Latin. The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (mostly proper nouns?). After all, as [Gary Miller][1] puts it, &quot;The letters Y and Z at the end of the alphabet were borrowed directly from Greek to represent Attic /ü/ and /zd/ (or /d&lt;sup&gt;z&lt;/sup&gt;/)&quot; ([Miller 2014:][2] 38). Note that originally ζ &quot;was normally borrowed as s&quot; (Miller), cf. both *sona* and *zona* in Plautus mss, or ss, as in *massa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leumann et al.][3] (§9a) mention the following epigraphic evidence of the digraphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story. Peter Stotz ([Stotz 1996, vol. 3][4], §283) mentions the following phonetic realizations of the letter z in post-Classical (i.e. Late and Medieval) Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dz]: *zebus* (CL diebus), *zabulus* (CL diabolus), *oze* (CL hodie);&#xD;&#xA; - [z]: *zona*, *zmurdus* (smurdus or smordus), *thezauraria* (cf. CL thesaurus);&#xD;&#xA; - [tʃ]: *zelum* (CL caelum), *zesa* (CL caesa);&#xD;&#xA; - [ts]: *zinamomum*, *zynamomum*, or even *çinamomum* (CL cinnamomum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I agree with fdb that it has nothing to do with Latin per se. The possible explanation might come from the history of Greek. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, [Allen][5] mentions the following two arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	“at the time when the Semitic alphabet was adopted by Greek the ‘zayin’ symbol was at first applied to a still existing affricate type of combination;”&#xD;&#xA;-	 “the affricated combination was at this early period a single phoneme and so preferably represented by a single phoneme” (Allen 1987: 57).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9781614512950/9781614512950.34/9781614512950.34.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/204393&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.chbeck.de/leumann-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-band-ii21-lateinische-laut-und-formenlehre/product/15793&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.chbeck.de/stotz-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-griechische-grammatik-lateinische-grammatik-rhetorik-band-ii_5-3-handbuch-lateinischen-spra/product/15797&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.cambridge.org/vu/academic/subjects/classical-studies/classical-languages/vox-graeca-pronunciation-classical-greek-3rd-edition?format=PB&amp;isbn=9780521335553#4fp1ufU4iTALhmxL.97" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="f4099180-46eb-4141-beba-c8f52f99e953" CreationDate="2018-06-28T03:47:12.493" UserId="39" Comment="added 366 characters in body" Text="Neither the letter Z (a letter that was despised by some because it &quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur&quot;) nor its hypothetical digraphs were particularly common in Classical Latin. The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (mostly proper nouns?). After all, as [Gary Miller][1] puts it, &quot;The letters Y and Z at the end of the alphabet were borrowed directly from Greek to represent Attic /ü/ and /zd/ (or /d&lt;sup&gt;z&lt;/sup&gt;/)&quot; ([Miller 2014:][2] 38). Note that originally ζ &quot;was normally borrowed as s&quot; (Miller), cf. both *sona* and *zona* in Plautus mss, or ss, as in *massa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leumann et al.][3] (§9a) mention the following epigraphic evidence of the digraphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z (the latter more accurately representing the original phonetic form in Greek - NB: regressive assimilation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story. Peter Stotz ([Stotz 1996, vol. 3][4], §283) mentions the following phonetic realizations of the letter z in post-Classical (i.e. Late and Medieval) Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dz]: *zebus* (CL diebus), *zabulus* (CL diabolus), *oze* (CL hodie);&#xD;&#xA; - [z]: *zona*, *zmurdus* (smurdus or smordus), *thezauraria* (cf. CL thesaurus);&#xD;&#xA; - [tʃ]: *zelum* (CL caelum), *zesa* (CL caesa);&#xD;&#xA; - [ts]: *zinamomum*, *zynamomum*, or even *çinamomum* (CL cinnamomum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I agree with fdb that it has nothing to do with Latin per se. The possible explanation might come from the history of Greek. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, [Allen][5] mentions the following two arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	“at the time when the Semitic alphabet was adopted by Greek the ‘zayin’ symbol was at first applied to a still existing affricate type of combination;”&#xD;&#xA;-	 “the affricated combination was at this early period a single phoneme and so preferably represented by a single phoneme” (Allen 1987: 57).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9781614512950/9781614512950.34/9781614512950.34.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/204393&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.chbeck.de/leumann-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-band-ii21-lateinische-laut-und-formenlehre/product/15793&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.chbeck.de/stotz-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-griechische-grammatik-lateinische-grammatik-rhetorik-band-ii_5-3-handbuch-lateinischen-spra/product/15797&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.cambridge.org/vu/academic/subjects/classical-studies/classical-languages/vox-graeca-pronunciation-classical-greek-3rd-edition?format=PB&amp;isbn=9780521335553#4fp1ufU4iTALhmxL.97" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="08ce34cf-aec2-450b-bf3f-24fc0829ddfc" CreationDate="2018-06-28T04:19:11.610" UserId="39" Comment="added 393 characters in body" Text="Neither the letter Z (a letter that was despised by some because it &quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur&quot;) nor its hypothetical digraphs were particularly common in Classical Latin. The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (mostly proper nouns?). After all, as [Gary Miller][1] puts it, &quot;The letters Y and Z at the end of the alphabet were borrowed directly from Greek to represent Attic /ü/ and /zd/ (or /d&lt;sup&gt;z&lt;/sup&gt;/)&quot; ([Miller 2014:][2] 38). Note that originally ζ &quot;was normally borrowed as s&quot; (Miller), cf. both *sona* and *zona* in Plautus mss, or ss, as in *massa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leumann et al.][3] (§9a) mention the following epigraphic evidence of the digraphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z (the latter more accurately representing the original phonetic form in Greek - NB: regressive assimilation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story. Peter Stotz ([Stotz 1996, vol. 3][4], §283) mentions the following phonetic realizations of the letter z in post-Classical (i.e. Late and Medieval) Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dz]: *zebus* (CL diebus), *zabulus* (CL diabolus), *oze* (CL hodie);&#xD;&#xA; - [z]: *zona*, *zmurdus* (smurdus or smordus), *thezauraria* (cf. CL thesaurus);&#xD;&#xA; - [tʃ]: *zelum* (CL caelum), *zesa* (CL caesa);&#xD;&#xA; - [ts]: *zinamomum*, *zynamomum*, or even *çinamomum* (CL cinnamomum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I agree with fdb that it has nothing to do with Latin per se. The possible explanation might come from the history of Greek. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, [Allen][5] mentions the following two arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	“at the time when the Semitic alphabet was adopted by Greek the ‘zayin’ symbol was at first applied to a still existing affricate type of combination;”&#xD;&#xA;-	 “the affricated combination was at this early period a single phoneme and so preferably represented by a single phoneme” (Allen 1987: 57).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: Etruscan. The Etruscan letter z, which is generally assumed to be a dental affricate /t&lt;sup&gt;s&lt;/sup&gt;/, has recently been reinterpreted as a palatal affricate /tʃ/ ([Wallace 2008:][6] 31). Even though Wallace believes that z was /t&lt;sup&gt;s&lt;/sup&gt;/ in Etruscan (see p. 32 for his evidence in favor of this analysis), he does acknowledge the other interpretation (proposed by e.g. Luciano Agostiniani)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9781614512950/9781614512950.34/9781614512950.34.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/204393&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.chbeck.de/leumann-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-band-ii21-lateinische-laut-und-formenlehre/product/15793&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.chbeck.de/stotz-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-griechische-grammatik-lateinische-grammatik-rhetorik-band-ii_5-3-handbuch-lateinischen-spra/product/15797&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.cambridge.org/vu/academic/subjects/classical-studies/classical-languages/vox-graeca-pronunciation-classical-greek-3rd-edition?format=PB&amp;isbn=9780521335553#4fp1ufU4iTALhmxL.97&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.beechstave.com/etruscan.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="69fe017e-41b5-474b-8481-1b6ffbac11ef" CreationDate="2018-06-28T04:24:18.393" UserId="39" Comment="added 393 characters in body" Text="Neither the letter Z (a letter that was despised by some because it &quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur&quot;) nor its hypothetical digraphs were particularly common in Classical Latin. The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (mostly proper nouns?). After all, as [Gary Miller][1] puts it, &quot;The letters Y and Z at the end of the alphabet were borrowed directly from Greek to represent Attic /ü/ and /zd/ (or /d&lt;sup&gt;z&lt;/sup&gt;/)&quot; ([Miller 2014:][2] 38). Note that originally ζ &quot;was normally borrowed as s&quot; (Miller), cf. both *sona* and *zona* in Plautus mss, or ss, as in *massa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leumann et al.][3] (§9a) mention the following epigraphic evidence of the digraphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z (the latter more accurately representing the original phonetic form in Greek - NB: regressive assimilation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story. Peter Stotz ([Stotz 1996, vol. 3][4], §283) mentions the following phonetic realizations of the letter z in post-Classical (i.e. Late and Medieval) Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dz]: *zebus* (CL diebus), *zabulus* (CL diabolus), *oze* (CL hodie);&#xD;&#xA; - [z]: *zona*, *zmurdus* (smurdus or smordus), *thezauraria* (cf. CL thesaurus);&#xD;&#xA; - [tʃ]: *zelum* (CL caelum), *zesa* (CL caesa);&#xD;&#xA; - [ts]: *zinamomum*, *zynamomum*, or even *çinamomum* (CL cinnamomum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I agree with fdb that it has nothing to do with Latin per se. The possible explanation might come from the history of Greek. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, [Allen][5] mentions the following two arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	“at the time when the Semitic alphabet was adopted by Greek the ‘zayin’ symbol was at first applied to a still existing affricate type of combination;”&#xD;&#xA;-	 “the affricated combination was at this early period a single phoneme and so preferably represented by a single phoneme” (Allen 1987: 57).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: Etruscan. Wallace mentions that the Etruscan letter z, which is generally assumed to be a dental affricate /t&lt;sup&gt;s&lt;/sup&gt;/, has recently been reinterpreted as a palatal affricate /tʃ/ ([Wallace 2008:][6] 31). Even though Wallace believes that z was /t&lt;sup&gt;s&lt;/sup&gt;/ in Etruscan (see p. 32 for his evidence in favor of this analysis), he does acknowledge the other interpretation (proposed by e.g. [Luciano Agostiniani][7]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9781614512950/9781614512950.34/9781614512950.34.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/204393&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.chbeck.de/leumann-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-band-ii21-lateinische-laut-und-formenlehre/product/15793&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.chbeck.de/stotz-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-griechische-grammatik-lateinische-grammatik-rhetorik-band-ii_5-3-handbuch-lateinischen-spra/product/15797&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.cambridge.org/vu/academic/subjects/classical-studies/classical-languages/vox-graeca-pronunciation-classical-greek-3rd-edition?format=PB&amp;isbn=9780521335553#4fp1ufU4iTALhmxL.97&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.beechstave.com/etruscan.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://independent.academia.edu/LucianoAgostiniani&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1AQI6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="ed49ba64-34b8-4e97-a7d4-60c0c5f696c4" CreationDate="2018-06-28T04:30:37.130" UserId="39" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="Neither the letter Z (a letter that was despised by some because it &quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur&quot;) nor its hypothetical digraphs were particularly common in Classical Latin. The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (mostly proper nouns?). After all, as [Gary Miller][1] puts it, &quot;The letters Y and Z at the end of the alphabet were borrowed directly from Greek to represent Attic /ü/ and /zd/ (or /d&lt;sup&gt;z&lt;/sup&gt;/)&quot; ([Miller 2014:][2] 38). Note that originally ζ &quot;was normally borrowed as s&quot; (Miller), cf. both *sona* and *zona* in Plautus mss, or ss, as in *massa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leumann et al.][3] (§9a) mention the following epigraphic evidence of the digraphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z (the latter more accurately representing the original phonetic form in Greek - NB: regressive assimilation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story. Peter Stotz ([Stotz 1996, vol. 3][4], §283) mentions the following phonetic realizations of the letter z in post-Classical (i.e. Late and Medieval) Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dz]: *zebus* (CL diebus), *zabulus* (CL diabolus), *oze* (CL hodie);&#xD;&#xA; - [z]: *zona*, *zmurdus* (smurdus or smordus), *thezauraria* (cf. CL thesaurus);&#xD;&#xA; - [tʃ]: *zelum* (CL caelum), *zesa* (CL caesa);&#xD;&#xA; - [ts]: *zinamomum*, *zynamomum*, or even *çinamomum* (CL cinnamomum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I agree with fdb that it has nothing to do with Latin per se. The possible explanation might come from the history of Greek. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, [Allen][5] mentions the following two arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	“at the time when the Semitic alphabet was adopted by Greek the ‘zayin’ symbol was at first applied to a still existing affricate type of combination;”&#xD;&#xA;-	 “the affricated combination was at this early period a single phoneme and so preferably represented by a single phoneme” (Allen 1987: 57).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: Etruscan. Wallace mentions that the Etruscan letter z, which is generally assumed to be a dental affricate /t&lt;sup&gt;s&lt;/sup&gt;/, has recently been reinterpreted as a palatal affricate /tʃ/ ([Wallace 2008:][6] 31). Even though Wallace believes that z was /t&lt;sup&gt;s&lt;/sup&gt;/ in Etruscan (see p. 32 for his evidence in favor of this analysis), he does acknowledge the other interpretation, based on typological considerations (proposed by e.g. [Luciano Agostiniani][7]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9781614512950/9781614512950.34/9781614512950.34.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/204393&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.chbeck.de/leumann-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-band-ii21-lateinische-laut-und-formenlehre/product/15793&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.chbeck.de/stotz-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-griechische-grammatik-lateinische-grammatik-rhetorik-band-ii_5-3-handbuch-lateinischen-spra/product/15797&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.cambridge.org/vu/academic/subjects/classical-studies/classical-languages/vox-graeca-pronunciation-classical-greek-3rd-edition?format=PB&amp;isbn=9780521335553#4fp1ufU4iTALhmxL.97&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.beechstave.com/etruscan.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://independent.academia.edu/LucianoAgostiniani&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1AQI6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6747" RevisionGUID="de463d75-1cbb-4eab-a969-798e052ac053" CreationDate="2018-06-28T04:53:23.213" UserId="9" Comment="changed to phonetic brackets in most cases" Text="Note that the letter Z has been associated with affricate sounds like [ts] for a very long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Ancient use of &quot;Z&quot; for affricate sounds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Zeta in Classical Attic Greek](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeta#Letter) is thought to have represented [zd], but there is some evidence for [dz] as another pronunciation that existed in different dialects or stages of Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this site, [Alex B's answer to &quot;Why are there no native Latin words with a Z?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/193/9) mentions that &quot;Weiss 2009/2011 [...]  hypothesizes that originally Z was probably pronounced as [ts] [in the context of Italic/Latin orthography]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia article on Etruscan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language#Consonants) indicates that it used Z to represent an affricate sound transcribed by the article as &quot;ts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Modern use of &quot;Z&quot; for affricate sounds&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there are a number of modern languages that use &quot;Z&quot; to represent an affricate, such as Italian and German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###I would guess &quot;Z&quot; has been associated with affricates throughout its history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this information, I have the impression that &quot;Z&quot; has always been associated with affricates to some degree, so even in eras or places where its usual value was a simple fricative /z/, it would be available for use in digraphs for foreign affricates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;Ts&quot; isn't necessarily the obvious choice for representing an affricate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that in Classical Latin, &quot;ts&quot; occurs only in morphologically transparent compounds where the first par ends in &quot;t&quot; and the second part starts with &quot;s&quot; (see the comments beneath [TKR's answer here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/818/9)). Furthermore, this means that Latin &quot;ts&quot; can always be analyzed as a heterosyllabic sequence /t.s/. It isn't necessarily possible to analyze a foreign affricate in these terms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="e375844b-23f9-4b5e-b9fa-a66854071c09" CreationDate="2018-06-28T05:01:51.543" UserId="39" Comment="added 391 characters in body" Text="Neither the letter Z (a letter that was despised by some because it &quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur&quot;) nor its hypothetical digraphs were particularly common in Classical Latin. The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (mostly proper nouns?). After all, as [Gary Miller][1] puts it, &quot;The letters Y and Z at the end of the alphabet were borrowed directly from Greek to represent Attic /ü/ and /zd/ (or /d&lt;sup&gt;z&lt;/sup&gt;/)&quot; ([Miller 2014:][2] 38). Note that originally ζ &quot;was normally borrowed as s&quot; (Miller), cf. both *sona* and *zona* in Plautus mss, or ss, as in *massa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leumann et al.][3] (§9a) mention the following epigraphic evidence of the digraphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z (the latter more accurately representing the original phonetic form in Greek - NB: regressive assimilation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story. Peter Stotz ([Stotz 1996, vol. 3][4], §283) mentions the following phonetic realizations of the letter z in post-Classical (i.e. Late and Medieval) Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dz]: *zebus* (CL diebus), *zabulus* (CL diabolus), *oze* (CL hodie);&#xD;&#xA; - [z]: *zona*, *zmurdus* (smurdus or smordus), *thezauraria* (cf. CL thesaurus);&#xD;&#xA; - [tʃ]: *zelum* (CL caelum), *zesa* (CL caesa);&#xD;&#xA; - [ts]: *zinamomum*, *zynamomum*, or even *çinamomum* (CL cinnamomum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I agree with fdb that it has nothing to do with Latin per se. The possible explanation might come from the history of Greek. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, [Allen][5] mentions the following two arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	“at the time when the Semitic alphabet was adopted by Greek the ‘zayin’ symbol was at first applied to a still existing affricate type of combination;”&#xD;&#xA;-	 “the affricated combination was at this early period a single phoneme and so preferably represented by a single phoneme” (Allen 1987: 57).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Jeffrey adds more detail, arguing that zeta has &quot;[the correct Semitic sign][6] which followed that by [waw][7], but the name+sound of another sibilant, [ṣāde][8]&quot; (Jeffrey 1961/2003).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: Etruscan. Wallace mentions that the Etruscan letter z, which is generally assumed to be a dental affricate /t&lt;sup&gt;s&lt;/sup&gt;/, has recently been reinterpreted as a palatal affricate /tʃ/ ([Wallace 2008:][9] 31). Even though Wallace believes that z was /t&lt;sup&gt;s&lt;/sup&gt;/ in Etruscan (see p. 32 for his evidence in favor of this analysis), he does acknowledge the other interpretation, based on typological considerations (proposed by e.g. [Luciano Agostiniani][10]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9781614512950/9781614512950.34/9781614512950.34.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/204393&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.chbeck.de/leumann-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-band-ii21-lateinische-laut-und-formenlehre/product/15793&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.chbeck.de/stotz-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-griechische-grammatik-lateinische-grammatik-rhetorik-band-ii_5-3-handbuch-lateinischen-spra/product/15797&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.cambridge.org/vu/academic/subjects/classical-studies/classical-languages/vox-graeca-pronunciation-classical-greek-3rd-edition?format=PB&amp;isbn=9780521335553#4fp1ufU4iTALhmxL.97&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zayin&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waw_(letter)&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsade&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.beechstave.com/etruscan.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.academia.edu/4356197/La_considerazione_tipologica_nello_studio_delletrusco_in_Scritti_Scelti_a_cura_di_A._Ancillotti_A._Calderini_G._Giannecchini_D._Santamaria_AION_ling_25_2003_vol._I_pp._163-184_in_Incontri_Linguistici_16_1993_pp._23-44_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6747" RevisionGUID="5ce4cde6-883f-4939-9b64-de1c96c38e67" CreationDate="2018-06-28T07:28:25.487" UserId="9" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Note that the letter Z has been associated with affricate sounds like [ts] for a very long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Ancient use of &quot;Z&quot; for affricate sounds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Zeta in Classical Attic Greek](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeta#Letter) is thought to have represented [zd], but there is some evidence for [dz] as another pronunciation that existed in different dialects or stages of Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this site, [Alex B's answer to &quot;Why are there no native Latin words with a Z?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/193/9) mentions that &quot;Weiss 2009/2011 [...]  hypothesizes that originally Z was probably pronounced as [ts] [in the context of Italic/Latin orthography]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia article on Etruscan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language#Consonants) indicates that it used Z to represent an affricate sound transcribed by the article as &quot;ts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Modern use of &quot;Z&quot; for affricate sounds&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there are a number of modern languages that use &quot;Z&quot; to represent an affricate, such as Italian and German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###I would guess &quot;Z&quot; has been associated with affricates throughout its history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this information, I have the impression that &quot;Z&quot; has always been associated with affricates to some degree, so even in eras or places where its usual value was a simple fricative /z/, it would be available for use in digraphs for foreign affricates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;Ts&quot; isn't necessarily the obvious choice for representing an affricate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that in Classical Latin, &quot;ts&quot; occurs only in morphologically transparent compounds where the first part ends in &quot;t&quot; and the second part starts with &quot;s&quot; (see the comments beneath [TKR's answer here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/818/9)). Furthermore, this means that Latin &quot;ts&quot; can always be analyzed as a heterosyllabic sequence /t.s/. It isn't necessarily possible to analyze a foreign affricate in these terms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6758" RevisionGUID="f3495a32-b2fc-43cb-93c0-048b96a38a5d" CreationDate="2018-06-28T08:18:49.527" UserId="79" Text="Take a look at [this older question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4/79) for gender and number of an adjective referring to several nouns.&#xD;&#xA;There are two basic cases.&#xD;&#xA;The adjective can be attributive or predicative.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say &quot;The senate and people of Rome did this and that&quot;, the adjective &quot;of Rome&quot; is attributive.&#xD;&#xA;If you say &quot;The senate and people are Roman&quot;, then the adjective is predicative.&#xD;&#xA;Predicative adjectives tend to come with *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the attributive case the adjective agrees in number and gender with the nearest noun.&#xD;&#xA;In the predicative case the adjective is plural and the gender depends on the genders of the nouns; see the linked question and its accepted answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In SPQR the adjective is used attributively.&#xD;&#xA;It is intended to be a noun phrase, not a statement that the senate and people are Roman.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore it should indeed be *Romanus*, not *Romani*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22463" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1692" RevisionGUID="df658fe5-8f20-4ec9-a4d5-0d67b7d67c4b" CreationDate="2018-06-28T08:28:20.377" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|translation-check|poetry|ovidius|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6757" RevisionGUID="b4f0e053-4c9c-4102-85ed-abfa8be9176b" CreationDate="2018-06-28T08:29:30.487" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="The motto of the Roman Republic was, of course, *Senatus Populusque Romanus*, or *SPQR*. However, *Romanus* is a masculine, **singular** adjective. What confuses me is that it is referencing *Senatus Populusque*. While each might individually be singular, together as a combined nominative, they are considered plural. So, shouldn't the adjective be the *Romanus* but plural, in this case *Romani*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22465" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6757" RevisionGUID="b4f0e053-4c9c-4102-85ed-abfa8be9176b" CreationDate="2018-06-28T08:29:30.487" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|adjective|agreement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6759" RevisionGUID="6a2e9ed9-047a-4d71-b6cf-b06c2ecde716" CreationDate="2018-06-28T08:38:49.680" UserId="2721" Text="Is 'ecce esse!' acceptable Latin for 'Lo, to be!' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried looking online for answers, but I've not found anything definitive either confirming or disconfirming that it is, though I do not have experience in this kind of research. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help would be greatly appreciated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best regards, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ma" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22467" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6759" RevisionGUID="6a2e9ed9-047a-4d71-b6cf-b06c2ecde716" CreationDate="2018-06-28T08:38:49.680" UserId="2721" Text="Can I write 'Ecce Esse!'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22468" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6759" RevisionGUID="6a2e9ed9-047a-4d71-b6cf-b06c2ecde716" CreationDate="2018-06-28T08:38:49.680" UserId="2721" Text="|meaning|esse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6759" RevisionGUID="561d1c26-54e9-4a61-97d3-2847abf0b04e" CreationDate="2018-06-28T08:46:49.337" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged. Feel free to rollback (undo) or re-edit!" Text="Is 'ecce esse!' acceptable Latin for 'Lo, to be!'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried looking online for answers, but I've not found anything definitive either confirming or disconfirming that it is, though I do not have experience in this kind of research. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help would be greatly appreciated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best regards, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ma" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22470" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6759" RevisionGUID="561d1c26-54e9-4a61-97d3-2847abf0b04e" CreationDate="2018-06-28T08:46:49.337" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged. Feel free to rollback (undo) or re-edit!" Text="|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|esse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6760" RevisionGUID="ecd09531-2e97-429f-8e26-afa4ee0d9b3d" CreationDate="2018-06-28T08:50:52.907" UserId="79" Text="Yes, you can.&#xD;&#xA;In Latin you can always write *ecce* and a noun, as in *ecce homo*.&#xD;&#xA;The infinitive of a verb (such as *esse*) can be used as a noun.&#xD;&#xA;For oblique cases you would have to consider the gerund, but it is not needed here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase *ecce esse* will be a little difficult to parse, just as &quot;lo, to be&quot; is.&#xD;&#xA;It is a compact and unusual expression, but I see nothing ungrammatical about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether *ecce esse* is the best phrase for your purpose depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;As a translation of &quot;lo, to be&quot; without further context it is fine.&#xD;&#xA;In more specific situations there can be better ways to put it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22472" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6759" RevisionGUID="01468aef-e841-487a-893f-4f8b0ed09f4b" CreationDate="2018-06-28T08:51:10.907" UserId="79" Comment="edited title" Text="Can I write 'Ecce Esse!'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6759" RevisionGUID="11f8154d-e091-40f2-b5ec-40520ac96a38" CreationDate="2018-06-28T09:05:09.473" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 65 characters in body" Text="Is '_ecce esse!_' acceptable Latin for 'Lo, to be!'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried looking online for answers, but I've not found anything definitive either confirming or disconfirming that it is, though I do not have experience in this kind of research. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6758" RevisionGUID="ff684100-987f-456b-8f16-27fe24cb52c5" CreationDate="2018-06-28T11:29:25.710" UserId="79" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="Take a look at [this older question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4/79) for gender and number of an adjective referring to several nouns.&#xD;&#xA;There are two basic cases.&#xD;&#xA;The adjective can be attributive or predicative.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say &quot;The senate and people of Rome did this and that&quot;, the adjective &quot;of Rome&quot; is attributive.&#xD;&#xA;If you say &quot;The senate and people are Roman&quot;, then the adjective is predicative.&#xD;&#xA;Predicative adjectives tend to come with *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the attributive case the adjective agrees in number and gender with the nearest noun.&#xD;&#xA;In the predicative case the adjective is plural and the gender depends on the genders of the nouns; see the linked question and its accepted answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In SPQR the adjective is used attributively.&#xD;&#xA;It is intended to be a noun phrase, not a statement that the senate and people are Roman.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore it should indeed be *Romanus*, not *Romani*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to why the phrase *Senatus populusque Romanus* is abbreviated SPQR and how we know what the letters stand for, see [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5045/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6761" RevisionGUID="af4421df-11ab-4cbb-99f2-d2b39a691e4c" CreationDate="2018-06-28T17:10:04.047" UserId="79" Text="The English word &quot;legendary&quot; obviously comes from Latin, from the gerundive *legendus*, &quot;that which is to be read&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(Less clumsy wording ideas are welcome!)&#xD;&#xA;I might base a translation of the noun &quot;legend&quot; on this Latin word, but with &quot;legendary&quot; it feels awkward.&#xD;&#xA;The obvious candidate, *legendarius*, does not seem to be classically attested and feels like a calque of the various adjectives like &quot;legendary&quot; in modern languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good classical Latin adjective to match the English &quot;legendary&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22476" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6761" RevisionGUID="af4421df-11ab-4cbb-99f2-d2b39a691e4c" CreationDate="2018-06-28T17:10:04.047" UserId="79" Text="What is &quot;legendary&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22477" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6761" RevisionGUID="af4421df-11ab-4cbb-99f2-d2b39a691e4c" CreationDate="2018-06-28T17:10:04.047" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|word-request|adjective|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="83309a0e-5fe0-41b5-a444-9959743dee83" CreationDate="2018-06-28T17:12:48.980" UserId="39" Comment="added 408 characters in body" Text="Neither the letter Z (a letter that was despised by some because it &quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur&quot;) nor its hypothetical digraphs were particularly common in Classical Latin. The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (mostly proper nouns?). After all, as [Gary Miller][1] puts it, &quot;The letters Y and Z at the end of the alphabet were borrowed directly from Greek to represent Attic /ü/ and /zd/ (or /d&lt;sup&gt;z&lt;/sup&gt;/)&quot; ([Miller 2014:][2] 38). Note that originally ζ &quot;was normally borrowed as s&quot; (Miller), cf. both *sona* and *zona* in Plautus mss, or ss, as in *massa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leumann et al.][3] (§9a) mention the following epigraphic evidence of the digraphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z (the latter more accurately representing the original phonetic form in Greek - NB: regressive assimilation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story. Peter Stotz ([Stotz 1996, vol. 3][4], §283) mentions the following phonetic realizations of the letter z in post-Classical (i.e. Late and Medieval) Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dz]: *zebus* (CL diebus), *zabulus* (CL diabolus), *oze* (CL hodie);&#xD;&#xA; - [z]: *zona*, *zmurdus* (smurdus or smordus), *thezauraria* (cf. CL thesaurus);&#xD;&#xA; - [tʃ]: *zelum* (CL caelum), *zesa* (CL caesa);&#xD;&#xA; - [ts]: *zinamomum*, *zynamomum*, or even *çinamomum* (CL cinnamomum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I agree with fdb that it has nothing to do with Latin per se. The possible explanation might come from the history of Greek. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, [Allen][5] mentions the following two arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	“at the time when the Semitic alphabet was adopted by Greek the ‘zayin’ symbol was at first applied to a still existing affricate type of combination;”&#xD;&#xA;-	 “the affricated combination was at this early period a single phoneme and so preferably represented by a single phoneme” (Allen 1987: 57).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Jeffrey adds more detail, arguing that zeta has &quot;[the correct Semitic sign][6] which followed that by [waw][7], but the name+sound of another sibilant, [ṣāde][8]&quot; (Jeffrey 1961/2003).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is interesting to find out that ζ in Tsakonian, &quot;an endangered divergent Modern Greek dialect which does not have its origins in the Hellenistic Koine but in the ancient Laconian dialect&quot; ([Liosis 2013][9]), is pronounced as [nd], the change being A.Gk. *[zd] &gt; Lac. [dd] &gt; Tsak. [nd].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: Etruscan. Wallace mentions that the Etruscan letter z, which is generally assumed to be a dental affricate /t&lt;sup&gt;s&lt;/sup&gt;/, has recently been reinterpreted as a palatal affricate /tʃ/ ([Wallace 2008:][10] 31). Even though Wallace believes that z was /t&lt;sup&gt;s&lt;/sup&gt;/ in Etruscan (see p. 32 for his evidence in favor of this analysis), he does acknowledge the other interpretation, based on typological considerations (proposed by e.g. [Luciano Agostiniani][11]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9781614512950/9781614512950.34/9781614512950.34.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/204393&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.chbeck.de/leumann-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-band-ii21-lateinische-laut-und-formenlehre/product/15793&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.chbeck.de/stotz-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-griechische-grammatik-lateinische-grammatik-rhetorik-band-ii_5-3-handbuch-lateinischen-spra/product/15797&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.cambridge.org/vu/academic/subjects/classical-studies/classical-languages/vox-graeca-pronunciation-classical-greek-3rd-edition?format=PB&amp;isbn=9780521335553#4fp1ufU4iTALhmxL.97&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zayin&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waw_(letter)&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsade&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/tsakonian-COM_000037&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.beechstave.com/etruscan.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.academia.edu/4356197/La_considerazione_tipologica_nello_studio_delletrusco_in_Scritti_Scelti_a_cura_di_A._Ancillotti_A._Calderini_G._Giannecchini_D._Santamaria_AION_ling_25_2003_vol._I_pp._163-184_in_Incontri_Linguistici_16_1993_pp._23-44_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="b432be11-1eb7-4d7b-9da9-e120a3c99662" CreationDate="2018-06-28T17:20:48.550" UserId="39" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="Neither the letter Z (a letter that was despised by some because it &quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur&quot;) nor its hypothetical digraphs were particularly common in Classical Latin. The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (mostly proper nouns?). After all, as [Gary Miller][1] puts it, &quot;The letters Y and Z at the end of the alphabet were borrowed directly from Greek to represent Attic /ü/ and /zd/ (or /d&lt;sup&gt;z&lt;/sup&gt;/)&quot; ([Miller 2014:][2] 38). Note that originally ζ &quot;was normally borrowed as s&quot; (Miller), cf. both *sona* and *zona* in Plautus mss, or ss, as in *massa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leumann et al.][3] (§9a) mention the following epigraphic evidence of the digraphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z (the latter more accurately representing the original phonetic form in Greek - NB: regressive assimilation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story. Peter Stotz ([Stotz 1996, vol. 3][4], §283) mentions the following phonetic realizations of the letter z in post-Classical (i.e. Late and Medieval) Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dz]: *zebus* (CL diebus), *zabulus* (CL diabolus), *oze* (CL hodie);&#xD;&#xA; - [z]: *zona*, *zmurdus* (smurdus or smordus), *thezauraria* (cf. CL thesaurus);&#xD;&#xA; - [tʃ]: *zelum* (CL caelum), *zesa* (CL caesa);&#xD;&#xA; - [ts]: *zinamomum*, *zynamomum*, or even *çinamomum* (CL cinnamomum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I agree with fdb that it has nothing to do with Latin per se. The possible explanation might come from the history of Greek. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, [Allen][5] mentions the following two arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	“at the time when the Semitic alphabet was adopted by Greek the ‘zayin’ symbol was at first applied to a still existing affricate type of combination;”&#xD;&#xA;-	 “the affricated combination was at this early period a single phoneme and so preferably represented by a single phoneme” (Allen 1987: 57).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Jeffrey adds more detail, arguing that zeta has &quot;[the correct Semitic sign][6] which followed that by [waw][7], but the name+sound of another sibilant, [ṣāde][8]&quot; (Jeffrey 1961/2003).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nicholas Swift ([Swift 2000][9]) specifically addresses your question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][10]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is interesting to find out that ζ in Tsakonian, &quot;an endangered divergent Modern Greek dialect which does not have its origins in the Hellenistic Koine but in the ancient Laconian dialect&quot; ([Liosis 2013][11]), is pronounced as [nd], the change being A.Gk. *[zd] &gt; Lac. [dd] &gt; Tsak. [nd].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: Etruscan. Wallace mentions that the Etruscan letter z, which is generally assumed to be a dental affricate /t&lt;sup&gt;s&lt;/sup&gt;/, has recently been reinterpreted as a palatal affricate /tʃ/ ([Wallace 2008:][12] 31). Even though Wallace believes that z was /t&lt;sup&gt;s&lt;/sup&gt;/ in Etruscan (see p. 32 for his evidence in favor of this analysis), he does acknowledge the other interpretation, based on typological considerations (proposed by e.g. [Luciano Agostiniani][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9781614512950/9781614512950.34/9781614512950.34.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/204393&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.chbeck.de/leumann-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-band-ii21-lateinische-laut-und-formenlehre/product/15793&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.chbeck.de/stotz-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-griechische-grammatik-lateinische-grammatik-rhetorik-band-ii_5-3-handbuch-lateinischen-spra/product/15797&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.cambridge.org/vu/academic/subjects/classical-studies/classical-languages/vox-graeca-pronunciation-classical-greek-3rd-edition?format=PB&amp;isbn=9780521335553#4fp1ufU4iTALhmxL.97&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zayin&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waw_(letter)&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsade&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/alphabet-the-origin-of-the-greek-COM_00000017&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jvvNX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/tsakonian-COM_000037&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.beechstave.com/etruscan.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://www.academia.edu/4356197/La_considerazione_tipologica_nello_studio_delletrusco_in_Scritti_Scelti_a_cura_di_A._Ancillotti_A._Calderini_G._Giannecchini_D._Santamaria_AION_ling_25_2003_vol._I_pp._163-184_in_Incontri_Linguistici_16_1993_pp._23-44_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="d6f88f43-f9d9-4a2d-9c7d-8dc1f549cab9" CreationDate="2018-06-28T17:26:48.103" UserId="39" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="Neither the letter Z (a letter that was despised by some because it &quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur&quot;) nor its hypothetical digraphs were particularly common in Classical Latin. The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (mostly proper nouns?). After all, as [Gary Miller][1] puts it, &quot;The letters Y and Z at the end of the alphabet were borrowed directly from Greek to represent Attic /ü/ and /zd/ (or /d&lt;sup&gt;z&lt;/sup&gt;/)&quot; ([Miller 2014:][2] 38). Note that originally ζ &quot;was normally borrowed as s&quot; (Miller), cf. both *sona* and *zona* in Plautus mss, or ss, as in *massa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leumann et al.][3] (§9a) mention the following epigraphic evidence of the digraphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z (the latter more accurately representing the original phonetic form in Greek - NB: regressive assimilation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story. Peter Stotz ([Stotz 1996, vol. 3][4], §283) mentions the following phonetic realizations of the letter z in post-Classical (i.e. Late and Medieval) Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dz]: *zebus* (CL diebus), *zabulus* (CL diabolus), *oze* (CL hodie);&#xD;&#xA; - [z]: *zona*, *zmurdus* (smurdus or smordus), *thezauraria* (cf. CL thesaurus);&#xD;&#xA; - [tʃ]: *zelum* (CL caelum), *zesa* (CL caesa);&#xD;&#xA; - [ts]: *zinamomum*, *zynamomum*, or even *çinamomum* (CL cinnamomum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I agree with fdb that it has nothing to do with Latin per se. The possible explanation might come from the history of Greek. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, [Allen][5] mentions the following two arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	“at the time when the Semitic alphabet was adopted by Greek the ‘zayin’ symbol was at first applied to a still existing affricate type of combination;”&#xD;&#xA;-	 “the affricated combination was at this early period a single phoneme and so preferably represented by a single phoneme” (Allen 1987: 57).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Jeffrey adds more detail, arguing that zeta has &quot;[the correct Semitic sign][6] which followed that by [waw][7], but the name+sound of another sibilant, [ṣāde][8]&quot; (Jeffrey 1961/2003).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nicholas Swift ([Swift 2000][9]) presents a different point of view - see Allen above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][10]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is interesting to find out that ζ in Tsakonian, &quot;an endangered divergent Modern Greek dialect which does not have its origins in the Hellenistic Koine but in the ancient Laconian dialect&quot; ([Liosis 2013][11]), is pronounced as [nd], the change being A.Gk. *[zd] &gt; Lac. [dd] &gt; Tsak. [nd].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: Etruscan. Wallace mentions that the Etruscan letter z, which is generally assumed to be a dental affricate /t&lt;sup&gt;s&lt;/sup&gt;/, has recently been reinterpreted as a palatal affricate /tʃ/ ([Wallace 2008:][12] 31). Even though Wallace believes that z was /t&lt;sup&gt;s&lt;/sup&gt;/ in Etruscan (see p. 32 for his evidence in favor of this analysis), he does acknowledge the other interpretation, based on typological considerations (proposed by e.g. [Luciano Agostiniani][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9781614512950/9781614512950.34/9781614512950.34.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/204393&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.chbeck.de/leumann-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-band-ii21-lateinische-laut-und-formenlehre/product/15793&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.chbeck.de/stotz-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-griechische-grammatik-lateinische-grammatik-rhetorik-band-ii_5-3-handbuch-lateinischen-spra/product/15797&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.cambridge.org/vu/academic/subjects/classical-studies/classical-languages/vox-graeca-pronunciation-classical-greek-3rd-edition?format=PB&amp;isbn=9780521335553#4fp1ufU4iTALhmxL.97&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zayin&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waw_(letter)&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsade&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/alphabet-the-origin-of-the-greek-COM_00000017&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jvvNX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/tsakonian-COM_000037&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.beechstave.com/etruscan.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://www.academia.edu/4356197/La_considerazione_tipologica_nello_studio_delletrusco_in_Scritti_Scelti_a_cura_di_A._Ancillotti_A._Calderini_G._Giannecchini_D._Santamaria_AION_ling_25_2003_vol._I_pp._163-184_in_Incontri_Linguistici_16_1993_pp._23-44_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="b42b6c43-a25c-4bd6-9177-28fa593c36f3" CreationDate="2018-06-28T17:32:24.367" UserId="39" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="Neither the letter Z (a letter that was despised by some because it &quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur&quot;) nor its hypothetical digraphs were particularly common in Classical Latin. The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (mostly proper nouns?). After all, as [Gary Miller][1] puts it, &quot;The letters Y and Z at the end of the alphabet were borrowed directly from Greek to represent Attic /ü/ and /zd/ (or /d&lt;sup&gt;z&lt;/sup&gt;/)&quot; ([Miller 2014:][2] 38). Note that originally ζ &quot;was normally borrowed as s&quot; (Miller), cf. both *sona* and *zona* in Plautus mss, or ss, as in *massa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leumann et al.][3] (§9a) mention the following epigraphic evidence of the digraphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z (the latter more accurately representing the original phonetic form in Greek - NB: regressive assimilation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story. Peter Stotz ([Stotz 1996, vol. 3][4], §283) mentions the following phonetic realizations of the letter z in post-Classical (i.e. Late and Medieval) Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dz]: *zebus* (CL diebus), *zabulus* (CL diabolus), *oze* (CL hodie);&#xD;&#xA; - [z]: *zona*, *zmurdus* (smurdus or smordus), *thezauraria* (cf. CL thesaurus);&#xD;&#xA; - [tʃ]: *zelum* (CL caelum), *zesa* (CL caesa);&#xD;&#xA; - [ts]: *zinamomum*, *zynamomum*, or even *çinamomum* (CL cinnamomum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I agree with fdb that it has nothing to do with Latin per se. The possible explanation might come from the history of Greek. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, [Allen][5] mentions the following two arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	“at the time when the Semitic alphabet was adopted by Greek the ‘zayin’ symbol was at first applied to a still existing affricate type of combination;”&#xD;&#xA;-	 “the affricated combination was at this early period a single phoneme and so preferably represented by a single phoneme” (Allen 1987: 57).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Jeffrey adds more detail, arguing that zeta has &quot;[the correct Semitic sign][6] which followed that by [waw][7], but the name+sound of another sibilant, [ṣāde][8]&quot; (Jeffrey 1961/2003).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nicholas Swift ([Swift 2000][9]), who specifically addresses your question, presents a different point of view - contra Allen:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][10]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Horrocks 2014 wraps it up for us:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Properly, τσ should be used to represent the voiceless affricate [ts] and τζ to represent the voiced [dz] (the latter occurring chiefly in Italian, Turkish and other loanwords), but the distinction was not made systematically until modern times&quot; (p. 283).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is interesting to find out that ζ in Tsakonian, &quot;an endangered divergent Modern Greek dialect which does not have its origins in the Hellenistic Koine but in the ancient Laconian dialect&quot; ([Liosis 2013][11]), is pronounced as [nd], the change being A.Gk. *[zd] &gt; Lac. [dd] &gt; Tsak. [nd].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: Etruscan. Wallace mentions that the Etruscan letter z, which is generally assumed to be a dental affricate /t&lt;sup&gt;s&lt;/sup&gt;/, has recently been reinterpreted as a palatal affricate /tʃ/ ([Wallace 2008:][12] 31). Even though Wallace believes that z was /t&lt;sup&gt;s&lt;/sup&gt;/ in Etruscan (see p. 32 for his evidence in favor of this analysis), he does acknowledge the other interpretation, based on typological considerations (proposed by e.g. [Luciano Agostiniani][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9781614512950/9781614512950.34/9781614512950.34.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/204393&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.chbeck.de/leumann-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-band-ii21-lateinische-laut-und-formenlehre/product/15793&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.chbeck.de/stotz-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-griechische-grammatik-lateinische-grammatik-rhetorik-band-ii_5-3-handbuch-lateinischen-spra/product/15797&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.cambridge.org/vu/academic/subjects/classical-studies/classical-languages/vox-graeca-pronunciation-classical-greek-3rd-edition?format=PB&amp;isbn=9780521335553#4fp1ufU4iTALhmxL.97&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zayin&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waw_(letter)&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsade&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/alphabet-the-origin-of-the-greek-COM_00000017&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jvvNX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/tsakonian-COM_000037&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.beechstave.com/etruscan.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://www.academia.edu/4356197/La_considerazione_tipologica_nello_studio_delletrusco_in_Scritti_Scelti_a_cura_di_A._Ancillotti_A._Calderini_G._Giannecchini_D._Santamaria_AION_ling_25_2003_vol._I_pp._163-184_in_Incontri_Linguistici_16_1993_pp._23-44_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="bf627502-ed20-4050-a89b-d9a309dd7232" CreationDate="2018-06-28T18:31:28.660" UserId="39" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="(a partial answer so far, to be edited later - just discovered very interesting research on this question!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither the letter Z (a letter that was despised by some because it &quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur&quot;) nor its hypothetical digraphs were particularly common in Classical Latin. The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (mostly proper nouns?). After all, as [Gary Miller][1] puts it, &quot;The letters Y and Z at the end of the alphabet were borrowed directly from Greek to represent Attic /ü/ and /zd/ (or /d&lt;sup&gt;z&lt;/sup&gt;/)&quot; ([Miller 2014:][2] 38). Note that originally ζ &quot;was normally borrowed as s&quot; (Miller), cf. both *sona* and *zona* in Plautus mss, or ss, as in *massa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leumann et al.][3] (§9a) mention the following epigraphic evidence of the digraphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z (the latter more accurately representing the original phonetic form in Greek - NB: regressive assimilation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story. Peter Stotz ([Stotz 1996, vol. 3][4], §283) mentions the following phonetic realizations of the letter z in post-Classical (i.e. Late and Medieval) Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dz]: *zebus* (CL diebus), *zabulus* (CL diabolus), *oze* (CL hodie);&#xD;&#xA; - [z]: *zona*, *zmurdus* (smurdus or smordus), *thezauraria* (cf. CL thesaurus);&#xD;&#xA; - [tʃ]: *zelum* (CL caelum), *zesa* (CL caesa);&#xD;&#xA; - [ts]: *zinamomum*, *zynamomum*, or even *çinamomum* (CL cinnamomum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I agree with fdb that it has nothing to do with Latin per se. The possible explanation might come from the history of Greek. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, [Allen][5] mentions the following two arguments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-	“at the time when the Semitic alphabet was adopted by Greek the ‘zayin’ symbol was at first applied to a still existing affricate type of combination;”&#xD;&#xA;-	 “the affricated combination was at this early period a single phoneme and so preferably represented by a single phoneme” (Allen 1987: 57).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Jeffrey adds more detail, arguing that zeta has &quot;[the correct Semitic sign][6] which followed that by [waw][7], but the name+sound of another sibilant, [ṣāde][8]&quot; (Jeffrey 1961/2003).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nicholas Swift ([Swift 2000][9]), who specifically addresses your question, presents a different point of view - contra Allen:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][10]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Horrocks 2014 wraps it up for us:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Properly, τσ should be used to represent the voiceless affricate [ts] and τζ to represent the voiced [dz] (the latter occurring chiefly in Italian, Turkish and other loanwords), but the distinction was not made systematically until modern times&quot; (p. 283).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is interesting to find out that ζ in Tsakonian, &quot;an endangered divergent Modern Greek dialect which does not have its origins in the Hellenistic Koine but in the ancient Laconian dialect&quot; ([Liosis 2013][11]), is pronounced as [nd], the change being A.Gk. *[zd] &gt; Lac. [dd] &gt; Tsak. [nd].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: Etruscan. Wallace mentions that the Etruscan letter z, which is generally assumed to be a dental affricate /t&lt;sup&gt;s&lt;/sup&gt;/, has recently been reinterpreted as a palatal affricate /tʃ/ ([Wallace 2008:][12] 31). Even though Wallace believes that z was /t&lt;sup&gt;s&lt;/sup&gt;/ in Etruscan (see p. 32 for his evidence in favor of this analysis), he does acknowledge the other interpretation, based on typological considerations (proposed by e.g. [Luciano Agostiniani][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9781614512950/9781614512950.34/9781614512950.34.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/204393&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.chbeck.de/leumann-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-band-ii21-lateinische-laut-und-formenlehre/product/15793&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.chbeck.de/stotz-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-griechische-grammatik-lateinische-grammatik-rhetorik-band-ii_5-3-handbuch-lateinischen-spra/product/15797&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.cambridge.org/vu/academic/subjects/classical-studies/classical-languages/vox-graeca-pronunciation-classical-greek-3rd-edition?format=PB&amp;isbn=9780521335553#4fp1ufU4iTALhmxL.97&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zayin&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waw_(letter)&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsade&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/alphabet-the-origin-of-the-greek-COM_00000017&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jvvNX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://brillonline.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/tsakonian-COM_000037&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.beechstave.com/etruscan.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://www.academia.edu/4356197/La_considerazione_tipologica_nello_studio_delletrusco_in_Scritti_Scelti_a_cura_di_A._Ancillotti_A._Calderini_G._Giannecchini_D._Santamaria_AION_ling_25_2003_vol._I_pp._163-184_in_Incontri_Linguistici_16_1993_pp._23-44_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6762" RevisionGUID="1b178658-5f99-4022-98b1-d62e300a2b4e" CreationDate="2018-06-28T19:56:02.777" UserId="645" Text="To the English, King Arthur is a legendary figure from fable, where the word is a synonym of 'mythical'. In the USA, Babe Ruth certainly was neither fable nor myth, but might easily be called a baseball legend. 'Fable' is in fact often used synonymously with legend, as are 'fabled' and 'fabulous with 'legendary'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends on the meaning you actually have in mind. 'Legendary' is a weaselly, Humpty-Dumptyish kind  of word — it means whatever you choose it to mean — and in this case I don't think you will easily find a comparably flexible, single Latin equivalent. If praise is not intended, *commenticius* or *commentus*, 'imaginary' or 'invented' (from the verb *comminiscor*, to write fables or stories) is probably the nearest. With irony in mind, you might well think of words like 'apocryphal', 'romanticised'  and 'traditional' and select something to match these — maybe *translaticius* or *dubius*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6763" RevisionGUID="f87b2b36-5906-44ae-88e3-e778aedd37d0" CreationDate="2018-06-28T20:31:50.690" UserId="79" Text="A good Latin word that matches &quot;legend&quot; pretty closely is *fabula*.&#xD;&#xA;From that one can derive ***fabulosus***, which is widely attested in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can mean something that appears in a fable (such as something legendary is literally something appearing in a legend), but also something great or incredible.&#xD;&#xA;I think this captures the idea of &quot;legendary&quot; fairly well, and also matches in structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a side note, *fabulosus* does not seem to match the modern English &quot;fabulous&quot; well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The option *fabulosus* occurred to me some time after reading Tom Cotton's answer, and I thought I should record it as a separate answer.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22486" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="cc51dd4b-9b98-4749-ae3a-36abac4feb56" CreationDate="2018-06-28T22:12:50.577" UserId="39" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22487" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="ba649a70-06cc-4848-85e8-003b9fa7e6ce" CreationDate="2018-06-28T23:56:04.017" UserId="39" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6764" RevisionGUID="b8a237da-43eb-4a04-946f-ad82e9903f72" CreationDate="2018-06-29T00:44:37.180" UserId="31" Text="Given a Latin noun, how does one transform it into an adjective meaning &quot;lacking [noun]&quot; (the equivalent of English &quot;-less&quot;)?  I know that &quot;having (a lot of) [noun]&quot; would be formed with the ending &quot;-ōsus&quot;; what is its opposite?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22489" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6764" RevisionGUID="b8a237da-43eb-4a04-946f-ad82e9903f72" CreationDate="2018-06-29T00:44:37.180" UserId="31" Text="Equivalent of &quot;-less&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22490" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6764" RevisionGUID="b8a237da-43eb-4a04-946f-ad82e9903f72" CreationDate="2018-06-29T00:44:37.180" UserId="31" Text="|derivation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6765" RevisionGUID="2955f952-d2d1-420a-a13e-2f73d7a7fd2a" CreationDate="2018-06-29T01:22:46.937" UserId="30" Text="It probably depends on the noun, but the normal negative/privative affix is *in-*, which is related to English *un-*, Greek *a(n)-* (the alpha privans), and all/most Indo-European negations with nasal sounds (Latin *non*, English *no* etc.). Then you add any of the semantically week adjectival suffixes such as *-us, -osus, -is, -lis, etc*. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *dolor - indolorosus/indoloris* &quot;painless&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *cura - incuriosus* &quot;careless&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *anima - inanimalis/inanimus/inanimis* &quot;breathless, soulless&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that it is not always easy to establish whether a word is derived from a substantive, adjective or verbal stem, since all are often similar or the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22492" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="1f2ffa66-f3f0-4b7f-845e-983a3bd4bd3a" CreationDate="2018-06-29T02:31:36.060" UserId="39" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="ec82597d-72a5-4895-9e9d-6944b3226dd4" CreationDate="2018-06-29T02:50:05.897" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 3124 characters in body" Text="&gt;First of all, **the letter Z has never been common** in Archaic and Classical Latin, for a number of reasons, primarily because there was no such phoneme (see more on [rhotacism][1] in Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter was despised by some Romans because it &quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (mostly proper nouns?). After all, as Gary Miller puts it, &quot;The letters Y and Z at the end of the alphabet were borrowed directly from Greek to represent Attic /ü/ and /zd/ (or /d&lt;sup&gt;z&lt;/sup&gt;/)&quot; (Miller 2014: 38). Note that originally ζ &quot;was normally borrowed as s&quot; (Miller), cf. both *sona* and *zona* in Plautus mss, or ss, as in *massa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Secondly, **there is no hard evidence** to support the claim that z was realized as [ts] in Archaic or Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann et al.(§9a) mention the following epigraphic evidence of the digraphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z (the latter more accurately representing the original phonetic form in Greek - NB: regressive assimilation). **The most important thing is that such digraphs were extremely rare.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story. Peter Stotz ([Stotz 1996, vol. 3][5], §283) mentions the following phonetic realizations of the letter z in post-Classical (i.e. Late and Medieval) Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dz]: *zebus* (CL diebus), *zabulus* (CL diabolus), *oze* (CL hodie);&#xD;&#xA; - [z]: *zona*, *zmurdus* (smurdus or smordus), *thezauraria* (cf. CL thesaurus);&#xD;&#xA; - [tʃ]: *zelum* (CL caelum), *zesa* (CL caesa);&#xD;&#xA; - [ts]: *zinamomum*, *zynamomum*, or even *çinamomum* (CL cinnamomum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Data from modern Indo-European languages**, such as German or Latin, in this context **is irrelevant** because such spelling practices clearly go back to Ancient Greek and Latin. &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/153/39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22494" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="987b8674-7c84-413b-8daa-ad90760bdb73" CreationDate="2018-06-29T02:50:10.143" UserId="39" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="812ca4ed-8bc9-4c97-84f5-22ad4f1b9319" CreationDate="2018-06-29T03:01:16.020" UserId="39" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="&gt;First of all, **the letter Z has never been common** in Archaic and Classical Latin, for a number of reasons, primarily because there was no such phoneme (see more on [rhotacism][1] in Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter was reportedly despised by some Romans because it &quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (mostly proper nouns?). After all, as Gary Miller puts it, &quot;The letters Y and Z at the end of the alphabet were borrowed directly from Greek to represent Attic /ü/ and /zd/ (or /d&lt;sup&gt;z&lt;/sup&gt;/)&quot; (Miller 2014: 38). Note that originally ζ &quot;was normally borrowed as s&quot; (Miller), cf. both *sona* and *zona* in Plautus mss, or ss, as in *massa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Secondly, **there is no hard evidence** to support the claim that z was realized as [ts] in Archaic or Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann et al.(§9a) mention the following epigraphic evidence of the digraphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z (the latter more accurately representing the original phonetic form in Greek - NB: regressive assimilation). **The most important thing is that such digraphs were extremely rare.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, it is well-known that **the cluster ts is not allowed** by Latin phonotactics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story. Peter Stotz ([Stotz 1996, vol. 3][5], §283) mentions the following phonetic realizations of the letter z in post-Classical (i.e. Late and Medieval) Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dz]: *zebus* (CL diebus), *zabulus* (CL diabolus), *oze* (CL hodie);&#xD;&#xA; - [z]: *zona*, *zmurdus* (smurdus or smordus), *thezauraria* (cf. CL thesaurus);&#xD;&#xA; - [tʃ]: *zelum* (CL caelum), *zesa* (CL caesa);&#xD;&#xA; - [ts]: *zinamomum*, *zynamomum*, or even *çinamomum* (CL cinnamomum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Data from modern Indo-European languages**, such as German or Latin, in this context **is irrelevant** because such spelling practices clearly go back to Ancient Greek and Latin. &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/153/39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="78c83538-920e-43d0-a85c-7ee61975abea" CreationDate="2018-06-29T03:09:30.273" UserId="39" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="&gt;First of all, **the letter Z has never been common** in Archaic and Classical Latin, for a number of reasons, primarily because there was no such phoneme (see more on [rhotacism][1] in Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter was reportedly despised by some Romans because it &quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (mostly proper nouns?). After all, as Gary Miller puts it, &quot;The letters Y and Z at the end of the alphabet were borrowed directly from Greek to represent Attic /ü/ and /zd/ (or /d&lt;sup&gt;z&lt;/sup&gt;/)&quot; (Miller 2014: 38). Note that originally ζ &quot;was normally borrowed as s&quot; (Miller), cf. both *sona* and *zona* in Plautus mss, or ss, as in *massa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Secondly, **there is no hard evidence** to support the claim that z was realized as [ts] in Archaic or Classical Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: etsi - una hirundo non facit ver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann et al.(§9a) mention the following epigraphic evidence of the digraphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z (the latter more accurately representing the original phonetic form in Greek - NB: regressive assimilation). **The most important thing is that such digraphs were extremely rare.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, it is well-known that **the cluster ts is not allowed** by Latin phonotactics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story. Peter Stotz ([Stotz 1996, vol. 3][5], §283) mentions the following phonetic realizations of the letter z in post-Classical (i.e. Late and Medieval) Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dz]: *zebus* (CL diebus), *zabulus* (CL diabolus), *oze* (CL hodie);&#xD;&#xA; - [z]: *zona*, *zmurdus* (smurdus or smordus), *thezauraria* (cf. CL thesaurus);&#xD;&#xA; - [tʃ]: *zelum* (CL caelum), *zesa* (CL caesa);&#xD;&#xA; - [ts]: *zinamomum*, *zynamomum*, or even *çinamomum* (CL cinnamomum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Data from modern Indo-European languages**, such as German or Latin, in this context **is irrelevant** because such spelling practices clearly go back to Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/153/39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6766" RevisionGUID="c6f6975c-e56a-4399-9119-8423bf3f2234" CreationDate="2018-06-29T08:38:49.573" UserId="79" Text="Latin seems to be far less uniform in this than English.&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately there is no single way to derive adjectives indicating a lack.&#xD;&#xA;Here are some possible ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Someone without *cura* is *securus*, but the prefix *se-* is quite rare in this use.&#xD;&#xA;- As Cerberus mentions, *in-* is more common, as in *infamis* has no *fama*.&#xD;&#xA;- Someone without *forma* is *deformis*, and *de-* seems to be more productive than *se-* and I get the impression that it is more common than *in-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In particular, if you want a word for someone who used to have something but no longer has, the combination of *de-* and *-atus* is a good option.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *decoloratus* would be &quot;discolored&quot; (as opposed to *coloratus*, &quot;colored&quot;) and most would understand that *debarbatus* has had their beard shaven off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several possible prefixes, and they are sometimes combined with suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;In some cases several prefixes reach the same goal: *demens* and *amens* are roughly the same.&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be no *semens* or *immens*, and the latter would be easily confused with *immensus*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1522" RevisionGUID="648400d1-cf84-4d25-a6a1-79a07dbe1bbd" CreationDate="2018-06-29T08:54:47.923" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm having difficulty parsing the following sentence from [Alfonsi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrus_Alphonsi)'s *Dialogi contra Iudaeos*, particularly the clause in bold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dies Dominica, dies, viz. resurrectionis, **quae suae salvationis causa exstitit**, Christianorum Sabbatum est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is most likely due to my lack of diligence in Latin studies, so apologies for that.  But here's what I have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - quae: plural neuter pronoun (probably accusative?)&#xD;&#xA; - suae: plural possessive pronoun&#xD;&#xA; - salvationis: noun, 3rd declension, singular genitive&#xD;&#xA; - causa: &quot;on account of&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  - My Latin dictionary gives &quot;in abl. with *gen.* or *posses. adj.* (usu. put after the noun)&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - exstitit: verb (3rd), third-person singular&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My rather wooden literal translation, then, would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Lord's day – the day, that is, of the resurrection, on which account their [Christians'] salvation emerges – is the Christians' Sabbath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure there are multiple issues here, but I'd like to focus on these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I'm not sure that my understanding of *suae* here is correct. I believe *christianorum* could be either the genitive of the noun christianus, or an adjective, and I wonder if *suae* or other context indicates which.  That is, is *christianorum sabbatum* &quot;the Christian Sabbath&quot; or &quot;the Christians' Sabbath,&quot; or both/either?&#xD;&#xA; - Is there some point to combining *suae* and a genitive noun?  Don't we know who possesses the salvation without *suae*?&#xD;&#xA; - How does *causa* fit into this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;This line from Alfonsi's work is widely quoted online, but I haven't been able to find the complete text that would include the broader context.  An English translation is available on Google Books, however; [Page 257](https://books.google.com/books?id=Tz_H7tWE6YMC&amp;pg=PA257) seems to include the text in question, but it translates it much differently, which is part of the reason for my confusion:&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;It was no longer necessary for all those believing in him to observe the Sabbath but to observe Sunday instead, namely, the day of the Resurrection, which was the basis of their salvation.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22499" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1522" RevisionGUID="648400d1-cf84-4d25-a6a1-79a07dbe1bbd" CreationDate="2018-06-29T08:54:47.923" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|medieval-latin|christianity|ecclesiastical-latin|pronouns|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5720" RevisionGUID="bb906ba3-9ceb-4148-b058-751313c6a768" CreationDate="2018-06-29T10:05:06.617" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 31 characters in body" Text="I need to know how to say the present, past and future tense of &quot;imply&quot; in Latin. I don't know much Latin, I just need the grammatically correct way to say: &quot;Implied ______&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, for &quot;Implied Power&quot; Google says &quot;_Sequitur Imperium_.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't trust computers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer the classical Latin way of saying it,  but it honestly doesn't matter. In fact I don't even need Latin, it's just a habit. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5723" RevisionGUID="d5cd6dd4-c4d8-46ce-a27a-f87224dd9586" CreationDate="2018-06-29T10:07:31.027" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 44 characters in body" Text="I am looking for a way to say: &quot;Implied Power&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I say &quot;Implied Power&quot; I mean to say &quot;Implicit Political Authority.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example to walk readers through what I am trying to get at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Explicit Political Authority&quot; is the authority of a governing body to give orders to a department of government, the private sector and the electorate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have decided to use the word &quot;_Imperium_&quot; instead of saying &quot;Explicit Political Authority&quot; every time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, &quot;Implicit Political Authority&quot; is the authority exerted by a private entity upon someone holding Imperium (explicit political authority). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone with &quot;Implicit Political Authority&quot; holds no political office, but by some means is able to influence the outcomes of political life. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what I need is ONE word to say &quot;Implicit Political Authority.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously Rome had a word for political power,  but did they have a way to say indirect power?  If they did not, how might we say it? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6767" RevisionGUID="2bc7687b-8998-4de2-80fa-3711e53a881e" CreationDate="2018-06-29T10:25:52.280" UserId="1459" Text="(I know the question asks about Classical Latin, but to those who come here just interested in how to say orange in any form of Latin, a few additions might be helpful.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Vatican's _[Lexicon Recentis Latinitas](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/rc_latinitas_20040601_lexicon_it.html)_ uses _malum Sinense (dulce)_ for (sweet) orange. This is actually the name used in the respective [Wikipedia entry](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_Sinense) too. References in that article using such name date back at least since the 17th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the term _[Citrus aurantium](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurantium)_ (mentioned in Luc's answer) seems to refer only to the bitter orange, and not to the sweet orange. See the link." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2961" RevisionGUID="94579665-e3a7-4284-af9f-aa1226792d1d" CreationDate="2018-06-29T10:26:41.340" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm given to understand that &quot;_memento mori_&quot; literally translates to &quot;remember dying,&quot; which is in turn frequently taken to mean &quot;remember that you will die.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone also interpret it to mean &quot;remember that you CAN die&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the usual context is one where the one being exhorted is being warned about their inevitable mortality. Could the same phrase also be used in a completely different context where one is being reminded that death is an option (e.g. an escape from suffering)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, what would the proper formulation be for the second meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For the record, this is for a literary work, and not a moral question.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22504" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2961" RevisionGUID="94579665-e3a7-4284-af9f-aa1226792d1d" CreationDate="2018-06-29T10:26:41.340" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6768" RevisionGUID="e45334bf-1977-4646-a4a5-dfd76c78ca0f" CreationDate="2018-06-29T11:28:31.940" UserId="79" Text="One possible word for &quot;implicit&quot; is *tacitus*, meaning &quot;implied&quot;, &quot;silent&quot;, &quot;hidden&quot;, and similar things.&#xD;&#xA;You could say *imperium tacitum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you could work with the word *auctoritas* for influence.&#xD;&#xA;I think it fits better; ***auctoritas tacita*** sounds like the kind of invisible power you describe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get very close with two words, but I don't know of a single Latin word that would achieve your goal.&#xD;&#xA;Whichever single Latin word is closest to what you want, it is going to be open to (mis)interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;(This is not unique to Latin; I am not aware of a good English word either. Something like &quot;influence&quot; is pretty vague.)&#xD;&#xA;If you want to be understood, use two words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5723" RevisionGUID="7b32253c-6adb-4780-89a9-9513d1709f2a" CreationDate="2018-06-29T11:30:14.977" UserId="79" Comment="Restructured for better readability." Text="I am looking for a way to say &quot;Implied Power&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;When I say &quot;Implied Power&quot; I mean to say &quot;Implicit Political Authority.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example to walk readers through what I am trying to get at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Explicit Political Authority&quot; is the authority of a governing body to give orders to a department of government, the private sector and the electorate.&#xD;&#xA;I have decided to use the word &quot;_Imperium_&quot; instead of saying &quot;Explicit Political Authority&quot; every time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, &quot;Implicit Political Authority&quot; is the authority exerted by a private entity upon someone holding _Imperium_ (explicit political authority). &#xD;&#xA;Someone with &quot;Implicit Political Authority&quot; holds no political office, but by some means is able to influence the outcomes of political life. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what I need is ONE word to say &quot;Implicit Political Authority.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;Obviously Rome had a word for political power, but did they have a way to say indirect power?  If they did not, how might we say it? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22507" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5723" RevisionGUID="7b32253c-6adb-4780-89a9-9513d1709f2a" CreationDate="2018-06-29T11:30:14.977" UserId="79" Comment="Restructured for better readability." Text="&quot;Implied Power&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="6dc2dfbc-5797-4423-be90-a531a5c3fe29" CreationDate="2018-06-29T12:22:03.217" UserId="39" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&gt;First of all, **the letter Z has never been common** in Archaic and Classical Latin, for a number of reasons, primarily because there was no such phoneme (see more on [rhotacism][1] in Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter was reportedly despised by some Romans because it &quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (mostly proper nouns?). After all, as Gary Miller puts it, &quot;The letters Y and Z at the end of the alphabet were borrowed directly from Greek to represent Attic /ü/ and /zd/ (or /d&lt;sup&gt;z&lt;/sup&gt;/)&quot; (Miller 2014: 38). Note that originally ζ &quot;was normally borrowed as s&quot; (Miller), cf. both *sona* and *zona* in Plautus mss, or ss, as in *massa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Secondly, **there is no hard evidence** to support the claim that z was realized as [ts] in Archaic or Classical Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: etsi - una hirundo non facit ver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann et al.(§9a) mention the following epigraphic evidence of the digraphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z (the latter more accurately representing the original phonetic form in Greek - NB: regressive assimilation). **The most important thing is that such digraphs were extremely rare.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, it is well-known that **the cluster ts is not allowed** by Latin phonotactics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story. Peter Stotz ([Stotz 1996, vol. 3][5], §283) mentions the following phonetic realizations of the letter z in post-Classical (i.e. Late and Medieval) Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dz]: *zebus* (CL diebus), *zabulus* (CL diabolus), *oze* (CL hodie);&#xD;&#xA; - [z]: *zona*, *zmurdus* (smurdus or smordus), *thezauraria* (cf. CL thesaurus);&#xD;&#xA; - [tʃ]: *zelum* (CL caelum), *zesa* (CL caesa);&#xD;&#xA; - [ts]: *zinamomum*, *zynamomum*, or even *çinamomum* (CL cinnamomum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Data from modern Indo-European languages**, such as German or Italian, in this context **is irrelevant** because such spelling practices clearly go back to Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/153/39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6769" RevisionGUID="5d43a3d5-1e6a-4ad9-9484-5e59cb1babd1" CreationDate="2018-06-29T14:22:48.610" UserId="1459" Text="I'm struggling to see the logic behind the expression &quot;_decimam decimae_&quot;. In the Vulgata, we read ([Numbers 29: 11-13](http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=4&amp;ch=28&amp;l=12-#x)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In calendis autem offeretis holocaustum Domino, vitulos de armento duos, arietem unum, agnos anniculos septem immaculatos, et tres decimas similae oleo conspersae in sacrificio per singulos vitulos: et duas decimas similae oleo conspersae per singulos arietes: et **decimam decimae** similae ex oleo in sacrificio per agnos singulos: holocaustum suavissimi odoris atque incensi est Domino.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I get the _tres decimas_ and _duas decimas_, which are pretty much identical to Spanish. However, the expression _decimam decimae_ is meant to mean one tenth. So, my questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is _decimam decimae_ an expression or it is literally to mean one tenth? Wouldn't it mean a tenth of a tenth, which is 1/100 (in that (1/10)*(1/10)=1/100), instead of 1/10?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Would using _una decima_ be a valid, and perhaps more natural expression?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22510" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6769" RevisionGUID="5d43a3d5-1e6a-4ad9-9484-5e59cb1babd1" CreationDate="2018-06-29T14:22:48.610" UserId="1459" Text="Understanding &quot;decimam decimae&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22511" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6769" RevisionGUID="5d43a3d5-1e6a-4ad9-9484-5e59cb1babd1" CreationDate="2018-06-29T14:22:48.610" UserId="1459" Text="|numbers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4823" RevisionGUID="f2037761-4ad8-4119-a385-0122773ed6c5" CreationDate="2018-06-29T14:45:32.900" UserId="79" Comment="Lifted a detail from comments to the answer." Text="In imitation of Cato's famous saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ceterum censeo salaria nostra abroganda esse.*  &#xD;&#xA;'Furthermore, I think that our salaries should be abolished.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cato's saying is often paraphrased as *Carthago delenda est,* but he himself said *ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse*. It's a matter of direct vs. indirect speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="c88dfae9-8562-4948-9cf2-9b2a3628e6af" CreationDate="2018-06-29T15:08:55.317" UserId="39" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="## Archaic and Classical Latin ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;First of all, **the letter Z has never been common** in Archaic and Classical Latin, for a number of reasons, primarily because there was no such phoneme (see more on [rhotacism][1] in Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter was reportedly despised by some Romans because it &quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (mostly proper nouns?). After all, as Gary Miller puts it, &quot;The letters Y and Z at the end of the alphabet were borrowed directly from Greek to represent Attic /ü/ and /zd/ (or /d&lt;sup&gt;z&lt;/sup&gt;/)&quot; (Miller 2014: 38). Note that originally ζ &quot;was normally borrowed as s&quot; (Miller), cf. both *sona* and *zona* in Plautus mss, or ss, as in *massa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Secondly, **there is no hard evidence** to support the claim that z was realized as [ts] in Archaic or Classical Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann et al.(§9a) mention the following epigraphic evidence of the digraphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z (the latter more accurately representing the original phonetic form in Greek - NB: regressive assimilation). **The most important thing is that such digraphs were extremely rare.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, it is well-known that **the cluster ts is not allowed** by Latin phonotactics. Re: etsi - after all, as they say, *una hirundo non facit ver*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Post-Classical Latin ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story. Peter Stotz ([Stotz 1996, vol. 3][5], §283) mentions the following phonetic realizations of the letter z in post-Classical (i.e. Late and Medieval) Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dz]: *zebus* (CL diebus), *zabulus* (CL diabolus), *oze* (CL hodie);&#xD;&#xA; - [z]: *zona*, *zmurdus* (smurdus or smordus), *thezauraria* (cf. CL thesaurus);&#xD;&#xA; - [tʃ]: *zelum* (CL caelum), *zesa* (CL caesa);&#xD;&#xA; - [ts]: *zinamomum*, *zynamomum*, or even *çinamomum* (CL cinnamomum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Data from modern Indo-European languages**, such as German or Italian, in this context **is irrelevant** because such spelling practices clearly go back to Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have tried not to overload my answer with too many technical details, so if you'd like to know more about any specific part, do let me know.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/153/39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6770" RevisionGUID="ef1bbb41-02c0-4ad8-92b3-e09e4d5780a3" CreationDate="2018-06-29T18:05:43.330" UserId="324" Text="decimus is &quot;tenth&quot; (ordinal number)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;decima (pars) is &quot;one tenth&quot; (fraction) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;decima decimae is &quot;a tenth of a tenth&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5721" RevisionGUID="22424091-d220-4697-9778-ffede3ccbf27" CreationDate="2018-06-29T20:15:44.467" UserId="1142" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="The closest thing I could find to the verb *[to] imply* (at least in the way *implied* is used in this context) in my dictionary was *adfirmō, -āre, -āvī, -ātum*. In this case you'd want to use the passive perfect participle, *adfirmātum* plus the adverb *nōn*. As for the noun *power*, you have a number of options depending on what kind of power you're referring to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *potestās, f.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(strength) vīrēs, fpl.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(excessive) potentia, f.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(supreme) imperium nt.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(divine) nūmen, nt.*&#xD;&#xA;* *(legal) auctōritās, f.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pairs for each participle-noun pair are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmāta potestās* or *potestās nōn adfirmāta*&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmātae vīrēs* or *vīrēs nōn adfirmātae*&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmāta potentia* or *potentia nōn adfirmāta*&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmātum imperium* or *imperium nōn adfirmātum*&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmātum nūmen* or *nūmen nōn adfirmātum*&#xD;&#xA;* *nōn adfirmāta auctōritās* or *auctōritās nōn adfirmāta*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When all of these are translated *literally*, they come out to mean something along the lines of *&quot;[type of power] having not been stated&quot;* or *&quot;[type of power] not stated&quot;*, which isn't perfect, but probably as close as you can get to the English idiom *&quot;implied power&quot;* with Latin.&#xA;&#xA;**Minor edit:**&#xA;&#xA;If the phrase “implied power” is being used to describe power of a strictly legal kind, then the word *auctōritās* alone would suffice, since from a pragmatic standpoint, this would would have already meant “implied [legal] power” to a Roman." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="3a1bf02e-ad6d-4f89-81b5-e590d3c14efc" CreationDate="2018-06-30T01:13:04.090" UserId="39" Comment="added 274 characters in body" Text="## Archaic and Classical Latin ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;First of all, **the letter Z has never been common** in Archaic and Classical Latin, for a number of reasons, primarily because there was no such phoneme (see more on [rhotacism][1] in Latin). The earliest example of Z we have from Latin inscriptions is dated 81 BC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter was reportedly despised by some Romans because it &quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (mostly proper nouns?). After all, as Gary Miller puts it, &quot;The letters Y and Z at the end of the alphabet were borrowed directly from Greek to represent Attic /ü/ and /zd/ (or /d&lt;sup&gt;z&lt;/sup&gt;/)&quot; (Miller 2014: 38). Note that originally ζ &quot;was normally borrowed as s&quot; (Miller):&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**word-initial:**  *sona* and *zona* (in Plautus mss) cf. ζώνη; *Saplutus*, *Saplutius*, or *Zaplutus* cf. ζάπλουτοσ ; *Sosumus* cf. Ζώσιμοσ (the first example is from Miller 2014, the last two are from Adams 2016: 241).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**word-internal:** *massa* cf. μᾶζα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a comprehensive treatment we have to look it up in Biville 1990 - which I don't have at hand now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Secondly, **there is no hard evidence** to support the claim that z was realized as [ts] in Archaic or Classical Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann et al.(§9a) mention the following epigraphic evidence of the digraphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z (the latter more accurately representing the original phonetic form in Greek - NB: regressive assimilation). **The most important thing is that such digraphs were extremely rare.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, it is well-known that **the cluster ts is not allowed** by Latin phonotactics. Re: etsi - after all, as they say, *una hirundo non facit ver*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Post-Classical Latin ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story. Peter Stotz ([Stotz 1996, vol. 3][5], §283) mentions the following phonetic realizations of the letter z in post-Classical (i.e. Late and Medieval) Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dz]: *zebus* (CL diebus), *zabulus* (CL diabolus), *oze* (CL hodie);&#xD;&#xA; - [z]: *zona*, *zmurdus* (smurdus or smordus), *thezauraria* (cf. CL thesaurus);&#xD;&#xA; - [tʃ]: *zelum* (CL caelum), *zesa* (CL caesa);&#xD;&#xA; - [ts]: *zinamomum*, *zynamomum*, or even *çinamomum* (CL cinnamomum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Data from modern Indo-European languages**, such as German or Italian, in this context **is irrelevant** because such spelling practices clearly go back to Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have tried not to overload my answer with too many technical details, so if you'd like to know more about any specific part, do let me know.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/153/39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="11eefb62-5a10-49a1-b1c0-de8f6a28f537" CreationDate="2018-06-30T02:09:38.463" UserId="39" Comment="added 371 characters in body" Text="## Archaic and Classical Latin ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;First of all, **the letter Z has never been common** in Archaic and Classical Latin, for a number of reasons, primarily because there was no such phoneme (see more on [rhotacism][1] in Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest example of Z we have from Latin inscriptions is dated 81 BC, although it can be found in earlier Latin abecedaria - see [my other post][2] on this, with an image. The letter was reportedly despised by some Romans because it &quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (mostly proper nouns?). After all, as Gary Miller puts it, &quot;The letters Y and Z at the end of the alphabet were borrowed directly from Greek to represent Attic /ü/ and /zd/ (or /d&lt;sup&gt;z&lt;/sup&gt;/)&quot; (Miller 2014: 38). Note that originally ζ &quot;was normally borrowed as s&quot; (Miller):&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**word-initial:**  *sona* and *zona* (in Plautus mss) cf. ζώνη; *Saplutus*, *Saplutius*, or *Zaplutus* cf. ζάπλουτοσ ; *Sosumus* cf. Ζώσιμοσ (the first example is from Miller 2014, the last two are from Adams 2016: 241).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**word-internal:** *massa* cf. μᾶζα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a comprehensive treatment we have to look it up in Biville 1990 - which I don't have at hand now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Secondly, **there is no hard evidence** to support the claim that z was realized as [ts] in Archaic or Classical Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Faliscan** (the closest Italic language): Bakkum 2009 writes that “The idea that z- may have represented [ts] is difficult” (p. 85).&#xD;&#xA; - **Etruscan:** z is generally assumed to be [ts] (Wallace 2008); although Agostiniani argues, based on typological considerations, it was a palatal affricate [tʃ].&#xD;&#xA; - **Oscan:** z represented [ts].&#xD;&#xA; - **Umbrian:** z (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Leumann et al.(§9a) mention the following epigraphic evidence of the **digraphs**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z (the latter more accurately representing the original phonetic form in Greek - NB: regressive assimilation). **The most important thing is that such digraphs were extremely rare.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, it is well-known that **the cluster ts is not allowed** by Latin phonotactics. Re: etsi - after all, as they say, *una hirundo non facit ver*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Post-Classical Latin ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story. Peter Stotz ([Stotz 1996, vol. 3][5], §283) mentions the following phonetic realizations of the letter z in post-Classical (i.e. Late and Medieval) Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dz]: *zebus* (CL diebus), *zabulus* (CL diabolus), *oze* (CL hodie);&#xD;&#xA; - [z]: *zona*, *zmurdus* (smurdus or smordus), *thezauraria* (cf. CL thesaurus);&#xD;&#xA; - [tʃ]: *zelum* (CL caelum), *zesa* (CL caesa);&#xD;&#xA; - [ts]: *zinamomum*, *zynamomum*, or even *çinamomum* (CL cinnamomum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Data from modern Indo-European languages**, such as German or Italian, in this context **is irrelevant** because such spelling practices clearly go back to Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have tried not to overload my answer with too many technical details, so if you'd like to know more about any specific part, do let me know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/153/39&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/193/39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1562" RevisionGUID="2701154c-5b42-4e8e-a391-1a2bfe3ef2ce" CreationDate="2018-06-30T09:30:03.873" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 66 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I just worked on translating a passage that was very difficult for me, and not without a lot of help from online resources. Here is the passage below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Est nemus Haemoniae, praerupta quod undique claudit  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; silva: vocant Tempe. Per quae Peneus ab imo  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; effusus Pindo spumosis volvitur undis,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; deiectuque gravi tenues agitantia fumos  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; nubila conducit summisque adspergine silvis  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; inpluit et sonitu plus quam vicina fatigat.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is a grove in Thessaly, which an abrupt wood encloses on every&#xD;&#xA;&gt; side: they call it Tempe. Through which Peneus poured out from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; foot of Pindus is rolled out in frothy waves, and by its heavy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; downfall gathers mists driving thin fumes, and rains on the tops of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; woods with its spray, and vexes more than the vicinity with its sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, what are the strengths and weaknesses of this translation? In particular, I have a few questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The beginning clause uses the genitive to communicate location, i.e., &quot;There is a grove in Thessaly&quot;. Is this a common use of the genitive? How would we qualify this use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Would you translate *tenues fumos* as thin fumes? I have a hard time seeing how a river creates &quot;thin fumes&quot;, but the online resource I was using translated the phrase that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. I had a hard time translating the final clause: *and vexes more than the vicinity with its sound*. Do you think I arrived at a good translation? I happen to like this translation, so I would be happy to keep it if it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate any feedback. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22520" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1562" RevisionGUID="2701154c-5b42-4e8e-a391-1a2bfe3ef2ce" CreationDate="2018-06-30T09:30:03.873" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 66 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Peneus River (Metamorphoses 1.567–572)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22521" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1562" RevisionGUID="2701154c-5b42-4e8e-a391-1a2bfe3ef2ce" CreationDate="2018-06-30T09:30:03.873" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 66 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|classical-latin|translation-check|genitive|ovidius|metamorphoses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1531" RevisionGUID="50dff03d-0379-4f6d-989b-98c323f4c180" CreationDate="2018-06-30T09:32:36.680" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="This is a phrase from the opening lines of the *Metamorphoses*. [(1.1–4)][1] I am curious about a couple of things when it comes to this phrase. First, *mutastis* is an alternative form of the second-person perfect plural. How did this alternative come about? Also, which grammar references should I look at to find these alternatives? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literal translation of the phrase is &quot;For you have changed them also&quot;. But what exactly does Ovid mean by this? I have reproduced the context, below, along with my English translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; corpora; di, coeptis (nam vos mutastis et illas)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; adspirate meis primaque ab origine mundi  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ad mea perpetuum deducite tempora carmen. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; My mind inclines me to speak of bodies changed into new forms; gods,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; breathe on my undertakings (for you have changed them also) and from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first origin of the world to my age lead my perpetual song.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate any help in understanding what Ovid means by this phrase and the peculiarity of its verb *mutastis*. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0029" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22523" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1531" RevisionGUID="50dff03d-0379-4f6d-989b-98c323f4c180" CreationDate="2018-06-30T09:32:36.680" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|translation-check|ovidius|metamorphoses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1575" RevisionGUID="32186bf2-db90-470e-a276-94eada4a0c3b" CreationDate="2018-06-30T12:59:20.150" UserId="30" Comment="edited body" Text="Ad 1: I would not be surprised if it were a genitive: Tempe as a grove of Thessaly sound unremarkable enough. However, there are two other options. The first is a locative: there is a grove in Thessaly. That would be semantically good, but the locative is not normally used with regions in prose (rather than with cities and small islands). Lastly, it could be a possessive dative: nemus est Haemoniae = &quot;there is a grove to Thessaly&quot; = &quot;Thessaly has a grove&quot;. This construction is common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ad 2: that sounds OK; what it makes me think of is thin vapours of splashing water. The word &quot;fume&quot; is perhaps a bit misleading in English, because it's not normally used for mere water mists or vapours, I believe. Tenuis can mean thin in most senses, like delicate, subtle, but also just any opposite of thick. You could also translate it as *fine* in the context of mist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ad 3: sounds good. You seem to have captured both the construction and its intention very well. What did you think might be wrong with it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6771" RevisionGUID="2ce52697-eb5d-4116-a14a-ef90e5052b95" CreationDate="2018-06-30T20:33:32.473" UserId="2724" Text="Gloria in altissimis Deo :: et in terra pax in hominibus bonae voluntatis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a contrast between &quot;in altissimis&quot; (or &quot;in excelsis&quot;) and &quot;in hominibus&quot;. That suggests to me that &quot;in excelsis&quot; means &quot;among those who are most high&quot; as opposed to &quot;among men&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="560369a4-a2d9-4011-b7a3-08a0cb5d361c" CreationDate="2018-06-30T20:40:39.537" UserId="39" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="## Archaic and Classical Latin ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;First of all, **the letter Z has never been common** in Archaic and Classical Latin, for a number of reasons, primarily because there was no such phoneme (see more on [rhotacism][1] in Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest example of Z we have from Latin inscriptions is dated 81 BC, although it can be found in earlier Latin abecedaria - see [my other post][2] on this, with an image. The letter was reportedly despised by some Romans because it &quot;dentes mortui dum exprimitur imitatur.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only known exceptions are some Greek loans (mostly proper nouns?). After all, as Gary Miller puts it, &quot;The letters Y and Z at the end of the alphabet were borrowed directly from Greek to represent Attic /ü/ and /zd/ (or /d&lt;sup&gt;z&lt;/sup&gt;/)&quot; (Miller 2014: 38). Note that originally ζ &quot;was normally borrowed as s&quot; (Miller):&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**word-initial:**  *sona* and *zona* (in Plautus mss) cf. ζώνη; *Saplutus*, *Saplutius*, or *Zaplutus* cf. ζάπλουτοσ ; *Sosumus* cf. Ζώσιμοσ (the first example is from Miller 2014, the last two are from Adams 2016: 241).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**word-internal:** *massa* cf. μᾶζα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a comprehensive treatment we have to look it up in Biville 1990 - which I don't have at hand now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Secondly, **there is no hard evidence** to support the claim that z was realized as [ts] in Archaic or Classical Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Faliscan** (the closest Italic language): Bakkum 2009 writes that “The idea that z- may have represented [ts] is difficult” (p. 85).&#xD;&#xA; - **Etruscan:** z is generally assumed to be [ts] (Wallace 2008); although Agostiniani argues, based on typological considerations, it was a palatal affricate [tʃ].&#xD;&#xA; - **Oscan:** z represented [ts], e.g. húrz 'garden' (&lt;*χortos)&#xD;&#xA; - **Umbrian:** z (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sihler 1995 argues that when zeta was &quot;carried to Italy&quot; (borrowed into Proto-Italic? borrowed into some Italic language?), its phonetic value was [ts] (p. 194).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Leumann et al.(§9a) mention the following epigraphic evidence of the **digraphs**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **zb:** Lezbia (cf. Lesbia);&#xD;&#xA; - **zd:** Artavazdis,&#xD;&#xA; - **zm:** Zmyrna (cf. Smyrna), Zmaragdus (cf. Smaragdus), Cozmus, Azmenus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there were two spelling variants, with s and with z (the latter more accurately representing the original phonetic form in Greek - NB: regressive assimilation). **The most important thing is that such digraphs were extremely rare.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, it is well-known that **the cluster ts is not allowed** by Latin phonotactics. Re: etsi - after all, as they say, *una hirundo non facit ver*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Post-Classical Latin ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;With Late Latin, it's a completely different story. Peter Stotz ([Stotz 1996, vol. 3][5], §283) mentions the following phonetic realizations of the letter z in post-Classical (i.e. Late and Medieval) Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dz]: *zebus* (CL diebus), *zabulus* (CL diabolus), *oze* (CL hodie);&#xD;&#xA; - [z]: *zona*, *zmurdus* (smurdus or smordus), *thezauraria* (cf. CL thesaurus);&#xD;&#xA; - [tʃ]: *zelum* (CL caelum), *zesa* (CL caesa);&#xD;&#xA; - [ts]: *zinamomum*, *zynamomum*, or even *çinamomum* (CL cinnamomum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Data from modern Indo-European languages**, such as German or Italian, in this context **is irrelevant** because such spelling practices clearly go back to Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have tried not to overload my answer with too many technical details, so if you'd like to know more about any specific part, do let me know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/153/39&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/193/39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6772" RevisionGUID="afbdcf1f-47f8-4a31-89a0-48faa9767fdc" CreationDate="2018-06-30T22:06:30.080" UserId="1694" Text="It's hard to disagree with fdb's response that _decimam decimae_ should mean&#xD;&#xA;&quot;a tenth of a tenth&quot;, but that doesn't apparently reflect the meaning of the&#xD;&#xA;passage.  I think the problem arises with misunderstanding the Hebrew, which&#xD;&#xA;is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;עִשָּׂרוֹן עִשָּׂרוֹן לַכֶּבֶשׂ הָאֶחָד לְשִׁעַת הַכְּבָשִּׂים&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This get translated in the LXX quite literally as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;δέκατον δέκατον τῷ ἀμνῷ τῷ ἑνὶ εἰς τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἀμνούς&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't seem to make much sense in Greek, but reflects the Hebrew quite&#xD;&#xA;literally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks to me like Jerome tried to improve the sense by representing עִשָּׂרוֹן עִשָּׂרוֹן (&quot;tenth tenth&quot;) as _decimam decimae_, rather than follow the LXX δέκατον δέκατον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FWIW, the Jersusam Bible translates this as &quot;one-tenth for each of the seven&#xD;&#xA;lambs&quot;.  (My own command of Hebrew is insufficient to comment on the original&#xD;&#xA;construction.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6772" RevisionGUID="27254eb3-b08d-4bde-8323-f43631fdc18b" CreationDate="2018-07-01T01:29:23.980" UserId="1694" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It's hard to disagree with fdb's response that _decimam decimae_ should mean&#xD;&#xA;&quot;a tenth of a tenth&quot;, but that doesn't apparently reflect the meaning of the&#xD;&#xA;passage.  I think the problem arises with misunderstanding the Hebrew, which&#xD;&#xA;is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;עִשָּׂרוֹן עִשָּׂרוֹן לַכֶּבֶשׂ הָאֶחָד לְשִׁעַת הַכְּבָשִּׂים&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This get translated in the LXX quite literally as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;δέκατον δέκατον τῷ ἀμνῷ τῷ ἑνὶ εἰς τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἀμνούς&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't seem to make much sense in Greek, but reflects the Hebrew quite&#xD;&#xA;literally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks to me like Jerome tried to improve the sense by representing עִשָּׂרוֹן עִשָּׂרוֹן (&quot;tenth tenth&quot;) as _decimam decimae_, rather than follow the LXX δέκατον δέκατον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FWIW, the Jerusalem Bible translates this as &quot;one-tenth for each of the seven&#xD;&#xA;lambs&quot;.  (My own command of Hebrew is insufficient to comment on the original&#xD;&#xA;construction.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6773" RevisionGUID="122a6b1b-dea2-4edb-8025-7b1320fea718" CreationDate="2018-07-01T03:11:23.247" UserId="2724" Text="I can't help but wonder whether there is an assumed &quot;es&quot; (&quot;you are&quot;) in these phrases. Finite forms of &quot;esse&quot; are often severely abbreviated or even omitted in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[You are] the holy, holy, holy Lord, God Sabaoth&quot;, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6774" RevisionGUID="dd0c0e96-986c-44ee-9dcc-b2955ab685fd" CreationDate="2018-07-01T03:29:49.440" UserId="406" Text="Several of my recent questions have touched on the letter Z, which was introduced fairly late to the alphabet (it's disappeared from its Phoenician position and been added back in at the end, in its Greek form).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly it wasn't in common use in Plautus's time, [since he uses *ss* to transcribe zeta in Greek loans][1]. On the other hand, [some manuscripts of Plautus contain the word *zona* for (non-Attic) Greek *ζώνα*][2]. Etruscan used the letter for a native affricate, but generally in a different shape from the Greek form with the slant in the middle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When did the letter Z first start appearing in Latin? And when did it catch on, if ever? In other words, when did Greek loans commonly start to use Z for zeta instead of S or SS?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/776/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6751/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22531" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6774" RevisionGUID="dd0c0e96-986c-44ee-9dcc-b2955ab685fd" CreationDate="2018-07-01T03:29:49.440" UserId="406" Text="When did the Romans start using Z?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22532" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6774" RevisionGUID="dd0c0e96-986c-44ee-9dcc-b2955ab685fd" CreationDate="2018-07-01T03:29:49.440" UserId="406" Text="|greek|orthography|spelling|alphabet|borrowing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6775" RevisionGUID="bc2e3e1d-d63c-4077-918f-34e25cb872c8" CreationDate="2018-07-01T04:04:42.213" UserId="2724" Text="Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but I think I'd just use the dative, &quot;Familiae meae vivo&quot;. Take a look at this usage by Terence and Saint Jerome:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terence, from &quot;The Eunuch&quot;, Lines 480-481 which are in Act 3, Scene 2: &quot;Atque haec qui misit non sibi soli postulat te vivere et sua causa excludi ceteros&quot; (And he who sent these things is not asking you to live only for himself and others to be excluded for his sake). Hat tip to Lewis and Short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jerome, from the Vulgate, Romans 14:8: &quot;Domino vivimus&quot; (We live for the Lord).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But obviously, the correct answer will depend on exactly what you mean by &quot;I live for&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6776" RevisionGUID="a0263181-3b58-41d2-a8dd-37cfbad161fd" CreationDate="2018-07-01T04:33:42.227" UserId="2724" Text="A lot of people have said this already, but please let me say it again, this time quoting E. C. Woodcock, &quot;A New Latin Syntax&quot;, Paragraph 209: &quot;A gerund in the instrumental ablative is sometimes used so vaguely that it is almost equivalent to a present participle in agreement with the subject.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example he quotes is from Livy 8, 17, 1: &quot;Consules populando usque ad moenia pervenerunt.&quot; (The consuls came a-plundering right up to the walls.) This sentence is &quot;almost equivalent&quot; to &quot;Consules populantes usque ad moenia pervenerunt.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To which I would add Saint Augustine, PL 38, 1348 (HT to the breviary, June 29): &quot;Isti martyres viderunt quod praedicaverunt, secuti aequitatem, confitendo veritatem, moriendo pro veritate&quot; which I would say is almost equivalent to, &quot;Isti martyres viderunt quod praedicaverunt, secuti aequitatem, confitentes veritatem, morientes pro veritate.&quot; (These martyrs of yours saw what they had preached, having pursued calm, acknowledging the truth, dying for the truth.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And likewise, &quot;Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum, et quia miserando atque eligendo vidit, ait illi, Sequere me,&quot; is almost equivalent to, &quot;Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum, et quia miserans atque eligens vidit, ait illi, Sequere me.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6774" RevisionGUID="70dd1d8f-1731-4643-80ed-2eefd4ec3b46" CreationDate="2018-07-01T04:53:08.120" UserId="406" Comment="added 163 characters in body" Text="Several of my recent questions have touched on the letter Z, which was introduced fairly late to the alphabet (it's disappeared from its Phoenician position and been added back in at the end, in its Greek form).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly it wasn't in common use in Plautus's time, [since he uses *ss* to transcribe zeta in Greek loans][1]. On the other hand, [some manuscripts of Plautus contain the word *zona* for (non-Attic) Greek *ζώνα*][2]. Etruscan used the letter for a native affricate, but generally in a different shape from the Greek form with the slant in the middle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When did the letter Z first start re-appearing in Latin? And when did it catch on, if ever? In other words, when did Greek loans commonly start to use Z for zeta instead of S or SS?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that I'm not interested in the archaic use for the sound that rhotacized into /r/. Instead, I'm wondering about when it was borrowed back from Greek.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/776/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6751/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6768" RevisionGUID="6cd9beb1-3f60-4a62-a2d3-f0ba152c6d3a" CreationDate="2018-07-01T07:08:55.953" UserId="79" Comment="added 204 characters in body" Text="One possible word for &quot;implicit&quot; is *tacitus*, meaning &quot;implied&quot;, &quot;silent&quot;, &quot;hidden&quot;, and similar things.&#xD;&#xA;You could say *imperium tacitum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you could work with the word *auctoritas* for influence.&#xD;&#xA;I think it fits better; ***auctoritas tacita*** sounds like the kind of invisible power you describe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get very close with two words, but I don't know of a single Latin word that would achieve your goal.&#xD;&#xA;Whichever single Latin word is closest to what you want, it is going to be open to (mis)interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;(This is not unique to Latin; I am not aware of a good English word either. Something like &quot;influence&quot; is pretty vague.)&#xD;&#xA;If you want to be understood, use two words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you want to use a single word as opposed to *imperium* (as less direct power), then *auctoritas* is a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;But it requires context and explanation to work in the intended meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22537" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1508" RevisionGUID="40c3ea29-f0ae-4eb1-b793-4ab2a9698ca4" CreationDate="2018-07-01T07:12:24.230" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|translation-check|christianity|translation-explanation|vulgata|gerund|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22538" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1447" RevisionGUID="0b9b62e9-4ad0-45cc-8fa7-afcad2a79529" CreationDate="2018-07-01T07:16:16.403" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-identification|conjunction|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|livius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6777" RevisionGUID="7545294e-c384-4c6c-9418-c487b2bf9641" CreationDate="2018-07-01T07:57:04.030" UserId="2725" Text="This is not how Latin works. Use carēre + abl. if you need a verb, or vacuus/plenus + abl./gen. if you want to modify a noun: “itaque cum sumus necessariis negotiis curisque vacui...” (De Oficiis, I.13)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="1258af6c-8bdd-4584-9dd7-ea65a715b2ba" CreationDate="2018-07-01T09:06:21.060" UserId="49" Comment="added 160 characters in body" Text="The first mnemonic for Latin case ending I learnt was that for neuter words, the accusative form is always identical to the nominative form. This applies even to exotic word endings like *animal* or *id,* and so far I am not aware of any counterexample to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This always struck me to be an odd rule. Thus, I am curious:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Do we have any idea why this is the case?&#xD;&#xA;* And related: How strong is this rule? Are there any known exceptions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Related question on Linguistics SE: [Why do neuter nominative and accusative always agree in IE languages?](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/9105/1822)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4752" RevisionGUID="7485c62a-a095-4c21-9311-aaa4c5062363" CreationDate="2018-07-01T11:45:42.270" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body" Text="*Sorry if the question is not very deep, please edit the question if it is not accurate in meaning.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Wikipedia (and common understanding of people who sang Gloria), the meaning is stated as &quot;**Glory to God in the highest**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, recently one of my friends told me that the meaning should be &quot;**May there be a lot of glory to God**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two differences in this 2 translations would be: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Certainty (a claim versus &quot;May&quot;)*, and &#xD;&#xA;2. *&quot;God in the highest&quot; versus &quot;'glory to God' in the highest sense (to the extreme)&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My friend explained to me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The verb-to-be &quot;sit&quot; is missing from the sentence, showing uncertainty.&#xD;&#xA;2. **excelsis** is &quot;masculine, plural, dative&quot; while **Deo** is &quot;masculine, singular, dative&quot;.  So the *adverb* phrase &quot;In excelsis&quot; is describing the sentence as a whole but not God.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that &quot;Gloria in excelsis Deo&quot; is in nominative case instead of vocative case.  However when people sing (or say it), usually they are &quot;claiming&quot; that Glory to the highest God.  So... I would like to know how &quot;correct&quot; is my friend's explanation, and whether I should sound like &quot;claiming a fact&quot; or &quot;expressing a wish&quot; with the phrase &quot;Gloria in excelsis Deo&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6771" RevisionGUID="e1cb7340-13a2-4ec9-b18f-b7448244a4d4" CreationDate="2018-07-01T11:47:08.903" UserId="1459" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="_Gloria in altissimis Deo :: et in terra pax in hominibus bonae voluntatis._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a contrast between &quot;_in altissimis_&quot; (or &quot;_in excelsis_&quot;) and &quot;_in hominibus_&quot;. That suggests to me that &quot;_in excelsis_&quot; means &quot;among those who are most high&quot; as opposed to &quot;among men&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6776" RevisionGUID="0edfff0e-c5a2-4d4a-8938-b59b15547556" CreationDate="2018-07-01T11:49:13.477" UserId="1459" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="A lot of people have said this already, but please let me say it again, this time quoting E. C. Woodcock, &quot;A New Latin Syntax&quot;, Paragraph 209: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A gerund in the instrumental ablative is sometimes used so vaguely that it is almost equivalent to a present participle in agreement with the subject. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example he quotes is from Livy 8, 17, 1: &quot;_Consules populando usque ad moenia pervenerunt._&quot; (The consuls came a-plundering right up to the walls.) This sentence is &quot;almost equivalent&quot; to &quot;_Consules populantes usque ad moenia pervenerunt._&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To which I would add Saint Augustine, PL 38, 1348 (HT to the breviary, June 29): &quot;_Isti martyres viderunt quod praedicaverunt, secuti aequitatem, confitendo veritatem, moriendo pro veritate_&quot; which I would say is almost equivalent to, &quot;_Isti martyres viderunt quod praedicaverunt, secuti aequitatem, confitentes veritatem, morientes pro veritate._&quot; (These martyrs of yours saw what they had preached, having pursued calm, acknowledging the truth, dying for the truth.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And likewise, &quot;_Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum, et quia miserando atque eligendo vidit, ait illi, Sequere me,_&quot; is almost equivalent to, &quot;_Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum, et quia miserans atque eligens vidit, ait illi, Sequere me._&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6778" RevisionGUID="bb87a71f-f344-49c2-a9f6-5a836dcc341c" CreationDate="2018-07-02T00:09:52.397" UserId="79" Text="I would like to understand the formation of Latin compound words through the example of the word &quot;helicopter&quot;.&#xA;This obviously has a Greek origin, and I would like redo the construction with two Latin words.&#xA;&#xA;I would translate *helix* as *vertex* and *pteron* as *ala*.&#xA;But how do I combine the two analogously to the Greek *helico-pteron*?&#xA;I'm not sure what to do with the first word.&#xA;Can I go with *vertici-ala*?&#xA;Or is this a situation where natural compounds are impossible although Latin does allow compound words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22545" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6778" RevisionGUID="bb87a71f-f344-49c2-a9f6-5a836dcc341c" CreationDate="2018-07-02T00:09:52.397" UserId="79" Text="Forming compound words in Latin: helicopter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22546" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6778" RevisionGUID="bb87a71f-f344-49c2-a9f6-5a836dcc341c" CreationDate="2018-07-02T00:09:52.397" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|morphology|derivation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6779" RevisionGUID="4d58a1f9-35b3-433d-a796-0432a60049f7" CreationDate="2018-07-02T10:05:57.320" UserId="645" Text="The essence of the 'helicopter' idea is a rotating wing. The only possible words for wing here are *ala* and *aliger*, and I can think of two possibilities for introducing the 'rotatory' part. The adjective *versatilis* suggests the idea of a turning motion, while the noun *turbo* is used for any violent circular motion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accepting that any wing must imply the necessary lifting through the air, and that *versatilis* has less indication of force than *turbo*, this all leads me to propose *turbinaliger*, 'bearer of a fast-spinning wing' — which describes a helicopter quite neatly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6780" RevisionGUID="2727aece-5bed-48c6-968e-866e23a47d76" CreationDate="2018-07-02T19:10:24.287" UserId="2726" Text="We are creating our own family crest, and would like a translation of a lyric &quot; no freedom til we're equal&quot;. I've looked on google translate, but quickly realised it's going to end up reading like a dodgy tattoo. I can see that changing the wording on this slightly, gives very different translations, so I guess I'm looking for the closest in style and meaning. Any help would be appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22549" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6780" RevisionGUID="2727aece-5bed-48c6-968e-866e23a47d76" CreationDate="2018-07-02T19:10:24.287" UserId="2726" Text="translation of a macklemore lyric" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22550" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6780" RevisionGUID="2727aece-5bed-48c6-968e-866e23a47d76" CreationDate="2018-07-02T19:10:24.287" UserId="2726" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6781" RevisionGUID="81b3bbb8-5d08-4fac-a48d-6888160d1654" CreationDate="2018-07-02T20:29:43.893" UserId="1142" Text="The following phrase should suit you just fine if your desire is an entirely literal translation, rather than something more pragmatic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Lībertās nūlla [habēbimus] dōnec aequālēs sumus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which translates literally to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[We shall have] no freedom until we are equal.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I included *habēbimus* in the original phrase as I felt that it made more clear to whom the freedom would belong; however, it can be dropped without removing any critical meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you mentioned that this phrase would be included in a family crest and a tattoo, you probably don't want either to have the orthography of my previously provided quote, but rather, in the orthography of Classical Latin (all capitals, lack of a letter *uU*, etc):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *LIBERTAS•NVLLA•HABEBIMVS•DONEC•AEQUALES•SVMVS*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, the final style is obviously up to you. You can read more about the orthography of Classical Latin [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6780" RevisionGUID="5c749106-bdf0-40e9-a7bc-385081410d35" CreationDate="2018-07-02T20:36:15.913" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="We are creating our own family crest, and would like a translation of a lyric &quot;no freedom til we're equal&quot;. I've looked on Google Translate, but quickly realised it's going to end up reading like a dodgy tattoo. I can see that changing the wording on this slightly, gives very different translations, so I guess I'm looking for the closest in style and meaning. Any help would be appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22553" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6780" RevisionGUID="5c749106-bdf0-40e9-a7bc-385081410d35" CreationDate="2018-07-02T20:36:15.913" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Translation of a Macklemore lyric" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22554" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6780" RevisionGUID="5c749106-bdf0-40e9-a7bc-385081410d35" CreationDate="2018-07-02T20:36:15.913" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|motto|english-to-latin-translation|song-lyrics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6781" RevisionGUID="079b052a-0faa-42ea-8cf2-b17bf0df174c" CreationDate="2018-07-02T20:40:34.057" UserId="1142" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="The following phrase should suit you just fine if your desire is an entirely literal translation, rather than something more pragmatic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Lībertās nūlla dōnec aequālēs sumus.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or *Lībertātem nūllam habēbimus dōnec aequālēs sumus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which translates literally to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *No freedom until we are equal.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *We shall have no freedom until we are equal.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I included *habēbimus* in the original phrase as I felt that it made more clear to whom the freedom would belong; however, it can be dropped without removing any critical meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you mentioned that this phrase would be included in a family crest and a tattoo, you probably don't want either to have the orthography of my previously provided quote, but rather, in the orthography of Classical Latin (all capitals, lack of a letter *uU*, etc):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *LIBERTAS•NVLLA•HABEBIMVS•DONEC•AEQUALES•SVMVS*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, the final style is obviously up to you. You can read more about the orthography of Classical Latin [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6781" RevisionGUID="66d8380c-8d98-431c-b3e1-69362c210993" CreationDate="2018-07-02T20:43:10.953" UserId="1142" Comment="edited body" Text="The following phrase should suit you just fine if your desire is an entirely literal translation, rather than something more pragmatic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Lībertās nūlla dōnec aequālēs sumus.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or *Lībertātem nūllam habēbimus dōnec aequālēs sumus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which translates literally to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *No freedom until we are equal.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *We shall have no freedom until we are equal.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I included *habēbimus* in the original phrase as I felt that it made more clear to whom the freedom would belong; however, it can be dropped without removing any critical meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you mentioned that this phrase would be included in a family crest and a tattoo, you probably don't want either to have the orthography of my previously provided quote, but rather, in the orthography of Classical Latin (all capitals, lack of a letter *uU*, etc):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *LIBERTAS•NVLLA•HABEBIMVS•DONEC•AEQVALES•SVMVS*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or *LIBERTATEM•NVLLAM•HABEBIMVS•DONEC•AEQVALES•SVMVS*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, the final style is obviously up to you. You can read more about the orthography of Classical Latin [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6783" RevisionGUID="9ca56424-d7d4-4323-99fc-96bed03288a6" CreationDate="2018-07-02T20:59:15.073" UserId="79" Text="Your motto made me recall Ovid's famous line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Donec eris felix multos numerabis amicos.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As long as you are free you will have many friends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imitating this and holding on to hexameter, I arrived at this suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Donec eris mihi par poteris tibi vivere liber.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As long as you are my equal you can live your own life free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not exactly what you wished.&#xD;&#xA;I needed some poetic licence to fit the metric constraints, but I personally feel that hexameter makes a motto more classy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6781" RevisionGUID="b14e5e13-d5fa-4de0-86f5-e08d09e88924" CreationDate="2018-07-02T20:59:54.800" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="The following phrase should suit you just fine if your desire is an entirely literal translation, rather than something more pragmatic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Lībertās nūlla dōnec aequālēs sumus.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or *Lībertātem nūllam habēbimus dōnec aequālēs sumus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which translates literally to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *No freedom until we are equal.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *We shall have no freedom until we are equal.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I included *habēbimus* in the original phrase as I felt that it made more clear to whom the freedom would belong; however, it can be dropped without removing any critical meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you mentioned that this phrase would be included in a family crest and a tattoo, you probably don't want either to have the orthography of my previously provided quote, but rather, in the orthography of Classical Latin (all capitals, lack of a letter *uU*, etc):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *LIBERTAS•NVLLA•DONEC•AEQVALES•SVMVS*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or *LIBERTATEM•NVLLAM•HABEBIMVS•DONEC•AEQVALES•SVMVS*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, the final style is obviously up to you. You can read more about the orthography of Classical Latin [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6783" RevisionGUID="8dd10163-2191-4eca-8764-962f3b859982" CreationDate="2018-07-02T21:12:14.003" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Your motto made me recall Ovid's famous line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Donec eris felix multos numerabis amicos.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As long as you are happy you will have many friends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imitating this and holding on to hexameter, I arrived at this suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Donec eris mihi par poteris tibi vivere liber.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As long as you are my equal you can live your own life free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not exactly what you wished.&#xD;&#xA;I needed some poetic licence to fit the metric constraints, but I personally feel that hexameter makes a motto more classy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22562" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="684" RevisionGUID="daeb29bb-53f2-4b9f-983d-e40fba6a07e1" CreationDate="2018-07-02T21:20:21.643" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|verbs|grammar-identification|translation-explanation|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6781" RevisionGUID="fb13846c-4bb1-4024-9cb6-43c307946f53" CreationDate="2018-07-03T01:56:04.017" UserId="1142" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="The following phrase should suit you just fine if your desire is an entirely literal translation, rather than something more pragmatic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Lībertās nūlla dōnec aequālēs sumus.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or *Lībertātem nūllam habēbimus dōnec aequālēs sumus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which translates literally to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *No freedom until we are equal.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *We shall have no freedom until we are equal.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I included *habēbimus* in the original phrase as I felt that it made more clear to whom the freedom would belong; however, it can be dropped without removing any critical meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you mentioned that this phrase would be included in a family crest and a tattoo, you probably don't want either to have the orthography of my previously provided quote, but rather, in the orthography of Classical Latin (all capitals, lack of a letter *uU*, apices marking long vowels, etc):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *LIBERTAS•NVLLA•DONEC•AEQVALES•SVMVS*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or *LIBERTATEM•NVLLAM•HABEBIMVS•DONEC•AEQVALES•SVMVS*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, the final style is obviously up to you. You can read more about the orthography of Classical Latin (with both formal and informal orthographies described) [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22564" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="941" RevisionGUID="c2148263-b2ce-41d5-b2cd-aca900bb0773" CreationDate="2018-07-03T02:10:46.490" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|contemporary-latin|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="941" RevisionGUID="c2148263-b2ce-41d5-b2cd-aca900bb0773" CreationDate="2018-07-03T02:10:46.490" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="I'm reading Arcadius Avellanus's translation of fairy tales (he was the last known native speaker of Latin), and I've come across this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Regia Filia jocum dignata mittit ancillam cum lucerna, quam et magus erga novam perlibenter emutavit, quod satis novit in tali tantaque Aladdini palatio haud duas lucernas antiquas reperiri posse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two things in the sentence that escape me. The first is that *et*, which context makes clear isn't the first or second of a pair. What does it mean here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second thing I'm having trouble with is *novit in tali*, which I can't make heads or tails of, whether the subject is *Regis Filia* or *magus*. Is *in tali tantaque* an idiom? It was indeed printed as *tantaque*, not *tantoque*, in the original from 1918.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts about either of these things?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6784" RevisionGUID="acb71fe1-b95c-42c5-860e-ebe82b77b438" CreationDate="2018-07-03T03:51:14.003" UserId="79" Text="The verb *quire* is conjugated like *ire*, and there are some forms that look like an interrogative or relative pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;Those forms are *qu&amp;imacr;s* and *qu&amp;imacr;*.&#xD;&#xA;Are these attested in classical literature?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are awfully hard to search due to the ubiquitous pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;I find it possible that these forms were avoided &amp;mdash; and perhaps there wasn't much use for the imperative in the first place &amp;mdash; so it is not clear whether they would have been used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22567" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6784" RevisionGUID="acb71fe1-b95c-42c5-860e-ebe82b77b438" CreationDate="2018-07-03T03:51:14.003" UserId="79" Text="Are the pronoun-looking forms of quire attested?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22568" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6784" RevisionGUID="acb71fe1-b95c-42c5-860e-ebe82b77b438" CreationDate="2018-07-03T03:51:14.003" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|ambiguity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6785" RevisionGUID="a86715cd-27c6-4700-b299-ef1028b12c23" CreationDate="2018-07-03T08:39:56.080" UserId="324" Text="L&amp;S give a reference to Horace for &quot;non quis&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dqueo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22570" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="123" RevisionGUID="918b9184-8c0a-4dd5-83a6-255a1471f495" CreationDate="2018-07-03T12:41:07.557" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|idiom|latin-to-english-translation|gaius-iulius-caesar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6786" RevisionGUID="af9e7628-33c9-4fdb-b136-124aeb338589" CreationDate="2018-07-03T13:42:53.173" UserId="39" Text="From Leumann 1977:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“age, iam mitto, ignosco: aetate non quis optuerier.” (Plautus, Mostellaria 840)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“tu, ut occepisti, tantum quantum quis fuge&#xD;&#xA;atque Herculem inuoca.” (Plautus, Mostellaria, 527)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6786" RevisionGUID="287271f8-f3a2-4021-8f02-704ffaa67465" CreationDate="2018-07-03T14:30:37.543" UserId="39" Comment="added 471 characters in body" Text="Generally, **such forms were rare**, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Kühner and Holzweissig 1912/1994: &quot;Viele Formen von diesen Verben [queo and nequeo - Alex B.] kommen nur selten vor und in der guten Prosa gar nicht&quot; (para 200), the forms quis and quit are given in [square brackets] there, which means they were very infrequent;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also &quot;Das Verbe *queo* wird von den guten Klassikern nicht haüfig gebraucht (nie von Cäsar), und zwar gewöhnlich in Verbindung mit einer Negation&quot; (p. 817).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Leumann 1977:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“age, iam mitto, ignosco: aetate non quis optuerier.” (Plautus, Mostellaria 840)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“tu, ut occepisti, tantum quantum quis fuge&#xD;&#xA;atque Herculem inuoca.” (Plautus, Mostellaria, 527)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kühner and Holzweissig 1912/1994 also mention that *non quis* is found in Pl. Pers. 287 Truc. 2 3, 5 Lucr. 1, 751 and Hor. Serm. 2. 7, 92; *non quit* Pl. Trin. 504. Aul. 2. 8, 21 and Ter. Hec. 183." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6786" RevisionGUID="ac2024c5-43b3-48be-9389-8b25daae76a9" CreationDate="2018-07-03T14:41:55.713" UserId="39" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="Generally, **such forms were rare** and were used mostly used with negative particles *ne* or *non*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Kühner and Holzweissig 1912/1994: &quot;Viele Formen von diesen Verben [queo and nequeo - Alex B.] kommen nur selten vor und in der guten Prosa gar nicht&quot; (para 200), the forms quis and quit are given in [square brackets] there, which means they were very infrequent;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also &quot;Das Verbe *queo* wird von den guten Klassikern nicht haüfig gebraucht (nie von Cäsar), cf. Leumann &quot;bezeugt vorwiegend bei Plautus und Terenz und noch bei Lukrez, also altlateinisch&quot; (p. 512).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Leumann 1977:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“age, iam mitto, ignosco: aetate non quis optuerier.” (Plautus, Mostellaria 840)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“tu, ut occepisti, tantum quantum quis fuge&#xD;&#xA;atque Herculem inuoca.” (Plautus, Mostellaria, 527)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kühner and Holzweissig 1912/1994 also mention that *non quis* is found in Pl. Pers. 287 Truc. 2 3, 5 Lucr. 1, 751 and Hor. Serm. 2. 7, 92; *non quit* Pl. Trin. 504. Aul. 2. 8, 21 and Ter. Hec. 183.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a more comprehensive analysis we'll have to look it up in TLL and Neue and Wagener (volume 3)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6786" RevisionGUID="b294238c-0e6f-49e4-a812-1f64dc169e33" CreationDate="2018-07-03T14:51:41.640" UserId="39" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="Generally, **such forms were rare** and were used mostly used with negative particles *ne* or *non*. After all, *queo* was backformed from *nequeo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Kühner and Holzweissig 1912/1994: &quot;Viele Formen von diesen Verben [queo and nequeo - Alex B.] kommen nur selten vor und in der guten Prosa gar nicht&quot; (para 200), the forms quis and quit are given in [square brackets] there, which means they were very infrequent;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also &quot;Das Verbe *queo* wird von den guten Klassikern nicht haüfig gebraucht (nie von Cäsar), cf. Leumann &quot;bezeugt vorwiegend bei Plautus und Terenz und noch bei Lukrez, also altlateinisch&quot; (p. 512).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Leumann 1977:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“age, iam mitto, ignosco: aetate non quis optuerier.” (Plautus, Mostellaria 840)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“tu, ut occepisti, tantum quantum quis fuge&#xD;&#xA;atque Herculem inuoca.” (Plautus, Mostellaria, 527)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kühner and Holzweissig 1912/1994 also mention that *non quis* is found in Pl. Pers. 287 Truc. 2 3, 5 Lucr. 1, 751 and Hor. Serm. 2. 7, 92; *non quit* Pl. Trin. 504. Aul. 2. 8, 21 and Ter. Hec. 183.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a more comprehensive analysis we'll have to look it up in the TLL and Neue and Wagener (volume 3)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6786" RevisionGUID="b7f239ae-cec7-4255-a538-0228e1bb5dfa" CreationDate="2018-07-03T14:58:47.117" UserId="39" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="Generally, **such forms were rare** and were used mostly used with negative particles *ne* or *non*. After all, *queo* was backformed from *nequeo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Kühner and Holzweissig 1912/1994: &quot;Viele Formen von diesen Verben [queo and nequeo - Alex B.] kommen nur selten vor und in der guten Prosa gar nicht&quot; (para 200), the forms quis and quit are given in [square brackets] there, which means they were very infrequent;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also &quot;Das Verbe *queo* wird von den guten Klassikern nicht haüfig gebraucht (nie von Cäsar), cf. Leumann &quot;bezeugt vorwiegend bei Plautus und Terenz und noch bei Lukrez, also altlateinisch&quot; (p. 512).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Leumann 1977:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“age, iam mitto, ignosco: aetate non quis optuerier.” (Plautus, Mostellaria 840)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“tu, ut occepisti, tantum quantum quis fuge&#xD;&#xA;atque Herculem inuoca.” (Plautus, Mostellaria, 527)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kühner and Holzweissig 1912/1994 also mention that *non quis* is found in Pl. Pers. 287 Truc. 2 3, 5 Lucr. 1, 751 and Hor. Serm. 2. 7, 92; *non quit* Pl. Trin. 504. Aul. 2. 8, 21 and Ter. Hec. 183.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick search on LASLA gives the following (NB: I didn't manually check the examples):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CATULLUS	Carmina	61,66	quit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HORATIUS	Sermones	2,7,92	quis&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;LUCRETIUS	De Rerum Natura	1,751	quis	&#xD;&#xA;LUCRETIUS	De Rerum Natura	3,554	quit	&#xD;&#xA;LUCRETIUS	De Rerum Natura	3,646	quit	&#xD;&#xA;LUCRETIUS	De Rerum Natura	4,1164	quit	&#xD;&#xA;LUCRETIUS	De Rerum Natura	4,1166	quit	&#xD;&#xA;LUCRETIUS	De Rerum Natura	5,152	quit	&#xD;&#xA;LUCRETIUS	De Rerum Natura	6,431	quit	&#xD;&#xA;LUCRETIUS	De Rerum Natura	6,555	quit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PLAUTUS	Aulularia	391	quit&#xD;&#xA;PLAUTUS	Curculio	173	quit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SENECA	Agamemnon	130	quit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a more comprehensive analysis we'll have to look it up in the TLL and Neue and Wagener (volume 3)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="942" RevisionGUID="b3ed863a-dade-4ebb-ba47-20cde8868f60" CreationDate="2018-07-03T15:42:05.273" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="What would be a correct way of combining the words *visio* and *novus*? Could I just combine those two or is *visio* + *nova* a better option?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like the phrase to mean something like &quot;a new vision/perspective&quot;. The idea is to lead people towards a new vision/perspective that could be the start of a behavioural change. It's for a personal training/health intervention (focus on long-term behaviour changes)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22577" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="942" RevisionGUID="b3ed863a-dade-4ebb-ba47-20cde8868f60" CreationDate="2018-07-03T15:42:05.273" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|motto|latin-to-english-translation|agreement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22578" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1282" RevisionGUID="07a661fd-ae0a-4dd3-9b8d-0b3bf0615774" CreationDate="2018-07-03T15:45:04.240" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|translation-check|latin-to-english-translation|suetonius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6786" RevisionGUID="3a608ac5-ca69-4789-8281-b9db0da17413" CreationDate="2018-07-03T19:46:29.977" UserId="39" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="&gt;Generally, **such forms were rare** and were used mostly used with negative particles *ne* or *non*. After all, *queo* was backformed from *nequeo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Kühner and Holzweissig 1912/1994: &quot;Viele Formen von diesen Verben [queo and nequeo - Alex B.] kommen nur selten vor und in der guten Prosa gar nicht&quot; (para 200), the forms quis and quit are given in [square brackets] there, which means they were very infrequent;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also &quot;Das Verbe *queo* wird von den guten Klassikern nicht haüfig gebraucht (nie von Cäsar), cf. Leumann &quot;bezeugt vorwiegend bei Plautus und Terenz und noch bei Lukrez, also altlateinisch&quot; (p. 512).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Leumann 1977:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“age, iam mitto, ignosco: aetate **non quis** optuerier.” (Plautus, Mostellaria 840)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“tu, ut occepisti, tantum quantum **quis** fuge&#xD;&#xA;atque Herculem inuoca.” (Plautus, Mostellaria, 527)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kühner and Holzweissig 1912/1994 also mention that *non quis* is found in Pl. Pers. 287 Truc. 2 3, 5 Lucr. 1, 751 and Hor. Serm. 2. 7, 92; *non quit* Pl. Trin. 504. Aul. 2. 8, 21 and Ter. Hec. 183.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick search on LASLA gives the following (NB: I didn't manually check the examples):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CATULLUS	Carmina	61,66	quit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HORATIUS	Sermones	2,7,92	quis&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;LUCRETIUS	De Rerum Natura	1,751	quis	&#xD;&#xA;LUCRETIUS	De Rerum Natura	3,554	quit	&#xD;&#xA;LUCRETIUS	De Rerum Natura	3,646	quit	&#xD;&#xA;LUCRETIUS	De Rerum Natura	4,1164	quit	&#xD;&#xA;LUCRETIUS	De Rerum Natura	4,1166	quit	&#xD;&#xA;LUCRETIUS	De Rerum Natura	5,152	quit	&#xD;&#xA;LUCRETIUS	De Rerum Natura	6,431	quit	&#xD;&#xA;LUCRETIUS	De Rerum Natura	6,555	quit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PLAUTUS	Aulularia	391	quit&#xD;&#xA;PLAUTUS	Curculio	173	quit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SENECA	Agamemnon	130	quit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a more comprehensive analysis we'll have to look it up in the TLL and Neue and Wagener (volume 3)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6787" RevisionGUID="6a1b768c-2e92-4dde-b12c-238ddc797dad" CreationDate="2018-07-04T02:24:44.177" UserId="79" Text="Where does the verb *quire* come from?&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S is unsure of the etymology but compares it to a Sanskrit word.&#xD;&#xA;Do we know more about the etymology of the verb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is composed of *ire* (&quot;to go&quot;) and another (perhaps unknown) element, or is the conjugation a regularization of something else?&#xD;&#xA;It seems weird to me that *quire* behaves as if it was *qu-* and *ire*, but prefix rings no bell and there seems to be little semantic connection to any kind of going.&#xD;&#xA;Other compound verbs from *ire* are much easier to make sense of." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22581" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6787" RevisionGUID="6a1b768c-2e92-4dde-b12c-238ddc797dad" CreationDate="2018-07-04T02:24:44.177" UserId="79" Text="Where does quire come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22582" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6787" RevisionGUID="6a1b768c-2e92-4dde-b12c-238ddc797dad" CreationDate="2018-07-04T02:24:44.177" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|verbs|irregular-words|compound-verb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6788" RevisionGUID="1af4b863-f72e-481b-8576-d27fdb1ca178" CreationDate="2018-07-04T02:48:00.317" UserId="406" Text="In the *Chronicles of Darkness* role-playing game, one of the major antagonists is called &quot;the God-Machine&quot;: a machine so powerful it seems similar to a god.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know Latin generally prefers not to stick nouns together like that. So how would you translate this epithet into Latin (or Greek, for that matter)? Using an adjective like *divīnus* seems to indicate that the machine was made by the gods, rather than that it's pretending to be a god itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22584" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6788" RevisionGUID="1af4b863-f72e-481b-8576-d27fdb1ca178" CreationDate="2018-07-04T02:48:00.317" UserId="406" Text="How would one translate &quot;The God-Machine&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22585" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6788" RevisionGUID="1af4b863-f72e-481b-8576-d27fdb1ca178" CreationDate="2018-07-04T02:48:00.317" UserId="406" Text="|greek|names|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6789" RevisionGUID="0176fcec-9267-4654-8da9-db0f737c0576" CreationDate="2018-07-04T03:07:53.020" UserId="79" Text="As there has been no answer so far, I would say that it is not attested.&#xD;&#xA;I have never encountered it in texts or grammars &amp;mdash; and I would be glad to hear whether more experienced Latinists share my experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems consistent in Latin that a verb can be treated as a noun, which uses the infinitive for nominative and accusative (without prepositions) and forms of gerund for the rest (including accusative with prepositions).&#xD;&#xA;As the infinitive seems to be usable in all uses of a nominative, there seems to be no use for a nominative gerund.&#xD;&#xA;Of course, this does not rule out the nominative gerund being used instead of the infinitive, but I also see no compelling reason to ever do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example Alex B. mentioned was constructions of the form *mihi scribendum est*.&#xD;&#xA;The question is whether *scribendum* should be analyzed as a gerund or a gerundive.&#xD;&#xA;When a noun is used, as in *liber mihi scribendus est*, all (I think) will agree that we have a gerundive instead of a gerund.&#xD;&#xA;The canonical interpretation seems to be that even without a noun it is still a gerundive.&#xD;&#xA;But given how the lack of a noun can turn a gerundive into a gerund in some cases, I can see how some would read it as a gerund instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to questions like this, I am not sure whether one should make a distinction between gerunds and gerundives in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;One could simply take gerundive as a verbal adjective and the gerund as substantivized neuter version.&#xD;&#xA;Such substantivization of adjectives is not rare.&#xD;&#xA;If we take this interpretation of Latin gerunds, the question whether *scribendum* is gerund or gerundive seems to be whether the nominative of a substantivized adjective (whose attestation is unclear) is truly different from the neuter nominative of the adjective (which is amply attested).&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure whether the question is even meaningful; it seems to be a matter of opinion, as I see no functional implications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you keep a distinction between gerunds and gerundives, it is not clear what it means to decide that the *scribendum* in *scribendum est* is a gerund instead of a gerundive.&#xD;&#xA;To me it seems sensible to interpret Latin grammar either way, as there seem to be no visible implications in use nor major contradictions in theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the nominative gerund is attested if you decide that the *scribendum* in *scribendum est* (without a noun) is a gerund.&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, I am not aware of clear cases like _*volandum difficile est_, and I think they are not attested." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6790" RevisionGUID="6f1eeb61-9373-46fc-ad8f-f2f13b0e64c1" CreationDate="2018-07-04T03:19:38.980" UserId="79" Text="I would prefer *machina diva* over *machina divina* but it still comes across as &quot;machine of god(s)&quot; rather than &quot;a god-like machine&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of a good Latin adjective for &quot;god-like&quot;, so some kind of workaround seems to be needed.&#xD;&#xA;I can see a couple of ways to go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Use an auxiliary adjective for comparison: *machina deo par/similis*.&#xD;&#xA;2. Form a compound word in Greek and transliterate to Latin. (And ask someone other than me how to most naturally do that.)&#xD;&#xA;3. Use another adjective. The choice depends on the desired nuance. Perhaps *machina caelestis*?&#xD;&#xA;4. Deal with the possibility of misinterpretation and go with the simple and elegant *machina diva*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6791" RevisionGUID="5eb6dc7b-97e1-47e4-8326-1b1c555be6d3" CreationDate="2018-07-04T03:22:57.780" UserId="406" Text="The etymology I've heard, though I can provide no sources on it, is that it started with the idiom *neque it* &quot;he doesn't go yet&quot; = &quot;he cannot&quot; (compare French *ne pas* &quot;not a step&quot; used to negate verbs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Through regular elision, this then became *nequit* &quot;he cannot&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And once the link to the original *neque* was lost, this was rebracketed as *nē quit*, since *nē* was far more common than *neque* as a negation, and *it* has no real connection to the meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6792" RevisionGUID="ff28f689-436e-4868-a6a0-67d79a36644b" CreationDate="2018-07-04T03:25:58.600" UserId="406" Text="For the sake of completeness, it seems worth noting that there's one odd exception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerund is a noun derived from a verb, representing an action (for example, *volāndum* &quot;flying&quot;). For the most part it acts as a regular second-declension neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, [the gerund lacks a regular nominative][1], and instead uses the regular present active *infinitive* of the verb (*volāre*, &quot;to fly&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in this one particular case, *volāre* is nominative, and *volāndum* accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6789/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6789" RevisionGUID="76a9f0ad-cdde-452b-ad78-5afa625b93a8" CreationDate="2018-07-04T03:31:29.287" UserId="79" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="As there has been no answer so far, I would say that it is not attested.&#xD;&#xA;I have never encountered it in texts or grammars &amp;mdash; and I would be glad to hear whether more experienced Latinists share my experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems consistent in Latin that a verb can be treated as a noun, which uses the infinitive for nominative and accusative (without prepositions) and forms of gerund for the rest (including accusative with prepositions).&#xD;&#xA;As the infinitive seems to be usable in all uses of a nominative, there seems to be no use for a nominative gerund.&#xD;&#xA;Of course, this does not rule out the nominative gerund being used instead of the infinitive, but I also see no compelling reason to ever do so.&#xD;&#xA;(I would treat the combination of the infinitive and the gerund a single noun on a semantic level, but not on a morphological one. This seems to be a matter of taste.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example Alex B. mentioned was constructions of the form *mihi scribendum est*.&#xD;&#xA;The question is whether *scribendum* should be analyzed as a gerund or a gerundive.&#xD;&#xA;When a noun is used, as in *liber mihi scribendus est*, all (I think) will agree that we have a gerundive instead of a gerund.&#xD;&#xA;The canonical interpretation seems to be that even without a noun it is still a gerundive.&#xD;&#xA;But given how the lack of a noun can turn a gerundive into a gerund in some cases, I can see how some would read it as a gerund instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to questions like this, I am not sure whether one should make a distinction between gerunds and gerundives in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;One could simply take gerundive as a verbal adjective and the gerund as substantivized neuter version.&#xD;&#xA;Such substantivization of adjectives is not rare.&#xD;&#xA;If we take this interpretation of Latin gerunds, the question whether *scribendum* is gerund or gerundive seems to be whether the nominative of a substantivized adjective (whose attestation is unclear) is truly different from the neuter nominative of the adjective (which is amply attested).&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure whether the question is even meaningful; it seems to be a matter of opinion, as I see no functional implications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you keep a distinction between gerunds and gerundives, it is not clear what it means to decide that the *scribendum* in *scribendum est* is a gerund instead of a gerundive.&#xD;&#xA;To me it seems sensible to interpret Latin grammar either way, as there seem to be no visible implications in use nor major contradictions in theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the nominative gerund is attested if you decide that the *scribendum* in *scribendum est* (without a noun) is a gerund.&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, I am not aware of clear cases like _*volandum difficile est_, and I think they are not attested." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6789" RevisionGUID="84ba1760-bae2-49b6-88ba-0215f634b058" CreationDate="2018-07-04T03:44:24.683" UserId="79" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="As there has been no answer so far, I would say that it is not attested.&#xD;&#xA;I have never encountered it in texts or grammars &amp;mdash; and I would be glad to hear whether more experienced Latinists share my experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems consistent in Latin that a verb can be treated as a noun, which uses the infinitive for nominative and accusative (without prepositions) and forms of gerund for the rest (including accusative with prepositions).&#xD;&#xA;As the infinitive seems to be usable in all uses of a nominative, there seems to be no use for a nominative gerund.&#xD;&#xA;Of course, this does not rule out the nominative gerund being used instead of the infinitive, but I also see no compelling reason to ever do so.&#xD;&#xA;(I would treat the combination of the infinitive and the gerund a single noun on a semantic level, but not on a morphological one. This seems to be a matter of taste.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example Alex B. mentioned was constructions of the form *mihi scribendum est*.&#xD;&#xA;The question is whether *scribendum* should be analyzed as a gerund or a gerundive.&#xD;&#xA;When a noun is used, as in *liber mihi scribendus est*, all (I think) will agree that we have a gerundive instead of a gerund.&#xD;&#xA;The canonical interpretation seems to be that even without a noun it is still a gerundive.&#xD;&#xA;But given how the lack of a noun can turn a gerundive into a gerund in some cases, I can see how some would read it as a gerund instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to questions like this, I am not sure whether one should make a distinction between gerunds and gerundives in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;One could simply take gerundive as a verbal adjective and the gerund as substantivized neuter version.&#xD;&#xA;Such substantivization of adjectives is not rare.&#xD;&#xA;If we take this interpretation of Latin gerunds, the question whether *scribendum* is gerund or gerundive seems to be whether the nominative of a substantivized adjective (whose attestation is unclear) is truly different from the neuter nominative of the adjective (which is amply attested).&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure whether the question is even meaningful; it seems to be a matter of opinion, as I see no functional implications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the distinction and origins of gerunds and gerundives, see [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4799/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you keep a distinction between gerunds and gerundives, it is not clear what it means to decide that the *scribendum* in *scribendum est* is a gerund instead of a gerundive.&#xD;&#xA;To me it seems sensible to interpret Latin grammar either way, as there seem to be no visible implications in use nor major contradictions in theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the nominative gerund is attested if you decide that the *scribendum* in *scribendum est* (without a noun) is a gerund.&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, I am not aware of clear cases like _*volandum difficile est_, and I think they are not attested." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1022" RevisionGUID="6d8c05e1-5d3e-4fd7-b882-daef5f62bf58" CreationDate="2018-07-04T03:46:50.203" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="I'm reading Jason and the Argonauts from *Fabulae Faciles*, and I come across this phrase really often. I'll provide an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Erant olim in Thessalia duo fratres, quorum alter Aeson, Pelias alter appellabatur. Aeson primo regnum obtinuerat;&#xD;&#xA;[Fabulae Faciles][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I currently translate it as &quot;Aeson first possessed the kingdom&quot;. But could you also translate it as &quot;Aeson first ruled the kingdom&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel like &quot;ruled the kingdom&quot; is a more idiomatic way of putting it. But when I look up *obtinere*, I don't find that sense of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was curious whether *regnum* + *obtinere* was a common phrase in Latin, and how people commonly translate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/ritchie.html#3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22593" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1022" RevisionGUID="6d8c05e1-5d3e-4fd7-b882-daef5f62bf58" CreationDate="2018-07-04T03:46:50.203" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|vocabulary|verbs|meaning|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6793" RevisionGUID="b4b37e8c-02b8-49c4-936f-dc08b4bdd5c1" CreationDate="2018-07-04T07:12:26.700" UserId="9" Text="I was recently looking up the etymologies of some obscure words related to the English word *tribe* (like the adjective *tribual*), and I came across a Wiktionary page that asserts that there is or was a Latin adjective &quot;[tribālis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tribalis)&quot; meaning &quot;tribal&quot;. The page even lists an (automatically generated, to be sure) &quot;Classical&quot; pronunciation, and says that English &quot;tribal&quot; and Italian &quot;tribale&quot; are &quot;descendants&quot; of Latin *tribalis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I haven't been able to find evidence aside from this Wiktionary page of &quot;tribalis&quot; being a word in Latin. I checked the PHI Latin Texts corpus and Lewis and Short's dictionary, and it doesn't occur in these resources. The Oxford English Dictionary says that English &quot;tribal&quot; is from English *tribe* + *-al,* and does not mention any Latin &quot;tribalis&quot;. There does seem to be a Latin adjective *tribuarius* that is derived from *tribus.* Since *tribus* is a 4th-declension/u-stem noun, I would be a bit surprised by the formation of &quot;tribalis&quot;: it seems to me that the result of affixing *-alis* would be expected to be &quot;tribualis&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of these considerations, I'm feeling fairly skeptical about the Wiktionary page. (The [talk page of the user who created the entry](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Amit6) seems to indicate that this user may have a bit of a pattern of adding entries for dubious Latin adjectives.) Has &quot;tribalis&quot; ever been used in Latin? If so, when and by whom? If not, I'd be interested in knowing if there any actually attested Latin *-alis* adjectives that drop the *-u-* from the stem of a related noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22595" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6793" RevisionGUID="b4b37e8c-02b8-49c4-936f-dc08b4bdd5c1" CreationDate="2018-07-04T07:12:26.700" UserId="9" Text="Has &quot;tribalis&quot; ever been used in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22596" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6793" RevisionGUID="b4b37e8c-02b8-49c4-936f-dc08b4bdd5c1" CreationDate="2018-07-04T07:12:26.700" UserId="9" Text="|vocabulary|adjective|suffixes|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6794" RevisionGUID="9c63709e-c06a-4e2d-ad85-7b2ccf5a0c54" CreationDate="2018-07-04T13:21:15.630" UserId="324" Text="As the OED explains, “tribal” is an English formation (first attested 1632). French “tribal” is a recent borrowing from English (1872). Latin “tribulis” is not an adjective, but a noun, meaning “fellow tribesman”. The adjective from “tribus” is in fact “tributus” “formed into tribes”, which might just do for the other meanings of “tribal”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6790" RevisionGUID="856428ad-8794-4871-849c-5620247d94ae" CreationDate="2018-07-04T15:09:06.960" UserId="79" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="I would prefer *machina diva* over *machina divina* but it still comes across as &quot;machine of god(s)&quot; rather than &quot;a god-like machine&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of a good Latin adjective for &quot;god-like&quot;, so some kind of workaround seems to be needed.&#xD;&#xA;I can see a couple of ways to go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Use an auxiliary adjective for comparison: *machina deo par/similis*.&#xD;&#xA;2. Use a particle for comparison: *machina quasi dea*.&#xD;&#xA;3. Form a compound word in Greek and transliterate to Latin. (And ask someone other than me how to most naturally do that.)&#xD;&#xA;4. Use another adjective. The choice depends on the desired nuance. Perhaps *machina caelestis*?&#xD;&#xA;5. Deal with the possibility of misinterpretation and go with the simple and elegant *machina diva*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1409" RevisionGUID="53d1aed7-1b18-4f88-b74b-5d9f867831c8" CreationDate="2018-07-04T16:20:32.157" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="In *Róma Æterna*, the second volume of Ørberg's *Lingua Latína per sé illustráta*, in a chapter adapted from Eutropius I.9&amp;ndash;III.6, on page 181 we find the following sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Verum dignitás tribúnórum mílitárium nón diú persevérávit. Nam post aliquantum núllós placuit fierí, et quadriennium in urbe ita flúxit ut **potestátés** ibi **majórés** nón essent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I first read this passage, I got stuck, because I kept thinking, *majórés quam quid*? Now I'm thinking it's just a general reference to high-ranking government officials, or to the top political positions. Is that right? For four years there was essentially anarchy, with nobody filling the offices of heads of state?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I'm wrong, how ought I to understand *potestátés majórés*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22600" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1409" RevisionGUID="53d1aed7-1b18-4f88-b74b-5d9f867831c8" CreationDate="2018-07-04T16:20:32.157" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|vocabulary|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|eutropius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6795" RevisionGUID="3773adfe-77f8-4b71-86b1-0f9e1342eb69" CreationDate="2018-07-05T05:13:27.367" UserId="406" Text="If I wanted to describe something as &quot;mechanical&quot;, as opposed to electronic or human-run, how would I do this in Classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the Romans had no electronics, the main distinction I'm interested in is &quot;not human-run&quot;: for example copying a text *mechanically* might involve a printing press, as opposed to a scribe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22603" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6795" RevisionGUID="3773adfe-77f8-4b71-86b1-0f9e1342eb69" CreationDate="2018-07-05T05:13:27.367" UserId="406" Text="What is &quot;mechanical&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22604" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6795" RevisionGUID="3773adfe-77f8-4b71-86b1-0f9e1342eb69" CreationDate="2018-07-05T05:13:27.367" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6796" RevisionGUID="184c07e0-3650-4ba8-a882-d0c9599179b5" CreationDate="2018-07-05T05:26:31.887" UserId="79" Text="I suggest the adjectives&#xD;&#xA;[*machinalis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=machinalis&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;[*mechanicus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=mechanicus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), both of which are classically attested.&#xD;&#xA;The latter one has more emphasis on the mechanical nature, while the former can be used for machines in general.&#xD;&#xA;Either sounds reasonable for the use you propose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6797" RevisionGUID="7803db72-47a2-46ef-9ce1-011f7944f46e" CreationDate="2018-07-05T08:46:13.970" UserId="324" Text="I suggest automatus -a -um&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dautomatus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A machine that runs without human intervention is an automaton." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6798" RevisionGUID="d57659a6-22ae-4ace-a641-a297a11c88db" CreationDate="2018-07-05T13:06:33.543" UserId="2729" Text="*videtur* usually means &quot;it seems,&quot; but it can also mean &quot;it seems good,&quot; which appears to be the case here. *senatui videtur* means &quot;the Senate decides&quot; (literally, &quot;it seems good to the Senate&quot;). The translation should be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ..., for which reason it has seemed good (to me) to append a colon to it (i.e., to the letter *f*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ..., for which reason I have decided to append a colon to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing: Euler correctly wrote &quot;habeatur.&quot; *habitur* doesn't exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22608" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1275" RevisionGUID="32b30ae9-7767-4061-b1cc-9380b2ca4f06" CreationDate="2018-07-05T19:14:26.903" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22609" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="3415d5de-616b-484d-9f7b-d278793d5f8e" CreationDate="2018-07-05T19:18:22.310" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="How does the Latin of these two translations of The Little Prince compare?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22610" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="3415d5de-616b-484d-9f7b-d278793d5f8e" CreationDate="2018-07-05T19:18:22.310" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|contemporary-latin|nuance|style|french|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1475" RevisionGUID="4e0f8225-4b52-4754-a533-a168d4f2f532" CreationDate="2018-07-05T19:20:11.227" UserId="79" Comment="Added a remark from a comment by the same user." Text="Both translations are excellent Latin. The difference is that Haury's is literal, while Schlosser's takes many liberties (this is extremely apparent since the first sentence). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my taste, Haury's sounds a bit too schoolish, while Schlosser's is very elegant and pleasantly flowing... but this is just my taste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: Schlosser's &quot;Hoc autem excusatione deprecor&quot; omits the french &quot;serieuse&quot;, but Haury's &quot;Hanc probabilem excusationem habeo&quot; is really ugly (also, &quot;probabilem&quot; doesn't seem to me a fit translation of &quot;serieuse&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the repeated &quot;intellegit&quot;, I think the goal is to render the French &quot;meme&quot;; it's intentional, and very Latin. It's just not a literal translation. Latin had not our taboo (which grade school teachers inflict to promote lexical fluency) towards repetition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6799" RevisionGUID="65f091d0-4007-42bf-92e2-99270ef9191d" CreationDate="2018-07-05T22:29:52.243" UserId="1202" Text="&#xA;I’m currently doing chinese winter school, and I thought I would try to translate the first line of the daodejing into greek, as a fun exercise. Can you help correct my grammar? :)&#xA;&#xA;´ο λογος τουτον μπορώ λεγεται, ´ο αιωνιος λογος μυ εστι. ´ο νομος τουτον μπορω νομεται, ´ο αιωνιος νομος  μυ εστι.&#xA;&#xA;(Apologies, my phone greek keyboard does not do breathings and accents)&#xA;&#xA;My English translation for reference:&#xA;&#xA;The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name.&#xA;&#xA;The original chinese, if you’re curious:&#xA;&#xA;道可道非常道&#xA;名可名非常名&#xA;&#xA;I thought it would be fun to translate because λογος and 道 are both notoriously deep and complex philosophical terms that have a roughly equivalent range of meanings and popped up on opposite sides of the globe in completely different cultures at around the same time in history. The daodejing is a beautiful poem so i wanted to have a go at rendering some of it it in greek. How did i do?&#xA;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22613" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6799" RevisionGUID="65f091d0-4007-42bf-92e2-99270ef9191d" CreationDate="2018-07-05T22:29:52.243" UserId="1202" Text="Translating the 道德經 into Greek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22614" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6799" RevisionGUID="65f091d0-4007-42bf-92e2-99270ef9191d" CreationDate="2018-07-05T22:29:52.243" UserId="1202" Text="|translation|greek|poetry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6800" RevisionGUID="cb8bcd6c-0fdd-4214-8236-29155c6575d0" CreationDate="2018-07-05T22:49:43.243" UserId="79" Text="What would be a good way to say &quot;undergraduate student&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;The exact meaning depends on context: in Finland I would use that to refer to a student without a master's degree even if they have a bachelor's, but in the US I would mean a student without a bachelor's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no reason to try to translate the term literally.&#xD;&#xA;The Finnish term would translate to English as &quot;basic degree student&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure how to describe such students in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22616" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6800" RevisionGUID="cb8bcd6c-0fdd-4214-8236-29155c6575d0" CreationDate="2018-07-05T22:49:43.243" UserId="79" Text="What is an undegraduate student?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22617" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6800" RevisionGUID="cb8bcd6c-0fdd-4214-8236-29155c6575d0" CreationDate="2018-07-05T22:49:43.243" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6799" RevisionGUID="91f21f4c-c990-4561-b09d-34e180655a67" CreationDate="2018-07-05T22:54:30.590" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged." Text="I’m currently doing Chinese winter school, and I thought I would try to translate the first line of the daodejing into Greek, as a fun exercise. Can you help correct my grammar? :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ´ο λογος τουτον μπορώ λεγεται, ´ο αιωνιος λογος μυ εστι. ´ο νομος τουτον μπορω νομεται, ´ο αιωνιος νομος  μυ εστι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Apologies, my phone Greek keyboard does not do breathings and accents.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My English translation for reference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original Chinese, if you’re curious:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 道可道非常道  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 名可名非常名&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought it would be fun to translate because λογος and 道 are both notoriously deep and complex philosophical terms that have a roughly equivalent range of meanings and popped up on opposite sides of the globe in completely different cultures at around the same time in history. The daodejing is a beautiful poem so I wanted to have a go at rendering some of it it in Greek. How did I do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22619" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6799" RevisionGUID="91f21f4c-c990-4561-b09d-34e180655a67" CreationDate="2018-07-05T22:54:30.590" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted and retagged." Text="|greek|translation-check|poetry|chinese|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6801" RevisionGUID="7309f5cf-f26f-42a1-8892-233d07f8272d" CreationDate="2018-07-05T22:55:30.133" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22621" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6801" RevisionGUID="7309f5cf-f26f-42a1-8892-233d07f8272d" CreationDate="2018-07-05T22:55:30.133" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6802" RevisionGUID="4255c9d1-5e62-4de3-b8c5-b19c3cc45e2d" CreationDate="2018-07-05T22:55:30.133" UserId="79" Text="For questions related to (but not about only) the Chinese language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22623" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6802" RevisionGUID="4255c9d1-5e62-4de3-b8c5-b19c3cc45e2d" CreationDate="2018-07-05T22:55:30.133" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6803" RevisionGUID="831f6f77-20df-48c1-9893-14c087569897" CreationDate="2018-07-06T02:06:17.340" UserId="79" Text="If someone disagrees with you and the argument makes you chance your opinion, you might say &quot;Fair enough!&quot; in&amp;nbsp;English.&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be essentially equivalent to: &quot;Oh, good point! I agree.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a similar phrase in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Of course one can use verbs like *consentio* or *assentior* or other, but I was hoping there would be something indicating a change of opinion &amp;mdash; or at least something a little more colorful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume something like this could be found in Plautus, but I'm not familiar with his work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22625" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6803" RevisionGUID="831f6f77-20df-48c1-9893-14c087569897" CreationDate="2018-07-06T02:06:17.340" UserId="79" Text="Idiom like &quot;Fair enough!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22626" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6803" RevisionGUID="831f6f77-20df-48c1-9893-14c087569897" CreationDate="2018-07-06T02:06:17.340" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|plautus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6804" RevisionGUID="c8e9df01-3329-464b-9ac9-dc893c64bb0a" CreationDate="2018-07-06T03:38:59.860" UserId="235" Text="The Latin word *mentula* isn't properly defined in the [Lewis &amp; Short dictionary][1], but it does show up on [latin-dictionary.net][2] and [Wiktionary][3]. Both these dictionaries define *mentula* as &quot;penis&quot;. But what's striking about this word is its resemblance to *mens, mentis*, which means &quot;mind&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the two words related? Is *mentula* a diminutive of *mens*, as Wiktionary suggests? Are the two words descended from the same PIE root?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If indeed the two words are related, do we know why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmentula&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/mentula&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mentula#Noun_2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22628" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6804" RevisionGUID="c8e9df01-3329-464b-9ac9-dc893c64bb0a" CreationDate="2018-07-06T03:38:59.860" UserId="235" Text="Does mentula (&quot;penis&quot;) derive from the same root as mens (&quot;mind&quot;), and if so why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22629" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6804" RevisionGUID="c8e9df01-3329-464b-9ac9-dc893c64bb0a" CreationDate="2018-07-06T03:38:59.860" UserId="235" Text="|vocabulary|word-comparison|proto-indo-european|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6605" RevisionGUID="c9876fc5-0a8b-442a-a06a-42cab2074699" CreationDate="2018-07-06T04:59:04.560" UserId="2659" Comment="Habeatur was copied wrong" Text="I'm trying to understand the following sentence from Leonhard Euler's  *Institutionum calculi integralis Vol. III* Chap. 2, bottom of [p.40][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Huiusmodi functiones arbitrarias, prouti hic feci, eiusmodi signandi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; modo *f:y* indicabo, unde cauendum erit ne littera *f* pro quantitate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; habeatur, quocirca ipsi *colon* suffigere visum est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A translation can be found [here][3], but I'm unable to make sense of the second half:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arbitrary functions of this kind, as I have made here, I will indicate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by being marked in this way *f:y* , from which there will be a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; caution, without the letter *f* for the quantity that may be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; considered, concerning which a colon is considered sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd appreciate your help rephrasing this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Some context: The passage is interesting since Euler is largely considered responsible for introducing and popularising the *f(x)* notation in mathematics, which he at that time wrote as *f:x*. This is one of the few instances where he explains something about it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/titleinfo/9549650&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/pageview/9549703&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.17centurymaths.com/contents/euler/intcalvol1/part6ch2.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6805" RevisionGUID="834b4703-da69-4bfb-ae11-c1f41239c10e" CreationDate="2018-07-06T06:56:14.223" UserId="2704" Text="The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ὀ λόγος ὃς λέγεται οὐ λόγος αἱώνιος. τὸ δ’ ὄνομα ὃ ὀνομάζεται οὐκ ὄνομα αἰώνιον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To keep things oracular, I've left out &quot;can&quot;; if you must have it,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ὀ λόγος ὃς λέγεσθαι δύναται οὐ λόγος αἱώνιος. τὸ δ’ ὄνομα ὃ ὀνομάζεσθαι δύναται οὐκ ὄνομα αἰώνιον.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6806" RevisionGUID="c85c9dff-1213-4892-bfa1-4142a31e2cf9" CreationDate="2018-07-06T07:07:08.020" UserId="2704" Text="On the other hand, Greek does not have the problems with compounding that Latin does, and θεομηχανή would be fine. (It neatly matches θεάνθρωπος &quot;God-Man&quot;, the theological epithet of Christ, or for something older, θεόταυρος &quot;God-Bull&quot; used by Moschus to refer to Zeus.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Modern Greek, θεο- has become a colloquial augmentative, mainly for adjectives but also for nouns; so θεοβάρελο &quot;God-barrel&quot; = &quot;ginormous barrel&quot;. Which means θεομηχανή could be misconstrued by Modern Greek speakers as &quot;ginormous machine&quot;. But that's likely not your concern. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6799" RevisionGUID="edce7d60-b355-4992-9e5b-630d105a2810" CreationDate="2018-07-06T08:43:08.877" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="I’m currently doing Chinese winter school, and I thought I would try to translate the first line of the daodejing into Greek, as a fun exercise. Can you help correct my grammar? :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ´ο λογος τουτον μπορώ λεγεται, ´ο αιωνιος λογος μυ εστι. ´ο νομος τουτον μπορω νομεται, ´ο αιωνιος νομος  μυ εστι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Apologies, my phone Greek keyboard does not do breathings and accents.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My English translation for reference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original Chinese, if you’re curious:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 道可道非常道  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 名可名非常名&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought it would be fun to translate because λογος and 道 are both notoriously deep and complex philosophical terms that have a roughly equivalent range of meanings and popped up on opposite sides of the globe in completely different cultures at around the same time in history. The daodejing is a beautiful poem so I wanted to have a go at rendering some of it it in Greek. How did I do?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6807" RevisionGUID="36904ec7-489d-45b4-8fc6-fda584327636" CreationDate="2018-07-06T10:52:47.997" UserId="1459" Text="[Deponent verbs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deponent_verb) are those who are written (normally) in passive form but are active in meaning. [Loquere](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/loquor#Latin) is a common example in Latin. I wonder if the opposite exists, i.e. a verb which is active in form but passive in meaning. To be honest, I cannot even think of one in Spanish or English, which might indicate that this does not exist in Latin either. Any ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22635" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6807" RevisionGUID="36904ec7-489d-45b4-8fc6-fda584327636" CreationDate="2018-07-06T10:52:47.997" UserId="1459" Text="Is there something like an &quot;anti-deponent&quot; verb in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22636" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6807" RevisionGUID="36904ec7-489d-45b4-8fc6-fda584327636" CreationDate="2018-07-06T10:52:47.997" UserId="1459" Text="|verbs|deponent-verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6808" RevisionGUID="eb8f0bd0-a0dd-4fff-a2e4-9620482622fc" CreationDate="2018-07-06T11:18:47.763" UserId="1459" Text="Two options. First, there is _alumnus_. For example, [this text](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433081641171;view=1up;seq=76) describes the life of Johannes Franciscus Du De Loz, in stages, from birth to death, including being an student of theology (presumably undergraduate), then a lector, professor, rector, and so on. There are several other examples in the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second option is _scholare gradus baccalaureatus_, inspired from bottom paragraph [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044079835245;view=1up;seq=54), and turned (maybe unsuccessfully) into genitive. Notice that _scholares_ is in direct opposition to _alumni_ (notice use of _sive, e.g. in page following that linked above). This expression would apply to any who is studying for a bachelor's degree, regardless of any previous status (e.g. graduate from another degree). This is, in my view more precise, as an undergraduate would be that who is pursuing &quot;undergraduate&quot; studies, instead of &quot;graduate&quot; studies. The latter is a common terminology nowadays, in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(the second link provided are the regulations of the University of Oxford, from early 19th century. Maybe you can find a better expression there than I could.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6809" RevisionGUID="bb1d8533-b5bd-4589-86a1-8a97854a41d7" CreationDate="2018-07-06T11:27:27.343" UserId="1459" Text="Researching an answer for [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6800/what-is-an-undegraduate-student), I found a book of regulations of the University of Oxford, dating from early 19th century. The title is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot find anywhere the meaning of _Parecbolae_. L&amp;S [returns nothing](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;all_words=parecbolae&amp;phrase=&amp;any_words=&amp;exclude_words=&amp;documents=). If you google that word all you get are links to precisely that book! (which, being regulations of a university, was published many subsequent years).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no clue what it could mean. Clearly is unrelated to _[parabola](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/parabola#Latin)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/svZyu.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22639" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6809" RevisionGUID="bb1d8533-b5bd-4589-86a1-8a97854a41d7" CreationDate="2018-07-06T11:27:27.343" UserId="1459" Text="What is &quot;parecbolae&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22640" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6809" RevisionGUID="bb1d8533-b5bd-4589-86a1-8a97854a41d7" CreationDate="2018-07-06T11:27:27.343" UserId="1459" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6810" RevisionGUID="8ce658fc-ac9b-4375-bdff-7bc29fab6d23" CreationDate="2018-07-06T13:10:14.210" UserId="645" Text="I think there is a clue in the *sive* which separates the word from *excerpta*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sive* was once customarily used to mean 'or' when giving an explanatory sub-title to a more obscure name. For example, the well-known *Gradus*, popular in various editions and more or less contemporary with your Oxford University example, had the full title *Gradus ad Parnassum, sive synonymorum et epithetorum thesaurus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I deduce that *parecbolae* is just another word for *excerpta*. It would not necessarily be classical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[On a point of information, Fellows of OU had at that time to be in holy orders of the Church of England, and must therefore swear to adhere to the Thirty-Nine Articles of religion referred to.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6811" RevisionGUID="310ed724-eecf-44e7-b8cf-938ec2e72019" CreationDate="2018-07-06T14:54:06.920" UserId="30" Text="This is a word adapted (and translitterated) from Greek παρεκβολή, which can be a &quot;compilation of a set of critical remarks&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **παρεκβολή**, ἡ,   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. *digression*, lamb.Bab.8.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. *compilation of a set of critical remarks*, as those of Eust. on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homer, Pindar, and Dionysius Periegeta, cf. eund. ad D.P.426;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; παρεκβολαὶ διαφόρων γραμματικῶν, title of Sch.D.T. in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cod.BMus.Add.5118.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — [Liddell, Scott, Jones][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the word *sive* (&quot;or (also)&quot;, &quot;also called&quot;) indicates as well, it is used as a synonym of *excerptum*. The author names his work *parecbolae*, to which he adds *excerpta* as an explanation or translation for those who might not know the word *parecbola*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=lsj&amp;lang=el&amp;word=parekbolh%2F&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6812" RevisionGUID="3befd474-4217-491a-89e0-1fd64097a2ae" CreationDate="2018-07-06T15:21:55.297" UserId="79" Text="I would argue that *iac&amp;emacr;re* is of this kind.&#xD;&#xA;Morphologically it is fully active, but semantically it can be seen as a passive form of *iac&amp;#277;re*.&#xD;&#xA;[Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=jaceo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) describe it as &quot;to be thrown&quot; and hence &quot;to lie&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However, *iac&amp;emacr;re* is not syntactically fully passive:&#xD;&#xA;It is intransitive so it takes no objects, but to my knowledge it cannot take an agent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may well be more verbs like this, but the pair *iacere/iacere* is the most common one I know.&#xD;&#xA;Many verbs of the second conjugation describe a state rather than an action, which is well compatible with the *-&amp;emacr;-* working as a passive indicator here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22644" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6800" RevisionGUID="9470c08b-cfb4-4b27-8e89-6ae363003196" CreationDate="2018-07-06T15:56:58.553" UserId="235" Comment="edited title" Text="What is an undergraduate student?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4161" RevisionGUID="86c1ffcd-56d0-4a1a-a122-e0753a4ef37a" CreationDate="2018-07-07T10:55:17.657" UserId="1439" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="*Ave* meaning 'hail' **is** the imperative of *aveo*, as you mention; when you hail someone you are instructing them to fare well (normally we would say you are wishing them to fare well), in much the same way that in English we can use 'farewell' to say goodbye. 'Hail' works the same way, except that the meaning 'be healthy' is very outdated now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consequently, if addressing multiple people you would say *avete*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6809" RevisionGUID="254a6fd7-2920-468f-a022-5bc674c6be28" CreationDate="2018-07-07T14:35:49.543" UserId="2733" Comment="New Latin and Greek tags; grammar" Text="Researching an answer for [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6800/what-is-an-undegraduate-student), I found a book of regulations of the University of Oxford, dating from the early 19th century. The title is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot find the meaning of _Parecbolae_ anywhere. L&amp;S [returns nothing](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;all_words=parecbolae&amp;phrase=&amp;any_words=&amp;exclude_words=&amp;documents=). If you google that word, all you get are links to precisely that book! (which, being regulations of a university, was republished over many subsequent years).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no clue what it could mean, since clearly it's unrelated to _[parabola](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/parabola#Latin)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/svZyu.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22651" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6809" RevisionGUID="254a6fd7-2920-468f-a022-5bc674c6be28" CreationDate="2018-07-07T14:35:49.543" UserId="2733" Comment="New Latin and Greek tags; grammar" Text="|vocabulary|greek|new-latin|synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22652" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6809" RevisionGUID="254a6fd7-2920-468f-a022-5bc674c6be28" CreationDate="2018-07-07T14:35:49.543" Comment="Proposed by 2733 approved by 66, 1694 edit id of 239" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4157" RevisionGUID="f6d0ecdb-0048-4b0e-b178-f9b5ecd87e37" CreationDate="2018-07-07T14:38:24.770" UserId="2733" Comment="tags; formatting; spelling and grammar fixes" Text="_Ave_, as in _Ave Caesar_, has the meaning of &quot;hail&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, according to [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ave#Verb_2), it is also the &quot;second-person singular present imperative of _aveō_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, _[aveō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aveo#Latin)_ is a verb which means either &quot;I desire&quot;, &quot;I long for&quot;, etc. or &quot;I am well&quot; or &quot;fare well&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any historical connection between these two forms? Perhaps the &quot;hail&quot; meaning comes from some vulgar Latin form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in Spanish, _Ave Caesar_ would be _Viva Cesar_, where _viva_ comes from the Latin _vivus_, which means &quot;to live&quot; and whose vocative case is _viva_. So in Spanish it seems to be a direct connection between the expression and the verb, since _Viva Cesar_ is basically saying &quot;long life to Caesar&quot;. Hence my question about whether a similar relation exists for the Latin word _ave_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: As I am just beginning to study Latin, let me know if Wiktionary is not the best or most complete source and please suggest others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22654" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4157" RevisionGUID="f6d0ecdb-0048-4b0e-b178-f9b5ecd87e37" CreationDate="2018-07-07T14:38:24.770" UserId="2733" Comment="tags; formatting; spelling and grammar fixes" Text="|etymology|verbs|imperative|origin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22655" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4157" RevisionGUID="f6d0ecdb-0048-4b0e-b178-f9b5ecd87e37" CreationDate="2018-07-07T14:38:24.770" Comment="Proposed by 2733 approved by 66, 1694 edit id of 240" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6811" RevisionGUID="4f8aa346-b4d8-45e8-aab2-8726ee2e1366" CreationDate="2018-07-07T14:59:40.747" UserId="2733" Comment="fixing misspelling; fixing order; removing double parentheses; and adding a quick gloss of/links to the word's construction for the curious since this is already a thorough answer of sth otherwise invisible on the internet" Text="This is a word transliterated and adapted from Greek παρεκβολή (*parekbolḗ*), from [πᾰρά](http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=lsj&amp;lang=el&amp;word=para%2f&amp;filter=CUTF8) (*para-*, &quot;near&quot;, but here meaning &quot;placed together&quot;) and [ἐκβολή](http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=lsj&amp;lang=el&amp;word=e%29kbolh%2f&amp;filter=CUTF8) (*ekbolḗ*, &quot;throwing out&quot; but here meaning &quot;something tossed off&quot;), which together can be a &quot;compilation of a set of critical remarks&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **παρεκβολή**, ἡ,   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. *digression*, lamb.Bab.8.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. *compilation of a set of critical remarks*, as those of Eust. on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homer, Pindar, and Dionysius Periegeta, cf. eund. ad D.P.426;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; παρεκβολαὶ διαφόρων γραμματικῶν, title of Sch.D.T. in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cod.BMus.Add.5118.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — [Liddell, Scott, Jones][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the word *sive* (&quot;or&quot;, &quot;or also&quot;, &quot;also called&quot;) indicates as well, it is used here as a synonym of *excerpta*. The author names his work *parecbolae*, to which he adds *excerpta* as an explanation or translation for those who might not know the word *parecbola*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=lsj&amp;lang=el&amp;word=parekbolh%2F&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22657" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6811" RevisionGUID="4f8aa346-b4d8-45e8-aab2-8726ee2e1366" CreationDate="2018-07-07T14:59:40.747" Comment="Proposed by 2733 approved by 66, 30 edit id of 238" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6811" RevisionGUID="09cda5d4-29b5-492e-a0dd-7116d946d30b" CreationDate="2018-07-07T15:02:57.417" UserId="30" Comment="added 822 characters in body" Text="This is a word transliterated and adapted from Greek παρεκβολή (*parekbolḗ*), from [πᾰρά](http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=lsj&amp;lang=el&amp;word=para%2f&amp;filter=CUTF8) (*para-*, &quot;near&quot;, but here meaning &quot;placed together&quot;) and [ἐκβολή](http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=lsj&amp;lang=el&amp;word=e%29kbolh%2f&amp;filter=CUTF8) (*ekbolḗ*, &quot;throwing out&quot; but here meaning &quot;something tossed off&quot;), which together can be a &quot;compilation of a set of critical remarks&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **παρεκβολή**, ἡ,   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. *digression*, lamb.Bab.8.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. *compilation of a set of critical remarks*, as those of Eust. on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homer, Pindar, and Dionysius Periegeta, cf. eund. ad D.P.426;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; παρεκβολαὶ διαφόρων γραμματικῶν, title of Sch.D.T. in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cod.BMus.Add.5118.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — [Liddell, Scott, Jones][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the word *sive* (&quot;or&quot;, &quot;or also&quot;, &quot;also called&quot;) indicates as well, the plural *parecbolae* is used here as a synonym of *excerpta*. The author names his work *parecbolae*, to which he adds *excerpta* as an explanation or translation for those who might not know the word *parecbola*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be a fairly late adaptation, for I couldn't find any classical Latin sources. *Parécbole* is in a Portuguese dictionary: https://www.dicio.com.br/parecbole/ It's also used in a few other languages, amongst which English, but very rarely (Google [search results][2]). There is mention of a Parecbole by one Eustathius of Thessalonica, then the book from the question, and also a gloss describing the meaning of the word in general, through referring to the work by Eustathius. References to parecbolae on/from Aristotle by one Theodorus Metochita(s?) can be found as well. Then there are a few more results (in addition, no doubt, to other uses of the word outside Google's limited reach).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=lsj&amp;lang=el&amp;word=parekbolh%2F&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=%22parecbole%7Cparecboles%7Cparecbola%7Cparecbolae%22%20-excerpta&amp;nfpr=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6813" RevisionGUID="0ec8be89-cfcc-4459-8c7a-179c12351732" CreationDate="2018-07-07T16:14:10.527" UserId="406" Text="The genre of &quot;opera&quot; (as in, a particular type of theatre involving a lot of singing) post-dates the Roman Empire, and the English word for it transparently comes from the plural of *opus*. In most European languages the word has the same origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if I wanted to talk about opera in Latin, what word should I use? *Opera -ae* is the obvious, but that seems ambiguous given how common the word *opus* is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22660" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6813" RevisionGUID="0ec8be89-cfcc-4459-8c7a-179c12351732" CreationDate="2018-07-07T16:14:10.527" UserId="406" Text="What is an opera in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22661" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6813" RevisionGUID="0ec8be89-cfcc-4459-8c7a-179c12351732" CreationDate="2018-07-07T16:14:10.527" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6814" RevisionGUID="0b306ee0-27f0-4d4d-9853-4a96c3e8307c" CreationDate="2018-07-07T16:21:29.937" UserId="2734" Text="Computer tools for pronunciation annotation ([IPA][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### eSpeak&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most easy to use tool is [eSpeak][2] (and its fork [eSpeak NG][3]). It should be executed in the console:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; espeak -v la --ipa -q vocabulum&#xD;&#xA;    wɔkˈabʊlʊm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It works with many other languages too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Classical Language Toolkit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reconstruction of short and long vowels is a difficult task if they are not clearly distinguished in the printed text. In such situation, eSpeak often produces incorrect transcriptions. An attempt to solve this problem was made in the [Classical Language Toolkit][4]'s module [Macronizer][5], however it often fails too. CLTK is a programming library, not a ready to use software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://eSpeak&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://github.com/espeak-ng/espeak-ng&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://cltk.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://docs.cltk.org/en/latest/latin.html#macronizer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6815" RevisionGUID="3a6bde11-6067-4bb6-ab9f-829bddab9dc2" CreationDate="2018-07-07T16:42:04.280" UserId="79" Text="[Vicipaedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melodrama_(musica)) &amp;mdash; which is not the highest authority on Latin but a decent source of ideas &amp;mdash; gives four Latin translations:&#xD;&#xA;*Melodrama*, *opera*, *drama musicum*, and *drama melicum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one wants to be able to make a distinction between opera, melodrama, musical drama, and other possible concepts, it is safest to pick a word close enough to the Italian original.&#xD;&#xA;Choosing translations is a matter of preference.&#xD;&#xA;I give more weight to clear communication than adhering to classical style.&#xD;&#xA;I would find it confusing to use a completely different term in Latin, when other European languages use more or less the same word.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore my suggestion is to use the first declension feminine *opera* as in Italian.&#xD;&#xA;If that feels insufficiently Latinate, the next one on my list is *opus*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6813" RevisionGUID="7e11d540-3036-4534-a444-f783f1a8e82a" CreationDate="2018-07-07T16:48:58.943" UserId="79" Comment="This didn't seem like a Latin to English translation, but feel free to add the tag again (or otherwise edit) if you disagree." Text="The genre of &quot;opera&quot; (as in, a particular type of theatre involving a lot of singing) post-dates the Roman Empire, and the English word for it transparently comes from the plural of *opus*. In most European languages the word has the same origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if I wanted to talk about opera in Latin, what word should I use? *Opera -ae* is the obvious choice, but that seems ambiguous given how common the word *opus* is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22665" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6813" RevisionGUID="7e11d540-3036-4534-a444-f783f1a8e82a" CreationDate="2018-07-07T16:48:58.943" UserId="79" Comment="This didn't seem like a Latin to English translation, but feel free to add the tag again (or otherwise edit) if you disagree." Text="|vocabulary|music|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="37266f22-b20b-4a3c-bdab-97330cd645b5" CreationDate="2018-07-07T18:21:02.843" UserId="9" Comment="added another source" Text="I don't know anywhere near enough to give a complete, or even a definitely correct answer, but there seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb that is true for &quot;regular&quot; verbs. It seems the usual identity of the stems for the perfect and future participles may be coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect](https://books.google.com/books?id=NbXsjEqOHKIC&amp;pg=PA271&amp;lpg=PA271&amp;dq=latin+participle+inflection+verbal+adjectival&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=gjEokeware&amp;sig=irBQf-FsBFMu7gegdspS-80kcpM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjyi9jgyY3cAhWUHjQIHYf6DhA4ChDoAQhNMAY#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20participle%20inflection%20verbal%20adjectival&amp;f=false)&quot;, Eva-Maria Remberger writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form of the FPart [...] probably represents a derivation of a supine in the form of a locative, ending in *-tū* (Leumann et al. 1963: 342); however, later it was interpreted as being derived from the stem of the PPart (cf. Ernout 1953: §320, among others). Nevertheless, these latter assumptions are contradicted by a large number of exceptions which clearly are not derived from the stem of the PPart. The following FPart forms are all derived from the stem of the present and not the PPart: *moritūrus* (vs. *mortus*), *nāscitūrus* (vs. *nātus*), *oritūrus* (vs. ortus), pariturus (vs. *partus*) (cf. Ernout 1953); *abnuitūrus* (vs. *nūtus* 'the hint'), vincitūrus (vs. *victus*), consequitūrus (vs. *consecūtus*), *haurītūrus* (vs. *haustus*), *ignoscītūrus* (vs. *ignōtus*), *crēscitūrus* (vs. *crētus*), *gauditūrus* (vs. *gāvīsus*), *iuvatūrus* (vs. *iūtus*); Moreover, there are verbal paradigms which have a FPart form without displaying a PPart form, at least in Latin, like *fugitūrus, futūrus* (cf. Leumann  et al. 1963:342).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* edited by Sascha Gaglia and  Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false)* (1903) also gives some examples of exceptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**182. The Future Active Participle.** This is formed with the suffix *-tūro-,* and is declined like an Adjective of the First and Second Declensions. As regards the form of the stem to which the suffix is added, it usually follows the formation of the Perfect Passive Participle; e.g. **amātūrus,** like **amātus**. But there are occasional variations, as :&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **moritūrus** beside **mortuus**, from **morior**, *die*, **morī**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **oritūrus** &quot; **ortuus**, &quot; **orior**, *arise*, **orīrī**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **paritūrus** &quot; **partus**, &quot; **pario**, *bring forth*, **parere**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **ruitūrus** &quot; **-rutus**, &quot; **ruo**, *tumble down*, **ruere**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.* (On the other hand, I have found a few sources that indicate that &quot;partūrus&quot; was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. Similarly, the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples&#xD;&#xA; [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9)  mention *partus* vs. *părĭtūrus* as well as one other possible example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- stō: stătus vs. stātūrus (Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found some lists of (possible) exceptions in some books, such as *[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and],* by J.R. (1705) and *[A Latin grammar][Leonard],* by J Russell Leonard. (I removed the examples with *-uiturus,* since you already mentioned them in the question, as well as *moriturus* and *oriturus,* which I mentioned earlier in this answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nāscĭtūrus** beside **nātus** from **nāscor** (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **nōscĭtūrus** beside **nōtus** from **nōsco** (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **sŏnātūrus** beside **sŏnĭtus** from **[sŏno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsono)** (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **jŭvātūrus** beside **jūtum** from **[jŭvo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Djuvo)** (Leonard, p. 51); however, [Peter Bullions](https://books.google.com/books?id=cxoPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=juvaturus#v=onepage&amp;q=juvaturus&amp;f=false) (1867) and [Albert Harkness](https://books.google.com/books?id=n4sAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=juvaturus) (1867) say that in compounds, *jūtūrus* is also used &#xD;&#xA;- **sĕcātūrus** beside **sectum** from **[sĕco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dseco)** (Leonard, p. 51); however, Bede's *[De Orthographia][Bede]* seems to say &quot;secturus, non secaturus&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Johnson (1718) has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples, like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adduco: adduciturus *instead of* adducturus (once, in Plautus)&#xD;&#xA;- frico: fricaturus *instead of* fricturus ([Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/frico#Latin) says *fricatum* is a possible supine form, but *frictum* is more common)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leonard]: &#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=EZACAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=moriturus+oriturus+pariturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-bBNdzFRHw&amp;sig=wgji1qbBOqFDyxCBhaoAiTDEE9s&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilhPa8mIXbAhVJm-AKHfWKA94Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moriturus%20oriturus%20pariturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bede]: https://books.google.com/books?id=tOQHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=%22secaturus%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22secaturus%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6817" RevisionGUID="6a34fc69-a863-49fc-8e9f-ec2745afdddb" CreationDate="2018-07-07T18:30:14.313" UserId="9" Text="Although I didn't find any tests of the kind I was looking for, I did come across some information about words that apparently inflect differently depending on whether they are used as adjectives or participles. Bennett's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=pQD1AQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;lpg=PA39&amp;dq=%22vetera%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22vetera%22&amp;f=false)* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Participles in *-ans* and *-ens* follow the declension of **ĭ**-stems. But they do not have **-ī** in the Ablative, except when employed as adjectives; when used as participles or as substantives, they have **-e**; as--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; **ā sapientī virō,** *by a wise man ;* but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt; **ā sapiente,** *by a philosopher*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt; **Tarquiniō rēgnante,** *under the reign of Tarquin*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;Adjectives of the Third Declension&quot;, §70 &quot;Adjectives of One Termination&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6469" RevisionGUID="18452887-7442-4c75-b7db-deb14a1e8741" CreationDate="2018-07-07T20:35:46.793" UserId="79" Comment="added 200 characters in body" Text="The verb *mori* (&quot;to die&quot;) has the unusual past participle *mortuus* (&quot;dead&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;The stem of the participle is *mortu-*, the only example of a past participle stem ending in a vowel I can think of.&#xD;&#xA;(If my memory fails, please let me know!)&#xD;&#xA;I would instead expect *mortus* or perhaps *moritus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future participle is *moriturus*.&#xD;&#xA;This would give a little discrepancy between *mortus* (from which one might expect *morturus*) and the future participle, but this is not unique.&#xD;&#xA;While usually the future participle comes directly from the past one by adding *-ur-*, there are examples of similar behaviour, like *ortus* and *oriturus*.&#xD;&#xA;See [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6442/79) for discrepancies between past and future participles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I never understood why *mortuus* has two Us instead of being simply *mortus*.&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone explain how this form came about?&#xD;&#xA;Was this participle always like this before the classical times?&#xD;&#xA;Are there other similar past participles in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a [separate question about the pronunciation of *mortuus*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6475/79), and all evidence points towards it being trisyllabic.&#xD;&#xA;Both Us are therefore vowels." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22670" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="919" RevisionGUID="3efdb38a-9c9c-40f5-a8cf-4fa3036ba559" CreationDate="2018-07-07T20:38:18.490" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-identification|translation-explanation|cicero|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="920" RevisionGUID="c9e3405d-1ce2-4e26-a2ce-9035032c3b1d" CreationDate="2018-07-07T20:40:49.340" UserId="79" Comment="added 304 characters in body" Text="The verb [*perpeti*](http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1011952) means roughly &quot;to endure patiently&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;With the object *omnia* this seems to become &quot;to endure anything patiently&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin phrase is constructed with *accusativus cum infinitivo*, so a natural English translation would indeed be &quot;patiently enduring any inconvenience&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You seem to have read *perpeti* as the ablative of *perpes*.&#xD;&#xA;There does not seem to be a reasonable meaning with that reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would consider *ipsa* to modify *cognitione et scientia* rather than *omnia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As TKR remarked in a comment, *omnia perpeti* looks like a calque of the common Greek phrase *hotioun pathein*, meaning basically the same (&quot;to endure anything at all&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6818" RevisionGUID="1d978636-4453-4e54-bb87-fa7b7984f418" CreationDate="2018-07-07T22:42:55.123" UserId="1725" Text="This depends upon the context of how you use &quot;mechanical&quot; as the descriptor. Would you be using it in the literal sense to actual machinery? Or, to something that is *machine-like*? If the prior, I would suggest a form of &quot;apparare&quot;. If the latter, *automatos* with a different suffix application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22673" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6804" RevisionGUID="33da1efe-2933-48a0-bea3-e78841098c89" CreationDate="2018-07-07T23:13:06.103" UserId="235" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|word-comparison|proto-indo-european|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6819" RevisionGUID="c87c050e-f048-4d87-8938-ea1e6dfadc8e" CreationDate="2018-07-08T05:27:58.320" UserId="2738" Text="I was hoping someone with more experience in Latin could help me confirm that this translates right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22675" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6819" RevisionGUID="c87c050e-f048-4d87-8938-ea1e6dfadc8e" CreationDate="2018-07-08T05:27:58.320" UserId="2738" Text="&quot;Ego libratum. Ego sum me. Bonum est aliquid.&quot; Does this translate properly to &quot;I am balanced. I am myself. Everything is good.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22676" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6819" RevisionGUID="c87c050e-f048-4d87-8938-ea1e6dfadc8e" CreationDate="2018-07-08T05:27:58.320" UserId="2738" Text="|syntax|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6820" RevisionGUID="93929c06-0a45-4a47-a631-8b2cdc5b6d59" CreationDate="2018-07-08T06:23:18.717" UserId="2738" Text="I was wondering if this translates well. If it does not translate well to mean that phrase, I would appreciate if you  could suggest a way to better phrase it in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22678" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6820" RevisionGUID="93929c06-0a45-4a47-a631-8b2cdc5b6d59" CreationDate="2018-07-08T06:23:18.717" UserId="2738" Text="&quot;Alligatus ego vincula vitae&quot; does it translate to &quot;I am bound by the chains of life.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22679" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6820" RevisionGUID="93929c06-0a45-4a47-a631-8b2cdc5b6d59" CreationDate="2018-07-08T06:23:18.717" UserId="2738" Text="|syntax|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6821" RevisionGUID="ca3b3fec-a643-4696-b1ba-8618e26d2121" CreationDate="2018-07-08T06:50:08.363" UserId="172" Text="Should be *vinculis*, the ablative of instrument. Your choice of words is very good, I like the alliteration, and *alligo* and *vinculis* fit together very well. There is a word for chained slaves, *alligati*, “the bound ones” (I believe, attested in pl. only).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking of the semantics, you are placing the emphasis on the person who speaks the phrase. “As for me, I am bound *etc.*” If you do not want to emphasize the speaker, you may consider just *sum* in place of *ego*, but metrically *sum* sounds not as good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="f797c925-525d-4aa4-8e84-1a28455942a5" CreationDate="2018-07-08T06:55:26.687" UserId="2733" Text="Well, this may obviously be outdated, but Gordon M. Messing banged out a 3-page treatment of &quot;The Etymology of Lat. *Mentula*&quot; for the Oct. 1956 *Classical Philology* (Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 247&amp;ndash;249).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His review of the scholarship to that point was&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lat. *mentula* 'membrum virile' has never been satisfactorily etymologized**. Of the various suggestions made in the past none has been endorsed wholeheartedly by the etymological dictionaries of Walde-Hofmann and Ernout-Meillet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Those suggestions were&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Zeuss's coupling it to the roots of *eminere*, *mentum*, and *mons*** (implying a sense of &quot;arising&quot; or &quot;projection&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;* **&quot;Occasional&quot; guesses of a common origin with Sanskrit [मथ्](http://sanskritdictionary.com/math/168598/1)** (*math*), emphatic मन्थ् (*manth*), a term for &quot;spinning rapidly&quot; that got associated with the production of fire from sticks and thus the use of friction on the human body to produce offspring; and&#xD;&#xA;* **P. Kretschmer's analysis of *mentula* as a diminutive of *menta*** (&quot;mint&quot;), given a passage in Aristophanes's *Lysistrata* that supposedly uses [βληχώ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*b%3Aentry+group%3D24%3Aentry%3Dblh%2Fxwn) (&quot;pennyroyal&quot;, a member of the mint family) for shmekls and occasional references to mint's use as an aphrodisiac.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against these, Ernout/Meillet finds Zeuss's derivation &quot;unconvincing&quot;; P. Kretschmer found it &quot;unobjectionable&quot; but insufficiently &quot;expressive&quot; to account for the term's popularity; and Messing concurs with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing calls the supposed relation with Sanskrit &quot;not improbable&quot; but hard to justify owing to &quot;phonetic difficulties&quot; and the lack of other close cognates in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walde/Hofmann calls Kretschmer's derivation &quot;almost acceptable&quot; and Messing finds it &quot;ingenious&quot; before going on to note its &quot;faulty reasoning&quot;. Closer examination of the passage in Aristophanes causes him to take the pennyroyal as the pubic hair of the Thebeian plain, not the schlongs of the Thebeian women's lovers. He offers that Kretschmer's other references to flowery cunts similarly derive from analogy to pubic hair rather than resemblance to women's anatomy. He ends by questioning mint's supposed status as an aphrodisiac as reliant on cherry-picked examples, given its usual absence from ancient discussion of such medicines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing's own offering is based on the Grecian example provided by E. Benveniste's &quot;Formes et Sens de Μνάομαι&quot; in *Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung* (1954, pp. 13&amp;ndash;18). [Μνάομαι](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CE%BD%CE%AC%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9) had previously been thought to consist of two homophones, one meaning &quot;remember&quot; or &quot;mention&quot; and the other meaning &quot;woo&quot; or &quot;court&quot;. Benveniste established that the &quot;second word&quot; had actually arisen as a special figurative use of the primary sense. During that discussion, he noted how legal Latin was forced to use *mentionem facere* (&quot;to make mention&quot; meaning &quot;to propose marriage&quot;) because a different derivation to *mentior* (&quot;to think up&quot; or &quot;lie&quot;) disallowed Romans from turning *mentio* into a demonstrative verb. Latin similarly had to use an entirely different root (*poscere*, &quot;to ask&quot;) for its word for &quot;suitor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing notes that Romance languages suggest an unattested low Latin &amp;ast;*mentare* (&quot;to mention&quot; or &quot;to propose&quot;), which would have permitted &amp;ast;*mentulus* (&quot;dealing with proposals&quot;). This would have then leant itself by the late Republican period to dirty jokes involving &quot;wooing power&quot; which explains why *mentula* isn't attested in early Latin and **is** first attested in Catullus, who preferred amusing and racy slang to straightforward vocab. **He therefore proposes that the obscene humor the Romans found in *mentula* derive from some connection with the idea of the penis acting as the &quot;suitor&quot;, &quot;wooer&quot;, &quot;courter&quot; &amp;c. of one's beloved**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Naturally, I should not dare insist on all the details of the etymology just proposed, for they are pure hypothesis. Nevertheless, I think that at least the comparison of *mentula*, *sc.* 'the suitor, the wooer,' with *mentionem facere* and &amp;ast;*mentare* is both reasonable and true to the obscenely humorous nuance which the ancients sensed in this term." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="447adfb5-5f0a-48b7-91f2-6bed466ea70b" CreationDate="2018-07-08T07:02:19.787" UserId="2733" Comment="note" Text="Well, this may obviously be outdated, but Gordon M. Messing banged out a 3-page treatment of &quot;The Etymology of Lat. *Mentula*&quot; for the Oct. 1956 *Classical Philology* (Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 247&amp;ndash;249).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His review of the scholarship to that point was&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lat. *mentula* 'membrum virile' has never been satisfactorily etymologized**. Of the various suggestions made in the past none has been endorsed wholeheartedly by the etymological dictionaries of Walde-Hofmann and Ernout-Meillet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Those suggestions were&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Zeuss's coupling it to the roots of *eminere*, *mentum*, and *mons*** (implying a sense of &quot;arising&quot; or &quot;projection&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;* **&quot;Occasional&quot; guesses of a common origin with Sanskrit [मथ्](http://sanskritdictionary.com/math/168598/1)** (*math*), emphatic मन्थ् (*manth*), a term for &quot;spinning rapidly&quot; that got associated with the production of fire from sticks and thus the use of friction on the human body to produce offspring; and&#xD;&#xA;* **P. Kretschmer's analysis of *mentula* as a diminutive of *menta*** (&quot;mint&quot;), given a passage in Aristophanes's *Lysistrata* that supposedly uses [βληχώ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*b%3Aentry+group%3D24%3Aentry%3Dblh%2Fxwn) (&quot;pennyroyal&quot;, a member of the mint family) for shmekls and occasional references to mint's use as an aphrodisiac.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against these, Ernout/Meillet finds Zeuss's derivation &quot;unconvincing&quot;; P. Kretschmer found it &quot;unobjectionable&quot; but insufficiently &quot;expressive&quot; to account for the term's popularity; and Messing concurs with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing calls the supposed relation with Sanskrit &quot;not improbable&quot; but hard to justify owing to &quot;phonetic difficulties&quot; and the lack of other close cognates in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walde/Hofmann calls Kretschmer's derivation &quot;almost acceptable&quot; and Messing finds it &quot;ingenious&quot; before going on to note its &quot;faulty reasoning&quot;. Closer examination of the passage in Aristophanes causes him to take the pennyroyal as the pubic hair of the Thebeian plain, not the schlongs of the Thebeian women's lovers. He offers that Kretschmer's other references to flowery cunts similarly derive from analogy to pubic hair rather than resemblance to women's anatomy. He ends by questioning mint's supposed status as an aphrodisiac as reliant on cherry-picked examples, given its usual absence from ancient discussion of such medicines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing's own offering is based on the Grecian example provided by E. Benveniste's &quot;Formes et Sens de Μνάομαι&quot; in *Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung* (1954, pp. 13&amp;ndash;18). [Μνάομαι](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CE%BD%CE%AC%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9) had previously been thought to consist of two homophones, one meaning &quot;remember&quot; or &quot;mention&quot; and the other meaning &quot;woo&quot; or &quot;court&quot;. Benveniste established that the &quot;second word&quot; had actually arisen as a special figurative use of the primary sense. During that discussion, he noted how legal Latin was forced to use *mentionem facere* (&quot;to make mention&quot; meaning &quot;to propose marriage&quot;) because a different derivation to *mentior* (&quot;to think up&quot; or &quot;lie&quot;) disallowed Romans from turning *mentio* into a demonstrative verb. Latin similarly had to use an entirely different root (*poscere*, &quot;to ask&quot;) for its word for &quot;suitor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing notes that Romance languages suggest an unattested low Latin &amp;ast;*mentare* (&quot;to mention&quot; or &quot;to propose&quot;), which would have permitted &amp;ast;*mentulus* (&quot;dealing with proposals&quot;). This would have then leant itself by the late Republican period to dirty jokes involving &quot;wooing power&quot; which explains why *mentula* isn't attested in early Latin and **is** first attested in Catullus, who preferred amusing and racy slang to straightforward vocab. **He therefore proposes that *mentula* derives from some connection with the idea of the penis acting as the &quot;suitor&quot;, &quot;wooer&quot;, &quot;courter&quot; &amp;c. of one's beloved**. [This is connected through *mentio* with the root of *mens*, but isn't a diminutive, which doesn't really work morphologically anyway. &amp;mdash; *Ed.*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Naturally, I should not dare insist on all the details of the etymology just proposed, for they are pure hypothesis. Nevertheless, I think that at least the comparison of *mentula*, *sc.* 'the suitor, the wooer,' with *mentionem facere* and &amp;ast;*mentare* is both reasonable and true to the obscenely humorous nuance which the ancients sensed in this term." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="72301775-bb42-47e3-a3b7-667c540352c7" CreationDate="2018-07-08T07:29:17.610" UserId="2733" Comment="added 944 characters in body" Text="Well, this may obviously be outdated, but Gordon M. Messing banged out a 3-page treatment of &quot;The Etymology of Lat. *Mentula*&quot; for the Oct. 1956 *Classical Philology* (Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 247&amp;ndash;249).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His review of the scholarship to that point was&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lat. *mentula* 'membrum virile' has never been satisfactorily etymologized**. Of the various suggestions made in the past none has been endorsed wholeheartedly by the etymological dictionaries of Walde-Hofmann and Ernout-Meillet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Those suggestions were&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Zeuss's coupling it to the roots of *eminere*, *mentum*, and *mons*** (implying a sense of &quot;arising&quot; or &quot;projection&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;* **&quot;Occasional&quot; guesses of a common origin with Sanskrit [मथ्](http://sanskritdictionary.com/math/168598/1)** (*math*), emphatic मन्थ् (*manth*), a term for &quot;spinning rapidly&quot; that got associated with the production of fire from sticks and thus the use of friction on the human body to produce offspring; and&#xD;&#xA;* **P. Kretschmer's analysis of *mentula* as a diminutive of *menta*** (&quot;mint&quot;), given a passage in Aristophanes's *Lysistrata* that supposedly uses [βληχώ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*b%3Aentry+group%3D24%3Aentry%3Dblh%2Fxwn) (&quot;pennyroyal&quot;, a member of the mint family) for shmekls and occasional references to mint's use as an aphrodisiac.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against these, Ernout/Meillet finds Zeuss's derivation &quot;unconvincing&quot;; P. Kretschmer found it &quot;unobjectionable&quot; but insufficiently &quot;expressive&quot; to account for the term's popularity; and Messing concurs with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing calls the supposed relation with Sanskrit &quot;not improbable&quot; but hard to justify owing to &quot;phonetic difficulties&quot; and the lack of other close cognates in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walde/Hofmann calls Kretschmer's derivation &quot;almost acceptable&quot; and Messing finds it &quot;ingenious&quot; before going on to note its &quot;faulty reasoning&quot;. Closer examination of the passage in Aristophanes causes him to take the pennyroyal as the pubic hair of the Thebeian plain, not the schlongs of the Thebeian women's lovers. He offers that Kretschmer's other references to flowery cunts similarly derive from analogy to pubic hair rather than resemblance to women's anatomy. He ends by questioning mint's supposed status as an aphrodisiac as reliant on cherry-picked examples, given its usual absence from ancient discussion of such medicines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing's own offering is based on the Grecian example provided by E. Benveniste's &quot;Formes et Sens de Μνάομαι&quot; in *Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung* (1954, pp. 13&amp;ndash;18). [Μνάομαι](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CE%BD%CE%AC%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9) had previously been thought to consist of two homophones, one meaning &quot;remember&quot; or &quot;mention&quot; and the other meaning &quot;woo&quot; or &quot;court&quot;. Benveniste established that the &quot;second word&quot; had actually arisen as a special figurative use of the primary sense. During that discussion, he noted how legal Latin was forced to use *mentionem facere* (&quot;to make mention&quot; meaning &quot;to propose marriage&quot;) because a different derivation to *mentior* (&quot;to think up&quot; or &quot;lie&quot;) disallowed Romans from turning *mentio* into a demonstrative verb. Latin similarly had to use an entirely different root (*poscere*, &quot;to ask&quot;) for its word for &quot;suitor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing notes that Romance languages suggest an unattested low Latin &amp;ast;*mentare* (&quot;to mention&quot; or &quot;to propose&quot;), which would have permitted &amp;ast;*mentulus* (&quot;dealing with proposals&quot;). This would have then leant itself by the late Republican period to dirty jokes involving &quot;wooing power&quot; which explains why *mentula* isn't attested in early Latin and **is** first attested in Catullus, who preferred amusing and racy slang to straightforward vocab. **He therefore proposes that *mentula* derives from some connection with the idea of the penis acting as the &quot;suitor&quot;, &quot;wooer&quot;, &quot;courter&quot; &amp;c. of one's beloved**. [This is connected through *mentio* with the root of *mens*, but isn't a diminutive, which doesn't really work morphologically anyway. &amp;mdash; *Ed.*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Naturally, I should not dare insist on all the details of the etymology just proposed, for they are pure hypothesis. Nevertheless, I think that at least the comparison of *mentula*, *sc.* 'the suitor, the wooer,' with *mentionem facere* and &amp;ast;*mentare* is both reasonable and true to the obscenely humorous nuance which the ancients sensed in this term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against this, the chapter on [&quot;*Mentula* and its Synonyms&quot;](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;pg=PA9) in **J.N. Adams's 1982 *[Latin Sexual Vocabulary](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;printsec=frontcover )* repeats Martial's appeal to tradition** that *mentula* was in use at the time of King Numa and describes it as &quot;the basic obscenity for the male organ&quot;, **&quot;certainly... not felt by Cicero to be metaphorical&quot; in any way**. To Cicero, it was &quot;that word&quot; and not dignified to write directly, even in his discussion of the lack of a diminutive for *menta*. In Adams's opinion, it's &quot;scarcely conceivable that the spearmint stalk was so suggestive to so many people that the metaphor could have caught on in the whole community&quot;. He notes Pokorny offers no etymology; refers to Ernout/Meillet's coverage of the 'prominent' and Sanskrit etymologies without noting how dismissive they are of them; and refers to Chantraine for coverage of a possible connection with *mens* (Vol. III, p. 693), without discussion of its likelihood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6823" RevisionGUID="21e980b3-0ee9-4aa6-90b7-1a6c3cbf5280" CreationDate="2018-07-08T08:15:33.500" UserId="172" Text="It depends on whom you are talking to. Both *opera* f. sg. and *opus* in the musical sense are obviously transparent to anyone born after 1700, and I'd go with it in a modern text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are explaining opera to a Roman, though, consider how much music and singing the classical theater involved already. To them, the opera would  certainly be a kind of *drama*, so your best bet would be to emphasize the properties that distinguish it from the “default,” central definition of the concept. I can think of two major ones: the music as a major feature, and the singing. Both were already prominent in the classical theater (I am reminded of the Tacitus' account of Nero playing lyre and singing; it made me chuckle), so it perhaps should not take a massive verbiage to amplify one or both. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the emphasis on music, Joonas' __*melicum*__ sounds good to me. I cannot, however, think of a single classical word that would oppose singing to reciting, e. g. *carmen* is both song and a poem, and *cano* is both the singing and the reciting; it seems to me that these concepts were not separate in the Roman mind. Cic. and later Plin. used *cum symphonia canere* to describe singing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most concise way to convey both emphases that I can come up with is the adj./p.p. *modulatum*, which, in general, implies adding rhythm to an artistic performance, thus __*drama modulatum*__ for “opera”. (Note that *modulatum* has a side effect that it also might imply dancing, which was also present in the dramatic κατάβασις, but this would not probably disqualify it.) All things considered, I imagine that a concise introduction to the concept of modern opera along the lines of  *drama musicā symphoniaque modulatum quid nostri operam vocat* would paint a close enough picture to a Roman of the classical times." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="3933877e-cb21-432c-8d55-d0aed798840c" CreationDate="2018-07-08T08:19:33.073" UserId="2733" Comment="links" Text="Well, this may obviously be outdated, but [G.M. Messing](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27887651) banged out a 3-page treatment of &quot;The Etymology of Lat. *Mentula*&quot; for the Oct. 1956 *Classical Philology* (Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 247&amp;ndash;249).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His review of the scholarship to that point was&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lat. *mentula* 'membrum virile' has never been satisfactorily etymologized**. Of the various suggestions made in the past none has been endorsed wholeheartedly by the etymological dictionaries of [Walde](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q94213)-[Hofmann](http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n88617934/) and [Ernout](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q739986)-[Meillet](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q347001).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Those suggestions were&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Zeuss](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q76536)'s coupling it to the roots of *eminere*, *mentum*, and *mons*** (implying a sense of &quot;arising&quot; or &quot;projection&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;* **&quot;Occasional&quot; guesses of a common origin with Sanskrit [मथ्](http://sanskritdictionary.com/math/168598/1)** (*math*), emphatic मन्थ् (*manth*), a term for &quot;spinning rapidly&quot; that got associated with the production of fire from sticks and thus the use of friction on the human body to produce offspring; and&#xD;&#xA;* **[Kretschmer](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q64431)'s analysis of *mentula* as a diminutive of *menta*** (&quot;mint&quot;), given a passage in Aristophanes's *Lysistrata* that supposedly uses [βληχώ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*b%3Aentry+group%3D24%3Aentry%3Dblh%2Fxwn) (&quot;pennyroyal&quot;, a member of the mint family) for shmekls and occasional references to mint's use as an aphrodisiac.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against these, Ernout/Meillet finds Zeuss's derivation &quot;unconvincing&quot;; Kretschmer found it &quot;unobjectionable&quot; but insufficiently &quot;expressive&quot; to account for the term's popularity; and Messing concurs with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing calls the supposed relation with Sanskrit &quot;not improbable&quot; but hard to justify owing to &quot;phonetic difficulties&quot; and the lack of other close cognates in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walde/Hofmann calls Kretschmer's derivation &quot;almost acceptable&quot; and Messing finds it &quot;ingenious&quot; before going on to note its &quot;faulty reasoning&quot;. Closer examination of the passage in Aristophanes causes him to take the pennyroyal as the pubic hair of the Thebeian plain, not the schlongs of the Thebeian women's lovers. He offers that Kretschmer's other references to flowery cunts similarly derive from analogy to pubic hair rather than resemblance to women's anatomy. He ends by questioning mint's supposed status as an aphrodisiac as reliant on cherry-picked examples, given its usual absence from ancient discussion of such medicines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing's own offering is based on the Grecian example provided by [E. Benveniste](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q274931)'s &quot;Formes et Sens de Μνάομαι&quot; in [*Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung*](https://books.google.com/books?id=RmpJAAAAYAAJ) (1954, pp. 13&amp;ndash;18). [Μνάομαι](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CE%BD%CE%AC%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9) had previously been thought to consist of two homophones, one meaning &quot;remember&quot; or &quot;mention&quot; and the other meaning &quot;woo&quot; or &quot;court&quot;. Benveniste established that the &quot;second word&quot; had actually arisen as a special figurative use of the primary sense. During that discussion, he noted how legal Latin was forced to use *mentionem facere* (&quot;to make mention&quot; meaning &quot;to propose marriage&quot;) because a different derivation to *mentior* (&quot;to think up&quot; or &quot;lie&quot;) disallowed Romans from turning *mentio* into a demonstrative verb. Latin similarly had to use an entirely different root (*poscere*, &quot;to ask&quot;) for its word for &quot;suitor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing notes that Romance languages suggest an unattested low Latin &amp;ast;*mentare* (&quot;to mention&quot; or &quot;to propose&quot;), which would have permitted &amp;ast;*mentulus* (&quot;dealing with proposals&quot;). This would have then leant itself by the late Republican period to dirty jokes involving &quot;wooing power&quot; which explains why *mentula* isn't attested in early Latin and **is** first attested in Catullus, who preferred amusing and racy slang to straightforward vocab. **He therefore proposes that *mentula* derives from some connection with the idea of the penis acting as the &quot;suitor&quot;, &quot;wooer&quot;, &quot;courter&quot; &amp;c. of one's beloved**. This is connected through *mentio* with the root of *mens*, but isn't a diminutive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Naturally, I should not dare insist on all the details of the etymology just proposed, for they are pure hypothesis. Nevertheless, I think that at least the comparison of *mentula*, *sc.* 'the suitor, the wooer,' with *mentionem facere* and &amp;ast;*mentare* is both reasonable and true to the obscenely humorous nuance which the ancients sensed in this term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against this, the chapter on [&quot;*Mentula* and its Synonyms&quot;](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;pg=PA9) in **[J.N. Adams](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Noel_Adams)'s 1982 *[Latin Sexual Vocabulary](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;printsec=frontcover )* repeats Martial's appeal to tradition** that *mentula* was in use at the time of King Numa and describes it as &quot;the basic obscenity for the male organ&quot;, **&quot;certainly... not felt by Cicero to be metaphorical&quot; in any way**. To Cicero, it was &quot;that word&quot; and not dignified to write directly, even in his discussion of the lack of a diminutive for *menta*. In Adams's opinion, it's &quot;scarcely conceivable that the spearmint stalk was so suggestive to so many people that the metaphor could have caught on in the whole community&quot;. He notes [Pokorny](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q215638) offers no etymology; refers to Ernout/Meillet's coverage of the 'prominent' and Sanskrit etymologies without noting how dismissive they are of them; and refers to [Chantraine](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2093337) for coverage of a possible connection with *mens* (Vol. III, p. 693), without discussion of its likelihood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6823" RevisionGUID="cd893ca2-267c-4c9f-9abd-915b61501c3a" CreationDate="2018-07-08T08:31:39.560" UserId="172" Comment="Check a few typos" Text="It depends on whom you are talking to. Both *opera* f. sg. and *opus* in the musical sense are obviously transparent to anyone born after 1700, and I'd go with it in a modern text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are explaining opera to a Roman, though, consider how much music and singing the classical theater involved already. To them, the opera would  certainly be a kind of *drama*, so your best bet would be to emphasize the properties that distinguish it from the “default,” central definition of the concept. I can think of two major ones: music as a significant feature, and the singing. Both were already prominent in the classical theater (I am reminded of the Tacitus' account of Nero playing lyre and singing; it made me chuckle), so it perhaps should not take a massive verbiage to amplify one or both. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the emphasis on music, Joonas' __*melicum*__ sounds good to me. I cannot, however, think of a single classical word that would oppose singing to reciting, e. g. *carmen* is both a song and a poem, and *cano* is both sing and recite; it seems to me that these concepts were not separate in the Roman mind. Cic. and later Plin. used *cum symphonia canere* to describe singing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most concise way to convey both emphases that I can think of is the adj./p.p. *modulatum*, which, in general, implies adding rhythm to an artistic performance, thus __*drama modulatum*__ for “opera”. (Note that *modulatum* has a side effect that it also might imply dancing, which was also present in the dramatic κατάβασις, but this would not probably disqualify it.) All things considered, I imagine that a concise introduction to the concept of modern opera along the lines of *drama musicā symphoniaque modulatum quid nostri operam vocat* would paint a close enough picture to a Roman of the classical times." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22687" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6819" RevisionGUID="1cf038d6-2c33-4087-ae44-45d62b2f497e" CreationDate="2018-07-08T09:16:47.483" UserId="2738" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2738,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Styx&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22688" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="6819" RevisionGUID="477ef3fc-1dd9-41c8-8c3f-57534479e58e" CreationDate="2018-07-08T09:16:55.787" UserId="2738" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2738,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Styx&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6819" RevisionGUID="3a664526-a923-440f-bab5-313626de4a6a" CreationDate="2018-07-08T09:21:45.047" UserId="2738" Comment="added 261 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I was hoping someone with more experience in Latin could help me confirm whether this translation is correct or not. If not helping to correct it would be appreciated. Also the use of Ego sum even though not necessary on all parts was intentional for a repetitious effect. If you have a reason you believe I shouldn't phrase it that way I would like to hear it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22690" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6819" RevisionGUID="3a664526-a923-440f-bab5-313626de4a6a" CreationDate="2018-07-08T09:21:45.047" UserId="2738" Comment="added 261 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&quot;Ego sum dividitur. Ego sum libratum. Ego sum unum.&quot; Does this translate properly to &quot;I am divided. I am balanced. I am one.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22691" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6819" RevisionGUID="3a664526-a923-440f-bab5-313626de4a6a" CreationDate="2018-07-08T09:21:45.047" UserId="2738" Comment="added 261 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|syntax|word-choice|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="988689ed-1091-478a-8a41-a3c31b1c3a47" CreationDate="2018-07-08T09:23:25.147" UserId="2733" Comment="note" Text="Well, this may obviously be outdated, but [G.M. Messing](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27887651) banged out a 3-page treatment of &quot;The Etymology of Lat. *Mentula*&quot; for the Oct. 1956 *Classical Philology* (Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 247&amp;ndash;249).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His review of the scholarship to that point was&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lat. *mentula* 'membrum virile' has never been satisfactorily etymologized**. Of the various suggestions made in the past none has been endorsed wholeheartedly by the etymological dictionaries of [Walde](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q94213)-[Hofmann](http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n88617934/) and [Ernout](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q739986)-[Meillet](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q347001).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Those suggestions were&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Zeuss](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q76536)'s coupling it to the roots of *eminere*, *mentum*, and *mons*** (implying a sense of &quot;arising&quot; or &quot;projection&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;* **&quot;Occasional&quot; guesses of a common origin with Sanskrit [मथ्](http://sanskritdictionary.com/math/168598/1)** (*math*), emphatic मन्थ् (*manth*), a term for &quot;spinning rapidly&quot; that got associated with the production of fire from sticks and thus the use of friction on the human body to produce offspring; and&#xD;&#xA;* **[Kretschmer](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q64431)'s analysis of *mentula* as a diminutive of *menta*** (&quot;mint&quot;), given a passage in Aristophanes's *Lysistrata* that supposedly uses [βληχώ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*b%3Aentry+group%3D24%3Aentry%3Dblh%2Fxwn) (&quot;pennyroyal&quot;, a member of the mint family) for shmekls and occasional references to mint's use as an aphrodisiac.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against these, Ernout/Meillet finds Zeuss's derivation &quot;unconvincing&quot;; Kretschmer found it &quot;unobjectionable&quot; but insufficiently &quot;expressive&quot; to account for the term's popularity; and Messing concurs with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing calls the supposed relation with Sanskrit &quot;not improbable&quot; but hard to justify owing to &quot;phonetic difficulties&quot; and the lack of other close cognates in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walde/Hofmann calls Kretschmer's derivation &quot;almost acceptable&quot; and Messing finds it &quot;ingenious&quot; before going on to note its &quot;faulty reasoning&quot;. Closer examination of the passage in Aristophanes causes him to take the pennyroyal as the pubic hair of the Thebeian plain, not the schlongs of the Thebeian women's lovers. He offers that Kretschmer's other references to flowery cunts similarly derive from analogy to pubic hair rather than resemblance to women's anatomy. He ends by questioning mint's supposed status as an aphrodisiac as reliant on cherry-picked examples, given its usual absence from ancient discussion of such medicines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing's own offering is based on the Grecian example provided by [E. Benveniste](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q274931)'s &quot;Formes et Sens de Μνάομαι&quot; in [*Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung*](https://books.google.com/books?id=RmpJAAAAYAAJ) (1954, pp. 13&amp;ndash;18). [Μνάομαι](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CE%BD%CE%AC%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9) had previously been thought to consist of two homophones, one meaning &quot;remember&quot; or &quot;mention&quot; and the other meaning &quot;woo&quot; or &quot;court&quot;. Benveniste established that the &quot;second word&quot; had actually arisen as a special figurative use of the primary sense. During that discussion, he noted how legal Latin was forced to use *mentionem facere* (&quot;to make mention&quot; meaning &quot;to propose marriage&quot;) because a different derivation to *mentior* (&quot;to think up&quot; or &quot;lie&quot;) disallowed Romans from turning *mentio* into a demonstrative verb. Latin similarly had to use an entirely different root (*poscere*, &quot;to ask&quot;) for its word for &quot;suitor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing notes that Romance languages suggest an unattested low Latin &amp;ast;*mentare* (&quot;to mention&quot; or &quot;to propose&quot;), which would have permitted &amp;ast;*mentulus* (&quot;dealing with proposals&quot;). This would have then leant itself by the late Republican period to dirty jokes involving &quot;wooing power&quot; which explains why *mentula* isn't attested in early Latin and **is** first attested in Catullus, who preferred amusing and racy slang to straightforward vocab. **He therefore proposes that *mentula* derives from some connection with the idea of the penis acting as the &quot;suitor&quot;, &quot;wooer&quot;, &quot;courter&quot; &amp;c. of one's beloved**. This is connected through *mentio* with the root of *mens*, but isn't a diminutive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Naturally, I should not dare insist on all the details of the etymology just proposed, for they are pure hypothesis. Nevertheless, I think that at least the comparison of *mentula*, *sc.* 'the suitor, the wooer,' with *mentionem facere* and &amp;ast;*mentare* is both reasonable and true to the obscenely humorous nuance which the ancients sensed in this term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against this, the chapter on [&quot;*Mentula* and its Synonyms&quot;](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;pg=PA9) in **[J.N. Adams](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Noel_Adams)'s 1982 *[Latin Sexual Vocabulary](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;printsec=frontcover )* repeats Martial's appeal to tradition** that *mentula* was in use at the time of King Numa and describes it as &quot;the basic obscenity for the male organ&quot;, **&quot;certainly... not felt by Cicero to be metaphorical&quot; in any way**. To Cicero, it was &quot;that word&quot; and not dignified to write directly, even in his discussion of the lack of a diminutive for *menta*. In Adams's opinion, it's &quot;scarcely conceivable that the spearmint stalk was so suggestive to so many people that the metaphor could have caught on in the whole community&quot;. He notes [Pokorny](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q215638) offers no etymology; refers to Ernout/Meillet's coverage of the 'prominent' and Sanskrit etymologies without noting how dismissive they are of them; and refers to [Chantraine](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2093337) for coverage of a possible connection with *mens* (Vol. III, p. 693), without discussion of its likelihood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Found it, if you can read French or use Google Translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 μήδεα: n. pl., sexe de l'homme... Autres formes: μέζεα..., sing..., μέδεα... Μήδεα signifie parfois «urine»...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Et*.: Obscure. Il faudrait pouvoir établir les rapports entre les trois formes du mot. On pourrait penser que la forme ancienne et vulgaire serait μέδεα, avec le doublet μέζεα qui suppose une gémination du δ et une prononciation spirante... Il ne semble pas probable que μήδεα soit tiré de μήδομαι, malgré... Spitzer, *BSL* 40, 1939, 47 (qui évoque après Friedländer, lat. *mentula*, si ce mot était tiré de *mens?*). On trouverait plus vraisemblable l'hypothèse de Wackernagel, *Spr. Unt.* 224, n. 1, qui après Nauck, voit dans μήδεα un substitut par euphémisme (ce qui va avec la présence du mot dans l'épopée). Si l'on cherche l'étymologie de μέδεα, ni μαδάω, ni μεστός ne conviennent. Pokorny 706, évoque irl. *mess* (de &amp;ask;*med-tu?*) «gland, glandée» avec le sens originel de «gonflé», etc. Mais l'origine de *mess* semble être tout différente...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 μήδεα: «pensées, soucis», cf. μήδομαι." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="3dbd1fe5-b1b9-471e-867f-21799f054a62" CreationDate="2018-07-08T09:52:04.973" UserId="2733" Comment="note" Text="Well, this may obviously be outdated, but [G.M. Messing](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27887651) banged out a 3-page treatment of &quot;The Etymology of Lat. *Mentula*&quot; for the Oct. 1956 *Classical Philology* (Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 247&amp;ndash;249).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His review of the scholarship to that point was&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lat. *mentula* 'membrum virile' has never been satisfactorily etymologized**. Of the various suggestions made in the past none has been endorsed wholeheartedly by the etymological dictionaries of [Walde](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q94213)-[Hofmann](http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n88617934/) and [Ernout](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q739986)-[Meillet](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q347001).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Those suggestions were&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Zeuss](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q76536)'s coupling it to the roots of *eminere*, *mentum*, and *mons*** (implying a sense of &quot;arising&quot; or &quot;projection&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;* **&quot;Occasional&quot; guesses of a common origin with Sanskrit [मथ्](http://sanskritdictionary.com/math/168598/1)** (*math*), emphatic मन्थ् (*manth*), a term for &quot;spinning rapidly&quot; that got associated with the production of fire from sticks and thus the use of friction on the human body to produce offspring; and&#xD;&#xA;* **[Kretschmer](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q64431)'s analysis of *mentula* as a diminutive of *menta*** (&quot;mint&quot;), given a passage in Aristophanes's *Lysistrata* that supposedly uses [βληχώ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*b%3Aentry+group%3D24%3Aentry%3Dblh%2Fxwn) (&quot;pennyroyal&quot;, a member of the mint family) for shmekls and occasional references to mint's use as an aphrodisiac.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against these, Ernout/Meillet finds Zeuss's derivation &quot;unconvincing&quot;; Kretschmer found it &quot;unobjectionable&quot; but insufficiently &quot;expressive&quot; to account for the term's popularity; and Messing concurs with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing calls the supposed relation with Sanskrit &quot;not improbable&quot; but hard to justify owing to &quot;phonetic difficulties&quot; and the lack of other close cognates in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walde/Hofmann calls Kretschmer's derivation &quot;almost acceptable&quot; and Messing finds it &quot;ingenious&quot; before going on to note its &quot;faulty reasoning&quot;. Closer examination of the passage in Aristophanes causes him to take the pennyroyal as the pubic hair of the Thebeian plain, not the schlongs of the Thebeian women's lovers. He offers that Kretschmer's other references to flowery cunts similarly derive from analogy to pubic hair rather than resemblance to women's anatomy. He ends by questioning mint's supposed status as an aphrodisiac as reliant on cherry-picked examples, given its usual absence from ancient discussion of such medicines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing's own offering is based on the Grecian example provided by [E. Benveniste](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q274931)'s &quot;Formes et Sens de Μνάομαι&quot; in [*Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung*](https://books.google.com/books?id=RmpJAAAAYAAJ) (1954, pp. 13&amp;ndash;18). [Μνάομαι](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CE%BD%CE%AC%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9) had previously been thought to consist of two homophones, one meaning &quot;remember&quot; or &quot;mention&quot; and the other meaning &quot;woo&quot; or &quot;court&quot;. Benveniste established that the &quot;second word&quot; had actually arisen as a special figurative use of the primary sense. During that discussion, he noted how legal Latin was forced to use *mentionem facere* (&quot;to make mention&quot; meaning &quot;to propose marriage&quot;) because a different derivation to *mentior* (&quot;to think up&quot; or &quot;lie&quot;) disallowed Romans from turning *mentio* into a demonstrative verb. Latin similarly had to use an entirely different root (*poscere*, &quot;to ask&quot;) for its word for &quot;suitor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing notes that Romance languages suggest an unattested low Latin &amp;ast;*mentare* (&quot;to mention&quot; or &quot;to propose&quot;), which would have permitted &amp;ast;*mentulus* (&quot;dealing with proposals&quot;). This would have then leant itself by the late Republican period to dirty jokes involving &quot;wooing power&quot; which explains why *mentula* isn't attested in early Latin and **is** first attested in Catullus, who preferred amusing and racy slang to straightforward vocab. **He therefore proposes that *mentula* derives from some connection with the idea of the penis acting as the &quot;suitor&quot;, &quot;wooer&quot;, &quot;courter&quot; &amp;c. of one's beloved**. This is connected through *mentio* with the root of *mens*, but isn't a diminutive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Naturally, I should not dare insist on all the details of the etymology just proposed, for they are pure hypothesis. Nevertheless, I think that at least the comparison of *mentula*, *sc.* 'the suitor, the wooer,' with *mentionem facere* and &amp;ast;*mentare* is both reasonable and true to the obscenely humorous nuance which the ancients sensed in this term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against this, the chapter on [&quot;*Mentula* and its Synonyms&quot;](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;pg=PA9) in **[J.N. Adams](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Noel_Adams)'s 1982 *[Latin Sexual Vocabulary](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;printsec=frontcover )* repeats Martial's appeal to tradition** that *mentula* was in use at the time of King Numa and describes it as &quot;the basic obscenity for the male organ&quot;, **&quot;certainly... not felt by Cicero to be metaphorical&quot; in any way**. To Cicero, it was &quot;that word&quot; and not dignified to write directly, even in his discussion of the lack of a diminutive for *menta*. In Adams's opinion, it's &quot;scarcely conceivable that the spearmint stalk was so suggestive to so many people that the metaphor could have caught on in the whole community&quot;. He notes [Pokorny](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q215638) offers no etymology; refers to Ernout/Meillet's coverage of the 'prominent' and Sanskrit etymologies without noting how dismissive they are of them; and refers to [Chantraine](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2093337) for coverage of a possible connection with *mens* (Vol. III, p. 693), without discussion of its likelihood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Found it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 μήδεα: n. pl., the male sex organ... Other forms: μέζεα..., sing..., μέδεα... Μήδεα sometimes means «urine»...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Etym*.: Obscure. It would be necessary to establish the connections between the three forms of the word. One would think that the old and vulgar form would be μέδεα, with the doublet μέζεα which supposes a gemination of δ and an aspirated pronunciation... It isn't likely that μήδεα derives from μήδομαι, although... Spitzer, *BSL* 40, 1939, 47 (who recalls after Friedländer, Lat. *mentula*, if that word derives from *mens?*). One would find more likely the hypothesis of Wackernagel, *Spr. Unt.* 224, n. 1, who after Nauck, sees in μήδεα a euphemistic substitution (which goes with its presence in the [*Odyssey*]). If one searches for the etymology of μέδεα, neither μαδάω, nor μεστός is suitable. Pokorny 706, recalls Ir. *mess* (&quot;de &amp;ast;*med-tu?*&quot;) «gland, glanded» with the original sense of «inflated», etc. But the origin of *mess* seems to be quite different...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 μήδεα: «thoughts, worries», cf. μήδομαι." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="e580982b-e70a-43cb-88d3-14a42554587a" CreationDate="2018-07-08T09:58:14.843" UserId="2733" Comment="note" Text="Well, this may obviously be outdated, but [G.M. Messing](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27887651) banged out a 3-page treatment of &quot;The Etymology of Lat. *Mentula*&quot; for the Oct. 1956 *Classical Philology* (Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 247&amp;ndash;249).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His review of the scholarship to that point was&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lat. *mentula* 'membrum virile' has never been satisfactorily etymologized**. Of the various suggestions made in the past none has been endorsed wholeheartedly by the etymological dictionaries of [Walde](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q94213)-[Hofmann](http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n88617934/) and [Ernout](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q739986)-[Meillet](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q347001).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Those suggestions were&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Zeuss](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q76536)'s coupling it to the roots of *eminere*, *mentum*, and *mons*** (implying a sense of &quot;arising&quot; or &quot;projection&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;* **&quot;Occasional&quot; guesses of a common origin with Sanskrit [मथ्](http://sanskritdictionary.com/math/168598/1)** (*math*), emphatic मन्थ् (*manth*), a term for &quot;spinning rapidly&quot; that got associated with the production of fire from sticks and thus the use of friction on the human body to produce offspring; and&#xD;&#xA;* **[Kretschmer](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q64431)'s analysis of *mentula* as a diminutive of *menta*** (&quot;mint&quot;), given a passage in Aristophanes's *Lysistrata* that supposedly uses [βληχώ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*b%3Aentry+group%3D24%3Aentry%3Dblh%2Fxwn) (&quot;pennyroyal&quot;, a member of the mint family) for shmekls and occasional references to mint's use as an aphrodisiac.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against these, Ernout/Meillet finds Zeuss's derivation &quot;unconvincing&quot;; Kretschmer found it &quot;unobjectionable&quot; but insufficiently &quot;expressive&quot; to account for the term's popularity; and Messing concurs with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing calls the supposed relation with Sanskrit &quot;not improbable&quot; but hard to justify owing to &quot;phonetic difficulties&quot; and the lack of other close cognates in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walde/Hofmann calls Kretschmer's derivation &quot;almost acceptable&quot; and Messing finds it &quot;ingenious&quot; before going on to note its &quot;faulty reasoning&quot;. Closer examination of the passage in Aristophanes causes him to take the pennyroyal as the pubic hair of the Thebeian plain, not the schlongs of the Thebeian women's lovers. He offers that Kretschmer's other references to flowery cunts similarly derive from analogy to pubic hair rather than resemblance to women's anatomy. He ends by questioning mint's supposed status as an aphrodisiac as reliant on cherry-picked examples, given its usual absence from ancient discussion of such medicines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing's own offering is based on the Grecian example provided by [E. Benveniste](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q274931)'s &quot;Formes et Sens de Μνάομαι&quot; in [*Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung*](https://books.google.com/books?id=RmpJAAAAYAAJ) (1954, pp. 13&amp;ndash;18). [Μνάομαι](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CE%BD%CE%AC%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9) had previously been thought to consist of two homophones, one meaning &quot;remember&quot; or &quot;mention&quot; and the other meaning &quot;woo&quot; or &quot;court&quot;. Benveniste established that the &quot;second word&quot; had actually arisen as a special figurative use of the primary sense. During that discussion, he noted how legal Latin was forced to use *mentionem facere* (&quot;to make mention&quot; meaning &quot;to propose marriage&quot;) because a different derivation to *mentior* (&quot;to think up&quot; or &quot;lie&quot;) disallowed Romans from turning *mentio* into a demonstrative verb. Latin similarly had to use an entirely different root (*poscere*, &quot;to ask&quot;) for its word for &quot;suitor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing notes that Romance languages suggest an unattested low Latin &amp;ast;*mentare* (&quot;to mention&quot; or &quot;to propose&quot;), which would have permitted &amp;ast;*mentulus* (&quot;dealing with proposals&quot;). This would have then leant itself by the late Republican period to dirty jokes involving &quot;wooing power&quot; which explains why *mentula* isn't attested in early Latin and **is** first attested in Catullus, who preferred amusing and racy slang to straightforward vocab. **He therefore proposes that *mentula* derives from some connection with the idea of the penis acting as the &quot;suitor&quot;, &quot;wooer&quot;, &quot;courter&quot; &amp;c. of one's beloved**. This is connected through *mentio* with the root of *mens*, but isn't a diminutive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Naturally, I should not dare insist on all the details of the etymology just proposed, for they are pure hypothesis. Nevertheless, I think that at least the comparison of *mentula*, *sc.* 'the suitor, the wooer,' with *mentionem facere* and &amp;ast;*mentare* is both reasonable and true to the obscenely humorous nuance which the ancients sensed in this term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against this, the chapter on [&quot;*Mentula* and its Synonyms&quot;](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;pg=PA9) in **[J.N. Adams](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Noel_Adams)'s 1982 *[Latin Sexual Vocabulary](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;printsec=frontcover )* repeats Martial's appeal to tradition** that *mentula* was in use at the time of King Numa and describes it as &quot;the basic obscenity for the male organ&quot;, **&quot;certainly... not felt by Cicero to be metaphorical&quot; in any way**. To Cicero, it was &quot;that word&quot; and not dignified to write directly, even in his discussion of the lack of a diminutive for *menta*. In Adams's opinion, it's &quot;scarcely conceivable that the spearmint stalk was so suggestive to so many people that the metaphor could have caught on in the whole community&quot;. He notes [Pokorny](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q215638) offers no etymology; refers to Ernout/Meillet's coverage of the 'prominent' and Sanskrit etymologies without noting how dismissive they are of them; and refers to [Chantraine](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2093337) for coverage of a possible connection with *mens* (Vol. III, p. 693), without discussion of its likelihood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Found it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 μήδεα: n. pl., the male sex organ... Other forms: μέζεα..., sing..., μέδεα... Μήδεα sometimes means «urine»...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Etym*.: Obscure. It would be necessary to establish the connections between the three forms of the word. One would think that the old and vulgar form would be μέδεα, with the doublet μέζεα which supposes a gemination of δ and an aspirated pronunciation... It isn't likely that μήδεα derives from μήδομαι, although... Spitzer, *BSL* 40, 1939, 47 (who recalls after Friedländer, Lat. *mentula*, if that word derives from *mens?*). One would find more likely the hypothesis of Wackernagel, *Spr. Unt.* 224, n. 1, who after Nauck, sees in μήδεα a euphemistic substitution (which goes with its presence in the [*Odyssey*]). If one searches for the etymology of μέδεα, neither μαδάω, nor μεστός is suitable. Pokorny 706, recalls Ir. *mess* (&quot;de &amp;ast;*med-tu?*&quot;) «gland, glanded» with the original sense of «inflated», etc. But the origin of *mess* seems to be quite different...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 μήδεα: «thoughts, worries», cf. μήδομαι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't say much about what Adams was talking about at all, although it perhaps suggests an original derivation from Greek or its etymon, where&amp;mdash;like British 'goolies'&amp;mdash;an original neuter plural in reference to the testicles or whole kit eventually got used&amp;mdash;like 'gooly'&amp;mdash;in Latin's 1st-declension singular to refer particularly to the dick itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="f8d625d7-89b8-4790-9147-0e6c011645a0" CreationDate="2018-07-08T10:07:12.060" UserId="2733" Comment="note" Text="Well, this may obviously be outdated, but [G.M. Messing](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27887651) banged out a 3-page treatment of &quot;The Etymology of Lat. *Mentula*&quot; for the Oct. 1956 *Classical Philology* (Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 247&amp;ndash;249).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His review of the scholarship to that point was&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lat. *mentula* 'membrum virile' has never been satisfactorily etymologized**. Of the various suggestions made in the past none has been endorsed wholeheartedly by the etymological dictionaries of [Walde](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q94213)-[Hofmann](http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n88617934/) and [Ernout](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q739986)-[Meillet](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q347001).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Those suggestions were&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Zeuss](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q76536)'s coupling it to the roots of *eminere*, *mentum*, and *mons*** (implying a sense of &quot;arising&quot; or &quot;projection&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;* **&quot;Occasional&quot; guesses of a common origin with Sanskrit [मथ्](http://sanskritdictionary.com/math/168598/1)** (*math*), emphatic मन्थ् (*manth*), a term for &quot;spinning rapidly&quot; that got associated with the production of fire from sticks and thus the use of friction on the human body to produce offspring; and&#xD;&#xA;* **[Kretschmer](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q64431)'s analysis of *mentula* as a diminutive of *menta*** (&quot;mint&quot;), given a passage in Aristophanes's *Lysistrata* that supposedly uses [βληχώ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*b%3Aentry+group%3D24%3Aentry%3Dblh%2Fxwn) (&quot;pennyroyal&quot;, a member of the mint family) for shmekls and occasional references to mint's use as an aphrodisiac.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against these, Ernout/Meillet finds Zeuss's derivation &quot;unconvincing&quot;; Kretschmer found it &quot;unobjectionable&quot; but insufficiently &quot;expressive&quot; to account for the term's popularity; and Messing concurs with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing calls the supposed relation with Sanskrit &quot;not improbable&quot; but hard to justify owing to &quot;phonetic difficulties&quot; and the lack of other close cognates in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walde/Hofmann calls Kretschmer's derivation &quot;almost acceptable&quot; and Messing finds it &quot;ingenious&quot; before going on to note its &quot;faulty reasoning&quot;. Closer examination of the passage in Aristophanes causes him to take the pennyroyal as the pubic hair of the Thebeian plain, not the schlongs of the Thebeian women's lovers. He offers that Kretschmer's other references to flowery cunts similarly derive from analogy to pubic hair rather than resemblance to women's anatomy. He ends by questioning mint's supposed status as an aphrodisiac as reliant on cherry-picked examples, given its usual absence from ancient discussion of such medicines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing's own offering is based on the Grecian example provided by [E. Benveniste](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q274931)'s &quot;Formes et Sens de Μνάομαι&quot; in [*Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung*](https://books.google.com/books?id=RmpJAAAAYAAJ) (1954, pp. 13&amp;ndash;18). [Μνάομαι](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CE%BD%CE%AC%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9) had previously been thought to consist of two homophones, one meaning &quot;remember&quot; or &quot;mention&quot; and the other meaning &quot;woo&quot; or &quot;court&quot;. Benveniste established that the &quot;second word&quot; had actually arisen as a special figurative use of the primary sense. During that discussion, he noted how legal Latin was forced to use *mentionem facere* (&quot;to make mention&quot; meaning &quot;to propose marriage&quot;) because a different derivation to *mentior* (&quot;to think up&quot; or &quot;lie&quot;) disallowed Romans from turning *mentio* into a demonstrative verb. Latin similarly had to use an entirely different root (*poscere*, &quot;to ask&quot;) for its word for &quot;suitor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing notes that Romance languages suggest an unattested low Latin &amp;ast;*mentare* (&quot;to mention&quot; or &quot;to propose&quot;), which would have permitted &amp;ast;*mentulus* (&quot;dealing with proposals&quot;). This would have then leant itself by the late Republican period to dirty jokes involving &quot;wooing power&quot; which explains why *mentula* isn't attested in early Latin and **is** first attested in Catullus, who preferred amusing and racy slang to straightforward vocab. **He therefore proposes that *mentula* derives from some connection with the idea of the penis acting as the &quot;suitor&quot;, &quot;wooer&quot;, &quot;courter&quot; &amp;c. of one's beloved**. This is connected through *mentio* with the root of *mens*, but isn't a diminutive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Naturally, I should not dare insist on all the details of the etymology just proposed, for they are pure hypothesis. Nevertheless, I think that at least the comparison of *mentula*, *sc.* 'the suitor, the wooer,' with *mentionem facere* and &amp;ast;*mentare* is both reasonable and true to the obscenely humorous nuance which the ancients sensed in this term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against this, the chapter on [&quot;*Mentula* and its Synonyms&quot;](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;pg=PA9) in **[J.N. Adams](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Noel_Adams)'s 1982 *[Latin Sexual Vocabulary](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;printsec=frontcover )* repeats Martial's appeal to tradition** that *mentula* was in use at the time of King Numa and describes it as &quot;the basic obscenity for the male organ&quot;, **&quot;certainly... not felt by Cicero to be metaphorical&quot; in any way**. To Cicero, it was &quot;that word&quot; and not dignified to write directly, even in his discussion of the lack of a diminutive for *menta*. In Adams's opinion, it's &quot;scarcely conceivable that the spearmint stalk was so suggestive to so many people that the metaphor could have caught on in the whole community&quot;. He notes [Pokorny](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q215638) offers no etymology; refers to Ernout/Meillet's coverage of the 'prominent' and Sanskrit etymologies without noting how dismissive they are of them; and refers to [Chantraine](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2093337) for coverage of a possible connection with *mens* (Vol. III, p. 693), without discussion of its likelihood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Found it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 μήδεα: n. pl., the male sex organ... Other forms: μέζεα..., sing..., μέδεα... Μήδεα sometimes means «urine»...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Etym*.: Obscure. It would be necessary to establish the connections between the three forms of the word. One would think that the old and vulgar form would be μέδεα, with the doublet μέζεα which supposes a gemination of δ and an aspirated pronunciation... It isn't likely that μήδεα derives from μήδομαι, although... Spitzer, *BSL* 40, 1939, 47 (who recalls after Friedländer, Lat. *mentula*, if that word derives from *mens?*). One would find more likely the hypothesis of Wackernagel, *Spr. Unt.* 224, n. 1, who after Nauck, sees in μήδεα a euphemistic substitution (which goes with its presence in the [*Odyssey*]). If one searches for the etymology of μέδεα, neither μαδάω, nor μεστός is suitable. Pokorny 706, recalls Ir. *mess* (from &amp;ast;*med-tu?*) «gland, glanded» with the original sense of «inflated», etc. But the origin of *mess* seems to be quite different...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 μήδεα: «thoughts, worries», cf. μήδομαι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't say much about what Adams was talking about at all, although it perhaps suggests an original derivation from Greek or its etymon, where&amp;mdash;like British 'goolies'&amp;mdash;an original neuter plural in reference to the testicles or whole kit eventually got used&amp;mdash;like 'gooly'&amp;mdash;in Latin's 1st-declension singular to refer particularly to the dick itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="1e9759b5-7e6d-4384-9851-0147d68298fe" CreationDate="2018-07-08T10:21:03.303" UserId="2733" Comment="note" Text="Well, this may obviously be outdated, but [G.M. Messing](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27887651) banged out a 3-page treatment of &quot;The Etymology of Lat. *Mentula*&quot; for the Oct. 1956 *Classical Philology* (Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 247&amp;ndash;249).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His review of the scholarship to that point was&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lat. *mentula* 'membrum virile' has never been satisfactorily etymologized**. Of the various suggestions made in the past none has been endorsed wholeheartedly by the etymological dictionaries of [Walde](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q94213)-[Hofmann](http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n88617934/) and [Ernout](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q739986)-[Meillet](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q347001).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Those suggestions were&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Zeuss](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q76536)'s coupling it to the roots of *eminere*, *mentum*, and *mons*** (implying a sense of &quot;arising&quot; or &quot;projection&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;* **&quot;Occasional&quot; guesses of a common origin with Sanskrit [मथ्](http://sanskritdictionary.com/math/168598/1)** (*math*), emphatic मन्थ् (*manth*), a term for &quot;spinning rapidly&quot; that got associated with the production of fire from sticks and thus the use of friction on the human body to produce offspring; and&#xD;&#xA;* **[Kretschmer](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q64431)'s analysis of *mentula* as a diminutive of *menta*** (&quot;mint&quot;), given a passage in Aristophanes's *Lysistrata* that supposedly uses [βληχώ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*b%3Aentry+group%3D24%3Aentry%3Dblh%2Fxwn) (&quot;pennyroyal&quot;, a member of the mint family) for shmekls and occasional references to mint's use as an aphrodisiac.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against these, Ernout/Meillet finds Zeuss's derivation &quot;unconvincing&quot;; Kretschmer found it &quot;unobjectionable&quot; but insufficiently &quot;expressive&quot; to account for the term's popularity; and Messing concurs with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing calls the supposed relation with Sanskrit &quot;not improbable&quot; but hard to justify owing to &quot;phonetic difficulties&quot; and the lack of other close cognates in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walde/Hofmann calls Kretschmer's derivation &quot;almost acceptable&quot; and Messing finds it &quot;ingenious&quot; before going on to note its &quot;faulty reasoning&quot;. Closer examination of the passage in Aristophanes causes him to take the pennyroyal as the pubic hair of the Thebeian plain, not the schlongs of the Thebeian women's lovers. He offers that Kretschmer's other references to flowery cunts similarly derive from analogy to pubic hair rather than resemblance to women's anatomy. He ends by questioning mint's supposed status as an aphrodisiac as reliant on cherry-picked examples, given its usual absence from ancient discussion of such medicines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing's own offering is based on the Grecian example provided by [E. Benveniste](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q274931)'s &quot;Formes et Sens de Μνάομαι&quot; in [*Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung*](https://books.google.com/books?id=RmpJAAAAYAAJ) (1954, pp. 13&amp;ndash;18). [Μνάομαι](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CE%BD%CE%AC%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9) had previously been thought to consist of two homophones, one meaning &quot;remember&quot; or &quot;mention&quot; and the other meaning &quot;woo&quot; or &quot;court&quot;. Benveniste established that the &quot;second word&quot; had actually arisen as a special figurative use of the primary sense. During that discussion, he noted how legal Latin was forced to use *mentionem facere* (&quot;to make mention&quot; meaning &quot;to propose marriage&quot;) because a different derivation to *mentior* (&quot;to think up&quot; or &quot;lie&quot;) disallowed Romans from turning *mentio* into a demonstrative verb. Latin similarly had to use an entirely different root (*poscere*, &quot;to ask&quot;) for its word for &quot;suitor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing notes that Romance languages suggest an unattested low Latin &amp;ast;*mentare* (&quot;to mention&quot; or &quot;to propose&quot;), which would have permitted &amp;ast;*mentulus* (&quot;dealing with proposals&quot;). This would have then leant itself by the late Republican period to dirty jokes involving &quot;wooing power&quot; which explains why *mentula* isn't attested in early Latin and **is** first attested in Catullus, who preferred amusing and racy slang to straightforward vocab. **He therefore proposes that *mentula* derives from some connection with the idea of the penis acting as the &quot;suitor&quot;, &quot;wooer&quot;, &quot;courter&quot; &amp;c. of one's beloved**. This is connected through *mentio* with the root of *mens*, but isn't a diminutive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Naturally, I should not dare insist on all the details of the etymology just proposed, for they are pure hypothesis. Nevertheless, I think that at least the comparison of *mentula*, *sc.* 'the suitor, the wooer,' with *mentionem facere* and &amp;ast;*mentare* is both reasonable and true to the obscenely humorous nuance which the ancients sensed in this term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against this, the chapter on [&quot;*Mentula* and its Synonyms&quot;](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;pg=PA9) in **[J.N. Adams](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Noel_Adams)'s 1982 *[Latin Sexual Vocabulary](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;printsec=frontcover )* repeats Martial's appeal to tradition** that *mentula* was in use at the time of King Numa and describes it as &quot;the basic obscenity for the male organ&quot;, **&quot;certainly... not felt by Cicero to be metaphorical&quot; in any way**. To Cicero, it was &quot;that word&quot; and not dignified to write directly, even in his discussion of the lack of a diminutive for *menta*. In Adams's opinion, it's &quot;scarcely conceivable that the spearmint stalk was so suggestive to so many people that the metaphor could have caught on in the whole community&quot;. He notes [Pokorny](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q215638) offers no etymology; refers to Ernout/Meillet's coverage of the 'prominent' and Sanskrit etymologies without noting how dismissive they are of them; and refers to [Chantraine](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2093337) for coverage of a possible connection with *mens* (Vol. III, p. 693), without discussion of its likelihood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Found it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 μήδεα: n. pl., the male sex organ... Other forms: μέζεα..., sing..., μέδεα... Μήδεα sometimes means «urine»...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Etym*.: Obscure. It would be necessary to establish the connections between the three forms of the word. One would think that the old and vulgar form would be μέδεα, with the doublet μέζεα which supposes a gemination of δ and an aspirated pronunciation... It isn't likely that μήδεα derives from μήδομαι, although... [Spitzer](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q78739), *BSL* 40, 1939, 47 (who recalls after [Friedländer](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q91172), Lat. *mentula*, if that word derives from *mens?*). One would find more likely the hypothesis of [Wackernagel](http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n86821197/), *Spr. Unt.* 224, n. 1, who after [Nauck](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q95964), sees in μήδεα a euphemistic substitution (which goes with its presence in the [*Odyssey*]). If one searches for the etymology of μέδεα, neither μαδάω, nor μεστός is suitable. Pokorny 706, recalls Ir. *mess* (from &amp;ast;*med-tu?*) «gland, glanded» with the original sense of «inflated», etc. But the origin of *mess* seems to be quite different...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 μήδεα: «thoughts, worries», cf. μήδομαι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't say much about what Adams was talking about at all, although it perhaps suggests an original derivation from Greek or its etymon, where&amp;mdash;like British 'goolies'&amp;mdash;an original neuter plural in reference to the testicles or whole kit eventually got used&amp;mdash;like 'gooly'&amp;mdash;in Latin's 1st-declension singular to refer particularly to the dick itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="8b79f188-6a79-4b90-a644-870ef3ff4081" CreationDate="2018-07-08T12:27:50.977" UserId="2733" Comment="more" Text="Well, this may obviously be outdated, but [G.M. Messing](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27887651) banged out a 3-page treatment of &quot;The Etymology of Lat. *Mentula*&quot; for the Oct. 1956 *Classical Philology* (Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 247&amp;ndash;249).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His review of the scholarship to that point was&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lat. *mentula* 'membrum virile' has never been satisfactorily etymologized**. Of the various suggestions made in the past none has been endorsed wholeheartedly by the etymological dictionaries of [Walde](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q94213)-[Hofmann](http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n88617934/) and [Ernout](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q739986)-[Meillet](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q347001).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Those suggestions were&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Zeuss](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q76536)'s coupling it to the roots of *eminere*, *mentum*, and *mons*** (implying a sense of &quot;arising&quot; or &quot;projection&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;* **&quot;Occasional&quot; guesses of a common origin with Sanskrit [मथ्](http://sanskritdictionary.com/math/168598/1)** (*math*), emphatic मन्थ् (*manth*), a term for &quot;spinning rapidly&quot; that got associated with the production of fire from sticks and thus the use of friction on the human body to produce offspring; and&#xD;&#xA;* **[Kretschmer](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q64431)'s analysis of *mentula* as a diminutive of *menta*** (&quot;mint&quot;), given a passage in Aristophanes's *Lysistrata* that supposedly uses [βληχώ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*b%3Aentry+group%3D24%3Aentry%3Dblh%2Fxwn) (&quot;pennyroyal&quot;, a member of the mint family) for shmekls and occasional references to mint's use as an aphrodisiac.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against these, Ernout/Meillet finds Zeuss's derivation &quot;unconvincing&quot;; Kretschmer found it &quot;unobjectionable&quot; but insufficiently &quot;expressive&quot; to account for the term's popularity; and Messing concurs with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing calls the supposed relation with Sanskrit &quot;not improbable&quot; but hard to justify owing to &quot;phonetic difficulties&quot; and the lack of other close cognates in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walde/Hofmann calls Kretschmer's derivation &quot;almost acceptable&quot; and Messing finds it &quot;ingenious&quot; before going on to note its &quot;faulty reasoning&quot;. Closer examination of the passage in Aristophanes causes him to take the pennyroyal as the pubic hair of the Thebeian plain, not the schlongs of the Thebeian women's lovers. He offers that Kretschmer's other references to flowery cunts similarly derive from analogy to pubic hair rather than resemblance to women's anatomy. He ends by questioning mint's supposed status as an aphrodisiac as reliant on cherry-picked examples, given its usual absence from ancient discussion of such medicines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing's own offering is based on the Grecian example provided by [E. Benveniste](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q274931)'s &quot;Formes et Sens de Μνάομαι&quot; in [*Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung*](https://books.google.com/books?id=RmpJAAAAYAAJ) (1954, pp. 13&amp;ndash;18). [Μνάομαι](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CE%BD%CE%AC%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9) had previously been thought to consist of two homophones, one meaning &quot;remember&quot; or &quot;mention&quot; and the other meaning &quot;woo&quot; or &quot;court&quot;. Benveniste established that the &quot;second word&quot; had actually arisen as a special figurative use of the primary sense. During that discussion, he noted how legal Latin was forced to use *mentionem facere* (&quot;to make mention&quot; meaning &quot;to propose marriage&quot;) because a different derivation to *mentior* (&quot;to think up&quot; or &quot;lie&quot;) disallowed Romans from turning *mentio* into a demonstrative verb. Latin similarly had to use an entirely different root (*poscere*, &quot;to ask&quot;) for its word for &quot;suitor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing notes that Romance languages suggest an unattested low Latin &amp;ast;*mentare* (&quot;to mention&quot; or &quot;to propose&quot;), which would have permitted &amp;ast;*mentulus* (&quot;dealing with proposals&quot;). This would have then leant itself by the late Republican period to dirty jokes involving &quot;wooing power&quot; which explains why *mentula* isn't attested in early Latin and **is** first attested in Catullus, who preferred amusing and racy slang to straightforward vocab. **He therefore proposes that *mentula* derives from some connection with the idea of the penis acting as the &quot;suitor&quot;, &quot;wooer&quot;, &quot;courter&quot; &amp;c. of one's beloved**. This is connected through *mentio* with the root of *mens*, but isn't a diminutive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Naturally, I should not dare insist on all the details of the etymology just proposed, for they are pure hypothesis. Nevertheless, I think that at least the comparison of *mentula*, *sc.* 'the suitor, the wooer,' with *mentionem facere* and &amp;ast;*mentare* is both reasonable and true to the obscenely humorous nuance which the ancients sensed in this term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against this, the chapter on [&quot;*Mentula* and its Synonyms&quot;](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;pg=PA9) in **[J.N. Adams](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Noel_Adams)'s 1982 *[Latin Sexual Vocabulary](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;printsec=frontcover )* repeats Martial's appeal to tradition** that *mentula* was in use at the time of King Numa and describes it as &quot;the basic obscenity for the male organ&quot;, **&quot;certainly... not felt by Cicero to be metaphorical&quot; in any way**. To Cicero, it was &quot;that word&quot; and not dignified to write directly, even in his discussion of the lack of a diminutive for *menta*. In Adams's opinion, it's &quot;scarcely conceivable that the spearmint stalk was so suggestive to so many people that the metaphor could have caught on in the whole community&quot;. He notes [Pokorny](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q215638) offers no etymology; refers to Ernout/Meillet's coverage of the 'prominent' and Sanskrit etymologies without noting how dismissive they are of them; and refers to [Chantraine](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2093337) for coverage of a possible connection with *mens* (Vol. III, p. 693), without discussion of its likelihood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Found it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 μήδεα: n. pl., the male sex organ... Other forms: μέζεα..., sing..., μέδεα... Μήδεα sometimes means «urine»...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Etym*.: Obscure. It would be necessary to establish the connections between the three forms of the word. One would think that the old and vulgar form would be μέδεα, with the doublet μέζεα which supposes a gemination of δ and an aspirated pronunciation... It isn't likely that μήδεα derives from μήδομαι, although... [Spitzer](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q78739), *BSL* 40, 1939, 47 (who recalls after [Friedländer](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q91172), Lat. *mentula*, if that word derives from *mens?*). One would find more likely the hypothesis of [Wackernagel](http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n86821197/), *Spr. Unt.* 224, n. 1, who after [Nauck](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q95964), sees in μήδεα a euphemistic substitution (which goes with its presence in the [*Odyssey*]). If one searches for the etymology of μέδεα, neither μαδάω, nor μεστός is suitable. Pokorny 706, recalls Ir. *mess* (from &amp;ast;*med-tu?*) «gland, glanded» with the original sense of «inflated», etc. But the origin of *mess* seems to be quite different...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 μήδεα: «thoughts, worries», cf. μήδομαι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't say much about what Adams was talking about at all, although it perhaps suggests an original derivation from Greek or its etymon, where&amp;mdash;like British 'goolies'&amp;mdash;an original neuter plural in reference to the testicles or whole kit eventually got used&amp;mdash;like 'gooly'&amp;mdash;in Latin's 1st-declension singular to refer particularly to the dick itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[J.T. Katz](https://scholar.princeton.edu/jtkatz/home)'s 1998 &quot;Testimonia Ritus Italici&quot; in *Harvard Studies in Classical Philology* (Vol. 98, pp. 183&amp;ndash;217)&amp;mdash;principally focused on the implications of [*testis*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/testis#Latin) meaning both &quot;witness&quot; and &quot;testicle&quot;&amp;mdash;also mentions in passing **(1)** that the Russian words [мудрый](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B9#Russian) (&quot;wise&quot;) and [муде](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B5#Russian) (&quot;testicle&quot;) also &quot;probably&quot; both derive from PIE &amp;ast;*men-* and **(2)** that [M.L. West](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q669908) argues there was an &quot;almost universal ancient conception according to which the marrow originates in the brain and descends from there through the spine... to become semen...&quot;, an identity that shows up as late as Shakespeare's *All's Well that Ends Well*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="3c76aa89-3e8d-413e-922d-3c1d84c72c2e" CreationDate="2018-07-08T12:34:19.490" UserId="2733" Comment="more" Text="Well, this may obviously be outdated, but [G.M. Messing](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27887651) banged out a 3-page treatment of &quot;The Etymology of Lat. *Mentula*&quot; for the Oct. 1956 *Classical Philology* (Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 247&amp;ndash;249).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His review of the scholarship to that point was&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lat. *mentula* 'membrum virile' has never been satisfactorily etymologized**. Of the various suggestions made in the past none has been endorsed wholeheartedly by the etymological dictionaries of [Walde](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q94213)-[Hofmann](http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n88617934/) and [Ernout](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q739986)-[Meillet](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q347001).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Those suggestions were&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Zeuss](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q76536)'s coupling it to the roots of *eminere*, *mentum*, and *mons*** (implying a sense of &quot;arising&quot; or &quot;projection&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;* **&quot;Occasional&quot; guesses of a common origin with Sanskrit [मथ्](http://sanskritdictionary.com/math/168598/1)** (*math*), emphatic मन्थ् (*manth*), a term for &quot;spinning rapidly&quot; that got associated with the production of fire from sticks and thus the use of friction on the human body to produce offspring; and&#xD;&#xA;* **[Kretschmer](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q64431)'s analysis of *mentula* as a diminutive of *menta*** (&quot;mint&quot;), given a passage in Aristophanes's *Lysistrata* that supposedly uses [βληχώ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*b%3Aentry+group%3D24%3Aentry%3Dblh%2Fxwn) (&quot;pennyroyal&quot;, a member of the mint family) for shmekls and occasional references to mint's use as an aphrodisiac.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against these, Ernout/Meillet finds Zeuss's derivation &quot;unconvincing&quot;; Kretschmer found it &quot;unobjectionable&quot; but insufficiently &quot;expressive&quot; to account for the term's popularity; and Messing concurs with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing calls the supposed relation with Sanskrit &quot;not improbable&quot; but hard to justify owing to &quot;phonetic difficulties&quot; and the lack of other close cognates in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walde/Hofmann calls Kretschmer's derivation &quot;almost acceptable&quot; and Messing finds it &quot;ingenious&quot; before going on to note its &quot;faulty reasoning&quot;. Closer examination of the passage in Aristophanes causes him to take the pennyroyal as the pubic hair of the Thebeian plain, not the schlongs of the Thebeian women's lovers. He offers that Kretschmer's other references to flowery cunts similarly derive from analogy to pubic hair rather than resemblance to women's anatomy. He ends by questioning mint's supposed status as an aphrodisiac as reliant on cherry-picked examples, given its usual absence from ancient discussion of such medicines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing's own offering is based on the Grecian example provided by [E. Benveniste](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q274931)'s &quot;Formes et Sens de Μνάομαι&quot; in [*Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung*](https://books.google.com/books?id=RmpJAAAAYAAJ) (1954, pp. 13&amp;ndash;18). [Μνάομαι](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CE%BD%CE%AC%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9) had previously been thought to consist of two homophones, one meaning &quot;remember&quot; or &quot;mention&quot; and the other meaning &quot;woo&quot; or &quot;court&quot;. Benveniste established that the &quot;second word&quot; had actually arisen as a special figurative use of the primary sense. During that discussion, he noted how legal Latin was forced to use *mentionem facere* (&quot;to make mention&quot; meaning &quot;to propose marriage&quot;) because a different derivation to *mentior* (&quot;to think up&quot; or &quot;lie&quot;) disallowed Romans from turning *mentio* into a demonstrative verb. Latin similarly had to use an entirely different root (*poscere*, &quot;to ask&quot;) for its word for &quot;suitor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing notes that Romance languages suggest an unattested low Latin &amp;ast;*mentare* (&quot;to mention&quot; or &quot;to propose&quot;), which would have permitted &amp;ast;*mentulus* (&quot;dealing with proposals&quot;). This would have then leant itself by the late Republican period to dirty jokes involving &quot;wooing power&quot; which explains why *mentula* isn't attested in early Latin and **is** first attested in Catullus, who preferred amusing and racy slang to straightforward vocab. **He therefore proposes that *mentula* derives from some connection with the idea of the penis acting as the &quot;suitor&quot;, &quot;wooer&quot;, &quot;courter&quot; &amp;c. of one's beloved**. This is connected through *mentio* with the root of *mens*, but isn't a diminutive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Naturally, I should not dare insist on all the details of the etymology just proposed, for they are pure hypothesis. Nevertheless, I think that at least the comparison of *mentula*, *sc.* 'the suitor, the wooer,' with *mentionem facere* and &amp;ast;*mentare* is both reasonable and true to the obscenely humorous nuance which the ancients sensed in this term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against this, the chapter on [&quot;*Mentula* and its Synonyms&quot;](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;pg=PA9) in **[J.N. Adams](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Noel_Adams)'s 1982 *[Latin Sexual Vocabulary](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;printsec=frontcover )* repeats Martial's appeal to tradition** that *mentula* was in use at the time of King Numa and describes it as &quot;the basic obscenity for the male organ&quot;, **&quot;certainly... not felt by Cicero to be metaphorical&quot; in any way**. To Cicero, it was &quot;that word&quot; and not dignified to write directly, even in his discussion of the lack of a diminutive for *menta*. In Adams's opinion, it's &quot;scarcely conceivable that the spearmint stalk was so suggestive to so many people that the metaphor could have caught on in the whole community&quot;. He notes [Pokorny](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q215638) offers no etymology; refers to Ernout/Meillet's coverage of the 'prominent' and Sanskrit etymologies without noting how dismissive they are of them; and refers to [Chantraine](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2093337) for coverage of a possible connection with *mens* (Vol. III, p. 693), without discussion of its likelihood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Found it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 μήδεα: n. pl., the male sex organ... Other forms: μέζεα..., sing..., μέδεα... Μήδεα sometimes means «urine»...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Etym*.: Obscure. It would be necessary to establish the connections between the three forms of the word. One would think that the old and vulgar form would be μέδεα, with the doublet μέζεα which supposes a gemination of δ and an aspirated pronunciation... It isn't likely that μήδεα derives from μήδομαι, although... [Spitzer](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q78739), *BSL* 40, 1939, 47 (who recalls after [Friedländer](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q91172), Lat. *mentula*, if that word derives from *mens?*). One would find more likely the hypothesis of [Wackernagel](http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n86821197/), *Spr. Unt.* 224, n. 1, who after [Nauck](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q95964), sees in μήδεα a euphemistic substitution (which goes with its presence in the [*Odyssey*]). If one searches for the etymology of μέδεα, neither μαδάω, nor μεστός is suitable. Pokorny 706, recalls Ir. *mess* (from &amp;ast;*med-tu?*) «gland, glanded» with the original sense of «inflated», etc. But the origin of *mess* seems to be quite different...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 μήδεα: «thoughts, worries», cf. μήδομαι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't say much about what Adams was talking about at all, although it perhaps suggests an original derivation from Greek or its etymon, where&amp;mdash;like British 'goolies'&amp;mdash;an original neuter plural in reference to the testicles or whole kit eventually got used&amp;mdash;like 'gooly'&amp;mdash;in Latin's 1st-declension singular to refer particularly to the dick itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[J.T. Katz](https://scholar.princeton.edu/jtkatz/home)'s 1998 &quot;Testimonia Ritus Italici&quot; in *Harvard Studies in Classical Philology* (Vol. 98, pp. 183&amp;ndash;217)&amp;mdash;principally focused on the implications of [*testis*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/testis#Latin) meaning both &quot;witness&quot; and &quot;testicle&quot;&amp;mdash;also mentions in passing **(1)** that the Russian words [мудрый](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B9#Russian) (&quot;wise&quot;) and [муде](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B5#Russian) (&quot;testicle&quot;) also &quot;probably&quot; both derive from PIE &amp;ast;*men-* and **(2)** that [M.L. West](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q669908) argues **there was an &quot;almost universal ancient conception according to which the marrow originates in the brain and descends from there through the spine... to become semen...**&quot;, an identity that shows up as late as Shakespeare's *All's Well that Ends Well*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok. That turned into a massive (albeit interesting) textwall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL;DR**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **It's very possible that *mentula* is cognate with *mens* and derives from a PIE root involving the mind**, based on Neolithic and/or Bronze Age understandings of human anatomy; and&#xD;&#xA;* It's **also** been argued that it's a lewd joke involving courtship; but&#xD;&#xA;* Based on the surviving accounts and usage, **the Romans were certainly not making a lewd &quot;little-mind-of-its-own&quot; joke using a contemporary derivation from *mens* itself**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="3365fbb4-0dfd-4317-adc0-e3b1ad7e1540" CreationDate="2018-07-08T12:44:22.413" UserId="2733" Comment="phrasing" Text="Well, this may obviously be outdated, but [G.M. Messing](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27887651) banged out a 3-page treatment of &quot;The Etymology of Lat. *Mentula*&quot; for the Oct. 1956 *Classical Philology* (Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 247&amp;ndash;249).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His review of the scholarship to that point was&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lat. *mentula* 'membrum virile' has never been satisfactorily etymologized**. Of the various suggestions made in the past none has been endorsed wholeheartedly by the etymological dictionaries of [Walde](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q94213)-[Hofmann](http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n88617934/) and [Ernout](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q739986)-[Meillet](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q347001).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Those suggestions were&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Zeuss](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q76536)'s coupling it to the roots of *eminere*, *mentum*, and *mons*** (implying a sense of &quot;arising&quot; or &quot;projection&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;* **&quot;Occasional&quot; guesses of a common origin with Sanskrit [मथ्](http://sanskritdictionary.com/math/168598/1)** (*math*), emphatic मन्थ् (*manth*), a term for &quot;spinning rapidly&quot; that got associated with the production of fire from sticks and thus the use of friction on the human body to produce offspring; and&#xD;&#xA;* **[Kretschmer](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q64431)'s analysis of *mentula* as a diminutive of *menta*** (&quot;mint&quot;), given a passage in Aristophanes's *Lysistrata* that supposedly uses [βληχώ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*b%3Aentry+group%3D24%3Aentry%3Dblh%2Fxwn) (&quot;pennyroyal&quot;, a member of the mint family) for shmekls and occasional references to mint's use as an aphrodisiac.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against these, Ernout/Meillet finds Zeuss's derivation &quot;unconvincing&quot;; Kretschmer found it &quot;unobjectionable&quot; but insufficiently &quot;expressive&quot; to account for the term's popularity; and Messing concurs with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing calls the supposed relation with Sanskrit &quot;not improbable&quot; but hard to justify owing to &quot;phonetic difficulties&quot; and the lack of other close cognates in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walde/Hofmann calls Kretschmer's derivation &quot;almost acceptable&quot; and Messing finds it &quot;ingenious&quot; before going on to note its &quot;faulty reasoning&quot;. Closer examination of the passage in Aristophanes causes him to take the pennyroyal as the pubic hair of the Thebeian plain, not the schlongs of the Thebeian women's lovers. He offers that Kretschmer's other references to flowery cunts similarly derive from analogy to pubic hair rather than resemblance to women's anatomy. He ends by questioning mint's supposed status as an aphrodisiac as reliant on cherry-picked examples, given its usual absence from ancient discussion of such medicines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing's own submission is based on the Grecian example provided by [E. Benveniste](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q274931)'s &quot;Formes et Sens de Μνάομαι&quot; in [*Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung*](https://books.google.com/books?id=RmpJAAAAYAAJ) (1954, pp. 13&amp;ndash;18). [Μνάομαι](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CE%BD%CE%AC%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9) had previously been thought to consist of two homophones, one meaning &quot;remember&quot; or &quot;mention&quot; and the other meaning &quot;woo&quot; or &quot;court&quot;. Benveniste established that the &quot;second word&quot; had actually arisen as a special figurative use of the primary sense. During that discussion, he noted how legal Latin was forced to use *mentionem facere* (&quot;to make mention&quot; meaning &quot;to propose marriage&quot;) because a different derivation to *mentior* (&quot;to think up&quot; or &quot;lie&quot;) disallowed Romans from turning *mentio* into a demonstrative verb. Latin similarly had to use an entirely different root (*poscere*, &quot;to ask&quot;) for its word for &quot;suitor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing notes that Romance languages suggest an unattested low Latin &amp;ast;*mentare* (&quot;to mention&quot; or &quot;to propose&quot;), which would have permitted &amp;ast;*mentulus* (&quot;dealing with proposals&quot;). This would have then leant itself by the late Republican period to dirty jokes involving &quot;wooing power&quot; which explains why *mentula* isn't attested in early Latin and **is** first attested in Catullus, who preferred amusing and racy slang to straightforward vocab. **He therefore proposes that *mentula* derives from some connection with the idea of the penis acting as the &quot;suitor&quot;, &quot;wooer&quot;, &quot;courter&quot; &amp;c. of one's beloved**. This is connected through *mentio* with the root of *mens*, but isn't a diminutive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Naturally, I should not dare insist on all the details of the etymology just proposed, for they are pure hypothesis. Nevertheless, I think that at least the comparison of *mentula*, *sc.* 'the suitor, the wooer,' with *mentionem facere* and &amp;ast;*mentare* is both reasonable and true to the obscenely humorous nuance which the ancients sensed in this term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against this, the chapter on [&quot;*Mentula* and its Synonyms&quot;](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;pg=PA9) in **[J.N. Adams](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Noel_Adams)'s 1982 *[Latin Sexual Vocabulary](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;printsec=frontcover )* repeats Martial's appeal to tradition** that *mentula* was in use at the time of King Numa and describes it as &quot;the basic obscenity for the male organ&quot;, **&quot;certainly... not felt by Cicero to be metaphorical&quot; in any way**. To Cicero, it was &quot;that word&quot; and not dignified to write directly, even in his discussion of the lack of a diminutive for *menta*. In Adams's opinion, it's &quot;scarcely conceivable that the spearmint stalk was so suggestive to so many people that the metaphor could have caught on in the whole community&quot;. He notes [Pokorny](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q215638) offers no etymology; refers to Ernout/Meillet's coverage of the 'prominent' and Sanskrit etymologies without noting how dismissive they are of them; and refers to [Chantraine](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2093337) for coverage of a possible connection with *mens* (Vol. III, p. 693), without discussion of its likelihood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Found it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 μήδεα: n. pl., the male sex organ... Other forms: μέζεα..., sing..., μέδεα... Μήδεα sometimes means «urine»...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Etym*.: Obscure. It would be necessary to establish the connections between the three forms of the word. One would think that the old and vulgar form would be μέδεα, with the doublet μέζεα which supposes a gemination of δ and an aspirated pronunciation... It isn't likely that μήδεα derives from μήδομαι, although... [Spitzer](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q78739), *BSL* 40, 1939, 47 (who recalls after [Friedländer](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q91172), Lat. *mentula*, if that word derives from *mens?*). One would find more likely the hypothesis of [Wackernagel](http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n86821197/), *Spr. Unt.* 224, n. 1, who after [Nauck](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q95964), sees in μήδεα a euphemistic substitution (which goes with its presence in the [*Odyssey*]). If one searches for the etymology of μέδεα, neither μαδάω, nor μεστός is suitable. Pokorny 706, recalls Ir. *mess* (from &amp;ast;*med-tu?*) «gland, glanded» with the original sense of «inflated», etc. But the origin of *mess* seems to be quite different...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 μήδεα: «thoughts, worries», cf. μήδομαι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't say much about what Adams was talking about at all, although it perhaps suggests an original derivation from Greek or its etymon, where&amp;mdash;like British 'goolies'&amp;mdash;an original neuter plural in reference to the testicles or whole kit eventually got used&amp;mdash;like 'gooly'&amp;mdash;in Latin's 1st-declension singular to refer particularly to the dick itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[J.T. Katz](https://scholar.princeton.edu/jtkatz/home)'s 1998 &quot;Testimonia Ritus Italici&quot; in *Harvard Studies in Classical Philology* (Vol. 98, pp. 183&amp;ndash;217)&amp;mdash;principally focused on the implications of [*testis*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/testis#Latin) meaning both &quot;witness&quot; and &quot;testicle&quot;&amp;mdash;also mentions in passing **(1)** that the Russian words [мудрый](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B9#Russian) (&quot;wise&quot;) and [муде](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B5#Russian) (&quot;testicle&quot;) also &quot;probably&quot; both derive from PIE &amp;ast;*men-* and **(2)** that [M.L. West](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q669908) argues **there was an &quot;almost universal ancient conception according to which the marrow originates in the brain and descends from there through the spine... to become semen...**&quot;, an identity that shows up as late as Shakespeare's *All's Well that Ends Well*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok. That turned into a massive (albeit interesting) textwall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL;DR**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **It's very possible that *mentula* is cognate with *mens* and derives from a PIE root involving the mind**, based on Neolithic and/or Bronze Age understandings of human anatomy; and&#xD;&#xA;* It's **also** been argued that it's a lewd joke involving courtship; but&#xD;&#xA;* Based on the surviving accounts and usage, **the Romans were certainly not making a lewd &quot;little-mind-of-its-own&quot; joke using a contemporary derivation from *mens* itself**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6825" RevisionGUID="4ae1b7e6-6629-406f-a3a6-14e29305be05" CreationDate="2018-07-08T13:45:00.363" UserId="2733" Text="#Not really...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I.e.* being used to mean &quot;namely&quot; or &quot;to wit&quot; is a very literary construction. Classical Latin was often a written record of oratory or prose written as if it were being spoken. In speech, its equivalent would be something more verbose like &quot;namely...&quot;, &quot;to wit...&quot;, or (more Latiny) &quot;which is to say...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Id est* in classical Latin is generally going to be a literal reference to a literal neuter-gendered thing that is under discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Phaed. Perii hercle, huic quid primum dicam nescio.&lt;br&gt;[By Hercules, I'm lost. I don't know how to start talking to her.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pal. Em istuc, quod mihi dixti.&lt;br&gt;[Pffft. Just tell her that thing you just told me.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Phaed. Quid **id est**?&lt;br&gt;[What thing **is that**?]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pal. Periisse ut te dicas.&lt;br&gt;[Tell her you're lost.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Phaed. Male tibi di faciant.&lt;br&gt;[Fuck you.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's just for emphasis. Most of the time, an &quot;it&quot; or &quot;that thing&quot; is just going to get thrown into the verb and left implicit: it'll show up as *est* without a subject at all. If you've got more than one neuter-gendered thing under discussion, it's just going to naturally become *ea sunt* or&amp;mdash;since the *ea* is understood&amp;mdash;just *sunt*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#but yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I.e.* came into English through medieval Latin, which used tooooons of abbreviations to save space on valuable sheepskin. It was also highly literary, so that you get constructions like *i.e.* to obnoxiously clarify a point where you think you've lost your (naturally) less educated reader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like you thought, it'll generally be invariant since the *id* being discussed is &quot;that thing I just said&quot;, regardless of how many words or examples were specifically involved. *E.s.* isn't really a thing, though you could employ it if you want to underline just how better educated (and obnoxious) you are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="0caac0c4-a44f-429d-b631-f052efd51edb" CreationDate="2018-07-08T15:06:34.767" UserId="2733" Comment="more" Text="Well, this may obviously be outdated, but [G.M. Messing](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27887651) banged out a 3-page treatment of &quot;The Etymology of Lat. *Mentula*&quot; for the Oct. 1956 *Classical Philology* (Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 247&amp;ndash;249).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His review of the scholarship to that point was&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lat. *mentula* 'membrum virile' has never been satisfactorily etymologized**. Of the various suggestions made in the past none has been endorsed wholeheartedly by the etymological dictionaries of [Walde](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q94213)-[Hofmann](http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n88617934/) and [Ernout](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q739986)-[Meillet](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q347001).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Those suggestions were&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Zeuss](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q76536)'s coupling it to the roots of *eminere*, *mentum*, and *mons*** (implying a sense of &quot;arising&quot; or &quot;projection&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;* **&quot;Occasional&quot; guesses of a common origin with Sanskrit [मथ्](http://sanskritdictionary.com/math/168598/1)** (*math*), emphatic मन्थ् (*manth*), a term for &quot;spinning rapidly&quot; that got associated with the production of fire from sticks and thus the use of friction on the human body to produce offspring; and&#xD;&#xA;* **[Kretschmer](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q64431)'s analysis of *mentula* as a diminutive of *menta*** (&quot;mint&quot;), given a passage in Aristophanes's *Lysistrata* that supposedly uses [βληχώ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*b%3Aentry+group%3D24%3Aentry%3Dblh%2Fxwn) (&quot;pennyroyal&quot;, a member of the mint family) for shmekls and occasional references to mint's use as an aphrodisiac.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against these, Ernout/Meillet finds Zeuss's derivation &quot;unconvincing&quot;; Kretschmer found it &quot;unobjectionable&quot; but insufficiently &quot;expressive&quot; to account for the term's popularity; and Messing concurs with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing calls the supposed relation with Sanskrit &quot;not improbable&quot; but hard to justify owing to &quot;phonetic difficulties&quot; and the lack of other close cognates in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walde/Hofmann calls Kretschmer's derivation &quot;almost acceptable&quot; and Messing finds it &quot;ingenious&quot; before going on to note its &quot;faulty reasoning&quot;. Closer examination of the passage in Aristophanes causes him to take the pennyroyal as the pubic hair of the Thebeian plain, not the schlongs of the Thebeian women's lovers. He offers that Kretschmer's other references to flowery cunts similarly derive from analogy to pubic hair rather than resemblance to women's anatomy. He ends by questioning mint's supposed status as an aphrodisiac as reliant on cherry-picked examples, given its usual absence from ancient discussion of such medicines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing's own submission is based on the Grecian example provided by [E. Benveniste](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q274931)'s &quot;Formes et Sens de Μνάομαι&quot; in [*Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung*](https://books.google.com/books?id=RmpJAAAAYAAJ) (1954, pp. 13&amp;ndash;18). [Μνάομαι](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CE%BD%CE%AC%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9) had previously been thought to consist of two homophones, one meaning &quot;remember&quot; or &quot;mention&quot; and the other meaning &quot;woo&quot; or &quot;court&quot;. Benveniste established that the &quot;second word&quot; had actually arisen as a special figurative use of the primary sense. During that discussion, he noted how legal Latin was forced to use *mentionem facere* (&quot;to make mention&quot; meaning &quot;to propose marriage&quot;) because a different derivation to *mentior* (&quot;to think up&quot; or &quot;lie&quot;) disallowed Romans from turning *mentio* into a demonstrative verb. Latin similarly had to use an entirely different root (*poscere*, &quot;to ask&quot;) for its word for &quot;suitor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing notes that Romance languages suggest an unattested low Latin &amp;ast;*mentare* (&quot;to mention&quot; or &quot;to propose&quot;), which would have permitted &amp;ast;*mentulus* (&quot;dealing with proposals&quot;). This would have then leant itself by the late Republican period to dirty jokes involving &quot;wooing power&quot; which explains why *mentula* isn't attested in early Latin and **is** first attested in Catullus, who preferred amusing and racy slang to straightforward vocab. **He therefore proposes that *mentula* derives from some connection with the idea of the penis acting as the &quot;suitor&quot;, &quot;wooer&quot;, &quot;courter&quot; &amp;c. of one's beloved**. This is connected through *mentio* with the root of *mens*, but isn't a diminutive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Naturally, I should not dare insist on all the details of the etymology just proposed, for they are pure hypothesis. Nevertheless, I think that at least the comparison of *mentula*, *sc.* 'the suitor, the wooer,' with *mentionem facere* and &amp;ast;*mentare* is both reasonable and true to the obscenely humorous nuance which the ancients sensed in this term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against this, the chapter on [&quot;*Mentula* and its Synonyms&quot;](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;pg=PA9) in **[J.N. Adams](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Noel_Adams)'s 1982 *[Latin Sexual Vocabulary](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;printsec=frontcover )* repeats Martial's appeal to tradition** that *mentula* was in use at the time of King Numa and describes it as &quot;the basic obscenity for the male organ&quot;, **&quot;certainly... not felt by Cicero to be metaphorical&quot; in any way**. To Cicero, it was &quot;that word&quot; and not dignified to write directly, even in his discussion of the lack of a diminutive for *menta*. In Adams's opinion, it's &quot;scarcely conceivable that the spearmint stalk was so suggestive to so many people that the metaphor could have caught on in the whole community&quot;. He notes [Pokorny](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q215638) offers no etymology; refers to Ernout/Meillet's coverage of the 'prominent' and Sanskrit etymologies without noting how dismissive they are of them; and refers to [Chantraine](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2093337) for coverage of a possible connection with *mens* (Vol. III, p. 693), without discussion of its likelihood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Found it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 μήδεα: n. pl., the male sex organ... Other forms: μέζεα..., sing..., μέδεα... Μήδεα sometimes means «urine»...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Etym*.: Obscure. It would be necessary to establish the connections between the three forms of the word. One would think that the old and vulgar form would be μέδεα, with the doublet μέζεα which supposes a gemination of δ and an aspirated pronunciation... It isn't likely that μήδεα derives from μήδομαι, although... [Spitzer](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q78739), *BSL* 40, 1939, 47 (who recalls after [Friedländer](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q91172), Lat. *mentula*, if that word derives from *mens?*). One would find more likely the hypothesis of [Wackernagel](http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n86821197/), *Spr. Unt.* 224, n. 1, who after [Nauck](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q95964), sees in μήδεα a euphemistic substitution (which goes with its presence in the [*Odyssey*]). If one searches for the etymology of μέδεα, neither μαδάω, nor μεστός is suitable. Pokorny 706, recalls Ir. *mess* (from &amp;ast;*med-tu?*) «gland, glanded» with the original sense of «inflated», etc. But the origin of *mess* seems to be quite different...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 μήδεα: «thoughts, worries», cf. μήδομαι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't say much about what Adams was talking about at all, although it perhaps suggests an original derivation from Greek or its etymon, where&amp;mdash;like British 'goolies'&amp;mdash;an original neuter plural in reference to the testicles or whole kit eventually got used&amp;mdash;like 'gooly'&amp;mdash;in Latin's 1st-declension singular to refer particularly to the dick itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[J.T. Katz](https://scholar.princeton.edu/jtkatz/home)'s 1998 &quot;Testimonia Ritus Italici&quot; in *Harvard Studies in Classical Philology* (Vol. 98, pp. 183&amp;ndash;217)&amp;mdash;principally focused on the implications of [*testis*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/testis#Latin) meaning both &quot;witness&quot; and &quot;testicle&quot;&amp;mdash;also mentions in passing **(1)** that the Russian words [мудрый](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B9#Russian) (&quot;wise&quot;) and [муде](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B5#Russian) (&quot;testicle&quot;) also &quot;probably&quot; both derive from PIE &amp;ast;*men-* and **(2)** that [M.L. West](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q669908) argues **there was an &quot;almost universal ancient conception according to which the marrow originates in the brain and descends from there through the spine... to become semen...**&quot;, an identity that shows up as late as Shakespeare's *All's Well that Ends Well*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, in the middle of [M.L. Wagner](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q76731)'s 1907 [*Lautlehre der Südsardischen Mundarten*](https://books.google.com/books?id=f4xJAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PR3) ([pp. 12&amp;ndash;3](https://books.google.com/books?id=f4xJAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA12)), he makes cold water all over such theories by just drawing a straight line from *mentula* to [*mingere*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mingo#Latin) and [*meiere*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/meio#Latin) (&quot;to piss&quot;), making it&amp;mdash;and presumably also Gr. μήδεα&amp;mdash;the equivalent of English &quot;pisser&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok. That turned into a massive (albeit interesting) textwall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL;DR**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **It's very possible that *mentula* is cognate with *mens* and derives from a PIE root involving the mind**, based on Neolithic and/or Bronze Age understandings of human anatomy; and&#xD;&#xA;* It's **also** been argued that it's a lewd joke involving courtship; but&#xD;&#xA;* Based on the surviving accounts and usage, **the Romans were certainly not making a lewd &quot;little-mind-of-its-own&quot; joke using a contemporary derivation from *mens* itself**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6803" RevisionGUID="9f5ce8a3-85bf-4695-8885-a805f1a15cda" CreationDate="2018-07-08T15:59:42.293" UserId="2733" Comment="tags; spelling fix; some other minor bits to hit six characters" Text="If someone disagrees with you and the argument makes you change your opinion, you might say &quot;Fair enough!&quot; in&amp;nbsp;English. This seems to be essentially equivalent to &quot;Oh, good point! I agree.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a similar phrase in Latin? Of course, one can use verbs like *consentio* or *assentior*, but I was hoping there would be something indicating a change of opinion&amp;nbsp;&amp;ndash; or at least something a little more colorful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume something like this could be found in Plautus, but I'm not familiar with his work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22706" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6803" RevisionGUID="9f5ce8a3-85bf-4695-8885-a805f1a15cda" CreationDate="2018-07-08T15:59:42.293" UserId="2733" Comment="tags; spelling fix; some other minor bits to hit six characters" Text="|vocabulary|idiom|plautus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22707" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6803" RevisionGUID="9f5ce8a3-85bf-4695-8885-a805f1a15cda" CreationDate="2018-07-08T15:59:42.293" Comment="Proposed by 2733 approved by 79 edit id of 243" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6804" RevisionGUID="15c18be4-da5a-4080-af02-fb9b1f6e796b" CreationDate="2018-07-08T16:00:05.580" UserId="2733" Comment="profanity tag; some formatting to hit six characters" Text="The Latin word *mentula* isn't properly defined in the [Lewis &amp; Short dictionary][1], but it does show up on [Latin-Dictionary.net][2] and [Wiktionary][3]. Both those dictionaries define *mentula* as &quot;penis&quot;. But what's striking about this word is its resemblance to *mens, mentis*, which means &quot;mind&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the two words related? Is *mentula* a diminutive of *mens*, as Wiktionary suggests? Are the two words descended from the same PIE root?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If indeed the two words are related, do we know why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmentula&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/mentula&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mentula#Noun_2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22709" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6804" RevisionGUID="15c18be4-da5a-4080-af02-fb9b1f6e796b" CreationDate="2018-07-08T16:00:05.580" UserId="2733" Comment="profanity tag; some formatting to hit six characters" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|word-comparison|proto-indo-european|profanity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22710" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6804" RevisionGUID="15c18be4-da5a-4080-af02-fb9b1f6e796b" CreationDate="2018-07-08T16:00:05.580" Comment="Proposed by 2733 approved by 79 edit id of 242" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6819" RevisionGUID="b52c96ff-b524-441e-8ed1-ebb472cad1b0" CreationDate="2018-07-08T16:03:07.560" UserId="79" Comment="added 148 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I was hoping someone with more experience in Latin could help me confirm whether this translation is correct or not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ego sum dividitur. Ego sum libratum. Ego sum unum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this translate properly the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am divided. I am balanced. I am one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help to correct it would be appreciated. Also the use of *Ego sum* even though not necessary on all parts was intentional for a repetitious effect. If you have a reason you believe I shouldn't phrase it that way I would like to hear it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22712" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6819" RevisionGUID="b52c96ff-b524-441e-8ed1-ebb472cad1b0" CreationDate="2018-07-08T16:03:07.560" UserId="79" Comment="added 148 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&quot;I am divided. I am balanced. I am one.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22713" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6819" RevisionGUID="b52c96ff-b524-441e-8ed1-ebb472cad1b0" CreationDate="2018-07-08T16:03:07.560" UserId="79" Comment="added 148 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|syntax|translation-check|word-choice|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6826" RevisionGUID="c70c4f5e-c4e5-4c34-88a6-0c450cf864d4" CreationDate="2018-07-08T16:22:23.583" UserId="1393" Text="I came across a book published in 1753 with the publisher location listed as 'Rezii'. I cannot find any reference to this name online.&#xA;&#xA;Here is a link to the book information: http://www.worldcat.org/title/armatura-fortium-seu-loci-theologici-cum-annexis-conciliis-generalibus-breviter-et-ex-probatissimis-authoribus-historico-critice-delineatis-una-cum-centuria-thesium-ex-universa-theologia-scholastica-dogmatica-ad-mentem-angelici-et-quinti-ecclesiae-doctoris-d-thomae-aqunatis-compilatore-et-praeside-ludovico-ehenger-s-canonici-et-exempti-ord-praemonsti-rogiae-eccl-lucensis-canonico-regul-et-ss-theol-professore-actuali-defendente-ar-ac-rel-d-sebastiano-janco-ejusdem-canoniae-professo/oclc/444826018&amp;referer=brief_results&#xA;&#xA;The only libraries that have the book are located in Slovenia so maybe it refers to a town there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22715" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6826" RevisionGUID="c70c4f5e-c4e5-4c34-88a6-0c450cf864d4" CreationDate="2018-07-08T16:22:23.583" UserId="1393" Text="What does the Latin place name 'Rezii' refer to?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22716" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6826" RevisionGUID="c70c4f5e-c4e5-4c34-88a6-0c450cf864d4" CreationDate="2018-07-08T16:22:23.583" UserId="1393" Text="|place-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6826" RevisionGUID="b4a77f5a-f40e-4368-8472-6f1221974494" CreationDate="2018-07-08T17:04:00.633" UserId="1459" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="I came across a book published in 1753 with the publisher location listed as '_Rezii_'. I cannot find any reference to this name online. [Here](http://www.worldcat.org/title/armatura-fortium-seu-loci-theologici-cum-annexis-conciliis-generalibus-breviter-et-ex-probatissimis-authoribus-historico-critice-delineatis-una-cum-centuria-thesium-ex-universa-theologia-scholastica-dogmatica-ad-mentem-angelici-et-quinti-ecclesiae-doctoris-d-thomae-aqunatis-compilatore-et-praeside-ludovico-ehenger-s-canonici-et-exempti-ord-praemonsti-rogiae-eccl-lucensis-canonico-regul-et-ss-theol-professore-actuali-defendente-ar-ac-rel-d-sebastiano-janco-ejusdem-canoniae-professo/oclc/444826018&amp;referer=brief_results)  is a link to the book information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only libraries that have the book are located in Slovenia so maybe it refers to a town there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22718" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6820" RevisionGUID="988085eb-5f77-4c2b-8102-672088827c80" CreationDate="2018-07-08T19:44:32.397" UserId="2738" Comment="Changing to more grammatically correct" Text="&quot;Alligatus ego vinculis vitae&quot; does it translate to &quot;I am bound by the chains of life.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="91b1b526-299e-4b3c-85cf-102a68055c1d" CreationDate="2018-07-08T19:51:02.587" UserId="39" Text="I did some research and it appears to be **Rötz**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="7dcacacf-d015-41f9-97fe-9c1ae01fc57b" CreationDate="2018-07-08T20:03:37.000" UserId="39" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="I did some research and it appears to be **Rötz**. I'm not entirely sure if that's the publisher or their location though. - need more research" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6828" RevisionGUID="6ee728e8-a416-450e-8f9f-61e274487bf5" CreationDate="2018-07-08T20:47:04.357" UserId="79" Text="You can indeed say *ego sum X* for &quot;I am X&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This, especially repeated, gives a lot of emphasis, but that is not inappropriate here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The X should be a noun, an adjective, or something else that can be used as a predicative.&#xD;&#xA;A personal form of a verb cannot be used as a predicative, so *ego sum divitur* is ungrammatical, much like &quot;I am it is divided&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I recommend the participle *divisus*, &quot;divided&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the mentioned change your choice of words sounds appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;The correct form depends on who speaks.&#xD;&#xA;If the speaker is a male, a female, or an inanimate thing, you need the predicatives (none of which are nouns here) to be in masculine, feminine, or neuter, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;This leads to three options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego sum divisus/divisa/divisum. Ego sum libratus/librata/libratum. Ego sum unus/una/unum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an implicit noun is understood, as in *ego sum [machina] divisa*, then the grammatical gender of the predicatives should match that of the noun.&#xD;&#xA;The exact answer, as it often does, depends on the intended use context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1338" RevisionGUID="624b9a41-33fa-4d30-8b71-c1e1a14605e1" CreationDate="2018-07-08T20:49:46.000" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="I'm looking for a Latin phrase for starting your exposition by explaining the terms, i.e. its title. I believe the quote is &quot;initium doctrinae sit consideratio nominis,&quot; but I'm not sure that that's correct. I haven't been able to find it online, so I'd also like a reference to it in use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22723" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1338" RevisionGUID="624b9a41-33fa-4d30-8b71-c1e1a14605e1" CreationDate="2018-07-08T20:49:46.000" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="&quot;Initium doctrinae sit consideratio nominis&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22724" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1338" RevisionGUID="624b9a41-33fa-4d30-8b71-c1e1a14605e1" CreationDate="2018-07-08T20:49:46.000" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2489" RevisionGUID="cfade009-3cb1-4a51-a125-bdbf2419a9f7" CreationDate="2018-07-08T21:01:21.867" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="I am trying to translate a verse from &quot;Brutal Love&quot; by Green Day. I only have one semester of Latin. I tried to translate it using Wiktionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Old toys  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This plastic heart  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Loners and fools are tearing me apart  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here comes trouble  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The uninvited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Senia Crepundia  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc Plasticum cor  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mē sōlitārī et stultī sēparātim discrepunt  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hīc molestia venit  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ultrō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what I have so far. I am just wondering if my translation is alright." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22726" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2489" RevisionGUID="cfade009-3cb1-4a51-a125-bdbf2419a9f7" CreationDate="2018-07-08T21:01:21.867" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|song-lyrics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6829" RevisionGUID="b040c22e-e013-46db-8ab5-28c4214a84bb" CreationDate="2018-07-09T00:27:15.287" UserId="30" Text="In addition to Ily's overview, I'd like to offer a few examples in which the expression is used just as in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ennius, *Varia* 1 (from this translation of Euhemerus' Sacred History) 140:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inque sepulchro eius est inscriptum antiquis litteris Graecis ΖΑΝ ΚΡΟΝΟΥ **id est** Latine Iuppiter Saturni. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Pro Balbo* 10.7 &amp; 24.12:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contra foedus enim, **id est** contra populi Romani religionem et fidem fecisse dicitur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; servos denique, quorum ius, fortuna, condicio infima est, bene de re publica meritos persaepe libertate, **id est** civitate, publice donari videmus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As one can see, *id est* was used by the Romans in cases where it does not refer to a specific neuter substantive (in the first Ciceronian quotation, it refers not to *foedus* but to the adverbial phrase). In addition, *id est* was used in cases where a specific substantive could have been referred to, such as *ZAN KPONOY* in the Ennian quotation. It stands to reason that invariable *id* could also be used after pleural substantive nouns; I would probably never use *ea sunt*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="e6693194-fb33-433e-94bc-d43d1a39a11f" CreationDate="2018-07-09T00:32:38.103" UserId="2733" Comment="notes on quotes" Text="Well, this may obviously be outdated, but [G.M. Messing](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27887651) banged out a 3-page treatment of &quot;The Etymology of Lat. *Mentula*&quot; for the Oct. 1956 *Classical Philology* (Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 247&amp;ndash;249).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His review of the scholarship to that point was&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lat. *mentula* 'membrum virile' has never been satisfactorily etymologized**. Of the various suggestions made in the past none has been endorsed wholeheartedly by the etymological dictionaries of [Walde](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q94213)-[Hofmann](http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n88617934/) and [Ernout](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q739986)-[Meillet](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q347001).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Those suggestions were&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Zeuss](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q76536)'s coupling it to the roots of *eminere*, *mentum*, and *mons*** (implying a sense of &quot;arising&quot; or &quot;projection&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;* **&quot;Occasional&quot; guesses of a common origin with Sanskrit [मथ्](http://sanskritdictionary.com/math/168598/1)** (*math*), emphatic मन्थ् (*manth*), a term for &quot;spinning rapidly&quot; that got associated with the production of fire from sticks and thus the use of friction on the human body to produce offspring; and&#xD;&#xA;* **[Kretschmer](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q64431)'s analysis of *mentula* as a diminutive of *menta*** (&quot;mint&quot;), given a passage in Aristophanes's *Lysistrata* that supposedly uses [βληχώ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*b%3Aentry+group%3D24%3Aentry%3Dblh%2Fxwn) (&quot;pennyroyal&quot;, a member of the mint family) for shmekls and occasional references to mint's use as an aphrodisiac.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against these, Ernout/Meillet finds Zeuss's derivation &quot;unconvincing&quot;; Kretschmer found it &quot;unobjectionable&quot; but insufficiently &quot;expressive&quot; to account for the term's popularity; and Messing concurs with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing calls the supposed relation with Sanskrit &quot;not improbable&quot; but hard to justify owing to &quot;phonetic difficulties&quot; and the lack of other close cognates in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walde/Hofmann calls Kretschmer's derivation &quot;almost acceptable&quot; and Messing finds it &quot;ingenious&quot; before going on to note its &quot;faulty reasoning&quot;. Closer examination of the passage in Aristophanes causes him to take the pennyroyal as the pubic hair of the Thebeian plain, not the schlongs of the Thebeian women's lovers. He offers that Kretschmer's other references to flowery cunts similarly derive from analogy to pubic hair rather than resemblance to women's anatomy. He ends by questioning mint's supposed status as an aphrodisiac as reliant on cherry-picked examples, given its usual absence from ancient discussion of such medicines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing's own submission is based on the Grecian example provided by [E. Benveniste](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q274931)'s &quot;Formes et Sens de Μνάομαι&quot; in [*Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung*](https://books.google.com/books?id=RmpJAAAAYAAJ) (1954, pp. 13&amp;ndash;18). [Μνάομαι](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CE%BD%CE%AC%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9) had previously been thought to consist of two homophones, one meaning &quot;remember&quot; or &quot;mention&quot; and the other meaning &quot;woo&quot; or &quot;court&quot;. Benveniste established that the &quot;second word&quot; had actually arisen as a special figurative use of the primary sense. During that discussion, he noted how legal Latin was forced to use *mentionem facere* (&quot;to make mention&quot; meaning &quot;to propose marriage&quot;) because a different derivation to *mentior* (&quot;to think up&quot; or &quot;lie&quot;) disallowed Romans from turning *mentio* into a demonstrative verb. Latin similarly had to use an entirely different root (*poscere*, &quot;to ask&quot;) for its word for &quot;suitor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Messing notes that Romance languages suggest an unattested low Latin &amp;ast;*mentare* (&quot;to mention&quot; or &quot;to propose&quot;), which would have permitted &amp;ast;*mentulus* (&quot;dealing with proposals&quot;). This would have then leant itself by the late Republican period to dirty jokes involving &quot;wooing power&quot; which explains why *mentula* isn't attested in early Latin and **is** first attested in Catullus, who preferred amusing and racy slang to straightforward vocab. **He therefore proposes that *mentula* derives from some connection with the idea of the penis acting as the &quot;suitor&quot;, &quot;wooer&quot;, &quot;courter&quot; &amp;c. of one's beloved**. This is connected through *mentio* with the root of *mens*, but isn't a diminutive. Messing concludes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Naturally, I should not dare insist on all the details of the etymology just proposed, for they are pure hypothesis. Nevertheless, I think that at least the comparison of *mentula*, *sc.* 'the suitor, the wooer,' with *mentionem facere* and &amp;ast;*mentare* is both reasonable and true to the obscenely humorous nuance which the ancients sensed in this term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Against this, the chapter on [&quot;*Mentula* and its Synonyms&quot;](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;pg=PA9) in **[J.N. Adams](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Noel_Adams)'s 1982 *[Latin Sexual Vocabulary](https://books.google.com/books?id=GDP9VHGbF1AC&amp;printsec=frontcover )* repeats Martial's appeal to tradition** that *mentula* was in use at the time of King Numa and describes it as &quot;the basic obscenity for the male organ&quot;, **&quot;certainly... not felt by Cicero to be metaphorical&quot; in any way**. To Cicero, it was &quot;that word&quot; and not dignified to write directly, even in his discussion of the lack of a diminutive for *menta*. In Adams's opinion, it's &quot;scarcely conceivable that the spearmint stalk was so suggestive to so many people that the metaphor could have caught on in the whole community&quot;. He notes [Pokorny](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q215638) offers no etymology; refers to Ernout/Meillet's coverage of the 'prominent' and Sanskrit etymologies without noting how dismissive they are of them; and refers to [Chantraine](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2093337) for coverage of a possible connection with *mens* (Vol. III, p. 693), without discussion of its likelihood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ah. Found the passage in Chantraine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 μήδεα: n. pl., the male sex organ... Other forms: μέζεα..., sing..., μέδεα... Μήδεα sometimes means «urine»...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Etym*.: Obscure. It would be necessary to establish the connections between the three forms of the word. One would think that the old and vulgar form would be μέδεα, with the doublet μέζεα which supposes a gemination of δ and an aspirated pronunciation... It isn't likely that μήδεα derives from μήδομαι, although... [Spitzer](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q78739), *BSL* 40, 1939, 47 (who recalls after [Friedländer](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q91172), Lat. *mentula*, if that word derives from *mens?*). One would find more likely the hypothesis of [Wackernagel](http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n86821197/), *Spr. Unt.* 224, n. 1, who after [Nauck](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q95964), sees in μήδεα a euphemistic substitution (which goes with its presence in the [*Odyssey*]). If one searches for the etymology of μέδεα, neither μαδάω, nor μεστός is suitable. Pokorny 706, recalls Ir. *mess* (from &amp;ast;*med-tu?*) «gland, glanded» with the original sense of «inflated», etc. But the origin of *mess* seems to be quite different...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 μήδεα: «thoughts, worries», cf. μήδομαι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't say much about what Adams was talking about at all, although it perhaps suggests an original derivation from Greek or its etymon, where&amp;mdash;like British 'goolies'&amp;mdash;an original neuter plural in reference to the testicles or whole kit eventually got used&amp;mdash;like 'gooly'&amp;mdash;in Latin's 1st-declension singular to refer particularly to the dick itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[J.T. Katz](https://scholar.princeton.edu/jtkatz/home)'s 1998 &quot;Testimonia Ritus Italici&quot; in *Harvard Studies in Classical Philology* (Vol. 98, pp. 183&amp;ndash;217)&amp;mdash;principally focused on the implications of [*testis*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/testis#Latin) meaning both &quot;witness&quot; and &quot;testicle&quot;&amp;mdash;also mentions in passing **(1)** that the Russian words [мудрый](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B9#Russian) (&quot;wise&quot;) and [муде](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B5#Russian) (&quot;testicle&quot;) also &quot;probably&quot; both derive from PIE &amp;ast;*men-* and **(2)** that [M.L. West](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q669908) argues **there was an &quot;almost universal ancient conception according to which the marrow originates in the brain and descends from there through the spine... to become semen...**&quot;, an identity that shows up as late as Shakespeare's *All's Well that Ends Well*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, in the middle of [M.L. Wagner](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q76731)'s 1907 [*Lautlehre der Südsardischen Mundarten*](https://books.google.com/books?id=f4xJAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PR3) ([pp. 12&amp;ndash;3](https://books.google.com/books?id=f4xJAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA12)), he makes cold water all over such theories by just drawing a straight line from *mentula* to [*mingere*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mingo#Latin) and [*meiere*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/meio#Latin) (&quot;to piss&quot;), making it&amp;mdash;and presumably also Gr. μήδεα&amp;mdash;the equivalent of English &quot;pisser&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok. That turned into a massive (albeit interesting) textwall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL;DR**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **It's very possible that *mentula* is cognate with *mens* and derives from a PIE root involving the mind**, based on Neolithic and/or Bronze Age understandings of human anatomy; and&#xD;&#xA;* It's **also** been argued that it's a lewd joke involving courtship; but&#xD;&#xA;* Based on the surviving accounts and usage, **the Romans were certainly not making a lewd &quot;little-mind-of-its-own&quot; joke using a contemporary derivation from *mens* itself**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6825" RevisionGUID="c8f33e7e-e5b7-4a56-909a-aadb5b42e9b7" CreationDate="2018-07-09T00:38:11.867" UserId="2733" Comment="added 152 characters in body" Text="#Not really...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I.e.* being used to mean &quot;namely&quot; or &quot;to wit&quot; is a very literary construction. Classical Latin was often a written record of oratory or prose written as if it were being spoken. In speech, its equivalent would be something more verbose like &quot;namely...&quot;, &quot;to wit...&quot;, or (more Latiny) &quot;which is to say...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Id est* in classical Latin is generally going to be a literal reference to a literal neuter-gendered thing that is under discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Phaed. Perii hercle, huic quid primum dicam nescio.&lt;br&gt;[By Hercules, I'm lost. I don't know how to start talking to her.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pal. Em istuc, quod mihi dixti.&lt;br&gt;[Pffft. Just tell her that thing you just told me.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Phaed. Quid **id est**?&lt;br&gt;[What thing **is that**?]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pal. Periisse ut te dicas.&lt;br&gt;[Tell her you're lost.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Phaed. Male tibi di faciant.&lt;br&gt;[Fuck you.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's just for emphasis. Most of the time, an &quot;it&quot; or &quot;that thing&quot; is just going to get thrown into the verb and left implicit: it'll show up as *est* without a subject at all. If you've got more than one neuter-gendered thing under discussion, it's just going to naturally become *ea sunt* or&amp;mdash;since the *ea* is understood&amp;mdash;just *sunt*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#but yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Edit:** See [@Cerebus's answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6829/2733) for examples of a clarifying *id est* already being used in antiquity.] *I.e.* came into English through medieval Latin, which used tooooons of abbreviations to save space on valuable sheepskin. It was also highly literary, so that you get constructions like *i.e.* to obnoxiously clarify a point where you think you've lost your (naturally) less educated reader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like you thought, it'll generally be invariant since the *id* being discussed is &quot;that thing I just said&quot;, regardless of how many words or examples were specifically involved. *E.s.* isn't really a thing, though you could employ it if you want to underline just how better educated (and obnoxious) you are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="f1bc5754-6d25-49a5-88cd-33d2ae3b0c02" CreationDate="2018-07-09T01:08:45.497" UserId="39" Comment="added 222 characters in body" Text="I did some research and it appears to be **Rötz** - see, for instance, [another treatise][1] held by the British Library written by the same author and typeset (published?) by the same person as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;Gedruckt zu Rötz bey Christoph Joseph Hueth, Wiennerischen Universitäts-Buchdrucker.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I'm not entirely sure if that's the publisher or their location though. - need more research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01018030640" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="3150715e-7998-4cfd-9cdd-5188f4d29e9a" CreationDate="2018-07-09T01:14:59.057" UserId="39" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="I did some research and it appears to be **Rötz** - see, for instance, [another treatise][1] held by the British Library written by the same author and typeset (published?) by the same person as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;Gedruckt zu Rötz bey Christoph Joseph Hueth, Wiennerischen Universitäts-Buchdrucker.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I'm not entirely sure if that's the publisher or their location though. - need more research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01018030640&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GwcgW.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zfKVP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="2180c0fa-7871-4abd-82e4-443c4b01b363" CreationDate="2018-07-09T01:20:19.533" UserId="39" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="I did some research and it appears to be **Rötz** - see, for instance, [another treatise][1] held by the British Library written by the same author and typeset (published?) by the same person as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;Gedruckt zu Rötz bey Christoph Joseph Hueth, Wiennerischen Universitäts-Buchdrucker.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, [this][4] confirms our hypothesis that Rötz is a town:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01018030640&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GwcgW.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zfKVP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=0XpiAAAAcAAJ&amp;dq=R%C3%B6tz%20%3A%20gedruckt%20bey%20Christoph%20Joseph%20Hueth&amp;pg=PT1#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/j7XEZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="07697846-2c1b-4b91-84d3-f393e0e04808" CreationDate="2018-07-09T01:32:59.040" UserId="39" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="I did some research and it appears to be **Rötz** - see, for instance, [another treatise][1] held by the British Library written by the same author and typeset (published?) by the same person as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;Gedruckt zu Rötz bey Christoph Joseph Hueth, Wiennerischen Universitäts-Buchdrucker.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, [this][4] confirms our hypothesis that Rötz is a town:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text you refer to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01018030640&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GwcgW.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zfKVP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=0XpiAAAAcAAJ&amp;dq=R%C3%B6tz%20%3A%20gedruckt%20bey%20Christoph%20Joseph%20Hueth&amp;pg=PT1#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/j7XEZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7YpPK.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="ed84e6fe-1165-4843-b105-54a8adc95567" CreationDate="2018-07-09T01:41:28.790" UserId="39" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="I did some research and it appears to be **Rötz** - see, for instance, [another treatise][1] held by the British Library written by the same author and typeset (published?) by the same person as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;Gedruckt zu Rötz bey Christoph Joseph Hueth, Wiennerischen Universitäts-Buchdrucker.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, [this][4] confirms our hypothesis that Rötz is a town:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some information on Rötz (its earlier name forms and etymology), from [an entry on Rötz (creek)][6]:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text you refer to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01018030640&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GwcgW.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zfKVP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=0XpiAAAAcAAJ&amp;dq=R%C3%B6tz%20%3A%20gedruckt%20bey%20Christoph%20Joseph%20Hueth&amp;pg=PT1#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/j7XEZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110338591/9783110338591.421/9783110338591.421.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/M4eVk.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7YpPK.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6811" RevisionGUID="e6dd9a1d-a81d-4fc9-bd93-f60ec876831a" CreationDate="2018-07-09T03:14:40.340" UserId="30" Comment="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustathius_of_Thessalonica" Text="This is a word transliterated and adapted from Greek παρεκβολή (*parekbolḗ*), from [πᾰρά](http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=lsj&amp;lang=el&amp;word=para%2f&amp;filter=CUTF8) (*para-*, &quot;near&quot;, but here meaning &quot;placed together&quot;) and [ἐκβολή](http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=lsj&amp;lang=el&amp;word=e%29kbolh%2f&amp;filter=CUTF8) (*ekbolḗ*, &quot;throwing out&quot; but here meaning &quot;something tossed off&quot;), which together can be a &quot;compilation of a set of critical remarks&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **παρεκβολή**, ἡ,   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. *digression*, lamb.Bab.8.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. *compilation of a set of critical remarks*, as those of Eust. on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homer, Pindar, and Dionysius Periegeta, cf. eund. ad D.P.426;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; παρεκβολαὶ διαφόρων γραμματικῶν, title of Sch.D.T. in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cod.BMus.Add.5118.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — [Liddell, Scott, Jones][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the word *sive* (&quot;or&quot;, &quot;or also&quot;, &quot;also called&quot;) indicates as well, the plural *parecbolae* is used here as a synonym of *excerpta*. The author names his work *parecbolae*, to which he adds *excerpta* as an explanation or translation for those who might not know the word *parecbola*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be a fairly late adaptation, for I couldn't find any classical Latin sources. *Parécbole* is in a Portuguese dictionary: https://www.dicio.com.br/parecbole/ It's also used in a few other languages, amongst which English, but very rarely (Google [search results][2]). There is mention of a Parecbole by [Eustathius of Thessalonica][3] (a major Byzantine scholar), then the book from the question, and also a gloss describing the meaning of the word in general, through referring to the work by Eustathius. References to parecbolae on/from Aristotle by [Theodorus Metochites][4] (another major Byzantine scholar) can be found as well. Then there are a few more results (in addition, no doubt, to other uses of the word outside Google's limited reach).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=lsj&amp;lang=el&amp;word=parekbolh%2F&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=%22parecbole%7Cparecboles%7Cparecbola%7Cparecbolae%22%20-excerpta&amp;nfpr=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustathius_of_Thessalonica&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Metochites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6297" RevisionGUID="a06339c6-a763-4ecb-8b14-43e6fc827f4b" CreationDate="2018-07-09T04:56:59.843" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm trying to helping out my friend to write a story, the story has a scene where there is Latin sentences which the only sentence that I suppose to be written in Latin in the story but I can't figure it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can anyone of you translate this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Don't wake me up from my sleep.  &#xD;&#xA;And yet&amp;hellip; will I see the light again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to use Google Translate, but it seems something off/odd with the &quot;wake&quot; and &quot;sleep&quot; part. So please let me know the correct translation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22739" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6297" RevisionGUID="a06339c6-a763-4ecb-8b14-43e6fc827f4b" CreationDate="2018-07-09T04:56:59.843" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6059" RevisionGUID="52499a60-7b41-46dd-bb15-7841238bbbba" CreationDate="2018-07-09T05:00:47.507" UserId="79" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited tags" Text="North &amp; Hillard Ex. 228 includes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Next day Caesar had again an army which, though diminished, was prepared to face all dangers manfully.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A footnote states: &quot;Of the concessive conjunctions *quamvis* is most frequently used where the verb is omitted.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The Answer Book gives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Postridie igitur Caeser exercitum habuit restitutum, qui, quamvis deminutus, pericula fortiter obire paratus est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If deploying *quamvis* why not use the subjunctive as the grammatical rule requires, giving *quamvis deminueretur*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22741" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6059" RevisionGUID="52499a60-7b41-46dd-bb15-7841238bbbba" CreationDate="2018-07-09T05:00:47.507" UserId="79" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-identification|conjunctive|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22742" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6059" RevisionGUID="4f0dabe6-94f6-487b-b1d2-2525489c510d" CreationDate="2018-07-09T05:17:47.837" UserId="79" Comment="edited title" Text="Use of subjunctinve in a North &amp; Hillard translation exercise" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6814" RevisionGUID="38c22266-5e50-4dc6-93da-c7d067317e20" CreationDate="2018-07-09T05:40:08.080" UserId="2734" Comment="example of incorrect transcription" Text="Computer tools for pronunciation annotation ([IPA][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### eSpeak&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most easy to use tool is [eSpeak][2] (and its fork [eSpeak NG][3]). It should be executed in the console:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; espeak -v la --ipa -q vocabulum&#xD;&#xA;    wɔkˈabʊlʊm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It works with many other languages too, and can be easily integrated into desktop dictionary lookup software (e.g. GoldenDict).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Classical Language Toolkit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reconstruction of short and long vowels is a difficult task if they are not clearly distinguished in the printed text. In such situation, eSpeak produces incorrect transcriptions (Latinus &gt; [lˈatɪnʊs]). An attempt to solve this problem was made in the [Classical Language Toolkit][4]'s module [Macronizer][5], however it often fails too. CLTK is a programming library, not a ready to use software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://eSpeak&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://github.com/espeak-ng/espeak-ng&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://cltk.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://docs.cltk.org/en/latest/latin.html#macronizer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22744" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4882" RevisionGUID="729b92fa-be97-46a9-b2bb-6394392f91a8" CreationDate="2018-07-09T08:15:45.077" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22745" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4666" RevisionGUID="68350bd2-98cf-4a22-9eaf-d70bb0ea6f9a" CreationDate="2018-07-09T08:16:09.537" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|idiom|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6297" RevisionGUID="61fc87a6-8b44-4354-bd0f-9a73f379d2f4" CreationDate="2018-07-09T08:20:59.677" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="I'm trying to helping out my friend to write a story, the story has a scene where there is Latin sentences which the only sentence that I suppose to be written in Latin in the story but I can't figure it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can anyone of you translate this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Don't wake me up from my sleep.  &#xD;&#xA;And yet&amp;hellip; will I see the light again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to use Google Translate, but it seems something off/odd with the &quot;wake&quot; and &quot;sleep&quot; part. So please let me know the correct translation.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6830" RevisionGUID="f735fe17-8e55-4269-9be3-eac281f19f3a" CreationDate="2018-07-09T09:31:11.173" UserId="2742" Text="I work in IT. For a long time I've said to my team &quot;Build for de jure, change for de facto&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;Meaning: Build a perfect world version, change it to fit the way things are. &#xA;&#xA;An example: When planning infrastructure, plan for the problems that might come when 150 people work here, people and account for them if you can, but at the end of the day - strip your plan down so it works when we only have 50.&#xA;&#xA;Is this correct? Or is there a better phrase for what I'm trying to convey? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22748" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6830" RevisionGUID="f735fe17-8e55-4269-9be3-eac281f19f3a" CreationDate="2018-07-09T09:31:11.173" UserId="2742" Text="Proper use of De Jure and De Facto in the context of &quot;what is&quot; and &quot;what is right&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22749" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6830" RevisionGUID="f735fe17-8e55-4269-9be3-eac281f19f3a" CreationDate="2018-07-09T09:31:11.173" UserId="2742" Text="|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6830" RevisionGUID="1d29b75c-6b80-4556-b77d-00cc74f37f79" CreationDate="2018-07-09T10:21:10.890" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="I work in IT. For a long time I've said to my team &quot;Build for de jure, change for de facto&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meaning: Build a perfect world version, change it to fit the way things are. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example: When planning infrastructure, plan for the problems that might come when 150 people work here, people and account for them if you can, but at the end of the day &amp;mdash; strip your plan down so it works when we only have 50.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct? Or is there a better phrase for what I'm trying to convey? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22751" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6830" RevisionGUID="1d29b75c-6b80-4556-b77d-00cc74f37f79" CreationDate="2018-07-09T10:21:10.890" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|vocabulary|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6831" RevisionGUID="29fbc3cb-d386-4387-a85d-56ab8cf6cb31" CreationDate="2018-07-09T10:59:40.073" UserId="79" Text="The phrase *de iure* (or *de jure*) means literally &quot;by law&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Law can mean many kinds of formal decisions in different contexts.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase *de facto* is similar, but harder to render concisely in idiomatic English.&#xD;&#xA;I would translate it as &quot;by actual events&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For natural-sounding use of these, it is important to keep the preposition &quot;by&quot; in mind; the sentence should make sense when you replace *de iure* by &quot;by law&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For example, if you have been appointed a leader, you are a leader *de iure* (leader by formal appointment), but if you have taken up a leading role without formal promotion, you might be a leader *de facto* (leader by actual events).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your saying does not fit this structure.&#xD;&#xA;Replace the Latin phrases by my translations (or better ones), and you will see an issue: You cannot build &quot;for by law&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;To make the saying work well, either &quot;for&quot; or &quot;by&quot; has to go.&#xD;&#xA;You seem to be treating *de iure* and *de facto* as nouns, whereas they are adverbs (modifiers that express a method).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a couple of replacement options to suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &gt; Build for *ius*, change for *factum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; While this would be a grammatically correct way to remove the preposition *de*, it would be hard for many people to parse.&#xD;&#xA;Sticking to the well known *de iure* and *de facto* is better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &gt; Build *de iure*, change *de facto*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Replacing the Latin phrases with their translations leads to this meaning: &quot;Build by law, change by actual events&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is grammatically valid, but I still see a semantic issue.&#xD;&#xA;The phrases *de iure* and *de facto* usually describe **how** something happens (roughly: formally vs. informally), not **why**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &gt; [Good code is] built *de iure* and changed *de facto*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The difference to the previous one is that the coding is described afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;This feels more appropriate, but it does still feel somewhat unnatural to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. &gt; Build for the ideal, change for the real.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As mentioned above, I don't think *de iure* and *de facto* are the right kind of modifiers for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I would rephrase with other words.&#xD;&#xA;Also, using plain English words helps get the message across to those less familiar with Latin phrases.&#xD;&#xA;There are many possible variations, like changing &quot;change&quot; to &quot;adjust&quot; and &quot;the real&quot; to &quot;reality&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I strongly recommend the fourth one.&#xD;&#xA;While *de iure* and *de facto* are in roughly the right direction, I do not find them good fits to this use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6832" RevisionGUID="f71ce32d-d16d-49df-9efa-b7297ecb7b13" CreationDate="2018-07-09T15:55:13.897" UserId="2743" Text="What does 'fac et gaudium' mean? Or is it just a fragment? Found in old notebook.I know it's something to do with taking action &amp; then delight, but the sense is unclear to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22754" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6832" RevisionGUID="f71ce32d-d16d-49df-9efa-b7297ecb7b13" CreationDate="2018-07-09T15:55:13.897" UserId="2743" Text="What does 'fac et gaudium' mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22755" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6832" RevisionGUID="f71ce32d-d16d-49df-9efa-b7297ecb7b13" CreationDate="2018-07-09T15:55:13.897" UserId="2743" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6832" RevisionGUID="35c75338-2150-414d-ae92-be2ff5215524" CreationDate="2018-07-09T15:56:19.203" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="What does '_fac et gaudium_' mean? Or is it just a fragment? Found in old notebook.I know it's something to do with taking action &amp; then delight, but the sense is unclear to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22757" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6832" RevisionGUID="35c75338-2150-414d-ae92-be2ff5215524" CreationDate="2018-07-09T15:56:19.203" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6832" RevisionGUID="b5ae90f2-7e04-4fc8-bbc5-7e7e8303fb17" CreationDate="2018-07-09T15:56:49.487" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="What does '_fac et gaudium_' mean? Or is it just a fragment? Found in old notebook. I know it's something to do with taking action and then delight, but the sense is unclear to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6833" RevisionGUID="9405323f-25ec-4cb0-913a-287aee66ac3b" CreationDate="2018-07-09T16:01:50.323" UserId="79" Text="I would translate it as &quot;and make joy&quot; or perhaps &quot;make joy, too&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This does not feel like fully idiomatic Latin to me, but the sense seems to be: &quot;remember to enjoy among other things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperative *fac* (which sounds remarkably much like the English swear word) means &quot;make&quot; or &quot;do&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *et* is often translated as &quot;and&quot;, but it can mean many kinds of addition.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps &quot;too&quot; or &quot;also&quot; would fit better here.&#xD;&#xA;Without further context &amp;mdash; which presumably does not exist in a throwaway remark in an old notebook &amp;mdash; is is hard to judge.&#xD;&#xA;In my more verbose translation I translated *et* as &quot;among other things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many words for different kinds of joy, and *gaudium* is one of them.&#xD;&#xA;[Here is an older question comparing some of the Latin joy words.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/696/79)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6833" RevisionGUID="0bce5902-4d80-412c-8658-12f3e6f64cdb" CreationDate="2018-07-09T16:09:16.350" UserId="79" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="I would translate it as &quot;and make joy&quot; or perhaps &quot;make joy, too&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This does not feel like fully idiomatic Latin to me, but the sense seems to be: &quot;remember to enjoy among other things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperative *fac* (which sounds remarkably much like the English swear word) means &quot;make&quot; or &quot;do&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *et* is often translated as &quot;and&quot;, but it can mean many kinds of addition.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps &quot;too&quot; or &quot;also&quot; would fit better here.&#xD;&#xA;Without further context &amp;mdash; which presumably does not exist in a throwaway remark in an old notebook &amp;mdash; is is hard to judge.&#xD;&#xA;In my more verbose translation I translated *et* as &quot;among other things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many words for different kinds of joy, and *gaudium* is one of them.&#xD;&#xA;[Here is an older question comparing some of the Latin joy words.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/696/79)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A far more idiomatic way to say &quot;enjoy!&quot; would be *gaude!* instead of *fac gaudium!*.&#xD;&#xA;I guess this construction is a calque of the writer's primary language, possibly Italian with its ubiquitous *fare*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6829" RevisionGUID="602a7049-2c61-42d6-9ed2-05c054b71200" CreationDate="2018-07-09T16:14:30.880" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="In addition to Ily's overview, I'd like to offer a few examples in which the expression is used just as in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ennius, *Varia* 1 (from this translation of Euhemerus' Sacred History) 140:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inque sepulchro eius est inscriptum antiquis litteris Graecis ΖΑΝ ΚΡΟΝΟΥ **id est** Latine Iuppiter Saturni. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Pro Balbo* 10.7 &amp; 24.12:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contra foedus enim, **id est** contra populi Romani religionem et fidem fecisse dicitur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; servos denique, quorum ius, fortuna, condicio infima est, bene de re publica meritos persaepe libertate, **id est** civitate, publice donari videmus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As one can see, *id est* was used by the Romans in cases where it does not refer to a specific neuter substantive (in the first Ciceronian quotation, it refers not to *foedus* but to the adverbial phrase). In addition, *id est* was used in cases where a specific substantive could have been referred to, such as *ZAN KPONOY* in the Ennian quotation. It stands to reason that invariable *id* could also be used after plural substantive nouns. I would probably never use *ea sunt*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6834" RevisionGUID="791eb619-d6f3-41e7-a5e4-860697ef3acf" CreationDate="2018-07-09T16:25:40.157" UserId="79" Text="What would be a good classical Latin translation of &quot;sense of humour&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;I can find words for &quot;humour&quot;, but I am not sure how to go about &quot;sense of&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Would one of the humour words be adequate on its own (by metonymy or due to having a broader meaning), or should I perhaps use a noun to play the role of &quot;sense&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case it helps, here are the humour words I found:&#xD;&#xA;*lepos/lepor, hilaritas, festivitas, facetia, mos, urbanitas, sensus*.&#xD;&#xA;Some of these are awfully broad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6834" RevisionGUID="791eb619-d6f3-41e7-a5e4-860697ef3acf" CreationDate="2018-07-09T16:25:40.157" UserId="79" Text="What is &quot;sense of humour&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22764" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6834" RevisionGUID="791eb619-d6f3-41e7-a5e4-860697ef3acf" CreationDate="2018-07-09T16:25:40.157" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22765" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1803" RevisionGUID="7cd47b88-de42-485c-8c74-2022dbc0c2e3" CreationDate="2018-07-09T20:26:24.627" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|medieval-latin|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22766" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4202" RevisionGUID="8d79b4ca-f46f-4529-bd10-b628fb00f4ee" CreationDate="2018-07-09T20:27:30.920" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|verbs|christianity|translation-explanation|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5661" RevisionGUID="98446c52-8f7a-4a48-bf9d-a36141739247" CreationDate="2018-07-10T06:04:22.820" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="I came across the phrase *ad astra per aspera* &amp;mdash; &quot;to the stars through difficulties.&quot; I think I know what it means, but my interpretation appears to be at odds with others. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The motto of Kansas, &quot;Ad Astra per Aspera&quot; is Latin for  John James&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ingalls coined the motto in 1861 stating, &quot;**The aspiration of Kansas is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to reach the unattainable; its dream is the realization of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; impossible.&quot; According to the Office of the Governor of Kansas: &quot;This&#xD;&#xA;&gt; motto refers not only to the pioneering spirit of the early settlers,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but also the difficult times Kansas went through before becoming a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; state.** The anti-slavery forces and slavery proponents waged battles in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the electoral process as well as on the battlefield. Kansas earned the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nickname &quot;Bloody Kansas&quot; because of the war regarding slavery, much of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which was fought on Kansas' soil.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, I would agree with this meaning, but this is the context I would like to use it in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, it's an aspirational statement about achieving great things. However, it's just as equally a moral claim that if greatness is acquired without suffering, hardship, or toil, then something is lost. Yet it also appears to be a claim that it is from these very hardships that one acquires this greatness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I reading into this a little too much?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22771" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5661" RevisionGUID="98446c52-8f7a-4a48-bf9d-a36141739247" CreationDate="2018-07-10T06:04:22.820" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|idiom|meaning|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22772" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1961" RevisionGUID="20b78585-d2f1-4246-98f5-c4a65e12c3f5" CreationDate="2018-07-10T06:06:18.643" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|vocabulary|translation-check|new-latin|latin-to-english-translation|science|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6835" RevisionGUID="4aceae28-1b84-4b29-a58b-9a42878897db" CreationDate="2018-07-10T14:51:23.323" UserId="79" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the word *titulus* a diminutive, or does the *-ulus* do something else?&#xD;&#xA;Do we know where it comes from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=titulus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) mentions that the *ti-* is related to *τίνω* and *τιμάω*, but that does not help me much.&#xD;&#xA;I would appreciate any clarification on where *titulus* comes and what the different parts bring to the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;I assume it is not &quot;small Titus&quot;&amp;hellip;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22774" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6835" RevisionGUID="4aceae28-1b84-4b29-a58b-9a42878897db" CreationDate="2018-07-10T14:51:23.323" UserId="79" Text="Where does titulus come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22775" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6835" RevisionGUID="4aceae28-1b84-4b29-a58b-9a42878897db" CreationDate="2018-07-10T14:51:23.323" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|diminutive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22776" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2112" RevisionGUID="dd581ee9-a700-45ff-bf7f-bdb68a8088cc" CreationDate="2018-07-11T07:26:43.130" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|medieval-latin|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22777" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2028" RevisionGUID="10eb138a-38ec-44b4-93d9-95e1e6c5b492" CreationDate="2018-07-11T07:27:05.660" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|new-latin|latin-to-english-translation|spinoza|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22780" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2284" RevisionGUID="56762e4a-354c-41a4-a6e0-3bd857ab8d50" CreationDate="2018-07-11T07:27:36.100" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-identification|latin-to-english-translation|ovidius|metamorphoses|gerundive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22781" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2379" RevisionGUID="7f6f186e-7caf-414a-bc1b-f02c6c1190e7" CreationDate="2018-07-11T07:27:57.037" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-identification|latin-to-english-translation|seneca-iunior|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22782" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2520" RevisionGUID="9deb0db9-e247-4ea7-a8e3-d18ca3d72ce7" CreationDate="2018-07-11T07:28:18.690" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|poetry|latin-to-english-translation|catullus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2550" RevisionGUID="68c0cb3c-5b03-46ce-a278-a87388f6e0b4" CreationDate="2018-07-11T07:28:55.367" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="How would one translate &quot;_argumentum ab invidia ductum_&quot; into English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22784" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2550" RevisionGUID="68c0cb3c-5b03-46ce-a278-a87388f6e0b4" CreationDate="2018-07-11T07:28:55.367" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|idiom|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22785" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4065" RevisionGUID="bccbcf83-9a76-4fd4-a290-8974cd2bd800" CreationDate="2018-07-11T07:29:29.537" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|word-request|grammar-identification|latin-to-english-translation|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|esse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22786" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4938" RevisionGUID="90cf136b-cebd-4469-89ca-744cf869fb77" CreationDate="2018-07-11T07:29:53.023" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|idiom|latin-to-english-translation|english|horatius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22788" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4881" RevisionGUID="4aac8f2d-6b6c-4794-b780-3d414e487929" CreationDate="2018-07-11T07:30:13.923" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|imperative|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22789" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="ed9058a9-1893-4445-ad84-4340cb292b78" CreationDate="2018-07-11T07:30:34.607" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|song-lyrics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22790" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4404" RevisionGUID="2a025155-fc10-46df-b930-e87d9d66f0a4" CreationDate="2018-07-11T07:34:19.013" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|meaning|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22791" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="e8850b1b-ab5e-4bd6-b6f3-39b5a10673dc" CreationDate="2018-07-11T07:34:34.833" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|new-latin|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2284" RevisionGUID="5244aa40-606f-472f-b0c3-d4318f11a1ba" CreationDate="2018-07-11T07:49:07.323" UserId="79" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="There is a line in Ovid's *Metamorphoses* II 519, which I don't understand at all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Juno's complaint)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;'quaeritis, aetheriis quare regina deorum  &#xD;&#xA;sedibus huc adsim? pro me tenet altera caelum!  &#xD;&#xA;mentior, obscurum nisi nox cum fecerit orbem,  &#xD;&#xA;nuper honoratas summo, mea vulnera, caelo            &#xD;&#xA;videritis stellas illic, ubi circulus axem  &#xD;&#xA;ultimus extremum spatioque brevissimus ambit.  &#xD;&#xA;et vero quisquam Iunonem laedere nolit  &#xD;&#xA;offensamque tremat, **quae prosum sola nocendo**?  &#xD;&#xA;o ego quantum egi! quam vasta potentia nostra est!&lt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nocendo* is gerundive from *noceo* &amp;mdash; &quot;to do harm, inflict injury, hurt&quot; &amp;mdash; and *prosum* is a verb &quot;to be useful, be of use, do good, benefit, profit, serve&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This line is translated as 'who do but help where I would harm?' (F. J. Miller)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive (passive adjective) would be then 'to be harmful towards something, (requiring, needing, must be harmed) and should usually have the agent in the dative &amp;mdash; here perhaps *sola*?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *quae* can be f.nom., f.Pl.nom., or n.Pl. nom., acc. &amp;mdash; what or who (as it cannot be Iuppiter?) does it refer to, I do not know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume *prosum* means then that she is saying 'I do good'&amp;hellip;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="81d41337-d551-4ab1-918a-6e254fa78010" CreationDate="2018-07-11T07:58:45.423" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="In [Avenged Sevenfold's &quot;Requiem&quot;][1] there is a passage in Latin at the very beginning of the song. It says something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prodigia comploratus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Silens, oro  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Regnet exitium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know nothing about this language but I assume that the written text above is Latin. What does that mean (if it means anything at all)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://youtu.be/mV7bND-_KdI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="ed0a462a-cfb9-4ec1-84ec-c3d448539ff0" CreationDate="2018-07-11T08:04:08.280" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="In [Avenged Sevenfold's &quot;Requiem&quot;][1] there is a passage in Latin at the very beginning of the song. It says something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prodigia comploratus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Silens, oro  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Regnet exitium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know nothing about this language but I assume that the written text above is Latin. What does that mean (if it means anything at all)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have got to realize that it's a song too. Grammar doesn't have much meaning in songs, at least in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://youtu.be/mV7bND-_KdI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6836" RevisionGUID="86d8974e-c986-4395-b748-025f4e3fe885" CreationDate="2018-07-11T09:23:24.247" UserId="79" Text="The origin of *primum non nocere* sheds some lights to its meaning.&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere) gives a somewhat detailed story with reasonable-looking sources.&#xD;&#xA;In short, the idea is ancient but the exact phrasing is quite new.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin phrase *primum non nocere* seems to have been introduced in the 19th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is that it is only the second law of medicine to do good, the first one is to not harm.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would read the phrase more or less as *praeceptum primum est non nocere*, &quot;the first rule is not to harm&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You could also read *primum* as &quot;the first thing&quot;, but that has no real effect on the interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;Either way, there seems to be an implicit *est*.&#xD;&#xA;This reading is further supported by the fact that you can't really give any orders with *non*, so imperatives are out of the question &amp;mdash; assuming the phrase was grammatical Latin to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;A negative order should be given with *ne* or *noli*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to do something analogous about being blamed instead of doing harm, then you can simply replace &quot;to do harm&quot; (active) by &quot;to be blamed&quot; (passive).&#xD;&#xA;They do indeed look like infinitives to me, not passive imperatives.&#xD;&#xA;([Passive imperatives of non-deponent verbs](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/62/79) are rare but do exist.)&#xD;&#xA;Therefore my suggestion is ***primum non culpari***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6837" RevisionGUID="6b8d8f93-6b56-49af-9fee-3758d7ad4043" CreationDate="2018-07-11T10:29:08.233" UserId="79" Text="I drew a family tree based on Tom Cotton's answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Familia mea][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the tree is hidden and the quality of the picture is not great.&#xD;&#xA;To explore more, [see the dynamical family tree online](http://www.familyecho.com/?p=START&amp;c=t75yvl3o&amp;f=153099915162860489).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone knows a tool for making the whole tree visible at the same time (or wants to draw the tree), I would be happy to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aBvrx.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6838" RevisionGUID="bcf67579-6fed-408f-b81b-eb67f4fe167e" CreationDate="2018-07-11T14:01:38.330" UserId="2704" Text="This question raises a bunch of questions I actually find more interesting, but which are, alack, out of scope of this Stack Exchange instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How did the learnèd coiners of χρήστης, the Modern Greek word, get the voice of the Ancient verb χράομαι wrong? (Active: &quot;to furnish&quot;, in particular &quot;to furnish an oracle&quot;; hence, as @brianpck notes, &quot;oracle-giver&quot; or &quot;creditor&quot;; Middle &quot;to be furnished = to use&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;* Given that χράομαι had fallen out of use, how did the same learnèd coiners come up with something as monstrously awkward as χρησιμοποιέω &quot;to make useful&quot; for &quot;to use&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;* What on earth did the vernacular use before χρησιμοποιέω was coined? (Δουλεύομαι, Somavera's 1700 dictionary says, the middle voice of Modern δουλεύω &quot;to work&quot;. Well, that middle voice certainly hasn't survived into the present day.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if we want a word for someone who χρᾶται &quot;uses&quot; a computer, I don't see why the middle present participle **χρώμενος** won't serve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interesting that &quot;user&quot; is not to be found in [Woodhouse's 1910 English–Ancient Greek dictionary][1]. It also does not occur as a gloss in LSJ. While OED reports _user_ first used in English in 1425, it's become far more common in English latterly, with reference to computers or drugs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, Ancient Greek being Ancient Greek, χρώμενος is disconcertingly ambiguous, and [LSJ][2] reports it already used to mean &quot;someone who consults an oracle&quot;; &quot;someone who takes part&quot;; and in Xenophon, &quot;someone who treats someone as (a friend)&quot;—hence, &quot;friend&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, that's the strict technical notion of &quot;user&quot; as &quot;someone who uses a computer&quot;. As used on this site, &quot;user&quot; is pretty much &quot;site member&quot;, as a specialisation of that sense; Modern Greek would propose μέλος &quot;member&quot;, but LSJ has that word still stuck in the sense &quot;limb&quot;. I'd say [**μέτοχος**][3] &quot;one who partakes of; partner&quot;; the sense &quot;member of a board&quot; is Koine (and non-literary), but it has the right emphasis on community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/Woodhouse/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dxra%2Fw2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=metoxos&amp;la=greek#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6839" RevisionGUID="60ab93b6-5523-49e7-8403-2e9fec778dd0" CreationDate="2018-07-11T14:04:40.583" UserId="469" Text="In English you use the phrasal verb **there+[to be]** to mean something different than just an object being placed somewhere visible or known to the speaker and/or listener (i.e., _there_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* According to [the Cambridge University Dictionary,][1] _we use_ there is _and_ there are _when we first refer to the existence or presence of someone or something_.&#xD;&#xA;* [This dictionary][2] defines _there+to be_ as *used to say that something exists or happens*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same happens with Italian _c'e_ and its corresponding plural and other tenses. In Spanish there is even a special _&quot;impersonal&quot;_ conjugation of the verb _haber_, _hay_ for that meaning (even when in English one would use the plural form _there are_). _Hay_ has very little use apart from this meaning, and no other verbs have such impersonal form, that I'm aware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My gut feeling is that in Latin one should preferably use **est**, while **exsistit** and even **ecce + esse** (possibly elided) could be of some use in certain contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My question is: Could you provide any examples, either Classical or from the Vulgate, that convey something like this meaning of _there is_ in a natural way?** Any additional grammatical insights and/or partial answers are also welcome. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/there-is-there-s-and-there-are&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/there-is-are" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22801" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6839" RevisionGUID="60ab93b6-5523-49e7-8403-2e9fec778dd0" CreationDate="2018-07-11T14:04:40.583" UserId="469" Text="&quot;There is&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22802" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6839" RevisionGUID="60ab93b6-5523-49e7-8403-2e9fec778dd0" CreationDate="2018-07-11T14:04:40.583" UserId="469" Text="|idiom|example-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6839" RevisionGUID="d2c8f202-367a-452b-adb8-18f457526904" CreationDate="2018-07-11T14:08:04.250" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="In English you use the phrasal verb **there+[to be]** to mean something different than just an object being placed somewhere visible or known to the speaker and/or listener (i.e., _there_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* According to [the Cambridge University Dictionary,][1] _we use_ there is _and_ there are _when we first refer to the existence or presence of someone or something_.&#xD;&#xA;* [This dictionary][2] defines _there+to be_ as *used to say that something exists or happens*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same happens with Italian _c'è_ and its corresponding plural and other tenses. In Spanish there is even a special _&quot;impersonal&quot;_ conjugation of the verb _haber_, _hay_ for that meaning (even when in English one would use the plural form _there are_). _Hay_ has very little use apart from this meaning, and no other verbs have such impersonal form, that I'm aware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My gut feeling is that in Latin one should preferably use **est**, while **exsistit** and even **ecce + esse** (possibly elided) could be of some use in certain contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My question is: Could you provide any examples, either Classical or from the Vulgate, that convey something like this meaning of _there is_ in a natural way?** Any additional grammatical insights and/or partial answers are also welcome. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/there-is-there-s-and-there-are&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/there-is-are" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6840" RevisionGUID="64228db6-1e95-460b-9e7d-d844e3f37d9f" CreationDate="2018-07-11T14:28:24.330" UserId="79" Text="The next time you get into that dream, use a plain *est*.&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example from Caesar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Flumen est** Arar, quod per fines Haeduorum et Sequanorum in Rhodanum influit&amp;hellip;*  &#xD;&#xA;(*Commentarii de bello Gallico* I.12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **There is a river** [called] the Saone , which flows through the territories of the Aedui and Sequani into the Rhone&amp;hellip;  &#xD;&#xA;(W. A. McDevitte and W. S. Bohn, 1869)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For introducing simple things like this, the most idiomatic way I know is to use *est*.&#xD;&#xA;Using *ecce* gives emphasis, which is often unwanted.&#xD;&#xA;The point is to say &quot;there is a river&quot;, not &quot;lo and behold, a river&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6840" RevisionGUID="2e45f339-5265-4d24-88de-887fc8c13be1" CreationDate="2018-07-11T14:41:15.180" UserId="79" Comment="added 427 characters in body" Text="The next time you get into that dream, use a plain *est*.&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example from Caesar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Flumen est** Arar, quod per fines Haeduorum et Sequanorum in Rhodanum influit&amp;hellip;*  &#xD;&#xA;(*Commentarii de bello Gallico* I.12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **There is a river** [called] the Saone , which flows through the territories of the Aedui and Sequani into the Rhone&amp;hellip;  &#xD;&#xA;(W. A. McDevitte and W. S. Bohn, 1869)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For introducing simple things like this, the most idiomatic way I know is to use *est*.&#xD;&#xA;Using *ecce* gives emphasis, which is often unwanted.&#xD;&#xA;The point is to say &quot;there is a river&quot;, not &quot;lo and behold, a river&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions, you can use *estne* for &quot;is there&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Estne adhuc aliquid mali in orbe mecum?*  &#xD;&#xA;(Lucius Annaeus Seneca iunior, *Hercules Oetaeus* 1399&amp;ndash;1400)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there still anything bad in the world with me?  &#xD;&#xA;(my quick translation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also examples of *estne* with a dative of possession, but I guess those would not usually correspond to an English question with &quot;is there&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6840" RevisionGUID="4ed1e2bf-9869-4f2c-9503-2e04a3f6a1d7" CreationDate="2018-07-11T17:23:11.460" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="The next time you get into that dream, use a plain *est*.&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example from Caesar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Flumen est** Arar, quod per fines Haeduorum et Sequanorum in Rhodanum influit&amp;hellip;*  &#xD;&#xA;(*Commentarii de bello Gallico* I.12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **There is a river** called the Saone, which flows through the territories of the Aedui and Sequani into the Rhone&amp;hellip;  &#xD;&#xA;(W. A. McDevitte and W. S. Bohn, 1869)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For introducing simple things like this, the most idiomatic way I know is to use *est*.&#xD;&#xA;Using *ecce* gives emphasis, which is often unwanted.&#xD;&#xA;The point is to say &quot;there is a river&quot;, not &quot;lo and behold, a river&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions, you can use *estne* for &quot;is there&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Estne adhuc aliquid mali in orbe mecum?*  &#xD;&#xA;(Lucius Annaeus Seneca iunior, *Hercules Oetaeus* 1399&amp;ndash;1400)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there still anything bad in the world with me?  &#xD;&#xA;(my quick translation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also examples of *estne* with a dative of possession, but I guess those would not usually correspond to an English question with &quot;is there&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6841" RevisionGUID="c9723557-5dbb-414f-8087-cf772d55a926" CreationDate="2018-07-11T18:10:30.547" UserId="79" Text="I would like a Latin phrase to ask what the other person is doing at the moment.&#xD;&#xA;For example, it would not be unusual for me in [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm) to first say &quot;hi&quot; and then ask what the other person is doing.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what would be idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is the simple option *quid facis?*, but I would assume there are other options as well.&#xD;&#xA;I don't want to have all my conversations in the exact same words.&#xD;&#xA;A Finnish idiom (&quot;mitäs puuhailet?&quot;) could be translated directly as *quidnam factitas?*, but I suspect there are better options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you ask such a question in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Why so?&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for something for modern use, but it can be from any era." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22808" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6841" RevisionGUID="c9723557-5dbb-414f-8087-cf772d55a926" CreationDate="2018-07-11T18:10:30.547" UserId="79" Text="&quot;What are you up to?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22809" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6841" RevisionGUID="c9723557-5dbb-414f-8087-cf772d55a926" CreationDate="2018-07-11T18:10:30.547" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6842" RevisionGUID="260aaa37-404f-4b8e-9d54-940d0346a40e" CreationDate="2018-07-11T19:08:01.727" UserId="645" Text="John Milton's short poem of 1639, 'Epitahium Damonis', has *Heus bone numquid agis? nisi te quid forte retardat, Imus?'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Milton is a reliable and excellent authority for examples of Latin syntax. This one ought to suggest one or two variations for you to consider." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6842" RevisionGUID="f920fe3f-699b-4885-bf8d-4b136bbcd468" CreationDate="2018-07-11T19:28:37.340" UserId="645" Comment="sp. " Text="John Milton's short poem of 1639, 'Epitaphium Damonis', has *Heus bone numquid agis? nisi te quid forte retardat, Imus?'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Milton is a reliable and excellent authority for examples of Latin syntax. This one ought to suggest one or two variations for you to consider." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6843" RevisionGUID="70408f8c-5cb9-4a21-9db9-9401848159a2" CreationDate="2018-07-11T20:30:25.087" UserId="1142" Text="There was a conversation between [Joonas Ilmavirta](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/79/joonas-ilmavirta) and I in [CONLOQVIVM](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm), during which [we attempted](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/45597328#45597328) to figure out what the appropriate translation for the phrase &quot;high school&quot; (specifically of the American variant) would be in Latin. Needless to say, we did not come to a conclusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware that the Roman concept of school was *very* different from what we would think of today, and as such, there will likely be no pragmatic translation (or even a mostly literal one). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TL;DR: what would be the best way to translate the phrase &quot;[american] high school&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22813" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6843" RevisionGUID="70408f8c-5cb9-4a21-9db9-9401848159a2" CreationDate="2018-07-11T20:30:25.087" UserId="1142" Text="What would would &quot;high school&quot; be in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22814" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6843" RevisionGUID="70408f8c-5cb9-4a21-9db9-9401848159a2" CreationDate="2018-07-11T20:30:25.087" UserId="1142" Text="|word-request|academic-latin|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6844" RevisionGUID="0847d7c5-a67c-4c2f-b42b-885fe5c363ec" CreationDate="2018-07-11T20:42:39.150" UserId="1818" Text="I [took a look at the chat][1] and saw many comments in Latin, most of whom I could not decipher immediately. So I tried to point that out, and why not do it in Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that I have basically translated this phrase from German to Latin and then back to English, so all versions are a bit clumsy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To read all that will take me a while - as has writing this.    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Haec legere multis horis me diuturnum fuerit, etiam eae scribere erat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My ideas/thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - using neuter plural (like Seneca used to)&#xD;&#xA; - differentiating between that (haec) and this (eae)&#xD;&#xA; - not messing up the tenses by trying future (fuerit) and imperfect (erat)&#xD;&#xA; - *take time* is difficult, pons gave diuturnum esse and manere, but maybe that's more a progressive taking time, like to continue.&#xD;&#xA; - Ablativus Temporalis (multis horis). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure about the accusative for haec and eae. It's not intended to be an AcI.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/45594393#45594393" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22816" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6844" RevisionGUID="0847d7c5-a67c-4c2f-b42b-885fe5c363ec" CreationDate="2018-07-11T20:42:39.150" UserId="1818" Text="How can this English to Latin translation be improved?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22817" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6844" RevisionGUID="0847d7c5-a67c-4c2f-b42b-885fe5c363ec" CreationDate="2018-07-11T20:42:39.150" UserId="1818" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6845" RevisionGUID="81623649-30c0-4eb2-aab2-26c8540ba3a7" CreationDate="2018-07-11T21:12:21.830" UserId="9" Text="As you note, the concept of a &quot;high school&quot; seems to be modern, so there is probably no exact classical equivalent. I think the word *lycēum* that Joonas mentioned in chat would be the best term: many modern European languages use a word based on this to refer to a secondary school. (According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyceum), this usage originates from Napoleon's educational reforms in the early 19th century.) The online Latin dictionary Latdict has the following entry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###[lyceum, lycei](http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/26068/lyceum-lycei)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**noun**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;declension: 2nd declension&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;gender: neuter&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Definitions:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. college&#xD;&#xA;2. gymnasium of Aristotle&#xD;&#xA;3. high school (Ecc)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...] Source: “Oxford Latin Dictionary”, 1982 (OLD)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6845" RevisionGUID="e9adf400-63a4-48c8-9c44-c318cf5a0fbb" CreationDate="2018-07-11T21:24:07.143" UserId="9" Comment="added 285 characters in body" Text="As you note, the concept of a &quot;high school&quot; seems to be modern, so there is probably no exact classical equivalent. I think the word *lycēum* that Joonas mentioned in chat would be the best term: many modern European languages use a word based on this to refer to a secondary school. (According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyceum), this usage originates from Napoleon's educational reforms in the early 19th century.) The online Latin dictionary Latdict has the following entry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###[lyceum, lycei](http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/26068/lyceum-lycei)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**noun**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;declension: 2nd declension&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;gender: neuter&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Definitions:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. college&#xD;&#xA;2. gymnasium of Aristotle&#xD;&#xA;3. high school (Ecc)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...] Source: “Oxford Latin Dictionary”, 1982 (OLD)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many contexts that I can think of, it would not be necessary to indicate that one is talking about a high school specifically rather than some other kind of school. In cases like that,&#xD;&#xA;I think the word &quot;schola&quot; would work--it is the source of the English word &quot;school&quot;, and can have the same meaning in Latin. The &quot;[Brooklyn Latin School](http://www.brooklynlatin.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=288305&amp;type=d)&quot; (an American high school) seems to translate its name into Latin as &quot;Schola Latina Brookliniensis&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6845" RevisionGUID="f98c59a6-e990-4019-93d9-58d6e5d96b3c" CreationDate="2018-07-11T21:29:24.757" UserId="9" Comment="added 285 characters in body" Text="As you note, the concept of a &quot;high school&quot; seems to be modern, so there is probably no exact classical equivalent. I think the word *lycēum* that Joonas mentioned in chat would be a good term: many modern European languages use a word based on this to refer to a secondary school. (According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyceum), this usage originates from Napoleon's educational reforms in the early 19th century.) The online Latin dictionary Latdict has the following entry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###[lyceum, lycei](http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/26068/lyceum-lycei)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**noun**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;declension: 2nd declension&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;gender: neuter&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Definitions:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. college&#xD;&#xA;2. gymnasium of Aristotle&#xD;&#xA;3. high school (Ecc)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...] Source: “Oxford Latin Dictionary”, 1982 (OLD)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many contexts that I can think of, it would not be necessary to indicate that one is talking about a high school specifically rather than some other kind of school. In cases like that,&#xD;&#xA;I think the word *schŏla* would work—it is the source of the English word &quot;school&quot;, and can have the same meaning in Latin. The &quot;[Brooklyn Latin School](http://www.brooklynlatin.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=288305&amp;type=d)&quot; (an American high school) seems to translate its name into Latin as &quot;Schola Latina Brookliniensis&quot;; the [History page](http://www.brooklynlatin.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=288251&amp;type=d) mentions the older [Boston Latin School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Latin_School) which seems to go by the name &quot;Schola Latina Bostoniensis&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that there is a separate word used for primary schools, *[lūdus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludus_(ancient_Rome)),* so in practice *schola* may not even be as ambiguous as English &quot;school&quot;. I'm not sure about that, however." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6845" RevisionGUID="1115bbec-cecc-4558-a727-5cd507a7ee2f" CreationDate="2018-07-11T21:37:02.843" UserId="9" Comment="added 223 characters in body" Text="If you want a single word meaning &quot;high school&quot; specifically, I think the closest would be *lycēum.* I think the word *schŏla* &quot;school&quot; would also be appropriate in reference to a high school.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you note, the concept of a &quot;high school&quot; seems to be modern, so there is probably no exact classical equivalent. Joonas mentioned the word *lycēum* in chat, and I think this would be a good choice because many modern European languages use a word based on this to refer to a secondary school. (According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyceum), this usage originates from Napoleon's educational reforms in the early 19th century.) The online Latin dictionary Latdict has the following entry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###[lyceum, lycei](http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/26068/lyceum-lycei)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**noun**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;declension: 2nd declension&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;gender: neuter&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Definitions:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. college&#xD;&#xA;2. gymnasium of Aristotle&#xD;&#xA;3. high school (Ecc)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...] Source: “Oxford Latin Dictionary”, 1982 (OLD)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many contexts that I can think of, it would not be necessary to indicate that one is talking about a high school specifically rather than some other kind of school. In cases like that,&#xD;&#xA;I think the word *schŏla* would work—it is the source of the English word &quot;school&quot;, and can have the same meaning in Latin. The &quot;[Brooklyn Latin School](http://www.brooklynlatin.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=288305&amp;type=d)&quot; (an American high school) seems to translate its name into Latin as &quot;Schola Latina Brookliniensis&quot;; the [History page](http://www.brooklynlatin.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=288251&amp;type=d) mentions the older [Boston Latin School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Latin_School) which seems to go by the name &quot;Schola Latina Bostoniensis&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that there is another Latin translation for &quot;school&quot; that is used for primary schools—*[lūdus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludus_(ancient_Rome))*—so in practice *schola* may not even be as vague as English &quot;school&quot;. I'm actually not sure about the exact differences in meaning and usage between *schŏla* and *lūdus,* though: it seems probable that they have some overlap, as I found them both translated as &quot;the School&quot; in &quot;[A First Latin Dictionary](https://books.google.com/books?id=Je0IAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA7&amp;lpg=PA7)&quot; by William Smith (1862)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6845" RevisionGUID="4048a1cd-ebf9-4609-9e93-6d685e6fc359" CreationDate="2018-07-11T21:42:13.203" UserId="9" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="If you want a single word meaning &quot;high school&quot; specifically, I think the closest would be *lycēum.* I think the word *schŏla* &quot;school&quot; would also be appropriate in reference to a high school.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you note, the concept of a &quot;high school&quot; seems to be modern, so there is probably no exact classical equivalent. Joonas mentioned the word *lycēum* in chat, and I think this would be a good choice because many modern European languages use a word based on this to refer to a secondary school. (According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyceum), this usage originates from Napoleon's educational reforms in the early 19th century.) The online Latin dictionary Latdict has the following entry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###[lyceum, lycei](http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/26068/lyceum-lycei)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**noun**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;declension: 2nd declension&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;gender: neuter&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Definitions:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. college&#xD;&#xA;2. gymnasium of Aristotle&#xD;&#xA;3. high school (Ecc)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...] Source: “Oxford Latin Dictionary”, 1982 (OLD)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many contexts that I can think of, it would not be necessary to indicate that one is talking about a high school specifically rather than some other kind of school. In cases like that,&#xD;&#xA;I think the word *schŏla* would work—it is the source of the English word &quot;school&quot;, and can have the same meaning in Latin. The &quot;[Brooklyn Latin School](http://www.brooklynlatin.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=288305&amp;type=d)&quot; (an American high school) seems to translate its name into Latin as &quot;Schola Latina Brookliniensis&quot;; the [History page](http://www.brooklynlatin.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=288251&amp;type=d) mentions the older [Boston Latin School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Latin_School) which seems to go by the name &quot;Schola Latina Bostoniensis&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that there is another Latin translation for &quot;school&quot; that is used particularly for primary schools—*[lūdus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludus_(ancient_Rome))*—so in practice *schola* may not even be as vague as English &quot;school&quot;. I'm actually not sure about the exact differences in meaning and usage between *schŏla* and *lūdus,* though: it seems probable that they have some overlap, as I found them both translated as &quot;the School&quot; in &quot;[A First Latin Dictionary](https://books.google.com/books?id=Je0IAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA7&amp;lpg=PA7)&quot; by William Smith (1862)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6845" RevisionGUID="65ce79c8-1b6b-4db9-a2c0-2989d7aec9de" CreationDate="2018-07-11T21:47:40.093" UserId="9" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="If you want a single word meaning &quot;high school&quot; specifically, I think the closest would be *lycēum.* I think the word *schŏla* &quot;school&quot; would also be appropriate in reference to a high school.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you note, the concept of a &quot;high school&quot; seems to be modern, so there is probably no exact classical equivalent. Joonas mentioned the word *lycēum* in chat, and I think this would be a good choice because many modern European languages use a word based on this to refer to a secondary school. (According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyceum), this usage originates from Napoleon's educational reforms in the early 19th century.) The online Latin dictionary Latdict has the following entry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ###[lyceum, lycei](http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/26068/lyceum-lycei)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**noun**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;declension: 2nd declension&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;gender: neuter&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Definitions:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. college&#xD;&#xA;2. gymnasium of Aristotle&#xD;&#xA;3. high school (Ecc)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...] Source: “Oxford Latin Dictionary”, 1982 (OLD)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many contexts that I can think of, it would not be necessary to indicate that one is talking about a high school specifically rather than some other kind of school. In cases like that,&#xD;&#xA;I think the word *schŏla, -ae* (f.) would work—it is the source of the English word &quot;school&quot;, and can have the same meaning in Latin. The &quot;[Brooklyn Latin School](http://www.brooklynlatin.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=288305&amp;type=d)&quot; (an American high school) seems to translate its name into Latin as &quot;Schola Latina Brookliniensis&quot;; the [History page](http://www.brooklynlatin.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=288251&amp;type=d) mentions the older [Boston Latin School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Latin_School) which seems to go by the name &quot;Schola Latina Bostoniensis&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that there is another Latin translation for &quot;school&quot; that is used particularly for primary schools—*[lūdus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludus_(ancient_Rome)), -i* (m.)—so in practice *schola* may not even be as vague as English &quot;school&quot;. I'm actually not sure about the exact differences in meaning and usage between *schŏla* and *lūdus,* though: it seems probable that they have some overlap, as I found them both translated as &quot;the School&quot; in &quot;[A First Latin Dictionary](https://books.google.com/books?id=Je0IAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA7&amp;lpg=PA7)&quot; by William Smith (1862)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6846" RevisionGUID="5cf5368c-3a0f-4753-bbf7-b36060d15536" CreationDate="2018-07-11T21:59:40.720" UserId="1694" Text="First of all, I think @sumelic's answer is excellent (and I've upvoted it), but I think it would be remiss not to mention a reasonable alternative, _gymnasium_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6807" RevisionGUID="23dcf8e6-4593-4d83-aa84-da43163725d3" CreationDate="2018-07-11T22:37:39.740" UserId="1142" Comment="loquī nōn loquere; added full entry to link" Text="[Deponent verbs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deponent_verb) are those who are written (normally) in passive form but are active in meaning. [loquor, loquī, locūtus sum](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/loquor#Latin) is a common example in Latin. I wonder if the opposite exists, i.e. a verb which is active in form but passive in meaning. To be honest, I cannot even think of one in Spanish or English, which might indicate that this does not exist in Latin either. Any ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22826" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6807" RevisionGUID="23dcf8e6-4593-4d83-aa84-da43163725d3" CreationDate="2018-07-11T22:37:39.740" Comment="Proposed by 1142 approved by 1459 edit id of 244" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6847" RevisionGUID="6f6ec86f-3852-47eb-854e-27eea8a50938" CreationDate="2018-07-12T00:02:52.210" UserId="2749" Text="I've tried a few angles of how this could be represented, but they all feel clunky or implying other meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Iustus pecunia` was the first, focusing on justice and fairness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Pecunia liber` seems promising driving toward liberty, but makes me feel penunia might be too blunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think `rebus oeconomicis liber` is the most literal translation, but I feel like I'm missing something here. Any help would be greatly appreciated!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22828" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6847" RevisionGUID="6f6ec86f-3852-47eb-854e-27eea8a50938" CreationDate="2018-07-12T00:02:52.210" UserId="2749" Text="How would you say, &quot;open financial system&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22829" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6847" RevisionGUID="6f6ec86f-3852-47eb-854e-27eea8a50938" CreationDate="2018-07-12T00:02:52.210" UserId="2749" Text="|money|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22831" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6843" RevisionGUID="4c6003f8-f41f-4f7c-ade7-8fcc7809525b" CreationDate="2018-07-12T09:44:03.293" UserId="2752" Comment="Corrected word doubling: would would." Text="What would &quot;high school&quot; be in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22832" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6843" RevisionGUID="4c6003f8-f41f-4f7c-ade7-8fcc7809525b" CreationDate="2018-07-12T09:44:03.293" Comment="Proposed by 2752 approved by 79 edit id of 245" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6848" RevisionGUID="e222f9c6-6c86-4dc4-9c84-48645992760e" CreationDate="2018-07-12T09:48:11.610" UserId="1459" Text="I guess the first question is how do you say financial system. Finance comes from the French _[finance](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/finance#English)_, which is related from the Latin _finis_. Still, there is not a native word for it in Latin. For finance, I have found two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _[fiscalis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fiscalis#Latin)_, which refers more directly to public finances, but seems to be used also for the private and general finance sector. For instance, in [this Enclyclical](http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/la/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30121987_sollicitudo-rei-socialis.html) by Pope John Paul II, he wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Systemati nummario et fiscali per orbem terrarum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which English translation (and the context of the phrase confirms anyway) is &quot;The world monetary and financial system&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _res nummarii_, where _res_ refers to things, and _[nummarii](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nummarius#Latin)_ refers to money. Thus, _res nummarii_ stands for &quot;the monetary things&quot;. Is the word _res_ also used in terms of system? Maybe there are some instances that is the case, but I don't know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding open, _liber_ is an option, if by open you mean free. A free financial system might not exactly be an open one (e.g. it might be free market but only nationally), but in economics, particularly in trade, there is a close correspondence between a free market and a market which is open to trade, i.e. open to the rest of the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I would go for something like &quot;_liber systemati nummario_&quot;, or &quot;_liber systemati fiscali_&quot;, or &quot;_liber res nummarii_&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I hope I'm getting the declensions write. Comments welcomed)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6847" RevisionGUID="a365298b-cc3e-49ce-92ca-9d6b4d821f68" CreationDate="2018-07-12T09:49:06.313" UserId="1459" Comment="edited body" Text="I've tried a few angles of how this could be represented, but they all feel clunky or implying other meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Iustus pecunia_ was the first, focusing on justice and fairness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Pecunia liber_ seems promising driving toward liberty, but makes me feel penunia might be too blunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think _rebus oeconomicis liber_ is the most literal translation, but I feel like I'm missing something here. Any help would be greatly appreciated!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6848" RevisionGUID="1316df1b-170a-43ca-ad0e-01dc6fd95a19" CreationDate="2018-07-12T10:12:04.940" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I guess the first question is how do you say financial system. Finance comes from the French _[finance](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/finance#English)_, which is related from the Latin _finis_. Still, there is not a native word for it in Latin. For finance, I have found two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _[fiscalis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fiscalis#Latin)_, which refers more directly to public finances, but seems to be used also for the private and general finance sector. For instance, in [this Enclyclical](http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/la/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30121987_sollicitudo-rei-socialis.html) by Pope John Paul II, he wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Systemati nummario et fiscali per orbem terrarum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which English translation (and the context of the phrase confirms anyway) is &quot;The world monetary and financial system&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _res nummarii_, where _res_ refers to things, and _[nummarii](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nummarius#Latin)_ refers to money. Thus, _res nummarii_ stands for &quot;the monetary things&quot;. Is the word _res_ also used in terms of system? Maybe there are some instances that is the case, but I don't know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding open, _liber_ is an option, if by open you mean free. A free financial system might not exactly be an open one (e.g. it might be free market but only nationally), but in economics, particularly in trade, there is a close correspondence between a free market and a market which is open to trade, i.e. open to the rest of the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I would go for something like &quot;_liberus systema nummarium_&quot;, or &quot;_liberus systema fiscale_&quot;, or &quot;_libera res nummarii_&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I hope I'm getting the declensions write. Comments welcomed)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6848" RevisionGUID="c1691f4f-6ccd-459a-9670-f31579783fae" CreationDate="2018-07-12T10:20:43.980" UserId="1459" Comment="edited body" Text="I guess the first question is how do you say financial system. Finance comes from the French _[finance](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/finance#English)_, which is related from the Latin _finis_. Still, there is not a native word for it in Latin. For finance, I have found two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _[fiscalis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fiscalis#Latin)_, which refers more directly to public finances, but seems to be used also for the private and general finance sector. For instance, in [this Enclyclical](http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/la/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30121987_sollicitudo-rei-socialis.html) by Pope John Paul II, he wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Systemati nummario et fiscali per orbem terrarum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which English translation (and the context of the phrase confirms anyway) is &quot;The world monetary and financial system&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _res nummarii_, where _res_ refers to things, and _[nummarii](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nummarius#Latin)_ refers to money. Thus, _res nummarii_ stands for &quot;the monetary things&quot;. Is the word _res_ also used in terms of system? Maybe there are some instances that is the case, but I don't know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding open, _liber_ is an option, if by open you mean free. A free financial system might not exactly be an open one (e.g. it might be free market but only nationally), but in economics, particularly in trade, there is a close correspondence between a free market and a market which is open to trade, i.e. open to the rest of the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I would go for something like &quot;_liberum systema nummarium_&quot;, or &quot;_liberum systema fiscale_&quot;, or &quot;_libera res nummaria_&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I hope I'm getting the declensions write. Comments welcomed)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6848" RevisionGUID="8fc08b7f-9beb-4777-842f-da30653b2498" CreationDate="2018-07-12T10:27:11.270" UserId="1459" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I guess the first question is how do you say financial system. Finance comes from the French _[finance](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/finance#English)_, which is related from the Latin _finis_. Still, there is not a native word for it in Latin. For finance, I have found two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _[fiscalis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fiscalis#Latin)_, which refers more directly to public finances, but seems to be used also for the private and general finance sector. For instance, in [this Enclyclical](http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/la/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30121987_sollicitudo-rei-socialis.html) by Pope John Paul II, he wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Systemati nummario et fiscali per orbem terrarum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which English translation (and the context of the phrase confirms anyway) is &quot;[to] the world monetary and financial system&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _res nummaria_, where _res_ refers to things, and _[nummaria](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nummarius#Latin)_ refers to money. Thus, _res nummaria_ stands for &quot;the monetary things&quot;. Is the word _res_ also used in terms of system? Maybe there are some instances that is the case, but I don't know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding open, _liber_ is an option, if by open you mean free. A free financial system might not exactly be an open one (e.g. it might be free market but only nationally), but in economics, particularly in trade, there is a close correspondence between a free market and a market which is open to trade, i.e. open to the rest of the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I would go for something like &quot;_liberum systema nummarium_&quot;, or &quot;_liberum systema fiscale_&quot;, or &quot;_libera res nummaria_&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I hope I'm getting the declensions write. Comments welcomed)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6849" RevisionGUID="4a3c3ec5-a0d9-4aef-b59c-f18542c184fc" CreationDate="2018-07-12T10:44:40.553" UserId="79" Text="In English or Finnish I can express the time it took to complete something in two ways, but in Latin only one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &#xD;&#xA;E: &quot;I did it in two hours.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;F: &quot;Tein sen kahdessa tunnissa.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;L: *Duabus horis id perfeci.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &#xD;&#xA;E: &quot;It took me two hours to do it.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;F: &quot;Minulta kesti kaksi tuntia tehdä se.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;L: ***???***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first phrasing expresses simply that something was completed in some time.&#xD;&#xA;The second one gives more emphasis to the amount of time and often indicates that the time was longer than expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I express the second one in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;What is a Latin way to phrase &quot;take&quot; when something takes time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22839" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6849" RevisionGUID="4a3c3ec5-a0d9-4aef-b59c-f18542c184fc" CreationDate="2018-07-12T10:44:40.553" UserId="79" Text="How to phrase &quot;it took two hours&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22840" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6849" RevisionGUID="4a3c3ec5-a0d9-4aef-b59c-f18542c184fc" CreationDate="2018-07-12T10:44:40.553" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|time|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6848" RevisionGUID="4bdc2635-a892-49fe-bbc1-a00c78995179" CreationDate="2018-07-12T11:39:41.357" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I guess the first question is how do you say financial system. Finance comes from the French _[finance](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/finance#English)_, which is related to the Latin _finis_. Still, there is not a native word for it in Latin. For finance, I have found two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _[fiscalis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fiscalis#Latin)_, which refers more directly to public finances, but seems to be used also for the private and general finance sector. For instance, in [this Enclyclical](http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/la/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30121987_sollicitudo-rei-socialis.html) by Pope John Paul II, he wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Systemati nummario et fiscali per orbem terrarum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which English translation (and the context of the phrase confirms anyway) is &quot;[to] the world monetary and financial system&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _res nummaria_, where _res_ refers to things, and _[nummaria](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nummarius#Latin)_ refers to money. Thus, _res nummaria_ stands for &quot;the monetary things&quot;. Is the word _res_ also used in terms of system? Maybe there are some instances that is the case, but I don't know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding open, _liber_ is an option, if by open you mean free. A free financial system might not exactly be an open one (e.g. it might be free market but only nationally), but in economics, particularly in trade, there is a close correspondence between a free market and a market which is open to trade, i.e. open to the rest of the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I would go for something like &quot;_liberum systema nummarium_&quot;, or &quot;_liberum systema fiscale_&quot;, or &quot;_libera res nummaria_&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I hope I'm getting the declensions right. Comments welcomed)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22842" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6849" RevisionGUID="baaa4676-7cd8-4ab1-adc1-d6fe695d7286" CreationDate="2018-07-12T12:06:52.777" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|idiom|time|finnish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5886" RevisionGUID="45c925a3-c7f8-4ed0-96a4-5df507e94b0c" CreationDate="2018-07-12T12:46:33.790" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am looking for a name for my newly-formed classical music studio, and I thought a Latin translation or equivalent of &quot;for the love of music&quot; may sound elegant. Would someone be willing to translate this? Or perhaps you have suggestions for other appropriate phrases?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22844" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5886" RevisionGUID="45c925a3-c7f8-4ed0-96a4-5df507e94b0c" CreationDate="2018-07-12T12:46:33.790" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|motto|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22845" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4564" RevisionGUID="93c3544c-c754-46d5-9675-48e99a81226a" CreationDate="2018-07-12T12:47:00.770" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|motto|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22846" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5978" RevisionGUID="99e215f6-194b-4d78-817e-20c44c16c5f4" CreationDate="2018-07-12T12:47:46.173" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22847" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5877" RevisionGUID="0936a539-29d9-466e-9b80-a04752d2eaa4" CreationDate="2018-07-12T12:48:06.597" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6850" RevisionGUID="c1054096-bdfc-4a75-9d87-5bf82159aea8" CreationDate="2018-07-12T15:29:12.987" UserId="469" Text="I like Joonas' answer, but I'd add a nuance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Homines* makes it seem like you are trying to say that elephants belong specifically to the human race. If I am right to think that you want to say elephants are somewhat rational and/or subjects of rights just as people are, I'd use either _persona_ or the adj. _rationalis_, hence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Elephantes rationales sunt** or **Elephantes personae sunt**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary meaning of *persona* is [a mask][1], but there are Classical examples of its use for people as opposed to things (L&amp;S cites Cic. de Or. 3, 14, 53) and subjects of rights and obligations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In turn, philosophical tradition dating back to Aristotle and still agreed by some today, what makes people subject of rights and duties is their *potential to reason* (as opposed to, say, plants). This is expressed by one of the meanings of [rationalis][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpersona&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DR%3Aentry%20group%3D3%3Aentry%3Drationalis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6839" RevisionGUID="ac428e4d-97e2-4409-b978-e768e76a828c" CreationDate="2018-07-12T15:33:12.693" UserId="469" Comment="added 203 characters in body" Text="In English you use the phrasal verb **there+[to be]** to mean something different than just an object being placed somewhere visible or known to the speaker and/or listener (i.e., _there_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* According to [the Cambridge University Dictionary,][1] _we use_ there is _and_ there are _when we first refer to the existence or presence of someone or something_.&#xD;&#xA;* [This dictionary][2] defines _there+to be_ as *used to say that something exists or happens*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same happens with Italian _c'è_ and its corresponding plural and other tenses. In Spanish there is even a special _&quot;impersonal&quot;_ conjugation of the verb _haber_ &amp;mdash;_hay_&amp;mdash; for that meaning (even when in English one would use the plural form _there are_). _Hay_ has very little use apart from this meaning, and no other verbs have such impersonal form, that I'm aware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My gut feeling is that in Latin one should preferably use **est**, while **exsistit** and even **ecce + esse** (possibly elided) could be of some use in certain contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My question is: Could you provide any examples, either Classical or from the Vulgate, that convey something like this meaning of _there is_ in a natural way?** I'm interested in both affirmative and interrogative sentences, and if there is any rule of thumb as for what (if anything) makes something different than _est_ (ecce, exsistit) preferable. Any additional grammatical insights and/or partial answers are also welcome. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/there-is-there-s-and-there-are&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/there-is-are" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6851" RevisionGUID="39a32540-729c-4bef-9d7a-82fa1044bdd0" CreationDate="2018-07-12T15:51:05.830" UserId="469" Text="*(partial answer)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb **[consumo][1]**, can be used with amounts of time as meaning *to spend*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; horasque multas saepe suavissimo sermone consumeres ([Cic. Fam. 11.27.5][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence a possibility is to say you *spent* two hours: **horas duas consumpsi id faciens**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dconsumo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:phi,0474,056:11:27:5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6852" RevisionGUID="cf4032ee-7398-421f-80d6-55c4e77a9a12" CreationDate="2018-07-12T16:28:11.633" UserId="2733" Text="#There isn't one answer, but 'schola' is the most common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In specifically American contexts, it's specifically standard to use '**schola**': *Schola Latina Bostoniensis* ([Boston Latin School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Latin_School), 7&amp;ndash;12); *Schola Latina Puellis Bostoniensis* ([Girls' Latin School](https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Her_Greatness_Proclaim.html?id=f_vGoQEACAAJ), 7&amp;ndash;12); *Schola Daltoniana* ([Dalton School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_School), K&amp;ndash;12); *Schola Sanctæ Mariæ* ([St Mary's School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Mary%27s_School_(Medford,_Oregon)), 5&amp;ndash;12); *Schola Præparatoria Georgiopolitana* ([Georgetown Visitation Preparatory School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgetown_Preparatory_School), 9&amp;ndash;12); *Schola Latina Roxburiensis* ([Roxbury Latin School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxbury_Latin_School), 7&amp;ndash;12); *Schola Sancti Pauli* ([St. Paul's School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Paul%27s_School_(New_Hampshire)), 9&amp;ndash;12); *Schola Latina Brookliniensis* ([Brooklyn Latin School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Latin_School), 9&amp;ndash;12); *Covingtonensis Latina Schola* ([Covington Latin School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covington_Latin_School), 7&amp;ndash;12); *Schola Amicorum Abingtonensium* ([Abington Friends School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_Friends_School), 9&amp;ndash;12); &amp;c. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of the way the US uses 'college' to refer to the first four years of university, it's less common to use the more proper '**collegium**' the way many British schools do. Still, you see it occasionally, apparently most often with Catholic schools: *Collegium Aquinatis Sancti Bernardini* ([Aquinas HS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquinas_High_School_(California)), 9&amp;ndash;12); *Collegium Sancti Caroli Borromeo* ([St Charles Preparatory School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Charles_Preparatory_School), 9&amp;ndash;12); *Collegium Sancti Benedicti* ([St Benedict's Preparatory School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Benedict%27s_Preparatory_School), K&amp;ndash;12).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Private institutions are also often partial to '**academia**' (after Plato's old haunts): *Academia Phillipiana* ([Andover](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_Academy), 9&amp;ndash;12); *Phillip. Exoniensis Academia* ([Phillips Exeter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_Exeter_Academy), 9&amp;ndash;12); *Academia Sancti Xaverii Cincinnatensis* ([St Xavier HS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Xavier_High_School_(Cincinnati)), 9&amp;ndash;12).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Newer American schools who want to distinguish themselves from *[ludi litterarii](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludus_litterarius)* or  *scholae grammaticales* now sometimes use '**schola&amp;nbsp;superior**': *Schola Superior Archiepiscopi Moeller* ([Moeller High School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moeller_High_School), 9&amp;ndash;12); *Schola Superior Universitaria* ([University HS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_High_School_(Fresno)), 9&amp;ndash;12). You could follow [the Latin Wiki](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educatio_secundaria) and take that as a calque for 'high school' but it's worth noting that in Europe, the same term is more often used for colleges and universities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, the Latin wiki will sometimes calque the modern terms as '**educatio**' or '**schola secundaria**', although in classical Latin the adjective would've carried a pejorative 'second-rate' association.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#On the other hand, America isn't Europe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'**Lycæum**' (after [Aristotle's old haunts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyceum_(Classical))) is common in France but [meant something else entirely in the US](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyceum_movement) and isn't used in HS latinizations. The places where it *has* been used in English [usually refer to vocational schools](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardiner_Lyceum), not proper liberal-arts high schools; the places where *has* been used for actual high schools [tend to be emphasizing their Frenchness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyceum_Kennedy_International_School).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ditto [the largely Mitteleuropan use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnasium_(school)) of '**gymnasium**', which would draw blank stares or [jokes about PE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gym) if one attempted to use it to refer to an entire American school." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6850" RevisionGUID="f738ea28-cef3-47d0-b9b8-0ae2676b082d" CreationDate="2018-07-12T18:34:48.760" UserId="469" Comment="edited body" Text="I like Joonas' answer, but I'd add a nuance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Homines* makes it seem like you are trying to say that elephants belong specifically to the human race. If I am right to think that you want to say elephants are somewhat rational and/or subjects of rights just as people are, I'd use either _persona_ or the adj. _rationalis_, hence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Elephantes rationales sunt** or **Elephantes personae sunt**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary meaning of *persona* is [a mask][1], but there are Classical examples of its use for people as opposed to things (L&amp;S cites Cic. de Or. 3, 14, 53) and subjects of rights and obligations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In turn, philosophical tradition dating back to Aristotle and still agreed by many today, what makes people subject of rights and duties is their *potential to reason* (as opposed to, say, plants). This is expressed by one of the meanings of [rationalis][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpersona&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DR%3Aentry%20group%3D3%3Aentry%3Drationalis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6853" RevisionGUID="f6b0f520-d19c-4710-a30b-09416ea5f97e" CreationDate="2018-07-12T19:27:44.707" UserId="235" Text="I was having a conversation with Joonas where we were pondering a three-headed Cerberus with three pairs of sunglasses. I joked that the sunglasses would protect him from the UV rays in Hades, which are stronger than the UV rays up here on earth. But Joonas countered that we don't know how fiery Hades is, since it's not the same hell as described in the Christian tradition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That got us thinking. What's the most thorough description of Hades from Latin sources? Does it include a fiery inferno the way Christian traditions describe Hell? Or is this inaccurate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22854" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6853" RevisionGUID="f6b0f520-d19c-4710-a30b-09416ea5f97e" CreationDate="2018-07-12T19:27:44.707" UserId="235" Text="What is the most thorough description of Hades from Latin sources?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22855" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6853" RevisionGUID="f6b0f520-d19c-4710-a30b-09416ea5f97e" CreationDate="2018-07-12T19:27:44.707" UserId="235" Text="|mythology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6854" RevisionGUID="3fca9ddb-6c03-495c-b0e7-ba61553c65b7" CreationDate="2018-07-12T19:43:51.847" UserId="985" Text="Theseus's description in Seneca the younger's *Hercules furens* (lines 662ff.) is quite detailed in terms of geography/topography, architecture, atmosphere, vegetation, and the various figures one would encounter there. There's no inferno." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6854" RevisionGUID="a2bcd669-67e3-4ce9-8931-3fe4db809287" CreationDate="2018-07-12T20:08:58.023" UserId="985" Comment="added links" Text="Theseus's description in Seneca the younger's *Hercules furens* (lines 662ff.) ([English translation](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Tragedies_of_Seneca_(1907)_Miller/Hercules_Furens#141), [Latin text](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0003%3Acard%3D654)) is quite detailed in terms of geography/topography, architecture, atmosphere, vegetation, and the various figures one would encounter there. There's no inferno." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6033" RevisionGUID="cb5c9a0d-0f93-4ea7-9739-0e50c5531e53" CreationDate="2018-07-12T20:32:53.720" UserId="79" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="There is a canonical correspondence between some Greek and Roman gods and goddesses, for example Ares and Mars.&#xD;&#xA;However, these two were originally different deities: Ares represented rage in war and Mars was also a god of agriculture, to mention a difference.&#xD;&#xA;My question concerns pairs of Greek and Roman gods like this, which were originally different but were later identified.&#xD;&#xA;This excludes Apollo(n), as this god seems to have been always the same, not identified later between the two mythologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the first written identification of a Greek and Roman god?&#xD;&#xA;How does the identification manifest itself?&#xD;&#xA;Is it explicit (&quot;We call it Iuppiter, they call it Zeus&quot;), is it a Greek story retold with Roman names, or something else?&#xD;&#xA;An unattested identification is also fine if it is referenced by a later source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After months without an answer, I asked [this question also on the mythology site](https://mythology.stackexchange.com/q/5031/5199)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6847" RevisionGUID="b55ef1b0-e91c-47e4-bde4-979d73cd60b7" CreationDate="2018-07-12T21:04:49.093" UserId="2749" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I've tried a few angles of how this could be represented, but they all feel clunky or implying other meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Iustus pecunia_ was the first, focusing on justice and fairness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Pecunia liber_ seems promising driving toward liberty, but makes me feel _pecunia_ might be too blunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think _rebus oeconomicis liber_ is the most literal translation, but I feel like I'm missing something here. Any help would be greatly appreciated!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6855" RevisionGUID="a5628b30-8eca-4c8a-9016-f3d3c8515077" CreationDate="2018-07-12T22:25:02.027" UserId="79" Text="To complement the other answers suggesting good translations, let me point out that one should not translate &quot;high school&quot; literally.&#xD;&#xA;One could form something like *schola alta* or *schola superior* (or with *ludus* instead of *schola*), but that would probably not be understood well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The German, Swedish, and Finnish literal translations of &quot;high school&quot; or *schola alta* ('Hochschule', 'högskola', 'korkeakoulu') mean a university of some kind.&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the Finnish 'yläkoulu' (&quot;upper school&quot;) is for children between roughly 13 and 16 years of age, and the same literal translation would fit the French 'école superieure', a kind of university.&#xD;&#xA;These two would correspond to *schola superior*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While direct translation is always possible, one should be aware of its perils.&#xD;&#xA;The plain *schola* is quite vague, and *gymnasium* can also be understood as a &quot;gym&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that by far the **safest** Latin translation of &quot;high school&quot; as a general term is *lyceum* &amp;mdash; other options are easier to misinterpret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, terminology is much freer when you translate the name of an individual school.&#xD;&#xA;Then you are free to use just about any word meaning &quot;school&quot;, unless there is an important disambiguation to make." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6856" RevisionGUID="66d3885c-4eec-48d6-9a9c-3afcdb0069a6" CreationDate="2018-07-12T22:57:23.593" UserId="2757" Text="I know that _&quot;nanos gigantum humeris insidentes&quot;_ is _&quot;dwarves on the shoulders of giants&quot;_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what is the properly written way of saying either _&quot;on the shoulders of giants&quot;_ **and/or** _&quot;standing on the shoulders of giants&quot;?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't trust google translate and I am doubting myself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you literally translate Super _&quot;humeris gigantum stamus&quot;_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22862" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6856" RevisionGUID="66d3885c-4eec-48d6-9a9c-3afcdb0069a6" CreationDate="2018-07-12T22:57:23.593" UserId="2757" Text="How to write &quot;Stand on the shoulders of giants&quot; correctly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22863" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6856" RevisionGUID="66d3885c-4eec-48d6-9a9c-3afcdb0069a6" CreationDate="2018-07-12T22:57:23.593" UserId="2757" Text="|grammar-choice|sentence-translation|translation-check|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6857" RevisionGUID="8c0dc6f3-4840-4266-b12a-f92468156b5f" CreationDate="2018-07-12T23:14:26.637" UserId="1142" Text="If you are simply talking about the *act* of standing on the shoulders of giants, the following phrase with an infinitive and *super* with the accusative of place should work just fine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *stāre super [h]umerōs gigantum*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *to stand / [the act of] standing upon the shoulders of giants*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are talking about a person or thing standing on the shoulders of giants, you should opt for a participle instead (again using *super* with the accusative of place). For the sake of simplicity, I will assume that the person or thing is simply a *vir, virī, m.*, but you can obviously use whatever suits you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *vir stāns super [h]umerōs gigantum*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *a man standing upon the shoulders of giants*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The case and number of *vir* and *stans* should be modified accordingly based on their function in the context(s) in which they are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the noun *humerus, humerī, m.* is simply an alternate spelling of *umerus, umerī, m.*, hence my annotations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6856" RevisionGUID="b0ca9b4c-977a-42f4-9af5-ecfa7c587a8e" CreationDate="2018-07-13T01:50:37.183" UserId="522" Comment="gigantium" Text="I know that _&quot;nanos gigantium humeris insidentes&quot;_ is _&quot;dwarves on the shoulders of giants&quot;_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what is the properly written way of saying either _&quot;on the shoulders of giants&quot;_ **and/or** _&quot;standing on the shoulders of giants&quot;?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't trust google translate and I am doubting myself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you literally translate [Super] _&quot;in humeris gigantium stamus&quot;_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6858" RevisionGUID="a7b9974d-0865-49f2-8419-59397e5ad246" CreationDate="2018-07-13T04:49:05.563" UserId="522" Text="&#xD;&#xA;[BL Harley 2253 (folio132)][1] is a 13thC. copy of a document from Much Wenlock Abbey, Shropshire, UK. The Legend of Etfridus the Priest was composed around CE 1000, in the Ramsey Abbey style (i.e. polysyllabic, with classical allusions). Unlike the Aeneid this is not written as an eyewitness account; Etfrid describes (in rhymed prose) what would have happened to the King whose dream he interpreted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; v. Rex desierit loqui/ subinsert assecla servus &quot;Rex gratulare tuae&#xD;&#xA;&gt; visionis et... &quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;v.    The King had no sooner stopped talking than Christ’s humble servant began:     ‘Take cheer from your vision... ' &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Teterrimi canes/ et immanes/  &#xD;&#xA;sunt sulliginosi Plutonis satellites/&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vite et salutis tue mortiferi hostes /  &#xD;&#xA;quorum tu faucibus ut praemium et devoratio[nem] daberis /  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ubi devoratus semper devorandus eris /  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ut si usque moriens/ et numquam morte finiens/  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; perpetuis terroribus /sulphureis fetoribus /  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; dentium stauribus/ ignium ardoribus/  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; poenis immanibus / et intolerabilibus /  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum ijmis in tartaris/  medio crucieris/  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; nisi funditus abnegav**eris** paganismum /  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et ex toto tue corde convert**eris** ad XPum /  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; dei unius filium// '&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Those terrifying and brutal dogs [pitch-black thegns of Pluto] are mortal enemies of your life and salvation, into whose jaws you will be given as a reward and a morsel, where the devoured will always be ripe for devouring, to be at the point of dying but never achieving death, in unremitting terror, with sulphurous stench, with the rasping of teeth, with brutal and unendurable punishments. With the wicked in the centre of hell you will be tortured, unless you completely turn away from paganism, and are converted with all your heart, to Christ the son of the only God.’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=har%20%20ley_ms_2253_f132v" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6858" RevisionGUID="428ec211-84db-4afb-b800-478f971e8127" CreationDate="2018-07-13T05:08:15.587" UserId="522" Comment="link edit" Text="[BL Harley 2253 (folio132)][1] is a 13thC. copy of a document from Much Wenlock Abbey, Shropshire, UK. The Legend of Etfridus the Priest was composed around CE 1000, in the Ramsey Abbey style (i.e. polysyllabic, with classical allusions). Unlike the Aeneid this is not written as an eyewitness account; Etfrid describes (in rhymed prose) what would have happened to the King whose dream he interpreted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; v. Rex desierit loqui/ subinsert assecla servus &quot;Rex gratulare tuae&#xD;&#xA;&gt; visionis et... &quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;v.    The King had no sooner stopped talking than Christ’s humble servant began:     ‘Take cheer from your vision... ' &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Teterrimi canes/ et immanes/  &#xD;&#xA;sunt sulliginosi Plutonis satellites/&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vite et salutis tue mortiferi hostes /  &#xD;&#xA;quorum tu faucibus ut praemium et devoratio[nem] daberis /  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ubi devoratus semper devorandus eris /  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ut si usque moriens/ et numquam morte finiens/  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; perpetuis terroribus /sulphureis fetoribus /  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; dentium stauribus/ ignium ardoribus/  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; poenis immanibus / et intolerabilibus /  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum ijmis in tartaris/  medio crucieris/  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; nisi funditus abnegav**eris** paganismum /  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et ex toto tue corde convert**eris** ad XPum /  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; dei unius filium// '&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Those terrifying and brutal dogs [pitch-black thegns of Pluto] are mortal enemies of your life and salvation, into whose jaws you will be given as a reward and a morsel, where the devoured will always be ripe for devouring, to be at the point of dying but never achieving death, in unremitting terror, with sulphurous stench, with the rasping of teeth, with brutal and unendurable punishments. With the wicked in the centre of hell you will be tortured, unless you completely turn away from paganism, and are converted with all your heart, to Christ the son of the only God.’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=harley_ms_2253_f132v" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6856" RevisionGUID="82ef556e-3613-4abe-a0e5-1f40474fd9f8" CreationDate="2018-07-13T07:54:41.293" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="I know that _&quot;nanos gigantium humeris insidentes&quot;_ is _&quot;dwarves on the shoulders of giants&quot;_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what is the properly written way of saying either _&quot;on the shoulders of giants&quot;_ **and/or** _&quot;standing on the shoulders of giants&quot;?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't trust google translate and I am doubting myself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you literally translate [Super] _&quot;in humeris gigantium stamus&quot;_?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22869" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6856" RevisionGUID="528c4618-af6e-480a-b80b-69d4085099ec" CreationDate="2018-07-13T08:30:36.310" UserId="79" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5357],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1459,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;luchonacho&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6855" RevisionGUID="c35be780-2eeb-4fd4-aaa4-50df7fef3420" CreationDate="2018-07-13T09:29:14.807" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="To complement the other answers suggesting good translations, let me point out that one should not translate &quot;high school&quot; literally.&#xD;&#xA;One could form something like *schola alta* or *schola superior* (or with *ludus* instead of *schola*), but that would probably not be understood well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The German, Swedish, and Finnish literal translations of &quot;high school&quot; or *schola alta* ('Hochschule', 'högskola', 'korkeakoulu') mean a university of some kind.&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the Finnish 'yläkoulu' (&quot;upper school&quot;) is for children between roughly 13 and 16 years of age, and the same literal translation would fit the French 'école supérieure', a kind of university.&#xD;&#xA;These two would correspond to *schola superior*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While direct translation is always possible, one should be aware of its perils.&#xD;&#xA;The plain *schola* is quite vague, and *gymnasium* can also be understood as a &quot;gym&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that by far the **safest** Latin translation of &quot;high school&quot; as a general term is *lyceum* &amp;mdash; other options are easier to misinterpret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, terminology is much freer when you translate the name of an individual school.&#xD;&#xA;Then you are free to use just about any word meaning &quot;school&quot;, unless there is an important disambiguation to make." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22871" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2404" RevisionGUID="a43fbade-ae06-4ed7-8259-b02de1bde31a" CreationDate="2018-07-13T10:00:59.363" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|classical-latin|cicero|passage-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22872" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4111" RevisionGUID="5511b7c3-806f-4c6d-9b57-324fb8efadc7" CreationDate="2018-07-13T10:05:23.543" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|etymology|idiom|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6859" RevisionGUID="35af6d6a-3164-4003-b222-640ffbb1879a" CreationDate="2018-07-13T10:22:10.440" UserId="79" Text="The Romans knew both dogs and wolves.&#xD;&#xA;But how similar and how dissimilar did they think they were?&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for an understanding about Roman views on dogs and wolves, and here are some concrete questions to give an idea of what I'm looking for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are there passages in ancient Roman literature comparing dogs and wolves in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;- Did they know that dogs are essentially tamed wolves?&#xD;&#xA;- Did they know that dogs and wolves can interbreed?&#xD;&#xA;- Did they make a practical or mythical distinction between them?&#xD;&#xA;- Are there attested misconceptions about the two animals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22874" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6859" RevisionGUID="35af6d6a-3164-4003-b222-640ffbb1879a" CreationDate="2018-07-13T10:22:10.440" UserId="79" Text="How did dogs and wolves compare in the Roman mind?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22875" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6859" RevisionGUID="35af6d6a-3164-4003-b222-640ffbb1879a" CreationDate="2018-07-13T10:22:10.440" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|passage-request|roman-culture|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22876" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2404" RevisionGUID="52f4ea48-5b32-4e50-8172-38769b6a5f53" CreationDate="2018-07-13T10:37:38.240" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|latin-to-english-translation|cicero|passage-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22877" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="181" RevisionGUID="88306ffd-0598-4372-ae45-0278518aebd7" CreationDate="2018-07-13T10:49:33.663" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|new-latin|latin-to-english-translation|biology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6859" RevisionGUID="c38169d2-0e97-4c72-8263-0c1644346f58" CreationDate="2018-07-13T11:11:07.423" UserId="79" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="The Romans knew both dogs and wolves.&#xD;&#xA;But how similar and how dissimilar did they think they were, as indicated by their literature?&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for an understanding about Roman views on dogs and wolves, and here are some concrete questions to give an idea of what I'm looking for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are there passages in ancient Roman literature comparing dogs and wolves in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;- Did they know that dogs are essentially tamed wolves?&#xD;&#xA;- Did they know that dogs and wolves can interbreed?&#xD;&#xA;- Did they make a practical or mythical distinction between them?&#xD;&#xA;- Are there attested misconceptions about the two animals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6857" RevisionGUID="265bbefb-5a7b-4822-b780-c82f30748ac5" CreationDate="2018-07-13T11:59:42.503" UserId="1142" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="If you are simply talking about the *act* of standing on the shoulders of giants, the following phrase with an infinitive and *super* with the accusative of place should work just fine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *stāre super [h]umerōs gigantium*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *to stand / [the act of] standing upon the shoulders of giants*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are talking about a person or thing standing on the shoulders of giants, you should opt for a participle instead (again using *super* with the accusative of place). For the sake of simplicity, I will assume that the person or thing is simply a *vir, virī, m.*, but you can obviously use whatever suits you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *vir stāns super [h]umerōs gigantium*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *a man standing upon the shoulders of giants*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The case and number of *vir* and *stans* should be modified accordingly based on their function in the context(s) in which they are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the noun *humerus, humerī, m.* is simply an alternate spelling of *umerus, umerī, m.*, hence my annotations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6862" RevisionGUID="38be416d-3e2f-41e2-98f5-d5a963e5ea88" CreationDate="2018-07-13T14:33:33.807" UserId="1982" Text="In North &amp; Hillard; Ex 191, Q10: the student is required to translate: &quot;He refused to fight until reinforcements came.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An awkward one: the student has to remember to use &quot;negavit&quot; (he denied that); it's indirect speech; here, requiring a reflexive pronoun (coincident subject); &quot;until&quot; = dum (+ subjunctive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer-book confirmd: &quot;negavit se pugnaturum esse dum novae copiae advenirent.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sequence-of-tenses rule dictates that the future tense (&quot;until reinforcements [will] arrive&quot;, is linked to the present subjunctive. Therefore, why use imperf. subj. &quot;advenirent&quot;, as opposed to pres. subj. &quot;adveniant&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22886" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6862" RevisionGUID="38be416d-3e2f-41e2-98f5-d5a963e5ea88" CreationDate="2018-07-13T14:33:33.807" UserId="1982" Text="Present or Imperfect Subjunctive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22887" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6862" RevisionGUID="38be416d-3e2f-41e2-98f5-d5a963e5ea88" CreationDate="2018-07-13T14:33:33.807" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6862" RevisionGUID="9e2c9d10-c446-4ce7-aa8e-7c055ab24d02" CreationDate="2018-07-13T15:30:32.040" UserId="1459" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In North &amp; Hillard; Ex 191, Q10: the student is required to translate: &quot;He refused to fight until reinforcements came.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An awkward one: the student has to remember to use &quot;_negavit_&quot; (he denied that); it's indirect speech; here, requiring a reflexive pronoun (coincident subject); &quot;until&quot; = dum (+ subjunctive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer-book confirmed: &quot;_negavit se pugnaturum esse dum novae copiae advenirent_.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sequence-of-tenses rule dictates that the future tense (&quot;until reinforcements [will] arrive&quot;, is linked to the present subjunctive. Therefore, why use imperf. subj. &quot;_advenirent_&quot;, as opposed to pres. subj. &quot;_adveniant_&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22889" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6862" RevisionGUID="9e2c9d10-c446-4ce7-aa8e-7c055ab24d02" CreationDate="2018-07-13T15:30:32.040" UserId="1459" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6863" RevisionGUID="0fc884c5-e300-4bf1-ab7e-e073922e5cce" CreationDate="2018-07-13T16:22:43.347" UserId="79" Text="The are two clauses here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;He refused to fight&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;until reinforcements came&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clause 1 is the governing clause, 2 the subordinate one.&#xD;&#xA;When translating to Latin, you first translate the governing clause.&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the type of refusal, you could pick perfect (he stated once that he will not fight) or imperfect (he consistently refused all requests before conditions changed).&#xD;&#xA;Either way, you have one of the past tenses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subordinate clause would naturally be in subjunctive (=conjunctive), because it is a thought of the subject of the governing clause &amp;mdash; and some conjunctions require subjunctive anyway.&#xD;&#xA;Clause 2 happens after 1 and is subordinate to a past tense.&#xD;&#xA;The *consecutio temporum* (sequence of tenses) rule states that in this case the subjunctive must be imperfect or periphrastic imperfect.&#xD;&#xA;(I think periphrasis is not necessary, but [I'm not sure](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4833/79).)&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *venirent* is a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that 1 governs 2.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the tense of 1 is free from any external influences but the tense of 2 depends on that of 2.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that you were thinking in the opposite direction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6862" RevisionGUID="15e8e0b9-f988-4224-8fcd-4226ac7cd749" CreationDate="2018-07-13T16:24:07.280" UserId="79" Comment="Tried to make the title a little more descriptive and added tags. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="In North &amp; Hillard; Ex 191, Q10: the student is required to translate: &quot;He refused to fight until reinforcements came.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An awkward one: the student has to remember to use &quot;_negavit_&quot; (he denied that); it's indirect speech; here, requiring a reflexive pronoun (coincident subject); &quot;until&quot; = dum (+ subjunctive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer-book confirmed: &quot;_negavit se pugnaturum esse dum novae copiae advenirent_.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sequence-of-tenses rule dictates that the future tense (&quot;until reinforcements [will] arrive&quot;, is linked to the present subjunctive. Therefore, why use imperf. subj. &quot;_advenirent_&quot;, as opposed to pres. subj. &quot;_adveniant_&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22892" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6862" RevisionGUID="15e8e0b9-f988-4224-8fcd-4226ac7cd749" CreationDate="2018-07-13T16:24:07.280" UserId="79" Comment="Tried to make the title a little more descriptive and added tags. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="Present or imperfect subjunctive in this translation exercise?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22893" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6862" RevisionGUID="15e8e0b9-f988-4224-8fcd-4226ac7cd749" CreationDate="2018-07-13T16:24:07.280" UserId="79" Comment="Tried to make the title a little more descriptive and added tags. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="|translation-explanation|english-to-latin-translation|consecutio-temporum|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="182" RevisionGUID="a44f8e1e-1bce-40c0-8b1b-4de41a69b1c6" CreationDate="2018-07-13T16:27:20.327" UserId="79" Comment="added 320 characters in body" Text="I would translate the boldfaced sentence as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is not clear which part would be rightfully considered the front and which part the rear in the whole genus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For creatures of that appearance, that description makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;If you want more details or explanation, do ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that *habere* does not only mean 'to have', but also 'to consider as something'.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *leonem pulchrum habeo* can also mean 'I consider the lion beautiful', not only 'I have a beautiful lion'.&#xD;&#xA;Also *facere* is used in this meaning.&#xD;&#xA;In this context this meaning of *habere* makes most sense (to me)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6864" RevisionGUID="fffe9da3-c361-4dd1-b172-42093b173428" CreationDate="2018-07-13T19:36:32.670" UserId="469" Text="It seems that **the idea of the possibility of interbreeding between wolves and dogs was present in Roman culture** at least at the time of Pliny the Elder (I cent. CE.) **But** so was the idea of interbreeding between dogs and *tigers*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was curious and went to Pliny's *Naturalis Historia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It happens to have separate chapters for [wolves][1] and [dogs][2]. The latter happens to mention *wolves* and... *tigers*. It gets interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It says that Indians interbred tigers and dogs (!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **E tigribus eos indi volunt concipi** (Plin. Nat. 8.61) *The Indians raise a breed between the dog and the tiger* (Bostock, 1855)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and it goes to explain how they did it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Right after that, it also says that the Gauls *did the same* (interbreeding, apparently) with wolves and dogs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Hoc idem e lupis galli, quorum greges suum quisque ductorem e canibus et ducem habent** *The Gauls do the same with the wolf and the dog, and their packs of hounds have, each of them, one of these dogs, which acts as their guide and leader*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The XIX century translator/editor adds a footnote favoring the plausibility of this, as if writing for a skeptic reader:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The dog is capable of generating with the wolf; and as what is termed the shepherd's dog much resembles the wolf, Cuvier conceives it not impossible, that it may have originated from this mixture*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, the previous footnote discredits and tries to explain the statement about the interbreeding of dogs and tigers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *This practice is mentioned by Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 33, and Diodorus Siculus, B. xvii. But Cuvier informs us, that neither the tiger nor the panther are capable of generating with the dog; he supposes that the account was invented to enhance the value of the spotted or striped dogs, which were brought from India*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D8%3Achapter%3D34&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D8%3Achapter%3D61" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6864" RevisionGUID="622ae91b-e7ee-46ee-a517-55fcd8871380" CreationDate="2018-07-13T19:46:22.193" UserId="469" Comment="added 1065 characters in body" Text="It seems that **the idea of the possibility of interbreeding between wolves and dogs was present in Roman culture** at least at the time of Pliny the Elder (I cent. CE.) **But** so was the idea of interbreeding between dogs and *tigers*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was curious and went to Pliny's *Naturalis Historia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It happens to have separate chapters for [wolves][1] and [dogs][2]. The latter happens to mention *wolves* and... *tigers*. It gets interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It says that Indians interbred tigers and dogs (!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **E tigribus eos indi volunt concipi** (Plin. Nat. 8.61) *The Indians raise a breed between the dog and the tiger* (Bostock, 1855)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and it goes to explain how they did it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Right after that, it also says that the Gauls *did the same* (interbreeding, apparently) with wolves and dogs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Hoc idem e lupis galli, quorum greges suum quisque ductorem e canibus et ducem habent** *The Gauls do the same with the wolf and the dog, and their packs of hounds have, each of them, one of these dogs, which acts as their guide and leader*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The XIX century translator/editor adds a footnote favoring the plausibility of this, as if writing for a skeptic reader:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The dog is capable of generating with the wolf; and as what is termed the shepherd's dog much resembles the wolf, Cuvier conceives it not impossible, that it may have originated from this mixture*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, the previous footnote discredits and tries to explain the statement about the interbreeding of dogs and tigers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *This practice is mentioned by Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 33, and Diodorus Siculus, B. xvii. But Cuvier informs us, that neither the tiger nor the panther are capable of generating with the dog; he supposes that the account was invented to enhance the value of the spotted or striped dogs, which were brought from India*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the question on *practical or mythical distinction between them*, the chapter of *Naturalis Historia* on wolves talks about something very similar to **werewolves**, discrediting them as a myth. In turn, there is no mention of men turning into dogs in the relevant chapters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Homines in lupos verti rursusque restitui sibi falsum esse confidenter existimare debemus aut credere omnia quae fabulosa tot saeculis conperimus** (Plin. Nat. 8.34) *That men have been turned into wolves, and again restored to their original form, we must confidently look upon as untrue, unless, indeed, we are ready to believe all the tales, which, for so many ages, have been found to be fabulous*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wolves are also said to have *a noxious influence in the eye*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **sed in italia quoque creditur luporum visus esse noxius vocemque homini, quem priores contemplentur** *In Italy also it is believed that there is a noxious influence in the eye of a wolf; it is supposed that it will instantly take away the voice of a man,1 if it is the first to see him*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D8%3Achapter%3D34&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D8%3Achapter%3D61" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6851" RevisionGUID="86c47056-7ce8-437d-bca5-cd6a8ddf8aa3" CreationDate="2018-07-13T19:49:44.660" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="FWIW, the verb **[consumo][1]**, can be used with amounts of time as meaning *to spend*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; horasque multas saepe suavissimo sermone consumeres ([Cic. Fam. 11.27.5][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence a possibility is to say you *spent* two hours: **horas duas consumpsi id faciens**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dconsumo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:phi,0474,056:11:27:5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6864" RevisionGUID="89b17361-8a73-4651-81c7-3cede64da297" CreationDate="2018-07-13T19:55:44.440" UserId="469" Comment="edited body" Text="It seems that **the idea of the possibility of interbreeding between wolves and dogs was present in Roman culture** at least at the time of Pliny the Elder (I cent. CE.) **But** so was the idea of interbreeding between dogs and *tigers*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was curious and went to Pliny's *Naturalis Historia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It happens to have separate chapters for [wolves][1] and [dogs][2]. The latter happens to mention *wolves* and... *tigers*. It gets interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It says that Indians interbred tigers and dogs (!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **E tigribus eos indi volunt concipi** (Plin. Nat. 8.61) *The Indians raise a breed between the dog and the tiger* (Bostock, 1855)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and it goes to explain how they did it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Right after that, it also says that the Gauls *did the same* (interbreeding, apparently) with wolves and dogs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Hoc idem e lupis galli, quorum greges suum quisque ductorem e canibus et ducem habent** *The Gauls do the same with the wolf and the dog, and their packs of hounds have, each of them, one of these dogs, which acts as their guide and leader*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The XIX century translator/editor adds a footnote favoring the plausibility of this, as if writing for a skeptic reader:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The dog is capable of generating with the wolf; and as what is termed the shepherd's dog much resembles the wolf, Cuvier conceives it not impossible, that it may have originated from this mixture*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, the previous footnote discredits and tries to explain the statement about the interbreeding of dogs and tigers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *This practice is mentioned by Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 33, and Diodorus Siculus, B. xvii. But Cuvier informs us, that neither the tiger nor the panther are capable of generating with the dog; he supposes that the account was invented to enhance the value of the spotted or striped dogs, which were brought from India*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the question on *practical or mythical distinction between them*, the chapter of *Naturalis Historia* on wolves talks about something very similar to **werewolves**, discrediting them as a myth. In turn, there is no mention of men turning into dogs in the relevant chapters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Homines in lupos verti rursusque restitui sibi falsum esse confidenter existimare debemus aut credere omnia quae fabulosa tot saeculis conperimus** (Plin. Nat. 8.34) *That men have been turned into wolves, and again restored to their original form, we must confidently look upon as untrue, unless, indeed, we are ready to believe all the tales, which, for so many ages, have been found to be fabulous*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wolves are also said to have *a noxious influence in the eye*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Sed in italia quoque creditur luporum visus esse noxius vocemque homini, quem priores contemplentur** *In Italy also it is believed that there is a noxious influence in the eye of a wolf; it is supposed that it will instantly take away the voice of a man,1 if it is the first to see him*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D8%3Achapter%3D34&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D8%3Achapter%3D61" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6853" RevisionGUID="57412f70-bb52-4e97-b415-98a799689961" CreationDate="2018-07-13T22:24:03.627" UserId="235" Comment="added 56 characters in body; edited title" Text="I was having a conversation with Joonas where we were pondering a three-headed Cerberus with three pairs of sunglasses. I joked that the sunglasses would protect him from the UV rays in Hades, which are stronger than the UV rays up here on earth. But Joonas countered that we don't know how fiery Hades is, since it's not the same hell as described in the Christian tradition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That got us thinking. What's the most thorough description of Hades from Greek or Latin sources? (Preferably from the Classical Era or before.) Does it include a fiery inferno the way Christian traditions describe Hell? Or is this inaccurate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22900" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6853" RevisionGUID="57412f70-bb52-4e97-b415-98a799689961" CreationDate="2018-07-13T22:24:03.627" UserId="235" Comment="added 56 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the most thorough description of Hades from Greek or Latin sources?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6864" RevisionGUID="1983c86a-43f0-472a-982f-3e09f8090bf7" CreationDate="2018-07-13T22:40:34.843" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body" Text="It seems that **interbreeding between wolves and dogs was deemed possible in Roman culture** at least at the time of Pliny the Elder (I cent. CE.) **But** so was the idea of interbreeding between dogs and *tigers*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was curious and went to Pliny's *Naturalis Historia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It happens to have separate chapters for [wolves][1] and [dogs][2]. The latter happens to mention *wolves* and... *tigers*. It gets interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It says that Indians interbred tigers and dogs (!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **E tigribus eos indi volunt concipi** (Plin. Nat. 8.61) *The Indians raise a breed between the dog and the tiger* (Bostock, 1855)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and it goes to explain how they did it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Right after that, it also says that the Gauls *did the same* (interbreeding, apparently) with wolves and dogs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Hoc idem e lupis galli, quorum greges suum quisque ductorem e canibus et ducem habent** *The Gauls do the same with the wolf and the dog, and their packs of hounds have, each of them, one of these dogs, which acts as their guide and leader*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The XIX century translator/editor adds a footnote favoring the plausibility of this, as if writing for a skeptic reader:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The dog is capable of generating with the wolf; and as what is termed the shepherd's dog much resembles the wolf, Cuvier conceives it not impossible, that it may have originated from this mixture*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, the previous footnote discredits and tries to explain the statement about the interbreeding of dogs and tigers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *This practice is mentioned by Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 33, and Diodorus Siculus, B. xvii. But Cuvier informs us, that neither the tiger nor the panther are capable of generating with the dog; he supposes that the account was invented to enhance the value of the spotted or striped dogs, which were brought from India*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the question on *practical or mythical distinction between them*, the chapter of *Naturalis Historia* on wolves talks about something very similar to **werewolves**, discrediting them as a myth. In turn, there is no mention of men turning into dogs in the relevant chapters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Homines in lupos verti rursusque restitui sibi falsum esse confidenter existimare debemus aut credere omnia quae fabulosa tot saeculis conperimus** (Plin. Nat. 8.34) *That men have been turned into wolves, and again restored to their original form, we must confidently look upon as untrue, unless, indeed, we are ready to believe all the tales, which, for so many ages, have been found to be fabulous*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wolves are also said to have *a noxious influence in the eye*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Sed in italia quoque creditur luporum visus esse noxius vocemque homini, quem priores contemplentur** *In Italy also it is believed that there is a noxious influence in the eye of a wolf; it is supposed that it will instantly take away the voice of a man, if it is the first to see him*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D8%3Achapter%3D34&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D8%3Achapter%3D61" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6865" RevisionGUID="d19b9c43-79d6-4d51-a712-faea2a48bfeb" CreationDate="2018-07-14T02:08:48.703" UserId="406" Text="Book VI of the Aeneid is over 900 lines of dactylic hexameter describing a *catabasis* to the Underworld. (Out of those 900-some, about 600 lines actually describe the Underworld; the remaining 300 are spent on preparations and travel to get there.) Many English translations are available, but [this one][1] stays relatively close to [the Latin][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting at line 548 is a description of Tartarus, where the wicked are punished for eternity. Mainly it's described as an enormous chasm, twice as deep as the distance between heaven and earth, and in the depths of that chasm the various punishments take place (ranging from Tityus, chained down while a vulture devours his constantly-regenerating liver, to Theseus, stuck to a bench until Hercules eventually frees him). There is, however, some fire:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Respicit Aeneas subito et sub rupe sinistra  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; moenia lata videt triplici circumdata muro,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; quae rapidus flammis ambit torrentibus amnis,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tartareus Phlegethon, torquetque sonantia saxa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Translation mine:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suddenly Aeneas looks back, and beneath the cliff to the left he sees fortifications surrounded by triple walls, around which a deep and swift river of roaring fire flows and flings up echoing boulders: the Tartarean Phlegethon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This description is quite heavily inspired by Book XI of the Odyssey, in which Odysseus describes his own necromantic rituals and experience in the Underworld. But the Odyssey has no mention of the Phlegethon, or of any sort of fire: Homer's Underworld is a dark, empty, lifeless place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/VirgilAeneidVI.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/vergil/aen6.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6865" RevisionGUID="1e1e1300-06b1-4052-a0b2-f44e727936ce" CreationDate="2018-07-14T02:13:52.563" UserId="406" Comment="added 227 characters in body" Text="Book VI of the Aeneid is over 900 lines of dactylic hexameter describing a *catabasis* to the Underworld. (Out of those 900-some, about 600 lines actually describe the Underworld; the remaining 300 are spent on preparations and travel to get there.) Many English translations are available, but [this one][1] stays relatively close to [the Latin][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting at line 548 is a description of Tartarus, where the wicked are punished for eternity. Mainly it's described as an enormous chasm, twice as deep as the distance between heaven and earth, and in the depths of that chasm the various punishments take place (ranging from Tityus, chained down while a vulture devours his constantly-regenerating liver, to Theseus, stuck to a bench until Hercules eventually frees him). There is, however, some fire:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Respicit Aeneas subito et sub rupe sinistra  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; moenia lata videt triplici circumdata muro,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; quae rapidus flammis ambit torrentibus amnis,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tartareus Phlegethon, torquetque sonantia saxa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Translation mine:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suddenly Aeneas looks back, and beneath the cliff to the left he sees fortifications surrounded by triple walls, around which a deep and swift river of roaring fire flows and flings up echoing boulders: the Tartarean Phlegethon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This description in general is quite heavily inspired by Book XI of the Odyssey, in which Odysseus describes his own necromantic rituals and experience in the Underworld. But the Odyssey has no mention of the Phlegethon, or of any sort of fire: Homer's Underworld is a dark, empty, lifeless place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Phlegethōn&quot; is a transcription of the poetic Greek word *φλεγέθων*, &quot;blazing&quot;, which is a pretty good indication that this detail came from a Greek source. However, I don't know what this source might have been.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/VirgilAeneidVI.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/vergil/aen6.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6865" RevisionGUID="9b8e5dde-7671-4922-9908-50ec1f6845da" CreationDate="2018-07-14T02:19:20.603" UserId="406" Comment="added 227 characters in body" Text="Book VI of the Aeneid is over 900 lines of dactylic hexameter describing a *catabasis* to the Underworld. (Out of those 900-some, about 600 lines actually describe the Underworld; the remaining 300 are spent on preparations and travel to get there.) Many English translations are available, but [this one][1] stays relatively close to [the Latin][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting at line 548 is a description of Tartarus, where the wicked are punished for eternity. Mainly it's described as an enormous chasm, twice as deep as the distance between heaven and earth, and in the depths of that chasm the various punishments take place (ranging from Tityus, chained down while a vulture devours his constantly-regenerating liver, to Theseus, stuck to a bench until Hercules eventually frees him). There is, however, some fire:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Respicit Aeneas subito et sub rupe sinistra  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; moenia lata videt triplici circumdata muro,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; quae rapidus flammis ambit torrentibus amnis,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tartareus Phlegethon, torquetque sonantia saxa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Translation mine:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suddenly Aeneas looks back, and beneath the cliff to the left he sees fortifications surrounded by triple walls, around which a deep and swift river of roaring fire flows and flings up echoing boulders: the Tartarean Phlegethon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This description in general is quite heavily inspired by Book XI of the Odyssey, in which Odysseus describes his own necromantic rituals and experience in the Underworld. But the Odyssey has no mention of any sort of fire: Homer's Underworld is a dark, empty, lifeless place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Phlegethōn&quot; is a transcription of the poetic Greek word *φλεγέθων*, &quot;blazing&quot;, which is a pretty good indication that this detail came from a Greek source. However, I don't know what this source might have been: Homer mentions in passing a river named *Pyriphlegethōn* &quot;blazing with fire&quot;, but it's never described and Odysseus never encounters it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/VirgilAeneidVI.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/vergil/aen6.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6866" RevisionGUID="8c34c66f-c6e3-4bc4-af60-8f48e8f8bd2b" CreationDate="2018-07-14T14:25:43.083" UserId="2758" Text="I’d love to get a tattoo saying ‘remember’ in Latin, but would rather not use memento. Would it be possible to either use meminisse or memini? I’d like remember to be like a reminder for myself to remember how I felt at a particular moment in the past. Hope this makes sense! Thankyou" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22907" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6866" RevisionGUID="8c34c66f-c6e3-4bc4-af60-8f48e8f8bd2b" CreationDate="2018-07-14T14:25:43.083" UserId="2758" Text="What’s the difference between meminisse and memini?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22908" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6866" RevisionGUID="8c34c66f-c6e3-4bc4-af60-8f48e8f8bd2b" CreationDate="2018-07-14T14:25:43.083" UserId="2758" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6866" RevisionGUID="3df1c240-1e36-4f3f-a266-54fe9cd6485d" CreationDate="2018-07-14T14:29:37.817" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I’d love to get a tattoo saying ‘remember’ in Latin, but would rather not use memento. Would it be possible to either use *meminisse* or *memini*? I’d like remember to be like a reminder for myself to remember how I felt at a particular moment in the past. Hope this makes sense!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22910" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6866" RevisionGUID="3df1c240-1e36-4f3f-a266-54fe9cd6485d" CreationDate="2018-07-14T14:29:37.817" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|verbs|meaning|morphology|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6867" RevisionGUID="1e625d56-31cc-494b-810f-b739785a7c6f" CreationDate="2018-07-14T14:37:01.523" UserId="79" Text="They are different forms of the same verb.&#xD;&#xA;Here are some of the over 30 forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *meminisse* = &quot;to remember&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *memini* = &quot;I remember&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *meminimus* = &quot;we remember&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *meminerunt* = &quot;they remember&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *memineram* = &quot;I remembered&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *memento!* = &quot;remember!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *meminero* = &quot;I will remember&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form you need depends on what you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;Is it the statement &quot;I/you/we/&amp;hellip; remember&quot;, an order &quot;remember!&quot;, a description of the action &quot;to remember&quot;, a wish &quot;I wish I remembered&quot; (different forms for real and irreal), or something else?&#xD;&#xA;Also, you might want to consider adding more words, like &quot;we remember her&quot; or &quot;I will remember myself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both *meminisse* and *memini* are possible, but they mean different things and there are plenty of other forms of the same verb.&#xD;&#xA;If you have found something you want to say in the text, please ask a new question to find how to phrase it in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Remember that when translating short phrases like the ones one would see in a tattoo or a coat of arms, it is not enough to give the English phrase, but you should also describe what is the message you want to convey." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6868" RevisionGUID="77af155e-da80-4952-964d-3961d5f3f0b5" CreationDate="2018-07-14T16:10:57.787" UserId="1133" Text="Each question below assumes that any previous question has been answered with a yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is *ille* ever used alone as *that* is used in this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;**That** is a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Is *illīus* ever used alone as *of that* is in this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;The idea **of that** alone was worth something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Is there an ambiguity in this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;**Illīus** hominis fīlium laubādant omnēs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I have in mind these two readings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;(a) All praised **that** man's son.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) All praised the son of the man **of that**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; By (a), *Illīus* qualifies (determines) and agrees with *hominis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; By (b), *Illīus* refers to an object other than *hominis*.  Maybe we have been referring to a woman as *illa*, who has married a man, who has a son by a former marriage, who was in general favor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BACKGROUND**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not asking whether any Latin speaker would have used the quoted sentence to mean (b).  I am only asking whether (b) could or could not be ruled out as a matter of grammar.  If I knew Latin better, I might have tried to come up with a more plausible (natural sounding) example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What gave me the idea of the ambiguity as above is *deren* (*derer*), genitive forms of the demonstrative pronoun *die*, which may be used either to modify a noun or by itself, as follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a') unsere Freunde und **deren** Kinder&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b') Sonderabfälle und wie man sich **deren/derer** entledigen kann&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b&quot;) Erinnert euch **derer**, die nicht mehr unter uns sind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have lifted these German examples from [this Web page][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin sentence is from page 124 of *Beginner's Latin Book* by William C. Collar and M. Grant Daniell (1887).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/InflectionRules/FRegeln-P/Pron-der-die-das.html?MenuId=Word4240&amp;lang=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22914" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6868" RevisionGUID="77af155e-da80-4952-964d-3961d5f3f0b5" CreationDate="2018-07-14T16:10:57.787" UserId="1133" Text="Ambiguity in &quot;Illīus hominis fīlium laubādant omnēs&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22915" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6868" RevisionGUID="77af155e-da80-4952-964d-3961d5f3f0b5" CreationDate="2018-07-14T16:10:57.787" UserId="1133" Text="|genitive|demonstrative-pronoun|demonstrative-adjective|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6869" RevisionGUID="2727eef5-4b62-47a4-a883-b280ebc7284d" CreationDate="2018-07-14T16:11:48.580" UserId="2758" Text="Id like to get a tattoo saying 'remember' but translated in Latin. I have learned that the translation is dependend on what message it would like to convoy with 'remember', so my message is as follows: &#xD;&#xA;The message id like to convey is mostly a message to myself to not forget how happy I felt during my time in another country and that I want to keep remembering that feeling so it will not fade over time. I want to stay motivated to go back when I can. I would like to keep it to one word/two words maximum if possbile." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22917" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6869" RevisionGUID="2727eef5-4b62-47a4-a883-b280ebc7284d" CreationDate="2018-07-14T16:11:48.580" UserId="2758" Text="What is the best way to translate 'remember' in Latin? (Explanation about context given below)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22918" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6869" RevisionGUID="2727eef5-4b62-47a4-a883-b280ebc7284d" CreationDate="2018-07-14T16:11:48.580" UserId="2758" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6868" RevisionGUID="2c366331-5d27-4a52-83ce-06fffb49a2e6" CreationDate="2018-07-14T16:24:14.180" UserId="1133" Comment="deleted 275 characters in body" Text="Each question below assumes that any previous question has been answered with a yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is *ille* ever used alone as *that* is used in this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;**That** is a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Is *illīus* ever used alone as *of that* is in this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;The idea **of that** alone was worth something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Is there an ambiguity in this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;**Illīus** hominis fīlium laubādant omnēs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I have in mind these two readings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;(a) All praised **that** man's son.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) All praised the son of the man **of that**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; By (a), *Illīus* qualifies (determines) and agrees with *hominis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; By (b), *Illīus* refers to an object other than *hominis*.  Maybe we have been referring to a woman as *illa*, who has married a man, who has a son by a former marriage, who was in general favor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BACKGROUND**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not asking whether any Latin speaker would have used the quoted sentence to mean (b).  I am only asking whether (b) could or could not be ruled out as a matter of grammar.  If I knew Latin better, I might have tried to come up with a more plausible (natural sounding) example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What gave me the idea of (b) is the genitive forms of German personal or demonstrative pronouns, such as *meiner* for *ich* or *deren* (*derer*) for *die*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin sentence is from page 124 of *Beginner's Latin Book* by William C. Collar and M. Grant Daniell (1887).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/InflectionRules/FRegeln-P/Pron-der-die-das.html?MenuId=Word4240&amp;lang=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6868" RevisionGUID="0b6a9081-a3e5-49d0-9a90-67c4c05ce348" CreationDate="2018-07-14T16:31:00.563" UserId="1133" Comment="added 271 characters in body" Text="Each question below assumes that any previous question has been answered with a yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is *ille* ever used alone as *that* is used in this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;**That** is a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Is *illīus* ever used alone as *of that* is in this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;The idea **of that** alone was worth something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Is there an ambiguity in this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;**Illīus** hominis fīlium laubādant omnēs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I have in mind these two readings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;(a) All praised **that** man's son.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) All praised the son of the man **of that**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; By (a), *Illīus* qualifies (determines) and agrees with *hominis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; By (b), *Illīus* refers to an object other than *hominis*.  Maybe we have been referring to a woman as *illa*, who has married a man, who has a son by a former marriage, who was in general favor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BACKGROUND**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not asking whether any Latin speaker would have used the quoted sentence to mean (b).  I am only asking whether (b) could or could not be ruled out as a matter of grammar.  If I knew Latin better, I might have tried to come up with a more plausible (natural sounding) example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What gave me the idea of (b) is the genitive forms of German personal or demonstrative pronouns, such as *seiner* for *er* (as in *Wir wollen seiner gedenken*) or *deren*/*derer* for *die* (as in *Erinnert euch derer, die nicht mehr unter uns sind*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The German examples are from [this][1] and [this][2] Web page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin sentence is from page 124 of *Beginner's Latin Book* by William C. Collar and M. Grant Daniell (1887).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/InflectionRules/FRegeln-P/Pron-Pers.html?MenuId=Word420&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/InflectionRules/FRegeln-P/Pron-der-die-das.html?MenuId=Word4240&amp;lang=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6870" RevisionGUID="79d20ca4-42e0-4f98-9c47-bdb9189c2955" CreationDate="2018-07-14T16:33:35.280" UserId="1459" Text="_[Memento](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/memento#Latin)_ precisely conveys that meaning, in my opinion. It is an imperative (like &quot;do this&quot;, &quot;do that&quot;), which means &quot;Remember!&quot;, as in &quot;Do remember&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This word is part of [a very famous expression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_mori): _memento mori_. There are a few question on the meaning of such expression in this site. E.g. [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/89/what-does-memento-mori-actually-mean)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6871" RevisionGUID="2334eed2-b0f7-4792-a817-ecfe8845c770" CreationDate="2018-07-14T16:36:50.803" UserId="79" Text="To emphasize the aspect that you want to **keep** remembering it, I suggest the future: *meminero*, &quot;I will remember&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It sounds more nuanced than the plain *memini*, &quot;I remember&quot;, but both are equally correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to add emphasis, you could do something like *semper meminero*, &quot;I will always remember&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;With the constraints you give, the only possibility seems to be to add an adverb (like *semper*, &quot;forever&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6869" RevisionGUID="7d079fa1-5f72-48a8-9df8-d3a92dbefc7f" CreationDate="2018-07-14T16:40:34.160" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body; edited title; edited tags" Text="Id like to get a tattoo saying 'remember' but translated in Latin. I have learned that the translation depends on what message it would like to convoy with 'remember'.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The message id like to convey is mostly a message to myself to not forget how happy I felt during my time in another country and that I want to keep remembering that feeling so it will not fade over time. I want to stay motivated to go back when I can. I would like to keep it to one word/two words maximum if possbile." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22924" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6869" RevisionGUID="7d079fa1-5f72-48a8-9df8-d3a92dbefc7f" CreationDate="2018-07-14T16:40:34.160" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body; edited title; edited tags" Text="What is the best way to translate 'remember' in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22925" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6869" RevisionGUID="7d079fa1-5f72-48a8-9df8-d3a92dbefc7f" CreationDate="2018-07-14T16:40:34.160" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body; edited title; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22927" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6869" RevisionGUID="a3587e80-a287-4510-b5cd-3506d8916328" CreationDate="2018-07-14T17:10:53.227" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the best way to translate 'remember' into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6871" RevisionGUID="7aabc7bf-4259-465f-b6ec-951f4a2706e0" CreationDate="2018-07-14T17:45:39.633" UserId="79" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="To emphasize the aspect that you want to **keep** remembering it, I suggest the future: *meminero*, &quot;I will remember&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It sounds more nuanced than the plain *memini*, &quot;I remember&quot;, but both are equally correct.&#xD;&#xA;Neither of these is an order to yourself; these more like promises.&#xD;&#xA;If you prefer an order, luchonacho's answer gives you that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to add emphasis, you could do something like *semper meminero*, &quot;I will always remember&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;With the constraints you give, the only possibility seems to be to add an adverb (like *semper*, &quot;forever&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22931" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6868" RevisionGUID="c2a65fc7-4484-4557-8e92-7f1e48127a39" CreationDate="2018-07-15T01:45:08.820" UserId="1142" Comment="Removed errors in title." Text="Ambiguity in &quot;Illīus hominis fīlium laudābant omnēs&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22932" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6868" RevisionGUID="c2a65fc7-4484-4557-8e92-7f1e48127a39" CreationDate="2018-07-15T01:45:08.820" Comment="Proposed by 1142 approved by 1133 edit id of 247" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6872" RevisionGUID="3eff182a-669c-4027-b550-95a2de235b28" CreationDate="2018-07-15T02:50:49.693" UserId="406" Text="As Hugh pointed out in comments on my other answer, Plato goes into significant detail on the River Pyriphlegethon, in his *Phaedo* dialogue (specifically section 113).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τρίτος δὲ ποταμὸς τούτων κατὰ μέσον ἐκβάλλει, καὶ ἐγγὺς τῆς ἐκβολῆς ἐκπίπτει εἰς τόπον μέγαν πυρὶ πολλῷ καόμενον, καὶ λίμνην ποιεῖ μείζω τῆς παρ᾽ ἡμῖν θαλάττης, ζέουσαν ὕδατος καὶ πηλοῦ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἐντεῦθεν δὲ χωρεῖ κύκλῳ θολερὸς καὶ πηλώδης, περιελιττόμενος δὲ τῇ γῇ ἄλλοσέ τε ἀφικνεῖται καὶ παρ᾽ ἔσχατα τῆς Ἀχερουσιάδος λίμνης, οὐ συμμειγνύμενος τῷ ὕδατι: περιελιχθεὶς δὲ πολλάκις ὑπὸ γῆς ἐμβάλλει κατωτέρω τοῦ Ταρτάρου:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; οὗτος δ᾽ ἐστὶν ὃν ἐπονομάζουσιν Πυριφλεγέθοντα, οὗ καὶ οἱ ῥύακες ἀποσπάσματα ἀναφυσῶσιν ὅπῃ ἂν τύχωσι τῆς γῆς.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Trans. mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The third river flows out from between [the other rivers mentioned], and near its origin, it falls off into a large place burning with much fire, and it makes a pool larger than our own [Mediterranean] sea, boiling with water and mud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From there it flows in a circle, turbulent and muddy, and at one point on its winding course it actually comes right up to the edge of the Acherusian lake, though the waters don't mix. Having twisted around many times under the earth, it flows into a lower part of Tartarus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the river called *Pyriphlegethōn* [&quot;blazing with fire&quot;], and the volcanoes that appear across the world are offshoots of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that Homer mentioned the name *Pyriphlegethōn*, I doubt Plato was the first to make it a literal river of lava. But he certainly goes into more detail than Homer does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately for Cerberus's eyesight, however, Plato also mentions that the Pyriphlegethon is opposite the Styx, on the other side of the Acherusian Lake, and pouring into Tartarus from the other side." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1332" RevisionGUID="8a29d449-d6e8-4d21-95ee-2a66c74527ac" CreationDate="2018-07-15T20:27:13.777" UserId="30" Comment="added 382 characters in body" Text="I'm looking for the latin translation of the Serenity Prayer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; God,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The courage to change the things I can,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the wisdom to know the difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what [Wikipedia][3] says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dona mihi serenitatem accipere res quae non possum,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fortitudinem mutare res quae possum,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Atque sapientiam differentiam cognoscere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A change I might make is to use &quot;Domine&quot; instead of &quot;Deus&quot;, what do you think?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Edit:] Sooo almost two years after posting this, it's finally been done on March 15! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A massive thank to TKR for the help on the translation! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are two pictures of during and just after :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XWKT8.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VrwzL.png&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pri%C3%A8re_de_la_S%C3%A9r%C3%A9nit%C3%A9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6873" RevisionGUID="b84fb1d8-b005-4e81-b0b9-5e5e98ba26ed" CreationDate="2018-07-15T22:43:22.067" UserId="1142" Text="The letter Z began to again be used shortly after the conquest of Greece (late 2nd century BC, early 1st century BC), but did not see a &quot;formal&quot; introduction into the Latin alphabet until later, as described by Cicero, Quintilian, and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *After the conquest of Greece in the first century BC, Z (and Y) was reintroduced into Latin but only to convey the sound of zeta in transliterated Greek loan-words. Even though the letter then was in use, sources such as Quintilian (and Cicero, De Natura Deorum, II.93) demonstrate that its formal placement in the alphabet did not occur until later. When it did, the letter Z (together with Y) was relegated to the end of the alphabet, its original place having been taken by G.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/miscellanea/zed.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6873" RevisionGUID="2f451758-6ca8-4d7d-babf-3849cd3e6774" CreationDate="2018-07-15T23:13:35.307" UserId="1142" Comment="Added extra info.," Text="The letter Z began to again be used shortly after the conquest of Greece (late 2nd century BC, early 1st century BC), but did not see a &quot;formal&quot; introduction into the Latin alphabet until later, as described by Cicero, Quintilian, and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *After the conquest of Greece in the first century BC, Z (and Y) was reintroduced into Latin but only to convey the sound of zeta in transliterated Greek loan-words. Even though the letter then was in use, sources such as Quintilian (and Cicero, De Natura Deorum, II.93) demonstrate that its formal placement in the alphabet did not occur until later. When it did, the letter Z (together with Y) was relegated to the end of the alphabet, its original place having been taken by G.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The above text was taken from here; additional citations can be found at the bottom of the page here: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/miscellanea/zed.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="737" RevisionGUID="fe754726-8edf-421f-b287-f068f5dabe5d" CreationDate="2018-07-16T08:55:55.707" UserId="79" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="&lt;b&gt;Latin Language Stack Exchange&lt;/b&gt; is a question and answer site for linguists, teachers, and students wanting to discuss the finer points of the Latin language. It is built and run &lt;i&gt;by you&lt;/i&gt; as part of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Stack Exchange&lt;/a&gt; network of Q&amp;amp;A sites. With your help, we are working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about Latin language. We also allow questions about Ancient Greek; details can be found below or &lt;a href=&quot;https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/358/79&quot;&gt;on this meta page&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Si Anglice non intellegis et hoc situ uti vis, vide &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/168/79&quot;&gt;hanc paginam Latine scriptam&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/i&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="738" RevisionGUID="cd077671-43fc-434d-9802-082bde92cbbd" CreationDate="2018-07-16T08:56:59.283" UserId="79" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Specific issues with Latin, such as with grammar, vocabulary or pronunciation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;History and culture when there is a close relation to the Latin language&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Latin literature&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Real problems or questions that you’ve encountered&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;We also allow questions about Greek up to the end of classical antiquity, including New Testament Greek. Questions on biblical Latin or Greek should focus on language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="741" RevisionGUID="167b3814-c2cd-4c5d-ae7c-19343c221550" CreationDate="2018-07-16T09:03:21.947" UserId="79" Comment="Moderator edits article" Text="&lt;p&gt;The site is for questions about the Latin language throughout its history. We welcome questions about all aspects of Latin language, its relation to other languages and also cultural and historical questions that are strongly related to Latin. The site is aimed for experts and students in the field. The site is not a translation service or a homework help center.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have a look around to get an idea what kinds of questions are welcome here. Possible topics include but may not be limited to the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Latin grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;etymology and relations to other languages&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;interpretation of difficult passages and works of literature in Latin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;history and culture when directly about or when there is a strong connection to the Latin language&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;requests of examples in literature for uses of certain words or structures&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, questions of the following kinds should generally not be asked here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;translation requests or etymological queries that show no serious research effort using readily available online sources&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;requests for homework help unless they show significant attempt to solve the problems without outside help (for guidance, see: &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/143/12&quot;&gt;How can I ask a translation or homework question?&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions may be asked and answered in English or Latin, preferably with an English summary if in Latin. If you are not fluent in either language, post your question in your language of preference and provide a rough translation to English or Latin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also allow questions about Greek up to the end of classical antiquity, including New Testament Greek. Similarly, questions about small italic languages closely related to Latin are allowed. However, questions should not be asked in these languages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions concerning biblical Latin or Greek should focus more on language than content. For questions about exegesis, philosophy, and to some extent literature, some &lt;a href=&quot;https://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday&quot;&gt;other Stack Exchange sites&lt;/a&gt; might be more appropriate. This is mainly a language site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;/search&quot;&gt;look around&lt;/a&gt; to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to &lt;a href=&quot;/helpcenter/self-answer&quot;&gt;ask and answer your own question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your question is not specifically on-topic for $SiteName, it may be on topic for another Stack Exchange site. If no site currently exists that will accept your question, you may &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/faq&quot;&gt;commit to&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76974/how-can-i-propose-a-new-site&quot;&gt;propose&lt;/a&gt; a new site at &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Area 51&lt;/a&gt;, the place where new Stack Exchange communities are democratically created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="741" RevisionGUID="b2797636-4f16-44cb-b081-9ead87f8227b" CreationDate="2018-07-16T09:04:50.677" UserId="79" Comment="Moderator edits article" Text="&lt;p&gt;The site is for questions about the Latin language throughout its history. We welcome questions about all aspects of Latin language, its relation to other languages and also cultural and historical questions that are strongly related to Latin. The site is aimed for experts and students in the field. The site is not a translation service or a homework help center.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have a look around to get an idea what kinds of questions are welcome here. Possible topics include but may not be limited to the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Latin grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;etymology and relations to other languages&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;interpretation of difficult passages and works of literature in Latin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;history and culture when directly about or when there is a strong connection to the Latin language&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;requests of examples in literature for uses of certain words or structures&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, questions of the following kinds should generally not be asked here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;translation requests or etymological queries that show no serious research effort using readily available online sources&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;requests for homework help unless they show significant attempt to solve the problems without outside help (for guidance, see: &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/143/12&quot;&gt;How can I ask a translation or homework question?&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions may be asked and answered in English or Latin, preferably with an English summary if in Latin. If you are not fluent in either language, post your question in your language of preference and provide a rough translation to English or Latin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also allow questions about Greek up to the end of classical antiquity, including New Testament Greek. Similarly, questions about small italic languages closely related to Latin are allowed. However, questions should not be asked in these languages. For more details about Greek (and the Bible), see &lt;a href=&quot;https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/358/79&quot;&gt;this meta post&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions concerning biblical Latin or Greek should focus more on language than content. For questions about exegesis, philosophy, and to some extent literature, some &lt;a href=&quot;https://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday&quot;&gt;other Stack Exchange sites&lt;/a&gt; might be more appropriate. This is mainly a language site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;/search&quot;&gt;look around&lt;/a&gt; to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to &lt;a href=&quot;/helpcenter/self-answer&quot;&gt;ask and answer your own question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your question is not specifically on-topic for $SiteName, it may be on topic for another Stack Exchange site. If no site currently exists that will accept your question, you may &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/faq&quot;&gt;commit to&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76974/how-can-i-propose-a-new-site&quot;&gt;propose&lt;/a&gt; a new site at &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Area 51&lt;/a&gt;, the place where new Stack Exchange communities are democratically created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="629" RevisionGUID="2f26f200-670b-447b-aa2d-6ede807364b8" CreationDate="2018-07-16T09:12:26.440" UserId="79" Comment="Updated based on the new Greek policy: https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/358/79" Text="For questions concerning the interaction and influence of Greek on Latin. This includes Greek loan words, translations, or aspects of Greek literature that was read, borrowed, and imitated by the Romans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also for questions concerning Greek without any relation to Latin. In such cases Greek is restricted to New Testament Greek and older Greek. Questions should focus on language, not interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See this meta discussion for the status of Greek:&#xD;&#xA;https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/358/79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="398dc74e-b9c5-4924-9564-0ce03d666e03" CreationDate="2018-07-16T09:12:26.440" UserId="79" Comment="Updated based on the new Greek policy: https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/358/79" Text="Questions concerning Greek (New Testament or older) either in relation to Latin or in itself. New Testament Greek questions should focus on language, not exegesis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22945" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1815" RevisionGUID="bda1a14c-824a-42bc-bee7-1d49db161e4d" CreationDate="2018-07-16T12:00:19.533" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|names|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="585" RevisionGUID="3b17f311-230a-429a-a63f-835d3eff7744" CreationDate="2018-07-16T12:04:30.283" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Is &quot;_duco sanitas_&quot; a grammatically correct way of saying &quot;I lead health&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For context, I'm looking for a short but grammatically correct way of saying I lead the development of healthy minds and bodies. I'm working on the tagline for an art project concerned with physical, emotional and psychological optimisation with a view to nurturing wholesome leadership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are any other words concerned more with natural/organic health than _sanitas_, please let me know!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This follows on from my [prior question][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/581/does-duco-refer-to-the-art-of-leadership" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22947" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="585" RevisionGUID="3b17f311-230a-429a-a63f-835d3eff7744" CreationDate="2018-07-16T12:04:30.283" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|meaning|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6872" RevisionGUID="84531ba0-ad1b-44a5-bb22-8e496c63df2d" CreationDate="2018-07-16T19:28:25.157" UserId="406" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="As Hugh pointed out in comments on my other answer, Plato goes into significant detail on the River Pyriphlegethon, in his *Phaedo* dialogue (specifically section 113).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τρίτος δὲ ποταμὸς τούτων κατὰ μέσον ἐκβάλλει, καὶ ἐγγὺς τῆς ἐκβολῆς ἐκπίπτει εἰς τόπον μέγαν πυρὶ πολλῷ καόμενον, καὶ λίμνην ποιεῖ μείζω τῆς παρ᾽ ἡμῖν θαλάττης, ζέουσαν ὕδατος καὶ πηλοῦ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἐντεῦθεν δὲ χωρεῖ κύκλῳ θολερὸς καὶ πηλώδης, περιελιττόμενος δὲ τῇ γῇ ἄλλοσέ τε ἀφικνεῖται καὶ παρ᾽ ἔσχατα τῆς Ἀχερουσιάδος λίμνης, οὐ συμμειγνύμενος τῷ ὕδατι: περιελιχθεὶς δὲ πολλάκις ὑπὸ γῆς ἐμβάλλει κατωτέρω τοῦ Ταρτάρου:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; οὗτος δ᾽ ἐστὶν ὃν ἐπονομάζουσιν Πυριφλεγέθοντα, οὗ καὶ οἱ ῥύακες ἀποσπάσματα ἀναφυσῶσιν ὅπῃ ἂν τύχωσι τῆς γῆς.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Trans. mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The third river flows out from between [the other rivers mentioned], and near its origin, it falls off into a large place burning with quite a lot fire, and it makes a pool larger than our own [Mediterranean] sea, boiling with water and mud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From there it flows in a circle, turbulent and muddy, and at one point on its winding course it actually comes right up to the edge of the Acherusian lake, though the waters don't mix. After twisting around many times under the earth, it flows into a lower part of Tartarus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the river called *Pyriphlegethōn* [&quot;blazing with fire&quot;], and the volcanoes that appear across the world are offshoots of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that Homer mentioned the name *Pyriphlegethōn*, I doubt Plato was the first to make it a literal river of lava. But he certainly goes into more detail than Homer does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately for Cerberus's eyesight, however, Plato also mentions that the Pyriphlegethon is opposite the Styx, on the other side of the Acherusian Lake, and pouring into Tartarus from the other side." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6874" RevisionGUID="3c92f304-7809-4aa7-b508-f48dc1180584" CreationDate="2018-07-16T20:19:47.603" UserId="406" Text="I heard it claimed recently that Ancient Greek had a verb similar to *irrumāre*, but specifically for *irrumātiō* performed on a corpse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems somewhat absurd, and the claim had no source attached, which makes me skeptical. But on the other hand, Greek allows quite extensive compounding, comic poets have covered stranger topics, and *ῥαφανιδόω* is attested. And I have no proof that such a verb *didn't* exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is such a grotesquely specific verb attested? And if so, where/in what context was it actually used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22950" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6874" RevisionGUID="3c92f304-7809-4aa7-b508-f48dc1180584" CreationDate="2018-07-16T20:19:47.603" UserId="406" Text="Is there an Ancient Greek verb with this very particular (and nsfw) meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22951" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6874" RevisionGUID="3c92f304-7809-4aa7-b508-f48dc1180584" CreationDate="2018-07-16T20:19:47.603" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|greek|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6876" RevisionGUID="833970af-2721-4711-9416-1fe406a016c1" CreationDate="2018-07-17T04:13:34.463" UserId="30" Text=" 1. Yes, the boundary between adjective and substantive nouns is often unclear in Latin and Greek. So adjectives can generally be used like substantive nouns, and demonstrative pronouns like *ille* are adjectival and can be used like substantive nouns as well. So *ille* can be &quot;he&quot; or whatever pronoun fits the antecedent. Similarly—or the other way around—, nouns like *amicus* and *senex* can also be used like adjectives: *senator amicus* &quot;a befriended senator&quot;, *servus senex* &quot;and old slave&quot;. Or &quot;a friend who is a senator&quot;, &quot;a servile old man&quot;: it makes no difference in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Yes, by all means, if the word that *illius* refers to (its antecedent) is inanimate in English, then you can translate it with &quot;of that&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. There is at least theoretical ambiguity, yes. It could be &quot;the son of the man **of that/her/him**&quot; (*illius* can be masculine, feminine, or neuter in Latin), or &quot;the son of **that** man&quot;. However, I suspect *illius* would be read adjectivally in your example by 99% of readers, for &quot;the man of that/her/him&quot; is semantically unlikely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may interest you to know that Latin does in fact use words that look like the genitives of possessive pronouns instead of the genitives of personal pronouns: *mei, tui, sui* should and can mean &quot;of my, of your, of his/her/its (own)&quot;, from the possessive pronouns *meus, tuus, suus*; but they are in fact often used to mean &quot;of me, of you, of him/her/it(self)&quot;, in constructions where the genitive does not indicate something possessed but rather something else (called the *genitivus obiectivus*). So *tuus amor mei* would mean, &quot;your love of me&quot;, where I am the object of your love, and you the one who holds possesses this love (although I'm not sure whether the Romans would use both pronouns in the same nominal group)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6876" RevisionGUID="f743032a-f42b-4eb5-8127-abfa4de24ddd" CreationDate="2018-07-17T04:23:06.397" UserId="30" Comment="added 443 characters in body" Text=" 1. Yes, the boundary between adjective and substantive nouns is often unclear in Latin and Greek. So adjectives can generally be used like substantive nouns, and demonstrative pronouns like *ille* are adjectival and can be used like substantive nouns as well. So *ille* can be &quot;he&quot; or whatever pronoun fits the antecedent. Similarly—or the other way around—, nouns like *amicus* and *senex* can also be used like adjectives: *senator amicus* &quot;a befriended senator&quot;, *servus senex* &quot;and old slave&quot;. Or &quot;a friend who is a senator&quot;, &quot;a servile old man&quot;: it makes no difference in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Yes, by all means, if the word that *illius* refers to (its antecedent) is inanimate in English, then you can translate it with &quot;of that&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. There is at least theoretical ambiguity, yes. It could be &quot;the son of the man **of that/her/him**&quot; (*illius* can be masculine, feminine, or neuter in Latin), or &quot;the son of **that** man&quot;. However, I suspect *illius* would be read adjectivally in your example by 99% of readers, for &quot;the man of that/her/him&quot; is semantically unlikely. In other sentences, though, it can very well be used in the way you are looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. The genitive *eius* is routinely used to mean &quot;of him/her/it, his/her/its&quot;, and so is *eorum/earum* &quot;of them, their&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may interest you to know that Latin does in fact use words that look like the genitives of possessive pronouns instead of the genitives of personal pronouns: *mei, tui, sui* should and can mean &quot;of my, of your, of his/her/its (own)&quot;, from the possessive pronouns *meus, tuus, suus*; but they are in fact often used to mean &quot;of me, of you, of him/her/it(self)&quot;, in constructions where the genitive does not indicate something possessed but rather something else (called the *genitivus obiectivus*). So *tuus amor mei* would mean, &quot;your love of me&quot;, where I am the object of your love, and you the one who holds possesses this love (although I'm not sure whether the Romans would use both pronouns in the same nominal group).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is fairly close to the German construction, which also used possessive pronouns, rather than demonstratives. Note that the German construction is to a limited extent also possible in Dutch. Cf. also English *a friend of mine*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe *mei* etc. aren't etymologically from *meus* etc.: I seem to remember that they might not be. But they do look like possessives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6868" RevisionGUID="7aece9e6-2f88-42ab-8dde-7d93a0dee2aa" CreationDate="2018-07-17T07:07:44.337" UserId="1133" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Each question below assumes that any previous question has been answered with a yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is *ille* ever used alone as *that* is used in this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;**That** is a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Is *illīus* ever used alone as *of that* is in this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;The idea **of that** alone was worth something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Is there an ambiguity in this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;**Illīus** hominis fīlium laudābant omnēs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I have in mind these two readings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;(a) All praised **that** man's son.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(b) All praised the son of the man **of that**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; By (a), *Illīus* qualifies (determines) and agrees with *hominis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; By (b), *Illīus* refers to an object other than *hominis*.  Maybe we have been referring to a woman as *illa*, who has married a man, who has a son by a former marriage, who was in general favor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BACKGROUND**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not asking whether any Latin speaker would have used the quoted sentence to mean (b).  I am only asking whether (b) could or could not be ruled out as a matter of grammar.  If I knew Latin better, I might have tried to come up with a more plausible (natural sounding) example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What gave me the idea of (b) is the genitive forms of German personal or demonstrative pronouns, such as *seiner* for *er* or *deren* (*derer*) for *die*, as in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Wir wollen **seiner** gedenken.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Erinnert euch **derer**, die nicht mehr unter uns sind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The German examples are from [this][1] and [this][2] Web page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin sentence is from page 124 of *Beginner's Latin Book* by William C. Collar and M. Grant Daniell (1887).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/InflectionRules/FRegeln-P/Pron-Pers.html?MenuId=Word420&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/InflectionRules/FRegeln-P/Pron-der-die-das.html?MenuId=Word4240&amp;lang=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6877" RevisionGUID="0f8e6029-3fec-4f1b-9dec-653b82210a09" CreationDate="2018-07-17T14:20:42.200" UserId="469" Text="For the sake of completeness, I have seen lots of Ecclesiastical Latin dates written in the form: **[die] roman numeral day (from I to XXXI)/[mensis] month in genitive/[anni] roman numeral year**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to cite two official examples (one recent, one more than 100 years old):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Datum Romae apud S. Petrum die XV Maii An. MDCCCXCI, Pontificatus Nostri Decimoquarto (Enc. [Rerum Novarum][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Other example: Ex Aedibus Vaticanis/Die XXI mensis Novembris MMXII&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/la/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9I1re.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="776" RevisionGUID="7fd6dd14-382e-4397-b061-8e236b1ffdc2" CreationDate="2018-07-17T15:24:03.643" UserId="45" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="I have another entry for this exhibit that answers your question with a resounding *yes*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enter Plautus, in the [Menaechmi](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/plautus/menaechmi.shtml), with **three** verbs derived from proper names in his prologue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Atque hoc poetae faciunt in comoediis:  &#xD;&#xA;omnis res gestas esse Athenis autumant,  &#xD;&#xA;quo illud vobis graecum videatur magis;  &#xD;&#xA;ego nusquam dicam nisi ubi factum dicitur.  &#xD;&#xA;atque adeo hoc argumentum **graecissat**, tamen  &#xD;&#xA;non **atticissat**, verum **sicilicissitat**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *-isso* ending seems to be a Latinized (how meta of me!) version of the Greek *-ιζω* (*-iz&amp;omacr;*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of these verbs was not immediately apparent to me, so I defer to the authority of [Henry Thomas Riley's translation](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0101%3Aact%3Dprologue%3Ascene%3D0#note3). Note that he inverts the order of the above two sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And, in fact, **this subject is a Greek one; still, it is not an Attic, but a Sicilian one**. But in their Comedies the poets do this; they feign that all the business takes place at Athens, in order that it may appear the more Grecian to you. I will not tell you that this matter happened anywhere except where it is said to have happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He adds in a footnote the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Graecissat, Atticissat, Sicelissat*: Perhaps these words might be more literally translated, &quot;Graecize,&quot; &quot;Atticize,&quot; and &quot;Sicilicize.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just imagine how wonderful life would be if words like &quot;Sicilicize&quot; were more frequently used!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6879" RevisionGUID="430eda43-9952-4ba0-b086-2340e01ad692" CreationDate="2018-07-17T19:26:22.360" UserId="79" Text="The adverbs (and prepositions) *extra* and *ultra* are somewhat similar but not identical.&#xD;&#xA;While I can read the two dictionary entries and get an idea what they mean, I don't feel that I fully grasp how they compare to each other?&#xD;&#xA;In what sense or in which cases are they similar or interchangeable?&#xD;&#xA;Are there cases when there is a clear contrast?&#xD;&#xA;Is there a concise way to summarize how the two compare?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22961" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6879" RevisionGUID="430eda43-9952-4ba0-b086-2340e01ad692" CreationDate="2018-07-17T19:26:22.360" UserId="79" Text="How do extra and ultra compare?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22962" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6879" RevisionGUID="430eda43-9952-4ba0-b086-2340e01ad692" CreationDate="2018-07-17T19:26:22.360" UserId="79" Text="|word-comparison|adverb|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6880" RevisionGUID="18561a51-0a38-4734-a8de-ccceb6841ad0" CreationDate="2018-07-18T01:01:03.890" UserId="406" Text="The modern idea of werewolves seems to have arisen somewhere in the Middle Ages, after the spread of Christianity. But I vaguely remember a story in the *Satyricon* (specifically at Trimalchio's dinner) about a man turning into a wolf at the full moon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other stories of people transforming into wolves from Classical or pre-Classical times? (And back again: while Ovid writes about a lot of transformations, they're generally permanent.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22967" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6880" RevisionGUID="18561a51-0a38-4734-a8de-ccceb6841ad0" CreationDate="2018-07-18T01:01:03.890" UserId="406" Text="Are there literary attestations of werewolves in the Classical period?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22968" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6880" RevisionGUID="18561a51-0a38-4734-a8de-ccceb6841ad0" CreationDate="2018-07-18T01:01:03.890" UserId="406" Text="|mythology|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6882" RevisionGUID="4cf7c6cb-914a-4203-8ae1-67481a2bd302" CreationDate="2018-07-18T08:11:30.690" UserId="1133" Text="Consider these pairs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;τέχνη και ἐπιστήμη (?)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ars et scientia (?)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;art and science&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Kunst und Wissenschaft&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Did Antiquity have this opposition or division between art and science?  If not, when did it emerge?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. When it did, how was it expressed in Latin and Greek?  (I rounded up random words for the first two pairs above.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BACKGROUND**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that the contrast may be of a recent origin because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- if art includes skills such as medicine and animal husbandry it has little reason to be opposed to knowledge and&#xD;&#xA;- science, as we know it, was born about the time of the Scientific Revolution?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, perhaps no one had reason to speak of 'art vs. science' in Greek or Latin?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22973" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6882" RevisionGUID="4cf7c6cb-914a-4203-8ae1-67481a2bd302" CreationDate="2018-07-18T08:11:30.690" UserId="1133" Text="Art and science in Greek and Latin (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22974" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6882" RevisionGUID="4cf7c6cb-914a-4203-8ae1-67481a2bd302" CreationDate="2018-07-18T08:11:30.690" UserId="1133" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22975" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="6883" RevisionGUID="ed60ed30-42e3-46aa-a56b-bee90e02e7a1" CreationDate="2018-07-18T08:28:25.493" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/28421/i-am-looking-for-the-latin-etymology-of-what-became-the-english-word-pulchritud" />
  <row Id="22976" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="6884" RevisionGUID="fc5024da-926d-48f7-8d21-08f6b8c1efe8" CreationDate="2018-07-18T08:28:25.493" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/28421/i-am-looking-for-the-latin-etymology-of-what-became-the-english-word-pulchritud/28425#28425" />
  <row Id="22977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6884" RevisionGUID="cd094caa-03b6-42dd-b784-9e5565ea1fe3" CreationDate="2018-07-17T14:16:23.437" UserId="30" Text="According to De Vaan, its earliest known occurrence is in the works of Livius Andronicus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So its etymology is uncertain, but conexions with a Proto-Indo-European root have been suggested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could only find a single occurrence in Lucius Livius Andronicus, Tragoediae 40, mid-late 3rd century BC (text from the HP corpus):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dusmo ín loco&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Puerárum manibus cónfectum **pulcérrime**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quinquértiones praéco in medium próuocat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9IObz.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6883" RevisionGUID="f307a897-0e50-487c-84d3-2a3df7bcddc2" CreationDate="2018-07-17T10:42:42.540" UserDisplayName="Curt Pawlisch" Text="I working on a literary piece and trying to find the first known use in Latin of of &quot;pulcher&quot; (feminine pulchra, neuter pulchrum, comparative pulchrior, superlative pulcherrimus), e.g., &quot;first known use found in Virgil's  . . . &quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know Latin, nor am I at all acquainted with linguistics.  If there are resources that would be accessible for a person like me (retired lawyer, in other words, I am not without reasoning capacity), I'd appreciate learning whatever you might suggest in this regard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22979" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6883" RevisionGUID="f307a897-0e50-487c-84d3-2a3df7bcddc2" CreationDate="2018-07-17T10:42:42.540" UserDisplayName="Curt Pawlisch" Text="I am looking for the Latin etymology of what became the English word &quot;pulchritude.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22980" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6883" RevisionGUID="f307a897-0e50-487c-84d3-2a3df7bcddc2" CreationDate="2018-07-17T10:42:42.540" UserDisplayName="Curt Pawlisch" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6883" RevisionGUID="be46a605-c0f0-4e8e-8959-25ab6e8d07d4" CreationDate="2018-07-18T09:51:04.287" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="I working on a literary piece and trying to find the first known use in Latin of of &quot;pulcher&quot; (feminine pulchra, neuter pulchrum, comparative pulchrior, superlative pulcherrimus), e.g., &quot;first known use found in Virgil's  . . . &quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know Latin, nor am I at all acquainted with linguistics.  If there are resources that would be accessible for a person like me (retired lawyer, in other words, I am not without reasoning capacity), I'd appreciate learning whatever you might suggest in this regard.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22982" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6883" RevisionGUID="be46a605-c0f0-4e8e-8959-25ab6e8d07d4" CreationDate="2018-07-18T09:51:04.287" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="Latin etymology of the English word &quot;pulchritude&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6196" RevisionGUID="c0d2e1c5-e9ad-4e64-938a-47501ef97812" CreationDate="2018-07-18T09:56:56.037" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body" Text="I need to ask for a check on the correctness of the Latin translations I have, to see whether they are correct in context with the English phrases I had translated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Animae celare bestias exiguae laxis vestibus illicitus est. This is translated from - It is forbidden to conceal beasts of little intellect within the folds of your garment. This is spoken by a saint to a man who wants to take up holy orders but is attempting to smuggle animals into the monastery.&#xD;&#xA;2. Nam eum hinc ferunt. Translated from - For they beareth him hence. This refers to a group of men carrying another man away from danger.&#xD;&#xA;3. Diabolo se agnosci non placet. Translated from - The Devil does not like to be recognised. &#xD;&#xA;4. Nam idem quod eos edit edunt. Translated from - For they eateth that which eateth them. Refers to people who eat things which are capable of eating them, such as worms and parasites.&#xD;&#xA;5. Ferens infantes exit. Translated from - It came out carrying infants. Refers to a sinister old woman emerging from a small cottage carrying infants under her arms. I have also been given - Ferens infantes emersit.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1160" RevisionGUID="6bb8bb8d-6ca9-4ed6-9e77-0aba3d714559" CreationDate="2018-07-18T09:59:37.333" UserId="1459" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="I am still working through the *Parvum Officium* and I am having a little trouble parsing the first verse of this hymn. I am pretty confident you people can straighten me out. The verse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Memento rerum conditor,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nostri quod olim corporis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sacrata ab alvo Virginis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nascendo formam sumpseris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm fairly confident I understand the first and third lines, but let me attempt translation just in case I do not. First:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remember! Creator of [the] things!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From the holy womb of [the] Virgin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, (gulp) the second. I think *nostri* and *corporis* are linked together to mean *of our body* and that *quod olim* is a kind of parenthetical, subordinate adjectival clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ..., that at that time, of our body...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps that is right. Perhaps not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have even less to work with in the fourth line, because I do not really understand the gerundive *nascendo*.  I suspect that the accusative *formam* is linked to the *nostri ... corporis* in the second line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it seems my questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Are any of my above assertions incorrect?&#xD;&#xA; - How does *nascendo* operate in this text?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have an English translation in hand, but given that this is a hymn and subject to rhyme and meter constraints, I do not expect it to follow very rigidly, and I really want to understand the Latin on its own terms. Here is the translation for reference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remember, O Creator Lord!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That in the Virgin's sacred womb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thou wast conceived, and of her flesh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Didst our mortality assume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2221" RevisionGUID="c810b4b0-e826-494d-a9e8-36864e379065" CreationDate="2018-07-18T10:02:23.997" UserId="1459" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Are you willing to take a look at my efforts at translating 6 words from English to Latin? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here goes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mankind evolves: _Homines evolvant_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;God disappoints: _Deus frustrat_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reason refutes: _Ratio refellat_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts? How did I do? I'm open to corrections." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22986" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2221" RevisionGUID="c810b4b0-e826-494d-a9e8-36864e379065" CreationDate="2018-07-18T10:02:23.997" UserId="1459" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation-check|conjugation|english-to-latin-translation|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="932" RevisionGUID="e6bcf08e-9ddd-492e-b8ec-73d676f6f28c" CreationDate="2018-07-18T13:33:12.860" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm coming up with a title for a song, and I thought &quot;I'm a human, I will be a god&quot; or &quot;I'm human, I will be God&quot; was pretty sweet sounding, but translating it into a short Latin saying would make it even better. Since I remember the word order &quot;_homo sum_&quot; from the famous humanist motto, I wonder if adding &quot;_Deus ero_&quot; after a simple comma would be correct? I came to this quite simply via analogy, since &quot;_ero_&quot; is the first person future form of &quot;to be&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22989" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="932" RevisionGUID="e6bcf08e-9ddd-492e-b8ec-73d676f6f28c" CreationDate="2018-07-18T13:33:12.860" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|syntax|conjugation|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2875" RevisionGUID="1bb208aa-e1cd-41c1-a9e4-16b63ac42c9b" CreationDate="2018-07-18T13:34:08.363" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I'm writing a poem, and I want to close each part with a Latin phrase.  The one I'm talking about now is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_non serm ab rex regum ergo nos sponte nostrum resurget_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using various online resources, I have crafted this phrase, which I believe to be fairly legible, but I know google translate can't be trusted 100%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's supposed to mean, &quot;No word from the King of Kings, therefore we will resurrect on our own accord.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mainly concerned that I might be putting the words in the wrong order in order to maintain the iambic and the ending -get, which is a rhymed syllable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you can find anything wrong with it, I'd like to hear about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is no uppercase or punctuation, because I didn't want to add something that shouldn't be there, and I saw no punctuation or capitalization in the Latin Bible, so I figured it was normal to write Latin in this way.  If that's not necessarily true, I'd like to know that, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I'll give the poem some context so it will be easier to help me.  Rhyme pattern is A A B at the end of each line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        '    '     '    '   '&#xD;&#xA;    in girum imus nocte et consum-&#xD;&#xA;    '    '         '       '     '&#xD;&#xA;    imur igni non serm ab rex regum&#xD;&#xA;       '       '     '       '    '&#xD;&#xA;    ergo nos sponte nostrum resurget&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is how I was emphasizing the lines, though clearly some of it was wrong.  And you can even see I let the iambic slide a little bit around 'consumimur igni', but that goes with the territory of forcing a non-iambic quote into iambic.  I'd like to make the final, original latin line as iambic as possible, but that is looking harder and harder to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was said that 2+ syllable latin generally never ends on a stressed syllable.  I will go ahead and just make that not a problem right now, by saying we don't have to uphold the ending -get rhyme.  The thing it rhymes with is original content that can far more easily be changed to suit the needs I will require by nailing the latin portion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I do need to nail the 'regum' at the end of that middle line, even though its accented incorrectly, because that's gonna be my only chance to fit the palindrome quote into the stanza.  Unless you can think of another word that ends with an 'oom' or 'um' sound, which is also relevant and can be better crafted to fit the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going from the answer's I've already received, what about something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ...&#xD;&#xA;    '    '     '   '       '  &#xD;&#xA;    imur igni hei rege ab regum&#xD;&#xA;         '     '      '     '     '&#xD;&#xA;    non sermo nobis sponte bingo bang&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where the bingo bang part is a placeholder for your own latin-inclined creative ideas.  I'd like it to end on a stressed syllable, and I'd like it to use the verb resurget but that's not as important as the stressed final syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used 'hei' as a single syllable interjection to sort of salvage some iambic, and make it seem more conversational than we just got off-by-1 somewhere and couldn't stop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to be creative and even destructive if you think you've got a good idea for my situation.&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22991" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2875" RevisionGUID="1bb208aa-e1cd-41c1-a9e4-16b63ac42c9b" CreationDate="2018-07-18T13:34:08.363" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Does this Latin phrase make sense grammatically?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2896" RevisionGUID="f6ef44d6-878b-48f4-8221-eab349a80cb8" CreationDate="2018-07-18T13:35:17.520" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt;_sic este mei memores hec illac_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to use it in a poem.  It needs to be 10 syllables and the end has to rhyme with 'attack.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a good way to say 'So remember me this way'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22993" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2896" RevisionGUID="f6ef44d6-878b-48f4-8221-eab349a80cb8" CreationDate="2018-07-18T13:35:17.520" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="|grammar-choice|meaning|poetry|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4460" RevisionGUID="2cbcbe76-9c07-4e6a-aea5-786714e8a955" CreationDate="2018-07-18T13:37:00.850" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body; edited tags; edited tags" Text="I have anger management issues, and am currently working on a tattoo I'd like to have done. So I'm thinking of a good Latin phrase which carries the same spirit as *Memento Mori*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'd like to have is the phrase &quot;Remember Calmness&quot;, but in Latin. A quick search resulted in the translation *Memento Sedatiores*. I just wanted to verify if this is a sound/proper translation of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you also have phrases to suggest, please feel free to comment them!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22995" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4460" RevisionGUID="2cbcbe76-9c07-4e6a-aea5-786714e8a955" CreationDate="2018-07-18T13:37:00.850" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body; edited tags; edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|motto|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6885" RevisionGUID="65ecb9f9-f842-4030-8ef8-beeeb0b2c15a" CreationDate="2018-07-18T16:20:02.770" UserId="469" Text="Another verb is [memoror][1], its 2nd person imperative being [memorare][2], 1st person future active, memorabor. Hence you have to forms for each:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Memento** / **memorare** for the command&#xD;&#xA;* **Meminero** / **Memorabor** for the commitment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both verbs, *[memoror][3]* and *[memini][4]*, are Classical and reasonably common, with the former seeming slightly more common (according to searches that could be noisy, so don't just trust them blindly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmemoror&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/memorare#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AGreco-Roman&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AArabic&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AGermanic&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3Acwar&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3ARenaissance&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3ARichTimes&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3APDILL&amp;all_words=memoror&amp;all_words_expand=on&amp;phrase=&amp;any_words=&amp;exclude_words=&amp;search=Search&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AGreco-Roman&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AArabic&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3AGermanic&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3Acwar&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3ARenaissance&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3ARichTimes&amp;collections=Perseus%3Acollection%3APDILL&amp;all_words=memini&amp;all_words_expand=on&amp;phrase=&amp;any_words=&amp;exclude_words=&amp;search=Search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6886" RevisionGUID="7564dff1-a6db-46d3-96d4-4f8a9df3d6e3" CreationDate="2018-07-18T22:41:42.273" UserId="2704" Text="As you can see in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science, the use of _scientia_ in its modern sense dates are from the Enlightenment (and _episteme_ is a mere calque). The opposition did exist in antiquity, but it was articulated as a contrast between _techne/ars_ (art, technology, engineering) and _philosophia_. Science was still called Natural Philosophy right up until the Enlightenment.&#xA;&#xA;While the Distinction was made in antiquity, the boundaries have clearly changed. Amusingly, the same Wikipedia article claims Hippocrates for science, but his most famous dictum is &quot;art is a long, life is short&quot;, which means that he considered medicine to be engineering, not science." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6887" RevisionGUID="2e49fbdd-a909-45ec-be0a-6c3ce9548d06" CreationDate="2018-07-19T01:01:53.857" UserId="2704" Text="No, I will not censor my response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bain, David. “Six Greek Verbs of Sexual Congress (βινω̑, κινω̑, Πυγίζω, ληκω̑, Οἴϕω, Λαικάζω).” The Classical Quarterly, vol. 41, no. 1, 1991, pp. 51–77. [JSTOR][1], argues that even the two instances in Classical Greek claimed to mean &quot;face-fucking&quot;, βινεῖν στόματι and λαικάζω, don't—that the former refers to cunnilingus, and the latter is overimaginative parsing of Aristophanes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only references to irrumatio/&quot;oral rape&quot; in [_Sexuality in Greek and Roman Literature and Society: A Sourcebook_][2] are Latin. And I don't see any obvious indication from Adams' _The Latin Sexual Vocabulary_ of a Greek antecedent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;W. A. Krenkel, 'Fellatio and irrumatio', _Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Wilhelm-Pieck-Universität Rostock_ 29 (1980), pp. 77ff. is going to be very difficult to track down, and it's always hard to prove a negative. But I don't see any good evidence for this claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/639023&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=mi-n5ghCKN4C&amp;pg=PA228&amp;lpg=PA228&amp;dq=wz%20rostock&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=kH_egSOWdo&amp;sig=VsieUjfBAwgXNJDyR86_Mui6MYw&amp;hl=el&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwint6GF-ancAhXGrJQKHY_qC_0Q6AEwC3oECAcQAQ#v=snippet&amp;q=oral%20rape&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6886" RevisionGUID="76de328f-9c5c-43f6-8f4c-2f6591f32cab" CreationDate="2018-07-19T01:12:41.273" UserId="2704" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="As you can see in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science, the use of _scientia_ in its modern sense dates from the Enlightenment (and _episteme_ is a mere calque). The opposition did exist in antiquity, but it was articulated as a contrast between _techne/ars_ (art, technology, engineering) and _philosophia_. Science was still called Natural Philosophy right up until the Enlightenment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the distinction was made in antiquity, the boundaries have clearly changed. Amusingly, the same Wikipedia article claims Hippocrates for science, but his most famous dictum is &quot;art is a long, life is short&quot;, which means that he considered medicine to be engineering, not science." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6888" RevisionGUID="b367be38-eaa9-4409-bb93-2420708797e5" CreationDate="2018-07-19T08:06:36.640" UserId="2771" Text="'Have' is a variation albeit not popular, of 'ave'. Please be advised. It can be seen in some inscriptions. Check out the wiki page of ave, with the image if it is still there.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6889" RevisionGUID="60d6403d-a3a3-400d-81ed-030c3fd21ab5" CreationDate="2018-07-19T12:26:10.527" UserId="1459" Text="I think the examples given in the question and in the answers are grammatically non-trivial and thus **prone to translation mistakes**, even by a human learning a language (two substantives, two verbs, etc). That Google makes mistakes might not be so surprising, and we could even argue that the tests were too stringent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps a much more revealing test is to try Google translate with **unequivocally simple examples**. So, to see if Google understands us, I will try &quot;I do not understand&quot;. From the grammatical point of view, it's trivial: one person/pronoun, one verb. No complex lexical twists possible. So, what do we get? Brace yourselves:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far so good! But to be honest, many people just use &quot;don't&quot; rather than &quot;do not&quot;. So...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What??? Did Google just changed the person? How on earth could it mistake an &quot;I&quot; by a plural &quot;you&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for the sake of it, I also try it in Spanish:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same basic mistake. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about &quot;I understand&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Better. What about &quot;I do understand&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Totally odd. If we reverse the direction of translation, we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From where we get the amazing conclusion that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do understand = I do not understand&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that we can now safely conclude that **Google translate is terrible** even for the most simple tasks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vq8nw.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/M6iTq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/40438.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pmn3E.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SchsW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tzjFR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6890" RevisionGUID="fd82b238-5134-4bf9-be48-b5430f329d81" CreationDate="2018-07-19T17:33:27.057" UserId="406" Text="I've generally assumed that Latin words coming from Semitic are usually transformed by Greek: even *Elissa* is a Greek transcription of the original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But [this answer][1] indicates that the well-attested Latin word *(h)ave* &quot;hail!&quot; actually comes from the Semitic root *ħ-w-h*, and cites some good evidence for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other Latin words which were borrowed directly from Semitic languages, rather than via Greek?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that I'm not interested in words coming through Greek here, which excludes most Egyptian names like *Isis* and Biblical ones like *Jēsus*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5244/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23005" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6890" RevisionGUID="fd82b238-5134-4bf9-be48-b5430f329d81" CreationDate="2018-07-19T17:33:27.057" UserId="406" Text="Are there well-assimilated Latin words from Semitic languages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23006" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6890" RevisionGUID="fd82b238-5134-4bf9-be48-b5430f329d81" CreationDate="2018-07-19T17:33:27.057" UserId="406" Text="|etymology|loanwords|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6890" RevisionGUID="e07dd8b4-ab8b-47a5-af16-afef1934e0a6" CreationDate="2018-07-19T18:21:09.343" UserId="406" Comment="edited body" Text="I've generally assumed that Latin words coming from Semitic are usually transformed by Greek: even *Elissa* is a Greek transcription of the original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But [this answer][1] indicates that the well-attested Latin word *(h)ave* &quot;hail!&quot; actually comes from the Semitic root *ħ-w-h*, and cites some good evidence for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other Latin words which were borrowed directly from Semitic languages, rather than via Greek?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that I'm not interested in words coming through Greek here, which excludes most Egyptian names like *Isis* and Biblical ones like *Jēsūs*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5244/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6891" RevisionGUID="1d00dbc4-225a-4ccf-84cf-8e822de0ff1a" CreationDate="2018-07-19T20:32:52.873" UserId="1459" Text="I read that _[vicis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vicis)_ has no singular nominative, but it does have a plural one - _vices_. I find this very interesting, but hard to understand. It is like if the ontological configuration of space-time does not allow for such case-number to exist. Why would a case exist only in plural but not in singular? So you can only name it as an object in plural? Very odd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to understand why such mode-person does not exist. Maybe someone can give me an example in English or Spanish? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see that _vicis_ derived into the Spanish _vez_. But _vez_ has a nominative in both singular and plural, as far as I understand: _la vez que nos vimos_, or _las veces que comimos_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, could someone help me make sense how is it that universe forbids the nominative-singular of _vicis_ to exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Related but unhelpful question [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4875/what-is-time-in-first-time/4895#4895))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23009" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6891" RevisionGUID="1d00dbc4-225a-4ccf-84cf-8e822de0ff1a" CreationDate="2018-07-19T20:32:52.873" UserId="1459" Text="Vicis - no nominative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23010" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6891" RevisionGUID="1d00dbc4-225a-4ccf-84cf-8e822de0ff1a" CreationDate="2018-07-19T20:32:52.873" UserId="1459" Text="|nominativus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23011" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6890" RevisionGUID="5b703738-8b09-45ff-a6e3-9304fa5564e7" CreationDate="2018-07-19T21:09:34.113" UserId="406" Comment="edited tags" Text="|etymology|word-request|loanwords|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6892" RevisionGUID="7f31103a-0373-4cfa-b742-4095da43398f" CreationDate="2018-07-19T21:54:43.180" UserId="145" Text="What's the difference between the conjunctions: *&quot;et&quot;*, and *&quot;ac&quot;*?  &#xA;&#xA;Which one corresponds to what kind of situation?&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23013" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6892" RevisionGUID="7f31103a-0373-4cfa-b742-4095da43398f" CreationDate="2018-07-19T21:54:43.180" UserId="145" Text="When to use &quot;ac&quot; instead of &quot;et&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23014" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6892" RevisionGUID="7f31103a-0373-4cfa-b742-4095da43398f" CreationDate="2018-07-19T21:54:43.180" UserId="145" Text="|syntax|conjunction|semantics|word-usage|case|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6893" RevisionGUID="8cdc963c-9d47-495d-9cb5-da75ebdcf9f9" CreationDate="2018-07-19T23:14:02.300" UserId="2772" Text="This jpg shows what I think is Latin lettering on a stained glass window at a Japanese wedding chapel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Japanese chapel stained glass][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WhQWO.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is Latin, I'd appreciate (1) an English translation and (2) the lettering deciphered into legible English letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23016" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6893" RevisionGUID="8cdc963c-9d47-495d-9cb5-da75ebdcf9f9" CreationDate="2018-07-19T23:14:02.300" UserId="2772" Text="help with stained glass lettering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23017" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6893" RevisionGUID="8cdc963c-9d47-495d-9cb5-da75ebdcf9f9" CreationDate="2018-07-19T23:14:02.300" UserId="2772" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6896" RevisionGUID="be5766bb-1ec2-481e-badf-7281d6e8e2df" CreationDate="2018-07-20T04:33:01.803" UserId="985" Text="The different formatting of the final letter on the right (white with back outlining, against a sort of black background) makes me suspect that it's a *versal* (ornamented initial letter), and that it's therefore actually meant to be the first letter of the text; in other words, I think the photo is backwards. When I flip it on my computer it looks a bit like *Ite ad*, which would in fact be fact Latin, meaning 'Go to': a command given to a group, but with their destination unexpressed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Text from the photo, reversed][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps this window meant to form a pair with another (the window next to it, for example), which has text that expresses the destination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vNXlC.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5358" RevisionGUID="5ed5e4f7-4f66-4ea0-84e0-f431c3e4c05f" CreationDate="2018-07-20T05:26:38.777" UserId="30" Comment="looks like a typo" Text="John of Salisbury 1120-1180 wrote in 'Metalogicon Bk3 ch,4 **[Wikiquote][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dicebat Bernardus Carnotensis nos esse quasi nanos gigantium humeris&#xD;&#xA;&gt; insidentes, ut possimus plura eis et remotiora videre, non utique&#xD;&#xA;&gt; proprii visus acumine, aut eminentia corporis, sed quia in altum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subvehimur et extollimur magnitudine gigantea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is in indirect speech:  &quot;Bernard of Chartres used to say that we are as dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more things and more distant than they can,...&quot;  ...follow the link for a full translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to stay close to the original you could say: &quot;We are as dwarfs sitting upon the shoulders of giants.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quasi nani sumus gigantium humeris insidentes&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your version simply, &quot;We stand upon the shoulders of giants,&quot;   &#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Super humeris gigantium stamus.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_of_Salisbury" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23023" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6891" RevisionGUID="84caa266-f711-42d5-8257-39b65d13ebeb" CreationDate="2018-07-20T07:22:54.063" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="Vicis - no singular nominative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6893" RevisionGUID="17aedd40-b619-4ba2-ad13-7899174df4f5" CreationDate="2018-07-20T07:26:11.687" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="This jpg shows what I think is Latin lettering on a stained glass window at a Japanese wedding chapel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Japanese chapel stained glass][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WhQWO.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is Latin, I'd appreciate (1) an English translation and (2) the lettering deciphered into legible English letters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23025" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6893" RevisionGUID="17aedd40-b619-4ba2-ad13-7899174df4f5" CreationDate="2018-07-20T07:26:11.687" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Help with stained glass lettering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23026" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6893" RevisionGUID="17aedd40-b619-4ba2-ad13-7899174df4f5" CreationDate="2018-07-20T07:26:11.687" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6897" RevisionGUID="371e05f7-bd74-4bb6-ab65-b3d41a529b62" CreationDate="2018-07-20T07:32:13.563" UserId="9" Text="A little while back, I asked a question about the alleged Latin word &quot;[tribalis](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6793/has-tribalis-ever-been-used-in-latin)&quot; (which it seems was not actually used), and I mentioned that it seemed to me that it would be an irregular formation because *tribus* is a *u*-stem noun, but *tribālis* does not contain *-u-.* So far, nobody has informed me of any examples of parallel formations of this type. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But recently, I did run into an example of the reverse: an *o*-stem noun that has a derivative that seems to be built with *-u-.* It is *[lectŭārĭus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=lectuarius),* which Lewis &amp; Short says is a &quot;late Lat.&quot; adjective meaning &quot;*of or belonging to the bed, bed-*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The related noun *[lectus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlectus2)* seems to be declined as an *o*-stem. That said, I found some interesting notes in the L&amp;S entry that may be relevant: it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (nom. **lectum** , i, n., *Dig. 32, 1, 52, § 9; 34, 2, 19, § 8*; **lectus** , ūs, **Plaut. Am. 1, 3, 15**; al. lecti; **Sen. Ep. 95, 72** Haas; Cornif. ap. *Prisc. 711* P.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relevant line seems  to be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;prius abis quam **lectus** ubi cubuisti concaluit locus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[Amphitruo (Leo)](https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Amphitruo_(Leo))*, Wikisource)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;lectus&quot; here apparently should be [read as a a genitive](https://books.google.com/books?id=DpkoAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA109&amp;lpg=PA109).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't know if usage in Plautus would be relevant to a &quot;late Latin&quot; derived adjective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oddly, de Vaan's entry for *lectus* doesn't seem to mention this variant form directly, but seems to mention something similar as a theoretical etymology:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; WH rightly notice that a nominal formation *legʰ-to- 'bed' would be strange, but it does not seem impossible: 'lied upon' &gt; 'bed'. The form could be interpreted as a nominalized verbal adj. with regular e-grade in the root, [...] An alternative solution is to posit **a *tu*-stem *legʰ-tu- 'the lying', which could have switched to the *o*-stem inflection by the time of Plautus.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I was looking for more information about the possibility of *lectus* declining as a &quot;u-stem&quot; or &quot;fourth declension&quot; noun, I found an [interesting discussion](http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/12th-century-family-motto-lectus-generat-fortem.2212/) where some people suggest that *lectus, lectus* could be understood in certain contexts in post-Classical Latin as an [abstract *-(t)us* noun](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/891/what-is-the-difference-between-us-and-io) derived from *lego.* I don't know if that might be relevant to the formation of *lectuarius;* I would suppose not, but I'm not completely sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is going on with *lectuarius,* and are there any similar examples?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23028" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6897" RevisionGUID="371e05f7-bd74-4bb6-ab65-b3d41a529b62" CreationDate="2018-07-20T07:32:13.563" UserId="9" Text="Interchange between u- and o-stem forms in suffixed derivatives (e.g. &quot;lectus&quot;, &quot;lectuarius&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23029" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6897" RevisionGUID="371e05f7-bd74-4bb6-ab65-b3d41a529b62" CreationDate="2018-07-20T07:32:13.563" UserId="9" Text="|adjective|declension|derivation|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6898" RevisionGUID="50446aa2-29d9-4e39-a954-e27f16e09d1e" CreationDate="2018-07-20T13:51:19.340" UserId="2774" Text="Is 'piscantur necesse est' a correct paraphrase of well known Plutarch sentence 'navigare necesse est' ?&#xD;&#xA;The sense of paraphrase is to say 'angling is necessary' ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23031" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6898" RevisionGUID="50446aa2-29d9-4e39-a954-e27f16e09d1e" CreationDate="2018-07-20T13:51:19.340" UserId="2774" Text="Correct paraphrase of &quot;navigare necesse est&quot; to 'angling is necessary'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23032" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6898" RevisionGUID="50446aa2-29d9-4e39-a954-e27f16e09d1e" CreationDate="2018-07-20T13:51:19.340" UserId="2774" Text="|translation|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6899" RevisionGUID="98778265-f4c7-487f-8143-fd7f9ebdbb3b" CreationDate="2018-07-20T14:15:11.887" UserId="45" Text="In Latin, &quot;fish&quot; is [*piscor, -ari, -atus sum*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpiscor), a first conjugation deponent verb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form you use, *piscantur*, is third person plural. It means &quot;they fish.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original phrase is a later Latin translation of Plutarch's Greek translation of what Pompey said, presumably in Latin: &quot;πλεῖν ἀνάγκη, ζῆν οὐκ ἀνάγκη.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Navigare* is active infinitive: &quot;to sail.&quot; The equivalent form of *piscor* is *piscari*. You thus have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Piscari necesse est.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a gratuitous addendum, here's how Plutarch would have said it in Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἁλιεύειν ἀνάγκη" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6898" RevisionGUID="abbbdc36-ed7f-44b4-828e-130dcdd4efa2" CreationDate="2018-07-20T14:26:50.970" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Is '_piscantur necesse est_' a correct paraphrase of well known Plutarch sentence '_navigare necesse est_'?&#xD;&#xA;The sense of paraphrase is to say 'angling is necessary'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23035" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6898" RevisionGUID="abbbdc36-ed7f-44b4-828e-130dcdd4efa2" CreationDate="2018-07-20T14:26:50.970" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6900" RevisionGUID="db712d01-0a6a-4515-bf5a-e035f9c76863" CreationDate="2018-07-20T15:23:29.230" UserId="2775" Text="Nothing wrong with Brian's answer, but I have another couple of options for you - perhaps a bit more grave in style: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    piscari opus est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And my best attempt at poetics, eliding gerundive of obligation with est:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    piscandumst.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please tell me you're painting this on the side of your new boat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23039" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6898" RevisionGUID="0c75c432-27f1-42fe-ae74-1cb39442467b" CreationDate="2018-07-20T15:34:37.613" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6901" RevisionGUID="83c8b9ea-a861-4916-8cd0-f52b70262746" CreationDate="2018-07-20T19:11:21.700" UserId="79" Text="According to [an earlier question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6146/79), we do not know how stress was realized on classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;It may have been dynamic (stressed syllables are louder), tonal (stress changes pitch), or a combination, or perhaps something yet different.&#xD;&#xA;While we do not know exactly how the stress was realized in prose (normal spoken language), do we know about the relations of stress in prose and poetry?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I pronounce Latin, prose stress is mainly dynamic.&#xD;&#xA;However, I also use the same kind of stress to indicate stressed syllables in verse, such as the first syllable of each of the six metrons in a hexameter.&#xD;&#xA;This means that prose stress is completely lost in verse.&#xD;&#xA;(Both kinds of stress have a tendency to fall on long syllables so they do coincide more than one would expect by random.)&#xD;&#xA;However, it occurred to me that this may be wrong.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps prose stress is dynamic and metric stress is supposed to be tonal, allowing the two to coexist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know whether metric stress (the stressed syllables in a metric poem) replaced the usual stress pattern of classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Does prose stress have an audible role recited poetry?&#xD;&#xA;Do we know at all how the two stress types were related?&#xD;&#xA;It may also be that the answer depends on the kind of poetic meter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23043" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6901" RevisionGUID="83c8b9ea-a861-4916-8cd0-f52b70262746" CreationDate="2018-07-20T19:11:21.700" UserId="79" Text="Is there a difference between prose stress and metric stress?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23044" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6901" RevisionGUID="83c8b9ea-a861-4916-8cd0-f52b70262746" CreationDate="2018-07-20T19:11:21.700" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|poetry|stress|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6898" RevisionGUID="fcd2f214-85bd-435f-a5ee-b55f7f903cf4" CreationDate="2018-07-20T19:15:27.217" UserId="2733" Comment="grammar fixes" Text="Is '_piscantur necesse est_' a correct paraphrase of the well-known Plutarch maxim '_navigare necesse est_'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, would the sense of the paraphrase be &quot;angling is necessary&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23046" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6898" RevisionGUID="fcd2f214-85bd-435f-a5ee-b55f7f903cf4" CreationDate="2018-07-20T19:15:27.217" UserId="2733" Comment="grammar fixes" Text="Correct paraphrase of &quot;navigare necesse est&quot;? &quot;Angling is necessary&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23047" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6898" RevisionGUID="fcd2f214-85bd-435f-a5ee-b55f7f903cf4" CreationDate="2018-07-20T19:15:27.217" Comment="Proposed by 2733 approved by -1 edit id of 248" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6898" RevisionGUID="217f211c-6447-4c9b-80cf-352dbe3e5ebe" CreationDate="2018-07-20T19:15:27.217" UserId="79" Comment="Attempted to clarify the question. Feel free to re-edit or rollback!" Text="Is '_piscantur necesse est_' a correct adaptation of the well-known Plutarch maxim '_navigare necesse est_'?&#xD;&#xA;I would like to say &quot;angling is necessary&quot;, but I am unsure whether it remains correct after my modification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23049" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6898" RevisionGUID="217f211c-6447-4c9b-80cf-352dbe3e5ebe" CreationDate="2018-07-20T19:15:27.217" UserId="79" Comment="Attempted to clarify the question. Feel free to re-edit or rollback!" Text="Correct paraphrase of &quot;navigare necesse est&quot; to &quot;angling is necessary&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6900" RevisionGUID="ce2af3cd-fc52-4776-978e-d20497c4caa9" CreationDate="2018-07-20T19:17:25.980" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted the quotes using quote markup rather than verbatim (code) markup. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="Nothing wrong with Brian's answer, but I have another couple of options for you &amp;mdash; perhaps a bit more grave in style: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; piscari opus est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And my best attempt at poetics, eliding gerundive of obligation with est:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; piscandumst.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please tell me you're painting this on the side of your new boat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23051" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6892" RevisionGUID="37cd396b-b756-49e2-806a-980662dedc15" CreationDate="2018-07-20T19:20:08.450" UserId="79" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1371],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1459,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;luchonacho&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:469,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Rafael&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6892" RevisionGUID="42fb52c3-e7e4-4bf2-aabd-43b366eb1b9a" CreationDate="2018-07-21T01:50:08.457" UserId="145" Comment="added 718 characters in body" Text="What's the difference between the conjunctions: *&quot;et&quot;*, and *&quot;ac&quot;*?  &#xA;&#xA;Which one corresponds to what kind of situation?&#xA;- - -&#xA;Allow me to elaborate for clarification, and to distinguish from similar questions. Consider the following two, similar university slogans and their official interpretations:&#xA;&#xA;**[University of Queensland][1]**  &#xA;*Scientia ac Labore*  &#xA;&quot;[Through] knowledge and hard work&quot;  &#xA;  &#xA;**[University of New South Wales][2]**  &#xA;*Scientia Manu et Mente*  &#xA;&quot;Knowledge [by] hand and mind&quot;  &#xA;- - -&#xA;&#xA;Are they both semantically and syntactically correct?  &#xA;Are their respective translations accurate?  &#xA;Assuming the answer to both questions is yes:  &#xA;Why do they use different forms of the same conjuction? &#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.uq.edu.au/ &quot;University of Queensland&quot;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.unsw.edu.au/ &quot;University of New South Wales&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23054" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="6892" RevisionGUID="725ee711-80da-41b3-be46-e22f6599847e" CreationDate="2018-07-21T07:03:29.317" UserId="79" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:469,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Rafael&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6902" RevisionGUID="7665e679-5e2d-4314-a5af-75c802c5b0cc" CreationDate="2018-07-21T17:31:47.363" UserId="2778" Text="hoping someone can help with confirming a translation, or suggesting an alternative, of “keep showing up” into Latin. Google translate and a few other online translators have suggested ut ostendo sursum. Advice is appreciated  thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23057" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6902" RevisionGUID="7665e679-5e2d-4314-a5af-75c802c5b0cc" CreationDate="2018-07-21T17:31:47.363" UserId="2778" Text="Is ut ostendo sursum an accurate Latin translation of keep showing up?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23058" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6902" RevisionGUID="7665e679-5e2d-4314-a5af-75c802c5b0cc" CreationDate="2018-07-21T17:31:47.363" UserId="2778" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6903" RevisionGUID="32173ebc-536f-4974-a2d5-6b9d670da3a3" CreationDate="2018-07-21T18:31:16.070" UserId="427" Text="Machine translation is notoriously bad for Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*ut ostendo sursum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;'while I reveal [something] on high'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A grammatical and sensible translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*semper adesto*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'always be present'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is *present* meaning *in attendance,* not in the modern spiritual sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6902" RevisionGUID="601bc188-c8dd-487e-b937-1eb71e521122" CreationDate="2018-07-21T21:28:45.860" UserId="79" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I'm hoping someone can help with confirming a translation, or suggesting an alternative, of “keep showing up” into Latin. Google translate and a few other online translators have suggested *ut ostendo sursum*. Advice is appreciated!  Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23061" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6902" RevisionGUID="601bc188-c8dd-487e-b937-1eb71e521122" CreationDate="2018-07-21T21:28:45.860" UserId="79" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is &quot;ut ostendo sursum&quot; an accurate Latin translation of &quot;keep showing up&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23062" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6902" RevisionGUID="601bc188-c8dd-487e-b937-1eb71e521122" CreationDate="2018-07-21T21:28:45.860" UserId="79" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6904" RevisionGUID="4f2872eb-d5f6-4c98-813a-59407f298082" CreationDate="2018-07-22T01:13:25.647" UserId="172" Text="Here's another example I remember, [Verg. Ecl. 8][1], 96&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Has herbas atque haec Ponto mihi lecta venena  &#xD;&#xA;ipse dedit Moeris; nascuntur plurima Ponto.  &#xD;&#xA;His ego saepe lupum fieri et se condere silvis  &#xD;&#xA;Moerim [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lit. *Moeris himself gave me these herbs and choice Pontian potions (they are abundantly growing in Pontus). I saw myself not once how Moeris turned himself with them into a wolf and ran into the woods...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?q=Verg.%20Ecl.%208" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6904" RevisionGUID="b6a7d2d5-84bd-49bc-b56d-ca3231826e63" CreationDate="2018-07-22T01:44:27.930" UserId="172" Comment="Added Serv. Hon., A." Text="Here's an example I remember, [Verg., Ecl., 8][1], 96&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Has herbas atque haec Ponto mihi lecta venena  &#xD;&#xA;ipse dedit Moeris; nascuntur plurima Ponto.  &#xD;&#xA;His ego saepe lupum fieri et se condere silvis  &#xD;&#xA;Moerim [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lit. *Moeris himself gave me these herbs and choice Pontian potions (they are abundantly growing in Pontus). I saw myself not once how Moeris turned himself with them into a wolf and ran into the woods...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is another (late 4th c.) mention, not known, AFAIK, from other sources, of Apollo Lyceus living with Cyrene in the shape of a wolf, assuming gods (and 4th c. sources) also qualify ([Serv. Hon., A., 4.377][2]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apollinem Lyceum appellari dicunt sive de Lyco, quem vicit, et in victoriae suae testimonium hoc nomen induit [...] sive quod transfiguratus in lupum cum Cyrene concubuit: sive quod in lupi habitu Telchinas occiderit...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?q=Verg.%20Ecl.%208&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?q=Serv.+A.+4.377" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6905" RevisionGUID="6d330864-e985-49da-9dfd-bc8a8278ad0d" CreationDate="2018-07-22T05:46:35.080" UserId="172" Text="First of all, nothing provides a better brief on the semantics of these conjunctions than a good dictionary. L&amp;S has quite exhaustive (if not exhausting) articles on [*et*][1] and [*ac/atque*][2]. You can supplement it with others at hand, for example, the Oxford Latin Dictionary, which is not available online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the present narrow context, both conjunctions mean pretty much “and,” but there is important semantic difference. *et* has unmarked conjunctive force, just like English “and,” while *ac* is more marked, in a sense binding the two ideas more tightly together, but at the same time introducing contrast between them. Note the internal form of *at-que* ≈ “and-but.” English clearly does not have such a particle; “but” is even more disjunctive than *at*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are they both semantically and syntactically correct?  &#xD;&#xA;Are their respective translations accurate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yes** and **yes.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why do they use different forms of the same conju&amp;lt;n&gt;ction? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are using *different* conjunctions. It is entirely incorrect to think of *ac* and *et* as “forms” of some abstract meaning “and,” realized in the English word “and.” Latin and English are independent languages on their own, and there is no one-to-one semantic relationship between any two languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think it is possible to answer this question literally; the choice of words is in the mind of the speaker, and we cannot peek in there. It is nevertheless instructive to examine somewhat different semantics of these two mottos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scientia manu et mente&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here “by hand” and “by mind” are simply joined, and English “and” will convey the closest possible meaning: the *manu* and *mente* are, in a sense, nearly equal partners in this conjunction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scientiā ac labore&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the “and” translation is also possible, but the Latin semantics is richer. The subtlety introduced by “hard” in the translation is felt; “work” is now perceived somewhat more heavyweight in this sentence. *ac* has a similar emphatic quality toward the second conjunct. The sentence can be roughly translated “by knowledge and also work,” with the force of almost, but not quite, “by not only knowledge but also work.” Think of __*ac* meaning half “but also,” half “and also”__ in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the explanation is a little hand-wavy, but languages are different in their semantic repertoire, and particles, often being fossilized shards from earlier stages of a language, carry perhaps even more subtleties in their meaning than significant words, due to their relative longevity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Det&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Datque" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6902" RevisionGUID="ebc4ca3a-d246-4456-a596-83a50558f54c" CreationDate="2018-07-23T07:27:33.020" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="I'm hoping someone can help with confirming a translation, or suggesting an alternative, of “keep showing up” into Latin. Google translate and a few other online translators have suggested *ut ostendo sursum*. Advice is appreciated! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6906" RevisionGUID="80d94d0c-bfbe-43ba-b133-900e02af8954" CreationDate="2018-07-23T08:40:14.163" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23069" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6906" RevisionGUID="80d94d0c-bfbe-43ba-b133-900e02af8954" CreationDate="2018-07-23T08:40:14.163" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6907" RevisionGUID="221b1894-6c9d-4db5-878b-20a5b0d9fad3" CreationDate="2018-07-23T08:40:14.163" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23071" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6907" RevisionGUID="221b1894-6c9d-4db5-878b-20a5b0d9fad3" CreationDate="2018-07-23T08:40:14.163" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6908" RevisionGUID="7a6dd77b-cde1-496e-a671-4647dac87ec8" CreationDate="2018-07-23T10:46:27.280" UserId="1492" Text="I just saw [this tweet][1]. It contains this image: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the following Latin sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex septentrione longissimeque dissitis regionibus venisse ductuque mirabili migrasse versus meridiem mexicanos olim incolae produnt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I think, please double check that I have typed it correctly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I correct in saying that the translation is the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From the northern extremely distant and widely removed regions, came through marvelous guidance and migrated towards the south and [became mexicans?]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I can't make full sense of &quot;mexicanos olim incolae produnt&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://twitter.com/rantyben/status/1021302205540777985&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NTRmS.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23073" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6908" RevisionGUID="7a6dd77b-cde1-496e-a671-4647dac87ec8" CreationDate="2018-07-23T10:46:27.280" UserId="1492" Text="Is this translation correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23074" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6908" RevisionGUID="7a6dd77b-cde1-496e-a671-4647dac87ec8" CreationDate="2018-07-23T10:46:27.280" UserId="1492" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6908" RevisionGUID="2473a444-591a-4c39-a3a1-c6731f43cdce" CreationDate="2018-07-23T11:01:11.373" UserId="1492" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="I just saw [this tweet][1]. It contains this image: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(taken from https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b5971461z where we gather that the map was drawn in the early 1700s)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the following Latin sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex septentrione longissimeque dissitis regionibus venisse ductuque mirabili migrasse versus meridiem mexicanos olim incolae produnt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I think, please double check that I have typed it correctly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I correct in saying that the translation is the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From the northern extremely distant and widely removed regions, came through marvelous guidance and migrated towards the south and [became mexicans?]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I can't make full sense of &quot;mexicanos olim incolae produnt&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://twitter.com/rantyben/status/1021302205540777985&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NTRmS.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23076" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6908" RevisionGUID="1647789d-2088-402b-ae2c-e72658d5b62a" CreationDate="2018-07-23T11:09:16.610" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6908" RevisionGUID="1647789d-2088-402b-ae2c-e72658d5b62a" CreationDate="2018-07-23T11:09:16.610" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="I just saw [this tweet][1]. It contains this image: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(taken from [here](https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b5971461z), where we gather that the map was drawn in the early 1700s)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the following Latin sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex septentrione longissimeque dissitis regionibus venisse ductuque mirabili migrasse versus meridiem mexicanos olim incolae produnt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I think, please double check that I have typed it correctly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I correct in saying that the translation is the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From the northern extremely distant and widely removed regions, came through marvelous guidance and migrated towards the south and [became mexicans?]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I can't make full sense of &quot;mexicanos olim incolae produnt&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://twitter.com/rantyben/status/1021302205540777985&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NTRmS.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23078" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6908" RevisionGUID="1647789d-2088-402b-ae2c-e72658d5b62a" CreationDate="2018-07-23T11:09:16.610" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="Is this translation of a note in a map correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6909" RevisionGUID="6635b2ea-a900-47b3-b8d6-d9af5a180352" CreationDate="2018-07-23T12:18:52.313" UserId="1982" Text="North &amp; Hillard; Ex. 192, Q3: &quot;While provisions held out they resisted all attacks.&quot;, is to be translated into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer: &quot;dum (quamdiu) frumentum suppetebat, omnibus oppugnationibus resistebant.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I translated the verbs in the perfect tense (suppetivit; restiterunt); if the attacks constitute a series of completed actions, in the past, (for which provisions were available) then is the perfect valid, even though, at first glance, the natural instinct is to select the imperfect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examiners are notorious for using finely-tuned differences, between tenses, to trap students. Therefore, was determined to get this right--have I?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23080" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6909" RevisionGUID="6635b2ea-a900-47b3-b8d6-d9af5a180352" CreationDate="2018-07-23T12:18:52.313" UserId="1982" Text="A Series of Completed Events" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23081" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6909" RevisionGUID="6635b2ea-a900-47b3-b8d6-d9af5a180352" CreationDate="2018-07-23T12:18:52.313" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6910" RevisionGUID="21301e70-075a-4715-9f5f-1774d2824e12" CreationDate="2018-07-23T13:25:54.260" UserId="45" Text="The phrase is a bit difficult because the subject and verb are waiting at the end. Here's a better translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The inhabitants state that the Mexicans once came from very far removed regions in the north and migrated towards the south in an incredible journey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic structure, in English reading order, is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Incolae produnt...* - &quot;The inhabitants state that...&quot; (setting up an accusative with infinitive)&#xD;&#xA;* *...mexicanos olim venisse...[et] migrasse* - &quot;...the Mexicans once came...and migrated.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest (describing how they came and migrated) is pretty straightforward and correct in your translation. I translated *ductus* as a &quot;journey&quot; (with an implied leader), but &quot;guidance&quot; also works fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23084" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6909" RevisionGUID="2703294c-1fa7-4ed5-bdeb-71789fed8c0e" CreationDate="2018-07-23T14:58:51.100" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4876" RevisionGUID="e09ca244-6def-48a8-971a-c06aa1707516" CreationDate="2018-07-23T20:24:07.007" UserId="469" Comment="whoa! How could I say infinitive instead of nominative?" Text="As far as I remember, [Vicis][1] is an option. It is far from a perfect match, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spanish equivalent [_vez_][2] is derived from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S do not offer an nominative, but the _Diccionario de la Lengua Española_ cites _vix_ (as a noun, not to be confused with the adverb.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S say (vicis, meaning I.B.1) it is _Late_ Latin and cites as examples *ager **tertia vice** arabitur* (for the third time) and ***tribus** per diem **vicibus*** (three times a day.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of further examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Prima vice and secunda vice [in the same context][3] (court decisions in XVII century Naples.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The usage has made it to the modern day legal expression _pro hac vice_ for something that is permitted _for this time/occasion only_, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ...and to [botanics][4] in a number of phrases/contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Perhaps Joonas can say if [this forum][5] is of some help (translation of _prima vice_ to Finnish.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate &quot;The first time is easiest&quot; as _prima vice facilissimum est_, note that you could arguably say _prima vix facilissima est_ too, but with most evidence pointing to not having a nominative, the idiom seems to work better as a (time) complement, so I'm assuming there is _something_ that is easiest when done for the first time. In the same sense, I'd translate &quot;I can't remember the last time...&quot; as something like _Non memorare possum_ quando... _novissima vice_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally I don't think this is a good term for just _every_ occasion you want to say *time* with this meaning. Particularly for _every time_ in some uses you can use [quoties][6] (and also as an interrogative in _how many times_.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DV%3Aentry%20group%3D17%3Aentry%3Dvicis&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dle.rae.es/?id=biPx6YF&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=gBZmAAAAcAAJ&amp;lpg=PA56&amp;ots=MoJkBOPgDw&amp;dq=prima%20vice&amp;pg=PA53#v=onepage&amp;q=prima%20vice&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.mobot.org/mobot/latindict/keyDetail.aspx?keyWord=vicis&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://keskustelu.suomi24.fi/t/2284965/mita-tarkoittaa-quotprima-vicequot&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3Dq%3Aentry%20group%3D5%3Aentry%3Dquotiens" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6912" RevisionGUID="8b07890a-df02-43e3-b980-5b282b6d5708" CreationDate="2018-07-23T23:03:11.727" UserId="469" Text="Not sure if this is a satisfactory answer, but given that no one has answered in a few days, I think I can write a few ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The explanation is not ontological at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you ask how that came to happen, I do not know the answer. Possibly it is out there, and someone else can give it to us, but probably it is lost in the fog of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you ask how is it possible, the answer is simpler. As conventional as language is, all languages have rules and (most have) exceptions. Those exceptions may or may not have a logical explanation, but are *agreed*. They are not agreed in the sense that every one is asked whether they like them, but if you want to communicate effectively, you have to accept them or stick to the consequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is, **irregularities like this** (*vicis* having no nominative) **are just idiomatic**. Probably Romans **didn't feel the need** to use the word as the subject of the sentence, and whenever someone tried to use it, **it sounded foreign to them**. Maybe they had other word(s) to use in that case (which I regret I don't know if it's the case, maybe *tempus*?, *[occasio][1]*?) or they just went without it and had *linguistic workarounds*. Either they inherited this custom, or they developed the meaning of *vicis* as a time complement fisrt, which later acquired its other forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of a number of analogies in English and Spanish: There are words in English and Spanish that have either no singular or plural form. There are verbs in Spanish that lack come conjugations. Spanish even has a name for that: verbos [*defectivos*][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. English nouns that have no singular form: **goods**, **bowels**, **guts**, **cattle**.&#xD;&#xA;2. English nouns that have no plural form: **news** ([source][3]. There you can find a lot more examples).&#xD;&#xA;3. Spanish nouns with [no singular][4]: **fauces**, **creces**, and also the adj./pronoun **ambos(as)**&#xD;&#xA;4. Spanish nouns with [no plural][5]: **caos**, **tez**, **sed**&#xD;&#xA;5. In a sense, Spanish verbs make better analogues to a Latin noun, b/c of the number of different forms. A noun having no plural/singular in Spanish lacks half of its forms, but are there verbs missing just one of them? The best example I could find was: **[balbucir][6]** as different from *balbucear*, which doesn't have a 1st pers. sing. present indicative form, but is (customarily) replaced by that of its twin verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Doccasio&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wikilengua.org/index.php/Verbo_defectivo&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.englishgrammar.org/nouns-exist-singular-plural-form/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.wikilengua.org/index.php/Palabras_invariables_en_plural&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.spanish.cl/Grammar/Notes/Sustantivos_Singulares_Plurales.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://dle.rae.es/?id=4rqhE5Y" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23087" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6891" RevisionGUID="16e521ff-80f1-4dca-b771-9e04cc773074" CreationDate="2018-07-23T23:04:57.903" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|irregular-words|english|spanish|nominativus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6912" RevisionGUID="0a73a206-e0e0-4b85-bfd2-98bd148ed1d1" CreationDate="2018-07-24T00:12:57.697" UserId="9" Comment="fixed a couple of spellings; expanded &quot;because&quot;" Text="Not sure if this is a satisfactory answer, but given that no one has answered in a few days, I think I can write a few ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The explanation is not ontological at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you ask how that came to happen, I do not know the answer. Possibly it is out there, and someone else can give it to us, but probably it is lost in the fog of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you ask how is it possible, the answer is simpler. As conventional as language is, all languages have rules and (most have) exceptions. Those exceptions may or may not have a logical explanation, but are *agreed*. They are not agreed in the sense that every one is asked whether they like them, but if you want to communicate effectively, you have to accept them or stick to the consequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is, **irregularities like this** (*vicis* having no nominative) **are just idiomatic**. Probably Romans **didn't feel the need** to use the word as the subject of the sentence, and whenever someone tried to use it, **it sounded foreign to them**. Maybe they had other word(s) to use in that case (which I regret I don't know if it's the case, maybe *tempus*?, *[occasio][1]*?) or they just went without it and had *linguistic workarounds*. Either they inherited this custom, or they developed the meaning of *vicis* as a time complement first, which later acquired its other forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of a number of analogies in English and Spanish: There are words in English and Spanish that have either no singular or plural form. There are verbs in Spanish that lack some conjugations. Spanish even has a name for that: verbos [*defectivos*][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. English nouns that have no singular form: **goods**, **bowels**, **guts**, **cattle**.&#xD;&#xA;2. English nouns that have no plural form: **news** ([source][3]. There you can find a lot more examples).&#xD;&#xA;3. Spanish nouns with [no singular][4]: **fauces**, **creces**, and also the adj./pronoun **ambos(as)**&#xD;&#xA;4. Spanish nouns with [no plural][5]: **caos**, **tez**, **sed**&#xD;&#xA;5. In a sense, Spanish verbs make better analogues to a Latin noun, because of the number of different forms. A noun having no plural/singular in Spanish lacks half of its forms, but are there verbs missing just one of them? The best example I could find was: **[balbucir][6]** as different from *balbucear*, which doesn't have a 1st pers. sing. present indicative form, but is (customarily) replaced by that of its twin verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Doccasio&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wikilengua.org/index.php/Verbo_defectivo&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.englishgrammar.org/nouns-exist-singular-plural-form/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.wikilengua.org/index.php/Palabras_invariables_en_plural&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.spanish.cl/Grammar/Notes/Sustantivos_Singulares_Plurales.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://dle.rae.es/?id=4rqhE5Y" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6913" RevisionGUID="ba73a953-8832-468e-a253-b889fa7de434" CreationDate="2018-07-24T12:57:04.093" UserId="68" Text="I'm reading Olaus Magnus's 1550 *Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus, earumque diversis statibus, condicionibus, moribus, ritibus, superstitionibus, disciplinis, exercitiis, regimine, victu, bellis, structuris, instrumentis, ac mineris metallicis, et rebus mirabilibus, necnon universis paene animalibus in Septentrione degentibus, eorumque natura*. It's a fascinating book, but I can't figure out what *status* and *condiciones* are intended to refer to in the title. I mean, obviously &quot;states&quot; and &quot;conditions,&quot; but those are words so broad as to be all but meaningless in this context, and I feel like Magnus actually means something very specific by each one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts on what those somethings very specific might be? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23092" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6913" RevisionGUID="ba73a953-8832-468e-a253-b889fa7de434" CreationDate="2018-07-24T12:57:04.093" UserId="68" Text="meaning of &quot;status&quot; and &quot;condiciones&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23093" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6913" RevisionGUID="ba73a953-8832-468e-a253-b889fa7de434" CreationDate="2018-07-24T12:57:04.093" UserId="68" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23094" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6913" RevisionGUID="bfb4b55b-39c1-4e6d-953d-eaa8ccf16ad3" CreationDate="2018-07-24T13:13:44.813" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|medieval-latin|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6914" RevisionGUID="4352ac7f-a323-4d40-9845-cadfc3ce43d2" CreationDate="2018-07-24T20:02:44.907" UserId="2781" Text="I want to ask how to translate &quot;Child of freedom&quot; in girl form? &#xD;&#xA;Thank you all " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23096" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6914" RevisionGUID="4352ac7f-a323-4d40-9845-cadfc3ce43d2" CreationDate="2018-07-24T20:02:44.907" UserId="2781" Text="How to translate Child of freedom" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23097" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6914" RevisionGUID="4352ac7f-a323-4d40-9845-cadfc3ce43d2" CreationDate="2018-07-24T20:02:44.907" UserId="2781" Text="|vocabulary|translate|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23098" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6914" RevisionGUID="d8433c0f-5819-4c81-9197-9bbb55316720" CreationDate="2018-07-24T23:40:04.320" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6915" RevisionGUID="cc1f1178-eae9-4468-8d51-d5ec9df0dc30" CreationDate="2018-07-25T05:22:11.160" UserId="2782" Text="Most English books of Latin use the order used by Charles E. Bennett.&#xD;&#xA;Nominative,&#xD;&#xA;Genitive,&#xD;&#xA;Dative,&#xD;&#xA;Accusative,	&#xD;&#xA;Vocative,	&#xD;&#xA;Ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But most French books use the following order :&#xD;&#xA;Nominative,&#xD;&#xA;Vocative,&#xD;&#xA;Accusative&#xD;&#xA;Genitive,&#xD;&#xA;Dative,&#xD;&#xA;Ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence the case-endings that are similar are close (nominative and vocative, dative and ablative). And that can help the memorization of the declensions. Also I feel that vocative as nominative are usually used at the start of sentences...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the benefit of the English order ? Is there a logic behind the choice of the order, or is it just an habit to present them this way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23100" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6915" RevisionGUID="cc1f1178-eae9-4468-8d51-d5ec9df0dc30" CreationDate="2018-07-25T05:22:11.160" UserId="2782" Text="What is the logic behind the order of the cases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23101" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6915" RevisionGUID="cc1f1178-eae9-4468-8d51-d5ec9df0dc30" CreationDate="2018-07-25T05:22:11.160" UserId="2782" Text="|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6914" RevisionGUID="a673dab1-fd42-4f3a-bfeb-4b499f48d77c" CreationDate="2018-07-25T07:42:27.143" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I want to ask how to translate &quot;Child of freedom&quot; in girl form? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23103" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6914" RevisionGUID="a673dab1-fd42-4f3a-bfeb-4b499f48d77c" CreationDate="2018-07-25T07:42:27.143" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6915" RevisionGUID="a6491ad3-4b50-42e9-b12c-8209f170894a" CreationDate="2018-07-25T07:43:54.250" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Most English books of Latin use the order used by Charles E. Bennett:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative,	Vocative, Ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But most French books use the following order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Nominative, Vocative, Accusative, Genitive, Dative, Ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence the case-endings that are similar are close (nominative and vocative, dative and ablative). And that can help the memorization of the declensions. Also I feel that vocative as nominative are usually used at the start of sentences...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the benefit of the English order? Is there a logic behind the choice of the order, or is it just an habit to present them this way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23105" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6915" RevisionGUID="a6491ad3-4b50-42e9-b12c-8209f170894a" CreationDate="2018-07-25T07:43:54.250" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|case|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4944" RevisionGUID="3e69bb3a-539e-45ff-9a30-c8abb23b8101" CreationDate="2018-07-25T07:47:57.387" UserId="1459" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="I found [this article](http://www.cello.org/Newsletter/Articles/celloetymology.htm), which you may have read already.&#xD;&#xA;I am not entirely convinced by all the etymological discussion in it. In particular, it suggests that '_vitula_' evolved into '_fides_', but '_fides_', meaning a stringed instrument, dates back to at least the time of Plautus (see Epidicus 3.4). I can, though, see easily, given the way consonantal sounds changed and sometimes disappeared, how '_vitula_' might evolve through '_fidula_' into the English 'fiddle' - and how it might also evolve through '_vidula_'/'_fidula_' (both used in medieval times) into viol and vielle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, you will note that Robert Jesselson speculates that '_vitula_' may have come to refer to a stringed instrument because the strings were made of calf or heifer gut. So there are others who have had this thought!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should warn you that I am no Latin expert." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6916" RevisionGUID="5b4af886-8080-4498-90bf-69fd51905cd0" CreationDate="2018-07-25T13:15:44.813" UserId="39" Text="So far, a vey brief answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek - and hence Roman - tradition is to list cases in the order: NOM - GEN etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another tradition going back to **Panini** is to put cases NOM - ACC etc.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6916" RevisionGUID="aad23c8f-f7bb-4c7d-8f33-f76435ab22e4" CreationDate="2018-07-25T15:03:39.430" UserId="39" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="So far, a vey brief answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek - and hence Roman - tradition is to list cases in the order: NOM - GEN etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another tradition going back to **Panini** is to put cases NOM - ACC etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details, see e.g. Kelly 1993&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6909" RevisionGUID="676e3583-406b-4e69-b964-e71449f8371e" CreationDate="2018-07-25T15:52:14.143" UserId="1982" Comment="deleted 150 characters in body" Text="North &amp; Hillard; Ex. 192, Q3: &quot;While provisions held out they resisted all attacks.&quot;, is to be translated into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer: &quot;dum (quamdiu) frumentum suppetebat, omnibus oppugnationibus resistebant.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I translated the verbs in the perfect tense (suppetivit; restiterunt); if the attacks constitute a series of completed actions, in the past, (for which provisions were available) then is the perfect valid, even though, at first glance, the natural instinct is to select the imperfect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23111" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6909" RevisionGUID="676e3583-406b-4e69-b964-e71449f8371e" CreationDate="2018-07-25T15:52:14.143" UserId="1982" Comment="deleted 150 characters in body" Text="A Series of Completed Events--or is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6907" RevisionGUID="761c3c0c-6bd0-461c-b924-6cae07606d89" CreationDate="2018-07-25T17:34:35.730" UserId="648" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="For questions about technical or specialized words in fields like grammar, IT, politics, sports, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23113" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6907" RevisionGUID="761c3c0c-6bd0-461c-b924-6cae07606d89" CreationDate="2018-07-25T17:34:35.730" Comment="Proposed by 648 approved by 79 edit id of 249" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6909" RevisionGUID="b88880ed-7cce-4f93-94b9-77cf962f88a9" CreationDate="2018-07-25T19:47:12.577" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="North &amp; Hillard; Ex. 192, Q3: &quot;While provisions held out they resisted all attacks.&quot;, is to be translated into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer: &quot;_dum (quamdiu) frumentum suppetebat, omnibus oppugnationibus resistebant_.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I translated the verbs in the perfect tense (_suppetivit; restiterunt_); if the attacks constitute a series of completed actions, in the past, (for which provisions were available) then is the perfect valid, even though, at first glance, the natural instinct is to select the imperfect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23118" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6909" RevisionGUID="b88880ed-7cce-4f93-94b9-77cf962f88a9" CreationDate="2018-07-25T19:47:12.577" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="A Series of Completed Events -- or is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6916" RevisionGUID="9b73e9dc-7ab0-49bc-b19b-8721a885d464" CreationDate="2018-07-25T19:51:45.883" UserId="39" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="So far, a vey brief answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek - and hence Roman - tradition is to list cases in the order: NOM - GEN etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another tradition going back to **Panini** is to put cases NOM - ACC etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details, see e.g. Kelly 1993 https://www.jstor.org/stable/4351439" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6917" RevisionGUID="b8ceb5fb-d8fb-4212-ad42-a655813104b1" CreationDate="2018-07-25T20:16:39.213" UserId="2785" Text="I am trying to write a motto and my knowledge of Latin is not very profound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wish to state using Latin to the effect of, and using king rather than man, &quot;Know and understand this king. Be sure that you make yourself a disciple of Christ the ruling King.&quot; To know and understand is suggested to be as grok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best arrangement that I have so far come up with is, &quot;Intellegere et scire regem. Fac tu discipulis Christi Regis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this anything near close? What would be correct Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do hope that this question will be allowed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23121" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6917" RevisionGUID="b8ceb5fb-d8fb-4212-ad42-a655813104b1" CreationDate="2018-07-25T20:16:39.213" UserId="2785" Text="To write a motto" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23122" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6917" RevisionGUID="b8ceb5fb-d8fb-4212-ad42-a655813104b1" CreationDate="2018-07-25T20:16:39.213" UserId="2785" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6917" RevisionGUID="98980144-9cd9-41f0-9d48-4a62d4f97f0d" CreationDate="2018-07-25T20:25:46.783" UserId="2785" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="I am trying to write a motto and my knowledge of Latin is not very profound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wish to state using Latin to the effect of, and using king rather than man, &quot;Know and understand this king. Be sure that you make yourself a disciple of Christ the ruling King.&quot; To know and understand is suggested to be as grok. I do not wish to over complicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best arrangement that I have so far come up with is, &quot;Intellegere et scire regem. Fac tu discipulis Christi Regis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this anything near close? What would be correct Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do hope that this question will be allowed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6917" RevisionGUID="e39aa071-7038-497c-9f24-1981029d63ff" CreationDate="2018-07-25T20:39:24.833" UserId="45" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I am trying to write a motto and my knowledge of Latin is not very profound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wish to state using Latin to the effect of, and using king rather than man:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Know and understand this king. Be sure that you make yourself a disciple of Christ the ruling King.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To know and understand is suggested to be as grok. I do not wish to over complicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best arrangement that I have so far come up with is,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Intellegere et scire regem. Fac tu discipulis Christi Regis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this anything near close? What would be correct Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do hope that this question will be allowed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23125" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6917" RevisionGUID="e39aa071-7038-497c-9f24-1981029d63ff" CreationDate="2018-07-25T20:39:24.833" UserId="45" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Translating a motto into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23126" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6917" RevisionGUID="e39aa071-7038-497c-9f24-1981029d63ff" CreationDate="2018-07-25T20:39:24.833" UserId="45" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23127" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6917" RevisionGUID="b2231daf-ac9d-4a4c-855b-08c16fdec7fb" CreationDate="2018-07-25T21:07:49.097" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|motto|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23129" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6917" RevisionGUID="1438fb4a-ce2c-4878-9390-472f7dbdf338" CreationDate="2018-07-26T00:02:36.063" UserId="30" Comment="edited title" Text="Translating: &quot;Know and understand this king. Be sure that you make yourself a disciple of Christ the ruling King.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6918" RevisionGUID="46930398-6809-4fca-8ce3-b2a438c0dae8" CreationDate="2018-07-26T00:14:44.037" UserId="1142" Text="The first sentence in your translation is somewhat on-track, you simply neglected to insert the first person demonstrative adjective (*hic, haec, hoc*) for *rēgem* and used infinitive forms instead of imperative forms. The second sentence, however, is not terribly on-track (i.e, improper use of an imperative, incorrect indirect discourse, an incorrectly declined noun, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you care less for a more pragmatic translation, I might suggest the following two sentences. If you are addressing a singular person:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Scī atque intellege hunc rēgem. Es certus tē facīre tē discipulum Christī, regentis rēgis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are addressing a singular person, and that person is female, then *certus* and *discipulum* should become *certa* and *discipulam*, respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are addressing multiple people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Scīte atque intellegite hunc rēgem. Este certī vōs facīre vōs discipulōs Christī, regentis rēgis.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6919" RevisionGUID="254bcfd5-20fa-449d-b539-8d58741722c3" CreationDate="2018-07-26T00:30:05.813" UserId="1142" Text="The word *queō* (*&quot;I am able&quot;*) is back-formed from *nequeō* (*&quot;I am not able&quot;*) and, to the best of my knowledge, is equivalent in meaning to *possum*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When would one use *queō* over *possum*, or vice versa? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23132" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6919" RevisionGUID="254bcfd5-20fa-449d-b539-8d58741722c3" CreationDate="2018-07-26T00:30:05.813" UserId="1142" Text="Ubī egō verbum &quot;queō&quot; prō &quot;possum&quot; ūtar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23133" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6919" RevisionGUID="254bcfd5-20fa-449d-b539-8d58741722c3" CreationDate="2018-07-26T00:30:05.813" UserId="1142" Text="|verbs|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6920" RevisionGUID="9d9b048e-9ed6-4d1f-a302-6c81ef1d69d3" CreationDate="2018-07-26T01:23:44.050" UserId="427" Text="*Extra* means 'on the outside' (opposite of *intra* 'on the inside'), whereas *ultra* means 'on the other side' (opposite of *citra* 'on this side').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference may be made clearer by looking at their composite parts. For example, *extra* is a contracted feminine ablative of the adjective *exter, extera, exterum* (i.e., *extera [via]*), which in turn is an adjectival form of the adverb *ex* 'out of'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ultra* follows the same progression: *uls* 'on the other side' -&gt; *ulter, ultera, ulterum* -&gt; *ultera [via]* -&gt; *ultra.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6916" RevisionGUID="a3e3a0ec-32c9-41fb-ba2d-33a51987ac17" CreationDate="2018-07-26T01:31:34.230" UserId="39" Comment="added 429 characters in body" Text="So far, a vey brief answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek - and hence Roman - tradition is to list cases in the order: NOM - GEN etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another tradition going back to **Panini** is to put cases NOM - ACC etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not quite correct to say that in **German linguistics** the canonical order is NGDA that is used to describe Latin declension paradigms. For example, the best Latin grammar in German (and it surely beats any Latin grammar written in English, imho), *Lateinische Grammatik* by Leumann , Hofmann and Szantyr (the last edition was published in 1977, edited by Manu Leumann) uses the following order of cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Akk. Gen. Dat. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Russian** linguistic research, the following order is the most common one: Nom - Gen - Dat - Acc - Abl - Voc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details, see e.g. Kelly 1993 https://www.jstor.org/stable/4351439" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6916" RevisionGUID="0c8c6565-bbee-4d3d-88d9-3435cc0a70c0" CreationDate="2018-07-26T01:39:08.163" UserId="39" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="The Greek - and hence Roman - tradition is to list cases in the order: NOM - GEN etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another tradition going back to **Panini** is to put cases NOM - ACC etc. For further details, see e.g. [Kelly 1993][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not quite correct to say that in **German linguistics** the canonical order is NGDA that is used to describe Latin declension paradigms. For example, the best Latin grammar in German (and it surely beats any Latin grammar written in English or French, imho), *Lateinische Grammatik* by Leumann , Hofmann and Szantyr (the last edition was published in 1977, edited by Manu Leumann) uses the following order of cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Akk. Gen. Dat. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. *Ausfürliche Grammatik* by Kühner and Holzweissig (1912): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Voc. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Russian** linguistic research, the following order is the most common one: Nom - Gen - Dat - Acc - Abl - Voc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4351439" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6916" RevisionGUID="b71c1689-5730-41b7-962a-2731a4a4b118" CreationDate="2018-07-26T01:44:16.487" UserId="39" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="The Greek - and hence Roman - tradition is to list cases in the order: NOM - GEN etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another tradition going back to **Panini** is to put cases NOM - ACC etc. For further details, see e.g. [Kelly 1993][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not quite correct to say that in **German linguistics** the canonical order is NGDA that is used to describe Latin declension paradigms. For example, the best Latin grammar in German (and it surely beats any Latin grammar written in English or French, imho), *Lateinische Grammatik* by Leumann , Hofmann and Szantyr (the last edition was published in 1977, edited by Manu Leumann) uses the following order of cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Akk. Gen. Dat. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. *Ausfürliche Grammatik* by Kühner and Holzweissig (1912): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Voc. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Russian** linguistic research, the following order is the most common one: Nom - Gen - Dat - Acc - Abl - Voc. (really any Latin grammar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **French** linguistics, the following order seems to be common now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N. Ac. G. D. Abl. (see e.g. *Morphologie historique du latin* by Alfred Ernout, 3rd ed. 1952; 4th ed. 2014).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So, the following order seems to be prevalent now in present-day Latin research (published in English, German, or French):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Nom. (Voc.) Acc. Gen. Dat. Abl.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4351439" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6916" RevisionGUID="bb058cc9-1820-44c7-b031-052fcdf1d8e9" CreationDate="2018-07-26T01:52:40.963" UserId="39" Comment="added 163 characters in body" Text="The Greek - and hence Roman - tradition is to list cases in the order: NOM - GEN etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another tradition going back to **Panini** is to put cases NOM - ACC etc. For further details, see e.g. [Kelly 1993][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not quite correct to say that in **German linguistics** the canonical order is NGDA that is used to describe Latin declension paradigms. For example, the best Latin grammar in German (and it surely beats any Latin grammar written in English or French, imho), *Lateinische Grammatik* by Leumann , Hofmann and Szantyr (the last edition was published in 1977, edited by Manu Leumann) uses the following order of cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Akk. Gen. Dat. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. *Ausfürliche Grammatik* by Kühner and Holzweissig (1912): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Voc. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Russian** linguistic research, the following order is the most common one: Nom - Gen - Dat - Acc - Abl - Voc. (really any Latin grammar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **French** linguistics, the following order seems to be common now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N. Ac. G. D. Abl. (see e.g. *Morphologie historique du latin* by Alfred Ernout, 3rd ed. 1952; 4th ed. 2014).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So, the following order seems to be prevalent now in present-day Latin research (published in English, German, or French):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Nom. (Voc.) Acc. Gen. Dat. Abl.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009 (2nd corrected printing 2011) adopts a slightly different order though in his *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin* - and it seems to me to be the only exception:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Voc. Acc. Dat. Abl. Gen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster 2015 (*The Oxford Latin syntax*) still uses the old order, Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Abl. Voc. but I suspect it's because Harm Pinkster is from the Netherlands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4351439" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6916" RevisionGUID="7af50df8-cf81-40d3-ac4e-8c576174c37e" CreationDate="2018-07-26T01:58:37.323" UserId="39" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="The Greek - and hence Roman - tradition is to list cases in the order: NOM - GEN etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another tradition going back to **Panini** is to put cases NOM - ACC etc. For further details, see e.g. [Kelly 1993][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not quite correct to say that in **German linguistics** the canonical order is NGDA that is used to describe Latin declension paradigms. For example, the best Latin grammar in German (and it surely beats any Latin grammar written in English or French, imho), *Lateinische Grammatik* by Leumann , Hofmann and Szantyr (the last edition was published in 1977, edited by Manu Leumann) uses the following order of cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Akk. Gen. Dat. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. *Ausfürliche Grammatik* by Kühner and Holzweissig (1912): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Voc. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Russian** linguistic research, the following order is the most common one: Nom - Gen - Dat - Acc - Abl - Voc. (really any Latin grammar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **French** linguistics, the following order seems to be common now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N. Ac. G. D. Abl. (see e.g. *Morphologie historique du latin* by Alfred Ernout, 3rd ed. 1952; 4th ed. 2014).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So, the following order seems to be prevalent now in present-day Latin research (published in English, German, or French):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Nom. (Voc.) Acc. Gen. Dat. Abl.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009 (2nd corrected printing 2011), following the Indian system with some modifications, adopts a slightly different order though in his *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin* (and so does Sihler 1995):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Voc. Acc. Dat. Abl. Gen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster 2015 (*The Oxford Latin syntax*) still uses the old order, Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Abl. Voc. but I suspect it's because Harm Pinkster is from the Netherlands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4351439" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6916" RevisionGUID="734b907b-f20e-4fa1-9264-f7c74a4e72fb" CreationDate="2018-07-26T02:07:11.560" UserId="39" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="The Greek - and hence Roman - tradition is to list cases in the order: NOM - GEN etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another tradition going back to **Panini** is to put cases NOM - ACC etc. For further details, see e.g. [Kelly 1993][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not quite correct to say that in **German linguistics** the canonical order is NGDA that is used to describe Latin declension paradigms. For example, the best Latin grammar in German (and it surely beats any Latin grammar written in English or French, imho), *Lateinische Grammatik* by Leumann , Hofmann and Szantyr (the last edition was published in 1977, edited by Manu Leumann) uses the following order of the cases in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Akk. Gen. Dat. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. *Ausfürliche Grammatik* by Kühner and Holzweissig (1912): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Voc. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Russian** linguistic research, the following order is the most common one: Nom - Gen - Dat - Acc - Abl - Voc. (really any Latin grammar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **French** linguistics, the following order seems to be common now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N. Ac. G. D. Abl. (see e.g. *Morphologie historique du latin* by Alfred Ernout, 3rd ed. 1952; 4th ed. 2014).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So, the following order seems to be prevalent now in present-day Latin research (published in English, German, or French):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Nom. (Voc.) Acc. Gen. Dat. Abl.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009 (2nd corrected printing 2011), following the Indian system with some modifications, adopts a slightly different order though in his *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin* (and so does Sihler 1995):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Voc. Acc. Dat. Abl. Gen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster 2015 (*The Oxford Latin syntax*) still uses the old order, Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Abl. Voc. but I suspect it's because Harm Pinkster is from the Netherlands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4351439" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6916" RevisionGUID="27947156-cd34-470e-8c9b-fce888aa6cf1" CreationDate="2018-07-26T03:11:20.013" UserId="39" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="The Greek - and hence Roman - tradition is to list cases in the order: NOM - GEN etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another tradition going back to **Panini** is to put cases NOM - ACC etc. For further details, see e.g. [Kelly 1993][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not quite correct to say that in **German linguistics** the canonical order is NGDA that is used to describe Latin declension paradigms. For example, the best Latin grammar in German (and it surely beats any Latin grammar written in English or French, imho), *Lateinische Grammatik* by Leumann , Hofmann and Szantyr (the last edition was published in 1977, edited by Manu Leumann) uses the following order of the cases in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Akk. Gen. Dat. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. *Ausfürliche Grammatik* by Kühner and Holzweissig (1912): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Voc. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Russian** linguistic research, the following order is the most common one: Nom - Gen - Dat - Acc - Abl - Voc. (really any Latin grammar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **French** linguistics, the following order seems to be common now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N. Ac. G. D. Abl. (see e.g. *Morphologie historique du latin* by Alfred Ernout, 3rd ed. 1952; 4th ed. 2014).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So, the following order seems to be prevalent now in present-day Latin research (published in English, German, or French):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Nom. (Voc.) Acc. Gen. Dat. Abl.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009 (2nd corrected printing 2011), following the Indian system with some modifications, adopts a slightly different order though in his *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin* (and so does Sihler 1995):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Voc. Acc. Dat. Abl. Gen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster 2015 (*The Oxford Latin syntax*) still uses the old order, Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Abl. Voc. but I suspect it's because Harm Pinkster is from the Netherlands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll add more details tomorrow after classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4351439" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6916" RevisionGUID="78e5ca2c-142d-44e2-aa17-f395fdf2ff24" CreationDate="2018-07-26T03:24:19.970" UserId="39" Comment="added 420 characters in body" Text="The Greek - and hence Roman - tradition is to list cases in the order: NOM - GEN etc. Dionysius Thrax (170-90 BCE) is considered to be the first extant record of this system - see a screenshot from Butt 2006:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another tradition going back to **Panini** is to put cases NOM - ACC etc (6th century BCE). His case system was based on the semantic roles (the so called Karaka Theory). The cases did not have our regular names such as nominative or dative but they had numbers instead. For instance, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Case 2 (accusative) is used when a *karman* (patient) is expressed&quot; or &quot;Case 3 (instrumental) is also used for the *karman* (patient) of *hu* 'sacrifice' in the Chandas (Vedic Verse)&quot; (Butt 2006: 17).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details, see e.g. [Kelly 1993][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not quite correct to say that in **German linguistics** the canonical order is NGDA that is used to describe Latin declension paradigms. For example, the best Latin grammar in German (and it surely beats any Latin grammar written in English or French, imho), *Lateinische Grammatik* by Leumann , Hofmann and Szantyr (the last edition was published in 1977, edited by Manu Leumann) uses the following order of the cases in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Akk. Gen. Dat. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. *Ausfürliche Grammatik* by Kühner and Holzweissig (1912): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Voc. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Russian** linguistic research, the following order is the most common one: Nom - Gen - Dat - Acc - Abl - Voc. (really any Latin grammar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **French** linguistics, the following order seems to be common now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N. Ac. G. D. Abl. (see e.g. *Morphologie historique du latin* by Alfred Ernout, 3rd ed. 1952; 4th ed. 2014).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So, the following order seems to be prevalent now in present-day Latin research (published in English, German, or French):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Nom. (Voc.) Acc. Gen. Dat. Abl.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009 (2nd corrected printing 2011), following the Indian system with some modifications, adopts a slightly different order though in his *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin* (and so does Sihler 1995):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Voc. Acc. Dat. Abl. Gen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster 2015 (*The Oxford Latin syntax*) still uses the old order, Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Abl. Voc. but I suspect it's because Harm Pinkster is from the Netherlands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll add more details tomorrow after classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4351439" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6916" RevisionGUID="be6d55e0-e817-4145-a03e-73161230ee86" CreationDate="2018-07-26T03:30:47.510" UserId="39" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="The Greek - and hence Roman - tradition is to list cases in the order: NOM - GEN etc. Dionysius Thrax (170-90 BCE) is considered to be the first extant record of this system - see a screenshot from Butt 2006:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another tradition going back to **Panini** is to put cases NOM - ACC etc (6th century BCE). His case system was based on the semantic roles (the so called Karaka Theory). The cases did not have our regular names such as nominative or dative but they had numbers instead. For instance, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Case 2 (accusative) is used when a *karman* (patient) is expressed&quot; or &quot;Case 3 (instrumental) is also used for the *karman* (patient) of *hu* 'sacrifice' in the Chandas (Vedic Verse)&quot; (Butt 2006: 17).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details, see e.g. [Kelly 1993][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not quite correct to say that in **German linguistics** the canonical order is NGDA that is used to describe Latin declension paradigms. For example, the best Latin grammar in German (and it surely beats any Latin grammar written in English or French, imho), *Lateinische Grammatik* by Leumann , Hofmann and Szantyr (the last edition was published in 1977, edited by Manu Leumann) uses the following order of the cases in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Akk. Gen. Dat. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. *Ausfürliche Grammatik* by Kühner and Holzweissig (1912): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Voc. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Russian** linguistic research, the following order is the most common one: Nom - Gen - Dat - Acc - Abl - Voc. (really any Latin grammar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **French** linguistics, the following order seems to be common now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N. Ac. G. D. Abl. (see e.g. *Morphologie historique du latin* by Alfred Ernout, 3rd ed. 1952; 4th ed. 2014).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So, the following order seems to be prevalent now in present-day Latin research (published in English, German, or French):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Nom. (Voc.) Acc. Gen. Dat. Abl.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009 (2nd corrected printing 2011), following the Indian system with some modifications, adopts a slightly different order though in his *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin* (and so does Sihler 1995):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Voc. Acc. Dat. Abl. Gen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster 2015 (*The Oxford Latin syntax*) still uses the old order, Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Abl. Voc. but I suspect it's because Harm Pinkster is from the Netherlands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll add more details tomorrow after classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/doBoI.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4351439" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6921" RevisionGUID="f68d30bd-0a62-4d60-a611-328eafa13a04" CreationDate="2018-07-26T03:53:32.713" UserId="522" Text="For the opening words a C10 hagiography copied into [Harley 2253 f132v ch.5][1] keeps &quot;*Rex*&quot; in the nominative/vocative, which seems better than *regem,* Accusative:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;King, recognise and understand:&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rex accippe et intellige  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;[![Rex accippe et intellige in 13th C. handwriting][2]][2]  &#xD;&#xA;and the King is promised a throne at the heavenly banquet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=harley_ms_2253_f132v&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/D9a4L.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6916" RevisionGUID="3c462123-6758-406d-88f0-937c3b511629" CreationDate="2018-07-26T04:10:53.123" UserId="39" Comment="added 269 characters in body" Text="The Greek - and hence Roman - tradition is to list cases in the order: NOM - GEN etc. Dionysius Thrax (170-90 BCE) is considered to be the first extant record of this system - see a screenshot from Butt 2006:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Jean Lallot (in [Lallot 1985][2]) argues this canonical order of the cases &quot;certainly goes back to the Stoics&quot; - cf. &quot;L'ordre canonique des cas ... remonte très certement aux Stoiciens&quot; (p. 54). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another tradition going back to **Panini** is to put cases NOM - ACC etc (6th century BCE). His case system was based on the semantic roles (the so called Karaka Theory). The cases did not have our regular names such as nominative or dative but they had numbers instead. For instance, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Case 2 (accusative) is used when a *karman* (patient) is expressed&quot; or &quot;Case 3 (instrumental) is also used for the *karman* (patient) of *hu* 'sacrifice' in the Chandas (Vedic Verse)&quot; (Butt 2006: 17).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details, see e.g. [Kelly 1993][3] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not quite correct to say that in **German linguistics** the canonical order is NGDA that is used to describe Latin declension paradigms. For example, the best Latin grammar in German (and it surely beats any Latin grammar written in English or French, imho), *Lateinische Grammatik* by Leumann , Hofmann and Szantyr (the last edition was published in 1977, edited by Manu Leumann) uses the following order of the cases in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Akk. Gen. Dat. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. *Ausfürliche Grammatik* by Kühner and Holzweissig (1912): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Voc. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Russian** linguistic research, the following order is the most common one: Nom - Gen - Dat - Acc - Abl - Voc. (really any Latin grammar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **French** linguistics, the following order seems to be common now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N. Ac. G. D. Abl. (see e.g. *Morphologie historique du latin* by Alfred Ernout, 3rd ed. 1952; 4th ed. 2014).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So, the following order seems to be prevalent now in present-day Latin research (published in English, German, or French):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Nom. (Voc.) Acc. Gen. Dat. Abl.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009 (2nd corrected printing 2011), following the Indian system with some modifications, adopts a slightly different order though in his *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin* (and so does Sihler 1995):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Voc. Acc. Dat. Abl. Gen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster 2015 (*The Oxford Latin syntax*) still uses the old order, Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Abl. Voc. but I suspect it's because Harm Pinkster is from the Netherlands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll add more details tomorrow after classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/doBoI.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.persee.fr/doc/hel_0247-8897_1985_num_6_1_3343&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4351439" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6916" RevisionGUID="d4d2c647-ff21-4172-b528-776953141c3c" CreationDate="2018-07-26T04:30:16.993" UserId="39" Comment="added 186 characters in body" Text="The Greek - and hence Roman - tradition is to list cases in the order: NOM - GEN etc. Dionysius Thrax (170-90 BCE) is considered to be the first extant record of this system - see a screenshot from Butt 2006:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Jean Lallot (in [Lallot 1985][2]) argues this canonical order of the cases &quot;certainly goes back to the Stoics&quot; - cf. &quot;L'ordre canonique des cas ... remonte très certement aux Stoiciens&quot; (p. 54). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those [who read in Greek][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another tradition going back to **Panini** is to put cases NOM - ACC etc (6th century BCE). His case system was based on the semantic roles (the so called Karaka Theory). The cases did not have our regular names such as nominative or dative but they had numbers instead. For instance, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Case 2 (accusative) is used when a *karman* (patient) is expressed&quot; or &quot;Case 3 (instrumental) is also used for the *karman* (patient) of *hu* 'sacrifice' in the Chandas (Vedic Verse)&quot; (Butt 2006: 17).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details, see e.g. [Kelly 1993][5] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not quite correct to say that in **German linguistics** the canonical order is NGDA that is used to describe Latin declension paradigms. For example, the best Latin grammar in German (and it surely beats any Latin grammar written in English or French, imho), *Lateinische Grammatik* by Leumann , Hofmann and Szantyr (the last edition was published in 1977, edited by Manu Leumann) uses the following order of the cases in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Akk. Gen. Dat. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. *Ausfürliche Grammatik* by Kühner and Holzweissig (1912): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Voc. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Russian** linguistic research, the following order is the most common one: Nom - Gen - Dat - Acc - Abl - Voc. (really any Latin grammar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **French** linguistics, the following order seems to be common now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N. Ac. G. D. Abl. (see e.g. *Morphologie historique du latin* by Alfred Ernout, 3rd ed. 1952; 4th ed. 2014).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So, the following order seems to be prevalent now in present-day Latin research (published in English, German, or French):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Nom. (Voc.) Acc. Gen. Dat. Abl.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009 (2nd corrected printing 2011), following the Indian system with some modifications, adopts a slightly different order though in his *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin* (and so does Sihler 1995):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Voc. Acc. Dat. Abl. Gen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster 2015 (*The Oxford Latin syntax*) still uses the old order, Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Abl. Voc. but I suspect it's because Harm Pinkster is from the Netherlands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll add more details tomorrow after classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/doBoI.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.persee.fr/doc/hel_0247-8897_1985_num_6_1_3343&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/scholiaindionys00hilggoog&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/srnkn.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4351439" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6922" RevisionGUID="04ab0ed2-438e-4a2d-9854-3fa55aae233d" CreationDate="2018-07-26T07:02:44.820" UserId="2787" Text="Considering the original phrase: The king who all citizens love is happy. / Feliz é o rei a quem todos os cidadãos amam (pt).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23148" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6922" RevisionGUID="04ab0ed2-438e-4a2d-9854-3fa55aae233d" CreationDate="2018-07-26T07:02:44.820" UserId="2787" Text="Felix est rex IS quem omnes cives amant. Why the pronoun &quot;is&quot; is nescessary, or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23149" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6922" RevisionGUID="04ab0ed2-438e-4a2d-9854-3fa55aae233d" CreationDate="2018-07-26T07:02:44.820" UserId="2787" Text="|translation-check|grammarians|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6924" RevisionGUID="bfc3f69d-03a7-4568-969c-a98204823395" CreationDate="2018-07-26T07:18:13.853" UserId="1459" Text="Not sure where you got that IS from. The original phrase, which seems to be from a [1845 book](https://archive.org/details/elementarygramma00khrich) of Latin exercises, does not has it. For instance, see [here](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dBNgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA49&amp;lpg=PA49&amp;dq=%22Felix+est+rex+quem+omnes+cives+amant%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=dLRGZcXir3&amp;sig=K1yrgvF7gfh_x9OQQOfUPgLz6HM&amp;hl=es-419&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiSqYvPnLzcAhULK8AKHaIDChkQ6AEIMDAC#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Felix%20est%20rex%20quem%20omnes%20cives%20amant%22&amp;f=false)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6924" RevisionGUID="4192904d-e954-45a9-b33d-e41cbd50ff8a" CreationDate="2018-07-26T07:27:17.790" UserId="1459" Comment="added 238 characters in body" Text="Not sure where you got that _is_ from. The original phrase, which seems to be from a [1845 book](https://archive.org/details/elementarygramma00khrich) of Latin exercises, does not has it. For instance, see [here](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dBNgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA49&amp;lpg=PA49&amp;dq=%22Felix+est+rex+quem+omnes+cives+amant%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=dLRGZcXir3&amp;sig=K1yrgvF7gfh_x9OQQOfUPgLz6HM&amp;hl=es-419&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiSqYvPnLzcAhULK8AKHaIDChkQ6AEIMDAC#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Felix%20est%20rex%20quem%20omnes%20cives%20amant%22&amp;f=false).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, _is_ as pronoun means &quot;he&quot;, or as demonstrative, &quot;this/that&quot;, so maybe the phrase with the _is_ could be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Happy is he the king who all citizens love&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Happy is this/that king who all citizens love" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23153" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6922" RevisionGUID="905e60c4-5291-449c-bcfa-7b0ec0b0be85" CreationDate="2018-07-26T07:28:02.223" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Felix est rex is quem omnes cives amant&quot;. Is the pronoun &quot;is&quot; nescessary?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6925" RevisionGUID="4044be26-27a8-45f4-b1cf-4bb11d7ef9db" CreationDate="2018-07-26T08:23:46.760" UserId="2787" Text="Its hard to establish an exact translation, but I believe that *possum* is something closer to &quot;I can&quot;, rather them &quot;I`m able to&quot;. Considering other romance languages that have a translation of &quot;I can&quot; as: posso (italian), posso (portuguese), je peux (french) and puedo (spanish); the similarity is clear. About its use, is just like in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6914" RevisionGUID="18bf2e8b-da28-4cd0-bbdb-2c5f96f9f039" CreationDate="2018-07-26T08:39:37.820" UserId="1142" Comment="Fixed grammar issues" Text="How would I translate &quot;child of freedom&quot; in feminine form form? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23157" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6914" RevisionGUID="18bf2e8b-da28-4cd0-bbdb-2c5f96f9f039" CreationDate="2018-07-26T08:39:37.820" UserId="1142" Comment="Fixed grammar issues" Text="Translating &quot;child of freedom&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23158" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6914" RevisionGUID="18bf2e8b-da28-4cd0-bbdb-2c5f96f9f039" CreationDate="2018-07-26T08:39:37.820" Comment="Proposed by 1142 approved by 79 edit id of 250" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23159" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6922" RevisionGUID="2187996a-fdfa-4cdb-b1dc-c36fe639be6f" CreationDate="2018-07-26T08:41:05.933" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|syntax|pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6897" RevisionGUID="b3dfaefb-b5c1-4093-88bc-9f895ad71057" CreationDate="2018-07-26T08:52:37.837" UserId="9" Comment="added 548 characters in body" Text="A little while back, I asked a question about the alleged Latin word &quot;[tribalis](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6793/has-tribalis-ever-been-used-in-latin)&quot; (which it seems was not actually used), and I mentioned that it seemed to me that it would be an irregular formation because *tribus* is a *u*-stem noun, but *tribālis* does not contain *-u-.* So far, nobody has informed me of any examples of parallel formations of this type. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But recently, I did run into an example of the reverse: an *o*-stem noun that has a derivative that seems to be built with *-u-.* It is *[lectŭārĭus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=lectuarius),* which Lewis &amp; Short says is a &quot;late Lat.&quot; adjective meaning &quot;*of or belonging to the bed, bed-*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The related noun *[lectus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlectus2)* seems to be declined as an *o*-stem. That said, I found some interesting notes in the L&amp;S entry that may be relevant: it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (nom. **lectum** , i, n., *Dig. 32, 1, 52, § 9; 34, 2, 19, § 8*; **lectus** , ūs, **Plaut. Am. 1, 3, 15**; al. lecti; **Sen. Ep. 95, 72** Haas; Cornif. ap. *Prisc. 711* P.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relevant line seems  to be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;prius abis quam **lectus** ubi cubuisti concaluit locus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[Amphitruo (Leo)](https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Amphitruo_(Leo))*, Wikisource)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;lectus&quot; here apparently should be [read as a a genitive](https://books.google.com/books?id=DpkoAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA109&amp;lpg=PA109).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't know if usage in Plautus would be relevant to a &quot;late Latin&quot; derived adjective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oddly, de Vaan's entry for *lectus* doesn't seem to mention this variant form directly, but seems to mention something similar as a theoretical etymology:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; WH rightly notice that a nominal formation *legʰ-to- 'bed' would be strange, but it does not seem impossible: 'lied upon' &gt; 'bed'. The form could be interpreted as a nominalized verbal adj. with regular e-grade in the root, [...] An alternative solution is to posit **a *tu*-stem *legʰ-tu- 'the lying', which could have switched to the *o*-stem inflection by the time of Plautus.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I was looking for more information about the possibility of *lectus* declining as a &quot;u-stem&quot; or &quot;fourth declension&quot; noun, I found an [interesting discussion](http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/12th-century-family-motto-lectus-generat-fortem.2212/) where some people suggest that *lectus, lectus* could be understood in certain contexts in post-Classical Latin as an [abstract *-(t)us* noun](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/891/what-is-the-difference-between-us-and-io) derived from *lego.* I don't know if that might be relevant to the formation of *lectuarius;* I would suppose not, but I'm not completely sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is going on with *lectuarius,* and are there any examples of similar formations with other roots?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I found an article by Oscar Brugman that seems to discuss this word, &quot;[Observations Plautinae et Terentianae](https://books.google.com/books?id=_oQGAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA95)&quot;, but it is in Latin so it's hard for me to read it. If anyone could write an answer that simply summarizes and explains what this source says, I would appreciate it. (I found this source via a citation in &quot;[Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft](https://books.google.com/books?id=DJ8NAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA413#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&quot;, 1873.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6926" RevisionGUID="a62caf11-e688-4b89-9e6c-eef772bb003e" CreationDate="2018-07-26T10:50:30.303" UserId="1982" Text="The best of Latin: the best of English: happy is the king; he (is), whom (quem) all citizens love. To omit &quot;is&quot; may be acceptable; but, the assertion becomes sloppy. Guys with the erudition of Cicero would not thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6918" RevisionGUID="97085cc7-3eec-4aca-bfdb-27114f01cc5f" CreationDate="2018-07-26T12:12:00.927" UserId="522" Comment="făcěrě irreg." Text="The first sentence in your translation is somewhat on-track, you simply neglected to insert the first person demonstrative adjective (*hic, haec, hoc*) for *rēgem* and used infinitive forms instead of imperative forms. The second sentence, however, is not terribly on-track (i.e, improper use of an imperative, incorrect indirect discourse, an incorrectly declined noun, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you care less for a more pragmatic translation, I might suggest the following two sentences. If you are addressing a singular person:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Scī atque intellege hunc rēgem. Es certus tē făcěrě tē discipulum Christī, regentis rēgis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are addressing a singular person, and that person is female, then *certus* and *discipulum* should become *certa* and *discipulam*, respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are addressing multiple people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Scīte atque intellegite hunc rēgem. Este certī vōs făcěrě vōs discipulōs Christī, regentis rēgis.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23163" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6919" RevisionGUID="597766dc-dd48-4f1f-affe-ba2cf7a847d0" CreationDate="2018-07-26T14:26:34.313" UserId="45" Comment="*uti* takes the ablative" Text="Ubī egō verbo &quot;queō&quot; prō &quot;possum&quot; ūtar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6918" RevisionGUID="e94e477c-463f-4768-aad5-1c5b9cf1ae63" CreationDate="2018-07-26T14:52:41.917" UserId="1142" Comment="edited body; added 2 characters in body; added 2 characters in body" Text="The first sentence in your translation is somewhat on-track, you simply neglected to insert the first person demonstrative adjective (*hic, haec, hoc*) for *rēgem* and used infinitive forms instead of imperative forms. The second sentence, however, is not terribly on-track (i.e, improper use of an imperative, incorrect indirect discourse, an incorrectly declined noun, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you care less for a more pragmatic translation, I might suggest the following two sentences. If you are addressing a singular person:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Scītō atque intellege hunc rēgem. Es certus tē făcěrě tē discipulum Christī, regentis rēgis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are addressing a singular person, and that person is female, then *certus* and *discipulum* should become *certa* and *discipulam*, respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are addressing multiple people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Scītōte atque intellegite hunc rēgem. Este certī vōs facere vōs discipulōs Christī, regentis rēgis.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6897" RevisionGUID="62dd766a-7c0b-417f-b479-843934050cfb" CreationDate="2018-07-26T15:47:37.510" UserId="9" Comment="added 917 characters in body" Text="A little while back, I asked a question about the alleged Latin word &quot;[tribalis](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6793/has-tribalis-ever-been-used-in-latin)&quot; (which it seems was not actually used), and I mentioned that it seemed to me that it would be an irregular formation because *tribus* is a *u*-stem noun, but *tribālis* does not contain *-u-.* So far, nobody has informed me of any examples of parallel formations of this type. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But recently, I did run into an example of the reverse: an *o*-stem noun that has a derivative that seems to be built with *-u-.* It is *[lectŭārĭus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=lectuarius),* which Lewis &amp; Short says is a &quot;late Lat.&quot; adjective meaning &quot;*of or belonging to the bed, bed-*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The related noun *[lectus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlectus2)* seems to be declined as an *o*-stem. That said, I found some interesting notes in the L&amp;S entry that may be relevant: it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (nom. **lectum** , i, n., *Dig. 32, 1, 52, § 9; 34, 2, 19, § 8*; **lectus** , ūs, **Plaut. Am. 1, 3, 15**; al. lecti; **Sen. Ep. 95, 72** Haas; Cornif. ap. *Prisc. 711* P.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relevant line seems  to be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;prius abis quam **lectus** ubi cubuisti concaluit locus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[Amphitruo (Leo)](https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Amphitruo_(Leo))*, Wikisource)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;lectus&quot; here apparently should be [read as a a genitive](https://books.google.com/books?id=DpkoAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA109&amp;lpg=PA109).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't know if usage in Plautus would be relevant to a &quot;late Latin&quot; derived adjective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oddly, de Vaan's entry for *lectus* doesn't seem to mention this variant form directly, but seems to mention something similar as a theoretical etymology:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; WH rightly notice that a nominal formation *legʰ-to- 'bed' would be strange, but it does not seem impossible: 'lied upon' &gt; 'bed'. The form could be interpreted as a nominalized verbal adj. with regular e-grade in the root, [...] An alternative solution is to posit **a *tu*-stem *legʰ-tu- 'the lying', which could have switched to the *o*-stem inflection by the time of Plautus.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I was looking for more information about the possibility of *lectus* declining as a &quot;u-stem&quot; or &quot;fourth declension&quot; noun, I found an [interesting discussion](http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/12th-century-family-motto-lectus-generat-fortem.2212/) where some people suggest that *lectus, lectus* could be understood in certain contexts in post-Classical Latin as an [abstract *-(t)us* noun](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/891/what-is-the-difference-between-us-and-io) derived from *lego.* I don't know if that might be relevant to the formation of *lectuarius;* I would suppose not, but I'm not completely sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is going on with *lectuarius,* and are there any examples of similar formations with other roots?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I found an article by Oscar Brugman that seems to discuss the declension of *lectus*, &quot;[Observations Plautinae et Terentianae](https://books.google.com/books?id=_oQGAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA95)&quot;, but it is in Latin so it's hard for me to read it. If anyone could write an answer that simply summarizes and explains what this source says, I would appreciate it. (I found this source via a citation in &quot;[Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft](https://books.google.com/books?id=DJ8NAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA413#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&quot;, 1873.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brugman mentions one example of *lectuariam* and one example of *lectualia*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;necnon pro nobis faciunt duo verba a stirpe ‘lectu’ derivata *lectuarius* et *lectualis*, quae ita ut de scriptura dubitari nequeat leguntur apud Nonium 537,&lt;sub&gt;20&lt;/sub&gt;: “plagae grande linteum tegmen quod nunc torale vel *lectuariam* syndonem dicimus” et in Possidii vit. Aug. cap. 22 : “vestes eius et calceamenta vel *lectualia* ex moderato et competenti habitu erant.” praeterea persaepe media aetate voces ‘lectuarium’ et ‘lectuale’ usurpatae sunt, quorum locorum multitudinem praebet Du Cange et Carpentarii gloss. med. et inf. Lat. ex omnibus autem quae protuli sequitur ut lectus non modo a Plauto Terentioque quarta declinatum sit, sed per totam latinitatem in usitato quidem sermonis genere, neque dubito quin qui in scriptoribus legendis hoc curent etiam alia exempla huius usus inventuri sint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 97)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6918" RevisionGUID="7841c8cd-d34c-4c86-b763-1661ce11e85a" CreationDate="2018-07-26T18:04:54.427" UserId="1142" Comment="edited body" Text="The first sentence in your translation is somewhat on-track, you simply neglected to insert the first person demonstrative adjective (*hic, haec, hoc*) for *rēgem* and used infinitive forms instead of imperative forms. The second sentence, however, is not terribly on-track (i.e, improper use of an imperative, incorrect indirect discourse, an incorrectly declined noun, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you care less for a more pragmatic translation, I might suggest the following two sentences. If you are addressing a singular person:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Scītō atque intellege hunc rēgem. Es certus tē facere tē discipulum Christī, regentis rēgis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are addressing a singular person, and that person is female, then *certus* and *discipulum* should become *certa* and *discipulam*, respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are addressing multiple people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Scītōte atque intellegite hunc rēgem. Este certī vōs facere vōs discipulōs Christī, regentis rēgis.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6918" RevisionGUID="fb8d819c-00b2-4182-bc20-c65c900f6138" CreationDate="2018-07-26T19:48:02.633" UserId="1142" Comment="Removed superfluous pronouns." Text="The first sentence in your translation is somewhat on-track, you simply neglected to insert the first person demonstrative adjective (*hic, haec, hoc*) for *rēgem* and used infinitive forms instead of imperative forms. The second sentence, however, is not terribly on-track (i.e, improper use of an imperative, incorrect indirect discourse, an incorrectly declined noun, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you care less for a more pragmatic translation, I might suggest the following two sentences. If you are addressing a singular person:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Scītō atque intellege hunc rēgem. Es certus facere tē discipulum Christī, regentis rēgis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are addressing a singular person, and that person is female, then *certus* and *discipulum* should become *certa* and *discipulam*, respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are addressing multiple people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Scītōte atque intellegite hunc rēgem. Este certī facere vōs discipulōs Christī, regentis rēgis.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23168" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6919" RevisionGUID="6973e2e0-5358-44ac-851b-497b5654e6d4" CreationDate="2018-07-26T19:58:25.840" UserId="1142" Comment="edited title" Text="Ubī egō verbō &quot;queō&quot; prō &quot;possum&quot; ūtar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6918" RevisionGUID="c74009dc-570d-4653-924f-192c6600f171" CreationDate="2018-07-27T02:41:41.027" UserId="1142" Comment="added 381 characters in body" Text="The first sentence in your translation is somewhat on-track, you simply neglected to insert the first person demonstrative adjective (*hic, haec, hoc*) for *rēgem* and used infinitive forms instead of imperative forms. The second sentence, however, is not terribly on-track (i.e, improper use of an imperative, incorrect indirect discourse, an incorrectly declined noun, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you care less for a more pragmatic translation, I might suggest the following two sentences. If you are addressing a singular person:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Scītō atque intellege hunc rēgem. Es certus facere tē discipulum Christī, regentis rēgis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are addressing a singular person, and that person is female, then *certus* and *discipulum* should become *certa* and *discipulam*, respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are addressing multiple people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Scītōte atque intellegite hunc rēgem. Este certī facere vōs discipulōs Christī, regentis rēgis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you mistyped in your original question, and meant to type *&quot;know and understand this, king&quot;* instead of *&quot;know and understand this king&quot;*, then *rēgem* should be in its vocative form, *rēx*. A feminine or plural sentence would then be unnecessary, thus making your full sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Scītō atque intellege hoc, rēx. Es certus facere tē discipulum Christī, regentis rēgis.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6927" RevisionGUID="93341ed7-4114-4599-8096-84f24a9795e5" CreationDate="2018-07-27T02:43:14.777" UserId="39" Text="I am not quite sure what the problem is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More examples of this derivation (from Weiss 2009: 276-277) are below. Note that the nouns below are essentially substantivized genitival adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Declinatio prima:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;taberna &gt; tabernarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Declinatio secunda:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;argentum &gt; argentarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;balneum &gt; balnearius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vinum &gt; vinarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Declinatio tertia:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;legio &gt; legionarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;onus &gt; onerarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;opus &gt; operarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6927" RevisionGUID="26eddfce-f630-4994-adbd-9ad68441023c" CreationDate="2018-07-27T02:50:56.433" UserId="39" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="I am not quite sure what the problem is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More examples of this derivation (from Weiss 2009: 276-277) are below (the reconstructed form of the suffix is *-āsii̯o-). Note that the nouns below are essentially substantivized genitival adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Declinatio prima:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;taberna &gt; tabernarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Declinatio secunda:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;argentum &gt; argentarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;balneum &gt; balnearius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vinum &gt; vinarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Declinatio tertia:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;legio &gt; legionarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;onus &gt; onerarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;opus &gt; operarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6897" RevisionGUID="d4c273b6-8d71-4282-8403-3650003d6913" CreationDate="2018-07-27T03:53:41.083" UserId="9" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="A little while back, I asked a question about the alleged Latin word &quot;[tribalis](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6793/has-tribalis-ever-been-used-in-latin)&quot; (which it seems was not actually used), and I mentioned that it seemed to me that it would be an irregular formation because *tribus* is a *u*-stem noun, but *tribālis* does not contain *-u-.* So far, nobody has informed me of any examples of parallel formations of this type. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But recently, I did run into an example of the reverse: an *o*-stem noun that has a derivative that seems to be built with *-u-.* It is *[lectŭārĭus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=lectuarius),* which Lewis &amp; Short says is a &quot;late Lat.&quot; adjective meaning &quot;*of or belonging to the bed, bed-*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The related noun *[lectus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlectus2)* seems to be declined as an *o*-stem. That said, I found some interesting notes in the L&amp;S entry that may be relevant: it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (nom. **lectum** , i, n., *Dig. 32, 1, 52, § 9; 34, 2, 19, § 8*; **lectus** , ūs, **Plaut. Am. 1, 3, 15**; al. lecti; **Sen. Ep. 95, 72** Haas; Cornif. ap. *Prisc. 711* P.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relevant line seems  to be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;prius abis quam **lectus** ubi cubuisti concaluit locus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[Amphitruo (Leo)](https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Amphitruo_(Leo))*, Wikisource)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;lectus&quot; here apparently should be [read as a a genitive](https://books.google.com/books?id=DpkoAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA109&amp;lpg=PA109).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't know if usage in Plautus would be relevant to a &quot;late Latin&quot; derived adjective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oddly, de Vaan's entry for *lectus* doesn't seem to mention this variant form directly, but seems to mention something similar as a theoretical etymology:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; WH rightly notice that a nominal formation *legʰ-to- 'bed' would be strange, but it does not seem impossible: 'lied upon' &gt; 'bed'. The form could be interpreted as a nominalized verbal adj. with regular e-grade in the root, [...] An alternative solution is to posit **a *tu*-stem *legʰ-tu- 'the lying', which could have switched to the *o*-stem inflection by the time of Plautus.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I was looking for more information about the possibility of *lectus* declining as a &quot;u-stem&quot; or &quot;fourth declension&quot; noun, I found an [interesting discussion](http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/12th-century-family-motto-lectus-generat-fortem.2212/) where some people suggest that *lectus, lectus* could be understood in certain contexts in post-Classical Latin as an [abstract *-(t)us* noun](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/891/what-is-the-difference-between-us-and-io) derived from *lego.* I don't know if that might be relevant to the formation of *lectuarius;* I would suppose not, but I'm not completely sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is going on with *lectuarius*—why isn't it *lectarius* instead? Are there any examples of similar formations with other roots where the adjective ends in *-uarius* even though the noun declines as an o-stem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I found an article by Oscar Brugman that seems to discuss the declension of *lectus*, &quot;[Observations Plautinae et Terentianae](https://books.google.com/books?id=_oQGAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA95)&quot;, but it is in Latin so it's hard for me to read it. If anyone could write an answer that simply summarizes and explains what this source says, I would appreciate it. (I found this source via a citation in &quot;[Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft](https://books.google.com/books?id=DJ8NAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA413#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&quot;, 1873.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brugman mentions one example of *lectuariam* and one example of *lectualia*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;necnon pro nobis faciunt duo verba a stirpe ‘lectu’ derivata *lectuarius* et *lectualis*, quae ita ut de scriptura dubitari nequeat leguntur apud Nonium 537,&lt;sub&gt;20&lt;/sub&gt;: “plagae grande linteum tegmen quod nunc torale vel *lectuariam* syndonem dicimus” et in Possidii vit. Aug. cap. 22 : “vestes eius et calceamenta vel *lectualia* ex moderato et competenti habitu erant.” praeterea persaepe media aetate voces ‘lectuarium’ et ‘lectuale’ usurpatae sunt, quorum locorum multitudinem praebet Du Cange et Carpentarii gloss. med. et inf. Lat. ex omnibus autem quae protuli sequitur ut lectus non modo a Plauto Terentioque quarta declinatum sit, sed per totam latinitatem in usitato quidem sermonis genere, neque dubito quin qui in scriptoribus legendis hoc curent etiam alia exempla huius usus inventuri sint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 97)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6927" RevisionGUID="7c968320-5d69-43ac-bece-f79f9d480421" CreationDate="2018-07-27T05:02:21.120" UserId="39" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="I am not quite sure what the problem is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More examples of this derivation (from Weiss 2009: 276-277) are below (the reconstructed form of the suffix is *-āsii̯o-). Note that the nouns below are essentially substantivized genitival adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Declinatio prima:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;taberna &gt; tabernarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;statua &gt; statuarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Declinatio secunda:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;argentum &gt; argentarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;balneum &gt; balnearius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vinum &gt; vinarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Declinatio tertia:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;legio &gt; legionarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;onus &gt; onerarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;opus &gt; operarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6927" RevisionGUID="ac76c2e2-8a97-491b-bdf5-a8bee3fc9465" CreationDate="2018-07-27T05:13:34.973" UserId="39" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="Notes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. ago - actarius or actuarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6927" RevisionGUID="fb7337ba-b380-412e-859d-1e6e8f939246" CreationDate="2018-07-27T05:25:50.343" UserId="39" Comment="added 204 characters in body" Text="uo- and u-stems usually preserve u before arius (Leumann et al. 1977: p. 299).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They mention the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;statuarius, februarius, Ianuarius, pecuarius, sumptuarius, tumultuarius, ossuarius etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. ago - actarius or actuarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6928" RevisionGUID="f8ce3859-2517-4e0f-bf5e-064ffd72cf56" CreationDate="2018-07-27T08:24:19.250" UserId="1133" Text="Consider these masculine nominative singular and masculine nominative dual forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νοῦς, ν**ώ**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κανοῦν, καν**ώ**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;μνᾶ, μνᾶ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;γῆ, γᾶ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the circumflex in these forms represents an acute accent that used be on the penult before a contraction occurred.  For examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόος → νοῦς&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;μνάᾱ → μνᾶ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ν**ώ** represents an exception because there is no circumflex to hint at what used to be an acute.  Instead, we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόω → ν**ώ**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this, *Introduction to Attic Greek* 2nd ed. by Mastronarde Unit 40 says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;. . . the nominative, accusative, and vocative dual of uncompounded words has an acute (e.g. νώ instead of νῶ from νόω).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, some adjectives seem to follow the exceptional pattern.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἀργυροῦς (ἀργυρέος), ἀργυρ**ώ** (ἀργυρέω)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ἁπλοῦς (ἁπλόος), ἁπλ**ώ** (ἁπλόω)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTIONS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is there a way to understand the exception above?  Maybe it is an instance of a large pattern, or there are some parallels to it.  Otherwise, I would be happy to accept an exception as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The uncontracted form of κανοῦν is said to be κάνεον.  By contraction I should have excepted κάνουν (which [Perseus][1] indeed lists as 'noun sg neut nom attic epic doric contr').  How does an accute on antepenult travel all the way to ultima by contraction?  (If anyone thinks this second question should be a separate post I will be happy to make it so.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kanoun&amp;la=greek#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23177" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6928" RevisionGUID="f8ce3859-2517-4e0f-bf5e-064ffd72cf56" CreationDate="2018-07-27T08:24:19.250" UserId="1133" Text="Why νώ (rather than νῶ) from when νόω? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23178" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6928" RevisionGUID="f8ce3859-2517-4e0f-bf5e-064ffd72cf56" CreationDate="2018-07-27T08:24:19.250" UserId="1133" Text="|adjective|noun|contraction|accidence|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23179" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6928" RevisionGUID="7e157701-996c-449d-9492-cd41321452bb" CreationDate="2018-07-27T08:33:03.670" UserId="1133" Comment="edited title" Text="Why νώ (rather than νῶ) from νόω? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6909" RevisionGUID="4e3524e6-7fcb-457d-8f99-f49c3e14b5f7" CreationDate="2018-07-27T11:29:24.900" UserId="1982" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="North &amp; Hillard; Ex. 192, Q3: &quot;While provisions held out they resisted all attacks.&quot;, is to be translated into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer: &quot;_dum (quamdiu) frumentum suppetebat, omnibus oppugnationibus resistebant_.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I translated the verbs in the perfect tense (_suppetivit; restiterunt_); if the attacks constitute a series of completed actions, in the past, (for which provisions were available) then is the perfect valid, even though, at first glance, the natural instinct is to select the imperfect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprised that nobody has commented. If I'm wrong please just say--I can take it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6927" RevisionGUID="5d1f98de-e246-42ec-acbc-177626f03e61" CreationDate="2018-07-27T13:24:18.253" UserId="39" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="uo- and u-stems usually preserve u before arius (Leumann et al. 1977: p. 299).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They mention the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;statuarius, februarius, Ianuarius, pecuarius, sumptuarius, tumultuarius, ossuarius etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. ago - actarius or actuarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for lectus, here's a relevant screenshot from Gerchner 2002:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bWA2w.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6922" RevisionGUID="67a81f1b-6bec-404b-9790-482673bb460a" CreationDate="2018-07-27T14:27:02.460" UserId="45" Comment="added 137 characters in body; edited title" Text="Considering the original phrase: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The king who all citizens love is happy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Portuguese: Feliz é o rei a quem todos os cidadãos amam.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a proposed Latin translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Felix est rex is quem omnes cives amant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the pronoun &quot;is&quot; necessary?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23183" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6922" RevisionGUID="67a81f1b-6bec-404b-9790-482673bb460a" CreationDate="2018-07-27T14:27:02.460" UserId="45" Comment="added 137 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;Felix est rex is quem omnes cives amant&quot;. Is the pronoun &quot;is&quot; necessary?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6916" RevisionGUID="7bfc9e1c-2127-420f-bc12-18c28e5a8aa7" CreationDate="2018-07-27T15:05:50.883" UserId="45" Comment="added 875 characters in body" Text="The Greek - and hence Roman - tradition is to list cases in the order: NOM - GEN etc. Dionysius Thrax (170-90 BCE) is considered to be the first extant record of this system - see a screenshot from Butt 2006:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Jean Lallot (in [Lallot 1985][2]) argues this canonical order of the cases &quot;certainly goes back to the Stoics&quot; - cf. &quot;L'ordre canonique des cas ... remonte très certement aux Stoiciens&quot; (p. 54). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those [who read in Greek][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here is a more precise account. There are three local relations: from a place, in a place, and to a place, which respectively are proper to the genitive, dative, and accusative cases. It is the case that everything moved desires to be moved around something immobile (e.g. a dancer cannot turn around if he does not place his foot upon the ground, which is immobile), and it is clear in the case of someone who is moved *from* one place to another that, first, he comes to be *in* a place, and thereby does he come *to* a place. The genitive and dative cases seem somewhat similar to the immobile ground. The relation &quot;from a place&quot; which comes to be from the genitive *to* a place, i.e. to the accusative, advances by means of the dative, which shows the relation &quot;in a place.&quot; For this reason, the dative has been placed before the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another tradition going back to **Panini** is to put cases NOM - ACC etc (6th century BCE). His case system was based on the semantic roles (the so called Karaka Theory). The cases did not have our regular names such as nominative or dative but they had numbers instead. For instance, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Case 2 (accusative) is used when a *karman* (patient) is expressed&quot; or &quot;Case 3 (instrumental) is also used for the *karman* (patient) of *hu* 'sacrifice' in the Chandas (Vedic Verse)&quot; (Butt 2006: 17).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details, see e.g. [Kelly 1993][5] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not quite correct to say that in **German linguistics** the canonical order is NGDA that is used to describe Latin declension paradigms. For example, the best Latin grammar in German (and it surely beats any Latin grammar written in English or French, imho), *Lateinische Grammatik* by Leumann , Hofmann and Szantyr (the last edition was published in 1977, edited by Manu Leumann) uses the following order of the cases in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Akk. Gen. Dat. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. *Ausfürliche Grammatik* by Kühner and Holzweissig (1912): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Voc. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Russian** linguistic research, the following order is the most common one: Nom - Gen - Dat - Acc - Abl - Voc. (really any Latin grammar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **French** linguistics, the following order seems to be common now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N. Ac. G. D. Abl. (see e.g. *Morphologie historique du latin* by Alfred Ernout, 3rd ed. 1952; 4th ed. 2014).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So, the following order seems to be prevalent now in present-day Latin research (published in English, German, or French):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Nom. (Voc.) Acc. Gen. Dat. Abl.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009 (2nd corrected printing 2011), following the Indian system with some modifications, adopts a slightly different order though in his *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin* (and so does Sihler 1995):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Voc. Acc. Dat. Abl. Gen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster 2015 (*The Oxford Latin syntax*) still uses the old order, Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Abl. Voc. but I suspect it's because Harm Pinkster is from the Netherlands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll add more details tomorrow after classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/doBoI.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.persee.fr/doc/hel_0247-8897_1985_num_6_1_3343&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/scholiaindionys00hilggoog&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/srnkn.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4351439" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6928" RevisionGUID="615cf985-d007-4ef8-b1e4-b10c5a9595d7" CreationDate="2018-07-28T02:20:09.947" UserId="1133" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Consider these masculine nominative singular and masculine nominative dual forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νοῦς, ν**ώ**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;κανοῦν, καν**ώ**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;μνᾶ, μνᾶ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;γῆ, γᾶ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the circumflex in these forms represents an acute accent that used be on the penult before a contraction occurred.  For examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόος → νοῦς&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;μνάᾱ → μνᾶ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ν**ώ** represents an exception because there is no circumflex to hint at what used to be an acute.  Instead, we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόω → ν**ώ**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this, *Introduction to Attic Greek* 2nd ed. by Mastronarde Unit 40 says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;. . . the nominative, accusative, and vocative dual of uncompounded words has an acute (e.g. νώ instead of νῶ from νόω).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, some adjectives seem to follow the exceptional pattern.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἀργυροῦς (ἀργυρέος), ἀργυρ**ώ** (ἀργυρέω)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ἁπλοῦς (ἁπλόος), ἁπλ**ώ** (ἁπλόω)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**QUESTIONS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is there a way to understand the exception above?  Maybe it is an instance of a larger pattern, or there are some parallels to it.  Otherwise, I would be happy to accept an exception as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The uncontracted form of κανοῦν is said to be κάνεον.  By contraction I should have excepted κάνουν (which [Perseus][1] indeed lists as 'noun sg neut nom attic epic doric contr').  How does an accute on antepenult travel all the way to ultima by contraction?  (If anyone thinks this second question should be a separate post I will be happy to make it so.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kanoun&amp;la=greek#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6927" RevisionGUID="bcdbc8ab-74f6-40db-a68a-b6c023e70fd2" CreationDate="2018-07-28T03:29:30.730" UserId="39" Comment="added 163 characters in body" Text="uo- and u-stems usually preserve u before arius (Leumann et al. 1977: p. 299).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They mention the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;statuarius, februarius, Ianuarius, pecuarius, sumptuarius, tumultuarius, ossuarius etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. ago - actarius or actuarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also remember that declinatio secunda gradually completely ousted declinatio quarta; this process went much faster in spoken Latin (Tronskii 1960: 176-177).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for lectus, here's a relevant screenshot from Gerchner 2002:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bWA2w.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6929" RevisionGUID="1f7f5073-4d78-4439-b4d0-786776570c91" CreationDate="2018-07-28T03:38:38.827" UserId="406" Text="From Procopius's *Secret History* (or *Arcana Historia*) XII.12-14:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Διὸ δὴ ἐμοί τε καὶ τοῖς πολλοῖς ἠμῶν οὐδεπώποτε ἔδοξαν οὗτοι ἄνθρωποι εἶναι, ἀλλὰ δαίμονες παλαμναῖοί τινες καὶ ὥσπερ οἱ ποιηταὶ λέγουσι βροτολοιγῶ ἤστην…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Trans. mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And thus to me, and to many others of us, they [Emperor Justinian and his wife Theodora] never seemed to be humans, but rather to be some sort of murderous demons, and even akin to two of those things that the poets call *brotoloigoi*…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are those things the poets call *brotoloigoi*? L&amp;S translate the word as &quot;bane of men&quot; and cite it applied to Arēs, Apollōn, and Erōs, but it doesn't seem like Procopius is comparing Justinian to a deity here: it sounds like some sort of monster instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23190" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6929" RevisionGUID="1f7f5073-4d78-4439-b4d0-786776570c91" CreationDate="2018-07-28T03:38:38.827" UserId="406" Text="What exactly are βροτολοιγῶ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23191" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6929" RevisionGUID="1f7f5073-4d78-4439-b4d0-786776570c91" CreationDate="2018-07-28T03:38:38.827" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|greek|mythology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6927" RevisionGUID="86849b88-035d-47b8-bfe8-56519cffb596" CreationDate="2018-07-28T03:48:00.503" UserId="39" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="uo- and u-stems usually preserve u before arius (Leumann et al. 1977: p. 299).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They mention the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;statuarius, februarius, Ianuarius, pecuarius, sumptuarius, tumultuarius, ossuarius etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also remember that declinatio secunda gradually completely ousted declinatio quarta; this process went much faster in spoken Latin (Tronskii 1960: 176-177).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for lectus, here's a relevant screenshot from Gerchner 2002:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other similar examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ago - actarius or actuarius;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;fabri tignuarii or tignarii (the latter is less common, Leumann et al. p. 299)&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bWA2w.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6927" RevisionGUID="48a774b6-6679-4f62-b341-46b84d5dbd04" CreationDate="2018-07-28T03:58:06.053" UserId="39" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="uo- and u-stems usually preserve u before arius (Leumann et al. 1977: p. 299).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They mention the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;statuarius, februarius, Ianuarius, pecuarius, sumptuarius, tumultuarius, ossuarius etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also remember that declinatio secunda gradually completely ousted declinatio quarta; this process went much faster in spoken Latin (Tronskii 1960: 176-177).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for lectus, here's a relevant screenshot from Gerchner 2002:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other similar examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ago - actarius or actuarius;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;fabri tignuarii or tignarii (the latter is less common, Leumann et al. p. 299)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;faber lectuarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Leumann et al. hypothesize that it was analogical, after *arcuarius* and perhaps *statuarius*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;aus solchen Vorbildern ist -*uarius* verschleppt&quot; (p. 299).&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bWA2w.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6927" RevisionGUID="bc25eb23-cb71-4ec3-8b26-1d38417ae104" CreationDate="2018-07-28T04:17:50.017" UserId="39" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="uo- and u-stems usually preserve u before arius (Leumann et al. 1977: p. 299).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They mention the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;statuarius, februarius, Ianuarius, pecuarius, sumptuarius, tumultuarius, ossuarius etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also remember that declinatio secunda gradually completely ousted declinatio quarta; this process went much faster in spoken Latin (Tronskii 1960: 176-177). During this process, there was a lot of fluctuation - for example see the screenshot below from Gerchner 2002:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other similar examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ago - actarius or actuarius;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;fabri tignuarii or tignarii (the latter is less common, Leumann et al. p. 299)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;faber lectuarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Leumann et al. hypothesize that it was analogical, after *arcuarius* and perhaps *statuarius*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;aus solchen Vorbildern ist -*uarius* verschleppt&quot; (p. 299).&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bWA2w.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6927" RevisionGUID="a3d7489b-fb6b-47f6-8eed-ff1007a3e101" CreationDate="2018-07-28T04:27:45.367" UserId="406" Comment="added 252 characters in body" Text="uo- and u-stems usually preserve u before arius (Leumann et al. 1977: p. 299).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They mention the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;statuarius, februarius, Ianuarius, pecuarius, sumptuarius, tumultuarius, ossuarius etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also remember that declinatio secunda gradually completely ousted declinatio quarta; this process went much faster in spoken Latin (Tronskii 1960: 176-177). During this process, there was a lot of fluctuation - for example see the screenshot below from Gerchner 2002:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …*penus* oscillates classically, as in Plautus, between the second, third, and fourth declensions, and similarly between the masculine and neuter genders. The second declension is shown by *penum aliud* in Plautus *Captivi* 920… [Trans. Draconis]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other similar examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ago - actarius or actuarius;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;fabri tignuarii or tignarii (the latter is less common, Leumann et al. p. 299)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;faber lectuarius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Leumann et al. hypothesize that it was analogical, after *arcuarius* and perhaps *statuarius*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;aus solchen Vorbildern ist -*uarius* verschleppt&quot; (p. 299).&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bWA2w.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6931" RevisionGUID="1d1787a4-e463-4bdb-bfd3-03e10b438ffe" CreationDate="2018-07-28T05:25:56.480" UserId="2789" Text="[![This is a page taken from a medieval Book of Hours from 13th century Italy][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Found this document in a bookstore. Would like to know what it is describing. Translations as well as paraphrases will be equally appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SccWN.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23199" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6931" RevisionGUID="1d1787a4-e463-4bdb-bfd3-03e10b438ffe" CreationDate="2018-07-28T05:25:56.480" UserId="2789" Text="What's the translation of this Medieval document?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23200" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6931" RevisionGUID="1d1787a4-e463-4bdb-bfd3-03e10b438ffe" CreationDate="2018-07-28T05:25:56.480" UserId="2789" Text="|medieval-latin|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6932" RevisionGUID="a8eef7f0-0d9b-45e5-bfd2-f3497af7761e" CreationDate="2018-07-28T05:47:33.290" UserId="2787" Text="Including the variations with *qualis*, *quantus* and *quotus*, is there a specific rule to when to use each these undefined pronouns?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23202" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6932" RevisionGUID="a8eef7f0-0d9b-45e5-bfd2-f3497af7761e" CreationDate="2018-07-28T05:47:33.290" UserId="2787" Text="Quispiam, quisquam, quivis, quidam, quilibet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23203" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6932" RevisionGUID="a8eef7f0-0d9b-45e5-bfd2-f3497af7761e" CreationDate="2018-07-28T05:47:33.290" UserId="2787" Text="|pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6917" RevisionGUID="bd31b54d-ebc1-4584-a149-8a9a9ac8607c" CreationDate="2018-07-28T06:56:25.263" UserId="2785" Comment="added 253 characters in body" Text="I am trying to write a motto and my knowledge of Latin is not very profound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wish to state using Latin to the effect of, and using king rather than man:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Know and understand this king. Be sure that you make yourself a disciple of Christ the ruling King.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To know and understand is suggested to be as grok. I do not wish to over complicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best arrangement that I have so far come up with is,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Intellegere et scire regem. Fac tu discipulis Christi Regis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this anything near close? What would be correct Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do hope that this question will be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Edit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having studied the magnificent answer from Ethan Bierlein I have near settled that the motto will be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Scītō atque intellege hunc rēgem. Es certus facere tē discipulum Christī Regēns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers yet improving upon this will be considered." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6933" RevisionGUID="b019921b-2e2b-4871-9416-f6f98f40788b" CreationDate="2018-07-28T09:41:55.297" UserId="1459" Text="This is a page from the New Testament. In particular, from Matthew. For instance, the bottom of the first column is [Matthew 13](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Marcus+13%2CMarco+13&amp;version=VULGATE;NIV). It does not fully coincide with the Vulgate version of the link, but you can see the core text is similar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6933" RevisionGUID="40954ced-f1f3-4cac-8e3c-89e14ce63ae5" CreationDate="2018-07-28T09:47:54.167" UserId="1459" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="It seems to be a page from the New Testament. In particular, from Matthew. For instance, the bottom of the first column is [Matthew 13:1](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Marcus+13%2CMarco+13&amp;version=VULGATE;NIV). It does not fully coincide with the Vulgate version of the link, but you can see the core text is similar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Et cum egrederetur de templo, ait illi unus ex discipulis suis: Magister, aspice quales lapides, et quales structurae. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I struggle however to recognise the rest of the text. Maybe it's a commentary on the Gospel of Matthew." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6933" RevisionGUID="e05fe204-34fc-4ab2-b6b5-7b28b544c20b" CreationDate="2018-07-28T10:00:41.247" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="It seems to be a page from the New Testament. In particular, from Marcus. For instance, the bottom of the first column is [Marcus 13:1](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Marcus+13%2CMarco+13&amp;version=VULGATE;NIV). It does not fully coincide with the Vulgate version of the link, but you can see the core text is similar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Et cum egrederetur de templo, ait illi unus ex discipulis suis: Magister, aspice quales lapides, et quales structurae. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I struggle however to recognise the rest of the text. Maybe it's a commentary on the Gospel of Matthew." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6933" RevisionGUID="5a48f854-46e3-4565-9564-e392d63404ef" CreationDate="2018-07-28T10:16:20.087" UserId="1459" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="It seems to be a sort of liturgical text. It has some structure like a main text (which is slightly in bold), probably from the Bible, and then some other text (less bold), which comes after an &quot;R:&quot; symbol, probably meaning &quot;response&quot;. There is also a further text after the &quot;b:&quot; symbol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, the main text at the bottom of the first column is [Marcus 13:1](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Marcus+13%2CMarco+13&amp;version=VULGATE;NIV). It does not fully coincide with the Vulgate version of the link, but you can see the core text is similar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Et cum egrederetur de templo, ait illi unus ex discipulis suis: Magister, aspice quales lapides, et quales structurae. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I struggle however to recognise the rest of the text." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6931" RevisionGUID="ba95ec1c-77b0-43f1-b00f-7d5ce4ff6c8e" CreationDate="2018-07-28T14:05:58.143" UserId="2789" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="This is a page taken from a medieval breviary from 13th century Italy![2][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Found this document at The Antiquarium in Houston. Would like to know what it is describing. Translations as well as paraphrases will be equally appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SccWN.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6934" RevisionGUID="bb3c4ba9-d8da-4cb1-8d42-e28f11021639" CreationDate="2018-07-28T14:33:47.163" UserId="2790" Text="In chapter 4 LLPSI it says sacculum suum in mensa ponit. Ponit means put or sets, so indicates a movement. As far as I know *in*in Latin in the meaning of into or onto (as is the case here) takes the accusative, so in mensam (Like it would be the case in German).However, the book uses ablative, indicating no movement. Very confusing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23211" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6934" RevisionGUID="bb3c4ba9-d8da-4cb1-8d42-e28f11021639" CreationDate="2018-07-28T14:33:47.163" UserId="2790" Text="In: Ablative or accusative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23212" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6934" RevisionGUID="bb3c4ba9-d8da-4cb1-8d42-e28f11021639" CreationDate="2018-07-28T14:33:47.163" UserId="2790" Text="|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6934" RevisionGUID="0daa3dd5-84b5-4fda-8a14-3d703e38650d" CreationDate="2018-07-28T15:13:44.463" UserId="1459" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="In chapter 4 LLPSI it says &quot;_sacculum suum in mensa ponit_&quot;. _Ponit_ means put or sets, so indicates a movement. As far as I know *in* in Latin in the meaning of into or onto (as is the case here) takes the accusative, so in _mensam_ (Like it would be the case in German). However, the book uses ablative, indicating no movement. Very confusing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6935" RevisionGUID="8ca54b91-6e4a-4f4c-8a75-ff03d04583c0" CreationDate="2018-07-28T18:53:01.733" UserId="1142" Text="The preposition *in* is one of a number of prepositions in Latin that can take both the accusative case *and* the ablative case. In the accusative, it can mean *into, against, etc.* and in the ablative, it can mean either *in, at, on,* or *upon*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of your sentence, *mēnsa* is in the ablative (*mēnsā*) to indicate that the subject of the sentence is placing something *on* or *upon* the table:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sacculum suum in mēnsā pōnit.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *He places his own sack on/upon the table.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6936" RevisionGUID="b87dbe80-92db-4431-8744-cbe656043ff4" CreationDate="2018-07-28T19:35:43.990" UserId="522" Text="Here are two sentences from the readings which show that the service celebrates the foundation of a major church building.&#xD;&#xA;**.1.** The bottom line on the left says: What Stones! What Structures!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **quales lapides et quales structurae**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(which luchonacho identified as Mk 13.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And **.2.** on the right, next to the tail of the blue and red “Q”&#xD;&#xA;“the circuit of the walls” *ambitus murorum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quod etiam modo (r~) ambitus murorum ipsum locum circumdat testatur&#xD;&#xA;&gt; calvariae ubi dominus extra passus et infra muros amplectitur.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next to the last **Red R/** on the page it describes how Bishop Ambrose  found the relics of [Saint Gervase and Saint Protasius][1], martyred in the time of Nero.  These  bones were built into the foundations of a magnificent new Church in Milan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **R/** Beatissimo Ambrosio Mediolanensi epo (episcopo) per iusum apparavit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (appeared) quo loco laterent corpora Gervasii et Prothasii at ubi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agnicio sancti sacerdotis  divina ostensione condonavit  invenit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sanctos iuvenes in profundo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'To the most blessed Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, at his command there was revealed in what place the bodies of Gervase and Protasius lay, and confirmed where by divine indication to the awareness of the holy priest, he found the holy youths glistening deep down.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gervasius_and_Protasius" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6937" RevisionGUID="bee5f265-ea6e-4224-8db0-a621ed352cbc" CreationDate="2018-07-28T21:17:50.867" UserId="406" Text="You are entirely correct that *in* with the accusative tends to indicate motion, while *in* with the ablative tends to indicate position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But placing (*pōnō*) isn't considered a verb of motion: the Latin verb is more like &quot;causes its location to be&quot;, and thus there's no real motion involved. (Its English derivative is &quot;to position&quot;, from *pōsitiō*, from *pōsitus*.) *Pōnō* is all about the end result. And the end result is that the bag is resting on the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sacculum suum in mēnsā pōnit.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He causes his bag to be resting on the table.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Or:) He sets his bag on the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to indicate motion, you could use a verb like *ferō* &quot;carry&quot; or *jaciō* &quot;throw&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sacculum suum in villam fert.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He carries his bag into the villa.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sacculum suum in piscīnam jacit.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He throws his bag into the fishpond." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6938" RevisionGUID="803608cf-2f8b-4791-8ef2-3121b63c5fee" CreationDate="2018-07-28T23:33:47.427" UserId="45" Text="Here is a transcription starting from the first initial with only a few lacunae. I've mostly filled in the abbreviations and added punctuation, except when I didn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cumque Anolinus huiuscemodi litteras accepisset, palam recitavit, sibique Nazarium offerri iussit. Dixitque ad eum, &quot;Iussit inclitus imperator incidi cervices tuas pariter et puerorum Gervasii et Prothasii et Celsi pueri.&quot; Nazarius respondit, &quot;Magnus Deus et magna opera eius qui nos absolvi iam iubet.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Responsio: Isti sunt incliti martyres Christi Gervasius et Prothasius, qui monita Dei ardentes, spernendo mundum secuti sunt domini nostri Iesu Christi pia vestigia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Versus: Nichil terrenum, nichil carnale concupiscentes in Mediolanensi urbe in Dei servitio perdurantes manserunt. Secuti [etc.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ?: Iusti autem in perpetuum vivent et apud Dominum est  merces eorum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[up to the initial, this next line is unclear and contains many technical abbreviations. I can only make out &quot;Vos servi? Domini.&quot; The red line starts with &quot;secundum.&quot; It continues:]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In illo tempore, egrediente Iesu de templo, ait illi unus de discipulis suis, &quot;Magister, aspice quales lapides et quales structurae [column break] templi...&quot; Est ???. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuxta historiam manifestus est sensus quia quadragesimo secundo anno&#xD;&#xA;post passionem Domini sub Vaspasiano et Tito Rommanorum principibus, ita funditus est ipsa civitas eversa cum templo suo magnificentissimo ut solo coaequaretur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; R/ Quae Beato Ambrosio revelata atque ab eodem reperta in ecclesia quam ipse proprio fundavit studio ostensis miraculis sunt sepulta. Quae domini, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod etiam modo ambitus murorum qui ipsum locum circumdat, testatur eum locum Calvariae ubi Dominus extra passus est, et infra muros amplectitur. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; R/ Beatissimo Ambrosio Mediolanensi episcopo per visum apparuit quo loco laterent corpora Gervasiii et Prothasii. At ubi agnitio&lt;m&gt; sancti sacerdotis divina ostensione condonavit, invenit sanctos martyres in profundo profundo terrae sicut the[saurum], etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not an expert in thirteenth century Medieval liturgy, but based on what I know of more recent centuries, this looks to be like a part of the office for the feast day of [Sts. Protasius and Gervasius](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06537a.htm). It includes the usual variation between verses, responses, and readings, building on a general theme. Some of the narrative quotes are taken from the [*Analecta Bollandiana*](https://books.google.com/books?id=tyERAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA306&amp;lpg=PA306).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One strange part is that it launches into a Gospel before abruptly transitioning (starting with &quot;iuxta historiam&quot;) to Jerome's commentary on that Gospel. I'm not sure why this is done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6938" RevisionGUID="aa200458-e80a-4e78-8e34-6b389acacd9a" CreationDate="2018-07-28T23:39:33.063" UserId="45" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="Here is a transcription starting from the first initial with only a few lacunae. I've mostly filled in the abbreviations and added punctuation, except when I didn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cumque Anolinus huiuscemodi litteras accepisset, palam recitavit, sibique Nazarium offerri iussit. Dixitque ad eum, &quot;Iussit inclitus imperator incidi cervices tuas pariter et puerorum Gervasii et Prothasii et Celsi pueri.&quot; Nazarius respondit, &quot;Magnus Deus et magna opera eius qui nos absolvi iam iubet.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; R/ Isti sunt incliti martyres Christi Gervasius et Prothasius, qui monita Dei ardentes, spernendo mundum secuti sunt domini nostri Iesu Christi pia vestigia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; V/ Nichil terrenum, nichil carnale concupiscentes in Mediolanensi urbe in Dei servitio perdurantes manserunt. Secuti [etc.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ?: Iusti autem in perpetuum vivent et apud Dominum est  merces eorum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[up to the initial, this next line is unclear and contains many technical abbreviations. I can only make out &quot;Vos servi? Domini.&quot; The red line starts with &quot;secundum.&quot; It continues:]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In illo tempore, egrediente Iesu de templo, ait illi unus de discipulis suis, &quot;Magister, aspice quales lapides et quales structurae [column break] templi...&quot; Est ???. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuxta historiam manifestus est sensus quia quadragesimo secundo anno&#xD;&#xA;post passionem Domini sub Vaspasiano et Tito Rommanorum principibus, ita funditus est ipsa civitas eversa cum templo suo magnificentissimo ut solo coaequaretur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; R/ Quae Beato Ambrosio revelata atque ab eodem reperta in ecclesia quam ipse proprio fundavit studio ostensis miraculis sunt sepulta. Quae domini, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod etiam modo ambitus murorum qui ipsum locum circumdat, testatur eum locum Calvariae ubi Dominus extra passus est, et infra muros amplectitur. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; R/ Beatissimo Ambrosio Mediolanensi episcopo per visum apparuit quo loco laterent corpora Gervasiii et Prothasii. At ubi agnitio&lt;m&gt; sancti sacerdotis divina ostensione condonavit, invenit sanctos martyres in profundo profundo terrae sicut the[saurum], etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somes notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I'm not an expert in thirteenth century Medieval liturgy, but based on what I know of more recent centuries, this looks to be like a part of the office for the feast day of [Sts. Protasius and Gervasius](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06537a.htm). It includes the usual variation between verses, responses, and readings, building on a general theme. &#xD;&#xA;* Some of the narrative sections are taken, either word-for-word or in paraphrase, from the [*Analecta Bollandiana*](https://books.google.com/books?id=tyERAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA306&amp;lpg=PA306).&#xD;&#xA;* One strange part is that it launches into a Gospel before abruptly transitioning (starting with &quot;iuxta historiam&quot;) to Jerome's commentary on that Gospel. I'm not sure why this is done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6939" RevisionGUID="bdf30e98-407a-43ae-b0d1-ec4cfb42348c" CreationDate="2018-07-29T06:31:11.253" UserId="2704" Text="The Diccionario Griego-Español is more complete than Liddell-Scott, but only goes up to epsilon:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://dge.cchs.csic.es/xdge/βροτολοιγός&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _funesto para los mortales_ epít. de Ares Il.5.31, Od.8.115, Hes.Sc.333, Tyrt.1.47, A.Supp.665, Sch.D.T.234.14, Corn.ND 21, de Eros AP 5.180 (Mel.), 12.37 (Diosc.), de Eris, Timo SHell.795, cóm. de un pederasta o fellator Ar.Fr.969.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ares, Eros, Eris (but in the Supplementum Hellenisticum, so obscure), and as a condemnation of sexual deviancy (but in a fragment of Aristophanes, so again unlikely to be known by Procopius).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's likeliest that Procopius is referring to the Homeric and Hesiodic usage of _brotoloigos_ as an epithet of Ares (which is the usage ascribed to &quot;poets&quot;). The reason he can still use an epithet of Ares to refer to Justinian is simple: as far as any Christian of the time was concerned, the ancient Greek gods *were* demons. And a comparison of a Christian emperor to Ares would certainly not have been intended as complimentary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The picture is complicated by Procopius' [apparent scepticism towards Christian mores][1], particularly in the _Secret History_; but I don't think we need to posit that Procopius is aware of referents of _brotoilogos_ that we are not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://markmperry.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/the-religious-outlook-of-procopius-a-critical-assessment-of-the-scholarship/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6940" RevisionGUID="6759e4cb-c8ad-453a-883c-3b9681c5f2fc" CreationDate="2018-07-29T08:35:03.290" UserId="2792" Text="after advancing on German gramatically as my second foreign language, I wanted to pursue my interest in Latin. Grammar seemed to me pretty straightforward, yet so many to memorize. I'm self-teaching and intend to expand my vocabulary, however there is a part that muddles my mind up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I learnt about 1st, 2nd and 3rd Declensions (I guess there is a fourth and fifth as well but anyway). Taking into consideration that 1st Declension words 'mostly' consist of feminine ones - and for 2nd Declension same applies for masculine - is it the declension group or the gender who alters the adjective attached to the word? If I were to learn a new Latin word, should I write down its gender and declension group together? Summing up the question, which traits of a word should I memorize?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23223" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6940" RevisionGUID="6759e4cb-c8ad-453a-883c-3b9681c5f2fc" CreationDate="2018-07-29T08:35:03.290" UserId="2792" Text="On Declensions and Gender" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23224" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6940" RevisionGUID="6759e4cb-c8ad-453a-883c-3b9681c5f2fc" CreationDate="2018-07-29T08:35:03.290" UserId="2792" Text="|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23225" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6928" RevisionGUID="e87c6e59-cdde-4c43-ac4e-743279fd0c82" CreationDate="2018-07-29T12:38:54.530" UserId="2605" Comment="added greek tag" Text="|greek|adjective|noun|contraction|accidence|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23226" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6928" RevisionGUID="e87c6e59-cdde-4c43-ac4e-743279fd0c82" CreationDate="2018-07-29T12:38:54.530" Comment="Proposed by 2605 approved by 1133 edit id of 252" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6933" RevisionGUID="f351251a-6132-4f51-9db2-ff13081fdbbb" CreationDate="2018-07-29T15:32:36.603" UserId="1459" Comment="added 3177 characters in body" Text="It seems to be a sort of liturgical text. It has some structure like a main text (which is slightly in bold), probably from the Bible, and then some other text (less bold), which comes after an &quot;R:&quot; symbol, probably meaning &quot;response&quot;. There is also a further text after the &quot;b:&quot; symbol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, the main text at the bottom of the first column is [Marcus 13:1](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Marcus+13%2CMarco+13&amp;version=VULGATE;NIV). It does not fully coincide with the Vulgate version of the link, but you can see the core text is similar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Et cum egrederetur de templo, ait illi unus ex discipulis suis: Magister, aspice quales lapides, et quales structurae. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I struggle however to recognise the rest of the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: Thanks to the text reconstruction by Brian, I could expand a bit my search. In effect, it seems to be a liturgical text, related to the feast of saints [Gervasius and Protasius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gervasius_and_Protasius), celebrated on June 19. Text marked in red seems to be [rubrics](http://cantus.uwaterloo.ca/sites/default/files/documents/1.%20Quick%20Guide%20to%20Liturgy.pdf) for instructions on praying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first column starts (from the capital C) with a main (boldish) text which Brian already presented:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cumque Anolinus huiuscemodi litteras accepisset, palam recitavit, sibique Nazarium offerri iussit. Dixitque ad eum, &quot;Iussit inclitus imperator incidi cervices tuas pariter et puerorum Gervasii et Prothasii et Celsi pueri.&quot; Nazarius respondit, &quot;Magnus Deus et magna opera eius qui nos absolvi iam iubet.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot find any reference to this text, but it seems to name the saints [Nazarium and Celsus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarius_and_Celsus), which together with Gervasius and Protasius, were martyrs of Milan around the 3rd century. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, it comes the response (R):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Isti sunt inclyti martires christi geruasius et prothasius...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is related to [the feast](http://cantusindex.org/id/007017). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then it comes the versicle _Nihil terrenum, nihil carnale_, also related to [the feast](http://cantusindex.org/feast/14061900).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going to the second main text, this resembles quite well that found in a commentary on the gospel of St. Matthew by Rabanus Maurus, written in the 9th century (so it would not be a commentary by Jerome, as Brian suggested). An example of the text can be found [here](https://archive.org/stream/patrologiaecurs88unkngoog#page/n562) (cottom of page 1086).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next response (R) can also be found among the hymns related to [the feast of the martyrs](http://cantusindex.org/id/601145):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Mediolanensis urbe beatorum...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice again _Mediolanensis_ refers to the [area of Milan](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provincia_Mediolanensis) in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next response resembles that taken from a [commentary by Gregoris Turonensis](http://mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/xfromcc.php?tabelle=Gregorius_Turonensis_cps2&amp;rumpfid=Gregorius_Turonensis_cps2,%20Libri%20miraculorum,%20%20%201,%20%2047&amp;id=Gregorius_Turonensis_cps2,%20Libri%20miraculorum,%20%20%201,%20%2047&amp;level=4&amp;corpus=2&amp;current_title=CAPUT%20XLVII.%20De%20sanctis%20Gervasio%20et%20Protasio,%20Nazario%20et%20Celso.) (or [Gregory of Tours](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of_Tours), from the 6th century) on the saints Gervasio, Protasio, Nazario and Celso (also found in the Patrologia Latina). As an hymn, [it belongs](cantusindex.org/id/601145a) to the feast as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then comes another main text, followe dby another hymn related to [the feast of the saints](http://cantusindex.org/id/600214).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, it seems  pretty evident that the text, taking pieces and commentary regarding the lives of the saints here and there, and whose verses have been indexed as hymns of such feast, is a liturgical text used for celebrating the feast of sts. Protasius and Gervasius, as also Brian concluded." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="14bde3de-7b6c-4fb6-bd93-12e88bb37624" CreationDate="2018-07-29T17:16:39.717" UserId="39" Text="The best expert on this topic, imho, is Philomen Probert (Wolfson College, Oxford). She clearly writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**[A] nominative/accusative dual ending in ω always has an acute, never a circumflex, if accented on the final syllable, regardless of contraction**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόω &gt; νώ (not *νῶ);  ὀστέω &gt; ὀστώ (not *ὀστῶ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;(Probert 2003, §112)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="ae2b6c72-a784-485f-8a0f-821011f29399" CreationDate="2018-07-29T17:25:59.463" UserId="39" Comment="added 238 characters in body" Text="The best expert on this topic, imho, is Philomen Probert (Wolfson College, Oxford). She clearly writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**[A] nominative/accusative dual ending in ω always has an acute, never a circumflex, if accented on the final syllable, regardless of contraction**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόω &gt; νώ (not *νῶ);  ὀστέω &gt; ὀστώ (not *ὀστῶ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;([Probert 2003][1], §112).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similar exceptions (to the normal rules of contracted forms) she mentions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives of material in -οῦς from -εος (§122);&#xD;&#xA; - contracted nouns and adjectives in -ους from -οος (§121);&#xD;&#xA; - feminine nouns in -ώ (§127).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/new-short-guide-to-the-accentuation-of-ancient-greek-9781853995996/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6943" RevisionGUID="ce3f45f4-72be-4d75-b9a1-a194089ac265" CreationDate="2018-07-29T18:17:36.167" UserId="406" Text="Unfortunately, you need to know both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The declension of a noun determines what forms the noun itself takes. Since *poēta* &quot;poet&quot; is first declension, the nominative singular is *poēta*, the accusative singular is *poētam*, and the nominative plural is *poētae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gender of a noun, on the other hand, determines what forms adjectives take to agree with it. Even though *poēta* is first-declension, it's masculine, so a great poet is *poēta magnus*, and many great poets are *poētae magnī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes there are shortcuts to remembering: the first declension is generally feminine, the second declension is generally masculine and neuter, and the fifth declension is generally feminine. But these are guidelines rather than rules: there are counterexamples like *agricola magnus* &quot;great farmer&quot;, *humus magna* &quot;great soil&quot;, and *dies magnus* &quot;great day&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6944" RevisionGUID="4c49e8cf-ceac-4f3c-9e54-559bd9495151" CreationDate="2018-07-29T20:27:22.773" UserId="1694" Text="To follow up on my remark to @alex, the answer may be as simple as the -ώ being carried over from uncontracted -ο stems ending in -ώ.  The fact that the dual was less used than other forms might make the carry-over more likely.  (That may be a bit weak, but I haven't seen a better explanation.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6935" RevisionGUID="6bc87104-5a42-401b-b2a5-ca212f197cd7" CreationDate="2018-07-29T22:01:35.507" UserId="1142" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="The preposition *in* is one of a number of prepositions in Latin that can take both the accusative case *and* the ablative case. In the accusative, it can mean *into, against, etc.* and in the ablative, it can mean either *in, at, on,* or *upon*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *pōnō* is not a verb of motion; it indicates that something (*sacculum suum*) comes to be placed, usually on something (*in mēnsā*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of your sentence, *mēnsa* is in the ablative (*mēnsā*) to indicate that the subject of the sentence is placing something *on* or *upon* the table:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sacculum suum in mēnsā pōnit.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *He places his own sack on/upon the table.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6938" RevisionGUID="de33b692-0479-4b39-a6e9-15f9344f7635" CreationDate="2018-07-29T23:21:38.737" UserId="45" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="Here is a transcription starting from the first initial with only a few lacunae. I've mostly filled in the abbreviations and added punctuation, except when I didn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cumque Anolinus huiuscemodi litteras accepisset, palam recitavit, sibique Nazarium offerri iussit. Dixitque ad eum, &quot;Iussit inclitus imperator incidi cervices tuas pariter et puerorum Gervasii et Prothasii et Celsi pueri.&quot; Nazarius respondit, &quot;Magnus Deus et magna opera eius qui nos absolvi iam iubet.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; R/ Isti sunt incliti martyres Christi Gervasius et Prothasius, qui monita Dei ardentes, spernendo mundum secuti sunt domini nostri Iesu Christi pia vestigia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; V/ Nichil terrenum, nichil carnale concupiscentes in Mediolanensi urbe in Dei servitio perdurantes manserunt. Secuti [etc.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ?: Iusti autem in perpetuum vivent et apud Dominum est  merces eorum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[up to the initial, this next line is unclear and contains many technical abbreviations. I can only make out &quot;Vos servi? Domini.&quot; The red line starts with &quot;secundum.&quot; It continues:]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In illo tempore, egrediente Iesu de templo, ait illi unus de discipulis suis, &quot;Magister, aspice quales lapides et quales structurae [column break] templi...&quot; Est ???. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuxta historiam manifestus est sensus quia quadragesimo secundo anno&#xD;&#xA;post passionem Domini sub Vaspasiano et Tito Rommanorum principibus, ita funditus est ipsa civitas eversa cum templo suo magnificentissimo ut solo coaequaretur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; R/ Quae Beato Ambrosio revelata atque ab eodem reperta in ecclesia quam ipse proprio fundavit studio ostensis miraculis sunt sepulta. Quae domini, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod etiam modo ambitus murorum qui ipsum locum circumdat, testatur eum locum Calvariae ubi Dominus extra passus est, et infra muros amplectitur. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; R/ Beatissimo Ambrosio Mediolanensi episcopo per visum apparuit quo loco laterent corpora Gervasiii et Prothasii. At ubi agnitio&lt;m&gt; sancti sacerdotis divina ostensione condonavit, invenit sanctos martyres in profundo terrae sicut the[saurum], etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somes notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I'm not an expert in thirteenth century Medieval liturgy, but based on what I know of more recent centuries, this looks to be like a part of the office for the feast day of [Sts. Protasius and Gervasius](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06537a.htm). It includes the usual variation between verses, responses, and readings, building on a general theme. &#xD;&#xA;* Some of the narrative sections are taken, either word-for-word or in paraphrase, from the [*Analecta Bollandiana*](https://books.google.com/books?id=tyERAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA306&amp;lpg=PA306).&#xD;&#xA;* One strange part is that it launches into a Gospel before abruptly transitioning (starting with &quot;iuxta historiam&quot;) to &lt;del&gt;Jerome's&lt;/del&gt; Rabanus Maurus's (thanks, luchonacho!) commentary on that Gospel. I'm not sure why this is done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="1e4fdd3a-61eb-430a-bc7c-5ae88fd50a2f" CreationDate="2018-07-29T23:28:02.887" UserId="39" Comment="added 525 characters in body" Text="Philomen Probert (Wolfson College, Oxford) writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**[A] nominative/accusative dual ending in ω always has an acute, never a circumflex, if accented on the final syllable, regardless of contraction**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόω &gt; νώ (not *νῶ);  ὀστέω &gt; ὀστώ (not *ὀστῶ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;([Probert 2003][1], §112). This is a synchronic observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similar exceptions (to the normal rules of contracted forms) she mentions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives of material in -οῦς from -εος (§122);&#xD;&#xA; - contracted nouns and adjectives in -ους from -οος (§121);&#xD;&#xA; - feminine nouns in -ώ (§127).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I'm not quite sure yet. This oxytone could be a convention from the Alexandrian school (something passed onto us from Herodian, like [ῤάρος][2]), or something inherited from PIE (the reconstructed dual in PIE is *-h&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;e, cf. Jasanoff *-òHe# &gt; *-oH# &gt; *-ō#; we'll have to look more into data from Lithuanian and the Indo-Iranian languages), or something within Greek itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/new-short-guide-to-the-accentuation-of-ancient-greek-9781853995996/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4516/why-does-%E1%BF%A4%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82-have-a-smooth-breathing/4518" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6945" RevisionGUID="c8f853b3-798b-418e-a9e8-5a4c45c5dbd3" CreationDate="2018-07-30T00:22:23.627" UserId="406" Text="One of the Labors of Heracles involved a three-headed giant named Geryon (Γηρυών). I've never seen an explanation for this name, but at first glance it would seem to be connected to γηρύω &quot;to sing&quot; (participle γηρυών &quot;singing&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any connection between the mythological giant and singing? Otherwise, where did the name come from, if not from γηρύω?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23238" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6945" RevisionGUID="c8f853b3-798b-418e-a9e8-5a4c45c5dbd3" CreationDate="2018-07-30T00:22:23.627" UserId="406" Text="What does Geryon have to do with singing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23239" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6945" RevisionGUID="c8f853b3-798b-418e-a9e8-5a4c45c5dbd3" CreationDate="2018-07-30T00:22:23.627" UserId="406" Text="|etymology|greek|mythology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="4d73adda-39de-402a-87a0-9c252ec5daf6" CreationDate="2018-07-30T02:24:27.547" UserId="39" Comment="added 366 characters in body" Text="Philomen Probert (Wolfson College, Oxford) writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**[A] nominative/accusative dual ending in ω always has an acute, never a circumflex, if accented on the final syllable, regardless of contraction**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόω &gt; νώ (not *νῶ);  ὀστέω &gt; ὀστώ (not *ὀστῶ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;([Probert 2003][1], §112). This is a synchronic observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similar exceptions (to the normal rules of contracted forms) she mentions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives of material in -οῦς from -εος (§122);&#xD;&#xA; - contracted nouns and adjectives in -ους from -οος (§121);&#xD;&#xA; - feminine nouns in -ώ (§127).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I'm not quite sure yet. This oxytone could be a convention from the Alexandrian school (something passed onto us from Herodian, like [ῤάρος][2]), or something inherited from PIE (the reconstructed dual in PIE is *-h&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;e, cf. Jasanoff *-òHe# &gt; *-oH# &gt; *-ō#; we'll have to look more into data from Lithuanian and the Indo-Iranian languages), or something within Greek itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** It turns out my guess about the oxytone convention in nom./acc. dual was correct. Here's a screenshot from [Vendryes 1904][3] *Traité d'accentuation grecque*, where he clearly says it comes from Herodian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/new-short-guide-to-the-accentuation-of-ancient-greek-9781853995996/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4516/why-does-%E1%BF%A4%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82-have-a-smooth-breathing/4518&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/traitdaccentuati00vend&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hqiSX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="79a0c3b3-7e9b-452a-8bcf-95308a027712" CreationDate="2018-07-30T03:39:19.780" UserId="39" Comment="added 279 characters in body" Text="Philomen Probert (Wolfson College, Oxford) writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**[A] nominative/accusative dual ending in ω always has an acute, never a circumflex, if accented on the final syllable, regardless of contraction**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόω &gt; νώ (not *νῶ);  ὀστέω &gt; ὀστώ (not *ὀστῶ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;([Probert 2003][1], §112). This is a synchronic observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similar exceptions (to the normal rules of contracted forms) she mentions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives of material in -οῦς from -εος (§122);&#xD;&#xA; - contracted nouns and adjectives in -ους from -οος (§121);&#xD;&#xA; - feminine nouns in -ώ (§127).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I'm not quite sure yet. This oxytone could be a convention from the Alexandrian school (something passed onto us from Herodian, like [ῤάρος][2]), or something inherited from PIE (the reconstructed dual in PIE is *-h&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;e, cf. Jasanoff *-òHe# &gt; *-oH# &gt; *-ō#; we'll have to look more into data from Lithuanian and the Indo-Iranian languages), or something within Greek itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** It turns out my guess about the oxytone convention in nom./acc. dual was correct. Here's a screenshot from [Vendryes 1904][3] *Traité d'accentuation grecque*, where he clearly says it comes from Herodian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf.[Herodian][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/new-short-guide-to-the-accentuation-of-ancient-greek-9781853995996/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4516/why-does-%E1%BF%A4%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82-have-a-smooth-breathing/4518&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/traitdaccentuati00vend&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hqiSX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_2eLGwRFUHjUC&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6u3il.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uTVL5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="d1421654-68f5-4456-b5f2-9b86e83e74b6" CreationDate="2018-07-30T03:44:23.760" UserId="39" Comment="added 279 characters in body" Text="Philomen Probert (Wolfson College, Oxford) writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**[A] nominative/accusative dual ending in ω always has an acute, never a circumflex, if accented on the final syllable, regardless of contraction**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόω &gt; νώ (not *νῶ);  ὀστέω &gt; ὀστώ (not *ὀστῶ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;([Probert 2003][1], §112). This is a synchronic observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similar exceptions (to the normal rules of contracted forms) she mentions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives of material in -οῦς from -εος (§122);&#xD;&#xA; - contracted nouns and adjectives in -ους from -οος (§121);&#xD;&#xA; - feminine nouns in -ώ (§127).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I'm not quite sure yet. This oxytone could be a convention from the Alexandrian school (something passed onto us from Herodian, like [ῤάρος][2]), or something inherited from PIE (the reconstructed dual in PIE is *-h&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;e, cf. Jasanoff *-òHe# &gt; *-oH# &gt; *-ō#; we'll have to look more into data from Lithuanian and the Indo-Iranian languages), or something within Greek itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** It turns out my guess about the oxytone convention in nom./acc. dual was correct. Here's a screenshot from [Vendryes 1904][3] *Traité d'accentuation grecque*, where he clearly says it comes from Herodian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see [Herodian][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/new-short-guide-to-the-accentuation-of-ancient-greek-9781853995996/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4516/why-does-%E1%BF%A4%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82-have-a-smooth-breathing/4518&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/traitdaccentuati00vend&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hqiSX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_2eLGwRFUHjUC&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6u3il.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uTVL5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6947" RevisionGUID="51ae4492-15dd-4f4c-b146-36384a572d88" CreationDate="2018-07-30T05:41:02.740" UserId="2704" Text="As I noted in comment above, [Kühner–Blass did not provide][1] an explanation for the acute in νώ. For κανοῦν, on the other hand, they do note that the variable accentuation ὄστεον ~ *ὀστέον (&gt; ὀστοῦν) was noted by Herodian—though they add that penult accentuation on -εον is not otherwise attested in Greek. They admit the operation of analogy from ἁπλόος &gt; ἁπλοῦς on δίκροος &gt; δικροῦς.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schwyzer's grammar in p. 379 cites Wackernagel as accepting Herodian's variant accent *χρυσέος as underlying χρυσοῦς.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that contract accentuation is an Attic thing, which means it's an innovation in Ancient Greek. For that reason, the historical grammars aren't as strongly motivated to explain it as they would be if it was Homeric. In fact, I can't find discussion by Schwyzer of the contract dual under either the chapter on accentuation, or the chapter on declensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0019%3Asmythp%3D115" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6933" RevisionGUID="daae6cab-4516-4ad9-bca5-b077c8e78825" CreationDate="2018-07-30T07:08:27.137" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 594 characters in body" Text="**Update**: Thanks to the text reconstruction by Brian, I could expand a bit my search. In effect, it seems to be a liturgical text, related to the feast of saints [Gervasius and Protasius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gervasius_and_Protasius), celebrated on June 19. Text marked in red seems to be [rubrics](http://cantus.uwaterloo.ca/sites/default/files/documents/1.%20Quick%20Guide%20to%20Liturgy.pdf) for instructions on praying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first column starts (from the capital C) with a main (boldish) text which Brian already presented:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cumque Anolinus huiuscemodi litteras accepisset, palam recitavit, sibique Nazarium offerri iussit. Dixitque ad eum, &quot;Iussit inclitus imperator incidi cervices tuas pariter et puerorum Gervasii et Prothasii et Celsi pueri.&quot; Nazarius respondit, &quot;Magnus Deus et magna opera eius qui nos absolvi iam iubet.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot find any reference to this text, but it seems to name the saints [Nazarium and Celsus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarius_and_Celsus), which together with Gervasius and Protasius, were martyrs of Milan around the 3rd century. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, it comes the response (R):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Isti sunt inclyti martires christi geruasius et prothasius...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is to [the feast](http://cantusindex.org/id/007017) of these saints. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then it comes the versicle _Nihil terrenum, nihil carnale_, also related to [the feast](http://cantusindex.org/feast/14061900) of the saints.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going to the second main text, this resembles quite well that found in a commentary on the gospel of St. Matthew (regarding the destruction of the temple; text closer to [Mark 13:1](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Marcus+13%2CMarco+13&amp;version=VULGATE;NIV) though) by Rabanus Maurus, written in the 9th century (so it would not be a commentary by Jerome, as Brian suggested). An example of the text can be found [here](https://archive.org/stream/patrologiaecurs88unkngoog#page/n562) (bottom of page 1086).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next response (R) can also be found among the hymns related to [the feast of the martyrs](http://cantusindex.org/id/601145):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Mediolanensis urbe beatorum...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice again _Mediolanensis_ refers to the [area of Milan](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provincia_Mediolanensis) in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next response resembles that taken from a [commentary by Gregoris Turonensis](http://mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/xfromcc.php?tabelle=Gregorius_Turonensis_cps2&amp;rumpfid=Gregorius_Turonensis_cps2,%20Libri%20miraculorum,%20%20%201,%20%2047&amp;id=Gregorius_Turonensis_cps2,%20Libri%20miraculorum,%20%20%201,%20%2047&amp;level=4&amp;corpus=2&amp;current_title=CAPUT%20XLVII.%20De%20sanctis%20Gervasio%20et%20Protasio,%20Nazario%20et%20Celso.) (or [Gregory of Tours](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of_Tours), from the 6th century) on the saints Gervasio, Protasio, Nazario and Celso (also found in the Patrologia Latina). As an hymn, [it also belongs](cantusindex.org/id/601145a) to the feast of the saints.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then comes another main text, followed by another hymn related to [the feast of the saints](http://cantusindex.org/id/600214).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, it seems pretty evident that the text, taking pieces and commentary regarding the lives of the saints here and there, and whose verses have been indexed as hymns of such feast, is a liturgical text used for celebrating the feast of Sts. Protasius and Gervasius, as also Brian concluded." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="fc22b84d-ec17-4d6d-9215-3d7df4c509fd" CreationDate="2018-07-30T13:15:49.067" UserId="39" Comment="added 300 characters in body" Text="Philomen Probert (Wolfson College, Oxford) writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**[A] nominative/accusative dual ending in ω always has an acute, never a circumflex, if accented on the final syllable, regardless of contraction**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόω &gt; νώ (not *νῶ);  ὀστέω &gt; ὀστώ (not *ὀστῶ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;([Probert 2003][1], §112). This is a synchronic observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similar exceptions (to the normal rules of contracted forms) she mentions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives of material in -οῦς from -εος (§122);&#xD;&#xA; - contracted nouns and adjectives in -ους from -οος (§121);&#xD;&#xA; - feminine nouns in -ώ (§127).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I'm not quite sure yet. This oxytone could be a convention from the Alexandrian school (something passed onto us from Herodian, like [ῤάρος][2]), or something inherited from PIE (the reconstructed dual in PIE is *-h&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;e, cf. Jasanoff *-òHe# &gt; *-oH# &gt; *-ō#; we'll have to look more into data from Lithuanian and the Indo-Iranian languages), or something within Greek itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** It turns out my guess about the oxytone convention in nom./acc. dual was correct. Here's a screenshot from [Vendryes 1904][3] *Traité d'accentuation grecque*, where he clearly says it comes from Herodian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see [Herodian][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what Schwyzer 1953/1990 writes about such cases on page 562 (zusatz 5):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;die einsilbigen wie νοῦς wurden vereinzelt umgebildet [...] ; bes. seit hellenistischer Zeit braucht man häufug die ionischen offenen Formen (z.B. ὀστέον χρυσέος) oder man bildet z.B. von aus neuen Nominative: Ersatzwort für ist .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/new-short-guide-to-the-accentuation-of-ancient-greek-9781853995996/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4516/why-does-%E1%BF%A4%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82-have-a-smooth-breathing/4518&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/traitdaccentuati00vend&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hqiSX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_2eLGwRFUHjUC&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6u3il.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uTVL5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6948" RevisionGUID="251d9552-4dae-4ba2-bba1-d81899c0a034" CreationDate="2018-07-30T15:09:56.870" UserId="2794" Text="I am not familiar with latin language, but I found an engraving on a bench at the graveyard, that made me curious. It sais &quot;vivos voco pedibus ioco&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate is not really helpful, as it translates this to &quot;I call living feet joke&quot;. Does it mean that the bench &quot;calls living feet a joke / finds living feet funny&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23248" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6948" RevisionGUID="251d9552-4dae-4ba2-bba1-d81899c0a034" CreationDate="2018-07-30T15:09:56.870" UserId="2794" Text="vivos voco pedibus ioco" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23249" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6948" RevisionGUID="251d9552-4dae-4ba2-bba1-d81899c0a034" CreationDate="2018-07-30T15:09:56.870" UserId="2794" Text="|translation|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6948" RevisionGUID="813a3ad3-edfc-432b-82c7-9644f7b637c4" CreationDate="2018-07-30T15:14:51.390" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I am not familiar with Latin, but I found an engraving on a bench at the graveyard, that made me curious. It says,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vivos voco pedibus ioco. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate is not really helpful, as it translates this to &quot;I call living feet joke&quot;. Does it mean that the bench &quot;calls living feet a joke / finds living feet funny&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23251" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6948" RevisionGUID="813a3ad3-edfc-432b-82c7-9644f7b637c4" CreationDate="2018-07-30T15:14:51.390" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What does &quot;Vivos voco pedibus ioco&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23252" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6948" RevisionGUID="813a3ad3-edfc-432b-82c7-9644f7b637c4" CreationDate="2018-07-30T15:14:51.390" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|meaning|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6948" RevisionGUID="80d52258-4d62-4320-a1a9-97e42ded45b8" CreationDate="2018-07-30T15:36:05.617" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="I am not familiar with Latin, but I found an engraving on a bench at the graveyard, that made me curious. It says,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vivos voco pedibus ioco. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate is not really helpful, as it translates this to &quot;I call living feet joke&quot;. Does it mean that the bench &quot;calls living feet a joke / finds living feet funny&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6949" RevisionGUID="3e57bd38-f0f1-4647-80ab-b2b89d8a0db6" CreationDate="2018-07-30T16:52:05.910" UserId="522" Text="**&quot;Vivos voco&quot;** means 'I call out to the living;' 'I say &quot;Hi,&quot; to the living.'  Or perhaps it's the bench, which is calling an invitation, 'I call people.' And it probably reflects the personality of the friendly person who is remembered by the gift of the bench.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Pedibus ioco&quot;** means  &quot;on foot, with a joke.&quot; It is part of a description of an important person who knows everyone by name, is ready to stop and share a joke, doesn't stand on ceremony. This person doesn't need transport to the senate; &quot;on foot&quot; is better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paragraph 53, Libro 2 (Divus Augustus), De Vita Caesarum **Suetonius.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In consulatu **pedibus** fere, extra consulatum saepe adoperta sella per&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... tanta comitate adeuntium desideria excipiens, ut quendam **ioco**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corripuerit, quod sic sibi ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6914" RevisionGUID="3f4ca81e-4c44-4947-a8c7-a01fa78a40cc" CreationDate="2018-07-30T19:44:05.093" UserId="1142" Comment="Ack, duplicated word. Mea culpa!" Text="How would I translate the phrase “child of freedom&quot; in feminine form? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23256" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6914" RevisionGUID="3f4ca81e-4c44-4947-a8c7-a01fa78a40cc" CreationDate="2018-07-30T19:44:05.093" Comment="Proposed by 1142 approved by 1459, 469 edit id of 251" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6949" RevisionGUID="9ebf9bc9-356d-4871-b892-0cb3d9a2ceb8" CreationDate="2018-07-30T20:08:18.047" UserId="522" Comment="modified extract, added translation" Text="**&quot;Vivos voco&quot;** means 'I call out to the living;' 'I say &quot;Hi,&quot; to the living.'  Or perhaps it's the bench, which is calling an invitation, 'I call people.' And it probably reflects the personality of the friendly person who is remembered by the gift of the bench.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Pedibus ioco&quot;** means  &quot;on foot, with a joke.&quot; It is part of a description of an important person who knows everyone by name, is ready to stop and share a joke, doesn't stand on ceremony. This person doesn't need transport to the senate; &quot;on foot&quot; is better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paragraph 53, Libro 2 (Divus Augustus), De Vita Caesarum **Suetonius.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In consulatu **pedibus** fere ... Promiscuis salutationibus admittebat et plebem. Tanta comitate adeuntium desideria excipiens, ut quendam **ioco**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corripuerit, quod sic sibi libellum porrigere dubitaret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot; In his consulship he commonly went **on foot.** ...His morning receptions were open to all, including even the commons, meeting the requests of those who approached him with so great friendliness that he reproved one man **with a joke** because he presented a petition to him with such hesitation.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full text of Suetonius 'Caesars' Bk2 ch53 can be found on Prof [Thayer's][1] site on which this heavily relies.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/suetonius/12caesars/augustus*.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="cb16f53d-2426-460f-ba10-bc1f2b230e56" CreationDate="2018-07-30T21:02:33.157" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 463 characters in body" Text="Philomen Probert (Wolfson College, Oxford) writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**[A] nominative/accusative dual ending in ω always has an acute, never a circumflex, if accented on the final syllable, regardless of contraction**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόω &gt; νώ (not *νῶ);  ὀστέω &gt; ὀστώ (not *ὀστῶ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;([Probert 2003][1], §112). This is a synchronic observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similar exceptions (to the normal rules of contracted forms) she mentions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives of material in -οῦς from -εος (§122);&#xD;&#xA; - contracted nouns and adjectives in -ους from -οος (§121);&#xD;&#xA; - feminine nouns in -ώ (§127).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I'm not quite sure yet. We “inherited” this convention from the ancient grammarians - more details on this soon. So far, a screenshot from [Vendryes 1904][3] *Traité d'accentuation grecque*, where he clearly says it comes from Herodian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see [Herodian][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, this is a “rule” passed upon us from the ancient grammarians. However, I am not aware of any explanation offered by professional linguists. It is always mentioned as an exception, be it Kiparsky or Probert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/new-short-guide-to-the-accentuation-of-ancient-greek-9781853995996/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4516/why-does-%E1%BF%A4%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82-have-a-smooth-breathing/4518&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/traitdaccentuati00vend&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hqiSX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_2eLGwRFUHjUC&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6u3il.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uTVL5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="f2eb8088-c906-4edb-ae4e-7cff4b1d1af0" CreationDate="2018-07-30T21:08:23.200" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 463 characters in body" Text="Philomen Probert (Wolfson College, Oxford) writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**[A] nominative/accusative dual ending in ω always has an acute, never a circumflex, if accented on the final syllable, regardless of contraction**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόω &gt; νώ (not *νῶ);  ὀστέω &gt; ὀστώ (not *ὀστῶ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;([Probert 2003][1], §112). This is a synchronic observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similar exceptions (to the normal rules of contracted forms) she mentions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives of material in -οῦς from -εος (§122);&#xD;&#xA; - contracted nouns and adjectives in -ους from -οος (§121);&#xD;&#xA; - feminine nouns in -ώ (§127).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I'm not quite sure yet. We “inherited” this convention from the ancient grammarians - more details on this soon. So far, a screenshot from [Vendryes 1904][3] *Traité d'accentuation grecque*, where he clearly says it comes from Herodian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see [Herodian][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, this is a “rule” passed upon us from the ancient grammarians. However, I am not aware of any explanation offered by professional linguists. It is always mentioned as an exception, be it Kiparsky or Probert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we could always say it is irregular and due to analogy - see the relevant part in Lejeune, for instance - but imho this is rather “defeatist” and it’s not really good linguistics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/new-short-guide-to-the-accentuation-of-ancient-greek-9781853995996/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4516/why-does-%E1%BF%A4%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82-have-a-smooth-breathing/4518&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/traitdaccentuati00vend&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hqiSX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_2eLGwRFUHjUC&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6u3il.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uTVL5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6950" RevisionGUID="ead10455-6be4-411d-a9c4-c17396eb973d" CreationDate="2018-07-30T21:19:29.503" UserId="469" Text="Daughters of freedom could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Libertatis filiae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  *[libertas][1]* means freedom, *libertatis* is the *genitive*, making it mean **of freedom**&#xD;&#xA;* *filius* means son, in its feminine form, *[filia][2]* means daughter. *Filiae* is the plural form, **daughters**&#xD;&#xA;* In Latin, word order is rather free&amp;mdash;you could also say *filiae libertatis*&amp;mdash;, but it's common to put the modifying genitive before the noun being modified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlibertas&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfilia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6951" RevisionGUID="66b399db-bce0-4b74-b3c3-3acaf35e2db5" CreationDate="2018-07-30T22:27:51.700" UserId="2796" Text="Just wanting to add to brianpck's helpful answer since my account is too new to comment yet. The abrupt transition from a Gospel snippet to a patristic commentary on that Gospel is a standard feature of the Office of Matins on important liturgical days. It's still found in the most recent pre-Vatican-II edition of the Roman Breviary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The snippet is the opening of the Gospel of the day's Mass. The words after **templi** are **et rel.**; i.e., **et reliqua** (*and the rest*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is a brief recollection, or if you will, a preview, of the day's Gospel, with commentary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6951" RevisionGUID="4d95c603-1898-45a8-bc15-0db8847e5172" CreationDate="2018-07-30T22:56:00.313" UserId="2796" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="Just wanting to add to brianpck's helpful answer since my account is too new to comment yet. The abrupt transition from a Gospel snippet to a patristic commentary on that Gospel is a standard feature of the Office of Matins on important liturgical days. It's still found in the most recent pre-Vatican-II edition of the Roman Breviary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The snippet is the opening of the Gospel of the day's Mass. The words after **templi** are **et rel.**; i.e., **et reliqua** (*and the rest*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is a brief recollection, or if you will, a preview, of the day's Gospel, with commentary. In recent breviaries this would be found in the final nocturn of Matins in place of the more extended hagiographical or patristic readings found in the other nocturns." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="1c0189db-c871-44ab-8bd9-9d51bb0c75e4" CreationDate="2018-07-31T00:16:42.893" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body" Text="Philomen Probert (Wolfson College, Oxford) writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**[A] nominative/accusative dual ending in ω always has an acute, never a circumflex, if accented on the final syllable, regardless of contraction**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόω &gt; νώ (not *νῶ);  ὀστέω &gt; ὀστώ (not *ὀστῶ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;([Probert 2003][1], §112). This is a synchronic observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similar exceptions (to the normal rules of contracted forms) she mentions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives of material in -οῦς from -εος (§122);&#xD;&#xA; - contracted nouns and adjectives in -ους from -οος (§121);&#xD;&#xA; - feminine nouns in -ώ (§127).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I'm not quite sure yet. We “inherited” this convention from the ancient grammarians - more details on this soon. So far, a screenshot from [Vendryes 1904][3] *Traité d'accentuation grecque*, where he clearly says it comes from Herodian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see [Herodian][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, this is a “rule” passed upon us from the ancient grammarians. However, I am not aware of any explanation offered by professional linguists. It is always mentioned as an exception, be it Kiparsky or Probert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we could always say it is irregular and due to analogy - see the relevant part in Lejeune, for instance - but I would advise caution not to overuse it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/new-short-guide-to-the-accentuation-of-ancient-greek-9781853995996/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4516/why-does-%E1%BF%A4%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82-have-a-smooth-breathing/4518&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/traitdaccentuati00vend&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hqiSX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_2eLGwRFUHjUC&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6u3il.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uTVL5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6952" RevisionGUID="babd5ca7-687f-4798-9077-ba679687b9e1" CreationDate="2018-07-31T00:37:50.427" UserId="2797" Text="I'm not an expert of latin, but considering the person doing the engraving may not have been either, I'll propose my alternative translation here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it was already said, **Vivus voco** can mean _I call people_. Differently from the other answer, though, I think here **ioco** could mean _game_ (if intended as a noun) or _play_ (if intended as a verb) instead of _joke_.&#xD;&#xA;**Pedibus** is the plural ablative of **pes** (_foot_), so the full sentence could be roughly translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I call people to the game with feet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I call people, I play with feet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where the game with feet could be for example a reference to soccer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6949" RevisionGUID="4f4857cf-2d08-4eea-9096-000e3b9ea1de" CreationDate="2018-07-31T01:42:22.043" UserId="522" Comment="alternative translations added." Text="The motto is extremely succinct. It also contains alternative meanings (such as the translation by cnread in *comments* ) which may form subtexts, riffs or puns. I have taken the primary meaning as the 'voice' of the person to whom the bench is dedicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Vivos voco&quot;** means 'I call out to the living;' 'I say &quot;Hi,&quot; to the living.'  Or perhaps it's the bench, which is calling an invitation, 'I call people.' And it probably reflects the personality of the friendly person who is remembered by the gift of the bench.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Pedibus ioco&quot;** means  &quot;on foot, with a joke.&quot; The words form part of a description of an important person who knows everyone by name, is ready to stop and share a joke, doesn't stand on ceremony. This person doesn't need transport to the senate; &quot;on foot&quot; is better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paragraph 53, Libro 2 (Divus Augustus), [De Vita Caesarum][1] **Suetonius.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In consulatu **pedibus** fere ...tanta comitate adeuntium desideria  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; excipiens, ut quendam **ioco** corripuerit, quod sibi libellum porrigere dubitaret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot; In his consulship he commonly went **on foot.** ...meeting the requests of those who approached him with so great friendliness that he reproved one man **with a joke** because he was hesitant in presenting a petition to him.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That seems to be the dominant meaning.  &#xD;&#xA;But for surrealists, the joke could be a pun on *'vivos pedibus'* 'the living on foot, pedestrians,' and *'vivos pedibus'* (abl. pl. of *pedes* ) 'the living with their lice,' who may also be invited to share the cemetery bench, and a joke.  &#xD;&#xA;Or even, since *ioco* (active) can replace the ususal *iocor* (deponent) it could translate as &quot;I invite the living; I joke with the lice;&quot; though I've never heard anyone suggest lice had a sense of humour. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if a bench, or a cemetery, can issue an invitation (naturalistic fallacy), the sense could be, &quot;For a joke *(ioco)* I invite *(voco)* those who are alive *(vivos),* while they are still on their feet *(pedibus).* &quot; (*gratias* cnread )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/suetonius/12caesars/augustus*.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="8122e995-c5db-469b-bbf7-8408294d20d1" CreationDate="2018-07-31T02:35:05.037" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 338 characters in body" Text="Philomen Probert (Wolfson College, Oxford) writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**[A] nominative/accusative dual ending in ω always has an acute, never a circumflex, if accented on the final syllable, regardless of contraction**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόω &gt; νώ (not *νῶ);  ὀστέω &gt; ὀστώ (not *ὀστῶ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;([Probert 2003][1], §112). This is a synchronic observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similar exceptions (to the normal rules of contracted forms) she mentions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives of material in -οῦς from -εος (§122);&#xD;&#xA; - contracted nouns and adjectives in -ους from -οος (§121);&#xD;&#xA; - feminine nouns in -ώ (§127).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I'm not quite sure yet. We “inherited” this convention from the ancient grammarians (Herodian, Apollonius, John Philoponus, Theodosius of Alexandria, George Choiroboskos)  - see [Chandler 1881][2] §563 for further details, with relevant original passages in Greek on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, this is a “rule” passed upon us from the ancient grammarians. However, I am not aware of any explanation offered by professional linguists. It is always mentioned as an exception, be it Kiparsky or Probert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we could always say it is irregular and due to analogy - see the relevant part in Lejeune, for instance - but I would advise caution not to overuse it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/new-short-guide-to-the-accentuation-of-ancient-greek-9781853995996/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021602218" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6953" RevisionGUID="fedb50ad-ea13-4fd1-b717-91a7b85a64a7" CreationDate="2018-07-31T04:05:50.247" UserId="172" Text="## vivos voco. mortuos plango. fulgura frango&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I summon the living, I cry for the dead, I break lightnings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![The &quot;vivos voco&quot; engraving on the the Schiller bell][1]][1]  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;The *vivos voco* engraving on the the Schiller Bell. *Source: [Wikimedia Foundation][2]*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wait, the first two feats a church bell does indeed, but *breaking  ligtnings*???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, and the source of the first part of the inscription cited in the question is quite unambiguous. It harks back to the practice of [*Wetterläuten*, or *weather ringing*][3], a belief that ringing a consecrated church bell would repeal an approaching storm, associated with the demonic, evil forces. Perhaps the most known and one of the earliest is [the 4.5 ton bell of Schaffhausen][4] commissioned in 1486, also called the *Schiller Bell* since Friedrich Schiller used the full text of the spell as the epigraph to his [*Das Lied von der Glocke*][5], to which Goethe added an epilogue to be read at the Schiller's funeral. In fact, this inscription is quite common on church bells across Europe, from Germany to Spain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is wort noting here that the belief not merely existed among the common superstitious folk, but also condoned, if not espoused, by the clergy. The Schiller Bell was indeed commissioned by the abbey! Whether he did that out of own belief in *Wetterläuten*, or to placate the flock, I do not know, but I would not be much surprised if the former was in fact true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## pedibus ioco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I jest with (=by using) feet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paraphrase of the *vivos voco* spell does not make much sense out of context. The Latin reads clearly: the speaker makes jests by using feet. Since Latin, unlike English, does not express definiteness grammatically, it is not possible to tell whether the jests are performed using one's own feet (“the feet”) or some indefinite feet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another meaning of *pes* is a poetic meter, also expressed in English and many other languages, which is unsurprising since the word for “foot” also served as the unit of length in multiple cultures and therefore languages (Latin not being an exception).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final syllable rhyme is entirely uncharacteristic of classical poetry, but common in Medieval European verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So any possible reading does not make any sense outside of the cultural context. My best guess is that this is a clumsy translation of some local idiom, close in the meaning to “jesting with [one's?] feet (&amp;lt;extremities)” or “joking with a poetic meter.” Note that the latter reading would impart a self-referential quality to the whole verse (which is not an argument for preferring it, let me repeat myself, not knowing the proximate cultural context).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WVq85.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schillerglocke_SH_Inschrift_1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://redditblog.com/2015/10/22/why-being-a-medieval-bell-ringer-was-one-of-the-worst-jobs-in-history/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetterl%C3%A4uten&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_the_Bell" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6953" RevisionGUID="c4a8d933-ec9a-4220-b48b-e591e22fedc2" CreationDate="2018-07-31T04:21:42.893" UserId="172" Comment="Add note on the shift in perception of the lightning from the Olympian cult to Christianity" Text="## vivos voco. mortuos plango. fulgura frango&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I summon the living, I cry for the dead, I break lightnings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![The &quot;vivos voco&quot; engraving on the the Schiller bell][1]][1]  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;The *vivos voco* engraving on the the Schiller Bell. *Source: [Wikimedia Foundation][2]*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wait, the first two feats a church bell does indeed, but *breaking  ligtnings*???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, and the source of the first part of the inscription cited in the question is quite unambiguous. It harks back to the practice of [*Wetterläuten*, or *weather ringing*][3], a belief that ringing a consecrated church bell would repeal an approaching storm, associated with the demonic, evil forces. Perhaps the most known and one of the earliest is [the 4.5 ton bell of Schaffhausen][4] commissioned in 1486, also called the *Schiller Bell* since Friedrich Schiller used the full text of the spell as the epigraph to his [*Das Lied von der Glocke*][5], to which Goethe added an epilogue to be read at the Schiller's funeral. In fact, this inscription is quite common on church bells across Europe, from Germany to Spain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth noting that the belief not merely existed among the common superstitious folk, but also condoned, if not espoused, by the clergy. The Schiller Bell was indeed commissioned by the abbey! Whether he did that out of own belief in *Wetterläuten*, or to placate the flock, I do not know, but I would not be much surprised if the former was in fact true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also semantically and pragmatically notable is the Medieval use of *fulgur* as the culmination of bad weather, brought up by the evil forces. For a Roman, such a disrespect toward the lightning would be perceived as a hubris, a sacrilege; *fulgur* to them was an act of Zeus *personally present*, an awe-inspiring and deadly appearance of the Olympian in the mortal's world. For the Roman, a place struck by lighting was a sacred one, *fulgur conditum*, “chosen by lightning,” meaning by Zeus himself. For the Christian, in contrast, it was the act of the forces of Evil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## pedibus ioco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I jest with (=by using) feet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paraphrase of the *vivos voco* spell does not make much sense out of context. The Latin reads clearly: the speaker makes jests by using feet. Since Latin, unlike English, does not express definiteness grammatically, it is not possible to tell whether the jests are performed using one's own feet (“the feet”) or some indefinite feet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another meaning of *pes* is a poetic meter, also expressed in English and many other languages, which is unsurprising since the word for “foot” also served as the unit of length in multiple cultures and therefore languages (Latin not being an exception).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final syllable rhyme is entirely uncharacteristic of classical poetry, but common in Medieval European verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So any possible reading does not make any sense outside of the cultural context. My best guess is that this is a clumsy translation of some local idiom, close in the meaning to “jesting with [one's?] feet (&amp;lt;extremities)” or “joking with a poetic meter.” Note that the latter reading would impart a self-referential quality to the whole verse (which is not an argument for preferring it, let me repeat myself, not knowing the proximate cultural context).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WVq85.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schillerglocke_SH_Inschrift_1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://redditblog.com/2015/10/22/why-being-a-medieval-bell-ringer-was-one-of-the-worst-jobs-in-history/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetterl%C3%A4uten&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_the_Bell" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6953" RevisionGUID="8dbf3cf2-9e8f-4468-ac16-1fcc1d99ea08" CreationDate="2018-07-31T04:27:39.157" UserId="172" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="## vivos voco. mortuos plango. fulgura frango&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I summon the living, I cry for the dead, I break lightnings [pl.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![The &quot;vivos voco&quot; engraving on the the Schiller bell][1]][1]  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;The *vivos voco* engraving on the the Schiller Bell. *Source: [Wikimedia Foundation][2]*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wait, the first two feats a church bell does indeed, but *breaking  ligtnings*???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, and the source of the first part of the inscription cited in the question is quite unambiguous. It harks back to the practice of [*Wetterläuten*, or *weather ringing*][3], a belief that ringing a consecrated church bell would repeal an approaching storm, associated with the demonic, evil forces. Perhaps the most known and one of the earliest is [the 4.5 ton bell of Schaffhausen][4] commissioned in 1486, also called the *Schiller Bell* since Friedrich Schiller used the full text of the spell as the epigraph to his [*Das Lied von der Glocke*][5], to which Goethe added an epilogue to be read at the Schiller's funeral. In fact, this inscription is quite common on church bells across Europe, from Germany to Spain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth noting that the belief not merely existed among the common superstitious folk, but also condoned, if not espoused, by the clergy. The Schiller Bell was indeed commissioned by the abbey! Whether he did that out of own belief in *Wetterläuten*, or to placate the flock, I do not know, but I would not be much surprised if the former was in fact true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also semantically and pragmatically notable is the Medieval use of *fulgur* as the culmination of bad weather, brought up by the evil forces. For a Roman, such a disrespect toward the lightning would be perceived as a hubris, a sacrilege; *fulgur* to them was an act of Zeus *personally present*, an awe-inspiring and deadly appearance of the Olympian in the mortal's world. For the Roman, a place struck by lighting was a sacred one, *fulgur conditum*, “chosen by lightning,” meaning by Zeus himself. For the Christian, in contrast, it was the act of the forces of Evil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## pedibus ioco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I jest with (=by using) feet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paraphrase of the *vivos voco* spell does not make much sense out of context. The Latin reads clearly: the speaker makes jests by using feet. Since Latin, unlike English, does not express definiteness grammatically, it is not possible to tell whether the jests are performed using one's own feet (“the feet”) or some indefinite feet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another meaning of *pes* is a poetic meter, also expressed in English and many other languages, which is unsurprising since the word for “foot” also served as the unit of length in multiple cultures and therefore languages (Latin not being an exception).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final syllable rhyme is entirely uncharacteristic of classical poetry, but common in Medieval European verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So any possible reading does not make any sense outside of the cultural context. My best guess is that this is a clumsy translation of some local idiom, close in the meaning to “jesting with [one's?] feet (&amp;lt;extremities)” or “joking with a poetic meter.” Note that the latter reading would impart a self-referential quality to the whole verse (which is not an argument for preferring it, let me repeat myself, not knowing the proximate cultural context).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WVq85.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schillerglocke_SH_Inschrift_1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://redditblog.com/2015/10/22/why-being-a-medieval-bell-ringer-was-one-of-the-worst-jobs-in-history/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetterl%C3%A4uten&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_the_Bell" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6953" RevisionGUID="660440e0-4642-48de-8dca-1293b091c023" CreationDate="2018-07-31T04:40:04.310" UserId="172" Comment="clarify the literal meaning of _fulger conditum_" Text="## vivos voco. mortuos plango. fulgura frango&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I summon the living, I cry for the dead, I break lightnings [pl.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![The &quot;vivos voco&quot; engraving on the the Schiller bell][1]][1]  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;The *vivos voco* engraving on the the Schiller Bell. *Source: [Wikimedia Foundation][2]*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wait, the first two feats a church bell does indeed, but *breaking  ligtnings*???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, and the source of the first part of the inscription cited in the question is quite unambiguous. It harks back to the practice of [*Wetterläuten*, or *weather ringing*][3], a belief that ringing a consecrated church bell would repeal an approaching storm, associated with the demonic, evil forces. Perhaps the most known and one of the earliest is [the 4.5 ton bell of Schaffhausen][4] commissioned in 1486, also called the *Schiller Bell* since Friedrich Schiller used the full text of the spell as the epigraph to his [*Das Lied von der Glocke*][5], to which Goethe added an epilogue to be read at the Schiller's funeral. In fact, this inscription is quite common on church bells across Europe, from Germany to Spain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth noting that the belief not merely existed among the common superstitious folk, but was also condoned, if not espoused, by the clergy. The Schiller Bell was indeed commissioned by the abbey! Whether he did that out of his own belief in *Wetterläuten*, or to placate the flock, I do not know, but I would not be much surprised if the former was in fact true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also semantically and pragmatically notable is the Medieval use of *fulgur* as the culmination of bad weather, brought up by the evil forces. For a Roman, such a disrespect toward the lightning would be perceived as a hubris, a sacrilege; *fulgur* to them was an act of Zeus *personally present*, an awe-inspiring and deadly appearance of the Olympian in the mortal's world. For the Roman, a place struck by lighting was a sacred one, *fulgur conditum* (*lit.* “here lies the lightning,” as if buried), chosen by lightning, implying Zeus himself. For the Christian, in contrast, it was an act of the forces of Evil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## pedibus ioco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I jest with (=by using) feet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paraphrase of the *vivos voco* spell does not make much sense out of context. The Latin reads clearly: the speaker makes jests by using feet. Since Latin, unlike English, does not express definiteness grammatically, it is not possible to tell whether the jests are performed using one's own feet (“the feet”) or some indefinite feet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another meaning of *pes* is a poetic meter, also expressed in English and many other languages, which is unsurprising since the word for “foot” also served as the unit of length in multiple cultures and therefore languages (Latin not being an exception).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final syllable rhyme is entirely uncharacteristic of classical poetry, but common in Medieval European verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So any possible reading does not make any sense outside of the cultural context. My best guess is that this is a clumsy translation of some local idiom, close in the meaning to “jesting with [one's?] feet (&amp;lt;extremities)” or “joking with a poetic meter.” Note that the latter reading would impart a self-referential quality to the whole verse (which is not an argument for preferring it, let me repeat myself, not knowing the proximate cultural context).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WVq85.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schillerglocke_SH_Inschrift_1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://redditblog.com/2015/10/22/why-being-a-medieval-bell-ringer-was-one-of-the-worst-jobs-in-history/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetterl%C3%A4uten&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_the_Bell" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6953" RevisionGUID="198648ed-fe4f-491c-ab4b-3482b1ecf0e0" CreationDate="2018-07-31T05:35:11.423" UserId="172" Comment="Link to Carmina Burana as an example of rhymed poetry." Text="## vivos voco. mortuos plango. fulgura frango&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I summon the living, I cry for the dead, I break lightnings [pl.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![The &quot;vivos voco&quot; engraving on the the Schiller bell][1]][1]  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;The *vivos voco* engraving on the the Schiller Bell. *Source: [Wikimedia Foundation][2]*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wait, the first two feats a church bell does indeed, but *breaking  ligtnings*???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, and the source of the first part of the inscription cited in the question is quite unambiguous. It harks back to the practice of [*Wetterläuten*, or *weather ringing*][3], a belief that ringing a consecrated church bell would repeal an approaching storm, associated with the demonic, evil forces. Perhaps the most known and one of the earliest is [the 4.5 ton bell of Schaffhausen][4] commissioned in 1486, also called the *Schiller Bell* since Friedrich Schiller used the full text of the spell as the epigraph to his [*Das Lied von der Glocke*][5], to which Goethe added an epilogue to be read at the Schiller's funeral. In fact, this inscription is quite common on church bells across Europe, from Germany to Spain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth noting that the belief not merely existed among the common superstitious folk, but was also condoned, if not espoused, by the clergy. The Schiller Bell was indeed commissioned by the abbey! Whether he did that out of his own belief in *Wetterläuten*, or to placate the flock, I do not know, but I would not be much surprised if the former was in fact true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also semantically and pragmatically notable is the Medieval use of *fulgur* as the culmination of bad weather, brought up by evil forces. For a Roman, such a disrespect toward the lightning would be perceived as a hubris, a sacrilege; *fulgur* to them was an act of Zeus *personally present*, an awe-inspiring and deadly appearance of the Olympian in the mortal's world. For the Roman, a place struck by lighting was a sacred one, *fulgur conditum* (*lit.* “here lies the lightning,” as if buried), chosen by lightning, implying Zeus himself. For the Christian, in contrast, it was an act of the forces of Evil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## pedibus ioco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I jest with (=by using) feet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paraphrase of the *vivos voco* spell does not make much sense out of context. The Latin reads clearly: the speaker makes jests by using feet. Since Latin, unlike English, does not express definiteness grammatically, it is not possible to tell whether the jests are performed using one's own feet (“the feet”) or some indefinite feet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another meaning of *pes* is a poetic meter, also expressed in English and many other languages, which is unsurprising since the word for “foot” also served as the unit of length in multiple cultures and therefore languages (Latin not being an exception).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final syllable rhyme is entirely alien to classical poetry, but common in [Medieval European verse][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So any possible reading does not make any sense outside of the cultural context. My best guess is that this is a clumsy translation of some local idiom, close in the meaning to “jesting with [one's?] feet (&amp;lt;extremities)” or “joking with a [poetic] meter.” Note that the latter reading would impart a self-referential meaning to the whole verse; this is not, however, an argument for preferring it, let me repeat myself, not knowing the proximate cultural context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WVq85.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schillerglocke_SH_Inschrift_1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://redditblog.com/2015/10/22/why-being-a-medieval-bell-ringer-was-one-of-the-worst-jobs-in-history/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetterl%C3%A4uten&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_the_Bell&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmina_Burana" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6954" RevisionGUID="7ee52dca-6ca6-4fa8-a755-f483fbe5bef3" CreationDate="2018-07-31T11:57:43.633" UserId="522" Text="I woke up this morning and it even seemed quite funny, in a graveyard humour sort of way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Vivos,* 'living;' and *pedibus,* 'standing on their own two feet,' mean the same thing. Those who are alive, those who are not candidates for the graveyard in the other sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Voco,* 'I invite,' 'I welcome.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Joco,* 'I joke,' 'I jest,' 'I make witty conversation with.' Usually *Jocor* (deponent) but here active. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Alive, I welcome you; still standing, I share a joke.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6955" RevisionGUID="bc700446-1d2b-4812-ba58-a13d97d36711" CreationDate="2018-07-31T12:24:11.733" UserId="183" Text="Here is my version (bonus: gender neutral, malus: *infans* means something like &quot;newborn, toddler&quot; (generally, a child that has not yet learned how to speak):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*libertatis infans*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6938" RevisionGUID="c607074c-9c77-458b-980b-4e74aa292d49" CreationDate="2018-07-31T13:02:10.090" UserId="45" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Here is a transcription starting from the first initial with only a few lacunae. I've mostly filled in the abbreviations and added punctuation, except when I didn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cumque Anolinus huiuscemodi litteras accepisset, palam recitavit, sibique Nazarium offerri iussit. Dixitque ad eum, &quot;Iussit inclitus imperator incidi cervices tuas pariter et puerorum Gervasii et Prothasii et Celsi pueri.&quot; Nazarius respondit, &quot;Magnus Deus et magna opera eius qui nos absolvi iam iubet.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; R/ Isti sunt incliti martyres Christi Gervasius et Prothasius, qui monita Dei ardentes, spernendo mundum secuti sunt domini nostri Iesu Christi pia vestigia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; V/ Nichil terrenum, nichil carnale concupiscentes in Mediolanensi urbe in Dei servitio perdurantes manserunt. Secuti [etc.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ?: Iusti autem in perpetuum vivent et apud Dominum est  merces eorum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[up to the initial, this next line is unclear and contains many technical abbreviations. I can only make out &quot;Vos servi? Domini.&quot; The red line starts with &quot;secundum.&quot; It continues:]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In illo tempore, egrediente Iesu de templo, ait illi unus de discipulis suis, &quot;Magister, aspice quales lapides et quales structurae [column break] templi...&quot; et rel[iqua]. (h/t Ben)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuxta historiam manifestus est sensus quia quadragesimo secundo anno&#xD;&#xA;post passionem Domini sub Vaspasiano et Tito Rommanorum principibus, ita funditus est ipsa civitas eversa cum templo suo magnificentissimo ut solo coaequaretur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; R/ Quae Beato Ambrosio revelata atque ab eodem reperta in ecclesia quam ipse proprio fundavit studio ostensis miraculis sunt sepulta. Quae domini, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod etiam modo ambitus murorum qui ipsum locum circumdat, testatur eum locum Calvariae ubi Dominus extra passus est, et infra muros amplectitur. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; R/ Beatissimo Ambrosio Mediolanensi episcopo per visum apparuit quo loco laterent corpora Gervasiii et Prothasii. At ubi agnitio&lt;m&gt; sancti sacerdotis divina ostensione condonavit, invenit sanctos martyres in profundo terrae sicut the[saurum], etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somes notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I'm not an expert in thirteenth century Medieval liturgy, but based on what I know of more recent centuries, this looks to be like a part of the office for the feast day of [Sts. Protasius and Gervasius](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06537a.htm). It includes the usual variation between verses, responses, and readings, building on a general theme. &#xD;&#xA;* Some of the narrative sections are taken, either word-for-word or in paraphrase, from the [*Analecta Bollandiana*](https://books.google.com/books?id=tyERAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA306&amp;lpg=PA306).&#xD;&#xA;* One strange part is that it launches into a Gospel before abruptly transitioning (starting with &quot;iuxta historiam&quot;) to &lt;del&gt;Jerome's&lt;/del&gt; Rabanus Maurus's (thanks, luchonacho!) commentary on that Gospel. I'm not sure why this is done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6938" RevisionGUID="da66a416-387f-4516-b8d1-b42c3b2f2eef" CreationDate="2018-07-31T13:11:24.247" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Here is a transcription starting from the first initial with only a few lacunae. I've mostly filled in the abbreviations and added punctuation, except when I didn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cumque Anolinus huiuscemodi litteras accepisset, palam recitavit, sibique Nazarium offerri iussit. Dixitque ad eum, &quot;Iussit inclitus imperator incidi cervices tuas pariter et puerorum Gervasii et Prothasii et Celsi pueri.&quot; Nazarius respondit, &quot;Magnus Deus et magna opera eius qui nos absolvi iam iubet.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; R/ Isti sunt incliti martyres Christi Gervasius et Prothasius, qui monita Dei ardentes, spernendo mundum secuti sunt domini nostri Iesu Christi pia vestigia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; V/ Nichil terrenum, nichil carnale concupiscentes in Mediolanensi urbe in Dei servitio perdurantes manserunt. Secuti [etc.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ?: Iusti autem in perpetuum vivent et apud Dominum est  merces eorum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[up to the initial, this next line is unclear and contains many technical abbreviations. I can only make out &quot;Vos servi? Domini.&quot; The red line starts with &quot;secundum.&quot; It continues:]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In illo tempore, egrediente Iesu de templo, ait illi unus de discipulis suis, &quot;Magister, aspice quales lapides et quales structurae [column break] templi...&quot; et rel[iqua]. (h/t Ben)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuxta historiam manifestus est sensus quia quadragesimo secundo anno&#xD;&#xA;post passionem Domini sub Vaspasiano et Tito Rommanorum principibus, ita funditus est ipsa civitas eversa cum templo suo magnificentissimo ut solo coaequaretur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; R/ Quae Beato Ambrosio revelata atque ab eodem reperta in ecclesia quam ipse proprio fundavit studio ostensis miraculis sunt sepulta. Quae domini, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod etiam modo ambitus murorum qui ipsum locum circumdat, testatur eum locum Calvariae ubi Dominus extra passus est, et infra muros amplectitur. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; R/ Beatissimo Ambrosio Mediolanensi episcopo per visum apparuit quo loco laterent corpora Gervasiii et Prothasii. At ubi agnitio&lt;m&gt; sancti sacerdotis divina ostensione condonavit, invenit sanctos martyres in profundo terrae sicut the[saurum], etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I'm not an expert in thirteenth century Medieval liturgy, but based on what I know of more recent centuries, this looks to be like a part of the office for the feast day of [Sts. Protasius and Gervasius](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06537a.htm). It includes the usual variation between verses, responses, and readings, building on a general theme. &#xD;&#xA;* Some of the narrative sections are taken, either word-for-word or in paraphrase, from the [*Analecta Bollandiana*](https://books.google.com/books?id=tyERAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA306&amp;lpg=PA306).&#xD;&#xA;* One strange part is that it launches into a Gospel before abruptly transitioning (starting with &quot;iuxta historiam&quot;) to &lt;del&gt;Jerome's&lt;/del&gt; Rabanus Maurus's (thanks, luchonacho!) commentary on that Gospel. I'm not sure why this is done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6956" RevisionGUID="11b5c9f4-c324-41e6-bfe9-4b764e02a06a" CreationDate="2018-07-31T14:06:28.607" UserId="45" Text="The previous answers have provided a lot of creative ways to understand the phrase, but I'll provide another angle: **The meaning is, at best, arcane or, more likely, nonsense.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Vivos voco* has an unambiguous meaning that has already been expounded, so the question is how we can construe *pedibus ioco* with it. I see two branches:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Pedibus* and *ioco* are both ablative of means describing &quot;how&quot; the living are greeted. The most convincing interpretation interpretation of this, made by Hugh, only makes slight sense. As cnread noted, the two words in Suetonius all are embedded in a specific context (e.g. Augustus *reproved* his petitioner *with a joke*). The fact that they have no conjunction between them makes it all extremely awkward.&#xD;&#xA;* *Ioco* is a verb. In this case, *pedibus* describes how the bench is joking. This has two problems:&#xD;&#xA; 1. *Iocor* is a deponent verb. Though later Latin (and possibily Plautus) use it non-deponently, it would be a strange choice, except perhaps to preserve rhyme.&#xD;&#xA; 2. More important: &quot;jesting/playing with feet&quot; doesn't make any sense, both on its own and even more so in the context of a graveyard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's fun to come up with possible readings of the phrase, but these considerations lead me to conclude that this is either bad Latin or an inside joke." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6957" RevisionGUID="534374aa-8c60-4369-a328-39d976ed00f6" CreationDate="2018-07-31T17:24:16.713" UserId="1142" Text="The other answers here are okay, but they all appear to be fixated on providing one singular “correct” translation for such a broad phrase. As such, I will attempt to provide as many as possible, all fitting a variety of scenarios.&#xA;&#xA;Before we begin to approach *of freedom* and the ways it can be interpreted, let’s simply start with *child*. In this case I would simply suggest *puera*, feminine form of *puer*. It retains the meaning of *[female] child* without carrying any other connotations, like *filia*, *puella*, and others do. &#xA;&#xA;There are a number of ways *freedom* can be approached here. For the sake of simplicity, I will assume that you are simply referring to *libertās*, meaning *civil liberty, freedom, freedom of speech, etc.* There are other types of freedom however, *licentia*, *vacātiō*, *immūnitās*, and others. They may be worth looking into if you meant something different.&#xA;&#xA;If you are simply talking about a child who embodies the qualities of freedom, then a genitive or ablative of description should suffice:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; *puera libertātis* aut *libertātis puera*&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; *puera libertāte* aut *libertāte puera*&#xA;&#xA;If you are talking about a more abstract idea, a child being “born” of freedom (e.g, a child born and raised into the ideas of a revolution), then I might suggest the ablative of source or material instead:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; *puera ex libertāte* aut *ex libertāte puera*&#xA;&#xA;On a somewhat different note, if you are attempting, through *child of freedom*, to refer to a freed child slave, then I might suggest the following:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; *liberta* &#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; *puera lībera* aut *lībera puera*&#xA;&#xA;However, take these with a grain of salt – as far as I can tell, *liberta* usually referred to fully grown adult freewomen and *puera lībera* simply means *free child*. I am not sure of (a) the historicity of child slaves in Rome and (b) by extension, if there was such a way to express the concept of “a freed child slave”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6958" RevisionGUID="ad283362-807a-4828-88e4-ba78a0104c68" CreationDate="2018-07-31T18:39:07.010" UserId="172" Text="The Latin idiom (the appropriate way of stringing words together to express a thought) is different from that of English. It is very easy to come up with a *literal* translation: “freedom” is *libertas*, the female child is, you guessed it, daughter¹, *filia*. Put them together, *libertatis filia* (*libertatis* is the genitive case of *libertas*, meaning “of liberty”, as Rafael already explained). Problem solved!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Except it isn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In good Latin, **abstract nouns cannot act in a personal context**. The idea of liberty (which is an abstract noun) begetting or giving birth to a child would surprise a Roman. They probably could make sense of it, but it would sound like a writing of a freshman from barbarian Scythia, not of a native speaker of the refined literary language. This stands in a very big contrast with English, where we do not care too much about the semantic agent (the *thing acting*, in a wide sense) of a clause being animate, inanimate, or abstract. But Romans did. Only entities understood as animate can have children in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how did they solve this conundrum? Sure thing, the ancient speakers faced it too, didn't they? Yes they did, and the answer is we should **personify Freedom**. One can be the child of *someone called Freedom*, or familiarly representing it. Indeed, freedom was a cherished thing in the ancient world; it was the Ancient Greek who gave us the word “democracy,” and the Roman the “republic.” There must be a goddess of freedom, standing for Freedom herself, and that would not be a minor deity! [And there indeed was.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not surprisingly, it was Artemis, an independent and unrestrained huntress, worshiped as *Artemis Eleutheria*, “Artemis the Freedom”, in the ancient Lycian city of Myra, where stood [a great temple sacred to her][2]². The Greek word [ἐλευθερία][3] thus stood for both the abstract concept of liberty and the goddess personifying it. The Romans also had a similar [personification of Liberty, *Libertas*][4], which later inspired the French Marianne and American Columbia, the latter being represented in the Statue Of Liberty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So which of the ladies is going to be the mom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Romans had Libertas, Greek Eleutheria. The seemingly obvious idea is pick Libertas as the personification of Liberty, but I advise rejecting it. A motto is short and succinct by its nature, and because of this, when read, often presents an ambiguity. *Libertas* would not be perceived as a personal name here, because it is also a common Latin word for “liberty,” and this will push us back to square one. I would rather choose the Greek word for this purpose, so that it would clearly stand out, emphasizing the fact that the word was selected for a reason. That would certainly fall as a sweet touch on the educated Roman ear!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, my suggestion is _**Eleutheriae filia**_.³&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;¹ There appears to be no word for a child of indefinite sex in Latin. AFAICR, *liberi* is attested only in pl., and only rarely in sg. oblique cases. This development is paralleled by some other IE languages.  &#xD;&#xA;² Incidentally, Myra was also the birthplace of Santa Claus, or, to be precise, the historical St. Nicolas.  &#xD;&#xA;³ Greek feminine loanwords in -α [decline like Latin words in *-a*][5], if only retaining the original long vowel of the ending in the nom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://mythology.stackexchange.com/a/3264&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.livius.org/articles/place/myra-demre/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De)leuqeri%2Fa1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertas&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/1st-declension-greek-nouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6948" RevisionGUID="62b2c238-e7fe-4143-90ed-98f62ad1c60c" CreationDate="2018-07-31T19:42:58.940" UserId="2794" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="I am not familiar with Latin, but I found an engraving on a bench at the graveyard, that made me curious. It says,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vivos voco pedibus ioco. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate is not really helpful, as it translates this to &quot;I call living feet joke&quot;. Does it mean that the bench &quot;calls living feet a joke / finds living feet funny&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anyone interested, here's an image &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qhAU5.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="de941bfc-4430-47f8-ab64-01e2ee0873c1" CreationDate="2018-08-01T15:33:56.143" UserId="39" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="Philomen Probert (Wolfson College, Oxford) writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**[A] nominative/accusative dual ending in ω always has an acute, never a circumflex, if accented on the final syllable, regardless of contraction**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόω &gt; νώ (not *νῶ);  ὀστέω &gt; ὀστώ (not *ὀστῶ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;([Probert 2003][1], §112). This is a synchronic observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similar exceptions (to the normal rules of contracted forms) she mentions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives of material in -οῦς from -εος (§122);&#xD;&#xA; - contracted nouns and adjectives in -ους from -οος (§121);&#xD;&#xA; - feminine nouns in -ώ (§127).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I'm not quite sure yet. We “inherited” this convention from the ancient grammarians (Herodian, Apollonius, John Philoponus, Theodosius of Alexandria, George Choiroboskos)  - see [Chandler 1881][2] §563 for further details, with relevant original passages in Greek on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, this is a “rule” passed upon us from the ancient grammarians. However, I am not aware of any explanation offered by professional linguists. It is always mentioned as an exception, be it Kiparsky or Probert, although cf. [Kurylowicz 1932][3] : 210:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we could always say it is irregular and due to analogy - see the relevant part in Lejeune, for instance - but I would advise caution not to overuse it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/new-short-guide-to-the-accentuation-of-ancient-greek-9781853995996/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021602218&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/409650&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4btNc.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6959" RevisionGUID="5bd5d35d-213b-45eb-9646-56452bedc303" CreationDate="2018-08-01T23:02:51.060" UserId="2804" Text="I am writing a text to be sung by a small chorus for a recording, and I need a check on my Latin use, as I'm a less active student of the language than others, and don't entirely trust myself to nail it, especially when it comes to a more poetic context like this. I'll put the text in its current permutation as well as notes on what I'm trying to convey (will be English) &amp; grammar functions I'm exploiting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Latin text thus far**  &#xD;&#xA;OPERA CŌNFICIMUR  &#xD;&#xA;ET EGO AUGUR  &#xD;&#xA;CIRCUMĪRĪ ĀNULŌS  &#xD;&#xA;RĒX TITANĪ VENIŌ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IN CLAMYDE CAECĀ TUĀ  &#xD;&#xA;HŌS TREDECIM ANNŌS ĒGĪ  &#xD;&#xA;ET CITAT TIBI ADESSE  &#xD;&#xA;CAELĪ FĪLĪ VENIŌ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SENEX AD SENEM  &#xD;&#xA;LĪBERĪ TERRÆ  &#xD;&#xA;FRĀTER AD FRĀTREM  &#xD;&#xA;NŌS LIGĒS LANIĒS MĒ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ideas to convey in English** (as dryly as I can phrase it)   &#xD;&#xA;The tasks have been done (completed)  &#xD;&#xA;and I, the seer, have too. (been worn out)  &#xD;&#xA;Circling [your] rings,  &#xD;&#xA;King of Titans, I come&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your unseen cloak  &#xD;&#xA;I have spent these thirteen years  &#xD;&#xA;And it summons [me] to be near to you  &#xD;&#xA;Son of Uranus, I come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An old man to an old man,  &#xD;&#xA;Children of Gaia  &#xD;&#xA;A brother to a brother  &#xD;&#xA;Bind us together, tear me apart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes:  &#xD;&#xA;Lines 1 &amp; 2 both are meant as subject to &quot;cōnficimur&quot;, each with a different meaning of the verb  &#xD;&#xA;Line 5 - ablative of place in which (locative)  &#xD;&#xA;Line 6 - accusative of duration of time  &#xD;&#xA;Line 12 - subjunctive to imply wish rather than command  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There. Now tear it apart! I'm not going for poetic perfection (God knows I can't make dactylic hexameter work), but let me know if you think my grammar uses work or not, or if I've completely butchered an idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6959" RevisionGUID="5bd5d35d-213b-45eb-9646-56452bedc303" CreationDate="2018-08-01T23:02:51.060" UserId="2804" Text="Does this text make sense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23288" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6959" RevisionGUID="5bd5d35d-213b-45eb-9646-56452bedc303" CreationDate="2018-08-01T23:02:51.060" UserId="2804" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="3e839abf-a7e3-4a9d-9fcc-bb601e6db0e0" CreationDate="2018-08-01T23:10:29.607" UserId="39" Comment="added 667 characters in body" Text="Philomen Probert (Wolfson College, Oxford) writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**[A] nominative/accusative dual ending in ω always has an acute, never a circumflex, if accented on the final syllable, regardless of contraction**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόω &gt; νώ (not *νῶ);  ὀστέω &gt; ὀστώ (not *ὀστῶ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;([Probert 2003][1], §112). This is a synchronic observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similar exceptions (to the normal rules of contracted forms) she mentions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives of material in -οῦς from -εος (§122);&#xD;&#xA; - contracted nouns and adjectives in -ους from -οος (§121);&#xD;&#xA; - feminine nouns in -ώ (§127).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I'm not quite sure yet. We “inherited” this convention from the ancient grammarians (Apollonius and his son Herodian, John Philoponus, Theodosius of Alexandria, George Choiroboskos)  - see [Chandler 1881][2] §563 for further details, with relevant original passages in Greek on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: A lot of Greek grammars are secondary sources and are rather compilatory. In other words, quite often they merely repeat the so called &quot;rules&quot; from the earlier books. For instance, it seems that Kühner–Blass base their observation on Göttling 1835 *[Allgemeine Lehre vom Akzent der griechischen Sprache*][3] (Chandler 1881 basically repeats him too, adding only one other quotation) - here's their source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To sum up, this is a “rule” passed upon us from the ancient grammarians. However, I am not aware of any explanation offered by professional linguists. It is always mentioned as an exception, be it Kiparsky or Probert, although cf. [Kurylowicz 1932][5] : 210:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we could always say it is irregular and due to analogy - see the relevant part in Lejeune, for instance - but I would advise caution not to overuse it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/new-short-guide-to-the-accentuation-of-ancient-greek-9781853995996/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021602218&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=QJAAxzuE624C&amp;dq=G%C3%B6ttling%20Allgemeine%20Lehre%20vom%20Akzent%20der%20griechischen%20Sprache&amp;pg=PP5#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1DpzZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/409650&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4btNc.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23290" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6959" RevisionGUID="f3e7d8df-68f8-4b76-b5bc-5cde5cd9c6a7" CreationDate="2018-08-01T23:21:20.707" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6959" RevisionGUID="b2cc7c4e-ef58-4f0a-90c4-0123da053e43" CreationDate="2018-08-02T07:56:04.663" UserId="1459" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I am writing a text to be sung by a small chorus for a recording, and I need a check on my Latin use, as I'm a less active student of the language than others, and don't entirely trust myself to nail it, especially when it comes to a more poetic context like this. I'll put the text in its current permutation as well as notes on what I'm trying to convey (will be English) &amp; grammar functions I'm exploiting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Latin text thus far**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;OPERA CŌNFICIMUR  &#xD;&#xA;ET EGO AUGUR  &#xD;&#xA;CIRCUMĪRĪ ĀNULŌS  &#xD;&#xA;RĒX TITANĪ VENIŌ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;IN CLAMYDE CAECĀ TUĀ  &#xD;&#xA;HŌS TREDECIM ANNŌS ĒGĪ  &#xD;&#xA;ET CITAT TIBI ADESSE  &#xD;&#xA;CAELĪ FĪLĪ VENIŌ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;SENEX AD SENEM  &#xD;&#xA;LĪBERĪ TERRÆ  &#xD;&#xA;FRĀTER AD FRĀTREM  &#xD;&#xA;NŌS LIGĒS LANIĒS MĒ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ideas to convey in English** (as dryly as I can phrase it)   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;The tasks have been done (completed)  &#xD;&#xA;and I, the seer, have too. (been worn out)  &#xD;&#xA;Circling [your] rings,  &#xD;&#xA;King of Titans, I come&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In your unseen cloak  &#xD;&#xA;I have spent these thirteen years  &#xD;&#xA;And it summons [me] to be near to you  &#xD;&#xA;Son of Uranus, I come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;An old man to an old man,  &#xD;&#xA;Children of Gaia  &#xD;&#xA;A brother to a brother  &#xD;&#xA;Bind us together, tear me apart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes:  &#xD;&#xA;Lines 1 &amp; 2 both are meant as subject to &quot;_cōnficimur_&quot;, each with a different meaning of the verb  &#xD;&#xA;Line 5 - ablative of place in which (locative)  &#xD;&#xA;Line 6 - accusative of duration of time  &#xD;&#xA;Line 12 - subjunctive to imply wish rather than command  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There. Now tear it apart! I'm not going for poetic perfection (God knows I can't make dactylic hexameter work), but let me know if you think my grammar uses work or not, or if I've completely butchered an idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6960" RevisionGUID="0022ec37-d539-45ed-a09a-c8faadb5eec9" CreationDate="2018-08-02T09:09:58.400" UserId="1459" Text="Consider the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I met in Rome with a friend&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, &quot;in Rome&quot; and &quot;with a friend&quot; both represent the ablative case in Latin. Thus, the above could be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conveni Rōmā amīcō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(there is probably a more precise verb than _convenio_ but cannot find it; suggestions?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My core question is: is consecutive ablatives (i.e. an ablative noun followed by another ablative noun) a good practice, if ever a correct one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess you might ask, well why would it not be? My guess is that in some cases there could be ambiguity. For instance, from the context we can more or less safely deduce (?) that _Roma_ is an [ablative of place where](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablative_(Latin)#Locative_ablative), and given the verb, we could safely deduce (?) that _amico_ is an [ablative of accompaniment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablative_(Latin)#Instrumental_ablative). However, if I say instead&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;conveni Annā Casinā&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the ambiguity is more evident, because both are names in Latin ([here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Casina#Latin) and [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Anna#Latin)), and yet, both are also name of places ([here](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casina_(Italia)) and [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna,_Illinois)). Thus, in this case, it might be safer to use one noun in nominative, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;conveni Annā cum Casina&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(so I met with Casina in [the town of] Anna)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely, it could be argued that the cases in which the above confusion happens are so few that still consecutive ablatives is perfectly fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23293" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6960" RevisionGUID="0022ec37-d539-45ed-a09a-c8faadb5eec9" CreationDate="2018-08-02T09:09:58.400" UserId="1459" Text="Consecutive ablatives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23294" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6960" RevisionGUID="0022ec37-d539-45ed-a09a-c8faadb5eec9" CreationDate="2018-08-02T09:09:58.400" UserId="1459" Text="|ablative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6960" RevisionGUID="db5a6737-22b3-4296-837f-378960f9de33" CreationDate="2018-08-02T09:36:50.207" UserId="1459" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Consider the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I met in Rome with a friend&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, &quot;in Rome&quot; and &quot;with a friend&quot; both represent the ablative case in Latin. Thus, the above could be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conveni Rōmā amīcō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(there is probably a more precise verb than _convenio_ but cannot find it; suggestions?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My core question is: is consecutive ablatives (i.e. an ablative noun followed by another ablative noun) a good practice, if ever a correct one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess you might ask, well why would it not be? My guess is that in some cases there could be ambiguity. For instance, from the context we can more or less safely deduce (?) that _Roma_ refers to the city, and thus is an [ablative of place where](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablative_(Latin)#Locative_ablative), whereas we could safely deduce (?) that _amico_ is an [ablative of accompaniment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablative_(Latin)#Instrumental_ablative) (given the verb used). However, if I say instead&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;conveni Annā Casinā&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the ambiguity is more evident, because both are names in Latin ([here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Casina#Latin) and [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Anna#Latin)), and yet, both are also name of places ([here](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casina_(Italia)) and [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna,_Illinois)). Thus, in this case, it might be safer to use one noun in nominative, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;conveni Annā cum Casina&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(so I met with Casina in [the town of] Anna)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely, it could be argued that the cases in which the above confusion happens are so few that still consecutive ablatives is perfectly fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6960" RevisionGUID="e3c8ddf7-f565-4102-a9b8-5a0dae1d86ad" CreationDate="2018-08-02T11:49:09.627" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Consider the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I met in Rome with a friend&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, &quot;in Rome&quot; and &quot;with a friend&quot; both represent the ablative case in Latin. Thus, the above could be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; convēnī Rōmā amīcō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(there is probably a more precise verb than _convenio_ but cannot find it; suggestions?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My core question is: is consecutive ablatives (i.e. an ablative noun followed by another ablative noun) a good practice, if ever a correct one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess you might ask, well why would it not be? My guess is that in some cases there could be ambiguity. For instance, from the context we can more or less safely deduce (?) that _Roma_ refers to the city, and thus is an [ablative of place &quot;where&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablative_(Latin)#Locative_ablative), whereas we could safely deduce (?) that _amico_ is an [ablative of accompaniment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablative_(Latin)#Instrumental_ablative) (given the verb used). However, if I say instead&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;convēnī Annā Casinā&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the ambiguity is more evident, because both are names in Latin ([here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Casina#Latin) and [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Anna#Latin)), and yet, both are also name of places ([here](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casina_(Italia)) and [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna,_Illinois)). Thus, in this case, it might be safer to use one noun in nominative, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;convēnī Annā cum Casina&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(so I met with Casina in [the town of] Anna)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely, it could be argued that the cases in which the above confusion happens are so few that still consecutive ablatives is perfectly fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6960" RevisionGUID="e599ac20-fe34-4bf7-9416-a8a1e7660af4" CreationDate="2018-08-02T13:35:25.253" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Consider the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I met in Rome with a friend&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, &quot;in Rome&quot; and &quot;with a friend&quot; both represent the ablative case in Latin. Thus, the above could be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; convēnī Rōmā amīcō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(there is probably a more precise verb than _convenio_ but cannot find it; suggestions?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My core question is: is consecutive ablatives (i.e. an ablative noun followed by another ablative noun) a good practice, if ever a correct one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess you might ask, well why would it not be? My guess is that in some cases there could be ambiguity. For instance, from the context we can more or less safely deduce (?) that _Roma_ refers to the city, and thus is an [ablative of place](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablative_(Latin)#Locative_ablative), whereas we could safely deduce (?) that _amico_ is an [ablative of accompaniment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablative_(Latin)#Instrumental_ablative) (given the verb used). However, if I say instead&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;convēnī Annā Casinā&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the ambiguity is more evident, because both are names in Latin ([here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Casina#Latin) and [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Anna#Latin)), and yet, both are also name of places ([here](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casina_(Italia)) and [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna,_Illinois)). Thus, in this case, it might be safer to use one noun in nominative, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;convēnī Annā cum Casina&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(so I met with Casina in [the town of] Anna)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely, it could be argued that the cases in which the above confusion happens are so few that still consecutive ablatives is perfectly fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6961" RevisionGUID="05f06cc1-7c95-4054-8808-4ce38844ef76" CreationDate="2018-08-02T16:11:26.007" UserId="39" Text="It seems to me this was very rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, Pinkster 2015 postulates the following observation, based on his corpus research:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The arguments of three-place verbs are always distinctly marked (with some exceptions, [Chapter 12][1].4).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He gives the following data:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the second argument: ACC (81%), PREP (9%), DAT (6%), ABL (4%), GEN (no data);&#xD;&#xA; - the third argument: DAT (69%), ABL (18%), PREP (13%), GEN or ACC (marginally, no data);&#xD;&#xA; - the adjunct: PREP (52%), ABL (40%), DAT (7%) ACC (no data);&#xD;&#xA; - the disjunct: rarely marked by a case or preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Graphically, Pinskter represents it as follows ([Fig. 12.3][2] and [12.4][3]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;I skipped the first argument (SUBJ) because it is obviously marked by NOM (91%) or ACC (9%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613-chapter-12&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://global.oup.com/booksites/fdscontent/booksites/uk/booksites/content/9780199283613/figures/Figure_12_3.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://global.oup.com/booksites/fdscontent/booksites/uk/booksites/content/9780199283613/figures/Figure_12_4.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UNIbW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ttWgH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6961" RevisionGUID="59e91c52-5b4d-4481-ba47-135511aad626" CreationDate="2018-08-02T17:45:15.140" UserId="39" Comment="added 332 characters in body" Text="It seems to me this was very rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, Pinkster 2015 postulates the following observation, based on his corpus research:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The arguments of three-place verbs are always distinctly marked (with some exceptions, [Chapter 12][1].4).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He gives the following data:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the second argument: ACC (81%), PREP (9%), DAT (6%), ABL (4%), GEN (no data);&#xD;&#xA; - the third argument: DAT (69%), ABL (18%), PREP (13%), GEN or ACC (marginally, no data);&#xD;&#xA; - the adjunct: PREP (52%), ABL (40%), DAT (7%) ACC (no data);&#xD;&#xA; - the disjunct: rarely marked by a case or preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Graphically, Pinskter represents it as follows ([Fig. 12.3][2] and [12.4][3]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;I skipped the first argument (SUBJ) because it is obviously marked by NOM (91%) or ACC (9%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;That being said, constructions of two ablatives positioned very close to each other in the same clause are attested in Latin (the examples below are from Szantyr 1965 *Syntax und Stilistik*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;nimis sermone huius ira incendor&quot; (Pl. Ps. 201)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;hominem ... falsa opinione errore hominum ... commendatum&quot; (Cic. Sest 22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;qui secundo vento vectus est tranquillo mari&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613-chapter-12&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://global.oup.com/booksites/fdscontent/booksites/uk/booksites/content/9780199283613/figures/Figure_12_3.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://global.oup.com/booksites/fdscontent/booksites/uk/booksites/content/9780199283613/figures/Figure_12_4.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UNIbW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ttWgH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6961" RevisionGUID="46ab770c-3cc3-44a7-ad6a-f966ba56d2f8" CreationDate="2018-08-02T17:56:17.743" UserId="39" Comment="added 332 characters in body" Text="It seems to me this was very rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, Pinkster 2015 postulates the following observation, based on his corpus research:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The arguments of three-place verbs are always distinctly marked (with some exceptions, [Chapter 12][1].4).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He gives the following data:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the second argument: ACC (81%), PREP (9%), DAT (6%), ABL (4%), GEN (no data);&#xD;&#xA; - the third argument: DAT (69%), ABL (18%), PREP (13%), GEN or ACC (marginally, no data);&#xD;&#xA; - the adjunct: PREP (52%), ABL (40%), DAT (7%) ACC (no data);&#xD;&#xA; - the disjunct: rarely marked by a case or preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Graphically, Pinskter represents it as follows ([Fig. 12.3][2] and [12.4][3]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;I skipped the first argument (SUBJ) because it is obviously marked by NOM (91%) or ACC (9%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;That being said, constructions of two ablatives positioned very close to each other in the same clause are attested in Latin (the examples below are from Szantyr 1965 *Syntax und Stilistik*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;nimis sermone huius ira incendor&quot; (Pl. Ps. 201)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;hominem ... falsa opinione errore hominum ... commendatum&quot; (Cic. Sest 22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;qui secundo vento vectus est tranquillo mari&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;dextera digitis rationem computat&quot; (Pl. Mil. 204)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szantyr specifically says, in the section &quot;Zwei Akkusativ des äußeren Objekts (des Ganzen und des Teils),&quot; that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Selten ist der doppelte Abl., unbelegt der doppelte Gen., dagegen reich vertreten der doppelte Nom&quot; (§48c).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613-chapter-12&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://global.oup.com/booksites/fdscontent/booksites/uk/booksites/content/9780199283613/figures/Figure_12_3.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://global.oup.com/booksites/fdscontent/booksites/uk/booksites/content/9780199283613/figures/Figure_12_4.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UNIbW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ttWgH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6961" RevisionGUID="d2793650-884c-4664-bab8-f28dff996c0e" CreationDate="2018-08-02T18:05:18.630" UserId="39" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="It seems to me this was not very common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, Pinkster 2015 postulates the following observation, based on his corpus research:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The arguments of three-place verbs are always distinctly marked (with some exceptions, [Chapter 12][1].4).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He gives the following data:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the second argument: ACC (81%), PREP (9%), DAT (6%), ABL (4%), GEN (no data);&#xD;&#xA; - the third argument: DAT (69%), ABL (18%), PREP (13%), GEN or ACC (marginally, no data);&#xD;&#xA; - the adjunct: PREP (52%), ABL (40%), DAT (7%) ACC (no data);&#xD;&#xA; - the disjunct: rarely marked by a case or preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Graphically, Pinskter represents it as follows ([Fig. 12.3][2] and [12.4][3]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;I skipped the first argument (SUBJ) because it is obviously marked by NOM (91%) or ACC (9%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;That being said, constructions of two ablatives positioned very close to each other in the same clause are attested in Latin (the examples below are from Szantyr 1965 *Syntax und Stilistik*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;nimis sermone huius ira incendor&quot; (Pl. Ps. 201)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;hominem ... falsa opinione errore hominum ... commendatum&quot; (Cic. Sest 22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;qui secundo vento vectus est tranquillo mari&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;dextera digitis rationem computat&quot; (Pl. Mil. 204)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szantyr specifically says, in the section &quot;Zwei Akkusativ des äußeren Objekts (des Ganzen und des Teils),&quot; that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Selten ist der doppelte Abl., unbelegt der doppelte Gen., dagegen reich vertreten der doppelte Nom&quot; (§48c).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613-chapter-12&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://global.oup.com/booksites/fdscontent/booksites/uk/booksites/content/9780199283613/figures/Figure_12_3.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://global.oup.com/booksites/fdscontent/booksites/uk/booksites/content/9780199283613/figures/Figure_12_4.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UNIbW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ttWgH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6961" RevisionGUID="204449f6-7f4d-430c-bc58-469a94d1e1e4" CreationDate="2018-08-02T19:30:49.987" UserId="39" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="It seems to me this was not very common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, Pinkster 2015 postulates the following observation, based on his corpus research:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The arguments of three-place verbs are always distinctly marked (with some exceptions, [Chapter 12][1].4).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He gives the following data:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the second argument: ACC (81%), PREP (9%), DAT (6%), ABL (4%), GEN (no data);&#xD;&#xA; - the third argument: DAT (69%), ABL (18%), PREP (13%), GEN or ACC (marginally, no data);&#xD;&#xA; - the adjunct: PREP (52%), ABL (40%), DAT (7%) ACC (no data);&#xD;&#xA; - the disjunct: rarely marked by a case or preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Graphically, Pinskter represents it as follows ([Fig. 12.3][2] and [12.4][3]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;I skipped the first argument (SUBJ) because it is obviously marked by NOM (91%) or ACC (9%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;That being said, constructions of two ablatives positioned very close to each other in the same clause are attested in Latin (the examples below are from Szantyr 1965 *Syntax und Stilistik*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;nimis sermone huius ira incendor&quot; (Pl. Ps. 201)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;hominem ... falsa opinione errore hominum ... commendatum&quot; (Cic. Sest 22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;qui secundo vento vectus est tranquillo mari&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;dextera digitis rationem computat&quot; (Pl. Mil. 204)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Szantyr specifically says, in the section &quot;Zwei Akkusativ des äußeren Objekts (des Ganzen und des Teils),&quot; that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Selten ist der doppelte Abl., unbelegt der doppelte Gen., dagegen reich vertreten der doppelte Nom&quot; (§48c) [English translation: &quot;Double ablative is rare, double genitive is unattested, compared to the numerous cases of double nominative&quot;].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001/acprof-9780199283613-chapter-12&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://global.oup.com/booksites/fdscontent/booksites/uk/booksites/content/9780199283613/figures/Figure_12_3.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://global.oup.com/booksites/fdscontent/booksites/uk/booksites/content/9780199283613/figures/Figure_12_4.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UNIbW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ttWgH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6962" RevisionGUID="c2fd64bc-8168-4b11-a730-e868d48c1948" CreationDate="2018-08-02T22:12:26.047" UserId="1142" Text="In colloquial English (particularly in online discourse) the phrase &quot;in my opinion&quot; (often abbreviated as &quot;imo/IMO&quot;) is quite common. I am wondering how one might express this in an idiomatic manner in Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could take the completely literal approach and simply write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *in meā sententīa*, *in sententiā meā*, *meā sententiā*, vel *sententiā meā*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But my gut feeling tells me that the above would either (a) be intelligible to a Roman, but feel unnatural and unidiomatic or (b) be completely unintelligible to a Roman, and perhaps even ungrammatical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: how would one express the English phrase &quot;in my opinion&quot; idiomatically, in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23304" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6962" RevisionGUID="c2fd64bc-8168-4b11-a730-e868d48c1948" CreationDate="2018-08-02T22:12:26.047" UserId="1142" Text="Quōmodo verba &quot;in my opinion&quot; Latīnē loquī?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23305" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6962" RevisionGUID="c2fd64bc-8168-4b11-a730-e868d48c1948" CreationDate="2018-08-02T22:12:26.047" UserId="1142" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6963" RevisionGUID="8ae6c87a-ec53-4f2f-afbb-c496305781be" CreationDate="2018-08-03T03:03:45.917" UserId="1142" Text="# Lines 1 &amp; 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You state in your notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Lines 1 &amp; 2 both are meant as subject to &quot;cōnficimur&quot;, each with a different meaning of the verb*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if this is the case, then you should not be using *cōnficiō* in the first person plural. Furthermore, in your provided translation you explicitly state &quot;have been done&quot;, indicating a completed past action, i.e, the perfect. As such, given this, and the fact that your subject is a plural group (&quot;tasks&quot; and &quot;I&quot;), *cōnficiō* should be in the *3rd person plural perfect passive indicative*, not the *1st person singular present passive indicative*, thus making lines one and two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Opera cōnfectī sunt  &#xD;&#xA;Et egō augur &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Line 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your translation, you specify that line three should be interpreted as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Circling [your] rings*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell from context, *circling* is being used as a participle here, describing *egō*, the last stated subject. However, for some reason, you used the *present passive infinitive*, which is translated as *to be circulated*. Utilizing a participle, it should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Circumiēns ānulōs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Line 4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Line four is mostly fine, however, Titan is not in the correct case or number. It should be in the genitive plural. If you are using the form *Tītānus, Tītānī, m.*, then line four should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rēx Tītānōrum, veniō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you are using the form *Tītan, Tītānis, m.*, then line four should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rēx Tītānum, veniō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Line 5 &amp; 6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the incorrect labeling in your notes of a prepositional phrase as the locative, line five is essentially fine. I might suggest, however, using the adjective *invīsus, invīsa, invīsum* over *caecus, caeca, caecum*, since *caecus* can also carry the connotation of *blind*, whereas invīsus can simply be translated as *unseen*, how you originally intended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the noun *clamys* carries a very specific connotation. It is a cloak or a cape, but usually of a ceremonial or Greek military type (see [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/clamys#Latin)). I would suggest the noun *pallium* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Line six is fine. You did, however, incorrectly label &quot;hōs tredecim annōs&quot; as an accusative of duration of time. In this context, it is simply the object of &quot;ēgī&quot;, indicating *I spent/consumed these thirteen years*. An accusative of duration of time would usually be translated as *for [time]* and is used to indicate the time spent doing something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Line 7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Line seven feels extremely awkward. In your translation you state that the direct object of *it summons* is *me*, yet don't provide this in your Latin, making it rather nonsensical. Furthermore, *adsum* doesn't really carry the connotation of *being near* something. Rather, it deals more with being present or arriving at something. I would suggest scrapping the entire phrase and going with something more like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et iubet mē esse prope tē&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Line 8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really sure how you managed to extricate *Uranus* from *caelum*. It means *sky*. *Uranus* in Latin is... well... *Ūranus*. Line eight should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Filī Ūranī, veniō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Line 10&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a similar vein to the mistake you made in line eight, you somehow managed to extricate *children* from *līberī*. *Līber* is an adjective meaning *free*. *Children* would be *puerī*. Line ten should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Puerī terrae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# In short&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To conclude, your full poem should be rendered as follows. You may have to make some adjustments, especially if you are trying to fit a meter, need a specific word order, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Opera cōnfectī sunt  &#xD;&#xA;Et egō augur  &#xD;&#xA;Circumiēns ānulōs  &#xD;&#xA;Rēx Tītānum, veniō  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In palliō invīsō tuō  &#xD;&#xA;Hōs tredecim annōs ēgī  &#xD;&#xA;Et iubet mē esse prope tē  &#xD;&#xA;Filī Ūranī, veniō  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Senex ad senem  &#xD;&#xA;Puerī terrae  &#xD;&#xA;Frāter ad frātrem  &#xD;&#xA;Nōs ligēs, laniēs mē" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6964" RevisionGUID="451979b9-d4a9-4de4-b4fe-7f4c08d96ef6" CreationDate="2018-08-03T09:15:07.227" UserId="1459" Text="Consider [Deuteronomy 28:30](http://sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/deu028.htm), in the Vulgata:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Uxorem accipias, et alius dormiat cum ea. Domum ædifices, et non habites in ea. Plantes vineam, et non vindemies eam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So _uxorem_, _domum_, _vineam_, and _eam_ are all in accusative. This is, they decline pro/nouns acting as direct objects to a transitive verb. However, because the verb is already declined (and thus indicating the person/subject &quot;acting&quot; the verb), further declining the direct object seems to me redundant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, if we use the nominative instead, we would get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Uxor accipias, et alius dormiat cum ea. Domus ædifices, et non habites in ea. Plantes vineus, et non vindemies ea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would experienced Latin users (so not me) see an ambiguity in the above phrase? _Accipias_ is clearly second person singular, so it should be clear that &quot;you&quot; are performing the verb, and not a wife. Clearly the house is not building something (what would it be building? as far as I know, to build is not an intransitive verb). Thus, it is &quot;you&quot; who is building houses. And etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question arises because, even as a total beginner in Latin (so I can be wrong), the verb _accipias_ already tells me who is performing the action, so its clear its not the wife. Similarly, it is evident that a house cannot be the subject of the verb to build. Thus, in a sense, I find redundant that I need to learn another grammatical case for pro/nouns. Even if I would be _et non vindemies ea_ I think I would have understand the meaning. This is, the nominative might do a pretty good job replacing the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to rephrase my question, what potential ambiguities is the accusative mode clearing out, so that to make it necessary? I know this mode is inherited from Greek, so maybe is there something peculiar to Greek that required such mode?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23308" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6964" RevisionGUID="451979b9-d4a9-4de4-b4fe-7f4c08d96ef6" CreationDate="2018-08-03T09:15:07.227" UserId="1459" Text="Why is an accusative mode needed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23309" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6964" RevisionGUID="451979b9-d4a9-4de4-b4fe-7f4c08d96ef6" CreationDate="2018-08-03T09:15:07.227" UserId="1459" Text="|accusative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6965" RevisionGUID="be75d289-5bdc-4e96-a03d-004b98a0aa4a" CreationDate="2018-08-03T10:38:30.977" UserId="9" Text="Languages are full of redundancy. So I think the premise of this question—that the accusative case is &quot;needed&quot;—is problematic. For example, there isn't a need for English speakers to use the plural in contexts like &quot;three plates&quot;: the word &quot;three&quot; already tells the listener how many plates there are. But the use of the plural in this context is nevertheless obligatory in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The existence of the accusative/nominative case distinction in Latin certainly allows ambiguity to be avoided in certain situations—for example, when both the subject and direct object in a sentence have the same gender and number, the conjugation of the verb doesn't tell you which is which—but as you've said, the grammatical role of a noun can often be inferred without knowing whether it is nominative or accusative. In fact, for many nouns the nominative and accusative cases are identical: all neuter nouns, and plural third declension, fourth declension and fifth declension nouns of any gender. The distinction between accusative and nominative case was also lost in many of the languages descended from Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The case distinction in Latin between nominative and accusative was inherited from the common ancestor of the &quot;Indo-European&quot; languages. We don't have any direct evidence of this common ancestor; rather, we can infer some of its characteristics based on our knowledge of its descendants. Greek is another Indo-European language, but Greek is not itself the ancestor of Latin; it is like a &quot;cousin&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6965" RevisionGUID="8994990d-3368-4851-ad5e-dc6a2f89ac5c" CreationDate="2018-08-03T10:45:56.857" UserId="9" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="Languages are full of redundancy. So I think the premise of this question—that the accusative case is &quot;needed&quot;—is problematic. For example, there isn't a need for English speakers to use the plural in contexts like &quot;three plates&quot;: the word &quot;three&quot; already tells the listener how many plates there are. But the use of the plural in this context is nevertheless obligatory in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The existence of the accusative/nominative case distinction in Latin certainly allows ambiguity to be avoided in certain situations—for example, when both the subject and direct object in a sentence have the same number, person and (for periphrastic conjugations) gender, the conjugation of the verb doesn't tell you which is which—but as you've said, the grammatical role of a noun can often be inferred without knowing whether it is nominative or accusative. In fact, for many nouns the nominative and accusative cases are identical: all neuter nouns, and plural third declension, fourth declension and fifth declension nouns of any gender. The distinction between accusative and nominative case was also lost in many of the languages descended from Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The case distinction in Latin between nominative and accusative was inherited from the common ancestor of the &quot;Indo-European&quot; languages. We don't have any direct evidence of this common ancestor; rather, we can infer some of its characteristics based on our knowledge of its descendants. Greek is another Indo-European language, but Greek is not itself the ancestor of Latin; it is like a &quot;cousin&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23312" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6964" RevisionGUID="b3421f41-c2bc-4c5a-bbdd-c17c8e6e53a6" CreationDate="2018-08-03T13:34:06.647" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vulgata|accusative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6963" RevisionGUID="5c40adb4-9e17-4909-b5d1-763a14c7185c" CreationDate="2018-08-03T14:22:45.780" UserId="1142" Comment="deleted 239 characters in body" Text="# Lines 1 &amp; 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You state in your notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Lines 1 &amp; 2 both are meant as subject to &quot;cōnficimur&quot;, each with a different meaning of the verb*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if this is the case, then you should not be using *cōnficiō* in the first person plural. Furthermore, in your provided translation you explicitly state &quot;have been done&quot;, indicating a completed past action, i.e, the perfect. As such, given this, and the fact that your subject is a plural group (&quot;tasks&quot; and &quot;I&quot;), *cōnficiō* should be in the *3rd person plural perfect passive indicative*, not the *1st person singular present passive indicative*, thus making lines one and two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Opera cōnfectī sunt  &#xD;&#xA;Et egō augur &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Line 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your translation, you specify that line three should be interpreted as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Circling [your] rings*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell from context, *circling* is being used as a participle here, describing *egō*, the last stated subject. However, for some reason, you used the *present passive infinitive*, which is translated as *to be circulated*. Utilizing a participle, it should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Circumiēns ānulōs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Line 4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Line four is mostly fine, however, Titan is not in the correct case or number. It should be in the genitive plural. If you are using the form *Tītānus, Tītānī, m.*, then line four should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rēx Tītānōrum, veniō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you are using the form *Tītan, Tītānis, m.*, then line four should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rēx Tītānum, veniō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Line 5 &amp; 6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the incorrect labeling in your notes of a prepositional phrase as the locative, line five is essentially fine. I might suggest, however, using the adjective *invīsus, invīsa, invīsum* over *caecus, caeca, caecum*, since *caecus* can also carry the connotation of *blind*, whereas invīsus can simply be translated as *unseen*, how you originally intended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, the noun *clamys* carries a very specific connotation. It is a cloak or a cape, but usually of a ceremonial or Greek military type (see [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/clamys#Latin)). I would suggest the noun *pallium* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Line six is fine. You did, however, incorrectly label &quot;hōs tredecim annōs&quot; as an accusative of duration of time. In this context, it is simply the object of &quot;ēgī&quot;, indicating *I spent/consumed these thirteen years*. An accusative of duration of time would usually be translated as *for [time]* and is used to indicate the time spent doing something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Line 7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Line seven feels extremely awkward. In your translation you state that the direct object of *it summons* is *me*, yet don't provide this in your Latin, making it rather nonsensical. Furthermore, *adsum* doesn't really carry the connotation of *being near* something. Rather, it deals more with being present or arriving at something. I would suggest scrapping the entire phrase and going with something more like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et iubet mē esse prope tē&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Line 8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really sure how you managed to extricate *Uranus* from *caelum*. It means *sky*. *Uranus* in Latin is... well... *Ūranus*. Line eight should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Filī Ūranī, veniō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# In short&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To conclude, your full poem should be rendered as follows. You may have to make some adjustments, especially if you are trying to fit a meter, need a specific word order, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Opera cōnfectī sunt  &#xD;&#xA;Et egō augur  &#xD;&#xA;Circumiēns ānulōs  &#xD;&#xA;Rēx Tītānum, veniō  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In palliō invīsō tuō  &#xD;&#xA;Hōs tredecim annōs ēgī  &#xD;&#xA;Et iubet mē esse prope tē  &#xD;&#xA;Filī Ūranī, veniō  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Senex ad senem  &#xD;&#xA;Puerī terrae  &#xD;&#xA;Frāter ad frātrem  &#xD;&#xA;Nōs ligēs, laniēs mē" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6966" RevisionGUID="aa5eeea3-0a18-44a9-8482-a7d258ef9b19" CreationDate="2018-08-03T16:01:54.673" UserId="136" Text="Sumelic has already done a great job explaining the &quot;necessity&quot; of certain grammatical constructions. What I would like to address is the changes you have made to those sentences. Although the subject of the sentences remain clear (&quot;you&quot;), changing the grammatical case of the direct object to also be that of the subject changes the meaning of the sentence. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Uxorem accipias_ = May you accept a wife&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;becomes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Uxor accipias_ = May you, a wife, accept&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this way, the subject has become a wife to whom the speaker is speaking. It does not really matter that _accipio_ is a transitive verb. Transitive verbs often do not take direct objects, just like in English sometimes. A native Latin speaker would most likely not treat _uxor_ as a direct object upon a first reading or even a third or fourth reading because to them the declined form of the word was inherently tied to its part of speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider, also, when one could abandon the accusative form. Could you only abandon it when the subject is implied by the verb? Could you abandon it in all cases? This would quickly create problems if nothing else about the language changed. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Puer puellam amat_ = The boy loves the girl&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence is completely clear about the meaning. However, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Puer puella amat_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is unclear as to who is loving and who is being loved. We would have to change something about the grammatical rules of Latin to account for this. Perhaps word order would become more rigid. Perhaps new prepositions would have to be added. This is exactly what happened to Latin actually. Over time, the cases began to merge with one another, making it difficult to tell what grammatical use each word had. To assist with this, word order became more and more rigid and new prepositions were added or old ones gained new meaning (see _de_, which came to mean &quot;of&quot; in Spanish via vulgar Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you are describing was a process through which Latin actually went. As to why the language started off the way it did requires knowledge of the proto languages preceding Latin and the languages preceding those, as Sumelic mentioned. I hope this helps clarify why exactly, using Latin grammar, one could not simply change the case of the direct object." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6967" RevisionGUID="7fffa6da-7cca-4c82-bbad-7117a9d6c3bb" CreationDate="2018-08-03T17:52:48.583" UserId="2806" Text="Putting together a small literary piece where an item is inscribed with a Latin phrase that hints that it can be used to swap bodies (or minds, depending, I suppose, on your perspective) with another person. After much fiddling with Google translate, I initially settled on *Commutationem Corporum*. However, it's a mouthful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After more fiddling, I am considering *Corpus Vorto*. Are either of these acceptable? Is there something that might work better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer medieval Latin, if possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23316" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6967" RevisionGUID="7fffa6da-7cca-4c82-bbad-7117a9d6c3bb" CreationDate="2018-08-03T17:52:48.583" UserId="2806" Text="How might I write a latin phrase for swapping bodies?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23317" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6967" RevisionGUID="7fffa6da-7cca-4c82-bbad-7117a9d6c3bb" CreationDate="2018-08-03T17:52:48.583" UserId="2806" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|idiom|translation-check|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6968" RevisionGUID="a48f7fa6-98d0-44a6-a6ab-df5477b585b7" CreationDate="2018-08-03T19:57:49.463" UserId="2807" Text="My step grandpa passed, and I want a tattoo in latin that says, &quot;Blood isn't always thicker than water.&quot; I would greatly appreciate it if someone translates this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23319" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6968" RevisionGUID="a48f7fa6-98d0-44a6-a6ab-df5477b585b7" CreationDate="2018-08-03T19:57:49.463" UserId="2807" Text="Please help me translate this!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23320" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6968" RevisionGUID="a48f7fa6-98d0-44a6-a6ab-df5477b585b7" CreationDate="2018-08-03T19:57:49.463" UserId="2807" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6963" RevisionGUID="c2062db8-a7a5-4e74-b263-182690fafd4e" CreationDate="2018-08-03T20:52:17.803" UserId="1142" Comment="deleted 183 characters in body" Text="# Lines 1 &amp; 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You state in your notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Lines 1 &amp; 2 both are meant as subject to &quot;cōnficimur&quot;, each with a different meaning of the verb*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if this is the case, then you should not be using *cōnficiō* in the first person plural. Furthermore, in your provided translation you explicitly state &quot;have been done&quot;, indicating a completed past action, i.e, the perfect. As such, given this, and the fact that your subject is a plural group (&quot;tasks&quot; and &quot;I&quot;), *cōnficiō* should be in the *3rd person plural perfect passive indicative*, not the *1st person singular present passive indicative*, thus making lines one and two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Opera cōnfecta sunt  &#xD;&#xA;Cōnfectus et egō augur &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Line 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your translation, you specify that line three should be interpreted as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Circling [your] rings*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell from context, *circling* is being used as a participle here, describing *egō*, the last stated subject. However, for some reason, you used the *present passive infinitive*, which is translated as *to be circulated*. Utilizing a participle, it should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Circumiēns ānulōs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Line 4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Line four is mostly fine, however, Titan is not in the correct case or number. It should be in the genitive plural. If you are using the form *Tītānus, Tītānī, m.*, then line four should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rēx Tītānōrum, veniō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you are using the form *Tītan, Tītānis, m.*, then line four should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rēx Tītānum, veniō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Line 5 &amp; 6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the incorrect labeling in your notes of a prepositional phrase as the locative, line five is essentially fine. However, your usage of the noun *clamys* is probably not right. It carries a very specific connotation, representing a cloak or a cape, but usually of a ceremonial or Greek military type (see [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/clamys#Latin)). I would suggest the noun *pallium* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Line six is fine. You did, however, incorrectly label &quot;hōs tredecim annōs&quot; as an accusative of duration of time. In this context, it is simply the object of &quot;ēgī&quot;, indicating *I spent/consumed these thirteen years*. An accusative of duration of time would usually be translated as *for [time]* and is used to indicate the time spent doing something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Line 7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Line seven feels extremely awkward. In your translation you state that the direct object of *it summons* is *me*, yet don't provide this in your Latin, making it rather nonsensical. Furthermore, *adsum* doesn't really carry the connotation of *being near* something. Rather, it deals more with being present or arriving at something. I would suggest scrapping the entire phrase and going with something more like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et iubet mē esse prope tē&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Line 8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really sure how you managed to extricate *Uranus* from *caelum*. It means *sky*. *Uranus* in Latin is... well... *Ūranus*. Line eight should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Filī Ūranī, veniō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# In short&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To conclude, your full poem should be rendered as follows. You may have to make some adjustments, especially if you are trying to fit a meter, need a specific word order, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Opera cōnfecta sunt  &#xD;&#xA;Cōnfectus et egō augur  &#xD;&#xA;Circumiēns ānulōs  &#xD;&#xA;Rēx Tītānum, veniō  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In palliō invīsō tuō  &#xD;&#xA;Hōs tredecim annōs ēgī  &#xD;&#xA;Et iubet mē esse prope tē  &#xD;&#xA;Filī Ūranī, veniō  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Senex ad senem  &#xD;&#xA;Liberī terrae  &#xD;&#xA;Frāter ad frātrem  &#xD;&#xA;Nōs ligēs, laniēs mē" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6963" RevisionGUID="462841c8-11c2-43a7-bfa5-ee5ab14cd04b" CreationDate="2018-08-03T21:58:31.423" UserId="1142" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="# Lines 1 &amp; 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You state in your notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Lines 1 &amp; 2 both are meant as subject to &quot;cōnficimur&quot;, each with a different meaning of the verb*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if this is the case, then you should not be using *cōnficiō* in the first person plural. Furthermore, in your provided translation you explicitly state &quot;have been done&quot;, indicating a completed past action, i.e, the perfect. As such, given this, and the fact that your subject is a plural group (&quot;tasks&quot; and &quot;I&quot;), *cōnficiō* should be in the *3rd person plural perfect passive indicative*, not the *1st person singular present passive indicative*, thus making lines one and two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Opera cōnfecta sunt  &#xD;&#xA;Cōnfectus et egō augur &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Line 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your translation, you specify that line three should be interpreted as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Circling [your] rings*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell from context, *circling* is being used as a participle here, describing *egō*, the last stated subject. However, for some reason, you used the *present passive infinitive*, which is translated as *to be circulated*. Utilizing a participle, it should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Circumiēns ānulōs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Line 4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Line four is mostly fine, however, Titan is not in the correct case or number. It should be in the genitive plural. If you are using the form *Tītānus, Tītānī, m.*, then line four should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rēx Tītānōrum, veniō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you are using the form *Tītan, Tītānis, m.*, then line four should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rēx Tītānum, veniō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Line 5 &amp; 6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the incorrect labeling in your notes of a prepositional phrase as the locative, line five is essentially fine. However, your usage of the noun *clamys* is probably not right. It carries a very specific connotation, representing a cloak or a cape, but usually of a ceremonial or Greek military type (see [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/clamys#Latin)). I would suggest the noun *pallium* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Line six is fine. You did, however, incorrectly label &quot;hōs tredecim annōs&quot; as an accusative of duration of time. In this context, it is simply the object of &quot;ēgī&quot;, indicating *I spent/consumed these thirteen years*. An accusative of duration of time would usually be translated as *for [time]* and is used to indicate the time spent doing something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Line 7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Line seven feels extremely awkward. In your translation you state that the direct object of *it summons* is *me*, yet don't provide this in your Latin, making it rather nonsensical. Furthermore, *adsum* doesn't really carry the connotation of *being near* something. Rather, it deals more with being present or arriving at something. I would suggest scrapping the entire phrase and going with something more like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et iubet mē esse prope tē&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Line 8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really sure how you managed to extricate *Uranus* from *caelum*. It means *sky*. *Uranus* in Latin is... well... *Ūranus*. Line eight should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Filī Ūranī, veniō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# In short&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To conclude, your full poem should be rendered as follows. You may have to make some adjustments, especially if you are trying to fit a meter, need a specific word order, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Opera cōnfecta sunt  &#xD;&#xA;Cōnfectus et egō augur  &#xD;&#xA;Circumiēns ānulōs  &#xD;&#xA;Rēx Tītānum, veniō  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In palliō caecō tuō  &#xD;&#xA;Hōs tredecim annōs ēgī  &#xD;&#xA;Et iubet mē esse prope tē  &#xD;&#xA;Filī Ūranī, veniō  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Senex ad senem  &#xD;&#xA;Liberī terrae  &#xD;&#xA;Frāter ad frātrem  &#xD;&#xA;Nōs ligēs, laniēs mē" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6969" RevisionGUID="7acde432-1664-4fdc-9b6a-6f3ddca27f00" CreationDate="2018-08-03T22:56:49.790" UserId="406" Text="*Commūtātiōnem Corporum* = &quot;exchange of bodies&quot;, a noun phrase, in the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Corpus Vortō* = either &quot;I change a body&quot; or &quot;I rotate a body&quot;, a verb phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would go with first a noun in the accusative case for &quot;body/bodies&quot;, then a verb in the first person singular meaning &quot;I change&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the noun you could choose from *corpus* &quot;a body&quot;, *corporēs* &quot;bodies&quot;, *imāginem* &quot;a shape&quot;, *imāginēs* &quot;shapes&quot;, *formam* &quot;appearance&quot;, *formās* &quot;appearances&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the verb you could choose from *commūtō* &quot;I exchange&quot;, *mūtō* &quot;I change&quot;, *vertō*/*vortō* &quot;I turn&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can mix and match these freely, but my vote is for *imāginēs commūtō*, &quot;I exchange shapes&quot;. If you want something longer you could turn it into a sentence, *imāginēs hominum inter sēsē commūtō* &quot;I change the forms of people back and forth&quot;, but given your comments I'm assuming you want something short and sweet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can include the marks on top of the vowels, or leave them off, at your preference. They represent a difference in sound that was important in Classical times but disappeared in later Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6969" RevisionGUID="58651141-c5e0-457c-904d-9ff3ec3a132f" CreationDate="2018-08-03T23:01:51.323" UserId="406" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="*Commūtātiōnem Corporum* = &quot;exchange of bodies&quot;, a noun phrase, in the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Corpus Vortō* = either &quot;I change a body&quot; or &quot;I rotate a body&quot;, a verb phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would go with first a noun in the accusative case for &quot;body/bodies&quot;, then a verb in the first person singular meaning &quot;I change&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the noun you could choose from *corpus* &quot;a body&quot;, *corporēs* &quot;bodies&quot;, *imāginem* &quot;a shape&quot;, *imāginēs* &quot;shapes&quot;, *formam* &quot;appearance&quot;, *formās* &quot;appearances&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the verb you could choose from *commūtō* &quot;I exchange&quot;, *mūtō* &quot;I change&quot;, *vertō*/*vortō* &quot;I turn&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can mix and match these freely, but my vote is for *imāginēs commūtō*, &quot;I exchange shapes&quot;. If you want something longer you could turn it into a sentence, *imāginēs hominum inter sēsē commūtō* &quot;I change the forms of people back and forth&quot;, but given your comments I'm assuming you want something short and sweet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can include the marks on top of the vowels, or leave them off, at your preference. They represent a difference in sound that was important in Classical times but disappeared in later Latin. If this is meant to be Mediaeval, definitely leave them off." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6970" RevisionGUID="746615d9-c2a6-4b56-821c-4b660ce74fe2" CreationDate="2018-08-03T23:10:42.290" UserId="406" Text="The proverb &quot;blood is thicker than water&quot; originated in German, so all Latin versions are translations from that. The one I've seen most often is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sangvis aqvā densior est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Densior* is quite literally &quot;thicker&quot;. You could also use *spissior* &quot;denser&quot; or *dūrābilior* &quot;harder to break&quot;; either of those can be substituted in freely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another Latin proverb is &quot;no man is always wise&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nemō mortālium omnibus hōrīs sapit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combining the phrasing from those two would give:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sangvis nōn omnibus hōrīs qvam aqvā densior est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I added the *qvam* to make it clear which ablative goes where, since there are two in a row. But you can freely drop the *qvam* and *est* without affecting the meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6970" RevisionGUID="d1ebaaad-91dd-4e51-93c8-4fd52aac446f" CreationDate="2018-08-03T23:37:17.983" UserId="406" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="The proverb &quot;blood is thicker than water&quot; originated in German, so all Latin versions are translations from that. The one I've seen most often is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sangvis aqvā densior est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Densior* is quite literally &quot;thicker&quot;. You could also use *spissior* &quot;denser&quot; or *dūrābilior* &quot;harder to break&quot;; either of those can be substituted in freely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another Latin proverb is &quot;no man is always wise&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nemō mortālium omnibus hōrīs sapit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Literally, &quot;nobody among the mortals is wise at every point in time&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combining the phrasing from those two would give:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sangvis nōn omnibus hōrīs qvam aqvā densior est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I added the *qvam* to make it clear which ablative goes where, since there are two in a row. But you can freely drop the *qvam* and *est* without affecting the meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6971" RevisionGUID="ea4875cf-2ee2-4ea7-8127-b126835da9a2" CreationDate="2018-08-04T01:35:08.957" UserId="2785" Text="I have considered that this may be stated: &quot;Christī Regēns&quot;, emphasising with a capital R and being pronounced actively ruling. Is this sufficient to state?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder that is is not more like, &quot;Christi Cesar Regens&quot; though I have not all of the correct letter inflexions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23328" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6971" RevisionGUID="ea4875cf-2ee2-4ea7-8127-b126835da9a2" CreationDate="2018-08-04T01:35:08.957" UserId="2785" Text="Translating: &quot;Christ Jesus Ultimate King &amp; Ruler for All Time&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23329" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6971" RevisionGUID="ea4875cf-2ee2-4ea7-8127-b126835da9a2" CreationDate="2018-08-04T01:35:08.957" UserId="2785" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6971" RevisionGUID="8d6b9935-ad88-43ca-8789-88c1a8b03131" CreationDate="2018-08-04T01:52:46.190" UserId="2785" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="I have considered that this may be stated: &quot;Christī Regēns&quot;, emphasising with a capital R and being pronounced actively ruling. Is this sufficient to state?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder that is is not more like, &quot;Christi Cesar Regens&quot; though I have not all of the correct letter inflexions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It must be careful, if correct, to pronounce Christ as Cesar and not pronounce Cesar as Christ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="c9940389-6351-4652-b989-0d5056a72d0c" CreationDate="2018-08-04T02:44:45.293" UserId="39" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="Philomen Probert (Wolfson College, Oxford) writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**[A] nominative/accusative dual ending in ω always has an acute, never a circumflex, if accented on the final syllable, regardless of contraction**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόω &gt; νώ (not *νῶ);  ὀστέω &gt; ὀστώ (not *ὀστῶ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;([Probert 2003][1], §112). This is a synchronic observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similar exceptions (to the normal rules of contracted forms) she mentions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives of material in -οῦς from -εος (§122);&#xD;&#xA; - contracted nouns and adjectives in -ους from -οος (§121);&#xD;&#xA; - feminine nouns in -ώ (§127).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I'm not quite sure yet. We “inherited” this convention from the ancient grammarians (Apollonius and his son Herodian, John Philoponus, Theodosius of Alexandria, George Choiroboskos)  - see [Chandler 1881][2] §563 for further details, with relevant original passages in Greek on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: A lot of Greek grammars are secondary sources and are rather compilatory. In other words, quite often they merely repeat the so called &quot;rules&quot; from the earlier books. For instance, it seems that Kühner–Blass base their observation on Göttling 1835 *[Allgemeine Lehre vom Akzent der griechischen Sprache*][3] (Chandler 1881 basically repeats him too, adding only one other quotation) - here's their source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To sum up, this is a “rule” passed upon us from the ancient grammarians. In present-day linguistic research it is usually mentioned as an exception (e.g. Kiparsky , Probert 2003).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I've been able to find three explanations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Kurylowicz 1932][5] : 210:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Bubenik 1983:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The Nom/Acc Dual did not develop an analogical circumflex because **the dual is rather a derivational category**&quot; [emphasis mine - Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Belov 2005: WTS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we could always say it is irregular and due to analogy but I would advise caution not to overuse it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/new-short-guide-to-the-accentuation-of-ancient-greek-9781853995996/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021602218&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=QJAAxzuE624C&amp;dq=G%C3%B6ttling%20Allgemeine%20Lehre%20vom%20Akzent%20der%20griechischen%20Sprache&amp;pg=PP5#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1DpzZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/409650&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4btNc.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="d5d54733-2044-429b-bfbb-de66ac13e436" CreationDate="2018-08-04T03:10:26.690" UserId="39" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="Philomen Probert (Wolfson College, Oxford) writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**[A] nominative/accusative dual ending in ω always has an acute, never a circumflex, if accented on the final syllable, regardless of contraction**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόω &gt; νώ (not *νῶ);  ὀστέω &gt; ὀστώ (not *ὀστῶ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;([Probert 2003][1], §112). This is a synchronic observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similar exceptions (to the normal rules of contracted forms) she mentions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives of material in -οῦς from -εος (§122);&#xD;&#xA; - contracted nouns and adjectives in -ους from -οος (§121);&#xD;&#xA; - feminine nouns in -ώ (§127).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I'm not quite sure yet. We “inherited” this convention from the ancient grammarians (Apollonius and his son Herodian, John Philoponus, Theodosius of Alexandria, George Choiroboskos)  - see [Chandler 1881][2] §563 for further details, with relevant original passages in Greek on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: A lot of Greek grammars are secondary sources and are rather compilatory. In other words, quite often they merely repeat the so called &quot;rules&quot; from the earlier books. For instance, it seems that Kühner–Blass base their observation on Göttling 1835 *[Allgemeine Lehre vom Akzent der griechischen Sprache*][3] (Chandler 1881 basically repeats him too, adding only one other quotation) - here's their source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To sum up, this is a “rule” passed upon us from the ancient grammarians. In present-day linguistic research it is usually mentioned as an exception (e.g. Kiparsky , Probert 2003).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I've been able to find three explanations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Kurylowicz 1932][5] : 210:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Bubenik 1983:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The Nom/Acc Dual did not develop an analogical circumflex because **the dual is rather a derivational category**&quot; [emphasis mine - Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Belov 2005: WTS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we could always say it is irregular and due to analogy but I would advise caution not to overuse it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I found it interesting that Alonso Deniz 2013 argues that contraction is generally avoided in disyllables as opposed to grammatical disyllables, which may contract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/new-short-guide-to-the-accentuation-of-ancient-greek-9781853995996/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021602218&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=QJAAxzuE624C&amp;dq=G%C3%B6ttling%20Allgemeine%20Lehre%20vom%20Akzent%20der%20griechischen%20Sprache&amp;pg=PP5#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1DpzZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/409650&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4btNc.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6971" RevisionGUID="eb29d723-745f-417b-8a2c-21c6d3b92324" CreationDate="2018-08-04T07:39:53.333" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have considered that this may be stated: &quot;_Christī Regēns_&quot;, emphasising with a capital R and being pronounced actively ruling. Is this sufficient to state?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder that is is not more like, &quot;_Christi Cesar Regens_&quot; though I have not all of the correct letter inflexions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It must be careful, if correct, to pronounce Christ as Cesar and not pronounce Cesar as Christ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23334" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6971" RevisionGUID="eb29d723-745f-417b-8a2c-21c6d3b92324" CreationDate="2018-08-04T07:39:53.333" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23335" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6968" RevisionGUID="cfb34f49-da0b-46a3-944e-0d3dfe72c2bb" CreationDate="2018-08-04T07:41:54.127" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Translating &quot;Blood isn't always thicker than water.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23336" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6968" RevisionGUID="cfb34f49-da0b-46a3-944e-0d3dfe72c2bb" CreationDate="2018-08-04T07:41:54.127" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6972" RevisionGUID="358e35b6-5720-47a2-8682-aa7b37cabaea" CreationDate="2018-08-04T08:56:45.317" UserDisplayName="user2809" Text="Latin is not a designed but an evolved language.  It's in the Indogermanic language family and some of the properties of its ancestors can be deduced by comparing with other languages in that family that have left written traces such as Greek (which actually falls apart into dozens of different island languages few of which had written records; but some, like many works of Homer, have been preserved with an oral tradition until they came in contact with writing systems).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One feature of the language family is that sentence structure is evolved from a complex case system that conveyed a whole lot more information via a case system and nominal phrases than later on: it's not unusual for an antique Greek sentence to run over a single page in a loose connection of nominal phrases and subordinate clauses and not even contain a top-level verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in archaic language variants, prepositions tend to be sort-of optional and are just used as a reinforcement of information already conveyed by the case, with cases including more obscure ones like locative case.  As they became non-optional, the number of different cases in active use was reduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That process happened to different degrees in different members of the language family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, English has a much more rigid sentence structure than other Germanic languages (though most of the modern ones usually call for complete sentences centered around a single verb) and thus was able to rationalize a lot of its case system away (and people have become unable to recognize when &quot;I too&quot; instead of &quot;me too&quot; would be necessary and mess up &quot;thou&quot; and &quot;thee&quot; when trying to emulate Early Modern English in order to sound grave).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the end result is the same: when learning an existing language, the rules of how the language works are not yours to make.  There have been a few synthetic languages (like Esperanto) that were actually designed to be logical within the confines of being appealing to speakers of existing languages, and you might have more chances arguing with proponents of those languages about what may or may not be a good fit (it's just quite likely that you'll tell them nothing new and your arguments have been taken into consideration long long ago without having the effect you desire)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="35d0e23f-9441-4401-99a4-f53b4ee65ce7" CreationDate="2018-08-04T22:23:15.823" UserId="39" Comment="added 640 characters in body" Text="Philomen Probert (Wolfson College, Oxford) writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**[A] nominative/accusative dual ending in ω always has an acute, never a circumflex, if accented on the final syllable, regardless of contraction**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόω &gt; νώ (not *νῶ);  ὀστέω &gt; ὀστώ (not *ὀστῶ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;([Probert 2003][1], §112). This is a synchronic observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similar exceptions (to the normal rules of contracted forms) she mentions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives of material in -οῦς from -εος (§122);&#xD;&#xA; - contracted nouns and adjectives in -ους from -οος (§121);&#xD;&#xA; - feminine nouns in -ώ (§127).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I'm not quite sure yet. We “inherited” this convention from the ancient grammarians (Apollonius and his son Herodian, John Philoponus, Theodosius of Alexandria, George Choiroboskos)  - see [Chandler 1881][2] §563 for further details, with relevant original passages in Greek on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: A lot of Greek grammars are secondary sources and are rather compilatory. In other words, quite often they merely repeat the so called &quot;rules&quot; from the earlier books. For instance, it seems that Kühner–Blass base their observation on Göttling 1835 *[Allgemeine Lehre vom Akzent der griechischen Sprache*][3] (Chandler 1881 basically repeats him too, adding only one other quotation) - here's their source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To sum up, this is a “rule” passed upon us from the ancient grammarians. In present-day linguistic research it is usually mentioned as an exception (e.g. Kiparsky , Probert 2003).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I've been able to find three explanations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Kurylowicz 1932][5] : 210:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Bubenik 1983:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The Nom/Acc Dual did not develop an analogical circumflex because **the dual is rather a derivational category**&quot; [emphasis mine - Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Belov 2005: WTS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we could always say it is irregular and due to analogy (see e.g. a quote from Papanastassiou 2013 below) but I would advise caution not to overuse it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I found it interesting that Alonso Deniz 2013 argues that contraction is generally avoided in disyllables as opposed to grammatical disyllables, which may contract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, [Papanastassiou 2013][7] makes a very important remark re: the Attic declension:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Generally speaking, **the accentuation of the words of the Attic declension is doubtful** [emphasis mine - Alex B.], as some of the ancient grammarians accented e.g. (nom. sg.) lagṓs but others lagôs. The antepenult can be accented even if the ultima is long, e.g. próneōs, because it comes from prónāos. Moreover, the accent of the nominative is kept in all cases. The genitive and dative are oxytone when the final syllable is accented, even if they result from contraction.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/new-short-guide-to-the-accentuation-of-ancient-greek-9781853995996/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021602218&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=QJAAxzuE624C&amp;dq=G%C3%B6ttling%20Allgemeine%20Lehre%20vom%20Akzent%20der%20griechischen%20Sprache&amp;pg=PP5#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1DpzZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/409650&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4btNc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2214-448X_eagll_SIM_00000422" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="688e3ff0-ba31-4a4c-8cb8-5c11f27a50f3" CreationDate="2018-08-05T01:46:01.620" UserId="39" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="Philomen Probert (Wolfson College, Oxford) writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**[A] nominative/accusative dual ending in ω always has an acute, never a circumflex, if accented on the final syllable, regardless of contraction**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόω &gt; νώ (not *νῶ);  ὀστέω &gt; ὀστώ (not *ὀστῶ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;([Probert 2003][1], §112). This is a synchronic observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similar exceptions (to the normal rules of contracted forms) she mentions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives of material in -οῦς from -εος (§122);&#xD;&#xA; - contracted nouns and adjectives in -ους from -οος (§121);&#xD;&#xA; - feminine nouns in -ώ (§127).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I'm not quite sure yet. We “inherited” this convention from the ancient grammarians (Apollonius and his son Herodian, John Philoponus, Theodosius of Alexandria, George Choiroboskos)  - see [Chandler 1881][2] §563 for further details, with relevant original passages in Greek on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: A lot of Greek grammars are secondary sources and are rather compilatory. In other words, quite often they merely repeat the so called &quot;rules&quot; from the earlier books. For instance, it seems that Kühner–Blass base their observation on Göttling 1835 *[Allgemeine Lehre vom Akzent der griechischen Sprache*][3] (Chandler 1881 basically repeats him too, adding only one other quotation) - here's their source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To sum up, this is a “rule” passed upon us from the ancient grammarians. In present-day linguistic research it is usually mentioned as an exception (e.g. Kiparsky , Probert 2003).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I've been able to find three explanations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Kurylowicz 1932][5] : 210:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Bubenik 1983:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The Nom/Acc Dual did not develop an analogical circumflex because **the dual is rather a derivational category**&quot; [emphasis mine - Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Belov 2005: WTS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we could always say it is irregular and due to analogy (see e.g. a quote from Papanastassiou 2013 below) but I would advise caution not to overuse it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I found it interesting that Alonso Deniz 2013 argues that contraction is generally avoided in disyllables as opposed to grammatical disyllables, which may contract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, [Papanastassiou 2013][7] makes a very important remark re: the Attic declension:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Generally speaking, **the accentuation of the words of the Attic declension is doubtful** [emphasis mine - Alex B.], as some of the ancient grammarians accented e.g. (nom. sg.) lagṓs but others lagôs. The antepenult can be accented even if the ultima is long, e.g. próneōs, because it comes from prónāos. Moreover, the accent of the nominative is kept in all cases. The genitive and dative are oxytone when the final syllable is accented, even if they result from contraction.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A note on κανοῦν (κάνεον). Smyth and Messing write that it got its accent from its genitive and dative forms (§236b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/new-short-guide-to-the-accentuation-of-ancient-greek-9781853995996/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021602218&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=QJAAxzuE624C&amp;dq=G%C3%B6ttling%20Allgemeine%20Lehre%20vom%20Akzent%20der%20griechischen%20Sprache&amp;pg=PP5#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1DpzZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/409650&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4btNc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2214-448X_eagll_SIM_00000422" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="0bd97817-5832-4c94-8924-06db8113f5ef" CreationDate="2018-08-05T05:08:28.430" UserId="39" Comment="added 364 characters in body" Text="Philomen Probert (Wolfson College, Oxford) writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**[A] nominative/accusative dual ending in ω always has an acute, never a circumflex, if accented on the final syllable, regardless of contraction**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόω &gt; νώ (not *νῶ);  ὀστέω &gt; ὀστώ (not *ὀστῶ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;([Probert 2003][1], §112). This is a synchronic observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similar exceptions (to the normal rules of contracted forms) she mentions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives of material in -οῦς from -εος (§122);&#xD;&#xA; - contracted nouns and adjectives in -ους from -οος (§121);&#xD;&#xA; - feminine nouns in -ώ (§127).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I'm not quite sure yet. We “inherited” this convention from the ancient grammarians (Apollonius and his son Herodian, John Philoponus, Theodosius of Alexandria, George Choiroboskos)  - see [Chandler 1881][2] §563 for further details, with relevant original passages in Greek on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: A lot of Greek grammars are secondary sources and are rather compilatory. In other words, quite often they merely repeat the so called &quot;rules&quot; from the earlier books. For instance, it seems that Kühner–Blass base their observation on Göttling 1835 *[Allgemeine Lehre vom Akzent der griechischen Sprache*][3] (Chandler 1881 basically repeats him too, adding only one other quotation) - here's their source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, this is a “rule” passed upon us from the ancient grammarians. In present-day linguistic research it is a thorny issue and is usually mentioned as an exception (e.g. Kiparsky , Probert 2003). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we could question the accuracy of linguistic description of the Alexandrian grammarians; that being said, it seems inscriptional data confirms the dual oxytone in some dual forms (cf. Monatanari &quot;dual κανώ in inscr.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, it could be explained **internally**; e.g. Steriade 1988 explains the nominative dual oxytone - to use her terminology, accent on *a desinential mora* - with morphological factors, in other words, with analogy; cf. [Papanastassiou 2013][7] &quot;[t]he accent of the nominative is kept in all cases [in the Attic declension - Alex B.]. The genitive and dative are oxytone when the final syllable is accented, even if they result from contraction.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or we could explain it **externally** - in other words, we could trace it to the PIE dual marker *o-h&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;(e) and its development in the IE languages (cf.  Lithuanian and Vedic dual forms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also cf. Bubenik 1983 &quot;The Nom/Acc Dual did not develop an analogical circumflex because **the dual is rather a derivational category**&quot; [emphasis mine - Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Kurylowicz 1932][5] : 210 (not sure yet where to put this):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I found it interesting that Alonso Deniz 2013 argues that contraction is generally avoided in disyllables as opposed to grammatical disyllables, which may contract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A note on κανοῦν (κάνεον). Smyth and Messing write that it got its accent from its genitive and dative forms (§236b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/new-short-guide-to-the-accentuation-of-ancient-greek-9781853995996/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021602218&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=QJAAxzuE624C&amp;dq=G%C3%B6ttling%20Allgemeine%20Lehre%20vom%20Akzent%20der%20griechischen%20Sprache&amp;pg=PP5#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1DpzZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/409650&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4btNc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2214-448X_eagll_SIM_00000422" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="aada1097-a599-47a4-9859-e98cad27794c" CreationDate="2018-08-05T05:14:56.693" UserId="39" Comment="added 364 characters in body" Text="Philomen Probert (Wolfson College, Oxford) writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**[A] nominative/accusative dual ending in ω always has an acute, never a circumflex, if accented on the final syllable, regardless of contraction**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόω &gt; νώ (not *νῶ);  ὀστέω &gt; ὀστώ (not *ὀστῶ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;([Probert 2003][1], §112). This is a synchronic observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similar exceptions (to the normal rules of contracted forms) she mentions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives of material in -οῦς from -εος (§122);&#xD;&#xA; - contracted nouns and adjectives in -ους from -οος (§121);&#xD;&#xA; - feminine nouns in -ώ (§127).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I'm not quite sure yet. We “inherited” this convention from the ancient grammarians (Apollonius and his son Herodian, John Philoponus, Theodosius of Alexandria, George Choiroboskos)  - see [Chandler 1881][2] §563 for further details, with relevant original passages in Greek on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: A lot of Greek grammars are secondary sources and are rather compilatory. In other words, quite often they merely repeat the so called &quot;rules&quot; from the earlier books. For instance, it seems that Kühner–Blass base their observation on Göttling 1835 *[Allgemeine Lehre vom Akzent der griechischen Sprache*][3] (Chandler 1881 basically repeats him too, adding only one other quotation) - here's their source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, this is a “rule” passed upon us from the ancient grammarians. In present-day linguistic research it is a thorny issue and is usually mentioned as an exception (e.g. Kiparsky , Probert 2003). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we could question the accuracy of linguistic description of the Alexandrian grammarians; that being said, it seems inscriptional data confirms the dual oxytone in some dual forms (cf. Monatanari &quot;dual κανώ in inscr.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, it could be explained **internally**; e.g. Steriade 1988 explains the nominative dual oxytone - to use her terminology, accent on *a desinential mora* - with morphological factors, in other words, with analogy; cf. [Papanastassiou 2013][7] &quot;[t]he accent of the nominative is kept in all cases [in the Attic declension - Alex B.]. The genitive and dative are oxytone when the final syllable is accented, even if they result from contraction.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or we could explain it **externally** - in other words, we could trace it to the PIE dual marker *o-h&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;(e) and its development in the IE languages (cf.  Lithuanian and Vedic dual forms); cf. φῶς &lt; φάος (internal) and φώς (external) (Krasukhin 2004: 88).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also cf. Bubenik 1983 &quot;The Nom/Acc Dual did not develop an analogical circumflex because **the dual is rather a derivational category**&quot; [emphasis mine - Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Kurylowicz 1932][5] : 210 (not sure yet where to put this):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I found it interesting that Alonso Deniz 2013 argues that contraction is generally avoided in disyllables as opposed to grammatical disyllables, which may contract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A note on κανοῦν (κάνεον). Smyth and Messing write that it got its accent from its genitive and dative forms (§236b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/new-short-guide-to-the-accentuation-of-ancient-greek-9781853995996/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021602218&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=QJAAxzuE624C&amp;dq=G%C3%B6ttling%20Allgemeine%20Lehre%20vom%20Akzent%20der%20griechischen%20Sprache&amp;pg=PP5#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1DpzZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/409650&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4btNc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2214-448X_eagll_SIM_00000422" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6971" RevisionGUID="d5fa5e50-8048-435f-8a74-5dca11454682" CreationDate="2018-08-05T09:04:22.557" UserId="2785" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="I have considered that this may be stated: &quot;_Christī Regēns_&quot;, emphasising with a capital R and being pronounced actively ruling. Is this sufficient to state?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder that is is not more like, &quot;_Christi Cesar Regens_&quot; though I have not all of the correct letter inflexions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It must be careful, if correct, to pronounce Christ as Cesar and not pronounce Cesar as Christ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addendum: I concede pronouncing Christ as Cesar is not the answer to what I wish to translate. Is it indeed that &quot;_Christī Regēns_&quot; is sufficient?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23348" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6971" RevisionGUID="f0653ab2-52f4-4984-a59f-dd3c11acc74c" CreationDate="2018-08-05T19:04:01.843" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6658" RevisionGUID="9cae7326-d568-4e3c-95a9-23b8fab66be0" CreationDate="2018-08-05T20:49:21.523" UserId="1142" Comment="Long marks in title and blockquite." Text="I am currently struggling to figure out how to translate the following phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] derivative of *f(x)* [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had a couple of initial ideas, namely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. dēductīva [fūnctiō] dē *f(x)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. dēductīva [fūnctiō] fūnctiōnis de *x*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. dēductīva [fūnctiō] fūnctiōnis *f(x)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And while these are (IIRC) correct Latin phrases, I am unsure as to whether or not they are similar (or the same as) the ways in which authors in mathematics (e.g, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, etc.) would have expressed it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, what is the &quot;proper/idiomatic&quot; way in which the phrase &quot;derivative of *f(x)*&quot; should be translated?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23350" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6658" RevisionGUID="9cae7326-d568-4e3c-95a9-23b8fab66be0" CreationDate="2018-08-05T20:49:21.523" UserId="1142" Comment="Long marks in title and blockquite." Text="Quōmodo rēctē &quot;derivative of f(x)&quot; dīcere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23351" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6658" RevisionGUID="9cae7326-d568-4e3c-95a9-23b8fab66be0" CreationDate="2018-08-05T20:49:21.523" UserId="1142" Comment="Long marks in title and blockquite." Text="|vocabulary|new-latin|english-to-latin-translation|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6974" RevisionGUID="3be78d0d-f11c-4984-b3b9-85d296586075" CreationDate="2018-08-05T21:54:12.357" UserId="469" Text="I see two approaches: the literal one&amp;mdash;a somewhat word-by-word, yet grammatical translation&amp;mdash;and the liturgical one&amp;mdash;building a mosaic from attested titles and liturgical ways of saying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;1. As for the literal approach, I had some trouble with the words *ultimate* and the difference between *ruler* and *king*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Google][1] gives two meanings for *ultimate*: i) basically a synonym of *last/final* and ii) *best/supreme*. I'll go for the second one. But feel free to ask for the eschatological version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; For *king* I'll go with the obvious alternative, **rex**. For ruler, I'll use *[Dominus][2]*. It is a common word with a wide meaning. In a religious context, its primary meaning is *Lord*, but it also means *ruler*. Please make me know if you want to convey a specific contrast with *king* or make it more explicit that you mean *ruler* and not *lord* (in this case, an alternative could be the less frequent **dominator**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The translation could therefore be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Christus Iesus Rex Optimus et Dominus in omni tempore**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. As for the liturgial approach I think of two opposing ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *For ever* in liturgy is almost always a variant of *for centuries of centuries*: **[per/in] + [saeculum saeculi/[omnia] saecula [saeculorum]]**. To speak about titles of Jesus, I think this makes more sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Christ been called *the King* from old. Prominently, the full name of the feast day of Christ the King includes *of all things* (or *of the universe*) in its name. Concretely, *Dominus Noster Iesus Christus Universorum Rex* (note it includes both **Dominus** and **Rex**). If you are willing to accept *of all things* instead of *ultimate* to stick to liturgy, this is the way to go. In this case, the translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Christus Iesus Universorum Rex et Dominus per saecula**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The other option is to base the translation in the hymn *[Christus Vincit][3]*. It is a prominent prayer that in the refrain makes reference to Christ as King stressing different aspects of his triumph in Resurrection. The relevant part is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat / *Christ conquers, Christ reigns, Christ commands*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that using this in the mosaic, the translation becomes arguably freer, since the offices (nouns) are changed by actions (verbs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Christus Iesus regnat atque imperat per [omnia] saecula saeculorum**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **et** and **atque** are [two different ways][4] of saying *and*.&#xD;&#xA;* *Rex optimus et Dominus* [can mean][5] that ultimate applies to both king and ruler.&#xD;&#xA;* **Chistus Iesus** and **Iesus Christus** are equivalent. I chose the former to stick to your word order in English, but this could be misleading if used as a general rule. It doesn't need to be that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aultimate&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddominus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudes_Regi%C3%A6&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1371/what-is-the-difference-between-ac-or-atque-and-et&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4/what-gender-should-a-predicate-adjective-be-to-agree-with-a-series-of-things-wit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6974" RevisionGUID="eaa5a2dc-af93-4e63-ac1e-43adb3ce0866" CreationDate="2018-08-05T22:09:13.017" UserId="469" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I see two approaches: the literal one&amp;mdash;a somewhat word-by-word, yet grammatical translation&amp;mdash;and the liturgical one&amp;mdash;building a mosaic from attested titles and liturgical ways of saying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;1. As for the literal approach, I had some trouble with the words *ultimate* and the difference between *ruler* and *king*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Google][1] gives two meanings for *ultimate*: i) basically a synonym of *last/final* and ii) *best/supreme*. I'll go for the second one. But feel free to ask for the eschatological version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; For *king* I'll go with the obvious alternative, **rex**. For ruler, I'll use *[Dominus][2]*. It is a common word with a wide meaning. In a religious context, its primary meaning is *Lord*, but it also means *ruler*. Please make me know if you want to convey a specific contrast with *king* or make it more explicit that you mean *ruler* and not *lord* (in this case, an alternative could be the less frequent **dominator**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The translation could therefore be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Christus Iesus Rex Optimus et Dominus in omni tempore**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. As for the liturgial approach I think of two opposing ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *For ever* in liturgy is almost always a variant of *for centuries of centuries*: **[per/in] + [saeculum saeculi/[omnia] saecula [saeculorum]]**. To speak about titles of Jesus, I think this makes more sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Christ has been called *the King* from old. Prominently, the full name of the feast day of Christ the King includes *of all things* (or *of the universe*) in its name. Concretely, *Dominus Noster Iesus Christus Universorum Rex* (note it includes both **Dominus** and **Rex**). If you are willing to accept *of all things* instead of *ultimate* to stick to liturgy, this is the way to go. In this case, the translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Christus Iesus Universorum Rex et Dominus per saecula**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The other option is to base the translation in the hymn *[Christus Vincit][3]*. It is a prominent prayer that in the refrain makes reference to Christ as King stressing different aspects of his triumph in Resurrection. The relevant part is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat / *Christ conquers, Christ reigns, Christ commands*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that using this in the mosaic, the translation becomes arguably freer, since the offices (nouns) are changed by actions (verbs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Christus Iesus regnat atque imperat per [omnia] saecula saeculorum**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **et** and **atque** are [two different ways][4] of saying *and*.&#xD;&#xA;* *Rex optimus et Dominus* [can mean][5] that ultimate applies to both king and ruler.&#xD;&#xA;* **Chistus Iesus** and **Iesus Christus** are equivalent. I chose the former to stick to your word order in English, but this could be misleading if used as a general rule. It doesn't need to be that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aultimate&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddominus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudes_Regi%C3%A6&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1371/what-is-the-difference-between-ac-or-atque-and-et&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4/what-gender-should-a-predicate-adjective-be-to-agree-with-a-series-of-things-wit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6974" RevisionGUID="2e5464cf-9ccb-457b-a98e-18cb3c06766b" CreationDate="2018-08-05T23:49:29.230" UserId="469" Comment="added 410 characters in body" Text="If you want a short phrase, I'd go for something simple like **[Iesus] Chistus Rex**. It says little more or less than *Christ [is the] King*. It stands alone as a title or as a copulative sentence, since in Latin the verb *to be* can be easily omitted. In the latter, there is little doubt that you are saying that the Christ is king and not the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to translate the whole thing, I see two approaches: the literal one&amp;mdash;a somewhat word-by-word, yet grammatical translation&amp;mdash;and the liturgical one&amp;mdash;building a mosaic from attested titles and liturgical ways of saying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;1. As for the literal approach, I had some trouble with the words *ultimate* and the difference between *ruler* and *king*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Google][1] gives two meanings for *ultimate*: i) basically a synonym of *last/final* and ii) *best/supreme*. I'll go for the second one. But feel free to ask for the eschatological version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; For *king* I'll go with the obvious alternative, **rex**. For ruler, I'll use *[Dominus][2]*. It is a common word with a wide meaning. In a religious context, its primary meaning is *Lord*, but it also means *ruler*. Please make me know if you want to convey a specific contrast with *king* or make it more explicit that you mean *ruler* and not *lord* (in this case, an alternative could be the less frequent **dominator**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The translation could therefore be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Christus Iesus Rex Optimus et Dominus in omni tempore**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. As for the liturgial approach I think of two opposing ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *For ever* in liturgy is almost always a variant of *for centuries of centuries*: **[per/in] + [saeculum saeculi/[omnia] saecula [saeculorum]]**. To speak about titles of Jesus, I think this makes more sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Christ has been called *the King* from old. Prominently, the full name of the feast day of Christ the King includes *of all things* (or *of the universe*) in its name. Concretely, *Dominus Noster Iesus Christus Universorum Rex* (note it includes both **Dominus** and **Rex**). If you are willing to accept *of all things* instead of *ultimate* to stick to liturgy, this is the way to go. In this case, the translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Christus Iesus Universorum Rex et Dominus per saecula**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The other option is to base the translation in the hymn *[Christus Vincit][3]*. It is a prominent prayer that in the refrain makes reference to Christ as King stressing different aspects of his triumph in Resurrection. The relevant part is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat / *Christ conquers, Christ reigns, Christ commands*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that using this in the mosaic, the translation becomes arguably freer, since the offices (nouns) are changed by actions (verbs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Christus Iesus regnat atque imperat per [omnia] saecula saeculorum**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **et** and **atque** are [two different ways][4] of saying *and*.&#xD;&#xA;* *Rex optimus et Dominus* [can mean][5] that ultimate applies to both king and ruler.&#xD;&#xA;* **Chistus Iesus** and **Iesus Christus** are equivalent. I chose the former to stick to your word order in English, but this could be misleading if used as a general rule. It doesn't need to be that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aultimate&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddominus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudes_Regi%C3%A6&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1371/what-is-the-difference-between-ac-or-atque-and-et&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4/what-gender-should-a-predicate-adjective-be-to-agree-with-a-series-of-things-wit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6976" RevisionGUID="5103b69f-8413-429e-bc47-4672a767da41" CreationDate="2018-08-06T12:17:23.570" UserId="1459" Text="[Deuteronomy 28:38](http://sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/deu028.htm#038) reads: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sementem multam jacies in terram, et modicum congregabis: quia locustæ devorabunt omnia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the first phrase before the comma has the following structure: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[subject/nominative] [verb] [object/accusative] preposition [ablative]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, _terram_ is in [accusative](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terram), instead of in [ablative](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terra#Latin) (_terrā_). The object of the phrase is clearly _sementis_ (hence the ablative mode _sementem_), whereas _in_ is indicating an ablative of place. Why is then _terram_ in accusative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quaestio brevis. Quid &quot;terram&quot; est accusativum in [Deuteronomium 28:38](http://sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/deu028.htm#038)? Non debet sit ablativum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23360" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6976" RevisionGUID="5103b69f-8413-429e-bc47-4672a767da41" CreationDate="2018-08-06T12:17:23.570" UserId="1459" Text="Regarding the mode of &quot;terram&quot; in Deuteronomy 28:38" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23361" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6976" RevisionGUID="5103b69f-8413-429e-bc47-4672a767da41" CreationDate="2018-08-06T12:17:23.570" UserId="1459" Text="|vulgata|ablative|accusative|case|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6977" RevisionGUID="dd97eebe-4144-4c88-a040-8909f1082f87" CreationDate="2018-08-06T12:57:26.737" UserId="469" Text="*(work in progress)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not all prepositions are created equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some prepositions need to be followed by ablative, some by accusative, some by both. Some even arguably by [genitive][1] (like **ope**, listed by some as a preposition, but not universally agreed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/883/prepositions-adpositions-with-genitive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6977" RevisionGUID="df043e5e-210a-49cd-a02e-2c65a973fdf5" CreationDate="2018-08-06T13:17:18.510" UserId="469" Comment="grammar" Text="Not all prepositions are created equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some prepositions need to be followed by ablative as you say. Examples are *cum* (e.g. cum Ipso), *sine* (sine Deo), *de* (de hoc mundo).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet most prepositions need to be followed by accusative, like *ante* (ante constitutionem mundi), *per* (per Ipsum), *post* (post mortem).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A number of prepositions may be followed by both acc. and abl.**, with different meanings, as *in*, *sub*, *super*. **The rule of thumb with these three is that accusative adds movement** to the meaning of the preposition: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **in+[abl]** &amp;rightarrow; *in*, *on*, *at*; &#xD;&#xA;* **in+[acc]** &amp;rightarrow; *to*, *into*, *towards*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the quote from Deuteronomy, the seed is to be [thrown][1] *to the ground*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: i) L&amp;S entry for [in][2], and ii) [this list][2] (and also [this one][3]) of prepositions and the cases they are followed by (none of both is exhaustive, and the exact content of a complete list is disputed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the lists you can see some prepositions are said to be followed by [genitive][4], like **ope**, and **tenus**. These are listed by some as prepositions, but not universally agreed as such. My perception in this issue is they are nouns in the process of mutating from/to prepositions by gaining/losing cases (either created by generalization or falling out of use). Note that ope is said by L&amp;S to be the ablative of [ops][5], which itself is not attested. Other cases of *ops* are also rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Diacio&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Din1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/portable:latin-prepositions&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/883/prepositions-adpositions-with-genitive&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6977" RevisionGUID="71671766-1168-4c0b-b621-7ce9e5fa22c1" CreationDate="2018-08-06T13:28:29.170" UserId="469" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="Not all prepositions are created equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some prepositions need to be followed by ablative as you say. Examples are *cum* (e.g. cum Ipso), *sine* (sine Deo), *de* (de hoc mundo).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet most prepositions need to be followed by accusative, like *ante* (ante constitutionem mundi), *per* (per Ipsum), *post* (post mortem).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A number of prepositions may be followed by both acc. and abl.**, with different meanings, as *in*, *sub*, *super*. **The rule of thumb with these three is that accusative adds movement** to the meaning of the preposition: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **in+[abl]** &amp;rightarrow; *in*, *on*, *at*; &#xD;&#xA;* **in+[acc]** &amp;rightarrow; *to*, *into*, *towards*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the quote from Deuteronomy, the seed is to be [thrown][1] *to the ground*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: i) L&amp;S entry for [in][2], and ii) [this list][2] (and also [this one][3]) of prepositions and the cases they are followed by (none of both is exhaustive, and the exact content of a complete list is disputed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the lists you can see some prepositions are said to be followed by [genitive][4], like **ope**, and **tenus**. These are listed by some as prepositions, but not universally agreed as such. My perception in this issue is they are nouns in the process of mutating from/to prepositions by gaining/losing cases (either created by generalization or falling out of use). Note that ope is said by L&amp;S to be the ablative of [ops][5], which itself is not attested, being another example of a [defective paradigm][6]. Other cases of *ops* are also rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Diacio&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Din1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/portable:latin-prepositions&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/883/prepositions-adpositions-with-genitive&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6891/vicis-no-singular-nominative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6976" RevisionGUID="e05a5708-3fb8-4a36-9354-5e3df94dde7b" CreationDate="2018-08-06T13:34:45.403" UserId="1459" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="[Deuteronomy 28:38](http://sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/deu028.htm#038) reads: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sementem multam jacies in terram, et modicum congregabis: quia locustæ devorabunt omnia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the first phrase before the comma has the following structure (but reordered; e.g. accusatives comes before the verb and subject is implicit in the verb): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[subject/nominative] [verb] [object/accusative] preposition [ablative]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, _terram_ is in [accusative](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terram), instead of in [ablative](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terra#Latin) (_terrā_). The object of the phrase is clearly _sementis_ (hence the ablative mode _sementem_), whereas _in_ is indicating an ablative of place. Why is then _terram_ in accusative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quaestio brevis. Quid &quot;terram&quot; est accusativum in [Deuteronomium 28:38](http://sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/deu028.htm#038)? Non debet sit ablativum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6976" RevisionGUID="80d7db03-1b74-4d03-93ba-90a5ebb4040e" CreationDate="2018-08-06T13:35:01.507" UserId="1459" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="[Deuteronomy 28:38](http://sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/deu028.htm#038) reads: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sementem multam jacies in terram, et modicum congregabis: quia locustæ devorabunt omnia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the first phrase before the comma has the following structure (but reordered; e.g. accusatives come before the verb, and subject is implicit in the verb): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[subject/nominative] [verb] [object/accusative] preposition [ablative]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, _terram_ is in [accusative](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terram), instead of in [ablative](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terra#Latin) (_terrā_). The object of the phrase is clearly _sementis_ (hence the accusative mode _sementem_), whereas _in_ is indicating an ablative of place. Why is then _terram_ in accusative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quaestio brevis. Quid &quot;terram&quot; est accusativum in [Deuteronomium 28:38](http://sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/deu028.htm#038)? Non debet sit ablativum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6977" RevisionGUID="3ec2fa3e-4363-4fcf-85f5-188d681ca249" CreationDate="2018-08-06T14:45:51.113" UserId="469" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Not all prepositions are created equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some prepositions need to be followed by ablative as you say. Examples are *cum* (e.g. cum Ipso), *sine* (sine Deo nihil), *de* (de hoc mundo).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet most prepositions need to be followed by accusative, like *ante* (ante constitutionem mundi), *per* (per Ipsum), *post* (post mortem).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A number of prepositions may be followed by both acc. and abl.**, with different meanings, as *in*, *sub*, *super*. **The rule of thumb with these three is that accusative adds movement** to the meaning of the preposition: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **in+[abl]** &amp;rightarrow; *in*, *on*, *at*; &#xD;&#xA;* **in+[acc]** &amp;rightarrow; *to*, *into*, *towards*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the quote from Deuteronomy, the seed is to be [thrown][1] *to the ground*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: i) L&amp;S entry for [in][2], and ii) [this list][2] (and also [this one][3]) of prepositions and the cases they are followed by (none of both is exhaustive, and the exact content of a complete list is disputed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the lists you can see some prepositions are said to be followed by [genitive][4], like **ope**, and **tenus**. These are listed by some as prepositions, but not universally agreed as such. My perception in this issue is they are nouns in the process of mutating from/to prepositions by gaining/losing cases (either created by generalization or falling out of use). Note that ope is said by L&amp;S to be the ablative of [ops][5], which itself is not attested, being another example of a [defective paradigm][6]. Other cases of *ops* are also rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Diacio&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Din1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/portable:latin-prepositions&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/883/prepositions-adpositions-with-genitive&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6891/vicis-no-singular-nominative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6977" RevisionGUID="06ce6ae9-ccaf-49e3-9bcc-2cd3f399a525" CreationDate="2018-08-06T15:59:32.917" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Not all prepositions are created equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some prepositions need to be followed by ablative as you say. Examples are *cum* (e.g. cum Ipso), *sine* (sine Deo nihil), *de* (de hoc mundo).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet most prepositions need to be followed by accusative, like *ante* (ante constitutionem mundi), *per* (per Ipsum), *post* (post mortem).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A number of prepositions may be followed by both acc. and abl.**, with different meanings, as *in*, *sub*, *super*. **The rule of thumb with these three is that accusative adds movement** to the meaning of the preposition: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **in+[abl]** &amp;rightarrow; *in*, *on*, *at*; &#xD;&#xA;* **in+[acc]** &amp;rightarrow; *to*, *into*, *towards*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the quote from Deuteronomy, the seed is to be [thrown][1] *to the ground*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: i) L&amp;S entry for [in][2], and ii) [this list][2] (and also [this one][3]) of prepositions and the cases they are followed by (none of both is exhaustive, and the exact content of a complete list is disputed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the lists you can see that some are said to be followed by [genitive][4], like **ope**, and **tenus**. These are listed by some as prepositions, but not universally agreed as such. My perception in this issue is they are nouns in the process of mutating from/to prepositions by gaining/losing cases (either created by generalization or falling out of use). Note that ope is said by L&amp;S to be the ablative of [ops][5], which itself is not attested, being another example of a [defective paradigm][6]. Other cases of *ops* are also rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Diacio&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Din1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/portable:latin-prepositions&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/883/prepositions-adpositions-with-genitive&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6891/vicis-no-singular-nominative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6978" RevisionGUID="85d04293-0320-4ea1-a889-daa74e49dcec" CreationDate="2018-08-06T20:21:29.433" UserId="406" Text="Suppose I wanted to talk about good deeds. Generally this means acts done by someone for selfless reasons, solely to benefit others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a literal translation I could go with *bona facta*, but the phrase in English is very idiomatic, and you seldom see the word &quot;deed&quot; otherwise. (Similarly, you seldom hear of &quot;bad deeds&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a better way to express this concept in Latin? If not, what's the closest equivalent? I'm mainly interested in Classical Latin, but an Ecclesiastic equivalent would also be interesting (and probably easier to find)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23370" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6978" RevisionGUID="85d04293-0320-4ea1-a889-daa74e49dcec" CreationDate="2018-08-06T20:21:29.433" UserId="406" Text="What is a good deed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23371" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6978" RevisionGUID="85d04293-0320-4ea1-a889-daa74e49dcec" CreationDate="2018-08-06T20:21:29.433" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|idiom|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6979" RevisionGUID="502eedcd-4bd4-4810-85e9-c156416c9cce" CreationDate="2018-08-06T21:26:45.847" UserId="469" Text="For what its worth, St. Thomas Aquinas uses the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* For *deed*, **actus** and **actio**, the latter seeming preferred, at least as per [*ST I-II, Q. 18, Art. 1*][1].&#xD;&#xA;* For *good*, **bonum/-a**, and for *bad*, **malum/-a**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actiones** are said by St. Thomas both **bonae** and **malae**, depending on... well, I won't spoil the book for you. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ergo **actiones** humanae secundum circumstantias sunt **bonae** vel **malae** *(Ibid., a. 3 s. c.)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non ergo secundum finem dicitur **actio** **bona** vel **mala**. *(Ibid., a. 4 arg. 2*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I fail to quickly find a place where an *actio* is said *bona* or *mala* without the mediation of the verb *esse*. Instead, I found a plain *actus bonus* as the subject of a sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnis **actus bonus** concordat rationi et legi aeternae *(Ibid., q. 21 a. 1 co.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Actus bonus* is also used by Aquinas in *De Malo*, and apparently by [Okham][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In turn, *Pliny the Younger* (I-II century AD) writes about *bonas actiones*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At aliud est **actio bona**, aliud oratio [etc.] *([Plin. Ep. 1.20][3])*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actus** meaning deed, as for I could research quickly, doesn't seem to be Classical (its meanings, according to L&amp;S being [much more specific][4]). Among the words listed by L&amp;S meaning *deed* I've been able to find, these are the relative maximum frequencies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Actum][5]**: 14K, with a lot of law specific meanings increasing the number&#xD;&#xA;* **[Factum][6]**: 25K, also mixed with other meanings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actio** gives 1.6K and is not listed as meaning *deed*, but the [dictionary entry][7] includes *act* and *action* among its meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, after a quick search, I haven't been able to find neither *acta* nor *facta* qualified as good or bad in Classical texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**: after this quick (and most probably non-exhaustive) research, I'd go for **actus bonus** in ecclesiastical/medieval Latin. As for classical Latin, I doubt between Pliny's **actio bona** or a plain **circumlocution** (e.g., avoid talking about good deeds, by using things like *to act well*, *do good*, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/sth2006.html#34256&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=qNLkfTJaq3QC&amp;pg=PA150&amp;lpg=PA150&amp;dq=%22actus%20bonus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zcq90OCCeA&amp;sig=bLbPW0ignFbsLv5lZBt-g-fWpVY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjV6anmp9ncAhWJCpAKHc1KDKcQ6AEwBHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22actus%20bonus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0139:book=1:letter=20&amp;highlight=bona%2Cactio&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dactus2&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=exact&amp;lookup=actum&amp;lang=la&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=exact&amp;lookup=factum&amp;lang=la&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dactio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6979" RevisionGUID="cef2b402-a701-40d0-a347-07ca54cce4d0" CreationDate="2018-08-06T23:20:47.447" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 115 characters in body" Text="For what its worth, St. Thomas Aquinas uses the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* For *deed*, **actus** and **actio**, the latter seeming preferred, at least as per [*ST I-II, Q. 18, Art. 1*][1].&#xD;&#xA;* For *good*, **bonum/-a**, and for *bad*, **malum/-a**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actiones** are said by St. Thomas both **bonae** and **malae**, depending on... well, I won't spoil the book for you. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ergo **actiones** humanae secundum circumstantias sunt **bonae** vel **malae** *(Ibid., a. 3 s. c.)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non ergo secundum finem dicitur **actio** **bona** vel **mala**. *(Ibid., a. 4 arg. 2*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I fail to quickly find a place where an *actio* is said *bona* or *mala* without the mediation of the verb *esse*. Instead, I found a plain *actus bonus* as the subject of a sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnis **actus bonus** concordat rationi et legi aeternae *(Ibid., q. 21 a. 1 co.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Actus bonus* is also used by Aquinas in *De Malo*, and apparently by [Okham][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actus** meaning deed, as for I could research quickly, doesn't seem to be Classical (its meanings, according to L&amp;S being [much more specific][4]). Among the words listed by L&amp;S meaning *deed* I've been able to find, these are the relative maximum frequencies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Actum][5]**: 14K, with a lot of law specific meanings increasing the number&#xD;&#xA;* **[Factum][6]**: 25K, also mixed with other meanings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actio** gives 1.6K and is not listed as meaning *deed*, but the [dictionary entry][7] includes *act* and *action* among its meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, after a quick search, I haven't been able to find neither *acta* nor *facta* qualified as good or bad in Classical texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**: after this quick (and blatantly non-exhaustive) research, I'd go for **actus bonus** in ecclesiastical/medieval Latin. As for classical Latin, I'm inclined to think there is no closed expression and a **circumlocution** is to be preferred (e.g., avoid talking about good deeds, by using things like *to act well*, *do good*, etc., not sure witch one, though)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/sth2006.html#34256&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=qNLkfTJaq3QC&amp;pg=PA150&amp;lpg=PA150&amp;dq=%22actus%20bonus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zcq90OCCeA&amp;sig=bLbPW0ignFbsLv5lZBt-g-fWpVY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjV6anmp9ncAhWJCpAKHc1KDKcQ6AEwBHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22actus%20bonus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0139:book=1:letter=20&amp;highlight=bona%2Cactio&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dactus2&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=exact&amp;lookup=actum&amp;lang=la&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=exact&amp;lookup=factum&amp;lang=la&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dactio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="e1c17b1d-b535-4ea2-ac1e-8f5fb282f3e5" CreationDate="2018-08-07T02:54:02.500" UserId="39" Comment="added 839 characters in body" Text="Philomen Probert (Wolfson College, Oxford) writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**[A] nominative/accusative dual ending in ω always has an acute, never a circumflex, if accented on the final syllable, regardless of contraction**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόω &gt; νώ (not *νῶ);  ὀστέω &gt; ὀστώ (not *ὀστῶ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;([Probert 2003][1], §112). This is a synchronic observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similar exceptions (to the normal rules of contracted forms) she mentions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives of material in -οῦς from -εος (§122);&#xD;&#xA; - contracted nouns and adjectives in -ους from -οος (§121);&#xD;&#xA; - feminine nouns in -ώ (§127).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I'm not quite sure yet. We “inherited” this convention from the ancient grammarians (Apollonius and his son Herodian, John Philoponus, Theodosius of Alexandria, George Choiroboskos)  - see [Chandler 1881][2] §563 for further details, with relevant original passages in Greek on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: A lot of Greek grammars are secondary sources and are rather compilatory. In other words, quite often they merely repeat the so called &quot;rules&quot; from the earlier books. For instance, it seems that Kühner–Blass base their observation on Göttling 1835 *[Allgemeine Lehre vom Akzent der griechischen Sprache*][3] (Chandler 1881 basically repeats him too, adding only one other quotation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, this is a “rule” passed upon us from the ancient grammarians. In present-day linguistic research it is a thorny issue and is usually mentioned as an exception (e.g. Kiparsky , Probert 2003). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we could question the accuracy of linguistic description of the Alexandrian grammarians; that being said, it seems inscriptional data confirms the dual oxytone in some dual forms (cf. Monatanari &quot;dual κανώ in inscr.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, it could be explained **internally**; e.g. Steriade 1988 explains the nominative dual oxytone - to use her terminology, accent on *a desinential mora* - with morphological factors, in other words, **with analogy**; cf. [Papanastassiou 2013][7] &quot;[t]he accent of the nominative is kept in all cases [in the Attic declension - Alex B.]. The genitive and dative are oxytone when the final syllable is accented, even if they result from contraction.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If I understand **Kurylowicz 1958** *L'accentuation des langues indo-européennes* correctly, he believes the oxytone of the dual nom-acc marked can be explained **analogically**. Here's the relevant quote in the original:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Cette constatation est importante pur le problème de l'ancienne intonation des duel en -ω, -ᾱ. Il s'agit là évidemment d'un phénomène d'ordre sémantique et morphologique. Le manque d'intonation, c.-à-d. l'intonation aiguë, dans ὀφθαλμώ devient compréhensible si l'on suppose qu'au moment de l'introduction du circonflexe dans les désinences -ῆς, -ῇ, -ῷ, -ῶν, le duel ne jouissait plus des droits d'une forme appartenant au paradigme normal, mais était sémantiquement subordonné au pluriel et en quelque sort dérivé de lui (-ώ, -ᾱ́  dérivés &lt; -οί, -αί). C'est un indice de la genèse relativement tardive du système de l'accentuation grecque&quot; (Kurylowicz 1958: 128-129).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Or we could explain it **externally** - in other words, we could trace it to the PIE dual marker *o-h&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;(e) and its development in the IE languages (cf.  Lithuanian and Vedic dual forms); cf. φῶς &lt; φάος (internal) and φώς (external) (Krasukhin 2004: 88).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also cf. Bubenik 1983 &quot;The Nom/Acc Dual did not develop an analogical circumflex because **the dual is rather a derivational category**&quot; [emphasis mine - Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Kurylowicz 1932][5] : 210 (not sure yet where to put this):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I found it interesting that Alonso Deniz 2013 argues that contraction is generally avoided in disyllables as opposed to grammatical disyllables, which may contract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A note on κανοῦν (κάνεον). Smyth and Messing write that it got its accent from its genitive and dative forms (§236b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/new-short-guide-to-the-accentuation-of-ancient-greek-9781853995996/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021602218&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=QJAAxzuE624C&amp;dq=G%C3%B6ttling%20Allgemeine%20Lehre%20vom%20Akzent%20der%20griechischen%20Sprache&amp;pg=PP5#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1DpzZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/409650&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4btNc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2214-448X_eagll_SIM_00000422" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="750d6cbf-7ef7-46f7-816f-fed1ef9a8f3a" CreationDate="2018-08-07T03:00:33.003" UserId="39" Comment="added 147 characters in body" Text="Philomen Probert (Wolfson College, Oxford) writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**[A] nominative/accusative dual ending in ω always has an acute, never a circumflex, if accented on the final syllable, regardless of contraction**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νόω &gt; νώ (not *νῶ);  ὀστέω &gt; ὀστώ (not *ὀστῶ) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;([Probert 2003][1], §112). This is a synchronic observation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similar exceptions (to the normal rules of contracted forms) she mentions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives of material in -οῦς from -εος (§122);&#xD;&#xA; - contracted nouns and adjectives in -ους from -οος (§121);&#xD;&#xA; - feminine nouns in -ώ (§127).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why, I'm not quite sure yet. We “inherited” this convention from the ancient grammarians (Apollonius and his son Herodian, John Philoponus, Theodosius of Alexandria, George Choiroboskos)  - see [Chandler 1881][2] §563 for further details, with relevant original passages in Greek on this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: A lot of Greek grammars are secondary sources and are rather compilatory. In other words, quite often they merely repeat the so called &quot;rules&quot; from the earlier books. For instance, it seems that Kühner–Blass base their observation on Göttling 1835 *[Allgemeine Lehre vom Akzent der griechischen Sprache*][3] (Chandler 1881 basically repeats him too, adding only one other quotation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, this is a “rule” passed upon us from the ancient grammarians. In present-day linguistic research it is a thorny issue and is usually mentioned as an exception (e.g. Kiparsky , Probert 2003). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we could question the accuracy of linguistic description of the Alexandrian grammarians; that being said, it seems inscriptional data confirms the dual oxytone in some dual forms (cf. Monatanari &quot;dual κανώ in inscr.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, it could be explained **internally**; e.g. Steriade 1988 explains the nominative dual oxytone - to use her terminology, accent on *a desinential mora* - with morphological factors, in other words, **with analogy**; cf. [Papanastassiou 2013][7] &quot;[t]he accent of the nominative is kept in all cases [in the Attic declension - Alex B.]. The genitive and dative are oxytone when the final syllable is accented, even if they result from contraction.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If I understand **Kurylowicz 1958** *L'accentuation des langues indo-européennes* correctly, he believes the oxytone of the dual nom-acc marked can be explained **analogically**. Here's the relevant quote in the original:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Cette constatation est importante pur le problème de l'ancienne intonation des duel en -ω, -ᾱ. Il s'agit là évidemment d'un phénomène d'ordre sémantique et morphologique. Le manque d'intonation, c.-à-d. l'intonation aiguë, dans ὀφθαλμώ devient compréhensible si l'on suppose qu'au moment de l'introduction du circonflexe dans les désinences -ῆς, -ῇ, -ῷ, -ῶν, le duel ne jouissait plus des droits d'une forme appartenant au paradigme normal, mais était sémantiquement subordonné au pluriel et en quelque sort dérivé de lui (-ώ, -ᾱ́  dérivés &lt; -οί, -αί). C'est un indice de la genèse relativement tardive du système de l'accentuation grecque&quot; (Kurylowicz 1958: 128-129).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*-if anyone is willing to post its English translation, be my guest; too tired typing all the French and Greek forms on an English keyboard -* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also cf. Bubenik 1983 &quot;The Nom/Acc Dual did not develop an analogical circumflex because **the dual is rather a derivational category**&quot; [emphasis mine - Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Or we could explain it **externally** - in other words, we could trace it to the PIE dual marker *o-h&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;(e) and its development in the IE languages (cf.  Lithuanian and Vedic dual forms); cf. φῶς &lt; φάος (internal) and φώς (external) (Krasukhin 2004: 88).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I found it interesting that Alonso Deniz 2013 argues that contraction is generally avoided in disyllables as opposed to grammatical disyllables, which may contract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A note on κανοῦν (κάνεον). Smyth and Messing write that it got its accent from its genitive and dative forms (§236b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/new-short-guide-to-the-accentuation-of-ancient-greek-9781853995996/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021602218&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=QJAAxzuE624C&amp;dq=G%C3%B6ttling%20Allgemeine%20Lehre%20vom%20Akzent%20der%20griechischen%20Sprache&amp;pg=PP5#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1DpzZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/409650&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4btNc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2214-448X_eagll_SIM_00000422" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6916" RevisionGUID="2d4cd402-db3f-42ec-8a6e-f5ac267af806" CreationDate="2018-08-07T03:31:36.737" UserId="39" Comment="added 263 characters in body" Text="The Greek - and hence Roman - tradition is to list cases in the order: NOM - GEN etc. Dionysius Thrax (170-90 BCE) is considered to be the first extant record of this system - see a screenshot from Allen and Brink 1980, p. 65 [*The old order and the new: A case history*][1] (btw I strongly recommend this paper - imho it's the best summary of all relevant research on this question written in English):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Jean Lallot (in [Lallot 1985][3]) argues this canonical order of the cases &quot;certainly goes back to the Stoics&quot; - cf. &quot;L'ordre canonique des cas ... remonte très certement aux Stoiciens&quot; (p. 54). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those [who read in Greek][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here is a more precise account. There are three local relations: from a place, in a place, and to a place, which respectively are proper to the genitive, dative, and accusative cases. It is the case that everything moved desires to be moved around something immobile (e.g. a dancer cannot turn around if he does not place his foot upon the ground, which is immobile), and it is clear in the case of someone who is moved *from* one place to another that, first, he comes to be *in* a place, and thereby does he come *to* a place. The genitive and dative cases seem somewhat similar to the immobile ground. The relation &quot;from a place&quot; which comes to be from the genitive *to* a place, i.e. to the accusative, advances by means of the dative, which shows the relation &quot;in a place.&quot; For this reason, the dative has been placed before the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another tradition going back to **Panini** is to put cases NOM - ACC etc (6th century BCE). His case system was based on the semantic roles (the so called Karaka Theory). The cases did not have our regular names such as nominative or dative but they had numbers instead. For instance, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Case 2 (accusative) is used when a *karman* (patient) is expressed&quot; or &quot;Case 3 (instrumental) is also used for the *karman* (patient) of *hu* 'sacrifice' in the Chandas (Vedic Verse)&quot; (Butt 2006: 17).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details, see e.g. [Kelly 1993][6] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not quite correct to say that in **German linguistics** the canonical order is NGDA that is used to describe Latin declension paradigms. For example, the best Latin grammar in German (and it surely beats any Latin grammar written in English or French, imho), *Lateinische Grammatik* by Leumann , Hofmann and Szantyr (the last edition was published in 1977, edited by Manu Leumann) uses the following order of the cases in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Akk. Gen. Dat. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. *Ausfürliche Grammatik* by Kühner and Holzweissig (1912): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Voc. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Russian** linguistic research, the following order is the most common one: Nom - Gen - Dat - Acc - Abl - Voc. (really any Latin grammar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **French** linguistics, the following order seems to be common now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N. Ac. G. D. Abl. (see e.g. *Morphologie historique du latin* by Alfred Ernout, 3rd ed. 1952; 4th ed. 2014).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So, the following order seems to be prevalent now in present-day Latin research (published in English, German, or French):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Nom. (Voc.) Acc. Gen. Dat. Abl.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009 (2nd corrected printing 2011), following the Indian system with some modifications, adopts a slightly different order though in his *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin* (and so does Sihler 1995):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Voc. Acc. Dat. Abl. Gen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster 2015 (*The Oxford Latin syntax*) still uses the old order, Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Abl. Voc. but I suspect it's because Harm Pinkster is from the Netherlands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll add more details tomorrow after classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024384180900807&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GHfy4.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.persee.fr/doc/hel_0247-8897_1985_num_6_1_3343&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/details/scholiaindionys00hilggoog&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/srnkn.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4351439" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6916" RevisionGUID="f29c8032-27e3-4983-8b9c-c0cd7a0f4d6b" CreationDate="2018-08-07T04:11:13.160" UserId="39" Comment="added 573 characters in body" Text="The Greek - and hence Roman - tradition is to list cases in the order: NOM - GEN etc. Dionysius Thrax (170-90 BCE) is considered to be the first extant record of this system - see a screenshot from Allen and Brink 1980, p. 65 [*The old order and the new: A case history*][1] (btw I strongly recommend this paper - imho it's the best summary of all relevant research on this question written in English):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Jean Lallot (in [Lallot 1985][3]) argues this canonical order of the cases &quot;certainly goes back to the Stoics&quot; - cf. &quot;L'ordre canonique des cas ... remonte très certement aux Stoiciens&quot; (p. 54). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those [who read in Greek][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here is a more precise account. There are three local relations: from a place, in a place, and to a place, which respectively are proper to the genitive, dative, and accusative cases. It is the case that everything moved desires to be moved around something immobile (e.g. a dancer cannot turn around if he does not place his foot upon the ground, which is immobile), and it is clear in the case of someone who is moved *from* one place to another that, first, he comes to be *in* a place, and thereby does he come *to* a place. The genitive and dative cases seem somewhat similar to the immobile ground. The relation &quot;from a place&quot; which comes to be from the genitive *to* a place, i.e. to the accusative, advances by means of the dative, which shows the relation &quot;in a place.&quot; For this reason, the dative has been placed before the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen and Brink 1980 write that another tradition, i.e. Nom-Voc-Acc-Dat-Abl-Gen, goes back to the Danish historical linguist [Rasmus Rask][6] (1787-1832). His rationale was that the neuter forms were &quot;the simplest&quot; (hence the Nom-Voc-Acc block); thus, he gives the declension paradigms in the order neuter-masculine-feminine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Allen and Brink (p. 78):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen and Brink do mention two earlier historical evidence from the eighteenth century though: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Nom-Voc-Dat-Acc-Abl-Gen** in *Versuch einer an der menschlichen Sprache abgebildeten Vernunftlehre* (1781) by the German language teacher and grammarian **Johann Werner Meiner (1723-1789)** (Bernd Naumann describes this work as &quot;a philosophical grammar which was the result of his life-long experience as a language teacher and thus better than most contemporary works on this subject&quot; - see the entry on Meiner in [*Lexicon grammaticorum: Who's who in the history of world linguistics*][8]);&#xD;&#xA; - Nom-Voc-Acc-Gen-Dat (by the Danish scholar N.L. Nissen) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not quite correct to say that in **German linguistics** the canonical order is NGDA that is used to describe Latin declension paradigms. For example, the best Latin grammar in German (and it surely beats any Latin grammar written in English or French, imho), *Lateinische Grammatik* by Leumann , Hofmann and Szantyr (the last edition was published in 1977, edited by Manu Leumann) uses the following order of the cases in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Akk. Gen. Dat. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. *Ausfürliche Grammatik* by Kühner and Holzweissig (1912): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Voc. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Russian** linguistic research, the following order is the most common one: Nom - Gen - Dat - Acc - Abl - Voc. (really any Latin grammar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **French** linguistics, the following order seems to be common now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N. Ac. G. D. Abl. (see e.g. *Morphologie historique du latin* by Alfred Ernout, 3rd ed. 1952; 4th ed. 2014).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So, the following order seems to be prevalent now in present-day Latin research (published in English, German, or French):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Nom. (Voc.) Acc. Gen. Dat. Abl.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009 (2nd corrected printing 2011), following the Indian system with some modifications, adopts a slightly different order though in his *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin* (and so does Sihler 1995):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Voc. Acc. Dat. Abl. Gen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster 2015 (*The Oxford Latin syntax*) still uses the old order, Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Abl. Voc. but I suspect it's because Harm Pinkster is from the Netherlands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll add more details tomorrow after classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024384180900807&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GHfy4.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.persee.fr/doc/hel_0247-8897_1985_num_6_1_3343&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/details/scholiaindionys00hilggoog&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/srnkn.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rasmus-Rask&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ALYey.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/176202" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6916" RevisionGUID="c96eddf6-c8d2-4ed2-bd14-774be5b53f37" CreationDate="2018-08-07T04:26:20.517" UserId="39" Comment="added 233 characters in body" Text="The Greek - and hence Roman - tradition is to list cases in the order: NOM - GEN etc. Dionysius Thrax (170-90 BCE) is considered to be the first extant record of this system - see a screenshot from Allen and Brink 1980, p. 65 [*The old order and the new: A case history*][1] (btw I strongly recommend this paper - imho it's the best summary of all relevant research on this question written in English):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Jean Lallot (in [Lallot 1985][3]) argues this canonical order of the cases &quot;certainly goes back to the Stoics&quot; - cf. &quot;L'ordre canonique des cas ... remonte très certement aux Stoiciens&quot; (p. 54). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those [who read in Greek][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here is a more precise account. There are three local relations: from a place, in a place, and to a place, which respectively are proper to the genitive, dative, and accusative cases. It is the case that everything moved desires to be moved around something immobile (e.g. a dancer cannot turn around if he does not place his foot upon the ground, which is immobile), and it is clear in the case of someone who is moved *from* one place to another that, first, he comes to be *in* a place, and thereby does he come *to* a place. The genitive and dative cases seem somewhat similar to the immobile ground. The relation &quot;from a place&quot; which comes to be from the genitive *to* a place, i.e. to the accusative, advances by means of the dative, which shows the relation &quot;in a place.&quot; For this reason, the dative has been placed before the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen and Brink 1980 write that another tradition, i.e. Nom-Voc-Acc-Dat-Abl-Gen, goes back to the Danish historical linguist [Rasmus Rask][6] (1787-1832). His rationale was that the neuter forms were &quot;the simplest&quot; (hence the Nom-Voc-Acc block); thus, he gives the declension paradigms in the order neuter-masculine-feminine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Allen and Brink (p. 78):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen and Brink do mention two earlier historical evidence from the eighteenth century though: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Nom-Voc-Dat-Acc-Abl-Gen** in *Versuch einer an der menschlichen Sprache abgebildeten Vernunftlehre* (1781) by the German language teacher and grammarian **Johann Werner Meiner (1723-1789)** (Bernd Naumann describes this work as &quot;a philosophical grammar which was the result of his life-long experience as a language teacher and thus better than most contemporary works on this subject&quot; - see the entry on Meiner in [*Lexicon grammaticorum: Who's who in the history of world linguistics*][8]);&#xD;&#xA; - Nom-Voc-Acc-Gen-Dat (by the Danish scholar N.L. Nissen) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, the Danish classical philologist (and politician) Johan Nicolai Madvig (1804-1886) adopted this case order in his Latin grammar. This caught on - via Kennedy, who used several grammars, including the one written by Madvig.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not quite correct to say that in **German linguistics** the canonical order is NGDA that is used to describe Latin declension paradigms. For example, the best Latin grammar in German (and it surely beats any Latin grammar written in English or French, imho), *Lateinische Grammatik* by Leumann , Hofmann and Szantyr (the last edition was published in 1977, edited by Manu Leumann) uses the following order of the cases in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Akk. Gen. Dat. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. *Ausfürliche Grammatik* by Kühner and Holzweissig (1912): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Voc. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Russian** linguistic research, the following order is the most common one: Nom - Gen - Dat - Acc - Abl - Voc. (really any Latin grammar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **French** linguistics, the following order seems to be common now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N. Ac. G. D. Abl. (see e.g. *Morphologie historique du latin* by Alfred Ernout, 3rd ed. 1952; 4th ed. 2014).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So, the following order seems to be prevalent now in present-day Latin research (published in English, German, or French):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Nom. (Voc.) Acc. Gen. Dat. Abl.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009 (2nd corrected printing 2011), following the Indian system with some modifications, adopts a slightly different order though in his *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin* (and so does Sihler 1995):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Voc. Acc. Dat. Abl. Gen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster 2015 (*The Oxford Latin syntax*) still uses the old order, Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Abl. Voc. but I suspect it's because Harm Pinkster is from the Netherlands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll add more details tomorrow after classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024384180900807&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GHfy4.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.persee.fr/doc/hel_0247-8897_1985_num_6_1_3343&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/details/scholiaindionys00hilggoog&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/srnkn.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rasmus-Rask&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ALYey.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/176202" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6916" RevisionGUID="af92b7ea-1d98-4e95-9836-47f6d594bbc6" CreationDate="2018-08-07T04:34:38.040" UserId="39" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="The Greek - and hence Roman - tradition is to list cases in the order: NOM - GEN etc. Dionysius Thrax (170-90 BCE) is considered to be the first extant record of this system - see a screenshot from Allen and Brink 1980, p. 65 [*The old order and the new: A case history*][1] (btw I strongly recommend this paper - imho it's the best summary of all relevant research on this question written in English):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Jean Lallot (in [Lallot 1985][3]) argues this canonical order of the cases &quot;certainly goes back to the Stoics&quot; - cf. &quot;L'ordre canonique des cas ... remonte très certement aux Stoiciens&quot; (p. 54). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those [who read in Greek][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English translation (kindly translated by brianpck);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here is a more precise account. There are three local relations: from a place, in a place, and to a place, which respectively are proper to the genitive, dative, and accusative cases. It is the case that everything moved desires to be moved around something immobile (e.g. a dancer cannot turn around if he does not place his foot upon the ground, which is immobile), and it is clear in the case of someone who is moved *from* one place to another that, first, he comes to be *in* a place, and thereby does he come *to* a place. The genitive and dative cases seem somewhat similar to the immobile ground. The relation &quot;from a place&quot; which comes to be from the genitive *to* a place, i.e. to the accusative, advances by means of the dative, which shows the relation &quot;in a place.&quot; For this reason, the dative has been placed before the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen and Brink 1980 write that another tradition, i.e. Nom-Voc-Acc-Dat-Abl-Gen, goes back to the Danish historical linguist [Rasmus Rask][6] (1787-1832). His rationale was that the neuter forms were &quot;the simplest&quot; (hence the Nom-Voc-Acc block); thus, he gives the declension paradigms in the order neuter-masculine-feminine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Allen and Brink (p. 78):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen and Brink do mention some earlier historical evidence from the eighteenth century though: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Nom-Voc-Dat-Acc-Abl-Gen** in *Versuch einer an der menschlichen Sprache abgebildeten Vernunftlehre* (1781) by the German language teacher and grammarian **Johann Werner Meiner (1723-1789)** (Bernd Naumann describes this work as &quot;a philosophical grammar which was the result of his life-long experience as a language teacher and thus better than most contemporary works on this subject&quot; - see the entry on Meiner in [*Lexicon grammaticorum: Who's who in the history of world linguistics*][8]);&#xD;&#xA; - Nom-Voc-Acc-Gen-Dat (by the Danish scholar N.L. Nissen) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, the Danish classical philologist (and politician) Johan Nicolai Madvig (1804-1886) adopted this case order in his Latin grammar. This caught on - via Kennedy, who used several grammars, including the one written by Madvig.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not quite correct to say that in **German linguistics** the canonical order is NGDA that is used to describe Latin declension paradigms. For example, the best Latin grammar in German (and it surely beats any Latin grammar written in English or French, imho), *Lateinische Grammatik* by Leumann , Hofmann and Szantyr (the last edition was published in 1977, edited by Manu Leumann) uses the following order of the cases in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Akk. Gen. Dat. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. *Ausfürliche Grammatik* by Kühner and Holzweissig (1912): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Voc. Abl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Russian** linguistic research, the following order is the most common one: Nom - Gen - Dat - Acc - Abl - Voc. (really any Latin grammar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **French** linguistics, the following order seems to be common now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N. Ac. G. D. Abl. (see e.g. *Morphologie historique du latin* by Alfred Ernout, 3rd ed. 1952; 4th ed. 2014).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So, the following order seems to be prevalent now in present-day Latin research (published in English, German, or French):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Nom. (Voc.) Acc. Gen. Dat. Abl.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009 (2nd corrected printing 2011), following the Indian system with some modifications, adopts a slightly different order though in his *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin* (and so does Sihler 1995):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. Voc. Acc. Dat. Abl. Gen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster 2015 (*The Oxford Latin syntax*) still uses the old order, Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc. Abl. Voc. but I suspect it's because Harm Pinkster is from the Netherlands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll add more details tomorrow after classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024384180900807&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GHfy4.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.persee.fr/doc/hel_0247-8897_1985_num_6_1_3343&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/details/scholiaindionys00hilggoog&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/srnkn.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rasmus-Rask&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ALYey.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/176202" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23380" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4090" RevisionGUID="e69db3c6-73c4-4396-941f-9452469fc9ae" CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:01:38.160" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|derivation|suffixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5872" RevisionGUID="c5754d85-3af8-47a8-9551-d7d9919ec634" CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:05:34.907" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="As a joke, I'm imagining someone being confused about the US motto, and thinking it was &quot;_e unum pluribus_&quot;, which hypothetically might mean &quot;out of the one, many&quot; or similar. But I bet that isn't grammatical. So (just as info) what would be grammatical? And could the confused version even sorta, kinda, have the hypothetical meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5861" RevisionGUID="eb1443d1-7282-4082-a0ec-a673b87ed8a9" CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:06:10.637" UserId="1459" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="I'm trying to translate a sentence &quot;We are her sword&quot;. It's supposed to be a motto for a warriors' guild under leadership of a female elf warrior in our tabletop RPG game. Other than the obvious metaphorical meaning, it's also referring to the fact that the guild's symbol and name were based on said elf's divine sword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like &quot;_Gladius eius nos sumus_&quot; might be what I'm looking for, but I'm not sure if my translation is correct. Can &quot;_nos_&quot; be in this sentence, or should I ditch it? Is &quot;_gladius_&quot; the right word to use for &quot;sword&quot; when it has a metaphorical rather than literal meaning? Also, I would very much like to put extra emphasis on the word &quot;her&quot; by putting it first, but I am not sure if &quot;_eius gladius_&quot; and &quot;_gladius eius_&quot; mean the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23383" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5861" RevisionGUID="eb1443d1-7282-4082-a0ec-a673b87ed8a9" CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:06:10.637" UserId="1459" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Translating &quot;We are her sword&quot; into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23384" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5861" RevisionGUID="eb1443d1-7282-4082-a0ec-a673b87ed8a9" CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:06:10.637" UserId="1459" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|sentence-translation|syntax|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23385" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4444" RevisionGUID="7dfcc13a-18f2-43d7-895b-c7cda87993c4" CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:07:16.313" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|idiom|sentence-translation|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2517" RevisionGUID="b49393cf-d42f-4968-ae51-aa9d72444dcb" CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:07:44.573" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="I have an old silver jewellery box, in the bottom left hand corner is an arm holding a spear, with a banner underneath, with the words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; REM ORUINE PANDO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The I in ORUINE could possibly be an L, hard to tell.&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if anyone could tell me what it means? Is it even Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2513" RevisionGUID="9cafc1d9-d068-4f73-a609-1acabfbef356" CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:08:06.763" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 45 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I need a bit of help with translating the following phrase from English into Latin: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rochester Catholic Schools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would **Rochester Catholic Schools** be properly translated into Latin?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23388" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2513" RevisionGUID="9cafc1d9-d068-4f73-a609-1acabfbef356" CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:08:06.763" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 45 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|ecclesiastical-latin|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2514" RevisionGUID="c624428c-54cb-40ee-9d6d-7d9f2c5b6fe9" CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:08:34.330" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body" Text="The &quot;Catholic Schools&quot; portion of the phrase could be translated as *Catholicae scholae*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there isn't a specific word for Rochester in Latin, so you may want to check out this article on [Latinisation][1] for a quick overview.  &#xD;&#xA;In this situation, the Latin word for Rochester would have to go into either the **genitive** if you want the phrase to mean &quot;Catholic schools of Rochester&quot; or **locative** if you want the phrase to mean &quot;Catholic schools in Rochester&quot;. However, we would first need to get over the hurdle of Latinising the proper noun &quot;Rochester&quot;. Does anyone else have more experience with Latinising words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latinisation_of_names" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23390" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="479" RevisionGUID="bc0c9a46-a5ea-4047-9683-40b35979f6c9" CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:09:06.527" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5730" RevisionGUID="5bff4e7c-6907-45fe-a2db-1d75261f3635" CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:10:14.577" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="What does *ratio doloris* mean?&#xD;&#xA;I want to translate _ratio doloris_ from Latin to English in all contexts for which it would make grammatical sense, because I want to know if *-is* is the correct suffix for *dolor* in the following context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am attempting to shorten a phrase similar to, if not exactly, *Et ratio in dolore est* into 2 words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Credit for the phrase goes to [GIVE_ME_UR_B00BZ][1] on the Latin subreddit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/6go2ks/help_with_translating_a_saying_to_the_effect_of/dirzksk/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5877" RevisionGUID="eb6d6ae2-9f2d-4f89-97b7-318a6b5f923b" CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:10:37.203" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Is the following translation of &quot;against yourself&quot; correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contra te ipsum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to use the phrase &quot;against yourself&quot; in the following context: &quot;to fight against yourself&quot;, &quot;it's you against yourself&quot;, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6084" RevisionGUID="eea9a5cf-1da1-4b33-8d36-184cb3cc7e9f" CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:11:45.397" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="My wife and I have built a forever home on 25 acres just outside a small country town (population approximately 8000) in Australia. We have joked over the years that we are doing this because we are hermits or reclusive. I would like to have the property signposted as &quot;Hermit Farm&quot; in Latin, probably in the form of a farm that produces hermits, as a farm might produce wheat or pigs. So far the best fit seems to be &quot;_Villa Eremita_&quot; or &quot;_Eremita Agellus_&quot;, but the former seems to suggest a grand country estate, whereas the latter just a small field. I'm tending towards the former as it is more recognisable, but could anyone suggest which would be the best translation or perhaps a better alternative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23394" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6084" RevisionGUID="eea9a5cf-1da1-4b33-8d36-184cb3cc7e9f" CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:11:45.397" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4581" RevisionGUID="d581b116-5f47-49c9-931d-eec4e597d052" CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:13:11.353" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I would like to know which case follows after the phrase &quot;_praeparatio in_&quot; in the sense of &quot;preparation in (expectation of)&quot; in English, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To use the above-mentioned example, would the correct Latin translation be &quot;_praeparatio in expectatione_&quot; or &quot;_praeparatio in expectationem_&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23396" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4581" RevisionGUID="d581b116-5f47-49c9-931d-eec4e597d052" CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:13:11.353" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2878" RevisionGUID="4cc41f7e-c3db-4284-a940-e6298f3798b7" CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:13:58.063" UserId="1459" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&gt;_Per Intellectum, Vis_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would you fix? Trying to come up with a theme / catchphrase for a family event. I want to signify respect for education, the scientific method and observation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23398" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2878" RevisionGUID="4cc41f7e-c3db-4284-a940-e6298f3798b7" CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:13:58.063" UserId="1459" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Translating &quot;Through Intellect, Strength&quot; into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23399" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2878" RevisionGUID="4cc41f7e-c3db-4284-a940-e6298f3798b7" CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:13:58.063" UserId="1459" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1215" RevisionGUID="0028ebf4-0c9c-4ec6-8a4b-c1209aba0487" CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:14:32.630" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I need to create a family logo for the wedding of a Classics prof. I'd like the phrase to be &quot;Music and Beer.&quot; I don't speak Latin and I'm getting strange results from Google translate depending on the wording of the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Beer and Music: _ebrietate et musica_&#xD;&#xA; - Music and Beer: _Musica et in Bersabee_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't show up to this wedding with bad Latin :-). What's the correct phrasing --- and is there a linguistic reason why the translations are diverging?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23401" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1215" RevisionGUID="0028ebf4-0c9c-4ec6-8a4b-c1209aba0487" CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:14:32.630" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&quot;Music and Beer&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23402" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1215" RevisionGUID="0028ebf4-0c9c-4ec6-8a4b-c1209aba0487" CreationDate="2018-08-07T12:14:32.630" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6980" RevisionGUID="881d6b3d-69db-4702-99b5-fd1f42e1bfd0" CreationDate="2018-08-07T17:05:37.003" UserId="522" Text="**beneficium -i, pl. -a** a god deed, a well-intentioned act.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**maleficium -i, pl. -a** a bad deed,  ill-intentioned act.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6980" RevisionGUID="2f840436-ab29-402e-aeed-106785857926" CreationDate="2018-08-07T18:15:09.997" UserId="522" Comment="Examples and ascriptions" Text="**[beneficium][1] -i, pl. -a** (also benificium, and beneficum) a good deed, a well-intentioned act; benefaction, kindness, favor, benefit, service&#xD;&#xA;&gt; beneficium dare, accipere  (Cicero, Sallust)   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “pro maleficio beneficium reddere,” Terence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[maleficium -i][2], pl. -a** a bad deed,  ill-intentioned act, an evil deed, misdeed, wickedness, offence, crime.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “committere / admittere maleficium,&quot;  Cicero&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DB%3Aentry%20group%3D9%3Aentry%3Dbeneficium&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DM%3Aentry%20group%3D6%3Aentry%3Dmaleficium" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6974" RevisionGUID="8cc039d6-7107-434e-bd02-28b9686e311c" CreationDate="2018-08-07T18:44:21.333" UserId="469" Comment="style" Text="If you want a short phrase, I'd go for something simple like **[Iesus] Chistus Rex**. It says little more or less than *Christ [is the] King*. It stands alone as a title or as a copulative sentence, since in Latin the verb *to be* can be easily omitted. In the latter, there is little doubt that you are saying that Christ is king and not the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to translate the whole thing, I see two approaches: the literal one&amp;mdash;a somewhat word-by-word, yet grammatical translation&amp;mdash;and the liturgical one&amp;mdash;building a mosaic from attested titles and liturgical ways of saying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;1. As for the literal approach, I had some trouble with the words *ultimate* and the difference between *ruler* and *king*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Google][1] gives two meanings for *ultimate*: i) basically a synonym of *last/final* and ii) *best/supreme*. I'll go for the second one. But feel free to ask for the eschatological version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; For *king* I'll go with the obvious alternative, **rex**. For ruler, I'll use *[Dominus][2]*. It is a common word with a wide meaning. In a religious context, its primary meaning is *Lord*, but it also means *ruler*. Please make me know if you want to convey a specific contrast with *king* or make it more explicit that you mean *ruler* and not *lord* (in this case, an alternative could be the less frequent **dominator**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The translation could therefore be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Christus Iesus Rex Optimus et Dominus in omni tempore**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. As for the liturgial approach I think of two opposing ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *For ever* in liturgy is almost always a variant of *for centuries of centuries*: **[per/in] + [saeculum saeculi/[omnia] saecula [saeculorum]]**. To speak about titles of Jesus, I think this makes more sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Christ has been called *the King* from old. Prominently, the full name of the feast day of Christ the King includes *of all things* (or *of the universe*) in its name. Concretely, *Dominus Noster Iesus Christus Universorum Rex* (note it includes both **Dominus** and **Rex**). If you are willing to accept *of all things* instead of *ultimate* to stick to liturgy, this is the way to go. In this case, the translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Christus Iesus Universorum Rex et Dominus per saecula**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The other option is to base the translation in the hymn *[Christus Vincit][3]*. It is a prominent prayer that in the refrain makes reference to Christ as King stressing different aspects of his triumph in Resurrection. The relevant part is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat / *Christ conquers, Christ reigns, Christ commands*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that using this in the mosaic, the translation becomes arguably freer, since the offices (nouns) are changed by actions (verbs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Christus Iesus regnat atque imperat per [omnia] saecula saeculorum**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **et** and **atque** are [two different ways][4] of saying *and*.&#xD;&#xA;* *Rex optimus et Dominus* [can mean][5] that ultimate applies to both king and ruler.&#xD;&#xA;* **Chistus Iesus** and **Iesus Christus** are equivalent. I chose the former to stick to your word order in English, but this could be misleading if used as a general rule. It doesn't need to be that way.&#xD;&#xA;* My personal choice would be the second one, *Christus Iesus Universorum Rex...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aultimate&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddominus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudes_Regi%C3%A6&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1371/what-is-the-difference-between-ac-or-atque-and-et&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4/what-gender-should-a-predicate-adjective-be-to-agree-with-a-series-of-things-wit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6981" RevisionGUID="a6bf6816-706f-4fad-9069-38be87b87aad" CreationDate="2018-08-07T21:56:17.797" UserId="1977" Text="Is it possible to find the text online of any of the Bibles/NT's in the list below? I fetched the &quot;text only&quot; option of Beza's NT, but the amount of typos is considerable :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Beza's NT&#xD;&#xA; - Tremellio's OT&#xD;&#xA; - Castellio's Bible&#xD;&#xA; - Schmidt's OT&#xD;&#xA; - Abraham Calov's Bible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23407" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6981" RevisionGUID="a6bf6816-706f-4fad-9069-38be87b87aad" CreationDate="2018-08-07T21:56:17.797" UserId="1977" Text="Latin Bibles (other than Vulgata) available as text?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23408" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6981" RevisionGUID="a6bf6816-706f-4fad-9069-38be87b87aad" CreationDate="2018-08-07T21:56:17.797" UserId="1977" Text="|classical-latin|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23409" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6981" RevisionGUID="04121939-a878-4c6b-ad4c-6f18df4d4832" CreationDate="2018-08-07T22:09:53.793" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|medieval-latin|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6981" RevisionGUID="3fb4ac18-e852-48d4-ab76-2cdb06fa0f4e" CreationDate="2018-08-07T22:54:05.190" UserId="1977" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="Is it possible to find the text online of any of the Bibles/NT's in the list below? I fetched the &quot;text only&quot; option of Beza's NT from [archive.org][1], but the amount of typos is considerable :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Beza's NT&#xD;&#xA; - Tremellio's OT&#xD;&#xA; - Castellio's Bible&#xD;&#xA; - Schmidt's OT&#xD;&#xA; - Abraham Calov's Bible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/NovumTestamentumNewTestamentInLatinbeza1850" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6981" RevisionGUID="07bf76ec-db5c-451e-ab64-ad3a05a7b7c1" CreationDate="2018-08-08T03:24:31.357" UserId="1977" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="Is it possible to find the text online of any of the Bibles/NT's in the list below? I fetched the &quot;text only&quot; option of Beza's NT from [archive.org][1], but the amount of typos is considerable :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Theodore Beza's NT&#xD;&#xA; - Immanuel Tremellio's OT&#xD;&#xA; - Sebastian Castellio's Bible&#xD;&#xA; - Sebastian Schmidt's OT&#xD;&#xA; - Abraham Calov's Bible&#xD;&#xA; - Santes Pagninus' Bible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/NovumTestamentumNewTestamentInLatinbeza1850" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6982" RevisionGUID="6841663a-9527-49c0-9eea-e6cd40cd450b" CreationDate="2018-08-08T03:34:26.750" UserId="1977" Text="I took a Latin Course at College about 4 years ago. The recommended textbook was **Learn to Read Latin** by [Keller and Russell][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book is thorough yet friendly. The practical exercises in the companion book are great because a lot of the material is from the Classics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the best!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.amazon.com/Learn-Read-Latin-Andrew-Keller/dp/0300102151&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fNqZ3t.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23413" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6982" RevisionGUID="2ce9bb3d-1130-43bc-96cf-6e9d22ae62bb" CreationDate="2018-08-08T03:34:26.750" UserId="1977" />
  <row Id="23414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2563" RevisionGUID="971c9e06-97c5-46e3-8708-e6ce5cfee5c2" CreationDate="2018-08-08T08:23:08.750" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="I would like to learn Latin, starting from scratch. That is to say, **I do not know anything at all about Latin**. Which book would be a good one to start with?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6981" RevisionGUID="030d8ea9-32ec-463f-b1ce-922531435e03" CreationDate="2018-08-08T08:24:07.870" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Is it possible to find the text online of any of the Bibles/NT's in the list below? I fetched the &quot;text only&quot; option of Beza's NT from [archive.org][1], but the amount of typos is considerable :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Theodore Beza's NT&#xD;&#xA; - Immanuel Tremellio's OT&#xD;&#xA; - Sebastian Castellio's Bible&#xD;&#xA; - Sebastian Schmidt's OT&#xD;&#xA; - Abraham Calov's Bible&#xD;&#xA; - Santes Pagninus' Bible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/NovumTestamentumNewTestamentInLatinbeza1850" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6983" RevisionGUID="01125b2d-48f3-46ed-9d85-8e6c2fe2b180" CreationDate="2018-08-08T08:52:01.883" UserId="1459" Text="[Hathi Trust Digital Library](https://www.hathitrust.org/) is a great resource of texts, most of them freely available to read online. If you belong to an member institution, you can also download them. Quality is usually great, and text are fully searchable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not search for all in your list, but here is a list of results with OT/NT/Bibles in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Theodore Beze: [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=Theodore%20Beze;a=srchls;lmt=ft;facet=language008_full%3A%22Latin%22&amp;facet=authorStr:%22B%C3%A8ze%2C%20Th%C3%A9odore%20de%2C%201519-1605.%22) and [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=Theodore%20Beze;a=srchls;lmt=ft;facet=language008_full%3A%22Latin%22&amp;facet=authorStr:%22Be%CC%80ze%2C%20The%CC%81odore%20de%2C%201519-1605.%22)&#xD;&#xA;- Immanuel Tremellius: [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?a=srchls&amp;anyall1=all&amp;q1=Tremellius&amp;field1=author&amp;op3=AND&amp;yop=after&amp;facet_lang=language008_full%3ALatin&amp;facet_lang=&amp;facet_format=)&#xD;&#xA;- Sébastien Castellión: [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?a=srchls;anyall1=all;q1=S%C3%A9bastien%20Castelli%C3%B3n;field1=author;op3=AND;yop=after&amp;facet=language008_full:%22Latin%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use advanced search for faster search, and use filters when possible (Latin, Bible, etc). **Notice** that author names are usually in the original language, so do not look for their English names." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6984" RevisionGUID="c4f50c9d-e671-4e63-8131-1e53d10f884f" CreationDate="2018-08-08T11:16:31.897" UserId="1459" Text="[This Latin wikipedia page](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationes_mundi) lists all the modern countries for which there is an entry (in Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This English Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_names_of_regions) has a link (table on top right) to lists of names of different geographical units (countries, regions, cities, rivers, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](http://mmh.cz/lingua/lamj_la) there is another list of countries and cities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](http://rbms.info/lpn/) is another list of Latin names for towns (constructed from books printed before 1809, so beware).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No macrons though :(" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5004" RevisionGUID="2b3d5ab6-71d4-4601-b1c9-a00d16fcdb2f" CreationDate="2018-08-08T11:46:11.107" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body" Text="I'm looking to find out what the latin for &quot;from the heights&quot; is, as the equivalent of Oscar Wilde's title &quot;_De Profundis_&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4877" RevisionGUID="f2f3306c-1e16-423d-8c9f-45e0a67c7308" CreationDate="2018-08-08T11:47:29.120" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am seeking a translation of a Christopher Wren inspired _memento mori_: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you seek my monument do not look around, (rather) Look you here&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upon her beautiful face, deep into her eyes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My school boy Latin was weak. I came up with incorrect variations like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Titulum quaeris mea nolite circumspice. Respice ad eius faciem*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *pulchram. In illam oculos, voltus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm writing this for my young daughter's wedding as a preface in a journal I am gifting to her that describes my love for her and her mother. The journal was given to me from her mum, my deceased wife, who bore my beloved child (who is now 17), becoming married to her lover and to whom I give as his wife. Can someone out there offer their help to polish my crude school boy Latin I learned 30 years ago when I was 7?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23421" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4877" RevisionGUID="f2f3306c-1e16-423d-8c9f-45e0a67c7308" CreationDate="2018-08-08T11:47:29.120" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|sentence-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4519" RevisionGUID="42f23a4f-26d3-42f8-9b26-ea2d5d35ed1e" CreationDate="2018-08-08T12:07:03.617" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="I am reading an essay on Vergil's Aeneid, and there is a citation that says:&#xD;&#xA;[![the citation][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GUl0M.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this citation direct to the book *Vergilius 4* published in 1940, on page 5-17?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, I am having trouble finding such a book written by Duckworth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4234" RevisionGUID="37447caf-1114-4c72-85e3-d52d96d94d2a" CreationDate="2018-08-08T12:07:58.207" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am trying to get this title from a book by Charles Bukowski translated to Latin. It goes, &quot;What matters most is how well you walk through the fire&quot;. Google came up with different answers which I put together on the translate box until I came up with the English equivalent above. The best that Google could offer was &quot;_sit amet quam honestus te ambulate per ignem_&quot;. Is this accurate or close enough at least? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23425" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4234" RevisionGUID="37447caf-1114-4c72-85e3-d52d96d94d2a" CreationDate="2018-08-08T12:07:58.207" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6983" RevisionGUID="cde5e7e1-ed56-461b-b188-4ba000d46dd0" CreationDate="2018-08-08T13:44:05.027" UserId="1459" Comment="added 544 characters in body" Text="[Hathi Trust Digital Library](https://www.hathitrust.org/) is a great resource of texts, most of them freely available to read online. If you belong to an member institution, you can also download them. Quality is usually great, and text are fully searchable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not search for all in your list, but here is a list of results with OT/NT/Bibles in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Theodore Beze: [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=Theodore%20Beze;a=srchls;lmt=ft;facet=language008_full%3A%22Latin%22&amp;facet=authorStr:%22B%C3%A8ze%2C%20Th%C3%A9odore%20de%2C%201519-1605.%22) and [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=Theodore%20Beze;a=srchls;lmt=ft;facet=language008_full%3A%22Latin%22&amp;facet=authorStr:%22Be%CC%80ze%2C%20The%CC%81odore%20de%2C%201519-1605.%22)&#xD;&#xA;- Immanuel Tremellius: [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?a=srchls&amp;anyall1=all&amp;q1=Tremellius&amp;field1=author&amp;op3=AND&amp;yop=after&amp;facet_lang=language008_full%3ALatin&amp;facet_lang=&amp;facet_format=)&#xD;&#xA;- Sébastien Castellión: [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?a=srchls;anyall1=all;q1=S%C3%A9bastien%20Castelli%C3%B3n;field1=author;op3=AND;yop=after&amp;facet=language008_full:%22Latin%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use advanced search for faster search, and use filters when possible (Latin, Bible, etc). **Notice** that author names are usually in the original language, so do not look for their English names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note on plain text format: every file there has a &quot;text-only&quot; equivalent, to be found in the left-side bar. The quality of this text however might not be very good. As the help page states, this is normally OCR-produced text, which is, as far as I understand, also the source of plain text from digitalised pdfs in www.archive.org. You could also try to OCR the document yourself (if you have access to it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Notice OCR text [has copyright](https://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#pd-google), so be careful what you do with it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6983" RevisionGUID="fda65b91-be93-44bf-8809-21c874aae6be" CreationDate="2018-08-08T15:15:08.840" UserId="1459" Comment="added 544 characters in body" Text="[Hathi Trust Digital Library](https://www.hathitrust.org/) is a great resource of texts, most of them freely available to read online. If you belong to an member institution, you can also download them. Quality is usually great, and text are fully searchable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not search for all in your list, but here is a list of results with OT/NT/Bibles in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Theodore Beze: [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=Theodore%20Beze;a=srchls;lmt=ft;facet=language008_full%3A%22Latin%22&amp;facet=authorStr:%22B%C3%A8ze%2C%20Th%C3%A9odore%20de%2C%201519-1605.%22) and [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=Theodore%20Beze;a=srchls;lmt=ft;facet=language008_full%3A%22Latin%22&amp;facet=authorStr:%22Be%CC%80ze%2C%20The%CC%81odore%20de%2C%201519-1605.%22)&#xD;&#xA;- Immanuel Tremellius: [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?a=srchls&amp;anyall1=all&amp;q1=Tremellius&amp;field1=author&amp;op3=AND&amp;yop=after&amp;facet_lang=language008_full%3ALatin&amp;facet_lang=&amp;facet_format=)&#xD;&#xA;- Sébastien Castellión: [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?a=srchls;anyall1=all;q1=S%C3%A9bastien%20Castelli%C3%B3n;field1=author;op3=AND;yop=after&amp;facet=language008_full:%22Latin%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use advanced search for faster search, and use filters when possible (Latin, Bible, etc). **Notice** that author names are usually in the original language, so do not look for their English names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note on plain text format**: in the above website, every file has a &quot;text-only&quot; equivalent, which can be accessed in the left-side bar. The quality of this text however might not be very good. As the help page states, this is normally OCR-produced text, which is, as far as I understand, also the source of plain text from digitalised PDFs in www.archive.org. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##**Why not to OCR the files yourself?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This method applies to any file, including the ones from www.archive.org.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, consider [this page](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015065262167;view=1up;seq=97) of _Novum testamentum Domini nostri Jesu Christi_, by Theodoro Beza. If you click on text-only at the left (and change address bar to `seq=97`, you will get the Google-OCR version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;LUCA. XV. 29 Ut ne postquam posuerit funda- mentum, et non potuerit perficere, omnes qui spectarint, incipiant illi il- mdere; 30 Dicentes, Homoistecoepitaedi- ficare, et non potuit aedijicium perfi- cere. 31 Aut quis rex proficiscens ut com- mittat praelium adversus alterum re- gem, non prius consultat considens, \u possit cum decem millibus occur- ;ere illi qui cum viginti millibus ve- pit adversus ipsum? 32 Alioquin, quum adhuc ille pro- cul est, legatione missa, rogat ea quae ad pacem spectant. 33 Si•, ergo, quisquis vestrOm non valedicit omnibus bonis suis, non po- test meus esse discipulus. 34 Bonus est sal: si vero sal infa- tuatus fuerit, quo condietur? 35 Neque ad terram neque ad ster- quilinium appositus est: foras eum abjiciunt. Qui habet aures ad audi- endum, audiat . CAP. XV. ACCEDEBANT autem ad eum omnes publicani et peccatores, ut eum audirent. 2 Et murmurabant Pharisaei et srribae, dicentes, Iste peccatores reci- pit, et edit cum eis. 3 Ipse vero loquutus est ad eos hanc parabolam, dicens, 4 Quis ex vobis, si habeat centum oves, et perdiderit unam ex illis, non relinquit illas nonaginta novem in de- serto, et abit ad eam quae periit, us- quedum eam invenerit? 5 Et eam nactus imponit in hume- ros suos gsudens: 6 Veniensque domum convocat Mnicos et vicinos, dicens eis, Gratu- lamini mibi; nam inveni ovem meam quae perierat . 7 Dico vobis, ita fore gaudium in eoelo super uno peccatore resipiscente, magis quam super nonaginta novem justis, quibus non opus est resip/s- wntia. 8 A.:t quaemulier. si hibeat drach- mas decem, et perdideiH drachmani unam, non accendit lucernam, et ver, rit domum, quaeritque accurate. us- quequo eam invenerit? 9 Et eam nacta, convocat amicas ac viciuas, dicens, Gratulamini mibi; nam inveni drachmam quam perd'i©' ram. 10 Ita dico vobis, gaudium est .n conspectu angelorum Dei super uno peccatore resipiscente. 11 Ait autem, Quidam habebat duos filios; 12 Quorum junior dixit patri, Pa- ter, da mibi partem substautiae ad me attinentem. Ille igitur divisiteis fa- cultates. 13 Post dies autem non multos, congestis omnibus, junior ille filiua peregre profectus est in regionem longinquam: et illic dissipavit sub- stantiam suam, profuse vivendo. 14 Quum autem omnia ipse con- sumpsisset, orta est fames valida in regione illa; et ipse coepit victu de- fici: 15 Abiit igitur et adhaesit uni ex civibus regionis illius; qui misit eum in agros suos, ut pasceret porcos. 16 Et desiderabat implere ventrem suum siliquis, quas edebant porci: et nemo ei dabat. 17 Quum autem ad se rediisset, dixit, Quot mercenarii patris mei a- bundant panibus, ego vero fame pe- reo! 18 Surgens proficiscar ad patrem meum, et dicam ei, Pater, peccavi in coelum et in tuo conspectu; 19 Neque amplius sum dignus vo- cari filius tu'is: fac me ut unum ex mercenariis tuis. 20 Surgens igitur contendit ad patrem suum. Quum autem adhuc longe abesset, vidit eum pater ipsius, et intima misericordia motus est; et accurrens incidil in collum ejus, et deosculatus est eum. 21 Dixit autem ei filius, Pater, peccavi in coelum et in tuo conspec- tu, neque dignus sum amplius vocah filius tuua. 87 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not very bad at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can produce it yourself. It seems the highest quality software out there might be [tesseract-ocr](https://github.com/tesseract-ocr/tesseract), an open-source software, built upon machine-learning methods, apparently under development by ... Google. Installation instructions are in that website. I strongly recommend installing the latest version (beta), as I tried with the stable one (in Ubuntu 16.04) and results were not that great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quick installations commands for Ubuntu:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    sudo add-apt-repository ppa:alex-p/tesseract-ocr&#xD;&#xA;    sudo apt-get update&#xD;&#xA;    sudo apt-get install tesseract-ocr libtesseract-dev tesseract-ocr-lat tesseract-ocr-srp tesseract-ocr-srp-latn&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say we want to OCR the _Novum Testamentum ..._ page above. Download the PDF page in the menu at the right and save (e.g as `page.pdf`). Now, open a terminal where that file is. We need to convert the PDF to an image, because the program does not read the former. In Linux, use this (image properties are important; see [here](http://www.mythoughtspot.com/2014/10/23/use-tesseract-ocr-with-pdf-file/)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     convert -density 300 page.pdf -depth 8 page.tiff&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, OCR the image. Since this is a relatively modern document (modern Latin typesetting), you can use the `-l lat` option, as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     tesseract page.tiff out.txt -l lat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is nice (see [here](https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/GyMyQZwtT2/)). It is superior to the Google-OCR one because it keeps the structure of the document (columns) and makes a humble but decent attempt at keeping macrons, which the Google version omits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a document in mediaeval Latin, the you can use the `-l srp_latn` option. I haven't tried this.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6985" RevisionGUID="0c3f2d9d-c369-4955-ae88-88981ed79c5a" CreationDate="2018-08-08T16:14:18.450" UserId="2814" Text="Have no idea here. I translated it on google but yeah it's not that trustworthy I know. Somehow I found out the word &quot;passio&quot;,&quot;ad&quot; and &quot;sanationem&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;We are going to use it as our school of medicine motto, so if you have any suggestion or idea please let me know. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23429" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6985" RevisionGUID="0c3f2d9d-c369-4955-ae88-88981ed79c5a" CreationDate="2018-08-08T16:14:18.450" UserId="2814" Text="How can I say &quot;passion for healing&quot; in latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23430" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6985" RevisionGUID="0c3f2d9d-c369-4955-ae88-88981ed79c5a" CreationDate="2018-08-08T16:14:18.450" UserId="2814" Text="|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6986" RevisionGUID="aa68949f-aa5a-4cd5-ac51-020754c8c617" CreationDate="2018-08-08T16:46:57.683" UserId="1459" Text="&quot;For healing&quot; indicates a dative case, so it would be the nominative of _passio_ with the dative of _sanatio_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _passiō sānātiōnī_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6985" RevisionGUID="0e504b1a-9c51-4db3-b43b-a728f3671250" CreationDate="2018-08-08T16:47:22.703" UserId="1459" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Have no idea here. I translated it on google but yeah it's not that trustworthy I know. Somehow I found out the word &quot;_passio_&quot;,&quot;_ad_&quot; and &quot;_sanationem_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;We are going to use it as our school of medicine motto, so if you have any suggestion or idea please let me know. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23433" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6985" RevisionGUID="0e504b1a-9c51-4db3-b43b-a728f3671250" CreationDate="2018-08-08T16:47:22.703" UserId="1459" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|motto|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23434" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6985" RevisionGUID="0e504b1a-9c51-4db3-b43b-a728f3671250" CreationDate="2018-08-08T16:47:22.703" UserId="1459" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="How can I say &quot;passion for healing&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6986" RevisionGUID="655a2f2e-07ba-4d2b-ad7c-656346f094cc" CreationDate="2018-08-08T17:13:03.333" UserId="1459" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="&quot;For healing&quot; indicates a dative case, so it would be the nominative of _[passio](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/passio#Latin)_ with the dative of _[sanatio](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sanatio)_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _passiō sānātiōnī_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6987" RevisionGUID="e3bc8853-cd77-4444-8012-7d6d9906777c" CreationDate="2018-08-08T17:14:14.887" UserId="985" Text="I suggest *cupiditas sanandi* or *cupiditas medendi*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun *cupiditas* means a 'passionate desire, longing, yearning.' For example, in the *Pro Sulla* (40), Cicero says, *o di immortales...vos profecto animum meum tum conservandae patriae cupiditate incendistis*, 'Immortal gods...you inflamed my heart with a passion for preserving the state/Republic.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a slightly softened expression, one could use *studium*, 'eagerness,' 'enthusiasm' instead of *cupiditas*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sanandi*/*medendi* is the genitive of the gerund. This is a so-called objective genitive, which is often found with nouns that describe emotions or actions to indicate the thing or person that the emotion/action is directed toward." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6988" RevisionGUID="a1563f65-8a28-40b7-bdd5-90b89ed4a43d" CreationDate="2018-08-08T17:31:51.447" UserId="2815" Text="I am in a community of flow artists and fire performers.  I'm putting together a &quot;coat of arms&quot; of sorts for this community, and would like to include a motto in Latin.  The motto in English would be along the lines of &quot;Fire, Flow, Transcendence.&quot;  How would I phrase this in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More info: &quot;Fire&quot; (the noun), as in burning flames, + &quot;Flow&quot; (noun or verb), the act of moving or adapting gracefully, as in a stream or river, but also with respect to the mental &quot;flow state&quot; found through deep concentration on an engaging task = &quot;Transcendence&quot; (noun), a higher state of consciousness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think along the lines of &quot;finding transcendence by way of flowing with fire&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The motto could be a sentence, or a disjoint collection of words (perhaps separated by commas).  Either way.  Importantly, the translation needs to be reasonably short, ideally no more than a few words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My research so far has provided me with the following which I think are close, but I'm not sure how much to trust Google Translate lol:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Ignis, Fluxu, Transcendentiam&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Ignis ex Fluxu Transcendentiam&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?  Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23438" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6988" RevisionGUID="a1563f65-8a28-40b7-bdd5-90b89ed4a43d" CreationDate="2018-08-08T17:31:51.447" UserId="2815" Text="seeking simple Latin translation for motto &quot;fire, flow, transcendence&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23439" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6988" RevisionGUID="a1563f65-8a28-40b7-bdd5-90b89ed4a43d" CreationDate="2018-08-08T17:31:51.447" UserId="2815" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|contemporary-latin|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6989" RevisionGUID="7916e72c-7fd4-4511-abdb-90f6820d1400" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:09:05.510" UserId="406" Text="Most of the time, Latin doesn't allow two instances of the same vowel next to each other: forms like *_mee_ (from *meus*) are replaced with alternatives like *mī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in I-stem second nouns, the combination *iī* can occur (for example, *filiī* &quot;sons&quot;). Do we know how this was pronounced? Was there a consonant separating the two vowels, or did they merge into an extra-long *i*, or did the quality difference between the two vowels keep them apart?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm most interested in Classical pronunciation, but anything pre-Ecclesiastic is relevant!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23441" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6989" RevisionGUID="7916e72c-7fd4-4511-abdb-90f6820d1400" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:09:05.510" UserId="406" Text="How was iī pronounced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23442" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6989" RevisionGUID="7916e72c-7fd4-4511-abdb-90f6820d1400" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:09:05.510" UserId="406" Text="|pronunciation|vowel-quantity|vowel|ending|phonology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6988" RevisionGUID="2778f8d7-54d8-4762-82dc-933bfb6fd401" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:13:27.403" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I am in a community of flow artists and fire performers.  I'm putting together a &quot;coat of arms&quot; of sorts for this community, and would like to include a motto in Latin.  The motto in English would be along the lines of &quot;Fire, Flow, Transcendence.&quot;  How would I phrase this in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More info: &quot;Fire&quot; (the noun), as in burning flames, + &quot;Flow&quot; (noun or verb), the act of moving or adapting gracefully, as in a stream or river, but also with respect to the mental &quot;flow state&quot; found through deep concentration on an engaging task = &quot;Transcendence&quot; (noun), a higher state of consciousness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think along the lines of &quot;finding transcendence by way of flowing with fire&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The motto could be a sentence, or a disjoint collection of words (perhaps separated by commas).  Either way.  Importantly, the translation needs to be reasonably short, ideally no more than a few words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My research so far has provided me with the following which I think are close, but I'm not sure how much to trust Google Translate lol:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;_Ignis, Fluxu, Transcendentiam_&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;_Ignis ex Fluxu Transcendentiam_&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?  Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23444" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6988" RevisionGUID="2778f8d7-54d8-4762-82dc-933bfb6fd401" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:13:27.403" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Seeking simple Latin translation for motto &quot;fire, flow, transcendence&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23445" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6988" RevisionGUID="2778f8d7-54d8-4762-82dc-933bfb6fd401" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:13:27.403" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|contemporary-latin|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6989" RevisionGUID="4c1680ef-2843-4821-84d4-c6597d56d3ce" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:14:40.923" UserId="406" Comment="added 292 characters in body" Text="Most of the time, Latin doesn't allow two instances of the same vowel next to each other: forms like *_mee_ (from *meus*) are replaced with alternatives like *mī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in I-stem second nouns, the combination *iī* can occur (for example, *filiī* &quot;sons&quot;). Do we know how this was pronounced? Was there a consonant separating the two vowels, or did they merge into an extra-long *i*, or did the quality difference between the two vowels keep them apart?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm most interested in Classical pronunciation, but anything pre-Ecclesiastic is relevant!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Related: [this question][1] covers *uu*, and mentions that a vowel before another vowel seems to have become long-like in quality, but doesn't cover groups like *iī* where the second vowel is long by nature.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5201/how-was-vv-pronounced" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6990" RevisionGUID="13aea224-6e07-4995-b1d7-7f8b94403ea1" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:20:15.683" UserId="2816" Text="Some dictionaries seems to include word thrift at the end of definition for oikonomia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good example is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://www.etymonline.com/word/economy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/economy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek oikonomia &quot;household management, thrift.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know the source of it, as it seems that oikonomos is directly understood as only household management. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When and how did a word economy started to mean a **thrift** household management?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23448" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6990" RevisionGUID="13aea224-6e07-4995-b1d7-7f8b94403ea1" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:20:15.683" UserId="2816" Text="How Greek word oikonomia got meaning of the thrift?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23449" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6990" RevisionGUID="13aea224-6e07-4995-b1d7-7f8b94403ea1" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:20:15.683" UserId="2816" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6989" RevisionGUID="ce83999c-9277-47f6-b094-6dd3373d856a" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:38:46.933" UserId="406" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Most of the time, Latin doesn't allow two instances of the same vowel next to each other: forms like *_mee_ (from *meus*) are replaced with alternatives like *mī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in I-stem second nouns, the combination *iī* can occur (for example, *filiī* &quot;sons&quot;). Do we know how this was pronounced? Was there a consonant separating the two vowels, or did they merge into an extra-long *i*, or did the quality difference between the two vowels keep them apart?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm most interested in Classical pronunciation, but anything pre-Ecclesiastic is relevant!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Related: [this question][1] covers *uu*, and the accepted answer mentions that a vowel before another vowel seems to have become long-like in quality, but doesn't cover groups like *iī* where the second vowel is long by nature.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5201/how-was-vv-pronounced" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6990" RevisionGUID="9ce04919-215a-4165-a022-05436a8e60ad" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:43:13.567" UserId="1459" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Some dictionaries seems to include the word &quot;thrift&quot; at the end of definition for _oikonomia_ (good examples [here](https://www.etymonline.com/word/economy) and [here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/economy)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek oikonomia &quot;household management, thrift.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know the source of this meaning, as it seems that _oikonomos_ is directly understood as only household management. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When and how did a word economy started to mean a **thrift** household management?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23452" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6990" RevisionGUID="9ce04919-215a-4165-a022-05436a8e60ad" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:43:13.567" UserId="1459" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How the Greek word &quot;oikonomia&quot; got meaning of &quot;thrift&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23453" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6990" RevisionGUID="9ce04919-215a-4165-a022-05436a8e60ad" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:43:13.567" UserId="1459" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6991" RevisionGUID="67f4ec12-b32f-426b-a22d-48281e2e2d8f" CreationDate="2018-08-08T19:29:29.860" UserId="1694" Text="I don't think we can know for certain, but the fact that the spelling &quot;filii&quot; occurred makes it likely that word was *perceived* as having three syllables, and was so treated in poetry.  There are various possibilities of how it was actually pronounced:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)  A single extra-long vowel, [i::], in which case the spelling represents perception only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)  It's possible there may have occurred some subphonemic glide between the vowels, such as [iji:], or (less likely in my opinion) a subphonemic glottal stop, [iʔi:].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3)  It's possible there may have been some tonal difference between the two syllables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it's possible to know which of these was the case, lacking the evidence of a trained phonetician in Roman times or a time machine.  But, I think these are all possibilities.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6983" RevisionGUID="5476ed7b-51b6-413e-8f36-384b8dbc8721" CreationDate="2018-08-08T19:37:46.587" UserId="1459" Comment="added 360 characters in body" Text="[Hathi Trust Digital Library](https://www.hathitrust.org/) is a great resource of texts, most of them freely available to read online. If you belong to an member institution, you can also download them. Quality is usually great, and text are fully searchable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not search for all in your list, but here is a list of results with OT/NT/Bibles in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Theodore Beze: [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=Theodore%20Beze;a=srchls;lmt=ft;facet=language008_full%3A%22Latin%22&amp;facet=authorStr:%22B%C3%A8ze%2C%20Th%C3%A9odore%20de%2C%201519-1605.%22) and [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=Theodore%20Beze;a=srchls;lmt=ft;facet=language008_full%3A%22Latin%22&amp;facet=authorStr:%22Be%CC%80ze%2C%20The%CC%81odore%20de%2C%201519-1605.%22)&#xD;&#xA;- Immanuel Tremellius: [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?a=srchls&amp;anyall1=all&amp;q1=Tremellius&amp;field1=author&amp;op3=AND&amp;yop=after&amp;facet_lang=language008_full%3ALatin&amp;facet_lang=&amp;facet_format=)&#xD;&#xA;- Sébastien Castellión: [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?a=srchls;anyall1=all;q1=S%C3%A9bastien%20Castelli%C3%B3n;field1=author;op3=AND;yop=after&amp;facet=language008_full:%22Latin%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use advanced search for faster search, and use filters when possible (Latin, Bible, etc). **Notice** that author names are usually in the original language, so do not look for their English names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note on plain text format**: in the above website, every file has a &quot;text-only&quot; equivalent, which can be accessed in the left-side bar. The quality of this text however might not be very good. As the help page states, this is normally OCR-produced text, which is, as far as I understand, also the source of plain text from digitalised PDFs in www.archive.org. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##**Why not to OCR the files yourself?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This method applies to any file, including the ones from www.archive.org.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, consider [this page](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015065262167;view=1up;seq=97) of _Novum testamentum Domini nostri Jesu Christi_, by Theodoro Beza. If you click on text-only at the left (and change address bar to `seq=97`, you will get the Google-OCR version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;LUCA. XV. 29 Ut ne postquam posuerit funda- mentum, et non potuerit perficere, omnes qui spectarint, incipiant illi il- mdere; 30 Dicentes, Homoistecoepitaedi- ficare, et non potuit aedijicium perfi- cere. 31 Aut quis rex proficiscens ut com- mittat praelium adversus alterum re- gem, non prius consultat considens, \u possit cum decem millibus occur- ;ere illi qui cum viginti millibus ve- pit adversus ipsum? 32 Alioquin, quum adhuc ille pro- cul est, legatione missa, rogat ea quae ad pacem spectant. 33 Si•, ergo, quisquis vestrOm non valedicit omnibus bonis suis, non po- test meus esse discipulus. 34 Bonus est sal: si vero sal infa- tuatus fuerit, quo condietur? 35 Neque ad terram neque ad ster- quilinium appositus est: foras eum abjiciunt. Qui habet aures ad audi- endum, audiat . CAP. XV. ACCEDEBANT autem ad eum omnes publicani et peccatores, ut eum audirent. 2 Et murmurabant Pharisaei et srribae, dicentes, Iste peccatores reci- pit, et edit cum eis. 3 Ipse vero loquutus est ad eos hanc parabolam, dicens, 4 Quis ex vobis, si habeat centum oves, et perdiderit unam ex illis, non relinquit illas nonaginta novem in de- serto, et abit ad eam quae periit, us- quedum eam invenerit? 5 Et eam nactus imponit in hume- ros suos gsudens: 6 Veniensque domum convocat Mnicos et vicinos, dicens eis, Gratu- lamini mibi; nam inveni ovem meam quae perierat . 7 Dico vobis, ita fore gaudium in eoelo super uno peccatore resipiscente, magis quam super nonaginta novem justis, quibus non opus est resip/s- wntia. 8 A.:t quaemulier. si hibeat drach- mas decem, et perdideiH drachmani unam, non accendit lucernam, et ver, rit domum, quaeritque accurate. us- quequo eam invenerit? 9 Et eam nacta, convocat amicas ac viciuas, dicens, Gratulamini mibi; nam inveni drachmam quam perd'i©' ram. 10 Ita dico vobis, gaudium est .n conspectu angelorum Dei super uno peccatore resipiscente. 11 Ait autem, Quidam habebat duos filios; 12 Quorum junior dixit patri, Pa- ter, da mibi partem substautiae ad me attinentem. Ille igitur divisiteis fa- cultates. 13 Post dies autem non multos, congestis omnibus, junior ille filiua peregre profectus est in regionem longinquam: et illic dissipavit sub- stantiam suam, profuse vivendo. 14 Quum autem omnia ipse con- sumpsisset, orta est fames valida in regione illa; et ipse coepit victu de- fici: 15 Abiit igitur et adhaesit uni ex civibus regionis illius; qui misit eum in agros suos, ut pasceret porcos. 16 Et desiderabat implere ventrem suum siliquis, quas edebant porci: et nemo ei dabat. 17 Quum autem ad se rediisset, dixit, Quot mercenarii patris mei a- bundant panibus, ego vero fame pe- reo! 18 Surgens proficiscar ad patrem meum, et dicam ei, Pater, peccavi in coelum et in tuo conspectu; 19 Neque amplius sum dignus vo- cari filius tu'is: fac me ut unum ex mercenariis tuis. 20 Surgens igitur contendit ad patrem suum. Quum autem adhuc longe abesset, vidit eum pater ipsius, et intima misericordia motus est; et accurrens incidil in collum ejus, et deosculatus est eum. 21 Dixit autem ei filius, Pater, peccavi in coelum et in tuo conspec- tu, neque dignus sum amplius vocah filius tuua. 87 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not very bad at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can produce it yourself. It seems the highest quality software out there might be [tesseract-ocr](https://github.com/tesseract-ocr/tesseract), an open-source software, built upon machine-learning methods, apparently under development by ... Google. Installation instructions are [here](https://github.com/tesseract-ocr/tesseract/wiki). I strongly recommend installing the latest version (beta), as I tried with the stable one (in Ubuntu 16.04) and results were not that great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quick installations commands for Ubuntu:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    sudo add-apt-repository ppa:alex-p/tesseract-ocr&#xD;&#xA;    sudo apt-get update&#xD;&#xA;    sudo apt-get install tesseract-ocr libtesseract-dev tesseract-ocr-lat tesseract-ocr-script-latn&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say we want to OCR the _Novum Testamentum ..._ page above. Download the PDF page in the menu at the right and save (e.g as `page.pdf`). Now, open a terminal where that file is. We need to convert the PDF to an image, because the program does not read the former. In Linux, use this (image properties are important; see [here](http://www.mythoughtspot.com/2014/10/23/use-tesseract-ocr-with-pdf-file/)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     convert -density 300 page.pdf -depth 8 page.tiff&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, OCR the image, as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     tesseract page.tiff out.txt -l Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is very nice (see [here](https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/bRn6HDrgwc/)). It is superior to the Google-OCR one because it keeps the structure of the document (columns) and makes a humble but decent attempt at keeping macrons, which the Google version omits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Amazingly, this package can also work with older Latin typesetting, like [fell types](http://iginomarini.com/fell/the-revival-fonts/). For instance, consider [page 324](https://archive.org/stream/institutiochrist1559calv#page/324) of the _Institutio christianae religionis_, by John Calvin. The PDF is a scan from a 1559 edition. After producing the PDF, I ran:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    convert -density 300 page.pdf -depth 8 page.tiff&#xD;&#xA;    tesseract page.tiff test.txt -l Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is amazing! See [here](https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/vXMCM9YktZ/).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6991" RevisionGUID="7e0a5f0c-8576-4d13-a442-6745ae6e4a6b" CreationDate="2018-08-08T20:50:23.137" UserId="1694" Comment="added 250 characters in body" Text="I don't think we can know for certain, but the fact that the spelling &quot;filii&quot; occurred makes it likely that the word was *perceived* as having three syllables, and was so treated in poetry.  There are various possibilities of how it was actually pronounced:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)  A single extra-long vowel, [i::], in which case the spelling represents perception only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)  It's possible there may have occurred some subphonemic glide between the vowels, such as [iji:], or (less likely in my opinion) a subphonemic glottal stop, [iʔi:].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3)  It's possible there may have been some tonal difference between the two syllables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4)  There's also the fact that short /i/ is generally thought to have had a relatively open pronunciation, i.e., [ɪ], so the pronunciation [ɪi:] may have been the case.  (Of course, [ɪ] may have been used in possibilities (2) and (3) above, too.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it's possible to know which of these was the case, lacking the evidence of a trained phonetician in Roman times or a time machine.  But, I think these are all possibilities.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1072" RevisionGUID="2948b52d-2380-44e0-8381-a69ce9ccf328" CreationDate="2018-08-08T22:08:05.090" UserId="9" Comment="fixed obsolete link, wording changes in first and last sections" Text="It's fairly certain that the Roman pronunciation of *Niobe* was not the same as the pronunciation used by modern English speakers (aside from the consonants, which I won't discuss further in this answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please don't misinterpret this to mean that the English pronunciation is &quot;wrong&quot;—it's perfectly correct, *in English.* It's just different from the Latin pronunciation, just as the acceptable English pronunciations of the word *status* are different from the pronunciation we think was used for this word by the Romans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, the forms *Nĭŏba* and *Nĭŏbē* were both used according to Lewis and Short as accessed through [Perseus][1].&#xD;&#xA;A phonemic or broad phonetic transcription for the pronunciation of *Nĭŏbē*  would be /ˈniobeː/. The stress would have been on the first syllable, due to the [normal Latin rules for assigning stress][2]. Latin was not pronounced with the exact same sounds as English, so any attempt to write this out using English sounds can only be approximate. That is why I am using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). If you are not familiar with it, here is a chart showing some of the vowel sounds in IPA and their relative positions, with audio files representing the general sound that each symbol is used to represent: [IPA Chart With Sounds][3]. You can see that the IPA is more systematic and includes more vowels than the English sound system, so even though it is also an approximation, it allows us to be a bit more precise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonemic vs. phonetic transcription&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I said earlier that the transcription /ˈniobeː/ I gave was &quot;phonemic.&quot; This means that it only has the essential details needed to distinguish the sounds from other sounds used in Latin. It does not describe the details that are not contrastive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Classical Latin, some of these non-contrastive details were related to vowel &quot;quality,&quot; or the position of vowels in the mouth. My understanding is that Latin basically started out with only 5 distinct vowel qualities (the familiar /a e i o u/); the main  distinction between short and long vowels was vowel &quot;quantity,&quot;  whether a vowel was phonetically long or short. But over the course of Classical Latin, most pairs of vowels with distinct quantities began to evolve to also have distinct qualities, and phonetic length distinctions were eventually lost entirely in Vulgar Latin, the ancestor of the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to try to explain the quality of some vowels in Classical Latin; to do this, I'll use two types of IPA transcriptions. Broad transcriptions, such as /ˈniobeː/, are enclosed by square slashes, and don't include any information about non-phonemic details of vowel quality. For narrow transcriptions that do describe vowel quality in detail, I'll use square brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation of ŏ: [ɔ]&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin short ŏ phoneme (IPA /o/) seems to be fairly widely agreed to have been pronounced with the phonetic vowel quality [ɔ], both in the Classical period and in Vulgar Latin. If you want approximations for this sound in English: for a British English speaker, it's similar to the vowel used in the word *lot.* For an American English speaker, it's similar to the vowel used in the word *more,* but with the &quot;r&quot; removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation of the other two vowels is more complicated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation of ĭ: [i] &gt; [ɪ] (&gt; Vulgar Latin [e])&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, it seems likely that the Latin short ĭ phoneme (IPA /i/) was pronounced with the same vowel quality as long ī /iː/. The most likely phonetic value for short ĭ at this point would be IPA [i] (about the same as the English vowel in *bee,* but distinctively short). However, by the time Latin split into the Romance languages, this vowel is believed to have lowered to [e] (approximately the vowel in French *clé,* which often sounds to English speakers like our diphthong /eɪ/ as in &quot;clay&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In between these two stages, it's likely the vowel passed through an intermediate quality transcribed [ɪ], which is approximately the same sound as in English &quot;bit.&quot; There doesn't seem to be total consensus about whether short ĭ was pronounced [i] or [ɪ] in early Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Vox Latina,* W. Sidney Allen recommends that English speakers (specifically, speakers of &quot;Received Pronunciation&quot;) use the vowel in *pit* for Latin short ĭ, and says that they &quot;had much the same value&quot; (p. 49). So, this is certainly acceptable, and would not qualify as a &quot;butchering.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, though, I find it awkward to try to use this vowel quality before another vowel or word-finally. In Received Pronunciation, /ɪ/ can occur in these positions, at least in unstressed syllables (in words such as &quot;bar**y**on&quot; /ˈbærɪɒn/  and &quot;happ**y**&quot; /ˈhæpɪ/) but in my accent of English, these words use /i/ instead. So I just use [i] in these contexts when pronouncing a word in Latin (but I still try to maintain a distinction in phonetic length). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen seems to suggest that using a more [i]-like quality before vowels was actually a feature of Roman pronunciation in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latin short *i* [...] may well have had a closer quality (more like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that of the long *ī*) before vowels, to judge from the Romance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; developments of Latin *dies* (Italian/Old French *di,* as *chi/qui* from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui); this is indicated also by the fact that i is scarcely ever&#xD;&#xA;&gt; written as *e* in this position (cf. p. 49), and is indeed often written&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with the *I* longa (e.g. `prIusquam, dIes, pIus`). There is a close&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parallel to this situation in English, where the first vowel of e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *react* is closer than that of *recall,* being more similar in quality to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the long *ī*; English speakers of Latin will therefore also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; automatically make this adjustment. These closer pre-vocalic qualities&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of *e* and *i* are probably due to the *y*-' glide' which automatically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; follows them in these conditions—and which the English speaker will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; automatically produce. (p. 51-52)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, according to Andrea Calabrese's paper [*On the Evolution of the Short High Vowels of Latin into Romance*][5], short ĭ in any environment was probably still [i] in early urban Classical Latin (around the time of Cicero) and quality distinctions between long and short versions of the same vowel only became established around the first century A.D. (p. 73). So I think [i] (a short version of the vowel sound in English *bee*) is defensible in general for short ĭ as an approximation of the early Classical Latin pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation of ē: [ɛː]? &gt; [eː] (&gt; Vulgar Latin [e])&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, it seems likely that long ē /eː/ was pronounced with the same vowel quality as short ĕ /e/. Calabrese argues that it's most likely that the phonetic value of long ē at this early stage was [ɛː] (about the same as the English vowel in &quot;bed,&quot; but distinctively long).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But long ē eventually developed a distinct vowel quality from short ĕ; we have evidence that this had occurred already in Late Classical Latin (and possibly earlier). The quality of long ē was &quot;raised&quot; closer to an i-like sound, resulting in [eː].  You'll notice that this is the same vowel quality as the one I described earlier for short ĭ; in fact, Latin short ĭ and long ē generally evolved to the same vowel in Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's Allen's description of this sound:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Long *ē* and *ō* present rather greater difficulty for R.P.* speakers,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; since this dialect contains nothing really similar; the nearest are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the sounds of e.g. *bait* and *boat*-but these are very distinctly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; diphthongs, [ei] and [ou] respectively, which the Latin vowels were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not. (p. 50)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting it all together&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the Roman pronunciation would likely sound something like &quot;**NEE**-ob-ay&quot; to a British English speaker, or &quot;**NEE**-o(r)-bay&quot; to an American English speaker (where &quot;o(r)&quot; represents the vowel sound in the word *more,* but without the &quot;r&quot;). Unlike in English, the last vowel would be a single, pure long vowel sound rather than a gliding diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DN%3Aentry%20group%3D14%3Aentry%3DNioba&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/languages/classical/latin/tchmat/grammar/g-accnt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.internationalphoneticalphabet.org/ipa-sounds/ipa-chart-with-sounds/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=o9wpGIF0JWcC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA63&amp;dq=%22Latin%22%20vowel%20quality%20e%20o%20advanced%20tongue%20root&amp;ots=ND1tWjhtE5&amp;sig=SwcVUHalU_QmM6ZMBER2nw7Fzxg#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6983" RevisionGUID="c7bb41a8-dba7-4426-a7c6-6eebe69dba34" CreationDate="2018-08-09T07:50:59.733" UserId="1459" Comment="added 676 characters in body" Text="[Hathi Trust Digital Library](https://www.hathitrust.org/) is a great resource of texts, most of them freely available to read online. If you belong to an member institution, you can also download them. Quality is usually great, and text are fully searchable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not search for all in your list, but here is a list of results with OT/NT/Bibles in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Theodore Beze: [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=Theodore%20Beze;a=srchls;lmt=ft;facet=language008_full%3A%22Latin%22&amp;facet=authorStr:%22B%C3%A8ze%2C%20Th%C3%A9odore%20de%2C%201519-1605.%22) and [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=Theodore%20Beze;a=srchls;lmt=ft;facet=language008_full%3A%22Latin%22&amp;facet=authorStr:%22Be%CC%80ze%2C%20The%CC%81odore%20de%2C%201519-1605.%22)&#xD;&#xA;- Immanuel Tremellius: [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?a=srchls&amp;anyall1=all&amp;q1=Tremellius&amp;field1=author&amp;op3=AND&amp;yop=after&amp;facet_lang=language008_full%3ALatin&amp;facet_lang=&amp;facet_format=)&#xD;&#xA;- Sébastien Castellión: [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?a=srchls;anyall1=all;q1=S%C3%A9bastien%20Castelli%C3%B3n;field1=author;op3=AND;yop=after&amp;facet=language008_full:%22Latin%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use advanced search for faster search, and use filters when possible (Latin, Bible, etc). **Notice** that author names are usually in the original language, so do not look for their English names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note on plain text format**: in the above website, every file has a &quot;text-only&quot; equivalent, which can be accessed in the left-side bar. The quality of this text however might not be very good. As the help page states, this is normally OCR-produced text, which is, as far as I understand, also the source of plain text from digitalised PDFs in www.archive.org. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##**Why not to OCR the files yourself?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This method applies to any file, including the ones from www.archive.org.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, consider [this page](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015065262167;view=1up;seq=97) of _Novum testamentum Domini nostri Jesu Christi_, by Theodoro Beza. If you click on text-only at the left (and change address bar to `seq=97`, you will get the Google-OCR version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;LUCA. XV. 29 Ut ne postquam posuerit funda- mentum, et non potuerit perficere, omnes qui spectarint, incipiant illi il- mdere; 30 Dicentes, Homoistecoepitaedi- ficare, et non potuit aedijicium perfi- cere. 31 Aut quis rex proficiscens ut com- mittat praelium adversus alterum re- gem, non prius consultat considens, \u possit cum decem millibus occur- ;ere illi qui cum viginti millibus ve- pit adversus ipsum? 32 Alioquin, quum adhuc ille pro- cul est, legatione missa, rogat ea quae ad pacem spectant. 33 Si•, ergo, quisquis vestrOm non valedicit omnibus bonis suis, non po- test meus esse discipulus. 34 Bonus est sal: si vero sal infa- tuatus fuerit, quo condietur? 35 Neque ad terram neque ad ster- quilinium appositus est: foras eum abjiciunt. Qui habet aures ad audi- endum, audiat . CAP. XV. ACCEDEBANT autem ad eum omnes publicani et peccatores, ut eum audirent. 2 Et murmurabant Pharisaei et srribae, dicentes, Iste peccatores reci- pit, et edit cum eis. 3 Ipse vero loquutus est ad eos hanc parabolam, dicens, 4 Quis ex vobis, si habeat centum oves, et perdiderit unam ex illis, non relinquit illas nonaginta novem in de- serto, et abit ad eam quae periit, us- quedum eam invenerit? 5 Et eam nactus imponit in hume- ros suos gsudens: 6 Veniensque domum convocat Mnicos et vicinos, dicens eis, Gratu- lamini mibi; nam inveni ovem meam quae perierat . 7 Dico vobis, ita fore gaudium in eoelo super uno peccatore resipiscente, magis quam super nonaginta novem justis, quibus non opus est resip/s- wntia. 8 A.:t quaemulier. si hibeat drach- mas decem, et perdideiH drachmani unam, non accendit lucernam, et ver, rit domum, quaeritque accurate. us- quequo eam invenerit? 9 Et eam nacta, convocat amicas ac viciuas, dicens, Gratulamini mibi; nam inveni drachmam quam perd'i©' ram. 10 Ita dico vobis, gaudium est .n conspectu angelorum Dei super uno peccatore resipiscente. 11 Ait autem, Quidam habebat duos filios; 12 Quorum junior dixit patri, Pa- ter, da mibi partem substautiae ad me attinentem. Ille igitur divisiteis fa- cultates. 13 Post dies autem non multos, congestis omnibus, junior ille filiua peregre profectus est in regionem longinquam: et illic dissipavit sub- stantiam suam, profuse vivendo. 14 Quum autem omnia ipse con- sumpsisset, orta est fames valida in regione illa; et ipse coepit victu de- fici: 15 Abiit igitur et adhaesit uni ex civibus regionis illius; qui misit eum in agros suos, ut pasceret porcos. 16 Et desiderabat implere ventrem suum siliquis, quas edebant porci: et nemo ei dabat. 17 Quum autem ad se rediisset, dixit, Quot mercenarii patris mei a- bundant panibus, ego vero fame pe- reo! 18 Surgens proficiscar ad patrem meum, et dicam ei, Pater, peccavi in coelum et in tuo conspectu; 19 Neque amplius sum dignus vo- cari filius tu'is: fac me ut unum ex mercenariis tuis. 20 Surgens igitur contendit ad patrem suum. Quum autem adhuc longe abesset, vidit eum pater ipsius, et intima misericordia motus est; et accurrens incidil in collum ejus, et deosculatus est eum. 21 Dixit autem ei filius, Pater, peccavi in coelum et in tuo conspec- tu, neque dignus sum amplius vocah filius tuua. 87 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not very bad at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can produce it yourself. It seems the highest quality software out there might be [tesseract-ocr](https://github.com/tesseract-ocr/tesseract), an open-source software, built upon machine-learning methods, apparently under development by ... Google. Installation instructions are [here](https://github.com/tesseract-ocr/tesseract/wiki). I strongly recommend installing the latest version (beta), as I tried with the stable one (in Ubuntu 16.04) and results were not that great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quick installations commands for Ubuntu:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    sudo add-apt-repository ppa:alex-p/tesseract-ocr&#xD;&#xA;    sudo apt-get update&#xD;&#xA;    sudo apt-get install tesseract-ocr libtesseract-dev tesseract-ocr-lat tesseract-ocr-script-latn&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say we want to OCR the _Novum Testamentum ..._ page above. Download the PDF page in the menu at the right and save (e.g as `page.pdf`). Now, open a terminal where that file is. We need to convert the PDF to an image, because the program does not read the former. In Linux, use this (image properties are important; see [here](http://www.mythoughtspot.com/2014/10/23/use-tesseract-ocr-with-pdf-file/)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     convert -density 300 page.pdf -depth 8 page.tiff&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, OCR the image, as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     tesseract page.tiff out.txt -l Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is very nice (see [here](https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/bRn6HDrgwc/)). It is superior to the Google-OCR one because it keeps the structure of the document (columns) and makes a humble but decent attempt at keeping macrons, which the Google version omits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Amazingly, this package can also work with older Latin typesetting, like [fell types](http://iginomarini.com/fell/the-revival-fonts/). For instance, consider [page 324](https://archive.org/stream/institutiochrist1559calv#page/324) of the _Institutio christianae religionis_, by John Calvin. The PDF is a scan from a 1559 edition. After producing the PDF, I ran:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    convert -density 300 page.pdf -depth 8 page.tiff&#xD;&#xA;    tesseract page.tiff test.txt -l Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is amazing! See [here](https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/vXMCM9YktZ/). Importantly, it is better than the [plain text](https://archive.org/stream/institutiochrist1559calv/institutiochrist1559calv_djvu.txt) in archive.org (search for `J24 INSTITVTIONIS LIB. III.` to get to the same text). Why is this? Hard to say. For books, users cannot upload their own OCR plain text to PDF books they submit, but these are created automatically by archive.org. There are some [optimal conditions](https://archive.org/about/faqs.php#1280) (including correctly defining the language of the document). But I used the exact same file available there. So my guess is they are not using the &quot;optimal&quot; software for OCR. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary:** produce your own text files!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6993" RevisionGUID="eff7463c-5671-4932-918f-f7a4e34bbf5d" CreationDate="2018-08-10T08:33:18.467" UserId="1459" Text="Recently I've been learning about the accusative mode, in/direct objects and in/transitive verbs. In light of this, consider the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Nilus fluvius est_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested in the rationale of why the above uses _fluvius_ instead of _fluvium_. In particular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. is _fluvius_ a direct object? Since &quot;what is&quot; is _fluvius_, I would thought so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. is the verb _sum_ (also) a transitive verb? I would thought so too, since it is a verb that _can_ take an object (I am a human; human being the object taken by the verb to be).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then why _fluvius_ and not _fluvium_? If 1 is not true, then what is the function/structure of the object (noun/adjective) next to the copulative verb &quot;to be&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I can see](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sum#Latin) that when using the verb &quot;sum&quot; (except in its &quot;to have&quot; meaning), the case for the &quot;object&quot; of the verb is in nominative. &#xD;&#xA;But I see no reference to this exception when reading about the accusative case (which is supposed to be the case of the direct object next to a transitive verb). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23464" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6993" RevisionGUID="eff7463c-5671-4932-918f-f7a4e34bbf5d" CreationDate="2018-08-10T08:33:18.467" UserId="1459" Text="Why nominative instead of accusative with verb &quot;sum&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23465" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6993" RevisionGUID="eff7463c-5671-4932-918f-f7a4e34bbf5d" CreationDate="2018-08-10T08:33:18.467" UserId="1459" Text="|accusative|nominativus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6993" RevisionGUID="8f7bb1f2-f0f2-4c75-99e6-06b779e2424d" CreationDate="2018-08-10T09:22:58.473" UserId="1459" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Recently I've been learning about the accusative mode, in/direct objects and in/transitive verbs. In light of this, consider the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Nilus fluvius est_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested in the rationale (_rationalis_?) of why the above uses _fluvius_ instead of _fluvium_. In particular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. is _fluvius_ a direct object? Since &quot;what is&quot; is _fluvius_, I would thought so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. is the verb _sum_ (beside being a copulative verb) a transitive verb? I would thought so too, since it is a verb that _can_ take an object (I am a human; human being the object taken by the verb to be).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then why _fluvius_ and not _fluvium_? If 1 is not true, then what is the function/structure of the object (noun/adjective) next to the copulative verb &quot;to be&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I can see](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sum#Latin) that when using the verb &quot;sum&quot; (except in its &quot;to have&quot; meaning), the case for the &quot;object&quot; of the verb is in nominative. &#xD;&#xA;But I see no reference to this exception when reading about the accusative case (which is supposed to be the case of the direct object next to a transitive verb). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6994" RevisionGUID="bc280ae3-0bdc-44eb-b007-b8d40959580a" CreationDate="2018-08-10T16:54:43.083" UserId="136" Text="_Sum_ is an exception to the general rule that verbs take a direct object when they are transitive. One way that it is often explained is that _sum, esse_ acts like an equals sign (&quot;=&quot;). Both sides of the equals sign have to match in case. When you say that _Nilus fluvius est_, you are saying that the Nile **is** a river, i.e. it is equivalent to a river. They are therefore interchangeable. Another example is _animal canis est_. &quot;The animal **is** a dog.&quot; If you were to interchange _animal_ and _canis_, the sentence would still be correct. &quot;The dog **is** an animal.&quot; You could not do this for any other verb. Here is a simple example: _Puer puellam amat_. &quot;The boy loves the girl.&quot; You can't interchange the boy and the girl because you don't know if the girl loves the boy, you only know that the boy loves the girl. This is just an easy way to understand why _sum, esse_ is different in this respect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In more complex sentences, you don't use the nominative. For example, one would translate &quot;I know the boy is handsome&quot; as _scio puerum esse pulchrum_. _esse_ is once again an equals sign, matching the case of _puer_, which is accusative as it is the direct object of _scio_, to the case of _pulchrum_, which is masculine like _puer_ and also in the accusative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6995" RevisionGUID="8888be9d-ab69-4190-ba0d-eff541c29b3a" CreationDate="2018-08-10T17:03:03.163" UserId="30" Text="In all Indo-European languages that I know, copulae normally take the *nominative*. So everything below will apply to other Indo-European languages, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to distinguish between objects and other complements. A direct object, which you mean, is always a kind of complement; but there are other complements that aren't direct objects. Cf.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I went **to Rome**: the complement *to Rome* is not an object, let alone a direct object, but rather a prepositional phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **In Italiam** ii: same as above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Romam **ii**: even though the complement is accusative, it's not a direct object. This can be seen in what happens when we make it passive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Romam** itur a me: normally, a direct object turns into a subject when we make the sentence passive, which does not happen here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Tibi** parceo: &quot;I spare you&quot;: the complement is a dative, not an accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary complement of a copula—or the secondary, if you count the subject as the primary complement—is always a nominative. This applies both to adjectives and substantives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Canis** sum: I am a dog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Vetus** sum: I am old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine if the adjective had to be in the accusative case: wouldn't that be weird?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;s&gt;**Veterem** sum.&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would have an adjective sitting there alone in the accusative. It would agree with nothing. So it has to be its own constituent; but it is very strange to have an adjective that clearly describes a property of the subject (&quot;I&quot;) but that isn't in the same case and that isn't the same constituent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, because the complement of a copula always describes a property or identity of the subject, it has to be in the same case as the subject. This applies as well to the accusative with infinitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dico me **canem** esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dico me **veterem** esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The complement of a copula doesn't have an independent case: it must always take the same case as that of the 'subject' of the copula even when the latter isn't in the nominative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6996" RevisionGUID="3efa5025-5e41-4bd8-831e-215d09b57de4" CreationDate="2018-08-10T17:31:44.917" UserId="2821" Text="I would like to use the phrase &quot;do the next thing&quot; as a motto for some literature. Does the translation FACITE DEINDE REM work? &#xD;&#xA;The thought is basically this: we should get active with the next thing that's in front of us without too much concern for anything else.&#xD;&#xA;Thank you&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23472" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6996" RevisionGUID="3efa5025-5e41-4bd8-831e-215d09b57de4" CreationDate="2018-08-10T17:31:44.917" UserId="2821" Text="help with latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23473" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6996" RevisionGUID="3efa5025-5e41-4bd8-831e-215d09b57de4" CreationDate="2018-08-10T17:31:44.917" UserId="2821" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6996" RevisionGUID="46152edf-dfd1-4ae6-975d-890b48a61b69" CreationDate="2018-08-10T17:45:25.927" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I would like to use the phrase &quot;do the next thing&quot; as a _motto_ for some literature. Does the translation _FACITE DEINDE REM_ work? &#xD;&#xA;The thought is basically this: we should get active with the next thing that's in front of us without too much concern for anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23475" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6996" RevisionGUID="46152edf-dfd1-4ae6-975d-890b48a61b69" CreationDate="2018-08-10T17:45:25.927" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Translating &quot;do the next thing&quot; to Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23476" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6996" RevisionGUID="46152edf-dfd1-4ae6-975d-890b48a61b69" CreationDate="2018-08-10T17:45:25.927" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6994" RevisionGUID="c3e02c53-f713-4b06-9357-1a56519231da" CreationDate="2018-08-10T18:00:52.330" UserId="136" Comment="Clarified whether sum was a transitive verb" Text="_Sum_ looks like a transitive verb in that there is a subject and an &quot;object&quot; (which isn't really an object). However, it is not a transitive verb. One way that it is often explained is that _sum, esse_ acts like an equals sign (&quot;=&quot;). Both sides of the equals sign have to match in case. When you say that _Nilus fluvius est_, you are saying that the Nile **is** a river, i.e. it is equivalent to a river. They are therefore interchangeable. Another example is _animal canis est_. &quot;The animal **is** a dog.&quot; If you were to interchange _animal_ and _canis_, the sentence would still be correct. &quot;The dog **is** an animal.&quot; You could not do this for any other verb. Here is a simple example: _Puer puellam amat_. &quot;The boy loves the girl.&quot; You can't interchange the boy and the girl because you don't know if the girl loves the boy, you only know that the boy loves the girl. This is just an easy way to understand why _sum, esse_ is different in this respect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In more complex sentences, you don't use the nominative. For example, one would translate &quot;I know the boy is handsome&quot; as _scio puerum esse pulchrum_. _esse_ is once again an equals sign, matching the case of _puer_, which is accusative as it is the direct object of _scio_, to the case of _pulchrum_, which is masculine like _puer_ and also in the accusative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6995" RevisionGUID="a1a79e05-b2d1-49b9-b400-6ca3cf472257" CreationDate="2018-08-10T19:23:08.340" UserId="30" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="In all Indo-European languages that I know, copulae are intransitive and normally take the *nominative*. So everything below will apply to other Indo-European languages, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to distinguish between objects and other complements. A direct object, which you mean, is always a kind of complement, accompanying a transitive verb; but there are other complements that aren't direct objects and don't require a transitive verb. Note that, in Latin, only direct objects can be passivised (just as in Dutch and German, but unlike English and Greek). Cf.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I went **to Rome**: the complement *to Rome* is not an object, let alone a direct object, but rather a prepositional phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **In Italiam** ii: same as above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Romam **ii**: even though the complement is accusative, it's not a direct object. This can be seen in what happens when we make it passive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Romam** itur a me: normally, a direct object turns into a subject when we make the sentence passive, which does not happen here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Tibi** parceo: &quot;I spare you&quot;: the complement is a dative, not an accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary complement of a copula—or the secondary, if you count the subject as the primary complement—is always a nominative. This applies both to adjectives and substantives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Canis** sum: I am a dog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Vetus** sum: I am old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine if the adjective had to be in the accusative case: wouldn't that be weird?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;s&gt;**Veterem** sum.&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would have an adjective sitting there alone in the accusative. It would agree with nothing. So it has to be its own constituent; but it is very strange to have an adjective that clearly describes a property of the subject (&quot;I&quot;) but that isn't in the same case and that isn't the same constituent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, because the complement of a copula always describes a property or identity of the subject, it has to be in the same case as the subject. This applies as well to the accusative with infinitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dico me **canem** esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dico me **veterem** esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The complement of a copula doesn't have an independent case: it must always take the same case as that of the 'subject' of the copula even when the latter isn't in the nominative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6997" RevisionGUID="ac264a57-d0f8-4cbe-b6ab-e1b2ef7e59f8" CreationDate="2018-08-10T19:58:25.373" UserId="469" Text="A less-technical answer that could help the less technical (although it could be less precise):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This happens in most (if not all?) languages with declensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to see it, put in simple words, is that a so-called *copulative* verb (like _to be_) **is not a proper action** with an object, a recipient and a number of complements/modifiers. It is instead **a way of describing**/classifying the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever you say as the predicate of a copulative sentence (A is B) is something about the subject, modifying the subject itself. Thus, it is reasonable for the predicate (B) to agree with the subject (A)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6997" RevisionGUID="6a8d1387-42fb-4abe-942a-558f418b0c5d" CreationDate="2018-08-10T20:04:16.783" UserId="469" Comment="added 221 characters in body" Text="A less-technical answer that could help the less technical (although it could be less precise):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This happens in most (if not all?) languages with declensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to see it, put in simple words, is that a so-called *copulative* verb (like _to be_) **is not a proper action** with an object, a recipient and a number of complements/modifiers. It is instead **a way of describing**/classifying the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever you say as the predicate of a copulative sentence (A is B) is something about the subject, modifying the subject itself. Thus, it is reasonable for the predicate (B) to agree with the subject (A).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It becomes apparent when the predicate is an adjective: in *The dog is small*, small is qualifying the dog, (almost?) the same as saying *the small dog* as a subject of a different sentence: *the small dog bit my hand*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23481" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6996" RevisionGUID="13cd8ae0-182e-4001-9c06-1dd0623c989f" CreationDate="2018-08-10T21:02:55.737" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation-check|motto|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6998" RevisionGUID="e4dbcc66-4ae1-456b-a92a-c1f08e88482a" CreationDate="2018-08-11T01:23:10.460" UserId="2824" Text="I want to title a poem &quot;From Man to Woman&quot; in the sense, addressed to woman, by man&#xD;&#xA;While starting the poem, I had the phrase ad hominem/ad feminam in mind&#xD;&#xA;My knowledge of Latin ends there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate fetches something on the lines of&#xD;&#xA;ad femina ab homini&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;If not, could you provide a short phrase, coz it needs to be a title&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23483" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6998" RevisionGUID="e4dbcc66-4ae1-456b-a92a-c1f08e88482a" CreationDate="2018-08-11T01:23:10.460" UserId="2824" Text="Concise translation needed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23484" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6998" RevisionGUID="e4dbcc66-4ae1-456b-a92a-c1f08e88482a" CreationDate="2018-08-11T01:23:10.460" UserId="2824" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6999" RevisionGUID="97175814-c31b-42b7-b57d-407e0b00435f" CreationDate="2018-08-11T02:56:41.397" UserId="469" Text="A literal translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ab homine ad mulierem**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the shorter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Homo ad mulierem** (Man to woman)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I prefer *[mulier][1]* over *[femina][2]*. Femina is, so to say, more biological, and also applyes to female animals. Mulier, in turn, is more human-specific and arguably more fit for romanticism, since it's ambiguous and may also mean *wife* (if in context!... so don't worry).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Ad + accusative (*ad feminam, ad mulierem*) is the standard way to tell to whom a letter or a poem is addressed to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Ab][3] + dative (*ab homine*) is a way to tell who the *agent* is, but the nominative (homo) is also common (for example in letter openings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could even make a more compact version, where a verb and an object are implied:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Homo mulieri** (a man [writes/reads this poem] to a woman)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the dative (mulieri) makes the noun the indirect object (i.e. the recipient) of the (implied) action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmulier&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfemina&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dab" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6917" RevisionGUID="09539f48-dd7f-4dac-9255-385b9f3e4257" CreationDate="2018-08-11T03:25:42.490" UserId="2785" Comment="Further study reveals greater truth." Text="I am trying to write a motto and my knowledge of Latin is not very profound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wish to state using Latin to the effect of, and using king rather than man:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Know and understand this king. Be sure that you make yourself a disciple of Christ the ruling King.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To know and understand is suggested to be as grok. I do not wish to over complicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best arrangement that I have so far come up with is,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Intellegere et scire regem. Fac tu discipulis Christi Regis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this anything near close? What would be correct Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do hope that this question will be allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Edit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having studied the magnificent answer from Ethan Bierlein and elsewhere I have near settled that the motto will be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Scītō atque intellege hunc rēgem. Es certus facere tē discipulum Christī Regēntis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers yet improving upon this will be considered." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6172" RevisionGUID="68cc5610-6727-4af7-9095-33591e94802f" CreationDate="2018-08-11T10:23:27.630" UserId="13" Comment="added breathings" Text="The manuscript tradition for the fragment in the title gives us:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἔλθοντ' ἐξ ὀράνω πορφυρίαν ἔχοντα προϊέμενον χλάμυν&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reasons of meter, deleting the ἔχοντα is basically mandatory. However, why do Lobel-Page and Campbell emend the participle προϊέμενον to the very different περθέμενον instead of simply removing the troublesome umlaut and reading προιέμενον like Edmonds does? This reading is closer to the tradition, so why discard it? Is there any critical or linguistic reason to do so, or is it just that &quot;clad in&quot; a mantle is in a sense easier to picture than &quot;sending forth&quot; a mantle? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6998" RevisionGUID="6d3834bf-bbcb-4fac-8447-90f782c398ca" CreationDate="2018-08-11T10:42:17.843" UserId="1459" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="I want to title a poem &quot;From Man to Woman&quot; in the sense, addressed to woman, by man. While starting the poem, I had the phrase _ad hominem/ad feminam_ in mind. My knowledge of Latin ends there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate fetches something on the lines of&#xD;&#xA;_ad femina ab homini_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct? If not, could you provide a short phrase, because it needs to be a title." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23489" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6998" RevisionGUID="6d3834bf-bbcb-4fac-8447-90f782c398ca" CreationDate="2018-08-11T10:42:17.843" UserId="1459" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Translating &quot;From Man to Woman&quot; into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7000" RevisionGUID="e725119d-6f84-44fd-8765-867426c51364" CreationDate="2018-08-11T11:36:20.877" UserId="13" Text="#General background#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I gather from Edmonds is that the fragment at hand is found in a letter written by Iulianus (Julian the Apostate?) to Iamblichus, and the &quot;offending&quot; part of the letter reads thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ἦλθες καὶ ἐποίησας ἦλθες γὰρ δὴ καὶ ἀπὼν οἷς γράφεις· ἐγὼ δέ σε μὰ ὤμαν· ἄν δ' ἐφύλαξας ἐμὰν φρένα καιομέναν πόθῳ [...] χαῖρε δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἡμῖν πολλά, καθάπερ ἡ καλὴ Σαπφώ φησιν, καὶ οὐκ ἰσάριθμα μόνον τῷ χρόνῳ ὃν ἀλλήλων ἀπελείφθημεν, ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ ἀεὶ χαῖρε.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the obvious emendation of μὰ ὤμαν -&gt; μαόμαν, the above translates to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You came, and you did: for you came, even not being here, in your writing; and I was longing for you; and you guarded my heart which burnt with desire […] and you yourself be very well, as the beautiful Sappho says, and not only for as long as we've been parted, but be well forever too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would thus seem a two-part quote, part one containing what comes before the […] and part 2 containing what comes after. I have a couple questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Question 1: ἐφύλαξας#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For metrical reasons, and probably semantic reasons too, this verb is typically amended someway. Edmonds has ἔφλαξας=ἔφλεξας, &quot;you burnt up&quot;, Campbell, Lobel-Page, Thomas, and [The Complete Poems of Sappho](http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/) have ἔψυξας, &quot;you cooled down&quot;, and [Greek Wikisource](https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%8E%CE%BC%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%B9_%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9_%CE%95%CF%80%CE%B9%CE%B8%CE%B1%CE%BB%CE%AC%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%B1), [Bibliotheca Augustana](https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/graeca/Chronologia/S_ante06/Sappho/sap_me02.html), and Wilamowits have ἔφλυξας.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What verb is that last form from, and what does it mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd guess φλύγω, φλύκω, φλύχω, or φλύσσω, but neither give results on Pereus Greek Word Study Tool…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Question 2: Bergk#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I'm used to Bergk missing a lot of fragments because they were on papyri unearthed only after his edition, but this is a quotation, so I'm surprised it's not there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How come Bergk doesn't have this fragment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus: What are the bracketed numbers [here](https://ia600207.us.archive.org/18/items/poetaelyricigrae00berguoft/poetaelyricigrae00berguoft.pdf) referring to? Was there a prior Bergk edition with different fragment arrangement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Question 3: The vanishing second part#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, the first part isn't even attributed to Sappho (but maybe the […] had that attribution). The second part is explicitly καθάπερ ἡ καλὴ Σαπφώ φησιν though, so it's weird to see it missing from LP/C 48, and from The Complete Poems of Sappho. In fact, I flipped through all LP yesterday and I just couldn't find it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How come that second part seems to be completely missing from Lobel-Page? Where is it in Campbell? And in Voigt too, though the TEST has that part of the quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Question 4: reconstructing part 2#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From part 2, one would expect the poem being quoted to contain, maybe a few lines further down, something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χαῖρε (δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἡμῖν) πολλά, ἰσάριθμα τῷ χρόνῳ ὃν ἀλλήλων ἀπελείφθημεν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that, after any of the emendations above, l.2 is «ὂν δ' ἔ≤≥ξας ἔμαν φρένα καυομέναν πόθῳ», a gl&lt;sup&gt;2d&lt;/sup&gt; (i.e. xx–uu–uu–uu–ux), one would start a hypothetical extra line with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χαῖρε πόλλα ... ἰσάριθμα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have a hole, perhaps filled with σὺ κάλ' or similar, and we are left with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;τῷ χρόνῳ ὃν ἀλλήλων ἀπελείφθημεν&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could try:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χαῖρε πόλλα ‹σὺ κάλ'› ἰσάριθμα χρόνῳ ὅτῳ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ἀλλάλαν †ἀπελείφθημεν†&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's ignore for a moment that Aeolic would mandate ὄττῳ and bye meter, assume she used a poetic licence to make that tau single and not screw the meter :). How do we fix that verb? I thought of ἀπέλειμμεν, but that would probably be active, so perhaps ἀπελείμμεθα. Except that would be perfect, so we need reduplication: ἀπυλελείμμεθα would be perfect medio-passive indicative. That is one syllable too many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Has a perfect without reduplication ever been recorded in poetry, something like ἀπυλείμμεθα? Or else could we change the prefix to e.g. προλελείμμεθα and get away with it, despite it being strange that Iulianus would change the prefix that way when pseudo-quoting? Could we perhaps use a tmesis and throw a &lt;i&gt;muta cum liquida&lt;/i&gt; to avoid lengthening the alpha of ἀπ in ἀλλάλαν ἂπ λελείμμεθα?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GqbVi.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23491" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7000" RevisionGUID="e725119d-6f84-44fd-8765-867426c51364" CreationDate="2018-08-11T11:36:20.877" UserId="13" Text="About Sappho Edmonds 89 Campbell 48" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23492" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7000" RevisionGUID="e725119d-6f84-44fd-8765-867426c51364" CreationDate="2018-08-11T11:36:20.877" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6999" RevisionGUID="938fa248-23c2-4afe-a3a5-ae67c6ed443e" CreationDate="2018-08-11T13:35:24.600" UserId="469" Comment="edited body" Text="A literal translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ab homine ad mulierem**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the shorter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Homo ad mulierem** (Man to woman)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I prefer *[mulier][1]* over *[femina][2]*. Femina is, so to say, more biological, and also applies to female animals. Mulier, in turn, is more human-specific and arguably more fit for romanticism, since it's ambiguous and may also mean *wife* (if in context!... so don't worry).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Ad + accusative (*ad feminam, ad mulierem*) is the standard way to tell to whom a letter or a poem is addressed to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Ab][3] + dative (*ab homine*) is a way to tell who the *agent* is, but the nominative (homo) is also common (for example in letter openings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could even make a more compact version, where a verb and an object are implied:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Homo mulieri** (a man [writes/reads this poem] to a woman)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the dative (mulieri) makes the noun the indirect object (i.e. the recipient) of the (implied) action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmulier&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfemina&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dab" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7001" RevisionGUID="2ce88f58-6de8-48b0-a280-fd15d25e31df" CreationDate="2018-08-11T17:16:42.100" UserId="2406" Text="What would be the one book recommendation you'd definitely give an individual interested in learning Latin? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The individual would like the book to include a good overview of Latin at the very least; he already knows some locutions (exempli gratia: Semper ubi sub ubi).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How recommendable would the following text be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pnkEI.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23495" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7001" RevisionGUID="2ce88f58-6de8-48b0-a280-fd15d25e31df" CreationDate="2018-08-11T17:16:42.100" UserId="2406" Text="A textbook for Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23496" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7001" RevisionGUID="2ce88f58-6de8-48b0-a280-fd15d25e31df" CreationDate="2018-08-11T17:16:42.100" UserId="2406" Text="|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7002" RevisionGUID="307f87c7-686f-4296-89ec-21ab9998e710" CreationDate="2018-08-11T19:12:59.300" UserId="2406" Text="Is it true that we tend to associate the three whose fruit Eve convinced Adam to taste with an apple three because of a certain translation mistake related to the word *malum*? Don't know how common this glitch is in the Latin to English translations of the Bible, but I believe it was there once in the translations from Latin into certain Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you  know of a document wherein I can find the entire story of this &quot;traduttore, traditore&quot; biblical case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for your learned replies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23498" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7002" RevisionGUID="307f87c7-686f-4296-89ec-21ab9998e710" CreationDate="2018-08-11T19:12:59.300" UserId="2406" Text="Question related to &quot;the three of apples&quot; in the Bible" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23499" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7002" RevisionGUID="307f87c7-686f-4296-89ec-21ab9998e710" CreationDate="2018-08-11T19:12:59.300" UserId="2406" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7002" RevisionGUID="96efa6de-2805-422f-80b9-151595399d7f" CreationDate="2018-08-11T19:27:56.177" UserId="2406" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Is it true that we tend to associate the three whose fruit Eve convinced Adam to taste with an apple three because of a certain translation mistake related to the word *malum*? Don't know how common this glitch is in the Latin to English translations of the Bible, but I believe it was there once in the translations from Latin into certain Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you  know of a document wherein I can find the entire story about this biblical &quot;traduttore, traditore&quot; case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for your learned replies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7002" RevisionGUID="9dfe15ec-7c28-4364-8c0f-7d5d1e0aa957" CreationDate="2018-08-11T19:37:01.053" UserId="2406" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Is it true that we tend to associate the three whose fruit Eve convinced Adam to taste with an apple three because of a certain translation mistake related to the word *malum*? Don't know how common this glitch is in the Latin to English translations of the Bible, but I believe it was there once in the translations from Latin into certain Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you  know of a document wherein I can find the entire story of this biblical &quot;traduttore, traditore&quot; case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for your learned replies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7002" RevisionGUID="9bcf9cfe-bc2e-4562-a62f-d9b9ec6d4835" CreationDate="2018-08-11T19:57:16.860" UserId="2406" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is it true that we tend to associate the tree whose fruit Eve convinced Adam to taste with an apple tree because of a certain translation mistake related to the word *malum*? Don't know how common this glitch is in the Latin to English translations of the Bible, but I believe it was there once in the translations from Latin into certain Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you  know of a document wherein I can find the entire story of this biblical &quot;traduttore, traditore&quot; case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for your learned replies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23503" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7002" RevisionGUID="9bcf9cfe-bc2e-4562-a62f-d9b9ec6d4835" CreationDate="2018-08-11T19:57:16.860" UserId="2406" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Question related to &quot;the tree of apples&quot; in the Bible" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7003" RevisionGUID="2f75d2d1-9d66-4a7b-aa26-86a14b040e15" CreationDate="2018-08-11T21:37:21.180" UserId="136" Text="This isn't a definitive &quot;these are the **must haves** for learning Latin&quot; list, but these are the texts that I have used in the past for my learning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was first introduced to Latin through [Cambridge Latin Course][1]. These books attempt to give the reader a rather holistic look at the language. Each chapter starts with a series of sentences in Latin accompanied by pictures. Your goal is to translate the sentences based purely on context. Later in the chapter, there are longer passages with definitions in English for new vocabulary. There also are pages explaining the key grammatical concepts of the chapter for your memorization. There are also several pages devoted to Roman culture and history that help explain the context of the language and the stories told in the book. At the end of the chapter, you will find a list of key vocabulary to take away from that chapter. I would not say that this book is ideal for self-study per se, but if you have someone readily available who can help you, then it could work. Another criticism I've heard is that the order in which grammatical concepts are taught is a tad unconventional, but that hardly matters once you have gotten through all of the material. You can find the first book on Amazon [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Around the same time, I was introduced to [Wheelock's Latin][3]. This book is very much focused on the raw mechanics of the language. Each chapter begins with the grammatical concept explained and then there are several problems to do and translate coming in various forms. I do not exactly recommend this book for initial learning, but more as a reference to supplement learning. [Here][4] it is on Amazon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there is the holy grail of Latin learning (or so I've been told), Lingua Latina per se Illustrata. This book is almost entirely in Latin. That's right. No English. This sort of text is like the opposite of Wheelock's in that you learn by immersion rather than rote memorization. For new words and concepts, the book does give you a little help on the sides, before going into greater depth later in the chapter, where, in Latin of course, it will explain the grammatical concepts. I've been told this text is nice because you really don't need a teacher to get along. In my honest opinion, however, a teacher would still be quite useful because some grammatical concepts need a bit more explanation. This sort of thing can be found online at sites like this, through Reddit, or somewhere else. It's really up to you. I never was taught Latin using this book, but only picked it up recently (found &lt;s&gt;an illegal&lt;/s&gt; a free PDF online) because of all the hype. You can find a **legal** copy [here][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, like I said, this isn't a comprehensive or definitive list, but it is my two cents. I'm sorry I can't address the text you specifically put forward, but I've never heard of it nor used it so I can't really comment on it. Perhaps that in and of itself is testament to its usefulness for beginners, but again, I cannot truly pass judgement until I've actually dealt with it. I would like to restate that you will most likely need a combination of elements to learn Latin. Maybe you pick up both Wheelock's and Lingua Latina and use those in combination with a Latin forum, maybe you do something else, who knows? The combinations are endless and depend on how you like to learn. You can find other questions similar to yours on this site for more advice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;One last thing, I recommend having a dictionary handy as well when you get to the more complicated stuff. You can find some pretty good ones online, such as [William Whittaker's Words][6], for quick lookups, but there are also physical ones available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cambridge.org/cambridgelatincourse&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Latin-Course-North-American/dp/0521004349&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.wheelockslatin.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.amazon.com/Wheelocks-Latin-7th/dp/0061997226&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.amazon.com/Lingua-Latina-Illustrata-Pars-Familia/dp/1585104205&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://archives.nd.edu/words.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7004" RevisionGUID="ffe5795a-af5f-4ee0-b4ac-c4e542f9f578" CreationDate="2018-08-11T21:41:09.260" UserId="406" Text="For an idiomatic translation, I would suggest ***Vir Mulierī Salūtem Dīcit***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This literally means &quot;(a/the) man sends health to (a/the) woman&quot;, or more loosely, &quot;the man greets the woman&quot;. This particular phrase is a standard formula in letter-writing: *X Y salutem dicit* was so common as the opening to a letter that it was usually abbreviated *X Y SD* in Classical times. For example, a letter from Marcus to Sextus would be addressed *Marcus Sextō salūtem dīcit* or *Marcus Sextō SD*, or even *M S SD* when using particularly common names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The horizontal lines above the vowels represent a difference in sound that disappeared in later Latin, so you can include them or leave them off, at your preference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *vir* means &quot;man&quot; as in &quot;male human&quot;, as opposed to woman. If instead you want &quot;man&quot; to mean &quot;any human&quot;, as in &quot;mankind&quot;, use *homō* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Mulierī* is a nice simple word for &quot;to a woman&quot;, but you could also use *fēminae*. If you want to be pretentious, write the *ae* as *æ*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7005" RevisionGUID="f28c52b2-0215-48d1-9f87-497945971a44" CreationDate="2018-08-11T21:56:34.630" UserId="406" Text="Suppose I want to write about Meleager, fated to live exactly **as long as** a certain branch of wood lasts (no longer, no shorter). Or perhaps I'm writing about Cincinnatus, who agreed to hold power **as long as** Rome was threatened, but then to go back to his farm afterward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would I express the phrase **as long as** in Latin? The meaning is fairly similar to &quot;while&quot; in English, but *cum* with a subjunctive doesn't feel emphatic enough for something like Meleager's prophesied lifespan." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23508" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7005" RevisionGUID="f28c52b2-0215-48d1-9f87-497945971a44" CreationDate="2018-08-11T21:56:34.630" UserId="406" Text="How would I say &quot;as long as&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23509" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7005" RevisionGUID="f28c52b2-0215-48d1-9f87-497945971a44" CreationDate="2018-08-11T21:56:34.630" UserId="406" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7006" RevisionGUID="08d6dc80-bc8d-4ed4-86ba-a4e250c980b3" CreationDate="2018-08-12T01:24:58.850" UserId="985" Text="For both your examples, you could use *quamdiu* (also written *quam diu*), either with or without the correlative *tamdiu*/*tam diu*, as in Cicero, *Ad familiares* 12.19.2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod si paris copias ad confligendum non habebis, non te fugiet uti&#xD;&#xA;consilio M. Bibuli, qui se oppido munitissimo et copiosissimo&#xD;&#xA;tam diu tenuit quam diu in provincia Parthi fuerunt. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But if you have not forces adequate for the struggle, do not forget to follow the policy of M. Bibulus, who kept himself shut up in a very strongly fortified and well-supplied town, as long as the Parthians were in the province.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Translated by Evelyn Shuckburgh)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7006" RevisionGUID="26aef1f6-70cd-4b14-a5c8-09332bd032eb" CreationDate="2018-08-12T01:40:50.310" UserId="985" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="For both your examples, you could use *quamdiu* (also written *quam diu*), either with or without the correlative *tamdiu*/*tam diu*, as in Cicero, *Ad familiares* 12.19.2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod si paris copias ad confligendum non habebis, non te fugiet uti&#xD;&#xA;consilio M. Bibuli, qui se oppido munitissimo et copiosissimo&#xD;&#xA;tam diu tenuit quam diu in provincia Parthi fuerunt. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But if you have not forces adequate for the struggle, do not forget to follow the policy of M. Bibulus, who kept himself shut up in a very strongly fortified and well-supplied town, as long as the Parthians were in the province.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Translated by Evelyn Shuckburgh)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other options are *quoad* and *donec*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7007" RevisionGUID="a50e695d-bc3f-400f-a0a9-70615ab13d78" CreationDate="2018-08-12T02:00:02.103" UserId="30" Text="Another option is **dum**. [Lewis &amp; Short][1] (*i.q.* = *idem quod*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... B. With respect to the temporal limit of both actions, i. q.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tamdiu quam or usque eo, *as long as, while*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1\. Lit. (with indic. when the duration of the action in the principal clause is alone implied, except in the oratio obliqua).—In praes.:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bene factum a vobis, dum vivitis, non abscedet, Cato ap. Gell. 16, 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fin.; so Cic. Lael. 4, 14; id. de Sen. 23, 86; id. Fin. 3, 2, 9; Caes.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B. G. 7, 50 fin. al.—In fut.: quid illos opinamini animi habuisse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; atque habituros, dum vivent? Cato ap. Gell. 10, 13, 17; Plaut. Ps. 1,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3, 103; Cic. Rosc. Am. 32 fin.; id. Leg. 1, 1, 2; Verg. A. 1, 607 sq.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et saep.—&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b). Subj., often, when the clause with dum expresses a desired end,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or refers to an indefinite future: &quot;non tibi venit in mentem, Si, dum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vivas, tibi bene facias, etc.&quot;, Plaut. Bacch. 5, 2, 76: &quot;pars, dum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vires suppeterent, eruptionem censebant&quot;, Caes. B. G. 7, 77, 2: &quot;ut&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sua sponte, dum sine periculo liceret, excederet Gadibus&quot;, id. B. C.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2, 20, 3: &quot;hoc unum esse tempus de pace agendi, dum sibi uterque&#xD;&#xA;&gt; confideret ut pares ambo viderentur&quot;, id. ib. 3, 10, 7: &quot;de quo (sc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; animo) dum disputarem, tuam mihi dari vellem, Cotta, eloquentiam&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic. N. D. 2, 59, 147 Bait. (v. Roby, Gram. 2, 284 sq.). —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; b. With tamdiu, tantum, tantummodo, tantisper, usque; or opp. postea,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; postquam, deinde, ubi, nunc, etc.—With tamdiu, Cic. Verr. 2, 4, 3; id.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cat. 3, 7; id. de Sen. 12, 41; id. Tusc. 5, 33 fin.; id. Att. 9, 6, 5&#xD;&#xA;&gt; al.—With tantum, Liv. 27, 42.—With tantummodo, Sall. J. 53, 3.—With&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tantisper, Plaut. Truc. prol. 11; Ter. Ad. 1, 1, 44; id. Heaut. 1, 1,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 54.—With usque, Cic. Verr. 2, 1, 5: dum ... postea, id. Mur. 12, 26—dum ... postea quam, Caes. B. G. 7, 82, 1; Cic. Rosc. Am. 43&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fin.—dum ... postquam, Sall. J. 53, 3; Liv. 21, 13; cf. Ter. And. 1,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1, 27—dum ... deinde, Cic. Att. 9, 6, 5; Liv. 27, 42, 13—dum ... sed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ubi, Plaut. Capt. 2, 1, 37; Caes. B. C. 1, 51, 5—dum ... nunc, Ter.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And. 1, 2, 17; Cic. Ac. 1, 4, 11.—For tamdiu ... dum, less freq. dum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... dum, as long as ... so long: &quot;sic virgo dum intacta manet, dum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cara suis&quot;, Cat. 62, 45 and 56; cf. Quint. 9, 3, 16: &quot;dum habeat, dum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amet&quot;, Plaut. Truc. 2, 1, 23 (al. tum).—&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; c. In Plautus repeatedly with an emphatic quidem, Plaut. As. 2, 4, 57;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5, 2, 20; id. Bacch. 2, 2, 48; id. Merc. 2, 3, 53; id. Ps. 1, 5, 92.—&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=dum&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6995" RevisionGUID="165d1f96-663e-4bf5-b286-f21525d95dc9" CreationDate="2018-08-12T02:25:50.013" UserId="30" Comment="edited body" Text="In all Indo-European languages that I know, copulae are intransitive and normally take the *nominative*. So everything below will apply to other Indo-European languages, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to distinguish between objects and other complements. A direct object, which you mean, is always a kind of complement, accompanying a transitive verb; but there are other complements that aren't direct objects and don't require a transitive verb. Note that, in Latin, only direct objects can be passivised (just as in Dutch and German, but unlike English and Greek). Cf.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I went **to Rome**: the complement *to Rome* is not an object, let alone a direct object, but rather a prepositional phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **In Italiam** ii: same as above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Romam** ii: even though the complement is accusative, it's not a direct object. This can be seen in what happens when we make it passive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Romam** itur a me: normally, a direct object turns into a subject when we make the sentence passive, which does not happen here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Tibi** parceo: &quot;I spare you&quot;: the complement is a dative, not an accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Tibi** parcitur a me: this is again visible in the passive (unnatural though *a me* sounds here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Te** video =&gt; videris a me: only direct objects become subjects when passivised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary complement of a copula—or the secondary, if you count the subject as the primary complement—is always a nominative. This applies both to adjectives and substantives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Canis** sum: I am a dog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Vetus** sum: I am old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine if the adjective had to be in the accusative case: wouldn't that be weird?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;s&gt;**Veterem** sum.&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would have an adjective sitting there alone in the accusative. It would agree with nothing. So it has to be its own constituent; but it is very strange to have an adjective that clearly describes a property of the subject (&quot;I&quot;) but that isn't in the same case and that isn't the same constituent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, because the complement of a copula always describes a property or identity of the subject, it has to be in the same case as the subject. This applies as well to the accusative with infinitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dico me **canem** esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dico me **veterem** esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The complement of a copula doesn't have an independent case: it must always take the same case as that of the 'subject' of the copula even when the latter isn't in the nominative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7006" RevisionGUID="6d5f36a1-cd90-4bae-86df-0175bce171ba" CreationDate="2018-08-12T02:45:46.497" UserId="985" Comment="Added examples" Text="For both your examples, you could use *quamdiu* (also written *quam diu*) with an indicative verb, either with or without the correlative *tamdiu*/*tam diu*, as in Cicero, *Ad familiares* 12.19.2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quod si paris copias ad confligendum non habebis, non te fugiet uti&#xD;&#xA;consilio M. Bibuli, qui se oppido munitissimo et copiosissimo&#xD;&#xA;tam diu tenuit **quam diu** in provincia Parthi fuerunt.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But if you have not forces adequate for the struggle, do not forget to follow the policy of M. Bibulus, who kept himself shut up in a very strongly fortified and well-supplied town, as long as the Parthians were in the province.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Translated by Evelyn Shuckburgh)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other options are *quoad*, *donec*, and even *dum*, when the clauses containing these words have an indicative verb – for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Livy, *Ab urbe condita* 26.51.5:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; *hunc ordinem laboris quietisque **quoad** Carthagine morati sunt servarunt.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; They preserved this pattern of work and rest as long as they lingered in Carthage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Tacitus, *Historiae* 4.12:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; *Batavi, **donec** trans Rhenum agebant, pars Chattorum, seditione domestica pulsi extrema Gallicae orae vacua cultoribus simulque insulam iuxta sitam occupavere, quam mare Oceanus a fronte, Rhenus amnis tergum ac latera circumluit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; The Batavians, so long as they lived beyond the Rhine, formed a branch of the Chatti. Drven out by domestic dissensions, they occupied the uninhabited riverine fringes of Gaul together with the 'Island' in the lower reaches, washed by the North Sea on the west, and on the other three sides by the Rhine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (Translated by Kenneth Wellesley)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cicero, *Pro Roscio Amerino* 126:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; ***dum** praesidia ulla fuerunt, in Sullae praesidiis fuit; postea quam ab armis &amp;lt;omnes&amp;gt; recesserunt, in summo otio rediens a cena Romae occisus est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; For as long as there were any garrisons, he was in the garrisons of Sulla; after everyone put down arms, he was killed in Rome as he was returning from dinner in the utmost leisure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, e.g, Allen and Greenough, *New Latin Grammar* §552ff." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6999" RevisionGUID="2029dcc3-a325-4a3f-a336-6c54e5b9174c" CreationDate="2018-08-12T03:19:08.177" UserId="469" Comment="added 1312 characters in body" Text="**Update:** I'm incorporating what was discussed in the comments (thanks fdb).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A literal translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **A viro ad mulierem**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the shorter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Homo ad mulierem** (Man to woman)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I prefer *[mulier][1]* over *[femina][2]*. Femina is, so to say, more biological, and also applies to female animals. Mulier, in turn, is more human-specific and arguably more fit for romanticism, since it's ambiguous and may also mean *wife* (if in context!... so don't worry).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Ad + accusative (*ad feminam, ad mulierem*) is the standard way to tell to whom a letter or a poem is addressed to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Ab][3] + dative (*ab homine*) is a way to tell who the *agent* is, but the nominative (homo) is also common (for example in letter openings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I can think of three ways to say *man*: *vir* (male correlative to *mulier*), *masculus* (male correlative to *femina*) and *homo*. The latter means man in the sense of human being, but has also the secondary meaning of man as opposed to woman (e.g. by Plautus in [Cist. 4.2][4].57).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could even make a more compact version, where a verb and an object are implied:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Vir mulieri** (a man [writes/reads this poem] to a woman)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the dative (mulieri) makes the noun the indirect object (i.e. the recipient) of the (implied) action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like this one because of its compactness, ideal for a motto or for engraving. Its perfectly idiomatic in this context, although it could sound forced if spoken out of context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar constructions using the same structure are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Masculus feminae**, **homo mulieri**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A problem (or a potential advantageous fact) is that *feminae* means both *to [a|the] woman* and *[a|the] woman's*, hence *masculus feminae* can be read as both *man to woman* and *woman's man*. The precise word choice is up to you, depending on the nuances you want to give. You can even mix them (masculus mulieri/vir|homo feminae) but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Make sure to keep the right word endings (or the actual meaning can change)&#xD;&#xA;* Keep also in mind that the mix could sound more or less as good or bad as these sound in English: male to woman, man to female.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmulier&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfemina&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dab&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0036%3Aact%3D4%3Ascene%3D2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7008" RevisionGUID="c88ffad0-9947-461e-ac79-748c938b9b7a" CreationDate="2018-08-12T04:10:21.757" UserId="2826" Text="Can I use &quot;Domus optima&quot; or &quot;Domus optimus&quot; as the equivalent (I do not need a literal translation) of &quot;The best house&quot;? Should &quot;optima&quot; be used with a noun &quot;domus&quot; or both are correct? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23518" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7008" RevisionGUID="c88ffad0-9947-461e-ac79-748c938b9b7a" CreationDate="2018-08-12T04:10:21.757" UserId="2826" Text="How it's better to translate &quot;The best house&quot; into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23519" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7008" RevisionGUID="c88ffad0-9947-461e-ac79-748c938b9b7a" CreationDate="2018-08-12T04:10:21.757" UserId="2826" Text="|grammar-choice|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7008" RevisionGUID="ccb60a13-4e29-458d-84d1-964dc92e8c86" CreationDate="2018-08-12T09:41:37.350" UserId="1459" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Can I use &quot;_Domus optima_&quot; or &quot;_Domus optimus_&quot; as the equivalent (I do not need a literal translation) of &quot;The best house&quot;? Should &quot;_optima_&quot; be used with a noun &quot;_domus_&quot; or both are correct? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7010" RevisionGUID="687e2e96-8ffb-4d4a-b53e-5b3033c3a6bf" CreationDate="2018-08-12T23:35:17.207" UserId="2831" Text="I'm kind of 'intermediate' Latin, and I can't find a completely satisfactory way to parse this poem (Priapea IV, Bucheler Ed. via latinlibrary):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Obscaenas rigido deo tabellas  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;dicans ex Elephantidos libellis  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;dat donum Lalage rogatque, temptes,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;si pictas opus edat ad figuras.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now, the best I can do is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lalage donum obscaenas rigido deo dat  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; dicans tabellas ex Elephantidos libellis  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; rogatque: temptes (deus) opus, si ad figuras pictas edat (Lalage)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not completely satisfied, because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I don't know why obscaenas isn't dative like rigido deo&#xD;&#xA; - Reading 'ad figuras pictas edat' just seems odd. What's 'ad' doing there? I feel like I might be reading the whole second clause incorrectly" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23525" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7010" RevisionGUID="687e2e96-8ffb-4d4a-b53e-5b3033c3a6bf" CreationDate="2018-08-12T23:35:17.207" UserId="2831" Text="Parsing Priapea IV" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23526" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7010" RevisionGUID="687e2e96-8ffb-4d4a-b53e-5b3033c3a6bf" CreationDate="2018-08-12T23:35:17.207" UserId="2831" Text="|translation|syntax|poetry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7011" RevisionGUID="77a04ebf-aeda-4e83-adf8-850774364019" CreationDate="2018-08-13T03:50:30.760" UserId="406" Text="&quot;Hard&quot; is sometimes used as an adverb in English to emphasize a physical action, or indicate that it was especially vigorous or forceful. For example, &quot;he hit the ground **hard** when he fell&quot;, or &quot;she punched the tree so **hard** she left a mark&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would I express this idea most clearly in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23528" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7011" RevisionGUID="77a04ebf-aeda-4e83-adf8-850774364019" CreationDate="2018-08-13T03:50:30.760" UserId="406" Text="How do I do something &quot;hard&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23529" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7011" RevisionGUID="77a04ebf-aeda-4e83-adf8-850774364019" CreationDate="2018-08-13T03:50:30.760" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7012" RevisionGUID="54b9f22c-2ecb-4ce1-85f3-d6b1b6422c52" CreationDate="2018-08-13T03:54:24.160" UserId="406" Text="In Latin, every noun has a *gender*, either masculine, feminine, or neuter. Adjectives modifying that noun need to have the same gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most nouns ending in *-us* are masculine, but *domus* is an exception: it's feminine. So the proper translation of &quot;the best house&quot; is ***domus optima***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the *singular* (a single best house, not several best houses) and *nominative* (the subject of the sentence, like &quot;I&quot; as opposed to &quot;me&quot;) form. If either of those assumptions is wrong (e.g. you're talking about several best houses as the object of a sentence), the form will have to change." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7013" RevisionGUID="d8f6bc85-96f3-4205-9462-4982b64550d6" CreationDate="2018-08-13T04:40:48.657" UserId="985" Text="As a general expression that's applicable to a wide variety of actions, *graviter* would work. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Caesar, *De bello gallico* 3.14.4, it's used (in the comparative degree) of falling spears:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rostro enim noceri non posse cognoverant; turribus autem excitatis tamen has altitudo puppium ex barbaris navibus superabat, ut neque ex inferiore loco satis commode tela adigi possent et missa a Gallis **gravius acciderent**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for they knew that damage could not be done by their beaks; and that, although turrets were built [on their decks], yet the height of the stems of the barbarian ships exceeded these; so that weapons could not be cast up from [our] lower position with sufficient effect, and those cast by the Gauls **fell the more forcibly** upon us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Translation by W. A. McDevitte and W. S. Bohn, from the [Perseus website](http://http://www.perseus.tufts.edu))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Suetonius's life of Otho 7.2, it's used of taking a tumble:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dicitur ea nocte per quietem pauefactus gemitus maximos edidisse repertusque a concursantibus humi ante lectum iacens per omnia piaculorum genera Manes Galbae, a quo deturbari expellique se uiderat, propitiare temptasse; postridie quoque in augurando tempestate orta **grauiter prolapsum** identidem obmurmurasse:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; τί γάρ μοι καὶ μακροῖς αὐλοῖς;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He is said to have been greatly frightened that night in his sleep, and to have groaned heavily; and being found, by those who came running in to see what the matter was, lying upon the floor before his bed, he endeavoured by every kind of atonement to appease the ghost of Galba, by which he had found himself violently tumbled out of bed. The next day, as he was taking the omens, a great storm arising, and **sustaining a grievous fall**, he muttered to himself from time to time:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;τί γαρ́ μοι καὶ μακροῖς αὐλοῖς;&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;What business have I the loud trumpets to sound?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Translation from the [Perseus website](http://http://www.perseus.tufts.edu))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in Pliny the Younger, *Epistulae* 3.14.7 (one of my favorite letters, by the way), it's used to describe an episode in which a Roman knight strikes and nearly kills a man who will later be killed by some of his own slaves:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; eques Romanus a seruo eius, ut transitum daret, manu leuiter admonitus conuertit se nec seruum, a quo erat tactus, sed ipsum Macedonem **tam grauiter palma percussit** ut paene concideret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One of Macedo's slaves lightly touched a Roman knight to ask him to let them pass; the man turned round and struck not the slave who had touched him, but **\[gave\] Macedo himself such a violent slap** that he nearly knocked him down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Loeb translation by Betty Radice)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Elsewhere, just going by the examples in *OLD*, graviter is used also of clashing warships, blowing winds, sounds, footfalls, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, depending on the specific action that's involved, there are likely to be other options, possibly more evocative. For example, in the context of punching, 'so hard' could be expressed by *tam vehementer* or *tanta vi*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7014" RevisionGUID="b879991b-7343-4eb6-998f-c0017b773de9" CreationDate="2018-08-13T07:06:38.883" UserId="985" Text="*Obscaenas* modifies *tabellas*, the direct object of *dicans*/*dat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context, *ad* means 'according to' (*OLD* def. 35) or 'after (a pattern, example, fashion, etc.)' (*OLD* def. 36). *Pictas figuras* isn't the direct object of *edat*, *opus* is; *ad figuras pictas* describes the manner in which that's done. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd rearrange the words into something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lalage, obscaenas tabellas ex Elephantidos libellis deo rigido dicans, dat [eas] donum, rogatque [ut] temptes, si [Lalage] edat opus ad figuras pictas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Donum* is an appositive: Lalage is dedicating the tablets and giving them 'as a gift.'&#xD;&#xA;- *Si* means 'to see if, in case, on the off chance that' (*OLD* def. 11) and is to be taken closely with *temptes*.&#xD;&#xA;- The surface meaning of *opus edat* is something like 'carry out activities'; however, those words can also be used in the context of literary/artistic production, and so could also mean 'produce a work of art' – Lalage wants to produce (living) copies of the painted scenes.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7015" RevisionGUID="b6ca17d0-56e3-4bed-8afb-daaeb2e53a42" CreationDate="2018-08-13T08:39:24.750" UserId="1459" Text="As you are probably aware, Spanish owes a significant portion of its vocabulary to Latin. An interesting difference however is that Spanish has only two genders for nouns - feminine and masculine. The coincidence of the Spanish gender with that of Latin is very high (in fact, so far I've not come across a Spanish noun which has the opposite gender in Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as a native speaker of Spanish, I can sometimes sense the gender (m or f) of a Latin word I encounter for the first time by drawing from Spanish. This is quite useful, as I can then try to get the declension, mode and understand its meaning, without having to go to a dictionary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is however not helpful when it comes to neuter nouns in Latin, because there are no neuter nouns in Spanish! Thus, I am looking for some intuitive way, a rule of thumb, or way of sensing when a Latin noun might be neuter. Is there such a thing? Or is this ultimately arbitrary, and then purely memory? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, is there a way to predict the gender of nouns? At least in Spanish, as far as I know, there is no ontological underpinning to the fact that a _cuchara_ (spoon) is feminine and a _tenedor_ (fork) is masculine. Thus, it might well be that the gender of many Latin nouns are so because they are so.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23534" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7015" RevisionGUID="b6ca17d0-56e3-4bed-8afb-daaeb2e53a42" CreationDate="2018-08-13T08:39:24.750" UserId="1459" Text="Is it possible to predict the gender of nouns?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23535" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7015" RevisionGUID="b6ca17d0-56e3-4bed-8afb-daaeb2e53a42" CreationDate="2018-08-13T08:39:24.750" UserId="1459" Text="|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7015" RevisionGUID="939478eb-e58e-425d-8826-6c1b60b91e2c" CreationDate="2018-08-13T09:03:32.263" UserId="1459" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="As you are probably aware, Spanish owes a significant portion of its vocabulary to Latin. An interesting difference however is that Spanish has only two genders for nouns - feminine and masculine. The coincidence of the Spanish gender with that of Latin is very high (in fact, so far I've not come across a Spanish noun which has the opposite gender in Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as a native speaker of Spanish, I can sometimes sense the gender (m or f) of a Latin word I encounter for the first time by drawing from Spanish. This is quite useful, as I can then try to get the declension, mode and understand its meaning, without having to go to a dictionary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is however not helpful when it comes to neuter nouns in Latin, because there are no neuter nouns in Spanish! Thus, I am looking for some intuitive way, a rule of thumb, or way of sensing when a Latin noun might be neuter. Is there such a thing? Or is this ultimately arbitrary, and then purely memory? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, is there a way to predict the gender of nouns? At least in Spanish, as far as I know, there is no ontological underpinning to the fact that a _cuchara_ (spoon) is feminine and a _tenedor_ (fork) is masculine. Thus, it might well be that the gender of many Latin nouns is so because it is so. _Memorā!_&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7015" RevisionGUID="2a537457-0220-4ca1-b2f8-c043289b4dfd" CreationDate="2018-08-13T10:22:04.873" UserId="1459" Comment="added 254 characters in body" Text="As you are probably aware, Spanish owes a significant portion of its vocabulary to Latin. An interesting difference however is that Spanish has only two genders for nouns - feminine and masculine. The coincidence of the Spanish gender with that of Latin is very high (in fact, so far I've not come across a Spanish noun which has the opposite gender in Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as a native speaker of Spanish, I can sometimes sense the gender (m or f) of a Latin word I encounter for the first time by drawing from Spanish. This is quite useful, as I can then try to get the declension, mode and understand its meaning, without having to go to a dictionary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, if I read _insulae_, my Spanish tells me this is feminine. If I read, _fluvium_, my Spanish tells me this is masculine (of course, this not always works!). But I I read _altaris_, I would say this is masculine. And yet, it is neuter!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, when it comes to neuter nouns in Latin, my method utterly fails, because there are no neuter nouns in Spanish! Thus, I am looking for some intuitive way, a rule of thumb, or way of sensing when a Latin noun might be neuter. Is there such a thing? Or is this ultimately arbitrary, and then purely memory? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, is there a way to predict the gender of nouns? At least in Spanish, as far as I know, there is no ontological underpinning to the fact that a _cuchara_ (spoon) is feminine and a _tenedor_ (fork) is masculine. Thus, it might well be that the gender of many Latin nouns is so because it is so. _Memorā!_&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7015" RevisionGUID="b370a432-cff2-470a-80f0-f1c89ec19f3e" CreationDate="2018-08-13T10:22:21.007" UserId="469" Comment="added 254 characters in body; edited tags" Text="As you are probably aware, Spanish owes a significant portion of its vocabulary to Latin. An interesting difference however is that Spanish has only two genders for nouns - feminine and masculine. The coincidence of the Spanish gender with that of Latin is very high (in fact, so far I've not come across a Spanish noun which has the opposite gender in Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as a native speaker of Spanish, I can sometimes sense the gender (m or f) of a Latin word I encounter for the first time by drawing from Spanish. This is quite useful, as I can then try to get the declension, mode and understand its meaning, without having to go to a dictionary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, if I read _insulae_, my Spanish tells me this is feminine. If I read, _fluvium_, my Spanish tells me this is masculine (of course, this not always works!). But I I read _altaris_, I would say this is masculine. And yet, it is neuter!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, when it comes to neuter nouns in Latin, my method utterly fails, because there are no neuter nouns in Spanish! Thus, I am looking for some intuitive way, a rule of thumb, or way of sensing when a Latin noun might be neuter. Is there such a thing? Or is this ultimately arbitrary, and then purely memory? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, is there a way to predict the gender of nouns? At least in Spanish, as far as I know, there is no ontological underpinning to the fact that a _cuchara_ (spoon) is feminine and a _tenedor_ (fork) is masculine. Thus, it might well be that the gender of many Latin nouns is so because it is so. _Memorā!_&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23539" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7015" RevisionGUID="b370a432-cff2-470a-80f0-f1c89ec19f3e" CreationDate="2018-08-13T10:22:21.007" UserId="469" Comment="added 254 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|gender|spanish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7015" RevisionGUID="ae8b7ca5-c8ce-4806-a6da-5fbc2e837be4" CreationDate="2018-08-13T10:24:27.317" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body" Text="As you are probably aware, Spanish owes a significant portion of its vocabulary to Latin. An interesting difference however is that Spanish has only two genders for nouns - feminine and masculine. The coincidence of the Spanish gender with that of Latin is very high (in fact, so far I've not come across a Spanish noun which has the opposite gender in Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as a native speaker of Spanish, I can sometimes sense the gender (m or f) of a Latin word I encounter for the first time by drawing from Spanish. This is quite useful, as I can then try to get the declension, mode and understand its meaning, without having to go to a dictionary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, if I read _insulae_, my Spanish tells me this is feminine. If I read, _fluvium_, my Spanish tells me this is masculine. But if I read _altaris_, I would say this is masculine. And yet, it is neuter!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, when it comes to neuter nouns in Latin, my method utterly fails, because there are no neuter nouns in Spanish! Thus, I am looking for some intuitive way, a rule of thumb, or way of sensing when a Latin noun might be neuter. Is there such a thing? Or is this ultimately arbitrary, and then purely memory? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, is there a way to predict the gender of nouns? At least in Spanish, as far as I know, there is no ontological underpinning to the fact that a _cuchara_ (spoon) is feminine and a _tenedor_ (fork) is masculine. Thus, it might well be that the gender of many Latin nouns is so because it is so. _Memorā!_&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="6777c019-950c-43e9-a658-371cf265193c" CreationDate="2018-08-13T13:44:59.003" UserId="469" Text="I'm not sure this covers all relevant ideas, so any addition/clarification is appreciated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three ideas that can help you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. There is a number of rules of thumb for **declension genders** you may or may not be aware of, that can be helpful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1st decl. nouns are mostly feminine (with the notable exception of occupations like *poeta*, *agricola*, *nauta*, among other exceptions).&#xD;&#xA;* 2nd decl. nouns are mostly masculine or **neuter** (with exceptions like trees, such as *ficus*, fig tree).&#xD;&#xA;* 3rd decl. nouns may be **either gender**, but there is a number of lesser rules depending on endings.&#xD;&#xA;* 4th decl. nouns are mainly masculine (if ending in -us) and **neuter** (those in -u).&#xD;&#xA;* 5th decl. nouns are nearly all feminine (with the notable exception of dies that occurs as both m. and f., and compounds like meridies).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; See [this book][1] for more detailed (yet not exhaustive) rules. You can navigate the pages with the &lt; and &gt; buttons in the top-left corner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Cases** themselves give some clues too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Neuter nouns do **not change between nominative, vocative and accusative** (e.g. templum). Neither in singular or plural. If there is any exception, I'm not aware of it.&#xD;&#xA;* Most neuter nouns and adjectives form **plurals in -a** (including -ia, -ua; I think this is the case of all 2nd declension neuter nouns, and most if not all of those belonging to 3rd and 4th declension). Examples: principia (2nd), corpora (3rd), cornua (4th).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Adjectives** are also important clues, since some of them are more predictable and must agree in gender with nouns:&#xD;&#xA; * **Rules for neuter nouns apply to adjectives** too: Not changing in voc. and acc., and forming plurals in -a too.&#xD;&#xA; * Many adjectives follow the paradigm of bonus/-a/**-um** (sometimes called 1st/2nd declension adjectives).&#xD;&#xA; * **3rd declension** adjectives can either distinguish **all three genders** (e.g. *acer, acris, acre*), contrast m. and f. against **n.** (*levis, leve*), or make no distinction (*atrox*). In the first two cases, you still have the same clues (pl. in -a, acc.=nom.). Most of the neuter versions of 3rd decl. adjectives [**form sing. nom. and acc. in -e**][2].&#xD;&#xA; * **Comparatives** in -ior are also 3rd declension and form the **neuter in -ius**. Example: [prolixior][3] (m. and f.), prolixius (n.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_New_Latin_Primer_(Postgate).djvu/130&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cultus.hk/latin_lessons/declension/adj_3.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prolixior" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="335ba61d-807c-472e-be47-12ca57eb9377" CreationDate="2018-08-13T13:50:32.090" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure this covers all relevant ideas, so any addition/clarification is appreciated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three ideas that can help you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. There is a number of rules of thumb for **declension genders** you may or may not be aware of, that can be helpful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1st decl. nouns are mostly feminine (with the notable exception of occupations like *poeta*, *agricola*, *nauta*, among other exceptions).&#xD;&#xA;* 2nd decl. nouns are mostly masculine or **neuter** (with exceptions like trees, such as *ficus*, fig tree).&#xD;&#xA;* 3rd decl. nouns may be **either gender**, but there is a number of lesser rules depending on endings.&#xD;&#xA;* 4th decl. nouns are mainly masculine (if ending in -us) and **neuter** (those in -u).&#xD;&#xA;* 5th decl. nouns are nearly all feminine (with the notable exception of dies that occurs as both m. and f., and compounds like meridies).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; See [this book][1] for more detailed (yet not exhaustive) rules. You can navigate the pages with the &lt; and &gt; buttons in the top-left corner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Cases** themselves give some clues too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Neuter nouns do **not change between nominative, vocative and accusative** (e.g. templum). Neither in singular or plural. If there is any exception, I'm not aware of it.&#xD;&#xA;* Most neuter nouns and adjectives form **plurals in -a** (including -ia, -ua; I think this is the case of all 2nd declension neuter nouns, and most if not all of those belonging to 3rd and 4th declension). Examples: principia (2nd), corpora (3rd), cornua (4th).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Adjectives** are also important clues, since some of them are more predictable and must agree in gender with nouns:&#xD;&#xA; * **Rules for neuter nouns apply to adjectives** too: Not changing in voc. and acc., and forming plurals in -a.&#xD;&#xA; * Many adjectives follow the paradigm of bonus/-a/**-um** (sometimes called 1st/2nd declension adjectives).&#xD;&#xA; * **3rd declension** adjectives can either distinguish **all three genders** (e.g. *acer, acris, acre*), contrast m. and f. against **n.** (*levis, leve*), or make no distinction (*atrox*). In the first two cases, you still have the same clues (pl. in -a, acc.=nom.). Most of the neuter versions of 3rd decl. adjectives [**form sing. nom. and acc. in -e**][2].&#xD;&#xA; * **Comparatives** in -ior are also 3rd declension and form the **neuter in -ius**. Example: [prolixior][3] (m. and f.), prolixius (n.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_New_Latin_Primer_(Postgate).djvu/130&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cultus.hk/latin_lessons/declension/adj_3.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prolixior" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="d5554b89-9e64-48fd-af02-4fcf8297019c" CreationDate="2018-08-13T14:08:26.080" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure this covers all relevant ideas, so any addition/clarification is appreciated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three ideas that can help you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. There is a number of rules of thumb for **declension genders** you may or may not be aware of, that can be helpful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1st decl. nouns are mostly feminine (with the notable exception of occupations like *poeta*, *agricola*, *nauta*, among other exceptions).&#xD;&#xA;* 2nd decl. nouns are mostly masculine or **neuter** (with exceptions like trees, such as *ficus*, fig tree).&#xD;&#xA;* 3rd decl. nouns may be **either gender**, but there is a number of lesser rules depending on endings.&#xD;&#xA;* 4th decl. nouns are mainly masculine (if ending in -us) and **neuter** (those in -u).&#xD;&#xA;* 5th decl. nouns are nearly all feminine (with the notable exception of dies that occurs as both m. and f., and compounds like meridies).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; See [this book][1] for more detailed (yet not exhaustive) rules. You can navigate the pages with the &lt; and &gt; buttons in the top-left corner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Cases** themselves give some clues too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Neuter nouns do **not change between nominative, vocative and accusative** (e.g. templum). Neither in singular or plural. If there is any exception, I'm not aware of it.&#xD;&#xA;* Most neuter nouns and adjectives form **plurals in -a** (including -ia, -ua; I think this is the case of all 2nd declension neuter nouns, and most if not all of those belonging to 3rd and 4th declension). Examples: principia (2nd), corpora (3rd), cornua (4th).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Adjectives** are also important clues, since some of them are more predictable and must agree in gender with nouns:&#xD;&#xA; * **Rules for neuter nouns apply to adjectives** too: Not changing in voc. and acc., and forming plurals in -a.&#xD;&#xA; * Many adjectives follow the paradigm of bonus/-a/**-um** (sometimes called 1st/2nd declension adjectives).&#xD;&#xA; * **3rd declension** adjectives can either distinguish **all three genders** (e.g. *acer, acris, acre*), contrast m. and f. against **n.** (*levis, leve*), or make no distinction (*atrox*). In the first two cases, you still have the same clues (pl. in -a, acc.=nom.). Most of the neuter versions of 3rd decl. adjectives [**form sing. nom. and acc. in -e**][2].&#xD;&#xA; * **Comparatives** in -ior are also 3rd declension and form the **neuter in -ius**. Example: [prolixior][3] (m. and f.), prolixius (n.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Regarding logics as to certain types of nouns being predictably neuter by semantics alone, the main rule is... **genders are arbitrary**.&#xD;&#xA; * It is not completely random: women are female and men are male, but I'd trust grammar and memory first. [Other languages have a stronger correspondence between grammatical gender and meaning][4], like [Defaka][5] from Nigeria. &#xD;&#xA; * *Things* tend to be neuter, yet endings usually give better clues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_New_Latin_Primer_(Postgate).djvu/130&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cultus.hk/latin_lessons/declension/adj_3.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prolixior&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender#Gender_assignment&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defaka_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="4f57b648-1f19-473a-bb88-fc132050297b" CreationDate="2018-08-13T14:23:53.420" UserId="469" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure this covers all relevant ideas, so any addition/clarification is appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt;Three&lt;/s&gt; Four ideas that can help you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. There is a number of rules of thumb for **declension genders** you may or may not be aware of, that can be helpful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1st decl. nouns are mostly feminine (with the notable exception of occupations like *poeta*, *agricola*, *nauta*, among other exceptions).&#xD;&#xA;* 2nd decl. nouns are mostly masculine or **neuter** (with exceptions like trees, such as *ficus*, fig tree).&#xD;&#xA;* 3rd decl. nouns may be **either gender**, but there is a number of lesser rules depending on endings.&#xD;&#xA;* 4th decl. nouns are mainly masculine (if ending in -us) and **neuter** (those in -u).&#xD;&#xA;* 5th decl. nouns are nearly all feminine (with the notable exception of dies that occurs as both m. and f., and compounds like meridies).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; See [this book][1] for more detailed (yet not exhaustive) rules. You can navigate the pages with the &lt; and &gt; buttons in the top-left corner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Cases** themselves give some clues too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Neuter nouns do **not change between nominative, vocative and accusative** (e.g. templum). Neither in singular or plural. If there is any exception, I'm not aware of it.&#xD;&#xA;* Most neuter nouns and adjectives form **plurals in -a** (including -ia, -ua; I think this is the case of all 2nd declension neuter nouns, and most if not all of those belonging to 3rd and 4th declension). Examples: principia (2nd), corpora (3rd), cornua (4th).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Adjectives** are also important clues, since some of them are more predictable and must agree in gender with nouns:&#xD;&#xA; * **Rules for neuter nouns apply to adjectives** too: Not changing in voc. and acc., and forming plurals in -a.&#xD;&#xA; * Many adjectives follow the paradigm of bonus/-a/**-um** (sometimes called 1st/2nd declension adjectives).&#xD;&#xA; * **3rd declension** adjectives can either distinguish **all three genders** (e.g. *acer, acris, acre*), contrast m. and f. against **n.** (*levis, leve*), or make no distinction (*atrox*). In the first two cases, you still have the same clues (pl. in -a, acc.=nom.). Most of the neuter versions of 3rd decl. adjectives [**form sing. nom. and acc. in -e**][2].&#xD;&#xA; * **Comparatives** in -ior are also 3rd declension and form the **neuter in -ius**. Example: [prolixior][3] (m. and f.), prolixius (n.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Regarding logics as to certain types of nouns being predictably neuter by semantics alone, the main rule is... **genders are arbitrary**.&#xD;&#xA; * It is not completely random: women are female and men are male, but I'd trust grammar and memory first. [Other languages have a stronger correspondence between grammatical gender and meaning][4], like [Defaka][5] from Nigeria. &#xD;&#xA; * *Things* tend to be neuter, yet endings usually give better clues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_New_Latin_Primer_(Postgate).djvu/130&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cultus.hk/latin_lessons/declension/adj_3.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prolixior&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender#Gender_assignment&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defaka_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23545" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7015" RevisionGUID="2cf29c49-354e-4c86-8504-eafd6c201e09" CreationDate="2018-08-13T14:32:46.093" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|gender|spanish|neuter|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="280d7542-162f-4896-b2d0-9ab34e4b12f5" CreationDate="2018-08-13T14:34:14.373" UserId="469" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure this covers all relevant ideas, so any addition/clarification is appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt;Three&lt;/s&gt; Four ideas that can help you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. There is a number of rules of thumb for **declension genders** you may or may not be aware of, that can be helpful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1st decl. nouns are mostly feminine (with the notable exception of occupations like *poeta*, *agricola*, *nauta*, among other exceptions).&#xD;&#xA;* 2nd decl. nouns are mostly masculine or **neuter** (with exceptions like trees, such as *ficus*, fig tree).&#xD;&#xA;* 3rd decl. nouns may be **either gender**, but there is a number of lesser rules depending on endings.&#xD;&#xA;* 4th decl. nouns are mainly masculine (if ending in -us) and **neuter** (those in -u).&#xD;&#xA;* 5th decl. nouns are nearly all feminine (with the notable exception of dies that occurs as both m. and f., and compounds like meridies).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; See [this book][1] for more detailed (yet not exhaustive) rules. You can navigate the pages with the &lt; and &gt; buttons in the top-left corner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Cases** themselves give some clues too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Neuter nouns do **not change between nominative, vocative and accusative** (e.g. templum). Neither in singular or plural. Seemingly [there is absolutely no exception][2] to this rule.&#xD;&#xA;* Most neuter nouns and adjectives form **plurals in -a** (including -ia, -ua; I think this is the case of all 2nd declension neuter nouns, and most if not all of those belonging to 3rd and 4th declension). Examples: principia (2nd), corpora (3rd), cornua (4th).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Adjectives** are also important clues, since some of them are more predictable and must agree in gender with nouns:&#xD;&#xA; * **Rules for neuter nouns apply to adjectives** too: Not changing in voc. and acc., and forming plurals in -a.&#xD;&#xA; * Many adjectives follow the paradigm of bonus/-a/**-um** (sometimes called 1st/2nd declension adjectives).&#xD;&#xA; * **3rd declension** adjectives can either distinguish **all three genders** (e.g. *acer, acris, acre*), contrast m. and f. against **n.** (*levis, leve*), or make no distinction (*atrox*). In the first two cases, you still have the same clues (pl. in -a, acc.=nom.). Most of the neuter versions of 3rd decl. adjectives [**form sing. nom. and acc. in -e**][3].&#xD;&#xA; * **Comparatives** in -ior are also 3rd declension and form the **neuter in -ius**. Example: [prolixior][4] (m. and f.), prolixius (n.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Regarding logics as to certain types of nouns being predictably neuter by semantics alone, the main rule is... **genders are arbitrary**.&#xD;&#xA; * It is not completely random: women are female and men are male, but I'd trust grammar and memory first. [Other languages have a stronger correspondence between grammatical gender and meaning][5], like [Defaka][6] from Nigeria. &#xD;&#xA; * *Things* tend to be neuter, yet endings usually give better clues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_New_Latin_Primer_(Postgate).djvu/130&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/18/accusative-equals-nominative-for-neuter-words-how-universal-is-this-and-why&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cultus.hk/latin_lessons/declension/adj_3.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prolixior&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender#Gender_assignment&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defaka_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6972" RevisionGUID="16ff36e0-c7ac-415d-92bd-1fa0771fe8be" CreationDate="2018-08-13T15:29:16.383" UserId="875" Comment="Indo-Germanic is a dated usage that should now be written Indo-European to avoid confusing people, and to be more descriptive" Text="Latin is not a designed but an evolved language.  It's in the Indo-European language family and some of the properties of its ancestors can be deduced by comparing with other languages in that family that have left written traces such as Greek (which actually falls apart into dozens of different island languages few of which had written records; but some, like many works of Homer, have been preserved with an oral tradition until they came in contact with writing systems).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One feature of the language family is that sentence structure is evolved from a complex case system that conveyed a whole lot more information via a case system and nominal phrases than later on: it's not unusual for an antique Greek sentence to run over a single page in a loose connection of nominal phrases and subordinate clauses and not even contain a top-level verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in archaic language variants, prepositions tend to be sort-of optional and are just used as a reinforcement of information already conveyed by the case, with cases including more obscure ones like locative case.  As they became non-optional, the number of different cases in active use was reduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That process happened to different degrees in different members of the language family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, English has a much more rigid sentence structure than other Germanic languages (though most of the modern ones usually call for complete sentences centered around a single verb) and thus was able to rationalize a lot of its case system away (and people have become unable to recognize when &quot;I too&quot; instead of &quot;me too&quot; would be necessary and mess up &quot;thou&quot; and &quot;thee&quot; when trying to emulate Early Modern English in order to sound grave).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the end result is the same: when learning an existing language, the rules of how the language works are not yours to make.  There have been a few synthetic languages (like Esperanto) that were actually designed to be logical within the confines of being appealing to speakers of existing languages, and you might have more chances arguing with proponents of those languages about what may or may not be a good fit (it's just quite likely that you'll tell them nothing new and your arguments have been taken into consideration long long ago without having the effect you desire)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23548" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6972" RevisionGUID="16ff36e0-c7ac-415d-92bd-1fa0771fe8be" CreationDate="2018-08-13T15:29:16.383" Comment="Proposed by 875 approved by 1459, 79 edit id of 253" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23550" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6089" RevisionGUID="47c26e5b-c33e-4665-9cc3-56e4893d89d0" CreationDate="2018-08-13T15:33:05.800" UserId="79" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[957],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1459,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;luchonacho&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7017" RevisionGUID="12c4a1c8-e92b-4b15-a799-9f601be1a943" CreationDate="2018-08-13T16:56:16.817" UserId="39" Text="I was reading a new corpus study on gender assignment the other day - Hoffmann 2016 *Gender in Latin and in language typology* (in [Latinitas Rationes][1], ed. P. Poccetti).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on two corpus studies, Hoffmann 2016 argues the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - grammatical (morphological) gender assignment is predominant in Latin (71.4%), it includes gender assignment based on declension type (43.6%) and derivation (i.e. suffixes, 27.8%);&#xD;&#xA; - phonetic assignment also plays its role in Latin (12.2%);&#xD;&#xA; - semantic assignment is somewhat marginal (only 8.9%);&#xD;&#xA; - exceptions (4.9%) and Greek foreign words (2.6%) are rather marginal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll add more details later.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/458699" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7018" RevisionGUID="1d32b7b2-6e27-4da5-b53c-2272a4fcc740" CreationDate="2018-08-13T18:53:15.400" UserId="2835" Text="I tried (albeit as a layman with only online sources) to find a source for fdb's idea that &quot;you do not want to walk back to where you started for each line&quot;. It is mentioned in the book [The Ancient Greeks: New Perspectives by S. L. Budin](https://books.google.ca/books?id=u-Py1QbavoQC):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This last system was especially convenient for large inscriptions in high places:&#xD;&#xA;Rather than get to the end of a line and have to go all the way back to the far end to start again, the masons doing the carvings could go down one line and&#xD;&#xA;then use the next line to work their way back to the far end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is no citation. [R. Fudin (1989)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2695892) lists different hypotheses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hypotheses have been offered to explain why horizontal boustrophedon&#xD;&#xA;writing was used by the ancient Greeks. Pei (1949) praised its aesthetic&#xD;&#xA;quality. Jeffery (1961) held that it was a natural method to adopt because it&#xD;&#xA;allowed continuous encoding by the eye and, if necessary, continuous guidance&#xD;&#xA;from the finger. Woodhead (1959) suggested that it was convenient,&#xD;&#xA;especially for readers without much facility, because reading, assumed to be&#xD;&#xA;performed letter by letter and word by word, was not interrupted at the end&#xD;&#xA;of a line by an eye movement to the beginning of the next line. Skoyles&#xD;&#xA;(1988) suggested that it was a compromise reflecting bilateral literacy: the&#xD;&#xA;left hemisphere read left-to-right lines and the right hemisphere read right-to-left&#xD;&#xA;lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author also suggests another idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perhaps horizontal boustrophedon writing was&#xD;&#xA;developed in an effort to make writing, the inferior method of communication,&#xD;&#xA;resemble speech, the superior form. Pauses in reading horizontal&#xD;&#xA;boustrophedon were minimized by starting the writing of each line immediately&#xD;&#xA;below the end of the previous one... Speech is&#xD;&#xA;more or less continuous, a characteristic shared with horizontal boustrophedon&#xD;&#xA;writing. Perhaps reading aloud (Skoyles, 1988) was another way the&#xD;&#xA;ancient Greeks attempted to make reading and speech more similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Jeffery (1948)](https://www.jstor.org/stable/146848?casa_token=F5_Ie26sgT0AAAAA:VjidO4EK5umKEc87CGuJPS5h5_ZZQC_AHJFuLOVbskVDFKZGBEurnsmMh1UXd_mq-Oxp73tRTdumHxodpLOjX3AGv5QH0d8hjOBm2h8MA8NpgFdM_8GPqw&amp;seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) notes consecutive lines did not _always_ change direction, which also hints that it had something to do with continuity of thought:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In boustrophedon in&#xD;&#xA;scriptions of any considerable length, where the&#xD;&#xA; sense requires that there shall be a pause, e. g.,&#xD;&#xA; between a preamble and a following paragraph,&#xD;&#xA; or between two paragraphs, the mason would&#xD;&#xA; complete the first sentence, and then begin again&#xD;&#xA; in the same direction as the line above, to denote&#xD;&#xA; the beginning of a fresh point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7018" RevisionGUID="18ee8355-55d6-46f7-bf7a-af12f0c12fe1" CreationDate="2018-08-13T19:00:08.867" UserId="2835" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="I tried (albeit as a layman with only online sources) to find a source for fdb's idea that &quot;you do not want to walk back to where you started for each line&quot;. It is mentioned in the book [_The Ancient Greeks: New Perspectives_ by S. L. Budin (2004)](https://books.google.ca/books?id=u-Py1QbavoQC):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This last system was especially convenient for large inscriptions in high places:&#xD;&#xA;Rather than get to the end of a line and have to go all the way back to the far end to start again, the masons doing the carvings could go down one line and&#xD;&#xA;then use the next line to work their way back to the far end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is no citation. [R. Fudin (1989)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2695892) lists different hypotheses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hypotheses have been offered to explain why horizontal boustrophedon&#xD;&#xA;writing was used by the ancient Greeks. Pei (1949) praised its aesthetic&#xD;&#xA;quality. Jeffery (1961) held that it was a natural method to adopt because it&#xD;&#xA;allowed continuous encoding by the eye and, if necessary, continuous guidance&#xD;&#xA;from the finger. Woodhead (1959) suggested that it was convenient,&#xD;&#xA;especially for readers without much facility, because reading, assumed to be&#xD;&#xA;performed letter by letter and word by word, was not interrupted at the end&#xD;&#xA;of a line by an eye movement to the beginning of the next line. Skoyles&#xD;&#xA;(1988) suggested that it was a compromise reflecting bilateral literacy: the&#xD;&#xA;left hemisphere read left-to-right lines and the right hemisphere read right-to-left&#xD;&#xA;lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author also suggests another idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perhaps horizontal boustrophedon writing was&#xD;&#xA;developed in an effort to make writing, the inferior method of communication,&#xD;&#xA;resemble speech, the superior form. Pauses in reading horizontal&#xD;&#xA;boustrophedon were minimized by starting the writing of each line immediately&#xD;&#xA;below the end of the previous one... Speech is&#xD;&#xA;more or less continuous, a characteristic shared with horizontal boustrophedon&#xD;&#xA;writing. Perhaps reading aloud (Skoyles, 1988) was another way the&#xD;&#xA;ancient Greeks attempted to make reading and speech more similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Jeffery (1948)](https://www.jstor.org/stable/146848?casa_token=F5_Ie26sgT0AAAAA:VjidO4EK5umKEc87CGuJPS5h5_ZZQC_AHJFuLOVbskVDFKZGBEurnsmMh1UXd_mq-Oxp73tRTdumHxodpLOjX3AGv5QH0d8hjOBm2h8MA8NpgFdM_8GPqw&amp;seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) notes consecutive lines did not _always_ change direction, which also hints that it had something to do with continuity of thought:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In boustrophedon inscriptions of any considerable length, where the&#xD;&#xA; sense requires that there shall be a pause, e. g.,&#xD;&#xA; between a preamble and a following paragraph,&#xD;&#xA; or between two paragraphs, the mason would&#xD;&#xA; complete the first sentence, and then begin again&#xD;&#xA; in the same direction as the line above, to denote&#xD;&#xA; the beginning of a fresh point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7018" RevisionGUID="ed37b7f9-c149-441b-99b1-23d5f75ab686" CreationDate="2018-08-13T19:09:01.283" UserId="2835" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="I tried (albeit as a layman with only online sources) to find a source for fdb's idea that &quot;you do not want to walk back to where you started for each line&quot;. It is mentioned in the book [_The Ancient Greeks: New Perspectives_ by S. L. Budin (2004)](https://books.google.ca/books?id=u-Py1QbavoQC):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This last system was especially convenient for large inscriptions in high places:&#xD;&#xA;Rather than get to the end of a line and have to go all the way back to the far end to start again, the masons doing the carvings could go down one line and&#xD;&#xA;then use the next line to work their way back to the far end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is no citation and it is not clear whether this convenience  was the original purpose of boustrophedon. [R. Fudin (1989)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2695892) lists different hypotheses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hypotheses have been offered to explain why horizontal boustrophedon&#xD;&#xA;writing was used by the ancient Greeks. Pei (1949) praised its aesthetic&#xD;&#xA;quality. Jeffery (1961) held that it was a natural method to adopt because it&#xD;&#xA;allowed continuous encoding by the eye and, if necessary, continuous guidance&#xD;&#xA;from the finger. Woodhead (1959) suggested that it was convenient,&#xD;&#xA;especially for readers without much facility, because reading, assumed to be&#xD;&#xA;performed letter by letter and word by word, was not interrupted at the end&#xD;&#xA;of a line by an eye movement to the beginning of the next line. Skoyles&#xD;&#xA;(1988) suggested that it was a compromise reflecting bilateral literacy: the&#xD;&#xA;left hemisphere read left-to-right lines and the right hemisphere read right-to-left&#xD;&#xA;lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author also suggests another idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perhaps horizontal boustrophedon writing was&#xD;&#xA;developed in an effort to make writing, the inferior method of communication,&#xD;&#xA;resemble speech, the superior form. Pauses in reading horizontal&#xD;&#xA;boustrophedon were minimized by starting the writing of each line immediately&#xD;&#xA;below the end of the previous one... Speech is&#xD;&#xA;more or less continuous, a characteristic shared with horizontal boustrophedon&#xD;&#xA;writing. Perhaps reading aloud (Skoyles, 1988) was another way the&#xD;&#xA;ancient Greeks attempted to make reading and speech more similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Jeffery (1948)](https://www.jstor.org/stable/146848?casa_token=F5_Ie26sgT0AAAAA:VjidO4EK5umKEc87CGuJPS5h5_ZZQC_AHJFuLOVbskVDFKZGBEurnsmMh1UXd_mq-Oxp73tRTdumHxodpLOjX3AGv5QH0d8hjOBm2h8MA8NpgFdM_8GPqw&amp;seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) notes consecutive lines did not _always_ change direction, which also hints that it had something to do with continuity of thought:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In boustrophedon inscriptions of any considerable length, where the&#xD;&#xA; sense requires that there shall be a pause, e. g.,&#xD;&#xA; between a preamble and a following paragraph,&#xD;&#xA; or between two paragraphs, the mason would&#xD;&#xA; complete the first sentence, and then begin again&#xD;&#xA; in the same direction as the line above, to denote&#xD;&#xA; the beginning of a fresh point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7019" RevisionGUID="45b8af74-6a18-4c69-91f7-743cab7bfa95" CreationDate="2018-08-13T21:57:06.793" UserId="2836" Text="I know people tend to advise against having tattoos in other languages but I have given it a lot of thought and definitely want it doing. I am hoping to have a tattoo that translates into ‘strength (my own strength to face hardship and be courageous), love (love for myself, for others and nature/life) and light (whether this be Gods light, the light within etc). I studied Latin at school but it was for a very short time and I wasn’t brilliant with all the various grammatical and feminine/masculine changes. Would ‘Fortitūdo, amor et lux’ be an accurate translation? I am female. &#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23557" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7019" RevisionGUID="45b8af74-6a18-4c69-91f7-743cab7bfa95" CreationDate="2018-08-13T21:57:06.793" UserId="2836" Text="Latin translation of ‘Strength, love and light’" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23558" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7019" RevisionGUID="45b8af74-6a18-4c69-91f7-743cab7bfa95" CreationDate="2018-08-13T21:57:06.793" UserId="2836" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5198" RevisionGUID="d8b38a75-2050-46cc-8774-69af289d1968" CreationDate="2018-08-13T23:16:46.000" UserId="324" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="Boustrophedon means literally &quot;ox turning&quot;. You plough a field from one edge to the other, then you turn the oxen around and plough back in the opposite direction. If you are writing a long inscription you do not want to walk back to where you started for each line. It is much easier to carry on backwards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7020" RevisionGUID="763a6560-dbbb-4152-baed-1c1a7f38c9e5" CreationDate="2018-08-14T01:16:30.017" UserId="1694" Text="There can be (I'm sure) other possibilities, but I'd say that your ‘Fortitūdo, amor et lux’ is pretty good.  I don't see any problem with your rendition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23562" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7019" RevisionGUID="5fb191ef-f20d-438f-bfa9-190576f46f25" CreationDate="2018-08-14T02:02:10.850" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7021" RevisionGUID="2bc3a946-554b-41fb-8a42-5b99ca94f2b6" CreationDate="2018-08-14T04:31:41.183" UserId="406" Text="*Ut* clauses of result are excellent for saying &quot;so _\_\_ that&quot;. But what if I wanted to reverse this and say &quot;not ___ enough to&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, *tam strenue laborābat ut epistolās centum scribārem* means &quot;I worked so hard that I got one hundred letters written&quot;. What if I wanted to contrast myself with Pseudolus, who *didn't* work hard enough to get one hundred letters written?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that I'm not looking for a simple *ut…non*, which to my understanding would be something like &quot;I worked so hard that I didn't get one hundred letters written&quot;. I want to negate the working hard, rather than just the writing.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23564" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7021" RevisionGUID="2bc3a946-554b-41fb-8a42-5b99ca94f2b6" CreationDate="2018-08-14T04:31:41.183" UserId="406" Text="How do I negate an ut clause of result?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23565" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7021" RevisionGUID="2bc3a946-554b-41fb-8a42-5b99ca94f2b6" CreationDate="2018-08-14T04:31:41.183" UserId="406" Text="|idiom|grammar-choice|ut|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7014" RevisionGUID="3417a07a-1ab1-4239-b682-1b7897c21aab" CreationDate="2018-08-14T04:47:00.343" UserId="985" Comment="Incorporated one of my later comments" Text="*Obscaenas* modifies *tabellas*, the direct object of *dicans*/*dat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context, *ad* means 'according to' (*OLD* def. 35) or 'after (a pattern, example, fashion, etc.)' (*OLD* def. 36). *Pictas figuras* isn't the direct object of *edat*, *opus* is; *ad figuras pictas* describes the manner in which that's done. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd rearrange the words into something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lalage, obscaenas tabellas ex Elephantidos libellis deo rigido dicans, dat [eas] donum, rogatque [ut] temptes, si [Lalage] edat opus ad figuras pictas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Donum* is an appositive: Lalage is dedicating the tablets and giving them 'as a gift.'&#xD;&#xA;- *Si* means 'to see if, in case, on the off chance that' (*OLD* def. 11) and is to be taken closely with *temptes*. Here, it's practically equivalent to *num* or *-ne* introducing an indirect question (= 'whether') (cf. *OLD* def. 13), as in Petronius, *Satyricon* 33.5:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; *'temptemus tamen, si adhuc sorbilia sunt.'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; 'Let us test whether they [the eggs] are still runny enough to suck.'&#xD;&#xA;- The surface meaning of *opus edat* is something like 'carry out activities'; however, those words can also be used in the context of literary/artistic production, and so could also mean 'produce a work of art' – Lalage wants to produce (living) copies of the painted scenes.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7022" RevisionGUID="b9c248a3-2e89-4e9f-b131-77aa0abc48fd" CreationDate="2018-08-14T05:42:59.397" UserId="985" Text="Three options spring to mind; no doubt there are others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Replace *strenue* with some adverb that's opposite in meaning, such as *pigre*, and then negate the result clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; *tam pigre laborabam ut centum epistulas non scripserim.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; I worked with so little energy that I didn't manage to write 100 letters.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (Note that in result clauses, the perfect subjunctive is regularly used even in so-called 'secondary sequence.' See Allen &amp; Greenough §485.c, especially Note 2: 'There is a special fondness for the Perfect Subjunctive to represent a Perfect Indicative.' This is why I've used *scripserim* instead of keeping your *scribarem* – which should actually be *scriberem*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Replace *tam* in your original main clause with *adeo non*, and then negate the result clause too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; *adeo non strenue laborabam ut centum epistolas non scripserim.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; To such a degree did I not work hard that I didn't manage to write 100 letters.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Use *tantum abest* with two result clauses, 'It is so far from being the case that *x* occurs, that *y* occurs.' This is a somewhat rare construction that I'm always very happy to run across in my reading (as I believe I did not so long ago in one of Pliny's letters).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  As explained in Allen &amp; Greenough §571.b, one of the two result clauses (= *x* in the preceding translation) 'is *substantive*, the subject of **abest**; the other [= *y*] is *adverbial*, correlative with **tantum**.' In this case, the latter result clause is negated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  In other words, you could say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; *tantum afuit ut strenue laborarem ut centum epistulas non scripserim.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; So far was I from working hard, that I didn't manage to write 100 letters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7019" RevisionGUID="ffb62683-6ed6-438a-a127-70304905b8ff" CreationDate="2018-08-14T08:24:52.703" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="I know people tend to advise against having tattoos in other languages but I have given it a lot of thought and definitely want it doing. I am hoping to have a tattoo that translates into ‘strength (my own strength to face hardship and be courageous), love (love for myself, for others and nature/life) and light (whether this be Gods light, the light within, etc). I studied Latin at school but it was for a very short time and I wasn’t brilliant with all the various grammatical and feminine/masculine changes. Would ‘_Fortitūdo, amor et lux_’ be an accurate translation? I am female. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="cdae0511-c6ba-4233-b332-60f2bd3799e3" CreationDate="2018-08-14T09:12:33.023" UserId="1459" Text="There is a &quot;famous&quot; phrase out there that might represents a similar concept to the one you are interested on: &quot;[_carpe diem_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpe_diem)&quot;, which is normally understood to mean &quot;seize the day&quot;. You could also build related phrases like _carpe momentum_ (seize the moment), or _carpe vitam_ (seize life).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your suggested expression, as far as I can see, it is grammatically correct. Another option could be _facite sequens rem_, or _facite sequentem rem_. The L&amp;S dictionary gives the meaning &quot;next, following, subsequent&quot; to _[sequens](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=sequens)_, particularly in a temporal meaning. _[Deinde](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=deinde)_ however has connotations other than temporal sequence. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7024" RevisionGUID="92b3e36c-b941-427f-9171-7b9751be48e3" CreationDate="2018-08-14T13:56:55.173" UserId="469" Text="If it is an order, directed to a single person, an alternative could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rem proximam fac&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm not quite convinced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The problem with *deinde* is that it is an adverb, and as such, it needs to modify a verb. To modify *rem* (a noun) you need an adjective. Proxima means both *nearest* and *next* (in feminine). I like this ambiguity in the *careless* context you want to give to the sentence. *Proxima* has been [translated as next][1], e.g. in ([Cic. Tul. 9][2]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Proxima nocte, iam fere cum lux adpropinquaret...* The next night, when it was near day-break...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; An alternative for *next* is [Sequens][3]. It also means *the next* at least in a sequence in time. *Disclosure: I'm not sure either is the best adjective for next, but are fit ones anyway. I think proxima is better*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Facite is plural, as in the order directed to two or more people. *Proximam rem facite* or *facite rem proximam* are valid. (Word order in Latin is pretty free: the -m in rem means that's the thing being done; putting the object before the verb adds emphasis on the former).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If it is more like &quot;let's do the next thing&quot; you could say **rem proximam *faciamus***. You have to choose one verbal form. Unfortunately Latin does not offer that exquisite ambiguity English has, that allows to convey so many meanings at a time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Another verb for *to do* in this context could be *ago*, hence *age/agite sequentem rem* or *rem sequentem age/agite*. They are different and which one to use could depend on what kind of thing is to be done. There is not an exact mapping with English verbs *to do* and *to make*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I'm not sure how idiomatic it is in Latin to apply the verb *facio* (as in fac, or even *ago*) to a *thing* (as in rem). But if you want to reproduce the vagueness of *do the thing*, I can't think of a better option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your Latin motto can be more precise in order to be idiomatic, *to complete a task*/*perform a duty* is well said with the verb *conficio*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also common to replace [adjective] + *thing*, by the sole adjective in its neuter gender form: *bonum*-good thing, *mala*-bad things, etc. Generalizing this rule you could say *proximum*-next/nearest thing. I'm not sure this is *fully* idiomatic either, but sounds good to me. So depending on the addressee, you have these three alternatives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **proximum confice** (you, one person)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **proximum conficite** (you, two or more people)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **proximum conficiamus** (we)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one could arguably be read with ambiguity, since proximum could also be the subject (it would make a very weird sentence though, so I wouldn't worry about that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bunch of additional ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Alternative (though more specific) words for *thing*: Duty might be *pensum*. Some words for task that come to my mind are: *opus* (n., meaning work as in work of art), or the related *opera* (f.) and *operatio* (f.), *negotium* (n., occupation), and even labor (although it's more closely related to suffering).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Looking at the sense you want to give, perhaps something in the line of *[let's go to work][4]* can do the trick too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0019%3Atext%3DTul.%3Achapter%3D9&amp;highlight=next&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0015:text=Tul.:chapter=9&amp;highlight=proxima&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dsequens&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4357/reservoir-dogs-lets-go-to-work-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7024" RevisionGUID="44f343bb-a087-4b1b-a3f8-00abe88a54af" CreationDate="2018-08-14T14:02:19.383" UserId="469" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="If it is an order, directed to a single person, an alternative could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rem proximam fac&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm not quite convinced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The problem with *deinde* is that it is an adverb, and as such, it needs to modify a verb. To modify *rem* (a noun) you need an adjective. Proxima means both *nearest* and *next* (in feminine). I like this ambiguity in the *careless* context you want to give to the sentence. *Proxima* has been [translated as next][1], e.g. in ([Cic. Tul. 9][2]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Proxima nocte, iam fere cum lux adpropinquaret...* The next night, when it was near day-break...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; An alternative for *next* is [Sequens][3]. It also means *the next* at least in a sequence in time. *Disclosure: I'm not sure either is the best adjective for next, but are fit ones anyway. I think proxima is better*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Facite is plural, as in the order directed to two or more people. *Proximam rem facite* or *facite rem proximam* are valid. (Word order in Latin is pretty free: the -m in rem means that's the thing being done; putting the object before the verb adds emphasis on the former).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If it is more like &quot;let's do the next thing&quot; you could say **rem proximam *faciamus***. You have to choose one verbal form. Unfortunately Latin does not offer that exquisite ambiguity English has, that allows to convey so many meanings at a time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Another verb for *to do* in this context could be *ago*, hence *age/agite sequentem rem* or *rem sequentem age/agite*. They are different and which one to use could depend on what kind of thing is to be done. There is not an exact mapping with English verbs *to do* and *to make*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I'm not sure how idiomatic it is in Latin to apply the verb *facio* (as in fac, or even *ago*) to a *thing* (as in rem). But if you want to reproduce the vagueness of *do the thing*, I can't think of a better option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your Latin motto can be more precise in order to be idiomatic, *to complete a task*/*perform a duty* is well said with the verb *conficio*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also common to replace [adjective] + *thing*, by the sole adjective in its neuter gender form: *bonum*-good thing, *mala*-bad things, etc. Generalizing this rule you could say *proximum*-next/nearest thing. I'm not sure this is *fully* idiomatic either, but sounds good to me. So depending on the addressee, you have these three alternatives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **proximum confice** (you, one person)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **proximum conficite** (you, two or more people)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **proximum conficiamus** (we)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one (*proximum confice*) could arguably be read with ambiguity, since proximum could also be the subject (it would make a very weird sentence though, so I wouldn't worry about that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bunch of additional ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Alternative (though more specific) words for *thing*: Duty might be *pensum*. Some words for task that come to my mind are: *opus* (n., meaning work as in work of art), or the related *opera* (f.) and *operatio* (f.), *negotium* (n., occupation), and even labor (although it's more closely related to suffering).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Looking at the sense you want to give, perhaps something in the line of *[let's go to work][4]* can do the trick too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0019%3Atext%3DTul.%3Achapter%3D9&amp;highlight=next&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0015:text=Tul.:chapter=9&amp;highlight=proxima&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dsequens&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4357/reservoir-dogs-lets-go-to-work-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="32e302ac-59b0-4259-92c7-3b24b26e58ca" CreationDate="2018-08-14T14:11:49.290" UserId="469" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure this covers all relevant ideas, so any addition/clarification is appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt;Three&lt;/s&gt; Four ideas that can help you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. There is a number of rules of thumb for **declension genders** you may or may not be aware of, that can be helpful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1st decl. nouns are mostly feminine (with the notable exception of occupations like *poeta*, *agricola*, *nauta*, among other exceptions).&#xD;&#xA;* 2nd decl. nouns are mostly masculine or **neuter** (with exceptions like trees, such as *ficus*, fig tree).&#xD;&#xA;* 3rd decl. nouns may be **either gender**, but there is a number of lesser rules depending on endings.&#xD;&#xA;* 4th decl. nouns are mainly masculine (if ending in -us) and **neuter** (those in -u).&#xD;&#xA;* 5th decl. nouns are nearly all feminine (with the notable exception of dies that occurs as both m. and f., and compounds like meridies).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; See [this book][1] for more detailed (yet not exhaustive) rules. You can navigate the pages with the &lt; and &gt; buttons in the top-left corner. The rules include etymological derivations driving gender, like nouns ending in -men (e.g. *flumen*) being neuter [thanks to Colin Fine].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Cases** themselves give some clues too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Neuter nouns do **not change between nominative, vocative and accusative** (e.g. templum). Neither in singular or plural. Seemingly [there is absolutely no exception][2] to this rule.&#xD;&#xA;* Most neuter nouns and adjectives form **plurals in -a** (including -ia, -ua; I think this is the case of all 2nd declension neuter nouns, and most if not all of those belonging to 3rd and 4th declension). Examples: principia (2nd), corpora (3rd), cornua (4th).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Adjectives** are also important clues, since some of them are more predictable and must agree in gender with nouns:&#xD;&#xA; * **Rules for neuter nouns apply to adjectives** too: Not changing in voc. and acc., and forming plurals in -a.&#xD;&#xA; * Many adjectives follow the paradigm of bonus/-a/**-um** (sometimes called 1st/2nd declension adjectives).&#xD;&#xA; * **3rd declension** adjectives can either distinguish **all three genders** (e.g. *acer, acris, acre*), contrast m. and f. against **n.** (*levis, leve*), or make no distinction (*atrox*). In the first two cases, you still have the same clues (pl. in -a, acc.=nom.). Most of the neuter versions of 3rd decl. adjectives [**form sing. nom. and acc. in -e**][3].&#xD;&#xA; * **Comparatives** in -ior are also 3rd declension and form the **neuter in -ius**. Example: [prolixior][4] (m. and f.), prolixius (n.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Regarding logics as to certain types of nouns being predictably neuter by semantics alone, the main rule is... **genders are arbitrary**.&#xD;&#xA; * It is not completely random: women are female and men are male, but I'd trust grammar and memory first. [Other languages have a stronger correspondence between grammatical gender and meaning][5], like [Defaka][6] from Nigeria. &#xD;&#xA; * *Things* tend to be neuter, yet endings usually give better clues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_New_Latin_Primer_(Postgate).djvu/130&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/18/accusative-equals-nominative-for-neuter-words-how-universal-is-this-and-why&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cultus.hk/latin_lessons/declension/adj_3.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prolixior&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender#Gender_assignment&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defaka_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7021" RevisionGUID="ad2fffe9-04d3-410e-9775-f92f455a2049" CreationDate="2018-08-14T15:47:45.050" UserId="406" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="*Ut* clauses of result are excellent for saying &quot;so _\_\_ that&quot;. But what if I wanted to reverse this and say &quot;not ___ enough to&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, *tam strenue laborābat ut epistolās centum scripserim* means &quot;I worked so hard that I got one hundred letters written&quot;. What if I wanted to contrast myself with Pseudolus, who *didn't* work hard enough to get one hundred letters written?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that I'm not looking for a simple *ut…non*, which to my understanding would be something like &quot;I worked so hard that I didn't get one hundred letters written&quot;. I want to negate the working hard, rather than just the writing.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7025" RevisionGUID="f803d13e-92a6-49ac-b7d7-5b48b87cbb2c" CreationDate="2018-08-14T15:55:28.590" UserId="45" Text="There are a number of ways you can say &quot;in my opinion&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Meā sententiā* (without *in*!) works perfectly well, but you must be careful to distinguish it from *ex mea sententia* or (less common) *de mea sententia*, which both mean &quot;according to my wish.&quot; A very common idiom that *always* means &quot;in my opinion&quot; is: ***meā quidem sententiā***. Here are [21 examples](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=mea+quidem+sententia), among which:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; et qui fugitivis servis indunt compedes,  &#xD;&#xA;nimis stulte faciunt mea quidem sententia. (Plautus, *Menaechmi* 81)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* As Hugh mentioned, ***ut opinor*** is also common. Behold [187 examples](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ut+opinor%23), including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; a primo, ut opinor, animantium ortu petitur origo summi boni. (Cicero *de Finibus* 2.10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Plautus also frequently uses ***meo [quidem] animo***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; item genus est lenonium inter homines meo quidem animo  &#xD;&#xA;ut muscae, culices, cimices pedesque pulicesque (Plautus, *Curculio* 499)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You also have the boring but correct option of putting: ***ut puto***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7025" RevisionGUID="818e6b04-078a-43b5-89ca-aa8700398307" CreationDate="2018-08-14T16:09:15.850" UserId="45" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="There are a number of ways you can say &quot;in my opinion&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Meā sententiā* (without *in*!) works perfectly well, but you must be careful to distinguish it from *ex mea sententia* or (less common) *de mea sententia*, which both mean &quot;according to my wish.&quot; A very common idiom that *always* means &quot;in my opinion&quot; is: ***meā quidem sententiā***. Here are [21 examples](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=mea+quidem+sententia), among which:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; et qui fugitivis servis indunt compedes,  &#xD;&#xA;nimis stulte faciunt mea quidem sententia. (Plautus, *Menaechmi* 81)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* As Hugh mentioned, ***ut opinor*** is also common. Behold [187 examples](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ut+opinor%23), including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; a primo, ut opinor, animantium ortu petitur origo summi boni. (Cicero *de Finibus* 2.10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Plautus also frequently uses ***meo [quidem] animo***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; item genus est lenonium inter homines meo quidem animo  &#xD;&#xA;ut muscae, culices, cimices pedesque pulicesque (Plautus, *Curculio* 499)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You also have just paraphrase with several phrases that can be found throughout the corpus: ***ut puto***, ***ut arbitror***, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="001ce092-b842-4fe4-91b6-7405340d6b07" CreationDate="2018-08-14T17:41:17.453" UserId="1459" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="There is a &quot;famous&quot; phrase out there that might represents a similar concept to the one you are interested on: &quot;[_carpe diem_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpe_diem)&quot;, which is normally understood to mean &quot;seize the day&quot;. You could also build related phrases like _carpe momentum_ (seize the moment), or _carpe vitam_ (seize life).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your suggested expression, &lt;s&gt;as far as I can see, it is grammatically correct.&lt;/s&gt; as Rafael's comment noted, _[deinde](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deinde)_ is an adverb, and thus would be directly related to the verb _carpe_ and not of the noun _res_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option could be _facite sequens rem_, or _facite sequentem rem_. The L&amp;S dictionary gives the meaning &quot;next, following, subsequent&quot; to _[sequens](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=sequens)_, particularly in a temporal meaning. This is a participle which can be directly related to a noun (e.g. in English, &quot;broken&quot; in &quot;the broken window&quot;). Thus, in this case _facite sequens rem_ would be &quot;do the following thing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Rafael's answer points out, _[facite](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/facio#Conjugation)_ is plural, with the corresponding singular being _fac_. So depending on which is your intended audience, you need to select the corresponding number (singular/plural)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7026" RevisionGUID="b0fac25f-c8b1-496d-8e35-6d504e284dce" CreationDate="2018-08-14T17:57:56.460" UserId="13" Text="In a critical note by Lobel-Page, I read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κάλαις ὔμμιν cod. A, quo retento τὸ νόημ[μα] ci. Bekker. quod quamvis cum grammatici verbis aptius congruere videatur, tamen ob ν ἐφελκυστικόν positionem effecturum recipere noluimus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What does &quot;ci.&quot; stand for?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Does the period after &quot;Bekker.&quot;, given the absence of a following capital, mean the name is not Bekker but Bekker+something else hidden in the period? And if so, why does Campbell not have the period? And if not, what is the point of the period? Was a capitalization forgotten?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Does &quot;cod. A&quot; mean that there is another codex or more going like cod. B and so on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23581" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7026" RevisionGUID="b0fac25f-c8b1-496d-8e35-6d504e284dce" CreationDate="2018-08-14T17:57:56.460" UserId="13" Text="A few questions about a Lobel-Page critical note" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23582" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7026" RevisionGUID="b0fac25f-c8b1-496d-8e35-6d504e284dce" CreationDate="2018-08-14T17:57:56.460" UserId="13" Text="|greek|abbreviations|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7026" RevisionGUID="2d4422ae-e59a-436b-a637-0c42eb65f92e" CreationDate="2018-08-14T18:14:42.210" UserId="13" Comment="Added q4" Text="In a critical note by Lobel-Page, I read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κάλαις ὔμμιν cod. A, quo retento τὸ νόημ[μα] ci. Bekker. quod quamvis cum grammatici verbis aptius congruere videatur, tamen ob ν ἐφελκυστικόν positionem effecturum recipere noluimus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What does &quot;ci.&quot; stand for?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Does the period after &quot;Bekker.&quot;, given the absence of a following capital, mean the name is not Bekker but Bekker+something else hidden in the period? And if so, why does Campbell not have the period? And if not, what is the point of the period? Was a capitalization forgotten?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Does &quot;cod. A&quot; mean that there is another codex or more going like cod. B and so on?&#xD;&#xA;4. Why is the &quot;nu ephelkystikon positionem effecturum&quot; an objection to the Bekker emendation? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7021" RevisionGUID="87e52e64-faeb-47b5-a4aa-6700660a8a38" CreationDate="2018-08-14T18:30:14.043" UserId="406" Comment="typo" Text="*Ut* clauses of result are excellent for saying &quot;so _\_\_ that&quot;. But what if I wanted to reverse this and say &quot;not ___ enough to&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, *tam strenue laborābam ut epistolās centum scripserim* means &quot;I worked so hard that I got one hundred letters written&quot;. What if I wanted to contrast myself with Pseudolus, who *didn't* work hard enough to get one hundred letters written?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that I'm not looking for a simple *ut…non*, which to my understanding would be something like &quot;I worked so hard that I didn't get one hundred letters written&quot;. I want to negate the working hard, rather than just the writing.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7027" RevisionGUID="f0679be9-cff6-4ece-b414-6afcd7976022" CreationDate="2018-08-14T19:06:41.450" UserId="324" Text="1. coniecit. It is Bekker's conjecture.&#xD;&#xA;2. He seems not to use a capital at the start of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;3. yes. It should be explained somewhere what these codices are.&#xD;&#xA;4. He is saying that Bekker's emendation does not scan properly.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7026" RevisionGUID="197c13be-45a8-43a3-ad9f-63826a8a15b9" CreationDate="2018-08-14T19:09:23.690" UserId="1459" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In a critical note by Lobel-Page, I read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κάλαις ὔμμιν cod. A, quo retento τὸ νόημ[μα] ci. Bekker. quod quamvis cum grammatici verbis aptius congruere videatur, tamen ob ν ἐφελκυστικόν positionem effecturum recipere noluimus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What does &quot;ci.&quot; stand for?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Does the period after &quot;Bekker.&quot;, given the absence of a following capital, mean the name is not Bekker but Bekker+something else hidden in the period? And if so, why does Campbell not have the period? And if not, what is the point of the period? Was a capitalization forgotten?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Does &quot;cod. A&quot; mean that there is another codex or more going like cod. B and so on?&#xD;&#xA; 4. Why is the &quot;nu ephelkystikon positionem effecturum&quot; an objection to the Bekker emendation? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="2b559901-4dde-47e4-a43f-a6174a6bdf05" CreationDate="2018-08-14T20:01:05.437" UserId="469" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure this covers all relevant ideas, so any addition/clarification is appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Four ideas that can help you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Regarding logics as to certain types of nouns being predictably neuter by semantics alone, the main rule is... **genders are arbitrary**.&#xD;&#xA; * It is not completely random: women are female and men are male, but I'd trust grammar and memory first. [Other languages have a stronger correspondence between grammatical gender and meaning][5], like [Defaka][6] from Nigeria. &#xD;&#xA; * *Things* tend to be neuter, yet endings usually give better clues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In view of that, the next best thing you can do is to pay attention to syntax and etymology: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. There is a number of rules of thumb for **declension genders** you may or may not be aware of, that can be helpful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1st decl. nouns are mostly feminine (with the notable exception of occupations like *poeta*, *agricola*, *nauta*, among other exceptions).&#xD;&#xA;* 2nd decl. nouns are mostly masculine or **neuter** (with exceptions like trees, such as *ficus*, fig tree).&#xD;&#xA;* 3rd decl. nouns may be **either gender**, but there is a number of lesser rules depending on endings. For example, nouns ending in -men (e.g. *flumen*) are neuter [thanks to Colin Fine].&#xD;&#xA;* 4th decl. nouns are mainly masculine (if ending in -us) and **neuter** (those in -u).&#xD;&#xA;* 5th decl. nouns are nearly all feminine (with the notable exception of dies that occurs as both m. and f., and compounds like meridies).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; See [this book][1] for more detailed (yet not exhaustive) rules. You can navigate the pages with the &lt; and &gt; buttons in the top-left corner. The rules include etymological derivations driving gender, like the one for -men/-minis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Cases** themselves give some clues too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Neuter nouns do **not change between nominative, vocative and accusative** (e.g. templum). Neither in singular or plural. Seemingly [there is absolutely no exception][2] to this rule.&#xD;&#xA;* Most neuter nouns and adjectives form **plurals in -a** (including -ia, -ua; I think this is the case of all 2nd declension neuter nouns, and most if not all of those belonging to 3rd and 4th declension). Examples: principia (2nd), corpora (3rd), cornua (4th).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Adjectives** are also important clues, since some of them are more predictable and must agree in gender with nouns:&#xD;&#xA; * **Rules for neuter nouns apply to adjectives** too: Not changing in voc. and acc., and forming plurals in -a.&#xD;&#xA; * Many adjectives follow the paradigm of bonus/-a/**-um** (sometimes called 1st/2nd declension adjectives).&#xD;&#xA; * **3rd declension** adjectives can either distinguish **all three genders** (e.g. *acer, acris, acre*), contrast m. and f. against **n.** (*levis, leve*), or make no distinction (*atrox*). In the first two cases, you still have the same clues (pl. in -a, acc.=nom.). Most of the neuter versions of 3rd decl. adjectives [**form sing. nom. and acc. in -e**][3].&#xD;&#xA; * **Comparatives** in -ior are also 3rd declension and form the **neuter in -ius**. Example: [prolixior][4] (m. and f.), prolixius (n.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_New_Latin_Primer_(Postgate).djvu/130&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/18/accusative-equals-nominative-for-neuter-words-how-universal-is-this-and-why&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cultus.hk/latin_lessons/declension/adj_3.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prolixior&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender#Gender_assignment&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defaka_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7025" RevisionGUID="262b5539-c370-463e-8d3e-027c414edf1a" CreationDate="2018-08-14T20:05:01.353" UserId="45" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="There are a number of ways you can say &quot;in my opinion&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Meā sententiā* (without *in*!) works perfectly well, but you must be careful to distinguish it from *ex mea sententia* or (less common) *de mea sententia*, which both mean &quot;according to my wish.&quot; A very common idiom that *always* means &quot;in my opinion&quot; is: ***meā quidem sententiā***. Here are [21 examples](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=mea+quidem+sententia), among which:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; et qui fugitivis servis indunt compedes,  &#xD;&#xA;nimis stulte faciunt mea quidem sententia. (Plautus, *Menaechmi* 81)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* As Hugh mentioned, ***ut opinor*** is also common. Behold [187 examples](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23ut+opinor%23), including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; a primo, ut opinor, animantium ortu petitur origo summi boni. (Cicero *de Finibus* 2.10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Plautus also frequently uses ***meo [quidem] animo***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; item genus est lenonium inter homines meo quidem animo  &#xD;&#xA;ut muscae, culices, cimices pedesque pulicesque (Plautus, *Curculio* 499)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You also have just paraphrase with several phrases that can be found throughout the corpus: ***ut puto***, ***ut arbitror***, etc. Cicero also repeatedly uses the phrase ***ut mihi videtur***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7028" RevisionGUID="0ddc5500-5cd6-4432-bc95-329841cf834c" CreationDate="2018-08-15T03:21:55.107" UserId="40" Text="They're almost certainly not related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sigmatic aorist occurs in several Indo-European branches and is reconstructed to Proto-Indo-European. The sigmatic future isn't reconstructed to PIE -- in fact, PIE seems to have had no future tense at all. Instead, the sigmatic future is thought to come from a PIE desiderative form (with the meaning &quot;want to [verb]&quot;). In some branches this desiderative underwent a semantic change to become a future tense marker -- just like English *will*, which used to mean &quot;want to&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know there's no reason to think that the sigmatic aorist and the desiderative were related in PIE, despite their similarity (which may be partial -- the desiderative suffix may have been not just *-s-* but *-h₁s-*, with a laryngeal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Btw teaching that there are &quot;three basic stems&quot; in Greek isn't very good pedagogy because lots of verbs form their future and aorist from different stems. And I don't know that the Greek future can be defined as &quot;non-past aoristic&quot; -- it can have non-aoristic/imperfective aspect too.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7029" RevisionGUID="2bbed42a-07f9-4b68-8115-ed4fbbab4d68" CreationDate="2018-08-15T03:34:16.460" UserId="40" Text="It looks like Greek speakers weren't too sure either. I did a very cursory search through words in -ίδιον on Perseus and found one example of each type:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;τειχίδιον &lt; τεῖχος &quot;wall&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ἑλκείδιον &lt; ἕλκος &quot;wound&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both these words are rare and my search was far from thorough, so I'm sure there's more evidence to be found." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7030" RevisionGUID="e7475ba5-8e8b-4d55-8d3c-9b072fdb4c93" CreationDate="2018-08-15T04:29:45.850" UserId="40" Text="Another possibility (more likely to my mind) is that the name means &quot;excelling in/with ships&quot;. There is a verb κέκασμαι &quot;excel&quot;, and we may be dealing with the same root: Ναυσι-κά(σ)α with regular loss of the intervocalic sigma. (The name Cassandra may also be related, meaning &quot;excelling men&quot;.) This is quite conjectural, especially since the etymology of κέκασμαι is unclear, but in meaning it strikes me as a much more likely name for a Phaeacian princess, since the Phaeacians are a peaceful people who excel in arts and crafts, not a society of Viking-like raiders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7031" RevisionGUID="af8f9cde-62fe-4521-8331-73978de116bd" CreationDate="2018-08-15T04:36:21.150" UserId="40" Text="I suspect this is a calque from Hebrew. The root עבד *`-b-d* means both &quot;serve, be a slave&quot; and &quot;worship, venerate&quot;, and is common in both meanings in the Old Testament. Greek translations of the OT were extremely slavish (fittingly enough), so such calques are pretty frequent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7032" RevisionGUID="398f27e7-bf4b-4638-a121-3b7ee3c7909e" CreationDate="2018-08-15T06:34:35.537" UserId="2842" Text="The phrase &quot;ad infinitum&quot; is often used in texts that are otherwise non-Latin. I would like to use a variation of this phrase in an English text. In philosophy of mathematics there is a distinction, going back to Aristotle, between potential infinity and actual infinity. I would like to make it clear that I'm referring to the former kind. Can I write &quot;ad infinitum potentialis&quot; or something like that (sorry if my guess is completely of the mark - I know next to nothing about Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full sentence would be as follows: &quot;The claim is that the free creation of sequences - an arbitrary choice of an element, followed by another arbitrary choice of an element, *ad infinitum potentialis* - can result in sequences that cannot be defined.&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23594" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7032" RevisionGUID="398f27e7-bf4b-4638-a121-3b7ee3c7909e" CreationDate="2018-08-15T06:34:35.537" UserId="2842" Text="Adding translation of &quot;potential&quot; to &quot;ad infinitum&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23595" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7032" RevisionGUID="398f27e7-bf4b-4638-a121-3b7ee3c7909e" CreationDate="2018-08-15T06:34:35.537" UserId="2842" Text="|idiom|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="894" RevisionGUID="ca7bf7cb-3d5a-4e95-86d4-2f058ba683c6" CreationDate="2018-08-15T08:28:15.587" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="I recently came across this sentence (a practice sentence with no given answer) in my Latin textbook: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_mare nostrum plurimos portus habet_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I translated this as 'The sea has most of our harbour.' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I am not sure that I have got this translation right as _nostrum_ and _plurimos_ are both accusative plural. Is _portus_ a partitive genitive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it not be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_mare plurimos nostrorum portus habet_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where _nostrorum_ agrees in case with _portus_?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6627" RevisionGUID="122b5492-6877-4d8c-b24f-2cbe20819b90" CreationDate="2018-08-15T08:35:45.340" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm currently doing a project for which I'd love to use some Latin phrases as mottos. One of these would be &quot;Forwards, into a standardized world&quot;. Using some dictionaries and wild guesswork, the best I've been able to come up with is &quot;_Procede, in normus mundus_&quot;, but I suspect that that's not correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know the right translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23598" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6627" RevisionGUID="122b5492-6877-4d8c-b24f-2cbe20819b90" CreationDate="2018-08-15T08:35:45.340" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6996" RevisionGUID="4ff4d2c8-4a11-41ca-be65-d2dab3d3f540" CreationDate="2018-08-15T08:39:12.113" UserId="1459" Comment="added 546 characters in body" Text="I would like to use the phrase &quot;do the next thing&quot; as a _motto_ for some literature. Does the translation _FACITE DEINDE REM_ work? &#xD;&#xA;The thought is basically this: we should get active with the next thing that's in front of us without too much concern for anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase comes from a poem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;From an old English parsonage down by the sea There came in the twilight a message to me; Its quaint Saxon legend, deeply engraven, Hath, it seems to me, teaching from Heaven. And on through the doors the quiet words ring Like a low inspiration: “DO THE NEXT THING.” Do it immediately, do it with prayer; Do it reliantly, casting all care; Do it with reverence, tracing His hand Who placed it before thee with earnest command. Stayed on Omnipotence, safe ‘neath His wing, Leave all results, do the next thing. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="d6c356ef-097d-408a-8e0d-7413d9c28706" CreationDate="2018-08-15T08:42:47.007" UserId="1459" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="There is a &quot;famous&quot; phrase out there that might represents a similar concept to the one you are interested on: &quot;[_carpe diem_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpe_diem)&quot;, which is normally understood to mean &quot;seize the day&quot;. You could also build related phrases like _carpe momentum_ (seize the moment), or _carpe vitam_ (seize life).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your suggested expression, &lt;s&gt;as far as I can see, it is grammatically correct.&lt;/s&gt; as Rafael's comment noted, _[deinde](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deinde)_ is an adverb, and thus would be directly related to the verb _carpe_ and not of the noun _res_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option could be _facite sequens rem_, or _facite sequentem rem_. The L&amp;S dictionary gives the meaning &quot;next, following, subsequent&quot; to _[sequens](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=sequens)_, particularly in a temporal meaning. This is a participle which can be directly related to a noun (e.g. in English, &quot;broken&quot; in &quot;the broken window&quot;). Thus, in this case _facite sequens rem_ would be &quot;do the following thing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: Based on the context just added to the question, the singular of _facite_ ([_fac_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/facio#Conjugation)) might be more relevant here, as it seems the message was destined to one person. Thus, my suggestion would be _fac sequens rem_, or _fac sequentem rem_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1355" RevisionGUID="2baca142-15d1-42b5-b1db-50fef230a675" CreationDate="2018-08-15T08:46:16.410" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Also, is it a noun or an adjective? What's the nominative? &#xD;&#xA;(moved second question &lt;a href=&quot;https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1356/same-ending-of-mediolanensis-in-archiepiscopus-mediolanensis-and-archidioec&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, I'm a total n00b and checked all sorts of declension tables but I just can't figure this one out.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23602" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1355" RevisionGUID="2baca142-15d1-42b5-b1db-50fef230a675" CreationDate="2018-08-15T08:46:16.410" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|declension|nominativus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1356" RevisionGUID="b6f50e71-441b-4a93-8480-3547c531a7f6" CreationDate="2018-08-15T08:46:54.450" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Why is the ending of *Mediolanensis* in *Archiepiscopus Mediolanensis* and *Archidioecesis Mediolanensis* the same even though the former noun is male and the latter female?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23604" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1356" RevisionGUID="b6f50e71-441b-4a93-8480-3547c531a7f6" CreationDate="2018-08-15T08:46:54.450" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|declension|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23605" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1990" RevisionGUID="b827f609-2033-410e-b147-c77b80ef888c" CreationDate="2018-08-15T08:49:38.117" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Translating &quot;Hic fortissimus, primus inter pares&quot; into English" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23606" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1990" RevisionGUID="b827f609-2033-410e-b147-c77b80ef888c" CreationDate="2018-08-15T08:49:38.117" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|word-request|translation-check|adjective|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7033" RevisionGUID="fc20e263-bd5b-45a9-8730-e95a851d0f33" CreationDate="2018-08-15T09:05:22.687" UserId="1459" Text="I would suggest _ad infinitum in potentia_. The phrase _infinitum in potentia_ seems to be [quite established](https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&amp;hs=kGF&amp;channel=fs&amp;ei=S-xzW9e5IOmOgAaW2JSQCQ&amp;q=%22infinitum+in+potentia%22&amp;oq=%22infinitum+in+potentia%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...61511.63091.0.63600.2.2.0.0.0.0.358.503.0j1j0j1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.jWt3CTQksdE) in philosophy and natural sciences, as you can see from the hits in that link. It also has the benefit that _in potentia_ is actually an English phrase, [which means potentially](http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195369380.001.0001/acref-9780195369380-e-970). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7033" RevisionGUID="5a1f1a10-7e99-4962-843d-1b7a9b989d88" CreationDate="2018-08-15T09:13:04.150" UserId="1459" Comment="added 533 characters in body" Text="I would suggest _ad infinitum in potentia_. The phrase _infinitum in potentia_ seems to be [quite established](https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&amp;hs=kGF&amp;channel=fs&amp;ei=S-xzW9e5IOmOgAaW2JSQCQ&amp;q=%22infinitum+in+potentia%22&amp;oq=%22infinitum+in+potentia%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...61511.63091.0.63600.2.2.0.0.0.0.358.503.0j1j0j1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.jWt3CTQksdE) in philosophy and natural sciences, as you can see from the hits in that link. For instance, [this text](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kxtlAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA313&amp;lpg=PA313&amp;dq=infinitum+%22in+potentia%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=IHa7XaHvRl&amp;sig=v0Ez_f41ZKVmTUmo9-wQzGw2m6c&amp;hl=es-419&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiXi87C2e7cAhVpB8AKHRYsBZIQ6AEwAHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=infinitum%20%22in%20potentia%22&amp;f=false) discusses the modes of being infinity (Chapter VI is titled _quonam modo sit infinitum_). One paragraph mentions _infinitum in potentia_ and _infinitum actu_. So this distinguished between the potential and the actual infinity. A similar distinction is found in Aquinas, (e.g. in the phrase _In Deo nihil est in potentia quod non sit in actu_, [here](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/qdp1.html)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also has the benefit that _in potentia_ is actually an English phrase, [which means potentially](http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195369380.001.0001/acref-9780195369380-e-970). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7033" RevisionGUID="4a5d68ad-7aad-416e-89e8-99098c3b174e" CreationDate="2018-08-15T09:19:07.067" UserId="1459" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="I would suggest _ad infinitum in potentia_. The phrase _infinitum in potentia_ seems to be [quite established](https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&amp;hs=kGF&amp;channel=fs&amp;ei=S-xzW9e5IOmOgAaW2JSQCQ&amp;q=%22infinitum+in+potentia%22&amp;oq=%22infinitum+in+potentia%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...61511.63091.0.63600.2.2.0.0.0.0.358.503.0j1j0j1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.jWt3CTQksdE) in philosophy and natural sciences, as you can see from the hits in that link. For instance, [this text](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kxtlAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA313&amp;lpg=PA313&amp;dq=infinitum+%22in+potentia%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=IHa7XaHvRl&amp;sig=v0Ez_f41ZKVmTUmo9-wQzGw2m6c&amp;hl=es-419&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiXi87C2e7cAhVpB8AKHRYsBZIQ6AEwAHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=infinitum%20%22in%20potentia%22&amp;f=false) discusses the modes of being infinity (Chapter VI is titled _quonam modo sit infinitum_). One paragraph mentions _infinitum in potentia_ and _infinitum actu_. So this distinguished between the potential and the actual infinity. A similar distinction is found in Aquinas, (e.g. in the phrase _In Deo nihil est in potentia quod non sit in actu_, [here](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/qdp1.html)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also has the benefit that _in potentia_ is an English phrase [meaning potentially](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_potentia). Actually, it seems to be _per se_ a Latin phrase, [at least in Law](http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195369380.001.0001/acref-9780195369380-e-970). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7033" RevisionGUID="8a9bb4bc-dce2-4c1d-8aea-62563f509189" CreationDate="2018-08-15T09:25:44.633" UserId="1459" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="I would suggest _ad infinitum in potentia_. The phrase _infinitum in potentia_ seems to be [quite established](https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&amp;hs=kGF&amp;channel=fs&amp;ei=S-xzW9e5IOmOgAaW2JSQCQ&amp;q=%22infinitum+in+potentia%22&amp;oq=%22infinitum+in+potentia%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...61511.63091.0.63600.2.2.0.0.0.0.358.503.0j1j0j1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.jWt3CTQksdE) in philosophy and natural sciences, as you can see from the hits in that link. For instance, [this text](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kxtlAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA313&amp;lpg=PA313&amp;dq=infinitum+%22in+potentia%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=IHa7XaHvRl&amp;sig=v0Ez_f41ZKVmTUmo9-wQzGw2m6c&amp;hl=es-419&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiXi87C2e7cAhVpB8AKHRYsBZIQ6AEwAHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=infinitum%20%22in%20potentia%22&amp;f=false) discusses the modes of being infinity (Chapter VI is titled _quonam modo sit infinitum_). One paragraph mentions _infinitum in potentia_ and _infinitum actu_. So this distinguished between the potential and the actual infinity. A similar distinction is found in Aquinas, (e.g. in the phrase _In Deo nihil est in potentia quod non sit in actu_, [here](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/qdp1.html)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also has the benefit that _in potentia_ is an English phrase [meaning potentially](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_potentia). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, according to the book &quot;Guide to Latin in International Law&quot;, _in potentia_ seems to be _per se_ a Latin phrase, [at least in Law](http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195369380.001.0001/acref-9780195369380-e-970). That article (in the full access version) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... Contrast with _In actu_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[In actu](http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195369380.001.0001/acref-9780195369380-e-886#)_ entry defines this expression as &quot;In practice; in action&quot;. Both entries have this example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As regards the _pactum de compromittendo_, international law has made certain progress in developing the formulas regulating passage from arbitration _in potentia_ to arbitration _in actu_, particularly in respect of the appointment of arbitrators by the act of a third party." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7033" RevisionGUID="92eb11e8-327b-4a7b-a0ae-b7c1e36c3c43" CreationDate="2018-08-15T11:26:22.940" UserId="1459" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="I would suggest _ad infinitum in potentia_. The phrase _infinitum in potentia_ seems to be [quite established](https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&amp;hs=kGF&amp;channel=fs&amp;ei=S-xzW9e5IOmOgAaW2JSQCQ&amp;q=%22infinitum+in+potentia%22&amp;oq=%22infinitum+in+potentia%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...61511.63091.0.63600.2.2.0.0.0.0.358.503.0j1j0j1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.jWt3CTQksdE) in philosophy and natural sciences, as you can see from the hits in that link. For instance, [this text](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kxtlAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA313&amp;lpg=PA313&amp;dq=infinitum+%22in+potentia%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=IHa7XaHvRl&amp;sig=v0Ez_f41ZKVmTUmo9-wQzGw2m6c&amp;hl=es-419&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiXi87C2e7cAhVpB8AKHRYsBZIQ6AEwAHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=infinitum%20%22in%20potentia%22&amp;f=false) discusses the modes of being infinity (Chapter VI is titled _quonam modo sit infinitum_). One paragraph mentions _infinitum in potentia_ and _infinitum actu_. So this distinguished between the potential and the actual infinity. A similar distinction is found in Aquinas, (e.g. in the phrase _In Deo nihil est in potentia quod non sit in actu_, [here](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/qdp1.html)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also has the benefit that _in potentia_ is an English phrase [meaning potentially](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_potentia). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, according to the book &quot;[Guide to Latin in International Law](http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195369380.001.0001/acref-9780195369380-e-970)&quot;, _in potentia_ seems to be _per se_ a Latin phrase. That article (in the full access version) states its meaning as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In potentiality ... Contrast with _In actu_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, _[In actu](http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195369380.001.0001/acref-9780195369380-e-886#)_ entry defines this expression as &quot;In practice; in action&quot;. Both entries have this example, showing the contrast:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As regards the _pactum de compromittendo_, international law has made certain progress in developing the formulas regulating passage from arbitration _in potentia_ to arbitration _in actu_, particularly in respect of the appointment of arbitrators by the act of a third party." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7033" RevisionGUID="36d71b43-7fd8-4e2a-b758-f5e4e6dd79b2" CreationDate="2018-08-15T13:32:26.563" UserId="1459" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="I would suggest _ad infinitum in potentia_. The phrase _infinitum in potentia_ seems to be [quite established](https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&amp;hs=kGF&amp;channel=fs&amp;ei=S-xzW9e5IOmOgAaW2JSQCQ&amp;q=%22infinitum+in+potentia%22&amp;oq=%22infinitum+in+potentia%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...61511.63091.0.63600.2.2.0.0.0.0.358.503.0j1j0j1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.jWt3CTQksdE) in philosophy and natural sciences, as you can see from the hits in that link. For instance, [this text](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kxtlAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA313&amp;lpg=PA313&amp;dq=infinitum+%22in+potentia%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=IHa7XaHvRl&amp;sig=v0Ez_f41ZKVmTUmo9-wQzGw2m6c&amp;hl=es-419&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiXi87C2e7cAhVpB8AKHRYsBZIQ6AEwAHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=infinitum%20%22in%20potentia%22&amp;f=false) discusses the modes of being infinity (Chapter VI is titled _quonam modo sit infinitum_). One paragraph mentions _infinitum in potentia_ and _infinitum actu_. So this distinguished between the potential and the actual infinity. A similar distinction between _potentia_ and _actu_ is found in Aquinas, (e.g. in the phrase _In Deo nihil est in potentia quod non sit in actu_, [here](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/qdp1.html)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, according to the book &quot;[Guide to Latin in International Law](http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195369380.001.0001/acref-9780195369380-e-970)&quot;, _in potentia_ seems to be a Latin phrase. That article (in the full access version) states its meaning as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In potentiality ... Contrast with _In actu_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, _[In actu](http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195369380.001.0001/acref-9780195369380-e-886#)_ entry defines this expression as &quot;In practice; in action&quot;. Both entries have this example, showing the contrast:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As regards the _pactum de compromittendo_, international law has made certain progress in developing the formulas regulating passage from arbitration _in potentia_ to arbitration _in actu_, particularly in respect of the appointment of arbitrators by the act of a third party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_In potentia_ also has the benefit of being an English phrase [meaning potentially](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_potentia). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7034" RevisionGUID="b46e4599-3bd6-412a-986d-5413024c2417" CreationDate="2018-08-15T15:07:23.807" UserId="2704" Text="@MickG, I am happy you ask these questions about Sappho, and unhappy that these questions are above us. I'll just offer the one guess about ἔφλυξας:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only verb I can see in LSJ that it might conceivably relate to is φλύω ~ φλύζω &quot;to bubble over, to burst out&quot;. LSJ reports the metaphorical usage &quot;overflow with words, babble&quot; in Aeschylus, and Nicander  has the literal sense &quot;to bubble over а thousand things with mania&quot;,  μανίης ὔπο μυρία φλύζειν. The verb kind of makes sense in context: &quot;you made my heart burst, which burnt with desire&quot;. Apollonius of Rhodes has ἐκφλύξαι γόον &quot;to give vent to a groan&quot;, which suggests a palatal aorist for φλύζω. (That kind of thing happens routinely in Doric, but I don't think it does in Aeolic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't think of an Aeolic vowel change that would explain the upsilon with reference to a different verb, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but neither give results on Pereus Greek Word Study Tool&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having had access to the Perseus morphological analyser, and spent 13 years extending it for the TLG: I'm not surprised Perseus didn't have an account for it; it was quite underspecified for verbs, and incurious particularly about Aeolic and Late Greek. (The TLG version has had the opposite problem, of trying anything morphologically plausible, and that took a lot of work to bring under control.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Has a perfect without reduplication ever been recorded in poetry, something like ἀπυλείμμεθα? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No syllabic reduplication, perfect not pluperfect, and not Byzantine/Demotic (from when reduplication had died out)? Not as far as I can work out, and not as far as any 19th century grammarian had worked out either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7030" RevisionGUID="b06c81f7-3de9-41ba-b418-3b193a09b4cf" CreationDate="2018-08-15T17:29:34.567" UserId="40" Comment="added 224 characters in body" Text="Another possibility (more likely to my mind) is that the name means &quot;excelling in/with ships&quot;. There is a verb κέκασμαι &quot;excel&quot;, and we may be dealing with the same root: Ναυσι-κά(σ)α with regular loss of the intervocalic sigma. (The name Cassandra may also be related, meaning &quot;excelling men&quot;.) This is quite conjectural, especially since the etymology of κέκασμαι is unclear, but in meaning it strikes me as a much more likely name for a Phaeacian princess, since the Phaeacians are a peaceful people who excel in arts and crafts, not a society of Viking-like raiders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ETA: Even if the second member does mean &quot;burn&quot;, the name can't mean &quot;burner of ships&quot;, but only &quot;burner with ships&quot;, since we have Ναυσι- rather than just Ναυ-. Ναυσι is a dative plural and has to be translated as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7035" RevisionGUID="6df31876-a754-4b46-8989-b0077a2c3ff4" CreationDate="2018-08-15T18:46:05.407" UserId="406" Text="In Greco-Latin compound words, I generally use the bare stems for all but the last component, joined together with stem vowels (in Greek) or *i* (in Latin). For example, *certifaciō* (&gt; certify) comes from the bare stem *cert-* plus the conjugated verb *faciō*, joined together with *i*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, [this answer][1] indicates a difference between *Ναυσι-κάα* with the dative plural and *Ναυ-κάα* with the nominative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it common for parts of compounds to decline on their own like this? If so, what cases and numbers are used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7030/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23617" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7035" RevisionGUID="6df31876-a754-4b46-8989-b0077a2c3ff4" CreationDate="2018-08-15T18:46:05.407" UserId="406" Text="What cases were used in compounds?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23618" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7035" RevisionGUID="6df31876-a754-4b46-8989-b0077a2c3ff4" CreationDate="2018-08-15T18:46:05.407" UserId="406" Text="|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7036" RevisionGUID="1d66aeab-89e0-4b83-9c41-cf9b0ef17377" CreationDate="2018-08-15T18:55:05.277" UserId="324" Text="Yes, this is how compounds work in all IE languages: only the last component is variable for number and case. Even in English (“carwash” = “a place where car**s** are washed”). This consideration speaks against the proposed etymology of Ναυσικάα." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7037" RevisionGUID="9f7c07cd-4402-48e6-a2aa-19c461cb5b0b" CreationDate="2018-08-15T19:40:59.760" UserId="40" Text="Though bare-stem compounding is the usual method in Indo-European, compounds with an inflected first member are actually not uncommon in many IE languages. It seems that all cases could be used. For Greek, Smyth (who calls these &quot;flectional compounds&quot;) offers the following examples (879):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A compound whose first part is a case form, not a stem, is called a flectional compound (cp. sportsman, kinsfolk): (1) nominative: τρεισ-καί-δεκα thirteen; (2) genitive: Διόσ-κουροι Dioscuri (sons of Zeus), Ἑλλήσ-ποντος Helle's sea, Πελοπόν-νησος (for Πελοποσ-νησος, 105 a) Pelops' island; (3) dative: δορί-ληπτος won by the spear; (4) locative: ὁδοι-πόρος wayfarer, Πυλοι-γενής born in Pylus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples from Latin and Sanskrit are given in Kathryn Klingebiel (1989), *Noun+Verb Compounding in Western Romance*, ch. 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Latin: *lēgis-lātor*, with genitive first member; *manū-missiō*, with ablative first member&#xD;&#xA; - Sanskrit: *vājam-bharāh* &quot;prize-bearing&quot;, with accusative first member; *amhasas-pati* &quot;name of an intercalary month&quot;, with genitive first member&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7037" RevisionGUID="16c8f9e6-1399-4242-844d-0b079cf3dc5f" CreationDate="2018-08-15T19:53:45.793" UserId="40" Comment="added 389 characters in body" Text="Though bare-stem compounding is the usual method in Indo-European, compounds with an inflected first member are actually not uncommon in many IE languages. It seems that all cases could be used. For Greek, Smyth (who calls these &quot;flectional compounds&quot;) offers the following examples (879):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A compound whose first part is a case form, not a stem, is called a flectional compound (cp. sportsman, kinsfolk): (1) nominative: τρεισ-καί-δεκα thirteen; (2) genitive: Διόσ-κουροι Dioscuri (sons of Zeus), Ἑλλήσ-ποντος Helle's sea, Πελοπόν-νησος (for Πελοποσ-νησος, 105 a) Pelops' island; (3) dative: δορί-ληπτος won by the spear; (4) locative: ὁδοι-πόρος wayfarer, Πυλοι-γενής born in Pylus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples from Latin and Sanskrit are given in Kathryn Klingebiel (1989), *Noun+Verb Compounding in Western Romance*, ch. 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Latin: *lēgis-lātor*, with genitive first member; *manū-missiō*, with ablative first member&#xD;&#xA; - Sanskrit: *vājam-bharāh* &quot;prize-bearing&quot;, with accusative first member; *amhasas-pati* &quot;name of an intercalary month&quot;, with genitive first member&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ETA: Speaking of Nausicaa, there are a number of other Greek compounds with the first element *nausi*- clearly functioning as a dative, e.g. ναυσίπορος &quot;traversed by ships, navigable&quot;, ναυσιφόρητος &quot;carried by ships&quot;, as well as another Phaeacean royal name Ναυσίθοος &quot;swift in/by/with ships&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=start&amp;lookup=nausi&amp;lang=greek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7038" RevisionGUID="110e9b0e-5430-41ad-9513-457f47d0da2b" CreationDate="2018-08-16T01:41:30.357" UserId="2844" Text="[Ovid's Metamorphoses, Book II, line 137](http://thelatinlibrary.com/ovid/ovid.met2.shtml) gives us the aphorism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (in) medio tutissimus ibis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English translation for this is typically given as &quot;In the middle, you will go most safe.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does &quot;tutissimus&quot; fit in here? My rusty high-school Latin recognizes this as a nominative, singular, masculine, superlative adjective. Does it agree with the implied &quot;you&quot; that is the subject of &quot;ibis&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, my incredibly literal translation is &quot;The most-safe you will go in the middle.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23623" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7038" RevisionGUID="110e9b0e-5430-41ad-9513-457f47d0da2b" CreationDate="2018-08-16T01:41:30.357" UserId="2844" Text="Agreement in &quot;medio tutissimus ibis&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23624" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7038" RevisionGUID="110e9b0e-5430-41ad-9513-457f47d0da2b" CreationDate="2018-08-16T01:41:30.357" UserId="2844" Text="|translation|grammar-identification|ovidius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6378" RevisionGUID="ae4734c1-bb18-4ec8-80d8-df94f052131b" CreationDate="2018-08-16T08:42:54.353" UserId="1459" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Reading the Book of Mark, I come across these references to Jesus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mark 1:24 Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mark 14:67 τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mark 16:6 τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And elsewhere in the Bible the common:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These geonyms are common also in Classical Greek, such as:&#xD;&#xA;Φίλιππος Β΄ ὁ Μακεδών (Philip II of Macedon),&#xD;&#xA;Ἀθηναγόρας ὁ Ἀθηναῖος (Athenagoras of Athens)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone please explain to me **in Classical Greek Grammar** when to use the article **ὁ** and when to use the genitive **τοῦ** and when to use the accusative **τὸν** and *when to exclude these articles altogether* (eg. Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ, Maria Magdalene, Saulos Tarseus)? And how does this affect the case/suffix (eg. Ναζαρ-ηνέ, Ναζαρη-νοῦ, Ναζαρη-νὸν)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a hypothetical example to demonstrate please could you write the hypothetical name &quot;Ἰωάννης τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ&quot; in it's various mutations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Are the articles τοῦ &amp; τὸν only used when the person in question is being referred to but their name isn't mentioned, so that &quot;Ἰωάννης τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ&quot; would be incorrect and should rightly be &quot;Ἰωάννης ὁ Ναζαρηνοῦ&quot;?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1232" RevisionGUID="1c79e540-0dce-469d-b9c6-15ea57bdfc2e" CreationDate="2018-08-16T08:55:58.233" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I saw some different ways to translate this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Lord bless and protect my family, amen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Domine benedic et protege familiam meam amen_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23629" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1232" RevisionGUID="1c79e540-0dce-469d-b9c6-15ea57bdfc2e" CreationDate="2018-08-16T08:55:58.233" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7040" RevisionGUID="fc9b5500-30b6-48e8-b455-d08b1f37cb0b" CreationDate="2018-08-16T09:17:13.763" UserId="1459" Text="The answer to your questions might be in [this 2012 article](https://www.jstor.org/stable/24623596_), published in the Journal &quot;Listy filologické/Folia philologica&quot;. Notice it is in Czech (which I don't understand). But the English abstract reads (emphasis mine):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**The main aim of this article is to identify the origin and meaning of one Latin zoological term** in the works of Thomas of Cantimpré and Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus. **Both works employ names of animals that are extremely difficult to interpret either semantically or linguistically and whose Greek or Latin origin is not immediately clear.** Most of them are attached to animals the description of which Thomas claims to be derived from Aristotle. Thomas used the Latin translation of the Aristotle's work Historia animalium translated from Arabic by Michael Scotus. **Due to phonetical differencies between these languages as well as inaccuracies and mistakes in both translations, the text of Aristotle and the forms of the original Greek names were variously modified.** Aristotle's term 'Aχίλλειον (σπόγγος), denoting a fine quality of sponge called the &quot;elephant ear&quot; (Spongia officinalis var. lamella Schulze), appears at Michael Scotus as albuz, at Thomas of Cantimpré in the form of albirez and at Claretus in the form of albirus and albinus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, it seems that the Latin terms are but &quot;errors in translation&quot; associated with the work of just a few individuals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23631" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7038" RevisionGUID="0760e7da-7254-4771-96a4-15aa5c974a1a" CreationDate="2018-08-16T10:16:42.147" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-identification|latin-to-english-translation|ovidius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="0871cefe-d624-421f-82fd-7f16b3bba29d" CreationDate="2018-08-16T14:46:21.903" UserId="469" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure this covers all relevant ideas, so any addition/clarification is appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Four ideas that can help you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Regarding logics as to certain types of nouns being predictably neuter by semantics alone, the main rule is... **genders are arbitrary**.&#xD;&#xA; * It is not completely random: women are feminine and men are masculine, but I'd trust grammar and memory first. [Other languages have a stronger correspondence between grammatical gender and meaning][5], like [Defaka][6] from Nigeria. &#xD;&#xA; * *Things* tend to be neuter, yet endings usually give better clues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In view of that, the next best thing you can do is to pay attention to syntax and etymology: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. There is a number of rules of thumb for **declension genders** you may or may not be aware of, that can be helpful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1st decl. nouns are mostly feminine (with the notable exception of occupations like *poeta*, *agricola*, *nauta*, among other exceptions).&#xD;&#xA;* 2nd decl. nouns are mostly masculine or **neuter** (with exceptions like trees, such as *ficus*, fig tree).&#xD;&#xA;* 3rd decl. nouns may be **either gender**, but there is a number of lesser rules depending on endings. For example, nouns ending in -men (e.g. *flumen*) are neuter [thanks to Colin Fine].&#xD;&#xA;* 4th decl. nouns are mainly masculine (if ending in -us) and **neuter** (those in -u).&#xD;&#xA;* 5th decl. nouns are nearly all feminine (with the notable exception of dies that occurs as both m. and f., and compounds like meridies).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; See [this book][1] for more detailed (yet not exhaustive) rules. You can navigate the pages with the &lt; and &gt; buttons in the top-left corner. The rules include etymological derivations driving gender, like the one for -men/-minis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Cases** themselves give some clues too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Neuter nouns do **not change between nominative, vocative and accusative** (e.g. templum). Neither in singular or plural. Seemingly [there is absolutely no exception][2] to this rule.&#xD;&#xA;* Most neuter nouns and adjectives form **plurals in -a** (including -ia, -ua; I think this is the case of all 2nd declension neuter nouns, and most if not all of those belonging to 3rd and 4th declension). Examples: principia (2nd), corpora (3rd), cornua (4th).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Adjectives** are also important clues, since some of them are more predictable and must agree in gender with nouns:&#xD;&#xA; * **Rules for neuter nouns apply to adjectives** too: Not changing in voc. and acc., and forming plurals in -a.&#xD;&#xA; * Many adjectives follow the paradigm of bonus/-a/**-um** (sometimes called 1st/2nd declension adjectives).&#xD;&#xA; * **3rd declension** adjectives can either distinguish **all three genders** (e.g. *acer, acris, acre*), contrast m. and f. against **n.** (*levis, leve*), or make no distinction (*atrox*). In the first two cases, you still have the same clues (pl. in -a, acc.=nom.). Most of the neuter versions of 3rd decl. adjectives [**form sing. nom. and acc. in -e**][3].&#xD;&#xA; * **Comparatives** in -ior are also 3rd declension and form the **neuter in -ius**. Example: [prolixior][4] (m. and f.), prolixius (n.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_New_Latin_Primer_(Postgate).djvu/130&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/18/accusative-equals-nominative-for-neuter-words-how-universal-is-this-and-why&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cultus.hk/latin_lessons/declension/adj_3.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prolixior&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender#Gender_assignment&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defaka_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4787" RevisionGUID="f122e7d3-1a35-4004-8d3a-3264946a3b2b" CreationDate="2018-08-16T21:56:44.243" UserId="1407" Comment="I finally checked the Greek Myths and didn't find the rationale.  At some point I'll read *Homer's Daughter* and report back if it's in there." Text="There was [an interesting question on Lit regarding a proposed meaning of Nausicaa as &quot;burner of ships&quot;][1].  Although I don't have an issue with the ναῦς/κάω hypothesis, [I suspect κάω is more likely used in the sense of &quot;passion&quot; as opposed to literal fire][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia page references [Shipley as the source][3], and you can find the entry in [The Origins of English Words: A Discursive Dictionary of Indo-European Roots on page 160][4], and it appears Shipley may have [lifted this derivation and interpretation from Graves][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm a little befuddled that Shipley doesn't mention the Pindar usage, “[ἐν φρασὶ καιομένα][5]” [Pi.P.4.219], especially in the context of Nausicaa in the Odyssey, and instead chooses the literal meaning.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wondering if anyone here has thoughts on the subject, and if I would be incorrect in updating Wikipedia to comment that the &quot;burner of ships&quot; is an *hypothesis*, either of the interpretation or the etymology itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If anyone knows of alternate sources for &quot;burner of ships&quot;, or scholarly corroboration of the Graves/Shipley, that would also be helpful.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://literature.stackexchange.com/q/2963/391&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://literature.stackexchange.com/a/2978/391&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nausicaa#cite_note-2&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=m1UKpE4YEkEC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q=nausicaa&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kai%2Fw&amp;la=greek&amp;can=kai%2Fw0&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0073:alphabetic%20letter=k:entry%20group=1:entry=kai/w&amp;i=1#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=EbirnNTqi2EC&amp;q=burner%20of%20ships#v=snippet&amp;q=burner%20of%20ships&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7042" RevisionGUID="a4364420-7093-4e8c-8b88-8fd91f25e807" CreationDate="2018-08-17T07:30:07.357" UserId="867" Text="I just came across this fantastic song/video explaining the etymology of noël (and nowell along the way) from Latin *natalis*.  He covers loss of final syllables, dissimulation, and vocalic changes (distinctive to French).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the chorus goes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Noël, noël, noël, noël &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; was Latin for birthday &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; but now you can't tell&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3uPfGELT4Y&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very, very clever and well worth two and half minutes of your time!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7042" RevisionGUID="2e6479be-58c9-4445-bebb-c8296c46e027" CreationDate="2018-08-17T07:40:28.253" UserId="867" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="I just came across [this fantastic song/video][1] explaining the etymology of noël (and nowell along the way) from Latin *natalis*.  He covers loss of final syllables, dissimulation, and vocalic changes (distinctive to French).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the chorus goes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Noël, noël, noël, noël &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; was Latin for birthday &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; but now you can't tell&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very, very clever and well worth two and half minutes of your time!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3uPfGELT4Y" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7000" RevisionGUID="6dfc08e1-f64a-4120-b2cb-7809f702788f" CreationDate="2018-08-17T11:08:56.387" UserId="13" Comment="added last section; added alt text for first picture" Text="#General background#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I gather from Edmonds is that the fragment at hand is found in a letter written by Iulianus (Julian the Apostate?) to Iamblichus, and the &quot;offending&quot; part of the letter reads thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ἦλθες καὶ ἐποίησας ἦλθες γὰρ δὴ καὶ ἀπὼν οἷς γράφεις· ἐγὼ δέ σε μὰ ὤμαν· ἄν δ' ἐφύλαξας ἐμὰν φρένα καιομέναν πόθῳ [...] χαῖρε δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἡμῖν πολλά, καθάπερ ἡ καλὴ Σαπφώ φησιν, καὶ οὐκ ἰσάριθμα μόνον τῷ χρόνῳ ὃν ἀλλήλων ἀπελείφθημεν, ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ ἀεὶ χαῖρε.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the obvious emendation of μὰ ὤμαν -&gt; μαόμαν, the above translates to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You came, and you did: for you came, even not being here, in your writing; and I was longing for you; and you guarded my heart which burnt with desire […] and you yourself be very well, as the beautiful Sappho says, and not only for as long as we've been parted, but be well forever too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would thus seem a two-part quote, part one containing what comes before the […] and part 2 containing what comes after. I have a couple questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Question 1: ἐφύλαξας#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For metrical reasons, and probably semantic reasons too, this verb is typically amended someway. Edmonds has ἔφλαξας=ἔφλεξας, &quot;you burnt up&quot;, Campbell, Lobel-Page, Thomas, and [The Complete Poems of Sappho](http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/) have ἔψυξας, &quot;you cooled down&quot;, and [Greek Wikisource](https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%8E%CE%BC%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%B9_%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9_%CE%95%CF%80%CE%B9%CE%B8%CE%B1%CE%BB%CE%AC%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%B1), [Bibliotheca Augustana](https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/graeca/Chronologia/S_ante06/Sappho/sap_me02.html), and Wilamowits have ἔφλυξας.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What verb is that last form from, and what does it mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd guess φλύγω, φλύκω, φλύχω, or φλύσσω, but neither give results on Pereus Greek Word Study Tool…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Question 2: Bergk#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I'm used to Bergk missing a lot of fragments because they were on papyri unearthed only after his edition, but this is a quotation, so I'm surprised it's not there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How come Bergk doesn't have this fragment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus: What are the bracketed numbers [here](https://ia600207.us.archive.org/18/items/poetaelyricigrae00berguoft/poetaelyricigrae00berguoft.pdf) referring to? Was there a prior Bergk edition with different fragment arrangement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Question 3: The vanishing second part#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, the first part isn't even attributed to Sappho (but maybe the […] had that attribution). The second part is explicitly καθάπερ ἡ καλὴ Σαπφώ φησιν though, so it's weird to see it missing from LP/C 48, and from The Complete Poems of Sappho. In fact, I flipped through all LP yesterday and I just couldn't find it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How come that second part seems to be completely missing from Lobel-Page? Where is it in Campbell? And in Voigt too, though the TEST has that part of the quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Voigt TEST part][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Question 4: reconstructing part 2#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From part 2, one would expect the poem being quoted to contain, maybe a few lines further down, something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χαῖρε (δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἡμῖν) πολλά, ἰσάριθμα τῷ χρόνῳ ὃν ἀλλήλων ἀπελείφθημεν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that, after any of the emendations above, l.2 is «ὂν δ' ἔ≤≥ξας ἔμαν φρένα καυομέναν πόθῳ», a gl&lt;sup&gt;2d&lt;/sup&gt; (i.e. xx–uu–uu–uu–ux), one would start a hypothetical extra line with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χαῖρε πόλλα ... ἰσάριθμα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have a hole, perhaps filled with σὺ κάλ' or similar, and we are left with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;τῷ χρόνῳ ὃν ἀλλήλων ἀπελείφθημεν&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could try:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χαῖρε πόλλα ‹σὺ κάλ'› ἰσάριθμα χρόνῳ ὅτῳ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ἀλλάλαν †ἀπελείφθημεν†&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's ignore for a moment that Aeolic would mandate ὄττῳ and bye meter, assume she used a poetic licence to make that tau single and not screw the meter :). How do we fix that verb? I thought of ἀπέλειμμεν, but that would probably be active, so perhaps ἀπελείμμεθα. Except that would be perfect, so we need reduplication: ἀπυλελείμμεθα would be perfect medio-passive indicative. That is one syllable too many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Has a perfect without reduplication ever been recorded in poetry, something like ἀπυλείμμεθα? Or else could we change the prefix to e.g. προλελείμμεθα and get away with it, despite it being strange that Iulianus would change the prefix that way when pseudo-quoting? Could we perhaps use a tmesis and throw a &lt;i&gt;muta cum liquida&lt;/i&gt; to avoid lengthening the alpha of ἀπ in ἀλλάλαν ἂπ λελείμμεθα?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Bonus: All Voigt has on this fragment#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Voigt part 1][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Voigt part 2][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GqbVi.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LxMG2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BN4H4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7043" RevisionGUID="2b807e8f-c324-4152-af71-b7aa8bdaf3e2" CreationDate="2018-08-17T13:59:46.313" UserId="2848" Text="&gt; Equivalent question: What Latin letters won't equal 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From: [the homophonic group: a mathematical diversion&#xD;&#xA;](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/843966/) --&gt; This is an exercise from Michael Artin's Algebra on, well, abstract algebra. In this exercise for the English language, words are equal if they are homophones, kind of like a formalisation of the [joke that sin(x)/n=6][1]. So in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;bee=be --&gt; This implies e=1 by cancellation of b and e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;buy=by --&gt; This implies u=1 by cancellation of b and y.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;rase=raze --&gt; This implies s=z by cancellation of r and e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;canvass = canvas --&gt; This implies s=1 by cancellation of c,a,n,v,a and s. By canvass=canvas and rase=raze, we have s=z=1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually, all 26 English letters will equal 1. Apparently, this was done for [French][2] and [Czech][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidtheshittymath/comments/7z5e61/sinxn6/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.em/1062620828&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www1.osu.cz/~zusmanovich/topics.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23642" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7043" RevisionGUID="2b807e8f-c324-4152-af71-b7aa8bdaf3e2" CreationDate="2018-08-17T13:59:46.313" UserId="2848" Text="What is the Latin Homophonic Group?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23643" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7043" RevisionGUID="2b807e8f-c324-4152-af71-b7aa8bdaf3e2" CreationDate="2018-08-17T13:59:46.313" UserId="2848" Text="|word-choice|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7044" RevisionGUID="d6efe1f5-9394-41ed-a0b6-704ad48a0844" CreationDate="2018-08-17T15:33:56.787" UserId="172" Text="You are entirely correct, *tutissimus* is a superlative adjective that modifies the implied subject of *ibis*. No other reading is possible, as it is clearly in the nominative. Your “incredibly literal” translation is correct, the subject of the sentence is “the most safe you.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, since I am assuming you have trouble putting the *meaning* together (the question is actually lacking, but let me assums so), this is one of many points where English, with its strict word order, and Latin, which is much freer in this regard, disagree. Semantically, the adjective in most Indo-European languages serves two distinct roles, but these roles do not always translate to the level of syntax or morphology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, an adjective can indicate a “static” property of the noun it modifies. This is called the *attributive* use. This adjective nominally attaches the property to its noun, without a direct relation to the action expressed in the predicate. In “Unnatural deeds / Do breed unnatural troubles,” both uses of *unnatural* are attributive: they modify *deeds* in the subject, and *troubles* in the predicate, by attaching a certain property they possess, and the verb ties two units together: *X* causes *Y*, where *X* is “unnatural deeds” and *Y* is “unnatural troubles.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second of all, an adjective can inherently be attached to the predicate, and this implies the modification of the noun not to be an unqualified property of the noun it modifies, but rather indicating that such a property *arises as the result of verb action*, or the truth value of the predicate. Unsurprisingly, such a use is termed *predicative*. In “chambers will be safe,” the adjective *safe* is not applied to the noun *chambers* unconditionally; rather, it is the action of the entire predicate: *X* will be *Y X'*, where *X* and *X'* are *chambers*, and refer to the same chambers indeed, and *Y* is *safe*. *chambers* are not merely *safe*; they become safe by the action of the verb, which is a simple stative form of the verb *to be*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different languages imply different means to distinguish the two uses of the adjective, and some of them do not care at all. Let me digress into this for a moment. As English expresses the definiteness with an obligatory article, classical Latin does not have a syntax, or a special article word, to indicate a definite or indefinite noun. When a disambiguation is required, additional words can be used, and their repertoire is not wanting in Latin. While English has *a* and *the*, they are not adequate to express the semantics of, say, *aliquis*, which is “a certain (something),” a thing which is *a-the-thing*, in a sense; Latin morphology has unparalleled concepts, but Latin syntax has no such concept at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, English has a syntactic-only distinction between attributive and predicative adjectives. You can clearly understand the difference between our “Unnatural deeds do breed unnatural[ADJ.ATTR] troubles” from “Unnatural deeds do make troubles unnatural[ADJ.PRED].” Both make sense, and are grammatical, and this sense is different. Other languages go a step further, such as e. g. Old Russian, which not only had distinct morphological forms, i. e. different words with the same stem, but distinct endings, for the attributive add predicative adjectives, but also required different syntax (cases) for their use: a predicative referring back to the subject regularly disregards the agreement, and takes the instrumental. Latin, on the other hand, is lax in this regard, and does not distinguish predicatives in most cases (this is not universal; a double infinitive construction where the first argument may be the noun, and the second the predicative attached to that noun; but this is not a clean predicative case, which, as its central example, implicitly connects the modification to the subject of the predicate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while &quot;you will be happy&quot; is a perfectly valid predicative sentence, *&quot;happy you will be&quot; is not, unless the speaker is Master Yoda. As a rule, attributive modifier is placed after the verb of the predicate. This is just not so in Latin, which, AFAIK, does not treat predicatives from attributives syntactically different. Thus, this literal &quot;happy you will be,&quot; *laetus eris*, would be a perfectly valid Latin sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the context is the king. All languages are ambiguous, but the ambiguity is normally resolved when a sentence cannot be understood in a different way. Unsimple, muti-word clauses allow literally hundreds of possible syntactic parses, but we the speakers somehow know to reject nonsensical ones immediately. In your example, a speaker automatically, without any effort rejects the reading &quot;the safest you will go in the middle,&quot; as &quot;the safest you&quot; does not make any sense: there is only one &quot;you&quot;, so the qualification makes no sense. But another reading, &quot;by going in the middle, you [that single you!] will become the safest of [an imaginary continuum of all future states of] you.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7045" RevisionGUID="c08e712c-f3ef-4aa0-bdec-f935f97c25a6" CreationDate="2018-08-17T17:11:36.683" UserId="2849" Text="Mark 1:6 starts with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et erat Joannes vestitus pilis cameli...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is translated as &quot;John was clothed with camel's hairs....&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it pilis instead of pilorum?  Shouldn't pilis use genitive since it modifies vestitus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23646" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7045" RevisionGUID="c08e712c-f3ef-4aa0-bdec-f935f97c25a6" CreationDate="2018-08-17T17:11:36.683" UserId="2849" Text="Why is the ablative used here instead of the genitive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23647" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7045" RevisionGUID="c08e712c-f3ef-4aa0-bdec-f935f97c25a6" CreationDate="2018-08-17T17:11:36.683" UserId="2849" Text="|vulgata|ablative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7046" RevisionGUID="c5d45a68-6a34-4c11-898e-35cb298c8386" CreationDate="2018-08-17T18:01:45.063" UserId="469" Text="* **pilus** &amp;rightarrow; *hair* / **pilis** &amp;rightarrow; *by/with hairs*&#xD;&#xA;* **camelus** &amp;rightarrow; *camel* / **cameli** &amp;rightarrow; *camel's, of [a/the] camel*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically the genitive indicates that *cameli* is complementing the noun, specifying what kind of hairs are being talked about: those of a camel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If *pilorum* was used instead, it would translate to *of [the] hairs*, and it would need to modify some other noun (e.g. **colore pilorum cameli** &amp;rightarrow; *with the color of a camel's hairs*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the ablative in **pilis** means the whole **pilis cameli** is an [adjunct][1] indicating the instrument used *to accomplis the action* (i.e., to get/be dresseed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjunct_(grammar)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7046" RevisionGUID="b8c7cc00-fb63-44a6-b7a5-c46876d9cdf9" CreationDate="2018-08-17T19:34:15.427" UserId="469" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="* **pilus** &amp;rightarrow; *hair* / **pilis** &amp;rightarrow; *by/with hairs* (ablative) or *to hairs* (dative)&#xD;&#xA;* **camelus** &amp;rightarrow; *camel* / **cameli** &amp;rightarrow; *camel's, of [a/the] camel*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically the genitive indicates that *cameli* is complementing the noun, specifying what kind of hairs are being talked about: those of a camel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If *pilorum* was used instead, it would translate to *of [the] hairs*, and it would need to modify some other noun (e.g. **colore pilorum cameli** &amp;rightarrow; *with the color of a camel's hairs*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the ablative in **pilis** means the whole **pilis cameli** is an [adjunct][1] indicating the instrument used *to accomplish the action* (i.e., to get/be dresseed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjunct_(grammar)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7047" RevisionGUID="e3c0685f-731e-4a05-a95c-34f650f8656c" CreationDate="2018-08-17T21:08:07.360" UserId="985" Text="It's very common for Latin to use an adjective in the nominative, agreeing with the subject (or in the accusative, agreeing with the direct object), where English idiom would instead use an adverb. Although the adjective may sometimes be in a 'marked' position (e.g., at the end or beginning of a clause, and/or separated from its noun) to suggest that it's not to be taken as an ordinary attributive adjective, there's often no particular signal; you just have to develop a sense for it. Still, when there's no explicit nominative noun as the subject, just the personal pronoun that's supplied based on the verb ending, and if the verb isn't *esse* or another copula, a nominative adjective will very often be translated best as an adverb or adverbial phrase. And some adjectives, based on their meaning, are more likely to be used this way (see below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gildersleeve and Lodge, *Latin grammar* §325 calls this use of the adjective *predicative attribution*. Remark 6 notes that this phenomenon is found with adjectives that denote '*inclination* and *disinclination*, *knowledge* and *ignorance*, of *order* and *position*, of *time* and *season*, and of temporary condition generally.' Obviously, that last item is general enough to cover all sorts of things, including your *tutissimus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So literally, as you've noted, your sentence means, 'In the middle you will go most safe.' However, in idiomatic English we would say 'In the middle you will go most safe*ly*.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some other examples from G&amp;L of nominative adjectives used in this way (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ego eum a me **invitissimus** dimisi* (Cicero, *Ad familiares* 13.63.1), 'I dismissed him **most unwillingly**.'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *plus hodie feci **imprudens** quam **sciens** ante hunc diem umquam* (Terence, *Hecyra* 880), 'I have done more good to-day **unawares** than I have ever done **knowingly** before.'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***vespertinus** pete tectum* (Horace, *Epodes* 1.6.20), 'Seek thy dwelling **at eventide**.'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***rarus** venit in cenacula miles* (Juvenal 10.18), 'The soldiery **rarely** comes into the garret.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Woodcock, *A new Latin syntax* treats this in §88, in a discussion of participles. Although his example uses a participle ('beaten'), it aso applies to other adjectives, such as your *tutissimus*, 'most safe'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To say that a participle is *adverbial* in function is not to deny that it is still an adjective, for an adjective is performing the function of an adverb in the sentence when it is used predicatively as an *extension* to the predicate, i.e. when it is answering, not the question 'what?' or 'what sort of?', but 'how?', 'under what circumstances?', 'when?', 'why?', 'in spite of what?' E.g., in the sentence 'Hannibal retired *beaten*', *beaten* is an adjective, not qualifying the subject *Hannibal*, though it agrees with it, but qualifying a noun such as 'man', which is understood. The sentence stands for 'Hannibal retired (as) a beaten *man*'. But the words 'as a beaten man' describe the manner or the circumstances in which Hannibal retired, and do not qualify the subject *Hannibal*. Therefore, they are syntactically equivalent to an adverb, and so is the adjective *beaten*, when used predicatively in this way.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Note.* Besides participles, a number of adjectives are often used predicatively, i.e. adverbially, rather than adjectivally. ... It will be seen that adjectives so used must be translated in English by an adverb or adverbial phrase, or they must be made the predicate ('He was the first to...')." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7044" RevisionGUID="efc9a0d1-12fb-4985-ada9-e225d1a082d5" CreationDate="2018-08-17T23:27:40.717" UserId="172" Comment="Add missing last sentence. Where did it go?" Text="You are entirely correct, *tutissimus* is a superlative adjective that modifies the implied subject of *ibis*. No other reading is possible, as it is clearly in the nominative. Your “incredibly literal” translation is correct, the subject of the sentence is “the most safe you.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, since I am assuming you have trouble putting the *meaning* together (the question is actually lacking, but let me assums so), this is one of many points where English, with its strict word order, and Latin, which is much freer in this regard, disagree. Semantically, the adjective in most Indo-European languages serves two distinct roles, but these roles do not always translate to the level of syntax or morphology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, an adjective can indicate a “static” property of the noun it modifies. This is called the *attributive* use. This adjective nominally attaches the property to its noun, without a direct relation to the action expressed in the predicate. In “Unnatural deeds / Do breed unnatural troubles,” both uses of *unnatural* are attributive: they modify *deeds* in the subject, and *troubles* in the predicate, by attaching a certain property they possess, and the verb ties two units together: *X* causes *Y*, where *X* is “unnatural deeds” and *Y* is “unnatural troubles.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second of all, an adjective can inherently be attached to the predicate, and this implies the modification of the noun not to be an unqualified property of the noun it modifies, but rather indicating that such a property *arises as the result of verb action*, or the truth value of the predicate. Unsurprisingly, such a use is termed *predicative*. In “chambers will be safe,” the adjective *safe* is not applied to the noun *chambers* unconditionally; rather, it is the action of the entire predicate: *X* will be *Y X'*, where *X* and *X'* are *chambers*, and refer to the same chambers indeed, and *Y* is *safe*. *chambers* are not merely *safe*; they become safe by the action of the verb, which is a simple stative form of the verb *to be*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different languages imply different means to distinguish the two uses of the adjective, and some of them do not care at all. Let me digress into this for a moment. As English expresses the definiteness with an obligatory article, classical Latin does not have a syntax, or a special article word, to indicate a definite or indefinite noun. When a disambiguation is required, additional words can be used, and their repertoire is not wanting in Latin. While English has *a* and *the*, they are not adequate to express the semantics of, say, *aliquis*, which is “a certain (something),” a thing which is *a-the-thing*, in a sense; Latin morphology has unparalleled concepts, but Latin syntax has no such concept at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, English has a syntactic-only distinction between attributive and predicative adjectives. You can clearly understand the difference between our “Unnatural deeds do breed unnatural[ADJ.ATTR] troubles” from “Unnatural deeds do make troubles unnatural[ADJ.PRED].” Both make sense, and are grammatical, and this sense is different. Other languages go a step further, such as e. g. Old Russian, which not only had distinct morphological forms, i. e. different words with the same stem, but distinct endings, for the attributive add predicative adjectives, but also required different syntax (cases) for their use: a predicative referring back to the subject regularly disregards the agreement, and takes the instrumental. Latin, on the other hand, is lax in this regard, and does not distinguish predicatives in most cases (this is not universal; a double infinitive construction where the first argument may be the noun, and the second the predicative attached to that noun; but this is not a clean predicative case, which, as its central example, implicitly connects the modification to the subject of the predicate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while &quot;you will be happy&quot; is a perfectly valid predicative sentence, *&quot;happy you will be&quot; is not, unless the speaker is Master Yoda. As a rule, attributive modifier is placed after the verb of the predicate. This is just not so in Latin, which, AFAIK, does not treat predicatives from attributives syntactically different. Thus, this literal &quot;happy you will be,&quot; *laetus eris*, would be a perfectly valid Latin sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the context is the king. All languages are ambiguous, but the ambiguity is normally resolved when a sentence cannot be understood in a different way. Unsimple, muti-word clauses allow literally hundreds of possible syntactic parses, but we the speakers somehow know to reject nonsensical ones immediately. In your example, a speaker automatically, without any effort rejects the reading &quot;the safest you will go in the middle,&quot; as &quot;the safest you&quot; does not make any sense: there is only one &quot;you&quot;, so the qualification makes no sense. But another reading, &quot;by going in the middle, you [that single you!] will become the safest of [an imaginary continuum of all future states of] you,&quot; makes sense, and is selected effortlessly by the speaker." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7048" RevisionGUID="84edc7bb-f02f-45eb-ad51-ec968e349bde" CreationDate="2018-08-18T03:02:04.673" UserId="406" Text="Much of this depends which stage of the language you're talking about. I'll focus on Classical Latin, with reconstructed pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *h* seems to be the identity: *arena* vs *harena*, *lacrima* vs *lachrima*. (/h/ disappeared from all but the most educated speech in Classical times.)&#xD;&#xA; - *p* = *f*: *Daphne* vs *Dafne*, [the latter attested in Pompeii][1]. (The pronunciation of the Greek letter phi was shifting, so it was transcribed in different ways in different places and different times.)&#xD;&#xA; - *i* = *u* = *y*: *optimus* vs *optumus*, *girus* vs *gyrus*, *silva* vs *sylva*. (There was often confusion between short /i/ and /u/ in certain positions, and /y/ was a Greek sound that tended to assimilate to one or the other.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;…and that's about all we can do. Latin orthography was very closely tied to the spelling, so most of these irregularities come from the sounds themselves changing, or from changes in other languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/650/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7049" RevisionGUID="4e021597-8164-4a33-931d-50e28ae53037" CreationDate="2018-08-18T21:19:02.360" UserId="9" Text="As other comments have indicated, in Classical Latin there seem to have been few or no examples of heterographic homophones of the kind that are found in English (with e.g. two separate words, *meet* and *meat,* which have consistently different spellings, but consistently identical pronunciations in standard dialects).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin of any period definitely has homographic homophones, and heterophonic homographs, but neither of those are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Draconis's answer provides what I think is the closest we can get to heterographic homophones: words that had spelling variants that weren't necessarily associated with different pronunciation variants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Certain variant spellings unrelated to pronunciation in Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the spelling variants that Draconis mentioned, here are some others that show up in Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- C = K: The letter K was infrequent in Classical Latin, but it was used in the word *[Kalendae](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DKalendae)* and the place name *[Karthago](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DKarthago)*. These had alternative spellings with C, *Calendae* and *Carthago.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- M = N: Coda nasal consonants in Latin typically had the same place of articulation as a following plosive. Regressive place assimilation of a nasal within a word was sometimes marked in writing, and sometimes not, but I don't think this variation in spelling is believed to have a perfect correspondence to any analogous variation in pronunciation. An example of a word which had two spelling variant with M and N is *quamquam/[quanquam](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=quanquam)* (my understanding is that this word is thought to have been pronounced with a velar nasal [ŋ], regardless of the spelling).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- X = XS → S = 1: When a word starting with S was prefixed with *ex-,* the S might or might not be omitted. Even if there was some variation in pronunciation between the use of [ks.s] and [k.s] in such words (I don't know if there was, and I'm not sure how we could determine this), I doubt that the spelling variation had any kind of consistent correspondence to a possible difference in pronunciation. An example is *exsisto/existo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Less certain examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we look at post-Classical periods, there are many more identities that could probably be established (although I haven't looked for examples of homophones). The value of the digraphs *ae* and *oe* merged early on with the value of the single letter *e* (although this also contributed to variability and instability in the spelling of individual words). In certain varieties of Latin, *ti* and palatalized *c* came to have the same value, [ts].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some spellings, it's a bit unclear when they first came to represent identical pronunciations. Word-final *m* in Latin is known to have been subject to elision from early on (especially when it came before a vowel); some sources indicate that Classical Latin had distinctive nasalization of the preceding vowel, even if the nasal consonant was lost, but as far as I know we don't have that much evidence of this. Except for in monosyllables, all nasality has been lost in descendants of Latin. I guess this could be used as a basis for assigning the value &quot;1&quot; to M, based on multi-word equivalences like *libra aut = libram aut.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin also had a number of assimilations that might or might not be written. For example, N at the end of a prefix, as in *con-* and *in-,* could assimilate to a following L or R, and D at the end of the prefix *ad-* could assimilate to most other consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a relevant passage in *[Reading in Medieval St. Gall](https://books.google.com/books?id=rLF7wRg-At4C&amp;pg=PA295),* by Anna A. Grotans (2006). Grotans says that in Isidore's *Etymologiae* (from the late sixth and seventh centuries), the words *ad* (preposition) and *at* (conjunction) are given as an example of heterographic homophones (p. 295).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7049" RevisionGUID="6714536c-9d90-4633-ad56-5fd205d935a0" CreationDate="2018-08-18T21:25:30.600" UserId="9" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="As other comments have indicated, in Classical Latin there seem to have been few or no examples of heterographic homophones of the kind that are found in English (with e.g. two separate words, *meet* and *meat,* which have consistently different spellings, but consistently identical pronunciations in standard dialects).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin of any period definitely has homographic homophones, and heterophonic homographs, but neither of those are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Draconis's answer provides what I think is the closest we can get to heterographic homophones: words that had spelling variants that weren't necessarily associated with different pronunciation variants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Certain variant spellings unrelated to pronunciation in Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the spelling variants that Draconis mentioned, here are some others that show up in Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- C = K: The letter K was infrequent in Classical Latin, but it was used in the word *[Kalendae](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DKalendae)* and the place name *[Karthago](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DKarthago)*. These had alternative spellings with C, *Calendae* and *Carthago.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- M = N: Coda nasal consonants in Latin typically had the same place of articulation as a following plosive. Regressive place assimilation of a nasal within a word was sometimes marked in writing, and sometimes not, but I don't think this variation in spelling is believed to have a perfect correspondence to any analogous variation in pronunciation. An example of a word which had two spelling variant with M and N is *quamquam/[quanquam](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=quanquam)* (my understanding is that this word is thought to have been pronounced with a velar nasal [ŋ], regardless of the spelling).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- X = XS → S = 1: When a word starting with S was prefixed with *ex-,* the S might or might not be omitted. Even if there was some variation in pronunciation between the use of [ks.s] and [k.s] in such words (I don't know if there was, and I'm not sure how we could determine this), I doubt that the spelling variation had any kind of consistent correspondence to a possible difference in pronunciation. An example is *exsisto/existo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we combine this last one with the H = 1 from Draconis's answer, we get S = H (assuming we are using the normal equivalence properties of equality), although I don't know how far that can take us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Less certain examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we look at post-Classical periods, there are many more identities that could probably be established (although I haven't looked for examples of homophones). The value of the digraphs *ae* and *oe* merged early on with the value of the single letter *e* (although this also contributed to variability and instability in the spelling of individual words). In certain varieties of Latin, *ti* and palatalized *c* came to have the same value, [ts].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some spellings, it's a bit unclear when they first came to represent identical pronunciations. Word-final *m* in Latin is known to have been subject to elision from early on (especially when it came before a vowel); some sources indicate that Classical Latin had distinctive nasalization of the preceding vowel, even if the nasal consonant was lost, but as far as I know we don't have that much evidence of this. Except for in monosyllables, all nasality has been lost in descendants of Latin. I guess this could be used as a basis for assigning the value &quot;1&quot; to M, based on multi-word equivalences like *libra aut = libram aut.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin also had a number of assimilations that might or might not be written. For example, N at the end of a prefix, as in *con-* and *in-,* could assimilate to a following L or R, and D at the end of the prefix *ad-* could assimilate to most other consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a relevant passage in *[Reading in Medieval St. Gall](https://books.google.com/books?id=rLF7wRg-At4C&amp;pg=PA295),* by Anna A. Grotans (2006). Grotans says that in Isidore's *Etymologiae* (from the late sixth and seventh centuries), the words *ad* (preposition) and *at* (conjunction) are given as an example of heterographic homophones (p. 295).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7049" RevisionGUID="8a0fdd37-3d3f-4d52-adff-c37c84f05e30" CreationDate="2018-08-18T21:31:06.677" UserId="9" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="As other comments have indicated, in Classical Latin there seem to have been few or no examples of heterographic homophones of the kind that are found in English (with e.g. two separate words, *meet* and *meat,* which have consistently different spellings, but consistently identical pronunciations in standard dialects).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin of any period definitely has homographic homophones, and heterophonic homographs, but neither of those are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Draconis's answer provides what I think is the closest we can get to heterographic homophones: words that had spelling variants that weren't necessarily associated with different pronunciation variants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Certain variant spellings unrelated to pronunciation in Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the spelling variants that Draconis mentioned, here are some others that show up in Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- C = K: The letter K was infrequent in Classical Latin, but it was used in the word *[Kalendae](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DKalendae)* and the place name *[Karthago](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DKarthago)*. These had alternative spellings with C, *Calendae* and *Carthago.* Both letters represented the same sound, the velar plosive [k].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- M = N: Coda nasal consonants in Latin typically had the same place of articulation as a following plosive. Regressive place assimilation of a nasal within a word was sometimes marked in writing, and sometimes not, but I don't think this variation in spelling is believed to have a perfect correspondence to any analogous variation in pronunciation. An example of a word which had two spelling variant with M and N is *quamquam/[quanquam](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=quanquam)* (my understanding is that this word is thought to have been pronounced with a velar nasal [ŋ], regardless of the spelling).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- X = XS → S = 1: When a word starting with S was prefixed with *ex-,* the S might or might not be omitted. Even if there was some variation in pronunciation between the use of [ks.s] and [k.s] in such words (I don't know if there was, and I'm not sure how we could determine this), I doubt that the spelling variation had any kind of consistent correspondence to a possible difference in pronunciation. An example is *exsisto/existo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we combine this last one with the H = 1 from Draconis's answer, we get S = H (assuming we are using the normal equivalence properties of equality), although I don't know how far that can take us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Less certain examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we look at post-Classical periods, there are many more identities that could probably be established (although I haven't looked for examples of homophones). The value of the digraphs *ae* and *oe* merged early on with the value of the single letter *e* (although this also contributed to variability and instability in the spelling of individual words). In certain varieties of Latin, *ti* and palatalized *c* came to have the same value, [ts].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some spellings, it's a bit unclear when they first came to represent identical pronunciations. Word-final *m* in Latin is known to have been subject to elision from early on (especially when it came before a vowel); some sources indicate that Classical Latin had distinctive nasalization of the preceding vowel, even if the nasal consonant was lost, but as far as I know we don't have that much evidence of this. Except for in monosyllables, all nasality has been lost in descendants of Latin. I guess this could be used as a basis for assigning the value &quot;1&quot; to M, based on multi-word equivalences like *libra aut = libram aut.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin also had a number of assimilations that might or might not be written. For example, N at the end of a prefix, as in *con-* and *in-,* could assimilate to a following L or R, and D at the end of the prefix *ad-* could assimilate to most other consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a relevant passage in *[Reading in Medieval St. Gall](https://books.google.com/books?id=rLF7wRg-At4C&amp;pg=PA295),* by Anna A. Grotans (2006). Grotans says that in Isidore's *Etymologiae* (from the late sixth and seventh centuries), the words *ad* (preposition) and *at* (conjunction) are given as an example of heterographic homophones (p. 295).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7049" RevisionGUID="e8fa21ab-5c71-4315-bae1-c3f154e5527a" CreationDate="2018-08-18T21:45:25.433" UserId="9" Comment="added 1240 characters in body" Text="As other comments have indicated, in Classical Latin there seem to have been few or no examples of heterographic homophones of the kind that are found in English (with e.g. two separate words, *meet* and *meat,* which have consistently different spellings, but consistently identical pronunciations in standard dialects).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin of any period definitely has homographic homophones, and heterophonic homographs, but neither of those are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Draconis's answer provides examples of what I think are the closest we can get in most cases to heterographic homophones: words that had spelling variants that weren't necessarily associated with different pronunciation variants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Certain variant spellings unrelated to pronunciation in Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the spelling variants that Draconis mentioned, here are some others that show up in Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- C = K: The letter K was infrequent in Classical Latin, but it was used in the word *[Kalendae](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DKalendae)* and the place name *[Karthago](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DKarthago)*. These had alternative spellings with C, *Calendae* and *Carthago.* Both letters represented the same sound, the velar plosive [k].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- M = N: Coda nasal consonants in Latin typically had the same place of articulation as a following plosive. Regressive place assimilation of a nasal within a word was sometimes marked in writing, and sometimes not, but I don't think this variation in spelling is believed to have a perfect correspondence to any analogous variation in pronunciation. An example of a word which had two spelling variant with M and N is *quamquam/[quanquam](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=quanquam)* (my understanding is that this word is thought to have been pronounced with a velar nasal [ŋ], regardless of the spelling).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- X = XS → S = 1: When a word starting with S was prefixed with *ex-,* the S might or might not be omitted. Even if there was some variation in pronunciation between the use of [ks.s] and [k.s] in such words (I don't know if there was, and I'm not sure how we could determine this), I doubt that the spelling variation had any kind of consistent correspondence to a possible difference in pronunciation. An example is *exsisto/existo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we combine this last one with the H = 1 from Draconis's answer, we get S = H (assuming we are using the normal equivalence properties of equality), although I don't know how far that can take us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More old-fashioned (?) examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number other spelling variants in Latin that I can think of, but that I think are less often seen. I have the impression that they came to be old-fashioned even in the time of Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- II = I → I = 1: in medial position between vowels, it is thought that the single letter I could represent the geminate palatal approximant [j.j] in Classical Latin. An alternative representation of this sound was II. In *Vox Latina*, W. Sidney Allen says that inscriptions show spellings like `PompeIius, cuiIus, eiius, maiIorem` for *Pompeius, cuius, eius, maiorem,* and says that &quot;Quintilian and other grammarians [...] tell us that Cicero and Caesar used in fact to spell such words [as *aio, maior, peior, Troia*] with ii&quot; (p. 39).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- EI = I → E = 1: I know that in some time periods, the digraph EI was used as a variant of I (I think only when I was a long vowel). In Old Latin, EI is thought to have represented a distinct sound from both E and I, but Old Latin EI ended up merging with long I, which caused both spellings to be used for the same sound. This led to variation between I and EI in the spellings of various words pronounced with the long I sound [iː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we accept both of these, then we have S H E I all equal to 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Less certain examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we look at post-Classical periods, there are many more identities that could probably be established (although I haven't looked for examples of homophones). The value of the digraphs *ae* and *oe* merged early on with the value of the single letter *e* (although this also contributed to variability and instability in the spelling of individual words). In certain varieties of Latin, *ti* and palatalized *c* came to have the same value, [ts].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some spellings, it's a bit unclear when they first came to represent identical pronunciations. Word-final *m* in Latin is known to have been subject to elision from early on (especially when it came before a vowel); some sources indicate that Classical Latin had distinctive nasalization of the preceding vowel, even if the nasal consonant was lost, but as far as I know we don't have that much evidence of this. Except for in monosyllables, all nasality has been lost in descendants of Latin. I guess this could be used as a basis for assigning the value &quot;1&quot; to M, based on multi-word equivalences like *libra aut = libram aut.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin also had a number of assimilations that might or might not be written. For example, N at the end of a prefix, as in *con-* and *in-,* could assimilate to a following L or R, and D at the end of the prefix *ad-* could assimilate to most other consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a relevant passage in *[Reading in Medieval St. Gall](https://books.google.com/books?id=rLF7wRg-At4C&amp;pg=PA295),* by Anna A. Grotans (2006). Grotans says that in Isidore's *Etymologiae* (from the late sixth and seventh centuries), the words *ad* (preposition) and *at* (conjunction) are given as an example of heterographic homophones (p. 295).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7049" RevisionGUID="750487af-4669-4222-8825-296086a7b6ba" CreationDate="2018-08-18T21:54:20.923" UserId="9" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="As other comments have indicated, in Classical Latin there seem to have been few or no examples of heterographic homophones of the kind that are found in English (with two separate words, e.g. *meet* and *meat,* which have different meanings and consistently different spellings, but consistently identical pronunciations in standard dialects).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin of any period definitely has homographic homophones, and heterophonic homographs, but neither of those are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Draconis's answer provides examples of what I think are the closest we can get in most cases to heterographic homophones: words that had spelling variants that weren't associated with different meanings or different pronunciations (as far as we can tell).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Certain variant spellings unrelated to pronunciation in Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the spelling variants that Draconis mentioned, here are some others that show up in Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- C = K: The letter K was infrequent in Classical Latin, but it was used in the word *[Kalendae](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DKalendae)* and the place name *[Karthago](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DKarthago)*. These had alternative spellings with C, *Calendae* and *Carthago.* Both letters represented the same sound, the velar plosive [k].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- M = N: Coda nasal consonants in Latin typically had the same place of articulation as a following plosive. Regressive place assimilation of a nasal within a word was sometimes marked in writing, and sometimes not, but I don't think this variation in spelling is believed to have a perfect correspondence to any analogous variation in pronunciation. An example of a word which had two spelling variant with M and N is *quamquam/[quanquam](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=quanquam)* (my understanding is that this word is thought to have been pronounced with a velar nasal [ŋ], regardless of the spelling).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- X = XS → S = 1: When a word starting with S was prefixed with *ex-,* the S might or might not be omitted. Even if there was some variation in pronunciation between the use of [ks.s] and [k.s] in such words (I don't know if there was, and I'm not sure how we could determine this), I doubt that the spelling variation had any kind of consistent correspondence to a possible difference in pronunciation. An example is *exsisto/existo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we combine this last one with the H = 1 from Draconis's answer, we get S = H (assuming we are using the normal equivalence properties of equality), although I don't know how far that can take us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More old-fashioned (?) examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number other spelling variants in Latin that I can think of, but that I think are less often seen. I have the impression that they came to be old-fashioned even in the time of Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- II = I → I = 1: in medial position between vowels, it is thought that the single letter I could represent the geminate palatal approximant [j.j] in Classical Latin. An alternative representation of this sound was II. In *Vox Latina*, W. Sidney Allen says that inscriptions show spellings like `PompeIius, cuiIus, eiius, maiIorem` for *Pompeius, cuius, eius, maiorem,* and says that &quot;Quintilian and other grammarians [...] tell us that Cicero and Caesar used in fact to spell such words [as *aio, maior, peior, Troia*] with ii&quot; (p. 39).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- EI = I → E = 1: I know that in some time periods, the digraph EI was used as a variant of I (I think only when I was a long vowel). In Old Latin, EI is thought to have represented a distinct sound from both E and I, but Old Latin EI ended up merging with long I, which caused both spellings to be used for the same sound. This led to variation between I and EI in the spellings of various words pronounced with the long I sound [iː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we accept both of these, then we have S H E I all equal to 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Less certain examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we look at post-Classical periods, there are many more identities that could probably be established (although I haven't looked for examples of homophones). The value of the digraphs *ae* and *oe* merged early on with the value of the single letter *e* (although this also contributed to variability and instability in the spelling of individual words). In certain varieties of Latin, *ti* and palatalized *c* came to have the same value, [ts].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some spellings, it's a bit unclear when they first came to represent identical pronunciations. Word-final *m* in Latin is known to have been subject to elision from early on (especially when it came before a vowel); some sources indicate that Classical Latin had distinctive nasalization of the preceding vowel, even if the nasal consonant was lost, but as far as I know we don't have that much evidence of this. Except for in monosyllables, all nasality has been lost in descendants of Latin. I guess this could be used as a basis for assigning the value &quot;1&quot; to M, based on multi-word equivalences like *libra aut = libram aut.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin also had a number of assimilations that might or might not be written. For example, N at the end of a prefix, as in *con-* and *in-,* could assimilate to a following L or R, and D at the end of the prefix *ad-* could assimilate to most other consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a relevant passage in *[Reading in Medieval St. Gall](https://books.google.com/books?id=rLF7wRg-At4C&amp;pg=PA295),* by Anna A. Grotans (2006). Grotans says that in Isidore's *Etymologiae* (from the late sixth and seventh centuries), the words *ad* (preposition) and *at* (conjunction) are given as an example of heterographic homophones (p. 295).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7049" RevisionGUID="a434b92f-d08c-4241-9109-10da3e289fc3" CreationDate="2018-08-18T22:05:54.353" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 202 characters in body" Text="As other comments have indicated, in Classical Latin there seem to have been few or no examples of heterographic homophones of the kind that are found in English (with two separate words, e.g. *meet* and *meat,* which have different meanings and consistently different spellings, but consistently identical pronunciations in standard dialects).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin of any period definitely has homographic homophones, and heterophonic homographs, but neither of those are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Draconis's answer provides examples of what I think are the closest we can get in most cases to heterographic homophones: words that had spelling variants that weren't associated with different meanings or different pronunciations (as far as we can tell).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Certain variant spellings unrelated to pronunciation in Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the spelling variants that Draconis mentioned, here are some others that show up in Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- C = K: The letter K was infrequent in Classical Latin, but it was used in the word *[Kalendae](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DKalendae)* and the place name *[Karthago](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DKarthago)*. These had alternative spellings with C, *Calendae* and *Carthago.* Both letters represented the same sound, the velar plosive [k].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- M = N: Coda nasal consonants in Latin typically had the same place of articulation as a following plosive. Regressive place assimilation of a nasal within a word was sometimes marked in writing, and sometimes not, but I don't think this variation in spelling is believed to have a perfect correspondence to any analogous variation in pronunciation. An example of a word which had two spelling variant with M and N is *quamquam/[quanquam](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=quanquam)* (my understanding is that this word is thought to have been pronounced with a velar nasal [ŋ], regardless of the spelling).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- X = XS → S = 1: When a word starting with S was prefixed with *ex-,* the S might or might not be omitted. Even if there was some variation in pronunciation between the use of [ks.s] and [k.s] in such words (I don't know if there was, and I'm not sure how we could determine this), I doubt that the spelling variation had any kind of consistent correspondence to a possible difference in pronunciation. An example is *exsisto/existo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More old-fashioned (?) examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number other spelling variants in Latin that I can think of, but that I think are less often seen. I have the impression that they came to be old-fashioned even in the time of Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- II = I → I = 1: in medial position between vowels, it is thought that the single letter I could represent the geminate palatal approximant [j.j] in Classical Latin. An alternative representation of this sound was II. In *Vox Latina*, W. Sidney Allen says that inscriptions show spellings like `PompeIius, cuiIus, eiius, maiIorem` for *Pompeius, cuius, eius, maiorem,* and says that &quot;Quintilian and other grammarians [...] tell us that Cicero and Caesar used in fact to spell such words [as *aio, maior, peior, Troia*] with ii&quot; (p. 39).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- EI = I → E = 1: I know that in some time periods, the digraph EI was used as a variant of I (I think only when I was a long vowel). In Old Latin, EI is thought to have represented a distinct sound from both E and I, but Old Latin EI ended up merging with long I, which caused both spellings to be used for the same sound. This led to variation between I and EI in the spellings of various words pronounced with the long I sound [iː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we accept both of these, then we have S H E I all equal to 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Less certain examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we look at post-Classical periods, there are many more identities that could probably be established (although I haven't looked for examples of homophones). The value of the digraphs *ae* and *oe* merged early on with the value of the single letter *e* (although this also contributed to variability and instability in the spelling of individual words). In certain varieties of Latin, *ti* and palatalized *c* came to have the same value, [ts].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some spellings, it's a bit unclear when they first came to represent identical pronunciations. Word-final *m* in Latin is known to have been subject to elision from early on (especially when it came before a vowel); some sources indicate that Classical Latin had distinctive nasalization of the preceding vowel, even if the nasal consonant was lost, but as far as I know we don't have that much evidence of this. Except for in monosyllables, all nasality has been lost in descendants of Latin. I guess this could be used as a basis for assigning the value &quot;1&quot; to M, based on multi-word equivalences like *libra aut = libram aut.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin also had a number of assimilations that might or might not be written. For example, N at the end of a prefix, as in *con-* and *in-,* could assimilate to a following L or R, and D at the end of the prefix *ad-* could assimilate to most other consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a relevant passage in *[Reading in Medieval St. Gall](https://books.google.com/books?id=rLF7wRg-At4C&amp;pg=PA295),* by Anna A. Grotans (2006). Grotans says that in Isidore's *Etymologiae* (from the late sixth and seventh centuries), the words *ad* (preposition) and *at* (conjunction) are given as an example of heterographic homophones (p. 295).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7049" RevisionGUID="ca860d78-617f-43b7-856b-7b075df3df29" CreationDate="2018-08-18T22:59:14.297" UserId="9" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="As other comments have indicated, in Classical Latin there seem to have been few or no examples of heterographic homophones of the kind that are found in English (with two separate words, e.g. *meet* and *meat,* which have different meanings and consistently different spellings, but consistently identical pronunciations in standard dialects).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin of any period definitely has homographic homophones, and heterophonic homographs, but neither of those are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Draconis's answer provides examples of what I think are the closest we can get in most cases to heterographic homophones: words that had spelling variants that weren't associated with different meanings or different pronunciations (as far as we can tell).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Certain variant spellings unrelated to pronunciation in Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the spelling variants that Draconis mentioned, here are some others that show up in Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- C = K: The letter K was infrequent in Classical Latin, but it was used in the word *[Kalendae](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DKalendae)* and the place name *[Karthago](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DKarthago)*. These had alternative spellings with C, *Calendae* and *Carthago.* Both letters represented the same sound, the velar plosive [k].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- M = N: Coda nasal consonants in Latin typically had the same place of articulation as a following plosive. Regressive place assimilation of a nasal within a word was sometimes marked in writing, and sometimes not, but I don't think this variation in spelling is believed to have a perfect correspondence to any analogous variation in pronunciation. An example of a word which had two spelling variant with M and N is *quamquam/[quanquam](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=quanquam)* (my understanding is that this word is thought to have been pronounced with a velar nasal [ŋ], regardless of the spelling).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- X = XS → S = 1: When a word starting with S was prefixed with *ex-,* the S might or might not be omitted. Even if there was some variation in pronunciation between the use of [ks.s] and [k.s] in such words (I don't know if there was, and I'm not sure how we could determine this), I doubt that the spelling variation had any kind of consistent correspondence to a possible difference in pronunciation. An example is *exsisto/existo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More old-fashioned (?) examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of other spelling variants in Latin that I can think of, but that I think are less often seen. I have the impression that they came to be old-fashioned even in the time of Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- II = I → I = 1: in medial position between vowels, it is thought that the single letter I could represent the geminate palatal approximant [j.j] in Classical Latin. An alternative representation of this sound was II. In *Vox Latina*, W. Sidney Allen says that inscriptions show spellings like `PompeIius, cuiIus, eiius, maiIorem` for *Pompeius, cuius, eius, maiorem,* and says that &quot;Quintilian and other grammarians [...] tell us that Cicero and Caesar used in fact to spell such words [as *aio, maior, peior, Troia*] with ii&quot; (p. 39).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- EI = I → E = 1: I know that in some time periods, the digraph EI was used as a variant of I (I think only when I was a long vowel). In Old Latin, EI is thought to have represented a distinct sound from both E and I, but Old Latin EI ended up merging with long I, which caused both spellings to be used for the same sound. This led to variation between I and EI in the spellings of various words pronounced with the long I sound [iː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we accept both of these, then we have S H E I all equal to 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Less certain examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we look at post-Classical periods, there are many more identities that could probably be established (although I haven't looked for examples of homophones). The value of the digraphs *ae* and *oe* merged early on with the value of the single letter *e* (although this also contributed to variability and instability in the spelling of individual words). In certain varieties of Latin, *ti* and palatalized *c* came to have the same value, [ts].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some spellings, it's a bit unclear when they first came to represent identical pronunciations. Word-final *m* in Latin is known to have been subject to elision from early on (especially when it came before a vowel); some sources indicate that Classical Latin had distinctive nasalization of the preceding vowel, even if the nasal consonant was lost, but as far as I know we don't have that much evidence of this. Except for in monosyllables, all nasality has been lost in descendants of Latin. I guess this could be used as a basis for assigning the value &quot;1&quot; to M, based on multi-word equivalences like *libra aut = libram aut.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin also had a number of assimilations that might or might not be written. For example, N at the end of a prefix, as in *con-* and *in-,* could assimilate to a following L or R, and D at the end of the prefix *ad-* could assimilate to most other consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a relevant passage in *[Reading in Medieval St. Gall](https://books.google.com/books?id=rLF7wRg-At4C&amp;pg=PA295),* by Anna A. Grotans (2006). Grotans says that in Isidore's *Etymologiae* (from the late sixth and seventh centuries), the words *ad* (preposition) and *at* (conjunction) are given as an example of heterographic homophones (p. 295).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7050" RevisionGUID="c786cb20-03a2-4661-a953-17f32d0ed8aa" CreationDate="2018-08-18T22:59:47.140" UserId="2851" Text="Hi I’m planning to have a tattoo and i would like to have a translation for this word in latin “God and Family”.&#xD;&#xA;Which one is appropriate, (deo et familia or deo familiaque)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23663" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7050" RevisionGUID="c786cb20-03a2-4661-a953-17f32d0ed8aa" CreationDate="2018-08-18T22:59:47.140" UserId="2851" Text="Que or et I’m planning to have a tattoo,I need help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23664" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7050" RevisionGUID="c786cb20-03a2-4661-a953-17f32d0ed8aa" CreationDate="2018-08-18T22:59:47.140" UserId="2851" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7051" RevisionGUID="ae0350b5-451f-4249-a485-c126905c23ec" CreationDate="2018-08-18T23:01:01.677" UserId="2850" Text="I am just curious what a phrase &quot;e pluribus smart assimus&quot; means." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23666" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7051" RevisionGUID="ae0350b5-451f-4249-a485-c126905c23ec" CreationDate="2018-08-18T23:01:01.677" UserId="2850" Text="What is the meaning of &quot;e pluribus smart assimus&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23667" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7051" RevisionGUID="ae0350b5-451f-4249-a485-c126905c23ec" CreationDate="2018-08-18T23:01:01.677" UserId="2850" Text="|vocabulary|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7052" RevisionGUID="c30f8208-88b6-4db3-b3dd-b74e838f4d8c" CreationDate="2018-08-18T23:12:25.127" UserId="406" Text="This is dog Latin for &quot;out of many come smartasses&quot;. It's modelled off the phrase *ē pluribus unum*, &quot;out of many [comes] one&quot;, which is printed on American currency, plus the fake Latin *smart-assimus* for &quot;smartasses&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, while &quot;smart&quot; of course isn't Latin, *assimus* is a real word: it's the first person plural present active subjunctive of *adsum*/*assum*, &quot;to be present&quot;. So *assimus* means &quot;let's go be there!&quot; But that's certainly not what the author of this phrase intended." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7049" RevisionGUID="4f82000d-2974-430b-b210-25c033e8c511" CreationDate="2018-08-18T23:23:09.307" UserId="9" Comment="added 212 characters in body" Text="As other comments have indicated, in Classical Latin there seem to have been few or no examples of heterographic homophones of the kind that are found in English (with two separate words, e.g. *meet* and *meat,* which have different meanings and consistently different spellings, but consistently identical pronunciations in standard dialects).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin of any period definitely has homographic homophones, and heterophonic homographs, but neither of those are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Draconis's answer provides examples of what I think are the closest we can get in most cases to heterographic homophones: words that had spelling variants that weren't associated with different meanings or different pronunciations (as far as we can tell).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Certain variant spellings unrelated to pronunciation in Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the spelling variants that Draconis mentioned, here are some others that show up in Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- C = K: The letter K was infrequent in Classical Latin, but it was used in the word *[Kalendae](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DKalendae)* and the place name *[Karthago](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DKarthago)*. These had alternative spellings with C, *Calendae* and *Carthago.* Both letters represented the same sound, the velar plosive [k].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- M = N: Coda nasal consonants in Latin typically had the same place of articulation as a following plosive (the only reason I say &quot;typically&quot; is because I'm not quite sure about the usual phonological analysis of the consonant cluster found in words like *su**mpt**us,* where the *p* is diachronically/morphologically epenthetic, and I believe sometimes not written). Regressive place assimilation of a nasal within a word was sometimes marked in writing, and sometimes not, but I don't think this variation in spelling is believed to have a perfect correspondence to any analogous variation in pronunciation. An example of a word which had two spelling variant with M and N is *quamquam/[quanquam](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=quanquam)* (my understanding is that this word is thought to have been pronounced with a velar nasal [ŋ], regardless of the spelling).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- X = XS → S = 1: When a word starting with S was prefixed with *ex-,* the S might or might not be omitted. Even if there was some variation in pronunciation between the use of [ks.s] and [k.s] in such words (I don't know if there was, and I'm not sure how we could determine this), I doubt that the spelling variation had any kind of consistent correspondence to a possible difference in pronunciation. An example is *exsisto/existo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More old-fashioned (?) examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of other spelling variants in Latin that I can think of, but that I think are less often seen. I have the impression that they came to be old-fashioned even in the time of Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- II = I → I = 1: in medial position between vowels, it is thought that the single letter I could represent the geminate palatal approximant [j.j] in Classical Latin. An alternative representation of this sound was II. In *Vox Latina*, W. Sidney Allen says that inscriptions show spellings like `PompeIius, cuiIus, eiius, maiIorem` for *Pompeius, cuius, eius, maiorem,* and says that &quot;Quintilian and other grammarians [...] tell us that Cicero and Caesar used in fact to spell such words [as *aio, maior, peior, Troia*] with ii&quot; (p. 39).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- EI = I → E = 1: I know that in some time periods, the digraph EI was used as a variant of I (I think only when I was a long vowel). In Old Latin, EI is thought to have represented a distinct sound from both E and I, but Old Latin EI ended up merging with long I, which caused both spellings to be used for the same sound. This led to variation between I and EI in the spellings of various words pronounced with the long I sound [iː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we accept both of these, then we have S H E I all equal to 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Less certain examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we look at post-Classical periods, there are many more identities that could probably be established (although I haven't looked for examples of homophones). The value of the digraphs *ae* and *oe* merged early on with the value of the single letter *e* (although this also contributed to variability and instability in the spelling of individual words). In certain varieties of Latin, *ti* and palatalized *c* came to have the same value, [ts].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some spellings, it's a bit unclear when they first came to represent identical pronunciations. Word-final *m* in Latin is known to have been subject to elision from early on (especially when it came before a vowel); some sources indicate that Classical Latin had distinctive nasalization of the preceding vowel, even if the nasal consonant was lost, but as far as I know we don't have that much evidence of this. Except for in monosyllables, all nasality has been lost in descendants of Latin. I guess this could be used as a basis for assigning the value &quot;1&quot; to M, based on multi-word equivalences like *libra aut = libram aut.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin also had a number of assimilations that might or might not be written. For example, N at the end of a prefix, as in *con-* and *in-,* could assimilate to a following L or R, and D at the end of the prefix *ad-* could assimilate to most other consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a relevant passage in *[Reading in Medieval St. Gall](https://books.google.com/books?id=rLF7wRg-At4C&amp;pg=PA295),* by Anna A. Grotans (2006). Grotans says that in Isidore's *Etymologiae* (from the late sixth and seventh centuries), the words *ad* (preposition) and *at* (conjunction) are given as an example of heterographic homophones (p. 295).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7049" RevisionGUID="e50c3290-352d-49ee-8500-72ab655febb0" CreationDate="2018-08-18T23:28:15.020" UserId="9" Comment="added 212 characters in body" Text="As other comments have indicated, in Classical Latin there seem to have been few or no examples of heterographic homophones of the kind that are found in English (with two separate words, e.g. *meet* and *meat,* which have different meanings and consistently different spellings, but consistently identical pronunciations in standard dialects).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin of any period definitely has homographic homophones, and heterophonic homographs, but neither of those are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Draconis's answer provides examples of what I think are the closest we can get in most cases to heterographic homophones: words that had spelling variants that weren't associated with different meanings or different pronunciations (as far as we can tell).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Certain variant spellings unrelated to pronunciation in Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the spelling variants that Draconis mentioned, here are some others that show up in Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- C = K: The letter K was infrequent in Classical Latin, but it was used in the word *[Kalendae](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DKalendae)* and the place name *[Karthago](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DKarthago)*. These had alternative spellings with C, *Calendae* and *Carthago.* Both letters represented the same sound, the velar plosive [k].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- M = N: Coda nasal consonants in Latin typically had the same place of articulation as a following plosive (the only reason I say &quot;typically&quot; is because I'm not quite sure about the usual phonological analysis of the consonant cluster found in *e**mpt**us* and related words, where the *p* is diachronically/morphologically epenthetic, and I believe sometimes not written). Regressive place assimilation of a nasal within a word was sometimes marked in writing, and sometimes not, but I don't think this variation in spelling is believed to have had a perfect correspondence to any analogous variation in pronunciation. An example of a word which had two spelling variant with M and N is *quamquam/[quanquam](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=quanquam)* (my understanding is that this word is thought to have been pronounced with a velar nasal [ŋ], regardless of the spelling).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- X = XS → S = 1: When a word starting with S was prefixed with *ex-,* the S might or might not be omitted. Even if there was some variation in pronunciation between the use of [ks.s] and [k.s] in such words (I don't know if there was, and I'm not sure how we could determine this), I doubt that the spelling variation had any kind of consistent correspondence to a possible difference in pronunciation. An example is *exsisto/existo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More old-fashioned (?) examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of other spelling variants in Latin that I can think of, but that I think are less often seen. I have the impression that they came to be old-fashioned even in the time of Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- II = I → I = 1: in medial position between vowels, it is thought that the single letter I could represent the geminate palatal approximant [j.j] in Classical Latin. An alternative representation of this sound was II. In *Vox Latina*, W. Sidney Allen says that inscriptions show spellings like `PompeIius, cuiIus, eiius, maiIorem` for *Pompeius, cuius, eius, maiorem,* and says that &quot;Quintilian and other grammarians [...] tell us that Cicero and Caesar used in fact to spell such words [as *aio, maior, peior, Troia*] with ii&quot; (p. 39).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- EI = I → E = 1: I know that in some time periods, the digraph EI was used as a variant of I (I think only when I was a long vowel). In Old Latin, EI is thought to have represented a distinct sound from both E and I, but Old Latin EI ended up merging with long I, which caused both spellings to be used for the same sound. This led to variation between I and EI in the spellings of various words pronounced with the long I sound [iː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we accept both of these, then we have S H E I all equal to 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Less certain examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we look at post-Classical periods, there are many more identities that could probably be established (although I haven't looked for examples of homophones). The value of the digraphs *ae* and *oe* merged early on with the value of the single letter *e* (although this also contributed to variability and instability in the spelling of individual words). In certain varieties of Latin, *ti* and palatalized *c* came to have the same value, [ts].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some spellings, it's a bit unclear when they first came to represent identical pronunciations. Word-final *m* in Latin is known to have been subject to elision from early on (especially when it came before a vowel); some sources indicate that Classical Latin had distinctive nasalization of the preceding vowel, even if the nasal consonant was lost, but as far as I know we don't have that much evidence of this. Except for in monosyllables, all nasality has been lost in descendants of Latin. I guess this could be used as a basis for assigning the value &quot;1&quot; to M, based on multi-word equivalences like *libra aut = libram aut.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin also had a number of assimilations that might or might not be written. For example, N at the end of a prefix, as in *con-* and *in-,* could assimilate to a following L or R, and D at the end of the prefix *ad-* could assimilate to most other consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a relevant passage in *[Reading in Medieval St. Gall](https://books.google.com/books?id=rLF7wRg-At4C&amp;pg=PA295),* by Anna A. Grotans (2006). Grotans says that in Isidore's *Etymologiae* (from the late sixth and seventh centuries), the words *ad* (preposition) and *at* (conjunction) are given as an example of heterographic homophones (p. 295).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7048" RevisionGUID="5c26e7f8-09f3-4025-a7f9-bc2c51998922" CreationDate="2018-08-18T23:30:42.610" UserId="406" Comment="added 445 characters in body" Text="Much of this depends which stage of the language you're talking about. I'll focus on Classical Latin, with reconstructed pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *h* seems to be the identity: *arena* vs *harena*, *lacrima* vs *lachrima*. (/h/ disappeared from all but the most educated speech in Classical times.)&#xD;&#xA; - *p* = *f*: *Daphne* vs *Dafne*, [the latter attested in Pompeii][1]. (The pronunciation of the Greek letter phi was shifting, so it was transcribed in different ways in different places and different times.)&#xD;&#xA; - *i* = *u* = *y*: *optimus* vs *optumus*, *girus* vs *gyrus*, *silva* vs *sylva*. (There was often confusion between short /i/ and /u/ in certain positions, and /y/ was a Greek sound that tended to assimilate to one or the other.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;…and that's about all we can do. Latin orthography was very closely tied to the spelling, so most of these irregularities come from the sounds themselves changing, or from changes in other languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I clearly stopped looking too soon!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A = AA, and same for the other vowels: Old Latin used double letters for long vowels (*aara* vs *āra* &quot;altar&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - I = J: *iam* vs *jam* &quot;now&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - U = V: *uel* vs *vel* &quot;or&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - [QV = C: *seqvundus* vs *secundus* &quot;second&quot;][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd previously been ignoring assimilation because it seemed to reflect variances in pronunciation. But Lewis and Short show that *adsum* was pronounced *assum* at least in common speech, as a pun in Plautus depends on it. So we can add assimilations too!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - S = D = F = R = G = ∅: *adsum* vs *assum* &quot;I am here&quot;, *adfuī* vs *affuī* vs *arfuī* &quot;I was here&quot;, *adnoscō* vs *agnoscō* vs *adgnoscō* &quot;I recognize&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - N = M: *inmortalis* vs *immortalis* &quot;immortal&quot; (thanks to Rafael's comments for this one!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/650/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4929/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7049" RevisionGUID="59f22e26-bacb-45fb-9b25-b0c14810bd74" CreationDate="2018-08-18T23:37:40.510" UserId="9" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="As other comments have indicated, in Classical Latin there seem to have been few or no examples of heterographic homophones of the kind that are found in English (with two separate words, e.g. *meet* and *meat,* which have different meanings and consistently different spellings, but consistently identical pronunciations in standard dialects).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin of any period definitely has homographic homophones, and heterophonic homographs, but neither of those are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Draconis's answer provides examples of what I think are the closest we can get in most cases to heterographic homophones: words that had spelling variants that weren't associated with different meanings or different pronunciations (as far as we can tell).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Certain variant spellings unrelated to pronunciation in Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the spelling variants that Draconis mentioned, here are some others that show up in Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- C = K: The letter K was infrequent in Classical Latin, but it was used in the word *[Kalendae](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DKalendae)* and the place name *[Karthago](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DKarthago)*. These had alternative spellings with C, *Calendae* and *Carthago.* Both letters represented the same sound, the velar plosive /k/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- M = N: Coda nasal consonants in Latin typically had the same place of articulation as a following plosive (the only reason I say &quot;typically&quot; is because I'm not quite sure about the usual phonological analysis of the consonant cluster found in *e**mpt**us* and related words, where the *p* is diachronically/morphologically epenthetic, and I believe sometimes not written). Regressive place assimilation of a nasal within a word was sometimes marked in writing, and sometimes not, but I don't think this variation in spelling is believed to have had a perfect correspondence to any analogous variation in pronunciation. An example of a word which had two spelling variants with M and N is *quamquam/[quanquam](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=quanquam)* (my understanding is that this word is thought to have been pronounced with a velar nasal [ŋ], regardless of the spelling).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- X = XS → S = 1: When a word starting with S was prefixed with *ex-,* the S might or might not be omitted. Even if there was some variation in pronunciation between the use of /ks.s/ and /k.s/ in such words (I don't know if there was, and I'm not sure how we could determine this), I doubt that the spelling variation had any kind of consistent correspondence to a possible difference in pronunciation. An example is *exsisto/existo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More old-fashioned (?) examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of other spelling variants in Latin that I can think of, but that I think are less often seen. I have the impression that they came to be old-fashioned even in the time of Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- II = I → I = 1: in medial position between vowels, it is thought that the single letter I could represent the geminate palatal approximant [j.j] in Classical Latin. An alternative representation of this sound was II. In *Vox Latina*, W. Sidney Allen says that inscriptions show spellings like `PompeIius, cuiIus, eiius, maiIorem` for *Pompeius, cuius, eius, maiorem,* and says that &quot;Quintilian and other grammarians [...] tell us that Cicero and Caesar used in fact to spell such words [as *aio, maior, peior, Troia*] with ii&quot; (p. 39).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- EI = I → E = 1: I know that in some time periods, the digraph EI was used as a variant of I (I think only when I was a long vowel). In Old Latin, EI is thought to have represented a distinct sound from both E and I, but Old Latin EI ended up merging with long I, which caused both spellings to be used for the same sound. This led to variation between I and EI in the spellings of various words pronounced with the long I sound [iː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we accept both of these, then we have S H E I all equal to 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Less certain examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we look at post-Classical periods, there are many more identities that could probably be established (although I haven't looked for examples of homophones). The value of the digraphs *ae* and *oe* merged early on with the value of the single letter *e* (although this also contributed to variability and instability in the spelling of individual words). In certain varieties of Latin, *ti* and *ci* came to have the same value (something like [tsj]) in certain contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some spellings, it's a bit unclear when they first came to represent identical pronunciations. Word-final *m* in Latin is known to have been subject to elision from early on (especially when it came before a vowel); some scholars believe that Classical Latin had distinctive nasalization of a vowel preceding word-final M, even if the nasal consonant was lost, but as far as I know we don't have that much evidence of this. Except for in monosyllables, all nasality has been lost in descendants of Latin. I guess this could be used as a basis for assigning the value &quot;1&quot; to M, based on multi-word equivalences like *libra aut = libram aut.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin also had a number of assimilations that might or might not be written. For example, N at the end of a prefix, as in *con-* and *in-,* could assimilate to a following L or R, and D at the end of the prefix *ad-* could assimilate to most other consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a relevant passage in *[Reading in Medieval St. Gall](https://books.google.com/books?id=rLF7wRg-At4C&amp;pg=PA295),* by Anna A. Grotans (2006). Grotans says that in Isidore's *Etymologiae* (from the late sixth and seventh centuries), the words *ad* (preposition) and *at* (conjunction) are given as an example of heterographic homophones (p. 295).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7048" RevisionGUID="848e4d25-d874-4a85-b523-876d38d46562" CreationDate="2018-08-18T23:49:20.710" UserId="406" Comment="added 333 characters in body" Text="Much of this depends which stage of the language you're talking about. I'll focus on Classical Latin, with reconstructed pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *h* seems to be the identity: *arena* vs *harena*, *lacrima* vs *lachrima*. (/h/ disappeared from all but the most educated speech in Classical times.)&#xD;&#xA; - *p* = *f*: *Daphne* vs *Dafne*, [the latter attested in Pompeii][1]. (The pronunciation of the Greek letter phi was shifting, so it was transcribed in different ways in different places and different times.)&#xD;&#xA; - *i* = *u* = *y*: *optimus* vs *optumus*, *girus* vs *gyrus*, *silva* vs *sylva*. (There was often confusion between short /i/ and /u/ in certain positions, and /y/ was a Greek sound that tended to assimilate to one or the other.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;…and that's about all we can do. Latin orthography was very closely tied to the spelling, so most of these irregularities come from the sounds themselves changing, or from changes in other languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I clearly stopped looking too soon!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A = AA, and same for the other vowels: Old Latin used double letters for long vowels (*aara* vs *āra* &quot;altar&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - I = J: *iam* vs *jam* &quot;now&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - U = V: *uel* vs *vel* &quot;or&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - [QV = C: *seqvundus* vs *secundus* &quot;second&quot;][2]&#xD;&#xA; - E = O, R = L: *Vertumnus* vs *Vortumnus* vs *Voltumnus*, the borrowed name of an Etruscan deity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd previously been ignoring assimilation because it seemed to reflect variances in pronunciation. But Lewis and Short show that *adsum* was pronounced *assum* at least in common speech, as a pun in Plautus depends on it. So we can add assimilations too!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - S = D = F = R = G = ∅: *adsum* vs *assum* &quot;I am here&quot;, *adfuī* vs *affuī* vs *arfuī* &quot;I was here&quot;, *adnoscō* vs *agnoscō* vs *adgnoscō* &quot;I recognize&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - N = M: *inmortalis* vs *immortalis* &quot;immortal&quot; (thanks to Rafael's comments for this one!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to include Emperor Claudius's failed attempt at orthography reform:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ж = PS = BS, indicating that P = B, as in *princeж* &quot;prince&quot; or *urж* &quot;city&quot; (though this letter has never been found in inscriptions and might also have looked like Ↄ)&#xD;&#xA; - Ⅎ = V, as in *ⅎel* &quot;or&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Ⱶ = I = U = Y, as in *gⱶbernator* &quot;governor&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/650/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4929/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7048" RevisionGUID="7d744631-6e2d-45ad-90fc-97b5af205088" CreationDate="2018-08-18T23:55:24.770" UserId="406" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="Much of this depends which stage of the language you're talking about. I'll focus on Classical Latin, with reconstructed pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *h* seems to be the identity: *arena* vs *harena*, *lacrima* vs *lachrima*. (/h/ disappeared from all but the most educated speech in Classical times.)&#xD;&#xA; - *p* = *f*: *Daphne* vs *Dafne*, [the latter attested in Pompeii][1]. (The pronunciation of the Greek letter phi was shifting, so it was transcribed in different ways in different places and different times.)&#xD;&#xA; - *i* = *u* = *y*: *optimus* vs *optumus*, *girus* vs *gyrus*, *silva* vs *sylva*. (There was often confusion between short /i/ and /u/ in certain positions, and /y/ was a Greek sound that tended to assimilate to one or the other.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;…and that's about all we can do. Latin orthography was very closely tied to the spelling, so most of these irregularities come from the sounds themselves changing, or from changes in other languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I clearly stopped looking too soon!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A = AA, and same for the other vowels: Old Latin used double letters for long vowels (*aara* vs *āra* &quot;altar&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - I = J: *iam* vs *jam* &quot;now&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - U = V: *uel* vs *vel* &quot;or&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - [QV = C: *seqvundus* vs *secundus* &quot;second&quot;][2]&#xD;&#xA; - E = O, R = L: *Vertumnus* vs *Vortumnus* vs *Voltumnus*, the borrowed name of an Etruscan deity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd previously been ignoring assimilation because it seemed to reflect variances in pronunciation. But Lewis and Short show that *adsum* was pronounced *assum* at least in common speech, as a pun in Plautus depends on it. So we can add assimilations too!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - S = D = F = R = G = ∅: *adsum* vs *assum* &quot;I am here&quot;, *adfuī* vs *affuī* vs *arfuī* &quot;I was here&quot;, *adnoscō* vs *agnoscō* vs *adgnoscō* &quot;I recognize&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - N = M: *inmortalis* vs *immortalis* &quot;immortal&quot; (thanks to Rafael's comments for this one!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to include Emperor Claudius's failed attempt at orthography reform:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ж = PS = BS, indicating that P = B, as in *princeж* &quot;prince&quot; or *urж* &quot;city&quot; (though this letter has never been found in inscriptions and might also have looked like Ↄ; it doesn't even get its own Unicode codepoint)&#xD;&#xA; - Ⅎ = V, as in *ⅎel* &quot;or&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Ⱶ = I = U = Y, as in *gⱶbernator* &quot;governor&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/650/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4929/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7049" RevisionGUID="d32ad922-f0b3-44a6-9702-164cabc3faaf" CreationDate="2018-08-19T02:50:57.127" UserId="9" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="As other comments have indicated, in Classical Latin there seem to have been few or no examples of heterographic homophones of the kind that are found in English (with two separate words, e.g. *meet* and *meat,* which have different meanings and consistently different spellings, but consistently identical pronunciations in standard dialects).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin of any period definitely has homographic homophones, and Classical Latin had a number of heterophonic homographs (mainly because of the practice of writing long and short vowels the same way), but neither of those are relevant to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Draconis's answer provides examples of what I think are the closest we can get in most cases to heterographic homophones: words that had spelling variants that weren't associated with different meanings or different pronunciations (as far as we can tell). As Alex B. said in a comment, these would not actually be classified as &quot;homophones&quot;. (I've posted an [ELU question asking for a word or term to describe words with spelling variants](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/460798/is-there-a-term-for-words-that-have-more-than-one-spelling).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Certain variant spellings unrelated to pronunciation in Classical Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the spelling variants that Draconis mentioned, here are some others that show up in Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- C = K: The letter K was infrequent in Classical Latin, but it was used in the word *[Kalendae](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DKalendae)* and the place name *[Karthago](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DKarthago)*. These had alternative spellings with C, *Calendae* and *Carthago.* Both letters represented the same sound, the velar plosive /k/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- M = N: Coda nasal consonants in Latin typically had the same place of articulation as a following plosive (the only reason I say &quot;typically&quot; is because I'm not quite sure about the usual phonological analysis of the consonant cluster found in *e**mpt**us* and related words, where the *p* is diachronically/morphologically epenthetic, and I believe sometimes not written). Regressive place assimilation of a nasal within a word was sometimes marked in writing, and sometimes not, but I don't think this variation in spelling is believed to have had a perfect correspondence to any analogous variation in pronunciation. An example of a word which had two spelling variants with M and N is *quamquam/[quanquam](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=quanquam)* (my understanding is that this word is thought to have been pronounced with a velar nasal [ŋ], regardless of the spelling).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- X = XS → S = 1: When a word starting with S was prefixed with *ex-,* the S might or might not be omitted. Even if there was some variation in pronunciation between the use of /ks.s/ and /k.s/ in such words (I don't know if there was, and I'm not sure how we could determine this), I doubt that the spelling variation had any kind of consistent correspondence to a possible difference in pronunciation. An example is *exsisto/existo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More old-fashioned (?) examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of other spelling variants in Latin that I can think of, but that I think are less often seen. I have the impression that they came to be old-fashioned even in the time of Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- II = I → I = 1: in medial position between vowels, it is thought that the single letter I could represent the geminate palatal approximant [j.j] in Classical Latin. An alternative representation of this sound was II. In *Vox Latina*, W. Sidney Allen says that inscriptions show spellings like `PompeIius, cuiIus, eiius, maiIorem` for *Pompeius, cuius, eius, maiorem,* and says that &quot;Quintilian and other grammarians [...] tell us that Cicero and Caesar used in fact to spell such words [as *aio, maior, peior, Troia*] with ii&quot; (p. 39).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- EI = I → E = 1: I know that in some time periods, the digraph EI was used as a variant of I (I think only when I was a long vowel). In Old Latin, EI is thought to have represented a distinct sound from both E and I, but Old Latin EI ended up merging with long I, which caused both spellings to be used for the same sound. This led to variation between I and EI in the spellings of various words pronounced with the long I sound [iː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we accept both of these, then we have S H E I all equal to 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Less certain examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we look at post-Classical periods, there are many more identities that could probably be established (although I haven't looked for examples of homophones). The value of the digraphs *ae* and *oe* merged early on with the value of the single letter *e* (although this also contributed to variability and instability in the spelling of individual words). In certain varieties of Latin, *ti* and *ci* came to have the same value (something like [tsj]) in certain contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some spellings, it's a bit unclear when they first came to represent identical pronunciations. Word-final *m* in Latin is known to have been subject to elision from early on (especially when it came before a vowel); some scholars believe that Classical Latin had distinctive nasalization of a vowel preceding word-final M, even if the nasal consonant was lost, but as far as I know we don't have that much evidence of this. Except for in monosyllables, all nasality has been lost in descendants of Latin. I guess this could be used as a basis for assigning the value &quot;1&quot; to M, based on multi-word equivalences like *libra aut = libram aut.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin also had a number of assimilations that might or might not be written. For example, N at the end of a prefix, as in *con-* and *in-,* could assimilate to a following L or R, and D at the end of the prefix *ad-* could assimilate to most other consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a relevant passage in *[Reading in Medieval St. Gall](https://books.google.com/books?id=rLF7wRg-At4C&amp;pg=PA295),* by Anna A. Grotans (2006). Grotans says that in Isidore's *Etymologiae* (from the late sixth and seventh centuries), the words *ad* (preposition) and *at* (conjunction) are given as an example of heterographic homophones (p. 295).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7053" RevisionGUID="ab1419f8-64ff-4f86-b2e2-9e40b0840367" CreationDate="2018-08-19T02:58:06.733" UserId="172" Text="This is by far not a complete answer, just some notes you may want to consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##General notes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read just a string of nouns. Translated to Latin, they won't magically gain any additional meaning (and may be even confusing, or end up in an unexpected amphibolia, if not carefully chosen). What is the message? Can you better explain what exactly do you want to say? Depending on that, you may want to put the words into a specific case. For example, if this is a list of your supposed properties, the Latin would not use nouns for that, rather adjectives and participles. If this is a list of instruments you employ, then it would be in ablative (“By strength *etc.*). Also, since you are creating a piece of art, so to say, consider the meter, so that the line reads as a verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use macrons in writing (fortitudo, not fortitūdo). These are used only in dictionaries and Latin beginner books. There was a sign used in very early Latin writing, or rather inscriptions,  to indicate long vowels, similar to our acute (ú), only more rounded, but it has disappeared by the time of the early Republic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Some (very incomplete) vocabulary to ponder:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to exclude words with possible unexpected connotation, such as *cupido*, which can mean not only uncurably passionate love, but also lust or greed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Strength&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *vis* = strength, great force (“strength to lift 100 pounds”).&#xD;&#xA;* *virtus* = strength and courage; also virte. This was inseparable for the Roman ear from its root *vir*, “a man”, though, probably not what you want, as I understand from your comments to @varro's answer. However, it was applied also to women in a positive sense.&#xD;&#xA;* *robur* = strength as robustness. To the Latin ear, sounds inseparable from the name of the oak tree, *robor*, a tree that has retained its sacred connotation from the Indo-European religion (think the *Yggdrasil*) even in Roman times.&#xD;&#xA;* *fortitudo* = strenght, courageousness.&#xD;&#xA;* *firmitudo* = firmness, stability, “soft but unyielding” strength. (Less common word.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that Latin is not very gung-ho on abstracts, so all these words in *-[i]tudo* and *-io* belong to a more formal and abstract writing (think a philosophical tract). And “strenght” is, naturally, an abstract. So consider rewording here, as I already suggested above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Love&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the order from raw passion to high, non-sexual esteem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *ardor* = passionate, uncontrollable love.&#xD;&#xA;* *amor* = a lover's love, love in general.&#xD;&#xA;* *dilectio* = respectful love and affection, e. g. to a dear friend or brother. (Less common).&#xD;&#xA;* *caritas* = charity, esteem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you are asking for the noun for the antonym of *dark*, not the adjective opposite of *heavy*, and of the nouns meaning “light” an abstract (“Sun casts a bright light”), not a lightning fixture (“I turned the reading light on”):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *lux* = natural light, daylight.&#xD;&#xA;* *lumen* = any light, such as provided by a lamp or torch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7054" RevisionGUID="5a8c34b7-2578-4735-b500-2206b916ebfc" CreationDate="2018-08-19T03:19:43.333" UserId="2704" Text="According to [LSJ][1], the indicative conjugation of φημί in Aeolic is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aeol. φᾶμι Sapph.32, 2sg. “φαῖσθα” Alc.Supp.20.6, 3sg. φαῖσι ib.26.5, Sapph.66, 3pl. “φαῖσι” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That makes the φᾶμι form suspect; the emendation to φαῖμι is to bring the 1sg in line with the other persons attested. The Aeolic yod appears to be echoed in the 2sg Attic φῄς, although its relation to Indo-European *bheh2 is not obvious to me. (Chantraine refers to &quot;F. Bader, BSL 71, 1976, 86–91&quot; for it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;μνάσασθαι is the aorist infinitive, μνάσεσθαι the future infinitive. The latter is a clearer match to &quot;I think people will remember us even hereafter.&quot; If the traditional reading was &quot;I think someone else remembered us too&quot;, you can see why the past tense aorist was chosen instead, and why Lobel–Page muse that maybe that's what it actually was. Given the aspect/tense messiness of indirect speech, I suspect you could even argue for an aorist infinitive somehow with the &quot;remember us hereafter&quot; sense; but the future is much less sophistic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=fhmi/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7055" RevisionGUID="9363a5d4-f60d-4ca2-b901-5c49fd9d8eb1" CreationDate="2018-08-19T08:29:29.563" UserId="79" Text="Draconis and sumelic have done most of the work, but there are some new relations.&#xD;&#xA;Let me analyze the structure of the group itself and collect all the simplifying relations.&#xD;&#xA;It is worth noting that the relations are based solely on spelling variants, not homophones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately the resulting group has no relations &amp;mdash; it is free.&#xD;&#xA;This is because all the relations are eventually of the form A=1 or A=B rather than AB=C.&#xD;&#xA;The relations only remove generators from the original group generated by all Latin letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following letters are identity (with very brief explanations):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- H: *harena~arena*&#xD;&#xA;- S: *exsistere~existere*&#xD;&#xA;- D: *adsum~assum* (with S=1)&#xD;&#xA;- F: *adferre~afferre* (with D=1)&#xD;&#xA;- G: *adgnoscere~agnoscere* (with D=1)&#xD;&#xA;- I: *eiius~eius*&#xD;&#xA;- J: *jam~iam* (with I=1)&#xD;&#xA;- Y: *sylva~silva* (with I=1)&#xD;&#xA;- U: *optumus~optimus* (with I=1)&#xD;&#xA;- V: *vel~uel* (with U=1)&#xD;&#xA;- R: *arfui~affui* (with F=1)&#xD;&#xA;- P: *Daphne~Dafne* (with F=H=1)&#xD;&#xA;- L: *Voltumnus~Vortumnus* (with R=1)&#xD;&#xA;- N: *conloquium~colloquium* (with L=1)&#xD;&#xA;- M: *immortalis~inmortalis* (with M=1)&#xD;&#xA;- B: *urbs~urps* (with P=1)&#xD;&#xA;- T: *attuli~adtuli* (with D=1)&#xD;&#xA;- Z: *zona~sona* (with S=1; mentioned in *Vox Latina*)&#xD;&#xA;- A, E, O: long vowels can be spelled as double or single&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves us with four letters: C, K, Q, X.&#xD;&#xA;Between these we have relations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- C=K: *Carthago~Karthago*&#xD;&#xA;- C=Q: *secundus~sequundus* (with U=1)&#xD;&#xA;- C=X: *vixit~vicsit* (with S=1, mentioned in *Vox Latina*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After identifying all these, we are left with a single generator, C.&#xD;&#xA;If there are no further relations, **the homophonic group of Latin is isomorphic to the infinite cyclic group** (the additive group of integers).&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it sounds most grandiose to call it &quot;the free and cyclic group&quot;; there are many possible ways to characterize the group up to isomorphism.&#xD;&#xA;The only conceivable further relations are C=1 (rendering the group trivial) and CC=1 (making it the group of two elements).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you disagree with some of the relations, you may have more generators." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7051" RevisionGUID="985bd579-647d-4e71-83d5-5e85da991e99" CreationDate="2018-08-19T08:34:49.710" UserId="2852" Comment="Copy edited." Text="I am just curious what a phrase &quot;e pluribus smart assimus&quot; means.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23680" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7051" RevisionGUID="985bd579-647d-4e71-83d5-5e85da991e99" CreationDate="2018-08-19T08:34:49.710" UserId="2852" Comment="Copy edited." Text="What is the meaning of &quot;e pluribus smart assimus&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23681" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7051" RevisionGUID="985bd579-647d-4e71-83d5-5e85da991e99" CreationDate="2018-08-19T08:34:49.710" Comment="Proposed by 2852 approved by 79 edit id of 254" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7056" RevisionGUID="da9edcdb-4d10-40b8-b523-6900b7567fc0" CreationDate="2018-08-19T09:46:52.667" UserId="13" Text="Today, as I browsed Quora, I saw a question with an (apparently) blatant case error. I opened it, and curiously, [one answer](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-the-Latin-phrase-Sum-Spiritum-Sanctum/answer/Aender-Dos-Santos-LaaendaerSan?share=cd9be552&amp;srid=hIv7E) stated it could have been a correct case, since, while there is indeed &quot;spiritus&quot;, fourth declension masculine, there is also a &quot;spiritum&quot;, second declension neuter. Does such a word actually exist and, if so, does it mean &quot;spirit&quot; like &quot;spiritus&quot; or something else, and in the latter case, what does it mean? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23683" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7056" RevisionGUID="da9edcdb-4d10-40b8-b523-6900b7567fc0" CreationDate="2018-08-19T09:46:52.667" UserId="13" Text="Does a form &quot;spiritum&quot;, second declension neuter, exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23684" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7056" RevisionGUID="da9edcdb-4d10-40b8-b523-6900b7567fc0" CreationDate="2018-08-19T09:46:52.667" UserId="13" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7057" RevisionGUID="53ed1fdc-19e7-45cf-a63e-bdcf7191ad84" CreationDate="2018-08-19T18:27:40.820" UserId="406" Text="##Not in standard Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's difficult to prove a negative, but Lewis and Short make no mention of it, and [the Packhum corpus][1] shows no evidence of forms like *spīritī* or *spīritō*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##However…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S cite an inscription, *Inscr. Orell. 3030*, which has a dative *spīritō* (instead of *spīrituī*). In the comments, Alex B cites a dictionary of later Latin with an entry for *spīritum, -ī*. So this form definitely existed, even if Cicero wouldn't have used it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.packhum.org/search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23687" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7050" RevisionGUID="6ec8c0c3-6a3b-4119-8e5f-af0618ea665f" CreationDate="2018-08-20T00:40:52.827" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7052" RevisionGUID="94ae7fae-fc99-42cb-a5c3-b7c0b837b2de" CreationDate="2018-08-20T02:56:48.017" UserId="406" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="This is dog Latin for &quot;out of many come smartasses&quot; (or &quot;a smartass&quot;). It's modelled off the phrase *ē pluribus unum*, &quot;out of many [comes] one&quot;, which is printed on American currency, plus the fake Latin *smart-assimus* for &quot;smartasses&quot;. The *-us* is typically a singular ending, but is also commonly used to create dog Latin in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, while &quot;smart&quot; of course isn't Latin, *assimus* is a real word: it's the first person plural present active subjunctive of *adsum*/*assum*, &quot;to be present&quot;. So *assimus* means &quot;let's go be there!&quot; But that's certainly not what the author of this phrase intended." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7050" RevisionGUID="7cd3b739-e577-496d-a694-247956f11163" CreationDate="2018-08-20T04:22:00.593" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Hi I’m planning to have a tattoo and I would like to have a translation in Latin of “God and Family”.&#xD;&#xA;Which one is appropriate, &quot;deo et familia&quot; or &quot;deo familiaque&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23690" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7050" RevisionGUID="7cd3b739-e577-496d-a694-247956f11163" CreationDate="2018-08-20T04:22:00.593" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is &quot;que&quot; or &quot;et&quot; better for a “God and Family” tattoo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23691" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7050" RevisionGUID="7cd3b739-e577-496d-a694-247956f11163" CreationDate="2018-08-20T04:22:00.593" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|english-to-latin-translation|conjunction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7055" RevisionGUID="156ca203-068a-4ac0-b0e1-5569419d89ba" CreationDate="2018-08-20T08:41:02.050" UserId="79" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="Draconis and sumelic have done most of the work, but there are some new relations.&#xD;&#xA;Let me analyze the structure of the group itself and collect all the simplifying relations.&#xD;&#xA;It is worth noting that the relations are based solely on spelling variants, not homophones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately the resulting group has no relations &amp;mdash; it is free.&#xD;&#xA;This is because all the relations are eventually of the form A=1 or A=B rather than AB=C.&#xD;&#xA;The relations only remove generators from the original group generated by all Latin letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following letters are identity (with very brief explanations):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- H: *harena~arena*&#xD;&#xA;- S: *exsistere~existere*&#xD;&#xA;- D: *adsum~assum* (with S=1)&#xD;&#xA;- F: *adferre~afferre* (with D=1)&#xD;&#xA;- G: *adgnoscere~agnoscere* (with D=1)&#xD;&#xA;- I: *eiius~eius*&#xD;&#xA;- J: *jam~iam* (with I=1)&#xD;&#xA;- Y: *sylva~silva* (with I=1)&#xD;&#xA;- U: *optumus~optimus* (with I=1)&#xD;&#xA;- V: *vel~uel* (with U=1)&#xD;&#xA;- R: *arfui~affui* (with F=1)&#xD;&#xA;- P: *Daphne~Dafne* (with F=H=1)&#xD;&#xA;- L: *Voltumnus~Vortumnus* (with R=1)&#xD;&#xA;- N: *conloquium~colloquium* (with L=1)&#xD;&#xA;- M: *immortalis~inmortalis* (with M=1)&#xD;&#xA;- B: *urbs~urps* (with P=1)&#xD;&#xA;- T: *attuli~adtuli* (with D=1)&#xD;&#xA;- Z: *zona~sona* (with S=1; mentioned in *Vox Latina*)&#xD;&#xA;- A, E, O: long vowels can be spelled as double or single&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves us with four letters: C, K, Q, X.&#xD;&#xA;Between these we have relations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- C=K: *Carthago~Karthago*&#xD;&#xA;- C=Q: *secundus~sequundus* (with U=1)&#xD;&#xA;- C=X: *vixit~vicsit* (with S=1, mentioned in *Vox Latina*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After identifying all these, we are left with a single generator, C.&#xD;&#xA;If there are no further relations, **the homophonic group of Latin is isomorphic to the infinite cyclic group** (the additive group of integers).&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it sounds most grandiose to call it &quot;the free cyclic group&quot;; there are many possible ways to characterize the group up to isomorphism.&#xD;&#xA;The only conceivable further relations are C=1 (rendering the group trivial) and CC=1 (making it the group of two elements).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you disagree with some of the relations, you may have more generators.&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems that under most interpretations the resulting group will be free." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7048" RevisionGUID="ccdba9f7-5317-4fcf-8b73-a2aee1dc6492" CreationDate="2018-08-20T15:42:45.557" UserId="406" Comment="added 241 characters in body" Text="Much of this depends which stage of the language you're talking about. I'll focus on Classical Latin, with reconstructed pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *h* seems to be the identity: *arena* vs *harena*, *lacrima* vs *lachrima*. (/h/ disappeared from all but the most educated speech in Classical times.)&#xD;&#xA; - *p* = *f*: *Daphne* vs *Dafne*, [the latter attested in Pompeii][1]. (The pronunciation of the Greek letter phi was shifting, so it was transcribed in different ways in different places and different times.)&#xD;&#xA; - *i* = *u* = *y*: *optimus* vs *optumus*, *girus* vs *gyrus*, *silva* vs *sylva*. (There was often confusion between short /i/ and /u/ in certain positions, and /y/ was a Greek sound that tended to assimilate to one or the other.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;…and that's about all we can do. Latin orthography was very closely tied to the spelling, so most of these irregularities come from the sounds themselves changing, or from changes in other languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I clearly stopped looking too soon!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A = AA, and same for the other vowels: Old Latin used double letters for long vowels (*aara* vs *āra* &quot;altar&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - I = J: *iam* vs *jam* &quot;now&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - U = V: *uel* vs *vel* &quot;or&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - [QV = C: *seqvundus* vs *secundus* &quot;second&quot;][2]&#xD;&#xA; - E = O, R = L: *Vertumnus* vs *Vortumnus* vs *Voltumnus*, the borrowed name of an Etruscan deity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd previously been ignoring assimilation because it seemed to reflect variances in pronunciation. But Lewis and Short show that *adsum* was pronounced *assum* at least in common speech, as a pun in Plautus depends on it. So we can add assimilations too!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - S = D = F = R = G = ∅: *adsum* vs *assum* &quot;I am here&quot;, *adfuī* vs *affuī* vs *arfuī* &quot;I was here&quot;, *adnoscō* vs *agnoscō* vs *adgnoscō* &quot;I recognize&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - N = M: *inmortalis* vs *immortalis* &quot;immortal&quot; (thanks to Rafael's comments for this one!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to include Emperor Claudius's failed attempt at orthography reform:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ж = PS = BS, indicating that P = B, as in *princeж* &quot;prince&quot; or *urж* &quot;city&quot; (though this letter has never been found in inscriptions and might also have looked like Ↄ; it doesn't even get its own Unicode codepoint)&#xD;&#xA; - Ⅎ = V, as in *ⅎel* &quot;or&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Ⱶ = I = U = Y, as in *gⱶbernator* &quot;governor&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: One more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - G = C, as in the praenomina *Gaius* ~ *Caius* or *Gnaeus* ~ *Cnaeus*. These names were pronounced with a G, but often spelled with a C for historical reasons; both spellings are attested in Classical times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/650/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4929/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7059" RevisionGUID="3a0ffc98-3e6a-4792-bdb0-5a8c1ba7e689" CreationDate="2018-08-20T15:44:25.730" UserId="1459" Text="Consider the word _domus_. Standard cases are _domi_, _domo_, _domum_, _domo_, _domis_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder whether we could also replace the above (and perhaps every single noun), with the &quot;equivalent&quot; preposition + nominative. For example, I can think of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _domi_ -&gt; _de domus_&#xD;&#xA;- _domo_ (dat) -&gt; _ad domus_, or _pro domus_, ...&#xD;&#xA;- _domo_ (abl) -&gt; _apud domus_, or _e domus_, ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I'm stuck though. I don't see how the accusative can be easily replaced though, as in many cases it is the type of object which represents rather than a preposition which distinguish it from the nominative. As far as I know, this is solved in other languages by strict word ordering, which Latin does not have. No idea how one would replace the vocative either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is it (always) possible to translate a phrase from fully declined into one not declined at all? Or is this possible only with a few modes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The wider context of this inquiry is with the treatment of indeclinable words, e.g. _decem_. It's unclear to me whether one is to simply use _decem_ for every case, or add a preposition (when possible) to specify the case meant. Hence, my question on whether every mode is translatable into a preposition+nom.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23698" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7059" RevisionGUID="3a0ffc98-3e6a-4792-bdb0-5a8c1ba7e689" CreationDate="2018-08-20T15:44:25.730" UserId="1459" Text="Can all cases be replaced with prepositions + nominative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23699" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7059" RevisionGUID="3a0ffc98-3e6a-4792-bdb0-5a8c1ba7e689" CreationDate="2018-08-20T15:44:25.730" UserId="1459" Text="|declension|preposition|nominativus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7055" RevisionGUID="944ae46e-0124-42da-97b9-d07b185ee110" CreationDate="2018-08-20T17:22:35.253" UserId="79" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="Draconis and sumelic have done most of the work, but there are some new relations.&#xD;&#xA;Let me analyze the structure of the group itself and collect all the simplifying relations.&#xD;&#xA;It is worth noting that the relations are based solely on spelling variants, not homophones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately the resulting group has no relations &amp;mdash; it is free.&#xD;&#xA;This is because all the relations are eventually of the form A=1 or A=B rather than AB=C.&#xD;&#xA;The relations only remove generators from the original group generated by all Latin letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following letters are identity (with very brief explanations):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- H: *harena~arena*&#xD;&#xA;- S: *exsistere~existere*&#xD;&#xA;- D: *adsum~assum* (with S=1)&#xD;&#xA;- F: *adferre~afferre* (with D=1)&#xD;&#xA;- G: *agnoscere~adnoscere* (with D=1)&#xD;&#xA;- I: *eiius~eius*&#xD;&#xA;- J: *jam~iam* (with I=1)&#xD;&#xA;- Y: *sylva~silva* (with I=1)&#xD;&#xA;- U: *optumus~optimus* (with I=1)&#xD;&#xA;- V: *vel~uel* (with U=1)&#xD;&#xA;- R: *arfui~affui* (with F=1)&#xD;&#xA;- P: *Daphne~Dafne* (with F=H=1)&#xD;&#xA;- L: *Voltumnus~Vortumnus* (with R=1)&#xD;&#xA;- N: *conloquium~colloquium* (with L=1)&#xD;&#xA;- M: *immortalis~inmortalis* (with M=1)&#xD;&#xA;- B: *urbs~urps* (with P=1)&#xD;&#xA;- T: *attuli~adtuli* (with D=1)&#xD;&#xA;- Z: *zona~sona* (with S=1; mentioned in *Vox Latina*)&#xD;&#xA;- A, E, O: long vowels can be spelled as double or single&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves us with four letters: C, K, Q, X.&#xD;&#xA;Between these we have relations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- C=K: *Carthago~Karthago*&#xD;&#xA;- C=Q: *secundus~sequundus* (with U=1)&#xD;&#xA;- C=X: *vixit~vicsit* (with S=1, mentioned in *Vox Latina*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After identifying all these, we are left with a single generator, C.&#xD;&#xA;If there are no further relations, **the homophonic group of Latin is isomorphic to the infinite cyclic group** (the additive group of integers).&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it sounds most grandiose to call it &quot;the free cyclic group&quot;; there are many possible ways to characterize the group up to isomorphism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we also accept the relation C=G due to names like *Caius~Gaius* and *Cnaeus~Gnaeus* (and archaic orthography in general), then even the final generator is lost.&#xD;&#xA;In this case **the homophonic group is trivial**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you disagree with some of the relations, you may have more generators.&#xD;&#xA;**The exact set of valid relations is a matter of opinion.**&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems that under most interpretations the resulting group will be free." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7059" RevisionGUID="cc92f8ff-0028-4fb9-b756-53e95d3b468b" CreationDate="2018-08-21T09:24:31.550" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 48 characters in body; edited title" Text="Consider the word _domus_. Standard cases are _domi_, _domo_, _domum_, _domo_, _domis_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder whether we could replace the above (and perhaps every single noun), with the &quot;equivalent&quot; preposition + nominative. For example, I can think of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _domi_ -&gt; _de domus_&#xD;&#xA;- _domo_ (dat) -&gt; _ad domus_, or _pro domus_, ...&#xD;&#xA;- _domo_ (abl) -&gt; _apud domus_, or _e domus_, ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I'm stuck though. I don't see how the accusative can be easily replaced though, as in many cases it is the type of object which represents rather than a preposition which distinguish it from the nominative. As far as I know, this is solved in other languages by strict word ordering, which Latin does not have. No idea how one would replace the vocative either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is it **ever** possible to translate a phrase from fully declined into one not declined at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do I think this could be possible? This is probably my bias of native Spanish speaker, were we say &quot;la casa&quot; (nom), &quot;de la casa&quot; (gen), &quot;a la casa&quot; (dat), thus by being explicit on the preposition, there is no need for cases in the noun. Same in English (&quot;the house&quot;, &quot;of the house&quot;, &quot;to the house&quot;). Thus, I wonder if one could do the same in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The wider context of this inquiry is with the treatment of indeclinable words, e.g. _decem_. It's unclear to me whether one is to simply use _decem_ for every case, or add a preposition (when possible) to specify the case meant. Hence, my question on whether every mode is translatable into a preposition+nom.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23702" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7059" RevisionGUID="cc92f8ff-0028-4fb9-b756-53e95d3b468b" CreationDate="2018-08-21T09:24:31.550" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 48 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can cases be replaced with prepositions + nominative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7060" RevisionGUID="e497d623-3f7e-4c14-a7f2-414a26b1e757" CreationDate="2018-08-21T17:26:09.313" UserId="406" Text="The answer in Classical Latin is, not at all. No preposition can be followed by the nominative, and no preposition has quite the same meaning as one of the other cases. Something like *_ex domus_ is simply ungrammatical; *apud domus* is grammatical but doesn't mean what you intend (the second word would have to be *domūs*, accusative plural).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much later, as Vulgar Latin was developing into Romance, this is exactly what happened. Sound changes were causing most of the cases to merge together: for example, *-m* and *-s* at the end of words disappeared, and *-u* and *-ō* merged together, which made most of the second-declension singular endings indistinguishable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Romance-speakers compensated for this by using word order to indicate nominative versus accusative (the nominative comes before the verb, the accusative comes after) and prepositions to indicate all the other cases. While the meaning of *dē* wasn't at all equivalent to the genitive in Classical times, it was close enough that by the third century it shifted to replace it entirely. This is where your Spanish *de la casa* comes from. Similarly, *ad* had started replacing the dative in certain uses in the Vulgar Latin of Plautus, so it wasn't much of a stretch for it to encompass the rest of the meanings too. The ablative was most often used with prepositions anyway, so there wasn't much to change there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7061" RevisionGUID="ccb266bc-f03c-4420-a130-444989a38021" CreationDate="2018-08-21T17:56:21.087" UserId="13" Text="[Bibliotheca Augustana](https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/graeca/Chronologia/S_ante06/Sappho/sap_me04.html) reports a fragment in book 1 of Sappho which, it says, is from `P. Oxy. XV (1922) nr. 1787 fr. 9`, and reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;]ο δέρκεν ἐπώμοσσ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]ν ἔτι, τὰν παῖδα δε[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;]βρ[.]ταν κἀγχερριθ[έτ-&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;. . . . ]εν[ . . . . ]παρε[δωκ-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That particular papyrus fragment is apparently skipped by both Voigt and Lobel-Page, and I couldn't find the text anywhere in Lobel-Page Sappho, and there doesn't seem to be a P.Oxy. 1787 section in Lobel-Page Alcaeus. So I'm wondering: why is this fragment not in Lobel-Page? And why does my image of P.Oxy. 1787 (now unfindable if not in part) say &quot;8&amp;9 missing&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23706" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7061" RevisionGUID="ccb266bc-f03c-4420-a130-444989a38021" CreationDate="2018-08-21T17:56:21.087" UserId="13" Text="About P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23707" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7061" RevisionGUID="ccb266bc-f03c-4420-a130-444989a38021" CreationDate="2018-08-21T17:56:21.087" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|text-corpus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7062" RevisionGUID="d92b39fe-7bd5-4276-9e30-a12f237554b0" CreationDate="2018-08-21T19:32:45.793" UserId="2860" Text="I would like to get a tattoo of the phrase &quot;remember redemption 25 August 2105&quot;  in Latin. This will commemorate the anniversary of my sobriety, along with the command to never forget God's grace and mercy in recovering from my addiction. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23709" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7062" RevisionGUID="d92b39fe-7bd5-4276-9e30-a12f237554b0" CreationDate="2018-08-21T19:32:45.793" UserId="2860" Text="Remember Redemption" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23710" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7062" RevisionGUID="d92b39fe-7bd5-4276-9e30-a12f237554b0" CreationDate="2018-08-21T19:32:45.793" UserId="2860" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23711" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7062" RevisionGUID="e889ff33-182a-42d9-b3bb-30fc52fa4c06" CreationDate="2018-08-21T19:54:13.250" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7063" RevisionGUID="c3d9b81d-1b59-4a91-b018-364def76b7da" CreationDate="2018-08-21T20:38:59.173" UserId="406" Text="The standard word for &quot;remember&quot; (as in a command or request for a single person to remember) is *mementō*, as in *mementō morī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Redemption&quot;, in the Christian sense, is *redemptiō*, literally &quot;buying back&quot;. This is the word used in one of the psalms (48 in the Vulgate, 49 in most English versions):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; None of them can by any means **redeem** his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: For the **redemption** of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Mementō* can be followed by either a noun in the genitive case, which would be *redemptiōnis* &quot;redemption&quot;, or by a phrase, *ut redemptus sis* &quot;that you were redeemed&quot;. (*Redemptus* would be used by a man, *redempta* by a woman.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, my suggestions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Mementō redemptiōnis [tuae]* = remember [your own] redemption&#xD;&#xA; - *Mementō ut redemptus sis* = remember that you were redeemed (male)&#xD;&#xA; - *Mementō ut redempta sis* = remember that you were redeemed (female)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lines over some of the vowels can be included or left out, at your discretion. They represent a sound difference that vanished in later Latin; the Latin Vulgate Bible, for example, doesn't use them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7063" RevisionGUID="5d20ab9f-1a8e-4a9c-adbb-e0932d9a71f5" CreationDate="2018-08-21T21:05:34.043" UserId="406" Comment="edited body" Text="The standard word for &quot;remember&quot; (as in a command or request for a single person to remember) is *mementō*, as in *mementō morī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Redemption&quot;, in the Christian sense, is *redemptiō*, literally &quot;buying back&quot;. This is the word used in one of the psalms (48 in the Vulgate, 49 in most English versions):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; None of them can by any means **redeem** his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: For the **redemption** of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Mementō* can be followed by either a noun in the genitive case, which would be *redemptiōnis* &quot;redemption&quot;, or by a phrase, *ut redemptus sis* &quot;that you were redeemed&quot;. (*Redemptus* would be used by a man, *redempta* by a woman.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, my suggestions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Mementō redemptiōnis [tuae]* = remember [your own] redemption&#xD;&#xA; - *Mementō ut redemptus sis* = remember that you (male) were redeemed&#xD;&#xA; - *Mementō ut redempta sis* = remember that you (female) were redeemed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lines over some of the vowels can be included or left out, at your discretion. They represent a sound difference that vanished in later Latin; the Latin Vulgate Bible, for example, doesn't use them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7064" RevisionGUID="f8e3613d-297c-48bc-bff8-323dfa632a36" CreationDate="2018-08-21T22:12:16.470" UserId="324" Text="Perhaps because there is no evidence that this is Sappho.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7065" RevisionGUID="df25faee-da2e-4653-b98e-f823947f6748" CreationDate="2018-08-21T23:38:03.143" UserId="324" Text="If you want to retain the alliteration of the English version you could say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;remoramini redemptionem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first word is not used in classical Latin, but is known from Christian Latin. The second has a specifically Christian sense, as explained by Draconis.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7063" RevisionGUID="fd76c061-6c8d-446e-99c2-193a971fbe76" CreationDate="2018-08-22T00:24:55.067" UserId="406" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="The standard word for &quot;remember&quot; (as in a command or request for a single person to remember) is *mementō*, as in *mementō morī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Redemption&quot;, in the Christian sense, is *redemptiō*, literally &quot;buying back&quot;. This is the word used in one of the psalms (48 in the Vulgate, 49 in most English versions):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; None of them can by any means **redeem** his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: For the **redemption** of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Mementō* can be followed by either a noun in the genitive case, which would be *redemptiōnis* &quot;redemption&quot;, or by a phrase, *quia redemptus es* &quot;that you were redeemed&quot;. (*Redemptus* would be used by a man, *redempta* by a woman.) Compare the phrase Rafael quoted: ***mementō quia pulvus es** et in pulvus revertēris* &quot;**remember that you are dust** and to dust you shall return&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, my suggestions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Mementō redemptiōnis [tuae]* = remember [your own] redemption&#xD;&#xA; - *Mementō quia redemptus es* = remember that you (male) were redeemed&#xD;&#xA; - *Mementō quia redempta es* = remember that you (female) were redeemed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lines over some of the vowels can be included or left out, at your discretion. They represent a sound difference that vanished in later Latin; the Latin Vulgate Bible, for example, doesn't use them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7063" RevisionGUID="beb8a692-24e1-448f-82cb-780af3eb2f23" CreationDate="2018-08-22T01:06:48.790" UserId="406" Comment="edited body" Text="The standard word for &quot;remember&quot; (as in a command or request for a single person to remember) is *mementō*, as in *mementō morī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Redemption&quot;, in the Christian sense, is *redemptiō*, literally &quot;buying back&quot;. This is the word used in one of the psalms (48 in the Vulgate, 49 in most English versions):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; None of them can by any means **redeem** his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: For the **redemption** of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Mementō* can be followed by either a noun in the genitive case, which would be *redemptiōnis* &quot;redemption&quot;, or by a phrase, *quia redemptus es* &quot;that you were redeemed&quot;. (*Redemptus* would be used by a man, *redempta* by a woman.) Compare the phrase Rafael quoted: ***mementō quia pulvis es** et in pulvus revertēris* &quot;**remember that you are dust** and to dust you shall return&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, my suggestions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Mementō redemptiōnis [tuae]* = remember [your own] redemption&#xD;&#xA; - *Mementō quia redemptus es* = remember that you (male) were redeemed&#xD;&#xA; - *Mementō quia redempta es* = remember that you (female) were redeemed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lines over some of the vowels can be included or left out, at your discretion. They represent a sound difference that vanished in later Latin; the Latin Vulgate Bible, for example, doesn't use them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23718" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="567" RevisionGUID="056fc3d6-1138-4157-ad99-37353a412db6" CreationDate="2018-08-22T04:38:34.317" UserId="39" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|etymology|word-comparison|conjunction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7065" RevisionGUID="7b97232a-c4aa-4657-b045-d38233369c37" CreationDate="2018-08-22T12:35:37.250" UserId="324" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="If you want to retain the alliteration of the English version you could say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;rememoramini redemptionem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first word is not used in classical Latin, but is known from Christian Latin. The second has a specifically Christian sense, as explained by Draconis.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7062" RevisionGUID="6bbe5533-988b-432a-a59d-9d1a1c778c2b" CreationDate="2018-08-22T15:36:01.233" UserId="144" Comment="Added a question." Text="I would like to get a tattoo of the phrase &quot;remember redemption 25 August 2105&quot;  in Latin. This will commemorate the anniversary of my sobriety, along with the command to never forget God's grace and mercy in recovering from my addiction. How would this be translated into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23721" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7062" RevisionGUID="6bbe5533-988b-432a-a59d-9d1a1c778c2b" CreationDate="2018-08-22T15:36:01.233" Comment="Proposed by 144 approved by 1459, 406 edit id of 255" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7066" RevisionGUID="e9960981-4793-46a6-a03b-273156a870da" CreationDate="2018-08-23T01:38:11.113" UserId="406" Text="Ovid's *Fastī* for June 1 relates a story about *strīgēs*, witches who could transform into owls and magically sap the life of infants. There seem to be two forms of this word, *strīx, -gis* and *strīga, -ae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But where do these forms come from? Ovid suggests a connection to *strīdēre* &quot;to screech&quot;, but that would require the D to turn into a G, so it sounds like folk etymology to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23723" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7066" RevisionGUID="e9960981-4793-46a6-a03b-273156a870da" CreationDate="2018-08-23T01:38:11.113" UserId="406" Text="Where does strīx come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23724" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7066" RevisionGUID="e9960981-4793-46a6-a03b-273156a870da" CreationDate="2018-08-23T01:38:11.113" UserId="406" Text="|etymology|ovidius|mythology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7067" RevisionGUID="0a5d0808-9c9d-47f7-ba04-113edd783e70" CreationDate="2018-08-23T10:41:32.777" UserId="324" Text="For some reason, “strix” and “striga” have not found their way into de Vaan’s etymological dictionary. The older dictionary by Walde does connect “strix” with “strido”, tracing them back to an IE *strei- “to screech”, with two different extensions: -g and -d." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7067" RevisionGUID="04ed85f5-41b3-4863-99bc-ef21da28d656" CreationDate="2018-08-23T10:47:06.413" UserId="324" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="For some reason, “strix” and “striga” have not found their way into de Vaan’s etymological dictionary. The older dictionary by Walde does connect “strix” with “strideo”, tracing them back to an IE *strei- “to screech”, with two different extensions: -g and -d." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7068" RevisionGUID="9e3a35e2-7eb8-48db-80b1-1139031e4861" CreationDate="2018-08-23T13:13:56.717" UserId="2862" Text="In the context of being a person that is ignored by others, how would you say &quot;see me&quot; in latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23728" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7068" RevisionGUID="9e3a35e2-7eb8-48db-80b1-1139031e4861" CreationDate="2018-08-23T13:13:56.717" UserId="2862" Text="How would you say &quot;see me&quot; in latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23729" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7068" RevisionGUID="9e3a35e2-7eb8-48db-80b1-1139031e4861" CreationDate="2018-08-23T13:13:56.717" UserId="2862" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7069" RevisionGUID="81f5eb0d-f569-4a8b-b7f4-1d459bee3ab0" CreationDate="2018-08-23T14:35:10.467" UserId="1459" Text="[Foedus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/foedus) is both a noun and an adjective. As a noun, it is classified as third declension, since its genitive ends in *-is*: _foederis_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am intrigued however on the added &quot;_er_&quot; syllable. Why not _foedis_? Other cases (but not all of them) also have the &quot;_er_&quot; syllable added. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that this addition is to differentiate between the noun and the adjective. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Adjective - Noun&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; &gt;   foedis - foederis   &#xD;&#xA;    foede  - foedere   &#xD;&#xA;    foedum - foederum  &#xD;&#xA;    foeda - foedera  &#xD;&#xA;    foedi - foederi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second column, without the extra &quot;er&quot; syllable, would be just as the adjective. Is this the reason of the added &quot;_er_&quot;? Is this common in Latin? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23731" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7069" RevisionGUID="81f5eb0d-f569-4a8b-b7f4-1d459bee3ab0" CreationDate="2018-08-23T14:35:10.467" UserId="1459" Text="Added syllable to the noun &quot;foedus&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23732" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7069" RevisionGUID="81f5eb0d-f569-4a8b-b7f4-1d459bee3ab0" CreationDate="2018-08-23T14:35:10.467" UserId="1459" Text="|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7070" RevisionGUID="2d2dc51a-e974-4d20-99fb-e360504c3924" CreationDate="2018-08-23T15:52:37.430" UserId="406" Text="The noun *foedus* originally (by which I mean late Proto-Italic going into early Latin) looked something like *foidos-*. Note that that's the stem, with no ending attached. The third-declension endings were then added onto this. (I'm only showing the nominative, genitive, and ablative, but you can extrapolate the rest.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foidos-s&#xD;&#xA;    foidos-is&#xD;&#xA;    foidos-e&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two S's in a row at the end of a word weren't allowed, so the nominative became simply `foidos`. Then *rhotacism* applied, changing S between vowels to R.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foidos&#xD;&#xA;    foidoris&#xD;&#xA;    foidore&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another process turned all short vowels in medial open syllables (i.e. vowels in the middle of a word and not before two consonants) into *i*. [But Latin didn't like *ir*, so this sequence became *er*.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foidos&#xD;&#xA;    foideris&#xD;&#xA;    foidere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, short *o* in the last syllable of a word turned into *u*, and *oi* was respelled *oe*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foedus&#xD;&#xA;    foederis&#xD;&#xA;    foedere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This led to the noun forms you're familiar with in Classical times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective *foedus* came from a different source: its stem was actually *foid-* instead of *foidos-*, and the standard first/second endings were tacked onto this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1908/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7070" RevisionGUID="d6bd0a56-60ea-4ed7-a6b5-87ffa66fb684" CreationDate="2018-08-23T16:57:07.947" UserId="406" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The noun *foedus* originally (by which I mean late Proto-Italic going into early Latin) looked something like *foidos-*. Note that that's the stem, with no ending attached. The third-declension endings were then added onto this. (I'm only showing the nominative, genitive, and ablative, but you can extrapolate the rest.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foidos-∅&#xD;&#xA;    foidos-is&#xD;&#xA;    foidos-e&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the nominative ending for neuter third-declension nouns is ∅ (that is, nothing at all). Then *rhotacism* applied, changing S between vowels to R.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foidos&#xD;&#xA;    foidoris&#xD;&#xA;    foidore&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another process turned all short vowels in medial open syllables (i.e. vowels in the middle of a word and not before two consonants) into *i*. [But Latin didn't like *ir*, so this sequence became *er*.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foidos&#xD;&#xA;    foideris&#xD;&#xA;    foidere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, short *o* in the last syllable of a word turned into *u*, and *oi* was respelled *oe*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foedus&#xD;&#xA;    foederis&#xD;&#xA;    foedere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This led to the noun forms you're familiar with in Classical times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective *foedus* came from a different source: its stem was actually *foid-* instead of *foidos-*, and the standard first/second endings were tacked onto this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1908/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23735" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7069" RevisionGUID="47937ab3-a243-46b6-a2b4-6797ece7a72b" CreationDate="2018-08-23T18:13:40.523" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="Extra syllable in &quot;foedus&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7071" RevisionGUID="34f4b488-08a2-477a-a92a-df2b7a05c15b" CreationDate="2018-08-23T18:32:36.623" UserId="1459" Text="If you want to say &quot;look at me&quot; in the context of &quot;hey, please, look at me now!&quot;, then one option would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;attende me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a [vocative case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocative_case) of the verb [attendere](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/attendo#Latin). The vocative  indicates a direct address to someone. The above expression is for the singular case, i.e. if you want one person to look at you. If you want a plurality of individuals to look at you, then the plural person is required:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;attendite me!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7068" RevisionGUID="b04eac1e-b94f-46b4-aa91-3cdf43be1a03" CreationDate="2018-08-23T18:32:56.710" UserId="1459" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="In the context of being a person that is ignored by others, how would you say &quot;see me&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23738" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7068" RevisionGUID="b04eac1e-b94f-46b4-aa91-3cdf43be1a03" CreationDate="2018-08-23T18:32:56.710" UserId="1459" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7071" RevisionGUID="bd84dc69-abf4-4117-8254-7749a52ff72f" CreationDate="2018-08-23T18:46:09.173" UserId="1459" Comment="added 393 characters in body" Text="If you want to say &quot;look at me&quot; in the context of &quot;hey, please, look at me now!&quot;, then one option would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;attende me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the [imperative mood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_mood#Latin) of the verb [attendere](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/attendo#Latin). The above expression is for the singular case, i.e. if you want one person to look at you. If you want a plurality of individuals to look at you, then the plural person is required:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;attendite me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe, if you want to stress the fact that the person is being ignored, as you suggest, you could say something like &quot;do not ignore me!&quot;. In that case, you could use words like [_oblīviscere_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/obliviscor#Latin), [_ignora_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ignoro#Latin), or [praeteri](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/praetereo#Latin) (all this in singular), in the following way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;nec ignora me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7071" RevisionGUID="6d4e9a25-b05f-4711-99d6-40160964869d" CreationDate="2018-08-24T07:57:12.537" UserId="1459" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="If you want to say &quot;look at me&quot; in the context of &quot;hey, please, look at me now!&quot;, then one option would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;attende me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the [imperative mood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_mood#Latin) of the verb [attendere](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/attendo#Latin). The above expression is for the singular case, i.e. if you want one person to look at you. If you want a plurality of individuals to look at you, then the plural person is required:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;attendite me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe, if you want to stress the fact that the person is being ignored, as you suggest, you could say something like &quot;do not ignore me!&quot;. In that case, you could use words like [_neglege_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/neglego#Latin), [_oblīviscere_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/obliviscor#Latin), [_ignora_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ignoro#Latin), or [praeteri](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/praetereo#Latin) (all this in singular), in the following way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ne neglege me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7073" RevisionGUID="8edb83ed-359a-408e-9554-30a49ad84d30" CreationDate="2018-08-24T16:17:51.603" UserId="2865" Text="First question here!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took a Latin course a few years ago, and now I'm trying my hand for a friend's tattoo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my translation of the title correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English: Out of my death, new life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin attempt: Ex mei mortis novae vitae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any answers!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23743" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7073" RevisionGUID="8edb83ed-359a-408e-9554-30a49ad84d30" CreationDate="2018-08-24T16:17:51.603" UserId="2865" Text="Out of my death, new life" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23744" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7073" RevisionGUID="8edb83ed-359a-408e-9554-30a49ad84d30" CreationDate="2018-08-24T16:17:51.603" UserId="2865" Text="|translation|declension|motto|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7074" RevisionGUID="1c3a5b15-efdc-42d3-8484-414e0d5c45da" CreationDate="2018-08-24T16:51:26.227" UserId="406" Text="Your initial version is quite good! There are just a few case errors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ex* (or *ē* if you prefer) takes the ablative case, which here would be *morte meā*. And the &quot;new life&quot; should be in the nominative case: *vīta nova*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not entirely sure whether the Romans would say &quot;my death&quot; (*mors mea*, ablative *morte meā*) or &quot;the death of me&quot; (*mors meī*, ablative *morte meī*). But the idiom *morte suā morī* &quot;to die one's own death&quot; (i.e, die of natural causes) makes me think *mea*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a full sentence, you can also add the word *venit* &quot;…comes&quot; at the end, but this isn't necessary for a short saying or epigram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, my version would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ex/ē morte meā, vīta nova [venit].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately there aren't quite enough syllables to rearrange into a hexameter line, or even a pentameter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nouns and adjectives can be freely rearranged; I prefer to have each adjective following its respective noun, but especially in poetry you can mix up the words as much as you like (so long as *ex/ē* comes before *morte*) and it'll still be understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, [the choice between *ex* and *ē* is purely stylistic][1], as is the decision to include or leave off the macrons (marks over long vowels). I prefer *ex* and including macrons, but that's nothing more than a personal preference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2431/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7073" RevisionGUID="a3eaf87c-7d41-46c8-8b86-c08d4c1be468" CreationDate="2018-08-24T16:55:26.777" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 47 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I took a Latin course a few years ago, and now I'm trying my hand for a friend's tattoo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my translation of the title correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English: Out of my death, new life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin attempt: _Ex mei mortis novae vitae_.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23747" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7073" RevisionGUID="a3eaf87c-7d41-46c8-8b86-c08d4c1be468" CreationDate="2018-08-24T16:55:26.777" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 47 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|declension|motto|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7075" RevisionGUID="9090d9da-7b91-4d5a-b080-51bd603ad8a0" CreationDate="2018-08-24T17:02:57.650" UserId="406" Text="If I wanted to talk about &quot;the death of Caesar&quot;, I wouldn't think twice about using the genitive (*mors Caesaris*). But if you asked me what sort of genitive this is—possessive, partitive, or objective—I wouldn't be able to tell you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These distinctions seldom actually matter in practice, but there's one important case when they do: [with personal pronouns][1]. The possessive genitive uses the form *meus/tuus -a -um*, while all other genitives use the form *meī/tuī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, would &quot;my death&quot; be *mors mea*, or *mors meī*? Equivalently, would &quot;your death&quot; be *mors tua*, or *mors tuī*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This came up in [the translation of a tattoo][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1306/when-to-use-a-genitive-pronoun-instead-of-a-possessive-adjective&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7073/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23749" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7075" RevisionGUID="9090d9da-7b91-4d5a-b080-51bd603ad8a0" CreationDate="2018-08-24T17:02:57.650" UserId="406" Text="Mors mea or mors meī?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23750" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7075" RevisionGUID="9090d9da-7b91-4d5a-b080-51bd603ad8a0" CreationDate="2018-08-24T17:02:57.650" UserId="406" Text="|pronouns|genitive|possessive-pronouns|personal-pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7071" RevisionGUID="0d919931-3dbf-419b-966c-5c691c84c6b2" CreationDate="2018-08-24T17:05:28.447" UserId="1459" Comment="added 187 characters in body" Text="If you want to say &quot;look at me&quot; in the context of &quot;hey, please, look at me now!&quot;, then one option would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;attende me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the [imperative mood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_mood#Latin) of the verb [attendere](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/attendo#Latin). The above expression is for the singular case, i.e. if you want one person to look at you. If you want a plurality of individuals to look at you, then the plural person is required:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;attendite me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe, if you want to stress the fact that the person is being ignored, as you suggest, you could say something like &quot;do not ignore me!&quot;. In that case, you could use verbs like [_neglegere_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/neglego#Latin), [_oblivisci_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/obliviscor#Latin), [_ignorare_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ignoro#Latin), or [_praeterire_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/praetereo#Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following several comments below, two options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ne + subjuntive &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(taking care of number, i.e. singular or plural) and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; noli + infinitive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(_nolite_ if plural)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ne neglegas me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;noli neglegere me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7074" RevisionGUID="51ae71ef-7ad1-4372-b767-afc98160abf2" CreationDate="2018-08-24T17:05:37.550" UserId="406" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="Your initial version is quite good! There are just a few case errors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ex* (or *ē* if you prefer) takes the ablative case, which here would be *morte meā*. And the &quot;new life&quot; should be in the nominative case: *vīta nova*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not entirely sure whether the Romans would say &quot;my death&quot; (*mors mea*, ablative *morte meā*) or &quot;the death of me&quot; (*mors meī*, ablative *morte meī*). But the idiom *morte suā morī* &quot;to die one's own death&quot; (i.e, die of natural causes) makes me think *mea*. [I asked a new question][1] to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a full sentence, you can also add the word *venit* &quot;…comes&quot; at the end, but this isn't necessary for a short saying or epigram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, my version would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ex/ē morte meā, vīta nova [venit].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately there aren't quite enough syllables to rearrange into a hexameter line, or even a pentameter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nouns and adjectives can be freely rearranged; I prefer to have each adjective following its respective noun, but especially in poetry you can mix up the words as much as you like (so long as *ex/ē* comes before *morte*) and it'll still be understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, [the choice between *ex* and *ē* is purely stylistic][2], as is the decision to include or leave off the macrons (marks over long vowels). I prefer *ex* and including macrons, but that's nothing more than a personal preference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7075/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2431/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7076" RevisionGUID="48950a69-2a0a-4712-9021-5b8af3f6f0d8" CreationDate="2018-08-24T17:18:53.087" UserId="985" Text="Another use of the genitive that you've left out is subjective genitive, which is what this is. These are discussed in, e.g., Gildersleeve and Lodge, *Latin grammar* §363. Allen and Greenough, *New Latin grammar* §243, Note 1 treats them, not unreasonably, as a species of possessive genitive (where what is 'owned' is an action or state of being).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Death implies the action of dying, and Caesar is the one who performs that action here; he's like the subject. For the personal pronouns (1st person, 2nd person, and 3rd person reflexive), subjective relations, like possessive relations, use the possessive adjectives. So 'my death' = *mors mea*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7077" RevisionGUID="b96986a5-7768-40a4-ad17-e4d2f57831fc" CreationDate="2018-08-24T18:57:41.553" UserId="1459" Text="An unlearned but hopefully useful answer. Searching a large corpus of texts gives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _mors mea_: [5,780 hits](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=%22mors%20mea%22;a=srchls) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _mors mei_: [51 hits](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=%22mors%20mei%22;a=srchls;lmt=all)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _mors tua_: [15,701 hits](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=%22mors%20tua%22;a=srchls)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _mors tui_: [142 hits](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=%22mors%20tui%22;a=srchls)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _mors sua_: [2,604 hits](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=%22mors%20sua%22;a=srchls)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _mors sui_: [941 hits](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=%22mors%20sui%22;a=srchls)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might provide further support to cnread answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23755" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7073" RevisionGUID="3a170dff-463b-40a8-98d8-1e527b6a3e96" CreationDate="2018-08-24T19:52:07.077" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|declension|motto|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23756" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7073" RevisionGUID="e6d034c2-b212-4d05-86ef-f3597b9c6e77" CreationDate="2018-08-24T21:48:45.660" UserId="30" Comment="edited title" Text="Translation: Out of my death, new life" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7078" RevisionGUID="4cf44784-3558-403f-bc04-4ee0b7ea0b4a" CreationDate="2018-08-25T05:11:56.023" UserId="2868" Text="Trying to verify that the Latin &quot;Una Antem Lux in Via&quot; actually means &quot;United we light the Way&quot;... not sure where the person got it from, but I have my doubts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23760" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7078" RevisionGUID="4cf44784-3558-403f-bc04-4ee0b7ea0b4a" CreationDate="2018-08-25T05:11:56.023" UserId="2868" Text="Company slogan Latin Check" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23761" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7078" RevisionGUID="4cf44784-3558-403f-bc04-4ee0b7ea0b4a" CreationDate="2018-08-25T05:11:56.023" UserId="2868" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7077" RevisionGUID="a764e74b-4f41-4565-aa87-0a508e74c1c0" CreationDate="2018-08-25T07:51:24.467" UserId="1459" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="An unlearned but hopefully useful answer. Searching a large corpus of texts gives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _mors mea_: [2,612 hits](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=%22mors%20mea%22;a=srchls) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _mors mei_: [26 hits](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=%22mors%20mei%22;a=srchls;lmt=all&amp;facet=language008_full:%22Latin%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _mors tua_: [4,821 hits](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=%22mors%20tua%22;a=srchls&amp;facet=language008_full:%22Latin%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _mors tui_: [80 hits](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=%22mors%20tui%22;a=srchls&amp;facet=language008_full:%22Latin%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _mors sua_: [969 hits](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=%22mors%20sua%22;a=srchls&amp;facet=language008_full:%22Latin%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _mors sui_: [49 hits](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=%22mors%20sui%22;a=srchls&amp;facet=language008_full:%22Latin%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might provide further support to cnread's answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7079" RevisionGUID="4807c8a2-6f0e-4a46-b3a6-f429fe2ee8cb" CreationDate="2018-08-25T08:07:56.107" UserId="1459" Text="I would think it is wrong. _Antem_ does not seem to be a Latin word (e.g. empty results [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/antem) and [here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=exact&amp;lookup=antem&amp;lang=la)). Also, _lux_ is a noun, not a verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say &quot;united we light the way&quot;, you could use instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; una luminamus viam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; una elucidamus viam&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7078" RevisionGUID="df377fa8-ba81-494e-9fdc-79f2ad331b11" CreationDate="2018-08-25T08:08:12.640" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Trying to verify that the Latin &quot;_Una Antem Lux in Via_&quot; actually means &quot;United we light the Way&quot;... not sure where the person got it from, but I have my doubts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23765" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7078" RevisionGUID="df377fa8-ba81-494e-9fdc-79f2ad331b11" CreationDate="2018-08-25T08:08:12.640" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Is this translation of &quot;Una Antem Lux in Via&quot; correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23766" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7078" RevisionGUID="5a1589b7-7ccd-40f9-a804-3cdac40b1eaa" CreationDate="2018-08-25T08:14:56.397" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="Is this translation of &quot;United we light the Way&quot; correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7080" RevisionGUID="20f7a6e4-675f-4241-a491-67701052f575" CreationDate="2018-08-25T08:29:27.373" UserId="1459" Text="This is clearly a recent word, so there will not be a native one. But if we were to get the best proxy for it, how would one intend the meaning of it? _Virus_ is a native Latin word, but, [as far as I can see](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvirus) it does not mean virus in the biological sense (which is from where the properties of &quot;viral&quot; are derived, as far as I understand). The wikipedia entry for virus in Latin is titled [_virus biologicum_](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_biologicum). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several words for &quot;quickly&quot; which could be used for a combined term, e.g. _celeriter_, _rapidus_, _velox_. _Amplus_ is another interesting term, which [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amplus#Latin) suggests to mean &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. (figuratively, of force) impetuous, violent, strong&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But simply translating viral with _amplus_ seems not precise enough. Any ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23768" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7080" RevisionGUID="20f7a6e4-675f-4241-a491-67701052f575" CreationDate="2018-08-25T08:29:27.373" UserId="1459" Text="How to say &quot;viral&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23769" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7080" RevisionGUID="20f7a6e4-675f-4241-a491-67701052f575" CreationDate="2018-08-25T08:29:27.373" UserId="1459" Text="|vocabulary|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7081" RevisionGUID="e91ccf76-dd6d-40b8-8a6b-6932bda9afc8" CreationDate="2018-08-25T10:16:43.403" UserId="985" Text="What you've been given is most definitely *not* Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *servus praelucens* was a slave whose duty it was to light his master's way at night. Suetonius mentions (*Augustus* 29.3) an episode in which one of Augustus's was struck dead by lightning during a stormy night. The verb *praeluceo* means 'to light the way.' No separate word for 'way' is needed. Although it often indicates the person for whom one lights the way, it doesn't have to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For 'united,' there are several options – for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The adverb *una* means 'in one body, company, etc., together' and should work okay. &#xD;&#xA;- The verb *coniungo* can mean 'to join (parties of men) into a single force, unite (forces)' or 'to bring into close association, unite (by friendship, obligation, kinship, etc.). The unprefixed, simple verb *iungo* can have similar meanings: 'to unite (troops, etc.) in a body' or 'to unite or attach (persons) as friends, allies, or sim.' So the forms *iuncti* or *coniuncti* ('united into a single body') could also work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, three possibilities are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *una praelucemus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *coniuncti praelucemus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *iuncti praelucemus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or you could do something a bit freer, like *una face praelucemus* – literally, 'with a single torch we light the way.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7078" RevisionGUID="88b6e8ec-a5d7-4416-bcfa-7d0b7a4546e7" CreationDate="2018-08-25T12:42:53.153" UserId="2868" Comment="edited body" Text="Trying to verify that the Latin &quot;_Una Autem Lux En Via_&quot; actually means &quot;United we light the Way&quot;... not sure where the person got it from, but I have my doubts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7082" RevisionGUID="36f3b7ea-b4b3-40af-a5ca-8ac8706901c8" CreationDate="2018-08-25T18:02:28.477" UserId="522" Text="The Key word here is ***En,*** which means Look! Behold!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *En Priamus,*  'Hey, there's Priam'  Vergil&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;En is sometimes followed by Accusative, sometimes, as in the example from the Aeneid, Nominative. *&quot;En Via&quot;* means 'Behold the road, the path, the way.!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Una autem lux* means 'There is truly One Light;'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin often leaves out 'There is,' 'There are.'  &#xD;&#xA;If you 'google' *Una autem Lux,*' you'll get at least three hits; it is assumed that you know what this 'Light' is, in the examples shown.  &#xD;&#xA;*Autem,* always goes second word.  It usually introduces a contrast; here it is simply emphatic. Cicero uses it in this way, 'truly, indeed.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;***&quot;Una Autem Lux En Via&quot;***''There is truly One Light; Behold the Path.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if, by any chance, ***En*** is a misprint for ***In,*** then *Via* becomes Ablative; and we can lose the **';'**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;***&quot;Una Autem Lux In Via&quot;***''There is truly One Light upon the Path.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23773" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6919" RevisionGUID="cd9fd67a-fc57-4b89-abd9-be7e51bed28c" CreationDate="2018-08-25T20:02:04.490" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7070" RevisionGUID="6e372be5-c0ac-45ed-8931-54cdd1f5fcaa" CreationDate="2018-08-25T20:17:23.157" UserId="406" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="The noun *foedus* originally (by which I mean late Proto-Italic going into early Latin) looked something like *foidos-*. Note that that's the stem, with no ending attached. The third-declension endings were then added onto this. (I'm only showing the nominative, genitive, and ablative, but you can extrapolate the rest.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foidos-∅&#xD;&#xA;    foidos-is (from earlier foidos-es)&#xD;&#xA;    foidos-e&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the nominative ending for neuter third-declension nouns is ∅ (that is, nothing at all). Then *rhotacism* applied, changing S between vowels to R.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foidos&#xD;&#xA;    foidoris&#xD;&#xA;    foidore&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another process turned all short vowels in medial open syllables (i.e. vowels in the middle of a word and not before two consonants) into *i*. [But Latin didn't like *ir*, so this sequence became *er*.][1] Alternately, the vowel in these forms might already have been *e*, due to Proto-Indo-European ablaut; I don't know enough about Proto-Indo-European to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foidos&#xD;&#xA;    foideris&#xD;&#xA;    foidere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, short *o* in the last syllable of a word turned into *u*, *oi* was respelled *oe*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foedus&#xD;&#xA;    foederis&#xD;&#xA;    foedere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This led to the noun forms you're familiar with in Classical times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective *foedus* came from a different source: its stem was actually *foid-* instead of *foidos-*, and the standard first/second endings were tacked onto this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1908/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7070" RevisionGUID="51b6ef24-3eef-4240-b439-0c5517221379" CreationDate="2018-08-26T01:41:53.393" UserId="406" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="The noun *foedus* originally (by which I mean late Proto-Italic going into early Latin) looked something like *foidos-*. Note that that's the stem, with no ending attached. The third-declension endings were then added onto this. (I'm only showing the nominative, genitive, and ablative, but you can extrapolate the rest.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foidos-∅&#xD;&#xA;    foidos-es&#xD;&#xA;    foidos-e&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the nominative ending for neuter third-declension nouns is ∅ (that is, nothing at all). Then *rhotacism* applied, changing S between vowels to R.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foidos&#xD;&#xA;    foidores&#xD;&#xA;    foidore&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another process turned all short vowels in medial open syllables (i.e. vowels in the middle of a word and not before two consonants) into *i*. [But Latin didn't like *ir*, so this sequence became *er*.][1] Alternately, the vowel in these forms might already have been *e*, due to Proto-Indo-European ablaut; I don't know enough about Proto-Indo-European to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foidos&#xD;&#xA;    foideres&#xD;&#xA;    foidere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, short *o* in the last syllable of a word turned into *u*, short *e* in closed final syllables turned into *i*, and *oi* was respelled *oe*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foedus&#xD;&#xA;    foederis&#xD;&#xA;    foedere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This led to the noun forms you're familiar with in Classical times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective *foedus* came from a different source: its stem was actually *foid-* instead of *foidos-*, and the standard first/second endings were tacked onto this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1908/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7082" RevisionGUID="3508e677-8b24-47b9-8d6d-04f2b3da59b8" CreationDate="2018-08-26T01:48:44.293" UserId="522" Comment="References, and editorial." Text="Aphorisms and Mottoes often condense (?constrict) Latin structure to its limits. All the same it makes sense, and with one edit is not far off your message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Key word here is ***En,*** which means Look! Behold!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *En Priamus,*  'Hey, there's Priam'  Vergil Aeneid 1, 461; et passim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;En is sometimes followed by Accusative, sometimes, as in the example from the Aeneid, Nominative.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***En Via*** means 'Behold the road!'  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or 'Behold the path, the way, the method!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Una autem lux*** means 'There is truly One Light;' or 'One truly is the light.' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin often leaves out 'There is,' 'There are.'  &#xD;&#xA;If you 'google' *Una autem Lux,*' you'll get at least three hits; it is assumed that you know what this 'Light' is, in the examples shown.  &#xD;&#xA;*Autem,* always goes second word.  It usually introduces a contrast; here it is simply emphatic. As inCicero: “Ecce autem subitum divortium,” Cic. Clu. 5, 14; ([see Autem 9.][1])'truly, indeed.' (ref: perseus.tufts Lewis &amp; Short)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;***&quot;Una Autem Lux En Via&quot;***''There is truly One Light; Behold the Path.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if, by any chance, ***En*** is a misprint for ***In,*** then *Via* becomes Ablative; and we can lose the **';'**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;***&quot;Una Autem Lux In Via&quot;***''There is truly One Light upon the Path.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DA%3Aentry%20group%3D93%3Aentry%3Dautem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7083" RevisionGUID="b39a6ed0-fd78-499b-b076-b013a1c85154" CreationDate="2018-08-26T02:36:10.287" UserId="522" Text="If you want to suggest that the rumour/ message / fashion has a mind of its own then *Amplus* sounds good. You might also check up on *Pernix,* and *Percitus.* All suggest 'eagerness.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, there are intensifiers which can be added to words for 'speedy,' *celer;* 'speedily,' *celeriter;* 'speed,' *celeritas,* gen. *celeritatis.*  &#xD;&#xA;*perceler,*   &#xD;&#xA;*praevelox,*  &#xD;&#xA;*praerapidus.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Rumor* itself comes from *ruo, ruere,* to rush.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7083" RevisionGUID="6ee2a26e-67cd-4329-8bec-0892a0687870" CreationDate="2018-08-26T03:00:34.967" UserId="522" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="If you want to suggest that the rumour/ message / fashion has a mind of its own then *Amplus* sounds good. You might also check up on *Pernix,* (spelling:PERNIX not PEMIX) and *Percitus.* All suggest 'eagerness.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, there are intensifiers which can be added to words for 'speedy,' *celer;* 'speedily,' *celeriter;* 'speed,' *celeritas,* gen. *celeritatis.*  &#xD;&#xA;*perceler,*   &#xD;&#xA;*praevelox,*  &#xD;&#xA;*praerapidus.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Rumor* itself comes from *ruo, ruere,* to rush.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7080" RevisionGUID="a4131c17-481a-4561-9215-ad78f16be594" CreationDate="2018-08-26T10:13:53.747" UserId="1459" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="Consider the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The video went viral&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How could the concept of &quot;[viral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_phenomenon)&quot; in the above meaning be expressed in Latin? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is clearly a recent word, so there will not be a native one. _Virus_ is a native Latin word, but, [as far as I can see](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvirus) it does not mean virus in the biological sense (which is from where the properties of &quot;viral&quot; are derived, as far as I understand). The wikipedia entry for virus in Latin is titled [_virus biologicum_](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_biologicum). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several words for &quot;quickly&quot; which could be used for a combined term, e.g. _celeriter_, _rapidus_, _velox_. _Amplus_ is another interesting term, which [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amplus#Latin) suggests to mean &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. (figuratively, of force) impetuous, violent, strong&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But simply translating viral with _amplus_ seems not precise enough. Any ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7084" RevisionGUID="8686389d-0674-4d77-8985-0ee2ae1f3019" CreationDate="2018-08-26T14:55:36.727" UserId="2871" Text="Would “mane spiritum” / “mane anima” translate accurately to morning breath please? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am very new to Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be very grateful for any help moving forwards please as there are a number of short phrases I would like to translate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23782" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7084" RevisionGUID="8686389d-0674-4d77-8985-0ee2ae1f3019" CreationDate="2018-08-26T14:55:36.727" UserId="2871" Text="Mane spiritum/mane anima?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23783" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7084" RevisionGUID="8686389d-0674-4d77-8985-0ee2ae1f3019" CreationDate="2018-08-26T14:55:36.727" UserId="2871" Text="|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23784" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7084" RevisionGUID="e72e4eef-e913-4499-8d46-1a7b120c7b7b" CreationDate="2018-08-26T15:01:52.320" UserId="2871" Comment="Addition of tags" Text="|vocabulary|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7084" RevisionGUID="56e5ade5-d412-45ee-ab6f-d77b36df5300" CreationDate="2018-08-26T15:22:19.153" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Would “_mane spiritum_” / “_mane anima_” translate accurately to morning breath please? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am very new to Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be very grateful for any help moving forwards please as there are a number of short phrases I would like to translate. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23786" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7084" RevisionGUID="56e5ade5-d412-45ee-ab6f-d77b36df5300" CreationDate="2018-08-26T15:22:19.153" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How to transate &quot;morning breath&quot; into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23787" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7084" RevisionGUID="56e5ade5-d412-45ee-ab6f-d77b36df5300" CreationDate="2018-08-26T15:22:19.153" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7085" RevisionGUID="b430219c-5841-4889-8368-d9ea09ab7e7f" CreationDate="2018-08-26T15:32:53.723" UserId="1459" Text="The nominative of &quot;breath&quot; is _spiritus_. _Spiritum_ is the accusative mode. &#xD;&#xA;So if we were to understand &quot;morning breath&quot; as &quot;breath of the morning&quot;, then a more appropriate translation would be _spiritus manis_. _Anima_ is also possible, as in _anima manis_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7085" RevisionGUID="e9c95ddd-2ff7-4982-a52c-32c9325e72df" CreationDate="2018-08-26T15:34:53.963" UserId="136" Comment="slightly altered terminology" Text="The nominative of &quot;breath&quot; is _spiritus_. _Spiritum_ is in the accusative case. &#xD;&#xA;So if we were to understand &quot;morning breath&quot; as &quot;breath of the morning&quot;, then a more appropriate translation would be _spiritus manis_. _Anima_ is also possible, as in _anima manis_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7085" RevisionGUID="6c237aa4-6b50-4580-886e-c519e8bcc5d5" CreationDate="2018-08-26T15:38:27.787" UserId="1459" Comment="added 165 characters in body" Text="The nominative of &quot;breath&quot; is _spiritus_. _Spiritum_ is in the accusative case. &#xD;&#xA;So if we were to understand &quot;morning breath&quot; as &quot;breath of the morning&quot;, then a more appropriate translation would be _spiritus manis_. _Anima_ is also possible, as in _anima manis_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Less figuratively words for breath are _[halitus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/halitus#Latin)_ and _[anhelitus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anhelitus#Latin)_. These two derive in Spanish words which mean breath (as in e.g. bad breath).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7085" RevisionGUID="8ac45936-36a0-42dd-99c2-7294ec539eb6" CreationDate="2018-08-26T16:49:53.680" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The nominative of &quot;breath&quot; is _spiritus_. _Spiritum_ is in the accusative case. &#xD;&#xA;So if we were to understand &quot;morning breath&quot; as &quot;breath of the morning&quot;, then a more appropriate translation would be _spiritus mane_. _Anima_ is also possible, as in _anima mane_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Less figuratively words for breath are _[halitus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/halitus#Latin)_ and _[anhelitus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anhelitus#Latin)_. These two derive in Spanish words which mean breath (as in e.g. bad breath).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7077" RevisionGUID="680efb65-a585-479d-b136-6aec5998136b" CreationDate="2018-08-26T17:28:05.383" UserId="1459" Comment="added 411 characters in body" Text="An unlearned but hopefully useful answer. Searching a large corpus of texts gives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _mors mea_: [2,612 hits](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=%22mors%20mea%22;a=srchls) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _mors mei_: [26 hits](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=%22mors%20mei%22;a=srchls;lmt=all&amp;facet=language008_full:%22Latin%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _mors tua_: [4,821 hits](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=%22mors%20tua%22;a=srchls&amp;facet=language008_full:%22Latin%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _mors tui_: [80 hits](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=%22mors%20tui%22;a=srchls&amp;facet=language008_full:%22Latin%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _mors sua_: [969 hits](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=%22mors%20sua%22;a=srchls&amp;facet=language008_full:%22Latin%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _mors sui_: [49 hits](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=%22mors%20sui%22;a=srchls&amp;facet=language008_full:%22Latin%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As brianpck pointed out in the comments, the low number of hits for the _mei_ and related cases does not necessarily mean that this is a valid case. As he points out, these two words could appear in a different grammatical sense, e.g. with _mei_ being an adjective and not a pronoun, which is the sole interest of the question. I'm still of the opinion that the dramatic difference in occurrence is helpful as supportive evidence to cnread's answer (and not alone)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7086" RevisionGUID="3a7ed1b5-1156-487b-9a49-1d4914015ead" CreationDate="2018-08-26T19:10:18.057" UserId="2872" Text="The Battle of Aquae Sextiae is the site where the Teutones and Ambrones were defeated by the Romans under Gaius Marius in 102 BC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this place name in English? It is located in modern-day southern France." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23794" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7086" RevisionGUID="3a7ed1b5-1156-487b-9a49-1d4914015ead" CreationDate="2018-08-26T19:10:18.057" UserId="2872" Text="Meaning of Aquae Sextiae" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23795" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7086" RevisionGUID="3a7ed1b5-1156-487b-9a49-1d4914015ead" CreationDate="2018-08-26T19:10:18.057" UserId="2872" Text="|vocabulary|place-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7087" RevisionGUID="e1c309ca-0199-4589-a313-df90f7a4fe66" CreationDate="2018-08-26T19:39:10.543" UserId="1694" Text="I believe its modern name is Aix-en-Provence, the original name meaning &quot;the waters of Sextius [Calvinus]&quot;.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7088" RevisionGUID="d332de80-190c-4ac2-a88c-cc2533b9a0a0" CreationDate="2018-08-26T19:45:31.383" UserId="985" Text="In *Naturalis historia* 28.194, Pliny the Elder gives, as a remedy for bad breath and other lung-related issues, a decoction of butter and an equal amount of Attic honey or larch resin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; purulentas autem exulcerationes pectoris pulmonisque et a pulmone graveolentiam halituss butyrum efficacissime iuvat cum pari modo mellis Attici decoctum, donec rufescat, et matutinis sumptum ad mensuram lingulae; quidam pro melle laricis resinam addere maluere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relevant phrase is *graveolentia hālitūs ā pulmōne*, 'offensive smell of the breath from the lung'; this could be simplified to ***graveolentia hālitūs***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Ars amatoria* 1.521, Ovid advises would-be lovers to watch out for bad breath:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nec male odorati sit tristis anhelitus oris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 'bad breath' here is *tristis anhēlitus male odōrātī ōris*, 'the repulsive breath of a malodorous mouth.' Since the *Oxford Latin dictionary* indicates that *anhēlitus* by itself  means 'malodorous breath,' you could simplify this to ***anhēlitus ōris*** or even just ***anhēlitus***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For 'morning,' you want an *adjective* that means 'of or belonging to the morning,' such as ***mātūtīnus***. (Note that *māne*, which you've used, is an adverb or a noun, not an adjective.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 'morning breath' could be ***mātūtīna graveolentia hālitūs***, 'morning-time offensive smell of the breath' or ***mātūtīnus anhēlitus*** (***ōris***), 'morning time malodorous breath (of the mouth).' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could even 'transfer' the adjectives in each phrase, giving ***graveolentia mātūtīnī hālitūs*** and ***anhēlitus mātūtīnī ōris*** (in this case, though, the word *ōris* can't be omitted).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7089" RevisionGUID="c24d622c-6f17-4785-a4d3-8f48c6a9b7a2" CreationDate="2018-08-26T22:29:28.997" UserId="13" Text="OK, so this question is perhaps somewhat weird, but I have no idea where to start, so here I am. Let me give some introduction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Me, languages, and Greek#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's start very far back. As [my blog](https://michelegorini.blogspot.com) illustrates, I like fiddling with languages. At high school, I had Latin classes, but in my high school there were different curricula, one of which, called &quot;Classical Lyceum&quot;, featured Ancient Greek, so I decided to pick my mother's grammar up and start on Ancient Greek. Year 1, textbook Greek translation into Latin. Year 2: Latin author excerpts from my textbook, translation to Greek. Summer of year 2: authors. And that summer, an appendix on dialects popped up, so I thought, &quot;I wanna be able to understand any dialect&quot;, and selected texts for that. The appendix had Homeric, Herodotian (if that is the English of _Erodoteo_), Aeolic, Doric. Since Homeric essentially seemed like a weirder version of Herodotian, I decided to gobble up tons of Herodotus, and then some Homer. Summer ended, and only two passages of the Iliad were translated. March or May of year 3, OK, I've done enough Homer, time for Aeolic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The time of Sappho#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who wrote in Aeolic? Sappho and Alcaeus, that I know of. Pick something from both? Nah, just choose one and pull all the texts from Greek Wikisource, ready to translate. The choice fell on Sappho, and I went on to discover how my assumption on the easiness of getting the texts was complete and utter bull… err, tauricopria. My blog illustrates that very well. While researching Sappho, I came across a number of sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#safopoemas.doc#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of those was [a document](http://www.b3ta.cr3ation.co.uk/data/doc/safopoemas.doc), I mean a Word document, called _safopoemas.doc_. I have already mentioned this document [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4604/sappho-94-the-spaniards-completion). The document is now no longer available. It [resurfaced](http://ftp.utalca.cl/intercambio/plataforma/lgc/Dani/Libros/Para%20imprimir/Poemas_completos_Safo.pdf) some time ago as a pdf, but my Firefox blocks it as harmful, so I don't even know if it's there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the contents of this document were &quot;reminiscent of a Spanish edition of Sappho&quot;. I use quotes because I can't tell if this was what was published, or if a lousy OCR had something to do with this. I sure hope at least the horrid corruptions were an OCR's fault, otherwise the team who directed this should never have started. The horrors of this document are beyond description. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's not just the weirdest of typos, like παΤ for παῖ or ϊγω for ἔγω or words that aren't even recognizable, oh no.&#xD;&#xA; - The line breaking is horribly skewed, a fact I originally attributed&#xD;&#xA;   to better matching the Spanish _verso libre_ translation, which was&#xD;&#xA;   bad per se, because if it's libre it should have been fitted to the&#xD;&#xA;   Greek, but then I saw an example where the line breaking was wrong in&#xD;&#xA;   the Greek but the Spanish matched the correct line breaking.&#xD;&#xA; - In some places, the lines are even scrambled!&#xD;&#xA; - There is even a fragment in _two distinct numbers_, precisely 73 and 159!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, that horror actually gave some interesting restorations, as [that post I linked to before](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4604/sappho-94-the-spaniards-completion) exemplifies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Striving for completeness on the blog#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fast forward a number of years, fifth year of university, I open my blog, and Sappho starts to go up on it. Fast forward another year, and I am preparing &quot;The rest of Sappho&quot;. To be sure I have anything that any of my sources attributes to Sappho, I start readying a huge comparative numbering table between them all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the sources is safopoemas, so I give it a first pass, and locate all but 14 fragments on Lobel-Page. In the meantime, I realize that fragments 40 and 88 are actually collections of P.Oxy. 1231 and P.Oxy. 1787 fragments respectively, each fragment being started by its number and ended by ||, with the line breaks all gone in the Greek. That number &quot;14&quot; accounts for that as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I give those 14 a second pass. Of those that aren't papyrus fragments omitted by Lobel-Page, of which there are about 8, I identify, by locating them in other sources, all but one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The mystery fragment#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fragment 207 reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ώράνα· χελ^όνων όροφή&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and is translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;. . .la hermosa golondrina, en el tejado. . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;…the beautiful swallow, in the tiled roof…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have figured out that `ὀροφή` means &quot;roof&quot;, so it matches &quot;tejado&quot;. I would assume it should be `ἐν ὀροφῇ`, &quot;in the roof&quot;, and then we have three short syllables and a non-Aeolic form, so we would need `ἐν δ' ὀρόφᾳ` if this was Sappho, which would make it Ionic a minore or a maiore in meter. `χελ^όνων` may be a corruption of `χελίδων`, &quot;swallow&quot;, which would require three syllables to be lost after it to fit the meter, so `χελίδων uu– ἐν δ' ὀρόφᾳ`. `ώράνα` doesn't match the translation at all, however. `Hermosa` from the translation could be integrated in the lacuna getting `χελίδων u κάλα ἐν δ' ὀρόφᾳ`, and the missing syllable could be γε, to intensify κάλα (maybe). Amending the last Greek word we could reconstruct `ὄρραννα χελίδων γε κάλα ἐν δ' ὀρόφᾳ u–x`, a ionic a maiore tetrameter. Of course, this all supposes this is Sappho. If this were another author, we could just write… um, ὠράνα with an omega seems to have to be Aeolic, so maybe a gloss? `ὠράνα· χελίδὼν ἐν ὀροφῇ`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Can anyone identify this fragment and/or provide a source for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#PS#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you're wondering, after over a year and a half of struggling with Sappho, I decided to leave Doric alone and proceed with Chinese and Japanese at the end of August of year 4 :)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23799" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7089" RevisionGUID="c24d622c-6f17-4785-a4d3-8f48c6a9b7a2" CreationDate="2018-08-26T22:29:28.997" UserId="13" Text="Identifying corrupted Sappho fragment or mention of Sappho found in now-no-longer-online Spanish edition of Sappho" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23800" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7089" RevisionGUID="c24d622c-6f17-4785-a4d3-8f48c6a9b7a2" CreationDate="2018-08-26T22:29:28.997" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|passage-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7090" RevisionGUID="49452842-e24c-4d7e-9a28-6874fb0b413a" CreationDate="2018-08-27T05:37:41.260" UserId="2874" Text="I'm not only talking about names that existed during the classical period, but also the standard Latinization of modern European names; for example _hugo, hugonis_ is the standard medieval Latin rendering of &quot;Hugh&quot;; _ioannes, ioannis_ for &quot;John&quot;, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some reference where I can find these standard Latin versions of common names?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23802" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7090" RevisionGUID="49452842-e24c-4d7e-9a28-6874fb0b413a" CreationDate="2018-08-27T05:37:41.260" UserId="2874" Text="Is there a canonical list of Latinized names?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23803" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7090" RevisionGUID="49452842-e24c-4d7e-9a28-6874fb0b413a" CreationDate="2018-08-27T05:37:41.260" UserId="2874" Text="|vocabulary|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7091" RevisionGUID="30549841-0395-474c-aa4b-2a9b1b170f0e" CreationDate="2018-08-27T08:13:24.647" UserId="2704" Text="Hesychius ω 302.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ὦ ’ράνα χελίδων· ὀροφή &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Lobel &amp; Page, this is fr. 135&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;τί με Πανδίονις, Ὤιρανα, χελίδω ...; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;—based on a less corrupt transmission of the verse in Hephaestion: τί με Πανδιονὶς ὤραννα χελιδών &quot;Why, O Irene, lovely swallow, Pandion's child, dost thou [weary] me?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hesychius somehow thought the verse needed to be glossed as &quot;roof&quot;, or put &quot;roof&quot; as part of the verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The commentary in the latest edition of Hesychius is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in ὀροφή nonnulli censent verbum Sapphus latere (ὀροφαία Fick, ὀροφῇ Schm.); ἐν (cf. H) ὀροφῇ coni. M.L. West (&quot;grammaticus ὠράνα ab οὐρανός derivare conatus est&quot;); hanc esse veram derivationem censet Schwyzer IF 14, 1903, 27–8, i.e. ὠράνα: ὠρανός ut στεφάνη: στέφανος etc., et interpr. [ut iam HSt.] &quot;arundinum tectum&quot;, neque ad Sapph. refert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which I think means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Several scholars think the word &quot;roof&quot; goes back to Sappho (&quot;of the roof&quot; Fick, &quot;in the roof&quot; Schm.); M.L. West conjectured &quot;in the roof&quot;: &quot;the grammarian tried to derive ὠράνα from οὐρανός 'sky'&quot; [instead of &quot;O Irene&quot;]. Schwyzer, Indogermanische Forschungen 14 (1903): 27–8 thought this was the true derivation of the word, i.e.  ὠράνα: ὠρανός like στεφάνη: στέφανος, and interpreted it (as Henricus Stephanus had done) as &quot;roof of reeds&quot; [where a swallow would nest?], and not as referring to Sappho. [?]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7092" RevisionGUID="54f75ed2-8b05-472a-b95d-d4d00292b295" CreationDate="2018-08-27T08:25:44.643" UserId="1459" Text="I think English-Latin dictionaries are your best choice here. For instance, [this dictionary](https://archive.org/details/dictionaryenglis02ainsuoft) has 6 pages of &quot;Christian names&quot; (and some surnames) in Latin. Other examples are pages 311-2 of [this dictionary](https://archive.org/details/completeenglishl00ridd), and page 927 of [this one](https://archive.org/details/cassellslatindic00marc)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7092" RevisionGUID="83c48013-b6c6-493a-ba51-ef64e5abf329" CreationDate="2018-08-27T09:28:50.937" UserId="1459" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="I think English-Latin dictionaries are your best choice here. For instance, [this dictionary](https://archive.org/details/dictionaryenglis02ainsuoft) has 6 pages of &quot;Christian names&quot; (and some surnames) in Latin. Other examples are pages 311-2 of [this dictionary](https://archive.org/details/completeenglishl00ridd), and page 927 of [this one](https://archive.org/details/cassellslatindic00marc). There is also a [Wikipedia list](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_forms_of_English_given_names) (although it is sorted in Latin). Unfortunately this list has no references, so I would double check them with the lists above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23807" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7090" RevisionGUID="09f64cab-ed20-4820-820b-c390db2a6fde" CreationDate="2018-08-27T09:31:14.317" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|names|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7093" RevisionGUID="facd1df7-9652-4bc7-80a6-39bbb563eafa" CreationDate="2018-08-27T09:36:07.330" UserId="1459" Text="I am looking for the etymology of the Latin adjective &quot;_anterior_&quot; (which is also a Spanish word, with the same meaning). Neither [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anterior#Latin) nor [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=anterior) provide hints on its etymology. It seems intuitive to me that this word derives from the combination of &quot;_[ante](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ante#Latin)_&quot; and &quot;_[prior](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ante#Latin)_&quot;. The latter, in its adjective form is declined in the third declension, just as _anterior_ is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, is this the etymology of the word? In particular, in which sense would be _anterior_ the combination of the meanings of _ante_ and _prior_? For what I can see, _anterior_ more or less inherited without modification some of the meanings of these words (Wiktionary etymology 1 from [1 of adverb of _ante_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ante#Adverb_2), and etymology 2 from [1 of adjective of _prior_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prior#Adjective_2). But then why a new word? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23809" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7093" RevisionGUID="facd1df7-9652-4bc7-80a6-39bbb563eafa" CreationDate="2018-08-27T09:36:07.330" UserId="1459" Text="What is the etymology of the word &quot;anterior&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23810" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7093" RevisionGUID="facd1df7-9652-4bc7-80a6-39bbb563eafa" CreationDate="2018-08-27T09:36:07.330" UserId="1459" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7079" RevisionGUID="5c8016fb-8d2d-4ae2-8a43-705cbf60a87f" CreationDate="2018-08-27T09:39:45.113" UserId="1459" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="Update: my answer was based on a question with typos. My suggestion still remains though (any feedback welcome).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would think it is wrong. &lt;s&gt;_Antem_ does not seem to be a Latin word (e.g. empty results [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/antem) and [here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=exact&amp;lookup=antem&amp;lang=la)).&lt;/s&gt; Also, _lux_ is a noun, not a verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say &quot;united we light the way&quot;, you could use instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; una luminamus viam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; una elucidamus viam&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7094" RevisionGUID="439cb012-a8b5-46eb-8748-9192d48845bc" CreationDate="2018-08-27T09:46:37.343" UserId="13" Text="Story time continues. Hit post button. Fast forward 5ish-10ish minutes, and I think, &quot;Maybe this gloss is in the critical notes of some fragment? Perhaps the Pandionis one [Lobel-Page 135]?&quot;. Well, bedtime it was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fast forward 20ish minutes, and I'm like &quot;Ya dum-dum, why not just google ὠράνα?&quot;. And in the dead of night, around 1am, I pick up my mobile, turn it back on, painstakingly compose that word without a proper polytonic Greek keyboard (or any Greek keyboard at all), google… um, yeah, I don't want Modern Greek &quot;ώρα να&quot;, better wrap the query in double quotes… and I land on [this](http://heml.mta.ca/lace/sidebysideview2/917644), which I initially mistake for Bergk, but it is not. Let's read the critical note to precisely the fragment I had thought of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fr. 88. Hephaest. 66: Καὶ ὅλα fisv οὖν ᾄσματα γέγραπται ἰωνικὰ. . . . παρὰ Σαπφοῖ· τί με κτλ. — ὠ ῤ́αννα Is. Vossius, vulgo ὠράνα, E ὠραινα, Turn. in calce ὡραῖα. — χελιδὼν, Gaisford χελιδοῖ, fort. χέλιδὸν. Ceterum conf. Hesych.: Ὠράνα · χελιδόνων ὀροφή, fort. Ὤραννα χέλιδον · ὑπωροφία. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, Hesychius gloss then. Let's also pick up Lobel-Page (~2am by then). Suggestion: ὀροφαία to start l. 2. Hmm. This leaves me with questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. To amend, or not to amend?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Where is the mention of the roof in the first part of the gloss? I mean, ὠράνα has to come from ὤρανος &quot;sky&quot; somehow, right?&#xD;&#xA; 3. What the hell is up with that Spanish translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fast forward to next morning, with an answer to this question coming in. I find the gloss in Campbell too, not in Bergk, and I find out that Hasychius's work is a Lexicon called Συναγωγὴ πασῶν λέξεων κατὰ Στοιχεῖον, &quot;Collection of all words in Alphabetical Order&quot;, and the entry is just the quote, so the idea that &quot;hermosa&quot; could come from the neighborhood of the gloss is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also seems that the tradition is not concordant on this gloss, because I have seen like three different forms up till now, plus the link's proposed amendment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &lt;ὦ 'ράννα χελίδων&gt;· ὀροφή, from Greek Wikisource;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Ὠράνα · χελιδόνων ὀροφή, from the link;&#xD;&#xA; 3. ὦ ’ράνα χελίδων· ὀροφή, very similar to 1, in the answer here;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Ὤραννα χέλιδον · ὑπωροφία, the link's proposed amendment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the most likely form of the safopoemas fragment is number 2, with the translation just being bogus. Or perhaps that form but adopting M.L. West's conjecture mentioned in the other answer, making it ὠράνα· χελίδων ἐν ὀροφῇ, so that &quot;golondrina, en el tejado&quot; is found in the original, though again &quot;hermosa&quot; isn't, unless they went fantastically creative and read ὠράνα as &quot;beautiful&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7094" RevisionGUID="23473eb7-50a3-4fc3-979c-30d2d8bb968c" CreationDate="2018-08-27T13:33:00.763" UserId="13" Comment="added update and &quot;not so fast&quot;" Text="Story time continues. Hit post button. Fast forward 5ish-10ish minutes, and I think, &quot;Maybe this gloss is in the critical notes of some fragment? Perhaps the Pandionis one [Lobel-Page 135]?&quot;. Well, bedtime it was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fast forward 20ish minutes, and I'm like &quot;Ya dum-dum, why not just google ὠράνα?&quot;. And in the dead of night, around 1am, I pick up my mobile, turn it back on, painstakingly compose that word without a proper polytonic Greek keyboard (or any Greek keyboard at all), google… um, yeah, I don't want Modern Greek &quot;ώρα να&quot;, better wrap the query in double quotes… and I land on [this](http://heml.mta.ca/lace/sidebysideview2/917644), which I initially mistake for Bergk, but it is not. Let's read the critical note to precisely the fragment I had thought of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fr. 88. Hephaest. 66: Καὶ ὅλα fisv οὖν ᾄσματα γέγραπται ἰωνικὰ. . . . παρὰ Σαπφοῖ· τί με κτλ. — ὠ ῤ́αννα Is. Vossius, vulgo ὠράνα, E ὠραινα, Turn. in calce ὡραῖα. — χελιδὼν, Gaisford χελιδοῖ, fort. χέλιδὸν. Ceterum conf. Hesych.: Ὠράνα · χελιδόνων ὀροφή, fort. Ὤραννα χέλιδον · ὑπωροφία. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, Hesychius gloss then. Let's also pick up Lobel-Page (~2am by then). Suggestion: ὀροφαία to start l. 2. Hmm. This leaves me with questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. To amend, or not to amend?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Where is the mention of the roof in the first part of the gloss? I mean, ὠράνα has to come from ὤρανος &quot;sky&quot; somehow, right?&#xD;&#xA; 3. What the hell is up with that Spanish translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fast forward to next morning, with an answer to this question coming in. I find the gloss in Campbell too, not in Bergk, and I find out that Hasychius's work is a Lexicon called Συναγωγὴ πασῶν λέξεων κατὰ Στοιχεῖον, &quot;Collection of all words in Alphabetical Order&quot;, and the entry is just the quote, so the idea that &quot;hermosa&quot; could come from the neighborhood of the gloss is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also seems that the tradition is not concordant on this gloss, because I have seen like three different forms up till now, plus the link's proposed amendment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &lt;ὦ 'ράννα χελίδων&gt;· ὀροφή, from Greek Wikisource;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Ὠράνα · χελιδόνων ὀροφή, from the link;&#xD;&#xA; 3. ὦ ’ράνα χελίδων· ὀροφή, very similar to 1, in the answer here;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Ὤραννα χέλιδον · ὑπωροφία, the link's proposed amendment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the most likely form of the safopoemas fragment is number 2, with the translation just being bogus. Or perhaps that form but adopting M.L. West's conjecture mentioned in the other answer, making it ὠράνα· χελίδων ἐν ὀροφῇ, so that &quot;golondrina, en el tejado&quot; is found in the original, though again &quot;hermosa&quot; isn't, unless they went fantastically creative and read ὠράνα as &quot;beautiful&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting @NickNicholas's comments on this answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1) is the previous edition of Hesychius (1961?); (3) the new edition. [(2) is] The edition of Hesychius before that. From the app crit of the current edition: Ὠράνα χελιδόνων ὀροφή is in fact what is in the manuscript. So (2) is what is in the manuscript of Hesychius, (1) is (Schmidt's?) edition, and (3) is Hansen &amp; Cunningham's. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Spanish edition at hand is based on Reinach's _Alcée, Sapho, Texte établi et traduit par Théodore Reinach_, dating 1966, and itself dates 1982, so one would assume the 1961 was available to Reinach and that our Spanish edition would have text (1). Maybe they just decided to follow the manuscript, which was (I assume) reported in the _magnífico aparato crítico_ of Reinach?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The weird thing about this Spanish edition is that it makes it look like Reinach did not have the Ostrakon Florentinum at his disposal, which was published in 1937, as the [Idyll with Aphrodite](http://michelegorini.blogspot.it/2017/07/sappho-two-divine-epiphanies.html) fragment (Lobel-Page 2) on that ostrakon is present in the form of two quotations as found in Bergk and Edmonds, one quote being stanza 2, one being stanza 4 (last stanza), respectively from Hermogenes (Bergk 4 Edmonds 4) and from Athenaeus (Berg 6 Edmonds 6), whereas the Ostrakon text is among the _no recopilados_, that is the fragments not present in Reinach's edition, sitting at number 209. If Reinach didn't have the ostrakon, I would assume he established his text way before the publication, when the ostrakon wasn't well-known yet. I mean, Lobel-Page had the ostrakon, and it's a 1955 edition… So maybe Reinach actually had the manuscript text only, and the Spanish edition stuck to that. Maybe the date 1966 is actually a reprint?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at [this](https://philpapers.org/rec/SAS-2)! _Alcé, Sapho_, by Reinach and Puech, dated 1938! Seems the 1966 one was a reprint after all! So that 1938 one definitely had the older edition with the manuscript text, and the Spanish edition seems to have followed it. The question obviously is what the hell is going on with the translation which doesn't match that text. Time to date that M.L. West conjecture, I guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Not so fast**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh well, that was an article actually… but [this book](https://books.google.it/books?id=62XcuKxUrqQC&amp;pg=PA367&amp;lpg=PA367&amp;dq=reinach+Sapho&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=NkRdCCe7SS&amp;sig=h0iTsCBgs7Dj8msvlHyfVMaPHn0&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjxmqerrI3dAhWhyIUKHSBfDS4Q6AEwBHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=reinach%20Sapho&amp;f=false) has a biblio entry with a 1937 Reinach&amp;Puech _Alcée, Sapho_: would that be yet another article? The biblio doesn't give coordinates within a journal, if &quot;Les Belles Lettres&quot; is a journal, so I would assume this is an edition of Sappho and &quot;Les Belles Lettres&quot; is like &quot;Oxford University Press&quot;. Which means that edition definitely didn't have the ostrakon, and very likely only had the manuscript quote of the gloss at hand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7094" RevisionGUID="c57d46b0-9dfb-43a2-a35c-36ec928b7d36" CreationDate="2018-08-27T13:46:09.590" UserId="13" Comment="added French Wikipedia mention" Text="Story time continues. Hit post button. Fast forward 5ish-10ish minutes, and I think, &quot;Maybe this gloss is in the critical notes of some fragment? Perhaps the Pandionis one [Lobel-Page 135]?&quot;. Well, bedtime it was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fast forward 20ish minutes, and I'm like &quot;Ya dum-dum, why not just google ὠράνα?&quot;. And in the dead of night, around 1am, I pick up my mobile, turn it back on, painstakingly compose that word without a proper polytonic Greek keyboard (or any Greek keyboard at all), google… um, yeah, I don't want Modern Greek &quot;ώρα να&quot;, better wrap the query in double quotes… and I land on [this](http://heml.mta.ca/lace/sidebysideview2/917644), which I initially mistake for Bergk, but it is not. Let's read the critical note to precisely the fragment I had thought of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fr. 88. Hephaest. 66: Καὶ ὅλα fisv οὖν ᾄσματα γέγραπται ἰωνικὰ. . . . παρὰ Σαπφοῖ· τί με κτλ. — ὠ ῤ́αννα Is. Vossius, vulgo ὠράνα, E ὠραινα, Turn. in calce ὡραῖα. — χελιδὼν, Gaisford χελιδοῖ, fort. χέλιδὸν. Ceterum conf. Hesych.: Ὠράνα · χελιδόνων ὀροφή, fort. Ὤραννα χέλιδον · ὑπωροφία. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, Hesychius gloss then. Let's also pick up Lobel-Page (~2am by then). Suggestion: ὀροφαία to start l. 2. Hmm. This leaves me with questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. To amend, or not to amend?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Where is the mention of the roof in the first part of the gloss? I mean, ὠράνα has to come from ὤρανος &quot;sky&quot; somehow, right?&#xD;&#xA; 3. What the hell is up with that Spanish translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fast forward to next morning, with an answer to this question coming in. I find the gloss in Campbell too, not in Bergk, and I find out that Hasychius's work is a Lexicon called Συναγωγὴ πασῶν λέξεων κατὰ Στοιχεῖον, &quot;Collection of all words in Alphabetical Order&quot;, and the entry is just the quote, so the idea that &quot;hermosa&quot; could come from the neighborhood of the gloss is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also seems that the tradition is not concordant on this gloss, because I have seen like three different forms up till now, plus the link's proposed amendment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &lt;ὦ 'ράννα χελίδων&gt;· ὀροφή, from Greek Wikisource;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Ὠράνα · χελιδόνων ὀροφή, from the link;&#xD;&#xA; 3. ὦ ’ράνα χελίδων· ὀροφή, very similar to 1, in the answer here;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Ὤραννα χέλιδον · ὑπωροφία, the link's proposed amendment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the most likely form of the safopoemas fragment is number 2, with the translation just being bogus. Or perhaps that form but adopting M.L. West's conjecture mentioned in the other answer, making it ὠράνα· χελίδων ἐν ὀροφῇ, so that &quot;golondrina, en el tejado&quot; is found in the original, though again &quot;hermosa&quot; isn't, unless they went fantastically creative and read ὠράνα as &quot;beautiful&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting @NickNicholas's comments on this answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1) is the previous edition of Hesychius (1961?); (3) the new edition. [(2) is] The edition of Hesychius before that. From the app crit of the current edition: Ὠράνα χελιδόνων ὀροφή is in fact what is in the manuscript. So (2) is what is in the manuscript of Hesychius, (1) is (Schmidt's?) edition, and (3) is Hansen &amp; Cunningham's. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Spanish edition at hand is based on Reinach's _Alcée, Sapho, Texte établi et traduit par Théodore Reinach_, dating 1966, and itself dates 1982, so one would assume the 1961 was available to Reinach and that our Spanish edition would have text (1). Maybe they just decided to follow the manuscript, which was (I assume) reported in the _magnífico aparato crítico_ of Reinach?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The weird thing about this Spanish edition is that it makes it look like Reinach did not have the Ostrakon Florentinum at his disposal, which was published in 1937, as the [Idyll with Aphrodite](http://michelegorini.blogspot.it/2017/07/sappho-two-divine-epiphanies.html) fragment (Lobel-Page 2) on that ostrakon is present in the form of two quotations as found in Bergk and Edmonds, one quote being stanza 2, one being stanza 4 (last stanza), respectively from Hermogenes (Bergk 4 Edmonds 4) and from Athenaeus (Berg 6 Edmonds 6), whereas the Ostrakon text is among the _no recopilados_, that is the fragments not present in Reinach's edition, sitting at number 209. If Reinach didn't have the ostrakon, I would assume he established his text way before the publication, when the ostrakon wasn't well-known yet. I mean, Lobel-Page had the ostrakon, and it's a 1955 edition… So maybe Reinach actually had the manuscript text only, and the Spanish edition stuck to that. Maybe the date 1966 is actually a reprint?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at [this](https://philpapers.org/rec/SAS-2)! _Alcé, Sapho_, by Reinach and Puech, dated 1938! Seems the 1966 one was a reprint after all! So that 1938 one definitely had the older edition with the manuscript text, and the Spanish edition seems to have followed it. The question obviously is what the hell is going on with the translation which doesn't match that text. Time to date that M.L. West conjecture, I guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Not so fast**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh well, that was an article actually… but [this book](https://books.google.it/books?id=62XcuKxUrqQC&amp;pg=PA367&amp;lpg=PA367&amp;dq=reinach+Sapho&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=NkRdCCe7SS&amp;sig=h0iTsCBgs7Dj8msvlHyfVMaPHn0&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjxmqerrI3dAhWhyIUKHSBfDS4Q6AEwBHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=reinach%20Sapho&amp;f=false) has a biblio entry with a 1937 Reinach&amp;Puech _Alcée, Sapho_: would that be yet another article? The biblio doesn't give coordinates within a journal, if &quot;Les Belles Lettres&quot; is a journal, so I would assume this is an edition of Sappho and &quot;Les Belles Lettres&quot; is like &quot;Oxford University Press&quot;. Which means that edition definitely didn't have the ostrakon, and very likely only had the manuscript quote of the gloss at hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, [French Wikipedia](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sappho) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Alcée, Sapho_, texte établi et traduit par [Théodore Reinach](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9odore_Reinach), avec la collaboration d'Aimé Puech, Les Belles Lettres, Paris, 1937, rééd. 1981. Édition incomplète, de nouveaux textes ayant été retrouvés depuis sa publication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which proves my point. And adds a second reedition in 1981, the year before the Spanish one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7095" RevisionGUID="7ff9f5e2-427d-44f5-9e03-948431e08cd6" CreationDate="2018-08-27T15:57:10.380" UserId="1694" Text="I don't find any evidence of _anterior_ containing _prior_.  Rather I would guess that _ante_ was extended by two suffixes, the contrastive suffix -ter- (also seen in e.g. _alter_), and the regular comparative suffix -ior." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7096" RevisionGUID="ab0ba996-65cb-4000-bac4-897002593d00" CreationDate="2018-08-27T16:18:19.293" UserId="13" Text="I'm back with another question like [this one](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7089/identifying-corrupted-sappho-fragment-or-mention-of-sappho-found-in-now-no-longe), to which I leave the background part. So among the sources I found while researching Sappho back in the days is [The Complete Poems of Sappho](inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/), which I am currently comparing with my other sources. I just scrolled to the end and found this curious mishmash of stuff:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Αεριων επεων αρχομαι αλλ’ονατων [ε] γω το καλλος επιτ[μεζον]…&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;οφθαλμοις δε μελαις&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;νυκτος αωρος και ποθηω και μαομαι ουκ οιδ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;οττι θεω διχα μοι τα νοηματα κατ’ εμον σταλαχμον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ου τι μοι υμμες ας θελετε υμμες [ο] ττινας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;γαρ ευ θεω κηνοι με μαλιστα παντων σινοντα[ι]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;εγω δ’εμ’[αυται τουτο συ]νοιδα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;μη κινη χεραδος ου γαρ θεμις εν μοισοπολων οικιαι&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;θρηνων εμμεν&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ου κ’αμμι ταδε πρεποι&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ignoring the semi-random line breaking, this is what I see in this mess:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Sappho Edmonds 1a, which I think is actually part of the preface to an edition of Sappho where the edition is made to speak, and reads Ἀερίων ἐπέων ἄρχομαι ἀλλ' ὀνάτων, or in Edmonds' translation &quot;The words I begin are words of air, but, for all that, good to hear&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The object of the question.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Sappho Edmonds 141A, which Edmonds adds a χύτο into to get ὀφθάλμοις δὲ μέλαις χύτο νύκτος ἄωρος.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Sappho Edmonds 23, καὶ ποθήω καὶ μάομαι.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Sappho Edmonds 52, Οὐκ οἶδ' ὄττι θέω· δύο μοι τὰ νοήματα, or with δίχα instead of δύο as is found here and in Lobel-Page.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Sappho Edmonds 17, κὰτ' ἔμον στάλαγμον (or στέλεγμον as in Edmonds, and I think στάλαχμον is also seen somewhere else than here, hopefully not just in that horrid Spanish edition of the linked post).&#xD;&#xA; 7. Sappho Edmonds 59, οὔ τί μοι ὔμμες (Edmonds elides μοι).&#xD;&#xA; 8. Sappho Edmonds 50, ἆς θέλετ' ὔμμες.&#xD;&#xA; 9. Sappho Edmonds 13, ὄττινας γὰρ εὖ θέω, κῆνοί με μάλιστα σίνονται (Edmonds σίννονται).&#xD;&#xA; 10. Sappho Edmonds 15, ἔγω δ' ἔμ' αὔτᾳ τοῦτο σύνοιδα (Edmonds takes it from P.Oxy. and adds ]λαν· at the start).&#xD;&#xA; 11. Sappho Edmonds 78, μὴ κίνη χέραδος (Edmonds χέραδας).&#xD;&#xA; 12. Sappho Edmonds 108, Οὐ γὰρ θέμις ἐν μοισοπόλων οἰκίᾳ θρῆνον ἔμμεν οὔ κ' ἄμμι τάδε πρέποι, where the mishmash has something closer to the manuscript version than Edmonds' emendation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what in the world is number 2? This time, having learnt the lesson from the previous question, I googled it, and this mishmash is all that came up. I found [this](http://nicholasjv.blogspot.com/2010_07_25_archive.html), which suggests those are the lyrics of the group Avaton's rendition of &quot;one of Sappho's poetic fragments&quot;, and gives the following translation to the mishmash, only vaguely matching it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I start my song with ethereal soft words. In my life I served beauty.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Along the night, when dark sleep captures my eyes and desire burns me and excites my body,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I know not what to do: my mind is divided drop after drop the pain within me…&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;No, it’s not you who for me, as much you want it,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For they whom I benefit injure me most...&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I have placed this deep in my mind and I know it.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Leave the pebbles and don’t mix them up. Lamentations are not be heard into poets’ homes.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Such things are not appropriate for us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, the line breaking in this thing's &quot;lyrics&quot; is different from the above mishmash. Then you listen to the video, and it doesn't correspond at all! Of all the mess up there, all you can hear in the video is Ἀερίων ἐπέων ἄρχομαι, and then there are a couple more Sappho fragments to be identified, none of which are in the above mishmash!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all that, does any of you guys recognize this corrupted fragment, which seems to read as follows?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ἔ]γω τὸ κάλλος ἐπιτ[μέζον]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or can you even just recognize what the last word(s) may be, with `ἐπιτ[μέζον]` apparently supposed to translate to &quot;served in my life&quot; or a subset thereof?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23818" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7096" RevisionGUID="ab0ba996-65cb-4000-bac4-897002593d00" CreationDate="2018-08-27T16:18:19.293" UserId="13" Text="Identifying alleged Sappho fragment from mishmash on otherwise generally good online resource" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23819" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7096" RevisionGUID="ab0ba996-65cb-4000-bac4-897002593d00" CreationDate="2018-08-27T16:18:19.293" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|passage-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7096" RevisionGUID="b4e073cd-a2a8-421f-a257-73bd7c03cfdf" CreationDate="2018-08-27T16:31:04.407" UserId="13" Comment="added extras" Text="I'm back with another question like [this one](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7089/identifying-corrupted-sappho-fragment-or-mention-of-sappho-found-in-now-no-longe), to which I leave the background part. So among the sources I found while researching Sappho back in the days is [The Complete Poems of Sappho](inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/), which I am currently comparing with my other sources. I just scrolled to the end and found this curious mishmash of stuff:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Αεριων επεων αρχομαι αλλ’ονατων [ε] γω το καλλος επιτ[μεζον]…&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;οφθαλμοις δε μελαις&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;νυκτος αωρος και ποθηω και μαομαι ουκ οιδ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;οττι θεω διχα μοι τα νοηματα κατ’ εμον σταλαχμον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ου τι μοι υμμες ας θελετε υμμες [ο] ττινας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;γαρ ευ θεω κηνοι με μαλιστα παντων σινοντα[ι]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;εγω δ’εμ’[αυται τουτο συ]νοιδα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;μη κινη χεραδος ου γαρ θεμις εν μοισοπολων οικιαι&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;θρηνων εμμεν&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ου κ’αμμι ταδε πρεποι&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ignoring the semi-random line breaking, this is what I see in this mess:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Sappho Edmonds 1a, which I think is actually part of the preface to an edition of Sappho where the edition is made to speak, and reads Ἀερίων ἐπέων ἄρχομαι ἀλλ' ὀνάτων, or in Edmonds' translation &quot;The words I begin are words of air, but, for all that, good to hear&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The object of the question.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Sappho Edmonds 141A, which Edmonds adds a χύτο into to get ὀφθάλμοις δὲ μέλαις χύτο νύκτος ἄωρος.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Sappho Edmonds 23, καὶ ποθήω καὶ μάομαι.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Sappho Edmonds 52, Οὐκ οἶδ' ὄττι θέω· δύο μοι τὰ νοήματα, or with δίχα instead of δύο as is found here and in Lobel-Page.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Sappho Edmonds 17, κὰτ' ἔμον στάλαγμον (or στέλεγμον as in Edmonds, and I think στάλαχμον is also seen somewhere else than here, hopefully not just in that horrid Spanish edition of the linked post).&#xD;&#xA; 7. Sappho Edmonds 59, οὔ τί μοι ὔμμες (Edmonds elides μοι).&#xD;&#xA; 8. Sappho Edmonds 50, ἆς θέλετ' ὔμμες.&#xD;&#xA; 9. Sappho Edmonds 13, ὄττινας γὰρ εὖ θέω, κῆνοί με μάλιστα σίνονται (Edmonds σίννονται).&#xD;&#xA; 10. Sappho Edmonds 15, ἔγω δ' ἔμ' αὔτᾳ τοῦτο σύνοιδα (Edmonds takes it from P.Oxy. and adds ]λαν· at the start).&#xD;&#xA; 11. Sappho Edmonds 78, μὴ κίνη χέραδος (Edmonds χέραδας).&#xD;&#xA; 12. Sappho Edmonds 108, Οὐ γὰρ θέμις ἐν μοισοπόλων οἰκίᾳ θρῆνον ἔμμεν οὔ κ' ἄμμι τάδε πρέποι, where the mishmash has something closer to the manuscript version than Edmonds' emendation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what in the world is number 2? This time, having learnt the lesson from the previous question, I googled it, and this mishmash is all that came up. I found [this](http://nicholasjv.blogspot.com/2010_07_25_archive.html), which suggests those are the lyrics of the group Avaton's rendition of &quot;one of Sappho's poetic fragments&quot;, and gives the following translation to the mishmash, only vaguely matching it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I start my song with ethereal soft words. In my life I served beauty.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Along the night, when dark sleep captures my eyes and desire burns me and excites my body,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I know not what to do: my mind is divided drop after drop the pain within me…&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;No, it’s not you who for me, as much you want it,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For they whom I benefit injure me most...&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I have placed this deep in my mind and I know it.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Leave the pebbles and don’t mix them up. Lamentations are not be heard into poets’ homes.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Such things are not appropriate for us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, the line breaking in this thing's &quot;lyrics&quot; is different from the above mishmash. Then you listen to the video, and it doesn't correspond at all! Of all the mess up there, all you can hear in the video is Ἀερίων ἐπέων ἄρχομαι, and then there are a couple more Sappho fragments to be identified, none of which are in the above mishmash!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all that, does any of you guys recognize this corrupted fragment, which seems to read as follows?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ἔ]γω τὸ κάλλος ἐπιτ[μέζον]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or can you even just recognize what the last word(s) may be, with `ἐπιτ[μέζον]` apparently supposed to translate to &quot;served in my life&quot; or a subset thereof?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Extras**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what I actually hear in the lyrics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ζαελεξάμαν ὄναρ Κυπρογένηα (twice, Edmonds 123)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἄγι χέλυ δῖα φωνάεσσα (twice, part of Edmonds 80)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ζαελεξάμαν ὄναρ Κυπρογένηα (twice, Edmonds 123)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἄγι χέλυ δῖα φωνάεσσα (twice, part of Edmonds 80)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;α! [some scat singing]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ἀερίων ἐπέων ἄρχομαι (number 1 above, twice)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἄγι χέλυ δῖα φωνάεσσα ἄγι χέλυ δῖα (twice, part of Edmonds 80 with a repetition)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[some scat singing]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[more scat singing]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;α!&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[second scat singing bit]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[scat singing again]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Perhaps ναί (modern Greek for &quot;yes&quot;) over and over?]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[More scat]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Still more scat]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Guess what? Scat]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Um, guess]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[And more!]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yeah, three unrelated fragments, mishmashed together randomly with one being randomly cut, a lot of scat and a lot of instrumental parts. Nothing to write home about, _au contraire_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7095" RevisionGUID="784f9108-7b5e-4185-a62d-52a3b9f4402d" CreationDate="2018-08-27T18:48:26.890" UserId="1694" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="I don't find any evidence of _anterior_ containing _prior_.  Rather I would guess that _ante_ was extended by two suffixes, the contrastive suffix -ter- (also seen in e.g. _alter_), and the regular comparative suffix -ior.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, if one just strings the parts together, one obtains *_anteterior_, but, I consider a simplification to _anterior_ by haplology an obvious development." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7096" RevisionGUID="0f95bfdf-c7b0-4287-af5e-22737fcb8a26" CreationDate="2018-08-28T00:39:23.590" UserId="13" Comment="Added note after extras" Text="I'm back with another question like [this one](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7089/identifying-corrupted-sappho-fragment-or-mention-of-sappho-found-in-now-no-longe), to which I leave the background part. So among the sources I found while researching Sappho back in the days is [The Complete Poems of Sappho](inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/), which I am currently comparing with my other sources. I just scrolled to the end and found this curious mishmash of stuff:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Αεριων επεων αρχομαι αλλ’ονατων [ε] γω το καλλος επιτ[μεζον]…&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;οφθαλμοις δε μελαις&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;νυκτος αωρος και ποθηω και μαομαι ουκ οιδ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;οττι θεω διχα μοι τα νοηματα κατ’ εμον σταλαχμον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ου τι μοι υμμες ας θελετε υμμες [ο] ττινας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;γαρ ευ θεω κηνοι με μαλιστα παντων σινοντα[ι]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;εγω δ’εμ’[αυται τουτο συ]νοιδα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;μη κινη χεραδος ου γαρ θεμις εν μοισοπολων οικιαι&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;θρηνων εμμεν&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ου κ’αμμι ταδε πρεποι&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ignoring the semi-random line breaking, this is what I see in this mess:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Sappho Edmonds 1a, which I think is actually part of the preface to an edition of Sappho where the edition is made to speak, and reads Ἀερίων ἐπέων ἄρχομαι ἀλλ' ὀνάτων, or in Edmonds' translation &quot;The words I begin are words of air, but, for all that, good to hear&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The object of the question.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Sappho Edmonds 141A, which Edmonds adds a χύτο into to get ὀφθάλμοις δὲ μέλαις χύτο νύκτος ἄωρος.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Sappho Edmonds 23, καὶ ποθήω καὶ μάομαι.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Sappho Edmonds 52, Οὐκ οἶδ' ὄττι θέω· δύο μοι τὰ νοήματα, or with δίχα instead of δύο as is found here and in Lobel-Page.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Sappho Edmonds 17, κὰτ' ἔμον στάλαγμον (or στέλεγμον as in Edmonds, and I think στάλαχμον is also seen somewhere else than here, hopefully not just in that horrid Spanish edition of the linked post).&#xD;&#xA; 7. Sappho Edmonds 59, οὔ τί μοι ὔμμες (Edmonds elides μοι).&#xD;&#xA; 8. Sappho Edmonds 50, ἆς θέλετ' ὔμμες.&#xD;&#xA; 9. Sappho Edmonds 13, ὄττινας γὰρ εὖ θέω, κῆνοί με μάλιστα σίνονται (Edmonds σίννονται).&#xD;&#xA; 10. Sappho Edmonds 15, ἔγω δ' ἔμ' αὔτᾳ τοῦτο σύνοιδα (Edmonds takes it from P.Oxy. and adds ]λαν· at the start).&#xD;&#xA; 11. Sappho Edmonds 78, μὴ κίνη χέραδος (Edmonds χέραδας).&#xD;&#xA; 12. Sappho Edmonds 108, Οὐ γὰρ θέμις ἐν μοισοπόλων οἰκίᾳ θρῆνον ἔμμεν οὔ κ' ἄμμι τάδε πρέποι, where the mishmash has something closer to the manuscript version than Edmonds' emendation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what in the world is number 2? This time, having learnt the lesson from the previous question, I googled it, and this mishmash is all that came up. I found [this](http://nicholasjv.blogspot.com/2010_07_25_archive.html), which suggests those are the lyrics of the group Avaton's rendition of &quot;one of Sappho's poetic fragments&quot;, and gives the following translation to the mishmash, only vaguely matching it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I start my song with ethereal soft words. In my life I served beauty.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Along the night, when dark sleep captures my eyes and desire burns me and excites my body,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I know not what to do: my mind is divided drop after drop the pain within me…&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;No, it’s not you who for me, as much you want it,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For they whom I benefit injure me most...&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I have placed this deep in my mind and I know it.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Leave the pebbles and don’t mix them up. Lamentations are not be heard into poets’ homes.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Such things are not appropriate for us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, the line breaking in this thing's &quot;lyrics&quot; is different from the above mishmash. Then you listen to the video, and it doesn't correspond at all! Of all the mess up there, all you can hear in the video is Ἀερίων ἐπέων ἄρχομαι, and then there are a couple more Sappho fragments to be identified, none of which are in the above mishmash!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all that, does any of you guys recognize this corrupted fragment, which seems to read as follows?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ἔ]γω τὸ κάλλος ἐπιτ[μέζον]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or can you even just recognize what the last word(s) may be, with `ἐπιτ[μέζον]` apparently supposed to translate to &quot;served in my life&quot; or a subset thereof?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Extras**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what I actually hear in the lyrics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ζαελεξάμαν ὄναρ Κυπρογένηα (twice, Edmonds 123)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἄγι χέλυ δῖα φωνάεσσα (twice, part of Edmonds 80)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ζαελεξάμαν ὄναρ Κυπρογένηα (twice, Edmonds 123)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἄγι χέλυ δῖα φωνάεσσα (twice, part of Edmonds 80)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;α! [some scat singing]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ἀερίων ἐπέων ἄρχομαι (number 1 above, twice)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἄγι χέλυ δῖα φωνάεσσα ἄγι χέλυ δῖα (twice, part of Edmonds 80 with a repetition)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[some scat singing]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[more scat singing]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;α!&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[second scat singing bit]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[scat singing again]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Perhaps ναί (modern Greek for &quot;yes&quot;) over and over?]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[More scat]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Still more scat]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Guess what? Scat]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Um, guess]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[And more!]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yeah, three unrelated fragments, mishmashed together randomly with one being randomly cut, a lot of scat and a lot of instrumental parts. Nothing to write home about, _au contraire_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Complete Poems of Sappho](http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/) gives this as Wharton 12 and Cox 12. Wharton 12 is actually just Edmonds 9, whicg TCPOS reports right after the mishmash. I don't have Cox so I cannot verify if Cox 12 has anything to do with the mishmash. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7097" RevisionGUID="fe435e2a-42fa-4a95-9b68-146b5ce743ff" CreationDate="2018-08-28T03:41:04.620" UserId="39" Text="What happened to your copy of Voigt? Why not use Campbell as well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wMrqE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7097" RevisionGUID="7ae2a59c-2667-4d8b-9010-60d72f77f5cc" CreationDate="2018-08-28T03:56:27.730" UserId="39" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="What happened to your copy of Voigt? Why not use Campbell as well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Campbell again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wMrqE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/10rIe.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7098" RevisionGUID="426ff8b5-d45c-4300-81c9-63f956d326e8" CreationDate="2018-08-28T05:24:53.253" UserId="867" Text="Perhaps: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *animadverte me*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *animadvertite me*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The singular and plural imperative respectively of ***animadvertere*** - to turn or give mind to, to take notice of, to pay heed to, to consider, to observe.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, it was also used metaphorically to mean to take notice of a fault, and therefore, to censure or to punish.  But it is, nevertheless, used straightforwardly in the more neutral sense of simply noticing something.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *... sic **animadverto** plerosque in magistratibus ...* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... and in the same way **I notice** that many of those who hold magistracies ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *De Legibus*, 3.48 (trans. Clinton W. Keyes)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7099" RevisionGUID="a3b0ac93-cebe-4020-a1e6-97e009decf20" CreationDate="2018-08-28T07:26:34.933" UserId="1896" Text="I came across the Spanish word '[inerme][1]', which comes from Latin *inermis* and means *unarmed*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the Latin word for arm is 'arma' and the preffix 'in' indicates negation, it is clear that the form 'inermis' is just 'in-' + 'arma', so I wonder: why does it get _in**e**rmis_ and not _in**a**rmis_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dle.rae.es/?id=LSuw8Oa" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23828" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7099" RevisionGUID="a3b0ac93-cebe-4020-a1e6-97e009decf20" CreationDate="2018-08-28T07:26:34.933" UserId="1896" Text="If arm is 'arma', why does unarmed is 'inermis' and not 'inarmis'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23829" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7099" RevisionGUID="a3b0ac93-cebe-4020-a1e6-97e009decf20" CreationDate="2018-08-28T07:26:34.933" UserId="1896" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7100" RevisionGUID="743cf112-e287-4df4-83c3-7a08b85c111d" CreationDate="2018-08-28T09:02:09.963" UserId="13" Text="Campbell has been given, let me give Lobel-Page now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OiUOI.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Counting from the coronis in col. iii, the fragment is lurking at ll. 6-7. Apparatus Criticus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/rgXtz.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let me just point out how nonsens the numbering of the fragments is. From this page, we fully expect an image of this to contain two papyrus fragments, which we are not too sure how to assign the numbers 1(a) and 1(b). Image coming:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sfD7v.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are actually talking about the two fragments on the far left, which apparently are both 1(a) and must be joined with the one below being on the top-right of the other one, and the biggest of the other fragments, which is 1(b) and joins with the bottom left of the top one a few lines below the bottom one. WTH is up with that numbering?! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7101" RevisionGUID="5628dba8-be66-4065-aaa2-22c48389ef78" CreationDate="2018-08-28T09:08:48.980" UserId="2704" Text="OK, I'm going to build on @alex-b's answer, having looked at Lobel-Page 90 and Campbell 90. Those more game than me can look at the original papyrus: http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH01f6.dir/POxy.v0021.n2293.a.01.hires.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sean Palmer of http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/ has done a great service in putting Sappho online, and something of a disservice in printing the line as he has.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sean Palmer has reproduced what we are now calling &quot;the mishmash&quot; of Sappho quotes, at the start of his &quot;Wharton 12 / Cox 12&quot; fragment (which is Lobel-Page 26). The fragment MickG could not trace is [ε]γω το καλλος επιτ[μεζον]…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's not what the fragment is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fragment comes from Lobel-Page 90. Lobel-Page is a commentary on Sappho, and Lobel-Page were reluctant to put spaces into such a small fragment; that's why I couldn't find the words when searching. They supplied a guessed reading in their app crit. The passage in question is (col iii 18-19):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; γωτοκαλλοϲεπ&lt;sup&gt;ε&lt;/sup&gt;ιτ.[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; μεζον·τιγαρηνεμ[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In their app crit, they suggest this *might* (&quot;fort.&quot;) be read as  ἔ]γω τὸ κάλλος ἐπ&lt;sup&gt;ε&lt;/sup&gt;ιτ.[ |μέζον· τὶ γάρ ἠνεμ[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ἐπ&lt;sup&gt;ε&lt;/sup&gt;ιτ.[ means the line breaks at [, and there's an unreadable letter before it. | means new line. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no word ἐπιτ[μέζον]: it's a [dord][1]. And wherever the mishmash has come from has completely misread the app crit. The passage is ἐπιτ- ... μέζον. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Campbell offers the translation &quot;'I... beauty... greater'; for what was...&quot;. He also reads μέδον instead of μέζον, but he emends it to μέ&lt;σ&gt;δον, which is the same thing anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because there's a mention of &quot;I&quot;, we assume this is a verse of Sappho, and not the commentator's text. (Campbell in his translation ascribes 'I... beauty... greater' to Sappho and &quot;for what was&quot; to the commentator.) We can't really guess what the verb starting with ἐπιτ- is. The mishmash translation as &quot;In my life I served beauty&quot; is... well, I don't know what it is based on. I also still don't know who to blame the mishmash on; it's not Lobel–Page, Campbell, or Cox, and I'd be astonished if any classicist would have the chutzpah to smash all those fragments together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dord" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7102" RevisionGUID="ada5c98f-98b6-4d9f-b685-eb2dbc1ada49" CreationDate="2018-08-28T09:19:15.513" UserId="9" Text="I believe this is one of many examples of Latin vowel reduction in word-internal syllables. The basic pattern is that short vowels in word-internal syllables were reduced: the resulting vowel in Classical Latin varies depending on the phonological context, and sometimes on the vowel. In *inermis*, the vowel is in a closed syllable, which is a context where a reduced short *-a-* turned into *-e-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is *ineptus* from *aptus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowel reduction was not an automatic process in Classical Latin, so there are also examples of words that don't change short *-a-* into *-e-* upon prefixation, e.g. *inamabilis.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7103" RevisionGUID="9ca774c8-24ad-43ce-9b80-4cd0aa449c65" CreationDate="2018-08-28T09:37:47.477" UserId="1459" Text="All credit of this answer goes to sumelic. I just found further support for his hypothesis, of which I was not aware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article](https://www.jstor.org/stable/41219151) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bader (1960: 236) remarks that words prefixed by privative _in-_ (&lt;&#xD;&#xA; *_en-_ &lt; *_n-_) and _dis-_ frequently show vowel reduction (cf. Pultrová&#xD;&#xA; 2006: 73, 102-103), such as _inimīcus_ 'unfriendly' (vs. _amīcus_ 'friendly')&#xD;&#xA; and _difficilis_ 'difficult' (vs. _facilis_ 'easy'). The list of examples is&#xD;&#xA; lengthened by _inficētus_ 'boorish' (vs. _infacētus_; cf. _perfacētus_ 'very&#xD;&#xA; clever'); _īnsipiēns_ 'unwise' [P1.+], whose finite forms (*_insipiō_) are&#xD;&#xA; missing in Plautine Latin (cf. _insapiēns_ [Catul.]; _persapiēntis_ 'very&#xD;&#xA; wise' [Cic], _nesapius_ 'ignorant' [Petr.+]); **_inermis_** 'unarmed' (vs. _arma_ 'weapons'); _iners_ 'inactive' (vs. _ars_ 'art, skill'); _dīmidius_ 'half (&lt; *_dis-_; vs. _mēdius_ 'central', cf. rare forms like _intermedius_, _permedius_, _submedius_; see Ernout and Meillet 1985: 393); _displiceō_ 'displease' (vs. _placeō_ 'please', cf. _complaceō_ 'take the fancy', _perplaceō_ 'be thoroughly pleasing'); etc. (but cf. _illepidus_ 'lacking grace', _inanimus_ 'lifeless'). These forms commonly possess a negative sense due to their prefixes. The _i_-vocalism may thus be phonetically strengthened by a certain emphasis, as Pulgram (1975: 108-109) points out, whereby the&#xD;&#xA; following elements presumably underwent vowel reduction, and were&#xD;&#xA; influenced by the _i_-vocalism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7103" RevisionGUID="f8402066-7952-4454-8862-3b9b9eebe0a2" CreationDate="2018-08-28T09:49:10.953" UserId="1459" Comment="added 501 characters in body" Text="All credit of this answer goes to sumelic. I just found further support for his hypothesis, of which I was not aware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article](https://www.jstor.org/stable/41219151) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bader (1960: 236) remarks that words prefixed by privative in- (&lt;&#xD;&#xA; \**en*- &lt; \**n*-) and *dis*- frequently show vowel reduction (cf. Pultrová&#xD;&#xA; 2006: 73, 102-103), such as _inimīcus_ 'unfriendly' (vs. _amīcus_ 'friendly')  and _difficilis_ 'difficult' (vs. _facilis_ 'easy'). The list of examples is  lengthened by _inficētus_ 'boorish' (vs. _infacētus_; cf. _perfacētus_ 'very&#xD;&#xA; clever'); _īnsipiēns_ 'unwise' [P1.+], whose finite forms (*_insipiō_) are&#xD;&#xA; missing in Plautine Latin (cf. _insapiēns_ [Catul.]; _persapiēntis_ 'very&#xD;&#xA; wise' [Cic], _nesapius_ 'ignorant' [Petr.+]); **_inermis_** 'unarmed' (vs. _arma_ 'weapons'); _iners_ 'inactive' (vs. _ars_ 'art, skill'); _dīmidius_ 'half (&lt; *_dis-_; vs. _mēdius_ 'central', cf. rare forms like _intermedius_, _permedius_, _submedius_; see Ernout and Meillet 1985: 393); _displiceō_ 'displease' (vs. _placeō_ 'please', cf. _complaceō_ 'take the fancy', _perplaceō_ 'be thoroughly pleasing'); etc. (but cf. _illepidus_ 'lacking grace', _inanimus_ 'lifeless'). These forms commonly possess a negative sense due to their prefixes. The _i_-vocalism may thus be phonetically strengthened by a certain emphasis, as Pulgram (1975: 108-109) points out, whereby the&#xD;&#xA; following elements presumably underwent vowel reduction, and were&#xD;&#xA; influenced by the _i_-vocalism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References in paragraph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Bader, Fr. (1960): Apophonie et recomposition dans les composés. RPh 86:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ernout, A and A. Meillet (1985): _Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine: histoire des mots._ 4th, rev. and enl. ed. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Pulgram, E. (1975): _Latin-Romance Phonology: Prosodies and Metrics._ Munich:&#xD;&#xA; Wilhelm Fink Verl&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Pultrová, L. (2006): _The Vocalism of Latin Medial Syllables_. Prague: Univerzita Karlova&#xD;&#xA; v Praze / Nakladatelstvi Karolinum." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7103" RevisionGUID="f122f97e-4da6-4849-8093-b7420d061da2" CreationDate="2018-08-28T10:10:24.010" UserId="1459" Comment="added 900 characters in body" Text="All credit of this answer goes to sumelic. I just found further support for his hypothesis, of which I was not aware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article](https://www.jstor.org/stable/41219151) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bader (1960: 236) remarks that words prefixed by privative in- (&lt;&#xD;&#xA; \**en*- &lt; \**n*-) and *dis*- frequently show vowel reduction (cf. Pultrová&#xD;&#xA; 2006: 73, 102-103), such as _inimīcus_ 'unfriendly' (vs. _amīcus_ 'friendly')  and _difficilis_ 'difficult' (vs. _facilis_ 'easy'). The list of examples is  lengthened by _inficētus_ 'boorish' (vs. _infacētus_; cf. _perfacētus_ 'very&#xD;&#xA; clever'); _īnsipiēns_ 'unwise' [P1.+], whose finite forms (*_insipiō_) are&#xD;&#xA; missing in Plautine Latin (cf. _insapiēns_ [Catul.]; _persapiēntis_ 'very&#xD;&#xA; wise' [Cic], _nesapius_ 'ignorant' [Petr.+]); **_inermis_** 'unarmed' (vs. _arma_ 'weapons'); _iners_ 'inactive' (vs. _ars_ 'art, skill'); _dīmidius_ 'half (&lt; *_dis-_; vs. _mēdius_ 'central', cf. rare forms like _intermedius_, _permedius_, _submedius_; see Ernout and Meillet 1985: 393); _displiceō_ 'displease' (vs. _placeō_ 'please', cf. _complaceō_ 'take the fancy', _perplaceō_ 'be thoroughly pleasing'); etc. (but cf. _illepidus_ 'lacking grace', _inanimus_ 'lifeless'). These forms commonly possess a negative sense due to their prefixes. The _i_-vocalism may thus be phonetically strengthened by a certain emphasis, as Pulgram (1975: 108-109) points out, whereby the&#xD;&#xA; following elements presumably underwent vowel reduction, and were&#xD;&#xA; influenced by the _i_-vocalism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References in paragraph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Bader, Fr. (1960): Apophonie et recomposition dans les composés. RPh 86:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ernout, A and A. Meillet (1985): _Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine: histoire des mots._ 4th, rev. and enl. ed. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Pulgram, E. (1975): _Latin-Romance Phonology: Prosodies and Metrics._ Munich:&#xD;&#xA; Wilhelm Fink Verl&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Pultrová, L. (2006): _The Vocalism of Latin Medial Syllables_. Prague: Univerzita Karlova&#xD;&#xA; v Praze / Nakladatelstvi Karolinum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, pages 222-3 of [this (old) book](https://archive.org/details/latinlanguagehis00linduoft) state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Unaccented Latin ă in the posttonic syllable became at first _ĕ_, &#xD;&#xA;except before _l_ and labials, where it became _ŏ_. This _ĕ_ became, &#xD;&#xA;perhaps about the end of the third century B.C., _ĭ_ in syllables &#xD;&#xA;not long by position (except when it preceded _r_), and before _ng_; while this _o_ became _u_ or the _ü_-sound, which in most cases passed &#xD;&#xA;into _ĭ_ at the close of the Republican period. Thus the compound &#xD;&#xA;of _ab_ and _cado_ became _accĕdo_ (so spelt by Ennius), then _accĭdo_; &#xD;&#xA;from _in_ and _arma_ we have the compound _**inermis**_; from _sub_ &#xD;&#xA;and _rapio_ first *_surropio_ probably, then _surrŭpio_ (Plaut.), then &#xD;&#xA;_surripio_', from _ex_ and _frango_, _effringo_ (see ch, iii. 18). Final Latin _ă_ probably became _ĕ_, and might be dropped (see ch. iii. 37)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23836" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7099" RevisionGUID="6dc97dcc-b83d-47d3-b5c5-c78042d63ec4" CreationDate="2018-08-28T10:22:39.163" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="If arm is 'arma', why is unarmed 'inermis' and not 'inarmis'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7101" RevisionGUID="95483633-5e65-45b4-ba8d-4568bcded923" CreationDate="2018-08-28T10:28:29.537" UserId="2704" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="OK, I'm going to build on @alex-b's answer, having looked at Lobel-Page 90 and Campbell 90. Those more game than me can look at the original papyrus: http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH01f6.dir/POxy.v0021.n2293.a.01.hires.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sean Palmer of http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/ has done a great service in putting Sappho online, and something of a disservice in printing the line as he has.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sean Palmer has reproduced what we are now calling &quot;the mishmash&quot; of Sappho quotes, at the start of his &quot;Wharton 12 / Cox 12&quot; fragment (which is Lobel-Page 26). The fragment MickG could not trace is [ε]γω το καλλος επιτ[μεζον]…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's not what the fragment is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fragment comes from Lobel-Page 90. Lobel-Page 90 is a commentary on Sappho, and Lobel-Page were reluctant to put spaces into such a small fragment; that's why I couldn't find the words when searching. They supplied a guessed reading in their app crit. The passage in question is (col iii 18-19):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; γωτοκαλλοϲεπ&lt;sup&gt;ε&lt;/sup&gt;ιτ.[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; μεζον·τιγαρηνεμ[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In their app crit, they suggest this *might* (&quot;fort.&quot;) be read as  ἔ]γω τὸ κάλλος ἐπ&lt;sup&gt;ε&lt;/sup&gt;ιτ.[ |μέζον· τὶ γάρ ἠνεμ[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ἐπ&lt;sup&gt;ε&lt;/sup&gt;ιτ.[ means the line breaks at [, and there's an unreadable letter before it. | means new line. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no word ἐπιτ[μέζον]: it's a [dord][1]. And wherever the mishmash has come from has completely misread the app crit. The passage is ἐπιτ- ... μέζον. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Campbell offers the translation &quot;'I... beauty... greater'; for what was...&quot;. He also reads μέδον instead of μέζον, but he emends it to μέ&lt;σ&gt;δον, which is the same thing anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because there's a mention of &quot;I&quot;, we assume this is a verse of Sappho, and not the commentator's text. (Campbell in his translation ascribes 'I... beauty... greater' to Sappho and &quot;for what was&quot; to the commentator.) We can't really guess what the verb starting with ἐπιτ- is. The mishmash translation as &quot;In my life I served beauty&quot; is... well, I don't know what it is based on. I also still don't know who to blame the mishmash on; it's not Lobel–Page, Campbell, or Cox, and I'd be astonished if any classicist would have the chutzpah to smash all those fragments together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dord" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23838" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7099" RevisionGUID="7926695e-e735-460e-8050-a441ae2b5191" CreationDate="2018-08-28T11:49:14.547" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|etymology|spanish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23839" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7089" RevisionGUID="0a53f3fb-bba2-4c4d-8423-e57a1e6d32b7" CreationDate="2018-08-28T11:52:53.893" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|spanish|passage-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7070" RevisionGUID="de6cbcea-ab08-4776-91d5-39cd1a08055c" CreationDate="2018-08-28T16:28:49.387" UserId="406" Comment="added 357 characters in body" Text="The noun *foedus* originally (by which I mean late Proto-Italic going into early Latin) looked something like *_foidos-_. Note that that's the stem, with no ending attached.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Proto-Indo-European ablaut patterns would have meant the stem was *foidos- in the nominative and vocative and *foides- in the other cases, but I'm not sure if this ablaut was still relevant in Proto-Italic or if it had been levelled out; this answer is written as if it were already levelled out, for simplicity. The result is the same either way._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third-declension endings were then added onto this. (I'm only showing the nominative, genitive, and ablative, but you can extrapolate the rest.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foidos-∅&#xD;&#xA;    foidos-es&#xD;&#xA;    foidos-e&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the nominative ending for neuter third-declension nouns is ∅ (that is, nothing at all). Then *rhotacism* applied, changing S between vowels to R.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foidos&#xD;&#xA;    foidores&#xD;&#xA;    foidore&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another process turned all short vowels in medial open syllables (i.e. vowels in the middle of a word and not before two consonants) into *i*. [But Latin didn't like *ir*, so this sequence became *er*.][1] Alternately, the vowel in these forms might already have been *e*, due to Proto-Indo-European ablaut; I don't know enough about Proto-Indo-European to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foidos&#xD;&#xA;    foideres&#xD;&#xA;    foidere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, short *o* in the last syllable of a word turned into *u*, short *e* in closed final syllables turned into *i*, and *oi* was respelled *oe*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foedus&#xD;&#xA;    foederis&#xD;&#xA;    foedere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This led to the noun forms you're familiar with in Classical times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective *foedus* came from a different source: its stem was actually *foid-* instead of *foidos-*, and the standard first/second endings were tacked onto this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1908/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7104" RevisionGUID="2cab3189-f8de-418b-ba5b-0393957aeb4d" CreationDate="2018-08-28T18:26:07.237" UserId="406" Text="Ancient Greek (some dialects at least) had a phoneme `/h/`, written with a rough breathing mark on vowels. Did this phoneme ever occur between two vowels, or only word-initially and after consonants?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers from any dialect and any point in time (at least any ones where `/h/` still existed, so not Koinē) are appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23842" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7104" RevisionGUID="2cab3189-f8de-418b-ba5b-0393957aeb4d" CreationDate="2018-08-28T18:26:07.237" UserId="406" Text="Did any Ancient Greek words have intervocalic /h/?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23843" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7104" RevisionGUID="2cab3189-f8de-418b-ba5b-0393957aeb4d" CreationDate="2018-08-28T18:26:07.237" UserId="406" Text="|greek|phonology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7105" RevisionGUID="4464e396-a140-45fc-8b5e-25f669b2f707" CreationDate="2018-08-28T19:23:08.630" UserId="469" Text="One hypothesis&amp;mdash;not sure if possible to prove&amp;mdash;, is that *anterior* is in fact the comparative of _*anterus_ in the same way that *posterior* is of *[posterus][1]*. *Disclaimer: this is out of my comfort zone, and has to be taken as a not-very-informed hypothesis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Posterus* is the adj., *postea* the adverb. _*Anterus_ would be the adj. corresponding to adv. *antea*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the existence of _*anterus_ and the hypothesis that *anterior* is its regular comparative, I found two pieces of evidence: [a XIX century lexicon by a Latin Professor at Oxford][2] and [a XV century book][3] actually written in Latin by a *[prominent Flemish humanist][4]* (according to wp).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, [L&amp;S][5] says *anterior* is late Latin and cites [Sulpicius Severus][6] using the word as early as the V century. Whether _*anterus_ existed (at least in spoken) at that time, I haven't been able to found any evidence. But even if it did not, the -r- could have been derived (as an innovation) by analogy with postea &gt; posterus &gt; posterior&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dposterus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=k4Dcf4d0N7MC&amp;pg=PA218&amp;lpg=PA218&amp;dq=anterior%20%22anterus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=X6Dt9E904y&amp;sig=CqgSyoKwZSvb2bKj6kiUg2AaUhE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwifvojQopDdAhXFlJAKHavXCO4Q6AEwB3oECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=anterior%20%22anterus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=Hfw-5CNiivwC&amp;pg=RA3-PA9&amp;lpg=RA3-PA9&amp;dq=anterior%20%22anterus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ECKH2dmMjf&amp;sig=CU87DTbkQXfvg0tWV8pUVjd3bto&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwifvojQopDdAhXFlJAKHavXCO4Q6AEwCXoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=anterior%20%22anterus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Despauterius&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=anterior&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulpicius_Severus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7105" RevisionGUID="965c5be3-ed87-4ae3-bac6-605d825eb012" CreationDate="2018-08-28T19:37:11.563" UserId="469" Comment="added 292 characters in body" Text="It is most probably either a regular comparative or one built by analogy to other regular comparatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure if it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of and adj. _*anterus_ to which *anterior* would be the comparative, in the same way that *posterior* is of *[posterus][1]*. *Disclaimer: this is out of my comfort zone, and has to be taken as a not-very-informed hypothesis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Posterus* is the adj., *postea* the adverb. _*Anterus_ would be the adj. corresponding to adv. *antea*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the existence of _*anterus_ and the hypothesis that *anterior* is its regular comparative, I found two pieces of evidence: [a XIX century lexicon by a Latin Professor at Oxford][2] and [a XV century book][3] actually written in Latin by a *[prominent Flemish humanist][4]* (according to wp).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, [L&amp;S][5] says *anterior* is late Latin and cites [Sulpicius Severus][6] using the word as early as the V century. Whether _*anterus_ existed or not (at least in spoken) at that time, I haven't been able to found any evidence. The fact that it doesn't show up *easily* in good dictionaries or corpora is a good argument against its widespread. But even if it did not exist, the -r- could have been derived (as an innovation) by analogy with postea &gt; posterus &gt; posterior&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted by Colin and Hugh, the same analogy works with other adverb/adjective pairs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* infra/inferus/inferior&#xD;&#xA;* intus,inter//interior&#xD;&#xA;* extra/exterus/exterior&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dposterus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=k4Dcf4d0N7MC&amp;pg=PA218&amp;lpg=PA218&amp;dq=anterior%20%22anterus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=X6Dt9E904y&amp;sig=CqgSyoKwZSvb2bKj6kiUg2AaUhE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwifvojQopDdAhXFlJAKHavXCO4Q6AEwB3oECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=anterior%20%22anterus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=Hfw-5CNiivwC&amp;pg=RA3-PA9&amp;lpg=RA3-PA9&amp;dq=anterior%20%22anterus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ECKH2dmMjf&amp;sig=CU87DTbkQXfvg0tWV8pUVjd3bto&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwifvojQopDdAhXFlJAKHavXCO4Q6AEwCXoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=anterior%20%22anterus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Despauterius&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=anterior&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulpicius_Severus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7105" RevisionGUID="977f3265-2ec8-49ac-bd9e-d4adde2d0e7f" CreationDate="2018-08-28T19:48:58.330" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="It is most probably either a regular comparative or one **built by analogy to other regular comparatives**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure if it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of and adj. _*anterus_ to which *anterior* would be the comparative, in the same way that *posterior* is of *[posterus][1]*. *Disclaimer: this is out of my comfort zone, and has to be taken as a not-very-informed hypothesis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Posterus* is the adj., *postea* the adverb. _*Anterus_ would be the adj. corresponding to adv. *antea*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the existence of _*anterus_ and the hypothesis that *anterior* is its regular comparative, I found two pieces of evidence: [a XIX century lexicon by a Latin Professor at Oxford][2] and [a XV century book][3] actually written in Latin by a *[prominent Flemish humanist][4]* (according to wp).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, [L&amp;S][5] says *anterior* is late Latin and cites [Sulpicius Severus][6] using the word as early as the V century. Whether _*anterus_ existed or not (at least in spoken) at that time, I haven't been able to found any evidence. The fact that it doesn't show up in good dictionaries or corpora is a good argument against its popularity. But even if it did not exist, the -r- could have been derived (as an innovation) by analogy with postea &gt; posterus &gt; posterior&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted by Colin and Hugh, the same analogy works with other adverb/adjective pairs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* infra/inferus/inferior&#xD;&#xA;* intus,inter//interior&#xD;&#xA;* extra/exterus/exterior&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dposterus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=k4Dcf4d0N7MC&amp;pg=PA218&amp;lpg=PA218&amp;dq=anterior%20%22anterus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=X6Dt9E904y&amp;sig=CqgSyoKwZSvb2bKj6kiUg2AaUhE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwifvojQopDdAhXFlJAKHavXCO4Q6AEwB3oECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=anterior%20%22anterus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=Hfw-5CNiivwC&amp;pg=RA3-PA9&amp;lpg=RA3-PA9&amp;dq=anterior%20%22anterus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ECKH2dmMjf&amp;sig=CU87DTbkQXfvg0tWV8pUVjd3bto&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwifvojQopDdAhXFlJAKHavXCO4Q6AEwCXoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=anterior%20%22anterus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Despauterius&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=anterior&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulpicius_Severus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7106" RevisionGUID="71d2feb0-f41f-49e7-a948-c19610fd7fb8" CreationDate="2018-08-28T19:50:30.980" UserId="1694" Text="The only example of an intervocalic /h/ indicated in writing that I know of is in ταὧς, &quot;peacock&quot;, but it's likely that /h/ also occurred in certain cases where there is a morpheme boundary, e.g., ευήμερος, probably pronounced [euhɛːmeros], though not represented in writing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7106" RevisionGUID="11856207-3193-42f9-8156-e71039199150" CreationDate="2018-08-28T19:56:02.143" UserId="1694" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="The only example of an intervocalic /h/ indicated in writing that I know of is in ταὧς, &quot;peacock&quot;, but it's likely that /h/ also occurred in certain cases where there is a morpheme boundary, e.g., ευήμερος, probably pronounced [euhɛːmeros], though the internal /h/ is not represented in writing.  (I believe this is supported by the Latin spelling &quot;euhemerus&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7105" RevisionGUID="0f38ec30-0cd5-49d3-be99-011e16fb5ab0" CreationDate="2018-08-28T19:58:05.127" UserId="469" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="It is most probably either a regular comparative or one **built by analogy to other regular comparatives**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure if it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of and adj. _*anterus_ to which *anterior* would be the comparative, in the same way that *posterior* is of *[posterus][1]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Posterus* is the adj., *postea* the adverb. _*Anterus_ would be the adj. corresponding to adv. *[antea][2]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the existence of _*anterus_ and the hypothesis that *anterior* is its regular comparative, I found two pieces of evidence: [a XIX century lexicon by a Latin Professor at Oxford][3] and [a XV century book][4] actually written in Latin by a *[prominent Flemish humanist][5]* (according to wp).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, [L&amp;S][6] says *anterior* is late Latin and cites [Sulpicius Severus][7] using the word as early as the V century. Whether _*anterus_ existed or not (at least in spoken) at that time, I haven't been able to find any evidence. The fact that it doesn't show up in good dictionaries or corpora is a good argument against its popularity. But even if it did not exist, the -r- could have been derived (as an innovation) by analogy with postea &gt; posterus &gt; posterior&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted by Colin and Hugh, the same analogy works with other adverb/adjective pairs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* infra/inferus/inferior&#xD;&#xA;* intus/internus(?)/interior&#xD;&#xA;* extra/exterus/exterior&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dposterus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dantea&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=k4Dcf4d0N7MC&amp;pg=PA218&amp;lpg=PA218&amp;dq=anterior%20%22anterus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=X6Dt9E904y&amp;sig=CqgSyoKwZSvb2bKj6kiUg2AaUhE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwifvojQopDdAhXFlJAKHavXCO4Q6AEwB3oECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=anterior%20%22anterus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=Hfw-5CNiivwC&amp;pg=RA3-PA9&amp;lpg=RA3-PA9&amp;dq=anterior%20%22anterus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ECKH2dmMjf&amp;sig=CU87DTbkQXfvg0tWV8pUVjd3bto&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwifvojQopDdAhXFlJAKHavXCO4Q6AEwCXoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=anterior%20%22anterus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Despauterius&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=anterior&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulpicius_Severus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7102" RevisionGUID="154fa8db-6c1a-4bb7-bd2c-41e6cace6fff" CreationDate="2018-08-29T02:27:52.697" UserId="9" Comment="edited in accordance with Draconis's suggestion" Text="I believe this is one of many examples of Latin vowel reduction in word-internal syllables. The basic pattern is that short vowels in word-internal syllables were reduced: the resulting vowel in Classical Latin varies depending on the phonological context, and sometimes on the vowel. In *inermis*, the vowel is in a closed syllable, which is a context where a reduced short *-a-* typically turned into *-e-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is *in**e**ptus* from ***a**ptus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowel reduction was not an automatic process in Classical Latin, so there are also examples of words that don't change short *-a-* into *-e-* upon prefixation, e.g. *ĭn**ă**mābĭlis.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7107" RevisionGUID="edae77ad-b2fb-4bd1-8ab6-ca405cb1b140" CreationDate="2018-08-29T19:48:50.967" UserId="2787" Text="Which form are the verbs *paratis* and *jussit*, and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase was taken from &quot;Gramática latina de Napoleão Mendes&quot;, where in the chapter it's talking about the ***Absolute Ablative*** and ***Ablative Gerund*** (not sure about the name in English). Independent of the case the phrase is related to, the verbs were expected to be on the ***Participle*** form; which doesn't seems to be the case, been that the *Participle* forms are in ***-ns,ntis***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Paratis***, as far as I know, is the **2nd person of the plural in the Present** for the verb ***Paro, are***.   &#xD;&#xA;And ***Jussit***, the **3rd person of the singular in the Past Perfect** of the verb ***Jubeo, es, jussi, jussum, ere***?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7107" RevisionGUID="edae77ad-b2fb-4bd1-8ab6-ca405cb1b140" CreationDate="2018-08-29T19:48:50.967" UserId="2787" Text="In the phrase: Omnibus rebus paratis. Caesar milites naves conscendere jussit.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7107" RevisionGUID="edae77ad-b2fb-4bd1-8ab6-ca405cb1b140" CreationDate="2018-08-29T19:48:50.967" UserId="2787" Text="|verbs|gerund|ablative-absolute|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7107" RevisionGUID="8353225a-36f5-46a7-a973-20d3693efdb3" CreationDate="2018-08-29T20:01:13.710" UserId="2787" Comment="added 239 characters in body" Text="Which form are the verbs *paratis* and *jussit*, and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase was taken from &quot;Gramática latina de Napoleão Mendes&quot;, where in the chapter it's talking about the ***Absolute Ablative*** and ***Ablative Gerund*** (not sure about the name in English). Independent of the case the phrase is related to, the verbs were expected to be on the ***Participle*** form; which doesn't seems to be the case, been that the *Participle* forms are in ***-ns,ntis***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Paratis***, as far as I know, is the **2nd person of the plural in the Present** for the verb ***Paro, are***.   &#xD;&#xA;And ***Jussit***, the **3rd person of the singular in the Past Perfect** of the verb ***Jubeo, es, jussi, jussum, ere***?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation, also from the book, is:  &#xD;&#xA;*Preparadas todas as coisas, César ordenou que os soldados subissem nos navios* . (Pt)    &#xD;&#xA;*Prepared everything, Caesar ordered the soldiers to board the ship*. (Partially Google translated)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7108" RevisionGUID="3ee7a2ef-6daf-46f7-b5b2-0a5cf70341f2" CreationDate="2018-08-29T20:36:57.847" UserId="1142" Text="You were spot on with your parsing of *iussit*; it is, in fact, the *third person singular perfect active indicative* of *iubeō, iubēre, iussī, iussum*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to *parātīs* (the macrons should give a bit of a spoiler regarding what it is), you were not quite there. It is the *perfect passive participle* of *parō, parāre, parāvī, parātum*, and is being used in an *ablative absolute* expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole phrase should be translated as such:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Omnibus rēbus parātīs, Caesar mīlitēs navēs cōnscendere iussit.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *With all things (having been) prepared, Caesar ordered the soldiers to board the ships.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a bit of a side note, Caesar's commentaries (to the best of my knowledge) are almost exclusively written in the third person, unless something or someone is being quoted, so potentially ambiguous forms that look like personal conjugations (1st, 2nd person), like *paratis* (without the macrons, of course), can usually be assumed to not be personal conjugations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7108" RevisionGUID="223a4d64-cc37-4097-a026-a138dad1c08f" CreationDate="2018-08-30T03:15:20.230" UserId="1142" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="You were spot on with your parsing of *iussit*; it is, in fact, the *third person singular perfect active indicative* of *iubeō, iubēre, iussī, iussum*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to *parātīs* (the macrons should give a bit of a spoiler regarding what it is), you were not quite there. It is the *perfect passive participle* of *parō, parāre, parāvī, parātum*, and is being used in an *ablative absolute* expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole phrase should be translated as such:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Omnibus rēbus parātīs, Caesar mīlitēs navēs cōnscendere iussit.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *With all things (having been) prepared, Caesar ordered the soldiers to board the ships.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a bit of a side note, Caesar's commentaries (to the best of my knowledge) are almost exclusively written in the third person; unless something or someone is being quoted, potentially ambiguous forms that look like personal conjugations (1st, 2nd person), like *paratis* (without the macrons, of course), can usually be assumed to not be personal conjugations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7109" RevisionGUID="3aedf252-315d-43e1-b46b-e837b10f4427" CreationDate="2018-08-30T07:43:38.880" UserId="2704" Text="At least one authority thinks your fragment is in fact Pindar: this turns up in the Snell/Maehler Teubner edition of Pindar, as fragment 52wi of the Paians. See http://www.poesialatina.it/_ns/Greek/testi/Pindarus/Fragmenta01.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7109" RevisionGUID="8ba7f4bc-01f5-4dda-950f-9badf7bd77c4" CreationDate="2018-08-30T07:49:06.190" UserId="2704" Comment="added 527 characters in body" Text="At least one authority thinks your fragment is in fact Pindar: this turns up in the Snell/Maehler Teubner edition of Pindar, as fragment 52wi of the Paians. See http://www.poesialatina.it/_ns/Greek/testi/Pindarus/Fragmenta01.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, we can see the Teubner on Google Books: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=rWAgAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA68&amp;dq=δέρκεν&amp;hl=el&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj3ztnHo5TdAhVCIIgKHW0mD60Q6AEIWjAH#v=onepage&amp;q=δέρκεν&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The app.font. says &quot;Π^26 fr. 87 (olim P. Oxy. 1787 fr. 9)&quot;. Fragment 52wh is also &quot;Π^26 fr. 86 (olim P. Oxy. 1787 fr. 8)&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have the full book, to tell you what Π^26 is, but clearly it's a reconstruction of a book of Pindar's from papyri, and scholars have been at work gathering fragments into that reconstruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... No, strike that: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=mXdzAAAAIAAJ&amp;q=π26+pindar&amp;dq=π26+pindar&amp;hl=el&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi3u9qdpZTdAhWO-mEKHbZ2BMw4ChDoAQg0MAI , snippet from the Teubner edition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Π^26: nondum edita, cf. Lobel P. Oxy. 26, p. 31&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Lobel has gone through Oxyrhynchus, worked out that a bunch of fragments from Oxyrhynchus are Pindar, and published his handiwork in Vol. 26 p. 31 of the Oxyrhynchus volumes. But noone had put together all the fragments he has gathered together into a single published source as of 1997." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7109" RevisionGUID="dc801b96-685c-45fa-b7eb-e4b4d5ade61e" CreationDate="2018-08-30T07:54:19.803" UserId="2704" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="At least one authority thinks your fragment is in fact Pindar: this turns up in the Snell/Maehler Teubner edition of Pindar, as fragment 52wi of the Paians. See http://www.poesialatina.it/_ns/Greek/testi/Pindarus/Fragmenta01.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, we can see the Teubner on Google Books: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=rWAgAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA68&amp;dq=δέρκεν&amp;hl=el&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj3ztnHo5TdAhVCIIgKHW0mD60Q6AEIWjAH#v=onepage&amp;q=δέρκεν&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The app.font. says &quot;Π^26 fr. 87 (olim P. Oxy. 1787 fr. 9)&quot;. Fragment 52wh is also &quot;Π^26 fr. 86 (olim P. Oxy. 1787 fr. 8)&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have the full book, to tell you what Π^26 is, but clearly it's a reconstruction of a book of Pindar's from papyri, and scholars have been at work gathering fragments into that reconstruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... No, strike that: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=mXdzAAAAIAAJ&amp;q=π26+pindar&amp;dq=π26+pindar&amp;hl=el&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi3u9qdpZTdAhWO-mEKHbZ2BMw4ChDoAQg0MAI , snippet from the Teubner edition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Π^26: nondum edita, cf. Lobel P. Oxy. 26, p. 31&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Lobel has gone through Oxyrhynchus, worked out that a hundred-odd fragments from Oxyrhynchus are Pindar, and published his handiwork in Vol. 26 p. 31 of the Oxyrhynchus volumes. But noone had put together all the fragments he has gathered together into a single published source as of 1997.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Lobel decided this was a fragment of Pindar, he did not include it with the other fragments of P. Oxy. 1787 which he thought were Sappho. And since Lobel deemed that P. Oxy. 1787 fr. 8 and 9 henceforth belong to his Π^26, they've been withdrawn from the online publication of P. Oxy. 1787 (&quot;8&amp;9 missing&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Papyrology. The more I learn about it, the dodgier it seems. :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7109" RevisionGUID="047f791b-9001-41fc-89d8-6c0caa477471" CreationDate="2018-08-30T08:01:01.220" UserId="2704" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="At least one authority thinks your fragment is in fact Pindar: this turns up in the Snell/Maehler Teubner edition of Pindar, as fragment 52wi of the Paians. See http://www.poesialatina.it/_ns/Greek/testi/Pindarus/Fragmenta01.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, we can see the Teubner on Google Books: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=rWAgAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA68&amp;dq=δέρκεν&amp;hl=el&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj3ztnHo5TdAhVCIIgKHW0mD60Q6AEIWjAH#v=onepage&amp;q=δέρκεν&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The app.font. says &quot;Π^26 fr. 87 (olim P. Oxy. 1787 fr. 9)&quot;. Fragment 52wh is also &quot;Π^26 fr. 86 (olim P. Oxy. 1787 fr. 8)&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have the full book, to tell you what Π^26 is, but clearly it's a reconstruction of a book of Pindar's from papyri, and scholars have been at work gathering fragments into that reconstruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... No, strike that: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=mXdzAAAAIAAJ&amp;q=π26+pindar&amp;dq=π26+pindar&amp;hl=el&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi3u9qdpZTdAhWO-mEKHbZ2BMw4ChDoAQg0MAI , snippet from the Teubner edition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Π^26: nondum edita, cf. Lobel P. Oxy. 26, p. 31&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Lobel has gone through Oxyrhynchus, worked out that a hundred-odd fragments from Oxyrhynchus are Pindar, and published his handiwork in Vol. 26 p. 31 of the Oxyrhynchus volumes. But noone had put together all the fragments he has gathered together into a single published source as of 1997.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. Oxy. 1787 was published in vol. 15, in 1922. Vol. 26, when Lobel published that Π^26 was a thing, came out in 1961. Since Lobel decided this was a fragment of Pindar, he did not include it with the other fragments of P. Oxy. 1787 which he thought were Sappho (already published in 1955). And since Lobel had deemed that P. Oxy. 1787 fr. 8 and 9 henceforth belong to his Π^26, sometime between 1922 and 1955, they've been withdrawn from the online publication of P. Oxy. 1787 (&quot;8&amp;9 missing&quot;; &quot;olim&quot; = &quot;formerly&quot; P. Oxy. 1787 fr. 9).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Papyrology. The more I learn about it, the dodgier it seems. :-) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7109" RevisionGUID="9f235556-3ee2-464b-afa7-d393cbde82b2" CreationDate="2018-08-30T08:12:55.103" UserId="2704" Comment="added 289 characters in body" Text="At least one authority thinks your fragment is in fact Pindar: this turns up in the Snell/Maehler Teubner edition of Pindar, as fragment 52wi of the Paians. See http://www.poesialatina.it/_ns/Greek/testi/Pindarus/Fragmenta01.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, we can see the Teubner on Google Books: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=rWAgAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA68&amp;dq=δέρκεν&amp;hl=el&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj3ztnHo5TdAhVCIIgKHW0mD60Q6AEIWjAH#v=onepage&amp;q=δέρκεν&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The app.font. says &quot;Π^26 fr. 87 (olim P. Oxy. 1787 fr. 9)&quot;. Fragment 52wh is also &quot;Π^26 fr. 86 (olim P. Oxy. 1787 fr. 8)&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have the full book, to tell you what Π^26 is, but clearly it's a reconstruction of a book of Pindar's from papyri, and scholars have been at work gathering fragments into that reconstruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... No, strike that: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=mXdzAAAAIAAJ&amp;q=π26+pindar&amp;dq=π26+pindar&amp;hl=el&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi3u9qdpZTdAhWO-mEKHbZ2BMw4ChDoAQg0MAI , snippet from the Teubner edition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Π^26: nondum edita, cf. Lobel P. Oxy. 26, p. 31&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Lobel has gone through Oxyrhynchus, worked out that a hundred-odd fragments from Oxyrhynchus are Pindar, and published his handiwork in Vol. 26 p. 31 of the Oxyrhynchus volumes. But noone had put together all the fragments he has gathered together into a single published source as of 1997.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. Oxy. 1787 was published in vol. 15, in 1922. Vol. 26, when Lobel published that Π^26 was a thing, came out in 1961. Since Lobel decided this was a fragment of Pindar, he did not include it with the other fragments of P. Oxy. 1787 which he thought were Sappho (already published in 1955). And since Lobel had deemed that P. Oxy. 1787 fr. 8 and 9 henceforth belong to his Π^26, sometime between 1922 and 1955, they've been withdrawn from the online publication of P. Oxy. 1787 (&quot;8&amp;9 missing&quot;; &quot;olim&quot; = &quot;formerly&quot; P. Oxy. 1787 fr. 9).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Papyrology. The more I learn about it, the dodgier it seems. :-) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I *think* I've tracked this down in an online catalogue; assuming Π^26 is &quot;Snell P26&quot;, which is reasonable: https://www.trismegistos.org/ldab/text.php?tm=62564&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publication:	P. Oxy. 75 5039 (Maehler, Herwig; 2010; transcription); P. Oxy. 26 2442 (Lobel, Edgar; 1961; transcription)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7107" RevisionGUID="14eb50a6-ab22-4e6d-bc43-320839dc7c01" CreationDate="2018-08-30T08:16:12.883" UserId="31" Comment="Proofreading" Text="In &quot;*Omnibus rebus paratis, Caesar milites naves conscendere jussit*&quot;, what forms are the verbs &quot;*paratis*&quot; and &quot;*jussit*&quot;, and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence was taken from *Gramática latina de Napoleão Mendes*, from the chapter talking about the ***Absolute Ablative*** and ***Ablative Gerund*** (not sure about the names in English). Independent of the case the phrase is related to, the verbs were expected to be in participle form, which doesn't seems to be the case, seeing as the participle form ends in &quot;*-ns*, *-ntis*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*Paratis*&quot;, as far as I know, is the **2nd person plural present** for the verb ***paro, -are***, and &quot;*jussit*&quot; is the **3rd person singular past perfect** of the verb ***jubeo, -es, jussi, jussum, -ere***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation for the sentence given in the book is:  &#xD;&#xA;*Preparadas todas as coisas, César ordenou que os soldados subissem nos navios*. (Pt)    &#xD;&#xA;*Prepared everything, Caesar ordered the soldiers to board the ship*. (Partially Google translated)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23866" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7107" RevisionGUID="14eb50a6-ab22-4e6d-bc43-320839dc7c01" CreationDate="2018-08-30T08:16:12.883" UserId="31" Comment="Proofreading" Text="What forms are the verbs in &quot;Omnibus rebus paratis, Caesar milites naves conscendere jussit&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23867" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7107" RevisionGUID="14eb50a6-ab22-4e6d-bc43-320839dc7c01" CreationDate="2018-08-30T08:16:12.883" Comment="Proposed by 31 approved by 79 edit id of 256" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23869" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6839" RevisionGUID="69e7265f-273d-4e94-96ca-5dc2d14ce110" CreationDate="2018-08-30T12:07:47.407" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|idiom|example-request|spanish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7110" RevisionGUID="6ca3b6f4-6453-4d96-91a1-6f188e04a742" CreationDate="2018-08-31T04:09:43.293" UserId="2872" Text="Justinian II had the Latin name Flavius Iustinianus Augustus and was the last Byzantine emperor from the Heraclian Dynasty, but his successor Philippikos Bardanes did not have a Latin name. Why didn’t the Byzantine emperors going forward, such as the last one, Constantine XI, have Latin names?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23871" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7110" RevisionGUID="6ca3b6f4-6453-4d96-91a1-6f188e04a742" CreationDate="2018-08-31T04:09:43.293" UserId="2872" Text="Why didn’t Byzantine emperors after Justinian II have a Latin name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23872" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7110" RevisionGUID="6ca3b6f4-6453-4d96-91a1-6f188e04a742" CreationDate="2018-08-31T04:09:43.293" UserId="2872" Text="|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7111" RevisionGUID="bbfc1db6-caff-479f-b330-371df1abaa03" CreationDate="2018-08-31T04:42:54.280" UserId="406" Text="Suppose I want to be particularly emphatic about a noun: &quot;the Fates themselves must have turned against me!&quot; In Latin, I'd use some form of *ipse*; in Greek, my first instinct is *autos*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I've also heard that *autos* means &quot;same&quot; instead of being an intensifier when there's a definite article involved. That's not my goal here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if I also need to have a definite article (e.g. because the noun always takes one, like *Moirai*), how would I make the noun more emphatic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please forgive my transcriptions, I lack a proper keyboard on this device.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23874" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7111" RevisionGUID="bbfc1db6-caff-479f-b330-371df1abaa03" CreationDate="2018-08-31T04:42:54.280" UserId="406" Text="How would I emphasize a definite noun? (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23875" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7111" RevisionGUID="bbfc1db6-caff-479f-b330-371df1abaa03" CreationDate="2018-08-31T04:42:54.280" UserId="406" Text="|greek|articles|reflexive-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7112" RevisionGUID="c07fd8ca-76b3-45fe-9133-2ecbadba3d4c" CreationDate="2018-08-31T05:09:01.983" UserId="985" Text="It depends on the position of αὐτός.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it's in *attributive position*, it means 'same':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ὁ αὐτὸς δοῦλος, 'the same slave'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it's in *predicate position* it's an intensifier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ὁ δοῦλος αὐτός / αὐτὸς ὁ δοῦλος, 'the slave himself'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also an intensifier if it stands alone in the nominative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;αὐτὸς ἔπεσον, 'I myself fell.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In cases other than the nominative, it's just the third person pronoun, 'he'/'she'/'it.')" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7110" RevisionGUID="abe3255a-0d6f-49a7-bfc1-b102e19bebb2" CreationDate="2018-08-31T07:14:29.113" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Justinian II had the Latin name Flavius Iustinianus Augustus and was the last Byzantine emperor from the Heraclian Dynasty, but his successor Philippikos Bardanes did not have a Latin name. Why didn't the Byzantine emperors going forward, such as the last one, Constantine XI, have Latin names?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23878" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7110" RevisionGUID="abe3255a-0d6f-49a7-bfc1-b102e19bebb2" CreationDate="2018-08-31T07:14:29.113" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Why didn't Byzantine emperors after Justinian II have a Latin name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23879" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7110" RevisionGUID="abe3255a-0d6f-49a7-bfc1-b102e19bebb2" CreationDate="2018-08-31T07:14:29.113" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|history|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="7b3c5bfc-95f9-4f86-a319-203eb5fb49b1" CreationDate="2018-08-31T15:39:13.223" UserId="2882" Text="So, couple of months ago, I heard this story of a demon or some entity that was cursed to eternally break something down and reintegrate it together. There is even a photo of the demon crying in the article where I read the story. I can't remember why, but there is some connection to Pharmacy behind all of this. I think it means, breaking down a solution into it's constituents? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the phrase has a philosophical meaning that if you are not able to understand something, break it down and try to understand the smaller parts, then the aggregate whole will start to make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23881" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="7b3c5bfc-95f9-4f86-a319-203eb5fb49b1" CreationDate="2018-08-31T15:39:13.223" UserId="2882" Text="Latin phrase that means, dissolve and reintegrate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23882" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="7b3c5bfc-95f9-4f86-a319-203eb5fb49b1" CreationDate="2018-08-31T15:39:13.223" UserId="2882" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="273" RevisionGUID="8dd01740-72b1-462c-8efe-a09a8680483f" CreationDate="2018-08-31T15:45:27.980" UserId="648" Comment="typo corrected" Text="The tag alphabet can be used for questions regarding&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The evolution of the latin alphabet&#xD;&#xA; - The pronunciation of letters of the latin alphabet&#xD;&#xA; - Specific question on the letterforms of the latin alphabet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23884" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="273" RevisionGUID="8dd01740-72b1-462c-8efe-a09a8680483f" CreationDate="2018-08-31T15:45:27.980" Comment="Proposed by 648 approved by 79 edit id of 257" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="6012b8b5-efbb-4b9b-b692-f6feb92b0c00" CreationDate="2018-08-31T15:55:16.637" UserId="79" Comment="Tried to edit for clarity." Text="A couple of months ago, I heard this story of a demon or some entity that was cursed to eternally break something down and reintegrate it together. There is even a photo of the demon crying in the article where I read the story. The photo contains a Latin phrase meaning &quot;dissolve and reintegrate&quot;, and I am looking for the exact Latin wording of this phrase. I can't remember why, but there is some connection to Pharmacy behind all of this. I think it means, breaking down a solution into it's constituents? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the phrase has a philosophical meaning that if you are not able to understand something, break it down and try to understand the smaller parts, then the aggregate whole will start to make sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23886" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="6012b8b5-efbb-4b9b-b692-f6feb92b0c00" CreationDate="2018-08-31T15:55:16.637" UserId="79" Comment="Tried to edit for clarity." Text="|idiom|passage-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7114" RevisionGUID="83ad86f6-0c70-4fee-921a-3b994b8c1c5f" CreationDate="2018-08-31T16:58:24.803" UserId="522" Text="For the sake of completeness, this is the state of play:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Baphomet is a deity that the Knights Templar were falsely accused of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; worshipping and that ... The arms bear the Latin words SOLVE&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (separate) and COAGULA (join together) .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia's post for 'SEARCH:  SOLVE COAGULA'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Philosophers who described the world in such terms of continual change, and may have been sources for the demonology include:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Heraclitus** &quot;... then each object must dissolve and be generated continually momentarily ...... which synthesized.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cleanthes** (; Greek: Κλεάνθης Kleanthēs; c. 330 BC – c. 230 BC)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Diogenes**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23888" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6919" RevisionGUID="83a54dac-b100-4c5f-9156-3c5b9acb0846" CreationDate="2018-08-31T17:19:39.483" UserId="1142" Comment="Rephrase title." Text="Ubī ūtar verbō &quot;queō&quot; prō &quot;possum&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7111" RevisionGUID="68e8632e-6f7e-48a4-b35f-ab13f519b422" CreationDate="2018-08-31T18:42:45.553" UserId="406" Comment="replaced Romanizations with actual Greek" Text="Suppose I want to be particularly emphatic about a noun: &quot;the Fates themselves must have turned against me!&quot; In Latin, I'd use some form of *ipse*; in Greek, my first instinct is *αὐτός*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I've also heard that *αὐτός* means &quot;same&quot; instead of being an intensifier when there's a definite article involved. That's not my goal here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if I also need to have a definite article (e.g. because the noun always takes one, like *αἱ Μοῖραι* &quot;the Fates&quot;), how would I make the noun more emphatic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7114" RevisionGUID="db3df88e-ca89-4cf9-a0dc-a12b3b2ad63f" CreationDate="2018-09-01T09:19:58.953" UserId="1459" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="For the sake of completeness, this is the state of play:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Baphomet is a deity that the Knights Templar were falsely accused of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; worshipping and that ... The arms bear the Latin words SOLVE&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (separate) and COAGULA (join together) .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia's article [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baphomet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Philosophers who described the world in such terms of continual change, and may have been sources for the demonology include:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Heraclitus** &quot;... then each object must dissolve and be generated continually momentarily ...... which synthesized.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cleanthes** (; Greek: Κλεάνθης Kleanthēs; c. 330 BC – c. 230 BC)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Diogenes**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23892" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7084" RevisionGUID="a7e8e188-419c-4633-a696-e7615a67c2bf" CreationDate="2018-09-01T13:03:46.417" UserId="79" Comment="edited title" Text="How to translate &quot;morning breath&quot; into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7115" RevisionGUID="cb9a0d11-7ba7-4d1b-8aff-110adb3b063d" CreationDate="2018-09-01T14:06:50.127" UserId="1459" Text="From the [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire#Language) entry on the Bizantine Empire (emphasis mine):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The emperor Diocletian (reigned 284–305) sought to renew the authority of Latin, making it the official language of the Roman administration also in the East, and the Greek expression ἡ κρατοῦσα διάλεκτος (hē kratousa dialektos) attests to the status of Latin as &quot;the language of power.&quot;[259] The scholar Libanius (4th century) regarded Latin as causing a decline in the quality of Greek rhetoric[260] as the study of Latin became necessary for those who wanted to occupy public offices. In the early 5th century, Greek gained equal status with Latin as official language in the East and emperors gradually began to legislate in Greek rather than Latin starting with the reign of Leo I the Thracian in the 460s[261]. The last Eastern emperor to stress the importance of Latin was Justinian I (reigned AD 527-565), whose Corpus Juris Civilis was written almost entirely in Latin. He may also have been the last native Latin-speaking emperor[262].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**The use of Latin as the language of administration persisted until adoption of Greek as the sole official language by Heraclius in the 7th century.** Scholarly Latin would rapidly fall into disuse among the educated classes although the language would continue to be at least a ceremonial part of the Empire's culture for some time.[263]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding Heraclius, the respective [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclius) entry states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One of the most important legacies of Heraclius was changing the official language of the Empire from Latin to Greek in 620.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(No all agree with the above though, e.g. [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire_under_the_Heraclian_dynasty#Heraclius'_rule) or [here](http://historum.com/medieval-byzantine-history/84395-when-byzantium-changed-its-language-officially.html)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Page 311 of John Julius Norwich’s _Byzantium: The Early Centuries_ states (copied from [here](https://www.quora.com/When-did-Emperor-Heraclius-changed-the-official-language-of-the-Roman-Empire-from-Latin-to-Greek)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“If Justinian had been the last of the truly Roman Emperors, it was Heraclius who dealt the old Roman tradition its death-blow. Until his [Heraclius’] day, Latin was still regularly used by the civil service and even by the army — despite the fact that it was incomprehensible to the overwhelming majority of his subjects. At a moment when efficiency of communications was of paramount importance [i.e., during the Arab attacks], such a state of affairs was clearly ridiculous; and it was Heraclius who decreed that Greek, for long the language of the people and the Church, should henceforth be the official language of the Empire. Within a generation, even among the educated classes, Latin became virtually extinct. **Finally, by way of marking the end of the old Empire and setting the seal on the new, he abolished the ancient Roman titles of imperial dignity.** Heretofore, like his predecessors, he had been formally hailed as Imperator Caesar and Augustus; all these were now replaced by the old Greek word for ‘King’, Basileus — which as to remain the official title for as long as the Empire lasted.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The truth however is that some of Heraclius's successors (but not all of them) did use a Latin title too. As you mention, it was Justinian II, 80 years later, the last emperor to use a Latin name (see list of emperors [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Byzantine_emperors)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if anything of the above is true, the disuse of Latin as an imperial title/name was just part of the cultural dimension of the continued historical trend of discord between the &quot;East&quot; and &quot;West&quot; of the (former) Roman Empire, divisions which ultimately led to the [Great Schism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7070" RevisionGUID="5ff67358-6ce4-47aa-b3d5-536ddd54a862" CreationDate="2018-09-01T14:25:19.180" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 40 characters in body" Text="The noun *foedus* originally (by which I mean late Proto-Italic going into early Latin) looked something like *_foidos-_. Note that that's the stem, with no ending attached.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Proto-Indo-European ablaut patterns would have meant the stem was *foidos- in the nominative and vocative and *foides- in the other cases, but I'm not sure if this ablaut was still relevant in Proto-Italic or if it had been levelled out; this answer is written as if it were already levelled out, for simplicity. The result is the same either way._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third-declension endings were then added onto this. (I'm only showing the nominative, genitive, and ablative, but you can extrapolate the rest.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foidos-∅&#xD;&#xA;    foidos-es&#xD;&#xA;    foidos-e&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the nominative ending for neuter third-declension nouns is ∅ (that is, nothing at all). Then *rhotacism* applied, changing S between vowels to R.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foidos&#xD;&#xA;    foidores&#xD;&#xA;    foidore&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another process turned all short vowels in medial open syllables (i.e. vowels in the middle of a word and not before two consonants) into *i*. [But Latin didn't like *ir*, so this sequence became *er*.][1] Note that this happened no matter what the vowel was, so it doesn't matter if the PIE ablaut was still relevant or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foidos&#xD;&#xA;    foideres&#xD;&#xA;    foidere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, short *o* in the last syllable of a word turned into *u*, short *e* in closed final syllables turned into *i*, and *oi* was respelled *oe*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    foedus&#xD;&#xA;    foederis&#xD;&#xA;    foedere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This led to the noun forms you're familiar with in Classical times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective *foedus* came from a different source: its stem was actually *foid-* instead of *foidos-*, and the standard first/second endings were tacked onto this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1908/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7116" RevisionGUID="88240f08-432f-4d86-af87-f100c59acd84" CreationDate="2018-09-01T15:27:53.353" UserId="1459" Text="Before staring learning Latin, I was already acquainted with many Latin expressions accommodated to Spanish (and English). Typical examples are _ex ante_, _ex post_, _vice versa_, _et cetera_, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that I've started to learn Latin, I can dig deeper into the meaning of these expression in its original language. But the agreement seems sometimes not to be literal. There is already an example [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6232/is-the-usage-of-id-est-in-latin-exactly-like-the-usage-of-i-e-or-that-is). Another example, so far as I can tell, is _vice versa_. For instance, in the Vulgata we read ([Esther 9:1](http://drbo.org/drl/chapter/19009.htm)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Igitur duodecimi mensis, quem Adar vocari ante jam diximus, tertiadecima die, quando cunctis Judaeis interfectio parabatur, et hostes eorum inhiabant sanguini, versa vice Judaei superiores esse coeperunt, et se de adversariis vindicare_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But as far as I can understand, the meaning there is not that which we normally understand to be _vice versa_ in English (or Spanish). There is a turn of things, but I don't see a literal translation being valid there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are of course plenty of examples where the meaning is mostly if not equally identical, e.g. _viva voce_, _vox populi_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know (i) if discrepancies is actually a common phenomenon, and if so, (ii) why does it occur. Is it because of the increasing Latin illiteracy of an important group of the population, such that at some point the users of an expression no longer understand the language behind it, giving further way to imprecise, if not directly incorrect meanings? (Not that there is necessarily something wrong with this)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23896" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7116" RevisionGUID="88240f08-432f-4d86-af87-f100c59acd84" CreationDate="2018-09-01T15:27:53.353" UserId="1459" Text="Latin phrases adopting an imprecise/incorrect meaning in English (or other languages)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23897" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7116" RevisionGUID="88240f08-432f-4d86-af87-f100c59acd84" CreationDate="2018-09-01T15:27:53.353" UserId="1459" Text="|idiom|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7112" RevisionGUID="b006b03f-17fd-4438-b02f-f948ff34ed5d" CreationDate="2018-09-01T21:08:13.387" UserId="985" Comment="Added real examples from Greek authors, and other changes" Text="It depends on the position of αὐτός.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- When it's in *attributive position*, it means 'same': ὁ αὐτὸς δοῦλος (also, more rarely, δοῦλος ὁ αὐτός or ὁ δοῦλος ὁ αὐτός), 'the same slave.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Example: Antiphon 5.50 ('On the murder of Herodes'):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt;  ποτέρῳ οὖν εἰκός ἐστι πιστεῦσαι, τῷ διὰ τέλους **τὸν αὐτὸν ἀεὶ λόγον** λέγοντι, ἢ τῷ τοτὲ μὲν φάσκοντι τοτὲ δ᾽ οὔ;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Which, then, have we more reason to believe: the witness who firmly adhered to **the same statement throughout**, or the witness who affirmed a thing at one moment, and denied it at the next?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (Translation from [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0020%3Aspeech%3D5%3Asection%3D50))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- When it's in *predicate position*, it's an intensifier: ὁ δοῦλος αὐτός or αὐτὸς ὁ δοῦλος, 'the slave himself.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  It's also an intensifier if it stands alone in the nominative case. In such cases, it's emphasizing the subject pronoun that's understood from the verb ending: αὐτὸς ἔπεσον, 'I myself fell.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Example: Thucydides 1.114.3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; καὶ Ἀθηναῖοι πάλιν ἐς Εὔβοιαν διαβάντες Περικλέους στρατηγοῦντος κατεστρέψαντο πᾶσαν, καὶ τὴν μὲν ἄλλην ὁμολογίᾳ κατεστήσαντο, Ἑστιαιᾶς δὲ ἐξοικίσαντες **αὐτοὶ τὴν γῆν ἔσχον**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; The Athenians then crossed over again to Euboea under the command of Pericles, and subdued the whole of the island: all but Histiaea was settled by convention; the Histiaeans they expelled from their homes, and **occupied their territory themselves**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (Translation from [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0200%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D114))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- And, of course, when it stands alone in cases other than the nominative, it's generally just the third person pronoun, 'he'/'she'/'it.' (Though, as Smyth, *Greek grammar* §1208 points out, it can sometimes emphasize a noun, or a pronoun, that must be supplied from context; and certainly, in both the examples that Smyth provides [Thucydides 4.78.4 and Demosthenes 2.2], the noun/pronoun that must be supplied is quite obvious.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7118" RevisionGUID="a48e8554-a947-4266-bbe3-74fe3d95f44b" CreationDate="2018-09-01T21:48:29.257" UserId="13" Text="Ah, here we are again. The Spanish edition I mentioned in a recent question has produced another piece of trivia. Here is the offending fragment, numbered 89:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Σαπ[φοΟί με[λών δ'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A part from the usual garbling of the text, this seems to be a colophon of a papyrus that, if the completion is read right, should give fragments from book IV. Looking at the translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;........&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;y cantos&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;de Safo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would seem to suggest that the original line breaking was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Σαπ[φοῦς&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;με[λῶν δʹ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sap[pho's&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;po[ems IV&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I know of two colophons. One is of book 1, found on P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 56:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Book I colophon, P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 56][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the other is of book 2, found on P.Oxy. 2076:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Book 2 colophon, P.Oxy. 2076][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very clearly, neither matches the assumed line breaking, or the bracketing for that matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the Spanish edition says it uses the text of Reinach's edition, which I recently reconstructed to have been published in 1937 and reprinted in 1966. I assume they would follow Reinach's order of the fragments, besides the text, given that at the end there is a section called &quot;Fragmentos no recopilados en la edición de T. Reinach&quot; (framgents not compiled in the edition of T. Reinach). The fact of the matter is, this is placed at the very end of book IV, with the fragments right before it being all universally book IV (in fact, fr. 88 is a safopoemas-style smashing of P.Oxy. 1787 fragments), and what starts afterwards being precisely the book V part of Lobel-Page, minus some fragments published later than Reinach. So this would lead me to assume Reinach actually had this as a book IV colophon, or a supposed such thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with this is that, if such a colophon existed, I would assume Voigt's monumental edition would record it together with the two above, in the section _ad editiones antiquorum pertinentia_ of the Testimonia. But that is not the case. In fact, the two colophons above are the only ones in that section. Which would lead me to assume no book IV colophon for Sappho was ever found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what do I make of this? Is there such a colophon which Voigt somehow missed or recorded elsewhere? Should that colophon be taken as one of the two above with a spectacular corruption? What did Reinach have that matches this? Can we answer any of these questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Extras**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the paragraph where the edition states they follow Reinach's text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;El texto griego que hemos utilizado fue el que preparó Theodore Reinach, en atención a su magnífico aparato crítico y como homenaje mínimo a su severo y conservador trabajo, que prefiere, sin audacia, leer lo mínimo con la seguridad de que _esas_ escasas palabras fueron de Safo, en lugar de las largas, interesantes y arriesgadas reconstrucciones de otros autores. Como la edición de Reinach, que finalmente revisó Aimé Puech, fue anterior a la publicación de varios papiros importantes y de otras ediciones útilísimas, hemos consultado permanentemente las de Edmonds, Diehl y Page, y en varias ocasiones las hemos seguido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Greek text we have used was that which Théodore Reinach prepared, as a courtesy to his magnificent critical apparatus and as a minimal tribute to his strict and conservative work, who prefers, without audacity, to read as little as possible, with the certainty that _those_ few words were by Sappho, in place of the wide, interesting and risky reconstructions of other authors. Since the edition of Reinach, finally revised by Aimé Puech, predated the publication of various important papyri and of other very useful editions, we have permanently consulted those of Edmonds, Diehl, and Page, and in various occasions we have followed them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(So that is where all those daring reconstructions I saw in safopoemas come from! They should still be in _variantes_ though, IMHO…)&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NWIJI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pLcuZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23901" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7118" RevisionGUID="a48e8554-a947-4266-bbe3-74fe3d95f44b" CreationDate="2018-09-01T21:48:29.257" UserId="13" Text="Tracing apparent book-IV colophon not found in Voigt but found in a Spanish Sappho book based on Reinach's French edition" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23902" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7118" RevisionGUID="a48e8554-a947-4266-bbe3-74fe3d95f44b" CreationDate="2018-09-01T21:48:29.257" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|passage-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7119" RevisionGUID="90a7e9b9-a465-4c02-8436-e2d749d113e2" CreationDate="2018-09-01T22:20:29.873" UserId="13" Text="A bit of background on the fragment. This is a quotation by Herodian. The manuscripts, according to Bergk (frr. 56 &amp; 82), give it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἐγὼ δ' ἐπὶ μαλθάκαν τύλαν σπολέω μέλεα· κἂν μέν τε τύλαγκας ἀσπόλεα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;adding the note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;οὐ γὰρ ὁ τε σύνδεσμος | For the τε is not a conjunction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is by Herodianus. Bergk comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Apparet haec postrema ex alio quo fragmento petita esse. | It seems that these last words were taken from some other fragment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No explanation is given to this. The only thing I can vaguely see is a metrical argument, where the first part, up to σπολέω μέλεα, seems to be x–uu–ux, two lines of that meter, broken as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ἔγω δ' ἐπὶ μαλθάκαν | And I on soft&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Τύλαν σπολέω μέλεα | Cushion(s) will place my limbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the second part is apparently ––uu–?–uuu, whatever meter you want to see there. In effect Bergk amends that part to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Καμ μὲν τὲ τύλαν κασπολέω | I will put you down on cushions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first fragment, it is IMO unclear whether μολθάκαν τύλαν is accusative singular or genitive plural, with this being Aeolic and the two forms being identical in Aeolic. In any case, the grammar is clear, and so is it for the second fragment, where τε (amended to τὲ) is the _κατὰ ἀπόλυσιν_ (as Apollonius Dyscolus would put it) of the pronoun σὲ, and καμ ... τύλαν is either κατὰ ... τυλῶν or κατὰ ... τύλην, _down on cushion(s)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lobel-Page, Voigt, and Campbell keep these two together, sticking to the tradition and putting part two in cruces, since it is, AFAICT, unintelligible as is. They do, however, add the κα- to the σπολέω in part 1, _ut glyconii evadeant_, I suppose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edmonds splits these, adds ὀ- instead of κα- in part 1 for the same metrical reason, with it being a pre-consonant-cluster form of ὄν=ἀνά, but then has the following for part 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;καίναν μέν τε τύλαν κατὰ σὰ σπολέω μέλεα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with a synaeresis for the last two vowels. This entails a pretty strong corruption of καίναν which lost three letters to being copied over and over, τύλαγκας featuring a respelling because &quot;Hey, the n-sound before kappa is spelt gamma, so there's a spello here!&quot;, two letters being lost in the middle, the final -ς going with the initial of ἀσπόλεα to form σὰ, and finally σπόλεα being a fusion of σπολέω + μέλεα. The problem is: how does the grammar work in this sentence? It would seem that he is ignoring Herodian's warning and reading τε as an _and_ that is lost in the translation. However, there is a _you_ in the translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You shall lie on new cushions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, _new cushions_ is καίναν τύλαν. Where are the σὰ μέλεα? Are the cushions really genitive plural? The only explanation I could find to that is that κατὰ is read as a postposition here, going with the cushions, and then I would read σὰ μέλεα as the object, and then we have two objects! Or is this a Greek-style accusative (accusativo alla greca, if you know Italian), meaning this literally reads as follows?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[I] will put you down on new cushions relatively to the limbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then why the incredibly non-literal translation? Or else I could read the cushions as accusative, and that would force me to read τε as a conjunction, ending up with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And I will put new cushions down on your limbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is even farther from Edmonds' translation! So what do you think?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Extras: Voigt**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Lobel-Page says _et corruptelam omnem ex litteris μολθακαντυλανκασπολεω repetitis ortam credideris_, by the way, agreeing with what Voigt reports Neue to have believed.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MudhO.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23904" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7119" RevisionGUID="90a7e9b9-a465-4c02-8436-e2d749d113e2" CreationDate="2018-09-01T22:20:29.873" UserId="13" Text="Figuring out the grammar of Edmonds 57 (Edmonds' version of the part in cruces of Lobel-Page 46)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23905" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7119" RevisionGUID="90a7e9b9-a465-4c02-8436-e2d749d113e2" CreationDate="2018-09-01T22:20:29.873" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="13490f03-a3e8-4e94-9f41-d9c5a7217c8b" CreationDate="2018-09-03T09:15:15.710" UserId="2646" Text="The word *actual* is a false friend between the Spanish and the English languages. When we say in Spanish &quot;la hora actual&quot; we really mean &quot;the current time&quot; and not &quot;the actual time&quot;. So in Spanish we use the word *[actual][1]* to speak about things happening in the present time. In English the word *[actual][2]* is used to speak about things that exist in fact or reality, but you can use the word to refer to things that existed in the past, and not only in the present. So there's quite a difference between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when it comes to the etymology for both words, ultimately they both come from Latin *actuālis*. So just out of curiosity, what was actually (pun intended) the meaning and use of the word *actuālis* in the Latin language? Was it closer to the current Spanish meaning? Or to the English one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dle.rae.es/?id=0cuhZiL&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/actual" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23911" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="13490f03-a3e8-4e94-9f41-d9c5a7217c8b" CreationDate="2018-09-03T09:15:15.710" UserId="2646" Text="Whad did &quot;actuālis&quot; actually mean in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23912" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="13490f03-a3e8-4e94-9f41-d9c5a7217c8b" CreationDate="2018-09-03T09:15:15.710" UserId="2646" Text="|meaning|adjective|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="01a63737-8e63-4540-8858-1dd4da0116d7" CreationDate="2018-09-03T09:26:33.403" UserId="2646" Comment="added 120 characters in body" Text="The word *actual* is a false friend between the Spanish and the English languages. When we say in Spanish &quot;la hora actual&quot; we really mean &quot;the current time&quot; and not &quot;the actual time&quot;. So in Spanish we use the word *[actual][1]* to speak about things happening in the present time. In English the word *[actual][2]* is used to speak about things that exist in fact or reality, but you can use the word to refer to things that existed in the past, and not only in the present. So there's quite a difference between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when it comes to the etymology for both words, ultimately they both come from Latin *actuālis*. So just out of curiosity, what was actually (pun intended) the meaning and use of the word *actuālis* in the Latin language? Was it closer to the current Spanish meaning or to the English one? Or maybe did it mean something completely different and the current Spanish and English meanings just derived from that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dle.rae.es/?id=0cuhZiL&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/actual" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="3bdb2b9d-ea43-4753-849c-095ddb2381f5" CreationDate="2018-09-03T09:32:06.457" UserId="2646" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="The word *actual* is a false friend between the Spanish and the English languages. When we say in Spanish &quot;la hora actual&quot; we really mean &quot;the current time&quot; and not &quot;the actual time&quot;. So in Spanish we use the word *[actual][1]* to speak about things happening in the present time. In English the word *[actual][2]* is used to speak about things that exist in fact or reality, but you can use the word to refer to things that existed in the past, and not only in the present. So there's quite a difference between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when it comes to the etymology for both words, ultimately they both come from Late Latin *actuālis*. So just out of curiosity, what was actually (pun intended) the meaning and use of the word *actuālis* in Late Latin? Was it closer to the current Spanish meaning or to the English one? Or did it mean something completely different and the current Spanish and English meanings just derived from that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dle.rae.es/?id=0cuhZiL&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/actual" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23915" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="3bdb2b9d-ea43-4753-849c-095ddb2381f5" CreationDate="2018-09-03T09:32:06.457" UserId="2646" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="|meaning|adjective|late-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7121" RevisionGUID="72e2c7a4-5646-4ae4-9edb-ff04ec5d6752" CreationDate="2018-09-03T12:33:13.350" UserId="324" Text="Latin actualis first occurs in Macrobius (5th century AD), who uses it to mean “active, efficient”. This is also the original meaning of French actuel. The shift of meaning to “present, current” happened in French at a very late date (apparently in the 19th century) and it was borrowed in this meaning from French into other languages such as Spanish and German." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23917" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="7f1fafdd-1df6-4a6a-9c79-558da579b82c" CreationDate="2018-09-03T12:35:54.400" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|meaning|adjective|spanish|late-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7122" RevisionGUID="419f054d-ffd4-48e7-a724-e6201e19859b" CreationDate="2018-09-03T12:47:48.683" UserId="2646" Text="I'll try to answer my own question, if I may. After a bit of research I discovered that no more than 300 years ago the meaning of Spanish *actual* was actually the same as English *actual*, as seen by this definition found in a Spanish dictionary from 1726:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ACTUAL. Lo que real y verdaderamente existe al tiempo que se dice, ò enuncia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translated: &quot;what is real and in fact exists at the same time it is said&quot;. An example that the dictionary shows as an example is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; La segunda cosa que se requiere es *actuál* devolución.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translated: &quot;The second thing required is an actual repayment&quot;. Note that this cannot be translated as &quot;a current repayment&quot; as the sentence speak about something that may (or not) happen in the future. So the use of *actual* in Spanish three centuries ago was aligned with the current use of *actual* in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same dictionary also says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Viene del latino *Actualis*, que significa esto mismo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translated: &quot;It comes from Latin *Actualis*, with the same meaning&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my conclussion is that Late Latin *actuālis* meant the same as the current English *actual*, and that the Spanish *actual* derived to another meaning during the latest 300 years, as stated by [fdb's answer][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7121/2646" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7122" RevisionGUID="63f36b5d-654f-4f7e-a700-3b639bda6345" CreationDate="2018-09-03T13:09:00.243" UserId="2646" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="I'll try to answer my own question, if I may. After a bit of research I discovered that no more than 300 years ago the meaning of Spanish *actual* was actually the same as English *actual*, as seen by this definition found in a Spanish dictionary from 1726:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ACTUAL. Lo que real y verdaderamente existe al tiempo que se dice, ò enuncia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translated: &quot;what is real and in fact exists at the same time it is said&quot;. The dictionary proposes the following citation as an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; La segunda cosa que se requiere es *actuál* devolución.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translated: &quot;The second thing required is an actual repayment&quot;. Note that this cannot be translated as &quot;a current repayment&quot; as the sentence speak about something that may (or not) happen in the future. So the use of *actual* in Spanish three centuries ago was aligned with the current use of *actual* in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same dictionary also says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Viene del latino *Actualis*, que significa esto mismo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translated: &quot;It comes from Latin *Actualis*, with the same meaning&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my conclussion is that Late Latin *actuālis* meant the same as the current English *actual*, and that the Spanish *actual* derived to another meaning during the latest 300 years, as stated by [fdb's answer][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7121/2646" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7123" RevisionGUID="15091240-b17a-482f-8776-2af7af628314" CreationDate="2018-09-03T13:54:01.873" UserId="1459" Text="In philosophy and theology there is a core distinction between [potentiality and actuality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality). This distinction is originally from Greek philosophy, but can also found in medieval Christian theology (e.g. in Aquinas). The Latin terms are _[actus et potentia](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01124a.htm)_. _Actus_, in this philosophical position, refers to actual being, in immediate opposition to _potentia_, which means in potentiality. _Potentia_ made its way into both English and Spanish carring the same meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, within this philosophical and theological tradition, _actus_ (and therefore _actualis_) was used in its English meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7124" RevisionGUID="125afc71-df58-424e-b8ca-bad5b52423d2" CreationDate="2018-09-03T16:17:08.807" UserId="1790" Text="[Per Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dactualis):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actŭālis , e, adj. id.,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. active, practical, Macr. Somn. Scip. 2, 17.—Adv.: ac-tŭālĭter , actively, Myth. Vatic. vol. 3, p. 181 ed. Bod.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it wasn't particularly close to either the English or the Spanish word *actual*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7125" RevisionGUID="dd671a72-1886-4dd5-beeb-d7da567f94ed" CreationDate="2018-09-03T16:20:20.657" UserId="2888" Text="I would like like to translate &quot;Everything started here&quot; in Latin. Would &quot;Omni coepia hinc&quot; work? Thank you," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23924" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7125" RevisionGUID="dd671a72-1886-4dd5-beeb-d7da567f94ed" CreationDate="2018-09-03T16:20:20.657" UserId="2888" Text="DOES THIS LATIN PHRASE MAKE SENSE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23925" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7125" RevisionGUID="dd671a72-1886-4dd5-beeb-d7da567f94ed" CreationDate="2018-09-03T16:20:20.657" UserId="2888" Text="|idiom|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7126" RevisionGUID="c1ddc904-3822-45d5-9eea-dcba4dfe6026" CreationDate="2018-09-03T17:45:02.773" UserId="1142" Text="No.&#xA;&#xA;I’m not quite sure how you arrived at your final result; *omnī* is the ablative singular of *omnis, omne*, which doesn’t make much sense if you are trying to convey the word *everything*; *coepia*, well, I’m not really sure if it even exists; and *hinc* means *hence*, *hencforth*, etc., not *here*. All together, the phrase you’ve got is completely unintelligible.&#xA;&#xA;Go for this instead:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; *Omnia hīc coepērunt.*&#xA;&#xA;You can rearrange the word order to whatever emphasis or style suits you; this is simply a starting point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7125" RevisionGUID="072b6210-e083-4b72-9898-6186019559fd" CreationDate="2018-09-03T18:03:44.170" UserId="1142" Comment="Edited title; capitalization; removed superfluous “thank you”." Text="I would like like to translate &quot;everything started here&quot; in Latin. Would &quot;omni coepia hinc&quot; work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23928" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7125" RevisionGUID="072b6210-e083-4b72-9898-6186019559fd" CreationDate="2018-09-03T18:03:44.170" UserId="1142" Comment="Edited title; capitalization; removed superfluous “thank you”." Text="How do I say “everything started here”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23929" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7125" RevisionGUID="072b6210-e083-4b72-9898-6186019559fd" CreationDate="2018-09-03T18:03:44.170" Comment="Proposed by 1142 approved by 1459, -1 edit id of 258" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7125" RevisionGUID="df350c35-53b8-4767-9429-54a7a4b3651e" CreationDate="2018-09-03T18:03:44.170" UserId="136" Comment="Edited title; capitalization; removed superfluous “thank you”." Text="I would like like to translate &quot;everything started here&quot; in Latin. Would _omni coepia hinc_ work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7127" RevisionGUID="06cb1bd3-c056-4943-bef6-421f7f89f71c" CreationDate="2018-09-03T18:10:30.903" UserId="522" Text="'Everything' needs a Neuter Plural ending; so, *omnia, omnium,* or *omnibus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *[Omnia][1]* =Everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Coepi* is a good word, but it is tricky: it looks like a past tense, and behaves like a past tense, but its meaning is present tense. *Coepi* = I begin.&#xD;&#xA;So an 'extra' past tense has to be added. Omnia coeperunt* =Everything begins&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[coeperant][2]* =began. Lewis and Short (Tufts) coepi section II&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Hinc][3]* means 'here.' But I would choose   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[abhinc][4]* =from here.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Next, put the words in Latin order. Usually the verb goes last because that is the most significant position. But if you want to emphasise another word, put that last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.latin-is-simple.com/en/vocabulary/phrase/1334/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DC%3Aentry%20group%3D60%3Aentry%3Dcoepio&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DH%3Aentry+group%3D13%3Aentry%3Dhinc&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DA%3Aentry%20group%3D2%3Aentry%3Dabhinc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7127" RevisionGUID="cb3ad9ff-0df8-4ade-a671-dda3ba1462c1" CreationDate="2018-09-03T18:24:39.443" UserId="522" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="'Everything' needs a Neuter Plural ending; so, *omnia, omnium,* or *omnibus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *[Omnia][1]* =Everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Coepi* is a good word, but it is tricky: it looks like a past tense, and behaves like a past tense, but its meaning is present tense. *Coepi* = I begin.&#xD;&#xA;So an 'extra' past tense has to be added. *Omnia coeperunt* =Everything begins&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[coeperant][2]* =began. Lewis and Short (Tufts) *coepio* section II (But notice the ambiguity mentioned by Sam K in the notes.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Hinc][3]* means 'here.' But I would choose   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[abhinc][4]* =from here.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Next, put the words in Latin order. Usually the verb goes last because that is the most significant position. But if you want to emphasise another word, put that last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.latin-is-simple.com/en/vocabulary/phrase/1334/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DC%3Aentry%20group%3D60%3Aentry%3Dcoepio&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DH%3Aentry+group%3D13%3Aentry%3Dhinc&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DA%3Aentry%20group%3D2%3Aentry%3Dabhinc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7126" RevisionGUID="9262a192-3f7f-4154-a882-abf5d8882b00" CreationDate="2018-09-03T18:27:58.077" UserId="1142" Comment="added 294 characters in body" Text="No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’m not quite sure how you arrived at your final result; *omnī* is the ablative singular of *omnis, omne*, which doesn’t make much sense if you are trying to convey the word *everything*; *coepia*, well, I’m not really sure if it even exists; and *hinc* means *hence*, *hencforth*, etc., not *here*. All together, the phrase you’ve got is completely unintelligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Go for this instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Omnia hīc coepērunt.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to avoid *potential* ambiguity regarding the subject of *coepērunt*, you can always opt for a passive phrase as well (thanks to [@SamK](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/136/sam-k) for pointing this out to me):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Omni hīc coepta sunt*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can rearrange the word order in either of these phrases to whatever emphasis or style suits you; they are simply a starting point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7126" RevisionGUID="8f8447f8-6ab4-4feb-83cc-26244a2b9cb1" CreationDate="2018-09-03T18:36:45.370" UserId="1142" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’m not quite sure how you arrived at your final result; *omnī* is the ablative singular of *omnis, omne*, which doesn’t make much sense if you are trying to convey the word *everything*; *coepia*, well, I’m not really sure if it even exists; and *hinc* means *hence*, *hencforth*, etc., not *here*. All together, the phrase you’ve got is completely unintelligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Go for this instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Omnia hīc coepērunt.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to avoid *potential* ambiguity regarding the subject of *coepērunt*, you can always opt for a passive phrase as well (thanks to [@SamK](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/136/sam-k) for pointing this out to me):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Omnia hīc coepta sunt*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can rearrange the word order in either of these phrases to whatever emphasis or style suits you; they are simply a starting point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23935" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7125" RevisionGUID="8e08cd03-33d7-4a70-9057-4b9d2214c2b7" CreationDate="2018-09-03T18:44:30.333" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|idiom|grammar-choice|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7128" RevisionGUID="9a35e317-01b0-4998-a1f0-e803d8d6bc24" CreationDate="2018-09-03T19:47:08.043" UserId="1142" Text="The short and unsatisfying answer to this is that languages, by nature, are subject to change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin words or whole phrases entered the English language via *lexical change* (i.e, the introduction of new words or phrases) in most or all cases, with their meanings relatively unchanged. These introduced words and phrases often then, either through popular adoption or other means, undergo *semantic change* (i.e, a change in meaning). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regards to Latin loanwords or loan phrases, the specific change they undergo is *widening*, the inclusion of additional meanings or usages to a term. There are many things that can cause this widening and I do not have enough of a background in historical linguistics to answer what those things might be. That said, however, you can read more about the potential causes of semantic change [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change#Forces_triggering_change)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7129" RevisionGUID="442da194-d664-4741-84eb-8d4e2ae748f3" CreationDate="2018-09-03T20:06:10.733" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How did 1 beneath semantically shift to 2? [Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/word/viz.?ref=etymonline_crossreference):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###viz. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;section class=&quot;word__defination--2q7ZH&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    1530s, abbreviation of videlicet **[2.]** &quot;that is to say, to wit, namely&quot; (mid-15c.),     &#xD;&#xA;from Latin videlicet, contraction of videre licet **[1.]** &quot;it is permissible to see,&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;from videre &quot;to see&quot; (see [vision](https://www.etymonline.com/word/vision?ref=etymonline_crossreference)) + licet &quot;it is allowed,&quot; third person singular present indicative of licere &quot;be allowed&quot; (see [licence](https://www.etymonline.com/word/licence?ref=etymonline_crossreference)).     &#xD;&#xA;The -z- is not a letter, but originally a twirl, representing the usual Medieval Latin shorthand symbol for the ending -et. &quot;In reading aloud usually rendered by 'namely.' &quot; [OED]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/section&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The semantic shift for ['scilicet'](https://www.etymonline.com/word/scilicet) looks similar, but I also don't understand it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23938" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7129" RevisionGUID="442da194-d664-4741-84eb-8d4e2ae748f3" CreationDate="2018-09-03T20:06:10.733" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="'videlicet': How did &quot;it is permissible to see&quot; semantically shift to mean &quot;that is to say&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23939" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7129" RevisionGUID="442da194-d664-4741-84eb-8d4e2ae748f3" CreationDate="2018-09-03T20:06:10.733" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6603" RevisionGUID="5e10f003-9f0c-4a86-8c98-6d51e11d059a" CreationDate="2018-09-03T20:07:05.517" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I may be misunderstanding what is exactly unclear here, so I am sorry if I am misinterpreting the question. The *sĕro*, *sertus* has the semantics of binding into a bunch: “wreath; join, entwine, interweave, bind together; compose; contrive;” [Whit.] (There is also an irrelevant lemma of *sēro*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*in-serere*, with the regular semantics of *in-*, directs the action of the verb inward, giving it the force of *bundling in, adding to the bunch, wreath or bundle*: “to put, bring, or introduce into, to insert” [L&amp;S]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ex-serere*, with the  *ex-* expectedly directing the action outward, essentially means *un-bundle, separate or protrude from, be taken away from the bunch*: “to stretch out or forth, to thrust out, put forth, to take out; to protrud[e] from the dress, [to be] bare, uncovered” [L&amp;S]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7126" RevisionGUID="13237d86-8357-4b83-9d24-3b8933444dbf" CreationDate="2018-09-03T20:32:39.763" UserId="79" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’m not quite sure how you arrived at your final result; *omnī* is the ablative singular of *omnis, omne*, which doesn’t make much sense if you are trying to convey the word *everything*; *coepia*, well, I’m not really sure if it even exists; and *hinc* means *hence*, *hencforth*, *from here*, etc., not *here*. All together, the phrase you’ve got is completely unintelligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Go for this instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Omnia hīc coepērunt.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to avoid *potential* ambiguity regarding the subject of *coepērunt*, you can always opt for a passive phrase as well (thanks to [@SamK](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/136/sam-k) for pointing this out to me):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Omnia hīc coepta sunt*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can rearrange the word order in either of these phrases to whatever emphasis or style suits you; they are simply a starting point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7124" RevisionGUID="b2a7ff16-25b7-4d4e-9b27-dbb8d37b1fb9" CreationDate="2018-09-03T20:49:30.263" UserId="1790" Comment="added 379 characters in body" Text="[Per Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dactualis):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actŭālis , e, adj. id.,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. active, practical, Macr. Somn. Scip. 2, 17.—Adv.: ac-tŭālĭter , actively, Myth. Vatic. vol. 3, p. 181 ed. Bod.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it wasn't particularly close to either the English or the Spanish word *actual*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, the Oxford English Dictionary records usage of *actual* in English in the sense of (modern) *actual* in Spanish, claiming that it was originally a Scottish usage and is now rare, but providing such examples as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1525   King James V in *Rep. Univ. Comm., St. Andrews* (1837) 180.   The rector, regentis, and actuall studentis within the said Universite." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7124" RevisionGUID="b76ff5b9-9f5b-453b-922a-29a70049d756" CreationDate="2018-09-03T20:59:32.487" UserId="1790" Comment="added 572 characters in body" Text="[Per Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dactualis):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actŭālis , e, adj. id.,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. active, practical, Macr. Somn. Scip. 2, 17.—Adv.: ac-tŭālĭter , actively, Myth. Vatic. vol. 3, p. 181 ed. Bod.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it wasn't particularly close to either the English or the Spanish word *actual*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, the Oxford English Dictionary records usage of *actual* in English in the sense of (modern) *actual* in Spanish, claiming that it was originally a Scottish usage and is now rare, but providing such examples as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1525   King James V in *Rep. Univ. Comm., St. Andrews* (1837) 180.   The rector, regentis, and actuall studentis within the said Universite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To try to bring this back on topic, OED also comments on the etymology (although without specific sources):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; post-classical Latin *actualis* active, practical, exhibited in deeds (5th cent.), real, existing (from 13th cent. in British sources), current, effective at the time (14th cent. in a British source), (of a cautery) performed using a cauterizing agent having the form of a red-hot implement (14th cent.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;suggesting that in late Mediaeval Latin, at least in British sources, it could be used with either the modern English or the modern Spanish meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23945" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="a4fb8137-68a6-4e94-bda1-d63d341612cf" CreationDate="2018-09-03T23:13:04.927" UserId="-1" Comment="changed 'whad' to 'what'" Text="What did &quot;actuālis&quot; actually mean in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23946" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="a4fb8137-68a6-4e94-bda1-d63d341612cf" CreationDate="2018-09-03T23:13:04.927" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 30 edit id of 259" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7130" RevisionGUID="a3e4715a-36bd-4aed-8b49-2de7778e434f" CreationDate="2018-09-03T23:58:16.190" UserId="2704" Text="Cool facts which I'm grateful to have learned, but the actual question boils down to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why did Edmnods translate καίναν μέν τε τύλαν κατὰ σὰ σπολέω μέλεα as &quot;You shall lie on new cushions&quot;, when the Greek literally says &quot;And I will put new cushions down on your limbs&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is simple, and you don't need to reference idiosyncractic Greek constructions to see what's happened here. The literal Greek is not idiomatic English, and Edmonds has smoothed the English, grammatically, by replacing &quot;your limbs&quot; with &quot;you&quot;, and smoothed (likely morally) &quot;I'll lay you down on cushions&quot; (which implies depriving the mate of agency) into &quot;You will lie down on cushions&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Early 20th century morality: it's quaint, and it interferes with translation. Arguably the early 21st century has rediscovered that failing.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7130" RevisionGUID="572f04ec-0832-4b87-a840-63cbba8f7425" CreationDate="2018-09-04T00:04:56.783" UserId="2704" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="Cool facts which I'm grateful to have learned, but the actual question boils down to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why did Edmnods translate καίναν μέν τε τύλαν κατὰ σὰ σπολέω μέλεα as &quot;You shall lie on new cushions&quot;, when the Greek literally says &quot;And I will put new cushions down on your limbs&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is simple, and you don't need to reference idiosyncractic Greek constructions to see what's happened here. The literal Greek is not idiomatic English, and Edmonds has smoothed the English, grammatically, by replacing &quot;your limbs&quot; with &quot;you&quot;, and smoothed (likely morally) &quot;I'll lay you down on cushions&quot; (which implies depriving the mate of agency) into &quot;You will lie down on cushions&quot;. &#xD;(The *shall* still hints who the actual agent is in the sentence.)&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Early 20th century morality: it's quaint, and it interferes with translation. Arguably the early 21st century has rediscovered that failing.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="889" RevisionGUID="67bfcf8c-e213-4958-9cdb-ae620c6f0f91" CreationDate="2018-09-04T03:12:38.513" UserId="-1" Comment="added link" Text="One option is [Philolog.us](http://philolog.us/) which not only allows for quick looking up of entries in Lewis and Short, but also the Greek dictionaries Liddel and Scott's and Slater's *Lexicon to Pindar*. The big bonus for Philologus is its iPhone app. Sorry Android users, no Philologus yet, though one is in the works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But now there is: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.philolog.philologus&amp;hl=en&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23950" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="889" RevisionGUID="67bfcf8c-e213-4958-9cdb-ae620c6f0f91" CreationDate="2018-09-04T03:12:38.513" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 79 edit id of 260" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7131" RevisionGUID="03de3899-7fe5-457c-96d2-a98c577b25c2" CreationDate="2018-09-04T05:44:22.930" UserId="2892" Text="*Online Etymology Dictionary* (English) says:&lt;br/&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**actual** (adj.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;early 14c., &quot;pertaining to acts or an action;&quot; late 14c. in the broader sense of &quot;real, existing&quot; (as opposed to *potential*, *ideal*, etc.); from Old French *actuel* &quot;now existing, up to date&quot; (13c.), from Late Latin *actualis* &quot;active, pertaining to action,&quot; adjectival form of Latin *actus* &quot;a doing&quot; (from PIE root ***ag-** &quot;to drive, draw out or forth, move&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Link: &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.etymonline.com/word/actual#etymonline_v_5079&quot;&gt;https://www.etymonline.com/word/actual#etymonline_v_5079&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.etymonline.com/word/actual#etymonline_v_5079" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7131" RevisionGUID="4982ef2a-a4b6-4c4e-92c5-60c69ffb335e" CreationDate="2018-09-04T08:23:02.510" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 146 characters in body" Text="*[Online Etymology Dictionary](https://www.etymonline.com/word/actual#etymonline_v_5079)* (English) says:&lt;br/&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**actual** (adj.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;early 14c., &quot;pertaining to acts or an action;&quot; late 14c. in the broader sense of &quot;real, existing&quot; (as opposed to *potential*, *ideal*, etc.); from Old French *actuel* &quot;now existing, up to date&quot; (13c.), from Late Latin *actualis* &quot;active, pertaining to action,&quot; adjectival form of Latin *actus* &quot;a doing&quot; (from PIE root ***ag-** &quot;to drive, draw out or forth, move&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7132" RevisionGUID="15f47dd6-bcc3-4123-9730-1fcd6027ca8d" CreationDate="2018-09-04T08:32:54.663" UserId="1459" Text="Today I came across [this news article](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/sep/04/new-drive-doctors-urged-write-patients-plain-english). In short, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (in the UK) is providing new guidelines to medical doctors on the writing of clinical letters to patients. Among the advices is &quot;use English instead of Latin&quot;. The article (and the [official document](http://www.aomrc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Please_write_to_me_Guidance_010918.pdf)) only mentions one example, which is using “twice daily” instead of “bd” (_bis die_) for medication indications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having the privilege of living in the UK for 7 years, I never encountered any such uses of Latin in my interactions with GPs. Are you aware of further examples in which Latin is used? I'm curious." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23955" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7132" RevisionGUID="15f47dd6-bcc3-4123-9730-1fcd6027ca8d" CreationDate="2018-09-04T08:32:54.663" UserId="1459" Text="Medical terms in Latin in clinical letters - UK" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23956" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7132" RevisionGUID="15f47dd6-bcc3-4123-9730-1fcd6027ca8d" CreationDate="2018-09-04T08:32:54.663" UserId="1459" Text="|modern-life|medicine|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7133" RevisionGUID="2dd7199b-1083-4e7c-9155-4a0e5e9c03fa" CreationDate="2018-09-04T09:44:13.620" UserId="52" Text="&quot;it is allowed to see&quot; -&gt; &quot;you can see&quot; -&gt; &quot;you can notice&quot; -&gt; &quot;something worth noticing&quot; -&gt; &quot;to wit, namely&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7134" RevisionGUID="88505626-1dea-444f-9bcd-304fce62b924" CreationDate="2018-09-04T10:16:12.340" UserId="867" Text="I'm in Australia, not the UK, but I've never encountered a GP who uses Latin either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am, however, an ex-nurse, and I can assure you that while English is considered best practice, some Latin *is* still used - in notes, on med. charts, and in everyday conversation, mainly because it's such useful shorthand.  Two of the most common examples that come to mind are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*mane* - in the morning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*nocte* - at night&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there are also acronyms such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;qid&quot; (*quater in die*) - four times a day/six hourly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;tds&quot; (*ter die sumendus*) - to be taken three times a day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also &quot;bd&quot;, as you note above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, the acronym is said, not the Latin words.  These are used a lot by nurses in talking about frequency of meds and observations because they map onto set times in the shift and set off a sort of automatic internal planner that organises your shift!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also used a lot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;PR&quot; (*per rectum* - via the rectum) - as in &quot;PR bleeding&quot;, &quot;PR examination&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;PV&quot; (*per vaginam* - via the vagina) - as above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;prn&quot; (*pro re nata* - as needed) - as in &quot;he's got morphine charted prn&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;po&quot; (*per os* - by mouth) - we might actually say &quot;p.o.&quot; but more likely say &quot;oral&quot; but this acronym is ubiquitous &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23959" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7132" RevisionGUID="5106a5c0-0896-45c4-9fcd-6b3465d34f42" CreationDate="2018-09-04T10:30:45.693" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="Latin terms in (medical) clinical letters - UK" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7135" RevisionGUID="a6998c12-9a34-4249-85c6-b9a7f8b4015f" CreationDate="2018-09-04T11:58:27.777" UserId="2894" Text="Looking a motto for medic squad. Google says its &quot;Sana natus est&quot;, but there is no way to verify that, without an expert's help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23961" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7135" RevisionGUID="a6998c12-9a34-4249-85c6-b9a7f8b4015f" CreationDate="2018-09-04T11:58:27.777" UserId="2894" Text="How is &quot;Born to Heal&quot; in latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23962" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7135" RevisionGUID="a6998c12-9a34-4249-85c6-b9a7f8b4015f" CreationDate="2018-09-04T11:58:27.777" UserId="2894" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7136" RevisionGUID="84916080-0588-4569-800e-968afc4b6f8b" CreationDate="2018-09-04T13:21:12.527" UserId="1459" Text="I would propose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;sanare nascuntur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[nascuntur](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor#Latin)_ is the third person plural, so the phrase would be in the sense of an outsider saying &quot;[they are] born to heal&quot;. If you want something more involved, like &quot;[we are] born to heal&quot;, then you can use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;sanare nascimur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7136" RevisionGUID="a30ef577-17ca-49b5-b9f1-0e149d8f84c2" CreationDate="2018-09-04T13:29:41.690" UserId="1459" Comment="added 266 characters in body" Text="I would propose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;sanare nascuntur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[nascuntur](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor#Latin)_ is the third person plural, so the phrase would be in the sense of an outsider saying &quot;[they are] born to heal&quot;. If you want something more involved, like &quot;[we are] born to heal&quot;, then you can use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;sanare nascimur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the _motto_ is for a group of people, I would be inclined for the plural, as above. If you want the _motto_ to be in the singular, as in &quot;[s/he is] born to heal&quot; or &quot;[I am] born to heal&quot;, then you can use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;sanare nascitur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;sanare nascor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;respectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7138" RevisionGUID="05eb2fac-afd7-4526-9ca5-158d170ed959" CreationDate="2018-09-04T14:49:03.010" UserId="469" Text="I can think of one base translation and a number of variations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ad sanandum nati**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would be the closest I can think of to the English meaning, while keeping the choice of words made by Google Translate (most of us here are not fans of GTr, but that's a starting point: the words are themselves not wrong).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I had to chose the masculine plural, which is the right thing to do in Latin (and a number of derived languages) if you are speaking about a group of people that includes both males and females.&#xD;&#xA;* The construction ad+gerund (san-*andum*) is the standard way of conveying the idea of *to heal, in order to heal,* and more generally, *for* [verb]-*ing*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ad sanandum nata,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is the singular feminine version, if you are speaking about a feminine abstract noun to denote a group (as in *turba*&amp;mdash;band&amp;mdash;, *legio*&amp;mdash;military unit&amp;mdash;, *gens*&amp;mdash;clan&amp;mdash; etc.). You might also want to use the masculine (*ad sanandum natus*) or the neuter (*ad sanandum natum*), depending of what is the omitted noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ad sanandum**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is&amp;mdash;in my opinion&amp;mdash; a more Latin option, since Latin mottos tend to [condense Latin structure to its limits][1]. It also saves you from the need to choose between singular or plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of *being born for* [sth] to convey a purpose in life is attested at least in Late Latin (not sure about Classical), e.g. in the Vulgate ([Ioh 18:37][2]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego in hoc natus sum, et ad hoc veni in mundum, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati (*the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to L&amp;S definition of the verb *[sano][3]*, synonyms are *[curo][4]* (but it usually prefers to take an object), [medeor][5] and [medico][6], hence *ad [gentes] curandas* (to heal *people)*, *ad medendum*, *ad medicandum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7078/is-this-translation-of-united-we-light-the-way-correct/7082#7082&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Jo.html#x18_37&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsano&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcuro&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmedeor&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmedico" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7139" RevisionGUID="3eaf0a57-fbe5-4a49-96c3-d84aab9e5eb2" CreationDate="2018-09-04T16:38:32.670" UserId="406" Text="In Classical Latin, purpose would normally be expressed with *ut*, or *ad* with a gerund, or a supine with a verb of motion, or numerous other ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in later and vulgar Latin (most notably the Vulgate Bible), a bare infinitive could be used instead. The most famous example is probably from the apocryphal Acts of Peter: Saint Peter is fleeing persecution in Rome when he meets Jesus, and asks *quō vādis, Domine?* (&quot;where are you going, Lord?&quot;). Jesus replies, *ad Rōmam eō iterum **crucifīgī*** (&quot;I'm going to Rome **to be crucified** again&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When did this arise, and when did it catch on? To my understanding, it *doesn't* appear in the vulgar Latin of Plautus, who prefers the supine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23970" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7139" RevisionGUID="3eaf0a57-fbe5-4a49-96c3-d84aab9e5eb2" CreationDate="2018-09-04T16:38:32.670" UserId="406" Text="When did the infinitive of purpose arise?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23971" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7139" RevisionGUID="3eaf0a57-fbe5-4a49-96c3-d84aab9e5eb2" CreationDate="2018-09-04T16:38:32.670" UserId="406" Text="|grammar-choice|vulgar-latin|late-latin|old-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23972" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7139" RevisionGUID="d8f426e9-b000-429f-beef-47449df95f66" CreationDate="2018-09-04T16:41:53.090" UserId="406" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|vulgata|vulgar-latin|late-latin|old-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7140" RevisionGUID="e6bb6195-6059-4a00-b89e-6e0c71868ee8" CreationDate="2018-09-04T17:17:10.237" UserId="40" Text="It actually does appear in vulgar Latin. Here's Palmer, *The Latin Language* 319:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Infinitives], as we saw, are formally either old datives or locatives and both these cases could express purpose. This function is apparent in the expression *dare bibere* ... Such infinitives of purpose are especially common in colloquial and poetical texts after verbs of motion: 'turbare qui huc it' (Plt. *Bacch.* 354); 'eamus visere' (Tea. *Phormio* 102); 'venerat aurum petere' (Plt. *Bacch*. 631). This construction was avoided in classical prose but was affected as an archaism by the poets from Lucretius on and by the archaizing prose writers. It survived in the colloquial language and is preserved in Romance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23974" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7135" RevisionGUID="71ae7881-fddb-43bd-96f0-539ef868766d" CreationDate="2018-09-04T17:26:56.863" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7135" RevisionGUID="71ae7881-fddb-43bd-96f0-539ef868766d" CreationDate="2018-09-04T17:26:56.863" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="I'm planning a _motto_ for a medical squad: &quot;Born to Heal&quot;. I want to know it's Latin translation. Google says its &quot;_Sana natus est_&quot;, but there is no way to verify that, without an expert's help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23976" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7135" RevisionGUID="71ae7881-fddb-43bd-96f0-539ef868766d" CreationDate="2018-09-04T17:26:56.863" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="How to say &quot;Born to Heal&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7141" RevisionGUID="ee5e0aa4-87f2-42e5-bda2-77005a6781e9" CreationDate="2018-09-04T17:46:28.863" UserId="2898" Text="I am looking for the exact equivalent of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It runs in our blood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In latin language. So far, we have come to this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currit in sanguine nostro&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want it to sound formal and official." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23978" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7141" RevisionGUID="ee5e0aa4-87f2-42e5-bda2-77005a6781e9" CreationDate="2018-09-04T17:46:28.863" UserId="2898" Text="It runs in our blood" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23979" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7141" RevisionGUID="ee5e0aa4-87f2-42e5-bda2-77005a6781e9" CreationDate="2018-09-04T17:46:28.863" UserId="2898" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7141" RevisionGUID="85d349a4-e781-4a8e-a4d8-8cf2dd8b9cd5" CreationDate="2018-09-04T18:06:17.623" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="I am looking for the exact Latin equivalent of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It runs in our blood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, we have come to this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Currit in sanguine nostro_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want it to sound formal and official." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23981" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7141" RevisionGUID="85d349a4-e781-4a8e-a4d8-8cf2dd8b9cd5" CreationDate="2018-09-04T18:06:17.623" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Translating &quot;It runs in our blood&quot; into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7141" RevisionGUID="d20a67f1-2860-440a-b6d1-c115b1742a75" CreationDate="2018-09-04T18:09:38.377" UserId="2898" Comment="Adding more info" Text="I am looking for the exact Latin equivalent of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It runs in our blood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence `it` refers to `Literature`. So far, we have come to this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Currit in sanguine nostro_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want the translation to sound formal and official." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7141" RevisionGUID="583849f7-dfd5-4a0d-a923-8750a50b18be" CreationDate="2018-09-04T18:19:21.380" UserId="2898" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="I am looking for the exact Latin equivalent of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It runs in our blood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence `it` refers to `Literature`. So far, we have come to this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Currit in sanguine nostro_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to change the whole sentence if that will meet what I am looking for more closely. I want the translation to sound formal and official." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7142" RevisionGUID="90715d9d-a2bf-4c38-a7f6-1bba89363e47" CreationDate="2018-09-04T19:44:45.517" UserId="1459" Text="For &quot;it runs in our blood&quot;, to me, the following seems fine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_in sanguine nostro fluit_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Fluit_ emphasises the liquid aspect of blood more than _currit_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is &quot;it runs inside our blood&quot;, as in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_intra sanguinem nostro fluit_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or &quot;it runs through our blood&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_per sanguinem nostro fluit_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7143" RevisionGUID="ddfb6bab-86d7-435e-9e4c-b5beaa65db35" CreationDate="2018-09-04T20:34:20.920" UserId="406" Text="The phrase &quot;runs in the blood&quot; is an English idiom, and as such, it doesn't necessarily make sense when translated word-for-word into Latin. Instead, I would phrase it slightly differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *in nōs ingenitus*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; instilled into us&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ingenitus* is a difficult word to translate succinctly, but it refers to something that's a natural part of someone from birth, rather than something they've picked up later. In other words, something in the blood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also keep the reference to &quot;blood&quot; directly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *in sanguinem nōstrum ingenitus*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; instilled into our blood(line)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like in English, *sanguis* can mean literal blood (the stuff in your veins) or a direct line of descent, as in &quot;blood relatives&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The repetition of *in* is somewhat poetic, and in my opinion makes it sound better, as well as adding emphasis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23987" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6586" RevisionGUID="6c9fe3db-9300-481e-971d-7f86de7ef051" CreationDate="2018-09-05T04:52:46.947" UserId="172" Comment="Add the 'semantics' tag" Text="|etymology|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7140" RevisionGUID="87236d83-7144-43ee-b4e3-e627f818e020" CreationDate="2018-09-05T04:59:15.113" UserId="172" Comment="Fix typo s/Tea./Ter./" Text="It actually does appear in vulgar Latin. Here's Palmer, *The Latin Language* 319:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Infinitives], as we saw, are formally either old datives or locatives and both these cases could express purpose. This function is apparent in the expression *dare bibere* ... Such infinitives of purpose are especially common in colloquial and poetical texts after verbs of motion: 'turbare qui huc it' (Plt. *Bacch.* 354); 'eamus visere' (Ter. *Phormio* 102); 'venerat aurum petere' (Plt. *Bacch*. 631). This construction was avoided in classical prose but was affected as an archaism by the poets from Lucretius on and by the archaizing prose writers. It survived in the colloquial language and is preserved in Romance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7142" RevisionGUID="aaa93d8e-d427-4d2c-a966-09ba0eb6ab17" CreationDate="2018-09-05T07:58:15.457" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="For &quot;it runs in our blood&quot;, to me, the following seems fine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_in sanguine nostro fluit_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Fluit_ emphasises the liquid aspect of blood more than _currit_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is &quot;it runs inside our blood&quot;, as in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_intra sanguinem nostrum fluit_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or &quot;it runs through our blood&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_per sanguinem nostrum fluit_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7144" RevisionGUID="a6b57e39-2c74-4586-b3fc-6df0a829de81" CreationDate="2018-09-05T15:27:31.827" UserId="2903" Text="&quot;Ob&quot; appears as a sum of money in a property list of 1598, written in Latin with lots of abbreviations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23993" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7144" RevisionGUID="a6b57e39-2c74-4586-b3fc-6df0a829de81" CreationDate="2018-09-05T15:27:31.827" UserId="2903" Text="What does &quot;ob&quot; mean in a money context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23994" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7144" RevisionGUID="a6b57e39-2c74-4586-b3fc-6df0a829de81" CreationDate="2018-09-05T15:27:31.827" UserId="2903" Text="|money|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7145" RevisionGUID="d84aa63e-ad81-460f-9186-622b56b7d09f" CreationDate="2018-09-05T15:40:24.980" UserId="406" Text="The general meaning of *ob* is &quot;because of&quot; or &quot;for&quot;. In a monetary context, I would usually take it as indicating what the money was given or received for. For instance, L&amp;S give the example *pretium ob stultitiam*, &quot;the price paid for stupidity&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7144" RevisionGUID="78b62fe5-58a7-4c17-b3fd-2398db5c6df1" CreationDate="2018-09-05T15:43:21.530" UserId="79" Comment="Added a question to the body for clarity." Text="&quot;Ob&quot; appears as a sum of money in a property list of 1598, written in Latin with lots of abbreviations.&#xD;&#xA;What does it mean in this context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7146" RevisionGUID="25e3b792-8eec-4536-bdcb-214be754c00c" CreationDate="2018-09-05T16:00:39.407" UserId="645" Text="In effect, you asking about one of the basic difficulties of translation between any two languages. It's important to recognise that either style or idiom, and sometimes both, have to be transformed. In order to accomplish this, a translation is often a compromise, and the answer by Draconis indicates this very well. I would, however, be bolder and look for something which equates to the sense behind what you need to translate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it unavoidable to write of something running through our blood *as such*? To me, it seems that if you want to refer to something within your nature — if you like, something inborn, innate — you might avoid any reference to blood and the way it moves, and still achieve what you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps *res in nos innata*, 'a thing inborn to us' would be a suitable format. You could substitute a more particular noun for *res* to suit your context: *litterae* or *humanitas*, for example (remembering, of course, to maintain agreement between whatever you choose and its epithet)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7147" RevisionGUID="c284e9a7-f621-4343-abbf-e169b01a17b2" CreationDate="2018-09-05T16:12:15.807" UserId="406" Text="When [discussing things &quot;running in the blood&quot;][1], I suggested the word *ingenitus* for &quot;innate&quot;, while Tom Cotton preferred *innatus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference in meaning between these two words? The second one is clearly the origin of English &quot;innate&quot;, via French.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7141/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23999" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7147" RevisionGUID="c284e9a7-f621-4343-abbf-e169b01a17b2" CreationDate="2018-09-05T16:12:15.807" UserId="406" Text="What is the difference between ingenitus and innatus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24000" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7147" RevisionGUID="c284e9a7-f621-4343-abbf-e169b01a17b2" CreationDate="2018-09-05T16:12:15.807" UserId="406" Text="|word-comparison|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7148" RevisionGUID="251e62d2-654d-4a7b-93d1-a8b1416bfb2a" CreationDate="2018-09-05T18:46:44.333" UserId="324" Text="As far as I can see, both ingenitus and innatus are found only in Christian authors, when debating things like whether the Holy Ghost is born or unborn. I am not able to perceive any difference in meaning, but perhaps there is some theological distinction that escapes me. Both are transparent derivatives of genitus (ppp. of gigno) and (g)natus (ppp. of nascor) respectively, themselves from the same root, IE full-grade *ǵen(H)- and zero-grade *ǵn(H)-, though they are of course separate words in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7149" RevisionGUID="aa7c9434-03f1-426f-833f-71743fcf2f05" CreationDate="2018-09-05T18:46:54.350" UserId="522" Text="Literally *innatus* is 'in-born' and *ingenitus* is 'begotten.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In favour of *ingenitus* is the idea of a bloodline, a family continuity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'claro sanguine genitus' Seneca Tragedies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;source Dictionarium novum Latino-Gallicum, etc&#xD;&#xA;By Gui TACHARD (free e-book)also Ainsworth (Archive facsimile)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the bigger problem in answering this question is scientific. When Harvey argued the case for the circulation of the blood round the heart/ lungs/ limbs, rather than and push and pull within the body 'flow' took on a new meaning. In classical Latin the flow of blood is copious (Caesar, Livy) but it is always out of the gashes and wounds of battle and treachery, and over the face, onto bodies, the earth. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7150" RevisionGUID="258c54ee-7099-410e-ab3d-cc6be18c350b" CreationDate="2018-09-05T19:05:59.197" UserId="522" Text="Possibly an obol, which came to be whatever was the smallest coin in circulation, though originally a Greek copper coin, the sixth part of a drachm, notable as the coin which accompanied the dead to pay Charon the ferryman. In my Latin dictionary as *obolus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The National Archive UK runs a Latin course to help those using original sources for local history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The National Archives | Palaeography tutorial - Quick reference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘obolus’, a Roman coin. One farthing = a quarter of a penny. A&#xD;&#xA;&gt; farthing was represented by ‘qua’, short for....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [The National Archives Website][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search/results?_q=obolus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7147" RevisionGUID="f0b02b2e-61ec-427b-b81f-bcf1ff1bd254" CreationDate="2018-09-05T19:20:26.970" UserId="406" Comment="added 189 characters in body" Text="When [discussing things &quot;running in the blood&quot;][1], I suggested the word *ingenitus* for &quot;innate&quot;, while Tom Cotton preferred *innatus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference in meaning between these two words? The second one is clearly the origin of English &quot;innate&quot;, via French.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I'm specifically referring to the versions of these words meaning &quot;innate&quot; (prefixed with *in-* &quot;in&quot;), not the versions meaning &quot;not having been born&quot; (prefixed with *in-* &quot;not&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7141/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7150" RevisionGUID="670da79c-b588-4a0c-9481-6ee9e7331315" CreationDate="2018-09-05T19:36:06.633" UserId="522" Comment="refined the link" Text="Possibly an obol, which came to be whatever was the smallest coin in circulation, though originally a Greek copper coin, the sixth part of a drachm, notable as the coin which accompanied the dead to pay Charon the ferryman. In my Latin dictionary as *obolus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The National Archive UK runs a Latin course to help those using original sources for local history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The National Archives | Palaeography tutorial&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘obolus’, a Roman coin..&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The word obolus, -i (m.) is usually abbreviated to ‘ob’.&#xD;&#xA;ob[ol’]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [The National Archives Website][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/latinpalaeography/abbreviations-lesson8.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7151" RevisionGUID="750cf5d4-29c0-4786-8030-548a0f8e6de2" CreationDate="2018-09-05T19:49:05.580" UserId="469" Text="**Audio** and **video** are two ([apparently XX-century][1]) concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both take the same form as **1st-person sing., present tense Latin verbs**. Wiktionary articles for the English words ([audio][2], [video][3]) assert that their etymology actually is that of those verbal forms, and so does Etymonline ([audio][4], [video][5]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could be wrong, but I can't think of any older word derived from Latin in this way. Instead, it reminds me of some initial translation attempts by people with little inflectional background, looking for dictionary entries for verbs, assuming that the verb *is* its 1st-pers. s. form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds wrong to me, as I can't see a reason why someone could want to name something an *I see* recorder, or an *I hear* wave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Is there a reason to draw these words from that verbal forms in specific? Or is it just bad Latin from an era when Latin is no longer the language of science?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bonus fact:** I thought the same applied to [tango][6], but it seems to have a different origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=audio%2C+video&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=15&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2Caudio%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cvideo%3B%2Cc0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/audio&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/video&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.etymonline.com/word/audio#etymonline_v_18930&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.etymonline.com/word/video#etymonline_v_7777&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tango" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24007" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7151" RevisionGUID="750cf5d4-29c0-4786-8030-548a0f8e6de2" CreationDate="2018-09-05T19:49:05.580" UserId="469" Text="Audio and video... and tango?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24008" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7151" RevisionGUID="750cf5d4-29c0-4786-8030-548a0f8e6de2" CreationDate="2018-09-05T19:49:05.580" UserId="469" Text="|etymology|modern-life|conjugation|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7152" RevisionGUID="20cc0c25-2dcd-4610-9d84-1721b13113b5" CreationDate="2018-09-05T20:41:06.197" UserId="9" Text="The Oxford English Dictionary indicates that the O in *audio, video* and *radio* comes from the O found in Greek compounds, which was used in scientific vocabulary built from Latin and Greek roots: e.g. *audiology* or *radiometer.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7152" RevisionGUID="a81838d6-93ba-43b6-9dc4-4bb37444daf6" CreationDate="2018-09-05T22:07:25.343" UserId="9" Comment="added 174 characters in body" Text="The Oxford English Dictionary indicates that the O in *audio, video* and *radio* comes from the O found in Greek compounds, which was used in scientific vocabulary built from Latin and Greek roots: e.g. *audiology* or *radiometer.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the Etymonline entry for *audio* actually seems to say the same thing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; abstracted from **word-forming element** **audio-** (q.v.), which is from Latin *audire* &quot;to hear&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7153" RevisionGUID="0e3ea7cd-521a-40da-bd88-04d1f7234a11" CreationDate="2018-09-06T01:39:52.557" UserId="522" Text="[Ainsworth][1] has a section on abbreviations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ob *=obiit,* he died.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing you knew that and discounted it. But the second meaning is more interesting, and only context can show if it is appropriate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ob = *obryza*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Obryza* vid. *obrussa*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Obrussa,* (various spellings *obrisa,obrusa,obryza, etc,* uncertain etymology) (1) the test or essay for gold whether it be fine or no. (2) meton. any trial, or probation.     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Obryzatus,* made of the finest gold. *ex auro ad obrussam* Pliny 33.3. *aurum obryzum,* made of the finest gold, Suetonius Ner. 44&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://%20AINSWORTH%20https://archive.org/details/dictionaryenglis02ainsuoft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7154" RevisionGUID="d5e9b7d5-b18d-497d-a014-943eca72cd62" CreationDate="2018-09-06T06:13:01.880" UserId="1202" Text="G'day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to translate this sentence for homework:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    si verba patris a liberis non audita essent, timerent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the verb form in both the protasis and apodosis is imperfect subjunctive. I am really struggling trying to work out how to put this into english. This is what I've got so far (I know that the tense/aspect is not correct):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If the words from the books of the father would not be heard, they might have been afraid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help would be appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24017" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7154" RevisionGUID="d5e9b7d5-b18d-497d-a014-943eca72cd62" CreationDate="2018-09-06T06:13:01.880" UserId="1202" Text="Wondering how to translate imperfect subjunctives (in a conditional sentence)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24018" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7154" RevisionGUID="d5e9b7d5-b18d-497d-a014-943eca72cd62" CreationDate="2018-09-06T06:13:01.880" UserId="1202" Text="|conjunctive|conditions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7154" RevisionGUID="3a7128c2-af41-47d5-9ae7-6fecc33c1bfd" CreationDate="2018-09-06T07:34:09.757" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have to translate this sentence for homework:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_si verba patris a liberis non audita essent, timerent._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the verb form in both the protasis and apodosis is imperfect subjunctive. I am really struggling trying to work out how to put this into english. This is what I've got so far (I know that the tense/aspect is not correct):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If the words from the books of the father would not be heard, they might have been afraid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help would be appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24020" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7154" RevisionGUID="3a7128c2-af41-47d5-9ae7-6fecc33c1bfd" CreationDate="2018-09-06T07:34:09.757" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|conjunctive|conditions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7155" RevisionGUID="98d32717-ddd1-4e2f-a6bc-072617705481" CreationDate="2018-09-06T07:52:34.717" UserId="992" Text="what does mean it: jerusalem duplici jugo gravata? thank you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ekkehard of Aura was the monk in medieval. He departed to the crusades of 1101. This sentence is from his book Hierosolimita in RHC V, PP. 1-40." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24022" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7155" RevisionGUID="98d32717-ddd1-4e2f-a6bc-072617705481" CreationDate="2018-09-06T07:52:34.717" UserId="992" Text="from Ekkehard of Aura : &quot;duplici jugo&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24023" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7155" RevisionGUID="98d32717-ddd1-4e2f-a6bc-072617705481" CreationDate="2018-09-06T07:52:34.717" UserId="992" Text="|sentence-translation|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7156" RevisionGUID="dfd5054c-b29f-4486-9e16-1ada547dd342" CreationDate="2018-09-06T09:13:19.073" UserId="1459" Text="The monetary system of an important part of medieval Europe was based on the non-decimal [_librae_, _solidi_, and _denarii_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C2%A3sd) system, (the UK only abandoned such system in 1971). A smaller subdivision of the _denarius_ was the _obolus_, equivalent to half a _denarius_ (or a halfpenny). This was abbreviated as _ob_. It can be found in tons of medieval documents. Meanwhile, _q_ corresponds to a _quadrans_, one quarter of a _denarius_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in the [_Valor Ecclesiasticus_](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OypDAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PR13&amp;lpg=PR13&amp;dq=Valor+ecclesiasticus+temp.+Henrici+VIII+:+auctoritate+regia+institutus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=UV-nvTDcwe&amp;sig=dnSKVJuiE76Xqn9hOhQopQYzaLk&amp;hl=es-419&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiFjpDf8qXdAhVLUhoKHermDrQQ6AEwBXoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=obit&amp;f=false), the famous survey of the finances of the Church conducted by Henri VII, we find this monetary system:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples are [here](https://archive.org/stream/chaptersinadmini01toutuoft#page/234/search/ob) and [here](https://archive.org/details/earlyenglishcus00goog). The latter, in page 149, lists some word translations and abbreviations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;pounds (*libre*) sterling, are written £, shillings (*solidi*) &#xD;&#xA;s., pence (*denarii*) d., halfpenny (*obolus*) **ob.**, farthing (*quadrans*) &#xD;&#xA;q., and mark (*marca*) mr.; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rP9Ye.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7156" RevisionGUID="e793b987-f4a5-4671-96aa-21469aa0caec" CreationDate="2018-09-06T09:25:11.947" UserId="1459" Comment="added 373 characters in body" Text="The monetary system of an important part of medieval Europe was based on the non-decimal [_librae_, _solidi_, and _denarii_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C2%A3sd) system, (the UK only abandoned such system in 1971). A smaller subdivision of the _denarius_ was the _obolus_, equivalent to half a _denarius_ (or a halfpenny). This was abbreviated as _ob_. It can be found in tons of medieval documents. Meanwhile, _q_ corresponds to a _quadrans_, one quarter of a _denarius_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in the [_Valor Ecclesiasticus_](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OypDAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PR13&amp;lpg=PR13&amp;dq=Valor+ecclesiasticus+temp.+Henrici+VIII+:+auctoritate+regia+institutus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=UV-nvTDcwe&amp;sig=dnSKVJuiE76Xqn9hOhQopQYzaLk&amp;hl=es-419&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiFjpDf8qXdAhVLUhoKHermDrQQ6AEwBXoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=obit&amp;f=false), the famous survey of the finances of the Church conducted by Henri VII, we find this monetary system:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice how _£_, _s._ and _d._ are written at the top of the line, with the quantity at the bottom, whereas _ob_ and _q_ are written directly as quantities. This is because the subdivisions within the _denarius_ only need to write these symbols once. For instance, 1/4 is just _q_, 2/4 is _ob_, and 3/4 is _ob q_. In other pages you can see sometimes _ob_ and _q_ alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples are [here](https://archive.org/stream/chaptersinadmini01toutuoft#page/234/search/ob) and [here](https://archive.org/details/earlyenglishcus00goog). The latter, in page 149, lists some word translations and abbreviations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;pounds (*libre*) sterling, are written £, shillings (*solidi*) &#xD;&#xA;s., pence (*denarii*) d., **halfpenny (*obolus*) ob.**, farthing (*quadrans*) &#xD;&#xA;q., and mark (*marca*) mr.; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rP9Ye.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7155" RevisionGUID="fa7a0930-f663-4e4d-aeda-cf98e380dcd2" CreationDate="2018-09-06T09:27:13.703" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What does this mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_jerusalem duplici jugo gravata_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ekkehard of Aura was the monk in medieval. He departed to the crusades of 1101. This sentence is from his book Hierosolimita in RHC V, PP. 1-40." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24027" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7155" RevisionGUID="fa7a0930-f663-4e4d-aeda-cf98e380dcd2" CreationDate="2018-09-06T09:27:13.703" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Translating &quot;jerusalem duplici jugo gravata&quot; into English" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24028" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7155" RevisionGUID="fa7a0930-f663-4e4d-aeda-cf98e380dcd2" CreationDate="2018-09-06T09:27:13.703" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|sentence-translation|medieval-latin|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7157" RevisionGUID="dd7f0548-cfcf-42c4-b823-74b79e240725" CreationDate="2018-09-06T09:51:30.257" UserId="324" Text="&quot;Jerusalem, weighed down by a double yoke&quot;. But we would need more context to know what he means by this.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7158" RevisionGUID="082c7ad5-2526-4b1b-a424-40054c39da0e" CreationDate="2018-09-06T10:39:50.673" UserId="2906" Text="In Latin, a paternal aunt is an 'amita', a paternal uncle is a 'patruus', a maternal aunt is a 'matertera' and a maternal uncle is an 'avunculus'. However, how do you call each of these people's spouses? For instance, your 'consobrinus' and 'consobrina' have two parents: your 'avunculus' and … How is their mother called? Your 'amitinus' and 'amitina'  have two parents: your 'amita' and … How is their father called?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24031" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7158" RevisionGUID="082c7ad5-2526-4b1b-a424-40054c39da0e" CreationDate="2018-09-06T10:39:50.673" UserId="2906" Text="How do you call your aunt's or uncle's spouse? (Read the body first, please.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24032" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7158" RevisionGUID="082c7ad5-2526-4b1b-a424-40054c39da0e" CreationDate="2018-09-06T10:39:50.673" UserId="2906" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|roman-culture|familia|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7159" RevisionGUID="71493cd1-b60c-41f2-a469-3639b8e5c615" CreationDate="2018-09-06T11:13:54.240" UserId="2646" Text="It has been asked before both in the English Language &amp; Usage site and the Spanish Language site about the etymology of *[salary][1]* and *[salario][2]*, respectively. In both cases, this site was mentioned as a more suitable place to ask this question, but it seems it has not been asked already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some texts say that the Latin word *salarium* comes from *sal* &quot;because the Roman Legions were sometimes paid in salt&quot;. Or maybe they were paid to buy salt. A Spanish dictionary from 1611 (by Sebastián de Covarrubias) states that *salt* in this case must be understood as any type of food, as *salt* was added to almost any meal, so a *salary* was something you could buy food with. It also says that the reason could have something to do with the rents obtained with the salt marshes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the question is: when did the word *salarium* originated in the Latin language? Does its etymology come from the Latin word for *salt*? If so, what is its actual connection with the salt?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://english.stackexchange.com/q/448865/280768&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://spanish.stackexchange.com/q/26500/12637" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24034" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7159" RevisionGUID="71493cd1-b60c-41f2-a469-3639b8e5c615" CreationDate="2018-09-06T11:13:54.240" UserId="2646" Text="Etymology of &quot;salarium&quot; and its connection with the salt" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24035" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7159" RevisionGUID="71493cd1-b60c-41f2-a469-3639b8e5c615" CreationDate="2018-09-06T11:13:54.240" UserId="2646" Text="|etymology|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7159" RevisionGUID="f260e62c-c7ac-4df7-8d8b-3fd8bf43fcd1" CreationDate="2018-09-06T11:31:22.893" UserId="2646" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="It has been asked before both in the English Language &amp; Usage site and the Spanish Language site about the etymology of *[salary][1]* and *[salario][2]*, respectively. In both cases, this site was mentioned as a more suitable place to ask this question, but it seems it has not been asked already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some texts say that the Latin word *salarium* comes from *sal* &quot;because the Roman Legions were sometimes paid in salt&quot;. Or maybe they were paid to buy salt. A Spanish dictionary from 1611 (by Sebastián de Covarrubias) states that *salt* in this case must be understood as any type of food, as *salt* was added to almost any meal, so a *salary* was something you could buy food with. It also says that the reason could have something to do with the rents obtained with the salt marshes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the question is: when and how did the word *salarium* originate in the Latin language? Does its etymology come from Latin *sal*? If so, what is its actual connection with the salt?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://english.stackexchange.com/q/448865/280768&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://spanish.stackexchange.com/q/26500/12637" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7160" RevisionGUID="5b3d09c7-bfcc-432d-ab43-9f1bc7eeba7a" CreationDate="2018-09-06T11:53:45.263" UserId="1459" Text="[This book](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112112481541;view=1up;seq=185) suggests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;SALARY, salaire, F. From _salarium_, L. a stated&#xD;&#xA;allowance of provisions given to a soldier, of which (_sal_)&#xD;&#xA;salt was a necessary part; and hence the term came to signify pay or _salary_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This other book](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hn5x1e;view=1up;seq=62) suggests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SALARY. Of or belonging to salt. Money given&#xD;&#xA;to the soldiers for salt. (L. _salarium_.) (A. L.) [Andrew's Latin Lexicon]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Salt was held in great veneration by the ancients. It was always&#xD;&#xA;used in sacrifices; thus also Moses ordained, —&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;With all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.&quot; _Lev.ii.13._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Thus, to set salt before a stranger was, and still is, by&#xD;&#xA;some Eastern nations reckoned a symbol of friendship; and&#xD;&#xA;to  spill the salt at table was esteemed ominous.&#xD;&#xA;The desire to obtain means for the purchase of salt&#xD;&#xA;gave rise to the word _salarium_, salary.&#xD;&#xA;(A. R. A., p. 312.) [Adam's Roman Antiquities]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems a plausible etymology, in my opinion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7158" RevisionGUID="aecd6052-2ae0-4587-ae6d-c6bcd0a20c4f" CreationDate="2018-09-06T11:55:17.747" UserId="1896" Comment="remove not relevant part in the title" Text="In Latin, a paternal aunt is an 'amita', a paternal uncle is a 'patruus', a maternal aunt is a 'matertera' and a maternal uncle is an 'avunculus'. However, how do you call each of these people's spouses?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, your 'consobrinus' and 'consobrina' have two parents: your 'avunculus' and... How is their mother called? Your 'amitinus' and 'amitina'  have two parents: your 'amita' and... How is their father called?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24039" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7158" RevisionGUID="aecd6052-2ae0-4587-ae6d-c6bcd0a20c4f" CreationDate="2018-09-06T11:55:17.747" UserId="1896" Comment="remove not relevant part in the title" Text="How do you call your aunt's or uncle's spouse?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24040" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7158" RevisionGUID="aecd6052-2ae0-4587-ae6d-c6bcd0a20c4f" CreationDate="2018-09-06T11:55:17.747" Comment="Proposed by 1896 approved by 1459, 469 edit id of 261" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7160" RevisionGUID="2f96c08a-e4b4-42fc-8f48-384fac994a4b" CreationDate="2018-09-06T12:02:42.447" UserId="1459" Comment="added 625 characters in body" Text="[This book](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112112481541;view=1up;seq=185) suggests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;SALARY, salaire, F. From _salarium_, L. a stated&#xD;&#xA;allowance of provisions given to a soldier, of which (_sal_)&#xD;&#xA;salt was a necessary part; and hence the term came to signify pay or _salary_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This other book](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hn5x1e;view=1up;seq=62) suggests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SALARY. Of or belonging to salt. Money given&#xD;&#xA;to the soldiers for salt. (L. _salarium_.) (A. L.) [Andrew's Latin Lexicon]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Salt was held in great veneration by the ancients. It was always&#xD;&#xA;used in sacrifices; thus also Moses ordained, —&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;With all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.&quot; _Lev.ii.13._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Thus, to set salt before a stranger was, and still is, by&#xD;&#xA;some Eastern nations reckoned a symbol of friendship; and&#xD;&#xA;to  spill the salt at table was esteemed ominous.&#xD;&#xA;The desire to obtain means for the purchase of salt&#xD;&#xA;gave rise to the word _salarium_, salary.&#xD;&#xA;(A. R. A., p. 312.) [Adam's Roman Antiquities]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This book](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015050683476;view=1up;seq=120) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whenever  a word loses a definite denotation, its meaning&#xD;&#xA;is obviously generalized or diffused. Because people think&#xD;&#xA;with varying degrees of definiteness, we find an almost inexhaustible&#xD;&#xA;number of examples of generalization or blurring of meaning. For example,&#xD;&#xA;salary comes from the Latin _salarium_, 'salt money,' part of pay of the&#xD;&#xA;Roman soldiers. **Ignorance and the lack of literacy have contributed their full share to linguistic change.** Many of the words we use today&#xD;&#xA;retain the fossils of the past; we can see in them forgotten uses and&#xD;&#xA;customs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This book](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858000366918;view=1up;seq=323) has an interesting entry too. When listing words with the same origin  but that are apparently so different (p.305), the following list about words derived from _sal_ is included:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;27. _Sauce_ (L. salsus, Fr. sauce), _saucer_ (Sp. salsera, Fr. sauciere) and&#xD;&#xA;_sausage_ (Sp. salchicha, Fr. saucisse), _salsify_ and _salad_ (Sp. salado, salted), and _saline_ and _salary_ (L. salarium, lit. salt-money given to&#xD;&#xA;the soldiers, or a stipend) are all derived from L. sal, salt (Sk, sara-s,&#xD;&#xA;Gr. &amp;Ag); as well as _insular_ (= in sale). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(so sausage comes from _sal_ too! Who would have thought that!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24042" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7159" RevisionGUID="1891bc03-1241-4166-8af9-f673347ad8c5" CreationDate="2018-09-06T12:03:04.963" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|etymology|noun|english|spanish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7160" RevisionGUID="c863600f-0339-46a9-8494-295a6c064d24" CreationDate="2018-09-06T12:12:03.783" UserId="1459" Comment="added 480 characters in body" Text="[This book](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112112481541;view=1up;seq=185) suggests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;SALARY, salaire, F. From _salarium_, L. a stated&#xD;&#xA;allowance of provisions given to a soldier, of which (_sal_)&#xD;&#xA;salt was a necessary part; and hence the term came to signify pay or _salary_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This other book](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hn5x1e;view=1up;seq=62) suggests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SALARY. Of or belonging to salt. Money given&#xD;&#xA;to the soldiers for salt. (L. _salarium_.) (A. L.) [Andrew's Latin Lexicon]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Salt was held in great veneration by the ancients. It was always&#xD;&#xA;used in sacrifices; thus also Moses ordained, —&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;With all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.&quot; _Lev.ii.13._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Thus, to set salt before a stranger was, and still is, by&#xD;&#xA;some Eastern nations reckoned a symbol of friendship; and&#xD;&#xA;to  spill the salt at table was esteemed ominous.&#xD;&#xA;The desire to obtain means for the purchase of salt&#xD;&#xA;gave rise to the word _salarium_, salary.&#xD;&#xA;(A. R. A., p. 312.) [Adam's Roman Antiquities]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This book](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015050683476;view=1up;seq=120) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whenever  a word loses a definite denotation, its meaning&#xD;&#xA;is obviously generalized or diffused. Because people think&#xD;&#xA;with varying degrees of definiteness, we find an almost inexhaustible&#xD;&#xA;number of examples of generalization or blurring of meaning. For example,&#xD;&#xA;salary comes from the Latin _salarium_, 'salt money,' part of pay of the&#xD;&#xA;Roman soldiers. **Ignorance and the lack of literacy have contributed their full share to linguistic change.** Many of the words we use today&#xD;&#xA;retain the fossils of the past; we can see in them forgotten uses and&#xD;&#xA;customs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This book](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858000366918;view=1up;seq=323) has an interesting entry too. When listing words with the same origin  but that are apparently so different (p.305), the following list about words derived from _sal_ is included:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;27. _Sauce_ (L. salsus, Fr. sauce), _saucer_ (Sp. salsera, Fr. sauciere) and&#xD;&#xA;_sausage_ (Sp. salchicha, Fr. saucisse), _salsify_ and _salad_ (Sp. salado, salted), and _saline_ and _salary_ (L. salarium, lit. salt-money given to&#xD;&#xA;the soldiers, or a stipend) are all derived from L. sal, salt (Sk, sara-s,&#xD;&#xA;Gr. &amp;Ag); as well as _insular_ (= in sale). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this same issue, [this book](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015050683476;view=1up;seq=252) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;104. _sal_, _salis_, salt; stem, _sal-_, _sali-_ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Related words: saline, salad, sauce, sausage, saltpeter, salary, saucer, saucy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Salary_ is from _salarium_, 'salt money paid a soldier.' A&#xD;&#xA;_saucer_ was a receptacle for _sauce_ from _salsus_, 'salty,' which&#xD;&#xA;is derived from _sal_. A _saucy_ person is one whose talk is 'salted,'&#xD;&#xA;sharp, or pert. _Sausage_ comes through Late Latin _salsicia_ from&#xD;&#xA;Latin _salsus_, 'salty.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(so sausage comes from _sal_ too! Who would have thought that!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7156" RevisionGUID="260cb6bc-395f-449d-ba21-ef25b4ce667b" CreationDate="2018-09-06T12:13:48.293" UserId="1459" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The monetary system of an important part of medieval Europe was based on the non-decimal [_librae_, _solidi_, and _denarii_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C2%A3sd) system, (the UK only abandoned such system in 1971). A smaller subdivision of the _denarius_ was the _obolus_, equivalent to half a _denarius_ (or a halfpenny). This was abbreviated as _ob_. It can be found in tons of medieval documents. Meanwhile, _q_ corresponds to a _quadrans_, one quarter of a _denarius_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in the [_Valor Ecclesiasticus_](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OypDAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PR13&amp;lpg=PR13&amp;dq=Valor+ecclesiasticus+temp.+Henrici+VIII+:+auctoritate+regia+institutus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=UV-nvTDcwe&amp;sig=dnSKVJuiE76Xqn9hOhQopQYzaLk&amp;hl=es-419&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiFjpDf8qXdAhVLUhoKHermDrQQ6AEwBXoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=obit&amp;f=false), the famous survey of the finances of the Church conducted by Henry VIII, we find this monetary system:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice how _£_, _s._ and _d._ are written at the top of the line, with the quantity at the bottom, whereas _ob_ and _q_ are written directly as quantities. This is because the subdivisions within the _denarius_ only need to write these symbols once. For instance, 1/4 is just _q_, 2/4 is _ob_, and 3/4 is _ob q_. In other pages you can see sometimes _ob_ and _q_ alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples are [here](https://archive.org/stream/chaptersinadmini01toutuoft#page/234/search/ob) and [here](https://archive.org/details/earlyenglishcus00goog). The latter, in page 149, lists some word translations and abbreviations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;pounds (*libre*) sterling, are written £, shillings (*solidi*) &#xD;&#xA;s., pence (*denarii*) d., **halfpenny (*obolus*) ob.**, farthing (*quadrans*) &#xD;&#xA;q., and mark (*marca*) mr.; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rP9Ye.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24045" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7159" RevisionGUID="68e333e6-5192-4fed-b44b-7b6ed92d323c" CreationDate="2018-09-06T13:50:39.157" UserId="2646" Comment="edited title" Text="Etymology of &quot;salarium&quot; and its connection to salt" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7161" RevisionGUID="7bedec3b-b5c3-43da-b695-e67b3babcd5e" CreationDate="2018-09-06T16:32:36.367" UserId="1142" Text="Linguā Anglicā, saepe cum multīs adverbīs atque adiectīvīs, plūrima quōrum significātiōnēs absolūtās habent (exempla sunt *&quot;always&quot;* vel *&quot;everything&quot;* vel *&quot;nothing&quot;* vel *&quot;never&quot;* vel, et cētera), adverbō *&quot;almost&quot;* utimur ut significēmus adverbum vel adiectīvum nōn ferre subtīlem, sed significātiōnem quae propē principālem est. Exempla:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *&quot;almost always&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;* *&quot;almost everything&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;* *&quot;almost nothing&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;* *&quot;almost never&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utāmurne linguā Latīnā verbō &quot;ferē&quot; eōdem modō (exempla &quot;ferē nihil&quot; vel &quot;ferē semper&quot;, et cētera) ut linguā Anglicā, aut aliō?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24047" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7161" RevisionGUID="7bedec3b-b5c3-43da-b695-e67b3babcd5e" CreationDate="2018-09-06T16:32:36.367" UserId="1142" Text="Utiturne linguā Latīnā aliquis adverbō &quot;ferē&quot; ut linguā Anglicā verbō &quot;almost&quot; utitur?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24048" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7161" RevisionGUID="7bedec3b-b5c3-43da-b695-e67b3babcd5e" CreationDate="2018-09-06T16:32:36.367" UserId="1142" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|adjective|adverb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7161" RevisionGUID="86a41c4b-123b-48f6-9140-8b4650840030" CreationDate="2018-09-06T16:37:49.707" UserId="1142" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="Linguā Anglicā, saepe cum multīs adverbīs atque adiectīvīs, plūrima quōrum significātiōnēs absolūtās habent (exempla sunt *&quot;always&quot;* vel *&quot;everything&quot;* vel *&quot;nothing&quot;* vel *&quot;never&quot;* vel, et cētera), adverbō *&quot;almost&quot;* utimur ut significēmus adverbum vel adiectīvum nōn ferre subtīlem, sed significātiōnem quae propē principālem est. Exempla:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *&quot;almost always&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;* *&quot;almost everything&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;* *&quot;almost nothing&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;* *&quot;almost never&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utāmurne linguā Latīnā verbō *ferē* eōdem modō (exempla *ferē nihil* vel *ferē semper*, et cētera) ut linguā Anglicā, aut aliō?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sī male Latīnē scrīpsī, apologiās vōbis agō." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7161" RevisionGUID="4bb348cf-a2ab-4b36-bce2-489e4b620581" CreationDate="2018-09-06T17:15:11.443" UserId="1142" Comment="Long marks on ūtor." Text="Linguā Anglicā, saepe cum multīs adverbīs atque adiectīvīs, plūrima quōrum significātiōnēs absolūtās habent (exempla sunt *&quot;always&quot;* vel *&quot;everything&quot;* vel *&quot;nothing&quot;* vel *&quot;never&quot;* vel, et cētera), adverbō *&quot;almost&quot;* ūtimur ut significēmus adverbum vel adiectīvum nōn ferre subtīlem, sed significātiōnem quae propē principālem est. Exempla:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *&quot;almost always&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;* *&quot;almost everything&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;* *&quot;almost nothing&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;* *&quot;almost never&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ūtāmurne linguā Latīnā verbō *ferē* eōdem modō (exempla *ferē nihil* vel *ferē semper*, et cētera) ut linguā Anglicā, aut aliō?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sī male Latīnē scrīpsī, apologiās vōbis agō." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24051" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7161" RevisionGUID="4bb348cf-a2ab-4b36-bce2-489e4b620581" CreationDate="2018-09-06T17:15:11.443" UserId="1142" Comment="Long marks on ūtor." Text="Ūtiturne linguā Latīnā aliquis adverbō &quot;ferē&quot; ut linguā Anglicā verbō &quot;almost&quot; ūtitur?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7161" RevisionGUID="6cd1fa0d-195b-4cd3-8421-fb8c3a177cbb" CreationDate="2018-09-06T23:11:03.070" UserId="1142" Comment="Delēns &quot;vel&quot;" Text="Linguā Anglicā, saepe cum multīs adverbīs atque adiectīvīs, plūrima quōrum significātiōnēs absolūtās habent (exempla sunt *&quot;always&quot;* vel *&quot;everything&quot;* vel *&quot;nothing&quot;* vel *&quot;never&quot;*, et cētera), adverbō *&quot;almost&quot;* ūtimur ut significēmus adverbum vel adiectīvum nōn ferre subtīlem, sed significātiōnem quae propē principālem est. Exempla:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *&quot;almost always&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;* *&quot;almost everything&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;* *&quot;almost nothing&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;* *&quot;almost never&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ūtāmurne linguā Latīnā verbō *ferē* eōdem modō (exempla *ferē nihil* vel *ferē semper*, et cētera) ut linguā Anglicā, aut aliō?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sī male Latīnē scrīpsī, apologiās vōbīs agō." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7162" RevisionGUID="144c4f49-e794-4a3c-a6e5-86c7a086b975" CreationDate="2018-09-07T14:47:02.273" UserId="1142" Text="To the best of my knowledge, the following constructions are used to express purpose in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ut + [subjunctive clause]&#xD;&#xA;2. ad + [gerund]&#xD;&#xA;3. ad + [gerundive]&#xD;&#xA;4. causā + [genitive gerund]&#xD;&#xA;5. supine with verbs of motion&#xD;&#xA;6. (rare) infinitive with a *select* few verbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For someone approaching Latin from a strictly philological perspective, it's only really important to know that all of these constructions are used express purpose; it is not especially important for said someone to know *when* and *where* these constructions are used and when and where to prefer one over the other. I, however, am not simply approaching from a philological perspective; I want to be able to write (and eventually speak) Latin and do it well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all that said, *when* and *where* should each method of expressing purpose be used, being preferred over the others? Point five is exempt, obviously; it is clear from its description when and where it should be used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24056" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7162" RevisionGUID="144c4f49-e794-4a3c-a6e5-86c7a086b975" CreationDate="2018-09-07T14:47:02.273" UserId="1142" Text="When and where to use which construction expressing purpose" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24057" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7162" RevisionGUID="144c4f49-e794-4a3c-a6e5-86c7a086b975" CreationDate="2018-09-07T14:47:02.273" UserId="1142" Text="|syntax|purpose-clause|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5670" RevisionGUID="5df97de8-376f-4318-8782-3c6d7c2f5ff8" CreationDate="2018-09-07T15:11:57.983" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Proposal:&#xD;&#xA;Stop trying to classify all subordinate clauses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subordinate clauses with *cum* can express a number of different things, and they often overlap.&#xD;&#xA;Reason, circumstance, and time are very closely related, and drawing boundaries between them is artificial.&#xD;&#xA;Do you think a Roman would have classified, consciously or not, your first example in a specific strict category?&#xD;&#xA;Classifications are artificial and unnecessary if they have no effect on actual usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only really relevant classification to me is what kinds of *cum* clauses take indicative and which ones conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;I think looking for a good rule of thumb for moods in *cum* clauses would make a nice new question, but I will not digress into that here.&#xD;&#xA;([The new question was asked later.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5675/79))&#xD;&#xA;If I interpret correctly, your question is about semantic distinctions between causal, temporal, and circumstantial clauses, not between indicative and conjunctive per se.&#xD;&#xA;Do correct me if I'm wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different grammarians will disagree to some extent on the descriptions and classifications of *cum* clauses.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I consider these grammar entries a way of organizing ideas around *cum* clauses, not as hard facts.&#xD;&#xA;I organize my thoughts differently, but I (mostly) get what others are saying.&#xD;&#xA;I would argue that an attempt at very narrow and specific classification is ill-advised unless there is overwhelming text corpus evidence to support it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [Bennett](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect288) considers circumstantial clauses a subclass of temporal clauses. For another example, the grammar material I was taught with made no mention of circumstantial clauses at all; I think I would classify them as causal or temporal. For more views, ask more people or books." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7162" RevisionGUID="57c8c9d5-93fa-4f65-b663-4626c3cee4b3" CreationDate="2018-09-07T16:34:39.480" UserId="1142" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="To the best of my knowledge, the following constructions are used to express purpose in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ut + [subjunctive clause]&#xD;&#xA;2. ad + [gerund]&#xD;&#xA;3. ad + [gerundive]&#xD;&#xA;4. causā + [genitive gerund]&#xD;&#xA;5. supine with verbs of motion&#xD;&#xA;6. (rare) infinitive with a *select* few verbs&#xA;7. quī, quae, quod + [subjunctive clause]&#xA;8. [comparative adverb] + [subjunctive clause]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For someone approaching Latin from a strictly philological perspective, it's only really important to know that all of these constructions are used express purpose; it is not especially important for said someone to know *when* and *where* these constructions are used and when and where to prefer one over the other. I, however, am not simply approaching from a philological perspective; I want to be able to write (and eventually speak) Latin and do it well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all that said, *when* and *where* should each method of expressing purpose be used, being preferred over the others? Point five is exempt, obviously; it is clear from its description when and where it should be used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7162" RevisionGUID="f13acfef-9c63-4327-abc2-0b59d47e0ec8" CreationDate="2018-09-07T16:40:36.250" UserId="645" Comment="added 'quo' to point 8" Text="To the best of my knowledge, the following constructions are used to express purpose in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ut + [subjunctive clause]&#xD;&#xA;2. ad + [gerund]&#xD;&#xA;3. ad + [gerundive]&#xD;&#xA;4. causā + [genitive gerund]&#xD;&#xA;5. supine with verbs of motion&#xD;&#xA;6. (rare) infinitive with a *select* few verbs&#xD;&#xA;7. quī, quae, quod + [subjunctive clause]&#xD;&#xA;8. quo + [comparative adverb] + [subjunctive clause]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For someone approaching Latin from a strictly philological perspective, it's only really important to know that all of these constructions are used express purpose; it is not especially important for said someone to know *when* and *where* these constructions are used and when and where to prefer one over the other. I, however, am not simply approaching from a philological perspective; I want to be able to write (and eventually speak) Latin and do it well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all that said, *when* and *where* should each method of expressing purpose be used, being preferred over the others? Point five is exempt, obviously; it is clear from its description when and where it should be used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7163" RevisionGUID="72672040-05db-4a74-bdba-5ea9c4d08f54" CreationDate="2018-09-08T16:23:37.407" UserId="2909" Text="I play a scifi game where you build your own pieces and the language in the game is a derivative of Latin. I want to write a couple battle cries/prayers on the sides of one of my game pieces. The phrases in English are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Blood for the Blood God&quot; and&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Skulls for the Skull Throne&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I modelled my translation off the Catholic hymn &quot;Gloria in Excelsis Deo&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempted translations are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Cruor pro Cruori Deo&quot; and&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Crania pro Craniis Throno&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have questions about my conjugation, diction, and word order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Conjugation. The subject should be nominative and the object and its modifier should be dative, right? Blood is always singular? Can I use a plural dative to modify a singular dative? If not, how do I write &quot;Throne of Skulls&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Diction. This is scifi Space Latin, so the nouns used don't have to belong to a specific era of latin. I chose Cruor instead of Sanguis because it connotes violence. &quot;Gore for the Gore God&quot; translates more idiomatically IMO than &quot;IV for the IV God&quot;. Cicero used Cruor to specifically mean spilled blood from violence in the Philippics. Also, within the context of the game, Sanguis applies to a different faction (Space Vampires) than the faction I play and I don't want the casual Latin reader to look at my game piece and think Space Vampires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know Cranium and Thronus are Greek derivatives from medieval Latin, although Pliny did use Thronus Caesaris in the first century to describe a constellation in Natural History. However, I like the way it looks on a game piece because both words are English cognates unlike calvus or sedis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm happy for suggestions for nouns and I certainly don't want to discourage good advice. The diction question I had the most was the preposition. I've had people make good arguments for pro, ad, and in and I can't make up my mind. The consensus says pro, but an archeologist friend of mine suggested ad for idiomatic reason (he did make specific note to say he was not a linguist), and my priest suggested in because prayers typically use in when referring to God because God is everywhere. Both of these battlecries double as prayers to a specific god, who isn't omnipresent, in my space game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Word Order. I have absolutely no idea. I modelled my phrases after the word order in &quot;Gloria in excelsis Deo&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for any help you can give!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24064" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7163" RevisionGUID="72672040-05db-4a74-bdba-5ea9c4d08f54" CreationDate="2018-09-08T16:23:37.407" UserId="2909" Text="&quot;Blood for the Blood God&quot; vs &quot;Gloria In Excelsis Deo&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24065" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7163" RevisionGUID="72672040-05db-4a74-bdba-5ea9c4d08f54" CreationDate="2018-09-08T16:23:37.407" UserId="2909" Text="|translation|contemporary-latin|english-to-latin-translation|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7163" RevisionGUID="b6d8de60-3fe4-4484-a68c-66de65cb8933" CreationDate="2018-09-08T16:26:30.850" UserId="136" Comment="changed one word to reflect grammatical terminology" Text="I play a scifi game where you build your own pieces and the language in the game is a derivative of Latin. I want to write a couple battle cries/prayers on the sides of one of my game pieces. The phrases in English are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Blood for the Blood God&quot; and&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Skulls for the Skull Throne&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I modelled my translation off the Catholic hymn &quot;Gloria in Excelsis Deo&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempted translations are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Cruor pro Cruori Deo&quot; and&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Crania pro Craniis Throno&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have questions about my conjugation, diction, and word order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Declension. The subject should be nominative and the object and its modifier should be dative, right? Blood is always singular? Can I use a plural dative to modify a singular dative? If not, how do I write &quot;Throne of Skulls&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Diction. This is scifi Space Latin, so the nouns used don't have to belong to a specific era of latin. I chose Cruor instead of Sanguis because it connotes violence. &quot;Gore for the Gore God&quot; translates more idiomatically IMO than &quot;IV for the IV God&quot;. Cicero used Cruor to specifically mean spilled blood from violence in the Philippics. Also, within the context of the game, Sanguis applies to a different faction (Space Vampires) than the faction I play and I don't want the casual Latin reader to look at my game piece and think Space Vampires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know Cranium and Thronus are Greek derivatives from medieval Latin, although Pliny did use Thronus Caesaris in the first century to describe a constellation in Natural History. However, I like the way it looks on a game piece because both words are English cognates unlike calvus or sedis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm happy for suggestions for nouns and I certainly don't want to discourage good advice. The diction question I had the most was the preposition. I've had people make good arguments for pro, ad, and in and I can't make up my mind. The consensus says pro, but an archeologist friend of mine suggested ad for idiomatic reason (he did make specific note to say he was not a linguist), and my priest suggested in because prayers typically use in when referring to God because God is everywhere. Both of these battlecries double as prayers to a specific god, who isn't omnipresent, in my space game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Word Order. I have absolutely no idea. I modelled my phrases after the word order in &quot;Gloria in excelsis Deo&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for any help you can give!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7164" RevisionGUID="9cb8e1e4-3209-4053-ae69-6030f0498706" CreationDate="2018-09-09T12:29:23.583" UserId="1982" Text="In North &amp; Hillard Ex. 193; Q1: the following sentence is to be translated into Latin: &quot;While the consul was absent the danger was increasing.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer given: &quot;dum consul aberat periculum augebatur.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passive-imperfect &quot;augebatur&quot;, means the danger was being increased&quot;; I used &quot;augebat&quot;, &quot;it was increasing&quot;, which is what the English asks for.&#xD;&#xA;But both make sense; however, would one be more appropriate than the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24070" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7164" RevisionGUID="9cb8e1e4-3209-4053-ae69-6030f0498706" CreationDate="2018-09-09T12:29:23.583" UserId="1982" Text="Increasing Danger" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24071" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7164" RevisionGUID="9cb8e1e4-3209-4053-ae69-6030f0498706" CreationDate="2018-09-09T12:29:23.583" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7164" RevisionGUID="0ca383bd-6879-4d4c-b29b-1bfac97b4234" CreationDate="2018-09-09T14:16:43.713" UserId="1459" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="In North &amp; Hillard Ex. 193; Q1: the following sentence is to be translated into Latin: &quot;While the consul was absent the danger was increasing.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer given: &quot;_dum consul aberat periculum augebatur._&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passive-imperfect &quot;_augebatur_&quot;, means the danger was being increased&quot;; I used &quot;_augebat_&quot;, &quot;it was increasing&quot;, which is what the English asks for.&#xD;&#xA;But both make sense; however, would one be more appropriate than the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24073" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7164" RevisionGUID="0ca383bd-6879-4d4c-b29b-1bfac97b4234" CreationDate="2018-09-09T14:16:43.713" UserId="1459" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Passive versus active voice for &quot;increasing&quot; verb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24074" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7164" RevisionGUID="0ca383bd-6879-4d4c-b29b-1bfac97b4234" CreationDate="2018-09-09T14:16:43.713" UserId="1459" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7165" RevisionGUID="0acd1fc5-bfaf-4ef9-afec-e1e9b466cc45" CreationDate="2018-09-09T19:24:07.647" UserId="406" Text="This is a tricky point! But short version, the book's answer is the correct one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English has a class of verbs called &quot;ergative verbs&quot;. &quot;Increase&quot; is one of them, along with &quot;break&quot;, &quot;turn&quot;, &quot;shake&quot;, and several others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When these verbs are used with a single noun, the thing being increased/broken/turned/shaken is the subject. But when used with two nouns, the thing being increased/broken/turned/shaken is the direct object. (Compare &quot;the vase broke&quot;/&quot;he broke the vase&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin doesn't do this. So when translating the one-noun versions of these verbs into Latin, they have to go into the passive voice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, *augeō* doesn't mean &quot;increase&quot; in the sense of &quot;the danger **increased**&quot;, it means &quot;increase&quot; in the sense of &quot;the general **increased** the rations for this week&quot;. The subject is always the *cause* of the increase, while the object is the thing that's getting bigger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that sometimes *augeō* **was** actually used to mean the subject getting bigger of its own accord. However, this wasn't common, and some grammarians considered it incorrect: a *-sc-* verb was generally preferred instead, such as *augescō* or *crescō*.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7166" RevisionGUID="71536b1e-45c7-48f6-b23e-935976775d2e" CreationDate="2018-09-09T19:59:26.737" UserId="406" Text="An &quot;ergative verb&quot; is a verb that can either take two nouns (a subject and an object) or only one (a subject), where the object of the two-noun form corresponds to the subject of the one-noun form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That sounds more complicated than it is: an easy example is &quot;break&quot; in English. If used with only one noun, the subject is the thing that breaks: &quot;the window broke&quot;. But if used with two nouns, the *object* is the thing that breaks: &quot;Marcus broke the window&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Latin have any verbs which can interchange the roles of their subject and object like this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24078" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7166" RevisionGUID="71536b1e-45c7-48f6-b23e-935976775d2e" CreationDate="2018-09-09T19:59:26.737" UserId="406" Text="Did Latin have any ergative verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24079" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7166" RevisionGUID="71536b1e-45c7-48f6-b23e-935976775d2e" CreationDate="2018-09-09T19:59:26.737" UserId="406" Text="|verbs|accusative|nominativus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7162" RevisionGUID="42f934d4-0406-4cee-8383-27b5830c9b01" CreationDate="2018-09-09T20:04:41.037" UserId="1142" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="To the best of my knowledge, the following constructions are used to express purpose in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ut + [subjunctive clause]&#xD;&#xA;2. ad + [accusative gerund]&#xD;&#xA;3. ad + [accusative gerundive] + [accusative noun]&#xD;&#xA;4. [genitive gerund] + causā&#xD;&#xA;5. [genitive gerundive] + [genitive noun] + causā&#xD;&#xA;6. supine with verbs of motion&#xD;&#xA;7. (rare) infinitive with a *select* few verbs&#xD;&#xA;8. quī, quae, quod + [subjunctive clause]&#xD;&#xA;9. quo + [comparative adverb] + [subjunctive clause]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For someone approaching Latin from a strictly philological perspective, it's only really important to know that all of these constructions are used express purpose; it is not especially important for said someone to know *when* and *where* these constructions are used and when and where to prefer one over the other. I, however, am not simply approaching from a philological perspective; I want to be able to write (and eventually speak) Latin and do it well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all that said, *when* and *where* should each method of expressing purpose be used, being preferred over the others? Point six is exempt, obviously; it is clear from its description when and where it should be used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24081" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7161" RevisionGUID="0b210f09-dd29-4a62-b561-8f04d2a54d37" CreationDate="2018-09-09T22:02:21.213" UserId="1142" Comment="Main clause of the title should probably have been in the subjunctive mood this entire time." Text="Ūtāturne linguā Latīnā aliquis adverbō &quot;ferē&quot; ut linguā Anglicā verbō &quot;almost&quot; ūtitur?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7168" RevisionGUID="129ca826-0a6a-489a-9999-d5d65bf7764b" CreationDate="2018-09-10T13:58:18.797" UserId="1142" Text="There are several issues which I can see here; your choice of words, *cruor*, *cranium*, and *thronus*, is fine. However:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The preposition *prō* does not take a dative; it takes an ablative.&#xD;&#xA;* The preposition *prō* may not be appropriate for this scenario; it generally encompasses the meaning &quot;on behalf of&quot;. If your intended meaning was that the blood and skulls are offerings for the &quot;blood god&quot; and the &quot;throne of skulls&quot;, *prō* is certainly not the right preposition; I would use *ad* or simply a plain dative, to convey that the blood and skulls are being offered as a sacrifice of sorts; my preference here is *ad*, simply because these are such short phrases, but in larger clauses I would generally prefer the dative.&#xD;&#xA;* Latin does not construct noun phrases in the same manner as English; you cannot simply write *cruorī deō* or *craniīs thronō* with the intent of conveying &quot;blood god&quot; or &quot;throne of skulls&quot;; either *cruor* and *cranium* must be in the genitive, modifying *deō* and *thronō* respectively, or use adjectives which mean *of or pertaining to blood* and *of or pertaining to skulls*, of which there are many. My *personal* preference would simply be to use the genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all that said, I would use the following phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cruor ad cruōris deum*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gore to the god of gore&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Crania ad craniōrum thronum*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Skulls to the throne of skulls&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can rearrange the orders of the genitive noun phrases and the orders of the subject and prepositional phrases in either phrase to whatever might suit you; Latin word order is relatively free." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7168" RevisionGUID="84209608-ab33-42c3-9a19-a1f7bdb53548" CreationDate="2018-09-10T14:09:17.673" UserId="1142" Comment="Wow; I wrote that really badly." Text="There are several issues which I can see here; your choice of words, *cruor*, *cranium*, and *thronus*, is fine. However:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The preposition *prō* does not take a dative; it takes an ablative.&#xD;&#xA;* The preposition *prō* may not be appropriate for this scenario; it generally encompasses the meaning &quot;on behalf of&quot;. If your intended meaning was that the blood and skulls are offerings for the &quot;blood god&quot; and the &quot;throne of skulls&quot;, I definitely wouldn't use it. Instead, I would use *ad* or simply a dative to convey that the blood and skulls are being offered as a sacrifice; my preference here is *ad*, simply because these are such short phrases, but in larger clauses, I would generally prefer the dative.&#xD;&#xA;* Latin does not construct noun phrases in the same manner as English; you cannot simply write *cruorī deō* or *craniīs thronō* with the intent of conveying &quot;blood god&quot; or &quot;throne of skulls&quot;; either *cruor* and *cranium* must be in the genitive, modifying *deō* and *thronō* respectively, or use adjectives which mean *of or pertaining to blood* and *of or pertaining to skulls*, of which there are many. My *personal* preference would simply be to use the genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all that said, I would use the following phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cruor ad cruōris deum*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gore to the god of gore&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Crania ad craniōrum thronum*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Skulls to the throne of skulls&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can rearrange the orders of the genitive noun phrases and the orders of the subject and prepositional phrases in either phrase to whatever might suit you; Latin word order is relatively free." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7169" RevisionGUID="bf2f28ae-a4e8-4e42-8057-420f0515aa30" CreationDate="2018-09-10T18:25:27.503" UserId="645" Text="It's obvious from the list of constructions that this question is not going to have a simple answer. As ever, it all depends on context, style and personal preference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a clear resumé of some of the options in &quot;Latin Prose Composition&quot;, an elementary textbook by North &amp; Hillard much used in England in previous centuries. Rule 18 states that &quot;A relative with the subjunctive may express many adverbial meanings, especially a Purpose or a Consequence&quot;. Examples of Final and Consecutive clauses are given, but the appended Note is neatly illustrative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;We thus have four ways of expressing purpose in Latin, viz. as in the following sentences :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	(1	Legatos miserunt *ut pacem peterent*&#xD;&#xA;	(2)	Legatos miserunt *qui pacem peterent*&#xD;&#xA;	(3)	Legatos miserunt *ad pacem petendum*&#xD;&#xA;		Legatos miserunt *pacis petendae causa*&#xD;&#xA;	(4)	Legatos miserunt *pacem petitum*&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Occasionally also purpose is expressed by the future participle ;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	*e.g.*	Legatos miserunt *pacem petituros* &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This covers most of your (amended) list. Missing still are :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*causa* + genitive (e.g. *arma posuernt pacis causa*), which does not specifically require a following gerund and&#xD;&#xA;	*quo* with comparative adverb, followed by a subjunctive (*e.g.* *arma posuerunt quo certius bellum finiretur*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having cleared all that, I ought to answer your direct question.&#xD;&#xA;There is no &quot;correct&quot; or &quot;preferred&quot; means of expressing purpose in the sense for which you ask. Learning Latin prose composition is just like learning prose composition in any language: it is best picked up by becoming familiar with the writings of good authors. Who these might be in Latin was debated from Quintilian's time, through that of Priscian and right through to the Renaissance, when Humanist Latin was attempting to preserve and emulate the best kind of writing (it largely came down to Caesar, Cicero and Seneca, though not exclusively by any means). In short, there's no set of rules, hard or easy, that have to be followed — and to develop fluency only practice, practice and more practice, with a readiness to accept criticism and advice will do the trick!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7169" RevisionGUID="88c19c2b-d8bb-4b17-b920-5c6e40c8bcb4" CreationDate="2018-09-10T22:07:09.023" UserId="1304" Comment="edited body" Text="It's obvious from the list of constructions that this question is not going to have a simple answer. As ever, it all depends on context, style and personal preference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a clear resumé of some of the options in &quot;Latin Prose Composition&quot;, an elementary textbook by North &amp; Hillard much used in England in previous centuries. Rule 18 states that &quot;A relative with the subjunctive may express many adverbial meanings, especially a Purpose or a Consequence&quot;. Examples of Final and Consecutive clauses are given, but the appended Note is neatly illustrative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;We thus have four ways of expressing purpose in Latin, viz. as in the following sentences :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	(1	Legatos miserunt *ut pacem peterent*&#xD;&#xA;	(2)	Legatos miserunt *qui pacem peterent*&#xD;&#xA;	(3)	Legatos miserunt *ad pacem petendam*&#xD;&#xA;		Legatos miserunt *pacis petendae causa*&#xD;&#xA;	(4)	Legatos miserunt *pacem petitum*&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Occasionally also purpose is expressed by the future participle ;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	*e.g.*	Legatos miserunt *pacem petituros* &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This covers most of your (amended) list. Missing still are :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*causa* + genitive (e.g. *arma posuernt pacis causa*), which does not specifically require a following gerund and&#xD;&#xA;	*quo* with comparative adverb, followed by a subjunctive (*e.g.* *arma posuerunt quo certius bellum finiretur*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having cleared all that, I ought to answer your direct question.&#xD;&#xA;There is no &quot;correct&quot; or &quot;preferred&quot; means of expressing purpose in the sense for which you ask. Learning Latin prose composition is just like learning prose composition in any language: it is best picked up by becoming familiar with the writings of good authors. Who these might be in Latin was debated from Quintilian's time, through that of Priscian and right through to the Renaissance, when Humanist Latin was attempting to preserve and emulate the best kind of writing (it largely came down to Caesar, Cicero and Seneca, though not exclusively by any means). In short, there's no set of rules, hard or easy, that have to be followed — and to develop fluency only practice, practice and more practice, with a readiness to accept criticism and advice will do the trick!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7170" RevisionGUID="ab727f57-7aba-4c7b-b5c3-63cae4e96183" CreationDate="2018-09-12T08:21:50.593" UserId="2912" Text="I hope someone who speaks Russian could help me in translating a phrase &quot;Лови момент. Цени мгновение.&quot; into Latin. I'm afraid the original meaning could be lost or transformed if I translate it to English, first. But I guess in English the phrase would sound like &quot;Catch the moment. Appreciate the instant&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24090" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7170" RevisionGUID="ab727f57-7aba-4c7b-b5c3-63cae4e96183" CreationDate="2018-09-12T08:21:50.593" UserId="2912" Text="Translation of a phrase &quot;Catch the moment, ...&quot; to Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24091" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7170" RevisionGUID="ab727f57-7aba-4c7b-b5c3-63cae4e96183" CreationDate="2018-09-12T08:21:50.593" UserId="2912" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7171" RevisionGUID="4984f25d-faad-4750-87ce-053b7e3bc142" CreationDate="2018-09-12T08:58:31.167" UserId="645" Text="There is a well-known Latin equivalent in fairly common use : *carpe diem* (literally, 'seize the day), taken from Horace, Odes 1.11. The full phrase is *carpe diem quam minimum credula postero*, implying that you should take nothing on trust for tomorrow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it's not a literal translation of the Russian, it catches the sentiment exactly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7172" RevisionGUID="e7d33158-0ce4-4a85-9c04-b1fb426c7226" CreationDate="2018-09-13T09:00:17.110" UserId="2918" Text="I started to you et tu when someone said something nice, then I remember it consider a negative connotation over its use in Et tu, Brutus. Don't forget someone died." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5702" RevisionGUID="f0f55393-6f56-4dab-ab15-3a1a53a17ab8" CreationDate="2018-09-13T11:15:34.253" UserId="2072" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Has anybody found the actual database of [&quot;Corpus Latinorum Et Mediaevalium Naturae Scriptorum&quot;][1] instead of just project notes? The descriptions look incredibly promising:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CLEMENS, acronym for Corpus Latinorum Et Mediaevalium Naturae Scriptorum, is a new electronic archive of *excerpta* reporting environment-related data contained in the literary and epigraphic sources of classical Roman and Medieval age. The aim is to fill a gap in information about environmental disruptions or memorabilia that occurred in ancient times within the Mediterranean basin, and to verify whether any useful information has eluded our knowledge. One of the main purposes of the systematic gathering and cataloguing carried out by CLEMENS is to become an extensive easy-to-search tool, offering the scientific community complete annotated documentation of what is available inside ancient sources about the natural environment in the Mediterranean. This information, currently dispersed in a variety of publications that may be difficult to access, has often proven essential for hazard assessment in several areas of the former Roman empire. It also contributes significantly to the understanding of changes caused by environmental events over the centuries, and of their incidence on natural habitats and on cultural heritage. The analysis of such interconnections may lead to a much improved understanding of either natural environment, hazards and cultural setting, as shown by interdisciplinary investigations merging together science, archaeology and history or even myth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Considering the vast amount of documentation, the work is still far from completion. However, the encouraging preliminary results will soon be available on the web.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This citation is from &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[L. Piccardi &amp; W. B. Masse: &quot;Myth and Geology&quot;, The Geological Society: London, 2008, p 51–61.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Soon&quot; should be reached by now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But where is it? Was it renamed, only in Italian, offline only, abandoned?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.de/search?&amp;q=Corpus%20Latinorum%20Et%20Mediaevalium%20Naturae%20Scriptorum&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.1208/abstract" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24095" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7170" RevisionGUID="1c18c248-f4ac-49f0-8ae5-44b623c3c103" CreationDate="2018-09-13T11:53:44.577" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|idiom|sentence-translation|russian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7173" RevisionGUID="8ac9325c-588a-4bc5-9906-d36f97ebdd47" CreationDate="2018-09-13T11:54:10.650" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24097" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7173" RevisionGUID="8ac9325c-588a-4bc5-9906-d36f97ebdd47" CreationDate="2018-09-13T11:54:10.650" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7174" RevisionGUID="d9f1e8e6-13a1-4d55-90d5-da605aac7dea" CreationDate="2018-09-13T11:54:10.650" UserId="79" Text="For questions related to (but not solely concerning) the Russian language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24099" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7174" RevisionGUID="d9f1e8e6-13a1-4d55-90d5-da605aac7dea" CreationDate="2018-09-13T11:54:10.650" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7175" RevisionGUID="e1d0335b-d903-4318-b9d3-f6d218c96fd6" CreationDate="2018-09-13T13:41:13.153" UserId="2915" Text="In (most? all?) Indo-European languages the verb &quot;to be&quot; is called copulative because it joins words that represent the same thing -- in your case, &quot;Nile&quot; and &quot;river.&quot; In English, Jane might answer a phone caller's question, &quot;Is this Jane?&quot; with the grammatically correct &quot;Yes, this is she&quot; -- though, since about 1600, by analogy with the general run of post-verbal pronouns, the tendency has been to answer &quot;Yes, it's me&quot; (see https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=3&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjyy7GAiLjdAhUnLMAKHV7eBPwQFjACegQICBAC&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Ffreidok.uni-freiburg.de%2Ffedora%2Fobjects%2Ffreidok%3A8431%2Fdatastreams%2FFILE1%2Fcontent&amp;usg=AOvVaw0zzyriDMYpaOLj5Q71-nSA). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7176" RevisionGUID="f619be1d-52e2-424f-9c28-fb72f879ed1f" CreationDate="2018-09-13T15:03:37.513" UserId="992" Text="I want to ask a question about medieval latin.&#xD;&#xA;Sion respectat dominus.  ıs this sentence in english mean: The lord gives some thought to zion? this translate true or false?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This title from Ekkehard of Aura. &#xD;&#xA;He was the monk in medieval. He departed to the crusades of 1101. This sentence is from his book Hierosolimita in RHC V, PP. 1-40.&#xD;&#xA;thank you for your help..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7176" RevisionGUID="f619be1d-52e2-424f-9c28-fb72f879ed1f" CreationDate="2018-09-13T15:03:37.513" UserId="992" Text="Sion respectat dominus...What does this mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7176" RevisionGUID="f619be1d-52e2-424f-9c28-fb72f879ed1f" CreationDate="2018-09-13T15:03:37.513" UserId="992" Text="|medieval-latin|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7177" RevisionGUID="d36a6984-ae1b-44ad-ae73-ef2790373441" CreationDate="2018-09-13T16:14:07.713" UserId="406" Text="This sentence literally means &quot;the Lord looks back at Zion&quot;. *Dominus* = Lord, *respectat* = looks back at, *Sion* = Zion (indeclinable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *respectō* literally means &quot;to look back at&quot;, but it can also mean &quot;to wait for&quot;, &quot;to care about&quot;, or even &quot;to stare intently at&quot;. The exact meaning depends on context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7176" RevisionGUID="7858ef5a-c6ec-46a0-ad66-eccfd6a94212" CreationDate="2018-09-13T16:20:06.660" UserId="1459" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I want to ask a question about medieval Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Sion respectat dominus_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this sentence in English mean: &quot;The lord gives some thought to Zion&quot;? Is this translation correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This title is from Ekkehard of Aura. He was a medieval monk. He departed to the crusades in 1101. This sentence is from his book Hierosolimita in RHC V, PP. 1-40.&#xD;&#xA;thank you for your help..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7176" RevisionGUID="12011a57-62fe-4b8c-900b-8eeff290c641" CreationDate="2018-09-13T20:12:40.163" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 26 characters in body" Text="I want to ask a question about medieval Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Sion respectat dominus_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this sentence in English mean: &quot;The lord gives some thought to Zion&quot;? Is this translation correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This title is from Ekkehard of Aura. He was a medieval monk. He departed to the crusades in 1101. This sentence is from his book Hierosolimita in RHC V, PP. 1-40.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24107" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7176" RevisionGUID="12011a57-62fe-4b8c-900b-8eeff290c641" CreationDate="2018-09-13T20:12:40.163" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 26 characters in body" Text="What does &quot;Sion respectat dominus&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7178" RevisionGUID="416c990e-f45b-486f-83a4-cc91f98a9eac" CreationDate="2018-09-14T11:40:01.713" UserId="637" Text="Respectat can also mean respect, as that, etymologically, is where we get the word from, however the other translations I believe are more accurate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7179" RevisionGUID="f847eaac-ec77-4cf1-afde-513575dd9d72" CreationDate="2018-09-14T15:11:38.450" UserId="1142" Text="I have just recently learned that the perfect tense in Latin can serve also as an aorist tense as well as a perfect tense and that the perfect tense in Latin is simply the result of the original Proto-Indo-European aorist and perfective aspect merging in Proto-Italic (all of these to the best of my knowledge and what I have been told.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the meanings of the aorist and perfect in general, I understand the differences. The aorist simply indicates the completion of an action, the perfect indicates a state resulting from the completion of an action. I am simply interested in the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Does Latin distinguish between the aorist and perfect at all, specifically in the perfect?&#xD;&#xA;2. If the above holds true, how would one go about distinguishing between an aoristic use of the perfect, or a perfective use of the perfect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24110" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7179" RevisionGUID="f847eaac-ec77-4cf1-afde-513575dd9d72" CreationDate="2018-09-14T15:11:38.450" UserId="1142" Text="Is there an aoristic-perfective distinction in the Latin perfect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24111" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7179" RevisionGUID="f847eaac-ec77-4cf1-afde-513575dd9d72" CreationDate="2018-09-14T15:11:38.450" UserId="1142" Text="|perfect-tense|tenses|aorist|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7179" RevisionGUID="b8971a9b-3cc8-4155-806d-011504bd7e8a" CreationDate="2018-09-14T16:30:46.493" UserId="1142" Comment="Added missing parenthesis." Text="I have just recently learned that the perfect tense in Latin can serve also as an aorist tense as well as a perfect tense and that the perfect tense in Latin is simply the result of the original Proto-Indo-European aorist and perfective aspect merging in Proto-Italic (all of these to the best of my knowledge and what I have been told).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the meanings of the aorist and perfect in general, I understand the differences. The aorist simply indicates the completion of an action, the perfect indicates a state resulting from the completion of an action. I am simply interested in the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Does Latin distinguish between the aorist and perfect at all, specifically in the perfect?&#xD;&#xA;2. If the above holds true, how would one go about distinguishing between an aoristic use of the perfect, or a perfective use of the perfect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7179" RevisionGUID="bb55d79d-712d-414a-a695-31f4d40f1c94" CreationDate="2018-09-14T16:42:36.650" UserId="1142" Comment="Clarification " Text="I have just recently learned that the perfect tense in Latin can serve also as an aorist tense as well as a perfect tense and that the perfect tense in Latin is simply the result of the original Proto-Indo-European aorist and perfective aspect merging in Proto-Italic (all of these to the best of my knowledge and what I have been told).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the meanings of the aorist and perfect in general, I understand the differences. The aorist simply indicates the completion of an action, the perfect indicates a state resulting from the completion of an action. I am simply interested in the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Does Latin distinguish between the aorist and perfect at all via any means other than inflection, specifically in the perfect?&#xD;&#xA;2. If the above holds true, how would one go about distinguishing between an aoristic use of the perfect, or a perfective use of the perfect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7180" RevisionGUID="ad279035-b23f-4bb1-9852-0c53ee914e39" CreationDate="2018-09-15T21:03:00.773" UserId="406" Text="If I want to find a citation for a word in Classical(-ish) Latin, I might go to [the Packhum Corpus][1], put in the stem, and weed through any spurious results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But suppose I want to know how (or if) a word was used in specifically Christian Latin. How would I find this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.packhum.org/search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24115" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7180" RevisionGUID="ad279035-b23f-4bb1-9852-0c53ee914e39" CreationDate="2018-09-15T21:03:00.773" UserId="406" Text="How do I find uses of a word in Ecclesiastical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24116" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7180" RevisionGUID="ad279035-b23f-4bb1-9852-0c53ee914e39" CreationDate="2018-09-15T21:03:00.773" UserId="406" Text="|resource-request|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7181" RevisionGUID="3ec13713-c9fb-4ea3-9cd3-f8d7c730bd5a" CreationDate="2018-09-15T21:05:35.677" UserId="2921" Text="How would I say ‘act accordingly’ in Latin? This would be an instruction to act in a manner appropriate to circumstance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24118" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7181" RevisionGUID="3ec13713-c9fb-4ea3-9cd3-f8d7c730bd5a" CreationDate="2018-09-15T21:05:35.677" UserId="2921" Text="How would I say ‘act accordingly’ in latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24119" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7181" RevisionGUID="3ec13713-c9fb-4ea3-9cd3-f8d7c730bd5a" CreationDate="2018-09-15T21:05:35.677" UserId="2921" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7182" RevisionGUID="3b359d63-6637-46fe-8a25-d82d35e530f1" CreationDate="2018-09-15T22:23:38.483" UserId="2922" Text="Google Books search. There is already a vast number of scanned late scholastic and other post-Classical Latin books there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7183" RevisionGUID="a6d86789-0136-4528-be38-3bf5ac452760" CreationDate="2018-09-15T22:44:40.677" UserId="2922" Text="Ita est, saltem in Latina post-mediaevali, ubi saepe hoc verbum &quot;fere&quot; in sensu indicato invenitur. Verum quoque est quod cnread dixit, hoc verbum scil. frequenter (etsi non semper) non ante, sed post verbum quod modificat poni. Alia verba idem fere significantia sunt &quot;paene&quot; (&quot;paene dixi&quot; &quot;I almost said&quot;), &quot;prope&quot; (&quot;prope nihil&quot; &quot;nearly nothing&quot;), et &quot;propemodo&quot; (&quot;propemodo nemo&quot; &quot;hardly anybody&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7184" RevisionGUID="2aaab6ef-b661-4aa8-b289-23b11228fd6a" CreationDate="2018-09-16T16:48:08.987" UserId="406" Text="Suppose I want to talk about &quot;fallen angels&quot;: angels who (according to some Abrahamic sects) rebelled against God and were cast out of Heaven.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the appropriate word for this? I'm not very familiar with Christian terminology in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24123" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7184" RevisionGUID="2aaab6ef-b661-4aa8-b289-23b11228fd6a" CreationDate="2018-09-16T16:48:08.987" UserId="406" Text="How would I say &quot;fallen&quot; in a Christian sense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24124" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7184" RevisionGUID="2aaab6ef-b661-4aa8-b289-23b11228fd6a" CreationDate="2018-09-16T16:48:08.987" UserId="406" Text="|christianity|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7185" RevisionGUID="7dc22501-6c93-448f-823e-a42cabfd4270" CreationDate="2018-09-16T18:38:06.840" UserId="1694" Text="I'd say _angeli lapsi_, based on the general use of _lapsus_ in Catholic theology.  (There's no direct example in the Bible, I believe.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7185" RevisionGUID="5557ac24-f005-4392-9028-dc834eb3350a" CreationDate="2018-09-16T19:11:34.260" UserId="1694" Comment="added 359 characters in body" Text="I'd say _angeli lapsi_, based on the general use of _lapsus_ in Catholic theology.  There's no direct example in the Bible, I believe, but is supported by e.g., the Latin Catechism, which _inter alia_ says: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Satan seu Diabolus ceteraque demonia angeli sunt lapsi quia libere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; renuerunt Deo Eiusque servire consilio. Eorum contra Deum optio&#xD;&#xA;&gt; definitiva est. Hominem eorum rebellioni contra Deum sociare conantur.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [see http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p1s2c1p7_lt.htm]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7185" RevisionGUID="eac0f61f-54cb-4bf5-89c1-7767b38507fb" CreationDate="2018-09-16T20:06:09.783" UserId="1694" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I'd say _angeli lapsi_, based on the general use of _lapsus_ in Catholic theology.  There's no direct example in the Bible, I believe, but is supported by e.g., the Latin Catechism, which _inter alia_ says: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Satan seu Diabolus ceteraque demonia angeli sunt lapsi quia libere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; renuerunt Deo Eiusque servire consilio. Eorum contra Deum optio&#xD;&#xA;&gt; definitiva est. Hominem eorum rebellioni contra Deum sociare conantur.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [see http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p1s2c1p7_lt.htm ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7186" RevisionGUID="8bd5ce76-36dd-4a1f-8f50-9d3a0ab85937" CreationDate="2018-09-17T01:09:36.150" UserId="427" Text="To a single person:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*ita te geres.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;'You will conduct yourself accordingly.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To a group:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*ita vos geretis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;'You will conduct yourselves accordingly.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to be a little less forceful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*ita te geras. / ita vos geratis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;'Please conduct yourself / yourselves accordingly.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or if you wish to be a little more forceful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*ita te gerito. / ita vos geritote.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;'You shall conduct yourself / yourselves accordingly.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="595d1ff2-82c6-446a-8038-d7b6311d4beb" CreationDate="2018-09-17T09:53:31.503" UserId="324" Text="The verb used Luke 10:18 is cadere:  Videbam Satanam sicut fulgor de cælo cadentem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="67ca8b2d-5279-4bc0-9220-d46a84987d51" CreationDate="2018-09-17T10:20:31.063" UserId="324" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="The verb used Luke 10:18 is (not surprisingly) cadere:  Videbam Satanam sicut fulgor de cælo cadentem.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="358093a0-e175-44d6-8cdf-a5cc576a2643" CreationDate="2018-09-17T11:00:52.190" UserId="324" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The verb used in Luke 10:18 is (not surprisingly) cadere:  Videbam Satanam sicut fulgor de cælo cadentem.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7188" RevisionGUID="68125648-ca8e-47a2-ba74-0d473469a0bd" CreationDate="2018-09-17T22:26:53.030" UserId="1142" Text="I am currently writing a small geography of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent (in the year 117 AD, under Emperor Trajan) in an effort to practice my composition skills. So far everything has been going well, however, via a discussion in [CONLOQVIVM](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm), a very specific question came up concerning cardinal directions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my writing, I am currently things similar to the following phrase *a lot* (in Latin of course; this is simply an example):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *(written) Gaul is found to the north of Italy.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *(or, more explicitly phrased) Gaul is found in the region north of Italy.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, I would usually write the above as follows, using *ad* plus a cardinal direction in the accusative and a genitive or *in* plus a cardinal direction in the ablative and a genitive, like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Gallia ad septentriōnem Ītaliae invenitur.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Gallia in septentriōne Ītaliae invenitur.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, when writing out my Latin, without trying to think too much in English about meaning or phrasing, this is what felt natural to me. However, I can't help but feel (as a result of it being pointed out by [@JoonasIlmavirta](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/79/joonas-ilmavirta) and [@Cerberus](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/30/cerberus) in CONLOQVIVM) that this isn't quite right and that the Romans probably would have had a more idiomatic way of phrasing this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, what would be the appropriate or idiomatic way of phrasing the English concept of *to the [cardinal direction] of [something]*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24134" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7188" RevisionGUID="68125648-ca8e-47a2-ba74-0d473469a0bd" CreationDate="2018-09-17T22:26:53.030" UserId="1142" Text="Idiomatic phrasing of &quot;to the [cardinal direction] of [something]&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24135" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7188" RevisionGUID="68125648-ca8e-47a2-ba74-0d473469a0bd" CreationDate="2018-09-17T22:26:53.030" UserId="1142" Text="|idiom|word-request|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7190" RevisionGUID="54c5b766-36f6-4d0e-ba02-72929ee79188" CreationDate="2018-09-18T14:09:42.000" UserId="1142" Text="Another question related to my geography of the Roman Empire which I am writing has arisen: during the time of Trajan, 117 AD, there were several provinces which had names in the plural, especially those which bordered or resided on the Alps, to name a few:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Alpēs Maritimae*&#xD;&#xA;* *Alpēs Cottiae*&#xD;&#xA;* *Alpēs Grāiae et Poenīnae*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my geography itself, I have written several phrases similar to the following, note that the verbs are in the singular number:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Prīma hārum prōvinciārum, Alpēs Maritimae, ut nōmen dīcit, plūrimē montēs continet et lītora prope Ligusticum Mare.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote down the verbs in the singular while writing because it made sense to me; despite the fact that the names themselves are in the plural, they refer to singular things, provinces. However, as pointed out by [@JoonasIlmavirta](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/79/joonas-ilmavirta) in [CONLOQVIVM](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm), this might not be the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up: when a name (or noun) has a plural form but refers to a singular thing, should any verb of which the name (or noun) is a subject be in the singular or plural?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24138" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7190" RevisionGUID="54c5b766-36f6-4d0e-ba02-72929ee79188" CreationDate="2018-09-18T14:09:42.000" UserId="1142" Text="Do plural names referring to a singular thing require a plural verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24139" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7190" RevisionGUID="54c5b766-36f6-4d0e-ba02-72929ee79188" CreationDate="2018-09-18T14:09:42.000" UserId="1142" Text="|verbs|names|noun|place-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7191" RevisionGUID="1d058889-e2ba-4ca7-8aa8-0b2cb3f9a0fd" CreationDate="2018-09-18T14:48:00.067" UserId="45" Text="Plural place names should have plural verbs. A very simple case of this is Athenae, -arum (Athens). Here's an illuminating example from Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in quam cum intueor, maxime mihi **occurrunt**, Attice, et quasi **lucent Athenae tuae**, qua in urbe primum se orator extulit primumque etiam monumentis et litteris oratio est coepta mandari. ([Cicero, *Brutus* 7](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:2008.01.0544:chapter=7&amp;highlight=athenis%2Cathenae))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And when I consider it [i.e. Greece], Atticus, your Athens occurs to me first and is like a light. For in this city the orator first arose, and also oratory first began to be preserved in writing and other memorials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shortly afterwards, he also uses the phrase *non nascentibus Athenis sed adultis* (= &quot;in mature, not developing, Athens&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two notes, then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Grammatical agreement is preserved with plural place names.&#xD;&#xA;2. But, as seen in &quot;qua in urbe&quot; above, you can use a singular noun to refer to the plural antecedent. In this case, you would use a singular verb to agree with the new noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, for kicks, here's a pretty amusing example from Plautus that might have been intended for comical effect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Salvete, Athenae, quae nutrices Graeciae,  &#xD;&#xA;sperata erilis patria, te video libens. (Plautus, *Stichus* V.ii)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hail (pl.), Athens, who are the nurses (pl.) of Greece,  &#xD;&#xA;my master's long-desired homeland (sing.). Gladly I see you (sing.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7192" RevisionGUID="c4c2c000-3b6a-4c82-9199-6bf731be4364" CreationDate="2018-09-18T15:40:47.497" UserId="645" Text="What you have written is grammatically correct and there is no conflict. The subject of *dicit* is *nomen* and of *continet* is *prima (provincia)*. Your actual question doesn't cover your example, but your request is perfectly clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two kinds of plural noun. Some, such as *hiberna* (winter quarters), *moenia* (town walls) and *tenebrae* (darkness) are only ever found in the plural form. The others take on a different meaning in the plural from that in the singular, such as *castrum* (fort) and *castra* (camp) ; *fortuna* (fortune, luck) and *fortunae* (possessions); *sal* (salt) and *sales* (wit).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although we may translate the plurals into singular [English] nouns,in Latin  they always have all the attributes of a Latin plural. Plural-form nouns follow the same iron rule as all others : they must agree with their adjectives in number, gender and case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, in the first category we may find *legio XX in nova hiberna contendit* (where *legio* is the subject of a singular verb), but *nova hiberna pro legione XX ponuntur* (where *hiberna* is the subject  of the plural verb *ponuntur* in the passive voice).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in the second category : in *duo castra in ripa ponent* (where the plural-form *castra* is the object, and [they] the singular subject  of a verb in the singular) ; but *castra in ripa ponentur* requires a plural verb, because the subject *castra* is the subject of a verb in the passive voice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just an observation : in poetry we sometimes see the plural of words, that are normally used in the singular, used in the plural with singular meaning : sometimes it is a device to conform to standard metrical form, and sometimes it is purely for poetical effect (as we might say, 'whimsical'). This has its counterpart in English, for example ' the snow that is falling' or 'the snows of yesterday'. But the iron rule on agreement still applies : *nix cadit* or *nives cadunt*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7193" RevisionGUID="486948ec-fbcf-4613-92db-dd9d62595adf" CreationDate="2018-09-18T22:55:46.410" UserId="2439" Text="I'm trying to understand an English translation of a Latin sentence from J.J. Fux's *Gradus ad Parnasum* (written in Latin in 1725). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the sentence:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tuâ aviditate, quam tamen laudo, fit, ut vix non quaedam mihi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; praeposterè dicenda sint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The musicologist Alfred Mann [translates][1] it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Your eagerness, which still is praiseworthy, forces me to explain almost everything in the wrong order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the translation of the first five words -- literally, &quot;Your eagerness, which I praise nevertheless.&quot; I'm trying to understand the grammar of the rest of the sentence, but I don't have much Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm especially interested in the phrase &quot;vix non quaedam&quot; and how Mann gets to &quot;almost everything.&quot; Literally, reading &quot;vix&quot; as &quot;hardly,&quot; the Latin could be &quot;hardly not certain things&quot;; more idiomatically, maybe &quot;hardly not a few.&quot; But I see &quot;vix&quot; can also mean &quot;reluctantly&quot; or &quot;with difficulty.&quot; What is the best translation of &quot;vix,&quot; here? And is the &quot;non quaedam&quot; functioning as a negative intensifier -- a sort of litotes?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=qQOnQZNvVSAC&amp;pg=PA28&amp;lpg=PA28&amp;dq=%22almost%20everything%22%20mann%20fux&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=4q-TftjmXK&amp;sig=nhK_qMMDx7uT9vgwoUrLlxBAfTw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjjp_u00MXdAhWMct8KHTxuDpIQ6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22almost%20everything%22%20mann%20fux&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24144" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7193" RevisionGUID="486948ec-fbcf-4613-92db-dd9d62595adf" CreationDate="2018-09-18T22:55:46.410" UserId="2439" Text="How to get &quot;almost everything&quot; from &quot;vix non quaedam&quot; in this translation of a sentence from J.J. Fux?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24145" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7193" RevisionGUID="486948ec-fbcf-4613-92db-dd9d62595adf" CreationDate="2018-09-18T22:55:46.410" UserId="2439" Text="|translation|sentence-translation|translation-check|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6763" RevisionGUID="35d052d1-1295-4c5f-8ea1-b9ac1a030200" CreationDate="2018-09-18T23:02:04.983" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="A good Latin word that matches &quot;legend&quot; pretty closely is *fabula*.&#xD;&#xA;From that one can derive ***fabulosus***, which is widely attested in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can mean something that appears in a fable (just as something legendary is literally something appearing in a legend), but also something great or incredible.&#xD;&#xA;I think this captures the idea of &quot;legendary&quot; fairly well, and also matches in structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a side note, *fabulosus* does not seem to match the modern English &quot;fabulous&quot; well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The option *fabulosus* occurred to me some time after reading Tom Cotton's answer, and I thought I should record it as a separate answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7194" RevisionGUID="4621dd2d-8133-4e1e-8244-5f21c62daf17" CreationDate="2018-09-18T23:55:03.687" UserId="522" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quaedam  praeposterè dicenda sunt (indicative voice for now, see below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; certain things-to-be-said are in-the-wrong-order (quaedam is neuter plural)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vix non quaedam mihi praeposterè dicenda sunt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;not+not certain things of mine (i.e some of my things) to-be-said are arsy-versy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tuâ aviditate fit **ut** vix non quaedam mihi praeposterè dicenda **sint**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By-your eagerness it-comes-to-pass **that** some of my things to be said **be** back to front. (**be** is a totally preposterous translation of the subjunctive after *'ut.'*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(the dative mihi is posessive, but **'my'** could be attached to *dicenda* or even *praeposterè,* 'for me back to front.' *'Dicenda'* can be 'things to be said,' or 'things which need to be said.'&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7195" RevisionGUID="dece3bed-671c-4800-a7bb-7f31096f8e8f" CreationDate="2018-09-19T03:33:10.647" UserId="406" Text="Suppose I want to say &quot;this house is mine&quot; in Latin. The straightforward translation, *dōmus haec est mea*, sounds odd to me—perhaps just because English changes its possessive pronouns in predicate position. *Dōmus haec est mihi* also sounds odd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which of these constructions—or which other construction—is favored in Classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24151" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7195" RevisionGUID="dece3bed-671c-4800-a7bb-7f31096f8e8f" CreationDate="2018-09-19T03:33:10.647" UserId="406" Text="How do I say &quot;this is mine&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24152" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7195" RevisionGUID="dece3bed-671c-4800-a7bb-7f31096f8e8f" CreationDate="2018-09-19T03:33:10.647" UserId="406" Text="|grammar-choice|possessive-pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7196" RevisionGUID="680dc217-9af9-48fc-b008-56c456b0d2ef" CreationDate="2018-09-19T10:45:13.127" UserId="645" Text="It usually depends on where you want the emphasis to lie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you simply need to make a general assertion that you are the owner of the house, then you might say *haec est domus mea* — 'this is my house', or 'this house belongs to me'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you intend to emphasise that '**this** house [*viz*. not any other] is mine', or '**this** house is the one that is mine', and so on, then you should use the dative of possession — *haec domus est mihi*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7197" RevisionGUID="9eb5f3db-568d-495c-9c42-668456b3e2af" CreationDate="2018-09-19T13:13:44.117" UserId="522" Text="&gt; Parva mihi domus est sed ianua aperta;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'My house is small but the door is open.' (lit. doors)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the first line of ***Mus*** ariddle found in Symphosii Scholastici Ænigmata given in full on [Gianni A. Sarcone's site][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For 1st person, *mihi est,* and 2nd person, *tibi est,* this is by far the commonest way to say &quot;my&quot; &quot;your,&quot; for possession (but not invariably ownership).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Philip Baldi &amp; Andrea Nuti p314 (Constituent Syntax: Quantification, Numerals, Possession, Anaphora (sadly, £90; but tasteable)) four forms are discussed, which I have oversimplified here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Genitive**  Marci est domus (limited to 3rd person)  &#xD;&#xA;**Adjective** meus (tuus/ eius) implies possession and ownership and physical presence.  &#xD;&#xA;**Dative** mihi est, tibi est (but not 3rd person) more widely used than meus,  &#xD;&#xA;**Habeo** habeo is most widely used of all because it includes *non-possessive* (Ihave a cold); *immaterial* (I have a bad feeling about this); *momentary* ( Let us have lunch).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.archimedes-lab.org/latin_aenigmata.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7198" RevisionGUID="d10f1b73-06bf-406e-b4b3-6b5a60e6dfe5" CreationDate="2018-09-19T21:31:44.933" UserId="1142" Text="The rules for positioning of syllable stress in Latin are relatively simple; they are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In two-syllable words, the stress always falls on the first syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. In three or more syllable words, the stress falls like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    a. If the penultimate (second-to-last) syllable is heavy, the stress is placed on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    b. If the penultimate syllable is light, the stress is placed on the antepenultimate (third-to-last) syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This alone is all well and good, there are only three-ish rules to memorize, and the irregular couple-syllable words that are exceptions to this rule are easy to learn and recognize. However, what always trips me up is the use of the terms &quot;heavy&quot; and &quot;light&quot; (or other related terms) to describe which syllables are stressed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the duration of my Latin learning experience, I have simply assumed that syllables containing long vowels were heavy and that syllables containing short vowels were light, or simply just making a qualitative judgment to determine whether the penultimate or antepenultimate syllables &quot;felt&quot; heavy or light. Neither of these methods has ever felt sound to me and I am almost 100% certain that I am not distinguishing heavy and light syllables correctly. Thus, my question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the differences between heavy and light syllables and how does one go about identifying them?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24158" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7198" RevisionGUID="d10f1b73-06bf-406e-b4b3-6b5a60e6dfe5" CreationDate="2018-09-19T21:31:44.933" UserId="1142" Text="What makes a syllable &quot;heavy&quot; or &quot;light&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24159" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7198" RevisionGUID="d10f1b73-06bf-406e-b4b3-6b5a60e6dfe5" CreationDate="2018-09-19T21:31:44.933" UserId="1142" Text="|pronunciation|vowel-quantity|consonants|vowel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7199" RevisionGUID="2e63bae5-2c7f-4dd6-a2b6-f782eb9078e5" CreationDate="2018-09-19T21:38:31.747" UserId="9" Text="A syllable is heavy if it has a long vowel, or if it ends in a consonant—-although the consonant rule had some exceptions in old poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figuring out if a syllable ends in a consonant can be a bit tricky because Latin didn’t always write double consonants (Z and most intervocalic I/J scan as double consonants, despite being written with only  single letter) and certain consonant sequences can either occur at the start of a syllable or split between syllables (“mute + liquid” clusters, composed of an obstruent followed by R or L)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7200" RevisionGUID="2336edb9-72fb-4107-be17-4634c652de23" CreationDate="2018-09-19T23:27:26.040" UserId="79" Text="A syllable is can be heavy in two ways.&#xD;&#xA;It is heavy by nature if it contains a long vowel or a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;It is heavy by position if the vowel is followed by a &quot;consonant cluster&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If neither happens, the syllable is light.&#xD;&#xA;It can also be heavy for both of the two reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The irregularities have to do with what &quot;consonant cluster&quot; means.&#xD;&#xA;Mostly, it means two or more consonants, and simplifying the rule this way gets most cases right.&#xD;&#xA;The important question is whether the consonant or combination thereof sounds short or long.&#xD;&#xA;Some long-looking combinations of consonants are short and do not count as &quot;consonant clusters&quot; for syllable weight; these are *qu* and some cases of *muta cum liquida*.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes a &quot;consonant cluster&quot; is spelled with a single letter, like the *i* in *maior* (pronounced /majjor/, not /major/ or /maajor/) or *z*.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps a more accurate term would have been &quot;long consonant sound&quot; rather than &quot;consonant cluster&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7199" RevisionGUID="4f6c7efe-e781-48bf-a9bb-15b6385bd874" CreationDate="2018-09-20T02:14:01.943" UserId="9" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="A syllable is heavy if it has a long vowel (or diphthong), or if it ends in a consonant—-although the consonant rule had some exceptions in old poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figuring out if a syllable ends in a consonant can be a bit tricky because Latin didn’t always write double consonants (Z and most intervocalic I/J scan as double consonants, despite being written with only  single letter) and certain consonant sequences can either occur at the start of a syllable or split between syllables (“mute + liquid” clusters, composed of an obstruent followed by R or L)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1378" RevisionGUID="46b1d3df-64ad-474e-b779-88fc20fa8f90" CreationDate="2018-09-20T03:10:17.167" UserId="576" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="*Atque*, [according to L&amp;S][1], means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a copulative particle, *and also*, *and besides*, *and even*, *and*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Bennett's *New Latin Grammar* ch. 6 §&quot;Coordinate Conjunctions&quot;][2], &quot;*atque* is used before vowels and consonants; *ac* never before vowels, and seldom before *c*, *g*, *qu*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[L&amp;S][1] continue, saying that *atque*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;indicat[es] a close internal connection between single words or whole clauses; while *et* designates an external connection of diff. objects with each other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it seems these would make sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;mulier ***ac*** mater&lt;br&gt;(a woman *and also* a mother ← related)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;pater ***et*** arbor&lt;br&gt;(a father *and* a tree ← unrelated)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett also mentions that *-que* binds more tightly than *atque*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems this analogy would hold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[*vel* : *aut*][3] :: *atque* : *et***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;inclusive disjunction&quot; : &quot;exclusive disjunction&quot; :: &quot;inclusive conjunction&quot; : &quot;exclusive conjunction&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;As I mention in [my comment here][4], *L&amp;S* §C of &quot;[***sive***][5]/***seu***&quot; says it's disjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Interestingly, [*L&amp;S*][5] also says *vel* was sometimes used in a &quot;purely disjunctive sense,&quot; so there is some evolution in these &quot;or&quot; words.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=atque&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15665/15665-h/15665-h.htm#sect341&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/73/576&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/40/whats-the-difference-between-vel-aut-ve-et-cetera/73#comment7674_278&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=sive&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7201" RevisionGUID="144fe72e-91a0-4e63-8dfb-63bcda127dc4" CreationDate="2018-09-20T03:37:30.690" UserId="522" Text="&#xD;&#xA;**Classical**: Rome is the centre of the world; locations defined as ‘this side of' *cis,* 'far side of' *ultra.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sunt enim **ultra Gorgadas** sitae sub Athlanteum litus in intimos maris sinus; Isidore 14 .6.9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Classical**: thinking in terms of flat Earth and central Rome, direction is given according to the [Seneca Windrose][1]. Although the Isidore examples are late, he is a traditionalist who describes old-fashioned knowledge in classical terms.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Haec **ab Africo in Boream** porrigitur.   Isidore 14 .6.6  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taprobane insula Indiae subiacens **ad Eurum**, ex qua Oceanus Indicus incipit, patens in longitudine octingentis septuaginta quinque milibus passuum, in latitudine sescenta viginti quinque milia stadiorum. Isidore 14 .6.9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Post Classical** Adelardus of Bath (Quaestiones Naturales. 1120?) Orbital Earth, does not use Arctic and East as absolutes, but as descriptive of areas, shores, or regions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;NEPOS: Aiunt enim bracchia......fluentia ab orientali et occidentali plaga ...in Arcticam et Antarcticam regionem...refundere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For they (Macrobius/ Ptolemy) say that the arms [of the tidal flood]... flowing from eastern and western shore... pour back...into the Arctic and Antarctic region.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_compass_winds#/media/File:Roman_12-wind_rose.svg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Aq9iM.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7199" RevisionGUID="0ddb1308-a856-4666-b56c-fe311b34b932" CreationDate="2018-09-20T07:34:48.233" UserId="9" Comment="added 597 characters in body" Text="A syllable is heavy if it has a long vowel (or diphthong), or if it ends in a consonant—-although the consonant rule had some exceptions in old poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figuring out if a syllable ends in a consonant can be a bit tricky. Almost all consonant clusters in Latin were split between syllables when they occurred in between vowels in the middle of a word. This includes double (also called &quot;geminate&quot;) consonants, and it also includes *-sp-, -st-, sc-.* So words like *sinister, minister, magister* were stressed on the second-to-last syllable in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that Latin didn’t always write double consonants with two letters (Z and most intervocalic I/J scan as double consonants, despite being written with only  single letter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exception to the rule that consonant clusters were split between syllables consists of “mute + liquid” clusters, composed of an obstruent followed by R or L (e.g. *tr, pr, cr, br, cl,* ...). These could either be split between syllables (in which case the preceding syllable would be heavy), or could occur at the start of a syllable (in which case the preceding syllable would be light)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7199" RevisionGUID="14586520-9bfe-44d6-99bd-5619ebed4726" CreationDate="2018-09-20T18:45:12.033" UserId="9" Comment="added 163 characters in body" Text="A syllable is heavy if it has a long vowel (or diphthong), or if it ends in a consonant—-although the consonant rule had some exceptions in old poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figuring out if a syllable ends in a consonant can be a bit tricky. Almost all consonant clusters in Latin were split between syllables when they occurred in between vowels in the middle of a word. This includes double (also called &quot;geminate&quot;) consonants, and it also includes *-sp-, -st-, sc-.* So words like *sinister, minister, magister* were stressed on the second-to-last syllable in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that Latin didn’t always write double consonants with two letters (Z and most intervocalic I/J scan as double consonants, despite being written with only  single letter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exception to the rule that word-internal intervocalic consonant clusters were split between syllables consists of “mute + liquid” clusters, composed of an obstruent followed by R or L (e.g. *tr, pr, cr, br, cl,* ...). These could either be split between syllables (in which case the preceding syllable would be heavy), or could occur at the start of a syllable (in which case the preceding syllable would be light). As Joonas mentions, QU is also an exception if you analyze it as a consonant cluster (it can also be analyzed as a unitary sound /kʷ/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7201" RevisionGUID="58d2e5ac-418e-49aa-b897-a6a2fe8b5635" CreationDate="2018-09-20T22:48:07.840" UserId="522" Comment="added 785 characters in body" Text="This passage from Tacitus 'Judaea' partly supports your phrasing;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Terra finesque qua **ad Orientem** vergunt Arabia terminantur, **a &#xD;&#xA;meridie** Aegyptus obiacet, **ab occasu** Phoenices et mare, &#xD;&#xA;**septentrionem** e latere Syriae longe prospectant.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The land and borders which turn to the east are bound by Arabia; Egypt lies on the south; the Phoenicians and the sea on the west; and the land and borders lie on the north for a long way on the side of Syria.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and this variant from Caesar B G 5.13   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  'towards the setting sun.'  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   *...alter angulus ad occidentem solem;* &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But consider also the following worldviews:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Classical**: Rome is the centre of the world; locations defined as ‘this side of' *cis,* 'far side of' *ultra.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sunt enim **ultra Gorgadas** sitae sub Athlanteum litus in intimos maris sinus*; Isidore 14 .6.9  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *citra Caledonia* (Cicero)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Classical**: thinking in terms of flat Earth and central Rome, direction is given according to the [Seneca Windrose][1]. Although the Isidore examples are late, he is a traditionalist who describes old-fashioned knowledge in classical terms.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Haec **ab Africo in Boream** porrigitur.   Isidore 14 .6.6  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Taprobane insula Indiae subiacens **ad Eurum**, ex qua Oceanus Indicus incipit, patens in longitudine octingentis septuaginta quinque milibus passuum, in latitudine sescenta viginti quinque milia stadiorum*. Isidore 14 .6.9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...tertium est **contra septentriones**, cui parte nulla est objecta terra;  Caesar B G 5.13&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Post Classical** Adelardus of Bath (Quaestiones Naturales. 1120?) Orbital Earth, does not use Arctic and East as absolutes, but as descriptive of areas, shores, or regions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;NEPOS: *Aiunt enim bracchia......fluentia ab orientali et occidentali plaga ...in Arcticam et Antarcticam regionem...refundere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For they (Macrobius/ Ptolemy) say that the arms [of the tidal flood]... flowing from eastern and western shore... pour back...into the Arctic and Antarctic region.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_compass_winds#/media/File:Roman_12-wind_rose.svg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Aq9iM.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="26ba88be-1237-40cd-bd53-d958c824d3ff" CreationDate="2018-09-20T22:57:20.967" UserId="39" Text="The answer to your question is simple and difficult at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Christian Lehmann (Lehmann 2010) puts it rather succinctly,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;A light syllable is one ending in a short vowel; all other syllables are heavy.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The real challenge, of course, is syllabification, i.e. how to correctly (best?) divide any Latin word into syllables. - more on that later" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="90c22f31-6b02-418e-a0c9-b67c333e220b" CreationDate="2018-09-20T23:04:39.587" UserId="39" Comment="added 393 characters in body" Text="The answer to your question is simple and difficult at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Christian Lehmann (Lehmann 2010) puts it rather succinctly,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;A light syllable is one ending in a short vowel; all other syllables are heavy.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The real challenge, of course, is syllabification, i.e. how to correctly (best?) divide any Latin word into syllables. - *more on that later*- although Lehmann argues that &quot;Latin’s syllabication rules are very simple.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He mentions two rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Except at the beginning of a breath group, a syllable onset must contain at least one segment.&#xD;&#xA;2. From there, the left syllable boundary is shifted successively leftward until either sonority no longer decreases sufficiently or there is a grammatical boundary (Lehmann 2010).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="1641fdd1-7f99-43b5-9b9b-c936d67d8f57" CreationDate="2018-09-21T00:06:46.397" UserId="39" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="The answer to your question is simple and difficult at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Christian Lehmann (Lehmann 2010) puts it rather succinctly,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;A light syllable is one ending in a short vowel; all other syllables are heavy.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The real challenge, of course, is syllabification, i.e. how to correctly (best?) divide any Latin word into syllables, e.g. **rēg.num** or **rē.gnum**? - *more on that later*- although Lehmann argues that &quot;Latin’s syllabication rules are very simple.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He mentions two rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Except at the beginning of a breath group, a syllable onset must contain at least one segment.&#xD;&#xA;2. From there, the left syllable boundary is shifted successively leftward until either sonority no longer decreases sufficiently or there is a grammatical boundary (Lehmann 2010).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="afdc6786-a84c-4906-9044-5870168eab2c" CreationDate="2018-09-21T03:02:48.837" UserId="39" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="The answer to your question is simple and difficult at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Christian Lehmann ([Lehmann 2010][1]) puts it rather succinctly,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;A light syllable is one ending in a short vowel; all other syllables are heavy.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The real challenge, of course, is syllabification, i.e. how to correctly (best?) divide any Latin word into syllables, e.g. **rēg.num** or **rē.gnum**? - *more on that later*- although Lehmann argues that &quot;Latin’s syllabication rules are very simple.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He mentions two rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Except at the beginning of a breath group, a syllable onset must contain at least one segment.&#xD;&#xA;2. From there, the left syllable boundary is shifted successively leftward until either sonority no longer decreases sufficiently or there is a grammatical boundary (Lehmann 2010).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.christianlehmann.eu/publ/latin_onsets.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7199" RevisionGUID="a3f45148-c15c-4f74-9c54-258a4f7715a3" CreationDate="2018-09-21T05:57:38.097" UserId="9" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="A syllable is heavy if it has a long vowel (or diphthong), or if it ends in a consonant—-although the consonant rule had some exceptions in old poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Latin syllabification for intervocalic consonant clusters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figuring out if a syllable ends in a consonant can be a bit tricky. Almost all consonant clusters in Latin were split between syllables when they occurred in between vowels in the middle of a word. This includes double (also called &quot;geminate&quot;) consonants, and it also includes *-sp-, -st-, sc-.* So words like *sinister, minister, magister* were stressed on the second-to-last syllable in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that Latin didn’t always write double consonants with two letters (Z and most intervocalic I/J scan as double consonants, despite being written with only  single letter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exception to the rule that word-internal intervocalic consonant clusters were split between syllables consists of “mute + liquid” clusters, composed of an obstruent followed by R or L (e.g. *tr, pr, cr, br, cl,* ...). These could either be split between syllables (in which case the preceding syllable would be heavy), or could occur at the start of a syllable (in which case the preceding syllable would be light).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Joonas mentions, QU is also an exception if you analyze it as a consonant cluster (it can also be analyzed as a unitary sound /kʷ/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="0a4c13a3-6adc-4670-9dd8-58c4e8704beb" CreationDate="2018-09-21T20:02:04.200" UserId="39" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="The answer to your question is simple and difficult at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Christian Lehmann ([Lehmann 2010][1]) puts it rather succinctly,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;A light syllable is one ending in a short vowel; all other syllables are heavy.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The real challenge, of course, is syllabification, i.e. how to correctly (best?) divide any Latin word into syllables, e.g. **rēg.num** or **rē.gnum**? (*the latter* is most likely since a consonant cluster cannot follow a long vowel or diphthong) - although Lehmann argues that &quot;Latin’s syllabication rules are very simple.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He mentions two rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Except at the beginning of a breath group, a syllable onset must contain at least one segment.&#xD;&#xA;2. From there, the left syllable boundary is shifted successively leftward until either sonority no longer decreases sufficiently or there is a grammatical boundary (Lehmann 2010).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.christianlehmann.eu/publ/latin_onsets.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="4a1adb97-6bad-43d8-8205-c2c59d4260f4" CreationDate="2018-09-21T20:13:13.833" UserId="39" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="The answer to your question is simple and difficult at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Christian Lehmann ([Lehmann 2010][1]) puts it rather succinctly,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;A light syllable is one ending in a short vowel; all other syllables are heavy.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The real challenge, of course, is syllabification, i.e. how to correctly (best?) divide any Latin word into syllables, e.g. **rēg.num** or **rē.gnum**? (*the latter* is most likely since a consonant cluster cannot follow a long vowel or diphthong) - although Lehmann argues that &quot;Latin’s syllabication rules are very simple.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He mentions two rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Except at the beginning of a breath group, a syllable onset must contain at least one segment.&#xD;&#xA;2. From there, the left syllable boundary is shifted successively leftward until either sonority no longer decreases sufficiently or there is a grammatical boundary (Lehmann 2010).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am afraid the minutiae of syllabification in Latin would be of particular interest to theoretical linguists mostly and I don't see much practical use in discussing specific contexts and words (e.g. vólu.**cr**es *vs*. volú**c.r**es or re.**fl**ecto *vs*. cini**f.l**ones; Weiss pp.67-71 is a good place to start with). However, if you would like to know more about syllabification in Latin, perhaps a separate question would be better.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.christianlehmann.eu/publ/latin_onsets.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7203" RevisionGUID="34a6bfa3-0362-4304-b024-33cdea987538" CreationDate="2018-09-21T23:15:08.683" UserId="2930" Text="How could the verb phrase 'tidy up' be put in Latin please?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24176" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7203" RevisionGUID="34a6bfa3-0362-4304-b024-33cdea987538" CreationDate="2018-09-21T23:15:08.683" UserId="2930" Text="How do you say 'tidy up'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24177" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7203" RevisionGUID="34a6bfa3-0362-4304-b024-33cdea987538" CreationDate="2018-09-21T23:15:08.683" UserId="2930" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7204" RevisionGUID="178e5a3e-9b9e-456c-a56f-b42afb6048b2" CreationDate="2018-09-22T00:50:09.303" UserId="2931" Text="I'm new to Latin. I've been learning for about a month. I'm wondering if anyone can explain why &quot;poenas dare&quot; is often translated as &quot;to pay the penalties&quot; instead of &quot;to give the penalties&quot;. I feel like &quot;pay&quot; is passive whereas &quot;give&quot; is active. Is it possible the word &quot;do&quot; can really carry both those ideas in the same form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Sine philosophiā saepe errāmus et poenās damus&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it is translated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Without philosophy, we often go astray and pay the penalty.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why isn't it instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Without philosophy, we often go astray and give the penalty.&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24179" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7204" RevisionGUID="178e5a3e-9b9e-456c-a56f-b42afb6048b2" CreationDate="2018-09-22T00:50:09.303" UserId="2931" Text="The idiom &quot;poenas dare&quot; is translated passively. Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24180" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7204" RevisionGUID="178e5a3e-9b9e-456c-a56f-b42afb6048b2" CreationDate="2018-09-22T00:50:09.303" UserId="2931" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7205" RevisionGUID="f387819c-67cc-4418-bc12-bfe7627a2634" CreationDate="2018-09-22T16:03:19.307" UserId="324" Text="First of all, in English we do not really say &quot;to give the penalties&quot;. We could say &quot;to impose a penalty&quot;, or the like.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Latin poena, like its etymon ποινή, is primarily &quot;recompense, ransom, fine&quot; etc. It is something that the guilty party &quot;gives&quot; to the injured party." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7201" RevisionGUID="6a280902-86ab-47e7-974f-d83d56c13317" CreationDate="2018-09-22T22:54:51.137" UserId="522" Comment="correct Orbital to Spherical" Text="This passage from Tacitus 'Judaea' partly supports your phrasing;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Terra finesque qua **ad Orientem** vergunt Arabia terminantur, **a &#xD;&#xA;meridie** Aegyptus obiacet, **ab occasu** Phoenices et mare, &#xD;&#xA;**septentrionem** e latere Syriae longe prospectant.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The land and borders which turn to the east are bound by Arabia; Egypt lies on the south; the Phoenicians and the sea on the west; and the land and borders lie on the north for a long way on the side of Syria.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and this variant from Caesar B G 5.13   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  'towards the setting sun.'  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   *...alter angulus ad occidentem solem;* &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But consider also the following worldviews:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Classical**: Rome is the centre of the world; locations defined as ‘this side of' *cis,* 'far side of' *ultra.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sunt enim **ultra Gorgadas** sitae sub Athlanteum litus in intimos maris sinus*; Isidore 14 .6.9  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *citra Caledonia* (Cicero)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Classical**: thinking in terms of flat Earth and central Rome, direction is given according to the [Seneca Windrose][1]. Although the Isidore examples are late, he is a traditionalist who describes old-fashioned knowledge in classical terms.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Haec **ab Africo in Boream** porrigitur.   Isidore 14 .6.6  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Taprobane insula Indiae subiacens **ad Eurum**, ex qua Oceanus Indicus incipit, patens in longitudine octingentis septuaginta quinque milibus passuum, in latitudine sescenta viginti quinque milia stadiorum*. Isidore 14 .6.9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...tertium est **contra septentriones**, cui parte nulla est objecta terra;  Caesar B G 5.13&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Post Classical** Adelardus of Bath (Quaestiones Naturales. 1120?) Spherical Earth, does not use Arctic and East as absolutes, but as descriptive of areas, shores, or regions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;NEPOS: *Aiunt enim bracchia......fluentia ab orientali et occidentali plaga ...in Arcticam et Antarcticam regionem...refundere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For they (Macrobius/ Ptolemy) say that the arms [of the tidal flood]... flowing from eastern and western shore... pour back...into the Arctic and Antarctic region.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_compass_winds#/media/File:Roman_12-wind_rose.svg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Aq9iM.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7194" RevisionGUID="5787a06d-66fe-41ec-8f81-3ebedb822a77" CreationDate="2018-09-23T02:14:47.187" UserId="522" Comment="Mihi with Gerundive" Text="&gt; quaedam  praeposterè dicenda sunt (indicative voice for now, see below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; certain things-to-be-said are in-the-wrong-order (quaedam is neuter plural)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vix non quaedam mihi praeposterè dicenda sunt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;not+not certain things to-be-said by me are arsy-versy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tuâ aviditate fit **ut** vix non quaedam mihi praeposterè dicenda **sint**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By-your eagerness it-comes-to-pass **that** some of my things to be said **be** back to front. (**be** is a totally preposterous translation of the subjunctive after *'ut.'*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;( *'Dicenda'* can be 'things to be said,' or 'things which need to be said.')&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7206" RevisionGUID="1606756f-37a5-4ecd-9af3-47c7580a70f7" CreationDate="2018-09-23T09:57:08.883" UserId="645" Text="The phrase 'tidy up' usually means 'return things to their proper places'. It may also, of course, include removing all the detritus of some operation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English we might say 'clear away'  or 'sweep out', and 'tidy up'. If this is what you are looking for, then the verb *verro, verri, versum* is appropriate for both clearing and sweeping. The best option for making tidy, or 'putting things back (in their places)', is *repono, reposui, repositum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could expand on the simple *repono* by adding *in loca propria*, 'in the proper places'. The context will decide if you need to do this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7207" RevisionGUID="efc81cd8-d767-401e-aa04-280cb9543b76" CreationDate="2018-09-24T00:48:25.597" UserId="427" Text="The simple answer is that they don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here *ut* and *ne* introduce something akin to a purpose clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *timeo ut veniat!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Literal: 'I fear so that he may come!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Idiomatic: 'I fear that he may not come!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *timeo ne veniat!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Literal: 'I fear so that he may not come!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Idiomatic: 'I fear that he may come!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both the Latin and the literal English contain a purpose clause, introduced variously by *ut, ne* and *so that.* By contrast, the idiomatic English contains indirect speech, introduced by *that* (mark the absence of *so*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So really, it's a different construction altogether. It also exists in English - we just don't happen to use it after verbs of fearing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7208" RevisionGUID="9747ed53-b473-4a66-bbc6-abf5a72567c4" CreationDate="2018-09-24T03:52:36.257" UserId="2937" Text="&gt;(Psalm 1:3, Clementine Vulgate) Et erit tamquam lignum quod plantatum est secus decursus aquarum, quod fructum suum dabit in tempore suo: et folium ejus non defluet; et omnia quæcumque faciet prosperabuntur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Douay-Rheims translates this into English as, &quot;And he shall be like a tree which is planted near the running waters . . .&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should *decursus* be parsed in this verse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Wiktionary, *secus* is a preposition taking an accusative, but *decursus* doesn't look like it is in accusative form to me. What am I missing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24187" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7208" RevisionGUID="9747ed53-b473-4a66-bbc6-abf5a72567c4" CreationDate="2018-09-24T03:52:36.257" UserId="2937" Text="Shouldn't &quot;decursus&quot; be accusative in Psalm 1:3?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24188" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7208" RevisionGUID="9747ed53-b473-4a66-bbc6-abf5a72567c4" CreationDate="2018-09-24T03:52:36.257" UserId="2937" Text="|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7209" RevisionGUID="6f85c217-7551-4d85-8152-5d8f693e87be" CreationDate="2018-09-24T05:26:03.773" UserId="985" Text="The noun *decursus* belongs to the fourth declension, not the second. You know this because, if you look it up in a dictionary, the two forms that are given (the 'principal parts') will be *dēcursus*, *-ūs*, not *dēcursus*, *-ī*. Therefore, in your passage, *decursus* is, in fact, accusative, but plural (= *dēcursūs*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7210" RevisionGUID="aeffb68a-5516-4e32-9d14-aa8faa53eea2" CreationDate="2018-09-24T07:06:56.970" UserId="2938" Text="I came across the phrase &quot;excelsior aude&quot; which seems to translate to courageously onward and upward? Is this accurate and would be it better reversed to aude excelsior or excelsior aude? Any thoughts? Perhaps there's a more elegant way to phrase this? Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24191" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7210" RevisionGUID="aeffb68a-5516-4e32-9d14-aa8faa53eea2" CreationDate="2018-09-24T07:06:56.970" UserId="2938" Text="Excelsior aude?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24192" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7210" RevisionGUID="aeffb68a-5516-4e32-9d14-aa8faa53eea2" CreationDate="2018-09-24T07:06:56.970" UserId="2938" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7211" RevisionGUID="bcff646a-f971-4a36-b27b-e7210ad08ae4" CreationDate="2018-09-24T12:34:48.367" UserId="522" Text="*Audeo* is 'I dare'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Aude*  is the imperative, an exhortation, 'Dare,' or '**Be daring**.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Excelsus,* is 'noble,' 'lofty.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Excelsior* is 'more noble' and describes the person you are speaking to when you tell them to be daring. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the best mottoes have a double meaning; in this case it lies in the word *Excelsus* which can also be a past participle meaning 'When you have been overcome, When you have been beaten,...'&#xD;&#xA;So the subtext is: when you have been overcome, that is the time to be daring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more predictable version would be *Excelsius aude.* 'Be more nobly daring.'   &#xD;&#xA;But that would lack both the subtlety and the moral courage of your version." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7211" RevisionGUID="9c7c1f13-6c2e-45e8-883b-35828d6357ad" CreationDate="2018-09-24T12:55:49.423" UserId="522" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="*Audeo* is 'I dare'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Aude*  is the imperative, an exhortation, 'Dare,' or '**Be daring**.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Excelsus,* is 'noble,' 'lofty.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Excelsior* is 'more noble' and describes the person you are speaking to when you tell them to be daring. It is also the single-word motto on the banner of an absolutely fearless, honourable, daring knight in a poem by [Longfellow][1]; &quot;A youth, who bore, 'mid snow and ice, A banner with the strange device, Excelsior!&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the best mottoes have a double meaning; in this case it lies in the word *Excelsus* which can also be a past participle meaning 'When you have been overcome, When you have been beaten,...'&#xD;&#xA;So the subtext is: when you have been overcome, that is the time to be daring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more predictable version would be *Excelsius aude.* 'Be more nobly daring.'   &#xD;&#xA;But that would lack both the subtlety and the moral courage of your version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44631/excelsior-56d223cb4e6fa" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7194" RevisionGUID="22c86ae6-2faf-4da6-a915-d5547e751e46" CreationDate="2018-09-24T16:18:00.603" UserId="522" Comment="dative of agent,  incorporate comment." Text="&gt; quaedam  praeposterè dicenda sunt (indicative voice for now, see below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; certain things-to-be-said are in-the-wrong-order (quaedam is neuter plural)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vix non quaedam mihi praeposterè dicenda sunt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;not+not certain things to-be-said by me are arsy-versy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tuâ aviditate fit **ut** vix non quaedam mihi praeposterè dicenda **sint**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By-your eagerness it-comes-to-pass **that** some of the things to be said by me **be** back to front. (**be** is a totally preposterous translation of the subjunctive after *'ut.'*) *Mihi* is a dative of agent, it replaces *a, ab* + ablative with periphrastic passives. Here is a [clear explanation][1] from OSU&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;( *'Dicenda'* can be 'things to be said,' or 'things which need to be said.')&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tuâ aviditate, quam tamen laudo,&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;I think the '*tamen laudo*' (which indeed I praise) and the litotes '*vix non quaedam*' are attempts to be excessively polite, yet to show who is the boss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://classics.osu.edu/Undergraduate-Studies/Latin-Program/Grammar/Cases/dative/dative-agent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24196" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7208" RevisionGUID="10f49e71-d216-4184-81f6-cf622fb870d5" CreationDate="2018-09-24T17:55:39.363" UserId="648" Comment="tags edited" Text="|grammar-choice|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24197" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7208" RevisionGUID="10f49e71-d216-4184-81f6-cf622fb870d5" CreationDate="2018-09-24T17:55:39.363" Comment="Proposed by 648 approved by 79 edit id of 262" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7212" RevisionGUID="29203af9-cb0b-4d86-b8bc-8ba30e3c0984" CreationDate="2018-09-24T20:52:27.877" UserId="1355" Text="There is a behavior that can arise when one does a favor for another person and after proceeds to put that person in a position they owe them something.&#xA;&#xA;Not to conflate in the &quot;debt&quot; or &quot;indebtedness&quot; fact but rather we are looking for the fact &quot;making someone feel he's in debt to us...&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;There might be some reference in Plato's Philebus or other Ancient Greek texts but I couldn't find anything close.&#xA;&#xA;Appreciate any help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24199" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7212" RevisionGUID="29203af9-cb0b-4d86-b8bc-8ba30e3c0984" CreationDate="2018-09-24T20:52:27.877" UserId="1355" Text="What is the equivalent of &quot;Making someone feel he is indebted to me&quot; in Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24200" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7212" RevisionGUID="29203af9-cb0b-4d86-b8bc-8ba30e3c0984" CreationDate="2018-09-24T20:52:27.877" UserId="1355" Text="|classical-latin|greek|french|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7213" RevisionGUID="9e1aa5a9-5b74-484c-8248-0a055a212fb9" CreationDate="2018-09-25T11:29:14.493" UserId="2940" Text="Can anyone help me out with the two Latin sentences in the quote below ? After googling and looking up a dictionary I was only able to come up with something like, &quot;It is unncessary to employ many  people for that which you can achieve by employing few people&quot; but that doesn't really clarify nor explain the pun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Liebniz statement,  *Inutile fit per plura, quod fieri potest per&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pauciora*, thus transforms itself in the mouth of the liberal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; economists into that other proposition of untold cruelty : *Inutile&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fit per plures, quod fieri potest per pauciores*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quote is from H. Pesch, *Liberalism, Socialism and the Social Order*, Edwin Mellen Press, 2000, chap. 11, p.215.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24202" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7213" RevisionGUID="9e1aa5a9-5b74-484c-8248-0a055a212fb9" CreationDate="2018-09-25T11:29:14.493" UserId="2940" Text="Pun on Liebniz quote" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24203" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7213" RevisionGUID="9e1aa5a9-5b74-484c-8248-0a055a212fb9" CreationDate="2018-09-25T11:29:14.493" UserId="2940" Text="|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7214" RevisionGUID="8aa93a9e-53c5-44d8-b3e4-ccd98b2d61ea" CreationDate="2018-09-25T11:47:23.733" UserId="1459" Text="The quote is the same, but just changing the gender of the nouns from neutral to masculine/feminine, and thus to adapt it to human beings. Thus, in the context of economics, this would refer to workers. Economic liberalism puts efficiency as one of its top values, so using the resources available in its optimal fashion is primordial to them. Thus, whereas the first quote represents a philosophical position (known as [Occam's razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)), the new one becomes a core tenant of liberal economics.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7214" RevisionGUID="bac761a8-cc33-4c6f-a12d-ebd983382358" CreationDate="2018-09-25T11:52:27.637" UserId="1459" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="The quote is the same, but just changing the gender of the nouns from neutral to masculine/feminine, and thus to adapt it to human beings (see _plures_ [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/plus#Latin) and _pauciores_ [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paucior#Latin)). Thus, in the context of economics, this would refer to workers. Economic liberalism puts efficiency as one of its top values, so using the resources available in its optimal fashion is primordial to them. Thus, whereas the first quote represents a philosophical position (known as [Occam's razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)), the new one becomes a core tenant of liberal economics.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5121" RevisionGUID="e8b153b5-b402-4791-974f-e9da25c963df" CreationDate="2018-09-25T12:17:07.107" UserId="-1" Comment="quotation is misattributed to Alain Badiou; it is from a footnote written by translator Robin Mackay." Text="My first inclination was that the verb means &quot;count&quot;, not &quot;mathematize&quot;, as the simple ἀριθμός means &quot;number&quot;. This translation is supported by translator Robin Mackay in a pre-print draft translation of Alain Badiou's book, [Number and Numbers][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I would translate the phrase (as Badiou does): &quot;Man always counts.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mackay explains the history in a footnote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [aei o anthropos arithmetizei - &quot;man always counts&quot;. Plutarch (Convivialium disputationum, liber&#xD;&#xA;8,2) reports that : &quot;Plato said God geometrizes continually&quot;. Kepler’s repetition of the statement in his&#xD;&#xA;Mysterium Cosmographicum (either placatory or ironic, given the decidedly non-platonic nature of his&#xD;&#xA;proposed coelestis machina) was followed by Gauss’s modification: o theos arithmetizei, god&#xD;&#xA;arithmetizes, counts or calculates. Dedekind’s ‘copernican revolution’ consisted of transforming this&#xD;&#xA;once again into: aei o anthropos arithmetizei - man is always counting; completing the transformation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it started with Plato's phrase, ἀεὶ ὁ θεὸς γεωμετρεῖ. Then Gauss modified it to ἀεὶ ὁ θεὸς ἀριθμητίζει. Then Dedekind modified it to ἀεὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀριθμητίζει.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, the verb is hard to look up, and I will edit this post if I find an online entry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mercaba.org/SANLUIS/Filosofia/autores/Contempor%C3%A1nea/Badiou/Number%20and%20numbers.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24207" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5121" RevisionGUID="e8b153b5-b402-4791-974f-e9da25c963df" CreationDate="2018-09-25T12:17:07.107" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 79 edit id of 263" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7214" RevisionGUID="3730dff2-16c9-4cc4-b48b-05b9da4552ca" CreationDate="2018-09-25T12:17:38.480" UserId="1459" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="The quote is the same, except that the gender of the nouns are changed from neutral to masculine/feminine. This way, the verb applies to human beings rather than to things (see _plures_ [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/plus#Latin) and _pauciores_ [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paucior#Latin)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of economics, what is being employed is workers. Economic liberalism puts efficiency as one of its top values, so using the resources available in its optimal fashion is primordial to it. Thus, whereas the first quote represents a philosophical position known as [Occam's razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor), the new one represents a core tenant of liberal economics.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7213" RevisionGUID="a9597f98-1ae9-4a76-be7c-d9e5eda65bd5" CreationDate="2018-09-25T12:21:00.380" UserId="45" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Can anyone help me out with the two Latin sentences in the quote below ? After googling and looking up a dictionary I was only able to come up with something like, &quot;It is unncessary to employ many  people for that which you can achieve by employing few people&quot; but that doesn't really clarify nor explain the pun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Leibniz statement,  *Inutile fit per plura, quod fieri potest per&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pauciora*, thus transforms itself in the mouth of the liberal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; economists into that other proposition of untold cruelty : *Inutile&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fit per plures, quod fieri potest per pauciores*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quote is from H. Pesch, *Liberalism, Socialism and the Social Order*, Edwin Mellen Press, 2000, chap. 11, p.215.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24210" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7213" RevisionGUID="a9597f98-1ae9-4a76-be7c-d9e5eda65bd5" CreationDate="2018-09-25T12:21:00.380" UserId="45" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Pun on Leibniz quote" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7214" RevisionGUID="6b8e8fa2-5a14-4ab1-8037-1a4bf7ce7924" CreationDate="2018-09-25T18:08:20.903" UserId="1459" Comment="added 873 characters in body" Text="The phrase is the same, except that the gender of the adjective are changed from neutral to masculine/feminine. This way, the verb &quot;to do&quot; applies to human beings rather than to things (see _plures_ [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/plus#Latin) and _pauciores_ [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paucior#Latin)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of economics, what is being employed is workers. Economic liberalism puts efficiency as one of its top values, so using the resources available in its optimal fashion is primordial to it. Thus, whereas the first quote represents a philosophical position known as [Occam's razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor), the new one represents a core tenant of liberal economics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, regarding the translation of the sentences, notice first that William of Ockham might have been the first to formulate it in such form, albeit using _frustra_ rather than _inutile_. Such phrase (minding the modification) has been translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It is useless to do with more [things] that which can be done with fewer [things]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can see however, the noun &quot;things&quot; is implicit. Therefore, it should remain implicit in the new sense too. It's just the understanding which is changed, as in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It is useless to do with more [people] that which can be done with fewer [people]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The plural remains though, since the number has not been changed; only the gender (so person would be wrong).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: I do not know if Leibniz actually wrote this, but it seems this principle goes back [at least to Aristotle](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7215" RevisionGUID="cb853b1c-41e6-477c-9edb-a5dfdf660bd2" CreationDate="2018-09-26T08:29:27.357" UserId="1459" Text="The other day I watched [Evil under the sun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Under_the_Sun_(1982_film)), a film about Agatha Christie's homonymous novel, where the following lines were said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patrick Redfern: It's funny to think, if Giuseppe Verdi had been an Englishman, his name would have been Joe Green.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hercule Poirot: Yes, I suppose it would, yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PR: [after some silence] It used to make the boys laugh when I was trying to din some Latin into them when I was a teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;HP: Little boys laugh easily if it keeps them away, even for a moment, from their study of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([source of script](https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/movie_script.php?movie=evil-under-the-sun))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not get Patrick's joke then, and I still don't get it. Is Patrick confusing Latin with Italian? Or is there some Latin joke in there that I am missing? It seems Giuseppe Verdi in Latin is _[Iosephus Verdi](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosephus_Verdi)_. But I don't see where there might be a joke there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I add further script below, in case it helps with the issue. Beware! If you ever plan to read the book (or watch the film), I strongly recommend **not hovering** over the box, because **it contains spoilers**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! As Poirot concludes later one, Patrick never taught Latin. He was lying above. By the end of the film, HP states: _You_ [Patrick Redfern] _were clever enough to avoid putting your signature in the hotel register, but, you know, the signature on this cheque is really quite good enough. Different names, of course. Here on the claim form for Alice Ruber's insurance policy, it appears as Felix Ruber, and here on the hotel cheque it appears as Patrick Redfern. Different names, but, monsieur, undeniably the same handwriting. [...] You were wrong to tell me that little joke about Giuseppe Verdi being called Joe Green in English, or that you had once you taught Latin to small boys. It was at that moment that I realised that in that language &quot;Felix Ruber&quot; is &quot;Red Fern&quot;. You see, it is folly to try and trick Hercule Poirot, even in a dead language._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: couldn't find a proper tag. Please advice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24215" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7215" RevisionGUID="cb853b1c-41e6-477c-9edb-a5dfdf660bd2" CreationDate="2018-09-26T08:29:27.357" UserId="1459" Text="What is the Latin joke here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24216" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7215" RevisionGUID="cb853b1c-41e6-477c-9edb-a5dfdf660bd2" CreationDate="2018-09-26T08:29:27.357" UserId="1459" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7210" RevisionGUID="92402f24-b22e-4743-8348-9dc2595d7afb" CreationDate="2018-09-26T09:25:50.623" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I came across the phrase &quot;_excelsior aude_&quot; which seems to translate to courageously onward and upward? Is this accurate and would be it better reversed to _aude excelsior_ or _excelsior aude_? Any thoughts? Perhaps there's a more elegant way to phrase this? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7216" RevisionGUID="9ebcb78d-6e04-45d7-9389-84f5d41148f1" CreationDate="2018-09-26T10:24:46.160" UserId="645" Text="I think you are having trouble with idiomatic English, in particular with the meaning underlying 'funny'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In response to being  told that something is funny, you have to decide which is intended — funny, or peculiar. The joke here (it isn't much of one, really) is that when PR first speaks, he merely means that a name, Giuseppe Verdi, that sounds exotic to English ears, has an exact English equivalent, Joe Green, that is very ordinary — which is to him, as an adult, just a peculiarity of language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HP appreciates the point, but PR then goes on to suggest that the schoolboys laugh because they think it an idea to be laughed ***at*** — in fact they are surprised at the contrast between what began as an exotic name and has turned out to be run-of-the-mill English. The final comment by HP is just a wry reflection on the nature of all schoolboys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, not much of a joke at all!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7214" RevisionGUID="f48e7bd2-081f-4771-bf64-cf78dce581d5" CreationDate="2018-09-26T10:57:09.817" UserId="1459" Comment="added 147 characters in body" Text="The phrase is the same, except that the gender of the adjective are changed from neutral to masculine/feminine. This way, the verb &quot;to do&quot; applies to human beings rather than to things (see _plures_ [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/plus#Latin) and _pauciores_ [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paucior#Latin)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of economics, what is being employed is workers. Economic liberalism puts efficiency as one of its top values, so using the resources available in its optimal fashion is primordial to it. Thus, whereas the first quote represents a philosophical position known as [Occam's razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor), the new one represents a core tenant of liberal economics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, regarding the translation of the sentences, notice first that William of Ockham might have been the first to formulate it in such form, albeit using _frustra_ rather than _inutile_. Such phrase (minding the modification) has been translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It is useless to do with more things that which can be done with fewer things&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that in Latin the noun &quot;things&quot; is implicit. However, as draconis suggested, this is better explicit in English, to differentiate it from the second phrase, which is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It is useless to do with more people that which can be done with fewer people&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, &quot;people&quot; is implicit in Latin, but need to be made explicit in English, to differentiate it from the above. Notice the plural remains though, since the number of the adjectives has not been changed. This is, using person rather than people would be wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: I do not know if Leibniz actually wrote this, but it seems this principle goes back [at least to Aristotle](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7217" RevisionGUID="9645f040-e2b4-40c1-a60d-0040cbfea0d1" CreationDate="2018-09-26T13:37:56.850" UserId="324" Text="I don't think our friend Tom Cotton got the joke. &quot;Felix&quot; is a variant spelling for &quot;filix&quot; meaning &quot;fern&quot;. &quot;Ruber&quot; is the colour &quot;red&quot;. When Patrick tells his joke about &quot;Giuseppe Verdi&quot; meaning &quot;Joe Green&quot;, the unflappable Poirot realises that &quot;Felix Ruber&quot; is also a translation, namely of &quot;Redfern&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7218" RevisionGUID="6b70895d-cdc6-4b5e-9e8c-34f205632657" CreationDate="2018-09-26T14:35:17.717" UserId="2944" Text="Well it's easy.  Schoolboys enjoy studying Latin like they enjoy a visit to the dentist.  Anything to avoid studying Latin is welcome to them.  That is the joke, more of an observation, really.  But a funny one, esp. if like me you were once a schoolboy subjected to Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7219" RevisionGUID="ac8a1256-5811-4346-a212-e87e3f2ade50" CreationDate="2018-09-26T15:09:53.303" UserId="299" Text="It's a good question, because it's really not clear why Patrick (says he) told a joke about an Italian name in Latin class. My guess would be either&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Patrick was confused about the difference between Italian and Latin, as you guessed, betraying his ignorance of Latin (cf. your spoilers). Or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- He actually told the joke to the schoolboys in regard to the Latin form of Verdi's name, which works just as well as it does with his Italian name -- it sounds exotic in Latin and very plain in English. But when telling the same joke to Poirot there was no reason to use the Latin form; he used the form that English speakers normally use. Or,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The joke had nothing to do with Latin; it was told in Latin class only as a way to get the schoolboys to pay attention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7220" RevisionGUID="f94c9528-565b-45db-95da-a27e0ff9103d" CreationDate="2018-09-26T17:17:30.760" UserDisplayName="user2947" Text="**The joke being made is at Patrick Redfern's expense, by saying that he is not as witty as he thinks**. Consider the simplest form of the conversation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PR: &quot;If Giuseppe Verdi had been an Englishman, his name would have been Joe Green.&quot; ... &quot;My students always laugh at that joke&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HP: &quot;Yes, students will laugh at anything.&quot; [ie: your joke was not funny, the only reason they laughed, was because latin is very boring, and rather than practice more latin, schoolboys will encourage their teachers to tell unfunny jokes]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7221" RevisionGUID="2d5df21e-7dab-4585-a9e6-8adbe69cb82a" CreationDate="2018-09-26T20:09:09.193" UserId="2950" Text="Having read the answers and comments above, It occurs to me this question might be better phrased as &quot;what is a joke?&quot; If I were to make my own joke (aside from the first sentence), it would involve my countrymen in the U.S. not understanding why British people think irony is funny. In this case it isn't &quot;a joke&quot; which the students laugh at, it is the situation. While this is a verbal telling with a laughter response, it is still situational comedy at the juxtaposition of a difficult to read, pronounce, and spell name of a highly respected classical figure sharing would be a commoner's name. It would be similarly amusing to discover the U.S. President's family name used to be a name that sounds like a sack of wet excrement being dropped on a concrete floor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7216" RevisionGUID="55a4f7e3-9f0b-43b5-8c42-6963b4d439bf" CreationDate="2018-09-27T05:50:09.293" UserId="2953" Comment="avoid a circular explanation of the word" Text="I think you are having trouble with idiomatic English, in particular with the meaning underlying 'funny'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In response to being  told that something is funny, you have to decide which is intended — humorous, or peculiar. The joke here (it isn't much of one, really) is that when PR first speaks, he merely means that a name, Giuseppe Verdi, that sounds exotic to English ears, has an exact English equivalent, Joe Green, that is very ordinary — which is to him, as an adult, just a peculiarity of language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HP appreciates the point, but PR then goes on to suggest that the schoolboys laugh because they think it an idea to be laughed ***at*** — in fact they are surprised at the contrast between what began as an exotic name and has turned out to be run-of-the-mill English. The final comment by HP is just a wry reflection on the nature of all schoolboys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, not much of a joke at all!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24232" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7216" RevisionGUID="55a4f7e3-9f0b-43b5-8c42-6963b4d439bf" CreationDate="2018-09-27T05:50:09.293" Comment="Proposed by 2953 approved by 645 edit id of 264" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7223" RevisionGUID="c79adbeb-cd5f-444a-97bd-31e65c2ee4bb" CreationDate="2018-09-27T07:43:37.727" UserId="867" Text="I think perhaps the real significance of the passage is not the joke but rather Poirot's response: &quot;Little boys laugh easily if it *keeps them away, even for a moment, from their study of Latin*.&quot;  In this comment, Agatha Christie (and Poirot) may be signalling that it is clear that Patrick did not teach Latin; talking about an Italian name is keeping the boys *away from* their study of Latin.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Although, I'm confused by the denouement: did Redfern know and/or teach Latin or not?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7224" RevisionGUID="32715d5d-0956-4d14-8be8-e41227e6ce58" CreationDate="2018-09-27T12:30:11.540" UserId="2958" Text="I didn't see anyone else answer your question so I'll do it.&#xD;&#xA;Giuseppe is the latin spelling for the name Josef/Joseph, short &quot;Joe&quot;. Verdi is is very close to the latin word for green, &quot;Virdis&quot;, and also closely resembles the spanish/italian word for green &quot;verde&quot;. Don't have any good references for that but it's rather obvious once you know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7220" RevisionGUID="d38b6378-b6cc-4b54-9d0d-46f3ae0d0a7c" CreationDate="2018-09-27T12:41:17.227" UserDisplayName="user2947" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="**The joke being made is at Patrick Redfern's expense, by saying that he is not as witty as he thinks**. Consider the simplest form of the conversation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PR: &quot;If Giuseppe Verdi had been an Englishman, his name would have been Joe Green.&quot; ... &quot;My students always laugh at that joke&quot;. [The 'joke' here is purely that Joe Green sounds plain, and Giuseppe Verdi sounds 'exotic'].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HP: &quot;Yes, students will laugh at anything.&quot; [ie: your joke was not funny, the only reason they laughed, was because latin is very boring, and rather than practice more latin, schoolboys will encourage their teachers to tell unfunny jokes]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24238" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="7215" RevisionGUID="fdebb7ad-4f60-41bd-ba3a-42c2c12df0c6" CreationDate="2018-09-27T12:47:08.930" UserId="45" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:45,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;brianpck&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7225" RevisionGUID="ad4588df-d32f-4f51-9517-be002c08cf6f" CreationDate="2018-09-27T14:25:00.570" UserId="2704" Text="As @Hugh said, To &quot;obligate&quot; in Modern Greek is υποχρεώνω, Ancient ὑποχρεόω &lt; ὑπόχρεως. In Modern Greek the verb has come to mean pretty much &quot;to force someone to do something&quot;, but the notion of indebtedness is still there: με υποχρεώνεις is still used in the sense of &quot;I am in your debt, I feel obliged to you&quot;. So semantically, this is exactly what OP is after.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The catch is that, while ὑπόχρεως is used for &quot;indebted&quot; in Aristophanes, the meaning &quot;bound, obliged&quot; according to LSJ is Koine—Plutarch, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Polybius; and the verb has no Classical or, as far as I can tell, Byzantine usage at all. [Triantafyllidis' Modern Greek dictionary][1] calls this a learnèd modern coinage after French *obliger*, and that appears to be right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;oblige&quot; does turn up as a verb in LSJ, but the Greek for it is not about the obligation of debt, but about the implicit obligation in a favour: εὐχαριστέω &quot;bestow a favour on, oblige&quot; (only inscriptions in that meaning), χαρίζω &quot;say  or do something agreeable to a person, show him favour or kindness, oblige, gratify&quot;, χάριν φέρω &quot;confer a favour on one, do a thing to oblige him&quot;. Of course, &quot;oblige&quot; in English can mean just &quot;gratify&quot; without an expectation of reciprocation, so maybe LSJ's gloss is misleading. (After all, χάρις in Christian theology is &quot;Grace&quot;, which is by definition unreciprocated. People are more complicated than that, hence the implicature.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not finding anything promising in Philebus, apart from one instance of οἷς δεῖ χάριν ἔχειν (&quot;There are some clever people who try to prove this theory to us, and we ought to be grateful to them.&quot;) But if you don't think Polybius is too late, his usage of ὑπόχρεως is what you describe: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὁρῶντες γὰρ τὸ συνέχον τοῖς Βυζαντίοις τῆς ὑπομονῆς τοῦ πολέμου κείμενον ἐν ταῖς κατὰ τὸν Ἀχαιὸν ἐλπίσι, θεωροῦντες δὲ τὸν πατέρα τὸν Ἀχαιοῦ κατεχόμενον ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ, τὸν δ’ Ἀχαιὸν περὶ πλείστου ποιούμενον τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς σωτηρίαν, ἐπεβάλοντο πρεσβεύειν πρὸς τὸν Πτολεμαῖον καὶ παραιτεῖσθαι τὸν Ἀνδρόμαχον, καὶ πρότερον μὲν ἐκ παρέργου τοῦτο πεποιηκότες, τότε δ’ ἀληθινῶς σπεύδοντες ὑπὲρ τοῦ πράγματος, ἵνα προσενεγκάμενοι πρὸς τὸν Ἀχαιὸν τὴν **χάριν** ταύτην **ὑπόχρεων αὐτὸν ποιήσωνται** πρὸς πᾶν τὸ παρακαλούμενον. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For observing that the chief cause of the Byzantines' resolute endurance of the war lay in their hopes of support from Achaeus, and knowing that Achaeus' father was a prisoner at Alexandria and that Achaeus above all things desired his deliverance, they decided to send an embassy to Ptolemy begging him to give up Andromachus. They had indeed previously made this request without insisting much on it, the now they pressed it most seriously, in order that by doing this **favour** to Achaeus they might **put him under such an obligation** that he would do all they demanded. (Polybius 4.51.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/modern_greek/tools/lexica/triantafyllides/search.html?start=570&amp;dl=%CE%A11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7216" RevisionGUID="f5712253-e675-4333-bf25-7a524dfc272c" CreationDate="2018-09-27T14:33:50.350" UserId="645" Comment="Added further paragraph in attempt at clarification." Text="I think you are having trouble with idiomatic English, in particular with the meaning underlying 'funny'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In response to being  told that something is funny, you have to decide which is intended — humorous, or peculiar. The joke here (it isn't much of one, really) is that when PR first speaks, he merely means that a name, Giuseppe Verdi, that sounds exotic to English ears, has an exact English equivalent, Joe Green, that is very ordinary — which is to him, as an adult, just a peculiarity of language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HP appreciates the point, but PR then goes on to suggest that the schoolboys laugh because they think it an idea to be laughed ***at*** — in fact they are surprised at the contrast between what began as an exotic name and has turned out to be run-of-the-mill English. The final comment by HP is just a wry reflection on the nature of all schoolboys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, not much of a joke at all!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Added after 7 other answers and comments*). We can get all analytical and Eng. Lit. about it but, in the end, writing about it at length as other answers and comments have done makes us miss the point of luchonacho's query : he wanted to have explained what he thought was a joke about Latin (which was not, as I pointed out, much of a joke at all). 'Redfern', etc., isn't really a joke either, but a clever plot device — though in another context it might be humorous." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7226" RevisionGUID="52e98978-2525-4faa-8ea1-dda16d93a321" CreationDate="2018-09-27T16:23:29.183" UserId="2961" Text="Trying to understand the subtle differences between these three word, based on their roots in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this be correct ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Deny**: refuse to know  &#xD;&#xA;**Ignorance**: should know  &#xD;&#xA;**Nescience**: could not know&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24242" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7226" RevisionGUID="52e98978-2525-4faa-8ea1-dda16d93a321" CreationDate="2018-09-27T16:23:29.183" UserId="2961" Text="Difference between Ignorance, Nescience, Deny" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24243" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7226" RevisionGUID="52e98978-2525-4faa-8ea1-dda16d93a321" CreationDate="2018-09-27T16:23:29.183" UserId="2961" Text="|etymology|meaning|word-comparison|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7227" RevisionGUID="8029b2a0-b54e-44e4-bb33-7390b333acfa" CreationDate="2018-09-27T19:17:20.990" UserId="406" Text="In Vergil's *Aeneid*, Aeneas's son is given the name *Iulus/Julus*, which would correspond to the clan name *Iulius/Julius*. Not at all coincidentally, [this implies a connection between the legendary hero Aeneas and the clan of Caesar and Augustus][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, outside of the *Aeneid*, I've only seen Aeneas's son being named *Ilus*, from *Ilium/Ἴλιον*, &quot;Troy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm curious: is the name *Julus*, with the added *U*, attested anywhere before the Gens Julia took power? Or even anywhere before Vergil's writing? Or did Vergil make it up to lend some extra legitimacy to the Julian rulership?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1553/are-iulus-and-iulius-related" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24245" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7227" RevisionGUID="8029b2a0-b54e-44e4-bb33-7390b333acfa" CreationDate="2018-09-27T19:17:20.990" UserId="406" Text="Does &quot;Iulus&quot; predate Vergil?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24246" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7227" RevisionGUID="8029b2a0-b54e-44e4-bb33-7390b333acfa" CreationDate="2018-09-27T19:17:20.990" UserId="406" Text="|aeneis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7224" RevisionGUID="69d30113-4b36-462c-b520-bf9fcb181ae8" CreationDate="2018-09-27T22:13:17.420" UserId="1142" Comment="Fixed formatting etc" Text="I didn't see anyone else answer your question so I'll do it.&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Giuseppe* is the latin spelling for the name *Josef/Joseph*; the shortened version is *Joe*. *Verdi* is is very close to the Latin word for green, *virdis*, and also closely resembles the Spanish/Italian word for green *verde*. I don’t have any good references for that but it's rather obvious once you know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7228" RevisionGUID="d1c58a10-b82d-4af0-a661-76247ed062f9" CreationDate="2018-09-28T09:03:16.007" UserId="13" Text="Sorry for the vague title, but that is really the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is with the manuscript sources for Lobel-Page &lt;i&gt;incerti auctoris&lt;/i&gt; 24. From Edmonds on, the sources are reported as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;υεσζερυμηνιον των αδωνιον cod. A, υεσσερυια ηνιονωτον αδονιον cod. B&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or at least that is what one is led to reconstruct from the split-into-pieces transcription in Voigt's note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The typical emendation of this is Ἔσπερ' ᾽Υμήναον / ὦ τὸν Ἀδώνιον. Line 2 is pretty much doubtless, line 1 is a friggin' mess. Edmonds creatively amends it to τεσσεραμήνιον, which is partly more and partly less adherent to the tradition, and notes that «the mss suggest τεσσερυμήναον». But then we have Bergk:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, he'd have us believe cod. B actually reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;τεσσερυιαη νιον ωτον αδονιον&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What bugs me here is that the starting letter is upsilon for everyone else, but tau for Bergk. How is this possible? Having a tau would support Edmonds' version, which would then need to only amend where the first space appears, removing υι and adding the μ. It would also make that letter finally fit in, instead of having to be either changed or straight-up thrown out (or turned to a digamma as Voigt says Bücheler suggested). Is there any way I could lay my eyes on a scan of the codices and see that latter for myself? Or is there any source that comments on this letter?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pMdkL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5xZLb.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24249" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7228" RevisionGUID="d1c58a10-b82d-4af0-a661-76247ed062f9" CreationDate="2018-09-28T09:03:16.007" UserId="13" Text="What is up with these codices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24250" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7228" RevisionGUID="d1c58a10-b82d-4af0-a661-76247ed062f9" CreationDate="2018-09-28T09:03:16.007" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|text-corpus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7229" RevisionGUID="0bd09b78-a0a6-4eb8-8cb2-b120bb395334" CreationDate="2018-09-28T10:29:59.020" UserId="2962" Text="I would like to give a memorable title to a short text that I am writing and I thought of the above one in reference to the short novel by E. A. Poe &quot;The Purloined Letter&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;A few attempts with automatic translation tools gave me mediocre results and my latin is unfortunately very rusty. I would really appreciate if someone could help me with this translation.&#xD;&#xA;Nb. here, the capitalized word 'Arithmetic' refers to the field of mathematics studying numbers and is thus intended as a noun, not an adjective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24252" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7229" RevisionGUID="0bd09b78-a0a6-4eb8-8cb2-b120bb395334" CreationDate="2018-09-28T10:29:59.020" UserId="2962" Text="How to translate &quot;The stolen letter of Arithmetic&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24253" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7229" RevisionGUID="0bd09b78-a0a6-4eb8-8cb2-b120bb395334" CreationDate="2018-09-28T10:29:59.020" UserId="2962" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7228" RevisionGUID="e0f7ceb4-6b03-4fe3-93db-1a449bd57dda" CreationDate="2018-09-28T10:54:09.283" UserId="13" Comment="added **Also…** at end" Text="Sorry for the vague title, but that is really the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is with the manuscript sources for Lobel-Page &lt;i&gt;incerti auctoris&lt;/i&gt; 24. From Edmonds on, the sources are reported as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;υεσζερυμηνιον των αδωνιον cod. A, υεσσερυια ηνιονωτον αδονιον cod. B&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or at least that is what one is led to reconstruct from the split-into-pieces transcription in Voigt's note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The typical emendation of this is Ἔσπερ' ᾽Υμήναον / ὦ τὸν Ἀδώνιον. Line 2 is pretty much doubtless, line 1 is a friggin' mess. Edmonds creatively amends it to τεσσεραμήνιον, which is partly more and partly less adherent to the tradition, and notes that «the mss suggest τεσσερυμήναον». But then we have Bergk:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, he'd have us believe cod. B actually reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;τεσσερυιαη νιον ωτον αδονιον&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What bugs me here is that the starting letter is upsilon for everyone else, but tau for Bergk. How is this possible? Having a tau would support Edmonds' version, which would then need to only amend where the first space appears, removing υι and adding the μ. It would also make that letter finally fit in, instead of having to be either changed or straight-up thrown out (or turned to a digamma as Voigt says Bücheler suggested). Is there any way I could lay my eyes on a scan of the codices and see that latter for myself? Or is there any source that comments on this letter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Also…**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, what is up with that τὸν Καλυδώνιον in Bergk's rendition of the quote? Did he straight up invent it or is it in some source? I mean, AFAIK this poem has two sources, cod. A and cod. B, neither of which has such a thing, so WTH…?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pMdkL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5xZLb.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7230" RevisionGUID="499c5f10-2e7e-4c8c-b352-5a1503cd66bb" CreationDate="2018-09-28T16:06:42.953" UserId="1142" Text="This is a relatively simple answer, only requiring three (or four) words, the nouns *epistola* and *arithmētica*, and the perfect passive participle of the verb *surripiō*, *surreptus*. All combined together, you get the following phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Epistola surrepta Arithmēticae*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to be fancy, *arithmētica* is a Greek loanword and can thus be declined using its Greek declension, utilizing the genitive *-ēs* ending instead of the standard *-ae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Epistola surrepta Arithmēticēs*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, if the word *the* is emphatic in your English title, you might want to consider using the weak demonstrative adjective, like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ea epistola surrepta Arithmēticae (-ēs)* &#xA;&#xA;As is with Latin, you can rearrange the word order to your personal preference; I am simply following your original order for the sake of simplicity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7229" RevisionGUID="6f5e4c17-6788-41e7-83d6-d2d325bf20f3" CreationDate="2018-09-28T16:42:09.567" UserId="1142" Comment="Formatting" Text="I would like to give a memorable title to a short text that I am writing and I thought of the above one in reference to the short novel by E. A. Poe, *The Purloined Letter*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few attempts with automatic translation tools gave me mediocre results and my Latin is unfortunately very rusty. I would really appreciate if someone could help me with this translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nb.: *the capitalized word &quot;Arithmetic&quot; refers to the field of mathematics studying numbers and is thus intended as a noun, not an adjective.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7228" RevisionGUID="673f35a2-c4e9-4e07-8b76-2f0288048543" CreationDate="2018-09-28T17:23:13.633" UserId="13" Comment="added update" Text="Sorry for the vague title, but that is really the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is with the manuscript sources for Lobel-Page &lt;i&gt;incerti auctoris&lt;/i&gt; 24. From Edmonds on, the sources are reported as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;υεσζερυμηνιον των αδωνιον cod. A, υεσσερυια ηνιονωτον αδονιον cod. B&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or at least that is what one is led to reconstruct from the split-into-pieces transcription in Voigt's note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The typical emendation of this is Ἔσπερ' ᾽Υμήναον / ὦ τὸν Ἀδώνιον. Line 2 is pretty much doubtless, line 1 is a friggin' mess. Edmonds creatively amends it to τεσσεραμήνιον, which is partly more and partly less adherent to the tradition, and notes that «the mss suggest τεσσερυμήναον». But then we have Bergk:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, he'd have us believe cod. B actually reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;τεσσερυιαη νιον ωτον αδονιον&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What bugs me here is that the starting letter is upsilon for everyone else, but tau for Bergk. How is this possible? Having a tau would support Edmonds' version, which would then need to only amend where the first space appears, removing υι and adding the μ. It would also make that letter finally fit in, instead of having to be either changed or straight-up thrown out (or turned to a digamma as Voigt says Bücheler suggested). Is there any way I could lay my eyes on a scan of the codices and see that latter for myself? Or is there any source that comments on this letter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Also…**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, what is up with that τὸν Καλυδώνιον in Bergk's rendition of the quote? Did he straight up invent it or is it in some source? I mean, AFAIK this poem has two sources, cod. A and cod. B, neither of which has such a thing, so WTH…?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I can quite believe that depending on the letter forms used, Τ and Υ might look close enough to each other to be confused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commented @varro, and as @cnread pointed out, I fell for exactly that trap, given Bergk actually has an upsilon to start things off. So the first letter is settled. The &quot;Also…&quot; still stands, however.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pMdkL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5xZLb.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7226" RevisionGUID="7fdf8538-6c00-459e-9d00-edef3a0b9f64" CreationDate="2018-09-28T22:26:36.630" UserId="79" Comment="Rephrased to emphasize Latin." Text="Trying to understand the subtle differences between the three words &quot;deny&quot;, &quot;ignorance&quot;, and &quot;nescience&quot;, based on their roots in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;This question is not about the meanings in modern English, but the original meanings of the underlying Latin words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this be correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Deny**: refuse to know  &#xD;&#xA;**Ignorance**: should know  &#xD;&#xA;**Nescience**: could not know&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7231" RevisionGUID="dbd40da1-94d8-45bd-8cc4-d1d6da2111fd" CreationDate="2018-09-28T23:04:49.043" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="In *A new latin composition* by Charles E. Bennett one may find following statement to translate into latin (from Lesson IV):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This circumstance made the troops more courageous.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt at translation is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Res haec milites fortioribus egit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used *fortior* in ablative, however I don't know whether it is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads to the more general question: what should be the case of the adjective Z in &quot;X made Y (more) Z&quot; construction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24260" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7231" RevisionGUID="dbd40da1-94d8-45bd-8cc4-d1d6da2111fd" CreationDate="2018-09-28T23:04:49.043" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="Case of the adjective in &quot;made someone more something&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24261" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7231" RevisionGUID="dbd40da1-94d8-45bd-8cc4-d1d6da2111fd" CreationDate="2018-09-28T23:04:49.043" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="|grammar-choice|sentence-translation|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7232" RevisionGUID="0f7f47e7-4c60-4eeb-9891-67051b2a3ca8" CreationDate="2018-09-29T03:03:48.523" UserId="406" Text="Many stories, both ancient and modern, concern &quot;possession&quot;: a supernatural entity of some sort takes over a human or animal body and controls it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a Classical Latin word for this phenomenon? Or, failing that, an Ecclesiastical one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24263" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7232" RevisionGUID="0f7f47e7-4c60-4eeb-9891-67051b2a3ca8" CreationDate="2018-09-29T03:03:48.523" UserId="406" Text="How would I talk about supernatural &quot;possession&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24264" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7232" RevisionGUID="0f7f47e7-4c60-4eeb-9891-67051b2a3ca8" CreationDate="2018-09-29T03:03:48.523" UserId="406" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7233" RevisionGUID="ab46ff09-b2d2-47d1-bc17-5fbd3fe00fa3" CreationDate="2018-09-29T19:33:31.950" UserId="79" Text="I would use *facere* and accusative instead of *agere* and ablative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Res haec milites fortiores fecit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a literal translation of &quot;to make something something&quot; is not the only option.&#xD;&#xA;I would phrase the cause as a causal ablative.&#xD;&#xA;(Note that it is the cause, not the outcome, that is in ablative in this approach.)&#xD;&#xA;For circumstances I suggest *rerum condicio*, but there are other options.&#xD;&#xA;My offer for a translation is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This circumstance made the troops more courageous.  &#xD;&#xA;*Milites rerum condicione fortiores erant.*  &#xD;&#xA;(lit. &quot;The soldiers were more courageous due to the circumstances.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many choices are a matter of style.&#xD;&#xA;The most important correction to your attempt is a grammatical one: *fortiores* should not be in ablative.&#xD;&#xA;If you make something something directly, both somethings are in accusative.&#xD;&#xA;In passive they are both in nominative (*milites fortiores facti sunt*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7234" RevisionGUID="975628e0-a992-42e7-90ec-0f7853fa7429" CreationDate="2018-09-29T23:19:23.197" UserId="324" Text="Here is the article Iulus in &quot;The New Pauli&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the tradition set by Virgil I. is the only son of  Aeneas and &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Creusa of Troy, progenitor of the Roman gens Iulia; in Troy he is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called Ilus, later Ascanius (Aen. 1,267f.). The name Ascanius for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (usually the eldest) son of Aeneas first appears after Homer (in Homer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; two confederates of the Trojans have this name, Hom. Il. 2,862 from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ascania in Phrygia; 13,790), both in founding legends (Hellanicus FGrH&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4 F 31; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1,54,2), which rule out his arrival in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Italy, as in the account of Aeneas' flight from Troy (Tabula Iliaca;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Str. 13,1,53, perhaps after Sophocles, but cf. fr. 373). Because there&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are no supporting documents, the name of the child depicted as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accompanying Aeneas with his father Anchises on Attic vases of the 6th&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cent. and later is not clear. Usually Aeneas and Ascanius arrive in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Italy together, as also in Fabius Pictor [1. 394f.], but Ascanius may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also reach Italy alone (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1,53,4). There he is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; successor of Aeneas as ruler of Lavinium and founder of  Alba Longa&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (according to Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1,65,1 he was first called&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Euryleon; Liv. 1,1,11 makes him the son of Aeneas and  Lavinia).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The name I. appears only in Cato (Orig. fr. 9), where this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (significant) name is conferred on him after the killing of  Mezentius&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (as a kind of initiation) and in Liv. 1,3,2, where the possibility is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mentioned of distinguishing the older Ascanius, the son of Creusa of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Troy, who is also called I., from a younger one, the son of  Lavinia;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; after this the gens Iulia definitely took on the Trojan myth. In Roman&#xD;&#xA;&gt; epic tradition before Virgil Aeneas had either a son Romulus (Naev.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fr. 25) or a daughter Silvia (Enn. in Serv. Aen. 6,777).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Graf, Fritz (Columbus, OH) Bibliography&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 G. Manganaro, Una biblioteca storica nel ginnasio di Tauromenion e&#xD;&#xA;&gt; il P. Oxy. 1241, in: PdP 158-159, 1979.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; E. Flores, s.v. Ascanio, EV 1, 353-366&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; E. Paribeni, s.v. Askanios, LIMC 2, 860-863&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; M. Petrini, The Child and the Hero. Coming of Age in Catullus and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vergil, 1997, 87-110.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24267" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7212" RevisionGUID="be37db99-a885-4e2b-a956-ffb52e785fe7" CreationDate="2018-09-30T16:45:09.153" UserId="1355" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the equivalent of &quot;Making someone feel he is indebted&quot; in Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7235" RevisionGUID="56313992-8499-430c-85bb-7c4c1a8ed624" CreationDate="2018-09-30T21:19:43.787" UserId="13" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at this in different editions, you find μεμειχμένα in Lobel-Page, Voigt (whence the above snippet), and Campbell, μεμειγμένα in Edmonds, and μεμιγμένα in Bergk. None of those offer any &quot;original form&quot;, that is none of them tells us what was readable in the tradition. From Voigt, I infer it could have been παντοδάπαις* μεμ*ιχμένα χροίαισιν, with the stars being any letter group subsequently amended to the contents of Voigt's angled brackets. But then the critical note has «-χμ- L.», suggesting the chi was Lobel's suggestion. So what was actually in the tradition? And why tamper with that participle if, as Bergk would suggest, the tradition reads μεμιγμένα, which AFAIK is the correct form of the perfect participle of μίγνυμι? Would the other forms come from other verbs, or am I missing something about μίγνυμι's conjugation? And if the tradition was indeed παντοδάπαις μεμιγμένα χροίαισιν, why force it into book 2 when a simple diaeresis (χροΐαισιν) would put it in book 1 and the quoter doesn't tell us what book this is from?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/j6HCM.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24269" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7235" RevisionGUID="56313992-8499-430c-85bb-7c4c1a8ed624" CreationDate="2018-09-30T21:19:43.787" UserId="13" Text="About Sappho Lobel-Page 152" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24270" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7235" RevisionGUID="56313992-8499-430c-85bb-7c4c1a8ed624" CreationDate="2018-09-30T21:19:43.787" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="ccc91a22-b9e9-4d5f-8368-482a4418c60a" CreationDate="2018-10-01T03:26:07.433" UserId="2704" Text="Angle brackets normally mean editorial addition, which strongly implies that the stars in your reconstruction are empty: παντοδάπαις μεμιγμένα, with the App Crit saying that μεμειχμένα was Lobel's idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lobel's emendation in turn is because there is evidence that the Aeolic form of the verb is μείχνυμι: per LSJ, both ὀνεμείχνυτο and ὀνεμείγνυτο show up as readings in Fr. 44.30. The catch is that ὀνεμείχνυτο may also be Lobel's emendation of the more regular ὀνεμείγνυτο there, so Lobel may be drawing both emendations from some other source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now, I know that the source exists, but I can't pinpoint it with free online materials. The 1909 edition of Thumb's _Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte_ does not mention μείχνυμι: https://archive.org/details/handbuchdergriec00thum . The 1959 edition, which is not free online, does, as the Google search snippet shows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Βemerkenswerte Ρrăsenssta mme, δείχνυμι, μείχνυμι s. 8 255, 14; statt αποδείκνυμι das einfache Verbum: δείχθεις χελληστυάρχας mehrmals aufΙnschr. Gegenüber thess. βέλλειτει, boiot. βειλόμενος heiβt es βόλλομαι (Sa., Αlk., Τheokr. ) ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... I just hope that it has more evidence to bear than &quot;because Lobel said so&quot;. I have a copy of Hamm, Eva.-Marie. 1957 _Grammatik zu Sappho und Alkaios_, and I will look it up when I go home. Stay tuned; as is our tradition with Sappho answers here, there will be a few iterations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="7d9c3903-011a-4711-b0cc-908997f45ca3" CreationDate="2018-10-01T03:33:54.983" UserId="2704" Comment="added 337 characters in body" Text="Angle brackets normally mean editorial addition, which strongly implies that the stars in your reconstruction are empty: παντοδάπαις μεμιγμένα, with the App Crit saying that μεμειχμένα was Lobel's idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lobel's emendation in turn is because there is evidence that the Aeolic form of the verb is μείχνυμι: per LSJ, both ὀνεμείχνυτο and ὀνεμείγνυτο show up as readings in Fr. 44.30. The catch is that ὀνεμείχνυτο may also be Lobel's emendation of the more regular ὀνεμείγνυτο there, so Lobel may be drawing both emendations from some other source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now, I know that the source exists, but I can't pinpoint it with free online materials. The 1909 edition of Thumb's _Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte_ does not mention μείχνυμι: https://archive.org/details/handbuchdergriec00thum . The 1959 edition, which is not free online, does, as the Google search snippet shows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Βemerkenswerte Ρrăsenssta mme, δείχνυμι, μείχνυμι s. 8 255, 14; statt αποδείκνυμι das einfache Verbum: δείχθεις χελληστυάρχας mehrmals aufΙnschr. Gegenüber thess. βέλλειτει, boiot. βειλόμενος heiβt es βόλλομαι (Sa., Αlk., Τheokr. ) ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... I just hope that it has more evidence to bear than &quot;because Lobel said so&quot;. I have a copy of Hamm, Eva.-Marie. 1957 _Grammatik zu Sappho und Alkaios_, and I will look it up when I go home. Stay tuned; as is our tradition with Sappho answers here, there will be a few iterations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; why force it into book 2 when a simple diaeresis (χροΐαισιν) would put it in book 1 and the quoter doesn't tell us what book this is from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because we're taking plenty of liberties with the source as is, and the conservative thing to do is not to posit a diaeresis unless the original reading is clearly not acceptable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7237" RevisionGUID="f7bd0526-d18c-45a4-8029-16b842d748a0" CreationDate="2018-10-01T08:53:01.283" UserId="2646" Text="Spanish word *ocio* (English: 'leisure') and *negocio* (English: 'business` among other meanings) come from Latin *otium* and *negotium*. Spanish *ocio* also gave *ocioso*, as in *estar ocioso* (English: 'to be idle' or 'unoccupied'). And a possible meaning of *negocio* in Spanish is 'occupation'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems that both words are somewhat related, so *negotium* seems to be something like *not otium*. Is that so? Does that *neg-* prefix something to do with *negāre* or *negatio*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24274" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7237" RevisionGUID="f7bd0526-d18c-45a4-8029-16b842d748a0" CreationDate="2018-10-01T08:53:01.283" UserId="2646" Text="Does the word &quot;negotium&quot; literally mean &quot;not otium&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24275" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7237" RevisionGUID="f7bd0526-d18c-45a4-8029-16b842d748a0" CreationDate="2018-10-01T08:53:01.283" UserId="2646" Text="|etymology|meaning|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7237" RevisionGUID="ed0f6c78-488a-4824-9954-a898bac2b8a9" CreationDate="2018-10-01T09:48:20.347" UserId="2646" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Spanish word *ocio* (English: 'leisure') and *negocio* (English: 'business` among other meanings) come from Latin *otium* and *negotium*. Spanish *ocio* also gave *ocioso*, as in *estar ocioso* (English: 'to be idle' or 'unoccupied'). And a possible meaning of *negocio* in Spanish is 'occupation'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems that both words are somewhat related, so *negotium* seems to be something like *not otium*. Is that so? Has that *neg-* prefix something to do with *negāre* or *negatio*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7238" RevisionGUID="f55c626c-55d0-43e4-8fe2-f8e3620e96d4" CreationDate="2018-10-01T09:49:27.763" UserId="324" Text="The old books about Aeolic have now been thoroughly superseded by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.academia.edu/14532954/The_Aeolic_Dialects_of_Ancient_Greek_A_Study_in_Historical_Dialectology_and_Linguistic_Classification_Frontmatter_and_ToC_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;not yet (it seems) available as a published book, but you could approach the author with questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7239" RevisionGUID="32df4823-13ec-48bb-8726-b6f8a2222404" CreationDate="2018-10-01T10:06:09.017" UserId="324" Text="From de Vann's etymological dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; otium 'spare time, relaxation' [n. o] (P1.+)  Derivatives: otiosus 'at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; leisure, inactive' (P1.+); negotium 'work, business, 1 difficulty'&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (PI.+), negdtiolum 'little business, slight difficulty' (P1.+),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; negotiosus 'occupied, busy' (PI.+).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For otium, an etymology involving *au- is unattractive, since there is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; no evidence for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *au-. Benveniste 1951 argues that negotium must have been a nominal cp. *nec-otium from the start, with the meaning 'non-loisir', that is,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'obstacle, empechement'. It would have been a Latin calque on Gr.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀσχολία 'absence of spare time', 'occupation'. This leaves unanswered&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the question of why the Romans not translate the Gr. word as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *in-otium. The word remains without etymology.  Bibl.: WH II: 157,228f„ EM 436,471.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7239" RevisionGUID="884fcec9-2a88-479a-8893-617d4427b648" CreationDate="2018-10-01T13:16:14.000" UserId="324" Comment="edited body" Text="From de Vaan's etymological dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; otium 'spare time, relaxation' [n. o] (P1.+)  Derivatives: otiosus 'at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; leisure, inactive' (P1.+); negotium 'work, business, 1 difficulty'&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (PI.+), negdtiolum 'little business, slight difficulty' (P1.+),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; negotiosus 'occupied, busy' (PI.+).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For otium, an etymology involving *au- is unattractive, since there is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; no evidence for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *au-. Benveniste 1951 argues that negotium must have been a nominal cp. *nec-otium from the start, with the meaning 'non-loisir', that is,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'obstacle, empechement'. It would have been a Latin calque on Gr.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀσχολία 'absence of spare time', 'occupation'. This leaves unanswered&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the question of why the Romans not translate the Gr. word as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *in-otium. The word remains without etymology.  Bibl.: WH II: 157,228f„ EM 436,471.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7237" RevisionGUID="d09fee43-5043-4bb6-a864-e6dfb58680a4" CreationDate="2018-10-01T14:24:04.730" UserId="2646" Comment="edited body" Text="Spanish word *ocio* (English: 'leisure') and *negocio* (English: 'business` among other meanings) come from Latin *otium* and *negotium*. Spanish *ocio* also gave *ocioso*, as in *estar ocioso* (English: 'to be idle' or 'unoccupied'). And a possible meaning of *negocio* in Spanish is 'occupation'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems that both words are somewhat related, as *negotium* seems to be something like *not otium*. Is that so? Has that *neg-* prefix something to do with *negāre* or *negatio*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7240" RevisionGUID="f72c4189-82cc-40e7-96a4-5fed187ffdfa" CreationDate="2018-10-01T15:59:49.563" UserId="2646" Text="Just a wild guess given my scarce knowledge of Latin. In Spanish we use the word *poseso* for that purpose. It is defined in a dictionary from 1780 as &quot;he who has the evil spirits within his body&quot;, and gives a Latin translation as *possessus*, the past participe of *possidere*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **[possideo, possidere, possedi, possessus][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * inherit&#xD;&#xA;* possess, take/hold possession of, occupy&#xD;&#xA;* seize, hold, be master of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nonetheless, the act of *possession* (&quot;the existence of evil spirits within the human body&quot;) is translated to Latin in the same dictionary as *Possessio hominis ab spiritibus malignis*. The fact that a whole Latin sentence was needed to translate a single word may be a sign that no single Latin word existed for this concept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/possessus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7241" RevisionGUID="1269e3cd-7985-4f0d-8daa-d2985a3b81c4" CreationDate="2018-10-01T18:04:34.137" UserId="2971" Text="This is the motto for my dad's swat team. They wanted to find the latin translation and put it on a shirt and possibly their new badge. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24283" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7241" RevisionGUID="1269e3cd-7985-4f0d-8daa-d2985a3b81c4" CreationDate="2018-10-01T18:04:34.137" UserId="2971" Text="What is 'leading the way day and night' in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24284" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7241" RevisionGUID="1269e3cd-7985-4f0d-8daa-d2985a3b81c4" CreationDate="2018-10-01T18:04:34.137" UserId="2971" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7242" RevisionGUID="71ad6873-87f1-4243-a488-00bb1c199d50" CreationDate="2018-10-01T23:02:52.340" UserId="2972" Text="&quot;leading the way (by) day and (by) night&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;praevius diurnus noctuque" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="5abb06bb-2e2c-4728-a628-5c7bed14ef25" CreationDate="2018-10-02T02:26:39.890" UserId="2704" Comment="added 504 characters in body" Text="Angle brackets normally mean editorial addition, which strongly implies that the stars in your reconstruction are empty: παντοδάπαις μεμιγμένα, with the App Crit saying that μεμειχμένα was Lobel's idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lobel's emendation in turn is because there is evidence that the Aeolic form of the verb is μείχνυμι: per LSJ, both ὀνεμείχνυτο and ὀνεμείγνυτο show up as readings in Fr. 44.30. The catch is that ὀνεμείχνυτο may also be Lobel's emendation of the more regular ὀνεμείγνυτο there, so Lobel may be drawing both emendations from some other source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now, I know that the source exists, but I can't pinpoint it with free online materials. The 1909 edition of Thumb's _Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte_ does not mention μείχνυμι: https://archive.org/details/handbuchdergriec00thum . The 1959 edition, which is not free online, does, as the Google search snippet shows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Βemerkenswerte Ρrăsenssta mme, δείχνυμι, μείχνυμι s. 8 255, 14; statt αποδείκνυμι das einfache Verbum: δείχθεις χελληστυάρχας mehrmals aufΙnschr. Gegenüber thess. βέλλειτει, boiot. βειλόμενος heiβt es βόλλομαι (Sa., Αlk., Τheokr. ) ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... I just hope that it has more evidence to bear than &quot;because Lobel said so&quot;. I have a copy of Hamm, Eva.-Marie. 1957 _Grammatik zu Sappho und Alkaios_, and I will look it up when I go home. Stay tuned; as is our tradition with Sappho answers here, there will be a few iterations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: I haven't looked it up yet, but if Lobel did introduce μείχνυμι into the text without manuscript warrant (which I don't know yet), he presumably did so by appealing by analogy to the form δείχν-, which [DGE][1] reports for &quot;Alc.73.13, 303Ab.14&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Unless Lobel made that up too. I'm worried whether the grammars adequately differentiate between the words in the manuscripts and editorial conjecture.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; why force it into book 2 when a simple diaeresis (χροΐαισιν) would put it in book 1 and the quoter doesn't tell us what book this is from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because we're taking plenty of liberties with the source as is, and the conservative thing to do is not to posit a diaeresis unless the original reading is clearly not acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dge.cchs.csic.es/xdge/%CE%B4%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BA%CE%BD%CF%85%CE%BC%CE%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7243" RevisionGUID="51981343-4845-454b-948d-8d2bb0f251d3" CreationDate="2018-10-02T02:42:04.003" UserId="1343" Text="I came across the word *tantibus* while reading [this page][1] (as part of a bigger word, *amalgotantibus*), where it's claimed to be Latin for &quot;nightmare&quot;; a little bit of digging also revealed that it's the basis for the name of [a *My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic* character][2]. However, I cannot find this word in Wiktionary or any other online Latin dictionary that I know of ([Numen: The Latin Lexicon][3] is my usual go-to), and while googling the word does turn up a **lot** of results (over 150,000, last time I checked), many of which similarly claim the word is from Latin and means &quot;nightmare&quot;, none of them are reliable sources of etymology (e.g. reputable dictionaries like Merriam-Webster, official scientific publications).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is *tantibus* really a Latin word, or is this a made-up one (i.e. &quot;neo/pseudo-Latin&quot;) that someone somewhere mistakenly believed to be real Classical Latin, and their mistake propagated over time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ark.gamepedia.com/Araneo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://mlp.wikia.com/wiki/Creatures#Tantabus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latinlexicon.org/index.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24288" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7243" RevisionGUID="51981343-4845-454b-948d-8d2bb0f251d3" CreationDate="2018-10-02T02:42:04.003" UserId="1343" Text="Tantibus: genuine Latin word, or made-up?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24289" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7243" RevisionGUID="51981343-4845-454b-948d-8d2bb0f251d3" CreationDate="2018-10-02T02:42:04.003" UserId="1343" Text="|vocabulary|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7244" RevisionGUID="eb932f9c-7960-4c12-8159-f579104eac5b" CreationDate="2018-10-02T10:07:33.093" UserId="1459" Text="I took the liberty of asking directly to the authors, receiving this reply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: the authors' email addresses are publicly available on their websites, so I think it should not be a problem to show it above. If you disagree, let me know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qWtBP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7226" RevisionGUID="31e0a6e4-b609-4846-a4db-50e4125a6550" CreationDate="2018-10-02T12:42:06.980" UserId="2961" Comment="Using latin words instead of english one, updating possible description." Text="Trying to understand the subtle differences between the three words &quot;nego&quot;, &quot;ignoro&quot;, and &quot;nescio&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This question is not about the meanings in modern English, but the original meanings of the underlying Latin words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this be correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**nego**: know but pretend the opposite ?   &#xD;&#xA;**ignoro**: should know but don't  &#xD;&#xA;**nescio**: could not know&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24292" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7226" RevisionGUID="31e0a6e4-b609-4846-a4db-50e4125a6550" CreationDate="2018-10-02T12:42:06.980" UserId="2961" Comment="Using latin words instead of english one, updating possible description." Text="What is the difference between nego, ignoro, and nescio?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7245" RevisionGUID="a79a3020-7d20-45ab-ae66-a5c2626e5c18" CreationDate="2018-10-02T13:29:46.997" UserId="469" Text="A quick look at [NVG Mt][1] gave: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Being possessed* &gt; **daemonium habere**, &#xD;&#xA;* *possessed person* &gt; **daemonium habens**,&#xD;&#xA;* *someone is possessed* &gt; **daemonium habet/a daemonio vexatur**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found no word for _possession_ proper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Roman Ritual][2] adds the following (sorry for linking an older version, I'm pretty sure these are still around in current Latin versions, but are harder to find in the web):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Possessed* &gt; **obsesus, -a, -um**&#xD;&#xA;* *possess* &gt; **[obsido][3]** (lit. *besiege*)&#xD;&#xA;* *possession* &gt; **[obsessio][4]** (lit. *besieging*, *blockade*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-matthaeum_lt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.reelz.com/extra/full-latin-exorcism-ritual/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dobsido&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dobsessio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7245" RevisionGUID="d49650cd-3ba0-45b9-98cf-ce13eef27419" CreationDate="2018-10-02T13:44:25.403" UserId="469" Comment="added 366 characters in body" Text="A quick look at [NVG Mt][1] gave: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Being possessed* &gt; **daemonium habere**, &#xD;&#xA;* *possessed person* &gt; **daemonium habens**,&#xD;&#xA;* *someone is possessed* &gt; **daemonium habet/a daemonio vexatur**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found no word for _possession_ proper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Roman Ritual][2] adds the following (sorry for linking an older version, I'm pretty sure these are still around in current Latin versions, but are harder to find in the web). The last revision seems to be that of [1999][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Possessed* &gt; **obsesus, -a, -um**,&#xD;&#xA;* *to possess* &gt; **[obsido][4]** (lit. *besiege*),&#xD;&#xA;* *possession* hence, would be **[obsessio][5]** (lit. *besieging*, *blockade*). The noun is absent from the ritual, but the analogy is pretty obvious. I think this is closer to what you are looking for than the Gospel's human-centered terminology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-matthaeum_lt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.reelz.com/extra/full-latin-exorcism-ritual/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_1999-01-26_il-rito-degli-esorcismi_it.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dobsido&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dobsessio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7245" RevisionGUID="23b6e8ad-3849-4fca-a9b6-543d2a85af6f" CreationDate="2018-10-02T16:58:58.977" UserId="469" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="A quick look at [NVG Mt][1] gave alternatives centered in the person being possessed: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Being possessed* &gt; **daemonium habere**, &#xD;&#xA;* *possessed person* &gt; **daemonium habens**,&#xD;&#xA;* *someone is possessed* &gt; **daemonium habet/a daemonio vexatur**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found no word for _possession_ proper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;*(under correction due to comment by brianpck)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;s&gt;The [Roman Ritual][2] adds the following (sorry for linking an older version, I'm pretty sure these are still around in current Latin versions, but are harder to find in the web). The last revision seems to be that of [1999][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * *Possessed* &gt; **obsessus, -a, -um**,&#xD;&#xA; * *to possess* &gt; **[obsido][4]** (lit. *besiege*),&#xD;&#xA; * *possession* hence, would be **[obsessio][5]** (lit. *besieging*, *blockade*). The noun is absent from the ritual, but the analogy is pretty obvious. I think this is closer to what you are looking for than the Gospel's human-centered terminology.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-matthaeum_lt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.reelz.com/extra/full-latin-exorcism-ritual/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_1999-01-26_il-rito-degli-esorcismi_it.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dobsido&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dobsessio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7245" RevisionGUID="ade37ac3-8b1f-4dac-8f6a-f76483277f0c" CreationDate="2018-10-02T17:28:05.850" UserId="469" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="A quick look at [NVG Mt][1] gave alternatives centered in the person being possessed: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Being possessed* &gt; **daemonium habere**, &#xD;&#xA;* *possessed person* &gt; **daemonium habens**,&#xD;&#xA;* *someone is possessed* &gt; **daemonium habet/a daemonio vexatur**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found no word for _possession_ proper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;*(under correction due to comment by brianpck)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;s&gt;The [Roman Ritual][2] adds the following (sorry for linking an older version, I'm pretty sure these are still around in current Latin versions, but are harder to find in the web). The last revision seems to be that of [1999][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * *Possessed* &gt; **obsessus, -a, -um**,&#xD;&#xA; * *to possess* &gt; **[obsido][4]** (lit. *besiege*),&#xD;&#xA; * *possession* hence, would be **[obsessio][5]** (lit. *besieging*, *blockade*). The noun is absent from the ritual, but the analogy is pretty obvious. I think this is closer to what you are looking for than the Gospel's human-centered terminology.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FWIW, the [Cathecism][6] of the Catholic Church, in point no. 1673 translates **influxu demoniaco** as *demonic possession* [to English][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-matthaeum_lt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.reelz.com/extra/full-latin-exorcism-ritual/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_1999-01-26_il-rito-degli-esorcismi_it.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dobsido&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dobsessio&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p2s2c4a1_lt.htm#ARTICULUS%201%C2%A0%20SACRAMENTALIA&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P58.HTM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7245" RevisionGUID="71967951-458f-41aa-b4dd-7ce8d06b3079" CreationDate="2018-10-02T17:47:16.193" UserId="469" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="A quick look at [NVG Mt][1] gave alternatives centered in the person being possessed: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Being possessed* &gt; **daemonium habere**, &#xD;&#xA;* *possessed person* &gt; **daemonium habens**,&#xD;&#xA;* *someone is possessed* &gt; **daemonium habet/a daemonio vexatur**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found no word for _possession_ proper. This is consistent in the other three Gospels, with slight word variations, but always talking about a person *having* a demon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;*(under correction due to comment by brianpck)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;s&gt;The [Roman Ritual][2] adds the following (sorry for linking an older version, I'm pretty sure these are still around in current Latin versions, but are harder to find in the web). The last revision seems to be that of [1999][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * *Possessed* &gt; **obsessus, -a, -um**,&#xD;&#xA; * *to possess* &gt; **[obsido][4]** (lit. *besiege*),&#xD;&#xA; * *possession* hence, would be **[obsessio][5]** (lit. *besieging*, *blockade*). The noun is absent from the ritual, but the analogy is pretty obvious. I think this is closer to what you are looking for than the Gospel's human-centered terminology.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FWIW, the [Cathecism][6] of the Catholic Church, in point no. 1673 translates **influxu demoniaco** as *demonic possession* [to English][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-matthaeum_lt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.reelz.com/extra/full-latin-exorcism-ritual/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_1999-01-26_il-rito-degli-esorcismi_it.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dobsido&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dobsessio&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p2s2c4a1_lt.htm#ARTICULUS%201%C2%A0%20SACRAMENTALIA&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P58.HTM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7246" RevisionGUID="ac3f7f8c-4d86-4efe-bd68-91746513cfac" CreationDate="2018-10-02T19:21:19.240" UserId="1142" Text="The phrase *&quot;leading the way day and night&quot;* is somewhat awkward to translate into Latin; the sentence is making heavy use of the flexibility of English grammar and is using some English-isms. The phrase as I understand it is attempting to convey the meaning *&quot;placing ourselves before others during both the day and night&quot;*, an apt ideal for a police force to follow. I will base my translations roughly off this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This first one is relatively simple, making use of the present indicative of *praepōnō*, with both the subject and object being *we*, and the indirect object (technically object of the preposition *prae*, which has formed a compound with *pōnō*) being *others*. The preposition *in* can be omitted rather freely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cēterīs [in] diē ac nocte praepōnimus nōs.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Placing ourselves before others [in] day and night.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to emphasize the necessity of the action described, *praepōnō* in the jussive subjunctive, which expresses a command, might be more suitable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Praeponāmus cēterīs [in] diē ac nocte nōs.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Let us place ourselves before others [in] day and night.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you are using one of these phrases as a motto (which I assume will be printed and displayed somewhere), you might want to consider using a more traditional orthography, which would render both of the provided phrases as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *CETERIS·[IN]·DIE·AC·NOCTE·PRAEPONIMVS·NOS*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *PRAEPONAMVS·CETERIS·[IN]·DIE·AC·NOCTE·NOS*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read more about the orthography of Classical Latin [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin#Orthography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, as is with all Latin writing, the word order is mostly free. The provided phrases can technically be rendered in any order, but I would recommend keeping as such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7246" RevisionGUID="5e23309c-a917-4eaf-b3f1-0fcc648d4102" CreationDate="2018-10-02T19:30:01.617" UserId="1142" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="The phrase *&quot;leading the way day and night&quot;* is somewhat awkward to translate into Latin; the sentence is making heavy use of the flexibility of English grammar and is using some English-isms. The phrase as I understand it is attempting to convey the meaning *&quot;placing ourselves before others during both the day and night&quot;*, an apt ideal for a police force to follow. I will base my translations roughly off this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This first one is relatively simple, making use of the present indicative of *praepōnō*, with both the subject and object being *we*, and the indirect object (technically object of the preposition *prae*, which has formed a compound with *pōnō*) being *others*. The adjective *praevius* is also employed to retain some of the original meaning. The preposition *in* can be omitted rather freely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cēterīs [in] diē ac nocte praepōnimus nōs praeviī.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Placing ourselves before others [in] day and night.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to emphasize the necessity of the action described, *praepōnō* in the jussive subjunctive, which expresses a command, might be more suitable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Praeponāmus cēterīs [in] diē ac nocte nōs praeviī.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Let us place ourselves before others [in] day and night.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you are using one of these phrases as a motto (which I assume will be printed and displayed somewhere), you might want to consider using a more traditional orthography, which would render both of the provided phrases as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *CETERIS·[IN]·DIE·AC·NOCTE·PRÆPONIMVS·NOS·PRÆVII*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *PRÆPONAMVS·CETERIS·[IN]·DIE·AC·NOCTE·NOS·PRÆVII*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read more about the orthography of Classical Latin [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin#Orthography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, as is with all Latin writing, the word order is mostly free. The provided phrases can technically be rendered in any order, but I would recommend keeping as such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7241" RevisionGUID="288ffc12-ae2f-4344-87f8-0d7eb87d2d7d" CreationDate="2018-10-02T19:32:40.317" UserId="1142" Comment="Minor changes" Text="This is the motto for my Dad's SWAT team. They wanted to have a Latin translation and which could be put on a shirt, and possibly their new badge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7247" RevisionGUID="8b4767a6-b325-4a14-8d63-8846a92322a5" CreationDate="2018-10-02T22:22:42.243" UserId="13" Text="Here is the quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἐκαλεῖτο δέ τις καὶ βαλανωτὴ φιάλη, ἧς τῷ πυθμένι χρυσοῖ ὑπέκειντο ἀστράγαλοι. Σῆμος δ᾽ ἐν Δήλῳ ἀνακεῖσθαί φησι χαλκοῦν φοίνικα, Ναξίων ἀνάθημα, καὶ καρυωτὰς φιάλας χρυσᾶς. Ἀναξανδρίδης δὲ φιάλας Ἄρεος καλεῖ τὰ ποτήρια ταῦτα. Αἰολεῖς δὲ τὴν φιάλην ἀράκην καλοῦσι&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text is straight off [Greek Wikisource](https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%94%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%80%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%83%CE%BF%CF%86%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B1%CE%AF_(%CE%A3%CF%8D%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%88%CE%B9%CF%82)/%CE%B9%CE%B1). It's from book XI of the Deipnosophists. Translation attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Some φίαλαι were also called acorn-adorned (βαλανωτή), when golden ἀστράγαλοι lay under their bottoms. Semos says a bronze phoenix was laid up in Delos, a curse to the Naxians, and golden καρυωτὰς(??) φίαλαι. Anaxandrides calls those drinking-cups &lt;i&gt;Ares's φίαλαι&lt;/i&gt;. The Aeolians call φίαλαι ἀράκαι&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, firstly, let me sort out the untranslated words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - φίαλαι (Aeolic accent, maybe out of place, but it's irrelevant) seems to be some sort of boiling vessel (bowl or saucepan) or a saucer; I guess it can also mean &quot;goblet&quot; or the likes, as an evolution of sense one due to some shape analogy;&#xD;&#xA; - ἀστράγαλοι (ditto for Aeolic accent) means knucklebone (among other senses), and may be some sort of decoration shaped somewhat like a knucklebone;&#xD;&#xA; - καρυωτὰς is not on Perseus, and I have no access to my bigger paper dictionary now, so it's somewhat mysterious…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus here is question 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What does καρυωτὰς mean? I assume its the femm.acc.pl. of καρυωτός, or perhaps καρυωτής, but I can find neither on Perseus…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikisource text gives the penultimate word as ἀράκην, but Lobel-Page, quoting it in the critical note for fr. 192 of Sappho, gives ἄρακιν. So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What did the tradition have, and if ἀράκην why did Lobel-Page change it, and if ἄρακιν where does ἀράκην (reported in LSJ btw) come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self-ironic PS: What? A non-Sappho MickG question, and still about Greek? That's new! :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24303" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7247" RevisionGUID="8b4767a6-b325-4a14-8d63-8846a92322a5" CreationDate="2018-10-02T22:22:42.243" UserId="13" Text="About an Athenaeus quote marginally related to Sappho" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24304" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7247" RevisionGUID="8b4767a6-b325-4a14-8d63-8846a92322a5" CreationDate="2018-10-02T22:22:42.243" UserId="13" Text="|vocabulary|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7248" RevisionGUID="87b581c1-79dd-4a74-8178-2d77b4211cf2" CreationDate="2018-10-03T01:28:16.497" UserId="522" Text="Some Romans employed Greek tutors. Greek was useful (Euclid's Geometry), culturally important (Homer and Plato), and provided many technical terms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Amalgotantibus* looks like a loan word from Greek, and it adds scientific gravitas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ancient Greek **μάλαγμα**, málagma,  from μαλακός (malakós, “soft”) via French, algama, became the English 'amalgam,' which is the squidgy mixture of mercury and silver, or mercury and zinc that used to be used for repairing teeth.  But in Byzantine documents μάλαγμα specifies very pure, soft gold: see [Table 5. (p.189 –page4 in pdf)][1] Malagma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In combination  *málagma* becomes *málagmat-* using the '-t-' stem and the latinised form *amalgo-* adds a '-t-' by epenthesis, in preference to elision or crasis which are alternative ways of sorting out two consecutive vowels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second half of the word is now not 'tantibus,' but *antibus.*  **αντιβος** –α –ον, which is a variant form of αντιβίος.  &#xD;&#xA;**αντι** means 'against.'  &#xD;&#xA;**βίος**,means 'life.'  &#xD;&#xA;antibus, is the latinised form; 'anti-life.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *Amalgotantibus* describes the Spider as 'Shiny golden hostile to life.' Does that fit?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/16%20Parani-opt-sec.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7248" RevisionGUID="af91f3b6-79c6-4ffc-ad39-f054ed3ec4b9" CreationDate="2018-10-03T03:52:07.790" UserId="522" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Some Romans employed Greek tutors. Greek was useful (Euclid's Geometry), culturally important (Homer and Plato), and provided many technical terms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Amalgotantibus* looks like a loan word from Greek, and it adds scientific gravitas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ancient Greek **μάλαγμα**, málagma,  from μαλακός (malakós, “soft”) via French, algama, became the English 'amalgam,' which is the squidgy mixture of mercury and silver, or mercury and zinc that used to be used for repairing teeth.  But in Byzantine documents μάλαγμα also specifies very pure, soft gold: see [Table 5. (p.189 –page4 in pdf)][1] Malagma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In combination  *málagma* becomes *málagmat-* using the '-t-' stem and the latinised form *amalgo-* adds a '-t-' by epenthesis, in preference to elision or crasis which are alternative ways of sorting out two consecutive vowels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second half of the word is now not 'tantibus,' but *antibus.*  **αντιβίος** –α –ον. (also **έναντιοβίος**)  &#xD;&#xA;**αντι** means 'against.'  &#xD;&#xA;**βίος**,means 'life.'  &#xD;&#xA;antibus, a possible latinised form; 'anti-life.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *Amalgotantibus* describes the Spider as 'Mixed/ Amalgam hostile to life.' Does that fit?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/16%20Parani-opt-sec.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7248" RevisionGUID="793f5763-e4eb-43a1-a523-b04d57244144" CreationDate="2018-10-03T06:01:10.783" UserId="522" Comment="Postscript " Text="Some Romans employed Greek tutors. Greek was useful (Euclid's Geometry), culturally important (Homer and Plato), and provided many technical terms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Amalgotantibus* looks like a loan word from Greek, and it adds scientific gravitas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ancient Greek **μάλαγμα**, málagma,  from μαλακός (malakós, “soft”) via French, algama, became the English 'amalgam,' which is the squidgy mixture of mercury and silver, or mercury and zinc that used to be used for repairing teeth.  But in Byzantine documents μάλαγμα also specifies very pure, soft gold: see [Table 5. (p.189 –page4 in pdf)][1] Malagma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In combination  *málagma* becomes *málagmat-* using the '-t-' stem and the latinised form *amalgo-* adds a '-t-' by epenthesis, in preference to elision or crasis which are alternative ways of sorting out two consecutive vowels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second half of the word is now not 'tantibus,' but *antibus.*  **αντιβίος** –α –ον. (also **έναντιοβίος**)  &#xD;&#xA;**αντι** means 'against.'  &#xD;&#xA;**βίος**,means 'life.'  &#xD;&#xA;antibus, a possible latinised form; 'anti-life.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *Amalgotantibus* describes the Spider as 'Mixed/ Amalgam hostile to life.' Does that fit?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Postscript:  &#xD;&#xA;It has been fun trying to sort out ***in-universe*** etymology. And just like in futuristic Biology, it was common for 13th Century alchemists to swap letters around; μάλαγμα  and algama are mediaeval and not classical. A discussion of **amalgam**'s origins can be found at '[Word Reference Forum][2].' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/16%20Parani-opt-sec.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/the-origin-of-the-word-amalgam-long.2020310/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7247" RevisionGUID="7326b0d3-a924-444d-9140-dddb067d94ba" CreationDate="2018-10-03T08:01:45.007" UserId="13" Comment="added update" Text="Here is the quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἐκαλεῖτο δέ τις καὶ βαλανωτὴ φιάλη, ἧς τῷ πυθμένι χρυσοῖ ὑπέκειντο ἀστράγαλοι. Σῆμος δ᾽ ἐν Δήλῳ ἀνακεῖσθαί φησι χαλκοῦν φοίνικα, Ναξίων ἀνάθημα, καὶ καρυωτὰς φιάλας χρυσᾶς. Ἀναξανδρίδης δὲ φιάλας Ἄρεος καλεῖ τὰ ποτήρια ταῦτα. Αἰολεῖς δὲ τὴν φιάλην ἀράκην καλοῦσι&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text is straight off [Greek Wikisource](https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%94%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%80%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%83%CE%BF%CF%86%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B1%CE%AF_(%CE%A3%CF%8D%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%88%CE%B9%CF%82)/%CE%B9%CE%B1). It's from book XI of the Deipnosophists. Translation attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Some φίαλαι were also called acorn-adorned (βαλανωτή), when golden ἀστράγαλοι lay under their bottoms. Semos says a bronze phoenix was laid up in Delos, a votive offering to the Naxians, and golden καρυωτὰς(??) φίαλαι. Anaxandrides calls those drinking-cups &lt;i&gt;Ares's φίαλαι&lt;/i&gt;. The Aeolians call φίαλαι ἀράκαι&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, firstly, let me sort out the untranslated words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - φίαλαι (Aeolic accent, maybe out of place, but it's irrelevant) seems to be some sort of boiling vessel (bowl or saucepan) or a saucer; I guess it can also mean &quot;goblet&quot; or the likes, as an evolution of sense one due to some shape analogy;&#xD;&#xA; - ἀστράγαλοι (ditto for Aeolic accent) means knucklebone (among other senses), and may be some sort of decoration shaped somewhat like a knucklebone;&#xD;&#xA; - καρυωτὰς is not on Perseus, and I have no access to my bigger paper dictionary now, so it's somewhat mysterious…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus here is question 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What does καρυωτὰς mean? I assume its the femm.acc.pl. of καρυωτός, or perhaps καρυωτής, but I can find neither on Perseus…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikisource text gives the penultimate word as ἀράκην, but Lobel-Page, quoting it in the critical note for fr. 192 of Sappho, gives ἄρακιν. So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What did the tradition have, and if ἀράκην why did Lobel-Page change it, and if ἄρακιν where does ἀράκην (reported in LSJ btw) come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self-ironic PS: What? A non-Sappho MickG question, and still about Greek? That's new! :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per [@TKR's comments](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xoNer.png), I hereby:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Change the translation of ἀνάθημα above from _curse_ to _votive offering_;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Note that [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dkaruowto%5Cs) has καρυωτός as _date-palm_ or, when describing φίαλαι, as meaning _nut-bossed_, i.e. _with nut-shaped bosses_; therefore, Q1 is solved;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Note that it seems the manuscripts have ἀρακίν, making Lobel-Page's form the simple Aeolicization of the tradition (via application of barytonesis); therefore, Q2 gets rewritten as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Q2.b&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Why have editors changed ἀρακίν to ἀράκην when simple Aeolicization yields ἄρακιν and the given form isn't even Aeolic since, AFAIK, an Aeolic form would be ἀράκαν?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7249" RevisionGUID="b6ce4631-7f46-400b-90fa-2be57ab05ded" CreationDate="2018-10-03T13:18:14.187" UserId="45" Text="Latin has at least two words that straightforwardly translate to English &quot;know&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *novi* (perf. of [*nosco*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnosco))&#xD;&#xA;* [*scio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dscio)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus combines the two pleonastically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nec vos qui homines sitis novi nec scio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's one way of asking my question: **Are there any meanings that are not shared between these two words?** If so, can you give examples of cases where one would be appropriate but not the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24311" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7249" RevisionGUID="b6ce4631-7f46-400b-90fa-2be57ab05ded" CreationDate="2018-10-03T13:18:14.187" UserId="45" Text="What is the difference between &quot;novi&quot; and &quot;scio&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24312" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7249" RevisionGUID="b6ce4631-7f46-400b-90fa-2be57ab05ded" CreationDate="2018-10-03T13:18:14.187" UserId="45" Text="|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7250" RevisionGUID="ed4adb8c-67e8-4dc3-909d-fc4c37a902ad" CreationDate="2018-10-03T13:45:11.530" UserId="2973" Text="Just to give you some language background from my side, I have not learned the Latin language at all, and my mother tongue is neither English nor any other Indo-European language. I am reading ancient texts already translated either in English or in German, and occasionally I want to check their original words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the Latin sentence I'd like to read:&#xD;&#xA;Nec vero Pythagoras nominis [scil. philosophiae] nominis inventor, sed rerum etiam ipsarum amplificator fuit. (Cicero, Tusculanae disputationes, V 4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have an English translation for it:&#xD;&#xA;Nor was Pythagoras the inventor only of the name, but he enlarged also the thing itself. (Yonge, Charles Duke)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question would be, how can I understand the verb construction of &quot;amplificator fuit&quot;? As far as I have checked out from Latin dictionaries, it is future passive imperative of a verb 'amplificato' + fuit (perfect active indicative of 'sum'). First of all, is my understanding correct? If so, can you explain easily how the past tense like 'enlarged' is constructed of a verb &quot;future&quot; passive &quot;imperative&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24314" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7250" RevisionGUID="ed4adb8c-67e8-4dc3-909d-fc4c37a902ad" CreationDate="2018-10-03T13:45:11.530" UserId="2973" Text="future passive imperative of a verb + fuit (perfect active indicative of 'sum') =?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24315" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7250" RevisionGUID="ed4adb8c-67e8-4dc3-909d-fc4c37a902ad" CreationDate="2018-10-03T13:45:11.530" UserId="2973" Text="|classical-latin|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7251" RevisionGUID="ee6c9579-cf66-4b55-bb34-5e95f6b0d416" CreationDate="2018-10-03T13:57:50.190" UserId="79" Text="Both *inventor* and *amplificator* are derived nouns (&quot;inventor&quot; and &quot;expander&quot;), although they do indeed look like future passive imperatives.&#xD;&#xA;In my experience something that looks like a future passive imperative is more often something else, although it is good to keep all options in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main structure of the sentence &amp;mdash; which hopefully makes the English translation you cite look reasonable &amp;mdash; is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not only was Pythagoras an inventor, he was also an expander." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7250" RevisionGUID="c751e407-27cc-45b8-8268-5ea4fcfcdcae" CreationDate="2018-10-03T14:20:08.310" UserId="2973" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Just to give you some language background from my side, I have not learned the Latin language at all, and my mother tongue is neither English nor any other Indo-European language. I am reading ancient texts already translated either in English or in German, and occasionally I want to check their original words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the Latin sentence I'd like to read:&#xD;&#xA;Nec vero Pythagoras nominis [scil. philosophiae] solum inventor, sed rerum etiam ipsarum amplificator fuit. (Cicero, Tusculanae disputationes, V 4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have an English translation for it:&#xD;&#xA;Nor was Pythagoras the inventor only of the name, but he enlarged also the thing itself. (Yonge, Charles Duke)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question would be, how can I understand the verb construction of &quot;amplificator fuit&quot;? As far as I have checked out from Latin dictionaries, it is future passive imperative of a verb 'amplificato' + fuit (perfect active indicative of 'sum'). First of all, is my understanding correct? If so, can you explain easily how the past tense like 'enlarged' is constructed of a verb &quot;future&quot; passive &quot;imperative&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7252" RevisionGUID="9d10dadf-c576-4c4e-955b-52bddfd7757e" CreationDate="2018-10-03T15:30:04.970" UserId="1142" Text="I am active in a small Latin Discord group; a member brought up a question concerning the validity of the following phrase with chained enclitics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Valēsneque?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *(with the enclitics distinguished) Valēs-ne-que?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that their intent was to convey something that fell around the following sentiments; it was not difficult for me to clearly interpret what he was trying to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *And how are you?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *And are you [doing] well?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *etc.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I asserted that it was *not* valid, and offered a potentially suitable alternative like *&quot;et ut valēs?&quot;*; another member offered the equally suitable  *&quot;atque ut valēs?&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assumed that *valēsneque* was invalid largely based on two reasons: one, the fact that, other than words with unremovable enclitics that have taken on a separate meaning (see: *quīcumque, quaecumque, quodcumque* and others like it), I have never encountered any instance of chained enclitics anywhere; and secondly, the fact that Latin is classified as a fusional language, and that if *valēsneque* was indeed valid, it would potentially be an interesting, but unlikely, case of agglutination in a fusional language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads me to my primary question: is the chaining of enclitics *-que, -ve, -ne* in sequences like *valēsneque* valid or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24319" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7252" RevisionGUID="9d10dadf-c576-4c4e-955b-52bddfd7757e" CreationDate="2018-10-03T15:30:04.970" UserId="1142" Text="Can enclitics be chained?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24320" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7252" RevisionGUID="9d10dadf-c576-4c4e-955b-52bddfd7757e" CreationDate="2018-10-03T15:30:04.970" UserId="1142" Text="|morphology|enclitic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7253" RevisionGUID="c90216db-9859-4277-bdef-4eb08d442ec1" CreationDate="2018-10-03T16:55:14.790" UserId="40" Text="In Attic-Ionic Greek, nouns with dental stems show two types of accusative singular endings, depending on the position of the accent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the accent is on the final syllable of the stem, the accusative&#xD;&#xA;   ending is -α, e.g. ἀσπίς, acc. sg. ἀσπίδα.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Otherwise, the accusative ending is -ν, replacing the dental of the&#xD;&#xA;   stem, e.g. χάρις, acc. sg. χάριν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this distinction appear in other dialects too? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mostly wondering about Aeolic, which has general recessive accentuation, so there's no possible accent distinction. How does Aeolic form the accusative singular of dental stems? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'd also like to know how this shows up in other dialects (West Greek, Arcado-Cypriot). Is it an Attic-Ionic innovation, or is it Proto-Greek, or something in between?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buck and Smyth seem to say nothing on this question, which on the face of it may mean that other dialects behave like Attic-Ionic and/or that we have no evidence, but I haven't checked any of the specific dialect handbooks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24322" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7253" RevisionGUID="c90216db-9859-4277-bdef-4eb08d442ec1" CreationDate="2018-10-03T16:55:14.790" UserId="40" Text="Do non-Attic-Ionic dialects distinguish the accusatives of the ἀσπίς and χάρις types?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24323" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7253" RevisionGUID="c90216db-9859-4277-bdef-4eb08d442ec1" CreationDate="2018-10-03T16:55:14.790" UserId="40" Text="|greek|morphology|dialects|aeolic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7253" RevisionGUID="6ada93de-dfa1-4bf8-af58-13b917a08bf0" CreationDate="2018-10-03T17:19:57.970" UserId="40" Comment="added 587 characters in body" Text="In Attic-Ionic Greek, nouns with dental stems show two types of accusative singular endings, depending on the position of the accent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the accent is on the final syllable of the stem, the accusative&#xD;&#xA;   ending is -α, e.g. ἀσπίς, acc. sg. ἀσπίδα.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Otherwise (i.e. in recessively accented nouns), the accusative ending is -ν, replacing the dental of the&#xD;&#xA;   stem, e.g. χάρις, acc. sg. χάριν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this distinction appear in other dialects too? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mostly wondering about Aeolic, which has general recessive accentuation, so there's no possible accent distinction. How does Aeolic form the accusative singular of dental stems? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'd also like to know how this shows up in other dialects (West Greek, Arcado-Cypriot). Is it an Attic-Ionic innovation, or is it Proto-Greek, or something in between?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buck and Smyth seem to say nothing on this question, which on the face of it may mean that other dialects behave like Attic-Ionic and/or that we have no evidence, but I haven't checked any of the specific dialect handbooks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ETA: some more info from Chantraine (*Morphologie historique* 66-7): it seems there are some attested forms in -α from recessive-accent nouns; he lists ἔριδα, ὄρνιθα/ὄρνιχα (the latter from Pindar), χάριτα, ὄπιδα. He then adds &quot;en revanche, l'on ne trouve jamais que πατρίδα&quot;, but I don't know if he's talking about that specific noun or the final-accent class as a whole (which seems more likely). This is interesting, but still doesn't give a clear picture of the dialectology and history of these forms (nor does it answer the Aeolic question)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7250" RevisionGUID="9103d3b6-d355-4f54-9367-aca48522e1ca" CreationDate="2018-10-03T17:44:48.333" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted slightly." Text="Just to give you some language background from my side, I have not learned the Latin language at all, and my mother tongue is neither English nor any other Indo-European language. I am reading ancient texts already translated either in English or in German, and occasionally I want to check their original words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the Latin sentence I'd like to read:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nec vero Pythagoras nominis [scil. philosophiae] solum inventor, sed rerum etiam ipsarum amplificator fuit.  &#xD;&#xA;(Cicero, Tusculanae disputationes, V 4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have an English translation for it:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nor was Pythagoras the inventor only of the name, but he enlarged also the thing itself.  &#xD;&#xA;(Yonge, Charles Duke)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question would be, how can I understand the verb construction of &quot;amplificator fuit&quot;? As far as I have checked out from Latin dictionaries, it is future passive imperative of a verb 'amplificato' + fuit (perfect active indicative of 'sum'). First of all, is my understanding correct? If so, can you explain easily how the past tense like 'enlarged' is constructed of a verb &quot;future&quot; passive &quot;imperative&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7254" RevisionGUID="0de94f7f-81e4-4cc3-93fe-1bd1b09982ff" CreationDate="2018-10-03T17:59:01.277" UserId="79" Text="Playing with [a corpus search tool](http://latin.packhum.org/search) brought up no examples of *-quene* or *-neque* in the intended sense.&#xD;&#xA;If chaining was admissible, I would expect to see attestations with *-que* and *-ne*, the most common enclitics.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I Would argue that chaining of enclitics is not good classical Latin, but it is readily understandable in modern use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7255" RevisionGUID="6d8b88bd-ef19-49fe-a20c-af33c92b7071" CreationDate="2018-10-03T18:14:54.927" UserId="79" Text="There is a traditional Finnish instrument (*kannel* or *kantele*) which tends to be called *nablium* in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;How do I form the adjective for someone bearing this instrument using *-fer*?&#xD;&#xA;There are things like *ensifer* and *lucifer* and others, but I failed to find an example derived from a noun ending in *-ium*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My intuition says it should be simply *nablifer*, but I am far from sure that *nabliifer* or some other construction should be used with such words.&#xD;&#xA;I do not expect to see *nablifer* as such attested anywhere, but I am happy to reason by analogy if I can see something analogous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume a similar reasoning would apply to most words ending in *-ius/-ia/-ium/-eus/-ea/-eum*, but the actual question at hand concerns *-ium*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24328" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7255" RevisionGUID="6d8b88bd-ef19-49fe-a20c-af33c92b7071" CreationDate="2018-10-03T18:14:54.927" UserId="79" Text="Who carries something ending in -ium?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24329" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7255" RevisionGUID="6d8b88bd-ef19-49fe-a20c-af33c92b7071" CreationDate="2018-10-03T18:14:54.927" UserId="79" Text="|adjective|derivation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7254" RevisionGUID="87022af4-66a9-411a-a84f-418689f488f6" CreationDate="2018-10-03T18:15:25.173" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="Playing with [a corpus search tool](http://latin.packhum.org/search) brought up no examples of *-quene* or *-neque* in the intended sense.&#xD;&#xA;If chaining was admissible, I would expect to see attestations with *-que* and *-ne*, the most common enclitics.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would argue that chaining of enclitics is not good classical Latin, but it is readily understandable in modern use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7245" RevisionGUID="f2633213-a32d-4f8d-8638-139fbe840ae8" CreationDate="2018-10-03T19:43:03.223" UserId="469" Comment="added 2008 characters in body" Text="A quick look at [NVG Mt][1] gave alternatives centered in the person being possessed: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Being possessed* &gt; **daemonium habere**, &#xD;&#xA;* *possessed person* &gt; **daemonium habens**,&#xD;&#xA;* *someone is possessed* &gt; **daemonium habet/a daemonio vexatur**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found no word for _possession_ proper. This is consistent in the other three Gospels, with slight word variations, but always talking about a person *having* a demon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Updated:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess if Classical Latin or Greek had had a term for such a thing, it is not too far-fetched to expect it to show up in the Vulgate. So my opinion is there is no better term in the Classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Re-written:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Roman Ritual][2] &amp;mdash;at least the XIX century version linked&amp;mdash; has an entry (i.e. a rite) titled *De Exorcizandis Obsessis a Daemonio*. Note that it includes the command for the evil spirit to exit the body of the subject (*exi!*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no exorcism expert at all. But at least everyone in the internet seems to say this is *the* exorcism rite, and even translate the title's _obsessis_ as _possessed_. Expelling demons was part of Christ's ministry (cf. Mt 7.22, 8.16) and is part of Catholic liturgy to this day. This suggests **obsessus, -a, -um** as valid Latin for *possessed*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now Catholic theology (thanks brianpck) says there are distinctions between types of demonic influence in people. Possession and (demonic) obsession are different phenomena, however (as far as I can see), *when* there is no need for such distinction, both terms seem interchangeable. See this [Catholic Encyclopedia][3] article that seems to mix both, even while explaining the difference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He may attack man's body from without (*obsession*), or assume control of it from within (*possession*). As we gather from the Fathers and the theologians, the soul itself can never be &quot;possessed&quot; nor deprived of liberty, though its ordinary control over the members of the body may be hindered by the *obsessing* spirit. [emphasis mine]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FWIW, the [WP article][4] on possession, under the Catholicism section, lists six types of *influence* including obsession and possession. Note that this seems to suggest that possession is in one sense the genus and in other the species. In turn, the Catechism of the Catholic Church in English ([no. 1673][5]), writes about *possession*, while the original Latin uses **influxu daemoniaco**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These ideas combined lead me to think that the root **obsess-** is valid Ecclesiastical Latin to speak about the phenomenon in a wide sense. The ritual uses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * *Possessed* &gt; **obsessus, -a, -um**,&#xD;&#xA; * *to possess* &gt; **[obsido][7]** (lit. *besiege*),&#xD;&#xA; * *possession* hence, would be **[obsessio][8]** (lit. *besieging*, *blockade*). The noun is absent from the ritual, but the analogy is pretty obvious. I think this is closer to what you are looking for than the Gospel's human-centered terminology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next step to confirm this would be to ask an exorcist. I think I know one, but I have no easy access to him (and I would totally understand if he doesn't want to satisfy my curiosity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-matthaeum_lt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.reelz.com/extra/full-latin-exorcism-ritual/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12315a.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_possession#Catholicism&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p2s2c4a1_lt.htm#ARTICULUS%201%C2%A0%20SACRAMENTALIA&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_1999-01-26_il-rito-degli-esorcismi_it.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dobsido&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dobsessio&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P58.HTM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7245" RevisionGUID="97046a5a-d4fb-4b8c-a022-7855447445f5" CreationDate="2018-10-03T20:09:01.347" UserId="469" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="A quick look at [NVG Mt][1] gave alternatives centered in the person being possessed: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Being possessed* &gt; **daemonium habere**, &#xD;&#xA;* *possessed person* &gt; **daemonium habens** (also **qui habet daemonia** in the other Gospels),&#xD;&#xA;* *someone is possessed* &gt; **daemonium habet/a daemonio vexatur**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found no word for _possession_ proper. This is consistent in the other three Gospels, with slight word variations, but always talking about a person *having* a demon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Updated:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess if Classical Latin or Greek had had a term for such a thing, it is not too far-fetched to expect it to show up in the Vulgate. So my opinion is there is no better term in the Classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Re-written:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Roman Ritual][2] &amp;mdash;at least the XIX century version linked&amp;mdash; has an entry (i.e. a rite) titled *De Exorcizandis Obsessis a Daemonio*. Note that it includes the command for the evil spirit to exit the body of the subject (*exi!*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no exorcism expert at all. But at least everyone in the internet seems to say this is *the* exorcism rite, and even translate the title's _obsessis_ as _possessed_. Expelling demons was part of Christ's ministry (cf. Mt 7.22, 8.16) and is part of Catholic liturgy to this day. This suggests **obsessus, -a, -um** as valid Latin for *possessed*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now Catholic theology (thanks brianpck) says there are distinctions between types of demonic influence in people. Possession and (demonic) obsession are different phenomena, however (as far as I can see), *when* there is no need for such distinction, both terms seem interchangeable. See this [Catholic Encyclopedia][3] article that seems to mix both, even while explaining the difference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He may attack man's body from without (*obsession*), or assume control of it from within (*possession*). As we gather from the Fathers and the theologians, the soul itself can never be &quot;possessed&quot; nor deprived of liberty, though its ordinary control over the members of the body may be hindered by the *obsessing* spirit. [emphasis mine]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FWIW, the [WP article][4] on possession, under the Catholicism section, lists six types of *influence* including obsession and possession. Note that this seems to suggest that possession is in one sense the genus and in other the species. In turn, the Catechism of the Catholic Church in English ([no. 1673][5]), writes about *possession*, while the original Latin uses **influxu daemoniaco**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These ideas combined lead me to think that the root **obsess-** is valid Ecclesiastical Latin to speak about the phenomenon in a wide sense. The ritual uses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * *Possessed* &gt; **obsessus, -a, -um**,&#xD;&#xA; * *to possess* &gt; **[obsido][7]** (lit. *besiege*),&#xD;&#xA; * *possession* hence, would be **[obsessio][8]** (lit. *besieging*, *blockade*). The noun is absent from the ritual, but the analogy is pretty obvious. I think this is closer to what you are looking for than the Gospel's human-centered terminology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next step to confirm this would be to ask an exorcist. I think I know one, but I have no easy access to him (and I would totally understand if he doesn't want to satisfy my curiosity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-matthaeum_lt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.reelz.com/extra/full-latin-exorcism-ritual/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12315a.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_possession#Catholicism&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p2s2c4a1_lt.htm#ARTICULUS%201%C2%A0%20SACRAMENTALIA&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_1999-01-26_il-rito-degli-esorcismi_it.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dobsido&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dobsessio&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P58.HTM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7256" RevisionGUID="cffdc071-1976-4de3-bbd4-49b6f526e210" CreationDate="2018-10-03T20:27:31.477" UserId="1694" Text="Well, _laserpicifer_ from _laserpicium_ and _caducifer_ from _caduceus_ exist, so I think you're on solid ground." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7030" RevisionGUID="cf1d0826-97c7-4084-9c18-cc5928dd1c17" CreationDate="2018-10-03T20:31:49.880" UserId="40" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="Another possibility (more likely to my mind) is that the name means &quot;excelling in/with ships&quot;. There is a verb κέκασμαι &quot;excel&quot;, and we may be dealing with the same root: Ναυσι-κά(σ)α with regular loss of the intervocalic sigma. (The name Cassandra may also be related, meaning &quot;excelling men&quot;, as well as Castor.) This is quite conjectural, especially since the etymology of κέκασμαι is unclear, but in meaning it strikes me as a much more likely name for a Phaeacian princess, since the Phaeacians are a peaceful people who excel in arts and crafts, not a society of Viking-like raiders. Note that Nausicaa's brother is named Clytoneos, &quot;ship-renowned.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ETA: Even if the second member does mean &quot;burn&quot;, the name can't mean &quot;burner of ships&quot;, but only &quot;burner with ships&quot;, since we have Ναυσι- rather than just Ναυ-. Ναυσι is a dative plural and has to be translated as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7256" RevisionGUID="c3d8eec5-f3b8-4da7-a2d7-facadc26d44f" CreationDate="2018-10-03T20:34:47.697" UserId="469" Comment="added likns to dictionary entries" Text="Well, [_laserpicifer_][1] from [_laserpicium_][2] and [_caducifer_][3] from [_caduceus_][4] exist, so I think you're on solid ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlaserpicifer&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlaserpicium&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcaducifer&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dcaduceus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7252" RevisionGUID="3169f165-4293-448c-bc8b-7ad94151ef56" CreationDate="2018-10-03T21:26:32.797" UserId="1142" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="I am active in a small Latin Discord group; a member brought up a question concerning the validity of the following phrase with chained enclitics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Valēsneque?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *(with the enclitics distinguished) Valēs-ne-que?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that their intent was to convey something that fell around the following sentiments; it was not difficult for me to clearly interpret what he was trying to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *And how are you?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *And are you [doing] well?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *etc.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I asserted that it was *not* valid, and offered a potentially suitable alternative like *&quot;et ut valēs?&quot;*; another member offered the equally suitable  *&quot;atque ut valēs?&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assumed that *valēsneque* was invalid largely based on two reasons: one, the fact that, other than words with unremovable enclitics that have taken on a separate meaning (see: *quīcumque, quaecumque, quodcumque* and others like it), I have never encountered any instance of chained enclitics anywhere; and secondly, the fact that Latin is classified as a fusional language, and that if *valēsneque* was indeed valid, it would be a potentially interesting case of agglutination in a fusional language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads me to my primary question: is the chaining of enclitics *-que, -ve, -ne* in sequences like *valēsneque* valid or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7257" RevisionGUID="7457fe9b-c76d-4e24-9e15-909d1ff067c1" CreationDate="2018-10-04T04:28:42.793" UserId="45" Text="The question in the title (&quot;Can enclitics be chained?&quot;) is broader than the one you end the body with (&quot;Can -ne, -que, -ve be chained?&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The answer to the first question (assuming we can agree on a definition of an enclitic) is &quot;yes.&quot; Consider one common but limited-use enclitic that you didn't bring up: *-cum* after certain pronouns. *-cumque* is quite common--and I don't just mean words like *quicumque*. Here's Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  **tecumque** et ero tantum quantum patietur utriusque aetas et valetudo, et, si esse una	minus poterimus quam volemus, animorum tamen coniunctione iisdemque studiis ita fruemur ut numquam non una esse videamur. (*Epistulae ad Familiares* 5.13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I'm not willing to give as definite a &quot;no&quot; as Joonas above about the possibility of the second. We have three combinations of the three enclitics you mention. Some don't appear at all in a corpus search, but others have *many* false matches. However, it's difficult to sift through the results, since there is often a difference in searching for, say, &quot;neque#&quot; * ([14,377 results](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=neque%23)) and &quot;#neque#&quot; ([14,246 results](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23neque%23)). This means that there are 141 results hiding in that haystack that end in -neque. Most are (no doubt) again false positives, such as &quot;planeque,&quot; but I can't make a definitive judgment about which aren't, since the search tool doesn't allow me to specify a &quot;non-word boundary.&quot; Here's a summary of each candidate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - -quene: 1 false positive (usquene)&#xD;&#xA;  - -queve: 0 results&#xD;&#xA;  - -neque: 14377 - 14246 *neque*'s = 141 results that aren't the word &quot;neque&quot; (needs to be looked at further!)&#xD;&#xA;  - -neve: 516 - 506 *neve*'s = 10 possibilities (needs to be looked at further!)&#xD;&#xA;  - -vene: 87 false positives (salvene, iuvene)&#xD;&#xA;  - -veque: 99 false positives (praecipueque, assidueque, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* In case you're not aware: &quot;#&quot; is the word boundary character for this corpus search tool. &quot;neque#&quot; will find all words ending in &quot;-neque,&quot; whereas &quot;#neque#&quot; will only find the single word &quot;neque.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7258" RevisionGUID="af2c8ad7-b378-4790-9177-dced6ba79201" CreationDate="2018-10-04T09:22:50.437" UserId="324" Text="I am not sure that this has to do with the place of the accent. χάρις, acc. sg. χάριν is an i-stem; ἀσπίς, acc. sg. ἀσπίδα is a d-stem. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7259" RevisionGUID="0f7b562f-151d-4e97-be33-309f55c639b3" CreationDate="2018-10-04T10:38:12.100" UserId="13" Text="The tradition for this fragment is a horrible mess which I will detail in an addendum at the end (modulo updates) of the question by pasting the critical note I prepared this morning for it. Line 2 is especially problematic. This question focuses on safopoemas's (cfr. [1](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7089/identifying-corrupted-sappho-fragment-or-mention-of-sappho-found-in-now-no-longe) especially, and also [2](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4604/sappho-94-the-spaniards-completion) and [3](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7118/tracing-apparent-book-iv-colophon-not-found-in-voigt-but-found-in-a-spanish-sapp)) text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;/έσπερε πάντα φέρων δσα φαΐνολις ¿σχίδασ' αδως φέρρες δϊν, φέπες αίγα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;φέρες (δ') α&quot;πυ μάτερι παΐδα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Noting that the linebreak may just be the document's margin, I proceed to emend the text to make it intelligible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ϝέσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φαίνολις ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Φέρρες ὄϊν, φέρες αἶγα, φέρες ‹δ'› ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the critical notes say nothing, and the introduction (cf. link 3 above) says they follow the 1937 French edition of Sappho curated by Reinach and reprinted in 1966, and that this is not a &quot;fragmento no recopilado&quot; (non compiled fragment), I would assume this is what Reinach had. So my question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is there any justification for the double rho in the Φέρρες that opens l. 2? If so, which is it? If not, who (if not Reinach) proposed this, and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Addendum: CRIT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Last in the category&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; we have Bergk 96 Edmonds 149 Lobel-Page 104(a) Campbell 104(a). OK, this is a huge mess. I already kind of knew that before I actually looked things up for this note, but it's way, waaaay, worse than I thought. For starters, it has 10 (yes TEN) sources, which I will try to reconstruct all below as far as Voigt allows me to, even in the oscillations of the different manuscripts for those sources. There is every sort of weird oscillation here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In Voigt's order, source one is Demetrius's treatise &lt;i&gt;De&#xD;&#xA;    Elocutione&lt;/i&gt;, where he wrote «χαριεντίζεται δέ ποτε (sc. ἡ Σαπφώ)&#xD;&#xA;    καὶ ἐξ ἀναφορᾶς, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἑσπέρου, &quot;Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρεις&quot;, φησί,&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;φέρεις οἶνον φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις μάτερι παῖδα&quot;· καὶ γὰρ ἐνταῦθα ἡ&#xD;&#xA;    χάρις ἐστὶν ἐκ τῆς λέξεως τῆς &quot;φέρεις&quot; ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἀναφερομέης», or&#xD;&#xA;    in Campbell's traslation «Sometimes, also, Sappho makes charming use&#xD;&#xA;    of repetition as in the description of the Evening Star: &quot;Hesperus,&#xD;&#xA;    you bring everything&quot;, she says, &quot;you bring the wine, you bring the&#xD;&#xA;    goat, you bring the child to the mother&quot;: here the charm lies in the&#xD;&#xA;    repetition of the word &quot;φέρεις&quot; (bring), always with the same&#xD;&#xA;    reference», that is with the same subject Hesperus. The translation&#xD;&#xA;    of the quote is mine, for Campbell's text is amended. And here&#xD;&#xA;    already we have a problem: what is the meter? The first part could&#xD;&#xA;    be the first half of a hexameter with pentemimeral (is that the&#xD;&#xA;    term?) caesura, but the rest oesn't fit the hexameter meter, it's&#xD;&#xA;    like u–––u––uu––uu–u. Welp, let's leave the discussion for below,&#xD;&#xA;    and just note that φέρεις is probably to be Aeolicised to φέρῃς,&#xD;&#xA;    which Lobel himself corrected according to Voigt, though Lobel-Page&#xD;&#xA;    and Campbell both keep φέρεις.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Source two is a scholiast on&#xD;&#xA;        Euripides' Orestes, who wrote, in Voigt's quoting cut, «ἑσπέρα [...]&#xD;&#xA;        ἀπὸ τοῦ πάντας εἰσφέρειν [...] καὶ ἡ Σαπφὼ [...] τὸν ἕσπερο ἀστέρα&#xD;&#xA;        εἶπε [...] ἐτυμολογοῦσα [...]· ἕσπερε πάτα φέρων ὄσα φαινολὶς&#xD;&#xA;        ἐσκέδασ' αὔως» (ἑσπέρα, evening, [is called thus] from [its]&#xD;&#xA;        εἰσφέρειν, bringing, everything […] and Sappho […] called Hesperus a&#xD;&#xA;        star […] explaining the etymology […]: Hesperus, bringing everything&#xD;&#xA;        which shining Dawn scattered). This source has its own oscillations,&#xD;&#xA;        since a cod. B for this has φαινόλης, which is either a&#xD;&#xA;        &lt;i&gt;paenula&lt;/i&gt; (thick upper garment) or a doric form for the plural&#xD;&#xA;        of φαινόλις, therefore we discard it and keep the other codices'&#xD;&#xA;        form, with Aeolic barytonesis applied, to produce φαίνολις. Also,&#xD;&#xA;        cod. M for this source has αὔων, but that is accusative AFAIK, and&#xD;&#xA;        we don't want an accusative here, so we follow the other code. Said&#xD;&#xA;        codex also has ἔσπειρε at the beginning, which could be construed as&#xD;&#xA;        the imperfect of σπείρω, thus meaning &quot;he/she/it sowed&quot;, which is&#xD;&#xA;        out of place, so we discard it. We thus give this line the form&#xD;&#xA;        Ἔσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φαίνολις ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως. And now it's a&#xD;&#xA;        hexameter.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Source 3 is the Etymologicum Gen[uinum] A, a passage more or less&#xD;&#xA;    the same as one from the Etymologicum Magnum, where we read&#xD;&#xA;    «Σελεύκου· ἕσπερος· [...] ἀπὸ τοῦ ἔσω περᾶν πάντα τὰ ζῷα [...] καὶ&#xD;&#xA;    Σαπφώ· Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φενόλις ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως» (Of Seleucus:&#xD;&#xA;    Hesperus: [called thus] from all the animals going inside […] and&#xD;&#xA;    Sappho: Hesperus bringing everything which (shining?) Dawn&#xD;&#xA;    scattered), where Seleucus may be the author of this particular&#xD;&#xA;    entry (the Etymologica are essentially etymological dictionaries),&#xD;&#xA;    and φενόλις is probably a corruption of our friend φαινόλις,&#xD;&#xA;    obviously to be Aeolically accented. So the same form is given to l.&#xD;&#xA;    1 as in source 2.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Source 4 is the Etymologicum Gen[uinum] B, the only other source&#xD;&#xA;    with l. 2. It reads «Σαπφώ· Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φαινόλης ἐσκέδασ'&#xD;&#xA;    Αὔως φέρεις οἶον φέρεις οἶνον φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις ἄποιον μητέρι&#xD;&#xA;    παῖδα», oh my God what happened to l. 2? The thing translates to&#xD;&#xA;    «Sappho: Hesperus bringing everything which shining Dawn scattered&#xD;&#xA;    you bring the lonely man you bring the wine you bring the goat you&#xD;&#xA;    bring the absent child to the mother». Apart from amending φαινόλης&#xD;&#xA;    the usual way, all we will do is fix φέρεις, again as usual, and to&#xD;&#xA;    Aeolicise μητέρι to μάτερι.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Source 5 is the Etymologicum Gud[ianum], where we read much the same&#xD;&#xA;        as in source 3, except for having the line as Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα&#xD;&#xA;        φαινολὶς ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως, where we amend φαινολὶς in terms of accent&#xD;&#xA;        getting the same old form for the line as all sources save for 1.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Source 6 is another passage of the Etymologicum Gud[ianum], again&#xD;&#xA;    similar to source 3, and it reads «ἑσπέρα ἀπὸ τοῦ σαφῶς εἰς πέρας&#xD;&#xA;    πάντα φέρειν, καὶ Σαπφώ· Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρειν ὄσα φαινολὶς ἐσκέδασ'&#xD;&#xA;    Αὔως, where we amend φαινολὶς as usual, and don't know what to do&#xD;&#xA;    with φέρειν: φέρων or φέρῃς? The former is less distant, so we'll go&#xD;&#xA;    with that, getting the same old form for l. 1.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Source 7 is the Etymologicum Gen[uninum] A, bearing the exact same&#xD;&#xA;    passage as the Etymologicum Magnum (not the one above though), which&#xD;&#xA;    reads «Σαπφὼ [...]· Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φαινόλης ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως»,&#xD;&#xA;    simply &quot;Sappho said&quot; and the quote, and you know the drill by now,&#xD;&#xA;    and nothing new comes from here. Note that only the E.G. and cod. V&#xD;&#xA;    of the E.M. have φαινόλης, while other codices have φαινολὶς.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. Source 8 is Cramer's Anecdota Or., which reads «ἠώς· ἤτοι [...] ἢ&#xD;&#xA;    ἀπὺ τοπυ διεξιέναι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους· Σαπφώ· ὅσα φαινώλης ἐσκέδασ'&#xD;&#xA;    Αὔως» (ἠώς, Dawn: either […] or from men going out; Sappho: all&#xD;&#xA;    which shining Dawn scattered», and you know the drill. Except the&#xD;&#xA;    line is not complete, but whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. Source 9 is again the Etymologicum Gud[ianum], which reads «Σαπφώ·&#xD;&#xA;    Φέσπερε πάντα φέρω ὄσα φαινοτέρα ἐσκέδασ' ἡώς» (Sappho: Hesperus I&#xD;&#xA;    bring everything which the rather bright Dawn scattered). That is&#xD;&#xA;    some change. The leading phi is obviously spurious, and may indicate&#xD;&#xA;    the presence of a digamma in the original. φέρω is an interesting&#xD;&#xA;    variation, but it creates a hiatus which seems unlikely, especially&#xD;&#xA;    since that would probably cause a shortening of the vowel which&#xD;&#xA;    would be inmetrical, so we amend it as usual. φαινοτέρα is&#xD;&#xA;    inmetrical, and we'd surely like to amend it as usual, but as far as&#xD;&#xA;    this source is concerned, a more conservative thing is to elide it&#xD;&#xA;    to φαινοτέρ'. The last word is obviously non-Aeolic, so we Aeolicise&#xD;&#xA;    it as usual. And so we get Ϝέσπερε πάντα φέρω ὄσα φαινοτέρ' ἐσκέδασ'&#xD;&#xA;    Αὔως.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10. Source 10, finally, is another passage of the Etymologicum&#xD;&#xA;    Gud[ianum], which reads, without an author name, «ὅσα φαινόλης&#xD;&#xA;    ἐσκέδασ' ἄνθρωπος» (which shining man scattered), where the last&#xD;&#xA;    word is obviously a spectacular corruption, as it is inmetrical and&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;shining man&quot; is just nonsense. So after the usual fix to φαινόλης&#xD;&#xA;    we're back to the usual point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So l. 1 is pretty much undoubted, except for φέρῃς vs. φέρων. The tradition seems to indicate the latter, since only source 1 has the former, but the former would strengthen the anaphora Demetrius praises. This is probably why everybody outside Edmonds and safopoemas has the former. I beg to differ. I mean, an overwhelming majority of sources indicates the latter, so what is more likely, that the anaphora was only in l. 2, or that 8 sources out of 10 made the same mistake? However, I followed Bibliotheca Augustana for the translations, so I'll have to keep the former for this post, but the all-Sappho posts will get the latter. Line 2, however, is a huge mess. We have two sources, and they give us «φέρεις οἶνον φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις μάτερι παῖδα» (I) and «φέρεις οἶον φέρεις οἶνον φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις ἄποιον μητέρι παῖδα». What do we make of all this? Bergk, who is btw the only one to keep the digamma in l. 1 (I won't either, because only one source has a hint to it), raises his hands and says «quæ frustra restituere conantur» (which in vain people try to reconstruct). Lobel-Page, Campbell, and Voigt all do more or less the same: φέρεις ὄιν φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα, with Voigt having no cruces, treating this as a iambic meter + xx–uu–uu–uu–x (pherecratean with two dactyls inserted), and amending to φέρῃς all times, Lobel-Page wraps the whole thing up to and including ἄπυ in cruces, and Campbell putting the closing crux after the second φέρεις. Bibliotheca Augustana and Greek Wikisource and The Complete Poems of Sappho do the same, disregarding φέρῃς-φέρεις oscillations, with the first two breaking l. 2 into two lines with the breaking point after ὄιν. Edmonds writes φέρεις ὄιν, / φέρεις αἶγα, φέρεις ἀπὺ ϝὸν μάτερι παῖδα, suggesting perhaps ἀπὺ ϝϝὸν on the basis of some Homeric quotes where a third-person adjective/pronoun with no consonant at the start (like ἕο) lengthens the omicron in the preceding ἀπὸ. This is just turning a metrical problem into a worse one, since l. 2 (or ll. 2-3) is still not a hexameter, and the meter is even less recognizable than before. The double digamma is just weird. So screw Edmonds. Finally, safopoemas has the whole thing as «/έσπερε πάντα φέρων δσα φαΐνολις ¿σχίδασ' αδως φέρρες δϊν, φέπες αίγα, φέρες (δ') α&quot;πυ μάτερι παΐδα.». Apart from observing φέρων and the slash that could be a digamma in l. 1, let's look at l. 2. It is now a hexameter, presumably reading «Φέρρες ὄιν, φέρες αἶγα, φέρες ‹δ'› ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα». This makes it a past action, an imperfect, to be precise. While this is nice because we have a hexameter with the anaphora, the doubled rho in the first word is totally unjustified AFAIK, though I will ask Stack Exchange about it. I mean, why would it be double? And on the other hand, the absence of a critical note seems to suggest Reinach had that text, so what reason did he have for that? So I'll put it on standby for the all-Sappho posts untill Stack Exchange answers me. In this post, however, I must follow the text I translated, and I dismissed this reading, both because of the unjustified double rho, and because I felt like this must be a present action, a habitual one. Now obviously I didn't know anything about the above mess, so I just reordered Bibliotheca Augustana a little, getting the hexameter Αἶγα φέρῃς τε σ' ὄιν τε, φέρῃς ‹δ'› ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα, the δ' addition being kept because it sounded good. Maybe τ' would be better. Yeah, I'll change it, the translations are left unaffected. I'm not the only one who tried this: in Voigt's words, «hexam[etrum] restit[uere] conatus est Bowra l.c.: αἶγα φέρῃς καὶ ὄιν τύ, φέρῃς τ' ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα, sed anaphoram destruxit» (Bowra tried to reconstruct a hexameter in the quoted place: [reconstruction], but destroyed the anaphora). Now, while the anaphora is certainly weaker, I wouldn't say it's &quot;destroyed&quot;. Not sure why τύ and not σύ. I'll keep my version, despite Bowra's translating much the same, because the anaphora is stronger. Finally, some names to emendations: ὄιν instead of (οἶον φέρεις) οἶνον is &quot;Fab. Benevolentius ap[ud] Ursin[um]&quot;, probably arguing that φέρεις οἶον was an accidental and slightly corrupted repetition of φέρεις οἶνον and that -ον again was an accidenta and corrupted repetition of just οιν; also, sheeps and goats fit together and are brought back in the evening, wine is an intruder and how is it brought back in the evening? ἄπυ is &quot;Bgk.&quot;, and seeing Bergk amend this surprises me: if you think it's a vain effort to try reconstructing this, why amend it? The recessive accentuation is probably justified since this is an adverb and not a preposition, which even in Aeolic is accented on the final syllable. The addition of δ' is by Sitzler, and the breaking found in B.A. and G.W. is by Wilamowitz. Wow that took forever! Oh look, I had the τ' addition already! I wonder why…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Told you it was huge. Btw, bonus question: are Et Gen and Et Gud Etymologycum Genuinum and Gudianum respectively, or is this disabbreviation incorrect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24341" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7259" RevisionGUID="0f7b562f-151d-4e97-be33-309f55c639b3" CreationDate="2018-10-04T10:38:12.100" UserId="13" Text="About Sappho Lobel-Page 104(a)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24342" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7259" RevisionGUID="0f7b562f-151d-4e97-be33-309f55c639b3" CreationDate="2018-10-04T10:38:12.100" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7257" RevisionGUID="e1eff765-fea0-4898-91b3-060844a10506" CreationDate="2018-10-04T13:32:07.580" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 1247 characters in body" Text="The question in the title (&quot;Can enclitics be chained?&quot;) is broader than the one you end the body with (&quot;Can -ne, -que, -ve be chained?&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The answer to the first question (assuming we can agree on a definition of an enclitic) is &quot;yes.&quot; Consider one common but limited-use enclitic that you didn't bring up: *-cum* after certain pronouns. *-cumque* is quite common--and I don't just mean words like *quicumque*. Here's Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  **tecumque** et ero tantum quantum patietur utriusque aetas et valetudo, et, si esse una	minus poterimus quam volemus, animorum tamen coniunctione iisdemque studiis ita fruemur ut numquam non una esse videamur. (*Epistulae ad Familiares* 5.13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. As for the second question, I agree with Joonas's answer: a corpus search only reveals false positives for the six combinations of -que, -ne, and -ve." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7260" RevisionGUID="91456cfe-be71-4485-9366-840073a2e4a9" CreationDate="2018-10-04T15:23:23.627" UserId="324" Text="&quot;Tantibus&quot; is not Latin, it is a made-up word, apparently originating in the murky world of computer games. We have been told that it means &quot;nightmare&quot;. There is a Latin word for &quot;nightmare&quot;, namely incubus (it does not occur in classical Latin, but is used by Christian authors beginning with Augustine). It looks as though someone has simply replaced incu- by tanti-." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7261" RevisionGUID="f20c8c11-7568-43f6-b3c1-4897194db4db" CreationDate="2018-10-04T20:46:40.670" UserId="13" Text="safopoemas itself kind of answers this. The critical note says frr. 88-89 both come from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 45. Now, fr. 88 is a mishmash of P.Oxy. 1787 fragments, so that &quot;both&quot; part is BS. However, looking at P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 45 in Grenfell-Hunt The Oxyrhynchus Papyri vol. 15 (available on archive – at least when I downloaded it), we find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;[![enter image description here][1]][1] &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here is the papyrus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, l. 1 is definitely σαπ[, but while I clearly see the mu in l. 2, I see hardly any trace of the epsilon, so I'd read that μ .[.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there you have it guys. Case closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZeU5X.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lLbIG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4rldP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zkybh.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7246" RevisionGUID="bf6133b1-0ef9-4c2c-86ca-38329494c99c" CreationDate="2018-10-05T01:53:05.113" UserId="1142" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="The phrase *&quot;leading the way day and night&quot;* is somewhat awkward to translate into Latin; the sentence is making heavy use of the flexibility of English grammar and is using some English-isms. The phrase as I understand it is attempting to convey the meaning *&quot;placing ourselves before others during both the day and night&quot;*, an apt ideal for a police force to follow. I will base my translations roughly off this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This first one is relatively simple, making use of the present indicative of *praepōnō*, with both the subject and object being *we*, and the indirect object (technically object of the preposition *prae*, which has formed a compound with *pōnō*) being *others*. The adjective *praevius* is also employed to retain some of the original meaning. The preposition *in* can be omitted rather freely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cēterīs [in] diē ac nocte praepōnimus nōs praeviī.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *We, leading the way, place ourselves before others [in] day and night.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to emphasize the necessity of the action described, *praepōnō* in the jussive subjunctive, which expresses a command, might be more suitable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Praeponāmus cēterīs [in] diē ac nocte nōs praeviī.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Let us, leading the way, place ourselves before others [in] day and night.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you are using one of these phrases as a motto (which I assume will be printed and displayed somewhere), you might want to consider using a more traditional orthography, which would render both of the provided phrases as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *CETERIS·[IN]·DIE·AC·NOCTE·PRÆPONIMVS·NOS·PRÆVII*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *PRÆPONAMVS·CETERIS·[IN]·DIE·AC·NOCTE·NOS·PRÆVII*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read more about the orthography of Classical Latin [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin#Orthography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, as is with all Latin writing, the word order is mostly free. The provided phrases can technically be rendered in any order, but I would recommend keeping as such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7246" RevisionGUID="93a16d09-6d0c-471d-bacd-fde0eee97d5b" CreationDate="2018-10-05T02:06:17.677" UserId="1142" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="The phrase *&quot;leading the way day and night&quot;* is somewhat awkward to translate into Latin, but not completely impossible. The phrase as I understand it is attempting to convey the meaning *&quot;placing ourselves before others during both the day and night&quot;*, an apt ideal for a police force to follow. I will base my initial translations roughly off this, but later provide some which more closely follow your original phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This first one is relatively simple, making use of the present indicative of *praepōnō*, with both the subject and object being *we*, and the indirect object (technically object of the preposition *prae*, which has formed a compound with *pōnō*) being *others*. The adjective *praevius* is also employed to retain some of the original meaning. The preposition *in* can be omitted rather freely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cēterīs [in] diē ac nocte praepōnimus nōs praeviī.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *We, leading the way, place ourselves before others [in] day and night.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to emphasize the necessity of the action described, *praepōnō* in the jussive subjunctive, which expresses a command, might be more suitable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Praeponāmus cēterīs [in] diē ac nocte nōs praeviī.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Let us, leading the way, place ourselves before others [in] day and night.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the previous two translations, being more divergent from your original phrase, were not to your liking, the following sentences, which I've written to be much more succinct and less divergent in meaning than the rest, would be equally suitable as well (the second one is, in essence, your original phrase):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Praeviī nōs prae cēterīs diē ac nocte.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[We are] leading the way before others day and night.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Praeviī nōs diē ac nocte.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[We are] leading the way day and night*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you are using one of these phrases as a motto (which I assume will be printed and displayed somewhere), you might want to consider using a more traditional orthography, which would render both of the provided phrases as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *CETERIS·[IN]·DIE·AC·NOCTE·PRÆPONIMVS·NOS·PRÆVII*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *PRÆPONAMVS·CETERIS·[IN]·DIE·AC·NOCTE·NOS·PRÆVII*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *PRÆVII·NOS·PRÆ·CETERIS·DIE·AC·NOCTE*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *PRÆVII·NOS·DIE·AC·NOCTE*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read more about the orthography of Classical Latin [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin#Orthography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, as is with all Latin writing, the word order is mostly free. The provided phrases can technically be rendered in any order, but I would recommend keeping them as such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7246" RevisionGUID="ce3b073d-f797-4afc-9f96-00dd5fada14c" CreationDate="2018-10-05T02:16:39.377" UserId="1142" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="The phrase *&quot;leading the way day and night&quot;* is somewhat awkward to translate into Latin, but not completely impossible. The phrase as I understand it is attempting to convey the meaning *&quot;placing ourselves before others during both the day and night&quot;*, an apt ideal for a police force to follow. I will base my initial translations roughly off this, but later provide some which more closely follow your original phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This first one is relatively simple, making use of the present indicative of *praepōnō*, with both the subject and object being *we*, and the indirect object (technically object of the preposition *prae*, which has formed a compound with *pōnō*) being *others*. The adjective *praevius* is also employed to retain some of the original meaning. The preposition *in* can be omitted rather freely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cēterīs [in] diē ac nocte praepōnimus nōs praeviī.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *We, leading the way, place ourselves before others [in] day and night.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to emphasize the necessity of the action described, *praepōnō* in the jussive subjunctive, which expresses a command, might be more suitable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Praeponāmus cēterīs [in] diē ac nocte nōs praeviī.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Let us, leading the way, place ourselves before others [in] day and night.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the previous two translations, being more divergent from your original phrase, were not to your liking, the following sentences, which I've written to be much more succinct and less divergent in meaning than the rest, would be equally suitable as well (the second one is, in essence, your original phrase):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Praeviī nōs prae cēterīs diē ac nocte.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[We are] leading the way before others day and night.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Praeviī nōs diē ac nocte.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[We are] leading the way day and night*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you are using one of these phrases as a motto (which I assume will be printed and displayed somewhere), you might want to consider using a more traditional orthography, which would render the provided phrases as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *CETERIS·[IN]·DIE·AC·NOCTE·PRÆPONIMVS·NOS·PRÆVII*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *PRÆPONAMVS·CETERIS·[IN]·DIE·AC·NOCTE·NOS·PRÆVII*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *PRÆVII·NOS·PRÆ·CETERIS·DIE·AC·NOCTE*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *PRÆVII·NOS·DIE·AC·NOCTE*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read more about the orthography of Classical Latin [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin#Orthography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, as is with all Latin writing, the word order is mostly free. The provided phrases can technically be rendered in any order, but I would recommend keeping them as such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7262" RevisionGUID="fbe18ecd-eb6a-45e7-97b1-2213872422f3" CreationDate="2018-10-05T07:36:52.307" UserId="79" Text="I came across the expression *libella maris* in a scientific text from 19th century.&#xD;&#xA;There are many ways to parse it in the context, and one option that occurred to me is that maybe it stands for &quot;sea level&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;After all, *libella* is where the word &quot;level&quot; comes from in the first place, although an analogy to another language is more probably French than English at that time.&#xD;&#xA;In the context of the text, certain measurements would be different at sea level than at higher altitudes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there examples after, say, the year 1700 where *libella maris* stands for &quot;sea level&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to judge whether that would actually be a valid interpretation, and the passage I saw is not quite decisive on its own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24350" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7262" RevisionGUID="fbe18ecd-eb6a-45e7-97b1-2213872422f3" CreationDate="2018-10-05T07:36:52.307" UserId="79" Text="Can &quot;libella maris&quot; be &quot;sea level&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24351" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7262" RevisionGUID="fbe18ecd-eb6a-45e7-97b1-2213872422f3" CreationDate="2018-10-05T07:36:52.307" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|new-latin|example-request|science|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7118" RevisionGUID="80ac7998-3459-4887-8d51-f2349f6b15e0" CreationDate="2018-10-05T07:47:03.320" UserId="13" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="Ah, here we are again. The Spanish edition I mentioned in a recent question has produced another piece of trivia. Here is the offending fragment, numbered 89:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Σαπ[φοΟί με[λών δ'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from the usual garbling of the text, this seems to be a colophon of a papyrus that, if the completion is read right, should give fragments from book IV. Looking at the translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;........&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;y cantos&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;de Safo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would seem to suggest that the original line breaking was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Σαπ[φοῦς&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;με[λῶν δʹ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sap[pho's&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;po[ems IV?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I know of two colophons. One is of book 1, found on P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 56:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Book I colophon, P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 56][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the other is of book 2, found on P.Oxy. 2076:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Book 2 colophon, P.Oxy. 2076][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very clearly, neither matches the assumed line breaking, or the bracketing for that matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the Spanish edition says it uses the text of Reinach's edition, which I recently reconstructed to have been published in 1937 and reprinted in 1966. I assume they would follow Reinach's order of the fragments, besides the text, given that at the end there is a section called &quot;Fragmentos no recopilados en la edición de T. Reinach&quot; (framgents not compiled in the edition of T. Reinach). The fact of the matter is, this is placed at the very end of book IV, with the fragments right before it being all universally book IV (in fact, fr. 88 is a safopoemas-style smashing of P.Oxy. 1787 fragments, the other such smashing being fr. 40 from P.Oxy. 1231 fragments), and what starts afterwards being precisely the book V part of Lobel-Page, minus some fragments published later than Reinach. So this would lead me to assume Reinach actually had this as a book IV colophon, or a supposed such thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with this is that, if such a colophon existed, I would assume Voigt's monumental edition would record it together with the two above, in the section _ad editiones antiquorum pertinentia_ of the Testimonia. But that is not the case. In fact, the two colophons above are the only ones in that section. Which would lead me to assume no book IV colophon for Sappho was ever found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what do I make of this? Is there such a colophon which Voigt somehow missed or recorded elsewhere? Should that colophon be taken as one of the two above with a spectacular corruption? What did Reinach have that matches this? Can we answer any of these questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Extras**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the paragraph where the edition states they follow Reinach's text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;El texto griego que hemos utilizado fue el que preparó Theodore Reinach, en atención a su magnífico aparato crítico y como homenaje mínimo a su severo y conservador trabajo, que prefiere, sin audacia, leer lo mínimo con la seguridad de que _esas_ escasas palabras fueron de Safo, en lugar de las largas, interesantes y arriesgadas reconstrucciones de otros autores. Como la edición de Reinach, que finalmente revisó Aimé Puech, fue anterior a la publicación de varios papiros importantes y de otras ediciones útilísimas, hemos consultado permanentemente las de Edmonds, Diehl y Page, y en varias ocasiones las hemos seguido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Greek text we have used was that which Théodore Reinach prepared, as a courtesy to his magnificent critical apparatus and as a minimal tribute to his strict and conservative work, who prefers, without audacity, to read as little as possible, with the certainty that _those_ few words were by Sappho, in place of the wide, interesting and risky reconstructions of other authors. Since the edition of Reinach, finally revised by Aimé Puech, predated the publication of various important papyri and of other very useful editions, we have permanently consulted those of Edmonds, Diehl, and Page, and in various occasions we have followed them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(So that is where all those daring reconstructions I saw in safopoemas come from! They should still be in _variantes_ though, IMHO…)&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NWIJI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pLcuZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7261" RevisionGUID="fc99c159-a950-411c-9829-ff4651e10569" CreationDate="2018-10-05T07:47:40.980" UserId="13" Comment="added last sentence." Text="safopoemas itself kind of answers this. The critical note says frr. 88-89 both come from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 45. Now, fr. 88 is a mishmash of P.Oxy. 1787 fragments, so that &quot;both&quot; part is BS. However, looking at P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 45 in Grenfell-Hunt The Oxyrhynchus Papyri vol. 15 (available on archive – at least when I downloaded it), we find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;[![enter image description here][1]][1] &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here is the papyrus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, l. 1 is definitely σαπ[, but while I clearly see the mu in l. 2, I see hardly any trace of the epsilon, so I'd read that μ .[.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there you have it guys. Case closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why Voigt seems to not have this, is another case and is still open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZeU5X.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lLbIG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4rldP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zkybh.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7264" RevisionGUID="8b237549-c981-426f-a7e0-1b34e1440c87" CreationDate="2018-10-05T09:29:17.760" UserId="324" Text="As we always say on here: context would be helpful. Libella in classical Latin is already &quot;spirit-level&quot;, &quot;water-level&quot; (L&amp;S have references to Lucretius and others). And yes, libella is the etymon of English &quot;level&quot; and of French &quot;niveau&quot;. But the oldest reference for the English &quot;sea-level&quot; is not until 1803 (ref. OED).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7264" RevisionGUID="0998a2fd-16ea-40c5-87ce-c61d2658399e" CreationDate="2018-10-05T10:13:17.440" UserId="324" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="As we always say on here: context would be helpful. Libella in classical Latin is already &quot;spirit-level&quot;, &quot;water-level&quot; (L&amp;S have references to Lucretius and others). And yes, libella is the etymon of English &quot;level&quot; and of French &quot;niveau&quot;. But the oldest reference for the English &quot;sea-level&quot; is not until 1803 (ref. OED). The French &quot;niveau de la mer&quot; is not old either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7261" RevisionGUID="7b37920d-c8a4-4ba3-abac-f7a22cb97e43" CreationDate="2018-10-05T10:26:37.487" UserId="13" Comment="added update" Text="safopoemas itself kind of answers this. The critical note says frr. 88-89 both come from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 45. Now, fr. 88 is a mishmash of P.Oxy. 1787 fragments, so that &quot;both&quot; part is BS. However, looking at P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 45 in Grenfell-Hunt The Oxyrhynchus Papyri vol. 15 (available on archive – at least when I downloaded it), we find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;[![enter image description here][1]][1] &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here is the papyrus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, l. 1 is definitely σαπ[, but while I clearly see the mu in l. 2, I see hardly any trace of the epsilon, so I'd read that μ .[.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there you have it guys. Case closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why Voigt seems to not have this, is another case and is still open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, zooming in like crazy, you can see a very clear flipped 3 (ε). This definitely looks like an epsilon, though I would expect a lunate ϵ rather than a flipped three. Also, there seems to be a circumflex on the mu. So I revise my transcription:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ΣΑΠ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Μ̂&lt;sup&gt;ε&lt;/sup&gt;[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZeU5X.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lLbIG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4rldP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zkybh.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1278" RevisionGUID="d8777074-d7af-49e8-8ecb-b222afba83eb" CreationDate="2018-10-05T14:39:22.667" UserId="79" Comment="added 12 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm an avid follower of the TV-show &quot;Game of Thrones&quot;, and wonder what a Latin translation of the Stark's families motto &amp;mdash; &quot;Winter is Coming&quot; &amp;mdash; would be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's used in the form of a warning, that there are dark and difficult days ahead.  Should perhaps also add that in the GoT-universe, a winter lasts for years (decades)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/House_Stark" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24361" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1278" RevisionGUID="d8777074-d7af-49e8-8ecb-b222afba83eb" CreationDate="2018-10-05T14:39:22.667" UserId="79" Comment="added 12 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7261" RevisionGUID="f1351b6e-35e0-49aa-b1ce-178500489663" CreationDate="2018-10-05T14:52:09.827" UserId="13" Comment="added update 2" Text="safopoemas itself kind of answers this. The critical note says frr. 88-89 both come from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 45. Now, fr. 88 is a mishmash of P.Oxy. 1787 fragments, so that &quot;both&quot; part is BS. However, looking at P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 45 in Grenfell-Hunt The Oxyrhynchus Papyri vol. 15 (available on archive – at least when I downloaded it), we find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;[![enter image description here][1]][1] &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here is the papyrus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, l. 1 is definitely σαπ[, but while I clearly see the mu in l. 2, I see hardly any trace of the epsilon, so I'd read that μ .[.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there you have it guys. Case closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why Voigt seems to not have this, is another case and is still open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, zooming in like crazy, you can see a very clear flipped 3 (ε). This definitely looks like an epsilon, though I would expect a lunate ϵ rather than a flipped three. Also, there seems to be a circumflex on the mu. So I revise my transcription:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ΣΑΠ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Μ̂&lt;sup&gt;ε&lt;/sup&gt;[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I have zoomed in too. There is definitely the top of some letter after the &quot;m&quot;, but I cannot see that it is &quot;e&quot;. But what else could it be? (a comment to this answer)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;@fdb What I see is a faint /-shaped stroke (which could be dismissed as a quirk in the papyrus, e.g. a fold, due to the ink's faintness), a short \-shaped one, and a short /-shaped one, which could add up to either a reversed three woth the curves turned to angles, pr a capital sigma. The positioning of said letter is pretty weird, almost as if it were a superscript, which is why I rendered it as such in the revised transcription. I'll add a zoom with retracing and the possible completions to be clearer. If we want to exclude a superscript, then Idk what that could be. If we accept it, it might be an editorial correction for a smaller letter below it, or a letter that was placed lower on the line. (my reply to said comment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me add some pictures. First of all, a zoom:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we had any doubt on l. 1, they are certainly dispelled by the zoom. As for l. 2, the M̂, while missing the right vertical leg, is undoubted, and the circumflex is evident. Said circumflex is indeed rather weird, but the only explanation I can think of is that we're looking at an eta, except the then-supposed horizontal stroke clearly bends way too far upwards for this to be an eta IMHO. So that is an M̂. As for the other letter, I hereby deny the &quot;the /-shaped stroke on top could be a papyrus quirk&quot; part of my comment, because the ink is clearly on part of it. Possible retracings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![## Heading ##][6]][6]&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the left version, the uncertain letter is either an epsilon or a sigma, but given the preceding mu, and given that this papyrus uses the lunate (C) shape for the sigma, it must be an epsilon. The problem is that there is ink that continues down-leftwards from the /-shaped stroke in the middle. On the right, the letter is an alpha with circumflex: Â. In both cases, the letter appears to be superscripted, as if an editorial correction of another, totally lost letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is another, more far-fetched option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that would be the weirdest alpha I've ever seen, corrected into an epsilon. I must admit that the stroke should be less vertical, that \-shaped stroke in the alpha, making the alpha marginally less weird.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, I'll have that as `M̂ .`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZeU5X.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lLbIG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4rldP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zkybh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BCVqv.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aFrbU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wVPRb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5Aj0H.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6226" RevisionGUID="c7c75dba-1e82-4234-a369-d013be755903" CreationDate="2018-10-05T16:54:41.937" UserId="13" Comment="added update" Text="Google search has finally paid off: it says [here](http://tinker-tinker-tinker.blogspot.it/2011/12/blog-post.html) that the culprit is [Παναγής Λεκατσάς](https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A0%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B3%CE%AE%CF%82_%CE%9B%CE%B5%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%84%CF%83%CE%AC%CF%82), a Greek «φιλόλογος και από τους θεμελιωτές της θρησκειολογίας και εθνολογίας στην Ελλάδα» (philologist and among the founders of religion and ethnology in Greece). Unfortunately, scribd has deleted his Sapphous Hapanta, formerly [here](https://www.scribd.com/doc/61731392/%CE%9B%CE%B5%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%84%CF%83%CE%AC%CF%82-%CE%A0%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B3%CE%AE%CF%82-%CE%A3%CE%B1%CF%80%CF%86%CE%BF%CF%8D%CF%82-%CE%86%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B1), but this is probably the inventor of the perfect imperative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, [this other site](http://lyk-lechain.ilei.sch.gr/lyklec/stuff/ancient/sap001.pdf) still has that book, and I am certainly going to look at the apparatus criticus and post it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh so the culprit is Wilamowitz, with Panagis following suit and spreading this text to Manos and Odisseas and thus to me via the internet. Case closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link has rotten. [Projet Homère](http://www.projethomere.com/travaux/bibliotheque_homere/sappho.htm) has the book, luckily. Hopefully that won't rot.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ynXpy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7265" RevisionGUID="7b735600-c47a-4e12-8f3b-f6be03494f3b" CreationDate="2018-10-05T17:05:52.750" UserId="1142" Text="The conjunction *et*, in addition to its common use as a coordinating conjunction meaning *and*, can also be used adverbially, encompassing similar meanings as those found in words like *etiam*, *item*, etc. From Wiktionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Adverb**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et (*not comparable*)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. also, too, besides, likewise  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;*Source: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/et#Latin*&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all my reading of Latin, I have almost *never* have seen *et* used adverbially in this manner, except in the one or two small excerpts of poetry in Wheelock's Latin; and in those cases, the fact that *et* was being used adverbially was explicitly pointed out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus my primary question: how often is *et* used adverbially, and what strategies might one use to go about distinguishing whether it is being used as a conjunction or as an adverb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24365" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7265" RevisionGUID="7b735600-c47a-4e12-8f3b-f6be03494f3b" CreationDate="2018-10-05T17:05:52.750" UserId="1142" Text="How often is &quot;et&quot; used as an adverb, and what might distinguish that usage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24366" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7265" RevisionGUID="7b735600-c47a-4e12-8f3b-f6be03494f3b" CreationDate="2018-10-05T17:05:52.750" UserId="1142" Text="|grammar-identification|conjunction|adverb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6226" RevisionGUID="bec25acd-de14-4020-9cba-669fc960766e" CreationDate="2018-10-05T17:36:06.237" UserId="13" Comment="added dating section" Text="Google search has finally paid off: it says [here](http://tinker-tinker-tinker.blogspot.it/2011/12/blog-post.html) that the culprit is [Παναγής Λεκατσάς](https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A0%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B3%CE%AE%CF%82_%CE%9B%CE%B5%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%84%CF%83%CE%AC%CF%82), a Greek «φιλόλογος και από τους θεμελιωτές της θρησκειολογίας και εθνολογίας στην Ελλάδα» (philologist and among the founders of religion and ethnology in Greece). Unfortunately, scribd has deleted his Sapphous Hapanta, formerly [here](https://www.scribd.com/doc/61731392/%CE%9B%CE%B5%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%84%CF%83%CE%AC%CF%82-%CE%A0%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B3%CE%AE%CF%82-%CE%A3%CE%B1%CF%80%CF%86%CE%BF%CF%8D%CF%82-%CE%86%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B1), but this is probably the inventor of the perfect imperative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, [this other site](http://lyk-lechain.ilei.sch.gr/lyklec/stuff/ancient/sap001.pdf) still has that book, and I am certainly going to look at the apparatus criticus and post it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh so the culprit is Wilamowitz, with Panagis following suit and spreading this text to Manos and Odisseas and thus to me via the internet. Case closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link has rotten. [Projet Homère](http://www.projethomere.com/travaux/bibliotheque_homere/sappho.htm) has the book, luckily. Hopefully that won't rot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Dating**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the work has no publication date apparently. However, looking at the biblio, we see he had the Reinach edition of 1937. If we assume he is the culprit for the Xatzidakis text, then he must have published before 1972. Looking at his texts, he had P.Oxy. 2076 (despite not mentioning it in the sources), which was published in 1927, but didn't have P.Oxy. 2166(a), which was in Ox. Pap. XXI, published 1952. Curiously he didn't have the Ostrakon Florentinum, also published in 1937. So he must have published between 1937 and 1952. Perhaps in 1937, after the Reinach edition but before the Ostrakon? Maybe he, like safopoemas, followed Reinach closely, except for putting in that perfect imperative? Nope, the ordering of the fragment is different. Welp, Idk.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ynXpy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7266" RevisionGUID="f7cbd3db-bba2-434b-b1da-5f465bc4487d" CreationDate="2018-10-05T17:58:21.367" UserId="13" Text="The part of fragment in the title reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κἂν μέν τε τύλαγκας ἀσπόλεα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the only easy amendation that comes to mind here (other than erasing the space after τε) is κἂν-&gt;κὰμ. That gives us three intelligible words: κὰμ=κατὰ, down, μέν, probably to be matched by δέ further in the poem, and τε, which the author says is not a conjunction (οὐ γὰρ ὁ τέ σύνδεσμος), so it must be =σε, &quot;you&quot; (accusative). But it leaves two words I cannot make sense of: τύλαγκας and ἀσπόλεα. Now, [Edmonds](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7119/figuring-out-the-grammar-of-edmonds-57-edmonds-version-of-the-part-in-cruces-o) has gone very creative with this, heavily amending it. Wilamowitz has thought of αἴ κε κάμηι τέα, to join it with the rest of LP 46, and that is also very heavy. Bergk has κὰμ μὲν τὲ τύλαν κασπολέω, removing two letters and correcting one. Lobel-Page says &quot;alii alia&quot; after metioning Wilamowitz's conjecture. I was wondering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What other proposals have been made?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is there any way to make sense of those two words as they are, or what is the least amendation required to make sense of them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24369" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7266" RevisionGUID="f7cbd3db-bba2-434b-b1da-5f465bc4487d" CreationDate="2018-10-05T17:58:21.367" UserId="13" Text="About the part in cruces of Sappho Lobel-Page 46" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24370" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7266" RevisionGUID="f7cbd3db-bba2-434b-b1da-5f465bc4487d" CreationDate="2018-10-05T17:58:21.367" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7266" RevisionGUID="9012e053-3719-450f-afab-adc1753471f0" CreationDate="2018-10-05T22:56:56.893" UserId="13" Comment="added last sentence in Q2." Text="The part of fragment in the title reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κἂν μέν τε τύλαγκας ἀσπόλεα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the only easy amendation that comes to mind here (other than erasing the space after τε) is κἂν-&gt;κὰμ. That gives us three intelligible words: κὰμ=κατὰ, down, μέν, probably to be matched by δέ further in the poem, and τε, which the author says is not a conjunction (οὐ γὰρ ὁ τέ σύνδεσμος), so it must be =σε, &quot;you&quot; (accusative). But it leaves two words I cannot make sense of: τύλαγκας and ἀσπόλεα. Now, [Edmonds](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7119/figuring-out-the-grammar-of-edmonds-57-edmonds-version-of-the-part-in-cruces-o) has gone very creative with this, heavily amending it. Wilamowitz has thought of αἴ κε κάμηι τέα, to join it with the rest of LP 46, and that is also very heavy. Bergk has κὰμ μὲν τὲ τύλαν κασπολέω, removing two letters and correcting one. Lobel-Page says &quot;alii alia&quot; after metioning Wilamowitz's conjecture. I was wondering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What other proposals have been made?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is there any way to make sense of those two words as they are, or what is the least amendation required to make sense of them? Would reading τετύλαγκας help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7267" RevisionGUID="3761e55a-166c-49f2-b757-e8da1226ec8f" CreationDate="2018-10-06T03:44:18.787" UserId="39" Text="see the screenshots below from Kaibel 1890, v.3 (Teubner):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oCEY4.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KRprI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24373" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7243" RevisionGUID="4be609e7-c052-44ab-9f0c-9808b2c67817" CreationDate="2018-10-06T12:48:31.080" UserId="522" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|new-latin|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7267" RevisionGUID="e3992d86-8829-44fa-a682-7f831bea1a66" CreationDate="2018-10-06T16:43:21.840" UserId="39" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="see the screenshots below from [Kaibel 1890, v.3][1] (Teubner):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/dipnosophistaru01kaibgoog/page/n3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oCEY4.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KRprI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7161" RevisionGUID="464a77a2-9015-493a-a811-1f873593ba8b" CreationDate="2018-10-07T16:56:31.657" UserId="1142" Comment="Better quotation marks." Text="Linguā Anglicā, saepe cum multīs adverbīs atque adiectīvīs, plūrima quōrum significātiōnēs absolūtās habent (exempla sunt *«always»* vel *«everything»* vel *«nothing»* vel *«never»*, et cētera), adverbō *«almost»* ūtimur ut significēmus adverbum vel adiectīvum nōn ferre subtīlem, sed significātiōnem quae propē principālem est. Exempla:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *«almost always»*&#xD;&#xA;* *«almost everything»*&#xD;&#xA;* *«almost nothing»*&#xD;&#xA;* *«almost never»*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ūtāmurne linguā Latīnā verbō *ferē* eōdem modō (exempla *ferē nihil* vel *ferē semper*, et cētera) ut linguā Anglicā, aut aliō?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sī male Latīnē scrīpsī, apologiās vōbīs agō." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24376" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7161" RevisionGUID="464a77a2-9015-493a-a811-1f873593ba8b" CreationDate="2018-10-07T16:56:31.657" UserId="1142" Comment="Better quotation marks." Text="Ūtāturne linguā Latīnā aliquis adverbō «ferē» ut linguā Anglicā verbō «almost» ūtimur?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7262" RevisionGUID="3c42638f-0d02-4b4a-9e00-90bc812b8466" CreationDate="2018-10-07T19:01:38.437" UserId="79" Comment="added 218 characters in body" Text="I came across the expression *libella maris* in a scientific text from 19th century.&#xD;&#xA;There are many ways to parse it in the context, and one option that occurred to me is that maybe it stands for &quot;sea level&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;After all, *libella* is where the word &quot;level&quot; comes from in the first place, although an analogy to another language is more probably French than English at that time.&#xD;&#xA;In the context of the text, certain measurements would be different at sea level than at higher altitudes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there examples after, say, the year 1700 where *libella maris* stands for &quot;sea level&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to judge whether that would actually be a valid interpretation, and the passage I saw is not quite decisive on its own.&#xD;&#xA;However, I emphasize that this question is inspired by that passage, not about it; I am generally interested in knowing whether this kind of reading is valid and whether I could use the phrase for &quot;sea level&quot; myself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7268" RevisionGUID="972af5af-3f57-4e3e-b6c1-9628f4eaab68" CreationDate="2018-10-07T21:56:05.163" UserId="13" Text="Here is the amended text, in almost the Lobel-Page version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἀμφὶ ‹δ'› άβροισ‹ιν› λασίοισ' εὖ ‹ϝ'› ἐπύκασσεν&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ‹δ'› is a correction from the tradition's λάβροις, the ‹ιν› fills in a hole in the meter which Lobel-Page leaves as a lacuna&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, and the ‹ϝ'› is added in. My question here is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Why is that ‹ϝ'› translated to &quot;her&quot; in both Campbell and Edmonds' editions, and as &quot;la&quot; (again &quot;her&quot;, or maybe an object of feminine grammatical gender) in safopoemas (THAT Spanish edition I commented on elsewhere)? WHat in the text suggests it's not a male?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The lacuna is probably posited to avoid lengthening a syllable with a euphonic nu, which seems to be a problem for reasons unclear to me, but I think I've already asked about this, so I'll leave this out of this question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24379" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7268" RevisionGUID="972af5af-3f57-4e3e-b6c1-9628f4eaab68" CreationDate="2018-10-07T21:56:05.163" UserId="13" Text="Why is the ϝ' in Sappho Lobel-Page universally thought to be a female (AFAIK at least)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24380" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7268" RevisionGUID="972af5af-3f57-4e3e-b6c1-9628f4eaab68" CreationDate="2018-10-07T21:56:05.163" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7269" RevisionGUID="d94ae8cd-5447-438f-9f8c-4b693c520456" CreationDate="2018-10-08T09:07:44.897" UserId="13" Text="This is kind of a mess. Let me first report how I tackled it when I first translated all (or most) of Sappho. Below is the translation of an extract of the Paracritical note I made back then, the original is in an extra at the bottom. I include it basically to do some of my critical note for the fragment early :). Note that this is fr. 44 in Greek Wikisource numbering, and that GW is called Vikiþíki, þ pronounced as the th in thumb, because that is the Modern Greek pronunciation of the Greek name of Wikisource, Βικιθήκη.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Fr. 44 is reported by Vikiþíki as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χειρόμακτρα δὲ καγγόνων&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἀτιμάσεις,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ἔπεμψ᾽ ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δῶρα τίμια λαγγόνων.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;while Bibliotheca Augustana reports it thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Κεττόμακτρα δὲ +Καγγόνων&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τά τοι Μ&lt;ν&gt;ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Δῶρα τίμια +Καγγόνων.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Vikiþíki version makes the meter detector go off at full blast, telling me: lacuna of an anceps in l. 4 and out-of-place line at l. 3, looks like a glyconic like the others but it's – –uu u–u–, looks like a ionic a maiore foot plus an a minore with anaclasis [or rather a iambic meter] or a spondee-tribrachus-trochaic meter catalectic. The Bibliotheca Augustana version instead, besides being clearly composed of a triplet of lines (two glyconics and an Aeolic dactylic meter of the kind seen above [fr. 40-41 is Lobel-Page 130-131] with two dactyls between xx and –ux [i.e. xx–uu–uu–ux]) and a glyconic left over from a half-lost triplet, corresponds to the meter of another fragment that passed under my eye, tĕthnákēn d’ adŏ́lōś thĕ́lō [i.e. Lobel-Page 94], reasons due to which I opt for this last version. Let's now translate into prose. Vikiþíki: «Drapes of the (inexistent) purple [the mollusk or dye, not the color] (unfindable perfect participle), and these you will not respect, [he/she] sent them from Phocea, precious gifts of the (inexistent)», Bibliotheca Augustana: «(Inexistent) of the (inexistent) purple [mollusk or dye not color] (unfindable perfect participle), which (neuter) Mnasis sent you from Phocea, doni precious gifts of the (inexistent)». This is thus a very problematic fragment. First of we recover χειρόμακτρα from Vikiþíki. Καγγόνων is after a + in Bibliotheca Augustana, that is the equivalent of something enclosed in cruces, thus an unknown even for Bibliotheca Augustana. Κάγγονος doesn't exist. Supposing a truncation of κατὰ from a κατάγονος, with κατα-&gt;κατ-&gt;καγ, typically Aeolic, I don't find κατά-γονος, but κατά-γομος, overloaded, totally out-of-context here. Even separating κὰγ from γόνων: &quot;down from the lineages&quot;, what the heck would that mean. [Apparently I didn't know Aeolic had γόνα, γόνων as the plural of γόνυ, knee, see below.] The only thing left is to think of an irremediable corruption or of the name of a people of which no news reached us, Κάγγονες, Καγγόνων, the Cangones, and that is what I hypothized. Mnasis must be a queen of that people, probably from Phocea (l. 3). Or maybe a king. Who knows? Καταΰτμενα is also unfindable. It is evident, by the ending -μενα, that it's a medio-passive perfect participle, but the verb is unfindable. Καταΰτω (or deponent -τομαι) doesn't exist. Καταΰσσω (or deponent) doesn't exist. Καταϋτάνω (or deponent) doesn't exist. No verb with a similar root is found in Rocci [the standard Greek dictionary in Italy, at least AFAIK]. A polythematic verb, perhaps? The Greek Word Study Tool of the Perseus Digital library finds nothing, not even if the barytonesis is undone by bringing the accent over to the ending. In another fragment [Lobel-Page 44, perhaps?] the same word pair is found, but the French translation I have of it [no idea where I found it] doesn't match the Greek at all, at least as far as I can make it match. Let's try to eliminate the κατ-. Same result. The only thing left is to eliminate the tau from the root. Thus I find αὔω, to essiccate, Attic αὕω, and καταύω, same meaning. The perfect isn't reported [by Rocci, I assume] for either. Let's try to create it. It could be αὔκα, αὔσμαι. It derives indeed from «cf sscr çúskah ; lt. sudus, al. haurio, uro», all words that make me think of a possible lost intervocalic sigma preserved in the past. One must however hypothise a diaeresis from αὔω to ἀΰω, besides the lack of reduplication. Indeed the initial alpha must be short by meter, while reduplication would bring it to an eta or, in Aeolic, to a long alpha while it's short here. The idea is a bit bold, but I can't find anything better. We must however correct ἀΰτμενα to ἀΰσμενα. When I get to the last fragment [probably LP 44, it was the last on Vikiþíki after all], the one with the same two words, I'll see how to behave there. For now this satisfies me. From these observation I obtain the text:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Χειρόμακτρα δὲ †Καγγόνων†,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Πορφύρα καταϋσμένα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ἄ τοι Μ&lt;ν&gt;ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Δῶρα τίμια †Καγγόνων†.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is «Drapes of the Cangones, essiccated purple, things which Mnasi sent you from Phocea, precious gifts of the Cangones». This will be very hard to translate with rhymes, because what do I rhyme with Cangones? NB for who hasn't understood, it's Cángoni, not Cangóni. [That is, the stress is on the a, not the o.] I will try, but I fear I won't manage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now obviously there is another correction that must be done: χειρόμακτρα-&gt;χερρόμακτρα, by dialect. There are clearly two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is there any chance that my idea of the Cangones people is actually correct? Other options include: κὰγ γόνων, though that is dispelled by Athenaeus, who quotes it saying κόσμον λέγει τῆς κεφαλῆς τὰ χειρόμακτρα or something like that, so these &quot;drapes&quot; (for want of a better term) are supposed to be around the head, suggested by Idk who; κὰκ κομᾶν (Ahrens) or a similar κὰκ κόμων (Seidler); Μαιόνων or Ἰαώνων, as hesitatingly proposed by Lobel; and Edmonds' κὰγ γένυων; between these I'd go for Seidler's idea;&#xD;&#xA; 2. What verb is that &quot;unfindable perfect participle&quot;? I went at great lengths to interpret it, probably misled by thinking πορφύρα was a noun when it could be an adjective, a contracted form of *πορφύραα, Aeolic for πορφύρεα, purple-colored, and ended up changing a letter and having to posit a weird diaeresis. Campbell translates καταΰτμενα as &quot;perfumed&quot;, possibly following Theander's &quot;odorata&quot;, but what verb could that be? Also, the tradition gives καταυταμεν́ἀτατιμάσεις, at least if Voigt's in-cruces text is to be taken as the tradition text, and apparently καταυταμένα means suspended, or so says Edmonds, so why not καταυτάμενα τὰ Τῖμας? What verb would καταυτάμενα be? Also, what meter did Edmonds have in mind for that line? It looks like –u–u–xuuu–u, maybe trochaic meter, super-duper-catalectic (sorry, don't remember the right prefix, either hyper- or brachy- :) ) trochaic meter, dactyl, catalectic iambic meter? Or maybe the anceps is short and we get –u–x|–u…|uuu|–u…, or trochaic meter, super-catalectic (whatever the other one wasn't :) ) trochaic meter, tribrachus, super-catalectic trochaic meter?&#xD;&#xA; 3. There is also a third question though: disregarding Bergk's (partly due to Seidler and Ahrens too) major amendation to have all glyconics, where did Vikiþíki draw its text? And who proposed safopoemas's text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χερρόμακτρα δΐ t ΚΑΓΓΟΝΩΝ&#xD;&#xA;t πορφύρα- t ΚΑΤΑΥΤΑΜΕΝΑΤΑΤΙ&#xD;&#xA;t Μ(ν)δσις πέμψ' άπύ φωκάας δώρα τίμια t ΚΑΓΓΟΝΩΝ t&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is presumably:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χερρόμακτρα δὲ †καγγονων†&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;πορφύρα- †καταυταμενατατι†&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Μ(ν)δσις πέμψ' ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δώρα τίμια †καγγονων†&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in other words featuring a augmentless aorist? Was it Reinach directly or someone else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Extras**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian Paracritical Note extract&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Il fr. 44 è riportato da Vikiþíki come&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χειρόμακτρα δὲ καγγόνων&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἀτιμάσεις,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ἔπεμψ᾽ ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δῶρα τίμια λαγγόνων.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;mentre Bibliotheca Augustana lo riporta così:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Κεττόμακτρα δὲ +Καγγόνων&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τά τοι Μ&lt;ν&gt;ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Δῶρα τίμια +Καγγόνων.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;La versione Vikiþíki fa suonare a tutto spiano il meter detector, che dice: lacuna di ancipite al v. 4 e verso fuori posto al v. 3, sembra un gliconeo come gli altri ma è – –uu u–u–, sembra uno ionico a maiore più uno a minore con anaclasi oppure uno spondeo-tribraco-metro trocaico catalettico. La versione Bibliotheca Augustana invece, oltre ad essere chiaramente composta da una tripletta di versi (due gliconei ed un metro dattilico eoilico del tipo sopra visto con due dattili fra xx e –ux) ed un gliconeo avanzato da una tripletta semidispersa, corrisponde al metro di un altro frammento che mi è passato sott’occhio, tĕthnákēn d’ adŏ́lōś thĕ́lō, ragioni per cui opto per quest’ultima versione. Ora traduciamo in prosa. Vikiþíki: «Drappi dei (inesistente) porpora (part. perf. introvabile), e questi non rispetterai, li mandò dalla Focea, doni preziosi dei (inesistente)», Bibliotheca Augustana: «(Inesistente) dei (inesistente) porpora (part. perf. introvabile), i quali (nt.) Mnasi ha mandato a te dalla Focea, doni preziosi dei (inesistente)». Questo è dunque un frammento molto problematico. Per prima cosa recuperiamo chĕirŏ́maktra da Vikiþíki. Kaġgŏ́nōn è dopo un + in Bibliotheca Augustana, ossia l’equivalente di una cosa racchiusa fra cruces, dunque un’incognita anche per Bibliotheca Augustana. Kaġgŏ́nŏś non esiste. Supponendo un troncamento di katà da un katagŏ́nŏś, con kata&gt;kat&gt;kag, tipico eolico, non trovo kata-gŏ́nŏś, ma katagŏ́mŏś, sovraccarico, completamente acontestuale qui. Anche separare kag da gŏ́nōn non porta a niente: giù dalle stirpi che accidenti sarebbe. L’unica è pensare o ad un’irrimediabile corruzione o ad un nome di popolo di cui non ci è giunta alcuna notizia, Káġgŏnĕś, Kaġgŏ́nōn, i Cangoni, e questo ho ipotizzato io. Mnasi deve essere una regina di quel popolo, probabilmente della Focea (v. 3). O forse un re. Chissà? Kataÿ́tmĕna è anche lei introvabile. È evidente, per la desinenza –mĕna, che si tratta di un part. perf. medio-pass., ma il verbo è introvabile. Kataÿ́tō (o dep. –tŏmai) non esiste. Kataÿ́ssō (o dep.) non esiste. Kataÿtánō (o dep.) non esiste. Nessun verbo con un tema simile si ritrova nel Rocci. Un verbo politematico, forse? Il Greek Word Study Tool della Perseus Digital library non trova niente, neanche se si annulla la baritonesi portando l’accento sulla desinenza. In un altro frammento si trova la medesima coppia di parole, ma la traduzione francese che ne ho non corrisponde al greco per nulla, almeno per quanto riesco a farla corrispondere io. Proviamo ad eliminare il kat-. Stesso risultato. L’unica è eliminare il taỹ del tema. Così trovo aýō, essiccare, att. haýō, e kataýō, stesso senso. Il perfetto non è riportato per nessuno dei due. Proviamo a crearlo. Aýka, aýsmai potrebbe essere. Deriva infatti da «cf sscr çúskah ; lt. sudus, al. haurio, uro», tutte parole che fanno pensare ad un possibile sigma intervocalico caduto ma preservatosi nel pf. pass. Bisogna però ipotizzare una dieresi da aýō ad aÿ́ō, oltre alla mancanza di raddoppiamento. Infatti l’álpha iniziale deve essere breve per la metrica, mentre il raddoppiamento lo porterebbe o ad un ẽta o, in eolico, ad un álpha lungo mentre qui è breve. L’idea è un po’ ardita, ma non trovo di meglio. Dobbiamo però correggere aÿ́tmena in aÿ́smena. Quando arriverò all’ultimo frammento, quello colle stesse due parole, vedrò come comportarmi là. Per ora questo mi soddisfa. Da queste osservazioni ottengo il testo:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Χειρόμακτρα δὲ †Καγγόνων†,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Πορφύρα καταϋσμένα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ἄ τοι Μ&lt;ν&gt;ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Δῶρα τίμια †Καγγόνων†.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ovvero «Drappi dei Cangoni, porpora essiccata, cose che Mnasi ti ha mandato dalla Focea, doni preziosi dei Cangoni». Questo sarà molto duro a tradurre in rima, perché come rimo con Cangoni? NB per chi non avesse capito, si dice Cángoni, non Cangóni. Io proverò, ma temo che non riuscirò.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voigt critical note&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kN7bU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LbGqr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24382" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7269" RevisionGUID="d94ae8cd-5447-438f-9f8c-4b693c520456" CreationDate="2018-10-08T09:07:44.897" UserId="13" Text="About Sappho Lobel-Page 101" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24383" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7269" RevisionGUID="d94ae8cd-5447-438f-9f8c-4b693c520456" CreationDate="2018-10-08T09:07:44.897" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7271" RevisionGUID="a5f16ade-18c8-4c96-848d-ded155c2caac" CreationDate="2018-10-08T10:01:23.717" UserId="13" Text="Text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;‹–u–x–uu–›			Πόδας δέ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ποίκιλος μάσλης ἐκάλυπτε, Λύδι-&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ον κάλον ἔργον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from &quot;WTF Edmonds, tradition is unanimous on ἐκάλυπτε (says Voigt, Edmonds has different opinions) and you give me ἐπέτεννε?&quot;, we have here an oscillation from μάσθλης to μάσλης. The former is the Attic form, apparently, for a noun meaning &quot;leather&quot;, or a kind of sandal here, says Pollux. The latter should be an Aeolic form. However, the tradition oscillates, and AFAIK the only argument for the latter is Hephaestio's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Προτάσσεται τὸ σ τοῦ λ, κατὰ πάθος, ὡς ἐν τῷ μάσλης | The sigma is placed before the lambda, as a word modification, as in μάσλης.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I read that right, it tells us μάσλης is modified from μάλης by an extra sigma before the lambda. Except this word [seems](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=malhs&amp;la=greek#lexicon) to have nothing to do with sandals. So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Am I misreading this? If so, what is Hephaestio actually telling us? If not, why would the correct form in the fragment be the theta-less one, when it's =μάλης and thus has nothing to do with sandals, whereas Pollux clearly says it means some kind of sandal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24388" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7271" RevisionGUID="a5f16ade-18c8-4c96-848d-ded155c2caac" CreationDate="2018-10-08T10:01:23.717" UserId="13" Text="Sappho Lobel-Page 39: μάσλης vs. μάσθλης" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24389" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7271" RevisionGUID="a5f16ade-18c8-4c96-848d-ded155c2caac" CreationDate="2018-10-08T10:01:23.717" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7269" RevisionGUID="82cc24a9-0387-4cd0-983d-a9d496639af3" CreationDate="2018-10-08T11:17:37.147" UserId="13" Comment="Added update" Text="This is kind of a mess. Let me first report how I tackled it when I first translated all (or most) of Sappho. Below is the translation of an extract of the Paracritical note I made back then, the original is in an extra at the bottom. I include it basically to do some of my critical note for the fragment early :). Note that this is fr. 44 in Greek Wikisource numbering, and that GW is called Vikiþíki, þ pronounced as the th in thumb, because that is the Modern Greek pronunciation of the Greek name of Wikisource, Βικιθήκη.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Fr. 44 is reported by Vikiþíki as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χειρόμακτρα δὲ καγγόνων&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἀτιμάσεις,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ἔπεμψ᾽ ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δῶρα τίμια λαγγόνων.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;while Bibliotheca Augustana reports it thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Κεττόμακτρα δὲ +Καγγόνων&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τά τοι Μ&lt;ν&gt;ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Δῶρα τίμια +Καγγόνων.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Vikiþíki version makes the meter detector go off at full blast, telling me: lacuna of an anceps in l. 4 and out-of-place line at l. 3, looks like a glyconic like the others but it's – –uu u–u–, looks like a ionic a maiore foot plus an a minore with anaclasis [or rather a iambic meter] or a spondee-tribrachus-trochaic meter catalectic. The Bibliotheca Augustana version instead, besides being clearly composed of a triplet of lines (two glyconics and an Aeolic dactylic meter of the kind seen above [fr. 40-41 is Lobel-Page 130-131] with two dactyls between xx and –ux [i.e. xx–uu–uu–ux]) and a glyconic left over from a half-lost triplet, corresponds to the meter of another fragment that passed under my eye, tĕthnákēn d’ adŏ́lōś thĕ́lō [i.e. Lobel-Page 94], reasons due to which I opt for this last version. Let's now translate into prose. Vikiþíki: «Drapes of the (inexistent) purple [the mollusk or dye, not the color] (unfindable perfect participle), and these you will not respect, [he/she] sent them from Phocea, precious gifts of the (inexistent)», Bibliotheca Augustana: «(Inexistent) of the (inexistent) purple [mollusk or dye not color] (unfindable perfect participle), which (neuter) Mnasis sent you from Phocea, doni precious gifts of the (inexistent)». This is thus a very problematic fragment. First of we recover χειρόμακτρα from Vikiþíki. Καγγόνων is after a + in Bibliotheca Augustana, that is the equivalent of something enclosed in cruces, thus an unknown even for Bibliotheca Augustana. Κάγγονος doesn't exist. Supposing a truncation of κατὰ from a κατάγονος, with κατα-&gt;κατ-&gt;καγ, typically Aeolic, I don't find κατά-γονος, but κατά-γομος, overloaded, totally out-of-context here. Even separating κὰγ from γόνων: &quot;down from the lineages&quot;, what the heck would that mean. [Apparently I didn't know Aeolic had γόνα, γόνων as the plural of γόνυ, knee, see below.] The only thing left is to think of an irremediable corruption or of the name of a people of which no news reached us, Κάγγονες, Καγγόνων, the Cangones, and that is what I hypothized. Mnasis must be a queen of that people, probably from Phocea (l. 3). Or maybe a king. Who knows? Καταΰτμενα is also unfindable. It is evident, by the ending -μενα, that it's a medio-passive perfect participle, but the verb is unfindable. Καταΰτω (or deponent -τομαι) doesn't exist. Καταΰσσω (or deponent) doesn't exist. Καταϋτάνω (or deponent) doesn't exist. No verb with a similar root is found in Rocci [the standard Greek dictionary in Italy, at least AFAIK]. A polythematic verb, perhaps? The Greek Word Study Tool of the Perseus Digital library finds nothing, not even if the barytonesis is undone by bringing the accent over to the ending. In another fragment [Lobel-Page 44, perhaps?] the same word pair is found, but the French translation I have of it [no idea where I found it] doesn't match the Greek at all, at least as far as I can make it match. Let's try to eliminate the κατ-. Same result. The only thing left is to eliminate the tau from the root. Thus I find αὔω, to essiccate, Attic αὕω, and καταύω, same meaning. The perfect isn't reported [by Rocci, I assume] for either. Let's try to create it. It could be αὔκα, αὔσμαι. It derives indeed from «cf sscr çúskah ; lt. sudus, al. haurio, uro», all words that make me think of a possible lost intervocalic sigma preserved in the past. One must however hypothise a diaeresis from αὔω to ἀΰω, besides the lack of reduplication. Indeed the initial alpha must be short by meter, while reduplication would bring it to an eta or, in Aeolic, to a long alpha while it's short here. The idea is a bit bold, but I can't find anything better. We must however correct ἀΰτμενα to ἀΰσμενα. When I get to the last fragment [probably LP 44, it was the last on Vikiþíki after all], the one with the same two words, I'll see how to behave there. For now this satisfies me. From these observation I obtain the text:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Χειρόμακτρα δὲ †Καγγόνων†,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Πορφύρα καταϋσμένα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ἄ τοι Μ&lt;ν&gt;ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Δῶρα τίμια †Καγγόνων†.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is «Drapes of the Cangones, essiccated purple, things which Mnasi sent you from Phocea, precious gifts of the Cangones». This will be very hard to translate with rhymes, because what do I rhyme with Cangones? NB for who hasn't understood, it's Cángoni, not Cangóni. [That is, the stress is on the a, not the o.] I will try, but I fear I won't manage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now obviously there is another correction that must be done: χειρόμακτρα-&gt;χερρόμακτρα, by dialect. There are clearly two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is there any chance that my idea of the Cangones people is actually correct? Other options include: κὰγ γόνων, though that is dispelled by Athenaeus, who quotes it saying κόσμον λέγει τῆς κεφαλῆς τὰ χειρόμακτρα or something like that, so these &quot;drapes&quot; (for want of a better term) are supposed to be around the head, suggested by Idk who; κὰκ κομᾶν (Ahrens) or a similar κὰκ κόμων (Seidler); Μαιόνων or Ἰαώνων, as hesitatingly proposed by Lobel; and Edmonds' κὰγ γένυων; between these I'd go for Seidler's idea;&#xD;&#xA; 2. What verb is that &quot;unfindable perfect participle&quot;? I went at great lengths to interpret it, probably misled by thinking πορφύρα was a noun when it could be an adjective, a contracted form of *πορφύραα, Aeolic for πορφύρεα, purple-colored, and ended up changing a letter and having to posit a weird diaeresis. Campbell translates καταΰτμενα as &quot;perfumed&quot;, possibly following Theander's &quot;odorata&quot;, but what verb could that be? Also, the tradition gives καταυταμεν́ἀτατιμάσεις, at least if Voigt's in-cruces text is to be taken as the tradition text, and apparently καταυταμένα means suspended, or so says Edmonds, so why not καταυτάμενα τὰ Τῖμας? What verb would καταυτάμενα be? Also, what meter did Edmonds have in mind for that line? It looks like –u–u–xuuu–u, maybe trochaic meter, super-duper-catalectic (sorry, don't remember the right prefix, either hyper- or brachy- :) ) trochaic meter, dactyl, catalectic iambic meter? Or maybe the anceps is short and we get –u–x|–u…|uuu|–u…, or trochaic meter, super-catalectic (whatever the other one wasn't :) ) trochaic meter, tribrachus, super-catalectic trochaic meter?&#xD;&#xA; 3. There is also a third question though: disregarding Bergk's (partly due to Seidler and Ahrens too) major amendation to have all glyconics, where did Vikiþíki draw its text? And who proposed safopoemas's text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χερρόμακτρα δΐ t ΚΑΓΓΟΝΩΝ&#xD;&#xA;t πορφύρα- t ΚΑΤΑΥΤΑΜΕΝΑΤΑΤΙ&#xD;&#xA;t Μ(ν)δσις πέμψ' άπύ φωκάας δώρα τίμια t ΚΑΓΓΟΝΩΝ t&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is presumably:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χερρόμακτρα δὲ †καγγονων†&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;πορφύρα- †καταυταμενατατι†&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Μ(ν)δσις πέμψ' ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δώρα τίμια †καγγονων†&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in other words featuring a augmentless aorist? Was it Reinach directly or someone else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Extras**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian Paracritical Note extract&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Il fr. 44 è riportato da Vikiþíki come&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χειρόμακτρα δὲ καγγόνων&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἀτιμάσεις,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ἔπεμψ᾽ ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δῶρα τίμια λαγγόνων.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;mentre Bibliotheca Augustana lo riporta così:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Κεττόμακτρα δὲ +Καγγόνων&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τά τοι Μ&lt;ν&gt;ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Δῶρα τίμια +Καγγόνων.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;La versione Vikiþíki fa suonare a tutto spiano il meter detector, che dice: lacuna di ancipite al v. 4 e verso fuori posto al v. 3, sembra un gliconeo come gli altri ma è – –uu u–u–, sembra uno ionico a maiore più uno a minore con anaclasi oppure uno spondeo-tribraco-metro trocaico catalettico. La versione Bibliotheca Augustana invece, oltre ad essere chiaramente composta da una tripletta di versi (due gliconei ed un metro dattilico eoilico del tipo sopra visto con due dattili fra xx e –ux) ed un gliconeo avanzato da una tripletta semidispersa, corrisponde al metro di un altro frammento che mi è passato sott’occhio, tĕthnákēn d’ adŏ́lōś thĕ́lō, ragioni per cui opto per quest’ultima versione. Ora traduciamo in prosa. Vikiþíki: «Drappi dei (inesistente) porpora (part. perf. introvabile), e questi non rispetterai, li mandò dalla Focea, doni preziosi dei (inesistente)», Bibliotheca Augustana: «(Inesistente) dei (inesistente) porpora (part. perf. introvabile), i quali (nt.) Mnasi ha mandato a te dalla Focea, doni preziosi dei (inesistente)». Questo è dunque un frammento molto problematico. Per prima cosa recuperiamo chĕirŏ́maktra da Vikiþíki. Kaġgŏ́nōn è dopo un + in Bibliotheca Augustana, ossia l’equivalente di una cosa racchiusa fra cruces, dunque un’incognita anche per Bibliotheca Augustana. Kaġgŏ́nŏś non esiste. Supponendo un troncamento di katà da un katagŏ́nŏś, con kata&gt;kat&gt;kag, tipico eolico, non trovo kata-gŏ́nŏś, ma katagŏ́mŏś, sovraccarico, completamente acontestuale qui. Anche separare kag da gŏ́nōn non porta a niente: giù dalle stirpi che accidenti sarebbe. L’unica è pensare o ad un’irrimediabile corruzione o ad un nome di popolo di cui non ci è giunta alcuna notizia, Káġgŏnĕś, Kaġgŏ́nōn, i Cangoni, e questo ho ipotizzato io. Mnasi deve essere una regina di quel popolo, probabilmente della Focea (v. 3). O forse un re. Chissà? Kataÿ́tmĕna è anche lei introvabile. È evidente, per la desinenza –mĕna, che si tratta di un part. perf. medio-pass., ma il verbo è introvabile. Kataÿ́tō (o dep. –tŏmai) non esiste. Kataÿ́ssō (o dep.) non esiste. Kataÿtánō (o dep.) non esiste. Nessun verbo con un tema simile si ritrova nel Rocci. Un verbo politematico, forse? Il Greek Word Study Tool della Perseus Digital library non trova niente, neanche se si annulla la baritonesi portando l’accento sulla desinenza. In un altro frammento si trova la medesima coppia di parole, ma la traduzione francese che ne ho non corrisponde al greco per nulla, almeno per quanto riesco a farla corrispondere io. Proviamo ad eliminare il kat-. Stesso risultato. L’unica è eliminare il taỹ del tema. Così trovo aýō, essiccare, att. haýō, e kataýō, stesso senso. Il perfetto non è riportato per nessuno dei due. Proviamo a crearlo. Aýka, aýsmai potrebbe essere. Deriva infatti da «cf sscr çúskah ; lt. sudus, al. haurio, uro», tutte parole che fanno pensare ad un possibile sigma intervocalico caduto ma preservatosi nel pf. pass. Bisogna però ipotizzare una dieresi da aýō ad aÿ́ō, oltre alla mancanza di raddoppiamento. Infatti l’álpha iniziale deve essere breve per la metrica, mentre il raddoppiamento lo porterebbe o ad un ẽta o, in eolico, ad un álpha lungo mentre qui è breve. L’idea è un po’ ardita, ma non trovo di meglio. Dobbiamo però correggere aÿ́tmena in aÿ́smena. Quando arriverò all’ultimo frammento, quello colle stesse due parole, vedrò come comportarmi là. Per ora questo mi soddisfa. Da queste osservazioni ottengo il testo:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Χειρόμακτρα δὲ †Καγγόνων†,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Πορφύρα καταϋσμένα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ἄ τοι Μ&lt;ν&gt;ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Δῶρα τίμια †Καγγόνων†.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ovvero «Drappi dei Cangoni, porpora essiccata, cose che Mnasi ti ha mandato dalla Focea, doni preziosi dei Cangoni». Questo sarà molto duro a tradurre in rima, perché come rimo con Cangoni? NB per chi non avesse capito, si dice Cángoni, non Cangóni. Io proverò, ma temo che non riuscirò.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voigt critical note&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scratch the Edmonds bit, he corrects the upsilon to a rho and katartámena is from katairō. Though the meter is again unclear... So that part stands. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kN7bU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LbGqr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7269" RevisionGUID="8c5ef8a1-4015-4906-b08d-2e0ee4f4b96b" CreationDate="2018-10-08T12:15:46.797" UserId="13" Comment="greekified Edmonds update Greek words, expannded on meter, fixed translation in the &quot;[mollusk or dye not color&quot; parts, the mollusk is murice not porpora." Text="This is kind of a mess. Let me first report how I tackled it when I first translated all (or most) of Sappho. Below is the translation of an extract of the Paracritical note I made back then, the original is in an extra at the bottom. I include it basically to do some of my critical note for the fragment early :). Note that this is fr. 44 in Greek Wikisource numbering, and that GW is called Vikiþíki, þ pronounced as the th in thumb, because that is the Modern Greek pronunciation of the Greek name of Wikisource, Βικιθήκη.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Fr. 44 is reported by Vikiþíki as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χειρόμακτρα δὲ καγγόνων&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἀτιμάσεις,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ἔπεμψ᾽ ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δῶρα τίμια λαγγόνων.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;while Bibliotheca Augustana reports it thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Κεττόμακτρα δὲ +Καγγόνων&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τά τοι Μ&lt;ν&gt;ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Δῶρα τίμια +Καγγόνων.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Vikiþíki version makes the meter detector go off at full blast, telling me: lacuna of an anceps in l. 4 and out-of-place line at l. 3, looks like a glyconic like the others but it's – –uu u–u–, looks like a ionic a maiore foot plus an a minore with anaclasis [or rather a iambic meter] or a spondee-tribrachus-trochaic meter catalectic. The Bibliotheca Augustana version instead, besides being clearly composed of a triplet of lines (two glyconics and an Aeolic dactylic meter of the kind seen above [fr. 40-41 is Lobel-Page 130-131] with two dactyls between xx and –ux [i.e. xx–uu–uu–ux]) and a glyconic left over from a half-lost triplet, corresponds to the meter of another fragment that passed under my eye, tĕthnákēn d’ adŏ́lōś thĕ́lō [i.e. Lobel-Page 94], reasons due to which I opt for this last version. Let's now translate into prose. Vikiþíki: «Drapes of the (inexistent) purple dye (unfindable perfect participle), and these you will not respect, [he/she] sent them from Phocea, precious gifts of the (inexistent)», Bibliotheca Augustana: «(Inexistent) of the (inexistent) purple dye (unfindable perfect participle), which (neuter) Mnasis sent you from Phocea, doni precious gifts of the (inexistent)». This is thus a very problematic fragment. First of we recover χειρόμακτρα from Vikiþíki. Καγγόνων is after a + in Bibliotheca Augustana, that is the equivalent of something enclosed in cruces, thus an unknown even for Bibliotheca Augustana. Κάγγονος doesn't exist. Supposing a truncation of κατὰ from a κατάγονος, with κατα-&gt;κατ-&gt;καγ, typically Aeolic, I don't find κατά-γονος, but κατά-γομος, overloaded, totally out-of-context here. Even separating κὰγ from γόνων: &quot;down from the lineages&quot;, what the heck would that mean. [Apparently I didn't know Aeolic had γόνα, γόνων as the plural of γόνυ, knee, see below.] The only thing left is to think of an irremediable corruption or of the name of a people of which no news reached us, Κάγγονες, Καγγόνων, the Cangones, and that is what I hypothized. Mnasis must be a queen of that people, probably from Phocea (l. 3). Or maybe a king. Who knows? Καταΰτμενα is also unfindable. It is evident, by the ending -μενα, that it's a medio-passive perfect participle, but the verb is unfindable. Καταΰτω (or deponent -τομαι) doesn't exist. Καταΰσσω (or deponent) doesn't exist. Καταϋτάνω (or deponent) doesn't exist. No verb with a similar root is found in Rocci [the standard Greek dictionary in Italy, at least AFAIK]. A polythematic verb, perhaps? The Greek Word Study Tool of the Perseus Digital library finds nothing, not even if the barytonesis is undone by bringing the accent over to the ending. In another fragment [Lobel-Page 44, perhaps?] the same word pair is found, but the French translation I have of it [no idea where I found it] doesn't match the Greek at all, at least as far as I can make it match. Let's try to eliminate the κατ-. Same result. The only thing left is to eliminate the tau from the root. Thus I find αὔω, to essiccate, Attic αὕω, and καταύω, same meaning. The perfect isn't reported [by Rocci, I assume] for either. Let's try to create it. It could be αὔκα, αὔσμαι. It derives indeed from «cf sscr çúskah ; lt. sudus, al. haurio, uro», all words that make me think of a possible lost intervocalic sigma preserved in the past. One must however hypothise a diaeresis from αὔω to ἀΰω, besides the lack of reduplication. Indeed the initial alpha must be short by meter, while reduplication would bring it to an eta or, in Aeolic, to a long alpha while it's short here. The idea is a bit bold, but I can't find anything better. We must however correct ἀΰτμενα to ἀΰσμενα. When I get to the last fragment [probably LP 44, it was the last on Vikiþíki after all], the one with the same two words, I'll see how to behave there. For now this satisfies me. From these observation I obtain the text:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Χειρόμακτρα δὲ †Καγγόνων†,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Πορφύρα καταϋσμένα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ἄ τοι Μ&lt;ν&gt;ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Δῶρα τίμια †Καγγόνων†.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is «Drapes of the Cangones, essiccated purple, things which Mnasi sent you from Phocea, precious gifts of the Cangones». This will be very hard to translate with rhymes, because what do I rhyme with Cangones? NB for who hasn't understood, it's Cángoni, not Cangóni. [That is, the stress is on the a, not the o.] I will try, but I fear I won't manage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now obviously there is another correction that must be done: χειρόμακτρα-&gt;χερρόμακτρα, by dialect. There are clearly two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is there any chance that my idea of the Cangones people is actually correct? Other options include: κὰγ γόνων, though that is dispelled by Athenaeus, who quotes it saying κόσμον λέγει τῆς κεφαλῆς τὰ χειρόμακτρα or something like that, so these &quot;drapes&quot; (for want of a better term) are supposed to be around the head, suggested by Idk who; κὰκ κομᾶν (Ahrens) or a similar κὰκ κόμων (Seidler); Μαιόνων or Ἰαώνων, as hesitatingly proposed by Lobel; and Edmonds' κὰγ γένυων; between these I'd go for Seidler's idea;&#xD;&#xA; 2. What verb is that &quot;unfindable perfect participle&quot;? I went at great lengths to interpret it, probably misled by thinking πορφύρα was a noun when it could be an adjective, a contracted form of *πορφύραα, Aeolic for πορφύρεα, purple-colored, and ended up changing a letter and having to posit a weird diaeresis. Campbell translates καταΰτμενα as &quot;perfumed&quot;, possibly following Theander's &quot;odorata&quot;, but what verb could that be? Also, the tradition gives καταυταμεν́ἀτατιμάσεις, at least if Voigt's in-cruces text is to be taken as the tradition text, and apparently καταυταμένα means suspended, or so says Edmonds, so why not καταυτάμενα τὰ Τῖμας? What verb would καταυτάμενα be? Also, what meter did Edmonds have in mind for that line? It looks like –u–u–xuuu–u, maybe trochaic meter, super-duper-catalectic (sorry, don't remember the right prefix, either hyper- or brachy- :) ) trochaic meter, dactyl, catalectic iambic meter? Or maybe the anceps is short and we get –u–x|–u…|uuu|–u…, or trochaic meter, super-catalectic (whatever the other one wasn't :) ) trochaic meter, tribrachus, super-catalectic trochaic meter?&#xD;&#xA; 3. There is also a third question though: disregarding Bergk's (partly due to Seidler and Ahrens too) major amendation to have all glyconics, where did Vikiþíki draw its text? And who proposed safopoemas's text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χερρόμακτρα δΐ t ΚΑΓΓΟΝΩΝ&#xD;&#xA;t πορφύρα- t ΚΑΤΑΥΤΑΜΕΝΑΤΑΤΙ&#xD;&#xA;t Μ(ν)δσις πέμψ' άπύ φωκάας δώρα τίμια t ΚΑΓΓΟΝΩΝ t&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is presumably:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χερρόμακτρα δὲ †καγγονων†&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;πορφύρα- †καταυταμενατατι†&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Μ(ν)δσις πέμψ' ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δώρα τίμια †καγγονων†&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in other words featuring a augmentless aorist? Was it Reinach directly or someone else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Extras**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian Paracritical Note extract&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Il fr. 44 è riportato da Vikiþíki come&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χειρόμακτρα δὲ καγγόνων&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἀτιμάσεις,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ἔπεμψ᾽ ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δῶρα τίμια λαγγόνων.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;mentre Bibliotheca Augustana lo riporta così:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Κεττόμακτρα δὲ +Καγγόνων&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τά τοι Μ&lt;ν&gt;ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Δῶρα τίμια +Καγγόνων.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;La versione Vikiþíki fa suonare a tutto spiano il meter detector, che dice: lacuna di ancipite al v. 4 e verso fuori posto al v. 3, sembra un gliconeo come gli altri ma è – –uu u–u–, sembra uno ionico a maiore più uno a minore con anaclasi oppure uno spondeo-tribraco-metro trocaico catalettico. La versione Bibliotheca Augustana invece, oltre ad essere chiaramente composta da una tripletta di versi (due gliconei ed un metro dattilico eoilico del tipo sopra visto con due dattili fra xx e –ux) ed un gliconeo avanzato da una tripletta semidispersa, corrisponde al metro di un altro frammento che mi è passato sott’occhio, tĕthnákēn d’ adŏ́lōś thĕ́lō, ragioni per cui opto per quest’ultima versione. Ora traduciamo in prosa. Vikiþíki: «Drappi dei (inesistente) porpora (part. perf. introvabile), e questi non rispetterai, li mandò dalla Focea, doni preziosi dei (inesistente)», Bibliotheca Augustana: «(Inesistente) dei (inesistente) porpora (part. perf. introvabile), i quali (nt.) Mnasi ha mandato a te dalla Focea, doni preziosi dei (inesistente)». Questo è dunque un frammento molto problematico. Per prima cosa recuperiamo chĕirŏ́maktra da Vikiþíki. Kaġgŏ́nōn è dopo un + in Bibliotheca Augustana, ossia l’equivalente di una cosa racchiusa fra cruces, dunque un’incognita anche per Bibliotheca Augustana. Kaġgŏ́nŏś non esiste. Supponendo un troncamento di katà da un katagŏ́nŏś, con kata&gt;kat&gt;kag, tipico eolico, non trovo kata-gŏ́nŏś, ma katagŏ́mŏś, sovraccarico, completamente acontestuale qui. Anche separare kag da gŏ́nōn non porta a niente: giù dalle stirpi che accidenti sarebbe. L’unica è pensare o ad un’irrimediabile corruzione o ad un nome di popolo di cui non ci è giunta alcuna notizia, Káġgŏnĕś, Kaġgŏ́nōn, i Cangoni, e questo ho ipotizzato io. Mnasi deve essere una regina di quel popolo, probabilmente della Focea (v. 3). O forse un re. Chissà? Kataÿ́tmĕna è anche lei introvabile. È evidente, per la desinenza –mĕna, che si tratta di un part. perf. medio-pass., ma il verbo è introvabile. Kataÿ́tō (o dep. –tŏmai) non esiste. Kataÿ́ssō (o dep.) non esiste. Kataÿtánō (o dep.) non esiste. Nessun verbo con un tema simile si ritrova nel Rocci. Un verbo politematico, forse? Il Greek Word Study Tool della Perseus Digital library non trova niente, neanche se si annulla la baritonesi portando l’accento sulla desinenza. In un altro frammento si trova la medesima coppia di parole, ma la traduzione francese che ne ho non corrisponde al greco per nulla, almeno per quanto riesco a farla corrispondere io. Proviamo ad eliminare il kat-. Stesso risultato. L’unica è eliminare il taỹ del tema. Così trovo aýō, essiccare, att. haýō, e kataýō, stesso senso. Il perfetto non è riportato per nessuno dei due. Proviamo a crearlo. Aýka, aýsmai potrebbe essere. Deriva infatti da «cf sscr çúskah ; lt. sudus, al. haurio, uro», tutte parole che fanno pensare ad un possibile sigma intervocalico caduto ma preservatosi nel pf. pass. Bisogna però ipotizzare una dieresi da aýō ad aÿ́ō, oltre alla mancanza di raddoppiamento. Infatti l’álpha iniziale deve essere breve per la metrica, mentre il raddoppiamento lo porterebbe o ad un ẽta o, in eolico, ad un álpha lungo mentre qui è breve. L’idea è un po’ ardita, ma non trovo di meglio. Dobbiamo però correggere aÿ́tmena in aÿ́smena. Quando arriverò all’ultimo frammento, quello colle stesse due parole, vedrò come comportarmi là. Per ora questo mi soddisfa. Da queste osservazioni ottengo il testo:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Χειρόμακτρα δὲ †Καγγόνων†,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Πορφύρα καταϋσμένα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ἄ τοι Μ&lt;ν&gt;ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Δῶρα τίμια †Καγγόνων†.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ovvero «Drappi dei Cangoni, porpora essiccata, cose che Mnasi ti ha mandato dalla Focea, doni preziosi dei Cangoni». Questo sarà molto duro a tradurre in rima, perché come rimo con Cangoni? NB per chi non avesse capito, si dice Cángoni, non Cangóni. Io proverò, ma temo che non riuscirò.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voigt critical note&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scratch the Edmonds bit, he corrects the upsilon to a rho and καταρταμένα is from καταίρω. Though the meter is again unclear... So that part stands. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expanding on the meter, now we have –u–u–uuuu–u, undoing one anaclasis that could become –u–uu–uuu–u, and with one more anaclasis undone that would yield –u–uu–uu–uu, which would fit xx–uu–uu–ux, a glyconic expanded with a dactyl (gl&lt;sup&gt;1d&lt;/sup&gt; if you want), is that possible? Or should I read that as –u–x|–uuuu|–x, or a trochaic meter, another trochaic meter with the second element turned to a tribrachus, and a super-catalectic trochaic meter, making this a weird super-catalectic trimeter (weird because of the tribrachus)? Or something else entirely, maybe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kN7bU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LbGqr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24392" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="7242" RevisionGUID="3726e3ce-836f-4d0e-8489-135b718e8f0f" CreationDate="2018-10-08T13:23:16.627" UserId="79" Comment="85" />
  <row Id="24393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7272" RevisionGUID="214fbbc2-fc51-4ad1-871b-505b8c634862" CreationDate="2018-10-08T15:05:16.173" UserId="324" Text="Yes, Aeolic /we/ means either &quot;him&quot; or &quot;her&quot;. But the question is further muddied by the fact that ‹ϝ'›  is a conjecture." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7273" RevisionGUID="f5c98963-917c-4b1b-a090-b59e4ad331fc" CreationDate="2018-10-08T16:51:34.277" UserId="406" Text="*(Digammas? Digammai? Digammata?)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question][1] revolved around a dialectal form that I'd never seen before. Normally when encountering a new Greek word, Attic or otherwise, my first instinct is to look it up in [Perseus][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the input guide on Perseus doesn't list digamma. Is there a better way to look up a word like Aeolic *ϝε*? (I'm not even sure if LSJ include forms like that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7268/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24395" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7273" RevisionGUID="f5c98963-917c-4b1b-a090-b59e4ad331fc" CreationDate="2018-10-08T16:51:34.277" UserId="406" Text="How can I look up words with digammas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24396" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7273" RevisionGUID="f5c98963-917c-4b1b-a090-b59e4ad331fc" CreationDate="2018-10-08T16:51:34.277" UserId="406" Text="|greek|resource-request|dictionary|aeolic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7274" RevisionGUID="b9bcba2c-a008-4cec-92c7-a1fe7f87ac8e" CreationDate="2018-10-08T17:06:33.850" UserId="324" Text="Believe it or not, it is actually in L&amp;S, here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.53:9:95.LSJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the alphabet waw comes after epsilon. But L&amp;S ignore it for the purposes of lemmatisation.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7221" RevisionGUID="56587c19-3215-403b-b3c8-fc82791dc713" CreationDate="2018-10-08T21:08:15.103" UserId="2950" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Having read the answers and comments above, It occurs to me this question might be better phrased as &quot;what is a joke?&quot; If I were to make my own joke (aside from the first sentence), it would involve my countrymen in the U.S. not understanding why British people think irony is funny. In this case it isn't &quot;a joke&quot; which the students laugh at, it is the situation. While this is a verbal telling with a laughter response, it is still situational comedy at the juxtaposition of a difficult to read, pronounce, and spell name of a highly respected classical figure sharing what would be a commoner's name. It would be similarly amusing to discover the U.S. President's family name used to be a name that sounds like a sack of wet excrement being dropped on a concrete floor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7269" RevisionGUID="306c0a1c-d6c8-4dd1-9dd5-86cad3b238c1" CreationDate="2018-10-08T21:44:08.707" UserId="13" Comment="made a forgotten amendation in the restored safopoemas text" Text="This is kind of a mess. Let me first report how I tackled it when I first translated all (or most) of Sappho. Below is the translation of an extract of the Paracritical note I made back then, the original is in an extra at the bottom. I include it basically to do some of my critical note for the fragment early :). Note that this is fr. 44 in Greek Wikisource numbering, and that GW is called Vikiþíki, þ pronounced as the th in thumb, because that is the Modern Greek pronunciation of the Greek name of Wikisource, Βικιθήκη.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Fr. 44 is reported by Vikiþíki as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χειρόμακτρα δὲ καγγόνων&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἀτιμάσεις,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ἔπεμψ᾽ ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δῶρα τίμια λαγγόνων.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;while Bibliotheca Augustana reports it thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Κεττόμακτρα δὲ +Καγγόνων&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τά τοι Μ&lt;ν&gt;ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Δῶρα τίμια +Καγγόνων.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Vikiþíki version makes the meter detector go off at full blast, telling me: lacuna of an anceps in l. 4 and out-of-place line at l. 3, looks like a glyconic like the others but it's – –uu u–u–, looks like a ionic a maiore foot plus an a minore with anaclasis [or rather a iambic meter] or a spondee-tribrachus-trochaic meter catalectic. The Bibliotheca Augustana version instead, besides being clearly composed of a triplet of lines (two glyconics and an Aeolic dactylic meter of the kind seen above [fr. 40-41 is Lobel-Page 130-131] with two dactyls between xx and –ux [i.e. xx–uu–uu–ux]) and a glyconic left over from a half-lost triplet, corresponds to the meter of another fragment that passed under my eye, tĕthnákēn d’ adŏ́lōś thĕ́lō [i.e. Lobel-Page 94], reasons due to which I opt for this last version. Let's now translate into prose. Vikiþíki: «Drapes of the (inexistent) purple dye (unfindable perfect participle), and these you will not respect, [he/she] sent them from Phocea, precious gifts of the (inexistent)», Bibliotheca Augustana: «(Inexistent) of the (inexistent) purple dye (unfindable perfect participle), which (neuter) Mnasis sent you from Phocea, doni precious gifts of the (inexistent)». This is thus a very problematic fragment. First of we recover χειρόμακτρα from Vikiþíki. Καγγόνων is after a + in Bibliotheca Augustana, that is the equivalent of something enclosed in cruces, thus an unknown even for Bibliotheca Augustana. Κάγγονος doesn't exist. Supposing a truncation of κατὰ from a κατάγονος, with κατα-&gt;κατ-&gt;καγ, typically Aeolic, I don't find κατά-γονος, but κατά-γομος, overloaded, totally out-of-context here. Even separating κὰγ from γόνων: &quot;down from the lineages&quot;, what the heck would that mean. [Apparently I didn't know Aeolic had γόνα, γόνων as the plural of γόνυ, knee, see below.] The only thing left is to think of an irremediable corruption or of the name of a people of which no news reached us, Κάγγονες, Καγγόνων, the Cangones, and that is what I hypothized. Mnasis must be a queen of that people, probably from Phocea (l. 3). Or maybe a king. Who knows? Καταΰτμενα is also unfindable. It is evident, by the ending -μενα, that it's a medio-passive perfect participle, but the verb is unfindable. Καταΰτω (or deponent -τομαι) doesn't exist. Καταΰσσω (or deponent) doesn't exist. Καταϋτάνω (or deponent) doesn't exist. No verb with a similar root is found in Rocci [the standard Greek dictionary in Italy, at least AFAIK]. A polythematic verb, perhaps? The Greek Word Study Tool of the Perseus Digital library finds nothing, not even if the barytonesis is undone by bringing the accent over to the ending. In another fragment [Lobel-Page 44, perhaps?] the same word pair is found, but the French translation I have of it [no idea where I found it] doesn't match the Greek at all, at least as far as I can make it match. Let's try to eliminate the κατ-. Same result. The only thing left is to eliminate the tau from the root. Thus I find αὔω, to essiccate, Attic αὕω, and καταύω, same meaning. The perfect isn't reported [by Rocci, I assume] for either. Let's try to create it. It could be αὔκα, αὔσμαι. It derives indeed from «cf sscr çúskah ; lt. sudus, al. haurio, uro», all words that make me think of a possible lost intervocalic sigma preserved in the past. One must however hypothise a diaeresis from αὔω to ἀΰω, besides the lack of reduplication. Indeed the initial alpha must be short by meter, while reduplication would bring it to an eta or, in Aeolic, to a long alpha while it's short here. The idea is a bit bold, but I can't find anything better. We must however correct ἀΰτμενα to ἀΰσμενα. When I get to the last fragment [probably LP 44, it was the last on Vikiþíki after all], the one with the same two words, I'll see how to behave there. For now this satisfies me. From these observation I obtain the text:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Χειρόμακτρα δὲ †Καγγόνων†,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Πορφύρα καταϋσμένα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ἄ τοι Μ&lt;ν&gt;ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Δῶρα τίμια †Καγγόνων†.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is «Drapes of the Cangones, essiccated purple, things which Mnasi sent you from Phocea, precious gifts of the Cangones». This will be very hard to translate with rhymes, because what do I rhyme with Cangones? NB for who hasn't understood, it's Cángoni, not Cangóni. [That is, the stress is on the a, not the o.] I will try, but I fear I won't manage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now obviously there is another correction that must be done: χειρόμακτρα-&gt;χερρόμακτρα, by dialect. There are clearly two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is there any chance that my idea of the Cangones people is actually correct? Other options include: κὰγ γόνων, though that is dispelled by Athenaeus, who quotes it saying κόσμον λέγει τῆς κεφαλῆς τὰ χειρόμακτρα or something like that, so these &quot;drapes&quot; (for want of a better term) are supposed to be around the head, suggested by Idk who; κὰκ κομᾶν (Ahrens) or a similar κὰκ κόμων (Seidler); Μαιόνων or Ἰαώνων, as hesitatingly proposed by Lobel; and Edmonds' κὰγ γένυων; between these I'd go for Seidler's idea;&#xD;&#xA; 2. What verb is that &quot;unfindable perfect participle&quot;? I went at great lengths to interpret it, probably misled by thinking πορφύρα was a noun when it could be an adjective, a contracted form of *πορφύραα, Aeolic for πορφύρεα, purple-colored, and ended up changing a letter and having to posit a weird diaeresis. Campbell translates καταΰτμενα as &quot;perfumed&quot;, possibly following Theander's &quot;odorata&quot;, but what verb could that be? Also, the tradition gives καταυταμεν́ἀτατιμάσεις, at least if Voigt's in-cruces text is to be taken as the tradition text, and apparently καταυταμένα means suspended, or so says Edmonds, so why not καταυτάμενα τὰ Τῖμας? What verb would καταυτάμενα be? Also, what meter did Edmonds have in mind for that line? It looks like –u–u–xuuu–u, maybe trochaic meter, super-duper-catalectic (sorry, don't remember the right prefix, either hyper- or brachy- :) ) trochaic meter, dactyl, catalectic iambic meter? Or maybe the anceps is short and we get –u–x|–u…|uuu|–u…, or trochaic meter, super-catalectic (whatever the other one wasn't :) ) trochaic meter, tribrachus, super-catalectic trochaic meter?&#xD;&#xA; 3. There is also a third question though: disregarding Bergk's (partly due to Seidler and Ahrens too) major amendation to have all glyconics, where did Vikiþíki draw its text? And who proposed safopoemas's text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χερρόμακτρα δΐ t ΚΑΓΓΟΝΩΝ&#xD;&#xA;t πορφύρα- t ΚΑΤΑΥΤΑΜΕΝΑΤΑΤΙ&#xD;&#xA;t Μ(ν)δσις πέμψ' άπύ φωκάας δώρα τίμια t ΚΑΓΓΟΝΩΝ t&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is presumably:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χερρόμακτρα δὲ †καγγονων†&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;πορφύρα- †καταυταμενατατι†&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Μ(ν)ᾶσις πέμψ' ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δώρα τίμια †καγγονων†&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in other words featuring a augmentless aorist? Was it Reinach directly or someone else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Extras**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian Paracritical Note extract&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Il fr. 44 è riportato da Vikiþíki come&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χειρόμακτρα δὲ καγγόνων&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἀτιμάσεις,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ἔπεμψ᾽ ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δῶρα τίμια λαγγόνων.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;mentre Bibliotheca Augustana lo riporta così:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Κεττόμακτρα δὲ +Καγγόνων&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τά τοι Μ&lt;ν&gt;ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Δῶρα τίμια +Καγγόνων.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;La versione Vikiþíki fa suonare a tutto spiano il meter detector, che dice: lacuna di ancipite al v. 4 e verso fuori posto al v. 3, sembra un gliconeo come gli altri ma è – –uu u–u–, sembra uno ionico a maiore più uno a minore con anaclasi oppure uno spondeo-tribraco-metro trocaico catalettico. La versione Bibliotheca Augustana invece, oltre ad essere chiaramente composta da una tripletta di versi (due gliconei ed un metro dattilico eoilico del tipo sopra visto con due dattili fra xx e –ux) ed un gliconeo avanzato da una tripletta semidispersa, corrisponde al metro di un altro frammento che mi è passato sott’occhio, tĕthnákēn d’ adŏ́lōś thĕ́lō, ragioni per cui opto per quest’ultima versione. Ora traduciamo in prosa. Vikiþíki: «Drappi dei (inesistente) porpora (part. perf. introvabile), e questi non rispetterai, li mandò dalla Focea, doni preziosi dei (inesistente)», Bibliotheca Augustana: «(Inesistente) dei (inesistente) porpora (part. perf. introvabile), i quali (nt.) Mnasi ha mandato a te dalla Focea, doni preziosi dei (inesistente)». Questo è dunque un frammento molto problematico. Per prima cosa recuperiamo chĕirŏ́maktra da Vikiþíki. Kaġgŏ́nōn è dopo un + in Bibliotheca Augustana, ossia l’equivalente di una cosa racchiusa fra cruces, dunque un’incognita anche per Bibliotheca Augustana. Kaġgŏ́nŏś non esiste. Supponendo un troncamento di katà da un katagŏ́nŏś, con kata&gt;kat&gt;kag, tipico eolico, non trovo kata-gŏ́nŏś, ma katagŏ́mŏś, sovraccarico, completamente acontestuale qui. Anche separare kag da gŏ́nōn non porta a niente: giù dalle stirpi che accidenti sarebbe. L’unica è pensare o ad un’irrimediabile corruzione o ad un nome di popolo di cui non ci è giunta alcuna notizia, Káġgŏnĕś, Kaġgŏ́nōn, i Cangoni, e questo ho ipotizzato io. Mnasi deve essere una regina di quel popolo, probabilmente della Focea (v. 3). O forse un re. Chissà? Kataÿ́tmĕna è anche lei introvabile. È evidente, per la desinenza –mĕna, che si tratta di un part. perf. medio-pass., ma il verbo è introvabile. Kataÿ́tō (o dep. –tŏmai) non esiste. Kataÿ́ssō (o dep.) non esiste. Kataÿtánō (o dep.) non esiste. Nessun verbo con un tema simile si ritrova nel Rocci. Un verbo politematico, forse? Il Greek Word Study Tool della Perseus Digital library non trova niente, neanche se si annulla la baritonesi portando l’accento sulla desinenza. In un altro frammento si trova la medesima coppia di parole, ma la traduzione francese che ne ho non corrisponde al greco per nulla, almeno per quanto riesco a farla corrispondere io. Proviamo ad eliminare il kat-. Stesso risultato. L’unica è eliminare il taỹ del tema. Così trovo aýō, essiccare, att. haýō, e kataýō, stesso senso. Il perfetto non è riportato per nessuno dei due. Proviamo a crearlo. Aýka, aýsmai potrebbe essere. Deriva infatti da «cf sscr çúskah ; lt. sudus, al. haurio, uro», tutte parole che fanno pensare ad un possibile sigma intervocalico caduto ma preservatosi nel pf. pass. Bisogna però ipotizzare una dieresi da aýō ad aÿ́ō, oltre alla mancanza di raddoppiamento. Infatti l’álpha iniziale deve essere breve per la metrica, mentre il raddoppiamento lo porterebbe o ad un ẽta o, in eolico, ad un álpha lungo mentre qui è breve. L’idea è un po’ ardita, ma non trovo di meglio. Dobbiamo però correggere aÿ́tmena in aÿ́smena. Quando arriverò all’ultimo frammento, quello colle stesse due parole, vedrò come comportarmi là. Per ora questo mi soddisfa. Da queste osservazioni ottengo il testo:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Χειρόμακτρα δὲ †Καγγόνων†,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Πορφύρα καταϋσμένα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ἄ τοι Μ&lt;ν&gt;ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Δῶρα τίμια †Καγγόνων†.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ovvero «Drappi dei Cangoni, porpora essiccata, cose che Mnasi ti ha mandato dalla Focea, doni preziosi dei Cangoni». Questo sarà molto duro a tradurre in rima, perché come rimo con Cangoni? NB per chi non avesse capito, si dice Cángoni, non Cangóni. Io proverò, ma temo che non riuscirò.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voigt critical note&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scratch the Edmonds bit, he corrects the upsilon to a rho and καταρταμένα is from καταίρω. Though the meter is again unclear... So that part stands. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expanding on the meter, now we have –u–u–uuuu–u, undoing one anaclasis that could become –u–uu–uuu–u, and with one more anaclasis undone that would yield –u–uu–uu–uu, which would fit xx–uu–uu–ux, a glyconic expanded with a dactyl (gl&lt;sup&gt;1d&lt;/sup&gt; if you want), is that possible? Or should I read that as –u–x|–uuuu|–x, or a trochaic meter, another trochaic meter with the second element turned to a tribrachus, and a super-catalectic trochaic meter, making this a weird super-catalectic trimeter (weird because of the tribrachus)? Or something else entirely, maybe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kN7bU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LbGqr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7224" RevisionGUID="e0dc220d-eedf-4ac5-801d-796868344104" CreationDate="2018-10-09T13:12:31.667" UserId="45" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I didn't see anyone else answer your question so I'll do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Giuseppe* is the Italian spelling for the name *Josef/Joseph*; the shortened version is *Joe*. *Verdi* is is very close to the Latin word for green, *viridis*, and also closely resembles the Spanish/Italian word for green *verde*. I don’t have any good references for that but it's rather obvious once you know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7275" RevisionGUID="8d6f6817-c02c-4d13-9df9-f77af64a2507" CreationDate="2018-10-10T04:33:25.860" UserId="1987" Text="Would &quot;[ἰχθύβολος][1] ἄναξ&quot; be a correct translation of &quot;Fisher King&quot; into Ancient Greek?&#xA;(I want to use a derivative of [ἰχθύς][2] plus ἄναξ, not βᾰσῐλεύς)&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=i)xqu/bolos&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=i)xqu=s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24402" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7275" RevisionGUID="8d6f6817-c02c-4d13-9df9-f77af64a2507" CreationDate="2018-10-10T04:33:25.860" UserId="1987" Text="ἰχθύβολος ἄναξ, Fisher King (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24403" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7275" RevisionGUID="8d6f6817-c02c-4d13-9df9-f77af64a2507" CreationDate="2018-10-10T04:33:25.860" UserId="1987" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7276" RevisionGUID="16463086-7f2b-484a-964f-ac6c2f1e0e86" CreationDate="2018-10-10T08:38:04.080" UserId="2646" Text="In Spanish, the word &quot;tarde&quot; has two different meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The part of the day between noon and dusk. Equivalent to the English noun &quot;afternoon&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;2. Happening after the due, usual, or proper time. Equivalent to the English adverb &quot;late&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Spanish Royal Academy states in its dictionary that the word comes from Latin &quot;tarde&quot;. But I would like to know which one of both meaning came before. I can find one occurrence of &quot;tarde&quot; as &quot;late&quot; in &quot;Cantar de Mio cid&quot; from 1140, and many occurrences of &quot;tarde&quot; as &quot;afternoon&quot; in texts by Alfonso X the Wise (13th century). This matches what Spanish etymologist Joan Corominas states in his dictionary: the &quot;late&quot; meaning may have come before than the &quot;afternoon&quot; meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nonetheless, as it seems that both meanings came from Latin &quot;tarde&quot;, I would like to know:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Was the word &quot;tarde&quot; used in Late Latin or Medieval Latin?&#xD;&#xA;* If so, what was its meaning?&#xD;&#xA;* If it already had both meanings, which one of them came first?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that the &quot;late&quot; meaning came first, as the original verb from which the word was derived was &quot;tardare&quot; (also in Spanish: &quot;tardar&quot;) that means &quot;to delay&quot;. But I would like confirmation about this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24405" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7276" RevisionGUID="16463086-7f2b-484a-964f-ac6c2f1e0e86" CreationDate="2018-10-10T08:38:04.080" UserId="2646" Text="Latin etymology of Spanish &quot;tarde&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24406" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7276" RevisionGUID="16463086-7f2b-484a-964f-ac6c2f1e0e86" CreationDate="2018-10-10T08:38:04.080" UserId="2646" Text="|medieval-latin|noun|adverb|late-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24407" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7276" RevisionGUID="24d580c1-c609-4106-8bca-84c4a13482b0" CreationDate="2018-10-10T11:25:42.737" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|medieval-latin|noun|adverb|spanish|late-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7277" RevisionGUID="dbaa188c-e3b2-48aa-8283-bacd9f000f12" CreationDate="2018-10-10T12:27:00.847" UserId="2990" Text="What is the origin for the word &quot;sex&quot; in its various grammatical forms (the noun &quot;sex&quot; and the verb &quot;sex&quot;)? What is the historical definition of this word? How has it morphed into the definition of sex today? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24409" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7277" RevisionGUID="dbaa188c-e3b2-48aa-8283-bacd9f000f12" CreationDate="2018-10-10T12:27:00.847" UserId="2990" Text="What is the origin for the act of &quot;sex&quot; and definition?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24410" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7277" RevisionGUID="dbaa188c-e3b2-48aa-8283-bacd9f000f12" CreationDate="2018-10-10T12:27:00.847" UserId="2990" Text="|vocabulary|origin|definitions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7278" RevisionGUID="a4f1299d-a13c-4147-9cd7-7c524e33e9b7" CreationDate="2018-10-10T13:25:21.893" UserId="1459" Text="Notice sex as a verb (e.g. &quot;to have sex&quot;) is a 20th century meaning. The earliest quote in the [Oxford English Dictionary](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/176990?rskey=z3jm4K&amp;result=3&amp;isAdvanced=false#eid) about this meaning is from 1921:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;K. Burke Let. 20 Aug. in K. Burke &amp; M. Cowley Sel. Corr. (1988) 98  _Our baby is eighteen months old now, and cries when we sex._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding its meaning as a noun (as in gender), the [same dictionary](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/176989?result=1&amp;rskey=93hI6b&amp;) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Origin: Of multiple origins. Partly a borrowing from French. Partly a borrowing from Latin. Etymons: French sexe; Latin sexus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Etymology: &lt; Middle French, French sexe the genitals (c1200 in Old French as sex ), gender, state of being male or female (c1230, 14th cent. as a social category, 1546 with reference to plants), sexuality, physical lovemaking, eroticism (1856) and its etymon classical Latin sexus (u- stem) state of being male or female, specific qualities associated with being male or female, males or females collectively, sexual organs, of uncertain origin (perhaps compare secāre to cut (see secant adj.), though the semantic connection is unclear). Compare Old Occitan sexe (1420), Catalan sexe (1515), Spanish sexo (first half of the 15th cent.), Portuguese sexo (1572), Italian sesso (14th cent.).&#xD;&#xA;Latin had also a form secus , neuter (indeclinable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, regarding the origin of &quot;sex&quot; in terms of Latin, it seems to come from _sexus_, or _secus_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: [this post](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1478/are-sex-and-sexus-etymologically-related) (about the etymology of the number _sex_ and the noun _sexus_) has some more insights. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7278" RevisionGUID="aebc3874-6ba5-4019-a7c2-701fcb14d0fb" CreationDate="2018-10-10T13:31:58.660" UserId="1459" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="Notice sex as a verb (e.g. &quot;to have sex&quot;) is a 20th century **English** meaning. The earliest quote in the [Oxford English Dictionary](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/176990?rskey=z3jm4K&amp;result=3&amp;isAdvanced=false#eid) about this meaning is from 1921:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;K. Burke Let. 20 Aug. in K. Burke &amp; M. Cowley Sel. Corr. (1988) 98  _Our baby is eighteen months old now, and cries when we sex._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is, _sex_ **does not mean sexual intercourse in Latin**. This is expressed with words like _[coitus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coitus#Latin)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding its meaning as a noun (as in gender), the [same dictionary](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/176989?result=1&amp;rskey=93hI6b&amp;) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Origin: Of multiple origins. Partly a borrowing from French. Partly a borrowing from Latin. Etymons: French sexe; Latin sexus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Etymology: &lt; Middle French, French sexe the genitals (c1200 in Old French as sex ), gender, state of being male or female (c1230, 14th cent. as a social category, 1546 with reference to plants), sexuality, physical lovemaking, eroticism (1856) and its etymon classical Latin sexus (u- stem) state of being male or female, specific qualities associated with being male or female, males or females collectively, sexual organs, of uncertain origin (perhaps compare secāre to cut (see secant adj.), though the semantic connection is unclear). Compare Old Occitan sexe (1420), Catalan sexe (1515), Spanish sexo (first half of the 15th cent.), Portuguese sexo (1572), Italian sesso (14th cent.).&#xD;&#xA;Latin had also a form secus , neuter (indeclinable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, regarding the origin of &quot;sex&quot; in terms of Latin, it seems to come from _sexus_, or _secus_, jointly with the French &quot;sexe&quot; (actually, as the entry above shows, &quot;sexe&quot; was also an Middle English word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: [this post](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1478/are-sex-and-sexus-etymologically-related) (about the etymology of the number _sex_ and the noun _sexus_) has some more insights. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7278" RevisionGUID="b30db06a-a952-4d00-9235-b1c179b04ed8" CreationDate="2018-10-10T13:37:03.657" UserId="1459" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="Notice sex as a verb (e.g. &quot;to have sex&quot;) is a 20th century **English** meaning. The earliest quote in the [Oxford English Dictionary](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/176990?rskey=z3jm4K&amp;result=3&amp;isAdvanced=false#eid) about this meaning is from 1921:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;K. Burke Let. 20 Aug. in K. Burke &amp; M. Cowley Sel. Corr. (1988) 98  _Our baby is eighteen months old now, and cries when we sex._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is, _sex_ **does not mean sexual intercourse in Latin**. This is expressed with words like _[coitus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coitus#Latin)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding its meaning as a noun (as in gender), the [same dictionary](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/176989?result=1&amp;rskey=93hI6b&amp;) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Origin: Of multiple origins. Partly a borrowing from French. Partly a borrowing from Latin. Etymons: French sexe; Latin sexus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Etymology: &lt; Middle French, French sexe the genitals (c1200 in Old French as sex ), gender, state of being male or female (c1230, 14th cent. as a social category, 1546 with reference to plants), sexuality, physical lovemaking, eroticism (1856) and its etymon classical Latin sexus (u- stem) state of being male or female, specific qualities associated with being male or female, males or females collectively, sexual organs, of uncertain origin (perhaps compare secāre to cut (see secant adj.), though the semantic connection is unclear). Compare Old Occitan sexe (1420), Catalan sexe (1515), Spanish sexo (first half of the 15th cent.), Portuguese sexo (1572), Italian sesso (14th cent.).&#xD;&#xA;Latin had also a form secus , neuter (indeclinable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, regarding the origin of &quot;sex&quot; in terms of Latin, it seems to come from _sexus_, or _secus_, jointly with the French &quot;sexe&quot; (actually, as the entry above shows, &quot;sexe&quot; was also an Middle English word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: [this post](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1478/are-sex-and-sexus-etymologically-related) (about the etymology of the number _sex_ and the noun _sexus_) has some more insights on the origin of _sexus_. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7279" RevisionGUID="2f39cd89-c4b7-499c-8728-b3215dd89380" CreationDate="2018-10-10T18:13:00.153" UserId="1694" Text="I think that's reasonable choice under the constraints you have given.  You might consider ἰχθυοθηρητήρ rather than ἰχθυβολος (I think the connotations are slightly different)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7279" RevisionGUID="be703bf0-2bc2-4a5b-aa55-07d7c8f012c9" CreationDate="2018-10-10T18:18:42.827" UserId="1694" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I think that's a reasonable choice under the constraints you have given.  You might consider using ἰχθυοθηρητήρ rather than ἰχθυβολος (I think the connotations are slightly different)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7280" RevisionGUID="82c438f4-dcea-499d-b878-1e0d719ab3c9" CreationDate="2018-10-10T18:22:41.447" UserId="406" Text="Latin had a word *sex*, but it didn't have the same meaning as in English. Instead, it's cognate with English &quot;six&quot;, and means the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English &quot;sex&quot; comes from Latin *sexus, -ūs*, which comes from a root *sec-* meaning &quot;cut&quot; (compare section, dissect, segment). The original meaning was &quot;division&quot;, which shifted to &quot;a way of dividing something in half&quot;, and thus to &quot;the division between men and women; biological sex&quot;. That's the meaning it had in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This led to an adjective *sexuālis, -is, -e*, &quot;pertaining to the sexes&quot;, as in &quot;sexual dimorphism&quot;, &quot;sexual reproduction&quot;, etc. This adjective got associated with sex in the modern sense through phrases like &quot;sexual intercourse&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over time this got shortened just to &quot;sex&quot;, as a noun meaning the physical act, and then that turned into a verb. But these were purely post-Latin developments. In Latin, *sexus* means &quot;sex&quot; as in the male/female binary, nothing more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7281" RevisionGUID="8cf1f888-6d51-4cb8-a95e-5fc6b1cb43dc" CreationDate="2018-10-10T18:26:35.747" UserId="406" Text="The &quot;slow&quot; meaning came first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin adjective is *tardus -a -um* (with adverb *tarde*), and its origin is unknown. But it definitely was used for &quot;late&quot; or &quot;slow&quot; in Latin (hence &quot;tardy&quot;, &quot;retardation&quot;), and I've never seen it used for &quot;afternoon&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *tardāre*/*tardar* is indeed related, but it seems to have come from the adjective, not the other way around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24418" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7279" RevisionGUID="c9459168-1f52-4396-8d69-60218a66e5e2" CreationDate="2018-10-10T18:36:24.360" UserId="1694" Comment="added 177 characters in body" Text="I think that's a reasonable choice under the constraints you have given.  You might consider using ἰχθυοθηρητήρ rather than ἰχθυβολος.  I think the connotations are slightly different - although I don't think I've met either of these words in the wild, but from the formation, the -βολος suggests striking the fish, while the -θηρητήρ suggests hunting for them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7279" RevisionGUID="113677ca-8646-4592-928e-b476d69a8b32" CreationDate="2018-10-10T18:42:37.413" UserId="1694" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="I think that's a reasonable choice under the constraints you have given.  You might consider using ἰχθυοθηρητήρ rather than ἰχθυβολος.  I think the connotations are slightly different - although I don't think I've met either of these words in the wild, but from the formation, the -βολος suggests striking the fish, while the -θηρητήρ suggests hunting for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, the term &quot;Fisher King&quot; has quite Christian connotations for me, but the word for &quot;fisherman&quot; is ἁλιεύς in the NT, and ἄναξ has dintinctly poetic/archaic feel to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7282" RevisionGUID="524da5dc-beaa-4692-af6b-d8415ceec7b2" CreationDate="2018-10-10T18:54:21.843" UserId="406" Text="*Ánax* is a fine word for &quot;king&quot;, though if you want to be super-ancient you can use *wánax* (*ϝάναξ*) instead; that's the even older form found in Homer. The first letter is a digamma, representing a sound that disappeared from Attic but survived in other dialects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ichthýbolos* is specifically about hitting fish with spears or tridents; I'd translate it as &quot;angler&quot; rather than &quot;fisherman&quot;.  Varro suggests a few other words you can use, but to add another option, how about a participle? The generic verb for &quot;to fish&quot; is *ichthyáō*, which doesn't imply any particular method. So &quot;[the man who is] fishing&quot; would be *ichthyõn* with contraction and *ichthyáōn* without; the contraction is very Attic, while Epic and many other dialects don't do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for a particularly archaic sound, I'd say *ὁ ϝάναξ ὁ ιχθυάων* *ho wánax ho ichthyáōn* &quot;the king who is fishing&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7279" RevisionGUID="ff1e3c71-598f-491a-83c5-34da5c2eaa68" CreationDate="2018-10-10T20:12:37.677" UserId="1694" Comment="added 345 characters in body" Text="I think that's a reasonable choice under the constraints you have given.  You might consider using ἰχθυοθηρητήρ rather than ἰχθυβολος.  I think the connotations are slightly different - although I don't think I've met either of these words in the wild, but from the formation, the -βολος suggests striking the fish, while the -θηρητήρ suggests hunting for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, the term &quot;Fisher King&quot; has quite Christian connotations for me, but the word for &quot;fisherman&quot; is ἁλιεύς in the NT, and ἄναξ has dintinctly poetic/archaic feel to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One further remark:  the link given above to the L&amp;S entry for ἰχθυβολος shows *two* accentuations, a paroxytone ἰχθυβόλος for an active meaning, and a proparoxytone ἰχθύβολος for a passive meaning.  This disinction is regular for compound nouns of this type.  So, if you choose to go with your original version, it should be ἰχθυβόλος ἄναξ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7283" RevisionGUID="0bbf520d-c575-464b-b9f6-2ed45c494f49" CreationDate="2018-10-10T20:16:25.367" UserId="79" Text="In Finnish it is possible to swear indirectly by replacing the swear word with a euphemism or perhaps a more innocent similar-sounding word.&#xD;&#xA;This is most common in exclamations like &quot;oh [enter expletive]!&quot;, and most people will understand which word is left unsaid.&#xD;&#xA;Are there similar things in Latin from any era?&#xD;&#xA;One can swear in Latin, but are there more innocent or less offensive variants for them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24423" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7283" RevisionGUID="0bbf520d-c575-464b-b9f6-2ed45c494f49" CreationDate="2018-10-10T20:16:25.367" UserId="79" Text="Are there swearing euphemisms in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24424" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7283" RevisionGUID="0bbf520d-c575-464b-b9f6-2ed45c494f49" CreationDate="2018-10-10T20:16:25.367" UserId="79" Text="|euphemism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7279" RevisionGUID="d647b9af-739f-4b47-bb72-477ce87242de" CreationDate="2018-10-10T20:17:44.550" UserId="1694" Comment="added 345 characters in body" Text="I think that's a reasonable choice under the constraints you have given (but see below for accent).  You might consider using ἰχθυοθηρητήρ rather than ἰχθυβολος.  I think the connotations are slightly different - although I don't think I've met either of these words in the wild, but from the formation, the -βολος suggests striking the fish, while the -θηρητήρ suggests hunting for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, the term &quot;Fisher King&quot; has quite Christian connotations for me, but the word for &quot;fisherman&quot; is ἁλιεύς in the NT, and ἄναξ has dintinctly poetic/archaic feel to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One further remark:  the link given above to the L&amp;S entry for ἰχθυβολος shows *two* possible accents, a paroxytone ἰχθυβόλος for an active meaning, and a proparoxytone ἰχθύβολος for a passive meaning.  This disinction is regular for compound nouns of this type.  So, if you choose to go with your original version, it should be ἰχθυβόλος ἄναξ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7279" RevisionGUID="456126af-3b60-441b-ae0f-f3e123a7bc2a" CreationDate="2018-10-10T20:25:17.180" UserId="1694" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I think that's a reasonable choice under the constraints you have given (but see below for accent).  You might consider using ἰχθυοθηρητήρ rather than ἰχθυβολος.  I think the connotations are slightly different - although I don't think I've met either of these words in the wild, but from the formation, the -βολος suggests striking the fish, while the -θηρητήρ suggests hunting for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, the term &quot;Fisher King&quot; has quite Christian connotations for me, but the word for &quot;fisherman&quot; is ἁλιεύς in the NT, and ἄναξ has distinctly poetic/archaic feel to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One further remark:  the link given above to the L&amp;S entry for ἰχθυβολος shows *two* possible accents, a paroxytone ἰχθυβόλος for an active meaning, and a proparoxytone ἰχθύβολος for a passive meaning.  This type of distinction is regular for compound nouns of this type.  So, if you choose to go with your original version, it should be ἰχθυβόλος ἄναξ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7279" RevisionGUID="fc9c0863-d68b-4817-916f-9dd3fd1f8804" CreationDate="2018-10-10T23:28:45.617" UserId="1694" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I think that's a reasonable choice under the constraints you have given (but see below for accent).  You might consider using ἰχθυοθηρητήρ rather than ἰχθυβολος.  I think the connotations are slightly different - although I don't think I've met either of these words in the wild, but from the formation, the -βολος suggests striking the fish, while the -θηρητήρ suggests hunting for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, the term &quot;Fisher King&quot; has quite Christian connotations for me, but the word for &quot;fisherman&quot; is ἁλιεύς in the NT, and ἄναξ has a distinctly poetic/archaic feel to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One further remark:  the link given above to the L&amp;S entry for ἰχθυβολος shows *two* possible accents, a paroxytone ἰχθυβόλος for an active meaning, and a proparoxytone ἰχθύβολος for a passive meaning.  This type of distinction is regular for compound nouns of this type.  So, if you choose to go with your original version, it should be ἰχθυβόλος ἄναξ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7284" RevisionGUID="a6492253-60a2-491a-9e49-a7078ac6bafb" CreationDate="2018-10-11T04:34:33.843" UserId="406" Text="In the postscript to [this answer][1], Varro comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …the L&amp;S entry for ἰχθυβολος shows two possible accents, a paroxytone ἰχθυβόλος for an active meaning, and a proparoxytone ἰχθύβολος for a passive meaning. This type of distinction is regular for compound nouns of this type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's something I'd never come across before—I'm familiar with finite verb accents moving back as far as possible, and other accents sticking in fixed places, but never with an accent shifting to show active vs passive voice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which words do this? (I.e. what are &quot;compound nouns of this type&quot;?) And is it a well-known/common phenomenon?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7279/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24429" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7284" RevisionGUID="a6492253-60a2-491a-9e49-a7078ac6bafb" CreationDate="2018-10-11T04:34:33.843" UserId="406" Text="Which Greek words are regularly distinguished only by tone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24430" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7284" RevisionGUID="a6492253-60a2-491a-9e49-a7078ac6bafb" CreationDate="2018-10-11T04:34:33.843" UserId="406" Text="|greek|verbs|noun|voice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24431" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7284" RevisionGUID="4f40a3af-1c87-4e5a-9918-bf20d8d1914c" CreationDate="2018-10-11T04:55:50.437" UserId="406" Comment="edited title" Text="What sort of Greek words are regularly distinguished only by tone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7285" RevisionGUID="b7fd8577-1bcd-460d-8209-8ba4aca48584" CreationDate="2018-10-11T09:54:37.730" UserId="324" Text="If you really want to say “Fisher King” (a king who is a fisher, Roi pêcheur, Fischerkönig) and not “Fishing king” (a king who fishes) you will probably need to coin a compound, something like ἰχθυβολοβασιλεύς." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7286" RevisionGUID="6dc177e0-c298-4c23-b996-93a7a496ef20" CreationDate="2018-10-11T16:25:07.640" UserId="1694" Text="In general, compounds in -ος of nouns or adverbs with transitive verb stems, with certain exceptions, do this.  (Exceptions include nouns ending in ‐κος or ‐τος and certain verb stems such as ‐οχος, ‐αρχος and some others.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a fuller description by H. W. Smyth [here](https://archive.org/details/agreekgrammarfo02smytgoog/page/n272), you but may have to fiddle with your browser settings to be able to read it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7286" RevisionGUID="bd51cfee-8725-42f5-a1f5-2476000e7225" CreationDate="2018-10-11T17:11:41.040" UserId="1694" Comment="added 247 characters in body" Text="In general, compounds in -ος of nouns or adverbs with transitive verb stems, with certain exceptions, do this.  (Exceptions include nouns ending in ‐κος or ‐τος and certain verb stems such as ‐οχος, ‐αρχος and some others.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a fuller description by H. W. Smyth [here](https://archive.org/details/agreekgrammarfo02smytgoog/page/n272), you but may have to fiddle with your browser settings to be able to read it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some other interesting examples cited by Smyth:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;πατροκτόνος &quot;parricide&quot; vs  πατρόκτονος &quot;slain by a father&quot;&#xD;&#xA;λιθοβόλος &quot;throwing-stones&quot; vs λιθόβολος &quot;pelted by stones&quot;&#xD;&#xA;λαιμοτόμος &quot;throat-cutting&quot; vs λαιμότομος &quot;with throat cut&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7286" RevisionGUID="d6dddd22-a906-45a5-af8d-cdaa19c903e4" CreationDate="2018-10-11T17:27:06.340" UserId="1694" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="In general, compounds in -ος of nouns or adverbs with transitive verb stems, with certain exceptions, do this.  (Exceptions include nouns ending in ‐κος or ‐τος and certain verb stems such as ‐οχος, ‐αρχος and some others.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a fuller description by H. W. Smyth [here](https://archive.org/details/agreekgrammarfo02smytgoog/page/n272), you but may have to fiddle with your browser settings to be able to read it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some other interesting examples cited by Smyth:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;πατροκτόνος &quot;parricide&quot; vs  πατρόκτονος &quot;slain by a father&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;λιθοβόλος &quot;throwing-stones&quot; vs λιθόβολος &quot;pelted by stones&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;λαιμοτόμος &quot;throat-cutting&quot; vs λαιμότομος &quot;with throat cut&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7287" RevisionGUID="12fd3538-2774-499b-b04a-767d618047e4" CreationDate="2018-10-12T01:01:56.867" UserId="40" Text="Just to mention another option, I think the most natural translation would be ἄναξ [ἁλιεύς][1]. That's the normal Greek word for &quot;fisherman&quot;, so would be the obvious choice unless you have some specific reason you need a compound with ἰχθύς.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da(lieu%2Fs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7288" RevisionGUID="d45b0bf9-43e3-45cc-aaf0-abc3f129ef76" CreationDate="2018-10-12T05:26:24.213" UserId="2996" Text="Looking for a name of my account in an MMO. Google says &quot;Qui Mortem&quot; but I wanted to double-check" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24438" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7288" RevisionGUID="d45b0bf9-43e3-45cc-aaf0-abc3f129ef76" CreationDate="2018-10-12T05:26:24.213" UserId="2996" Text="How do you say &quot;One Death&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24439" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7288" RevisionGUID="d45b0bf9-43e3-45cc-aaf0-abc3f129ef76" CreationDate="2018-10-12T05:26:24.213" UserId="2996" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7288" RevisionGUID="a358dabb-586f-4ae6-9851-7db21f975ba1" CreationDate="2018-10-12T06:18:58.493" UserId="9" Comment="added information about the context from a comment by the original poster" Text="Looking for a name of my account in an MMO. The gamemode I have selected for the character is that you can only die once, so I wanted to get a bit clever with the name. Google says &quot;Qui Mortem&quot; but I wanted to double-check" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7289" RevisionGUID="43e7c799-195b-4a0b-82df-c889d5379555" CreationDate="2018-10-12T07:03:02.203" UserId="79" Text="The most straightforward way to say &quot;one death&quot; in Latin is ***mors una***.&#xD;&#xA;If you like it better, you can also swap the order to *una mors*.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to be playful (as I gather you might), the spelling the two words together as *morsuna* makes a natural-sounding name and leaves the Latin less obvious.&#xD;&#xA;This spelling is not valid Latin, but maybe worth consideration in the context you have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suggested translation *qui mortem* is unfortunately nonsensical.&#xD;&#xA;On its own it's hard to translate to English, but if we add, say, the words *is* (&quot;he&quot;) and *timet* (&quot;is afraid&quot;), we get *is qui mortem timet*, &quot;he who is afraid of death&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the best literal translation is &quot;who death&quot;, but it doesn't quite capture the Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suggestion regarding Google Translate and Latin:&#xD;&#xA;Instead of double checking what it gives, ignore entirely what it gives.&#xD;&#xA;[It's horrible.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79)&#xD;&#xA;Instead, it's better to use an [online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) &amp;mdash; even if you don't really know what to do with the words.&#xD;&#xA;And, better yet, ask someone who knows Latin.&#xD;&#xA;This site is a good choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7288" RevisionGUID="d75a29df-19a7-4b4b-b07a-0d1549e7b754" CreationDate="2018-10-12T07:04:18.083" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and added the question to the body. Feel free to retag and reedit!" Text="Looking for a name of my account in an MMO. The game mode I have selected for the character is that you can only die once, so I wanted to get a bit clever with the name. So, how do you say &quot;One Death&quot; in Latin? Google says &quot;Qui Mortem&quot; but I wanted to double-check." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24443" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7288" RevisionGUID="d75a29df-19a7-4b4b-b07a-0d1549e7b754" CreationDate="2018-10-12T07:04:18.083" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and added the question to the body. Feel free to retag and reedit!" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7289" RevisionGUID="a1df8972-903c-452e-ab07-81835c3edef1" CreationDate="2018-10-12T07:33:20.277" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="The most straightforward way to say &quot;one death&quot; in Latin is ***mors una***.&#xD;&#xA;If you like it better, you can also swap the order to *una mors*.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to be playful (as I gather you might), the spelling the two words together as *Morsuna* makes a natural-sounding name and leaves the Latin less obvious.&#xD;&#xA;This spelling is not valid Latin, but maybe worth consideration in the context you have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suggested translation *qui mortem* is unfortunately nonsensical.&#xD;&#xA;On its own it's hard to translate to English, but if we add, say, the words *is* (&quot;he&quot;) and *timet* (&quot;is afraid&quot;), we get *is qui mortem timet*, &quot;he who is afraid of death&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the best literal translation is &quot;who death&quot;, but it doesn't quite capture the Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suggestion regarding Google Translate and Latin:&#xD;&#xA;Instead of double checking what it gives, ignore entirely what it gives.&#xD;&#xA;[It's horrible.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79)&#xD;&#xA;Instead, it's better to use an [online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) &amp;mdash; even if you don't really know what to do with the words.&#xD;&#xA;And, better yet, ask someone who knows Latin.&#xD;&#xA;This site is a good choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7290" RevisionGUID="e6dba943-ef53-4d8c-99e8-a386e400072b" CreationDate="2018-10-12T16:52:25.693" UserId="79" Text="There are various foods that are called &quot;balls&quot; in English, perhaps most famously &quot;meat balls&quot;.&#xA;What would be a good Latin word for a ball in this sense?&#xA;I can think of words for a ball in general, but there is no guarantee that any of them is applicable here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24446" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7290" RevisionGUID="e6dba943-ef53-4d8c-99e8-a386e400072b" CreationDate="2018-10-12T16:52:25.693" UserId="79" Text="What is a ball as in meat ball?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24447" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7290" RevisionGUID="e6dba943-ef53-4d8c-99e8-a386e400072b" CreationDate="2018-10-12T16:52:25.693" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7291" RevisionGUID="079f0209-0615-4015-9027-aaa2348cca41" CreationDate="2018-10-12T17:17:27.740" UserId="645" Text="Why not *globus* or *globulus*? Each is a word that basically means a spherical mass. The former has a wide range of uses, and would be a reasonable choice, but for 'meat ball' I should prefer the diminutive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7292" RevisionGUID="61abb1ef-f725-44f6-a356-0cbedc4b11dc" CreationDate="2018-10-12T17:35:40.683" UserId="1142" Text="English has expresses advice in the present and past through the use of the following modal constructions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* present: *You **should** [...]*&#xD;&#xA;* present negated: *You **shouldn't** [...]* &#xD;&#xA;* past: *You **should have** [...]*&#xD;&#xA;* past negated: *You **shouldn't have** [...]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am somewhat unsure about how to express either of these in Latin. My gut feeling for expressing the present modalities is to simply use the present subjunctive, e.g:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *rogēs eum ut faciat prō tē illud* -- *you should ask him to do that for you*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nōn trānseās illum flūmen, mī amīce* -- *you should not cross that river, my friend*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when it comes to expressing the past modality, I am lost. I am not even sure if the other three subjunctive tenses would work to express this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would one go about expressing the modalities of advice, listed above, in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24450" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7292" RevisionGUID="61abb1ef-f725-44f6-a356-0cbedc4b11dc" CreationDate="2018-10-12T17:35:40.683" UserId="1142" Text="Expressing English modalities of advice in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24451" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7292" RevisionGUID="61abb1ef-f725-44f6-a356-0cbedc4b11dc" CreationDate="2018-10-12T17:35:40.683" UserId="1142" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|conjunctive|tenses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7292" RevisionGUID="67445da9-63c1-4309-8834-d0ab38e79391" CreationDate="2018-10-12T18:30:21.700" UserId="1142" Comment="edited body" Text="English has expresses advice in the present and past through the use of the following modal constructions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* present: *You **should** [...]*&#xD;&#xA;* present negated: *You **shouldn't** [...]* &#xD;&#xA;* past: *You **should have** [...]*&#xD;&#xA;* past negated: *You **shouldn't have** [...]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am somewhat unsure about how to express either of these in Latin. My gut feeling for expressing the present modalities is to simply use the present subjunctive, e.g:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *rogēs eum ut faciat prō tē illud* -- *you should ask him to do that for you*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nōn trānseās illud flūmen, mī amīce* -- *you should not cross that river, my friend*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when it comes to expressing the past modality, I am lost. I am not even sure if the other three subjunctive tenses would work to express this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would one go about expressing the modalities of advice, listed above, in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7293" RevisionGUID="d8e84dbc-f123-4ac0-9c65-e9131f28eeb4" CreationDate="2018-10-12T18:44:17.597" UserId="136" Text="One way you can do this is using the verb _debeo, debere, debui, debitus_, which not only means &quot;to owe,&quot; but also &quot;ought/should.&quot; It's relatively simple in its construction, so lets go through each scenario you gave using the verb _amo_ for the thing you should be doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You should love him&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So first, one puts _debeo_ into the second person singular. Then, one attaches the infinitive and adds the object of the infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Debes amare eum_ = &quot;You ought to love him.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, for the negative, one adds _non_ to this construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Debes non amare eum_ = &quot;You ought not to love him.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For expressing advice in the past, use the perfect infinitive rather than the present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Debes amavisse eum_ = &quot;You ought to have loved him.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Debes non amavisse eum_ = &quot;You ought not to have loved him.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, _debeo_ can be used to express advice as given. There may be other ways to express these ideas, but this is the first of which I thought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, the examples you gave would be translated as follows using this method:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Debes rogare eum ut faciat pro te illud_&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Debes non transire illud flumen, mi amice_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7293" RevisionGUID="294b9ca8-9060-47ca-99e4-08515c7b615a" CreationDate="2018-10-12T20:32:56.073" UserId="136" Comment="made adjustment according to comment" Text="One way you can do this is using the verb _debeo, debere, debui, debitus_, which not only means &quot;to owe,&quot; but also &quot;ought/should.&quot; It's relatively simple in its construction, so lets go through each scenario you gave using the verb _amo_ for the thing you should be doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You should love him&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So first, one puts _debeo_ into the second person singular. Then, one attaches the infinitive and adds the object of the infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Debes amare eum_ = &quot;You ought to love him.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, for the negative, one adds _non_ to this construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Debes non amare eum_ = &quot;You ought not to love him.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For expressing advice in the past, use the perfect infinitive rather than the present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Debes amavisse eum_ = &quot;You ought to have loved him.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Debes non amavisse eum_ = &quot;You ought not to have loved him.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, _debeo_ can be used to express advice as given. There may be other ways to express these ideas, but this is the first of which I thought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, the examples you gave would be translated as follows using this method:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Debes rogare eum ut faciat pro te illud_&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Debes non transire illud flumen, mi amice_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;As pointed out by cnread, the _non_ and the time were most likely reflected in _debeo_, and not the infinitive as I stated. To adjust the last example where both are used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Non debuisti amare eum_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7294" RevisionGUID="e704cb4f-4f09-4ced-9064-7762bfe86953" CreationDate="2018-10-13T03:56:49.843" UserId="406" Text="In English, it's very common to talk about letters of the alphabet in the plural: *he writes his R's backwards*, for example, is a perfectly natural sentence. But [the Latin names for the letters][1] don't seem to follow any declension pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I wanted to pluralize (or more generally, decline) a letter name, how would I go about it? Are they indeclinable? *y* at least seems to be feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/733/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24456" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7294" RevisionGUID="e704cb4f-4f09-4ced-9064-7762bfe86953" CreationDate="2018-10-13T03:56:49.843" UserId="406" Text="Can I pluralize letters of the alphabet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24457" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7294" RevisionGUID="e704cb4f-4f09-4ced-9064-7762bfe86953" CreationDate="2018-10-13T03:56:49.843" UserId="406" Text="|declension|alphabet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7295" RevisionGUID="b8ed4b11-691a-4633-bb20-4cd6f9e0a400" CreationDate="2018-10-13T07:11:39.823" UserId="2704" Text="If you can enter searches in Beta code (which is what LSJ is underlyingly in), the Beta code for digamma is V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I enter &quot;ve&quot; in the link you gave, Perseus understands it well enough, but says it has no matches: &quot;Sorry, no information was found for ϝε.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having extensively customised the LSJ and Morpheus for the TLG, I have to say, I'm not that surprised. The TLG (for which I no longer work) certainly will recognise it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7259" RevisionGUID="5308386f-fae7-46a3-a211-de5d8fd87292" CreationDate="2018-10-13T08:02:42.673" UserId="13" Comment="Tried to paragraph break the addendum, hopefully the lists typed in via mobile work fine " Text="The tradition for this fragment is a horrible mess which I will detail in an addendum at the end (modulo updates) of the question by pasting the critical note I prepared this morning for it. Line 2 is especially problematic. This question focuses on safopoemas's (cfr. [1](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7089/identifying-corrupted-sappho-fragment-or-mention-of-sappho-found-in-now-no-longe) especially, and also [2](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4604/sappho-94-the-spaniards-completion) and [3](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7118/tracing-apparent-book-iv-colophon-not-found-in-voigt-but-found-in-a-spanish-sapp)) text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;/έσπερε πάντα φέρων δσα φαΐνολις ¿σχίδασ' αδως φέρρες δϊν, φέπες αίγα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;φέρες (δ') α&quot;πυ μάτερι παΐδα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Noting that the linebreak may just be the document's margin, I proceed to emend the text to make it intelligible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ϝέσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φαίνολις ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Φέρρες ὄϊν, φέρες αἶγα, φέρες ‹δ'› ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the critical notes say nothing, and the introduction (cf. link 3 above) says they follow the 1937 French edition of Sappho curated by Reinach and reprinted in 1966, and that this is not a &quot;fragmento no recopilado&quot; (non compiled fragment), I would assume this is what Reinach had. So my question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is there any justification for the double rho in the Φέρρες that opens l. 2? If so, which is it? If not, who (if not Reinach) proposed this, and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Addendum: CRIT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Last in the category&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; we have Bergk 96 Edmonds 149 Lobel-Page 104(a) Campbell 104(a). OK, this is a huge mess. I already kind of knew that before I actually looked things up for this note, but it's way, waaaay, worse than I thought. For starters, it has 10 (yes TEN) sources, which I will try to reconstruct all below as far as Voigt allows me to, even in the oscillations of the different manuscripts for those sources. There is every sort of weird oscillation here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In Voigt's order, source one is Demetrius's treatise &lt;i&gt;De&#xD;&#xA;    Elocutione&lt;/i&gt;, where he wrote «χαριεντίζεται δέ ποτε (sc. ἡ Σαπφώ)&#xD;&#xA;    καὶ ἐξ ἀναφορᾶς, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἑσπέρου, &quot;Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρεις&quot;, φησί,&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;φέρεις οἶνον φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις μάτερι παῖδα&quot;· καὶ γὰρ ἐνταῦθα ἡ&#xD;&#xA;    χάρις ἐστὶν ἐκ τῆς λέξεως τῆς &quot;φέρεις&quot; ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἀναφερομέης», or&#xD;&#xA;    in Campbell's traslation «Sometimes, also, Sappho makes charming use&#xD;&#xA;    of repetition as in the description of the Evening Star: &quot;Hesperus,&#xD;&#xA;    you bring everything&quot;, she says, &quot;you bring the wine, you bring the&#xD;&#xA;    goat, you bring the child to the mother&quot;: here the charm lies in the&#xD;&#xA;    repetition of the word &quot;φέρεις&quot; (bring), always with the same&#xD;&#xA;    reference», that is with the same subject Hesperus. The translation&#xD;&#xA;    of the quote is mine, for Campbell's text is amended. And here&#xD;&#xA;    already we have a problem: what is the meter? The first part could&#xD;&#xA;    be the first half of a hexameter with pentemimeral (is that the&#xD;&#xA;    term?) caesura, but the rest oesn't fit the hexameter meter, it's&#xD;&#xA;    like u–––u––uu––uu–u. Welp, let's leave the discussion for below,&#xD;&#xA;    and just note that φέρεις is probably to be Aeolicised to φέρῃς,&#xD;&#xA;    which Lobel himself corrected according to Voigt, though Lobel-Page&#xD;&#xA;    and Campbell both keep φέρεις.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Source two is a scholiast on&#xD;&#xA;        Euripides' Orestes, who wrote, in Voigt's quoting cut, «ἑσπέρα [...]&#xD;&#xA;        ἀπὸ τοῦ πάντας εἰσφέρειν [...] καὶ ἡ Σαπφὼ [...] τὸν ἕσπερο ἀστέρα&#xD;&#xA;        εἶπε [...] ἐτυμολογοῦσα [...]· ἕσπερε πάτα φέρων ὄσα φαινολὶς&#xD;&#xA;        ἐσκέδασ' αὔως» (ἑσπέρα, evening, [is called thus] from [its]&#xD;&#xA;        εἰσφέρειν, bringing, everything […] and Sappho […] called Hesperus a&#xD;&#xA;        star […] explaining the etymology […]: Hesperus, bringing everything&#xD;&#xA;        which shining Dawn scattered). This source has its own oscillations,&#xD;&#xA;        since a cod. B for this has φαινόλης, which is either a&#xD;&#xA;        &lt;i&gt;paenula&lt;/i&gt; (thick upper garment) or a doric form for the plural&#xD;&#xA;        of φαινόλις, therefore we discard it and keep the other codices'&#xD;&#xA;        form, with Aeolic barytonesis applied, to produce φαίνολις. Also,&#xD;&#xA;        cod. M for this source has αὔων, but that is accusative AFAIK, and&#xD;&#xA;        we don't want an accusative here, so we follow the other code. Said&#xD;&#xA;        codex also has ἔσπειρε at the beginning, which could be construed as&#xD;&#xA;        the imperfect of σπείρω, thus meaning &quot;he/she/it sowed&quot;, which is&#xD;&#xA;        out of place, so we discard it. We thus give this line the form&#xD;&#xA;        Ἔσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φαίνολις ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως. And now it's a&#xD;&#xA;        hexameter.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Source 3 is the Etymologicum Gen[uinum] A, a passage more or less&#xD;&#xA;    the same as one from the Etymologicum Magnum, where we read&#xD;&#xA;    «Σελεύκου· ἕσπερος· [...] ἀπὸ τοῦ ἔσω περᾶν πάντα τὰ ζῷα [...] καὶ&#xD;&#xA;    Σαπφώ· Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φενόλις ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως» (Of Seleucus:&#xD;&#xA;    Hesperus: [called thus] from all the animals going inside […] and&#xD;&#xA;    Sappho: Hesperus bringing everything which (shining?) Dawn&#xD;&#xA;    scattered), where Seleucus may be the author of this particular&#xD;&#xA;    entry (the Etymologica are essentially etymological dictionaries),&#xD;&#xA;    and φενόλις is probably a corruption of our friend φαινόλις,&#xD;&#xA;    obviously to be Aeolically accented. So the same form is given to l.&#xD;&#xA;    1 as in source 2.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Source 4 is the Etymologicum Gen[uinum] B, the only other source&#xD;&#xA;    with l. 2. It reads «Σαπφώ· Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φαινόλης ἐσκέδασ'&#xD;&#xA;    Αὔως φέρεις οἶον φέρεις οἶνον φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις ἄποιον μητέρι&#xD;&#xA;    παῖδα», oh my God what happened to l. 2? The thing translates to&#xD;&#xA;    «Sappho: Hesperus bringing everything which shining Dawn scattered&#xD;&#xA;    you bring the lonely man you bring the wine you bring the goat you&#xD;&#xA;    bring the absent child to the mother». Apart from amending φαινόλης&#xD;&#xA;    the usual way, all we will do is fix φέρεις, again as usual, and to&#xD;&#xA;    Aeolicise μητέρι to μάτερι.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Source 5 is the Etymologicum Gud[ianum], where we read much the same&#xD;&#xA;        as in source 3, except for having the line as Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα&#xD;&#xA;        φαινολὶς ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως, where we amend φαινολὶς in terms of accent&#xD;&#xA;        getting the same old form for the line as all sources save for 1.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Source 6 is another passage of the Etymologicum Gud[ianum], again&#xD;&#xA;    similar to source 3, and it reads «ἑσπέρα ἀπὸ τοῦ σαφῶς εἰς πέρας&#xD;&#xA;    πάντα φέρειν, καὶ Σαπφώ· Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρειν ὄσα φαινολὶς ἐσκέδασ'&#xD;&#xA;    Αὔως, where we amend φαινολὶς as usual, and don't know what to do&#xD;&#xA;    with φέρειν: φέρων or φέρῃς? The former is less distant, so we'll go&#xD;&#xA;    with that, getting the same old form for l. 1.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Source 7 is the Etymologicum Gen[uninum] A, bearing the exact same&#xD;&#xA;    passage as the Etymologicum Magnum (not the one above though), which&#xD;&#xA;    reads «Σαπφὼ [...]· Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φαινόλης ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως»,&#xD;&#xA;    simply &quot;Sappho said&quot; and the quote, and you know the drill by now,&#xD;&#xA;    and nothing new comes from here. Note that only the E.G. and cod. V&#xD;&#xA;    of the E.M. have φαινόλης, while other codices have φαινολὶς.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. Source 8 is Cramer's Anecdota Or., which reads «ἠώς· ἤτοι [...] ἢ&#xD;&#xA;    ἀπὺ τοπυ διεξιέναι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους· Σαπφώ· ὅσα φαινώλης ἐσκέδασ'&#xD;&#xA;    Αὔως» (ἠώς, Dawn: either […] or from men going out; Sappho: all&#xD;&#xA;    which shining Dawn scattered», and you know the drill. Except the&#xD;&#xA;    line is not complete, but whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. Source 9 is again the Etymologicum Gud[ianum], which reads «Σαπφώ·&#xD;&#xA;    Φέσπερε πάντα φέρω ὄσα φαινοτέρα ἐσκέδασ' ἡώς» (Sappho: Hesperus I&#xD;&#xA;    bring everything which the rather bright Dawn scattered). That is&#xD;&#xA;    some change. The leading phi is obviously spurious, and may indicate&#xD;&#xA;    the presence of a digamma in the original. φέρω is an interesting&#xD;&#xA;    variation, but it creates a hiatus which seems unlikely, especially&#xD;&#xA;    since that would probably cause a shortening of the vowel which&#xD;&#xA;    would be inmetrical, so we amend it as usual. φαινοτέρα is&#xD;&#xA;    inmetrical, and we'd surely like to amend it as usual, but as far as&#xD;&#xA;    this source is concerned, a more conservative thing is to elide it&#xD;&#xA;    to φαινοτέρ'. The last word is obviously non-Aeolic, so we Aeolicise&#xD;&#xA;    it as usual. And so we get Ϝέσπερε πάντα φέρω ὄσα φαινοτέρ' ἐσκέδασ'&#xD;&#xA;    Αὔως.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10. Source 10, finally, is another passage of the Etymologicum&#xD;&#xA;    Gud[ianum], which reads, without an author name, «ὅσα φαινόλης&#xD;&#xA;    ἐσκέδασ' ἄνθρωπος» (which shining man scattered), where the last&#xD;&#xA;    word is obviously a spectacular corruption, as it is inmetrical and&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;shining man&quot; is just nonsense. So after the usual fix to φαινόλης&#xD;&#xA;    we're back to the usual point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So l. 1 is pretty much undoubted, except for φέρῃς vs. φέρων. The tradition seems to indicate the latter, since only source 1 has the former, but the former would strengthen the anaphora Demetrius praises. This is probably why everybody outside Edmonds and safopoemas has the former. I beg to differ. I mean, an overwhelming majority of sources indicates the latter, so what is more likely, that the anaphora was only in l. 2, or that 8 sources out of 10 made the same mistake? However, I followed Bibliotheca Augustana for the translations, so I'll have to keep the former for this post, but the all-Sappho posts will get the latter. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Line 2, however, is a huge mess. We have two sources, and they give us «φέρεις οἶνον φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις μάτερι παῖδα» (I) and «φέρεις οἶον φέρεις οἶνον φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις ἄποιον μητέρι παῖδα». What do we make of all this? &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Bergk, who is btw the only one to keep the digamma in l. 1 (I won't either, because only one source has a hint to it), raises his hands and says «quæ frustra restituere conantur» (which in vain people try to reconstruct). &lt;br, &gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Lobel-Page, Campbell, and Voigt all do more or less the same: φέρεις ὄιν φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα, with Voigt having no cruces, treating this as a iambic meter + xx–uu–uu–uu–x (pherecratean with two dactyls inserted), and amending to φέρῃς all times, Lobel-Page wraps the whole thing up to and including ἄπυ in cruces, and Campbell putting the closing crux after the second φέρεις. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Bibliotheca Augustana and Greek Wikisource and The Complete Poems of Sappho do the same, disregarding φέρῃς-φέρεις oscillations, with the first two breaking l. 2 into two lines with the breaking point after ὄιν. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Edmonds writes φέρεις ὄιν, / φέρεις αἶγα, φέρεις ἀπὺ ϝὸν μάτερι παῖδα, suggesting perhaps ἀπὺ ϝϝὸν on the basis of some Homeric quotes where a third-person adjective/pronoun with no consonant at the start (like ἕο) lengthens the omicron in the preceding ἀπὸ. This is just turning a metrical problem into a worse one, since l. 2 (or ll. 2-3) is still not a hexameter, and the meter is even less recognizable than before. The double digamma is just weird. So screw Edmonds. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Finally, safopoemas has the whole thing as «/έσπερε πάντα φέρων δσα φαΐνολις ¿σχίδασ' αδως φέρρες δϊν, φέπες αίγα, φέρες (δ') α&quot;πυ μάτερι παΐδα.». Apart from observing φέρων and the slash that could be a digamma in l. 1, let's look at l. 2. It is now a hexameter, presumably reading «Φέρρες ὄιν, φέρες αἶγα, φέρες ‹δ'› ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα». This makes it a past action, an imperfect, to be precise. While this is nice because we have a hexameter with the anaphora, the doubled rho in the first word is totally unjustified AFAIK, though I will ask Stack Exchange about it. I mean, why would it be double? And on the other hand, the absence of a critical note seems to suggest Reinach had that text, so what reason did he have for that? So I'll put it on standby for the all-Sappho posts untill Stack Exchange answers me. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, however, I must follow the text I translated, and I dismissed this reading, both because of the unjustified double rho, and because I felt like this must be a present action, a habitual one. Now obviously I didn't know anything about the above mess, so I just reordered Bibliotheca Augustana a little, getting the hexameter Αἶγα φέρῃς τε σ' ὄιν τε, φέρῃς ‹δ'› ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα, the δ' addition being kept because it sounded good. Maybe τ' would be better. Yeah, I'll change it, the translations are left unaffected. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not the only one who tried this: in Voigt's words, «hexam[etrum] restit[uere] conatus est Bowra l.c.: αἶγα φέρῃς καὶ ὄιν τύ, φέρῃς τ' ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα, sed anaphoram destruxit» (Bowra tried to reconstruct a hexameter in the quoted place: [reconstruction], but destroyed the anaphora). Now, while the anaphora is certainly weaker, I wouldn't say it's &quot;destroyed&quot;. Not sure why τύ and not σύ. I'll keep my version, despite Bowra's translating much the same, because the anaphora is stronger. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Finally, some names to emendations: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* ὄιν instead of (οἶον φέρεις) οἶνον is &quot;Fab. Benevolentius ap[ud] Ursin[um]&quot;, probably arguing that φέρεις οἶον was an accidental and slightly corrupted repetition of φέρεις οἶνον and that -ον again was an accidental and corrupted repetition of just οιν; also, sheeps and goats fit together and are brought back in the evening, wine is an intruder and how is it brought back in the evening? &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* ἄπυ is &quot;Bgk.&quot;, and seeing Bergk amend this surprises me: if you think it's a vain effort to try reconstructing this, why amend it? The recessive accentuation is probably justified since this is an adverb and not a preposition, which even in Aeolic is accented on the final syllable. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* The addition of δ' is by Sitzler, and the breaking found in B.A. and G.W. is by Wilamowitz. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Wow that took forever! Oh look, I had the τ' addition already! I wonder why…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Told you it was huge. Btw, bonus question: are Et Gen and Et Gud Etymologycum Genuinum and Gudianum respectively, or is this disabbreviation incorrect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7296" RevisionGUID="4c03fcc9-21a5-421c-bb1b-a79b11bf96da" CreationDate="2018-10-13T15:22:12.010" UserId="1694" Text="I doubt that the letter names themselves were ever declined, but I expect that if the need arose, one could use _litera_ in apposition, e.g. _literae R_.  (I expect that's why you say &quot;_y_ at least seems to be feminine&quot; - from an implicit _litera_ assumed.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7297" RevisionGUID="bf6ef3bd-074d-4c04-9fa3-fd3389cdc430" CreationDate="2018-10-13T15:47:36.690" UserId="79" Text="In addition to the good suggestion to use *littera* together with the letter, you can also use a plain adjective or pronoun when they are needed.&#xA;That is, you could render &quot;he writes his R's like so&quot; as *sua R scribit sic*.&#xA;If you want to have an implicit *litteras*, replace the neuter *sua* with *suas*.&#xA;I would not decline the letter itself, as the names don't really conform with Latin declensions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7298" RevisionGUID="13ee738e-262a-4503-973a-f3e412a895d0" CreationDate="2018-10-13T15:59:29.247" UserId="144" Text="So [this][1] question asks about forming adjectives from nouns, but no clear answer is really given for a general method. In english, you can just use a noun as a adjective without any modification by placing the modifing noun before the modified noun. For instance, &quot;chicken soup&quot; chicken in this case is a noun adjunct. Does this work in latin? Can I say &quot;pullum jus&quot; for &quot;chicken soup&quot;? If I do this with two words of different genders (I fail to think of an example, but I'm sure it's possible) do I have to change the adjunct's gender to match?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1405/how-do-you-convert-a-noun-to-an-adjective-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24464" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7298" RevisionGUID="13ee738e-262a-4503-973a-f3e412a895d0" CreationDate="2018-10-13T15:59:29.247" UserId="144" Text="Noun adjuncts in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24465" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7298" RevisionGUID="13ee738e-262a-4503-973a-f3e412a895d0" CreationDate="2018-10-13T15:59:29.247" UserId="144" Text="|adjective|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7296" RevisionGUID="4ba56696-8dda-4341-adb8-96e5fed6d904" CreationDate="2018-10-13T16:23:24.790" UserId="1694" Comment="added 513 characters in body" Text="I doubt that the letter names themselves were ever declined, but I expect that if the need arose, one could use _litera_ in apposition, e.g. _literae R_.  (I expect that's why you say &quot;_y_ at least seems to be feminine&quot; - from an implicit _litera_ assumed.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.  I now see that W. Sidney Allen cites quite a few quotations in Appendix A of his _Vox Latina_.  There seem to be usages of letters treated both as neuters and feminines (but I think mainly feminines).  There's far too much there for me to type out by hand, but scanning the citations I see things like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; u litteram digamma esse  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; u autem, quamuis contractum  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; e quae sequitur&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inter litteram n et g est alia uis  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; r: non multum est  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maiiamque geminata i scribere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7259" RevisionGUID="863b4e3c-a31d-4e9b-8951-0098a8eb4746" CreationDate="2018-10-13T17:20:02.393" UserId="13" Comment="fixed bulleted lists in CRIT" Text="The tradition for this fragment is a horrible mess which I will detail in an addendum at the end (modulo updates) of the question by pasting the critical note I prepared this morning for it. Line 2 is especially problematic. This question focuses on safopoemas's (cfr. [1](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7089/identifying-corrupted-sappho-fragment-or-mention-of-sappho-found-in-now-no-longe) especially, and also [2](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4604/sappho-94-the-spaniards-completion) and [3](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7118/tracing-apparent-book-iv-colophon-not-found-in-voigt-but-found-in-a-spanish-sapp)) text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;/έσπερε πάντα φέρων δσα φαΐνολις ¿σχίδασ' αδως φέρρες δϊν, φέπες αίγα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;φέρες (δ') α&quot;πυ μάτερι παΐδα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Noting that the linebreak may just be the document's margin, I proceed to emend the text to make it intelligible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ϝέσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φαίνολις ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Φέρρες ὄϊν, φέρες αἶγα, φέρες ‹δ'› ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the critical notes say nothing, and the introduction (cf. link 3 above) says they follow the 1937 French edition of Sappho curated by Reinach and reprinted in 1966, and that this is not a &quot;fragmento no recopilado&quot; (non compiled fragment), I would assume this is what Reinach had. So my question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is there any justification for the double rho in the Φέρρες that opens l. 2? If so, which is it? If not, who (if not Reinach) proposed this, and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Addendum: CRIT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Last in the category&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; we have Bergk 96 Edmonds 149 Lobel-Page 104(a) Campbell 104(a). OK, this is a huge mess. I already kind of knew that before I actually looked things up for this note, but it's way, waaaay, worse than I thought. For starters, it has 10 (yes TEN) sources, which I will try to reconstruct all below as far as Voigt allows me to, even in the oscillations of the different manuscripts for those sources. There is every sort of weird oscillation here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In Voigt's order, source one is Demetrius's treatise &lt;i&gt;De&#xD;&#xA;    Elocutione&lt;/i&gt;, where he wrote «χαριεντίζεται δέ ποτε (sc. ἡ Σαπφώ)&#xD;&#xA;    καὶ ἐξ ἀναφορᾶς, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἑσπέρου, &quot;Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρεις&quot;, φησί,&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;φέρεις οἶνον φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις μάτερι παῖδα&quot;· καὶ γὰρ ἐνταῦθα ἡ&#xD;&#xA;    χάρις ἐστὶν ἐκ τῆς λέξεως τῆς &quot;φέρεις&quot; ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἀναφερομέης», or&#xD;&#xA;    in Campbell's traslation «Sometimes, also, Sappho makes charming use&#xD;&#xA;    of repetition as in the description of the Evening Star: &quot;Hesperus,&#xD;&#xA;    you bring everything&quot;, she says, &quot;you bring the wine, you bring the&#xD;&#xA;    goat, you bring the child to the mother&quot;: here the charm lies in the&#xD;&#xA;    repetition of the word &quot;φέρεις&quot; (bring), always with the same&#xD;&#xA;    reference», that is with the same subject Hesperus. The translation&#xD;&#xA;    of the quote is mine, for Campbell's text is amended. And here&#xD;&#xA;    already we have a problem: what is the meter? The first part could&#xD;&#xA;    be the first half of a hexameter with pentemimeral (is that the&#xD;&#xA;    term?) caesura, but the rest oesn't fit the hexameter meter, it's&#xD;&#xA;    like u–––u––uu––uu–u. Welp, let's leave the discussion for below,&#xD;&#xA;    and just note that φέρεις is probably to be Aeolicised to φέρῃς,&#xD;&#xA;    which Lobel himself corrected according to Voigt, though Lobel-Page&#xD;&#xA;    and Campbell both keep φέρεις.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Source two is a scholiast on&#xD;&#xA;        Euripides' Orestes, who wrote, in Voigt's quoting cut, «ἑσπέρα [...]&#xD;&#xA;        ἀπὸ τοῦ πάντας εἰσφέρειν [...] καὶ ἡ Σαπφὼ [...] τὸν ἕσπερο ἀστέρα&#xD;&#xA;        εἶπε [...] ἐτυμολογοῦσα [...]· ἕσπερε πάτα φέρων ὄσα φαινολὶς&#xD;&#xA;        ἐσκέδασ' αὔως» (ἑσπέρα, evening, [is called thus] from [its]&#xD;&#xA;        εἰσφέρειν, bringing, everything […] and Sappho […] called Hesperus a&#xD;&#xA;        star […] explaining the etymology […]: Hesperus, bringing everything&#xD;&#xA;        which shining Dawn scattered). This source has its own oscillations,&#xD;&#xA;        since a cod. B for this has φαινόλης, which is either a&#xD;&#xA;        &lt;i&gt;paenula&lt;/i&gt; (thick upper garment) or a doric form for the plural&#xD;&#xA;        of φαινόλις, therefore we discard it and keep the other codices'&#xD;&#xA;        form, with Aeolic barytonesis applied, to produce φαίνολις. Also,&#xD;&#xA;        cod. M for this source has αὔων, but that is accusative AFAIK, and&#xD;&#xA;        we don't want an accusative here, so we follow the other code. Said&#xD;&#xA;        codex also has ἔσπειρε at the beginning, which could be construed as&#xD;&#xA;        the imperfect of σπείρω, thus meaning &quot;he/she/it sowed&quot;, which is&#xD;&#xA;        out of place, so we discard it. We thus give this line the form&#xD;&#xA;        Ἔσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φαίνολις ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως. And now it's a&#xD;&#xA;        hexameter.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Source 3 is the Etymologicum Gen[uinum] A, a passage more or less&#xD;&#xA;    the same as one from the Etymologicum Magnum, where we read&#xD;&#xA;    «Σελεύκου· ἕσπερος· [...] ἀπὸ τοῦ ἔσω περᾶν πάντα τὰ ζῷα [...] καὶ&#xD;&#xA;    Σαπφώ· Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φενόλις ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως» (Of Seleucus:&#xD;&#xA;    Hesperus: [called thus] from all the animals going inside […] and&#xD;&#xA;    Sappho: Hesperus bringing everything which (shining?) Dawn&#xD;&#xA;    scattered), where Seleucus may be the author of this particular&#xD;&#xA;    entry (the Etymologica are essentially etymological dictionaries),&#xD;&#xA;    and φενόλις is probably a corruption of our friend φαινόλις,&#xD;&#xA;    obviously to be Aeolically accented. So the same form is given to l.&#xD;&#xA;    1 as in source 2.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Source 4 is the Etymologicum Gen[uinum] B, the only other source&#xD;&#xA;    with l. 2. It reads «Σαπφώ· Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φαινόλης ἐσκέδασ'&#xD;&#xA;    Αὔως φέρεις οἶον φέρεις οἶνον φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις ἄποιον μητέρι&#xD;&#xA;    παῖδα», oh my God what happened to l. 2? The thing translates to&#xD;&#xA;    «Sappho: Hesperus bringing everything which shining Dawn scattered&#xD;&#xA;    you bring the lonely man you bring the wine you bring the goat you&#xD;&#xA;    bring the absent child to the mother». Apart from amending φαινόλης&#xD;&#xA;    the usual way, all we will do is fix φέρεις, again as usual, and to&#xD;&#xA;    Aeolicise μητέρι to μάτερι.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Source 5 is the Etymologicum Gud[ianum], where we read much the same&#xD;&#xA;        as in source 3, except for having the line as Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα&#xD;&#xA;        φαινολὶς ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως, where we amend φαινολὶς in terms of accent&#xD;&#xA;        getting the same old form for the line as all sources save for 1.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Source 6 is another passage of the Etymologicum Gud[ianum], again&#xD;&#xA;    similar to source 3, and it reads «ἑσπέρα ἀπὸ τοῦ σαφῶς εἰς πέρας&#xD;&#xA;    πάντα φέρειν, καὶ Σαπφώ· Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρειν ὄσα φαινολὶς ἐσκέδασ'&#xD;&#xA;    Αὔως, where we amend φαινολὶς as usual, and don't know what to do&#xD;&#xA;    with φέρειν: φέρων or φέρῃς? The former is less distant, so we'll go&#xD;&#xA;    with that, getting the same old form for l. 1.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Source 7 is the Etymologicum Gen[uninum] A, bearing the exact same&#xD;&#xA;    passage as the Etymologicum Magnum (not the one above though), which&#xD;&#xA;    reads «Σαπφὼ [...]· Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φαινόλης ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως»,&#xD;&#xA;    simply &quot;Sappho said&quot; and the quote, and you know the drill by now,&#xD;&#xA;    and nothing new comes from here. Note that only the E.G. and cod. V&#xD;&#xA;    of the E.M. have φαινόλης, while other codices have φαινολὶς.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. Source 8 is Cramer's Anecdota Or., which reads «ἠώς· ἤτοι [...] ἢ&#xD;&#xA;    ἀπὺ τοπυ διεξιέναι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους· Σαπφώ· ὅσα φαινώλης ἐσκέδασ'&#xD;&#xA;    Αὔως» (ἠώς, Dawn: either […] or from men going out; Sappho: all&#xD;&#xA;    which shining Dawn scattered», and you know the drill. Except the&#xD;&#xA;    line is not complete, but whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. Source 9 is again the Etymologicum Gud[ianum], which reads «Σαπφώ·&#xD;&#xA;    Φέσπερε πάντα φέρω ὄσα φαινοτέρα ἐσκέδασ' ἡώς» (Sappho: Hesperus I&#xD;&#xA;    bring everything which the rather bright Dawn scattered). That is&#xD;&#xA;    some change. The leading phi is obviously spurious, and may indicate&#xD;&#xA;    the presence of a digamma in the original. φέρω is an interesting&#xD;&#xA;    variation, but it creates a hiatus which seems unlikely, especially&#xD;&#xA;    since that would probably cause a shortening of the vowel which&#xD;&#xA;    would be inmetrical, so we amend it as usual. φαινοτέρα is&#xD;&#xA;    inmetrical, and we'd surely like to amend it as usual, but as far as&#xD;&#xA;    this source is concerned, a more conservative thing is to elide it&#xD;&#xA;    to φαινοτέρ'. The last word is obviously non-Aeolic, so we Aeolicise&#xD;&#xA;    it as usual. And so we get Ϝέσπερε πάντα φέρω ὄσα φαινοτέρ' ἐσκέδασ'&#xD;&#xA;    Αὔως.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10. Source 10, finally, is another passage of the Etymologicum&#xD;&#xA;    Gud[ianum], which reads, without an author name, «ὅσα φαινόλης&#xD;&#xA;    ἐσκέδασ' ἄνθρωπος» (which shining man scattered), where the last&#xD;&#xA;    word is obviously a spectacular corruption, as it is inmetrical and&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;shining man&quot; is just nonsense. So after the usual fix to φαινόλης&#xD;&#xA;    we're back to the usual point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So l. 1 is pretty much undoubted, except for φέρῃς vs. φέρων. The tradition seems to indicate the latter, since only source 1 has the former, but the former would strengthen the anaphora Demetrius praises. This is probably why everybody outside Edmonds and safopoemas has the former. I beg to differ. I mean, an overwhelming majority of sources indicates the latter, so what is more likely, that the anaphora was only in l. 2, or that 8 sources out of 10 made the same mistake? However, I followed Bibliotheca Augustana for the translations, so I'll have to keep the former for this post, but the all-Sappho posts will get the latter. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Line 2, however, is a huge mess. We have two sources, and they give us «φέρεις οἶνον φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις μάτερι παῖδα» (I) and «φέρεις οἶον φέρεις οἶνον φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις ἄποιον μητέρι παῖδα». What do we make of all this? &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Bergk, who is btw the only one to keep the digamma in l. 1 (I won't&#xD;&#xA;   either, because only one source has a hint to it), raises his hands&#xD;&#xA;   and says «quæ frustra restituere conantur» (which in vain people try&#xD;&#xA;   to reconstruct).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Lobel-Page, Campbell, and Voigt all do more or less the same: φέρεις ὄιν φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα, with Voigt having no cruces, treating this as a iambic meter + xx–uu–uu–uu–x (pherecratean with two dactyls inserted), and amending to φέρῃς all times, Lobel-Page wraps the whole thing up to and including ἄπυ in cruces, and Campbell putting the closing crux after the second φέρεις. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Bibliotheca Augustana and Greek Wikisource and The Complete Poems of Sappho do the same, disregarding φέρῃς-φέρεις oscillations, with the first two breaking l. 2 into two lines with the breaking point after ὄιν. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Edmonds writes φέρεις ὄιν, / φέρεις αἶγα, φέρεις ἀπὺ ϝὸν μάτερι παῖδα, suggesting perhaps ἀπὺ ϝϝὸν on the basis of some Homeric quotes where a third-person adjective/pronoun with no consonant at the start (like ἕο) lengthens the omicron in the preceding ἀπὸ. This is just turning a metrical problem into a worse one, since l. 2 (or ll. 2-3) is still not a hexameter, and the meter is even less recognizable than before. The double digamma is just weird. So screw Edmonds. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Finally, safopoemas has the whole thing as «/έσπερε πάντα φέρων δσα φαΐνολις ¿σχίδασ' αδως φέρρες δϊν, φέπες αίγα, φέρες (δ') α&quot;πυ μάτερι παΐδα.». Apart from observing φέρων and the slash that could be a digamma in l. 1, let's look at l. 2. It is now a hexameter, presumably reading «Φέρρες ὄιν, φέρες αἶγα, φέρες ‹δ'› ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα». This makes it a past action, an imperfect, to be precise. While this is nice because we have a hexameter with the anaphora, the doubled rho in the first word is totally unjustified AFAIK, though I will ask Stack Exchange about it. I mean, why would it be double? And on the other hand, the absence of a critical note seems to suggest Reinach had that text, so what reason did he have for that? So I'll put it on standby for the all-Sappho posts untill Stack Exchange answers me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In this post, however, I must follow the text I translated, and I dismissed this reading, both because of the unjustified double rho, and because I felt like this must be a present action, a habitual one. Now obviously I didn't know anything about the above mess, so I just reordered Bibliotheca Augustana a little, getting the hexameter Αἶγα φέρῃς τε σ' ὄιν τε, φέρῃς ‹δ'› ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα, the δ' addition being kept because it sounded good. Maybe τ' would be better. Yeah, I'll change it, the translations are left unaffected. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not the only one who tried this: in Voigt's words, «hexam[etrum] restit[uere] conatus est Bowra l.c.: αἶγα φέρῃς καὶ ὄιν τύ, φέρῃς τ' ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα, sed anaphoram destruxit» (Bowra tried to reconstruct a hexameter in the quoted place: [reconstruction], but destroyed the anaphora). Now, while the anaphora is certainly weaker, I wouldn't say it's &quot;destroyed&quot;. Not sure why τύ and not σύ. I'll keep my version, despite Bowra's translating much the same, because the anaphora is stronger. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Finally, some names to emendations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- ὄιν instead of (οἶον φέρεις) οἶνον is &quot;Fab. Benevolentius ap[ud] Ursin[um]&quot;, probably arguing that φέρεις οἶον was an accidental and slightly corrupted repetition of φέρεις οἶνον and that -ον again was an accidental and corrupted repetition of just οιν; also, sheeps and goats fit together and are brought back in the evening, wine is an intruder and how is it brought back in the evening? &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- ἄπυ is &quot;Bgk.&quot;, and seeing Bergk amend this surprises me: if you think it's a vain effort to try reconstructing this, why amend it? The recessive accentuation is probably justified since this is an adverb and not a preposition, which even in Aeolic is accented on the final syllable. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- The addition of δ' is by Sitzler, and the breaking found in B.A. and G.W. is by Wilamowitz.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Wow that took forever! Oh look, I had the τ' addition already! I wonder why…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Told you it was huge. Btw, bonus question: are Et Gen and Et Gud Etymologycum Genuinum and Gudianum respectively, or is this disabbreviation incorrect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7299" RevisionGUID="61f9ecde-0e0a-4b2a-8ac2-eb167b4062ee" CreationDate="2018-10-13T19:10:48.633" UserId="1142" Text="Latin doesn't really form noun phrases in the same way that English does, by stringing together a collection of modifying nouns before the original noun. To a Roman, the phrase *pullus iūs* would have probably been interpreted as something akin to *chicken and soup*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only time you'll really find two nouns of the same case (and often number as well as gender) next to each other is if they are in apposition to each other, like in the following example, where *is māgnus imperātor* is in apposition to *Gāius Iūlius Caesar*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tōtum Galliae vīcit *Gāius Iūlius Caesar*, *is māgnus imperātor* ac reī pūblicae Rōmānae sub iugō attulit eius populum.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Gaius Julius Caesar*, *that great general*, conquered the whole of Gaul and brought her people under the yoke of the Roman Republic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to construct a noun phrase like *chicken soup* (or others), the genitive of description is usually used. The ablative of description can also be used, but, to the best of my knowledge, it is not quite as common (examples might include phrases like *vir summā virtūte*). Using either of these, the phrase *chicken soup* can be rendered as such:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iūsculum pullī  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; pullī iūsculum&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iūsculum pullō  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; pullō iūsculum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, however, be cautious when using the genitive or ablative to describe a noun, *most especially* when you are working with abstract concepts. See [this *excellent* answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6914/translating-child-of-freedom/6958#6958) by [kkm](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/172/kkm) for a good explanation of this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7300" RevisionGUID="14c3e09f-ea49-4dbf-9694-e4e94f6f5035" CreationDate="2018-10-13T19:45:36.090" UserId="79" Text="The typical choice in Latin is to derive an adjective from the noun.&#xA;I would translate &quot;chicken soup&quot; as *ius gallinaceum*.&#xA;Deriving adjectives is nontrivial but inevitable.&#xA;A genitive is a good second option, but not the primary choice in my experience.&#xA;A noun can't be used as an adjective as you would in English, so you always need something more elaborate than chaining nouns." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7301" RevisionGUID="c8c42bca-8765-4725-9d80-78997b135f49" CreationDate="2018-10-13T21:01:08.130" UserId="1694" Text="This [question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7294/can-i-pluralize-letters-of-the-alphabet) concerning the pluralization of letter names has led me to ask a somewhat related question on the use of Greek to clarify indeclinable nouns in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The background to this question is that I possess a Hebrew Bible edited by Everardus Van der Hooght and printed in 1833, but which I think represents amendments to an earlier tradition.  Van der Hooght provides a Latin preface, dated, I think, 1705 (I think that's what CIↃ IↃ CC V represents), in which he discussed various technical points of the Hebrew text.  In particular, he sometimes uses Greek articles to clarify the use of indeclinable Hebrew terms.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Præter hanc notam absentiæ τȣ* Dagesch, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the only place I've seen that usage, so I was wondering anyone has seen it used elsewhere in similar situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* that should be τοῦ with ου ligature and circumflex " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24472" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7301" RevisionGUID="c8c42bca-8765-4725-9d80-78997b135f49" CreationDate="2018-10-13T21:01:08.130" UserId="1694" Text="Use of Greek article in Latin to clarify use of foreign indeclinable nouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24473" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7301" RevisionGUID="c8c42bca-8765-4725-9d80-78997b135f49" CreationDate="2018-10-13T21:01:08.130" UserId="1694" Text="|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7299" RevisionGUID="edbcba4c-baa8-4aa4-937c-c88977ed349b" CreationDate="2018-10-13T21:25:23.973" UserId="1142" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="Latin doesn't really form noun phrases in the same way that English does, by stringing together a collection of modifying nouns before the original noun. To a Roman, the phrase *pullus iūs* would have probably been interpreted as something akin to *chicken and soup*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only time you'll really find two nouns of the same case (and often number as well as gender) next to each other is if they are in apposition to each other, like in the following example, where *is māgnus imperātor* is in apposition to *Gāius Iūlius Caesar*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tōtum Galliae vīcit *Gāius Iūlius Caesar*, *is māgnus imperātor* ac reī pūblicae Rōmānae sub iugō attulit eius populum.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Gaius Julius Caesar*, *that great general*, conquered the whole of Gaul and brought her people under the yoke of the Roman Republic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to construct a noun phrase like *chicken soup* (or others), the genitive of description is usually used. The ablative of description can also be used, but, to the best of my knowledge, it is not quite as common (examples might include phrases like *vir summā virtūte*). Using either of these, the phrase *chicken soup* can be rendered as such:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iūsculum pullī  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; pullī iūsculum&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iūsculum pullō  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; pullō iūsculum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, however, be cautious when using the genitive or ablative to describe a noun; there is often a suitable adjective or alternative noun. Be cautious, *most especially* when you are working with abstract concepts. See [this *excellent* answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6914/translating-child-of-freedom/6958#6958) by [kkm](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/172/kkm) for a good explanation of this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7302" RevisionGUID="1c488189-162c-44eb-a78b-efb6b7cef75d" CreationDate="2018-10-14T03:05:19.853" UserId="39" Text="Some additional examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nam ‘divus’ et ‘rivus’ et ‘clivus’ non ‘us’ syllaba terminantur, sed ea quae per duo u scribenda est ... (Gellius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;est tamen quando idem Aeolis inveniuntur pro duplici quoque consonante digamma posuisse (Prisc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7303" RevisionGUID="c2f35914-c7a7-405d-b0ff-94a740c045cf" CreationDate="2018-10-14T04:18:15.090" UserId="39" Text="In [the Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek][1] (ed. by F. Montanari, **behind a paywall**/subscription only), you can directly type/choose ϝ into the search field:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/montanari&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QvFR8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7303" RevisionGUID="d4742577-6573-4927-bdfb-b1351f94fa92" CreationDate="2018-10-14T04:28:34.170" UserId="39" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="In [the Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek][1] (ed. by F. Montanari, **behind a paywall**/subscription only), you can directly type/choose ϝ into the search field:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also a very handy iOS app of the above-mentioned dictionary (in Italian only though) https://www.loescher.it/gi#4 - I use it quite a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/montanari&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QvFR8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7297" RevisionGUID="3b95d284-39e5-428b-8266-61e611ba5909" CreationDate="2018-10-14T07:55:30.387" UserId="79" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="In addition to the good suggestion to use *littera* together with the letter, you can also use a plain adjective, pronoun, or numeral when they are needed.&#xA;That is, you could render &quot;he writes his R's like so&quot; as *sua R scribit sic*.&#xA;If you want to have an implicit *litteras*, replace the neuter *sua* with *suas*.&#xA;I would not decline the letter itself, as the names don't really conform with Latin declensions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7304" RevisionGUID="cfa05293-7745-4348-8420-a87b1733f2a8" CreationDate="2018-10-14T17:46:13.217" UserId="2999" Text="I'm working my way through Lingua Latina, and I've come across something that's tripping me up when I try to write.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: Gallia *est* in Europa (pardon the lack of accents); and Arabia quoque in Asia *est*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is &quot;est&quot; sometimes in the middle of the sentence, and sometimes at the end? The same goes for &quot;sunt.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24480" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7304" RevisionGUID="cfa05293-7745-4348-8420-a87b1733f2a8" CreationDate="2018-10-14T17:46:13.217" UserId="2999" Text="New to Latin—why is the Present Indicative sometimes at the end, and sometimes in the middle of a sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24481" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7304" RevisionGUID="cfa05293-7745-4348-8420-a87b1733f2a8" CreationDate="2018-10-14T17:46:13.217" UserId="2999" Text="|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7304" RevisionGUID="59e86f14-f300-4385-ad4b-be8cba0a37cc" CreationDate="2018-10-14T17:52:24.447" UserId="79" Comment="added 18 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm working my way through Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata, and I've come across something that's tripping me up when I try to write.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: Gallia *est* in Europa (pardon the lack of accents); and Arabia quoque in Asia *est*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is &quot;est&quot; sometimes in the middle of the sentence, and sometimes at the end? The same goes for &quot;sunt.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24483" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7304" RevisionGUID="59e86f14-f300-4385-ad4b-be8cba0a37cc" CreationDate="2018-10-14T17:52:24.447" UserId="79" Comment="added 18 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7305" RevisionGUID="a60ef151-8176-404d-b7c0-3669c9fcff78" CreationDate="2018-10-14T17:58:37.463" UserId="79" Text="Latin word order is very free, and the predicate &amp;mdash; like *est* or *sunt* &amp;mdash; can go anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;Any of these is valid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Gallia est in Europa.*&#xD;&#xA;- *Gallia in Europa est.*&#xD;&#xA;- *Est Gallia in Europa.*&#xD;&#xA;- *Est in Europa Gallia.*&#xD;&#xA;- *In Europa Gallia est.*&#xD;&#xA;- *In Europa est Gallia.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common choice is *Gallia in Europa est* (and SOV in general), but the rule &amp;mdash; if any &amp;mdash; is not to stick to any order but to have variations across any text." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7305" RevisionGUID="69f1ea99-e94d-4c72-ac3f-74384b8f60e1" CreationDate="2018-10-14T18:01:32.150" UserId="79" Comment="added 179 characters in body" Text="Latin word order is very free, and the predicate &amp;mdash; like *est* or *sunt* &amp;mdash; can go anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;Any of these is valid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Gallia est in Europa.*&#xD;&#xA;- *Gallia in Europa est.*&#xD;&#xA;- *Est Gallia in Europa.*&#xD;&#xA;- *Est in Europa Gallia.*&#xD;&#xA;- *In Europa Gallia est.*&#xD;&#xA;- *In Europa est Gallia.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common choice is *Gallia in Europa est* (and SOV in general), but the rule &amp;mdash; if any &amp;mdash; is not to stick to any order but to have variations across any text.&#xD;&#xA;An unusual word order can also be used for emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;I would say that the largest emphasis in a Latin sentence is on the first word and the second largest one on the last word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7306" RevisionGUID="78f0e2f5-efe5-45bc-a3e0-4b00c2b2d6df" CreationDate="2018-10-15T06:52:47.647" UserId="3001" Text="I am looking for a latin word that describes a person who:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- protects&#xD;&#xA;- is kind to&#xD;&#xA;- takes responsibility of&#xD;&#xA;- is kind of a deity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for animals or for nature.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a certain word for that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24487" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7306" RevisionGUID="78f0e2f5-efe5-45bc-a3e0-4b00c2b2d6df" CreationDate="2018-10-15T06:52:47.647" UserId="3001" Text="A word for protector of nature/animals" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24488" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7306" RevisionGUID="78f0e2f5-efe5-45bc-a3e0-4b00c2b2d6df" CreationDate="2018-10-15T06:52:47.647" UserId="3001" Text="|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7306" RevisionGUID="c9ca5e03-d02b-4d91-8beb-26f5e3832646" CreationDate="2018-10-15T06:57:01.893" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="I am looking for a Latin word that describes a person who:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- protects&#xD;&#xA;- is kind to&#xD;&#xA;- takes responsibility of&#xD;&#xA;- is kind of a deity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for animals or for nature.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a certain word for that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7306" RevisionGUID="d8c88018-5737-4155-9e06-6c0898b4f9b6" CreationDate="2018-10-15T11:50:21.813" UserId="3001" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="I am looking for a Latin word that describes a person who:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- protects (is a guardian)&#xD;&#xA;- is kind to&#xD;&#xA;- takes responsibility of&#xD;&#xA;- is kind of a deity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for animals or for nature.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a certain word for that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7307" RevisionGUID="6773cc9f-cd23-4756-9023-d8a1f593c97d" CreationDate="2018-10-15T13:53:52.577" UserId="645" Text="The word that you want is *tutor, -oris*. The verb that describes all the functions you require is the regular, 1st conjugation deponent *tutor, tutari, tutatus*, and an associated adjective is *tutelaris*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In English, a 'tutelary deity' is a 'protective spirit'.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7308" RevisionGUID="64ed98f5-762a-44e4-a178-e5c586626123" CreationDate="2018-10-15T17:39:08.703" UserId="522" Text="In translation there is a problem known as '[false friends][1].' If you are translating French you have to take care not to translate 'sensible' as sensible. In Latin 'tutor' invites the translation '[tutor][2]:' &quot;A private teacher, typically one who teaches a single pupil or a very small group.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pastor also has overtones; and (as with tutor) this subtext may suit you or be an annoyance:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Pastor][3]:  shepherd&#xD;&#xA; boni pastoris esse tondere pecus, non deglubere, Suet. Tib. 32.&#xD;&#xA;    1    A keeper: pavonum, Varr R. R. 3, 6, 5: columbarius, id. ib. 3, 7, 5: gallinarum, Col. 8, 2, 7: anserum, Dlg. 32, 1, 66.—  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (the idea of a shepherd is to shear the sheep, not to flay them)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could reverse this by using [Aegis][4] a word that in English means &quot;The protection, backing, or support of a particular person;&quot; and in Latin means a shield belonging to a god, occasionally a metaphor for any protection. I hope that covers divine protection in a metaphorical way with the right overtones. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Aegis][5] (Lewis/Short) A The shield of Jupiter, Verg. A. 8, 354; Sil. 12, 720.—  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   B The shield of Minerva, with Medusa's head, Verg. A. 8, 435: contra sonantem Palladis aegida, Hor. C. 3, 4, 57; so Ov. M. 2, 753; 6, 78 al.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Upilio' ([Lewis/Short Dictionary][6])is free of these complications.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ūpĭlĭo (eollat. form of ōpĭlĭo, q. v.), ōnis, m. ovis,  &#xD;&#xA;**I:** a shepherd, Verg. E. 10, 19; App. Mag. p. 279, 35.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_friend&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/tutor&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/getobject.pl?c.14:796.LewisShort18&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/aegis&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.0:1181.lewisandshort&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.19:269.lewisandshort" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7309" RevisionGUID="0439e222-9197-4eb5-aa13-3dff816d7a39" CreationDate="2018-10-15T18:43:25.983" UserId="3003" Text="Are there any relationships between the given name Pompeius (like in Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus) and the city name Pompeii (the city thas was destroyed in a volcanic eruption? What do they mean?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24494" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7309" RevisionGUID="0439e222-9197-4eb5-aa13-3dff816d7a39" CreationDate="2018-10-15T18:43:25.983" UserId="3003" Text="Are there any relationships between the given name Pompeius and the city name Pompeii?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24495" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7309" RevisionGUID="0439e222-9197-4eb5-aa13-3dff816d7a39" CreationDate="2018-10-15T18:43:25.983" UserId="3003" Text="|names|place-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7310" RevisionGUID="bb95f93e-2c07-44be-91fb-5dd76b654b0c" CreationDate="2018-10-15T19:13:57.113" UserId="2069" Text="I have seen quite a few translations such as,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Audentes Fortuna Juvas&#xD;&#xA;Audentis Fortuna Iuvat&#xD;&#xA;Audecis Fortuna Juvat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, what is the correct translation? I am looking for the one which matches Virgil's Aeneid the best. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24497" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7310" RevisionGUID="bb95f93e-2c07-44be-91fb-5dd76b654b0c" CreationDate="2018-10-15T19:13:57.113" UserId="2069" Text="Fortune Favors the Bold" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24498" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7310" RevisionGUID="bb95f93e-2c07-44be-91fb-5dd76b654b0c" CreationDate="2018-10-15T19:13:57.113" UserId="2069" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|poetry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7310" RevisionGUID="cb24eafd-a00f-402a-9bf3-6f24cc4d31e6" CreationDate="2018-10-15T19:22:59.683" UserId="1142" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="I have seen quite a few translations such as,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Audentes Fortuna Juvas*    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Audentis Fortuna Iuvat*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Audecis Fortuna Juvat*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, what is the correct translation? I am looking for the one which matches Virgil's Aeneid the best. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24500" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7301" RevisionGUID="5344c6ab-2aed-486d-bb0b-71692e997e82" CreationDate="2018-10-15T20:40:07.700" UserId="30" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|word-usage|articles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7311" RevisionGUID="ad545eee-bbcc-4355-b1e9-6d3420ed9b7f" CreationDate="2018-10-15T20:45:41.060" UserId="406" Text="If you're looking to quote the Aeneid, here's the relevant section, from X.279-84.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quod votis optastis adest, perfringere dextra.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; in manibus Mars ipse viris. nunc coniugis esto  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; quisque suae tectique memor, nunc magna referto  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; facta, patrum laudes. ultro occurramus ad undam  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; dum trepidi egressisque labant vestigia prima.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **audentis Fortuna iuvat**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These lines are spoken by Turnus; the last is the one you want. Since *audentis* is the participle of *audeō* &quot;dare&quot; I would translate this version as &quot;Fortune favors the daring&quot;, but that's just a stylistic choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7312" RevisionGUID="31227ecb-9163-4905-8b9f-0286c3a7f148" CreationDate="2018-10-15T21:09:48.917" UserId="79" Text="This might be in the wrong direction, but one option I suggest considering is ***Diana*** (cf. Greek Artemis).&#xD;&#xA;She is a goddess who is a kind guardian of animals.&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly it is a proper noun, but in some contexts you can speak of someone as a Diana." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7311" RevisionGUID="5644a90f-e753-45f5-85c5-d563fdc0f52f" CreationDate="2018-10-15T21:12:30.450" UserId="406" Comment="added 747 characters in body" Text="If you're looking to quote the Aeneid, here's the relevant section, from X.279-84.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quod votis optastis adest, perfringere dextra.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; in manibus Mars ipse viris. nunc coniugis esto  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; quisque suae tectique memor, nunc magna referto  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; facta, patrum laudes. ultro occurramus ad undam  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; dum trepidi egressisque labant vestigia prima.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **audentis Fortuna iuvat**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A very literal English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What you have all hoped for with your prayers is finally here: to break through with your right hands [i.e. with your weapons]. Mars himself gives strength to your hands. Now all of you, remember your wives and your roofs [i.e. homes], now think back to the great deeds [of the past], [and] the glories of our fathers [i.e. ancestors]. Now let's rush out into the waves to meet them, while the nervous [enemies] coming down [from their ships] take their first unsteady steps. **Fortune favors the daring!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These lines are spoken by Turnus; the last is the one you want. Since *audentīs* is the participle of *audeō* &quot;dare&quot; I would translate this version as &quot;Fortune favors the daring&quot;, but that's just a stylistic choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice between *audentīs* and *audentēs*, as Joonas mentions, is a stylistic one; they mean exactly the same thing in Classical times. I'd go with *-īs* just because it's what Vergil used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7313" RevisionGUID="b7a572c5-6517-44ce-bb03-5c4d6883e9ef" CreationDate="2018-10-16T02:17:46.770" UserDisplayName="user2840" Text="I'm in a second semester latin class (hence this might be considered a beginner question) and I have a question about what to me at least is a translation conundrum. The phrase in question, Pliny 8.95, is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maior altitudine in eodem Nile belua hippopotamus editur ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to translate 'Maior altitudine' as referring to a 'higher altitude on the river Nile', i.e. 'At a greater altitude on the same Nile is brought forth the Hippopotamus beast...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the consensus in my class seemed to be that Pliny was referring back to a previous paragraph in which he was discussing a shorter animal than the Hippopotamus, so something like &quot;Taller in height, the Hippopotamus beast is brought forth on the same Nile...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked up the Pliny reference and the previous paragraph is about crocodiles on the river Nile (I haven't been able to determine yet if there is any reference to position on the river, high or low), so either explanation could potentially hold (since Hippopotami are taller than crocodiles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts out there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24505" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7313" RevisionGUID="b7a572c5-6517-44ce-bb03-5c4d6883e9ef" CreationDate="2018-10-16T02:17:46.770" UserDisplayName="user2840" Text="Pliny 8.95 - Translation question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24506" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7313" RevisionGUID="b7a572c5-6517-44ce-bb03-5c4d6883e9ef" CreationDate="2018-10-16T02:17:46.770" UserDisplayName="user2840" Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7313" RevisionGUID="6c271574-f55d-4896-9b94-531b4d242dbb" CreationDate="2018-10-16T02:24:20.497" UserDisplayName="user2840" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="I'm in a second semester latin class (hence this might be considered a beginner question) and I have a question about what to me at least is a translation conundrum. The phrase in question, Pliny 8.95, is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maior altitudine in eodem Nile belua hippopotamus editur ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to translate 'Maior altitudine' as referring to a 'higher altitude on the river Nile', i.e. 'At a greater altitude on the same Nile is brought forth the Hippopotamus beast...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the consensus in my class seemed to be that Pliny was referring back to a previous paragraph (which we didn't have available as the sentence appeared out of context in our textbook) in which he was discussing a shorter animal than the Hippopotamus, so something like &quot;Taller in height, the Hippopotamus beast is brought forth on the same Nile...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked up the Pliny reference and the previous paragraph is about crocodiles on the river Nile (I haven't been able to determine yet if there is any reference to position on the river, high or low), so either explanation could potentially hold (since Hippopotami are taller than crocodiles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts out there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7314" RevisionGUID="b1b4fc18-83cd-4494-9e1f-781e9ec4712c" CreationDate="2018-10-16T07:57:57.157" UserId="2532" Text="To answer your question, one could choose to interpret it to have an unspoken clause, as per the comments to the first answer. There are indeed ways to express this is Latin: _nē (…) quidem [–––] nōn mōdō_ expresses ‘not even [–––] much less’ or the likes. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _nē suēs quidem id velint, nōn mōdō ipse_: not even swine would like that, no less he.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of negative statement may also be used with other markers of negation, such as in [Cic. Arch.][1] where you’ll find forms such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] vērum etiam_,&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] nōn_,&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] sed_,&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] vērum […] enim_ and&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] vērum enim_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John Philip Krebs writes in his [_Guide for writing Latin consisting of Rules and Examples for Practice_][2] on how such a clause is construced (§ 540). In his examples, he assumes a previous clause stating _not only not_ leading to a following clause stating various negations, such as _but not even_, _scarcely_, &amp;c. He explicitly explains this to be solved as such:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [It] is expressed by _non modo_ (solum) _non_, followed by _sed ne — quidem_ (_sed vix_ and the like: [… where examples follow]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remarks:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Instead of the second _not_ in the first clause, another negative word can also be used, e.g. no one, nothing, never, etc., for which, in the last case with _non modo_ without _non_ the words _quisquam_, _quidquam_, _unquam_ are used. […]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He goes on to state that the positions of the clauses may be inverted, and adds a third remark with regards to _nēdum_, meaning _not to say_ and the likes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going back to your question then, it seems that one may construct the phrase you are requesting. I will make some slight changes, particularly with the comment mentioned in the beginning, but the example should work well enough for your case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Assume a previous statement, for example ‘Do not move!’. This is clearly a negative imperative.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Assuming the previous statement, the actual phrase you are looking for, is something like ‘Do not even breathe!’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using ‘_nōlō_, _nōlle_, _nōlui_, —’ as the negative imperative, one then gets the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. ‘_Nōlī (tē) mōvere!_’ – ‘Do not move (yourself)!’&#xD;&#xA; 2. ‘_Nē quidem spīrā!_’ or ‘_Nē quidem flā!_’ – ‘Do not even breath!’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that following _nōlō_ with a negative, does not undo the negation, as per [Lewis and Short][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sometimes followed by a negative, which does not destroy the negation: “nolui deesse, ne tacitae quidem flagitioni tuae,” Cic. Top. 1, 5;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;───&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, should anyone find any errors in my answer, please comment, and I will do my utmost to correct it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/arch.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.no/books?id=WkUQAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA458&amp;lpg=PA458&amp;dq=latin%20%22do%20not%20even%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qfL3dK8H0x&amp;sig=dCKhMqnqjaSCwsUJp6Az-fmMF4Y&amp;hl=no&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj5lbeSs4reAhUCiCwKHUGkBh8Q6AEwB3oECCwQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20%22do%20not%20even%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=nolo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7314" RevisionGUID="7e869325-7092-4da3-81d7-899e01dc2dc5" CreationDate="2018-10-16T08:10:16.667" UserId="2532" Comment="Corrected typo" Text="To answer your question, one could choose to interpret it to have an unspoken clause, as per the comments to the first answer. There are indeed ways to express this is Latin: _nē (…) quidem [–––] nōn mōdō_ expresses ‘not even [–––] much less’ or the likes. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _nē suēs quidem id velint, nōn mōdō ipse_: not even swine would like that, no less he.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of negative statement may also be used with other markers of negation, such as in [Cic. Arch.][1] where you’ll find forms such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] vērum etiam_,&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] nōn_,&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] sed_,&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] vērum […] enim_ and&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] vērum enim_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John Philip Krebs writes in his [_Guide for Writing Latin: Consisting of Rules and Examples for Practice_][2] on how such a clause is construced (§ 540). In his examples, he assumes a previous clause stating _not only not_ leading to a following clause stating various negations, such as _but not even_, _scarcely_, &amp;c. He explicitly explains this to be solved as such:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [It] is expressed by _non modo_ (solum) _non_, followed by _sed ne — quidem_ (_sed vix_ and the like: [… where examples follow]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remarks:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Instead of the second _not_ in the first clause, another negative word can also be used, e.g. no one, nothing, never, etc., for which, in the last case with _non modo_ without _non_ the words _quisquam_, _quidquam_, _unquam_ are used. […]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He goes on to state that the positions of the clauses may be inverted, and adds a third remark with regards to _nēdum_, meaning _not to say_ and the likes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going back to your question then, it seems that one may construct the phrase you are requesting. I will make some slight changes, particularly with the comment mentioned in the beginning, but the example should work well enough for your case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Assume a previous statement, for example ‘Do not move!’. This is clearly a negative imperative.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Assuming the previous statement, the actual phrase you are looking for, is something like ‘Do not even breathe!’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using ‘_nōlō_, _nōlle_, _nōlui_, —’ as the negative imperative, one then gets the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. ‘_Nōlī (tē) mōvere!_’ – ‘Do not move (yourself)!’&#xD;&#xA; 2. ‘_Nē quidem spīrā!_’ or ‘_Nē quidem flā!_’ – ‘Do not even breath!’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that following _nōlō_ with a negative, does not undo the negation, as per [Lewis and Short][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sometimes followed by a negative, which does not destroy the negation: “nolui deesse, ne tacitae quidem flagitioni tuae,” Cic. Top. 1, 5;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;───&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, should anyone find any errors in my answer, please comment, and I will do my utmost to correct it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/arch.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.no/books?id=WkUQAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA458&amp;lpg=PA458&amp;dq=latin%20%22do%20not%20even%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qfL3dK8H0x&amp;sig=dCKhMqnqjaSCwsUJp6Az-fmMF4Y&amp;hl=no&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj5lbeSs4reAhUCiCwKHUGkBh8Q6AEwB3oECCwQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20%22do%20not%20even%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=nolo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7315" RevisionGUID="da67d56e-0f8d-436e-9d7b-8dbf21913d5f" CreationDate="2018-10-16T10:31:29.200" UserId="81" Text="In *2 Thessalonians 1:11*, the *Vulgata* has the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In quo etiam oramus semper pro vobis: ut dignetur vos vocatione sua&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus nosteret impleat omnem voluntatem bonitatis, et opus fidei in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; virtute,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *dignetur* is in the passive subjunctive, but it seems to be acting as if it were active. In the Greek, on the other hand, the verb, ἀξιώσῃ, is in the active subjunctive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εἰς ὃ καὶ προσευχόμεθα πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν, ἵνα ὑμᾶς ἀξιώσῃ τῆς κλήσεως&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν καὶ πληρώσῃ πᾶσαν εὐδοκίαν ἀγαθωσύνης καὶ ἔργον πίστεως ἐν&#xD;&#xA;&gt; δυνάμει,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: Since *digno* isn't a deponent verb, why does its passive form seem to be serving an active role?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24511" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7315" RevisionGUID="da67d56e-0f8d-436e-9d7b-8dbf21913d5f" CreationDate="2018-10-16T10:31:29.200" UserId="81" Text="Why is dignetur used as if it were in the active voice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24512" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7315" RevisionGUID="da67d56e-0f8d-436e-9d7b-8dbf21913d5f" CreationDate="2018-10-16T10:31:29.200" UserId="81" Text="|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7315" RevisionGUID="c939ae1b-0d6c-41f0-aac5-182f57f34ba5" CreationDate="2018-10-16T10:43:35.000" UserId="81" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="For *2 Thessalonians 1:11*, the *Vulgata* has the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In quo etiam oramus semper pro vobis: ut dignetur vos vocatione sua&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deus nosteret impleat omnem voluntatem bonitatis, et opus fidei in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; virtute,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *dignetur* is in the passive subjunctive, but it seems to be acting as if it were active. In the Greek, on the other hand, the verb, ἀξιώσῃ, is in the active subjunctive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εἰς ὃ καὶ προσευχόμεθα πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν, ἵνα ὑμᾶς ἀξιώσῃ τῆς κλήσεως&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν καὶ πληρώσῃ πᾶσαν εὐδοκίαν ἀγαθωσύνης καὶ ἔργον πίστεως ἐν&#xD;&#xA;&gt; δυνάμει,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: Since *digno* isn't a deponent verb, why does its passive form seem to be serving an active role?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7089" RevisionGUID="ce3e99e5-4420-4cc5-895c-df2918b5cb64" CreationDate="2018-10-16T10:46:24.640" UserId="13" Comment="added last section; edited title" Text="OK, so this question is perhaps somewhat weird, but I have no idea where to start, so here I am. Let me give some introduction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Me, languages, and Greek#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's start very far back. As [my blog](https://michelegorini.blogspot.com) illustrates, I like fiddling with languages. At high school, I had Latin classes, but in my high school there were different curricula, one of which, called &quot;Classical Lyceum&quot;, featured Ancient Greek, so I decided to pick my mother's grammar up and start on Ancient Greek. Year 1, textbook Greek translation into Latin. Year 2: Latin author excerpts from my textbook, translation to Greek. Summer of year 2: authors. And that summer, an appendix on dialects popped up, so I thought, &quot;I wanna be able to understand any dialect&quot;, and selected texts for that. The appendix had Homeric, Herodotian (if that is the English of _Erodoteo_), Aeolic, Doric. Since Homeric essentially seemed like a weirder version of Herodotian, I decided to gobble up tons of Herodotus, and then some Homer. Summer ended, and only two passages of the Iliad were translated. March or May of year 3, OK, I've done enough Homer, time for Aeolic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The time of Sappho#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who wrote in Aeolic? Sappho and Alcaeus, that I know of. Pick something from both? Nah, just choose one and pull all the texts from Greek Wikisource, ready to translate. The choice fell on Sappho, and I went on to discover how my assumption on the easiness of getting the texts was complete and utter bull… err, tauricopria. My blog illustrates that very well. While researching Sappho, I came across a number of sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#safopoemas.doc#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of those was [a document](http://www.b3ta.cr3ation.co.uk/data/doc/safopoemas.doc), I mean a Word document, called _safopoemas.doc_. I have already mentioned this document [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4604/sappho-94-the-spaniards-completion). The document is now no longer available. It [resurfaced](http://ftp.utalca.cl/intercambio/plataforma/lgc/Dani/Libros/Para%20imprimir/Poemas_completos_Safo.pdf) some time ago as a pdf, but my Firefox blocks it as harmful, so I don't even know if it's there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, the contents of this document were &quot;reminiscent of a Spanish edition of Sappho&quot;. I use quotes because I can't tell if this was what was published, or if a lousy OCR had something to do with this. I sure hope at least the horrid corruptions were an OCR's fault, otherwise the team who directed this should never have started. The horrors of this document are beyond description. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's not just the weirdest of typos, like παΤ for παῖ or ϊγω for ἔγω or words that aren't even recognizable, oh no.&#xD;&#xA; - The line breaking is horribly skewed, a fact I originally attributed&#xD;&#xA;   to better matching the Spanish _verso libre_ translation, which was&#xD;&#xA;   bad per se, because if it's libre it should have been fitted to the&#xD;&#xA;   Greek, but then I saw an example where the line breaking was wrong in&#xD;&#xA;   the Greek but the Spanish matched the correct line breaking.&#xD;&#xA; - In some places, the lines are even scrambled!&#xD;&#xA; - There is even a fragment in _two distinct numbers_, precisely 73 and 159!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, that horror actually gave some interesting restorations, as [that post I linked to before](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4604/sappho-94-the-spaniards-completion) exemplifies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Striving for completeness on the blog#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fast forward a number of years, fifth year of university, I open my blog, and Sappho starts to go up on it. Fast forward another year, and I am preparing &quot;The rest of Sappho&quot;. To be sure I have anything that any of my sources attributes to Sappho, I start readying a huge comparative numbering table between them all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the sources is safopoemas, so I give it a first pass, and locate all but 14 fragments on Lobel-Page. In the meantime, I realize that fragments 40 and 88 are actually collections of P.Oxy. 1231 and P.Oxy. 1787 fragments respectively, each fragment being started by its number and ended by ||, with the line breaks all gone in the Greek. That number &quot;14&quot; accounts for that as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I give those 14 a second pass. Of those that aren't papyrus fragments omitted by Lobel-Page, of which there are about 8, I identify, by locating them in other sources, all but one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#The mystery fragment#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fragment 207 reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ώράνα· χελ^όνων όροφή&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and is translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;. . .la hermosa golondrina, en el tejado. . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;…the beautiful swallow, in the tiled roof…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have figured out that `ὀροφή` means &quot;roof&quot;, so it matches &quot;tejado&quot;. I would assume it should be `ἐν ὀροφῇ`, &quot;in the roof&quot;, and then we have three short syllables and a non-Aeolic form, so we would need `ἐν δ' ὀρόφᾳ` if this was Sappho, which would make it Ionic a minore or a maiore in meter. `χελ^όνων` may be a corruption of `χελίδων`, &quot;swallow&quot;, which would require three syllables to be lost after it to fit the meter, so `χελίδων uu– ἐν δ' ὀρόφᾳ`. `ώράνα` doesn't match the translation at all, however. `Hermosa` from the translation could be integrated in the lacuna getting `χελίδων u κάλα ἐν δ' ὀρόφᾳ`, and the missing syllable could be γε, to intensify κάλα (maybe). Amending the last Greek word we could reconstruct `ὄρραννα χελίδων γε κάλα ἐν δ' ὀρόφᾳ u–x`, a ionic a maiore tetrameter. Of course, this all supposes this is Sappho. If this were another author, we could just write… um, ὠράνα with an omega seems to have to be Aeolic, so maybe a gloss? `ὠράνα· χελίδὼν ἐν ὀροφῇ`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Can anyone identify this fragment and/or provide a source for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#PS#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you're wondering, after over a year and a half of struggling with Sappho, I decided to leave Doric alone and proceed with Chinese and Japanese at the end of August of year 4 :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**safopoemas online?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tried opening the link with Safari, and:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aw, butts. But [Scribd](https://www.scribd.com/doc/201449779/Safo-Poemas-Edicion-Bilingue) seems to have it. And [here](https://loveslide.org/document/safo-poemas-OB6K9uA7o) is the edition… with the Greek completely lost! And [here](http://libros.duhnnae.com/2017/mar/148995135549-Safo-Poemas.php) it should be again. Bonus: «Safo Poemas BAJO LA DIRECCIÓN DE MANUEL DE EZCURDIA CON LA COLABORACIÓN DE TERESA SILVA TENA Y CARLOS TRILLAS SALAZAR Safo Introducción, traducción directa y notas de Carlos Montemayor Edición completa de los fragmentos sáficos EDITORIAL TRILLAS Las ilustraciones han sido tomadas de: Dictionnaire de la civilisation grecque, Fernaud Hazan editeur, París, 1966.». Oh yep, it's the one. Enjoy the horrors of this :).&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wqY5R.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24515" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7089" RevisionGUID="ce3e99e5-4420-4cc5-895c-df2918b5cb64" CreationDate="2018-10-16T10:46:24.640" UserId="13" Comment="added last section; edited title" Text="Identifying corrupted Sappho fragment or mention of Sappho found in just-newly-found-online Spanish edition of Sappho" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24516" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7315" RevisionGUID="c161a7a5-3451-4d36-8306-a336b2f706e1" CreationDate="2018-10-16T11:25:01.770" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|verbs|vulgata|passive-voice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24517" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="897" RevisionGUID="d272116b-112c-4562-bbc6-7f4100fac87f" CreationDate="2018-10-16T12:08:30.333" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|conjunctive|imperative|negation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7316" RevisionGUID="36e47192-21bd-450d-80b3-9544959a5579" CreationDate="2018-10-16T14:39:54.720" UserId="324" Text="digno and the deponent dignor are both used in the same meaning &quot;to deem worthy&quot;, but the latter is much more frequent. L/S have a separate entry for each of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24521" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7315" RevisionGUID="123a9735-622c-4be8-ab44-acf01ff9b0c5" CreationDate="2018-10-16T14:42:49.013" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|verbs|vulgata|passive-voice|deponent-verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7318" RevisionGUID="5019e812-827d-4eba-8c01-3fed0a570265" CreationDate="2018-10-16T18:18:01.193" UserId="3005" Text="What linguistic process is illustrated by changing /a/ into /e/ in _inars/iners_? Assimilation? Why has it taken place?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24524" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7318" RevisionGUID="5019e812-827d-4eba-8c01-3fed0a570265" CreationDate="2018-10-16T18:18:01.193" UserId="3005" Text="Inars –&gt; iners: how is this change called?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24525" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7318" RevisionGUID="5019e812-827d-4eba-8c01-3fed0a570265" CreationDate="2018-10-16T18:18:01.193" UserId="3005" Text="|phonetics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24526" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7318" RevisionGUID="0bf6a826-ca06-4486-a5cb-012dd2b13d7a" CreationDate="2018-10-16T18:39:15.037" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Inars &gt; iners: how is this change called?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24527" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7318" RevisionGUID="0bf6a826-ca06-4486-a5cb-012dd2b13d7a" CreationDate="2018-10-16T18:39:15.037" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|language-evolution|phonetics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7319" RevisionGUID="407467aa-0c24-4b6b-b0fe-da0a47bf431a" CreationDate="2018-10-16T18:46:19.173" UserId="79" Text="This is called [vowel reduction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vowel_reduction).&#xD;&#xA;Basically, a vowel that loses emphasis becomes weaker.&#xD;&#xA;This is very typical with one-syllable prefixes:&#xD;&#xA;*ars &gt; iners*, *facere &gt; efficere*.&#xD;&#xA;It can also happen due to inflection, as in *tango &gt; tetigi* (from stem *tag-* with nasal augment in present stem and reduplication in perfect stem).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old Latin had initial stress and therefore prefixes move stress away.&#xD;&#xA;When stress is lost, a short vowel tends to become weaker.&#xD;&#xA;The stress system changed later, but the vowel changes stuck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7320" RevisionGUID="2d2b1ba8-7efa-4ad0-ab80-6677f0593cde" CreationDate="2018-10-16T18:50:46.310" UserId="1142" Text="According to [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki), the adjective *paucus*, although typically found in the plural, with a meaning typically pertaining to quantity, can mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *1. few, little*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Usually plural; very rare in the singular. Mostly pertaining to quantity.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paucus#Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usage notes and the inclusion of *little* in the entry *seem* to imply that *paucus* can be used to denote something little, specifically concerning size, but I am extremely doubtful. Thus my question: can *paucus* be used as an adjective meaning *little*, specifically with concerns to size?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24530" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7320" RevisionGUID="2d2b1ba8-7efa-4ad0-ab80-6677f0593cde" CreationDate="2018-10-16T18:50:46.310" UserId="1142" Text="Can the adjective &quot;paucus&quot; carry this meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24531" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7320" RevisionGUID="2d2b1ba8-7efa-4ad0-ab80-6677f0593cde" CreationDate="2018-10-16T18:50:46.310" UserId="1142" Text="|adjective|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7321" RevisionGUID="06eee57c-168a-4a4d-80ea-00f1548158be" CreationDate="2018-10-16T19:09:51.030" UserId="79" Text="Don't read too much into Wiktionary.&#xD;&#xA;[Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=paucus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) translate *paucus* as &quot;few, little&quot;, and the Wiktionary entry was probably pulled from there.&#xD;&#xA;All examples in L&amp;S seem to pertain to quantity, and I would assume L&amp;S to mention if it could be used for size as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot definitively prove a negative, but *paucus* doesn't seem to be able to mean &quot;little&quot; in the sense of &quot;small&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It only means &quot;little&quot; as a synonym of &quot;few&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7322" RevisionGUID="0ec4923b-00f6-454a-ba07-73fe3b41b965" CreationDate="2018-10-16T21:02:34.093" UserId="3007" Text="Can someone please help me with a translation? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to translate the phrase &quot;You always have a choice&quot; to Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24534" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7322" RevisionGUID="0ec4923b-00f6-454a-ba07-73fe3b41b965" CreationDate="2018-10-16T21:02:34.093" UserId="3007" Text="English to Latin phrase translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24535" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7322" RevisionGUID="0ec4923b-00f6-454a-ba07-73fe3b41b965" CreationDate="2018-10-16T21:02:34.093" UserId="3007" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7323" RevisionGUID="d3b09d1a-f43d-43ab-86b1-db6b1ac78d7e" CreationDate="2018-10-17T01:06:11.423" UserId="3009" Text="What is the meaning of *phellos* in the epithet for Quercus phellos, the biological/scientific name for the willow oak?  I've tried some obvious resources, but after 50 years in clinical medicine and education, my high school Latin seems to be running out.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24537" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7323" RevisionGUID="d3b09d1a-f43d-43ab-86b1-db6b1ac78d7e" CreationDate="2018-10-17T01:06:11.423" UserId="3009" Text="Meaning of phellos in the epithet for Quercus phellos, the biological/scientific name for the willow oak?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24538" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7323" RevisionGUID="d3b09d1a-f43d-43ab-86b1-db6b1ac78d7e" CreationDate="2018-10-17T01:06:11.423" UserId="3009" Text="|scientific-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7324" RevisionGUID="ca2e771f-1ea5-40bf-9458-8891e2777934" CreationDate="2018-10-17T01:30:43.320" UserId="40" Text="That's perfectly understandable, as the word isn't Latin, but Greek. [φελλός][1] is the Greek for the 'cork oak', *Quercus suber*. Why this word was used in the binomial for a different species of oak, I can't say, except to note that since the willow oak is not native to Europe it would not have had a Greek or Latin name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dfello%2Fs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7323" RevisionGUID="37718a43-8560-437d-919e-45e14ba028a5" CreationDate="2018-10-17T07:08:49.730" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="What is the meaning of *phellos* in the epithet for *Quercus phellos*, the biological/scientific name for the willow oak?  I've tried some obvious resources, but after 50 years in clinical medicine and education, my high school Latin seems to be running out.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24541" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7323" RevisionGUID="37718a43-8560-437d-919e-45e14ba028a5" CreationDate="2018-10-17T07:08:49.730" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|biology|scientific-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7259" RevisionGUID="d1bed608-5880-4e75-bb84-b688461b0d31" CreationDate="2018-10-17T08:48:02.993" UserId="13" Comment="Added mention of outlier source 9 in discussion of l. 1 in the addendum." Text="The tradition for this fragment is a horrible mess which I will detail in an addendum at the end (modulo updates) of the question by pasting the critical note I prepared this morning for it. Line 2 is especially problematic. This question focuses on safopoemas's (cfr. [1](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7089/identifying-corrupted-sappho-fragment-or-mention-of-sappho-found-in-now-no-longe) especially, and also [2](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4604/sappho-94-the-spaniards-completion) and [3](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7118/tracing-apparent-book-iv-colophon-not-found-in-voigt-but-found-in-a-spanish-sapp)) text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;/έσπερε πάντα φέρων δσα φαΐνολις ¿σχίδασ' αδως φέρρες δϊν, φέπες αίγα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;φέρες (δ') α&quot;πυ μάτερι παΐδα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Noting that the linebreak may just be the document's margin, I proceed to emend the text to make it intelligible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ϝέσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φαίνολις ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Φέρρες ὄϊν, φέρες αἶγα, φέρες ‹δ'› ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the critical notes say nothing, and the introduction (cf. link 3 above) says they follow the 1937 French edition of Sappho curated by Reinach and reprinted in 1966, and that this is not a &quot;fragmento no recopilado&quot; (non compiled fragment), I would assume this is what Reinach had. So my question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is there any justification for the double rho in the Φέρρες that opens l. 2? If so, which is it? If not, who (if not Reinach) proposed this, and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Addendum: CRIT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Last in the category&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; we have Bergk 96 Edmonds 149 Lobel-Page 104(a) Campbell 104(a). OK, this is a huge mess. I already kind of knew that before I actually looked things up for this note, but it's way, waaaay, worse than I thought. For starters, it has 10 (yes TEN) sources, which I will try to reconstruct all below as far as Voigt allows me to, even in the oscillations of the different manuscripts for those sources. There is every sort of weird oscillation here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In Voigt's order, source one is Demetrius's treatise &lt;i&gt;De&#xD;&#xA;    Elocutione&lt;/i&gt;, where he wrote «χαριεντίζεται δέ ποτε (sc. ἡ Σαπφώ)&#xD;&#xA;    καὶ ἐξ ἀναφορᾶς, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἑσπέρου, &quot;Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρεις&quot;, φησί,&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;φέρεις οἶνον φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις μάτερι παῖδα&quot;· καὶ γὰρ ἐνταῦθα ἡ&#xD;&#xA;    χάρις ἐστὶν ἐκ τῆς λέξεως τῆς &quot;φέρεις&quot; ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἀναφερομέης», or&#xD;&#xA;    in Campbell's traslation «Sometimes, also, Sappho makes charming use&#xD;&#xA;    of repetition as in the description of the Evening Star: &quot;Hesperus,&#xD;&#xA;    you bring everything&quot;, she says, &quot;you bring the wine, you bring the&#xD;&#xA;    goat, you bring the child to the mother&quot;: here the charm lies in the&#xD;&#xA;    repetition of the word &quot;φέρεις&quot; (bring), always with the same&#xD;&#xA;    reference», that is with the same subject Hesperus. The translation&#xD;&#xA;    of the quote is mine, for Campbell's text is amended. And here&#xD;&#xA;    already we have a problem: what is the meter? The first part could&#xD;&#xA;    be the first half of a hexameter with pentemimeral (is that the&#xD;&#xA;    term?) caesura, but the rest oesn't fit the hexameter meter, it's&#xD;&#xA;    like u–––u––uu––uu–u. Welp, let's leave the discussion for below,&#xD;&#xA;    and just note that φέρεις is probably to be Aeolicised to φέρῃς,&#xD;&#xA;    which Lobel himself corrected according to Voigt, though Lobel-Page&#xD;&#xA;    and Campbell both keep φέρεις.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Source two is a scholiast on&#xD;&#xA;        Euripides' Orestes, who wrote, in Voigt's quoting cut, «ἑσπέρα [...]&#xD;&#xA;        ἀπὸ τοῦ πάντας εἰσφέρειν [...] καὶ ἡ Σαπφὼ [...] τὸν ἕσπερο ἀστέρα&#xD;&#xA;        εἶπε [...] ἐτυμολογοῦσα [...]· ἕσπερε πάτα φέρων ὄσα φαινολὶς&#xD;&#xA;        ἐσκέδασ' αὔως» (ἑσπέρα, evening, [is called thus] from [its]&#xD;&#xA;        εἰσφέρειν, bringing, everything […] and Sappho […] called Hesperus a&#xD;&#xA;        star […] explaining the etymology […]: Hesperus, bringing everything&#xD;&#xA;        which shining Dawn scattered). This source has its own oscillations,&#xD;&#xA;        since a cod. B for this has φαινόλης, which is either a&#xD;&#xA;        &lt;i&gt;paenula&lt;/i&gt; (thick upper garment) or a doric form for the plural&#xD;&#xA;        of φαινόλις, therefore we discard it and keep the other codices'&#xD;&#xA;        form, with Aeolic barytonesis applied, to produce φαίνολις. Also,&#xD;&#xA;        cod. M for this source has αὔων, but that is accusative AFAIK, and&#xD;&#xA;        we don't want an accusative here, so we follow the other code. Said&#xD;&#xA;        codex also has ἔσπειρε at the beginning, which could be construed as&#xD;&#xA;        the imperfect of σπείρω, thus meaning &quot;he/she/it sowed&quot;, which is&#xD;&#xA;        out of place, so we discard it. We thus give this line the form&#xD;&#xA;        Ἔσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φαίνολις ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως. And now it's a&#xD;&#xA;        hexameter.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Source 3 is the Etymologicum Gen[uinum] A, a passage more or less&#xD;&#xA;    the same as one from the Etymologicum Magnum, where we read&#xD;&#xA;    «Σελεύκου· ἕσπερος· [...] ἀπὸ τοῦ ἔσω περᾶν πάντα τὰ ζῷα [...] καὶ&#xD;&#xA;    Σαπφώ· Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φενόλις ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως» (Of Seleucus:&#xD;&#xA;    Hesperus: [called thus] from all the animals going inside […] and&#xD;&#xA;    Sappho: Hesperus bringing everything which (shining?) Dawn&#xD;&#xA;    scattered), where Seleucus may be the author of this particular&#xD;&#xA;    entry (the Etymologica are essentially etymological dictionaries),&#xD;&#xA;    and φενόλις is probably a corruption of our friend φαινόλις,&#xD;&#xA;    obviously to be Aeolically accented. So the same form is given to l.&#xD;&#xA;    1 as in source 2.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Source 4 is the Etymologicum Gen[uinum] B, the only other source&#xD;&#xA;    with l. 2. It reads «Σαπφώ· Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φαινόλης ἐσκέδασ'&#xD;&#xA;    Αὔως φέρεις οἶον φέρεις οἶνον φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις ἄποιον μητέρι&#xD;&#xA;    παῖδα», oh my God what happened to l. 2? The thing translates to&#xD;&#xA;    «Sappho: Hesperus bringing everything which shining Dawn scattered&#xD;&#xA;    you bring the lonely man you bring the wine you bring the goat you&#xD;&#xA;    bring the absent child to the mother». Apart from amending φαινόλης&#xD;&#xA;    the usual way, all we will do is fix φέρεις, again as usual, and to&#xD;&#xA;    Aeolicise μητέρι to μάτερι.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Source 5 is the Etymologicum Gud[ianum], where we read much the same&#xD;&#xA;        as in source 3, except for having the line as Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα&#xD;&#xA;        φαινολὶς ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως, where we amend φαινολὶς in terms of accent&#xD;&#xA;        getting the same old form for the line as all sources save for 1.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Source 6 is another passage of the Etymologicum Gud[ianum], again&#xD;&#xA;    similar to source 3, and it reads «ἑσπέρα ἀπὸ τοῦ σαφῶς εἰς πέρας&#xD;&#xA;    πάντα φέρειν, καὶ Σαπφώ· Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρειν ὄσα φαινολὶς ἐσκέδασ'&#xD;&#xA;    Αὔως, where we amend φαινολὶς as usual, and don't know what to do&#xD;&#xA;    with φέρειν: φέρων or φέρῃς? The former is less distant, so we'll go&#xD;&#xA;    with that, getting the same old form for l. 1.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Source 7 is the Etymologicum Gen[uninum] A, bearing the exact same&#xD;&#xA;    passage as the Etymologicum Magnum (not the one above though), which&#xD;&#xA;    reads «Σαπφὼ [...]· Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φαινόλης ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως»,&#xD;&#xA;    simply &quot;Sappho said&quot; and the quote, and you know the drill by now,&#xD;&#xA;    and nothing new comes from here. Note that only the E.G. and cod. V&#xD;&#xA;    of the E.M. have φαινόλης, while other codices have φαινολὶς.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. Source 8 is Cramer's Anecdota Or., which reads «ἠώς· ἤτοι [...] ἢ&#xD;&#xA;    ἀπὺ τοπυ διεξιέναι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους· Σαπφώ· ὅσα φαινώλης ἐσκέδασ'&#xD;&#xA;    Αὔως» (ἠώς, Dawn: either […] or from men going out; Sappho: all&#xD;&#xA;    which shining Dawn scattered», and you know the drill. Except the&#xD;&#xA;    line is not complete, but whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. Source 9 is again the Etymologicum Gud[ianum], which reads «Σαπφώ·&#xD;&#xA;    Φέσπερε πάντα φέρω ὄσα φαινοτέρα ἐσκέδασ' ἡώς» (Sappho: Hesperus I&#xD;&#xA;    bring everything which the rather bright Dawn scattered). That is&#xD;&#xA;    some change. The leading phi is obviously spurious, and may indicate&#xD;&#xA;    the presence of a digamma in the original. φέρω is an interesting&#xD;&#xA;    variation, but it creates a hiatus which seems unlikely, especially&#xD;&#xA;    since that would probably cause a shortening of the vowel which&#xD;&#xA;    would be inmetrical, so we amend it as usual. φαινοτέρα is&#xD;&#xA;    inmetrical, and we'd surely like to amend it as usual, but as far as&#xD;&#xA;    this source is concerned, a more conservative thing is to elide it&#xD;&#xA;    to φαινοτέρ'. The last word is obviously non-Aeolic, so we Aeolicise&#xD;&#xA;    it as usual. And so we get Ϝέσπερε πάντα φέρω ὄσα φαινοτέρ' ἐσκέδασ'&#xD;&#xA;    Αὔως.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10. Source 10, finally, is another passage of the Etymologicum&#xD;&#xA;    Gud[ianum], which reads, without an author name, «ὅσα φαινόλης&#xD;&#xA;    ἐσκέδασ' ἄνθρωπος» (which shining man scattered), where the last&#xD;&#xA;    word is obviously a spectacular corruption, as it is inmetrical and&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;shining man&quot; is just nonsense. So after the usual fix to φαινόλης&#xD;&#xA;    we're back to the usual point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So l. 1 is pretty much undoubted, except for the outsider of source 9,which we promptly reject, and φέρῃς vs. φέρων. The tradition seems to indicate the latter, since only source 1 has the former, but the former would strengthen the anaphora Demetrius praises. This is probably why everybody outside Edmonds and safopoemas has the former. I beg to differ. I mean, an overwhelming majority of sources indicates the latter, so what is more likely, that the anaphora was only in l. 2, or that 8 sources out of 10 made the same mistake? However, I followed Bibliotheca Augustana for the translations, so I'll have to keep the former for this post, but the all-Sappho posts will get the latter. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Line 2, however, is a huge mess. We have two sources, and they give us «φέρεις οἶνον φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις μάτερι παῖδα» (I) and «φέρεις οἶον φέρεις οἶνον φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις ἄποιον μητέρι παῖδα». What do we make of all this? &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Bergk, who is btw the only one to keep the digamma in l. 1 (I won't&#xD;&#xA;   either, because only one source has a hint to it), raises his hands&#xD;&#xA;   and says «quæ frustra restituere conantur» (which in vain people try&#xD;&#xA;   to reconstruct).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Lobel-Page, Campbell, and Voigt all do more or less the same: φέρεις ὄιν φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα, with Voigt having no cruces, treating this as a iambic meter + xx–uu–uu–uu–x (pherecratean with two dactyls inserted), and amending to φέρῃς all times, Lobel-Page wraps the whole thing up to and including ἄπυ in cruces, and Campbell putting the closing crux after the second φέρεις. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Bibliotheca Augustana and Greek Wikisource and The Complete Poems of Sappho do the same, disregarding φέρῃς-φέρεις oscillations, with the first two breaking l. 2 into two lines with the breaking point after ὄιν. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Edmonds writes φέρεις ὄιν, / φέρεις αἶγα, φέρεις ἀπὺ ϝὸν μάτερι παῖδα, suggesting perhaps ἀπὺ ϝϝὸν on the basis of some Homeric quotes where a third-person adjective/pronoun with no consonant at the start (like ἕο) lengthens the omicron in the preceding ἀπὸ. This is just turning a metrical problem into a worse one, since l. 2 (or ll. 2-3) is still not a hexameter, and the meter is even less recognizable than before. The double digamma is just weird. So screw Edmonds. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Finally, safopoemas has the whole thing as «/έσπερε πάντα φέρων δσα φαΐνολις ¿σχίδασ' αδως φέρρες δϊν, φέπες αίγα, φέρες (δ') α&quot;πυ μάτερι παΐδα.». Apart from observing φέρων and the slash that could be a digamma in l. 1, let's look at l. 2. It is now a hexameter, presumably reading «Φέρρες ὄιν, φέρες αἶγα, φέρες ‹δ'› ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα». This makes it a past action, an imperfect, to be precise. While this is nice because we have a hexameter with the anaphora, the doubled rho in the first word is totally unjustified AFAIK, though I will ask Stack Exchange about it. I mean, why would it be double? And on the other hand, the absence of a critical note seems to suggest Reinach had that text, so what reason did he have for that? So I'll put it on standby for the all-Sappho posts untill Stack Exchange answers me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In this post, however, I must follow the text I translated, and I dismissed this reading, both because of the unjustified double rho, and because I felt like this must be a present action, a habitual one. Now obviously I didn't know anything about the above mess, so I just reordered Bibliotheca Augustana a little, getting the hexameter Αἶγα φέρῃς τε σ' ὄιν τε, φέρῃς ‹δ'› ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα, the δ' addition being kept because it sounded good. Maybe τ' would be better. Yeah, I'll change it, the translations are left unaffected. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not the only one who tried this: in Voigt's words, «hexam[etrum] restit[uere] conatus est Bowra l.c.: αἶγα φέρῃς καὶ ὄιν τύ, φέρῃς τ' ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα, sed anaphoram destruxit» (Bowra tried to reconstruct a hexameter in the quoted place: [reconstruction], but destroyed the anaphora). Now, while the anaphora is certainly weaker, I wouldn't say it's &quot;destroyed&quot;. Not sure why τύ and not σύ. I'll keep my version, despite Bowra's translating much the same, because the anaphora is stronger. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Finally, some names to emendations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- ὄιν instead of (οἶον φέρεις) οἶνον is &quot;Fab. Benevolentius ap[ud] Ursin[um]&quot;, probably arguing that φέρεις οἶον was an accidental and slightly corrupted repetition of φέρεις οἶνον and that -ον again was an accidental and corrupted repetition of just οιν; also, sheeps and goats fit together and are brought back in the evening, wine is an intruder and how is it brought back in the evening? &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- ἄπυ is &quot;Bgk.&quot;, and seeing Bergk amend this surprises me: if you think it's a vain effort to try reconstructing this, why amend it? The recessive accentuation is probably justified since this is an adverb and not a preposition, which even in Aeolic is accented on the final syllable. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- The addition of δ' is by Sitzler, and the breaking found in B.A. and G.W. is by Wilamowitz.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Wow that took forever! Oh look, I had the τ' addition already! I wonder why…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Told you it was huge. Btw, bonus question: are Et Gen and Et Gud Etymologycum Genuinum and Gudianum respectively, or is this disabbreviation incorrect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7325" RevisionGUID="edec6640-0df4-4339-85da-79a3c1d4be3c" CreationDate="2018-10-17T11:29:44.513" UserId="645" Text="*Semper est optio* 'always (there) is an option', will suit most circumstances. If you wish, it can be personalised by adding a singular pronoun, as in *Tibi est semper optio*; you may also replace *tibi* by *vobis* if addressing more than one person." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7326" RevisionGUID="4b1b7896-d25b-4826-b63b-3d0dda9ba3bf" CreationDate="2018-10-17T12:20:21.177" UserId="79" Text="Is there a saying in classical Latin similar to &quot;all or nothing&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of [*aut Caesar aut nihil*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(A)#aut_Caesar_aut_nihil), and that would be fine if it was classical.&#xD;&#xA;In most cases the era of origin is irrelevant, but I would like to know whether a similar quote is found in classical authors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24545" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7326" RevisionGUID="4b1b7896-d25b-4826-b63b-3d0dda9ba3bf" CreationDate="2018-10-17T12:20:21.177" UserId="79" Text="A classical Latin phrase for &quot;all or nothing&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24546" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7326" RevisionGUID="4b1b7896-d25b-4826-b63b-3d0dda9ba3bf" CreationDate="2018-10-17T12:20:21.177" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7327" RevisionGUID="08eede00-0a8a-4653-9b6a-a96a3414386a" CreationDate="2018-10-17T14:23:10.457" UserId="645" Text="I can't think of a phrase from classical Latin, but I should think that *nihil nisi omnia* would be all right. The meaning is quite clear, and it sounds snappy enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7328" RevisionGUID="947a659b-83b1-448b-950d-8ac0b39e1495" CreationDate="2018-10-17T19:24:28.917" UserId="406" Text="It's fairly well-known that Old Latin had initial stress, which is why vowels generally only get reduced in non-initial syllables: see ***a**ptus* versus *in-**e**ptus*, which is continued by English &quot;**a**pt&quot; and &quot;in**e**pt&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Classical times, this was replaced by a different stress system, based on vowel lengths and tending to put stress near the end of the word instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did this Classical stress system cause any known and systematic sound changes, either in Latin or early Romance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24551" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7328" RevisionGUID="947a659b-83b1-448b-950d-8ac0b39e1495" CreationDate="2018-10-17T19:24:28.917" UserId="406" Text="Did Classical Latin stress impact any sound changes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24552" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7328" RevisionGUID="947a659b-83b1-448b-950d-8ac0b39e1495" CreationDate="2018-10-17T19:24:28.917" UserId="406" Text="|stress|phonology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7330" RevisionGUID="5fcd2d46-9430-4fb3-8927-672557c5c7f1" CreationDate="2018-10-17T21:54:39.520" UserId="13" Text="Here is the fragment as it appears in Voigt's edition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bergk gives the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;μάλα δὴ κεκορημένας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Γόργως&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the critical note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Voigt seems to say the one codex for this, which is curated (?) by [Vossius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Vossius), read `μάλα δὴ κεκορημένου στόργος`, and that Hoffmann proposed her version, while Wolf had κεκορημένη and Bergk had the above text, with Toup having recognized the name Gorgo in this quootation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Bergk says the tradition had στοργᾶς, Ursinus had κεκορημένος στόργος, and he &quot;emendavi haec&quot; to the form he gave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This begs the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What did the tradition actually read, στόργος or στοργᾶς? I mean, it couldn't be both… or was there a margin note, perhaps by Vossius himself (as happened with the Hesychius gloss to ὠράνα, where he is responsible (AFAICT) for reading that as ὦ Εἴρανα instead of ὤραννα=οὐράνια)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What is the difference between &quot;scripsi&quot;, &quot;correxi&quot;, and &quot;emendavi&quot; in Bergk's edition?&#xD;&#xA; 2. What could στόργος mean? Does it even exist? Perseus doesn't have it (at least via the Greek Word Study Tool)…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TesYI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GCsLX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24555" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7330" RevisionGUID="5fcd2d46-9430-4fb3-8927-672557c5c7f1" CreationDate="2018-10-17T21:54:39.520" UserId="13" Text="The tradition for Sappho Lobel-Page 144" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24556" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7330" RevisionGUID="5fcd2d46-9430-4fb3-8927-672557c5c7f1" CreationDate="2018-10-17T21:54:39.520" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7331" RevisionGUID="8bbcd53a-af93-42c7-bc4b-a32b57592fe4" CreationDate="2018-10-18T03:16:00.670" UserId="1694" Text="I'm not completely sure that I've understood you question, but I'll make a stab at it anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does Classical Latin accent affect the modern Romance languages?  Well. here's a start.  Words of the form (C)VCVCV(C) with an accent of the antepenult tended to eliminate the medial unstressed vowel to become (C)VCCV(C).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(from _homo_) _homine(m)_ -&gt; *_(h)omne_ -&gt; {Fr. _homme_;&#xD;&#xA;Sp. _hombre_ &lt; *(h)omre}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(from _femina_) _femina_ -&gt; *_femna_ -&gt; {Fr. _femme_; Sp. _hembra_ &lt;&#xD;&#xA;*_hemna_}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(from _dominus_) _dominu(m)_ -&gt; *_domno_ -&gt; Sp. _dueño_ &lt; *_donno_&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7331" RevisionGUID="c5dbaba7-ec59-4a3f-858b-334b8c36972f" CreationDate="2018-10-18T03:33:10.803" UserId="1694" Comment="added 429 characters in body" Text="I'm not completely sure that I've understood you question, but I'll make a stab at it anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does Classical Latin accent affect the modern Romance languages?  Well. here's a start.  Words of the form (C)VCVCV(C) with an accent of the antepenult tended to eliminate the medial unstressed vowel to become (C)VCCV(C).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(from _homo_) _homine(m)_ -&gt; *_(h)omne_ -&gt; {Fr. _homme_;&#xD;&#xA;Sp. _hombre_ &lt; *_(h)omre_}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(from _femina_) _femina_ -&gt; *_femna_ -&gt; {Fr. _femme_; Sp. _hembra_ &lt;&#xD;&#xA;*_hemna_}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(from _dominus_) _dominu(m)_ -&gt; *_domno_ -&gt; Sp. _dueño_ &lt; *_donno_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a curiosity that has caught my attention:  the word _tenebrae_ (basically &quot;darkness&quot;, and by extension &quot;evening&quot; is well known in certain more traditionally oriented Christian traditions as the name for an evening service.  It's always pronounced on the antepenult, [ˈtɛnɛbre] (or similar).  It's interesting to note that the Spanish reflex of this word is _tinieblas_ [tiniˈɛβlɑs], with the accent on the penultima.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7331" RevisionGUID="7b72ed4a-b41c-4490-9bf8-d1b0ced02b9f" CreationDate="2018-10-18T03:50:38.370" UserId="1694" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I'm not completely sure that I've understood your question, but I'll make a stab at it anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does Classical Latin accent affect the modern Romance languages?  Well. here's a start.  Words of the form (C)VCVCV(C) with an accent of the antepenult tended to eliminate the medial unstressed vowel to become (C)VCCV(C).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(from _homo_) _homine(m)_ -&gt; *_(h)omne_ -&gt; {Fr. _homme_;&#xD;&#xA;Sp. _hombre_ &lt; *_(h)omre_}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(from _femina_) _femina_ -&gt; *_femna_ -&gt; {Fr. _femme_; Sp. _hembra_ &lt;&#xD;&#xA;*_hemna_}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(from _dominus_) _dominu(m)_ -&gt; *_domno_ -&gt; Sp. _dueño_ &lt; *_donno_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a curiosity that has caught my attention:  the word _tenebrae_ (basically &quot;darkness&quot;, and by extension &quot;evening&quot;) is well known in certain more traditionally oriented Christian traditions as the name for an evening service.  It's always pronounced on the antepenult, [ˈtɛnɛbre] (or similar).  It's interesting to note that the Spanish reflex of this word is _tinieblas_ [tiniˈɛβlɑs], with the accent on the penultima.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7322" RevisionGUID="968b22f1-312e-455b-be52-6fb38bd5e4a0" CreationDate="2018-10-18T09:22:45.667" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can someone please help me with a translation? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to translate the phrase &quot;You always have a choice&quot; to Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24561" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7322" RevisionGUID="968b22f1-312e-455b-be52-6fb38bd5e4a0" CreationDate="2018-10-18T09:22:45.667" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited title" Text="Translating &quot;You always have a choice&quot; into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7332" RevisionGUID="0edb138c-2ca7-49c0-8e5e-5343e2763afe" CreationDate="2018-10-18T09:49:22.510" UserId="183" Text="When speakers of different languages meet they often develop some contact language or pidgin containing elements of both languages. Surely speakers of Greek and Latin met in the antiquity at several places (e.g., sea ports or the border between Latin speaking Italy and the Greek speaking stretch of land around Naples) and probably there were some contact languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: Are there any fragments of such contact languages attested?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24563" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7332" RevisionGUID="0edb138c-2ca7-49c0-8e5e-5343e2763afe" CreationDate="2018-10-18T09:49:22.510" UserId="183" Text="Are there attestations of Greco-Latin contact languages from antiquity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24564" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7332" RevisionGUID="0edb138c-2ca7-49c0-8e5e-5343e2763afe" CreationDate="2018-10-18T09:49:22.510" UserId="183" Text="|classical-latin|greek|spoken-language|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6094" RevisionGUID="8ee4f11c-6a9c-43c6-9462-1405f2ccfab5" CreationDate="2018-10-18T12:07:09.523" UserId="867" Comment="Changed 'impermeability' to 'impermanence' - I got the two mixed up! " Text="I think Joonas has proved conclusively that neither Pliny nor any other ancient author mentioned a *stilus plumbeus* but nevertheless, for what it's worth, I also couldn't find anything.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then I thought, why would they mention it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A stilus is a [sharp, pointed instrument][1] for scratching into wax tablets.  This is implicit in its primary meaning, a stake or pale.  Stili were placed into moats to impale unwary invaders.  A stilus was also called a *graphium*, from the Greek γράφειν, to scratch, graze, inscribe.  Thus we find references to *stilus ferreus* or *stilus osseus*, both hard materials (see also Martial, 14.21, where he speaks of the iron *graphium*).  Indeed, here we see just how hard and unforgiving a stilus (or here a *graphium*) could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Caesar Cascae brachium arreptum graphio traiecit ...*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar grabbed Casca by the arm and stabbed [it] with his stilus ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suetonius, *Lives of the Caesars (Julius Caesar)*, 82   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *stilus plumbeus*, or stilus made of lead, would be far too soft for the job (both inscribing a wax tablet and stabbing someone!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps because of the references to modern-day lead pencils (and the ambiguity of the English &quot;lead pencil&quot;), I did at first think of the stilus as holding the lead, but this was clearly wrong-headed.  Apart from anything else, the stilus is specific in its function as a &quot;scratcher&quot; of wax.  It was designed to leave indented marks in wax, not traces of a writing material.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If [writing with ink][2], for instance on parchment or papyrus, Romans used a *calamus*, a reed that drew up ink much like a quill pen.  For painting, they used a *penicillus*, a &quot;little tail&quot;, made of bristles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, lead *was* used by the Romans but it would seem not for writing but for light lines on parchment or papyrus.  Your quotation from Pliny highlights this:  &quot;lines drawn with ... lead dirty the hands&quot;.  Catullus (22.8) too mentions this use; mocking Suffenus' verses all &quot;lined up with lead&quot; (*derecta plumbo*).  It's the very impermanence and/or faintness of the lead that makes it perfect for this job *on parchment or papyrus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *stilus plumbeus* seems a sort of oxymoron, then.  A stilus was for inscribing wax tablets, its form and function perfectly aligned; lead was used for lightly marking parchment or papyrus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is all to say, I don't think it's surprising to find that *stilus plumbeus* is unattested in the classical sources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ADDENDUM:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve been asked, which classical noun do you think is best for &quot;pencil&quot; as in &quot;lead pencil&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it depends on what characteristic of the pencil you want to emphasise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Penicillus* looks like the precursor of our [English] pencil and, although it is strictly speaking a brush, I think that if you want to emphasise **the thinness or fineness of a pencil mark**, it could work.  A skilled artist could draw extremely thin, fine lines with a *penicillus*, as evidenced in Pliny’s anecdote about the contest between Apelles and Protogenes as to who could draw the finest line - see Pliny, *NH*, 35.81ff.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If, however, you want to emphasise **the quality of the pencil mark – it’s smudgy, powdery quality** –  then I think we may have to accept that materials like lead, chalk, and charcoal were simply held in the hand and referred to as &quot;lead&quot;, “chalk”, etc. This may be why in Catullus (a/a) the lines are drawn simply *plumbo*, that is to say using the ablative of instrument/means of lead. Similarly, Apelles quickly sketches someone on the wall *carbone* (with charcoal) (Pliny, *NH*, 35.89) and Martial reads graffiti on the toilet walls written *carbone* and *creta carmina* (with red chalk) (*Epigrams*, 12.61.9-10). More specific to writing, both Horace and Persius make reference to marks in a list made with both chalk and charcoal, again using just the ablative (Horace, *Satires*, 2.3.246; and Persius, *Satires*, 5.108).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if I were to say in Latin that &quot;he writes with a pencil&quot;, I personally would choose to emphasise the quality of the pencil mark and, therefore, write &quot;he writes with lead / *scribit plumbo*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0063%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DS%3Aentry%20group%3D4%3Aentry%3Dstilus-cn&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1890.3.4.02a00040/pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7333" RevisionGUID="e372eb9e-68f8-4508-8dd1-6ebbc4db94ba" CreationDate="2018-10-18T12:23:45.380" UserId="1459" Text="This verse [reads](http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=lvb&amp;bk=7&amp;ch=5&amp;l=23-#x): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Maledicite **terrae** Meroz, dixit angelus Domini : maledicite **habitatoribus** ejus, quia non venerunt ad auxilium Domini, in adjutorium fortissimorum ejus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context is that of [Deborah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah) telling a story to the people of Israel through a song/canticle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Maledicite_ is an active present plural imperative, something like &quot;You, curse&quot; (you being plural) (the imperative _maldigan_, in Spanish). I would have expected the accompanying nouns to be in the accusative (_terram_, _habitatores_), given that they are, as far as I can see, the direct object of the verb _maledicere_. However, they seem to be taking the dative. I know there are some verbs that do take the dative by definition (e.g. _servire_, as in one serves **to** someone), but as far as Wiktionary and L&amp;S state, _maledicere_ is not one of them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the issue? Where is my mistake?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24567" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7333" RevisionGUID="e372eb9e-68f8-4508-8dd1-6ebbc4db94ba" CreationDate="2018-10-18T12:23:45.380" UserId="1459" Text="Why is the accusative not used in Judges 5:23?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24568" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7333" RevisionGUID="e372eb9e-68f8-4508-8dd1-6ebbc4db94ba" CreationDate="2018-10-18T12:23:45.380" UserId="1459" Text="|vulgata|accusative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7334" RevisionGUID="2e6e2acc-8a97-49cd-9b71-865ed85388eb" CreationDate="2018-10-18T13:43:14.453" UserId="81" Text="Since the word comes from *male dico*, it traditionally took the dative for the same reason that *dico* takes it. The dative expresses to whom something is spoken or for whom the speech is beneficial (or, in this case, harmful).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Lewis and Short][1], the dative was normally used in the classical period, but later the accusative came into usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mălĕdīco (or separately, **mălĕ dīco** ;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I.“rarely in reverse order: qui bonis dicunt male,” Plaut. Bacch. 1,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2, 10; cf. id. Trin. 4, 2, 79), xi. ctum, 3, v. n. and a. [male-dico],&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to speak ill of, to abuse, revile, slander, asperse; constr. absol.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or with a **dat. (so class.)** or **acc. (post-Aug.)**. *(emphasis added)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?la=la&amp;l=Maledicite#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7151" RevisionGUID="e0ca8fc1-8165-4109-b6dc-6d96c1d39fff" CreationDate="2018-10-18T17:21:42.850" UserId="469" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="**Audio** and **video** are two ([apparently XX-century][1]) concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both take the same form as **1st-person sing., present tense Latin verbs**. Wiktionary articles for the English words ([audio][2], [video][3]) assert that their etymology actually is that of those verbal forms, and so does (apparently) Etymonline ([audio][4], [video][5]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could be wrong, but I can't think of any older word derived from Latin in this way. Instead, it reminds me of some initial translation attempts by people with little inflectional background, looking for dictionary entries for verbs, assuming that the verb *is* its 1st-pers. s. form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds wrong to me, as I can't see a reason why someone could want to name something an *I see* recorder, or an *I hear* wave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Is there a reason to draw these words from that verbal forms in specific? Or is it just bad Latin from an era when Latin is no longer the language of science?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bonus fact:** I thought the same applied to [tango][6], but it seems to have a different origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=audio%2C+video&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=15&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2Caudio%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cvideo%3B%2Cc0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/audio&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/video&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.etymonline.com/word/audio#etymonline_v_18930&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.etymonline.com/word/video#etymonline_v_7777&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tango" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7335" RevisionGUID="30f6b28d-8774-4ade-a927-6f55b972f546" CreationDate="2018-10-18T19:38:33.177" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What semantics notions underlie the original meaning as stated by [Etymonline&#xD;&#xA;](https://www.etymonline.com/word/interest#etymonline_v_9399)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;literally &quot;to be between,&quot; from *inter* &quot;between&quot; (see [inter-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/inter-?ref=etymonline_crossreference)) + *esse* &quot;to be&quot; (from PIE root [\*es-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*es-?ref=etymonline_crossreference) &quot;to be&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*interest* &quot;it is of importance, it makes a difference,&quot; third person singular present of *interresse* &quot;to concern, make a difference, be of importance,&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24573" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7335" RevisionGUID="30f6b28d-8774-4ade-a927-6f55b972f546" CreationDate="2018-10-18T19:38:33.177" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How did 'interesse' shift from meaning 'to be between' to &quot;to concern, make a difference, be of importance&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24574" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7335" RevisionGUID="30f6b28d-8774-4ade-a927-6f55b972f546" CreationDate="2018-10-18T19:38:33.177" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7330" RevisionGUID="67bae856-4e98-4665-8092-780848a1a37d" CreationDate="2018-10-18T20:28:08.993" UserId="13" Comment="made reference to Hesychius gloss and Vossius's intervention more accurate" Text="Here is the fragment as it appears in Voigt's edition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bergk gives the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;μάλα δὴ κεκορημένας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Γόργως&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the critical note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Voigt seems to say the one codex for this, which is curated (?) by [Vossius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Vossius), read `μάλα δὴ κεκορημένου στόργος`, and that Hoffmann proposed her version, while Wolf had κεκορημένη and Bergk had the above text, with Toup having recognized the name Gorgo in this quootation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Bergk says the tradition had στοργᾶς, Ursinus had κεκορημένος στόργος, and he &quot;emendavi haec&quot; to the form he gave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This begs the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What did the tradition actually read, στόργος or στοργᾶς? I mean, it couldn't be both… or was there a margin note, perhaps by Vossius himself (as happened with the Hesychius gloss to ὠράνα, where he is responsible (AFAICT) for reading that as ὦ &lt;name&gt; (specifically Ἐραννὰ, while others later read Εἴρανα or some contraction by comparison with LP 91) instead of ὤραννα=οὐράνια)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What is the difference between &quot;scripsi&quot;, &quot;correxi&quot;, and &quot;emendavi&quot; in Bergk's edition?&#xD;&#xA; 2. What could στόργος mean? Does it even exist? Perseus doesn't have it (at least via the Greek Word Study Tool)…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TesYI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GCsLX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7336" RevisionGUID="23aebf5c-5349-4b8e-adc3-7a0e86ee1230" CreationDate="2018-10-19T00:48:44.690" UserId="3014" Text="For an inscription:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the primeval spirit of place Sertor made it, 2237&#xD;&#xA;EX·GENIUS·LOCI·PRIMAEVVS·SERTOR·FECIT·MMCCXXXVII&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it correct? Thank you for your help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7336" RevisionGUID="23aebf5c-5349-4b8e-adc3-7a0e86ee1230" CreationDate="2018-10-19T00:48:44.690" UserId="3014" Text="Out of the primeval spirit of place Sertor made it, 2237" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7336" RevisionGUID="23aebf5c-5349-4b8e-adc3-7a0e86ee1230" CreationDate="2018-10-19T00:48:44.690" UserId="3014" Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7337" RevisionGUID="df969ae0-be21-4fc9-aa64-d63c26cd7041" CreationDate="2018-10-19T03:21:25.813" UserId="1694" Text="No, that's not grammatical.  The following is the equivalent grammatical version of your text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; EX·GENIO·LOCI·PRIMAEVO·SERTOR·FECIT·MMCCXXXVII&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a reasonable version of what I think you want, but I will leave it to others to suggest other possible wordings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7338" RevisionGUID="0dda27fd-3650-42e0-a3c6-ca7a40e18584" CreationDate="2018-10-19T13:02:37.450" UserId="645" Text="The apparent impersonal use of the third person (*interest, interfuit* etc.) is a contraction of *inter rem est*, for something like 'it's within the affair [of]' : the contracted form is thus misleadingly seen to be a part of *interesse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although other constructions are used, [*interest*] is primarily followed by a genitive referring to the actual *res* when necessary, e.g. *interest verborum* for 'the phrase is interesting'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7330" RevisionGUID="5f2371be-2dfc-4d7f-958f-08ce634f798a" CreationDate="2018-10-19T14:00:58.600" UserId="13" Comment="added bonus question 3" Text="Here is the fragment as it appears in Voigt's edition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bergk gives the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;μάλα δὴ κεκορημένας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Γόργως&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the critical note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Voigt seems to say the one codex for this, which is curated (?) by [Vossius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Vossius), read `μάλα δὴ κεκορημένου στόργος`, and that Hoffmann proposed her version, while Wolf had κεκορημένη and Bergk had the above text, with Toup having recognized the name Gorgo in this quootation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Bergk says the tradition had στοργᾶς, Ursinus had κεκορημένος στόργος, and he &quot;emendavi haec&quot; to the form he gave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This begs the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What did the tradition actually read, στόργος or στοργᾶς? I mean, it couldn't be both… or was there a margin note, perhaps by Vossius himself (as happened with the Hesychius gloss to ὠράνα, where he is responsible (AFAICT) for reading that as ὦ &lt;name&gt; (specifically Ἐραννὰ, while others later read Εἴρανα or some contraction by comparison with LP 91) instead of ὤραννα=οὐράνια)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What is the difference between &quot;scripsi&quot;, &quot;correxi&quot;, and &quot;emendavi&quot; in Bergk's edition?&#xD;&#xA; 2. What could στόργος mean? Does it even exist? Perseus doesn't have it (at least via the Greek Word Study Tool)…&#xD;&#xA; 3. What work is &quot;Aldi Thes. Cornucop.&quot;, i.e. what do Thes. and Cornucop. stand for, what is this work like, why does it seem to quote a work by Herodian called Π[ερὶ] κλίσ[εων] ὀνομ[άτων], and what does Choeroboscus have to do with this? Is it like, Choeroboscus quoted Aldi Thes. Cornucop. which quoted Herodian? And why all this quoting?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TesYI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GCsLX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7330" RevisionGUID="cdfe9eec-655e-4f86-950b-e474a008569e" CreationDate="2018-10-19T14:23:35.830" UserId="13" Comment="added bonus question 4." Text="Here is the fragment as it appears in Voigt's edition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bergk gives the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;μάλα δὴ κεκορημένας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Γόργως&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the critical note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Voigt seems to say the one codex for this, which is curated (?) by [Vossius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Vossius), read `μάλα δὴ κεκορημένου στόργος`, and that Hoffmann proposed her version, while Wolf had κεκορημένη and Bergk had the above text, with Toup having recognized the name Gorgo in this quootation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Bergk says the tradition had στοργᾶς, Ursinus had κεκορημένος στόργος, and he &quot;emendavi haec&quot; to the form he gave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This begs the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What did the tradition actually read, στόργος or στοργᾶς? I mean, it couldn't be both… or was there a margin note, perhaps by Vossius himself (as happened with the Hesychius gloss to ὠράνα, where he is responsible (AFAICT) for reading that as ὦ &lt;name&gt; (specifically Ἐραννὰ, while others later read Εἴρανα or some contraction by comparison with LP 91) instead of ὤραννα=οὐράνια)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What is the difference between &quot;scripsi&quot;, &quot;correxi&quot;, and &quot;emendavi&quot; in Bergk's edition?&#xD;&#xA; 2. What could στόργος mean? Does it even exist? Perseus doesn't have it (at least via the Greek Word Study Tool)…&#xD;&#xA; 3. What work is &quot;Aldi Thes. Cornucop.&quot;, i.e. what do Thes. and Cornucop. stand for, what is this work like, why does it seem to quote a work by Herodian called Π[ερὶ] κλίσ[εων] ὀνομ[άτων], and what does Choeroboscus have to do with this? Is it like, Choeroboscus quoted Aldi Thes. Cornucop. which quoted Herodian? And why all this quoting?&#xD;&#xA; 4. (Unrelated, sprung from another fragment) What is the English for Italian sinafia, Greek συνάφεια, i.e. when a word is broken between two lines of a poem (e.g. in the Hymn to Aphrodite where we have πύκνα δίννηντες πτέρ' ἀπ' ὠράν' αἴθε- / ρος διὰ μέσσω, / indicating the break between the last Sapphic hendecasyllabic and the closing adonean)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TesYI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GCsLX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7330" RevisionGUID="775b5b6e-f90f-4b18-8323-8cb00628ad49" CreationDate="2018-10-19T22:22:39.677" UserId="13" Comment="Added update" Text="Here is the fragment as it appears in Voigt's edition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bergk gives the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;μάλα δὴ κεκορημένας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Γόργως&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the critical note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Voigt seems to say the one codex for this, which is curated (?) by [Vossius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Vossius), read `μάλα δὴ κεκορημένου στόργος`, and that Hoffmann proposed her version, while Wolf had κεκορημένη and Bergk had the above text, with Toup having recognized the name Gorgo in this quootation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Bergk says the tradition had στοργᾶς, Ursinus had κεκορημένος στόργος, and he &quot;emendavi haec&quot; to the form he gave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This begs the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What did the tradition actually read, στόργος or στοργᾶς? I mean, it couldn't be both… or was there a margin note, perhaps by Vossius himself (as happened with the Hesychius gloss to ὠράνα, where he is responsible (AFAICT) for reading that as ὦ &lt;name&gt; (specifically Ἐραννὰ, while others later read Εἴρανα or some contraction by comparison with LP 91) instead of ὤραννα=οὐράνια)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What is the difference between &quot;scripsi&quot;, &quot;correxi&quot;, and &quot;emendavi&quot; in Bergk's edition?&#xD;&#xA; 2. What could στόργος mean? Does it even exist? Perseus doesn't have it (at least via the Greek Word Study Tool)…&#xD;&#xA; 3. What work is &quot;Aldi Thes. Cornucop.&quot;, i.e. what do Thes. and Cornucop. stand for, what is this work like, why does it seem to quote a work by Herodian called Π[ερὶ] κλίσ[εων] ὀνομ[άτων], and what does Choeroboscus have to do with this? Is it like, Choeroboscus quoted Aldi Thes. Cornucop. which quoted Herodian? And why all this quoting?&#xD;&#xA; 4. (Unrelated, sprung from another fragment) What is the English for Italian sinafia, Greek συνάφεια, i.e. when a word is broken between two lines of a poem (e.g. in the Hymn to Aphrodite where we have πύκνα δίννηντες πτέρ' ἀπ' ὠράν' αἴθε- / ρος διὰ μέσσω, / indicating the break between the last Sapphic hendecasyllabic and the closing adonean)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus question 4 was answered by @AlexB's comment: it's called _synaphia_, as I luckily guessed correctly :). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TesYI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GCsLX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7338" RevisionGUID="8fb6ce28-ccd4-45df-859a-d76d1218e66c" CreationDate="2018-10-19T22:40:56.947" UserId="645" Comment="added 3125 characters in body" Text="The apparent impersonal use of the third person (*interest, interfuit* etc.) is a contraction of *inter rem est*, for something like 'it's within the affair [of]' : the contracted form is thus misleadingly seen to be a part of *interesse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although other constructions are used, [*interest*] is primarily followed by a genitive referring to the actual *res* when necessary, e.g. *interest verborum* for 'the phrase is interesting'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Later expansion]&#xD;&#xA;The derivation from *inter rem est* is given in Dr. Smith's Latin-English Dictionary, at article IV under the heading 'Intersum'. It is not always given in other reference works, but it seems  (to me) to be implicit in them as they very often follow Smith quite closely.This is  especially so in the following (although it actually preceded Smith).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The oldest article I can find on the usages of impersonal [interest] is in the'Copious and critical Latin-English Lexicon' of J.E.Riddle (1841). It also is, I think, the best: it certainly seems that his article on *intersum*, with its analysis and examples, has formed the basis for everything subsequent that I have looked at, including Smith's (which, like Riddle's, is is based on Freund's earlier work and several others), 'Lewis &amp; Short' and the familiar primers and instructional books (Bradley's Arnold, Hardie, Kennedy, North &amp; Hillard etc.). It does not actually explain the formation (as does Smith — see above) as a contraction from *inter rem est*, but appears to assume that it is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under the heading INTER-SUM, Riddle considers in art. IV the impersonal use of *interest* in a lengthy article with four  sub-headings, distinguishing and explaining various uses, with examples from the classical authors, extracted below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A) *With genit. of the person to whom any thing is of importance; but if that person be represented by a pers. pron., the abl. fem.* mea, tua, nostra, vestra *is sometimes used, or* cuja (*for* cujus) — quoting Cic. Q. Fr. 2, 4, followed by a series of illustrations. [followed by] *Instead of a person to whom the thing itself is of importance to any one may be added by the preposition* ad : interest ad laudem civitatis, Cic. N. D. 1, 4 —ad properationem meam quiddam interest non te exspectare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(B) *The degree how much any thing is of importance is also expressed by neuter adjectives* : multum interest, te venire, Cic. Fam. 12, 9; . . . .  —ad disciplinam militiae plurimum intererat, militem insuescere, Liv. :—quid illius interest, ubi sis? *What does it matter to him?* — or by an adv., as, maxime, quantopere : quantopere intersit, opprimi Dolabellam. — *By a genitive of value* : illud magna mei interest, ut te videam, *it is of importance or consequence to me*, Cic. Att. 11, 22 [. . . . further examples].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(C) *The matter which is of importance may be expressed by an inf. or acc. and inf., or by a final or interrogative clause, introduced by* ut *or* ne, *or by an interrogative particle* [followed by examples including:] quantum salutis communis intersit, duos consules esse, Cic. Mur. 2 — vestra interest, *ne* imperatorem pessimi faciant, Tac. —*Seldom by a subst*. : in Epirum statui me conferre, non quo mea interesset loci natura, Cic. Att. 3, 19, 1. — *more frequently by the neuter pronoun* :vestra hoc maxime interest, *it concerns you most, itis your affair more than any one's else*, Cic. Sull. 28.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(D) Non tam interest, quo animo, Caec. in Cic. Fam.6, 7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This should at least satisfy the concerns expressed in comments made before this addition was in place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7339" RevisionGUID="4e81cddd-78cb-4b3c-baa7-9a1c51b0638e" CreationDate="2018-10-20T02:46:48.443" UserId="39" Text="A screenshot of the relevant passage from [Thesaurus Cornucopiae et Horti Adonidis][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://bildsuche.digitale-sammlungen.de/index.html?c=viewer&amp;l=de&amp;bandnummer=bsb00049625&amp;pimage=00049625&amp;v=&amp;nav=#&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eHj9T.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7100" RevisionGUID="181852f1-68dc-48b3-b527-4495b3291634" CreationDate="2018-10-20T13:25:11.630" UserId="13" Comment="added update" Text="Campbell has been given, let me give Lobel-Page now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OiUOI.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Counting from the coronis in col. iii, the fragment is lurking at ll. 6-7. Apparatus Criticus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/rgXtz.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let me just point out how nonsens the numbering of the fragments is. From this page, we fully expect an image of this to contain two papyrus fragments, which we are not too sure how to assign the numbers 1(a) and 1(b). Image coming:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sfD7v.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are actually talking about the two fragments on the far left, which apparently are both 1(a) and must be joined with the one below being on the top-right of the other one, and the biggest of the other fragments, which is 1(b) and joins with the bottom left of the top one a few lines below the bottom one. WTH is up with that numbering?! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This came back to my mind recently, and I did some more research. First of all, the &quot;in my life&quot; may come from completing l. 1 as ἐπὶ τ[ὸν βίον μου, though getting &quot;served&quot; from μέζον seems difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the provenance of the mishmash, I googled the [ε] γω το καλλος επιτ[μεζον] part, and wherever that came up, it was either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [Palmer's site](http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/) or one of its numerous embedded-pdf-like renditions around the web;&#xD;&#xA; 2. [This blog](https://nicholasjv.blogspot.com/2010/07/sappho-and-avaton.html?showComment=1539987265330#c2298543224960571344), where the mishmash is alleged to be the lyrics of the song αερίων επέων άρχομαι by the modern Greek group Avaton, whereas (as the video in the question shows) that is completely wrong, and that video is yet another mishmash of Sappho;&#xD;&#xA; 3. [This Greek forum](https://rembetiko.gr/t/%CF%83%CF%84%CE%AF%CF%87%CE%BF%CE%B9-%CE%B1%CF%80%CF%8C-%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%82-%CE%B4%CE%AF%CF%83%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%82-%CF%84%CF%89%CE%BD-%CE%B1%CE%B2%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BD-%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9-daemonia-nymphe/9240), with the same allegation, which links to Palmer's site, meaning the poster may have pulled the mishmash off Palmer's, being fooled by the title of the song to think those were the actual lyrics;&#xD;&#xA; 4. [This site](http://www.elwaseet-brokers.com/forums/showthread.php), which gives a Bad Gateway;&#xD;&#xA; 5. A site that couldn't load that is now gone from the Google search results – it vanished in the course of about 16hrs;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Or [my blog](http://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2018/09/sappho-comparative-numbering-table.html), where the Comparative Numbering Table has the text of this put in there for completeness and marked as included in LP 90 and similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I commented on both 2 and 3 asking where the wrong lyrics came from, and am waiting for an answer. I guess that is all I can do for now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7340" RevisionGUID="f7894db6-5381-4dd3-b8a5-eac94fee3e21" CreationDate="2018-10-20T20:26:11.567" UserId="79" Text="It occurred to me yesterday that I know two Latin words for rain:&#xD;&#xA;[*pluvia*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=pluvia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;[*imber*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=imber&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;However, I don't seem to know how these two words compare to each other, and the L&amp;S entries offer little help.&#xD;&#xA;Are they essentially synonymous, or are there differences I should be aware of?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24589" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7340" RevisionGUID="f7894db6-5381-4dd3-b8a5-eac94fee3e21" CreationDate="2018-10-20T20:26:11.567" UserId="79" Text="Is there a difference between 'pluvia' and 'imber'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24590" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7340" RevisionGUID="f7894db6-5381-4dd3-b8a5-eac94fee3e21" CreationDate="2018-10-20T20:26:11.567" UserId="79" Text="|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7341" RevisionGUID="b735a645-d4b4-40d5-aae4-cde4a24dde78" CreationDate="2018-10-20T22:09:49.087" UserId="645" Text="Yes, there is a technical difference, though the meanings tend to shade one into the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly, *pluvia* is the wet stuff itself, the falling water that comprises the shower, *imber*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More or less as you would in English, it's quite legitimate to use either, as you wish, to describe the actual weather. *Imber*, however, does tend to mean heavy or cold rain, rather than a gentle, soft shower. An example that comes to mind is the description of the weather on the day of Galba's downfall (Tac. Hist. 1, 18):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quartum idus Ianuarias, foedum imbribus diem, tonitrua et fulgura et caelestes minae ultra solitum turbaverunt.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you were translating Portia's plea from the Merchant of Venice, where 'the quality of mercy . . . . . droppeth like the gentle rain from heaven', *pluvia* — the rain water itself — would be the word to use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7339" RevisionGUID="3b6f10da-eeec-4992-97ff-89a750ae5b6a" CreationDate="2018-10-21T03:10:23.650" UserId="39" Comment="added 400 characters in body" Text="A screenshot of the relevant passage from [Thesaurus Cornucopiae et Horti Adonidis][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure where you got the screenshot that supposedly comes from Bergk. I have checked two editions de visu, Bergk 1867 and Bergk 1882 and in both editions the only form mentioned is στόργος:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bergk 1867:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bergk 1882:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://bildsuche.digitale-sammlungen.de/index.html?c=viewer&amp;l=de&amp;bandnummer=bsb00049625&amp;pimage=00049625&amp;v=&amp;nav=#&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eHj9T.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wYlZy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wqDvt.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7339" RevisionGUID="dcae4c77-2484-40a5-86f0-9b229afd07b5" CreationDate="2018-10-21T03:15:56.540" UserId="39" Comment="added 400 characters in body" Text="2. A screenshot of the relevant passage from [Thesaurus Cornucopiae et Horti Adonidis][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure where you got the screenshot that supposedly comes from Bergk. I have checked two editions de visu, Bergk 1867 and Bergk 1882 and in both editions the only form mentioned is στόργος:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bergk 1867:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bergk 1882:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Aldi Thes. Cornucop. stands for [*Thesaurus Cornucopiae et Horti Adonidis*][5] first published by Aldo Manuzio (Aldus Manutius) and Urbano Valeriani in 1496 in Venice. It contains works by various Greek grammarians, including Choeroboscus and Herodian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q: &quot;why all this quoting?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: Because not much of what Herodian wrote (in the second century) survived. His treatise Περὶ κλίσεως ὀνομάτων is preserved &quot;primarily in fragments found in Choeroboscus' commentary on Theodosius&quot; ([Dickey 2007][6]: 76), which Poliziano, Varinus (Guarino) Favorinus and Carolus Antenoreus decided to put together with other Greek texts on noun declension and accentuation, which in its turn was published by Aldo Manuzio and Urbano Valeriani (van Gulik, English transl. 2018). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. It's synaphia, cf. &quot;Synaphia: prosodic continuity, particularly two verse lines following each other without a period end in between&quot; (Brill's New Pauly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://bildsuche.digitale-sammlungen.de/index.html?c=viewer&amp;l=de&amp;bandnummer=bsb00049625&amp;pimage=00049625&amp;v=&amp;nav=#&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eHj9T.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wYlZy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wqDvt.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://bildsuche.digitale-sammlungen.de/index.html?c=viewer&amp;bandnummer=bsb00049625&amp;pimage=00001&amp;v=2p&amp;nav=&amp;l=it&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=ldMW5vpxVGIC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7339" RevisionGUID="4aa8882b-b26e-47d0-85c5-2650a87d365a" CreationDate="2018-10-21T03:20:56.917" UserId="39" Comment="added 400 characters in body" Text="2. A screenshot of the relevant passage from [Thesaurus Cornucopiae et Horti Adonidis][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure where you got the screenshot that supposedly comes from Bergk. I have checked two editions de visu, Bergk 1867 and Bergk 1882 and in both editions the only form mentioned is στόργος:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bergk 1867:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bergk 1882 (I'm unaware of any other *later* editions):&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Aldi Thes. Cornucop. stands for [*Thesaurus Cornucopiae et Horti Adonidis*][5] first published by Aldo Manuzio (Aldus Manutius) and Urbano Valeriani in 1496 in Venice. It contains works by various Greek grammarians, including Choeroboscus and Herodian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q: &quot;why all this quoting?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: Because not much of what Herodian wrote (in the second century) survived. His treatise Περὶ κλίσεως ὀνομάτων is preserved &quot;primarily in fragments found in Choeroboscus' commentary on Theodosius&quot; ([Dickey 2007][6]: 76), which Poliziano, Varinus (Guarino) Favorinus and Carolus Antenoreus decided to put together with other Greek texts on noun declension and accentuation, which in its turn was published by Aldo Manuzio and Urbano Valeriani ([van Gulik][7], English transl. 2018). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. It's synaphia, cf. &quot;Synaphia: prosodic continuity, particularly two verse lines following each other without a period end in between&quot; (Brill's New Pauly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://bildsuche.digitale-sammlungen.de/index.html?c=viewer&amp;l=de&amp;bandnummer=bsb00049625&amp;pimage=00049625&amp;v=&amp;nav=#&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eHj9T.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wYlZy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wqDvt.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://bildsuche.digitale-sammlungen.de/index.html?c=viewer&amp;bandnummer=bsb00049625&amp;pimage=00001&amp;v=2p&amp;nav=&amp;l=it&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=ldMW5vpxVGIC&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=-8htDwAAQBAJ&amp;dq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7339" RevisionGUID="94ae004c-99c7-43eb-9e90-6376f2e78ff0" CreationDate="2018-10-21T03:26:48.163" UserId="39" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="2. A screenshot of the relevant passage from [Thesaurus Cornucopiae et Horti Adonidis][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure where you got the screenshot that supposedly comes from Bergk. I have checked two editions de visu, Bergk 1867 and Bergk 1882 and in both editions the only form mentioned is στόργος:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bergk 1867:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bergk 1882 (I'm unaware of any other *later* editions):&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Aldi Thes. Cornucop. stands for [*Thesaurus Cornucopiae et Horti Adonidis*][5] first published by Aldo Manuzio (Aldus Manutius) and Urbano Valeriani in 1496 in Venice. It contains works by various Greek grammarians, including Choeroboscus and Herodian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q: &quot;why all this quoting?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: Because not much of what Herodian wrote (in the second century) survived. His treatise Περὶ κλίσεως ὀνομάτων is preserved &quot;primarily in fragments found in Choeroboscus' commentary on Theodosius&quot; ([Dickey 2007][6]: 76), which Poliziano, Varinus (Guarino) Favorinus and Carolus Antenoreus decided to put together with other Greek texts on noun declension and accentuation, which in its turn was published by Aldo Manuzio and Urbano Valeriani ([van Gulik][7], English transl. 2018). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. It's synaphia, cf. &quot;Synaphia: prosodic continuity, particularly two verse lines following each other without a period end in between&quot; ([Brill's New Pauly][8]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://bildsuche.digitale-sammlungen.de/index.html?c=viewer&amp;l=de&amp;bandnummer=bsb00049625&amp;pimage=00049625&amp;v=&amp;nav=#&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eHj9T.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wYlZy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wqDvt.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://bildsuche.digitale-sammlungen.de/index.html?c=viewer&amp;bandnummer=bsb00049625&amp;pimage=00001&amp;v=2p&amp;nav=&amp;l=it&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=ldMW5vpxVGIC&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=-8htDwAAQBAJ&amp;dq&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/metre-e802890" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7339" RevisionGUID="7fb59558-5e9f-4a99-ab6b-c6c56e591d29" CreationDate="2018-10-21T03:37:53.480" UserId="39" Comment="added 360 characters in body" Text="2. A screenshot of the relevant passage from [Thesaurus Cornucopiae et Horti Adonidis][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems you've been using a very old, outdated edition [Bergk 1843][3]; στοργᾶς could be a typo. I have checked two later editions de visu, Bergk 1867 and Bergk 1882 and in both editions the only form mentioned is στόργος:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bergk 1867:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bergk 1882][5] (I'm unaware of any other *later* editions, and this is the edition of Bergk you should use, that is, if you feel necessary to refer to Bergk at all):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Aldi Thes. Cornucop. stands for [*Thesaurus Cornucopiae et Horti Adonidis*][7] first published by Aldo Manuzio (Aldus Manutius) and Urbano Valeriani in 1496 in Venice. It contains works by various Greek grammarians, including Choeroboscus and Herodian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q: &quot;why all this quoting?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: Because not much of what Herodian wrote (in the second century) survived. His treatise Περὶ κλίσεως ὀνομάτων is preserved &quot;primarily in fragments found in Choeroboscus' commentary on Theodosius&quot; ([Dickey 2007][8]: 76), which Poliziano, Varinus (Guarino) Favorinus and Carolus Antenoreus decided to put together with other Greek texts on noun declension and accentuation, which in its turn was published by Aldo Manuzio and Urbano Valeriani ([van Gulik][9], English transl. 2018). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. It's synaphia, cf. &quot;Synaphia: prosodic continuity, particularly two verse lines following each other without a period end in between&quot; ([Brill's New Pauly][10]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://bildsuche.digitale-sammlungen.de/index.html?c=viewer&amp;l=de&amp;bandnummer=bsb00049625&amp;pimage=00049625&amp;v=&amp;nav=#&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eHj9T.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/poetaelyricigrae00berguoft/page/n903&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wYlZy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://archive.org/details/poetaelyricigrae03berguoft/page/n5&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wqDvt.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://bildsuche.digitale-sammlungen.de/index.html?c=viewer&amp;bandnummer=bsb00049625&amp;pimage=00001&amp;v=2p&amp;nav=&amp;l=it&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://books.google.com/books?id=ldMW5vpxVGIC&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://books.google.com/books?id=-8htDwAAQBAJ&amp;dq&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/metre-e802890" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7339" RevisionGUID="cf86781a-64c3-4a6d-b3df-4edf3e74c4c6" CreationDate="2018-10-21T04:34:14.123" UserId="39" Comment="added 501 characters in body" Text="1. In the critical apparatus *scripsi* conventionally introduces a conjecture by the editor, whereas a successful conjecture (i.e. an emendation) is introduced with either *correxi* or *emendavi* (cf. [Tarrant 2016][1]: 164-166), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also cf. [West 1973][2], 'If the editor wants to emphasize his confidence in a conjecture which he has adopted, he can transpose &quot;uinxerunt *Heinsius* (or *scripsi*) : iunxerunt *codd.*&quot; into &quot;iunxerunt *codd.*: *corr. Heinsius* (or *correxi*, or *emendavi*)&quot;' (pp. 90-91).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A screenshot of the relevant passage from [Thesaurus Cornucopiae et Horti Adonidis][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems you've been using a very old, outdated edition [Bergk 1843][5]; στοργᾶς could be a typo. I have checked two later editions de visu, Bergk 1867 and Bergk 1882 and in both editions the only form mentioned is στόργος:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bergk 1867:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bergk 1882][7] (I'm unaware of any other *later* editions, and this is the edition of Bergk you should use, that is, if you feel necessary to refer to Bergk at all):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Aldi Thes. Cornucop. stands for [*Thesaurus Cornucopiae et Horti Adonidis*][9] first published by Aldo Manuzio (Aldus Manutius) and Urbano Valeriani in 1496 in Venice. It contains works by various Greek grammarians, including Choeroboscus and Herodian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q: &quot;why all this quoting?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: Because not much of what Herodian wrote (in the second century) survived. His treatise Περὶ κλίσεως ὀνομάτων is preserved &quot;primarily in fragments found in Choeroboscus' commentary on Theodosius&quot; ([Dickey 2007][10]: 76), which Poliziano, Varinus (Guarino) Favorinus and Carolus Antenoreus decided to put together with other Greek texts on noun declension and accentuation, which in its turn was published by Aldo Manuzio and Urbano Valeriani ([van Gulik][11], English transl. 2018). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. It's synaphia, cf. &quot;Synaphia: prosodic continuity, particularly two verse lines following each other without a period end in between&quot; ([Brill's New Pauly][12]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zZSzCwAAQBAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=AXuk4pdxk1YC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://bildsuche.digitale-sammlungen.de/index.html?c=viewer&amp;l=de&amp;bandnummer=bsb00049625&amp;pimage=00049625&amp;v=&amp;nav=#&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eHj9T.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://archive.org/details/poetaelyricigrae00berguoft/page/n903&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wYlZy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://archive.org/details/poetaelyricigrae03berguoft/page/n5&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wqDvt.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://bildsuche.digitale-sammlungen.de/index.html?c=viewer&amp;bandnummer=bsb00049625&amp;pimage=00001&amp;v=2p&amp;nav=&amp;l=it&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://books.google.com/books?id=ldMW5vpxVGIC&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://books.google.com/books?id=-8htDwAAQBAJ&amp;dq&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/metre-e802890" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7343" RevisionGUID="eebc289f-a78d-4e80-a849-488733bf36d1" CreationDate="2018-10-21T14:42:37.740" UserId="79" Text="If I have understood correctly, the English word &quot;terror&quot; roughly means various activities invoking fear, such as attacks on civilians, and &quot;terrorism&quot; is the use of terror for political purposes.&#xA;The word &quot;terror&quot; has other meanings as well, but I am only interested in it here as the almost synonym of &quot;terrorism&quot;.&#xA;What would be a good Latin word for this?&#xA;&#xA;The obvious first thought is of course *terror*, but it seems to mean something else if I read my dictionaries correctly.&#xA;It means fear or an entity to be feared, not an activity causing fear.&#xA;One option is to use this old word in an extended sense, but I was hoping there to be something more accurate.&#xA;I'm looking for a word for modern use, and even coining new words is fine as long as the kind of derivation is attested." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24602" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7343" RevisionGUID="eebc289f-a78d-4e80-a849-488733bf36d1" CreationDate="2018-10-21T14:42:37.740" UserId="79" Text="What is &quot;terror&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24603" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7343" RevisionGUID="eebc289f-a78d-4e80-a849-488733bf36d1" CreationDate="2018-10-21T14:42:37.740" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7344" RevisionGUID="a9dddc27-5ef7-4956-a955-c4b13e79de8f" CreationDate="2018-10-21T17:14:36.280" UserId="645" Text="The objective product of terrorism in Latin is expressed by several words —  *pavor, formido, metus, timor* — of which *formido* is possibly the strongest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the problem is that we use 'terrorise', etc,. for instilling terror into people or, indeed, whole populations. As far as I know, there is no exact Latin equivalent which expresses this, and it is necessary to use a formation such as *alicui formidinem inferre*. As an example of  the 'activity causing fear' which you mention, Cicero (Quint. 14,47) has the splendid *minas iactare, pericula intendere, formidines opponere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to coin a new noun, I should think it must end in *-tor* or -*arius*, perhaps *minator* (an attested word meaning 'cattle drover who uses threats') *terrifactor*, or *formidinarius*. As for verbs, *terrificare* or *formidinare* ought to be readily understood.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7314" RevisionGUID="998b1b57-58de-44fa-ab20-51effc32d86b" CreationDate="2018-10-21T21:09:18.890" UserId="2532" Comment="Added difference between classical Latin and later Latin." Text="To answer your question, one could choose to interpret it to have an unspoken clause, as per the comments to the first answer. There are indeed ways to express this is Latin: _nē (…) quidem [–––] nōn mōdō_ expresses ‘not even [–––] much less’ or the likes. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _nē suēs quidem id velint, nōn mōdō ipse_: not even swine would like that, no less he.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of negative statement may also be used with other markers of negation, such as in [Cic. Arch.][1] where you’ll find forms such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] vērum etiam_,&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] nōn_,&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] sed_,&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] vērum […] enim_ and&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] vērum enim_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John Philip Krebs writes in his [_Guide for Writing Latin: Consisting of Rules and Examples for Practice_][2] on how such a clause is construced (§ 540). In his examples, he assumes a previous clause stating _not only not_ leading to a following clause stating various negations, such as _but not even_, _scarcely_, &amp;c. He explicitly explains this to be solved as such:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [It] is expressed by _non modo_ (solum) _non_, followed by _sed ne — quidem_ (_sed vix_ and the like: [… where examples follow]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remarks:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Instead of the second _not_ in the first clause, another negative word can also be used, e.g. no one, nothing, never, etc., for which, in the last case with _non modo_ without _non_ the words _quisquam_, _quidquam_, _unquam_ are used. […]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He goes on to state that the positions of the clauses may be inverted, and adds a third remark with regards to _nēdum_, meaning _not to say_ and the likes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going back to your question then, it seems that one may construct the phrase you are requesting. I will make some slight changes, particularly with the comment mentioned in the beginning, but the example should work well enough for your case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Assume a previous statement, for example ‘Do not move!’. This is clearly a negative imperative.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Assuming the previous statement, the actual phrase you are looking for, is something like ‘Do not even breathe!’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using ‘_nōlō_, _nōlle_, _nōlui_, —’ as the negative imperative, one then gets the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. ‘_Nōlī (tē) mōvere!_’ – ‘Do not move (yourself)!’&#xD;&#xA; 2. ‘_Nē spīrā quidem!_’ or ‘_Nē flā quidem!_’ – ‘Do not even breath!’, classical Latin&#xD;&#xA; 3. ‘_Nē quidem spīrā!_’ or ‘_Nē quidem flā!_’ – ‘Do not even breath!’, later Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to @cnread for his comment, improving this answer with the difference in numbers 2 and 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that following _nōlō_ with a negative, does not undo the negation, as per [Lewis and Short][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sometimes followed by a negative, which does not destroy the negation: “nolui deesse, ne tacitae quidem flagitioni tuae,” Cic. Top. 1, 5;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;───&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, should anyone find any errors in my answer, please comment, and I will do my utmost to correct it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/arch.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.no/books?id=WkUQAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA458&amp;lpg=PA458&amp;dq=latin%20%22do%20not%20even%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qfL3dK8H0x&amp;sig=dCKhMqnqjaSCwsUJp6Az-fmMF4Y&amp;hl=no&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj5lbeSs4reAhUCiCwKHUGkBh8Q6AEwB3oECCwQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20%22do%20not%20even%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=nolo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7346" RevisionGUID="abfd7dc4-30f8-47d4-bfed-4e1481581408" CreationDate="2018-10-21T21:28:28.233" UserId="2791" Text="The motto for Concordia University Saint Paul (MN) reads: &#xD;&#xA;&quot;In litteris proficere volo, malo diligere Jesum.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The CSP website, magazine (Spring 2009), and various internet sources offer these translations—some literal and some interpretive: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-I wish to be proficient in academics, but even more I wish to know Jesus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-It is good to pursue knowledge, better to know Jesus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Will Prosper in Academics and Be Diligent in Christ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And even this interesting adaptation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Lord, give us joy in education especially knowing the love of Christ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having a hard time fitting &quot;malo&quot; into this, because everything I've found or learned relates it to bad or evil. I've tried my Cassell's, and the [Latin Dictionary][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a comparative or superlative at work (or play;) here, that I am not comprehending?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any insight would be much appreciated! Thank you in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/adjective:malus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24610" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7346" RevisionGUID="abfd7dc4-30f8-47d4-bfed-4e1481581408" CreationDate="2018-10-21T21:28:28.233" UserId="2791" Text="&quot;Malo&quot; in Motto Maelstrom" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24611" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7346" RevisionGUID="abfd7dc4-30f8-47d4-bfed-4e1481581408" CreationDate="2018-10-21T21:28:28.233" UserId="2791" Text="|vocabulary|translation|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7347" RevisionGUID="8914144e-20a9-478c-8889-ea95e39f9a02" CreationDate="2018-10-21T22:28:51.910" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24613" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7347" RevisionGUID="8914144e-20a9-478c-8889-ea95e39f9a02" CreationDate="2018-10-21T22:28:51.910" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7348" RevisionGUID="8ebcf4c1-5d22-447e-af97-d9f37d93363a" CreationDate="2018-10-21T22:28:51.910" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24615" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7348" RevisionGUID="8ebcf4c1-5d22-447e-af97-d9f37d93363a" CreationDate="2018-10-21T22:28:51.910" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7349" RevisionGUID="2650dc5a-0906-41f0-9d53-a65d21ddf0f6" CreationDate="2018-10-21T22:42:53.340" UserId="517" Text="*malo* here is the first-person singular active indicative form of *malle*, which means “I prefer”. It has nothing to do with either *malus* “bad” (or, for that matter, *malum* “apple”). I believe that the verb is a contraction of *maius* “better” and *velle* “to want”. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7350" RevisionGUID="cc49dc17-cc2e-44ce-969a-4c2817ca59d7" CreationDate="2018-10-21T22:57:59.877" UserId="2532" Text="According to what I have learned, -gn- was commonly pronounced /ŋn/, e.g. [ˈmaŋ.nʊs] (_magnus_). However, this excerpt from [Encyclopædia Britannica][1] had me wondering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The sound represented by ng (pronounced as in English sing and represented in the IPA by /ŋ/), written ng or gn, may not have had phonemic status (in spite of the pair annus/agnus ‘year’/‘lamb,’ in which /ŋ/ may be regarded as a positional variant of /g/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it be that -gn- was in fact pronounced merely /ŋ/, so that you would get _annus_–_agnus_ as [ˈan.nʊs]–[ˈaŋ[ː]ʊs]? ([ː] added due to my uncertainty)? Were this the case, then I suppose one would be unable to tell the difference between e.g. *_angus_ and _agnus_, so I am now left perplexed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;───&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. S.: I am unsure whether or not phonetic specificity should be added to the tags. (If so, `velar` and `nasal` should be added.) I thought it wise to inform of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Latin-language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24618" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7350" RevisionGUID="cc49dc17-cc2e-44ce-969a-4c2817ca59d7" CreationDate="2018-10-21T22:57:59.877" UserId="2532" Text="How was -gn- pronounced in classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24619" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7350" RevisionGUID="cc49dc17-cc2e-44ce-969a-4c2817ca59d7" CreationDate="2018-10-21T22:57:59.877" UserId="2532" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|vulgar-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7351" RevisionGUID="95ffac89-06e4-4f56-b713-51b547654496" CreationDate="2018-10-21T23:37:59.740" UserId="1694" Text="I think the wording of the Encyclopædia Britannica article is unclear, leading to misunderstanding.  I don't *think* they mean that Latin &quot;gn&quot; could represent [ŋ(ː)] rather than [ŋn], but I'll admit the wording is confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point the're trying to make (I think) is that on the face of it, if [ŋ] can appear before a nasal consonant *and* [n], it looks like it should be regarded as a separate phoneme, but maybe in &quot;ng&quot;, pronounced [ŋg], it can be analysed phonemically as /ng/, but in &quot;gn&quot;, pronounced [ŋn], it can be analysed phonemically as /gn/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7100" RevisionGUID="ea4a5eb0-ec24-41d4-96e5-bfec360ab23b" CreationDate="2018-10-21T23:52:09.000" UserId="13" Comment="added update 2" Text="Campbell has been given, let me give Lobel-Page now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OiUOI.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Counting from the coronis in col. iii, the fragment is lurking at ll. 6-7. Apparatus Criticus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/rgXtz.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let me just point out how nonsens the numbering of the fragments is. From this page, we fully expect an image of this to contain two papyrus fragments, which we are not too sure how to assign the numbers 1(a) and 1(b). Image coming:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sfD7v.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are actually talking about the two fragments on the far left, which apparently are both 1(a) and must be joined with the one below being on the top-right of the other one, and the biggest of the other fragments, which is 1(b) and joins with the bottom left of the top one a few lines below the bottom one. WTH is up with that numbering?! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This came back to my mind recently, and I did some more research. First of all, the &quot;in my life&quot; may come from completing l. 1 as ἐπὶ τ[ὸν βίον μου, though getting &quot;served&quot; from μέζον seems difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the provenance of the mishmash, I googled the [ε] γω το καλλος επιτ[μεζον] part, and wherever that came up, it was either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [Palmer's site](http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/) or one of its numerous embedded-pdf-like renditions around the web;&#xD;&#xA; 2. [This blog](https://nicholasjv.blogspot.com/2010/07/sappho-and-avaton.html?showComment=1539987265330#c2298543224960571344), where the mishmash is alleged to be the lyrics of the song αερίων επέων άρχομαι by the modern Greek group Avaton, whereas (as the video in the question shows) that is completely wrong, and that video is yet another mishmash of Sappho;&#xD;&#xA; 3. [This Greek forum](https://rembetiko.gr/t/%CF%83%CF%84%CE%AF%CF%87%CE%BF%CE%B9-%CE%B1%CF%80%CF%8C-%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%82-%CE%B4%CE%AF%CF%83%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%82-%CF%84%CF%89%CE%BD-%CE%B1%CE%B2%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BD-%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9-daemonia-nymphe/9240), with the same allegation, which links to Palmer's site, meaning the poster may have pulled the mishmash off Palmer's, being fooled by the title of the song to think those were the actual lyrics;&#xD;&#xA; 4. [This site](http://www.elwaseet-brokers.com/forums/showthread.php), which gives a Bad Gateway;&#xD;&#xA; 5. A site that couldn't load that is now gone from the Google search results – it vanished in the course of about 16hrs;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Or [my blog](http://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2018/09/sappho-comparative-numbering-table.html), where the Comparative Numbering Table has the text of this put in there for completeness and marked as included in LP 90 and similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I commented on both 2 and 3 asking where the wrong lyrics came from, and am waiting for an answer. I guess that is all I can do for now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The curator of [item 2](https://nicholasjv.blogspot.com/2010/07/sappho-and-avaton.html?showComment=1539987265330#c2298543224960571344) commented to [this blog post of mine](https://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2017/06/catullus-and-sappho-ode-to-anactoria.html?showComment=1540164123420#c3081274306465585147) saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The lyrics and translation are from the group's own notes accompanying their work. I see your point that for a purist the mish-mash and translation may be anathema, however, given artistic licence I can see where Avaton has trie dto go with this. They have taken Sappho's intriguing fragments, trying to stutch them together to form something of a complete whole. There are multiple tracks on the CD, hence what is being sung may not be what I set down on the blog post. I was more interested in the &quot;mood&quot; created.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have a culprit: the group Avaton, who mishmashed fragments two different ways to produce the video's track and the mishmash at hand, and even provided a translation for the mishmash, whence the &quot;In my life I served beauty&quot; for the fragment the question focuses on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7351" RevisionGUID="610db76d-f8f7-4d0f-a4cc-79b596b50993" CreationDate="2018-10-22T00:22:06.857" UserId="1694" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I think the wording of the Encyclopædia Britannica article is unclear, leading to misunderstanding.  I don't *think* they mean that Latin &quot;gn&quot; could represent [ŋ(ː)] rather than [ŋn], but I'll admit the wording is confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point they're trying to make (I think) is that on the face of it, if [ŋ] can appear before a nasal consonant *and* [n], it looks like it should be regarded as a separate phoneme, but maybe in &quot;ng&quot;, pronounced [ŋg], it can be analysed phonemically as /ng/, but in &quot;gn&quot;, pronounced [ŋn], it can be analysed phonemically as /gn/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="152" RevisionGUID="06379455-3dc2-40b2-b8e2-e2a642d1f0ff" CreationDate="2018-10-22T01:25:29.573" UserId="9" Comment="edited to remove transcription of the vowel in &quot;magnus&quot;, which seemed of dubious correctness to me and wasn't relevant to this question" Text="As far as I am aware, the classical pronunciation of _-gn-_ (as in _ma**gn**us_) is not [gn] but [ŋn]. How do we know that this is in fact how _-gn-_ was pronounced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24624" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="152" RevisionGUID="06379455-3dc2-40b2-b8e2-e2a642d1f0ff" CreationDate="2018-10-22T01:25:29.573" UserId="9" Comment="edited to remove transcription of the vowel in &quot;magnus&quot;, which seemed of dubious correctness to me and wasn't relevant to this question" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|consonants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="e028eeca-99de-4a22-9d03-305847ff31e9" CreationDate="2018-10-22T01:54:06.247" UserId="9" Comment="added discussion of -gm- and more sources" Text="We don't know for sure, but there are a few arguments for reconstructing [ŋn] as the pronunciation of **gn**. As usual, a good place to start for questions about Classical Latin pronunciation is W. Sidney Allen's *Vox Latina.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (p. 23) describes several types of evidence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- comparison with other clusters in Latin and their history. Allen gives as an example the change of original *\*-pn-* to **-mn-** in Latin words such as *somnus.* Note that etymological comparison with other languages and internal reconstruction shows that in some cases Classical Latin **gn** seems to have originated from assimilation of *\*k* to a following *\*n* (for example, [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dignus) says that the word *dignus* comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *deḱ-). There is evidence of assimilation like this of plosives to nasals before nasal consonants occurring in other languages; for example, in [Korean][1], plosives like **p t k** were nasalized to **m n ŋ** before nasal consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- morphological spelling evidence: words like *cognatus* and *ignobilis* contain the prefixes *con-* and *in-,* which typically end in nasal sounds. Normally, the nasal at the end of the prefix assimilates in place to a following plosive or nasal (as in *co**m**pugno, i**m**possibilis, co**m**mitto, i**m**mortalis*). If **gn** was just pronounced as [gn], it would mean that the nasal in the prefixes was dropped entirely in these words, which seems unlikely. If **gn** was pronounced as [ŋn], then we can instead interpret these words as exhibiting the usual assimilation along with shortening of ŋŋ to a single consonant [ŋ] before the following consonant /n/.&#xD;&#xA;- a vowel change of short **e** to short **i** that is commonly seen before the clusters **ng**, **nc,** and **gn**; we can unify the description of these environments as &quot;before [ŋ]&quot; if we assume **gn** represented [ŋn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Allen also says that some Romance words, such as French *lein* from Latin *lignum,* show the same development of **g** &gt; [j] in **gn** as for **g** in other environments, which some see as evidence that the pronunciation [gn] may have been used after Classical times, likely due to influence from the spelling. (*[A Linguistic History of Italian][2],* by Martin Maiden, also suggests this is a piece of evidence against reconstructing [ŋn] in Proto-Romance.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Comparison with other consonant clusters (-gm- and -gl-) seems to conflict somewhat with the arguments for [ŋn]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a theoretical basis, the cluster **-gm-** might be expected to behave similarly to **-gn-** (since both M and N are nasals). But there actually seems to be less evidence to support the existence of pronunciation [ŋm] in Latin. Allen says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is generally assumed that *g* did not have a nasal pronunciation before m, as in *tegmen, segmentum,* since the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* does not occur in these words. However, since original *gm* seems to have given *mm* (e.g. *flamma* from *flag-ma*, cf. *flagro*), all examples of *gm* may have arisen later, e.g. by syncope, after the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* was operative (cf. the unsyncopated forms *tegimen, integumentum*). The possibility of a pronunciation of *g* as [ŋ] here is therefore not entirely excluded-though it cannot be safely recommended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 25)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something else that I have read about that seems relevant is the assimilation of coda /k/ to voiced, but non-nasal /g/ before /l/. In &quot;Reconstructing Phonological Change: Duration and Syllable Structure in Latin Vowel Reduction&quot; (2012), R. Sen writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sen (2011a) argues that the sonorants /r, l, m, n/ were phonologically specified as [+voice] ... in syllable-initial position ... Hence, we see regressive voice assimilation triggered by a syllable-initial sonorant in *\*nek̲-l̲egoː* &gt; *neg̲l̲egoː* ‘I neglect’, *\*sek̲m̲entom* &gt; *seg̲m̲entum* ‘piece’ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 38)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, the example of \***k-l** &gt; **-gl-** seems to suggest that **-gn-** *might* also have had non-nasal /g/ as a result of partial assimilation (in voicing but not in place or nasality) of the first consonant to the second. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Linguistic sources do tend to classify -gn- as containing the *phoneme* /g/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, all of the discussion in the previous sections is about the phonetic realization of **gn**. As far as I know, from a phonemic perspective it's standard to analyze **gn** as /gn/, and it seems to behave this way in contexts like the formation of diminutives: for example, the nouns *signum, tignum* correspond to the diminutive forms *sigillum, tigillum* where the **g** would have been pronounced as [g]—a voiced velar plosive, not a nasal. (I don't know how old these diminutive formations are thought to be.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NN-yIdLOkCoC&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qK_8eXcCnu&amp;sig=u4MEiVBbuxhdzAg_rkkNX3D6RbY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiuvsbyo5HLAhXJsIMKHfWIA8UQ6AEIUzAH#v=onepage&amp;q=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=DwTKAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT127&amp;lpg=PT127&amp;dq=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1yMQKpnTe6&amp;sig=0k2p71mE_-YTdkZtyU9t3lvDnyI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNsZS2xITZAhWCzlkKHbbjAvM4ChDoAQhCMAU#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7351" RevisionGUID="6cd7f8ec-02ef-40a0-8084-37944c5a056d" CreationDate="2018-10-22T02:08:42.050" UserId="1694" Comment="edited body" Text="I think the wording of the Encyclopædia Britannica article is unclear, leading to misunderstanding.  I don't *think* they mean that Latin &quot;gn&quot; could represent [ŋ(ː)] rather than [ŋn], but I'll admit the wording is confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point they're trying to make (I think) is that on the face of it, if [ŋ] can appear before a velar consonant *and* [n], it looks like it should be regarded as a separate phoneme, but maybe in &quot;ng&quot;, pronounced [ŋg], it can be analysed phonemically as /ng/, but in &quot;gn&quot;, pronounced [ŋn], it can be analysed phonemically as /gn/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="78069195-6526-4d18-a06b-6b8754821d1b" CreationDate="2018-10-22T02:13:15.500" UserId="9" Comment="added discussion of -gm- and more sources" Text="We don't know for sure, but there are a few arguments for reconstructing [ŋn] as the pronunciation of **gn**. As usual, a good place to start for questions about Classical Latin pronunciation is W. Sidney Allen's *Vox Latina.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##There are several pieces of evidence pointing towards a pronunciation [ŋn] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (p. 23) describes several reasons for thinking that **-gn-** was pronounced as [ŋn] in Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- comparison with other clusters in Latin and their history. Allen gives as an example the change of original *\*-pn-* to **-mn-** in Latin words such as *somnus.* Although *abn-,* with the letter B rather than M, occurred at the start of Latin words prefixed with *ab-,* Allen says that *a**mn**egauerit* actually exists as an inscriptional variant of *a**bn**egauerit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that etymological comparison with other languages and internal reconstruction shows that in some cases Classical Latin **gn** seems to have originated from assimilation of *\*k* to a following *\*n* (for example, [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dignus) says that the word *dignus* comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *deḱ-). There is evidence of assimilation like this of plosives to nasals before nasal consonants occurring in other languages; for example, in [Korean][1], plosives like **p t k** were nasalized to **m n ŋ** before nasal consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- morphological spelling evidence: words like *cognatus* and *ignobilis* contain the prefixes *con-* and *in-,* which typically end in nasal sounds. Normally, the nasal at the end of the prefix assimilates in place to a following plosive or nasal (as in *co**m**pugno, i**m**possibilis, co**m**mitto, i**m**mortalis*). If **gn** was just pronounced as [gn], it would mean that the nasal in the prefixes was dropped entirely in these words, which seems unlikely. If **gn** was pronounced as [ŋn], then we can instead interpret these words as exhibiting the usual assimilation along with shortening of ŋŋ to a single consonant [ŋ] before the following consonant /n/.&#xD;&#xA;- a vowel change of short **e** to short **i** that is commonly seen before the clusters **ng**, **nc,** and **gn**; we can unify the description of these environments as &quot;before [ŋ]&quot; if we assume **gn** represented [ŋn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Weaknesses of the [ŋn] hypothesis&#xD;&#xA;However, Allen also says (p. 24) that some Romance words, such as French *lein* from Latin *lignum,* show the same development of **g** &gt; [j] in **gn** as for **g** in other environments, which some see as evidence that the pronunciation [gn] may have been used after Classical times, likely due to influence from the spelling. (*[A Linguistic History of Italian][2],* by Martin Maiden, also suggests this is a piece of evidence against reconstructing [ŋn] in Proto-Romance.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, Allen notes that Latin grammarians &quot;are strangely silent about any nasal pronunciation of *g*&quot; (p. 24).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##But other g + resonant consonant clusters (-gm- and -gl-) may have had the voiced non-nasal plosive [g], in some cases as a result of voicing assimilation of etymological /k/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a theoretical basis, the cluster **-gm-** might be expected to behave similarly to **-gn-** (since both M and N are nasals). But there actually seems to be less evidence to support the existence of pronunciation [ŋm] in Latin. Allen says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is generally assumed that *g* did not have a nasal pronunciation before m, as in *tegmen, segmentum,* since the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* does not occur in these words. However, since original *gm* seems to have given *mm* (e.g. *flamma* from *flag-ma*, cf. *flagro*), all examples of *gm* may have arisen later, e.g. by syncope, after the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* was operative (cf. the unsyncopated forms *tegimen, integumentum*). The possibility of a pronunciation of *g* as [ŋ] here is therefore not entirely excluded-though it cannot be safely recommended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 25)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something else that I have read about that seems relevant is the assimilation of coda /k/ to voiced, but non-nasal /g/ before /l/. In &quot;Reconstructing Phonological Change: Duration and Syllable Structure in Latin Vowel Reduction&quot; (2012), R. Sen writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sen (2011a) argues that the sonorants /r, l, m, n/ were phonologically specified as [+voice] ... in syllable-initial position ... Hence, we see regressive voice assimilation triggered by a syllable-initial sonorant in *\*nek̲-l̲egoː* &gt; *neg̲l̲egoː* ‘I neglect’, *\*sek̲m̲entom* &gt; *seg̲m̲entum* ‘piece’ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 38)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, the example of \***k-l** &gt; **-gl-** seems to suggest that **-gn-** *might* also have had non-nasal /g/ as a result of partial assimilation (in voicing but not in place or nasality) of the first consonant to the second. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Linguistic sources do tend to classify -gn- as containing the *phoneme* /g/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, all of the discussion in the previous sections is about the phonetic realization of **gn**. As far as I know, from a phonemic perspective it's standard to analyze **gn** as /gn/, and it seems to behave this way in contexts like the formation of diminutives: for example, the nouns *signum, tignum* correspond to the diminutive forms *sigillum, tigillum* where the **g** would have been pronounced as [g]—a voiced velar plosive, not a nasal. (I don't know how old these diminutive formations are thought to be.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NN-yIdLOkCoC&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qK_8eXcCnu&amp;sig=u4MEiVBbuxhdzAg_rkkNX3D6RbY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiuvsbyo5HLAhXJsIMKHfWIA8UQ6AEIUzAH#v=onepage&amp;q=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=DwTKAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT127&amp;lpg=PT127&amp;dq=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1yMQKpnTe6&amp;sig=0k2p71mE_-YTdkZtyU9t3lvDnyI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNsZS2xITZAhWCzlkKHbbjAvM4ChDoAQhCMAU#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="77a5788b-79f5-4d65-8666-21ab3f1d10b9" CreationDate="2018-10-22T02:22:55.137" UserId="9" Comment="added discussion of -gm- and more sources" Text="We don't know for sure. There are a few arguments for reconstructing [ŋn] as the pronunciation of **gn**, but there are also some complications with this reconstruction. As usual, a good place to start for questions about Classical Latin pronunciation is W. Sidney Allen's *Vox Latina.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##There are several pieces of evidence pointing towards a pronunciation [ŋn] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (p. 23) describes several reasons for thinking that **-gn-** was pronounced as [ŋn] in Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- comparison with other clusters in Latin and their history. Allen gives as an example the change of original *\*-pn-* to **-mn-** in Latin words such as *somnus.* Although *abn-,* with the letter B rather than M, occurred at the start of Latin words prefixed with *ab-,* Allen says that *a**mn**egauerit* actually exists as an inscriptional variant of *a**bn**egauerit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that etymological comparison with other languages and internal reconstruction shows that in some cases Classical Latin **gn** seems to have originated from assimilation of *\*k* to a following *\*n* (for example, [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dignus) says that the word *dignus* comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *deḱ-). There is evidence of assimilation like this of plosives to nasals before nasal consonants occurring in other languages; for example, in [Korean][1], plosives like **p t k** were nasalized to **m n ŋ** before nasal consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- morphological spelling evidence: words like *cognatus* and *ignobilis* contain the prefixes *con-* and *in-,* which typically end in nasal sounds. Normally, the nasal at the end of the prefix assimilates in place to a following plosive or nasal (as in *co**m**pugno, i**m**possibilis, co**m**mitto, i**m**mortalis*). If **gn** was just pronounced as [gn], it would mean that the nasal in the prefixes was dropped entirely in these words, which seems unlikely. If **gn** was pronounced as [ŋn], then we can instead interpret these words as exhibiting the usual assimilation along with shortening of ŋŋ to a single consonant [ŋ] before the following consonant /n/.&#xD;&#xA;- a vowel change of short **e** to short **i** that is commonly seen before the clusters **ng**, **nc,** and **gn**; we can unify the description of these environments as &quot;before [ŋ]&quot; if we assume **gn** represented [ŋn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Weaknesses of the [ŋn] hypothesis&#xD;&#xA;However, Allen also says (p. 24) that some Romance words, such as French *lein* or Southern Italian *liunu* from Latin *lignum,* show the same development of coda *g* to a semivowel that occurs in non-nasal environments. This has been seen as evidence that the pronunciation [gn] may have been used after Classical times, possibly due to influence from the spelling. (*[A Linguistic History of Italian][2],* by Martin Maiden, also suggests this is a piece of evidence against reconstructing [ŋn] in Proto-Romance.) I'm a bit confused by this argument, though, because I'm not sure why [ŋ] is thought to be less likely than [g] to vocalize to [j] or [w].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, Allen notes that Latin grammarians &quot;are strangely silent about any nasal pronunciation of *g*&quot; (p. 24).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##But other g + resonant consonant clusters (-gm- and -gl-) may have had the voiced non-nasal plosive [g], in some cases as a result of voicing assimilation of etymological /k/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a theoretical basis, the cluster **-gm-** might be expected to behave similarly to **-gn-** (since both M and N are nasals). But there actually seems to be less evidence to support the existence of pronunciation [ŋm] in Latin. Allen says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is generally assumed that *g* did not have a nasal pronunciation before m, as in *tegmen, segmentum,* since the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* does not occur in these words. However, since original *gm* seems to have given *mm* (e.g. *flamma* from *flag-ma*, cf. *flagro*), all examples of *gm* may have arisen later, e.g. by syncope, after the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* was operative (cf. the unsyncopated forms *tegimen, integumentum*). The possibility of a pronunciation of *g* as [ŋ] here is therefore not entirely excluded-though it cannot be safely recommended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 25)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something else that I have read about that seems relevant is the assimilation of coda /k/ to voiced, but non-nasal /g/ before /l/. In &quot;Reconstructing Phonological Change: Duration and Syllable Structure in Latin Vowel Reduction&quot; (2012), R. Sen writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sen (2011a) argues that the sonorants /r, l, m, n/ were phonologically specified as [+voice] ... in syllable-initial position ... Hence, we see regressive voice assimilation triggered by a syllable-initial sonorant in *\*nek̲-l̲egoː* &gt; *neg̲l̲egoː* ‘I neglect’, *\*sek̲m̲entom* &gt; *seg̲m̲entum* ‘piece’ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 38)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, the example of \***k-l** &gt; **-gl-** seems to suggest that **-gn-** *might* also have had non-nasal /g/ as a result of partial assimilation (in voicing but not in place or nasality) of the first consonant to the second. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Linguistic sources do tend to classify -gn- as containing the *phoneme* /g/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, all of the discussion in the previous sections is about the phonetic realization of **gn**. As far as I know, from a phonemic perspective it's standard to analyze **gn** as /gn/, and it seems to behave this way in contexts like the formation of diminutives: for example, the nouns *signum, tignum* correspond to the diminutive forms *sigillum, tigillum* where the **g** would have been pronounced as [g]—a voiced velar plosive, not a nasal. (I don't know how old these diminutive formations are thought to be.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NN-yIdLOkCoC&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qK_8eXcCnu&amp;sig=u4MEiVBbuxhdzAg_rkkNX3D6RbY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiuvsbyo5HLAhXJsIMKHfWIA8UQ6AEIUzAH#v=onepage&amp;q=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=DwTKAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT127&amp;lpg=PT127&amp;dq=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1yMQKpnTe6&amp;sig=0k2p71mE_-YTdkZtyU9t3lvDnyI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNsZS2xITZAhWCzlkKHbbjAvM4ChDoAQhCMAU#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="284d9b40-8fdf-4c7d-a175-55f3b8f9ce4d" CreationDate="2018-10-22T03:51:01.783" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="We don't know for sure. There are a few arguments for reconstructing [ŋn] as the pronunciation of **gn**, but there are also some complications with this reconstruction. As usual, a good place to start for questions about Classical Latin pronunciation is W. Sidney Allen's *Vox Latina.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##There are several pieces of evidence pointing towards a pronunciation [ŋn] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (p. 23) describes several reasons for thinking that **-gn-** was pronounced as [ŋn] in Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- comparison with other clusters in Latin and their history. Allen gives as an example the change of original *\*-pn-* to **-mn-** in Latin words such as *somnus.* Although *abn-,* with the letter B rather than M, occurred at the start of Latin words prefixed with *ab-,* Allen says that *a**mn**egauerit* actually exists as an inscriptional variant of *a**bn**egauerit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that etymological comparison with other languages and internal reconstruction shows that in some cases Classical Latin **gn** seems to have originated from assimilation of *\*k* to a following *\*n* (for example, [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dignus) says that the word *dignus* comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *deḱ-). There is evidence of assimilation like this of plosives to nasals before nasal consonants occurring in other languages; for example, in [Korean][1], plosives like **p t k** were nasalized to **m n ŋ** before nasal consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- morphological spelling evidence: words like *cognatus* and *ignobilis* contain the prefixes *con-* and *in-,* which typically end in nasal sounds. Normally, the nasal at the end of the prefix assimilates in place to a following plosive or nasal (as in *co**m**pugno, i**m**possibilis, co**m**mitto, i**m**mortalis*). If **gn** was just pronounced as [gn], it would mean that the nasal in the prefixes was dropped entirely in these words, which seems unlikely. If **gn** was pronounced as [ŋn], then we can instead interpret these words as exhibiting the usual assimilation along with shortening of ŋŋ to a single consonant [ŋ] before the following consonant /n/.&#xD;&#xA;- a vowel change of short **e** to short **i** that is commonly seen before the clusters **ng**, **nc,** and **gn**; we can unify the description of these environments as &quot;before [ŋ]&quot; if we assume **gn** represented [ŋn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Weaknesses of the [ŋn] hypothesis&#xD;&#xA;However, Allen also says (p. 24) that some Romance words, such as French *lein* or Southern Italian *liunu* from Latin *lignum,* show the same development of coda *g* to a semivowel that occurs in non-nasal environments. This has been seen as evidence that the pronunciation [gn] may have been used after Classical times, possibly due to influence from the spelling. (*[A Linguistic History of Italian][2],* by Martin Maiden, also suggests this is a piece of evidence against reconstructing [ŋn] in Proto-Romance.) I'm a bit confused by this argument, though, because I'm not sure why [ŋ] is thought to be less likely than [g] to vocalize to [j] or [w].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, Allen notes that Latin grammarians &quot;are strangely silent about any nasal pronunciation of *g*&quot; (p. 24).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##But other g + resonant consonant clusters (-gm- and -gl-) may have had the voiced non-nasal plosive [g], in some cases as a result of voicing assimilation of etymological /k/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a theoretical basis, the cluster **-gm-** might be expected to behave similarly to **-gn-** (since both M and N are nasals). But there actually seems to be less evidence to support the existence of a pronunciation [ŋm] for **-gm-** in Latin. Allen says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is generally assumed that *g* did not have a nasal pronunciation before m, as in *tegmen, segmentum,* since the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* does not occur in these words. However, since original *gm* seems to have given *mm* (e.g. *flamma* from *flag-ma*, cf. *flagro*), all examples of *gm* may have arisen later, e.g. by syncope, after the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* was operative (cf. the unsyncopated forms *tegimen, integumentum*). The possibility of a pronunciation of *g* as [ŋ] here is therefore not entirely excluded-though it cannot be safely recommended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 25)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something else that I have read about that seems relevant is the assimilation of coda /k/ to voiced, but non-nasal /g/ before /l/. In &quot;Reconstructing Phonological Change: Duration and Syllable Structure in Latin Vowel Reduction&quot; (2012), R. Sen writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sen (2011a) argues that the sonorants /r, l, m, n/ were phonologically specified as [+voice] ... in syllable-initial position ... Hence, we see regressive voice assimilation triggered by a syllable-initial sonorant in *\*nek̲-l̲egoː* &gt; *neg̲l̲egoː* ‘I neglect’, *\*sek̲m̲entom* &gt; *seg̲m̲entum* ‘piece’ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 38)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, the example of \***k-l** &gt; **-gl-** seems to suggest that **-gn-** *might* also have had non-nasal /g/ as a result of partial assimilation (in voicing but not in place or nasality) of the first consonant to the second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Linguistic sources do tend to classify -gn- as containing the *phoneme* /g/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, all of the discussion in the previous sections is about the phonetic realization of **gn**. As far as I know, from a phonemic perspective it's standard to analyze **gn** as /gn/, and it seems to behave this way in contexts like the formation of diminutives: for example, the nouns *signum, tignum* correspond to the diminutive forms *sigillum, tigillum* where the **g** would have been pronounced as [g]—a voiced velar plosive, not a nasal. (I don't know how old these diminutive formations are thought to be.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NN-yIdLOkCoC&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qK_8eXcCnu&amp;sig=u4MEiVBbuxhdzAg_rkkNX3D6RbY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiuvsbyo5HLAhXJsIMKHfWIA8UQ6AEIUzAH#v=onepage&amp;q=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=DwTKAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT127&amp;lpg=PT127&amp;dq=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1yMQKpnTe6&amp;sig=0k2p71mE_-YTdkZtyU9t3lvDnyI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNsZS2xITZAhWCzlkKHbbjAvM4ChDoAQhCMAU#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="165" RevisionGUID="1c7213a6-f2c6-4609-b614-d4e0762ec2bd" CreationDate="2018-10-22T05:49:25.610" UserId="2532" Comment="Changed the now less and less used Christian marking of age, to the neutral modern terms BCE and CE. Added en-dashes." Text="Questions concerning Latin of the classical era, approximately 75 BCE to 300 CE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24631" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="165" RevisionGUID="1c7213a6-f2c6-4609-b614-d4e0762ec2bd" CreationDate="2018-10-22T05:49:25.610" Comment="Proposed by 2532 approved by 79 edit id of 267" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7348" RevisionGUID="dd773da6-c58d-44d4-a575-be22c00bd937" CreationDate="2018-10-22T05:49:32.790" UserId="2532" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="For questions regarding negative statements, i.e. statements involving an opposite, denial or the likes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24633" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7348" RevisionGUID="dd773da6-c58d-44d4-a575-be22c00bd937" CreationDate="2018-10-22T05:49:32.790" Comment="Proposed by 2532 approved by 79 edit id of 265" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7349" RevisionGUID="cf53c650-0369-44c0-85bd-990d31b7ea5d" CreationDate="2018-10-22T11:35:58.937" UserId="517" Comment="added 163 characters in body" Text="*malo* here is the first-person singular active indicative form of *malle*, which means “I prefer”. It has nothing to do with either *malus* “bad” (or, for that matter, *malum* “apple”). I believe that the verb is a contraction of *maius* “better” and *velle* “to want”. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=malo) says that it's actually from *magis* &quot;more&quot; + *velle*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7352" RevisionGUID="56c5e0e6-3a8a-4ef1-b6ec-b443adc79282" CreationDate="2018-10-22T16:18:34.727" UserId="12" Text="In Augustine's [*Enchiridion*, §112](https://www.augustinus.it/latino/enchiridion/index.htm), he writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Frustra itaque nonnulli, **immo quam plurimi**, aeternam damnatorum poenam et cruciatus sine intermissione perpetuos humano miserantur affectu, atque ita futurum esse non credunt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;It is quite in vain, then, that some—**indeed very many**—yield to merely human feelings and deplore the notion of the eternal punishment of the damned and their interminable and perpetual misery. They do not believe that such things will be. ([translation source](https://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/enchiridion.chapter29.html))&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within Christianity, there is ongoing debate over whether hell is eternal or not, and this text of Augustine's is often brought into the fray.  For example, a [popular blog](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2017/04/indeed-many-universalism-early-church/) cites a noted opponent of the eternality of hell this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When Augustine described the Universalists as “indeed very many” (*immo quam plurimi*), what he meant is that they were a “vast majority” (Ramelli, *Christian Doctrine*, 11). That is what the Latin word *plurimi*, from the adjective *plurimus*, implies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Whitaker's Words](http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?keyword=plurimus) and [Lewis &amp; Short](http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/getobject.pl?c.11:2533.LewisShort18) seem to suggest that both &quot;many&quot; and &quot;most&quot; are viable translations, but these sources are limited in that they don't focus on Late Latin in general or Augustine in particular.  So I'm still left wondering – can we conclusively state *plurimi* here is best rendered &quot;vast majority,&quot; or is the traditional translation &quot;very many&quot; defensible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24637" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7352" RevisionGUID="56c5e0e6-3a8a-4ef1-b6ec-b443adc79282" CreationDate="2018-10-22T16:18:34.727" UserId="12" Text="Does &quot;plurimi&quot; imply &quot;vast majority&quot; in Augustine's Enchiridion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24638" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7352" RevisionGUID="56c5e0e6-3a8a-4ef1-b6ec-b443adc79282" CreationDate="2018-10-22T16:18:34.727" UserId="12" Text="|vocabulary|adjective|late-latin|augustinus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24639" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7350" RevisionGUID="dfcd9ec4-f091-4fb2-aaa8-0bca9489ced8" CreationDate="2018-10-22T16:28:27.493" UserId="12" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[152],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:45,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;brianpck&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:12,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nathaniel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1780" RevisionGUID="e84e9318-f415-422f-b295-9aa16a719bc0" CreationDate="2018-10-22T16:30:33.183" UserId="30" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="For questions about grammatical gender (masculine, feminine, neuter)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7353" RevisionGUID="5fb68b99-1004-48b1-a074-2a72c4a55b29" CreationDate="2018-10-22T16:33:19.283" UserId="30" Text="Some categories of substantive nouns are always feminine, even when they are of the second declension, such as trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What other categories are there? And are there also many exocategorical examples? I don't think e.g. *alvus* (f.) fits into a category, or does it? Cf. *uterus* (m.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24644" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7353" RevisionGUID="5fb68b99-1004-48b1-a074-2a72c4a55b29" CreationDate="2018-10-22T16:33:19.283" UserId="30" Text="What categories of substantives of the second declension are feminine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24645" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7353" RevisionGUID="5fb68b99-1004-48b1-a074-2a72c4a55b29" CreationDate="2018-10-22T16:33:19.283" UserId="30" Text="|noun|gender|second-declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7354" RevisionGUID="052adae5-fadc-400a-86ee-876103a617bc" CreationDate="2018-10-22T19:15:34.577" UserId="406" Text="To add to this, there's an old mnemonic rhyme for the word *malo*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Mālō*, I would rather be  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Mālō*, in an apple tree  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Mālō*, than a ship at sea  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Mălō*, in adversity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a confusingly ambiguous word! In the first line, it's a form of *mālle*, &quot;to want&quot;; in the second line, it's the ablative of position of *mālus*, &quot;apple tree&quot;; in the third line, it's the ablative of comparison of *mālus*, &quot;upright beam, post, mast&quot; (or &quot;ship&quot; by synecdoche); in the fourth line, it's the masculine ablative of *mălus*, &quot;bad&quot;. The fourth of these is the only one that looks any different, since it has a short *ă* rather than a long *ā*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7355" RevisionGUID="a7cde704-eb0c-4b59-96df-0092d150e059" CreationDate="2018-10-22T19:21:15.470" UserId="645" Text="Kennedy's Revised Latin Primer gives a list of four nouns of the Second Declension ending in -*us*, which are: *alvus*, paunch; *colus*, distaff; *humus*, ground; *vannus*, winnowing-fan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same source points out that there are several others from the Greek, including *arctus*, the Bear constellation; *carbasus*, linen (but in pl. *carbasa*, *n*., sails).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[It may be of interest to note that a further category contains neuter nouns in -*us*:*pelagus*, sea; *virus*, venom; and *vulgus*, crowd, (which is sometimes feminine). All are used only in the singular.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7356" RevisionGUID="d66e692c-6880-43b4-9c21-77c5a51bcdd7" CreationDate="2018-10-22T19:25:25.100" UserId="406" Text="English &quot;monster&quot; comes from Latin *monstrum* &quot;divine omen, supernatural occurrence&quot;, from *moneō* &quot;warn&quot;. Later this shifted to the meaning it had in English, a horrifying or evil creature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But before this shift happened, how would I talk about &quot;monsters&quot; in general? A word specifically for supernatural horrors, or specifically for natural ones, would be fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24649" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7356" RevisionGUID="d66e692c-6880-43b4-9c21-77c5a51bcdd7" CreationDate="2018-10-22T19:25:25.100" UserId="406" Text="What is a &quot;monster&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24650" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7356" RevisionGUID="d66e692c-6880-43b4-9c21-77c5a51bcdd7" CreationDate="2018-10-22T19:25:25.100" UserId="406" Text="|classical-latin|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24651" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7326" RevisionGUID="4008a13d-cfce-4c51-b651-4473cda55d2f" CreationDate="2018-10-22T19:28:57.660" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7357" RevisionGUID="fdae1cc0-7e8b-4ec2-9b61-21436df20fa9" CreationDate="2018-10-22T19:44:34.933" UserId="79" Text="One can use *quam* as an intensifier of *plurimi*, so that *quam plurimi* is most naturally translated as &quot;very many&quot; as in the translation you cite, or perhaps &quot;quite many&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There are [several classical attestations of *quam plurim-*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=quam+plurim).&#xD;&#xA;Looking at those examples, I think reading *quam plurimi* as necessarily meaning &quot;vast majority&quot; is an over-analysis.&#xD;&#xA;In this case I find *quam* idiomatic with the contrasting structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, at least in classical Latin it would be perfectly normal to use *quam plurimi* without meaning &quot;vast majority&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I find it hard to believe that the phrase would have gotten that much more restricted meaning later on, but my knowledge of post-classical nuances is limited." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7358" RevisionGUID="ba304c4f-d2d7-4613-bb5a-f8006840fa4b" CreationDate="2018-10-22T20:47:48.317" UserId="469" Text="FWIW, the [Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis][1] lists *terrorist* as **tromocrates, -ae** (a Greek term!). I think this makes it safe enough to think there is no Classical term for that specific meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the other hand, it [seems][2] (sorry, the link to the actual source is broken) that Nuntii Latini has referred to terrorists as **territores**, and the use of the following has been at least suggested (in [2004][3] and [2005][4]) in the related Colloquia Latina:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Terrorism*: **terrorismus, -i**, **tromocratia, -ae**&#xD;&#xA;* *Terrorist*: **terrorista, -ae**, **territor, -ris**, besides the already mentioned *tromocrates*. Apparently, Jupiter was once called *Iupiter Territor*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't take the time to actually read and make full sense of the *Colloquia Latina* discussion, so maybe I'm missing something important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware that you asked for *terror* in the *terrorism* sense, but this is the closest I have found yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/rc_latinitas_20040601_lexicon_it.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tromocratia&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://vintti.yle.fi/yle.fi/latini/viewtopicf4ce.html?p=988&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://vintti.yle.fi/yle.fi/latini/viewtopicdd3f.html?p=4159" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7359" RevisionGUID="a9a0e64b-927e-4b70-a0cb-08bb6653c558" CreationDate="2018-10-22T21:05:18.263" UserId="30" Text="In a [question][1] about Augustine, this quotation is given:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Frustra itaque nonnulli, immo **quam plurimi**, aeternam damnatorum poenam et cruciatus sine intermissione perpetuos humano miserantur affectu, atque ita futurum esse non credunt  &#xD;&#xA;— Augustine, [*Enchiridion*, §112](https://www.augustinus.it/latino/enchiridion/index.htm), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;It is quite in vain, then, that some—**indeed very many**—yield to merely human feelings and deplore the notion of the eternal punishment of the damned and their interminable and perpetual misery. They do not believe that such things will be. ([translation source](https://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/enchiridion.chapter29.html))&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This use of *quam* as a mere intensifier (&quot;very&quot;) of a superlative surprised me. Perhaps I have seen it before, but I do not recall doing so. Is this normal in (classical) Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, I am not inquiring about *quam* + superlative as used in e.g. &quot;as many as possible&quot; or &quot;as many as I could find&quot;, both of which are common enough, nor about using it as an intensifier with a positive (which is possible though probably uncommon).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could not find a description of this use in [Lewis &amp; Short][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7352/does-plurimi-imply-vast-majority-in-augustines-enchiridion&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=quam&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24655" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7359" RevisionGUID="a9a0e64b-927e-4b70-a0cb-08bb6653c558" CreationDate="2018-10-22T21:05:18.263" UserId="30" Text="Can &quot;quam&quot; be used as a mere intensifier to a superlative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24656" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7359" RevisionGUID="a9a0e64b-927e-4b70-a0cb-08bb6653c558" CreationDate="2018-10-22T21:05:18.263" UserId="30" Text="|syntax|adjective|conjunction|superlatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7356" RevisionGUID="f46e6cd2-9b3d-4d6c-a7a0-e79bb2f77532" CreationDate="2018-10-22T21:12:32.293" UserId="406" Comment="edited body" Text="English &quot;monster&quot; comes from Latin *monstrum* &quot;divine omen, supernatural occurrence&quot;, from *moneō* &quot;warn&quot;. Later this shifted to the meaning it has in English, a horrifying or evil creature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But before this shift happened, how would I talk about &quot;monsters&quot; in general? A word specifically for supernatural horrors, or specifically for natural ones, would be fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7360" RevisionGUID="d49c727d-9043-4e92-ae5f-03959ade4134" CreationDate="2018-10-23T00:45:57.493" UserId="522" Text="I think I have three examples, one modern and two medieval: they were found with ***o quam* + the specific superlatives** in the search box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Maximiliani Romanorum. Imperatoris ... laudibus ... epistola;  By Paul von Oberstein (quire Giij; no page numbers)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *o quam pulcherrima laus, quam ingens gloria Bohoemici nominis*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; O, how very beautiful the praise, how vast the glory of the Bohemian Name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a medieval/early modern devotional work:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ex his adverte o anima devota, quam pulcherrima, quam gloriosissima fit Maria mater domini Jesu*.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; From these notice, o devoted soul, how very beautiful, how very glorious is Mary mother of the Lord Jesus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notizia Fioretina (1720); forms of address 1002 -1014.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *'Quam gloriosissimus Avunculus noster Otho Major,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;How most glorious a Patron our Otto Major," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7360" RevisionGUID="08e349a7-fe3a-456a-b362-551e9649d22a" CreationDate="2018-10-23T01:08:14.690" UserId="522" Comment="added 544 characters in body: sources" Text="I think I have three examples, one modern and two medieval: they were found with ***o quam* + the specific superlatives** in the search box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[De Maximiliani Romanorum][1]. Imperatoris ... laudibus ... epistola;  By Paul von Oberstein (quire Giij; no page numbers)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *o quam pulcherrima laus, quam ingens gloria Bohoemici nominis*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; O, how very beautiful the praise, how vast the glory of the Bohemian Name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a medieval/early modern [devotional work][2]:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ex his adverte o anima devota, quam pulcherrima, quam gloriosissima sit Maria mater domini Jesu*.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; From these notice, o devoted soul, how very beautiful, how very glorious is Mary mother of the Lord Jesus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notizia Fioretina (1720); forms of address 1002 -1014.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *'Quam gloriosissimus Avunculus noster Otho Major,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;How most glorious a Patron our Otto Major,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IcNTAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PP63&amp;lpg=PP63&amp;dq=o%20quam%20pulcherrima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Xpknh4XqHe&amp;sig=w6dX2lc_yZV1vDzia78U02Om35o&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj1sLfmrpveAhUlK8AKHYHfAY8Q6AEwEHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=o%20quam%20pulcherrima&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SgRTAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=o%20quam%20pulcherrima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qRyh_kG1Tz&amp;sig=FYFzS5CedNnePzC9CvBzfLHisD4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjzr53RrZveAhXMK8AKHTcuDQs4ChDoATAJegQIARAB#v=onepage&amp;q=o%20quam%20pulcherrima&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7361" RevisionGUID="52111a34-953b-4a62-933c-d9b163c795ce" CreationDate="2018-10-23T02:47:42.800" UserId="39" Text="Since we all wanted to see certain relevant passages in *Handbuch der Griechischen Dialekte* (Thumb and Scherer 1959), I've decided to upload two screenshots:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QsFBp.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ecg8c.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7361" RevisionGUID="c9348139-e504-4969-bd6b-259d8316d04f" CreationDate="2018-10-23T02:59:35.427" UserId="39" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="Since we all wanted to see certain relevant passages in *Handbuch der Griechischen Dialekte* (Thumb and Scherer 1959), I've decided to upload two screenshots:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A relevant entry from Index I in Hamm 1957 *Grammatik zu Sappho und Alkaios*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QsFBp.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ecg8c.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xu0JI.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7362" RevisionGUID="a6d961b6-c24a-4244-be85-8d7cdba072f5" CreationDate="2018-10-23T05:35:20.953" UserId="867" Text="For natural monsters, perhaps ***belua***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Belua** immanis, crocodillus ille qui in Nilo gignitur …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; That colossal monster, the crocodile born in the Nile …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apuleius, *Apologia*, 8 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Belua* is often used for sea-monster (*belua ponti*) and it's sometimes ambiguous whether this means something like a whale (a natural 'monster') or something more supernatural.  See for example: Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, 5.18; Lucan, *Civil War*, 8.764 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, Lucretius speaks of the fanciful shapes clouds sometimes appear to take:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *inde alios trahere atque inducere **belua** nimbos*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; after them some monster pulling and dragging other clouds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lucretius, *De Rerum Natura*, 4.140 (trans. W. H. D. Rouse)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, then, is a cross between natural and supernatural! Vergil uses it to describe a supernatural monster - *belua Lernae* - when Aeneas is in the underworld confronting all sorts of ghouls and horrors (*Aeneid*, 6.287).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is ***portenta***.  This obviously has semantic overlap with *monstrum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *diram qui contudit hydram*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *notaque fatali **portenta** labore subegit,*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *comperit invidiam supremo fine domari*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He [Hercules] who crushed the Hydra and laid low with fated toil the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; monsters of story found that Envy is quelled only by death that comes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Horace, *Epistles*, 2.1.10-12 (trans.H. R. Fairclough) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is clearly referencing supernatural monsters.  It is interesting that Cicero uses both *belua* and *portenta* in the following.  Perhaps he is differentiating here between both natural and supernatural monsters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quae plurimorum saeculorum et eventorum memoriam litteris continet,*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *bovem quendam putari deum, quem Apim Aegyptii nominant, multaque alia*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***portenta** apud eosdem et cuiusque generis **beluas** numero consecratas*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *deorum*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [in Egypt] ... which preserves written records of the events of countless ages, a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bull, which the Egyptians call Apis, is deemed a god, and many other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; monsters and animals of every sort are held sacred as divine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *De Re Publica*, 3.9 (trans. Clinton W. Keyes) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, Apuleius here lists many types of scary creatures, but I think [***occursacula***][1], [***terriculamenta***][2], and ***formidamina*** (from [*formido*][3])  are all good generic terms for monsters in general:&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *At tibi, Aemiliane, pro isto mendacio duit deus iste superum et inferum commeator utrorumque deorum malam gratiam, semperque obvias&#xD;&#xA;&gt; species mortuorum, quidquid umbrarum est usquam, quidquid lemurum,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quidquid manium, quidquid larvarum, oculis tuis oggerat, omnia noctium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **occursacula**, omnia bustorum **formidamina**, omnia sepulchrorum **terriculamenta**, a quibus tamen aevo et merito haud longe abes.* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But as for you, Aemilianus, may that god, the intermediary between the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upper and lower worlds, repay you for that lie with the ill will of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the gods above and below; may he ever bring dead men’s forms to meet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; your eyes, every shade, phantom, spectre, ghost that ever was, every&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **apparition of the night**, every **horror** of the pyre, every **terror** of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; graveyard, to all of which your age and just deserts have brought you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; near.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apuleius, *Apologia*, 64 (trans. Christopher P. Jones) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=occursacula&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=terriculamenta&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=formido&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7362" RevisionGUID="d597d52d-4112-4789-82e9-b58c2e133fac" CreationDate="2018-10-23T05:56:25.313" UserId="79" Comment="Edited line spacing in hexameter." Text="For natural monsters, perhaps ***belua***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Belua** immanis, crocodillus ille qui in Nilo gignitur …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; That colossal monster, the crocodile born in the Nile …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apuleius, *Apologia*, 8 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Belua* is often used for sea-monster (*belua ponti*) and it's sometimes ambiguous whether this means something like a whale (a natural 'monster') or something more supernatural.  See for example: Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, 5.18; Lucan, *Civil War*, 8.764 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, Lucretius speaks of the fanciful shapes clouds sometimes appear to take:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *inde alios trahere atque inducere **belua** nimbos*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; after them some monster pulling and dragging other clouds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lucretius, *De Rerum Natura*, 4.140 (trans. W. H. D. Rouse)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, then, is a cross between natural and supernatural! Vergil uses it to describe a supernatural monster - *belua Lernae* - when Aeneas is in the underworld confronting all sorts of ghouls and horrors (*Aeneid*, 6.287).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is ***portenta***.  This obviously has semantic overlap with *monstrum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *diram qui contudit hydram*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *notaque fatali **portenta** labore subegit,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *comperit invidiam supremo fine domari*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He [Hercules] who crushed the Hydra and laid low with fated toil the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; monsters of story found that Envy is quelled only by death that comes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Horace, *Epistles*, 2.1.10-12 (trans.H. R. Fairclough) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is clearly referencing supernatural monsters.  It is interesting that Cicero uses both *belua* and *portenta* in the following.  Perhaps he is differentiating here between both natural and supernatural monsters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quae plurimorum saeculorum et eventorum memoriam litteris continet,*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *bovem quendam putari deum, quem Apim Aegyptii nominant, multaque alia*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***portenta** apud eosdem et cuiusque generis **beluas** numero consecratas*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *deorum*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [in Egypt] ... which preserves written records of the events of countless ages, a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bull, which the Egyptians call Apis, is deemed a god, and many other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; monsters and animals of every sort are held sacred as divine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *De Re Publica*, 3.9 (trans. Clinton W. Keyes) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, Apuleius here lists many types of scary creatures, but I think [***occursacula***][1], [***terriculamenta***][2], and ***formidamina*** (from [*formido*][3])  are all good generic terms for monsters in general:&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *At tibi, Aemiliane, pro isto mendacio duit deus iste superum et inferum commeator utrorumque deorum malam gratiam, semperque obvias&#xD;&#xA;&gt; species mortuorum, quidquid umbrarum est usquam, quidquid lemurum,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quidquid manium, quidquid larvarum, oculis tuis oggerat, omnia noctium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **occursacula**, omnia bustorum **formidamina**, omnia sepulchrorum **terriculamenta**, a quibus tamen aevo et merito haud longe abes.* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But as for you, Aemilianus, may that god, the intermediary between the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upper and lower worlds, repay you for that lie with the ill will of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the gods above and below; may he ever bring dead men’s forms to meet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; your eyes, every shade, phantom, spectre, ghost that ever was, every&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **apparition of the night**, every **horror** of the pyre, every **terror** of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; graveyard, to all of which your age and just deserts have brought you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; near.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apuleius, *Apologia*, 64 (trans. Christopher P. Jones) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=occursacula&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=terriculamenta&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=formido&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7362" RevisionGUID="80a592f8-7ecf-4f3c-8870-8d019940d52a" CreationDate="2018-10-23T06:05:33.010" UserId="867" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="For natural monsters, perhaps ***belua***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Belua** immanis, crocodillus ille qui in Nilo gignitur …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; That colossal monster, the crocodile born in the Nile …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apuleius, *Apologia*, 8 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Belua* is often used for sea-monster (*belua ponti*) and it's sometimes ambiguous whether this means something like a whale (a natural 'monster') or something more supernatural.  See for example: Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, 5.18; Lucan, *Civil War*, 8.764 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, Lucretius speaks of the fanciful shapes clouds sometimes appear to take:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *inde alios trahere atque inducere **belua** nimbos*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; after them some monster pulling and dragging other clouds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lucretius, *De Rerum Natura*, 4.140 (trans. W. H. D. Rouse)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, then, is a cross between natural and supernatural! Vergil uses it to describe a supernatural monster - *belua Lernae* - when Aeneas is in the underworld confronting all sorts of ghouls and horrors (*Aeneid*, 6.287).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is ***portentum*** (from [*portendo*][1]).  This obviously has semantic overlap with *monstrum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *diram qui contudit hydram*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *notaque fatali **portenta** labore subegit,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *comperit invidiam supremo fine domari*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He [Hercules] who crushed the Hydra and laid low with fated toil the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; monsters of story found that Envy is quelled only by death that comes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Horace, *Epistles*, 2.1.10-12 (trans.H. R. Fairclough) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is clearly referencing supernatural monsters.  It is interesting that Cicero uses both *belua* and *portenta* in the following.  Perhaps he is differentiating here between both natural and supernatural monsters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quae plurimorum saeculorum et eventorum memoriam litteris continet,*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *bovem quendam putari deum, quem Apim Aegyptii nominant, multaque alia*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***portenta** apud eosdem et cuiusque generis **beluas** numero consecratas*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *deorum*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [in Egypt] ... which preserves written records of the events of countless ages, a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bull, which the Egyptians call Apis, is deemed a god, and many other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; monsters and animals of every sort are held sacred as divine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *De Re Publica*, 3.9 (trans. Clinton W. Keyes) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, Apuleius here lists many types of scary creatures, but I think [***occursacula***][2], [***terriculamenta***][3], and ***formidamina*** (from [*formido*][4])  are all good generic terms for monsters in general:&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *At tibi, Aemiliane, pro isto mendacio duit deus iste superum et inferum commeator utrorumque deorum malam gratiam, semperque obvias&#xD;&#xA;&gt; species mortuorum, quidquid umbrarum est usquam, quidquid lemurum,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quidquid manium, quidquid larvarum, oculis tuis oggerat, omnia noctium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **occursacula**, omnia bustorum **formidamina**, omnia sepulchrorum **terriculamenta**, a quibus tamen aevo et merito haud longe abes.* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But as for you, Aemilianus, may that god, the intermediary between the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; upper and lower worlds, repay you for that lie with the ill will of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the gods above and below; may he ever bring dead men’s forms to meet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; your eyes, every shade, phantom, spectre, ghost that ever was, every&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **apparition of the night**, every **horror** of the pyre, every **terror** of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; graveyard, to all of which your age and just deserts have brought you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; near.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apuleius, *Apologia*, 64 (trans. Christopher P. Jones) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=portentum&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=occursacula&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=terriculamenta&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=formido&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="41bf9417-c866-4d8c-b2e9-64e760f013aa" CreationDate="2018-10-23T08:11:30.563" UserId="9" Comment="added works cited section, some additional sources" Text="We don't know for sure. There are a few arguments for reconstructing [ŋn] as the pronunciation of **gn**, but there are also some complications with this reconstruction. As usual, a good place to start for questions about Classical Latin pronunciation is W. Sidney Allen's *Vox Latina.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##There are several pieces of evidence pointing towards a pronunciation [ŋn] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (p. 23) describes several reasons for thinking that **-gn-** was pronounced as [ŋn] in Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a vowel change of short **e** to short **i** that is commonly seen before the clusters **ng**, **nc,** and **gn**; we can unify the description of these environments as &quot;before [ŋ]&quot; if we assume **gn** represented [ŋn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- comparison with other clusters in Latin and their history. Allen gives as an example the change of original *\*-pn-* to **-mn-** in Latin words such as *somnus.* Although *abn-,* with the letter B rather than M, occurred at the start of Latin words prefixed with *ab-,* Allen says that *a**mn**egauerit* actually exists as an inscriptional variant of *a**bn**egauerit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that etymological comparison with other languages and internal reconstruction shows that in some cases Classical Latin **gn** seems to have originated from assimilation of *\*k* to a following *\*n* (for example, [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dignus) says that the word *dignus* comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *deḱ-). There is evidence of assimilation like this of plosives to nasals before nasal consonants occurring in other languages; for example, in [Korean][1], plosives like **p t k** were nasalized to **m n ŋ** before nasal consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- morphological spelling evidence: words like *cognatus* and *ignobilis* contain the prefixes *con-* and *in-,* which typically end in a nasal consonant that assimilates in place to a following plosive or nasal (as in *co**m**pugno, i**m**possibilis, co**m**mitto, i**m**mortalis*). If word-medial **gn** in Latin was pronounced as [ŋn], then the use of **gn** in these words can be explained as the result of the usual assimilation of /n/ &gt; [ŋ] before /g/, followed by a simplification of the tautosyllabic onset cluster /gn/ to /n/, with a heterosyllabic cluster [ŋ.n] as the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If **gn** was just pronounced as [gn], it would mean that the nasal consonant from the end of the prefixes was dropped entirely in these words. That seems a bit implausible to me, but I guess it's not impossible. In fact, I did find a source from the 19th century that argues for this interpretation of prefixed words containing **gn**, and rejects the [ŋ.n] interpretation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Had the Romans retained the **n** of the prepositions before **gn**, they would have felt bound to pronounce **ing-gnotus, cong-gnatus,** but would practically have pronounced **ing-notus, cong-natus.** But they did not retain the **n** and write **ingnotus, congnatus**, but **ignotus, cognatus**. What is the explanation ? Does this represent a pronunciation **ing-notus, cong-natus**, or **inyotus, conyatus**? Mr Munro (and I agree with him) holds that it does not. I account for it by supposing the Romans to have reduced the mass of consonants, the whole of which they were unable to pronounce, by omitting as usual (§ 31) the former **n**, that of the preposition, rather than the later and radical **n**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (Roby 1887, p. lxxxi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I am aware of a somewhat similar phenomenon to what Roby suggests (loss of a coda nasal because of phonotactic constraints) in the allomorphy of the Cypriot Greek definite article. According to Ringen and Vago (2011):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; In Cypriot Greek the definite articles *ton* (masculine) and *tin* (feminine) lose their final nasal consonant if the next word begins either with a consonant cluster or a geminate., motivated by a *CCC constraint. The facts are as in (11) (Muller 2001).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA; (11) Cypriot Greek definite article allomorphy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a. Final nasal stays before V or C&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;br&gt;ton ápparon 'the horse'&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;br&gt;ton tixon 'the wall'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;b. Final nasal deletes before CC&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ti psačín 'the poison'&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to flókkon 'the mop'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;c. Final nasal deletes before G&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to pparán 'the money'&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to ttaván 'the stew'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Weaknesses of the [ŋn] hypothesis&#xD;&#xA;However, Allen also says (p. 24) that some Romance words, such as French *lein* or Southern Italian *liunu* from Latin *lignum,* show the same development of coda *g* to a semivowel that occurs in non-nasal environments. This has been seen as evidence that the pronunciation [gn] may have been used after Classical times, possibly due to influence from the spelling. ([Maiden (1995)][2] also suggests this is a piece of evidence against reconstructing [ŋn] in Proto-Romance.) I'm a bit confused by this argument, though, because I'm not sure why [ŋ] is thought to be less likely than [g] to vocalize to [j] or [w].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, Allen notes that Latin grammarians &quot;are strangely silent about any nasal pronunciation of *g*&quot; (p. 24).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##But other g + resonant consonant clusters (-gm- and -gl-) may have had the voiced non-nasal plosive [g], in some cases as a result of voicing assimilation of etymological /k/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a theoretical basis, the cluster **-gm-** might be expected to behave similarly to **-gn-** (since both M and N are nasals). But there actually seems to be less evidence to support the existence of a pronunciation [ŋm] for **-gm-** in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is generally assumed that *g* did not have a nasal pronunciation before *m*, as in *tegmen, segmentum,* since the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* does not occur in these words. However, since original *gm* seems to have given *mm* (e.g. *flamma* from *flag-ma*, cf. *flagro*), all examples of *gm* may have arisen later, e.g. by syncope, after the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* was operative (cf. the unsyncopated forms *tegimen, integumentum*). The possibility of a pronunciation of *g* as [ŋ] here is therefore not entirely excluded-though it cannot be safely recommended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Allen 1978, p. 25)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something else that I have read about that seems relevant is the assimilation of coda /k/ to voiced, but non-nasal /g/ before /l/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sen (2011a) argues that the sonorants /r, l, m, n/ were phonologically specified as [+voice] ... in syllable-initial position ... Hence, we see regressive voice assimilation triggered by a syllable-initial sonorant in *\*nek̲-l̲egoː* &gt; *neg̲l̲egoː* ‘I neglect’, *\*sek̲m̲entom* &gt; *seg̲m̲entum* ‘piece’ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Sen 2012, p. 38)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, the example of \***k-l** &gt; **-gl-** seems to suggest that **-gn-** *might* also have had non-nasal /g/ as a result of partial assimilation (in voicing but not in place or nasality) of the first consonant to the second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Linguistic sources do tend to classify -gn- as containing the *phoneme* /g/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, all of the discussion in the previous sections is about the phonetic realization of **gn**. As far as I know, from a phonemic perspective it's standard to analyze **gn** as /gn/, and it seems to behave this way in contexts like the formation of diminutives: for example, the nouns *signum, tignum* correspond to the diminutive forms *sigillum, tigillum* where the **g** would have been pronounced as [g]—a voiced velar plosive, not a nasal. (I don't know how old these diminutive formations are thought to be.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2012. Sen, R. &quot;Reconstructing Phonological Change: Duration and Syllable Structure in Latin Vowel Reduction&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2011. Ringen, Catherine O. and Vago, Robert M. &quot;Geminates: Heavy or Long?&quot; *Handbook of the Syllable,* edited by Charles Cairns, Eric Raimy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1995. Maiden, Martin. *A Linguistic History of Italian.*&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1978. Allen, W. Sidney. *Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin.* Second Edition.  (First edition published 1965)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1887. Roby, Henry John. *[A grammar of the Latin language from Plautus to Suetonius](https://archive.org/details/grammaroflatinla00robyuoft/page/n85).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bibliography of additional reading&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1944. Ward, Ralph L. &quot;Afterthoughts on g as ŋ in Latin and Greek.&quot; *Language,* Vol. 20, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1944), pp. 73-77.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NN-yIdLOkCoC&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qK_8eXcCnu&amp;sig=u4MEiVBbuxhdzAg_rkkNX3D6RbY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiuvsbyo5HLAhXJsIMKHfWIA8UQ6AEIUzAH#v=onepage&amp;q=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=DwTKAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT127&amp;lpg=PT127&amp;dq=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1yMQKpnTe6&amp;sig=0k2p71mE_-YTdkZtyU9t3lvDnyI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNsZS2xITZAhWCzlkKHbbjAvM4ChDoAQhCMAU#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7363" RevisionGUID="e812b423-7d3f-495f-bf9b-a64d1ad2731a" CreationDate="2018-10-23T08:13:35.093" UserId="867" Text="Taking the following as an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *seu nihil militi, sive omnia concederentur*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; concede either nothing to the army, or everything&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, *Annals*, 1.36&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we could perhaps adapt it to: *seu nihil sive omnia*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="65436282-d357-4f78-a4f2-c80de5a36792" CreationDate="2018-10-23T08:28:55.503" UserId="9" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="We don't know for sure. There are a few arguments for reconstructing [ŋn] (syllabified I believe as [ŋ.n]) as the pronunciation of **-&amp;#8288;gn-**, but there are also some complications with this reconstruction. As usual, a good place to start for questions about Classical Latin pronunciation is W. Sidney Allen's *Vox Latina.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##There are several pieces of evidence pointing towards a pronunciation [ŋn] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (p. 23) describes several reasons for thinking that **-gn-** was pronounced as [ŋn] in Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a vowel change of short **e** to short **i** that is commonly seen before the clusters **ng**, **nc,** and **gn**; we can unify the description of these environments as &quot;before [ŋ]&quot; if we assume **gn** represented [ŋn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- comparison with other clusters in Latin and their history. Allen gives as an example the change of original *\*-pn-* to **-mn-** in Latin words such as *somnus.* Although *abn-,* with the letter B rather than M, occurred at the start of Latin words prefixed with *ab-,* Allen says that *a**mn**egauerit* actually exists as an inscriptional variant of *a**bn**egauerit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that etymological comparison with other languages and internal reconstruction shows that in some cases Classical Latin **gn** seems to have originated from assimilation of *\*k* to a following *\*n* (for example, [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dignus) says that the word *dignus* comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *deḱ-). There is evidence of assimilation like this of plosives to nasals before nasal consonants occurring in other languages; for example, in [Korean][1], plosives like **p t k** were nasalized to **m n ŋ** before nasal consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- morphological spelling evidence: words like *cognatus* and *ignobilis* contain the prefixes *con-* and *in-,* which typically end in a nasal consonant that assimilates in place to a following plosive or nasal (as in *co**m**pugno, i**m**possibilis, co**m**mitto, i**m**mortalis*). If word-medial **gn** in Latin was pronounced as [ŋn], then the use of **gn** in these words can be explained as the result of the usual assimilation of /n/ &gt; [ŋ] before /g/, followed by a simplification of the tautosyllabic onset cluster /gn/ to /n/, with a heterosyllabic cluster [ŋ.n] as the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If **gn** was just pronounced as [gn], it would mean that the nasal consonant from the end of the prefixes was dropped entirely in these words. That seems a bit implausible to me, but I guess it's not impossible. In fact, I did find a source from the 19th century that argues for this interpretation of prefixed words containing **gn**, and rejects the [ŋ.n] interpretation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Had the Romans retained the **n** of the prepositions before **gn**, they would have felt bound to pronounce **ing-gnotus, cong-gnatus,** but would practically have pronounced **ing-notus, cong-natus.** But they did not retain the **n** and write **ingnotus, congnatus**, but **ignotus, cognatus**. What is the explanation ? Does this represent a pronunciation **ing-notus, cong-natus**, or **inyotus, conyatus**? Mr Munro (and I agree with him) holds that it does not. I account for it by supposing the Romans to have reduced the mass of consonants, the whole of which they were unable to pronounce, by omitting as usual (§ 31) the former **n**, that of the preposition, rather than the later and radical **n**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (Roby 1887, p. lxxxi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I am aware of a somewhat similar phenomenon to what Roby suggests (loss of a coda nasal because of phonotactic constraints) in the allomorphy of the Cypriot Greek definite article. According to Ringen and Vago (2011):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; In Cypriot Greek the definite articles *ton* (masculine) and *tin* (feminine) lose their final nasal consonant if the next word begins either with a consonant cluster or a geminate., motivated by a *CCC constraint. The facts are as in (11) (Muller 2001).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA; (11) Cypriot Greek definite article allomorphy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a. Final nasal stays before V or C&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;br&gt;ton ápparon 'the horse'&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;br&gt;ton tixon 'the wall'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;b. Final nasal deletes before CC&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ti psačín 'the poison'&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to flókkon 'the mop'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;c. Final nasal deletes before G&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to pparán 'the money'&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to ttaván 'the stew'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Weaknesses of the [ŋn] hypothesis&#xD;&#xA;However, Allen also says (p. 24) that some Romance words, such as French *lein* or Southern Italian *liunu* from Latin *lignum,* show the same development of coda *g* to a semivowel that occurs in non-nasal environments. This has been seen as evidence that the pronunciation [gn] may have been used after Classical times, possibly due to influence from the spelling. ([Maiden (1995)][2] also suggests this is a piece of evidence against reconstructing [ŋn] in Proto-Romance.) I'm a bit confused by this argument, though, because I'm not sure why [ŋ] is thought to be less likely than [g] to vocalize to [j] or [w].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, Allen notes that Latin grammarians &quot;are strangely silent about any nasal pronunciation of *g*&quot; (p. 24).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##But other g + resonant consonant clusters (-gm- and -gl-) may have had the voiced non-nasal plosive [g], in some cases as a result of voicing assimilation of etymological /k/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a theoretical basis, the cluster **-gm-** might be expected to behave similarly to **-gn-** (since both M and N are nasals). But there actually seems to be less evidence to support the existence of a pronunciation [ŋm] for **-gm-** in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is generally assumed that *g* did not have a nasal pronunciation before *m*, as in *tegmen, segmentum,* since the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* does not occur in these words. However, since original *gm* seems to have given *mm* (e.g. *flamma* from *flag-ma*, cf. *flagro*), all examples of *gm* may have arisen later, e.g. by syncope, after the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* was operative (cf. the unsyncopated forms *tegimen, integumentum*). The possibility of a pronunciation of *g* as [ŋ] here is therefore not entirely excluded-though it cannot be safely recommended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Allen 1978, p. 25)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something else that I have read about that seems relevant is the assimilation of coda /k/ to voiced, but non-nasal /g/ before /l/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sen (2011a) argues that the sonorants /r, l, m, n/ were phonologically specified as [+voice] ... in syllable-initial position ... Hence, we see regressive voice assimilation triggered by a syllable-initial sonorant in *\*nek̲-l̲egoː* &gt; *neg̲l̲egoː* ‘I neglect’, *\*sek̲m̲entom* &gt; *seg̲m̲entum* ‘piece’ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Sen 2012, p. 38)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, the example of \***k-l** &gt; **-gl-** seems to suggest that **-gn-** *might* also have had non-nasal /g/ as a result of partial assimilation (in voicing but not in place or nasality) of the first consonant to the second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Linguistic sources do tend to classify -gn- as containing the *phoneme* /g/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, all of the discussion in the previous sections is about the phonetic realization of **gn**. As far as I know, from a phonemic perspective it's standard to analyze **gn** as /gn/, and it seems to behave this way in contexts like the formation of diminutives: for example, the nouns *signum, tignum* correspond to the diminutive forms *sigillum, tigillum* where the **g** would have been pronounced as [g]—a voiced velar plosive, not a nasal. (I don't know how old these diminutive formations are thought to be.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2012. Sen, R. &quot;Reconstructing Phonological Change: Duration and Syllable Structure in Latin Vowel Reduction&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2011. Ringen, Catherine O. and Vago, Robert M. &quot;Geminates: Heavy or Long?&quot; *Handbook of the Syllable,* edited by Charles Cairns, Eric Raimy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1995. Maiden, Martin. *A Linguistic History of Italian.*&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1978. Allen, W. Sidney. *Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin.* Second Edition.  (First edition published 1965)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1887. Roby, Henry John. *[A grammar of the Latin language from Plautus to Suetonius](https://archive.org/details/grammaroflatinla00robyuoft/page/n85).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bibliography of additional reading&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1944. Ward, Ralph L. &quot;Afterthoughts on g as ŋ in Latin and Greek.&quot; *Language,* Vol. 20, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1944), pp. 73-77.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NN-yIdLOkCoC&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qK_8eXcCnu&amp;sig=u4MEiVBbuxhdzAg_rkkNX3D6RbY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiuvsbyo5HLAhXJsIMKHfWIA8UQ6AEIUzAH#v=onepage&amp;q=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=DwTKAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT127&amp;lpg=PT127&amp;dq=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1yMQKpnTe6&amp;sig=0k2p71mE_-YTdkZtyU9t3lvDnyI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNsZS2xITZAhWCzlkKHbbjAvM4ChDoAQhCMAU#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24670" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7350" RevisionGUID="7509f26d-fe99-41c5-9d4b-8b220f3ade1b" CreationDate="2018-10-23T10:04:47.467" UserId="2532" Comment="Edited question to be on par with comments." Text="Is there support for claiming -gn- was pronounced as /ŋ/ in classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24672" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="7350" RevisionGUID="cf840e46-eeaa-4a20-8f1b-7db9135fe4ba" CreationDate="2018-10-23T12:48:41.490" UserId="12" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:12,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nathaniel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7358" RevisionGUID="e44c538b-452a-4a8e-9052-e1b160b66a54" CreationDate="2018-10-23T13:13:02.010" UserId="469" Comment="corrected link from Vicipaedia article to the specific note with broken link to Nuntii Latini" Text="FWIW, the [Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis][1] lists *terrorist* as **tromocrates, -ae** (a Greek term!). I think this makes it safe enough to think there is no Classical term for that specific meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the other hand, it [seems][2] (sorry, the link to the actual source is broken) that Nuntii Latini has referred to terrorists as **territores**, and the use of the following has been at least suggested (in [2004][3] and [2005][4]) in the related Colloquia Latina:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Terrorism*: **terrorismus, -i**, **tromocratia, -ae**&#xD;&#xA;* *Terrorist*: **terrorista, -ae**, **territor, -ris**, besides the already mentioned *tromocrates*. Apparently, Jupiter was once called *Iupiter Territor*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't take the time to actually read and make full sense of the *Colloquia Latina* discussion, so maybe I'm missing something important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware that you asked for *terror* in the *terrorism* sense, but this is the closest I have found yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/rc_latinitas_20040601_lexicon_it.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tromocratia#cite_ref-1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://vintti.yle.fi/yle.fi/latini/viewtopicf4ce.html?p=988&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://vintti.yle.fi/yle.fi/latini/viewtopicdd3f.html?p=4159" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7339" RevisionGUID="a102f369-5931-44df-a4f6-bc440806cee3" CreationDate="2018-10-23T14:33:01.307" UserId="39" Comment="added 296 characters in body" Text="1. In the critical apparatus *scripsi* conventionally introduces a conjecture by the editor, whereas a successful conjecture (i.e. an emendation) is introduced with either *correxi* or *emendavi* (cf. [Tarrant 2016][1]: 164-166), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also cf. [West 1973][2], 'If the editor wants to emphasize his confidence in a conjecture which he has adopted, he can transpose &quot;uinxerunt *Heinsius* (or *scripsi*) : iunxerunt *codd.*&quot; into &quot;iunxerunt *codd.*: *corr. Heinsius* (or *correxi*, or *emendavi*)&quot;' (pp. 90-91).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A screenshot of the relevant passage from [Thesaurus Cornucopiae et Horti Adonidis][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems you've been using a very old, outdated edition [Bergk 1843][5]. I have checked two later editions de visu, Bergk 1867 and Bergk 1882 and in both editions the only form mentioned is στόργος:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bergk 1867:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bergk 1882][7] (I'm unaware of any other *later* editions, and this is the edition of Bergk you should use, that is, if you feel necessary to refer to Bergk at all):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two screenshots from Jonathan Toup ([Toupius 1778][9]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][10]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][11]][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Aldi Thes. Cornucop. stands for [*Thesaurus Cornucopiae et Horti Adonidis*][12] first published by Aldo Manuzio (Aldus Manutius) and Urbano Valeriani in 1496 in Venice. It contains works by various Greek grammarians, including Choeroboscus and Herodian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q: &quot;why all this quoting?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: Because not much of what Herodian wrote (in the second century) survived. His treatise Περὶ κλίσεως ὀνομάτων is preserved &quot;primarily in fragments found in Choeroboscus' commentary on Theodosius&quot; ([Dickey 2007][13]: 76), which Poliziano, Varinus (Guarino) Favorinus and Carolus Antenoreus decided to put together with other Greek texts on noun declension and accentuation, which in its turn was published by Aldo Manuzio and Urbano Valeriani ([van Gulik][14], English transl. 2018). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. It's synaphia, cf. &quot;Synaphia: prosodic continuity, particularly two verse lines following each other without a period end in between&quot; ([Brill's New Pauly][15]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zZSzCwAAQBAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=AXuk4pdxk1YC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://bildsuche.digitale-sammlungen.de/index.html?c=viewer&amp;l=de&amp;bandnummer=bsb00049625&amp;pimage=00049625&amp;v=&amp;nav=#&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eHj9T.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://archive.org/details/poetaelyricigrae00berguoft/page/n903&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wYlZy.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://archive.org/details/poetaelyricigrae03berguoft/page/n5&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wqDvt.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015063030434&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RIL22.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CA2gT.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://bildsuche.digitale-sammlungen.de/index.html?c=viewer&amp;bandnummer=bsb00049625&amp;pimage=00001&amp;v=2p&amp;nav=&amp;l=it&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://books.google.com/books?id=ldMW5vpxVGIC&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://books.google.com/books?id=-8htDwAAQBAJ&amp;dq&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/metre-e802890" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7364" RevisionGUID="1b78ec2a-4bbd-4296-9923-1d89a5f1e241" CreationDate="2018-10-23T18:32:50.757" UserId="3024" Text="I haven't taken Latin in a few years, so forgive me for any simple mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to translate &quot;Aurora's Vow&quot; from English to Latin for the title of a song I'm writing. My question is how it would be translated (since _Aurora_ is in the first declension and _Votum_ is in the second. It seems to me that the answer would be _Votum Aurorae_, but would there be a discrepancy between the genders (neuter and feminine)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There's also the issue that the above doesn't sound very poetic, so a better translation would also be welcome.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for any help you can give me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24677" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7364" RevisionGUID="1b78ec2a-4bbd-4296-9923-1d89a5f1e241" CreationDate="2018-10-23T18:32:50.757" UserId="3024" Text="Questions About Genitive Case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24678" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7364" RevisionGUID="1b78ec2a-4bbd-4296-9923-1d89a5f1e241" CreationDate="2018-10-23T18:32:50.757" UserId="3024" Text="|genitive|gender|agreement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7365" RevisionGUID="fc78ae95-9755-49d6-a7ff-1cde319402b1" CreationDate="2018-10-23T19:04:12.900" UserId="136" Text="I actually think you are spot on! For this usage of the genitive, there is little need to match the genders of the nouns. Both _Aurora_ and _votum_ are their own, separate entities, so they do not need to match. _Votum Aurorae_ is therefore a good translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I can't really make too much of a comment on how poetic it is. I, personally, think it is fine. But to change it up, you could go a couple of directions. Aurora was the goddess of the dawn, so one could try to find other options that mean &quot;dawn,&quot; &quot;sunrise,&quot; etc. You could also try to find adjectives that mean &quot;of the dawn,&quot; in which case you would need to match the gender to _votum_. One could also find other substitutes for _votum_. Below are some options I found. It is really up to you to determine what is most poetic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nouns = &quot;Dawn,&quot; &quot;Sunrise&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _ortus, ortus_, m.&#xD;&#xA; - _Eosos, Eosi_, f.&#xD;&#xA; - _oriens, orientis_, m.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adjectives = &quot;of the dawn,&quot; &quot;of the sunrise,&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _antelucanus, antelucana, antelucanum_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nouns = &quot;vow,&quot; &quot;promise&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _debitum, debiti_, n.&#xD;&#xA; - _convotus, convoti_, m.&#xD;&#xA; - _promissio, promissionis_, f.&#xD;&#xA; - _promissum, promissi_, n.&#xD;&#xA; - _pollicitatio, pollicitationis_, f.&#xD;&#xA; - _pollicitum, polliciti_, n.&#xD;&#xA; - _stipulatio, stipulationis_, f.&#xD;&#xA; - _credentia, credentiae_, f." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24680" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7364" RevisionGUID="c090b72d-97f8-46cb-abe6-60c2ed242a98" CreationDate="2018-10-24T00:25:15.980" UserId="30" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="How should &quot;Aurora's Vow&quot; be translated into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24681" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7364" RevisionGUID="c090b72d-97f8-46cb-abe6-60c2ed242a98" CreationDate="2018-10-24T00:25:15.980" UserId="30" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|genitive|gender|agreement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7366" RevisionGUID="a437ed1f-34ba-4325-b1cc-63c43dddf635" CreationDate="2018-10-24T04:07:13.020" UserId="406" Text="Suppose I wish to talk about transcendence: the state of surpassing normal limits, particularly limits of the human mind and body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The obvious answer is something like *transcendentia*, from *trans* + *scendō* with a couple endings added on, but given how the concept of transcendence has evolved over time I worry that this is a false friend." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24683" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7366" RevisionGUID="a437ed1f-34ba-4325-b1cc-63c43dddf635" CreationDate="2018-10-24T04:07:13.020" UserId="406" Text="What is &quot;transcendence&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24684" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7366" RevisionGUID="a437ed1f-34ba-4325-b1cc-63c43dddf635" CreationDate="2018-10-24T04:07:13.020" UserId="406" Text="|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7367" RevisionGUID="3c523f56-8fdd-4bbe-925f-d86e7c3b405b" CreationDate="2018-10-24T05:00:52.737" UserId="39" Text="A summary based on a number of sources (Kühner and Holzweissig 1912, Leumann 1977, Tronskii 1960, Weiss 2009/2011)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **humus, vannus** (always feminine);&#xD;&#xA; - **alvus, colus** (these two words alternated between feminine and masculine). Weiss notes that even though *alvus* is regularly feminine in Classical Latin, examples of masculine gender are found in Old Latin (in suom alvom, Plaut. *Pseud.* 823);&#xD;&#xA; - **tree and plant names:** alnus, cornus, corulus, fagus, laurus, malus, ornus, pirus, populus, quercus, taxus etc. (see Kühner and Holzweissig 1912: 265 for further details);&#xD;&#xA; - **some animal names** (could be sometimes used as feminine): agnus, porcus (porco femina, Cato R.R. 134), lupus etc.; cf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... quamquam Varro in eo libro quo initia Romanae urbis enarrat lupum feminam dicit Ennium Pictoremque Fabium secutus (Quint. 1.6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **some Greek loans**: periodus, dialectus;&#xD;&#xA; - **names of countries (mostly of Greek origin), cities, and islands** (with some exceptions): Aegyptus, Peloponnesus; Corinthus; Cyprus, Delus, Rhodus etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7368" RevisionGUID="39199d23-8a11-41aa-91a6-580ceb531908" CreationDate="2018-10-24T13:29:34.140" UserId="81" Text="Although *transcendo* might suit your purpose, I found that it was often used metaphorically not in the sense that you're speaking but more in the sense of exceeding moral boundaries, so your suspicion that it may be a false friend might be correct. Here's an example of it in the moral sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Cupit regnum, et quidem scelerate cupit, qui transcendere festinat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ordinem aetatis, naturae, moris Macedonum, iuris gentium.&quot; (Titus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Livius, *Ab Urbe Condita*, 40.11.7)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With respect to transcending the limits of mind and body, the idea of *ecstasis* might be closer to what you're talking about, and there are a number of different ways to express that idea such as: &quot;*a sensibus alienari*&quot;, &quot;*in mentis excessum rapi*&quot; or &quot;*a seipso discedere*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's some examples of usage of these ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Ergo non oportet propter hoc alienari a corpore vel rapi.&quot; (Bernard&#xD;&#xA;&gt; de Trilia, *Quaestiones disputatae de cognitione*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Sed cum spiritalis visio, penitus alienato a sensibus corporis animo,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; imaginibus corporalium detinetur, sive in somnis sive in ecstasi, si&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nihil significant quae videntur, ipsius animae sunt imaginationes:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sicut etiam vigilantes et sani, et nulla alienatione moti, multorum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; corporum quae non adsunt sensibus corporis, cogitatione imagines&#xD;&#xA;&gt; versant.&quot; (Augustine, *De Genesis ad Litteram*, XII.12.26)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7369" RevisionGUID="7b1dd329-0ca4-44f2-b307-85d71d6086ae" CreationDate="2018-10-24T13:55:55.230" UserId="3026" Text="I know that virtually all masculine and feminine nouns in Latin have an *e* or *i* in the nominative plural and that the genitive singular is often similar. This is quite widespread in Indo-European languages (at least the western ones I know about). Linguists that study this in different languages used a wide range of terminology (palatalization, umlaut, slenderization).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main exemption in Latin is words like *manus* in the forth declension. Is there any evidence that the vowel was ever palatalized/slenderized in the nominative plural or genitive singular? (I am aware that the vowel lengthened and that that might have something to do with it.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24688" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7369" RevisionGUID="7b1dd329-0ca4-44f2-b307-85d71d6086ae" CreationDate="2018-10-24T13:55:55.230" UserId="3026" Text="Plural in 4th declension" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24689" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7369" RevisionGUID="7b1dd329-0ca4-44f2-b307-85d71d6086ae" CreationDate="2018-10-24T13:55:55.230" UserId="3026" Text="|morphology|plural|phonology|old-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7370" RevisionGUID="27e3766e-ccb5-43e2-945c-10f3ce2f0168" CreationDate="2018-10-24T14:42:13.830" UserId="1459" Text="I find the word _nihilominus_ remarkable. Like many Spanish or English words, the meaning can sort of be deduced from the meaning of the words making the composite (e.g. _paraguas_ in Spanish, whiteboard in English). As far as my learning of Latin is going, I have not encountered many such composite words in Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, it came to my mind that _nihilominus_ is actually very similar, in terms of composition and meaning, to the English word &quot;nonetheless&quot; (since _nihilo_ = nothing and _minus_ = less[er]). I cannot find the etymology of the latter though. Are the two words historically related, or both are the mere outcome of an independent [linguistic composition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_(linguistics)) process that fortuitously yielded almost identical words, like if one would be the translation of the other? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24691" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7370" RevisionGUID="27e3766e-ccb5-43e2-945c-10f3ce2f0168" CreationDate="2018-10-24T14:42:13.830" UserId="1459" Text="Nihilominus and nonetheless, related?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24692" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7370" RevisionGUID="27e3766e-ccb5-43e2-945c-10f3ce2f0168" CreationDate="2018-10-24T14:42:13.830" UserId="1459" Text="|etymology|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7369" RevisionGUID="ef98e8fc-4c14-4b6c-83b2-582fd1a15bde" CreationDate="2018-10-24T14:43:29.470" UserId="3026" Comment="Rewording" Text="I know that virtually all masculine and feminine nouns in Latin have an *e* or *i* in the nominative plural and that the genitive singular is often similar. This is quite widespread in Indo-European languages (at least the western ones I know about). Linguists that study this in different languages used a wide range of terminology (palatalization, umlaut, slenderization).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main exemption in Latin is words like *manus* in the forth declension. Is there any evidence that the vowel was ever palatalized/slenderized in the nominative plural or genitive singular? (I am aware that the vowel lengthened but I don't know if this has anything to do with it.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7371" RevisionGUID="3bfa0696-6870-4534-b7f1-82682a8aa92d" CreationDate="2018-10-24T16:54:26.277" UserId="1694" Text="The development of the Latin 4th declension seem to uncertain in several areas.  The PIE ancestors of the G.sg. and the N.pl. seem to have been _*-ows_ and _*ewes_ respectively.  The Latin forms seem to contracted versions of these (although, as I said, the details are disputed).  At any rate, palatalization does not seem to be a factor in their development." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7371" RevisionGUID="6f9c1998-812e-4fc3-99bc-a1888348a1e0" CreationDate="2018-10-24T17:00:44.297" UserId="1694" Comment="added 435 characters in body" Text="The development of the Latin 4th declension seems to be uncertain in several areas.  The PIE ancestors of the G.sg. and the N.pl. seem to have been _*-ows_ and _*-ewes_ respectively.  The Latin forms seem to be contracted versions of these (although, as I said, the details are disputed).  At any rate, palatalization does not seem to be a factor in their development.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A note on terminology:  Although both umlaut and slenderization are both examples of palatalization, I don't regard them as alternative terms for the same phenomenon; I regard &quot;umlaut&quot; as referring specifically to fronting a back vowel under the influence of palatal consonant, typically [j], whereas &quot;slenderization&quot; refers to fronting a consonant, which is, as you note, typical of the Goidelic languages, e.g., Gaelic _cat_ /kat/ (sg) vs _cait_ /kat'/ (pl)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7371" RevisionGUID="92326c84-83a7-4407-985e-d01b729d4096" CreationDate="2018-10-24T17:08:05.357" UserId="1694" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="The development of the Latin 4th declension seems to be uncertain in several areas.  The PIE ancestors of the G.sg. and the N.pl. of -u stems seem to have been _*-ows_ and _*-ewes_ respectively.  The Latin forms seem to be contracted versions of these (although, as I said, the details are disputed).  At any rate, palatalization does not seem to be a factor in their development.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A note on terminology:  Although both umlaut and slenderization are both examples of palatalization, I don't regard them as alternative terms for the same phenomenon; I regard &quot;umlaut&quot; as referring specifically to fronting a back vowel under the influence of palatal consonant, typically [j], whereas &quot;slenderization&quot; refers to fronting a consonant, which is, as you note, typical of the Goidelic languages, e.g., Gaelic _cat_ /kat/ (sg) vs _cait_ /kat'/ (pl)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7372" RevisionGUID="6035eaaa-349e-4120-9aa5-06c011ed2b0a" CreationDate="2018-10-24T18:41:25.730" UserId="81" Text="I came across Kant asserting the following in *METAPHYSIK L₂*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ab esse ad posse valet consequentia; a posse ad esse non valet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consequentia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears to be a very old proposition that probably preceded Kant's time, so I'm looking for the originator or the earliest known reference to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24698" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7372" RevisionGUID="6035eaaa-349e-4120-9aa5-06c011ed2b0a" CreationDate="2018-10-24T18:41:25.730" UserId="81" Text="Reference for &quot;Ab esse ad posse valet consequentia&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24699" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7372" RevisionGUID="6035eaaa-349e-4120-9aa5-06c011ed2b0a" CreationDate="2018-10-24T18:41:25.730" UserId="81" Text="|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7372" RevisionGUID="e8dc4bcc-b457-4c23-8f95-6c6886f68e92" CreationDate="2018-10-24T19:19:47.003" UserId="81" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I came across Kant asserting the following in *METAPHYSIK L₂*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ab esse ad posse valet consequentia; a posse ad esse non valet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consequentia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears to be a very old precept that probably preceded Kant's time, so I'm looking for the originator or the earliest known reference to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7372" RevisionGUID="8d0a1190-e980-4810-bbfe-64c8d41ac37a" CreationDate="2018-10-24T19:25:21.230" UserId="81" Comment="edited body" Text="I came across Kant asserting the following in *Metaphysik L₂*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ab esse ad posse valet consequentia; a posse ad esse non valet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consequentia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears to be a very old precept that probably preceded Kant's time, so I'm looking for the originator or the earliest known reference to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7373" RevisionGUID="de91e633-4623-440b-9247-0a4770da0ca4" CreationDate="2018-10-24T20:33:25.137" UserId="81" Text="Every source I found (*Random House*, *Online Etymology*, *Wictionary*) said that etymologically it is just a contraction of &quot;none the less&quot;. Of course, that seems obvious and not very interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I found more interesting is the fact that such words may date back to Old English as far back as 900 or earlier. A similar word is *natheless*, whose origin is given in the  given in the *[Collins Dictionary][1]* as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Old English *nāthylǣs*, from *nā* never + *thӯ* for that + *lǣs* less&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also came across the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Are these words really that old?” Arlene said.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Older, even,” I said. “Especially earlier versions of them such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; netheless and natheless, which come from Old English, before the years&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were in triple digits. The phrases got used adverbially so much that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they got treated as single words. We don’t use natheless anymore&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because we don’t use na anymore, but none and the now-archaic use of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; never the and never a to mean ‘not’ have taken over.”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (*[Confessions of a Word Lush][2]* By James Harbeck)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since they date so far back in Old English, I think it's doubtful that their etymology could be tied to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/natheless&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=9-FiDwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA157&amp;lpg=PA157&amp;dq=%22Especially%20earlier%20versions%20of%20them%20such%20as%20netheless%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1GO2P53D0o&amp;sig=3pHHNcBdD6Qla2Xojn6q5QB2fo8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjHnJjk9J_eAhWFDZAKHdYJAmMQ6AEwAHoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Especially%20earlier%20versions%20of%20them%20such%20as%20netheless%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7373" RevisionGUID="50a4358f-0c43-42dc-b214-bfbc8451ecf9" CreationDate="2018-10-24T20:45:02.377" UserId="81" Comment="added 367 characters in body" Text="Every source I found (*Random House*, *Online Etymology*, *Wictionary*) said that etymologically it is just a contraction of &quot;none the less&quot;. Of course, that seems obvious and not very interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I found more interesting is the fact that such words may date back to Old English as far back as 900 or earlier. A similar word is *natheless*, whose origin is given in the  given in the *[Collins Dictionary][1]* as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Old English *nāthylǣs*, from *nā* never + *thӯ* for that + *lǣs* less&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [Merriam-Webster][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Natheless : nevertheless, notwithstanding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can spell it natheless or nathless. It's been in use (in various&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forms) for almost a thousand years, and comes from the Old English&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phrase nā thē lǣs, meaning &quot;not the less.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also came across the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Are these words really that old?” Arlene said.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Older, even,” I said. “Especially earlier versions of them such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; netheless and natheless, which come from Old English, before the years&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were in triple digits. The phrases got used adverbially so much that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they got treated as single words. We don’t use natheless anymore&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because we don’t use na anymore, but none and the now-archaic use of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; never the and never a to mean ‘not’ have taken over.”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (*[Confessions of a Word Lush][3]* By James Harbeck)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since they date so far back in Old English, I think it's doubtful that their etymology could be tied to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/natheless&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/prepositions-youve-never-heard-of/natheless&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=9-FiDwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA157&amp;lpg=PA157&amp;dq=%22Especially%20earlier%20versions%20of%20them%20such%20as%20netheless%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1GO2P53D0o&amp;sig=3pHHNcBdD6Qla2Xojn6q5QB2fo8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjHnJjk9J_eAhWFDZAKHdYJAmMQ6AEwAHoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Especially%20earlier%20versions%20of%20them%20such%20as%20netheless%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7373" RevisionGUID="8fafe21d-0f05-402a-8e06-af0d05308af7" CreationDate="2018-10-25T02:55:51.320" UserId="81" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="Every source I found (*Random House*, *Online Etymology*, *Wictionary*) said that etymologically it is just a contraction of &quot;none the less&quot;. However, that doesn't seem very interesting, because it doesn't address your question in a very satisfying way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I found more interesting is the fact that such words may date back to Old English as far back as 900 or earlier. A similar word is *natheless*, whose origin is given in the  given in the *[Collins Dictionary][1]* as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Old English *nāthylǣs*, from *nā* never + *thӯ* for that + *lǣs* less&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [Merriam-Webster][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Natheless : nevertheless, notwithstanding&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can spell it natheless or nathless. It's been in use (in various&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forms) for almost a thousand years, and comes from the Old English&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phrase nā thē lǣs, meaning &quot;not the less.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also came across the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Are these words really that old?” Arlene said.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Older, even,” I said. “Especially earlier versions of them such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; netheless and natheless, which come from Old English, before the years&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were in triple digits. The phrases got used adverbially so much that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they got treated as single words. We don’t use natheless anymore&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because we don’t use na anymore, but none and the now-archaic use of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; never the and never a to mean ‘not’ have taken over.”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (*[Confessions of a Word Lush][3]* By James Harbeck)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since they date so far back in Old English, I think it's doubtful that their etymology could be tied to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/natheless&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/prepositions-youve-never-heard-of/natheless&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=9-FiDwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA157&amp;lpg=PA157&amp;dq=%22Especially%20earlier%20versions%20of%20them%20such%20as%20netheless%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1GO2P53D0o&amp;sig=3pHHNcBdD6Qla2Xojn6q5QB2fo8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjHnJjk9J_eAhWFDZAKHdYJAmMQ6AEwAHoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Especially%20earlier%20versions%20of%20them%20such%20as%20netheless%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7374" RevisionGUID="f1f28134-cb8b-4734-b835-972bc3e9f1f1" CreationDate="2018-10-25T05:23:46.343" UserId="406" Text="According to [Wikipedia][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On hearing that Lucius Caecilius Metellus and other young nobles were planning to go overseas to serve some king, Scipio [Africanus] stormed into the meeting, and at sword-point, forced all present to swear that they would not abandon Rome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the citation for this is Livy's History of Rome 25.53, and no such section seems to exist—nor, in fact, any mention of Metellus in [the entirety of book 25][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this did in fact happen (or, at least, it was recounted by Roman historians), where would I find it? I'm looking ideally for Classical sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipio_Africanus#Early_military_service&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/livy/liv.25.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24706" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7374" RevisionGUID="f1f28134-cb8b-4734-b835-972bc3e9f1f1" CreationDate="2018-10-25T05:23:46.343" UserId="406" Text="Did Scipio Africanus prevent a betrayal of Rome?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24707" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7374" RevisionGUID="f1f28134-cb8b-4734-b835-972bc3e9f1f1" CreationDate="2018-10-25T05:23:46.343" UserId="406" Text="|history|resource-request|livius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7375" RevisionGUID="9330ffe9-7231-41ee-8b8a-4e451593935f" CreationDate="2018-10-25T08:23:09.910" UserId="79" Text="In English and many other languages, asking &quot;can you close the window?&quot; is not an inquiry on the ability to close the window but rather a request to do so.&#xD;&#xA;Can the (classical) Latin *posse* be used the same way?&#xD;&#xA;I looked at [the Lewis &amp; Short entry on *posse*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=possum&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) and found no trace of such use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that, even if possible, this is not the most idiomatic request.&#xD;&#xA;I would rather say *fac fenestram claudas* or *claude fenestram, quaeso*.&#xD;&#xA;The question is whether a Roman would understand *potesne fenestram claudere?* as a request and whether there are any such uses is extant literature.&#xD;&#xA;Expressing requests as ability questions is a cultural matter, and the Roman culture may have been different from ours in this respect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24709" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7375" RevisionGUID="9330ffe9-7231-41ee-8b8a-4e451593935f" CreationDate="2018-10-25T08:23:09.910" UserId="79" Text="Requests with 'posse'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24710" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7375" RevisionGUID="9330ffe9-7231-41ee-8b8a-4e451593935f" CreationDate="2018-10-25T08:23:09.910" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|roman-culture|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7372" RevisionGUID="b4a9f6bb-1d94-4644-94eb-5e66537e1122" CreationDate="2018-10-25T08:27:37.223" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="I came across Kant asserting the following in *Metaphysik L₂*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ab esse ad posse valet consequentia; a posse ad esse non valet&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consequentia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears to be a very old precept that probably preceded Kant's time, so I'm looking for the originator or the earliest known reference to it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7376" RevisionGUID="0568e369-4610-4bb5-816d-17adeb860fdc" CreationDate="2018-10-25T08:46:18.277" UserId="1459" Text="This seems to be a &quot;basic principle of scholastic thought&quot;, referring to &quot;possibility as potency&quot;. Regarding being related to scholastic thought, that is implied in texts like [this one](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sr3wCAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA189&amp;lpg=PA189&amp;dq=scholastic+Ab+esse+ad+posse+valet+consequentia&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ehlxnKq2tY&amp;sig=fipDDeukvIuE2wAUUWMmWvtPEHQ&amp;hl=es-419&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiwgZ_jlqHeAhWlJsAKHeuOCW4Q6AEwAXoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=scholastic%20Ab%20esse%20ad%20posse%20valet%20consequentia&amp;f=false) and [this one](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SFVpA9ghEfsC&amp;pg=PA240&amp;lpg=PA240&amp;dq=scholastic+Ab+esse+ad+posse+valet+consequentia&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=TrV23fwiRL&amp;sig=zelr9VUoD2JilXo2b_BaaZRXCpM&amp;hl=es-419&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiwgZ_jlqHeAhWlJsAKHeuOCW4Q6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=scholastic%20Ab%20esse%20ad%20posse%20valet%20consequentia&amp;f=false). [This 1787 book](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ucm.5322479160;view=1up;seq=45) on theology and philosophy, published just two years after Kant's _[Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwork_of_the_Metaphysic_of_Morals)_, states (emphasis in original):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;V. _Quod existit, id est possibile_ : principium illud Scholasticorum verbis enuntiabimus: _ab esse ad posse valet consequentia_, seu quod perinde est: _ab existentia ad possibilitatem valet consequentia_: ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the principle itself, according to [this book](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qQUQAQAAIAAJ&amp;q=scholastic+principle+%22Ab+esse+ad+posse+valet+consequentia%22&amp;dq=scholastic+principle+%22Ab+esse+ad+posse+valet+consequentia%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjOo9ijmKHeAhVHXsAKHT7pA3oQ6AEIODAD), seems to refer to [modal logic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic), which seems to emanate from Aristotle, and was further developed by William of Ockham and John Duns Scotus, two prominent scholastic authors. More about this &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7376" RevisionGUID="ed4a6eb1-7132-445a-9a2c-8d3a00b1e888" CreationDate="2018-10-25T08:51:32.363" UserId="1459" Comment="added 254 characters in body" Text="This seems to be a &quot;basic principle of scholastic thought&quot;, referred as &quot;possibility as potency&quot;. Regarding being related to scholastic thought, that is implied in texts like [this one](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sr3wCAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA189&amp;lpg=PA189&amp;dq=scholastic+Ab+esse+ad+posse+valet+consequentia&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ehlxnKq2tY&amp;sig=fipDDeukvIuE2wAUUWMmWvtPEHQ&amp;hl=es-419&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiwgZ_jlqHeAhWlJsAKHeuOCW4Q6AEwAXoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=scholastic%20Ab%20esse%20ad%20posse%20valet%20consequentia&amp;f=false) and [this one](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SFVpA9ghEfsC&amp;pg=PA240&amp;lpg=PA240&amp;dq=scholastic+Ab+esse+ad+posse+valet+consequentia&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=TrV23fwiRL&amp;sig=zelr9VUoD2JilXo2b_BaaZRXCpM&amp;hl=es-419&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiwgZ_jlqHeAhWlJsAKHeuOCW4Q6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=scholastic%20Ab%20esse%20ad%20posse%20valet%20consequentia&amp;f=false). [This 1787 book](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ucm.5322479160;view=1up;seq=45) on theology and philosophy, published just two years after Kant's _[Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwork_of_the_Metaphysic_of_Morals)_, states (emphasis in original):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;V. _Quod existit, id est possibile_ : principium illud Scholasticorum verbis enuntiabimus: _ab esse ad posse valet consequentia_, seu quod perinde est: _ab existentia ad possibilitatem valet consequentia_: ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the principle itself, according to [this book](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qQUQAQAAIAAJ&amp;q=scholastic+principle+%22Ab+esse+ad+posse+valet+consequentia%22&amp;dq=scholastic+principle+%22Ab+esse+ad+posse+valet+consequentia%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjOo9ijmKHeAhVHXsAKHT7pA3oQ6AEIODAD), seems to refer to [modal logic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic), which seems to emanate from Aristotle, and was further developed by William of Ockham and John Duns Scotus, two prominent scholastic authors. More about this principle in Aristotle's and Duns Scotus thought can be found [here](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modality-medieval/), [here](https://individual.utoronto.ca/pking/articles/Scotus_on_Modality.pdf) and [here](https://muse.jhu.edu/article/451760/pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="cd6a1e3a-de5e-4d23-890d-3d882e8ec619" CreationDate="2018-10-25T09:04:14.747" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Found one reference!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## [Petronius, *Satyricon*, 73](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0001%3Atext%3DSatyricon%3Asection%3D73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deinde ut lassatus consedit, **invitatus balnei sono diduxit usque ad cameramos ebrium et coepit Menecratis cantica lacerare**, sicut illi dicebant, qui linguam eius intellegebant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *He then became tired and sat down, and **the echoes of the bathroom encouraged him to open his tipsy jaws to the ceiling and begin to murder Menecrates's songs**, as I was told by those who could understand what he said.* (Heseltine's translation)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7377" RevisionGUID="b7bd4c56-412d-4bca-8b09-a964655062c2" CreationDate="2018-10-25T10:30:43.360" UserId="81" Text="That should have been [book 22][1] instead of 25:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [53] Ceterum cum ibi tribuni militum quattuor essent, Fabius Maximus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; de legione prima, cuius pater priore anno dictator fuerat, et de&#xD;&#xA;&gt; legione secunda L. Publicius Bibulus et P. Cornelius Scipio et de&#xD;&#xA;&gt; legione tertia Ap. Claudius Pulcher, qui proxime aedilis fuerat,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; omnium consensu ad P. Scipionem admodum adulescentem et ad Ap.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claudium summa imperii delata est. Quibus consultantibus inter paucos&#xD;&#xA;&gt; de summa rerum nuntiat P. Furius Philus, consularis uiri filius,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nequiquam eos perditam spem fouere; desperatam comploratamque rem esse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; publicam; nobiles iuuenes quosdam, quorum principem L. Caecilium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Metellum, mare ac naues spectare, ut deserta Italia ad regum aliquem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transfugiant. Quod malum, praeterquam atrox, super tot clades etiam&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nouum, cum stupore ac miraculo torpidos defixisset qui aderant et&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consilium aduocandum de eo censerent, negat consilii rem esse [Scipio]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuuenis, fatalis dux huiusce belli: audendum atque agendum, non&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consultandum ait in tanto malo esse. Irent secum extemplo armati qui&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rem publicam saluam uellent; nulla uerius quam ubi ea cogitentur&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hostium castra esse. Pergit ire sequentibus paucis in hospitium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Metelli et, cum concilium ibi iuuenum de quibus allatum erat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inuenisset, stricto super capita consultantium gladio, &quot;ex mei animi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sententia&quot; inquit, &quot;ut ego rem publicam populi Romani non deseram&#xD;&#xA;&gt; neque alium ciuem Romanum deserere patiar; si sciens fallo, tum me,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuppiter optime maxime, domum, familiam remque meam pessimo leto&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adficias. In haec uerba, L. Caecili, iures postulo, ceterique qui&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adestis. Qui non iurauerit in se hunc gladium strictum esse sciat&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Haud secus pauidi quam si uictorem Hannibalem cernerent, iurant omnes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; custodiendosque semet ipsos Scipioni tradunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a [translation][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 53. Now though there were four tribunes of the soldiers on the ground —Quintus Fabius Maximus of the first legion, whose father had been&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dictator the year before, Lucius [2??] Publicius Bibulus and Publius&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cornelius Scipio of the second legion, and Appius Claudius Pulcher,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; who had very recently been aedile, of the third legion —the [3]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; supreme command was by unanimous consent made over to Publius Scipio,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the merest youth,1 and to Appius Claudius. [4] These two were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; considering the general situation, in company with a few others, when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publius Furius Philus, the son of an ex-consul, came in and told them&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that they were idly entertaining a lost hope; the state was already&#xD;&#xA;&gt; given over and mourned as dead; [5] some of the young [p. 375]nobles,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of whom Marcus Caecilius Metellus was the2 chief, were looking to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sea and ships, proposing to abandon Italy and flee for refuge to some&#xD;&#xA;&gt; king. [6] These evil tidings, dreadful in themselves and coming as a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; new distress on the top of so many disasters, stunned those who heard&#xD;&#xA;&gt; them with a dull amazement. But when they would have called a council&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to talk the matter over, young Scipio, the predestined leader in this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; war, declared that it was no matter for taking counsel: [7] they must&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be bold and act, not deliberate, in the face of this great evil; let&#xD;&#xA;&gt; them take arms and go with him at once, as many as wished to save the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; state; [8] no camp was so truly the camp of the enemy as one where&#xD;&#xA;&gt; such thoughts were rife. [9] He proceeded, with only a few followers,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the quarters of Metellus, where he found a gathering of the young&#xD;&#xA;&gt; men of whom he had been informed. [10] Raising his sword over their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; heads, as they sat in consultation, “I solemnly swear,” he said, “that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; even as I myself shall not desert the republic of the Roman People, so&#xD;&#xA;&gt; likewise shall I suffer no other Roman citizen to do so; [11] if I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wittingly speak false, may Jupiter Optimus Maximus utterly destroy me,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; my house, my family, and my estate. [12] Marcus Caecilius, I call on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you and the others who are present to swear after these terms, and if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; any refuse to swear, let him know that against him this sword is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drawn.” [13] Quaking as though they beheld the victorious Hannibal,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; all took the oath, and delivered themselves into the custody of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scipio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/livy/liv.22.shtml#53&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0152%3Abook%3D22%3Achapter%3D53" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7378" RevisionGUID="84a1e2a9-98dc-48cd-8ab9-f7052c13f683" CreationDate="2018-10-25T11:39:20.287" UserId="3027" Text="Does *meditari* have a meaning like &quot;measure&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using Google (I don't know which dictionary it's quoting), I see ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I don't think I'm seeing that in a Latin dictionary, e.g. [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmeditor) or even [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/meditor#Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6DoWQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24718" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7378" RevisionGUID="84a1e2a9-98dc-48cd-8ab9-f7052c13f683" CreationDate="2018-10-25T11:39:20.287" UserId="3027" Text="Does *meditari* mean &quot;measure&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24719" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7378" RevisionGUID="84a1e2a9-98dc-48cd-8ab9-f7052c13f683" CreationDate="2018-10-25T11:39:20.287" UserId="3027" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="346" RevisionGUID="b8401be8-128b-4701-9ad2-84d769f27464" CreationDate="2018-10-25T13:23:02.913" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="The _OLD_ writes that _dies_ is &quot;fem. frequently or usually in senses 1b, 5, 7, 10, occasionally elsewhere,&quot; with the following definitions listed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1b: [the period from sunrise to sunset] as a diety&#xD;&#xA;* 5: A specific day, the date of a letter&#xD;&#xA;* 7: A day appointed for business&#xD;&#xA;* 10: The lapse or passing of time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might want to scope out the _OLD_ for more about those definitions &amp;mdash; lots of good, broad examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, I have always used the first part of Ovid _Met_ 10.270 (from the Pygmalion episode) to help me remember that specific days/festival days are generally feminine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Festa dies Veneris..._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24723" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2277" RevisionGUID="7a90563d-c817-41d2-b0e4-de3a3a5ec673" CreationDate="2018-10-25T14:39:56.110" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|translation-check|latin-to-english-translation|gerund|nuntii-latini|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24724" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3000" RevisionGUID="7ee73a75-e48e-41f7-8fc4-5373236102ab" CreationDate="2018-10-25T14:42:10.783" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|translation-check|latin-to-english-translation|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7380" RevisionGUID="dd211a0a-75df-4e11-8929-7689d3ded780" CreationDate="2018-10-25T16:06:58.090" UserId="3029" Text="**in short:** I need help to analyse the versification of some verses written by [Catullus][1].[13][2]. Theses verses are pure [hendecasyllabic Phalaecian][3], namely - - | - u u | - u | - u | - u . What bothers me is the position of the [caesuras][4] in verses 4 to 6:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    04  cēnam nōn sine candidā pụellā&#xD;&#xA;    05  et ụīn{ō} et sal{e} et omnibus cachinnīs.&#xD;&#xA;    06  Haec s{ī} inqụam attuleris uenuste noster&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**full story:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The text][2]: (ụ : [nonsyllabic][5] [u]; {um} : {[elided vowels][6]}, | : caesura)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    01  Cēnābis bene | mī Fabull{e} apud mē&#xD;&#xA;    02  paucīs sī tibi dī faụent diēbus…&#xD;&#xA;    03  sī tēc{um} attuleris | bon{am} atque magnam&#xD;&#xA;    04  cēnam nōn sine candidā pụellā&#xD;&#xA;    05  et ụīn{ō} et sal{e} et omnibus cachinnīs.&#xD;&#xA;    06  Haec s{ī} inqụam attuleris uenuste noster&#xD;&#xA;    07  cēnābis bene | nam tuī Catullī&#xD;&#xA;    08  plēnus sacculus est | arāneārum.&#xD;&#xA;    09  Sed contr{ā} | accipiēs | merōs amōrēs&#xD;&#xA;    10  seu qụid sụāụius ēlegantiusụe est.&#xD;&#xA;    11  N{am} ungụentum dabo | quod meae pụellae&#xD;&#xA;    12  dōnārunt Venerēs Cupīdinēsque&#xD;&#xA;    13  Quod tū c{um} olfaciēs | deōs rogābis&#xD;&#xA;    14  tōt{um} ut tē faciant | Fabulle nāsum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to some sources (e.g. [here, in French, page 161][7]), the caesura has to be placed after the fifth or the sixth syllable. It's clearly the case in verse #8 :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    08  plēnus sacculus est | arāneārum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... since the caesura reinforces the [hyperbaton][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about verses 4-6 ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    04  cēnam nōn sine | candidā pụellā (hepthemimer ?)&#xD;&#xA;    05  et ụīn{ō} et sal{e} et | omnibus cachinnīs. (hepthemimer ?)&#xD;&#xA;    06  Haec s{ī} inqụam attuleris | uenuste noster (after the sixth syllable ?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... but such a versification seems to me so unnatural. **What's your opinion ?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Catullus_13&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_%28Latin%29#Hendecasyllables&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_%28Latin%29#Caesura&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semivowel&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_%28Latin%29#Elision&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://docnum.univ-lorraine.fr/pulsar/RCR_543952103_55305.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbaton" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24726" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7380" RevisionGUID="dd211a0a-75df-4e11-8929-7689d3ded780" CreationDate="2018-10-25T16:06:58.090" UserId="3029" Text="caesuras in Phalaecian verses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24727" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7380" RevisionGUID="dd211a0a-75df-4e11-8929-7689d3ded780" CreationDate="2018-10-25T16:06:58.090" UserId="3029" Text="|poetry|metre|catullus|caesura|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7380" RevisionGUID="cd60043b-4716-45a6-88a2-0e542926a11f" CreationDate="2018-10-25T17:11:21.793" UserId="3029" Comment="add a link describing what is a caesura" Text="**in short:** I need help to analyse the versification of some verses written by [Catullus][1].[13][2]. Theses verses are pure [hendecasyllabic Phalaecian][3], namely - - | - u u | - u | - u | - u . What bothers me is the position of the [caesuras][4] in verses 4 to 6:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    04  cēnam nōn sine candidā pụellā&#xD;&#xA;    05  et ụīn{ō} et sal{e} et omnibus cachinnīs.&#xD;&#xA;    06  Haec s{ī} inqụam attuleris uenuste noster&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**full story:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The text][2]: (ụ : [nonsyllabic][5] [u]; {um} : {[elided vowels][6]}, | : [caesura][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    01  Cēnābis bene | mī Fabull{e} apud mē&#xD;&#xA;    02  paucīs sī tibi dī faụent diēbus…&#xD;&#xA;    03  sī tēc{um} attuleris | bon{am} atque magnam&#xD;&#xA;    04  cēnam nōn sine candidā pụellā&#xD;&#xA;    05  et ụīn{ō} et sal{e} et omnibus cachinnīs.&#xD;&#xA;    06  Haec s{ī} inqụam attuleris uenuste noster&#xD;&#xA;    07  cēnābis bene | nam tuī Catullī&#xD;&#xA;    08  plēnus sacculus est | arāneārum.&#xD;&#xA;    09  Sed contr{ā} | accipiēs | merōs amōrēs&#xD;&#xA;    10  seu qụid sụāụius ēlegantiusụe est.&#xD;&#xA;    11  N{am} ungụentum dabo | quod meae pụellae&#xD;&#xA;    12  dōnārunt Venerēs Cupīdinēsque&#xD;&#xA;    13  Quod tū c{um} olfaciēs | deōs rogābis&#xD;&#xA;    14  tōt{um} ut tē faciant | Fabulle nāsum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to some sources (e.g. [here, in French, page 161][7]), the caesura has to be placed after the fifth or the sixth syllable. It's clearly the case in verse #8 :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    08  plēnus sacculus est | arāneārum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... since the caesura reinforces the [hyperbaton][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about verses 4-6 ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    04  cēnam nōn sine | candidā pụellā (hepthemimer ?)&#xD;&#xA;    05  et ụīn{ō} et sal{e} et | omnibus cachinnīs. (hepthemimer ?)&#xD;&#xA;    06  Haec s{ī} inqụam attuleris | uenuste noster (after the sixth syllable ?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... but such a versification seems to me so unnatural. **What's your opinion ?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Catullus_13&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_%28Latin%29#Hendecasyllables&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_%28Latin%29#Caesura&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semivowel&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_%28Latin%29#Elision&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://docnum.univ-lorraine.fr/pulsar/RCR_543952103_55305.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbaton" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7380" RevisionGUID="b3d40a96-eda9-43ce-aa6e-f30bcf2200a2" CreationDate="2018-10-25T17:19:17.917" UserId="3029" Comment="hephtemimer &gt; penthemimer " Text="**in short:** I need help to analyse the versification of some verses written by [Catullus][1].[13][2]. Theses verses are pure [hendecasyllabic Phalaecian][3], namely - - | - u u | - u | - u | - u . What bothers me is the position of the [caesuras][4] in verses 4 to 6:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    04  cēnam nōn sine candidā pụellā&#xD;&#xA;    05  et ụīn{ō} et sal{e} et omnibus cachinnīs.&#xD;&#xA;    06  Haec s{ī} inqụam attuleris uenuste noster&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**full story:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The text][2]: (ụ : [nonsyllabic][5] [u]; {um} : {[elided vowels][6]}, | : [caesura][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    01  Cēnābis bene | mī Fabull{e} apud mē&#xD;&#xA;    02  paucīs sī tibi dī faụent diēbus…&#xD;&#xA;    03  sī tēc{um} attuleris | bon{am} atque magnam&#xD;&#xA;    04  cēnam nōn sine candidā pụellā&#xD;&#xA;    05  et ụīn{ō} et sal{e} et omnibus cachinnīs.&#xD;&#xA;    06  Haec s{ī} inqụam attuleris uenuste noster&#xD;&#xA;    07  cēnābis bene | nam tuī Catullī&#xD;&#xA;    08  plēnus sacculus est | arāneārum.&#xD;&#xA;    09  Sed contr{ā} | accipiēs | merōs amōrēs&#xD;&#xA;    10  seu qụid sụāụius ēlegantiusụ{e} est.&#xD;&#xA;    11  N{am} ungụentum dabo | quod meae pụellae&#xD;&#xA;    12  dōnārunt Venerēs Cupīdinēsque&#xD;&#xA;    13  Quod tū c{um} olfaciēs | deōs rogābis&#xD;&#xA;    14  tōt{um} ut tē faciant | Fabulle nāsum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to some sources (e.g. [here, in French, page 161][7]), the caesura has to be placed after the fifth or the sixth syllable. It's clearly the case in verse #8 :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    08  plēnus sacculus est | arāneārum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... since the caesura reinforces the [hyperbaton][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about verses 4-6 ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    04  cēnam nōn sine | candidā pụellā (penthemimer ?)&#xD;&#xA;    05  et ụīn{ō} et sal{e} et | omnibus cachinnīs. (penthemimer ?)&#xD;&#xA;    06  Haec s{ī} inqụam attuleris | uenuste noster (after the sixth syllable ?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... but such a versification seems to me so unnatural. **What's your opinion ?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Catullus_13&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_%28Latin%29#Hendecasyllables&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_%28Latin%29#Caesura&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semivowel&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_%28Latin%29#Elision&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://docnum.univ-lorraine.fr/pulsar/RCR_543952103_55305.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbaton" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7380" RevisionGUID="16421ac3-9129-440b-98b4-f6b0d1f5ce5f" CreationDate="2018-10-25T17:26:42.140" UserId="3029" Comment="fixed verse 6 : Haec s{ī} inqụ{am} attuleris uenuste noster" Text="**in short:** I need help to analyse the versification of some verses written by [Catullus][1].[13][2]. Theses verses are pure [hendecasyllabic Phalaecian][3], namely - - | - u u | - u | - u | - u . What bothers me is the position of the [caesuras][4] in verses 4 to 6:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    04  cēnam nōn sine candidā pụellā&#xD;&#xA;    05  et ụīn{ō} et sal{e} et omnibus cachinnīs.&#xD;&#xA;    06  Haec s{ī} inqụ{am} attuleris uenuste noster&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**full story:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The text][2]: (ụ : [nonsyllabic][5] [u]; {um} : {[elided vowels][6]}, | : [caesura][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    01  Cēnābis bene | mī Fabull{e} apud mē&#xD;&#xA;    02  paucīs sī tibi dī faụent diēbus…&#xD;&#xA;    03  sī tēc{um} attuleris | bon{am} atque magnam&#xD;&#xA;    04  cēnam nōn sine candidā pụellā&#xD;&#xA;    05  et ụīn{ō} et sal{e} et omnibus cachinnīs.&#xD;&#xA;    06  Haec s{ī} inqụ{am} attuleris uenuste noster&#xD;&#xA;    07  cēnābis bene | nam tuī Catullī&#xD;&#xA;    08  plēnus sacculus est | arāneārum.&#xD;&#xA;    09  Sed contr{ā} | accipiēs | merōs amōrēs&#xD;&#xA;    10  seu qụid sụāụius ēlegantiusụ{e} est.&#xD;&#xA;    11  N{am} ungụentum dabo | quod meae pụellae&#xD;&#xA;    12  dōnārunt Venerēs Cupīdinēsque&#xD;&#xA;    13  Quod tū c{um} olfaciēs | deōs rogābis&#xD;&#xA;    14  tōt{um} ut tē faciant | Fabulle nāsum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to some sources (e.g. [here, in French, page 161][7]), the caesura has to be placed after the fifth or the sixth syllable. It's clearly the case in verse #8 :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    08  plēnus sacculus est | arāneārum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... since the caesura reinforces the [hyperbaton][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about verses 4-6 ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    04  cēnam nōn sine | candidā pụellā (penthemimer ?)&#xD;&#xA;    05  et ụīn{ō} et sal{e} et | omnibus cachinnīs. (penthemimer ?)&#xD;&#xA;    06  Haec s{ī} inqụ{am} attuleris | uenuste noster (after the sixth syllable ?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... but such a versification seems to me so unnatural. **What's your opinion ?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Catullus_13&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_%28Latin%29#Hendecasyllables&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_%28Latin%29#Caesura&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semivowel&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_%28Latin%29#Elision&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://docnum.univ-lorraine.fr/pulsar/RCR_543952103_55305.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbaton" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7380" RevisionGUID="ee9a08ff-fc24-436b-bb74-6116b44e92bf" CreationDate="2018-10-25T19:44:53.970" UserId="79" Comment="Small formatting changes. Feel free to revert!" Text="**In short:** I need help to analyse the versification of some verses written by [Catullus][1].[13][2]. Theses verses are pure [hendecasyllabic Phalaecian][3], namely - - | - u u | - u | - u | - u . What bothers me is the position of the [caesuras][4] in verses 4 to 6:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    04  cēnam nōn sine candidā pụellā&#xD;&#xA;    05  et ụīn{ō} et sal{e} et omnibus cachinnīs.&#xD;&#xA;    06  Haec s{ī} inqụ{am} attuleris uenuste noster&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Full story:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The text][2]: (ụ : [nonsyllabic][5] [u]; {um} : {[elided vowels][6]}, | : [caesura][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    01  Cēnābis bene | mī Fabull{e} apud mē&#xD;&#xA;    02  paucīs sī tibi dī faụent diēbus…&#xD;&#xA;    03  sī tēc{um} attuleris | bon{am} atque magnam&#xD;&#xA;    04  cēnam nōn sine candidā pụellā&#xD;&#xA;    05  et ụīn{ō} et sal{e} et omnibus cachinnīs.&#xD;&#xA;    06  Haec s{ī} inqụ{am} attuleris uenuste noster&#xD;&#xA;    07  cēnābis bene | nam tuī Catullī&#xD;&#xA;    08  plēnus sacculus est | arāneārum.&#xD;&#xA;    09  Sed contr{ā} | accipiēs | merōs amōrēs&#xD;&#xA;    10  seu qụid sụāụius ēlegantiusụ{e} est.&#xD;&#xA;    11  N{am} ungụentum dabo | quod meae pụellae&#xD;&#xA;    12  dōnārunt Venerēs Cupīdinēsque&#xD;&#xA;    13  Quod tū c{um} olfaciēs | deōs rogābis&#xD;&#xA;    14  tōt{um} ut tē faciant | Fabulle nāsum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to some sources (e.g. [here, in French, page 161][7]), the caesura has to be placed after the fifth or the sixth syllable. It's clearly the case in verse #8 :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    08  plēnus sacculus est | arāneārum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... since the caesura reinforces the [hyperbaton][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about verses 4-6 ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    04  cēnam nōn sine | candidā pụellā (penthemimer?)&#xD;&#xA;    05  et ụīn{ō} et sal{e} et | omnibus cachinnīs. (penthemimer?)&#xD;&#xA;    06  Haec s{ī} inqụ{am} attuleris | uenuste noster (after the sixth syllable?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... but such a versification seems to me so unnatural. **What's your opinion?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Catullus_13&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_%28Latin%29#Hendecasyllables&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_%28Latin%29#Caesura&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semivowel&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_%28Latin%29#Elision&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://docnum.univ-lorraine.fr/pulsar/RCR_543952103_55305.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbaton" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24732" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7380" RevisionGUID="ee9a08ff-fc24-436b-bb74-6116b44e92bf" CreationDate="2018-10-25T19:44:53.970" UserId="79" Comment="Small formatting changes. Feel free to revert!" Text="Caesuras in Phalaecian verses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7381" RevisionGUID="43c61e26-e8ab-46ca-b62d-8f804cd61f60" CreationDate="2018-10-25T20:01:37.493" UserId="79" Text="To me the most natural positions for caesuras in hendecasyllabic verse are before either of the consequent short syllables: `- - - | u | u - u - u - u`.&#xD;&#xA;This is similar to how caesuras work in hexameter, never coinciding with with the start of a metron.&#xD;&#xA;My preference for reading caesuras like this may have well been influenced by reading hexameter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, more importantly, I think the caesura in a hendecasyllabic verse is far weaker than in hexameter.&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, the lecture material from a course on classical Latin metric poetry I took years ago shows no caesuras at all for this verse type, whereas caesuras in hexameter are discussed.&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, the [Wikipedia page for Latin prosody](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_%28Latin%29#Hendecasyllables) makes no mention of caesuras in connection with hendecasyllabic verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to some extent I find the discussion of location of caesuras moot, but I do agree that some kind of weak pause is natural to have somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;Going with my preference I mentioned above, the caesuras seem to fall as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    04  cēnam nōn | sine candidā pụellā&#xD;&#xA;    05  et ụīn{ō} et | sal{e} et omnibus cachinnīs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sixth line is trickier.&#xD;&#xA;With my two options one would have to put the caesura at a hiatus (`inqụ{am} | attuleris`) or between the prefix and a verb (`at|tuleris`).&#xD;&#xA;However, my preferred interpretation is that there is no natural caesura in the sixth line at all.&#xD;&#xA;The verse is tight in the sense that there is no natural place to pause, and that can actually be used consciously to create an effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7382" RevisionGUID="5a3acba4-586f-4380-8ffa-4f4e34e6b9be" CreationDate="2018-10-25T22:20:26.730" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="In *Summa theologiae* (ST I q. 29 a. 1 ad 5) one can read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ad quintum dicendum quod anima est pars humanae speciei, et ideo, licet sit separata, quia tamen retinet **naturam unibilitatis**, non potest dici substantia individua quae est hypostasis vel substantia prima; sicut nec manus, nec quaecumque alia partium hominis. Et sic non competit ei neque definitio personae, neque nomen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English translation (&quot;Benziger Bros. edition, 1947&quot;) reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Reply to Objection 5: The soul is a part of the human species; and so, although it may exist in a separate state, yet since it ever retains its **nature of unibility**, it cannot be called an individual substance, which is the hypostasis or first substance, as neither can the hand nor any other part of man; thus neither the definition nor the name of person belongs to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However word *unibility* seems to be absent from at least some online dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can find some explanation of concept of *unibilitas* on philosophical or maybe theological level in [Francesco Bottin's &quot;Unibilitas. Back to the source of the soul's unibility to the body&quot;](http://www.academia.edu/5133022/UNIBILITAS._BACK_TO_THE_SOURCE_OF_THE_SOUL_S_UNIBILITY_TO_THE_BODY)&#xD;&#xA;where following can be found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;That which specifically differentiates human souls from angelic essences is precisely **unibilitas, i.e. the inclination to unite with a body which only characterizes the human souls in an essential way**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This provides some insight into the meaning of this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore it can be asked:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**what does *naturam unibilitatis* mean?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(the phrase is in accusative, so it should be *natura* in nominative, but how to change unibilitatis?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An attempt would be &quot;nature of inclination to unite with something/of inclination to union&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24738" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7382" RevisionGUID="5a3acba4-586f-4380-8ffa-4f4e34e6b9be" CreationDate="2018-10-25T22:20:26.730" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="Meaning of &quot;naturam unibilitatis&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24739" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7382" RevisionGUID="5a3acba4-586f-4380-8ffa-4f4e34e6b9be" CreationDate="2018-10-25T22:20:26.730" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7383" RevisionGUID="0733747d-3db5-4bbe-87ac-a23ea3260dba" CreationDate="2018-10-26T00:50:36.730" UserId="406" Text="In the Python programming language, &quot;yield&quot; and &quot;return&quot; are keywords with specific meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A function can either *yield* a result (sending that result back and then continuing to work), or *return* it (sending the result back and then being done). So for example, a function to find prime numbers might *yield* each one as it found it, while a procedure to multiply numbers together would just *return* the product once the calculation was finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would one best express this distinction in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24741" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7383" RevisionGUID="0733747d-3db5-4bbe-87ac-a23ea3260dba" CreationDate="2018-10-26T00:50:36.730" UserId="406" Text="What is the difference between &quot;return&quot; and &quot;yield&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24742" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7383" RevisionGUID="0733747d-3db5-4bbe-87ac-a23ea3260dba" CreationDate="2018-10-26T00:50:36.730" UserId="406" Text="|word-request|word-comparison|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24743" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7382" RevisionGUID="29986a3e-8c1b-40b9-85c4-0e32261e1067" CreationDate="2018-10-26T01:10:55.130" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|medieval-latin|philosophy-terms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7384" RevisionGUID="df9e7114-393d-4d54-85e6-efa65264b645" CreationDate="2018-10-26T01:38:02.977" UserId="3032" Text="Genitive plural personal nouns in 1st and 2nd declension: I am wondering how human possessors of mixed gender were treated in ancient Latin. For example, how would the following possessive be translated: 'This is the home *of Mr and Mrs Catullus* (i.e. *of the Catulluses*)? I suspect that the Romans would have used the masculine ending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24745" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7384" RevisionGUID="df9e7114-393d-4d54-85e6-efa65264b645" CreationDate="2018-10-26T01:38:02.977" UserId="3032" Text="Plural genitive in 1st and 2nd declension - how were mixed genders treated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24746" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7384" RevisionGUID="df9e7114-393d-4d54-85e6-efa65264b645" CreationDate="2018-10-26T01:38:02.977" UserId="3032" Text="|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7385" RevisionGUID="e260109c-0da5-470e-8c9a-8f972315e6b3" CreationDate="2018-10-26T02:46:19.857" UserId="406" Text="As a general rule, groups containing both men and women take the masculine in Latin. For example, a male friend is an *amīcus* (masculine), and a female friend is an *amīca* (feminine). But a group of friends of mixed genders will always be *amīcī*, masculine plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, family names were a bit different in Roman times: they didn't quite have equivalents for &quot;Mr&quot; and &quot;Mrs&quot;, and instead of saying &quot;the Juliuses&quot; (*Juliī*) they would generally use &quot;the Julian clan&quot; (*gens Julia*). If you wanted to be really pretentious, you'd use a Greek form: the Cornelius Scipio bloodline (as in Africanus) preferred to be called the *Scīpiadae*. And since clan was determined by birth rather than marriage, the wife of Cornelius wouldn't be in the *gens Cornelia* herself (unless she'd been born into it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in your particular case, if you're using ancient Roman names, it might be best to just use two separate genitives: *ecce domus Corneliī Flaviaeque* &quot;behold, the house of Cornelius and Flavia&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7386" RevisionGUID="b0882ce9-6930-48e5-873b-bd05517cca9b" CreationDate="2018-10-26T04:15:31.550" UserId="39" Text="In such cases the masculine noun takes precedence (Pinkster 2015, Chapter 13: Agreement).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a good example in Pinkster 2015 (example (c) on p. 1285):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... propter summam et **doctoris** auctoritatem et **urbis** *quorum* alter te scientia augere potest altera exemplis (Cic. *Off.* 1.1.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;doctoris - GEN.SG.M., urbis - GEN.SG.F., quorum - GEN.PL.M." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7387" RevisionGUID="37a033d6-36df-4b60-b54c-aca3f08e8d11" CreationDate="2018-10-26T06:42:53.913" UserId="79" Text="How about *redde* for &quot;return&quot; and *ede* for &quot;yield&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;These keywords are orders (&quot;do so and so&quot;), and therefore I find imperatives most natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *reddere* means giving back, and I think that captures the idea of &quot;return&quot; pretty well.&#xD;&#xA;One might also consider the simple *da*, but that would bring it closer to giving than returning.&#xD;&#xA;Whether a value is returned or not, a function returns also the thread of execution, so I think *redde* is better than *da*.&#xD;&#xA;I assume that the keyword &quot;return&quot; is read as &quot;give back&quot; instead of &quot;go back&quot;; the latter would only make sense for some uses of the keyword, so giving is probably a better interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, *edere* means giving out, which is reasonably close to yielding.&#xD;&#xA;It sounds sensible to me for a function to either give back once or keep giving out repeatedly.&#xD;&#xA;I also find it convenient that similar things are expressed with the same verb with a different prefix." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7383" RevisionGUID="17301938-60a4-4575-964f-78603c24b39d" CreationDate="2018-10-26T06:43:38.097" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In the Python programming language, &quot;yield&quot; and &quot;return&quot; are keywords with specific meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A function can either *yield* a result (sending that result back and then continuing to work), or *return* it (sending the result back and then being done). So for example, a function to find prime numbers might *yield* each one as it found it, while a procedure to multiply numbers together would just *return* the product once the calculation was finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would one best express this distinction in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24751" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7383" RevisionGUID="17301938-60a4-4575-964f-78603c24b39d" CreationDate="2018-10-26T06:43:38.097" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|word-request|word-comparison|modern-life|technology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24752" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7375" RevisionGUID="8282202f-edc2-4162-af3b-cee6cf1cfd7d" CreationDate="2018-10-26T06:54:56.917" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|roman-culture|semantics|politeness|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7388" RevisionGUID="9e734ea3-c522-458e-bf63-cb521c04e66f" CreationDate="2018-10-26T10:50:26.407" UserId="81" Text="In the *Vulgata*, Titus 3:8 reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fidelis sermo est: et de his volo te confirmare: ut curent bonis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; operibus præesse qui credunt Deo. Hæc sunt bona, et utilia hominibus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I'm wondering about the phrase &quot;*de his volo te confirmare*&quot; for which the *Berean Study Bible* has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I want you to emphasize these things&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the phrase seems ambiguous to me because, unless I'm mistaken, it could also be translated as &quot;I want to strengthen you concerning these things.&quot; In other words, I see two possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The pronoun *te* could be the direct object of *confirmare*, or&#xD;&#xA; - The infinitive phrase *te confimare* could be the direct object of *volo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My question is:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this truly an ambiguity which can only be decided by context, or am I overlooking some grammatical rule that would settle the matter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24754" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7388" RevisionGUID="9e734ea3-c522-458e-bf63-cb521c04e66f" CreationDate="2018-10-26T10:50:26.407" UserId="81" Text="How to solve ambiguities with the infinitive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24755" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7388" RevisionGUID="9e734ea3-c522-458e-bf63-cb521c04e66f" CreationDate="2018-10-26T10:50:26.407" UserId="81" Text="|vulgata|ambiguity|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24756" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7388" RevisionGUID="7b001032-8f30-4f4d-9bfb-40898d393e3d" CreationDate="2018-10-26T10:58:49.977" UserId="81" Comment="edited title" Text="How to resolve ambiguities with the infinitive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7390" RevisionGUID="c60bed2e-6e4b-4268-8a7e-40871c874015" CreationDate="2018-10-26T16:55:40.993" UserId="3033" Text="I would like to inscribe on my gravestone in Latin, &quot;In love and friendhip forever&quot;. Could someone help me translate?  Thanks so much. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24761" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7390" RevisionGUID="c60bed2e-6e4b-4268-8a7e-40871c874015" CreationDate="2018-10-26T16:55:40.993" UserId="3033" Text="Translation help, please" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24762" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7390" RevisionGUID="c60bed2e-6e4b-4268-8a7e-40871c874015" CreationDate="2018-10-26T16:55:40.993" UserId="3033" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7391" RevisionGUID="4ba5ca19-c0ab-4770-bee6-3e2050a20d79" CreationDate="2018-10-26T17:09:48.347" UserId="645" Text="There are other phrases for 'forever', but I would choose that used by the poet Catullus in his beautiful and touching farewell poem at his brother's grave&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest *amor et amicitia in perpetuum.* Literally, this means 'love and frienship unceasing'. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7392" RevisionGUID="648453bb-8856-4795-8b68-d019c1b35220" CreationDate="2018-10-26T17:24:26.763" UserId="1142" Text="I was originally going to suggest the same-ish answer as [@TomCotton](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/645/tom-cotton). However, since he has provided it already I am going to simply provide some suggestions concerning orthography, rather than translation, given that the phrase you requested is going to be displayed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Classical Latin, at least when it was carved into stone (you indicated in your question that this was going to be engraved on a gravestone), typically carried the following characteristics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Written in all-caps.&#xD;&#xA;* The letter *U* was written with *V*.&#xD;&#xA;* Dipthongs *ae* and *oe* were often written as single characters.&#xD;&#xA;* Instead of simply spacing words, they were often marked with an interpunct character, or the spaces were simply left out.&#xD;&#xA;* Long vowels could be marked with apices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all that said, the wonderful suggestion from [@TomCotton](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/645/tom-cotton) could be rendered as such&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AMORETAMICITIAINPERPETVVM  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; AMORETAMÍCITIAINPERPETVVM  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AMOR·ET·AMICITIA·IN·PERPETVVM  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; AMOR·ET·AMÍCITIA·IN·PERPETVVM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7390" RevisionGUID="36c890de-4f5e-4efd-94ab-c42d7380ab79" CreationDate="2018-10-26T17:26:11.753" UserId="1142" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited title" Text="I would like to inscribe this on my gravestone, in Latin: &quot;in love and friendship forever.&quot; Could someone help me translate it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24766" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7390" RevisionGUID="36c890de-4f5e-4efd-94ab-c42d7380ab79" CreationDate="2018-10-26T17:26:11.753" UserId="1142" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited title" Text="Translating &quot;in love and friendship forever&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7393" RevisionGUID="bb035ad9-6f02-478b-89cd-abf1ea065f0c" CreationDate="2018-10-26T18:11:55.663" UserId="3034" Text="I am looking for the correct way in Latin to say &quot;From many, few&quot; Would this translate to: e pluribus pauci?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24768" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7393" RevisionGUID="bb035ad9-6f02-478b-89cd-abf1ea065f0c" CreationDate="2018-10-26T18:11:55.663" UserId="3034" Text="How about &quot;From Many, Few&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24769" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7393" RevisionGUID="bb035ad9-6f02-478b-89cd-abf1ea065f0c" CreationDate="2018-10-26T18:11:55.663" UserId="3034" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7393" RevisionGUID="6b2b6c5c-2a5a-4448-932f-a73f3a83484b" CreationDate="2018-10-26T18:51:01.180" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am looking for the correct way in Latin to say &quot;From many, few&quot;. Would this translate to: *e pluribus pauci*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24771" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7393" RevisionGUID="6b2b6c5c-2a5a-4448-932f-a73f3a83484b" CreationDate="2018-10-26T18:51:01.180" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7394" RevisionGUID="72260715-eff1-4057-be26-369a2ee6582b" CreationDate="2018-10-26T18:54:08.560" UserId="79" Text="Your suggestion *e pluribus pauci* is good.&#xD;&#xA;The best choice depends on what we have few of.&#xD;&#xA;For few people the masculine plural *pauci* is good.&#xD;&#xA;For few things you should use the neuter *pauca* instead.&#xD;&#xA;If you want there to be an implicit noun (&quot;few states/people/cars/foxes/&amp;hellip;&quot;), then the choice depends on the gender of that noun.&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing that you mean few things rather than few people, so I would suggest ***e pluribus pauca*** instead.&#xD;&#xA;The ablative *pluribus* is the same for all genders." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7395" RevisionGUID="80113373-743a-4cb1-8356-387d6ee62f3c" CreationDate="2018-10-26T20:42:47.853" UserId="1694" Text="I don't think you are overlooking any grammatical point that could decide one way or the other; these types of constructions are inherently ambiguous.  I think one might give *some* weight to the word order - a pronoun preceding the infinitive might tend to weigh in favour of its being the subject, and of course the converse, but that would not be definitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7395" RevisionGUID="8fd9a271-454a-49b0-8554-3de4e693b9c8" CreationDate="2018-10-26T20:48:48.830" UserId="1694" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="I don't think you are overlooking any grammatical point that could decide one way or the other; these types of constructions are inherently ambiguous.  I think one might give *some* weight to the word order - a pronoun preceding the infinitive might tend to weigh in favour of its being the subject, and of course the converse, but that would not be definitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Oh, in case you're wondering, referring the Greek doesn't really help.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7395" RevisionGUID="c020ed09-d299-48d6-8b8e-3836a9fc3716" CreationDate="2018-10-26T20:55:50.143" UserId="1694" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I don't think you are overlooking any grammatical point that could decide one way or the other; these types of constructions are inherently ambiguous.  I think one might give *some* weight to the word order - a pronoun preceding the infinitive might tend to weigh in favour of its being the subject, and of course the converse, but that would not be definitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Oh, in case you're wondering, referring to the Greek doesn't really help.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7396" RevisionGUID="28d5a1d8-64d9-4e80-8c80-0011c9db41bb" CreationDate="2018-10-27T03:06:48.063" UserId="39" Text="(answer in progress - notes so far)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Aeolic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Die Verteilung von -ιν und -ιδα scheint der üblichen zu entsprechen, d.h. sie richtet sich nach dem im Lesb. nicht wirksamen Akzentunterschied” (Hamm 1957, *Grammatik zu Sappho und Alkaios*, §239c)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;πάις (cf. παῖς), Hamm 1957 says “Akk. immer παῖδα* (§111c).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ὄλπις (cf. ὄλπη), acc. ὄλπιν&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ἔλπις* (cf. ἐλπίς), acc. ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ἀγροίωτις (cf. ἀγροιῶτις), acc. ἀγροίωτιν &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7396" RevisionGUID="7c5e75e7-6dbe-48e4-8f68-e7fe7b998f5d" CreationDate="2018-10-27T03:28:28.717" UserId="39" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="(answer in progress - notes so far)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Aeolic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Die Verteilung von -ιν und -ιδα scheint der üblichen zu entsprechen, d.h. sie richtet sich nach dem im Lesb. nicht wirksamen Akzentunterschied” (Hamm 1957, *Grammatik zu Sappho und Alkaios*, §239c)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**πάις** (cf. παῖς), Hamm 1957 says “Akk. immer παῖδα* (§111c). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Der Akk. πάϊν = παῖδα begegnet erst in römischer Zeit (IG 244&lt;sub&gt;6&lt;/sub&gt; und sonst). […] Ebenso πάτριν (IG 242 und sonst, röm.) = πατρίδα&quot; (Thumb and Scherer 1959: 98).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ὄλπις** (cf. ὄλπη), acc. ὄλπιν&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ἔλπις* (cf. ἐλπίς), acc. ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ἀγροίωτις** (cf. ἀγροιῶτις), acc. ἀγροίωτιν &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7396" RevisionGUID="c9fd55ca-d2be-4bf7-92ec-ed00add4c8fc" CreationDate="2018-10-27T03:48:07.113" UserId="39" Comment="added 183 characters in body" Text="(answer in progress - notes so far)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Aeolic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Die Verteilung von -ιν und -ιδα scheint der üblichen zu entsprechen, d.h. sie richtet sich nach dem im Lesb. nicht wirksamen Akzentunterschied” (Hamm 1957, *Grammatik zu Sappho und Alkaios*, §239c)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**πάις** (cf. παῖς), Hamm 1957 says “Akk. immer παῖδα* (§111c). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Der Akk. πάϊν = παῖδα begegnet erst in römischer Zeit (IG 244&lt;sub&gt;6&lt;/sub&gt; und sonst). […] Ebenso πάτριν (IG 242 und sonst, röm.) = πατρίδα&quot; (Thumb and Scherer 1959: 98).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ὄλπις** (cf. ὄλπη), acc. ὄλπιν&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ἔλπις* (cf. ἐλπίς), acc. ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ἀγροίωτις** (cf. ἀγροιῶτις), acc. ἀγροίωτιν &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Meister 1882: 153][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/diegriechischen00meisgoog/page/n167&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mG7Ne.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2026" RevisionGUID="922cd40d-62b1-4531-bdde-dc381e534e3c" CreationDate="2018-10-27T04:13:31.530" UserId="9" Comment="fixed some phonetic transcriptions that were in phonemic brackets" Text="Because of Latin's long history of use, there are many traditions for how to pronounce it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation(s)&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this is a site about Latin, I'll start with the Latin pronunciations. The Classical Latin pronunciation was something like /moːns ˈmeːnsa͡e/, phonemically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically, there are a few further details that it may be useful to know about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Many scholars believe that the evidence indicates that at some point in Latin, /n/ before the sounds /s/ or /f/ was not pronounced as the consonant [n], but coalesced with the preceding vowel to form a nasalized long vowel. (Vowels before **nf** or **ns** are always long as a rule in Classical Latin.) However, Allen (1978) says that a nasal consonant sound ([n] before [s]; possibly a labiodental [ɱ] before [f]) was subsequently reintroduced into the pronunciation of words that were spelled in Classical Latin with **nf** and **ns** (pp. 28-30, p. 66). Other words came to lose the **n** in spelling, and presumably also in pronunciation. A fair amount of variability seems to have persisted throughout the Classical period and we see reflexes in the Romance languages of forms with loss of **n** corresponding to Classical Latin forms that Allen indicates would have been pronounced with restored **n** (e.g. Italian *isola* corresponding to Classical Latin *insula*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The precise quality of /oː/ (&quot;long o&quot;) and /eː/ (&quot;long e&quot;) is only known approximately, and it probably changed slightly over time. It's clear that they were more or less [mid vowels][1]. The evidence seems to point to these vowels being realized in earlier stages of Latin with relatively open qualities such as [o̞ː] and [e̞ː], or even [ɔː] and [ɛː], since in [Old Latin][2] there was a vowel written *ei*, thought to be close-mid [eː], that contrasted with both &quot;long e&quot; and &quot;long i&quot; (by the time of Classical Latin, *ei* had merged with &quot;long i&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;However, in later stages, it seems fairly clear they were realized with a closer quality than the corresponding short vowels [ɔ] and [ɛ], so they are often transcribed [oː] and [eː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The vowel sound represented by “ae”, which I’ve transcribed phonemically as /a͡e/ (a fairly arbitrary decision), also changed over time. Originally, it was a phonetic diphthong pronounced more or less as [ai̯] or [aɪ̯] (and written as &quot;ai&quot;), which could be phonemically analyzed as a vowel-glide sequence /aj/. The offglide seems to have become more open over time, so [ae̯] was probably used at some point (which would explain the change in spelling to &quot;ae&quot;). In later stages of the language, &quot;ae&quot; became a long monophthong, open-mid [ɛː], which merged with the reflex of short &quot;e&quot; to become *ɛ in Proto-Romance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So phonetically, &quot;mons mensae&quot; would probably be something like [moːns ˈmeːnsae̯] or [moːns ˈmeːnsɛː]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been vague in my description of the dating of these sound changes because &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm not very familiar with the timeline of these changes&#xD;&#xA;- In some cases, even scholars are unsure&#xD;&#xA;- You haven't indicated that you're trying to emulate the pronunciation of any particular time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation(s)&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not as familiar with Ecclesiastical pronunciation of Latin (which is mostly Italian-influenced), so I might get something wrong here, but it seems it would be pronounced /mɔns ˈmɛnsɛ/ in this tradition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main thing I'm not sure about is the vowels. Some varieties of Italian have a phonemic distinction between close-mid /e o/ and open-mid /ɛ ɔ/ in stressed syllables. However, it seems that there is no such distinction in the Italian pronunciation of Latinate words; or at least, I have not found any agreement about which would be used where (see the talk on this Wiktionary page: [Template talk:la-IPA][3] for an example of the confusion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most sources I've found seem to indicate that Ecclesiastical Latin only uses open-mid [ɛ ɔ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in Italian at least the distinction is neutralized in unstressed syllables to close-mid [e o], so I don't know if the usual Italian pronunciation would phonetically be [mɔns ˈmɛnse].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English pronunciations&#xD;&#xA;----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The traditional English pronunciation would be /mɒnz mɛnsiː/. I won’t focus too much on describing dialectal and sub-phonemic variations of this since this is a site about Latin, not about English, but the most notable points of variation might be the vowel in “mons” (which would be /ɑ/ in General American English) and a possible epenthetic [t] between /n/ and /s/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The “restored” English pronunciation, using the usual vowel equivalences described e.g. here (http://www.txclassics.org/old/PronunciationGuide.pdf) would be /moʊns meɪnsaɪ/. However, in English-language contexts, many people use an inconsistent mix of restored pronunciation and more traditional English pronunciation, so you’re probably more likely to hear things like /mɒnz mɛnsaɪ/, /moʊnz mɛnsaɪ/ or /mɔːnz mɛnsaɪ/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin#Vowels_and_diphthongs&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Template_talk:la-IPA#Ecclesiastical_fixes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7397" RevisionGUID="16fcf204-bf0f-4c56-8e85-88ccefcd0d03" CreationDate="2018-10-27T12:51:52.313" UserId="13" Text="The fragment is reported by the tradition as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ἦρος ἄγγελος ἱμερόφωνος ἀήδων&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or sometimes with ἡμερόφωνος. It would seem we just need to fix a psilosis for the third word. However, Edmonds and safopoemas amend the last word to ἀήδω, and Lobel-Page and Campbell put all but the first word in cruces, with Lobel-Page adding «Aut ἀήδω aut ἄγγελον ἰμερόφωνον scribendum», as if the accusative was the only form in -nu. Voigt says that is &quot;praeter necessitatem&quot;. So, what gives?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What reasons do we have to amend or to not amend this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7397" RevisionGUID="16fcf204-bf0f-4c56-8e85-88ccefcd0d03" CreationDate="2018-10-27T12:51:52.313" UserId="13" Text="Sappho Lobel-Page 136: to amend, or not to amend?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7397" RevisionGUID="16fcf204-bf0f-4c56-8e85-88ccefcd0d03" CreationDate="2018-10-27T12:51:52.313" UserId="13" Text="|greek|poetry|declension|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7398" RevisionGUID="9f6fbfc6-2ad6-4ce4-b91e-29da2bb05497" CreationDate="2018-10-27T13:02:19.650" UserId="3039" Text="The following inscription is on a flagstone in the wall of [Schloss Bühl][1], a 16th century chateau in southern Germany. It was built by David vom Stain (&quot;David from the Stone&quot;), who is named in the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my transcription of the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    hanc arcem, et muros, hortumque, ac horrea fecit&#xD;&#xA;    qui vetera a Saxo nomina David habet.&#xD;&#xA;    ille, bonas coluit iuvenis qui sedulus artes:&#xD;&#xA;    et vero doctos fovit amore viros.&#xD;&#xA;    ille, feri studiis clarum qui martis adeptus&#xD;&#xA;    nomen habet: cuius fortia facta patent.&#xD;&#xA;    qui musas igitur, vel tristia diligit arma,&#xD;&#xA;    hunc amet: hic vero est dignus amore coli.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this is as far as I got with translating it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This castle, and walls, as well as the garden, and barns made&#xD;&#xA;    he who had the old name David from the Stone.&#xD;&#xA;    He took care of the young property  ...&#xD;&#xA;    and truly cared for the morals of educated men.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand a few of the other words, but can't make sense of the whole sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you please help me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schloss_B%C3%BChl&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/32rnD.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24784" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7398" RevisionGUID="9f6fbfc6-2ad6-4ce4-b91e-29da2bb05497" CreationDate="2018-10-27T13:02:19.650" UserId="3039" Text="Need help translating a 16th century inscription" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24785" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7398" RevisionGUID="9f6fbfc6-2ad6-4ce4-b91e-29da2bb05497" CreationDate="2018-10-27T13:02:19.650" UserId="3039" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7398" RevisionGUID="c821ccc4-9567-4325-9bc6-714393f4c212" CreationDate="2018-10-27T13:09:07.153" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The following inscription is on a flagstone in the wall of [Schloss Bühl][1], a 16th century chateau in southern Germany. It was built by David vom Stain (&quot;David from the Stone&quot;), who is named in the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is my transcription of the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hanc arcem, et muros, hortumque, ac horrea fecit  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui vetera a Saxo nomina David habet.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ille, bonas coluit iuvenis qui sedulus artes:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et vero doctos fovit amore viros.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ille, feri studiis clarum qui martis adeptus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; nomen habet: cuius fortia facta patent.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; qui musas igitur, vel tristia diligit arma,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; hunc amet: hic vero est dignus amore coli.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this is as far as I got with translating it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This castle, and walls, as well as the garden, and barns made  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; he who had the old name David from the Stone.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He took care of the young property  ...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and truly cared for the morals of educated men.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand a few of the other words, but can't make sense of the whole sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you please help me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schloss_B%C3%BChl&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/32rnD.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24787" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7398" RevisionGUID="c821ccc4-9567-4325-9bc6-714393f4c212" CreationDate="2018-10-27T13:09:07.153" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|new-latin|latin-to-english-translation|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7399" RevisionGUID="c1baa6d9-2d05-4005-8a21-d5ddd88e31ea" CreationDate="2018-10-27T13:42:55.167" UserId="517" Text="*hanc arcem, et muros, hortumque, ac horrea fecit*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*qui vetera a Saxo nomina David habet.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He who has (in the old name) David vom Stain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Made this castle, walls, garden, and barns;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ille, bonas coluit iuvenis qui sedulus artes:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*et vero doctos fovit amore viros.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He who diligently studied the fine arts when young,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Supported learned men with true admiration;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ille, feri studiis clarum qui Martis adeptus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*nomen habet: cuius fortia facta patent.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He who was quite adept at fierce Mars's pursuits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;has the name of him whose mighty deeds are renowned;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*qui Musas igitur, vel tristia diligit arma,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*hunc amet.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He who loves the Muses, or somber weaponry,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should admire him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*hic vero est dignus amore coli.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This man is worthy of being honored with true admiration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*vetera nomina* seems to be in apposition to the accusative *David* (uninflected, as it's a foreign name), but I've translated it as if it's ablative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7400" RevisionGUID="bd81fc19-3532-4f83-8d67-3a57ede7e6e2" CreationDate="2018-10-27T13:53:15.690" UserId="517" Text="*naturam unibilitatis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*naturam* is accusative, as you said, but *unibilitatis* is genitive, thus the 1947 literal translation &quot;nature of unability&quot; is precisely correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7401" RevisionGUID="a54b18bc-377f-4c64-98f2-c28974e42342" CreationDate="2018-10-27T14:39:32.103" UserId="79" Text="The inscription is written in elegiac couplets, and therefore somewhat unusual sentence structures are to be expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my suggestion for a translation (and edits to punctuation of the original):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hanc arcem, et muros, hortumque, ac horrea fecit  &#xD;&#xA;qui vetera a Saxo nomina David habet.  &#xD;&#xA;Ille, bonas coluit iuvenis qui sedulus artes  &#xD;&#xA;et vero doctos fovit amore viros.  &#xD;&#xA;Ille, feri studiis clarum qui Martis adeptus  &#xD;&#xA;nomen habet, cuius fortia facta patent.  &#xD;&#xA;Qui musas igitur, vel tristia diligit arma,  &#xD;&#xA;hunc amet: hic vero est dignus amore coli.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He who has the old names of David from Stone, built this castle and walls and garden and granaries.&#xD;&#xA;He, who carefully studied the good arts in his youth and cherished learned men with true love.&#xD;&#xA;He, who has excelled in studies of the fierce Mars and has a famous name, whose strong deeds are well known.&#xD;&#xA;Anyone who loves muses, or sad weapons, should love this man: he truly is worth of cherishing with love.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- On the second line, I parsed *David* as a genitive of an indeclinable name. The builder has the old names (*vetera nomina*) of David. Since the names are in plural, I assume it refers that both parts of his name are old. For David it is clear, but for Vom Stain is less so &amp;mdash; at least for me.&#xD;&#xA;- On the third line, *artes* can refer to &quot;skills&quot; or some other thing instead of &quot;arts&quot;. Hard to tell without context.&#xD;&#xA;- On the last line I read *coli* as *colendi*, so that *hic* is *dignus colendi*. This is not unusual poetic licence. I don't recall seeing *dignus* with infinitive. (It could also be *dignus amore*, &quot;worthy of love&quot;, but then *coli* is left alone. I don't think it's the dative or *colis/caulis* or the genitive of *colus*.)&#xD;&#xA;- It is not entirely clear who the *ille, qui* segments refer to. It could be David himself, to whom the relative clause on the second line refers. But it could also be &quot;any good person who should love David&quot;, to whom the relative clause of the second last line refers. Since the references are quite precise, I believe they are all to David, but one should not blindly exclude the other option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The structure is perhaps clearer with new word order [and some small parenthetical alterations]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Ille,] qui vetera nomina a Saxo David habet, hanc arcem, et muros, et hortum, et horrea fecit.  &#xD;&#xA;Ille, qui iuvenis sedulus coluit bonas artes et fovit viros doctos vero amore.  &#xD;&#xA;ille, qui [est] adeptus studiis feri Martis [et] clarum nomen habet, cuius fortia facta patent.  &#xD;&#xA;[Si quis] diligit musas, vel tristia arma, ame hunc: hic vero dignus est amore [colendi]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7400" RevisionGUID="c57283f5-4a59-44a2-9af3-c0094e7c2b69" CreationDate="2018-10-27T15:35:21.517" UserId="645" Comment="sp." Text="*naturam unibilitatis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*naturam* is accusative, as you said, but *unibilitatis* is genitive, thus the 1947 literal translation &quot;nature of inability&quot; is precisely correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7401" RevisionGUID="032458a0-745e-42d9-934d-1ce4de31b226" CreationDate="2018-10-27T17:19:23.640" UserId="79" Comment="added 208 characters in body" Text="The inscription is written in elegiac couplets, and therefore somewhat unusual sentence structures are to be expected.&#xD;&#xA;I have offered a simplified prose version of the inscription below.&#xD;&#xA;The sentences are indeed not independent and cannot be parsed in isolation.&#xD;&#xA;Most of the lines are just an elaboration on the first two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my suggestion for a translation (and edits to punctuation of the original):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hanc arcem, et muros, hortumque, ac horrea fecit  &#xD;&#xA;qui vetera a Saxo nomina David habet.  &#xD;&#xA;Ille, bonas coluit iuvenis qui sedulus artes  &#xD;&#xA;et vero doctos fovit amore viros.  &#xD;&#xA;Ille, feri studiis clarum qui Martis adeptus  &#xD;&#xA;nomen habet, cuius fortia facta patent.  &#xD;&#xA;Qui musas igitur, vel tristia diligit arma,  &#xD;&#xA;hunc amet: hic vero est dignus amore coli.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He who has the old names of David from Stone, built this castle and walls and garden and granaries.&#xD;&#xA;He, who carefully studied the good arts in his youth and cherished learned men with true love.&#xD;&#xA;He, who has excelled in studies of the fierce Mars and has a famous name, whose strong deeds are well known.&#xD;&#xA;Anyone who loves muses, or sad weapons, should love this man: he truly is worthy of cherishing with love.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- On the second line, I parsed *David* as a genitive of an indeclinable name. The builder has the old names (*vetera nomina*) of David. Since the names are in plural, I assume it refers that both parts of his name are old. For David it is clear, but for Vom Stain is less so &amp;mdash; at least for me.&#xD;&#xA;- On the third line, *artes* can refer to &quot;skills&quot; or some other thing instead of &quot;arts&quot;. Hard to tell without context.&#xD;&#xA;- On the last line I read *coli* as *colendi*, so that *hic* is *dignus colendi*. This is not unusual poetic licence. I don't recall seeing *dignus* with infinitive. (It could also be *dignus amore*, &quot;worthy of love&quot;, but then *coli* is left alone. I don't think it's the dative or *colis/caulis* or the genitive of *colus*.)&#xD;&#xA;- It is not entirely clear who the *ille, qui* segments refer to. It could be David himself, to whom the relative clause on the second line refers. But it could also be &quot;any good person who should love David&quot;, to whom the relative clause of the second last line refers. Since the references are quite precise, I believe they are all to David, but one should not blindly exclude the other option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The structure is perhaps clearer with new word order [and some small parenthetical alterations]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Ille,] qui vetera nomina a Saxo David habet, hanc arcem, et muros, et hortum, et horrea fecit.  &#xD;&#xA;Ille, qui iuvenis sedulus coluit bonas artes et fovit viros doctos vero amore.  &#xD;&#xA;ille, qui [est] adeptus studiis feri Martis [et] clarum nomen habet, cuius fortia facta patent.  &#xD;&#xA;[Si quis] diligit musas, vel tristia arma, ame hunc: hic vero dignus est amore [colendi]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24797" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4541" RevisionGUID="130918fb-449e-4089-952b-724b6c1bf875" CreationDate="2018-10-27T17:25:48.733" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|ablative|phaedrus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7403" RevisionGUID="8c4d758a-9c44-4b78-b7d5-703aa161ebb7" CreationDate="2018-10-27T17:26:03.333" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24799" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7403" RevisionGUID="8c4d758a-9c44-4b78-b7d5-703aa161ebb7" CreationDate="2018-10-27T17:26:03.333" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7404" RevisionGUID="dd2a1761-6e94-4edb-b459-b5c5171dfc1f" CreationDate="2018-10-27T17:26:03.333" UserId="79" Text="For questions concerning works of Phaedrus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24801" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7404" RevisionGUID="dd2a1761-6e94-4edb-b459-b5c5171dfc1f" CreationDate="2018-10-27T17:26:03.333" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7401" RevisionGUID="861a0f96-0a15-4d78-aa82-3d4ba9ee027e" CreationDate="2018-10-27T17:34:23.490" UserId="79" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="The inscription is written in elegiac couplets, and therefore somewhat unusual sentence structures are to be expected.&#xD;&#xA;I have offered a simplified prose version of the inscription below.&#xD;&#xA;The sentences are indeed not independent and cannot be parsed in isolation.&#xD;&#xA;Most of the lines are just an elaboration on the first two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my suggestion for a translation (and edits to punctuation of the original):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hanc arcem, et muros, hortumque, ac horrea fecit  &#xD;&#xA;qui vetera a Saxo nomina David habet.  &#xD;&#xA;Ille, bonas coluit iuvenis qui sedulus artes  &#xD;&#xA;et vero doctos fovit amore viros.  &#xD;&#xA;Ille, feri studiis clarum qui Martis adeptus  &#xD;&#xA;nomen habet, cuius fortia facta patent.  &#xD;&#xA;Qui musas igitur, vel tristia diligit arma,  &#xD;&#xA;hunc amet: hic vero est dignus amore coli.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He who has the old names of David from Stone, built this castle and walls and garden and granaries.&#xD;&#xA;He, who carefully studied the good arts in his youth and cherished learned men with true love.&#xD;&#xA;He, who has excelled in studies of the fierce Mars and has a famous name, whose strong deeds are well known.&#xD;&#xA;Anyone who loves muses, or sad weapons, should love this man: he truly is worthy of cherishing with love.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- On the second line, I parsed *David* as a genitive of an indeclinable name. The builder has the old names (*vetera nomina*) of David. Since the names are in plural, I assume it refers that both parts of his name are old. For David it is clear, but for Vom Stain is less so &amp;mdash; at least for me. (See the OP's comment below: the Vom Stain family is indeed a very old one.)&#xD;&#xA;- On the third line, *artes* can refer to &quot;skills&quot; or some other thing instead of &quot;arts&quot;. Hard to tell without context.&#xD;&#xA;- On the last line I read *coli* as *colendi*, so that *hic* is *dignus colendi*. This is not unusual poetic licence. I don't recall seeing *dignus* with infinitive. (It could also be *dignus amore*, &quot;worthy of love&quot;, but then *coli* is left alone. I don't think it's the dative or *colis/caulis* or the genitive of *colus*.)&#xD;&#xA;- It is not entirely clear who the *ille, qui* segments refer to. It could be David himself, to whom the relative clause on the second line refers. But it could also be &quot;any good person who should love David&quot;, to whom the relative clause of the second last line refers. Since the references are quite precise, I believe they are all to David, but one should not blindly exclude the other option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The structure is perhaps clearer with new word order [and some small parenthetical alterations]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Ille,] qui vetera nomina a Saxo David habet, hanc arcem et muros et hortum et horrea fecit.  &#xD;&#xA;Ille, qui iuvenis sedulus coluit bonas artes et fovit viros doctos vero amore.  &#xD;&#xA;ille, qui [est] adeptus studiis feri Martis [et] clarum nomen habet, cuius fortia facta patent.  &#xD;&#xA;[Si quis] diligit musas, vel tristia arma, amet hunc: hic vero dignus est amore [colendi]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7405" RevisionGUID="3f194052-380a-40ec-8d6e-128dc1f2a6a5" CreationDate="2018-10-27T17:56:56.277" UserId="406" Text="I'm editing a short piece of writing set in early Imperial Rome, and seeking a Classical quotation to use as an epigraph.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The piece involves a woman whose arms and legs are twisted from birth, causing her to walk with a limp. She's rumored to have made a bargain with a dark entity, giving her evil magicks in exchange for some great price. (Rather stereotypical, but that's not out of the ordinary for Roman times.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know of a Classical quotation pertaining to any of these aspects: an injured leg due to a birth defect, making a deal with some unwholesome entity for power, or preferably both together?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24804" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7405" RevisionGUID="3f194052-380a-40ec-8d6e-128dc1f2a6a5" CreationDate="2018-10-27T17:56:56.277" UserId="406" Text="Seeking a Classical quote for an epigraph" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24805" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7405" RevisionGUID="3f194052-380a-40ec-8d6e-128dc1f2a6a5" CreationDate="2018-10-27T17:56:56.277" UserId="406" Text="|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7406" RevisionGUID="af373871-88f3-403a-9a23-424ad0643104" CreationDate="2018-10-28T00:36:36.660" UserId="2476" Text="_Pompeius_ probably comes from the Oscan praenomen _Pompo_, which is the equivalent of the Latin _Quintus_, as its root is _pompe_ - traceable to the Greek _pente_, i.e. &quot;five&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name of the city _might_ have the same origin - quoting the [English Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompeii), this could suggest that either the community consisted of five hamlets or, perhaps, it was settled by the gens Pompeia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand the _Parco Archeologico di Pompei_ gave in a [Facebook post](https://www.facebook.com/pompeiisoprintendenza/photos/a.1523717371268809/1778386109135266/?type=3&amp;theater) three possibilities. &quot;All of them are potentially believable&quot;, but the origin from _pompe_ is indeed said to be the most accredited hypothesis - the gens Pompeia was not mentioned though. Here are the other two possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i) According to the geographer Strabo of 60 BC, it might derive from the greek _pempo_ (&quot;to sent&quot;), for its proximity to the Sarno River where goods arrived and departed;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii) Maurus Servius Honoratus speculated in the 4th century that the toponym could trace back to a hypothetical foundation by Hercules, _a pompa Herculis_ (&quot;from Hercules' triumph&quot;) which would then become _Pompeii_ in time;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7407" RevisionGUID="42c8f231-3fbb-4775-b7bf-5ba5fb9c673f" CreationDate="2018-10-28T00:38:34.847" UserId="45" Text="It seems to me like you answer your own question. The word is quite precise and certainly not going to be found in classical dictionaries, but specialist dictionaries contain the work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Thomas-Lexikon](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/tlu.html#unibilitas) (unfortunately in German!) translates *unibilitas* as &quot;Vereinbarkeit,&quot; which is roughly &quot;compatibility.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a translation illuminates the meaning but perhaps obscures the fact that Thomas means no more nor less than the most obvious (and equally awkward) translation: &quot;unibility,&quot; i.e. the ability to be united. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aquinas uses the term 17 times, according to the [Index Thomisticus](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/tlu.html#unibilitas) (searching for &quot;=unibilitas&quot;) and in almost every occasion it refers to the soul's disposition to be the &quot;form&quot; of a body. According to this view, adopted from Aristotelian hylomorphism, there are two principles in composite entities: form and matter. In the case of living beings, the form is the soul and the matter is the body. &quot;Unibilitas&quot; refers to the fact that the soul contains within itself a disposition to be united to the body as its form. I suspect that Aquinas uses &quot;unibilitas&quot; here instead of &quot;unio&quot; or &quot;coniunctio&quot; because, in his view, the human soul, being immaterial, does not *need* to be the form of the body but can exist separately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literal and accurate translation, in my opinion, would simply be **nature of unibility**. A freer but still accurate gloss would be, **natural disposition to union [with the body]**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7407" RevisionGUID="128d692a-aecc-4faf-9a50-d656c54d18b0" CreationDate="2018-10-28T00:44:34.620" UserId="45" Comment="edited body" Text="It seems to me like you answer your own question. The word is quite precise and certainly not going to be found in classical dictionaries, but specialist dictionaries contain the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Thomas-Lexikon](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/tlu.html#unibilitas) (unfortunately in German!) translates *unibilitas* as &quot;Vereinbarkeit,&quot; which is roughly &quot;compatibility.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a translation illuminates the meaning but perhaps obscures the fact that Thomas means no more nor less than the most obvious (and equally awkward) translation: &quot;unibility,&quot; i.e. the ability to be united. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aquinas uses the term 17 times, according to the [Index Thomisticus](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/tlu.html#unibilitas) (searching for &quot;=unibilitas&quot;) and in almost every occasion it refers to the soul's disposition to be the &quot;form&quot; of a body. According to this view, adopted from Aristotelian hylomorphism, there are two principles in composite entities: form and matter. In the case of living beings, the form is the soul and the matter is the body. &quot;Unibilitas&quot; refers to the fact that the soul contains within itself a disposition to be united to the body as its form. I suspect that Aquinas uses &quot;unibilitas&quot; here instead of &quot;unio&quot; or &quot;coniunctio&quot; because, in his view, the human soul, being immaterial, does not *need* to be the form of the body but can exist separately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literal and accurate translation, in my opinion, would simply be **nature of unibility**. A freer but still accurate gloss would be, **natural disposition to union [with the body]**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7408" RevisionGUID="5dedc2d5-df9f-43f8-a4a1-14597c369ff0" CreationDate="2018-10-28T07:37:52.837" UserId="3042" Text="A table of numercal prefixes is given in _Wikipedia_; both cardinal &amp; multiple forms. What we are duscussing here is the _muliple_ form. Perhaps surprisingly, there is one for 1¼, which is _quasqui_. So perhaps one could use _biquasqui_ for the 2½ multiple prefix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But as for _sester_, I've also read of that one - I can't remember where now; but whatever the writing was that said it, it simply said without qualifcation it _is_ the prefix, whereas a previous respondent _speculates_ that it _might_ be admissible. I do use it and am going to continue to do so, anyway!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7408" RevisionGUID="90b35d26-4400-4a4b-b05b-6cf1eb7ef32c" CreationDate="2018-10-28T07:43:41.947" UserId="3042" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="A table of numercal prefixes is given in _Wikipedia_; both cardinal &amp; multiple forms. What we are duscussing here is the _muliple_ form. Perhaps surprisingly, there is one for 1¼, which is _quasqui_. So perhaps one could use _biquasqui_ for the 2½ multiple prefix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But as for _sester_, I've also read of that one - I can't remember where now; but whatever the writing was that said it, it simply said without qualifcation it _is_ the prefix, whereas a previous respondent _speculates_ that it _might_ be admissible. I _do_ use it and am going to continue to do so, anyway!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7408" RevisionGUID="1bb6a89f-53e1-4b5a-811e-2502292bbbaf" CreationDate="2018-10-28T07:50:05.590" UserId="3042" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="A table of numercal prefixes is given in _Wikipedia_; both cardinal &amp; multiple forms. What we are duscussing here is the _muliple_ form. Perhaps surprisingly, there is one for 1¼, which is _quasqui_. So perhaps one could use _biquasqui_ for the 2½ multiple prefix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But as for _sester_, I've also read of that one - I can't remember where now; but whatever the writing was that said it, it simply said without qualifcation it _is_ the prefix, whereas a previous respondent _speculates_ that it _might_ be admissible. I _do_ use it and am going to continue to do so, anyway!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The previous respondent also says it's use-potential is _borderline_ (not verbatim). As I said, I do use it; and I find that opportunities for doing so are not __extremely__ rare. As for _sestercentenial_: an alternative there, as in the same table _quater_ is given for the  ¼ multiple prefix, would be _quatermillenial_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7409" RevisionGUID="3a709d25-e83b-41a1-9178-60b190b473f2" CreationDate="2018-10-28T08:42:47.613" UserId="2476" Text="In Italian and the other Romance languages, the palatalization especially concerns &quot;c&quot; and &quot;g&quot; before &quot;e&quot; or &quot;i&quot;. But some words in Italian (or early Italian in the case of _meriggio_) show the same for &quot;d&quot; when between &quot;a&quot;, &quot;i&quot; or &quot;o&quot; and &quot;ie&quot;, and also between &quot;a&quot; or &quot;i&quot; and &quot;iu&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_hodie_ &gt; _oggi_: /ˈɔddʒi/ , _meridies_ &gt; (Vulgar) _meridium_ &gt; _meriggio_: /meˈriddʒo/, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_radius_ &gt; _raggio_: /ˈraddʒo/, _(nomen) adiectivum_ &gt; _(nome) aggettivo_: /addʒetˈtivo/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes this can also be found in other Romance languages, but there often the pronunciation (as well as the spelling) shifted even more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did this palatalization start to take place, and maybe even settle before the fall of the Empire, or is it a medieval phenomenon?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24813" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7409" RevisionGUID="3a709d25-e83b-41a1-9178-60b190b473f2" CreationDate="2018-10-28T08:42:47.613" UserId="2476" Text="Is the palatalization of &quot;d&quot; between &quot;a&quot;, &quot;i&quot; or &quot;o&quot; and &quot;ie&quot; or &quot;iu&quot; only a Medieval Latin phenomenon?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24814" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7409" RevisionGUID="3a709d25-e83b-41a1-9178-60b190b473f2" CreationDate="2018-10-28T08:42:47.613" UserId="2476" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|language-evolution|phonetics|italian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7410" RevisionGUID="13cc4e58-49cb-4e42-a2f4-c3982bb9556f" CreationDate="2018-10-28T12:42:13.047" UserId="3044" Text="Dear Translation Helpers, Could you please help me translate &quot;Promissary of the Future&quot; into true Latin?  I have looked the words up, but they don't seem to make sense as the syntax is different and I don't know how to switch the syntaxes to get a true translation.  Thank you in advance for any assistance you could provide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Promissary doesn't work, perhaps &quot;Emissary&quot; would work better?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24816" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7410" RevisionGUID="13cc4e58-49cb-4e42-a2f4-c3982bb9556f" CreationDate="2018-10-28T12:42:13.047" UserId="3044" Text="Need translation Please of: Promissary of the future" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24817" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7410" RevisionGUID="13cc4e58-49cb-4e42-a2f4-c3982bb9556f" CreationDate="2018-10-28T12:42:13.047" UserId="3044" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|syntax|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7411" RevisionGUID="ca196d36-44d8-47df-a10e-145d13afbe83" CreationDate="2018-10-28T17:13:05.417" UserId="13" Text="Sappho Voigt 117A Campbell 117A number 2 (Campbell has two 117As, one is a quotation from Michael of Italy, the same as Voigt 194A, and the other one is Voigt 117A) is a quote from Hesychius, which reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ξοάνων προθύρων· ἐξεσμένων&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Campbell translates it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Smooth doorways, i.e. polished&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I was wondering was: where do those words come from? I mean, ξόανος is, I assume, an otherwise unattested word, so why translate it as &quot;smooth&quot;? Or is it otherwise attested, just not recorded in Perseus's LSJ digitalization? Wait: ξόανον is a noun meaning &quot;carved image&quot; or &quot;musical instrument&quot;? How does it fit here with another noun? I mean, I guess πρόθυρος could be an adjective meaning &quot;(placed) before the door&quot;, but that doesn't match Campbell's translation, so… And ἐξεσμένων appears to be a perfect participle, but of which verb? Maybe ἐξέζομαι? Not on Perseus, and neither is ἐξίζομαι… What is up here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24819" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7411" RevisionGUID="ca196d36-44d8-47df-a10e-145d13afbe83" CreationDate="2018-10-28T17:13:05.417" UserId="13" Text="Hesychius quote: where are those words from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24820" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7411" RevisionGUID="ca196d36-44d8-47df-a10e-145d13afbe83" CreationDate="2018-10-28T17:13:05.417" UserId="13" Text="|vocabulary|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="0e8f201b-5451-4af1-9041-c5f99a888284" CreationDate="2018-10-28T17:13:45.577" UserId="39" Text="It started in Vular Latin, cf. Weiss 2009/2011, pp. 512-513.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss writes that the palatalization of dentals was under way already in the second-third century AD - this observation is based on graphic evidence, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OZE ‘hodie’ &gt; djurnum etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Writing on an iPad - will add more when I get back to my desktop computer later)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7413" RevisionGUID="17673223-59f6-434a-9a43-1e9015fc8b81" CreationDate="2018-10-28T17:50:02.813" UserId="1694" Text="Here's a partial answer only:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ξόανον, &quot;carved image&quot; looks like it comes from ξοΐς, &quot;sculptor's chisel&quot;, which in turn comes from ξέειν, &quot;to smooth or polish by scraping&quot;.  It looks like ἐξεσμένον is a passive participle of the latter verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, at least the general idea of polishing (by scraping) is present in both ξοάνων and ἐξεσμένων, although the details of the construction are not completely clear to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7413" RevisionGUID="e867468a-cf01-4fe0-9676-b83f87aa6544" CreationDate="2018-10-28T17:58:53.413" UserId="1694" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="Here's at least a partial answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ξόανον, &quot;carved image&quot; looks like it comes from ξοΐς, &quot;sculptor's chisel&quot;, which in turn comes from ξέειν, &quot;to smooth or polish by scraping&quot;.  It looks like ἐξεσμένον is a passive participle of the latter verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, at least the general idea of polishing (by scraping) is present in both ξοάνων and ἐξεσμένων, although the details of the construction are not completely clear to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, πρόθυρον means &quot;front door&quot;, so one can see how ξοάνων προθύρων could have the meaning &quot;polished doors&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7414" RevisionGUID="2183a978-6bee-48d7-965c-8bc07f5dae9f" CreationDate="2018-10-28T18:26:16.777" UserId="39" Text="Correction, based on Latte 1952&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JuYIb.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7408" RevisionGUID="03af9baa-a405-4cb7-97f0-c52e9810da47" CreationDate="2018-10-28T19:16:33.407" UserId="3042" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="A table of numercal prefixes is given in _Wikipedia_; both cardinal &amp; multiple forms. What we are duscussing here is the _muliple_ form. Perhaps surprisingly, there is one for 1¼, which is _quasqui_. So perhaps one could use _biquasqui_ for the 2½ multiple prefix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But as for _sester_, I've also read of that one - I can't remember where now; but whatever the writing was that said it, it simply said without qualifcation it _is_ the prefix, whereas a previous respondent _speculates_ that it _might_ be admissible. However, it is __not__ in the _Wikipedia_ table. I _do_ use it and am going to continue to do so, anyway!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The previous respondent also says it's use-potential is _borderline_ (not verbatim). As I said, I do use it; and I find that opportunities for doing so are not __extremely__ rare. As for _sestercentenial_: an alternative there, as in the same table _quater_ is given for the  ¼ multiple prefix, would be _quatermillenial_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7408" RevisionGUID="dd67088f-35ba-43f5-ad52-9d3584f2195c" CreationDate="2018-10-28T19:24:00.490" UserId="3042" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="A table of numercal prefixes is given in _Wikipedia_; both cardinal &amp; multiple forms. What we are duscussing here is the _muliple_ form. Perhaps surprisingly, there is one for 1¼, which is _quasqui_. So perhaps one could use _biquasqui_ for the 2½ multiple prefix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But as for _sester_, I've also read of that one - I can't remember where now; but whatever the writing was that said it, it simply said without qualifcation it _is_ the prefix, whereas a previous respondent _speculates_ that it _might_ be admissible. However, it is __not__ in the _Wikipedia_ table. I _do_ use it and am going to continue to do so, anyway!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The previous respondent also says it's use-potential is _borderline_ (not verbatim). As I said, I do use it; and I find that opportunities for doing so are not __extremely__ rare. As for _sestercentenial_: an alternative there, as in the same table _quater_ is given for the  ¼ multiple prefix, would be _quatermillenial_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is perhaps no precedent for concatenation of _bi_ &amp; another prefix ... but concatenenation of it with _any_ other prefix I know would result in an elementary redundancy. It does so even in the case of _quasqui_ if _sester_ be admitted. And given _quater_, the concatenation _hemisemi_, as in _hemisemiquaver_ in music, is similarly a redundancy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7408" RevisionGUID="2f54e5cd-756b-481c-a968-9232d45697cf" CreationDate="2018-10-28T19:32:08.450" UserId="3042" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="A table of numercal prefixes is given in _Wikipedia_; both cardinal &amp; multiple forms. What we are duscussing here is the _muliple_ form. Perhaps surprisingly, there is one for 1¼, which is _quasqui_. So perhaps one could use _biquasqui_ for the 2½ multiple prefix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But as for _sester_, I've also read of that one - I can't remember where now; but whatever the writing was that said it, it simply said without qualifcation it _is_ the prefix, whereas a previous respondent _speculates_ that it _might_ be admissible. However, it is __not__ in the _Wikipedia_ table. I _do_ use it and am going to continue to do so, anyway!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The previous respondent also says it's use-potential is _borderline_ (not verbatim). As I said, I do use it; and I find that opportunities for doing so are not __extremely__ rare. As for _sestercentenial_: an alternative there, as in the same table _quater_ is given for the  ¼ multiple prefix, would be _quatermillenial_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is perhaps no precedent for concatenation of _bi_ &amp; another prefix ... but concatenenation of it with __any__ other of these _multiple_ prefixes known to me would result in an elementary redundancy. It does so even in the case of _quasqui_ if _sester_ be admitted. And given _quater_, the concatenation _hemisemi_, as in _hemisemiquaver_ in music, is similarly a redundancy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7408" RevisionGUID="8cdac254-f6f4-4305-9166-149808d4fc0f" CreationDate="2018-10-28T22:38:17.137" UserId="3042" Comment="added 513 characters in body" Text="A table of numercal prefixes is given in _Wikipedia_; both cardinal &amp; multiple forms. What we are duscussing here is the _muliple_ form. Perhaps surprisingly, there is one for 1¼, which is _quasqui_. So perhaps one could use _biquasqui_ for the 2½ multiple prefix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But as for _sester_, I've also read of that one - I can't remember where now; but whatever the writing was that said it, it simply said without qualifcation it _is_ the prefix, whereas a previous respondent _speculates_ that it _might_ be admissible. However, it is __not__ in the _Wikipedia_ table. I _do_ use it and am going to continue to do so, anyway!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The previous respondent also says it's use-potential is _borderline_ (not verbatim). As I said, I do use it; and I find that opportunities for doing so are not __extremely__ rare. As for _sestercentenial_: an alternative there, as in the same table _quater_ is given for the  ¼ multiple prefix, would be _quatermillenial_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is perhaps no precedent for concatenation of _bi_ &amp; another prefix ... but concatenenation of it with __any__ other of these _multiple_ prefixes known to me would result in an elementary redundancy. It does so even in the case of _quasqui_ if _sester_ be admitted. And given _quater_, the concatenation _hemisemi_, as in _hemisemiquaver_ in music, is similarly a redundancy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the idea of 'half a syllable': I think that arises in connection with a word such as 'Popocatapetl', or 'Lyublyana': in the case of the former, a native Mexican will pronounce the '-etl' at the end as a single syllable, whereas an English speaker tends to make _two_ syllables of it, but with some effort might be able to get it _close_ to being a single syllable - perhaps a _sesquisyllable_; and likewise in the latter case - that of a native _Slavonic_ speaker, &amp; the 'Lyu-' &amp; '-lya-' in 'Lyublyana'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="8910faab-aeb7-42dc-83e9-02d70604c67a" CreationDate="2018-10-29T00:47:58.157" UserId="39" Comment="added 911 characters in body" Text="It is generally assumed, based on epigraphic data (including misspellings), that palatalization in Latin was operational as early as the second century AD (e.g. Maiden 1995, Repetti 2016, Weiss 2009/2011, among many, many others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss writes that the palatalization of dentals was under way already in the second-third century AD - this observation is based on graphic evidence, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OZE ‘hodie’ &gt; djurnum etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it didn't happen overnight, neither did it affect all the Latin L1 (native) speakers simultaneously. For instance, Adams 2007 mentions two types of evidence that might seem at first contradictory, Consentius (possible of the fifth century) &quot;ecce ut &lt;in *t*&gt; Itali ita pingue nescio quid sonant, ut cum dicunt *etiam*, nihil de media infringant&quot; (as cited in Adams 2007: 203) and Isidore &quot;solent Itali dicere ozie pro hodie.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also happened in several stages, starting most likely in the word-initial position. For instance, Repetti 2016 argues that the first step resulted in /j/ - she cites Sicilian data to support this claim, e.g. hodie [ˈɔji] in Sicilian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second step resulted in either [dʒ] or [dz],cf. Lopocarno 2011, who posits an intermediary stage, [ɟ]; cf. hodie [ˈɔddʒi] in Italian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="027ddcee-603b-4e92-8f52-a2c99d375ad4" CreationDate="2018-10-29T00:55:15.163" UserId="39" Comment="added 911 characters in body" Text="It is generally assumed, based on epigraphic data (including misspellings), that palatalization in Latin was operational as early as the second century AD (e.g. Maiden 1995, Repetti 2016, Weiss 2009/2011, among many, many others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss writes that the palatalization of dentals was under way already in the second-third century AD - this observation is based on graphic evidence, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OZE ‘hodie’ &gt; djurnum etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it didn't happen overnight, neither did it affect all the Latin L1 (native) speakers simultaneously. For instance, Adams 2007 mentions two types of evidence that might seem at first contradictory, Consentius (possible of the fifth century) &quot;ecce ut &lt;in *t*&gt; Itali ita pingue nescio quid sonant, ut cum dicunt *etiam*, nihil de media infringant&quot; (as cited in Adams 2007: 203) and Isidore &quot;solent Itali dicere ozie pro hodie.&quot; Adams admits that the passage from Consentius can be interpreted differently. He makes a very important observation,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It is not at all unlikely that there were careful speakers who avoided yodisation and palatalisation in these environments, and that Consentius (himself possibly a Gaul) had heard some of them in Italy, presumably among the educated classes. But it would be hard to believe that these speakers were located only in Italy, or that this was a genuine regional feature&quot; (p. 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also happened in several stages, starting most likely in the word-initial position. For instance, Repetti 2016 argues that the first step resulted in /j/ - she cites Sicilian data to support this claim, e.g. hodie [ˈɔji] in Sicilian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second step resulted in either [dʒ] or [dz],cf. Lopocarno 2011, who posits an intermediary stage, [ɟ]; cf. hodie [ˈɔddʒi] in Italian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="d91460c2-b799-4390-8b89-ff76903d2b48" CreationDate="2018-10-29T01:08:04.587" UserId="39" Comment="added 302 characters in body" Text="It is generally assumed, based on epigraphic data (including misspellings), that palatalization in Latin was operational as early as the second century AD (e.g. Maiden 1995, Repetti 2016, Weiss 2009/2011, among many, many others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss writes that the palatalization of dentals was under way already in the second-third century AD - this observation is based on graphic evidence, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OZE ‘hodie’ &gt; djurnum etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it didn't happen overnight, neither did it affect all the Latin L1 (native) speakers simultaneously. For instance, Adams 2007 mentions two types of evidence that might seem at first contradictory, Consentius (possible of the fifth century) &quot;ecce ut &lt;in *t*&gt; Itali ita pingue nescio quid sonant, ut cum dicunt *etiam*, nihil de media infringant&quot; (as cited in Adams 2007: 203) and Isidore &quot;solent Itali dicere ozie pro hodie.&quot; Adams admits that the passage from Consentius can be interpreted differently. He makes a very important observation,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It is not at all unlikely that there were careful speakers who avoided yodisation and palatalisation in these environments, and that Consentius (himself possibly a Gaul) had heard some of them in Italy, presumably among the educated classes. But it would be hard to believe that these speakers were located only in Italy, or that this was a genuine regional feature&quot; (p. 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also happened in several stages, starting most likely in the word-initial position. For instance, Repetti 2016 argues that the first step resulted in /j/ - she cites Sicilian data to support this claim, e.g. hodie [ˈɔji] in Sicilian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second step resulted in either [dʒ] or [dz],cf. Lopocarno 2011, who posits an intermediary stage, [ɟ]; cf. hodie [ˈɔddʒi] in Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I decided not to use the term *Vulgar Latin* (ca 250-ca 600 AD, Adamik 2015) in my post after all, following Vincent 2016. Was Vulgar Latin the successor to Classical Latin or were they separate languages? That is a big and extremely difficult question and most likely it is unanswerable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="880a064a-d757-4dba-bcee-d9730cac1c16" CreationDate="2018-10-29T01:26:21.633" UserId="39" Comment="added 438 characters in body" Text="It is generally assumed, based on epigraphic data (including misspellings), that palatalization in Latin was operational as early as the second century AD (e.g. Maiden 1995, [Repetti 2016][1], Weiss 2009/2011, among many, many others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss writes that the palatalization of dentals was under way already in the second-third century AD - this observation is based on graphic evidence, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OZE ‘hodie’ &gt; djurnum etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it didn't happen overnight, neither did it affect all the Latin L1 (native) speakers simultaneously. For instance, [Adams 2007][2] mentions two types of evidence that might seem at first contradictory, Consentius (possible of the fifth century) &quot;ecce ut &lt;in *t*&gt; Itali ita pingue nescio quid sonant, ut cum dicunt *etiam*, nihil de media infringant&quot; (as cited in [Adams 2007][2]: 203) and Isidore &quot;solent Itali dicere ozie pro hodie.&quot; Adams admits that the passage from Consentius can be interpreted differently. He makes a very important observation,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It is not at all unlikely that there were careful speakers who avoided yodisation and palatalisation in these environments, and that Consentius (himself possibly a Gaul) had heard some of them in Italy, presumably among the educated classes. But it would be hard to believe that these speakers were located only in Italy, or that this was a genuine regional feature&quot; (p. 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also happened in several stages, starting most likely in the word-initial position. For instance, [Repetti 2016][1] argues that the first step resulted in /j/ - she cites Sicilian data to support this claim, e.g. hodie [ˈɔji] in Sicilian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second step resulted in either [dʒ] or [dz],cf. Lopocarno 2011, who posits an intermediary stage, [ɟ]; cf. hodie [ˈɔddʒi] in Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I decided not to use the term *Vulgar Latin* (ca 250-ca 600 AD, Adamik 2015) in my post after all, following [Vincent 2016][3]. Was Vulgar Latin the successor to Classical Latin or were they separate languages? That is a big and extremely difficult question and most likely it is unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108-chapter-39&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/bilingualism-and-the-latin-language/languages-in-contact-with-latin/23BE02346AE251FB12F7B27660DCC7E0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/early-and-late-latin/continuity-and-change-from-latin-to-romance/0774BF2CF307871BDCB65991557D2118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="3e1d288d-e754-4fac-b638-f378a7535dfc" CreationDate="2018-10-29T01:44:28.783" UserId="39" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="It is generally assumed, based on epigraphic data (including misspellings), that palatalization in Latin was operational as early as the second century AD (e.g. Maiden 1995, [Repetti 2016][1], Weiss 2009/2011, among many, many others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss writes that the palatalization of dentals was under way already in the second-third century AD - this observation is based on graphic evidence, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OZE ‘hodie’ &gt; djurnum etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it didn't happen overnight, neither did it affect all the Latin L1 (native) speakers simultaneously. For instance, [Adams 2007][2] mentions two types of evidence that might seem at first contradictory, Consentius (possible of the fifth century) &quot;ecce ut &lt;in *t*&gt; Itali ita pingue nescio quid sonant, ut cum dicunt *etiam*, nihil de media infringant&quot; (as cited in [Adams 2007][2]: 203) and Isidore &quot;solent Itali dicere ozie pro hodie.&quot; Adams admits that the passage from Consentius can be interpreted differently. He makes a very important observation,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It is not at all unlikely that there were careful speakers who avoided yodisation and palatalisation in these environments, and that Consentius (himself possibly a Gaul) had heard some of them in Italy, presumably among the educated classes. But it would be hard to believe that these speakers were located only in Italy, or that this was a genuine regional feature&quot; (p. 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also happened in several stages, starting most likely in the word-initial position. For instance, [Repetti 2016][1] argues that the first stage (syncope CiV &gt; CjV) resulted in /j/ - she cites Sicilian data to support this claim, e.g. hodie [ˈɔji] in Sicilian or Weiss mentions some interesting data from Augustine, who has about 100 instances of CjV and only 10 instances of CiV (p. 513, footnote 56).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second stage resulted in either [dʒ] or [dz],cf. Lopocarno 2011, who posits an intermediary stage, [ɟ]; cf. hodie [ˈɔddʒi] in Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I decided not to use the term *Vulgar Latin* (ca 250-ca 600 AD, Adamik 2015) in my post after all, following [Vincent 2016][3]. Was Vulgar Latin the successor to Classical Latin or were they separate languages? That is a big and extremely difficult question and most likely it is unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108-chapter-39&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/bilingualism-and-the-latin-language/languages-in-contact-with-latin/23BE02346AE251FB12F7B27660DCC7E0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/early-and-late-latin/continuity-and-change-from-latin-to-romance/0774BF2CF307871BDCB65991557D2118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="14443a93-339c-4add-aa3a-ce52c54f40a5" CreationDate="2018-10-29T01:51:05.217" UserId="39" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="It is generally assumed, based on epigraphic data (including misspellings), that palatalization in Latin was operational as early as the second century AD (e.g. Maiden 1995, [Repetti 2016][1], Weiss 2009/2011, among many, many others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it didn't happen overnight, neither did it affect all the Latin L1 (native) speakers simultaneously. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Graphic evidence**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OZE ‘hodie’ (late second century AD, Algeria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Weiss &quot;examples from Italy are somewhat later&quot; (p. 513, footnote 57)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence from grammarians etc.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Adams 2007][2] mentions two types of evidence that might seem at first contradictory, Consentius (possible of the fifth century) &quot;ecce ut &lt;in *t*&gt; Itali ita pingue nescio quid sonant, ut cum dicunt *etiam*, nihil de media infringant&quot; (as cited in [Adams 2007][2]: 203) and Isidore &quot;solent Itali dicere ozie pro hodie.&quot; Adams admits that the passage from Consentius can be interpreted differently. He makes a very important observation,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It is not at all unlikely that there were careful speakers who avoided yodisation and palatalisation in these environments, and that Consentius (himself possibly a Gaul) had heard some of them in Italy, presumably among the educated classes. But it would be hard to believe that these speakers were located only in Italy, or that this was a genuine regional feature&quot; (p. 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds two more, Serv. ad. *Georg.* 2.126 and Papirianus (Keil 7.216.8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also happened in several stages, starting most likely in the word-initial position. For instance, [Repetti 2016][1] argues that the first stage (syncope, CiV or CeV &gt; CjV) resulted in /j/ - she cites Sicilian data to support this claim, e.g. hodie [ˈɔji] in Sicilian or Weiss mentions some interesting data from Augustine, who has about 100 instances of CjV and only 10 instances of CiV (p. 513, footnote 56).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds that &quot;First to undergo palatalization were dentals before yod&quot; (p. 513, footnote 58).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second stage resulted in either [dʒ] or [dz],cf. Lopocarno 2011, who posits an intermediary stage, [ɟ]; cf. hodie [ˈɔddʒi] in Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I decided not to use the term *Vulgar Latin* (ca 250-ca 600 AD, Adamik 2015) in my post after all, following [Vincent 2016][3]. Was Vulgar Latin the successor to Classical Latin or were they separate languages? That is a big and extremely difficult question and most likely it is unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108-chapter-39&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/bilingualism-and-the-latin-language/languages-in-contact-with-latin/23BE02346AE251FB12F7B27660DCC7E0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/early-and-late-latin/continuity-and-change-from-latin-to-romance/0774BF2CF307871BDCB65991557D2118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="5e5624db-46fa-4e67-bb03-6d6906a300d1" CreationDate="2018-10-29T02:10:48.820" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 51 characters in body" Text="It is generally assumed, based on epigraphic data (including misspellings), that palatalization in Latin was operational as early as the second century AD (e.g. Maiden 1995, [Repetti 2016][1], Weiss 2009/2011, among many, many others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it didn't happen overnight, neither did it affect all the Latin L1 (native) speakers simultaneously. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Graphic evidence**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OZE ‘hodie’ (late second century AD, Algeria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Weiss &quot;examples from Italy are somewhat later&quot; (p. 513, footnote 57)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence from grammarians etc.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Adams 2007][2] mentions two types of evidence that might seem at first contradictory, Consentius (possible of the fifth century) &quot;ecce ut &lt;in *t*&gt; Itali ita pingue nescio quid sonant, ut cum dicunt *etiam*, nihil de media infringant&quot; (as cited in [Adams 2007][2]: 203) and Isidore &quot;solent Itali dicere ozie pro hodie.&quot; Adams admits that the passage from Consentius can be interpreted differently. He makes a very important observation,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It is not at all unlikely that there were careful speakers who avoided yodisation and palatalisation in these environments, and that Consentius (himself possibly a Gaul) had heard some of them in Italy, presumably among the educated classes. But it would be hard to believe that these speakers were located only in Italy, or that this was a genuine regional feature&quot; (p. 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds two more, Serv. ad. *Georg.* 2.126 and Papirianus (Keil 7.216.8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also happened in several stages. For instance, [Repetti 2016][1] argues that the first stage (syncope, CiV or CeV &gt; CjV) resulted in /j/ - she cites Sicilian data to support this claim, e.g. hodie [ˈɔji] in Sicilian or Weiss mentions some interesting data from Augustine, who has about 100 instances of CjV and only 10 instances of CiV (p. 513, footnote 56).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds that &quot;First to undergo palatalization were dentals before yod&quot; (p. 513, footnote 58).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second stage resulted in either [dʒ] or [dz],cf. Lopocarno 2011, who posits an intermediary stage, [ɟ]; cf. hodie [ˈɔddʒi] in Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I decided not to use the term *Vulgar Latin* (ca 250-ca 600 AD, Adamik 2015) in my post after all, following [Vincent 2016][3]. Was Vulgar Latin the successor to Classical Latin or were they separate languages? That is a big and extremely difficult question and most likely it is unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108-chapter-39&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/bilingualism-and-the-latin-language/languages-in-contact-with-latin/23BE02346AE251FB12F7B27660DCC7E0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/early-and-late-latin/continuity-and-change-from-latin-to-romance/0774BF2CF307871BDCB65991557D2118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="8f91018f-068c-470e-a094-e5cac7da5a83" CreationDate="2018-10-29T02:17:54.590" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 51 characters in body" Text="It is generally assumed, based on epigraphic data (including misspellings), that palatalization in Latin was operational as early as the second century AD (e.g. Maiden 1995, [Repetti 2016][1], Weiss 2009/2011, among many, many others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it didn't happen overnight, neither did it affect all the Latin L1 (native) speakers simultaneously. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Graphic evidence**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OZE ‘hodie’ (late second century AD, Algeria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iosum, iusum (CL deorsum) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][2], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iurnus (CL diurnus) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][2], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Weiss &quot;examples from Italy are somewhat later&quot; (p. 513, footnote 57)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence from grammarians etc.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Adams 2007][3] mentions two types of evidence that might seem at first contradictory, Consentius (possible of the fifth century) &quot;ecce ut &lt;in *t*&gt; Itali ita pingue nescio quid sonant, ut cum dicunt *etiam*, nihil de media infringant&quot; (as cited in [Adams 2007][3]: 203) and Isidore &quot;solent Itali dicere ozie pro hodie.&quot; Adams admits that the passage from Consentius can be interpreted differently. He makes a very important observation,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It is not at all unlikely that there were careful speakers who avoided yodisation and palatalisation in these environments, and that Consentius (himself possibly a Gaul) had heard some of them in Italy, presumably among the educated classes. But it would be hard to believe that these speakers were located only in Italy, or that this was a genuine regional feature&quot; (p. 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds two more, Serv. ad. *Georg.* 2.126 and Papirianus (Keil 7.216.8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also happened in several stages. For instance, [Repetti 2016][1] argues that the first stage (syncope, CiV or CeV &gt; CjV) resulted in /j/ - she cites Sicilian data to support this claim, e.g. hodie [ˈɔji] in Sicilian or Weiss mentions some interesting data from Augustine, who has about 100 instances of CjV and only 10 instances of CiV (p. 513, footnote 56).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds that &quot;First to undergo palatalization were dentals before yod&quot; (p. 513, footnote 58).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second stage resulted in either [dʒ] or [dz],cf. Lopocarno 2011, who posits an intermediary stage, [ɟ]; cf. hodie [ˈɔddʒi] in Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I decided not to use the term *Vulgar Latin* (ca 250-ca 600 AD, Adamik 2015) in my post after all, following [Vincent 2016][4]. Was Vulgar Latin the successor to Classical Latin or were they separate languages? That is a big and extremely difficult question and most likely it is unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108-chapter-39&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.chbeck.de/stotz-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-griechische-grammatik-lateinische-grammatik-rhetorik-band-ii_5-3-handbuch-lateinischen-spra/product/15797&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/bilingualism-and-the-latin-language/languages-in-contact-with-latin/23BE02346AE251FB12F7B27660DCC7E0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/early-and-late-latin/continuity-and-change-from-latin-to-romance/0774BF2CF307871BDCB65991557D2118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7415" RevisionGUID="b73f04fa-0418-4de5-af11-dcb4ca4b4b1b" CreationDate="2018-10-29T02:27:53.200" UserId="522" Text="***Pignus Futurae Spei*** A pledge of future hope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Pignus***  a token or pledge, a solemn word used by Cicero and Vergil.  &#xD;&#xA;[Nominativus pignus pignora. Genitivus pignoris pignorum ... Vocativus pignus pignora]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Owen *Pneumatologia* 1674:*hoc in donorum operationibus futuræ spei pignus est* this, in the effects of those gifts, is a pledge of future hope &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Valerius Maximus: *vel spei vel desperationis pignus fuerit* it was a token of either hope or desperation  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cicero:   (Philippics 1/4/3)&#xD;&#xA;*magnum pignus libertatis*;  a great token of the liberty [of the Roman people]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vergil (Ae.11.363) *solum, pacis inviolabile pignus*: our soil, an unbreakable pledge of peace&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="ad754ee5-0953-4123-bf0a-19c1c8ed692b" CreationDate="2018-10-29T03:07:29.203" UserId="39" Comment="added 149 characters in body" Text="It is generally assumed, based on epigraphic data (including misspellings), that palatalization in Latin was operational as early as the second century AD (e.g. Maiden 1995, [Repetti 2016][1], Weiss 2009/2011, among many, many others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it didn't happen overnight, neither did it affect all the Latin L1 (native) speakers simultaneously. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Graphic evidence**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OZE ‘hodie’ (late second century AD, Algeria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iosum, iusum (CL deorsum) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][2], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iurnus (CL diurnus) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][2], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Weiss &quot;examples from Italy are somewhat later&quot; (p. 513, footnote 57)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence from grammarians etc.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Adams 2007][3] mentions two types of evidence that might seem at first contradictory, Consentius (possible of the fifth century) &quot;ecce ut &lt;in *t*&gt; Itali ita pingue nescio quid sonant, ut cum dicunt *etiam*, nihil de media infringant&quot; (as cited in [Adams 2007][3]: 203) and Isidore &quot;solent Itali dicere ozie pro hodie.&quot; Adams admits that the passage from Consentius can be interpreted differently. He makes a very important observation,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It is not at all unlikely that there were careful speakers who avoided yodisation and palatalisation in these environments, and that Consentius (himself possibly a Gaul) had heard some of them in Italy, presumably among the educated classes. But it would be hard to believe that these speakers were located only in Italy, or that this was a genuine regional feature&quot; (p. 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds two more, Serv. ad. *Georg.* 2.126 and Papirianus (Keil 7.216.8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also happened in several stages. For instance, [Repetti 2016][1] argues that the first stage (syncope, CiV or CeV &gt; CjV) resulted in /j/ - she cites Sicilian data to support this claim, e.g. hodie [ˈɔji] in Sicilian or Weiss mentions some interesting data from Augustine, who has about 100 instances of CjV and only 10 instances of CiV (p. 513, footnote 56).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds that &quot;First to undergo palatalization were dentals before yod&quot; (p. 513, footnote 58).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second stage resulted in either [dʒ] or [dz],cf. [Loporcaro 2011][4], who posits an intermediary stage, [ɟ]; cf. hodie [ˈɔddʒi] in Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I decided not to use the term *Vulgar Latin* (ca 250-ca 600 AD, Adamik 2015) in my post after all, following [Vincent 2016][5]. Was Vulgar Latin the successor to Classical Latin or were they separate languages? That is a big and extremely difficult question and most likely it is unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108-chapter-39&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.chbeck.de/stotz-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-griechische-grammatik-lateinische-grammatik-rhetorik-band-ii_5-3-handbuch-lateinischen-spra/product/15797&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/bilingualism-and-the-latin-language/languages-in-contact-with-latin/23BE02346AE251FB12F7B27660DCC7E0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-the-romance-languages/phonological-processes/21EDCEC158C188D2E4FB1CF3EDBC1C7D&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/early-and-late-latin/continuity-and-change-from-latin-to-romance/0774BF2CF307871BDCB65991557D2118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7416" RevisionGUID="88393c6b-4448-46b9-ba2d-bf189029edc1" CreationDate="2018-10-29T03:17:21.233" UserId="1987" Text="In [Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound][1] I want to paraphrase these lines **in Greek**:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; PROMETHEUS [152] Oh if only he had hurled me below the earth, yes beneath Hades, the entertainer of the dead, into impassable Tartarus, and had ruthlessly fastened me in fetters no hand can loose, so that neither god nor any other might have gloated over this agony I feel! But, now, a miserable plaything of the winds, I suffer pains to delight my enemies.&#xA;&#xA;Into:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Oh if only he had hurled me below the earth, so that neither god nor any other might have gloated over this agony I feel! But, now, a miserable plaything of the winds, I suffer pains to delight my enemies.&#xA;&#xA;I **think** [these][2] are the lines in Greek:&#xA;&#xA;Προμηθεύς: εἰ γάρ μ᾽ ὑπὸ γῆν νέρθεν θ᾽ Ἅιδου &#xA;τοῦ νεκροδέγμονος εἰς ἀπέρατον &#xA;Τάρταρον ἧκεν, &#xA;155δεσμοῖς ἀλύτοις ἀγρίως πελάσας, &#xA;ὡς μήτε θεὸς μήτε τις ἄλλος &#xA;τοῖσδ᾽ ἐπεγήθει. &#xA;νῦν δ᾽ αἰθέριον κίνυγμ᾽ ὁ τάλας &#xA;ἐχθροῖς ἐπίχαρτα πέπονθα.&#xA;&#xA;Can somebody help me?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.theoi.com/Text/AeschylusPrometheus.html&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0009%3Acard%3D152" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24840" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7416" RevisionGUID="88393c6b-4448-46b9-ba2d-bf189029edc1" CreationDate="2018-10-29T03:17:21.233" UserId="1987" Text="Paraphrasing Prometheus Bound (Greek)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24841" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7416" RevisionGUID="88393c6b-4448-46b9-ba2d-bf189029edc1" CreationDate="2018-10-29T03:17:21.233" UserId="1987" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="b069d5b5-ae33-466f-a0d6-2a7ffecb11f8" CreationDate="2018-10-29T03:25:50.643" UserId="39" Comment="added 197 characters in body" Text="It is generally assumed, based on epigraphic data (including misspellings), that palatalization in Latin was operational as early as the second century AD (e.g. Maiden 1995, [Repetti 2016][1], Weiss 2009/2011, among many, many others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it didn't happen overnight, neither did it affect all the Latin L1 (native) speakers simultaneously. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Graphic evidence**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OZE ‘hodie’ (late second century AD, Algeria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AZUTORIBUS 'adiutoribus' (CIL VIII 18224, Algeria) [Loporcaro 2011][4]: 145&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IOSIMVS 'Zosimus' (hypercorrection, Pompeii, CIL IV suppl. I 4599) [Loporcaro 2011][4]: 145&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iosum, iusum (CL deorsum) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][2], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iurnus (CL diurnus) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][2], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Weiss &quot;examples from Italy are somewhat later&quot; (p. 513, footnote 57)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence from grammarians etc.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Adams 2007][3] mentions two types of evidence that might seem at first contradictory, Consentius (possible of the fifth century) &quot;ecce ut &lt;in *t*&gt; Itali ita pingue nescio quid sonant, ut cum dicunt *etiam*, nihil de media infringant&quot; (as cited in [Adams 2007][3]: 203) and Isidore &quot;solent Itali dicere ozie pro hodie.&quot; Adams admits that the passage from Consentius can be interpreted differently. He makes a very important observation,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It is not at all unlikely that there were careful speakers who avoided yodisation and palatalisation in these environments, and that Consentius (himself possibly a Gaul) had heard some of them in Italy, presumably among the educated classes. But it would be hard to believe that these speakers were located only in Italy, or that this was a genuine regional feature&quot; (p. 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds two more, Serv. ad. *Georg.* 2.126 and Papirianus (Keil 7.216.8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also happened in several stages. For instance, [Repetti 2016][1] argues that the first stage (syncope, CiV or CeV &gt; CjV) resulted in /j/ (Castellani 1965 argues this process had been finished by the first century AD)  - e.g. hodie [ˈɔji] in Sicilian; Weiss mentions some interesting data from Augustine, who has about 100 instances of CjV and only 10 instances of CiV (p. 513, footnote 56).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds that &quot;First to undergo palatalization were dentals before yod&quot; (p. 513, footnote 58).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second stage resulted in either [dʒ] or [dz],cf. [Loporcaro 2011][4], who posits an intermediary stage, [ɟ]; cf. hodie [ˈɔddʒi] in Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I decided not to use the term *Vulgar Latin* (ca 250-ca 600 AD, Adamik 2015) in my post after all, following [Vincent 2016][5]. Was Vulgar Latin the successor to Classical Latin or were they separate languages? That is a big and extremely difficult question and most likely it is unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108-chapter-39&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.chbeck.de/stotz-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-griechische-grammatik-lateinische-grammatik-rhetorik-band-ii_5-3-handbuch-lateinischen-spra/product/15797&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/bilingualism-and-the-latin-language/languages-in-contact-with-latin/23BE02346AE251FB12F7B27660DCC7E0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-the-romance-languages/phonological-processes/21EDCEC158C188D2E4FB1CF3EDBC1C7D&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/early-and-late-latin/continuity-and-change-from-latin-to-romance/0774BF2CF307871BDCB65991557D2118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="775b7da9-77d5-4a6b-8111-2e98dc34b785" CreationDate="2018-10-29T03:32:05.790" UserId="39" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="It is generally assumed, based on epigraphic data (including misspellings), that palatalization in Latin was operational as early as the second century AD (e.g. Maiden 1995, [Repetti 2016][1], Weiss 2009/2011, among many, many others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it didn't happen overnight, neither did it affect all the Latin L1 (native) speakers simultaneously. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Graphic evidence**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OZE ‘hodie’ (late second century AD, Algeria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AZUTORIBUS 'adiutoribus' (CIL VIII 18224, Algeria) [Loporcaro 2011][4]: 145&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ζie 'die' (second century AD, Algeria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IOSIMVS 'Zosimus' (hypercorrection, Pompeii, CIL IV suppl. I 4599) [Loporcaro 2011][4]: 145&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iosum, iusum (CL deorsum) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][2], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iurnus (CL diurnus) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][2], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Weiss &quot;examples from Italy are somewhat later&quot; (p. 513, footnote 57)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence from grammarians etc.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Adams 2007][3] mentions two types of evidence that might seem at first contradictory, Consentius (possible of the fifth century) &quot;ecce ut &lt;in *t*&gt; Itali ita pingue nescio quid sonant, ut cum dicunt *etiam*, nihil de media infringant&quot; (as cited in [Adams 2007][3]: 203) and Isidore &quot;solent Itali dicere ozie pro hodie.&quot; Adams admits that the passage from Consentius can be interpreted differently. He makes a very important observation,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It is not at all unlikely that there were careful speakers who avoided yodisation and palatalisation in these environments, and that Consentius (himself possibly a Gaul) had heard some of them in Italy, presumably among the educated classes. But it would be hard to believe that these speakers were located only in Italy, or that this was a genuine regional feature&quot; (p. 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds two more, Serv. ad. *Georg.* 2.126 and Papirianus (Keil 7.216.8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also happened in several stages. For instance, [Repetti 2016][1] argues that the first stage (syncope, CiV or CeV &gt; CjV) resulted in /j/ (Castellani 1965 argues this process had been finished by the first century AD)  - e.g. hodie [ˈɔji] in Sicilian; Weiss mentions some interesting data from Augustine, who has about 100 instances of CjV and only 10 instances of CiV (p. 513, footnote 56).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds that &quot;First to undergo palatalization were dentals before yod&quot; (p. 513, footnote 58).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second stage resulted in either [dʒ] or [dz],cf. [Loporcaro 2011][4], who posits an intermediary stage, [ɟ]; cf. hodie [ˈɔddʒi] in Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I decided not to use the term *Vulgar Latin* (ca 250-ca 600 AD, Adamik 2015) in my post after all, following [Vincent 2016][5]. Was Vulgar Latin the successor to Classical Latin or were they separate languages? That is a big and extremely difficult question and most likely it is unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108-chapter-39&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.chbeck.de/stotz-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-griechische-grammatik-lateinische-grammatik-rhetorik-band-ii_5-3-handbuch-lateinischen-spra/product/15797&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/bilingualism-and-the-latin-language/languages-in-contact-with-latin/23BE02346AE251FB12F7B27660DCC7E0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-the-romance-languages/phonological-processes/21EDCEC158C188D2E4FB1CF3EDBC1C7D&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/early-and-late-latin/continuity-and-change-from-latin-to-romance/0774BF2CF307871BDCB65991557D2118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="437f7eb5-4498-4887-9448-063d3f379854" CreationDate="2018-10-29T03:43:43.227" UserId="39" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="It is generally assumed, based on epigraphic data (including misspellings), that palatalization in Latin was operational as early as the second century AD (e.g. Maiden 1995, [Repetti 2016][1], Weiss 2009/2011, among many, many others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it didn't happen overnight, neither did it affect all the Latin L1 (native) speakers simultaneously. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Graphic evidence**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OZE ‘hodie’ (late second century AD, Algeria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AZUTORIBUS 'adiutoribus' (CIL VIII 18224, Algeria) [Loporcaro 2011][4]: 145&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ZODORUS 'Diodorus'(CIL XIV 2325)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ζie 'die' (second century AD, Algeria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IOSIMVS 'Zosimus' (hypercorrection, Pompeii, CIL IV suppl. I 4599) [Loporcaro 2011][4]: 145&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iosum, iusum (CL deorsum) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][2], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iurnus (CL diurnus) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][2], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Weiss &quot;examples from Italy are somewhat later&quot; (p. 513, footnote 57)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence from grammarians etc.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Adams 2007][3] mentions two types of evidence that might seem at first contradictory, Consentius (possible of the fifth century) &quot;ecce ut &lt;in *t*&gt; Itali ita pingue nescio quid sonant, ut cum dicunt *etiam*, nihil de media infringant&quot; (as cited in [Adams 2007][3]: 203) and Isidore &quot;solent Itali dicere ozie pro hodie.&quot; Adams admits that the passage from Consentius can be interpreted differently. He makes a very important observation,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It is not at all unlikely that there were careful speakers who avoided yodisation and palatalisation in these environments, and that Consentius (himself possibly a Gaul) had heard some of them in Italy, presumably among the educated classes. But it would be hard to believe that these speakers were located only in Italy, or that this was a genuine regional feature&quot; (p. 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds two more, Serv. ad. *Georg.* 2.126 and Papirianus (Keil 7.216.8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also happened in several stages. For instance, [Repetti 2016][1] argues that the first stage (syncope, CiV or CeV &gt; CjV) resulted in /j/ (Castellani 1965 argues this process had been finished by the first century AD)  - e.g. hodie [ˈɔji] in Sicilian; Weiss mentions some interesting data from Augustine, who has about 100 instances of CjV and only 10 instances of CiV (p. 513, footnote 56).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds that &quot;First to undergo palatalization were dentals before yod&quot; (p. 513, footnote 58).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second stage resulted in either [dʒ] or [dz],cf. [Loporcaro 2011][4], who posits an intermediary stage, [ɟ]; cf. hodie [ˈɔddʒi] in Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I decided not to use the term *Vulgar Latin* (ca 250-ca 600 AD, Adamik 2015) in my post after all, following [Vincent 2016][5]. Was Vulgar Latin the successor to Classical Latin or were they separate languages? That is a big and extremely difficult question and most likely it is unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108-chapter-39&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.chbeck.de/stotz-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-griechische-grammatik-lateinische-grammatik-rhetorik-band-ii_5-3-handbuch-lateinischen-spra/product/15797&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/bilingualism-and-the-latin-language/languages-in-contact-with-latin/23BE02346AE251FB12F7B27660DCC7E0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-the-romance-languages/phonological-processes/21EDCEC158C188D2E4FB1CF3EDBC1C7D&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/early-and-late-latin/continuity-and-change-from-latin-to-romance/0774BF2CF307871BDCB65991557D2118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="e0ffe7ff-3f98-4e04-adfd-f117d70a995d" CreationDate="2018-10-29T04:05:12.570" UserId="39" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="It is generally assumed, based on epigraphic data (including misspellings), that palatalization in Latin was operational as early as the second century AD (e.g. Maiden 1995, [Repetti 2016][1], Weiss 2009/2011, among many, many others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it didn't happen overnight, neither did it affect all the Latin L1 (native) speakers simultaneously. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Graphic evidence**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OZE ‘hodie’ (late second century AD, Algeria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AZUTORIBUS 'adiutoribus' (CIL VIII 18224, Algeria) [Loporcaro 2011][4]: 145&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ZODORUS 'Diodorus'(CIL XIV 2325)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ζie 'die' (second century AD, Algeria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IOSIMVS 'Zosimus' (hypercorrection, Pompeii, CIL IV suppl. I 4599) [Loporcaro 2011][4]: 145&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iosum, iusum (CL deorsum) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][2], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iurnus (CL diurnus) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][2], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Weiss &quot;examples from Italy are somewhat later&quot; (p. 513, footnote 57)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence from grammarians etc.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Adams 2007][3] mentions two types of evidence that might seem at first contradictory, Consentius (possible of the fifth century) &quot;ecce ut &lt;in *t*&gt; Itali ita pingue nescio quid sonant, ut cum dicunt *etiam*, nihil de media infringant&quot; (as cited in [Adams 2007][3]: 203) and Isidore &quot;solent Itali dicere ozie pro hodie.&quot; Adams admits that the passage from Consentius can be interpreted differently. He makes a very important observation,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It is not at all unlikely that there were careful speakers who avoided yodisation and palatalisation in these environments, and that Consentius (himself possibly a Gaul) had heard some of them in Italy, presumably among the educated classes. But it would be hard to believe that these speakers were located only in Italy, or that this was a genuine regional feature&quot; (p. 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds two more, Serv. ad. *Georg.* 2.126 and Papirianus (Keil 7.216.8). See Mras 1948 (in *Wiener Studien* 63) for a comprehensive account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also happened in several stages. For instance, [Repetti 2016][1] argues that the first stage (syncope, CiV or CeV &gt; CjV) resulted in /j/ (Castellani 1965 argues this process had been finished by the first century AD)  - e.g. hodie [ˈɔji] in Sicilian; Weiss mentions some interesting data from Augustine, who has about 100 instances of CjV and only 10 instances of CiV (p. 513, footnote 56).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds that &quot;First to undergo palatalization were dentals before yod&quot; (p. 513, footnote 58).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second stage resulted in either [dʒ] or [dz],cf. [Loporcaro 2011][4], who posits an intermediary stage, [ɟ]; cf. hodie [ˈɔddʒi] in Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I decided not to use the term *Vulgar Latin* (ca 250-ca 600 AD, Adamik 2015) in my post after all, following [Vincent 2016][5]. Was Vulgar Latin the successor to Classical Latin or were they separate languages? That is a big and extremely difficult question and most likely it is unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108-chapter-39&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.chbeck.de/stotz-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-griechische-grammatik-lateinische-grammatik-rhetorik-band-ii_5-3-handbuch-lateinischen-spra/product/15797&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/bilingualism-and-the-latin-language/languages-in-contact-with-latin/23BE02346AE251FB12F7B27660DCC7E0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-the-romance-languages/phonological-processes/21EDCEC158C188D2E4FB1CF3EDBC1C7D&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/early-and-late-latin/continuity-and-change-from-latin-to-romance/0774BF2CF307871BDCB65991557D2118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="8dde65b9-b797-4785-8664-a8dd9db1cd83" CreationDate="2018-10-29T04:13:31.453" UserId="39" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]; deleted 30 characters in body" Text="It is generally assumed, based on epigraphic data (including misspellings), that palatalization in Latin was operational as early as the second century AD (e.g. Maiden 1995, [Repetti 2016][1], Weiss 2009/2011, among many, many others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it didn't happen overnight, neither did it affect all the Latin L1 (native) speakers simultaneously. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Graphic evidence**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OZE ‘hodie’ (late second century AD, Algeria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AZUTORIBUS 'adiutoribus' (CIL VIII 18224, Algeria) [Loporcaro 2011][4]: 145&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ZODORUS 'Diodorus'(CIL XIV 2325)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ζie 'die' (second century AD, Algeria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IOSIMVS 'Zosimus' (hypercorrection, Pompeii, CIL IV suppl. I 4599) [Loporcaro 2011][4]: 145&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iosum, iusum (CL deorsum) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][2], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iurnus (CL diurnus) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][2], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Weiss &quot;examples from Italy are somewhat later&quot; (p. 513, footnote 57)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence from grammarians etc.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Adams 2007][3] mentions two types of evidence that might seem at first contradictory, Consentius (possible of the fifth century) &quot;ecce ut &lt;in *t*&gt; Itali ita pingue nescio quid sonant, ut cum dicunt *etiam*, nihil de media infringant&quot; (as cited in [Adams 2007][3]: 203) and Isidore &quot;solent Itali dicere ozie pro hodie.&quot; Adams admits that the passage from Consentius can be interpreted differently. He makes a very important observation,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It is not at all unlikely that there were careful speakers who avoided yodisation and palatalisation in these environments, and that Consentius (himself possibly a Gaul) had heard some of them in Italy, presumably among the educated classes. But it would be hard to believe that these speakers were located only in Italy, or that this was a genuine regional feature&quot; (p. 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds two more, Serv. ad. *Georg.* 2.126 and Papirianus (Keil 7.216.8). See Mras 1948 (in *Wiener Studien* 63) for a comprehensive account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also happened in several stages. For instance, the first stage (syncope, CiV or CeV &gt; CjV) resulted in /j/ (Castellani 1965 argues this process had been finished by the first century AD)  - e.g. hodie [ˈɔji] in Sicilian; Weiss mentions some interesting data from Augustine, who has about 100 instances of CjV and only 10 instances of CiV (p. 513, footnote 56).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds that &quot;First to undergo palatalization were dentals before yod&quot; (p. 513, footnote 58).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second stage resulted in either [dʒ] or [dz],cf. [Loporcaro 2011][4], who posits an intermediary stage, [ɟ]; cf. hodie [ˈɔddʒi] in Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I decided not to use the term *Vulgar Latin* (ca 250-ca 600 AD, Adamik 2015) in my post after all, following [Vincent 2016][5]. Was Vulgar Latin the successor to Classical Latin or were they separate languages? That is a big and extremely difficult question and most likely it is unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108-chapter-39&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.chbeck.de/stotz-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-griechische-grammatik-lateinische-grammatik-rhetorik-band-ii_5-3-handbuch-lateinischen-spra/product/15797&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/bilingualism-and-the-latin-language/languages-in-contact-with-latin/23BE02346AE251FB12F7B27660DCC7E0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-the-romance-languages/phonological-processes/21EDCEC158C188D2E4FB1CF3EDBC1C7D&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/early-and-late-latin/continuity-and-change-from-latin-to-romance/0774BF2CF307871BDCB65991557D2118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7417" RevisionGUID="95fa4024-efe6-498f-ac5b-9648f86b2e87" CreationDate="2018-10-29T04:16:23.060" UserId="985" Text="delete from νέρθεν through Τάρταρον, and from δεσμοῖς through πελάσας. In other words, the paraphrase will be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εἰ γάρ μ᾽ ὑπὸ γῆν ... ἧκεν,  &#xD;&#xA;... ὡς μήτε θεὸς μήτε τις ἄλλος  &#xD;&#xA;τοῖσδ᾽ ἐπεγήθει. νῦν δ᾽ αἰθέριον κίνυγμ᾽ ὁ τάλας  &#xD;&#xA;ἐχθροῖς ἐπίχαρτα πέπονθα." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="4b4ec72c-8f38-4395-ab7c-ee42082cb993" CreationDate="2018-10-29T04:48:42.003" UserId="39" Comment="added 210 characters in body" Text="It is generally assumed, based on epigraphic data (including misspellings), that palatalization in Latin was operational as early as the second century AD (e.g. Maiden 1995, [Repetti 2016][1], Weiss 2009/2011, among many, many others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it didn't happen overnight, neither did it affect all the Latin L1 (native) speakers simultaneously. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Graphic evidence**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OZE ‘hodie’ (late second century AD, Algeria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AZVTORIBVS 'adiutoribus' (CIL VIII 18224, Algeria) [Loporcaro 2011][4]: 145&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ZODORVS 'Diodorus'(CIL XIV 2325)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ADZVTOR 'adiutor' (CIL VIII, 26683)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ζie 'die' (second century AD, Algeria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IOSIMVS 'Zosimus' (hypercorrection, Pompeii, CIL IV suppl. I 4599) [Loporcaro 2011][4]: 145&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iosum, iusum (CL deorsum) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][2], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iurnus (CL diurnus) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][2], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Weiss &quot;examples from Italy are somewhat later&quot; (p. 513, footnote 57)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence from grammarians etc.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pompeius (GL 5.286 12-14, quoted as in Tronskii 1960, §289):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;quotiescumque ... post ti vel di syllabam sequitur vocalis, illud ti vel di in sibilum vertendum est.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Adams 2007][3] mentions two types of evidence that might seem at first contradictory, Consentius (possible of the fifth century) &quot;ecce ut &lt;in *t*&gt; Itali ita pingue nescio quid sonant, ut cum dicunt *etiam*, nihil de media infringant&quot; (as cited in [Adams 2007][3]: 203) and Isidore &quot;solent Itali dicere ozie pro hodie.&quot; Adams admits that the passage from Consentius can be interpreted differently. He makes a very important observation,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It is not at all unlikely that there were careful speakers who avoided yodisation and palatalisation in these environments, and that Consentius (himself possibly a Gaul) had heard some of them in Italy, presumably among the educated classes. But it would be hard to believe that these speakers were located only in Italy, or that this was a genuine regional feature&quot; (p. 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds two more, Serv. ad. *Georg.* 2.126 and Papirianus (Keil 7.216.8). See Mras 1948 (in *Wiener Studien* 63) for a comprehensive account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also happened in several stages. For instance, the first stage (syncope, CiV or CeV &gt; CjV) resulted in /j/ (Castellani 1965 argues this process had been finished by the first century AD)  - e.g. hodie [ˈɔji] in Sicilian; Weiss mentions some interesting data from Augustine, who has about 100 instances of CjV and only 10 instances of CiV (p. 513, footnote 56).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds that &quot;First to undergo palatalization were dentals before yod&quot; (p. 513, footnote 58).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second stage resulted in either [dʒ] or [dz],cf. [Loporcaro 2011][4], who posits an intermediary stage, [ɟ]; cf. hodie [ˈɔddʒi] in Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I decided not to use the term *Vulgar Latin* (ca 250-ca 600 AD, Adamik 2015) in my post after all, following [Vincent 2016][5]. Was Vulgar Latin the successor to Classical Latin or were they separate languages? That is a big and extremely difficult question and most likely it is unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108-chapter-39&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.chbeck.de/stotz-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-griechische-grammatik-lateinische-grammatik-rhetorik-band-ii_5-3-handbuch-lateinischen-spra/product/15797&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/bilingualism-and-the-latin-language/languages-in-contact-with-latin/23BE02346AE251FB12F7B27660DCC7E0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-the-romance-languages/phonological-processes/21EDCEC158C188D2E4FB1CF3EDBC1C7D&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/early-and-late-latin/continuity-and-change-from-latin-to-romance/0774BF2CF307871BDCB65991557D2118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="e4254c40-03cd-4135-abab-46dad4879ed9" CreationDate="2018-10-29T04:59:13.557" UserId="39" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="It is generally assumed, based on epigraphic data (including misspellings), that palatalization in Latin was operational as early as the second century AD (e.g. Maiden 1995, [Repetti 2016][1], Weiss 2009/2011, among many, many others).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it didn't happen overnight, neither did it affect all the Latin L1 (native) speakers simultaneously. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Graphic evidence**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OZE ‘hodie’ (late second century AD, Algeria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AZVTORIBVS 'adiutoribus' (CIL VIII 18224, Algeria) [Loporcaro 2011][4]: 145&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ZODORVS 'Diodorus'(CIL XIV 2325)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ADZVTOR 'adiutor' (CIL VIII, 26683)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ζie 'die' (second century AD, Algeria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IOSIMVS 'Zosimus' (hypercorrection, Pompeii, CIL IV suppl. I 4599) [Loporcaro 2011][4]: 145&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iosum, iusum (CL deorsum) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][2], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iurnus (CL diurnus) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][2], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Weiss &quot;examples from Italy are somewhat later&quot; (p. 513, footnote 57); see Leumann 1977: 130 for more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence from grammarians etc.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pompeius (GL 5.286 12-14, quoted as in Tronskii 1960, §289):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;quotiescumque ... post ti vel di syllabam sequitur vocalis, illud ti vel di in sibilum vertendum est.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Adams 2007][3] mentions two types of evidence that might seem at first contradictory, Consentius (possible of the fifth century) &quot;ecce ut &lt;in *t*&gt; Itali ita pingue nescio quid sonant, ut cum dicunt *etiam*, nihil de media infringant&quot; (as cited in [Adams 2007][3]: 203) and Isidore &quot;solent Itali dicere ozie pro hodie.&quot; Adams admits that the passage from Consentius can be interpreted differently. He makes a very important observation,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It is not at all unlikely that there were careful speakers who avoided yodisation and palatalisation in these environments, and that Consentius (himself possibly a Gaul) had heard some of them in Italy, presumably among the educated classes. But it would be hard to believe that these speakers were located only in Italy, or that this was a genuine regional feature&quot; (p. 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds two more, Serv. ad. *Georg.* 2.126 and Papirianus (Keil 7.216.8). See Mras 1948 (in *Wiener Studien* 63) for a comprehensive account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also happened in several stages. For instance, the first stage (syncope, CiV or CeV &gt; CjV) resulted in /j/ (Castellani 1965 argues this process had been finished by the first century AD)  - e.g. hodie [ˈɔji] in Sicilian; Weiss mentions some interesting data from Augustine, who has about 100 instances of CjV and only 10 instances of CiV (p. 513, footnote 56).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds that &quot;First to undergo palatalization were dentals before yod&quot; (p. 513, footnote 58).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second stage resulted in either [dʒ] or [dz],cf. [Loporcaro 2011][4], who posits an intermediary stage, [ɟ]; cf. hodie [ˈɔddʒi] in Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Leumann 1977: &quot;Klass. lat. *i̯* im Anlaut und Inlaut wird in Vulglat. über eine Spirans *j* zu einer assibilierten Affrikata *dz*, etwa *i̯ &gt; j &gt; dj &gt; d'j &gt; dz'*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I decided not to use the term *Vulgar Latin* (ca 250-ca 600 AD, Adamik 2015) in my post after all, following [Vincent 2016][5]. Was Vulgar Latin the successor to Classical Latin or were they separate languages? That is a big and extremely difficult question and most likely it is unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108-chapter-39&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.chbeck.de/stotz-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-griechische-grammatik-lateinische-grammatik-rhetorik-band-ii_5-3-handbuch-lateinischen-spra/product/15797&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/bilingualism-and-the-latin-language/languages-in-contact-with-latin/23BE02346AE251FB12F7B27660DCC7E0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-the-romance-languages/phonological-processes/21EDCEC158C188D2E4FB1CF3EDBC1C7D&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/early-and-late-latin/continuity-and-change-from-latin-to-romance/0774BF2CF307871BDCB65991557D2118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6844" RevisionGUID="ec95b934-a70a-4beb-87b6-c9dad0c2e355" CreationDate="2018-10-29T06:30:52.907" UserId="79" Comment="added 18 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I [took a look at the chat][1] and saw many comments in Latin, most of whom I could not decipher immediately. So I tried to point that out, and why not do it in Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that I have basically translated this phrase from German to Latin and then back to English, so all versions are a bit clumsy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To read all that will take me a while - as has writing this.    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Haec legere multis horis me diuturnum fuerit, etiam eae scribere erat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My ideas/thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - using neuter plural (like Seneca used to)&#xD;&#xA; - differentiating between that (*haec*) and this (*eae*)&#xD;&#xA; - not messing up the tenses by trying future (*fuerit*) and imperfect (*erat*)&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;take time&quot; is difficult, pons gave *diuturnum esse* and *manere*, but maybe that's more a progressive taking time, like to continue.&#xD;&#xA; - Ablativus Temporalis (*multis horis*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure about the accusative for *haec* and *eae*. It's not intended to be an AcI.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/45594393#45594393" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24851" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6844" RevisionGUID="ec95b934-a70a-4beb-87b6-c9dad0c2e355" CreationDate="2018-10-29T06:30:52.907" UserId="79" Comment="added 18 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7418" RevisionGUID="a822c1d6-ed75-4600-963b-0f44b0191d42" CreationDate="2018-10-29T06:31:27.747" UserId="79" Text="As suggested by the answer to [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6849/79), the verb *consumere* is good for &quot;taking a while&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There does not seem to be a Latin phrase as flexible as the English &quot;take&quot; for time.&#xD;&#xA;Using this verb requires to refactor the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I consumed a lot of time reading all that &amp;mdash; and writing this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is acceptable, I suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Multum temporis consumpsi illa omnia legens &amp;mdash; et hoc scribens.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I have difficulties parsing your original suggestion.&#xD;&#xA;There are good elements, but for example the refactoring I suggest changes the grammatical role of reading and writing drastically; infinitives as subjects would be good if we only had a phrase for &quot;taking a long time&quot; to go with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote *multum temporis* instead of *multas horas*, so that it simply means a lot of time (which will depend on context), rather than many hours.&#xD;&#xA;The neuter plural is indeed good for &quot;this&quot; and &quot;that&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24853" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2325" RevisionGUID="c1cdd855-9691-48e9-a116-dde0c51e5a52" CreationDate="2018-10-29T06:37:38.420" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|translation-check|translation-explanation|herodotus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24854" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2347" RevisionGUID="ad8f2943-cd6e-4665-9473-d814b953a7be" CreationDate="2018-10-29T06:40:34.087" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|greek|style|herodotus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7419" RevisionGUID="ea928b0c-ab76-47f0-a396-149017fa10fa" CreationDate="2018-10-29T07:08:15.067" UserId="645" Text="I need to refer in Latin to the modern practice of 'tipping' in return for good service. I am well aware of words and phrases for 'reward', which are essentially correct for my purpose, but I should like, if possible, something both specific and authentically classical, and wonder if there is any reference to such a practice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24856" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7419" RevisionGUID="ea928b0c-ab76-47f0-a396-149017fa10fa" CreationDate="2018-10-29T07:08:15.067" UserId="645" Text="Did the Romans 'tip' for good service?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24857" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7419" RevisionGUID="ea928b0c-ab76-47f0-a396-149017fa10fa" CreationDate="2018-10-29T07:08:15.067" UserId="645" Text="|idiom|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24858" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7419" RevisionGUID="6642308d-4fe5-41a1-9cc7-b608ed149b3b" CreationDate="2018-10-29T07:59:56.887" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|idiom|word-request|history|roman-culture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7420" RevisionGUID="b6938f50-3ad7-4879-93ad-6ee37f5e4433" CreationDate="2018-10-29T14:50:08.507" UserId="81" Text="It's often held that the practice of tipping began in England around the 16th century, but there's some difference of opinion on the subject. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are a few versions for the origin of tipping. Hemenway (1993)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; claims that tipping was known as far back as the Roman era and is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; probably much older. Schein, Jablonski and Wohlfahrt (1984) assert&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that tipping originated back in the days of feudal lords. When lords&#xD;&#xA;&gt; met groups of beggars along their way, they tossed the beggars coins&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in an attempt to buy a safe passage. It is arguable, however, if this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; kind of payment should be considered tipping. Segrave (1998) suggests&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that tipping may have begun in the late Middle Ages. (Ofer H. Azar,  &quot;The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; history of tipping&quot;, 2004)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;David Hemenway makes the following claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Popular belief holds that tip derives from eighteenth-century English&#xD;&#xA;&gt; usage and stands for the words 'to insure promptness,' but tipping was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; known as far back as the roman era and is probably much older. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; word tip itself may come from stipend, a bastardized version of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin *stips* meaning gift. (Hemenway, Prices and Choices, 1977, p.77)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this word *stips*, Lewis' *[An Elementary Latin Dictionary][1]* has the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (*stips*) *stipis*, f — STIP-, a contribution in money, gift, donation,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alms contribution, dole. *ne quis stipem cogito*, lex ap. C.: *stipem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sustulimus*, i. e. begging: *stipem Apollini conferre*, L.: *stipis adice*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *causam*, O.: *suburbanum hortum exiguā colere stipe*, Cu.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero used this word in *De Legibus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Praeter Idaeae Matris famulos eosque iustis deiubus, ne quis **stipen**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cogito.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which has been translated as &quot;No one shall ask for contributions except the servants of the Idean Mother, and they only on the appointed days.&quot; In another part, he says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Stipem** sustulimus, nisi eam quam ad paucos dies propriam, Id matris&#xD;&#xA;&gt; excepimus, implet enim superstitione animos, et exhaurit domos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing that this word might be well-suited for your purposes. However, I think it still remains doubtful that its meaning is the same as that of tipping, i.e. as a gratuity for services rendered. As the following entry from *[A Compendious Dictionary of the Latin Tongue][2]* shows, it was used in the sense of a gift or offering (often in a religious context), as well as for the begging of alms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=1015594&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=6_IsAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA665&amp;lpg=PA665&amp;dq=%22stipem%20sustulimus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=91CWJ8_mGk&amp;sig=qHYDj5jnRqkEXgucTP0D4VLZWS0&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwi0yqzy5qveAhVEi5AKHeNVD7YQ6AEwBnoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22stipem%20sustulimus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wW8Vj.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="9644669c-c6c3-4e12-a7db-6266007d80f9" CreationDate="2018-10-30T02:19:06.477" UserId="39" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="It is generally assumed, based on graphic data (including misspellings), that palatalization in Latin was operational as early as the second century AD (e.g. Maiden 1995, [Repetti 2016][1], Weiss 2009/2011, among many, many others). Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011 add that it became general by the fifth century AD (p. 274).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it didn't happen overnight, neither did it affect all the Latin L1 (native) speakers simultaneously. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Graphic evidence** (inscriptions and manuscript spellings):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OZE ‘hodie’ (late second century AD, Algeria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AZVTORIBVS 'adiutoribus' (CIL VIII 18224, Algeria) [Loporcaro 2011][4]: 145&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ZODORVS 'Diodorus'(CIL XIV 2325)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ADZVTOR 'adiutor' (CIL VIII, 26683)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ζie 'die' (second century AD, Algeria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IOSIMVS 'Zosimus' (hypercorrection, Pompeii, CIL IV suppl. I 4599) [Loporcaro 2011][4]: 145&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iosum, iusum (CL deorsum) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][2], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iurnus (CL diurnus) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][2], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Weiss &quot;examples from Italy are somewhat later&quot; (p. 513, footnote 57); see Leumann 1977: 130 for more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence from grammarians etc.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pompeius (GL 5.286 12-14, quoted as in Tronskii 1960, §289):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;quotiescumque ... post ti vel di syllabam sequitur vocalis, illud ti vel di in sibilum vertendum est.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Adams 2007][3] mentions two types of evidence that might seem at first contradictory, Consentius (possible of the fifth century) &quot;ecce ut &lt;in *t*&gt; Itali ita pingue nescio quid sonant, ut cum dicunt *etiam*, nihil de media infringant&quot; (as cited in [Adams 2007][3]: 203) and Isidore &quot;solent Itali dicere ozie pro hodie.&quot; Adams admits that the passage from Consentius can be interpreted differently. He makes a very important observation,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It is not at all unlikely that there were careful speakers who avoided yodisation and palatalisation in these environments, and that Consentius (himself possibly a Gaul) had heard some of them in Italy, presumably among the educated classes. But it would be hard to believe that these speakers were located only in Italy, or that this was a genuine regional feature&quot; (p. 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds two more, Serv. ad. *Georg.* 2.126 and Papirianus (Keil 7.216.8). See Mras 1948 (in *Wiener Studien* 63) for a comprehensive account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also happened in several stages. For instance, the first stage (syncope, CiV or CeV &gt; CjV) resulted in /j/ (Castellani 1965 argues this process had been finished by the first century AD)  - e.g. hodie [ˈɔji] in Sicilian; Weiss mentions some interesting data from Augustine, who has about 100 instances of CjV and only 10 instances of CiV (p. 513, footnote 56).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds that &quot;First to undergo palatalization were dentals before yod&quot; (p. 513, footnote 58).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second stage resulted in either [dʒ] or [dz],cf. [Loporcaro 2011][4], who posits an intermediary stage, [ɟ]; cf. hodie [ˈɔddʒi] in Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Leumann 1977: &quot;Klass. lat. *i̯* im Anlaut und Inlaut wird in Vulglat. über eine Spirans *j* zu einer assibilierten Affrikata *dz*, etwa *i̯ &gt; j &gt; dj &gt; d'j &gt; dz'*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I decided not to use the term *Vulgar Latin* (ca 250-ca 600 AD, Adamik 2015) in my post after all, following [Vincent 2016][5]. Was Vulgar Latin the successor to Classical Latin or were they separate languages? That is a big and extremely difficult question and most likely it is unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108-chapter-39&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.chbeck.de/stotz-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-griechische-grammatik-lateinische-grammatik-rhetorik-band-ii_5-3-handbuch-lateinischen-spra/product/15797&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/bilingualism-and-the-latin-language/languages-in-contact-with-latin/23BE02346AE251FB12F7B27660DCC7E0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-the-romance-languages/phonological-processes/21EDCEC158C188D2E4FB1CF3EDBC1C7D&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/early-and-late-latin/continuity-and-change-from-latin-to-romance/0774BF2CF307871BDCB65991557D2118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="a284722f-8a14-4c57-9535-370e0fec1aa4" CreationDate="2018-10-30T05:07:16.240" UserId="39" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="It is generally assumed, based on graphic data (including misspellings), that palatalization in Latin was operational as early as the second century AD (e.g. Maiden 1995, [Repetti 2016][1], Weiss 2009/2011, among many, many others). Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011 add that it became general by the fifth century AD (p. 274).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it didn't happen overnight, neither did it affect all the Latin L1 (native) speakers simultaneously. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Graphic evidence** (inscriptions and manuscript spellings):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OZE ‘hodie’ (late second century AD, Algeria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AZVTORIBVS 'adiutoribus' (CIL VIII 18224, Algeria) [Loporcaro 2011][2]: 145&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ZODORVS 'Diodorus'(CIL XIV 2325)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ADZVTOR 'adiutor' (CIL VIII, 26683)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ζie 'die' (second century AD, Algeria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IOSIMVS 'Zosimus' (hypercorrection, Pompeii, CIL IV suppl. I 4599) [Loporcaro 2011][2]: 145&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iosum, iusum (CL deorsum) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][3], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iurnus (CL diurnus) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][3], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Weiss &quot;examples from Italy are somewhat later&quot; (p. 513, footnote 57); see Leumann 1977: 130 for more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence from grammarians etc.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pompeius (GL 5.286 12-14, quoted as in Tronskii 1960, §289):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;quotiescumque ... post ti vel di syllabam sequitur vocalis, illud ti vel di in sibilum vertendum est.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Adams 2007][4] mentions two types of evidence that might seem at first contradictory, Consentius (possible of the fifth century) &quot;ecce ut &lt;in *t*&gt; Itali ita pingue nescio quid sonant, ut cum dicunt *etiam*, nihil de media infringant&quot; (as cited in [Adams 2007][4]: 203) and Isidore &quot;solent Itali dicere ozie pro hodie.&quot; Adams admits that the passage from Consentius can be interpreted differently. He makes a very important observation,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It is not at all unlikely that there were careful speakers who avoided yodisation and palatalisation in these environments, and that Consentius (himself possibly a Gaul) had heard some of them in Italy, presumably among the educated classes. But it would be hard to believe that these speakers were located only in Italy, or that this was a genuine regional feature&quot; (p. 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds two more, Serv. ad. *Georg.* 2.126 and Papirianus ([Keil 7.216.8][5]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See Mras 1948 (in *Wiener Studien* 63) for a comprehensive account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also happened in several stages. For instance, the first stage (syncope, CiV or CeV &gt; CjV) resulted in /j/ (Castellani 1965 argues this process had been finished by the first century AD)  - e.g. hodie [ˈɔji] in Sicilian; Weiss mentions some interesting data from Augustine, who has about 100 instances of CjV and only 10 instances of CiV (p. 513, footnote 56).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds that &quot;First to undergo palatalization were dentals before yod&quot; (p. 513, footnote 58).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second stage resulted in either [dʒ] or [dz],cf. [Loporcaro 2011][2], who posits an intermediary stage, [ɟ]; cf. hodie [ˈɔddʒi] in Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Leumann 1977: &quot;Klass. lat. *i̯* im Anlaut und Inlaut wird in Vulglat. über eine Spirans *j* zu einer assibilierten Affrikata *dz*, etwa *i̯ &gt; j &gt; dj &gt; d'j &gt; dz'*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I decided not to use the term *Vulgar Latin* (ca 250-ca 600 AD, Adamik 2015) in my post after all, following [Vincent 2016][7]. Was Vulgar Latin the successor to Classical Latin or were they separate languages? That is a big and extremely difficult question and most likely it is unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108-chapter-39&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-the-romance-languages/phonological-processes/21EDCEC158C188D2E4FB1CF3EDBC1C7D&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.chbeck.de/stotz-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-griechische-grammatik-lateinische-grammatik-rhetorik-band-ii_5-3-handbuch-lateinischen-spra/product/15797&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/bilingualism-and-the-latin-language/languages-in-contact-with-latin/23BE02346AE251FB12F7B27660DCC7E0&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://archive.org/details/grammaticilatini07keil/page/216&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XVTbR.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/early-and-late-latin/continuity-and-change-from-latin-to-romance/0774BF2CF307871BDCB65991557D2118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="97699cde-42aa-466b-8a4b-ea0dd33109ed" CreationDate="2018-10-30T05:15:31.687" UserId="39" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="It is generally assumed, based on graphic data (including misspellings), that palatalization in Latin was operational as early as the second century AD (e.g. Maiden 1995, [Repetti 2016][1], Weiss 2009/2011, among many, many others). Clackson and Horrocks 2007/2011 add that it became general by the fifth century AD (p. 274).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it didn't happen overnight, neither did it affect all the Latin L1 (native) speakers simultaneously. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Graphic evidence** (inscriptions and manuscript spellings):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OZE ‘hodie’ (late second century AD, Algeria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AZVTORIBVS 'adiutoribus' (CIL VIII 18224, Algeria) [Loporcaro 2011][2]: 145&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ZODORVS 'Diodorus'(CIL XIV 2325)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ADZVTOR 'adiutor' (CIL VIII, 26683)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ζie 'die' (second century AD, Algeria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IOSIMVS 'Zosimus' (hypercorrection, Pompeii, CIL IV suppl. I 4599) [Loporcaro 2011][2]: 145&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iosum, iusum (CL deorsum) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][3], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iurnus (CL diurnus) ([Stotz 1996, v.3][3], §194.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Weiss &quot;examples from Italy are somewhat later&quot; (p. 513, footnote 57); see Leumann 1977: 130 for more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Evidence from grammarians etc.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pompeius (GL 5.286 12-14, quoted as in Tronskii 1960, §289):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;quotiescumque ... post ti vel di syllabam sequitur vocalis, illud ti vel di in sibilum vertendum est.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Adams 2007][4] mentions two types of evidence that might seem at first contradictory, Consentius (possible of the fifth century) &quot;ecce ut &lt;in *t*&gt; Itali ita pingue nescio quid sonant, ut cum dicunt *etiam*, nihil de media infringant&quot; (as cited in [Adams 2007][4]: 203) and Isidore &quot;solent Itali dicere ozie pro hodie.&quot; Adams admits that the passage from Consentius can be interpreted differently. He makes a very important observation,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It is not at all unlikely that there were careful speakers who avoided yodisation and palatalisation in these environments, and that Consentius (himself possibly a Gaul) had heard some of them in Italy, presumably among the educated classes. But it would be hard to believe that these speakers were located only in Italy, or that this was a genuine regional feature&quot; (p. 204).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds two more, [Serv. ad. *Georg.* 2.126][5] and Papirianus ([Keil 7.216.8][6]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See Mras 1948 (in *Wiener Studien* 63) for a comprehensive account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also happened in several stages. For instance, the first stage (syncope, CiV or CeV &gt; CjV) resulted in /j/ (Castellani 1965 argues this process had been finished by the first century AD)  - e.g. hodie [ˈɔji] in Sicilian; Weiss mentions some interesting data from Augustine, who has about 100 instances of CjV and only 10 instances of CiV (p. 513, footnote 56).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss adds that &quot;First to undergo palatalization were dentals before yod&quot; (p. 513, footnote 58).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second stage resulted in either [dʒ] or [dz],cf. [Loporcaro 2011][2], who posits an intermediary stage, [ɟ]; cf. hodie [ˈɔddʒi] in Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Leumann 1977: &quot;Klass. lat. *i̯* im Anlaut und Inlaut wird in Vulglat. über eine Spirans *j* zu einer assibilierten Affrikata *dz*, etwa *i̯ &gt; j &gt; dj &gt; d'j &gt; dz'*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I decided not to use the term *Vulgar Latin* (ca 250-ca 600 AD, Adamik 2015) in my post after all, following [Vincent 2016][8]. Was Vulgar Latin the successor to Classical Latin or were they separate languages? That is a big and extremely difficult question and most likely it is unanswerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001/acprof-9780199677108-chapter-39&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-the-romance-languages/phonological-processes/21EDCEC158C188D2E4FB1CF3EDBC1C7D&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.chbeck.de/stotz-handbuch-altertumswissenschaft-griechische-grammatik-lateinische-grammatik-rhetorik-band-ii_5-3-handbuch-lateinischen-spra/product/15797&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/bilingualism-and-the-latin-language/languages-in-contact-with-latin/23BE02346AE251FB12F7B27660DCC7E0&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://archive.org/details/serviigrammatic01thilgoog/page/n254&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://archive.org/details/grammaticilatini07keil/page/216&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XVTbR.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/early-and-late-latin/continuity-and-change-from-latin-to-romance/0774BF2CF307871BDCB65991557D2118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7422" RevisionGUID="3574798e-b2ba-465d-9a9e-4ef81fb75bd4" CreationDate="2018-10-30T05:33:48.200" UserId="867" Text="It seems that [*corollarium*][1] was used in this sense.  Lewis and Short describe the original meaning as &quot;money paid for a garland of flowers&quot;, but elsewhere it is described more like money put in a garland &quot;and so a free gift&quot; (editor's note on Lucilius, *Satires*, 12.464).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, here Seneca uses it in the sense of tipping for services rendered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sordidissimorum quoque artificiorum institoribus supra constitutum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aliquid adiecimus, si nobis illorum opera enixior visa est; et&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gubernatori et opifici vilissimae mercis et in diem locanti manus suas&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **corollarium** adspersimus.* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the hawkers of even the meanest forms of service seem to us to have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; put forth unusual effort, we give them something besides what we have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agreed upon; we dispense **gratuities** to a pilot, to a man who works&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with the commonest material, and to one who hires out his services by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*On Benefits*, 6.17, (trans. John W. Basore)   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=corollarium&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7423" RevisionGUID="0c5bc302-5ecb-4c08-8c42-67e8e03a8dba" CreationDate="2018-10-30T11:20:36.853" UserId="645" Text="I first had in mind the word *mercedula*, which is used in this sense — though it's fairly rare — and I asked the question thinking that I might find something rather better. In two excellent replies I have found *stips* and *collarium*, each quite unknown to me. *Gratias ago utrique.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since *stips* seems mainly (wholly?) used for religious gifts, it has less appeal than *collarium*, which in Penelope's answer is also in fact paid among other examples for a maritime service and therefore quite apposite to the passage for translation, which was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It was an old fisherman who, with immense difficulty, at last rescued us . . . . .  What between tipping the man who had brought us home, and paying for the broken sculls . . . . . &quot; *(Jerome K. Jerome, 'Three Men in a Boat')*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7423" RevisionGUID="d0f74f1e-54ef-41a2-af9c-fdc15d242240" CreationDate="2018-10-30T14:21:45.673" UserId="645" Comment="sp." Text="I first had in mind the word *mercedula*, which is used in this sense — though it's fairly rare — and I asked the question thinking that I might find something rather better. In two excellent replies I have found *stips* and *corollarium*, each quite unknown to me. *Gratias ago utrique.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since *stips* seems mainly (wholly?) used for religious gifts, it has less appeal than *corollarium*, which in Penelope's answer is also in fact paid among other examples for a maritime service and therefore quite apposite to the passage for translation, which was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It was an old fisherman who, with immense difficulty, at last rescued us . . . . .  What between tipping the man who had brought us home, and paying for the broken sculls . . . . . &quot; *(Jerome K. Jerome, 'Three Men in a Boat')*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7424" RevisionGUID="0837edae-5ba1-438b-b38b-00b54c80f7e0" CreationDate="2018-10-30T19:07:02.363" UserId="3046" Text="Per ardua ad astra.  This is the well known RAF motto,  usually translated as &quot;Through adversity to the stars&quot;.  I would like to keep the similarity to that motto, but have it mean, &quot;Through adventure to the stars&quot;.  I can't find a word that seems appropriate for adventure in this sense.  Any ideas?  Thanks :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24877" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7424" RevisionGUID="0837edae-5ba1-438b-b38b-00b54c80f7e0" CreationDate="2018-10-30T19:07:02.363" UserId="3046" Text="How to translate &quot;Through adventure to the stars&quot; into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24878" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7424" RevisionGUID="0837edae-5ba1-438b-b38b-00b54c80f7e0" CreationDate="2018-10-30T19:07:02.363" UserId="3046" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4258" RevisionGUID="2454a036-4923-4676-9da5-0c630cfef813" CreationDate="2018-10-30T20:48:19.463" UserId="1507" Comment="added 301 characters in body" Text="I was surprised to see that several (Hungarian) sources claim that *De mortuis nihil nisi bonum* is an incorrect version of *De mortuis nil nisi bene*, but I could find nothing supporting this theory in English. Can anyone shed some more light on the origin of these related proverbs? Here is the [related Wikipedia entry][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Added later:&#xD;&#xA;The Hungarian sources claim that there's a very significant semantic difference, as De mortuis nil nisi bene should be interpreted as one should not make false claims about the deceased, i.e., also reveal the unpleasant truth. This is the exact opposite of De mortuis nihil nisi bonum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_mortuis_nil_nisi_bonum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7426" RevisionGUID="759dcb6f-d2ee-45ed-b492-7659e73b8625" CreationDate="2018-10-31T07:45:06.177" UserId="2476" Text="Your addendum might be on point, but in fact it would only make it more likely that the correct version is _De mortuis nihil nisi bonum_. Both Italian and English sources I have gone through, always abide by the fact that the proverb is used to state &quot;the dead cannot defend themselves, and thus must be respected in any case&quot;. Indeed this agrees with the Roman _pietas_ and the Greek _eusebeia_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original Greek phrase is _τὸν τεθνηκóτα μὴ κακολογεῖν_, which seems to carry this very meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7314" RevisionGUID="9d98f4a5-fc1a-48a3-8745-e034bacf3fad" CreationDate="2018-10-31T09:29:41.337" UserId="2532" Comment="Corrected typo" Text="To answer your question, one could choose to interpret it to have an unspoken clause, as per the comments to the first answer. There are indeed ways to express this in Latin: _nē (…) quidem [–––] nōn mōdō_ expresses ‘not even [–––] much less’ or the likes. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _nē suēs quidem id velint, nōn mōdō ipse_: not even swine would like that, no less he.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of negative statement may also be used with other markers of negation, such as in [Cic. Arch.][1] where you’ll find forms such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] vērum etiam_,&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] nōn_,&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] sed_,&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] vērum […] enim_ and&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] vērum enim_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John Philip Krebs writes in his [_Guide for Writing Latin: Consisting of Rules and Examples for Practice_][2] on how such a clause is construced (§ 540). In his examples, he assumes a previous clause stating _not only not_ leading to a following clause stating various negations, such as _but not even_, _scarcely_, &amp;c. He explicitly explains this to be solved as such:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [It] is expressed by _non modo_ (solum) _non_, followed by _sed ne — quidem_ (_sed vix_ and the like: [… where examples follow]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remarks:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Instead of the second _not_ in the first clause, another negative word can also be used, e.g. no one, nothing, never, etc., for which, in the last case with _non modo_ without _non_ the words _quisquam_, _quidquam_, _unquam_ are used. […]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He goes on to state that the positions of the clauses may be inverted, and adds a third remark with regards to _nēdum_, meaning _not to say_ and the likes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going back to your question then, it seems that one may construct the phrase you are requesting. I will make some slight changes, particularly with the comment mentioned in the beginning, but the example should work well enough for your case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Assume a previous statement, for example ‘Do not move!’. This is clearly a negative imperative.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Assuming the previous statement, the actual phrase you are looking for, is something like ‘Do not even breathe!’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using ‘_nōlō_, _nōlle_, _nōlui_, —’ as the negative imperative, one then gets the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. ‘_Nōlī (tē) mōvere!_’ – ‘Do not move (yourself)!’&#xD;&#xA; 2. ‘_Nē spīrā quidem!_’ or ‘_Nē flā quidem!_’ – ‘Do not even breath!’, classical Latin&#xD;&#xA; 3. ‘_Nē quidem spīrā!_’ or ‘_Nē quidem flā!_’ – ‘Do not even breath!’, later Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to @cnread for his comment, improving this answer with the difference in numbers 2 and 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that following _nōlō_ with a negative, does not undo the negation, as per [Lewis and Short][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sometimes followed by a negative, which does not destroy the negation: “nolui deesse, ne tacitae quidem flagitioni tuae,” Cic. Top. 1, 5;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;───&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, should anyone find any errors in my answer, please comment, and I will do my utmost to correct it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/arch.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.no/books?id=WkUQAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA458&amp;lpg=PA458&amp;dq=latin%20%22do%20not%20even%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qfL3dK8H0x&amp;sig=dCKhMqnqjaSCwsUJp6Az-fmMF4Y&amp;hl=no&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj5lbeSs4reAhUCiCwKHUGkBh8Q6AEwB3oECCwQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20%22do%20not%20even%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=nolo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7314" RevisionGUID="09e7d7cf-d7c6-4fa1-928b-2a0e4d80309c" CreationDate="2018-10-31T09:37:20.490" UserId="2532" Comment="Corrected typo" Text="To answer your question, one could choose to interpret it to have an unspoken clause, as per the comments to the first answer. There are indeed ways to express this in Latin: _nē (…) quidem [–––] nōn mōdō_ expresses ‘not even [–––] much less’ or the likes. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _nē suēs quidem id velint, nōn mōdō ipse_: not even swine would like that, no less he.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of negative statement may also be used with other markers of negation, such as in [Cic. Arch.][1] where you’ll find forms such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] vērum etiam_,&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] nōn_,&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] sed_,&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] vērum […] enim_ and&#xD;&#xA; - _nōn mōdō […] vērum enim_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John Philip Krebs writes in his [_Guide for Writing Latin: Consisting of Rules and Examples for Practice_][2] on how such a clause is construced (§ 540). In his examples, he assumes a previous clause stating _not only not_ leading to a following clause stating various negations, such as _but not even_, _scarcely_, &amp;c. He explicitly explains this to be solved as such:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [It] is expressed by _non modo_ (solum) _non_, followed by _sed ne — quidem_ (_sed vix_ and the like: [… where examples follow]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remarks:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Instead of the second _not_ in the first clause, another negative word can also be used, e.g. no one, nothing, never, etc., for which, in the last case with _non modo_ without _non_ the words _quisquam_, _quidquam_, _unquam_ are used. […]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He goes on to state that the positions of the clauses may be inverted, and adds a third remark with regards to _nēdum_, meaning _not to say_ and the likes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going back to your question then, it seems that one may construct the phrase you are requesting. I will make some slight changes, particularly with the comment mentioned in the beginning, but the example should work well enough for your case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Assume a previous statement, for example ‘Do not move!’. This is clearly a negative imperative.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Assuming the previous statement, the actual phrase you are looking for, is something like ‘Do not even breathe!’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using ‘_nōlō_, _nōlle_, _nōluī_, —’ as the negative imperative, one then gets the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. ‘_Nōlī (tē) mōvere!_’ – ‘Do not move (yourself)!’&#xD;&#xA; 2. ‘_Nē spīrā quidem!_’ or ‘_Nē flā quidem!_’ – ‘Do not even breath!’, classical Latin&#xD;&#xA; 3. ‘_Nē quidem spīrā!_’ or ‘_Nē quidem flā!_’ – ‘Do not even breath!’, later Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to @cnread for his comment, improving this answer with the difference in numbers 2 and 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that following _nōlō_ with a negative, does not undo the negation, as per [Lewis and Short][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sometimes followed by a negative, which does not destroy the negation: “nolui deesse, ne tacitae quidem flagitioni tuae,” Cic. Top. 1, 5;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;───&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, should anyone find any errors in my answer, please comment, and I will do my utmost to correct it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/arch.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.no/books?id=WkUQAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA458&amp;lpg=PA458&amp;dq=latin%20%22do%20not%20even%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qfL3dK8H0x&amp;sig=dCKhMqnqjaSCwsUJp6Az-fmMF4Y&amp;hl=no&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj5lbeSs4reAhUCiCwKHUGkBh8Q6AEwB3oECCwQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20%22do%20not%20even%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=nolo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7427" RevisionGUID="15d1357d-5cf9-4359-84c0-1e6359d5aeef" CreationDate="2018-10-31T12:57:53.270" UserId="469" Text="I think if we are to trust the mentioned [WP article][1] (permanent [link][2] to current version) at least in its most general claims, the answer is there. The article itself is poorly sourced, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that both *bene* and *bonum* versions coexist as widely accepted (27K and 23K results in Google, respectively).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original is in Greek: τὸν τεθνηκóτα μὴ κακολογεῖν (as pointed by Vincenzo) attributed to Chilon of Sparta by ca. 600 BC and attested in the III century AD. Note that it is formulated in negative: don't speak bad/evil. Even if we don't trust the claim that this is the first appearance of the aphorism, it is a fact that it was written in Antiquity. You can see the original Greek source transcribed [here][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the Greek **κακός** means [*bad*][4], may mean *ugly*, but NOT *wrong* or *false*. **This**, IMO, **settles the point**. The burden of proof, then, lies upon those claiming the *false* sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first attested translation to Latin (according to WP) uses *bonum* and dates from 1433. One can doubt the fact it was the first, but whether the sentence was written there 585 years ago is something one can verify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that even the *bene* version, *de mortuis nil nisi bene dicendum* is ambiguous and doesn't rule out the *speak good things* interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_mortuis_nil_nisi_bonum&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_mortuis_nil_nisi_bonum&amp;oldid=858569058&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%92%CE%AF%CE%BF%CE%B9_%CF%86%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%83%CF%8C%CF%86%CF%89%CE%BD/%CE%91#p70&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dkako%2Fs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7427" RevisionGUID="97dd9db9-3750-436c-bd7e-e9d05371b843" CreationDate="2018-10-31T13:16:38.437" UserId="469" Comment="added 681 characters in body" Text="I think if we are to trust the mentioned [WP article][1] (permanent [link][2] to current version) at least in its most general claims, the answer is there. The article itself is poorly sourced, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that both *bene* and *bonum* versions coexist as widely accepted (27K and 23K results in Google, respectively).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original is in Greek: τὸν τεθνηκóτα μὴ κακολογεῖν (as pointed by Vincenzo) attributed to Chilon of Sparta by ca. 600 BC and attested in the III century AD. Note that it is formulated in negative: don't speak bad/evil. Even if we don't trust the claim that this is the first appearance of the aphorism, it is a fact that it was written in Antiquity. You can see the original Greek source transcribed [here][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the Greek **κακός** means [*bad*][4], may mean *ugly*, but NOT *wrong* or *false*. **This**, IMO, **settles the point**. The burden of proof, then, lies upon those claiming the *false* sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first attested translation to Latin (according to WP) uses *bonum* and dates from 1433. One can doubt the fact it was the first, but whether the sentence was written there 585 years ago is something one can verify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that even the *bene* version, *de mortuis nil nisi bene dicendum* is ambiguous and doesn't rule out the *speak good things* interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No one asked, but I think it is good to distinguish. Many people (me included, I think) tend to unconsciously idealize the Classics and identify quotes with directives of what is right to do. That could lead some to reinterpret what was written so that the aphorism actually matches what they think is right. I think the so-to-say *Hungarian* interpretation *could* be an example of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there is a subtle but substantive difference between avoiding/being less prone to tell uncomfortable truths about someone, and telling false good things about them. And I think that point is far from addressed by any of the sentences, or even both mainstream interpretations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_mortuis_nil_nisi_bonum&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_mortuis_nil_nisi_bonum&amp;oldid=858569058&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%92%CE%AF%CE%BF%CE%B9_%CF%86%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%83%CF%8C%CF%86%CF%89%CE%BD/%CE%91#p70&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dkako%2Fs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7427" RevisionGUID="1395b3c2-fe2c-4328-82a8-1124e9d769ee" CreationDate="2018-10-31T13:24:38.717" UserId="469" Comment="added 681 characters in body" Text="I think if we are to trust the mentioned [WP article][1] (permanent [link][2] to current version) at least in its most general claims, the answer is there. The article itself is poorly sourced, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that both *bene* and *bonum* versions coexist as widely accepted (27K and 23K results in Google, respectively).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original is in Greek: τὸν τεθνηκóτα μὴ κακολογεῖν (as pointed by Vincenzo) attributed to Chilon of Sparta by ca. 600 BC and attested in the III century AD. Note that it is formulated in negative: don't speak bad/evil. Even if we don't trust the claim that this is the first appearance of the aphorism, it is a fact that it was written in Antiquity. You can see the original Greek source transcribed [here][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the Greek **κακός** means [*bad*][4], may mean *ugly*, but NOT *wrong* or *false*. **This**, IMO, **settles the point**. The burden of proof, then, lies upon those claiming the *false* sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first attested translation to Latin (according to WP) uses *bonum* and dates from 1433. One can doubt the fact it was the first, but whether the sentence was written there 585 years ago is something one can verify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that even the *bene* version, *de mortuis nil nisi bene dicendum* is ambiguous and doesn't rule out the *speak good things* interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No one asked, but I think it is good to distinguish. Many people (me included, I think) tend to unconsciously idealize the Classics and identify quotes with directives of what is right to do. That could lead some to reinterpret what was written so that the aphorism actually matches what they think is right. I think the so-to-say *Hungarian* interpretation *could* be an example of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there is a subtle but substantive difference between avoiding/being less prone to tell uncomfortable truths about someone, and actively telling false good things about them. And I think that point is far from addressed by any of the sentences, or even both mainstream interpretations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_mortuis_nil_nisi_bonum&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_mortuis_nil_nisi_bonum&amp;oldid=858569058&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%92%CE%AF%CE%BF%CE%B9_%CF%86%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%83%CF%8C%CF%86%CF%89%CE%BD/%CE%91#p70&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dkako%2Fs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7428" RevisionGUID="3e5c1546-7145-4e69-bb7c-c3654695e402" CreationDate="2018-10-31T13:44:31.867" UserId="81" Text="I would translate it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Per ausa ad astra.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard to capture the modern sense of the word *[adventure][1]* because we often associate with it experiences which are exciting or remarkable. However, I think the word *[ausa][2]* (the perfect passive participle of *audeo*) comes close because it means things risked or ventured as well as carrying with it the idea of boldness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary][3] has the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Participle**&lt;br/&gt; **ausus** m (feminine ausa, neuter ausum); first/second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declension&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; dared, having dared, ventured, having ventured, risked, having risked&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (poetic) having been eager for battle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adventure&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ausus&amp;la=la&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ausus#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7428" RevisionGUID="0974d12b-6bde-4e2b-a0f1-5a5f7b8e473d" CreationDate="2018-10-31T13:51:51.027" UserId="81" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="I would translate it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Per ausa ad astra.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard to capture the modern sense of the word *[adventure][1]* because we often associate with it experiences which are exciting or remarkable. However, I think the word *[ausa][2]* (from the the perfect passive participle of *audeo*) comes close because it means things risked or ventured, as well as carrying with it the idea of boldness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary][3] has the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Participle**&lt;br/&gt; **ausus** m (feminine ausa, neuter ausum); first/second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declension&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; dared, having dared, ventured, having ventured, risked, having risked&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (poetic) having been eager for battle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adventure&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ausus&amp;la=la&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ausus#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7429" RevisionGUID="16a56a50-ea34-4a9c-8c1f-247e2018f3a4" CreationDate="2018-10-31T13:58:45.570" UserId="3048" Text="Latin newbie here. Was talking with a friend about Martian landforms like Olympus Mons. Then we talked about other uses of mons, like mons pubis. But then I realized I didn’t understand something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The plural of “mons pubis”, as attested in the Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Wiktionary, and whatever, is “montes pubis”. But [the plural genitive of nounal pūbes is not pūbis; it is pūbum](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pubes#Etymology_2_2https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pubes#Etymology_2_2). So why is the plural phrase not “montes pubum”? (I’m assuming that it wouldn’t be “montes puberium” just like how the singular isn’t “mons puberis”.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24890" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7429" RevisionGUID="16a56a50-ea34-4a9c-8c1f-247e2018f3a4" CreationDate="2018-10-31T13:58:45.570" UserId="3048" Text="Why is plural of “mons pubis” not “montes pubum”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24891" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7429" RevisionGUID="16a56a50-ea34-4a9c-8c1f-247e2018f3a4" CreationDate="2018-10-31T13:58:45.570" UserId="3048" Text="|vocabulary|idiom|genitive|plural|agreement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7430" RevisionGUID="cb535ec2-ea7d-4810-9d97-84309158199b" CreationDate="2018-10-31T14:15:28.400" UserId="81" Text="The genitive, in this case, functions like the prepositional phrase &quot;of ...&quot; in English, so the object of the preposition is independent with respect to number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in English, we might speak of a *house of cards*, with *house* being singular and *cards* being plural. The number of cards is not in any way determined by the number of houses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same way, *pubis* in the singular, is not affected by *mons* being singular or plural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7430" RevisionGUID="1ecbaaa9-a624-49c2-9283-8072f3d133fc" CreationDate="2018-10-31T14:28:28.687" UserId="81" Comment="added 679 characters in body" Text="The genitive, in this case, functions like the prepositional phrase &quot;of ...&quot; in English, so the object of the preposition is independent with respect to number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in English, we might speak of a *house of cards*, with *house* being singular and *cards* being plural. The number of cards is not in any way determined by the number of houses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same way, *pubis* in the singular, is not affected by *mons* being singular or plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's some more [information][1] on the genitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **GENITIVE WITH NOUNS**&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **342**. A noun used to limit or define another, and not meaning the same person or thing, is put in the Genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This relation is most frequently expressed in English by the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; preposition *of*, sometimes by the English genitive (or possessive)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; case:—&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *librī Cicerōnis*, the books of Cicero, or Cicero's books.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *inimīcī Caesaris*, Cæsar's enemies, or the enemies of Cæsar.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *talentum aurī*, a talent of gold.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *vir summae virtūtis*, a man of the greatest courage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-342.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7431" RevisionGUID="3e514800-80e7-45e1-bf64-a8af15f03459" CreationDate="2018-10-31T14:38:25.753" UserId="324" Text="Pubes, genitive pubis means (as the dictionary tells us) &quot;the signs of manhood, i.e. the hair which appears on the body at the age of puberty&quot;. It does not mean a single pubic hair, but - like the English word &quot;hair&quot; - it is a collective noun for the whole hairy covering of the body. That is why it stays in the singular even after a plural noun like montes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7430" RevisionGUID="a6e606c6-c3a8-4ebe-836e-6676d9836801" CreationDate="2018-10-31T14:49:17.810" UserId="81" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="The genitive, in this case, functions like the prepositional phrase &quot;of ...&quot; in English, so the object of the preposition is independent with respect to number. Although the genitive describes or qualifies similar to the way that adjectives do, there is no requirement for numerical agreement as there is with adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in English, we might speak of a *house of cards*, with *house* being singular and *cards* being plural. The number of cards is not in any way determined by the number of houses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same way, *pubis* in the singular, is not affected by *mons* being singular or plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's some more [information][1] on the genitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **GENITIVE WITH NOUNS**&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **342**. A noun used to limit or define another, and not meaning the same person or thing, is put in the Genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This relation is most frequently expressed in English by the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; preposition *of*, sometimes by the English genitive (or possessive)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; case:—&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *librī Cicerōnis*, the books of Cicero, or Cicero's books.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *inimīcī Caesaris*, Cæsar's enemies, or the enemies of Cæsar.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *talentum aurī*, a talent of gold.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *vir summae virtūtis*, a man of the greatest courage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/genitive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7428" RevisionGUID="ebf8902f-c557-4a7c-a8db-80f48683db8b" CreationDate="2018-10-31T14:53:10.677" UserId="81" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="I would translate it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Per ausa ad astra.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard to capture the modern sense of the word *[adventure][1]* because we often associate with it experiences which are exciting or remarkable. However, I think the word *[ausa][2]* (from the the perfect passive participle of *audeo*) comes close because it means things risked or ventured, as well as carrying with it the idea of boldness or daring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary][3] has the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Participle**&lt;br/&gt; **ausus** m (feminine ausa, neuter ausum); first/second&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declension&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; dared, having dared, ventured, having ventured, risked, having risked&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (poetic) having been eager for battle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adventure&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ausus&amp;la=la&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ausus#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7427" RevisionGUID="a2aff6c7-5bab-40d2-b929-920f084610ff" CreationDate="2018-10-31T21:27:45.443" UserId="469" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="I think if we are to trust the mentioned [WP article][1] (permanent [link][2] to current version) at least in its most general claims, the answer is there. The article itself is poorly sourced, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that both *bene* and *bonum* versions coexist as widely accepted (27K and 23K results in Google, respectively).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original is in Greek: τὸν τεθνηκóτα μὴ [κακολογεῖν][5] (as pointed by Vincenzo) attributed to Chilon of Sparta by ca. 600 BC and attested in the III century AD. Note that it is formulated in negative: don't **criticize, revile**, lit. speak bad/evil. Even if we don't trust the claim that this is the first appearance of the aphorism, it is a fact that it was written in Antiquity. You can see the original Greek source transcribed [here][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the Greek **κακός** means [*bad*][4], may mean *ugly*, but NOT *wrong* or *false*. **κακολογεῖν**, in turn, means *to criticize* rather than *to lie*. **This**, IMO, **settles the point**. The burden of proof, then, lies upon those claiming the *false* sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first attested translation to Latin (according to WP) uses *bonum* and dates from 1433. One can doubt the fact it was the first, but whether the sentence was written there 585 years ago is something one can verify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that even the *bene* version, *de mortuis nil nisi bene dicendum* is ambiguous and doesn't rule out the *speak good things* interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No one asked, but I think it is good to distinguish. Many people (me included, I think) tend to unconsciously idealize the Classics and identify quotes with directives of what is right to do. That could lead some to reinterpret what was written so that the aphorism actually matches what they think is right. I think the so-to-say *Hungarian* interpretation *could* be an example of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there is a subtle but substantive difference between avoiding/being less prone to tell uncomfortable truths about someone, and actively telling false good things about them. And I think that point is far from addressed by any of the sentences, or even both mainstream interpretations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_mortuis_nil_nisi_bonum&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_mortuis_nil_nisi_bonum&amp;oldid=858569058&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%92%CE%AF%CE%BF%CE%B9_%CF%86%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%83%CF%8C%CF%86%CF%89%CE%BD/%CE%91#p70&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dkako%2Fs&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dkakologe%2Fw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7427" RevisionGUID="61a35665-7ffa-4374-8644-3abff0c9cc5d" CreationDate="2018-10-31T22:10:48.777" UserId="469" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I think if we are to trust the mentioned [WP article][1] (permanent [link][2] to current version) at least in its most general claims, the answer is there. The article itself is poorly sourced, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that both *bene* and *bonum* versions coexist as widely accepted (27K and 23K results in Google, respectively).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original is in Greek: τὸν τεθνηκóτα μὴ [κακολογεῖν][5] (as pointed by Vincenzo) attributed to Chilon of Sparta by ca. 600 BC and attested in the III century AD. Note that it is formulated in negative: don't **criticize, revile**, lit. *speak bad/evil*. Even if we don't trust the claim that this is the first appearance of the aphorism, it is a fact that it was written in Antiquity. You can see the original Greek source transcribed [here][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the Greek **κακός** means [*bad*][4], may mean *ugly*, but NOT *wrong* or *false*. **κακολογεῖν**, in turn, means *to criticize* rather than *to lie*. **This**, IMO, **settles the point**. The burden of proof, then, lies upon those claiming the *false* sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first attested translation to Latin (according to WP) uses *bonum* and dates from 1433. One can doubt the fact it was the first, but whether the sentence was written there 585 years ago is something one can verify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that even the *bene* version, *de mortuis nil nisi bene dicendum* is ambiguous and doesn't rule out the *speak good things* interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No one asked, but I think it is good to distinguish. Many people (me included, I think) tend to unconsciously idealize the Classics and identify quotes with directives of what is right to do. That could lead some to reinterpret what was written so that the aphorism actually matches what they think is right. I think the so-to-say *Hungarian* interpretation *could* be an example of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there is a subtle but substantive difference between avoiding/being less prone to tell uncomfortable truths about someone, and actively telling false good things about them. And I think that point is far from addressed by any of the sentences, or even both mainstream interpretations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_mortuis_nil_nisi_bonum&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_mortuis_nil_nisi_bonum&amp;oldid=858569058&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%92%CE%AF%CE%BF%CE%B9_%CF%86%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%83%CF%8C%CF%86%CF%89%CE%BD/%CE%91#p70&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dkako%2Fs&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dkakologe%2Fw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7432" RevisionGUID="8fc4f3f6-1e2e-4025-b169-11687f08744a" CreationDate="2018-11-01T01:55:47.050" UserId="3047" Text="Could you please help me transate &quot;mother's son&quot; into latin ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my understanding it is &quot;filius matris&quot; but I am not 100% sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks !!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24900" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7432" RevisionGUID="8fc4f3f6-1e2e-4025-b169-11687f08744a" CreationDate="2018-11-01T01:55:47.050" UserId="3047" Text="Mother's son translation into latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24901" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7432" RevisionGUID="8fc4f3f6-1e2e-4025-b169-11687f08744a" CreationDate="2018-11-01T01:55:47.050" UserId="3047" Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7433" RevisionGUID="fe964d68-5105-4102-a4bf-068311eda187" CreationDate="2018-11-01T03:06:33.307" UserId="522" Text="Yes, you can be 100% sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just watch out, though; &quot;His mother's son&quot; will be *Filius matris suae,* because *suae* agrees in gender number and case with (genitive, feminine, singular) *matris.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7432" RevisionGUID="f983f358-32da-436e-a0b8-005a58474b93" CreationDate="2018-11-01T03:19:10.060" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags and reformatted a little." Text="Could you please help me translate &quot;mother's son&quot; into Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my understanding it is &quot;filius matris&quot; but I am not 100% sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24905" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7432" RevisionGUID="f983f358-32da-436e-a0b8-005a58474b93" CreationDate="2018-11-01T03:19:10.060" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags and reformatted a little." Text="Mother's son translation into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24906" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7432" RevisionGUID="f983f358-32da-436e-a0b8-005a58474b93" CreationDate="2018-11-01T03:19:10.060" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags and reformatted a little." Text="|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|familia|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24907" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2839" RevisionGUID="5a282f73-2a14-4a3e-a09d-f87e7b92f0ad" CreationDate="2018-11-01T04:33:25.660" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|idiom|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4902" RevisionGUID="b532f96b-cf21-428f-802f-30734c629351" CreationDate="2018-11-01T04:34:35.127" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="Judging by number of words, how much translation from Latin to English grow in size? Naturally, this would depend on the text (and the translator), but I imagine there might be some form of range or average that can be stated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have attempted to answer this myself, but I'm not sure it's working. For instance, the [Latin](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/acad.shtml) version of Cicero's _Academica_ has roughly 23,500 words, whereas the [English](https://archive.org/details/academicaofcicer00cicerich) version (without including introduction and etc) gives me _proximus_ 200,000 words. For Cicero's _de Provinciis Consularibus_ the [Latin](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getwordcount.pl?LatinAugust2012.25) version has 5,992 words, and the [English](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getwordcount.pl?LatinAugust2012.24) version has 10,740 words. Those are massive differences (_proximus_ 900% versus 50% growth)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24909" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4902" RevisionGUID="b532f96b-cf21-428f-802f-30734c629351" CreationDate="2018-11-01T04:34:35.127" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|english|soft-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24910" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2628" RevisionGUID="cee2d6bb-5cd1-4282-8c9d-7dc33d72e58d" CreationDate="2018-11-01T05:10:25.887" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|vocabulary|resource-request|familia|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7434" RevisionGUID="14791174-ca59-4a05-94e3-fa38f2b0af1c" CreationDate="2018-11-01T14:29:41.763" UserId="1459" Text="[Judges 14:5](http://www.drbo.org/lvb/chapter/07014.htm) in the Vulgata reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Descendit itaque Samson cum patre suo et matre in Thamnatha. Cumque venissent ad vineas oppidi, **apparuit catulus leonis** saevus, et rugiens, et occurrit ei.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't under the declension of _leo_ above (genitive, _leonis_). The young lion appeared to Samson, so why is it not in accusative case? Or is the above actually saying something like &quot;a young animal of lion [type] appeared [to Samson]&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contrast the above verse with other uses of _leo_ in the same chapter, using the &quot;correct&quot; case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative in Judges 14:6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Irruit autem spiritus Domini in Samson, et **dilaceravit leonem**, quasi haedum in frustra discerpens, nihil omnino habens in manu : et hoc patri et matri noluit indicare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Genitive in Judges 14:8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Et post aliquot dies revertens ut acciperet eam, declinavit ut videret **cadaver leonis**, et ecce examen apum in **ore leonis** erat ac favus mellis. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24912" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7434" RevisionGUID="14791174-ca59-4a05-94e3-fa38f2b0af1c" CreationDate="2018-11-01T14:29:41.763" UserId="1459" Text="Case of &quot;leo&quot; in Judges 14:5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24913" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7434" RevisionGUID="14791174-ca59-4a05-94e3-fa38f2b0af1c" CreationDate="2018-11-01T14:29:41.763" UserId="1459" Text="|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7435" RevisionGUID="8cf91a93-1092-45ee-aafa-b92eba07037f" CreationDate="2018-11-01T14:41:40.257" UserId="81" Text="Your supposition is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or is the above actually saying something like &quot;a young animal of lion&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [type] appeared [to Samson]&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject is *catulus* as indicated by its being in the nominative, and it is of the type *leonis* in the genitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7436" RevisionGUID="9a294815-8a40-47f1-9e0e-f4c1a9054276" CreationDate="2018-11-01T14:48:13.600" UserId="45" Text="*Leonis* is in the genitive case and paired with [*catulus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcatulus1) (= &quot;young of an animal&quot; or &quot;whelp&quot;). *Catulus leonis* simply means **&quot;the whelp of a lion&quot;**, i.e. a lion kitten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lucretius uses a similar construction in the plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at **catuli pantherarum scymnique leonum**  &#xD;&#xA;unguibus ac pedibus iam tum morsuque repugnant,  &#xD;&#xA;vix etiam cum sunt dentes unguesque creati. (*De Rerum Natura* 5.1036-38.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Catulus* is the subject of *apparuit* and thus is in the nominative case. The last sentence translates as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When they came to the vineyards of the city, a fierce, raging young lion appeared and went to meet him [i.e. Samson]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7437" RevisionGUID="0d423d6d-0948-481b-9cf1-40b3e59753f9" CreationDate="2018-11-01T21:37:14.773" UserId="3063" Text="I am in charge of a professional chiropractic fraternity, and I would like to have coins made with the Latin version of &quot;sincere fellowship in chiropractic medicine&quot; on the coin. This is the best I have come up with. Does this make sense? &#xD;&#xA;sincera in communione medicina chiropractic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24919" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7437" RevisionGUID="0d423d6d-0948-481b-9cf1-40b3e59753f9" CreationDate="2018-11-01T21:37:14.773" UserId="3063" Text="Does this translation make sense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24920" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7437" RevisionGUID="0d423d6d-0948-481b-9cf1-40b3e59753f9" CreationDate="2018-11-01T21:37:14.773" UserId="3063" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7437" RevisionGUID="508fb712-4735-46e1-8192-d5c58b9ba993" CreationDate="2018-11-01T22:12:48.790" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am in charge of a professional chiropractic fraternity, and I would like to have coins made with the Latin version of &quot;sincere fellowship in chiropractic medicine&quot; on the coin. This is the best I have come up with. Does this make sense? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sincera in communione medicina chiropractic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24922" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7437" RevisionGUID="508fb712-4735-46e1-8192-d5c58b9ba993" CreationDate="2018-11-01T22:12:48.790" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7438" RevisionGUID="c54caf15-5dbe-4d71-98e4-5c010f4c0410" CreationDate="2018-11-01T22:38:36.663" UserId="40" Text="I'm curious whether we know the Classical Latin or Greek names of the ladybug. I can't find the word in any of the dictionaries I have access to at the moment, and googling turns up [this reddit thread][1] where the question is raised but not answered. Obviously there is a modern scientific Latin name for the ladybug (*Coccinella*), but that doesn't seem to have been used in antiquity, as far as I can tell. Do we know what the Greeks or Romans called this beetle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://https:/https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/6ayb55/anyone_here_knows_how_to_say_ladybugladybird_in/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24924" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7438" RevisionGUID="c54caf15-5dbe-4d71-98e4-5c010f4c0410" CreationDate="2018-11-01T22:38:36.663" UserId="40" Text="What's the Latin or Greek for ladybug?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24925" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7438" RevisionGUID="c54caf15-5dbe-4d71-98e4-5c010f4c0410" CreationDate="2018-11-01T22:38:36.663" UserId="40" Text="|vocabulary|greek|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7439" RevisionGUID="1d690b93-dc1e-4f55-9bad-75754c0e35e5" CreationDate="2018-11-01T22:51:02.343" UserId="79" Text="The suggestion you gave is the one given by Google Translate, and it does makes very little sense.&#xD;&#xA;[Google Translate is very unreliable with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79), and should as a matter of principle never be trusted.&#xD;&#xA;A much better translation is often obtained by looking up the words one by one in [any online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;If it is anything important, please always check the translation with someone who knows Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first and most important step is to find the correct words.&#xD;&#xA;Here is a suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **fellowship**: A good word for a fellowship, association, union, community, or society is *societas*. The word *communio* does not seem to refer to an organization, at least not as clearly as *societas*.&#xD;&#xA;- **chiropractic medicine**: A good general word for medicine is *ars medicina* or simply *medicina*. To specify that it's the chiropractical kind of medicine, an adjective is needed. Although it is almost certainly not classical Latin, the (originally Greek) adjective *chiropractica* seems appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;- **sincere**: Perhaps *fidelis* would be appropriate? It means trusty, sincere, or faithful. There is also *sincerus*, but it doesn't seem to be very close to the English &quot;sincere&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting all of this together with the correct forms gives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sincere fellowship in chiropractic medicine  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *societas fidelis in medicina chiropractica*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24927" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7438" RevisionGUID="8f49e395-5004-4f11-b69d-c66902f2ac80" CreationDate="2018-11-01T23:08:59.457" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|greek|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7439" RevisionGUID="413b0594-9dcc-4750-bc62-563b40c2a12f" CreationDate="2018-11-02T00:09:28.517" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The suggestion you gave is the one given by Google Translate, and it does make very little sense.&#xD;&#xA;[Google Translate is very unreliable with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79), and should as a matter of principle never be trusted.&#xD;&#xA;A much better translation is often obtained by looking up the words one by one in [any online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;If it is anything important, please always check the translation with someone who knows Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first and most important step is to find the correct words.&#xD;&#xA;Here is a suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **fellowship**: A good word for a fellowship, association, union, community, or society is *societas*. The word *communio* does not seem to refer to an organization, at least not as clearly as *societas*.&#xD;&#xA;- **chiropractic medicine**: A good general word for medicine is *ars medicina* or simply *medicina*. To specify that it's the chiropractical kind of medicine, an adjective is needed. Although it is almost certainly not classical Latin, the (originally Greek) adjective *chiropractica* seems appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;- **sincere**: Perhaps *fidelis* would be appropriate? It means trusty, sincere, or faithful. There is also *sincerus*, but it doesn't seem to be very close to the English &quot;sincere&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting all of this together with the correct forms gives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sincere fellowship in chiropractic medicine  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *societas fidelis in medicina chiropractica*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7271" RevisionGUID="519dc0b0-9940-40d3-87a2-674eb2e76daa" CreationDate="2018-11-02T05:40:47.517" UserId="30" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;‹–u–x–uu–›			Πόδας δέ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ποίκιλος μάσλης ἐκάλυπτε, Λύδι-&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ον κάλον ἔργον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from &quot;WTF Edmonds, tradition is unanimous on ἐκάλυπτε (says Voigt, Edmonds has different opinions) and you give me ἐπέτεννε?&quot;, we have here an oscillation from μάσθλης to μάσλης. The former is the Attic form, apparently, for a noun meaning &quot;leather&quot;, or a kind of sandal here, says Pollux. The latter should be an Aeolic form. However, the tradition oscillates, and AFAIK the only argument for the latter is Hephaestio's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Προτάσσεται τὸ σ τοῦ λ, κατὰ πάθος, ὡς ἐν τῷ μάσλης | The sigma is placed before the lambda, as a word modification, as in μάσλης.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I read that right, it tells us μάσλης is modified from μάλης by an extra sigma before the lambda. Except this word [seems](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=malhs&amp;la=greek#lexicon) to have nothing to do with sandals. So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Am I misreading this? If so, what is Hephaestio actually telling us? If not, why would the correct form in the fragment be the theta-less one, when it's =μάλης and thus has nothing to do with sandals, whereas Pollux clearly says it means some kind of sandal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7439" RevisionGUID="e8d5ea30-1e58-4746-9110-912fe54e46e9" CreationDate="2018-11-02T05:53:21.177" UserId="79" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="The suggestion you gave is the one given by Google Translate, and it does make very little sense.&#xD;&#xA;[Google Translate is very unreliable with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79), and should as a matter of principle never be trusted.&#xD;&#xA;A much better translation is often obtained by looking up the words one by one in [any online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;If it is anything important, please always check the translation with someone who knows Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first and most important step is to find the correct words.&#xD;&#xA;Here is a suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **fellowship**: A good word for a fellowship, association, union, community, or society is *societas*. The word *communio* does not seem to refer to an organization, at least not as clearly as *societas*.&#xD;&#xA;- **chiropractic medicine**: A good general word for medicine is *ars medicina* or simply *medicina*. To specify that it's the chiropractical kind of medicine, an adjective is needed. Although it is almost certainly not classical Latin, the (originally Greek) adjective *chiropractica* seems appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;- **sincere**: Perhaps *fidelis* would be appropriate? It means trusty, sincere, or faithful. There is also *sincerus*, but it doesn't seem to be very close to the English &quot;sincere&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting all of this together with the correct forms gives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sincere fellowship in chiropractic medicine  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *societas fidelis in medicina chiropractica*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to drop the word &quot;medicine&quot;, you can simply drop the word *medicina*.&#xD;&#xA;The implicit *ars* goes well with the plain *chiropractica* as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7440" RevisionGUID="fa33a09d-970c-4d26-af12-26e127610aab" CreationDate="2018-11-02T09:27:59.867" UserId="9" Text="A question on ELU ([“Sassanian” vs. “Sasanian”](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/459142)) brought up the fact that the name of *[Sāsān](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasan)* has often been spelled in English with a double S in the middle: &quot;Sassan&quot;. (The same goes for related words like *Sassanid.*) This is a bit mysterious because as far as I can tell, the name is not pronounced with long /sː/ in Persian (nor is there any evidence that it ever was—if I'm wrong about that, though, please let me know!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering what kind of precedents, if any, there might be for this spelling in Latin or in Greek. I tried to research this a bit for my answer to the linked question, but I didn't find out much; however, I am reproducing my findings in this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The etymology section of the Oxford English Dictionary entry for the English word *Sassanid* seems to indicate that *-&amp;#8288;ss&amp;#8288;-* spellings of related words existed in medieval Latin: supposedly, *Sassanid* comes from &quot;medieval Latin *Sassanidae* plural, &lt; *Sassan, Sasan*&quot;. But I haven't been able to find any more sources that explain why *-ss-* might be used in Latin *Sassanidae.* I know that medieval spellings were often variable, but I don't know if the use of *-ss-* here ought to be explained as just a meaningless alternative to *-s-.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Varro's answer here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6509/9) suggests that Greek *-σσ-* (rendered in Latin and English transliteration as *-ss-*) may have been used in the transcription of non-Greek certain names to represent some unclear difference between sibilants in foreign words and the sibilant /s/ sound found in native Greek words. For example, it seems the use of *-ss-* in the modern English spelling of the word &quot;Messiah&quot; can be traced back to Greek. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I can't find any resources that attest to the use of spellings with -σσ- in Greek for the name *Sāsān*: rather, it seems it was usually spelled with  -σ-. A recent [WordReference thread](https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/middlepersian-etymology-of-s%C4%81s%C4%81n-p%C4%81bag.3511115/#post-17835198) about the ultimate etymology of the name (it seems to be unclear) linked to the chapter &quot;[Dynastic connections in the Arsacid Empire and the origins of the House of Sāsān](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317333337_Dynastic_connections_in_the_Arsacid_Empire_and_the_origins_of_the_House_of_Sasan)&quot;, by Marek Olbrycht (2016), which says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The main component of the name Farn-Sāsān is the word *ssn*/Sāsān, which was in widespread use in Ancient Parthia, including the Nisa texts. The etymology of *Sāsān* is controversial. D. N. McKenzie and V. A. Livshits derive it from Old Iranian *\*Sāsāna,* &quot;Defeating Enemy&quot;. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, M. Schwartz has proposed another etymology of *Sāsān.* He sees a continuum from the ancient Syrophoenician form *\*Sasm* to the Late Antique Greek and Aramaic form *Sæsæn/Sesen.* But his alleged Parthan *Sesen* for *ssn* is not convincing, for linguistically no links are discernible between *\*Sasm* or *Sæsæn/Sesen* and Parthian *ssm.* Moreover, the occurrence of the non-Persian name *ssn* spelled in Greek Σασαν or Σασάνης in the ŠKZ inscription clearly implies that this is actually the Parthian name Sāsān.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A later section in this chapter titled &quot;Sāsān in Roman and Armenian sources&quot; seems to quote ancient texts in Classical languages about Sāsān, but I haven't found information about the original spellings used. The texts mentioned are &quot;Agathias II, 27, 1-5: *1*&quot; and &quot;Synkellos [p. 440.11-441.2 (p. 677.11-678.7 €SHB)]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would appreciate it if anyone could tell me more about the way this name was spelled in Greek and Latin of various eras." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24932" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7440" RevisionGUID="fa33a09d-970c-4d26-af12-26e127610aab" CreationDate="2018-11-02T09:27:59.867" UserId="9" Text="Was the name &quot;Sasan/Sassan&quot; often spelled with a double S in Latin or Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24933" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7440" RevisionGUID="fa33a09d-970c-4d26-af12-26e127610aab" CreationDate="2018-11-02T09:27:59.867" UserId="9" Text="|classical-latin|greek|medieval-latin|names|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24934" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6500" RevisionGUID="15a74e70-0a01-44ed-a598-dc4feabcdc63" CreationDate="2018-11-02T15:39:34.923" UserId="406" Comment="edited title" Text="Did the Romans ever transcribe [ʃ]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7442" RevisionGUID="e3d92bfa-746f-4fe3-9bd7-00977589d2eb" CreationDate="2018-11-02T18:26:25.450" UserId="3037" Text="Eftersom det inte finns någon korrekt motsvarighet till ordet ”bildning” i engelskan, kan jag bara ställa denna fråga på svenska.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finns det något latinskt uttryck som motsvarar ”bildning är det som stannat kvar när man glömt vad det var man lärde sig”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24939" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7442" RevisionGUID="e3d92bfa-746f-4fe3-9bd7-00977589d2eb" CreationDate="2018-11-02T18:26:25.450" UserId="3037" Text="A question in Swedish" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24940" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7442" RevisionGUID="e3d92bfa-746f-4fe3-9bd7-00977589d2eb" CreationDate="2018-11-02T18:26:25.450" UserId="3037" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7442" RevisionGUID="a736f426-5e96-457b-98f5-6c937f06f3e5" CreationDate="2018-11-02T20:23:19.057" UserId="79" Comment="Wrote an English summary." Text="(In English below.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eftersom det inte finns någon korrekt motsvarighet till ordet ”bildning” i engelskan, kan jag bara ställa denna fråga på svenska.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finns det något latinskt uttryck som motsvarar ”bildning är det som stannat kvar när man glömt vad det var man lärde sig”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Swedish word &quot;bildning&quot; means educated, but not in the sense that refers tho superficial knowledge. It means the growth of your character and personality as a result of education. I can't find an equivalent word in English, but the German word &quot;Bildung&quot; seems to be close if not equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to find a Latin expression for the following: &quot;'Bildning' is what is left when that which was actually learned is forgotten.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24942" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7442" RevisionGUID="a736f426-5e96-457b-98f5-6c937f06f3e5" CreationDate="2018-11-02T20:23:19.057" UserId="79" Comment="Wrote an English summary." Text="A question about the Swedish &quot;bildning&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24943" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7442" RevisionGUID="a736f426-5e96-457b-98f5-6c937f06f3e5" CreationDate="2018-11-02T20:23:19.057" UserId="79" Comment="Wrote an English summary." Text="|sentence-translation|germanic|swedish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7443" RevisionGUID="194d1bb0-bfd6-4667-b363-291474ae77b4" CreationDate="2018-11-02T20:33:29.433" UserId="79" Text="The hardest task is to find a good Latin word or other expression for &quot;bildning&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I suggest [*intellegentia*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=intellegentia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) (also spelled *intelligentia*).&#xD;&#xA;It refers to understanding as opposed to knowledge, and I believe that is what the Swedish word is all about.&#xD;&#xA;(I believe it is essentially synonymous with the Finnish &quot;sivistys&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;The linked dictionary entry gives translations like the power of discerning or understanding, discernment, understanding, intelligence, understanding, knowledge, art, skill, taste, connoisseurship, perception, discernment.&#xD;&#xA;It is not a perfect match, but the best I could find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *discere* (to learn) does not seem to have a past participle, so I will use *docere* (to teach) instead.&#xD;&#xA;The phrasing gets clumsy without participles.&#xD;&#xA;I suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Intellegentia est quod remanet omnia docta oblito.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Literla translation:  &#xD;&#xA;'Intellegentia' is what remains for the one who has forgotten everything that was taught." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7443" RevisionGUID="d6a85454-41d7-4371-a22a-c7a9c57c060e" CreationDate="2018-11-02T20:52:23.153" UserId="79" Comment="added 245 characters in body" Text="The hardest task is to find a good Latin word or other expression for &quot;bildning&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I suggest [*intellegentia*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=intellegentia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) (also spelled *intelligentia*).&#xD;&#xA;It refers to understanding as opposed to knowledge, and I believe that is what the Swedish word is all about.&#xD;&#xA;(I believe it is essentially synonymous with the Finnish &quot;sivistys&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;The linked dictionary entry gives translations like the power of discerning or understanding, discernment, understanding, intelligence, understanding, knowledge, art, skill, taste, connoisseurship, perception, discernment.&#xD;&#xA;It is not a perfect match, but the best I could find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *discere* (to learn) does not seem to have a past participle, so I will use *docere* (to teach) instead.&#xD;&#xA;The phrasing gets clumsy without participles.&#xD;&#xA;I suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Intellegentia est quod remanet omnia docta oblito.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Literla translation:  &#xD;&#xA;'Intellegentia' is what remains for the one who has forgotten everything that was taught.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words to consider besides *intellegentia*: *eruditio, scientia, cognitio, virtus, cultus, cultura*.&#xD;&#xA;You can check these out in any [online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) and see if they seem better to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7444" RevisionGUID="aae2c8a0-933f-4da2-bd7a-c94a51be932a" CreationDate="2018-11-02T20:53:45.497" UserId="324" Text="I do not know Swedish, but I assume that bildning is one of the many West-Germanic loanwords in Swedish. The classical Latin equivalent of German Bildung is cultus, or cultus animi. Cultus is &quot;education&quot; but a bit more too. It is the state of character of an educated person." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7445" RevisionGUID="16a90c07-6d53-4841-b562-21c69162b7e8" CreationDate="2018-11-02T21:00:16.747" UserId="81" Text="Here's my suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cum institutio oblita est, supersunt mores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That might be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When one's instruction is forgotten, character remains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering your description, I thought *[mos][1]* would be a good fit. According to Lewis's *An Elementary Latin Dictionary*, the plural form of this word is used in the sense of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...conduct, behavior, manners, morals, character&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.11:1:642.lewis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7445" RevisionGUID="20184873-1c9f-4995-bb21-b90b6b1826f4" CreationDate="2018-11-02T21:24:30.350" UserId="81" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Here's my suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Institutione oblita, supersunt mores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That might be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When one's instruction is forgotten, character remains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering your description, I thought *[mos][1]* would be a good fit. According to Lewis's *An Elementary Latin Dictionary*, the plural form of this word is used in the sense of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...conduct, behavior, manners, morals, character&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.11:1:642.lewis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7446" RevisionGUID="2165d72f-df71-4f89-943b-80abae3953cb" CreationDate="2018-11-02T21:24:42.057" UserId="406" Text="I [asked a question before][1] about a passage in the *Satyricon* describing a werewolf: a man who transforms into a wolf and back. The Latin word used for this creature is *versipellis*, from *vertō* &quot;turn&quot; + *pellis* &quot;skin&quot;: in other words, someone who changes their skin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But unlike the English &quot;werewolf&quot;, *versipellis* makes no mention of what the person turns into. Is this word used specifically for werewolves, or could other transformations qualify? For example, would the mythological Proteus (who could transform into all sorts of animals) be considered a *versipellis*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6880/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24950" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7446" RevisionGUID="2165d72f-df71-4f89-943b-80abae3953cb" CreationDate="2018-11-02T21:24:42.057" UserId="406" Text="What does a versipellis turn into?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24951" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7446" RevisionGUID="2165d72f-df71-4f89-943b-80abae3953cb" CreationDate="2018-11-02T21:24:42.057" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7442" RevisionGUID="42d761a0-cef9-4170-ac10-42843cf7b917" CreationDate="2018-11-02T21:26:58.040" UserId="3037" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="(In English below.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eftersom det inte finns någon korrekt motsvarighet till ordet ”bildning” i engelskan, kan jag bara ställa denna fråga på svenska.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finns det något latinskt uttryck som motsvarar ”bildning är det som stannat kvar när man glömt vad det var man lärde sig”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Swedish word &quot;bildning&quot; means education, but not in the sense that refers tho superficial knowledge. It means the growth of your character and personality as a result of education. I can't find an equivalent word in English, but the German word &quot;Bildung&quot; seems to be close if not equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to find a Latin expression for the following: &quot;'Bildning' is what is left when that which was actually learned is forgotten.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24953" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="7445" RevisionGUID="35aceacf-ac81-402a-91e5-76220b3ea987" CreationDate="2018-11-02T21:27:53.103" UserId="81" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:81,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Expedito Bipes&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7447" RevisionGUID="337c664c-8ffd-464d-8466-a214314c0923" CreationDate="2018-11-02T21:30:11.700" UserId="39" Text="Here's a relevant passage from Meister 1882 (v. 1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/U72Ee.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7448" RevisionGUID="e0b2c07c-aa91-40f8-b580-c3165fa0cc1b" CreationDate="2018-11-02T22:00:42.520" UserId="45" Text="I would suggest [*formatio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dformatio). Like English, it can refer to literal shaping (e.g. of clay) or also figurative shaping (e.g. of oneself). My understanding of the etymology of &quot;Bildung&quot; in German (from &quot;Bild&quot; = image) also makes this appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in [Epistle 117](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0080%3Aletter%3D117%3Asection%3D19), Seneca refers to *formatio morum* = &quot;formatio morum.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7449" RevisionGUID="9a981e69-ad71-4f7f-887e-da97c9953e12" CreationDate="2018-11-02T22:34:28.393" UserId="3067" Text="I'm looking for a short and modern translation of this quote from Aurelius' Meditations Book 5.  (No original Latin as Aurelius wrote in Greek.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For context, the full quote is &quot;In a sense, people are our proper occupation. Our job is to do them good and put up with them. But when they obstruct our proper tasks, they become irrelevant to us -- like sun, wind, animals. Our actions may be impeded by them, but there can be no impeding our intentions or our dispositions. Because we can accommodate and adapt. The mind adapts and converts to its own purposes the obstacle to our acting. The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The idea: there is no single fixed path to achieve anything; believing so only causes pain.  In rationally confronting whatever stands in your way, you will find the solution that lets you continue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a pithy translation of 'the obstacle is the way,' I have seen 'ex impedimento via' suggested.  Are there any other possibilities to consider?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24957" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7449" RevisionGUID="9a981e69-ad71-4f7f-887e-da97c9953e12" CreationDate="2018-11-02T22:34:28.393" UserId="3067" Text="succinct translation of 'what stands in the way becomes the way', or 'the obstacle is the way'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24958" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7449" RevisionGUID="9a981e69-ad71-4f7f-887e-da97c9953e12" CreationDate="2018-11-02T22:34:28.393" UserId="3067" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7443" RevisionGUID="5c23ef8a-0f95-4bea-afe0-d0b0fb70d77c" CreationDate="2018-11-02T22:38:54.727" UserId="79" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="The hardest task is to find a good Latin word or other expression for &quot;bildning&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I suggest [*intellegentia*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=intellegentia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) (also spelled *intelligentia*).&#xD;&#xA;It refers to understanding as opposed to knowledge, and I believe that is what the Swedish word is all about.&#xD;&#xA;(I believe it is essentially synonymous with the Finnish &quot;sivistys&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;The linked dictionary entry gives translations like the power of discerning or understanding, discernment, understanding, intelligence, understanding, knowledge, art, skill, taste, connoisseurship, perception, discernment.&#xD;&#xA;It is not a perfect match, but the best I could find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *discere* (to learn) does not seem to have a past participle, so I will use *docere* (to teach) instead.&#xD;&#xA;The phrasing gets clumsy without participles.&#xD;&#xA;I suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Intellegentia est quod remanet omnia docta oblito.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Literla translation:  &#xD;&#xA;'Intellegentia' is what remains for the one who has forgotten everything that was taught.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words to consider besides *intellegentia*: *eruditio, scientia, cognitio, virtus, cultus, cultura, mos*.&#xD;&#xA;You can check these out in any [online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) and see if they seem better to you.&#xD;&#xA;You can simply replace the first word in my sentence with any of these." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24960" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="7447" RevisionGUID="f066a121-3295-4484-9b56-dd164d814800" CreationDate="2018-11-02T23:19:26.813" UserId="39" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24961" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="7447" RevisionGUID="d2e9846f-c05f-432c-9650-06f73f16f53d" CreationDate="2018-11-03T00:03:05.080" UserId="39" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7447" RevisionGUID="b1acaef2-0694-475a-9f9e-253e01a65699" CreationDate="2018-11-03T00:03:32.173" UserId="39" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="Here's a relevant passage from Meister 1882 (v. 1) - will add more details later&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/U72Ee.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7450" RevisionGUID="28afd71c-10c2-4ced-9f6d-47ba0031caab" CreationDate="2018-11-03T01:28:42.743" UserId="406" Text="The LXX provides a wide variety of Hebrew, Aramaic, and other Semitic words transcribed into Greek. Most of the transcriptions are straightforward: the letter lamedh *ל*, for example, is always transcribed as lambda *λ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the letter shin *שׁ* is less consistent. At the beginning of a word, it's always written with a single sigma *σ*. But between vowels, it's sometimes written with a *double* sigma *σσ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *מָשִׁיחַ‎* &gt; *Μεσσίας* (double sigma)&#xD;&#xA; - *יֵשׁוּעַ* &gt; *Ἰησοῦς* (single sigma)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What affects the decision to use one versus the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24964" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7450" RevisionGUID="28afd71c-10c2-4ced-9f6d-47ba0031caab" CreationDate="2018-11-03T01:28:42.743" UserId="406" Text="Why choose σ versus σσ in Hebrew loans?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24965" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7450" RevisionGUID="28afd71c-10c2-4ced-9f6d-47ba0031caab" CreationDate="2018-11-03T01:28:42.743" UserId="406" Text="|greek|phonology|transliteration|loanwords|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7445" RevisionGUID="e58ae2e4-bcc4-4a33-93a7-026f2342eb4d" CreationDate="2018-11-03T01:31:43.200" UserId="81" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Here's my suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cum institutio oblitus est, supersunt mores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That might be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When one's instruction is forgotten, character remains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering your description, I thought *[mos][1]* would be a good fit. According to Lewis's *An Elementary Latin Dictionary*, the plural form of this word is used in the sense of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...conduct, behavior, manners, morals, character&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.11:1:642.lewis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7447" RevisionGUID="3abd6465-b812-4276-a669-2621cf07d133" CreationDate="2018-11-03T01:32:16.317" UserId="39" Comment="added 315 characters in body" Text="First of all, you have **completely misunderstood** the quoted passage from Hephaestion's Encheiridion, one of the most important ancient *metrical* treatises (see Dickey 2007: 104-105).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is found in the first chapter, where he talks about &quot;common syllables.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And its English translation (by [J.M. van Ophuijsen][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://brill.com/view/book/9789004328358/BP000003.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nCoTa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/giD0X.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7447" RevisionGUID="00bd6610-d3ef-4abc-b723-62220b6bef6f" CreationDate="2018-11-03T01:45:25.750" UserId="39" Comment="added 182 characters in body" Text="First of all, you have **completely misunderstood** the quoted passage from Hephaestion's Encheiridion, one of the most important ancient *metrical* treatises (see Dickey 2007: 104-105).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Consbruch 1906][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is found in the first chapter, where he talks about &quot;common syllables.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And its English translation (by [J.M. van Ophuijsen][3]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/hephaestionisen00consgoog/page/n44&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eP12g.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://brill.com/view/book/9789004328358/BP000003.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nCoTa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/giD0X.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7445" RevisionGUID="c2c2dcb2-0904-444c-8924-9d59ace7bcf4" CreationDate="2018-11-03T01:49:08.803" UserId="81" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Here's my suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cum institutio in oblivione est, supersunt mores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That might be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When one's instruction is forgotten, character remains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering your description, I thought *[mos][1]* would be a good fit. According to Lewis's *An Elementary Latin Dictionary*, the plural form of this word is used in the sense of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...conduct, behavior, manners, morals, character&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.11:1:642.lewis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24970" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="7445" RevisionGUID="a7453cec-564b-424d-ac3e-0f574945629b" CreationDate="2018-11-03T01:49:16.137" UserId="81" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:81,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Expedito Bipes&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7447" RevisionGUID="d5921d63-0129-407c-a6fa-fe14445e1bc2" CreationDate="2018-11-03T01:55:37.123" UserId="39" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="First of all, you have **completely misunderstood** the quoted passage from Hephaestion's Encheiridion, one of the most important ancient *metrical* treatises (see Dickey 2007: 104-105).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gaisford 1810][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Consbruch 1906][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is found in the first chapter, where he talks about &quot;common syllables.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And its English translation (by [J.M. van Ophuijsen][5]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009706478&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iZVUQ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/hephaestionisen00consgoog/page/n44&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eP12g.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://brill.com/view/book/9789004328358/BP000003.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nCoTa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/giD0X.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7447" RevisionGUID="ebc6fb5e-11d0-4920-b0c9-e6c352d6e46d" CreationDate="2018-11-03T02:01:41.767" UserId="39" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="First of all, you have **completely misunderstood** the quoted passage from Hephaestion's Encheiridion, one of the most important ancient *metrical* treatises (see Dickey 2007: 104-105).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gaisford 1810][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Consbruch 1906][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is found in the first chapter, where he talks about &quot;common syllables.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And its modern English translation (by [J.M. van Ophuijsen][5]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see [Hamm 1953][8] for further details -all of the sources above are, naturally, found in Voigt (aka Hamm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009706478&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iZVUQ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/hephaestionisen00consgoog/page/n44&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eP12g.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://brill.com/view/book/9789004328358/BP000003.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nCoTa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/giD0X.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40265625" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7451" RevisionGUID="dd72b98d-7a87-427a-8147-0278022bd425" CreationDate="2018-11-03T02:13:04.067" UserId="3063" Text="It is supposed to read as &quot;Be Professional, Be Firm, Be Sociable, Be Capable&quot; which I got to be Lorem potest, stabiles estote, et Sociable, possit. Is this correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24974" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7451" RevisionGUID="dd72b98d-7a87-427a-8147-0278022bd425" CreationDate="2018-11-03T02:13:04.067" UserId="3063" Text="Is this a correct Latin Translation for my businesses motto?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24975" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7451" RevisionGUID="dd72b98d-7a87-427a-8147-0278022bd425" CreationDate="2018-11-03T02:13:04.067" UserId="3063" Text="|classical-latin|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7452" RevisionGUID="cded8315-4971-466c-afb2-7c2d30964938" CreationDate="2018-11-03T03:04:06.203" UserId="81" Text="The Greek text is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; πρὸ ὁδοῦ [γίνεται] τὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ ταύτης ἐνστατικόν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it might be translated into English as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What obstructs the way becomes for the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in Latin it might be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod obstat viam fit pro via.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could probably eliminate the *pro* and write it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod obstat viam fit via." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7453" RevisionGUID="e4dfc5b5-64d5-49fa-84ba-f2ee5a7d38d9" CreationDate="2018-11-03T03:11:35.147" UserId="136" Text="Welcome to the site! That translation you provided isn't quite correct, and I suspect you got it from Google Translate, which is notorious for jumbling words and other mistakes. Below is my attempt at translation. The one point of contention is whom you are addressing. Are you addressing a group of people (i.e. your employees as a whole) or a single person (i.e. each employee as an individual)? Since this is ostensibly a command, you can use either the singular imperative or a plural imperative of the verb _sum, esse_. These are _es_ and _esto_, respectively. You would also have to match the adjective to the verb (i.e. if you are talking to a group of people, you need a plural adjective). Finally, there's the matter of the grammatical gender to use for your employees. Typically masculine is used for persons of an unknown gender, so that is what I chose. Here's what I would propose depending on the way you take it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Es Professionalis, Es Firmus, Es Communis, Es Potens_&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Esto Professionales, Esto Firmi, Esto Communes, Esto Potentes_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7453" RevisionGUID="24c8e515-0f02-400e-9d86-cf75855ea9f6" CreationDate="2018-11-03T03:51:43.350" UserId="136" Comment="changed all esto s to este s" Text="Welcome to the site! That translation you provided isn't quite correct, and I suspect you got it from Google Translate, which is notorious for jumbling words and other mistakes. Below is my attempt at translation. The one point of contention is whom you are addressing. Are you addressing a group of people (i.e. your employees as a whole) or a single person (i.e. each employee as an individual)? Since this is ostensibly a command, you can use either the singular imperative or a plural imperative of the verb _sum, esse_. These are _es_ and _este_, respectively. You would also have to match the adjective to the verb (i.e. if you are talking to a group of people, you need a plural adjective). Finally, there's the matter of the grammatical gender to use for your employees. Typically masculine is used for persons of an unknown gender, so that is what I chose. Here's what I would propose depending on the way you take it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Es Professionalis, Es Firmus, Es Communis, Es Potens_&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Este Professionales, Este Firmi, Este Communes, Este Potentes_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7454" RevisionGUID="20b30818-10f8-49d7-a9ec-2fe7b1ccaa89" CreationDate="2018-11-03T05:46:39.457" UserId="3063" Text="The translation the dictionary gave me was &quot;Fraternitas Militaris, which I am not sure is correct. Can someone inform me if I am getting poor information and, what the correct translation would be?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7454" RevisionGUID="20b30818-10f8-49d7-a9ec-2fe7b1ccaa89" CreationDate="2018-11-03T05:46:39.457" UserId="3063" Text="When I went to translate &quot;Fraternity Officer&quot; into Latin with a free online dictionary, and I came up with this" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7454" RevisionGUID="20b30818-10f8-49d7-a9ec-2fe7b1ccaa89" CreationDate="2018-11-03T05:46:39.457" UserId="3063" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2062" RevisionGUID="d6df13b1-7903-40be-bd3b-e21c7e115f1d" CreationDate="2018-11-03T06:01:38.323" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="What could be the meaning of **hercle** in this context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si quis ergo diceret se claram et distinctam hoc est veram ideam substantiæ habere et nihilominus dubitare num talis substantia existat, idem **hercle** esset ac si diceret se veram habere ideam et nihilominus dubitare num falsa sit (ut satis attendenti sit manifestum); (Spinoza's Ethics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Therefore, for a person to say that he has a clear and distinct - that is, a true - idea of a substance, but that he is not sure whether such substance exists, would be the same as if he said that he had a true idea, but was not sure whether or no it was false (a little consideration will make this plain).&quot; (trans. R.H.M. Elwes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it mean something like 'as silly as' (in this context)? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24984" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2062" RevisionGUID="d6df13b1-7903-40be-bd3b-e21c7e115f1d" CreationDate="2018-11-03T06:01:38.323" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|vocabulary|new-latin|latin-to-english-translation|translation-explanation|spinoza|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24985" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2138" RevisionGUID="907290e9-72e4-46be-86b2-7096d51d2bd0" CreationDate="2018-11-03T06:03:54.487" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|translation-check|grammar-identification|christianity|catechism-catholic-church|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7455" RevisionGUID="26e20fc3-a680-47f3-a02d-55b29dbcbca0" CreationDate="2018-11-03T07:45:36.340" UserId="3069" Text="The result I got from Google translate is this &quot;Quod cogitavi cognovi: tunc animadvertebam nihil scirem.&quot; I am completely Latin illiterate and I would like to use this sentence as a motto for an event. Please help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24987" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7455" RevisionGUID="26e20fc3-a680-47f3-a02d-55b29dbcbca0" CreationDate="2018-11-03T07:45:36.340" UserId="3069" Text="How do you translate this sentence (I thought I knew something, then I realised I knew nothing) to Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24988" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7455" RevisionGUID="26e20fc3-a680-47f3-a02d-55b29dbcbca0" CreationDate="2018-11-03T07:45:36.340" UserId="3069" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7452" RevisionGUID="bc2dadf0-e6d7-44c3-9371-1647fa02f697" CreationDate="2018-11-03T08:56:11.257" UserId="81" Comment="edited body" Text="The Greek text is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; πρὸ ὁδοῦ [γίνεται] τὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ ταύτης ἐνστατικόν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it might be translated into English as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What obstructs the way becomes for the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in Latin it might be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod obstat viae fit pro via.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could probably eliminate the *pro* and write it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quod obstat viae fit via." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7456" RevisionGUID="7c13b07b-2c47-4840-ad88-3b5bf19c7bbd" CreationDate="2018-11-03T15:47:33.113" UserId="2476" Text="_Putavi me scire aliquid, tum agnovi me nihil scire._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting the main clause with &quot;putavi&quot; emphasizes the fact that this thought is now far from us; also, ending it with &quot;aliquid&quot; gives more importance to the fact that it's not _nothing_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the secondary clause I used _tum_, as in, following that - if your &quot;then&quot; is more like &quot;but then&quot;, this may be substituted by _autem_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7457" RevisionGUID="fd15cdba-04aa-48aa-8308-2da2e0d9cd39" CreationDate="2018-11-03T16:18:45.040" UserId="1694" Text="I think that TKR's remark on the occasional spellings with υ may also be relevant to the matter.  Note that in Ἰησοῦς with the single σ, the the ש is in the vicinity of a rounded vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also interesting is that while שְלֹמֹה (Shelomo/Solomon) is Σαλωμῶν (or a variant), אַבְשָׁלוֹם (Abshalom/Absalom) is Αβεσσαλωμ, with medial σσ.  Also note אֲבִשַׁי (Abishai) -&gt; Αβεσσα (σσ); הוֹשֵׁעַ (Hoshea/Hosea) -&gt; Ωσηε (σ, rounded vowel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For υ, also note שְׁכֶם (Shechem) -&gt; Συχεμ (but also Σικιμα)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks to me like there is at least a partial correlation based on whether a rounded vowel is in the vicinity of the שׁ, but it cannot be regarded as predicative (in fact, I've mentioned a counter-example elsewhere: אֱלִישָׁע (Elisha) -&gt; Ελισαιε)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7458" RevisionGUID="1e53957d-f4cf-4fb5-8dc1-6ff599ecc43a" CreationDate="2018-11-03T18:09:38.883" UserId="3073" Text="Im having trouble translating &quot;every Branch Shares The Same Root&quot; into latin for a school emblem. so far I have &quot;OMNE GENERE CONSOCIARE QUOD IDEM RADIX&quot; also this is a bit long for a school emblem patch. If there would be something shorter I could uses with fewer phrases please let me know! The name of the school is &quot;The Global Great Growers Institute.&quot; Thank you and I appreciate your advice!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24993" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7458" RevisionGUID="1e53957d-f4cf-4fb5-8dc1-6ff599ecc43a" CreationDate="2018-11-03T18:09:38.883" UserId="3073" Text="&quot;Every Branch Shares The Same Root&quot; - having trouble translating &quot;Shares&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24994" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7458" RevisionGUID="1e53957d-f4cf-4fb5-8dc1-6ff599ecc43a" CreationDate="2018-11-03T18:09:38.883" UserId="3073" Text="|vocabulary|translation|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7459" RevisionGUID="f2450269-74eb-4851-857c-2e1f8fd0e2d7" CreationDate="2018-11-03T18:37:40.890" UserId="81" Text="I would translate it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnis ramus eiusdem radicis socius est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to make it shorter, you could use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnis ramus radicis socius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That simply reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Every branch is a partaker of the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, to answer your question, a good verb which means to share is *partior*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7459" RevisionGUID="440923ff-1942-4f55-a0d7-11de36322a64" CreationDate="2018-11-03T18:42:43.427" UserId="81" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="I would translate it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnis ramus eiusdem radicis socius est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to make it shorter, you could use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnis ramus radicis socius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That simply reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Every branch is a partaker of the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, to answer your question, a good verb which means to share is *partior*. It might be used as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnis ramus eandem radicem partitur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24997" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7455" RevisionGUID="e4b9ebee-6e2a-4f49-8491-e22009f72f0f" CreationDate="2018-11-03T18:53:42.230" UserId="2476" Comment="added some tags" Text="|translation|sentence-translation|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24998" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7455" RevisionGUID="e4b9ebee-6e2a-4f49-8491-e22009f72f0f" CreationDate="2018-11-03T18:53:42.230" Comment="Proposed by 2476 approved by -1 edit id of 269" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7455" RevisionGUID="1f049fef-7094-447d-af7c-9518032b609a" CreationDate="2018-11-03T18:53:42.230" UserId="79" Comment="Added the sentence to the question and retagged a little." Text="I want to translate &quot;I thought I knew something, then I realised I knew nothing&quot; into Latin. The result I got from Google translate is this &quot;Quod cogitavi cognovi: tunc animadvertebam nihil scirem.&quot; I am completely Latin illiterate and I would like to use this sentence as a motto for an event. Please help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25000" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7455" RevisionGUID="1f049fef-7094-447d-af7c-9518032b609a" CreationDate="2018-11-03T18:53:42.230" UserId="79" Comment="Added the sentence to the question and retagged a little." Text="|sentence-translation|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7459" RevisionGUID="8cca27c1-9af0-4f29-89f6-f5d0eaf85da4" CreationDate="2018-11-03T18:54:05.690" UserId="81" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="I would translate it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnis ramus eiusdem radicis socius est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to make it shorter, you could use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnis ramus radicis socius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That simply reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Every branch is a partaker of the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, to answer your question, *partior* is a verb which means to share. It might be used as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnis ramus eandem radicem partitur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7458" RevisionGUID="82646643-d91c-436f-b8d8-dcf950a9f4a4" CreationDate="2018-11-03T18:56:55.180" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="I'm having trouble translating &quot;every Branch Shares The Same Root&quot; into Latin for a school emblem. so far I have &quot;OMNE GENERE CONSOCIARE QUOD IDEM RADIX&quot; also this is a bit long for a school emblem patch. If there would be something shorter I could uses with fewer phrases please let me know! The name of the school is &quot;The Global Great Growers Institute.&quot; Thank you and I appreciate your advice!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25003" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7458" RevisionGUID="82646643-d91c-436f-b8d8-dcf950a9f4a4" CreationDate="2018-11-03T18:56:55.180" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7460" RevisionGUID="65644072-4e5b-42ea-bfbd-9176046900f3" CreationDate="2018-11-03T19:15:45.817" UserId="79" Text="My suggestion is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Rami universi ex una radice.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, this means &quot;all the branches from the same root&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There is no need for an explicit verb, especially for a motto.&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of choices here I wish to point out explicitly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The wording is compact so as to fit a motto.&#xD;&#xA;- I used chiastic word order to highlight the branches and the root at the ends of the motto.&#xD;&#xA;- There are [many words for &quot;all&quot; in Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5104/79). Out of these, *universi* means most &quot;all together&quot;. The word itself means literally &quot;turned into one&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7459" RevisionGUID="d72cac1a-b909-47fc-8819-82c10ae8d0da" CreationDate="2018-11-03T19:17:42.383" UserId="81" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I would translate it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnis ramus eiusdem radicis socius est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to make it shorter, you could use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnis ramus radicis socius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That simply reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Every branch is a partaker of the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, to answer your question, *communicare* is a verb which means to share. It might be used as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnis ramus eandem radicem communicat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7461" RevisionGUID="e776f8c9-0788-4f60-8533-655d8fd3423a" CreationDate="2018-11-03T20:28:32.870" UserId="81" Text="This word was used by Pliny the Elder in *[The Natural History][1],* and the text contains a footnote that addresses your question well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Versipellis] literally means &quot;changing the skin;&quot; it was applied by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; some ancient medical writers to a peculiar form of insanity, where the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patient conceives himself changed into a wolf, and named λυκανθρώπια,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;lycanthropy.&quot; The word appears to have been in common use among the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Romans, and to have been applied by them to any one who had undergone&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a remarkable change in his character and habits; in this sense it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used by Plautus, Amphitryon, Prol. 1. 123, and Bacchides, A. iv. sc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4, 1. 12.—B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you're unfamiliar with the story of Amphitryon, it involves Jupiter transforming into the likeness of Amphitryon in order to seduce the latter's wife. In the text of the play, Plautus wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam meus pater intus nunc est, eccum, Juppiter:&lt;br/&gt; In Amphitruonis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vortit sese imaginem,&lt;br/&gt; Omnesque eum esse censent servi, qui&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vident:&lt;br/&gt; Ita versipellem se facit, quando lubet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D8%3Achapter%3D34" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7461" RevisionGUID="371d46ed-a1a9-4f2c-aef9-4ec8290fe647" CreationDate="2018-11-03T21:06:56.003" UserId="81" Comment="added 598 characters in body" Text="This word was used by Pliny the Elder in *[The Natural History][1],* and the text contains a footnote that addresses your question well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Versipellis] literally means &quot;changing the skin;&quot; it was applied by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; some ancient medical writers to a peculiar form of insanity, where the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patient conceives himself changed into a wolf, and named λυκανθρώπια,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;lycanthropy.&quot; The word appears to have been in common use among the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Romans, and to have been applied by them to any one who had undergone&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a remarkable change in his character and habits; in this sense it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used by Plautus, Amphitryon, Prol. 1. 123, and Bacchides, A. iv. sc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4, 1. 12.—B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you're unfamiliar with the story of Amphitryon, it involves Jupiter transforming into the likeness of Amphitryon in order to seduce the latter's wife. In the text of the play, Plautus wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nam meus pater intus nunc est, eccum, Juppiter:&lt;br/&gt; In Amphitruonis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vortit sese imaginem,&lt;br/&gt; Omnesque eum esse censent servi, qui&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vident:&lt;br/&gt; Ita *versipellem* se facit, quando lubet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Bachides* (Act IV, scene 4), Plautus wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; improbis cum improbus sit, harpaget, furibus&lt;br/&gt; furetur quod&#xD;&#xA;&gt; queat,&lt;br/&gt; *vorsipellem* frugi convenit esse hominem,&lt;br/&gt; pectus quoi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sapit: bonus sit bonis, malus sit malis;&lt;br/&gt; utcumque res sit, ita&#xD;&#xA;&gt; animum habeat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a translation for that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He must be a rascal among rascals, rob robbers, steal what he can. A&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chap that's worth anything, a chap with a fine intellect, has to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; able to change his skin. He must be good with the good and bad with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the bad; whatever the situation calls for, that he's got to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D8%3Achapter%3D34" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2980" RevisionGUID="240ab57e-6c80-49fd-b8be-9790d873d7d5" CreationDate="2018-11-04T01:22:59.230" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="After reading [this question][1], I wondered what I could do to some names vital to my translation of D. Gray-Man, a recent project. Some names are fine, such as Allen becoming Alenus, Moa easily remaining already feminine and declinable, and various online sources claiming some link to the names of Charles and Carolus. However, the names of many main characters are indeclinable and hard to convert without sounding a bit repetitive (like &quot;Komuius, Sumanus, Tykius&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Are these acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;2. Are there better translations?&#xD;&#xA;3. Is Carolus a correct conversion or simply a similar name for &quot;name Romanizers?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the names that I've had trouble with, followed by my attempted translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Count Krory - *? Kroryus/Crorius*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Millennium Earl - *Comes Annorum Millium*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lenalee Lee - *Lenalia Lee (I don't know how to translate this and be similar to the original enough for one to infer.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Komui Lee - *Komuis/Comuis Lee*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mana Walker - *Manaus Valcer/Ambulator (masculine)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eliade - *Eliada*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Road Kamelot - *Roada Camelota???*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tyki Mikk - *Ticis Miccis (sounds like a joke spell)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Valcer* certainly sounds better than the hilariously literal *ambulator*. Anyway, some assistance in the naming of these characters is appreciated, even if they're still an annoying mystery. Ah, but who cares? When has Stack Exchange never answered my foolish questions with the limitless knowledge of people who actually went to schools for this language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The importance of this translation is due to the ability to decline these rather than act like some Spanish historian and change the letters, adding in some prepositions, and calling it a day. I need to be able to accurately convert those names so that my retelling feels less like generic TV subtitles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes and Stuff:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-I've confirmed that Tyki is pronounced as *tee-kee*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/473/general-principles-for-translating-non-latin-names-into-latin?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25009" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2980" RevisionGUID="240ab57e-6c80-49fd-b8be-9790d873d7d5" CreationDate="2018-11-04T01:22:59.230" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|names|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25010" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2953" RevisionGUID="aa6c9508-f6f3-41c4-a188-636e8b77b1d5" CreationDate="2018-11-04T01:25:54.793" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7462" RevisionGUID="18a239bb-3872-482f-b446-2bdb2081c00b" CreationDate="2018-11-04T05:03:56.270" UserId="406" Text="The word *nomen* means, literally, &quot;name&quot;. But it also refers to the most important part of a Roman citizen's name, the part indicating which *gens* they belong to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Barbarian names were frequently reported in Latin sources: Hannibal, for example, or Vercingetorix. But were these considered *nomina*? Or, since they didn't indicate a *gens*, were they something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7462" RevisionGUID="18a239bb-3872-482f-b446-2bdb2081c00b" CreationDate="2018-11-04T05:03:56.270" UserId="406" Text="Do barbarians have nomina?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7462" RevisionGUID="18a239bb-3872-482f-b446-2bdb2081c00b" CreationDate="2018-11-04T05:03:56.270" UserId="406" Text="|names|transliteration|loanwords|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7460" RevisionGUID="a6f663f0-7d27-495b-8a38-308d9a7f31bf" CreationDate="2018-11-04T20:30:04.130" UserId="79" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="My suggestion is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Rami universi ex una radice.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, this means &quot;all the branches from the same root&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There is no need for an explicit verb, especially for a motto.&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of choices here I wish to point out explicitly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The wording is compact so as to fit a motto.&#xD;&#xA;- I used chiastic word order to highlight the branches and the root at the ends of the motto. It also puts the words *universi* and *una* next to each other for emphatic comparison.&#xD;&#xA;- There are [many words for &quot;all&quot; in Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5104/79). Out of these, *universi* means most &quot;all together&quot;. The word itself means literally &quot;turned into one&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7463" RevisionGUID="a888695a-f473-4fee-9c64-491d7ed38c26" CreationDate="2018-11-04T20:42:30.897" UserId="3078" Text="Which frase is correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to say boundless soul, infinity soul" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25018" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7463" RevisionGUID="a888695a-f473-4fee-9c64-491d7ed38c26" CreationDate="2018-11-04T20:42:30.897" UserId="3078" Text="Anima ad infinitum or anima infinita?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25019" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7463" RevisionGUID="a888695a-f473-4fee-9c64-491d7ed38c26" CreationDate="2018-11-04T20:42:30.897" UserId="3078" Text="|translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7463" RevisionGUID="8f4a0425-8673-45fb-a4b2-f0916ee5c907" CreationDate="2018-11-04T21:23:54.967" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags and edited slightly. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="Which phrase is correct, *anima ad infinitum* or *anima infinita*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to say boundless soul, infinity soul." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25021" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7463" RevisionGUID="8f4a0425-8673-45fb-a4b2-f0916ee5c907" CreationDate="2018-11-04T21:23:54.967" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags and edited slightly. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7464" RevisionGUID="cfe0f31c-7d04-44f1-89f9-b836dfc7e5eb" CreationDate="2018-11-04T21:26:05.530" UserId="79" Text="Both are possible, but the second option is probably more suitable.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase *anima ad infinitum* means roughly &quot;soul towards the infinity&quot; whereas *anima infinita* is &quot;unbounded soul&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you want a description of the soul (it is an unbounded or infinite one), then pick *anima infinita*.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to emphasize a process towards infinity (whatever that might mean), then *anima ad infinitum* sounds more appropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="116" RevisionGUID="f542fd77-c501-4642-ad6c-7c806f73bde2" CreationDate="2018-11-04T23:58:56.933" UserId="30" Comment="added 440 characters in body" Text="The ablative absolute does not require a participle. It can be a noun and an adjective, as you say, or two nouns (*Caesare duce urbem cepimus*), or even an adjective and an accusative with infinitive (most probably, see the end of this post).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is a &quot;verb-like&quot; aspect to the construction that makes you want to add &quot;being&quot; if there is no participle. The reason for this probably lies in the fact that the ablative absolute is a so-called **dominant construction**, where semantics and syntax are slightly out of tune: semantically, there is a kind of '**oblique predicate**' (with a 'subject' and its 'predicate'), even though syntactically there are just two nominals in the ablative. And for there to be a predicate, you need a kind of verb in your translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is called dominant because the participle in a dominant construction is normally translated more prominently than a mere (attributive) participle: it is translated as a finite verb (or a noun). Otherwise our translation would fail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Legione dispersa victi sumus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you translated this as &quot;with the dispersed legion, we were defeated&quot;, that would sound wrong, because the participle is translated attributively. English has a trick where you can make an adjective or participle predicate-like by placing it after its 'subject': &quot;with the legion dispersed, we were defeated&quot;. That works, because the participle is translated predicatively. The standard translation would be &quot;after the legion was dispersed, we were defeated&quot;. This &quot;the legion was dispersed&quot; is a full predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesare duce urbem cepimus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With our leader Caesar, we captured the city&quot;. That is grammatical, but it is not what the Latin intended, if only because *with* is usually rendered as *cum* when followed by a person. It should be &quot;with Caesar as our leader, we captured the city&quot;. The word *as* (rightfully) introduces a predicate-like aspect to our translation: one of the things we want to say is that Caesar was our leader. That is a fact that the Latin is stating separately by means of the ablative absolute, supporting the 'main clause' *urbem cepimus*. You could also translate it as &quot;because Caesar was our leader, we captured the city&quot; (optional causal link), with a full predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Other examples of dominant and predicative constructions are the **gerundive construction**, the so-called **dominant participle** (of which you could say the ablative absolute with a participle  is a sub-species), the **dominant substantive apposition** (of which the ablative absolute without a participle is a sub-species), and even the ordinary **copula with subject complement**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Floribus carpendis Eurydice mordetur a serpente.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;During/with the flowers to pick, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent.&quot; That's not right. The **gerundive construction** should be translated dominantly, where the adjectival/attributive gerundive is translated as a substantive noun or even as a finite verb: &quot;during the picking of flowers, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent&quot;, or &quot;when she was picking flowers, Eurydice was bitten by a serpent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Latin alternative is the **gerund construction**, which is normal, not 'dominant', because a gerund is a kind of noun, which is already fairly dominant: as such, the gerund is not translated as more dominant than a noun normally is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Flores carpendo Eurydice mordetur a serpente.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;During the flowers-picking, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar occisus senatores placuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The dead Caesar pleased the senators.&quot; That kind of works, because a **dominant participle construction** also happens to be possible in English in certain cases. But what we're really saying is this: &quot;Caesar's death pleased the senators&quot;. A substantive noun is stronger than a mere attributive participle. Or, even more dominantly: &quot;the fact that Caesar died pleased the senators&quot;. What we're really not trying to say is &quot;Caesar (who had died) pleased the senators&quot;. The brackets express a low degree of dominance, since the words are thereby separated from the main sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar primus Romam advenit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The first Caesar arrived in Rome&quot;: it seems clear that this is not what was intended. &quot;Caesar arrived in Rome first&quot;: this predicative translation is correct, where the **predicative adjective** is translated almost like a subject complement or an adverb of manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar victor Romam advenit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The victor Caesar arrived in Rome.&quot; This is perhaps acceptable, but what the author probably intended was the predicative translation &quot;Caesar arrived in Rome as (the) victor&quot;. The word *as* clarifies that it is to be understood predicatively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar fortis est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a **plain copula with a subject complement**. An attributive translation would be absurd: &quot;the brave Caesar is&quot;. Copula with subject complement the simplest kind of predicative construction, equally common in other Indo-European languages. We must translate the sentence predicatively, i.e. as a copula with subject complement: &quot;Caesar is brave&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;N.B. There is one kind of ablative absolute that interests me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Audito Agrippinam a filio suo necatam esse tota in urbe populus luxerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;When it had been heard that Agrippina had been murdered by her son, the people mourned throughout the city.&quot; The participle in the ablative is the neuter *audito*; the 'noun' belonging to the ablative absolute is the entire accusative with infinitive, *Agrippinam a filio suo necatam esse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is possible in Latin, and I believe it is used when you need an accusative with infinitive but the verb of saying or hearing or thinking etc. cannot be made to agree with an existing word in the sentence. This may happen when the hearing happened before the main clause, because then you need a past participle, and past participles cannot be made to agree with an agent (because they're passive). The person who hears cannot be made to agree in number, case and gender with the past participle *auditus*, so it has to be used absolutely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;A quotation from Quintus Curtius Rufus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Alexander **audito Dareum movisse ab Ecbatanis**, omisso itinere, quod petebat, in Mediam, fugientem insequi pergit strenue.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Quintus Curtius Rufus, *Historiae Alexandri Magni* 5.13.1.1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Alexander, **when it had been heard that Darius had moved away from Ecbatana,** ...&quot; (more liberally translated as &quot;when he had heard that...&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25024" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="110" RevisionGUID="3dd54e77-14c9-430c-a1f9-8d9138d0c4e7" CreationDate="2018-11-05T02:04:36.370" UserId="79" Comment="86" />
  <row Id="25025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7447" RevisionGUID="f3b51a86-5454-4e4e-8558-05ecc67f3ca7" CreationDate="2018-11-05T04:34:03.013" UserId="39" Comment="added 159 characters in body" Text="First of all, you have **completely misunderstood** the quoted passage from Hephaestion's Encheiridion, one of the most important ancient *metrical* treatises (see Dickey 2007: 104-105).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gaisford 1810][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Consbruch 1906][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is found in the first chapter, where he talks about &quot;common syllables.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And its modern English translation (by [J.M. van Ophuijsen][5]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for σλ/σθλ alternation, here's the relevant passage from Meister:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see [Hamm 1953][9] for further details -all of the sources above are, naturally, found in Voigt (aka Hamm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009706478&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iZVUQ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/hephaestionisen00consgoog/page/n44&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eP12g.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://brill.com/view/book/9789004328358/BP000003.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nCoTa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/giD0X.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jv4bs.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40265625" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7447" RevisionGUID="8a2e8388-eccd-4ff1-af3b-de1ca6fabfd5" CreationDate="2018-11-05T04:42:14.287" UserId="39" Comment="added 159 characters in body" Text="First of all, you have **completely misunderstood** the quoted passage from Hephaestion's Encheiridion, one of the most important ancient *metrical* treatises (see Dickey 2007: 104-105).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gaisford 1810][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Consbruch 1906][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is found in the first chapter, where he talks about &quot;common syllables.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And its modern English translation (by [J.M. van Ophuijsen][5]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for σλ/σθλ alternation, here's the relevant passage from Meister:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;cf. Hamm 1957 § 136, &quot;μάσλης &lt; μάσθλης (wie ἔσλων* &lt; ἔσθλων)&quot; (p. 65).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see [Hamm 1953][9] for further details -all of the sources above are, naturally, found in Voigt (aka Hamm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009706478&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iZVUQ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/hephaestionisen00consgoog/page/n44&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eP12g.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://brill.com/view/book/9789004328358/BP000003.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nCoTa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/giD0X.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jv4bs.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40265625" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7447" RevisionGUID="a69e33a6-1123-428d-9881-347585e2054c" CreationDate="2018-11-05T04:48:55.140" UserId="39" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="First of all, you have **completely misunderstood** the quoted passage from Hephaestion's Encheiridion, one of the most important ancient *metrical* treatises (see Dickey 2007: 104-105).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gaisford 1810][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Consbruch 1906][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is found in the first chapter, where he talks about &quot;common syllables.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And its modern English translation (by [J.M. van Ophuijsen][5]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for σλ/σθλ alternation, here's the relevant passage from Meister 1882 (v. 1, §36, p. 150)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;cf. Hamm 1957 § 136, &quot;μάσλης &lt; μάσθλης (wie ἔσλων* &lt; ἔσθλων)&quot; (p. 65), or Thumb and Scherer 1959, p. 96.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see [Hamm 1953][9] for further details -all of the sources above are, naturally, found in Voigt (aka Hamm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009706478&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iZVUQ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/hephaestionisen00consgoog/page/n44&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eP12g.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://brill.com/view/book/9789004328358/BP000003.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nCoTa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/giD0X.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jv4bs.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40265625" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7447" RevisionGUID="08d6ab82-3702-49cf-9ed4-f135eaa79663" CreationDate="2018-11-05T04:59:07.630" UserId="39" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="First of all, you have **completely misunderstood** the quoted passage from Hephaestion's Encheiridion, one of the most important ancient *metrical* treatises (see Dickey 2007: 104-105).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gaisford 1810][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Consbruch 1906][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is found in the first chapter, where he talks about &quot;common syllables.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And its modern English translation (by [J.M. van Ophuijsen][5]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the σλ/σθλ alternation, here's the relevant passage from Meister 1882 (v. 1, §36, p. 150)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;cf. Hamm 1957 § 136, &quot;μάσλης &lt; μάσθλης (wie ἔσλων* &lt; ἔσθλων)&quot; (p. 65), or Thumb and Scherer 1959, p. 96.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see [Hamm 1953][9] for further details -all of the sources above are, naturally, found in Voigt (aka Hamm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009706478&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iZVUQ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/hephaestionisen00consgoog/page/n44&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eP12g.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://brill.com/view/book/9789004328358/BP000003.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nCoTa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/giD0X.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jv4bs.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40265625" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="116" RevisionGUID="c9870ca2-9515-4446-91c7-bd1e5a88f5a0" CreationDate="2018-11-05T05:09:08.110" UserId="30" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The ablative absolute does not require a participle. It can be a noun and an adjective, as you say, or two nouns (*Caesare duce urbem cepimus*), or even an adjective and an accusative with infinitive (most probably, see the end of this post).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is a &quot;verb-like&quot; aspect to the construction that makes you want to add &quot;being&quot; if there is no participle. The reason for this probably lies in the fact that the ablative absolute is a so-called **dominant construction**, where semantics and syntax are slightly out of tune: semantically, there is a kind of '**oblique predicate**' (with a 'subject' and its 'predicate'), even though syntactically there are just two nominals in the ablative. And for there to be a predicate, you need a kind of verb in your translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is called dominant because the participle in a dominant construction is normally translated more prominently than a mere (attributive) participle: it is translated as a finite verb (or a noun). Otherwise our translation would fail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Legione dispersa victi sumus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you translated this as &quot;with the dispersed legion, we were defeated&quot;, that would sound wrong, because the participle is translated attributively. English has a trick where you can make an adjective or participle predicate-like by placing it after its 'subject': &quot;with the legion dispersed, we were defeated&quot;. That works, because the participle is translated predicatively. The standard translation would be &quot;after the legion was dispersed, we were defeated&quot;. This &quot;the legion was dispersed&quot; is a full predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesare duce urbem cepimus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With our leader Caesar, we captured the city&quot;. That is grammatical, but it is not what the Latin intended, if only because *with* is usually rendered as *cum* when followed by a person. It should be &quot;with Caesar as our leader, we captured the city&quot;. The word *as* (rightfully) introduces a predicate-like aspect to our translation: one of the things we want to say is that Caesar was our leader. That is a fact that the Latin is stating separately by means of the ablative absolute, supporting the 'main clause' *urbem cepimus*. You could also translate it as &quot;because Caesar was our leader, we captured the city&quot; (optional causal link), with a full predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Other examples of dominant and predicative constructions are the **gerundive construction**, the so-called **dominant participle** (of which you could say the ablative absolute with a participle  is a sub-species), the **dominant substantive apposition** (of which the ablative absolute without a participle is a sub-species), and even the ordinary **copula with subject complement**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Floribus carpendis Eurydice mordetur a serpente.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;During/with the flowers to pick, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent.&quot; That's not right. The **gerundive construction** should be translated dominantly, where the adjectival/attributive gerundive is translated as a substantive noun or even as a finite verb: &quot;during the picking of flowers, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent&quot;, or &quot;when she was picking flowers, Eurydice was bitten by a serpent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Latin alternative is the **gerund construction**, which is normal, not 'dominant', because a gerund is a kind of noun, which is already fairly dominant: as such, the gerund is not translated as more dominant than a noun normally is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Flores carpendo Eurydice mordetur a serpente.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;During the flowers-picking, Eurydice is bitten by a serpent.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar occisus senatores placuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The dead Caesar pleased the senators.&quot; That kind of works, because a **dominant participle construction** also happens to be possible in English in certain cases. But what we're really saying is this: &quot;Caesar's death pleased the senators&quot;. A substantive noun is stronger than a mere attributive participle. Or, even more dominantly: &quot;the fact that Caesar died pleased the senators&quot;. What we're really not trying to say is &quot;Caesar (who had died) pleased the senators&quot;. The brackets express a low degree of dominance, since the words are thereby separated from the main sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar primus Romam advenit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The first Caesar arrived in Rome&quot;: it seems clear that this is not what was intended. &quot;Caesar arrived in Rome first&quot;: this predicative translation is correct, where the **predicative adjective** is translated almost like a subject complement or an adverb of manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar victor Romam advenit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The victor Caesar arrived in Rome.&quot; This is perhaps acceptable, but what the author probably intended was the predicative translation &quot;Caesar arrived in Rome as (the) victor&quot;. The word *as* clarifies that it is to be understood predicatively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar fortis est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a **plain copula with a subject complement**. An attributive translation would be absurd: &quot;the brave Caesar is&quot;. Copula with subject complement is the simplest kind of predicative construction, equally common in other Indo-European languages. We must translate the sentence predicatively, i.e. as a copula with subject complement: &quot;Caesar is brave&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;N.B. There is one kind of ablative absolute that interests me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Audito Agrippinam a filio suo necatam esse tota in urbe populus luxerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;When it had been heard that Agrippina had been murdered by her son, the people mourned throughout the city.&quot; The participle in the ablative is the neuter *audito*; the 'noun' belonging to the ablative absolute is the entire accusative with infinitive, *Agrippinam a filio suo necatam esse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is possible in Latin, and I believe it is used when you need an accusative with infinitive but the verb of saying or hearing or thinking etc. cannot be made to agree with an existing word in the sentence. This may happen when the hearing happened before the main clause, because then you need a past participle, and past participles cannot be made to agree with an agent (because they're passive). The person who hears cannot be made to agree in number, case and gender with the past participle *auditus*, so it has to be used absolutely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;A quotation from Quintus Curtius Rufus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Alexander **audito Dareum movisse ab Ecbatanis**, omisso itinere, quod petebat, in Mediam, fugientem insequi pergit strenue.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Quintus Curtius Rufus, *Historiae Alexandri Magni* 5.13.1.1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Alexander, **when it had been heard that Darius had moved away from Ecbatana,** ...&quot; (more liberally translated as &quot;when he had heard that...&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7433" RevisionGUID="59a3b5b4-3fbd-4b19-ac53-ab8925b28aa9" CreationDate="2018-11-05T12:38:37.900" UserId="522" Comment="tansfer comment" Text="Yes, you can be 100% sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just watch out, though; &quot;His mother's son&quot; will be *Filius matris suae,* because *suae* agrees in gender number and case with (genitive, feminine, singular) *matris.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Her Mother's son&quot; is also *Filius Matris suae*: Think of it as modern 'their Mother's son' even when 'their' means only one person. (But it is ambiguous)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7465" RevisionGUID="40c12aa0-860e-4b8a-a552-c4b2681163b1" CreationDate="2018-11-05T13:53:04.097" UserId="324" Text="I think you answered this question yourself with the humble word &quot;also&quot; in the second sentence. &quot;Nomen&quot; has two meanings in Latin, &quot;name&quot; and a particular part of a Roman tripartite name. Even barbarians have names and there is no other word for this than &quot;nomen&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7432" RevisionGUID="7684536c-6c2c-49a4-a035-550fe71c00d7" CreationDate="2018-11-05T13:59:39.547" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; edited title" Text="Could you please help me translate &quot;mother's son&quot; into Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my understanding it is &quot;_filius matris_&quot; but I am not 100% sure.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25033" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7432" RevisionGUID="7684536c-6c2c-49a4-a035-550fe71c00d7" CreationDate="2018-11-05T13:59:39.547" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; edited title" Text="Translating &quot;Mother's son&quot; into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7269" RevisionGUID="b75d21a5-b45e-4451-8497-468e011c9ff6" CreationDate="2018-11-05T14:40:55.600" UserId="13" Comment="added Q4, part on Googling sources, update 2, and fixed formating of Q3." Text="This is kind of a mess. Let me first report how I tackled it when I first translated all (or most) of Sappho. Below is the translation of an extract of the Paracritical note I made back then, the original is in an extra at the bottom. I include it basically to do some of my critical note for the fragment early :). Note that this is fr. 44 in Greek Wikisource numbering, and that GW is called Vikiþíki, þ pronounced as the th in thumb, because that is the Modern Greek pronunciation of the Greek name of Wikisource, Βικιθήκη.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Fr. 44 is reported by Vikiþíki as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χειρόμακτρα δὲ καγγόνων&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἀτιμάσεις,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ἔπεμψ᾽ ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δῶρα τίμια λαγγόνων.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;while Bibliotheca Augustana reports it thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Κεττόμακτρα δὲ +Καγγόνων&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τά τοι Μ&lt;ν&gt;ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Δῶρα τίμια +Καγγόνων.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Vikiþíki version makes the meter detector go off at full blast, telling me: lacuna of an anceps in l. 4 and out-of-place line at l. 3, looks like a glyconic like the others but it's – –uu u–u–, looks like a ionic a maiore foot plus an a minore with anaclasis [or rather a iambic meter] or a spondee-tribrachus-trochaic meter catalectic. The Bibliotheca Augustana version instead, besides being clearly composed of a triplet of lines (two glyconics and an Aeolic dactylic meter of the kind seen above [fr. 40-41 is Lobel-Page 130-131] with two dactyls between xx and –ux [i.e. xx–uu–uu–ux]) and a glyconic left over from a half-lost triplet, corresponds to the meter of another fragment that passed under my eye, tĕthnákēn d’ adŏ́lōś thĕ́lō [i.e. Lobel-Page 94], reasons due to which I opt for this last version. Let's now translate into prose. Vikiþíki: «Drapes of the (inexistent) purple dye (unfindable perfect participle), and these you will not respect, [he/she] sent them from Phocea, precious gifts of the (inexistent)», Bibliotheca Augustana: «(Inexistent) of the (inexistent) purple dye (unfindable perfect participle), which (neuter) Mnasis sent you from Phocea, doni precious gifts of the (inexistent)». This is thus a very problematic fragment. First of we recover χειρόμακτρα from Vikiþíki. Καγγόνων is after a + in Bibliotheca Augustana, that is the equivalent of something enclosed in cruces, thus an unknown even for Bibliotheca Augustana. Κάγγονος doesn't exist. Supposing a truncation of κατὰ from a κατάγονος, with κατα-&gt;κατ-&gt;καγ, typically Aeolic, I don't find κατά-γονος, but κατά-γομος, overloaded, totally out-of-context here. Even separating κὰγ from γόνων: &quot;down from the lineages&quot;, what the heck would that mean. [Apparently I didn't know Aeolic had γόνα, γόνων as the plural of γόνυ, knee, see below.] The only thing left is to think of an irremediable corruption or of the name of a people of which no news reached us, Κάγγονες, Καγγόνων, the Cangones, and that is what I hypothized. Mnasis must be a queen of that people, probably from Phocea (l. 3). Or maybe a king. Who knows? Καταΰτμενα is also unfindable. It is evident, by the ending -μενα, that it's a medio-passive perfect participle, but the verb is unfindable. Καταΰτω (or deponent -τομαι) doesn't exist. Καταΰσσω (or deponent) doesn't exist. Καταϋτάνω (or deponent) doesn't exist. No verb with a similar root is found in Rocci [the standard Greek dictionary in Italy, at least AFAIK]. A polythematic verb, perhaps? The Greek Word Study Tool of the Perseus Digital library finds nothing, not even if the barytonesis is undone by bringing the accent over to the ending. In another fragment [Lobel-Page 44, perhaps?] the same word pair is found, but the French translation I have of it [no idea where I found it] doesn't match the Greek at all, at least as far as I can make it match. Let's try to eliminate the κατ-. Same result. The only thing left is to eliminate the tau from the root. Thus I find αὔω, to essiccate, Attic αὕω, and καταύω, same meaning. The perfect isn't reported [by Rocci, I assume] for either. Let's try to create it. It could be αὔκα, αὔσμαι. It derives indeed from «cf sscr çúskah ; lt. sudus, al. haurio, uro», all words that make me think of a possible lost intervocalic sigma preserved in the past. One must however hypothise a diaeresis from αὔω to ἀΰω, besides the lack of reduplication. Indeed the initial alpha must be short by meter, while reduplication would bring it to an eta or, in Aeolic, to a long alpha while it's short here. The idea is a bit bold, but I can't find anything better. We must however correct ἀΰτμενα to ἀΰσμενα. When I get to the last fragment [probably LP 44, it was the last on Vikiþíki after all], the one with the same two words, I'll see how to behave there. For now this satisfies me. From these observation I obtain the text:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Χειρόμακτρα δὲ †Καγγόνων†,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Πορφύρα καταϋσμένα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ἄ τοι Μ&lt;ν&gt;ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Δῶρα τίμια †Καγγόνων†.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;that is «Drapes of the Cangones, essiccated purple, things which Mnasi sent you from Phocea, precious gifts of the Cangones». This will be very hard to translate with rhymes, because what do I rhyme with Cangones? NB for who hasn't understood, it's Cángoni, not Cangóni. [That is, the stress is on the a, not the o.] I will try, but I fear I won't manage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now obviously there is another correction that must be done: χειρόμακτρα-&gt;χερρόμακτρα, by dialect. There are clearly two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is there any chance that my idea of the Cangones people is actually correct? Other options include: κὰγ γόνων, though that is dispelled by Athenaeus, who quotes it saying κόσμον λέγει τῆς κεφαλῆς τὰ χειρόμακτρα or something like that, so these &quot;drapes&quot; (for want of a better term) are supposed to be around the head, suggested by Idk who; κὰκ κομᾶν (Ahrens) or a similar κὰκ κόμων (Seidler); Μαιόνων or Ἰαώνων, as hesitatingly proposed by Lobel; and Edmonds' κὰγ γένυων; between these I'd go for Seidler's idea;&#xD;&#xA; 2. What verb is that &quot;unfindable perfect participle&quot;? I went at great lengths to interpret it, probably misled by thinking πορφύρα was a noun when it could be an adjective, a contracted form of *πορφύραα, Aeolic for πορφύρεα, purple-colored, and ended up changing a letter and having to posit a weird diaeresis. Campbell translates καταΰτμενα as &quot;perfumed&quot;, possibly following Theander's &quot;odorata&quot;, but what verb could that be? Also, the tradition gives καταυταμεν́ἀτατιμάσεις, at least if Voigt's in-cruces text is to be taken as the tradition text, and apparently καταυταμένα means suspended, or so says Edmonds, so why not καταυτάμενα τὰ Τῖμας? What verb would καταυτάμενα be? Also, what meter did Edmonds have in mind for that line? It looks like –u–u–xuuu–u, maybe trochaic meter, super-duper-catalectic (sorry, don't remember the right prefix, either hyper- or brachy- :) ) trochaic meter, dactyl, catalectic iambic meter? Or maybe the anceps is short and we get –u–x|–u…|uuu|–u…, or trochaic meter, super-catalectic (whatever the other one wasn't :) ) trochaic meter, tribrachus, super-catalectic trochaic meter?&#xD;&#xA; 3. There is also a third question though: disregarding Bergk's (partly due to Seidler and Ahrens too) major amendation to have all glyconics, where did Vikiþíki draw its text? And who proposed safopoemas's text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;χερρόμακτρα δΐ t ΚΑΓΓΟΝΩΝ&#xD;&#xA;t πορφύρα- t ΚΑΤΑΥΤΑΜΕΝΑΤΑΤΙ&#xD;&#xA;t Μ(ν)δσις πέμψ' άπύ φωκάας δώρα τίμια t ΚΑΓΓΟΝΩΝ t&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; which is presumably:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;χερρόμακτρα δὲ †καγγονων†&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;πορφύρα- †καταυταμενατατι†&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Μ(ν)ᾶσις πέμψ' ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δώρα τίμια †καγγονων†&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; in other words featuring a augmentless aorist? Was it Reinach directly or someone else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. I just found [this](https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/11675/1/Saffo_frammenti_2015.pdf) which says Lobel suggested κὰτ ἀΰτμνενα, which they translate as &quot;in the wind&quot; (al vento). Where does / could that come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Extras**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian Paracritical Note extract&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Il fr. 44 è riportato da Vikiþíki come&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;χειρόμακτρα δὲ καγγόνων&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἀτιμάσεις,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ἔπεμψ᾽ ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δῶρα τίμια λαγγόνων.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;mentre Bibliotheca Augustana lo riporta così:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Κεττόμακτρα δὲ +Καγγόνων&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;τά τοι Μ&lt;ν&gt;ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Δῶρα τίμια +Καγγόνων.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;La versione Vikiþíki fa suonare a tutto spiano il meter detector, che dice: lacuna di ancipite al v. 4 e verso fuori posto al v. 3, sembra un gliconeo come gli altri ma è – –uu u–u–, sembra uno ionico a maiore più uno a minore con anaclasi oppure uno spondeo-tribraco-metro trocaico catalettico. La versione Bibliotheca Augustana invece, oltre ad essere chiaramente composta da una tripletta di versi (due gliconei ed un metro dattilico eoilico del tipo sopra visto con due dattili fra xx e –ux) ed un gliconeo avanzato da una tripletta semidispersa, corrisponde al metro di un altro frammento che mi è passato sott’occhio, tĕthnákēn d’ adŏ́lōś thĕ́lō, ragioni per cui opto per quest’ultima versione. Ora traduciamo in prosa. Vikiþíki: «Drappi dei (inesistente) porpora (part. perf. introvabile), e questi non rispetterai, li mandò dalla Focea, doni preziosi dei (inesistente)», Bibliotheca Augustana: «(Inesistente) dei (inesistente) porpora (part. perf. introvabile), i quali (nt.) Mnasi ha mandato a te dalla Focea, doni preziosi dei (inesistente)». Questo è dunque un frammento molto problematico. Per prima cosa recuperiamo chĕirŏ́maktra da Vikiþíki. Kaġgŏ́nōn è dopo un + in Bibliotheca Augustana, ossia l’equivalente di una cosa racchiusa fra cruces, dunque un’incognita anche per Bibliotheca Augustana. Kaġgŏ́nŏś non esiste. Supponendo un troncamento di katà da un katagŏ́nŏś, con kata&gt;kat&gt;kag, tipico eolico, non trovo kata-gŏ́nŏś, ma katagŏ́mŏś, sovraccarico, completamente acontestuale qui. Anche separare kag da gŏ́nōn non porta a niente: giù dalle stirpi che accidenti sarebbe. L’unica è pensare o ad un’irrimediabile corruzione o ad un nome di popolo di cui non ci è giunta alcuna notizia, Káġgŏnĕś, Kaġgŏ́nōn, i Cangoni, e questo ho ipotizzato io. Mnasi deve essere una regina di quel popolo, probabilmente della Focea (v. 3). O forse un re. Chissà? Kataÿ́tmĕna è anche lei introvabile. È evidente, per la desinenza –mĕna, che si tratta di un part. perf. medio-pass., ma il verbo è introvabile. Kataÿ́tō (o dep. –tŏmai) non esiste. Kataÿ́ssō (o dep.) non esiste. Kataÿtánō (o dep.) non esiste. Nessun verbo con un tema simile si ritrova nel Rocci. Un verbo politematico, forse? Il Greek Word Study Tool della Perseus Digital library non trova niente, neanche se si annulla la baritonesi portando l’accento sulla desinenza. In un altro frammento si trova la medesima coppia di parole, ma la traduzione francese che ne ho non corrisponde al greco per nulla, almeno per quanto riesco a farla corrispondere io. Proviamo ad eliminare il kat-. Stesso risultato. L’unica è eliminare il taỹ del tema. Così trovo aýō, essiccare, att. haýō, e kataýō, stesso senso. Il perfetto non è riportato per nessuno dei due. Proviamo a crearlo. Aýka, aýsmai potrebbe essere. Deriva infatti da «cf sscr çúskah ; lt. sudus, al. haurio, uro», tutte parole che fanno pensare ad un possibile sigma intervocalico caduto ma preservatosi nel pf. pass. Bisogna però ipotizzare una dieresi da aýō ad aÿ́ō, oltre alla mancanza di raddoppiamento. Infatti l’álpha iniziale deve essere breve per la metrica, mentre il raddoppiamento lo porterebbe o ad un ẽta o, in eolico, ad un álpha lungo mentre qui è breve. L’idea è un po’ ardita, ma non trovo di meglio. Dobbiamo però correggere aÿ́tmena in aÿ́smena. Quando arriverò all’ultimo frammento, quello colle stesse due parole, vedrò come comportarmi là. Per ora questo mi soddisfa. Da queste osservazioni ottengo il testo:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Χειρόμακτρα δὲ †Καγγόνων†,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Πορφύρα καταϋσμένα,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ἄ τοι Μ&lt;ν&gt;ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Δῶρα τίμια †Καγγόνων†.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ovvero «Drappi dei Cangoni, porpora essiccata, cose che Mnasi ti ha mandato dalla Focea, doni preziosi dei Cangoni». Questo sarà molto duro a tradurre in rima, perché come rimo con Cangoni? NB per chi non avesse capito, si dice Cángoni, non Cangóni. Io proverò, ma temo che non riuscirò.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voigt critical note&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried googling for the Diehl &quot;Supplementum&quot; to &quot;Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, but all I found is a search-only version [here](https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007962279), and I don't really know what to search for, given καταΰτμενα gives no results… The Theander source is H. Fränkel's _Dichtung und Philosophie der frühgriechischen Literatur_, which [doesn't seem to be findable via Google](https://www.google.com/search?q=H+Fr%C3%A4nkel+Dichtung+und+Philosophie+der+fr%C3%BChgriechischen+Literatur&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;client=firefox-b), so I'm stuck there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scratch the Edmonds bit, he corrects the upsilon to a rho and καταρταμένα is from καταίρω. Though the meter is again unclear... So that part stands. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expanding on the meter, now we have –u–u–uuuu–u, undoing one anaclasis that could become –u–uu–uuu–u, and with one more anaclasis undone that would yield –u–uu–uu–uu, which would fit xx–uu–uu–ux, a glyconic expanded with a dactyl (gl&lt;sup&gt;1d&lt;/sup&gt; if you want), is that possible? Or should I read that as –u–x|–uuuu|–x, or a trochaic meter, another trochaic meter with the second element turned to a tribrachus, and a super-catalectic trochaic meter, making this a weird super-catalectic trimeter (weird because of the tribrachus)? Or something else entirely, maybe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edmonds is probably reading that participle as a middle-voice feminine participle, making the final alpha long and the meter an anaclastic phalecian (xx–u–uu–u–x). SO naturally it should be accented as καταρταμένα, not καταρτάμενα which would be the neuter form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kN7bU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LbGqr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7447" RevisionGUID="3549cda1-5d14-49a2-aa7d-02b0882fce26" CreationDate="2018-11-05T14:45:11.217" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 26 characters in body" Text="First of all, you have **completely misunderstood** the quoted passage from Hephaestion's Encheiridion, one of the most important ancient *metrical* treatises (see Dickey 2007: 104-105).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gaisford 1810][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Consbruch 1906][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is found in the first chapter, where he talks about &quot;common syllables.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And its modern English translation (by [J.M. van Ophuijsen][5]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, Hephaestion is an attestation of the dialectal (Lesbian) form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the σλ/σθλ alternation, here's the relevant passage from Meister 1882 (v. 1, §36, p. 150)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;cf. Hamm 1957 § 136, &quot;μάσλης &lt; μάσθλης (wie ἔσλων* &lt; ἔσθλων)&quot; (p. 65), or Thumb and Scherer 1959, p. 96.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf.[Hamm 1953][9] -all of the sources above are, naturally, found in Voigt (aka Hamm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009706478&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iZVUQ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/hephaestionisen00consgoog/page/n44&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eP12g.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://brill.com/view/book/9789004328358/BP000003.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nCoTa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/giD0X.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jv4bs.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40265625" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7466" RevisionGUID="178769dc-c44b-4dcc-aacd-baef3fcb91db" CreationDate="2018-11-05T21:11:24.973" UserId="2532" Text="Background&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb _īnsum_ has the prefix _in-_. Prefixing _in_/_in-_ to words, changes their meaning to ‘in’, ‘on’ _et sim._, or ‘un-’, _‘non’ _et sim._ (ɔ:¹ negation).² However, according to [Wiktionary][1], the pronunciation of _in_ changes in some context; this supported by [Lewis][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I understand, this pronunciation change – ɔ: from [ɪ] to [ĩː] – only occurs where the prefix is _not_ the preposition _in_, but the actual prefix _in-_. Even though sounding the same, they have different roots: When meaning ‘in(side)’, it is merely the preposition prefixed; when meaning ‘not’/‘[negation]’, it has the Indo-European origin [*n̥-].[5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non of my grammars, however, even the very detailed grammar by Nils Sjöstrand (Gleerups forlag, Lund 1960) has any details on these two differences. The only thing I can find that is mildly relevant, is in Sjöstrand §&amp;nbsp;6.2, explaining the enlonging [I’m sorry, I am not sure what the correct linguistic term is] and nasalisation of vowels in front of _ns_ and _nf_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that pronunciation alone is not a clue as to whether or not one is dealing with _in_ prefixed, or the prefix _in-_, as they both will have their pronunciations changed based on which morphemes follow. **How can you know whether you are dealing with the preposition or the prefix, and thus the correct meaning of the word?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somewhat Related&#xD;&#xA;----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Understanding vowel quantity in fieri][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [vowel length in “pro” before “f”][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ¹ This is not a smiley; it is the symbol meaning ‘that is’, ‘may be read as’ and similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ² Egil Kraggerud &amp; Bjørg Tosterud: _Latinsk ordbok_, Cappelen, Oslo 1998: ‘**in** i sammensetning’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have added the `negation` tag, but am unsure as to its relevance. Advice on this is appreciated. It could very well be that the tag details should be updated to include questions such as this one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/insum#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=insum&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4784/understanding-vowel-quantity-in-fieri&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6632/vowel-length-in-pro-before-f&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in-#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7466" RevisionGUID="178769dc-c44b-4dcc-aacd-baef3fcb91db" CreationDate="2018-11-05T21:11:24.973" UserId="2532" Text="How can you tell whether prefixed ‘in-’ is the preposition ‘in’ or Indo-European ‘in-’?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7466" RevisionGUID="178769dc-c44b-4dcc-aacd-baef3fcb91db" CreationDate="2018-11-05T21:11:24.973" UserId="2532" Text="|classical-latin|vowel-quantity|prefix|proto-indo-european|negation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4385" RevisionGUID="c9e84d8a-8b6c-4fd0-bc9c-3d472910ba0b" CreationDate="2018-11-05T21:17:30.127" UserId="2532" Comment="Removed doubled word; minor editings for adding clarity as to what the questions are." Text="I reread [this old question about &quot;touché&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1566/79), and I realized I'm not sure how to conjugate the suggested verb *synchōrō*.&#xD;&#xA;It was borrowed from *συγχωρέω*.&#xD;&#xA;Although I'm interested in this special case too, I would like to ask about a more general problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek verbs ending in *-ω* can have a consonant, an alpha, an epsilon, or an omicron before the omega. (And there are exceptions, at least *ἀκούω*.) The last three classes can be contracted to lose the vowel, but with an effect on the endings. **How are these verbs borrowed to Latin?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that they all follow the first conjugation (in the contracted form).&#xD;&#xA;But it would also make sense that an *&amp;alpha;*-stem would go to conjugation 1, *&amp;epsilon;*-stem to 2 or 3 and a consonant stem to 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is there any logic to this, or are the verbs borrowed any which way?&#xD;&#xA; - Are regular Greek verbs borrowed to Latin regularly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me stress that I’m not looking for cognates, but for verbs borrowed from Greek to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My knowledge&amp;mdash;and particularly my memory&amp;mdash;of Greek grammar is quite limited, so feel free to correct any underlying misunderstandings by commenting or editing. If someone more familiar with Greek grammar wants to suggest rephrasing or refocusing the question, I’m all ears. (Or all eyes? After all, I will read, not listen.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25040" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4385" RevisionGUID="c9e84d8a-8b6c-4fd0-bc9c-3d472910ba0b" CreationDate="2018-11-05T21:17:30.127" Comment="Proposed by 2532 approved by 79 edit id of 270" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7467" RevisionGUID="c721685e-5d45-4685-a8e4-d15d32155b33" CreationDate="2018-11-05T21:50:00.870" UserId="1694" Text="I don't think it's possible to distinguish _in_ meaning &quot;in&quot; from PIE *en and _in-_ meaning &quot;not&quot; from PIE *n̥ from pronunciation alone.  It's well known that the /i/ in _in-_ lengthens when followed by certain consonsant combinations such as &quot;ns&quot; and &quot;nf&quot;, but as far as I know, that is purely phonetically determined and has nothing to do with ancestral morpheme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, basically, there is no _a priori_ way of distinguishing the two cases.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7467" RevisionGUID="207eb39c-b6ef-402c-b337-cafcf618b096" CreationDate="2018-11-05T22:08:52.440" UserId="1694" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I don't think it's possible to distinguish _in_ meaning &quot;in&quot; from PIE *en and _in-_ meaning &quot;not&quot; from PIE *n̥ from pronunciation alone.  It's well known that the /i/ in _in-_ lengthens when followed by certain consonsant combinations such as &quot;ns&quot; and &quot;nf&quot;, but as far as I know, that is purely phonetically determined and has nothing to do with the ancestral morpheme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, basically, there is no _a priori_ way of distinguishing the two cases.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7468" RevisionGUID="1157b5bf-a091-48f2-b2ab-f0ba7f987af3" CreationDate="2018-11-05T22:27:17.010" UserId="9" Text="The two prefixes are identical in form in all contexts, but the negative prefix typically attaches to an adjective while the prepositional prefix typically attaches to a verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7469" RevisionGUID="96582843-2e9b-408a-b393-920ea5663ec6" CreationDate="2018-11-05T23:31:56.657" UserId="1051" Text="Why is τηλικοῦτος (&lt; τηλικ + οὗτος) not spelled τηλιχοῦτος?  Cf. e. g. ἀφορισμός." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25046" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7469" RevisionGUID="96582843-2e9b-408a-b393-920ea5663ec6" CreationDate="2018-11-05T23:31:56.657" UserId="1051" Text="The spelling of τηλικοῦτος" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25047" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7469" RevisionGUID="96582843-2e9b-408a-b393-920ea5663ec6" CreationDate="2018-11-05T23:31:56.657" UserId="1051" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25048" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7469" RevisionGUID="8bee7bfa-784c-4f03-9441-81e787da9542" CreationDate="2018-11-06T03:40:07.753" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25049" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2646" RevisionGUID="fd41b7e0-1a98-4271-94f5-a46cadbf4742" CreationDate="2018-11-06T04:50:15.617" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|adjective|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25050" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4503" RevisionGUID="aa04a03c-3326-4a69-863b-4b780984bf7d" CreationDate="2018-11-06T04:51:36.213" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|vocabulary|idiom|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7468" RevisionGUID="61737e26-6a09-4571-b4d0-4865e91489ee" CreationDate="2018-11-06T06:00:14.693" UserId="9" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="The negative prefix typically attaches to an adjective, while the prepositional prefix typically attaches to a verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, you can never determine which prefix is present in a word just from its phonetic form. The vowel would be long before *ns* or *nf* for either prefix." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7470" RevisionGUID="2a453a17-ea1f-41a5-b29a-398a1f3f2843" CreationDate="2018-11-06T10:23:24.583" UserId="1459" Text="According to Wiktionary, the Latin verb _[divertere](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/diverto#Latin)_ means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meaning has been preserved in equivalent terms found in Latin-based or Latin-influenced languages like [French](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divertir#French), [Catalan](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divertir#Catalan), [Portuguese](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divertir#Portuguese), [Italian](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divertire#Italian) and [English](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divert#English). However, in all the above, this word also means &quot;to entertain&quot; or &quot;to have fun&quot;. Amazingly, in [Spanish](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divertir#Spanish) that is the only meaning it has!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems a rather odd coincidence that a term adopted by multiple languages from Latin ended up having a new and identical meaning. Perhaps, _divertere_ also meant (and still means) &quot;to have fun&quot; in Latin. L&amp;S seems to indicate however such is not the case. I cannot find anywhere in the Vulgata such meaning either. Is there anywhere some evidence of such meaning? If not, how can we explain such coincidence in meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/20Gds.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25053" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7470" RevisionGUID="2a453a17-ea1f-41a5-b29a-398a1f3f2843" CreationDate="2018-11-06T10:23:24.583" UserId="1459" Text="Does &quot;divertere&quot; ever meant &quot;to have fun/entertain&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25054" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7470" RevisionGUID="2a453a17-ea1f-41a5-b29a-398a1f3f2843" CreationDate="2018-11-06T10:23:24.583" UserId="1459" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7470" RevisionGUID="f9ad71b4-8536-4ca1-8097-378c572ccd86" CreationDate="2018-11-06T10:29:05.747" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="According to Wiktionary, the Latin verb _[divertere](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/diverto#Latin)_ means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meaning has been preserved in equivalent terms found in Latin-based or Latin-influenced languages like [French](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divertir#French), [Catalan](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divertir#Catalan), [Portuguese](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divertir#Portuguese), [Italian](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divertire#Italian) and [English](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divert#English). However, in all the above, this word also means &quot;to entertain&quot; or &quot;to have fun&quot;. Amazingly, in [Spanish](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divertir#Spanish) that is the only meaning it has!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems a rather odd coincidence that a term adopted by multiple languages from Latin ended up having a new and identical meaning. Perhaps, _divertere_ also meant (and still means) &quot;to have fun&quot; in Latin. Yet, I cannot find evidence for this. Neither L&amp;S nor the Vulgata record such meaning. Are you aware of this extra meaning of _divertere_? If not, how can we explain the coincidence in the derived terms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/20Gds.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7466" RevisionGUID="c6d84f34-40a3-434e-9cd7-f76a2326b0e7" CreationDate="2018-11-06T10:58:20.513" UserId="2532" Comment="Clarification, as per comments in second answer." Text="Background&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb _īnsum_ has the prefix _in-_. Prefixing _in_/_in-_ to words, changes their meaning to ‘in’, ‘on’ _et sim._, or ‘un-’, _‘non’ _et sim._ (ɔ:¹ negation).² However, according to [Wiktionary][1], the pronunciation of _in_ changes in some context; this supported by [Lewis][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first, my understanding was that this pronunciation change – ɔ: from [ɪ] to [ĩː] – only occurs where the prefix is _not_ the preposition _in_, but the actual prefix _in-_. Even though sounding the same, they have different roots: When meaning ‘in(side)’, it is merely the preposition prefixed; when meaning ‘not’/‘[negation]’, it has the Indo-European origin [*n̥-].[5] As it turns out, the pronunciation change is merely a matter of morpheme interaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non of my grammars, however, even the very detailed grammar by Nils Sjöstrand (Gleerups forlag, Lund 1960) has any details on these two differences. The only thing I can find that is mildly relevant, is in Sjöstrand §&amp;nbsp;6.2, explaining the enlonging [I’m sorry, I am not sure what the correct linguistic term is] and nasalisation of vowels in front of _ns_ and _nf_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that pronunciation alone is not a clue as to whether or not one is dealing with _in_ prefixed, or the prefix _in-_, as they both will have their pronunciations changed based on which morphemes follow. **How can you know whether you are dealing with the preposition or the prefix, and thus the correct meaning of the word?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somewhat Related&#xD;&#xA;----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Understanding vowel quantity in fieri][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [vowel length in “pro” before “f”][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ¹ This is not a smiley; it is the symbol meaning ‘that is’, ‘may be read as’ and similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ² Egil Kraggerud &amp; Bjørg Tosterud: _Latinsk ordbok_, Cappelen, Oslo 1998: ‘**in** i sammensetning’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have added the `negation` tag, but am unsure as to its relevance. Advice on this is appreciated. It could very well be that the tag details should be updated to include questions such as this one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/insum#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=insum&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4784/understanding-vowel-quantity-in-fieri&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6632/vowel-length-in-pro-before-f&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in-#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7468" RevisionGUID="f40a3cc2-4e27-4505-8db0-906812307017" CreationDate="2018-11-06T12:03:48.227" UserId="9" Comment="added 187 characters in body" Text="The negative prefix typically attaches to an adjective, while the prepositional prefix typically attaches to a verb. The distribution is complicated by the existence of nouns derived from adjectives, and adjectives derived from verbs (or at least, participle forms that look very similar to adjectives).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a quote discussing the (non)use of *in-* to negate verbs in Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in Classical Latin the synchronic negative of e.g. *patiens* ‘enduring’&#xD;&#xA;is *non patiens*, whereas participles with a negative prefix are synchronically non-participial adjectives, e.g. *impatiens* ‘impatient’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30, &quot;[Negated Participles in Rgvedic Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European](http://users.ox.ac.uk/~shug1472/IIJ_054_01_1075-Lowe_print-1.pdf),&quot; by John J. Lowe, *Indo-Iranian Journal* 54 (2011) 19-38)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, you can never determine which prefix is present in a word just from its phonetic form. The vowel would be long before *ns* or *nf* for either prefix." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7468" RevisionGUID="000ae076-a7ba-4814-8f3f-443d8c40c39c" CreationDate="2018-11-06T12:10:44.007" UserId="9" Comment="added 139 characters in body" Text="The negative prefix typically attaches to an adjective, while the prepositional prefix typically attaches to a verb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The distribution is complicated by the existence of adjectives derived from verbs (or at least, participle forms that look very similar to adjectives) and nouns derived from adjectives or from verbs. But if you're looking at a finite verb form such as &quot;īnsum&quot;, you can be fairly confident that the prefix *in-* does not express negation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a quote discussing the (non)use of *in-* to negate verbal participles in Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in Classical Latin the synchronic negative of e.g. *patiens* ‘enduring’&#xD;&#xA;is *non patiens*, whereas participles with a negative prefix are synchronically non-participial adjectives, e.g. *impatiens* ‘impatient’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30, &quot;[Negated Participles in Rgvedic Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European](http://users.ox.ac.uk/~shug1472/IIJ_054_01_1075-Lowe_print-1.pdf),&quot; by John J. Lowe, *Indo-Iranian Journal* 54 (2011) 19-38)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, you can never determine which prefix is present in a word just from its phonetic form. The vowel would be long before *ns* or *nf* for either prefix." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7468" RevisionGUID="aa646b5b-57a7-4958-a01f-130ed0c3523f" CreationDate="2018-11-06T12:20:46.493" UserId="9" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="The negative prefix typically attaches to an adjective, while the prepositional prefix typically attaches to a verb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The distribution is complicated by the existence of adjectives derived from verbs (or at least, participle forms that look very similar to adjectives) and nouns derived from adjectives or from verbs. But if you're looking at a finite verb form such as &quot;īnsum&quot;, you can be fairly confident that the prefix *in-* does not express negation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's been surprisingly difficult for me to find a source that says that *in-* is not used to negate verbs in Latin, but here is a quote discussing the (non-)use of *in-* to negate verbal *participles* specifically in Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in Classical Latin the synchronic negative of e.g. *patiens* ‘enduring’&#xD;&#xA;is *non patiens*, whereas participles with a negative prefix are synchronically non-participial adjectives, e.g. *impatiens* ‘impatient’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30, &quot;[Negated Participles in Rgvedic Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European](http://users.ox.ac.uk/~shug1472/IIJ_054_01_1075-Lowe_print-1.pdf),&quot; by John J. Lowe, *Indo-Iranian Journal* 54 (2011) 19-38)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, you can never determine which prefix is present in a word just from its phonetic form. The vowel would be long before *ns* or *nf* for either prefix." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7471" RevisionGUID="0801f128-5c18-4c27-be13-c922a81c5880" CreationDate="2018-11-06T12:30:09.167" UserId="324" Text="Beekes writes the houtos is from *so-h²u-to-,  “a univerbation of the *so/to- pronoun with the stem that also figures in autos”. In this case τηλικοῦτος is not tēlik + houto-, but tēliko + uto (without the pronoun *so)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7472" RevisionGUID="4f84b640-01e8-4b27-a56b-729434da5b53" CreationDate="2018-11-06T14:16:07.213" UserId="1459" Text="&quot;Boundless soul&quot; (i.e. a soul without boundary or boundaries) could also be said&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;anima sine fine/finibus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;anima sine termino/terminis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with options being singular/plural (boundary/boundaries)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2862" RevisionGUID="7990bb66-532c-4e8e-8f22-1aed1cb457cf" CreationDate="2018-11-06T17:49:23.580" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The word *verbum* means &quot;word&quot;, but I want to find out whether it can also have the more specific meaning &quot;verb&quot; (as opposed to other kinds of words).&#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short does not list &quot;verb&quot; among translations of *verbum*, but one of my dictionaries does.&#xD;&#xA;What is more important than dictionary entries, Varro uses *verbum* clearly in the sense of &quot;verb&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; De his Aristoteles orationis duas partes esse dicit: vocabula et verba, ut 'homo' et 'equus', et 'legit' et 'currit'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cum de his nomen sit primum (prius enim nomen est quam verbum temporale et reliqua posterius quam nomen et verbum), prima igitur nomina: quare de eorum declinatione quam de verborum ante dicam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Varro, [De lingua Latina 8](http://thelatinlibrary.com/varro.ll8.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One English translation can be found [here](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/varro-latin_language/1938/pb_LCL334.381.xml).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how often *verbum* means &quot;verb&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;**Is this meaning restricted to Varro?**&#xD;&#xA;**Do other classical or later authors use it in this sense?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some backstory (feel free to skip):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked about translating the word [&quot;vocabulary&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2846/79) for the purpose of tagging, and some of the suggestions involved the word *verbum*.&#xD;&#xA;I dislike the idea of using it for tagging, as it is so prone to misunderstanding.&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not it means &quot;verb&quot; in Latin, it is close to the verb word in many languages.&#xD;&#xA;And to some extent at least it does also mean &quot;verb&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of this question is to find what that extent is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Years ago I was in contact with an elderly Finnish Latinist who was regarded as one of the most fluent Latinists to have ever lived in Finland.&#xD;&#xA;One time he read a letter I had brought him out loud (as the email had not made it to him), and he corrected one word as he read:&#xD;&#xA;I had used *verbum* to mean &quot;word&quot;, but he corrected it to *vox*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, let me remark that no Latin word seems to mean &quot;word&quot; without some added nuance.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that *verbum* is among the best general translations, but is not a perfect match with the English &quot;word&quot;, either.&#xD;&#xA;But usually one of *verbum*, *vox*, *vocabulum*, *glossa*, or *dictum* will do the trick.&#xD;&#xA;(And perhaps I'm still missing a word or two.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7471" RevisionGUID="5505e91f-fc98-4585-9d91-0ff9f3b284da" CreationDate="2018-11-06T18:12:38.193" UserId="324" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Beekes writes that houtos is from *so-h²u-to-,  “a univerbation of the *so/to- pronoun with the stem that also figures in autos”. In this case τηλικοῦτος is not tēlik + houto-, but tēliko + uto (without the pronoun *so)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7473" RevisionGUID="874a89b6-27b2-470e-a8e0-59f2b3311d93" CreationDate="2018-11-06T20:41:18.530" UserId="2411" Text="Angilbert is asking what the women (the sisters and daughters of Charles the Great) might think of the return of their nephew/brother Pepin from Italy in the poem AD PIPPINUM ITALIAE REGEM by Angilbert :&#xD;&#xA;(...)&#xD;&#xA;Quid Gisla et Theodrada simul cum prole retractant&#xD;&#xA;   Cetera regali, quas tuus angit amor?&#xD;&#xA;Quid Gisla, egregii sponsa praepulchra tonantis,&#xD;&#xA;   Quid Liutgardis, ovans regis amore luat?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;What is it Gisla and Theodrada and the rest of the royal offspring are thinking right now, who are worried about you because of their love?&#xD;&#xA;What &quot;luat&quot; Gisla, the beautiful wife of maginificent God, and what &quot;luat&quot; Liutgardis while being jubilant because of her love for the king ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does &quot;luere&quot; mean something like &quot;pay tribute&quot;? What might this mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25066" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7473" RevisionGUID="874a89b6-27b2-470e-a8e0-59f2b3311d93" CreationDate="2018-11-06T20:41:18.530" UserId="2411" Text="What does the verb &quot;luere&quot; mean in the Angilberti carmina?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25067" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7473" RevisionGUID="874a89b6-27b2-470e-a8e0-59f2b3311d93" CreationDate="2018-11-06T20:41:18.530" UserId="2411" Text="|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7473" RevisionGUID="b0dc1ea2-961a-4105-a686-5650b78b55b9" CreationDate="2018-11-06T21:00:35.653" UserId="45" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="Angilbert is asking what the women (the sisters and daughters of Charles the Great) might think of the return of their nephew/brother Pepin from Italy in the poem AD PIPPINUM ITALIAE REGEM by Angilbert :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (...)  &#xD;&#xA;Quid Gisla et Theodrada simul cum prole retractant  &#xD;&#xA;   Cetera regali, quas tuus angit amor?  &#xD;&#xA;Quid Gisla, egregii sponsa praepulchra tonantis,  &#xD;&#xA;   Quid Liutgardis, ovans regis amore luat?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is it Gisla and Theodrada and the rest of the royal offspring are thinking right now, who are worried about you because of their love?&#xD;&#xA;What &quot;luat&quot; Gisla, the beautiful wife of maginificent God, and what &quot;luat&quot; Liutgardis while being jubilant because of her love for the king ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does &quot;luere&quot; mean something like &quot;pay tribute&quot;? What might this mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7477" RevisionGUID="f3872001-975e-43a2-b943-92df377943dd" CreationDate="2018-11-07T02:45:30.873" UserId="2476" Text="The [Italian Wikipedia page](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomastica_romana#Nomi_stranieri) on Roman onomastics states, without references though, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Former auxiliary soldiers and other categories of people that earned the Roman citizenship, could and often would keep at least a part of their original name. A good many names (_cognomina_ when assuming the _tria nomina_, but old personal slave names) were of Greek origins, while others came from the lands in the sphere of control of the Romans. Auxiliary soldiers that weren't Roman citizens, once having gained the right, often adopted the _nomen_ of their Emperor, adding their original name as _cognomen_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding [English page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_naming_conventions#Praenomen) also states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Customarily a newly enfranchised citizen would adopt the praenomen and nomen of his patron; that is, the person who had adopted or manumitted him, or otherwise procured his citizenship. But many such individuals retained a portion of their original names, usually in the form of cognomina. This was especially true for citizens of Greek origin.&#xD;&#xA;[...] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The _Constitutio Antoniniana_ promulgated by Caracalla in AD 212 was perhaps the most far-reaching of many imperial decrees enfranchising large numbers of non-citizens living throughout the empire. It extended citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire, all of whom thus received the name Marcus Aurelius, after the emperor's praenomen and nomen. The result was that vast numbers of individuals who had never possessed praenomina or nomina formally shared the same names. In turn, many of the &quot;new Romans&quot; promptly discarded their praenomina, and ignored their nomina except when required by formality. As a result, the cognomina adopted by these citizens, often including their original non-Latin names, became the most important part of their nomenclature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sources for this excerpt are the 1970 edition of the Oxford Classical Dictionary (&quot;Names, Personal&quot;) and the article &quot;What's in a Name? A Survey of Roman Onomastic Practice from c. 700 B.C. to A.D. 700&quot;, in Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 84, pp. 124–145 (1994).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So interestingly, the Romans probably did refer to the name of a foreigner as _nomen_, but if he/she became a Roman citizen and his/her original name survived in the _tria nomina_ (or maybe _nomen+cognomen_), it would be in the form of _cognomen_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7478" RevisionGUID="70fa618d-e132-4567-9c58-2fb98d403083" CreationDate="2018-11-07T03:30:00.747" UserId="3082" Text="Priusquam digressus est, Aeneas a rege Heleno quaesivit quae pericula sibi vitanda essent. Ille Aenean ad Phoebi templum manu duxit, deinde dixit: &quot;Nate dea! Pauca tibi dicam, nam cetera fari vetat Iuno....Ubi ventus ad oram Siculam te advexerit, laevam pete! Nam illud fretum duo monstra horrenda tenent. ...Praestat totam Siciliam longo cursu circum ire. &quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25080" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7478" RevisionGUID="70fa618d-e132-4567-9c58-2fb98d403083" CreationDate="2018-11-07T03:30:00.747" UserId="3082" Text="Can someone help me translate the following passage in latin into english? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25081" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7478" RevisionGUID="70fa618d-e132-4567-9c58-2fb98d403083" CreationDate="2018-11-07T03:30:00.747" UserId="3082" Text="|translation|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7479" RevisionGUID="f0503129-4671-42ed-86a0-d911f73b5d65" CreationDate="2018-11-07T04:08:01.663" UserId="144" Text="I'm trying to refer to a couple (man and woman), with a pronoun. Specifically what I'm trying to write is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Consider a couple that comes to Rome. They may have pride for Rome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I have now is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Consideremus advena duo qui advenent Roma. {Ei, eae or ea} habeant superbiam Roma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is when a pronoun refers to objects of differnt genders what gender is the pronoun?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25083" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7479" RevisionGUID="f0503129-4671-42ed-86a0-d911f73b5d65" CreationDate="2018-11-07T04:08:01.663" UserId="144" Text="What do I do when a pronoun refers to both a male and a female?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25084" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7479" RevisionGUID="f0503129-4671-42ed-86a0-d911f73b5d65" CreationDate="2018-11-07T04:08:01.663" UserId="144" Text="|pronouns|gender|demonstrative-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7480" RevisionGUID="3791d298-3c49-4354-ac65-3a2b339e50ca" CreationDate="2018-11-07T04:14:48.993" UserId="406" Text="In Latin (and most if not all other Indo-European languages that maintain noun genders), the masculine is used for groups of mixed gender. This comes from how the genders formed in Proto-Indo-European.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the prevailing theory, originally there were only two genders, animate and neuter. But there were certain common suffixes used on certain types of nouns, including women and other obviously-feminine things. So these started taking agreement markers of their own, and eventually split off into their own gender: the feminine. But this new gender was always less-well-established than the masculine, and some rules, like this one, go back to that quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(One of those suffixes, by the way, was used to refer to groups of inanimate objects. That one was eventually turned into the neuter plural; that's why neuter plurals always look like first-declension feminine singulars.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, in this case, you want *eī*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7478" RevisionGUID="072ad6b1-e9aa-4376-b0a9-89e806802e2c" CreationDate="2018-11-07T09:29:26.057" UserId="1459" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="&gt;Priusquam digressus est, Aeneas a rege Heleno quaesivit quae pericula sibi vitanda essent. Ille Aenean ad Phoebi templum manu duxit, deinde dixit: &quot;Nate dea! Pauca tibi dicam, nam cetera fari vetat Iuno....Ubi ventus ad oram Siculam te advexerit, laevam pete! Nam illud fretum duo monstra horrenda tenent. ...Praestat totam Siciliam longo cursu circum ire. &quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25088" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7478" RevisionGUID="072ad6b1-e9aa-4376-b0a9-89e806802e2c" CreationDate="2018-11-07T09:29:26.057" UserId="1459" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Can someone help me translate the following passage in latin into English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="de913448-4850-4a21-9450-7019e941dca5" CreationDate="2018-11-07T09:44:13.953" UserId="9" Comment="Re-arranged sections, added a source (Hackstein 2017)" Text="We don't know for sure how **-gn-** was pronounced in Classical Latin. There are a few arguments for reconstructing the pronunciation of **-&amp;#8288;gn-** as [ŋn]. (More specifically, I believe the most common reconstruction is [ŋ.n], with a syllable break between the two consonants. This explains why the preceding syllable is always metrically &quot;heavy&quot;—or in the misleading old-fashioned way of putting it, the preceding vowel is &quot;long by position&quot;. The idea that vowels before **-gn-** were always &quot;long by nature&quot; is probably erroneous; see Nathaniel's answer to [Are vowels long before “gn”?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/786/are-vowels-long-before-gn))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are also some complications with this reconstruction, and possible reasons to prefer reconstructing the pronunciation of **-gn-** as [g.n] (with a voiced oral velar plosive) for at least some time periods or some speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As usual, a good place to start for questions about Classical Latin pronunciation is W. Sidney Allen's *Vox Latina.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##There are several pieces of evidence pointing towards a pronunciation [ŋn] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (p. 23) describes several reasons for thinking that **-gn-** was pronounced as [ŋn] in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###ĕ &gt; ĭ before [ŋ] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, a vowel change of short **e** to short **i** is commonly seen before the clusters **ng**, **nc,** and **gn**; we can unify the description of these environments as &quot;before [ŋ]&quot; if we assume **gn** represented [ŋn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sound change does not seem to have applied to **ĕ** before **-gm-**.   Allen says that this is commonly viewed as a sign that **-gm-** was not pronounced with [ŋ] (which is perhaps surprising from a theoretical point of view, as both M and N are nasal consonants, and they would generally be expected to have similar effects on the pronunciation of preceding consonants).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is generally assumed that *g* did not have a nasal pronunciation before *m*, as in *tegmen, segmentum,* since the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* does not occur in these words. However, since original *gm* seems to have given *mm* (e.g. *flamma* from *flag-ma*, cf. *flagro*), all examples of *gm* may have arisen later, e.g. by syncope, after the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* was operative (cf. the unsyncopated forms *tegimen, integumentum*). The possibility of a pronunciation of *g* as [ŋ] here is therefore not entirely excluded-though it cannot be safely recommended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Allen 1978, p. 25) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sound change seems to be one of the strongest pieces of evidence for reconstructing the pronunciation of *-gn-* as [ŋn]. I believe there are some exceptions to the sound change, but I don't know what they are (and I don't know how many good examples of the sound change we have).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Prefixing *in-* or *con-* to *gn-* gives *ign-* or *cogn-*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words like *cognatus* and *ignobilis* contain the prefixes *con-* and *in-,* which typically end in a nasal consonant that assimilates in place to a following plosive or nasal (as in *co**m**pugno, i**m**possibilis, co**m**mitto, i**m**mortalis*). If word-medial **gn** in Latin was pronounced as [ŋn], then the use of **gn** in these words can be explained as the result of the usual assimilation of /n/ &gt; [ŋ] before /g/, followed by a simplification of the tautosyllabic onset cluster /gn/ to /n/, with a heterosyllabic cluster [ŋ.n] as the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If **gn** was just pronounced as [gn], it would mean that the nasal consonant from the end of the prefixes was dropped entirely in these words. That seems a bit implausible to me, but I guess it's not impossible. In fact, I did find a source from the 19th century that argues for this interpretation of prefixed words containing **gn**, and rejects the [ŋ.n] interpretation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Had the Romans retained the **n** of the prepositions before **gn**, they would have felt bound to pronounce **ing-gnotus, cong-gnatus,** but would practically have pronounced **ing-notus, cong-natus.** But they did not retain the **n** and write **ingnotus, congnatus**, but **ignotus, cognatus**. What is the explanation ? Does this represent a pronunciation **ing-notus, cong-natus**, or **inyotus, conyatus**? Mr Munro (and I agree with him) holds that it does not. I account for it by supposing the Romans to have reduced the mass of consonants, the whole of which they were unable to pronounce, by omitting as usual (§ 31) the former **n**, that of the preposition, rather than the later and radical **n**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (Roby 1887, p. lxxxi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I am aware of a somewhat similar phenomenon to what Roby suggests (loss of a coda nasal because of phonotactic constraints) in the allomorphy of the Cypriot Greek definite article. According to Ringen and Vago (2011):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; In Cypriot Greek the definite articles *ton* (masculine) and *tin* (feminine) lose their final nasal consonant if the next word begins either with a consonant cluster or a geminate., motivated by a *CCC constraint. The facts are as in (11) (Muller 2001).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA; (11) Cypriot Greek definite article allomorphy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a. Final nasal stays before V or C&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;br&gt;ton ápparon 'the horse'&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;br&gt;ton tixon 'the wall'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;b. Final nasal deletes before CC&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ti psačín 'the poison'&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to flókkon 'the mop'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;c. Final nasal deletes before G&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to pparán 'the money'&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to ttaván 'the stew'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Regressive assimilation to nasality occurred in other Latin sound changes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparison with other clusters in Latin and their history suggests that *kn, *gn &gt; [ŋn] is a plausible sound change. Allen gives as an example the change of original *\*-pn-* to **-mn-** in Latin words such as *somnus.* Although *abn-,* with the letter B rather than M, occurred at the start of Latin words prefixed with *ab-,* Allen says that *a**mn**egauerit* actually exists as an inscriptional variant of *a**bn**egauerit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that etymological comparison with other languages and internal reconstruction shows that in some cases Classical Latin **gn** seems to have originated from some kind of partial assimilation of *\*k* to a following *\*n* (for example, [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dignus) says that the word *dignus* comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *deḱ-). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assimilation of plosives to nasals before nasal consonants is known to be a sound change that has occurred in other languages; for example, in [Korean][1], plosives like **p t k** were nasalized to **m n ŋ** before nasal consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, it's difficult for me to think of languages that had a sound change of /k/ to oral [g] before /n/. In my accent of English, there may be a single isolated example of historical /kn/ to [gn] in the word &quot;acknowledge&quot; (I made an ELU post about it [here](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/469859/is-the-first-syllable-of-acknowledge-pronounced-with-g-by-any-notable-amount)), but that's not a regular sound change (and I have [kn] in many other words.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing I can think of in Latin that seems comparable is that there may be examples of coda /k/ assimilating to voiced, but non-nasal /g/ before the resonant /l/:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sen (2011a) argues that the sonorants /r, l, m, n/ were phonologically specified as [+voice] ... in syllable-initial position ... Hence, we see regressive voice assimilation triggered by a syllable-initial sonorant in *\*nek̲-l̲egoː* &gt; *neg̲l̲egoː* ‘I neglect’, *\*sek̲m̲entom* &gt; *seg̲m̲entum* ‘piece’ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Sen 2012, p. 38)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm not sure that the explanation that Sen gives here for the presence of /g/ in *neglego* is correct, because we also find *neg-* before vowels in the word *negotium,* and perhaps in *nego.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hackstein (2017) says that *nego* may be derived from *nec* &gt; *neg,* and offers two alternative explanations of the voicing: either it could have been conditioned by the word-final position of the plosive, as in *ab* &lt; PIE \**apo,* or it could have originally been the result of assimilation in voicedness to a following voiced plosive (&quot;*\*nekwe deikō* &gt; *\*neg dīcō* like *\*apo-doukō* &gt; *abdūcō* (cf. Sommer 1948:275)&quot;) with the form *neg* later generalized for some reason before sounds other than voiced plosives (and then eventually lost again in favor of *nec,* except for in old compounds) (pp. 2-3). I'm left with the impression that we don't actually know exactly how *neg-* came to be used in words like *neglego.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###There were spelling variants with -NGN- instead of -GN-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In previous versions of this answer, I forgot to mention another piece of evidence that some sources say supports the reconstruction [ŋn]: apparently, the spelling NGN is sometimes used instead of GN. I will try to update this later with specific references and more details; I don't know how common this is or whether it occurs for all kinds of words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###However, Romance reflexes are often thought to point to [gn] rather than [ŋn]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see above, there are various pieces of evidence that support the reconstruction [ŋn]. But on the other hand, Allen says (p. 24) that some Romance words, such as French *lein* or Southern Italian *liunu* from Latin *lignum,* show the same development of coda *g* to a semivowel that occurs in non-nasal environments. This has been seen as evidence that the pronunciation [gn] may have been used after Classical times, possibly due to influence from the spelling. ([Maiden (1995)][2] also suggests this is a piece of evidence against reconstructing [ŋn] in Proto-Romance.) I'm a bit confused by this argument, though, because I'm not sure why [ŋ] is thought to be less likely than [g] to vocalize to [j] or [w].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No Latin grammarians seem to mention a pronunciation of **-gn-** as [ŋn]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the supposed problems with explaining how the Romance reflexes of **-gn-** could have developed from [ŋn], Allen notes that Latin grammarians &quot;are strangely silent about any nasal pronunciation of *g*&quot; (p. 24). In contrast, there are descriptions of the pronunciation of *n* as [ŋ] before **g** or **c**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Linguistic sources do tend to classify -gn- as containing the *phoneme* /g/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, all of the discussion in the previous sections is about the phonetic realization of **gn**. As far as I know, from a phonemic perspective it's standard to analyze **gn** as /gn/, and it seems to behave this way in contexts like the formation of diminutives: for example, the nouns *signum, tignum* correspond to the diminutive forms *sigillum, tigillum* where the **g** would have been pronounced as [g]—a voiced velar plosive, not a nasal. (I don't know how old these diminutive formations are thought to be.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2017. Hackstein, Olav. &quot;[Latin *negō* \*‘not I’](http://linguistics.cornell.edu/sites/linguistics/files/ECIEC%20Handouts.pdf).&quot; The 36th East Coast Indo-European Conference. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2012. Sen, R. &quot;Reconstructing Phonological Change: Duration and Syllable Structure in Latin Vowel Reduction&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2011. Ringen, Catherine O. and Vago, Robert M. &quot;Geminates: Heavy or Long?&quot; *Handbook of the Syllable,* edited by Charles Cairns, Eric Raimy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1995. Maiden, Martin. *A Linguistic History of Italian.*&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1978. Allen, W. Sidney. *Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin.* Second Edition.  (First edition published 1965)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1887. Roby, Henry John. *[A grammar of the Latin language from Plautus to Suetonius](https://archive.org/details/grammaroflatinla00robyuoft/page/n85).*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bibliography of additional reading&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1944. Ward, Ralph L. &quot;Afterthoughts on g as ŋ in Latin and Greek.&quot; *Language,* Vol. 20, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1944), pp. 73-77.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NN-yIdLOkCoC&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qK_8eXcCnu&amp;sig=u4MEiVBbuxhdzAg_rkkNX3D6RbY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiuvsbyo5HLAhXJsIMKHfWIA8UQ6AEIUzAH#v=onepage&amp;q=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=DwTKAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT127&amp;lpg=PT127&amp;dq=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1yMQKpnTe6&amp;sig=0k2p71mE_-YTdkZtyU9t3lvDnyI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNsZS2xITZAhWCzlkKHbbjAvM4ChDoAQhCMAU#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="078ae0a5-1411-46ec-82ef-6d9e1a44d7c0" CreationDate="2018-11-07T09:53:09.050" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 43 characters in body" Text="We don't know for sure how **-gn-** was pronounced in Classical Latin. There are a few arguments for reconstructing the pronunciation of **-&amp;#8288;gn-** as [ŋn]. (More specifically, I believe the most common reconstruction is [ŋ.n], with a syllable break between the two consonants. This explains why the preceding syllable is always metrically &quot;heavy&quot;—or in the misleading old-fashioned way of putting it, the preceding vowel is &quot;long by position&quot;. The idea that vowels before **-gn-** were always &quot;long by nature&quot; is probably erroneous; see Nathaniel's answer to [Are vowels long before “gn”?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/786/are-vowels-long-before-gn))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are also some complications with this reconstruction, and possible reasons to prefer reconstructing the pronunciation of **-gn-** as [g.n] (with a voiced oral velar plosive) for at least some time periods or some speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As usual, a good place to start for questions about Classical Latin pronunciation is W. Sidney Allen's *Vox Latina.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##There are several pieces of evidence pointing towards a pronunciation [ŋn] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (p. 23) describes several reasons for thinking that **-gn-** was pronounced as [ŋn] in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###ĕ &gt; ĭ before [ŋ] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, a vowel change of short **e** to short **i** is commonly seen before the clusters **ng**, **nc,** and **gn**; we can unify the description of these environments as &quot;before [ŋ]&quot; if we assume **gn** represented [ŋn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sound change does not seem to have applied to **ĕ** before **-gm-**.   Allen says that this is commonly viewed as a sign that **-gm-** was not pronounced with [ŋ] (which is perhaps surprising from a theoretical point of view, as both M and N are nasal consonants, and they would generally be expected to have similar effects on the pronunciation of preceding consonants).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is generally assumed that *g* did not have a nasal pronunciation before *m*, as in *tegmen, segmentum,* since the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* does not occur in these words. However, since original *gm* seems to have given *mm* (e.g. *flamma* from *flag-ma*, cf. *flagro*), all examples of *gm* may have arisen later, e.g. by syncope, after the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* was operative (cf. the unsyncopated forms *tegimen, integumentum*). The possibility of a pronunciation of *g* as [ŋ] here is therefore not entirely excluded-though it cannot be safely recommended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Allen 1978, p. 25) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sound change seems to be one of the strongest pieces of evidence for reconstructing the pronunciation of *-gn-* as [ŋn]. I believe there are some exceptions to the sound change, but I don't know what they are (and I don't know how many good examples of the sound change we have).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Prefixing *in-* or *con-* to *gn-* gives *ign-* or *cogn-*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words like *cognatus* and *ignobilis* contain the prefixes *con-* and *in-,* which typically end in a nasal consonant that assimilates in place to a following plosive or nasal (as in *co**m**pugno, i**m**possibilis, co**m**mitto, i**m**mortalis*). If word-medial **gn** in Latin was pronounced as [ŋn], then the use of **gn** in these words can be explained as the result of the usual assimilation of /n/ &gt; [ŋ] before /g/, followed by a simplification of the tautosyllabic onset cluster /gn/ to /n/, with a heterosyllabic cluster [ŋ.n] as the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If **gn** was just pronounced as [gn], it would mean that the nasal consonant from the end of the prefixes was dropped entirely in these words. That seems a bit implausible to me, but I guess it's not impossible. In fact, I did find a source from the 19th century that argues for this interpretation of prefixed words containing **gn**, and rejects the [ŋ.n] interpretation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Had the Romans retained the **n** of the prepositions before **gn**, they would have felt bound to pronounce **ing-gnotus, cong-gnatus,** but would practically have pronounced **ing-notus, cong-natus.** But they did not retain the **n** and write **ingnotus, congnatus**, but **ignotus, cognatus**. What is the explanation ? Does this represent a pronunciation **ing-notus, cong-natus**, or **inyotus, conyatus**? Mr Munro (and I agree with him) holds that it does not. I account for it by supposing the Romans to have reduced the mass of consonants, the whole of which they were unable to pronounce, by omitting as usual (§ 31) the former **n**, that of the preposition, rather than the later and radical **n**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (Roby 1887, p. lxxxi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I am aware of a somewhat similar phenomenon to what Roby suggests (loss of a coda nasal because of phonotactic constraints) in the allomorphy of the Cypriot Greek definite article. According to Ringen and Vago (2011):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; In Cypriot Greek the definite articles *ton* (masculine) and *tin* (feminine) lose their final nasal consonant if the next word begins either with a consonant cluster or a geminate., motivated by a *CCC constraint. The facts are as in (11) (Muller 2001).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA; (11) Cypriot Greek definite article allomorphy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a. Final nasal stays before V or C&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;br&gt;ton ápparon 'the horse'&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;br&gt;ton tixon 'the wall'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;b. Final nasal deletes before CC&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ti psačín 'the poison'&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to flókkon 'the mop'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;c. Final nasal deletes before G&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to pparán 'the money'&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to ttaván 'the stew'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Regressive assimilation to nasality occurred in other Latin sound changes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparison with other clusters in Latin and their history suggests that *kn, *gn &gt; [ŋn] is a plausible sound change. Allen gives as an example the change of original *\*-pn-* to **-mn-** in Latin words such as *somnus.* Although *abn-,* with the letter B rather than M, occurred at the start of Latin words prefixed with *ab-,* Allen says that *a**mn**egauerit* actually exists as an inscriptional variant of *a**bn**egauerit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that etymological comparison with other languages and internal reconstruction shows that in some cases Classical Latin **gn** seems to have originated from some kind of partial assimilation of *\*k* to a following *\*n* (for example, [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dignus) says that the word *dignus* comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *deḱ-). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assimilation of plosives to nasals before nasal consonants is known to be a sound change that has occurred in other languages; for example, in [Korean][1], plosives like **p t k** were nasalized to **m n ŋ** before nasal consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, it's difficult for me to think of languages that had a sound change of /k/ to oral [g] before /n/. In my accent of English, there may be a single isolated example of historical /kn/ to [gn] in the word &quot;acknowledge&quot; (I made an ELU post about it [here](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/469859/is-the-first-syllable-of-acknowledge-pronounced-with-g-by-any-notable-amount)), but that's not a regular sound change (and I have [kn] in many other words.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing I can think of in Latin that seems comparable is that there may be examples of coda /k/ assimilating to voiced, but non-nasal /g/ before the resonant /l/:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sen (2011a) argues that the sonorants /r, l, m, n/ were phonologically specified as [+voice] ... in syllable-initial position ... Hence, we see regressive voice assimilation triggered by a syllable-initial sonorant in *\*nek̲-l̲egoː* &gt; *neg̲l̲egoː* ‘I neglect’, *\*sek̲m̲entom* &gt; *seg̲m̲entum* ‘piece’ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Sen 2012, p. 38)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm not sure that the explanation that Sen gives here for the presence of /g/ in *neglego* is correct, because we also find *neg-* before vowels in the word *negotium,* and perhaps in *nego.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hackstein (2017) says that *nego* may be derived from *nec* &gt; *neg,* and offers two alternative explanations of the voicing: either it could have been conditioned by the word-final position of the plosive, as in *ab* &lt; PIE \**apo,* or it could have originally been the result of assimilation in voicedness to a following voiced plosive (&quot;*\*nekwe deikō* &gt; *\*neg dīcō* like *\*apo-doukō* &gt; *abdūcō* (cf. Sommer 1948:275)&quot;) with the form *neg* later generalized for some reason before sounds other than voiced plosives (and then eventually lost again in favor of *nec,* except for in old compounds) (pp. 2-3). I'm left with the impression that we don't actually know exactly how *neg-* came to be used in words like *neglego.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###There were spelling variants with -NGN- instead of -GN-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In previous versions of this answer, I forgot to mention another piece of evidence that some sources say supports the reconstruction [ŋn]: apparently, the spelling NGN is sometimes used instead of GN. Ward (1944) gives a couple of examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On inscriptions, even late ones, we find some spellings with *ngn,* as *singnifer, dingnissimē* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###However, Romance reflexes are often thought to point to [gn] rather than [ŋn]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see above, there are various pieces of evidence that support the reconstruction [ŋn]. But on the other hand, Allen says (p. 24) that some Romance words, such as French *lein* or Southern Italian *liunu* from Latin *lignum,* show the same development of coda *g* to a semivowel that occurs in non-nasal environments. This has been seen as evidence that the pronunciation [gn] may have been used after Classical times, possibly due to influence from the spelling. ([Maiden (1995)][2] also suggests this is a piece of evidence against reconstructing [ŋn] in Proto-Romance.) I'm a bit confused by this argument, though, because I'm not sure why [ŋ] is thought to be less likely than [g] to vocalize to [j] or [w].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No Latin grammarians seem to mention a pronunciation of **-gn-** as [ŋn]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the supposed problems with explaining how the Romance reflexes of **-gn-** could have developed from [ŋn], Allen notes that Latin grammarians &quot;are strangely silent about any nasal pronunciation of *g*&quot; (p. 24). In contrast, there are descriptions of the pronunciation of *n* as [ŋ] before **g** or **c**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Linguistic sources do tend to classify -gn- as containing the *phoneme* /g/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, all of the discussion in the previous sections is about the phonetic realization of **gn**. As far as I know, from a phonemic perspective it's standard to analyze **gn** as /gn/, and it seems to behave this way in contexts like the formation of diminutives: for example, the nouns *signum, tignum* correspond to the diminutive forms *sigillum, tigillum* where the **g** would have been pronounced as [g]—a voiced velar plosive, not a nasal. (I don't know how old these diminutive formations are thought to be.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2017. Hackstein, Olav. &quot;[Latin *negō* \*‘not I’](http://linguistics.cornell.edu/sites/linguistics/files/ECIEC%20Handouts.pdf).&quot; The 36th East Coast Indo-European Conference. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2012. Sen, R. &quot;Reconstructing Phonological Change: Duration and Syllable Structure in Latin Vowel Reduction&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2011. Ringen, Catherine O. and Vago, Robert M. &quot;Geminates: Heavy or Long?&quot; *Handbook of the Syllable,* edited by Charles Cairns, Eric Raimy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1995. Maiden, Martin. *A Linguistic History of Italian.*&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1978. Allen, W. Sidney. *Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin.* Second Edition.  (First edition published 1965)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1944. Ward, Ralph L. &quot;Afterthoughts on g as ŋ in Latin and Greek.&quot; *Language,* Vol. 20, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1944), pp. 73-77.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1887. Roby, Henry John. *[A grammar of the Latin language from Plautus to Suetonius](https://archive.org/details/grammaroflatinla00robyuoft/page/n85).*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NN-yIdLOkCoC&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qK_8eXcCnu&amp;sig=u4MEiVBbuxhdzAg_rkkNX3D6RbY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiuvsbyo5HLAhXJsIMKHfWIA8UQ6AEIUzAH#v=onepage&amp;q=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=DwTKAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT127&amp;lpg=PT127&amp;dq=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1yMQKpnTe6&amp;sig=0k2p71mE_-YTdkZtyU9t3lvDnyI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNsZS2xITZAhWCzlkKHbbjAvM4ChDoAQhCMAU#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="8f7225f5-55ac-4add-93cf-8459bca5e103" CreationDate="2018-11-07T09:58:43.910" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 43 characters in body" Text="We don't know for sure how **-gn-** was pronounced in Classical Latin. There are a few arguments for reconstructing the pronunciation of **-&amp;#8288;gn-** as [ŋn]. (More specifically, I believe the most common reconstruction is [ŋ.n], with a syllable break between the two consonants. This explains why the preceding syllable is always metrically &quot;heavy&quot;—or in the misleading old-fashioned way of putting it, the preceding vowel is &quot;long by position&quot;. The idea that vowels before **-gn-** were always &quot;long by nature&quot; is probably erroneous; see Nathaniel's answer to [Are vowels long before “gn”?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/786/are-vowels-long-before-gn))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are also some complications with this reconstruction, and possible reasons to prefer reconstructing the pronunciation of **-gn-** as [g.n] (with a voiced oral velar plosive) for at least some time periods or some speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As usual, a good place to start for questions about Classical Latin pronunciation is W. Sidney Allen's *Vox Latina.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##There are several pieces of evidence pointing towards a pronunciation [ŋn] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (p. 23) describes several reasons for thinking that **-gn-** was pronounced as [ŋn] in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###ĕ &gt; ĭ before [ŋ] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, a vowel change of short **e** to short **i** is commonly seen before the clusters **ng**, **nc,** and **gn**; we can unify the description of these environments as &quot;before [ŋ]&quot; if we assume **gn** represented [ŋn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sound change does not seem to have applied to **ĕ** before **-gm-**.   Allen says that this is commonly viewed as a sign that **-gm-** was not pronounced with [ŋ] (which is perhaps surprising from a theoretical point of view, as both M and N are nasal consonants, and they would generally be expected to have similar effects on the pronunciation of preceding consonants).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is generally assumed that *g* did not have a nasal pronunciation before *m*, as in *tegmen, segmentum,* since the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* does not occur in these words. However, since original *gm* seems to have given *mm* (e.g. *flamma* from *flag-ma*, cf. *flagro*), all examples of *gm* may have arisen later, e.g. by syncope, after the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* was operative (cf. the unsyncopated forms *tegimen, integumentum*). The possibility of a pronunciation of *g* as [ŋ] here is therefore not entirely excluded-though it cannot be safely recommended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Allen 1978, p. 25) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sound change seems to be one of the strongest pieces of evidence for reconstructing the pronunciation of *-gn-* as [ŋn]. I believe there are some exceptions to the sound change, but I don't know what they are (and I don't know how many good examples of the sound change we have).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Prefixing *in-* or *con-* to *gn-* gives *ign-* or *cogn-*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words like *cognatus* and *ignobilis* contain the prefixes *con-* and *in-,* which typically end in a nasal consonant that assimilates in place to a following plosive or nasal (as in *co**m**pugno, i**m**possibilis, co**m**mitto, i**m**mortalis*). If word-medial **gn** in Latin was pronounced as [ŋn], then the use of **gn** in these words can be explained as the result of the usual assimilation of /n/ &gt; [ŋ] before /g/, followed by a simplification of the tautosyllabic onset cluster /gn/ to /n/, with a heterosyllabic cluster [ŋ.n] as the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If **gn** was just pronounced as [gn], it would mean that the nasal consonant from the end of the prefixes was dropped entirely in these words. That seems a bit implausible to me, but I guess it's not impossible. In fact, I did find a source from the 19th century that argues for this interpretation of prefixed words containing **gn**, and rejects the [ŋ.n] interpretation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Had the Romans retained the **n** of the prepositions before **gn**, they would have felt bound to pronounce **ing-gnotus, cong-gnatus,** but would practically have pronounced **ing-notus, cong-natus.** But they did not retain the **n** and write **ingnotus, congnatus**, but **ignotus, cognatus**. What is the explanation ? Does this represent a pronunciation **ing-notus, cong-natus**, or **inyotus, conyatus**? Mr Munro (and I agree with him) holds that it does not. I account for it by supposing the Romans to have reduced the mass of consonants, the whole of which they were unable to pronounce, by omitting as usual (§ 31) the former **n**, that of the preposition, rather than the later and radical **n**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (Roby 1887, p. lxxxi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I am aware of a somewhat similar phenomenon to what Roby suggests (loss of a coda nasal because of phonotactic constraints) in the allomorphy of the Cypriot Greek definite article. According to Ringen and Vago (2011):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; In Cypriot Greek the definite articles *ton* (masculine) and *tin* (feminine) lose their final nasal consonant if the next word begins either with a consonant cluster or a geminate., motivated by a *CCC constraint. The facts are as in (11) (Muller 2001).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA; (11) Cypriot Greek definite article allomorphy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a. Final nasal stays before V or C&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;br&gt;ton ápparon 'the horse'&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;br&gt;ton tixon 'the wall'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;b. Final nasal deletes before CC&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ti psačín 'the poison'&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to flókkon 'the mop'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;c. Final nasal deletes before G&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to pparán 'the money'&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to ttaván 'the stew'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Regressive assimilation to nasality occurred in other Latin sound changes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparison with other clusters in Latin and their history suggests that *kn, *gn &gt; [ŋn] is a plausible sound change. Allen gives as an example the change of original *\*-pn-* to **-mn-** in Latin words such as *somnus.* Although *abn-,* with the letter B rather than M, occurred at the start of Latin words prefixed with *ab-,* Allen says that *a**mn**egauerit* actually exists as an inscriptional variant of *a**bn**egauerit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that etymological comparison with other languages and internal reconstruction shows that in some cases Classical Latin **gn** seems to have originated from some kind of partial assimilation of *\*k* to a following *\*n* (for example, [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dignus) says that the word *dignus* comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *deḱ-). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assimilation of plosives to nasals before nasal consonants is known to be a sound change that has occurred in other languages; for example, in [Korean][1], plosives like **p t k** were nasalized to **m n ŋ** before nasal consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, it's difficult for me to think of languages that had a sound change of /k/ to oral [g] before /n/. In my accent of English, there may be a single isolated example of historical /kn/ to [gn] in the word &quot;acknowledge&quot; (I made an ELU post about it [here](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/469859/is-the-first-syllable-of-acknowledge-pronounced-with-g-by-any-notable-amount)), but that's not a regular sound change (and I have [kn] in many other words.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can only think of a few things that seem like they might be comparable in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The word *segmentum* is said to be etymologically related to *secō*: this looks like it could be an example of ***k** voicing to oral [g] before **m** in Latin, although I'm entirely sure that this is how this word came to have **g.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There may be an example of coda /k/ assimilating to become voiced, but non-nasal **g** before the resonant /l/:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Sen (2011a) argues that the sonorants /r, l, m, n/ were phonologically specified as [+voice] ... in syllable-initial position ... Hence, we see regressive voice assimilation triggered by a syllable-initial sonorant in *\*nek̲-l̲egoː* &gt; *neg̲l̲egoː* ‘I neglect’, *\*sek̲m̲entom* &gt; *seg̲m̲entum* ‘piece’ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (Sen 2012, p. 38)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  However, I'm not sure that the explanation that Sen gives here for the presence of /g/ in *neglego* is correct, because we also find *neg-* before vowels in the word *negotium,* and perhaps in *nego.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Hackstein (2017) says that *nego* may be derived from *nec* &gt; *neg,* and offers two alternative explanations of the voicing: either it could have been conditioned by the word-final position of the plosive, as in *ab* &lt; PIE \**apo,* or it could have originally been the result of assimilation in voicedness to a following voiced plosive (&quot;*\*nekwe deikō* &gt; *\*neg dīcō* like *\*apo-doukō* &gt; *abdūcō* (cf. Sommer 1948:275)&quot;) with the form *neg* later generalized for some reason before sounds other than voiced plosives (and then eventually lost again in favor of *nec,* except for in old compounds) (pp. 2-3). I'm left with the impression that we don't actually know exactly how *neg-* came to be used in words like *neglego.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###There were spelling variants with -NGN- instead of -GN-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In previous versions of this answer, I forgot to mention another piece of evidence that some sources say supports the reconstruction [ŋn]: apparently, the spelling NGN is sometimes used instead of GN. Ward (1944) gives a couple of examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On inscriptions, even late ones, we find some spellings with *ngn,* as *singnifer, dingnissimē* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does seem natural to interpret **ngn** as indicating that the preceding vowel was followed immediately by a nasal consonant, rather than by an oral plosive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###However, Romance reflexes are often thought to point to [gn] rather than [ŋn]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see above, there are various pieces of evidence that support the reconstruction [ŋn]. But on the other hand, Allen says (p. 24) that some Romance words, such as French *lein* or Southern Italian *liunu* from Latin *lignum,* show the same development of coda *g* to a semivowel that occurs in non-nasal environments. This has been seen as evidence that the pronunciation [gn] may have been used after Classical times, possibly due to influence from the spelling. ([Maiden (1995)][2] also suggests this is a piece of evidence against reconstructing [ŋn] in Proto-Romance.) I'm a bit confused by this argument, though, because I'm not sure why [ŋ] is thought to be less likely than [g] to vocalize to [j] or [w].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No Latin grammarians seem to mention a pronunciation of **-gn-** as [ŋn]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the supposed problems with explaining how the Romance reflexes of **-gn-** could have developed from [ŋn], Allen notes that Latin grammarians &quot;are strangely silent about any nasal pronunciation of *g*&quot; (p. 24). In contrast, there are descriptions of the pronunciation of *n* as [ŋ] before **g** or **c**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Linguistic sources do tend to classify -gn- as containing the *phoneme* /g/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, all of the discussion in the previous sections is about the phonetic realization of **gn**. As far as I know, from a phonemic perspective it's standard to analyze **gn** as /gn/, and it seems to behave this way in contexts like the formation of diminutives: for example, the nouns *signum, tignum* correspond to the diminutive forms *sigillum, tigillum* where the **g** would have been pronounced as [g]—a voiced velar plosive, not a nasal. (I don't know how old these diminutive formations are thought to be.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2017. Hackstein, Olav. &quot;[Latin *negō* \*‘not I’](http://linguistics.cornell.edu/sites/linguistics/files/ECIEC%20Handouts.pdf).&quot; The 36th East Coast Indo-European Conference. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2012. Sen, R. &quot;Reconstructing Phonological Change: Duration and Syllable Structure in Latin Vowel Reduction&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2011. Ringen, Catherine O. and Vago, Robert M. &quot;Geminates: Heavy or Long?&quot; *Handbook of the Syllable,* edited by Charles Cairns, Eric Raimy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1995. Maiden, Martin. *A Linguistic History of Italian.*&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1978. Allen, W. Sidney. *Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin.* Second Edition.  (First edition published 1965)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1944. Ward, Ralph L. &quot;Afterthoughts on g as ŋ in Latin and Greek.&quot; *Language,* Vol. 20, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1944), pp. 73-77.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1887. Roby, Henry John. *[A grammar of the Latin language from Plautus to Suetonius](https://archive.org/details/grammaroflatinla00robyuoft/page/n85).*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NN-yIdLOkCoC&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qK_8eXcCnu&amp;sig=u4MEiVBbuxhdzAg_rkkNX3D6RbY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiuvsbyo5HLAhXJsIMKHfWIA8UQ6AEIUzAH#v=onepage&amp;q=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=DwTKAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT127&amp;lpg=PT127&amp;dq=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1yMQKpnTe6&amp;sig=0k2p71mE_-YTdkZtyU9t3lvDnyI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNsZS2xITZAhWCzlkKHbbjAvM4ChDoAQhCMAU#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="71194435-4129-4292-b47b-f5f4d767073e" CreationDate="2018-11-07T10:33:19.457" UserId="9" Comment="added 806 characters in body" Text="We don't know for sure how **-gn-** was pronounced in Classical Latin. There are a few arguments for reconstructing the pronunciation of **-&amp;#8288;gn-** as [ŋn]. (More specifically, I believe the most common reconstruction is [ŋ.n], with a syllable break between the two consonants. This explains why the preceding syllable is always metrically &quot;heavy&quot;—or in the misleading old-fashioned way of putting it, the preceding vowel is &quot;long by position&quot;. The idea that vowels before **-gn-** were always &quot;long by nature&quot; is probably erroneous; see Nathaniel's answer to [Are vowels long before “gn”?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/786/are-vowels-long-before-gn))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are also some complications with this reconstruction, and possible reasons to prefer reconstructing the pronunciation of **-gn-** as [g.n] (with a voiced oral velar plosive) for at least some time periods or some speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As usual, a good place to start for questions about Classical Latin pronunciation is W. Sidney Allen's *Vox Latina.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##There are several pieces of evidence pointing towards a pronunciation [ŋn] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (p. 23) describes several reasons for thinking that **-gn-** was pronounced as [ŋn] in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###ĕ &gt; ĭ before [ŋ] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, a vowel change of short **e** to short **i** is commonly seen before the clusters **ng**, **nc,** and **gn**; we can unify the description of these environments as &quot;before [ŋ]&quot; if we assume **gn** represented [ŋn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sound change does not seem to have applied to **ĕ** before **-gm-**.   Allen says that this is commonly viewed as a sign that **-gm-** was not pronounced with [ŋ] (which is perhaps surprising from a theoretical point of view, as both M and N are nasal consonants, and they would generally be expected to have similar effects on the pronunciation of preceding consonants).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is generally assumed that *g* did not have a nasal pronunciation before *m*, as in *tegmen, segmentum,* since the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* does not occur in these words. However, since original *gm* seems to have given *mm* (e.g. *flamma* from *flag-ma*, cf. *flagro*), all examples of *gm* may have arisen later, e.g. by syncope, after the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* was operative (cf. the unsyncopated forms *tegimen, integumentum*). The possibility of a pronunciation of *g* as [ŋ] here is therefore not entirely excluded-though it cannot be safely recommended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Allen 1978, p. 25) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sound change seems to be one of the strongest pieces of evidence for reconstructing the pronunciation of *-gn-* as [ŋn]. I believe there are some exceptions to the sound change, but I don't know what they are (and I don't know how many good examples of the sound change we have).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Prefixing *in-* or *con-* to *gn-* gives *ign-* or *cogn-*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words like *cognatus* and *ignobilis* contain the prefixes *con-* and *in-,* which typically end in a nasal consonant that assimilates in place to a following plosive or nasal (as in *co**m**pugno, i**m**possibilis, co**m**mitto, i**m**mortalis*). If word-medial **gn** in Latin was pronounced as [ŋn], then the use of **gn** in these words can be explained as the result of the usual assimilation of /n/ &gt; [ŋ] before /g/, followed by a simplification of the tautosyllabic onset cluster /gn/ to /n/, with a heterosyllabic cluster [ŋ.n] as the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If **gn** was just pronounced as [gn], it would mean that the nasal consonant from the end of the prefixes was dropped entirely in these words. That seems a bit implausible to me, but I guess it's not impossible. In fact, I did find a source from the 19th century that argues for this interpretation of prefixed words containing **gn**, and rejects the [ŋ.n] interpretation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Had the Romans retained the **n** of the prepositions before **gn**, they would have felt bound to pronounce **ing-gnotus, cong-gnatus,** but would practically have pronounced **ing-notus, cong-natus.** But they did not retain the **n** and write **ingnotus, congnatus**, but **ignotus, cognatus**. What is the explanation ? Does this represent a pronunciation **ing-notus, cong-natus**, or **inyotus, conyatus**? Mr Munro (and I agree with him) holds that it does not. I account for it by supposing the Romans to have reduced the mass of consonants, the whole of which they were unable to pronounce, by omitting as usual (§ 31) the former **n**, that of the preposition, rather than the later and radical **n**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (Roby 1887, p. lxxxi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I am aware of a somewhat similar phenomenon to what Roby suggests (loss of a coda nasal because of phonotactic constraints) in the allomorphy of the Cypriot Greek definite article. According to Ringen and Vago (2011):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; In Cypriot Greek the definite articles *ton* (masculine) and *tin* (feminine) lose their final nasal consonant if the next word begins either with a consonant cluster or a geminate., motivated by a *CCC constraint. The facts are as in (11) (Muller 2001).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA; (11) Cypriot Greek definite article allomorphy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a. Final nasal stays before V or C&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;br&gt;ton ápparon 'the horse'&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;br&gt;ton tixon 'the wall'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;b. Final nasal deletes before CC&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ti psačín 'the poison'&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to flókkon 'the mop'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;c. Final nasal deletes before G&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to pparán 'the money'&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to ttaván 'the stew'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Regressive assimilation to nasality occurred in other Latin sound changes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparison with other clusters in Latin and their history suggests that *kn, *gn &gt; [ŋn] is a plausible sound change. Allen gives as an example the change of original *\*-pn-* to **-mn-** in Latin words such as *somnus.* Although *abn-,* with the letter B rather than M, occurred at the start of Latin words prefixed with *ab-,* Allen says that *a**mn**egauerit* actually exists as an inscriptional variant of *a**bn**egauerit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that etymological comparison with other languages and internal reconstruction shows that in some cases Classical Latin **gn** seems to have originated from some kind of partial assimilation of *\*k* to a following *\*n* (for example, [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dignus) says that the word *dignus* comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *deḱ-). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assimilation of plosives to nasals before nasal consonants is known to be a sound change that has occurred in other languages; for example, in [Korean][1], plosives like **p t k** were nasalized to **m n ŋ** before nasal consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, it's difficult for me to think of languages that had a sound change of /k/ to oral [g] before /n/. In my accent of English, there may be a single isolated example of historical /kn/ to [gn] in the word &quot;acknowledge&quot; (I made an ELU post about it [here](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/469859/is-the-first-syllable-of-acknowledge-pronounced-with-g-by-any-notable-amount)), but that's not a regular sound change (and I have [kn] in many other words.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can only think of a few things that seem like they might be comparable in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The word *segmentum* is said to be etymologically related to *secō*: this looks like an example of ***k** voicing to oral [g] before **m** in Latin. Sen (2015) gives a somewhat complicated explanation for the use of [g] rather than [ŋ] here: he attributes it to differences in the timing of the pronunciation of /n/ and /m/. Apparently, /n/ is articulated more quickly than /m/, which is supposed to have caused more overlap with the preceding /g/, resulting in greater perception of [ŋ] which eventually led to phonologization of [ŋ] as a conditioned nasal allophone of /g/ before /n/, but not before /m/ (pp. 183-184). Sen suggests that the existence of variation between word-forms with /gm/ and /gVm/ in Latin provides some additional evidence for a longer transition between /g/ and /m/ than between /g/ and /n/: the specific examples are *drachma~drac(h)uma* and *tegmen~tegimen~tegumen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There may be an example of coda /k/ assimilating to become voiced, but non-nasal **g** before the resonant /l/:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Sen (2011a) argues that the sonorants /r, l, m, n/ were phonologically specified as [+voice] ... in syllable-initial position ... Hence, we see regressive voice assimilation triggered by a syllable-initial sonorant in *\*nek̲-l̲egoː* &gt; *neg̲l̲egoː* ‘I neglect’, *\*sek̲m̲entom* &gt; *seg̲m̲entum* ‘piece’ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (Sen 2012, p. 38)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  However, I'm not sure that the explanation that Sen gives here for the presence of /g/ in *neglego* is correct, because we also find *neg-* before vowels in the word *negotium,* and perhaps in *nego.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Hackstein (2017) says that *nego* may be derived from *nec* &gt; *neg,* and offers two alternative explanations of the voicing: either it could have been conditioned by the word-final position of the plosive, as in *ab* &lt; PIE \**apo,* or it could have originally been the result of assimilation in voicedness to a following voiced plosive (&quot;*\*nekwe deikō* &gt; *\*neg dīcō* like *\*apo-doukō* &gt; *abdūcō* (cf. Sommer 1948:275)&quot;) with the form *neg* later generalized for some reason before sounds other than voiced plosives (and then eventually lost again in favor of *nec,* except for in old compounds) (pp. 2-3). I'm left with the impression that we don't actually know exactly how *neg-* came to be used in words like *neglego.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###There were spelling variants with -NGN- instead of -GN-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In previous versions of this answer, I forgot to mention another piece of evidence that some sources say supports the reconstruction [ŋn]: apparently, the spelling NGN is sometimes used instead of GN. Ward (1944) gives a couple of examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On inscriptions, even late ones, we find some spellings with *ngn,* as *singnifer, dingnissimē* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does seem natural to interpret **ngn** as indicating that the preceding vowel was followed immediately by a nasal consonant, rather than by an oral plosive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###However, Romance reflexes are often thought to point to [gn] rather than [ŋn]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see above, there are various pieces of evidence that support the reconstruction [ŋn]. But on the other hand, Allen says (p. 24) that some Romance words, such as French *lein* or Southern Italian *liunu* from Latin *lignum,* show the same development of coda *g* to a semivowel that occurs in non-nasal environments. This has been seen as evidence that the pronunciation [gn] may have been used after Classical times, possibly due to influence from the spelling. ([Maiden (1995)][2] also suggests this is a piece of evidence against reconstructing [ŋn] in Proto-Romance.) I'm a bit confused by this argument, though, because I'm not sure why [ŋ] is thought to be less likely than [g] to vocalize to [j] or [w].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No Latin grammarians seem to mention a pronunciation of **-gn-** as [ŋn]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the supposed problems with explaining how the Romance reflexes of **-gn-** could have developed from [ŋn], Allen notes that Latin grammarians &quot;are strangely silent about any nasal pronunciation of *g*&quot; (p. 24). In contrast, there are descriptions of the pronunciation of *n* as [ŋ] before **g** or **c**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Linguistic sources do tend to classify -gn- as containing the *phoneme* /g/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, all of the discussion in the previous sections is about the phonetic realization of **gn**. As far as I know, from a phonemic perspective it's standard to analyze **gn** as /gn/, and it seems to behave this way in contexts like the formation of diminutives: for example, the nouns *signum, tignum* correspond to the diminutive forms *sigillum, tigillum* where the **g** would have been pronounced as [g]—a voiced velar plosive, not a nasal. (I don't know how old these diminutive formations are thought to be.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2017. Hackstein, Olav. &quot;[Latin *negō* \*‘not I’](http://linguistics.cornell.edu/sites/linguistics/files/ECIEC%20Handouts.pdf).&quot; The 36th East Coast Indo-European Conference. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2015. Sen, Ranjan. *[Syllable and Segment in Latin](https://books.google.com/books?id=1VTCBwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA183&amp;lpg=PA183&amp;dq=Latin+ŋn).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2012. Sen, Ranjan. &quot;Reconstructing Phonological Change: Duration and Syllable Structure in Latin Vowel Reduction&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2011. Ringen, Catherine O. and Vago, Robert M. &quot;Geminates: Heavy or Long?&quot; *Handbook of the Syllable,* edited by Charles Cairns, Eric Raimy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1995. Maiden, Martin. *A Linguistic History of Italian.*&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1978. Allen, W. Sidney. *Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin.* Second Edition.  (First edition published 1965)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1944. Ward, Ralph L. &quot;Afterthoughts on g as ŋ in Latin and Greek.&quot; *Language,* Vol. 20, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1944), pp. 73-77.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1887. Roby, Henry John. *[A grammar of the Latin language from Plautus to Suetonius](https://archive.org/details/grammaroflatinla00robyuoft/page/n85).*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NN-yIdLOkCoC&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qK_8eXcCnu&amp;sig=u4MEiVBbuxhdzAg_rkkNX3D6RbY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiuvsbyo5HLAhXJsIMKHfWIA8UQ6AEIUzAH#v=onepage&amp;q=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=DwTKAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT127&amp;lpg=PT127&amp;dq=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1yMQKpnTe6&amp;sig=0k2p71mE_-YTdkZtyU9t3lvDnyI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNsZS2xITZAhWCzlkKHbbjAvM4ChDoAQhCMAU#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="a536ded4-bb8d-448d-8dd5-e1753aeb1212" CreationDate="2018-11-07T10:59:16.313" UserId="9" Comment="edited to add some more explanation of the differences between contexts" Text="A pronunciation like [sũːmʊs] for *summus* in Classical Latin seems rather unlikely considering that the Italian reflex is *[sommo](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/sommo)* [somːo] and not [suːmo].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, the letter M in Latin is thought to have represented the consonant /m/ in any position but word-final. So *sumus, summus, amplecti, sumpsisti* are something like [sʊmʊs], [sʊmːʊs], [amplɛktiː], [suːmpsɪstiː]. It seems plausible that the vowels preceding [m] in these words were pronounced with some amount of phonetic nasalization, but this kind of &quot;nasal vowel&quot; wouldn't have been phonologically distinct from a regular Latin vowel phoneme: the presence of nasalization here would be entirely predictable from the phonological context (as is the case for vowel nasalization in present-day English, which isn't normally marked in phonetic transcriptions). As far as I know, we don't have any actual evidence that these vowels were nasalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The (possible) presence of nasal vowels in word-final position, or before voiceless fricatives, is notable because we have evidence that the nasal consonants that originally conditioned the nasality of the vowels may have been lost in these two contexts, with &quot;compensatory&quot; lengthening of the vowel. We have clear evidence of the lengthening of vowels before *nf* and *ns*, and fairly clear evidence of the possible loss of *n* before *f* or *s* and of *m* in word-final position (particularly before a vowel). My understanding is that the existence of distinctively nasal long vowels in Latin (as opposed to non-nasal long vowels, or vowel + nasal consonant sequences) is mostly an inference, not something that we have clear evidence for (and so, as Alex B.'s answer mentions, it is a bit controversial).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7481" RevisionGUID="524140e5-b756-45ed-b23c-e2202d669188" CreationDate="2018-11-07T14:00:44.150" UserId="2646" Text="A typical Spanish dessert is the quince jelly (Spanish: *carne/dulce de membrillo*), which is also known as *codoñate* in areas of Catalan influence. Now, the Spanish word for quince is *membrillo*, which comes from Latin *melimēlum* 'honey apple'. But Catalan *codonyat* comes from the Catalan word for quince: *codony*, and this one comes from Latin *cotoneum, cotonei* 'quince'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems that the proper word for *quince* in Latin was *cotoneum* but I was wondering how is that the Spanish word *membrillo* comes from apparently a different fruit. So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is it possible that the Latin words *melimelum* and *cotoneum* meant the same thing in Classical Latin? Or maybe the word *melimelum* came to mean *quince* in Late or Medieval Latin?&#xD;&#xA;* Was *cotoneum* indeed the most used word for *quince*?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25097" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7481" RevisionGUID="524140e5-b756-45ed-b23c-e2202d669188" CreationDate="2018-11-07T14:00:44.150" UserId="2646" Text="Most used word for &quot;quince&quot; in classical Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25098" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7481" RevisionGUID="524140e5-b756-45ed-b23c-e2202d669188" CreationDate="2018-11-07T14:00:44.150" UserId="2646" Text="|classical-latin|late-latin|spanish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7454" RevisionGUID="0b60c723-62ee-4909-8af4-40a0d1ac5032" CreationDate="2018-11-07T15:33:55.293" UserId="3063" Comment="added 217 characters in body" Text="The translation the dictionary gave me was &quot;Fraternitas Militaris, which I am not sure is correct. Can someone inform me if I am getting poor information and, what the correct translation would be?&quot; I should note that the context of this is phrase is for a coin that I want to make for every Brother who has served as an officer (chancellor, vice-chancellor, scribe, treasurer, sergeant at arms) in the Fraternity. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7482" RevisionGUID="bdafc5b3-cb71-4edf-9994-a0ed27e90716" CreationDate="2018-11-07T16:18:54.503" UserId="645" Text="You might consider using *sodalitas*, rather than the quite rare, but still acceptable *fraternitas*. For 'officer' in the sense that you require, the best word from classical usage is probably *praepositus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Together, these would be used in the form *sodalitati praefectus*, literally  'officer for the fraternity'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7482" RevisionGUID="36c17322-554c-43b4-b629-9bf6bcef6dd8" CreationDate="2018-11-07T16:22:49.253" UserId="645" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="You might consider using *sodalitas*, rather than the quite rare, but still acceptable *fraternitas*. For 'officer' in the sense that you require, the best word from classical usage is probably *praepositus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Together, these would be used in the form *sodalitati praepositus*, literally  'officer for the fraternity'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7483" RevisionGUID="e9a18c71-c2ef-4176-91e1-13c168418f86" CreationDate="2018-11-07T16:58:59.013" UserId="645" Text="This is from Plin. Nat. Hist. Book 15, ix, 37 —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*his proxima amplitudine mala quae vocamus cotonea et Graece cydonea, e Creta insula advecta. incurvatos trahunt ramos prohibentque crescere parentem. plura eorum genera: chrysomela incisuris distincta, colore ad aurum inclinato, qui candidior nostratia cognominat, odoris praestantissimi*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— which, answering the second part of your question, seems to remove any doubt about *cotoneum* being the proper word for a quince.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I can't find *melimelum* anywhere, either directly through a search of the relevant books in Pliny's Natural History or Packhum, and I wonder where the word occurs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7484" RevisionGUID="dd77e69e-02d2-44a3-b10a-5e57e0b6b842" CreationDate="2018-11-07T18:20:10.113" UserId="324" Text="Very strangely, there is no entry for melimelum in (the electronic version of) L&amp;S. I do not have the print version before me at the moment, but there are lots of good references (Pliny and others) in Gaffiot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?q=melimelum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and in Georges:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.zeno.org/Zeno/0/Suche?q=melimelum&amp;k=Georges-1913&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: L&amp;S do have it, but only as a plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmelimela" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25105" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7021" RevisionGUID="05e8fc3d-be03-41d7-b678-1f04a647759b" CreationDate="2018-11-07T19:37:59.360" UserId="2532" Comment="Added tag negation" Text="|idiom|grammar-choice|ut|negation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25106" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7021" RevisionGUID="05e8fc3d-be03-41d7-b678-1f04a647759b" CreationDate="2018-11-07T19:37:59.360" Comment="Proposed by 2532 approved by 406 edit id of 271" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7485" RevisionGUID="16ec367e-a38a-4b07-a623-9917e078351a" CreationDate="2018-11-07T20:51:05.543" UserId="81" Text="According to the *[Etimologia botanica][1]* of Alexandre de Théis, these words originally referred to two different species. On the one hand, *melimelum* comes from the Greek μελίμηλον, and this originally belonged to the species *pyrus paradisiaca*:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **P. paradisiaca** (*pomme de paradis*). Par allusion à son goût doux et&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agréable. Les Grecs nommoient ce fruit, dans le même sens, μελίμηλον,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pomme de miel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quince, on the other hand, is the species *pyrus cydonia*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **P. cydonia.** Originaire de la ville de Cydon, en Crète, aujourd’hui la Canée. Les Latins l’appeloient malus-cotonea. Son fruit est couvert&#xD;&#xA;&gt; de coton avant sa maturité.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Le cotonea*, dit Pline, liv. 15, chap. 11, que les Grecs nomment cydoni, a été apporté de l’île de Crète.&lt;br/&gt; De *cydonia* nous avons&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fait *coing*, et de coing les Anglois ont fait *quince*.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Translation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **P. paradisiaca** (*apple of paradise*). Alluding to its sweet and pleasant flavor, the Greeks called this fruit, in the same sense, μελίμηλον,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; honey apple.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **P. cydonia.** Originally from the village Cydon, Crete, currently the city Chania. The Latins called it malus-cotonea. Its fruit is covered with cotton before coming to maturity.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Le cotonea*, says Pliny, book. 15, chap. 11, which the Greeks call cydoni, was brought from the isle of Crete.&lt;br/&gt; From *cydonia* we have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; derived *coing*, and from coing the English have derived *quince*.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.summagallicana.it/Etimologia_botanica/etimologia_botanica/etimologia_botanica_PING_PY.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7483" RevisionGUID="e84b0fe4-85d4-478e-a2ac-65b2e4ec3020" CreationDate="2018-11-07T21:27:30.170" UserId="-1" Comment="Pecunea nam nihil, puellas nam gratis! / Made cotonea stand out and put the book references in code quotes for the same reason. " Text="This is from Plin. Nat. Hist. Book 15, ix, 37 —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*his proxima amplitudine mala quae vocamus **cotonea** et Graece cydonea, e Creta insula advecta. incurvatos trahunt ramos prohibentque crescere parentem. plura eorum genera: chrysomela incisuris distincta, colore ad aurum inclinato, qui candidior nostratia cognominat, odoris praestantissimi*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— which, answering the second part of your question, seems to remove any doubt about *cotoneum* being the proper word for a quince.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I can't find *melimelum* anywhere, either directly through a search of the relevant books in `Pliny's Natural History` or `Packhum`, and I wonder where the word occurs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25109" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7483" RevisionGUID="e84b0fe4-85d4-478e-a2ac-65b2e4ec3020" CreationDate="2018-11-07T21:27:30.170" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by -1 edit id of 274" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7483" RevisionGUID="1bb1d59a-50a0-4e8c-8e34-c8671e3bd65f" CreationDate="2018-11-07T21:27:30.170" UserId="645" Comment="Pecunea nam nihil, puellas nam gratis! / Made cotonea stand out and put the book references in code quotes for the same reason. " Text="This is from Plin. Nat. Hist. Book 15, ix, 37 —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*his proxima amplitudine mala quae vocamus **cotonea** et Graece cydonea, e Creta insula advecta. incurvatos trahunt ramos prohibentque crescere parentem. plura eorum genera: chrysomela incisuris distincta, colore ad aurum inclinato, qui candidior nostratia cognominat, odoris praestantissimi*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— which, answering the second part of your question, seems to remove any doubt about *cotoneum* being the proper word for a quince.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I can't find *melimelum* anywhere, either directly through a search of the relevant books in Pliny's Natural History or `Packhum`, and I wonder where the word occurs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25111" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="59" RevisionGUID="e3d2a492-4c8f-4ace-92f2-2bb778868326" CreationDate="2018-11-07T21:33:46.333" UserId="2532" Comment="Added tag negation" Text="|verbs|nuance|negation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25112" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="59" RevisionGUID="e3d2a492-4c8f-4ace-92f2-2bb778868326" CreationDate="2018-11-07T21:33:46.333" Comment="Proposed by 2532 approved by 1459, -1 edit id of 272" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25113" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="59" RevisionGUID="54d6c192-d066-40fa-b886-0d6813f047b7" CreationDate="2018-11-07T21:33:46.333" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|verbs|nuance|prefix|negation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25116" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7478" RevisionGUID="0bf1427e-e368-44da-aea4-6463c503b298" CreationDate="2018-11-07T21:37:33.007" UserId="79" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7478" RevisionGUID="dc94fab6-cf8c-4585-9ba9-3f8624fdde2c" CreationDate="2018-11-07T22:13:11.137" UserId="3082" Comment="added 678 characters in body" Text="&gt;Priusquam digressus est, Aeneas a rege Heleno quaesivit quae pericula sibi vitanda essent. Ille Aenean ad Phoebi templum manu duxit, deinde dixit: &quot;Nate dea! Pauca tibi dicam, nam cetera fari vetat Iuno....Ubi ventus ad oram Siculam te advexerit, laevam pete! Nam illud fretum duo monstra horrenda tenent. ...Praestat totam Siciliam longo cursu circum ire. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is passage is part of chapter Andromache et Helenus in Lingva Latina of Pars II Roma Aeterna by Hans H.Orberg. I was only able to translate the first sentence that Aeneas met king Heleno who asked him about what difficulties Aeneas would need to avoid. (correct me if I am wrong). However, I really don't understand the any lines after that. I am just a second year Latin student who randomly got put into a higher class, and my latin skill is very lacking. I am sorry that I am just asking people for help without giving the necessary context. This is the first time I am using this website, and I just want to get help in Latin. Any help would me much appreciated.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7486" RevisionGUID="0c2c9f02-3890-48d4-8e56-6b16e66786a3" CreationDate="2018-11-07T22:39:10.380" UserId="3082" Text="So if I have a sentence that's like &quot;Hercules reliquit viam ut Megaram peteret.&quot; and I want to restart the purpose using gerund/gerundive, is the right to write,  &quot;Hercules viam reliquit ad petendum Megaram.&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25120" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7486" RevisionGUID="0c2c9f02-3890-48d4-8e56-6b16e66786a3" CreationDate="2018-11-07T22:39:10.380" UserId="3082" Text="Could someone tell me how to restart a &quot;ut&quot; purpose clause into gerund/gerundive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25121" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7486" RevisionGUID="0c2c9f02-3890-48d4-8e56-6b16e66786a3" CreationDate="2018-11-07T22:39:10.380" UserId="3082" Text="|grammar-choice|gerund|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7486" RevisionGUID="b13c1b2b-1fdf-4b28-801f-7483f961a168" CreationDate="2018-11-07T23:09:41.873" UserId="3082" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="So if I have a sentence that's like &quot;Hercules reliquit viam ut Megaram peteret.&quot; and I want to restart the purpose using gerund/gerundive, is the right to write,  &quot;Hercules viam reliquit ad petendum Megaram.&quot;? Should I be using gerund and gerundive here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7486" RevisionGUID="29e62483-2bf0-4344-b7f0-72671973309d" CreationDate="2018-11-08T02:18:46.300" UserId="1142" Comment="Grammar, phrasing, formatting" Text="Suppose I have a sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&quot;Hercules reliquit viam ut Megaram peteret.&quot;* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to rephrase the purpose clause using the gerund / gerundive; would it be correct to write the following? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&quot;Hercules viam reliquit ad petendum Megaram.&quot;* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I even be using the gerund / gerundive here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25124" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7486" RevisionGUID="29e62483-2bf0-4344-b7f0-72671973309d" CreationDate="2018-11-08T02:18:46.300" UserId="1142" Comment="Grammar, phrasing, formatting" Text="Is my rephrasing of this purpose clause correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7478" RevisionGUID="ceb5b921-4556-49ac-8e19-ada36ff4cba9" CreationDate="2018-11-08T03:47:54.400" UserId="3082" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="&gt; Priusquam digressus est, Aeneas a rege Heleno quaesivit quae pericula&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sibi vitanda essent. Ille Aenean ad Phoebi templum manu duxit, deinde&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dixit: &quot;Nate dea! Pauca tibi dicam, nam cetera fari vetat Iuno....Ubi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ventus ad oram Siculam te advexerit, laevam pete! Nam illud fretum duo&#xD;&#xA;&gt; monstra horrenda tenent. ...Praestat totam Siciliam longo cursu circum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ire. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is passage is part of chapter Andromache et Helenus in Lingva Latina of Pars II Roma Aeterna by Hans H.Orberg. I was only able to translate the first sentence that Aeneas met king Heleno who asked him about what difficulties Aeneas would need to avoid. (correct me if I am wrong). However, I really don't understand the any lines after that. I am just a second year Latin student who randomly got put into a higher class, and my latin skill is very lacking. I am sorry that I am just asking people for help without giving the necessary context. This is the first time I am using this website, and I just want to get help in Latin. Any help would me much appreciated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if what is the subject of tenent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25126" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="7478" RevisionGUID="7136e2ff-cfe6-41f6-9fc8-8e648fca0638" CreationDate="2018-11-08T04:10:17.923" UserId="79" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7487" RevisionGUID="7839bcd0-b1e2-4d07-be39-b7697a96c7a4" CreationDate="2018-11-08T10:42:03.440" UserId="81" Text="Although the gerund can be used to express purpose, it's not allowed in this case because of the direct object *Megaram*. As stated in *[Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar][1]*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The accusative of the gerund with a preposition never takes a direct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object in classic Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They provide more information on the correct usage as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **503.** When the gerund would have an object in the accusative, the Gerundive is generally used instead. The gerundive agrees with its&#xD;&#xA;&gt; noun, which takes the case that the gerund would have had.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***parātiōrēs ad omnia perīcula subeunda*** (B. G. 1.5)&lt;br/&gt; readier to undergo all dangers&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here ***subeunda*** agrees with ***perīcula***, which is itself governed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by ***ad***. The (inadmissible) construction with the gerund would be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***ad subeundum perīcula***; ***ad*** governing the gerund, and the gerund governing the accusative ***perīcula***. For details, see §§ 504 - 507,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/gerund-and-gerundive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7487" RevisionGUID="3c1d4958-8f57-43da-8b05-5bdd6cb27ed6" CreationDate="2018-11-08T11:03:53.707" UserId="81" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="Although the gerund can be used to express purpose, it's not allowed in this case because of the direct object *Megaram*. As stated in *[Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar][1]*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The accusative of the gerund with a preposition never takes a direct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; object in classic Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They provide more information on the correct usage as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **503.** When the gerund would have an object in the accusative, the Gerundive is generally used instead. The gerundive agrees with its&#xD;&#xA;&gt; noun, which takes the case that the gerund would have had.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***parātiōrēs ad omnia perīcula subeunda*** (B. G. 1.5)&lt;br/&gt; readier to undergo all dangers&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here ***subeunda*** agrees with ***perīcula***, which is itself governed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by ***ad***. The (inadmissible) construction with the gerund would be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***ad subeundum perīcula***; ***ad*** governing the gerund, and the gerund governing the accusative ***perīcula***. For details, see §§ 504 - 507,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your sentence could be expressed with the gerundive as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hercules viam reliquit ad Megaram petendam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/gerund-and-gerundive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7488" RevisionGUID="2e62ce54-2cb4-4cb2-8e48-a64edaef7458" CreationDate="2018-11-08T14:02:56.930" UserId="3085" Text="Can someone please tell me the appropriate translation for “life is fleeting”. So far I have come up with “vitae est labilis”.thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25130" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7488" RevisionGUID="2e62ce54-2cb4-4cb2-8e48-a64edaef7458" CreationDate="2018-11-08T14:02:56.930" UserId="3085" Text="Life is fleeting, “vitae est labilis”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25131" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7488" RevisionGUID="2e62ce54-2cb4-4cb2-8e48-a64edaef7458" CreationDate="2018-11-08T14:02:56.930" UserId="3085" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7489" RevisionGUID="69de1b2d-1c39-486a-a470-109049a91215" CreationDate="2018-11-08T14:04:09.150" UserId="39" Text="Relevant passages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Tum sive mala cydonia, quae percocta sublaturus sit ...” (Columella)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Quaeque suos curvant matura cydonia ramos” (Ovid)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Insecuta sunt Cydonia etiam mala spinis confixa, ut echinos efficeren” (Petronius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“. etenim sic flore iuventae&#xD;&#xA;induimur vultus, ut in arbore saepe notavi&#xD;&#xA;cerea sub tenui lucere cydonia lana.” (Calpurnicus Silicus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“The identification of the 'Cydonian apples' (μῆλα κυδώνια/mêla kydṓnia) or the Lat. mala cotonea - Italian cotogna denotes quince - with the quince (Cydonia oblonga) is at the very least dubious” (New Pauly)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7489" RevisionGUID="c9620cb3-64f3-4480-a755-095303d5f5c1" CreationDate="2018-11-08T14:09:57.413" UserId="39" Comment="added 191 characters in body" Text="Relevant passages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Tum sive **mala cydonia**, quae percocta sublaturus sit ...” (Columella)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Quaeque suos curvant matura **cydonia** ramos” (Ovid)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Insecuta sunt Cydonia etiam mala spinis confixa, ut echinos efficeren” (Petronius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“ etenim sic flore iuventae&#xD;&#xA;induimur vultus, ut in arbore saepe notavi&#xD;&#xA;cerea sub tenui lucere **cydonia** lana.” (Calpurnicus Silicus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“nec hoc praetereo, quod ex fructibus arborum illi sunt frigidiores, quorum sucus imitatur vini saporem, ut mala seu simplicia seu granata vel **cydonia**, **quae cotonea vocat Cato**” (Macrobius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“The identification of the 'Cydonian apples' (μῆλα κυδώνια/mêla kydṓnia) or the Lat. mala cotonea - Italian cotogna denotes quince - with the quince (Cydonia oblonga) is at the very least dubious” (New Pauly)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7489" RevisionGUID="1ac24017-6c0c-42a7-b5b2-d5ee2403f8a1" CreationDate="2018-11-08T14:14:59.580" UserId="39" Comment="added 191 characters in body" Text="Relevant passages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Tum sive mala cydonia, quae percocta sublaturus sit ...” (Columella)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Quaeque suos curvant matura cydonia ramos” (Ovid)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Insecuta sunt Cydonia etiam mala spinis confixa, ut echinos efficeren” (Petronius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“ etenim sic flore iuventae&#xD;&#xA;induimur vultus, ut in arbore saepe notavi&#xD;&#xA;cerea sub tenui lucere cydonia lana.” (Calpurnicus Silicus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“nec hoc praetereo, quod ex fructibus arborum illi sunt frigidiores, quorum sucus imitatur vini saporem, ut mala seu simplicia seu granata vel **cydonia, quae cotonea vocat Cato**” (Macrobius) [emphasis mine - Alex B.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“The identification of the 'Cydonian apples' (μῆλα κυδώνια/mêla kydṓnia) or the Lat. mala cotonea - Italian cotogna denotes quince - with the quince (Cydonia oblonga) is at the very least dubious” (New Pauly)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7491" RevisionGUID="eef22bed-900c-466b-82fb-c851bfad8f35" CreationDate="2018-11-08T14:51:05.357" UserId="3086" Text="please can you tell me if 'iter suscipere' is a correct translation of the phrase 'accept the journey' most particularly in the context of where I am taking it from , which is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Accept the journey. Be at peace in it. Watch it. When you can be at one with the difficulty and the chaos, then you transcend it. You simply walk your path, being observant, paying attention, learning and growing in your understanding of who you are and what is possible for you.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ilgner, Arno. The Rock Warrior's Way: Mental Training For Climbers. Desiderata Institute.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope you can help!&#xD;&#xA;Andy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25137" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7491" RevisionGUID="eef22bed-900c-466b-82fb-c851bfad8f35" CreationDate="2018-11-08T14:51:05.357" UserId="3086" Text="accept the journey - English to Latin translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25138" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7491" RevisionGUID="eef22bed-900c-466b-82fb-c851bfad8f35" CreationDate="2018-11-08T14:51:05.357" UserId="3086" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7492" RevisionGUID="01502acb-b181-4f4f-a03c-0120bccd9f43" CreationDate="2018-11-08T15:01:48.193" UserId="81" Text="The verb *suscipere* is passive, and since *iter* (having the same form in the nominative and accusative) can serve as either subject or object, it's grammatically correct, but it means something like &quot;May the journey be accepted.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The active form, &quot;Accept the journey&quot; would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iter suscipe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25140" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="7492" RevisionGUID="0123b09e-3cba-4797-bfde-ecd6648a3e2c" CreationDate="2018-11-08T15:04:18.753" UserId="81" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:81,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Expedito Bipes&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7492" RevisionGUID="dfc208aa-a736-4a93-b509-995f98a48d37" CreationDate="2018-11-08T15:07:35.110" UserId="81" Comment="deleted 209 characters in body" Text="The verb *suscipere* is the passive imperative. The active form would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iter suscipe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25142" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="7492" RevisionGUID="df0fcb3d-72be-42fc-8fcd-301736f89ab4" CreationDate="2018-11-08T15:07:44.743" UserId="81" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:81,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Expedito Bipes&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7489" RevisionGUID="9ab39d18-2389-43c6-8083-ee48021af302" CreationDate="2018-11-08T15:27:47.683" UserId="39" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="Relevant passages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Tum sive mala cydonia, quae percocta sublaturus sit ...” (Columella)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Quaeque suos curvant matura cydonia ramos” (Ovid)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Insecuta sunt Cydonia etiam mala spinis confixa, ut echinos efficeren” (Petronius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“ etenim sic flore iuventae&#xD;&#xA;induimur vultus, ut in arbore saepe notavi&#xD;&#xA;cerea sub tenui lucere cydonia lana.” (Calpurnicus Silicus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“nec hoc praetereo, quod ex fructibus arborum illi sunt frigidiores, quorum sucus imitatur vini saporem, ut mala seu simplicia seu granata vel **cydonia, quae cotonea vocat Cato**” (Macrobius) [emphasis mine - Alex B.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“The identification of the 'Cydonian apples' (μῆλα κυδώνια/mêla kydṓnia) or the Lat. mala cotonea - Italian cotogna denotes quince - with the quince (Cydonia oblonga) is at the very least dubious” (New Pauly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder what it looks like at L’Orto dei Frutti Dimenticati." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25144" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="28839415-88cb-447b-bdb0-d18af1e74f42" CreationDate="2018-11-08T15:42:37.673" UserId="2532" Comment="Added tag negation" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|philosophy-terms|logic|aristotle|negation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25145" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="28839415-88cb-447b-bdb0-d18af1e74f42" CreationDate="2018-11-08T15:42:37.673" Comment="Proposed by 2532 approved by 1459, 79 edit id of 273" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7489" RevisionGUID="ab87e25b-6cd9-44e3-a32d-4ead28514cd3" CreationDate="2018-11-08T15:50:44.843" UserId="39" Comment="added 195 characters in body" Text="Relevant passages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Tum sive mala cydonia, quae percocta sublaturus sit ...” (Columella)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Quaeque suos curvant matura cydonia ramos” (Ovid)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Insecuta sunt Cydonia etiam mala spinis confixa, ut echinos efficeren” (Petronius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“ etenim sic flore iuventae&#xD;&#xA;induimur vultus, ut in arbore saepe notavi&#xD;&#xA;cerea sub tenui lucere cydonia lana.” (Calpurnicus Silicus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“nec hoc praetereo, quod ex fructibus arborum illi sunt frigidiores, quorum sucus imitatur vini saporem, ut mala seu simplicia seu granata vel **cydonia, quae cotonea vocat Cato**” (Macrobius) [emphasis mine - Alex B.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Praeterea malorum genera exquirenda maxime Scaudiana, Matiana, orbiculata, Cestina, Pelusiana, Amerina, Syrica, melimela, Cydonia: quorum genera tria sunt, struthia, chrysomelina, mustea” (Columnella)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“The identification of the 'Cydonian apples' (μῆλα κυδώνια/mêla kydṓnia) or the Lat. mala cotonea - Italian cotogna denotes quince - with the quince (Cydonia oblonga) is at the very least dubious” (New Pauly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder what it looks like at L’Orto dei Frutti Dimenticati." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7489" RevisionGUID="66082689-a66e-48b1-abbb-5895aadc6557" CreationDate="2018-11-08T15:57:41.493" UserId="39" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="Relevant passages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Tum sive mala cydonia, quae percocta sublaturus sit ...” (Columella)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Quaeque suos curvant matura cydonia ramos” (Ovid)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Insecuta sunt Cydonia etiam mala spinis confixa, ut echinos efficeren” (Petronius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“ etenim sic flore iuventae&#xD;&#xA;induimur vultus, ut in arbore saepe notavi&#xD;&#xA;cerea sub tenui lucere cydonia lana.” (Calpurnicus Silicus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“nec hoc praetereo, quod ex fructibus arborum illi sunt frigidiores, quorum sucus imitatur vini saporem, ut mala seu simplicia seu granata vel **cydonia, quae cotonea vocat Cato**” (Macrobius) [emphasis mine - Alex B.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Praeterea malorum genera exquirenda maxime Scaudiana, Matiana, orbiculata, Cestina, Pelusiana, Amerina, Syrica, melimela, Cydonia: quorum genera tria sunt, struthia, chrysomelina, mustea” (Columnella)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“The identification of the 'Cydonian apples' (μῆλα κυδώνια/mêla kydṓnia) or the Lat. mala cotonea - Italian cotogna denotes quince - with the quince (Cydonia oblonga) is at the very least dubious” (New Pauly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, most importantly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder what it looks like at L’Orto dei Frutti Dimenticati.![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QHS46.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7493" RevisionGUID="8d3dbf30-591a-40c1-9b51-7d57de964bf1" CreationDate="2018-11-08T16:11:03.400" UserId="522" Text="This, I guess, is drawing on Horace's Ode to Postumus:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Sadly, the fleeting years slip away.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Eheu fugaces Postume, Postume, Labuntur anni, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*vitae labilis*  (without *est* ) means 'slippery lives,' or 'stumbling lives.'&#xD;&#xA;For 'Fleeting years' Horace chose *Fugaces Anni.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 'Life is Fleeting,' if you would like to follow Horace, would be ***Vita Fugax,*** or *Fugax est Vita.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Fugax*** [Fugax II. Trop. A. www.perseus.tufts][1] is the reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DF%3Aentry%20group%3D30%3Aentry%3Dfugax" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7488" RevisionGUID="ee84e444-1378-4f35-8adb-1ddb7b61cfe0" CreationDate="2018-11-08T16:20:46.987" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="Can someone please tell me the appropriate translation for “life is fleeting”. So far I have come up with “_vitae est labilis_”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7491" RevisionGUID="3a3ea23d-5045-4c97-afc5-1301495b4462" CreationDate="2018-11-08T16:22:36.963" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body; edited title" Text="Please can you tell me if '_iter suscipere_' is a correct translation of the phrase 'accept the journey' most particularly in the context of where I am taking it from, which is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Accept the journey. Be at peace in it. Watch it. When you can be at one with the difficulty and the chaos, then you transcend it. You simply walk your path, being observant, paying attention, learning and growing in your understanding of who you are and what is possible for you.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Ilgner, Arno. The Rock Warrior's Way: Mental Training For Climbers. Desiderata Institute.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25152" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7491" RevisionGUID="3a3ea23d-5045-4c97-afc5-1301495b4462" CreationDate="2018-11-08T16:22:36.963" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body; edited title" Text="Translating &quot;accept the journey&quot; into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7494" RevisionGUID="3591e58f-3275-494d-abeb-ba8bbd72b368" CreationDate="2018-11-08T20:56:59.380" UserId="3089" Text="Wikipedia says Caesar Augustus was born **Gaius Octavius Thurinus**, making his *nomen* Octavius and that nomen would have held sway prior to his ascension to emperor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Screenwriters, though, seem always to refer to him as &quot;Octavian&quot; at that time of his life. A classicist I know assures me that his actual name after he had been adopted into the Julii as &quot;Octavianus.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, was that name ever used and, if so, when and for what reason(s)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25160" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7494" RevisionGUID="3591e58f-3275-494d-abeb-ba8bbd72b368" CreationDate="2018-11-08T20:56:59.380" UserId="3089" Text="In what contexts, exactly, did Augustus use the name Octavianus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25161" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7494" RevisionGUID="3591e58f-3275-494d-abeb-ba8bbd72b368" CreationDate="2018-11-08T20:56:59.380" UserId="3089" Text="|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7495" RevisionGUID="2251a77c-8e3f-4718-84d1-0f8f2ee7e41e" CreationDate="2018-11-08T21:59:02.767" UserId="406" Text="In the idealized system of the *tria nomina*, the form it had around the end of the Republic and the start of the Empire, the *nomen* indicated what clan (*gens*) someone belonged to. It was the most important part of the name, since it tied them into a larger family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The man who would later be known as Augustus was born into the fairly obscure and unimportant plebeian *gens Octavia*, giving him the *nomen* of *Octavius* from birth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When someone was adopted, they entered into a new *gens*, and thus took on a new *nomen* (and *cognomen* if applicable). When Caesar adopted Augustus, the latter replaced his own *nomen* with *Julius*, and his own *cognomen* with *Caesar*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, to indicate one's birth family, pre-adoption, the custom was to take the original *nomen* and add the ending *-anus* &quot;related to&quot;, using it as an additional *cognomen*. So he became, officially, *Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, of course, he wouldn't have been called *Octavianus* until he was adopted and became *Julius*. Using *Octavianus* or &quot;Octavian&quot; earlier in his life is an anachronism to make it clear who's being talked about, since Roman names can be confusing to people who aren't used to them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7494" RevisionGUID="887b729f-a7c7-4945-b1b3-a487da000fa2" CreationDate="2018-11-08T22:29:19.557" UserId="3089" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Wikipedia says Caesar Augustus was born **Gaius Octavius Thurinus**, making his *nomen* Octavius and that nomen would have held sway prior to his ascension to emperor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Screenwriters, though, seem always to refer to him as &quot;Octavian&quot; at that time of his life. A classicist I know assures me that his actual name after he had been adopted into the Julii was &quot;Octavianus.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, was that name ever used and, if so, when and for what reason(s)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7496" RevisionGUID="d49cf1ba-1d1d-4100-b7ac-ddb53f490ce0" CreationDate="2018-11-09T00:40:24.877" UserId="406" Text="This is an interesting question, and one I was surprised hadn't been answered here before!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First and foremost, Ψαπφω is wrong, insofar as ψ indicates the sound `/ps/` in Attic Greek. Hephaestion's *Handbook on Meters* 14.4 has the following example of the twelve-syllable Alcaic line (taken from Loeb 142 p404):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἰόπλοκ᾿ ἄγνα μελλιχόμειδε Σάπφοι  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ióplok' ágna mellichómeide Sápphoi  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;violet-haired, holy, sweetly-smiling Sappho&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The syllable right before Sappho's name here has to be short, and if it were followed by a `/ps/` sound, it would have become long &quot;by position&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly enough, according to [Brown][1] (page 61), every manuscript that preserves this fragment writes it differently from Loeb: Alcaeus wrote it *Σσαπφοι Ssapphoi*. This could be an error, which is why Loeb corrects it, but it's apparently found in every manuscript. And there definitely couldn't be a double `/ss/` sound there, for the same reason there can't be a `/ps/`: there can only be a single short consonant in that position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could this mean? Well, some loanwords involve a sound that's written σσ but tends to scan short: see the quantities in Παρνασός/Παρνασσός, &quot;Mount Parnassus&quot;, for example. In that particular case, it may have come from a Luwian possessive suffix, with a `/ʃ/` (&quot;sh&quot;) sound. There's also the puzzling sibilant in Pre-Greek θάλασσα/θάλαθθα/θάλαττα &quot;sea&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where did this sound come from? Some scholars have proposed a Luwian cognate to Hittite *šuppi-* &quot;ritually pure&quot;, while Brown goes farther back, connecting it to Hattian (pre-Hittite) *šḫap-* &quot;god&quot;, as a shortened form of the Hittite name *Šapalli* &quot;numinous&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why is it so often written with a psi? [Zuntz][2] says that it's a misinterpretation of an entirely separate letter, found in many non-standard Greek alphabets from Asia Minor and used in words like θάλα??α. After the letter vanished from everyday use, later scribes interpreted it as the closest letter they recognized, like how &quot;þe olde&quot; (that is, &quot;the olde&quot;) was reinterpreted as &quot;ye olde&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This separate letter might descend from the Linear B  *se*, the way Icelandic added the rune þ to the Latin alphabet, later evolving into ϡ *sampi* before vanishing. Or it could come from Phoenician  *ṣade*/dialectal Greek Ϻ *san*. Either way, it could easily have indicated the `/ʃ/` sound that was missing from Attic Greek—and it's known that Sappho wrote digammas in her poems, so it's not much of a stretch to say she used other extra letters too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There's *also* an unrelated name *Ψαφων Psaphōn*, found only in Doric, which confused things further. But both Zuntz and Brown agree this is unrelated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***TL;DR: She likely pronounced her name &quot;Šappho&quot;, and wrote it that way, with a letter not in the standard Attic alphabet.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/12278/illinoisclassica151991BROWN.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=mhl-001:1951:8::22#22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7496" RevisionGUID="4db4be30-3950-409b-b696-10c0cc8ad20b" CreationDate="2018-11-09T00:54:54.407" UserId="406" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="This is an interesting question, and one I was surprised hadn't been answered here before!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First and foremost, Ψαπφω is wrong, insofar as ψ indicates the sound `/ps/` in Attic Greek. Hephaestion's *Handbook on Meters* 14.4 has the following example of the twelve-syllable Alcaic line (taken from Loeb 142 p404):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἰόπλοκ᾿ ἄγνα μελλιχόμειδε Σάπφοι  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ióplok' ágna mellichómeide Sápphoi  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;violet-haired, holy, sweetly-smiling Sappho&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The syllable right before Sappho's name here has to be short, and if it were followed by a `/ps/` sound, it would have become long &quot;by position&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly enough, according to [Brown][1] (page 61), every manuscript that preserves this fragment writes it differently from Loeb: Alcaeus wrote it *Σσαπφοι Ssapphoi*. This could be an error, which is why Loeb corrects it, but it's apparently found in every manuscript. And there definitely couldn't be a double `/ss/` sound there, for the same reason there can't be a `/ps/`: there can only be a single short consonant in that position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could this mean? Well, some loanwords involve a sound that's written σσ but tends to scan short: see the quantities in Παρνασός/Παρνασσός, &quot;Mount Parnassus&quot;, for example. In that particular case, it may have come from a Luwian possessive suffix, with a `/ʃ/` (&quot;sh&quot;) sound. There's also the puzzling sibilant in Pre-Greek θάλασσα/θάλαθθα/θάλαττα &quot;sea&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why would a sibilant be written with a psi? [Zuntz][2] says that it's a misinterpretation of an entirely separate letter, found in many non-standard Greek alphabets from Asia Minor and used in words like θάλα??α. After the letter vanished from everyday use, later scribes interpreted it as the closest letter they recognized, like how &quot;þe olde&quot; (that is, &quot;the olde&quot;) was reinterpreted as &quot;ye olde&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This separate letter might descend from the Linear B  *se*, the way Icelandic added the rune þ to the Latin alphabet, later evolving into ϡ *sampi* before vanishing. Or it could come from Phoenician  *ṣade*/dialectal Greek Ϻ *san*. Either way, it could easily have indicated the `/ʃ/` sound that was missing from Attic Greek—and it's known that Sappho wrote digammas in her poems, so it's not much of a stretch to say she used other extra letters too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And where did this non-Greek sibilant in Sappho's name come from? Some scholars have proposed a Luwian cognate to Hittite *šuppi-* &quot;ritually pure&quot;, while Brown goes farther back, connecting it to Hattian (pre-Hittite) *šḫap-* &quot;god&quot;, as a shortened form of the Hittite name *Šapalli* &quot;numinous&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There's *also* an unrelated name *Ψαφων Psaphōn* &quot;draughts-player&quot;, found only in Doric, which confuses things further. But both Zuntz and Brown agree this is a red herring.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***TL;DR: She likely pronounced her name &quot;Šappho&quot;, and wrote it that way, with a letter not in the standard Attic alphabet.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/12278/illinoisclassica151991BROWN.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=mhl-001:1951:8::22#22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7489" RevisionGUID="72f18e6c-5fa7-47e5-8231-c15be956b506" CreationDate="2018-11-09T01:06:42.680" UserId="39" Comment="edited body" Text="Relevant passages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Tum sive mala cydonia, quae percocta sublaturus sit ...” (Columella)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Quaeque suos curvant matura cydonia ramos” (Ovid)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Insecuta sunt Cydonia etiam mala spinis confixa, ut echinos efficeren” (Petronius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“ etenim sic flore iuventae&#xD;&#xA;induimur vultus, ut in arbore saepe notavi&#xD;&#xA;cerea sub tenui lucere cydonia lana.” (Calpurnicus Silicus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“nec hoc praetereo, quod ex fructibus arborum illi sunt frigidiores, quorum sucus imitatur vini saporem, ut mala seu simplicia seu granata vel **cydonia, quae cotonea vocat Cato**” (Macrobius) [emphasis mine - Alex B.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Praeterea malorum genera exquirenda maxime Scaudiana, Matiana, orbiculata, Cestina, Pelusiana, Amerina, Syrica, melimela, Cydonia: quorum genera tria sunt, struthia, chrysomelina, mustea” (Columnella)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“The identification of the 'Cydonian apples' (μῆλα κυδώνια/mêla kydṓnia) or the Lat. mala cotonea - Italian cotogna denotes quince - with the quince (Cydonia oblonga) is at the very least dubious” (New Pauly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, most importantly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QHS46.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder what it looks like at L’Orto dei Frutti Dimenticati." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7497" RevisionGUID="c95f0851-7c4c-4f84-99b7-ec183a5ef32d" CreationDate="2018-11-09T05:18:01.090" UserId="522" Text="The key to this piece is ***quas tuas angit amor*** ‘whom your love torments.’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Angilbert uses enantiosemy three times to convey the uncertainty and **anx**iety. Does *retractant* mean ‘undertake anew?’ or does it mean ‘be reluctant , hesitate?’ he uses a word which has both meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *re-trāctō (-trectō） āvī, ātus, āre*   be reluctant , hesitate  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or	....	to undertake anew. [Lewis&amp;Short Perseus Tufts][1]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ango, xi, ctum, and anxum,* 3, v. a. to distress, torment, torture  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or	....	to embrace, to surround Lewis &amp; Short ([Perseus.uchicago][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *luo*  make amends, expiate, suffer punishment for  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or....	loose, let go, free&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, leaving out three descriptive phrases, and translating *quid* as How!&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quid Gisla et Theodrada simul retractant?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (quas tuus angit amor)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid Gisla,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid Liutgardis, luat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How Gisla and Theodrada at the same time resolve **and** hesitate!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (they whom your love strangles **and** embraces)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; How Gisla is,   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; how Liutgardis is liberated **and** goes through torment!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:**enantiosemy** (OUP) &#xD;&#xA;A case of polysemy in which one sense is in some respect the opposite of another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: Quid adv. interrog.&#xD;&#xA;'How they guzzle and booze!' *Quid comedent! ebibent!* ([Perseus Tufts L&amp;S][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3Dr%3Aentry%20group%3D11%3Aentry%3Dretracto&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.0:2563.lewisandshort.4389655&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3Dq%3Aentry%20group%3D3%3Aentry%3Dquid1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7497" RevisionGUID="ba36e385-fbe7-4856-9305-642dc8f056bf" CreationDate="2018-11-09T05:25:44.570" UserId="522" Comment="ref:" Text="The key to this piece is ***quas tuas angit amor*** ‘whom your love torments.’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Angilbert uses enantiosemy three times to convey the uncertainty and **anx**iety. Does *retractant* mean ‘undertake anew?’ or does it mean ‘be reluctant , hesitate?’ he uses a word which has both meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *re-trāctō (-trectō） āvī, ātus, āre*   be reluctant , hesitate  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or	....	to undertake anew. [Lewis&amp;Short Perseus Tufts][1]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ango, xi, ctum, and anxum,* 3, v. a. to distress, torment, torture  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or	....	to embrace, to surround Lewis &amp; Short ([Perseus.uchicago][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *luo*  make amends, expiate, suffer punishment for  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or....	loose, let go, be free [(Lewis&amp;Short)][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, leaving out three descriptive phrases, and translating *quid* as How!&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quid Gisla et Theodrada simul retractant?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (quas tuus angit amor)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid Gisla,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid Liutgardis, luat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How Gisla and Theodrada at the same time resolve **and** hesitate!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (they whom your love strangles **and** enfolds)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; How Gisla is,   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; how Liutgardis is liberated **and** goes through torment!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:**enantiosemy** (OUP) &#xD;&#xA;A case of polysemy in which one sense is in some respect the opposite of another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: Quid adv. interrog.&#xD;&#xA;'How they guzzle and booze!' *Quid comedent! ebibent!* ([Perseus Tufts L&amp;S][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3Dr%3Aentry%20group%3D11%3Aentry%3Dretracto&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.0:2563.lewisandshort.4389655&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=luo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3Dq%3Aentry%20group%3D3%3Aentry%3Dquid1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25171" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7473" RevisionGUID="45a1674a-74c0-48a0-9140-6c6f3dadf123" CreationDate="2018-11-09T05:35:28.410" UserId="522" Comment="edited tags" Text="|verbs|rhetoric|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7498" RevisionGUID="aee504b6-3dca-4d9b-854b-f4d9ccd834c0" CreationDate="2018-11-09T06:23:04.240" UserId="522" Text="Here are the bare bones of the piece; I hope you can find your way from here. Good Luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P*riusquam digressus est* (Temporal clause &quot;Before he(Aeneas) set off...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Aeneas a rege Heleno quaesivit* (Main clause &quot;Aeneas inquired from King H...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *quae pericula sibi vitanda essent*.(Indirect question(subjunctive) &quot;..what dangers there were)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *Ille Aenean ad...  manu duxit*,  (New main clause &quot;He led A by the hand to...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *&quot;Pauca tibi dicam, nam*... (Direct speech: &quot;Few things I will say to you, because...)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;*Ubi ventus ad oram Siculam te advexerit*, (Adverbial &quot;When the wind drives you...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*laevam pete!*  (Imperative &quot;Aim for the...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nam illud fretum duo monstra horrenda tenent*.(Causal &quot;Because monsters hold &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *...Praestat ... circum ire.* &quot; (Main Clause &quot;It is better to go round)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7499" RevisionGUID="8655ef47-35b6-4be3-8f58-ad4e62a6b718" CreationDate="2018-11-09T12:28:31.090" UserId="81" Text="The verb *luo* comes from the Greek λύω, which means to destroy or loose, often in the sense of undoing a legal obligation or relationship. The Greek word is similar in meaning to the Latin *solvo*. This meaning is carried over somewhat into the meaning of the Latin *luo*. For instance, one of the definitions given by [L&amp;S][1] is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to render void, of no effect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that makes most sense in this context. Given that *quid* can mean &quot;why&quot; and *luat* is in the subjunctive, I understand the meaning to be something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why should Liutgardis, in her happiness, disengage from the love of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the king?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=luo&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7489" RevisionGUID="7a5ef92f-8523-4c38-8051-8652d40976f9" CreationDate="2018-11-09T13:03:13.407" UserId="39" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="Relevant passages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Tum sive mala cydonia, quae percocta sublaturus sit ...” (Columella)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Quaeque suos curvant matura cydonia ramos” (Ovid)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Insecuta sunt Cydonia etiam mala spinis confixa, ut echinos efficeren” (Petronius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“ etenim sic flore iuventae&#xD;&#xA;induimur vultus, ut in arbore saepe notavi&#xD;&#xA;cerea sub tenui lucere cydonia lana.” (Calpurnicus Silicus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“nec hoc praetereo, quod ex fructibus arborum illi sunt frigidiores, quorum sucus imitatur vini saporem, ut mala seu simplicia seu granata vel **cydonia, quae cotonea vocat Cato**” (Macrobius) [emphasis mine - Alex B.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Praeterea malorum genera exquirenda maxime Scaudiana, Matiana, orbiculata, Cestina, Pelusiana, Amerina, Syrica, melimela, Cydonia: quorum genera tria sunt, struthia, chrysomelina, mustea” (Columnella)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“The identification of the 'Cydonian apples' (μῆλα κυδώνια/mêla kydṓnia) or the Lat. mala cotonea - Italian cotogna denotes quince - with the quince (Cydonia oblonga) is **at the very least dubious**” (New Pauly) [emphasis mine - Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, most importantly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QHS46.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder what it looks like at L’Orto dei Frutti Dimenticati." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7499" RevisionGUID="2ec3db49-37ec-4f22-abbb-50dfb6156d4c" CreationDate="2018-11-09T13:46:37.300" UserId="81" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The verb *luo* is a cognate of the Greek λύω, which means to destroy or loose, often in the sense of undoing a legal obligation or relationship. The Greek word is similar in meaning to the Latin *solvo*. When comparing λύω with the Latin *luo*, a similar sense can be observed. For instance, one of the definitions given by [L&amp;S][1] is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to render void, of no effect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that makes most sense in this context. Given that *quid* can mean &quot;why&quot; and *luat* is in the subjunctive, I understand the meaning to be something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why should Liutgardis, in her happiness, disengage from the love of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the king?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=luo&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7499" RevisionGUID="e44aa3c5-85a5-4470-8006-a002deedbef1" CreationDate="2018-11-09T14:10:41.743" UserId="81" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The verb *luo* is a cognate of the Greek λύω, which means to destroy or loose, often in the sense of undoing a legal obligation or relationship. The Greek word is similar in meaning to the Latin *solvo*. When comparing λύω with the Latin *luo*, a similar sense can be observed. For instance, one of the definitions given by [L&amp;S][1] is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to render void, of no effect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that makes most sense in this context. Given that *quid* can mean &quot;why&quot; and *luat* is in the subjunctive, I understand the meaning to be something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why should Liutgard, in her happiness, disengage from the love of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the king?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=luo&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7500" RevisionGUID="fb59a65d-122b-41e6-a086-e2f0de0aa8ba" CreationDate="2018-11-09T14:26:12.337" UserId="645" Text="*Ars longa, vita brevis* is an ancient translation from the Greek of Hippocrates, occurring in the first lines of his *Aphorismi*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aphorism is well-known and understood in English. The best answer in my view is undoubtedly **vita brevis**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7502" RevisionGUID="d69b710b-1028-4ac3-bf68-f501864d43a4" CreationDate="2018-11-09T17:59:23.720" UserId="406" Text="The word θάλασσα *thálassa* &quot;sea&quot; is spelled in various different ways, with different letters replacing the sigmas: some dialects had a tau, for example, while others had a theta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know (through loans and cognates, for example, or transcriptions into other languages) what underlying sound these various letters were representing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25180" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7502" RevisionGUID="d69b710b-1028-4ac3-bf68-f501864d43a4" CreationDate="2018-11-09T17:59:23.720" UserId="406" Text="What was the sibilant in θάλασσα?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25181" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7502" RevisionGUID="d69b710b-1028-4ac3-bf68-f501864d43a4" CreationDate="2018-11-09T17:59:23.720" UserId="406" Text="|greek|pronunciation|alphabet|phonology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7503" RevisionGUID="4da28c5d-0a71-4ef9-bbd1-3431f39b2cdb" CreationDate="2018-11-09T20:46:55.717" UserId="81" Text="There have been various theories about the phonetic value of ττ and σσ, but it`s often held that they were pronounced as might be expected, i.e. as [tt] and [ss]. The philologist Sidney Allen argues as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These facts have led some scholars to suppose that both the ττ of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Attic and the σσ of other dialects represent different attempts to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; write such an affricate without the use of a special symbol; and that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the pronunciation as a double plosive or fricative is a post-classical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; development, based in part at least on the spelling. But apart from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the improbability of spelling influence on colloquial speech in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; antiquity, it is scarcely credible that the existence of an affricate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sound would not have been revealed in any inscriptional spelling&#xD;&#xA;&gt; outside those mentioned above (e.g. as τσ), nor the tradition of it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; survive in the account of any grammarian. On the other hand it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perfectly feasible for both [tt] and [ss] to develop from an earlier&#xD;&#xA;&gt; affricate, and there seems therefore no need whatever to assume that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the ττ of Attic or the σσ of other dialects mean anything more than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they appear to. (Sidney Allen, *Vox Graeca, A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek*, pg.58)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geoffrey Horrocks also attributes the values [tt] and [ss] to ττ and σσ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [I]t was noted that many of the adopted place names and vocabulary&#xD;&#xA;&gt; items borrowed from the pre-Greek languages of the Aegean basin had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; undergone dialectally diagnostic sound changes. The almost certainly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; borrowed word for ‘sea’ , for example, has the following forms:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1] both of which reveal the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dialectally standard products of the palatalization of an original&#xD;&#xA;&gt; voiceless dental or velar by a following semi - vowel. 3 Consider the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; example in (6): [![enter image description here][2]][2] Allen (1958)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; explains this divergent dialectal development on the assumption of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generalized heavy palatalization of /t/ in Boeotian: the Attic reflex&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is then probably due to close contact with Boeotian at the time of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; change (on which see further below). But the fact that loanwords such&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as that in (5) undergo developments identical to those undergone by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; native vocabulary (even though we cannot, of course, discover the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exact form in which such words were first borrowed) strongly suggests&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the division of Greek into the historical dialects attested in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; literature and alphabetic inscriptions had only taken place after all&#xD;&#xA;&gt; its future speakers had become established in the Aegean area.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Geoffrey Horrocks, *Greek, A History of the Language and its&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Speakers*, pg.19)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YvLHb.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0A12J.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7503" RevisionGUID="4db53058-8223-49ad-b5e2-837a6b591f94" CreationDate="2018-11-09T20:53:56.143" UserId="81" Comment="added 1185 characters in body" Text="There have been various theories about the phonetic value of ττ and σσ, but it`s often held that they were pronounced as might be expected, i.e. as [tt] and [ss]. The philologist Sidney Allen argues as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These facts have led some scholars to suppose that both the ττ of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Attic and the σσ of other dialects represent different attempts to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; write such an affricate without the use of a special symbol; and that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the pronunciation as a double plosive or fricative is a post-classical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; development, based in part at least on the spelling. But apart from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the improbability of spelling influence on colloquial speech in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; antiquity, it is scarcely credible that the existence of an affricate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sound would not have been revealed in any inscriptional spelling&#xD;&#xA;&gt; outside those mentioned above (e.g. as τσ), nor the tradition of it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; survive in the account of any grammarian. On the other hand it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perfectly feasible for both [tt] and [ss] to develop from an earlier&#xD;&#xA;&gt; affricate, and there seems therefore no need whatever to assume that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the ττ of Attic or the σσ of other dialects mean anything more than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they appear to. (Sidney Allen, *Vox Graeca, A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek*, pg.58)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geoffrey Horrocks also attributes the values [tt] and [ss] to ττ and σσ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [I]t was noted that many of the adopted place names and vocabulary&#xD;&#xA;&gt; items borrowed from the pre-Greek languages of the Aegean basin had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; undergone dialectally diagnostic sound changes. The almost certainly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; borrowed word for ‘sea’ , for example, has the following forms:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1] both of which reveal the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dialectally standard products of the palatalization of an original&#xD;&#xA;&gt; voiceless dental or velar by a following semi - vowel. 3 Consider the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; example in (6): [![enter image description here][2]][2] Allen (1958)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; explains this divergent dialectal development on the assumption of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generalized heavy palatalization of /t/ in Boeotian: the Attic reflex&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is then probably due to close contact with Boeotian at the time of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; change (on which see further below). But the fact that loanwords such&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as that in (5) undergo developments identical to those undergone by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; native vocabulary (even though we cannot, of course, discover the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exact form in which such words were first borrowed) strongly suggests&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the division of Greek into the historical dialects attested in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; literature and alphabetic inscriptions had only taken place after all&#xD;&#xA;&gt; its future speakers had become established in the Aegean area.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Geoffrey Horrocks, *Greek, A History of the Language and its&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Speakers*, pg.19)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Additional information:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although your question doesn't deal with why σσ was abandoned in Attic Greek, I thought you might be interested in the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But, like many literary languages, literary Attic was subject to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; influences from outside the restricted area of the spoken dialect,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; most particularly from Ionic. And one of the most characteristic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; features of this influence is the substitution of forms with σσ for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the ττ of 'pure' Attic as exemplified by the inscriptions. In fact in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tragedy, and in prose works up to and including Thucydides, the ττ of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Attic is almost entirely avoided. Even though normal Attic grammar was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used, and Attic phonology generally adopted, it seems that the ττ was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; felt as something of a provincialism by contrast with the σσ of most&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the rest of the Greek-speaking world—all the more to be avoided as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a characteristic of the speech of the 'συοβοιωτοί'; and even false&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ionicisms (notably ἡσσᾶσθαι as against Attic ἡττᾶσθαι and Ionic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἑσσοῦσθαι) were liable to be perpetrated in avoidance of this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shibboleth. (Sidney Allen, *Vox Graeca, A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek*, pg.11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YvLHb.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0A12J.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7503" RevisionGUID="177a69b7-abc6-470f-9ca4-13fc4c646aeb" CreationDate="2018-11-09T20:59:44.970" UserId="81" Comment="added 1185 characters in body" Text="There have been various theories about the phonetic value of ττ and σσ, but it`s often held that they were pronounced as might be expected, i.e. as [tt] and [ss]. The philologist Sidney Allen argues as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These facts have led some scholars to suppose that both the ττ of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Attic and the σσ of other dialects represent different attempts to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; write such an affricate without the use of a special symbol; and that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the pronunciation as a double plosive or fricative is a post-classical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; development, based in part at least on the spelling. But apart from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the improbability of spelling influence on colloquial speech in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; antiquity, it is scarcely credible that the existence of an affricate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sound would not have been revealed in any inscriptional spelling&#xD;&#xA;&gt; outside those mentioned above (e.g. as τσ), nor the tradition of it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; survive in the account of any grammarian. On the other hand it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perfectly feasible for both [tt] and [ss] to develop from an earlier&#xD;&#xA;&gt; affricate, and there seems therefore no need whatever to assume that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the ττ of Attic or the σσ of other dialects mean anything more than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; they appear to. (Sidney Allen, *Vox Graeca, A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek*, pg.58)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geoffrey Horrocks also attributes the values [tt] and [ss] to ττ and σσ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [I]t was noted that many of the adopted place names and vocabulary&#xD;&#xA;&gt; items borrowed from the pre-Greek languages of the Aegean basin had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; undergone dialectally diagnostic sound changes. The almost certainly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; borrowed word for ‘sea’ , for example, has the following forms:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1] both of which reveal the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dialectally standard products of the palatalization of an original&#xD;&#xA;&gt; voiceless dental or velar by a following semi - vowel. 3 Consider the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; example in (6): [![enter image description here][2]][2] Allen (1958)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; explains this divergent dialectal development on the assumption of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generalized heavy palatalization of /t/ in Boeotian: the Attic reflex&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is then probably due to close contact with Boeotian at the time of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; change (on which see further below). But the fact that loanwords such&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as that in (5) undergo developments identical to those undergone by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; native vocabulary (even though we cannot, of course, discover the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exact form in which such words were first borrowed) strongly suggests&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the division of Greek into the historical dialects attested in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; literature and alphabetic inscriptions had only taken place after all&#xD;&#xA;&gt; its future speakers had become established in the Aegean area.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Geoffrey Horrocks, *Greek, A History of the Language and its&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Speakers*, pg.19)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Additional information:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although your question doesn't deal with the following, I thought you might be interested:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But, like many literary languages, literary Attic was subject to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; influences from outside the restricted area of the spoken dialect,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; most particularly from Ionic. And one of the most characteristic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; features of this influence is the substitution of forms with σσ for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the ττ of 'pure' Attic as exemplified by the inscriptions. In fact in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tragedy, and in prose works up to and including Thucydides, the ττ of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Attic is almost entirely avoided. Even though normal Attic grammar was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used, and Attic phonology generally adopted, it seems that the ττ was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; felt as something of a provincialism by contrast with the σσ of most&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the rest of the Greek-speaking world—all the more to be avoided as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a characteristic of the speech of the 'συοβοιωτοί'; and even false&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ionicisms (notably ἡσσᾶσθαι as against Attic ἡττᾶσθαι and Ionic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἑσσοῦσθαι) were liable to be perpetrated in avoidance of this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shibboleth. (Sidney Allen, *Vox Graeca, A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek*, pg.11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YvLHb.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0A12J.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7497" RevisionGUID="d6f0a523-8cd2-43b1-a1fa-26776dade18a" CreationDate="2018-11-09T21:23:56.103" UserId="522" Comment="epexegesis" Text="The key to this piece is ***quas tuas angit amor*** ‘whom your love torments.’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Angilbert uses enantiosemy **three times** to convey the uncertainty and (*angit!*)**anx**iety. (Double meaning in the Carolingian Court is almost always a sign of wit and scholarship [jon LLStackExch 1143][1]) Does *retractant* mean ‘undertake anew?’ or does it mean ‘be reluctant, hesitate?’ he uses a word which has both meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *re-trāctō (-trectō āvī, ātus, āre)*   be reluctant , hesitate  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or	....	to undertake anew. [Lewis&amp;Short Perseus Tufts][2]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ango, xi, ctum, and anxum,* 3, v. a. to distress, torment, torture  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or	....	to embrace, to surround Lewis &amp; Short ([Perseus.uchicago][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *luo*  make amends, expiate, suffer punishment for  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; or....	loose, let go, be free [(Lewis&amp;Short)][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Luo* in particular has two meanings, two etymologies, both loan words from Greek, lŭo ere lui from λουω (wash) which gives Latin compounds diluo and eluo.&#xD;&#xA;Lŭo ere lui from λυω (loosen) which gives the Latin compounds solvo (soluo), dissolvo.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;So, leaving out three descriptive phrases, and translating *quid* as How!&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quid Gisla et Theodrada simul retractant?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (quas tuus angit amor)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid Gisla,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid Liutgardis, luat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How Gisla and Theodrada at the same time resolve **and** hesitate!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (they whom your love strangles **and** enfolds)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; How Gisla is,   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; how Liutgardis is liberated **and** goes through torment!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:**enantiosemy** (OUP) &#xD;&#xA;A case of polysemy in which one sense is in some respect the opposite of another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: Quid adv. interrog.&#xD;&#xA;'How they guzzle and booze!' *Quid comedent! ebibent!* ([Perseus Tufts L&amp;S][5])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000687.html?pageNo=59&amp;sortIndex=010%3A060%3A0007%3A010%3A00%3A00&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3Dr%3Aentry%20group%3D11%3Aentry%3Dretracto&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.0:2563.lewisandshort.4389655&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=luo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3Dq%3Aentry%20group%3D3%3Aentry%3Dquid1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7504" RevisionGUID="16e1d298-9fe1-4549-bb06-483daae92e4e" CreationDate="2018-11-09T21:41:37.603" UserId="39" Text="We can only speculate about the exact nature of the &quot;foreign phoneme&quot; but everyone agrees that θάλασσα is Pre-Greek (i.e. not IE), one of the reasons being that **there were no geminates in neither in the PIE nor in Pre-Greek** (Beekes, Brixhe etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it seems that almost everyone believes the underlying consonant to be a palatalized velar, e.g. *-χyᾰ (Lejeune 1972, §98d) or *kʲᾰ (Beekes); cf. Macedonian (?) θαλάγχα(ν).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7504" RevisionGUID="2829b04b-97d3-48b1-a98e-dde867c57bdf" CreationDate="2018-11-09T22:24:23.290" UserId="39" Comment="added 513 characters in body" Text="We can only speculate about the exact nature of the &quot;foreign phoneme&quot; but everyone agrees that θάλασσα is Pre-Greek (i.e. not IE), one of the reasons being that **there were no geminates in neither in the PIE nor in Pre-Greek** (Beekes, Brixhe etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it seems that almost everyone believes the underlying consonant to be a palatalized velar, e.g. *-χyᾰ (Lejeune 1972, §98d) or *kʲᾰ (Beekes); cf. Macedonian (?) θαλάγχα(ν).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;geminate tt in Attic is a reflex of part of the palatalization isogloss shared with Boeotian and Euboean, corresponding to the geminate ss of Ionic and other dialects: cf. lexical forms like thálatta ‘sea’, glôtta ‘tongue’ vs. Ion. thálassa, glôssa, or verbal formations like *eret-jō &gt; eréttō ‘I row’ (cf. erétēs ‘rower’), *kāruk-jō &gt; kērúttō ‘I announce’ vs. Ion. eréssō, kērússō&quot; (Angeliki Malikouti-Drachman, “Phonology (Survey)”, in: Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, 2013). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7504" RevisionGUID="68b08b48-b28d-4187-b0a4-78639b75258c" CreationDate="2018-11-09T22:58:46.930" UserId="39" Comment="added 284 characters in body" Text="We can only speculate about the exact nature of the &quot;foreign phoneme&quot; but everyone agrees that θάλασσα is Pre-Greek (i.e. not IE), one of the reasons being that **there were no geminates in neither in the PIE nor in Pre-Greek** (Beekes, Brixhe etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it seems that almost everyone believes the underlying consonant to be a palatalized velar, e.g. *-χyᾰ ([Lejeune 1972][1], §98d) or *kʲᾰ (Beekes); cf. Macedonian (?) θαλάγχα(ν).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Stephen Colvin ([Colvin 2007][2]) writes, &quot;the prehistory of these clusters [i.e. obstruent +y, Alex B.] is complex and much disputed&quot; (p. 26). On the one hand, we have Attica, Boeotia, and Crete (depalatalization: *ty &gt; *tt&lt;sup&gt;y&lt;/sup&gt; &gt; tt), and the rest of Greece (assibilation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;geminate tt in Attic is a reflex of part of the palatalization isogloss shared with Boeotian and Euboean, corresponding to the geminate ss of Ionic and other dialects: cf. lexical forms like thálatta ‘sea’, glôtta ‘tongue’ vs. Ion. thálassa, glôssa, or verbal formations like *eret-jō &gt; eréttō ‘I row’ (cf. erétēs ‘rower’), *kāruk-jō &gt; kērúttō ‘I announce’ vs. Ion. eréssō, kērússō&quot; (Angeliki Malikouti-Drachman, [“Phonology (Survey)”][3], in: Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, 2013). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.klincksieck.com/livre/1542-phonetique-historique-du-mycenien-et-du-grec-ancien&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-historical-greek-reader-9780199226603?cc=us&amp;lang=en&amp;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/phonology-survey-COM_00000283?s.num=6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7504" RevisionGUID="cdbf1a37-443f-4a1a-a552-d0bc6df7ed3e" CreationDate="2018-11-09T23:04:15.177" UserId="39" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="We can only speculate about the exact nature of the &quot;foreign phoneme&quot; but everyone agrees that θάλασσα is Pre-Greek (i.e. not IE), one of the reasons being that **there were no geminates in neither in the PIE nor in Pre-Greek** (Beekes, Brixhe etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it seems that almost everyone believes the underlying consonant to be a palatalized velar, e.g. *-χyᾰ ([Lejeune 1972][1], §98d) or *kʲᾰ (Beekes, kya in his notation); cf. Macedonian (?) θαλάγχα(ν).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Stephen Colvin ([Colvin 2007][2]) writes, &quot;the prehistory of these clusters [i.e. obstruent +y, Alex B.] is complex and much disputed&quot; (p. 26). On the one hand, we have Attica, Boeotia, and Crete (depalatalization: *ty &gt; *tt&lt;sup&gt;y&lt;/sup&gt; &gt; tt), and the rest of Greece (assibilation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;geminate tt in Attic is a reflex of part of the palatalization isogloss shared with Boeotian and Euboean, corresponding to the geminate ss of Ionic and other dialects: cf. lexical forms like thálatta ‘sea’, glôtta ‘tongue’ vs. Ion. thálassa, glôssa, or verbal formations like *eret-jō &gt; eréttō ‘I row’ (cf. erétēs ‘rower’), *kāruk-jō &gt; kērúttō ‘I announce’ vs. Ion. eréssō, kērússō&quot; (Angeliki Malikouti-Drachman, [“Phonology (Survey)”][3], in: Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, 2013). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.klincksieck.com/livre/1542-phonetique-historique-du-mycenien-et-du-grec-ancien&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-historical-greek-reader-9780199226603?cc=us&amp;lang=en&amp;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/phonology-survey-COM_00000283?s.num=6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7504" RevisionGUID="dfa5838d-3c53-4e9b-b88b-5b5c9fcf7b3c" CreationDate="2018-11-09T23:19:55.180" UserId="39" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="We can only speculate about the exact nature of the &quot;foreign phoneme&quot; but everyone agrees that θάλασσα is Pre-Greek (i.e. not IE), one of the reasons being that **there were no geminates in neither in the PIE nor in Pre-Greek** (Beekes, Brixhe etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Stephen Colvin ([Colvin 2007][1]) writes, &quot;the prehistory of these clusters [i.e. obstruent +y, Alex B.] is complex and much disputed&quot; (p. 26).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bubenik 2017][2] offers a very clear and a rather compelling account of how this might have happened. He writes that dental and velar palatalization, with subsequent affrication, happened in Proto-Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*tj &gt; *t'j &gt; *t's'j&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*kj &gt; *k'j &gt; *t's'j (in his notation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The palatal glide was later lost, the palatal affricate was depalatalized and merged with Proto-Greek *ts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This cluster, Bubenik writes, &quot;could be subject to progressive assimilation  *ts &gt; tt* (in Boeotian, Attic and Central Cretan) or to regressive assimilation *ts&gt; ss* (in other dialects)' (p. 647). Thus, he classifies all the dialects into four groups:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it seems that almost everyone believes the underlying consonant to be a palatalized velar, e.g. *-χyᾰ ([Lejeune 1972][3], §98d) or *kʲᾰ (Beekes, kya in his notation); cf. Macedonian (?) θαλάγχα(ν).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;geminate tt in Attic is a reflex of part of the palatalization isogloss shared with Boeotian and Euboean, corresponding to the geminate ss of Ionic and other dialects: cf. lexical forms like thálatta ‘sea’, glôtta ‘tongue’ vs. Ion. thálassa, glôssa, or verbal formations like *eret-jō &gt; eréttō ‘I row’ (cf. erétēs ‘rower’), *kāruk-jō &gt; kērúttō ‘I announce’ vs. Ion. eréssō, kērússō&quot; (Angeliki Malikouti-Drachman, [“Phonology (Survey)”][4], in: Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, 2013). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-historical-greek-reader-9780199226603?cc=us&amp;lang=en&amp;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110261288/9783110261288-040/9783110261288-040.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.klincksieck.com/livre/1542-phonetique-historique-du-mycenien-et-du-grec-ancien&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/phonology-survey-COM_00000283?s.num=6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7504" RevisionGUID="9cc4f391-ae68-4ce1-8ba3-a887dabb6cbb" CreationDate="2018-11-09T23:30:28.643" UserId="39" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="We can only speculate about the exact nature of the &quot;foreign phoneme&quot; but everyone agrees that θάλασσα is Pre-Greek (i.e. not IE), one of the reasons being that **there were no geminates in neither in the PIE nor in Pre-Greek** (Beekes, Brixhe etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Stephen Colvin ([Colvin 2007][1]) writes, &quot;the prehistory of these clusters [i.e. obstruent +y, Alex B.] is complex and much disputed&quot; (p. 26).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bubenik 2017][2] offers a very clear and a rather compelling account of how this might have happened. He writes that dental and velar palatalization, with subsequent affrication, happened in Proto-Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*tj &gt; *t'j &gt; *t's'j&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*kj &gt; *k'j &gt; *t's'j (in his notation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The palatal glide was later lost, the palatal affricate was depalatalized and merged with Proto-Greek *ts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This cluster, Bubenik writes, &quot;could be subject to progressive assimilation  *ts &gt; tt* (in Boeotian, Attic and Central Cretan) or to regressive assimilation *ts&gt; ss* (in other dialects)' (p. 647). Thus, he classifies all the dialects into the following groups:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Arcado-Cretan and Ionic: PG *k(h)j, tw &gt; ss; PG *t(h)j, *ts and *ss &gt; s;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Aeolic and West: all of those &gt; ss;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Attica, Euboea, and Boeotia: PG *k(h)j, *tw, and partly **t(h)j &gt; tt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He speculates that tt &quot;could have belonged to the Aeolic basilect, surviving in Boeotian (and extended to [Western?] Attic), but eliminated partially in Thessalian and wholly in Lesbian&quot; (p. 648).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it seems that almost everyone believes the underlying consonant to be a palatalized velar, e.g. *-χyᾰ ([Lejeune 1972][3], §98d) or *kʲᾰ (Beekes, kya in his notation); cf. Macedonian (?) θαλάγχα(ν).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;geminate tt in Attic is a reflex of part of the palatalization isogloss shared with Boeotian and Euboean, corresponding to the geminate ss of Ionic and other dialects: cf. lexical forms like thálatta ‘sea’, glôtta ‘tongue’ vs. Ion. thálassa, glôssa, or verbal formations like *eret-jō &gt; eréttō ‘I row’ (cf. erétēs ‘rower’), *kāruk-jō &gt; kērúttō ‘I announce’ vs. Ion. eréssō, kērússō&quot; (Angeliki Malikouti-Drachman, [“Phonology (Survey)”][4], in: Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, 2013). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-historical-greek-reader-9780199226603?cc=us&amp;lang=en&amp;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110261288/9783110261288-040/9783110261288-040.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.klincksieck.com/livre/1542-phonetique-historique-du-mycenien-et-du-grec-ancien&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/phonology-survey-COM_00000283?s.num=6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7504" RevisionGUID="723f9ed0-fa64-4554-a776-58cf3fad2a31" CreationDate="2018-11-10T00:07:10.353" UserId="39" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="We can only speculate about the exact nature of the [&quot;foreign phoneme&quot;][1] but everyone agrees that θάλασσα is Pre-Greek (i.e. not IE), one of the reasons being that **there were no geminates in neither in the PIE nor in Pre-Greek** (Beekes, Brixhe etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Stephen Colvin ([Colvin 2007][2]) writes, &quot;the prehistory of these clusters [i.e. obstruent +y, Alex B.] is complex and much disputed&quot; (p. 26).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bubenik 2017][3] offers a very clear and a rather compelling account of how this might have happened. He writes that dental and velar palatalization, with subsequent affrication, happened in Proto-Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*tj &gt; *t'j &gt; *t's'j&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*kj &gt; *k'j &gt; *t's'j (in his notation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The palatal glide was later lost, the palatal affricate was depalatalized and merged with Proto-Greek *ts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This cluster, Bubenik writes, &quot;could be subject to progressive assimilation  *ts &gt; tt* (in Boeotian, Attic and Central Cretan) or to regressive assimilation *ts&gt; ss* (in other dialects)' (p. 647). Thus, he classifies all the dialects into the following groups:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Arcado-Cretan and Ionic: PG *k(h)j, tw &gt; ss; PG *t(h)j, *ts and *ss &gt; s;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Aeolic and West: all of those &gt; ss;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Attica, Euboea, and Boeotia: PG *k(h)j, *tw, and partly **t(h)j &gt; tt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He speculates that tt &quot;could have belonged to the Aeolic basilect, surviving in Boeotian (and extended to [Western?] Attic), but eliminated partially in Thessalian and wholly in Lesbian&quot; (p. 648).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it seems that almost everyone believes the underlying consonant to be a palatalized velar, e.g. *-χyᾰ ([Lejeune 1972][4], §98d) or *kʲᾰ (Beekes, kya in his notation); cf. Macedonian (?) θαλάγχα(ν).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;geminate tt in Attic is a reflex of part of the palatalization isogloss shared with Boeotian and Euboean, corresponding to the geminate ss of Ionic and other dialects: cf. lexical forms like thálatta ‘sea’, glôtta ‘tongue’ vs. Ion. thálassa, glôssa, or verbal formations like *eret-jō &gt; eréttō ‘I row’ (cf. erétēs ‘rower’), *kāruk-jō &gt; kērúttō ‘I announce’ vs. Ion. eréssō, kērússō&quot; (Angeliki Malikouti-Drachman, [“Phonology (Survey)”][5], in: Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, 2013). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jiesonline.com/issues/protected/jies3712/14(191-197)Beekes.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-historical-greek-reader-9780199226603?cc=us&amp;lang=en&amp;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110261288/9783110261288-040/9783110261288-040.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.klincksieck.com/livre/1542-phonetique-historique-du-mycenien-et-du-grec-ancien&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/phonology-survey-COM_00000283?s.num=6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7504" RevisionGUID="e0310e46-d649-4866-833a-e7d31bea0838" CreationDate="2018-11-10T03:12:43.710" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="We can only speculate about the exact nature of the [&quot;foreign phoneme&quot;][1] but everyone agrees that θάλασσα is Pre-Greek (i.e. not IE), one of the reasons being that **there were no geminates either in the PIE or in Pre-Greek** (Beekes, Brixhe etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Stephen Colvin ([Colvin 2007][2]) writes, &quot;the prehistory of these clusters [i.e. obstruent +y, Alex B.] is complex and much disputed&quot; (p. 26).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bubenik 2017][3] offers a very clear and a rather compelling account of how this might have happened. He writes that dental and velar palatalization, with subsequent affrication, happened in Proto-Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*tj &gt; *t'j &gt; *t's'j&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*kj &gt; *k'j &gt; *t's'j (in his notation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The palatal glide was later lost, the palatal affricate was depalatalized and merged with Proto-Greek *ts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This cluster, Bubenik writes, &quot;could be subject to progressive assimilation  *ts &gt; tt* (in Boeotian, Attic and Central Cretan) or to regressive assimilation *ts&gt; ss* (in other dialects)' (p. 647). Thus, he classifies all the dialects into the following groups:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Arcado-Cretan and Ionic: PG *k(h)j, tw &gt; ss; PG *t(h)j, *ts and *ss &gt; s;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Aeolic and West: all of those &gt; ss;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Attica, Euboea, and Boeotia: PG *k(h)j, *tw, and partly **t(h)j &gt; tt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He speculates that tt &quot;could have belonged to the Aeolic basilect, surviving in Boeotian (and extended to [Western?] Attic), but eliminated partially in Thessalian and wholly in Lesbian&quot; (p. 648).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it seems that almost everyone believes the underlying consonant to be a palatalized velar, e.g. *-χyᾰ ([Lejeune 1972][4], §98d) or *kʲᾰ (Beekes, kya in his notation); cf. Macedonian (?) θαλάγχα(ν).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;geminate tt in Attic is a reflex of part of the palatalization isogloss shared with Boeotian and Euboean, corresponding to the geminate ss of Ionic and other dialects: cf. lexical forms like thálatta ‘sea’, glôtta ‘tongue’ vs. Ion. thálassa, glôssa, or verbal formations like *eret-jō &gt; eréttō ‘I row’ (cf. erétēs ‘rower’), *kāruk-jō &gt; kērúttō ‘I announce’ vs. Ion. eréssō, kērússō&quot; (Angeliki Malikouti-Drachman, [“Phonology (Survey)”][5], in: Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, 2013). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jiesonline.com/issues/protected/jies3712/14(191-197)Beekes.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-historical-greek-reader-9780199226603?cc=us&amp;lang=en&amp;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110261288/9783110261288-040/9783110261288-040.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.klincksieck.com/livre/1542-phonetique-historique-du-mycenien-et-du-grec-ancien&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/phonology-survey-COM_00000283?s.num=6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7504" RevisionGUID="d76ef0e9-e2fe-497b-b52d-3f05a772c417" CreationDate="2018-11-10T03:32:35.623" UserId="39" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="We can only speculate about the exact *underlying* nature of the [&quot;foreign phoneme&quot;][1] but everyone agrees that θάλασσα is Pre-Greek (i.e. not IE), one of the reasons being that **there were no geminates either in the PIE or in Pre-Greek** (Beekes, Brixhe etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Stephen Colvin ([Colvin 2007][2]) writes, &quot;the prehistory of these clusters [i.e. obstruent +y, Alex B.] is complex and much disputed&quot; (p. 26).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bubenik 2017][3] offers a very clear and a rather compelling account of how this might have happened. He writes that dental and velar palatalization, with subsequent affrication, happened in Proto-Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*tj &gt; *t'j &gt; *t's'j&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*kj &gt; *k'j &gt; *t's'j (in his notation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The palatal glide was later lost, the palatal affricate was depalatalized and merged with Proto-Greek *ts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This cluster, Bubenik writes, &quot;could be subject to progressive assimilation  *ts &gt; tt* (in Boeotian, Attic and Central Cretan) or to regressive assimilation *ts&gt; ss* (in other dialects)' (p. 647). Thus, he classifies all the dialects into the following groups:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Arcado-Cretan and Ionic: PG *k(h)j, tw &gt; ss; PG *t(h)j, *ts and *ss &gt; s;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Aeolic and West: all of those &gt; ss;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Attica, Euboea, and Boeotia: PG *k(h)j, *tw, and partly **t(h)j &gt; tt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He speculates that tt &quot;could have belonged to the Aeolic basilect, surviving in Boeotian (and extended to [Western?] Attic), but eliminated partially in Thessalian and wholly in Lesbian&quot; (p. 648).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it seems that almost everyone believes the underlying consonant to be a palatalized velar, e.g. *-χyᾰ ([Lejeune 1972][4], §98d) or *kʲᾰ (Beekes, kya in his notation); cf. Macedonian (?) θαλάγχα(ν).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;geminate tt in Attic is a reflex of part of the palatalization isogloss shared with Boeotian and Euboean, corresponding to the geminate ss of Ionic and other dialects: cf. lexical forms like thálatta ‘sea’, glôtta ‘tongue’ vs. Ion. thálassa, glôssa, or verbal formations like *eret-jō &gt; eréttō ‘I row’ (cf. erétēs ‘rower’), *kāruk-jō &gt; kērúttō ‘I announce’ vs. Ion. eréssō, kērússō&quot; (Angeliki Malikouti-Drachman, [“Phonology (Survey)”][5], in: Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, 2013). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jiesonline.com/issues/protected/jies3712/14(191-197)Beekes.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-historical-greek-reader-9780199226603?cc=us&amp;lang=en&amp;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110261288/9783110261288-040/9783110261288-040.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.klincksieck.com/livre/1542-phonetique-historique-du-mycenien-et-du-grec-ancien&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/phonology-survey-COM_00000283?s.num=6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7505" RevisionGUID="cd03840f-5362-4d23-9990-2f8e99e37fc3" CreationDate="2018-11-10T04:44:58.057" UserId="406" Text="Suppose I wish to talk about the various aspects of Roman religion: prayers, festivals, sacrifices, and everything else. In English, &quot;observances&quot; is a fairly general term for all of these aspects together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an equivalent term in Latin? I'm mostly interested in the official religion of the state, so whether or not it includes things like mystery cults and Christian practices doesn't matter to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25197" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7505" RevisionGUID="cd03840f-5362-4d23-9990-2f8e99e37fc3" CreationDate="2018-11-10T04:44:58.057" UserId="406" Text="What is the general word for a religious ceremony or observation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25198" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7505" RevisionGUID="cd03840f-5362-4d23-9990-2f8e99e37fc3" CreationDate="2018-11-10T04:44:58.057" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|religio|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7505" RevisionGUID="94003a38-925b-49c9-8afc-cca59b6e3d55" CreationDate="2018-11-10T05:03:32.720" UserId="406" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="Suppose I wish to talk about the various aspects of Roman religion: prayers, festivals, sacrifices, and everything else. In English, &quot;observances&quot; is a fairly general term for all of these aspects together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an equivalent term in Latin? I'm mostly interested in the official religion of the (pre-Constantine) state, so whether or not the term includes things like mystery cults and Christian practices doesn't matter to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7506" RevisionGUID="ea18d21a-4f38-4685-b781-1db7001fb49b" CreationDate="2018-11-10T12:34:49.600" UserId="645" Text="Like English, Latin has words for particular ceremonies, but unlike English, it does actually have a general word, **caerimonia**, which is used for sacred ceremonies (but not for profane usages). Another word, *ritus*, is more general and may be used for both sacred and profane." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7499" RevisionGUID="df7f188d-ba28-46df-90aa-c01debf5c11c" CreationDate="2018-11-10T13:18:20.330" UserId="81" Comment="added 320 characters in body" Text="The verb *luo* is a cognate of the Greek λύω, which means to destroy or loose, often in the sense of undoing a legal obligation or relationship. The Greek word is similar in meaning to the Latin *solvo*. When comparing λύω with the Latin *luo*, a similar sense can be observed. For instance, one of the definitions given by [L&amp;S][1] is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to render void, of no effect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that makes most sense in this context. Given that *quid* can mean &quot;why&quot; and *luat* is in the subjunctive, I understand the meaning to be something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why should Liutgard, in her happiness, disengage from the love of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the king?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that *to disengage* is a precise translation for *luere*, because I believe *luere*, in this case, expresses the idea of dissolving whatever bond of love that might have existed. However, I thought that &quot;disengage&quot; sounded more natural and succinct for expressing that idea.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=luo&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25202" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7292" RevisionGUID="850f4449-c969-4ada-84a9-b152f2a12e02" CreationDate="2018-11-10T13:32:28.090" UserId="2532" Comment="Added tag negation" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|conjunctive|tenses|negation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25203" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7292" RevisionGUID="850f4449-c969-4ada-84a9-b152f2a12e02" CreationDate="2018-11-10T13:32:28.090" Comment="Proposed by 2532 approved by 79 edit id of 275" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25204" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7099" RevisionGUID="ee11e7e1-3da6-47c4-ba86-2773c88d182b" CreationDate="2018-11-10T14:21:24.033" UserId="2532" Comment="Added tag negation" Text="|etymology|spanish|negation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25205" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7099" RevisionGUID="ee11e7e1-3da6-47c4-ba86-2773c88d182b" CreationDate="2018-11-10T14:21:24.033" Comment="Proposed by 2532 approved by 79 edit id of 277" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25206" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6764" RevisionGUID="26cd3172-32ab-48dd-a54e-249998d9e5fe" CreationDate="2018-11-10T14:21:30.917" UserId="2532" Comment="Added tag negation based on the contents of both question and answer: The question is about _lacking_ something, which is the same as negating having it." Text="|derivation|negation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25207" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6764" RevisionGUID="26cd3172-32ab-48dd-a54e-249998d9e5fe" CreationDate="2018-11-10T14:21:30.917" Comment="Proposed by 2532 approved by 79 edit id of 279" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7504" RevisionGUID="cb4f9dc2-1a2f-4b22-8e35-16cdfe7d0ff6" CreationDate="2018-11-10T14:25:13.017" UserId="39" Comment="added 204 characters in body" Text="We can only speculate about the exact *underlying* nature of the [&quot;foreign phoneme&quot;][1]; on the other hand, its surface realization is obvious, [tt] or [ss], and there is nothing interesting or puzzling about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below is my *summary* of the most relevant research on this problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everyone agrees that θάλασσα is Pre-Greek (i.e. not IE), one of the reasons being that **there were no geminates either in the PIE or in Pre-Greek** (Beekes, Brixhe etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Stephen Colvin ([Colvin 2007][2]) writes, &quot;the prehistory of these clusters [i.e. obstruent +y, Alex B.] is complex and much disputed&quot; (p. 26). That being said, the communis opinio seems to be that the underlying consonant to be a palatalized velar, e.g. *-χyᾰ ([Lejeune 1972][4], §98d) or *kʲᾰ (Beekes, kya in his notation); cf. Macedonian (?) θαλάγχα(ν).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bubenik 2017][3] offers a very clear and a rather compelling account of how this might have happened. He writes that dental and velar palatalization, with subsequent affrication, happened in Proto-Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*tj &gt; *t'j &gt; *t's'j&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*kj &gt; *k'j &gt; *t's'j (in his notation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The palatal glide was later lost, the palatal affricate was depalatalized and merged with Proto-Greek *ts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This cluster, Bubenik writes, &quot;could be subject to progressive assimilation  *ts &gt; tt* (in Boeotian, Attic and Central Cretan) or to regressive assimilation *ts&gt; ss* (in other dialects)' (p. 647). Thus, he classifies all the dialects into the following groups:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Arcado-Cretan and Ionic: PG *k(h)j, tw &gt; ss; PG *t(h)j, *ts and *ss &gt; s;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Aeolic and West: all of those &gt; ss;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Attica, Euboea, and Boeotia: PG *k(h)j, *tw, and partly **t(h)j &gt; tt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He speculates that tt &quot;could have belonged to the Aeolic basilect, surviving in Boeotian (and extended to [Western?] Attic), but eliminated partially in Thessalian and wholly in Lesbian&quot; (p. 648).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;geminate tt in Attic is a reflex of part of the palatalization isogloss shared with Boeotian and Euboean, corresponding to the geminate ss of Ionic and other dialects: cf. lexical forms like thálatta ‘sea’, glôtta ‘tongue’ vs. Ion. thálassa, glôssa, or verbal formations like *eret-jō &gt; eréttō ‘I row’ (cf. erétēs ‘rower’), *kāruk-jō &gt; kērúttō ‘I announce’ vs. Ion. eréssō, kērússō&quot; (Angeliki Malikouti-Drachman, [“Phonology (Survey)”][5], in: Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, 2013). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in more dialect data, feel free to peruse Thumb and Scherer  or even Meister.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jiesonline.com/issues/protected/jies3712/14(191-197)Beekes.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-historical-greek-reader-9780199226603?cc=us&amp;lang=en&amp;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110261288/9783110261288-040/9783110261288-040.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.klincksieck.com/livre/1542-phonetique-historique-du-mycenien-et-du-grec-ancien&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/phonology-survey-COM_00000283?s.num=6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7507" RevisionGUID="95fb7204-7eb4-403c-8fc6-951cbe49271b" CreationDate="2018-11-10T14:27:26.340" UserId="81" Text="In *De Civitate Dei*, Augustine quotes Varro, who was the author of *Antiquitates rerum divinarum*. The latter was making distinctions between the various conceptions of the Roman gods. Concerning the third *genus* of these conceptions, he says: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tertium genus est [...] quod in urbibus cives, maxime sacerdotes,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nosse atque administrare debent. In quo est, quos	deos publice sacra&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ac sacrificia colere et facere quemque par sit. (Varro, cf. *De&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Civitate Dei* vi, ch. 5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of particular interest is his use of the word *sacra.* Among the definitions for ***sacrum*** given by [Lewis][1] is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A sacred act, religious rite, act of worship, sacrifice, religious&#xD;&#xA;&gt; service&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=sacra&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7466" RevisionGUID="c39db8d9-916a-41d9-a471-73a7e938baa2" CreationDate="2018-11-10T14:37:45.067" UserId="2532" Comment="Corrected typos and added correct place of publishing for Sjöstrand’s grammar." Text="Background&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb _īnsum_ has the prefix _in-_. Prefixing _in_/_in-_ to words, changes their meaning to ‘in’, ‘on’ _et sim._, or ‘un-’, ‘non’ _et sim._ (ɔ:¹ negation).² However, according to [Wiktionary][1], the pronunciation of _in_ changes in some context; this supported by [Lewis][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first, my understanding was that this pronunciation change – ɔ: from [ɪ] to [ĩː] – only occurs where the prefix is _not_ the preposition _in_, but the actual prefix _in-_. Even though sounding the same, they have different roots: When meaning ‘in(side)’, it is merely the preposition prefixed; when meaning ‘not’/‘[negation]’, it has the Indo-European origin [*n̥-].[5] As it turns out, the pronunciation change is merely a matter of morpheme interaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non of my grammars, however, even the very detailed grammar by Nils Sjöstrand (Gleerups forlag, Malmö/Lund 1960) has any details on these two differences. The only thing I can find that is mildly relevant, is in Sjöstrand §&amp;nbsp;6.2, explaining the enlonging [I’m sorry, I am not sure what the correct linguistic term is] and nasalisation of vowels in front of _ns_ and _nf_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that pronunciation alone is not a clue as to whether or not one is dealing with _in_ prefixed, or the prefix _in-_, as they both will have their pronunciations changed based on which morphemes follow. **How can you know whether you are dealing with the preposition or the prefix, and thus the correct meaning of the word?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somewhat Related&#xD;&#xA;----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Understanding vowel quantity in fieri][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [vowel length in “pro” before “f”][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ¹ This is not a smiley; it is the symbol meaning ‘that is’, ‘may be read as’ and similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ² Egil Kraggerud &amp; Bjørg Tosterud: _Latinsk ordbok_, Cappelen, Oslo 1998: ‘**in** i sammensetning’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have added the `negation` tag, but am unsure as to its relevance. Advice on this is appreciated. It could very well be that the tag details should be updated to include questions such as this one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/insum#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=insum&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4784/understanding-vowel-quantity-in-fieri&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6632/vowel-length-in-pro-before-f&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in-#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7508" RevisionGUID="ec1477ba-b680-4a56-adff-c389193e6265" CreationDate="2018-11-11T07:39:51.720" UserId="75" Text="&gt;πολλάκις ἐθαύμασα τίσι ποτὲ λόγοις Ἀθηναίους ἔπεισαν οἱ γραψάμενοι Σωκράτην ὡς ἄξιος εἴη θανάτου τῇ πόλει. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question concerns the usage of ποτὲ in this clause. I reviewed the LSJ entry for the word, and if I am not mistaken, Xenophon must be using it to intensify his wondering (i.e., ἐθαύμασα). Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[LSJ][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;III. 3. [select] with intensive force, in questions, τίς ποτε; who in the world? “τίνες ποτ᾽ ἐστέ;” A.Eu.408, cf. S.Ph.220, etc.; τί ποτ᾽ ἐστὶ τοῦτο τὸ πάθος what it can possibly be, Pl.Tht. 187d; “οὐκ ἐξερεῖς ποτε;” S.OT335, cf. 754, Aj.1290, etc.; to strengthen ἀεί, ἀεί ποτε from all time, always in the past, “ἀεί ποτε ζῇ ταῦτα” Id.Ant.456, cf. Aj.320, Th.6.82, al., D.C.42.5; “ἀεὶ δή π.” Th.1.13, 8.73.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0207&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pote%5C&amp;la=greek#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25214" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7508" RevisionGUID="ec1477ba-b680-4a56-adff-c389193e6265" CreationDate="2018-11-11T07:39:51.720" UserId="75" Text="What is the function of ποτὲ in «πολλάκις ἐθαύμασα τίσι ποτὲ λόγοις Ἀθηναίους»? (Xenophon, Memorabilia, 1.1.1)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25215" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7508" RevisionGUID="ec1477ba-b680-4a56-adff-c389193e6265" CreationDate="2018-11-11T07:39:51.720" UserId="75" Text="|greek|xenophon|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25216" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="110" RevisionGUID="388c4474-8ffd-48b3-8622-505e5f7226f7" CreationDate="2018-11-11T10:16:20.833" UserId="79" Comment="86" />
  <row Id="25218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7509" RevisionGUID="4f3f55ad-88ef-48ef-94f4-06e69c55e974" CreationDate="2018-11-11T11:52:09.990" UserId="3095" Text="When did initial-syllable stress give way to the penult rule?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;W.S. Allen suggests that the former persisted &quot;until around Plautus's time&quot;, and provides metrical evidence from Plautus and Terence that suggests the change was still underway (e.g. *facilius* stressed on the first syllable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is it safe to say that, say, *Carthago delenda est* was already pronounced only with penult-rule stress, even though Cato the Elder grew up in the Alban Hills in the last quarter of the third century, and might have had quite a conservative pronunciation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25219" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7509" RevisionGUID="4f3f55ad-88ef-48ef-94f4-06e69c55e974" CreationDate="2018-11-11T11:52:09.990" UserId="3095" Text="Dating the penult rule" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25220" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7509" RevisionGUID="4f3f55ad-88ef-48ef-94f4-06e69c55e974" CreationDate="2018-11-11T11:52:09.990" UserId="3095" Text="|history|stress|old-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7510" RevisionGUID="57152355-b9fa-4895-a27a-f3e5094af738" CreationDate="2018-11-11T13:04:57.323" UserId="2476" Text="I found the exclamation _bombax!_ in Plautus' _Pseudolus_ [(Pl. Ps. 1.3.131)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Pl.+Ps.+1.3&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0107#note19), where note 19 specifies it is a Greek loanword (βομβάξ in fact) used as an interjection of contempt. This agrees with what is stated in [this 18th century edition](https://books.google.it/books?id=f6IrAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA316&amp;lpg=PA316&amp;dq=bombax+plautus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=9-HKiUillz&amp;sig=-986JvBcuf3tl97aoPsdkkmeNd0&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwin7r-KqczeAhUqx4UKHSJ8DUsQ6AEwBXoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=bombax%20plautus&amp;f=false).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, [here](http://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/bombax) _bombax_ is said to mean &quot;Splendid!&quot;, &quot;Marvelous!&quot;, while [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=bombax) states it is an exclamation of real or affected surprise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, according to the Italian [Olivetti Latin Dictionary](https://www.dizionario-latino.com/dizionario-latino-italiano.php?lemma=BOMBAX100) it can be translated as _accidenti!_, which in fact has [both nuances of meaning](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/accidenti!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is it, and would 200 AD Romans still use this exclamation?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25223" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7510" RevisionGUID="57152355-b9fa-4895-a27a-f3e5094af738" CreationDate="2018-11-11T13:04:57.323" UserId="2476" Text="When and how was &quot;bombax!&quot; used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25224" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7510" RevisionGUID="57152355-b9fa-4895-a27a-f3e5094af738" CreationDate="2018-11-11T13:04:57.323" UserId="2476" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|greek|old-latin|plautus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7511" RevisionGUID="2fcc1b8b-506f-4db1-bf49-0b4003a01b84" CreationDate="2018-11-11T13:28:45.997" UserId="324" Text="The passage in Plautus seems to be the one and only attestation for &quot;bombax&quot; in Latin. The dictionary definition &quot;an exclamation of real or affected surprise&quot; fits it very well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7512" RevisionGUID="ad96ffab-f698-4f92-81d3-c9c116e112d0" CreationDate="2018-11-11T16:43:04.883" UserId="40" Text="Yes, that's correct. &quot;What on earth were their arguments?&quot; is the sense. This suits the context (Xenophon, who's on Socrates' side, finds it hard to imagine how the Athenians could have been persuaded against him), and the temporal sense of ποτε doesn't really fit here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7513" RevisionGUID="9c3aa895-09e2-4fc3-a93d-8b03b02cd9d2" CreationDate="2018-11-11T18:35:48.487" UserId="81" Text="From the *[Scholia Graeca in Comoedias Aristophanis][1]*, we find the following definition of βομβάξ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; βομβάξ - παρεμβολοειδής ἐστι τοῦτο ἐπίρρημα καὶ σημαίνει διασυρμόν.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; βομβάζειν γὰρ δηλοῖ διασύρειν. βομβάζειν γὰρ δηλοῖ διασύρειν,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τωθάζειν, σκώπτειν, καὶ χλευάζειν, λοιδορεῖν τε.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bombax - an interjection said as in response to something, signifying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disparagement or ridicule. For to &quot;bombazzle&quot; is to disparage openly, mock, jeer,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scoff at or revile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's some of the definitions of the words used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - διασύρειν - to disparage, ridicule (literally, to tear into pieces)&#xD;&#xA; - τωθάζειν - to mock, jeer at, flout&#xD;&#xA; - σκώπτειν - to mock, jeer, scoff at&#xD;&#xA; - χλευάζειν - to jest, scoff&#xD;&#xA; - λοιδορεῖν - to abuse, revile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=fcVFAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA276&amp;lpg=PA276&amp;dq=%CE%B2%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B2%CE%AC%CE%BE&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=A7JHMguFkP&amp;sig=1lGu-NQoH9pMAPQD9bpWOcHG6Q4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjlo9WA1MzeAhXMh5AKHeB7AqQQ6AEwBnoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B2%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B2%CE%AC%CE%BE&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7513" RevisionGUID="8e0b7e11-c21e-4a5d-87fe-a69a48002cb7" CreationDate="2018-11-11T18:42:14.757" UserId="81" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="From the *[Scholia Graeca in Comoedias Aristophanis][1]*, we find the following definition of βομβάξ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; βομβάξ - παρεμβολοειδής ἐστι τοῦτο ἐπίρρημα καὶ σημαίνει διασυρμόν.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; βομβάζειν γὰρ δηλοῖ διασύρειν. βομβάζειν γὰρ δηλοῖ διασύρειν,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τωθάζειν, σκώπτειν, καὶ χλευάζειν, λοιδορεῖν τε.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **βομβάξ** - an interjection said as in response to something, signifying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disparagement or ridicule. For **βομβάζειν** is to disparage openly, mock, jeer,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scoff at or revile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's some of the definitions of the words used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - διασύρειν - to disparage, ridicule (literally, to tear into pieces)&#xD;&#xA; - τωθάζειν - to mock, jeer at, flout&#xD;&#xA; - σκώπτειν - to mock, jeer, scoff at&#xD;&#xA; - χλευάζειν - to jest, scoff&#xD;&#xA; - λοιδορεῖν - to abuse, revile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=fcVFAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA276&amp;lpg=PA276&amp;dq=%CE%B2%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B2%CE%AC%CE%BE&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=A7JHMguFkP&amp;sig=1lGu-NQoH9pMAPQD9bpWOcHG6Q4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjlo9WA1MzeAhXMh5AKHeB7AqQQ6AEwBnoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B2%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B2%CE%AC%CE%BE&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7513" RevisionGUID="fcfcbf23-4903-4736-b0f3-da0269cd4fa5" CreationDate="2018-11-11T19:38:02.667" UserId="81" Comment="added 483 characters in body" Text="From the *[Scholia Graeca in Comoedias Aristophanis][1]*, we find the following definition of βομβάξ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; βομβάξ - παρεμβολοειδής ἐστι τοῦτο ἐπίρρημα καὶ σημαίνει διασυρμόν.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; βομβάζειν γὰρ δηλοῖ διασύρειν. βομβάζειν γὰρ δηλοῖ διασύρειν,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τωθάζειν, σκώπτειν, καὶ χλευάζειν, λοιδορεῖν τε.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **βομβάξ** - an interjection said as in response to something, signifying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disparagement or ridicule. For **βομβάζειν** is to disparage openly, mock, jeer,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scoff at or revile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's some of the definitions of the words used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - διασύρειν - to disparage, ridicule (literally, to tear into pieces)&#xD;&#xA; - τωθάζειν - to mock, jeer at, flout&#xD;&#xA; - σκώπτειν - to mock, jeer, scoff at&#xD;&#xA; - χλευάζειν - to jest, scoff&#xD;&#xA; - λοιδορεῖν - to abuse, revile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, other dictionaries have recognized that *bombax* may be used to express contempt. The Lexicon of Forcellini, for example, has the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; BOMBAX! Interjectio est hominis laete, vel cum admiratione approbantis vel etiam negeligentis et contemnentis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ainsworth's Dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bombax - interj contemnentis vel negligentis *Pooh! Pooh!* Plaut.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A New and Copious Lexicon of the Latin Language*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bombax! - an interjection of contempt, *poh! pish!* Plaut.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=fcVFAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA276&amp;lpg=PA276&amp;dq=%CE%B2%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B2%CE%AC%CE%BE&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=A7JHMguFkP&amp;sig=1lGu-NQoH9pMAPQD9bpWOcHG6Q4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjlo9WA1MzeAhXMh5AKHeB7AqQQ6AEwBnoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B2%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B2%CE%AC%CE%BE&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7514" RevisionGUID="ac46b378-3eb2-4e9d-bdeb-2b3ba9e14d03" CreationDate="2018-11-12T00:32:48.730" UserId="75" Text="Xenophon, *Memorabilia*, [1.1.2][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;πρῶτον μὲν οὖν, ὡς οὐκ ἐνόμιζεν οὓς ἡ πόλις νομίζει θεούς, ποίῳ ποτ᾽ ἐχρήσαντο τεκμηρίῳ; θύων τε γὰρ φανερὸς ἦν πολλάκις μὲν οἴκοι, πολλάκις δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν κοινῶν τῆς πόλεως βωμῶν, καὶ μαντικῇ χρώμενος οὐκ ἀφανὴς ἦν. διετεθρύλητο γὰρ ὡς φαίη Σωκράτης τὸ δαιμόνιον ἑαυτῷ σημαίνειν: ὅθεν δὴ καὶ μάλιστά μοι δοκοῦσιν αὐτὸν αἰτιάσασθαι καινὰ δαιμόνια εἰσφέρειν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question particularly concerns the phrase «θύων τε γὰρ φανερὸς ἦν πολλάκις μὲν οἴκοι». My understanding thus far is that the imperfect ἦν (“he was”) is joined to the present participle θύων (“offering sacrifices”), and this is a so-called “imperfect periphrastic” construction. Is this correct? If so, what would be the difference (in sense) between this construction and that of the imperfect conjugation itself (ἔθυεν)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0207%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D1%3Asection%3D2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25234" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7514" RevisionGUID="ac46b378-3eb2-4e9d-bdeb-2b3ba9e14d03" CreationDate="2018-11-12T00:32:48.730" UserId="75" Text="«θύων τε γὰρ φανερὸς ἦν πολλάκις μὲν οἴκοι» (Xenophon, Memorabilia, 1.1.2)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25235" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7514" RevisionGUID="ac46b378-3eb2-4e9d-bdeb-2b3ba9e14d03" CreationDate="2018-11-12T00:32:48.730" UserId="75" Text="|greek|grammar-identification|xenophon|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7515" RevisionGUID="113a5c6e-138d-4334-ba7e-053dd07f1d4e" CreationDate="2018-11-12T01:09:28.957" UserId="45" Text="Such periphrastic constructions are much more common in New Testament Greek. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a special construction, indicated towards the beginning of the [LSJ entry for φανερός](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dfanero%2Fs) ( which includes several examples): ***φανερός* + participle = &quot;to be known to be doing X&quot;**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idiom is readily understandable even without resorting to the dictionary. &quot;θύων&quot; is a present participle modifying the subject. You could parse the sentence literally as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He, sacrificing, was often visible/manifest/known at home....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more fluid translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He was often seen sacrificing at home and on the public altars of the city....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that an identical construction (with litotes) follows in the same sentence: οὐκ ἀφανὴς ἦν. Literally translated, this simply means, &quot;He was not invisible consulting oracles....&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7513" RevisionGUID="ce9a03a2-40b6-4103-a45c-cd4e8724c945" CreationDate="2018-11-12T01:14:13.943" UserId="81" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="From the *[Scholia Graeca in Comoedias Aristophanis][1]*, we find the following definition of βομβάξ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; βομβάξ - παρεμβολοειδής ἐστι τοῦτο ἐπίρρημα καὶ σημαίνει διασυρμόν.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; βομβάζειν γὰρ δηλοῖ διασύρειν. βομβάζειν γὰρ δηλοῖ διασύρειν,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τωθάζειν, σκώπτειν, καὶ χλευάζειν, λοιδορεῖν τε.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **βομβάξ** - an interjection said in response to something, signifying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disparagement or ridicule. For **βομβάζειν** is to disparage openly, mock, jeer,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scoff at or revile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's some of the definitions of the words used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - διασύρειν - to disparage, ridicule (literally, to tear into pieces)&#xD;&#xA; - τωθάζειν - to mock, jeer at, flout&#xD;&#xA; - σκώπτειν - to mock, jeer, scoff at&#xD;&#xA; - χλευάζειν - to jest, scoff&#xD;&#xA; - λοιδορεῖν - to abuse, revile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, other dictionaries have recognized that *bombax* may be used to express contempt. The Lexicon of Forcellini, for example, has the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; BOMBAX! Interjectio est hominis laete, vel cum admiratione approbantis vel etiam negeligentis et contemnentis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ainsworth's Dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bombax - interj contemnentis vel negligentis *Pooh! Pooh!* Plaut.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A New and Copious Lexicon of the Latin Language*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bombax! - an interjection of contempt, *poh! pish!* Plaut.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=fcVFAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA276&amp;lpg=PA276&amp;dq=%CE%B2%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B2%CE%AC%CE%BE&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=A7JHMguFkP&amp;sig=1lGu-NQoH9pMAPQD9bpWOcHG6Q4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjlo9WA1MzeAhXMh5AKHeB7AqQQ6AEwBnoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B2%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B2%CE%AC%CE%BE&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7516" RevisionGUID="d0f2679c-7f0a-4ea7-8173-5dcaeed1d08c" CreationDate="2018-11-12T05:25:37.977" UserId="3101" Text="Since professor has masculine gender, one may think that the phrase should be professor emeritus, regardless of the gender of the person referred to. Is the use of emerita simply a case of grammatical ignorance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25239" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7516" RevisionGUID="d0f2679c-7f0a-4ea7-8173-5dcaeed1d08c" CreationDate="2018-11-12T05:25:37.977" UserId="3101" Text="Is the phrase professor emerita grammatically correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25240" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7516" RevisionGUID="d0f2679c-7f0a-4ea7-8173-5dcaeed1d08c" CreationDate="2018-11-12T05:25:37.977" UserId="3101" Text="|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7517" RevisionGUID="339f7390-709c-4631-9594-6be88ef74f87" CreationDate="2018-11-12T05:31:42.763" UserId="406" Text="In theory, the feminine of *professor* would be [*profestrix*][1]. However, this is a rather awkward formation, and isn't attested classically—the use of *-trix* on a dental-stem noun is incredibly rare in any period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So most often, in my experience at least, the word *professor* is used for both the masculine and the feminine. If the professor is female, the noun is feminine, and thus takes a first-declension adjective like *emerita*. (For a Classical precedent, see gender-neutral third-declension nouns like *homo* and *canis*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/183/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7519" RevisionGUID="f69601ae-d07e-438e-a25d-787418a16bfb" CreationDate="2018-11-12T08:45:46.743" UserId="79" Text="To supplement the answer by Draconis, *professor* is what's called a common gender noun, at least in modern usage.&#xD;&#xA;This means that the grammatical gender is not fixed, but depends on the semantic gender.&#xD;&#xA;When referring to a male professor, *professor* is masculine, and feminine when referring to female.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *professor emerita* is correct.&#xD;&#xA;While there is the feminine option *profestrix emerita*, this form is not really used.&#xD;&#xA;The word *profestrix* is the Latin equivalent of the French *professeure*, but appears to be far less common." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7516" RevisionGUID="8269e8c6-6f21-44d4-b0be-9d81d41a9c4d" CreationDate="2018-11-12T08:46:28.553" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Since professor has masculine gender, one may think that the phrase should be *professor emeritus*, regardless of the gender of the person referred to. Is the use of *emerita* simply a case of grammatical ignorance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25248" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7516" RevisionGUID="8269e8c6-6f21-44d4-b0be-9d81d41a9c4d" CreationDate="2018-11-12T08:46:28.553" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7520" RevisionGUID="20c79218-794f-4b8e-8e9e-25a3105457f0" CreationDate="2018-11-12T10:51:33.503" UserId="1459" Text="In the &quot;[_Libera me_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libera_me)&quot; prayer, the following verse is said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Libera me, Domine, de morte æterna, in die illa tremenda  &#xD;&#xA;Quando **cœli movendi sunt et terra**  &#xD;&#xA;Dum veneris iudicare saeculum per ignem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are similar phrases in other religious texts with the same ordering (element + plural verb + element). Examples from the Vulgata:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [1 Chronicles 29:11](http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=lvb&amp;bk=13&amp;ch=29&amp;l=11-#x)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Tua est, Domine, magnificentia, et potentia, et gloria, atque victoria : et tibi laus : cuncta enim quae **in caelo sunt, et in terra**, tua sunt : tuum, Domine, regnum, et tu es super omnes principes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [2 Corinthians 10:10](http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=lvb&amp;bk=54&amp;ch=10&amp;l=10-#x)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;quoniam quidem epistolae, inquiunt, **graves sunt et fortes** : praesentia autem corporis infirma, et sermo contemptibilis : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [2 Timothy 6:2](http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=lvb&amp;bk=61&amp;ch=6&amp;l=2-#x) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Qui autem fideles habent dominos, non contemnant, quia fratres sunt : sed magis serviant, **quia fideles sunt et dilecti**, qui beneficii participes sunt. Haec doce, et exhortare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find the ordering of these phrases in bold &quot;awkward&quot;, at least compared with other languages like English and Spanish, where it is (always?) &quot;element + element + plural verb&quot; or &quot;verb + element + element&quot;. The phrases are of course perfectly fine, and the plurality of the verb tells you that it applies to both the preceding and the following elements. But, still. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some particular function of such word order, that it is preferred to the &quot;simpler&quot; (more intuitive?) ordering &quot;_movendi sunt coeli et terra&quot;_ or &quot;_coeli et terra movendi sunt_&quot;? Perhaps more poetic, or emphasising something? Actually, is the above ordering common at all, or are these rather exceptions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25250" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7520" RevisionGUID="20c79218-794f-4b8e-8e9e-25a3105457f0" CreationDate="2018-11-12T10:51:33.503" UserId="1459" Text="About the &quot;element + plural verb + et + element&quot; word order" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25251" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7520" RevisionGUID="20c79218-794f-4b8e-8e9e-25a3105457f0" CreationDate="2018-11-12T10:51:33.503" UserId="1459" Text="|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7521" RevisionGUID="2e381ba5-73a8-48f9-a5d4-378bfc0ba135" CreationDate="2018-11-12T12:17:14.623" UserId="324" Text="We normally distinguish between nouns of “common gender”, which can be used either as masculine or as feminine depending on the sex of the person or animal in question, and “epicene nouns&quot;, which have a fixed gender, but can refer to creatures of either sex. If “professor” is treated as epicene, then one would have to say “professor emeritus” for a person of either sex, at least in (Neo-)Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English there are no gendered forms for adjectives, so there is no reason not to say “emeritus professor” in reference to a woman in an English context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Germany there has been a heated debate over whether a female professor should be styled “Professor” or “Professorin”. In lecture lists of German universities you now normally find just “Prof.” - one way to dodge the question. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7522" RevisionGUID="963eca09-6ea0-4c73-a6fb-63815fff5c71" CreationDate="2018-11-12T13:52:13.690" UserId="79" Text="I see a difference in tone between *graves sunt et fortes* and *graves et fortes sunt*.&#xD;&#xA;I would read *graves et fortes sunt* as &quot;they are heavy and strong&quot; (or perhaps &quot;weighty&quot; or &quot;important&quot; instead of &quot;heavy&quot;), and *graves sunt et fortes* as &quot;they are heavy &amp;mdash; and also strong&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;That is, adding the second subject after the verb makes it look more like a side remark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when it comes to Biblical Latin, it is very much possible that some idiosyncrasies are inherited from Greek and Hebrew.&#xD;&#xA;I can't tell whether this is a case of such influences, but it does not strike me as weird within Latin.&#xD;&#xA;An unusual word order can be used to give emphasis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7519" RevisionGUID="9f919755-4d31-43fd-8d9b-c9555fd4b711" CreationDate="2018-11-12T13:56:17.243" UserId="79" Comment="added 410 characters in body" Text="To supplement the answer by Draconis, *professor* is what's called a common gender noun, at least in modern usage.&#xD;&#xA;This means that the grammatical gender is not fixed, but depends on the semantic gender.&#xD;&#xA;When referring to a male professor, *professor* is masculine, and feminine when referring to female.&#xD;&#xA;I would consider it impolite in today's world to use *professor* as purely masculine word for professors of all genders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form *professor emerita* is correct.&#xD;&#xA;While there is the feminine option *profestrix emerita*, this form is not really used.&#xD;&#xA;The word *profestrix* is the Latin equivalent of the French *professeure*, but appears to be far less common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine forms such as *doctrix* and *lectrix* [have been used](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/831/79) and are in no way inappropriate for female academicians.&#xD;&#xA;However, it appears to be more common to use the (seemingly) masculine words *doctor*, *lector*, and *professor* instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7522" RevisionGUID="f76852aa-32e7-4804-8412-29443ea1eb08" CreationDate="2018-11-12T14:13:33.470" UserId="79" Comment="added 213 characters in body" Text="I see a difference in tone between *graves sunt et fortes* and *graves et fortes sunt*.&#xD;&#xA;I would read *graves et fortes sunt* as &quot;they are heavy and strong&quot; (or perhaps &quot;weighty&quot; or &quot;important&quot; instead of &quot;heavy&quot;), and *graves sunt et fortes* as &quot;they are heavy &amp;mdash; and also strong&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;That is, adding the second subject after the verb makes it look more like a side remark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when it comes to Biblical Latin, it is very much possible that some idiosyncrasies are inherited from Greek and Hebrew.&#xD;&#xA;I can't tell whether this is a case of such influences, but it does not strike me as weird within Latin.&#xD;&#xA;An unusual word order can be used to give emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin word order is almost free, but certainly not irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;There is such a thing as typical word order (like SOV in simple clauses).&#xD;&#xA;Deviations are a tool for style, emphasis, and metric flexibility." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7523" RevisionGUID="88d3f97a-8173-47ad-884d-c0a7dfa02593" CreationDate="2018-11-12T15:38:55.410" UserId="2476" Text="Nowadays (I guess) every language has both vulgar and non-vulgar ways to express anger, frustration and/or exasperation , in response to some nuisance. Looking e.g. at Catullus, it seems unlikely that this wasn't the case for Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know any examples of this? Would we hear _Pro Iove!_ in the streets of Rome?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25257" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7523" RevisionGUID="88d3f97a-8173-47ad-884d-c0a7dfa02593" CreationDate="2018-11-12T15:38:55.410" UserId="2476" Text="Are there Latin angry oaths like the English &quot;damn it!&quot; or &quot;for God's sake!&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25258" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7523" RevisionGUID="88d3f97a-8173-47ad-884d-c0a7dfa02593" CreationDate="2018-11-12T15:38:55.410" UserId="2476" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|profanity|interjection|slang|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="a6708a3a-5865-4787-b965-d9b75cf755a1" CreationDate="2018-11-12T19:28:40.430" UserId="52" Comment="Clarification - modern ecclesiastical Latin as a reference level." Text="There are some regional differences in contemporary Ecclesiastical Latin, mostly in pronuntiation (for example, &quot;c&quot; before e/i can be pronounced as [ʧ] or [ts]). Also, I know that as non-natives, medieval Latin speakers sometimes introduced words from their native languages. On the other hand, various dialects were at least somewhat mutually understandable. My layman guess is that they differed about as much as various dialects of contemporary English, or little more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, let's pick 13th century and Latin dialects spoken in Italy, British Isles, Sweden and Bohemia - if people from these regions met, how difficult would it be for them to understand each other, and what would be the main differences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No need to describe these particular dialects in detail though, it's just an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Let's take modern ecclesiastical Latin as a reference. Speakers of some of the different dialects may need some time to accomodate to even understand each other, and the differences may be funny. Do we have any evidence that high medieval Latin dialects were more, less or about as different as those in ecclesiastical Latin today?  &#xD;&#xA;An example of various dialects together (mostly in ecclesiastical Latin, with French introduction): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjh0LtUP0r4 The differences are probably slightly exagerrated to enhance the fun effect, but only dialects of Western Europe and America are included, other dialects like Polish one have other peculiarities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7524" RevisionGUID="41e19d3b-4dce-4bf0-83b2-9a9f77825fd1" CreationDate="2018-11-13T03:41:26.587" UserId="39" Text="Q&quot; &quot;For example, let's pick 13th century and Latin dialects spoken in Italy, British Isles, Sweden and Bohemia - if people from these regions met, how difficult would it be for them to understand each other?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: If we are talking about oral communication in Latin, then the answer is that most likely they did **not** understand each other very well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25261" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="7524" RevisionGUID="5b74f8b5-7c47-4bd2-bb1b-66f5d7936430" CreationDate="2018-11-13T05:00:21.723" UserId="39" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="bbcbc56e-3dad-4d37-ace6-fa064a5be18c" CreationDate="2018-11-13T11:12:34.407" UserId="1459" Comment="minor changes" Text="There are some regional differences in contemporary Ecclesiastical Latin, mostly in pronunciation (for example, &quot;c&quot; before e/i can be pronounced as [ʧ] or [ts]). Also, I know that as non-natives, medieval Latin speakers sometimes introduced words from their native languages. On the other hand, various dialects were at least somewhat mutually understandable. My layman guess is that they differed about as much as various dialects of contemporary English, or little more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, let's pick 13th century and Latin dialects spoken in Italy, British Isles, Sweden and Bohemia - if people from these regions met, how difficult would it be for them to understand each other, and what would be the main differences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No need to describe these particular dialects in detail though, it's just an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Let's take modern ecclesiastical Latin as a reference. Speakers of some of the different dialects may need some time to accommodate to even understand each other, and the differences may be funny. Do we have any evidence that high medieval Latin dialects were more, less or about as different as those in ecclesiastical Latin today?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of various dialects together is [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjh0LtUP0r4) (mostly in ecclesiastical Latin, with French introduction). The differences are probably slightly exaggerated to enhance the fun effect, but only dialects of Western Europe and America are included, other dialects like Polish one have other peculiarities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25263" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="7524" RevisionGUID="9ce96271-2e4d-4ce4-b6f4-1e41dee64f1a" CreationDate="2018-11-13T13:19:36.237" UserId="39" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7525" RevisionGUID="a36c14f6-53b0-45d1-a71f-fb6b5116cfdc" CreationDate="2018-11-13T16:34:08.223" UserId="3106" Text="hi everybody!&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The question is very controversial, truly. But there are some elements on which we can construct an answer. Firts I would like to start with a quote of the french author Chateaubriand, who writes in *Mémoires d'outre-tombe* &quot;Macte animo generose puer&quot; ascribing it to Virgil (here the Wikisource reference [1] with some notes). This false attribution shows however that this common say is well-known. If we try to analyse more deeply the uses in the latin litterature (my source is the Brepolis Research basis) we find that during the Antique period (&lt;200) the common way of saying is used 15 times. Here the occurences : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Calpurnius Flaccus Declamationum Excertpa 3, 3, 8&#xD;&#xA; 2. Cicero ad att. 12, 6, 1 &#xD;&#xA; 3. Cicero, Tusc. 1, 17, 40 &#xD;&#xA; 4. Quintus Curtius Rufus Hist. Al. 4, 1, 18 &#xD;&#xA; 5. Horatius, Serm. 1, 2, 31&#xD;&#xA; 6. Titus Livius 2, 12, 14&#xD;&#xA; 7. Idem 4, 14, 7&#xD;&#xA; 8. Idem 7, 10, 4&#xD;&#xA; 9. Idem 7, 36, 5&#xD;&#xA; 10. Idem 10, 40, 11&#xD;&#xA; 11. Idem 22, 49, 9&#xD;&#xA; 12. Idem 23, 15, 14&#xD;&#xA; 13. Petronius, Sat. 94, 1&#xD;&#xA; 14. Seneca ep. 66, 50&#xD;&#xA; 15. S. Turpilius  Comoediarum palliatarum fragmenta, v. 7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, if we make an analysis of the construction of this adjective we can easily understand (from his initial meaning &quot;honored, glorified&quot;) that &quot;virtute&quot; is an abative of limitation (because it limits acutally the field in wich someone has to be honored). Then, if the use of an adjective in the vocative with &quot;esse&quot; may be disturbing, we have to interpret it as the right case that match with an imperative (esto implies that a 2nd person exists, and the right case to refer to that person would be the vocative because in giving an order one is soliciting the semantic field of advocation). Then, the O. Riemann Syntaxe 7nth edition, Paris 1927 on page 170 §78 Note 2 says &quot;With no doubt the vocative of an adjective who, at the classical time, seems to be indeclinable : &quot;macte virtute...este&quot; T. Livius 7, 36, 5 ; &quot;iuberem macte virtute esse&quot; Ibid 2, 12, 14. &#xD;&#xA;Sorry if my english it may not be the best ever, but I'm an Italian scholar living and working in Paris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Chateaubriand_-_M%C3%A9moires_d%E2%80%99outre-tombe_t6.djvu/35" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7526" RevisionGUID="87bb6ccc-b55f-43fd-84b8-3637a876e0b0" CreationDate="2018-11-13T20:33:11.017" UserId="12" Text="The abbreviation SPQR stands for *Senatus PopulusQue Romanus*. Why is the Q included, as there are only three words? Why isn't it just SPR? Or does SPQR stand for something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25267" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7526" RevisionGUID="87bb6ccc-b55f-43fd-84b8-3637a876e0b0" CreationDate="2018-11-13T20:33:11.017" UserId="12" Text="Why is there a Q in SPQR?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25268" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7526" RevisionGUID="87bb6ccc-b55f-43fd-84b8-3637a876e0b0" CreationDate="2018-11-13T20:33:11.017" UserId="12" Text="|conjunction|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7527" RevisionGUID="6ad3194b-43b4-4ede-9e0e-c266b420bb8e" CreationDate="2018-11-13T20:34:52.410" UserId="79" Text="The enclitic *-que* was treated much like a word. This is most evident in the way Ovid handles quotes, where *-que* is outside a quote but the word it's attached to is inside. There are few other ancient abbreviations with *-que*, if any, so it's difficult to compare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7528" RevisionGUID="26658307-4806-4039-bb27-8b7b4856b601" CreationDate="2018-11-13T20:35:24.730" UserId="30" Text="We definitely know that SPQR refers to *senatus populusque Romanus* and not something else. This text is inscribed in full in the temple of Saturn and arch of Titus in Rome. It's hard to say whether the abbreviation is systematic or an arbitrary choice that happened to stick." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25271" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="7526" RevisionGUID="cdca8417-77d5-497e-a826-fa9316054fa0" CreationDate="2018-11-13T21:07:34.783" UserId="12" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:12,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nathaniel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25272" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="7526" RevisionGUID="2449e477-7efc-4fbc-8885-e622e2c4a562" CreationDate="2018-11-13T21:07:34.783" UserId="12" Comment="88" />
  <row Id="25278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7530" RevisionGUID="010580cf-1f68-4737-b46f-3589559dc845" CreationDate="2018-11-14T00:43:54.093" UserId="2476" Text="If you're asking &quot;when and why did he also have the name Octavianus?&quot;, your friend and Draconis gave you the answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If instead you're asking &quot;in what context was he called Octavianus, once he gained this name?&quot; the answer is that probably only his enemies called him like that: it's safe to say that he didn't want his modest origins to be highlighted, while his enemies obviously did (notably Mark Antony). Besides, among the _tria nomina_ the informal one is the _praenomen_, which after the adoption by Caesar, became Gaius - so after he became Augustus, virtually no one called him Octavianus. His close relatives (well, at least his wife Livia) and friends probably called him Gaius, everyone else Divus Augustus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7530" RevisionGUID="872d3c7e-ebc5-45fd-8417-cb2c53c0e15d" CreationDate="2018-11-14T00:54:43.893" UserId="2476" Comment="added 219 characters in body" Text="If you're asking &quot;when and why did he also have the name Octavianus?&quot;, your friend and Draconis gave you the answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If instead you're asking &quot;in what context was he called Octavianus, once he gained this name?&quot; the answer is that probably only his enemies called him like that: it's safe to say that he didn't want his modest origins to be highlighted, while his enemies obviously did (notably Mark Antony). Besides, among the _tria nomina_ the informal one is the _praenomen_, which after the adoption by Caesar, became Gaius - so after he became Augustus, virtually no one called him Octavianus. His close relatives (well, at least his wife Livia) and friends probably called him Gaius, everyone else Divus Augustus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going on a tangent, it is interesting to note that by the start of the 2nd century AD, the informal name had become the _cognomen_, due to the extreme scarcity of _praenomina_, which had made them quite impractical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7524" RevisionGUID="2d07ab5c-590e-4401-b868-d16d933780e6" CreationDate="2018-11-14T03:37:48.497" UserId="39" Comment="added 196 characters in body" Text="Q&quot; &quot;For example, let's pick 13th century and Latin dialects spoken in Italy, British Isles, Sweden and Bohemia - if people from these regions met, how difficult would it be for them to understand each other?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: If we are talking about oral communication in Latin, then the answer is that most likely they did **not** understand each other very well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. [Rigg 1996/1999][1] (p. 80):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.hfsbooks.com/books/medieval-latin-mantello-rigg/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3IT9c.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7524" RevisionGUID="6db23204-fb01-402e-92e5-a47c2fd54367" CreationDate="2018-11-14T03:43:06.457" UserId="39" Comment="added 196 characters in body" Text="Q&quot; &quot;For example, let's pick 13th century and Latin dialects spoken in Italy, British Isles, Sweden and Bohemia - if people from these regions met, how difficult would it be for them to understand each other?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: If we are talking about oral communication in Latin, then the answer is that most likely they did **not** understand each other very well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. [Rigg 1996/1999][1] (p. 80):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, these differences didn't happen overnight. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.hfsbooks.com/books/medieval-latin-mantello-rigg/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3IT9c.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7524" RevisionGUID="a7c04248-1759-448f-ae42-6eed8f468e27" CreationDate="2018-11-14T05:34:14.160" UserId="39" Comment="added 203 characters in body" Text="Q&quot; &quot;For example, let's pick 13th century and Latin dialects spoken in Italy, British Isles, Sweden and Bohemia - if people from these regions met, how difficult would it be for them to understand each other?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: If we are talking about oral communication in Latin, then the answer is that most likely they did **not** understand each other very well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. [Rigg 1996/1999][1] (p. 80):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, these differences didn't happen overnight. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, Allen (Allen 1978) writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Latin in France had been pronounced along national lines from earliest times, with a particular disregard for vowel-length and accentuation&quot; (p. 106).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.hfsbooks.com/books/medieval-latin-mantello-rigg/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3IT9c.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7524" RevisionGUID="f5e3463c-ea7c-4956-9c49-69338d7429be" CreationDate="2018-11-14T05:52:37.273" UserId="39" Comment="added 558 characters in body" Text="Q&quot; &quot;For example, let's pick 13th century and Latin dialects spoken in Italy, British Isles, Sweden and Bohemia - if people from these regions met, how difficult would it be for them to understand each other?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: If we are talking about oral communication in Latin, then the answer is that most likely they did **not** understand each other very well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. [Rigg 1996/1999][1] (p. 80):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, these differences didn't happen overnight. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, Allen (Allen 1978) writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Latin in France had been pronounced along national lines from earliest times, with a particular disregard for vowel-length and accentuation&quot; (p. 106) or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Waquet 1998 (English translation by John Howe, 2001): &quot;In France, where from the thirteenth century onward Latin had degenerated in both vocabulary and syntax, Latin was pronounced like French&quot; (p. 164).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It led to confusion and incomprehension in the 16-19 centuries. In extreme cases, Waquet writes, &quot;speakers could be totally unaware that they were speaking the same language, but more usually communication would be garbled by different pronunciations of the same letter&quot; (p. 163). She mentions very interesting examples in Chapter 6, Oral Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.hfsbooks.com/books/medieval-latin-mantello-rigg/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3IT9c.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7530" RevisionGUID="a909be70-4c0e-4ac6-af35-0c52a6d119de" CreationDate="2018-11-14T10:35:25.593" UserId="2476" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="If you're asking &quot;when and why did he also have the name Octavianus?&quot;, your friend and Draconis gave you the answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If instead you're asking &quot;in what context was he called Octavianus, once he gained this name?&quot; the answer is that probably only his enemies called him like that: it's safe to say that he didn't want his modest origins to be highlighted, while his enemies obviously did (notably Mark Antony). Besides, among the _tria nomina_ the informal one is the _praenomen_, which after the adoption by Caesar, became Gaius - so after he became Augustus, virtually no one called him Octavianus. His close relatives (well, at least his wife Livia) and friends probably called him Gaius, everyone else Divus Augustus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going on a tangent, it is interesting to note that by the start of the 2nd century AD, the informal name had become the _cognomen_, due to the extreme scarcity of _praenomina_ faced with the population explosion, which had made them quite impractical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7530" RevisionGUID="1af4d872-615e-4685-a5ea-5b1e32473f70" CreationDate="2018-11-14T12:15:33.757" UserId="2476" Comment="added 583 characters in body" Text="If you're asking &quot;when and why did he also have the name Octavianus?&quot;, your friend and Draconis gave you the answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If instead you're asking &quot;in what contexts was he called Octavianus, once he gained this name?&quot; the answer is that probably only his enemies, or at least those who weren't exactly allies, called him like that: it's safe to say that he didn't want his modest origins to be highlighted, while his enemies obviously did (notably Mark Antony*). Besides, among the _tria nomina_ the informal one is the _praenomen_ - so after he became _Imperator_, and later Augustus, virtually no one called him Octavianus. His close relatives (well, at least his wife Livia) may still have called him Gaius, close friends either Gaius or Caesar. After becoming Augustus, everyone else called him Divus Augustus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going on a tangent, it is interesting to note that by the start of the 2nd century AD, the informal name had become the _cognomen_, due to the extreme scarcity of _praenomina_ faced with the population explosion, which had made them quite impractical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***EDIT**: As a matter of fact, Suetonius tells us that Antony went even further, calling him Thurinus with disdain - this was his original _cognomen_, though not even Suetonius is sure about the origin of it.  &#xD;&#xA;It was instead **Cicero, and presumably other similar republican figures**, who called him Octavianus - it makes sense for him to refer to Caesar's adoption, because Cicero hoped young Octavius could be manipulated to restore the Republic, and had a great respect for Caesar. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7532" RevisionGUID="44e7446c-f4ee-48f9-be80-1a2a82d367fc" CreationDate="2018-11-14T16:38:35.067" UserId="75" Text="Aristotle, *Rhetoric*, [1.1][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἡ ῥητορική ἐστιν ἀντίστροφος τῇ διαλεκτικῇ: ἀμφότεραι γὰρ περὶ τοιούτων τινῶν εἰσιν ἃ κοινὰ τρόπον τινὰ ἁπάντων ἐστὶ γνωρίζειν καὶ οὐδεμιᾶς ἐπιστήμης ἀφωρισμένης&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I translate it thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The rhetorical [art] is antistrophic to the dialectical [art]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἡ ῥητορική ἐστιν ἀντίστροφος τῇ διαλεκτικῇ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;for both concern such things that are common in a certain manner to everyone&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἀμφότεραι γὰρ περὶ τοιούτων τινῶν εἰσιν ἃ κοινὰ τρόπον τινὰ ἁπάντων&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question concerns the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἐστὶ γνωρίζειν καὶ οὐδεμιᾶς ἐπιστήμης ἀφωρισμένης&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is what (I think) I know:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;οὐδεμιᾶς, ἐπιστήμης, and ἀφωρισμένης all share the same declension (i.e., feminine, genitive, singular).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to LSJ on the verb εἰμί (re: ἐστὶ), &#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἔστι impers., c. inf., it is possible...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need some help understanding how to compose this clause in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25290" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7532" RevisionGUID="44e7446c-f4ee-48f9-be80-1a2a82d367fc" CreationDate="2018-11-14T16:38:35.067" UserId="75" Text="«ἐστὶ γνωρίζειν καὶ οὐδεμιᾶς ἐπιστήμης ἀφωρισμένης» (Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1.1)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25291" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7532" RevisionGUID="44e7446c-f4ee-48f9-be80-1a2a82d367fc" CreationDate="2018-11-14T16:38:35.067" UserId="75" Text="|greek|aristotle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7532" RevisionGUID="ff72b48f-7930-4b4f-953c-f5434852f343" CreationDate="2018-11-14T16:47:57.930" UserId="75" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="Aristotle, *Rhetoric*, [1.1][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἡ ῥητορική ἐστιν ἀντίστροφος τῇ διαλεκτικῇ: ἀμφότεραι γὰρ περὶ τοιούτων τινῶν εἰσιν ἃ κοινὰ τρόπον τινὰ ἁπάντων ἐστὶ γνωρίζειν καὶ οὐδεμιᾶς ἐπιστήμης ἀφωρισμένης&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I translate it thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The rhetorical [art] is antistrophic to the dialectical [art]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἡ ῥητορική ἐστιν ἀντίστροφος τῇ διαλεκτικῇ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;for both concern such things that are common in a certain manner to everyone&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἀμφότεραι γὰρ περὶ τοιούτων τινῶν εἰσιν ἃ κοινὰ τρόπον τινὰ ἁπάντων&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question concerns the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἐστὶ γνωρίζειν καὶ οὐδεμιᾶς ἐπιστήμης ἀφωρισμένης&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is what (I think) I know:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;οὐδεμιᾶς, ἐπιστήμης, and ἀφωρισμένης all share the same declension (i.e., feminine, genitive, singular).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to LSJ on the verb εἰμί (re: ἐστὶ), &#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἔστι impers., c. inf., it is possible...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I had another thought. Does «περὶ τοιούτων τινῶν» connect with «γνωρίζειν»?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need some help understanding how to compose this clause in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7533" RevisionGUID="9bdf8980-3dac-4d52-a3ee-468642caaf71" CreationDate="2018-11-14T18:23:34.083" UserId="40" Text="ἐστὶ γνωρίζειν goes with the previous bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; περὶ τοιούτων τινῶν εἰσιν ἃ κοινὰ τρόπον τινὰ ἁπάντων ἐστὶ γνωρίζειν&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;they are about such things as it is possible to become acquainted with [as being] in a certain manner common to all&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then οὐδεμιᾶς ἐπιστήμης ἀφωρισμένης must be a genitive absolute: &quot;with no system of knowledge being distinct / specifically dedicated [to them]&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7534" RevisionGUID="870d67c2-b582-438b-8332-f1d9556a5b20" CreationDate="2018-11-14T19:28:42.810" UserId="3106" Text="Hi everybody,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is actually very interesting because of the fact that it makes me think about a construction I do not use often in writing latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can start from a note from the O. Rieman Latin Syntax, 7th edition, Paris 1927, page 122 §55 note 1. &quot;In the archaic times we find memini and obliviscor with the accusative and the genitive”. During the classic time personal pronouns and reflexive pronouns are always in genitive case. During the classic time personal nouns in the genitive case with memini is rare and familiar. In the imperial time the construction of personal nouns is the regular syntax. For thing nouns the accusative case lasts for more time but the genitive case strikes it during the imperial time. If memini means “mention” it is constructed with the genitive case (Caes. De bello civili 3, 108, 2 “eundem Achillam cuius supra meminimus”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then from an other normative syntax, the Ernout et Thomas, Syntaxe Latine, Paris 1964. Ernout&amp;Thomas is more precise, on page 52 §65 “An old alternation existed with the accusative. In the Latin using the genitive seems to have an idea of effort in remembering; rather the accusative indicates something one remembers clearly and is more frequent with things. Cic. Fi. 5, 3 3vivorum memini” Pl. Mi. 1378 “officium memini”. With a neuter pronoun like “aliquid” or “multa” the accusative is the rule because of the possible confusion with the genitive (alicuius or multorum)”.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So according to this two passages we can conclude that there is no substantial difference of meaning between the two constructions, especially in the classical and imperial time, but only a more commun using, the construction with a genitive case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hoping that this answer will satisfy your curiosity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Post Scriptum&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for my English that is very bad.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7533" RevisionGUID="de96c7d4-6817-4942-9972-6ab3f8f28438" CreationDate="2018-11-14T21:34:07.123" UserId="40" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="ἐστὶ γνωρίζειν goes with the previous bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; περὶ τοιούτων τινῶν εἰσιν ἃ κοινὰ τρόπον τινὰ ἁπάντων ἐστὶ γνωρίζειν&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;they are about such things as it is possible to become acquainted with [as being] in a certain manner common to all&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then οὐδεμιᾶς ἐπιστήμης ἀφωρισμένης may be a genitive absolute: &quot;with no system of knowledge being distinct / specifically dedicated [to them]&quot;. Or perhaps better, as brianpck suggests in comments, it can be taken as parallel to ἁπάντων, &quot;common to all and not to any distinct system of knowledge&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7532" RevisionGUID="854fe6e5-34a2-4267-ab45-be1b0c021d7e" CreationDate="2018-11-14T23:52:13.930" UserId="75" Comment="added 270 characters in body" Text="Aristotle, *Rhetoric*, [1.1][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἡ ῥητορική ἐστιν ἀντίστροφος τῇ διαλεκτικῇ: ἀμφότεραι γὰρ περὶ τοιούτων τινῶν εἰσιν ἃ κοινὰ τρόπον τινὰ ἁπάντων ἐστὶ γνωρίζειν καὶ οὐδεμιᾶς ἐπιστήμης ἀφωρισμένης&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I translate it thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The rhetorical [art] is antistrophic to the dialectical [art]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἡ ῥητορική ἐστιν ἀντίστροφος τῇ διαλεκτικῇ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;for both concern such things that are common in a certain manner to everyone&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἀμφότεραι γὰρ περὶ τοιούτων τινῶν εἰσιν ἃ κοινὰ τρόπον τινὰ ἁπάντων&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question concerns the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἐστὶ γνωρίζειν καὶ οὐδεμιᾶς ἐπιστήμης ἀφωρισμένης&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is what (I think) I know:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;οὐδεμιᾶς, ἐπιστήμης, and ἀφωρισμένης all share the same declension (i.e., feminine, genitive, singular).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to LSJ on the verb εἰμί (re: ἐστὶ), &#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἔστι impers., c. inf., it is possible...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit (11/14/2018@5:48 PM): I have revised my translation, as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The rhetorical [art] is antistrophic to the dialectical [art], for both concern such things which are common, in a certain manner, of all people and are possible to know, not being limited to scientific knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please critique for me please. I am attempting to keep it as close to the Greek as possible while still possessing sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7536" RevisionGUID="1d154ee4-1045-4265-aa95-18e63b513044" CreationDate="2018-11-15T09:28:58.397" UserId="9" Text="A number of [New World warblers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_warbler) seem to have genus names that end in the element -thlypis. It's been hard for me to find information about the etymology of this element; I found a few sources on the web that say that it comes from a Greek word θλυπις that referred to some kind of bird, but I can't find any detailed description of this word, only brief mentions of it. The Wikipedia article on the &quot;[Common yellowthroat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_yellowthroat)&quot; says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The genus name Geothlypis is from Ancient Greek geo, &quot;ground&quot;, and thlupis, an unidentified small bird; thlypis is often used in the scientific names of New World warblers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *[Helm Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names](https://books.google.com/books?id=-RfSBAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA154),* by James A. Jobling, seems to corroborate this statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Euthlypis** Gr  *eu* fine, good; *thlupis* unknown small bird, perhaps some sort of finch or warbler. In ornithology *thlypis* signifies either a parulid warbler or a thin-billed tanager.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to know where exactly θλυπις occurs in Greek texts, and whether we know anything more about the word than its spelling and the vague idea of its meaning that is described in these quotations. For example, do we know how it is declined, or the length of either of the vowels? I couldn't find this word in any online dictionaries of Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25300" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7536" RevisionGUID="1d154ee4-1045-4265-aa95-18e63b513044" CreationDate="2018-11-15T09:28:58.397" UserId="9" Text="Where does the word &quot;thlypis&quot;/θλυπις come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25301" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7536" RevisionGUID="1d154ee4-1045-4265-aa95-18e63b513044" CreationDate="2018-11-15T09:28:58.397" UserId="9" Text="|greek|scientific-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7537" RevisionGUID="e3f1186b-fec3-4ec3-a526-4b147e12f829" CreationDate="2018-11-15T10:20:05.377" UserId="3116" Text="1.&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S:caenum (less correctly coenum)&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S:cena(not coena,caena)&#xD;&#xA;It seems “coenum” and “coena” both are medieval spellings which were straight borrowed from Greek.So both of them should be completely incorrect,isn’t it?&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S:contio (less correctly concĭo)&#xD;&#xA;Isn’t “concio”just a medieval misspelling?How could it be less correct?&#xD;&#xA;3.&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S:fetus (foet-)&#xD;&#xA;Lewis Elementary Latin Dictionary:fetus (not foet-)&#xD;&#xA;These two entries are contradictory to each other.What does it actually mean?&#xD;&#xA;Please help me,I’m really confused.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25304" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7537" RevisionGUID="e3f1186b-fec3-4ec3-a526-4b147e12f829" CreationDate="2018-11-15T10:20:05.377" UserId="3116" Text="what does “less correctly” mean in the Lewis &amp; Short?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25305" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7537" RevisionGUID="e3f1186b-fec3-4ec3-a526-4b147e12f829" CreationDate="2018-11-15T10:20:05.377" UserId="3116" Text="|classical-latin|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7537" RevisionGUID="8295bc01-d8e7-47f7-843a-73754188da7c" CreationDate="2018-11-15T10:54:39.480" UserId="3116" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="1.&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S:caenum (less correctly coenum)&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S:cena(not coena,caena)||&#xD;&#xA;It seems “coenum” and “coena” both are medieval spellings which were straight borrowed from Greek.So both of them should be completely incorrect,isn’t it?&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S:contio (less correctly concĭo)||&#xD;&#xA;Isn’t “concio”just a medieval misspelling?How could it be less correct?&#xD;&#xA;3.&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S:fetus (foet-)&#xD;&#xA;Lewis Elementary Latin Dictionary:fetus (not foet-)||&#xD;&#xA;These two entries are contradictory to each other.What does it actually mean?&#xD;&#xA;Please help me,I’m really confused.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7538" RevisionGUID="74601e77-c254-4d7e-9376-b245583a6b91" CreationDate="2018-11-15T12:43:45.777" UserId="81" Text="This subject is addressed in *[Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar][1]*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Latin spelling varied somewhat with the changes in the language and was never absolutely settled in all details.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, we find ***lubet***, ***vortō***, as earlier, and ***libet***, ***vertō***, as later&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forms. Other variations are ***optumus*** and ***optimus***, ***gerundus*** and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***gerendus***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accordingly, to say that something is less correct means that the usage is less common than what was more generally accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/orthography" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7539" RevisionGUID="4c75e1ac-a243-4500-93c8-088cd00cb124" CreationDate="2018-11-15T14:51:47.160" UserId="81" Text="According to [L&amp;S][1], θλυπίς is a variation of θραυπίς, and it occurred in Aristotle's *Historia Animalium*, Book vii, ch. 3. I was unable to find the Greek text online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, θλυπίς and θραυπίς in a number of reference works, such as *[Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch][2]*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; θραυπὶς, ἡ, ein Vogel wie der Distelfink, caruelis; auch θλυπὶς,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; θλιπὶς, γράπις, geschrieben&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Martini Rulandi Medici Synonyma][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carduelis - Θραπὶς. θραυπὶς. ποικιλῖς. Ακανθὶς&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A New and Complete Greek Gradus][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ακανθις, ίδος. ἡ. carduelis. goldfinch, or linnet, αειδον κορυδοι και&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ακανθίδες, εστενε τρυγών.  Theoc. 7. 141. SYN. Θραυπις, ποικιλις.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Nichtlateinische Schriftzeichen][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Κάρδερίνα, π. - Ποικιλὶς, θραυπὶς (ἴδε Φλυτζοῦνι εἰς τὸ Παράρτ.),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀκανθῖς καὶ ἀκανθυλλὶς (ἠ πιλίκη), ἀστραγαλῖνος, χρυσομῖτρης.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chardonneret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=qraupi%5Cs&amp;la=greek#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=NR9GAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA926&amp;lpg=PA926&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CE%BB%CF%85%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XWZBxKoCI3&amp;sig=9kJlimxYe-X62iHfj6s_UwJh1w4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwia0ZjFudbeAhWw1FkKHWHhCv8Q6AEwBXoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CE%BB%CF%85%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%82&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=t9tlAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PT111&amp;lpg=PT111&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zBzdH1b6vs&amp;sig=OCMUbx37LGHmU6baCM5Xnjd3t5k&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiE5d6qvdbeAhWot1kKHRh2DCsQ6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=uLpNAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA26&amp;lpg=PA26&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=BklFA__law&amp;sig=nu-b6T-YpjtZtFhvVFpPZ8CrNGo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiE5d6qvdbeAhWot1kKHRh2DCsQ6AEwB3oECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=beZgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA210&amp;lpg=PA210&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=EBfB23CIvW&amp;sig=dsJqgAaBwm_JUYKmBQujQZ0Ozfo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwijoeWAwdbeAhXww1kKHfA9Czs4ChDoATAAegQICRAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4138" RevisionGUID="1edb8274-d56d-4de4-a283-f1074a4e01c0" CreationDate="2018-11-15T15:59:17.803" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="*Se iactare* seems a fairly literal translation of &quot;show off.&quot; If you want a more colorful image, Ovid offers us a wonderful little phrase addressed to Galatea by Polyphemus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Saevior indomitis eadem Galatea iuvencis,	 &#xD;&#xA;durior annosa quercu, fallacior undis,	  &#xD;&#xA;lentior et salicis virgis et vitibus albis,  &#xD;&#xA;his inmobilior scopulis, violentior amne,	 &#xD;&#xA;**laudato pavone superbior,** acrior igni,	 &#xD;&#xA;asperior tribulis, feta truculentior ursa,	 &#xD;&#xA;surdior aequoribus, calcato inmitior hydro.... (Ov. *M* 13:798-804)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Laudato pavone superbior** even has a great English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prouder than a praised peacock&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not quite the same as &quot;tooting one's own horn,&quot; but it definitely is a great way of conveying the image of pride!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7539" RevisionGUID="3f10b816-8ae9-43ab-b084-8c49a029a847" CreationDate="2018-11-15T16:51:30.290" UserId="81" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="According to [L&amp;S][1], θλυπίς is a variation of θραυπίς, and it occurred in Aristotle's *Historia Animalium*, Book viii, ch. 3. I was unable to find the Greek text online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, θλυπίς and θραυπίς in a number of reference works, such as *[Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch][2]*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; θραυπὶς, ἡ, ein Vogel wie der Distelfink, caruelis; auch θλυπὶς,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; θλιπὶς, γράπις, geschrieben&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Martini Rulandi Medici Synonyma][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carduelis - Θραπὶς. θραυπὶς. ποικιλῖς. Ακανθὶς&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A New and Complete Greek Gradus][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ακανθις, ίδος. ἡ. carduelis. goldfinch, or linnet, αειδον κορυδοι και&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ακανθίδες, εστενε τρυγών.  Theoc. 7. 141. SYN. Θραυπις, ποικιλις.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Nichtlateinische Schriftzeichen][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Κάρδερίνα, π. - Ποικιλὶς, θραυπὶς (ἴδε Φλυτζοῦνι εἰς τὸ Παράρτ.),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀκανθῖς καὶ ἀκανθυλλὶς (ἠ πιλίκη), ἀστραγαλῖνος, χρυσομῖτρης.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chardonneret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=qraupi%5Cs&amp;la=greek#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=NR9GAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA926&amp;lpg=PA926&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CE%BB%CF%85%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XWZBxKoCI3&amp;sig=9kJlimxYe-X62iHfj6s_UwJh1w4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwia0ZjFudbeAhWw1FkKHWHhCv8Q6AEwBXoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CE%BB%CF%85%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%82&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=t9tlAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PT111&amp;lpg=PT111&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zBzdH1b6vs&amp;sig=OCMUbx37LGHmU6baCM5Xnjd3t5k&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiE5d6qvdbeAhWot1kKHRh2DCsQ6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=uLpNAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA26&amp;lpg=PA26&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=BklFA__law&amp;sig=nu-b6T-YpjtZtFhvVFpPZ8CrNGo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiE5d6qvdbeAhWot1kKHRh2DCsQ6AEwB3oECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=beZgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA210&amp;lpg=PA210&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=EBfB23CIvW&amp;sig=dsJqgAaBwm_JUYKmBQujQZ0Ozfo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwijoeWAwdbeAhXww1kKHfA9Czs4ChDoATAAegQICRAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7539" RevisionGUID="59816ebe-bcdb-4646-89fc-8f0f05443560" CreationDate="2018-11-15T17:02:07.627" UserId="45" Comment="edited body" Text="According to [LSJ][1], θλυπίς is a variation of θραυπίς, and it occurred in Aristotle's *Historia Animalium*, Book viii, ch. 3. I was unable to find the Greek text online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, θλυπίς and θραυπίς in a number of reference works, such as *[Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch][2]*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; θραυπὶς, ἡ, ein Vogel wie der Distelfink, caruelis; auch θλυπὶς,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; θλιπὶς, γράπις, geschrieben&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Martini Rulandi Medici Synonyma][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carduelis - Θραπὶς. θραυπὶς. ποικιλῖς. Ακανθὶς&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A New and Complete Greek Gradus][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ακανθις, ίδος. ἡ. carduelis. goldfinch, or linnet, αειδον κορυδοι και&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ακανθίδες, εστενε τρυγών.  Theoc. 7. 141. SYN. Θραυπις, ποικιλις.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Nichtlateinische Schriftzeichen][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Κάρδερίνα, π. - Ποικιλὶς, θραυπὶς (ἴδε Φλυτζοῦνι εἰς τὸ Παράρτ.),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀκανθῖς καὶ ἀκανθυλλὶς (ἠ πιλίκη), ἀστραγαλῖνος, χρυσομῖτρης.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chardonneret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=qraupi%5Cs&amp;la=greek#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=NR9GAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA926&amp;lpg=PA926&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CE%BB%CF%85%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XWZBxKoCI3&amp;sig=9kJlimxYe-X62iHfj6s_UwJh1w4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwia0ZjFudbeAhWw1FkKHWHhCv8Q6AEwBXoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CE%BB%CF%85%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%82&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=t9tlAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PT111&amp;lpg=PT111&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zBzdH1b6vs&amp;sig=OCMUbx37LGHmU6baCM5Xnjd3t5k&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiE5d6qvdbeAhWot1kKHRh2DCsQ6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=uLpNAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA26&amp;lpg=PA26&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=BklFA__law&amp;sig=nu-b6T-YpjtZtFhvVFpPZ8CrNGo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiE5d6qvdbeAhWot1kKHRh2DCsQ6AEwB3oECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=beZgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA210&amp;lpg=PA210&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=EBfB23CIvW&amp;sig=dsJqgAaBwm_JUYKmBQujQZ0Ozfo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwijoeWAwdbeAhXww1kKHfA9Czs4ChDoATAAegQICRAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7539" RevisionGUID="de9169ff-992f-4ab6-9e55-d847e97fec84" CreationDate="2018-11-15T17:03:28.233" UserId="81" Comment="added 250 characters in body" Text="According to [LSJ][1], θλυπίς is a variation of θραυπίς, and it occurred in Aristotle's *Historia Animalium*, Book viii, ch. 3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα τὰ μὲν ὅλως, τὰ δ´ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; σκωληκοφάγα, τὰ δὲ τοιάδε ἀκανθοφάγα, ἀκανθίς, **θραυπίς**, ἔτι ἡ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; καλουμένη χρυσομῆτρις. Ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα ἐπὶ τῶν ἀκανθῶν νέμεται,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; σκωλήκα δ´ οὐδὲν οὐδ´ ἔμψυχον οὐδέν· ἐν ταὐτῷ δὲ καθεύδει καὶ νέμεται&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ταῦτα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, θλυπίς and θραυπίς appear in a number of reference works, such as *[Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch][2]*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; θραυπὶς, ἡ, ein Vogel wie der Distelfink, caruelis; auch θλυπὶς,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; θλιπὶς, γράπις, geschrieben&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Martini Rulandi Medici Synonyma][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carduelis - Θραπὶς. θραυπὶς. ποικιλῖς. Ακανθὶς&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A New and Complete Greek Gradus][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ακανθις, ίδος. ἡ. carduelis. goldfinch, or linnet, αειδον κορυδοι και&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ακανθίδες, εστενε τρυγών.  Theoc. 7. 141. SYN. Θραυπις, ποικιλις.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Nichtlateinische Schriftzeichen][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Κάρδερίνα, π. - Ποικιλὶς, θραυπὶς (ἴδε Φλυτζοῦνι εἰς τὸ Παράρτ.),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀκανθῖς καὶ ἀκανθυλλὶς (ἠ πιλίκη), ἀστραγαλῖνος, χρυσομῖτρης.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chardonneret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=qraupi%5Cs&amp;la=greek#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=NR9GAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA926&amp;lpg=PA926&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CE%BB%CF%85%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XWZBxKoCI3&amp;sig=9kJlimxYe-X62iHfj6s_UwJh1w4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwia0ZjFudbeAhWw1FkKHWHhCv8Q6AEwBXoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CE%BB%CF%85%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%82&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=t9tlAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PT111&amp;lpg=PT111&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zBzdH1b6vs&amp;sig=OCMUbx37LGHmU6baCM5Xnjd3t5k&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiE5d6qvdbeAhWot1kKHRh2DCsQ6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=uLpNAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA26&amp;lpg=PA26&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=BklFA__law&amp;sig=nu-b6T-YpjtZtFhvVFpPZ8CrNGo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiE5d6qvdbeAhWot1kKHRh2DCsQ6AEwB3oECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=beZgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA210&amp;lpg=PA210&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=EBfB23CIvW&amp;sig=dsJqgAaBwm_JUYKmBQujQZ0Ozfo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwijoeWAwdbeAhXww1kKHfA9Czs4ChDoATAAegQICRAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7539" RevisionGUID="8a362002-8ff1-48d0-8816-70fc3a804512" CreationDate="2018-11-15T17:04:02.757" UserId="81" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="According to [LSJ][1], θλυπίς is a variation of θραυπίς, and it occurred in Aristotle's *[Historia Animalium][2]*, Book viii, ch. 3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα τὰ μὲν ὅλως, τὰ δ´ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; σκωληκοφάγα, τὰ δὲ τοιάδε ἀκανθοφάγα, ἀκανθίς, **θραυπίς**, ἔτι ἡ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; καλουμένη χρυσομῆτρις. Ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα ἐπὶ τῶν ἀκανθῶν νέμεται,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; σκωλήκα δ´ οὐδὲν οὐδ´ ἔμψυχον οὐδέν· ἐν ταὐτῷ δὲ καθεύδει καὶ νέμεται&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ταῦτα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, θλυπίς and θραυπίς appear in a number of reference works, such as *[Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch][3]*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; θραυπὶς, ἡ, ein Vogel wie der Distelfink, *carduelis*; auch θλυπὶς,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; θλιπὶς, γράπις, geschrieben&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Martini Rulandi Medici Synonyma][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carduelis - Θραπὶς. θραυπὶς. ποικιλῖς. Ακανθὶς&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A New and Complete Greek Gradus][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ακανθις, ίδος. ἡ. carduelis. goldfinch, or linnet, αειδον κορυδοι και&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ακανθίδες, εστενε τρυγών.  Theoc. 7. 141. SYN. Θραυπις, ποικιλις.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Nichtlateinische Schriftzeichen][6]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Κάρδερίνα, π. - Ποικιλὶς, θραυπὶς (ἴδε Φλυτζοῦνι εἰς τὸ Παράρτ.),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀκανθῖς καὶ ἀκανθυλλὶς (ἠ πιλίκη), ἀστραγαλῖνος, χρυσομῖτρης.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chardonneret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=qraupi%5Cs&amp;la=greek#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/Aristote/animaux8gr.htm#46&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=NR9GAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA926&amp;lpg=PA926&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CE%BB%CF%85%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XWZBxKoCI3&amp;sig=9kJlimxYe-X62iHfj6s_UwJh1w4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwia0ZjFudbeAhWw1FkKHWHhCv8Q6AEwBXoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CE%BB%CF%85%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%82&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=t9tlAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PT111&amp;lpg=PT111&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zBzdH1b6vs&amp;sig=OCMUbx37LGHmU6baCM5Xnjd3t5k&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiE5d6qvdbeAhWot1kKHRh2DCsQ6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=uLpNAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA26&amp;lpg=PA26&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=BklFA__law&amp;sig=nu-b6T-YpjtZtFhvVFpPZ8CrNGo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiE5d6qvdbeAhWot1kKHRh2DCsQ6AEwB3oECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=beZgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA210&amp;lpg=PA210&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=EBfB23CIvW&amp;sig=dsJqgAaBwm_JUYKmBQujQZ0Ozfo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwijoeWAwdbeAhXww1kKHfA9Czs4ChDoATAAegQICRAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7539" RevisionGUID="21f8e37b-3bf1-4896-a020-8ee81e2dbe95" CreationDate="2018-11-15T17:10:08.330" UserId="81" Comment="edited body" Text="According to [LSJ][1], θλυπίς is a variation of θραυπίς, which occurred in Aristotle's *[Historia Animalium][2]*, Book viii, ch. 3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα τὰ μὲν ὅλως, τὰ δ´ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; σκωληκοφάγα, τὰ δὲ τοιάδε ἀκανθοφάγα, ἀκανθίς, **θραυπίς**, ἔτι ἡ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; καλουμένη χρυσομῆτρις. Ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα ἐπὶ τῶν ἀκανθῶν νέμεται,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; σκωλήκα δ´ οὐδὲν οὐδ´ ἔμψυχον οὐδέν· ἐν ταὐτῷ δὲ καθεύδει καὶ νέμεται&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ταῦτα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, θλυπίς and θραυπίς appear in a number of reference works, such as *[Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch][3]*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; θραυπὶς, ἡ, ein Vogel wie der Distelfink, *carduelis*; auch θλυπὶς,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; θλιπὶς, γράπις, geschrieben&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Martini Rulandi Medici Synonyma][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carduelis - Θραπὶς. θραυπὶς. ποικιλῖς. Ἀκανθὶς&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A New and Complete Greek Gradus][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ακανθις, ίδος. ἡ. carduelis. goldfinch, or linnet, αειδον κορυδοι και&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ακανθίδες, εστενε τρυγών.  Theoc. 7. 141. SYN. Θραυπις, ποικιλις.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Nichtlateinische Schriftzeichen][6]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Κάρδερίνα, π. - Ποικιλὶς, θραυπὶς (ἴδε Φλυτζοῦνι εἰς τὸ Παράρτ.),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀκανθῖς καὶ ἀκανθυλλὶς (ἠ ποιλίκη), ἀστραγαλῖνος, χρυσομῖτρης.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chardonneret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=qraupi%5Cs&amp;la=greek#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/Aristote/animaux8gr.htm#46&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=NR9GAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA926&amp;lpg=PA926&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CE%BB%CF%85%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XWZBxKoCI3&amp;sig=9kJlimxYe-X62iHfj6s_UwJh1w4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwia0ZjFudbeAhWw1FkKHWHhCv8Q6AEwBXoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CE%BB%CF%85%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%82&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=t9tlAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PT111&amp;lpg=PT111&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zBzdH1b6vs&amp;sig=OCMUbx37LGHmU6baCM5Xnjd3t5k&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiE5d6qvdbeAhWot1kKHRh2DCsQ6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=uLpNAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA26&amp;lpg=PA26&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=BklFA__law&amp;sig=nu-b6T-YpjtZtFhvVFpPZ8CrNGo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiE5d6qvdbeAhWot1kKHRh2DCsQ6AEwB3oECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=beZgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA210&amp;lpg=PA210&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=EBfB23CIvW&amp;sig=dsJqgAaBwm_JUYKmBQujQZ0Ozfo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwijoeWAwdbeAhXww1kKHfA9Czs4ChDoATAAegQICRAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7539" RevisionGUID="cc69da87-e5f6-4c59-bd2b-61c0b2f04c2c" CreationDate="2018-11-15T17:32:20.050" UserId="81" Comment="added 465 characters in body" Text="According to [LSJ][1], θλυπίς is a variation of θραυπίς, which occurred in Aristotle's *[Historia Animalium][2]*, Book viii, ch. 3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα τὰ μὲν ὅλως, τὰ δ´ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; σκωληκοφάγα, τὰ δὲ τοιάδε ἀκανθοφάγα, ἀκανθίς, **θραυπίς**, ἔτι ἡ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; καλουμένη χρυσομῆτρις. Ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα ἐπὶ τῶν ἀκανθῶν νέμεται,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; σκωλήκα δ´ οὐδὲν οὐδ´ ἔμψυχον οὐδέν· ἐν ταὐτῷ δὲ καθεύδει καὶ νέμεται&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ταῦτα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Translation][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The above-enumerated birds and the like of them feed either wholly or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for the most part on grubs, but the following and the like feed on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thistles; to wit, the linnet, the thraupis, and the goldfinch. All&#xD;&#xA;&gt; these birds feed on thistles, but never on grubs or any living thing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whatever; they live and roost also on the plants from which they&#xD;&#xA;&gt; derive their food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, θλυπίς and θραυπίς appear in a number of reference works, such as *[Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch][4]*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; θραυπὶς, ἡ, ein Vogel wie der Distelfink, *carduelis*; auch θλυπὶς,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; θλιπὶς, γράπις, geschrieben&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Martini Rulandi Medici Synonyma][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carduelis - Θραπὶς. θραυπὶς. ποικιλῖς. Ἀκανθὶς&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A New and Complete Greek Gradus][6]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ακανθις, ίδος. ἡ. carduelis. goldfinch, or linnet, αειδον κορυδοι και&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ακανθίδες, εστενε τρυγών.  Theoc. 7. 141. SYN. Θραυπις, ποικιλις.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Nichtlateinische Schriftzeichen][7]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Κάρδερίνα, π. - Ποικιλὶς, θραυπὶς (ἴδε Φλυτζοῦνι εἰς τὸ Παράρτ.),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀκανθῖς καὶ ἀκανθυλλὶς (ἠ ποιλίκη), ἀστραγαλῖνος, χρυσομῖτρης.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chardonneret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=qraupi%5Cs&amp;la=greek#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/Aristote/animaux8gr.htm#46&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/history_anim.8.viii.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=NR9GAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA926&amp;lpg=PA926&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CE%BB%CF%85%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XWZBxKoCI3&amp;sig=9kJlimxYe-X62iHfj6s_UwJh1w4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwia0ZjFudbeAhWw1FkKHWHhCv8Q6AEwBXoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CE%BB%CF%85%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%82&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=t9tlAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PT111&amp;lpg=PT111&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zBzdH1b6vs&amp;sig=OCMUbx37LGHmU6baCM5Xnjd3t5k&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiE5d6qvdbeAhWot1kKHRh2DCsQ6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=uLpNAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA26&amp;lpg=PA26&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=BklFA__law&amp;sig=nu-b6T-YpjtZtFhvVFpPZ8CrNGo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiE5d6qvdbeAhWot1kKHRh2DCsQ6AEwB3oECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=beZgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA210&amp;lpg=PA210&amp;dq=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=EBfB23CIvW&amp;sig=dsJqgAaBwm_JUYKmBQujQZ0Ozfo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwijoeWAwdbeAhXww1kKHfA9Czs4ChDoATAAegQICRAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%80%E1%BD%B6%CF%82&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7537" RevisionGUID="f1e1e4be-88b2-47ef-ab6d-9ba63acde43c" CreationDate="2018-11-15T17:39:13.200" UserId="45" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S: caenum (less correctly coenum)  &#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S: cena (not coena, caena)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems “coenum” and “coena” both are medieval spellings which were straight borrowed from Greek. So both of them should be completely incorrect, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S: contio (less correctly concĭo)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Isn’t “concio” just a medieval misspelling? How could it be less correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S: fetus (foet-)  &#xD;&#xA;Lewis Elementary Latin Dictionary: fetus (not foet-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two entries are contradictory to each other. What does it actually mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help me, I’m really confused.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7538" RevisionGUID="f1f957ef-1818-4b04-a30b-49e74fec482d" CreationDate="2018-11-15T19:37:08.803" UserId="81" Comment="added 1711 characters in body" Text="This subject is addressed in *[Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar][1]*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Latin spelling varied somewhat with the changes in the language and was never absolutely settled in all details.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, we find ***lubet***, ***vortō***, as earlier, and ***libet***, ***vertō***, as later&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forms. Other variations are ***optumus*** and ***optimus***, ***gerundus*** and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***gerendus***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accordingly, to say that something is less correct means that the usage is less common than what was more generally accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Languages change over time and variations of usage are found among different communities and dialects. Because of this, it's difficult to address the question of spelling being more or less correct, since doing so assumes that there exists some accepted standard by which correctness may be judged. However, according to Andrew Sihler, no such standard could be said to exist until the twentieth century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There was no standardized written language until the promulgation of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; national orthography, based upon Latin characters, in 1909. (*New&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin* p. 4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L. R. Palmer argues that there is no scientific way to decide what should be considered standard usage in distinction from recognized variations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scholars are undecided whether they are to be regarded as different&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dialects of one and the same language, ‘Italic’, or as two separate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; languages. This is largely a dispute about terms which have no precise&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scientific definition. A language is a system of vocal signals used by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a given community of human beings. Any person who makes intelligible&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use of that system becomes ipso facto, at least for such time as he&#xD;&#xA;&gt; makes use of it, a member of that linguistic community. This factor of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; intelligibility may be used to attempt a rough definition of dialect.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Within the given system local and personal varieties may occur, but as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; long as intelligibility is not seriously affected such variation is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not felt to involve exclusion from membership of the linguistic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; community. These local and individual forms of speech are regarded&#xD;&#xA;&gt; merely as subvarieties of the system used over the whole area. (*The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin Language* p.6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/orthography" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7538" RevisionGUID="12b3f8f1-b00f-48eb-8866-c077dce1c8f8" CreationDate="2018-11-15T19:49:43.907" UserId="81" Comment="deleted 42 characters in body" Text="This subject is addressed in *[Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar][1]*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Latin spelling varied somewhat with the changes in the language and was never absolutely settled in all details.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, we find ***lubet***, ***vortō***, as earlier, and ***libet***, ***vertō***, as later&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forms. Other variations are ***optumus*** and ***optimus***, ***gerundus*** and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***gerendus***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accordingly, to say that something is less correct means that the usage is less common than what was more generally accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Languages change over time and variations of usage are found among different communities and dialects. Because of this, it's difficult to address the question of spelling being more or less correct, since doing so assumes that there exists some accepted standard by which correctness may be judged. However, according to Andrew Sihler, no such standard could be said to exist until the twentieth century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There was no standardized written language until the promulgation of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; national orthography, based upon Latin characters, in 1909. (*New&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin* p. 4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L. R. Palmer argues that there is no scientific way to decide what should be considered standard usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scholars are undecided whether they are to be regarded as different&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dialects of one and the same language, ‘Italic’, or as two separate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; languages. This is largely a dispute about terms which have no precise&#xD;&#xA;&gt; scientific definition. A language is a system of vocal signals used by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a given community of human beings. Any person who makes intelligible&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use of that system becomes ipso facto, at least for such time as he&#xD;&#xA;&gt; makes use of it, a member of that linguistic community. This factor of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; intelligibility may be used to attempt a rough definition of dialect.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Within the given system local and personal varieties may occur, but as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; long as intelligibility is not seriously affected such variation is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not felt to involve exclusion from membership of the linguistic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; community. These local and individual forms of speech are regarded&#xD;&#xA;&gt; merely as subvarieties of the system used over the whole area. (*The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin Language* p.6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/orthography" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7540" RevisionGUID="2fdae58f-a99c-4f32-b576-990dac2731cb" CreationDate="2018-11-15T20:54:29.463" UserId="9" Text="The main role of a dictionary is to provide information. For words like *caenum,* there are two different pieces of information that may be useful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Spellings like *coenum* are commonly found&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Certain individuals consider spellings like *coenum* to be &quot;incorrect&quot;, for various reasons (convention, etymology, and analogy are common criteria for the &quot;correctness&quot; of spelling). As Expedito Bipes says, there is no simple definition of &quot;misspelling&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giving a common &quot;mis&quot;spelling along with a clarifying comment such as &quot;less correctly&quot; is supposed to be a way of communicating both pieces of information. However, the brief and formulaic nature of this comment seems to have made it less than clear. There isn't any particular significance to the use of the word &quot;less&quot;: it's just a kind of hedge because some people might consider e.g. medieval spellings to be acceptable and not erroneous in the context of medieval texts. Calling a spelling &quot;completely incorrect&quot; or &quot;just a medieval misspelling&quot; might be incorrectly understood as implying that it never had any common currency in Latin texts written by educated individuals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If the &quot;mis&quot;spelling was not listed by the dictionary, then the reader might wonder if &quot;coenum&quot; was a distinct word that just didn't happen to be in the dictionary, or if it was a &quot;valid&quot; variant spelling of *caenum* that had been accidentally omitted. If the spelling was listed in the dictionary without comment, then the reader might mistakenly assume that it was a &quot;valid&quot; alternative spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7540" RevisionGUID="3fc98f8d-ebe9-407d-a07c-ea93ab65dfde" CreationDate="2018-11-15T21:00:54.757" UserId="9" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="The main role of a dictionary is to provide information. For words like *caenum,* there are two different pieces of information that may be useful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Spellings like *coenum* are commonly found&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Certain individuals consider spellings like *coenum* to be &quot;incorrect&quot;, for various reasons (convention, etymology, and analogy are common criteria for the &quot;correctness&quot; of spelling). As Expedito Bipes says, there is no simple definition of &quot;misspelling&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giving a common &quot;mis&quot;spelling along with a clarifying comment such as &quot;less correctly&quot; is supposed to be a way of communicating both pieces of information. However, the brief and formulaic nature of this comment seems to have made it less than clear. As far as I know, there isn't any special significance to the choice of the specific phrase &quot;less correctly&quot; in L&amp;S: it's just a kind of hedge because some people might consider e.g. medieval spellings to be acceptable and not erroneous in the context of medieval texts. Calling a spelling &quot;completely incorrect&quot; or &quot;just a medieval misspelling&quot; might be incorrectly understood as implying that it never had any common currency in Latin texts written by educated individuals, or that it only occurred sporadically in texts with high levels of spelling variation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If the &quot;mis&quot;spelling was not listed by the dictionary, then the reader might wonder if &quot;coenum&quot; was a distinct word that just didn't happen to be in the dictionary, or if it was a &quot;valid&quot; variant spelling of *caenum* that had been accidentally omitted. If the spelling was listed in the dictionary without comment, then the reader might mistakenly assume that it was a &quot;valid&quot; alternative spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7540" RevisionGUID="a5cab98f-bddf-4726-9050-af0163379c61" CreationDate="2018-11-16T02:49:53.307" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body" Text="The main role of a dictionary is to provide information. For words like *caenum,* there are two different pieces of information that may be useful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Spellings like *coenum* are commonly found&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Certain individuals consider spellings like *coenum* to be &quot;incorrect&quot;, for various reasons (convention, etymology, and analogy are common criteria for the &quot;correctness&quot; of spelling). As Expedito Bipes says, there is no simple definition of &quot;misspelling&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giving a common &quot;mis&quot;spelling along with a clarifying comment such as &quot;less correctly&quot; is supposed to be a way of communicating both pieces of information. However, the brief and formulaic nature of this comment seems to have made it less than clear. As far as I know, there isn't any special significance to the choice of the specific phrase &quot;less correctly&quot; in L&amp;S: it's just a kind of hedge because some people might consider e.g. medieval spellings to be acceptable and not erroneous in the context of medieval texts. Calling a spelling &quot;completely incorrect&quot; or &quot;just a medieval misspelling&quot; might be incorrectly understood as implying that it never had any common currency in Latin texts written by educated individuals, or that it only occurred accidentally or sporadically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If the &quot;mis&quot;spelling was not listed by the dictionary, then the reader might wonder if &quot;coenum&quot; was a distinct word that just didn't happen to be in the dictionary, or if it was a &quot;valid&quot; variant spelling of *caenum* that had been accidentally omitted. If the spelling was listed in the dictionary without comment, then the reader might mistakenly assume that it was a &quot;valid&quot; alternative spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7540" RevisionGUID="857baa30-fbcb-417a-9467-1e2e09450bb0" CreationDate="2018-11-16T04:51:23.827" UserId="9" Comment="added 1490 characters in body" Text="The main role of a dictionary is to provide information. For words like *caenum,* there are two different pieces of information that may be useful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Spellings like *coenum* are commonly found&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Certain individuals consider spellings like *coenum* to be &quot;incorrect&quot;, for various reasons (convention, etymology, and analogy are common criteria for the &quot;correctness&quot; of spelling). As Expedito Bipes says, there is no simple definition of &quot;misspelling&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giving a common &quot;mis&quot;spelling along with a clarifying comment such as &quot;less correctly&quot; is supposed to be a way of communicating both pieces of information. However, the brief and formulaic nature of this comment seems to have made it less than clear. As far as I know, there isn't any special significance to the choice of the specific phrase &quot;less correctly&quot; in L&amp;S: it's just a kind of hedge because some people might consider some non-etymological spellings to be acceptable (due to established custom) and not erroneous. Calling a spelling &quot;completely incorrect&quot; or &quot;just a medieval misspelling&quot; might be incorrectly understood as implying that it never had any common currency in Latin texts written by educated individuals, or that it only occurred accidentally or sporadically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If the &quot;mis&quot;spelling was not listed by the dictionary, then the reader might wonder if &quot;coenum&quot; was a distinct word that just didn't happen to be in the dictionary, or if it was a &quot;valid&quot; variant spelling of *caenum* that had been accidentally omitted. If the spelling was listed in the dictionary without comment, then the reader might mistakenly assume that it was a &quot;valid&quot; alternative spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found an interesting review of &quot;Harper's Latin Dictionary&quot; in *[The Nation](https://books.google.com/books?id=YQscAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA101&amp;lpg=PA101)* No. 762 (Feb. 5, 1880) that supports Expedito Bipes's statement that in the 19th century, the standardization of Latin spelling and codification of what was considered &quot;correct&quot; and &quot;incorrect&quot; was still in progress (but evidently, some individuals such as the quoted author were very interested in speeding up this process):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The features of the old dictionary [Andrews's Lexicon] which called most urgently for reform were the orthography and the etymologies. [...] The spelling of the new work leaves not very much to be desired, and it is a real comfort to see at last in a dictionary *caelum, paenitet, cena, erus, umerus, umidus, nuntius, contio, condicio, incoho,* and many others. This is not a minor point. It has at last dawned on the scholastic mind that there is a right way of writing (and pronouncing) every Latin word; and it becomes an important duty to free the language from the distortions brought about by a vicious mediæval pronunciation, and to accustom learners from the outset to the right forms of words. Often bad forms should have been rejected more positively: thus &quot;*contio* (less correctly *contio*).&quot; Why not &quot;incorrectly&quot;? On what principle the editors have given *abicio, conicio, proicio,* etc., at the heads of articles, and on the other hand &quot;*adjicio* (better *adicio*),&quot; we are at a loss to say." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7540" RevisionGUID="7ae416fd-943d-4837-9b86-df7c35eb5db1" CreationDate="2018-11-16T04:56:26.480" UserId="9" Comment="added 1490 characters in body" Text="The main role of a dictionary is to provide information. For words like *caenum,* there are two different pieces of information that may be useful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Spellings like *coenum* are commonly found&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Certain individuals consider spellings like *coenum* to be &quot;incorrect&quot;, for various reasons (convention, etymology, and analogy are common criteria for the &quot;correctness&quot; of spelling). As Expedito Bipes says, there is no simple definition of &quot;misspelling&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giving a common &quot;mis&quot;spelling along with a clarifying comment such as &quot;less correctly&quot; is supposed to be a way of communicating both pieces of information. However, the brief and formulaic nature of this comment seems to have made it less than clear. As far as I know, there isn't any special significance to the choice of the specific phrase &quot;less correctly&quot; in L&amp;S: it's just a kind of hedge because some people might consider some non-etymological spellings to be acceptable (due to established custom) and not erroneous. Calling a spelling &quot;completely incorrect&quot; or &quot;just a medieval misspelling&quot; might be incorrectly understood as implying that it never had any common currency in Latin texts written by educated individuals, or that it only occurred accidentally or sporadically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If the &quot;mis&quot;spelling was not listed by the dictionary, then the reader might wonder if &quot;coenum&quot; was a distinct word that just didn't happen to be in the dictionary, or if it was a &quot;valid&quot; variant spelling of *caenum* that had been accidentally omitted. If the spelling was listed in the dictionary without comment, then the reader might mistakenly assume that it was a &quot;valid&quot; alternative spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found an interesting review of &quot;Harper's Latin Dictionary&quot; in *[The Nation](https://books.google.com/books?id=YQscAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA101&amp;lpg=PA101)* No. 762 (Feb. 5, 1880) that supports Expedito Bipes's statement that in the 19th century, the standardization of Latin spelling and codification of what was considered &quot;correct&quot; and &quot;incorrect&quot; was still in progress (but evidently, some individuals such as the author of the following quote were very interested in speeding up this process):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The features of the old dictionary [Andrews's Lexicon] which called most urgently for reform were the orthography and the etymologies. [...] The spelling of the new work leaves not very much to be desired, and it is a real comfort to see at last in a dictionary *caelum, paenitet, cena, erus, umerus, umidus, nuntius, contio, condicio, incoho,* and many others. This is not a minor point. It has at last dawned on the scholastic mind that there is a right way of writing (and pronouncing) every Latin word; and it becomes an important duty to free the language from the distortions brought about by a vicious mediæval pronunciation, and to accustom learners from the outset to the right forms of words. Often bad forms should have been rejected more positively: thus &quot;*contio* (less correctly *contio*).&quot; Why not &quot;incorrectly&quot;? On what principle the editors have given *abicio, conicio, proicio,* etc., at the heads of articles, and on the other hand &quot;*adjicio* (better *adicio*),&quot; we are at a loss to say." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7540" RevisionGUID="4b1ebe50-c887-488d-8595-3db31adab025" CreationDate="2018-11-16T05:02:32.900" UserId="9" Comment="added 1490 characters in body" Text="The main role of a dictionary is to provide information. For words like *caenum,* there are two different pieces of information that may be useful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Spellings like *coenum* are commonly found&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Certain individuals consider spellings like *coenum* to be &quot;incorrect&quot;, for various reasons (convention, etymology, and analogy are common criteria for the &quot;correctness&quot; of spelling). As Expedito Bipes says, there is no simple definition of &quot;misspelling&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giving a common &quot;mis&quot;spelling along with a clarifying comment such as &quot;less correctly&quot; is I think intended to be a way of communicating both pieces of information. If the &quot;mis&quot;spelling was not listed by the dictionary, then the reader might wonder if &quot;coenum&quot; was a distinct word that just didn't happen to be in the dictionary, or if it was a &quot;valid&quot; variant spelling of *caenum* that had been accidentally omitted. If the spelling was listed in the dictionary without comment, then the reader might mistakenly assume that it was a &quot;valid&quot; alternative spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the brief and formulaic nature of this comment seems to leave its meaning a bit unclear. I haven't been able to identify the precise criteria used in L&amp;S for determining when to use &quot;less correctly&quot; or &quot;not&quot; when discussing spellings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that the specific phrase &quot;less correctly&quot; was just chosen as a kind of hedge because some people might consider some non-etymological spellings to be acceptable (due to established custom) or at least not entirely erroneous. Calling a spelling &quot;completely incorrect&quot; or &quot;just a medieval misspelling&quot; might be incorrectly understood as implying that it never had any common currency in Latin texts written by educated individuals, or that it only occurred accidentally or sporadically. In fact, it seems that many of the spellings that are described as &quot;less correct&quot; in L&amp;S were in frequent use, possibly even up until the time that dictionary was being edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found an interesting review of &quot;Harper's Latin Dictionary&quot; in *[The Nation](https://books.google.com/books?id=YQscAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA101&amp;lpg=PA101)* No. 762 (Feb. 5, 1880) that supports Expedito Bipes's statement that in the 19th century, the standardization of Latin spelling and codification of what was considered &quot;correct&quot; and &quot;incorrect&quot; was still in progress (but evidently, some individuals such as the author of the following quote were very interested in speeding up this process):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The features of the old dictionary [Andrews's Lexicon] which called most urgently for reform were the orthography and the etymologies. [...] The spelling of the new work leaves not very much to be desired, and it is a real comfort to see at last in a dictionary *caelum, paenitet, cena, erus, umerus, umidus, nuntius, contio, condicio, incoho,* and many others. This is not a minor point. It has at last dawned on the scholastic mind that there is a right way of writing (and pronouncing) every Latin word; and it becomes an important duty to free the language from the distortions brought about by a vicious mediæval pronunciation, and to accustom learners from the outset to the right forms of words. Often bad forms should have been rejected more positively: thus &quot;*contio* (less correctly *contio*).&quot; Why not &quot;incorrectly&quot;? On what principle the editors have given *abicio, conicio, proicio,* etc., at the heads of articles, and on the other hand &quot;*adjicio* (better *adicio*),&quot; we are at a loss to say." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7541" RevisionGUID="4bf7bbe5-9940-4185-92db-28fefd3c28cf" CreationDate="2018-11-16T07:13:53.887" UserId="79" Text="In classical Latin word-final vowels before initial vowels were [elided also in prose](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/489/79), not just in poetry.&#xD;&#xA;However, I am under the impression that elision is not (intended to be) used in contemporary Latin prose.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of a Latin pronunciation practice currently in use where elision is applied.&#xD;&#xA;Prose of all eras is read without elision in today's Finland, and I doubt we are special in that respect.&#xD;&#xA;If this observation is correct &amp;mdash; please correct me if I'm wrong &amp;mdash; then elision must have fallen out of use at some point in the last two millennia.&#xD;&#xA;Do we know when this happened?&#xD;&#xA;Any more details on the process would also be interesting, but to get started, I want to stick with a time estimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The time is unlikely to be sharp.&#xD;&#xA;Elision is not binary, as one can easily elide in some of the cases.&#xD;&#xA;The practice seems to have shifted from &quot;elide (almost) always when possible&quot; to &quot;elide (almost) never even if possible&quot;, and this shift may have taken some amount of time.&#xD;&#xA;The shift may also have been regional, as there are and have been many schools of Latin pronunciation across Europe and I don't know how uniform they were in this respect.&#xD;&#xA;I still imagine that it is possible to date the phenomenon, or at least some key symptoms thereof." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25326" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7541" RevisionGUID="4bf7bbe5-9940-4185-92db-28fefd3c28cf" CreationDate="2018-11-16T07:13:53.887" UserId="79" Text="When did elision fall out of use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25327" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7541" RevisionGUID="4bf7bbe5-9940-4185-92db-28fefd3c28cf" CreationDate="2018-11-16T07:13:53.887" UserId="79" Text="|language-evolution|elision|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7534" RevisionGUID="620e0947-38f2-4f4f-b582-305d2fe612d9" CreationDate="2018-11-16T08:32:32.413" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 69 characters in body" Text="This question is actually very interesting because of the fact that it makes me think about a construction I do not use often in writing Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can start from a note from the O. Riemann Latin Syntax, 7th edition, Paris 1927, page 122 §55 note 1. &quot;In the archaic times we find *memini* and *obliviscor* with the accusative and the genitive”. During the classic time personal pronouns and reflexive pronouns are always in genitive case. During the classic time personal nouns in the genitive case with *memini* is rare and familiar. In the imperial time the construction of personal nouns is the regular syntax. For thing nouns the accusative case lasts for more time but the genitive case strikes it during the imperial time. If *memini* means “mention” it is constructed with the genitive case (Caes. De bello civili 3, 108, 2 “eundem Achillam cuius supra meminimus”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then from an other normative syntax, the Ernout et Thomas, Syntaxe Latine, Paris 1964. Ernout&amp;Thomas is more precise, on page 52 §65:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An old alternation existed with the accusative. In the Latin using the genitive seems to have an idea of effort in remembering; rather the accusative indicates something one remembers clearly and is more frequent with things. Cic. Fi. 5, 3 “vivorum memini” Pl. Mi. 1378 “officium memini”. With a neuter pronoun like “aliquid” or “multa” the accusative is the rule because of the possible confusion with the genitive (alicuius or multorum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So according to this two passages we can conclude that there is no substantial difference of meaning between the two constructions, especially in the classical and imperial time, but only a more common use, the construction with a genitive case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that this answer will satisfy your curiosity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7540" RevisionGUID="0ad89563-5866-42cf-9349-972e053c4dac" CreationDate="2018-11-16T08:59:36.727" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="The main role of a dictionary is to provide information. For words like *caenum,* there are two different pieces of information that may be useful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Spellings like *coenum* are commonly found&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Certain individuals consider spellings like *coenum* to be &quot;incorrect&quot;, for various reasons (convention, etymology, and analogy are common criteria for the &quot;correctness&quot; of spelling). As Expedito Bipes says, there is no simple definition of &quot;misspelling&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giving a common &quot;mis&quot;spelling along with a clarifying comment such as &quot;less correctly&quot; is I think intended to be a way of communicating both pieces of information. If the &quot;mis&quot;spelling was not listed by the dictionary, then the reader might wonder if &quot;coenum&quot; was a distinct word that just didn't happen to be in the dictionary, or if it was a &quot;valid&quot; variant spelling of *caenum* that had been accidentally omitted. If the spelling was listed in the dictionary without comment, then the reader might mistakenly assume that it was a &quot;valid&quot; alternative spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the brief and formulaic nature of this comment seems to leave its meaning a bit unclear. I haven't been able to identify the precise criteria used in L&amp;S for determining when to use &quot;less correctly&quot; or &quot;not&quot; when discussing spellings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that the specific phrase &quot;less correctly&quot; was just chosen as a kind of hedge because some people might consider some non-etymological spellings to be acceptable (due to established custom) or at least not entirely erroneous. Calling a spelling &quot;completely incorrect&quot; or &quot;just a medieval misspelling&quot; might be incorrectly understood as implying that it never had any common currency in Latin texts written by educated individuals, or that it only occurred accidentally or sporadically. In fact, it seems that many of the spellings that are described as &quot;less correct&quot; in L&amp;S were in frequent use, possibly even up until the time that dictionary was being edited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found an interesting review of &quot;Harper's Latin Dictionary&quot; in *[The Nation](https://books.google.com/books?id=YQscAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA101&amp;lpg=PA101)* No. 762 (Feb. 5, 1880) that supports Expedito Bipes's statement that in the 19th century, the standardization of Latin spelling and codification of what was considered &quot;correct&quot; and &quot;incorrect&quot; was still in progress (but evidently, some individuals such as the author of the following quote were very interested in speeding up this process):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The features of the old dictionary [Andrews's Lexicon] which called most urgently for reform were the orthography and the etymologies. [...] The spelling of the new work leaves not very much to be desired, and it is a real comfort to see at last in a dictionary *caelum, paenitet, cena, erus, umerus, umidus, nuntius, contio, condicio, incoho,* and many others. This is not a minor point. It has at last dawned on the scholastic mind that there is a right way of writing (and pronouncing) every Latin word; and it becomes an important duty to free the language from the distortions brought about by a vicious mediæval pronunciation, and to accustom learners from the outset to the right forms of words. Often bad forms should have been rejected more positively: thus &quot;*contio* (less correctly *concio*).&quot; Why not &quot;incorrectly&quot;? On what principle the editors have given *abicio, conicio, proicio,* etc., at the heads of articles, and on the other hand &quot;*adjicio* (better *adicio*),&quot; we are at a loss to say." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25330" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7332" RevisionGUID="53306857-9c51-4782-ac37-d11808a60653" CreationDate="2018-11-16T14:04:03.463" UserId="183" Comment="+1 tag" Text="|classical-latin|greek|spoken-language|language-contact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7542" RevisionGUID="792ed1e4-39f7-44fe-8f8e-2d8f40046f0c" CreationDate="2018-11-16T14:05:00.783" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25332" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7542" RevisionGUID="792ed1e4-39f7-44fe-8f8e-2d8f40046f0c" CreationDate="2018-11-16T14:05:00.783" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7543" RevisionGUID="6cedb9d2-8607-4bae-b34f-c09e0055dadf" CreationDate="2018-11-16T14:05:00.783" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25334" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7543" RevisionGUID="6cedb9d2-8607-4bae-b34f-c09e0055dadf" CreationDate="2018-11-16T14:05:00.783" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25335" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4193" RevisionGUID="841f2bbc-dd1d-448a-8901-a951a11f2471" CreationDate="2018-11-16T14:05:29.360" UserId="183" Comment="+1 tag" Text="|classical-latin|greek|passage-request|spoken-language|language-contact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7544" RevisionGUID="7d3b2e21-318e-4bee-81c2-d9c43d5c56d0" CreationDate="2018-11-17T00:39:30.700" UserId="1858" Text="Is there any information on the status of learned pronunciations from the late imperial period up to 1000 CE? I am wondering because the Classical Latin reconstruction seems to make clear that by the imperial period, final /m/ was regularly lost and replaced with nasalization on the previous vowel, and then of course there are the near-close short vowel allophones [ɪ] and [ʊ] for /i/ and /u/. But while in VL. the graphic omission of 'm' indicates the lost of nasalization, and the 'e/i' 'o/u' confusion indicates the vowel mergers, later medieval Ecclesiastical Latin seems to follow a learned spelling pronunciation according to the local Romance dialect, restoring the consonantal status of final /m/ and pronouncing former short vowels the same as their former long counterparts, so [ɪ] and [iː] &gt; [i] and [ʊ] and [uː] &gt; [u] instead of [ɪ] &gt; [e], [iː] &gt; [i] and [ʊ] &gt; [o] and [uː] &gt; [u] in VL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I presume that learned speakers would have followed the general patterns of most other VL./Proto-Romance consonant developments, so pre-palatal /k/ &gt; /tʃ/ or /ts/, /g/ &gt; /dʒ/, lost of /h/, etc. When could such spelling pronunciations have developed? For example, while at Classical Latin speaker would have pronounced ad dominum as [ad ˈdɔmɪnũː] would Jerome or Boethius have already said [ad ˈdɔminum], as in later ecclesiastical Latin, while their contemporary VL./Proto-Romance speakers would have said [a ˈdɔmnu] or [a ̍dɔmno]? When would the restoration of spelling pronunciations that we see in medieval Latin, like final /m/, near-close vowel elimination, etc., have taken place?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25337" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7544" RevisionGUID="7d3b2e21-318e-4bee-81c2-d9c43d5c56d0" CreationDate="2018-11-17T00:39:30.700" UserId="1858" Text="What would a 5th-6th century learned Latin pronunciation have sounded like?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25338" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7544" RevisionGUID="7d3b2e21-318e-4bee-81c2-d9c43d5c56d0" CreationDate="2018-11-17T00:39:30.700" UserId="1858" Text="|pronunciation|ecclesiastical-latin|late-latin|phonology|vulgar-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7544" RevisionGUID="04ed227b-8e17-4318-ba99-d35ed3521ff0" CreationDate="2018-11-17T00:45:02.407" UserId="1858" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Is there any information on the status of learned pronunciations from the late imperial period up to 1000 CE? I am wondering because the Classical Latin reconstruction seems to make clear that by the imperial period, final /m/ was regularly lost and replaced with nasalization on the previous vowel, and then of course there are the near-close short vowel allophones [ɪ] and [ʊ] for /i/ and /u/. But while in Vulgar Latin the graphic omission of 'm' indicates the lost of nasalization, and the 'e/i' 'o/u' confusion indicates the vowel mergers, later medieval Ecclesiastical Latin seems to follow a learned spelling pronunciation according to the local Romance dialect, restoring the consonantal status of final /m/ and pronouncing former short vowels the same as their former long counterparts, so [ɪ] and [iː] &gt; [i] and [ʊ] and [uː] &gt; [u] instead of [ɪ] &gt; [e], [iː] &gt; [i] and [ʊ] &gt; [o] and [uː] &gt; [u] in VL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I presume that learned speakers would have followed the general patterns of most other VL./Proto-Romance consonant developments, so pre-palatal /k/ &gt; /tʃ/ or /ts/, /g/ &gt; /dʒ/, lost of /h/, etc. But my problem is, when would the restoration of spelling pronunciations for vowels that we see in medieval Latin––like final /m/, near-close vowel elimination, etc.––have taken place? For example, while a Classical Latin speaker would have pronounced ad dominum as [ad ˈdɔmɪnũː] would Jerome or Boethius have already said [ad ˈdɔminum], as in later ecclesiastical Latin, while their contemporary Vulgar Latin/Proto-Romance speakers would have probably said something like [a ˈdɔmnu] or [a ̍dɔmno]? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25340" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7536" RevisionGUID="3f02a111-a358-4e08-975d-47086c169c80" CreationDate="2018-11-17T01:28:38.433" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|animals|scientific-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7545" RevisionGUID="17acfc58-427a-4b9f-b18b-4fb6db767433" CreationDate="2018-11-17T03:04:08.670" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="I'm using a family member's university account to sign into [Oxford Scholarly Editions Online](http://www.oxfordscholarlyeditions.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. To what 'widget' does [the official webpage](http://www.oxfordscholarlyeditions.com/page/the-oxford-latin-dictionary) refer? Is it online? Must it be downloaded?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A **widget** enabling users to look up words in the *Oxford Latin Dictionary*, ed. P. G. W. Glare (2nd edn, 2012), is included for all users of the Latin content on *Oxford Scholarly Editions Online*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I [searched for it on OSEO](http://www.oxfordscholarlyeditions.com/search?q=The+Oxford+Latin+Dictionary&amp;isNewSearch=true&amp;onlyPreferredWorks=true&amp;searchBtn=Search), but see no result? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25342" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7545" RevisionGUID="17acfc58-427a-4b9f-b18b-4fb6db767433" CreationDate="2018-11-17T03:04:08.670" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How do I access the Oxford Latin Dictionary online?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25343" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7545" RevisionGUID="17acfc58-427a-4b9f-b18b-4fb6db767433" CreationDate="2018-11-17T03:04:08.670" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|dictionary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7546" RevisionGUID="e4af99dc-90a3-4107-82f5-459fa010a089" CreationDate="2018-11-17T03:13:39.050" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How does &quot;and, also&quot; + &quot;now, already&quot; compound to signify &quot;even&quot;? I don't understand how combining the notions of &quot;and, also&quot; + &quot;now, already&quot; can yield &quot;even&quot;. [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/etiam):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9l0Fn.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25345" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7546" RevisionGUID="e4af99dc-90a3-4107-82f5-459fa010a089" CreationDate="2018-11-17T03:13:39.050" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How did 'et' and 'iam' compound to signify &quot;even&quot; in 'etiam'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25346" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7546" RevisionGUID="e4af99dc-90a3-4107-82f5-459fa010a089" CreationDate="2018-11-17T03:13:39.050" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7545" RevisionGUID="afb9d9cd-d754-4068-9aa1-f2fb28a101c9" CreationDate="2018-11-17T03:24:23.087" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="I'm using a university account to sign into [Oxford Scholarly Editions Online](http://www.oxfordscholarlyeditions.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. To what 'widget' does [the official webpage](http://www.oxfordscholarlyeditions.com/page/the-oxford-latin-dictionary) refer? Is it online? Must it be downloaded?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A **widget** enabling users to look up words in the *Oxford Latin Dictionary*, ed. P. G. W. Glare (2nd edn, 2012), is included for all users of the Latin content on *Oxford Scholarly Editions Online*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I [searched for it on OSEO](http://www.oxfordscholarlyeditions.com/search?q=The+Oxford+Latin+Dictionary&amp;isNewSearch=true&amp;onlyPreferredWorks=true&amp;searchBtn=Search), but see no result? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7547" RevisionGUID="10005936-5337-4f7f-a586-bf9ad7a8b07a" CreationDate="2018-11-17T04:17:14.987" UserId="39" Text="First of all, you must have an institutional subscription to **the Latin content** on Oxford Scholarly Editions Online. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don’t need to download anything. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Select any word in a Latin text and a pop-up menu will appear.”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7548" RevisionGUID="b4903a18-2864-41b4-9eef-c29bee7e8701" CreationDate="2018-11-17T09:42:12.153" UserId="2476" Text="**Long comment**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the fifth century you'd already have [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/649/when-did-ph-start-to-be-pronounced-like-f), [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7409/is-the-palatalization-of-d-between-a-i-or-o-and-ie-or-iu-only-a-med), [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/325/when-did-the-consonant-u-i-e-v-begin-to-be-pronounced-as-the-fricative-v-i). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Palatalization of &quot;c&quot; before &quot;e&quot; or &quot;i&quot; would still be [under way](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/44/when-did-c-before-e-or-i-start-to-be-pronounced-as-ts-in-contrast-to-cl). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not totally sure but &quot;ae&quot; might have remained [ae̯] until after the Fall of the Empire, because it seems that graphically it was replaced by &quot;e&quot; only around the XI century - in contrast the archaic spelling &quot;ai&quot; was replaced by &quot;ae&quot; at the beginning of the II century AD. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assibilation of &quot;ti&quot; before vowel was likely established, judging from II and III century epigraphic forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this will narrow down the scope of your question so that someone might deal with the remaining points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: Since Romance languages didn't reacquire the final &quot;m&quot;, which was already lost in Classical Latin, it wouldn't really make sense for it to reappear in-between. This ought to be a Church Latin phaenomenon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7549" RevisionGUID="ac51f427-d675-45e7-b426-c0f5c0cd7759" CreationDate="2018-11-17T10:41:12.113" UserId="867" Text="Three examples I have just now come across:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Donkey**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lucius, having been turned into a donkey tries to draw attention to his plight, by calling upon the name of Caesar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Et “O” quidem tantum disertum ac validum clamitavi, reliquum autem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesaris nomen enuntiare non potui.* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And indeed I shouted “**O**” by itself eloquently and vigorously, but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I could not pronounce the rest of Caesar’s name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apuleius, *Metamorphoses*, 3.29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later (7.3), wanting to clear his name for some crime committed while still a human, he tries to call out again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *... volui dicere: “Non feci.” Et verbum quidem praecedens semel ac&#xD;&#xA;&gt; saepius immodice clamitavi, sequens vero nullo pacto disserere potui,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed in prima remansi voce et identidem boavi “**Non non**” ...*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I wanted to say: &quot;I didn't do it.&quot;  And although I shouted the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; word over and over again, without restraint, I simply could not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pronounce the second word, but I was stuck on that first word and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; brayed again and again, “Non . . . non . . .&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which I can't help pronouncing the French, nasally way, to imitate what I (an English speaker) think a donkey sounds like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Dog**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *... cum dicit - ‘**r**’; non multum est hoc cacosyntheton atque canina si lingua dico; nihil ad me; nomen enim illi est.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... when he says - &quot;r&quot;; it does not make much difference if I speak this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in an [incorrect connection of words][1] and in dog-language; it's nothing to me; because&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that's its name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lucilius, *Satires*, 9:389–9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be honest, I'm not sure what this is about but clearly &quot;rrrrr&quot; sounds like a dog to the writer (an angry one, I imagine!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=cacosyntheton&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7543" RevisionGUID="6bc5d6fd-c5ca-4973-b817-ec29170cdf7a" CreationDate="2018-11-17T10:45:40.130" UserId="183" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="For questions about language contact of the Latin language with other languages and resulting phenomena." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25352" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7543" RevisionGUID="6bc5d6fd-c5ca-4973-b817-ec29170cdf7a" CreationDate="2018-11-17T10:45:40.130" Comment="Proposed by 183 approved by 79 edit id of 280" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7550" RevisionGUID="eb24784a-92f7-482b-9b27-ca6ff3a3d92d" CreationDate="2018-11-17T10:52:44.157" UserId="867" Text="Varro does mention a &quot;night owl&quot; (as in the bird), the *noctua*, which got its name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quod noctu canit et vigilat* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; because it sings 'noctu' ('at night') and stays up overnight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*On the Latin Language*, 5.11.76&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I can't find anywhere that *noctua* was ever applied to a person to describe their habits." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7549" RevisionGUID="d470b414-98d3-4f48-9cf9-4b094665ef3b" CreationDate="2018-11-17T10:56:49.483" UserId="867" Comment="Just remembered this answer I gave elsewhere on another question" Text="Three examples I have just now come across (*edit* make that four examples - see &quot;owl&quot; below):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Donkey**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lucius, having been turned into a donkey tries to draw attention to his plight, by calling upon the name of Caesar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Et “O” quidem tantum disertum ac validum clamitavi, reliquum autem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesaris nomen enuntiare non potui.* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And indeed I shouted “**O**” by itself eloquently and vigorously, but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I could not pronounce the rest of Caesar’s name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apuleius, *Metamorphoses*, 3.29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later (7.3), wanting to clear his name for some crime committed while still a human, he tries to call out again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *... volui dicere: “Non feci.” Et verbum quidem praecedens semel ac&#xD;&#xA;&gt; saepius immodice clamitavi, sequens vero nullo pacto disserere potui,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed in prima remansi voce et identidem boavi “**Non non**” ...*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I wanted to say: &quot;I didn't do it.&quot;  And although I shouted the first&#xD;&#xA;&gt; word over and over again, without restraint, I simply could not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pronounce the second word, but I was stuck on that first word and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; brayed again and again, “Non . . . non . . .&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which I can't help pronouncing the French, nasally way, to imitate what I (an English speaker) think a donkey sounds like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Dog**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *... cum dicit - ‘**r**’; non multum est hoc cacosyntheton atque canina si lingua dico; nihil ad me; nomen enim illi est.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... when he says - &quot;r&quot;; it does not make much difference if I speak this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in an [incorrect connection of words][1] and in dog-language; it's nothing to me; because&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that's its name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lucilius, *Satires*, 9:389–9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be honest, I'm not sure what this is about but clearly &quot;rrrrr&quot; sounds like a dog to the writer (an angry one, I imagine!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Owl**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Varro gives the following onomatopoeic etymology for the &quot;night owl&quot;, *noctua*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quod **noctu** canit et vigilat*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; because it sings 'noctu' ('at night') and stays up overnight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*On the Latin Language*, 5.11.76&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=cacosyntheton&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7551" RevisionGUID="895d4a16-e39f-40e6-b4d1-a33f9a9f2974" CreationDate="2018-11-17T13:08:34.747" UserId="81" Text="*Etiam* is similar to *et* in its use as a conjunction as well as in having a somewhat overlapping meaning. Note that Lewis' *[An Elementary Latin Dictionary][1]* includes the meaning *even* in its definition for *et*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***et*** — I. adv., adding to a fact or thought, *also, too, besides, moreover, likewise, as well, even*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases, *et* has even been used by some authors in ways that could be interchangeable with *etiam*, as [Gildersleeve][2] notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Instead of **etiam**, **et** is occasional in PLAUTUS, in a change of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; person. CICERO uses it also after an adversative conjunction, as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **vērum et**; also after **nam** and **simul**; more often when a pronoun follows, as **et ille**, **et ipse**. CAESAR never uses it so,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SALLUST rarely, but it becomes common from Livy on. (*Gildersleeve's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin grammar*, p. 302)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although *etiam* is sometimes used in a temporal sense (when it means *still*, *even now*, etc.), its significance seems to also take on new meaning in its composition as ***et + iam*** more as a matter of emphasis rather than one of time. That is, it adds something new and at the same time emphasizes it, as if to say, &quot;*Now* take note of this,&quot; or schematically, &quot;**A**, **B** *and now even* **C**...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The emphatic force of *etiam* has been noted by a number of grammarians. For example, [Lewis and Short][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To annex a more important idea, *and even*, *nay*, *even*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gildersleeve][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Etiam**, *even* (*now*), *yet*, *still*, exaggerates (heightens), and generally precedes the word to which it belongs. (*Gildersleeve's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin grammar*, p. 301)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[A Grammar of the Latin Language][5]* (where, besides speaking of the emphatic role of *etiam*, it is also compared to *et*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Etiam* and *quoque* are in so far different in their meaning, that *etiam*, in the first place, has a wider extent than *quoque*, for it contains also the idea of our &quot;even;&quot; and, secondly, *etiam* adds a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; new circumstance, whereas *quoque* denotes the addition of a thing of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a similar kind. Hence *etiam* is properly used to connect&#xD;&#xA;&gt; propositions. This difference seems to be correctly expressed in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stating that *etiam* is &quot;and farther,&quot; and *quoque* &quot;and so, also.&quot; As&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in this manner *quoque* refers to a single word, It always follows&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that word; *etiam*, in similar cases, is usually placed before it, but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; when it connects propositions its place is arbitrary. *Et*, too, is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sometimes used in the sense of &quot;also,&quot; in classical prose; e.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Curt., iii., 31, *non errasti, mater, nam et hic Alexander est*; Cic.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *de Legg.*, ii., 16, *quod et nunc multis in fanis fit*, for *nunc quoque*; in *Verr*., iv., 61, *simul et verebar*; and v., l, *simul et&#xD;&#xA;&gt; de illo vulnere — multa dixit*; and often *non modo — sed et*; e.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic., in Verr., i., 1, *non modo Romae, sed et apud exteras nationes*;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nepos, *Thrasyb*., 1, *non solum princeps, sed et solus bellum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; indixit*. (See Bremi's remark on this passage, who states that sed et&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is not merely &quot;but also,&quot; but always &quot;but even.&quot; ) But passages of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this kind are not very numerous, and not always certain, for the MSS.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; usually have *etiam*, so that this use of *et* in prose (for poets&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cannot be taken into account) must at least be very much limited, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it should not be used to that extent in which modern Latinists apply&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it. (Zumpt, et al, *A Grammar of the Latin Language*, pg. 253)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=et&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/gildersleeveslat00gilduoft/page/302&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=etiam&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/details/gildersleeveslat00gilduoft/page/300&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://archive.org/details/grammaroflatinla00zumprich/page/252" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7548" RevisionGUID="3884b400-4f27-4de0-b64a-0de25b247d92" CreationDate="2018-11-17T13:13:45.623" UserId="2476" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="**Long comment**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the fifth century you'd already have [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/649/when-did-ph-start-to-be-pronounced-like-f), [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7409/is-the-palatalization-of-d-between-a-i-or-o-and-ie-or-iu-only-a-med), [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/325/when-did-the-consonant-u-i-e-v-begin-to-be-pronounced-as-the-fricative-v-i). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Palatalization of &quot;c&quot; before &quot;e&quot; or &quot;i&quot; would still be [under way](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/44/when-did-c-before-e-or-i-start-to-be-pronounced-as-ts-in-contrast-to-cl). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not totally sure but &quot;ae&quot; and &quot;oe&quot; might have remained [ae̯] and [oe̯] until after the Fall of the Empire, because it seems that graphically they were replaced by &quot;e&quot; only around the XI century - in contrast the archaic spellings &quot;ai&quot; and &quot;oi&quot; were replaced by &quot;ae&quot; and &quot;oe&quot;, reflecting a standardized pronunciation change, at the beginning of the II century AD. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assibilation of &quot;ti&quot; before vowel was likely established, judging from II and III century epigraphic forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this will narrow down the scope of your question so that someone might deal with the remaining points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: Since Romance languages didn't reacquire the final &quot;m&quot;, which was already lost in Classical Latin, it wouldn't really make sense for it to reappear in-between. This ought to be a Church Latin phaenomenon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7551" RevisionGUID="28d77ea7-d945-4c32-a9a3-ec003dcfff00" CreationDate="2018-11-17T13:45:47.350" UserId="81" Comment="added 287 characters in body" Text="*Etiam* is similar to *et* in its use as a conjunction as well as in having a somewhat overlapping meaning. Note that Lewis' *[An Elementary Latin Dictionary][1]* includes the meaning *even* in its definition for *et*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***et*** — I. adv., adding to a fact or thought, *also, too, besides, moreover, likewise, as well, even*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases, *et* has even been used by some authors in ways that could be interchangeable with *etiam*, as [Gildersleeve][2] notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Instead of **etiam**, **et** is occasional in PLAUTUS, in a change of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; person. CICERO uses it also after an adversative conjunction, as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **vērum et**; also after **nam** and **simul**; more often when a pronoun follows, as **et ille**, **et ipse**. CAESAR never uses it so,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SALLUST rarely, but it becomes common from Livy on. (*Gildersleeve's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin grammar*, p. 302)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although *etiam* is sometimes used in a temporal sense (when it means *still*, *even now*, etc.), its significance seems to also take on new meaning in its composition as ***et + iam*** more as a matter of emphasis rather than one of time. That is, it adds something new and at the same time emphasizes it, as if to say, &quot;*Now* take note of this,&quot; or schematically, &quot;**A**, **B** *and now even* **C**...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The emphatic force of *etiam* has been noted by a number of grammarians. For example, [Lewis and Short][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To annex a more important idea, *and even*, *nay*, *even*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gildersleeve][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Etiam**, *even* (*now*), *yet*, *still*, exaggerates (heightens), and generally precedes the word to which it belongs. (*Gildersleeve's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin grammar*, p. 301)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[A Grammar of the Latin Language][5]* (where, besides speaking of the emphatic role of *etiam*, it is also compared to *et*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Etiam* and *quoque* are in so far different in their meaning, that *etiam*, in the first place, has a wider extent than *quoque*, for it contains also the idea of our &quot;even;&quot; and, secondly, *etiam* adds a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; new circumstance, whereas *quoque* denotes the addition of a thing of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a similar kind. Hence *etiam* is properly used to connect&#xD;&#xA;&gt; propositions. This difference seems to be correctly expressed in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stating that *etiam* is &quot;and farther,&quot; and *quoque* &quot;and so, also.&quot; As&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in this manner *quoque* refers to a single word, It always follows&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that word; *etiam*, in similar cases, is usually placed before it, but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; when it connects propositions its place is arbitrary. *Et*, too, is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sometimes used in the sense of &quot;also,&quot; in classical prose; e.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Curt., iii., 31, *non errasti, mater, nam et hic Alexander est*; Cic.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *de Legg.*, ii., 16, *quod et nunc multis in fanis fit*, for *nunc quoque*; in *Verr*., iv., 61, *simul et verebar*; and v., l, *simul et&#xD;&#xA;&gt; de illo vulnere — multa dixit*; and often *non modo — sed et*; e.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic., in Verr., i., 1, *non modo Romae, sed et apud exteras nationes*;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nepos, *Thrasyb*., 1, *non solum princeps, sed et solus bellum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; indixit*. (See Bremi's remark on this passage, who states that sed et&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is not merely &quot;but also,&quot; but always &quot;but even.&quot; ) But passages of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this kind are not very numerous, and not always certain, for the MSS.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; usually have *etiam*, so that this use of *et* in prose (for poets&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cannot be taken into account) must at least be very much limited, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it should not be used to that extent in which modern Latinists apply&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it. (Zumpt, et al, *A Grammar of the Latin Language*, pg. 253)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The foregoing is also interesting in that, when the author speaks of the meaning of *etiam* as &quot;and farther&quot;, he seems to be trying to associate the idea of *still* with that of *even*. It's as if to say that the conjunction *etiam* takes us *still farther* to the point of emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=et&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/gildersleeveslat00gilduoft/page/302&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=etiam&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/details/gildersleeveslat00gilduoft/page/300&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://archive.org/details/grammaroflatinla00zumprich/page/252" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7551" RevisionGUID="0c4e1b40-1235-4b38-b34a-9150d9e71da5" CreationDate="2018-11-17T14:07:18.693" UserId="81" Comment="added 257 characters in body" Text="*Etiam* is similar to *et* in its use as a conjunction as well as in having a somewhat overlapping meaning. Note that Lewis' *[An Elementary Latin Dictionary][1]* includes the meaning *even* in its definition for *et*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***et*** — I. adv., adding to a fact or thought, *also, too, besides, moreover, likewise, as well, even*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases, *et* has even been used by some authors in ways that could be interchangeable with *etiam*, as [Gildersleeve][2] notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Instead of **etiam**, **et** is occasional in PLAUTUS, in a change of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; person. CICERO uses it also after an adversative conjunction, as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **vērum et**; also after **nam** and **simul**; more often when a pronoun follows, as **et ille**, **et ipse**. CAESAR never uses it so,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SALLUST rarely, but it becomes common from Livy on. (*Gildersleeve's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin grammar*, p. 302)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although *etiam* is sometimes used in a temporal sense (when it means *still*, *even now*, etc.), its significance seems to also take on new meaning in its composition as ***et + iam*** more as a matter of emphasis rather than one of time. That is, it adds something new and at the same time emphasizes it, as if to say, &quot;*Now* take note of this,&quot; or schematically, &quot;**A**, **B** *and now even* **C**...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The emphatic force of *etiam* has been noted by a number of grammarians. For example, [Lewis and Short][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To annex a more important idea, *and even*, *nay*, *even*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar][4]*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Etiam*** (***et iam***; also, even) is stronger than ***quoque*** (also) and usually precedes the emphatic word, while ***quoque***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; follows it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gildersleeve][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Etiam**, *even* (*now*), *yet*, *still*, exaggerates (heightens), and generally precedes the word to which it belongs. (*Gildersleeve's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin grammar*, p. 301)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[A Grammar of the Latin Language][6]* (where, besides speaking of the emphatic role of *etiam*, it is also compared to *et*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Etiam* and *quoque* are in so far different in their meaning, that *etiam*, in the first place, has a wider extent than *quoque*, for it contains also the idea of our &quot;even;&quot; and, secondly, *etiam* adds a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; new circumstance, whereas *quoque* denotes the addition of a thing of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a similar kind. Hence *etiam* is properly used to connect&#xD;&#xA;&gt; propositions. This difference seems to be correctly expressed in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stating that *etiam* is &quot;and farther,&quot; and *quoque* &quot;and so, also.&quot; As&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in this manner *quoque* refers to a single word, It always follows&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that word; *etiam*, in similar cases, is usually placed before it, but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; when it connects propositions its place is arbitrary. *Et*, too, is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sometimes used in the sense of &quot;also,&quot; in classical prose; e.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Curt., iii., 31, *non errasti, mater, nam et hic Alexander est*; Cic.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *de Legg.*, ii., 16, *quod et nunc multis in fanis fit*, for *nunc quoque*; in *Verr*., iv., 61, *simul et verebar*; and v., l, *simul et&#xD;&#xA;&gt; de illo vulnere — multa dixit*; and often *non modo — sed et*; e.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic., in Verr., i., 1, *non modo Romae, sed et apud exteras nationes*;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nepos, *Thrasyb*., 1, *non solum princeps, sed et solus bellum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; indixit*. (See Bremi's remark on this passage, who states that sed et&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is not merely &quot;but also,&quot; but always &quot;but even.&quot; ) But passages of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this kind are not very numerous, and not always certain, for the MSS.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; usually have *etiam*, so that this use of *et* in prose (for poets&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cannot be taken into account) must at least be very much limited, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it should not be used to that extent in which modern Latinists apply&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it. (Zumpt, et al, *A Grammar of the Latin Language*, pg. 253)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The foregoing is also interesting in that, when the author speaks of the meaning of *etiam* as &quot;and farther&quot;, he seems to be trying to associate the idea of *still* with that of *even*. It's as if to say that the conjunction *etiam* takes us *still farther* to the point of emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=et&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/gildersleeveslat00gilduoft/page/302&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=etiam&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/adverbs&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://archive.org/details/gildersleeveslat00gilduoft/page/300&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://archive.org/details/grammaroflatinla00zumprich/page/252" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7551" RevisionGUID="23ecbfc9-528e-4cdc-a089-9a94d7d4e6f0" CreationDate="2018-11-17T14:23:46.873" UserId="81" Comment="added 410 characters in body" Text="**Short answer:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Etiam* gets much of its meaning from *et* (i.e, as a conjunction and in other respects), but it also gets its emphatic (as well as temporal) meaning from *iam*. This is consistent with the *[Cambridge Dictionary][1]* definition of *even* which asserts that it is &quot;used to emphasize a comparison&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Long answer:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Etiam* is similar to *et* in its use as a conjunction as well as in having a somewhat overlapping meaning. Note that Lewis' *[An Elementary Latin Dictionary][2]* includes the meaning *even* in its definition for *et*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***et*** — I. adv., adding to a fact or thought, *also, too, besides, moreover, likewise, as well, even*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases, *et* has even been used by some authors in ways that could be interchangeable with *etiam*, as [Gildersleeve][3] notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Instead of **etiam**, **et** is occasional in PLAUTUS, in a change of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; person. CICERO uses it also after an adversative conjunction, as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **vērum et**; also after **nam** and **simul**; more often when a pronoun follows, as **et ille**, **et ipse**. CAESAR never uses it so,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SALLUST rarely, but it becomes common from Livy on. (*Gildersleeve's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin grammar*, p. 302)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although *etiam* is sometimes used in a temporal sense (when it means *still*, *even now*, etc.), its significance seems to also take on new meaning in its composition as ***et + iam*** more as a matter of emphasis rather than one of time. That is, it adds something new and at the same time emphasizes it, as if to say, &quot;*Now* take note of this,&quot; or schematically, &quot;**A**, **B** *and now even* **C**...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The emphatic force of *etiam* has been noted by a number of grammarians. For example, [Lewis and Short][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To annex a more important idea, *and even*, *nay*, *even*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar][5]*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Etiam*** (***et iam***; also, even) is stronger than ***quoque*** (also) and usually precedes the emphatic word, while ***quoque***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; follows it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gildersleeve][6]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Etiam**, *even* (*now*), *yet*, *still*, exaggerates (heightens), and generally precedes the word to which it belongs. (*Gildersleeve's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin grammar*, p. 301)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[A Grammar of the Latin Language][7]* (where, besides speaking of the emphatic role of *etiam*, it is also compared to *et*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Etiam* and *quoque* are in so far different in their meaning, that *etiam*, in the first place, has a wider extent than *quoque*, for it contains also the idea of our &quot;even;&quot; and, secondly, *etiam* adds a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; new circumstance, whereas *quoque* denotes the addition of a thing of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a similar kind. Hence *etiam* is properly used to connect&#xD;&#xA;&gt; propositions. This difference seems to be correctly expressed in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stating that *etiam* is &quot;and farther,&quot; and *quoque* &quot;and so, also.&quot; As&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in this manner *quoque* refers to a single word, It always follows&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that word; *etiam*, in similar cases, is usually placed before it, but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; when it connects propositions its place is arbitrary. *Et*, too, is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sometimes used in the sense of &quot;also,&quot; in classical prose; e.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Curt., iii., 31, *non errasti, mater, nam et hic Alexander est*; Cic.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *de Legg.*, ii., 16, *quod et nunc multis in fanis fit*, for *nunc quoque*; in *Verr*., iv., 61, *simul et verebar*; and v., l, *simul et&#xD;&#xA;&gt; de illo vulnere — multa dixit*; and often *non modo — sed et*; e.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic., in Verr., i., 1, *non modo Romae, sed et apud exteras nationes*;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nepos, *Thrasyb*., 1, *non solum princeps, sed et solus bellum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; indixit*. (See Bremi's remark on this passage, who states that sed et&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is not merely &quot;but also,&quot; but always &quot;but even.&quot; ) But passages of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this kind are not very numerous, and not always certain, for the MSS.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; usually have *etiam*, so that this use of *et* in prose (for poets&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cannot be taken into account) must at least be very much limited, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it should not be used to that extent in which modern Latinists apply&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it. (Zumpt, et al, *A Grammar of the Latin Language*, pg. 253)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The foregoing is also interesting in that, when the author speaks of the meaning of *etiam* as &quot;and farther&quot;, he seems to be trying to associate the idea of *still* with that of *even*. It's as if to say that the conjunction *etiam* takes us *still farther* to the point of emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/even&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=et&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/gildersleeveslat00gilduoft/page/302&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=etiam&amp;la=la#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/adverbs&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://archive.org/details/gildersleeveslat00gilduoft/page/300&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://archive.org/details/grammaroflatinla00zumprich/page/252" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7552" RevisionGUID="bb823a82-d7b1-4f17-bb28-009e1e6651c2" CreationDate="2018-11-18T06:31:33.360" UserId="867" Text="Well, here's one example I found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nam contra Graeci adspirare ei solent, ut pro Fundanio Cicero testem qui primam eius litteram dicere non possit inridet.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Greeks on the other hand habitually aspirate this letter [f], so that Cicero,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in his defence of Fundanius, mocked a witness who couldn't pronounce the first letter of that name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quintilian, *The Orator’s Education*, 1.4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25361" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7249" RevisionGUID="942df6ee-6831-4147-ba9a-f478b3cba975" CreationDate="2018-11-18T12:55:29.407" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|verbs|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7553" RevisionGUID="ebd72e1f-9a1f-4ce4-94c0-57ce6febcd5c" CreationDate="2018-11-18T17:35:26.370" UserId="645" Text="This is quite a large question, to which a comprehensive answer is easily found in the more comprehensive dictionaries under **Know**, with copious examples. However, in direct answer, there certainly are meanings not shared between the two, which I will try to summarise, although it is worth pointing out that the differences in usage can be very slight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Scio** is the most general word, meaning that you have a certainty, or at least clearly perceive, some fact(s) or other. It is followed by the kinds of clause that you would expect: acc. +  inf., *de* + abl., relative + subj., neuter pronoun, and so on. Its opposite **nescio**, (‘not to know’, ‘be unaware/ignorant of’ etc.) is used similarly. But *scio* (and *nescio*) can also have the sense of ‘know how to …’ (particularly where it refers to a skill) as in *scio scribere*, *nescio aratro uti*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The simple idea behind ‘not to know’ is expressed by **ignoro** (this being possibly more definite than *nescio*, which can be qualified by, for example, a clause after *quin*). The opppsite of *ignoro* is **nosco**, meaning ‘am acquainted with’, which is more usually seen in the perfect tenses, still giving a present sense in English. To claim a personal acquaintance, say, you might appropriately introduce yourself with *te novi*, or *me no(ve)ris*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With, I think, a shade of meaning rather more active than that of simply learning (for which *disco*/*didici*  or *certior fieri* is appropriate), the verb for  the sense of ‘getting to know’ or ‘finding out’ is **cognosco**, most often in the perfect tenses to imply the knowledge for which *scio* in the present might sometimes be used equally well. **Comperio** is different again, with the sense of ‘know for certain’ or ‘tried and tested by experience’; *compertum habet* = ‘he knows without doubt’.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6312" RevisionGUID="18a55205-c7c3-4e53-a8c5-bc805cd3381f" CreationDate="2018-11-18T21:21:06.037" UserId="1432" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In Barbara Tuchman's _A Distant Mirror_; in chapter 2, in her description of the Medieval church, she uses the phrase '_Salvandorum paucitas, damnandorum multitudo_' to describe the general opinion of the time. Tuchman translates the phrase as 'few saved, many damned.' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A google search of the phrase mostly turns up references to that book and documents in Latin which I can't read. What is the origin of this phrase? Is it written by an eminent theologian? Is it a common figure of speech of Medieval times?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7554" RevisionGUID="2d115ba9-d46e-49cb-9886-d6156ca09735" CreationDate="2018-11-19T01:39:10.387" UserId="145" Text="In Latin, how would you refer to the concept of sorting events according to temporal proximity (i.e. most recent, or nearest to now, first); as opposed to sorting by priority, or starting from the beginning and proceding in chronological order.&#xA;&#xA;I thought something along the lines of *proximus tempus* or *proxima temporis*, but they seem to translate to simply &quot;next time&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25366" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7554" RevisionGUID="2d115ba9-d46e-49cb-9886-d6156ca09735" CreationDate="2018-11-19T01:39:10.387" UserId="145" Text="in order of temporal proximity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25367" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7554" RevisionGUID="2d115ba9-d46e-49cb-9886-d6156ca09735" CreationDate="2018-11-19T01:39:10.387" UserId="145" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|translation-explanation|terminology|translate|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7554" RevisionGUID="ff12416e-da82-4ace-bceb-8f9f778a1416" CreationDate="2018-11-19T08:34:50.637" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In Latin, how would you refer to the concept of sorting events according to temporal proximity (i.e. most recent, or nearest to now, first); as opposed to sorting by priority, or starting from the beginning and proceeding in chronological order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought something along the lines of *proximus tempus* or *proxima temporis*, but they seem to translate to simply &quot;next time&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25369" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7554" RevisionGUID="ff12416e-da82-4ace-bceb-8f9f778a1416" CreationDate="2018-11-19T08:34:50.637" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|terminology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7555" RevisionGUID="937c29c9-764d-4ec2-87d1-71881a308cc9" CreationDate="2018-11-19T08:39:10.143" UserId="79" Text="One Latin word for &quot;proximity&quot; is *proximitas* and &quot;temporal&quot; can be translated as *temporalis*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would translate &quot;in order of temporal proximity&quot; as ***in ordine proximitatis temporalis***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is in contrast with *in ordine chronologico* or *in ordine prioritatis*.&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you could drop the *in* and go with the plain ablative *ordine*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7556" RevisionGUID="665f111c-c883-4901-adbe-89ca79a05273" CreationDate="2018-11-19T12:09:28.620" UserId="145" Text="I asked a [question][1] earlier. &#xA;&#xA;For some time now, it's occured to me that a pattern is forming: All my questions about the Latin language are basically the same. The subjects change, but the underlying theme - what I really want to know, persists. It's just, I find to difficult to articulate the question.&#xA;&#xA;I like etymology. It's probably the reason for my fascination with Latin in the first place. I'm good at identifying and recalling the roots and key elements of words, so when I hear/read Latin phrases, I can often understand/interpret/translate/make some sense of it relatively easily. &#xA;&#xA;But when I try to reverse translate English→Latin... I kind of just smash root words together and hope they fit. I feel like I'm constantly trying new recipes, putting all the correct, raw ingredients together in a blender, then wondering why I keep getting soup.&#xA;&#xA;The main thing is, there are so many different variants and modifiers for each word: *tempus, tempore, temporis, temporali temporalis; proxima, proximus, proximitas, proximitatus*, and so on. But what's the difference? Is there a rule or a formula, or some way to figure it out which variant or prefix/suffix applies in which circumstances?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7554" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25372" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7556" RevisionGUID="665f111c-c883-4901-adbe-89ca79a05273" CreationDate="2018-11-19T12:09:28.620" UserId="145" Text="How to choose correct word variants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25373" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7556" RevisionGUID="665f111c-c883-4901-adbe-89ca79a05273" CreationDate="2018-11-19T12:09:28.620" UserId="145" Text="|vocabulary|translation|word-comparison|morphology|derivation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7557" RevisionGUID="74e91c06-f32a-4bb5-9e10-78ed989c8131" CreationDate="2018-11-19T12:37:48.137" UserId="79" Text="The only way to learn which form to pick and when and to fully understand their differences is to learn Latin.&#xD;&#xA;However, one can give summaries on such differences that are understandable with less prerequisite information, and I will attempt to do so.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to learn to pick the right form on your own, I see no other way than to learn the basics of Latin grammar.&#xD;&#xA;Smashing roots together is unlikely to succeed; your idea **might** be intelligible, but changes are that it won't quite work grammatically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The words you list are different and every single one means a different thing.&#xD;&#xA;The first lesson is that **they are not interchangeable**.&#xD;&#xA;There are different kinds of differences, and I will try to classify some of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Cases:** Many Latin words have different cases: nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, ablative, and two rarer ones. For the word *tempus*, &quot;time&quot;, the five most common cases are *tempus, tempus, temporis, tempori, tempore*. In English the only words with cases are some pronouns; for example, &quot;I&quot; and &quot;me&quot; can be seen as two cases of the same word. In Latin many more words have cases and there are more cases than two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; What is expressed by cases in Latin is often expressed by prepositions or word order in English. Conceptually the easiest case is the genitive which means pretty much the same as in English. For example, the genitive of *vir*, &quot;man&quot;, is *viri*, so &quot;the man's dog&quot; would be *canis viri*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Number:** Like in English, there are singular and plural forms. In Latin, also the plural has different cases. The plural forms of *tempus*, for example, are *tempora, tempora, temporum, temporibus, temporibus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Derivation:** You can derive new words from old. For example, *tempus* means roughly &quot;time&quot;, and from it you can build the new word *temporalis*, meaning roughly &quot;time-related&quot;. This was a derivation of an adjective from a noun. It can also work in the other direction, like in the situation where you get the noun *proximitas*, &quot;closeness&quot;, from the adjective *proximus*, &quot;close, nearby&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Gender:** Adjectives have different forms depending on the gender of what they refer to. *Proximus* is a masculine form, and the corresponding feminine one is *proxima* and the neuter one is *proximum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; For a fuller example, the adjective form *proximarum* is in the genitive case, plural number, and feminine gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of this can seem a little overwhelming at first, depending on what kinds of languages you are familiar with.&#xD;&#xA;English is, unfortunately, not that helpful of a point of comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are unsure how to combine some elements to mean what you want to, one of the best choices is to ask a question on this site.&#xD;&#xA;It is great that you have looked up words that mean just what you want, so that those who help can get right to the business of composing a coherent Latin phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there a rule or a formula, or some way to figure it out which variant or prefix/suffix applies in which circumstances?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, there is a rule.&#xD;&#xA;The rule is called Latin grammar, and tends to come in relatively thick books.&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately there is no simple rule that applies to everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you want to construct phrases like &quot;the X of Y for the purpose of Z&quot;, ask a question and we can suggest a general formula with some examples.&#xD;&#xA;Then you can go and form phrases of this form on your own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7558" RevisionGUID="bee65466-473e-4ba0-8db5-f6b5b6211d07" CreationDate="2018-11-19T15:24:52.383" UserId="645" Text="The answer given by Joonas is good, and exactly along the lines that you suggest. However, this concept can often seem rather awkward to express in Latin, so I think it worthwhile to expound more widely on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should first remember that *proximus* means not only 'nearest', but 'adjacent'. Whether it is to be translated as 'most recent' or 'next to come' has to be indicated by the context. Thus we might see *proxima nocte abivit* and *proximo die statuerat*, where it is clear that the actions were in the past and took place ‘on the night before’ and ‘on the preceding day’. In the opposite sense we might find *proximo die abiberunt*, ‘they will go away on the day following’, *se dixit proximo tempore aliter acturum esse*, 'he said that next time he would act differently' and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A useful word for referring to the past is the adjective *nuperus*,‘recent’ which has normal comparative and superlative form ; the corresponding adverb is *nuper*, ‘lately’, which has comparative *nuperius* and superlative *nuperrime*. To indicate future action more explicitly than using *proximus*, the participle *(in)sequens* may serve better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other words that might be useful in this sort of context are the adverbs *temperius*, ‘sooner’, ‘earlier’, *serius*, ‘later’ and, when describing the regular succession in chronological order which your question specifies, *deinceps* may be particularly apposite, an adverb with the meaning 'successively' or 'in turn'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2929" RevisionGUID="197fca73-c65a-463e-a0d3-09b0061bc105" CreationDate="2018-11-19T16:19:04.117" UserId="118" Comment="added 176 characters in body" Text="Verbi infinitivi nomina sunt&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;I started to &quot;get&quot; infinitives when I understood that they're [nouns](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/Infinitives.pdf). It's called an [infinitive](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/finio#Latin) because it's not &quot;bound&quot;, i.e. tied to, a time—hence it doesn't make a claim, which is what verbs do. Instead, the infinitive carries the meaning of a verb abstractly. It's a name for that meaning—in other words, a _nomen,_ a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aliud est **velle**, aliud **posse**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;(It's one thing **to wish**, another **to be able**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genus et numerus&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Just like any other noun, an infinitive even has gender and number. It's neuter and singular, which an adjective must agree with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Errare **humanum** est.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;(To err is **human**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Objectum est subjectum&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Infinitives are different from ordinary nouns in that they can take objects and adverbs just like verbs, and they can take an accusative noun as their subject, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hodie necesse est **te solum ambulare**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;(Today it is necessary that **you walk alone**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since an infinitive doesn't make a claim about its subject, it doesn't agree in number with its subject. When an infinitive has a subject, it's just abstractly denoting &quot;the subject doing that action&quot; without claiming anything about it. The claiming is done by the real verb of the sentence, in this case **est**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking an accusative noun as a subject enables the infinitive to operate on the object of another verb, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iulia **Marcum discedere** vidit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;(Julia saw **Marcus leave**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The object of **vidit** is **Marcum**, but the infinitive extends it so the sentence claims that Julia saw _the act of_ Marcus leaving. The act of Marcus leaving is named rather than asserted directly as it would be in **Marcus discedit**, which has a tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus the infinitive enables verbs to chain together to form compound verbs without subordinating conjunctions or relative pronouns, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Desine** fata deum **flecti sperare** precando.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;(**Stop** **hoping to bend** the will of the gods by praying.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Discrimina a gerundiis&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Gerunds provide the function of the infinitive in oblique cases, but they lack the infinitive's ability to take another verb's object as their subject. In the previous example, **precando** isn't part of the chain of verbs: it functions as an adverbial phrase modifying the compound action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English gerunds work differently: they somewhat blurrily overlap with infinitives and participles, participating in _ad hoc_ rules about how each specific verb can chain with others. For example, **stop** can only chain to a gerund, but **hope** can only chain to a to-infinitive, as in the last example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's nothing comparable to those rules in Latin. In many cases, the gerund and infinitive are equivalent in English, as in &quot;Seeing is believing&quot; and &quot;To see is to believe.&quot; But the phrasal nature of English grammar creates strange complexities, which is why &quot;Being is being perceived&quot; and &quot;Being is to be perceived&quot; don't work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A role of English gerunds comparable to their role in Latin is to serve as nouns in prepositional or adverbial phrases, e.g. **by praying** = **precando**. Also in both languages, if you want to give a gerund a subject, you need to put the subject in the genitive case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7558" RevisionGUID="7c302eb5-e20d-467f-8597-2aeba9956978" CreationDate="2018-11-19T16:41:13.213" UserId="645" Comment="sp." Text="The answer given by Joonas is good, and exactly along the lines that you suggest. However, this concept can often seem rather awkward to express in Latin, so I think it worthwhile to expound more widely on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should first remember that *proximus* means not only 'nearest', but 'adjacent'. Whether it is to be translated as 'most recent' or 'next to come' has to be indicated by the context. Thus we might see *proxima nocte abivit* and *proximo die statuerat*, where it is clear that the actions were in the past and took place ‘on the night before’ and ‘on the preceding day’. In the opposite sense we might find *proximo die abibunt*, ‘they will go away on the day following’, *se dixit proximo tempore aliter acturum esse*, 'he said that next time he would act differently' and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A useful word for referring to the past is the adjective *nuperus*,‘recent’ which has normal comparative and superlative form ; the corresponding adverb is *nuper*, ‘lately’, which has comparative *nuperius* and superlative *nuperrime*. To indicate future action more explicitly than using *proximus*, the participle *(in)sequens* may serve better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other words that might be useful in this sort of context are the adverbs *temperius*, ‘sooner’, ‘earlier’, *serius*, ‘later’ and, when describing the regular succession in chronological order which your question specifies, *deinceps* may be particularly apposite, an adverb with the meaning 'successively' or 'in turn'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7559" RevisionGUID="fe7f77aa-d7b5-4446-8b3e-82c52d858f1c" CreationDate="2018-11-19T17:36:25.740" UserId="3122" Text="I am trying to find a name for a company related to a feminist movement, I put in female strength and it came back Vi Femina. Is this correct? I checked a different site and put in that Vi Femina and it came back with zero results. Assistance would be greatly appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terah" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25379" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7559" RevisionGUID="fe7f77aa-d7b5-4446-8b3e-82c52d858f1c" CreationDate="2018-11-19T17:36:25.740" UserId="3122" Text="female strength" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25380" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7559" RevisionGUID="fe7f77aa-d7b5-4446-8b3e-82c52d858f1c" CreationDate="2018-11-19T17:36:25.740" UserId="3122" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7560" RevisionGUID="d1ebb7f5-385a-45a9-b4f5-d0aeb66e3d54" CreationDate="2018-11-19T17:47:01.923" UserId="469" Text="This is only an educated guess of a partial answer, but in line with Tom's more general answer, I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Disclaimer: My knowledge of the issue is not deep nor technical, and could be biased by the Spanish verbs* conocer *and* saber *which are* to some extent *valid translations of nosco and scio respectively.*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Please let me know if I am mistaken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would use **novi** (not scio) to mean **to have met someone**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Notus][1] is the participle of nosco and in a specific sense [means][2] acquaintance, friend (at least post-Classically, L&amp;S only lists the plural **noti** in this sense). It seems to me that there is no parallel with [scio][3] for this meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* From the definitions, it seems that one can *scire* and *noscere* something, but only *noscere* someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example I'd cite [NVG Ps. 55(54)][4]:14-15,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tu vero, homo coaequalis meus,&#xD;&#xA;familiaris meus et **notus** meus,&#xD;&#xA;15 qui simul habuimus dulce consortium:&#xD;&#xA;in domo Dei ambulavimus in concursu.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But you, a person of my own rank, a comrade and dear **friend**, to whom I was bound by intimate friendship in the house of God&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I'm well aware that *conocer* is derived from co-*gnoscere* and *saber* from *sapere*, but that is not my point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnotus1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnosco&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dscio&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_psalmorum_lt.html#PSALMUS%2054" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7560" RevisionGUID="3c9fd504-6e77-43ed-bad4-9e2c8c12aabe" CreationDate="2018-11-19T18:16:19.157" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="This is only an educated guess of a partial answer, but in line with Tom's more general answer, I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Disclaimer: My knowledge of the issue is not deep nor technical, and could be biased by the Spanish verbs* conocer *and* saber *which are* to some extent *valid translations of nosco and scio respectively.*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Please let me know if I am mistaken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would use **novi** (not scio) to mean **to have met someone**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Notus][1] is the participle of nosco and in a specific sense [means][2] acquaintance, friend (at least post-Classically, L&amp;S only lists the plural **noti** in this sense). It seems to me that there is no parallel with [scio][3] for this meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* From the definitions, it seems that one can *scire* and *noscere* something, but only *noscere* someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I can find examples of novi+person, but none of scio+person without some deed by that person being the thing that is actually known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Novi** enim **te**, **novi patrem**, novi domum nomenque vestrum ([Cic. Lig. 5][4]) / *for **I know you**, **I know your father**, I know your birth and your name*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I'm well aware that *conocer* is derived from co-*gnoscere* and *saber* from *sapere*, but that is not my point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnotus1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnosco&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dscio&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.%20Lig.%205&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7561" RevisionGUID="2145c9c4-f244-48b8-afbc-001c7be79504" CreationDate="2018-11-19T18:26:16.307" UserId="118" Text="I think the only way to choose well is to echo some Latin usage that you already know from some other context. Of course this is how all language works. You choose your words to awaken common experience with those words and grammar and their meanings in your listener. There's an excellent self-teaching book for Latin, _Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata_ (The Latin Language Illustrated by Itself) which does a nice job of cultivating a _feeling_ for Latin usage and grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another fundamental of translation is to think of the meaning of the whole sentence or phrase and then think how someone would point out the same thing using the resources of Latin—not to go word by word or even concept by concept. A different language isn't just a different mapping of words to concepts, it's a different way of thinking, a different set of habits for conceptualizing the world. A simple example, also found in the Romance languages, is that you don't &quot;like&quot; something; rather, it &quot;pleases&quot; you—*tibi placet*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just found [this translation](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:phi,1351,005:15:36) of a sentence from Tac. Ann. 15.36, which might illustrate several deep differences between how you think and say things in Latin and in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nec multo post omissa in praesens Achaia (causae in incerto fuere) urbem revisit, provincias Orientis, maxime Aegyptum, secretis imaginationibus agitans.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Soon afterwards, giving up Achaia for the present (his reasons were not certainly known), he returned to Rome, there dwelling in his secret imaginations on the provinces of the east, especially Egypt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we translate very literally, we can see a variety of illustrative differences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nor much afterward, Achaia omitted into the present (the causes were in the uncertain), he (Nero) revisited the city, driving the provinces of the East, Egypt the most, in secret mental images.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Latin makes more use of clauses anchored on participles: _omissa_ (omitted), _agitans_ (driving). In this sentence, most of the action occurs in these subordinate clauses, not in _urbem revisit._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The ablative case situates the action of main verb: the ablative absolute _omissa..._ establishes the occasion of Nero's return to Rome; _secretis imaginationibus_ is &quot;where&quot; Nero thinks about the provinces. This way of framing a sentence is very common and familiar in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A more common idiom for mental deliberation is _in animo agere._ I think Tacitus substitutes the unusual phrase _secretis imaginationibus_ first to evoke the familiar _in animo_ and, by the variation, to suggest that Nero is embarrassed and/or scheming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Substantive use of adjectives in fixed phrases: _in praesens, in incerto._ I think the accusative _praesens_ rather than the ablative _praesenti_ suggests a certain way of thinking about time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Bracketing&quot;, where a verb or participle stands at the beginning or end of the clause that it governs. _Omissa_ starts the ablative absolute, ending with _Achaia_, which agrees with it grammatically. The sentence satisfyingly ends on _agitans,_ all the words going back to its object _provincias_ having set it up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are more differences that could be pointed out, of course. The main thing to notice for your question is that the various grammatical endings are chosen to evoke and link familiar phrases and patterns, many of which don't exist in English. They make the sentence easy to follow and very expressive for a person familiar with those phrases and patterns. And of course that's how to choose your words and grammar in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm not an expert on Latin, so please don't give too much weight to the above examples without checking them out yourself.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7563" RevisionGUID="864b4302-799c-469b-96aa-650476314f27" CreationDate="2018-11-20T02:02:21.820" UserId="3125" Text="There are several terms in Rhetoric for word repetition known to the ancients the most general is Anaphora. Epizeuxis refers to single word repetition for emphasis, Listen, friends, Listen. Epanadiplosis when the repeated word bookends a phrase tying off the point you are making. This repetition of intellegit might possibly be listed as Antanaclasis giving a modified meaning of the word a second time for contrast. Some feel that poor translations can ruin your own Latin style. But so long as the latinist's composition skills are better than the reader's fluency should improve. Often you can't really work out why a choice was made until you read it aloud and find its rhythm. These sorts of books, like Winnie Ille Pu or the Asterix series are good for extensive reading so not translating in the head and hunting and pecking for main verb subject but enjoying a good story well told in another language following the imagery the rhthym the poetic devices, alliteration, assonance and things like anaphora. Anyway I must get back to some more reading. Was just trying to find a copy of Regulus on line sometimes people publish their versions also on line." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7556" RevisionGUID="2b24f4c3-adc5-493f-a376-d0659886580a" CreationDate="2018-11-20T07:24:41.477" UserId="145" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I asked a [question][1] earlier. &#xA;&#xA;For some time now, it's occured to me that a pattern is forming: All my questions about the Latin language are basically the same. The subjects change, but the underlying theme - what I really want to know, persists. It's just, I find to difficult to articulate the question.&#xA;&#xA;I like etymology. It's probably the reason for my fascination with Latin in the first place. I'm good at identifying and recalling the roots and key elements of words, so when I hear/read Latin phrases, I can often understand/interpret/translate/make some sense of it relatively easily. &#xA;&#xA;But when I try to reverse translate English→Latin... I kind of just smash root words together and hope they fit. I feel like I'm constantly trying new recipes, putting all the correct, raw ingredients together in a blender, then wondering why I keep getting soup.&#xA;&#xA;The main thing is, there are so many different variants and modifiers for each word: *tempus, tempore, temporis, temporali, temporalis; proxima, proximus, proximitas, proximitatus*, and so on. But what's the difference? Is there a rule or a formula, or some way to figure it out which variant or prefix/suffix applies in which circumstances?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7554" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7554" RevisionGUID="7c1417a9-8aee-4d9d-a8a5-804868a02e15" CreationDate="2018-11-20T10:49:56.980" UserId="145" Comment="example" Text="In Latin, how would you refer to the concept of sorting events according to temporal proximity (i.e. most recent, or nearest to now, first); as opposed to sorting by priority, or starting from the beginning and proceeding in chronological order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought something along the lines of *proximus tempus* or *proxima temporis*, but they seem to translate to simply &quot;next time&quot;.&#xA;- - -&#xA;A quick example to help illustrate&#xA;---&#xA;I hope this is a helpful example. Imagine something to the effect of:&#xA;&#xA;Person#1: &quot;Tell me what happened.&quot;  &#xA;Person#2: &quot;I wouldn't even know where to begin.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;The response could be to: &#xA;&#xA; - Start from the beginning or first event.&#xA; - Start with the most urgent, important, significant or highest priority event.&#xA; - Start with the most recent or next upcoming event." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7559" RevisionGUID="aecf78de-a9f9-4aa8-8a64-a2f435cf38ab" CreationDate="2018-11-20T10:51:41.253" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="I am trying to find a name for a company related to a feminist movement. I put in &quot;female strength&quot; and it came back _Vi Femina_. Is this correct? I checked a different site and put in that _Vi Femina_ and it came back with zero results. Assistance would be greatly appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25391" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7559" RevisionGUID="aecf78de-a9f9-4aa8-8a64-a2f435cf38ab" CreationDate="2018-11-20T10:51:41.253" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Express &quot;female strength&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7564" RevisionGUID="1ba1d691-b110-49b9-a261-9f582b1c653d" CreationDate="2018-11-20T11:00:21.833" UserId="1459" Text="What about _feminarum potestas_? The word _potestas_, according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potestas), is core in Roman Law, and reflects &quot;a manifestation of socially recognized power&quot;. Might be fitting for the company's spirit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above phrase assumes plural object, and translates as &quot;the power of women&quot;. An alternative is _feminae potestas_, meaning &quot;the power of woman&quot;, but I think the plural might be better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7564" RevisionGUID="a510ce8f-fc64-4c0b-be6b-d81b65869867" CreationDate="2018-11-20T13:29:35.437" UserId="1459" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="What about _feminarum potestas_? The word _potestas_, according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potestas), is core in Roman Law, and reflects &quot;a manifestation of socially recognized power&quot;. Might be fitting for the company's spirit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above phrase assumes plural object, and translates as &quot;the power of women&quot;. An alternative is _feminae potestas_, meaning &quot;the power of woman&quot;, but I think the plural might be better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joonas also suggests _potestas feminina_, meaning &quot;feminine power&quot;. A good option for sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7565" RevisionGUID="35e94152-d168-4fea-89cf-505bc42a7153" CreationDate="2018-11-21T21:19:23.770" UserId="79" Text="Is there an established Latin word for &quot;visa&quot;, the kind of document you need to enter some countries?&#xD;&#xA;The English word seems to come from the past participle of the Latin verb *videre*, and so does the Finnish version &quot;viisumi&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However, using such a common Latin participle as such would be confusing when you want to tell that you showed your visa to an officer&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a good Latin expression for &quot;visa&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, what makes it appropriate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25395" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7565" RevisionGUID="35e94152-d168-4fea-89cf-505bc42a7153" CreationDate="2018-11-21T21:19:23.770" UserId="79" Text="What to call a visa in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25396" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7565" RevisionGUID="35e94152-d168-4fea-89cf-505bc42a7153" CreationDate="2018-11-21T21:19:23.770" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7566" RevisionGUID="d82e95a2-d78c-4d5e-8bf0-13d182c15ff9" CreationDate="2018-11-22T00:00:13.873" UserId="522" Text="Since it is simply the endorsement of a passport perhaps ***commeatus***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus has 'the permission to enter a restricted area' as ***commeatūs diploma.*** Unfortunately Ainsworth does not locate the quotation; but offers an alternative: *syngrapha.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Lewis &amp; Short translates syngrapha as an **iou,** but the following entry is better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***syngrăphus** (sungr-), i,* m., = σύγγραφος.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I A written contract, Plaut. As. 4, 1, 1; 4, 1, 57.—&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; II **A passport, pass,** Plaut. Capt. 2, 3, 90; 3, 2, 6.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is ***syngrăphus,*** useful? or if that is not clear  ***commeatūs syngrăphus?***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7566" RevisionGUID="c923bdbc-3ae6-421e-ab65-0490f7741781" CreationDate="2018-11-22T00:15:29.807" UserId="522" Comment="ref. diploma L&amp;S" Text="Since it is simply the endorsement of a passport perhaps ***commeatus***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus has 'the permission to enter a restricted area' as ***commeatūs [diploma][1].*** Unfortunately Ainsworth does not locate the quotation; but offers an alternative: *syngrapha.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Lewis &amp; Short translates syngrapha as an **iou,** but the following entry is better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***syngrăphus** (sungr-), i,* m., = σύγγραφος.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I A written contract, Plaut. As. 4, 1, 1; 4, 1, 57.—&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; II **A passport, pass,** Plaut. Capt. 2, 3, 90; 3, 2, 6.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is ***syngrăphus,*** useful? or if that is not clear  ***commeatūs syngrăphus?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=diploma" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7566" RevisionGUID="10a7c3f7-d5a6-4f2a-a7a7-4c58c913109f" CreationDate="2018-11-22T02:55:12.887" UserId="522" Comment="add Etymonline" Text="Since it is simply the endorsement of a passport perhaps ***commeatus***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus has 'the permission to enter a restricted area' as ***commeatūs [diploma][1].*** Unfortunately Ainsworth does not locate the quotation; but offers an alternative: *syngrapha.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Lewis &amp; Short translates syngrapha as an **iou,** but the following entry is better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***syngrăphus** (sungr-), i,* m., = σύγγραφος.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I A written contract, Plaut. As. 4, 1, 1; 4, 1, 57.—&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; II **A passport, pass,** Plaut. Capt. 2, 3, 90; 3, 2, 6.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is ***syngrăphus,*** useful? or if that is not clear  ***commeatūs syngrăphus?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional note: [Etymonline][2] says *&quot;visa&quot;* is, partly, the modern Latin for 'visa:'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from French visa, from Modern Latin charta visa &quot;verified paper,&quot; literally &quot;paper that has been seen,&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=diploma&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.etymonline.com/word/visa" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7567" RevisionGUID="06440143-92d8-43d4-9be8-f6a6c001bee6" CreationDate="2018-11-22T05:23:43.620" UserId="2831" Text="Intermediate here. I am having a hard time parsing this poem (Carmina Priapea 31). Apologies for the tawdry material, by the way :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Donec proterva nil mei manu carpes,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; licebit ipsa sis pudicior Vesta.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; sin, haec mei te ventris arma laxabunt,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; exire ut ipse de tuo queas culo.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My problem is the last two lines. The translations I have seen seem to parse them roughly like this (using English word order)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [haec arma mei ventris] laxabunt [te], ut queas exire de tuo culo ipse  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...will loosen you such that you'll be able to exit from your own butt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from the fact that this doesn't make a huge amount of sense, I am not sure about what `ipse` is supposed to be doing - if it's to agree with `culo` or even `tuo` then isn't it in the wrong form (some manuscripts have `ipsa` there, which doesn't help)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to parse them like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [haec arma mei] laxabunt [te ventris], ut queas exire ipse de tuo culo  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... will loosen your bowels such that you can pass them ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That makes `ipse` stand for `venter`. But `te ventris` isn't really a construction I can find any support for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a definitively correct way to parse the lines as they stand, or will it always require emendation or something creative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25401" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7567" RevisionGUID="06440143-92d8-43d4-9be8-f6a6c001bee6" CreationDate="2018-11-22T05:23:43.620" UserId="2831" Text="Parsing Priapea 31" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25402" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7567" RevisionGUID="06440143-92d8-43d4-9be8-f6a6c001bee6" CreationDate="2018-11-22T05:23:43.620" UserId="2831" Text="|translation|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7568" RevisionGUID="de806758-75ff-48ed-9ca4-c8e79a66f12a" CreationDate="2018-11-22T08:49:35.353" UserId="985" Text="*Ipse* is nominative; so the only thing it can be doing in the last line is modifying the subject of *queas*, which is the (unstated) pronoun *tu*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way you want to parse/translate the lines doesn't work, because the forms don't support it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you're trying to make *haec arma mei* mean 'these weapons of mine,' that would be *haec arma mea*, using the adjective. You can't use *mei*, the genitive of the pronoun, for this.&#xD;&#xA;- You're right to be uncomfortable taking *te* and *ventris* together. 'Your bowels' would need either a form of *tuus*, agreeing in gender, number, and case with *ventris*, or the dative form of the pronoun, *tibi*.&#xD;&#xA;- Instead, *mei* and *ventris* go together, as noun+adjective. These genitive forms are dependent on *haec arma*, and *te* alone is the direct object of *laxabunt*.&#xD;&#xA;- *Exire* can't mean 'pass *them*,' because 'them' would be a direct object, but *exire* is intransitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long story short: The first translation that you give is correct. The god Priapus is threatening passers-by with rape if they steal anything that's under his protection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7569" RevisionGUID="41eaf911-c440-4516-af12-c1b9fa942914" CreationDate="2018-11-22T09:19:49.847" UserId="1459" Text="Today I was reading [1 Samuel 5](https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/sa1005.htm) in the Vulgata and in verse 9 these two words are found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... circumducentibus ... computrescebant ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which surprised me for their length (16 and 15 letters respectively). So, which are the longest words in Latin? Is it [Honorificabilitudinitatibus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorificabilitudinitatibus)? (27 letters...horrible word, btw)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25405" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7569" RevisionGUID="41eaf911-c440-4516-af12-c1b9fa942914" CreationDate="2018-11-22T09:19:49.847" UserId="1459" Text="Which are the longest words in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25406" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7569" RevisionGUID="41eaf911-c440-4516-af12-c1b9fa942914" CreationDate="2018-11-22T09:19:49.847" UserId="1459" Text="|text-corpus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7570" RevisionGUID="f9a277d5-a950-4649-aec0-ecebaaa2a6d6" CreationDate="2018-11-22T10:10:17.693" UserId="81" Text="Your word, *honorificabilitudinitatibus*, seems to be commonly regarded as the longest, and it has the distinction of being used by Shakespeare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there's also this one with 28 letters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *floccinaucinihilipilificatio*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is the action or habit of estimating something as worthless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the latter is longer by one letter, it doesn't seem to have appeared in any important work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7570" RevisionGUID="fc977a7d-9b33-4f59-b860-d29f447b5d3a" CreationDate="2018-11-22T10:35:29.833" UserId="81" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="Your word, *honorificabilitudinitatibus*, seems to be commonly regarded as the longest, and it has the distinction of being used by Shakespeare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there's also this one with 28 letters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *floccinaucinihilipilificatio*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is the action or habit of estimating something as worthless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the latter is longer by one letter, it was [coined by students at Eton College][1] as a humorous word. It can be broken down as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *floccus* (“a wisp”) +‎ *naucum* (“a trifle”) +‎ *nihilum* (“nothing”) +‎ *pilus* (“a hair”) + ficatio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/floccinaucinihilipilification" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7569" RevisionGUID="df0a0c6a-480b-4f41-bc56-d66ed4475d9a" CreationDate="2018-11-22T11:04:35.293" UserId="1459" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Today I was reading [1 Samuel 5](https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/sa1005.htm) in the Vulgata and in verse 9 these two words are found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... circumducentibus ... computrescebant ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which surprised me for their length (16 and 15 letters respectively). So, which are the longest, **attested** words in Latin? Is [Honorificabilitudinitatibus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorificabilitudinitatibus) the longest? (27 letters...horrible word, btw)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7570" RevisionGUID="01a91477-b7e6-40de-94ed-6f99362fb83a" CreationDate="2018-11-22T11:15:24.487" UserId="81" Comment="added 381 characters in body" Text="Your word, *honorificabilitudinitatibus*, seems to be commonly regarded as the longest, and it has the distinction of being used by Shakespeare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there's also this one with 28 letters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *floccinaucinihilipilificatio*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is the action or habit of estimating something as worthless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the latter is longer by one letter, it was [coined by students at Eton College][1] as a humorous word. It can be broken down as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *floccus* (“a wisp”) +‎ *naucum* (“a trifle”) +‎ *nihilum* (“nothing”) +‎ *pilus* (“a hair”) + ficatio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the latter word is of late coinage, I believe that *honorificabilitudinitatibus* is most likely the winner. Besided being used by Shakespeare, it *wasn't* coined by him. Rather, variations of it had occurred long before his day, such as the following by Johannes Balbus in 1286:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/floccinaucinihilipilification&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nLTlq.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7570" RevisionGUID="62e2803f-ae7b-4d1d-858b-11358dce5b7c" CreationDate="2018-11-22T11:21:53.403" UserId="81" Comment="added 381 characters in body" Text="Your word, *honorificabilitudinitatibus*, seems to be commonly regarded as the longest, and it has the distinction of being used by Shakespeare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there's also this one with 28 letters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *floccinaucinihilipilificatio*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is the action or habit of estimating something as worthless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the latter is longer by one letter, it was [coined by students at Eton College][1] as a humorous word. It can be broken down as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *floccus* (“a wisp”) +‎ *naucum* (“a trifle”) +‎ *nihilum* (“nothing”) +‎ *pilus* (“a hair”) + ficatio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that *floccinaucinihilipilificatio* is of late coinage, I believe that *honorificabilitudinitatibus* is most likely the winner. Besides being used by Shakespeare, it *wasn't* coined by him. Rather, it appeared long before his day, such as in the following dictionary entry by [Johannes Balbus][2] in 1286:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/floccinaucinihilipilification&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Johannes_Balbus_-_Catholicon_-_1460_Gutenberg_edition_-_honorificabilitudinitatibus.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nLTlq.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2165" RevisionGUID="5f6b4d59-41e7-46ba-93c2-1fa10d1bc0e3" CreationDate="2018-11-22T13:07:03.793" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="&gt;Tandem pauca refert: &quot;Ego te, quae plurima fando  &#xD;&#xA;enumerare vales, numquam, regina, negabo  &#xD;&#xA;promeritam, nec me meminisse pigebit Elissae  &#xD;&#xA;dum memor ipse mei, dum spiritus hos regit artus. (4:333&amp;ndash;336)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have come up with two translations for this passage, but I'm not sure which is better/more accurate. They are both a little rough in terms of overall flow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Version 1: *Finally he carries back such things: &quot;I, queen, never will refuse you having deserved many things which you are strong to recount, nor will it displease Dido to remember me when I am mindful of me, when my spirit directs these bodies.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Version 2: *At last he brings back a few words: &quot;I will not deny, never, that you have deserved the many things which you are able to enumerate by speaking, nor will it displease me to remember Elissa while I myself and mindful of myself, while my spirit rules these limbs.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would greatly appreciate any insight on these translations, or a more correct version if anyone knows a better one!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25413" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2165" RevisionGUID="5f6b4d59-41e7-46ba-93c2-1fa10d1bc0e3" CreationDate="2018-11-22T13:07:03.793" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="Translation of Lines 333–336 of Vergil's Aeneid Book 4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25414" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2165" RevisionGUID="5f6b4d59-41e7-46ba-93c2-1fa10d1bc0e3" CreationDate="2018-11-22T13:07:03.793" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|classical-latin|latin-to-english-translation|aeneis|vergilius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2340" RevisionGUID="54b1ab51-0bca-4308-908b-e546529ea335" CreationDate="2018-11-22T13:08:11.027" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="Lines 405&amp;ndash;407 of Vergil's Aeneid, Book 6, are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Si te nulla movet tantae pietatis imago,  &#xD;&#xA;at ramum hunc&quot; (aperit ramum qui veste latebat)  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;agnoscas.&quot; Tumida ex ira tum corda residunt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context: Aeneas and the priestess are trying to cross the river to the Underworld, but living bodies are not permitted to cross. Thus, they present Charon with a the golden branch which allows them to enter the Underworld&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;if no image of such great piety moves you,  &#xD;&#xA;but this bough&quot; (she reveals the bough which was hiding in her clothing)  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;you should recognise.&quot; Then the hearts swollen from anger settle;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After reading my translation over a few times, I came to wonder whether my translation of the section in parenthesis is actually correct. Could it be *&quot;she reveals the bough which **she** was hiding in her clothing&quot;*, or is the subject of *latebat* the bough as I currently have it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25416" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2340" RevisionGUID="54b1ab51-0bca-4308-908b-e546529ea335" CreationDate="2018-11-22T13:08:11.027" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|classical-latin|latin-to-english-translation|aeneis|vergilius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7571" RevisionGUID="7dc8a466-ef98-4457-96c5-ec6ae39e23f1" CreationDate="2018-11-22T15:46:45.527" UserId="522" Text="In a previous question EB refers to this astonishing dictionary entry (1286) [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; And when it says (line3) 'in this verse,' it quotes two dactylic hexameters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *'Fulget hon/orifi-/cabili-/tatibus/ iste  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et corri-/pit pen-/ultimam / honori-/fico /eas.'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have I transcribed and scanned it right? Have I missed two elisioins *penultim[am] honorific[e] eas*?  And what does it mean?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'That man sheds light upon acts of Honour;  &#xD;&#xA; And hastens the end of (corripio) those acts(eas) /last but one/ ?*honorifice* honourably / ?*honorificitas* his respect hastens their demise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hc6Jo.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25420" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7571" RevisionGUID="7dc8a466-ef98-4457-96c5-ec6ae39e23f1" CreationDate="2018-11-22T15:46:45.527" UserId="522" Text="More on the *honorificabilitatibus* citation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25421" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7571" RevisionGUID="7dc8a466-ef98-4457-96c5-ec6ae39e23f1" CreationDate="2018-11-22T15:46:45.527" UserId="522" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|scansion|transcription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7571" RevisionGUID="8633bb38-2860-43ad-91c5-365858a5a8aa" CreationDate="2018-11-22T15:55:29.407" UserId="522" Comment="attribution honoured" Text="In a previous question Expedito Bipes refers to this astonishing dictionary entry (1286) [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; And when it says (line3) 'in this verse,' it quotes two dactylic hexameters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *'Fulget hon/orifi-/cabili-/tatibus/ iste  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et corri-/pit pen-/ultimam / honori-/fico /eas.'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have I transcribed and scanned it right? Have I missed two elisioins *penultim[am] honorific[e] eas*?  And what does it mean?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'That man sheds light upon acts of Honour;  &#xD;&#xA; And hastens the end of (corripio) those acts(eas) /last but one/ ?*honorifice* honourably / ?*honorificitas* his respect hastens their demise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hc6Jo.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7571" RevisionGUID="e862a0e1-4d39-44ab-a201-5c7046641920" CreationDate="2018-11-22T16:12:55.780" UserId="79" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="In [a previous question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7569/79) Expedito Bipes refers to this astonishing dictionary entry (1286) [![a scanned dictionary entry][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; And when it says (line3) 'in this verse,' it quotes two dactylic hexameters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *'Fulget hon/orifi-/cabili-/tatibus/ iste  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et corri-/pit pen-/ultimam / honori-/fico /eas.'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have I transcribed and scanned it right? Have I missed two elisioins *penultim[am] honorific[e] eas*?  And what does it mean?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'That man sheds light upon acts of Honour;  &#xD;&#xA; And hastens the end of (corripio) those acts(eas) /last but one/ ?*honorifice* honourably / ?*honorificitas* his respect hastens their demise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hc6Jo.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7572" RevisionGUID="3f7f02d2-ecfd-4c23-bc48-a7ce2d85da16" CreationDate="2018-11-22T16:19:47.767" UserId="79" Text="I think there is only one hexameter verse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fulget hon/orifi/cabili/tudini/tatibus / iste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This contains a word even longer than the headword.&#xD;&#xA;It would not scan right without the addition of the dactylic *-tudini-*.&#xD;&#xA;I would translate it as &quot;he shines in his honor(-related thing)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following line does not seem to scan as a hexameter or pentameter, whether one elides or not.&#xD;&#xA;The previous line was introduced as *in hoc versu*, not *in his versibus*, which further supports the conclusion.&#xD;&#xA;The last line could be a comment on the hexameter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7573" RevisionGUID="571091ba-2ffb-4cdc-b320-783f262b92a2" CreationDate="2018-11-22T18:05:34.870" UserId="45" Text="As a supplement to the above answer, here is a full transcription and translation of the dictionary entry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Haec **honorificabilitas -tatis**, et haec **honorificabilitudinitas -tatis**:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et haec est longissima dictio, ut patet scilicet in hoc versu:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; fulget honorificabilitudinitatibus iste&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et corripit penultimam &quot;honorifico&quot; -tas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **honorificabilitas -tatis** (f.), and **honorificabilitudinitas -tatis** (f.):  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the longest word, as is evident e.g. in the following verse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; He shines with &quot;honorificabilitudinities&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the &quot;-tas&quot; shortens the penultimate syllable of &quot;honorifico.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the last line is not a verse, but just an indication about the length of the vowels of this word. For this meaning of *corripio*, see I.B.4 of [the entry in L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcorripio). I'm not sure what it means, though, since the penultimate would normally be short anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As another note, I believe the beginning &quot;haec&quot; is just a way to indicate the feminine gender of the noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7569" RevisionGUID="acf4806c-aadd-48e9-9bc9-13c6aacd379d" CreationDate="2018-11-22T19:40:12.990" UserId="1459" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="Today I was reading [1 Samuel 5](https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/sa1005.htm) in the Vulgata and in verse 9 these two words are found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... circumducentibus ... computrescebant ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which surprised me for their length (16 and 15 letters respectively). So, which are the longest, **attested** words in Latin? Is [Honorificabilitudinitatibus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorificabilitudinitatibus) the longest? (27 letters...horrible word, btw) Which are other examples of very long (say, +25 letters) words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7571" RevisionGUID="5c478b75-accf-4f1a-bc72-30304f57534c" CreationDate="2018-11-22T21:59:29.260" UserId="522" Comment="EB's contribution" Text="In [a previous question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7569/79) Expedito Bipes refers to this astonishing dictionary entry (1286) , and in his deleted answer to this question contained an (doubtful) alternative reading *&quot;fuget&quot;* for *fulget,* and a [useful link][1].&#xD;&#xA; [![a scanned dictionary entry][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; And when it says (line3) 'in this verse,' it quotes two dactylic hexameters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *'Fulget hon/orifi-/cabili-/tatibus/ iste  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et corri-/pit pen-/ultimam / honori-/fico /eas.'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have I transcribed and scanned it right? Have I missed two elisioins *penultim[am] honorific[e] eas*?  And what does it mean?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'That man sheds light upon acts of Honour;  &#xD;&#xA; And hastens the end of (corripio) those acts(eas) /last but one/ ?*honorifice* honourably / ?*honorificitas* his respect hastens their demise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=U0KqGeTRAxUC&amp;pg=PA47&amp;lpg=PA47&amp;dq=%22Fuget%20honorificabilitudinitatibus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=l9rJI3TAGA&amp;sig=Va6OrIB5AjXX0REJdVbaeHLM_Mo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiRioessejeAhXHIpAKHSOCDPsQ6AEwBXoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Fuget%20honorificabilitudinitatibus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hc6Jo.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7571" RevisionGUID="5aa36fb9-91c4-42b6-b2ef-cb19701a70b4" CreationDate="2018-11-22T22:08:57.400" UserId="522" Comment="thanks Joonas (hexameter)" Text="In [a previous question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7569/79) Expedito Bipes refers to this astonishing dictionary entry (1286) , and in his deleted answer to this question contained an (doubtful) alternative reading *&quot;fuget&quot;* for *fulget,* and a [useful link][1].&#xD;&#xA; [![a scanned dictionary entry][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; And when it says (line3) 'in this verse,' it quotes two dactylic hexameters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *'Fulget hon/orifi-/cabili-/tudin-/tatibus/ iste  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et corri-/pit pen-/ultimam / honori-/fico /eas.'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have I transcribed and scanned it right? Have I missed two elisioins *penultim[am] honorific[e] eas*?  And what does it mean?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'That man sheds light upon acts of Honour;  &#xD;&#xA; And hastens the end of (corripio) those acts(eas) /last but one/ ?*honorifice* honourably / ?*honorificitas* his respect hastens their demise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=U0KqGeTRAxUC&amp;pg=PA47&amp;lpg=PA47&amp;dq=%22Fuget%20honorificabilitudinitatibus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=l9rJI3TAGA&amp;sig=Va6OrIB5AjXX0REJdVbaeHLM_Mo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiRioessejeAhXHIpAKHSOCDPsQ6AEwBXoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Fuget%20honorificabilitudinitatibus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hc6Jo.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7571" RevisionGUID="c7b33c94-a9fb-4065-847a-cbe212831813" CreationDate="2018-11-23T01:30:15.080" UserId="522" Comment="fiddle faddle." Text="An early dictionary fits the longest word in Latin into a hexameter. In [a previous question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7569/79) Expedito Bipes introduced this astonishing dictionary entry (1286), (and then later gave an alternative reading *&quot;fuget&quot;* for *fulget,* and another [useful link][1] )&#xD;&#xA; [![a scanned dictionary entry][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; And when it says (line3) 'in this verse,' it quotes two dactylic hexameters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *'Fulget hon/orifi-/cabili-/tudin-/tatibus/ iste  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et corri-/pit pen-/ultimam / honori-/fico /eas.'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have I transcribed and scanned it right? Have I missed two elisioins *penultim[am] honorific[e] eas*?  And what does it mean?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'That man sheds light upon acts of Honour;  &#xD;&#xA; And hastens the end of (corripio) those acts(eas) /last but one/ ?*honorifice* honourably / ?*honorificitas* his respect hastens their demise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=U0KqGeTRAxUC&amp;pg=PA47&amp;lpg=PA47&amp;dq=%22Fuget%20honorificabilitudinitatibus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=l9rJI3TAGA&amp;sig=Va6OrIB5AjXX0REJdVbaeHLM_Mo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiRioessejeAhXHIpAKHSOCDPsQ6AEwBXoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Fuget%20honorificabilitudinitatibus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hc6Jo.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7571" RevisionGUID="b6f02a77-821b-4c2e-a0c0-84e853d9445d" CreationDate="2018-11-23T02:50:32.310" UserId="522" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="An early dictionary fits the longest word in Latin into a hexameter. In [a previous question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7569/79) Expedito Bipes introduced this astonishing dictionary entry (1286), (and then later gave an alternative reading *&quot;fuget&quot;* for *fulget,* and another [useful link][1] )&#xD;&#xA; [![a scanned dictionary entry][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; And when it says (line3) 'in this verse,' it quotes two dactylic hexameters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *'Fulget hon/orifi-/cabili-/tudini-/tatibus/ iste  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et corri-/pit pen-/ultimam / honori-/fico /eas.'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have I transcribed and scanned it right? Have I missed two elisioins *penultim[am] honorific[e] eas*?  And what does it mean?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'That man sheds light upon acts of Honour;  &#xD;&#xA; And hastens the end of (corripio) those acts(eas) /last but one/ ?*honorifice* honourably / ?*honorificitas* his respect hastens their demise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=U0KqGeTRAxUC&amp;pg=PA47&amp;lpg=PA47&amp;dq=%22Fuget%20honorificabilitudinitatibus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=l9rJI3TAGA&amp;sig=Va6OrIB5AjXX0REJdVbaeHLM_Mo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiRioessejeAhXHIpAKHSOCDPsQ6AEwBXoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Fuget%20honorificabilitudinitatibus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hc6Jo.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25435" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7571" RevisionGUID="b6f02a77-821b-4c2e-a0c0-84e853d9445d" CreationDate="2018-11-23T02:50:32.310" UserId="522" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="More on the 'honorificabilitudinitatibus' citation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7575" RevisionGUID="1480f6a1-0139-42c4-a7fa-49368d5b6ca0" CreationDate="2018-11-23T03:49:32.110" UserId="3129" Text="What would be the ideal translation of ‘one day’ and ‘day one’? I.e. you can choose to do something ‘one day’, or today could be ‘day one’ if you get started now. Thanks! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25437" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7575" RevisionGUID="1480f6a1-0139-42c4-a7fa-49368d5b6ca0" CreationDate="2018-11-23T03:49:32.110" UserId="3129" Text="Latin translation - ‘day one’" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25438" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7575" RevisionGUID="1480f6a1-0139-42c4-a7fa-49368d5b6ca0" CreationDate="2018-11-23T03:49:32.110" UserId="3129" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7576" RevisionGUID="ca7d8314-60ce-448f-b9f8-5cbbc5116501" CreationDate="2018-11-23T04:07:11.927" UserId="39" Text="First of all, with all due respect, this word is not Classical Latin but some kind of a Medieval monstrosity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Afaik, it is first encountered in a treatise written by Peter of Pisa, an eighth century Italian grammarian, who, incidentally, taught Latin to Charlemagne. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s the screenshot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ufdh4.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7576" RevisionGUID="5e0ea4d6-0798-4e17-9214-017431cdcd18" CreationDate="2018-11-23T04:17:26.740" UserId="39" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="First of all, with all due respect, this word is not Classical Latin; it’s a Medieval Latin neologism (a nonce word) that was occasionally used solely because of its length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Afaik, it is first encountered in a treatise written by Peter of Pisa, an eighth century Italian grammarian, who, incidentally, taught Latin to Charlemagne. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s the screenshot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ufdh4.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7576" RevisionGUID="fb769e60-9c10-4ab9-8de1-9b28baa03ee6" CreationDate="2018-11-23T04:25:04.733" UserId="39" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="First of all, with all due respect, this word is not Classical Latin; it’s a Medieval Latin neologism (a nonce word) that was occasionally used solely because of its length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, honorificabilitudinitatibus is technically a word form, not a word (i.e. it’s not a lexeme).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Afaik, it is first encountered in a treatise written by Peter of Pisa, an eighth century Italian grammarian, who, incidentally, taught Latin to Charlemagne. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s the screenshot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ufdh4.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7577" RevisionGUID="5cb7d42d-5c8f-4456-b940-069de4719234" CreationDate="2018-11-23T04:56:29.420" UserId="406" Text="A single day (&quot;this task can be finished in one day&quot;) would be *diēs ūnus/ūna*. The first day (&quot;I've been working since day one&quot;) would be *diēs prīmus/prīma*. Some unspecified day (&quot;I'll get to it one day&quot;) would be *diēs aliquis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The gender of *diēs* is a bit weird, as it can be either masculine or feminine. [See this question for more explanation][1]. *Ūnus* and *prīmus* look different in the masculine and feminine, but *aliquis* doesn't because it's nice like that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/333/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4151" RevisionGUID="b330fbed-7898-4919-8430-bf124de03daf" CreationDate="2018-11-23T08:42:53.820" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="&gt; “Infima est quinque errantium terraeque proxuma stella Veneris, quae Φωσφόρος Graece, Latine dicitur Lucifer, cum antegreditur solem, cum subsequitur autem Hesperos,&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Source: [M. Tullius Cicero, de Natura Deorum &#xD;&#xA;O. Plasberg, Ed.][1]&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation feels sloppy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Of the five that orbit closest to earth, the star Venus is known as Phosphoros in Greek and Lucifer in Latin speech when it precedes the sun, but Hesperos if it follows the sun.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Latin is quite rusty (and was never great to begin with;) so I'd welcome advice on how to render this translation with greater grammatical fidelity to the original. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0037%3Abook%3D2%3Asection%3D53" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25444" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4151" RevisionGUID="b330fbed-7898-4919-8430-bf124de03daf" CreationDate="2018-11-23T08:42:53.820" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|classical-latin|translation-check|latin-to-english-translation|cicero|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25445" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6023" RevisionGUID="45de8832-6662-4fe1-b73e-7cf9437c7646" CreationDate="2018-11-23T08:45:12.937" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|translation-check|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7575" RevisionGUID="ffce399e-9b04-46de-90fa-46878ab5a05d" CreationDate="2018-11-23T10:29:09.803" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited title" Text="What would be the ideal translation of ‘one day’ and ‘day one’? I.e. you can choose to do something ‘one day’, or today could be ‘day one’ if you get started now. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25447" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7575" RevisionGUID="ffce399e-9b04-46de-90fa-46878ab5a05d" CreationDate="2018-11-23T10:29:09.803" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited title" Text="Translating &quot;day one&quot; into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7578" RevisionGUID="af30f7af-d787-4c14-bb12-838c06c02130" CreationDate="2018-11-23T11:05:29.783" UserId="79" Text="Consider the two English expressions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. He made a strong machine. (He built a machine, and the machine is a strong one.)&#xD;&#xA;2. He made the machine strong. (There was a pre-existing machine but it was not strong enough, so he improved it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should I express the second kind of thing in Latin when I want to avoid interpretations of the first kind?&#xD;&#xA;My intuition is to go with *facere* for both, with a slightly different word order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Machinam fortem fecit.*&#xD;&#xA;2. *Machinam fecit fortem.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as the word order is quite free in Latin, the distinction is not clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;I would probably interpret the Latin phrases 1 and 2 both to mean the same as the English phrase 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is quite possible that the best choice of words depends on context, but I am looking for an overall strategy for expressing the second English phrase.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps there is a verb for turning something into something, which could be used with adjectives and does not have the connotation of producing a new item?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25449" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7578" RevisionGUID="af30f7af-d787-4c14-bb12-838c06c02130" CreationDate="2018-11-23T11:05:29.783" UserId="79" Text="Making a strong machine vs. making a machine strong" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25450" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7578" RevisionGUID="af30f7af-d787-4c14-bb12-838c06c02130" CreationDate="2018-11-23T11:05:29.783" UserId="79" Text="|syntax|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7579" RevisionGUID="55a9deb4-2b8e-4918-814c-a8d59c201e56" CreationDate="2018-11-23T11:52:02.213" UserId="2476" Text="You could say _Machinam fortificavit_. Literally, the verb means _fortem fecit_, &quot;fortified&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that there was a specific word for just about every case in which the intended meaning was &quot;to make something get a certain quality&quot;. Other examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _gravo, as, avi, atum, āre_ (to make painful)&#xD;&#xA; - _stabilio, is, ivi, itum, īre_ (to make stable)&#xD;&#xA; - _aequo, as, avi, atum, āre_ ( to equal, match someone/something, or to make something uncertain as in _pugnam aequare_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7579" RevisionGUID="3e805bd3-272f-40e5-88a5-b2cf6fe03f8a" CreationDate="2018-11-23T11:59:36.377" UserId="2476" Comment="added 230 characters in body" Text="You could say _Machinam fortificavit_. Literally, the verb means _fortem fecit_, &quot;fortified&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that there was a specific word for just about every case in which the intended meaning was &quot;to make something get a certain quality&quot;. Other examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _gravo, as, avi, atum, āre_ (to make painful)&#xD;&#xA; - _stabilio, is, ivi, itum, īre_ (to make stable)&#xD;&#xA; - _aequo, as, avi, atum, āre_ ( to equal, match someone/something, or to make something uncertain as in _pugnam aequare_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: However [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=fortifico) points out _fortĭfĭco_ is postclassical. They give Caelius Aurelianus as a reference, who lived in the fifth century AD.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7579" RevisionGUID="5c0e2591-0d92-4570-9d7d-5f7afb5b9062" CreationDate="2018-11-23T12:07:44.403" UserId="2476" Comment="added 230 characters in body" Text="You could say _Machinam firmavit_. Here is the corresponding [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=firmo) page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option would be _Machinam fortificavit_. Literally, the verb means _fortem fecit_, &quot;fortified&quot;, though [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=fortifico) point out _fortĭfĭco_ is postclassical. They give Caelius Aurelianus as a reference, who lived in the fifth century AD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems there was a specific word for just about every case in which the intended meaning was &quot;to make something get a certain quality&quot;. Other examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _gravo, as, avi, atum, āre_ (to make heavy, or to make painful)&#xD;&#xA; - _stabilio, is, ivi, itum, īre_ (to make stable)&#xD;&#xA; - _aequo, as, avi, atum, āre_ ( to equal, match someone/something, or to make something uncertain as in _pugnam aequare_)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7579" RevisionGUID="1ddf7911-2c9b-45ee-b7c5-972f5eca94e8" CreationDate="2018-11-23T12:54:58.390" UserId="2476" Comment="added 677 characters in body" Text="You could say _Machinam firmavit_. Here is the corresponding [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=firmo) page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option would be _Machinam fortificavit_. Literally, the verb means _fortem fecit_, &quot;fortified&quot;, though [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=fortifico) point out _fortĭfĭco_ is postclassical. They give Caelius Aurelianus as a reference, who lived in the fifth century AD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems there was a specific word for just about every case in which the intended meaning was &quot;to make something get a certain quality&quot;. Other examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _gravo, as, avi, atum, āre_ (to make heavy, or to make painful)&#xD;&#xA; - _stabilio, is, ivi, itum, īre_ (to make stable)&#xD;&#xA; - _aequo, as, avi, atum, āre_ ( to equal, match someone/something, or to make something uncertain as in _pugnam aequare_)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;A general strategy, though often but not always within Ecclesiastical and Medieval Latin, and not necessarily leading to actual words, is to compound the adjective and _facio_, giving birth to words such as _fortifico_, [_vilifico_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=vilifico), [_nullifico_](https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-english-dictionary.php?lemma=NULLIFICO100), [_mortifico_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=mortifico) - the pattern is pretty clear, and still used in Italian to make new verbs, such as [_vanificare_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vanificare#Italian).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7580" RevisionGUID="6d69e2b0-4731-4ecb-9465-733602752e9e" CreationDate="2018-11-23T19:20:13.997" UserId="875" Text="# *ᴘᴇʀ* + ᴀʙʟ.: Bar­bar­ism, sœ­le­cism, or di­a­chron­ic evo­lu­tion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Lewis and Short* clear­ly state that *per* is a prae­po­si­tion whose&#xD;&#xA;nor­mal com­ple­ment is in the ac­cusative. Without hav­ing dol­ven too&#xD;&#xA;deeply in­to dusty cor­po­ra of lim­it­ed search ca­pa­bil­i­ty, all&#xD;&#xA;ex­am­ples I’ve so far chanced up­on, how­so­ev­er ar­bi­trar­i­ly&#xD;&#xA;scat­tered and there­fore ir­rep­re­sen­ta­tive­ly anec­do­tal,&#xD;&#xA;nonethe­less uni­ver­sal­ly em­ploy the ac­cusative for all of *per*’s&#xD;&#xA;com­ple­men­ta­tion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How­ev­er, [L&amp;S fur­ther&#xD;&#xA;men­tion](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dper1),&#xD;&#xA;al­beit par­en­thet­i­cal­ly, that “by so­le­cism” *per* can some­times be &#xD;&#xA;found to take an ab­la­tive com­ple­ment, viz.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **per**, prep. with acc. (by sole­cism with abl. PER QVO, =&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the su­per­cit­ed “so­le­cism” say­ing that if you’re us­ing ab­la­tive, &#xD;&#xA;you have no rea­son to both­er with an ex­plic­it prae­po­si­tion in the&#xD;&#xA;first place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In book 2 of *The Æ­ne­id* start­ing at line 210, Vir­gil has *with/by blood and&#xD;&#xA;fire* in the ab­la­tive with­out both­er­ing to dec­o­rate these with a ple­o­nas­tic&#xD;&#xA;prae­po­si­tion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;i&gt;Fit so­ni­tus spu­man­te sa­lo; iam­que ar­va te­ne­bant,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ar­den­tis­que ocu­los suf­fec­ti **san­gui­ne et ig­ni**,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;si­bi­la lam­be­bant lin­guis vi­bran­ti­bus ora.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can read­i­ly un­earth un­count­ably many ex­am­ples of ven­er­at­ed &#xD;&#xA;writ­ers us­ing *per* nev­er with the ab­la­tive, on­ly with the&#xD;&#xA;ac­cusative alone. My read­ing of the [OED’s first two sub­sens­es for&#xD;&#xA;*so­le­cism*](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/184132?redirectedFrom=solecisms#eid)&#xD;&#xA;sug­gest that they are equat­ing *so­le­cism* with *cat­a­chre­sis*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **a.** An im­pro­pri­ety or ir­reg­u­lar­i­ty in speech or dic­tion; a&#xD;&#xA;vi­o­la­tion of the rules of gram­mar or syn­tax; prop­er­ly, a faul­ty&#xD;&#xA;con­cord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   **b.** With­out ar­ti­cle: Vi­o­la­tion of the rules of con­cord in &#xD;&#xA;gram­mar or syn­tax; in­cor­rect or un­gram­mat­i­cal speech or dic­tion,&#xD;&#xA;or the use of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shall I as­sume that giv­ing *per* an ab­la­tive com­ple­ment is to be&#xD;&#xA;con­sid­ered stig­mat­ic of one or an­oth­er sort of faulty gram­mar,&#xD;&#xA;wheth­er per­ceived to come from un­let­tered rus­tics who are pre­sumed to&#xD;&#xA;know no bet­ter, or as some de­spec­tive ne­ol­o­gism in­vent­ed by new­er&#xD;&#xA;gen­er­a­tions fur­ther along the Sis­y­phe­an pen­du­lum swing­ing from&#xD;&#xA;Clas­si­cal Lat­in’s high­ly syn­thet­ic mod­el to­wards the some­what more&#xD;&#xA;an­a­lyt­ic mod­el of Pro­to- and even­tu­al­ly Mod­ern Ro­mance?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25456" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7580" RevisionGUID="6d69e2b0-4731-4ecb-9465-733602752e9e" CreationDate="2018-11-23T19:20:13.997" UserId="875" Text="Why would the prae­po­si­tion &quot;per&quot; ᴇᴠᴇʀ take an ab­la­tive in­stead of an ac­cu­sa­tive com­ple­ment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25457" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7580" RevisionGUID="6d69e2b0-4731-4ecb-9465-733602752e9e" CreationDate="2018-11-23T19:20:13.997" UserId="875" Text="|classical-latin|language-evolution|preposition|ablative|accusative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7580" RevisionGUID="4e0037ab-54fd-4055-8c94-c263f84c81e2" CreationDate="2018-11-23T19:51:00.307" UserId="875" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="# *ᴘᴇʀ* + ᴀʙʟ.: Bar­bar­ism, sœ­le­cism, or di­a­chron­ic evo­lu­tion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Lewis and Short* clear­ly state that *per* is a prae­po­si­tion whose&#xD;&#xA;nor­mal com­ple­ment is in the ac­cusative. With­out hav­ing dol­ven too&#xD;&#xA;deeply in­to dusty cor­po­ra of lim­it­ed search ca­pa­bil­i­ty, all&#xD;&#xA;ex­am­ples I’ve so far chanced up­on, how­so­ev­er ar­bi­trar­i­ly&#xD;&#xA;scat­tered and there­fore ir­rep­re­sen­ta­tive­ly anec­do­tal,&#xD;&#xA;nonethe­less uni­ver­sal­ly em­ploy the ac­cusative for all of *per*’s&#xD;&#xA;com­ple­men­ta­tion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How­ev­er, [L&amp;S fur­ther&#xD;&#xA;men­tion](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dper1),&#xD;&#xA;al­be­it par­en­thet­i­cal­ly, that “by so­le­cism” *per* can some­times be&#xD;&#xA;found to take an ab­la­tive com­ple­ment, viz.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **per**, prep. with acc. (by sole­cism with abl. PER QVO, =&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the su­per­cit­ed “so­le­cism” say­ing that if you’re us­ing ab­la­tive,&#xD;&#xA;you have no rea­son to both­er with an ex­plic­it prae­po­si­tion in the&#xD;&#xA;first place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In book 2 of *The Æ­ne­id* start­ing at line 210, Vir­gil has *with/by blood and&#xD;&#xA;fire* in the ab­la­tive with­out both­er­ing to dec­o­rate these with a ple­o­nas­tic&#xD;&#xA;prae­po­si­tion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;i&gt;Fit so­ni­tus spu­man­te sa­lo; iam­que ar­va te­ne­bant,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ar­den­tis­que ocu­los suf­fec­ti **san­gui­ne et ig­ni**,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;si­bi­la lam­be­bant lin­guis vi­bran­ti­bus ora.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can read­i­ly un­earth un­count­ably many ex­am­ples of ven­er­at­ed&#xD;&#xA;writ­ers us­ing *per* nev­er with the ab­la­tive, on­ly with the&#xD;&#xA;ac­cusative alone. My read­ing of the [OED’s first two sub­sens­es for&#xD;&#xA;*so­le­cism*](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/184132?redirectedFrom=solecisms#eid)&#xD;&#xA;sug­gest that they are equat­ing *so­le­cism* with *cat­a­chre­sis*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **a.** An im­pro­pri­ety or ir­reg­u­lar­i­ty in speech or dic­tion; a&#xD;&#xA;vi­o­la­tion of the rules of gram­mar or syn­tax; prop­er­ly, a faul­ty&#xD;&#xA;con­cord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   **b.** With­out ar­ti­cle: Vi­o­la­tion of the rules of con­cord in&#xD;&#xA;gram­mar or syn­tax; in­cor­rect or un­gram­mat­i­cal speech or dic­tion,&#xD;&#xA;or the use of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shall I as­sume that giv­ing *per* an ab­la­tive com­ple­ment is to be&#xD;&#xA;con­sid­ered stig­mat­ic of one or an­oth­er sort of faulty gram­mar,&#xD;&#xA;wheth­er per­ceived to come from un­let­tered rus­tics who are pre­sumed to&#xD;&#xA;know no bet­ter, or as some de­spec­tive ne­ol­o­gism in­vent­ed by new­er&#xD;&#xA;gen­er­a­tions fur­ther along the Sis­y­phe­an pen­du­lum swing­ing from&#xD;&#xA;Clas­si­cal Lat­in’s high­ly syn­thet­ic mod­el to­wards the some­what more&#xD;&#xA;an­a­lyt­ic mod­el of Pro­to- and even­tu­al­ly Mod­ern Ro­mance?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7581" RevisionGUID="107d141d-f35d-43b8-a4db-f4e53170a736" CreationDate="2018-11-23T21:27:53.197" UserId="2532" Text="I am working on Satyricon, currently [chapter 30][1], and have stumbled upon a passage with a grammar that baffles me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Et quod praecipuē mīrātus sum, in postibus triclīniī fascēs erant cum secūribus fīxī, quōrum ūnam partem quăsĭ embŏlum nāvis aēneum fīniēbat, in quō erat scrīptum:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My current translation is such:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And that which particularly baffled me / had me wondering, was that fasces were attached to the doorway with [their] axes, which [had] one part finished like the blazened beak of a ship, on which were written:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relative clause, ‘*quōrum … fīniēbat*’, is where the problem is. The relative pronoun *quōrum* is such because it possessive; it is the fasces’ axes that are being described. Then follows ‘*ūnam partem*’, which is in the accusative. For the life of me, I cannot figure out what the cause of this accusative is. It is as far as I can tell, not the object of the verb, but rather the subject!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This same conundrum applies to ‘*embŏlum nāvis aēneum*’. I interpret this to be a direct object, but find ‘*quăsĭ*’ to make this harder. With regards to ‘*nāvis*’, it is genitive, and again I believe this to be a possessive genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suspicion is that there is something either with the verb ‘*fīniēbat*’ or the conjunction ‘*quăsĭ*’ that causes these strange things, but I suppose I am completely wrong about this as well. My grammar led me to comparative conditional clauses with regards to ‘*quăsĭ*’, but then ended up even more confused, because I after reading about that, expected ‘*quăsĭ*’ to call a subjunctive verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope I have explained the problem well enough. In summary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Why is ‘*ūnam partem*’ accusative?&#xD;&#xA;- Am I correct in assuming that ‘*embŏlum nāvis aēneum*’ is a direct object?&#xD;&#xA;- Why doesn’t ‘*quăsĭ*’ cause ‘*fīniēbat*’ to be ‘*fīnīret*’?&#xD;&#xA;- And finally, do ‘*fīniēbat*’ and ‘*quăsĭ*’ have some special properties to them calling specific cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0001%3Atext%3DSatyricon%3Asection%3D30" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25460" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7581" RevisionGUID="107d141d-f35d-43b8-a4db-f4e53170a736" CreationDate="2018-11-23T21:27:53.197" UserId="2532" Text="Accusative in genitive relative clause with verb finiebat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25461" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7581" RevisionGUID="107d141d-f35d-43b8-a4db-f4e53170a736" CreationDate="2018-11-23T21:27:53.197" UserId="2532" Text="|conjunctive|accusative|relative-clause|object|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7582" RevisionGUID="af0ee141-f175-41f9-b81c-5519dabb1f9a" CreationDate="2018-11-23T21:59:34.117" UserId="40" Text="Your incorrect assumption is that *embolum (navis) aeneum* is accusative -- in fact it's the nominative subject of *finiebat*. Literally, &quot;one part of which a sort of (*quasi*) bronze beak of a ship completed&quot;. The Latin idiom is different here from how we'd say it in English, which is what makes this clause confusing, but the idea being expressed is the same as in your translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *quasi*, the reason it's not followed by subjunctive here is that it isn't really modifying the verb, but just the noun phrase *embolum navis aeneum*. In addition to being a conjunction, *quasi* can be a kind of adverb meaning something like &quot;nearly, sort of&quot; (see section II of the [L&amp;S entry][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquasi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7563" RevisionGUID="0bb1b6c6-735b-47eb-99f0-a298fe0bd06e" CreationDate="2018-11-24T01:12:38.713" UserId="12" Comment="cleanup and introduction" Text="Regarding the issue of repetition of *intellegit* in your third point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several terms in Rhetoric for word repetition known to the ancients; the most general is *Anaphora*. *Epizeuxis* refers to single word repetition for emphasis, as in, &quot;Listen, friends, Listen.&quot; *Epanadiplosis* is when the repeated word bookends a phrase tying off the point you are making. This repetition of *intellegit* might possibly be listed as Antanaclasis: giving a modified meaning of the word a second time for contrast. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some feel that poor translations can ruin your own Latin style. But so long as the latinist's composition skills are better than the reader's, fluency should improve. Often you can't really work out why a choice was made until you read it aloud and find its rhythm. These sorts of books, like Winnie Ille Pu or the Asterix series are good for extensive reading, not translating in the head and hunting and pecking for main verb subject but enjoying a good story well told in another language following the imagery the rhthym the poetic devices, alliteration, assonance and things like anaphora." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7563" RevisionGUID="ed16c791-e496-4872-ac69-04cb01cd23f6" CreationDate="2018-11-24T01:25:40.380" UserId="12" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Regarding the issue of repetition of *intellegit* in your third point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several terms in Rhetoric for word repetition known to the ancients; the most general is *Anaphora*. *Epizeuxis* refers to single word repetition for emphasis, as in, &quot;Listen, friends, Listen.&quot; *Epanadiplosis* is when the repeated word bookends a phrase tying off the point you are making. This repetition of *intellegit* might possibly be listed as *Antanaclasis*: giving a modified meaning of the word a second time for contrast. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some feel that poor translations can ruin your own Latin style. But so long as the latinist's composition skills are better than the reader's, fluency should improve. Often you can't really work out why a choice was made until you read it aloud and find its rhythm. These sorts of books, like Winnie Ille Pu or the Asterix series are good for extensive reading, not translating in the head and hunting and pecking for main verb subject but enjoying a good story well told in another language following the imagery the rhthym the poetic devices, alliteration, assonance and things like anaphora." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7580" RevisionGUID="d880bf72-e962-4840-82aa-d9559edd6013" CreationDate="2018-11-24T01:35:31.117" UserId="875" Comment="fucnrdthsyr2cls" Text="# *ᴘᴇʀ* + ᴀʙʟ.: Bar­bar­ism, solœ­­cism, or di­a­chron­ic evo­lu­tion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Lewis and Short* clear­ly state that *per* is a prae­po­si­tion whose&#xD;&#xA;nor­mal com­ple­ment is in the ac­cusative. With­out hav­ing dol­ven too&#xD;&#xA;deeply in­to dusty cor­po­ra of lim­it­ed search ca­pa­bil­i­ty, all&#xD;&#xA;ex­am­ples I’ve so far chanced up­on, how­so­ev­er ar­bi­trar­i­ly&#xD;&#xA;scat­tered and there­fore ir­rep­re­sen­ta­tive­ly anec­do­tal,&#xD;&#xA;nonethe­less uni­ver­sal­ly em­ploy the ac­cusative for all of *per*’s&#xD;&#xA;com­ple­men­ta­tion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How­ev­er, [L&amp;S fur­ther&#xD;&#xA;men­tion](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dper1),&#xD;&#xA;al­be­it par­en­thet­i­cal­ly, that “by so­le­cism” *per* can some­times be&#xD;&#xA;found to take an ab­la­tive com­ple­ment, viz.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **per**, prep. with acc. (by sole­cism with abl. PER QVO, =&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the su­per­cit­ed “so­le­cism” say­ing that if you’re us­ing ab­la­tive,&#xD;&#xA;you have no rea­son to both­er with an ex­plic­it prae­po­si­tion in the&#xD;&#xA;first place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In book 2 of *The Æ­ne­id* start­ing at line 210, Vir­gil has *with/by blood and&#xD;&#xA;fire* in the ab­la­tive with­out both­er­ing to dec­o­rate these with a ple­o­nas­tic&#xD;&#xA;prae­po­si­tion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;i&gt;Fit so­ni­tus spu­man­te sa­lo; iam­que ar­va te­ne­bant,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ar­den­tis­que ocu­los suf­fec­ti **san­gui­ne et ig­ni**,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;si­bi­la lam­be­bant lin­guis vi­bran­ti­bus ora.&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can read­i­ly un­earth un­count­ably many ex­am­ples of ven­er­at­ed&#xD;&#xA;writ­ers us­ing *per* nev­er with the ab­la­tive, on­ly with the&#xD;&#xA;ac­cusative alone. My read­ing of the [OED’s first two sub­sens­es for&#xD;&#xA;*so­le­cism*](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/184132?redirectedFrom=solecisms#eid)&#xD;&#xA;sug­gest that they are equat­ing *so­le­cism* with *cat­a­chre­sis*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **a.** An im­pro­pri­ety or ir­reg­u­lar­i­ty in speech or dic­tion; a&#xD;&#xA;vi­o­la­tion of the rules of gram­mar or syn­tax; prop­er­ly, a faul­ty&#xD;&#xA;con­cord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   **b.** With­out ar­ti­cle: Vi­o­la­tion of the rules of con­cord in&#xD;&#xA;gram­mar or syn­tax; in­cor­rect or un­gram­mat­i­cal speech or dic­tion,&#xD;&#xA;or the use of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shall I as­sume that giv­ing *per* an ab­la­tive com­ple­ment is to be&#xD;&#xA;con­sid­ered stig­mat­ic of one or an­oth­er sort of faulty gram­mar,&#xD;&#xA;wheth­er per­ceived to come from un­let­tered rus­tics who are pre­sumed to&#xD;&#xA;know no bet­ter, or as some de­spec­tive ne­ol­o­gism in­vent­ed by new­er&#xD;&#xA;gen­er­a­tions fur­ther along the Sis­y­phe­an pen­du­lum swing­ing from&#xD;&#xA;Clas­si­cal Lat­in’s high­ly syn­thet­ic mod­el to­wards the some­what more&#xD;&#xA;an­a­lyt­ic mod­el of Pro­to- and even­tu­al­ly Mod­ern Ro­mance?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5265" RevisionGUID="fb42cf8c-8701-4db4-8861-6749557a293b" CreationDate="2018-11-24T11:23:42.760" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="Did the Romans have a theory for the origin of their language?&#xD;&#xA;I assume there were several ideas, and it would be great to see a summary of them.&#xD;&#xA;No need to go very deep on any individual theory; a reference and a brief description of each would do.&#xD;&#xA;For example, did some grammarians or other scholars think that Latin descends from Greek, or that Latin was given to the Romans by the gods, or that there was a global language of some kind which later split to several different ones, or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All Roman thoughts on the matter are welcome as answers, no matter how short or simple.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what kinds of theories they had or if any single one was more prominent than others, so I can't make the question much more specific." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7583" RevisionGUID="58096c98-b00f-4eaf-a6bb-7ed980214d55" CreationDate="2018-11-24T17:39:36.500" UserId="45" Text="The L&amp;S entry is pretty clear, in my opinion. *Per* takes the accusative, but it has mistakenly been used with the ablative. It cites two examples from later inscriptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Inscr. Miseni Repert. ex a. p. Chr. n. 159&#xD;&#xA;* Inscr. Orell. 3300&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some tracking down, I found it in [*Campania tardoantica (284-604 d.C.)*](https://books.google.com/books?id=L07S3aMJLMgC&amp;pg=PA283&amp;lpg=PA283). Here is a relevant image from pg. 283:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![inscription][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sG2wa.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7584" RevisionGUID="2984777d-4e66-41c6-9acb-b46d9967b56f" CreationDate="2018-11-24T23:59:55.407" UserId="2476" Text="In other words, when an English speaking person would say &quot;I see&quot; meaning &quot;I understand what you're saying&quot;, is it natural in Latin to say _Intellego_, as in, maybe even more than once? If not, is there such an idiom at all?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25470" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7584" RevisionGUID="2984777d-4e66-41c6-9acb-b46d9967b56f" CreationDate="2018-11-24T23:59:55.407" UserId="2476" Text="Is it idiomatic to say &quot;Intellego&quot; to assure the speaker you're understanding?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25471" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7584" RevisionGUID="2984777d-4e66-41c6-9acb-b46d9967b56f" CreationDate="2018-11-24T23:59:55.407" UserId="2476" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|idiom|conversational|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7584" RevisionGUID="36312552-738a-4c14-874e-736f0f7bcb01" CreationDate="2018-11-25T08:46:38.137" UserId="79" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="In other words, when an English speaking person would say &quot;I see&quot; meaning &quot;I understand what you're saying&quot;, is it natural in classical Latin to say _Intellego_, as in, maybe even more than once? If not, is there such an idiom at all?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7585" RevisionGUID="5a92a016-733e-418e-aceb-e48df0f70f0c" CreationDate="2018-11-25T21:45:53.263" UserId="79" Text="Women seem to be absent from leading roles in Roman politics.&#xD;&#xA;However, the Romans were in interaction with other nations with female leaders, both historically (e.g. Cleopatra of Egypt) and mythically (e.g. Dido of Carthage).&#xD;&#xA;Did any Roman writers draw any conclusions from female leadership?&#xD;&#xA;Did they think that nations led by women were different in any way?&#xD;&#xA;Given their patriarchal culture, I could imagine them considering it a sign of weakness, but there is any number of conclusions they could have drawn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any remarks on the matter in classical Latin literature (or any Roman literature up to the fall of the Western Roman empire) are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of such mentions nor do I know how to look for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, I want to mention that I do not consider female leadership problematic myself.&#xD;&#xA;If anything, I find power concentration to one gender suspicious, but the Romans would hardly share my suspicion from what I know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25475" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7585" RevisionGUID="5a92a016-733e-418e-aceb-e48df0f70f0c" CreationDate="2018-11-25T21:45:53.263" UserId="79" Text="What did the Romans think about female leadership?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25476" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7585" RevisionGUID="5a92a016-733e-418e-aceb-e48df0f70f0c" CreationDate="2018-11-25T21:45:53.263" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|history|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7586" RevisionGUID="94e1a05f-7988-4e22-ab32-368b32362b05" CreationDate="2018-11-26T03:56:56.923" UserDisplayName="user3136" Text="[*Why Do Languages Change?* (2010)](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Languages-Change-Larry-Trask/dp/0521546931) by [R. L. Trask (1944-2004)](https://www.librarything.com/author/traskrl). p. 105.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Latin *conceptus* is literally ‘with-taking’)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Does the prefix [*con-*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/concept#etymonline_v_17307) truly mean “with” here?  But [Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/word/concept#etymonline_v_17307) says that it's &quot;probably an intensive prefix&quot;. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2. If *con-* does mean “with”, then how did “with-talking” semantically shift to mean **&quot;(a thing) conceived&quot;**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;# concept (n.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;section class=&quot;word__defination--2q7ZH&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;a general notion, the immediate object of a thought,&quot; 1550s, from Medieval Latin *conceptum* &quot;draft, abstract,&quot; in classical Latin **&quot;(a thing) conceived,&quot;** from *concep-*, past-participle stem of *concipere* &quot;to take in and hold; become pregnant,&quot; from *con-*, here ***probably an intensive prefix*** (see [con-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/con-?ref=etymonline_crossreference)), + combining form of *capere* &quot;to take,&quot; from PIE root [\*kap-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*kap-?ref=etymonline_crossreference) &quot;to grasp.&quot; In some 16c. cases a refashioning of [conceit](https://www.etymonline.com/word/conceit?ref=etymonline_crossreference) (perhaps to avoid negative connotations that had begun to cling to that word).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/section&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25479" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7586" RevisionGUID="94e1a05f-7988-4e22-ab32-368b32362b05" CreationDate="2018-11-26T03:56:56.923" UserDisplayName="user3136" Text="What does con- in &quot;conceptus&quot; mean? How does it relate to &quot;a thing conceived&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25480" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7586" RevisionGUID="94e1a05f-7988-4e22-ab32-368b32362b05" CreationDate="2018-11-26T03:56:56.923" UserDisplayName="user3136" Text="|etymology|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7587" RevisionGUID="a75f6bf5-1a5d-4b01-9c3c-92ef9932127c" CreationDate="2018-11-26T05:52:29.483" UserId="79" Text="As typically with this kind of thing, it's good to look at the different meanings present already in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;[Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DC%3Aentry+group%3D78%3Aentry%3Dconceptus2) mention &quot;collection, gathering&quot; as a meaning of *conceptus*.&#xD;&#xA;And that makes sense: *capere* means taking or capturing, *con-* adds togetherness.&#xD;&#xA;Taking things together is gathering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that is not the only meaning.&#xD;&#xA;It is not unusual to use *con-* as an intensifier &amp;mdash; and indeed it is quite common in Latin to use various prefixes as intensifiers disregarding their literal meaning.&#xD;&#xA;One of the meanings of *conceptus* is indeed &quot;gathering&quot;, but that seems to be quite unrelated to what you are after.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is useful to dig a little further within Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The word *conceptus* is derived from [*concipere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=concipio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;Broadly, its meanings are variations on the theme of *capere*; see the linked L&amp;S entry for more details.&#xD;&#xA;One sense of capturing this verb is used for is understanding.&#xD;&#xA;And it's not that far fetched: to grasp something mentally is much like taking hold of something physically, and this is reflected in many languages.&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of *conceptus* you are asking about seems to be related to this meaning (II in L&amp;S) of *concipere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, I would answer your questions as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Does the prefix *con-* truly mean “with” here? But Etymonline says that it's &quot;probably an intensive prefix&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, I would not interpret *con-* as &quot;with&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Literal interpretation of Latin prefixes is often ill-advised, in part due to words changing meanings unpredictably in time.&#xD;&#xA;It is indeed probably mostly about intensity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If *con-* does mean “with”, then how did “with-taking” semantically shift to mean &quot;(a thing) conceived&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix is mostly an intensifier used to tone the verb *capere*, &quot;to catch&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;*Concipere* is used in the mental sense (among other senses), so that *concipere* can mean &quot;to grasp&quot;, &quot;to think of something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;From this verb one can then derive the fourth declension noun *conceptus*, &quot;the process of *concipere*&quot; or &quot;conception&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;One can also derive the second and first declension participle *conceptus*, &quot;the [thing/person/other] that has been grasped&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is very literally &quot;a thing conceived&quot;, so the description you cite is quite accurate in that sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope it makes more sense now!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7586" RevisionGUID="452f7927-9d31-439a-941b-50834190b6fe" CreationDate="2018-11-26T05:53:41.373" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 60 characters in body" Text="[*Why Do Languages Change?* (2010)](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Languages-Change-Larry-Trask/dp/0521546931) by [R. L. Trask (1944-2004)](https://www.librarything.com/author/traskrl). p. 105.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Latin *conceptus* is literally ‘with-taking’)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Does the prefix [*con-*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/concept#etymonline_v_17307) truly mean “with” here?  But [Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/word/concept#etymonline_v_17307) says that it's &quot;probably an intensive prefix&quot;. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2. If *con-* does mean “with”, then how did “with-talking” semantically shift to mean **&quot;(a thing) conceived&quot;**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;# concept (n.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;a general notion, the immediate object of a thought,&quot; 1550s, from Medieval Latin *conceptum* &quot;draft, abstract,&quot; in classical Latin **&quot;(a thing) conceived,&quot;** from *concep-*, past-participle stem of *concipere* &quot;to take in and hold; become pregnant,&quot; from *con-*, here ***probably an intensive prefix*** (see [con-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/con-?ref=etymonline_crossreference)), + combining form of *capere* &quot;to take,&quot; from PIE root [\*kap-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*kap-?ref=etymonline_crossreference) &quot;to grasp.&quot; In some 16c. cases a refashioning of [conceit](https://www.etymonline.com/word/conceit?ref=etymonline_crossreference) (perhaps to avoid negative connotations that had begun to cling to that word).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7588" RevisionGUID="dd3f473d-cfbc-4e25-a2a2-8ac08d8e0e2a" CreationDate="2018-11-26T22:47:00.517" UserId="3137" Text="In life one strives for things, but accomplishment means going through &quot;difficulties&quot;, stops, barriers, counter intention, and even people and governments, all the things we have to contend with to make our greatest aspirations come true.  It may or may not be hardship, that is why I prefer &quot;difficulties&quot; as it can include hardship without insisting upon it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7589" RevisionGUID="c5d56e67-5b56-4b30-8d5f-9c382a061f81" CreationDate="2018-11-27T02:48:28.887" UserId="406" Text="An author friend recently asked me for help with a Latin name: in his book, a group calls itself the &quot;order of protection and conservation&quot;, but in Latin to be pretentious (*altum videtur…*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My immediate thought was *ōrdō prōtectiōnis cōnservātiōnisque*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *ōrdō* for this sort of &quot;order&quot; is well-attested, both classically and in modern times&#xD;&#xA; - *prōtegō* is a fine word for &quot;protect&quot; but *dēfendō* and *tūtor* work just as well, I'll ask which he likes the best&#xD;&#xA; - *cōnservō* is straightforwardly &quot;conserve&quot; and I can't think of any other Latin verb for that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm not at all certain about using a verbal noun in the genitive for this. Latin generally likes participles and gerunds and the like where English would use a verbal noun. Is there a better grammatical construction for this sort of thing, attested either classically or later?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25486" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7589" RevisionGUID="c5d56e67-5b56-4b30-8d5f-9c382a061f81" CreationDate="2018-11-27T02:48:28.887" UserId="406" Text="Translating &quot;order of protection and conservation&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25487" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7589" RevisionGUID="c5d56e67-5b56-4b30-8d5f-9c382a061f81" CreationDate="2018-11-27T02:48:28.887" UserId="406" Text="|verbs|english-to-latin-translation|motto|derivation|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7590" RevisionGUID="096cd1a7-9021-424c-8dd2-b79b1515cfa2" CreationDate="2018-11-27T12:37:58.273" UserId="79" Text="Classical Latin sometimes uses a gerundive dative to express the purpose of an administrative unit, such as various kinds of [*decemviri*](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decemviri).&#xD;&#xA;The linked Italian Wikipedia article lists *decemviri legibus scribundis consulari imperio*, *decemviri stlitibus iudicandis*, *(quin)decemviri sacris faciundis*, and *decemviri agris dandis adsignandis*.&#xD;&#xA;I read this dative as &quot;a committee appointed for the purpose of&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use something like this, then you need an object: What are they protecting and conserving?&#xD;&#xA;Assuming it's the republic, I would suggest ***ordo rei publicae defendendae et conservandae***.&#xD;&#xA;If the group happens to consist of fixed number of men, then *decemviri* with some number is a possible choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to go with datives, then I would suggest adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;Somehow ***ordo protectivus conservativusque*** sounds better to me than the genitives of verbal nouns.&#xD;&#xA;Such use of adjectives is attested in *triumviri monetales* and *praetor peregrinus*.&#xD;&#xA;I also came across a genitive, but more in the spirit of my earlier dative examples than your construction: *quattuorviri viarum curandarum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend using gerundives or adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the gerundives are more free of English connotations, as *conservativus* might make people think of &quot;conservative&quot; instead of &quot;conservation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The two concepts are obviously related, but they have a different tone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7591" RevisionGUID="3c2e732c-8f43-49cd-9279-37c8fb4accb7" CreationDate="2018-11-27T15:26:02.083" UserId="3141" Text="Veni, venite, spiritus sylvani, dives fluminarum.&#xD;&#xA;Can anybody explain two last words in the sentence? The beginning seems to be &quot;Come, come, the spirit of woods&quot; or something of the kind. The context is the following. Two little boys are playing and one of them,  who is learning Latin wants to show how he will summon magical spirits of nature. So perhaps there can be mistakes in the sentence. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25491" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7591" RevisionGUID="3c2e732c-8f43-49cd-9279-37c8fb4accb7" CreationDate="2018-11-27T15:26:02.083" UserId="3141" Text="The meaning of the sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25492" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7591" RevisionGUID="3c2e732c-8f43-49cd-9279-37c8fb4accb7" CreationDate="2018-11-27T15:26:02.083" UserId="3141" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7591" RevisionGUID="82ad6c06-9ec0-46a5-baca-9c5efa45b59c" CreationDate="2018-11-27T15:30:10.613" UserId="45" Comment="added 18 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can anybody explain the two last words in the following sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Veni, venite, spiritus sylvani, dives fluminarum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The beginning seems to be &quot;Come, come, the spirit of woods&quot; or something of the kind. The context is the following: Two little boys are playing and one of them,  who is learning Latin, wants to show how he will summon magical spirits of nature. So perhaps there can be mistakes in the sentence. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25494" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7591" RevisionGUID="82ad6c06-9ec0-46a5-baca-9c5efa45b59c" CreationDate="2018-11-27T15:30:10.613" UserId="45" Comment="added 18 characters in body; edited title" Text="What does &quot;dives fluminarum&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7593" RevisionGUID="4c098d23-0003-449f-9a3b-4c2e7dc5516b" CreationDate="2018-11-27T16:28:42.847" UserId="406" Text="*Venī, venīte* means &quot;come&quot; in both singular and plural. Perhaps &quot;come one, come all&quot; would be a good translation? Personally I would just have used *venīte* twice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Spīritŭs* means &quot;spirit&quot;, while *spīritūs* means &quot;spirits&quot;; without the length marking on the *u* it could mean either. But the adjective *sylvānī* &quot;of the forest&quot; makes it clear that it's plural &quot;spirits&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing that *dīvēs* is a mistake. Literally it means something like &quot;wealthy people&quot;; a connection to *dīvus* &quot;divine&quot; exists, but is extremely old and doesn't really affect the meaning any more. *Flūminārum* is definitely a mistake: it means &quot;of the rivers&quot;, but using the first declension ending on a third declension noun. It's like saying &quot;childs&quot; instead of &quot;children&quot; in English: it's easy to understand the meaning, but native speakers would consider it wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the intended meaning, ignoring the mistakes, I'd say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Come one, come all, spirits of the forest, divinities of the rivers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(All the mistakes, by the way, are perfectly reasonable from a child who's just learning the language.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7593" RevisionGUID="8c245f97-eb9b-4172-8554-918017c975ec" CreationDate="2018-11-27T16:55:57.083" UserId="406" Comment="added 210 characters in body" Text="*Venī, venīte* means &quot;come&quot; in both singular and plural. Perhaps &quot;come one, come all&quot; would be a good translation? Personally I would just have used *venīte* twice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Spīritŭs* means &quot;spirit&quot;, while *spīritūs* means &quot;spirits&quot;; without the length marking on the *u* it could mean either. But the adjective *sylvānī* &quot;of the forest&quot; makes it clear that it's plural &quot;spirits&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing that *dīvēs* is a mistake. Literally it means something like &quot;wealthy people&quot;; a connection to *dīvus* &quot;divine&quot; exists, but is extremely old and doesn't really affect the meaning any more. *Flūminārum* is definitely a mistake: it means &quot;of the rivers&quot;, but using the first declension ending on a third declension noun. It's like saying &quot;childs&quot; instead of &quot;children&quot; in English: it's easy to understand the meaning, but native speakers would consider it wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the intended meaning, ignoring the mistakes, I'd say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Come one, come all, spirits of the forest, divinities of the rivers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(All the mistakes, by the way, are perfectly reasonable from a child who's just learning the language.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: As Hugh pointed out in the comments, while *sylvānus* literally means &quot;of the forest&quot;, it's most often used as the title of a particular deity. The more usual word for &quot;of the forest&quot; is *sylvaticus*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7594" RevisionGUID="8ec3d059-bb8e-4009-8418-afd0aac45964" CreationDate="2018-11-27T17:04:00.307" UserId="522" Text="This so neatly recreates all the oddities of medieval *hocus pocus* Latin. All the words are real Latin except *fluminarum,* which is a neuter-plural ***'-a'*** mistaken for a First declension singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the other words would have been familiar to a bright child:  &#xD;&#xA;*Veni &amp; Venite* from Christmas carols.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;*Dives* from the legend of Dives and Lazarus based on a parable; the Rich Man and the Beggar covered in sores; who became patron of leper hospitals as S. Lazare.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;*Silvanus* or *Sylvanus* is the God of woods and forests; introduced by Kipling and Hawthorne to children's literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7595" RevisionGUID="ca01ec3d-53bc-4de8-9ea5-062a3e653be7" CreationDate="2018-11-27T17:28:20.770" UserId="45" Text="In the first treatise of *On the Genealogy of Morality*, &amp;sect;5, Nietzsche proposes the following derivation of *bonus* (good):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I believe I may interpret the Latin *bonus* as &quot;the warrior&quot;: assuing that I am correct in tracing *bonus* back to an older *duonus* (compare *bellum = duellum = duen-lum*, in which that *duonus* seems to me to be preserved). *Bonus* accordingly as man of strife, of division (*duo*), as man of war--one sees what it was about a man that constituted his &quot;goodness&quot; in ancient Rome. (translation by Clark and Swensen)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, a lot of important etymological scholarship by more level heads has happened since 1887. **Is Nietzsche's proposed etymology for *bonus* plausible?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25501" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7595" RevisionGUID="ca01ec3d-53bc-4de8-9ea5-062a3e653be7" CreationDate="2018-11-27T17:28:20.770" UserId="45" Text="Is Nietzsche's proposed etymology of &quot;bonus&quot; (good) correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25502" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7595" RevisionGUID="ca01ec3d-53bc-4de8-9ea5-062a3e653be7" CreationDate="2018-11-27T17:28:20.770" UserId="45" Text="|etymology|philosophy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7596" RevisionGUID="d73b2c3d-f7ca-423f-a537-be6d89b4dc5a" CreationDate="2018-11-27T17:49:25.227" UserId="324" Text="This etymology is not accepted by modern scholars, though the ultimate origin of &quot;bonus&quot; is contested. I cannot get de Vaan to scan properly, but here is Walde:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3IiOk.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7594" RevisionGUID="aed88f1a-8dac-4f23-aa94-a00c89808d8f" CreationDate="2018-11-27T18:57:17.667" UserId="522" Comment="added 246 characters in body" Text="This so neatly recreates all the oddities of medieval popular and superstitious *hocus pocus* Latin. All the words are real Latin except *fluminarum,* which is a neuter-plural ***'-a'*** mistaken for a First declension singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the other words would have been familiar to a bright child:  &#xD;&#xA;*[Veni][1] &amp; [Venite][2]* from Christmas carols.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;*Dives* from the legend of [Dives and Lazarus][3] based on a parable (Luke 16:19–31); the Rich Man and the Beggar covered in sores; who became patron of leper hospitals as S. Lazare.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;*Silvanus* or *Sylvanus* is the God of woods and forests; introduced by Kipling or Hawthorne or C.S.Lewis to children's literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_Come,_O_Come,_Emmanuel&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://hymnary.org/tune/venite_adoremus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dives_and_Lazarus_(ballad)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="150" RevisionGUID="290eac25-84fb-4288-89c6-e749ee433cdc" CreationDate="2018-11-27T19:48:29.347" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="It is most natural (to me at least) to see *ut/ne* clauses corresponding to wishes as independent.&#xD;&#xA;A couple of examples should make this idea clear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Timeo, ne veniat. &gt; Timeo. Ne veniat! &gt; I fear. May he not come! &gt; I fear that he comes.&#xD;&#xA;- Spero, ut veniat. &gt; Spero. Ut veniat! &gt; I hope. May he come! &gt; I hope that he comes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen this explanation in Latin grammars and it makes sense, but I don't know if there is historical evidence for these clauses developing from independent clauses.&#xD;&#xA;If nothing else, it is a good rule for deciding which one of *ut* and *ne* to pick." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7596" RevisionGUID="b56967a4-abec-4130-a331-3c513df43cc9" CreationDate="2018-11-28T00:21:35.040" UserId="1089" Comment="Attempted transcription of text in image" Text="This etymology is not accepted by modern scholars, though the ultimate origin of &quot;bonus&quot; is contested. I cannot get de Vaan to scan properly, but here is Walde:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3IiOk.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a transcription from the German source in the image. In addition to Latin, the original contains Greek and (I think) Italian (ital.) and Old Italian (ai.):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **bonus** „gut“, altlat. _duonus_, noch älter _Duenos_ (nicht damit ablautend; vgl. Thurneysen KZ. XXXV, 204, Pedersen KZ. XXXVI, 91), vgl. auch _bene, bellus_: nach Darmesteter De conjug. latini verbi dare (1876), 26 ff. , Osthoff MU. IV, 370 ptc. auf _-eno-_ zur Wurzel von ai. _dúvaḥ_ n. „Gabe, Ehrerweisung“, _duvasyáti_ „ehrt, verehrt, erkennt an, belohnt“, _duvasyú-ḥ, duvōyú-ḥ_ „verehrend, ehrerbietig“, wozu auch lat. ***beāre*** „beglücken, erquicken“, ***beātus*** „selig, glücklich“ ; hierher nach Wood Mod. Philology IV, 499 als idg. _\*du̯ei-to-_ vermutlich auch mnd. _twīden_ „willfahren, gewähren, bewilligen, erhören“, mhd. _zwīden_ ds., md. _getwedic_ „zahm, willfährig“, vgl. auch as. _tu(g)iđon_ „gewähren“, ags. _tygđian, tīđian_ ds.; die Bed. „durch Gaben, durch Beschenkung ehren oder erfreuen“ (woraus die Bed. von ital. _\*du̯-ei̯ō, \*du̯-enos_ sich leicht ergibt) ist der Hirt'schen (IF. XXI, 169ff.) Anknüpfung der Sippe an alat. _duim_ usw. „ich möge geben“ (s. _dō_; er führt idg. _\*dō-, \*dōu̯-_ auf älteres _\*dou̯e-_ zurück) günstig. Sehr fraglich ist Zugehörigkeit von _dautia, lautia_, s. d.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Wenig ansprechend ist Fröhdes BB. IX, 111, Ficks I&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;, 457, II&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;, 150 (ebenso Prellwitz Gr. Wb. unter δύναμαι) Verbindung von _bonus_ mit einer Wz. _\*dū-:\*deu̯ā-_ „stark, fest“ in gr. _δύναμαι_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25510" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7596" RevisionGUID="b56967a4-abec-4130-a331-3c513df43cc9" CreationDate="2018-11-28T00:21:35.040" Comment="Proposed by 1089 approved by -1 edit id of 281" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7596" RevisionGUID="3c5e9dd1-2af5-432c-bec8-21c3bf573faa" CreationDate="2018-11-28T00:21:35.040" UserId="324" Comment="Attempted transcription of text in image" Text="This etymology is not accepted by modern scholars, though the ultimate origin of &quot;bonus&quot; is contested. I cannot get de Vaan to scan properly, but here is Walde:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3IiOk.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a transcription from the German source in the image:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **bonus** „gut“, altlat. _duonus_, noch älter _Duenos_ (nicht damit ablautend; vgl. Thurneysen KZ. XXXV, 204, Pedersen KZ. XXXVI, 91), vgl. auch _bene, bellus_: nach Darmesteter De conjug. latini verbi dare (1876), 26 ff. , Osthoff MU. IV, 370 ptc. auf _-eno-_ zur Wurzel von ai. _dúvaḥ_ n. „Gabe, Ehrerweisung“, _duvasyáti_ „ehrt, verehrt, erkennt an, belohnt“, _duvasyú-ḥ, duvōyú-ḥ_ „verehrend, ehrerbietig“, wozu auch lat. ***beāre*** „beglücken, erquicken“, ***beātus*** „selig, glücklich“ ; hierher nach Wood Mod. Philology IV, 499 als idg. _\*du̯ei-to-_ vermutlich auch mnd. _twīden_ „willfahren, gewähren, bewilligen, erhören“, mhd. _zwīden_ ds., md. _getwedic_ „zahm, willfährig“, vgl. auch as. _tu(g)iđon_ „gewähren“, ags. _tygđian, tīđian_ ds.; die Bed. „durch Gaben, durch Beschenkung ehren oder erfreuen“ (woraus die Bed. von ital. _\*du̯-ei̯ō, \*du̯-enos_ sich leicht ergibt) ist der Hirt'schen (IF. XXI, 169ff.) Anknüpfung der Sippe an alat. _duim_ usw. „ich möge geben“ (s. _dō_; er führt idg. _\*dō-, \*dōu̯-_ auf älteres _\*dou̯e-_ zurück) günstig. Sehr fraglich ist Zugehörigkeit von _dautia, lautia_, s. d.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Wenig ansprechend ist Fröhdes BB. IX, 111, Ficks I&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;, 457, II&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;, 150 (ebenso Prellwitz Gr. Wb. unter δύναμαι) Verbindung von _bonus_ mit einer Wz. _\*dū-:\*deu̯ā-_ „stark, fest“ in gr. _δύναμαι_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7598" RevisionGUID="30d8cb2f-73b3-4e91-9c9a-2f13bd1f44b8" CreationDate="2018-11-28T00:31:19.907" UserId="3144" Text="@brianpck The logic is sound: du = du, and duellum - du = ellum, much in the same way that du = du, and duonus - du = onus. Now in both cases where b = d, the results are the same: bonus and bellum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's not ignore the consistency of the 'goodness of war' being implied in the etymology of both words. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7598" RevisionGUID="3d399d26-1003-469d-bddf-b8a9a7dfe949" CreationDate="2018-11-28T01:01:23.940" UserId="3144" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="I agree with Octavius Octavian &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@brianpck The logic is sound: du = du, and duellum - du = ellum, much in the same way that du = du, and duonus - du = onus. Now in both cases where b = d, the results are the same: bonus and bellum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's not ignore the consistency of the 'goodness of war' being implied in the etymology of both words. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25515" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="7598" RevisionGUID="b338484c-35ee-46cd-bca5-c42673dc2360" CreationDate="2018-11-28T06:17:14.660" UserId="79" Comment="90" />
  <row Id="25516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4793" RevisionGUID="ae1906dc-ac62-4bac-8858-341a2bac0ef1" CreationDate="2018-11-28T06:56:34.103" UserId="645" Comment="sp." Text="Smith's English-Latin should help you out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**antithesis**: **1.** contrarium (strictly *a contrary thing or proposition,* not antithesis abstractedly): *there is an a. (in the passage),* contraria opponuntur, Cic. Or. 49 : *the statement of an a.,* relatio contrariorum, ib. (in this passage he describes such passages as “quae Graeci [*antitheta*] nominant, quum contraria contrariis opponuntur”)  **2.** contentio: Cic. : Quint.  **3.** contrapositum : Quint.  **4.** distinctio : Quint. : contrapositum is stated by Quint. (9, *3*, 81) to be synonymous with contentio : whereas distinctio is a peculiar kind of antithesis, in which the members are exactly balanced, word by word.  **5.** antitheton (. Cic. 1. c. supr.) : *polished antitheses*, rasa antitheta, Pers.—NOTE. *Not* antithesis ; which denotes *a change of letter* ; Charis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Added after the questioner's comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you might simply use *locus contrarius*, meaning 'the direct(ly) opposite (position)' :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Jeffersonian Democracy is the *locus contrarius* of [the] British political system.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2559" RevisionGUID="45b4f4dd-0580-4e90-a775-9f537593cc4d" CreationDate="2018-11-28T07:17:16.120" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="I've seen *progressio* used as a part in a story which progresses the plot, but is there a word for a moment with action and conflict that determines the outcome of the story, or a crucial time for a character to make a decision? Any related terms are welcome, preferably in Classical Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25518" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2559" RevisionGUID="45b4f4dd-0580-4e90-a775-9f537593cc4d" CreationDate="2018-11-28T07:17:16.120" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6108" RevisionGUID="0abdea80-3692-4195-a28a-039cb975b98a" CreationDate="2018-11-28T07:23:54.417" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="&gt;[abound (v.)](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=abound&amp;searchmode=none)     &#xD;&#xA;    early 14c., from Old French abonder &quot;to abound, be abundant, come together in great numbers&quot; (12c.),    &#xD;&#xA;from Latin abundare &quot;overflow, run over,&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;from Latin ***ab-* &quot;off&quot;** (see [ab-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ab-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)) + *undare* &quot;rise in a wave,&quot; from unda &quot;water, wave&quot; (see [water](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=water&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (n.1)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the meaning of &quot;off&quot;, while during a &quot;rise in a wave&quot;? Is there some [hypotaxis](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/hypotaxis)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't understand Prof. John Lawler's [example with coffee sloshing in a cup held by walkers](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/12420/what-does-the-prefix-ab-mean-in-the-latin-verb-abundare#comment33255_12420):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ever tried to walk fast carrying a full cup of coffee? The coffee rises in waves set off by the motion and sloshes over from the top of the cup, if you're not careful. BTW, _hypotaxis_ is a literary term, not a linguistic one. You've got to stop trying to learn grammar from a dictionary. Greek terms were coined for Greek by ancient Greek grammarians, who had extremely odd notions about language (where 'language' = 'Homeric Greek'; other people spoke barbaric languages, not real ones), and are rarely useful. But they do impress people, for sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25520" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6108" RevisionGUID="0abdea80-3692-4195-a28a-039cb975b98a" CreationDate="2018-11-28T07:23:54.417" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|etymology|verbs|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7598" RevisionGUID="7d507e7f-244a-4188-b54a-8c091f5dcb8f" CreationDate="2018-11-28T20:47:59.673" UserId="12" Comment="deleted 45 characters in body" Text="The logic is sound: du = du, and duellum - du = ellum, much in the same way that du = du, and duonus - du = onus. Now in both cases where b = d, the results are the same: bonus and bellum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's not ignore the consistency of the 'goodness of war' being implied in the etymology of both words. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7599" RevisionGUID="5f1c5df0-7b0b-4c17-87ca-1ada7769965c" CreationDate="2018-11-29T00:27:05.050" UserId="3149" Text="I read the following content in the Oxford Latin Dict.:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; lacteolus = lacteus+ -olus, &#xA;where -olus is a diminutive suffix. &#xA;&#xA;The ‘normal’ form **lacteus** and the diminutive form  **lacteolus** share a common interpretation *milky white*. I am wondering the difference of meaning between the two forms. The notion of *‘diminutive milky-white’* does not make sense to me.&#xA;&#xA;Here’s an example from OLD:&#xA;&gt; nunc te lacteolae tenent puellae.&#xA;&#xA;I am wondering whether the diminutive form **lacteolae** suggests the youth of *puellae* in this example? &#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25524" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7599" RevisionGUID="5f1c5df0-7b0b-4c17-87ca-1ada7769965c" CreationDate="2018-11-29T00:27:05.050" UserId="3149" Text="how to interpret the diminutive-suffixed adj. **lacteolus**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25525" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7599" RevisionGUID="5f1c5df0-7b0b-4c17-87ca-1ada7769965c" CreationDate="2018-11-29T00:27:05.050" UserId="3149" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|translation|meaning|poetry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7600" RevisionGUID="c4078985-1b05-4a82-be16-a225e62ec183" CreationDate="2018-11-29T09:04:57.150" UserId="79" Text="The OLD quote is a line from [poem 55 by Catullus](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/catullus.shtml#55), written in the hendecasyllabic metre.&#xD;&#xA;Metric constraints are one reason to choose a diminutive instead of the original adjective, even if there was no difference in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context of poetry is not only important for metric reasons, but also because it brings poetic licence to syntax.&#xD;&#xA;As cnread comments below the question, I would read *puellae lacteolae* not as &quot;small-milky girls&quot; but as &quot;milky small-girls&quot;, shifting the diminutive semantically to the noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7599" RevisionGUID="2a1ac606-f7b4-40fb-a637-b0143436c296" CreationDate="2018-11-29T09:07:18.133" UserId="79" Comment="We are in the process of getting rid of the &quot;translation&quot; tag. See our meta for details: https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="I read the following content in the Oxford Latin Dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lacteolus = lacteus+ -olus, &#xD;&#xA;where -olus is a diminutive suffix. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ‘normal’ form **lacteus** and the diminutive form  **lacteolus** share a common interpretation *milky white*. I am wondering the difference of meaning between the two forms. The notion of *‘diminutive milky-white’* does not make sense to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s an example from OLD:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nunc te lacteolae tenent puellae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering whether the diminutive form **lacteolae** suggests the youth of *puellae* in this example? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25528" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7599" RevisionGUID="2a1ac606-f7b4-40fb-a637-b0143436c296" CreationDate="2018-11-29T09:07:18.133" UserId="79" Comment="We are in the process of getting rid of the &quot;translation&quot; tag. See our meta for details: https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|meaning|poetry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7601" RevisionGUID="10844a30-a46c-450e-b204-70343d412dda" CreationDate="2018-11-29T09:38:55.247" UserId="2646" Text="Some time ago, a user in the Spanish language site [asked][1] if the Spanish verb endings *-ar*, *-er* and *-ir* had a special meaning. I then answered that the endings do not have any meaning by themselves, *at least in Spanish*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I would like to get to the root of that question, but for now it would be useful to know where the origin of those endings is. So let's go step by step. The Spanish language got those verb endings from the Latin language. According to [the Wikipedia][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ancient Romans themselves, beginning with Varro (1st century BC), originally divided their verbs into three conjugations [...], according to whether the ending of the 2nd person singular had an *a*, an *e* or an *i* in it.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Modern grammarians generally recognise four conjugations, according to whether their active present infinitive has the ending *-āre*, *-ēre*, *-ere*, or *-īre*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course there are also some irregular verbs that do not follow this pattern, but let's keep them aside. So we mainly have these four endings *-āre*, *-ēre*, *-ere*, and *-īre*, which seem to have already existed in Old Latin (or at least three of them). I do not think those endings meant something in Latin by themselves, but where did the Latin language get them from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://spanish.stackexchange.com/q/17604/12637&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_conjugation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25530" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7601" RevisionGUID="10844a30-a46c-450e-b204-70343d412dda" CreationDate="2018-11-29T09:38:55.247" UserId="2646" Text="Where did the Latin language get its infinitive verb endings from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25531" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7601" RevisionGUID="10844a30-a46c-450e-b204-70343d412dda" CreationDate="2018-11-29T09:38:55.247" UserId="2646" Text="|etymology|verbs|history|old-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25532" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7601" RevisionGUID="352bf15d-e24a-4a78-95ea-51879fefbc3d" CreationDate="2018-11-29T11:21:50.267" UserId="79" Comment="The tag &quot;history&quot; is for human history, not language history." Text="|etymology|verbs|language-evolution|old-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7602" RevisionGUID="3ea03862-f68a-46fb-b469-26d7b989a92a" CreationDate="2018-11-29T13:55:18.050" UserId="1459" Text="The word conundrum &quot;sounds&quot; very Latin (or at least, it does not sound English enough to me). Yet, it seems its origin is unclear. [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conundrum) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A word of unknown origin with several variants, gaining popularity for its burlesque imitation of scholastic Latin, as &quot;hocus-pocus&quot; or &quot;panjandrum&quot;. If there is more to its origin than a nonce coinage, Anatoly Liberman suggests the best theory is that connecting it with the _Conimbricenses_, 16C scholastic commentaries on Aristotle by the Jesuits of Coimbra which indulge heavily in arguments relying on multiple significations of words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In effect, [this blog](https://blog.oup.com/2008/12/conundrum/), sponsored by the Oxford University Press, proposes seven alternative origins. Three are directly related to Latin (quoting _in extenso_ from above):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Since _conundrum_ means “pun” and presupposes an imaginary or fanciful **agreement** between some **two** objects, the etymon may be Greek _koinon duoin_ (Latin _commune duorum_); substitute Latin _duorum_ for Greek _duoin_, and you will get a good approximation of _conundrum_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Perhaps _conundrum_ is a modified and disguised form of Latin _conventum_ “agreement.” For _v_ the letter _u_ often turns up in books. Conuentum could have been misunderstood and mispronounced as _conundrum_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. One of the citations in the _OED_ runs as follows: “These conimbrums, whether Reall or Nominall, went down with Erasmus like chopt hay.” (1651; the first citation of _conundrum_ goes back to 1586.) Here is the etymology, published in _The Nation_ 57, 1893, No. 1481, p. 370 and signed by the initials C.S.P.: “There surely can be no doubt what this word [that is, _conimbrums_] is. The reference to realists and nominalists shows that something in the scholastic philosophy is referred to; and ‘conimbrum’ is easily recognized as meaning _argumentum Conimbrienum_. The doctors of Coimbra, in their celebrated commentaries published in the sixteenth century, have in all cases a great deal to say of the ‘multiplex significatio’ of one word and another. Indeed, such remarks are their great weapon. They used it for all it was worth, and a little more. Accordingly, a dealer in verbal quibbles might naturally have been called by Oxford students a _Conimbricus_, and his quillet _Conimbrienum argumentum_. The original _c_, which this hypothesis requires, is preserved in another old form of the word ‘_conuncrum_’. _Conimbrica_ was in the sixteenth century the most usual Latin form of the name Coimbra, though Conimbria is also common. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly fascinating stuff. Now, as experienced Latinists, you might be able to give some lights on this issue. For instance, another instance of word transformation going through one of the above channels? Or perhaps evidence that _commune duorum_ is a rare phrase in (mediaeval?) Latin? I am curious on your thoughts on this. Surely a definitive answer will not be given, but any light on the issue would, imo, be a good answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25534" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7602" RevisionGUID="3ea03862-f68a-46fb-b469-26d7b989a92a" CreationDate="2018-11-29T13:55:18.050" UserId="1459" Text="On the etymology of &quot;conundrum&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25535" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7602" RevisionGUID="3ea03862-f68a-46fb-b469-26d7b989a92a" CreationDate="2018-11-29T13:55:18.050" UserId="1459" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7603" RevisionGUID="8517800f-c870-4c19-986a-9206bc7e61dc" CreationDate="2018-11-29T14:51:25.243" UserId="79" Text="There are various kinds of spreads one can put on a bread, made from butter, vegetable oils, or other ingredients.&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good general word for these products for use in contemporary Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If at all possible, I would like a word that is not a variation on *butyrum* or any other word referring to butter.&#xD;&#xA;Butter is a kind of spread, and I am looking for a word that would include butter but would include, say, margarine and hummus.&#xD;&#xA;I want to translate the noun &quot;spread&quot; to Latin, but it doesn't have to be literally about spreading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have posted one suggestion below, but I doubt it's the only option." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25539" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7603" RevisionGUID="8517800f-c870-4c19-986a-9206bc7e61dc" CreationDate="2018-11-29T14:51:25.243" UserId="79" Text="Putting &quot;spread&quot; on a bread in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25540" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7603" RevisionGUID="8517800f-c870-4c19-986a-9206bc7e61dc" CreationDate="2018-11-29T14:51:25.243" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7604" RevisionGUID="6b484cd1-895a-438f-8b64-eeed49871c44" CreationDate="2018-11-29T14:51:25.243" UserId="79" Text="A good verb for spreading seems to be *pandere*.&#xD;&#xA;From &quot;spread&quot; one can derive &quot;spreadable&quot;, and such derivations are widely attested in classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *facilis &lt; facere*&#xD;&#xA;- *fragilis &lt; frangere*&#xD;&#xA;- *utilis &lt; uti*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An adjective can always be substantivized to mean the thing the verb is applied to.&#xD;&#xA;For this specific class of adjectives, two prominent examples come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *sedile &lt; sedere*&#xD;&#xA;- *missile &lt; mittere*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applying the same derivations to *pandere* leads to ***pandile*** (lit. &quot;spreadable thing&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;While I'm not aware of any attestations of this word, it is derived in a natural and attested way.&#xD;&#xA;It is conveniently short and should be understandable in context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7605" RevisionGUID="80c911c6-cbf4-4c6f-9db6-64a0a355f8ad" CreationDate="2018-11-29T16:57:10.283" UserId="645" Text="Sadly, I think you are right, and myself doubt very much that any useful insights can be provided. Indeed, I strongly suspect that the writer of your quoted OED citation may well, in frustration, have been cunningly  turning the question into a conundrum of his own. No matter how many etymologies may be put forward, I think that we should accept that there's never going to be one that's really satisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[On a technical ppoint :a conundrum is not a pun precisely, but a riddle or puzzle needing a bit of lateral thinking to solve it. It is often *answerable* by punning.&#xD;&#xA;Punning itself is exemplified by the (good, but untrue) story that General Sir Charles Napier sent the one-word dispatch ‘Peccavi’ after conquering the Indian province of Sind in 1843. ‘Peccavi,’ *I have sinned*, is spoken just as *I have Sind*. Any Americans reading may recognize another, in a Presidential electioneering effort from the nineteenth century in 'We Polked You in ’44, We Shall Pierce You in ‘52'.&#xD;&#xA;Neither is the answer to a conundrum!]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7598" RevisionGUID="b8dedf5e-308f-43f4-abfe-6240e07d7180" CreationDate="2018-11-29T18:26:18.793" UserId="3144" Comment="added citation" Text="The logic is sound: du = du, and duellum - du = ellum, much in the same way that du = du, and duonus - du = onus. Now in both cases where b = d, the results are the same: bonus and bellum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's not ignore the consistency of the 'goodness of war' being implied in the etymology of both words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;reference:&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initial *dw- (attested in Old Latin as du-) becomes b-, thus compensating for the dearth of words beginning with *b in PIE: " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7606" RevisionGUID="ee731e33-2256-4197-9dd3-643d20169249" CreationDate="2018-11-29T20:40:58.863" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="In *First Greek Book* by John Williams White following passage is given for reader to translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Τισσαφέρνες δέ, ὀ τῆς Καρίας σατράπης, τῷ Κύρῳ πολέμιος ἦν, τότε δὲ οὔτε ἐστράτευεν ἐπ' αὔτε διήρπαζε τὴν χώραν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am pretty convinced that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Τισσαφέρνες δέ, ὀ τῆς Καρίας σατράπης, τῷ Κύρῳ πολέμιος ἦν,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means something like&#xD;&#xA;*Tissarphernes, satrap of Caria, was warlike to the Cyrus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;αὔτε διήρπαζε τὴν χώραν&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;says something like:&#xD;&#xA;*he had plundered the country again*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves me with:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;τότε δὲ οὔτε ἐστράτευεν ἐπ'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*τότε δὲ* - and then&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ἐστράτευεν* - he advanced with army&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ἐπ'* is without a noun and maybe means here: apart from [the fact that he plundered the country]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*οὔτε* can be used as *οὔτε ... οὔτε* - neither ... nor but here it's different. It's unclear for me - if Tissarphernes was enemy of Cyrus and he plundered the country then he most likely **did** advance with army - what could *οὔτε* mean here, then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I ignore *οὔτε* attempt at translation would then be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Tissarpernes, satrap of Caria, was warlike to the Cyrus and then he had advanced with army apart from plundering the country again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please help me and correct errors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25546" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7606" RevisionGUID="ee731e33-2256-4197-9dd3-643d20169249" CreationDate="2018-11-29T20:40:58.863" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="Ancient greek translation exercise - narration, meaning of singular *οὔτε*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25547" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7606" RevisionGUID="ee731e33-2256-4197-9dd3-643d20169249" CreationDate="2018-11-29T20:40:58.863" UserDisplayName="user1846" Text="|greek|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7607" RevisionGUID="d2534c07-b243-44ca-9b42-e7aed5ee0c44" CreationDate="2018-11-29T23:14:28.487" UserId="9" Text="**It's unclear whether *bonus* is related to *bellum/duellum*, but it is plausible.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nietzsche is correct about *bonus* coming from an older form starting with *du-*: not only is this consistent with known Latin sound changes, we apparently even have inscriptional evidence of forms starting with *duon-* and *duen-* in Old Latin. The reconstructed pronunciation of *du-* here is /dw/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As TKR said in a comment, Michiel de Vaan's *Etymological Dictionary of Latin* (2008) says that &quot;The best etymology for *duellum* so far has been proposed by Pinault 1987, who posits a dim. *\*duenelo-* to *bonus*&quot;, so it doesn't seem that more recent scholarship has rendered this hypothesis obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Nietzsche's implication of an etymological connection between *bellum/duellum* and *duo* seems to be regarded less favorably by de Vaan, who says that the PIE source of *bonus* is unclear, and who says that the use of the form *duellum* with three syllables in pronunciation in later poets &quot;may be either the result of **folk etymology** with *duo*, or a regular development&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems that even though modern sources support a connection between *bonus* and *bellum,* they view the semantic connection as developing in the opposite direction: rather than an older word for *warrior* coming to mean *good,* de Vaan suggests that *bonus* (*duenos*) originally meant *good,* and the derivative *bellum* (*duellum*) was euphemistically used to describe war. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7607" RevisionGUID="f9da89ce-34f4-48ba-ba8b-896cb3369c96" CreationDate="2018-11-29T23:19:49.370" UserId="9" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="###It is plausible that *bonus* is related to *bellum/duellum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nietzsche is correct about *bonus* coming from an older form starting with *du-*: not only is this consistent with known Latin sound changes, we apparently even have inscriptional evidence of forms starting with *duon-* and *duen-* in Old Latin. The reconstructed pronunciation of *du-* here is /dw/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As TKR said in a comment, Michiel de Vaan's *Etymological Dictionary of Latin* (2008) says that &quot;The best etymology for *duellum* so far has been proposed by Pinault 1987, who posits a dim. *\*duenelo-* to *bonus*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###But modern linguists don't agree with the idea that *bonus* originally meant &quot;the warrior&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Nietzsche's implication of an etymological connection between *bellum/duellum* and *duo* seems to be regarded less favorably by de Vaan, who says that the PIE source of *bonus* is unclear, and who says that the use of the form *duellum* with three syllables in pronunciation in later poets &quot;may be either the result of **folk etymology** with *duo*, or a regular development&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it seems that even though modern sources support a connection between *bonus* and *bellum,* they view the semantic connection as developing in the opposite direction: rather than an older word for *warrior* coming to mean *good,* de Vaan suggests that *bonus* (*duenos*) originally meant *good,* and the derivative *bellum* (*duellum*) was euphemistically used to describe war. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7608" RevisionGUID="0109d3be-151b-449c-b18e-ef638d63bd36" CreationDate="2018-11-30T01:16:56.817" UserId="3149" Text="According to OLD, the adj. *viridis* derives from the verb *vireo*, but nothing is mentioned about the suffix that turns the verb to the adj. Could anyone tell about the suffix that transforms the verb *vireo* to the adj. *viridis* ? (I looked up *viridis* in wiktionary, and like the previous search in OLD, no relevant info was found therein as well.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25553" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7608" RevisionGUID="0109d3be-151b-449c-b18e-ef638d63bd36" CreationDate="2018-11-30T01:16:56.817" UserId="3149" Text="on the word–analysis of ‘viridis’" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25554" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7608" RevisionGUID="0109d3be-151b-449c-b18e-ef638d63bd36" CreationDate="2018-11-30T01:16:56.817" UserId="3149" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7609" RevisionGUID="cc91be37-1223-4fc2-9673-c10189a15cb0" CreationDate="2018-11-30T01:36:32.117" UserId="406" Text="The suffix *-id-* creates an adjective from a second-conjugation stative verb (a verb that describes a state instead of an action). For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *cal-eō* &quot;to be hot&quot; → *cal-id-us* &quot;hot&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *torp-eō* &quot;to be sluggish&quot; → *torp-id-us* &quot;torpid&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *liqv-eō* &quot;to be flowy&quot; → *liqv-id-us* &quot;liquid&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually the resulting adjective is in the first/second declension, but sometimes it takes the third declension instead. I'm not sure why, but that would be another good question to ask!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7610" RevisionGUID="9a43cf6e-ef82-44f7-96b6-fff4a6ede843" CreationDate="2018-11-30T03:27:30.973" UserId="522" Text="**Savoury spreads**:&#xD;&#xA;An earlier question on *[pesto][1]* gave two invented answers. And another invented name could have been added from *tapenade,* the olive paste from SE France whose root is *tapet, tapetia,* a carpet, a covering (fr, Greek).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is also *salsa, salsorum,* salted foods (Plautus): genuine Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there are two **pastes, patées** eaten with bread which may be sweet **or** savoury&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *pulmentārĭum, ĭi,* n. [L&amp;S][2] &#xD;&#xA;also *pulmentum, i,* n. contr. from *pulpamentum,* from *pulpa.* &#xD;&#xA; Any thing eaten with bread, a relish (fruit, salt, mustard, etc.)   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *crĕmor, ōris,* m. (kindr. with *cremo,* (1)) the thick juice obtained from animal or vegetable substances, broth, purée&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **most successful spread** with an invented Latin name is **Margarine,** ([culinarylore.com][3])  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Margarine was invented in France by Hippolyte Mège-Mouriès in 1869, during the Franco-Prussian wars. He invented it in response to a competitive challenge from the French government under Napoleon III,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name, based on the Latin word for 'pearl,' comes from the small glistening droplets which appeared during the first successful experiments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Mège-Mouriès might easily have chosen to derive the name from *lino, linere,* to smear or daub; and *oleum,* olive oil, grease.  But fortunately, five years earlier that name had been taken, though not registered,...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Linoleum was invented by an Englishman Frederick Walton in 1855; from 1864 he called it Linoleum, which he derived from the Latin words &quot;linum&quot; (flax) and &quot;oleum&quot; (oil).]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5780/how-to-translate-pesto&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/getobject.pl?c.14:6254.LewisShort18&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://culinarylore.com/food-science:margarine-myths-feed-t%20%20urkeys-and-more/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7610" RevisionGUID="02d52754-4a6d-461d-ac24-21d516c72aa6" CreationDate="2018-11-30T03:36:31.083" UserId="522" Comment="Pulmentum emphasised." Text="**Savoury spreads**:&#xD;&#xA;An earlier question on *[pesto][1]* gave two invented answers. And another invented name could have been added from *tapenade,* the olive paste from SE France whose root is *tapet, tapetia,* a carpet, a covering (fr, Greek).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is also *salsa, salsorum,* salted foods (Plautus): genuine Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there are two **spreads: pastes, patées** eaten with bread which may be sweet **or** savoury. ***Pulmentum*** seems to be the most appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *pulmentārĭum, ĭi,* n. [L&amp;S][2] &#xD;&#xA;also *pulmentum, i,* n. contr. from *pulpamentum,* from *pulpa.* &#xD;&#xA; Any thing eaten with bread, a relish (fruit, salt, mustard, etc.)   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *crĕmor, ōris,* m. (kindr. with *cremo,* (1)) the thick juice obtained from animal or vegetable substances, broth, purée&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **most successful spread** with an invented Latin name is **Margarine,** ([culinarylore.com][3])  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Margarine was invented in France by Hippolyte Mège-Mouriès in 1869, during the Franco-Prussian wars. He invented it in response to a competitive challenge from the French government under Napoleon III,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name, based on the Latin word for 'pearl,' comes from the small glistening droplets which appeared during the first successful experiments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Mège-Mouriès might easily have chosen to derive the name from *lino, linere,* to smear or daub; and *oleum,* olive oil, grease.  But fortunately, five years earlier that name had been taken, though not registered,...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Linoleum was invented by an Englishman Frederick Walton in 1855; from 1864 he called it Linoleum, which he derived from the Latin words &quot;linum&quot; (flax) and &quot;oleum&quot; (oil).]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5780/how-to-translate-pesto&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/getobject.pl?c.14:6254.LewisShort18&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://culinarylore.com/food-science:margarine-myths-feed-t%20%20urkeys-and-more/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7596" RevisionGUID="e62ffd42-fe22-4801-8e4e-8280ae6eb0b7" CreationDate="2018-11-30T04:22:34.960" UserId="9" Comment="With the transcription, the image seems unnecessary" Text="This etymology is not accepted by modern scholars, though the ultimate origin of &quot;bonus&quot; is contested. I cannot get de Vaan to scan properly, but here is Walde:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **bonus** „gut“, altlat. _duonus_, noch älter _Duenos_ (nicht damit ablautend; vgl. Thurneysen KZ. XXXV, 204, Pedersen KZ. XXXVI, 91), vgl. auch _bene, bellus_: nach Darmesteter De conjug. latini verbi dare (1876), 26 ff. , Osthoff MU. IV, 370 ptc. auf _-eno-_ zur Wurzel von ai. _dúvaḥ_ n. „Gabe, Ehrerweisung“, _durasyáti_ „ehrt, verehrt, erkennt an, belohnt“, _duvasyú-ḥ, duvōyú-ḥ_ „verehrend, ehrerbietig“, wozu auch lat. ***beāre*** „beglücken, erquicken“, ***beātus*** „selig, glücklich“ ; hierher nach Wood Mod. Philology IV, 499 als idg. _\*du̯ei-to-_ vermutlich auch mnd. _twīden_ „willfahren, gewähren, bewilligen, erhören“, mhd. _zwīden_ ds., md. _getwedic_ „zahm, willfährig“, vgl. auch as. _tu(g)iđon_ „gewähren“, ags. _tygđian, tīđian_ ds.; die Bed. „durch Gaben, durch Beschenkung ehren oder erfreuen“ (woraus die Bed. von ital. _\*du̯-ei̯ō, \*du̯-enos_ sich leicht ergibt) ist der Hirt'schen (IF. XXI, 169ff.) Anknüpfung der Sippe an alat. _duim_ usw. „ich möge geben“ (s. _dō_; er führt idg. _\*dō-, \*dōu̯-_ auf älteres _\*dou̯e-_ zurück) günstig. Sehr fraglich ist Zugehörigkeit von _dautia, lautia_, s. d.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Wenig ansprechend ist Fröhdes BB. IX, 111, Ficks I&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;, 457, II&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;, 150 (ebenso Prellwitz Gr. Wb. unter δύναμαι) Verbindung von _bonus_ mit einer Wz. _\*dū-:\*deu̯ā-_ „stark, fest“ in gr. _δύναμαι_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7610" RevisionGUID="44e6c0ba-536d-4eff-8860-f74234324981" CreationDate="2018-11-30T04:36:02.793" UserId="522" Comment="added 376 characters in body" Text="**Savoury spreads**:&#xD;&#xA;An earlier question on *[pesto][1]* gave two invented answers. Another is&#xD;&#xA;Gentleman's Relish, an anchovy flavoured spread that used the mock Latin description 'Patum Peperium,' ([also the title of its website][2]) hence *patum,* and *patulum.* And yet another invented name could have been added from *tapenade,* the olive paste from SE France whose root is *tapet, tapetia,* a carpet, a covering (fr, Greek).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is also *salsa, salsorum,* salted foods (Plautus): genuine Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there are two **spreads: pastes, patées** eaten with bread which may be sweet **or** savoury. ***Pulmentum*** seems to be the most appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *pulmentārĭum, ĭi,* n. [L&amp;S][3] &#xD;&#xA;also *pulmentum, i,* n. contr. from *pulpamentum,* from *pulpa.* &#xD;&#xA; Any thing eaten with bread, a relish (fruit, salt, mustard, etc.)   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *crĕmor, ōris,* m. (kindr. with *cremo,* (1)) the thick juice obtained from animal or vegetable substances, broth, purée&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **most successful spread** with an invented Latin name is **Margarine,** ([culinarylore.com][4])  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Margarine was invented in France by Hippolyte Mège-Mouriès in 1869, during  the Franco-Prussian wars. He invented it in response to a competitive  challenge from the French government under Napoleon III. His product was pale yellow and had a pleasant buttery smell; it was cheaper than butter and lasted longer (It was a manufactured from beef fat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name, based on the Latin word for 'pearl,' comes from the small glistening droplets which appeared during the first successful experiments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Mège-Mouriès might easily have chosen to derive the name from *lino, linere,* to smear or daub; and *oleum,* olive oil, grease.  But fortunately, five years earlier that name had been taken, though not registered,...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Linoleum was invented by an Englishman Frederick Walton in 1855; from 1864 he called it Linoleum, which he derived from the Latin words &quot;linum&quot; (flax) and &quot;oleum&quot; (oil).]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5780/how-to-translate-pesto&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentleman%27s_Relish&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/getobject.pl?c.14:6254.LewisShort18&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://culinarylore.com/food-science:margarine-myths-feed-t%20%20urkeys-and-more/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7611" RevisionGUID="3419494a-6b78-462d-bb1b-11d30f865a94" CreationDate="2018-11-30T05:51:16.473" UserDisplayName="user3154" Text="As far as I know there are two words in Latin for marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 nubere&#xD;&#xA;This means to veil oneself for marriage. It thus has to be said by a female member and it is implied that this is said to a man. (woman-man marriage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 duco uxorem&#xD;&#xA;this means to take a woman as your wife, therefore it requires the presence of a female in the marriage and the other side is implied to be a man (man-woman marriage) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the two of these words could, as far as I know in theory also be used to be a woman-woman marriage but I wonder whether the Latin language has a word that more clearly means woman-woman marriage and whether it has a word for man-man marriage at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might also be possible that such a word was added to the Latin language after the classical era in which case I would like to know in which era it was added." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25561" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7611" RevisionGUID="3419494a-6b78-462d-bb1b-11d30f865a94" CreationDate="2018-11-30T05:51:16.473" UserDisplayName="user3154" Text="Is there a word for same-sex marriage in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25562" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7611" RevisionGUID="3419494a-6b78-462d-bb1b-11d30f865a94" CreationDate="2018-11-30T05:51:16.473" UserDisplayName="user3154" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|word-request|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7612" RevisionGUID="43d8d6fb-68cb-4155-b1dd-ff09380979a2" CreationDate="2018-11-30T05:57:49.653" UserId="3153" Text="Diixit, et potentem hastam magniis viiribus manuus sinistrae in uterum equii ieecit; stetit illa, tremeens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--the double vowels indicate long vowels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.e: e == holy h**e**ck  //  ee == l**a**ke&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does &quot;stetit illa&quot; refer to the spear? As in &quot;it stands there?&quot; Is 'illa' capable of carrying that meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25564" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7612" RevisionGUID="43d8d6fb-68cb-4155-b1dd-ff09380979a2" CreationDate="2018-11-30T05:57:49.653" UserId="3153" Text="Can &quot;illa&quot; be used to mean &quot;there?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25565" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7612" RevisionGUID="43d8d6fb-68cb-4155-b1dd-ff09380979a2" CreationDate="2018-11-30T05:57:49.653" UserId="3153" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7613" RevisionGUID="979856bd-3c75-4774-800d-73068545e4b0" CreationDate="2018-11-30T07:46:55.750" UserId="522" Text="I don't know the answer. I don't know if *illa* could be construed as 'there,' but I  haven't come across that use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only, it seems simpler to take *illa* as nominative, identifying *hasta*(fem.) as the implied subject of *stetit,* with the narrator showing that it was not the 'quivering belly (neuter)' or the 'twitching horse (masc)' or the 'shaking spear-thrower (masc)' that stood;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  '...he hurled the spear, it stood quivering.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7614" RevisionGUID="78dbf69e-6a6d-4253-8d53-2c86f32f8bc8" CreationDate="2018-11-30T09:59:34.847" UserId="985" Text="According to the *Oxford Latin Dictionary*, *illa* can be adverbial and mean 'there,' but only if it has a long *a* (*illā*). Since your text marks long vowels, you know it can't be this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a short *a*, the only thing it can be in your sentence is the feminine nominative singular form of the demonstrative pronoun. It refers to the *hasta*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7615" RevisionGUID="9357a40a-24f0-479a-a2e7-924291f7202e" CreationDate="2018-11-30T10:04:53.773" UserId="2646" Text="In Spanish we have two suffixes *[-al][1]* and *[-ar][2]* with the same meaning: &quot;after a noun it indicates an abundance of the original word&quot;. So from *naranjo* ('orange tree') we have *naranjal* ('a group of orange trees'), and from *melón* ('melon') we have *melonar* ('a melon plantation').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both suffixes come respectively from Latin *-ālis* and *-āris*. So what I want to know is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Did both suffixes have the same meaning in the Classical Latin language as it happens in Spanish?&#xD;&#xA;* If so, was the meaning the one of &quot;abundance&quot; stated above? And was there a rule to know when to use the *-ālis* sufix and when to use the *-āris* suffix?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dle.rae.es/?id=1PYY1SR&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dle.rae.es/?id=3NNxyGS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25569" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7615" RevisionGUID="9357a40a-24f0-479a-a2e7-924291f7202e" CreationDate="2018-11-30T10:04:53.773" UserId="2646" Text="Did the &quot;-ālis&quot; and &quot;-āris&quot; suffixes have the same meaning in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25570" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7615" RevisionGUID="9357a40a-24f0-479a-a2e7-924291f7202e" CreationDate="2018-11-30T10:04:53.773" UserId="2646" Text="|classical-latin|meaning|suffixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25571" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7615" RevisionGUID="d8a652c2-a1b1-4003-90e4-cc8521030d17" CreationDate="2018-11-30T12:15:42.197" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|meaning|suffixes|spanish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7611" RevisionGUID="3b81f3f7-9c9f-488b-a9df-542c499032fd" CreationDate="2018-11-30T14:15:58.587" UserDisplayName="user3154" Comment="clarified that I am looking for a verb rather than a noun" Text="As far as I know there are two words in Latin that indicate two people marrying&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 nubere&#xD;&#xA;This means to veil oneself for marriage. It thus has to be said by a female member and it is implied that this is said to a man. (woman-man marriage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 duco uxorem&#xD;&#xA;this means to take a woman as your wife, therefore it requires the presence of a female in the marriage and the other side is implied to be a man (man-woman marriage) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the two of these words could, as far as I know in theory also be used to be a woman-woman marriage but I wonder whether the Latin language has a word that more clearly means woman-woman marriage and whether it has a word for man-man marriage at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might also be possible that such a word was added to the Latin language after the classical era in which case I would like to know in which era it was added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example sentence: &quot;the man married his boyfriend&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25573" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7611" RevisionGUID="3b81f3f7-9c9f-488b-a9df-542c499032fd" CreationDate="2018-11-30T14:15:58.587" UserDisplayName="user3154" Comment="clarified that I am looking for a verb rather than a noun" Text="Is there a verb for people of the same sex marrying in latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7616" RevisionGUID="d024ba22-3bdd-4433-beb9-23e0062da558" CreationDate="2018-11-30T14:28:49.080" UserId="3155" Text="*illa* is referring to the spear, but it wouldn't be inappropriate to translate this clause as &quot;There it stood, quivering&quot;.  Assuming one is trying to evoke the sort of poetic English of e.g. the King James Bible, *stetit* could be rendered &quot;there stood&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*stetit hasta tremēns* -&gt; &quot;There stood the spear, quivering&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Replacing the noun with its prounoun, becomes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*stetit illa tremēns* -&gt; &quot;There it stood, quivering&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7612" RevisionGUID="b01a0e84-9bf4-46a7-bfde-e48d23f32d49" CreationDate="2018-11-30T14:53:52.583" UserId="-1" Comment="Added long vowel diacritic (macron)" Text="&gt; Dīxit, et potentem hastam magnīs vīribus manūs sinistrae in uterum equī iēcit; stetit illa, tremēns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does &quot;stetit illa&quot; refer to the spear? As in &quot;it stands there?&quot; Is 'illa' capable of carrying that meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25576" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7612" RevisionGUID="b01a0e84-9bf4-46a7-bfde-e48d23f32d49" CreationDate="2018-11-30T14:53:52.583" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 79 edit id of 282" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7617" RevisionGUID="87682e11-27f8-4113-82d1-619a6156b91a" CreationDate="2018-11-30T16:02:18.917" UserId="45" Text="As mentioned in the comments, it appears that you transcribed the passage incorrectly. Here is the corrected text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Τισσαφέρνης δέ, ὁ τῆς Καρίας σατράπης, τῷ Κύρῳ πολέμιος ἦν, τότε δὲ οὔτε ἐστράτευεν ἐπ᾿ **αὐτὸν οὔτε** διήρπαζε τὴν χώραν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you have a correlation of οὔτε...οὔτε (&quot;neither...nor&quot;), and most of your difficulties should disappear. Here is a translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But Tissaphernes, the satrap of Caria, was Cyrus's enemy (lit: &quot;hostile to Cyrus&quot;), but at that time he neither waged war against him [i.e. Cyrus] nor plundered the country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7618" RevisionGUID="11054737-bbd1-4dfa-8384-48722b93837f" CreationDate="2018-11-30T16:25:03.060" UserId="79" Text="Pitkäranta's dictionary (Finnish&amp;ndash;Latin&amp;ndash;Finnish) gives three translations for &quot;get married&quot; in two categories.&#xD;&#xA;Marrying a woman can be expressed by *uxorem ducere* or *in matrimonium ducere*, both with accusative.&#xD;&#xA;Marrying a man can be expressed by *nubere* with dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These translations are probably offered from a heteronormative point of view, but they can be adapted to new uses.&#xD;&#xA;The expressions *nubere alicui* and *aliquem in matrimonium ducere* are syntactically gender neutral, but *nubere* has unwanted connotations as my mention.&#xD;&#xA;Leading someone to matrimony, *aliquem in matrimonium ducere*, is a good neutral option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on how you want to structure things, one possibility is ***aliquem maritum ducere***.&#xD;&#xA;This &quot;leading someone to become his husband&quot; is an obvious adaptation of the well known phrase, and the change makes it clear that something is not quite like in the Roman concept(s) of marriage.&#xD;&#xA;This is what I would choose for your example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know a good Latin expression for &quot;boyfriend&quot; or &quot;girlfriend&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(Those would make good separate questions!)&#xD;&#xA;Using just *puer* (&quot;boy&quot; but not &quot;son&quot;), I end up with this example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He married his boyfriend.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ille puerum suum duxit maritum.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7611" RevisionGUID="a89936c6-c281-4504-b4b1-fbd0f3b1f2ad" CreationDate="2018-11-30T16:26:20.817" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted slightly. Feel free to re-edit!" Text="As far as I know there are two words in Latin that indicate two people marrying&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *nubere*  &#xD;&#xA;This means to veil oneself for marriage. It thus has to be said by a female member and it is implied that this is said to a man. (woman-man marriage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *duco uxorem*  &#xD;&#xA;This means to take a woman as your wife, therefore it requires the presence of a female in the marriage and the other side is implied to be a man. (man-woman marriage) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two of these words could, as far as I know in theory also be used to be a woman-woman marriage but I wonder whether the Latin language has a word that more clearly means woman-woman marriage and whether it has a word for man-man marriage at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might also be possible that such a word was added to the Latin language after the classical era in which case I would like to know in which era it was added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example sentence: &quot;the man married his boyfriend.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7619" RevisionGUID="436a90bf-722c-45c1-b15b-80c942c9cb89" CreationDate="2018-11-30T16:48:13.290" UserId="3156" Text="I stumbled upon this exchange so I hope you can help me. I'm writing a book of poetry, and I wanted to title it Starlight, but why use English, am I right? So I made the rookie error with Google translate and got inlustris, which I love only to find out it doesn't mean start light, but it still works on multiple levels. I'm just not sure which declination to use. Help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25581" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7619" RevisionGUID="436a90bf-722c-45c1-b15b-80c942c9cb89" CreationDate="2018-11-30T16:48:13.290" UserId="3156" Text="Inlustrus: A conundrum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25582" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7619" RevisionGUID="436a90bf-722c-45c1-b15b-80c942c9cb89" CreationDate="2018-11-30T16:48:13.290" UserId="3156" Text="|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7620" RevisionGUID="7b16c862-06da-48c0-be77-45316fa2347a" CreationDate="2018-11-30T17:41:04.703" UserId="645" Text="Short answer : there are no such words. However, as Joonas suggests, there are ways of getting round this if you want to express same-sex ideas in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've never come across anything specific for woman-woman or man-man marriages (or marrying) in the language but, if there lies behind your question a need to express these in Latin, it's by no means impossible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To begin with, there is the neutral phrase, offered by Joonas, *in matrimonium ducere*, which conventionally suggests a man taking a woman to wife but might, in the right context, be used in the ways that your are looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, there is the useful word *coniu(n)x*, which means 'spouse', usually of a wife but also of a man. A married couple can be described as *coniuges* — 'conjoined', (if you like, in marriage) in a physical union, *coniugium* — where, again, the context could suggest a same-sex marriage [note here that *connubium* is a separate, legal term for wedlock or marriage]. We should also consider that the Romans 'married' in various ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way of the old Republic, and especially of the patricians and otherwise ennobled families, was *confarreatio*, a very solemn and serious religious affair, strongly binding and usually involving settlements of one kind or another (think of Julius Caesar giving his daughter in marriage to Pompey, or Octavian his sister to Antony), including money or property. Marriage between plebeians was called *coemptio* and did not involve the same rites as *confarreatio*, but mimicked a sale and was solemnised before at least five witnesses ( there was even a *libripens* to simulate the weighing-out of money). But a possible key to the usage you are looking for is that ,in all kinds of marriage, there was a question to the bride, and her response was *Ubi tu Gaius, ego Gaia* : this is straightforwardly adaptable to a same-gender couple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Classical literature refers us to all kinds of sexual activity. Some of it can be a bit puritanical, but aside from that there are allegations of sexual 'misbehaviour' which are mainly in the nature of lampoon of the subjects, rather than criticism of the act (Catullus has particularly good examples). In Latin, as far as I know, they are all of males (and they do include pederasty) : I know of nothing which has words specially for female-female sexual activity, though there are a some which *might* be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate, of course, that none of this answers your query as such, but as a bit of background it should, I hope, enable you to deal with it confidently.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7621" RevisionGUID="099e5d6e-6e11-4224-9af1-02e5381f2fdd" CreationDate="2018-11-30T17:56:44.490" UserId="40" Text="They not only had the same meaning in Latin, they were the same suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, the suffix *-āli-* (the *-s* at the end is the nominative ending, so not part of the suffix) formed adjectives from nouns. But when there was an *l* in the stem of the noun it was attached to, the suffix became *-āri-* by dissimilation: e.g. *familia - familiāris*. This is why Spanish *melonar* has *-r* rather than *-l*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning was more general than &quot;abundant with [noun]&quot; (as I believe is still the case in Spanish); these adjectives could mean &quot;having to do with / associated with [noun]&quot;, &quot;having [noun]&quot;, etc. Some examples (from Weiss 2009:518-9):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *mors* &quot;death&quot; - *mortālis* &quot;mortal&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *annus* &quot;year&quot; - *annālis* &quot;yearly&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *anima* &quot;soul&quot; - *animālis* &quot;animate&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *mīles* &quot;soldier&quot; - *mīlitāris* &quot;military&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7622" RevisionGUID="b4f5af59-4033-47b2-a179-11ba220c9c2a" CreationDate="2018-11-30T17:59:54.407" UserId="1707" Text="In English, &quot; 's &quot; often denotes the possessive meaning, while &quot;of&quot; more of a genitive tone, e.g., compare &quot;John's photo&quot; and &quot;a photo of John&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have not found anything similar in Latin, except in pronouns. For example, should the expression *amor Dei* be interpreted as the love *related to* or *concerning* God, or the love that is *possessed by* God? What about the word *cuius*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25586" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7622" RevisionGUID="b4f5af59-4033-47b2-a179-11ba220c9c2a" CreationDate="2018-11-30T17:59:54.407" UserId="1707" Text="Differentiating possessive and genitive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25587" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7622" RevisionGUID="b4f5af59-4033-47b2-a179-11ba220c9c2a" CreationDate="2018-11-30T17:59:54.407" UserId="1707" Text="|genitive|case|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7623" RevisionGUID="0d0180b6-c510-4660-900d-a29e1900383c" CreationDate="2018-11-30T20:29:08.623" UserId="3157" Text="The adjective &quot;inlustris&quot; is 3rd Declension.  So for the title of a book of poems, you'd probably want a neuter plural nominative form, &quot;Inlustria&quot;, as in &quot;Carmina Inlustria&quot; = &quot;Illustrious Poems&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you could also use the alternative spelling &quot;ill-&quot; instead of &quot;inl-&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [here][1] for more details&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=inlustris&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7604" RevisionGUID="633fcf05-03d0-4a73-a43e-3058eefc6a74" CreationDate="2018-11-30T22:15:55.120" UserId="79" Comment="added 238 characters in body" Text="A good verb for spreading seems to be *pandere*.&#xD;&#xA;From &quot;spread&quot; one can derive &quot;spreadable&quot;, and such derivations are widely attested in classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *facilis &lt; facere*&#xD;&#xA;- *fragilis &lt; frangere*&#xD;&#xA;- *utilis &lt; uti*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An adjective can always be substantivized to mean the thing the verb is applied to.&#xD;&#xA;For this specific class of adjectives, two prominent examples come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *sedile &lt; sedere*&#xD;&#xA;- *missile &lt; mittere*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applying the same derivations to *pandere* leads to ***pandile*** (lit. &quot;spreadable thing&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;While I'm not aware of any attestations of this word, it is derived in a natural and attested way.&#xD;&#xA;It is conveniently short and should be understandable in context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Tom Cotton suggested in a comment, one can also use *-men* or *-mentum*.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that with third conjugation verbs this is often tied to the verb with *-i-*, so we get the alternative options ***pandimen*** and ***pandimentum***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7607" RevisionGUID="e5dfa332-82ca-4851-a006-962f85302db3" CreationDate="2018-11-30T23:29:26.073" UserId="9" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="###It is plausible that *bonus* is related to *bellum/duellum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nietzsche is correct about *bonus* coming from an older form starting with *du-*: not only is this consistent with known Latin sound changes, we apparently even have inscriptional evidence of forms starting with *duon-* and *duen-* in Old Latin. The reconstructed pronunciation of *du-* here is /dw/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Alex B. said in a comment, Michiel de Vaan's *Etymological Dictionary of Latin* (2008) says that &quot;The best etymology for *duellum* so far has been proposed by Pinault 1987, who posits a dim. *\*duenelo-* to *bonus*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###But modern linguists don't agree with the idea that *bonus* originally meant &quot;the warrior&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Nietzsche's implication of an etymological connection between *bellum/duellum* and *duo* seems to be regarded less favorably by de Vaan, who says that the PIE source of *bonus* is unclear, and who says that the use of the form *duellum* with three syllables in pronunciation in later poets &quot;may be either the result of **folk etymology** with *duo*, or a regular development&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it seems that even though modern sources support a connection between *bonus* and *bellum,* they view the semantic connection as developing in the opposite direction: rather than an older word for *warrior* coming to mean *good,* de Vaan suggests that *bonus* (*duenos*) originally meant *good,* and the derivative *bellum* (*duellum*) was euphemistically used to describe war. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7624" RevisionGUID="ea092fff-9586-4671-98bb-e595eb0eaade" CreationDate="2018-12-01T01:07:49.990" UserId="40" Text="The ending *-re* (as pointed out in comments) appears to go back to Proto-Indo-European *-si*. This *-si* is thought to have been a locative case of a neuter *s*-stem noun. Infinitives often arise from case forms of abstract nouns (e.g. in Sanskrit where there is an infinitive in *-tum*, cognate with the Latin supine in its accusative form).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The different vowels before *-re* are, synchronically, just a reflection of the fact that Latin verbs can have stems ending in a variety of sounds. Historically of course they too have Indo-European sources, but the picture is complicated and somewhat murky." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7582" RevisionGUID="c2c771d9-fe51-4993-8c94-02384c750f6d" CreationDate="2018-12-01T01:08:56.447" UserId="40" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="There aren't any special uses involved here; your incorrect assumption is that *embolum (navis) aeneum* is accusative -- in fact it's the nominative subject of *finiebat*. Literally, &quot;one part of which a sort of (*quasi*) bronze beak of a ship completed&quot;. The Latin idiom is different here from how we'd say it in English, which is what makes this clause confusing, but the idea being expressed is the same as in your translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *quasi*, the reason it's not followed by subjunctive here is that it isn't really modifying the verb, but just the noun phrase *embolum navis aeneum*. In addition to being a conjunction, *quasi* can be a kind of adverb meaning something like &quot;nearly, sort of&quot; (see section II of the [L&amp;S entry][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquasi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7625" RevisionGUID="060c9da5-74cd-409b-b808-c3da04905dc5" CreationDate="2018-12-01T04:15:30.637" UserId="3157" Text="I also vote for *illa* as referring to the spear for the above mentioned reasons, but also because of the switch in subject from *iecit* = &quot;he threw&quot;, to *stetit* = &quot;it stood&quot;.  If the *illa* were not there, the common Latin stylistic preference for omission of explicit subject nouns/pronouns would suggest: &quot; **He** stood, trembling.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover,  the perfect tense is used here, indicating conceptually the completion of an event, rather than an ongoing state (imperfect tense).  As such, I'd prefer to render *stetit* as &quot;It stuck there, trembling,&quot; giving more a sense that the spear had been thrown, was in motion, and then (completed event) stopped, i.e., came to a &quot;standstill&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7626" RevisionGUID="3de79b07-dffc-4c33-973a-a162cb7ec899" CreationDate="2018-12-01T11:46:35.587" UserId="3149" Text="The adj. **formosus** can be decomposed as follows:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; *forma* + -os-us&#xA;&#xA;where *forma* means ‘shape, form’ and *-os-* ‘with abundance’. However, when the two notions come together, the whole, which literally reads ‘with abundance of form’ does not make sense to me. Could anyone help explain how these two morphemes work together so as to bring forth the meaning ‘beautiful’?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25595" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7626" RevisionGUID="3de79b07-dffc-4c33-973a-a162cb7ec899" CreationDate="2018-12-01T11:46:35.587" UserId="3149" Text="how to interpret ‘formosus’ via its morphological components" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25596" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7626" RevisionGUID="3de79b07-dffc-4c33-973a-a162cb7ec899" CreationDate="2018-12-01T11:46:35.587" UserId="3149" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|meaning|language-evolution|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7627" RevisionGUID="3d7d4828-8bb5-4884-809f-df8f20298853" CreationDate="2018-12-01T18:09:01.880" UserId="40" Text="*Forma* [means][1] not only &quot;shape, form&quot;, but also &quot;good/pleasing shape, form&quot;, i.e. &quot;beauty&quot;. (This is a type of semantic shift called amelioration.) &quot;Having / being abundant in beauty&quot; = &quot;beautiful&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dforma" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7628" RevisionGUID="25194c5d-adad-48a4-a313-1d9cb6660acd" CreationDate="2018-12-01T18:47:05.643" UserId="875" Text="Why did the Ro­mans per­ceive dark­ness, *te­ne­brae*, as a plu­ral count noun? &lt;sup&gt;\[[Per­se­us cor­pus-search ref­er­ence](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?all_words=tenebrae&amp;target=la&amp;phrase=&amp;documents=&amp;page=1&amp;exclude_words=&amp;all_words_expand=on&amp;any_words=)\]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or per­haps the bet­ter ques­tion is: what spe­cial nu­ance is con­veyed by the&#xD;&#xA;plu­ral *te­ne­brae* which would be lost were the sin­gu­lar *tene­bra* em­ployed in&#xD;&#xA;its stead? The sit­u­a­tion some­how feels dif­fer­ent than the dis­tinc­tion &#xD;&#xA;be­tween us­ing sin­gu­lar *um*­bra for shad­ow ver­sus plu­ral *um­brae* for shad­ows. But I could well be wrong in that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lewis and Short men­tion](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=tenebrae)&#xD;&#xA;that us­ing *te­ne­brae* for dark­ness is “stronger than *ob­scu­ri­tas*”.  Is the&#xD;&#xA;plu­ral use some­how more ab­stract or fig­u­ra­tive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask be­cause this se­man­ti­cal­ly dis­tinc­tive plu­ral use for dark­ness has not&#xD;&#xA;mere­ly sur­vived in rare ob­scu­ri­ty but in­deed thriv­en in Lat­in’s daugh­ters,&#xD;&#xA;where this spe­cial plu­ral sense is still alive and well. This to me sug­gests that&#xD;&#xA;for the Ro­mans *te­ne­brae* car­ried a shade of mean­ing pow­er­ful enough to&#xD;&#xA;with­stand mil­len­nia of di­a­chron­ic evo­lu­tion es­sen­tial­ly un­changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For ex­am­ple, [in French, *té­nè­bres*](https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/t%C3%A9n%C3%A8bres/77282?q=t%C3%A9n%C3%A8bres#76368)&#xD;&#xA;is a *plu­rale tan­tum* hav­ing no sin­gu­lar at all. In on­ly slight con­trast to that sit­u­a­tion, in both Por­tuguese and&#xD;&#xA;Span­ish the sin­gu­lar does co­ëx­ist be­side the plu­ral, but on­ly as an&#xD;&#xA;oc­ca­sion­al strag­gler. The plu­ral is much more com­mon in both&#xD;&#xA;lan­guages; it some­how seems to car­ry a heav­ier weight to my mind as a&#xD;&#xA;Span­ish speak­er.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Span­ish have al­ways been con­scious of the Latin plur­al’s sense: in [the&#xD;&#xA;Qui­jote, Cer­van­tes fa­mous­ly used the mot­to](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_tenebras_lux) ***Post te­ne­bras spe­ro&#xD;&#xA;lu­cem*** in his ti­tle pages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Por­tuguese has [*trevas*](https://dicionario.priberam.org/treva), where&#xD;&#xA;their dic­tio­nary notes that it’s more used in the plu­ral.  Brazil­ian&#xD;&#xA;Por­tu­guese some­times us­es the old­er and less al­tered form&#xD;&#xA;[tê­ne­bras](https://www.di­cio.com.br/tene­bras/) in the same spe­cial way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This same thing al­so hap­pens in the Span­ish de­scen­dant of&#xD;&#xA;*te­ne­brae*, which is [*ti­nie­blas*](http://dle.rae.es/?id=ZnQw0J4),&#xD;&#xA;fa­mous­ly oc­cur­ring in the ti­tle of Pe­dro Almod­ó­var’s&#xD;&#xA;ground-break­ing Span­ish-lan­guage film, [*En­tre&#xD;&#xA;Tinieblas*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Habits).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe the Ro­man Cath­o­lic Church's re­ten­tion of the Latin sense for the&#xD;&#xA;prop­er noun *Te­ne­brae* (see foot­note) is part a rea­son for the per­sis­tence of the plu­ral,&#xD;&#xA;but it doesn't at all ex­plain the ori­gin for the strong­er, ab­stract sense which we see in Clas­si­cal Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what does?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Foot­notes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [OED de­fines *Te­ne­brae*](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/199093) as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The name giv­en to the of­fice of matins and lauds of the fol­low­ing day,&#xD;&#xA;usu­al­ly sung in the af­ter­noon or evening of Wed­nes­day, Thurs­day, and Fri­day&#xD;&#xA;in Holy Week, at which the can­dles light­ed at the be­gin­ning of the ser­vice&#xD;&#xA;are ex­tin­guished one by one af­ter each psalm, in mem­o­ry of the dark­ness at&#xD;&#xA;the time of the cru­ci­fix­ion. Al­so *at­tribu­tive*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25600" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7628" RevisionGUID="25194c5d-adad-48a4-a313-1d9cb6660acd" CreationDate="2018-12-01T18:47:05.643" UserId="875" Text="Why did the Ro­mans per­ceive dark­ness, ᴛᴇ­ɴᴇ­ʙʀᴀᴇ, as a plu­ral count noun?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25601" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7628" RevisionGUID="25194c5d-adad-48a4-a313-1d9cb6660acd" CreationDate="2018-12-01T18:47:05.643" UserId="875" Text="|classical-latin|etymology|meaning|nuance|plural|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25604" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2764" RevisionGUID="09cf22d3-aa77-44f4-9b80-f3c252b93d9f" CreationDate="2018-12-02T11:26:32.527" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|philosophy-terms|terminology|logic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25605" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2696" RevisionGUID="2fa2ea4f-2cbf-48f7-a96e-314d9c3e6c7d" CreationDate="2018-12-02T11:27:32.753" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|vocabulary|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7629" RevisionGUID="2d83435f-a485-49c7-ae30-0aac1274401f" CreationDate="2018-12-02T20:46:41.930" UserDisplayName="user3165" Text="&quot;Annus mirabilis&quot; is an expression which refers to a wonderful year like 1905 for A. Einstein and modern physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the equivalent for a single day? Is &quot;dies mirabilis&quot; the correct form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers for weeks, months or seasons are also welcomed :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25607" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7629" RevisionGUID="2d83435f-a485-49c7-ae30-0aac1274401f" CreationDate="2018-12-02T20:46:41.930" UserDisplayName="user3165" Text="Could we say &quot;dies mirabilis&quot; as we say &quot;annus mirabilis&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25608" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7629" RevisionGUID="2d83435f-a485-49c7-ae30-0aac1274401f" CreationDate="2018-12-02T20:46:41.930" UserDisplayName="user3165" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7630" RevisionGUID="ae259090-e445-45db-9fa3-bbcaceba342a" CreationDate="2018-12-02T20:51:17.840" UserId="79" Text="When answering [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7611/79), it occurred to me that I don't know what to call a &quot;boyfriend&quot; or a &quot;girlfriend&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;What would be good words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that the same solution will work for both with obvious modifications, but I will be happy to be proven wrong as always.&#xD;&#xA;There might not be a perfect fit but several options for different uses.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I request that if you suggest a translation or several, please also describe what good and bad aspects it has as a translation.&#xD;&#xA;That way anyone stumbling on this question can find the answer that fits their particular case best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that I'm not looking for a name to call a loved one (as in &quot;veni huc, mel meum!&quot;), but a word for the status.&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for something that would work in &quot;do you have a boyfriend?&quot; and &quot;here's my girlfriend&quot; and similar.&#xD;&#xA;These refer to somewhat informal romantic relationships, so engagement and marriage should be kept out of the vocabulary here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25610" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7630" RevisionGUID="ae259090-e445-45db-9fa3-bbcaceba342a" CreationDate="2018-12-02T20:51:17.840" UserId="79" Text="What is a boyfriend or a girlfriend in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25611" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7630" RevisionGUID="ae259090-e445-45db-9fa3-bbcaceba342a" CreationDate="2018-12-02T20:51:17.840" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7631" RevisionGUID="84ea115f-845c-40c3-93ca-227c64f5f7dc" CreationDate="2018-12-02T20:51:17.840" UserId="79" Text="I discussed this with some colleagues this week, and here is a commented list of suggestions in rough order of personal preference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ***amatus/amata***:&#xD;&#xA;Quite literally &quot;the loved one&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;One can love another person in a number of ways, so it's not clear that it would refer to boyfriend instead of an idol or some other important person.&#xD;&#xA;However, in proper context and combined with *meus/mea* this should be clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ***dilectus/dilecta***:&#xD;&#xA;Essentially a synonym of the previous one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ***amicus/amica***:&#xD;&#xA;Quite literally &quot;friend&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It depends on context whether it's clear enough that it's more than just friendship.&#xD;&#xA;For some reason I have the impression that the Latin *amicus/amica* has more romantic connotations than the English &quot;friend&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ***amiculus/amicula***:&#xD;&#xA;In some contexts the diminutive might bring extra familiarity to the word.&#xD;&#xA;Again, there is a risk of misinterpretation, but I might find myself using this word especially in early stages of dating.&#xD;&#xA;This construction is quite similar to the French *petit ami* or *petite amie*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ***amator/amatrix***:&#xD;&#xA;This word makes it abundantly clear that it's not mere friendship, but I feel that it gives quite a lot of emphasis on the physical side of things.&#xD;&#xA;If the relationship is more romantic than sexual (or you want to portray it in such light), I would use another word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ***puer/puella***:&#xD;&#xA;Especially with *meus/mea*, this could be understood correctly.&#xD;&#xA;But it sounds a little belittling to me, and the word can also be used for slaves or servants.&#xD;&#xA;This is a valid alternative for purposes of variation, but I wouldn't introduce anyone as someone's *puer/puella*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7629" RevisionGUID="1d1ceeb5-4fc4-43d7-819e-afc00a83555c" CreationDate="2018-12-02T20:54:47.937" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged. I'm not sure which tags are best, so feel free to re-edit!" Text="&quot;Annus mirabilis&quot; is an expression which refers to a wonderful year like 1905 for A. Einstein and modern physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the equivalent for a single day? Is &quot;dies mirabilis&quot; the correct form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers for weeks, months or seasons are also welcomed. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25614" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7629" RevisionGUID="1d1ceeb5-4fc4-43d7-819e-afc00a83555c" CreationDate="2018-12-02T20:54:47.937" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged. I'm not sure which tags are best, so feel free to re-edit!" Text="|grammar-choice|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7632" RevisionGUID="9a3868a4-6128-480b-adf9-33d34464192d" CreationDate="2018-12-02T21:01:26.537" UserId="79" Text="Yes, *dies mirabilis* is perfectly valid!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use the adjective *mirabilis* with any noun.&#xD;&#xA;You have to use the correct form, but that is fortunately easy.&#xD;&#xA;In masculine and feminine it's *mirabilis*, in neuter it's *mirabile*.&#xD;&#xA;Some words are plural (e.g. *Kalendae*, the first day of a month), and those require plural forms *mirabiles/mirabilia*.&#xD;&#xA;If you find a word in [a proper Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79), it's gender will be mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to time, most words (*annus, dies, mensis, hora*) are masculine or feminine and therefore *mirabilis* goes as such.&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;time&quot; itself (*tempus*) is neuter, you would get *tempus mirabile*.&#xD;&#xA;Summer, autumn, and winter (*aestas, autumnus, hiems*) are feminine or masculine, but spring (*ver*) is neuter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25616" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2121" RevisionGUID="b7808908-4e78-4cb3-a8f9-bf50ffc8c6cb" CreationDate="2018-12-02T21:11:41.680" UserId="79" Comment="91" />
  <row Id="25618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7634" RevisionGUID="0f124a60-b907-472b-83cd-308df4580f3c" CreationDate="2018-12-03T09:12:26.417" UserId="1459" Text="The expression (idiom?) _jam nunc_ appears several times in the Vulgata. So far I've seen two common translations. One is that of &quot;now presently&quot;. For instance, [Exodus 9:19](http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&amp;bk=2&amp;ch=9&amp;l=19#x):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Latin) _Mitte ergo **jam nunc**, et congrega jumenta tua, et omnia quae habes in agro_ ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (English, Douay-Rheims) Send therefore now presently, and gather together thy cattle, and all that thou hast in the field ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another translation is &quot;here and now&quot;. For instance, [1 Samuel 14:33](http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&amp;bk=9&amp;ch=14&amp;l=33#x):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Latin) _Nuntiaverunt autem Sauli dicentes quod populus peccasset Domino, comedens cum sanguine. Qui ait : Praevaricati estis : volvite ad me **jam nunc** saxum grande._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (English, Douay-Rheims) And they told Saul that the people had sinned against the Lord, eating with the blood. And he said: You have transgressed: roll here to me now a great stone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, Wiktionary has some guidelines on the differences between _[jam](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iam#Latin)_ and _[nunc](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nunc#Latin)_. For instance, the latter website says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Nunc&quot; always means the literal present or &quot;now&quot;; the other use of &quot;now&quot; is usually translated &quot;iam&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how are the two together to be normally understood? Is there a rule for this? Is this phrase perhaps an idiom?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25619" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7634" RevisionGUID="0f124a60-b907-472b-83cd-308df4580f3c" CreationDate="2018-12-03T09:12:26.417" UserId="1459" Text="Understanding &quot;jam nunc&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25620" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7634" RevisionGUID="0f124a60-b907-472b-83cd-308df4580f3c" CreationDate="2018-12-03T09:12:26.417" UserId="1459" Text="|idiom|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7635" RevisionGUID="1258d6a7-763b-4a18-80f7-8f73d0de47b2" CreationDate="2018-12-03T10:10:22.597" UserId="2476" Text="**_sponsus/sponsa_** are often translated just as &quot;groom/bride&quot; - and this meaning is reflected by the Italian _sposo/sposa_ as well as the English &quot;spouse&quot;-  but in fact, they were also used by the Romans to address a _fiancé/fiancée_. After all, _sponsus,a,um_ is the past participle of _spondeo_, &quot;to promise&quot;, and engagement was pretty serious business in Ancient Rome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, _amicus/amica_ could be used to indicate a paramour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following passage from Seneca the Elder, _Controversiae_ is insightful for both expressions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hunc sensum Vibius Rufus subtiliter dixit: volo tibi malam gratiam cum sponso tuo facere: habet amicam." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7636" RevisionGUID="727a5e86-cc7b-4dcf-a376-af9c8cbf9407" CreationDate="2018-12-03T10:47:27.767" UserId="645" Text="*Jam nunc* is not at all mysterious. It  simply, and literally, means 'already now'. An alternative might be to reverse the English words to 'now already', or to say 'even at this moment', or anything similar. It's only slightly different to *jam fere*, 'just about now'. In each of these phrases either added word serves as an emphasis, and in other contexts (where the English would allow it) might even be translated as 'very'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero (Att. 1. 8) uses the phrase with clear intent in *Hermae tui Pentelici cum capitibus aeneis, de quibus ad me scripsisti, iam nunc me admodum delectant.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7637" RevisionGUID="1d0c44aa-d81a-42ef-9c09-c8561ae43c94" CreationDate="2018-12-03T11:12:29.173" UserId="2476" Text="Besides &quot;already now&quot;, _iam nunc_ (or equivalently, albeit less frequently, _nunc iam_) also means &quot;now not anymore&quot; in negative sentences, such as in Catullus' _Miser Catulle_:&#xD;&#xA; &gt;_Nunc iam illa non vult_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7632" RevisionGUID="1800a496-a5f6-4be5-bbbb-42eae230ba65" CreationDate="2018-12-03T11:37:55.127" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Yes, *dies mirabilis* is perfectly valid!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use the adjective *mirabilis* with any noun.&#xD;&#xA;You have to use the correct form, but that is fortunately easy.&#xD;&#xA;In masculine and feminine it's *mirabilis*, in neuter it's *mirabile*.&#xD;&#xA;Some words are plural (e.g. *Kalendae*, the first day of a month), and those require plural forms *mirabiles/mirabilia*.&#xD;&#xA;If you find a word in [a proper Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79), its gender will be mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to time, most words (*annus, dies, mensis, hora*) are masculine or feminine and therefore *mirabilis* goes as such.&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;time&quot; itself (*tempus*) is neuter, you would get *tempus mirabile*.&#xD;&#xA;Summer, autumn, and winter (*aestas, autumnus, hiems*) are feminine or masculine, but spring (*ver*) is neuter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7638" RevisionGUID="1e9137b1-a9bd-4699-be5b-3d40c19bd478" CreationDate="2018-12-03T11:41:12.187" UserId="1982" Text="North &amp; Hillard; Ex. 195: the following is to be translated into Latin: &quot;But, since his men had found no water to drink for many hours, they could not be restrained from rushing into the water, even when it was red with the blood of their comrades.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer: &quot;...cuius autem milites, cum aqua multas horas carerent, non sibi temperabant (cohiberi poterant) quin in flumen ipso comitum sanguine rubrum proruerent.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why the dative reflexive-pronoun &quot;sibi&quot;, in &quot;non sibi temperabant&quot;, when the natural instinct is to deploy accusative &quot;se&quot;; as in &quot;milites se interfecerunt&quot;--&quot;the soldiers killed themselves&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, &quot;ipso&quot;, referring to their comrades (the blood of whom): firstly, &quot;ipso&quot; is singular; secondly, why not deploy &quot;ipsorum&quot;; or, just &quot;suorum&quot;--&quot; of their own men&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25626" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7638" RevisionGUID="1e9137b1-a9bd-4699-be5b-3d40c19bd478" CreationDate="2018-12-03T11:41:12.187" UserId="1982" Text="Reflexive Pronouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25627" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7638" RevisionGUID="1e9137b1-a9bd-4699-be5b-3d40c19bd478" CreationDate="2018-12-03T11:41:12.187" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7638" RevisionGUID="32a142bc-727b-47ff-88fd-5554940d2e92" CreationDate="2018-12-03T11:46:00.133" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="North &amp; Hillard; Ex. 195: the following is to be translated into Latin: &quot;But, since his men had found no water to drink for many hours, they could not be restrained from rushing into the water, even when it was red with the blood of their comrades.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer: &quot;...cuius autem milites, cum aqua multas horas carerent, non sibi temperabant (cohiberi poterant) quin in flumen ipso comitum sanguine rubrum proruerent.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why the dative reflexive-pronoun &quot;sibi&quot;, in &quot;non sibi temperabant&quot;, when the natural instinct is to deploy accusative &quot;se&quot;; as in &quot;milites se interfecerunt&quot;&amp;mdash;&quot;the soldiers killed themselves&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, &quot;ipso&quot;, referring to their comrades (the blood of whom): firstly, &quot;ipso&quot; is singular; secondly, why not deploy &quot;ipsorum&quot;; or, just &quot;suorum&quot;&amp;mdash;&quot;of their own men&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25629" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7638" RevisionGUID="32a142bc-727b-47ff-88fd-5554940d2e92" CreationDate="2018-12-03T11:46:00.133" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged." Text="|sentence-translation|english-to-latin-translation|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7639" RevisionGUID="045e21db-6eb1-4da1-bab0-500ae72fbaec" CreationDate="2018-12-03T11:56:06.737" UserId="79" Text="It's actually quite common that various orders are given with dative, and we say *tibi impera* or *sibi temperabant*.&#xD;&#xA;Latin usually does not use an accusative object in these cases.&#xD;&#xA;One way to think about it is that orders or constraints are given **to** someone and hence expressed with dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are right that *ipso* can't refer to *comitum*; it would have to be *ipsorum*.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, it refers to *sanguine*.&#xD;&#xA;When something doesn't make sense, look for other words that might go together with what puzzles you!&#xD;&#xA;It's quite useful to carefully go through all the words (even implicit ones in some cases) and see what your pronoun or adjective or something can refer to.&#xD;&#xA;Using *ipso* puts emphasis on the blood instead of the comrades, making the water &quot;red with the very blood of their comrades&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, there is no unique correct answer to a translation task like this.&#xD;&#xA;There are multiple choices you can make.&#xD;&#xA;You could use *ipsorum* instead of *ipso* or leave the whole word out.&#xD;&#xA;You could use *sui* instead of *cuius milites*.&#xD;&#xA;You could rush into the water with another verb.&#xD;&#xA;The answer key gives you an example translation, not **the** translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are in doubt, you can ask questions with the original English sentence, your translation and the textbook's translation side by side and ask us to evaluate your translation.&#xD;&#xA;It might turn out that your translation is perfectly valid although very different from the suggested answer, or it might turn out that you are mistaken about something.&#xD;&#xA;If you ask such questions here, please elaborate on what you are worried about as you did here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7640" RevisionGUID="03a4fe9b-0d5a-457a-8044-233b85832075" CreationDate="2018-12-03T12:17:54.750" UserId="645" Text="There are a couple of dozen or so words of Latin which, like *tenebrae*, are only ever found in the plural form. Curiously, a few of them are also plural in English translation, for example *divitiae*, 'riches', *hiberna*, winter quarters' and *arma*, 'arms'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For *tenebrae* we would say In English ['in the] shadows', similarly referring to darkness or obscurity as an abstract noun. In looking for nuance, I doubt that the Romans would have had any more difficulty with their word than we English-speakers have with ours. I think that your question may have no logical answer : that it's just a question of custom and usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the use of both *umbra* and *umbrae*, I guess (no more than that) you might think of the singular, meaning 'shadow', as a concrete noun, *sc.* something that has a form that you can see — even though it has no substance. Its plural can either mean the separate shadows that you can distinguish, or be looked on as an abstract noun, like *tenebrae* (which is considered to indicate a deeper form of obscurity)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7641" RevisionGUID="95cbcead-19e3-4ad2-a538-0abbbedd8ac8" CreationDate="2018-12-03T12:46:13.217" UserId="1459" Text="Not only it is correct, but it is actually attested in several places. For instance, in the _Catechesis Celtica_ ([allegedly](https://www.vanhamel.nl/codecs/Catechesis_Celtica) from the 10th century), [we read](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BDDWwWCYwP0C&amp;pg=PA448&amp;lpg=PA448&amp;dq=%22dies+mirabilis%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ysPbmci5uP&amp;sig=zO1MJB6ytRCHZNbVn00VGyQdA_g&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiW_4Oy0oPfAhUNzKQKHfUrBhQ4ChDoATABegQICBAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22dies%20mirabilis%22&amp;f=false) in relation to Easter Sunday:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Facta sunt in hac die multa beneficia, quia in hac die resurrexit Christus, Filius Dei uiui post uastationem infenri, et solutionem humani generis de ore diaboliet de peccato Adae. Et in hac die debemus laetari, quia **dies mirabilis** est, dies uenerabilis, dies solemnis, dies lucis et iustitiae, dies principalis, dies salutis humani generis, dies laudabilis, dies magnae gloriae, dies ressurectionis Domini nostri Iesu Christi._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another mediaeval example comes from [a poem by Friedrich Taubmann](https://www2.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camena/taub2/jpg/s202.html), published in 1604.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the use of _dies mirabilis_ to signal an important day seems to be a &quot;common use&quot;. For instance, Queen Victoria (re)opened the [Royal Exchange](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Exchange,_London) (a landmark building of the City of London) on 28 October 1844. A [poem](https://search.proquest.com/openview/8679e7062d4a41f8/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&amp;cbl=2744) dedicated to the event refers to the day as _dies mirabilis_. There are other examples of this use (e.g. [here](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=om1a7fCJJf0C&amp;pg=PT34&amp;lpg=PT34&amp;dq=%22dies+mirabilis%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=CN5T3JtfUC&amp;sig=ftjhyn2k8G7LJk1OPyH1I0ukynM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiW_4Oy0oPfAhUNzKQKHfUrBhQ4ChDoATADegQIAhAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22dies%20mirabilis%22&amp;f=false) and [here](https://sydney.edu.au/research/opportunities/opportunities/1783)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll) [wrote](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=a-8NBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT66&amp;lpg=PT66&amp;dq=%22dies+mirabilis%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PtR4JWcMQz&amp;sig=2EpFMpsD8i8b4GjuUYymFK2ze-4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiW_4Oy0oPfAhUNzKQKHfUrBhQ4ChDoATAHegQIBhAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22dies%20mirabilis%22&amp;f=false) after a rowing trip around Oxford with little Alice and her sisters (trips upon which it is alleged Charles told the girls the stories later compiled in the &quot;Alice in Wonderland&quot; book):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We went down the island, and made a kind of picnic there, taking biscuits with us, and buying gingerbeer and lemonade ... Considering the wild spirits of the children, we got home without accident, having attracted by our remarkable crew a good deal of attention from almost everyone we met. [...] Mark this day, annalist, not only with a white stone, but as altogether _dies mirabilis_.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7641" RevisionGUID="75e824d6-fc39-494b-8a66-87cdf3bafa42" CreationDate="2018-12-03T12:53:17.273" UserId="1459" Comment="added 375 characters in body" Text="Not only it is correct, but it is actually attested in several places. For instance, in the _Catechesis Celtica_ ([allegedly](https://www.vanhamel.nl/codecs/Catechesis_Celtica) from the 10th century), [we read](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BDDWwWCYwP0C&amp;pg=PA448&amp;lpg=PA448&amp;dq=%22dies+mirabilis%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ysPbmci5uP&amp;sig=zO1MJB6ytRCHZNbVn00VGyQdA_g&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiW_4Oy0oPfAhUNzKQKHfUrBhQ4ChDoATABegQICBAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22dies%20mirabilis%22&amp;f=false) in relation to Easter Sunday:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Facta sunt in hac die multa beneficia, quia in hac die resurrexit Christus, Filius Dei uiui post uastationem infenri, et solutionem humani generis de ore diaboliet de peccato Adae. Et in hac die debemus laetari, quia **dies mirabilis** est, dies uenerabilis, dies solemnis, dies lucis et iustitiae, dies principalis, dies salutis humani generis, dies laudabilis, dies magnae gloriae, dies ressurectionis Domini nostri Iesu Christi._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another mediaeval example comes from [a poem by Friedrich Taubmann](https://www2.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camena/taub2/jpg/s202.html), published in 1604.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the use of _dies mirabilis_ to signal an important day seems to be a &quot;common use&quot;. For instance, Queen Victoria (re)opened the [Royal Exchange](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Exchange,_London) (a landmark building of the City of London) on 28 October 1844. A [poem](https://search.proquest.com/openview/8679e7062d4a41f8/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&amp;cbl=2744) dedicated to the event refers to the day as _dies mirabilis_. There are other examples of this use (e.g. [here](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=om1a7fCJJf0C&amp;pg=PT34&amp;lpg=PT34&amp;dq=%22dies+mirabilis%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=CN5T3JtfUC&amp;sig=ftjhyn2k8G7LJk1OPyH1I0ukynM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiW_4Oy0oPfAhUNzKQKHfUrBhQ4ChDoATADegQIAhAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22dies%20mirabilis%22&amp;f=false) and [here](https://sydney.edu.au/research/opportunities/opportunities/1783)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll) [wrote](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=a-8NBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT66&amp;lpg=PT66&amp;dq=%22dies+mirabilis%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PtR4JWcMQz&amp;sig=2EpFMpsD8i8b4GjuUYymFK2ze-4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiW_4Oy0oPfAhUNzKQKHfUrBhQ4ChDoATAHegQIBhAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22dies%20mirabilis%22&amp;f=false) after a rowing trip around Oxford with little Alice and her sisters (trips upon which it is alleged Charles told the girls the stories later compiled in the &quot;Alice in Wonderland&quot; book):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We went down the island, and made a kind of picnic there, taking biscuits with us, and buying gingerbeer and lemonade ... Considering the wild spirits of the children, we got home without accident, having attracted by our remarkable crew a good deal of attention from almost everyone we met. [...] Mark this day, annalist, not only with a white stone, but as altogether _dies mirabilis_.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Hora mirabilis_ is also used in several places. For instance, in [this](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VvpDAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PP74&amp;lpg=PP74&amp;dq=%22hora+mirabilis%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Y_ASJY4WUF&amp;sig=8FDCYXOADKxR6WjyNZYENevG7vM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiFl5SJ2YPfAhVrVBUIHU5vC6IQ6AEwBXoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22hora%20mirabilis%22&amp;f=false) XVII century commentary of the Gospel of John.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1690" RevisionGUID="f5c1e955-45d7-4785-bcd6-20c93f45aaef" CreationDate="2018-12-03T14:46:13.090" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="I've been trying to translate the following phrase into Latin: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hunt deer with bows, with snares: rabbits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With my limited grasp of Latin, I have come to this result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Vēnāre cervas arcubus, dēcipulīs leporēs &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     [&lt;imp&gt; &lt;acc&gt;  &lt;abl&gt; ]&lt;&lt;[&lt;abl&gt;    &lt;acc&gt; ]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     hunt   deer   bow    , snare     rabbit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've mainly used [Wikipedia: Latin declensions][1] to decide which form to use, [Wordhippo][2] and [Google translate][3] to decide which words to use, and [Wiktionary][4] to find the proper declensions and conjugations of the words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now my question is, is it okay and proper form, and is it clear what is meant if the verb is implicitly reused by tacking on another clause without a predicate, or is that more of a Germanic thing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#Meanings_and_functions_of_the_various_cases &quot;Wikipedia: Latin Declensions&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wordhippo.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://translate.google.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.wiktionary.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25635" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1690" RevisionGUID="f5c1e955-45d7-4785-bcd6-20c93f45aaef" CreationDate="2018-12-03T14:46:13.090" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|grammar-choice|translation-check|sentence-translation|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1462" RevisionGUID="53146e67-3389-4cfc-8deb-508c394d3a2d" CreationDate="2018-12-03T14:49:56.127" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="The book is [*Panoplia Clericalis*][1], and the passage I'm having difficulty with (which I suspect is much easier than I think) is, from page 602:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;De colorum mixtione, qui differunt, ex varia eorum commixtione omnis fer&amp;egrave; generis colores fieri posse existimant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which looks a bit like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As far as a mixture of colors which are different, they(?) consider that from varying mixtures colors of nearly every kind can be made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure who &quot;they&quot; are, though. I'm wondering if I could translate that by something like &quot;they say&quot; rather than &quot;they consider&quot;; the next sentence begins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ex caeruleo enim et flavo (aiunt) fit viridis...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For from blue and yellow, they say, green can be made...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm imagining that &quot;existimant&quot; is intended to give much the same idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had been questioning the occurrence of &quot;omnis&quot; as well but for some reason the fact that it can be a genitive form (and thus go with &quot;generis&quot;) had slipped my mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://books.google.com/books?id=KgT-UXgzQc8C&amp;dq=violaceus%20penitentiam&amp;pg=PP3#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25637" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1462" RevisionGUID="53146e67-3389-4cfc-8deb-508c394d3a2d" CreationDate="2018-12-03T14:49:56.127" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|translation-check|sentence-translation|latin-to-english-translation|new-latin|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7642" RevisionGUID="870a7239-7d6d-4cbd-8150-22a77a2b37e7" CreationDate="2018-12-03T15:47:29.027" UserId="79" Text="When I was researching for [this question of mine](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7603/79), I wanted to find nouns similar to *missile*.&#xD;&#xA;I used the L&amp;S on Perseus and [searched for all words ending in *-ile*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=ile&amp;lang=la), but *missile* was not included.&#xD;&#xA;The word is listed under the adjective *missilis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to find substantivized adjectives ending in *-ile*, but it appears that my preferred search tool will not show them at all.&#xD;&#xA;Not all adjectives have established substantivizations, so searching for all adjectives ending in *-ilis* would have produced too much noise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an online Latin dictionary that allows to search for words by their ending and that lists *missile* separately from *missilis* (or at least shows *missile* in search results for words ending in *-ile*)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25640" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7642" RevisionGUID="870a7239-7d6d-4cbd-8150-22a77a2b37e7" CreationDate="2018-12-03T15:47:29.027" UserId="79" Text="How to search for nouns ending in -ile?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25641" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7642" RevisionGUID="870a7239-7d6d-4cbd-8150-22a77a2b37e7" CreationDate="2018-12-03T15:47:29.027" UserId="79" Text="|resource-request|dictionary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7643" RevisionGUID="12c428b4-7c96-4739-a5f7-9c76b6b25f5d" CreationDate="2018-12-03T17:05:31.563" UserId="3168" Text="I understand that a perfect passive finite verb is formed by combining the perfect passive participle with the correct form of 'esse'. My question is this. Does it ever happen that the second component of a perfect passive finite verb (the form of 'esse') either precedes or is separated by a few words from the other component (the perfect passive participle)? I am wondering because I have had trouble, in practice, distinguishing a perfect passive verb from a mere predication using a perfect passive participle (in cases where the third person 'est' is used, as it would be in the verb form). Thanks so much in advance! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25643" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7643" RevisionGUID="12c428b4-7c96-4739-a5f7-9c76b6b25f5d" CreationDate="2018-12-03T17:05:31.563" UserId="3168" Text="Latin usage &amp; perfect passive finite verb forms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25644" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7643" RevisionGUID="12c428b4-7c96-4739-a5f7-9c76b6b25f5d" CreationDate="2018-12-03T17:05:31.563" UserId="3168" Text="|translation|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7644" RevisionGUID="cb268ad0-dee3-476f-99e1-18ae181b09a0" CreationDate="2018-12-03T17:25:05.393" UserId="1459" Text="A brute force solution, based on the entry list of +12k [Latin nouns](https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Latin_nouns) available in Wiktionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Go to [this website](https://petscan.wmflabs.org/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. In the &quot;Categories&quot; tab, change &quot;Project&quot; to &quot;wiktionary&quot; and &quot;Categories&quot; to Latin nouns, as shown below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. In the &quot;Output&quot; tab, select CSV (to eliminate restriction on number of elements to return).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Click &quot;Do it!&quot; button. You should now get a CSV file, containing 12831 rows of Latin nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Open the file in your favorite spreadsheet software and run a regular expression (regex) search of `\w*ile\b`. This should be done through something like &quot;Find and Replace&quot;&quot; or so. After this, you should get a list of 28 nouns, as shown below (using LibreOffice).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, the usefulness of the method is restricted to the Wiktionary coverage of the Latin corpus (more precisely, to the indexation of existing Latin word pages to the Latin noun categories). The word _missile_, for instance, albeit part of Wiktionary, is not indexed as a noun, and therefore not included in the results above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TiUXC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xbQtR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7643" RevisionGUID="8146a113-5f18-4bc3-a283-56e9dcf39fa8" CreationDate="2018-12-03T17:30:00.800" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags." Text="I understand that a perfect passive finite verb is formed by combining the perfect passive participle with the correct form of 'esse'. My question is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it ever happen that the second component of a perfect passive finite verb (the form of 'esse') either precedes or is separated by a few words from the other component (the perfect passive participle)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering because I have had trouble, in practice, distinguishing a perfect passive verb from a mere predication using a perfect passive participle (in cases where the third person 'est' is used, as it would be in the verb form). Thanks so much in advance! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25647" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7643" RevisionGUID="8146a113-5f18-4bc3-a283-56e9dcf39fa8" CreationDate="2018-12-03T17:30:00.800" UserId="79" Comment="Added some tags." Text="|syntax|word-order|word-usage|perfect-tense|esse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7644" RevisionGUID="ebf96425-cd8d-47ce-80cb-9a81937f56ad" CreationDate="2018-12-03T17:30:46.843" UserId="1459" Comment="edited body" Text="A brute force solution, based on the entry list of +12k [Latin nouns](https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Latin_nouns) available in Wiktionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Go to [this website](https://petscan.wmflabs.org/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. In the &quot;Categories&quot; tab, change &quot;Project&quot; to &quot;wiktionary&quot; and &quot;Categories&quot; to Latin nouns, as shown below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. In the &quot;Output&quot; tab, select CSV (to eliminate restriction on number of elements to return).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Click &quot;Do it!&quot; button. You should now get a CSV file, containing 12831 rows of Latin nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Open the file in your favorite spreadsheet software and run a regular expression (regex) search of `\w*ile\b`. This should be done through something like &quot;Find and Replace&quot;&quot; or so. After this, you should get a list of 28 nouns, as shown below (using LibreOffice).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, the usefulness of the method is restricted to the Wiktionary coverage of the Latin corpus (more precisely, to the indexation of existing Latin word pages to the Latin noun categories). The word _missile_, for instance, albeit part of Wiktionary, is not indexed as a noun, and therefore not included in the results above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TiUXC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xbQtR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7645" RevisionGUID="af6c971c-2657-4f92-a450-ee2ea353c5a4" CreationDate="2018-12-03T17:33:42.937" UserId="79" Text="Yes, it does happen.&#xD;&#xA;The *esse* and the perfect participle need not be anywhere near each other.&#xD;&#xA;For example, Cicero (in Verrem 2.1.16) writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Siciliam **sum** inquirendi causa **profectus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin word order is flexible also in the sense that words that belong together can be quite far from each other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7645" RevisionGUID="d3c5ef92-fee7-4be3-8d47-78e32c750939" CreationDate="2018-12-03T17:47:36.293" UserId="79" Comment="added 278 characters in body" Text="Yes, it does happen.&#xD;&#xA;The *esse* and the perfect participle need not be anywhere near each other.&#xD;&#xA;For example, Cicero (in Verrem 2.1.16) writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Siciliam **sum** inquirendi causa **profectus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *proficisci* is deponent, but it doesn't invalidate the point.&#xD;&#xA;The same freedom is found with other verbs as well (Pro Caecina 84.1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;hellip;**sum** ex eo loco **deiectus**&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin word order is flexible also in the sense that words that belong together can be quite far from each other.&#xD;&#xA;The examples are from Cicero to show that this is not bad or marginal style." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25651" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1390" RevisionGUID="483df65b-be91-4de7-b3d2-7177d0e4a0ef" CreationDate="2018-12-04T07:35:13.250" UserId="79" Comment="92" />
  <row Id="25652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7646" RevisionGUID="fe2d47a0-75ed-4692-8141-8ff09437e309" CreationDate="2018-12-04T08:10:28.387" UserId="1459" Text="When listening to Gregorian Chant (in Latin), I find very hard to distinguish the words being sung, beyond some trivial regular words or phrases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might well be said that Gregorian Chant is actually not made for listening but for singing, and hence clarity of words has never been of importance. A more likely factor hindering my understanding could be that my Latin is just not good enough for distinguishing words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beside the evident advice on improving my Latin (including &quot;pronunciation&quot;), are there more general hints or techniques to improve the understanding of words from Gregorian Chant, perhaps based on your experience on this? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25653" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7646" RevisionGUID="fe2d47a0-75ed-4692-8141-8ff09437e309" CreationDate="2018-12-04T08:10:28.387" UserId="1459" Text="How to better distinguish words in Gregorian Chant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25654" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7646" RevisionGUID="fe2d47a0-75ed-4692-8141-8ff09437e309" CreationDate="2018-12-04T08:10:28.387" UserId="1459" Text="|pronunciation|soft-question|chant|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25655" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5898" RevisionGUID="666ab90a-fa55-4154-8174-0cf490fa00e5" CreationDate="2018-12-04T08:12:47.863" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|medieval-latin|paleography|chant|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25656" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4146" RevisionGUID="3499b717-71e9-4f24-972c-2e28e20a229e" CreationDate="2018-12-04T08:13:35.720" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|verbs|translation-explanation|spanish|chant|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7647" RevisionGUID="0f28ea47-fea8-49c6-8017-72a89fbbe390" CreationDate="2018-12-04T12:03:37.343" UserId="3171" Text="As the titles implies, I wish to know how &quot;The word as a weapon&quot; translates into Latin. I think it would be a cool name for a debate club that I'm setting up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25658" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7647" RevisionGUID="0f28ea47-fea8-49c6-8017-72a89fbbe390" CreationDate="2018-12-04T12:03:37.343" UserId="3171" Text="How to say &quot;the word as a weapon&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25659" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7647" RevisionGUID="0f28ea47-fea8-49c6-8017-72a89fbbe390" CreationDate="2018-12-04T12:03:37.343" UserId="3171" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7648" RevisionGUID="33d646ad-4c0d-4fcf-b42e-e21fc3cd39dc" CreationDate="2018-12-04T13:04:02.643" UserId="1459" Text="One option is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;verbum sicut armam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[Arma](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/arma#Noun_9)_ meaning weapon is from late Latin, but I think it makes more sense to the modern reader than _telum_, the word used in Classical Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7649" RevisionGUID="b9ce4640-330d-435b-a712-0bb330d6842a" CreationDate="2018-12-04T13:07:16.177" UserId="522" Text="There are several translations for 'spoken word.' &#xD;&#xA;*Vox,* meaning 'voice,' is tidy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'As' could be *quasi* or *tanquam;* *tanquam* is stronger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Telum* is the general word for 'offensive weapon,' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Vox quasi telum.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7649" RevisionGUID="fc6c05c0-f794-400c-b376-dc192934c915" CreationDate="2018-12-04T13:18:13.737" UserId="522" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="There are several translations for 'spoken word.' &#xD;&#xA;*Vox,* meaning 'voice,' is tidy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'As' could be *quasi* or *tanquam;* *tanquam* is stronger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Telum* is the general word for 'offensive weapon,' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Vox quasi telum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Words as weapons' could be *Verba quasi Arma.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5899" RevisionGUID="1e80fb6c-5313-46e2-9aa1-3503e9e8ecf4" CreationDate="2018-12-04T14:11:38.280" UserId="45" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The text says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Trinum deum et unum pronis men-  &#xD;&#xA;tibus adoremus virginique matri  &#xD;&#xA;gratulantibus animis iugiter iubilemus.  &#xD;&#xA;Venite exultemus domino iubilemus de-  &#xD;&#xA;o salutari nostro praeoccupemus faciem e-  &#xD;&#xA;ius in confessione et in psalmis iubilemus  &#xD;&#xA;ei. Quoniam deus magnus dominus  &#xD;&#xA;et rex magnus super omnes deos quoniam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I failed to find this specific text anywhere, but it certainly looks like some kind of a chant with elements pulled from the Psalms.&#xD;&#xA;The individual parts starting with capital letters might have different origins.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps someone else can point you to the source(s)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7648" RevisionGUID="39f6951f-5e22-47c4-8546-e95fc011b129" CreationDate="2018-12-04T14:39:01.203" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="One option is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;verbum sicut arma&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[Arma](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/arma#Noun_9)_ meaning weapon is from late Latin, but I think it makes more sense to the modern reader than _telum_, the word used in Classical Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7650" RevisionGUID="6f860e35-68c6-4d3b-9c50-14dfb409701f" CreationDate="2018-12-04T14:51:08.257" UserId="2973" Text="I'm trying to read this sentence, where Cicero finds Roman Gods in relevance to the Latin verbs, :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Saturnus quia se saturat annis, Mavors quia magna vertit, Minerva quia minuit aut quia minatur, Venus quia venit ad omnia, Ceres a generendo.&#xD;&#xA;(Cicero, de natura deorum, III 24, 62)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;of course with the help of English translation. :&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taturnus is so called because he is 'sated with years,' Mavors because he 'subverts the great,' Minerva because she 'minishes,' or because she is 'minatory,' Venus because she 'visits' all things, Ceres from *gero* 'to bear.' (H. Rackham)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could follow the structure until Venus, since there are always *quia* and *third-person singular present verbs*. Could anyone please explain me how I can then understand Ceres description? Is there a specific construction behind this &quot;a generendo&quot; to have it as &quot;from *gero*&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25666" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7650" RevisionGUID="6f860e35-68c6-4d3b-9c50-14dfb409701f" CreationDate="2018-12-04T14:51:08.257" UserId="2973" Text="the use of participle in &quot;Ceres a generendo&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25667" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7650" RevisionGUID="6f860e35-68c6-4d3b-9c50-14dfb409701f" CreationDate="2018-12-04T14:51:08.257" UserId="2973" Text="|classical-latin|verbs|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7651" RevisionGUID="dc12db48-13b0-4bb4-924b-a4457fa073fe" CreationDate="2018-12-04T15:06:15.230" UserId="522" Text="You are quite right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Gero* does also mean to 'bring forth' to 'generate.' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is another word *genero* which is used by Cicero here," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7651" RevisionGUID="51e613ff-126f-4b3e-bfb0-95702ae20936" CreationDate="2018-12-04T15:12:09.770" UserId="522" Comment="added 236 characters in body" Text="You are quite right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Gero* does also mean to 'bring forth' to 'generate.' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is another word *genero* which is used by Cicero here,([Lewis&amp;Short][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gĕnĕro, āvi, ātum, 1, v. a. genus, to beget, procreate, engender, produce, create; in pass., to spring or descend from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/getobject.pl?c.6:248.LewisShort18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7651" RevisionGUID="0e4ef4d3-0566-428a-84ca-0eed0cc276e6" CreationDate="2018-12-04T15:20:32.777" UserId="522" Comment="added 236 characters in body" Text="You are quite right. There's a slip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Gero* does also mean to 'bring forth' to 'generate.' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is another word *genero* which is used by Cicero here,([Lewis&amp;Short][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gĕnĕro, āvi, ātum, 1, v. a. genus, to beget, procreate, engender, produce, create; in pass., to spring or descend from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the **-end-** shows that it is the verbal noun, the Gerund. Here in the Ablative Case, with ***a*** it means 'from the action of...-ing,' 'from her ...-ing.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ceres a generendo  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ceres, from her procreating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/getobject.pl?c.6:248.LewisShort18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7649" RevisionGUID="936399a1-c148-4109-912e-0e511f08c3f9" CreationDate="2018-12-04T15:25:16.353" UserId="522" Comment="delete luchonacho's suggestion." Text="There are several translations for 'spoken word.' &#xD;&#xA;*Vox,* meaning 'voice,' is tidy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'As' could be *quasi* or *tanquam;* *tanquam* is stronger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Telum* is the general word for 'offensive weapon,' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Vox quasi telum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7650" RevisionGUID="73d1ad91-8f44-4d65-acf0-7072daaa1780" CreationDate="2018-12-04T15:35:08.107" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="I'm trying to read this sentence, where Cicero finds Roman Gods in relevance to the Latin verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Saturnus quia se saturat annis, Mavors quia magna vertit, Minerva quia minuit aut quia minatur, Venus quia venit ad omnia, Ceres a generendo.&#xD;&#xA;(Cicero, de natura deorum, III 24, 62)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;of course with the help of English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taturnus is so called because he is 'sated with years,' Mavors because he 'subverts the great,' Minerva because she 'minishes,' or because she is 'minatory,' Venus because she 'visits' all things, Ceres from *gero* 'to bear.' (H. Rackham)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could follow the structure until Venus, since there are always *quia* and *third-person singular present verbs*. Could anyone please explain me how I can then understand Ceres description? Is there a specific construction behind this &quot;a generendo&quot; to have it as &quot;from *gero*&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25673" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7650" RevisionGUID="73d1ad91-8f44-4d65-acf0-7072daaa1780" CreationDate="2018-12-04T15:35:08.107" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="The use of participle in &quot;Ceres a generendo&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7652" RevisionGUID="609a4909-30ca-403f-8db9-e538736c340a" CreationDate="2018-12-04T16:30:28.890" UserId="3157" Text="I'm an experienced chant singer, so I do have some first-hand knowledge about what might be going on here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The clarity of words in chant is important.  But the problem for listeners is that the resonance of the spaces in which chant is usually sung/recorded is so great as to obscure even well-enunciated consonants, especially when you have multiple people singing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Different linguistic cultures developed different pronunciations of ecclesiastical Latin, so you may be running into otherwise familiar words that are just being pronounced differently, e.g., &quot;regem&quot; in Spanish ecclesiastical pronunciation has a hard &quot;g&quot; as in English &quot;get&quot;, whereas in Italian pronunciation it's a &quot;j&quot; sound like the English word &quot;gem&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Furthermore, even if the Latin pronunciation is the same, you may also be dealing with a foreign substrate accent, e.g., choirs singing Latin with a modern French accent.  We all know how difficult it can sometimes be to understand people who are speaking out native tongue correctly but in a foreign accent, so understanding a sung foreign language can similarly pose problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Finally, the act of deliberately singing words can alter the pronunciation significantly from what we are used to in speaking.  For example, consider the English word &quot;for&quot; -- as an independently pronounced word it often has a long O sound like &quot;fawr&quot;, but in common speech we usually hear &quot;fer&quot;.  The same thing might be going on with how you hear the chant versus how you are used to reading/saying Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a solution, I would recommend trying to learn the texts of the chants you are listening to, and then trying to pick out the words without referring to the written source.  Maybe try that a few times, and then do a few trials without looking at the text beforehand to see what you can figure out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that helps!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7653" RevisionGUID="26ed7687-0994-4fc7-8a3b-87b39f6245f8" CreationDate="2018-12-04T16:39:12.927" UserId="45" Text="I believe there is an issue with your transcription of the passage. Both [Loeb](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-de_natura_deorum/1933/pb_LCL268.347.xml) and [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0037%3Abook%3D3%3Asection%3D62) actually have ***gerendo***, not *generendo*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Saturnus quia se saturat annis, Mavors quia magna vertit, Minerva quia minuit aut quia minatur, Venus quia venit ad omnia, Ceres a gerendo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is especially clear since the ablative gerund of *genero, -are* would be *gener**ando***, not *generendo*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everything else in Hugh's answer (about *a* + ablative gerund) is spot on. Since *gero* and *genero* have such similar meanings anyway, it doesn't really affect the sense of the passage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7651" RevisionGUID="3a27f79f-591e-4935-8e76-3f6fdb1f8222" CreationDate="2018-12-04T19:45:44.747" UserId="522" Comment="first conjugation correction" Text="You are quite right. There's a slip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Gero* does also mean to 'bring forth' to 'generate.' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is another word *genero* which is used by Cicero here,([Lewis&amp;Short][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gĕnĕro, āvi, ātum, 1, v. a. genus, to beget, procreate, engender, produce, create; in pass., to spring or descend from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the **-and-** (for *gero* **-end-**) shows that it is the verbal noun, the Gerund. Here in the Ablative Case, with ***a*** it means 'from the action of...-ing,' 'from her ...-ing.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ceres a generando  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ceres, from her procreating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/getobject.pl?c.6:248.LewisShort18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25678" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7646" RevisionGUID="30266afe-8842-4521-a435-eedc2f8568dd" CreationDate="2018-12-04T20:13:52.650" UserId="3157" Comment="added relevant tag" Text="|pronunciation|ecclesiastical-latin|soft-question|chant|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25679" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7646" RevisionGUID="30266afe-8842-4521-a435-eedc2f8568dd" CreationDate="2018-12-04T20:13:52.650" Comment="Proposed by 3157 approved by 79 edit id of 283" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25680" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7271" RevisionGUID="e0bbc397-0cdc-4134-bcd2-153c49fcfa41" CreationDate="2018-12-05T15:02:40.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7447" RevisionGUID="12aabb5e-8753-42c6-9f68-57e1edbdbdb5" CreationDate="2018-12-06T06:12:27.967" UserId="39" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="&gt;**Q:** &quot;Am I misreading this?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. First of all, you have **completely misunderstood** the quoted passage from Hephaestion's Encheiridion, one of the most important ancient *metrical* treatises (see Dickey 2007: 104-105).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gaisford 1810][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Consbruch 1906][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Q:** &quot;If so, what is Hephaestio actually telling us?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is found in the first chapter, where he talks about &quot;common syllables.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And its modern English translation (by [J.M. van Ophuijsen][5]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, Hephaestion is an attestation of the dialectal (Lesbian) form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Q:** &quot;Why would the correct form in the fragment be the theta-less one?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a well-known phenomenon, the so called σλ/σθλ alternation, cf. the relevant passage from Meister 1882 (v. 1, §36, p. 150)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;cf. Hamm 1957 § 136, &quot;μάσλης &lt; μάσθλης (wie ἔσλων* &lt; ἔσθλων)&quot; (p. 65), or Thumb and Scherer 1959, p. 96.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf.[Hamm 1953][9] -all of the sources above are, naturally, found in Voigt (aka Hamm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009706478&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iZVUQ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/hephaestionisen00consgoog/page/n44&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eP12g.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://brill.com/view/book/9789004328358/BP000003.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nCoTa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/giD0X.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jv4bs.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40265625" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7654" RevisionGUID="ed73df76-9006-4910-9100-ffb476eb56f9" CreationDate="2018-12-06T06:34:55.913" UserId="406" Text="I've seen this quote appear in a few different places, ostensibly from Seneca's _Octavia_. (Or maybe not Seneca's, we're not sure.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Extinguat et me, ne manu nostra cadat!_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I don't have a copy of _Octavia_, so I have no context for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And let it end my life; may it not fall from our hand!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this doesn't make very much sense. Am I missing some point of grammar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25683" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7654" RevisionGUID="ed73df76-9006-4910-9100-ffb476eb56f9" CreationDate="2018-12-06T06:34:55.913" UserId="406" Text="&quot;Extinguat et me, ne manu nostra cadat!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25684" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7654" RevisionGUID="ed73df76-9006-4910-9100-ffb476eb56f9" CreationDate="2018-12-06T06:34:55.913" UserId="406" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|seneca-iunior|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7655" RevisionGUID="9640f6ff-3992-4e4c-9490-2de18e8a658d" CreationDate="2018-12-06T07:45:30.790" UserId="985" Text="This is line 174 of the *Octavia*. From context, the subject of *extinguat* and *cadat* is understood to be Nero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this instance, *cadere* means 'die' (i.e., 'fall and not get up again').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Octavia is saying that Nero should either kill her too or be killed by her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7655" RevisionGUID="9bac8fc7-22b9-42aa-987b-8e34b3c9c734" CreationDate="2018-12-06T07:51:15.533" UserId="985" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="This is line 174 of the *Octavia*. From context, the subject of *extinguat* and *cadat* is understood to be Nero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this instance, *cadere* means 'die' (i.e., 'fall and not get up again').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Octavia is saying that Nero should either kill her too or be killed by her. (In the preceding lines, the Nurse had traced the trail of birth that led to Nero's becoming emperor and to Octavia's current situation, where she has no family left.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7655" RevisionGUID="847fd3ea-eba8-4b0d-9b8d-34a03da0c69f" CreationDate="2018-12-06T08:01:13.913" UserId="985" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="This is line 174 of the *Octavia*. From context, the subject of *extinguat* and *cadat* is understood to be Nero. (In the preceding lines, the Nurse had traced the trail of birth that led to Nero's becoming emperor and to Octavia's current situation, where she has no family left.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this instance, *cadere* means 'die' (i.e., 'fall and not get up again'); the ablative *manu nostra* is showing instrument/means, not separation/place from which.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Octavia is saying that Nero should either kill her too or be killed by her." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7655" RevisionGUID="6918f1c5-95e7-4f02-a359-5ff3defd628a" CreationDate="2018-12-06T08:11:53.607" UserId="985" Comment="edited body" Text="This is line 174 of the *Octavia*. From context, the subject of *extinguat* and *cadat* is understood to be Nero. (In the preceding lines, the Nurse had traced the trail of blood that led to Nero's becoming emperor and to Octavia's current situation, where she has no family left.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this instance, *cadere* means 'die' (i.e., 'fall and not get up again'); the ablative *manu nostra* is showing instrument/means, not separation/place from which.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Octavia is saying that Nero should either kill her too or be killed by her." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7656" RevisionGUID="c153cac8-30b7-4fd2-b4de-b3aa3d1e4ee3" CreationDate="2018-12-06T08:18:19.890" UserId="2476" Text="@cnread's answer is already quite complete. I would only specify that in view of the construction &quot;_ne_ + subjunctive&quot;, _ne manu nostra cadat_ means &quot;so as not to be killed by me&quot;, or maybe more suggestively, &quot;[...] to die because of me&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7656" RevisionGUID="fc419eb3-5490-4f71-b1bc-de6fa7253097" CreationDate="2018-12-06T08:26:30.280" UserId="2476" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="@cnread's answer is already quite complete. I would only specify that in view of the construction &quot;_ne_ + subjunctive&quot;, _ne manu nostra cadat_ means &quot;so as not to be killed by me&quot;, or maybe more literally and suggestively , &quot;[...] to die by my hand&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2577" RevisionGUID="0dacb580-1552-4ec2-90e2-d0071f211f70" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:03:36.380" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I know that there exist many Ecclesiastical Latin and Medieval translations kept by professors and most catholic churches, but I decided, just to test my vocabulary, to translate John 3:16 into Classical. I need an alternative point of view on my rough translation so that any more experienced learners of Latin can show my mistakes and explain the proper terminology or grammar. Any tips or suggestions are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quia Deus mundum amabat quod filium unum et solum offerabat, uti quisquis in eum non intereabit sed viverabunt sempiterne*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25692" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2577" RevisionGUID="0dacb580-1552-4ec2-90e2-d0071f211f70" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:03:36.380" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|word-choice|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25693" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2517" RevisionGUID="2da93fd0-16cd-462a-a054-a39c717ae84d" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:04:15.427" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|etymology|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25694" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2338" RevisionGUID="e793220a-b80f-4df4-bfaf-c495cb7791d1" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:05:16.870" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Translating &quot;Pacis puella&quot; into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25695" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2338" RevisionGUID="e793220a-b80f-4df4-bfaf-c495cb7791d1" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:05:16.870" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1421" RevisionGUID="258810f2-13fc-4b21-abc0-13a1c9d37b51" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:06:06.877" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body; edited tags" Text="They are the words to the hauntingly beautiful [title song in Roger&#xD;&#xA;Eno's &quot;Lost in Translation&quot; CD ca. 1995](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMNjD8fxHGo):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Discontentus Sentimentum  &#xD;&#xA;Listigatus Exocentum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either maybe it's a joke (and the words are only pseudo-Latin, I couldn't&#xD;&#xA;find any in an on-line dictionary) or maybe it's something like &quot;I have&#xD;&#xA;hundreds of complaints&quot; (that's my guess).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25697" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1421" RevisionGUID="258810f2-13fc-4b21-abc0-13a1c9d37b51" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:06:06.877" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|meaning|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25698" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2294" RevisionGUID="113b03e4-b1de-4160-8f15-997a65129fef" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:06:41.633" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|new-latin|academic-latin|science|soft-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25699" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4058" RevisionGUID="18b1eb5d-1e2a-49da-a9f0-685e23b6fdc3" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:06:59.737" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25700" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2993" RevisionGUID="539e22de-b761-416b-bbe4-6bfd76d83812" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:07:34.257" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|word-request|definitions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2947" RevisionGUID="b7d54d44-0c2a-404e-ba9b-fa4d6ba1c5bf" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:08:43.250" UserId="1459" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags; edited tags" Text="This extract from the novel 'Three Men in a Boat' refers to Job 5.7: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*This world is only a probation, and man was born to trouble as the sparks fly upward.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hoped to quote the source, expecting to find it in the Vulgate, — but it's not so simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Vulgate (AD 382): *homo ad laborem nascitur et avis ad volatum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. KJV (1611): *Man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Luther (1545): *Sondern der Mensch wird zu unglück geborn / wie die Vögel schweben empor zufliegen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Gute nachricht Bibel (2017): *Aus seinem eigenen Wesen kommt das Leid, so wie der Funkenwirbel aus dem Feuer.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. bibleenligne.com (2017): *car l'homme est né pour la misère, comme les étincelles s'élèvent pour voler.* [lit. *les fils de la flamme*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It isn't difficult to put into Latin (*homo nascitur ad laborem sicut scintilla ad volatum*), but **can anyone direct me to a Latin original for the King James version**, with sparks instead of the bird of  Jerome *et al* or explain why the difference came about?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25702" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2947" RevisionGUID="b7d54d44-0c2a-404e-ba9b-fa4d6ba1c5bf" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:08:43.250" UserId="1459" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags; edited tags" Text="|word-choice|christianity|ecclesiastical-latin|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25703" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2923" RevisionGUID="d04f485f-4c9f-4cba-9a61-080e007b790f" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:09:20.497" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|participle|deponent-verbs|plinius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2882" RevisionGUID="0e761611-b5d7-458e-8b37-834cd3366a72" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:10:45.030" UserId="1459" Comment="added 73 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am trying to write an essay and would like to use a saying for &quot;Because Event B is during Event A, Event B is related/caused by Event A.&quot; I have in mind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Post hoc ergo propter hoc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cum hoc ergo propter hoc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recall hearing both quotes but am having trouble differentiating them. Keep in mind, I have almost no prior Latin experience." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25705" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2882" RevisionGUID="0e761611-b5d7-458e-8b37-834cd3366a72" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:10:45.030" UserId="1459" Comment="added 73 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2856" RevisionGUID="a4ac86a3-c42c-4b72-b8bf-2a29c6a4e6f7" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:11:37.237" UserId="1459" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm enquiring about the translation of this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I ordered the soldier, who was walking in the garden, to collect flowers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using 'imperare' as the verb to order, my question is whether 'walking' should go into the subjunctive or indicative, i.e. '_ambulabat_', or '_ambularet_', thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Militi imperavi, qui in horto ambularet/ambulabat, ut flores colligeret._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand, 'soldier' is the subject of the indirect command clause in Latin, which would suggest the subjunctive, but it's also the indirect object in the main clause, which would be the indicative. My guess would have been indicative, but the exercise I'm doing gives the answer as subjunctive. Which one is right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25707" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2856" RevisionGUID="a4ac86a3-c42c-4b72-b8bf-2a29c6a4e6f7" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:11:37.237" UserId="1459" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|conjunctive|relative-clause|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25708" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2822" RevisionGUID="fd4792d6-6aea-4888-bb4c-0784ab55848d" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:12:16.783" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25709" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2100" RevisionGUID="14c1cf7f-cda0-4584-9632-c5fc2074312b" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:13:49.437" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|preposition|spinoza|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25710" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2849" RevisionGUID="12b9aaf2-7881-406f-ad84-d2612fb011b8" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:14:18.080" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|greek|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25711" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2846" RevisionGUID="be9ef1b2-69b1-4b38-8457-278b0c2ce7f5" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:14:43.890" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4884" RevisionGUID="f9c5ed69-9cc5-4954-a584-d5f7c7f703ec" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:15:33.160" UserId="1459" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The Apostles' Creed contains this passage: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus&amp;hellip;* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in the part *qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this mean exactly? If Jesus &quot;was conceived by the Holy Ghost,&quot; does that mean He was **not** conceived by The Virgin Mary? Who, exactly, conceived Jesus? How should I understand *conceptus de Spiritu Sancto* in this context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25713" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4884" RevisionGUID="f9c5ed69-9cc5-4954-a584-d5f7c7f703ec" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:15:33.160" UserId="1459" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|christianity|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5319" RevisionGUID="9529fbb5-7d22-4ca9-82e4-52a48fe1e549" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:17:10.613" UserId="1459" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Can anyone translate these six Latin sentences (from chapters 38-39 of Annales) to English, and follow me through step by step on how you did it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ignis impetu ventorum vectus circum corripuit nec eius vis opprimi potuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Domibus non erant munimenta, templis non erant muri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;viae erant et flexae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Itaque sine impedimentis flammae omnia devastabant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Flammae iam ubique ardebant antequam homines eas extinsguere temptaverunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Propter lacrimas et timores feminarum et propter eos qui huc atque illuc currebant omnia erant in tumultu. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank You very very much I really appreciate it. I tried translating it myself and I am able to figure out the translate the words, I just can't put them in the sentence the right way. I also struggle with moods, prep phrases, and finding direct and indirect objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25715" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5319" RevisionGUID="9529fbb5-7d22-4ca9-82e4-52a48fe1e549" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:17:10.613" UserId="1459" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25716" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5236" RevisionGUID="5804ddfa-0407-4ef0-a911-dae5a47f1c98" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:17:25.863" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|science|philosophy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25717" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5445" RevisionGUID="62341e9c-8f43-4584-ab49-b0317c810a0c" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:17:54.563" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|contemporary-latin|latin-to-english-translation|mythology|military|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25718" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5606" RevisionGUID="b66dbf37-8e7f-405b-8d88-1213edfd14ad" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:18:38.760" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|translation-check|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5786" RevisionGUID="66060291-48b9-44e8-99e7-20a0b6e131e9" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:22:32.453" UserId="1459" Comment="added 61 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="In he book [Infinite Jest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_Jest) there is a part where a character says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It strikes me that EXIT signs would look to a native speaker of Latin like red-lit signs that say HE LEAVES.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25720" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5786" RevisionGUID="66060291-48b9-44e8-99e7-20a0b6e131e9" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:22:32.453" UserId="1459" Comment="added 61 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Confusion regarding reference to Latin in &quot;Infinite Jest&quot; book" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25721" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5786" RevisionGUID="66060291-48b9-44e8-99e7-20a0b6e131e9" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:22:32.453" UserId="1459" Comment="added 61 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|meaning|book|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25722" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2802" RevisionGUID="007ba6c8-eac5-422e-9e22-6493e71420de" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:22:57.687" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2331" RevisionGUID="08f96afb-0afb-4376-b750-d01fbc3d3d2b" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:23:46.583" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have the following sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Clara est insula Sicilia_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I initially thought: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sicily is a famous island&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This doesn't seem to make sense considering how the sentence is set up, but who knows... that's the best I got.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to my surprise, this is the real answer: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The island of Sicily is famous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, the only time where I can express &quot;of&quot; is by using a genitive. What is going on here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25724" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2331" RevisionGUID="08f96afb-0afb-4376-b750-d01fbc3d3d2b" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:23:46.583" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25725" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5989" RevisionGUID="9615928f-a2ac-4e4b-bb0b-cba8029d2797" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:26:08.440" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|conjunctive|esse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6224" RevisionGUID="5f6b67f2-1b3f-460b-8a39-dec54527892b" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:27:47.193" UserId="1459" Comment="added 14 characters in body; edited tags" Text="While asking [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6211/is-it-acceptable-regular-to-use-diacritics-macron-in-written-texts) where I was asking about building a brand name and motto using Latin, I realized that my choice of name is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you want to go with _lux astrum_ or something similar, I recommend caution. The form _astrum_ as a plural genitive is prone to misinterpretation. Especially some who have studied Latin are likely to mock it as a grammatical error, as the short form of the first and second declension plural genitive ending is not that well known. If people read _astrum_ as singular (as was my first thought), _lux astrum_ does not make sense. Therefore I recommend changing it to _lux astrorum_ (&quot;light of stars&quot;) or _lux astri_ (&quot;light of star&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- [Joonas Ilmavirta](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6213/2514)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question therefore becomes this: To avoid changing any material already created, **is there an acceptable translation for the phrase _Lux Astrum_, that doesn't stretch too much - i.e. can actually be considered correct form by somebody with complete lack of project-relevant information?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25727" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6224" RevisionGUID="5f6b67f2-1b3f-460b-8a39-dec54527892b" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:27:47.193" UserId="1459" Comment="added 14 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25729" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4102" RevisionGUID="0d78c3f8-f316-4c0b-bd28-2348f904f238" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:28:46.340" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|idiom|medieval-latin|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25730" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4479" RevisionGUID="95609c52-1972-45ad-8759-a862786052f9" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:30:08.267" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|origin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25731" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4488" RevisionGUID="3cf9e0dd-a067-4d98-a831-d1e9c61d4195" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:31:33.393" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4896" RevisionGUID="50c2bf79-a842-48ff-864f-4c41cff4e960" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:33:23.843" UserId="1459" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The Charter can be found in _Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum Vol 1, Appendix i_, #71. It reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;_Carta Malcolmi Comitis de Levenax. Robertus etc. Cum concessimus Malcolmo comiti de Levenax dilecto et fideli nostro terram de Strathoune per forisfacturam David de Strathbolgy militis dudum comitis Adtholie tempore quo Duncanus comes de Fyff fuit contra pacem nostram de quo dicta terra tenebatur in capite, pro quaquidem terra idem Malcolmus nobis fecit homagium, et postea eidem comiti de Fyff concessimus omnes terras et tenementa cum omnibus tenandriis et libere tenentibus ad ipsum spectantes jure hereditario infra regnum nostrum, et cum dictus Malcolmus de jure non teneatur facere homagium dicto comiti de Fyff pro terra predicta in vita nostra nobis viventibus, concessimus eidem comiti de Fyff quod occasione homagii nobis per eundem Malcolmum facti pro eadem terra, cum warda relevium seu homagium vel aliquid aliud pertinens ad eundem comitem de Fyff de ipsa terra futuris temporibus contigerit, nullum prejudicium sibi aut heredibus suis aliqualiter generatur, sed quod habeat libere et quiete omnia et singula que sibi antiquis temporibus debebantur de eadem. In cujus rei testimonium etc._&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is clear and accepted that Robert has granted the lands of Strathoune which the former Earl of Atholl, David of Strathbolgy has forfeited. Most references by historians writing about this charter assume that the land has been granted to Malcolm, the Earl of Lennox. But a footnote in the _Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum_ has challenged this saying the charter is wrongly titled and the land is really granted to Duncan, the young Earl of Fife. Given the history of the area this would make more sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an explanation for these contradictory interpretations and who is right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am researching the history of Strathoune (now Strathavon) in Banffshire and would be grateful for any advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25733" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4896" RevisionGUID="50c2bf79-a842-48ff-864f-4c41cff4e960" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:33:23.843" UserId="1459" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|medieval-latin|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5004" RevisionGUID="2fe314e2-0a68-4e1c-b466-9a7819cf62aa" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:33:52.040" UserId="1459" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="I'm looking to find out what the Latin for &quot;from the heights&quot; is, as the equivalent of Oscar Wilde's title &quot;_De Profundis_&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25735" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5004" RevisionGUID="2fe314e2-0a68-4e1c-b466-9a7819cf62aa" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:33:52.040" UserId="1459" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2677" RevisionGUID="c8fe7d0b-92af-4258-b88b-d1df369a347a" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:34:42.607" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I want to translate the following French quote from Paul Valéry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Je ne suis pas toujours d'accord avec moi-même_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which roughly translates into:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't always agree with myself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want it to be as short as possible. So I thought the best way would be to omit the subject and to use *ego* in the accusative case, which seems to be *me*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would be something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Non semper me conveniunt_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that correct? Is it understandable? Is it a nice form?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25737" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2677" RevisionGUID="c8fe7d0b-92af-4258-b88b-d1df369a347a" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:34:42.607" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation-check|syntax|declension|french|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2651" RevisionGUID="49ca6c0d-a3cd-48cf-9a9f-9697acfeec47" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:35:39.007" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I've looked up the translation of &quot;Take Credit, Assign Blame&quot; (a pseudo-motto for managers) and I got '_Sume fidem, culpam dare_', and then later I found '_Tolle fidem, culpam dare_'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this faux-motto convey the attitude of someone who takes credit for successes and assigns blame to underlings when things fail?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25739" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2651" RevisionGUID="49ca6c0d-a3cd-48cf-9a9f-9697acfeec47" CreationDate="2018-12-06T09:35:39.007" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7657" RevisionGUID="b0396d07-69eb-4fc1-98a9-4040a0f06e72" CreationDate="2018-12-06T10:25:24.647" UserId="1459" Text="In [1 Samuel 7:16](http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=9&amp;ch=7&amp;l=16-#x) we read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_et ibat per singulos annos circuiens Bethel et Galgala et Masphath, et judicabat Israelem in **supradictis** locis._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English translation (see link) of *supradictis* is (the rather old fashion) &quot;aforesaid&quot;, or &quot;aforementioned&quot;. **Is this meaning attested in Latin?** [Wictionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/superdictus#Latin) (which indicates _supradictus_ to be an alternative form of _superdictus_) does not think so. &#xD;&#xA;There is no entry on L&amp;S for _supra/superdictus_. The only reference to it is found in the entry for [_supra_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=supra&amp;highlight=supradictus), which states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Compounds formed with supra are extremely rare. In late Lat. supradictus, suprafatus, suprafundo, suprajacio, supranatans, suprasedeo, etc., are found, but here supra is properly written separately as an adv.; only suprascando (v. h. v.), on account of its signif., is to be written as one word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, aforementioned = afore + mentioned, and afore comes from OE/ME fore, which comes from PIE *per, which also derived in the Latin _per_. Given that _supradictis_ is synonymous with _superdictis_, the two words seems to be indeed indirectly related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25741" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7657" RevisionGUID="b0396d07-69eb-4fc1-98a9-4040a0f06e72" CreationDate="2018-12-06T10:25:24.647" UserId="1459" Text="Did &quot;supradictis&quot; ever meant &quot;aforementioned&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25742" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7657" RevisionGUID="b0396d07-69eb-4fc1-98a9-4040a0f06e72" CreationDate="2018-12-06T10:25:24.647" UserId="1459" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7658" RevisionGUID="e7aab2c3-a7c5-449f-89a0-90f711c6970d" CreationDate="2018-12-06T16:59:18.337" UserId="1238" Text="I'm curious about what declension θορυβος and κοσμος are in Attic Greek. They appear to be second declension (θορυβος, -ου and κοσμος, -ου), but in the Athenaze workbook (which I'm slowly working my way through...), they are listed under first declension nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an error in the book, or are they actually first declension, and if they are, how does that pan out with the other forms (dative, accusative, vocative)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25744" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7658" RevisionGUID="e7aab2c3-a7c5-449f-89a0-90f711c6970d" CreationDate="2018-12-06T16:59:18.337" UserId="1238" Text="What declension are θορυβος and κοσμος?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25745" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7658" RevisionGUID="e7aab2c3-a7c5-449f-89a0-90f711c6970d" CreationDate="2018-12-06T16:59:18.337" UserId="1238" Text="|greek|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7659" RevisionGUID="6213678e-107c-47b8-b62e-6f7f8b591058" CreationDate="2018-12-06T17:11:21.167" UserId="406" Text="As far as I can tell, this is an error in the workbook. LSJ lists them both as standard masculine second-declension (-os, -ou) nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good way to find details on individual words is [the Perseus lookup tool][1]. You can put in any word (even inflected forms!) and it'll tell you what form you have and give its LSJ entry. For example, [if you put in *thórybos*][2], it says it's a nominative masculine singular noun meaning &quot;noise&quot;; click the &quot;LSJ&quot; link to see the full dictionary entry with all sorts of classical examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=qorubos&amp;la=greek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7656" RevisionGUID="d4436415-124f-4696-84ab-8344a5f5836d" CreationDate="2018-12-06T17:26:13.177" UserId="2476" Comment="added 570 characters in body" Text="@cnread's answer is already quite complete. I would only specify that in view of the construction &quot;_ne_ + subjunctive&quot;, _ne manu nostra cadat_ means &quot;so as not to be killed by me&quot;, or maybe more literally and suggestively , &quot;[...] to die by my hand&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: To clarify, I think the last part of the sentence is a final clause rather than a negative &quot;command&quot; because I kind of read it as &quot;if he doesn't want to be killed by me&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, the subsequent reply by the Nurse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Natura vires non dedit tantas tibi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;implies _manu nostra_ must indeed mean &quot;by my hand&quot;, at least here. I'm not sure whether it is always the case or not, but I couldn't find instances of _manu mea_ for the same purpose (it seems it is mostly used to describe suicide, sticking to the context of killing, i.e. _cado mea manu_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7660" RevisionGUID="c3929407-435a-4398-9b17-5834b6309c9f" CreationDate="2018-12-06T18:06:04.300" UserId="3177" Text="I would be glad if anyone could help me how to translate the name &quot;Church of the Virgin Mary&quot; or at least how to place &quot;of the&quot; in the sense of &quot;belonging in patronage&quot; in such contexts? Other examples that I would struggle with would be &quot;Covent of the Holy Virgin&quot; or &quot;St John's Covent&quot;. Would it be &quot;de&quot; as in &quot;Ecclesia Cathedralis Nostrae Domina **de** Immaculatæ Conceptionis&quot; for such examples? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25749" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7660" RevisionGUID="c3929407-435a-4398-9b17-5834b6309c9f" CreationDate="2018-12-06T18:06:04.300" UserId="3177" Text="How to say &quot;of the&quot; as in &quot;Church of The Blessed Virgin&quot; with the sense of &quot;belonging to&quot; or &quot;patronage&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25750" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7660" RevisionGUID="c3929407-435a-4398-9b17-5834b6309c9f" CreationDate="2018-12-06T18:06:04.300" UserId="3177" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7655" RevisionGUID="4b7c1522-e974-4e4e-ac70-756fc1267b47" CreationDate="2018-12-06T18:08:44.170" UserId="985" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="This is line 174 of the *Octavia*. From context, the subject of *extinguat* and *cadat* is understood to be Nero. (In the preceding lines, the Nurse had traced the trail of blood that led to Nero's becoming emperor and to Octavia's current situation, where she has no family left.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this instance, *cadere* means 'die' (i.e., 'fall and not get up again'); the ablative *manu nostra* is showing instrument/means, not separation/place from which.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Octavia is basicallly saying that Nero should either kill her too or be killed by her – literally, 'Let him snuff me out too, lest he fall by my hand.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7661" RevisionGUID="d002fcf7-2712-40aa-b6a9-a30a01c17838" CreationDate="2018-12-06T18:40:46.833" UserId="406" Text="There are two main ways to do this. One is the earlier usage, from Classical Latin, and the other is the later usage, from Vulgar Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You actually provided an example of both!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ecclesia Cathedralis Nostrae Dominae de Immaculatae Conceptionis*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cathedral **of** Our Lady **of** the Immaculate Conception&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The older/Classical way is to use the *genitive case*, a special ending on the possessor. &quot;Our Lady&quot; would normally be *nostra Domina*; &quot;of our Lady&quot; is *nostr**ae** Domin**ae***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The later/Vulgar way is to use the preposition *de*, which replaced the genitive case in the Romance languages—so it'll look familiar from Italian, Spanish, French, and so on. This isn't good Classical style (in Classical Latin, *de* means &quot;down from&quot; or &quot;concerning&quot;, not &quot;of&quot;) but it's very common in later Latin. In fact, it's not uncommon for in-between styles to use both together, which your example does! *Immaculatae conceptionis* is in the genitive, *and* it's preceded by *de*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a classicist, I prefer the genitive, and I believe the Vatican does as well. Thus, the Church of the Virgin Mary would be ***Ecclesia Virginis Mariae***. Similarly, your other examples would be *Coventus Virginis Beatae*, and *Coventus Sancti Jo[h]annis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(\*I'm not actually sure if _coventus_ is the right word for a convent, so take these translations with a grain of salt.)&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7662" RevisionGUID="cf5d002e-271c-43bb-b5db-e5eb0a957b1b" CreationDate="2018-12-06T19:36:34.863" UserId="79" Text="I have heard a number of times that the Romans called the Mediterranean Sea *mare nostrum*, &quot;our sea&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But was this really the Roman name for the Mediterranean Sea in any significant way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have three sources of doubt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It occurred to me that I had never encountered the phrase *mare nostrum* in any Roman text despite years of studying Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mare_Nostrum) says that the term was first used by Romans to refer to the Tyrrhenian Sea, and later extended to cover all of Mediterranean.&#xD;&#xA;This makes the term ambiguous, unless there was a period when *mare nostrum* referred to the whole sea without doubt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A classical [corpus search](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=mare+nostrum) gives three attestations of *mare nostrum*.&#xD;&#xA;That's very few if it was really a common name for the sea &amp;mdash; even though I didn't search for other cases than nominative and accusative.&#xD;&#xA;And in light of point 2, some of these might refer to something else than the whole Mediterranean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I get the impression that *mare nostrum* was rarely used, and it wasn't really the name of the sea.&#xD;&#xA;Just like I occasionally call the University of Jyväskylä &quot;my university&quot;, but it isn't the name of the institution.&#xD;&#xA;Is this impression accurate?&#xD;&#xA;Were other names like *mare internum* significantly more common?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25755" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7662" RevisionGUID="cf5d002e-271c-43bb-b5db-e5eb0a957b1b" CreationDate="2018-12-06T19:36:34.863" UserId="79" Text="Did the Romans really speak of &quot;mare nostrum&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25756" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7662" RevisionGUID="cf5d002e-271c-43bb-b5db-e5eb0a957b1b" CreationDate="2018-12-06T19:36:34.863" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|history|place-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7661" RevisionGUID="79e9234e-d984-4b70-ba75-9bb6ad624c0e" CreationDate="2018-12-06T20:19:10.270" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 179 characters in body" Text="There are two main ways to do this. One is the earlier usage, from Classical Latin, and the other is the later usage, from Vulgar Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You actually provided an example of both!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ecclesia Cathedralis Nostrae Dominae de Immaculatae Conceptionis*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cathedral **of** Our Lady **of** the Immaculate Conception&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The older/Classical way is to use the *genitive case*, a special ending on the possessor. &quot;Our Lady&quot; would normally be *nostra Domina*; &quot;of our Lady&quot; is *nostr**ae** Domin**ae***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The later/Vulgar way is to use the preposition *de*, which replaced the genitive case in the Romance languages—so it'll look familiar from Italian, Spanish, French, and so on. This isn't good Classical style (in Classical Latin, *de* means &quot;down from&quot; or &quot;concerning&quot;, not &quot;of&quot;) but it's very common in later Latin. In fact, your example actually uses both together: *immaculatae conceptionis* is in the genitive, *and* it's preceded by *de*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a classicist, I prefer the genitive, and I believe the Vatican does as well. Thus, the Church of the Virgin Mary would be ***Ecclesia Virginis Mariae***. Similarly, your other examples would be *Conventus Virginis Beatae*, and *Conventus Sancti Jo[h]annis*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7663" RevisionGUID="e6c0d77a-fc7e-4eff-aa8f-91085062a6cb" CreationDate="2018-12-06T21:18:17.200" UserId="3178" Text="Does the present analysis of sentences to &quot;clauses&quot; (subordinate, etc.) has any roots/relatives in the classic grammar books (in _Ars grammatica_ books, etc.)? I would be tankful of any hints or references." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25759" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7663" RevisionGUID="e6c0d77a-fc7e-4eff-aa8f-91085062a6cb" CreationDate="2018-12-06T21:18:17.200" UserId="3178" Text="History of grammatical term &quot;Clause&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25760" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7663" RevisionGUID="e6c0d77a-fc7e-4eff-aa8f-91085062a6cb" CreationDate="2018-12-06T21:18:17.200" UserId="3178" Text="|grammarians|clauses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7663" RevisionGUID="99c0627a-7ef2-4e45-94d5-d323d464039b" CreationDate="2018-12-06T21:28:55.433" UserId="3178" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Does the present analysis of sentences to &quot;clauses&quot; (subordinate, etc.) has any roots/relatives in the classic grammar books (in _Ars grammatica_ books, etc.)? I would be tankful for any hints or references." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7664" RevisionGUID="b6ceff28-b814-4333-b183-a81621f83d72" CreationDate="2018-12-06T21:47:29.387" UserId="3179" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Πιστεύω καὶ ὀμολογῶ καὶ προσκυνῶ σοι&#xD;&#xA;Πάτερ, Υἰέ καὶ Θεῖον Πνεῦμα, ἄκτιστος καὶ ἀθάνατος φύσις,&#xD;&#xA;ἠ πλάσασα Ἀγγέλους τε καὶ ἀνθρώπους καὶ ποιήσασα τὰ πάντα.&#xD;&#xA;Ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Πιστεύω καὶ ὁμολογῶ καὶ προσκυνῶ&#xD;&#xA;σοι ἀδιαίρετον φῶς, Ἁγία Τριάς,&#xD;&#xA;εἷς Θεός ὁ ποιήσας τὸ φῶς καὶ διώξας τὸ σκότος,&#xD;&#xA;φώτισον τὴν ταπεινήν μου ψυχήν,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἀποσκέδασον τῆς ἀγνοίας τὸ σκότος καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ νῦν μέ ἐν τῇ ὤρᾳ ταύτῃ τὴν τῆς αὐγῆς σου ἀκτῖνα&#xD;&#xA;τῷ τῆς διανοίας μου γνόφῳ ἐγχέων,&#xD;&#xA;αξίωσον, ἵνα ἀρεστάς σοι εὔξωμαι προσευχάς,&#xD;&#xA;δέξαι οὖν, φιλάνθρωπε, τὰς δεήσες τοῦ δούλου οου.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον με τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἐπουράνιε Θεέ, Πάτερ παντοκράτωρ,&#xD;&#xA;ό πέμψας τὸν ἀγαπητόν σου Υἱόν,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα τὸ πλανηθέν πρόβατον ἀναλάβῃ τοῖς ὤμοις εὔρών,&#xD;&#xA;ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ ἐνώπιόν σου, δέξαι με, Πάτερ,&#xD;&#xA;ὡς τὸν ἄσωτον Υἱόν, ἀξίωσον με τῆς πρώτης στολῆς,&#xD;&#xA;ἧς ἐστερήθην διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Υἱὲ καὶ Λόγε τοῦ Θεοῦ, Θεὸς ἀληθής,&#xD;&#xA;ό ἐκ τῶν Πατρικῶν κόλπων κατελθών διὰ τήν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν,&#xD;&#xA;ό σαρκωθείς ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσας, σταυρωθείς τε καὶ παθών,&#xD;&#xA;ταφεὶς δε καὶ ἀναστάς ἐκ νεκρῶν τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρα,&#xD;&#xA;ἀνελθών τε εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς,&#xD;&#xA;ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ ἐνώπιον σου,&#xD;&#xA;μνήσθητί μου ὥς τοῦ ληστοῦ, ὅταν ἔλθης ἐν τῇ Βασιλείᾳ σου.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Πνεῦμα Ἄγιον, Θεὸς ἀληθής,&#xD;&#xA;τό καταβάν εἰς τὸν Ιορδάνην καὶ εἰς τὸ Ὑπερῷον,&#xD;&#xA;τό φωτίσαν μέ τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ Βαπτίσματος,&#xD;&#xA;ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ ἐνώπιον σου,&#xD;&#xA;καθάρισον με πάλιν τῷ πυρί σου τῷ Θείῳ,&#xD;&#xA;ὡς ἐν πύριναις γλώσσαις τοὺς Ἀποστόλους ἐκαθάρισάς ποτε.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἥμαρτον ἐνώπιον σου, ἅκτιστέ Φύσις,&#xD;&#xA;λόγῳ, ἔργῳ καὶ διανοίᾳ,&#xD;&#xA;μὴ μνησθῇς Κύριε, διὰ τὸ Ὄνομά σου τὸ Ἅγιον&#xD;&#xA;τῶν προτέρων μου παραπτωμάτων.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὁ πανταχοῦ παρὼν καὶ τὰ πάντα θεωρῶν, Κύριε,&#xD;&#xA;ἐνώπιόν σου ἥμαρτον λόγῳ, ἔργῳ καὶ διανοίᾳ,&#xD;&#xA;ἐξάλειψον τῶν ἀμαρτιῶν μου τὸ χειρόγραφον,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ γράψον τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τής ζωῆς.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὁ ἐξετάζων καρδίας καὶ νεφρούς, Κύριε,&#xD;&#xA;ἥμαρτον εἰς σὲ ἐκουσίως καὶ ἀκουσίως, εἰδώς τε καὶ μὴ εἰδώς,&#xD;&#xA;δὸς μοι τῷ ἀθλίῳ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν μου τὴν ἄφεσιν,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ γάρ ἐξ οὗ τοῦ λουτροῦ τὴς παλιγγενεσίας τετύχηκα μέχρι τοῦ νῦν,&#xD;&#xA;πᾶν κακόν ἔπραξα, πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησα,&#xD;&#xA;πᾶσάν μου αἴσθησιν καὶ πᾶν μέλος μιάνας.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὁ μόνος καθαρός καὶ ἀκήρατος Κύριος,&#xD;&#xA;θοῦ φυλακήν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς μου τὸν φόβον σου τὸν ἅγιον,&#xD;&#xA;εἰς ἀποτροπήν πάσης ἀπρεποῦς θέας&#xD;&#xA;καὶ περιέργου καὶ ἀχαλινώτου ὁράσεως,&#xD;&#xA;τοῖς ὠσί μου, μὴ ἀκούειν λόγου πονηροῦ καὶ ἀκάθαρτου,&#xD;&#xA;τῷ στόματί μου καὶ τῇ γλώττῃ μου, εἰς τὸ μὴ ψεύδεσθαι,&#xD;&#xA;τῇ καρδίᾳ μου, εἰς τὸ μὴ διανοεῖσθαι κακόν,&#xD;&#xA;ταῖς χερσί μου, μὴ ἀδικεῖν ἀδικίαν,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ τοῖς ποσί μου, μὴ ὁδεύειν ὁδόν ἄδικον,&#xD;&#xA;ἀλλ’ εἴθυνον τὰ διαβήματά μου, ἵνα ποιῶ τὰ προστάγματά σου.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ζῶν πῦρ,&#xD;&#xA;ἄναψον κἀμοὶ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου τὸ πῦρ τῆς Θείας σου ἀγάπης,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα καθαρίσῃ τήν εῤῤυπωμένην μου ψυχήν,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα εξαλείψῃ τοῦ σώματος μου τὰ ἁμαρτήματα,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα ἅψῃ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου τὸ φῶς τῆς σῆς ἐλλάμψεως.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ἡ Σοφία τοῦ Πατρός,&#xD;&#xA;δὸς μοι τήν σοφίαν τοῦ φρονεῖν λαλεῖν τε&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ποιεῖν πὰ ἀγαθά ἐνῶπιόν σου διὰ παντός,&#xD;&#xA;ῥῦσαί με τῶν παραπτωμάτων, ἔργου, λόγου, ἤ διανοίας.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἀγαθοδέκτα Κύριε, ὁ τέλειῶν τήν πάντων βουλὴν,&#xD;&#xA;μὴ με παραιτήσῃς βαδίζειν κατ’ ἐμὴν ἐπιθυμίαν,&#xD;&#xA;ἀλλ’ όδήγησον κατὰ τὸ σόν θέλημα τὸ ἅγιον.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἐπουράνιε Βασιλεῦ, ἀξίωσόν με τῆς σῆς Βασιλείας,&#xD;&#xA;ἥν ὑπέσχου τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς, δὸς ἰσχύν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου&#xD;&#xA;διὰ μίσους ἔχειν τὰ ἁμαρτήματα,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ μόνον σέ φιλεῖν, ποιεῖν τε τὸ σὸν θέλημα.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Φύλαξόν μου Κύριε τήν ψυχήν καὶ τὸ σῶμα,&#xD;&#xA;τοῦ ζωοποιοῦ σου Σταυροῦ τῷ σημείῳ,&#xD;&#xA;ἐκ τής ἀπάτης τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ πονηρῶν πειρασμῶν,&#xD;&#xA;ἐξ ἀνθρώπου ἀδίκου, καὶ παντός κινδύνου ψυχῆς τε καὶ σώματος.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἠ δεξιά σου, Χριστέ, ἐπισκιασάτω μοι ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός&#xD;&#xA;ἐν τῷ οἰκουρεῖν με, ὁδοιπορεῖν, καθεύδειν, τε,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀγρυπνεῖν, ἵνα μὴ κλονηθῶ.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Κύριε καὶ Θεέ μου, ὁ ἀνοίγων τήν χεῖρα σου&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμπληρῶν τὰ σύμπαντα χρηστότητος,&#xD;&#xA;εἰς χεῖρας σου παρατίθημι τὴν ψυχήν μου,&#xD;&#xA;Σὺ παρασκεύασον αὐτῇ πᾶν ἀγαθόν&#xD;&#xA;νῦν τε καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι αἰῶνι.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὁ τοὺς πεπλανημένους ἀναστρέφων,&#xD;&#xA;Κύριε, ἀνάστρεψον κἀμὲ ἐκ φαύλης εἰς καλὴν συνήθειαν,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ διατύπωσον ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου τὴν φρικτήν ἡμέραν τοῦ θανάτου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ τὸν φόβον τής γεέννης, καὶ τῆς σῆς Βασιλείας τὸν ἔρωτα,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα μετανοήσας πράξω τί ἀγαθόν.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὤ πηγή τῆς ἀθανασίας, ἄντλησον ἐκ τὴς καρδίας μου,&#xD;&#xA;ὡς ἐκ τῆς μοιχαλίδος ποτὲ, δάκρυα μετανοίας,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα λούσω τὰ ἁμαρτήματά μου πρὶν ἄν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐξέλθω.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Οἰκτίρμων καὶ πολυεύσπλαγχνε Κύριε,&#xD;&#xA;ἀξίωσὸν με ἀκατακρίτως σοι προσελθεῖν,&#xD;&#xA;τῇ Μεταλήψει τῶν θείων καὶ ἐνδόξων&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἀχράντων καὶ ζωοποιῶν σου Μυστηρίων&#xD;&#xA;τοῦ ἁγίου σου σώματος καὶ τοῦ τιμίου σου αἵματος.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὁ μόνος ἀγαθός Κύριος, Ἀγγέλου με ἀγαθοῦ ἀξίωσον,&#xD;&#xA;ὅπως τὴν ψυχὴν μου λάβῃ μειδιῶντι προσώπῳ,&#xD;&#xA;ἡνίκα μέλλω ἀπαίρειν τῆς γῆς, καὶ φυγαδεύσῃ προθύμως&#xD;&#xA;τοὺς ζητοῦντας με συλλαβεῖν πικρούς ἐχθρούς.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Χριστέ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, τὴν ψυχὴν μου ἀξίωσον,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα ὄψηται ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς κλήσεως,&#xD;&#xA;τῆς δόξης σου τὸ ἀπρόσιτον φῶς,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἀνάπαυσον αὐτὴν ἐν δικαίων σκηναῖς τῇ ἐλπίδι τῶν ἀγαθῶν&#xD;&#xA;μέχρι τῆς φρικτής ἡμέρας τῆς Παρουσίας σου.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ω δικαστὰ Χριστὲ, ὅταν ἔλθης μετὰ δόξης τοῦ Πατρὸς&#xD;&#xA;κρῖναι ζώντας καὶ νεκροὺς, μὴ εἰσέλθης εἰς κρίσιν μετά τοῦ δούλου σου,&#xD;&#xA;ἀλλά ῥῦσαι με τοῦ αἰωνίου πυρός, ἀκούσω δέ τὴς πρός τοὺς δικαίους&#xD;&#xA;μακαρίας κλήσεως ἐν τῇ Βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Φιλάνθρωπε Κύριε, ἐλέησον πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντάς εἰς σὲ,&#xD;&#xA;τοὺς μισοῦντας καὶ ἀγαπῶντας με, οἰκείους, καὶ ἀλλοτρίους,&#xD;&#xA;ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς, χάρισαι τοῖς ἐχθροῖς μου καὶ τοῖς διώκουσι με&#xD;&#xA;ἄφεσιν τῶν ἑαυτῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ ἐπίστρεψον αὐτούς&#xD;&#xA;ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν κακῶν, ὧν εἰς ἐμὲ ἐβουλεύσαντο,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα κὰυτοι ἄξιοι γένωνται τοῦ ἐλέους σου.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Πρόσδεξαι Κύριε, τὰς δεήσεις τοῦ δούλου σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐπάκουσον μου τοῦ σοῦ ἱκέτου,&#xD;&#xA;Πρεσβείαις τῆς παναχράντου δεσποίνης ἡμῶν&#xD;&#xA;Θεοτόκου καὶ Ἀειπαρθένου Μαρίας,&#xD;&#xA;τοῦ τιμίου ἐνδόξου προφήτου προδρόμου καὶ Βαπτιστοῦ Ἰωάννου,&#xD;&#xA;τοῦ Ἁγίου πρωτομάρτυρος καὶ ἀρχιδιακόνου Στεφάνου,&#xD;&#xA;τοῦ ἐν Ἁγίοις Πατρὸς ἡμῶν Γρηγορίου&#xD;&#xA;Πατριάρχου τής Μεγάλης Ἀρμενίας, τοῦ φωτίσαντος ἡμᾶς,&#xD;&#xA;τῶν Ἁγιων ἐνδόξων καὶ πανευφήμων Ἀποστόλων,&#xD;&#xA;Προφητών, Διδασκάλων, Μαρτύρων,&#xD;&#xA;Πατριαρχών, Ἀναχωρητών, Παρθένων,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ πάντων τῶν Ἁγίων τῶν ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐν γῇ.&#xD;&#xA;Σοί γὰρ πρέπει πᾶσα δόξα, τιμὴ, καὶ προσκύνησις&#xD;&#xA;σὺν τῷ ἀνάρχῳ σου Πατρὶ&#xD;&#xA;καὶ τῷ παναγίῳ καὶ ἀγαθῷ καὶ ζωοποιῷ σου Πνεύματι,&#xD;&#xA;νῦν καὶ ἀεί καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰῶνων. Ἀμήν." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7664" RevisionGUID="b6ceff28-b814-4333-b183-a81621f83d72" CreationDate="2018-12-06T21:47:29.387" UserId="3179" Text="Can you please translate these prayers from Koine Greek to English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25764" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7664" RevisionGUID="b6ceff28-b814-4333-b183-a81621f83d72" CreationDate="2018-12-06T21:47:29.387" UserId="3179" Text="|greek|translation|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7664" RevisionGUID="d529a9ce-0de7-40c7-804b-acc6a551a741" CreationDate="2018-12-06T22:04:36.010" UserId="3179" Comment="improved formatting" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Πιστεύω καὶ ὀμολογῶ καὶ προσκυνῶ σοι&#xD;&#xA;Πάτερ, Υἰέ καὶ Θεῖον Πνεῦμα, ἄκτιστος καὶ ἀθάνατος φύσις,&#xD;&#xA;ἠ πλάσασα Ἀγγέλους τε καὶ ἀνθρώπους καὶ ποιήσασα τὰ πάντα.&#xD;&#xA;Ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I confess with faith and worship you,&#xD;&#xA;Father, Son and Holy Spirit,&#xD;&#xA;uncreated and immortal Essence,&#xD;&#xA;creator of angels, humans and of all that exists.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Πιστεύω καὶ ὁμολογῶ καὶ προσκυνῶ&#xD;&#xA;σοι ἀδιαίρετον φῶς, Ἁγία Τριάς,&#xD;&#xA;εἷς Θεός ὁ ποιήσας τὸ φῶς καὶ διώξας τὸ σκότος,&#xD;&#xA;φώτισον τὴν ταπεινήν μου ψυχήν,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἀποσκέδασον τῆς ἀγνοίας τὸ σκότος καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ νῦν μέ ἐν τῇ ὤρᾳ ταύτῃ τὴν τῆς αὐγῆς σου ἀκτῖνα&#xD;&#xA;τῷ τῆς διανοίας μου γνόφῳ ἐγχέων,&#xD;&#xA;αξίωσον, ἵνα ἀρεστάς σοι εὔξωμαι προσευχάς,&#xD;&#xA;δέξαι οὖν, φιλάνθρωπε, τὰς δεήσες τοῦ δούλου οου.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον με τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I confess with faith and worship you,&#xD;&#xA;O Indivisible Light,&#xD;&#xA;unified Holy Trinity and one Godhead;&#xD;&#xA;creator of light and dispeller of darkness,&#xD;&#xA;dispel from my soul the darkness of sin and ignorance,&#xD;&#xA;and enlighten my mind at this moment,&#xD;&#xA;so that I may pray to you according to your will,&#xD;&#xA;and receive from you the fulfillment of my requests.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἐπουράνιε Θεέ, Πάτερ παντοκράτωρ,&#xD;&#xA;ό πέμψας τὸν ἀγαπητόν σου Υἱόν,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα τὸ πλανηθέν πρόβατον ἀναλάβῃ τοῖς ὤμοις εὔρών,&#xD;&#xA;ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ ἐνώπιόν σου, δέξαι με, Πάτερ,&#xD;&#xA;ὡς τὸν ἄσωτον Υἱόν, ἀξίωσον με τῆς πρώτης στολῆς,&#xD;&#xA;ἧς ἐστερήθην διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heavenly Father, true God,&#xD;&#xA;who sent your beloved Son to seek the lost sheep.&#xD;&#xA;I have sinned against heaven and before you;&#xD;&#xA;receive me as the prodigal son,&#xD;&#xA;and clothe me with my former garment,&#xD;&#xA;of which I was deprived by sin.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Υἱὲ καὶ Λόγε τοῦ Θεοῦ, Θεὸς ἀληθής,&#xD;&#xA;ό ἐκ τῶν Πατρικῶν κόλπων κατελθών διὰ τήν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν,&#xD;&#xA;ό σαρκωθείς ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσας, σταυρωθείς τε καὶ παθών,&#xD;&#xA;ταφεὶς δε καὶ ἀναστάς ἐκ νεκρῶν τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρα,&#xD;&#xA;ἀνελθών τε εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς,&#xD;&#xA;ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ ἐνώπιον σου,&#xD;&#xA;μνήσθητί μου ὥς τοῦ ληστοῦ, ὅταν ἔλθης ἐν τῇ Βασιλείᾳ σου.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Son of God, true God,&#xD;&#xA;who descended from the bosom of the Father,&#xD;&#xA;and took on flesh from the holy Virgin Mary for our salvation;&#xD;&#xA;crucified, buried, and raised from the dead,&#xD;&#xA;ascended in glory to the Father;&#xD;&#xA;I have sinned against heaven and before you;&#xD;&#xA;remember me like the penitent thief&#xD;&#xA;when you come into your kingdom.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Πνεῦμα Ἄγιον, Θεὸς ἀληθής,&#xD;&#xA;τό καταβάν εἰς τὸν Ιορδάνην καὶ εἰς τὸ Ὑπερῷον,&#xD;&#xA;τό φωτίσαν μέ τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ Βαπτίσματος,&#xD;&#xA;ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ ἐνώπιον σου,&#xD;&#xA;καθάρισον με πάλιν τῷ πυρί σου τῷ Θείῳ,&#xD;&#xA;ὡς ἐν πύριναις γλώσσαις τοὺς Ἀποστόλους ἐκαθάρισάς ποτε.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spirit of God, true God,&#xD;&#xA;who descended on the river Jordan,&#xD;&#xA;and into the Upper Room;&#xD;&#xA;who enlightened me by the baptism of the Holy Font,&#xD;&#xA;I have sinned against heaven and before you.&#xD;&#xA;Purify me again with your divine fire,&#xD;&#xA;as the fiery tongues purified the Holy Apostles.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἥμαρτον ἐνώπιον σου, ἅκτιστέ Φύσις,&#xD;&#xA;λόγῳ, ἔργῳ καὶ διανοίᾳ,&#xD;&#xA;μὴ μνησθῇς Κύριε, διὰ τὸ Ὄνομά σου τὸ Ἅγιον&#xD;&#xA;τῶν προτέρων μου παραπτωμάτων.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uncreated Essence, I have sinned against you,&#xD;&#xA;with my mind, with my soul and with my body,&#xD;&#xA;remember not my former sins&#xD;&#xA;for the sake of your Holy Name.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὁ πανταχοῦ παρὼν καὶ τὰ πάντα θεωρῶν, Κύριε,&#xD;&#xA;ἐνώπιόν σου ἥμαρτον λόγῳ, ἔργῳ καὶ διανοίᾳ,&#xD;&#xA;ἐξάλειψον τῶν ἀμαρτιῶν μου τὸ χειρόγραφον,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ γράψον τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τής ζωῆς.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beholder of all, I have sinned against you,&#xD;&#xA;in thought, word and deed;&#xD;&#xA;erase the record of my transgressions,&#xD;&#xA;and write my name in the book of Life.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὁ ἐξετάζων καρδίας καὶ νεφρούς, Κύριε,&#xD;&#xA;ἥμαρτον εἰς σὲ ἐκουσίως καὶ ἀκουσίως, εἰδώς τε καὶ μὴ εἰδώς,&#xD;&#xA;δὸς μοι τῷ ἀθλίῳ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν μου τὴν ἄφεσιν,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ γάρ ἐξ οὗ τοῦ λουτροῦ τὴς παλιγγενεσίας τετύχηκα μέχρι τοῦ νῦν,&#xD;&#xA;πᾶν κακόν ἔπραξα, πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησα,&#xD;&#xA;πᾶσάν μου αἴσθησιν καὶ πᾶν μέλος μιάνας.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O Searcher of secrets, I have sinned against you,&#xD;&#xA;willingly and inadvertently, knowingly and unknowingly.&#xD;&#xA;Grant forgiveness unto me a sinner;&#xD;&#xA;since from my birth through the holy baptism, until this day,&#xD;&#xA;I have sinned before you Lord,&#xD;&#xA;with all my senses and in all the members of my body.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὁ μόνος καθαρός καὶ ἀκήρατος Κύριος,&#xD;&#xA;θοῦ φυλακήν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς μου τὸν φόβον σου τὸν ἅγιον,&#xD;&#xA;εἰς ἀποτροπήν πάσης ἀπρεποῦς θέας&#xD;&#xA;καὶ περιέργου καὶ ἀχαλινώτου ὁράσεως,&#xD;&#xA;τοῖς ὠσί μου, μὴ ἀκούειν λόγου πονηροῦ καὶ ἀκάθαρτου,&#xD;&#xA;τῷ στόματί μου καὶ τῇ γλώττῃ μου, εἰς τὸ μὴ ψεύδεσθαι,&#xD;&#xA;τῇ καρδίᾳ μου, εἰς τὸ μὴ διανοεῖσθαι κακόν,&#xD;&#xA;ταῖς χερσί μου, μὴ ἀδικεῖν ἀδικίαν,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ τοῖς ποσί μου, μὴ ὁδεύειν ὁδόν ἄδικον,&#xD;&#xA;ἀλλ’ εἴθυνον τὰ διαβήματά μου, ἵνα ποιῶ τὰ προστάγματά σου.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All-provident Lord,&#xD;&#xA;place your holy awe as a guardian before my eyes,&#xD;&#xA;so that I may not look with askance;&#xD;&#xA;before my ears, not to delight in hearing evil discourses,&#xD;&#xA;before my mouth, not to speak falsehood,&#xD;&#xA;before my heart, not to mediate wickedness,&#xD;&#xA;before my hands, not to commit injustice,&#xD;&#xA;before my feet, not to walk on the paths of iniquity;&#xD;&#xA;rather, guide always my motions,&#xD;&#xA;that they may be according to all your commandments.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ζῶν πῦρ,&#xD;&#xA;ἄναψον κἀμοὶ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου τὸ πῦρ τῆς Θείας σου ἀγάπης,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα καθαρίσῃ τήν εῤῤυπωμένην μου ψυχήν,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα εξαλείψῃ τοῦ σώματος μου τὰ ἁμαρτήματα,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα ἅψῃ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου τὸ φῶς τῆς σῆς ἐλλάμψεως.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O Christ, the quickening fire,&#xD;&#xA;inflame my soul with the fire of your love&#xD;&#xA;that you dispersed over the earth,&#xD;&#xA;so that it may consume the stains of my soul;&#xD;&#xA;cleanse my conscience and my mind,&#xD;&#xA;purify my body from sin,&#xD;&#xA;and kindle the light of your knowledge in my heart.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ἡ Σοφία τοῦ Πατρός,&#xD;&#xA;δὸς μοι τήν σοφίαν τοῦ φρονεῖν λαλεῖν τε&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ποιεῖν πὰ ἀγαθά ἐνῶπιόν σου διὰ παντός,&#xD;&#xA;ῥῦσαί με τῶν παραπτωμάτων, ἔργου, λόγου, ἤ διανοίας.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O Jesus, wisdom of the Father,&#xD;&#xA;grant me the wisdom that I may always&#xD;&#xA;think, speak, and do what is good in your sight.&#xD;&#xA;deliver me from evil thoughts, words and deeds.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἀγαθοδέκτα Κύριε, ὁ τέλειῶν τήν πάντων βουλὴν,&#xD;&#xA;μὴ με παραιτήσῃς βαδίζειν κατ’ ἐμὴν ἐπιθυμίαν,&#xD;&#xA;ἀλλ’ όδήγησον κατὰ τὸ σόν θέλημα τὸ ἅγιον.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Benevolent Lord, your will encompasses all that is good,&#xD;&#xA;you are the director of the will.&#xD;&#xA;Do not let me follow the inclinations of my heart;&#xD;&#xA;rather, guide me to always walk according to your good pleasure.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἐπουράνιε Βασιλεῦ, ἀξίωσόν με τῆς σῆς Βασιλείας,&#xD;&#xA;ἥν ὑπέσχου τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς, δὸς ἰσχύν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου&#xD;&#xA;διὰ μίσους ἔχειν τὰ ἁμαρτήματα,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ μόνον σέ φιλεῖν, ποιεῖν τε τὸ σὸν θέλημα.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heavenly King, grant me your kingdom&#xD;&#xA;which was promised to your beloved,&#xD;&#xA;and strengthen my heart to hate sin,&#xD;&#xA;and to love only you, and to do your will.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Φύλαξόν μου Κύριε τήν ψυχήν καὶ τὸ σῶμα,&#xD;&#xA;τοῦ ζωοποιοῦ σου Σταυροῦ τῷ σημείῳ,&#xD;&#xA;ἐκ τής ἀπάτης τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ πονηρῶν πειρασμῶν,&#xD;&#xA;ἐξ ἀνθρώπου ἀδίκου, καὶ παντός κινδύνου ψυχῆς τε καὶ σώματος.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upholder of all creatures,&#xD;&#xA;preserve by the sign of your cross,&#xD;&#xA;my soul and body, from the allurements of sin,&#xD;&#xA;from the temptation of evil, from unjust people,&#xD;&#xA;and from all dangers physical and spiritual.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἠ δεξιά σου, Χριστέ, ἐπισκιασάτω μοι ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός&#xD;&#xA;ἐν τῷ οἰκουρεῖν με, ὁδοιπορεῖν, καθεύδειν, τε,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀγρυπνεῖν, ἵνα μὴ κλονηθῶ.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O Christ, guardian of all,&#xD;&#xA;may your right hand guard and shelter me, day and night;&#xD;&#xA;while at home and while traveling;&#xD;&#xA;while I am sleeping and while I am awake,&#xD;&#xA;so that I may never falter.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Κύριε καὶ Θεέ μου, ὁ ἀνοίγων τήν χεῖρα σου&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμπληρῶν τὰ σύμπαντα χρηστότητος,&#xD;&#xA;εἰς χεῖρας σου παρατίθημι τὴν ψυχήν μου,&#xD;&#xA;Σὺ παρασκεύασον αὐτῇ πᾶν ἀγαθόν&#xD;&#xA;νῦν τε καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι αἰῶνι.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My God, inside your open hand&#xD;&#xA;the whole creation is filled with your bounty.&#xD;&#xA;Unto you I commit my being; take care of me&#xD;&#xA;and provide the needful for my soul and body,&#xD;&#xA;from this time forth for evermore.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὁ τοὺς πεπλανημένους ἀναστρέφων,&#xD;&#xA;Κύριε, ἀνάστρεψον κἀμὲ ἐκ φαύλης εἰς καλὴν συνήθειαν,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ διατύπωσον ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου τὴν φρικτήν ἡμέραν τοῦ θανάτου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ τὸν φόβον τής γεέννης, καὶ τῆς σῆς Βασιλείας τὸν ἔρωτα,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα μετανοήσας πράξω τί ἀγαθόν.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finder of the lost,&#xD;&#xA;turn me away from my evil habits to good ones;&#xD;&#xA;and imprint on my soul the dreadful day of death,&#xD;&#xA;the fear of eternal punishment,&#xD;&#xA;and the love of your kingdom,&#xD;&#xA;so that I may repent of my sins,&#xD;&#xA;and I may follow the path of righteousness.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὤ πηγή τῆς ἀθανασίας, ἄντλησον ἐκ τὴς καρδίας μου,&#xD;&#xA;ὡς ἐκ τῆς μοιχαλίδος ποτὲ, δάκρυα μετανοίας,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα λούσω τὰ ἁμαρτήματά μου πρὶν ἄν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐξέλθω.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fountain of immortality,&#xD;&#xA;cause the tears of repentance to flow from my heart,&#xD;&#xA;like those of Mary Magdalene,&#xD;&#xA;so that, before I depart this world,&#xD;&#xA;I may wash away the sins of my soul.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Οἰκτίρμων καὶ πολυεύσπλαγχνε Κύριε,&#xD;&#xA;ἀξίωσὸν με ἀκατακρίτως σοι προσελθεῖν,&#xD;&#xA;τῇ Μεταλήψει τῶν θείων καὶ ἐνδόξων&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἀχράντων καὶ ζωοποιῶν σου Μυστηρίων&#xD;&#xA;τοῦ ἁγίου σου σώματος καὶ τοῦ τιμίου σου αἵματος.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grantor of mercy,&#xD;&#xA;grant that I may come to you&#xD;&#xA;with true faith, with good works,&#xD;&#xA;and the communion of your Holy Body and Blood.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὁ μόνος ἀγαθός Κύριος, Ἀγγέλου με ἀγαθοῦ ἀξίωσον,&#xD;&#xA;ὅπως τὴν ψυχὴν μου λάβῃ μειδιῶντι προσώπῳ,&#xD;&#xA;ἡνίκα μέλλω ἀπαίρειν τῆς γῆς, καὶ φυγαδεύσῃ προθύμως&#xD;&#xA;τοὺς ζητοῦντας με συλλαβεῖν πικρούς ἐχθρούς.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Benevolent Lord,&#xD;&#xA;commit me to a good angel,&#xD;&#xA;who may deliver up my soul in peace,&#xD;&#xA;and convey it undisturbed&#xD;&#xA;through the malice of evil, to heavenly places.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Χριστέ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, τὴν ψυχὴν μου ἀξίωσον,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα ὄψηται ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς κλήσεως,&#xD;&#xA;τῆς δόξης σου τὸ ἀπρόσιτον φῶς,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἀνάπαυσον αὐτὴν ἐν δικαίων σκηναῖς τῇ ἐλπίδι τῶν ἀγαθῶν&#xD;&#xA;μέχρι τῆς φρικτής ἡμέρας τῆς Παρουσίας σου.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O Christ, the true Light,&#xD;&#xA;make my soul worthy to encounter with joy&#xD;&#xA;the light of your divine glory,&#xD;&#xA;on the day I will be called by you;&#xD;&#xA;and to rest in good hope,&#xD;&#xA;in the mansions of the righteous,&#xD;&#xA;until the great day of your coming.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ω δικαστὰ Χριστὲ, ὅταν ἔλθης μετὰ δόξης τοῦ Πατρὸς&#xD;&#xA;κρῖναι ζώντας καὶ νεκροὺς, μὴ εἰσέλθης εἰς κρίσιν μετά τοῦ δούλου σου,&#xD;&#xA;ἀλλά ῥῦσαι με τοῦ αἰωνίου πυρός, ἀκούσω δέ τὴς πρός τοὺς δικαίους&#xD;&#xA;μακαρίας κλήσεως ἐν τῇ Βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Righteous judge,&#xD;&#xA;when you come with the glory of the Father&#xD;&#xA;to judge the living and the dead,&#xD;&#xA;do not enter into judgement with your servant;&#xD;&#xA;but save me from the eternal fire,&#xD;&#xA;and make me worthy to hear&#xD;&#xA;the most blessed call of the righteous&#xD;&#xA;for those who will enter to your heavenly kingdom.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Φιλάνθρωπε Κύριε, ἐλέησον πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντάς εἰς σὲ,&#xD;&#xA;τοὺς μισοῦντας καὶ ἀγαπῶντας με, οἰκείους, καὶ ἀλλοτρίους,&#xD;&#xA;ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς, χάρισαι τοῖς ἐχθροῖς μου καὶ τοῖς διώκουσι με&#xD;&#xA;ἄφεσιν τῶν ἑαυτῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ ἐπίστρεψον αὐτούς&#xD;&#xA;ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν κακῶν, ὧν εἰς ἐμὲ ἐβουλεύσαντο,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα κὰυτοι ἄξιοι γένωνται τοῦ ἐλέους σου.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All-merciful Lord,&#xD;&#xA;have mercy on all those who believe in you;&#xD;&#xA;on my beloved ones, and on those who are strangers to me;&#xD;&#xA;on all those I know, and on those unknown to me;&#xD;&#xA;on the living and on the dead;&#xD;&#xA;even forgive my enemies, and those who hate me,&#xD;&#xA;forgive the trespasses they have committed against me;&#xD;&#xA;and relieve them from the malice they bear towards me,&#xD;&#xA;so that they become worthy of your mercy.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Πρόσδεξαι Κύριε, τὰς δεήσεις τοῦ δούλου σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐπάκουσον μου τοῦ σοῦ ἱκέτου,&#xD;&#xA;Πρεσβείαις τῆς παναχράντου δεσποίνης ἡμῶν&#xD;&#xA;Θεοτόκου καὶ Ἀειπαρθένου Μαρίας,&#xD;&#xA;τοῦ τιμίου ἐνδόξου προφήτου προδρόμου καὶ Βαπτιστοῦ Ἰωάννου,&#xD;&#xA;τοῦ Ἁγίου πρωτομάρτυρος καὶ ἀρχιδιακόνου Στεφάνου,&#xD;&#xA;τοῦ ἐν Ἁγίοις Πατρὸς ἡμῶν Γρηγορίου&#xD;&#xA;Πατριάρχου τής Μεγάλης Ἀρμενίας, τοῦ φωτίσαντος ἡμᾶς,&#xD;&#xA;τῶν Ἁγιων ἐνδόξων καὶ πανευφήμων Ἀποστόλων,&#xD;&#xA;Προφητών, Διδασκάλων, Μαρτύρων,&#xD;&#xA;Πατριαρχών, Ἀναχωρητών, Παρθένων,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ πάντων τῶν Ἁγίων τῶν ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐν γῇ.&#xD;&#xA;Σοί γὰρ πρέπει πᾶσα δόξα, τιμὴ, καὶ προσκύνησις&#xD;&#xA;σὺν τῷ ἀνάρχῳ σου Πατρὶ&#xD;&#xA;καὶ τῷ παναγίῳ καὶ ἀγαθῷ καὶ ζωοποιῷ σου Πνεύματι,&#xD;&#xA;νῦν καὶ ἀεί καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰῶνων. Ἀμήν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O glorious Lord, receive the prayers of your servant;&#xD;&#xA;and fulfill my requests that are deemed good.&#xD;&#xA;Through the intercession of the Holy Mother of God,&#xD;&#xA;and St. John the Baptist, and St. Stephen the first martyr,&#xD;&#xA;and St. Gregory our Illuminator, and the Holy Apostles,&#xD;&#xA;Prophets, Doctors of the Church,&#xD;&#xA;Martyrs, Patriarchs, Hermits, Virgins,&#xD;&#xA;and all your saints in heaven and on earth.&#xD;&#xA;Unto you, O indivisible Holy Trinity,&#xD;&#xA;be glory and worship, forever and ever. Amen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25766" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7664" RevisionGUID="d529a9ce-0de7-40c7-804b-acc6a551a741" CreationDate="2018-12-06T22:04:36.010" UserId="3179" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Can you please fix the mistakes in translating these prayers from Koine Greek to English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7664" RevisionGUID="981590d4-4ff5-4910-bd51-5274386b7a48" CreationDate="2018-12-06T22:48:25.387" UserId="3179" Comment="improved formatting" Text="I do not know nearly enough Koine Greek to point out what I am specifically unsure about. That said, I do know enough to see that the Greek and English texts do not quite line up in places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some background: These prayers were written in the 12th century by St. Nercess the Graceful in Classical Armenian. Sometime shortly later, they were translated into Koine Greek. Clearly the Koine Greek text is somewhat different from the Classical Armenian text on which the English translation is based though. So I am looking for the English text to be edited to match the Koine Greek text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Πιστεύω καὶ ὀμολογῶ καὶ προσκυνῶ σοι&#xD;&#xA;Πάτερ, Υἰέ καὶ Θεῖον Πνεῦμα, ἄκτιστος καὶ ἀθάνατος φύσις,&#xD;&#xA;ἠ πλάσασα Ἀγγέλους τε καὶ ἀνθρώπους καὶ ποιήσασα τὰ πάντα.&#xD;&#xA;Ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I confess with faith and worship you,&#xD;&#xA;Father, Son and Holy Spirit,&#xD;&#xA;uncreated and immortal Essence,&#xD;&#xA;creator of angels, humans and of all that exists.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Πιστεύω καὶ ὁμολογῶ καὶ προσκυνῶ&#xD;&#xA;σοι ἀδιαίρετον φῶς, Ἁγία Τριάς,&#xD;&#xA;εἷς Θεός ὁ ποιήσας τὸ φῶς καὶ διώξας τὸ σκότος,&#xD;&#xA;φώτισον τὴν ταπεινήν μου ψυχήν,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἀποσκέδασον τῆς ἀγνοίας τὸ σκότος καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ νῦν μέ ἐν τῇ ὤρᾳ ταύτῃ τὴν τῆς αὐγῆς σου ἀκτῖνα&#xD;&#xA;τῷ τῆς διανοίας μου γνόφῳ ἐγχέων,&#xD;&#xA;αξίωσον, ἵνα ἀρεστάς σοι εὔξωμαι προσευχάς,&#xD;&#xA;δέξαι οὖν, φιλάνθρωπε, τὰς δεήσες τοῦ δούλου οου.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον με τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I confess with faith and worship you,&#xD;&#xA;O Indivisible Light,&#xD;&#xA;unified Holy Trinity and one Godhead;&#xD;&#xA;creator of light and dispeller of darkness,&#xD;&#xA;dispel from my soul the darkness of sin and ignorance,&#xD;&#xA;and enlighten my mind at this moment,&#xD;&#xA;so that I may pray to you according to your will,&#xD;&#xA;and receive from you the fulfillment of my requests.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἐπουράνιε Θεέ, Πάτερ παντοκράτωρ,&#xD;&#xA;ό πέμψας τὸν ἀγαπητόν σου Υἱόν,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα τὸ πλανηθέν πρόβατον ἀναλάβῃ τοῖς ὤμοις εὔρών,&#xD;&#xA;ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ ἐνώπιόν σου, δέξαι με, Πάτερ,&#xD;&#xA;ὡς τὸν ἄσωτον Υἱόν, ἀξίωσον με τῆς πρώτης στολῆς,&#xD;&#xA;ἧς ἐστερήθην διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heavenly Father, true God,&#xD;&#xA;who sent your beloved Son to seek the lost sheep.&#xD;&#xA;I have sinned against heaven and before you;&#xD;&#xA;receive me as the prodigal son,&#xD;&#xA;and clothe me with my former garment,&#xD;&#xA;of which I was deprived by sin.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Υἱὲ καὶ Λόγε τοῦ Θεοῦ, Θεὸς ἀληθής,&#xD;&#xA;ό ἐκ τῶν Πατρικῶν κόλπων κατελθών διὰ τήν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν,&#xD;&#xA;ό σαρκωθείς ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσας, σταυρωθείς τε καὶ παθών,&#xD;&#xA;ταφεὶς δε καὶ ἀναστάς ἐκ νεκρῶν τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρα,&#xD;&#xA;ἀνελθών τε εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς,&#xD;&#xA;ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ ἐνώπιον σου,&#xD;&#xA;μνήσθητί μου ὥς τοῦ ληστοῦ, ὅταν ἔλθης ἐν τῇ Βασιλείᾳ σου.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Son of God, true God,&#xD;&#xA;who descended from the bosom of the Father,&#xD;&#xA;and took on flesh from the holy Virgin Mary for our salvation;&#xD;&#xA;crucified, buried, and raised from the dead,&#xD;&#xA;ascended in glory to the Father;&#xD;&#xA;I have sinned against heaven and before you;&#xD;&#xA;remember me like the penitent thief&#xD;&#xA;when you come into your kingdom.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Πνεῦμα Ἄγιον, Θεὸς ἀληθής,&#xD;&#xA;τό καταβάν εἰς τὸν Ιορδάνην καὶ εἰς τὸ Ὑπερῷον,&#xD;&#xA;τό φωτίσαν μέ τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ Βαπτίσματος,&#xD;&#xA;ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ ἐνώπιον σου,&#xD;&#xA;καθάρισον με πάλιν τῷ πυρί σου τῷ Θείῳ,&#xD;&#xA;ὡς ἐν πύριναις γλώσσαις τοὺς Ἀποστόλους ἐκαθάρισάς ποτε.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spirit of God, true God,&#xD;&#xA;who descended on the river Jordan,&#xD;&#xA;and into the Upper Room;&#xD;&#xA;who enlightened me by the baptism of the Holy Font,&#xD;&#xA;I have sinned against heaven and before you.&#xD;&#xA;Purify me again with your divine fire,&#xD;&#xA;as the fiery tongues purified the Holy Apostles.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἥμαρτον ἐνώπιον σου, ἅκτιστέ Φύσις,&#xD;&#xA;λόγῳ, ἔργῳ καὶ διανοίᾳ,&#xD;&#xA;μὴ μνησθῇς Κύριε, διὰ τὸ Ὄνομά σου τὸ Ἅγιον&#xD;&#xA;τῶν προτέρων μου παραπτωμάτων.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uncreated Essence, I have sinned against you,&#xD;&#xA;with my mind, with my soul and with my body,&#xD;&#xA;remember not my former sins&#xD;&#xA;for the sake of your Holy Name.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὁ πανταχοῦ παρὼν καὶ τὰ πάντα θεωρῶν, Κύριε,&#xD;&#xA;ἐνώπιόν σου ἥμαρτον λόγῳ, ἔργῳ καὶ διανοίᾳ,&#xD;&#xA;ἐξάλειψον τῶν ἀμαρτιῶν μου τὸ χειρόγραφον,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ γράψον τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τής ζωῆς.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beholder of all, I have sinned against you,&#xD;&#xA;in thought, word and deed;&#xD;&#xA;erase the record of my transgressions,&#xD;&#xA;and write my name in the book of Life.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὁ ἐξετάζων καρδίας καὶ νεφρούς, Κύριε,&#xD;&#xA;ἥμαρτον εἰς σὲ ἐκουσίως καὶ ἀκουσίως, εἰδώς τε καὶ μὴ εἰδώς,&#xD;&#xA;δὸς μοι τῷ ἀθλίῳ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν μου τὴν ἄφεσιν,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ γάρ ἐξ οὗ τοῦ λουτροῦ τὴς παλιγγενεσίας τετύχηκα μέχρι τοῦ νῦν,&#xD;&#xA;πᾶν κακόν ἔπραξα, πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησα,&#xD;&#xA;πᾶσάν μου αἴσθησιν καὶ πᾶν μέλος μιάνας.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O Searcher of secrets, I have sinned against you,&#xD;&#xA;willingly and inadvertently, knowingly and unknowingly.&#xD;&#xA;Grant forgiveness unto me a sinner;&#xD;&#xA;since from my birth through the holy baptism, until this day,&#xD;&#xA;I have sinned before you Lord,&#xD;&#xA;with all my senses and in all the members of my body.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὁ μόνος καθαρός καὶ ἀκήρατος Κύριος,&#xD;&#xA;θοῦ φυλακήν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς μου τὸν φόβον σου τὸν ἅγιον,&#xD;&#xA;εἰς ἀποτροπήν πάσης ἀπρεποῦς θέας&#xD;&#xA;καὶ περιέργου καὶ ἀχαλινώτου ὁράσεως,&#xD;&#xA;τοῖς ὠσί μου, μὴ ἀκούειν λόγου πονηροῦ καὶ ἀκάθαρτου,&#xD;&#xA;τῷ στόματί μου καὶ τῇ γλώττῃ μου, εἰς τὸ μὴ ψεύδεσθαι,&#xD;&#xA;τῇ καρδίᾳ μου, εἰς τὸ μὴ διανοεῖσθαι κακόν,&#xD;&#xA;ταῖς χερσί μου, μὴ ἀδικεῖν ἀδικίαν,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ τοῖς ποσί μου, μὴ ὁδεύειν ὁδόν ἄδικον,&#xD;&#xA;ἀλλ’ εἴθυνον τὰ διαβήματά μου, ἵνα ποιῶ τὰ προστάγματά σου.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All-provident Lord,&#xD;&#xA;place your holy awe as a guardian before my eyes,&#xD;&#xA;so that I may not look with askance;&#xD;&#xA;before my ears, not to delight in hearing evil discourses,&#xD;&#xA;before my mouth, not to speak falsehood,&#xD;&#xA;before my heart, not to mediate wickedness,&#xD;&#xA;before my hands, not to commit injustice,&#xD;&#xA;before my feet, not to walk on the paths of iniquity;&#xD;&#xA;rather, guide always my motions,&#xD;&#xA;that they may be according to all your commandments.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ζῶν πῦρ,&#xD;&#xA;ἄναψον κἀμοὶ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου τὸ πῦρ τῆς Θείας σου ἀγάπης,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα καθαρίσῃ τήν εῤῤυπωμένην μου ψυχήν,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα εξαλείψῃ τοῦ σώματος μου τὰ ἁμαρτήματα,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα ἅψῃ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου τὸ φῶς τῆς σῆς ἐλλάμψεως.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O Christ, the quickening fire,&#xD;&#xA;inflame my soul with the fire of your love&#xD;&#xA;that you dispersed over the earth,&#xD;&#xA;so that it may consume the stains of my soul;&#xD;&#xA;cleanse my conscience and my mind,&#xD;&#xA;purify my body from sin,&#xD;&#xA;and kindle the light of your knowledge in my heart.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ἡ Σοφία τοῦ Πατρός,&#xD;&#xA;δὸς μοι τήν σοφίαν τοῦ φρονεῖν λαλεῖν τε&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ποιεῖν πὰ ἀγαθά ἐνῶπιόν σου διὰ παντός,&#xD;&#xA;ῥῦσαί με τῶν παραπτωμάτων, ἔργου, λόγου, ἤ διανοίας.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O Jesus, wisdom of the Father,&#xD;&#xA;grant me the wisdom that I may always&#xD;&#xA;think, speak, and do what is good in your sight.&#xD;&#xA;deliver me from evil thoughts, words and deeds.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἀγαθοδέκτα Κύριε, ὁ τέλειῶν τήν πάντων βουλὴν,&#xD;&#xA;μὴ με παραιτήσῃς βαδίζειν κατ’ ἐμὴν ἐπιθυμίαν,&#xD;&#xA;ἀλλ’ όδήγησον κατὰ τὸ σόν θέλημα τὸ ἅγιον.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Benevolent Lord, your will encompasses all that is good,&#xD;&#xA;you are the director of the will.&#xD;&#xA;Do not let me follow the inclinations of my heart;&#xD;&#xA;rather, guide me to always walk according to your good pleasure.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἐπουράνιε Βασιλεῦ, ἀξίωσόν με τῆς σῆς Βασιλείας,&#xD;&#xA;ἥν ὑπέσχου τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς, δὸς ἰσχύν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου&#xD;&#xA;διὰ μίσους ἔχειν τὰ ἁμαρτήματα,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ μόνον σέ φιλεῖν, ποιεῖν τε τὸ σὸν θέλημα.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heavenly King, grant me your kingdom&#xD;&#xA;which was promised to your beloved,&#xD;&#xA;and strengthen my heart to hate sin,&#xD;&#xA;and to love only you, and to do your will.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Φύλαξόν μου Κύριε τήν ψυχήν καὶ τὸ σῶμα,&#xD;&#xA;τοῦ ζωοποιοῦ σου Σταυροῦ τῷ σημείῳ,&#xD;&#xA;ἐκ τής ἀπάτης τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ πονηρῶν πειρασμῶν,&#xD;&#xA;ἐξ ἀνθρώπου ἀδίκου, καὶ παντός κινδύνου ψυχῆς τε καὶ σώματος.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upholder of all creatures,&#xD;&#xA;preserve by the sign of your cross,&#xD;&#xA;my soul and body, from the allurements of sin,&#xD;&#xA;from the temptation of evil, from unjust people,&#xD;&#xA;and from all dangers physical and spiritual.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἠ δεξιά σου, Χριστέ, ἐπισκιασάτω μοι ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός&#xD;&#xA;ἐν τῷ οἰκουρεῖν με, ὁδοιπορεῖν, καθεύδειν, τε,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀγρυπνεῖν, ἵνα μὴ κλονηθῶ.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O Christ, guardian of all,&#xD;&#xA;may your right hand guard and shelter me, day and night;&#xD;&#xA;while at home and while traveling;&#xD;&#xA;while I am sleeping and while I am awake,&#xD;&#xA;so that I may never falter.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Κύριε καὶ Θεέ μου, ὁ ἀνοίγων τήν χεῖρα σου&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμπληρῶν τὰ σύμπαντα χρηστότητος,&#xD;&#xA;εἰς χεῖρας σου παρατίθημι τὴν ψυχήν μου,&#xD;&#xA;Σὺ παρασκεύασον αὐτῇ πᾶν ἀγαθόν&#xD;&#xA;νῦν τε καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι αἰῶνι.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My God, inside your open hand&#xD;&#xA;the whole creation is filled with your bounty.&#xD;&#xA;Unto you I commit my being; take care of me&#xD;&#xA;and provide the needful for my soul and body,&#xD;&#xA;from this time forth for evermore.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὁ τοὺς πεπλανημένους ἀναστρέφων,&#xD;&#xA;Κύριε, ἀνάστρεψον κἀμὲ ἐκ φαύλης εἰς καλὴν συνήθειαν,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ διατύπωσον ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου τὴν φρικτήν ἡμέραν τοῦ θανάτου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ τὸν φόβον τής γεέννης, καὶ τῆς σῆς Βασιλείας τὸν ἔρωτα,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα μετανοήσας πράξω τί ἀγαθόν.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finder of the lost,&#xD;&#xA;turn me away from my evil habits to good ones;&#xD;&#xA;and imprint on my soul the dreadful day of death,&#xD;&#xA;the fear of eternal punishment,&#xD;&#xA;and the love of your kingdom,&#xD;&#xA;so that I may repent of my sins,&#xD;&#xA;and I may follow the path of righteousness.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὤ πηγή τῆς ἀθανασίας, ἄντλησον ἐκ τὴς καρδίας μου,&#xD;&#xA;ὡς ἐκ τῆς μοιχαλίδος ποτὲ, δάκρυα μετανοίας,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα λούσω τὰ ἁμαρτήματά μου πρὶν ἄν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐξέλθω.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fountain of immortality,&#xD;&#xA;cause the tears of repentance to flow from my heart,&#xD;&#xA;like those of Mary Magdalene,&#xD;&#xA;so that, before I depart this world,&#xD;&#xA;I may wash away the sins of my soul.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Οἰκτίρμων καὶ πολυεύσπλαγχνε Κύριε,&#xD;&#xA;ἀξίωσὸν με ἀκατακρίτως σοι προσελθεῖν,&#xD;&#xA;τῇ Μεταλήψει τῶν θείων καὶ ἐνδόξων&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἀχράντων καὶ ζωοποιῶν σου Μυστηρίων&#xD;&#xA;τοῦ ἁγίου σου σώματος καὶ τοῦ τιμίου σου αἵματος.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grantor of mercy,&#xD;&#xA;grant that I may come to you&#xD;&#xA;with true faith, with good works,&#xD;&#xA;and the communion of your Holy Body and Blood.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὁ μόνος ἀγαθός Κύριος, Ἀγγέλου με ἀγαθοῦ ἀξίωσον,&#xD;&#xA;ὅπως τὴν ψυχὴν μου λάβῃ μειδιῶντι προσώπῳ,&#xD;&#xA;ἡνίκα μέλλω ἀπαίρειν τῆς γῆς, καὶ φυγαδεύσῃ προθύμως&#xD;&#xA;τοὺς ζητοῦντας με συλλαβεῖν πικρούς ἐχθρούς.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Benevolent Lord,&#xD;&#xA;commit me to a good angel,&#xD;&#xA;who may deliver up my soul in peace,&#xD;&#xA;and convey it undisturbed&#xD;&#xA;through the malice of evil, to heavenly places.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Χριστέ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, τὴν ψυχὴν μου ἀξίωσον,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα ὄψηται ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς κλήσεως,&#xD;&#xA;τῆς δόξης σου τὸ ἀπρόσιτον φῶς,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἀνάπαυσον αὐτὴν ἐν δικαίων σκηναῖς τῇ ἐλπίδι τῶν ἀγαθῶν&#xD;&#xA;μέχρι τῆς φρικτής ἡμέρας τῆς Παρουσίας σου.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O Christ, the true Light,&#xD;&#xA;make my soul worthy to encounter with joy&#xD;&#xA;the light of your divine glory,&#xD;&#xA;on the day I will be called by you;&#xD;&#xA;and to rest in good hope,&#xD;&#xA;in the mansions of the righteous,&#xD;&#xA;until the great day of your coming.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ω δικαστὰ Χριστὲ, ὅταν ἔλθης μετὰ δόξης τοῦ Πατρὸς&#xD;&#xA;κρῖναι ζώντας καὶ νεκροὺς, μὴ εἰσέλθης εἰς κρίσιν μετά τοῦ δούλου σου,&#xD;&#xA;ἀλλά ῥῦσαι με τοῦ αἰωνίου πυρός, ἀκούσω δέ τὴς πρός τοὺς δικαίους&#xD;&#xA;μακαρίας κλήσεως ἐν τῇ Βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Righteous judge,&#xD;&#xA;when you come with the glory of the Father&#xD;&#xA;to judge the living and the dead,&#xD;&#xA;do not enter into judgement with your servant;&#xD;&#xA;but save me from the eternal fire,&#xD;&#xA;and make me worthy to hear&#xD;&#xA;the most blessed call of the righteous&#xD;&#xA;for those who will enter to your heavenly kingdom.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Φιλάνθρωπε Κύριε, ἐλέησον πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντάς εἰς σὲ,&#xD;&#xA;τοὺς μισοῦντας καὶ ἀγαπῶντας με, οἰκείους, καὶ ἀλλοτρίους,&#xD;&#xA;ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς, χάρισαι τοῖς ἐχθροῖς μου καὶ τοῖς διώκουσι με&#xD;&#xA;ἄφεσιν τῶν ἑαυτῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ ἐπίστρεψον αὐτούς&#xD;&#xA;ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν κακῶν, ὧν εἰς ἐμὲ ἐβουλεύσαντο,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα κὰυτοι ἄξιοι γένωνται τοῦ ἐλέους σου.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All-merciful Lord,&#xD;&#xA;have mercy on all those who believe in you;&#xD;&#xA;on my beloved ones, and on those who are strangers to me;&#xD;&#xA;on all those I know, and on those unknown to me;&#xD;&#xA;on the living and on the dead;&#xD;&#xA;even forgive my enemies, and those who hate me,&#xD;&#xA;forgive the trespasses they have committed against me;&#xD;&#xA;and relieve them from the malice they bear towards me,&#xD;&#xA;so that they become worthy of your mercy.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Πρόσδεξαι Κύριε, τὰς δεήσεις τοῦ δούλου σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐπάκουσον μου τοῦ σοῦ ἱκέτου,&#xD;&#xA;Πρεσβείαις τῆς παναχράντου δεσποίνης ἡμῶν&#xD;&#xA;Θεοτόκου καὶ Ἀειπαρθένου Μαρίας,&#xD;&#xA;τοῦ τιμίου ἐνδόξου προφήτου προδρόμου καὶ Βαπτιστοῦ Ἰωάννου,&#xD;&#xA;τοῦ Ἁγίου πρωτομάρτυρος καὶ ἀρχιδιακόνου Στεφάνου,&#xD;&#xA;τοῦ ἐν Ἁγίοις Πατρὸς ἡμῶν Γρηγορίου&#xD;&#xA;Πατριάρχου τής Μεγάλης Ἀρμενίας, τοῦ φωτίσαντος ἡμᾶς,&#xD;&#xA;τῶν Ἁγιων ἐνδόξων καὶ πανευφήμων Ἀποστόλων,&#xD;&#xA;Προφητών, Διδασκάλων, Μαρτύρων,&#xD;&#xA;Πατριαρχών, Ἀναχωρητών, Παρθένων,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ πάντων τῶν Ἁγίων τῶν ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐν γῇ.&#xD;&#xA;Σοί γὰρ πρέπει πᾶσα δόξα, τιμὴ, καὶ προσκύνησις&#xD;&#xA;σὺν τῷ ἀνάρχῳ σου Πατρὶ&#xD;&#xA;καὶ τῷ παναγίῳ καὶ ἀγαθῷ καὶ ζωοποιῷ σου Πνεύματι,&#xD;&#xA;νῦν καὶ ἀεί καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰῶνων. Ἀμήν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O glorious Lord, receive the prayers of your servant;&#xD;&#xA;and fulfill my requests that are deemed good.&#xD;&#xA;Through the intercession of the Holy Mother of God,&#xD;&#xA;and St. John the Baptist, and St. Stephen the first martyr,&#xD;&#xA;and St. Gregory our Illuminator, and the Holy Apostles,&#xD;&#xA;Prophets, Doctors of the Church,&#xD;&#xA;Martyrs, Patriarchs, Hermits, Virgins,&#xD;&#xA;and all your saints in heaven and on earth.&#xD;&#xA;Unto you, O indivisible Holy Trinity,&#xD;&#xA;be glory and worship, forever and ever. Amen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7664" RevisionGUID="d4d1abd2-eb82-4b03-b955-6b64ba061046" CreationDate="2018-12-06T23:20:44.123" UserId="3179" Comment="improved formatting" Text="I do not know nearly enough Koine Greek to point out what I am specifically unsure about. That said, I do know enough to see that the Greek and English texts do not quite line up in places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some background: These are 1 through 8 of 24 prayers that were written in the 12th century by St. Nercess the Graceful in Classical Armenian. Sometime shortly later, they were translated into Koine Greek. Clearly the Koine Greek text is somewhat different from the Classical Armenian text on which the English translation is based though. So I am looking for the English text to be edited to match the Koine Greek text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Πιστεύω καὶ ὀμολογῶ καὶ προσκυνῶ σοι&#xD;&#xA;Πάτερ, Υἰέ καὶ Θεῖον Πνεῦμα, ἄκτιστος καὶ ἀθάνατος φύσις,&#xD;&#xA;ἠ πλάσασα Ἀγγέλους τε καὶ ἀνθρώπους καὶ ποιήσασα τὰ πάντα.&#xD;&#xA;Ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I confess with faith and worship you,&#xD;&#xA;Father, Son and Holy Spirit,&#xD;&#xA;uncreated and immortal Essence,&#xD;&#xA;creator of angels, humans and of all that exists.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Πιστεύω καὶ ὁμολογῶ καὶ προσκυνῶ&#xD;&#xA;σοι ἀδιαίρετον φῶς, Ἁγία Τριάς,&#xD;&#xA;εἷς Θεός ὁ ποιήσας τὸ φῶς καὶ διώξας τὸ σκότος,&#xD;&#xA;φώτισον τὴν ταπεινήν μου ψυχήν,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἀποσκέδασον τῆς ἀγνοίας τὸ σκότος καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ νῦν μέ ἐν τῇ ὤρᾳ ταύτῃ τὴν τῆς αὐγῆς σου ἀκτῖνα&#xD;&#xA;τῷ τῆς διανοίας μου γνόφῳ ἐγχέων,&#xD;&#xA;αξίωσον, ἵνα ἀρεστάς σοι εὔξωμαι προσευχάς,&#xD;&#xA;δέξαι οὖν, φιλάνθρωπε, τὰς δεήσες τοῦ δούλου οου.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον με τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I confess with faith and worship you,&#xD;&#xA;O Indivisible Light,&#xD;&#xA;unified Holy Trinity and one Godhead;&#xD;&#xA;creator of light and dispeller of darkness,&#xD;&#xA;dispel from my soul the darkness of sin and ignorance,&#xD;&#xA;and enlighten my mind at this moment,&#xD;&#xA;so that I may pray to you according to your will,&#xD;&#xA;and receive from you the fulfillment of my requests.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἐπουράνιε Θεέ, Πάτερ παντοκράτωρ,&#xD;&#xA;ό πέμψας τὸν ἀγαπητόν σου Υἱόν,&#xD;&#xA;ἵνα τὸ πλανηθέν πρόβατον ἀναλάβῃ τοῖς ὤμοις εὔρών,&#xD;&#xA;ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ ἐνώπιόν σου, δέξαι με, Πάτερ,&#xD;&#xA;ὡς τὸν ἄσωτον Υἱόν, ἀξίωσον με τῆς πρώτης στολῆς,&#xD;&#xA;ἧς ἐστερήθην διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heavenly Father, true God,&#xD;&#xA;who sent your beloved Son to seek the lost sheep.&#xD;&#xA;I have sinned against heaven and before you;&#xD;&#xA;receive me as the prodigal son,&#xD;&#xA;and clothe me with my former garment,&#xD;&#xA;of which I was deprived by sin.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Υἱὲ καὶ Λόγε τοῦ Θεοῦ, Θεὸς ἀληθής,&#xD;&#xA;ό ἐκ τῶν Πατρικῶν κόλπων κατελθών διὰ τήν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν,&#xD;&#xA;ό σαρκωθείς ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσας, σταυρωθείς τε καὶ παθών,&#xD;&#xA;ταφεὶς δε καὶ ἀναστάς ἐκ νεκρῶν τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρα,&#xD;&#xA;ἀνελθών τε εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς,&#xD;&#xA;ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ ἐνώπιον σου,&#xD;&#xA;μνήσθητί μου ὥς τοῦ ληστοῦ, ὅταν ἔλθης ἐν τῇ Βασιλείᾳ σου.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Son of God, true God,&#xD;&#xA;who descended from the bosom of the Father,&#xD;&#xA;and took on flesh from the holy Virgin Mary for our salvation;&#xD;&#xA;crucified, buried, and raised from the dead,&#xD;&#xA;ascended in glory to the Father;&#xD;&#xA;I have sinned against heaven and before you;&#xD;&#xA;remember me like the penitent thief&#xD;&#xA;when you come into your kingdom.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Πνεῦμα Ἄγιον, Θεὸς ἀληθής,&#xD;&#xA;τό καταβάν εἰς τὸν Ιορδάνην καὶ εἰς τὸ Ὑπερῷον,&#xD;&#xA;τό φωτίσαν μέ τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ Βαπτίσματος,&#xD;&#xA;ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ ἐνώπιον σου,&#xD;&#xA;καθάρισον με πάλιν τῷ πυρί σου τῷ Θείῳ,&#xD;&#xA;ὡς ἐν πύριναις γλώσσαις τοὺς Ἀποστόλους ἐκαθάρισάς ποτε.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spirit of God, true God,&#xD;&#xA;who descended on the river Jordan,&#xD;&#xA;and into the Upper Room;&#xD;&#xA;who enlightened me by the baptism of the Holy Font,&#xD;&#xA;I have sinned against heaven and before you.&#xD;&#xA;Purify me again with your divine fire,&#xD;&#xA;as the fiery tongues purified the Holy Apostles.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἥμαρτον ἐνώπιον σου, ἅκτιστέ Φύσις,&#xD;&#xA;λόγῳ, ἔργῳ καὶ διανοίᾳ,&#xD;&#xA;μὴ μνησθῇς Κύριε, διὰ τὸ Ὄνομά σου τὸ Ἅγιον&#xD;&#xA;τῶν προτέρων μου παραπτωμάτων.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uncreated Essence, I have sinned against you,&#xD;&#xA;with my mind, with my soul and with my body,&#xD;&#xA;remember not my former sins&#xD;&#xA;for the sake of your Holy Name.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὁ πανταχοῦ παρὼν καὶ τὰ πάντα θεωρῶν, Κύριε,&#xD;&#xA;ἐνώπιόν σου ἥμαρτον λόγῳ, ἔργῳ καὶ διανοίᾳ,&#xD;&#xA;ἐξάλειψον τῶν ἀμαρτιῶν μου τὸ χειρόγραφον,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ γράψον τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τής ζωῆς.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beholder of all, I have sinned against you,&#xD;&#xA;in thought, word and deed;&#xD;&#xA;erase the record of my transgressions,&#xD;&#xA;and write my name in the book of Life.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὁ ἐξετάζων καρδίας καὶ νεφρούς, Κύριε,&#xD;&#xA;ἥμαρτον εἰς σὲ ἐκουσίως καὶ ἀκουσίως, εἰδώς τε καὶ μὴ εἰδώς,&#xD;&#xA;δὸς μοι τῷ ἀθλίῳ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν μου τὴν ἄφεσιν,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ γάρ ἐξ οὗ τοῦ λουτροῦ τὴς παλιγγενεσίας τετύχηκα μέχρι τοῦ νῦν,&#xD;&#xA;πᾶν κακόν ἔπραξα, πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησα,&#xD;&#xA;πᾶσάν μου αἴσθησιν καὶ πᾶν μέλος μιάνας.&#xD;&#xA;Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου,&#xD;&#xA;καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O Searcher of secrets, I have sinned against you,&#xD;&#xA;willingly and inadvertently, knowingly and unknowingly.&#xD;&#xA;Grant forgiveness unto me a sinner;&#xD;&#xA;since from my birth through the holy baptism, until this day,&#xD;&#xA;I have sinned before you Lord,&#xD;&#xA;with all my senses and in all the members of my body.&#xD;&#xA;Have mercy upon your creatures,&#xD;&#xA;and on me, a manifold sinner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25769" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7664" RevisionGUID="d4d1abd2-eb82-4b03-b955-6b64ba061046" CreationDate="2018-12-06T23:20:44.123" UserId="3179" Comment="improved formatting" Text="|greek|translation|translation-check|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25770" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7664" RevisionGUID="b5560c8c-fcc6-4cb5-9d1d-f17b74946b97" CreationDate="2018-12-06T23:26:20.587" UserId="3179" Comment="edited title" Text="Can you please fix the mistakes in translating these prayers from Koine Greek to English (Part 1 of 3)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7665" RevisionGUID="424f304e-ace2-40bf-8e4e-d4ffea97303e" CreationDate="2018-12-06T23:26:56.190" UserId="3179" Text="This is a continuation from [this question][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7664/can-you-please-fix-the-mistakes-in-translating-these-prayers-from-koine-greek-to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know nearly enough Koine Greek to point out what I am specifically unsure about. That said, I do know enough to see that the Greek and English texts do not quite line up in places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some background: These are 9 through 16 of 24 prayers that were written in the 12th century by St. Nercess the Graceful in Classical Armenian. Sometime shortly later, they were translated into Koine Greek. Clearly the Koine Greek text is somewhat different from the Classical Armenian text on which the English translation is based though. So I am looking for the English text to be edited to match the Koine Greek text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὁ μόνος καθαρός καὶ ἀκήρατος Κύριος, θοῦ φυλακήν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς μου τὸν φόβον σου τὸν ἅγιον, εἰς ἀποτροπήν πάσης ἀπρεποῦς θέας καὶ περιέργου καὶ ἀχαλινώτου ὁράσεως, τοῖς ὠσί μου, μὴ ἀκούειν λόγου πονηροῦ καὶ ἀκάθαρτου, τῷ στόματί μου καὶ τῇ γλώττῃ μου, εἰς τὸ μὴ ψεύδεσθαι, τῇ καρδίᾳ μου, εἰς τὸ μὴ διανοεῖσθαι κακόν, ταῖς χερσί μου, μὴ ἀδικεῖν ἀδικίαν, καὶ τοῖς ποσί μου, μὴ ὁδεύειν ὁδόν ἄδικον, ἀλλ’ εἴθυνον τὰ διαβήματά μου, ἵνα ποιῶ τὰ προστάγματά σου. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All-provident Lord, place your holy awe as a guardian before my eyes, so that I may not look with askance; before my ears, not to delight in hearing evil discourses, before my mouth, not to speak falsehood, before my heart, not to mediate wickedness, before my hands, not to commit injustice, before my feet, not to walk on the paths of iniquity; rather, guide always my motions, that they may be according to all your commandments. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ζῶν πῦρ, ἄναψον κἀμοὶ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου τὸ πῦρ τῆς Θείας σου ἀγάπης, ἵνα καθαρίσῃ τήν εῤῤυπωμένην μου ψυχήν, ἵνα εξαλείψῃ τοῦ σώματος μου τὰ ἁμαρτήματα, ἵνα ἅψῃ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου τὸ φῶς τῆς σῆς ἐλλάμψεως. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O Christ, the quickening fire, inflame my soul with the fire of your love that you dispersed over the earth, so that it may consume the stains of my soul; cleanse my conscience and my mind, purify my body from sin, and kindle the light of your knowledge in my heart. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ἡ Σοφία τοῦ Πατρός, δὸς μοι τήν σοφίαν τοῦ φρονεῖν λαλεῖν τε καὶ ποιεῖν πὰ ἀγαθά ἐνῶπιόν σου διὰ παντός, ῥῦσαί με τῶν παραπτωμάτων, ἔργου, λόγου, ἤ διανοίας. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O Jesus, wisdom of the Father, grant me the wisdom that I may always think, speak, and do what is good in your sight. deliver me from evil thoughts, words and deeds. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἀγαθοδέκτα Κύριε, ὁ τέλειῶν τήν πάντων βουλὴν, μὴ με παραιτήσῃς βαδίζειν κατ’ ἐμὴν ἐπιθυμίαν, ἀλλ’ όδήγησον κατὰ τὸ σόν θέλημα τὸ ἅγιον. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Benevolent Lord, your will encompasses all that is good, you are the director of the will. Do not let me follow the inclinations of my heart; rather, guide me to always walk according to your good pleasure. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἐπουράνιε Βασιλεῦ, ἀξίωσόν με τῆς σῆς Βασιλείας, ἥν ὑπέσχου τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς, δὸς ἰσχύν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου διὰ μίσους ἔχειν τὰ ἁμαρτήματα, καὶ μόνον σέ φιλεῖν, ποιεῖν τε τὸ σὸν θέλημα. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heavenly King, grant me your kingdom which was promised to your beloved, and strengthen my heart to hate sin, and to love only you, and to do your will. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Φύλαξόν μου Κύριε τήν ψυχήν καὶ τὸ σῶμα, τοῦ ζωοποιοῦ σου Σταυροῦ τῷ σημείῳ, ἐκ τής ἀπάτης τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ πονηρῶν πειρασμῶν, ἐξ ἀνθρώπου ἀδίκου, καὶ παντός κινδύνου ψυχῆς τε καὶ σώματος. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upholder of all creatures, preserve by the sign of your cross, my soul and body, from the allurements of sin, from the temptation of evil, from unjust people, and from all dangers physical and spiritual. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἠ δεξιά σου, Χριστέ, ἐπισκιασάτω μοι ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός ἐν τῷ οἰκουρεῖν με, ὁδοιπορεῖν, καθεύδειν, τε, καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀγρυπνεῖν, ἵνα μὴ κλονηθῶ. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O Christ, guardian of all, may your right hand guard and shelter me, day and night; while at home and while traveling; while I am sleeping and while I am awake, so that I may never falter. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Κύριε καὶ Θεέ μου, ὁ ἀνοίγων τήν χεῖρα σου καὶ ἐμπληρῶν τὰ σύμπαντα χρηστότητος, εἰς χεῖρας σου παρατίθημι τὴν ψυχήν μου, Σὺ παρασκεύασον αὐτῇ πᾶν ἀγαθόν νῦν τε καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι αἰῶνι. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My God, inside your open hand the whole creation is filled with your bounty. Unto you I commit my being; take care of me and provide the needful for my soul and body, from this time forth for evermore. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25772" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7665" RevisionGUID="424f304e-ace2-40bf-8e4e-d4ffea97303e" CreationDate="2018-12-06T23:26:56.190" UserId="3179" Text="Can you please fix the mistakes in translating these prayers from Koine Greek to English (Part 2 of 3)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25773" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7665" RevisionGUID="424f304e-ace2-40bf-8e4e-d4ffea97303e" CreationDate="2018-12-06T23:26:56.190" UserId="3179" Text="|greek|translation|translation-check|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7667" RevisionGUID="88e16b55-f7f3-4591-9890-b6cbbf1c33fe" CreationDate="2018-12-07T00:40:10.067" UserId="522" Text=".9.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;The one pure and incorrupt Lord, place a guard to my eyes, your holy Fear, for the turning away of every indecent sight and of unbridled and inquisitive looking; [place a guard, your Fear] to my ears so as not to hear wicked and foul talk; before my throat and my tongue not to speak falsehood;  before my heart, not to devise wickedness; before my hands, not to commit injustice; before my feet, not to walk in the path of iniquity; rather, guide always my steps, that I do your commands. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me a manifold sinner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7668" RevisionGUID="0d46601d-64f8-4f35-bc2b-876a16ab2a6f" CreationDate="2018-12-07T01:02:10.140" UserId="406" Text="Here's the fourth one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Υἱὲ καὶ Λόγε τοῦ Θεοῦ, Θεὸς ἀληθής, ό ἐκ τῶν Πατρικῶν κόλπων κατελθών διὰ τήν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν, ό σαρκωθείς ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσας, σταυρωθείς τε καὶ παθών, ταφεὶς δε καὶ ἀναστάς ἐκ νεκρῶν τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρα, ἀνελθών τε εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς, ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ ἐνώπιον σου, μνήσθητί μου ὥς τοῦ ληστοῦ, ὅταν ἔλθης ἐν τῇ Βασιλείᾳ σου. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Son and Word of God, true God, who came down from the bosom of the Father to be our Savior, who took on flesh from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became human, who was crucified, who suffered, who was buried and rose up from the dead after three days, then ascended to Heaven: I have sinned toward Heaven and toward you, face to face. Remember me like the pirate, when you go to Your Kingdom. And have mercy on your colonies, and me, your excessively sinful person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Armenian, to compare:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Son of God, true God, who descended from the bosom of the Father, and took on flesh from the holy Virgin Mary for our salvation; crucified, buried, and raised from the dead, ascended in glory to the Father; I have sinned against heaven and before you; remember me like the penitent thief when you come into your kingdom. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Warning, my translation is more literal than poetic, and Koine isn't my specialty, so some parts might be wrong. But I tried to keep the exact meaning as closely as possible rather than making the prayer sound good in English.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7665" RevisionGUID="5fe37478-f24a-4d56-b8a6-410705bc62ee" CreationDate="2018-12-07T01:03:39.753" UserId="3179" Comment="added 2721 characters in body; edited title" Text="This is a continuation from [this question][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7664/can-you-please-fix-the-mistakes-in-translating-these-prayers-from-koine-greek-to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know nearly enough Koine Greek to point out what I am specifically unsure about. That said, I do know enough to see that the Greek and English texts do not quite line up in places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some background: These are 9 through 16 of 24 prayers that were written in the 12th century by St. Nercess the Graceful in Classical Armenian. Sometime shortly later, they were translated into Koine Greek. Clearly the Koine Greek text is somewhat different from the Classical Armenian text on which the English translation is based though. So I am looking for the English text to be edited to match the Koine Greek text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἐπουράνιε Βασιλεῦ, ἀξίωσόν με τῆς σῆς Βασιλείας, ἥν ὑπέσχου τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς, δὸς ἰσχύν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου διὰ μίσους ἔχειν τὰ ἁμαρτήματα, καὶ μόνον σέ φιλεῖν, ποιεῖν τε τὸ σὸν θέλημα. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heavenly King, grant me your kingdom which was promised to your beloved, and strengthen my heart to hate sin, and to love only you, and to do your will. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Φύλαξόν μου Κύριε τήν ψυχήν καὶ τὸ σῶμα, τοῦ ζωοποιοῦ σου Σταυροῦ τῷ σημείῳ, ἐκ τής ἀπάτης τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ πονηρῶν πειρασμῶν, ἐξ ἀνθρώπου ἀδίκου, καὶ παντός κινδύνου ψυχῆς τε καὶ σώματος. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upholder of all creatures, preserve by the sign of your cross, my soul and body, from the allurements of sin, from the temptation of evil, from unjust people, and from all dangers physical and spiritual. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἠ δεξιά σου, Χριστέ, ἐπισκιασάτω μοι ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός ἐν τῷ οἰκουρεῖν με, ὁδοιπορεῖν, καθεύδειν, τε, καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀγρυπνεῖν, ἵνα μὴ κλονηθῶ. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O Christ, guardian of all, may your right hand guard and shelter me, day and night; while at home and while traveling; while I am sleeping and while I am awake, so that I may never falter. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Κύριε καὶ Θεέ μου, ὁ ἀνοίγων τήν χεῖρα σου καὶ ἐμπληρῶν τὰ σύμπαντα χρηστότητος, εἰς χεῖρας σου παρατίθημι τὴν ψυχήν μου, Σὺ παρασκεύασον αὐτῇ πᾶν ἀγαθόν νῦν τε καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι αἰῶνι. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My God, inside your open hand the whole creation is filled with your bounty. Unto you I commit my being; take care of me and provide the needful for my soul and body, from this time forth for evermore. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὁ τοὺς πεπλανημένους ἀναστρέφων, Κύριε, ἀνάστρεψον κἀμὲ ἐκ φαύλης εἰς καλὴν συνήθειαν, καὶ διατύπωσον ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου τὴν φρικτήν ἡμέραν τοῦ θανάτου, καὶ τὸν φόβον τής γεέννης, καὶ τῆς σῆς Βασιλείας τὸν ἔρωτα, ἵνα μετανοήσας πράξω τί ἀγαθόν. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finder of the lost, turn me away from my evil habits to good ones; and imprint on my soul the dreadful day of death, the fear of eternal punishment, and the love of your kingdom, so that I may repent of my sins, and I may follow the path of righteousness. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὤ πηγή τῆς ἀθανασίας, ἄντλησον ἐκ τὴς καρδίας μου, ὡς ἐκ τῆς μοιχαλίδος ποτὲ, δάκρυα μετανοίας, ἵνα λούσω τὰ ἁμαρτήματά μου πρὶν ἄν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐξέλθω. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fountain of immortality, cause the tears of repentance to flow from my heart, like those of Mary Magdalene, so that, before I depart this world, I may wash away the sins of my soul. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Οἰκτίρμων καὶ πολυεύσπλαγχνε Κύριε, ἀξίωσὸν με ἀκατακρίτως σοι προσελθεῖν, τῇ Μεταλήψει τῶν θείων καὶ ἐνδόξων καὶ ἀχράντων καὶ ζωοποιῶν σου Μυστηρίων τοῦ ἁγίου σου σώματος καὶ τοῦ τιμίου σου αἵματος. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grantor of mercy, grant that I may come to you with true faith, with good works, and the communion of your Holy Body and Blood. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὁ μόνος ἀγαθός Κύριος, Ἀγγέλου με ἀγαθοῦ ἀξίωσον, ὅπως τὴν ψυχὴν μου λάβῃ μειδιῶντι προσώπῳ, ἡνίκα μέλλω ἀπαίρειν τῆς γῆς, καὶ φυγαδεύσῃ προθύμως τοὺς ζητοῦντας με συλλαβεῖν πικρούς ἐχθρούς. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Benevolent Lord, commit me to a good angel, who may deliver up my soul in peace, and convey it undisturbed through the malice of evil, to heavenly places. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Χριστέ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, τὴν ψυχὴν μου ἀξίωσον, ἵνα ὄψηται ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς κλήσεως, τῆς δόξης σου τὸ ἀπρόσιτον φῶς, καὶ ἀνάπαυσον αὐτὴν ἐν δικαίων σκηναῖς τῇ ἐλπίδι τῶν ἀγαθῶν μέχρι τῆς φρικτής ἡμέρας τῆς Παρουσίας σου. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O Christ, the true Light, make my soul worthy to encounter with joy the light of your divine glory, on the day I will be called by you; and to rest in good hope, in the mansions of the righteous, until the great day of your coming. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ω δικαστὰ Χριστὲ, ὅταν ἔλθης μετὰ δόξης τοῦ Πατρὸς κρῖναι ζώντας καὶ νεκροὺς, μὴ εἰσέλθης εἰς κρίσιν μετά τοῦ δούλου σου, ἀλλά ῥῦσαι με τοῦ αἰωνίου πυρός, ἀκούσω δέ τὴς πρός τοὺς δικαίους μακαρίας κλήσεως ἐν τῇ Βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Righteous judge, when you come with the glory of the Father to judge the living and the dead, do not enter into judgement with your servant; but save me from the eternal fire, and make me worthy to hear the most blessed call of the righteous for those who will enter to your heavenly kingdom. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Φιλάνθρωπε Κύριε, ἐλέησον πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντάς εἰς σὲ, τοὺς μισοῦντας καὶ ἀγαπῶντας με, οἰκείους, καὶ ἀλλοτρίους, ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς, χάρισαι τοῖς ἐχθροῖς μου καὶ τοῖς διώκουσι με ἄφεσιν τῶν ἑαυτῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ ἐπίστρεψον αὐτούς ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν κακῶν, ὧν εἰς ἐμὲ ἐβουλεύσαντο, ἵνα κὰυτοι ἄξιοι γένωνται τοῦ ἐλέους σου. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All-merciful Lord, have mercy on all those who believe in you; on my beloved ones, and on those who are strangers to me; on all those I know, and on those unknown to me; on the living and on the dead; even forgive my enemies, and those who hate me, forgive the trespasses they have committed against me; and relieve them from the malice they bear towards me, so that they become worthy of your mercy. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Πρόσδεξαι Κύριε, τὰς δεήσεις τοῦ δούλου σου, καὶ ἐπάκουσον μου τοῦ σοῦ ἱκέτου, Πρεσβείαις τῆς παναχράντου δεσποίνης ἡμῶν Θεοτόκου καὶ Ἀειπαρθένου Μαρίας, τοῦ τιμίου ἐνδόξου προφήτου προδρόμου καὶ Βαπτιστοῦ Ἰωάννου, τοῦ Ἁγίου πρωτομάρτυρος καὶ ἀρχιδιακόνου Στεφάνου, τοῦ ἐν Ἁγίοις Πατρὸς ἡμῶν Γρηγορίου Πατριάρχου τής Μεγάλης Ἀρμενίας, τοῦ φωτίσαντος ἡμᾶς, τῶν Ἁγιων ἐνδόξων καὶ πανευφήμων Ἀποστόλων, Προφητών, Διδασκάλων, Μαρτύρων, Πατριαρχών, Ἀναχωρητών, Παρθένων, καὶ πάντων τῶν Ἁγίων τῶν ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐν γῇ. Σοί γὰρ πρέπει πᾶσα δόξα, τιμὴ, καὶ προσκύνησις σὺν τῷ ἀνάρχῳ σου Πατρὶ καὶ τῷ παναγίῳ καὶ ἀγαθῷ καὶ ζωοποιῷ σου Πνεύματι, νῦν καὶ ἀεί καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰῶνων. Ἀμήν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O glorious Lord, receive the prayers of your servant; and fulfill my requests that are deemed good. Through the intercession of the Holy Mother of God, and St. John the Baptist, and St. Stephen the first martyr, and St. Gregory our Illuminator, and the Holy Apostles, Prophets, Doctors of the Church, Martyrs, Patriarchs, Hermits, Virgins, and all your saints in heaven and on earth. Unto you, O indivisible Holy Trinity, be glory and worship, forever and ever. Amen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25778" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7665" RevisionGUID="5fe37478-f24a-4d56-b8a6-410705bc62ee" CreationDate="2018-12-07T01:03:39.753" UserId="3179" Comment="added 2721 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can you please fix the mistakes in translating these prayers from Koine Greek to English (Part 2 of 2)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7664" RevisionGUID="35840f22-9142-48e5-b46a-4ee35124f9af" CreationDate="2018-12-07T01:03:45.603" UserId="3179" Comment="added 2520 characters in body; edited title" Text="This question is continued [here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know nearly enough Koine Greek to point out what I am specifically unsure about. That said, I do know enough to see that the Greek and English texts do not quite line up in places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some background: These are 1 through 12 of 24 prayers that were written in the 12th century by St. Nercess the Graceful in Classical Armenian. Sometime shortly later, they were translated into Koine Greek. Clearly the Koine Greek text is somewhat different from the Classical Armenian text on which the English translation is based though. So I am looking for the English text to be edited to match the Koine Greek text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Πιστεύω καὶ ὀμολογῶ καὶ προσκυνῶ σοι Πάτερ, Υἰέ καὶ Θεῖον Πνεῦμα, ἄκτιστος καὶ ἀθάνατος φύσις, ἠ πλάσασα Ἀγγέλους τε καὶ ἀνθρώπους καὶ ποιήσασα τὰ πάντα. Ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I confess with faith and worship you, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, uncreated and immortal Essence, creator of angels, humans and of all that exists. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Πιστεύω καὶ ὁμολογῶ καὶ προσκυνῶ σοι ἀδιαίρετον φῶς, Ἁγία Τριάς, εἷς Θεός ὁ ποιήσας τὸ φῶς καὶ διώξας τὸ σκότος, φώτισον τὴν ταπεινήν μου ψυχήν, καὶ ἀποσκέδασον τῆς ἀγνοίας τὸ σκότος καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ νῦν μέ ἐν τῇ ὤρᾳ ταύτῃ τὴν τῆς αὐγῆς σου ἀκτῖνα τῷ τῆς διανοίας μου γνόφῳ ἐγχέων, αξίωσον, ἵνα ἀρεστάς σοι εὔξωμαι προσευχάς, δέξαι οὖν, φιλάνθρωπε, τὰς δεήσες τοῦ δούλου οου. Καὶ ἐλέησον με τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I confess with faith and worship you, O Indivisible Light, unified Holy Trinity and one Godhead; creator of light and dispeller of darkness, dispel from my soul the darkness of sin and ignorance, and enlighten my mind at this moment, so that I may pray to you according to your will, and receive from you the fulfillment of my requests. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἐπουράνιε Θεέ, Πάτερ παντοκράτωρ, ό πέμψας τὸν ἀγαπητόν σου Υἱόν, ἵνα τὸ πλανηθέν πρόβατον ἀναλάβῃ τοῖς ὤμοις εὔρών, ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ ἐνώπιόν σου, δέξαι με, Πάτερ, ὡς τὸν ἄσωτον Υἱόν, ἀξίωσον με τῆς πρώτης στολῆς, ἧς ἐστερήθην διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heavenly Father, true God, who sent your beloved Son to seek the lost sheep. I have sinned against heaven and before you; receive me as the prodigal son, and clothe me with my former garment, of which I was deprived by sin. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Υἱὲ καὶ Λόγε τοῦ Θεοῦ, Θεὸς ἀληθής, ό ἐκ τῶν Πατρικῶν κόλπων κατελθών διὰ τήν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν, ό σαρκωθείς ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσας, σταυρωθείς τε καὶ παθών, ταφεὶς δε καὶ ἀναστάς ἐκ νεκρῶν τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρα, ἀνελθών τε εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς, ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ ἐνώπιον σου, μνήσθητί μου ὥς τοῦ ληστοῦ, ὅταν ἔλθης ἐν τῇ Βασιλείᾳ σου. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Son of God, true God, who descended from the bosom of the Father, and took on flesh from the holy Virgin Mary for our salvation; crucified, buried, and raised from the dead, ascended in glory to the Father; I have sinned against heaven and before you; remember me like the penitent thief when you come into your kingdom. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Πνεῦμα Ἄγιον, Θεὸς ἀληθής, τό καταβάν εἰς τὸν Ιορδάνην καὶ εἰς τὸ Ὑπερῷον, τό φωτίσαν μέ τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ Βαπτίσματος, ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ ἐνώπιον σου, καθάρισον με πάλιν τῷ πυρί σου τῷ Θείῳ, ὡς ἐν πύριναις γλώσσαις τοὺς Ἀποστόλους ἐκαθάρισάς ποτε. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spirit of God, true God, who descended on the river Jordan, and into the Upper Room; who enlightened me by the baptism of the Holy Font, I have sinned against heaven and before you. Purify me again with your divine fire, as the fiery tongues purified the Holy Apostles. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἥμαρτον ἐνώπιον σου, ἅκτιστέ Φύσις, λόγῳ, ἔργῳ καὶ διανοίᾳ, μὴ μνησθῇς Κύριε, διὰ τὸ Ὄνομά σου τὸ Ἅγιον τῶν προτέρων μου παραπτωμάτων. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uncreated Essence, I have sinned against you, with my mind, with my soul and with my body, remember not my former sins for the sake of your Holy Name. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὁ πανταχοῦ παρὼν καὶ τὰ πάντα θεωρῶν, Κύριε, ἐνώπιόν σου ἥμαρτον λόγῳ, ἔργῳ καὶ διανοίᾳ, ἐξάλειψον τῶν ἀμαρτιῶν μου τὸ χειρόγραφον, καὶ γράψον τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τής ζωῆς. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beholder of all, I have sinned against you, in thought, word and deed; erase the record of my transgressions, and write my name in the book of Life. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὁ ἐξετάζων καρδίας καὶ νεφρούς, Κύριε, ἥμαρτον εἰς σὲ ἐκουσίως καὶ ἀκουσίως, εἰδώς τε καὶ μὴ εἰδώς, δὸς μοι τῷ ἀθλίῳ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν μου τὴν ἄφεσιν, καὶ γάρ ἐξ οὗ τοῦ λουτροῦ τὴς παλιγγενεσίας τετύχηκα μέχρι τοῦ νῦν, πᾶν κακόν ἔπραξα, πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησα, πᾶσάν μου αἴσθησιν καὶ πᾶν μέλος μιάνας. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O Searcher of secrets, I have sinned against you, willingly and inadvertently, knowingly and unknowingly. Grant forgiveness unto me a sinner; since from my birth through the holy baptism, until this day, I have sinned before you Lord, with all my senses and in all the members of my body. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ὁ μόνος καθαρός καὶ ἀκήρατος Κύριος, θοῦ φυλακήν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς μου τὸν φόβον σου τὸν ἅγιον, εἰς ἀποτροπήν πάσης ἀπρεποῦς θέας καὶ περιέργου καὶ ἀχαλινώτου ὁράσεως, τοῖς ὠσί μου, μὴ ἀκούειν λόγου πονηροῦ καὶ ἀκάθαρτου, τῷ στόματί μου καὶ τῇ γλώττῃ μου, εἰς τὸ μὴ ψεύδεσθαι, τῇ καρδίᾳ μου, εἰς τὸ μὴ διανοεῖσθαι κακόν, ταῖς χερσί μου, μὴ ἀδικεῖν ἀδικίαν, καὶ τοῖς ποσί μου, μὴ ὁδεύειν ὁδόν ἄδικον, ἀλλ’ εἴθυνον τὰ διαβήματά μου, ἵνα ποιῶ τὰ προστάγματά σου. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All-provident Lord, place your holy awe as a guardian before my eyes, so that I may not look with askance; before my ears, not to delight in hearing evil discourses, before my mouth, not to speak falsehood, before my heart, not to mediate wickedness, before my hands, not to commit injustice, before my feet, not to walk on the paths of iniquity; rather, guide always my motions, that they may be according to all your commandments. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ζῶν πῦρ, ἄναψον κἀμοὶ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου τὸ πῦρ τῆς Θείας σου ἀγάπης, ἵνα καθαρίσῃ τήν εῤῤυπωμένην μου ψυχήν, ἵνα εξαλείψῃ τοῦ σώματος μου τὰ ἁμαρτήματα, ἵνα ἅψῃ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου τὸ φῶς τῆς σῆς ἐλλάμψεως. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O Christ, the quickening fire, inflame my soul with the fire of your love that you dispersed over the earth, so that it may consume the stains of my soul; cleanse my conscience and my mind, purify my body from sin, and kindle the light of your knowledge in my heart. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ἡ Σοφία τοῦ Πατρός, δὸς μοι τήν σοφίαν τοῦ φρονεῖν λαλεῖν τε καὶ ποιεῖν πὰ ἀγαθά ἐνῶπιόν σου διὰ παντός, ῥῦσαί με τῶν παραπτωμάτων, ἔργου, λόγου, ἤ διανοίας. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O Jesus, wisdom of the Father, grant me the wisdom that I may always think, speak, and do what is good in your sight. deliver me from evil thoughts, words and deeds. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ἀγαθοδέκτα Κύριε, ὁ τέλειῶν τήν πάντων βουλὴν, μὴ με παραιτήσῃς βαδίζειν κατ’ ἐμὴν ἐπιθυμίαν, ἀλλ’ όδήγησον κατὰ τὸ σόν θέλημα τὸ ἅγιον. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Benevolent Lord, your will encompasses all that is good, you are the director of the will. Do not let me follow the inclinations of my heart; rather, guide me to always walk according to your good pleasure. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7665/can-you-please-fix-the-mistakes-in-translating-these-prayers-from-koine-greek-to" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25780" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7664" RevisionGUID="35840f22-9142-48e5-b46a-4ee35124f9af" CreationDate="2018-12-07T01:03:45.603" UserId="3179" Comment="added 2520 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can you please fix the mistakes in translating these prayers from Koine Greek to English (Part 1 of 2)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7667" RevisionGUID="22f338ee-5b95-4533-85ea-8139e4e63cd8" CreationDate="2018-12-07T02:38:40.657" UserId="522" Comment="Added closing doxology.24." Text=".9.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;The one pure and incorrupt Lord, place a guard to my eyes, your holy Fear, for the turning away of every indecent sight and of unbridled and inquisitive looking; [place a guard, your Fear] to my ears so as not to hear wicked and foul talk; before my throat and my tongue not to speak falsehood;  before my heart, not to devise wickedness; before my hands, not to commit injustice; before my feet, not to walk in the path of iniquity; rather, guide always my steps, that I do your commands. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.24.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Πρόσδεξαι Κύριε, τὰς δεήσεις τοῦ δούλου σου, καὶ ἐπάκουσον μου τοῦ σοῦ ἱκέτου,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Receive, Lord, the prayers of your servant, and hearken unto me your suppliant,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Πρεσβείαις τῆς παναχράντου δεσποίνης ἡμῶν Θεοτόκου καὶ Ἀειπαρθένου&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Μαρίας,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;by the Gifts-of-Honour of our sinless Lady Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τοῦ τιμίου ἐνδόξου προφήτου προδρόμου καὶ Βαπτιστοῦ Ἰωάννου,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;of the prophet worthy of honour, Forerunner and Baptist John,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τοῦ Ἁγίου πρωτομάρτυρος καὶ ἀρχιδιακόνου Στεφάνου,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;of the holy Protomartyr and Archdeacon Stephen,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τοῦ ἐν Ἁγίοις Πατρὸς ἡμῶν Γρηγορίου Πατριάρχου τής Μεγάλης Ἀρμενίας,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τοῦ φωτίσαντος ἡμᾶς,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;and of our Father among the Saints, Gregory Patriarch of Great Armenia, who enlightened us,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τῶν Ἁγιων ἐνδόξων καὶ πανευφήμων Ἀποστόλων,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;of the Holy, glorious, and triumphant Apostles, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Προφητών, Διδασκάλων, Μαρτύρων, Πατριαρχών, Ἀναχωρητών, Παρθένων, καὶ πάντων τῶν Ἁγίων τῶν ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐν γῇ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;of Prophets, Teachers, Martyrs, Patriarchs, Anchorites, Virgins, and all your saints in heaven and on earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Σοί γὰρ πρέπει πᾶσα δόξα, τιμὴ, καὶ προσκύνησις&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For to you is due all glory, honour and worship,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; σὺν τῷ ἀνάρχῳ σου Πατρὶ καὶ τῷ παναγίῳ καὶ ἀγαθῷ καὶ ζωοποιῷ σου&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Πνεύματι,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;together with the Father supreme, and your all-holy and good life-giving Spirit,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; νῦν καὶ ἀεί καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰῶνων. Ἀμήν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;now and ever and to the ages of ages. Amen.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7668" RevisionGUID="ea7bb6dc-8282-4414-8726-adac00286727" CreationDate="2018-12-07T03:59:37.597" UserId="406" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Here's the fourth one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Υἱὲ καὶ Λόγε τοῦ Θεοῦ, Θεὸς ἀληθής, ό ἐκ τῶν Πατρικῶν κόλπων κατελθών διὰ τήν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν, ό σαρκωθείς ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσας, σταυρωθείς τε καὶ παθών, ταφεὶς δε καὶ ἀναστάς ἐκ νεκρῶν τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρα, ἀνελθών τε εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς, ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ ἐνώπιον σου, μνήσθητί μου ὥς τοῦ ληστοῦ, ὅταν ἔλθης ἐν τῇ Βασιλείᾳ σου. Καὶ ἐλέησον τὰ κτίσματά σου, καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ὑπερβαλλόντως ἡμαρτηκότα σοι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Son and Word of God, true God, who came down from the bosom of the Father to be our Savior, who took on flesh from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became human, who was crucified, who suffered, who was buried and rose up from the dead after three days, then ascended to Heaven: I have sinned toward Heaven and toward you, face to face. Remember me like the pirate, when you go to Your Kingdom. And have mercy on your creatures, and me, who has sinned excessively against you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Armenian, to compare:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Son of God, true God, who descended from the bosom of the Father, and took on flesh from the holy Virgin Mary for our salvation; crucified, buried, and raised from the dead, ascended in glory to the Father; I have sinned against heaven and before you; remember me like the penitent thief when you come into your kingdom. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me, a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Warning, my translation is more literal than poetic, and Koine isn't my specialty, so some parts might be wrong. But I tried to keep the exact meaning as closely as possible rather than making the prayer sound good in English.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7669" RevisionGUID="4bcf031c-c814-48e5-85e8-6d7d0761338d" CreationDate="2018-12-07T04:12:34.497" UserId="522" Text="***articulus***  ...  Hence, a short clause, Dig. 36, 1, 27; also, a single word, ib. 35, 1, 4: articulus Est praesentis temporis demonstrationem continet, ib. 34, 2, 35:[ \[Lewis and Short][1](TUFTS)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***membrum*** **II** B 3    Of speech, a member or clause of a sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quae Graeci κόμματα et κῶλα nominant, nos recte incisa et membra&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dicimus, Cic. Or. 62, 211; cf. Auct. Her. 4, 19, 26.— [Lewis&amp;Short][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***incisio***  a division, member, clause of a sentence, Gr. κόμμα: de eorum (circuituum) particulis et tamquam incisionibus disserendum est, Cic. Or. 61, 206: in incisionibus et in membris, id. ib. 64, 216; **cf. incisum under 2. incido fin. C.** L&amp;S&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Short Clauses  ***incisim, incaese, caesim***  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***incīsim,*** adv. incisus, from 2. incīdo,   I in short clauses (very rare):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note .1. Legal **clauses**, i.e. sections,  are *caput, clausula,* or *elogium.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note .2. The only use I could find in Quintilian was e.g.'A fine turn of phrase.'  Quint. prooem. § 22; 8 prooem. § 13; 8, 1, 1 *et saepe* But surely Quintilian and Isidore must discuss this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.0:3813.lewisandshort&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/getobject.pl?c.11:1173.LewisShort18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7670" RevisionGUID="b55c4688-a53a-4175-88ff-018f8c562005" CreationDate="2018-12-07T04:26:39.990" UserId="40" Text="Certainly the concept of subordination existed in antiquity; the Greek grammarians used ὑποβάλλω or ὑποτάττω to mean &quot;to subordinate syntactically&quot;, and derived from this the term ὑποτακτικόν &quot;subjunctive&quot; (because the subjunctive mostly occurs in subordinate clauses). The Latin terms *subordinare, subiungere, subiunctivum* are calques of these. They also had at least two terms for specific types of clauses, namely protasis and apodosis, for the &quot;if&quot; and &quot;then&quot; parts of a conditional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, they may not have had a general concept corresponding strictly to our &quot;clause&quot;. At any rate Apollonius Dyscolus (1CE), the most influential ancient writer on syntax, doesn't seem to have thought in terms of clauses: &quot;Apollonius used no term that systematically corresponds to *clause*&quot; ([Allan 2006][1]); he uses λόγος to refer both to complete sentences and to clauses within them. I don't know whether later writers on syntax (e.g. Dionysius Thrax in Greek, Varro and Priscian in Latin) improved on this terminology or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hugh's informative answer appeared as I was typing this, and the terms he mentions can certainly describe what we think of as clauses. But as far as I know, none of them is a one-on-one equivalent of our concept of a clause: κῶλον is probably the closest in Greek (and *membrum* in Latin, which I assume is Cicero's translation of the Greek term), but a κῶλον sometimes describes a unit larger than a single clause, while a κόμμα can describe a short clause but can also describe a phrase that's smaller than a clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2005/allan-apollonius.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7669" RevisionGUID="c4fcbe8d-56d4-4a49-8e81-3665fbcfffca" CreationDate="2018-12-07T04:45:58.767" UserId="522" Comment="Add Isidore" Text="***articulus***  ...  Hence, a short clause, Dig. 36, 1, 27; also, a single word, ib. 35, 1, 4: articulus Est praesentis temporis demonstrationem continet, ib. 34, 2, 35:[ \[Lewis and Short][1](TUFTS)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***membrum*** **II** B 3    Of speech, a member or clause of a sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quae Graeci κόμματα et κῶλα nominant, nos recte incisa et membra&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dicimus, Cic. Or. 62, 211; cf. Auct. Her. 4, 19, 26.— [Lewis&amp;Short][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***incisio***  a division, member, clause of a sentence, Gr. κόμμα: de eorum (circuituum) particulis et tamquam incisionibus disserendum est, Cic. Or. 61, 206: in incisionibus et in membris, id. ib. 64, 216; **cf. incisum under 2. incido fin. C.** L&amp;S&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Short Clauses  ***incisim, incaese, caesim***  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***incīsim,*** adv. incisus, from 2. incīdo,   I in short clauses (very rare):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Post Classical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Isidore of Seville.  Book **II** xviii &#xD;&#xA;&gt; De colo, commate, et periodis. ... A phrase (comma) is a small component of thought, a clause (colon) is a member, and a sentence (periodos) is a rounding off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Translation and notes Barney, Lewis, Beach Berghof CUP 2006)  this is followed by a clear example of phrase, clause and sentence in the modern sense.  Although Isidore is late he is very conservative and his sources can usually be traced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note .1. Legal **clauses**, i.e. sections,  are *caput, clausula,* or *elogium.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note .2. The only use I could find in Quintilian was e.g.'A fine turn of phrase.'  Quint. prooem. § 22; 8 prooem. § 13; 8, 1, 1 *et saepe* But surely Quintilian  must discuss this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.0:3813.lewisandshort&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/getobject.pl?c.11:1173.LewisShort18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7669" RevisionGUID="c8ab634f-5a41-4f39-b3c3-3989f7cd843b" CreationDate="2018-12-07T05:09:32.507" UserId="522" Comment="Add Isisdore" Text="***articulus***  ...  Hence, a short clause, Dig. 36, 1, 27; also, a single word, ib. 35, 1, 4: articulus Est praesentis temporis demonstrationem continet, ib. 34, 2, 35:[ \[Lewis and Short][1](TUFTS)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***membrum*** **II** B 3    Of speech, a member or clause of a sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quae Graeci κόμματα et κῶλα nominant, nos recte incisa et membra&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dicimus, Cic. Or. 62, 211; cf. Auct. Her. 4, 19, 26.— [Lewis&amp;Short][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***incisio***  a division, member, clause of a sentence, Gr. κόμμα: de eorum (circuituum) particulis et tamquam incisionibus disserendum est, Cic. Or. 61, 206: in incisionibus et in membris, id. ib. 64, 216; **cf. incisum under 2. incido fin. C.** L&amp;S&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Short Clauses  ***incisim, incaese, caesim***  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***incīsim,*** adv. incisus, from 2. incīdo,   I in short clauses (very rare):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Post Classical: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Isidore of Seville.  Book **II** xviii &#xD;&#xA;&gt; De colo, commate, et periodis. ... A phrase (comma) is a small component of thought, a clause (colon) is a member, and a sentence (periodos) is a rounding off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Translation and notes [Barney, Lewis, Beach Berghof][3] CUP 2006)  this is followed by a clear example of phrase, clause and sentence close to the modern sense.  Although Isidore is late , fl. 610 - 630,  he is very conservative.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A comma is the marking off of a speech-juncture, as: “Although I fear, judges,...” –there is one comma, and another comma follows–   “. . . that it may be unseemly to speak for the bravest of men, . . .” and this makes up a clause (colon), that is, a member, that makes the sense intelligible. But still the utterance is left hanging, and in this way finally from several clauses the sentence’s period (periodos) is made, that is the last closing-off of the thought, thus: “. . . and so they miss the traditional procedure of the courts.” But a sentence should not be longer than ... (possible) ...in one breath. (p75 (89 of 489))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note .1. Legal **clauses**, i.e. sections,  are *caput, clausula,* or *elogium.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note .2. The only use I could find in Quintilian was e.g.'A fine turn of phrase.'  Quint. prooem. § 22; 8 prooem. § 13; 8, 1, 1 *et saepe* But surely Quintilian  must discuss this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.0:3813.lewisandshort&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/getobject.pl?c.11:1173.LewisShort18&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sfponline.org/Uploads/2002/st%20isidore%20in%20english.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7667" RevisionGUID="d74daaa6-4a41-49f1-b3c1-3bd99d6711ef" CreationDate="2018-12-07T06:10:50.713" UserId="522" Comment="Added .19." Text=".9.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;The one pure and incorrupt Lord, place a guard to my eyes, your holy Fear, for the turning away of every indecent sight and of unbridled and inquisitive looking; [place a guard, your Fear] to my ears so as not to hear wicked and foul talk; before my throat and my tongue not to speak falsehood;  before my heart, not to devise wickedness; before my hands, not to commit injustice; before my feet, not to walk in the path of iniquity; rather, guide always my steps, that I do your commands. Have mercy upon your creatures, and on me a manifold sinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**.19.**   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lord, lover of mankind, have mercy on all who trust in you, on those who hate and those who love me, on family and strangers, living and dead, show kindness to my enemies and to those who prosecute *(legal term)* me, take away their own sins and turn them away from all the evils which they counselled against me, so that they themselves may be worthy of your forgiveness. And have mercy on your creatures, and on me, who’ve excessively failed you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.24.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Πρόσδεξαι Κύριε, τὰς δεήσεις τοῦ δούλου σου, καὶ ἐπάκουσον μου τοῦ σοῦ ἱκέτου,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Receive, Lord, the prayers of your servant, and hearken unto me your suppliant,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Πρεσβείαις τῆς παναχράντου δεσποίνης ἡμῶν Θεοτόκου καὶ Ἀειπαρθένου&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Μαρίας,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;by the Gifts-of-Honour of our sinless Lady Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τοῦ τιμίου ἐνδόξου προφήτου προδρόμου καὶ Βαπτιστοῦ Ἰωάννου,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;of the prophet worthy of honour, Forerunner and Baptist John,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τοῦ Ἁγίου πρωτομάρτυρος καὶ ἀρχιδιακόνου Στεφάνου,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;of the holy Protomartyr and Archdeacon Stephen,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τοῦ ἐν Ἁγίοις Πατρὸς ἡμῶν Γρηγορίου Πατριάρχου τής Μεγάλης Ἀρμενίας,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τοῦ φωτίσαντος ἡμᾶς,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;and of our Father among the Saints, Gregory Patriarch of Great Armenia, who enlightened us,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τῶν Ἁγιων ἐνδόξων καὶ πανευφήμων Ἀποστόλων,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;of the Holy, glorious, and triumphant Apostles, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Προφητών, Διδασκάλων, Μαρτύρων, Πατριαρχών, Ἀναχωρητών, Παρθένων, καὶ πάντων τῶν Ἁγίων τῶν ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐν γῇ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;of Prophets, Teachers, Martyrs, Patriarchs, Anchorites, Virgins, and all your saints in heaven and on earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Σοί γὰρ πρέπει πᾶσα δόξα, τιμὴ, καὶ προσκύνησις&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For to you is due all glory, honour and worship,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; σὺν τῷ ἀνάρχῳ σου Πατρὶ καὶ τῷ παναγίῳ καὶ ἀγαθῷ καὶ ζωοποιῷ σου&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Πνεύματι,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;together with the Father supreme, and your all-holy and good life-giving Spirit,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; νῦν καὶ ἀεί καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰῶνων. Ἀμήν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;now and ever and to the ages of ages. Amen.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7671" RevisionGUID="55ac6bc2-81b6-40ae-b22c-6e04a1bff24f" CreationDate="2018-12-07T15:01:17.077" UserId="3178" Text="I'm seeking a timeline of classic (Greek/Latin) grammarians/grammar books. The timeline could either be a graphical one or a textual listing (like [this one][1] for the English language).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most favorable is an annotated bibliography with information regarding editions and translations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should point to the Wikipedia category pages [Grammarians of Ancient Greek][2] and [Grammarians of Latin][3] which are alphabetical and are least favored listings (though they may be used to create a timeline with some effort).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English_grammars#Timeline_of_English_grammars&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Grammarians_of_Ancient_Greek&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Grammarians_of_Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25790" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7671" RevisionGUID="55ac6bc2-81b6-40ae-b22c-6e04a1bff24f" CreationDate="2018-12-07T15:01:17.077" UserId="3178" Text="Timeline of classic grammarians" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25791" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7671" RevisionGUID="55ac6bc2-81b6-40ae-b22c-6e04a1bff24f" CreationDate="2018-12-07T15:01:17.077" UserId="3178" Text="|grammarians|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7672" RevisionGUID="56b3ca28-5241-429b-b29c-5a3f3e1f9c44" CreationDate="2018-12-07T18:38:32.890" UserId="522" Text="You can compose your own from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Grammarians_of_Latin  but it is as you say **a bit indigestible** even in chronological sequence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Antonius Rufus (grammarian)&#xD;&#xA;(Dionysius Thrax  Τέχνη γραμματική 150 BC)&#xD;&#xA;Lucius Aelius Stilo Praeconinus Philologist  100BC&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Marcus Fabius **Quintilianus** 100AD  Institutio oratoria  &#xD;&#xA;Sulpicius Apollinaris 2nd C &#xD;&#xA;Flavius Caper 2ndC&#xD;&#xA;Eutychius Proclus 2ndC&#xD;&#xA;Aemilius Asper??100 &#xD;&#xA;Antonius Rufus (grammarian) influenced Quintilian  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Helenius Acron 3rC&#xD;&#xA;Censorinus 3rd&#xD;&#xA;Arusianus Messius 4th&#xD;&#xA;Tiberius Claudius Donatus 430  Artes Donati,&#xD;&#xA;Rabanus Maurus  abridges Priscian&#xD;&#xA;**Priscian** fl500 sourcesHerodian and Apollonius     inspiredAldhelm, Bede, Alcuin  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Signposts and perspectives come with http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195389661/obo-9780195389661-0321.xml  For example:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Donatus and his commentators stole the spotlight for a while (see Servius Honoratus (Marius/Maurus Servius Honoratus; 370/380?–d.?; fl. post-400) and Pompeius Grammaticus (5th/6th Century)), but by the beginning of the 6th century CE, Priscian’s Ars grammatica was regarded as the great achievement of the ancient grammatical tradition. Although it was a Latin grammar, its Greek...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in greater detail  http://ancientworldonline.blogspot.com/2014/05/fragmentary-latin-grammarians-flg.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7672" RevisionGUID="b727ac1e-409b-491c-8d70-466f063441e0" CreationDate="2018-12-07T20:52:12.947" UserId="522" Comment="TEXT sources" Text="You can compose your own from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Grammarians_of_Latin  but it is as you say **a bit indigestible** even in chronological sequence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Antonius Rufus (grammarian)&#xD;&#xA;(Dionysius Thrax  Τέχνη γραμματική 150 BC)&#xD;&#xA;Lucius Aelius Stilo Praeconinus Philologist  100BC&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Marcus Fabius **Quintilianus** 100AD  Institutio oratoria  &#xD;&#xA;Sulpicius Apollinaris 2nd C &#xD;&#xA;Flavius Caper 2ndC&#xD;&#xA;Eutychius Proclus 2ndC&#xD;&#xA;Aemilius Asper??100 &#xD;&#xA;Antonius Rufus (grammarian) influenced Quintilian  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Helenius Acron 3rC&#xD;&#xA;Censorinus 3rd&#xD;&#xA;Arusianus Messius 4th&#xD;&#xA;Tiberius Claudius Donatus 430  Artes Donati,&#xD;&#xA;Rabanus Maurus  abridges Priscian&#xD;&#xA;**Priscian** fl500 sourcesHerodian and Apollonius     inspiredAldhelm, Bede, Alcuin  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Signposts and perspectives come with http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195389661/obo-9780195389661-0321.xml  For example:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Donatus and his commentators stole the spotlight for a while (see Servius Honoratus (Marius/Maurus Servius Honoratus; 370/380?–d.?; fl. post-400) and Pompeius Grammaticus (5th/6th Century)), but by the beginning of the 6th century CE, Priscian’s Ars grammatica was regarded as the great achievement of the ancient grammatical tradition. Although it was a Latin grammar, its Greek...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in greater detail  http://ancientworldonline.blogspot.com/2014/05/fragmentary-latin-grammarians-flg.htm &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TEXTS:**  &#xD;&#xA;Wiki footnotes on individual grammarians often evaluate texts.  &#xD;&#xA;I rely on the **Internet Archive** (donations); https://archive.org/details/institutioorator03quin/page/n5  &#xD;&#xA;and **Thayer** Penelope(University of Chicago) https://www.penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Rhetorica_ad_Herennium/home.html very accurate, e-readable. &#xD;&#xA;Where on-line texts are not accessible (or scrambled) the University of **Toronto** is worth searching out for good **medieval** sources and advice.  &#xD;&#xA;**Loeb** is reasonably priced too https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rhetorica-Herennium-Loeb-Classical.../dp/0674994442  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the very best texts for ambitious Classicists I recommend you ask individual questions, say, on this site: as 'What is the best Ars Grammatica?'  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7672" RevisionGUID="36e100c2-5a1b-41ea-a0c5-8e3d2476f50f" CreationDate="2018-12-07T21:05:41.377" UserId="522" Comment="revive link" Text="You can compose your own from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Grammarians_of_Latin  but it is as you say **a bit indigestible** even in chronological sequence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Antonius Rufus (grammarian)&#xD;&#xA;(Dionysius Thrax  Τέχνη γραμματική 150 BC)&#xD;&#xA;Lucius Aelius Stilo Praeconinus Philologist  100BC&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Marcus Fabius **Quintilianus** 100AD  Institutio oratoria  &#xD;&#xA;Sulpicius Apollinaris 2nd C &#xD;&#xA;Flavius Caper 2ndC&#xD;&#xA;Eutychius Proclus 2ndC&#xD;&#xA;Aemilius Asper??100 &#xD;&#xA;Antonius Rufus (grammarian) influenced Quintilian  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Helenius Acron 3rC&#xD;&#xA;Censorinus 3rd&#xD;&#xA;Arusianus Messius 4th&#xD;&#xA;Tiberius Claudius Donatus 430  Artes Donati,&#xD;&#xA;Rabanus Maurus  abridges Priscian&#xD;&#xA;**Priscian** fl500 sourcesHerodian and Apollonius     inspiredAldhelm, Bede, Alcuin  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Signposts and perspectives come with http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195389661/obo-9780195389661-0321.xml  For example:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Donatus and his commentators stole the spotlight for a while (see Servius Honoratus (Marius/Maurus Servius Honoratus; 370/380?–d.?; fl. post-400) and Pompeius Grammaticus (5th/6th Century)), but by the beginning of the 6th century CE, Priscian’s Ars grammatica was regarded as the great achievement of the ancient grammatical tradition. Although it was a Latin grammar, its Greek...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in greater detail  http://ancientworldonline.blogspot.com/2014/05/fragmentary-latin-grammarians-flg.htm &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TEXTS:**  &#xD;&#xA;Wiki footnotes on individual grammarians often evaluate texts.  &#xD;&#xA;I rely on the **Internet Archive** (donations); https://archive.org/details/institutioorator03quin/page/n5  &#xD;&#xA;and **Thayer** Penelope(University of Chicago) http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Rhetorica_ad_Herennium/home.html very accurate, e-readable. &#xD;&#xA;Where on-line texts are not accessible (or scrambled) the University of **Toronto** is worth searching out for good **medieval** sources and advice.  &#xD;&#xA;**Loeb** is reasonably priced too https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rhetorica-Herennium-Loeb-Classical.../dp/0674994442  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the very best texts for ambitious Classicists I recommend you ask individual questions, say, on this site: as 'What is the best Ars Grammatica?'  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7673" RevisionGUID="fb0a072e-c3a6-4b45-8440-50a61881fd4d" CreationDate="2018-12-07T21:14:00.050" UserId="406" Text="Laelaps was a mythical hunting dog that could always catch its prey. The name comes from Greek _λαῖλαψ_, &quot;hurricane&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But where does this word come from? LSJ doesn't provide and etymology, and Wiktionary doesn't even have a page for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25796" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7673" RevisionGUID="fb0a072e-c3a6-4b45-8440-50a61881fd4d" CreationDate="2018-12-07T21:14:00.050" UserId="406" Text="Unde &quot;Laelaps&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25797" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7673" RevisionGUID="fb0a072e-c3a6-4b45-8440-50a61881fd4d" CreationDate="2018-12-07T21:14:00.050" UserId="406" Text="|greek|etymology|names|mythology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7673" RevisionGUID="97bc48cd-c51a-41ed-bde7-bf8358ade73e" CreationDate="2018-12-07T21:19:32.267" UserId="406" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="Laelaps was a mythical hunting dog that could always catch its prey. The name comes from Greek _λαῖλαψ_, &quot;hurricane&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But where does this word come from? [LSJ][1] doesn't provide an etymology, and Wiktionary doesn't even have a page for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlai%3Dlay" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7674" RevisionGUID="ff2fe1b9-97df-4add-b8df-ffd66315ed48" CreationDate="2018-12-07T22:03:21.507" UserId="79" Text="I have only studied the very basics of Greek years ago, so the question might be simple, but I couldn't find a clear summary anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;Attic Greek has a dual number alongside singular and plural.&#xD;&#xA;When was this number used?&#xD;&#xA;Was it used whenever there were two items but never otherwise, or just rarely in some archaic expressions?&#xD;&#xA;Would it always be safe to use the plural instead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7674" RevisionGUID="ff2fe1b9-97df-4add-b8df-ffd66315ed48" CreationDate="2018-12-07T22:03:21.507" UserId="79" Text="When was the dual number used in Attic Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7674" RevisionGUID="ff2fe1b9-97df-4add-b8df-ffd66315ed48" CreationDate="2018-12-07T22:03:21.507" UserId="79" Text="|greek|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7673" RevisionGUID="107aca8d-1c2c-49cb-a394-9f8550388cfc" CreationDate="2018-12-07T23:12:01.277" UserId="406" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="Laelaps was a mythical hunting dog that could always catch its prey. The name comes from Greek _λαῖλαψ_, &quot;hurricane&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But where does this word come from? [LSJ][1] doesn't provide an etymology, and [Wiktionary][2] doesn't even have a page for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlai%3Dlay&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BB%CE%B1%E1%BF%96%CE%BB%CE%B1%CF%88" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7675" RevisionGUID="07f847ed-ddf3-4cfd-8f32-c19d05bac44a" CreationDate="2018-12-07T23:13:58.233" UserId="3181" Text="Can anyone translate for me: &quot;If the minimum wasn't good enough, it wouldn't be the minimum&quot;? I had a tutor help me ages ago and thought what she decided was the best translation seemed like it had gone through google translate. I would love to embroider this as my personal motto." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25804" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7675" RevisionGUID="07f847ed-ddf3-4cfd-8f32-c19d05bac44a" CreationDate="2018-12-07T23:13:58.233" UserId="3181" Text="This has been driving me mad for years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25805" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7675" RevisionGUID="07f847ed-ddf3-4cfd-8f32-c19d05bac44a" CreationDate="2018-12-07T23:13:58.233" UserId="3181" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7676" RevisionGUID="c67ab2a7-959b-42b9-be55-5d5bf05f37ce" CreationDate="2018-12-08T00:18:51.033" UserId="324" Text="&quot;Pre-Greek&quot; according to Beekes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7677" RevisionGUID="dc6fd19a-daac-448f-9209-39e0622f714a" CreationDate="2018-12-08T01:33:11.500" UserId="3183" Text="In the Catholic liturgy at the dismissal, the Latin phrase used is &quot;Ite, missa est.&quot; The usual translation for this is &quot;Go, it is the dismissal.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, what is the meaning of &quot;Missa est&quot; taken on its own? If you remove &quot;Ite&quot;, does the meaning become simply &quot;It is the dismissal&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25808" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7677" RevisionGUID="dc6fd19a-daac-448f-9209-39e0622f714a" CreationDate="2018-12-08T01:33:11.500" UserId="3183" Text="&quot;Ite, missa est.&quot; Direct meaning of &quot;Missa est&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25809" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7677" RevisionGUID="dc6fd19a-daac-448f-9209-39e0622f714a" CreationDate="2018-12-08T01:33:11.500" UserId="3183" Text="|translation|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7678" RevisionGUID="3840e162-aa14-4c59-8c8d-137efbb61c76" CreationDate="2018-12-08T01:50:05.597" UserId="406" Text="Good question! Literally, *īte* means &quot;go, all of you&quot;, as a command or instruction. But *missa est* is less straightforward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One explanation is that it's the perfect passive of *mittō*, meaning &quot;it is dismissed&quot; (with &quot;it&quot; implied to be the congregation). Another is that *mitta* is a Late Latin form of Classical *missiō* &quot;dismissal&quot;: *mitta est* would then be &quot;it is the dismissal&quot;. Some authors translate it as &quot;mission&quot; (&quot;[go,] there is a mission&quot;), but this is a later adaptation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also possible that *missa* &quot;dismissal&quot; from spoken Vulgar Latin ended up being borrowed back into written Latin to mean &quot;Mass&quot;: this phrase is where the noun &quot;Mass&quot; comes from in English, after all. In this case, *missa est* would mean &quot;this is the Mass&quot;, saying that Mass has concluded. This version isn't mutually exclusive with the other one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7678" RevisionGUID="be6a7d9f-81e2-47ce-9e02-598e21516fbf" CreationDate="2018-12-08T02:02:58.207" UserId="406" Comment="edited body" Text="Good question! Literally, *īte* means &quot;go, all of you&quot;, as a command or instruction. But *missa est* is less straightforward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One explanation is that it's the perfect passive of *mittō*, meaning &quot;it is dismissed&quot; (with &quot;it&quot; implied to be the congregation). Another is that *missa* is a Late Latin form of Classical *missiō* &quot;dismissal&quot;: *missa est* would then be &quot;it is the dismissal&quot;. Some authors translate it as &quot;mission&quot; (&quot;[go,] there is a mission&quot;), but this is a later adaptation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also possible that *missa* &quot;dismissal&quot; from spoken Vulgar Latin ended up being borrowed back into written Latin to mean &quot;Mass&quot;: this phrase is where the noun &quot;Mass&quot; comes from in English, after all. In this case, *missa est* would mean &quot;this is the Mass&quot;, saying that Mass has concluded. This version isn't mutually exclusive with the other one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7679" RevisionGUID="e0122750-cf47-48a2-b63c-091a066aa289" CreationDate="2018-12-08T02:39:02.990" UserId="406" Text="Suppose I'm talking to someone directly, and use a pronoun to refer to someone. I would use *tu* or *vōs* with an appropriate case based on its role in the sentence: for example, *sciō **tē** adesse*, &quot;I know that **you** are here&quot;, with the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what if I'm using a noun (such as a name or a description) along with that pronoun? My instinct is to put it in the same case. But a line from the Roman Missal is making me doubt that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Confiteor Deo omnipotenti […] et vobis, **fratres***…  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I confess to almighty God […] and to you, my **brothers**…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, *fratrēs* is in the vocative, even though *vōbīs* right next to it is dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct, by the standards of Classical Latin prose? And would it be incorrect to use *fratribus* instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The quote is from the beginning of the *Confiteor*.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25813" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7679" RevisionGUID="e0122750-cf47-48a2-b63c-091a066aa289" CreationDate="2018-12-08T02:39:02.990" UserId="406" Text="How do you address someone in a case other than the vocative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25814" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7679" RevisionGUID="e0122750-cf47-48a2-b63c-091a066aa289" CreationDate="2018-12-08T02:39:02.990" UserId="406" Text="|pronouns|noun|case|vocative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7680" RevisionGUID="cfdf2594-5ed2-460c-8c76-16712c8bdfb3" CreationDate="2018-12-08T04:22:07.037" UserId="1694" Text="I think both constructions are possible, but do not have the same connotation.  _Confiteor Deo […] et vobis fratribus_ would have a meaning like &quot;I confess to God ... and to you (who are my) brothers&quot;; but _Confiteor Deo […] et vobis, fratres_, &quot;I confess to God ... and to you, O my brothers&quot;.  In other words, there is a change of focus in the latter, where the speaker momentarily addresses his audience." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7681" RevisionGUID="08db7c85-15d2-48ae-a520-53392f300b81" CreationDate="2018-12-08T04:54:53.437" UserId="1694" Text="In Homer, the dual seems to be freely used whenever two items are mentioned, but this became rarer as time went on.  It's interesting that in Hebrew (which also had a dual), the use of the dual was basically confined to items that naturally occurred in pairs, e.g. Heb. _yadayim_ (a dual form) from _yad_ &quot;hand&quot;, but in the Iliad, at least, we have such forms as Αἴαντε, &quot;the two Ajaxes&quot; (in spite of the fact that they merely shared a name).  But, even in  Homer, the plural always seems to be a possible alternative to the dual." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7682" RevisionGUID="004bbd8c-13d5-40cb-9092-b36ea3042a01" CreationDate="2018-12-08T06:15:30.103" UserId="39" Text="No, forms of address are always in the vocative and are syntactically independent - they are extraclausal (Pinkster 2015: 1224).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, appositives agree with the head (in case, gender, and number), so they are syntactically dependent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, appositives can precede or follow vocative forms of address. Appositives will be in the morphological form determined by the syntax of the clause, whereas forms of address are always in the vocative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the following examples from Pinkster 2015:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mi Libane&lt;sup&gt;address.vocative&lt;/sup&gt;, **ocellus aureus**, **donum decusque amoris**, amabo, faciam quod voles ... (Pl.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... ut... Romae essem **teque**, mi carissime et suavissime frater&lt;sup&gt;address.vocative&lt;/sup&gt;, ad eam diem, ut sperabam, viderem. (Cic.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7682" RevisionGUID="d927c654-2c9d-4c6c-aea2-94b9ee0a7ccd" CreationDate="2018-12-08T06:22:51.633" UserId="39" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="No, forms of address are always in the vocative and are syntactically independent - they are extraclausal (Pinkster 2015: 1224).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, appositives agree with the head (in case, gender, and number), so they are syntactically dependent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, appositives can precede or follow vocative forms of address. Appositives will be in the morphological form determined by the syntax of the clause, whereas forms of address are always in the vocative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the following examples from Pinkster 2015:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mi Libane&lt;sup&gt;address.vocative&lt;/sup&gt;, **ocellus aureus**, **donum decusque amoris**, amabo, faciam quod voles ... (Pl.) - a vocative construction *ocelle etc.* would be wrong here, because you are addressing Libanus, not the golden eye etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... ut... Romae essem **teque**, mi carissime et suavissime frater&lt;sup&gt;address.vocative&lt;/sup&gt;, ad eam diem, ut sperabam, viderem. (Cic.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7682" RevisionGUID="b85ddb64-e262-40d2-a175-7826eac9edf6" CreationDate="2018-12-08T06:28:36.287" UserId="39" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="No, forms of address are always in the vocative and are syntactically independent - they are extraclausal (Pinkster 2015: 1224).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, appositives agree with the head (in case, gender, and number), so they are syntactically dependent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, appositives can precede or follow vocative forms of address. Appositives will be in the morphological form determined by the syntax of the clause, whereas forms of address are always in the vocative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Appositives, in such cases, from the semantic point of view, &quot;can be taken as descriptions ('you are X') rather than the address itself&quot; (Pinkster 2016: 1226).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the following examples from Pinkster 2015:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mi Libane&lt;sup&gt;address.vocative&lt;/sup&gt;, **ocellus aureus**, **donum decusque amoris**, amabo, faciam quod voles ... (Pl.) - a vocative construction *ocelle etc.* would be wrong here, because you are addressing Libanus, not the golden eye etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... ut... Romae essem **teque**, mi carissime et suavissime frater&lt;sup&gt;address.vocative&lt;/sup&gt;, ad eam diem, ut sperabam, viderem. (Cic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see page 1226 in Pinkster 2016 for more examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7677" RevisionGUID="615336ca-e7d2-48e6-904b-59556c4e2f15" CreationDate="2018-12-08T09:18:11.990" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="In the Catholic liturgy at the dismissal, the Latin phrase used is &quot;_Ite, missa est_.&quot; The usual translation for this is &quot;Go, it is the dismissal.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, what is the meaning of &quot;_Missa est_&quot; taken on its own? If you remove &quot;_Ite_&quot;, does the meaning become simply &quot;It is the dismissal&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7674" RevisionGUID="26ddc7df-212c-4ad2-983e-3d7a07b79615" CreationDate="2018-12-08T09:36:48.217" UserId="79" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="I have only studied the very basics of Greek years ago, so the question might be simple, but I couldn't find a clear summary anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;Attic Greek has a dual number alongside singular and plural.&#xD;&#xA;When was this number used?&#xD;&#xA;Was it used whenever there were two items but never otherwise, or just rarely in some archaic expressions?&#xD;&#xA;Would it always be safe to use the plural instead or are there situations where the dual is required?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25822" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7677" RevisionGUID="f774dc71-6813-4292-9c3f-26fb649eaef2" CreationDate="2018-12-08T09:38:52.710" UserId="79" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[743],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:45,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;brianpck&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1459,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;luchonacho&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7683" RevisionGUID="92563549-6cdb-4882-be93-82c25b9825ff" CreationDate="2018-12-08T11:57:28.707" UserId="522" Text="Here's a ready-made version. If it doesn't reach the minimum standard, I shall not be offended. Someone will invent a better translation for you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A version of this motto &quot;It's done as soon as its good enough,&quot; was carved into one of the Civil War Buildings by the King's Carpenter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**SAT CITO SI SAT BENE**  literally Soon Enough if Good Enough is one of the mottoes he used from 17thC French Emblem Books; and these have been published by a team at Glasgow University.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.emblems.arts.gla.ac.uk/french/index.php &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zc5ea.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7675" RevisionGUID="0ce4a0d3-5fee-4f00-8c6d-be87730b8980" CreationDate="2018-12-08T13:26:36.237" UserId="1459" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can anyone translate for me: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;If the minimum wasn't good enough, it wouldn't be the minimum&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had a tutor help me ages ago and thought what she decided was the best translation seemed like it had gone through google translate. I would love to embroider this as my personal motto." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25825" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7675" RevisionGUID="0ce4a0d3-5fee-4f00-8c6d-be87730b8980" CreationDate="2018-12-08T13:26:36.237" UserId="1459" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited title" Text="Translating &quot;If the minimum wasn't good enough, it wouldn't be the minimum&quot; into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7684" RevisionGUID="3af9fa08-cd36-4afc-971c-7268cc5ef34c" CreationDate="2018-12-08T13:45:41.333" UserId="1459" Text="Recently, a new international football competition was inaugurated, namely the UEFA Nations League. Being this a European-wide cup, the organisers decided to have the anthem in ... Latin! Certainly a better choice than the [Champions League anthem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Champions_League_Anthem), which is in English, French and German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new anthem is [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxPl3snsFaw) (is actually quite good!). The &quot;official&quot; lyrics are [here](https://www.uefa.com/uefanationsleague/news/newsid=2569365.html). As you can quickly realise, the ordering of the latter does not match the ones in the song. So instead, you can look at [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl8bXrz8iE), which syncronises the lyrics with the song.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, most of it makes sense. But two things are not clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The bits that allegedly say &quot;_Hanc in lucem_&quot;. I imagine the singers are not using an Ecclesiastical pronunciation (with which I'm most familiar), so the _c_ is not as in Italian (&quot;ch&quot;) but as a &quot;k&quot;. Hence the pronunciation? Is that what they are really saying?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Around [1:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl8bXrz8iE&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=73) in the video, it allegedly says &quot;_Lude_&quot;, but it just sound so different to it. Can you recognise that bit of the lyrics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25827" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7684" RevisionGUID="3af9fa08-cd36-4afc-971c-7268cc5ef34c" CreationDate="2018-12-08T13:45:41.333" UserId="1459" Text="Issues with the lyrics of the UEFA Nations League" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25828" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7684" RevisionGUID="3af9fa08-cd36-4afc-971c-7268cc5ef34c" CreationDate="2018-12-08T13:45:41.333" UserId="1459" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7684" RevisionGUID="266fa6b4-2dce-429b-bb3d-8862be08d70a" CreationDate="2018-12-08T13:57:08.620" UserId="1459" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="Recently, a new international football competition was inaugurated, namely the UEFA Nations League. Being this a European-wide cup, the organisers decided to have the anthem in ... Latin! Certainly a better choice than the [Champions League anthem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Champions_League_Anthem), which is in English, French and German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new anthem is [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxPl3snsFaw) (is actually quite good!). The &quot;official&quot; lyrics are [here](https://www.uefa.com/uefanationsleague/news/newsid=2569365.html). As you can quickly realise, the ordering of the latter does not match the ones in the song. So instead, you can look at [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl8bXrz8iE), which syncronises the lyrics with the song.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, most of it makes sense. But two things are not clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The bits that allegedly say &quot;_Hanc in lucem_&quot; (e.g. [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl8bXrz8iE&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=58)). I imagine the singers are not using an Ecclesiastical pronunciation (with which I'm most familiar), so the _c_ is not as in Italian (&quot;ch&quot;) but as a &quot;k&quot;. Hence the pronunciation? Is that what they are really saying?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Around [1:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl8bXrz8iE&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=73), it allegedly says &quot;_Lude_&quot;, but it just sound so different to it - sounds a bit like _meda_ (not a Latin word). Can you recognise that bit of the lyrics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7675" RevisionGUID="557e1428-c7ad-42f9-bb02-af3dad7d8261" CreationDate="2018-12-08T16:29:37.317" UserId="79" Comment="added 113 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Can anyone translate for me: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;If the minimum wasn't good enough, it wouldn't be the minimum&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had a tutor help me ages ago and thought what she decided was the best translation seemed like it had gone through Google Translate. I would love to embroider this as my personal motto.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here &quot;minimum&quot; means &quot;the least amount of work that still gets the job done&quot;. It's a quote from Office Space." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25831" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7675" RevisionGUID="557e1428-c7ad-42f9-bb02-af3dad7d8261" CreationDate="2018-12-08T16:29:37.317" UserId="79" Comment="added 113 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7685" RevisionGUID="d5fc4899-8af3-43ea-aced-2909f7635545" CreationDate="2018-12-08T17:46:33.923" UserId="79" Text="Here is a suggestion with a fairly literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nisi sufficit minimum, minimum non est.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the smallest is not enough, it is not the smallest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin word *minimum* is the superlative &quot;smallest&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The English word &quot;minimum&quot; is an appropriate translation in some contexts, but I chose differently to emphasize that the Latin and English *minimum* are not identical in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I chose to put the two instances of *minimum* next to each other for greater contrast.&#xD;&#xA;This is a matter of style and taste; you could just as well say *minimum sufficit*, for instance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25833" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7684" RevisionGUID="8ebe77f3-833c-4257-b3c9-2c64702c56c7" CreationDate="2018-12-08T19:49:40.037" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|pronunciation|song-lyrics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7684" RevisionGUID="93c31fb3-617b-47c8-bbea-a99f58c3cca7" CreationDate="2018-12-08T20:21:51.143" UserId="1459" Comment="added 23 characters in body; edited title" Text="Recently, a new international football competition was inaugurated, namely the UEFA Nations League. Being this a European-wide cup, the organisers decided to have the anthem in ... Latin! Certainly a better choice than the [Champions League anthem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Champions_League_Anthem), which is in English, French and German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new anthem is [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxPl3snsFaw) (is actually quite good!). The &quot;official&quot; lyrics are [here](https://www.uefa.com/uefanationsleague/news/newsid=2569365.html). As you can quickly realise, the ordering of the latter does not match the ones in the song. So instead, you can look at [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl8bXrz8iE), which syncronises the lyrics with the song.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, most of it makes sense. But two things are not clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The bits that allegedly say &quot;_Hanc in lucem_&quot; (e.g. [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl8bXrz8iE&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=58)). I imagine the singers are not using an Ecclesiastical pronunciation (with which I'm most familiar), so the _c_ is not as in Italian (&quot;ch&quot;, when preceding an _e_) but as a &quot;k&quot;. Hence the pronunciation? Is that what they are really saying?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Around [1:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl8bXrz8iE&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=73), it allegedly says &quot;_Lude_&quot;, but it just sound so different to it - sounds a bit like _meda_ (not a Latin word). Can you recognise that bit of the lyrics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25835" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7684" RevisionGUID="93c31fb3-617b-47c8-bbea-a99f58c3cca7" CreationDate="2018-12-08T20:21:51.143" UserId="1459" Comment="added 23 characters in body; edited title" Text="Issues with the lyrics of the UEFA Nations League anthem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7684" RevisionGUID="3bb8fd9b-eb12-4fa0-aebd-279e59a3eb98" CreationDate="2018-12-08T20:32:43.610" UserId="2476" Comment="clarified a bit" Text="Recently, a new international football competition was inaugurated, namely the UEFA Nations League. Being this a European-wide cup, the organisers decided to have the anthem in ... Latin! Certainly a better choice than the [Champions League anthem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Champions_League_Anthem), which is in English, French and German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new anthem is [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxPl3snsFaw) (is actually quite good!). The &quot;official&quot; lyrics are [here](https://www.uefa.com/uefanationsleague/news/newsid=2569365.html). As you can quickly realise, the ordering of the latter does not match the ones in the song. So instead, you can look at [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl8bXrz8iE), which syncronises the lyrics with the song.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, most of it makes sense. But two things are not clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The bits that allegedly say &quot;_Hanc in lucem_&quot; (e.g. [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl8bXrz8iE&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=58)). I imagine the singers are not using an Ecclesiastical pronunciation (with which I'm most familiar), so the _c_ is not as in Italian ( /tʃ/, when preceding an _e_ or an _i_ ) but as a &quot;k&quot;. Hence the pronunciation? Is that what they are really saying?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Around [1:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl8bXrz8iE&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=73), it allegedly says &quot;_Lude_&quot;, but it just sound so different to it - sounds a bit like _meda_ (not a Latin word). Can you recognise that bit of the lyrics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25837" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7684" RevisionGUID="3bb8fd9b-eb12-4fa0-aebd-279e59a3eb98" CreationDate="2018-12-08T20:32:43.610" Comment="Proposed by 2476 approved by 1459 edit id of 284" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7686" RevisionGUID="e7d6cd8e-8239-48a0-a24c-fc4e937bd5a2" CreationDate="2018-12-08T23:39:25.467" UserId="2476" Text="In @C.M.Weimer's answer we see an exchange of the following kind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A thanks B for a compliment or a display of esteem/affection &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B replies with _Meritum tuum est_, maybe embellished with a preceding interjecton like _pol_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose a general formula to cover (all?) other cases, provided a reply is appropriate in the first place:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A thanks B for some kind of help or advice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B replies with _Gaudeo quod tibi profuerim_ or _Gaudeo me tibi profuisse_ &quot;Glad I was helpful (to you)&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There don't seem to be instances of these phrases in classical sources, but a quick Google search shows that numerous Latin grammar books have reported them from early 19th century on, so I would use them casually." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7686" RevisionGUID="d9a42f4c-0974-4c98-912f-de94cd13ed15" CreationDate="2018-12-08T23:55:23.153" UserId="2476" Comment="edited body" Text="In @C.M.Weimer's answer we see an exchange of the following kind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A thanks B for a compliment or a display of esteem/affection &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B replies with _Meritum est tuum_, maybe embellished with a preceding interjecton like _pol_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I propose a general formula to cover (all?) other cases, provided a reply is appropriate in the first place:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A thanks B for some kind of help or advice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B replies with _Gaudeo quod tibi profuerim_ or _Gaudeo me tibi profuisse_ &quot;Glad I was helpful (to you)&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There don't seem to be instances of these phrases in classical sources, but a quick Google search shows that numerous Latin grammar books have reported them from early 19th century on, so I would use them casually." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7687" RevisionGUID="60f9f937-8ece-421e-a5ed-b537e59a9801" CreationDate="2018-12-09T01:28:07.720" UserId="2476" Text=" 1. The pronunciation of the singers is actually inconsistent, e.g. _vince_ is [ˈvɪŋ.kɛ], and &quot;ae&quot; is pronounced [e] in _praesta_ but also [ae̯] in _iunctae_.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The description of [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxPl3snsFaw)  gives the correct lyrics: it is not _lude!_ but _certa!_ (struggle!, strive!). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7687" RevisionGUID="df11f6f8-f30e-42d3-b4c6-19725f706d69" CreationDate="2018-12-09T01:38:40.767" UserId="2476" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text=" 1. Indeed the singers pronounce _lucem_ as /luˈkɛːm/, but their pronunciation is actually inconsistent, e.g. _vince_ is [ˈvɪŋ.kɛ] (neither Classical nor Ecclesiastical), and &quot;ae&quot; is pronounced [e] in _praesta_ but also [ae̯] in _iunctae_.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The description of [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxPl3snsFaw)  gives the correct lyrics: it is not _lude!_ but _certa!_ (struggle!, strive!). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25843" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2121" RevisionGUID="b81cc012-4a49-4203-9369-d159b5b26af1" CreationDate="2018-12-09T15:03:11.770" UserId="79" Comment="91" />
  <row Id="25844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7688" RevisionGUID="7e817246-fdfd-4bbe-a729-f76c77c4550e" CreationDate="2018-12-09T17:22:16.230" UserId="645" Text="This is a rather wordy response to your comment *'If there are reasons to believe that the question is unanswerable, explaining those reasons would make a good answer. It is certainly not what I expected, but it might well be the correct answer. It's useful to be aware of the things we simply don't know!'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not surprised that searching Packhum gave you only three results for *mare nostrum*. It's a problem with all such sources that they are (as far as they go) reflections only of the literaure that has survived to our own times ; another such is that they can be contaminated to a varying degree by mistakes of transcription through the centuries — we have only to look at the introductions and footnotes to volumes in the Oxford Classical Texts series to realize the extent of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the big point is that vastly more of Roman literature has been lost than survives. There are clues to some real losses : what might we have learned of history if we had the work of Aufidius Bassus (the Elder Pliny's history begins where he left off, *a fine Aufidii Bassi*)? or Cicero's verdict on Hortensius, whose literary and forensic abilities he apparently admired in a lost work? Livy was so thorough in his researches that his history was accepted as the definitive account, and his sources were lost or discarded as a result — or so it can be opined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From time to time, somebody produces a worthy monograph, perhaps on a practical subject such as stonecutting, or elementary metallurgy, or surgery. As far as I have encountered them, they are good at describing, say, archaeological finds, but almost inevitably find themselves leading us speculatively from the particular to the general. What do we know of their methods of land survey? of navigation at sea? And so on. It's easy to imagine what a vast archive on so many other topics has been lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for myself, the most fundamental regret is the lack of anything truly and generally from common speech. Certainly, we have examples in, say, the plays of Plautus and Terentius, the Satyricon, and the Metamorphoseon of Apuleius, but this is thin gruel in comparison with what I would wish for in vain. A different point is that literature survives only from the upper strata of Roman society and its interests and so — to reach your question at last — we may understand why there are no real clues to an answer. We know that *mare* was 'the sea' as opposed to *terra*, 'the land'. We know other names for the sea — *pontus*, *pelagus*, *oceanus*. We read of *Pontus Euxinus* and find it distinguished from *mare nostrum*; of *mare Tyrrhenium* and *mare superum*. Where, though, are any treatises on voyaging at sea? I suppose that only those whose lived by or travelled on the sea would speak or write often of it but, if they did so, I can easily see that those who were expressing a geographical oversight would refer to *mare nostrum* as the sea nearest to home.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7689" RevisionGUID="b916d1eb-a50b-4129-8f7c-02abe79494fa" CreationDate="2018-12-09T19:17:55.013" UserId="79" Text="A number of Greek names encountered in hexameter follow the syllable length pattern `-vv-`; consider for example *Penelope*, *Telemachos*, *Calliope*, *Terpsichore*.&#xD;&#xA;The pattern `-v--` is absent as the metric would not permit it, but I find it hard to believe that Greek names would completely avoid this pattern.&#xD;&#xA;This is not the only name pattern in hexameter, but just an example.&#xD;&#xA;There are also a number of names that do not fit, like the pattern `-v-` of Socrates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What did metric constraints do to names?&#xD;&#xA;How did the names in poetry end up so convenient for hexameter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of a couple of options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. There were a number of names, and only the ones fitting the pattern were used. This would lead to name changes in works like the Iliad which mention a huge number of names.&#xD;&#xA;2. The names were adapted to the metre. Perhaps the original forms of the names were incompatible with hexameter but they were massaged into a variant that fits. This could be supported by citing examples of such variants.&#xD;&#xA;3. The names were created for poetry in the first place. Then the names all come in a suitable pattern, but they cannot come from earlier non-hexametric myths.&#xD;&#xA;4. We just do not know why the names are so convenient metrically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it could be any combination of these.&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that there is no full answer out there, so any partial insights would be welcome answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25846" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7689" RevisionGUID="b916d1eb-a50b-4129-8f7c-02abe79494fa" CreationDate="2018-12-09T19:17:55.013" UserId="79" Text="Hexametric Greek names" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25847" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7689" RevisionGUID="b916d1eb-a50b-4129-8f7c-02abe79494fa" CreationDate="2018-12-09T19:17:55.013" UserId="79" Text="|greek|names|metre|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25848" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2976" RevisionGUID="b14f8c90-6605-4e2c-9d4e-cb0149c02b67" CreationDate="2018-12-10T08:58:32.253" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|translation-check|sentence-translation|latin-to-english-translation|gaius-iulius-caesar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25849" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2889" RevisionGUID="6d41b082-de55-425c-9a6b-72539183dd55" CreationDate="2018-12-10T08:59:13.090" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|translation-check|latin-to-english-translation|gaius-iulius-caesar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7690" RevisionGUID="b38d7f03-b9c1-42f5-8d84-d42ca9327373" CreationDate="2018-12-10T12:00:38.067" UserId="79" Text="Is there a concise way to phrase &quot;I like the way you think&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I can find ways to say this, but everything I could think of is a little unwieldy compared to the English.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I might say: *Mi placet modus, quo cogitas*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to do this with the verb, or should I be using a noun instead?&#xD;&#xA;With a noun I can make it flow better: *Mihi placet cogitatio tua.*&#xD;&#xA;However, I am far from sure that I have hit upon the best way to phrase such things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone is familiar with a Latin idiom or other natural sounding wording of &quot;I like the way you think&quot; or something similar enough, I would be glad to hear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25851" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7690" RevisionGUID="b38d7f03-b9c1-42f5-8d84-d42ca9327373" CreationDate="2018-12-10T12:00:38.067" UserId="79" Text="&quot;I like the way you think&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25852" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7690" RevisionGUID="b38d7f03-b9c1-42f5-8d84-d42ca9327373" CreationDate="2018-12-10T12:00:38.067" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25853" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="1390" RevisionGUID="eaa81d92-8d0a-4b28-b766-a91831a4b412" CreationDate="2018-12-10T12:13:53.307" UserId="79" Comment="92" />
  <row Id="25854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7691" RevisionGUID="55ccc964-3930-46ab-bc81-21bb16749700" CreationDate="2018-12-10T14:30:01.213" UserId="1459" Text="One option is _gaudeo in ideas tuas_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is &quot;sort of&quot; expressing the same thing, using _ideas_, which is nice (multilingual, English/Spanish at least)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25855" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7690" RevisionGUID="bd06ddd1-0baf-431b-9675-7dfc78acb594" CreationDate="2018-12-10T14:32:10.053" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="How to phrase &quot;I like the way you think&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7691" RevisionGUID="3759fe34-0108-481e-ba9f-d475cc8053d3" CreationDate="2018-12-10T15:14:04.127" UserId="1459" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="One option is _gaudeo in ideas tuas_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is &quot;sort of&quot; expressing the same thing, using _ideas_, which is nice (multilingual, English/Spanish at least).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Vincenzo states, _ideas_ as ideas is of a modern use. For a more Classical tone (even though you did not specify a tag), _cogitationes_ would be a better word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7692" RevisionGUID="8a60c7a5-43c6-47b1-a789-0a48b1e0c788" CreationDate="2018-12-10T15:24:54.197" UserId="2605" Text="Some names were indeed adapted to the meter. For example, in Homer, Achilles' name can be spelled with one or two λ depending on whether a heavy or light syllable is necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first line of the Iliad spells the name as Ἀχιλῆος (genitive of Ἀχιλεύς) in order to fit a meter of  `uu--`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few lines later (Iliad 1.7), Achilles gains a lambda and becomes Ἀχιλλεύς:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ἀτρεΐδης τε ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν καὶ δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what rules are used in alternating names, so I don't know how Σωκράτης might be adapted for hexameter (some other declensions of his name do seem to fit dactylic hexameter). But if Achilles's name (which fits the meter) can be changed, I would imagine that some of the names which wouldn't have otherwise fit might have been subject to prosodic license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different spellings for metrical purposes aren't limited to names. One example from a common noun: καρδία  `-u-` can't fit into hexameter, unless followed by a word beginning with a vowel, and so Homer almost always spells it κραδίη `uu-` (alternating from Ionic καρδίη), except for one case (Iliad 2.452, reference from [LSJ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kradia&amp;la=greek#Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=kardi/a-contents))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7691" RevisionGUID="3f9a0bfd-4750-49b3-9a70-6c2f411d5f88" CreationDate="2018-12-10T15:25:03.353" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="One option is _gaudeo in ideis tuas_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is &quot;sort of&quot; expressing the same thing, using _ideis_, which is nice (multilingual, English/Spanish at least).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Vincenzo states, _ideis_ as ideas is of a modern use. For a more Classical tone (even though you did not specify a tag), _cogitationibus_ would be a better word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7691" RevisionGUID="de255a8c-9651-49ec-adb9-2df6b435cad6" CreationDate="2018-12-10T17:46:54.600" UserId="1459" Comment="edited body" Text="One option is _gaudeo in ideis tuis_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is &quot;sort of&quot; expressing the same thing, using _ideis_, which is nice (multilingual, English/Spanish at least).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Vincenzo states, _ideis_ as ideas is of a modern use. For a more Classical tone (even though you did not specify a tag), _cogitationibus_ would be a better word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7693" RevisionGUID="cb5594bb-74bf-4d72-a273-d4ce976b29a4" CreationDate="2018-12-10T19:11:06.460" UserId="2476" Text="In his _De officiis_, Cicero wrote (my highlighting):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Si quis ab ineunte aetate habet causam celebritatis et nominis aut a patre acceptam aut aliquo casu atque fortuna, in hunc oculi ombium coniciuntur. **Eius** vita ac **modus agendi** examinantur et, tamquam in clarissima luce versetur, nullum nec dictum nec factum eius obscurum potest esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(translation, using the third person plural to maintain gender ambivalence)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If someone has reason to be celebrated and famous from their earliest youth, either received from their father or by some chance and fortune, everyone's eyes are on them. Their life and **their way of doing things** are examined and, just as if they were in the brightest light, none of their words or actions can be obscure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, after a quick search, it seems that when the subject of _mihi/tibi/... placet_ is a proper noun (_modus_ here) - as opposed to a substantivized verb -  the _mihi/tibi... placet_ bit goes at the end of the sentence more frequently than not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result of these observations, I think it's safe to say the phrasing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Tuus modus cogitandi mihi placet_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is quite natural. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7694" RevisionGUID="5ac4ade9-d12d-44a0-b569-eb2d4cae10c8" CreationDate="2018-12-10T19:50:10.517" UserId="45" Text="Though this suggestion won't work in every context, it works in an important one. &quot;I like the way you think&quot; can be a general compliment, but (to my ear, at least) often applies to a situation where someone is suggesting a course of action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Plautus's *Poenulus* I.1, after hearing a plan from Milphio, Agorastocles assents to the plan by saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Consilium placet!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This basically means, &quot;Sounds like a plan!&quot; but could also be creatively translated as, &quot;I like the way you think!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7692" RevisionGUID="16b2b9b6-55ce-45d5-9d63-3835c9094da6" CreationDate="2018-12-10T22:20:12.753" UserId="2605" Comment="added 539 characters in body" Text="Some names were indeed adapted to the meter. For example, in Homer, Achilles' name can be spelled with one or two λ depending on whether a heavy or light syllable is necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first line of the Iliad spells the name as Ἀχιλῆος (genitive of Ἀχιλεύς) in order to fit a meter of  `uu--`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few lines later (Iliad 1.7), Achilles gains a lambda and becomes Ἀχιλλεύς:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ἀτρεΐδης τε ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν καὶ δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what rules are used in alternating names, so I don't know how Σωκράτης might be adapted for hexameter (some other declensions of his name do seem to fit dactylic hexameter). But if Achilles's name (which fits the meter) can be changed, I would imagine that some of the names which wouldn't have otherwise fit might have been subject to prosodic license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different spellings for metrical purposes aren't limited to names. One example from a common noun: καρδία  `-u-` can't fit into hexameter, unless followed by a word beginning with a vowel, and so Homer almost always spells it κραδίη `uu-` (alternating from Ionic καρδίη), except for one case (Iliad 2.452, reference from [LSJ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kradia&amp;la=greek#Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=kardi/a-contents)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A search](http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/showrest_?conc.6.1.3701.0.57.LSJ) turns up with many more words which could manipulate the length of their vowels for metrical reasons (such as αἰθρία, ἀκάματος, ἰχθύδιον, κυάνεος). More to the point, it also gives two more proper names: Σικελία and Ὑδατοσύδνη both had their first syllable lengthened in dactylic hexameter in order to avoid a sequence of three consecutive short vowels. The sources quoted (Moschus and Callimachus respectively) are both Hellenistic-era poets." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25864" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5374" RevisionGUID="577a6e91-e13a-42f0-9fae-9e107e887be9" CreationDate="2018-12-11T10:07:56.670" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|medieval-latin|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25865" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="7695" RevisionGUID="dd7bfd80-13dd-4da0-b177-8e1f0b2b5068" CreationDate="2018-12-11T11:51:39.670" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/121450/understanding-a-reference-to-corpus-inscriptionum-latinarum" />
  <row Id="25866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7695" RevisionGUID="34dc1e38-7509-4423-83ad-9d5af2c78f44" CreationDate="2018-12-11T11:11:15.003" UserId="2278" Text="On page 33 of [Companion Animals &amp; Us](https://books.google.pt/books?id=tSs2yV_F4n0C&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=Companion+Animals+%26+US&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=r4OYU8jDJ6_50gWrwoDICg&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), there is a line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am in tears, while carrying you to your last resting place as much as I rejoiced when bringing you home in my own hands fifteen years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It cites *Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum 10.659.1-2* as its source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked at [entry 659 in Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum X](https://arachne.uni-koeln.de/arachne/index.php?view[layout]=buchseite_item&amp;search[constraints][buchseite][PS_BuchseiteID]=891370&amp;view[section]=uebersicht&amp;view[page]=0) and found an inscription that did not match the one one cited in *Companion Animals &amp; Us,* namely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ioui optumo maximo | pro salute m. aurelI antonini aug | s. populusq. aquinas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to find the inscription referenced in *Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.* What have I misunderstood?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](https://cil.bbaw.de/cil_en/dateien/index.php?id=10) are links to the other books." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7695" RevisionGUID="34dc1e38-7509-4423-83ad-9d5af2c78f44" CreationDate="2018-12-11T11:11:15.003" UserId="2278" Text="Understanding a reference to Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7695" RevisionGUID="34dc1e38-7509-4423-83ad-9d5af2c78f44" CreationDate="2018-12-11T11:11:15.003" UserId="2278" Text="|reference-request|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25869" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7695" RevisionGUID="0c64af69-40dc-448e-af5c-d566a66778f6" CreationDate="2018-12-11T12:03:07.147" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|inscription|reference-request|corpus-inscriptionum-latinarum|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7683" RevisionGUID="bcdad3c4-5263-4e0e-a571-0e45883cf7e0" CreationDate="2018-12-11T12:39:40.893" UserId="522" Comment="Re-write to include absurdism from original text" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Here's my second shot at your *'Minimum...*  The original doesn't turn into Latin Easily because of secondary meaning in Latin *minimum* - 'tiny', 'mean', 'sluttish'. And it doesn't work as 'only just enough;' that would be *Vix satis.* So here's my best attempt: it means &quot;But do scarcely enough;&quot; and the Romans would have hated it because they thought rhymes and chimes were uncouth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***AT VIX SAT FAC***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively (but it might be a bit too elegant)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ***AT SAT PERFAC***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*AT* is 'nevertheless'  or 'but, however,' implying all the usual clichés can be taken as said, but *now* it is about to offer better advice. *SAT PERFAC* means 'get it finished adequately.' *Perfac* does not mean 'be perfect' as you might think, but 'finish it;' so *perfectum* 'done,' 'completed.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that's too abrupt here's a ready-made practical version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This motto &quot;It's done as soon as its good enough,&quot; was carved into one of the Civil War Buildings by the King's Carpenter. (Not the first motto which means &quot;Live, so that you may live.&quot;) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**SAT CITO SI SAT BENE**  literally 'Soon Enough if Good Enough' is one of the mottoes he used from 17thC French Emblem Books; and these have been published by a team at Glasgow University.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.emblems.arts.gla.ac.uk/french/index.php &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![lintel SOON ENOUGH IF WELL ENOUGH][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zc5ea.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7685" RevisionGUID="783bc67e-0497-4bd8-af4c-2b879cfa3caa" CreationDate="2018-12-11T18:12:57.200" UserId="79" Comment="added 547 characters in body" Text="Here is a suggestion with a fairly literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nisi sufficit minimum, minimum non est.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the smallest is not enough, it is not the smallest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin word *minimum* is the superlative &quot;smallest&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The English word &quot;minimum&quot; is an appropriate translation in some contexts, but I chose differently to emphasize that the Latin and English *minimum* are not identical in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I chose to put the two instances of *minimum* next to each other for greater contrast.&#xD;&#xA;This is a matter of style and taste; you could just as well say *minimum sufficit*, for instance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suggestion I gave above is factual: it states how things are.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to make it counterfactual, you can use imperfect conjunctives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nisi sufficeret minimum, minimum non esset.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the smallest were not enough, it would not be the smallest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This formulation is more than a logical statement that one thing implies another.&#xD;&#xA;It carries a nuance that might fit your goal.&#xD;&#xA;I leave the choice to you.&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks to [brianpck](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/45/brianpck) for suggesting the counterfactual in a comment!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7696" RevisionGUID="9dc09050-9b8f-4c29-84e2-92ce3da76094" CreationDate="2018-12-11T19:53:01.047" UserId="40" Text="I hope someone posts a more thorough answer, but as a starting point, my impression of Attic usage (at least as exemplified by Plato) is as follows. First, the dual is always optional, both in nouns and verbs; it doesn't seem ever to be obligatory and can always be replaced with a plural. On the other hand, it isn't terribly rare, archaic, or limited to specific referents or registers, either. Plato's speakers seem to use it fairly productively, if inconsistently. Overall it looks like in Plato's time the dual was still part of the living everyday language, but was in the process of getting ousted by the plural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7692" RevisionGUID="06c2b8a9-9688-4eeb-8ae8-fd42814032fa" CreationDate="2018-12-11T20:11:53.000" UserId="2605" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="Some names were indeed adapted to the meter. For example, in Homer, Achilles' name can be spelled with one or two λ depending on whether a heavy or light syllable is necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first line of the Iliad spells the name as Ἀχιλῆος (genitive of Ἀχιλεύς) in order to fit a meter of  `uu--`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few lines later (Iliad 1.7), Achilles gains a lambda and becomes Ἀχιλλεύς:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ἀτρεΐδης τε ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν καὶ δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what rules are used in alternating names, so I don't know how Σωκράτης might be adapted for hexameter (some other declensions of his name do seem to fit dactylic hexameter). But if Achilles's name (which fits the meter) can be changed, I would imagine that some of the names which wouldn't have otherwise fit might have been subject to prosodic license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different spellings for metrical purposes aren't limited to names. One example from a common noun: καρδία  `-u-` can't fit into hexameter, unless followed by a word beginning with a vowel, and so Homer almost always spells it κραδίη `uu-` (alternating from Ionic καρδίη), except for one case (Iliad 2.452, reference from [LSJ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kradia&amp;la=greek#Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=kardi/a-contents)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A search](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/LSJ.html) (on terms dact*, metr*) turns up with many more words which could manipulate the length of their vowels for metrical reasons (such as αἰθρία, ἀκάματος, ἰχθύδιον, κυάνεος). More to the point, it also gives two more proper names: Σικελία and Ὑδατοσύδνη both had their first syllable lengthened in dactylic hexameter in order to avoid a sequence of three consecutive short vowels. The sources quoted (Moschus and Callimachus respectively) are both Hellenistic-era poets." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7698" RevisionGUID="1cbf686e-bfe7-48b3-9263-1cd1df8ec4d8" CreationDate="2018-12-11T22:27:15.463" UserId="406" Text="In a comment on [this answer][1], TKR brought up an interesting point of grammar I'd never heard of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Αἴαντε [Ajax-DUAL] is an interesting case. Though readers of Homer since antiquity have interpreted it as &quot;the two Ajaxes&quot;, this seems to be a misunderstanding: it originally meant &quot;Ajax and Teucer&quot;, an Indo-European &quot;elliptical dual&quot; (where dual of X means &quot;X and someone closely associated with X&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds interesting, but I've never heard of an &quot;elliptical dual&quot; before. How and when was it used in Greek? Clear, unambiguous examples (e.g. where it's clear it doesn't mean &quot;the two X&quot;) would be especially appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7681/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25877" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7698" RevisionGUID="1cbf686e-bfe7-48b3-9263-1cd1df8ec4d8" CreationDate="2018-12-11T22:27:15.463" UserId="406" Text="How was the &quot;elliptical dual&quot; used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25878" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7698" RevisionGUID="1cbf686e-bfe7-48b3-9263-1cd1df8ec4d8" CreationDate="2018-12-11T22:27:15.463" UserId="406" Text="|greek|grammar-identification|dual|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7698" RevisionGUID="54f73e87-1d85-480b-afa0-b4f3d885bbab" CreationDate="2018-12-11T22:45:58.297" UserId="406" Comment="edited body" Text="In a comment on [this answer][1], TKR brought up an interesting point of grammar I'd never heard of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Αἴαντε [Ajax-DUAL] is an interesting case. Though readers of Homer since antiquity have interpreted it as &quot;the two Ajaxes&quot;, this seems to be a misunderstanding: it originally meant &quot;Ajax and Teucer&quot;, an Indo-European &quot;elliptical dual&quot; (where dual of X means &quot;X and someone closely associated with X&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds interesting, but I've never heard of an &quot;elliptical dual&quot; before. How and when was it used in Greek? Clear, unambiguous examples (i.e. where it's clear it doesn't mean &quot;the two X&quot;) would be especially appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7681/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7699" RevisionGUID="c9e8b03d-59a6-4921-9cbe-051ced4484cb" CreationDate="2018-12-11T22:52:20.240" UserId="40" Text="I don't think there are any really clear uses in Greek; the elliptical dual is an archaic Indo-European construction which is no longer productive in Greek, and the elliptical interpretation of Αἴαντε (and the parallel Μολίονε) is based on the usage of other IE languages, mainly Sanskrit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Sanskrit, however, the usage is pretty clear. Basically, the idea is that you can refer to a pair of people or things that go together by using the dual form of one of the pair. Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *pitarau* &quot;father-DUAL&quot; = &quot;father and mother&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *mātarau* &quot;mother-DUAL&quot; = &quot;mother and father&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *Mitrā* &quot;Mitra-DUAL&quot; = &quot;Mitra and Vāruna&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *ahanī* &quot;day-DUAL&quot; = &quot;day and night&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *dyāyā* &quot;heaven-DUAL&quot; = &quot;heaven and earth&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are similar examples in Avestan and possibly in Tocharian. And even Latin, which has lost the dual, has an example using plural morphology: *Castorēs*, which means &quot;Castor and Pollux&quot; (not &quot;several people named Castor&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7700" RevisionGUID="b185cc30-856d-47c7-a6fc-8383ed040449" CreationDate="2018-12-11T23:38:22.250" UserId="324" Text="Common also in classical Arabic, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;al-qamarāni “the two moons” for “sun and moon”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;al-ʼabawāni “the two fathers” for “father and mother”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;al-furatāni “the two Euphrates” for “Tigris and Euphrates”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;al-ʻumarāni “the two ʻUmars” for the first two caliphs, Abū Bakr and ʻUmar. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7699" RevisionGUID="b2e85758-3085-4dd8-b6f7-5bb3d7f68b2f" CreationDate="2018-12-12T04:29:21.037" UserId="40" Comment="added examples" Text="I don't think there are any really clear uses in Greek; the elliptical dual is an archaic Indo-European construction which is no longer productive in Greek, and the elliptical interpretation of Αἴαντε (and the parallel Μολίονε) is based on the usage of other IE languages, mainly Sanskrit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Sanskrit, however, the usage is pretty clear. Basically, the idea is that you can refer to a pair of people or things that go together by using the dual form of one of the pair. Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *pitarau* &quot;father-DUAL&quot; = &quot;father and mother&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *mātarau* &quot;mother-DUAL&quot; = &quot;mother and father&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *Mitrā* &quot;Mitra-DUAL&quot; = &quot;Mitra and Vāruna&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *ahanī* &quot;day-DUAL&quot; = &quot;day and night&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *dyāyā* &quot;heaven-DUAL&quot; = &quot;heaven and earth&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *aulūkhalau* &quot;mortar-DUAL&quot; = &quot;mortar and pestle&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are similar examples in Avestan, and possibly in Lithuanian and Tocharian. And even Latin, which has lost the dual, has examples using plural morphology: *Castorēs* &quot;Castor and Pollux&quot;, *Cererēs* &quot;Ceres and Persephone&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7612" RevisionGUID="28d953d9-ba92-48a5-b907-6a70c9c46b90" CreationDate="2018-12-12T07:44:06.083" UserId="79" Comment="Added the source. Please re-edit if the source is wrong." Text="&gt; Dīxit, et potentem hastam magnīs vīribus manūs sinistrae in uterum equī iēcit; stetit illa, tremēns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does *stetit illa* refer to the spear? As in &quot;it stands there?&quot; Is *illa* capable of carrying that meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is from Wheelock's Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25884" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7612" RevisionGUID="28d953d9-ba92-48a5-b907-6a70c9c46b90" CreationDate="2018-12-12T07:44:06.083" UserId="79" Comment="Added the source. Please re-edit if the source is wrong." Text="|latin-to-english-translation|wheelocks-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25885" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7674" RevisionGUID="fe02461b-1d13-4656-95f2-7d0c75d68180" CreationDate="2018-12-12T07:50:45.117" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|grammar-choice|dual|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="e84fccc6-66bd-4a1b-ba4e-1f03abae7d63" CreationDate="2018-12-12T14:01:24.170" UserId="81" Text="I haven't completely figured out the text, but it appears that it contains both volumes IX and X. In any case, the numbering starts over at index #160 (pg. 4), and the entry you're looking for is at index #230 (pg. 74):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Portavi lacrimis madidus te nostra catella,&lt;br/&gt; qod feci lustris&#xD;&#xA;&gt; laetior ante tribus.&lt;br/&gt; ergo mihi, Patrice, iam non dabis osculla&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mille&lt;br/&gt; nec poteris collo grata cubare meo.&lt;br/&gt; tristis marmorea&#xD;&#xA;&gt; posui te sede merentem&lt;br/&gt; et iunxi semper Manib(us) ipse meis,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; morib(us) argutis hominem simulare paratam;&lt;br/&gt; perdidimus quales,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hei mihi, delicias.&lt;br/&gt; tu dulcis, Patrice, nostras attingere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mensas&lt;br/&gt; consueras, gremio poscere blanda cibos,&lt;br/&gt; lambere tu&#xD;&#xA;&gt; calicem lingua rapiente solebas&lt;br/&gt; quem tibi saepe meae sustinuere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manus,&lt;br/&gt; accipere et lassum cauda gaudente frequenter&lt;br/&gt; (final&#xD;&#xA;&gt; line missing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came across the following [translation][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bedewed with tears I have carried you, our little dog, as in happier&#xD;&#xA;&gt; circumstances I did fifteen years ago. So now, Patrice, you will no&#xD;&#xA;&gt; longer give me a thousand kisses, nor will you be able to lie&#xD;&#xA;&gt; affectionately round my neck. You were a good dog, and in sorrow I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have placed you in a marble tomb, and I have united you forever to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; myself when I die. You readily matched a human with your clever ways;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alas, what a pet we have lost! You, sweet Patrice, were in the habit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of joining us at table and fawningly asking for food in our lap, you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were accustomed to lick with your gready tongue the cup which my hands&#xD;&#xA;&gt; often held for you and regularly to welcome your tired master with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wagging tail . . . . . . (E. Courtney (1995))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://thelatinreadingblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/how-sweet-was-my-dog.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="db41c968-1cd9-428f-9299-6ac57c7306d9" CreationDate="2018-12-12T14:18:34.107" UserId="81" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="I haven't completely figured out the book's layout, but it appears that it contains both volumes IX and X. In any case, the numbering starts over at index #160 (pg. 4), and the entry you're looking for is at index #230 (pg. 74):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Portavi lacrimis madidus te nostra catella,&lt;br/&gt; qod feci lustris&#xD;&#xA;&gt; laetior ante tribus.&lt;br/&gt; ergo mihi, Patrice, iam non dabis osculla&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mille&lt;br/&gt; nec poteris collo grata cubare meo.&lt;br/&gt; tristis marmorea&#xD;&#xA;&gt; posui te sede merentem&lt;br/&gt; et iunxi semper Manib(us) ipse meis,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; morib(us) argutis hominem simulare paratam;&lt;br/&gt; perdidimus quales,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hei mihi, delicias.&lt;br/&gt; tu dulcis, Patrice, nostras attingere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mensas&lt;br/&gt; consueras, gremio poscere blanda cibos,&lt;br/&gt; lambere tu&#xD;&#xA;&gt; calicem lingua rapiente solebas&lt;br/&gt; quem tibi saepe meae sustinuere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manus,&lt;br/&gt; accipere et lassum cauda gaudente frequenter&lt;br/&gt; (final&#xD;&#xA;&gt; line missing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came across the following [translation][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bedewed with tears I have carried you, our little dog, as in happier&#xD;&#xA;&gt; circumstances I did fifteen years ago. So now, Patrice, you will no&#xD;&#xA;&gt; longer give me a thousand kisses, nor will you be able to lie&#xD;&#xA;&gt; affectionately round my neck. You were a good dog, and in sorrow I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have placed you in a marble tomb, and I have united you forever to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; myself when I die. You readily matched a human with your clever ways;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alas, what a pet we have lost! You, sweet Patrice, were in the habit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of joining us at table and fawningly asking for food in our lap, you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were accustomed to lick with your gready tongue the cup which my hands&#xD;&#xA;&gt; often held for you and regularly to welcome your tired master with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wagging tail . . . . . . (E. Courtney (1995))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://thelatinreadingblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/how-sweet-was-my-dog.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="ce329d54-279c-4871-8906-6d7deda38323" CreationDate="2018-12-12T14:49:24.813" UserId="81" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I haven't completely figured out the book's layout, but it appears that it contains both volumes IX and X. In any case, the numbering starts over at index #160 (pg. 4), and the entry you're looking for is at index #230 (pg. 74):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Portavi lacrimis madidus te nostra catella,&lt;br/&gt; quod feci lustris&#xD;&#xA;&gt; laetior ante tribus.&lt;br/&gt; ergo mihi, Patrice, iam non dabis osculla&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mille&lt;br/&gt; nec poteris collo grata cubare meo.&lt;br/&gt; tristis marmorea&#xD;&#xA;&gt; posui te sede merentem&lt;br/&gt; et iunxi semper Manib(us) ipse meis,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; morib(us) argutis hominem simulare paratam;&lt;br/&gt; perdidimus quales,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hei mihi, delicias.&lt;br/&gt; tu dulcis, Patrice, nostras attingere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mensas&lt;br/&gt; consueras, gremio poscere blanda cibos,&lt;br/&gt; lambere tu&#xD;&#xA;&gt; calicem lingua rapiente solebas&lt;br/&gt; quem tibi saepe meae sustinuere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manus,&lt;br/&gt; accipere et lassum cauda gaudente frequenter&lt;br/&gt; (final&#xD;&#xA;&gt; line missing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came across the following [translation][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bedewed with tears I have carried you, our little dog, as in happier&#xD;&#xA;&gt; circumstances I did fifteen years ago. So now, Patrice, you will no&#xD;&#xA;&gt; longer give me a thousand kisses, nor will you be able to lie&#xD;&#xA;&gt; affectionately round my neck. You were a good dog, and in sorrow I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have placed you in a marble tomb, and I have united you forever to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; myself when I die. You readily matched a human with your clever ways;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alas, what a pet we have lost! You, sweet Patrice, were in the habit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of joining us at table and fawningly asking for food in our lap, you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were accustomed to lick with your gready tongue the cup which my hands&#xD;&#xA;&gt; often held for you and regularly to welcome your tired master with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wagging tail . . . . . . (E. Courtney (1995))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://thelatinreadingblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/how-sweet-was-my-dog.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7702" RevisionGUID="c95152ce-9b6c-4856-a127-5cb7aa4b0835" CreationDate="2018-12-12T15:00:06.937" UserId="81" Text="In an answer I posted [here][1], I provided someone else's translation which translated *ante tribus* as &quot;fifteen years ago&quot;. The translation provided in the question also translated *tribus* the same way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Portavi lacrimis madidus te nostra catella,&lt;br/&gt; quod feci lustris&#xD;&#xA;&gt; laetior **ante tribus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that correct? Why would it be fifteen years and not three?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7701/81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25890" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7702" RevisionGUID="c95152ce-9b6c-4856-a127-5cb7aa4b0835" CreationDate="2018-12-12T15:00:06.937" UserId="81" Text="Why was ante tribus translated as &quot;fifteen years ago&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25891" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7702" RevisionGUID="c95152ce-9b6c-4856-a127-5cb7aa4b0835" CreationDate="2018-12-12T15:00:06.937" UserId="81" Text="|translation|time|numbers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="3bdeb274-7e48-4741-aafc-b7b571735eca" CreationDate="2018-12-12T15:18:15.660" UserId="81" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I haven't completely figured out the book's layout, but it appears that it contains both volumes IX and X. In any case, the numbering starts over at index #160 (pg. 4), and the entry you're looking for is at index #230 (pg. 74):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Portavi lacrimis madidus te nostra catella,&lt;br/&gt; quod feci lustris&#xD;&#xA;&gt; laetior ante tribus.&lt;br/&gt; ergo mihi, Patrice, iam non dabis oscula&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mille&lt;br/&gt; nec poteris collo grata cubare meo.&lt;br/&gt; tristis marmorea&#xD;&#xA;&gt; posui te sede merentem&lt;br/&gt; et iunxi semper manib(us) ipse meis,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; morib(us) argutis hominem simulare paratam;&lt;br/&gt; perdidimus quales,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hei mihi, delicias.&lt;br/&gt; tu dulcis, Patrice, nostras attingere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mensas&lt;br/&gt; consueras, gremio poscere blanda cibos,&lt;br/&gt; lambere tu&#xD;&#xA;&gt; calicem lingua rapiente solebas&lt;br/&gt; quem tibi saepe meae sustinuere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manus,&lt;br/&gt; accipere et lassum cauda gaudente frequenter&lt;br/&gt; (final&#xD;&#xA;&gt; line missing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came across the following [translation][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bedewed with tears I have carried you, our little dog, as in happier&#xD;&#xA;&gt; circumstances I did fifteen years ago. So now, Patrice, you will no&#xD;&#xA;&gt; longer give me a thousand kisses, nor will you be able to lie&#xD;&#xA;&gt; affectionately round my neck. You were a good dog, and in sorrow I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have placed you in a marble tomb, and I have united you forever to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; myself when I die. You readily matched a human with your clever ways;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alas, what a pet we have lost! You, sweet Patrice, were in the habit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of joining us at table and fawningly asking for food in our lap, you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were accustomed to lick with your gready tongue the cup which my hands&#xD;&#xA;&gt; often held for you and regularly to welcome your tired master with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wagging tail . . . . . . (E. Courtney (1995))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://thelatinreadingblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/how-sweet-was-my-dog.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7703" RevisionGUID="69746a29-a3c0-4f74-9690-1b89a5381405" CreationDate="2018-12-12T15:22:57.447" UserId="645" Text="*Lustrum* has several meanings, but that which applies here is the period of five years which elapsed from census to census. The phrase is actually *lustris ante tribus*, or 'three lustra ago'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good dictionary will give further explanation, if you require it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="1fdc7bc0-a21e-4820-a526-2e1714bd728f" CreationDate="2018-12-12T15:30:12.070" UserId="81" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="I haven't completely figured out the book's layout, but it appears that it contains both volumes IX and X. In any case, the numbering starts over at index #160 (pg. 4), and the entry you're looking for is at index #230 (pg. 74):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Portavi lacrimis madidus te nostra catella,&lt;br/&gt; quod feci lustris&#xD;&#xA;&gt; laetior ante tribus.&lt;br/&gt; ergo mihi, Patrice, iam non dabis oscula&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mille&lt;br/&gt; nec poteris collo grata cubare meo.&lt;br/&gt; tristis marmorea&#xD;&#xA;&gt; posui te sede merentem&lt;br/&gt; et iunxi semper manib(us) ipse meis,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; morib(us) argutis hominem simulare paratam;&lt;br/&gt; perdidimus quales,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hei mihi, delicias.&lt;br/&gt; tu dulcis, Patrice, nostras attingere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mensas&lt;br/&gt; consueras, gremio poscere blanda cibos,&lt;br/&gt; lambere tu&#xD;&#xA;&gt; calicem lingua rapiente solebas&lt;br/&gt; quem tibi saepe meae sustinuere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manus,&lt;br/&gt; accipere et lassum cauda gaudente frequenter&lt;br/&gt; (final&#xD;&#xA;&gt; line missing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came across the following [translation][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bedewed with tears I have carried you, our little dog, as in happier&#xD;&#xA;&gt; circumstances I did fifteen years ago. So now, Patrice, you will no&#xD;&#xA;&gt; longer give me a thousand kisses, nor will you be able to lie&#xD;&#xA;&gt; affectionately round my neck. You were a good dog, and in sorrow I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have placed you in a marble tomb, and I have united you forever to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; myself when I die. You readily matched a human with your clever ways;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alas, what a pet we have lost! You, sweet Patrice, were in the habit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of joining us at table and fawningly asking for food in our lap, you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were accustomed to lick with your gready tongue the cup which my hands&#xD;&#xA;&gt; often held for you and regularly to welcome your tired master with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wagging tail . . . . . . (E. Courtney (1995))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lzuYC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://thelatinreadingblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/how-sweet-was-my-dog.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="2824c2dd-26dc-401f-bca1-2b643ff322f3" CreationDate="2018-12-12T15:50:33.197" UserId="81" Comment="edited body" Text="I haven't completely figured out the book's layout, but it appears that it contains both volumes IX and X. In any case, the numbering starts over at index #160 (pg. 4), and the entry you're looking for is at index #230 (pg. 74):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Portavi lacrimis madidus te nostra catella,&lt;br/&gt; quod feci lustris&#xD;&#xA;&gt; laetior ante tribus.&lt;br/&gt; Ergo mihi, Patrice, iam non dabis oscula&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mille&lt;br/&gt; nec poteris collo grata cubare meo.&lt;br/&gt; Tristis marmorea&#xD;&#xA;&gt; posui te sede merentem&lt;br/&gt; et iunxi semper manib(us) ipse meis,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; morib(us) argutis hominem simulare paratam;&lt;br/&gt; perdidimus quales,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hei mihi, delicias.&lt;br/&gt; Tu dulcis, Patrice, nostras attingere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mensas&lt;br/&gt; consueras, gremio poscere blanda cibos,&lt;br/&gt; lambere tu&#xD;&#xA;&gt; calicem lingua rapiente solebas&lt;br/&gt; quem tibi saepe meae sustinuere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manus,&lt;br/&gt; accipere et lassum cauda gaudente frequenter&lt;br/&gt; (final&#xD;&#xA;&gt; line missing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came across the following [translation][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bedewed with tears I have carried you, our little dog, as in happier&#xD;&#xA;&gt; circumstances I did fifteen years ago. So now, Patrice, you will no&#xD;&#xA;&gt; longer give me a thousand kisses, nor will you be able to lie&#xD;&#xA;&gt; affectionately round my neck. You were a good dog, and in sorrow I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have placed you in a marble tomb, and I have united you forever to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; myself when I die. You readily matched a human with your clever ways;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alas, what a pet we have lost! You, sweet Patrice, were in the habit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of joining us at table and fawningly asking for food in our lap, you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were accustomed to lick with your gready tongue the cup which my hands&#xD;&#xA;&gt; often held for you and regularly to welcome your tired master with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wagging tail . . . . . . (E. Courtney (1995))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lzuYC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://thelatinreadingblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/how-sweet-was-my-dog.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="fcf15762-7894-45a8-85fb-5b624d17621b" CreationDate="2018-12-12T16:10:23.477" UserId="81" Comment="edited body" Text="I haven't completely figured out the book's layout, but it appears that it contains both volumes IX and X. In any case, the numbering starts over at index #160 (pg. 4), and the entry you're looking for is at index #230 (pg. 74):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Portavi lacrimis madidus te nostra catella,&lt;br/&gt; quod feci lustris&#xD;&#xA;&gt; laetior ante tribus.&lt;br/&gt; Ergo mihi, Patrice, iam non dabis oscula&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mille&lt;br/&gt; nec poteris collo grata cubare meo.&lt;br/&gt; Tristis marmorea&#xD;&#xA;&gt; posui te sede merentem&lt;br/&gt; et iunxi semper manib(us) ipse meis,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; morib(us) argutis hominem simulare paratam;&lt;br/&gt; perdidimus quales,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hei mihi, delicias.&lt;br/&gt; Tu dulcis, Patrice, nostras attingere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mensas&lt;br/&gt; consueras, gremio poscere blanda cibos.&lt;br/&gt; Lambere tu&#xD;&#xA;&gt; calicem lingua rapiente solebas&lt;br/&gt; quem tibi saepe meae sustinuere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manus,&lt;br/&gt; accipere et lassum cauda gaudente frequenter&lt;br/&gt; (final&#xD;&#xA;&gt; line missing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came across the following [translation][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bedewed with tears I have carried you, our little dog, as in happier&#xD;&#xA;&gt; circumstances I did fifteen years ago. So now, Patrice, you will no&#xD;&#xA;&gt; longer give me a thousand kisses, nor will you be able to lie&#xD;&#xA;&gt; affectionately round my neck. You were a good dog, and in sorrow I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have placed you in a marble tomb, and I have united you forever to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; myself when I die. You readily matched a human with your clever ways;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alas, what a pet we have lost! You, sweet Patrice, were in the habit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of joining us at table and fawningly asking for food in our lap, you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were accustomed to lick with your gready tongue the cup which my hands&#xD;&#xA;&gt; often held for you and regularly to welcome your tired master with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wagging tail . . . . . . (E. Courtney (1995))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lzuYC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://thelatinreadingblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/how-sweet-was-my-dog.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7704" RevisionGUID="064d640b-f44c-4d8a-be23-843f7fb579f7" CreationDate="2018-12-12T23:25:28.063" UserDisplayName="user3195" Text="Looking for a suitable latin translation for the phrase &quot;There is no god above an awakened man&quot; among latin quotes and text examples, I came up with these -obviously imperfect- phrases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Non deus est super hominem illuminantem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Non deus est super hominem cogitantem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main problem resides on finding a word for *awakened* in the same connotation of the phrase (more in the **enlightened** sense than the &quot;waking up from a dream&quot; sense).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *god* should be also more a generic term (like deity), not the name of certain exclusive god, so I don't know if *deus* is correctly used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you help me?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25899" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7704" RevisionGUID="064d640b-f44c-4d8a-be23-843f7fb579f7" CreationDate="2018-12-12T23:25:28.063" UserDisplayName="user3195" Text="Help translating &quot;There is no god above an awakened man&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25900" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7704" RevisionGUID="064d640b-f44c-4d8a-be23-843f7fb579f7" CreationDate="2018-12-12T23:25:28.063" UserDisplayName="user3195" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7705" RevisionGUID="38e12a3d-6085-4fcc-9aa4-427db39da5e7" CreationDate="2018-12-13T00:52:23.817" UserId="3197" Text="I was reading a Latin grammar book (Jenney's First Year Latin, for the curious) having recently resolved to learn a bit about the language and what I understood was as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Latin is an inflected language, i.e., conjugations for verbs and declensions for nouns/adverbs/pronouns. I've studied some spanish in school so here my understanding is basically &quot;declensions are conjugations, i.e., different endings depending on tense, but for parts of speech other than verbs&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There are different cases for the declension - much like spanish has the imperfect, present, present progressive, preterite, etc tenses for verbs, latin has nominative, dative, accusative, ablative, vocative, genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There is gender - masculine, feminine, and neuter - much like how spanish has gender (though it doesn't have the neuter gender, but I mean it affects more parts of speech than it does in english).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There are different cases for the conjugation - perfect, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This all made sense to me, so I continued to the first &quot;lesson&quot;, entitled &quot;first declension; nominative case&quot; and read &quot;the first declension - nouns whose stem ends in -a belong to the first declension ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This threw me off. My understanding is that declension literally just means that there are different cases for nouns/adverbs/pronouns, much like conjugations means there are different tenses for verbs which result in different endings depending on the subject (again, I go back to spanish - in the present tense for the subject &quot;yo&quot; the verb &quot;nadar&quot; becomes &quot;nado&quot; or similar) but this seems to imply there's more to it. Some googling brought up that Latin apparently has five declensions (but six cases? my original understanding led me to conflate case and declension, apparently).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly does this idea of the 'declension' mean? Does this correspond to (e.g.) -er, -ir, and -ar verbs in spanish (endings of the infinitive)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for the rather ignorant question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25902" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7705" RevisionGUID="38e12a3d-6085-4fcc-9aa4-427db39da5e7" CreationDate="2018-12-13T00:52:23.817" UserId="3197" Text="Exactly what is a declension?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25903" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7705" RevisionGUID="38e12a3d-6085-4fcc-9aa4-427db39da5e7" CreationDate="2018-12-13T00:52:23.817" UserId="3197" Text="|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7706" RevisionGUID="83676561-ed6a-4ab0-ae85-2a7d4206b9cc" CreationDate="2018-12-13T01:18:28.850" UserId="406" Text="Good question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Declension&quot; (like &quot;conjugation&quot;) is a word that means two different things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the abstract sense, &quot;declension&quot; is the abstract process of changing a noun or adjective's ending to reflect its role in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the specific sense, a &quot;declension&quot; is a class of nouns (or adjectives) that all decline the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin has five declensions (as in classes), and four conjugations. The endings of the verb conjugations should look familiar to you: first conjugation infinitives end in -āre, second conjugation in -ēre, third in -ere, and fourth in -īre." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7707" RevisionGUID="6f207d7d-9ec2-4684-bb8e-51f09f441dbe" CreationDate="2018-12-13T04:31:41.753" UserId="522" Text="For god ***'Dis',*** includes the ancient gods as well as the Olympian gods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Dis, ditis***  ([Lewis and Short][1]) 'god,' collectively 'the gods.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;is above,&quot; *[supersum][2]* is not the best word; it can mean: be superfluous, extra. It might be better to try *Praesum, -esse, praefui,* to be above, to be superior to, ([Lewis and Short][3]) followed by the *Dative.* &quot;is not  above&quot; ***non praeest.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In classical Latin *illuminatus* describes 'brilliant' rhetoric and 'illustrious' wisdom. But by 1700, the *illuminati* was the name for  advanced students of various Gnostic philosophies. In the *Dative,* ***Illuminatis***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to dissociate yourself from Gnosticism, *Prae-stans: (praestantior, praestantissimi)* [(L&amp;S)][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A. In gen. (class.).&#xD;&#xA;1. Of persons: *“omnibus praestans et ingenio et diligentiā,”* far surpassing all, Cic. Tusc. 1, 10, 22: *“usu et sapientiā praestantes,”* noted for their experience and wisdom, Nep. Timoth. 3, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Dative *&quot;in usu et sapientia praestantibus&quot;* or shorter, *&quot;in sapentia praestantibus.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DD%3Aentry%20group%3D38%3Aentry%3DDis2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/supersum&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DP%3Aentry%20group%3D96%3Aentry%3Dpraesum&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DP%3Aentry%20group%3D95%3Aentry%3Dpraesto2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7708" RevisionGUID="2ee38c05-b6af-43d2-aa8c-fb9849ee1abb" CreationDate="2018-12-13T04:54:01.610" UserId="406" Text="I disagree with Hugh's use of _Dīs_: instead I would use _deus_, a nice, standard word for &quot;god&quot; commonly used for the entire Roman pantheon. _Praesum_ is a good word for &quot;stand above&quot;, but I would use a more literal word for &quot;awakened&quot;, and also change the phrasing: _nullus_ means &quot;not any one&quot;, like German _keine_, while _nōn_ means &quot;not&quot;, like German _nicht_. So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Nullus deus suscitātō praeest._  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; No god stands higher than one who is awakened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7709" RevisionGUID="864e2837-b6d0-495d-a415-ee4f082911a7" CreationDate="2018-12-13T08:08:45.150" UserId="2646" Text="The Lewis &amp; Short dictionary defines *gratia* as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **[grātĭa][1]**, ae, f. gratus; lit., favor, both that in which one stands with others and that which one shows to others.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I.** *Favor which one finds with others, esteem, regard, liking, love, friendship* (syn. favor).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. *Favor which one shows to another, mark of favor, kindness, courtesy, service, obligation.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So according to the first meaning it seems that *gratia* was indeed a synonym for *favor*, which is defined as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **[făvor][2]**, ōris, m. id.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. *favor, good-will, inclination, partiality*, esp. of a party (rare in Cic.; not in Caes.; freq. since the Aug. per. in prose and poetry; syn.: studium, benevolentia, gratia, pietas, caritas, amor).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which also refers to *gratia* as a synonym. But was there any difference in the usage of both words? Could you always exchange them or were there cases in which you should favor (pun intended) one word over the other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=gratia&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=favor&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25908" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7709" RevisionGUID="864e2837-b6d0-495d-a415-ee4f082911a7" CreationDate="2018-12-13T08:08:45.150" UserId="2646" Text="Was there any difference between &quot;grātĭa&quot; and &quot;făvor&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25909" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7709" RevisionGUID="864e2837-b6d0-495d-a415-ee4f082911a7" CreationDate="2018-12-13T08:08:45.150" UserId="2646" Text="|classical-latin|noun|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5506" RevisionGUID="49fdc903-0bcc-4b1c-8ab1-2c329a6fd608" CreationDate="2018-12-13T12:03:21.117" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I suggest the word adjective ***localis***.&#xD;&#xA;It is not exactly the same as the English &quot;local&quot;, but evidently related to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=localis&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) translates it as &quot;of or belonging to a place, local&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Some use examples are mentioned in the linked dictionary entry, including *adverbia localia* (&quot;adverbs of place&quot;, Scaurus, *De Adverbio et Praepositione* 29.8) and *localiter* (&quot;locally&quot; or &quot;by local inhabitants&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, the best translation depends on context, but the adjective *localis* is my best first guess for &quot;belonging to some place&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or did you perhaps mean phrases like &quot;I was born here and I belong in this city&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;That would be a completely different story." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7705" RevisionGUID="7db04ac8-ac9f-4668-ac72-7af2e4357d80" CreationDate="2018-12-13T12:03:42.037" UserId="255" Comment="add terminology tag " Text="I was reading a Latin grammar book (Jenney's First Year Latin, for the curious) having recently resolved to learn a bit about the language and what I understood was as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Latin is an inflected language, i.e., conjugations for verbs and declensions for nouns/adverbs/pronouns. I've studied some Spanish in school so here my understanding is basically &quot;declensions are conjugations, i.e., different endings depending on tense, but for parts of speech other than verbs&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There are different cases for the declension - much like Spanish has the imperfect, present, present progressive, preterite, etc tenses for verbs, Latin has nominative, dative, accusative, ablative, vocative, genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There is gender - masculine, feminine, and neuter - much like how Spanish has gender (though it doesn't have the neuter gender, but I mean it affects more parts of speech than it does in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There are different cases for the conjugation - perfect, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This all made sense to me, so I continued to the first &quot;lesson&quot;, entitled &quot;first declension; nominative case&quot; and read &quot;the first declension - nouns whose stem ends in -a belong to the first declension ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This threw me off. My understanding is that declension literally just means that there are different cases for nouns/adverbs/pronouns, much like conjugations means there are different tenses for verbs which result in different endings depending on the subject (again, I go back to Spanish - in the present tense for the subject &quot;yo&quot; the verb &quot;nadar&quot; becomes &quot;nado&quot; or similar) but this seems to imply there's more to it. Some googling brought up that Latin apparently has five declensions (but six cases? my original understanding led me to conflate case and declension, apparently).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly does this idea of the 'declension' mean? Does this correspond to (e.g.) -er, -ir, and -ar verbs in Spanish (endings of the infinitive)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25912" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7705" RevisionGUID="7db04ac8-ac9f-4668-ac72-7af2e4357d80" CreationDate="2018-12-13T12:03:42.037" UserId="255" Comment="add terminology tag " Text="|declension|terminology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25913" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7705" RevisionGUID="7db04ac8-ac9f-4668-ac72-7af2e4357d80" CreationDate="2018-12-13T12:03:42.037" Comment="Proposed by 255 approved by 79 edit id of 285" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25914" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7709" RevisionGUID="0ce12409-91ad-4651-8bb2-e87be03ad4d8" CreationDate="2018-12-13T12:05:47.513" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|word-comparison|noun|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7710" RevisionGUID="57715fe9-7483-4a02-84b6-18e329abd530" CreationDate="2018-12-13T12:45:45.657" UserId="2476" Text="Like Draconis, I opt for a construction with _nullus deus_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I don't agree with either him or Hugh on the verb: when _praesum_ does **vaguely** mean &quot;standing above&quot; (it can be considered its literal translation, _prae_+_sum_), it really has the specific meaning of **presiding** over, or commanding, something - it can have other nuances, but these don't include that of being morally or socially superior to someone else. Instead, I would go for _antecedo,-is,-cessi,-cessum,-ĕre_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his _Moral letters to Lucilius_, Liber VIII, Seneca the Younger wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Iuppiter quo antecedit virum bonum?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In what is Jupiter superior to a virtuous man?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To conclude, _suscitatus,-a (,-um)_ was more often than not used with the meaning of &quot;resurrected&quot;. At best, it is ambiguous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me there is no exact analogue of &quot;awakened&quot;, and _illuminatus_ for &quot;enlightened&quot; was only used to describe elegant speech, prose or poetry. Within Church Latin, _illuminatus_ assumes a connotation similar to _enlightened_, however its religious trait makes it uneffective for the message of your sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think Cicero gives us a great option (my highlighting):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...] hoc primum intellegamus, hominum duo esse genera, alterum indoctum et agreste, quod anteferat semper utilitatem honestati, alterum **humanum** et politum, quod rebus omnibus dignitatem anteponat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;[...] we first consider this, the fact that there are two kinds of men: one ignorant and rude, who prefers profit over integrity; the other, **virtuous** and  refined, who places dignity above everything.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wrapping things up**, my translation is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Nullus deus antecedit hominem humanum._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, Man needs nothing but the wisdom to pursue what he can find in himself, to reach godlike virtue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I translated both _bonum_ and _humanum_ as &quot;virtuous&quot;, but they clearly have different connotations. Plus, the juxtaposition _hominem humanum_ better serves the purpose I explained above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7711" RevisionGUID="114b45f6-f2f6-4712-914c-9f14f522f59b" CreationDate="2018-12-13T14:05:02.543" UserId="3201" Text="I am writing a piece of software that translates programs into programs (a &quot;compiler&quot;, in informatics lingo) and my source language allows the programmer to specify Latin numerals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case the numeral is incorrect (e.g., IVI) or is too large (that is, above a predefined limit, here the largest is currently 999), I would like to print out error messages in English and Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would you recommend for the Latin (I need two messages, one for each error above)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25917" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7711" RevisionGUID="114b45f6-f2f6-4712-914c-9f14f522f59b" CreationDate="2018-12-13T14:05:02.543" UserId="3201" Text="An error message in Latin for my programming language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25918" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7711" RevisionGUID="114b45f6-f2f6-4712-914c-9f14f522f59b" CreationDate="2018-12-13T14:05:02.543" UserId="3201" Text="|idiom|technology|numbers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7712" RevisionGUID="3c544bde-9f87-4256-9eb6-73b411a45e98" CreationDate="2018-12-13T14:55:28.603" UserId="1459" Text="I would suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In case the numeral is incorrect (e.g., IVI) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_numerus falsus_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... or is too large &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_numerus magnissimus_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7712" RevisionGUID="07137c94-1815-4abe-94ba-297eac640cfb" CreationDate="2018-12-13T15:00:46.913" UserId="1459" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="I would suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In case the numeral is incorrect (e.g., IVI) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_numerus falsus_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... or is too large &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_numerus magnus nimis_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you can also add _error:_ at the beginning. _Erratum_ could also be used, albeit is commonly seen in printed books in other contexts.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7712" RevisionGUID="400499fd-993b-42c6-8ce5-eee5740c53c8" CreationDate="2018-12-13T15:06:07.503" UserId="1459" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="I would suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In case the numeral is incorrect (e.g., IVI) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_numerus falsus_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... or is too large &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_numerus magnus nimis_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you can also add _error:_ or _erratum:_ at the beginning of the message (albeit the latter is commonly found in printed books for correcting printer errors, so not sure it fits in the context).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7713" RevisionGUID="7a59c8a2-1fd6-4a95-8615-9a25d83f7003" CreationDate="2018-12-13T17:08:00.400" UserId="645" Text="I suggest *numerus pravus* for 'incorrect' and *numerus nimius* for 'too large'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="bb676502-154b-4c4e-a330-3fc37a74ab59" CreationDate="2018-12-13T17:14:54.757" UserId="2278" Comment="Added link to the page" Text="I haven't completely figured out the book's layout, but it appears that it contains both volumes IX and X. In any case, the numbering starts over at index #160 (pg. 4), and the entry you're looking for is at [index #230 (pg. 74)](https://arachne.uni-koeln.de/arachne/index.php?view[layout]=buchseite_item&amp;search[constraints][buchseite][PS_BuchseiteID]=891498&amp;view[section]=uebersicht&amp;view[page]=0):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Portavi lacrimis madidus te nostra catella,&lt;br/&gt; quod feci lustris&#xD;&#xA;&gt; laetior ante tribus.&lt;br/&gt; Ergo mihi, Patrice, iam non dabis oscula&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mille&lt;br/&gt; nec poteris collo grata cubare meo.&lt;br/&gt; Tristis marmorea&#xD;&#xA;&gt; posui te sede merentem&lt;br/&gt; et iunxi semper manib(us) ipse meis,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; morib(us) argutis hominem simulare paratam;&lt;br/&gt; perdidimus quales,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hei mihi, delicias.&lt;br/&gt; Tu dulcis, Patrice, nostras attingere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mensas&lt;br/&gt; consueras, gremio poscere blanda cibos.&lt;br/&gt; Lambere tu&#xD;&#xA;&gt; calicem lingua rapiente solebas&lt;br/&gt; quem tibi saepe meae sustinuere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manus,&lt;br/&gt; accipere et lassum cauda gaudente frequenter&lt;br/&gt; (final&#xD;&#xA;&gt; line missing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came across the following [translation][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bedewed with tears I have carried you, our little dog, as in happier&#xD;&#xA;&gt; circumstances I did fifteen years ago. So now, Patrice, you will no&#xD;&#xA;&gt; longer give me a thousand kisses, nor will you be able to lie&#xD;&#xA;&gt; affectionately round my neck. You were a good dog, and in sorrow I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have placed you in a marble tomb, and I have united you forever to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; myself when I die. You readily matched a human with your clever ways;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alas, what a pet we have lost! You, sweet Patrice, were in the habit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of joining us at table and fawningly asking for food in our lap, you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were accustomed to lick with your gready tongue the cup which my hands&#xD;&#xA;&gt; often held for you and regularly to welcome your tired master with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wagging tail . . . . . . (E. Courtney (1995))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lzuYC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://thelatinreadingblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/how-sweet-was-my-dog.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25924" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="bb676502-154b-4c4e-a330-3fc37a74ab59" CreationDate="2018-12-13T17:14:54.757" Comment="Proposed by 2278 approved by 81 edit id of 286" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7714" RevisionGUID="b5864218-8b49-453a-8da2-8dfdf812e10d" CreationDate="2018-12-13T18:54:21.817" UserId="2937" Text="&gt;(Psalm 4:2) cum invocarem exaudivit me Deus iustitiae meae in tribulatione **dilatasti** mihi miserere mei et exaudi orationem meam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When I called upon him, the God of my justice heard me: when I was in distress, **thou hast enlarged** me. Have mercy on me: and hear my prayer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the context of the above Psalm verse, ***dilatasti*** seems to be 2nd-person singular perfect active indicative. Moreover, that is the parsing information given by [this site][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, my Latin dictionary lists *dilatavi* as the third principal part, which means *dilatavi* is the 1st-person singular perfect active indicative. Therefore, it seems that ***dilatavisti*** would be the 2nd-person singular perfect active indicative. Moreover, [Wiktionary][2] lists *dilatavisti* as the 2nd-person singular perfect active indicative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is the correct form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Psalm%204.2&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0060&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dilato#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25926" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7714" RevisionGUID="b5864218-8b49-453a-8da2-8dfdf812e10d" CreationDate="2018-12-13T18:54:21.817" UserId="2937" Text="Why &quot;dilatasti&quot; instead of &quot;dilatavisti&quot; in Psalm 4:2?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25927" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7714" RevisionGUID="b5864218-8b49-453a-8da2-8dfdf812e10d" CreationDate="2018-12-13T18:54:21.817" UserId="2937" Text="|verbs|conjunction|vulgata|perfect-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7715" RevisionGUID="b91802a6-4dc8-49cc-832d-0118e7343ed2" CreationDate="2018-12-13T18:58:27.763" UserId="406" Text="This is a **contracted perfect** form, which is fairly common in poetry, particularly in the first conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, whenever you have a second person perfect active ending in *-āvisti* (like *amāvisti* &quot;you loved&quot;), it can be contracted to *-āsti* without changing the meaning (e.g. *amāsti* &quot;you loved&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's somewhat like how English uses &quot;don't&quot; instead of &quot;do not&quot;: no change in meaning, but shorter, and sometimes fits the poetic meter better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7438" RevisionGUID="2753cdaf-5fd0-482d-824e-15bd8c21995a" CreationDate="2018-12-14T01:34:05.553" UserId="932" Comment="link" Text="I'm curious whether we know the Classical Latin or Greek names of the ladybug. I can't find the word in any of the dictionaries I have access to at the moment, and googling turns up [this reddit thread][1] where the question is raised but not answered. Obviously there is a modern scientific Latin name for the ladybug (*Coccinella*), but that doesn't seem to have been used in antiquity, as far as I can tell. Do we know what the Greeks or Romans called this beetle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/6ayb55/anyone_here_knows_how_to_say_ladybugladybird_in/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7716" RevisionGUID="af900432-061d-4ecc-a055-71525840d548" CreationDate="2018-12-14T13:03:00.483" UserId="3106" Text="Hi everybody,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question is very interesting because it allows to understand a concept quite important for Romans. First of all I think that your question comes from the quite confusing *lemma* of the L&amp;S ; for tis kind of research I would recommend the *Thesaurus Linguae Latinae* or, if the word is not in it yet, the Forcellini's *Lexicon Totius Latinitatis*. So my answer is based on this two instruments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, a little bit of etymology : as it said in the *Dictionnaire Etymologique de la langue latine* by Ernout and Meillet page 281-282, *gratia* cames from the adjective *gratus* who has some connections with an old indo-european which concerns the religious field. According to them (p. 282), the first meaning of this word is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1° abstract : gratitude Cic. Inv. 2, 66 *gratia est in qua amicitiarum et officiarum alterius memoria et remunerandi voluntas continetur*. From this meaning it becomes : &quot;action through wich gratitude is gained&quot; whence favour. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 2° : beauty, grace. This is the translation of the greek χάρις, and the use of χάριν matches with the latin gratia (ablative case). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's do this with *favor* p. 220-221 : this word cames from the verb *faveo* who means to favour. Its meaning is indeed favour or applause. But, the first use of this word is in Cic, Sest. 115 *qui rumore et, ut ipsi loquontur, favore populi tenetur et ducitur*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;So, we can comfortably see that, according to their etymology, the use of these two words is not always exchangeable : one cannot use gratia instead of favor in the second quote from Cic, Sest 115, It would make no sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, their use according the *Thesaurus*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First for *gratia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **PARS PRIMA:**  -a generatim.6.2.2205.80 &#xD;&#xA;I SINGVLARIS: &#xD;&#xA; *A active*: de oblatione favoris: &#xD;&#xA; 1 per homines in universum:  a ultro facta: p. 2206, 47. &#xD;&#xA; b in retributione beneficii: p. 2208, 37.  c meton. de ipsa &#xD;&#xA;re oblata: p. 2209, 1.  d de favore mutuo: p. 2209, 18. &#xD;&#xA; 2 de favore inique iudicantium: p. 2209, 47. &#xD;&#xA; *B passive*: de perceptione vel usu favoris: p. 2210, 13. &#xD;&#xA; 1 de statu (condicione) hominum:  a generatim: &#xD;&#xA;p. 2210, 17.  b in re publica: p. 2211, 10.  c accedunt ap- &#xD;&#xA;6.2.2206.5posita usitatiora: p. 2212, 35. &#xD;&#xA; 2 de qualitate rerum: p. 2212, 65.  a corporalium (α in &#xD;&#xA;hominibus. β in reliqua rerum natura [p. 2213, 36]). &#xD;&#xA; b incorporalium: p. 2214, 37 (α in arte dicendi. β in vita &#xD;&#xA;et moribus [p. 2215, 46]). &#xD;&#xA;6.2.2206.10 C iuncturae: &#xD;&#xA; 1 verbales sec. casus: p. 2216, 63. &#xD;&#xA; 2 nominales: p. 2221, 63.  a gen. -ae pendet ex substt.  b ex &#xD;&#xA;subst. -a pendet praep. c. casu: p. 2221, 77.  c epithetorum &#xD;&#xA;collectio: p. 2222, 1.  syn., opp. (p. 2223, 27). 6.2.2206.15 &#xD;&#xA;II PLVRALIS: &#xD;&#xA; A loci extra iuncturas: p. 2223, 64.  B iuncturae verbales &#xD;&#xA;sec. casus: p. 2224, 12. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the same for *favor*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  generatim i. q. studium, benevolentia, probatio, inclinatio &#xD;&#xA;sim. (rarius de inferioribus vel subiectis) ; II metonymice i. q. actio, qua favor ostenditur:  A i. q. &#xD;&#xA;6.1.386.40plausus, acclamatio, assensus quilibet voce plerumque (cf. Liv. 23, &#xD;&#xA;46, 2 clamorem -is indicem) vel sonitu manuum nutu.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, relying on the difference of dimensions of the two *lemmata*, we can easily see that *gratia* has a more important semantic field than *favor* wich has been used later and for a more specific semantic field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So an answer could be this : yes, one among the meanings of *gratia* is the same of the first one of *favor* and they are in this case synonyms. But, even in this case, the word *gratia* is older and is perceived as more elevated than *favor* which is more an 'imperial' word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hoping that my answer is what you expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I apologize for my English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best regards,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Umberto" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7716" RevisionGUID="d822a95c-da97-4007-94ea-74da9d34d12a" CreationDate="2018-12-14T13:30:35.917" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 43 characters in body" Text="Your question is very interesting because it allows to understand a concept quite important for Romans. First of all I think that your question comes from the quite confusing *lemma* of the L&amp;S ; for tis kind of research I would recommend the *Thesaurus Linguae Latinae* or, if the word is not in it yet, the Forcellini's *Lexicon Totius Latinitatis*. So my answer is based on this two instruments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, a little bit of etymology : as it said in the *Dictionnaire Etymologique de la langue latine* by Ernout and Meillet page 281-282, *gratia* cames from the adjective *gratus* who has some connections with an old indo-european which concerns the religious field. According to them (p. 282), the first meaning of this word is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1° abstract : gratitude Cic. Inv. 2, 66 *gratia est in qua amicitiarum et officiarum alterius memoria et remunerandi voluntas continetur*. From this meaning it becomes : &quot;action through wich gratitude is gained&quot; whence favour. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 2° : beauty, grace. This is the translation of the greek χάρις, and the use of χάριν matches with the latin gratia (ablative case). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's do this with *favor* p. 220-221 : this word cames from the verb *faveo* who means to favour. Its meaning is indeed favour or applause. But, the first use of this word is in Cic, Sest. 115 *qui rumore et, ut ipsi loquontur, favore populi tenetur et ducitur*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;So, we can comfortably see that, according to their etymology, the use of these two words is not always exchangeable : one cannot use gratia instead of favor in the second quote from Cic, Sest 115, It would make no sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, their use according the *Thesaurus*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First for *gratia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **PARS PRIMA:**  -a generatim.6.2.2205.80 &#xD;&#xA;I SINGVLARIS: &#xD;&#xA; *A active*: de oblatione favoris: &#xD;&#xA; 1 per homines in universum:  a ultro facta: p. 2206, 47. &#xD;&#xA; b in retributione beneficii: p. 2208, 37.  c meton. de ipsa &#xD;&#xA;re oblata: p. 2209, 1.  d de favore mutuo: p. 2209, 18. &#xD;&#xA; 2 de favore inique iudicantium: p. 2209, 47. &#xD;&#xA; *B passive*: de perceptione vel usu favoris: p. 2210, 13. &#xD;&#xA; 1 de statu (condicione) hominum:  a generatim: &#xD;&#xA;p. 2210, 17.  b in re publica: p. 2211, 10.  c accedunt ap- &#xD;&#xA;6.2.2206.5posita usitatiora: p. 2212, 35. &#xD;&#xA; 2 de qualitate rerum: p. 2212, 65.  a corporalium (α in &#xD;&#xA;hominibus. β in reliqua rerum natura [p. 2213, 36]). &#xD;&#xA; b incorporalium: p. 2214, 37 (α in arte dicendi. β in vita &#xD;&#xA;et moribus [p. 2215, 46]). &#xD;&#xA;6.2.2206.10 C iuncturae: &#xD;&#xA; 1 verbales sec. casus: p. 2216, 63. &#xD;&#xA; 2 nominales: p. 2221, 63.  a gen. -ae pendet ex substt.  b ex &#xD;&#xA;subst. -a pendet praep. c. casu: p. 2221, 77.  c epithetorum &#xD;&#xA;collectio: p. 2222, 1.  syn., opp. (p. 2223, 27). 6.2.2206.15 &#xD;&#xA;II PLVRALIS: &#xD;&#xA; A loci extra iuncturas: p. 2223, 64.  B iuncturae verbales &#xD;&#xA;sec. casus: p. 2224, 12. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the same for *favor*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  generatim i. q. studium, benevolentia, probatio, inclinatio &#xD;&#xA;sim. (rarius de inferioribus vel subiectis) ; II metonymice i. q. actio, qua favor ostenditur:  A i. q. &#xD;&#xA;6.1.386.40plausus, acclamatio, assensus quilibet voce plerumque (cf. Liv. 23, &#xD;&#xA;46, 2 clamorem -is indicem) vel sonitu manuum nutu.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, relying on the difference of dimensions of the two *lemmata*, we can easily see that *gratia* has a more important semantic field than *favor* wich has been used later and for a more specific semantic field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So an answer could be this : yes, one among the meanings of *gratia* is the same of the first one of *favor* and they are in this case synonyms. But, even in this case, the word *gratia* is older and is perceived as more elevated than *favor* which is more an 'imperial' word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hoping that my answer is what you expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I apologize for my English.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7717" RevisionGUID="221beea3-a90e-4b6d-8b47-98275635d024" CreationDate="2018-12-14T13:59:27.487" UserId="1459" Text="In Spanish there is a whole array of phrases of the type:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Me importa un comino_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where the word &quot;_comino_&quot; can be replaced by many alternatives (e.g. _pito_, _pepino_, _bledo_, etc). This phrase, in a more explicit way, can be stated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_[algo/alguien] Me importa tanto como un comino_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literal English translation of the latter would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[something/somebody] It matters to me as much as a cumin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term added at the end of the phrase is usually something of very little importance or value. So, the phrase would be idiomatically equivalent (albeit not literally equivalent) to the English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't give a damn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I would like to translate the Spanish version into Latin. I've come to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_[illud] intersum sicut cuminum_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct? Is there a better translation? Just for the sake of it, how one would say the English equivalent? _Non do ..._? And finally, is there perhaps a native idiom in Latin to express this same thing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25936" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7717" RevisionGUID="221beea3-a90e-4b6d-8b47-98275635d024" CreationDate="2018-12-14T13:59:27.487" UserId="1459" Text="How to say &quot;me importa un comino&quot; (or equivalent) in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25937" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7717" RevisionGUID="221beea3-a90e-4b6d-8b47-98275635d024" CreationDate="2018-12-14T13:59:27.487" UserId="1459" Text="|idiom|translation-check|spanish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7718" RevisionGUID="c5b242bf-348f-498c-a312-e66ea6a492d4" CreationDate="2018-12-14T17:02:26.253" UserId="469" Text="To complement Umberto's great answer, I'd add a few practical notes (on both Ecclesiastical and Classical Latin:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. _Gratia_ also means **grace**, which is more specific. In fact,&#xD;&#xA;2. you rarely &amp;mdash;if at all&amp;mdash; see the expression _favor Dei_, but _gratia Dei_ is quite common. In fact, _favor_ does not appear in the Vulgate.&#xD;&#xA;3. _Gratias agere_ means _to give thanks_ (hence _gratias_ → **thanks**). This is also valid in Classical Latin (see [L&amp;S, meaning II.B][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgratia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7718" RevisionGUID="ba387a36-bd56-45c8-8049-449004f1f9b3" CreationDate="2018-12-14T17:24:43.313" UserId="469" Comment="edited body" Text="To complement Umberto's great answer, I'd add a few practical notes (on both Ecclesiastical and Classical Latin:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. _Gratia_ also means **grace**, which is more specific. In fact,&#xD;&#xA;2. you rarely &amp;mdash;if at all&amp;mdash; see the expression _favor Dei_, but _gratia Dei_ is quite common. In fact, _favor_ does not appear in the Vulgate.&#xD;&#xA;3. _Gratias agere_ means _to give thanks_ (hence _gratiae_ → **thanks**). This is also valid in Classical Latin (see [L&amp;S, meaning II.B][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgratia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7719" RevisionGUID="09123ab4-6fb1-4f37-ac32-5cb69e8b444f" CreationDate="2018-12-14T17:25:00.497" UserId="1459" Text="To obvious candidates are the general words for beetles. One is _scarabaeus_ and the other is _hister_. An example of the former is in [this book](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433076036346;view=1up;seq=85) of poems, from 1841, both in Latin/Greek and with an English translation. In page 60 we read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;#Ladybird&#xD;&#xA;Ladybird, ladybird, fly away home;  &#xD;&#xA;Your house is on fire, your children will burn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, the translation in page 61 says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;#Scarabaea  &#xD;&#xA;Parva rubens, Scarabaea, domum cito confuge pennis;  &#xD;&#xA;Ardet enim domus haec, ardebit parvula proles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, there is [this](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-v1YAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PT292&amp;source=gbs_toc_r&amp;cad=2#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) English-Latin dictionary from 1711, which in the entry for &quot;lady cow&quot; (another name for ladybird/bug) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_scarabaeus punetatns_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found evidence for the latter to be used elsewhere (one exception could be [here](https://archive.org/details/nomenclatorentom00herr_0/page/n155)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Hister_ as Latin for beetle can be seen [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b000742998;view=1up;seq=823).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of the above is really Classical. A corpus search for _scarabaeus_ is not very fruitful.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7720" RevisionGUID="7214aaa6-f6ca-4716-9f28-f59f0b1d5733" CreationDate="2018-12-14T18:05:20.707" UserId="985" Text="There's a whole range of expressions of the type (*non*) *facio* + the genitive of some substantive, meaning 'I (don't) value as worth *x*.' The substantive can be something like *parvi*/*magni*, *minimi*/*maximi*, or *tanti*; or it can be some more concrete noun, like *assis* ('a small coin'), *pili* ('a hair'), or (my favorite) *flocci* ('a tuft of wool')." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7720" RevisionGUID="30600233-6537-4a1f-8586-69618d64a7e4" CreationDate="2018-12-14T18:18:03.037" UserId="985" Comment="added 339 characters in body" Text="There's a whole range of expressions of the type (*non*) *facio* + the genitive of some substantive, meaning 'I (don't) value as worth *x*.' The substantive can be something like *parvi*/*magni*, *minimi*/*maximi*, or *tanti*; or it can be some more concrete noun, like *assis* ('a small coin'), *pili* ('a hair'), or (my favorite) *flocci* ('a tuft of wool').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, from Plautus, *Casina*, lines 330–332 (Lysidamus speaking):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quid id refert tua?  &#xD;&#xA;unus tibi hic dum propitius sit Iuppiter,  &#xD;&#xA;tu istos minutos caue deos flocci feceris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What does it matter to you? Provided that *this* Jupiter alone is favorable to you, see that value those lesser gods as worth a tuft of wool." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7718" RevisionGUID="d59905d3-e1b2-4333-9c58-ac7c64e7e0ab" CreationDate="2018-12-14T18:29:58.067" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="To complement Umberto's great answer, I'd add a few practical notes (on both Ecclesiastical and Classical Latin:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. _Gratia_ also means **grace**, which is more specific. In fact,&#xD;&#xA;2. you rarely &amp;mdash;if at all&amp;mdash; see the expression _favor Dei_, but _gratia Dei_ is quite common. _Favor_ does not appear in the Vulgate.&#xD;&#xA;3. _Gratias agere_ means _to give thanks_ (hence _gratiae_ → **thanks**). This is also valid in Classical Latin (see [L&amp;S, meaning II.B][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgratia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7721" RevisionGUID="49b24581-b804-41a3-946a-297b1d0a7859" CreationDate="2018-12-14T19:49:44.037" UserId="522" Text=" ***Titivilitium*** of no value [Plautus]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a footnote to cnread's answer, an extended comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English does refer to 'peppercorn rent,' and 'faith as a grain of [mustard seed][1],'and Edward Lear in the [Jumblies][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But we don’t care a button! we don’t care a [fig][3]! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the phrases: 'isn't worth a fly,' 'to care not a straw for;'  and even &quot;I don't *give* a damn,&quot; are dated. There doesn't seem to be a natural English version of 'Me importa tanto como un comino.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the Latin, cnread's answer *floccus* is undoubtedly best, though *titivilitium* seems worth a mention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a preclassical word which sounds as if it may explain how *floccus* came to be the preferred word in Cicero's time: ***flocces,*** ullage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***flocces, um***, f., I dregs or lees of wine (ante-class.)&#xD;&#xA;neque florem, neque flocces volo mihi, vinum volo, Caecil. ap. Non. 114, 17 (Com. Fragm. v. 190 Rib.): apludam edit et flocces bibit, Auct. ap. Gell. 11, 7, 3. &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2017%3A20&amp;version=KJV&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/54364/the-jumblies&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.eatingyourwords.co.uk/page90.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7722" RevisionGUID="07cd53e2-97e1-478a-9798-7fdbe0d3afb7" CreationDate="2018-12-14T20:26:34.650" UserId="3207" Text="The good people over at latindiscussion have been helping me with a project I'm working on. Now that I'm nearly finished, I would like to double check the results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take the motto:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;propter scientiae amorem&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please tell me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How does this translate to English? (*Please, no machine translations.*)&#xD;&#xA;2. Is it grammatically correct?&#xD;&#xA;3. Is it too ambiguous to be understood?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25946" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7722" RevisionGUID="07cd53e2-97e1-478a-9798-7fdbe0d3afb7" CreationDate="2018-12-14T20:26:34.650" UserId="3207" Text="Translation check: propter scientiae amorem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25947" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7722" RevisionGUID="07cd53e2-97e1-478a-9798-7fdbe0d3afb7" CreationDate="2018-12-14T20:26:34.650" UserId="3207" Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25948" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7722" RevisionGUID="4b2e5a88-c68b-4ae6-948f-3488e21a263c" CreationDate="2018-12-14T20:45:37.793" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation-check|latin-to-english-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7723" RevisionGUID="75406764-4c00-4cba-ac41-bf940bae65bf" CreationDate="2018-12-14T20:52:28.403" UserId="79" Text="&gt; How does this translate to English? (Please, no machine translations.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It translates to &quot;for the love of science&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The exact wording might depend on context.&#xD;&#xA;(Indeed, [Google Translate](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79) and others are quite horrible.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is it grammatically correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is it too ambiguous to be understood?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not at all.&#xD;&#xA;I can only think of two sources of ambiguity, and neither is significant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The word *scientia* can mean science, knowledge, and other such things. It is not clear whether it refers to scientific things or knowledge in a broader sense. But for most purposes this distinction is irrelevant in a motto.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- On can interpret &quot;the love of something&quot; in two ways: the something loves or is loved.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin *amor alicuius* has this freedom.&#xD;&#xA;But in this case it is pretty clear that love is felt towards science, not by it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7720" RevisionGUID="717f7e52-e968-4db5-8d35-d1b97d80589d" CreationDate="2018-12-14T21:31:43.113" UserId="985" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="There's a whole range of expressions of the type (*non*) *facio* (or *habeo*, *aestimo*, etc.) + the genitive of some substantive, meaning 'I (don't) value as worth *x*.' The substantive can be something like *parvi*/*magni*, *minimi*/*maximi*, or *tanti*; or it can be some more concrete noun, like *assis* ('a small coin'), *pili* ('a hair'), or (my favorite) *flocci* ('a tuft of wool'). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, from Plautus, *Casina*, lines 330–332 (Lysidamus speaking):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quid id refert tua?  &#xD;&#xA;unus tibi hic dum propitius sit Iuppiter,  &#xD;&#xA;tu istos minutos caue deos flocci feceris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What does it matter to you? Provided that *this* Jupiter alone is favorable to you, see that you value those lesser gods as worth a tuft of wool." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7724" RevisionGUID="9fa44261-2286-40ac-b9b4-155c1b9c0cde" CreationDate="2018-12-14T22:57:07.443" UserId="49" Text="### Background&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the TV Series [Fallet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallet_(TV_series)), some of the upper class of the town of Norbacka use the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; supra se servitium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as a sort of salutation. Its meaning is never elaborated upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### My attempt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried and failed to understand this phrase with my rusty Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *[supra](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/supra#Latin)* means *over, before,* or similar and takes the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;* *[se](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/se#Latin)* is the reflexive pronoun in the accusative or ablative, i.e., roughly *himself, herself,* etc.&#xD;&#xA;* *[servitium](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/servitium#Noun)* means *servitude* or *servantry* and is in the nominative or accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My ideas so far are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The object of *supra* is *se.* This would yield a meaning like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&gt; servitude over oneself&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;	which I fail to make sense of in this context (or any other).&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;* The object of *supra* is *servitium.* This would yield something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&gt; over the servitude/servantry&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;	which makes more sense, but leaves the *se* dangling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It is some bad Latin that may be appreciated with some knowledge of Swedish. This would be consistent insofar as the entire town of Norbacka is oozing with incompetence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What’s the meaning or intended meaning of this phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25952" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7724" RevisionGUID="9fa44261-2286-40ac-b9b4-155c1b9c0cde" CreationDate="2018-12-14T22:57:07.443" UserId="49" Text="Meaning of “supra se servitium”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25953" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7724" RevisionGUID="9fa44261-2286-40ac-b9b4-155c1b9c0cde" CreationDate="2018-12-14T22:57:07.443" UserId="49" Text="|idiom|latin-to-english-translation|swedish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7724" RevisionGUID="e4913027-58ef-4abd-87cf-fb6efcd681ae" CreationDate="2018-12-15T12:19:33.610" UserId="49" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="### Background&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the TV series [Fallet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallet_(TV_series)), some of the upper class of the fictional town of Norbacka use the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; supra se servitium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as a sort of salutation. Its meaning is never elaborated upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### My attempt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried and failed to understand this phrase with my rusty Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *[supra](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/supra#Latin)* means *over, before,* or similar and takes the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;* *[se](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/se#Latin)* is the reflexive pronoun in the accusative or ablative, i.e., roughly *himself, herself,* etc.&#xD;&#xA;* *[servitium](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/servitium#Noun)* means *servitude* or *servantry* and is in the nominative or accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My ideas so far are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The object of *supra* is *se.* This would yield a meaning like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&gt; servitude over oneself&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;	which I fail to make sense of in this context (or any other).&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;* The object of *supra* is *servitium.* This would yield something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&gt; over the servitude/servantry&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;	which makes more sense, but leaves the *se* dangling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It is false Latin whose intended meaning may be appreciated with some knowledge of Swedish. This would be consistent insofar as the entire town of Norbacka is oozing with incompetence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What’s the meaning or intended meaning of this phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7725" RevisionGUID="609096c8-8acb-457b-bf54-0b68ace723cb" CreationDate="2018-12-15T12:51:48.557" UserId="1982" Text="North &amp; Hillard Ex. 213; Q5: the following is to be translated into Latin: &quot;I am willing to send anyone at all to find out what is going on.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer: &quot;volo quemvis (quemlibet) mittere cognitum quid agatur.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few points: firstly, two-words-joined-into one, &quot;quem vis&quot; whom-you-want &amp; &quot;quem libet&quot; whom-it-is-pleasing; but doesn't &quot;libet&quot; require dative + infinitive construction giving &quot;cuilibet mittere&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, what does &quot;cognitum&quot; mean here; it cannot be &quot;having-been-learned&quot; when the intention is in the future? Is it an acquaintance--the person being sent; if so, how is the concept of &quot;finding out&quot; to be expressed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thirdly, present subjunctive passive &quot;agatur&quot;, after &quot;quid&quot;, giving (literally) &quot;what-may-be-done&quot; referring to the future; but the Q asks for present tense--&quot;what is going on&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25958" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7725" RevisionGUID="609096c8-8acb-457b-bf54-0b68ace723cb" CreationDate="2018-12-15T12:51:48.557" UserId="1982" Text="Present Subjunctive Passive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25959" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7725" RevisionGUID="609096c8-8acb-457b-bf54-0b68ace723cb" CreationDate="2018-12-15T12:51:48.557" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8725" RevisionGUID="612a5246-6fe5-46ba-95dc-980fb4a1ed79" CreationDate="2018-12-15T16:30:03.797" UserId="2767" Text="On _quemlibet_: it's not the &quot;whoever&quot; that is being pleased, so the _quis/quem_ isn't what goes into the dative. I suppose there's an understood _mihi_, or _tibi_; but I suspect that really, _libet_ has become lexicalised as a suffix, separated from its verbal root. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On _cognitum_: I think it is a supine, not a participle. I don't remember seeing _mittere cognitum_ before - I'm only familiar with this use with _ad_: &quot;ad cognitum&quot; - but I think that's what it must be. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On _agatur_: there isn't a future subjunctive anyway, but why do you think this is has future meaning? The meaning is _what may be happening (being done)_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8726" RevisionGUID="f56baa2b-bcc7-4881-9010-fc1ed322f7a3" CreationDate="2018-12-15T20:21:58.757" UserId="985" Text="1. A couple of indefinite pronouns and adjectives consist of a verbal element + *quis*/*quid* or *qui*/*quae*/*quod*: *quivis*, *quilibet*, and *nescio quis*. These are tricky because the verbal element doesn't affect the form of *quis* or *qui*. Instead, that form is determined by the function of the overall pronoun/adjective in the clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  If the pronoun is the direct object, the accusative case is needed, as always, and the form would be *quemvis*, *quemlibet*, or *nescio quem*. To show possession by the pronoun, the form would be *cuiusvis*, *cuiuslibet*, or *nescio cuius*. To show that the pronoun is the indirect object, the form would be *cuivis*, *cuilibet*, or *nescio cui*. And so on. The verbal element doesn't really function as a verb in these words/phrases, though it does color the meaning of the overall pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Cognitum* is indeed a supine, because when you send someone to do something, some degree of motion on that person's part is involved. You could just as well use a different construction here, such as *ad cognoscendum*/*cognoscendi causa* (gerundive), *ut cognoscat* (purpose clause), or *qui cognoscat* (relative clause of purpose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The present subjunctive in a subordinate clause (here, an indirect question) may refer to action that's later than the action of the main verb, as you say; but it can also refer to contemporaneous action. In your sentence, the subject is sending someone *now* to learn what's going on *now*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Also, as a general rule, subjunctives in Latin indirect questions should be translated without 'may,' 'would,' etc., because they're reflecting questions about actual facts. Obviously, there are exceptions; but this is easily one of the most common corrections that I make with my students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Therefore, *cognitum quid agatur* means 'to learn what is being done/carried out/performed/etc.' or, more colloquially, 'to learn what is going on.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8728" RevisionGUID="aff5dc79-4266-42c4-a6f0-582ffc345209" CreationDate="2018-12-15T22:38:10.210" UserId="2767" Text="I suspect it means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Put] service above [attending to] oneself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I posted this as a comment, because it was just a guess, but two people have asked me to post it as an answer].&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8729" RevisionGUID="e574b499-0c9e-4f05-9b0f-ca40f51d4118" CreationDate="2018-12-16T04:19:15.087" UserId="406" Text="According to [Wikipedia][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Homeric Greek does not have a historical present tense, but rather uses injunctives. Injunctives are replaced by the historical present in the post-Homeric writings of Thucydides and Herodotus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But also according to [Wikipedia][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ancient Greek has words that are formally similar to the Sanskrit injunctive mood, consisting of aorist and imperfect forms lacking the augment. However, in this case there is no difference in meaning between these forms and the normal augmented forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit confused: the first quote seems to be saying that injunctives are something special, separate from the aorist or imperfect, while the latter says the opposite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: are these &quot;injunctives&quot; really a special form in Homeric/Epic Greek, separate from the aorist and imperfect? And is there any difference in meaning between an &quot;injunctive&quot; and an aorist form, e.g. that might make the former equivalent to a historic present and the latter not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeric_Greek#Verbs&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunctive_mood" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26963" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8729" RevisionGUID="e574b499-0c9e-4f05-9b0f-ca40f51d4118" CreationDate="2018-12-16T04:19:15.087" UserId="406" Text="How did the &quot;injunctive&quot; work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26964" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8729" RevisionGUID="e574b499-0c9e-4f05-9b0f-ca40f51d4118" CreationDate="2018-12-16T04:19:15.087" UserId="406" Text="|greek|tenses|dialects|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8730" RevisionGUID="0353d330-eb82-4d2d-a968-dec1227cecb4" CreationDate="2018-12-16T08:56:24.650" UserId="2476" Text="[This page](https://www.thevintagenews.com/2017/11/26/take-out-restaurants-in-ancient-rome-called-thermopolia/) on _thermopolia_ reports a quotation from Mary Beard, classics professor at Cambridge University:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“The best way to escape a diet of bread, cheese and fruit, eaten in small lodginggs over a shop or workshop, where there were limited or no facilities for cooking anything more interesting, was to eat out. Pompeii has long been thought of as a cheap café culture, with bars, taverns and thermopolia (as they are often called in modern guidebooks, though **this was certainly not the standard ancient term**) lining the streets, catching the passing trade—from visitors with time on their hands to local residents with nowhere nice of their own to be. In fact the masonry counters facing the pavements, with large jars (dolia) set into them and display stands behind, are one of the most familiar elements of in the Pompeian street scene.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it was not the standard term, do we know the actual one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26966" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8730" RevisionGUID="0353d330-eb82-4d2d-a968-dec1227cecb4" CreationDate="2018-12-16T08:56:24.650" UserId="2476" Text="What was the standard ancient term for a thermopolium?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26967" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8730" RevisionGUID="0353d330-eb82-4d2d-a968-dec1227cecb4" CreationDate="2018-12-16T08:56:24.650" UserId="2476" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|history|cibus|synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8731" RevisionGUID="342b12b0-b4b1-46fc-b89e-3acfee3ee6f9" CreationDate="2018-12-16T08:56:24.650" UserId="2476" Text="_**popina**_ is the one, borrowed from Oscan or Umbrian, and cognate with (native Latin) _coquina_. Indeed, a Packhum search gives no results for _thermopolium_ and 54 results (59 matches) for _popina_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that _caupona_ and _taberna_ were also common, but while [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=popina) lists them as synonims, they meant something slightly different. The former was more precisely a place where you could also sleep. The latter term, if not qualified with a following adjective (_libraria_, _unguentaria_, etc.), indicated a place where only or mostly wine was offered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an exhaustive excerpt from Gustav Hermansen's &quot;Ostia: Aspects of Roman City Life&quot; (he gives credit to Tönnes Kleberg in the first line):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The main result of his research is that there are six important names for establishments in this category: _caupona, deversorium, hospitium, popina, stabulum, and taberna_. These six words are distributed three ways: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The _caupona, deversorium, hospitium, popina_ and _stabulum_ denote what modern languages would call hotels: houses where travellers could put up for the night and at the same time could have their meals and could drink. A _stabulum_ originally meant a stable, and in this connection it stands for a hotel where one could stop in with one's horse. As Latin literature shows, however, it did not matter whether one brought a horse or not! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A _caupona_ was a hotel which catered to all of a traveller's needs, but eventually the value of the word was down-graded and acquired the connotation of a low-grade saloon, then was dropped from the language altogether. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A _popina_ was a restaurant which could serve food and drinks to a customer but which did not offer any accomodation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A _taberna_ was comprehensive, meaning a shop in which all kinds of trades could be plied. To differentiate, the word was qualified with adjectives like (_taberna_) _libraria_, _unguentaria_, _vinaria_, or, [as seen above], _cauponia_. Eventually the meaning of a drinking place (tavern) prevailed when the word was without an adjective. A _taberna_ would normally offer wine, rarely food. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8731" RevisionGUID="f762d936-e893-48a3-ba6f-6c4345f8a4bf" CreationDate="2018-12-16T10:09:11.877" UserId="2476" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="_**pŏpīna**_ is the one, borrowed from Oscan or Umbrian, and cognate with (native Latin) _coquina_. Indeed, a Packhum search gives no results for _thermopolium_ and 54 results (59 matches) for _popina_ - note that, still, _thermopolium_ can be found e.g. in Plautus and Petronius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that _caupona_ and _taberna_ were also common, but while [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=popina) lists them as synonims, they meant something slightly different. The former was more precisely a place where you could also sleep. The latter term, if not qualified with a following adjective (_libraria_, _unguentaria_, etc.), indicated a place where only or mostly wine was offered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an exhaustive excerpt from Gustav Hermansen's &quot;Ostia: Aspects of Roman City Life&quot; (he gives credit to Tönnes Kleberg in the first line):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The main result of his research is that there are six important names for establishments in this category: _caupona, deversorium, hospitium, popina, stabulum, and taberna_. These six words are distributed three ways: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The _caupona, deversorium, hospitium, popina_ and _stabulum_ denote what modern languages would call hotels: houses where travellers could put up for the night and at the same time could have their meals and could drink. A _stabulum_ originally meant a stable, and in this connection it stands for a hotel where one could stop in with one's horse. As Latin literature shows, however, it did not matter whether one brought a horse or not! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A _caupona_ was a hotel which catered to all of a traveller's needs, but eventually the value of the word was down-graded and acquired the connotation of a low-grade saloon, then was dropped from the language altogether. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A _popina_ was a restaurant which could serve food and drinks to a customer but which did not offer any accomodation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A _taberna_ was comprehensive, meaning a shop in which all kinds of trades could be plied. To differentiate, the word was qualified with adjectives like (_taberna_) _libraria_, _unguentaria_, _vinaria_, or, [as seen above], _cauponia_. Eventually the meaning of a drinking place (tavern) prevailed when the word was without an adjective. A _taberna_ would normally offer wine, rarely food. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8732" RevisionGUID="4022c59e-7b22-4a91-aac9-2590cd9ea44f" CreationDate="2018-12-16T11:21:00.147" UserId="2646" Text="In Spanish we have the word *lunático* with the following meaning:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; One who suffers from madness, not continuous, but at intervals.&#xA;&#xA;This word comes from Latin *lunatĭcus*. According to Lewis &amp; Short this word [means][1] both &quot;living on the moon&quot; (literally, I think) and &quot;crazy person, lunatic&quot;. Did the Classical Latin word also convey the sense of &quot;at intervals&quot; in its second meaning? If so, then did the word derive from *luna* to reflect the fact that the madness was something that came and went as the moon phases, or was just to reflect that the crazy person appeared to live in a distant world?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlunaticus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26971" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8732" RevisionGUID="4022c59e-7b22-4a91-aac9-2590cd9ea44f" CreationDate="2018-12-16T11:21:00.147" UserId="2646" Text="Origin of &quot;lunatĭcus&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26972" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8732" RevisionGUID="4022c59e-7b22-4a91-aac9-2590cd9ea44f" CreationDate="2018-12-16T11:21:00.147" UserId="2646" Text="|classical-latin|etymology|adjective|spanish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8732" RevisionGUID="8209a701-f38d-4508-b26d-0f01bebd3fdc" CreationDate="2018-12-16T11:31:17.747" UserId="2646" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="In Spanish we have the word *lunático* with the following meaning:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; One who suffers from madness, not continuous, but at intervals.&#xA;&#xA;This word comes from Latin *lunatĭcus*. According to Lewis &amp; Short this word [means][1] both &quot;living on the moon&quot; (literally, I think) and &quot;crazy person, lunatic&quot;. Did the Classical Latin word also convey the sense of &quot;at intervals&quot; in its second meaning? If so, then did the word derive from *luna* to reflect the fact that the madness was something that came and went as the moon phases, or was just to reflect that the crazy person appeared to live in a distant world? Did the word appear in Latin or did it come from an earlier language?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlunaticus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8733" RevisionGUID="8fc6a167-ca70-4ed3-8191-28749dc502ce" CreationDate="2018-12-16T12:32:51.527" UserId="2476" Text="According to the [Italian Wiktionary entry](https://it.wiktionary.org/wiki/lunatico) for the Italian word _lunatico_, _lunaticus_ is actually a Late Latin expression and, in particular, a calque of the Greek σεληνιακός, _seleniakos_, and σεληνόβλητος, _selenobletos_, &quot;epileptic, mad due to the influence of the moon&quot;, from σελήνη _seléne_ &quot;moon&quot;. This agrees with [the description](http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/lunatico/) given by the Treccani vocabulary, which in particulary states &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;dal lat. tardo lunatĭcus (der. di luna «luna») «che patisce di accessi di pazzia ricorrenti con le fasi lunari; epilettico»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is, _lunaticus_ was a person who suffered from brainstorms recurring with, or as, the phases of the moon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8731" RevisionGUID="f7cea36c-e41b-4430-8dfd-fc1aaf415542" CreationDate="2018-12-16T17:19:36.420" UserId="2476" Comment="edited body" Text="_**pŏpīna**_ is the one, borrowed from Oscan or Umbrian, and cognate with (native Latin) _coquina_. Indeed, a Packhum search gives no results for _thermopolium_ and 54 results (59 matches) for _popina_ - note that, still, _thermopolium_ can be found e.g. in Plautus and Petronius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that _caupona_ and _taberna_ were also common, but while [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=popina) lists them as synonyms, they meant something slightly different. The former was more precisely a place where you could also sleep. The latter term, if not qualified with a following adjective (_libraria_, _unguentaria_, etc.), indicated a place where only or mostly wine was offered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an exhaustive excerpt from Gustav Hermansen's &quot;Ostia: Aspects of Roman City Life&quot; (he gives credit to Tönnes Kleberg in the first line):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The main result of his research is that there are six important names for establishments in this category: _caupona, deversorium, hospitium, popina, stabulum, and taberna_. These six words are distributed three ways: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The _caupona, deversorium, hospitium, popina_ and _stabulum_ denote what modern languages would call hotels: houses where travellers could put up for the night and at the same time could have their meals and could drink. A _stabulum_ originally meant a stable, and in this connection it stands for a hotel where one could stop in with one's horse. As Latin literature shows, however, it did not matter whether one brought a horse or not! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A _caupona_ was a hotel which catered to all of a traveller's needs, but eventually the value of the word was down-graded and acquired the connotation of a low-grade saloon, then was dropped from the language altogether. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A _popina_ was a restaurant which could serve food and drinks to a customer but which did not offer any accomodation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A _taberna_ was comprehensive, meaning a shop in which all kinds of trades could be plied. To differentiate, the word was qualified with adjectives like (_taberna_) _libraria_, _unguentaria_, _vinaria_, or, [as seen above], _cauponia_. Eventually the meaning of a drinking place (tavern) prevailed when the word was without an adjective. A _taberna_ would normally offer wine, rarely food. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8734" RevisionGUID="3eb166ca-98f7-4062-be7d-00910aaa6714" CreationDate="2018-12-17T04:41:23.753" UserId="406" Text="In a conversation with a fellow Ancient Greek enthusiast, the name &quot;Medusa&quot; (_Μέδουσα_, &quot;ruling&quot;) came up. I made a rather tortured pun by switching the epsilon to an eta, creating _μὴ δοῦσα_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, _μή_ is a negative particle, and _δοῦσα_ is a participle from _δέω_, &quot;bind&quot;. I dimly remember using _μή_, rather than _οὐ_, with participles. But is this particular construction grammatical? If so, what would it mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26979" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8734" RevisionGUID="3eb166ca-98f7-4062-be7d-00910aaa6714" CreationDate="2018-12-17T04:41:23.753" UserId="406" Text="What would this pun mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26980" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8734" RevisionGUID="3eb166ca-98f7-4062-be7d-00910aaa6714" CreationDate="2018-12-17T04:41:23.753" UserId="406" Text="|greek|participle|negation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8735" RevisionGUID="93d80d87-fbcf-4c20-9932-9c68c5613a18" CreationDate="2018-12-17T05:14:44.280" UserId="40" Text="δοῦσα is a feminine nom. sg. participle, but it's more likely to be taken as the aorist participle of δίδωμι 'give' than the present participle of δέω 'bind': generally, monosyllabic stems (like δε-) don't contract. That said, there are exceptions, and [it looks like][1] δοῦσα is actually attested as an alternate of the regular form δέουσα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;μή negates a participle when it has a conditional or general meaning. So μὴ δοῦσα could mean, if taking δοῦσα from δίδωμι, &quot;if she had not given&quot; or &quot;whoever (fem.) did not give&quot;; if taking it from δέω, it could mean &quot;if she were not binding&quot; or &quot;whoever (fem.) does not bind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dde%2Fw1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8733" RevisionGUID="c2893e72-44df-4de1-9cef-3c183ca25a5d" CreationDate="2018-12-17T09:07:17.307" UserId="2476" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="According to the [Italian Wiktionary entry](https://it.wiktionary.org/wiki/lunatico) for the Italian word _lunatico_, _lunaticus_ is actually a Late Latin expression and, in particular, a calque of the Greek σεληνιακός, _seleniakos_, and σεληνόβλητος, _selenobletos_, &quot;epileptic, mad due to the influence of the moon&quot;, from σελήνη _seléne_ &quot;moon&quot;. This agrees with [the description](http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/lunatico/) given by the Treccani vocabulary, which in particular states &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;dal lat. tardo lunatĭcus (der. di luna «luna») «che patisce di accessi di pazzia ricorrenti con le fasi lunari; epilettico»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is, _lunaticus_ was a person who suffered from brainstorms recurring with, or as, the phases of the moon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26984" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2660" RevisionGUID="671accad-b054-4ebd-a3d3-3563b00f5f4e" CreationDate="2018-12-17T13:33:13.270" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|greek|christianity|greek-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26985" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4271" RevisionGUID="10f54ed2-48dc-4a17-bd0f-41ce7f2f56d4" CreationDate="2018-12-17T13:34:08.883" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|greek|christianity|greek-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26986" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2682" RevisionGUID="e46eee0a-5317-49a2-8724-def1008fff13" CreationDate="2018-12-17T13:36:04.320" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|greek|syntax|adjective|plato|greek-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8735" RevisionGUID="072611d0-9b09-464d-ba32-bc442dfe91a5" CreationDate="2018-12-17T18:53:25.067" UserId="40" Comment="added 176 characters in body" Text="δοῦσα is a feminine nom. sg. participle, but it's more likely to be taken as the aorist participle of δίδωμι 'give' than the present participle of δέω 'bind': generally, monosyllabic stems (like δε-) don't contract. That said, there are exceptions, and [it looks like][1] δοῦσα is actually attested as an alternate of the regular form δέουσα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;μή negates a participle when it has a conditional or general meaning. So μὴ δοῦσα could mean, if taking δοῦσα from δίδωμι, &quot;if she had not given&quot; or &quot;whoever (fem.) did not give&quot;; if taking it from δέω, it could mean &quot;if she were not binding&quot; or &quot;whoever (fem.) does not bind&quot;. But note that as brianpck points out in comments, participles don't have absolute tense, so the tense of the translation would vary depending on the main verb and the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dde%2Fw1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8736" RevisionGUID="a2947dc2-1adc-4f8d-b641-e2371a392892" CreationDate="2018-12-18T01:58:17.647" UserId="406" Text="&quot;Alēctō&quot; is the name of one of the Furies, made surprisingly famous in the _Harry Potter_ books. It seems to come straightforwardly from Greek *a-* &quot;not&quot; + *lēg-* &quot;stop&quot; + *-tos* &quot;[adjective]&quot;, so &quot;unstoppable&quot; or &quot;unstopping&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Vergil refers to this Fury as &quot;Allēctō&quot;, with an extra L. For example, see Aeneid X.41:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Allēctō mediās Italum bacchāta per urbes*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Allecto, running wild throughout all the cities of Italy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any linguistic or historical reason for this extra &quot;L&quot;? It certainly makes the name easier to fit into a hexameter, but Vergil could just as well have lengthened the vowel, like we see in I.2 (where he has *Ītaliam* for *Italiam*). And I'd expect Vergil of all people to know his Greek backward and forward, given his love of Homer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26989" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8736" RevisionGUID="a2947dc2-1adc-4f8d-b641-e2371a392892" CreationDate="2018-12-18T01:58:17.647" UserId="406" Text="&quot;Alēctō&quot; or &quot;Allēctō&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26990" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8736" RevisionGUID="a2947dc2-1adc-4f8d-b641-e2371a392892" CreationDate="2018-12-18T01:58:17.647" UserId="406" Text="|names|vowel-quantity|aeneis|vergilius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8738" RevisionGUID="7a9fd28c-3a08-4cf8-9941-2d9aead17564" CreationDate="2018-12-18T15:52:50.410" UserId="1459" Text="According to [this dictionary](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112112481541;view=1up;seq=121) about the etymology of English words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;LUNATIC, lunatique, F. _lunaticus_, L. From _Luna_, the moon, because that kind of madness called _lunacy_ increases with the moon. Luna qu. _lucina_, is from _luceo_, to shine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related, [this other dictionary](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015050683476;view=1up;seq=121) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_lunatic_: L. _Luna_, 'moon'; one too much under the influence of the moon, which, according to astrology, caused insanity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems inherent in the word that there is an intermittent pattern in the &quot;disease&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8738" RevisionGUID="75212422-25d8-462f-b97e-c266dd788f1c" CreationDate="2018-12-18T15:58:30.047" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2244 characters in body" Text="According to [this dictionary](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112112481541;view=1up;seq=121) about the etymology of English words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;LUNATIC, lunatique, F. _lunaticus_, L. From _Luna_, the moon, because that kind of madness called _lunacy_ increases with the moon. Luna qu. _lucina_, is from _luceo_, to shine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related, [this other dictionary](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015050683476;view=1up;seq=121) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_lunatic_: L. _Luna_, 'moon'; one too much under the influence of the moon, which, according to astrology, caused insanity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems inherent in the word that there is an intermittent pattern in the &quot;disease&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this &quot;lunar effect&quot; have any scientific basis? [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_effect#Mental_Illness) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Two studies found evidence that those with mental disorders i.e. Schizophrenia generally exhibit 1.8% of increased violent or aggressive episodes during the full Moon, but a more recent study found no such correlation to that of nonschizophrenic human beings. An analysis of mental-health data found a significant effect of Moon phases, but only on schizophrenic patients. Such effects are not necessarily related directly to the appearance of the Moon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An [article](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lunacy-and-the-full-moon/) in the Scientific American magazine provides an interesting analysis of this. It starts with some background:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ACROSS THE CENTURIES, many a person has uttered the phrase “There must be a full moon out there” in an attempt to explain weird happenings at night. Indeed, the Roman goddess of the moon bore a name that remains familiar to us today: Luna, prefix of the word “lunatic.” **Greek philosopher Aristotle and Roman historian Pliny the Elder suggested that the brain was the “moistest” organ in the body and thereby most susceptible to the pernicious influences of the moon, which triggers the tides.** Belief in the “lunar lunacy effect,” or “Transylvania effect,” as it is sometimes called, persisted in Europe through the Middle Ages, when humans were widely reputed to transmogrify into werewolves or vampires during a full moon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Towards the end, it states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;According to Raison, the lunar lunacy effect may possess a small kernel of truth in that it may once have been genuine. Raison conjectures that before the advent of outdoor lighting in modern times, the bright light of the full moon deprived people who were living outside—including many who had severe mental disorders—of sleep. Because sleep deprivation often triggers erratic behavior in people with certain psychological conditions, such as bipolar disorder (formerly called manic depression), the full moon may have been linked to a heightened rate of bizarre behaviors in long-bygone eras. So the lunar lunacy effect is, in Raison and his colleagues’ terms, a “cultural fossil.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could not find the original references about this in Aristotle and Pliny the Elder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8739" RevisionGUID="a7bf4be4-cdb1-4322-a8c9-3cb09ad1e358" CreationDate="2018-12-18T16:45:13.060" UserId="3213" Text="I'm making a label for my dad's homebrew as a Christmas gift and I'd love to include &quot;Father knows beer best&quot; in Latin as the motto of his company. Could anybody help translate that for me? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26997" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8739" RevisionGUID="a7bf4be4-cdb1-4322-a8c9-3cb09ad1e358" CreationDate="2018-12-18T16:45:13.060" UserId="3213" Text="Translation for &quot;Father knows beer best&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26998" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8739" RevisionGUID="a7bf4be4-cdb1-4322-a8c9-3cb09ad1e358" CreationDate="2018-12-18T16:45:13.060" UserId="3213" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8740" RevisionGUID="18ff5ed1-2b5c-412a-bfb4-3deba24a1638" CreationDate="2018-12-18T16:59:41.190" UserId="645" Text="*Pater de cerevisia peritissimus* should do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, this means 'Father about beer is very experienced'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8739" RevisionGUID="697883c2-c600-479d-841d-c7b8977c8011" CreationDate="2018-12-18T17:06:45.730" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm making a label for my dad's homebrew as a Christmas gift and I'd love to include &quot;Father knows beer best&quot; in Latin as the motto of his company. Could anybody help translate that for me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27001" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8739" RevisionGUID="697883c2-c600-479d-841d-c7b8977c8011" CreationDate="2018-12-18T17:06:45.730" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27002" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8739" RevisionGUID="697883c2-c600-479d-841d-c7b8977c8011" CreationDate="2018-12-18T17:06:45.730" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Translating &quot;Father knows beer best&quot; into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8742" RevisionGUID="00866267-7744-4b69-94a0-90e2ab8bb739" CreationDate="2018-12-18T18:02:03.310" UserId="469" Text="I'd go for a wordplay:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Pater cerevisiam optimam sapit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Just as the other answers, **pater** is straightforwardly _father_&#xD;&#xA;* The verb [**sapio**][1] means both to taste an to know/understand. Hence **sapit** is the right conjugation to speak about a third person (a &quot;he&quot;, the father) who knows.&#xD;&#xA;* In Latin you have different words for knowing. Not sure how to describe them in English, but I'll try: **sapio** and **scio** are somewhat better for knowledge in general, while **nosco** is better for getting acquainted or getting to know something. If you know any Spanish, it's like the difference between *saber* and *conocer*. See https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7249/what-is-the-difference-between-novi-and-scio for better explanations in English.&#xD;&#xA;* **cerevisia optima** is literally _the best beer_. The -m ending makes it the object of **sapit**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your question about _father knows best_, I'm afraid it is an English idiom. I think you either need more words (father knows what's best, father knows the best thinks), or a different word instead of best (father knows more). A possible translation could be **pater optima sapit**, where **optima** is an adjective, neutrer in gender, and plural: a common way of referring to _things_ that have certain trait (adjective). **Optima** doesn't change as the object of sapit. The full sentence would mean, *Father knows the best things*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsapio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8742" RevisionGUID="2515d996-382e-4f7d-a17a-28c214ae58c0" CreationDate="2018-12-18T18:09:56.213" UserId="469" Comment="added 451 characters in body" Text="I'd go for a wordplay:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Pater optime cerevisiam sapit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Just as the other answers, **pater** is straightforwardly _father_&#xD;&#xA;* The verb [**sapio**][1] means both to taste an to know/understand. Hence **sapit** is the right conjugation to speak about a third person (a &quot;he&quot;, the father) who knows.&#xD;&#xA;* In Latin you have different words for knowing. Not sure how to describe them in English, but I'll try: **sapio** and **scio** are somewhat better for knowledge in general, while **nosco** is better for getting acquainted or getting to know something. If you know any Spanish, it's like the difference between *saber* and *conocer*. See https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7249/what-is-the-difference-between-novi-and-scio for better explanations in English.&#xD;&#xA;* **cerevisia** is literally _beer_. The -m ending makes it the object of **sapit**.&#xD;&#xA;* **optime** is the adverb for _best_. You need an adverb to modify the verb. In this context, English _best_ may work as a superlative of both an adjective (good) or an adverb (well). In Latin there are (slightly) different words for that.&#xD;&#xA;* In Latin, word order is not rigid as long as meaning is unambiguously expressed though other means (e.g., word endings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your question about _father knows best_, I'm afraid it is an English idiom. I think you either need more words (father knows what's best, father knows the best thinks), or a different word instead of best (father knows more, or specify that it's an adverb). A possible translation could be **pater optima sapit**, where **optima** is an adjective, neutrer in gender, and plural: a common way of referring to _things_ that have certain trait (adjective). **Optima** doesn't change as the object of sapit. The full sentence would mean, *Father knows the best things*. An alternative would be **pater optime sapit** (*father knows best (most well)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsapio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8742" RevisionGUID="0b219621-8c27-49ec-be69-7c0252acf297" CreationDate="2018-12-18T18:18:16.737" UserId="469" Comment="added 451 characters in body" Text="I'd go for a wordplay:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Pater optime cerevisiam sapit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Just as the other answers, **pater** is straightforwardly _father_&#xD;&#xA;* The verb [**sapio**][1] means both to taste an to know/understand. Hence **sapit** is the right conjugation to speak about a third person (a &quot;he&quot;, the father) who knows.&#xD;&#xA;* In Latin you have different words for knowing. Not sure how to describe them in English, but I'll try: **sapio** and **scio** are somewhat better for knowledge in general, while **nosco** is better for getting acquainted or getting to know something. If you know any Spanish, it's like the difference between *saber* and *conocer*. See https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7249/what-is-the-difference-between-novi-and-scio for better explanations in English.&#xD;&#xA;* **cerevisia** is literally _beer_. The -m ending makes it the object of **sapit**.&#xD;&#xA;* **optime** is the adverb for _best_. You need an adverb to modify the verb. In this context, English _best_ may work as a superlative of both an adjective (good) or an adverb (well). In Latin there are (slightly) different words for that.&#xD;&#xA;* In Latin, word order is not rigid as long as meaning is unambiguously expressed though other means (e.g., word endings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your question about _father knows best_, the issue here is the same I said above: you have to use the adverbial _best_ (**optime**, so-to-say *_most well_), or change it for something else, or add a word or two to use the adejctival _best_ (**optimus, -a, -um**, *_most good_ + sth.) For example, father knows what's best, father knows the best thinks).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible translation could be **pater optima sapit**, where **optima** is an adjective, neuter in gender, and plural: a common way of referring to _things_ that have certain trait (adjective). **Optima** doesn't change as the object of sapit. The full sentence would mean, *Father knows the best things*. Or you could stick to the adverb and get **pater optime sapit**, *father knows best* (or *_most well_ if you allow the distinction).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsapio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8742" RevisionGUID="5852b822-ebd8-4ff7-b84b-1da177012816" CreationDate="2018-12-18T18:32:20.520" UserId="469" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I'd go for a wordplay:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Pater optime cerevisiam sapit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Just as the other answers, **pater** is straightforwardly _father_&#xD;&#xA;* The verb [**sapio**][1] means both _to taste_ and _to know/understand_. Hence **sapit** is the right conjugation to speak about a third person (a &quot;he&quot;, the father) who knows.&#xD;&#xA;* In Latin you have different words for knowing. Not sure how to describe them in English, but I'll try: **sapio** and **scio** are somewhat better for knowledge in general, while **nosco** is better for getting acquainted or getting to know something. If you know any Spanish, it's like the difference between *saber* and *conocer*. See https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7249/what-is-the-difference-between-novi-and-scio for better explanations in English.&#xD;&#xA;* **cerevisia** is literally _beer_. The -m ending makes it the object of **sapit**.&#xD;&#xA;* **optime** is the adverb for _best_. You need an adverb to modify the verb. In this context, English _best_ may work as a superlative of both an adjective (good) or an adverb (well). In Latin there are (slightly) different words for that.&#xD;&#xA;* In Latin, word order is not rigid as long as meaning is unambiguously expressed though other means (e.g., word endings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your question about _father knows best_, the issue here is the same I said above: you have to use the adverbial _best_ (**optime**, so-to-say *_most well_), or change it for something else, or add a word or two to use the adejctival _best_ (**optimus, -a, -um**, *_most good_ + sth.) For example, father knows what's best, father knows the best thinks).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible translation could be **pater optima sapit**, where **optima** is an adjective, neuter in gender, and plural: a common way of referring to _things_ that have certain trait (adjective). **Optima** doesn't change as the object of sapit. The full sentence would mean, *Father knows the best things*. Or you could stick to the adverb and get **pater optime sapit**, *father knows best* (or *_most well_ if you allow the distinction).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsapio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27010" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8739" RevisionGUID="dccfbb6c-e0a8-4228-ac07-21d3c21db901" CreationDate="2018-12-18T18:39:32.377" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8743" RevisionGUID="6269b6d1-6e09-4f1e-a121-bc1c85bbc40c" CreationDate="2018-12-18T19:48:07.683" UserId="3214" Text="I would like to know the meaning of 'creative by nature' or 'naturally creative' in latin. According to google translater it is 'natura partum', but when translated back into english it means something else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8743" RevisionGUID="6269b6d1-6e09-4f1e-a121-bc1c85bbc40c" CreationDate="2018-12-18T19:48:07.683" UserId="3214" Text="Translating 'creative by nature' / 'naturally creative' into latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8743" RevisionGUID="6269b6d1-6e09-4f1e-a121-bc1c85bbc40c" CreationDate="2018-12-18T19:48:07.683" UserId="3214" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|sentence-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8742" RevisionGUID="70d72891-edac-4511-8700-f15bf037594a" CreationDate="2018-12-18T22:31:57.847" UserId="469" Comment="edited body" Text="I'd go for a wordplay:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Pater optime cerevisiam sapit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Just as the other answers, **pater** is straightforwardly _father_&#xD;&#xA;* The verb [**sapio**][1] means both _to taste_ and _to know/understand_. Hence **sapit** is the right conjugation to speak about a third person (a &quot;he&quot;, the father) who knows.&#xD;&#xA;* In Latin you have different words for knowing. Not sure how to describe them in English, but I'll try: **sapio** and **scio** are somewhat better for knowledge in general, while **nosco** is better for getting acquainted or getting to know something. If you know any Spanish, it's like the difference between *saber* and *conocer*. See https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7249/what-is-the-difference-between-novi-and-scio for better explanations in English.&#xD;&#xA;* **cerevisia** is literally _beer_. The -m ending makes it the object of **sapit**.&#xD;&#xA;* **optime** is the adverb for _best_. You need an adverb to modify the verb. In this context, English _best_ may work as a superlative of both an adjective (good) or an adverb (well). In Latin there are (slightly) different words for that.&#xD;&#xA;* In Latin, word order is not rigid as long as meaning is unambiguously expressed though other means (e.g., word endings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your question about _father knows best_, the issue here is the same I said above: you have to use the adverbial _best_ (**optime**, so-to-say *_most well_), or change it for something else, or add a word or two to use the adejctival _best_ (**optimus, -a, -um**, *_most good_ + sth.) For example, father knows what's best, father knows the best things).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible translation could be **pater optima sapit**, where **optima** is an adjective, neuter in gender, and plural: a common way of referring to _things_ that have certain trait (adjective). **Optima** doesn't change as the object of sapit. The full sentence would mean, *Father knows the best things*. Or you could stick to the adverb and get **pater optime sapit**, *father knows best* (or *_most well_ if you allow the distinction).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsapio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7720" RevisionGUID="4fcba98f-13cc-4e74-a509-154ff2ffb847" CreationDate="2018-12-19T00:10:45.137" UserId="985" Comment="Expanded" Text="There's a whole range of expressions of the type (*non*) *facio* (or *habeo*, *aestimo*, etc.) + the genitive of some substantive, meaning 'I (don't) value as worth *x*.' (The genitive is a genitive of value.) The substantive can be something like *parvi*/*magni*, *minimi*/*maximi*, or *tanti*; or it can be some more concrete noun, like *assis* ('a small coin'), *pili* ('a hair'), or (my favorite) *flocci* ('a tuft of wool'). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, from Plautus, *Casina*, lines 330–332 (Lysidamus speaking):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quid id refert tua?  &#xD;&#xA;unus tibi hic dum propitius sit Iuppiter,  &#xD;&#xA;tu istos minutos caue deos flocci feceris.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What does it matter to you? Provided that *this* Jupiter alone is favorable to you, see that you value those lesser gods as worth a tuft of wool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In answer to your question, your translation, *intersum sicut cuminum*, doesn't work because the first-person form means 'I matter/make a difference,' not 'It matters/makes a difference to me.' You would have to use the third person *interest* instead. Then, to get a first person idea, you would add the feminine ablative singular of the possessive adjective: *meā interest*. (If the person/thing that something matters to isn't a personal pronoun, you would add the genitive of the noun – e.g., *Ciceronis interest*, 'It matters to Cicero.')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third person of *refero* works the same way and means the same thing, as in the first line of the quotation from the *Casina*; so you can also say *meā refert* (or *Ciceronis refert*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most commonly, *interest* and *refert* are accompanied by adverbs (including adverbial accusatives) to express the extent to which something matters/makes a difference – e.g., *nihil*/*nil*/*nihilum*, *parum*, *multum*, *permultum*, *magis*, *maximum*/*maxime*, *plus*, *plurimum*, *quantum*, *tantum*, *quantulum*, *nimium*, *pernimium*, *quid*, *nonnihil*, *aliquid*, *ecquid*, *numquid*, *minimum*, or *haud*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A genitive of value can also be used. However, in all the examples I found, the genitive was something like *magni*, *permagni*, *parvi*, *quanti*, or *pluris*, never a concrete noun. This is not to say that a concrete noun such as *cumini* can't be used (*mea cumini interest*, 'It makes a cumin seed's worth of difference to me'); as always, it just means that there are no examples like this in the extant classical literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you could say something like one of these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *nihilum mea interest/refert.* 'I don't care at all.'&#xD;&#xA;- *haud mea interest/refert.* 'I hardly care.'  &#xD;&#xA;- *quam minimum/minimi mea interest/refert.* 'I care as little as possible.'  &#xD;&#xA;- *quantulum mea interest/refert!* 'How little I care!'  &#xD;&#xA;- *mea parum refert.* 'I care little enough to matter.' (This is a quotation from M. Cornelius Fronto.)  &#xD;&#xA;- *num mea refert?* 'Do I care?' (The answer 'no' is implied here because of the *num*. This is Plautus, *Truculentus* 723.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(To capture the effect of the English 'damn,' I suppose you could add an *edepol* or the like to any of the preceding – e.g., *nil edepol mea interest,* 'By Pollux, I don't care at all.')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The simplest answer**, though, may be to focus on your second version of the Spanish phrase. One of the adverbs that can be used with *interest*/*refert* is *tantum*, and *tantum* and *quantum* form a correlative pair that's equivalent to Spanish *tanto como*. Therefore, you could just say (*tantum*) *mea interest quantum cuminum*, 'It matters as much to me as as a cumin seed (matters).'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8744" RevisionGUID="637a6ad4-d8e5-4780-bd44-25c3f09042dc" CreationDate="2018-12-19T02:01:31.207" UserId="3219" Text="I believe that the confusion here stems from algorithms and double meanings. The Google Translate algorithm doesn't understand the role of 'creative' in the sentence, so it substitutes *partum*, from the verb *pario*, which means &quot;bear, or give birth to, *to create* .&quot; When you put it into the algorithm again, this word's first two meanings are used, leading to *natural delivery.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correct translation here would be *naturale artifex*, from *naturala* (“natural”) +‎ *-e* (adverbial ending) and *artifex*(&quot;artful, creative&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8745" RevisionGUID="f586f64e-9062-459c-b4e9-2f3722927ea4" CreationDate="2018-12-19T05:22:06.390" UserId="406" Text="In Ancient Greek, the &quot;privative alpha&quot; is a negating prefix, cognate to Latin *in-* (as in &quot;in-conceivable&quot;, not &quot;in-flammable&quot;) and English &quot;un-&quot;. It survives in English in words like &quot;a-typical&quot; and &quot;an-archy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when asking [this question][1], about a name with a privative alpha, I realized there's one important thing I never learned. *Is that alpha long or short?* And is it consistently one or the other, or does it vary?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/8736/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27018" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8745" RevisionGUID="f586f64e-9062-459c-b4e9-2f3722927ea4" CreationDate="2018-12-19T05:22:06.390" UserId="406" Text="How long was the privative alpha?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27019" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8745" RevisionGUID="f586f64e-9062-459c-b4e9-2f3722927ea4" CreationDate="2018-12-19T05:22:06.390" UserId="406" Text="|greek|vowel-quantity|vowel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8746" RevisionGUID="260178b0-24d8-430b-8ddf-b37b62d7b840" CreationDate="2018-12-19T08:02:00.373" UserId="9" Text="Alpha privative was short in Ancient Greek, as shown in [Smyth (1920) §885](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0007:part=3:chapter=24&amp;highlight=privative) (a long vowel would have been written with a macron, rendered on the Perseus website as an underscore after the vowel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alpha from PIE syllabic n was short as a general rule." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8748" RevisionGUID="108c7693-569f-43d6-9c06-1ce1acb71cf6" CreationDate="2018-12-19T10:34:24.173" UserId="3220" Text="Add to the highly interesting material above that in the ancient world the geocentric universe was divided between the supralunar (where order in the circular motion of the stars and planets reigned, in mirror image of the Prime Mover's) and the sublunar world (the Earth), where &quot;disorderly&quot;, even chaotic, motions are the norm. Luna presides over that unruly world, as the rest of the planets over their respective regular circular paths. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8749" RevisionGUID="3e536623-5045-4005-9b5e-7ace9040ea62" CreationDate="2018-12-19T11:52:08.270" UserId="3221" Text="As this is the time when we're all coming up with wacky mottos, I thought I'd try my hand at our department's private motto. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having run a few variants through Google Translate, and coming out with a Latin word salad, I thought I'd try my old Latin dictionary. It still comes out as a poor Anglophone substitution rather than a witty slogan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overpromise, as in &quot;to promise the earth&quot;. To claim that we can and will do more than your &quot;wildest dreams could imagine&quot;. That's the first idiomatic sticking point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under-perform, as in lacklustre, shoddy or slapdash. I'm sure there's a pretty way of saying that, other than &quot;sub-optimal&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then how to stick them together in a way that doesn't hurt to look at?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27026" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8749" RevisionGUID="3e536623-5045-4005-9b5e-7ace9040ea62" CreationDate="2018-12-19T11:52:08.270" UserId="3221" Text="&quot;Over promise under perform&quot; motto" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27027" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8749" RevisionGUID="3e536623-5045-4005-9b5e-7ace9040ea62" CreationDate="2018-12-19T11:52:08.270" UserId="3221" Text="|idiom|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8750" RevisionGUID="de3a471e-052b-49cf-ac9f-6c90a24a7eca" CreationDate="2018-12-19T13:10:44.567" UserId="522" Text="Here's a ready-made Latin motto. It was widely known and widely used but this is the neatest version (Horace: [Ars Poetica, 136–9][1])&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;literally it means &quot;The Alps will be giving birth:  A ridiculous mouse pops out!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;It is cryptic enough to have a [Wikipedia][2] page, &quot;The Mountain in Labour.&quot; There's a longer version by Aesop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/stream/satiresepistlesa00horauoft#page/462/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mountain_in_Labour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8749" RevisionGUID="ca15cbb2-2082-4658-bd6b-40af232c0f40" CreationDate="2018-12-19T14:15:53.873" UserId="3221" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="As this is the time when we're all coming up with wacky mottos, I thought I'd try my hand at our department's private motto. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having run a few variants through Google Translate, and coming out with a Latin word salad, I thought I'd try my old Latin dictionary. It still comes out as a poor Anglophone substitution rather than a witty slogan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;We overpromise, (and) we under-perform&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overpromise, as in &quot;to promise the earth&quot;. To claim that we can and will do more than your &quot;wildest dreams could imagine&quot;. That's the first idiomatic sticking point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under-perform, as in lacklustre, shoddy or slapdash. I'm sure there's a pretty way of saying that, other than &quot;sub-optimal&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then how to stick them together in a way that doesn't hurt to look at?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8744" RevisionGUID="a892ef88-881d-451f-b9c9-5b7aaab2d064" CreationDate="2018-12-19T15:20:14.743" UserId="3219" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I believe that the confusion here stems from algorithms and double meanings. The Google Translate algorithm doesn't understand the role of 'creative' in the sentence, so it substitutes *partum*, from the verb *pario*, which means &quot;bear, or give birth to, *to create* .&quot; When you put it into the algorithm again, this word's first two meanings are used, leading to *natural delivery.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correct translation here would be *naturaliter artifex*, from *naturala* (“natural”) +‎ *-iter* (adverbial ending) and *artifex*(&quot;artful, creative&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8736" RevisionGUID="a42ca9f8-58c6-4721-ae64-106cd29cc12d" CreationDate="2018-12-19T17:07:10.130" UserId="406" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="&quot;Alēctō&quot; is the name of one of the Furies, made surprisingly famous in the _Harry Potter_ books. It seems to come straightforwardly from Greek *[ă][1]-* &quot;not&quot; + *lēg-* &quot;stop&quot; + *-tos* &quot;[adjective]&quot;, so &quot;unstoppable&quot; or &quot;unstopping&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Vergil refers to this Fury as &quot;Allēctō&quot;, with an extra L. For example, see Aeneid X.41:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Allēctō mediās Italum bacchāta per urbes*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Allecto, running wild throughout all the cities of Italy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any linguistic or historical reason for this extra &quot;L&quot;? It certainly makes the name easier to fit into a hexameter, but Vergil could just as well have lengthened the vowel, like we see in I.2 (where he has *Ītaliam* for *Italiam*). And I'd expect Vergil of all people to know his Greek backward and forward, given his love of Homer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: [As sumelic points out][1], if my etymology is correct, the *a* in *Alēctō* would be short by nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/8746/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8751" RevisionGUID="5ccd9413-15df-4be1-a5ce-f5dfac7133bd" CreationDate="2018-12-19T17:38:49.347" UserId="469" Text="A, rather literal, translation would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Multa promittimus, pauca adimplemus**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Promitto][1] means, among other things, *to promise*. **Promittimus** → *we promise*.&#xD;&#xA;* **Multa** is the plural neuter form of [multus, -a, -um][2], *many*. The use of pl. neut. is an idiomatic way of saying *many things*.&#xD;&#xA;* In a similar way, **pauca** is pl. n. for [paucus, -a, -um][3], *few things*.&#xD;&#xA;* [Adimpleo][4] means *to fulfill* (also with other meanings). **Adimplemus** → *we fulfill*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A close quote may be found in the Gospel of St. Matthew:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Super pauca fuisti fidelis; supra multa te constituam** ([NVG Mt. 25:21][5]) *you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities* ([NABRE][6])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpromitto&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmultus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpaucus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dadimpleo&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-matthaeum_lt.html#25&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/25#48025021" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8752" RevisionGUID="2df6c550-29a5-4473-a148-63d2d38260c3" CreationDate="2018-12-19T18:31:21.803" UserId="522" Text="To build your library of grammarians here is:  &#xD;&#xA;**Alexandre de Villedieu** grammar Leonine&#xD;&#xA;(internally rhymed hexameter)&#xD;&#xA;grammar derived from Priscian (Priscianus caesariensis ( fl. AD 500)), and Donatus, Aelius Donatus (fl. mid-fourth century AD) &#xD;&#xA;*not Priscian of Lydia (Priscianus Lydus; fl. 6th century*), one of the last of the Neoplatonists.] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; as an example, here is: &quot;***de ceteriis vitiis***&quot; other faults:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10. Amphibolia est ambiguitas dictionis, quae fit aut per casum accusativum, ut siquis dicat «audio secutorem retiarium superasse»;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aut per commune verbum, ut siquis dicat «criminatur Cato», «vadatur&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tullius» nec addat quem vel a quo; aut per distinctionem, ut «vidi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; statuam auream hastam tenentem». Fit et per homonyma, ut siquis aciem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dicat et non  addat oculorum aut exercitus aut ferri. Fit praeterea&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pluribus modis, quos percensere omnes, 	ne nimis longum sit, non&#xD;&#xA;&gt; oportet. sperare   	arrige aures Pamphile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8752" RevisionGUID="e6cdc82a-cd63-4161-8029-c5417a279b24" CreationDate="2018-12-19T18:39:58.567" UserId="522" Comment="Added date" Text="To build your library of grammarians here is:  &#xD;&#xA;**Alexandre de Villedieu** (born around 1175) Grammar Leonine&#xD;&#xA;(internally rhymed hexameter)&#xD;&#xA;grammar derived from Priscian (Priscianus caesariensis ( fl. AD 500)), and Donatus, Aelius Donatus (fl. mid-fourth century AD) &#xD;&#xA;*not Priscian of Lydia (Priscianus Lydus; fl. 6th century*), one of the last of the Neoplatonists.] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; as an example, here is: &quot;***de ceteriis vitiis***&quot; other faults:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10. Amphibolia est ambiguitas dictionis, quae fit aut per casum accusativum, ut siquis dicat «audio secutorem retiarium superasse»;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aut per commune verbum, ut siquis dicat «criminatur Cato», «vadatur&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tullius» nec addat quem vel a quo; aut per distinctionem, ut «vidi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; statuam auream hastam tenentem». Fit et per homonyma, ut siquis aciem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dicat et non  addat oculorum aut exercitus aut ferri. Fit praeterea&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pluribus modis, quos percensere omnes, 	ne nimis longum sit, non&#xD;&#xA;&gt; oportet. sperare   	arrige aures Pamphile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8753" RevisionGUID="b4775811-90c5-482c-b9b1-d95c2585b3fd" CreationDate="2018-12-19T19:56:14.980" UserId="2476" Text="For &quot;overpromise&quot; there's a nice idiomatic expression: _**marĭa montesque pollĭcēmur**_. It means literally &quot;we promise the sea and the mountains&quot;, pretty close to &quot;promise the earth&quot;. It has remained intact in the Italian _promettere mari e monti_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no single verb to express a sub-optimal performance, but I like _**ad ultimum non pervĕnīmus**_ - literally, &quot;we don't reach the highest/furthest&quot;, i.e. &quot;we don't reach perfection&quot;. Plus, I think it looks good with the sea and mountains metaphore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum it up:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Maria montesque pollicemur, ad ultimum non pervenimus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8754" RevisionGUID="c980405b-55c4-4287-b87c-30740d8f120f" CreationDate="2018-12-19T21:35:27.697" UserId="2476" Text="&quot;By nature&quot; may be translated either with the ablative of cause _naturā_ or with (what appears to be) the agent complement _a natura_. We find the latter in Cicero's _Brutus_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;T. Torquatus T. f. et doctus vir ex Rhodia disciplina Molonis et a natura ad dicendum satis solutus atque expeditus [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Titus Torquatus, son of Titus, who was taught by Molo in Rhodes and by nature gifted with decent effortlessness and ease in speaking&quot; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ablative of cause is attested in Seneca the Younger's _De ira_, Liber III:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Omnes sensus perducendi sunt ad firmitatem; naturā patientes sunt [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;All senses must be directed to firmness; they are enduring by nature&quot; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find a single word suitable enough for &quot;creative&quot;. &quot;Creativity&quot; itself doesn't have a perfect analogue (_imaginatio_ comes close). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However  we may use a construction similar to what we see in Cicero: _**ad inveniendum expeditus**_. We may specifically translate it as &quot;full of inventive&quot;, so &quot;creative&quot;. More literally, it indicates &quot;ease in inventing, imagining&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, two possible translations are _**Ad inveniendum naturā expĕdītus**_ and _**A natura ad inveniendum expĕdītus**_. I personally prefer the former, I would choose the latter if the qualities were more than one (like in Cicero's case)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8755" RevisionGUID="57b38fa2-ad77-49ee-b061-373bca461038" CreationDate="2018-12-19T22:05:23.453" UserId="985" Text="My suggestion is *nimium promittimus, parum patramus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*nimium* and *parum* are adverbs meaning 'too much'/'excessively' and 'too little'/'insufficiently', respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*promittimus* means 'we promise,' and *patramus* means 'we carry through'/'we bring to completion'/'we accomplish.' Both verbs are being used 'absolutely' here, without the direct object that they would typically have. The pairing of these two verbs can be found in, e.g., Cicero, *Ad Atticum* 1.14.7:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nunc ut ad privata redeam, Τεῦκρις **promissa patravit**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the sentence literally means, 'We promise excessively, (but) we carry through to completion insufficiently.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8756" RevisionGUID="f364aa25-9921-4cd5-aa09-26dbb42a21af" CreationDate="2018-12-20T09:59:31.723" UserId="2476" Text="How should I say in Classical Latin the following phrases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Explain yourself!&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;I didn't explain myself well&quot;, &quot;I didn't make myself / wasn't clear&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been thinking of the verbs _explico_ and _explano_, and the adjective _dilucidus,a,um_ , but I couldn't find a natural and attested way to phrase those expressions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27043" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8756" RevisionGUID="f364aa25-9921-4cd5-aa09-26dbb42a21af" CreationDate="2018-12-20T09:59:31.723" UserId="2476" Text="&quot;Explaining oneself&quot; in Classical Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27044" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8756" RevisionGUID="f364aa25-9921-4cd5-aa09-26dbb42a21af" CreationDate="2018-12-20T09:59:31.723" UserId="2476" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|idiom|sentence-translation|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8744" RevisionGUID="1634d011-5adf-4d5a-b4a4-ea5691f6f6ac" CreationDate="2018-12-20T10:35:16.633" UserId="79" Comment="Corrected a typo." Text="I believe that the confusion here stems from algorithms and double meanings. The Google Translate algorithm doesn't understand the role of 'creative' in the sentence, so it substitutes *partum*, from the verb *pario*, which means &quot;bear, or give birth to, *to create*.&quot; When you put it into the algorithm again, this word's first two meanings are used, leading to *natural delivery.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correct translation here would be *naturaliter artifex*, from *naturalis* (“natural”) +‎ *-iter* (adverbial ending) and *artifex* (&quot;artful, creative&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8760" RevisionGUID="b3f7d867-7c64-4cd6-9a95-0a2b9ace923a" CreationDate="2018-12-20T17:40:48.900" UserId="645" Text="There is, as far as I know, just one serious work on Roman women, 'Roman Women: Their History and Habits', by J.P.V.D Balsdon, a Cambridge history don who also wrote interesting and useful accounts of Roman life at large. It was published by Cambridge University Press, and was intended, by including as much information as possible about the subject from classical sources, to supply an evident need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I recall, it succeeded in its rather narrow aim, but at the same time somewhat disappointed by being little more than a collation of well-known facts about the more famous ladies, while making no attempt at a proper synthesis about women of the Republic in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is still available through the usual internet channels and has been reviewed at 'Goodreads' https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1742349.Roman_Women ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8761" RevisionGUID="faf65d11-af8a-4355-9729-6adcbf902ceb" CreationDate="2018-12-21T05:41:22.413" UserId="406" Text="&quot;Good King Wenceslas&quot; is a classic Christmas song, but its melody was taken from an older song: &quot;Tempus Adest Floridum&quot;, from the Finnish carol book *Piae Cantiones*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first few lines of that song go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempus adest floridum,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Surgunt namque flores  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vernales in omnibus,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; imitantur mores&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation seems straightforward, for the most part:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The flowering time is here,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the flowers are sprouting  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Springtime customs now  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Imitate into everything(??)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm very confused by the last line. How do the customs &quot;imitate into everything&quot;? Or does the verb *imitor* mean something else when connected to *in*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27059" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8761" RevisionGUID="faf65d11-af8a-4355-9729-6adcbf902ceb" CreationDate="2018-12-21T05:41:22.413" UserId="406" Text="How does one &quot;imitate into everything&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27060" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8761" RevisionGUID="faf65d11-af8a-4355-9729-6adcbf902ceb" CreationDate="2018-12-21T05:41:22.413" UserId="406" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|medieval-latin|translation-explanation|song-lyrics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8761" RevisionGUID="9e0fa195-e981-4399-bc70-8c4a21406617" CreationDate="2018-12-21T05:47:33.667" UserId="406" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="&quot;Good King Wenceslas&quot; is a classic Christmas song, but its melody was taken from an older song: &quot;Tempus Adest Floridum&quot;, from the Finnish carol book *Piae Cantiones* (&quot;Pious Songs&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first few lines of that song go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempus adest floridum,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Surgunt namque flores  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vernales in omnibus,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Imitantur mores&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation seems straightforward, for the most part:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The flowering time is here,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the flowers are sprouting  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Springtime customs now  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Imitate into everything(??)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm very confused by the last line. How do the customs &quot;imitate into everything&quot;? Or does the verb *imitor* mean something else when connected to *in*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fBF5j.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8761" RevisionGUID="6ef803f1-5c42-4748-b379-b5d5435df306" CreationDate="2018-12-21T06:20:54.693" UserId="406" Comment="edited body" Text="&quot;Good King Wenceslas&quot; is a classic Christmas song, but its melody was taken from an older song: &quot;Tempus Adest Floridum&quot;, from the Finnish carol book *Piae Cantiones* (&quot;Pious Songs&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first few lines of that song go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempus adest floridum,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; surgunt namque flores  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vernales in omnibus,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; imitantur mores&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation seems straightforward, for the most part:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The flowering time is here,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the flowers are sprouting  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Springtime customs now  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; imitate into everything(??)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm very confused by the last line. How do the customs &quot;imitate into everything&quot;? Or does the verb *imitor* mean something else when connected to *in*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fBF5j.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8762" RevisionGUID="7e0e876a-8779-4ea5-9fcc-8b0dcb1812e4" CreationDate="2018-12-21T13:04:10.373" UserId="79" Text="The word &quot;forum&quot; as used in English and many other modern languages obviously comes from Latin.&#xD;&#xA;It means a place where people gather to discuss, like an online forum or a scientific conference, but not a place of commerce.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin *forum* means a marketplace or an outside or public area.&#xD;&#xA;Is *forum* the best match for the English &quot;forum&quot; (with more or less equivalent reincarnations in other languages), or is there a better choice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27064" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8762" RevisionGUID="7e0e876a-8779-4ea5-9fcc-8b0dcb1812e4" CreationDate="2018-12-21T13:04:10.373" UserId="79" Text="What is a forum in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27065" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8762" RevisionGUID="7e0e876a-8779-4ea5-9fcc-8b0dcb1812e4" CreationDate="2018-12-21T13:04:10.373" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8763" RevisionGUID="70e36afa-a6c9-4eb5-86e5-202809b4c445" CreationDate="2018-12-21T14:14:43.630" UserId="469" Text="I agree with cnread that capitalization seems to follow the verses, not implying a *hidden* punctuation. I also think that **mores** is the object of **imitantur**, the subject being **flores**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, IMO, has two readings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Flores imitantur mores [suos]**, as cnread says, *they imitate their custom*.&#xD;&#xA;2. **Flores imitantur mores [bonos]**, *they flourish, just as virtues do*. I admit that this may sound a little far-fetched, but I can't help making sense of it this way in the context of Ecclesiastical Latin. **Mores** also mean *[manners, morals, character; in a good or bad sense][1]* .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FWIW there is an instance of **mores** being the object of **imitari** in Cicero in this specific sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **imitari, Castor, potius avi mores disciplinamque debebas quam optimo et clarissimo viro fugitivi ore male dicere** ([Cic. Deiot. 10.28][2]) / *You ought, O Castor, rather to imitate the manner and principles of your grandfather, than calumniate a most virtuous and most illustrious man with the language of a runaway slave* ([Yonge, 1891][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmos&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0011%3Atext%3DDeiot.%3Achapter%3D10%3Asection%3D28&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.%20Deiot.%2010.28&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8764" RevisionGUID="63090c6b-7462-4857-b012-ca9550912515" CreationDate="2018-12-21T14:41:47.850" UserId="79" Text="Here is an option worth considering:&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps *imitare* is meant as a non-deponent verb, making *imitantur* passive.&#xD;&#xA;Thus *imitantur mores* would be read as something like &quot;the traditions are followed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the stanza would consist of three independent statements separated by commas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Tempus adest floridum*&#xD;&#xA;- *surgunt namque flores vernales in omnibus*&#xD;&#xA;- *imitantur mores*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how to read *in omnibus*, though.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps &quot;everywhere&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;That would make a lot of sense in context, but I'm not familiar with such use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8765" RevisionGUID="95060728-2a2a-4917-8ab6-17743167d4fc" CreationDate="2018-12-21T20:47:47.730" UserId="40" Text="First, note that *in omnibus* can't mean &quot;into everything&quot; but only &quot;in everything, in all things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would take *Vernales* as beginning a new sentence that goes on to *mores*, with those two words together meaning &quot;springtime customs&quot;. The reason I think *Vernales* does not actually go with *flores*, as it would seem to at first sight, is that Medieval Latin poetry shows little in the way of enjambment: each line tends to correspond to a clause or sentence. See for examples the poems of the Archpoet, like [this one][1] in the same meter. And this line-to-clause correspondence seems to hold in the rest of [this same poem][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have a sentence *Vernales in omnibus imitantur mores*. The comma after *omnibus* is difficult, and my best guess is that it's there to show a break in the melody rather than in the syntax. Without it the sentence means &quot;They imitate springtime customs in all things&quot;. Admittedly this is still a bit mysterious -- who's &quot;they&quot;? The flowers? People generally? An alternative, as Joonas suggests, is to take *imitor* as a true passive, &quot;Springtime customs are imitated in all things&quot;, but this would be decidedly un-Classical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0479/_P9.HTM&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_King_Wenceslas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8766" RevisionGUID="c5605b02-c4d4-49c3-bda6-60a4daf823b8" CreationDate="2018-12-22T01:28:59.750" UserId="522" Text="Caesar and Cicero refer to *collŏquĭum* in association with *convenio* vb and *convenium* noun.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a talking together, conversation, conference, discourse. (W Smith 1895)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;exemplum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *collŏquĭum quum conveniunt in unum locum loquendi causa* Varr L.L. 6,7,66.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and from Caesar B. G. 1  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; eo ad colloquium venerunt  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; in colloquium venire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that too formal?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8767" RevisionGUID="c6177ef4-c154-4523-b14c-b5df71942c41" CreationDate="2018-12-22T07:51:35.453" UserId="985" Text="The adjective *praeditus* is often used to speak of one's 'natural gifts' or endowments: courage, criminality, wisdom, eloquence, self-control, talent, and so on – even limbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's paired with some noun to denote the thing with which one is endowed. That noun is typically modified by its own adjective. Apuleius, Lucretius, and Cicero are especially fond of this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Lucretius's *De rerum natura*, a phrase that recurs several times is 'endowed with such-and-such a nature.' The phrase is used to describe the way something naturally/intrinsically is – for example, in book 1, line 236:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *inmortali sunt natura praedita certe*,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'certainly, they are endowed with an immortal nature'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is, which adjective should be used to make Lucretius's phrase mean 'endowed with a creative nature'? As Vincenzo Oliva has noted in his answer, there isn't really a classical Latin word for 'creative' in our modern sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll make three suggestions. Ultimately, it's down to you to choose the one that best captures your own conception of the word 'creative' and that best suits what you intend to use the phrase for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Sollers:** The *Oxford Latin dictionary* defines this adjective as 'full of devices or expedients, clever, skilled, ingenious, resourceful.' Although 'skilled' is in that list of definitions, the other definitions suggest that the word goes beyond mere physical abilities, to the way that those abilities are exercised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  *Sollers* and related words can be used to describe ingeniousness or cleverness ('creativity') in various practices (e.g., speaking, warfare, or architecture) and also in the plastic and performing arts – for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Horace, *Ars poetica* 407:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      &gt; *Musa lyrae sollers*  &#xD;&#xA;      &gt; 'the Muse skilled/ingenious at the lyre'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Horace, *Carmina* 4.8.7-8:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      &gt; *hic saxo, liquidis ille coloribus / sollers nunc hominem ponere, nunc deum*  &#xD;&#xA;      &gt; 'the latter man (Scopas) skilled/ingenious at depicting now a human, now a god in stone, the former (Parrhasius) at depicting them in liquid colors'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  In this case, the phrase would be ***sollertī nātūrā praeditus***, 'endowed with an ingenious nature.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Artifex:** This noun/adjective was used in user12390879's answer. Among its meanings are 'A craftsman in one of the fine arts, a sculptor, painter or the like, an artist'; 'An actor, musician or dancer (on the stage or elsewhere), and artist, performer'; and 'A maker, creator, producer; the author (of a book).'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  The advantages of this word are that it's strongly linked to the plastic and performing arts, and the word 'art' is clearly recognizable in it. Both these facts may be significant if you're thinking specifically in terms of artistic creativity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  In this case, the phrase would be ***artificī nātūrā praeditus***, 'endowed with an artistic nature.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Inventrix:** This was inspired by Vincenzo Oliva's answer, though it involves a bit of license, because the feminine noun *inventrix* is being used as a feminine adjective. Still, such a thing is done often enough in Latin literature that I feel comfortable suggesting it. The noun is based on a verb that has among its meanings 'To devise, contrive, plan'; and 'To devise for the first time, originate, discover, invent.' It's a fairly general sort of creativity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Of course, the advantage of *inventrix* is that the word 'invent' is clearly recognizable in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  In this case, the phrase would be ***inventricī nātūrā praeditus***, 'endowed with an inventive nature.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that, in all three versions, if the phrase is describing a female specifically, you would replace *praeditus* with *praedita*; for a group of males only, or a mixed group of males and females, you'd use *praeditī*; and for a group of females exclusively, you'd use *praeditae*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8768" RevisionGUID="7cf6bf10-d5db-4453-b395-c6d894aac62a" CreationDate="2018-12-22T14:52:50.530" UserId="183" Text="Are there any attested Classical Latin words whose meanings are unknown to us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the intensive study of the Classical Latin corpus and the many methods of getting at the meanings of words (including etymological relations either to modern Romance ofr to other Indogermanic languages) I wonder if some such words are left. Waht are examples of such words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27073" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8768" RevisionGUID="7cf6bf10-d5db-4453-b395-c6d894aac62a" CreationDate="2018-12-22T14:52:50.530" UserId="183" Text="Are there Classical Latin words whose meanings are unknown to us?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27074" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8768" RevisionGUID="7cf6bf10-d5db-4453-b395-c6d894aac62a" CreationDate="2018-12-22T14:52:50.530" UserId="183" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8768" RevisionGUID="76c0d69c-d99c-4dec-898f-cac7879b15b4" CreationDate="2018-12-22T15:00:29.563" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Are there any attested Classical Latin words whose meanings are unknown to us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the intensive study of the Classical Latin corpus and the many methods of getting at the meanings of words (including etymological relations either to modern Romance or to other Indogermanic languages) I wonder if some such words are left. What are examples of such words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8770" RevisionGUID="9e4a8d37-69cc-4b17-a1de-f46467cbaec6" CreationDate="2018-12-23T15:07:09.200" UserId="645" Text="English in this context has a number of words that might originally have suggested something rather different. We speak of the Republican Party *Convention*, the Trades Union *Congress*, the *Synod* of the Church of England, the Welsh National *Assembly*, the *Council* for the Preservation of Rural England and so on. It wouldn't be stretching it too far to say that these are all forums of one kind or another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going into Latin, however, the most frequent word for a forum in the sense apparently needed here is *conventus*, basically meaning an 'assembly', a 'conjunction', a 'coming together', in almost any sense, and it's probably the most suitable word for 'forum' as the word is nowadays used.  It appears far more often in word-searches than *conventio*, being much favoured (if that's the right word) by both Caesar and (especially) Cicero. A word like *conventio*, *congressio* or *colloquium* is tempting because of similarity in current English, but each seems to have had a restricted use, whereas *conventus* can be applied to any kind of gathering, including that of people for discussion and other kinds of interaction.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8771" RevisionGUID="e5d1cae7-3e20-49fd-b6c3-8b01675dd0aa" CreationDate="2018-12-23T20:43:08.497" UserId="118" Text="Here are the first three lines of the 2nd of the Prophetiæ Sybillarum, that of the Sybilla Lybica, written in hexameter by (I think) Orlandus Lassus as well as [set to music](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUVNtDxlTP8&amp;t=413s), with an English translation from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prophetiae_Sibyllarum&amp;oldid=865462052#Poems):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ecce dies venient, quo æternus tempore princeps,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Irradians sata læta**, viris sua crimina tollet,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lumine clarescet cuius synagoga recenti:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Behold the days will come, at which time the immortal prince,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **sowing abundant crops**, shall take away their crimes from men,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whose synagogue will shine with new light;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that translation of _irradians sata læta_ right? It seems incongruous, both with the rest of the passage and even itself. Are crops literally _læta_? Or is there some kind of poetic allusion or license that might explain this? Does _sata_ have a sense other than crops? Or is this a part of the Christian myth that I never heard of before?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27082" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8771" RevisionGUID="e5d1cae7-3e20-49fd-b6c3-8b01675dd0aa" CreationDate="2018-12-23T20:43:08.497" UserId="118" Text="Irradians sata læta" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27083" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8771" RevisionGUID="e5d1cae7-3e20-49fd-b6c3-8b01675dd0aa" CreationDate="2018-12-23T20:43:08.497" UserId="118" Text="|translation-check|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8771" RevisionGUID="a3c1259b-cb67-4043-900b-867ee66e9bdf" CreationDate="2018-12-23T21:35:04.190" UserId="118" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="Here are the first three lines of the 2nd of the Prophetiæ Sybillarum, that of the Sybilla Lybica, [set to music](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUVNtDxlTP8&amp;t=413s) by Orlandus Lassus, with an English translation from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prophetiae_Sibyllarum&amp;oldid=865462052#Poems). I haven't sorted out whether Lassus composed the hexameters from legends in circulation or if the Latin text itself comes from the early Christian period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ecce dies venient, quo æternus tempore princeps,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Irradians sata læta**, viris sua crimina tollet,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lumine clarescet cuius synagoga recenti:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Behold the days will come, at which time the immortal prince,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **sowing abundant crops**, shall take away their crimes from men,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whose synagogue will shine with new light;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that translation of _irradians sata læta_ right? It seems incongruous, both with the rest of the passage and even itself. Are crops literally _læta_? Or is there some kind of poetic allusion or license that might explain this? Does _sata_ have a sense other than crops? Or is this a part of the Christian myth that I never heard of before?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8772" RevisionGUID="83aebd7b-9628-485e-a2a9-feb9095d4ae3" CreationDate="2018-12-24T00:09:16.923" UserId="522" Text="The festivals which typify *synagoga* are **a)** harvests and **b)** ethical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** The *princeps* irradiates, beams down on, the 'joyful standing corn,' --&quot;Ripens the joyful crops &quot; would fit the word count.  &#xD;&#xA;*Sata* conveniently does not differentiate between wheat and barley harvests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** *Tollet Crimina* includes New Year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The two poems in which Boethius links the Godhead to *gubernator,* to creator, and to Sun are generally thought to be Neoplatonist (esp Consolation III metric9), and  Consolation V metric2 quotes Iliad iii 277] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8773" RevisionGUID="3cd2bdde-e4fc-4d65-af11-631e1a45fd34" CreationDate="2018-12-24T01:57:52.993" UserId="118" Text="Here's an uneducated guess, based on some googling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iam mutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There appears to be an earlier version of the poem in the _Carmina Burana,_ [§105 in this book](https://books.google.com/books?id=FW49AAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;pg=PA183#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) but usually counted §142:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempus adest floridum,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Surgunt namque flores,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vernales mox in omnibus&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iam mutantur mores.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you have to drop the _a_ in _Vernales_ to fit the melody, which seems strange, but [another source](https://books.google.com/books?id=YIUQAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;pg=PA60#v=onepage&amp;q=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;f=false) supports this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating both literally and metrically, then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now has come the florid time,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For flowers are arising;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Soon the ways in everything&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Will be changed to Springtime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following four lines continue the idea of evidence that Winter is now in the process of changing to Spring:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc quod frigus læserat,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reparant calores,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cernimus hoc fieri&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Per multos colores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is injured by the cold,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heats are now repairing;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We can tell it's happening&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By the many colors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Immutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This web source](https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost13/CarminaBurana/bur_cam5.html#142) is probably more authoritative. It gives **immutantur** rather than **iam mutantur**, which agrees better with the idea of &quot;changing into&quot; and the transitive use of _muto._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The punctuation given there indicates that the curator thought that _Vernales_ modified _flores._ [This blogger](http://thelatinreadingblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/carmina-burana-142-love-in-springtime.html) reached the same conclusion. But don't jump on that bandwagon just yet. There's more evidence below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imitantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carmina_Burana&amp;oldid=864169096#Musical_settings) reports that a &quot;sanitized version&quot; of _Tempus Adest Floridum_ was published in the _Piæ Cantiones._ No source is given for that characterization, but the next two verses of the _Carmina Burana_ version are about _virgines cum clericis_ finding love in the meadows ; [the version](http://www.lillhannus.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/tempusadestfloridum.pdf) in the _Piæ Cantiones_ still describes meadows, but now it's only about plant life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, _Tempus Adest Floridum_ got an edit, which fixed both the meter and the naughtiness. In line 8, _per multos colores_ got revised to _per multos labores._ But still the idea seems to be that we are now witnessing the _change_ to Spring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, consider the medieval script in which **immutantur** would have been written. The letters _immu-_ would likely be a series of vertical strokes. If written **inmutantur**, the editor of the _Piæ Cantiones_ could easily have mistaken it for **immitantur** and then &quot;corrected&quot; the double _m._ (For that matter, **iam mutantur** is probably another transcription error.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's my hypothesis: **imitantur** is a transcription error, introduced while trying to correct other errors during the transition from script to print. The actual verb is **inmutantur** or **immutantur**, its subject is **mores**, and its object, properly an adjective, is **vernales**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8773" RevisionGUID="afa0da83-1ab2-445e-92fa-51d0a4ca7610" CreationDate="2018-12-24T02:53:39.627" UserId="118" Comment="added 445 characters in body" Text="Here's an uneducated guess, based on an evening's googling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iam mutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An earlier version of the poem appears in the _Carmina Burana,_ [§105 in this book](https://books.google.com/books?id=FW49AAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;pg=PA183#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) but usually counted §142:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempus adest floridum,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Surgunt namque flores,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vernales mox in omnibus&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iam mutantur mores.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you have to drop the _a_ in _Vernales_ to fit the melody, which seems strange, but [another source](https://books.google.com/books?id=YIUQAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;pg=PA60#v=onepage&amp;q=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;f=false) supports this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating both literally and metrically, then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now has come the florid time,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For flowers are arising;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Soon the ways in everything&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Will be changed to Springtime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following four lines continue the idea of evidence that Winter is now in the process of changing to Spring:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc quod frigus læserat,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reparant calores,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cernimus hoc fieri&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Per multos colores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is injured by the cold,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heats are now repairing;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We can tell it's happening&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By the many colors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Immutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This web source](https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost13/CarminaBurana/bur_cam5.html#142) is probably more authoritative. It gives **immutantur** rather than **iam mutantur**, which agrees better with the idea of &quot;changing into&quot; and the transitive use of _muto._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The punctuation given there indicates that the curator thought that _Vernales_ modified _flores._ [This blogger](http://thelatinreadingblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/carmina-burana-142-love-in-springtime.html) reached the same conclusion. But don't jump on that bandwagon just yet. There's more evidence below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imitantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carmina_Burana&amp;oldid=864169096#Musical_settings) reports that a &quot;sanitized version&quot; of _Tempus Adest Floridum_ was published in the _Piæ Cantiones._ No source is given for that characterization, but the next two verses of the _Carmina Burana_ version are about _virgines cum clericis_ finding love in the meadows ; [the version](http://www.lillhannus.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/tempusadestfloridum.pdf) in the _Piæ Cantiones_ still describes meadows, but now it's only about plant life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, _Tempus Adest Floridum_ got an edit, which fixed both the meter and the naughtiness. In line 8, _per multos colores_ got revised to _per multos labores._ But still the idea seems to be that we are now witnessing the _change_ to Spring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inmutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, consider the medieval script in which **immutantur** would have been written. The letters _-immu-_ would likely be a series of vertical strokes. If written **inmutantur**, the editor of the _Piæ Cantiones_ could easily have mistaken the eight consecutive [minims](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minim_(palaeography)) as the start of **immitantur** and then &quot;corrected&quot; the double _m._ (For that matter, **iam mutantur** is probably another transcription error introduced due to the same ambiguity.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's my hypothesis: **imitantur** is a transcription error, introduced while trying to correct other errors during the transition from script to print. The actual verb is **inmutantur** or **immutantur**, its subject is **mores**, and its object, properly an adjective, is **vernales**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome debunking from others more knowledgeable (or less). Some bases for doubt: palæography, transitive _inmuto,_ and the erudition of Jacobus Finno and the other editors of the _Piæ Cantiones,_ who presumably would know that _imitantur_ is active in meaning rather than passive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8773" RevisionGUID="590cd360-8b2d-42b2-ab93-aa75219051d0" CreationDate="2018-12-24T03:16:58.287" UserId="118" Comment="added 323 characters in body" Text="Here's an uneducated guess, based on an evening's googling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iam mutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An earlier version of the poem appears in the _Carmina Burana,_ [§105 in this book](https://books.google.com/books?id=FW49AAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;pg=PA183#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) but usually counted §142:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempus adest floridum,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Surgunt namque flores,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vernales mox in omnibus&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Iam mutantur** mores.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you have to drop the _a_ in _Vernales_ to fit the melody, which seems strange, but [another source](https://books.google.com/books?id=YIUQAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;pg=PA60#v=onepage&amp;q=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;f=false) supports this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating both literally and metrically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now has come the florid time,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For flowers are arising;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Soon the ways in everything&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Will be changed** to Springtime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following four lines continue the idea of evidence that Winter is now in the process of changing to Spring:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc quod frigus læserat,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reparant calores,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cernimus hoc fieri&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Per multos colores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is injured by the cold,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heats are now repairing;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We can tell it's happening&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By the many colors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Immutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This web source](https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost13/CarminaBurana/bur_cam5.html#142) is probably more authoritative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempus adest floridum,    surgunt namque flores&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;vernales; mox in omnibus    **immutantur** mores.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;hoc, quod frigus leserat,    reparant calores;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;cernimus hoc fieri    per multos colores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **immutantur** agrees better than **iam mutantur** with the idea of &quot;being changed into&quot; and the transitive use of _muto._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The punctuation indicates that the curator thought that _vernales_ modified _flores._ Leo Tepper posted the same conclusion in [his blog](http://thelatinreadingblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/carmina-burana-142-love-in-springtime.html). But don't jump on that bandwagon just yet. There's more evidence below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imitantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carmina_Burana&amp;oldid=864169096#Musical_settings) reports that a &quot;sanitized version&quot; of _Tempus Adest Floridum_ was published in the _Piæ Cantiones._ No source is given for that characterization, but the next two verses of the _Carmina Burana_ version are about _virgines cum clericis_ finding love in the meadows—probably not very pious by the standards of the [Swedish Reformation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation_in_Sweden). [The version](http://www.lillhannus.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/tempusadestfloridum.pdf) in the _Piæ Cantiones_ still describes meadows, but now it's only about plant life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, _Tempus Adest Floridum_ got an edit, which fixed both the meter and the naughtiness. But the idea still seems to be that we are now witnessing the _change_ to Spring. In line 8, _per multos colores_ got revised to _per multos labores,_ reinforcing the idea that something is causing everything to change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inmutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, consider the medieval script in which **immutantur** would have been written. The letters _-immu-_ would likely be a series of vertical strokes. If written **inmutantur**, the editor of the _Piæ Cantiones_ could easily have mistaken the eight consecutive [minims](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minim_(palaeography)) as the start of **immitantur** and then &quot;corrected&quot; the double _m._ (For that matter, **iam mutantur** is probably another transcription error introduced due to the same ambiguity.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's my hypothesis: **imitantur** is a transcription error, introduced while trying to correct other errors during the transition from script to print. The actual verb is **inmutantur** or **immutantur**, its subject is **mores**, and its object, properly an adjective, is **vernales**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome debunking from others more knowledgeable (or less). Some bases for doubt: palæography, transitive _inmuto,_ and the erudition of Jacobus Finno and the other editors of the _Piæ Cantiones,_ who presumably knew that _imitantur_ is active in meaning rather than passive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8773" RevisionGUID="70422323-0f08-4636-b006-cd46b55c0220" CreationDate="2018-12-24T04:26:11.850" UserId="118" Comment="added 444 characters in body" Text="Here's an uneducated guess, based on an evening's googling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iam mutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An earlier version of the poem appears in the _Carmina Burana,_ [§105 in this book](https://books.google.com/books?id=FW49AAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;pg=PA183#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) but usually counted §142:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempus adest floridum,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Surgunt namque flores,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vernales mox in omnibus&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Iam mutantur** mores.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to fudge _Vernales_ to fit the melody, which seems strange, but [another source](https://books.google.com/books?id=YIUQAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;pg=PA60#v=onepage&amp;q=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;f=false) supports this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating both literally and metrically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now has come the florid time,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For flowers are arising;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Soon the ways in everything&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Will be changed** to Springtime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following four lines continue the idea of evidence that Winter is now in the process of changing to Spring:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc quod frigus læserat,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reparant calores,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cernimus hoc fieri&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Per multos colores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is injured by the cold,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heats are now restoring;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We can tell it's happening&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By the many colors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Immutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Biblioteca Augustana's version](https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost13/CarminaBurana/bur_cam5.html#142) is probably more authoritative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempus adest floridum,    surgunt namque flores&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;vernales; mox in omnibus    **immutantur** mores.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;hoc, quod frigus leserat,    reparant calores;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;cernimus hoc fieri    per multos colores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **immutantur** agrees better than **iam mutantur** with the idea of &quot;being changed into&quot; and the transitive use of _muto._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The punctuation indicates that the curator thought that _vernales_ modified _flores._ Leo Tepper posted the same conclusion in [his blog](http://thelatinreadingblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/carmina-burana-142-love-in-springtime.html). But don't jump on that bandwagon just yet. There's more evidence below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imitantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carmina_Burana&amp;oldid=864169096#Musical_settings) reports that a &quot;sanitized version&quot; of _Tempus Adest Floridum_ was published in the _Piæ Cantiones._ No source is given for that characterization, but the next two verses of the _Carmina Burana_ version are about _virgines cum clericis_ finding love in the meadows—probably not very pious by the standards of the [Swedish Reformation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation_in_Sweden). [The version](http://www.lillhannus.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/tempusadestfloridum.pdf) in the _Piæ Cantiones_ still describes meadows, but now it's only about plant life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, _Tempus Adest Floridum_ got an edit, which fixed both the meter and the naughtiness. But the idea still seems to be that we are now witnessing the _change_ to Spring. In line 8, _per multos colores_ got revised to _per multos labores,_ reinforcing the idea that something is causing everything to change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inmutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, consider the medieval script in which **immutantur** would have been written. The letters _-immu-_ would likely be a series of vertical strokes. If written **inmutantur**, the editor of the _Piæ Cantiones_ could easily have mistaken the eight consecutive [minims](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minim_(palaeography)) as the start of **immitantur** and then &quot;corrected&quot; the double _m._ (For that matter, **iam mutantur** is probably another transcription error introduced due to the same ambiguity.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's my hypothesis: **imitantur** is a transcription error, introduced while trying to correct other errors during the transition from script to print. The actual verb is **inmutantur** or **immutantur**, its subject is **mores**, and its object, properly an adjective, is **vernales**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome debunking from others more knowledgeable (or less). Some bases for doubt: palæography, transitive _inmuto,_ and the erudition of Jacobus Finno and the other editors of the _Piæ Cantiones,_ who presumably knew that _imitantur_ is active in meaning rather than passive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some more googling I found the relevant passage at the bottom of [folio 58v](http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/0008/bsb00085130/images/index.html?id=00085130&amp;groesser=&amp;fip=xsewqwqrseayawxdsydsdasw&amp;no=2&amp;seite=120) in the _Carmina Burana_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Carmina Burana 58v][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It clearly reads **iam mutantur**, so now I wonder where the Biblioteca Augustana got **immutantur**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2rgeG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8773" RevisionGUID="f946d994-a519-41bd-8a32-7eac736b3785" CreationDate="2018-12-24T04:43:58.550" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="Here's an uneducated guess, based on an evening's googling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iam mutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An earlier version of the poem appears in the _Carmina Burana,_ [§105 in this book](https://books.google.com/books?id=FW49AAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;pg=PA183#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) but usually counted §142:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempus adest floridum,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Surgunt namque flores,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vernales mox in omnibus&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Iam mutantur** mores.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to fudge _Vernales_ to fit the melody, which seems strange, but [another source](https://books.google.com/books?id=YIUQAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;pg=PA60#v=onepage&amp;q=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;f=false) supports this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating both literally and metrically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now has come the florid time,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For flowers are arising;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Soon the ways in everything&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Will be changed** to Springtime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following four lines continue the idea of evidence that Winter is now in the process of changing to Spring:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc quod frigus læserat,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reparant calores,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cernimus hoc fieri&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Per multos colores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is injured by the cold,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heats are now restoring;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We can tell it's happening&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By the many colors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Immutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Biblioteca Augustana's version](https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost13/CarminaBurana/bur_cam5.html#142) is probably more authoritative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempus adest floridum,    surgunt namque flores&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;vernales; mox in omnibus    **immutantur** mores.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;hoc, quod frigus leserat,    reparant calores;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;cernimus hoc fieri    per multos colores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **immutantur** agrees better than **iam mutantur** with the idea of &quot;being changed into&quot; and the transitive use of _muto._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The punctuation indicates that the curator thought that _vernales_ modified _flores._ Leo Tepper posted the same conclusion in [his blog](http://thelatinreadingblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/carmina-burana-142-love-in-springtime.html). But don't jump on that bandwagon just yet. There's more evidence below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imitantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carmina_Burana&amp;oldid=864169096#Musical_settings) reports that a &quot;sanitized version&quot; of _Tempus Adest Floridum_ was published in the _Piæ Cantiones._ No source is given for that characterization, but the next two verses of the _Carmina Burana_ version are about _virgines cum clericis_ finding love in the meadows—probably not very pious by the standards of the [Swedish Reformation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation_in_Sweden). [The version](http://www.lillhannus.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/tempusadestfloridum.pdf) in the _Piæ Cantiones_ still describes meadows, but now it's only about plant life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, _Tempus Adest Floridum_ got an edit, which fixed both the meter and the naughtiness. But the idea still seems to be that we are now witnessing the _change_ to Spring. In line 8, _per multos colores_ got revised to _per multos labores,_ reinforcing the idea that something is causing everything to change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inmutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, consider the medieval script in which **immutantur** would have been written. The letters _-immu-_ would likely be a series of vertical strokes. If written **inmutantur**, the editor of the _Piæ Cantiones_ could easily have mistaken the eight consecutive [minims](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minim_(palaeography)) as the start of **immitantur** and then &quot;corrected&quot; the double _m._ (Perhaps **iam mutantur** is another transcription error introduced due to the same ambiguity.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's my hypothesis: **imitantur** is a transcription error, introduced while trying to correct other errors during the transition from script to print. The actual verb is **inmutantur** or **immutantur**, its subject is **mores**, and its object, properly an adjective, is **vernales**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome debunking from others more knowledgeable (or less). Some bases for doubt: palæography, transitive _inmuto,_ and the erudition of Jacobus Finno and the other editors of the _Piæ Cantiones,_ who presumably knew that _imitantur_ is active in meaning rather than passive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some more googling I found the relevant passage at the bottom of [folio 58v](http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/0008/bsb00085130/images/index.html?id=00085130&amp;groesser=&amp;fip=xsewqwqrseayawxdsydsdasw&amp;no=2&amp;seite=120) in the _Carmina Burana_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Carmina Burana 58v][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It clearly reads **iam mutantur**, so now I wonder where the Biblioteca Augustana got **immutantur**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2rgeG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8773" RevisionGUID="20bc11ab-0773-497a-8300-fb644d4ff7e9" CreationDate="2018-12-24T05:01:39.753" UserId="118" Comment="added 187 characters in body" Text="Here's an uneducated guess, based on an evening's googling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iam mutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An earlier version of the poem appears in the _Carmina Burana,_ [§105 in this book](https://books.google.com/books?id=FW49AAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;pg=PA183#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) but usually counted §142:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempus adest floridum,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Surgunt namque flores,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vernales mox in omnibus&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Iam mutantur** mores.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to fudge _Vernales_ to fit the melody, which seems strange, but [another source](https://books.google.com/books?id=YIUQAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;pg=PA60#v=onepage&amp;q=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;f=false) supports this. It seems OK if you make _Ver-_ an upbeat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating both literally and metrically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now has come the florid time,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For flowers are arising;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Soon the ways in everything&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Will be changed** to Springtime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following four lines continue the idea of evidence that Winter is now in the process of changing to Spring:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc quod frigus læserat,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reparant calores,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cernimus hoc fieri&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Per multos colores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is injured by the cold,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heats are now restoring;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We can tell it's happening&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By the many colors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Immutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Biblioteca Augustana's version](https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost13/CarminaBurana/bur_cam5.html#142) is probably more authoritative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempus adest floridum,    surgunt namque flores&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;vernales; mox in omnibus    **immutantur** mores.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;hoc, quod frigus leserat,    reparant calores;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;cernimus hoc fieri    per multos colores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **immutantur** agrees better than **iam mutantur** with the idea of &quot;being changed into&quot; and the transitive use of _muto._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The punctuation indicates that the curator thought that _vernales_ modified _flores._ Leo Tepper posted the same conclusion in [his blog](http://thelatinreadingblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/carmina-burana-142-love-in-springtime.html). But don't jump on that bandwagon just yet. There's more evidence below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imitantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carmina_Burana&amp;oldid=864169096#Musical_settings) reports that a &quot;sanitized version&quot; of _Tempus Adest Floridum_ was published in the _Piæ Cantiones._ No source is given for that characterization, but the next two verses of the _Carmina Burana_ version are about _virgines cum clericis_ finding love in the meadows—probably not very pious by the standards of the [Swedish Reformation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation_in_Sweden). [The version](http://www.lillhannus.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/tempusadestfloridum.pdf) in the _Piæ Cantiones_ still describes meadows, but now it's only about plant life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, _Tempus Adest Floridum_ got an edit, which fixed both the meter and the naughtiness. (The meter is still flawed, since the unstressed syllable _Ver-_ is now on a strong beat, but this minor flaw seems common in Medieval Latin poetry.) The idea still seems to be that we are now witnessing the _change_ to Spring. _Per multos colores,_ in line 8, was revised to _per multos labores,_ reinforcing the idea that something is causing everything to change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inmutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, consider the medieval script in which **immutantur** would have been written. The letters _-immu-_ would likely be a series of vertical strokes. If written **inmutantur**, the editor of the _Piæ Cantiones_ could easily have mistaken the eight consecutive [minims](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minim_(palaeography)) as the start of **immitantur** and then &quot;corrected&quot; the double _m._ (Perhaps **iam mutantur** is another transcription error introduced due to the same ambiguity.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's my hypothesis: **imitantur** is a transcription error, introduced while trying to correct other errors during the transition from script to print. The actual verb is **inmutantur** or **immutantur**, its subject is **mores**, and its object, properly an adjective, is **vernales**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome debunking from others more knowledgeable (or less). Some bases for doubt: palæography, transitive _inmuto,_ and the erudition of Jacobus Finno and the other editors of the _Piæ Cantiones,_ who presumably knew that _imitantur_ is active in meaning rather than passive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some more googling I found the relevant passage at the bottom of [folio 58v](http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/0008/bsb00085130/images/index.html?id=00085130&amp;groesser=&amp;fip=xsewqwqrseayawxdsydsdasw&amp;no=2&amp;seite=120) in the _Carmina Burana_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Carmina Burana 58v][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It clearly reads **iam mutantur**, so now I wonder where the Biblioteca Augustana got **immutantur**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2rgeG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8773" RevisionGUID="e8463cbe-ed40-407b-9c92-fc40df6fd5fe" CreationDate="2018-12-24T05:20:09.900" UserId="118" Comment="added 187 characters in body" Text="Here's an uneducated guess, based on an evening's googling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iam mutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An earlier version of the poem appears in the _Carmina Burana,_ [§105 in this book](https://books.google.com/books?id=FW49AAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;pg=PA183#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) but usually counted §142:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempus adest floridum,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Surgunt namque flores,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vernales mox in omnibus&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Iam mutantur** mores.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to fudge _Vernales_ to fit the melody, which seems strange, but [another source](https://books.google.com/books?id=YIUQAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;pg=PA60#v=onepage&amp;q=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;f=false) supports this. It seems OK if you make _Ver-_ an upbeat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating both literally and metrically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now has come the florid time,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For flowers are arising;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Soon the ways in everything&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Will be changed** to Springtime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following four lines continue the idea of evidence that Winter is now in the process of changing to Spring:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc quod frigus læserat,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reparant calores,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cernimus hoc fieri&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Per multos colores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is injured by the cold,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heats are now restoring;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We can tell it's happening&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By the many colors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Immutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Biblioteca Augustana's version](https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost13/CarminaBurana/bur_cam5.html#142) is probably more authoritative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempus adest floridum,    surgunt namque flores&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;vernales; mox in omnibus    **immutantur** mores.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;hoc, quod frigus leserat,    reparant calores;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;cernimus hoc fieri    per multos colores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **immutantur** agrees better than **iam mutantur** with the idea of &quot;being changed into&quot; and the transitive use of _muto._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The punctuation indicates that the curator thought that _vernales_ modified _flores._ Leo Tepper posted the same conclusion in [his blog](http://thelatinreadingblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/carmina-burana-142-love-in-springtime.html). But don't jump on that bandwagon just yet. There's more evidence below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imitantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carmina_Burana&amp;oldid=864169096#Musical_settings) reports that a &quot;sanitized version&quot; of _Tempus Adest Floridum_ was published in the _Piæ Cantiones._ No source is given for that characterization, but the next two verses of the _Carmina Burana_ version are about _virgines cum clericis_ finding love in the meadows—probably not very pious by the standards of the [Swedish Reformation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation_in_Sweden). [The version](http://www.lillhannus.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/tempusadestfloridum.pdf) in the _Piæ Cantiones_ still describes meadows, but now it's only about plant life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, _Tempus Adest Floridum_ got an edit, which fixed both the meter and the naughtiness. (The meter is still flawed, since the unstressed syllable _Ver-_ is now on a strong beat, but this minor flaw seems common in Medieval Latin poetry.) The idea still seems to be that we are now witnessing the _change_ to Spring. _Per multos colores,_ in line 8, was revised to _per multos labores,_ reinforcing the idea that something is causing everything to change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inmutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, consider the medieval script in which **immutantur** would have been written. The letters _-immu-_ would likely be a series of vertical strokes. If written **inmutantur**, the editor of the _Piæ Cantiones_ could easily have mistaken the eight consecutive [minims](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minim_(palaeography)) as the start of **immitantur** and then &quot;corrected&quot; the double _m._ (Perhaps **iam mutantur** is another transcription error introduced due to the same ambiguity.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's my hypothesis: **imitantur** is a transcription error or a poor artistic choice introduced during revision. The actual verb is **inmutantur** or **immutantur**, its subject is **mores**, and its object, properly an adjective, is **vernales**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome debunking from others more knowledgeable (or less). Some bases for doubt: palæography, transitive _inmuto,_ and the erudition of Jacobus Finno and the other editors of the _Piæ Cantiones,_ who presumably knew that _imitantur_ is active in meaning rather than passive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some more googling I found the relevant passage at the bottom of [folio 58v](http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/0008/bsb00085130/images/index.html?id=00085130&amp;groesser=&amp;fip=xsewqwqrseayawxdsydsdasw&amp;no=2&amp;seite=120) in the _Carmina Burana_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Carmina Burana 58v][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It clearly reads **iam mutantur**, so now I wonder where the Biblioteca Augustana got **immutantur**. If that's a period after **omnibus**, then **vernales** modifies **flores** as in Joonas's hypothesis, yielding this literal translation: &quot;…for the Spring flowers are arising soon in everything; already the ways are being changed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2rgeG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8773" RevisionGUID="a09a41ed-4144-496b-a94e-12a0089c2f33" CreationDate="2018-12-24T05:31:12.847" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 53 characters in body" Text="Here's an uneducated guess, based on an evening's googling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iam mutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An earlier version of the poem appears in the _Carmina Burana,_ [§105 in this book](https://books.google.com/books?id=FW49AAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;pg=PA183#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) but usually counted §142:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempus adest floridum,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Surgunt namque flores,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vernales mox in omnibus&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Iam mutantur** mores.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to fudge _Vernales_ to fit the melody, which seems strange, but [another source](https://books.google.com/books?id=YIUQAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;pg=PA60#v=onepage&amp;q=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;f=false) supports this. It seems OK if you make _Ver-_ an upbeat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating both literally and metrically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now has come the florid time,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For flowers are arising;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Soon the ways in everything&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Will be changed** to Springtime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following four lines continue the idea of evidence that Winter is now in the process of changing to Spring:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc quod frigus læserat,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reparant calores,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cernimus hoc fieri&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Per multos colores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is injured by the cold,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heats are now restoring;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We can tell it's happening&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By the many colors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Immutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Biblioteca Augustana's version](https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost13/CarminaBurana/bur_cam5.html#142) is probably more authoritative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempus adest floridum,    surgunt namque flores&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;vernales; mox in omnibus    **immutantur** mores.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;hoc, quod frigus leserat,    reparant calores;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;cernimus hoc fieri    per multos colores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **immutantur** agrees better than **iam mutantur** with the idea of &quot;being changed into&quot; and the transitive use of _muto._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The punctuation indicates that the curator thought that _vernales_ modified _flores._ Leo Tepper posted the same conclusion in [his blog](http://thelatinreadingblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/carmina-burana-142-love-in-springtime.html). But don't jump on that bandwagon just yet. There's more evidence below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imitantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carmina_Burana&amp;oldid=864169096#Musical_settings) reports that a &quot;sanitized version&quot; of _Tempus Adest Floridum_ was published in the _Piæ Cantiones._ No source is given for that characterization, but the next two verses of the _Carmina Burana_ version are about _virgines cum clericis_ finding love in the meadows—probably not very pious by the standards of the [Swedish Reformation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation_in_Sweden). [The version](http://www.lillhannus.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/tempusadestfloridum.pdf) in the _Piæ Cantiones_ still describes meadows, but now it's only about plant life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, _Tempus Adest Floridum_ got an edit, which fixed both the meter and the naughtiness. (The meter is still flawed, since the unstressed syllable _Ver-_ is now on a strong beat, but this minor flaw seems common in Medieval Latin poetry.) The idea still seems to be that we are now witnessing the _change_ to Spring. _Per multos colores,_ in line 8, was revised to _per multos labores,_ reinforcing the idea that something is causing everything to change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inmutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, consider the medieval script in which **immutantur** would have been written. The letters _-immu-_ would likely be a series of vertical strokes. If written **inmutantur**, the editor of the _Piæ Cantiones_ could easily have mistaken the eight consecutive [minims](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minim_(palaeography)) as the start of **immitantur** and then &quot;corrected&quot; the double _m._ (Perhaps **iam mutantur** is another transcription error introduced due to the same ambiguity.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's my hypothesis: **imitantur** is a transcription error. The actual verb is **inmutantur** or **immutantur**, its subject is **mores**, and its object, properly an adjective, is **vernales**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome debunking from others more knowledgeable (or less). Some bases for doubt: palæography, transitive _inmuto,_ and the erudition of Jacobus Finno and the other editors of the _Piæ Cantiones,_ who presumably knew that _imitantur_ is active in meaning rather than passive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some more googling I found the relevant passage at the bottom of [folio 58v](http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/0008/bsb00085130/images/index.html?id=00085130&amp;groesser=&amp;fip=xsewqwqrseayawxdsydsdasw&amp;no=2&amp;seite=120) in the _Carmina Burana_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Carmina Burana 58v][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It clearly reads **iam mutantur**, so now I wonder where the Biblioteca Augustana got **immutantur**. If that's a period after **omnibus**, then **vernales** modifies **flores** as in Joonas's hypothesis, yielding this literal translation: &quot;…for the Spring flowers are arising soon in everything; already the ways are being changed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2rgeG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8773" RevisionGUID="e637755a-c630-4b76-9a52-651cfbb0ccc9" CreationDate="2018-12-24T05:44:28.333" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 53 characters in body" Text="Here's an uneducated guess, based on an evening's googling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iam mutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An earlier version of the poem appears in the _Carmina Burana,_ [§105 in this book](https://books.google.com/books?id=FW49AAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;pg=PA183#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) but usually counted §142:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempus adest floridum,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Surgunt namque flores,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vernales mox in omnibus&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Iam mutantur** mores.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to fudge _Vernales_ to fit the melody, which seems strange, but [another source](https://books.google.com/books?id=YIUQAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;pg=PA60#v=onepage&amp;q=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;f=false) supports this. It seems OK if you make _Ver-_ an upbeat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating both literally and metrically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now has come the florid time,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For flowers are arising;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Soon the ways in everything&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Will be changed** to Springtime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following four lines continue the idea of evidence that Winter is now in the process of changing to Spring:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc quod frigus læserat,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reparant calores,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cernimus hoc fieri&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Per multos colores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is injured by the cold,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heats are now restoring;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We can tell it's happening&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By the many colors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Immutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Biblioteca Augustana's version](https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost13/CarminaBurana/bur_cam5.html#142) is probably more authoritative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempus adest floridum,    surgunt namque flores&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;vernales; mox in omnibus    **immutantur** mores.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;hoc, quod frigus leserat,    reparant calores;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;cernimus hoc fieri    per multos colores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **immutantur** agrees better than **iam mutantur** with the idea of &quot;being changed into&quot; and the transitive use of _muto._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The punctuation indicates that the curator thought that _vernales_ modified _flores._ Leo Tepper posted the same conclusion in [his blog](http://thelatinreadingblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/carmina-burana-142-love-in-springtime.html). But don't jump on that bandwagon just yet. There's more evidence below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imitantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carmina_Burana&amp;oldid=864169096#Musical_settings) reports that a &quot;sanitized version&quot; of _Tempus Adest Floridum_ was published in the _Piæ Cantiones._ No source is given for that characterization, but the next two verses of the _Carmina Burana_ version are about _virgines cum clericis_ finding love in the meadows—probably not very pious by the standards of the [Swedish Reformation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation_in_Sweden). [The version](http://www.lillhannus.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/tempusadestfloridum.pdf) in the _Piæ Cantiones_ still describes meadows, but now it's only about plant life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, _Tempus Adest Floridum_ got an edit, which fixed both the meter and the naughtiness. (The meter is still flawed, since the unstressed syllable _Ver-_ is now on a strong beat, but this minor flaw seems common in Medieval Latin poetry.) The idea still seems to be that we are now witnessing the _change_ to Spring. _Per multos colores,_ in line 8, was revised to _per multos labores,_ reinforcing the idea that something is causing everything to change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inmutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, consider the medieval script in which **immutantur** would have been written. The letters _-immu-_ would likely be a series of vertical strokes. If written **inmutantur**, the editor of the _Piæ Cantiones_ could easily have mistaken the eight consecutive [minims](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minim_(palaeography)) as the start of **immitantur** and then &quot;corrected&quot; the double _m._ (Perhaps **iam mutantur** is another transcription error introduced due to the same ambiguity.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's my hypothesis: **imitantur** is a transcription error. The actual verb is **inmutantur** or **immutantur**, its subject is **mores**, and its object, properly an adjective, is **vernales**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commentary on [p. 253 of this edition](http://ks4.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/f/f4/IMSLP260656-SIBLEY1802.25581.933e-39087013435203score.pdf), from 1910, reports another likely transcription error in the _Piæ Cantiones,_ in the second verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome debunking from others more knowledgeable (or less). Some bases for doubt: palæography, transitive _inmuto,_ and the erudition of Jacobus Finno and the other editors of the _Piæ Cantiones,_ who presumably knew that _imitantur_ is active in meaning rather than passive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some more googling I found the relevant passage at the bottom of [folio 58v](http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/0008/bsb00085130/images/index.html?id=00085130&amp;groesser=&amp;fip=xsewqwqrseayawxdsydsdasw&amp;no=2&amp;seite=120) in the _Carmina Burana_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Carmina Burana 58v][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It clearly reads **iam mutantur**, so now I wonder where the Biblioteca Augustana got **immutantur**. If that's a period after **omnibus**, then **vernales** modifies **flores** as in Joonas's hypothesis, yielding this literal translation: &quot;…for the Spring flowers are arising soon in everything; already the ways are being changed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2rgeG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8773" RevisionGUID="43ab517e-3ec6-49dc-8058-d46e83cf0e91" CreationDate="2018-12-24T06:29:10.497" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body" Text="Here's an uneducated guess, based on an evening's googling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iam mutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An earlier version of the poem appears in the _Carmina Burana,_ [§105 in this book](https://books.google.com/books?id=FW49AAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;pg=PA183#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) but usually counted §142:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempus adest floridum,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Surgunt namque flores,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vernales mox in omnibus&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Iam mutantur** mores.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to fudge _Vernales_ to fit the melody, which seems strange, but [another source](https://books.google.com/books?id=YIUQAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;pg=PA60#v=onepage&amp;q=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;f=false) supports this. It seems OK if you make _Ver-_ an upbeat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating both literally and metrically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now has come the florid time,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For flowers are arising;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Soon the ways in everything&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Will be changed** to Springtime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following four lines continue the idea of evidence that Winter is now in the process of changing to Spring:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc quod frigus læserat,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reparant calores,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cernimus hoc fieri&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Per multos colores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is injured by the cold,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heats are now restoring;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We can tell it's happening&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By the many colors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Immutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Biblioteca Augustana's version](https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost13/CarminaBurana/bur_cam5.html#142) is probably more authoritative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempus adest floridum,    surgunt namque flores&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;vernales; mox in omnibus    **immutantur** mores.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;hoc, quod frigus leserat,    reparant calores;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;cernimus hoc fieri    per multos colores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **immutantur** agrees better than **iam mutantur** with the idea of &quot;being changed into&quot; and the transitive use of _muto._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The punctuation indicates that the curator thought that _vernales_ modified _flores._ Leo Tepper posted the same conclusion in [his blog](http://thelatinreadingblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/carmina-burana-142-love-in-springtime.html). But don't jump on that bandwagon just yet. There's more evidence below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imitantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carmina_Burana&amp;oldid=864169096#Musical_settings) reports that a &quot;sanitized version&quot; of _Tempus Adest Floridum_ was published in the _Piæ Cantiones._ No source is given for that characterization, but the next two verses of the _Carmina Burana_ version are about _virgines cum clericis_ finding love in the meadows—probably not very pious by the standards of the [Swedish Reformation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation_in_Sweden). [The version](http://www.lillhannus.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/tempusadestfloridum.pdf) in the _Piæ Cantiones_ still describes meadows, but now it's only about plant life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, _Tempus Adest Floridum_ got an edit, which fixed both the meter and the naughtiness. (The meter is still flawed, since the unstressed syllable _Ver-_ is now on a strong beat, but this minor flaw seems common in Medieval Latin poetry.) The idea still seems to be that we are now witnessing the _change_ to Spring. _Per multos colores,_ in line 8, was revised to _per multos labores,_ reinforcing the idea that something is causing everything to change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inmutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, consider the medieval script in which **immutantur** would have been written. The letters _-immu-_ would likely be a series of vertical strokes. If written **inmutantur**, the editor of the _Piæ Cantiones_ could easily have mistaken the eight consecutive [minims](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minim_(palaeography)) as the start of **immitantur** and then &quot;corrected&quot; the double _m._ (Perhaps **iam mutantur** is another transcription error introduced due to the same ambiguity.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's my hypothesis: **imitantur** is a transcription error. The actual verb is **inmutantur** or **immutantur**, its subject is **mores**, and its object, properly an adjective, is **vernales**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commentary on [p. 253 of this edition](http://ks4.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/f/f4/IMSLP260656-SIBLEY1802.25581.933e-39087013435203score.pdf), from 1910, reports another likely transcription error in the _Piæ Cantiones,_ in the second verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome debunking from others more knowledgeable (or less). Some bases for doubt: palæography, transitive _inmuto,_ and the erudition of Jacobus Finno and the other editors of the _Piæ Cantiones,_ who presumably knew what they were doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some more googling I found the relevant passage at the bottom of [folio 58v](http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/0008/bsb00085130/images/index.html?id=00085130&amp;groesser=&amp;fip=xsewqwqrseayawxdsydsdasw&amp;no=2&amp;seite=120) in the _Carmina Burana_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Carmina Burana 58v][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It clearly reads **iam mutantur**, so now I wonder where the Biblioteca Augustana got **immutantur**. If that's a period after **omnibus**, then **vernales** modifies **flores** as in Joonas's hypothesis, yielding this literal translation: &quot;…for the Spring flowers are arising soon in everything; already the ways are being changed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2rgeG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8774" RevisionGUID="ae27122d-711e-453a-a9f2-b312fcfb8663" CreationDate="2018-12-24T08:57:52.297" UserId="118" Text="Here's a second uneducated guess, based on yet more googling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imitantur** is being used impersonally, with the object **mores vernales**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Impersonal passive&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting note 149 of [this guide](https://books.google.com/books?id=pxQ9AAAAIAAJ&amp;lpg=PA50&amp;ots=0vKLI7XO8V&amp;pg=PA50#v=onepage&amp;q=impersonal%20passive&amp;f=false) to _De Bello Civili_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The impersonal passive is often, very effectively, used in Latin to give the impression of an aggregation of separate but similar actions or movements, and so to convey an impression of vagueness or immensity…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imitari mores&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imitari mores** + a modifier for _mores_ appears to be a classical Latin idiom, meaning &quot;take after&quot; or &quot;behave like&quot;. Most often the _mores_ are those of parents, as in this passage from [a Bible commentary](https://books.google.com/books?id=JrIrAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA172&amp;ots=9svxlyJVc-&amp;dq=%22imitari%20mores%22&amp;pg=PA172#v=onepage&amp;q=%22imitari%20mores%22&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proprium liberorum est **imitari mores** &amp; exempla **parentum**; hoc est à natura.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lucretius uses it in this passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Saepe itaque ex uno tondentes gramina campo&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lanigerae pecudes et equorum duellica proles&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; buceriaeque greges eodem sub tegmine caeli&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex unoque sitim sedantes flumine aquai&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dissimili vivont specie, retinentque parentum&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; naturam et **mores** generatim quaeque **imitantur**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Often wool-bearing cattle, truculent offspring of horses, and hornéd herds eating up the grass from the same field under the same sky, and slaking their thirst from the water of one river, live each in a visibly different way, and retain their parents' nature, and **follow the ways** of their kind. [That is, even though the material they're made from is the same food, they remain different kinds of animals.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though _imitari_ can mean &quot;faking, putting on a sham display&quot;, the meaning in these passages is that of behaving outwardly according to innate disposition—which might require a little external prodding or support to develop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, lines 3 and 4 of the song point poetically to varied and ubiquitous new behavior, happening **in omnibus**, all following the ways of Spring." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8774" RevisionGUID="c41bf9a9-6cad-4250-80ed-f5404bfff460" CreationDate="2018-12-24T09:06:51.677" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Here's a second uneducated guess, based on yet more googling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imitantur** is being used impersonally, with the object **mores vernales**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Impersonal passive&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting note 149 of [this guide](https://books.google.com/books?id=pxQ9AAAAIAAJ&amp;lpg=PA50&amp;ots=0vKLI7XO8V&amp;pg=PA50#v=onepage&amp;q=impersonal%20passive&amp;f=false) to _De Bello Civili_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The impersonal passive is often, very effectively, used in Latin to give the impression of an aggregation of separate but similar actions or movements, and so to convey an impression of vagueness or immensity…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imitari mores&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imitari mores** + a modifier for _mores_ appears to be a classical Latin idiom, meaning &quot;take after&quot; or &quot;behave like&quot;. Most often the _mores_ are those of parents, as in this passage from [a Bible commentary](https://books.google.com/books?id=JrIrAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA172&amp;ots=9svxlyJVc-&amp;dq=%22imitari%20mores%22&amp;pg=PA172#v=onepage&amp;q=%22imitari%20mores%22&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proprium liberorum est **imitari mores** &amp; exempla **parentum**; hoc est à natura.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lucretius uses it in this passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Saepe itaque ex uno tondentes gramina campo&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lanigerae pecudes et equorum duellica proles&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; buceriaeque greges eodem sub tegmine caeli&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex unoque sitim sedantes flumine aquai&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dissimili vivont specie, retinentque parentum&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; naturam et **mores** generatim quaeque **imitantur**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Often wool-bearing cattle, truculent offspring of horses, and hornéd herds eating up the grass from one field under the same sky, and slaking their thirst from the water of one river, live each in a visibly different way, and retain their parents' nature, and **follow the ways** of their kind. [That is, even though the material they're made from is the same food, they remain different kinds of animals.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though _imitari_ can mean &quot;faking, putting on a sham display&quot;, the meaning in these passages is that of behaving outwardly according to innate disposition—which might require a little external prodding or support to develop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, lines 3 and 4 of the song point poetically to varied and ubiquitous new behavior, happening **in omnibus**, all following the ways of Spring." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8773" RevisionGUID="6b4e559d-be61-4a07-9dda-01caeba96030" CreationDate="2018-12-24T09:16:38.857" UserId="118" Comment="added 433 characters in body" Text="Here's an uneducated guess, based on an evening's googling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iam mutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An earlier version of the poem appears in the _Carmina Burana,_ [§105 in this book](https://books.google.com/books?id=FW49AAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;pg=PA183#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) but usually counted §142:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempus adest floridum,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Surgunt namque flores,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vernales mox in omnibus&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Iam mutantur** mores.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to fudge _Vernales_ to fit the melody, which seems strange, but [another source](https://books.google.com/books?id=YIUQAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;pg=PA60#v=onepage&amp;q=%22tempus%20adest%20floridum%22&amp;f=false) supports this. It seems OK if you make _Ver-_ an upbeat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating both literally and metrically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now has come the florid time,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For flowers are arising;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Soon the ways in everything&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Will be changed** to Springtime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following four lines continue the idea of evidence that Winter is now in the process of changing to Spring:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc quod frigus læserat,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reparant calores,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cernimus hoc fieri&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Per multos colores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is injured by the cold,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heats are now restoring;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We can tell it's happening&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By the many colors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Immutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Biblioteca Augustana's version](https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost13/CarminaBurana/bur_cam5.html#142) is probably more authoritative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tempus adest floridum,    surgunt namque flores&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;vernales; mox in omnibus    **immutantur** mores.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;hoc, quod frigus leserat,    reparant calores;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;cernimus hoc fieri    per multos colores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **immutantur** agrees better than **iam mutantur** with the idea of &quot;being changed into&quot; and the transitive use of _muto._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The punctuation indicates that the curator thought that _vernales_ modified _flores._ Leo Tepper posted the same conclusion in [his blog](http://thelatinreadingblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/carmina-burana-142-love-in-springtime.html). But don't jump on that bandwagon just yet. There's more evidence below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imitantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carmina_Burana&amp;oldid=864169096#Musical_settings) reports that a &quot;sanitized version&quot; of _Tempus Adest Floridum_ was published in the _Piæ Cantiones._ No source is given for that characterization, but the next two verses of the _Carmina Burana_ version are about _virgines cum clericis_ finding love in the meadows—probably not very pious by the standards of the [Swedish Reformation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation_in_Sweden). [The version](http://www.lillhannus.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/tempusadestfloridum.pdf) in the _Piæ Cantiones_ still describes meadows, but now it's only about plant life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, _Tempus Adest Floridum_ got an edit, which fixed both the meter and the naughtiness. (The meter is still flawed, since the unstressed syllable _Ver-_ is now on a strong beat, but this minor flaw seems common in Medieval Latin poetry.) The idea still seems to be that we are now witnessing the _change_ to Spring. _Per multos colores,_ in line 8, was revised to _per multos labores,_ reinforcing the idea that something is causing everything to change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inmutantur&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, consider the medieval script in which **immutantur** would have been written. The letters _-immu-_ would likely be a series of vertical strokes. If written **inmutantur**, the editor of the _Piæ Cantiones_ could easily have mistaken the eight consecutive [minims](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minim_(palaeography)) as the start of **immitantur** and then &quot;corrected&quot; the double _m._ (Perhaps **iam mutantur** is another transcription error introduced due to the same ambiguity.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's my hypothesis: **imitantur** is a transcription error. The actual verb is **inmutantur** or **immutantur**, its subject is **mores**, and its object, properly an adjective, is **vernales**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commentary on [p. 253 of this edition](http://ks4.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/f/f4/IMSLP260656-SIBLEY1802.25581.933e-39087013435203score.pdf), from 1910, reports another likely transcription error in the _Piæ Cantiones,_ in the second verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I welcome debunking from others more knowledgeable (or less). Some bases for doubt: palæography, transitive _inmuto,_ and the erudition of Jacobus Finno and the other editors of the _Piæ Cantiones,_ who presumably knew what they were doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some more googling I found the relevant passage at the bottom of [folio 58v](http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/0008/bsb00085130/images/index.html?id=00085130&amp;groesser=&amp;fip=xsewqwqrseayawxdsydsdasw&amp;no=2&amp;seite=120) in the _Carmina Burana_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Carmina Burana 58v][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It clearly reads **iam mutantur**, so now I wonder where the Biblioteca Augustana got **immutantur**. If that's a period after **omnibus**, then **vernales** modifies **flores** as in Joonas's hypothesis, yielding this literal translation: &quot;…for the Spring flowers are arising soon in everything; already the ways are being changed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;After still more googling, I didn't find _mutari_ used in the transitive way required for this hypothesis, but I did discover the impersonal passive, explained in [this answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/8774/118). The impersonal passive makes sense of both the _mutantur_ and _imitatur_ versions, without needing _vernales_ to (jarringly) modify _flores,_ so I'm judging the transcription-error hypothesis an error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2rgeG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8774" RevisionGUID="9ec4786e-7261-4776-b11f-4639d599e35b" CreationDate="2018-12-24T09:44:40.510" UserId="118" Comment="added 309 characters in body" Text="Here's a second uneducated guess, based on yet more googling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imitantur** is being used impersonally, with the object **mores vernales**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Impersonal passive&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting note 149 of [this guide](https://books.google.com/books?id=pxQ9AAAAIAAJ&amp;lpg=PA50&amp;ots=0vKLI7XO8V&amp;pg=PA50#v=onepage&amp;q=impersonal%20passive&amp;f=false) to _De Bello Civili_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The impersonal passive is often, very effectively, used in Latin to give the impression of an aggregation of separate but similar actions or movements, and so to convey an impression of vagueness or immensity…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Imitari_ is deponent, so the meaning is active, but perhaps it can still be used impersonally, especially in a poetic context such as this one. I gather that the impersonal passive carries a meaning similar to English &quot;There was (a lot of) _____ing&quot;; e.g. _Pugnatum est,_ &quot;There was (a lot of) fighting.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imitari mores&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imitari mores** + a modifier for _mores_ appears to be a classical Latin idiom, meaning &quot;take after&quot; or &quot;behave like&quot;. Most often the _mores_ are those of parents, as in this passage from [a Bible commentary](https://books.google.com/books?id=JrIrAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA172&amp;ots=9svxlyJVc-&amp;dq=%22imitari%20mores%22&amp;pg=PA172#v=onepage&amp;q=%22imitari%20mores%22&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proprium liberorum est **imitari mores** &amp; exempla **parentum**; hoc est à natura.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lucretius uses it in this passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Saepe itaque ex uno tondentes gramina campo&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lanigerae pecudes et equorum duellica proles&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; buceriaeque greges eodem sub tegmine caeli&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex unoque sitim sedantes flumine aquai&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dissimili vivont specie, retinentque parentum&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; naturam et **mores** generatim quaeque **imitantur**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Often wool-bearing cattle, truculent offspring of horses, and hornéd herds eating up the grass from one field under the same sky, and slaking their thirst from the water of one river, live each in a visibly different way, and retain their parents' nature, and **follow the ways** of their kind. [That is, even though the material they're made from is the same food, they remain different kinds of animals.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though _imitari_ can mean &quot;faking, putting on a sham display&quot;, the meaning in these passages is that of behaving outwardly according to innate disposition—which might require a little external prodding or support to develop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, lines 3 and 4 of the song point poetically to varied and ubiquitous new behavior, happening **in omnibus**, all following the ways of Spring." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8774" RevisionGUID="f7d1d430-9fda-4f72-9ca6-3228384f7ae5" CreationDate="2018-12-24T09:53:50.883" UserId="118" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="Here's a second uneducated guess, based on yet more googling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imitantur** is being used impersonally, with the object **mores vernales**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Impersonal passive&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting note 149 of [this guide](https://books.google.com/books?id=pxQ9AAAAIAAJ&amp;lpg=PA50&amp;ots=0vKLI7XO8V&amp;pg=PA50#v=onepage&amp;q=impersonal%20passive&amp;f=false) to _De Bello Civili_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The impersonal passive is often, very effectively, used in Latin to give the impression of an aggregation of separate but similar actions or movements, and so to convey an impression of vagueness or immensity…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Imitari_ is deponent, so the meaning is active, but perhaps it can still be used impersonally, especially in a poetic context such as this one. I gather that the impersonal passive carries a meaning similar to English &quot;There was (a lot of) _____ing&quot;; e.g. _Pugnatum est,_ &quot;There was (a lot of) fighting.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A basis for doubt: I haven't found another instance of a plural impersonal passive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imitari mores&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imitari mores** + a modifier for _mores_ appears to be a classical Latin idiom, meaning &quot;take after&quot; or &quot;behave like&quot;. Most often the _mores_ are those of parents, as in this passage from [a Bible commentary](https://books.google.com/books?id=JrIrAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA172&amp;ots=9svxlyJVc-&amp;dq=%22imitari%20mores%22&amp;pg=PA172#v=onepage&amp;q=%22imitari%20mores%22&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proprium liberorum est **imitari mores** &amp; exempla **parentum**; hoc est à natura.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lucretius uses it in this passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Saepe itaque ex uno tondentes gramina campo&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lanigerae pecudes et equorum duellica proles&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; buceriaeque greges eodem sub tegmine caeli&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex unoque sitim sedantes flumine aquai&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dissimili vivont specie, retinentque parentum&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; naturam et **mores** generatim quaeque **imitantur**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Often wool-bearing cattle, truculent offspring of horses, and hornéd herds eating up the grass from one field under the same sky, and slaking their thirst from the water of one river, live each in a visibly different way, and retain their parents' nature, and **follow the ways** of their kind. [That is, even though the material they're made from is the same food, they remain different kinds of animals.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though _imitari_ can mean &quot;faking, putting on a sham display&quot;, the meaning in these passages is that of behaving outwardly according to innate disposition—which might require a little external prodding or support to develop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, lines 3 and 4 of the song point poetically to varied and ubiquitous new behavior, happening **in omnibus**, all following the ways of Spring." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8775" RevisionGUID="8faa3f32-a96a-4f51-9555-d903135e4f53" CreationDate="2018-12-24T13:07:37.917" UserId="79" Text="What would be a good way to call Christmas presents on contemporary Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Are there attested Latin descriptions of early Christmas where presents are given, or should we perhaps choose something newer?&#xD;&#xA;My intuition says *donu natalicium*, but it is certainly not the only possible phrasing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Merry Christmas everyone!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27103" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8775" RevisionGUID="8faa3f32-a96a-4f51-9555-d903135e4f53" CreationDate="2018-12-24T13:07:37.917" UserId="79" Text="What to call a Christmas present in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27104" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8775" RevisionGUID="8faa3f32-a96a-4f51-9555-d903135e4f53" CreationDate="2018-12-24T13:07:37.917" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8775" RevisionGUID="8d97c952-53fd-4a99-853b-9db95909d3f0" CreationDate="2018-12-24T14:07:39.007" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="What would be a good way to call Christmas presents on contemporary Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Are there attested Latin descriptions of early Christmas where presents are given, or should we perhaps choose something newer?&#xD;&#xA;My intuition says *donum natalicium*, but it is certainly not the only possible phrasing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Merry Christmas everyone!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8776" RevisionGUID="c72cc250-5bdd-4a23-b43e-1e5e8f17bcef" CreationDate="2018-12-24T15:35:18.810" UserId="2476" Text="If it's totally clear one is talking about Christmas, your choice is fair enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, I suggest _donum Nativitatis_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, the only alternative to _donum_ would be _munus_, but this has many other meanings, and most importantly even in this context it often has the specific connotation of a favour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for _Natalis_ or _natalicium_, I prefer the genitive of _Nativitas_ because the former usually mean a general &quot;anniversary&quot; if not &quot;birthday&quot;, and in fact _donum natalicium_ would normally be understood as &quot;birthday gift&quot;. The _Carmina Natalicia_ by Paulinus of Nola (355-431) were &quot;anniversary poems&quot; in honour of St Felix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While _Nativitas_ is also not totally unambiguous, when capitalized it is more easily recognized as Christmas even without specifying _Domini_ or _Christi_.&#xD;&#xA;I've found three amusing websites that talk about _dona Nativitatis_ - see [here](http://la.wondershare.com/convert-video-audio/christmas-gift-ideas.html), [here](http://www.theyarniad.com/2009/12/christmas-crafting-part-first-dona.html), [here](http://www.latinlanguage.us/blog/index.php?blog=2&amp;title=donum_nativitatis_1&amp;more=1&amp;c=1&amp;tb=1&amp;pb=1)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8774" RevisionGUID="03727e1f-fe85-4011-8d4d-ca2d2187f340" CreationDate="2018-12-24T17:38:26.783" UserId="118" Comment="added 1527 characters in body" Text="Here's a second uneducated guess, based on yet more googling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imitantur** is being used impersonally, referring to things in general, with the object **mores vernales**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In omnibus** here means &quot;in all respects&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Impersonal passive&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting note 149 of [this guide](https://books.google.com/books?id=pxQ9AAAAIAAJ&amp;lpg=PA50&amp;ots=0vKLI7XO8V&amp;pg=PA50#v=onepage&amp;q=impersonal%20passive&amp;f=false) to _De Bello Civili_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The impersonal passive is often, very effectively, used in Latin to give the impression of an aggregation of separate but similar actions or movements, and so to convey an impression of vagueness or immensity…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Imitari_ is deponent, so the meaning is active, but perhaps it can still be used impersonally, especially in a poetic context such as this one. I gather that the impersonal passive carries a meaning similar to English &quot;There was (a lot of) _____ing&quot;; e.g. _Pugnatum est,_ &quot;There was (a lot of) fighting.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A basis for doubt: I haven't found another instance of a plural impersonal passive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imitari mores&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imitari mores** + a modifier for _mores_ appears to be a classical Latin idiom, meaning &quot;take after&quot; or &quot;behave like&quot;. Most often the _mores_ are those of parents, as in this passage from [a Bible commentary](https://books.google.com/books?id=JrIrAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA172&amp;ots=9svxlyJVc-&amp;dq=%22imitari%20mores%22&amp;pg=PA172#v=onepage&amp;q=%22imitari%20mores%22&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proprium liberorum est **imitari mores** &amp; exempla **parentum**; hoc est à natura.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lucretius uses it in this passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Saepe itaque ex uno tondentes gramina campo&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lanigerae pecudes et equorum duellica proles&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; buceriaeque greges eodem sub tegmine caeli&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex unoque sitim sedantes flumine aquai&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dissimili vivont specie, retinentque parentum&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; naturam et **mores** generatim quaeque **imitantur**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Often wool-bearing cattle, truculent offspring of horses, and hornéd herds eating up the grass from one field under the same sky, and slaking their thirst from the water of one river, live each in a visibly different way, and retain their parents' nature, and **follow the ways** of their kind. [That is, even though the material they're made from is the same food, they remain different kinds of animals.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though _imitari_ can mean &quot;faking, putting on a sham display&quot;, the meaning in these passages is that of behaving outwardly according to innate disposition—which might require a little external prodding or support to develop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, lines 3 and 4 of the song point poetically to varied and ubiquitous new behavior, happening **in omnibus**, all following the ways of Spring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;More research&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did some more googling, and turned up very little to suggest that a plural impersonal verb can mean &quot;things in general&quot; as proposed above. &quot;[The Latin Impersonal Passive](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4432142.pdf?casa_token=lUBWf0VaocsAAAAA:iyw2KJceiT2vva_gKePK8p1fgTqrchb5M8iNGZEwB_vYdhH1uyHZUqRSrGXUVQqnkrL_z849NXWZcceBxX65aPLicUfEEhrEmWaNjJHiDl9XnhfLuTY)&quot; by Harm Pinkster, p. 173, cites a few instances of it from Classical Latin, all where the implicit subject is a vague sense of &quot;people&quot; or &quot;everybody&quot; (and the verb is active). For example, _invenient hominem,_ &quot;the man will be discovered&quot;, literally &quot;[people] will find the man&quot;; _plerumque frumento utuntur importato,_ &quot;[people] mostly use imported corn.&quot; More common is _dicunt_ with no subject to mean &quot;many people are saying…&quot; Arthur Sloman's _A Grammar of Classical Latin,_ [§325.2](https://books.google.com/books?id=vx3iDAAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA221&amp;ots=bsa18ycS5h&amp;pg=PA221#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) gives impersonal _ferunt_ and _tradunt_ also in this sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So…I'm not sure. On the one hand, impersonal **imitantur** (and **immutantur**) seems to be a logical as well as poetic use of the grammar, with a meaning perfectly suited to the rest of the verse. On the other hand, I found little commentary or precedent for it. I hope someone more knowledgeable can tell us if the trained Medieval Latin ear would hear another word here as an explicit subject." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8774" RevisionGUID="acb41113-b90a-416e-b274-fd4ad0afb3dc" CreationDate="2018-12-24T17:57:20.903" UserId="118" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="Here's a second uneducated guess, based on yet more googling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imitantur** is being used impersonally, referring to things in general, with the object **mores vernales**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In omnibus** here means &quot;in all respects&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Impersonal passive&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting note 149 of [this guide](https://books.google.com/books?id=pxQ9AAAAIAAJ&amp;lpg=PA50&amp;ots=0vKLI7XO8V&amp;pg=PA50#v=onepage&amp;q=impersonal%20passive&amp;f=false) to _De Bello Civili_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The impersonal passive is often, very effectively, used in Latin to give the impression of an aggregation of separate but similar actions or movements, and so to convey an impression of vagueness or immensity…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Imitari_ is deponent, so the meaning is active, but perhaps it can still be used impersonally, especially in a poetic context such as this one. I gather that the impersonal passive carries a meaning similar to English &quot;There was (a lot of) _____ing&quot;; e.g. _Pugnatum est,_ &quot;There was (a lot of) fighting.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A basis for doubt: I haven't found another instance of a plural impersonal passive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imitari mores&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imitari mores** + a modifier for _mores_ appears to be a classical Latin idiom, meaning &quot;take after&quot; or &quot;behave like&quot;. Most often the _mores_ are those of parents, as in this passage from [a Bible commentary](https://books.google.com/books?id=JrIrAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA172&amp;ots=9svxlyJVc-&amp;dq=%22imitari%20mores%22&amp;pg=PA172#v=onepage&amp;q=%22imitari%20mores%22&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proprium liberorum est **imitari mores** &amp; exempla **parentum**; hoc est à natura.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lucretius uses it in this passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Saepe itaque ex uno tondentes gramina campo&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lanigerae pecudes et equorum duellica proles&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; buceriaeque greges eodem sub tegmine caeli&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex unoque sitim sedantes flumine aquai&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dissimili vivont specie, retinentque parentum&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; naturam et **mores** generatim quaeque **imitantur**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Often wool-bearing cattle, truculent offspring of horses, and hornéd herds eating up the grass from one field under the same sky, and slaking their thirst from the water of one river, live each in a visibly different way, and retain their parents' nature, and **follow the ways** of their kind. [That is, even though the material they're made from is the same food, they remain different kinds of animals.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though _imitari_ can mean &quot;faking, putting on a sham display&quot;, the meaning in these passages is that of behaving outwardly according to innate disposition—which might require a little external prodding or support to develop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, lines 3 and 4 of the song point poetically to varied and ubiquitous new behavior, happening **in omnibus**, all following the ways of Spring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;More research&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did some more googling, and turned up very little to suggest that a plural impersonal verb can mean &quot;things in general&quot; as proposed above. &quot;[The Latin Impersonal Passive](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4432142.pdf?casa_token=lUBWf0VaocsAAAAA:iyw2KJceiT2vva_gKePK8p1fgTqrchb5M8iNGZEwB_vYdhH1uyHZUqRSrGXUVQqnkrL_z849NXWZcceBxX65aPLicUfEEhrEmWaNjJHiDl9XnhfLuTY)&quot; by Harm Pinkster, p. 173, cites a few instances of it from Classical Latin, all where the implicit subject is a vague sense of &quot;people&quot; or &quot;everybody&quot; (and the verb is active). For example, _invenient hominem,_ &quot;the man will be discovered&quot;, literally &quot;[people] will find the man&quot;; _plerumque frumento utuntur importato,_ &quot;[people] mostly use imported corn.&quot; More common is _dicunt_ with no subject to mean &quot;many people are saying…&quot; Arthur Sloman's _A Grammar of Classical Latin,_ [§325.2](https://books.google.com/books?id=vx3iDAAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA221&amp;ots=bsa18ycS5h&amp;pg=PA221#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) gives impersonal _ferunt_ and _tradunt_ also in this sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So…I'm not sure. On the one hand, impersonal **imitantur** (and **immutantur**) seems to be a logical as well as poetic use of the grammar, with a meaning perfectly suited to the rest of the verse. On the other hand, I found little commentary or precedent for it. I hope someone more knowledgeable can tell us if the trained Medieval Latin ear would search for another word here as an explicit subject or be satisfied with no subject." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6741" RevisionGUID="125dd406-68da-4bbc-9bce-f0aa8ce4a8ee" CreationDate="2018-12-25T02:15:08.127" UserId="2714" Comment="Added Sanskrit. Removed Goodrich quote because, after a discussion with Professor Ioannis Konstantakos at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, it is mere coincidence that the ancient “ουλομενην” and the modern “βλαμμενη” sound almost the same. They are in fact different words." Text="##§ 1. Latin, Greek, and Hebrew&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would argue that the consonant V by itself was never pronounced as a W, and that something near to the W sound only occurred depending on the position of the letter within a word, of which V [ U ] would then act as a semi-vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking of consonantal V, Walter Blair says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...the evidence which we have to adduce points to a normal sound for this consonant, which is a medium between English _v_ and _w_. It is soft like _w_ when, after _s_, _g_, and _q_, in the same syllable, it is followed by a vowel; hard like _v_ in other situations. Thus, _suetus_, _sanguis_, _quisquam_, sounded _swetus_, _sangwis_, _qwisqwam_, and _seruus_, _uulgus_, _servus_, _vulgus_.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Blair, Walter. _Latin Pronunciation: An Inquriy into the Proper Sounds of the Latin Language During the Classical Period_. New York and Chicago: A. S. Barnes &amp; Company, 1873. [Page 40](https://books.google.com/books?id=s3NXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA40#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is comparable to the English words [_queen_](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/queen) and [_suite_](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/suite), which are pronounced “qween” and “sweet”, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blair also points out how the Roman grammarians state that V as a consonant is quite different from V as a vowel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Nigidius (ap. Gell. XIX, 14, 6): “_V_ in Valerius, Volusius, etc., is not a vowel at all.” Quintilian (I, 7, 26) says that the writing _ceruum_ with the sign which belongs to the vowel _u_, does not represent the sound that is _heard_.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;[Ibid](https://books.google.com/books?id=s3NXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA40#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blair goes on for several pages, pointing out how the Roman grammarians compare V directly to the Greek digamma, and then concludes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In view of all that has been said, therefore, we infer, that in Latin the consonant _V_ sounded like English _V_ when it began a word or a syllable (unless in combination with preceding _s_, _g_, or _q_). When, after _s_, _g_, and _q_, it began a syllable, the intonation of the vowel _u_ was partially supplied to it, yielding a sound like English _w_.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Ibid, [Page 48](https://books.google.com/books?id=s3NXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA48#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin consonantal V corresponded to the Greek digamma. The Greek alphabet descends from the Hebrew / Phoenician, with the ancient [Greek digamma Ϝ corresponding directly with the Hebrew Vav](https://books.google.com/books?id=zNrTAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PR10-IA1#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Digamma][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though the proponents of the W sound will argue otherwise, evidence for the pronunciation of the digamma points more to the sound of the English V:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In addition to the smooth and aspirated breathings, the _ancient_ [Greek] language had another, which remained longest among the _Æolians_. This is most commonly called, from the appearance of the character Ϝ, used to denote it, Digamma, that is a double Γ [Gamma]. It was a true consonant, and appears to have had the force of _f_ or _v_. [...] The whole doctrine, however, of the Digamma, for want of literary monuments remaining from the period when it was most in use, is exceedingly obscure.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Buttman, Philip[p]. _Greek Grammar For The Use Of Schools_. Second Edition. Translated by Edward Everett. Boston: Cummings, Hillard, and Company, 1826. [Page 328](https://hdl.handle.net/2027/pst.000004747024?urlappend=%3Bseq=340).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sounds that the letters F and V make are very close to each other. Say the following syllables and notice how your lips and mouth assume almost the same positions for each:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- fa, va&#xD;&#xA;- fe, ve&#xD;&#xA;- fi, vi&#xD;&#xA;- fo, vo&#xD;&#xA;- fu, vu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Philip Buttman's son, Alexander Buttman, who revised and enlarged his father's work, eschews the “f or v” option and sides solely with a V sound for the digamma:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note 3. Along with these two breathings the earliest language had still another aspirate, which was longest retained by the Æolians. This is commonly called _Digamma_, from its shape Ϝ, i. e. a double Γ; [...] It was strictly a real consonant with the sound of v....&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Buttman, Philip, and Alexander Buttman. _Greek Grammar For The Use Of Schools And Universities_. Translated by Edward Robinson. New York: Harper &amp; Brothers, 1872. [Page 11](https://hdl.handle.net/2027/loc.ark:/13960/t5hb0c66d?urlappend=%3Bseq=31).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also Appendix B of the aforementioned work starting on [page 463](https://hdl.handle.net/2027/loc.ark:/13960/t5hb0c66d?urlappend=%3Bseq=483), where he talks about the history of the Greek alphabet, how it originally descended from the Hebrew / Phoenician, and how the digamma's ancient name was Ϝαυ (which is the same as the Hebrew ו Vau—Vau being an alternate spelling of Vav), and was later known as Βαυ. That the digamma was later called Βαυ shows the close relation of the V and B sounds. But more on this in a moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frances Ellen Lord addresses the Cicero anecdote commonly used to promote the W sound of the Latin V:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Dic. de Div. XL. 84.] Dum M. Crassus exercitum Brundisii imponeret, quidam in portu caricas Cauno advectas vendens “Cauneas!” clamitabat. Dicamus, si placet, monitum ab eo Crassum _caveret ne iret_, non fuisse periturum si omini paruisset.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [When Marcus Crassus was embarking his army at Brundisium a man who was selling Caunian figs at the harbour, repeatedly cried out 'Cauneas, Cauneas.'&lt;sup&gt;231&lt;/sup&gt; Let us say, if you will, that this was a warning to Crassus to bid him 'Beware of going,' and that if he had obeyed the omen he would not have perished.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;231 _i.e._ &quot;Caunian figs,&quot; but might be heard as **cave ne eas**. This illustration of the identity of sound between **cavneas**, _i.e._ **cave ne eas**, and **cauneas** has been the subject of some interesting discussion in Latin phonetics. _Cf_. Moser, _Div_., _ad loc_.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; (English translation by [Bill Thayer](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cicero/de_Divinatione/2*.html))]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now when we remember that Caunos, whence these particular figs came, was a Greek town; that the fig-seller was very likely a Greek himself (Brundisium being a Greek port so to speak), but at any rate probably pronounced the name as it was doubtless always heard; and that **u** in such a connection is at present pronounced like our **f** or **v,**&lt;sup&gt;[*]&lt;/sup&gt; and we know of no time when it was pronounced like our **u,** it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the fig-seller was crying “Cafneas!”—a sound far more suggestive of _Cave-ne-eas!_ than _“Cauneas!”_ of _Cawe ne eas!_&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But beyond the testimony, direct or indirect, of grammarians and classic writers, an argument against the **w** sound appears in the fact that this sound is not found in Greek (from which the _vau [digamma]_ is borrowed), nor in Italian or kindred Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Lord, Frances Ellen. _The Roman Pronunciation of Latin: Why We Use It and How to Use It_. Boston: Ginn &amp; Company, 1894. [Page 35](https://books.google.com/books?id=5R0BAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA35#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;[* The modern Greek diphthong alpha upsilon `αυ` has an “af” or “av” sound, depending on which letter follows the diphthong. See any modern Greek grammar about this, such as _Essential Modern Greek Grammar_ by Douglas Q. Adams, [page 7](https://books.google.com/books?id=aZMrAQAAQBAJ&amp;dq=%222.%20The%20same%20symbol%20may%20have%20different%20sounds%22&amp;pg=PA7#v=onepage&amp;q=%222.%20The%20same%20symbol%20may%20have%20different%20sounds%22&amp;f=false) (if you get a message saying the page is unavailable for viewing, reload the page and it should display).]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally the Hebrew words [גַּו gav](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1458) and [גַּב gab](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1354) (transliterated as “gab”, but pronounced somewhat softer as to sound more like ‘gav’) are both used to mean “back” in several places (_“gav”_ 1 Kings 14:9 / Nehemiah 9:26 / Ezekiel 23:35; _“gab”_ Psalm 129:3 / Ezekiel 10:12). The letter ב without a dagesh, or dot (such as בּ), having a somewhat softer pronunciation that tends sounds more like V instead of its normal B sound (this is a simplified explanation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as [Gesenius](https://books.google.com/books?id=zNrTAAAAMAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) shows, they are “of the same sense” as each other:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Gesenius_gav_gab][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Gesenius, Wilheim. _Gesenius's Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures_. Translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. New York: John Wiley &amp; Sons; London: Samuel Bagster &amp; Sons, 1893.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very strong evidence for the Hebrew ו vav, the Greek Ϝ digamma, and the Latin consonantal V having the English V sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##§ 2. Sanskrit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interchange of B and V occurs in Latin as well, such as  [_ferveo_, _ferbui_](http://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/ferveo) and [_bovile_](http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/6852/bovile-bovilis), [_bubile_](http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/7006/bubile-bubilis). This close relation of B and V can also seen in Sanskrit, with even the shape of the letters closely resembling each other:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ब Ba  &#xD;&#xA;व Va&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the orthography of Sanskrit bears no resemblance to Latin, Sanskrit and Latin are actually very similar in many ways, so much so that [Sir William Jones](https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Jones-British-orientalist-and-jurist) said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either; yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs, and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong, indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Jones, William, Sir. _Discourses Delivered Before the Asiatic Society: and Miscelleneous Papers, on the Religion, Poetry, Literature, etc. of the Nations of India_. Edited by James Elmes. London, 1824. [Page 28](https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015008280755?urlappend=%3Bseq=54).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few examples of similar words (note that the “a” in the words below have the sound of ‘a’ as in “father”):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sanskrit: देव “[devá](https://archive.org/stream/sanskritenglishd00moniuoft#page/492/mode/1up)”, दैव “[daíva or daivá](https://archive.org/stream/sanskritenglishd00moniuoft#page/497/mode/1up)”&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; ; Latin: “[divus](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#divus)”, “[divinus](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#divinus)” ; English: “divine” (Greek: [δῖος](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/%CE%B4%E1%BF%96%CE%BF%CF%82) “dios” from the more ancient δῖϝος “divos”&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sanskrit: पितृ “[pitṛí](https://archive.org/stream/sanskritenglishd00moniuoft#page/626/mode/1up)”&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; ; Latin: “[pater](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#pater)” ; English: “father” (Greek: [πατήρ](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#%CF%80%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%AE%CF%81) “pater”)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sanskrit: मातृ “[mātṛí](https://archive.org/stream/sanskritenglishd00moniuoft#page/807/mode/1up)”&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; ; Latin: “[mater](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#mater)” ; English: “mother” (Greek: [μήτηρ](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#%CE%BC%CE%AE%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%81) “meter”)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sanskrit: सामि “[sāmí](https://archive.org/stream/sanskritenglishd00moniuoft#page/1206/mode/1up)” ; Latin: “[semi](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#semi)”, “[semis](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#semis)” ; English: “semi” or “half”, e.g. semicircle&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sanskrit: सर्प “[sarpá](https://archive.org/stream/sanskritenglishd00moniuoft#page/1184/mode/1up)” ; Latin: “[serpens](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#serpens)” ; English: “serpent”&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sanskrit: नव “[náva](https://archive.org/stream/sanskritenglishd00moniuoft#page/530/mode/1up)” ; Latin: “[novus](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#novus)” ; English: “new” (Greek: [νέος](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#%CE%BD%CE%AD%CE%BF%CF%82) “neos” from the more ancient νέϝος “nevos”&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sanskrit: नस् “[nás](https://archive.org/stream/sanskritenglishd00moniuoft#page/532/mode/1up) or nās” (for nās see “[नास् 2. nā́s](https://archive.org/stream/sanskritenglishd00moniuoft#page/538/mode/1up)”&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;) ; Latin: “[nasus](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#nasus)” ; English: “nose”&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sanskrit: [दम् “Dám”, also “Dáma](https://archive.org/stream/sanskritenglishd00moniuoft#page/469/mode/1up)” ( दम ) ; Latin: “[domus](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#domus)”&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; ; English: “a house” (Greek: [δόμος](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#%CE%B4%CF%8C%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%82) “domos”)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sanskrit: नौ “[naú](https://archive.org/stream/sanskritenglishd00moniuoft#page/571/mode/1up)”, also नाव “[nāva](https://archive.org/stream/sanskritenglishd00moniuoft#page/538/mode/1up)” ; Latin: “[navis](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#navis)”&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; ; English: “a ship (or boat)” (Greek: [ναῦς](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#%CE%BD%CE%B1%E1%BF%A6%CF%82) “naus”)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sanskrit: जानु “[jā́nu](https://archive.org/stream/sanskritenglishd00moniuoft#page/418/mode/1up)” ; Latin: “[genu](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#genu)” ; English: “knee” (Greek: [γόνυ](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#%CE%B3%CF%8C%CE%BD%CF%85) “gonu”)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Sanskrit: वाच् “[vā́c](https://archive.org/stream/sanskritenglishd00moniuoft#page/936/mode/1up)” ; Latin: “[vox](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#vox)” ; English: “voice, sound, speech”&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;1 “dai-” sounds like _dye_, and rhymes with _sky_ and _why_.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;2 Note that δῖος “dios” originally had the digamma as δῖϝος, which with the digamma sounding like V would be “divos”.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;3 “pitṛí” and “mātṛí” will also be seen as “pitṛ” and “mātṛ”, depending on who is transliterating and how strictly you are abiding by the [International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration (IAST)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Alphabet_of_Sanskrit_Transliteration) scheme. See the second paragraph on [page xxix](https://archive.org/stream/sanskritenglishd00moniuoft#page/n33/mode/1up) for his reasons for transliterating this way.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;4 Note that νέος “neos” originally had the digamma as νέϝος, which with the digamma sounding like V would be “nevos”.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;5 नास् “nās” will sometimes be seen more loosely transliterated as “naas” to signify the slightly longer ‘a’ sound (as in “father”), as compared to the very short ‘a’ in नस् “nas” (which sounds almost like the vowel sound in “Tom” if said quickly).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;6 Other words such as [domestic](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/domestic) and [domicile](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/domicile) come from this.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;7 Other words such as [naval](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/naval) and [navy](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/navy) come from this. Compare also the Latin words “[navigo](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/navigo)” and “[navigatio](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/navigatio)”; “[nauticus](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#nauticus)” and “[nauta](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#nauta)”, and also the English word “[nautical](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nautical)”.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there are many more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Sanskrit letter व Va is very similar to the Latin V, being pronounced as the English V when it begins a syllable unless it comes directly after another consonant in the same syllable with no vowel between them—called a conjunct consonant—where it is then pronounced more like the English W. Thus for ऋग्वेद “Rigveda”, the व् v of वेद veda is pronounced as V since it begins the second syllable. Note that Sanskrit letters inherently have a short ‘a’ sound after a consonant (‘a’ as in father), so that if you only want to specify the consonant letter itself, a diagonal line, called _Virama_, is written underneath the letter. Thus व Va and व् V :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When व् _v_ is the last member of a conjunct consonant it is pronounced like _w_, as द्वार&lt;sup&gt;[*]&lt;/sup&gt; is pronounced _dwára_; but not after _r_, as सर्व _sarva_.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Williams, Monier. _A Practical Grammar of the Sanskrit Language, Arranged with Reference to the Classical Languages of Europe, for the use of English Students_. Fourth Edition. Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1877. [Page 13](https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc2.ark:/13960/t4cn70p7v?urlappend=%3Bseq=25).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;[* This word contains a conjunct consonant and is written in a special way. I am currently not able to type this word as it is printed in the book, and have instead typed each letter sequentially. See section 5 beginning on [page 4](https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc2.ark:/13960/t4cn70p7v?urlappend=%3Bseq=16) to learn more about conjunct consonants.]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example of this is [स्वद् “svad” or स्वाद् “svād”](https://archive.org/stream/sanskritenglishd00moniuoft#page/1279/mode/1up), pronounced as “swad” and meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- to taste well, be sweet or pleasant to;&#xD;&#xA;- to taste with pleasure, enjoy, like, delight in;&#xD;&#xA;- to make palatable, season;&#xD;&#xA;- to make sweet or pleasant or agreeable;&#xD;&#xA;- to be pleasant or wholesome;&#xD;&#xA;- to propitiate, conciliate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the Latin “[suavis](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#suavis)”, meaning ‘sweet, pleasant, agreeable, grateful, delightful’ or otherwise pleasant to the senses in one or more ways, pronounced as “swavis” and being originally written as “svavis”. See also “[suadeo](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#suadeo)”, ‘to persuade’, pronounced as “swadeo” and originally written as “svadeo”; and “[Suada](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#Suada)” / “[Suadela](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#Suadela)”, the goddess of persuasion (persuading you with her sweet words and pleasing appearance), pronounced “Swada / Swadela” and originally written as “Svada / Svadela”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin root “vid”, which helps form Latin words such as “[video](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#video)”, meaning ‘to see, discern, perceive’, is linked with the Sanskrit root विद् “[vid](https://archive.org/stream/sanskritenglishd00moniuoft#page/963/mode/1up)”, which also means ‘to know, understand, perceive, learn, (etc.)’. Both of these are linked with the Greek root ἰδ “id”, which originally had the digamma and was ϝιδ, which with the digamma sounding like V would be “vid”. From these come the English “[wit](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/wit)”, which is the later sound. You can see this to a certain extent in [Hindi](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hindi-language) as well, where the “व Va” is often pronounced as “Wa”, though this is regional and there are still Hindi speakers that pronounce it as “Va”. Hindi is a descendant of Sanskrit, and the later sound of the Sanskrit “व Va” has in many areas become “Wa”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his _Vedic Grammar_, Arthur Macdonell brings out how B is interchanged with V in some very early Vedic writings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **45.** [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **a.** [...] **3.** In a few examples it takes the place of or interchanges with _v_; thus _páḍbīśa_- (RV.), beside _páḍvīśa_- (VS.); _bāṇá_- beside _vāṇá_- ‘arrow’; -_blīna_- (AV.) ‘crushed’, beside -vlīna_- (B.). [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Macdonell, A. A. _Vedic Grammar_. Strassburg, 1910. [Page 36](https://hdl.handle.net/2027/coo1.ark:/13960/t9t15kf8p?urlappend=%3Bseq=46).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Vedic period](https://www.britannica.com/place/India/Early-Vedic-period) was before the classical Sanskrit period, and in this period the occasional interchange of B and V again shows the close relation between the two sounds in ancient times, similar to the Hebrew גַּו gav and גַּב gab examples above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##§ 3. Vox Graeca and Vox Latina&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;William Sidney Allen, who promotes the W sound for the digamma in his [_Vox Graeca_](https://books.google.com/books?id=yws4Zey-ZnYC&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `[w] (Ϝ, ‘digamma’).` In early Greek this sound existed as an independent phoneme; in the Cyprian and Mycenaean (Linear B) syllabaries there are signs for _wa_, _we_, _wi_, _wo_, and most of the dialects show epigraphic evidence in the form of a special letter, of which the most common shape is of the type **Ϝ**. This was a differentiated form of the Semitic ‘_waw_’, [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Allen, W. Sidney. [_Vox Graeca_](https://books.google.com/books?id=yws4Zey-ZnYC&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false). Third Edition. Cambridge University Press, 1987. Page 47.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what all the proponents of the W sound inherently rely on: the “Semitic ‘_waw_’”. But as shown above in § 1, there is strong evidence it is a _vav_ and not a _waw_. William Sidney Allen appeals to Sanskrit on page 48 of his [_Vox Graeca_](https://books.google.com/books?id=yws4Zey-ZnYC&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) for additional support of the W sound, but only does so with the Sanskrit _sva-_ combination, which as shown above in § 2, only has a W sound because the व Va is part of a conjunct consonant. The normal V sound of the व Va is weakened into a W sound by an adjacent strong consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his [Vox Latina](https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), William Sidney Allen references Nigidius Figulus in support of the W sound for the Latin V:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the first century B.C. Nigidius Figulus (†Gellius, ⅹ, 4, 4) evidently referred to the consonant sound, like that of the vowel, in terms of lip-protrusion, which can only indicate a bilabial, semivocalic articulation (in a discussion of the origins of language, he points out that in the words _tu_ and _uos_ the lips are protruded in the direction of the person addressed, whereas this is not the case in _ego_ and _nos_).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Allen, W. Sidney. [_Vox Latina_](https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false). Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, 1978. Page 41.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not prove a W sound for _“uos”_ (as he spells it, instead of the more proper “vos”), it only proves the long ‘o’ sound for the vowel, as in _snow_, _no_, and _so_. Here is the actual quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “When we say _vos_, or ‘you,’” says Nigidius, “we make a movement of the mouth suitable to the meaning of the word; for we gradually protrude the tips of our lips and direct the impulse of the breath towards those with whom we are speaking. But on the other hand, when we say _nos_, or ‘us,’ we do not pronounce the word with a powerful forward impulse of the voice, nor with the lips protruded, but we restrain our breath and our lips, so to speak, within ourselves. The same thing happens in the words _tu_ or ‘thou,’ _ego_ or ‘I,’ _tibi_ ‘to thee,’ and _mihi_ ‘to me.’ For just as when we assent or dissent, a movement of the head or eyes corresponds with the nature of the expression, so too in the pronunciation of these words there is a kind of natural gesture made with the mouth and breath. The same principle that we have noted in our own speech applies also to Greek words.”&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Aurlus Gellius. _Attic Nights_. Book X, 4, 4.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;English Translation by John C. Rolfe in his: _The Attic Nights of Aurlus Gellius._ Volume 2. 1927. Reprint, Harvard University Press, 1984. [Page 229](https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015026952963?urlappend=%3Bseq=271).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronounce “vos” with a long ‘o’ sound and notice how your lips still protrude, whether you pronounce it as ‘vos’ or ‘wos’. So this particular point can't be used to prove a V or W sound, as ‘vos’ and ‘wos’ are too close to each other in their pronunciation. Also, William Sidney Allen leaves out the part where Nigidius refers to “a powerful forward impulse of the voice,” which is a description that would much more likely be used to illustrate a long ‘o’ sound. Say the following words and notice how the long ‘o’ has a much more _powerful forward impulse of the voice_ than does the short ‘o’:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- vōs &amp; wōs (long ‘o’) , rhymes with boast and coast&#xD;&#xA;- vŏs &amp; wŏs (short ‘o’), rhymes with floss and toss&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;William Sidney Allen appeals to Sanskrit for many other Latin letters in his [Vox Latina](https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), but when it comes to the Latin consonant V, he is completely silent on the matter. He even tries to compare the Indo-European root _“wid-”_ (as he spells it, instead of “vid”) of the Latin _“uideo”_ (as he spells it, instead of “video”) to the English [_“wit”_](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/wit) in the first paragraph of page 41. But this ignores the Sanskrit root विद् “[vid](https://archive.org/stream/sanskritenglishd00moniuoft#page/963/mode/1up)” of which I have already talked about above in § 2, and there is no evidence that the Sanskrit व Va was ever pronounced as anything other than with a V sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of December 24, 2018, there is a comment on this post that says, “Based on etymological considerations, it seems pretty clear that Latin V was originally [w]”, to which I must say [au contraire!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke_AkJC92IA) Evidence of the etymology of the Latin consonantal V favors a V sound. This is especially so with the witness of Sanskrit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proponents of the W sound are always unable to explain the interchange of B and V (at least not that I have yet come across). There are inscriptions that show this, such as this one that has “REBOCA” for “REVOCA”, and “IN BIA LATA” for “IN VIA LATA”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Muratori__Reboca_Bia][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Muratori, Lodovico Antonio. _Novus Thesaurus Veterum Inscriptionum_. Ex Aedibus Palatinis, 1739. [Page 479](https://books.google.com/books?id=qN8-AAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PT217#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two other inscriptions on the same page that also spell “REBOCA” for “REVOCA” (see inscriptions 4 and 5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nor can they explain the affinity of F and V, as can be found in other inscriptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “FICTORIO” for “VICTORIO”, and “FICTORIA” for “VICTORIA”&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Guter__Fictorio_Fictoria][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Guter, Janus. _Inscriptiones Antiquae_. Ex Officina Commeliniana, 1603. [Page 643](https://books.google.com/books?id=XpNXAAAAcAAJ&amp;dq=gruter%20inscriptiones%20antiquae&amp;pg=PP695#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ---&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “FICTORIAN” twice for for “VICTORIAN”&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Guter__Fictorian][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Ibid. [Page 886](https://books.google.com/books?id=XpNXAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PP942#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is comparable to the relation of F and V in English, as can been seen in the plural forms of certain words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- wolf, wolves&#xD;&#xA;- hoof, hooves&#xD;&#xA;- leaf, leaves&#xD;&#xA;- half, halves&#xD;&#xA;- yourself, yourselves&#xD;&#xA;- life, lives&#xD;&#xA;- knife, knives&#xD;&#xA;- shelf, shelves&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also circumstantial evidence for the sound of V. During his reign, Emperor [Claudius](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Claudius-Roman-emperor) introduced three new letters into the Latin alphabet, with one of the new letters representing the consonantal V. Out of all the symbols and glyphs he could have used, Emperor Claudius chose Ⅎ, an upside-down reversed F. This could also be called the inverse of F. The sound of V is the inverse of the sound of F, since a large force of air is expelled from your mouth when pronouncing syllables of F, whereas very little air is expelled when pronouncing syllables of V:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- fa, va&#xD;&#xA;- fe, ve&#xD;&#xA;- fi, vi&#xD;&#xA;- fo, vo&#xD;&#xA;- fu, vu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that the Latin V was represented in Greek by ου and β during the same time period shows that ου and β were only approximations to the Latin V. This can be seen most clearly where both ου and β are used in a Greek transliteration of _Me**v**ianus_ as _Μη**ουβ**ιανός_ (see [page 62](https://books.google.com/books?id=co9EAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA62#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) in Leonhard Tafel's _Latin Pronunciation and the Latin Alphabet_. Philadelphia: I. Kohler; New York: B. Westermann &amp; Co., 1860.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relation of V as a consonant and its cooresponding vowel sound of U goes back all the way to Hebrew, where the ו Vav can act as the vowel U, and also O. Note the varying position of the dot, beside and above the Vav:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ו = V  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; וּ = U, also וֹ = O&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can also be seen most clearly in the Sanskrit and Latin words for _boat_ or _ship_, or of pertaining to a boat or ship:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sanskrit: नौ “[naú](https://archive.org/stream/sanskritenglishd00moniuoft#page/571/mode/1up)” and नाव “[nāva](https://archive.org/stream/sanskritenglishd00moniuoft#page/538/mode/1up)”  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin: “[nauticus](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#nauticus)” and “[navis](http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#navis)”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The evidence for a V sound for the Latin consonantal V is very great. So great that perhaps only an audio recording could prove otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But an audio recording is not needed, because the most definitive evidence of all, that is completely absolute and irrefutable, is Julius Caeser's famous line of [“Veni, vidi, vici”](https://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/veni-vidi-vici.php) (_vay-nee, vee-dee, vee-kee_), I came, I saw, I conquered. No world conqueror would ever say something so dumb-sounding as _way-nee, wee-dee, wee-kee._&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Just a joke for anyone who managed to read to the end. &lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sILwt.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EvZws.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Gy4I5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8fzJD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/K51nv.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8777" RevisionGUID="4d0cd9cf-e102-4e01-8f0d-d92e0805ff24" CreationDate="2018-12-25T04:11:44.043" UserId="9" Text="Internal etymological reconstruction, as well as spelling, supports the connection of V with the vowel U in Latin, and comparative etymology shows that [v] in Latin corresponds to [w] in English. Phonetic considerations make it more plausible to suppose that the value [w] came first, and Latin [v] developed from [w]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sound [u] is phonetically categorized as a &quot;close back rounded vowel&quot;: &quot;rounded&quot; refers to the shape of the lips, which are brought together (there is a bit of variation between languages in the exact position of the lips). The sound [w] is pronounced mostly the same as [u], differing mainly in being non-syllabic. The sound [v] is further distinguished from [u] in several respects: 1) it is &quot;labiodental&quot;, being pronounced with the lower lip against the upper teeth; 2) it has greater constriction than both [u] and [w], being categorized as a &quot;fricative&quot; consonant; 3) it lacks a &quot;back&quot; component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, it is easier to explain alternation between [v] and [u] in Latin if we suppose that it was previously an alternation between [w] and [u], which are more similar to each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8777" RevisionGUID="236bfee6-df16-4800-96f8-37b2c1762a64" CreationDate="2018-12-26T03:26:50.267" UserId="9" Comment="added 326 characters in body" Text="Internal etymological reconstruction, as well as spelling, supports the connection of V with the vowel U in Latin, and comparative etymology shows that [v] in Latin corresponds to [w] in English. Phonetic considerations make it more plausible to suppose that the value [w] came first, and Latin [v] developed from [w]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These considerations don't tell us *when* [w] would have changed to [v] (except that English provides evidence that it happened after the split between the ancestors of English and Latin). So this isn't an argument for [w] existing in &quot;ancient Latin&quot;, just in some stage of the language that eventually developed to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sound [u] is phonetically categorized as a &quot;close back rounded vowel&quot;: &quot;rounded&quot; refers to the shape of the lips, which are brought together (there is a bit of variation between languages in the exact position of the lips). The sound [w] is pronounced mostly the same as [u], differing mainly in being non-syllabic. The sound [v] is further distinguished from [u] in several respects: 1) it is &quot;labiodental&quot;, being pronounced with the lower lip against the upper teeth; 2) it has greater constriction than both [u] and [w], being categorized as a &quot;fricative&quot; consonant; 3) it lacks a &quot;back&quot; component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, it is easier to explain alternation between [v] and [u] in Latin if we suppose that it was previously an alternation between [w] and [u], which are more similar to each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8777" RevisionGUID="ed340e88-0481-4955-a0ca-a2a2742137f4" CreationDate="2018-12-26T03:32:36.260" UserId="9" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Internal etymological reconstruction, as well as spelling, supports the connection of V with the vowel U in Latin, and comparative etymology shows that [v] in Latin corresponds to [w] in English. Phonetic considerations make it more plausible to suppose that the value [w] came first, and Latin [v] developed from [w]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These considerations don't tell us *when* [w] would have changed to [v] (except that English provides evidence that it happened after the split between the ancestors of English and Latin). So this isn't an argument for [w] being the value of V in &quot;ancient Latin&quot;, just in some stage of the language that eventually developed to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sound [u] is phonetically categorized as a &quot;close back rounded vowel&quot;: &quot;rounded&quot; refers to the shape of the lips, which are brought together (there is a bit of variation between languages in the exact position of the lips). The sound [w] is pronounced mostly the same as [u], differing mainly in being non-syllabic. The sound [v] is further distinguished from [u] in several respects: 1) it is &quot;labiodental&quot;, being pronounced with the lower lip against the upper teeth; 2) it has greater constriction than both [u] and [w], being categorized as a &quot;fricative&quot; consonant; 3) it lacks a &quot;back&quot; component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, it is easier to explain alternation between [v] and [u] in Latin if we suppose that it was previously an alternation between [w] and [u], which are more similar to each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8778" RevisionGUID="67b640c6-e942-4943-93aa-2205052d3231" CreationDate="2018-12-26T17:04:53.187" UserId="13" Text="Sometime in Jan/Feb 2018, the Bodleian library published [this image](https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/792f18a2448ed88e5f4dfecc68e3902d88e2af20/c=141-0-5359-3923&amp;r=x393&amp;c=520x390/local/-/media/2018/04/21/USATODAY/USATODAY/636598684250585522-1.jpg) showing a number of P.Oxy. 1231 fragments with some P.Oxy. 2166(a) fragments attached. Recently, I tried to identify each and every fragment there by comparing the image with [the Grenfell-Hunt transcriptions](https://ia600204.us.archive.org/29/items/oxyrhynchusppt1000grenuoft/oxyrhynchusppt1000grenuoft.pdf) at vol. X of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri and the Lobel transcriptions from vol. 15 provided as scans [in this answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5732/13) and the Lobel-Page texts, and there is one I can't find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears to have only one line, and maybe a vestige below. The line seems to read ΑΤΡΕΪΔ[.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, there is this fragment, which I seem to have identified as P.Oxy. 2166(a) fr. 1 via Lobel-Page, but is not in the addenda:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What is that first fragment?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Why is 2166(a) fr. 1 in vol. 17 instead of vol. 21 (i.e. the addenda)? Why are the other 2166(a) numbered this way? Are there a 2166(b) group and/or a 2166 group? Is the placement of the addenda due to them being recognized as belonging with P.Oxy. 1231 only after vol. 20 was published?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Pkicf.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1hTQ2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EqRfb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ljDMd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27115" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8778" RevisionGUID="67b640c6-e942-4943-93aa-2205052d3231" CreationDate="2018-12-26T17:04:53.187" UserId="13" Text="Identifying papyri" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27116" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8778" RevisionGUID="67b640c6-e942-4943-93aa-2205052d3231" CreationDate="2018-12-26T17:04:53.187" UserId="13" Text="|text-corpus|passage-identification|papyrology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8779" RevisionGUID="f9082df1-b877-4121-a5e7-95a210905c4e" CreationDate="2018-12-26T21:12:38.170" UserId="3236" Text="What's a possible Latin motto meaning roughly &quot;from nothing to existence/reality/something&quot;? I'd like it to be ambiguous if possible, preferably implying &quot;(something) comes into being from nothing&quot; and &quot;from nothingness (as a gift/message) to reality/existence&quot; and &quot;(a path or road) from nothingness to existence&quot; at the same time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27118" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8779" RevisionGUID="f9082df1-b877-4121-a5e7-95a210905c4e" CreationDate="2018-12-26T21:12:38.170" UserId="3236" Text="How to translate &quot;from nothing to existence&quot; preferably keeping ambiguity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27119" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8779" RevisionGUID="f9082df1-b877-4121-a5e7-95a210905c4e" CreationDate="2018-12-26T21:12:38.170" UserId="3236" Text="|motto|ambiguity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8780" RevisionGUID="3a88e458-1ad4-4965-b165-61f563bdfbd9" CreationDate="2018-12-27T01:29:14.673" UserId="406" Text="As the Roman Empire expanded, the state religion incorporated new deities and practices from all over the world: Bacchus, for example, was borrowed from the Greeks, while Isis came from Egypt, and Mithras from somewhere in the Middle East.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But were any of the state deities considered specifically Etruscan? (I'm interested in what the Romans thought about their deities' origin, rather than modern historians, so even if a connection is based on coincidence or folk etymology it's a valid answer.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27121" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8780" RevisionGUID="3a88e458-1ad4-4965-b165-61f563bdfbd9" CreationDate="2018-12-27T01:29:14.673" UserId="406" Text="Are there Classical attestations of specifically &quot;Etruscan&quot; deities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27122" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8780" RevisionGUID="3a88e458-1ad4-4965-b165-61f563bdfbd9" CreationDate="2018-12-27T01:29:14.673" UserId="406" Text="|passage-request|religio|etruscan|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8781" RevisionGUID="ca726954-c1c9-4daf-8c10-fcb294adba1e" CreationDate="2018-12-27T02:38:56.803" UserId="1694" Text="Fellow followers of Latin stackexchange!  I hope you have all had a happy Christmas (or, if you do not celebrate Christmas, a happy holiday time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not particularly versed in musical tradition, but I've been aware for some time now that the modern de-facto standard for pronouncing Latin in singing is what is commonly referred to as the &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation.  Now, this makes sense in a purely Roman Catholic context, but it seems to be standard quite outside of that.  So, in the well-known Christmas carol &quot;Angels we have heard on high&quot;, the Latin phrase _Gloria in excelsis Deo_ is pronounced (as far as I've observed) more or less as [ɡloːːːːː::::ria in ɛksʧɛlsis deːoː].  But, why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding (perhaps erroneous) is that the Italianate Latin pronunciation became standard for the RC church only in the 19th century, so why has it now become normal for singing in Latin universally, outside of a RC context?  Quite apart from the Christmas-tide &quot;gloria in excelsis Deo&quot;, I was recently hearing a rendition of Carl Orff's musical version of a Latin mediaeval poem from _Carmina Burana_, _O Fortuna_, and was struck by the consistent modern Ecclesiastical pronunciations, e.g., _glaciem_ as [ɡlɑʧiɛm].  Assuming that a restored Classical/republican pronunciation of [ɡlɑkiɛm] would be considered inappropriate for the time-period, and that the _Carmina Burana_ was a collection of a *German* mediaeval Latin poems, wouldn't [ɡlɑtsiɛm] be more appropriate?  (At any rate, I find the Italian pronunciation rather off-putting in the context.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A final postscript:  although what I've *heard* is that _excelsis_ is pronounced in the Christmas carol is [ɛksʧɛlsis], wouldn't [ɛkʃɛlsis] be the &quot;correct&quot; Ecclesiastical pronunciation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27124" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8781" RevisionGUID="ca726954-c1c9-4daf-8c10-fcb294adba1e" CreationDate="2018-12-27T02:38:56.803" UserId="1694" Text="what is the rationale for modern pronunciation of Latin in music" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27125" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8781" RevisionGUID="ca726954-c1c9-4daf-8c10-fcb294adba1e" CreationDate="2018-12-27T02:38:56.803" UserId="1694" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8782" RevisionGUID="c87c0b20-41b5-49ef-bdfa-86df73d71c9e" CreationDate="2018-12-27T10:23:23.883" UserId="2476" Text="Persius (Satire III, 83-84) wrote: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;De nihilo nihilum, in nihilum nil posse reverti.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Nothing comes from nothing, nothing can return to nothing.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin double negations are fairly frequent and almost always used to express a positive. So one way to say what you want is _**De nihilo non nihilum**_, literally &quot;From nothing not nothing&quot;. Pretty ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inspired by the Catholic concept of _creatio ex nihilo_, another possibility I've thought of is _**Substantia ex nihilo**_: _substantia_ has many meanings, among which &quot;existence, life&quot; - e.g. _habeo substantiam_ means &quot;I exist&quot;. Since one may tend to think of &quot;substance, essence&quot; rather than &quot;existence&quot;, this is probably most ambiguous. _Ex nihilo_ means again &quot;from nothing, from zero&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8783" RevisionGUID="3e30368b-aec9-4c3f-8074-c7e71d9944de" CreationDate="2018-12-27T21:04:42.573" UserId="2937" Text="Below is one of the prayers which the priest says before reading the Gospel in the Tridentine Mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Munda cor meum, ac labia mea, omnípotens Deus, qui labia Isaíæ Prophétæ cálculo mundásti igníto: ita me tua grata miseratióne dignáre mundáre, ut sanctum Evangélium tuum digne váleam nuntiáre. Per Christum, Dóminum nostrum. Amen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My intuition tells me that *digne* is an adverb modifying *valeam*, hence &quot;so that I may worthily be able to announce your holy Gospel.&quot; But when I looked up *digne* in my Latin-English dictionary, it isn't listed as an adverb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27128" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8783" RevisionGUID="3e30368b-aec9-4c3f-8074-c7e71d9944de" CreationDate="2018-12-27T21:04:42.573" UserId="2937" Text="Is *digne* an adverb in the &quot;Munda cor meum&quot; prayer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27129" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8783" RevisionGUID="3e30368b-aec9-4c3f-8074-c7e71d9944de" CreationDate="2018-12-27T21:04:42.573" UserId="2937" Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|adverb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8784" RevisionGUID="12a1488a-45e4-4700-a85f-d0ddeefcd908" CreationDate="2018-12-27T22:19:08.840" UserId="2937" Text="It appears that, yes, *digne* is an adverb. We can often take an adjective and give it an -e ending in order to obtain a corresponding adverb. See this https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/788/did-grammarians-consider-the-adverbial-e-a-case-ending?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8785" RevisionGUID="c2ed3ca8-1cb3-481c-8445-efa3a225dfb3" CreationDate="2018-12-27T22:23:11.293" UserId="79" Text="Yes, it is indeed an adverb here.&#xD;&#xA;There is also another form of *dignus* that looks similar, namely the masculine singular vocative.&#xD;&#xA;The vocative has a short *-e*, the adverb has a long one.&#xD;&#xA;Using a vocative adjective referring to the God or someone else one is praying to is possible, but does not fit this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many see the adverb as a derived separate word, but I see it more as yet another form of the adjective.&#xD;&#xA;The distinction is irrelevant for language usage.&#xD;&#xA;These adverbs are easy to form and very productive, so they are not always listed as separate dictionary entries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8786" RevisionGUID="771b914c-2175-4e5f-a4ef-91a12949fb33" CreationDate="2018-12-27T22:38:22.727" UserId="3240" Text="I’m trying to conjugate aperio to say, “I reveal/uncover/disclose”.  So, I guess I have two questions.  First, is aperio the correct verb to say this?  And, if so, what is the correct conjugation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27133" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8786" RevisionGUID="771b914c-2175-4e5f-a4ef-91a12949fb33" CreationDate="2018-12-27T22:38:22.727" UserId="3240" Text="Aperio - to reveal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27134" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8786" RevisionGUID="771b914c-2175-4e5f-a4ef-91a12949fb33" CreationDate="2018-12-27T22:38:22.727" UserId="3240" Text="|meaning|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8787" RevisionGUID="304280eb-6759-4a43-9ce6-1c058419205a" CreationDate="2018-12-27T23:14:08.697" UserId="3241" Text="This site should have some answers for you: http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/go.php?D1=9&amp;T1=aperio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8788" RevisionGUID="2bad2cdc-4448-4d73-b896-e461b031c7c5" CreationDate="2018-12-27T23:40:03.537" UserId="406" Text="*Aperiō* literally means to uncover something, to lay it bare. It can also be used for opening a door, restoring vision to blind eyes, explaining a concept to others, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good way to find these meanings for an arbitrary word is to use [the Perseus word study tool][1]. Put in your word, choose &quot;Latin&quot;, and submit. It should show all the possibilities on the left; when you've found the right one, click the &quot;Lewis &amp; Short&quot; link to see a full dictionary entry for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammatically, you're in luck: the sample form given for a Latin verb (which usually ends in *-ō*) means &quot;I do the thing&quot;. So *aperiō* literally means &quot;I uncover&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8787" RevisionGUID="31a072fe-aeb2-4066-81d0-08b978b955e1" CreationDate="2018-12-28T15:12:20.663" UserId="3241" Comment="Clarified" Text="This site should have some answers for you: http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/go.php?D1=9&amp;T1=aperio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it is conjugated as a normal 4th declension verb.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8782" RevisionGUID="62405c01-fe94-4c18-a1a5-2530ba193e7d" CreationDate="2018-12-28T19:17:58.143" UserId="2476" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="Persius (Satire III, 83-84) wrote: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;De nihilo nihilum, in nihilum nil posse reverti.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Nothing comes from nothing, nothing can return to nothing.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin double negations are fairly frequent and almost always used to express a positive. So one way to say what you want is _**De nihilo non nihilum**_, literally &quot;From nothing not nothing&quot;. Pretty ambiguous, and I personally prefer this to _De nihilo aliquid_ for your purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inspired by the Catholic concept of _creatio ex nihilo_, another possibility I've thought of is _**Substantia ex nihilo**_: _substantia_ has many meanings, among which &quot;existence, life&quot; - e.g. _habeo substantiam_ means &quot;I exist&quot;. Since one may tend to think of &quot;substance, essence&quot; rather than &quot;existence&quot;, this is probably most ambiguous. _Ex nihilo_ means again &quot;from nothing, from zero&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8789" RevisionGUID="ef1aa659-e999-4589-b36a-a1bac7c58a0e" CreationDate="2018-12-28T20:33:19.573" UserId="3247" Text="Looking for a relevant rendering of this Latin phrase, starting with a significant &quot;Et&quot;, I was wondering why no one hadn't come up with &quot;Also&quot; or &quot;Too&quot;. A Latin sentence beginning with Et usually has this particular meaning. If peace is considered as a promised state in heaven, this phrase might as well be meant as a call for peace on earth. &#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, in this sense the first part, &quot;Et in terra pax&quot;, could function as a theme, while the second part, &quot;hominibus bona voluntas&quot; could be perceived as a comment on the first part's theme. &#xD;&#xA;So metaphorically speaking, Good Will (in humans) could be similar to Peace (on earth)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8790" RevisionGUID="721c61e4-8d2e-4590-9299-f87082fd61c1" CreationDate="2018-12-29T00:09:21.927" UserId="1694" Text="In [another post](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8781/what-is-the-rationale-for-modern-pronunciation-of-latin-in-music) about the de-facto standard use of Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation in singing, I included a postscript querying whether _excelsis_ should be pronounced [ɛksʧɛlsis] or [ɛkʃɛlsis].  There seems to some doubt about the matter; what I've typically heard is the former, but the latter seems to be supported by at least some references.  *Is* there anything that can claim to give an authoritative answer, or is it simply a matter of taste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27142" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8790" RevisionGUID="721c61e4-8d2e-4590-9299-f87082fd61c1" CreationDate="2018-12-29T00:09:21.927" UserId="1694" Text="the pronunciation of _excelsis_ in Ecclesiastical Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27143" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8790" RevisionGUID="721c61e4-8d2e-4590-9299-f87082fd61c1" CreationDate="2018-12-29T00:09:21.927" UserId="1694" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8791" RevisionGUID="3a3cdf5b-488e-4aab-bde5-3de04eefc30f" CreationDate="2018-12-29T00:31:48.177" UserId="3248" Text="Although we do not have native competence of Latin, my impression is that alleged Ablative Absolute constructions like &quot;Caesare Romae&quot; or &quot;Caesare in Hispania&quot; are NOT possible. Or at least, after many years reading Latin texts, I've been unable to find them. Again what is not found in the corpora (Latin is a textual language) does not necessarily mean that these constructions are impossible but MY &quot;impression&quot; is that they were not.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Interestingly (or I should say &quot;In contrast&quot;), these constructions are for example possible in a Romance language like Spanish provided that a preposition like CON 'with' is added: &quot;Con César en Roma, estas cosas no pasarían&quot; (lit. 'With Caesar in Rome, these things would not happen').  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I think that constructions like &quot;hand in hand&quot; are different and probably should not be regarded as &quot;Ablative Absolute&quot; constructions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8792" RevisionGUID="667ab582-dc35-48a2-991d-8cccde160ba3" CreationDate="2018-12-29T01:15:31.950" UserId="2476" Text="From the other question, it seems you agree that after Vatican II the Italian pronunciation is the standard one for E. Latin. If you do, then the way [_excelsior_](https://www.dizionario-italiano.it/dizionario-italiano.php?lemma=EXCELSIOR100) (a loan word) is pronounced in Italian answers your question - [ksʧ], and indeed Wiktionary abides by such standard for the Ecclesiastical pronunciation of [_excelsus_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/excelsus). If instead you don't make this assumption, then it depends on taste and geography." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8793" RevisionGUID="63d52415-7b0c-4564-a4c1-97a5848817d1" CreationDate="2018-12-29T01:19:13.880" UserId="3248" Text="&quot;Victa serpente&quot; is not to be interpreted here as &quot;Ablative Absolute&quot; (in the sense that it does not form an adverbial clause depending on a main sentence) but rather as a &quot;dominant participle construction&quot;. These structures are often referred to as &quot;Ab urbe condita&quot; constructions, where the participle can often be translated as a nominalization).   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8793" RevisionGUID="8efd6df1-7cea-4a9d-9721-3244253920f0" CreationDate="2018-12-29T01:24:50.247" UserId="3248" Comment="added 263 characters in body" Text="&quot;Victa serpente&quot; is not to be interpreted here as &quot;Ablative Absolute&quot; (in the sense that it does not form an adverbial clause depending on a main sentence) but rather as a &quot;DOMINANT participle construction&quot;. These structures are often referred to as &quot;Ab urbe condita&quot; (AUC) constructions, where the participle can often be translated as a nominalization. Cf. &quot;Queri de Milone expulso&quot; // &quot;Queri de Milonis expulsione&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;The idea of &quot;dominant&quot; participle comes from the fact that the participle in an AUC cannot be omitted but is compulsory. Otherwise the construction is ruled out or its meaning is changed.      " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8792" RevisionGUID="05aeec3b-581d-452c-8d62-4986db0a5c40" CreationDate="2018-12-29T01:37:30.120" UserId="2476" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="From the other question, it seems you agree that starting from the end of the 19th century, after the recommendations of Pope Pius X, the Italian pronunciation became the standard one for E. Latin. If you do, then the way [_excelsior_](https://www.dizionario-italiano.it/dizionario-italiano.php?lemma=EXCELSIOR100) (a loan word) is pronounced in Italian answers your question - [ksʧ], and indeed Wiktionary abides by such standard for the Ecclesiastical pronunciation of [_excelsus_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/excelsus). If instead you don't make this assumption, then it depends on taste and geography." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8794" RevisionGUID="d1567958-b34d-4e46-ad3f-2ebc984c4aa9" CreationDate="2018-12-29T15:32:40.930" UserId="3249" Text="Are there minimal pairs distinguished only by length of [y] in Latin? Was the short variant of /y/ pronounced like [ʏ]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27150" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8794" RevisionGUID="d1567958-b34d-4e46-ad3f-2ebc984c4aa9" CreationDate="2018-12-29T15:32:40.930" UserId="3249" Text="Minimal pair [y] - [y:] in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27151" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8794" RevisionGUID="d1567958-b34d-4e46-ad3f-2ebc984c4aa9" CreationDate="2018-12-29T15:32:40.930" UserId="3249" Text="|classical-latin|phonology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8795" RevisionGUID="7a2589bd-6667-4000-ba15-dfb718e3067f" CreationDate="2018-12-29T17:26:05.447" UserId="79" Text="Great question!&#xD;&#xA;I was previously unaware of any such pair, but browsing Lewis and Short ([available online in various forms](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79)) brought up these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*lўsis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=lysis1&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059): loosening, rupture, talon, ogee&#xD;&#xA;- [*Lўsis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DL%3Aentry+group%3D40%3Aentry%3DLysis3): a Pythagorean of Tarentum, instructor of Epaminondas&#xD;&#xA;- [*Lȳsis*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DL%3Aentry+group%3D40%3Aentry%3DLysis2): a small river in Asia Minor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter is so rare in Latin that I doubt there are examples without Greek names." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8796" RevisionGUID="969f4077-a344-4378-9fbe-d2f68be1ced9" CreationDate="2018-12-29T17:37:12.443" UserId="9" Text="The existence of /y/ and /y:/ in Classical Latin is mainly postulated as a part of non-nativized pronunciations for loanwords from Greek. Vowel length was phonemically distinctive for Y in Greek, and it was accordingly distinctive in Latin as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the popular language, it is thought that merger with /i/ and /i:/ was a possibility already in classical times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that it is rather difficult to determine at which points in time Latin did or did not have qualitative distinctions between corresponding long and short vowels. It does seem plausible that [ʏ] would have been used alongside [ɪ] and [ʊ], but I don’t think we really have any actual evidence for this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8797" RevisionGUID="47e79b59-c811-4bae-bba6-42e744aea3a6" CreationDate="2018-12-29T18:16:36.440" UserId="1694" Text="With respect to latter portion of the question only, I agree with  @sumelic's answer that it is unlikely we have actual evidence of a qualitative difference between /y:/ and /y/, but I will supplement that with the following considerations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) It is generally thought that the Latin high vowels were somewhat lowered in Classical times to [ɪ] and [ʊ].  If that was the case, I think there would be a natural tendency to lower short Y too, to [ʏ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) On the other hand, /y/ was not a native Latin sound, and I never seen any evidence that Greek short ι and υ were qualitatively any different from their long equivalents.  That being the case, an educated Latin speaker would be likely to pronounce short Y as in Greek, viz. [y].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I think there are arguments for both possibilities, and it's quite likely (in my opinion) that both could be used by different speakers.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8797" RevisionGUID="66f02b45-a312-452c-8610-06c937061b86" CreationDate="2018-12-29T18:22:12.377" UserId="1694" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="With respect to latter portion of the question only, I agree with  @sumelic's answer that it is unlikely we have actual evidence of a qualitative difference between /y:/ and /y/, but I will supplement that with the following considerations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) It is generally thought that the Latin high vowels were somewhat lowered in Classical times to [ɪ] and [ʊ].  If that was the case, I think there would be a natural tendency to lower short Y too, to [ʏ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) On the other hand, /y/ was not a native Latin sound, and I've never seen any evidence that Greek short ι and υ were qualitatively any different from their long equivalents.  That being the case, an educated Latin speaker would be likely to pronounce short Y as in Greek, viz. [y].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I think there are arguments for both possibilities, and it's quite likely (in my opinion) that both could be used by different speakers.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8799" RevisionGUID="99357307-a81a-4305-926c-7a566cdf235a" CreationDate="2018-12-29T22:03:32.870" UserId="79" Text="The Latin verb for studying is *studere*, but a number of [descendants](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/studeo#Descendants) look as if they came from *studiare*.&#xD;&#xA;These include the Italian 'studiare', French 'ètudier', and the Spanish 'estudiar'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was there ever a Latin verb *studiare*?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, was it interchangeable with *studere* and do we know how it came about?&#xD;&#xA;(I could imagine it being derived from *studium* or sound changes in inflected forms like *studeo &gt; studio*.)&#xD;&#xA;If no, does something else explain the abundant *-i-* in the descendants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27163" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8799" RevisionGUID="99357307-a81a-4305-926c-7a566cdf235a" CreationDate="2018-12-29T22:03:32.870" UserId="79" Text="Is there a Latin 'studiare'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27164" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8799" RevisionGUID="99357307-a81a-4305-926c-7a566cdf235a" CreationDate="2018-12-29T22:03:32.870" UserId="79" Text="|verbs|language-evolution|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8800" RevisionGUID="d69a7d23-8bd7-40c6-b9d8-c68b3ff66b48" CreationDate="2018-12-30T00:44:16.227" UserId="3248" Text="Your question has to do with a phonetic change commented on in handbooks on Vulgar Latin. Some verbs that belong to 2nd conj. fell under the 4th conj: e.g., cf. Class. Lat. *florere* with *florire* (Gregory of Tours) (cf. It. *fiorire*; Fr. *fleurir*; Cat. *florir*). Same with *putrire (instead of Class. Lat. *putrere*): cf. Fr. *pourrir*; Sp. *pudrir*). I guess that the same phonetic process is involved in your verb *studiare.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8800" RevisionGUID="082a78e6-fb84-4cc7-aa24-2a48126bfb30" CreationDate="2018-12-30T00:51:05.650" UserId="3248" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="Your question has to do with a morpological change derived from a phonetic confusion of *-eo* with *-io*, which is commented on in handbooks on Vulgar Latin. Some verbs that belong to 2nd conj. fell under the 4th conj: e.g., cf. Class. Lat. *florere* with *florire* (Gregory of Tours) (cf. It. *fiorire*; Fr. *fleurir*; Cat. *florir*). Same with *putrire (instead of Class. Lat. *putrere*): cf. Fr. *pourrir*; Sp. *pudrir*). I guess that the same change is involved in your verb *studiare.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27168" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="8800" RevisionGUID="57834669-3ef8-46e7-b254-90e033bd439c" CreationDate="2018-12-30T02:22:30.713" UserId="3248" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3248,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Mitomino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27169" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="8800" RevisionGUID="53e3193b-c2a5-49ab-9b30-36476fd9b70d" CreationDate="2018-12-30T02:24:23.953" UserId="3248" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3248,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Mitomino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8800" RevisionGUID="0e8d5e16-9396-4bb0-9c86-93aa4c43ecbe" CreationDate="2018-12-30T02:49:30.750" UserId="3248" Comment="deleted 224 characters in body" Text="I was wondering if the verb *studiare was classified into the 1st conjugation in non-Classical Latin on the basis of being transformed into a denominal verb (cf. *studium* &gt; *studiare*). NB: *studium* is formed on the basis of *studere* and not the other way around. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8800" RevisionGUID="f65eca07-706a-4a7d-a4b1-0704961612b5" CreationDate="2018-12-30T03:08:46.057" UserId="3248" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="I was wondering if the verb *studiare was classified into the 1st conjugation in non-Classical Latin on the basis of being transformed into a denominal verb (cf. *studium* &gt; *studiare). NB: *studium* is formed on the basis of *studere* and not the other way around. &#xD;&#xA;This proposal/hypothesis is made on the basis that 1st conjugation is the one where **more** (but not all, of course) denominal verbs are found. I've not checked it out but at first sight it seems true. Do you share this intuition?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8799" RevisionGUID="c443666d-d1e5-424d-88f4-646984c5a20b" CreationDate="2018-12-30T12:21:08.400" UserId="79" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="The Latin verb for studying is *studere*, but a number of [descendants](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/studeo#Descendants) look as if they came from *studiare*.&#xD;&#xA;These include the Italian 'studiare', French 'étudier', and the Spanish 'estudiar'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was there ever a Latin verb *studiare*?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, was it interchangeable with *studere* and do we know how it came about?&#xD;&#xA;(I could imagine *studiare* being derived from *studium* or arising from changes in inflected forms like *studeo &gt; studio*.)&#xD;&#xA;If no, does something else explain the abundant *-i-* in the descendants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8772" RevisionGUID="2a16ab77-fbaf-4a9b-85b7-8da55f8b9417" CreationDate="2018-12-30T17:23:00.187" UserId="522" Comment="added 1389 characters in body" Text="The oldest archaeological trace of a Jewish synagogue in Libya appears in Sirte, which the surveys in the &quot;Barion&quot; region date to the 10th century BCE, i.e. during King Solomon's reign. Literary evidence goes back to 13th. BCE.  (Wiki 'Libya' edited) *Recenti* may refer to Simon of Cyrene's part in the Gospel, in which case *'recens'* should be translated 'renewed,' or 'vigorous.'&#xD;&#xA;The festivals which typify *synagoga* are **a)** harvests and **b)** ethical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a)** The *princeps* irradiates, beams down on, the 'joyful standing corn,' --&quot;Ripens the joyful crops &quot; would fit the word count.  &#xD;&#xA;*Sata* conveniently does not differentiate between wheat and barley harvests. But *Sata* also reflects the dedication of this Sibyl's **Father** to Demeter (Gk for Earth *(De-/Ge-)* Mother) the Corn Goddess:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I am by birth half mortal, half divine;  &#xD;&#xA;An immortal nymph was my mother, my father an eater of grain;  &#xD;&#xA;    On my mother's side of Idaean birth, but my fatherland was red  &#xD;&#xA;    Marpessus, sacred to the Mother, and the river Aidoneus. (Pausanias 10.12.3)(Description of Greece, 2nd Century)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**b)** *Tollet Crimina* may refer to reflective Synagogue services such as New Year, and (Pentecost) Gift of the Law. However, ***Crimina*** (Accusations) and, in the next couplet ***sordida labra reorum*** refer primarily to her **Mother** and to the Sibyl's siblings. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Sordida qui solus reserabit labra reorum &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Libyan Sibyl was daughter of (Zeus (or Apollo) and ) [Lamia][1] (theoi.com), mother of  the monstrous Skylla; and of Akheilos&#xD;&#xA;&quot;the lipless one&quot;, a shark, all three child-eaters; hence 'sordida labra.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[***Irradians*** beaming down: Two poems by Boethius also link the Creator to *gubernator,* to Sun, to crops. They are generally thought to be Neoplatonist (esp Consolation III metric9), and  Consolation V metric2 quotes Iliad iii 277, another 'Sun' reference] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.theoi.com/Ther/Lamia.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27175" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7611" RevisionGUID="c2b3f921-b360-48aa-a2f4-464de4d6022a" CreationDate="2018-12-30T18:01:40.337" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="27176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8801" RevisionGUID="86b67317-b0f8-4260-b03a-a71c3d625de6" CreationDate="2018-12-30T21:13:58.377" UserId="3248" Text="Some nested or double predicative participle constructions are found in Classical Latin. In particular, the following one from Cicero really attracted my attention: &#xD;&#xA;**Quo mortuo nuntiato**, sella sublata est. (Cic. Fam. 7, 30, 1). &#xD;&#xA;Loeb translation: ‘His death was announced and the chair was removed’.&#xD;&#xA;(‘Once his death was announced, the chair was removed’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I understand/infer that constructions like the following ones could be well-formed in Latin: &#xD;&#xA;Cicerone mortuo nuntiato, ….  (cf. “Ciceronis morte nuntiata, ….”)&#xD;&#xA;Terentia mortua nuntiata,…     (cf. “Terentiae morte nuntiata, ….”)&#xD;&#xA;(and, admittedly, perhaps with some more reservation (what do you think?) even the following example:)&#xD;&#xA;Urbe capta nuntiata, ….            (cf. “Urbis expugnatione nuntiata,…”) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not have a native competence in Latin but a construction like “Urbe capta nuntiato” sounds quite awful to me, although I can acknowledge that, semantically speaking, this construction could be “logical” since what was announced is not a city but the event encoded in the Ablative Absolute; cf. “Hoc &lt;this event: *urbe capta*&gt; *nuntiato*, …”). In contrast, a construction like “Urbem captam (esse) nuntiato” could be a valid Ablative Absolute at least in Livy (cf. his well-known example: Cognito vivere Ptolomaeum). Accordingly, notice that something like “Quem mortuum (esse) nuntiato” or “Ciceronem mortuum (esse) nuntiato” could be valid examples along with “Quo mortuo nuntiato” and “Cicerone mortuo nuntiato”, respectively. &#xD;&#xA;Notice then that the abovementioned examples of complex Ablative Absolutes must not be fully collapsed with the ones typically mentioned in the handbooks of Latin syntax (e.g., *Cicerone consule creato*), where there are two predicates involved as well (“consule” and “creato”, the former depending on the latter; cf. “Ciceronem consulem creare”). Cf. ?? *Ciceronem consulem creato* vs. ok *Ciceronem mortuum nuntiato*. &#xD;&#xA;Another example of a nested/double dominant participle construction could be the following one (NB: in this case it is not an Ablative Absolute). &#xD;&#xA;Ante proelium in Thessalia factum cognitum, ... (Caes. Bell. Civ. 3, 100, 4). &#xD;&#xA;This example, unlike Cicero’s one above, is ambiguous (in this case it is not required that “factum” be interpreted as a dominant participle since “proelium” does already express an event by itself, whereby the participle clause “in Thessalia factum” can be understood as an optional relative clause “quod in Thessalia factum est”). Basically, this explains the following contrast: ok “Ante proelium cognitum” vs. ?? “Cicerone nuntiato”. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the reasoning above on nested/double predicative participle constructions and given the well-known parallelism between so-called “dominant” participle constructions and Ablative Absolute constructions, another specific question for you is the following: do you think that a construction like “Ab urbe condita nuntiata” could also be possible in Latin with the intended meaning: ‘since the announcement of the foundation of Rome’? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27177" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8801" RevisionGUID="86b67317-b0f8-4260-b03a-a71c3d625de6" CreationDate="2018-12-30T21:13:58.377" UserId="3248" Text="Quo mortuo nuntiato (Cicero) // Quem mortuum (esse) nuntiato (Livy)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27178" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8801" RevisionGUID="86b67317-b0f8-4260-b03a-a71c3d625de6" CreationDate="2018-12-30T21:13:58.377" UserId="3248" Text="|classical-latin|ablative-absolute|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8801" RevisionGUID="579bf1a4-0c05-4691-9767-09101d3920bd" CreationDate="2018-12-30T21:19:33.780" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Some nested or double predicative participle constructions are found in Classical Latin. In particular, the following one from Cicero really attracted my attention: &#xD;&#xA;**Quo mortuo nuntiato**, *sella sublata est*. (Cic. Fam. 7, 30, 1). &#xD;&#xA;Loeb translation: ‘His death was announced and the chair was removed’.&#xD;&#xA;(‘Once his death was announced, the chair was removed’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I understand/infer that constructions like the following ones could be well-formed in Latin: &#xD;&#xA;*Cicerone mortuo nuntiato*, ….  (cf. “Ciceronis morte nuntiata, ….”)&#xD;&#xA;*Terentia mortua nuntiata*,…     (cf. “Terentiae morte nuntiata, ….”)&#xD;&#xA;(and, admittedly, perhaps with some more reservation (what do you think?) even the following example:)&#xD;&#xA;*Urbe capta nuntiata*, ….       (cf. “Urbis expugnatione nuntiata,…”) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not have a native competence in Latin but a construction like “Urbe capta nuntiato” sounds quite awful to me, although I can acknowledge that, semantically speaking, this construction could be “logical” since what was announced is not a city but the event encoded in the Ablative Absolute; cf. “Hoc &lt;this event: *urbe capta*&gt; *nuntiato*, …”). In contrast, a construction like “Urbem captam (esse) nuntiato” could be a valid Ablative Absolute at least in Livy (cf. his well-known example: Cognito vivere Ptolomaeum). Accordingly, notice that something like “Quem mortuum (esse) nuntiato” or “Ciceronem mortuum (esse) nuntiato” could be valid examples along with “Quo mortuo nuntiato” and “Cicerone mortuo nuntiato”, respectively. &#xD;&#xA;Notice then that the abovementioned examples of complex Ablative Absolutes must not be fully collapsed with the ones typically mentioned in the handbooks of Latin syntax (e.g., *Cicerone consule creato*), where there are two predicates involved as well (“consule” and “creato”, the former depending on the latter; cf. “Ciceronem consulem creare”). Cf. ?? *Ciceronem consulem creato* vs. ok *Ciceronem mortuum nuntiato*. &#xD;&#xA;Another example of a nested/double dominant participle construction could be the following one (NB: in this case it is not an Ablative Absolute). &#xD;&#xA;Ante proelium in Thessalia factum cognitum, ... (Caes. Bell. Civ. 3, 100, 4). &#xD;&#xA;This example, unlike Cicero’s one above, is ambiguous (in this case it is not required that “factum” be interpreted as a dominant participle since “proelium” does already express an event by itself, whereby the participle clause “in Thessalia factum” can be understood as an optional relative clause “quod in Thessalia factum est”). Basically, this explains the following contrast: ok “Ante proelium cognitum” vs. ?? “Cicerone nuntiato”. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the reasoning above on nested/double predicative participle constructions and given the well-known parallelism between so-called “dominant” participle constructions and Ablative Absolute constructions, another specific question for you is the following: do you think that a construction like “Ab urbe condita nuntiata” could also be possible in Latin with the intended meaning: ‘since the announcement of the foundation of Rome’? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8801" RevisionGUID="a5383a5e-1a75-4150-981e-55c87a5fd925" CreationDate="2018-12-30T21:25:48.917" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Some nested or double predicative participle constructions are found in Classical Latin. In particular, the following one from Cicero really attracted my attention: &#xD;&#xA;***Quo mortuo nuntiato***, *sella sublata est*. (Cic. Fam. 7, 30, 1). &#xD;&#xA;Loeb translation: ‘His death was announced and the chair was removed’.&#xD;&#xA;(‘Once his death was announced, the chair was removed’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I understand/infer that constructions like the following ones could be well-formed in Latin: &#xD;&#xA;*Cicerone mortuo nuntiato*, ….  (cf. “Ciceronis morte nuntiata, ….”),&#xD;&#xA;*Terentia mortua nuntiata*,…     (cf. “Terentiae morte nuntiata, ….”),&#xD;&#xA;and, admittedly, perhaps with some more reservation (what do you think?) even the following example:&#xD;&#xA;*Urbe capta nuntiata*, ….       (cf. “Urbis expugnatione nuntiata,…”) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not have a native competence in Latin but a construction like “Urbe capta nuntiato” sounds quite awful to me, although I can acknowledge that, **semantically** speaking, this construction could be “logical” since what was announced is **not** a city but the event encoded in the Ablative Absolute; cf. “*Hoc* (this event: *urbe capta*) *nuntiato*, …”). In contrast, a construction like “Urbem captam (esse) nuntiato” could be a valid Ablative Absolute at least in Livy (cf. his well-known example: *Cognito vivere Ptolomaeum*). Accordingly, notice that something like “Quem mortuum (esse) nuntiato” or “Ciceronem mortuum (esse) nuntiato” could be valid examples along with “Quo mortuo nuntiato” and “Cicerone mortuo nuntiato”, respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice then that the abovementioned examples of complex Ablative Absolutes must not be fully collapsed with the ones typically mentioned in the handbooks of Latin syntax (e.g., *Cicerone consule creato*), where there are two predicates involved as well (“consule” and “creato”, the former depending on the latter; cf. “Ciceronem consulem creare”). Cf. ?? *Ciceronem consulem creato* vs. ok *Ciceronem mortuum nuntiato*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example of a nested/double dominant participle construction could be the following one (NB: in this case it is not an Ablative Absolute). &#xD;&#xA;*Ante proelium in Thessalia factum cognitum*, ... (Caes. Bell. Civ. 3, 100, 4). &#xD;&#xA;This example, unlike Cicero’s one above, is ambiguous (in this case it is not required that “factum” be interpreted as a dominant participle since “proelium” does already express an event by itself, whereby the participle clause “in Thessalia factum” can be understood as an optional relative clause “quod in Thessalia factum est”). Basically, this explains the following contrast: ok “Ante proelium cognitum” vs. ?? “Cicerone nuntiato”. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the reasoning above on nested/double predicative participle constructions and given the well-known parallelism between so-called “dominant” participle constructions and Ablative Absolute constructions, another specific question for you is the following: do you think that a construction like “Ab urbe condita nuntiata” could also be possible in Latin with the intended meaning: ‘since the announcement of the foundation of Rome’? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8801" RevisionGUID="b461df05-7193-4d5e-8b1a-afa5f4655976" CreationDate="2018-12-30T22:21:29.573" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Some nested or double predicative participle constructions can be found in Classical Latin. In particular, the following one from Cicero really attracted my attention: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Quo mortuo nuntiato***, *sella sublata est*. (Cic. *Fam*. 7, 30, 1).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Loeb translation: ‘His death was announced and the chair was removed’&#xD;&#xA;(‘After his death was announced, the chair was removed’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I understand/infer that constructions like the following ones could be well-formed in Latin: &#xD;&#xA;*Cicerone mortuo nuntiato*, ….  (cf. “Ciceronis morte nuntiata, ….”),&#xD;&#xA;*Terentia mortua nuntiata*,…     (cf. “Terentiae morte nuntiata, ….”),&#xD;&#xA;and, admittedly, perhaps with some more reservation (**what do you think?**) even the following example:&#xD;&#xA;*Urbe capta nuntiata*, ….       (cf. “Urbis expugnatione nuntiata,…”) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not have a native competence in Latin but a construction like “Urbe capta nuntiato” sounds quite awful to me, although I can acknowledge that, **semantically** speaking, this construction could be “logical” since what was announced is ***not*** a city but the event encoded in the Ablative Absolute: “*Hoc* (this event: *urbe capta*) *nuntiato*, …”). In contrast, a construction like *Urbem captam (esse) nuntiato* could be a valid Ablative Absolute at least in Livy (cf. his well-known example: *Cognito vivere Ptolomaeum*). Accordingly, constructions like *Quem mortuum (esse) nuntiato* or *Ciceronem mortuum (esse) nuntiato* could be valid examples along with *Quo mortuo nuntiato* and *Cicerone mortuo nuntiato*, respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice then that the abovementioned examples of complex Ablative Absolutes must not be fully collapsed with the ones typically mentioned in the handbooks of Latin syntax (e.g., *Cicerone consule creato*), where there are two predicates involved as well (*consule* and *creato*, the former depending on the latter; cf. *Ciceronem consulem creare*). Cf. the ill-formed example *Ciceronem consulem creato* with the well-formed one *Ciceronem mortuum nuntiato*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example of a nested/double dominant participle construction could be the following one (NB: in this case it is not an Ablative Absolute): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ante **proelium in Thessalia factum cognitum***, ... (Caes. Bell. Civ. 3, 100, 4). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example, unlike Cicero’s one above, is ambiguous (in this case it is not required that *factum* be interpreted as a dominant participle since *proelium* does already express an event by itself, whereby the participle clause *in Thessalia factum* can in fact be understood as an optional relative clause *quod in Thessalia factum est*). Basically, this explains the following contrast: cf. the well-formed phrase *Ante proelium cognitum* with the ill-formed/anomalous one ?? *Cicerone nuntiato*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the reasoning above on nested/double predicative participle constructions and given the well-known parallelism between so-called “dominant” participle constructions and Ablative Absolute constructions, another **specific question for you** is the following: do you think that a construction like *Ab urbe condita nuntiata* could also be possible in Latin with the intended meaning: ‘since the announcement of the foundation of Rome’? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8801" RevisionGUID="8551fd44-69c8-4133-b341-ca2408c015bb" CreationDate="2018-12-30T22:35:08.927" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Some nested or double predicative participle constructions can be found in Classical Latin. In particular, the following one from Cicero really attracted my attention: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Quo mortuo nuntiato***, *sella sublata est*. (Cic. *Fam*. 7, 30, 1).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Loeb translation: ‘His death was announced and the chair was removed’&#xD;&#xA;(‘After his death was announced, the chair was removed’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I understand that constructions like the following ones could be well-formed in Latin: &#xD;&#xA;*Cicerone mortuo nuntiato*, ….  (cf. “Ciceronis morte nuntiata, ….”),&#xD;&#xA;*Terentia mortua nuntiata*,…     (cf. “Terentiae morte nuntiata, ….”),&#xD;&#xA;and, admittedly, perhaps with some more reservation (**what do you think?**) even the following example:&#xD;&#xA;*Urbe capta nuntiata*, ….       (cf. “Urbis expugnatione nuntiata,…”). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not have a native competence in Latin but a construction like *Urbe capta nuntiat**o*** sounds quite awful to me, although I can acknowledge that, **semantically** speaking, this construction could be said to be “logical” since what was announced is ***not*** a city but the event encoded in the Ablative Absolute: *Hoc* (this event: *urbe capta*) *nuntiato*, …). In contrast, a construction like *Urbem captam (esse) nuntiato* could be a valid Ablative Absolute at least in Livy (cf. his well-known example: *Cognito vivere Ptolomaeum*). Accordingly, constructions like *Quem mortuum (esse) nuntiato* or *Ciceronem mortuum (esse) nuntiato* could be valid examples along with *Quo mortuo nuntiato* and *Cicerone mortuo nuntiato*, respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice then that the abovementioned examples of complex Ablative Absolutes must not be fully collapsed with the ones typically mentioned in the handbooks of Latin syntax (e.g., *Cicerone consule creato*), where there are two predicates involved as well (*consule* and *creato*, the former depending on the latter; cf. *Ciceronem consulem creare*). Cf. the ill-formed example *Ciceronem consulem creato* with the well-formed one *Ciceronem mortuum nuntiato*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example of a nested/double dominant participle construction could be the following one (NB: in this case it is not an Ablative Absolute): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ante **proelium in Thessalia factum cognitum***, ... (Caes. Bell. Civ. 3, 100, 4). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example, unlike Cicero’s one above, is ambiguous (in this case it is not required that *factum* be interpreted as a dominant participle since *proelium* does already express an event by itself, whereby the participle clause *in Thessalia factum* can in fact be understood as an optional relative clause *quod in Thessalia factum est*). Basically, this explains the following contrast: cf. the well-formed phrase *Ante proelium cognitum* with the ill-formed/anomalous one ?? *Cicerone nuntiato*. That's why both syntactic constructions cannot be collapsed nor reduced. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the reasoning above on nested/double predicative participle constructions and given the well-known parallelism between so-called “dominant” participle constructions and Ablative Absolute constructions, another **specific question for you** is the following: do you think that a construction like *Ab urbe condita nuntiata* could also be possible in Latin with the intended meaning: ‘since the announcement of the foundation of Rome’? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27183" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8801" RevisionGUID="8551fd44-69c8-4133-b341-ca2408c015bb" CreationDate="2018-12-30T22:35:08.927" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Quo mortuo nuntiato (Cicero) // Quem mortuum esse nuntiato (Livy)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8801" RevisionGUID="37dc033f-f868-4e5e-af57-5a70ca5fbf38" CreationDate="2018-12-30T22:48:34.427" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Some nested or double predicative participle constructions can be found in Classical Latin. In particular, the following one from Cicero really attracted my attention: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Quo mortuo nuntiato***, *sella sublata est*. (Cic. *Fam*. 7, 30, 1).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Loeb translation: ‘His death was announced and the chair was removed’&#xD;&#xA;(‘After his death was announced, the chair was removed’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I understand that constructions like the following ones could be well-formed in Latin: &#xD;&#xA;*Cicerone mortuo nuntiato*, ….  (cf. “Ciceronis morte nuntiata, ….”),&#xD;&#xA;*Terentia mortua nuntiata*,…     (cf. “Terentiae morte nuntiata, ….”),&#xD;&#xA;and, admittedly, perhaps with some more reservation (**what do you think?**) even the following example:&#xD;&#xA;*Urbe capta nuntiata*, ….       (cf. “Urbis expugnatione nuntiata,…”). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not have a native competence in Latin but a construction like *Urbe capta nuntiat**o*** sounds quite awful to me, although I can acknowledge that, **semantically** speaking, this construction could be said to be “logical” since what was announced is ***not*** a city but the event encoded in the Ablative Absolute: *Hoc* (this event: *urbe capta*) *nuntiato*, …). In contrast, a construction like *Urbem captam (esse) nuntiato* could be a valid Ablative Absolute at least in Livy (cf. his well-known example: *Cognito vivere Ptolomaeum*). Accordingly, constructions like *Quem mortuum (esse) nuntiato* or *Ciceronem mortuum (esse) nuntiato* could be valid examples along with *Quo mortuo nuntiato* and *Cicerone mortuo nuntiato*, respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice moreover that the abovementioned examples of complex Ablative Absolutes must not be fully collapsed with the ones typically mentioned in the handbooks of Latin syntax (e.g., *Cicerone consule creato*), where there are two predicates involved as well (*consule* and *creato*, the former depending on the latter; cf. *Ciceronem consulem creare*). Cf. the ill-formed example *Ciceronem consulem creato* with the well-formed one *Ciceronem mortuum nuntiato*, which shows that both constructions cannot be collapsed into a single/identical syntactic type. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example of a nested/double dominant participle construction could be the following one (NB: in this case it is not an Ablative Absolute): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ante **proelium in Thessalia factum cognitum***, ... (Caes. Bell. Civ. 3, 100, 4). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example, unlike Cicero’s one above, is ambiguous (in this case it is not required that *factum* be interpreted as a dominant participle since *proelium* does already express an event by itself, whereby the participle clause *in Thessalia factum* can in fact be understood as an optional relative clause *quod in Thessalia factum est*). Basically, this explains the following contrast: cf. the well-formed phrase *Ante proelium cognitum* with the ill-formed/anomalous one ?? *Cicerone nuntiato*. That's why both syntactic constructions cannot be collapsed/reduced into a single type. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the reasoning above on nested/double predicative participle constructions and given the well-known parallelism between so-called “dominant” participle constructions and Ablative Absolute constructions, another **very specific question for you** is the following: do you think that a construction like *Ab urbe condita nuntiata* could also be possible in Latin with the intended meaning: ‘since the announcement of the foundation of Rome’? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8801" RevisionGUID="87e563d6-50bd-44a7-9e86-4986a4c961a6" CreationDate="2018-12-30T23:15:22.520" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Some nested or double predicative participle constructions can be found in Classical Latin. In particular, the following one from Cicero really attracted my attention: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Quo mortuo nuntiato***, *sella sublata est*. (Cic. *Fam*. 7, 30, 1).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Loeb translation: ‘His death was announced and the chair was removed’&#xD;&#xA;(‘After his death was announced, the chair was removed’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I understand that constructions like the following ones could be well-formed in Latin: &#xD;&#xA;*Cicerone mortuo nuntiato*, ….  (cf. “Ciceronis morte nuntiata, ….”),&#xD;&#xA;*Terentia mortua nuntiata*,…     (cf. “Terentiae morte nuntiata, ….”),&#xD;&#xA;and, admittedly, perhaps with some more reservation (**what do you think?**) even the following example:&#xD;&#xA;*Urbe capta nuntiata*, ….       (cf. “Urbis expugnatione nuntiata,…”). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not have a native competence in Latin but a construction like *Urbe capta nuntiat**o*** sounds quite awful to me, although I can acknowledge that, **semantically** speaking, this construction could be said to be “logical” since what was announced is ***not*** a city but the event encoded in the Ablative Absolute: *Hoc* (this event: *urbe capta*) *nuntiato*, …). In contrast, a construction like *Urbem captam (esse) nuntiato* could be a valid Ablative Absolute at least in Livy (cf. his well-known example: *Cognito vivere Ptolomaeum*). Accordingly, constructions like *Quem mortuum (esse) nuntiato* or *Ciceronem mortuum (esse) nuntiato* could be valid examples along with *Quo mortuo nuntiato* and *Cicerone mortuo nuntiato*, respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice moreover that the abovementioned examples of complex Ablative Absolutes must not be fully collapsed with the ones typically mentioned in the handbooks of Latin syntax (e.g., *Cicerone consule creato*), where there are two predicates involved as well (*consule* and *creato*, the former depending on the latter; cf. *Ciceronem consulem creare*). Cf. the ill-formed example *Ciceronem consulem creato* with the well-formed one *Ciceronem mortuum nuntiato*, which shows that both constructions cannot be collapsed into a single/identical syntactic type. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example of a nested/double dominant participle construction could be the following one (NB: in this case it is not an Ablative Absolute): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ante **proelium in Thessalia factum cognitum***, ... (Caes. *Bell. Civ.* 3, 100, 4). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example, unlike Cicero’s one above, is ambiguous (in this case it is not required that *factum* be interpreted as a dominant participle since *proelium* does already express an event by itself, whereby the participle clause *in Thessalia factum* can in fact be understood as an optional relative clause *quod in Thessalia factum est*). Basically, this explains the following contrast: cf. the well-formed phrase *Ante proelium cognitum* with the ill-formed/anomalous one ?? *Cicerone nuntiato*. That's why both syntactic constructions cannot be collapsed/reduced into a single type. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the reasoning above on nested/double predicative participle constructions and given the well-known parallelism between so-called “dominant” participle constructions and Ablative Absolute constructions, another **very specific question for you** is the following: do you think that a dominant participle construction like *Ab urbe condita nuntiata* could also be possible in Latin with the intended meaning: ‘since the announcement of the foundation of Rome’? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8801" RevisionGUID="298024ff-8707-4a53-8f49-b4ab5c1e7d52" CreationDate="2018-12-31T02:58:22.783" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="Some nested or double predicative participle constructions can be found in Classical Latin. In particular, the following one from Cicero really attracted my attention, which involves a wonderful syntactic &quot;nesting&quot; of two Ablative Absolutes, the inner one being *quo mortuo* and the outer one being something similar to (but, as you'll see immediately, not identical to) *HOC* (i.e., *quo mortuo*) *nuntiato*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Quo mortuo nuntiato***, *sella sublata est*. (Cic. *Fam*. 7, 30, 1).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Loeb translation: ‘His death was announced and the chair was removed’&#xD;&#xA;(‘After his death was announced, the chair was removed’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I understand that constructions like the following ones could be well-formed in Latin: &#xD;&#xA;*Cicerone mortuo nuntiato*, ….  (cf. “Ciceronis morte nuntiata, ….”),&#xD;&#xA;*Terentia mortua nuntiata*,…     (cf. “Terentiae morte nuntiata, ….”),&#xD;&#xA;and, admittedly, perhaps with some reservation (**what do you think?**) even the following example:&#xD;&#xA;*Urbe capta nuntiata*, ….       (cf. “Urbis expugnatione nuntiata,…”). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I do not have a native competence in Latin but a construction like *Urbe capta nuntiat**o*** sounds quite awful to me, although I can acknowledge that, **semantically** speaking, this construction could be said to be “logical” since what was announced is ***not*** a city but the event encoded in the inner Ablative Absolute: *Hoc* (this event: *urbe capta*) *nuntiato*, …). Interestingly, a construction like *Urbem captam (esse) nuntiato* could also be a valid Ablative Absolute at least in Livy (cf. his well-known example: *Cognito vivere Ptolomaeum*). Accordingly, constructions like *Quem mortuum (esse) nuntiato* or *Ciceronem mortuum (esse) nuntiato* could be both valid examples along with *Quo mortuo nuntiato* and *Cicerone mortuo nuntiato*, respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice moreover that the abovementioned examples of complex Ablative Absolutes must not be fully collapsed with the ones typically mentioned in the handbooks of Latin syntax (e.g., *Cicerone consule creato*), where there are two predicates involved as well (*consule* and *creato*, the former depending on the latter; cf. *Ciceronem consulem creare*). Cf. the ill-formed example *Ciceronem consulem creato* with the well-formed one *Ciceronem mortuum nuntiato*, which shows that both constructions cannot be collapsed into a single/identical syntactic type. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example of a nested/double dominant participle construction could be the following one (NB: in this case it is not an Ablative Absolute): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ante **proelium in Thessalia factum cognitum***, ... (Caes. *Bell. Civ.* 3, 100, 4). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example, unlike Cicero’s one above, is ambiguous (in this case it is not required that *factum* be interpreted as a dominant participle since *proelium* does already express an event by itself, whereby the participle clause *in Thessalia factum* can in fact be understood as an optional relative clause *quod in Thessalia factum est*). Basically, this explains the following contrast: cf. the well-formed phrase *Ante proelium cognitum* with the ill-formed/anomalous one ??*Cicerone nuntiato*. That's why both syntactic constructions cannot be collapsed/reduced into a single type. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the reasoning above on nested/double predicative participle constructions and given the well-known parallelism between so-called “dominant” participle constructions (aka *Ab urbe condita*-constructions) and Ablative Absolute constructions, **the specific question I have** is the following: do you think that a dominant participle construction like *Ab urbe condita nuntiata* could also be possible in Latin with the intended meaning: ‘since the announcement of the foundation of Rome’? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27187" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8801" RevisionGUID="298024ff-8707-4a53-8f49-b4ab5c1e7d52" CreationDate="2018-12-31T02:58:22.783" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="|classical-latin|syntax|participle|ablative-absolute|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8801" RevisionGUID="9af51206-7a1c-4fb3-978f-46406a8e99c7" CreationDate="2018-12-31T04:19:38.177" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="Given my description below on nested/double predicative participle constructions (e.g., ***quo mortuo nuntiato***) and given the well-known parallelism between so-called “dominant” participle constructions (aka *Ab urbe condita*-constructions) and Ablative Absolute constructions, the specific question I have is the following: do you think that a dominant participle construction like ***Ab urbe condita nuntiata*** could also be possible in Latin with the intended meaning: ‘since the announcement of the foundation of Rome’? &#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;As noted above, some nested or double predicative participle constructions can be found in Classical Latin. In particular, the following one from Cicero really attracted my attention, which involves a wonderful syntactic &quot;nesting&quot; of two Ablative Absolutes, the inner one being *quo mortuo* and the outer one being something similar to (but, as you'll see immediately, not identical to) *HOC* (i.e., *quo mortuo*) *nuntiato*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Quo mortuo nuntiato***, *sella sublata est*. (Cic. *Fam*. 7, 30, 1).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Loeb translation: ‘His death was announced and the chair was removed’&#xD;&#xA;(‘After his death was announced, the chair was removed’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I understand that constructions like the following ones could be well-formed in Latin: &#xD;&#xA;*Cicerone mortuo nuntiato*, ….  (cf. “Ciceronis morte nuntiata, ….”),&#xD;&#xA;*Terentia mortua nuntiata*,…     (cf. “Terentiae morte nuntiata, ….”),&#xD;&#xA;and, admittedly, perhaps with some reservation (**what do you think?**) even the following example:&#xD;&#xA;*Urbe capta nuntiata*, ….       (cf. “Urbis expugnatione nuntiata,…”). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I do not have a native competence in Latin but a construction like *Urbe capta nuntiat**o*** sounds quite awful to me, although I can acknowledge that, **semantically** speaking, this construction could be said to be “logical” since what was announced is ***not*** a city but the event encoded in the inner Ablative Absolute: *Hoc* (this event: *urbe capta*) *nuntiato*, …). Interestingly, a construction like *Urbem captam (esse) nuntiato* could also be a valid Ablative Absolute at least in Livy (cf. his well-known example: *Cognito vivere Ptolomaeum*). Accordingly, constructions like *Quem mortuum (esse) nuntiato* or *Ciceronem mortuum (esse) nuntiato* could be both valid examples along with *Quo mortuo nuntiato* and *Cicerone mortuo nuntiato*, respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice moreover that the abovementioned examples of complex Ablative Absolutes must not be fully collapsed with the ones typically mentioned in the handbooks of Latin syntax (e.g., *Cicerone consule creato*), where there are two predicates involved as well (*consule* and *creato*, the former depending on the latter; cf. *Ciceronem consulem creare*). Cf. the ill-formed example *Ciceronem consulem creato* with the well-formed one *Ciceronem mortuum nuntiato*, which shows that both constructions cannot be collapsed into a single/identical syntactic type. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example of a nested/double dominant participle construction could be the following one (NB: in this case it is not an Ablative Absolute): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ante **proelium in Thessalia factum cognitum***, ... (Caes. *Bell. Civ.* 3, 100, 4). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example, unlike Cicero’s one above, is ambiguous (in this case it is not required that *factum* be interpreted as a dominant participle since *proelium* does already express an event by itself, whereby the participle clause *in Thessalia factum* can in fact be understood as an optional relative clause *quod in Thessalia factum est*). Basically, this explains the following contrast: cf. the well-formed phrase *Ante proelium cognitum* with the ill-formed/anomalous one ??*Cicerone nuntiato*. That's why both syntactic constructions cannot be collapsed/reduced into a single type. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27189" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8801" RevisionGUID="9af51206-7a1c-4fb3-978f-46406a8e99c7" CreationDate="2018-12-31T04:19:38.177" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="Quo mortuo nuntiato (Cicero) // Ab urbe condita nuntiata (?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8801" RevisionGUID="d8cfe2f9-6406-44bd-9036-caa90657a424" CreationDate="2018-12-31T04:32:43.757" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="Given my description below on nested/double predicative participle constructions (e.g., ***quo mortuo nuntiato***) and given the well-known parallelism between so-called “dominant” participle constructions (aka *Ab urbe condita*-constructions) and Ablative Absolute constructions, the specific question I have is the following one: do you think that a nested dominant participle construction like ***Ab urbe condita nuntiata*** could also be possible in Latin with the intended meaning: ‘since the announcement of the foundation of Rome’? &#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;As noted above, some nested or double predicative participle constructions can be found in Classical Latin. In particular, the following one from Cicero really attracted my attention, which involves a wonderful syntactic &quot;nesting&quot; of two Ablative Absolutes, the inner one being *quo mortuo* and the outer one being something similar to (but, as you'll see immediately, not identical to) *HOC* (i.e., *quo mortuo*) *nuntiato*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Quo mortuo nuntiato***, *sella sublata est*. (Cic. *Fam*. 7, 30, 1).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Loeb translation: ‘His death was announced and the chair was removed’&#xD;&#xA;(‘After his death was announced, the chair was removed’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I understand that constructions like the following ones could be well-formed in Latin: &#xD;&#xA;*Cicerone mortuo nuntiato*, ….  (cf. “Ciceronis morte nuntiata, ….”),&#xD;&#xA;*Terentia mortua nuntiata*,…     (cf. “Terentiae morte nuntiata, ….”),&#xD;&#xA;and, admittedly, perhaps with some reservation (**what do you think?**) even the following example:&#xD;&#xA;*Urbe capta nuntiata*, ….       (cf. “Urbis expugnatione nuntiata,…”). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I do not have a native competence in Latin but a construction like *Urbe capta nuntiat**o*** sounds quite awful to me, although I can acknowledge that, **semantically** speaking, this construction could be said to be “logical” since what was announced is ***not*** a city but the event encoded in the inner Ablative Absolute: *Hoc* (this event: *urbe capta*) *nuntiato*, …). Interestingly, a construction like *Urbem captam (esse) nuntiato* could also be a valid Ablative Absolute at least in Livy (cf. his well-known example: *Cognito vivere Ptolomaeum*). Accordingly, constructions like *Quem mortuum (esse) nuntiato* or *Ciceronem mortuum (esse) nuntiato* could be both valid examples along with *Quo mortuo nuntiato* and *Cicerone mortuo nuntiato*, respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice moreover that the abovementioned examples of complex Ablative Absolutes must not be fully collapsed with the ones typically mentioned in the handbooks of Latin syntax (e.g., *Cicerone consule creato*), where there are two predicates involved as well (*consule* and *creato*, the former depending on the latter; cf. *Ciceronem consulem creare*). Cf. the ill-formed example *Ciceronem consulem creato* with the well-formed one *Ciceronem mortuum nuntiato*, which shows that both constructions cannot be collapsed into a single/identical syntactic type. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example of a nested/double dominant participle construction could be the following one (NB: in this case it is not an Ablative Absolute): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ante **proelium in Thessalia factum cognitum***, ... (Caes. *Bell. Civ.* 3, 100, 4). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example, unlike Cicero’s one above, is ambiguous (in this case it is not required that *factum* be interpreted as a dominant participle since *proelium* does already express an event by itself, whereby the participle clause *in Thessalia factum* can in fact be understood as an optional relative clause *quod in Thessalia factum est*). Basically, this explains the following contrast: cf. the well-formed phrase *Ante proelium cognitum* with the ill-formed/anomalous one ??*Cicerone nuntiato*. That's why both syntactic constructions cannot be collapsed/reduced into a single type. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8802" RevisionGUID="0b1e04a1-628d-450f-828f-5c730deaebeb" CreationDate="2018-12-31T04:35:06.573" UserId="406" Text="_Lascīvus_ (&quot;wanton&quot;) looks to me like it comes from a verb, with the *-sc-* and the *-īv-*. However, I don't know of any verb like _*lascō_. Lewis and Short connect it to other words starting with *la-* meaning everything from &quot;play&quot; to &quot;behold&quot; to &quot;plentiful&quot;, but that makes it hard to see any connection between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where does this word actually come from? And what was the original meaning of its root?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27192" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8802" RevisionGUID="0b1e04a1-628d-450f-828f-5c730deaebeb" CreationDate="2018-12-31T04:35:06.573" UserId="406" Text="Where does _lascīvus_ come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27193" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8802" RevisionGUID="0b1e04a1-628d-450f-828f-5c730deaebeb" CreationDate="2018-12-31T04:35:06.573" UserId="406" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8803" RevisionGUID="f72c7dbd-64f0-4e56-81a0-5165f4f73c0c" CreationDate="2018-12-31T05:13:05.453" UserId="40" Text="Here is de Vaan's entry for this word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zBJXh.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8801" RevisionGUID="a1b18efc-3264-4add-9aea-9bc0da5ce4fb" CreationDate="2018-12-31T05:51:38.267" UserId="3248" Comment="fixed grammar and improved formatting" Text="Given my description below on nested/double predicative participle constructions (e.g., ***quo mortuo nuntiato***) and given the well-known parallelism between so-called “dominant” participle constructions (aka *Ab urbe condita*-constructions) and Ablative Absolute constructions, the specific question I have is the following one: do you think that a nested dominant participle construction like ***Ab urbe condita nuntiata*** could also be possible in Latin with the intended meaning: ‘since the announcement of the foundation of Rome’? &#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;As noted above, some nested or double predicative participle constructions can be found in Classical Latin. In particular, the following one from Cicero really attracted my attention, which involves a wonderful syntactic &quot;nesting&quot; of two Ablative Absolutes, the inner one being *quo mortuo* and the outer one being something similar to (but, as you'll see immediately, not identical to) *HOC* (i.e., *quo mortuo*) *nuntiato*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Quo mortuo nuntiato***, *sella sublata est*. (Cic. *Fam*. 7, 30, 1).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Loeb translation: ‘His death was announced and the chair was removed’&#xD;&#xA;(‘After his death was announced, the chair was removed’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I understand that constructions like the following ones could be well-formed in Latin: &#xD;&#xA;*Cicerone mortuo nuntiato*, ….  (cf. “Ciceronis morte nuntiata, ….”),&#xD;&#xA;*Terentia mortua nuntiata*,…     (cf. “Terentiae morte nuntiata, ….”),&#xD;&#xA;and, admittedly, perhaps with some reservation (**what do you think?**) even the following example:&#xD;&#xA;*Urbe capta nuntiata*, ….       (cf. “Urbis expugnatione nuntiata,…”). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I do not have a native competence in Latin but a construction like *Urbe capta nuntiat**o*** sounds quite awful to me, although I can acknowledge that, **semantically** speaking, this construction could be said to be “logical” since what was announced is ***not*** a city but the event encoded in the inner Ablative Absolute: *Hoc* (this event: *urbe capta*) *nuntiato*, …). Interestingly, a construction like *Urbem captam (esse) nuntiato* could also be a valid Ablative Absolute at least in Livy (cf. his well-known example: *Cognito vivere Ptolomaeum*). Accordingly, constructions like *Quem mortuum (esse) nuntiato* or *Ciceronem mortuum (esse) nuntiato* could be both valid examples along with *Quo mortuo nuntiato* and *Cicerone mortuo nuntiato*, respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice moreover that the abovementioned examples of complex Ablative Absolutes must not be fully collapsed with the ones typically mentioned in the handbooks of Latin syntax (e.g., *Cicerone consule creato*), where there are two predicates involved as well (*consule* and *creato*, the former depending on the latter; cf. *Ciceronem consulem creare*). Cf. the ill-formed example *Ciceronem consulem creato* with the well-formed one *Ciceronem mortuum nuntiato*, which shows that both constructions cannot be collapsed into a single/identical syntactic type. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another potential example of a nested/double dominant participle construction could be the following one (NB: in this case it is not an Ablative Absolute): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ante **proelium in Thessalia factum cognitum***, ... (Caes. *Bell. Civ.* 3, 100, 4). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example, unlike Cicero’s one above, can be claimed to be syntactically ambiguous since in this case it is **not** required that *factum* be interpreted as a dominant participle, whereby the participle clause *in Thessalia factum* can in fact be understood as an optional relative clause *quod in Thessalia factum est*. Basically, this explains the following contrast between the well-formed dominant participle construction *Ante proelium cognitum* (cf. *Ante proelium in Thessalia factum cognitum*) and the ill-formed/anomalous Ablative Absolute ??*Cicerone nuntiato* (cf. ok *Cicerone mortuo nuntiato*). So I've been unable to verify if a non-ambiguous nested dominant participle construction like *Ab urbe condita nuntiata* would be grammatical in Classical Latin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8804" RevisionGUID="5a84f524-e561-44a5-a2fd-56b2f86b4727" CreationDate="2018-12-31T20:32:16.357" UserId="79" Text="[Augmentative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmentative), the opposite of diminutive, is a derived word that means greater size or extent.&#xD;&#xA;Diminutives are common and productive in Latin, but how about the opposite?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Romance languages have augmentatives similarly to diminutives like the Italian *bambino &gt; bambinone*.&#xD;&#xA;Although such augmentative suffixes are found in Romance languages, I am not aware of them in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Many languages I know use prefixes (e.g. &quot;supermarket&quot;), but that does not feel like classical Latin to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to do augmentative derivations in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;If not, how about later forms of Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Any partial insights are welcome, as I appear to be all out of ideas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27197" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8804" RevisionGUID="5a84f524-e561-44a5-a2fd-56b2f86b4727" CreationDate="2018-12-31T20:32:16.357" UserId="79" Text="What augmentative options are there in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27198" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8804" RevisionGUID="5a84f524-e561-44a5-a2fd-56b2f86b4727" CreationDate="2018-12-31T20:32:16.357" UserId="79" Text="|derivation|suffixes|prefix|diminutive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8791" RevisionGUID="04d8e226-114b-40c0-907a-800f1e899fcc" CreationDate="2018-12-31T21:46:56.667" UserId="3248" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="Although we do not have native competence of Latin, my impression is that alleged Ablative Absolute constructions like &quot;Caesare Romae&quot; or &quot;Caesare in Hispania&quot; are NOT possible. Or at least, after many years reading Latin texts, I've been unable to find them. Again what is not found in the corpora (Latin is a textual language) does not necessarily mean that these constructions are impossible but MY &quot;impression&quot; is that they were not possible.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Interestingly (or I should say &quot;In contrast&quot;), these constructions are for example possible in a Romance language like Spanish provided that a preposition like CON 'with' is added: &quot;Con César en Roma, estas cosas no pasarían&quot; (lit. 'With Caesar in Rome, these things would not happen').  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I think that constructions like &quot;hand in hand&quot; are different and probably should not be regarded as &quot;Ablative Absolute&quot; constructions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8805" RevisionGUID="5cc76e04-b5dd-42df-8d2f-0bd0f68ba10b" CreationDate="2018-12-31T22:02:58.017" UserId="522" Text="Augmentatives seem to me far less clear-cut than the diminutives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.a. Obviously the comparatives and superlatives, *-ior* and *-issimus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.b. *-osus* for example *formicosus* – full of ants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.c. Some of the inceptives seem to carry augmentative meaning:  &#xD;&#xA;*děhisco, -hivi,* (inf *dehisse*) gape, yawn.  &#xD;&#xA;*fortesco* -beome braver  &#xD;&#xA;possibly also *obliviscor* grow more oblivious (Happy New Year)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8806" RevisionGUID="150e81c9-1f1d-4eca-8b67-ff4f105f8c47" CreationDate="2018-12-31T22:49:09.103" UserId="522" Text="If an answer based solely on your own examples would be acceptable, may I suggest the 'well-formed' examples in the second group have indeclinable substantives contributing to the Ablative Absolute.  /*esse*/ may be needed to complete the indeclinable noun being read as Ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example 1 the indeclinable noun clause is *vivere Ptolomaeum* which would be the object (Acc) of *cognoscere.* In the Abl. Absolute *vivere Ptolomaeum* becomes Ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cognito vivere Ptolomaeum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example .2. In indirect speech the indeclinable noun clause is the object:  &#xD;&#xA;*Cognoverunt 'Proelium in Thessalia factum est'* becomes    &#xD;&#xA;*Cognoverunt proelium in Thessalia factum /esse/*  &#xD;&#xA;Then the indirect noun clause becomes the object of the adverbial phrase *Ante cognitum...*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ante [ proelium in Thessalia factum ] cognitum, ...*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading *'quod,'* as you suggest, this clause also would have to be read as an objective noun cause following *cognitum.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27203" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8802" RevisionGUID="0534cbe7-0c7a-4861-83f7-bad18cf3563f" CreationDate="2019-01-01T23:15:06.637" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="Where does &quot;lascīvus&quot; come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8807" RevisionGUID="43903b04-78d2-46dd-b1df-4951a80e5e96" CreationDate="2019-01-01T23:32:10.770" UserId="1459" Text="In [2 Kings 4:4](http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=10&amp;ch=4&amp;l=4-#x) we read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Erat autem Jonathae filio Saul filius debilis pedibus : quinquennis enim fuit, quando venit nuntius de Saul et Jonatha ex Jezrahel. Tollens itaque eum nutrix sua, fugit : cumque festinaret ut fugeret, **cecidit, et claudus effectus est** : habuitque vocabulum Miphiboseth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English translation has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And Jonathan the son of Saul had a son that was lame of his feet: for he was five years old when the tidings came of Saul and Jonathan from Jezrahel. And his nurse took him up and fled: and as she made haste to flee, **he fell and became lame**: and his name was Miphiboseth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I highlighted the part that confuses me. It is unclear to me how we are to know that the individual who &quot;fell and became lame&quot; is the son of Jonathan and not his nurse. Both are third person singular so it could well be that _cecidit, et claudus effectus est_ applies to the nurse. Is this identification purely based on context? Or am I missing a linguistical clue somewhere else in the verse helping out in the identification of the subject to which the verbs apply?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27205" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8807" RevisionGUID="43903b04-78d2-46dd-b1df-4951a80e5e96" CreationDate="2019-01-01T23:32:10.770" UserId="1459" Text="How is the subject of the verb identified in this verse of the Vulgata?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27206" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8807" RevisionGUID="43903b04-78d2-46dd-b1df-4951a80e5e96" CreationDate="2019-01-01T23:32:10.770" UserId="1459" Text="|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8808" RevisionGUID="457b638a-6d1b-4c94-9a81-cde1e5d20886" CreationDate="2019-01-01T23:46:10.960" UserId="40" Text="*Claudus effectus est* is masculine, so it can't be the nurse. And the previous sentence stated that it was the son, not the nurse, who was lame." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8809" RevisionGUID="a712bb80-4e94-41dc-b539-5a3b9e333803" CreationDate="2019-01-02T01:23:34.883" UserId="3248" Text="After reading Luchonachos’ previous post, whose Latin text contains an adjectival resultative predicate (_**claudus** effectus est_ ‘he became lame’), the following question came to my mind: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it the case that in Latin adjectival resultative constructions are (typically/basically) reduced to the ones we can find in Romance languages (e.g., Sp. _Se quedó cojó_ ‘He went lame’; _Dejó la silla vacía_ ‘He left the seat empty’, etc), the ones whose verb crucially lacks a manner component? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g., cf. _Omnes consulares (…) partem istam subselliorum nudam atque inanem reliquerunt_ (Cic. *Cat*. 1, 7). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is to say, why is it the case that Latin (consistently/sistematically?) lacks adjectival resultative constructions like the complex ones typically found in Germanic languages, where the verb has a strong manner component? E.g., cf. _He pushed the door open_; _He hammered the metal flat_; _He drank the teapot empty_; _He danced himself tired_; _The joggers ran the pavement thin_; _He shot the President dead_, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably, something similar happens with prepositional resultative phrases of the following kind: e.g., *Cicero wrote his hands to the bone*.   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8809" RevisionGUID="a712bb80-4e94-41dc-b539-5a3b9e333803" CreationDate="2019-01-02T01:23:34.883" UserId="3248" Text="Why can’t we wipe the slate clean in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8809" RevisionGUID="a712bb80-4e94-41dc-b539-5a3b9e333803" CreationDate="2019-01-02T01:23:34.883" UserId="3248" Text="|classical-latin|syntax|late-latin|predicate|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8808" RevisionGUID="2ef5425d-1b83-40d0-80ee-38cde47560de" CreationDate="2019-01-02T02:39:56.343" UserId="40" Comment="added 287 characters in body" Text="*Claudus effectus est* is masculine, so it can't be the nurse. And the previous sentence stated that it was the son, not the nurse, who was lame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ETA: as Hugh and Cerberus point out, this doesn't apply to *cecidit*, which could refer to either one: &quot;she fell [and dropped the child] and he was made lame&quot;, or &quot;he fell [out of the nurse's arms] and was made lame&quot;. The latter seems more likely to me, but the grammar is ambiguous." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8809" RevisionGUID="f043d63a-e799-4dec-8f41-ac293bb712e9" CreationDate="2019-01-02T12:09:08.347" UserId="79" Comment="Added link and corrected typo." Text="After reading [Luchonachos’ previous post](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/8807/79), whose Latin text contains an adjectival resultative predicate (_**claudus** effectus est_ ‘he became lame’), the following question came to my mind: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it the case that in Latin adjectival resultative constructions are (typically/basically) reduced to the ones we can find in Romance languages (e.g., Sp. _Se quedó cojó_ ‘He went lame’; _Dejó la silla vacía_ ‘He left the seat empty’, etc), the ones whose verb crucially lacks a manner component? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g., cf. _Omnes consulares (…) partem istam subselliorum nudam atque inanem reliquerunt_ (Cic. *Cat*. 1, 7). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is to say, why is it the case that Latin (consistently/systematically?) lacks adjectival resultative constructions like the complex ones typically found in Germanic languages, where the verb has a strong manner component? E.g., cf. _He pushed the door open_; _He hammered the metal flat_; _He drank the teapot empty_; _He danced himself tired_; _The joggers ran the pavement thin_; _He shot the President dead_, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably, something similar happens with prepositional resultative phrases of the following kind: e.g., *Cicero wrote his hands to the bone*.   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7719" RevisionGUID="6f83d5fc-d6eb-4a65-83a9-84bfa1d791f8" CreationDate="2019-01-02T12:12:02.623" UserId="118" Comment="Fixed a typo; URL for 1711 dictionary now goes to correct page; scarabaea punctatus, maculatus." Text="Two obvious candidates are the general words for beetles. One is _scarabaeus_ and the other is _hister_. An example of the former is in [this book](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433076036346;view=1up;seq=85) of poems, from 1841, both in Latin/Greek and with an English translation. In page 60 we read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;#Ladybird&#xD;&#xA;Ladybird, ladybird, fly away home;  &#xD;&#xA;Your house is on fire, your children will burn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, the translation in page 61 says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;#Scarabaea  &#xD;&#xA;Parva rubens, Scarabaea, domum cito confuge pennis;  &#xD;&#xA;Ardet enim domus haec, ardebit parvula proles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, there is [this](https://books.google.com/books?id=-v1YAAAAcAAJ&amp;vq=ladycow&amp;pg=PT189#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) English-Latin dictionary from 1711, which in the entry for &quot;lady cow&quot; (another name for ladybird/bug) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_scarabaeus punctatus, maculatus_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found evidence for the latter to be used elsewhere (one exception could be [here](https://archive.org/details/nomenclatorentom00herr_0/page/n155)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Hister_ as Latin for beetle can be seen [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b000742998;view=1up;seq=823).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of the above is really Classical. A corpus search for _scarabaeus_ is not very fruitful.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8810" RevisionGUID="99b9b6e3-e240-460c-855b-b57a11d97d2d" CreationDate="2019-01-02T13:20:20.153" UserId="79" Text="In many languages the word for date (a specific day, such as January 2, 2019) seems to come from the Latin participle *datus*: we have the English &quot;date&quot;, the Italian &quot;data&quot;, the Swedish &quot;datum&quot;, and others.&#xD;&#xA;Do these words come from a Latin phrase such as *dies datus/data*?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, **when** is it attested?&#xD;&#xA;Latin origin seems evident, but I wonder whether it is classical or a later development." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27215" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8810" RevisionGUID="99b9b6e3-e240-460c-855b-b57a11d97d2d" CreationDate="2019-01-02T13:20:20.153" UserId="79" Text="Is 'datus' used for a date in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27216" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8810" RevisionGUID="99b9b6e3-e240-460c-855b-b57a11d97d2d" CreationDate="2019-01-02T13:20:20.153" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|time|calendarium|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8811" RevisionGUID="9e126502-7ded-430a-b983-b722e38d6a85" CreationDate="2019-01-02T18:33:46.327" UserId="324" Text="For reference, this is what the OED has to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Etymology: &lt; Anglo-Norman dat, Anglo-Norman and Middle French date&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Middle French datte ; French date ) regnal year (1230 or earlier),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; date (specified on a document) (1281 in Old French), date (more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generally) (1314 or earlier) &lt; post-classical Latin data (6th cent.;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; frequently from 11th cent. in British sources), use as noun (see note)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of feminine singular of datus , past participle of dare to give (see&#xD;&#xA;&gt; datum n.). In classical Latin, the date of a letter was expressed by a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phrase such as data xiiii K. Maias de Tarentino ‘(letter) sent from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tarentum on 18th April’ (Cicero Letters to Atticus 3. 6. 1), litteras&#xD;&#xA;&gt; datas a litoribus Britanniae proximis a. d. vi Kal. Octobr. ‘letter&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sent from the nearest shores of Britain on 26th September’ (Cicero&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Letters to Atticus 4. 18 . 5), litterarum datarum dies prid. Kal. Ian.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘the day of a letter sent on 31st December’ (Cicero Letters to Atticus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. 1. 2). Hence data , the first word of the formula, came to be used as a term for the time and place stated therein. Compare Catalan data&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (14th cent.), Spanish †data (mid 13th cent.), Portuguese data (13th&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cent.), Italian data (a1556). Compare also (after similar dating&#xD;&#xA;&gt; formulae in post-classical Latin using the neuter singular datum (13th&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cent.)) Middle Low German dātum , dāte , Middle Dutch, Dutch datum ,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Middle High German dātum (German Datum , in early modern German also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; date )." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8812" RevisionGUID="e65cd2cf-ba43-4712-848a-262054980b1b" CreationDate="2019-01-02T18:44:40.243" UserId="324" Text="As others have remarked, Latin cecidit could in theory refer either to the nurse or the child. But in the original Hebrew the corresponding וַיִּפֹּל is unambiguously masculine (verbs have gender in Semitic languages).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS. The &quot;2 Regum&quot; of the Vulgate is &quot;2 Sam.&quot; in the MT and KJV.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8813" RevisionGUID="6fd1b570-7293-4bd0-8fe1-8c3a2079792e" CreationDate="2019-01-02T22:41:40.140" UserId="645" Text="There seems no reason to doubt that the English 'date' and similar words in other languages derive from the perfect participle of *dare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A very plausible origin is as a a relic of *litterae datae* which was used to indicate the date on which a letter was handed over to a courier. This is also shown in the singular form *[epistola] data* quoted in the extract from the OED provided by @fdb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8814" RevisionGUID="f6ab14d6-0a3c-4855-bdce-9019483bae77" CreationDate="2019-01-03T01:27:18.163" UserId="118" Text="I also lack native competence in Latin, so I offer here an unauthoritative guess, mostly for comment from more-knowledgeable users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quid discrimen?&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking that to native speakers, grammatical constructions often appear straightforwardly logical, that to non-natives seem strange and in need of explanation. For example, I'm guessing that to the Roman mind, _ut_ appears to have only one meaning, consistent in all usage, whereas native English speakers often try to categorize different senses of _ut_ and prescribe separate rules for each.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I propose that (a) the ablative absolute appears to a native speaker as nothing more than a noun modified by an adjective, in the ablative case to indicate the noun's relation to the rest of the sentence, and (b) if you asked your question of a native speaker, the reply would likely be &quot;Quid discrimen?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not to dismiss your question, of course. I've been sitting here googling and trying to work it out because it's so interesting! The idea I've arrived at is that English grammar &quot;cares&quot; whether we are asserting _that_ an event happened to something named by a noun or merely modifying the noun with a participle, because we need that to make grammatical sense of the sentence—while Latin simply links adjectives to nouns and doesn't even perceive the difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, a native would perceive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar, urbe capta, discessit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as meaning &quot;Caesar, acting from the situation of a&lt;sup&gt;†&lt;/sup&gt; captured city, left.&quot; And the native would say, &quot;Casus ablativus hoc semper significat. Semper est idem! 'Caesar anno 2019º discessit', 'Caesar Cicerone consule discessit', 'Caesar vento secundo discessit', 'Caesar lectica decrepita discessit', etc.—in unusquoque elogio casus ablativus sibi idem vult.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The native English speaker, raised from birth to carefully distinguish ablatives of means, ablatives of comparison, ablatives of manner, locative ablatives, circumstantial ablatives, etc. would protest, &quot;But what about all those?&quot; And the native would exasperatedly try to explain that there is no limit to the ways that a subject can act 'from' something. Hence categorizing them is pointless. You just use common sense, maybe clarified with a preposition and/or word order, to infer the exact meaning in each sentence, one at a time. &quot;Ablativeness&quot;, as he sees it, is always the same. There's only one concept there. It just blends with the meanings of the specific words and whatever other grammar is in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so, on this hypothesis, this sentence is fine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar, urbe capta nuntiata, discessit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was an announced captured city, you know? The ablative absolute is anchored to the noun. It names a situation where that noun's referent exists and is somehow relevant. The past participles tell stuff that happened to it. The word order is significant, later words adding information to what's been said so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, **ab urbe condita** would on this hypothesis be understood as &quot;From the (situation of) the founded city&quot;. &quot;Since the city was founded&quot; is just reframing it in the English way. Notice **anno urbae conditis**, which works the same way, literally &quot;in the year of the founded city.&quot; The native English speaker might ask, &quot;But isn't that ambiguous? Couldn't _ab_ mean spatial distance rather than time? Or having been purchased from a founded city, regardless of when it was founded?&quot; And the native Latin speaker might say, &quot;Fortasse. Nescio. Quid vocem 'condita' cum voce 'urbe' dicis si tempus non interest? Num invenisti urbem non conditam?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We actually do have something like this in English. Consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prices fallen, we walked to the sedan store.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Announced prices fallen, we walked to the sedan store.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fallen prices announced, we walked to the sedan store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you ask a native speaker if the second or third sentence means that we walked to the store in a situation where announced fallen prices existed or _after_ an announcement _that_ prices had fallen, the reply is likely to be, &quot;What's the difference?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tenuiter ab auctoritate&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Some googling turned up &quot;[The Ablative Absolute in the Epistles of Cicero, Seneca, Pliny and Fronto](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/288487.pdf)&quot; by R.B. Steele, _The American Journal of Philology,_&#xD;&#xA; Vol. 25, No. 3 (1904), p. 323, which gives a bunch of examples where there are two contrasting ablatives, followed by one of your examples, with a comment that's interesting for how little it says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …et vidi non tantum mense Februario positas, sed etiam Marte exacto. In these the modifying ablatives are parallel, while there is a modifying ablative element ad Fam. 7, 30, 1 **quo mortuo sublato** sella sublata est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm reading this as &quot;In that example, there's one more modifier.&quot; Hence that's all there is to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm proposing here could be completely wrong, of course. It will take someone with an ear better trained on Latin than mine to say. But I think that's the real authority here: the trained ear that's learned to perceive words pointing things out in the Latin way, not precise rules that attempt to substitute for such perception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;*This doesn't apply to _cum,_ of course. I think native speakers perceived two distinct senses, one a preposition and the other a conjunction.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;†In English you'd have to say &quot;the&quot; here, which would spoil the grammar. This is another case where one language demands a _discrimen_ which other can't perceive. English requires that you indicate, for every ordinary noun, whether it's _a, the,_ or no article. Latin draws no distinction, and Romans would probably wonder why the choice of _a_ or _the_ would cause confusion in this sentence. As Russians have suggested to me, &quot;Why not just skip it when it's not relevant?&quot;&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8814" RevisionGUID="7b76605a-5424-45ec-bb38-94133994616e" CreationDate="2019-01-03T01:36:38.250" UserId="118" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I also lack native competence in Latin, so I offer here an unauthoritative guess, mostly for comment from more-knowledgeable users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quid discrimen?&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking that to native speakers, grammatical constructions often appear straightforwardly logical, that to non-natives seem strange and in need of explanation. For example, I'm guessing that to the Roman mind, _ut_ appears to have only one meaning, consistent in all usage, whereas native English speakers often try to categorize different senses of _ut_ and prescribe separate rules for each.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I propose that (a) the ablative absolute appears to a native speaker as nothing more than a noun modified by an adjective, in the ablative case to indicate the noun's relation to the rest of the sentence, and (b) if you asked your question of a native speaker, the reply would likely be &quot;Quid discrimen?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not to dismiss your question, of course. I've been sitting here googling and trying to work it out because it's so interesting! The idea I've arrived at is that English grammar &quot;cares&quot; whether we are asserting _that_ an event happened to something named by a noun or merely modifying the noun with a participle, because we need that to make grammatical sense of the sentence—while Latin simply links adjectives to nouns and doesn't even perceive the difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, a native would perceive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar, urbe capta, discessit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as meaning &quot;Caesar, acting from the situation of a&lt;sup&gt;†&lt;/sup&gt; captured city, left.&quot; And the native would say, &quot;Casus ablativus hoc semper significat. Semper est idem! 'Caesar anno 2019º discessit', 'Caesar Cicerone consule discessit', 'Caesar vento secundo discessit', 'Caesar lectica decrepita discessit', etc.—in unusquoque elogio casus ablativus sibi idem vult.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The native English speaker, raised from birth to carefully distinguish ablatives of means, ablatives of comparison, ablatives of manner, locative ablatives, circumstantial ablatives, etc. would protest, &quot;But what about all those?&quot; And the native would exasperatedly try to explain that there is no limit to the ways that a subject can act 'from' something. Hence categorizing them is pointless. You just use common sense, maybe clarified with a preposition and/or word order, to infer the exact meaning in each sentence, one at a time. &quot;Ablativeness&quot;, as he sees it, is always the same. There's only one concept there. It just blends with the meanings of the specific words and whatever other grammar is in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so, on this hypothesis, this sentence is fine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar, urbe capta nuntiata, discessit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was an announced captured city, you know? The ablative absolute is anchored to the noun. It names a situation where that noun's referent exists and is somehow relevant. The past participles tell stuff that happened to it. The word order is significant, later words adding information to what's been said so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, **ab urbe condita** would on this hypothesis be understood as &quot;From the (situation of) the founded city&quot;. &quot;Since the city was founded&quot; is just reframing it in the English way. Notice **anno urbae conditis**, which works the same way, literally &quot;in the year of the founded city.&quot; The native English speaker might ask, &quot;But isn't that ambiguous? Couldn't _ab_ mean spatial distance rather than time? Or having been purchased from a founded city, regardless of when it was founded?&quot; And the native Latin speaker might say, &quot;Fortasse. Nescio. Quid vocem 'condita' cum voce 'urbe' dicis si tempus non interest? Num invenisti urbem non conditam?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We actually do have something like this in English. Consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prices fallen, we walked to the sedan store.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Announced prices fallen, we walked to the sedan store.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fallen prices announced, we walked to the sedan store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you ask a native speaker if the second or third sentence means that we walked to the store in a situation where announced fallen prices existed or _after_ an announcement _that_ prices had fallen, the reply is likely to be, &quot;What's the difference?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tenuiter ab auctoritate&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Some googling turned up &quot;[The Ablative Absolute in the Epistles of Cicero, Seneca, Pliny and Fronto](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/288487.pdf)&quot; by R.B. Steele, _The American Journal of Philology,_&#xD;&#xA; Vol. 25, No. 3 (1904), p. 323, which gives a bunch of examples where there are two contrasting ablatives, followed by one of your examples, with a comment that's interesting for how little it says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …et vidi non tantum mense Februario positas, sed etiam Marte exacto. In these the modifying ablatives are parallel, while there is a modifying ablative element ad Fam. 7, 30, 1 **quo mortuo nuntiato** sella sublata est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm reading this as &quot;In that example, there's one more modifier.&quot; Hence that's all there is to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm proposing here could be completely wrong, of course. It will take someone with an ear better trained on Latin than mine to say. But I think that's the real authority here: the trained ear that's learned to perceive words pointing things out in the Latin way, not precise rules that attempt to substitute for such perception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;*This doesn't apply to _cum,_ of course. I think native speakers perceived two distinct senses, one a preposition and the other a conjunction.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;†In English you'd have to say &quot;the&quot; here, which would spoil the grammar. This is another case where one language demands a _discrimen_ which other can't perceive. English requires that you indicate, for every ordinary noun, whether it's _a, the,_ or no article. Latin draws no distinction, and Romans would probably wonder why the choice of _a_ or _the_ would cause confusion in this sentence. As Russians have suggested to me, &quot;Why not just skip it when it's not relevant?&quot;&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="a6a5c4be-6894-4516-9d09-04005abfd9e0" CreationDate="2019-01-03T03:37:53.637" UserId="3248" Text="It is often said that _clausa est_ can have **two** readings  depending on the categorial nature of the participle: verbal (cf. _clauditur/clausa est_) or adjectival (cf. _clausa est/clausa fuit_), which in turn corresponds to a semantic difference between process and result/state, respectively. For example, in Spanish this distinction is also made clear by using different auxiliaries, _ser_ vs. _estar_: cf. Sp. _La puerta fue cerrada_ (sc. by someone) /_La puerta estuvo cerrada_ (*/??by someone). A typical (although recently argued to be a bit problematic) test to distinguish verbal passives from adjectival ones is that the former can be used with an agentive *by*-phrase, while the latter can’t. As far as I know, this test has also been assumed to hold for Latin.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the previous (typical?) approach, I think that the learner of Latin cannot often know if there is a third reading available for _porta clausa est_ or _porta fracta est_, the one corresponding to the so-called “anticausative” variant, e.g., 'The door broke' (cf. the ill-formed example _*The door broke by John_  with the well-formed-one _The door was broken by John_).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, _porta fracta est_ can be said to have the following **three** (rather than the typical two) readings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: verbal passive:  _the door was broken/has been broken_ (_by someone_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: adjectival passive: _the door is broken_ (_*by someone_; *on this adjectival reading!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: anticausative: _the door broke_ (_*by someone_). &#xD;&#xA;(NB: the use of * means ungrammatical). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the next example, which can be taken as (good? What do you think?) evidence of the anticausative reading (which is, as noted above, different from the processive verbal passive reading (_to be broken by someone_) and from the resultative/stative adjectival one (_to be broken *by someone_). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Postquam omnis res mea Ianum ad medium **fracta est**, aliena negotia curo, excussus propriis. (Hor. *Sat.* II 3.18-20)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;‘After all my business collapsed at the central arcade of Janus…’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now here is my question: Which is the nature of the participle in the third/anticausative reading? Cf. the verbal-adjectival distinction made above. I would say that in this case the participle has a verbal nature (like in the first reading above) but perhaps I’m too influenced by the verbal nature of the following anticausatives in Sp. _La puerta se abrió_ or Engl _The door broke_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: here I’m mainly interested in the ambiguity of _fracta/clausa est_ rather than in the one involved in non-periphrastic forms like  _frangitur/clauditur_, which can also have different interpretations. Moreover, in these non-periphrastic forms other distinctions are relevant (e.g., cf. frangitur/se frangit, the pronominal form becoming even much more frequent in Late Latin).    &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27223" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="a6a5c4be-6894-4516-9d09-04005abfd9e0" CreationDate="2019-01-03T03:37:53.637" UserId="3248" Text="On the (typical?) ambiguity of &quot;Porta clausa est&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27224" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="a6a5c4be-6894-4516-9d09-04005abfd9e0" CreationDate="2019-01-03T03:37:53.637" UserId="3248" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|syntax|compound-verb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="cfa9b60e-22d5-47b5-9464-a25b086a8019" CreationDate="2019-01-03T05:03:14.957" UserId="3248" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="It is often said that _clausa est_ can have **two** readings  depending on the categorial nature of the participle: verbal (cf. _clauditur/clausa est_) or adjectival (cf. _clausa est/clausa fuit_), which in turn corresponds to a semantic difference between process and result/state, respectively. For example, in Spanish this distinction is also made clear by using different auxiliaries, _ser_ vs. _estar_: cf. Sp. _La puerta fue cerrada_ (sc. by someone) /_La puerta estuvo cerrada_ (*/??by someone). A typical (although recently argued to be a bit problematic) test to distinguish verbal passives from adjectival ones is that the former can be used with an agentive *by*-phrase, while the latter can’t. As far as I know, this test has also been assumed to hold for Latin: cf. verbal passive (_porta {clauditur/clausa est} a Gaio_) with adjectival passive (cf. _porta clausa {est/fuit} */??a Gaio_).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the previous (typical?) approach, I think that the learner of Latin cannot often know if there is still a third reading available for _porta clausa est_ or _porta fracta est_, e.g., the one corresponding to the so-called “anticausative” variant, e.g., 'The door broke' (cf. the ill-formed anticausative example _*The door broke by John_  with the well-formed verbal passive one _The door was broken by John_).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, _porta fracta est_ can be said to have the following **three** (rather than only the typical two) readings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: verbal passive:  _the door was broken/has been broken_ (_by someone_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: adjectival passive: _the door is broken_ (_*by someone_; *on this adjectival reading!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: anticausative: _the door broke_ (_*by someone_). &#xD;&#xA;(NB: the use of * means ungrammatical). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the next example, which can be taken as (good? What do you think?) evidence of the anticausative reading (which is, as noted above, different from the processive verbal passive reading (_to be broken by someone_) and from the resultative/stative adjectival one (_to be broken *by someone_)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Postquam omnis res mea Ianum ad medium **fracta est**, aliena negotia curo, excussus propriis. (Hor. *Sat.* II 3.18-20)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;‘After all my business collapsed at the central arcade of Janus…’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now here is my question: Which is the nature of the participle in the anticausative reading? Cf. the verbal-adjectival distinction made above. I would say that in this case the participle has a verbal nature (like in the first verbal passive reading above) but perhaps I’m also driven by the verbal nature of the following anticausatives in Sp. _La puerta se rompió_ or Engl _The door broke_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: here I’m mainly interested in the ambiguity of _fracta/clausa est_ rather than in the one involved in non-periphrastic forms like  _frangitur/clauditur_, which can also have different interpretations. In these non-periphrastic forms other distinctions are also relevant (e.g., cf. frangitur/se frangit, the pronominal form becoming even much more frequent in Late Latin).    &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="df9ad0ae-86c6-4ce5-9745-c048352454db" CreationDate="2019-01-03T05:17:30.963" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="It is often said that _clausa est_ can have **two** readings  depending on the categorial nature of the participle: verbal (cf. _clauditur/clausa est_) or adjectival (cf. _clausa est/clausa fuit_), which in turn corresponds to a semantic difference between process and result/state, respectively. For example, in Spanish this distinction is also made clear by using different auxiliaries, _ser_ vs. _estar_: cf. Sp. _La puerta fue cerrada_ (sc. by someone) /_La puerta estuvo cerrada_ (*/??by someone). A typical (although recently argued to be a bit problematic) test to distinguish verbal passives from adjectival ones is that the former can be used with an agentive *by*-phrase, while the latter can’t. As far as I know, this test has also been assumed to hold for Latin: cf. verbal passive (_porta {clauditur/clausa est} a Gaio_) with adjectival passive (cf. _porta clausa {est/fuit} */??a Gaio_).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the previous (typical?) approach, I think that the learner of Latin cannot often know if there is still a third reading available for _porta clausa est_ or _porta fracta est_, the one corresponding to the so-called “anticausative” variant, e.g., 'The door broke' (e.g., cf. the so-called &quot;causative alternation&quot; in English: _{John/The strong winds} broke the door_ (causative variant) vs. _The door broke_ (anticausative variant)).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, _porta fracta est_ can be said to have the following **three** (rather than only the typical two) readings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: verbal passive:  _the door was broken/has been broken_ (_by someone_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: adjectival passive: _the door is broken_ (_*by someone_; *on this adjectival reading!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: anticausative: _the door broke_ (_*by someone_). &#xD;&#xA;(NB: the use of * means ungrammatical). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following example, which can be taken as (good? What do you think?) evidence of the anticausative reading (which is, as noted above, different from the processive verbal passive reading (_to be broken by someone_) and from the resultative/stative adjectival one (_to be broken *by someone_)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Postquam omnis res mea Ianum ad medium **fracta est**, aliena negotia curo, excussus propriis. (Hor. *Sat.* II 3.18-20)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;‘After all my business collapsed at the central arcade of Janus…’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now here is my question: Which is the nature of the participle in the anticausative reading? Cf. the verbal-adjectival distinction made above. I would say that in this case the participle has a verbal nature (like in the first verbal passive reading above) but perhaps I’m also driven/misguided by the verbal nature of anticausatives like Sp. _La puerta se rompió_ or Engl. _The door broke_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: here I’m mainly interested in the ambiguity of _fracta/clausa est_ rather than in the one involved in non-periphrastic forms like  _frangitur/clauditur_, which can also have different interpretations. In these non-periphrastic forms other distinctions are also relevant (e.g., cf. frangitur/se frangit, the pronominal form becoming even much more frequent in Late Latin).   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="b7bba16f-7c6c-490e-8b8d-519b4b32401a" CreationDate="2019-01-03T05:38:23.330" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="It is often said that _Porta clausa est_ can have **two** readings  depending on the categorial nature of the participle: verbal (cf. _clauditur/clausa est_) or adjectival (cf. _clausa est/clausa fuit_), which in turn corresponds to a semantic difference between process and result/state, respectively. For example, in Spanish this distinction is also made clear by using different auxiliaries, _ser_ vs. _estar_: cf. Sp. _La puerta fue cerrada_ (sc. by someone) /_La puerta estuvo cerrada_ (*/??by someone). A typical (although recently argued to be a bit problematic) test to distinguish verbal passives from adjectival ones is that the former can be used with an agentive *by*-phrase, while the latter can’t. As far as I know, this test has also been assumed to hold for Latin: cf. verbal passive (_porta {clauditur/clausa est} a Gaio_) with adjectival passive (cf. _porta clausa {est/fuit} */??a Gaio_).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the previous (typical?) approach, I think that the learner of Latin cannot often know if there is still a third reading available for _porta clausa est_ or _porta fracta est_, the one corresponding to the so-called “anticausative” variant, e.g., 'The door broke' (e.g., cf. the so-called &quot;causative alternation&quot; in English: _{John/The strong winds} broke the door_ (causative variant) vs. _The door broke_ (anticausative variant)).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, _porta fracta est_ can be said to have the following **three** (rather than only the typical two) readings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: verbal passive:  _the door was broken/has been broken_ (_by someone_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: adjectival passive: _the door is broken_ (_*by someone_; *on this adjectival reading!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: anticausative: _the door broke_ (_*by someone_). &#xD;&#xA;(NB: the use of * means ungrammatical). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following example, which can be taken as (good? What do you think?) evidence of the anticausative reading (which is, as noted above, different from the processive verbal passive reading (_to be broken by someone_) and from the resultative/stative adjectival one (_to be broken *by someone_)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Postquam omnis res mea Ianum ad medium **fracta est**, aliena negotia curo, excussus propriis. (Hor. *Sat.* II 3.18-20)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;‘After all my business collapsed at the central arcade of Janus…’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now here is my question: Which is the nature of the participle in the anticausative reading of _fracta est_? Cf. the verbal-adjectival distinction drawn above. I would say that in this case the participle has a verbal nature (like in the first verbal passive reading above) but perhaps I’m wrong. More examples of (clearer) anticausative readings of periphrastic forms would be greatly appreciated.    &#xD;&#xA;NB: here I’m mainly interested in the ambiguity of _fracta/clausa est_ rather than in the one involved in non-periphrastic forms like  _frangitur/clauditur_, which can also have different interpretations. In these non-periphrastic forms other distinctions are also relevant (e.g., cf. frangitur/se frangit, the pronominal form becoming even much more frequent in Late Latin).   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="ed74d035-62be-4bfe-8439-9b6a8f732205" CreationDate="2019-01-03T06:16:24.157" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="It is often said that _Porta clausa est_ can have **two** readings  depending on the categorial nature of the participle: verbal (cf. _clauditur/clausa est_) or adjectival (cf. _clausa est/clausa fuit_), which in turn corresponds to a semantic difference between process and result/state, respectively. For example, in Spanish this distinction is also made clear by using different auxiliaries, _ser_ vs. _estar_: cf. Sp. _La puerta fue cerrada_ (sc. by someone) /_La puerta estuvo cerrada_ (*/??by someone). A typical (although recently argued to be a bit problematic) test to distinguish verbal passives from adjectival ones is that the former can be used with an agentive *by*-phrase, while the latter can’t. As far as I know, this test has also been assumed to hold for Latin: cf. verbal passive (_porta {clauditur/clausa est} a Gaio_) with adjectival passive (cf. _porta clausa {est/fuit} */??a Gaio_).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the previous (typical?) approach, I think that the learner of Latin cannot often know if there is still a third reading available for _porta clausa est_ or _porta fracta est_, the one corresponding to the so-called “anticausative” variant, e.g., 'The door broke' (e.g., cf. the so-called &quot;causative alternation&quot; in English: _{John/The strong winds} broke the door_ (causative variant) vs. _The door broke_ (anticausative variant)).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, _porta fracta est_ can be said to have the following **three** (rather than only the typical two) readings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: verbal passive:  _the door was broken/has been broken_ (_by someone_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: adjectival passive: _the door is broken_ (_*by someone_; *on this adjectival reading!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: anticausative: _the door broke_ (_*by someone_). &#xD;&#xA;(NB: the use of * means ungrammatical). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following example, which can be taken as (good? What do you think?) evidence of the anticausative reading (which is, as noted above, different from the processive verbal passive reading (_to be broken by someone_) and from the resultative/stative adjectival one (_to be broken *by someone_)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Postquam omnis res mea Ianum ad medium **fracta est**, aliena negotia curo, excussus propriis. (Hor. *Sat.* II 3.18-20)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;‘After all my business collapsed at the central arcade of Janus…’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now here is my question: Which is the nature of the participle in the anticausative reading of _fracta est_? Cf. the verbal-adjectival distinction drawn above. I would say that in this case the participle has a verbal nature (like in the first verbal passive reading above) but perhaps I’m wrong. More examples of (clearer) anticausative readings of periphrastic forms would be greatly appreciated.    &#xD;&#xA;NB: here I’m mainly interested in the ambiguity of _fracta/clausa est_ rather than in the one also involved in non-periphrastic forms like  _frangitur/clauditur_, which can also have different interpretations. When dealing with non-periphrastic forms, further distinctions become relevant (e.g., cf. _frangitur/se frangit_, the pronominal form becoming even much more frequent in Late Latin).   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="2d549420-eb86-4854-8aa4-ed0cb89cc8df" CreationDate="2019-01-03T06:28:22.077" UserId="3248" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="It is often said that _Porta clausa est_ can have **two** readings  depending on the categorial nature of the participle: verbal (cf. _clauditur/clausa est_) or adjectival (cf. _clausa est/clausa fuit_), which in turn corresponds to a semantic difference between process and result/state, respectively. For example, in Spanish this distinction is also made clear by using different auxiliaries, _ser_ vs. _estar_: cf. Sp. _La puerta fue cerrada_ (sc. by someone) /_La puerta estuvo cerrada_ (*/??by someone). A typical (although recently argued to be a bit problematic) test to distinguish verbal passives from adjectival ones is that the former can be used with an agentive *by*-phrase, while the latter can’t. As far as I know, this test has also been assumed to hold for Latin: cf. verbal passive (_porta {clauditur/clausa est} a Gaio_) with adjectival passive (cf. _porta clausa {est/fuit} */??a Gaio_).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the previous (typical?) approach, I think that the learner of Latin cannot often know if there is still a third reading available for _porta clausa est_ or _porta fracta est_, the one corresponding to the so-called “anticausative” variant, e.g., 'The door broke' (e.g., cf. the so-called &quot;causative alternation&quot; in English: _{John/The strong winds} broke the door_ (causative variant) vs. _The door broke_ (anticausative variant)).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, _porta fracta est_ can be said to have the following **three** (rather than only the typical two) readings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: verbal passive:  _the door was broken/has been broken_ (_by someone_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: adjectival passive: _the door is broken_ (_*by someone_; *on this adjectival reading!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: anticausative: _the door broke_ (_*by someone_). &#xD;&#xA;(NB: the use of * means ungrammatical). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following example, which can be taken as (good? What do you think?) evidence of the anticausative reading (which is, as noted above, different from the processive verbal passive reading (_to be broken by someone_) and from the resultative/stative adjectival one (_to be broken *by someone_)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Postquam omnis res mea Ianum ad medium **fracta est**, aliena negotia curo, excussus propriis. (Hor. *Sat.* II 3.18-20)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;‘After all my business collapsed at the central arcade of Janus…’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now here is my question: Which is the nature of the participle in the anticausative reading of _fracta est_? Cf. the verbal-adjectival distinction drawn above. I would say that in this case the participle has a verbal nature (like in the first verbal passive reading above) but perhaps I’m wrong. More examples of (clearer) anticausative readings of periphrastic forms would also be greatly appreciated.    &#xD;&#xA;NB: here I’m mainly interested in the ambiguity of _fracta/clausa est_ rather than in the one also involved in non-periphrastic forms like  _frangitur/clauditur_, which can also have different interpretations. When dealing with non-periphrastic forms, further distinctions become relevant (e.g., cf. _frangitur/se frangit_, the pronominal form becoming even much more frequent in Late Latin).   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8816" RevisionGUID="a0adcbc4-5662-4205-a35c-4022300eb962" CreationDate="2019-01-03T10:20:03.377" UserId="79" Text="You have already explained the difference between verbal and adjectival.&#xD;&#xA;Another useful distinction is between **passive and medial**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The medium is a voice between passive and active where something does something upon itself.&#xD;&#xA;Latin has no separate medium forms, but the Latin passive can have medial meaning.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *fractum est* = &quot;it broke itself&quot; = &quot;it broke&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that what you call anticausative is very close to the medium voice.&#xD;&#xA;In Latin medium can be seen as a semantically slightly different reading of passives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with passive, the participle in medial reading can be either verbal or adjectival.&#xD;&#xA;I would split your third point in two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Verbal medium: &quot;the door broke&quot;&#xD;&#xA;4. Adjectival medium: &quot;the door is broken&quot; (in itself, not by anyone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I have to remind that the two distinctions (verbal&amp;ndash;adjectival and passive&amp;ndash;medium) are not always clear at all.&#xD;&#xA;While these distinctions are useful, do not try to forcibly classify every occurrence in a clear category." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8816" RevisionGUID="bd4c69ae-362e-4270-8e24-17911ebb75c5" CreationDate="2019-01-03T12:53:30.040" UserId="79" Comment="added 628 characters in body" Text="You have already explained the difference between verbal and adjectival.&#xD;&#xA;Another useful distinction is between **passive and middle**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The middle is a voice between passive and active where something does something upon itself.&#xD;&#xA;Latin has no separate middle forms, but the Latin passive can have middle meaning.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *fractum est* = &quot;it broke itself&quot; = &quot;it broke&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that what you call anticausative is very close to the middle voice.&#xD;&#xA;In Latin middle can be seen as a semantically slightly different reading of passives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with passive, the participle in middle reading can be either verbal or adjectival.&#xD;&#xA;I would split your third point in two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Verbal middle: &quot;the door broke&quot;&#xD;&#xA;4. Adjectival middle: &quot;the door is broken&quot; (in itself, not by anyone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I have to remind that the two distinctions (verbal&amp;ndash;adjectival and passive&amp;ndash;middle) are not always clear at all.&#xD;&#xA;While these distinctions are useful, do not try to forcibly classify every occurrence in a clear category.&#xD;&#xA;The middle voice as a separate entity is found in Greek, but not really in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Doing something upon oneself is often best achieved with *se/sibi*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And more importantly, the passive voice in Latin does not imply that the there is an agent.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps a &quot;fully agentless passive&quot; is another way to phrase what you call anticausative and I call middle here.&#xD;&#xA;As Tom Cotton reminds in a comment, it is all too easy to be drawn into a detailed analysis that has no bearing on actual usage.&#xD;&#xA;Different points of view are useful in analyzing various uses of the Latin passive, but only as rough guides, not as strict categories." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8817" RevisionGUID="505d08e2-7191-46ce-b1ed-de1b17582acf" CreationDate="2019-01-03T13:09:48.463" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27233" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8817" RevisionGUID="505d08e2-7191-46ce-b1ed-de1b17582acf" CreationDate="2019-01-03T13:09:48.463" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8818" RevisionGUID="0d8947b1-b3db-4d08-a9c6-dcea3e245fd9" CreationDate="2019-01-03T13:09:48.463" UserId="79" Text="For questions concerning verbs starting with a prefix, such as 'in-venire'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27235" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8818" RevisionGUID="0d8947b1-b3db-4d08-a9c6-dcea3e245fd9" CreationDate="2019-01-03T13:09:48.463" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="920242d2-5770-4862-bf2a-5a31df8f63a6" CreationDate="2019-01-03T13:09:55.113" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="It is often said that _Porta clausa est_ can have **two** readings  depending on the categorical nature of the participle: verbal (cf. _clauditur/clausa est_) or adjectival (cf. _clausa est/clausa fuit_), which in turn corresponds to a semantic difference between process and result/state, respectively. For example, in Spanish this distinction is also made clear by using different auxiliaries, _ser_ vs. _estar_: cf. Sp. _La puerta fue cerrada_ (sc. by someone) /_La puerta estuvo cerrada_ (*/??by someone). A typical (although recently argued to be a bit problematic) test to distinguish verbal passives from adjectival ones is that the former can be used with an agentive *by*-phrase, while the latter can’t. As far as I know, this test has also been assumed to hold for Latin: cf. verbal passive (_porta {clauditur/clausa est} a Gaio_) with adjectival passive (cf. _porta clausa {est/fuit} */??a Gaio_).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the previous (typical?) approach, I think that the learner of Latin cannot often know if there is still a third reading available for _porta clausa est_ or _porta fracta est_, the one corresponding to the so-called “anticausative” variant, e.g., 'The door broke' (e.g., cf. the so-called &quot;causative alternation&quot; in English: _{John/The strong winds} broke the door_ (causative variant) vs. _The door broke_ (anticausative variant)).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, _porta fracta est_ can be said to have the following **three** (rather than only the typical two) readings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: verbal passive:  _the door was broken/has been broken_ (_by someone_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: adjectival passive: _the door is broken_ (_*by someone_; *on this adjectival reading!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: anticausative: _the door broke_ (_*by someone_). &#xD;&#xA;(NB: the use of * means ungrammatical). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following example, which can be taken as (good? What do you think?) evidence of the anticausative reading (which is, as noted above, different from the processive verbal passive reading (_to be broken by someone_) and from the resultative/stative adjectival one (_to be broken *by someone_)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Postquam omnis res mea Ianum ad medium **fracta est**, aliena negotia curo, excussus propriis. (Hor. *Sat.* II 3.18-20)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;‘After all my business collapsed at the central arcade of Janus…’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now here is my question: Which is the nature of the participle in the anticausative reading of _fracta est_? Cf. the verbal-adjectival distinction drawn above. I would say that in this case the participle has a verbal nature (like in the first verbal passive reading above) but perhaps I’m wrong. More examples of (clearer) anticausative readings of periphrastic forms would also be greatly appreciated.    &#xD;&#xA;NB: here I’m mainly interested in the ambiguity of _fracta/clausa est_ rather than in the one also involved in non-periphrastic forms like  _frangitur/clauditur_, which can also have different interpretations. When dealing with non-periphrastic forms, further distinctions become relevant (e.g., cf. _frangitur/se frangit_, the pronominal form becoming even much more frequent in Late Latin).   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27237" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="920242d2-5770-4862-bf2a-5a31df8f63a6" CreationDate="2019-01-03T13:09:55.113" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-choice|syntax|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="4a464640-07c7-4d47-8bd8-9f3a288b1e97" CreationDate="2019-01-03T18:32:16.073" UserId="3248" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="It is often said that _Porta clausa est_ can have **two** readings  depending on the categorial nature of the participle: verbal (cf. _clauditur/clausa est_) or adjectival (cf. _clausa est/clausa fuit_), which in turn corresponds to a semantic difference between process and result/state, respectively. For example, in Spanish this distinction is also made clear by using different auxiliaries, _ser_ vs. _estar_: cf. Sp. _La puerta fue cerrada_ (sc. by someone) /_La puerta estuvo cerrada_ (*/??by someone). A typical (although recently argued to be a bit problematic) test to distinguish verbal passives from adjectival ones is that the former can be used with an agentive *by*-phrase, while the latter can’t. As far as I know, this test has also been assumed to hold for Latin: cf. verbal passive (_porta {clauditur/clausa est} a Gaio_) with adjectival passive (cf. _porta clausa {est/fuit} */??a Gaio_).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the previous (typical?) approach, I think that the learner of Latin cannot often know if there is still a third reading available for _porta clausa est_ or _porta fracta est_, the one corresponding to the so-called “anticausative” variant, e.g., 'The door broke' (e.g., cf. the so-called &quot;causative alternation&quot; in English: _{John/The strong winds} broke the door_ (causative variant) vs. _The door broke_ (anticausative variant)).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, _porta fracta est_ can be said to have the following **three** (rather than only the typical two) readings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: verbal passive:  _the door was broken/has been broken_ (_by someone_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: adjectival passive: _the door is broken_ (_*by someone_; *on this adjectival reading!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: anticausative: _the door broke_ (_*by someone_). &#xD;&#xA;(NB: the use of * means ungrammatical). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following example, which can be taken as (good? What do you think?) evidence of the anticausative reading (which is, as noted above, different from the processive verbal passive reading (_to be broken by someone_) and from the resultative/stative adjectival one (_to be broken *by someone_)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Postquam omnis res mea Ianum ad medium **fracta est**, aliena negotia curo, excussus propriis. (Hor. *Sat.* II 3.18-20)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;‘After all my business collapsed at the central arcade of Janus…’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now here is my question: Which is the nature of the participle in the anticausative reading of _fracta est_? Cf. the verbal-adjectival distinction drawn above. I would say that in this case the participle has a verbal nature (like in the first verbal passive reading above) but perhaps I’m wrong. More examples of (clearer) anticausative readings of periphrastic forms would also be greatly appreciated.    &#xD;&#xA;NB: here I’m mainly interested in the ambiguity of _fracta/clausa est_ rather than in the one also involved in non-periphrastic forms like  _frangitur/clauditur_, which can also have different interpretations. When dealing with non-periphrastic forms, further distinctions become relevant (e.g., cf. _frangitur/se frangit_, the pronominal form becoming even much more frequent in Late Latin).   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8819" RevisionGUID="4b7ce765-ebbb-4df0-8a30-01e87e597432" CreationDate="2019-01-03T19:36:33.740" UserId="3258" Text="What would be the Latin/English term for somebody who loves silence? Featuring phil(e) as pre- or suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like ... silenciophile? That maybe makes &quot;some sense&quot; - but I've no idea if it is correct or if there would be a canonical neologism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27240" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8819" RevisionGUID="4b7ce765-ebbb-4df0-8a30-01e87e597432" CreationDate="2019-01-03T19:36:33.740" UserId="3258" Text="Word construction like &quot;philantropist&quot; but regarding silence instead of humankind?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27241" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8819" RevisionGUID="4b7ce765-ebbb-4df0-8a30-01e87e597432" CreationDate="2019-01-03T19:36:33.740" UserId="3258" Text="|english|neologism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8820" RevisionGUID="ca20262e-7d8f-4b16-8bdc-129421f42f35" CreationDate="2019-01-03T19:40:53.330" UserId="469" Text="The most authoritative source I've found so far is the [English rubrics][1] for the [Liber usualis][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Rules for interpretation &gt; IX. The reading and pronunciation of liturgical Latin &gt; Consonants* (page xxxvii / 37 in the pdf linked) it reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **SC** before the same vowels [a, ae, oe, i, y] is pronounced like Sh in *shed*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which we already new. Then, the interesting part is on the next page (emphasis mine):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **XC** before e, ae, oe, i, y - **KSH**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;e.g. **Excelsis** = *ek-shel-sees*.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before others vowels **XC**  has the ordinary hard  sound  of the letters composing it  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;e.g. **excussórum** =  *eks-coos-so-room*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of a more authoritative source than the Liber usualis regarding Ecclesiastical Latin (though there could be, e.g. in the Missal or some decree/motu proprio). BUT, there could be more details in the Latin version of the rubrics, which I haven't been able to find yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bonus track**: the rule for TI literally reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **TI** standing before a vowel and following any letter (except S, X, T) is pronounced *tsee*, Otherwise the **T** is like the English *T*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, **commixtio** &gt; [com'miks.ti.o]! Anyway, the wording makes me very uneasy because English [t] is aspirated and I've always assumed Latin [t] is not. I just hope the distinction was omitted for the sake of simplicity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sanctamissa.org/en/music/gregorian-chant/choir/liber-usualis-1961.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_Usualis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27243" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8790" RevisionGUID="4b6679f9-bb35-4994-a03e-35af4a796788" CreationDate="2019-01-03T19:41:23.983" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|pronunciation|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27244" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8819" RevisionGUID="bd9cb837-3f78-448a-a1fb-cd800e378a2d" CreationDate="2019-01-03T19:46:20.703" UserId="45" Comment="edited title" Text="Word construction like &quot;philanthropist&quot; but regarding silence instead of humankind?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8820" RevisionGUID="f4668cb7-1212-4441-a798-b8e9d70b1ef8" CreationDate="2019-01-03T19:46:54.307" UserId="469" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The most authoritative source I've found so far is the [English rubrics][1] for the [Liber usualis][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Rules for interpretation &gt; IX. The reading and pronunciation of liturgical Latin &gt; Consonants* (page xxxvii / 37 in the pdf linked) it reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **SC** before the same vowels [a, ae, oe, i, y] is pronounced like Sh in *shed*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which we already new. Then, the interesting part is on the next page (emphasis mine):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **XC** before e, ae, oe, i, y - **KSH**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;e.g. **Excelsis** = *ek-shel-sees*.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before others vowels **XC**  has the ordinary hard  sound  of the letters composing it  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;e.g. **excussórum** =  *eks-coos-so-room*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of a more authoritative source than the Liber usualis regarding Ecclesiastical Latin (though there could be, e.g. in the Missal or some decree/motu proprio). BUT, there could be more details in the Latin version of the rubrics, which I haven't been able to find yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bonus track**: the rule for TI literally reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **TI** standing before a vowel and following any letter (except S, X, T) is pronounced *tsee*.  &#xD;&#xA;Otherwise the **T** is like the English *T*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, **commixtio** &gt; [com'miks.ti.o]! Anyway, the wording makes me very uneasy because English [t] is aspirated and I've always assumed Latin [t] is not. I just hope the distinction was omitted for the sake of simplicity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sanctamissa.org/en/music/gregorian-chant/choir/liber-usualis-1961.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_Usualis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8820" RevisionGUID="e4859859-ccf4-4d59-9e07-db222d4c0505" CreationDate="2019-01-03T20:29:42.633" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="The most authoritative source I've found so far is the [English rubrics][1] for the [Liber usualis][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Rules for interpretation &gt; IX. The reading and pronunciation of liturgical Latin &gt; Consonants* (page xxxvii / 37 in the pdf linked) it reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **SC** before the same vowels [a, ae, oe, i, y] is pronounced like *Sh* in *shed*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which we already knew. Then, the interesting part is on the next page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **XC** before e, ae, oe, i, y - **KSH**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;e.g. **Excelsis** = *ek-shel-sees*.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before others vowels **XC**  has the ordinary hard  sound  of the letters composing it  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;e.g. **excussórum** =  *eks-coos-so-room*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of a more authoritative source than the Liber usualis regarding Ecclesiastical Latin (though there could be, e.g. in the Missal or some decree/motu proprio). BUT, there could be more details in the Latin version of the rubrics, which I haven't been able to find yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bonus track**: the rule for TI literally reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **TI** standing before a vowel and following any letter (except S, X, T) is pronounced *tsee*.  &#xD;&#xA;Otherwise the **T** is like the English *T*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, **commixtio** &gt; [com'miks.ti.o]! Anyway, the wording makes me very uneasy because English [t] is aspirated and I've always assumed Latin [t] is not. I just hope the distinction was omitted for the sake of simplicity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sanctamissa.org/en/music/gregorian-chant/choir/liber-usualis-1961.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_Usualis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8821" RevisionGUID="d79a46d6-8f78-4b99-a00b-04967f2d0f3e" CreationDate="2019-01-03T20:46:54.510" UserId="3248" Text="When dealing with descriptions of movement in Classical Latin, some authors have recently concluded from their corpus study that this language, unlike English, typically dislikes an accumulation of long series of directional/path segments in a complex motion event (see Iacobini et al. 2016: http://mmm.lis.upatras.gr/index.php/mmm/article/view/2726/2989 ). However, a colleague of mine, who is also investigating this topic, told me that examples like the following one from Livy, which contains three path segments, are relatively frequent in Classical Latin prose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fulvius Flacus … media urbe per Carinas Esquilias contendit.  (Liv. 26, 10, 1). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the former authors are correct, Latin is quite different from English in that examples like the following one from Tolkien’s Hobbit are not expected to be frequent: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;‘He still wandered on, out of the little high valley, over its edge, and down the slopes beyond’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In striking contrast to English, Romance languages have been shown to favor “separate clauses [i.e., with different verbs] for each segment of a complex motion event&quot; (Slobin 1996; reference mentioned by Iacobini et al 2016).  E.g., here you have some Romance translations of the English sentence above, which interestingly show how differently from English these languages express motion events (cf. the Latin translation by Mark Walker in the title of this post):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spanish: &quot;Continuó caminando, fuera del pequeño y elevado valle, por el borde, y bajando luego las pendientes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;French: &quot;Il continua d'avancer au hasard, sortit du haut vallon, en franchit le bord et descendit la pente au-delà...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Portuguese: &quot;Continou avançando, saiu do vale alto e estreito, e desceu as ladeiras além&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that Classical Latin is to be put somewhere in the middle of the continuum: it is not like English but it does not behave like Romance languages either. What is your opinion/personal experience from reading Latin texts?   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27248" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8821" RevisionGUID="d79a46d6-8f78-4b99-a00b-04967f2d0f3e" CreationDate="2019-01-03T20:46:54.510" UserId="3248" Text="Ulterius etiam errabat, e parva valle alta, super limen eius, et deorsum declivia ultra" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27249" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8821" RevisionGUID="d79a46d6-8f78-4b99-a00b-04967f2d0f3e" CreationDate="2019-01-03T20:46:54.510" UserId="3248" Text="|classical-latin|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8821" RevisionGUID="06335f0a-2465-4e6a-a1d9-b039c74f8bca" CreationDate="2019-01-03T20:53:32.147" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="When dealing with descriptions of movement in Classical Latin, some authors have recently concluded from their corpus study that this language, unlike English, typically dislikes an accumulation of long series of directional/path segments in a complex motion event (see Iacobini &amp; Corona 2016: http://mmm.lis.upatras.gr/index.php/mmm/article/view/2726/2989 ). However, a colleague of mine, who is also investigating this topic, told me that examples like the following one from Livy, which contains three path segments, are relatively frequent in Classical Latin prose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fulvius Flacus … media urbe per Carinas Esquilias contendit.  (Liv. 26, 10, 1). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the former authors are correct, Latin is quite different from English in that examples like the following one from Tolkien’s Hobbit are not expected to be frequent: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;‘He still wandered on, out of the little high valley, over its edge, and down the slopes beyond’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In striking contrast to English, Romance languages have been shown to favor “separate clauses [i.e., with different verbs] for each segment of a complex motion event&quot; (Slobin 1996; reference mentioned by Iacobini &amp; Corona 2016).  E.g., here you have some Romance translations of the English sentence above, which interestingly show how differently from English these languages express motion events (cf. the Latin translation by Mark Walker in the title of this post):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spanish: &quot;Continuó caminando, fuera del pequeño y elevado valle, por el borde, y bajando luego las pendientes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;French: &quot;Il continua d'avancer au hasard, sortit du haut vallon, en franchit le bord et descendit la pente au-delà...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Portuguese: &quot;Continou avançando, saiu do vale alto e estreito, e desceu as ladeiras além&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that Classical Latin is to be put somewhere in the middle of the continuum: it is not like English but it does not behave like Romance languages either. What is your opinion/personal experience from reading Latin texts?   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8821" RevisionGUID="c8e9b87c-959c-4d13-bcc8-c0448ddc9f32" CreationDate="2019-01-03T22:04:55.657" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="When dealing with descriptions of motion in Classical Latin, some authors have recently concluded from their corpus study that this language, unlike English, typically dislikes an accumulation of long series of directional/path segments in a complex motion event (see Iacobini &amp; Corona 2016: http://mmm.lis.upatras.gr/index.php/mmm/article/view/2726/2989 ). However, a colleague of mine, who is also investigating this topic, told me that examples like the following one from Livy, which contains three path segments, are relatively frequent in Classical Latin prose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fulvius Flacus … media urbe per Carinas Esquilias contendit.  (Liv. 26, 10, 1). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the former authors are correct, Latin is quite different from English in that examples like the following one from Tolkien’s Hobbit are not expected to be frequent: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;‘He still wandered on, out of the little high valley, over its edge, and down the slopes beyond’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In striking contrast to English, Romance languages have been shown to favor “separate clauses [i.e., with different verbs] for each segment of a complex motion event&quot; (Slobin 1996; reference mentioned by Iacobini &amp; Corona 2016).  E.g., here you have some Romance translations of the English sentence above, which interestingly show how differently from English these languages express motion events (cf. the Latin translation by Mark Walker in the title of this post):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spanish: &quot;Continuó caminando, fuera del pequeño y elevado valle, por el borde, y bajando luego las pendientes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;French: &quot;Il continua d'avancer au hasard, sortit du haut vallon, en franchit le bord et descendit la pente au-delà...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Portuguese: &quot;Continou avançando, saiu do vale alto e estreito, e desceu as ladeiras além&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the possibility of accumulating directional/path segments in a complex motion event, my impression is that Classical Latin is to be put somewhere in the middle of the continuum: it is not like English but it does not behave like Romance languages either. What is your opinion/personal experience from reading Latin texts?   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8822" RevisionGUID="b9ae226e-a57b-4c20-b91a-f4fecc1020c7" CreationDate="2019-01-03T23:56:30.203" UserId="1694" Text="Latin freely adopted Greek words, including compounds, but in general did not freely create compounds with both Latin and Greek elements, like the modern creation &quot;sociology&quot;, and similarly with your suggested form &quot;silenciophile&quot; (better &quot;silentiophile&quot;).  If you want to create a compound with &quot;-phile&quot;, then &quot;hesychophile&quot; would be better, consisting of Greek elements only." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8823" RevisionGUID="07d9373c-6243-4850-9250-9a724be91fec" CreationDate="2019-01-04T03:47:09.073" UserId="40" Text="It isn't clear to me that it makes sense to speak of an &quot;anticausative reading&quot; of the Latin passive. The English anticausative construction, as I understand it (I'm more used to seeing this called &quot;unaccusative&quot;, but maybe you're drawing a distinction there?), rules out specifying an agent in the syntax, but it does not rule out that an agent may have been involved in the event. Consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The boy punched the window and it shattered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, *shattered* is anticausative, but nevertheless the boy is the agent of the shattering. The fact that *&quot;The window shattered by the boy&quot; is ungrammatical is due to the syntax of the English construction, not its semantics. But the Latin passive has no such constraint: if there's an agent, you can add an agent PP with *a(b)*. Of course, when such a PP is absent, there can be two readings according to whether you think that an agent was involved but is unspecified, or that no agent was involved at all. But it seems imprecise to call the latter an &quot;anticausative reading&quot;, given that the English anticausative doesn't imply the semantic absence of an agent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question about *fracta est* in the Horace quote seems straightforward, though: this is clearly a description of an event, not a state (as *postquam* strongly implies), so it's a verbal rather than an adjectival passive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a comment on Joonas's answer you ask &quot;if Classical Latin ... can express the difference between *The door was broken by the wind* and *The door broke with the wind*&quot;. To me the latter is ungrammatical, but it can be repaired with a different choice of preposition, e.g. *The door broke because of the wind*. But this seems truth-conditionally equivalent to *The door was broken by the wind* -- as far as I can see there isn't a difference there to be expressed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8823" RevisionGUID="589a49fb-ffa6-4262-8ec0-2d96ab7315e2" CreationDate="2019-01-04T03:53:27.017" UserId="40" Comment="added 304 characters in body" Text="It isn't clear to me that it makes sense to speak of an &quot;anticausative reading&quot; of the Latin passive. The English anticausative construction, as I understand it (I'm more used to seeing this called &quot;unaccusative&quot;, but maybe you're drawing a distinction there?), rules out specifying an agent in the syntax, but it does not rule out that an agent may have been involved in the event. Consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The boy punched the window and it shattered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, *shattered* is anticausative, but nevertheless the boy is the agent of the shattering. The fact that *&quot;The window shattered by the boy&quot; is ungrammatical is due to the syntax of the English construction, not its semantics. But the Latin passive has no such constraint: if there's an agent, you can add an agent PP with *a(b)*.* Of course, when such a PP is absent, there can be two readings according to whether you think that an agent was involved but is unspecified, or that no agent was involved at all. But it seems imprecise to call the latter an &quot;anticausative reading&quot;, given that the English anticausative doesn't imply the semantic absence of an agent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question about *fracta est* in the Horace quote seems straightforward, though: this is clearly a description of an event, not a state (as *postquam* strongly implies), so it's a verbal rather than an adjectival passive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a comment on Joonas's answer you ask &quot;if Classical Latin ... can express the difference between *The door was broken by the wind* and *The door broke with the wind*&quot;. To me the latter is ungrammatical, but it can be repaired with a different choice of preposition, e.g. *The door broke because of the wind*. But this seems truth-conditionally equivalent to *The door was broken by the wind* -- as far as I can see there isn't a difference there to be expressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*As a possibly interesting side note, Greek is even less constrained in that it allows an agent PP with unaccusative verbs that are not formally passive: e.g. ἀπέθανεν ὑπ᾽ Ἀθηναίων &quot;he was killed (lit. died) by the Athenians&quot;. This is rather as if English allowed *&quot;The window shattered by the boy&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8824" RevisionGUID="53400b7b-425d-4139-a43d-da2076c33cb5" CreationDate="2019-01-04T09:25:19.410" UserId="9" Text="It's well known that past a certain point, Latin &quot;t&quot; developed an assibilated pronunciation when followed by &quot;i&quot; and then a vowel, as in the word *grātia.* Sources agree that there are some exceptions, most of which make intuitive sense to me; e.g. -tīV- is supposed to have resisted this development, and in -stǐV- and -xtǐV- the -t- is supposed to have remained non-assibilated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But one thing that puzzles me is that various sources say that -ttiV- was immune to this development. From a theoretical standpoint, I can't see why a preceding -t- would be expected to prevent assibilation. The sequence -ttiV- seems to be pretty rare, so I'm also not sure about whether we actually have much inscriptional evidence to support this generalization about the natural development of the pronunciation of -ttiV-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Walter Blair's *Latin Prounciation*](https://books.google.com/books?id=s3NXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA119) (1873) says &quot;For manifest natural reasons it is commonly agreed as improbable that the T could have been hissed when it was immediately preceded by another T, or by a hiss, as S or X. (See Zumpt's Lat. Gr., p. 7&quot; (p. 119).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I confess that I haven't sought out Zumpt's grammar yet, as I thought that the members of this site might be able to tell me more quickly and in more detail whether there are actually solid reasons for supposing that -ttiV- was a special environment where the t &gt; [ts] sound law did not apply. If anyone wants to do more digging and post an answer summarizing the results of their research, I would appreciate that as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27256" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8824" RevisionGUID="53400b7b-425d-4139-a43d-da2076c33cb5" CreationDate="2019-01-04T09:25:19.410" UserId="9" Text="Why is it thought that T resisted assibilation after another T?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27257" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8824" RevisionGUID="53400b7b-425d-4139-a43d-da2076c33cb5" CreationDate="2019-01-04T09:25:19.410" UserId="9" Text="|pronunciation|consonants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8824" RevisionGUID="55f0a1e9-6b2e-45a8-a698-77ff2f22729b" CreationDate="2019-01-04T09:50:41.850" UserId="9" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="It's well known that past a certain point, Latin &quot;t&quot; developed an assibilated pronunciation when followed by &quot;i&quot; and then a vowel, as in the word *grātia.* Sources agree that there are some exceptions, most of which make intuitive sense to me; e.g. -tīV- is supposed to have resisted this development, and in -stǐV- and -xtǐV- the -t- is supposed to have remained non-assibilated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But one thing that puzzles me is that various sources say that -ttiV- was immune to this development. From a theoretical standpoint, I can't see why a preceding -t- would be expected to prevent assibilation. The sequence -ttiV- seems to be pretty rare, so I'm also not sure about whether we actually have much evidence to support this generalization about the natural development of the pronunciation of -ttiV-. (E.g. is there compelling inscriptional or Romance-based evidence?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Walter Blair's *Latin Prounciation*](https://books.google.com/books?id=s3NXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA119) (1873) says &quot;For manifest natural reasons it is commonly agreed as improbable that the T could have been hissed when it was immediately preceded by another T, or by a hiss, as S or X. (See Zumpt's Lat. Gr., p. 7&quot; (p. 119).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I confess that I haven't sought out Zumpt's grammar yet, as I thought that the members of this site might be able to tell me more quickly and in more detail whether there are actually solid reasons for supposing that -ttiV- was a special environment where the t &gt; [ts] sound law did not apply. If anyone wants to do more digging and post an answer summarizing the results of their research, I would appreciate that as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8816" RevisionGUID="cc9099c0-51b3-4dae-90f2-58af7b2dee60" CreationDate="2019-01-04T11:00:40.127" UserId="79" Comment="added 565 characters in body" Text="You have already explained the difference between verbal and adjectival.&#xD;&#xA;Another useful distinction is between **passive and middle**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The middle is a voice between passive and active where something does something upon itself.&#xD;&#xA;Latin has no separate middle forms, but the Latin passive can have middle meaning.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *fractum est* = &quot;it broke itself&quot; = &quot;it broke&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that what you call anticausative is very close to the middle voice.&#xD;&#xA;In Latin middle can be seen as a semantically slightly different reading of passives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with passive, the participle in middle reading can be either verbal or adjectival.&#xD;&#xA;I would split your third point in two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Verbal middle: &quot;the door broke&quot;&#xD;&#xA;4. Adjectival middle: &quot;the door is broken&quot; (in itself, not by anyone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between 3 and 4 is exactly the same as that between 1 and 2.&#xD;&#xA;Now both are middle, not passive, so the door breaks in itself without any kind of agent.&#xD;&#xA;The distinction between verbal and adjectival reading of participles makes sense for all voices, not just passive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I have to remind that the two distinctions (verbal&amp;ndash;adjectival and passive&amp;ndash;middle) are not always clear at all.&#xD;&#xA;While these distinctions are useful, do not try to forcibly classify every occurrence in a clear category.&#xD;&#xA;The middle voice as a separate entity is found in Greek, but not really in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Doing something upon oneself is often best achieved with *se/sibi*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Draconis points out in a comment, Proto-Indo-European did not distinguish the middle from the passive voice, and Ancient Greek barely did.&#xD;&#xA;In Latin the two voices never separated in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And more importantly, the passive voice in Latin does not imply that the there is an agent.&#xD;&#xA;(In Finnish it does, but the Finnish passive is very different anyway.)&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps a &quot;fully agentless passive&quot; is another way to phrase what you call anticausative and I call middle here.&#xD;&#xA;As Tom Cotton reminds in a comment, it is all too easy to be drawn into a detailed analysis that has no bearing on actual usage.&#xD;&#xA;Different points of view are useful in analyzing various uses of the Latin passive, but only as rough guides, not as strict categories.&#xD;&#xA;I would actually say that *porta clausa est* is not really ambiguous, but it can be interpreted with different nuances (four in my counting) &amp;mdash; but I recognize that some may disagree." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4923" RevisionGUID="9c52fae7-17da-4fce-ac68-262f9cc3333e" CreationDate="2019-01-04T15:13:38.587" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and added text." Text="The following is a plaque in commemoration of the 700th anniversary of the birth of [John Duns Scotus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duns_Scotus):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![An inscription][1]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Source of image [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Duns_Scotus_plaque_University_Church_Oxford.jpg)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In text (missing some details like interpuncts and ligatures):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;IOANNES DVNS SCOTVS OFM  &#xD;&#xA;QVI IN LECTVRIS OXONIENSIBVS  &#xD;&#xA;REPRAESENTATVIT DAVIDICUM ILLVD  &#xD;&#xA;DOMINVS ILLVMINATIO MEA  &#xD;&#xA;HOC LAPIDE A FRATRIBVS SVIS  &#xD;&#xA;POSITO POST ANNOS SEPTINGENTOS  &#xD;&#xA;COMMEMORATUR A D MCMLXVI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt to translate it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; John Duns Scotus O.F.M [Fransican friar], whom in lecturing [oxonians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxonian) represented David [that?] // [The Lord is my light](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominus_illuminatio_mea) // this tombstone [?] from his brothers [fransiscan friars] placed in commemoration of 700 years // year of the Lord 1966&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That just does not sound right. Not sure how to put David in there. _Lapide_ is almost literal in Spanish (lapida) but not sure what is best for English. And the last bit is also strange. Not sure how to fit _commemoratur_ as it does not state in commemoration of what. But, of course, many other things could be wrong!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bZISP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27261" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4923" RevisionGUID="9c52fae7-17da-4fce-ac68-262f9cc3333e" CreationDate="2019-01-04T15:13:38.587" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and added text." Text="|translation-check|latin-to-english-translation|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="c0f6cbe6-f3f9-450b-9643-3acd78caa810" CreationDate="2019-01-04T17:18:25.380" UserId="3248" Comment="relevant changes due to insights from commentators" Text="It is often said that _Porta clausa est_ can have **two** readings  depending on the categorial nature of the participle: verbal (cf. _clauditur/clausa est_) or adjectival (cf. _clausa est/clausa fuit_), which in turn corresponds to a semantic difference between process and result/state, respectively. For example, in Spanish this distinction is also made clear by using different auxiliaries, _ser_ vs. _estar_: cf. Sp. _La puerta fue cerrada_ (sc. by someone) /_La puerta estuvo cerrada_ (*/??by someone). A typical (although recently argued to be a bit problematic) test to distinguish verbal passives from adjectival ones is that the former can be used with an agentive *by*-phrase, while the latter can’t. As far as I know, this test has also been assumed to hold for Latin: cf. verbal passive (_porta {clauditur/clausa est} a Gaio_) with adjectival passive (cf. _porta clausa {est/fuit} */??a Gaio_).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the previous (typical?) approach, I think that the learner of Latin cannot often know if there is still a third reading available for _porta clausa est_ or _porta fracta est_, the one corresponding to the so-called “anticausative” variant, e.g., 'The door broke' (e.g., cf. the so-called &quot;causative alternation&quot; in English: _{John/The strong winds} broke the door_ (causative variant) vs. _The door broke_ (anticausative variant)).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, _porta fracta est_ can be said to have the following **three** (rather than only the typical two) readings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: verbal passive:  _the door was broken/has been broken_ (_by someone_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: adjectival passive: _the door is broken_ (_*by someone_; *on this adjectival reading!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: anticausative: _the door broke_ (_*by someone_). &#xD;&#xA;(NB: the use of * means ungrammatical). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following example, which can be taken as (good? What do you think?) evidence of the anticausative reading (which is, as noted above, different from the processive verbal passive reading (_to be broken by someone_) and from the resultative/stative adjectival one (_to be broken *by someone_)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Postquam omnis res mea Ianum ad medium **fracta est**, aliena negotia curo, excussus propriis. (Hor. *Sat.* II 3.18-20)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;‘After all my business collapsed at the central arcade of Janus…’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now here is my question: Which is the nature of the participle in the anticausative reading of _fracta est_? Cf. the verbal-adjectival distinction drawn above. I would say that in this case the participle has a verbal nature (like in the first verbal passive reading above) but perhaps I’m wrong. More examples of (clearer) anticausative readings of periphrastic forms would also be greatly appreciated.    &#xD;&#xA;NB: here I’m mainly interested in the ambiguity of _fracta/clausa est_ rather than in the one also involved in non-periphrastic forms like  _frangitur/clauditur_, which can also have different interpretations. When dealing with non-periphrastic forms, further distinctions become relevant (e.g., cf. _frangitur/se frangit_, the pronominal form becoming even much more frequent in Late Latin).  &#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;This paragraph contains a relevant modification I should make thanks to the useful feedback I’ve received from the commentators (see below). It is not three (as I previously thought; see above) but even **four** readings the ones that can be involved in an example like _Porta clausa est_  . In particular, a new one emerges from a distinction that can be made in adjectival structures: cf. the resultative and the stative readings. The resultative one involves that a previous event has happened (i.e., the door is now in the state _closed_ because there has been an obvious/expected previous event of closing), while the stative one does **not** involve the existence of such event. For example, this distinction is quite clear in _Porta clausa est_ (but not for _Porta fracta est_ ). As for the adjectival readings, here the resultative one is the most prominent one. However, the stative one is not fully excluded (e.g., imagine that the door was built closed). As for the adjectival reading of _porta fracta est_ the resultative one seems the only possible one.&#xD;&#xA;Moreover (or I should say 'More generally'), I've been advised on the importance of distinguishing what one could call the &quot;uniformity&quot; of the structure (e.g., the one corresponding to _Porta clausa est_) from its associated meanings (or &quot;nuances&quot;, in Joonas's terms).    &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="8b4728a3-71f6-4bfe-8164-b922e12d4d50" CreationDate="2019-01-04T17:27:36.553" UserId="3248" Comment="relevant changes due to insights from commentators" Text="It is often said that _Porta clausa est_ can have **two** readings  depending on the categorial nature of the participle: verbal (cf. _clauditur/clausa est_) or adjectival (cf. _clausa est/clausa fuit_), which in turn corresponds to a semantic difference between process and result/state, respectively. For example, in Spanish this distinction is also made clear by using different auxiliaries, _ser_ vs. _estar_: cf. Sp. _La puerta fue cerrada_ (sc. by someone) /_La puerta estuvo cerrada_ (*/??by someone). A typical (although recently argued to be a bit problematic) test to distinguish verbal passives from adjectival ones is that the former can be used with an agentive *by*-phrase, while the latter can’t. As far as I know, this test has also been assumed to hold for Latin: cf. verbal passive (_porta {clauditur/clausa est} a Gaio_) with adjectival passive (cf. _porta clausa {est/fuit} */??a Gaio_).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the previous (typical?) approach, I think that the learner of Latin cannot often know if there is still a third reading available for _porta clausa est_ or _porta fracta est_, the one corresponding to the so-called “anticausative” variant, e.g., 'The door broke' (e.g., cf. the so-called &quot;causative alternation&quot; in English: _{John/The strong winds} broke the door_ (causative variant) vs. _The door broke_ (anticausative variant)).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, _porta fracta est_ can be said to have the following **three** (rather than only the typical two) readings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: verbal passive:  _the door was broken/has been broken_ (_by someone_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: adjectival passive: _the door is broken_ (_*by someone_; *on this adjectival reading!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: anticausative: _the door broke_ (_*by someone_). &#xD;&#xA;(NB: the use of * means ungrammatical). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following example, which can be taken as (good? What do you think?) evidence of the anticausative reading (which is, as noted above, different from the processive verbal passive reading (_to be broken by someone_) and from the resultative/stative adjectival one (_to be broken *by someone_)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Postquam omnis res mea Ianum ad medium **fracta est**, aliena negotia curo, excussus propriis. (Hor. *Sat.* II 3.18-20)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;‘After all my business collapsed at the central arcade of Janus…’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now here is my question: Which is the nature of the participle in the anticausative reading of _fracta est_? Cf. the verbal-adjectival distinction drawn above. I would say that in this case the participle has a verbal nature (like in the first verbal passive reading above) but perhaps I’m wrong. More examples of (clearer) anticausative readings of periphrastic forms would also be greatly appreciated.    &#xD;&#xA;NB: here I’m mainly interested in the ambiguity of _fracta/clausa est_ rather than in the one also involved in non-periphrastic forms like  _frangitur/clauditur_, which can also have different interpretations. When dealing with non-periphrastic forms, further distinctions become relevant (e.g., cf. _frangitur/se frangit_, the pronominal form becoming even much more frequent in Late Latin).  &#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;This paragraph contains a relevant modification I should make thanks to the useful feedback I’ve received from the commentators (see below). It is not three (as I previously thought; see above) but even **four** readings the ones that can be involved in an example like _Porta clausa est_  . In particular, a new one emerges from a distinction that can be made within adjectival structures: cf. the resultative and the stative readings. The resultative one involves that a previous event has happened (i.e., the door is now in the state _closed_ because there has been a previous natural event of closing), while the stative one does **not** involve the existence of such previous event. For example, this distinction is quite clear in _Porta clausa est_ (but not for _Porta fracta est_ ). As for the adjectival readings, here the resultative one is the most prominent one. However, the stative one is not excluded (e.g., imagine that the door was built closed). As for the adjectival reading of _porta fracta est_ , in this case, due to our encyclopedic knowledge, the resultative one seems to be the only possible one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover (or I should say 'More generally'), I've been advised on the importance of distinguishing what one could call the &quot;uniformity&quot; of the structure (e.g., the one corresponding to _Porta clausa est_) from its possible associated meanings (or &quot;nuances&quot;, in Joonas's terms).    &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="474b7105-c323-4129-912c-5610c00f5a6c" CreationDate="2019-01-04T17:33:52.457" UserId="3248" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="It is often said that _Porta clausa est_ can have **two** readings  depending on the categorial nature of the participle: verbal (cf. _clauditur/clausa est_) or adjectival (cf. _clausa est/clausa fuit_), which in turn corresponds to a semantic difference between process and result/state, respectively. For example, in Spanish this distinction is also made clear by using different auxiliaries, _ser_ vs. _estar_: cf. Sp. _La puerta fue cerrada_ (sc. by someone) /_La puerta estuvo cerrada_ (*/??by someone). A typical (although recently argued to be a bit problematic) test to distinguish verbal passives from adjectival ones is that the former can be used with an agentive *by*-phrase, while the latter can’t. As far as I know, this test has also been assumed to hold for Latin: cf. verbal passive (_porta {clauditur/clausa est} a Gaio_) with adjectival passive (cf. _porta clausa {est/fuit} */??a Gaio_).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the previous (typical?) approach, I think that the learner of Latin cannot often know if there is still a third reading available for _porta clausa est_ or _porta fracta est_, the one corresponding to the so-called “anticausative” variant, e.g., 'The door broke' (e.g., cf. the so-called &quot;causative alternation&quot; in English: _{John/The strong winds} broke the door_ (causative variant) vs. _The door broke_ (anticausative variant)).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, _porta fracta est_ can be said to have the following **three** (rather than only the typical two) readings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: verbal passive:  _the door was broken/has been broken_ (_by someone_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: adjectival passive: _the door is broken_ (_*by someone_; *on this adjectival reading!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: anticausative: _the door broke_ (_*by someone_). &#xD;&#xA;(NB: the use of * means ungrammatical). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following example, which can be taken as (good? What do you think?) evidence of the anticausative reading (which is, as noted above, different from the processive verbal passive reading (_to be broken by someone_) and from the resultative/stative adjectival one (_to be broken *by someone_)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Postquam omnis res mea Ianum ad medium **fracta est**, aliena negotia curo, excussus propriis. (Hor. *Sat.* II 3.18-20)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;‘After all my business collapsed at the central arcade of Janus…’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now here is my question: Which is the nature of the participle in the anticausative reading of _fracta est_? Cf. the verbal-adjectival distinction drawn above. I would say that in this case the participle has a verbal nature (like in the first verbal passive reading above) but perhaps I’m wrong. More examples of (clearer) anticausative readings of periphrastic forms would also be greatly appreciated.    &#xD;&#xA;NB: here I’m mainly interested in the ambiguity of _fracta/clausa est_ rather than in the one also involved in non-periphrastic forms like  _frangitur/clauditur_, which can also have different interpretations. When dealing with non-periphrastic forms, further distinctions become relevant (e.g., cf. _frangitur/se frangit_, the pronominal form becoming even much more frequent in Late Latin).  &#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;This paragraph contains a relevant modification I should make thanks to the useful feedback I’ve received from the commentators (see below). It is not three (as I previously thought; see above) but even **four** readings the ones that can be involved in an example like _Porta clausa est_ . In particular, a new one emerges from a distinction that can be made within adjectival structures: cf. the resultative and the stative readings. The resultative one involves that a previous event has happened (i.e., the door is now in the state _closed_ because there has been a previous natural event of closing), while the stative one does **not** involve the existence of such previous event. Here the resultative one is the most prominent one. However, the stative one is not excluded (e.g., imagine that the door was built closed). As for the adjectival reading of _porta fracta est_ , in this case, due to our encyclopedic knowledge, the resultative one seems to be the only possible one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover (or I should say 'More generally'), I've been advised on the importance of distinguishing what one could call the &quot;uniformity&quot; of the structure (e.g., the one corresponding to _Porta clausa est_) from its possible associated meanings (or &quot;nuances&quot;, in Joonas's terms).    &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="3c8bd4e7-6f3c-4c5d-9220-4ad890ca8c4a" CreationDate="2019-01-04T17:57:39.627" UserId="3248" Comment="relevant changes due to insights from commentators" Text="It is often said that _Porta clausa est_ can have **two** readings  depending on the categorial nature of the participle: verbal (cf. _clauditur/clausa est_) or adjectival (cf. _clausa est/clausa fuit_), which in turn corresponds to a semantic difference between process and result/state, respectively. For example, in Spanish this distinction is also made clear by using different auxiliaries, _ser_ vs. _estar_: cf. Sp. _La puerta fue cerrada_ (sc. by someone) /_La puerta estuvo cerrada_ (*/??by someone). A typical (although recently argued to be a bit problematic) test to distinguish verbal passives from adjectival ones is that the former can be used with an agentive *by*-phrase, while the latter can’t. As far as I know, this test has also been assumed to hold for Latin: cf. verbal passive (_porta {clauditur/clausa est} a Gaio_) with adjectival passive (cf. _porta clausa {est/fuit} */??a Gaio_).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the previous (typical?) approach, I think that the learner of Latin cannot often know if there is still a third reading available for _porta clausa est_ or _porta fracta est_, the one corresponding to the so-called “anticausative” variant, e.g., 'The door broke' (e.g., cf. the so-called &quot;causative alternation&quot; in English: _{John/The strong winds} broke the door_ (causative variant) vs. _The door broke_ (anticausative variant)).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, _porta fracta est_ can be said to have the following **three** (rather than only the typical two) readings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: verbal passive:  _the door was broken/has been broken_ (_by someone_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: adjectival passive: _the door is broken_ (_*by someone_; *on this adjectival reading!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: anticausative: _the door broke_ (_*by someone_). &#xD;&#xA;(NB: the use of * means ungrammatical). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following example, which can be taken as (good? What do you think?) evidence of the anticausative reading (which is, as noted above, different from the processive verbal passive reading (_to be broken by someone_) and from the resultative/stative adjectival one (_to be broken *by someone_)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Postquam omnis res mea Ianum ad medium **fracta est**, aliena negotia curo, excussus propriis. (Hor. *Sat.* II 3.18-20)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;‘After all my business collapsed at the central arcade of Janus…’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now here is my question: Which is the nature of the participle in the anticausative reading of _fracta est_? Cf. the verbal-adjectival distinction drawn above. I would say that in this case the participle has a verbal nature (like in the first verbal passive reading above) but perhaps I’m wrong. More examples of (clearer) anticausative readings of periphrastic forms would also be greatly appreciated.    &#xD;&#xA;NB: here I’m mainly interested in the ambiguity of _fracta/clausa est_ rather than in the one also involved in non-periphrastic forms like  _frangitur/clauditur_, which can also have different interpretations. When dealing with non-periphrastic forms, further distinctions become relevant (e.g., cf. _frangitur/se frangit_, the pronominal form becoming even much more frequent in Late Latin).  &#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;This paragraph contains a relevant modification I should make thanks to the useful feedback I’ve received from the commentators (see below). It is not three (as I previously thought; see above) but even **four** readings the ones that can be involved in an example like _Porta clausa est_ . In particular, a new one emerges from a distinction that can be made within adjectival structures: cf. the resultative and the stative readings. The resultative one involves that a previous event has happened (i.e., the door is now in the state _closed_ because there has been a previous natural event of closing), while the stative one does **not** involve the existence of such previous event. Here the resultative one is the most prominent one. However, the stative one is not excluded (e.g., imagine that the door was built closed). As for the adjectival reading of _porta fracta est_ , in this case, due to our encyclopedic knowledge, the resultative one seems to be the only possible one. So, as I understand it (some commentators disagree on details), the four readings associated to _Porta clausa est_ would be the following ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: verbal passive: 'the door was closed/has been closed (by someone)'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: verbal {anticausative/&quot;middle&quot;}: 'the door closed (*by someone; where the star * means &quot;ungrammatical&quot;)'.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;3: resultative adjectival passive: 'the door is in the resultant state of closed'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4: stative adjectival passive: 'the door is closed (with no previous event of closing involved)'.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Moreover (or I should rather say &quot;More generally&quot;), I've been advised on the importance of distinguishing what one could call the &quot;uniformity&quot; of the structure (e.g., the one corresponding to _Porta clausa est_) from its possible associated meanings (or &quot;nuances&quot;, in Joonas's terms).    &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="7faa62eb-5290-449d-884d-5f41c5910f96" CreationDate="2019-01-04T18:11:36.443" UserId="3248" Comment="relevant changes due to insights from commentators" Text="It is often said that _Porta clausa est_ can have **two** readings  depending on the categorial nature of the participle: verbal (cf. _clauditur/clausa est_) or adjectival (cf. _clausa est/clausa fuit_), which in turn corresponds to a semantic difference between process and result/state, respectively. For example, in Spanish this distinction is also made clear by using different auxiliaries, _ser_ vs. _estar_: cf. Sp. _La puerta fue cerrada_ (sc. by someone) /_La puerta estuvo cerrada_ (*/??by someone). A typical (although recently argued to be a bit problematic) test to distinguish verbal passives from adjectival ones is that the former can be used with an agentive *by*-phrase, while the latter can’t. As far as I know, this test has also been assumed to hold for Latin: cf. verbal passive (_porta {clauditur/clausa est} a Gaio_) with adjectival passive (cf. _porta clausa {est/fuit} */??a Gaio_).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the previous (typical?) approach, I think that the learner of Latin cannot often know if there is still a third reading available for _porta clausa est_ or _porta fracta est_, the one corresponding to the so-called “anticausative” variant, e.g., 'The door broke' (e.g., cf. the so-called &quot;causative alternation&quot; in English: _{John/The strong winds} broke the door_ (causative variant) vs. _The door broke_ (anticausative variant)).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, _porta fracta est_ can be said to have the following **three** (rather than only the typical two) readings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: verbal passive:  _the door was broken/has been broken_ (_by someone_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: adjectival passive: _the door is broken_ (_*by someone_; *on this adjectival reading!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: anticausative: _the door broke_ (_*by someone_). &#xD;&#xA;(NB: the use of * means ungrammatical). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following example, which can be taken as (good? What do you think?) evidence of the anticausative reading (which is, as noted above, different from the processive verbal passive reading (_to be broken by someone_) and from the resultative/stative adjectival one (_to be broken *by someone_)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Postquam omnis res mea Ianum ad medium **fracta est**, aliena negotia curo, excussus propriis. (Hor. *Sat.* II 3.18-20)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;‘After all my business collapsed at the central arcade of Janus…’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now here is my question: Which is the nature of the participle in the anticausative reading of _fracta est_? Cf. the verbal-adjectival distinction drawn above. I would say that in this case the participle has a verbal nature (like in the first verbal passive reading above) but perhaps I’m wrong. More examples of (clearer) anticausative readings of periphrastic forms would also be greatly appreciated.    &#xD;&#xA;NB: here I’m mainly interested in the ambiguity of _fracta/clausa est_ rather than in the one also involved in non-periphrastic forms like  _frangitur/clauditur_, which can also have different interpretations. When dealing with non-periphrastic forms, further distinctions become relevant (e.g., cf. _frangitur/se frangit_, the pronominal form becoming even much more frequent in Late Latin).  &#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paragraph contains a relevant modification I should make thanks to the very useful feedback I’ve received from the commentators (see below). It is not three (as I previously thought; see above) but even **four** readings the ones that can be involved in an example like _Porta clausa est_ . In particular, a new one emerges from a distinction that can be made within the domain of adjectival structures: cf. the resultative and the stative readings. The resultative one involves that a previous event has happened (i.e., the door is now in the state _closed_ because there has been a natural previous event of closing), while the stative one does **not** involve the existence of such previous event. Here the resultative one is the most prominent one. However, the stative one is not excluded (e.g., imagine that the door was built closed). As for the adjectival reading of _porta fracta est_ , in this case, due to our encyclopedic knowledge, the resultative one seems to be the only possible one. So, as I understand it (some commentators disagree on details), the four readings associated to _Porta clausa est_ would be the following ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: verbal passive: 'the door was closed/has been closed (by someone)'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: verbal {anticausative/&quot;middle&quot;}: 'the door closed (by itself)'.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;3: resultative adjectival passive: 'the door is in the resultant state of closed'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4: stative adjectival passive: 'the door is closed (with no previous event of closing involved)'.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Moreover (or I should rather say &quot;More generally&quot;), I've been advised by the majority of commentators on the importance of distinguishing what one could call the &quot;uniformity&quot; of the structure (e.g., the one corresponding to _Porta clausa est_) from its possible associated meanings (or &quot;nuances&quot;, in Joonas's terms).    &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="f5022b48-ae76-44af-a70a-71477f6c28c0" CreationDate="2019-01-04T20:46:29.487" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="It is often said that _Porta clausa est_ can have **two** readings  depending on the categorial nature of the participle: verbal (cf. _clauditur/clausa est_) or adjectival (cf. _clausa est/clausa fuit_), which in turn corresponds to a semantic difference between process and result/state, respectively. For example, in Spanish this distinction is also made clear by using different auxiliaries, _ser_ vs. _estar_: cf. Sp. _La puerta fue cerrada_ (sc. by someone) /_La puerta estuvo cerrada_ (*/??by someone). A typical (although recently argued to be a bit problematic) test to distinguish verbal passives from adjectival ones is that the former can be used with an agentive *by*-phrase, while the latter can’t. As far as I know, this test has also been assumed to hold for Latin: cf. verbal passive (_porta {clauditur/clausa est} a Gaio_) with adjectival passive (cf. _porta clausa {est/fuit} */??a Gaio_).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the previous (typical?) approach, I think that the learner of Latin cannot often know if there is still a third reading available for _porta clausa est_ or _porta fracta est_, the one corresponding to the so-called “anticausative” variant, e.g., 'The door broke' (e.g., cf. the so-called &quot;causative alternation&quot; in English: _{John/The strong winds} broke the door_ (causative variant) vs. _The door broke_ (anticausative variant)).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, _porta fracta est_ can be said to have the following **three** (rather than only the typical two) readings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: verbal passive:  _the door was broken/has been broken_ (_by someone_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: adjectival passive: _the door is broken_ (_*by someone_; *on this adjectival reading!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: anticausative: _the door broke_ (_*by someone_). &#xD;&#xA;(NB: the use of * means ungrammatical). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following example, which can be taken as (good? What do you think?) evidence of the anticausative reading (which is, as noted above, different from the processive verbal passive reading (_to be broken by someone_) and from the resultative/stative adjectival one (_to be broken *by someone_)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Postquam omnis res mea Ianum ad medium **fracta est**, aliena negotia curo, excussus propriis. (Hor. *Sat.* II 3.18-20)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;‘After all my business collapsed at the central arcade of Janus…’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now here is my question: Which is the nature of the participle in the anticausative reading of _fracta est_? Cf. the verbal-adjectival distinction drawn above. I would say that in this case the participle has a verbal nature (like in the first verbal passive reading above) but perhaps I’m wrong. More examples of (clearer) anticausative readings of periphrastic forms would also be greatly appreciated.    &#xD;&#xA;NB: here I’m mainly interested in the ambiguity of _fracta/clausa est_ rather than in the one also involved in non-periphrastic forms like  _frangitur/clauditur_, which can also have different interpretations. When dealing with non-periphrastic forms, further distinctions become relevant (e.g., cf. _frangitur/se frangit_, the pronominal form becoming even much more frequent in Late Latin).  &#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What follows contains a relevant modification I should make thanks to the very useful feedback I’ve received from the commentators. Interestingly, I've been advised by the majority of them on the convenience of distinguishing what one could call the &quot;uniformity&quot; of the structure (e.g., the one corresponding to _Porta clausa est_) from its possible associated meanings (and &quot;nuances&quot;, in Joonas's terms). Here is my personal view, which, against the opinion of some commentators, does separate the three basic &quot;meanings&quot; (into types) from &quot;nuances&quot; (into subtypes). Against the opinion of some of them, I consider that fuzzinees between the readings/nuances is **not** involved for the reason that I assume, along with many (but, yes, not all) linguists, that syntactico-semantic structures are **not** fuzzy but are discrete! (NB: a very different thing, of course, is that we can have doubts when attributing the relevant (discrete!) meanings to the relevant (discrete!) structures). For the sake of exposition, I also consider that it can be useful to use typical semantic predicates like CAUSE, BECOME, and STATE (which have been used in the specialized literature on lexical decomposition of verbs; e.g., _Brutus killed Caesar_ can be decomposed into 'Brutus caused Caesar to become dead'). Next _Porta clausa est_ can be analyzed into the following three types, some of which contain subtypes (NB: of course, some commentators and I disagree on the more convenient &quot;labels&quot; and the most appropriate &quot;taxonomy&quot; but after all what is important is what is behind them).       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Verbal passive: 'the door was **caused** to become closed'.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;2. Verbal {anticausative/&quot;middle&quot;}: 'the door **became** closed'. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;3. Adjectival passive: ‘the door **is** closed’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   3.1. Resultative adjectival passive: 'the door is closed as a result of a&#xD;&#xA;   previous event of closing'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      3.1.1 ‘the door is closed because there has been a natural previous event&#xD;&#xA;             of  **causing** the door to become closed’)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      3.1.2. ‘the door is closed because there has been a natural previous event &#xD;&#xA;of just **becoming** closed’, i.e., with *no* agent involved.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     3.2. Stative adjectival passive: 'the door is closed (with no previous event of closing involved)'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as far as I can tell, there are FIVE possible interpretations involved in _Porta clausa est_. Isn't that great? Of course, soome further observations/remarks/caveats/... could be made but here I will limit myself to commenting a new distinction that can be drawn within the domain of adjectival structures: cf. the resultative and the stative readings. For example, in _Porta clausa est_ the resultative one is the most prominent one. However, the stative one is not excluded (e.g., imagine that the door was built closed). As for the adjectival reading of _porta fracta est_ , in this case, due to our encyclopedic knowledge, the resultative one seems to be the only possible one. &#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="464b865f-3543-4280-8614-443e53c1c483" CreationDate="2019-01-04T21:06:51.447" UserId="3248" Comment="relevant changes due to insights from commentators" Text="It is often said that _Porta clausa est_ can have **two** readings  depending on the categorial nature of the participle: verbal (cf. _clauditur/clausa est_) or adjectival (cf. _clausa est/clausa fuit_), which in turn corresponds to a semantic difference between process and result/state, respectively. For example, in Spanish this distinction is also made clear by using different auxiliaries, _ser_ vs. _estar_: cf. Sp. _La puerta fue cerrada_ (sc. by someone) /_La puerta estuvo cerrada_ (*/??by someone). A typical (although recently argued to be a bit problematic) test to distinguish verbal passives from adjectival ones is that the former can be used with an agentive *by*-phrase, while the latter can’t. As far as I know, this test has also been assumed to hold for Latin: cf. verbal passive (_porta {clauditur/clausa est} a Gaio_) with adjectival passive (cf. _porta clausa {est/fuit} */??a Gaio_).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the previous (typical?) approach, I think that the learner of Latin cannot often know if there is still a third reading available for _porta clausa est_ or _porta fracta est_, the one corresponding to the so-called “anticausative” variant, e.g., 'The door broke' (e.g., cf. the so-called &quot;causative alternation&quot; in English: _{John/The strong winds} broke the door_ (causative variant) vs. _The door broke_ (anticausative variant)).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, _porta fracta est_ can be said to have the following **three** (rather than only the typical two) readings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: verbal passive:  _the door was broken/has been broken_ (_by someone_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: adjectival passive: _the door is broken_ (_*by someone_; *on this adjectival reading!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: anticausative: _the door broke_ (_*by someone_). &#xD;&#xA;(NB: the use of * means ungrammatical). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following example, which can be taken as (good? What do you think?) evidence of the anticausative reading (which is, as noted above, different from the processive verbal passive reading (_to be broken by someone_) and from the resultative/stative adjectival one (_to be broken *by someone_)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Postquam omnis res mea Ianum ad medium **fracta est**, aliena negotia curo, excussus propriis. (Hor. *Sat.* II 3.18-20)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;‘After all my business collapsed at the central arcade of Janus…’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now here is my question: Which is the nature of the participle in the anticausative reading of _fracta est_? Cf. the verbal-adjectival distinction drawn above. I would say that in this case the participle has a verbal nature (like in the first verbal passive reading above) but perhaps I’m wrong. More examples of (clearer) anticausative readings of periphrastic forms would also be greatly appreciated.    &#xD;&#xA;NB: here I’m mainly interested in the ambiguity of _fracta/clausa est_ rather than in the one also involved in non-periphrastic forms like  _frangitur/clauditur_, which can also have different interpretations. When dealing with non-periphrastic forms, further distinctions become relevant (e.g., cf. _frangitur/se frangit_, the pronominal form becoming even much more frequent in Late Latin).  &#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What follows contains a relevant modification I should make thanks to the very useful feedback I’ve received from the commentators. Interestingly, I've been advised by the majority of them on the convenience of distinguishing what one could call the &quot;uniformity&quot; of the structure (e.g., the one corresponding to _Porta clausa est_) from its possible associated meanings (and &quot;nuances&quot;, in Joonas's terms). Here is my personal view, which, against the opinion of some commentators, does separate the three basic &quot;meanings&quot; (into types) from &quot;nuances&quot; (into subtypes). Against the opinion of some of them, I consider that fuzzinees between the readings/nuances is **not** involved for the reason that I assume, along with many (but, yes, not all) linguists, that syntactico-semantic structures are **not** fuzzy but are discrete (NB: a very different thing, of course, is that we can have doubts when attributing the relevant (discrete) meanings to the relevant (discrete) structures). For the sake of exposition, I also consider that it can be useful to use typical semantic predicates like CAUSE, BECOME, and STATE (which have been used in the specialized literature on lexical decomposition of verbs; e.g., _Brutus killed Caesar_ can be decomposed into 'Brutus caused Caesar to become dead'). Next _Porta clausa est_ can be analyzed into the following types and subtypes (NB: of course, some commentators and I disagree on the more convenient &quot;labels&quot; and on the most appropriate &quot;taxonomy&quot; but after all what is really important/relevant is what is behind them.        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Verbal passive: 'the door was **caused** to become closed' (by someone)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;2. Anticausative/&quot;middle&quot;: 'the door **became** closed'. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;3. Adjectival passive: ‘the door **is** closed’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   3.1. Resultative adjectival passive: 'the door is closed as a result of a&#xD;&#xA;   previous event of closing'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      3.1.1 ‘the door is closed because there has been a natural previous event&#xD;&#xA;             of  **causing** the door to become closed’)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      3.1.2. ‘the door is closed because there has been a natural previous event &#xD;&#xA;of just **becoming** closed’, i.e., with *no* agent involved.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     3.2. Stative adjectival passive: 'the door is closed (with no previous event of closing involved)'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as far as I can tell, there are FIVE possible interpretations involved in _Porta clausa est_. Isn't that great? I guess that some of you could even be tempted to make **sub**types from 1) and 2). Ok, go ahead! Of course, some further observations/remarks/caveats/... could be made but here I will limit myself to commenting a distinction that can be drawn within the domain of adjectival structures: cf. the resultative and the stative readings. For example, in _Porta clausa est_ the resultative one is the most prominent one. However, the stative one is not excluded (e.g., imagine that the door was built closed). As for the adjectival reading of _porta fracta est_ , in this case, due to our encyclopedic knowledge, the resultative one seems to be the only possible one. &#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27269" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="464b865f-3543-4280-8614-443e53c1c483" CreationDate="2019-01-04T21:06:51.447" UserId="3248" Comment="relevant changes due to insights from commentators" Text="On the (typical?) ambiguity of &quot;Porta clausa est&quot; _Five readings (for the time being!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="3dcdd7d3-c298-40e5-bf83-f132620ed363" CreationDate="2019-01-04T21:12:03.443" UserId="3248" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="It is often said that _Porta clausa est_ can have **two** readings  depending on the categorial nature of the participle: verbal (cf. _clauditur/clausa est_) or adjectival (cf. _clausa est/clausa fuit_), which in turn corresponds to a semantic difference between process and result/state, respectively. For example, in Spanish this distinction is also made clear by using different auxiliaries, _ser_ vs. _estar_: cf. Sp. _La puerta fue cerrada_ (sc. by someone) /_La puerta estuvo cerrada_ (*/??by someone). A typical (although recently argued to be a bit problematic) test to distinguish verbal passives from adjectival ones is that the former can be used with an agentive *by*-phrase, while the latter can’t. As far as I know, this test has also been assumed to hold for Latin: cf. verbal passive (_porta {clauditur/clausa est} a Gaio_) with adjectival passive (cf. _porta clausa {est/fuit} */??a Gaio_).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the previous (typical?) approach, I think that the learner of Latin cannot often know if there is still a third reading available for _porta clausa est_ or _porta fracta est_, the one corresponding to the so-called “anticausative” variant, e.g., 'The door broke' (e.g., cf. the so-called &quot;causative alternation&quot; in English: _{John/The strong winds} broke the door_ (causative variant) vs. _The door broke_ (anticausative variant)).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, _porta fracta est_ can be said to have the following **three** (rather than only the typical two) readings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: verbal passive:  _the door was broken/has been broken_ (_by someone_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: adjectival passive: _the door is broken_ (_*by someone_; *on this adjectival reading!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: anticausative: _the door broke_ (_*by someone_). &#xD;&#xA;(NB: the use of * means ungrammatical). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following example, which can be taken as (good? What do you think?) evidence of the anticausative reading (which is, as noted above, different from the processive verbal passive reading (_to be broken by someone_) and from the resultative/stative adjectival one (_to be broken *by someone_)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Postquam omnis res mea Ianum ad medium **fracta est**, aliena negotia curo, excussus propriis. (Hor. *Sat.* II 3.18-20)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;‘After all my business collapsed at the central arcade of Janus…’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now here is my question: Which is the nature of the participle in the anticausative reading of _fracta est_? Cf. the verbal-adjectival distinction drawn above. I would say that in this case the participle has a verbal nature (like in the first verbal passive reading above) but perhaps I’m wrong. More examples of (clearer) anticausative readings of periphrastic forms would also be greatly appreciated.    &#xD;&#xA;NB: here I’m mainly interested in the ambiguity of _fracta/clausa est_ rather than in the one also involved in non-periphrastic forms like  _frangitur/clauditur_, which can also have different interpretations. When dealing with non-periphrastic forms, further distinctions become relevant (e.g., cf. _frangitur/se frangit_, the pronominal form becoming even much more frequent in Late Latin).  &#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What follows contains a relevant modification I should make thanks to the very useful feedback I’ve received from the commentators. Interestingly, I've been advised by the majority of them on the convenience of distinguishing what one could call the &quot;uniformity&quot; of the structure (e.g., the one corresponding to _Porta clausa est_) from its possible associated meanings (and &quot;nuances&quot;, in Joonas's terms). Here is my personal view, which, against the opinion of some commentators, does separate the three basic &quot;meanings&quot; (into types) from &quot;nuances&quot; (into subtypes). Against the opinion of some of them, I consider that fuzzinees between the readings/nuances is **not** involved for the reason that I assume, along with many (but, yes, not all) linguists, that syntactico-semantic structures are **not** fuzzy but are discrete (NB: a very different thing, of course, is that we can have doubts when attributing the relevant (discrete) meanings to the relevant (discrete) structures). For the sake of exposition, I also consider that it can be useful to use typical semantic predicates like CAUSE, BECOME, and STATE (which have been used in the specialized literature on lexical decomposition of verbs; e.g., _Brutus killed Caesar_ can be decomposed into 'Brutus caused Caesar to become dead'). Next _Porta clausa est_ can be analyzed into the following types and subtypes (NB: of course, some commentators and I disagree on the more convenient &quot;labels&quot; and on the most appropriate &quot;taxonomy&quot; but after all what is really important/relevant is what is behind them.        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Verbal passive: 'the door was **caused** to become closed' (by someone)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;2. Anticausative/&quot;middle&quot;: 'the door **became** closed'. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;3. Adjectival passive: ‘the door **is** closed’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   3.1. Resultative adjectival passive: 'the door is closed as a result of a&#xD;&#xA;   previous event of closing'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      3.1.1 ‘the door is closed because there has been a natural previous event&#xD;&#xA;             of  **causing** the door to become closed’)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      3.1.2. ‘the door is closed because there has been a natural previous event &#xD;&#xA;of just **becoming** closed’, i.e., with *no* agent involved.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     3.2. Stative adjectival passive: 'the door is closed (with no previous event of closing involved)'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as far as I can tell, there are FIVE possible interpretations involved in _Porta clausa est_. Isn't that great? I guess that some of you could even be tempted to make **sub**types out of 1) or, more probably, out of 2). Ok, go ahead! Of course, some further observations/remarks/caveats/... could be made but here I will limit myself to commenting a distinction that can be drawn within the domain of adjectival structures: cf. the resultative and the stative readings. For example, in _Porta clausa est_ the resultative one is the most prominent one. However, the stative one is not excluded (e.g., imagine that the door was built closed). As for the adjectival reading of _porta fracta est_ , in this case, due to our encyclopedic knowledge, the resultative one seems to be the only possible one. &#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="bb1da874-5eef-4e88-8596-89d3e5c965af" CreationDate="2019-01-04T21:57:48.143" UserId="3248" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="It is often said that _Porta clausa est_ can have **two** readings  depending on the categorial nature of the participle: verbal (cf. _clauditur/clausa est_) or adjectival (cf. _clausa est/clausa fuit_), which in turn corresponds to a semantic difference between process and result/state, respectively. For example, in Spanish this distinction is also made clear by using different auxiliaries, _ser_ vs. _estar_: cf. Sp. _La puerta fue cerrada_ (sc. by someone) /_La puerta estuvo cerrada_ (*/??by someone). A typical (although recently argued to be a bit problematic) test to distinguish verbal passives from adjectival ones is that the former can be used with an agentive *by*-phrase, while the latter can’t. As far as I know, this test has also been assumed to hold for Latin: cf. verbal passive (_porta {clauditur/clausa est} a Gaio_) with adjectival passive (cf. _porta clausa {est/fuit} */??a Gaio_).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the previous (typical?) approach, I think that the learner of Latin cannot often know if there is still a third reading available for _porta clausa est_ or _porta fracta est_, the one corresponding to the so-called “anticausative” variant, e.g., 'The door broke' (e.g., cf. the so-called &quot;causative alternation&quot; in English: _{John/The strong winds} broke the door_ (causative variant) vs. _The door broke_ (anticausative variant)).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, _porta fracta est_ can be said to have the following **three** (rather than only the typical two) readings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: verbal passive:  _the door was broken/has been broken_ (_by someone_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: adjectival passive: _the door is broken_ (_*by someone_; *on this adjectival reading!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: anticausative: _the door broke_ (_*by someone_). &#xD;&#xA;(NB: the use of * means ungrammatical). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following example, which can be taken as (good? What do you think?) evidence of the anticausative reading (which is, as noted above, different from the processive verbal passive reading (_to be broken by someone_) and from the resultative/stative adjectival one (_to be broken *by someone_)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Postquam omnis res mea Ianum ad medium **fracta est**, aliena negotia curo, excussus propriis. (Hor. *Sat.* II 3.18-20)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;‘After all my business collapsed at the central arcade of Janus…’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now here is my question: Which is the nature of the participle in the anticausative reading of _fracta est_? Cf. the verbal-adjectival distinction drawn above. I would say that in this case the participle has a verbal nature (like in the first verbal passive reading above) but perhaps I’m wrong. More examples of (clearer) anticausative readings of periphrastic forms would also be greatly appreciated.    &#xD;&#xA;NB: here I’m mainly interested in the ambiguity of _fracta/clausa est_ rather than in the one also involved in non-periphrastic forms like  _frangitur/clauditur_, which can also have different interpretations. When dealing with non-periphrastic forms, further distinctions become relevant (e.g., cf. _frangitur/se frangit_, the pronominal form becoming even much more frequent in Late Latin).  &#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What follows contains a relevant modification I should make thanks to the very useful feedback I’ve received from the commentators. Interestingly, I've been advised by the majority of them on the convenience of distinguishing what one could call the &quot;uniformity&quot; of the structure (e.g., the one corresponding to _Porta clausa est_) from its possible associated meanings (and &quot;nuances&quot;, in Joonas's terms). Here is my personal view, which, against perhaps the opinion of some commentators, does crucially separate the **three** basic &quot;meanings&quot; (into types) from &quot;nuances&quot; (into subtypes). I consider that fuzziness is **not** involved at the **type** level (perhaps things are different at the subtype level...). For the sake of exposition, I also consider that it can be useful to use typical semantic predicates like CAUSE, BECOME, and STATE (which have been used in the specialized literature on lexical decomposition of verbs; e.g., _Brutus killed Caesar_ can be decomposed into 'Brutus caused Caesar to become dead'). Next _Porta clausa est_ can be analyzed into the following types and subtypes (NB: of course, some commentators and I disagree on the more convenient &quot;labels&quot; and on the most appropriate &quot;taxonomy&quot; but after all what is really important/relevant is what is behind them).&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Verbal passive: 'the door was **caused** to become closed' (by someone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Anticausative/&quot;middle&quot;: 'the door **became** closed'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   2.1. ‘the door became closed because there has been another &#xD;&#xA;   previous/implicit event that _caused_ the door to become closed’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   2.2. ‘the door became closed _by itself_'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Adjectival passive: ‘the door **is** closed’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   3.1. Resultative adjectival passive: 'the door is closed as a _result_ of a&#xD;&#xA;   previous event of closing'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      3.1.1 ‘the door is closed because there has been a previous event&#xD;&#xA;             of  _causing_ the door to become closed’)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      3.1.2. ‘the door is closed because there has been a previous event &#xD;&#xA;of just _becoming_ closed’, i.e., with _no_ agent involved.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     3.2. Stative adjectival passive: 'the door is closed (with _no_ previous event of closing involved)'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that in this classification it is important to distinguish the three types from further subtypes/nuances. My impression is that the three basic types are clear, whereas some subtypes are perhaps not necessary. Some further observations/remarks/caveats/... could also be made but here I will limit myself to commenting a distinction that can be drawn within the domain of adjectival structures: cf. the resultative and the stative readings. For example, in _Porta clausa est_ the resultative one is the most prominent one. However, the stative one is not excluded (e.g., imagine that the door was built closed). As for the adjectival reading of _porta fracta est_ , in this case, due to our encyclopedic knowledge, the resultative one seems to be the only possible one. &#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27272" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="bb1da874-5eef-4e88-8596-89d3e5c965af" CreationDate="2019-01-04T21:57:48.143" UserId="3248" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="On the (typical?) ambiguity of &quot;Porta clausa est&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="54f52760-4865-4786-b9bf-166f8c0b97e6" CreationDate="2019-01-04T22:19:37.860" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="It is often said that _Porta clausa est_ can have **two** readings  depending on the categorial nature of the participle: verbal (cf. _clauditur/clausa est_) or adjectival (cf. _clausa est/clausa fuit_), which in turn corresponds to a semantic difference between process and result/state, respectively. For example, in Spanish this distinction is also made clear by using different auxiliaries, _ser_ vs. _estar_: cf. Sp. _La puerta fue cerrada_ (sc. by someone) /_La puerta estuvo cerrada_ (*/??by someone). A typical (although recently argued to be a bit problematic) test to distinguish verbal passives from adjectival ones is that the former can be used with an agentive *by*-phrase, while the latter can’t. As far as I know, this test has also been assumed to hold for Latin: cf. verbal passive (_porta {clauditur/clausa est} a Gaio_) with adjectival passive (cf. _porta clausa {est/fuit} */??a Gaio_).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the previous (typical?) approach, I think that the learner of Latin cannot often know if there is still a third reading available for _porta clausa est_ or _porta fracta est_, the one corresponding to the so-called “anticausative” variant, e.g., 'The door broke' (e.g., cf. the so-called &quot;causative alternation&quot; in English: _{John/The strong winds} broke the door_ (causative variant) vs. _The door broke_ (anticausative variant)).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, _porta fracta est_ can be said to have the following **three** (rather than only the typical two) readings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: verbal passive:  _the door was broken/has been broken_ (_by someone_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: adjectival passive: _the door is broken_ (_*by someone_; *on this adjectival reading!). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: anticausative: _the door broke_ (_*by someone_). &#xD;&#xA;(NB: the use of * means ungrammatical). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following example, which can be taken as (good? What do you think?) evidence of the anticausative reading (which is, as noted above, different from the processive verbal passive reading (_to be broken by someone_) and from the resultative/stative adjectival one (_to be broken *by someone_)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Postquam omnis res mea Ianum ad medium **fracta est**, aliena negotia curo, excussus propriis. (Hor. *Sat.* II 3.18-20)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;‘After all my business collapsed at the central arcade of Janus…’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now here is my question: Which is the nature of the participle in the anticausative reading of _fracta est_? Cf. the verbal-adjectival distinction drawn above. I would say that in this case the participle has a verbal nature (like in the first verbal passive reading above) but perhaps I’m wrong. More examples of (clearer) anticausative readings of periphrastic forms would also be greatly appreciated.    &#xD;&#xA;NB: here I’m mainly interested in the ambiguity of _fracta/clausa est_ rather than in the one also involved in non-periphrastic forms like  _frangitur/clauditur_, which can also have different interpretations. When dealing with non-periphrastic forms, further distinctions become relevant (e.g., cf. _frangitur/se frangit_, the pronominal form becoming even much more frequent in Late Latin).  &#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What follows contains a relevant modification I should make thanks to the very useful feedback I’ve received from the commentators. Interestingly, I've been advised by the majority of them on the convenience of distinguishing what one could call the &quot;uniformity&quot; of the structure (e.g., the one corresponding to _Porta clausa est_) from its possible associated meanings (and &quot;nuances&quot;, in Joonas's terms). Here is my personal view, which, against perhaps the opinion of some commentators, does crucially separate the **three** basic &quot;meanings&quot; (into types) from &quot;nuances&quot; (into subtypes). I consider that fuzziness is **not** involved at the **type** level (perhaps things are different at the subtype level...). For the sake of exposition, I also consider that it can be useful to use typical semantic predicates like CAUSE, BECOME, and STATE (which have been used in the specialized literature on lexical decomposition of verbs; e.g., _Brutus killed Caesar_ can be decomposed into 'Brutus caused Caesar to become dead'). Next _Porta clausa est_ can be analyzed into the following types and subtypes (NB: of course, some commentators and I disagree on the more convenient &quot;labels&quot; and on the most appropriate &quot;taxonomy&quot; but after all what is really important/relevant is what is behind them).&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Verbal passive: 'the door was **caused** to become closed' (by someone)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Anticausative/&quot;middle&quot;: 'the door **became** closed'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   2.1. ‘the door became closed because there has been another &#xD;&#xA;   previous/implicit event that _caused_ the door to become closed’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   2.2. ‘the door became closed _by itself_'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Adjectival passive: ‘the door **is** closed’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   3.1. Resultative adjectival passive: 'the door is closed as a _result_ of a&#xD;&#xA;   previous event of closing'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      3.1.1 ‘the door is closed because there has been a previous event&#xD;&#xA;             of  _causing_ the door to become closed’)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      3.1.2. ‘the door is closed because there has been a previous event &#xD;&#xA;of just _becoming_ closed’, i.e., with _no_ agent involved.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     3.2. Stative adjectival passive: 'the door is closed (with _no_ previous event of closing involved)'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that in this classification it is important to distinguish the three types from further subtypes/nuances. My impression is that the three basic types are clear, whereas some subtypes are perhaps not necessary. Some further observations/remarks/caveats/... could also be made but here I will limit myself to commenting a distinction that can be drawn within the domain of adjectival structures: cf. the resultative and the stative readings. For example, in _Porta clausa est_ the resultative one is the most prominent one. However, the stative one is not excluded (e.g., imagine that the door was built closed). As for the adjectival reading of _porta fracta est_ , in this case, due to our encyclopedic knowledge, the resultative one seems to be the only possible one. &#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8825" RevisionGUID="f0fa29bb-837c-43cb-8c4d-5c76584bdd53" CreationDate="2019-01-04T23:04:18.520" UserId="9" Text="Since posting the question, I found a small amount of relevant information that I thought I'd put as a partial answer. I'd still appreciate answers from other members of this site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assibilation of singleton [t] but not geminate [tt] seems to have occurred also in Finnish. &quot;Towards a Typology of Stop Assibilation,&quot; by T. A. Hall and Silke Hamann (2003), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An argument that the length of the frication phase is perceived in relation to the overall duration of the sequence is illustrated by assibilation in Finnic. Here the /t/ was fricativized to [s] before a high front vowel, but the geminate /tt/ remained unchanged (Posti 1954: 51). This can be explained by the fact that the friction phase is perceived as longer if it follows a singleton than if it follows a geminate plosive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([p. 125](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9520/1009ffb230382c3c6e5ca118f47cad62a3a0.pdf))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This explanation seems relatively satisfactory to me. I still would be interested in learning more details about how we know that -ttiV- did not palatalize in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8825" RevisionGUID="ff47d749-9c65-4b8f-a410-3f5ac53ab21a" CreationDate="2019-01-04T23:15:17.100" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Since posting the question, I found a small amount of relevant information that I thought I'd put as a partial answer. I'd still appreciate answers from other members of this site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assibilation of singleton [t] but not geminate [tt] seems to have occurred also in Finnic. &quot;Towards a Typology of Stop Assibilation,&quot; by T. A. Hall and Silke Hamann (2003), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An argument that the length of the frication phase is perceived in relation to the overall duration of the sequence is illustrated by assibilation in Finnic. Here the /t/ was fricativized to [s] before a high front vowel, but the geminate /tt/ remained unchanged (Posti 1954: 51). This can be explained by the fact that the friction phase is perceived as longer if it follows a singleton than if it follows a geminate plosive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([p. 125](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9520/1009ffb230382c3c6e5ca118f47cad62a3a0.pdf))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This explanation seems relatively satisfactory to me. I still would be interested in learning more details about how we know that -ttiV- did not palatalize in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8821" RevisionGUID="36fa0d14-815a-4b95-bb6b-f61fd3dff15c" CreationDate="2019-01-05T00:28:21.610" UserId="30" Comment="Created hyperlink and put quotations in blocks.; edited tags" Text="When dealing with descriptions of motion in Classical Latin, some authors have recently concluded from their corpus study that this language, unlike English, typically dislikes an accumulation of long series of directional/path segments in a complex motion event (see [Iacobini &amp; Corona 2016][1]). However, a colleague of mine, who is also investigating this topic, told me that examples like the following one from Livy, which contains three path segments, are relatively frequent in Classical Latin prose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fulvius Flacus … media urbe per Carinas Esquilias contendit.  (Liv. 26, 10, 1). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the former authors are correct, Latin is quite different from English in that examples like the following one from Tolkien’s Hobbit are not expected to be frequent: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He still wandered on, out of the little high valley, over its edge, and down the slopes beyond. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In striking contrast to English, Romance languages have been shown to favor “separate clauses [i.e., with different verbs] for each segment of a complex motion event&quot; (Slobin 1996; reference mentioned by Iacobini &amp; Corona 2016).  E.g., here you have some Romance translations of the English sentence above, which interestingly show how differently from English these languages express motion events (cf. the Latin translation by Mark Walker in the title of this post):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spanish:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Continuó caminando, fuera del pequeño y elevado valle, por el borde, y bajando luego las pendientes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;French:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Il continua d'avancer au hasard, sortit du haut vallon, en franchit le bord et descendit la pente au-delà....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Portuguese:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Continou avançando, saiu do vale alto e estreito, e desceu as ladeiras além.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the possibility of accumulating directional/path segments in a complex motion event, my impression is that Classical Latin is to be put somewhere in the middle of the continuum: it is not like English but it does not behave like Romance languages either. What is your opinion/personal experience from reading Latin texts?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mmm.lis.upatras.gr/index.php/mmm/article/view/2726/2989" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27277" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8821" RevisionGUID="36fa0d14-815a-4b95-bb6b-f61fd3dff15c" CreationDate="2019-01-05T00:28:21.610" UserId="30" Comment="Created hyperlink and put quotations in blocks.; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|translation|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8826" RevisionGUID="a2b4f7ba-a296-4478-83c4-27fb12d07b33" CreationDate="2019-01-05T02:04:22.203" UserId="3261" Text="I would have guessed that Latin, being a [synthetic language][1], would be much easier for a computer to translate, than an analytic language like English.  But is this true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is it that causes Google Translate difficulties with a simple sentence like the one below.  What gives it reason to omit &quot;mother&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_language&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7jYob.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27279" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8826" RevisionGUID="a2b4f7ba-a296-4478-83c4-27fb12d07b33" CreationDate="2019-01-05T02:04:22.203" UserId="3261" Text="Why does Google Translate have trouble with Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27280" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8826" RevisionGUID="a2b4f7ba-a296-4478-83c4-27fb12d07b33" CreationDate="2019-01-05T02:04:22.203" UserId="3261" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27281" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="8826" RevisionGUID="27e72781-9cc6-47d4-85e9-bc7a8e2a51d9" CreationDate="2019-01-05T02:16:08.480" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4349],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1459,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;luchonacho&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:985,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;cnread&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="27282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8821" RevisionGUID="17d9cf5a-8b8a-49cd-b3a0-8bb92c4d01dc" CreationDate="2019-01-05T03:02:23.057" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="How natural would you judge the translation of the following English sentence to Classical Latin? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He still wandered on, out of the little high valley, over its edge, and down the slopes beyond. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Ulterius etiam errabat, e parva valle alta, super limen eius, et deorsum declivia ultra'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Latin translation by Mark Walker: _Hobbitus Ille_, J.R.R. Tolkien (1937), Harper Collins Publishers, London, p. 103, 2012)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When dealing with descriptions of motion in Classical Latin, some authors have recently concluded from their corpus study that this language, unlike English, typically dislikes an accumulation of long series of directional/path segments in a complex motion event (see [Iacobini &amp; Corona 2016][1]). However, a colleague of mine, who is also investigating this topic, told me that examples like the following one from Livy, which contains three path segments, are relatively frequent in Classical Latin prose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fulvius Flacus … media urbe per Carinas Esquilias contendit.  (Liv. 26, 10, 1). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the former authors are correct, Latin is quite different from English in that examples like the previous one from Tolkien’s Hobbit are not expected to be frequent in Classical Latin. In striking contrast to English, Romance languages have been shown to favor “separate clauses [i.e., with different verbs] for each segment of a complex motion event&quot; (Slobin 1996; reference mentioned by Iacobini &amp; Corona 2016).  E.g., here you have some Romance translations of the English sentence above, which interestingly show how differently from English these languages express motion events:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spanish:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Continuó caminando, fuera del pequeño y elevado valle, por el borde, y bajando luego las pendientes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;French:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Il continua d'avancer au hasard, sortit du haut vallon, en franchit le bord et descendit la pente au-delà....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Portuguese:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Continou avançando, saiu do vale alto e estreito, e desceu as ladeiras além.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the possibility of accumulating directional/path segments in a complex motion event, my impression is that Classical Latin is to be put somewhere in the middle of the continuum: it is not like English but it does not behave like Romance languages either. What is your opinion/personal experience from reading Latin texts?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mmm.lis.upatras.gr/index.php/mmm/article/view/2726/2989" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27283" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8821" RevisionGUID="17d9cf5a-8b8a-49cd-b3a0-8bb92c4d01dc" CreationDate="2019-01-05T03:02:23.057" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="How complex a motion event can be in Classical Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8821" RevisionGUID="d61e8037-4824-4c0f-aee7-4ebe0db94ee0" CreationDate="2019-01-05T03:32:57.860" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="How natural would you judge the translation of the following English sentence to Classical Latin? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He still wandered on, out of the little high valley, over its edge, and down the slopes beyond. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Ulterius etiam errabat, e parva valle alta, super limen eius, et deorsum declivia ultra'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Latin translation by Mark Walker: _Hobbitus Ille_, J.R.R. Tolkien (1937), Harper Collins Publishers, London, p. 103, 2012)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When dealing with descriptions of motion in Classical Latin, some authors have recently concluded from their corpus study that this language, unlike English, typically dislikes an accumulation of long series of directional/path segments in a complex motion event (see [Iacobini &amp; Corona 2016][1]). However, a colleague of mine, who is also investigating this topic, told me that examples like the following one from Livy, which contains three path segments, are relatively frequent in Classical Latin prose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fulvius Flacus … media urbe per Carinas Esquilias contendit.  (Liv. 26, 10, 1). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the former authors are correct, Latin is quite different from English in that examples like the previous one from Tolkien’s Hobbit are not expected to be frequent in Classical Latin. In striking contrast to English, Romance languages have been shown to favor “separate clauses [i.e., with different verbs] for each segment of a complex motion event&quot; (Slobin 1996; reference mentioned by Iacobini &amp; Corona 2016).  E.g., here you have some Romance translations of the English sentence above, which interestingly show how differently from English these languages express motion events:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Catalan (transl. by J. Pujolar):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I seguí vagant, sortí de l’alta i petiteta vall, traspassà la seva vora i descendí per les rampes que venien a darrere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spanish (transl. by M. Figueroa):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Continuó caminando, fuera del pequeño y elevado valle, por el borde, y bajando luego las pendientes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;French (transl. by F. Ledoux):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Il continua d'avancer au hasard, sortit du haut vallon, en franchit le bord et descendit la pente au-delà....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Portuguese (transl. by ?). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Continou avançando, saiu do vale alto e estreito, e desceu as ladeiras além.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In striking contrast to Romance languages, languages like Dutch are expected to behave like English: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hij zwierf verder, het kleine hoge dal uit, over de rand en daaarachter gelegen hellingen af. (Lit. ‘He wandered further, out of the little high valley, down over the edge and the slopes lying beyond.’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the possibility of accumulating directional/path segments in a complex motion event, my impression is that Classical Latin is to be put somewhere in the middle of the continuum: it is not like Germanic languages but it does not behave like Romance languages either. What is your opinion/personal experience from reading Latin texts?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mmm.lis.upatras.gr/index.php/mmm/article/view/2726/2989" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8821" RevisionGUID="c31da297-5550-4c0f-8300-8978e7407b93" CreationDate="2019-01-05T03:52:20.440" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="How natural would you judge the translation of the following English sentence into Latin? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He still wandered on, out of the little high valley, over its edge, and down the slopes beyond. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Ulterius etiam errabat, e parva valle alta, super limen eius, et deorsum declivia ultra'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Latin translation by Mark Walker: _Hobbitus Ille_, J.R.R. Tolkien (1937), Harper Collins Publishers, London, p. 103, 2012)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When dealing with descriptions of motion in Classical Latin, some authors have recently concluded from their corpus study that this language, unlike English, typically dislikes an accumulation of long series of directional/path segments in a complex motion event (see [Iacobini &amp; Corona 2016][1]). However, a Spanish colleague of mine, who is also investigating this topic, told me that examples like the following one from Livy, which contains three path segments, are relatively frequent in Classical Latin prose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fulvius Flacus … media urbe per Carinas Esquilias contendit.  (Liv. 26, 10, 1). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the former authors are correct, Latin is quite different from English in that examples like the previous one from Tolkien’s Hobbit are not expected to be frequent in Classical Latin. In striking contrast to English, Romance languages have been shown to favor “separate clauses [i.e., with different verbs] for each segment of a complex motion event&quot; (Slobin 1996; reference mentioned by Iacobini &amp; Corona 2016).  E.g., here you have some Romance translations of the English sentence above, which interestingly show how differently from English these languages express motion events:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Catalan (transl. by J. Pujolar):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I seguí vagant, sortí de l’alta i petiteta vall, traspassà la seva vora i descendí per les rampes que venien a darrere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spanish (transl. by M. Figueroa):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Continuó caminando, fuera del pequeño y elevado valle, por el borde, y bajando luego las pendientes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;French (transl. by F. Ledoux):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Il continua d'avancer au hasard, sortit du haut vallon, en franchit le bord et descendit la pente au-delà....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Portuguese (transl. by ?). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Continou avançando, saiu do vale alto e estreito, e desceu as ladeiras além.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In striking contrast to Romance languages, languages like Dutch are expected to behave like English: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hij zwierf verder, het kleine hoge dal uit, over de rand en daaarachter gelegen hellingen af. (Lit. ‘He wandered further, out of the little high valley, down over the edge and the slopes lying beyond.’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the possibility of accumulating directional/path segments in a complex motion event, my impression is that Classical Latin is to be put somewhere in the middle of the continuum: it is not like Germanic languages but it does not behave like Romance languages either. What is your opinion/personal experience from reading Latin texts?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mmm.lis.upatras.gr/index.php/mmm/article/view/2726/2989" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8827" RevisionGUID="c73e5b8a-82e1-434f-81cd-f0a5205c7a37" CreationDate="2019-01-05T06:49:00.687" UserId="40" Text="(More a collection of random thoughts than a real answer, but maybe something here will be useful. Also, any statements below which rely on my Latin Sprachgefühl should be taken with a large *grano salis*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation of the Tolkien sentence sounds unnatural to me in a couple of ways, but I'm not it's because of the way the motion events are expressed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of things strike me as off that are definitely unrelated to the motion events. First, that *eius*: I don't think a Latin writer would have used it. It's not needed, and it sounds like it's referring to a person. Second is the coordination of the three motion phrases: in multi-item lists like this, I believe both Latin and Greek go for either polysyndeton (e.g. *et X et Y et Z*) or asyndeton (*X Y Z*), but not the English pattern of having one conjunction before the last element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more general reason why this doesn't really look like a Classical Latin sentence to me is that Latin prose narrative doesn't generally go in for this level of novelistic detail. We have very few novels from antiquity, but their narration tends to be a lot more bare-bones than a modern novel; in this case I think a narrator would just say &quot;He wandered out of the valley&quot;, taking it for granted that that involves climbing over the edge and down the slopes. (This is something I've noticed before in translations of modern literary passages into Latin and Greek: even if grammatically perfect, they feel unnatural because the genre conventions are so different.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of this goes to your question, though, and FWIW your friend's example from Livy seems quite normal to me. But if it is true that Latin mostly avoids such complex motion clauses, a possible reason comes to mind which has to do with the satellite-framing we discussed in a recent thread. (You're quite right that Latin is satellite-framed when one considers verbal prefixes as satellites, of course; I hadn't been thinking of them in that way.) The point is that Latin is fond of prefixing motion verbs with a directional or locational prefix: *ingredior, egredior* etc. But these prefixes can only code one type of Path. So if you're moving both out of something and into something else, which prefix do you choose? Unless you want to give specific prominence to one Path over the others, you can't use a Path prefix. (English, though satellite-framed, doesn't have this problem because its satellites are separable from the verb so can be multiplied.) Of course, a Latin writer is never obliged to use such a prefix -- Livy doesn't in your friend's example -- but it is a pretty strong stylistic tendency and might be one reason to avoid this type of complex motion clause." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27287" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7271" RevisionGUID="f1afecc8-d58d-4a7b-9a19-f68197b4714c" CreationDate="2019-01-05T07:01:50.373" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="27288" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5925" RevisionGUID="28a300b3-d07e-4fe2-b18a-7e50cd9f9769" CreationDate="2019-01-05T19:16:41.223" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8828" RevisionGUID="5b98f7bf-b987-49e2-8ce2-1195763c0aac" CreationDate="2019-01-05T19:44:34.460" UserId="2363" Text="The grammar is not correct, but I believe the intended meaning is, &quot;We desire an opportunity to travel around.&quot; I.e., we don't want to be locked up any more. This makes perfect sense in the context of a prison. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Occasio + genitive = &quot;an opportunity/chance of doing X&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like the writer tried to use desiderium + a nobis to mean &quot;is desired by us.&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8828" RevisionGUID="d129e752-9b62-4d9b-aeb9-4bfa10b49d5d" CreationDate="2019-01-05T21:21:28.010" UserId="79" Comment="added 220 characters in body" Text="The grammar is not correct, but I believe the intended meaning is, &quot;We desire an opportunity to travel around.&quot; I.e., we don't want to be locked up any more. This makes perfect sense in the context of a prison. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Occasio + genitive = &quot;an opportunity/chance of doing X&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like the writer tried to use desiderium + a nobis to mean &quot;is desired by us.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of options to phrase this idea more grammatically in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Keeping the structure of a noun clause probably requires a double dative construction: *peregrinandi occasio est magno nobis desiderio*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8829" RevisionGUID="f31ff1e4-05d9-4081-9239-1e40a13d4da6" CreationDate="2019-01-05T23:12:16.110" UserId="2363" Text="I don't think nesting is a good way of describing this phenomenon. This example looks to me like an ablative absolute with an additional predicate, an uncommon but far from unknown construction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quo mortuo nuntiato* = When he was reported (as being) dead. Cf. *hoste iudicato Dolabella* (With Dolabella having been pronounced an enemy) and *Marcello consule facto* (With Marcello having been made consul). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that all these examples include verbs that take either double accusatives or indirect discourse. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8829" RevisionGUID="b0aeaafb-9801-42ed-9f95-c47579296534" CreationDate="2019-01-05T23:21:26.787" UserId="2363" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="I don't think nesting is a good way of describing this phenomenon. This example looks to me like an ablative absolute in which the noun/pronoun has a predicate complement. This is an uncommon but far from unknown construction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quo mortuo nuntiato* = When he was reported (as being) dead. Cf. *hoste iudicato Dolabella* (With Dolabella having been pronounced an enemy) and *Marcello consule facto* (With Marcello having been made consul). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that all these examples include verbs that take either double accusatives or indirect discourse. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8829" RevisionGUID="22f001a7-01f1-494a-85b8-4bdd8fe7165b" CreationDate="2019-01-05T23:38:31.650" UserId="2363" Comment="clarity" Text="I don't think nesting is a good way of describing this phenomenon. This is simply what happens when a clause with a predicate noun or adjective is transformed into an ablative absolute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quo mortuo nuntiato* = *qui mortuus nuntiatus est*. Similarly, *hoste iudicato Dolabella* = *Dolabella hostis iudicatus est* and *Marcello consule facto* = *Marcellus consul factus est*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8830" RevisionGUID="16b6892f-3942-4ee1-a9bf-fdd9d0940543" CreationDate="2019-01-06T02:43:29.330" UserId="3264" Text="This is my first attempt at a translation for a motto. My intent is to convey &quot;Always be good&quot; as an advice. I think it is &quot;Semper bonus esto&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A quick digression on the motto**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm using Subject+ Object + Verb order, which I read is the most basic one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this answer][1], &quot;esto&quot; is the imperative form I should be using (since it's meant as an advice)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am using &quot;bonus&quot;, which is &quot;good&quot; in singular masculine, because the motto is talking about a person of unknown gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The main issue**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My biggest doubt concerns the position of &quot;Semper&quot;. Should I put it before the verb, since it is an adverb, or in the beginning of the sentence, since it somehow refers to the whole concept? [Phrases with &quot;semper&quot; seem to use it in the beginning][2], but I'm not sure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/565/what-are-the-future-imperatives-of-sum&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2296/does-this-latin-make-sense" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27295" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8830" RevisionGUID="16b6892f-3942-4ee1-a9bf-fdd9d0940543" CreationDate="2019-01-06T02:43:29.330" UserId="3264" Text="&quot;Semper&quot; in the beginning of a sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27296" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8830" RevisionGUID="16b6892f-3942-4ee1-a9bf-fdd9d0940543" CreationDate="2019-01-06T02:43:29.330" UserId="3264" Text="|adjective|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27297" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7665" RevisionGUID="989fb5b1-eaa5-4523-b024-8369333a6235" CreationDate="2019-01-06T07:02:10.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="27298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8831" RevisionGUID="b0f866a5-f77f-4f6a-a34c-24c13090277e" CreationDate="2019-01-06T10:02:15.957" UserId="79" Text="The Latin word order is quite free, but not irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;The proposed *semper bonus esto* sounds just perfect to me; starting with *semper* gives the adverb emphasis and it all sounds natural.&#xD;&#xA;The choices of words are also good.&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, this word order has the additional benefit of fitting in hexameter, as in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Care soci, do consilium: semper bonus esto!  &#xD;&#xA;Dear fellow, I give a counsel: always be good!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English translation is in prose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of a motto starting with *semper* is [*semper eadem*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/967/79).&#xD;&#xA;Starting with that word is indeed common." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8830" RevisionGUID="88012535-c343-481a-9e21-b70b627ef27f" CreationDate="2019-01-06T10:06:08.063" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags and made minor edits. Feel free to edit further or undo (rollback)!" Text="This is my first attempt at a translation for a motto. My intent is to convey &quot;Always be good&quot; as an advice. I think it is &quot;Semper bonus esto&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A quick digression on the motto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm using Subject+ Object + Verb order, which I read is the most basic one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this answer][1], &quot;esto&quot; is the imperative form I should be using (since it's meant as an advice)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am using &quot;bonus&quot;, which is &quot;good&quot; in singular masculine, because the motto is talking about a person of unknown gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The main issue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My biggest doubt concerns the position of &quot;Semper&quot;. Should I put it before the verb, since it is an adverb, or in the beginning of the sentence, since it somehow refers to the whole concept? [Phrases with &quot;semper&quot; seem to use it in the beginning][2], but I'm not sure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/565/what-are-the-future-imperatives-of-sum&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2296/does-this-latin-make-sense" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27300" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8830" RevisionGUID="88012535-c343-481a-9e21-b70b627ef27f" CreationDate="2019-01-06T10:06:08.063" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags and made minor edits. Feel free to edit further or undo (rollback)!" Text="|adjective|motto|adverb|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27301" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4228" RevisionGUID="fdbe741b-2988-4b52-98e6-91eaebc8bacd" CreationDate="2019-01-06T10:27:39.383" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|classical-latin|orthography|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8832" RevisionGUID="e401c5cc-8cb2-4416-9963-59fcf27f167a" CreationDate="2019-01-06T17:05:23.767" UserId="645" Text="To begin with *semper* is quite acceptable and even gives it a little emphasis. However in a motto I should prefer something more active than *bonus esto*, and recommend instead *semper bene age* (act well), or even *semper optime age* (do as well as you possibly can)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8832" RevisionGUID="709b187a-b439-4a2a-84c0-9767e6aa0944" CreationDate="2019-01-06T19:08:43.080" UserId="645" Comment="added alternative" Text="To begin with *semper* is quite acceptable and even gives it a little emphasis. However in a motto I should prefer something more active than *bonus esto*, and recommend instead *semper bene age* (act well), or even *semper optime age* (do as well as you possibly can).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[edit] After a bit more thought, *semper quam optime* would be even better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27305" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6643" RevisionGUID="9ece9388-c3cd-4da5-9737-113772116527" CreationDate="2019-01-06T20:38:10.977" UserId="648" Comment="tags edited" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27306" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6643" RevisionGUID="9ece9388-c3cd-4da5-9737-113772116527" CreationDate="2019-01-06T20:38:10.977" Comment="Proposed by 648 approved by -1 edit id of 287" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27307" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6643" RevisionGUID="24827ade-0fea-478b-a31f-879f3d7fa027" CreationDate="2019-01-06T20:38:10.977" UserId="79" Comment="Retag." Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|conversational|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8830" RevisionGUID="b27f5fc1-fd45-42ad-8a2d-ef7fe11c8d50" CreationDate="2019-01-06T22:11:54.327" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body" Text="This is my first attempt at a translation for a motto. My intent is to convey &quot;Always be good&quot; as an advice. I think it is &quot;Semper bonus esto&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A quick digression on the motto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm using Subject+ Object + Verb order, which I read is the most basic one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this answer][1], &quot;esto&quot; is the imperative form I should be using (since it's meant as an advice)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am using &quot;bonus&quot;, which is &quot;good&quot; in singular masculine, because the motto is talking about a person of unknown gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The main issue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My biggest doubt concerns the position of &quot;Semper&quot;. Should I put it before the verb, since it is an adverb, or in the beginning of the sentence, since it somehow refers to the whole concept? [Phrases with &quot;semper&quot; seem to use it in the beginning][2], but I'm not sure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/565/what-are-the-future-imperatives-of-sum&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2296/does-this-latin-make-sense" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27309" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7673" RevisionGUID="431893c4-9cb2-4981-9fd6-34446e53a54e" CreationDate="2019-01-07T01:00:35.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="27310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8834" RevisionGUID="3c14f63f-9b4c-43de-9d3a-049d0324c2ab" CreationDate="2019-01-07T02:48:38.890" UserId="3266" Text="I'm wondering how someone would have said where they're from, sort of as a locational surname. To perhaps better explain, in English we might say, 'Hello, I'm Susan of London.' How would you say something like this in Latin? Thank you for any and all help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27311" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8834" RevisionGUID="3c14f63f-9b4c-43de-9d3a-049d0324c2ab" CreationDate="2019-01-07T02:48:38.890" UserId="3266" Text="Someone of someplace" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27312" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8834" RevisionGUID="3c14f63f-9b4c-43de-9d3a-049d0324c2ab" CreationDate="2019-01-07T02:48:38.890" UserId="3266" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8834" RevisionGUID="76e8e871-c2ea-4a89-97a3-fe731fa19927" CreationDate="2019-01-07T08:27:24.823" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm wondering how someone would have said where they're from, sort of as a locational surname. To perhaps better explain, in English we might say, 'Hello, I'm Susan of London.' How would you say something like this in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for any and all help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27314" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8834" RevisionGUID="76e8e871-c2ea-4a89-97a3-fe731fa19927" CreationDate="2019-01-07T08:27:24.823" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|names|place-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8835" RevisionGUID="8cfcc8cc-ae6a-462f-ad6f-d0f7b66c5d33" CreationDate="2019-01-07T08:32:08.480" UserId="79" Text="In Latin this is best achieved via adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;Susan of London&quot; would be *Susanna Londiniensis*.&#xD;&#xA;(It's a matter of taste whether you want to Latinify the first name, but I often do if it's simple enough.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For major cities of the ancient world these adjectives can be found in [Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79), and new adjectives can be derived.&#xD;&#xA;Adding *-ensis* is the simplest way to go; if you are unsure how to exactly derive this adjective from a certain city name, do ask a separate question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, bear in mind that the adjective needs to be in the correct gender.&#xD;&#xA;*Londiniensis* looks the same in masculine and feminine, but for Rome you'd need to pick *Romanus* or *Romana* depending on the gender." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8820" RevisionGUID="f35d0d00-a62b-4d7a-9d35-4646c59349ba" CreationDate="2019-01-07T12:43:25.050" UserId="469" Comment="added 667 characters in body" Text="The most authoritative source I've found so far is the [English rubrics][1] for the [Liber usualis][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Rules for interpretation &gt; IX. The reading and pronunciation of liturgical Latin &gt; Consonants* (page xxxvii / 37 in the pdf linked) it reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **SC** before the same vowels [a, ae, oe, i, y] is pronounced like *Sh* in *shed*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which we already knew. Then, the interesting part is on the next page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **XC** before e, ae, oe, i, y - **KSH**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;e.g. **Excelsis** = *ek-shel-sees*.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before others vowels **XC**  has the ordinary hard  sound  of the letters composing it  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;e.g. **excussórum** =  *eks-coos-so-room*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of a more authoritative source than the Liber usualis regarding Ecclesiastical Latin (though there could be, e.g. in the Missal or some decree/motu proprio). BUT, there could be more details in the Latin version of the rubrics, which I haven't been able to find yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update/Note:** I plan to ask someone more knowledgeable than me (perhaps even a 70-something priest) about the authority level of the Liber usualis. But currently I think that even if it was not officially _lex orandi_ (I'm not sure about that), it was very widespread in the decades prior to the Second Vatican Council and the liturgical reform (the linked edition is from 1961). At that time Ecclesiastical pronunciation was already in effect, and unity and authority were taken in a seriously formal way in the Church. Personally, I doubt the editors would have been willing to add their own personal taste to the detriment of unity, but I could be mistaken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bonus track**: the rule for TI literally reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **TI** standing before a vowel and following any letter (except S, X, T) is pronounced *tsee*.  &#xD;&#xA;Otherwise the **T** is like the English *T*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, **commixtio** &gt; [com'miks.ti.o]! Anyway, the wording makes me very uneasy because English [t] is aspirated and I've always assumed Latin [t] is not. I just hope the distinction was omitted for the sake of simplicity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sanctamissa.org/en/music/gregorian-chant/choir/liber-usualis-1961.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_Usualis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8835" RevisionGUID="b69c79a7-5a1b-44d7-bb00-810d827cdbf7" CreationDate="2019-01-07T15:47:58.420" UserId="79" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="In Latin this is best achieved via adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;Susan of London&quot; would be *Susanna Londiniensis*.&#xD;&#xA;I based the adjective on the Latin name of London, *Londinium*.&#xD;&#xA;For a more English version, you can go with *Londoniensis*, but I recommend the more Latin one.&#xD;&#xA;(It's a matter of taste whether you want to Latinify the first name, but I often do if it's simple enough.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For major cities of the ancient world these adjectives can be found in [Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79), and new adjectives can be derived.&#xD;&#xA;Adding *-ensis* is the simplest way to go; if you are unsure how to exactly derive this adjective from a certain city name, do ask a separate question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, bear in mind that the adjective needs to be in the correct gender.&#xD;&#xA;*Londiniensis* looks the same in masculine and feminine, but for Rome you'd need to pick *Romanus* or *Romana* depending on the gender." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8835" RevisionGUID="a3ba966f-d082-4aca-b41b-815e7c2264bc" CreationDate="2019-01-07T16:12:29.827" UserId="79" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="In Latin this is best achieved via adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;Susan of London&quot; would be *Susanna Londiniensis*.&#xD;&#xA;I based the adjective on the Latin name of London, *Londinium*.&#xD;&#xA;For a more modern version, you can go with *Londoniensis*, but I prefer the more classical one.&#xD;&#xA;(It's a matter of taste whether you want to Latinify the first name Susan to Susanna, but I often do if it's simple enough.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For major cities of the ancient world these adjectives can be found in [Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79), and new adjectives can be derived.&#xD;&#xA;Adding *-ensis* is the simplest way to go; if you are unsure how to exactly derive this adjective from a certain city name, do ask a separate question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, bear in mind that the adjective needs to be in the correct gender.&#xD;&#xA;*Londiniensis* looks the same in masculine and feminine, but for Rome you'd need to pick *Romanus* or *Romana* depending on the gender." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8836" RevisionGUID="993ae73e-3c56-4baa-a82c-3f0c4970add0" CreationDate="2019-01-08T12:57:03.000" UserId="3269" Text="I'm transcribing/translating a 16th century document relating to my ancestors, but struggling with a few words. One in particular is proving difficult - the contracted last word on the 1st line of the supplied text. I can see sh and 3 minims, possible an 'a' indicated on the 's'. Not sure what the word could be expanded to - possibly an occupation and possibly in the plural as there is a Thomas Norgate (not shown) as well as John.  Any ideas would be much appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TLwoT.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27321" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8836" RevisionGUID="993ae73e-3c56-4baa-a82c-3f0c4970add0" CreationDate="2019-01-08T12:57:03.000" UserId="3269" Text="Help with paleography in a 16th century grant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27322" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8836" RevisionGUID="993ae73e-3c56-4baa-a82c-3f0c4970add0" CreationDate="2019-01-08T12:57:03.000" UserId="3269" Text="|medieval-latin|paleography|transcription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8836" RevisionGUID="86c289eb-13cf-417b-98ff-35acf7975aeb" CreationDate="2019-01-08T13:02:24.380" UserId="3269" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="I'm transcribing/translating a 16th century document relating to my ancestors, but struggling with a few words. One in particular is proving difficult - the contracted last word on the 1st line of the supplied text. I can see sh and 3 minims, possible 'a' indicated on the 's'. Not sure what the word could be expanded to - possibly an occupation and possibly in the plural as there is a Thomas Norgate (not shown) as well as John.  Any ideas would be much appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TLwoT.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8837" RevisionGUID="2287fd0c-be60-4b67-a5e4-cd818f48f4f6" CreationDate="2019-01-08T13:23:10.777" UserId="522" Text="&quot;John Norgate de N....a.ptoneshire&quot; so Northhamptonshire." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8837" RevisionGUID="e42c42bb-0ac1-4c98-8fe4-d78f53a23b64" CreationDate="2019-01-08T13:30:11.360" UserId="522" Comment="rewrite" Text="Thanks for your interesting question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the key is the sequence  **..ptonesh..**  which suggests Northamptonshire to me.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;et John Norgate de Naptoneshir " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8838" RevisionGUID="6bf9647e-2631-4501-b9a1-438727534b9c" CreationDate="2019-01-08T15:34:10.980" UserId="645" Text="There's no more a fixed way of dealing with this in Latin than there is in English and, just as in English, much can be implied by your choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you might say 'I'm a Londoner', or 'I'm from London'. The first case carries a certain nuance, that of being 'born and bred' in London itself, and in the proper context might indicate pride in the fact; the second is less definite, perhaps (but not necessarily) a shorthand for something like 'I live in (Greater) London'. Each expression is quite proper, and each might also be expressed as 'I come from London'. And you might also say 'I was born in London', 'I was born a Londoner', 'I was raised in London', or 'I live in London' — and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin has two principal ways of forming place-related adjectives, using the endings *-anus* and *-ensis*. There's no hard-and-fast rule on which to use : though I have come across various attempts to be definite about it, I think it best to use whichever sounds best to the ear, or whichever appears more suitable to the circumstances. Sometimes, however, there is an established form : we are all familiar with *romanus* and possibly *neapolitanus*, but I've never seen *romanensis* or *neapolitensis*. Equally we see *hispaniensis* but seldom *hispanianus*, though I doubt that it's possible to insist on a general rule *-anus* for towns and *-ensis* for cities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a different way of expressing yourself, then just as in English we have 'I was born in Rome', in Latin there is *Romae natus sum*; note that this differs from *romanus natus sum* ('I was born a Roman'), as does similarly the proud boast *civis romanus sum* of someone claiming the full rights of a Roman citizen (as did St. Paul, who most certainly wasn't from Rome). If you were a visitor to Rome from Marseille, you might claim not *massiliensis sum* but *Massiliae ortus sum*, 'I originate from Marseille'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Finally, you may notice some difficulties stemming from the endings of the original town-names, as in Joonas's answer with the comments in reference to Londinium. I think that both *Londin(i)ensis* and *Londinianus*, insofar as the intended meaning is clear, are acceptable. Neither, if seen in an authentic Latin text, would cause an eyebrow to be raised, while either might be selected at discretion for a translation into Latin.]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8839" RevisionGUID="d7ae7ff8-90ae-4cd5-a238-dec7d1d951af" CreationDate="2019-01-08T20:44:03.350" UserId="3248" Text="Consider the two following examples of the so-called &quot;dominant&quot; participle constructions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Dixit) se missum a M. Crasso qui Catilinae nuntiaret ne _eum Lentulus et Cethegus aliique ex coniuratione deprehensi terrerent_. (Sall. Cat. 48,4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bello Graeci persequendi Publilio evenerunt. (Livy 8, 22, 9)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My **specific question** is: although the subject is plural, could the verb be singular in these two examples (i.e., _terreret_ and _evenit_)? My intuition is that it couldn’t but perhaps I’m wrong. In contrast, in English one can find examples like the following one, where it is not the two old men themselves that are funny, but **the fact that** they are dealing with an inappropriate theme. Hence singular agreement is justified: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Two old men dealing with such a young theme] seem**s** funny to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if similar constructions can exist in Latin, i.e., constructions where (i) the subject is formed by a plural noun plus an obligatory/&quot;dominant&quot; predicative participle but (ii) the verb is in singular form. NB: I selected those two examples from Sallust and Livy since all the English and Spanish translations I’ve consulted capture the natural fact that the subject of the verbs _terrerent_ and _evenerunt_ is interpreted in these two contexts as a **proposition**, in accordance with their being dominant participle constructions (i.e., the fact that Lentulus and Cethegus and others conspirators were arrested; the fact that Greeks should be pursued with a war. Some typical translations I’ve checked contain a nominalization or eventive noun: e.g., ‘the arrest of Lentulus, Cethegus, and the other conspirators’; Loeb: ‘the war with the Greeks fell to Publilius’). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27328" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8839" RevisionGUID="d7ae7ff8-90ae-4cd5-a238-dec7d1d951af" CreationDate="2019-01-08T20:44:03.350" UserId="3248" Text="Subject agreement in dominant participle constructions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27329" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8839" RevisionGUID="d7ae7ff8-90ae-4cd5-a238-dec7d1d951af" CreationDate="2019-01-08T20:44:03.350" UserId="3248" Text="|classical-latin|syntax|participle|agreement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8839" RevisionGUID="c55f842c-8219-4883-99bc-0a7d3a3eef3f" CreationDate="2019-01-08T20:53:48.257" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Consider the two following examples of so-called &quot;dominant&quot; participle constructions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Dixit) se missum a M. Crasso qui Catilinae nuntiaret ne _eum Lentulus et Cethegus aliique ex coniuratione deprehensi terrerent_. (Sall. Cat. 48,4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bello Graeci persequendi Publilio evenerunt. (Livy 8, 22, 9)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My **specific question** is: although the subject is plural, could the verb be singular in these two examples (i.e., _terreret_ and _evenit_)? My intuition is that it couldn’t but perhaps I’m wrong. In contrast, in English one can find examples like the following one, where it is not the two old men themselves that are funny, but the **fact** that they are dealing with an inappropriate theme. Hence singular agreement is justified: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Two old men dealing with such a young theme] seem**s** funny to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if similar constructions can exist in Latin, i.e., constructions where (i) the subject is formed by a plural noun plus an obligatory/&quot;dominant&quot; predicative participle but (ii) the verb is in singular form. NB: I selected those two examples from Sallust and Livy since all the English and Spanish translations I’ve consulted capture the natural fact that the subject of the verbs _terrerent_ and _evenerunt_ is interpreted in these two contexts as a **proposition**, in accordance with their being dominant participle constructions (i.e., the fact that Lentulus and Cethegus and others conspirators were arrested; the fact/duty that Greeks should be pursued with a war. Some typical translations I’ve checked contain a nominalization or eventive noun: e.g., ‘the arrest of Lentulus, Cethegus, and the other conspirators’; Loeb: ‘the war with the Greeks fell to Publilius’). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6458" RevisionGUID="2835bd93-f233-41e1-ba37-8b1f29882d30" CreationDate="2019-01-08T21:05:37.870" UserId="2129" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body; edited title" Text="I would like to check translation of a motto that would read &quot;[we] persevere in endeavours/resolve&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider using either ***persto*** or ***persevero***. The latter seems better to me as it resonates with Modern English &quot;to persevere&quot;. What are the lexical differences between these two words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm completely zero in Latin grammar, but as far as I understand I should use genitive/ablative case here. So I came up with the following options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Impetuum perseverantia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Impetibus perseverantia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perseverantia in impetibus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these grammatically correct? Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27332" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6458" RevisionGUID="2835bd93-f233-41e1-ba37-8b1f29882d30" CreationDate="2019-01-08T21:05:37.870" UserId="2129" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;Impetuum perseverantia&quot; - &quot;Persevere in endeavours&quot; motto for coat of arms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8839" RevisionGUID="2553ae7b-e4fd-4226-ba06-3d67f72edb5e" CreationDate="2019-01-08T21:26:21.743" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Consider the two following examples of so-called &quot;dominant&quot; participle constructions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Dixit) se missum a M. Crasso qui Catilinae nuntiaret ne _eum Lentulus et Cethegus aliique ex coniuratione deprehensi terrerent_. (Sall. Cat. 48,4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bello Graeci persequendi Publilio evenerunt. (Livy 8, 22, 9)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My **specific question** is: although the subject is plural, could the verb be singular in these two examples (i.e., _terreret_ and _evenit_)? My intuition is that it couldn’t but perhaps I’m wrong. In contrast, in English one can find examples like the following one, where it is not the two old men themselves that are funny, but the **fact** that they are dealing with an inappropriate theme. Hence singular agreement is justified: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Two old men dealing with such a young theme] seem**s** funny to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if similar constructions can exist in Latin, i.e., constructions where (i) the subject is formed by a plural noun plus an obligatory/&quot;dominant&quot; predicative participle but (ii) the verb is in singular form. NB: I selected those two examples from Sallust and Livy since all the English and Spanish translations I’ve consulted capture the natural fact that the subject of the verbs _terrerent_ and _evenerunt_ is interpreted in these two contexts as a **proposition**, in accordance with their being dominant participle constructions (i.e., the fact that Lentulus and Cethegus and others conspirators were arrested; the fact/duty that Greeks should be pursued with a war. Some typical translations I’ve checked contain a nominalization or eventive noun: e.g., ‘the arrest of Lentulus, Cethegus, and the other conspirators’; Loeb: ‘the war with the Greeks (fell to Publilius’)). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8839" RevisionGUID="d93fc08e-7574-4b71-bd76-d121ae556edd" CreationDate="2019-01-08T22:26:23.477" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Consider the two following examples of so-called &quot;dominant&quot; participle constructions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Dixit) se missum a M. Crasso qui Catilinae nuntiaret ne _eum Lentulus et Cethegus aliique ex coniuratione deprehensi terrerent_. (Sall. Cat. 48,4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bello Graeci persequendi Publilio evenerunt. (Livy 8, 22, 9)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My **specific question** is: although the subject is plural, could the verb be singular in these two examples (i.e., _terreret_ and _evenit_)? My intuition is that it couldn’t but perhaps I’m wrong. In contrast, in English one can find examples like the following one, where it is not the two old men themselves that are funny, but the **fact** that they are dealing with an inappropriate theme. Hence singular agreement is justified: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Two old men dealing with such a young theme] seem**s** funny to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if similar constructions can exist in Latin, i.e., constructions where (i) the subject is formed by a plural noun plus an obligatory/&quot;dominant&quot; predicative participle but (ii) the verb is in singular form. NB: I selected those two examples from Sallust and Livy since all the English and Spanish translations I’ve consulted capture the natural fact that the subject of the verbs _terrerent_ and _evenerunt_ is interpreted in these two contexts as a **proposition**, in accordance with their being dominant participle constructions (i.e., the fact that Lentulus and Cethegus and others conspirators were arrested; the fact/duty that Greeks should be pursued with a war. Some typical translations I’ve found contain a nominalization or eventive noun: e.g., ‘the arrest of Lentulus, Cethegus, and the other conspirators’; Loeb: ‘the war with the Greeks (fell to Publilius’)). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8839" RevisionGUID="614a2b52-b8eb-4a86-bc17-683440e1fdfe" CreationDate="2019-01-08T22:36:21.797" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Consider the two following examples of so-called &quot;dominant&quot; participle constructions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Dixit) se missum a M. Crasso qui Catilinae nuntiaret ne _eum Lentulus et Cethegus aliique ex coniuratione deprehensi terrerent_. (Sall. Cat. 48,4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bello Graeci persequendi Publilio evenerunt. (Livy 8, 22, 9)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the subject is plural, could the verb be singular in these two examples (i.e., _terreret_ and _evenit_)? My intuition is that it couldn’t but perhaps I’m wrong. In contrast, in English one can find examples like the following one, where it is not the two old men themselves that are funny, but the **fact** that they are dealing with an inappropriate theme. Hence singular agreement is justified: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Two old men dealing with such a young theme] seem**s** funny to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is then whether similar constructions can exist in Latin, i.e., constructions where (i) the subject is formed by a plural noun plus an obligatory/&quot;dominant&quot; predicative participle but (ii) the verb is in singular form. NB: I selected those two examples from Sallust and Livy since all the English and Spanish translations I’ve consulted capture the natural fact that the subject of the verbs _terrerent_ and _evenerunt_ is interpreted in these two contexts as a **proposition**, in accordance with their being dominant participle constructions (i.e., the fact that Lentulus and Cethegus and others conspirators were arrested; the fact/duty that Greeks should be pursued with a war. Some typical translations I’ve found contain a nominalization or eventive noun: e.g., ‘the arrest of Lentulus, Cethegus, and the other conspirators’; Loeb: ‘the war with the Greeks (fell to Publilius’)). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8839" RevisionGUID="6310fce2-dda5-4d20-8f65-9bdd53191c88" CreationDate="2019-01-08T22:51:06.877" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="Consider the two following examples of so-called &quot;dominant&quot; participle constructions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Dixit) se missum a M. Crasso qui Catilinae nuntiaret ne _eum Lentulus et Cethegus aliique ex coniuratione deprehensi terrerent_. (Sall. Cat. 48,4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bello Graeci persequendi Publilio evenerunt. (Livy 8, 22, 9)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the subject is plural, could the verb be singular in these two examples (i.e., _terreret_ and _evenit_)? My intuition is that it couldn’t but perhaps I’m wrong. In contrast, in English one can find examples like the following one, where it is not the two old men themselves that are funny, but the **fact** that they are dealing with an inappropriate theme. Hence singular agreement is justified. &quot;Similary&quot; (or not!), notice that it is not a plurality of individuals (_Lentulus et Cethegus aliique_) what frightened Catilina, but the singular fact/event that they were arrested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Two old men dealing with such a young theme] seem**s** funny to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is then whether similar constructions can exist in Latin, i.e., constructions where (i) the subject is formed by a plural noun plus an obligatory/&quot;dominant&quot; predicative participle but (ii) the verb is in singular form. NB: I selected those two examples from Sallust and Livy since all the English and Spanish translations I’ve consulted capture the natural fact that the subject of the verbs _terrerent_ and _evenerunt_ is interpreted in these two contexts as a **proposition**, in accordance with their being dominant participle constructions (i.e., the fact that Lentulus and Cethegus and others conspirators were arrested; the fact/duty that Greeks should be pursued with a war. Some typical translations I’ve found contain a nominalization or eventive noun: e.g., ‘the arrest of Lentulus, Cethegus, and the other conspirators’; Loeb: ‘the war with the Greeks (fell to Publilius’)). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8839" RevisionGUID="c2922805-a017-472f-918d-818e3dd4a273" CreationDate="2019-01-08T23:19:14.467" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="Consider the two following examples of so-called &quot;dominant&quot; participle constructions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Dixit) se missum a M. Crasso qui Catilinae nuntiaret ne _eum Lentulus et Cethegus aliique ex coniuratione deprehensi terrerent_. (Sall. _Cat._ 48,4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bello Graeci persequendi Publilio evenerunt. (Livy 8, 22, 9)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the subject is plural, could the verb be singular in these two examples (i.e., _terreret_ and _evenit_)? My intuition is that it couldn’t be singular but perhaps I’m wrong. In contrast, in English one can find examples like the following one, where it is not the two old men themselves that are funny, but the **fact** that they are dealing with an inappropriate theme. Hence singular agreement is justified. &quot;Similary&quot;, notice that in the first Latin example it is not a plurality of individuals but the fact/event that they were arrested what frightened Catilina. As for the second example, again it is not the Greeks but rather their having to be persecuted (considered as as a future fact, i.e., as a duty) what fell/&quot;came&quot; to the consul Publilius. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Two old men dealing with such a young theme] seem**s** funny to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My **specific question** is, then, whether similar constructions can exist in Latin, i.e., constructions where (i) the subject is formed by a plural noun plus an obligatory/&quot;dominant&quot; predicative participle but (ii) the verb is in singular form. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8839" RevisionGUID="8ce558cc-e122-469a-bea6-0d599d45d6b2" CreationDate="2019-01-08T23:51:48.103" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="My **question** is whether constructions similar to the following English one can exist in Latin, i.e., constructions where (i) the subject is formed by a plural noun plus an obligatory/&quot;dominant&quot; predicative participle but (ii) the verb is in singular form. Notice that it is not the two old men themselves that are funny, but the **fact** that they are dealing with an inappropriate theme. Hence singular agreement is justified. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Two old men dealing with such a young theme] seem**s** funny to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next consider the two following examples of so-called &quot;dominant&quot; participle constructions, taken from Sallust and Livy, respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Dixit) se missum a M. Crasso qui Catilinae nuntiaret ne _eum Lentulus et Cethegus aliique ex coniuratione deprehensi terrerent_. (Sall. _Cat._ 48,4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bello Graeci persequendi Publilio evenerunt. (Livy 8, 22, 9)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the subject is plural, could the verb be singular in these two examples (i.e., _terreret_ and _evenit_)? My intuition is that it couldn’t but perhaps I’m wrong (NB: as for the first Latin example above, it is not a plurality of individuals but the event/**fact** that they were arrested what frightened Catilina. As for the second example, again it is not the Greeks but rather their having to be persecuted (considered as as a single future event, e.g., as a duty) what fell/&quot;came&quot; to the consul Publilius). Anyway, I would like to know whether examples like the English one above could also exist in Classical Latin. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8839" RevisionGUID="c0ee0332-41c2-4475-bb02-4842e814f63a" CreationDate="2019-01-09T00:21:30.013" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="My **question** is whether constructions similar to the following English one can exist in Latin, i.e., constructions where (i) the subject is formed by a plural noun plus an obligatory/&quot;dominant&quot; predicative participle but (ii) the verb is in singular form. Notice that it is not the two old men themselves that are funny, but the **fact** that they are dealing with an inappropriate theme. Hence singular agreement is justified. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Two old men dealing with such a young theme] seem**s** funny to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next consider the two following examples of so-called &quot;dominant&quot; participle constructions, taken from Sallust and Livy, respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Dixit) se missum a M. Crasso qui Catilinae nuntiaret ne _eum Lentulus et Cethegus aliique ex coniuratione deprehensi terrerent_. (Sall. _Cat._ 48,4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bello Graeci persequendi Publilio evenerunt. (Livy 8, 22, 9)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the subject is plural, could the verb be singular in these two examples (i.e., _terreret_ and _evenit_)? My intuition is that it couldn’t but perhaps I’m wrong (NB: as for the first Latin example above, it is not a plurality of individuals but the event/**fact** that they were arrested what frightened Catilina. As for the second example, again it is not the Greeks but rather their having to be persecuted through a war (considered as as a single future event to be accomplished, e.g., as a duty) what fell/&quot;came&quot; to the consul Publilius). Anyway, I would like to know whether examples like the English one above could also exist in Classical Latin. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8839" RevisionGUID="05fe0217-edea-446c-8c09-dba762263212" CreationDate="2019-01-09T00:28:28.507" UserId="3248" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="My **question** is whether constructions similar to the following English one can exist in Latin, i.e., constructions where (i) the subject is formed by a plural noun plus an obligatory/&quot;dominant&quot; predicative participle but (ii) the verb is in singular form. Notice that it is not the two old men themselves that are funny, but the **fact** that they are dealing with an inappropriate theme. Hence singular agreement (_seem**s**_) is justified. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Two old men dealing with such a young theme] seem**s** funny to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next consider the two following examples of so-called &quot;dominant&quot; participle constructions, taken from Sallust and Livy, respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Dixit) se missum a M. Crasso qui Catilinae nuntiaret ne _eum Lentulus et Cethegus aliique ex coniuratione deprehensi terrerent_. (Sall. _Cat._ 48,4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bello Graeci persequendi Publilio evenerunt. (Livy 8, 22, 9)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the subject is plural, could **also** the verb be singular in these two examples (i.e., _terreret_ and _evenit_)? My intuition is that it couldn’t but perhaps I’m wrong (NB: as for the first Latin example above, it is not a plurality of individuals but the event/**fact** that these individuals were arrested what frightened Catilina. As for the second example, again it is not the Greeks but rather their having to be persecuted through a war (considered as as a single future event to be accomplished, e.g., as a duty) what fell/&quot;came&quot; to the consul Publilius). Anyway, I would like to know whether examples like the English one above could also exist in Classical Latin. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27342" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8839" RevisionGUID="657cfe2d-7830-4125-8a26-dff6b8c914ad" CreationDate="2019-01-09T01:00:37.200" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Subject-verb agreement when the subject is a dominant participle construction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8839" RevisionGUID="6951f321-5d5e-4616-a25a-a92d309c05ff" CreationDate="2019-01-09T01:10:30.400" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="My **question** is whether constructions similar to the following English one can exist in Latin, i.e., constructions where (i) the subject is formed by a plural noun plus an obligatory/&quot;dominant&quot; predicative participle but (ii) the verb is in singular form. Notice that it is not the two old men themselves that are funny, but the **fact** that they are dealing with an inappropriate theme. Hence singular agreement (_seem**s**_) is justified. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Two old men dealing with such a young theme] seem**s** funny to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next consider the two following examples of so-called &quot;dominant&quot; participle constructions, taken from Sallust and Livy, respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Dixit) se missum a M. Crasso qui Catilinae nuntiaret ne _eum Lentulus et Cethegus aliique ex coniuratione deprehensi terrerent_. (Sall. _Cat._ 48,4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bello Graeci persequendi Publilio evenerunt. (Livy 8, 22, 9)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the subject is plural, could **also** the verb be singular in these two examples (i.e., _terreret_ and _evenit_)? My intuition is that it couldn’t but perhaps I’m wrong (NB: as for the first Latin example above, it is not a plurality of individuals but the event/**fact** that these individuals were arrested what would frighten Catilina. As for the second example, again it is not the Greeks but rather their having to be persecuted through a war (considered as as a future event to be accomplished, e.g., as a duty) what fell/&quot;came&quot; to the consul Publilius). Anyway, I would like to know whether examples like the English one above could also exist in Classical Latin. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8840" RevisionGUID="037eb8e8-4aa0-47a9-a66c-77c06683e261" CreationDate="2019-01-09T01:22:34.113" UserId="40" Text="Another option for &quot;endeavor&quot; is *inceptum*, which literally means &quot;something begun&quot;. (*Impetus* isn't quite right here -- it means &quot;attack, assault&quot; rather than &quot;endeavor&quot;.) There are a few attested Latin phrases using this word, all meaning more or less &quot;persevere in what one has begun&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *haerere in incepto* (Vergil, *Aeneid* 2.654)&#xD;&#xA; - *inceptum peragere* (*ibid.* 4.452)&#xD;&#xA; - *inceptum perficere* (Sallust, *Jugurtha* 11)&#xD;&#xA; - *permanere in incepto* (Cicero, *Epistulae ad Familiares* 5.14)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are all more or less synonymous, though with some nuances of meaning. I've cited them with infinitives, but you may want first-person singular or some other verb forms (if so we can help you find the correct form). Also, the word order is fluid so you can just as well say *in incepto haerere, peragere inceptum*, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8838" RevisionGUID="dd378a1d-60d6-47da-80f6-21ab5050a38c" CreationDate="2019-01-09T06:45:06.490" UserId="645" Comment="sp. correction" Text="There's no more a fixed way of dealing with this in Latin than there is in English and, just as in English, much can be implied by your choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you might say 'I'm a Londoner', or 'I'm from London'. The first case carries a certain nuance, that of being 'born and bred' in London itself, and in the proper context might indicate pride in the fact; the second is less definite, perhaps (but not necessarily) a shorthand for something like 'I live in (Greater) London'. Each expression is quite proper, and each might also be expressed as 'I come from London'. And you might also say 'I was born in London', 'I was born a Londoner', 'I was raised in London', or 'I live in London' — and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin has two principal ways of forming place-related adjectives, using the endings *-anus* and *-ensis*. There's no hard-and-fast rule on which to use : though I have come across various attempts to be definite about it, I think it best to use whichever sounds best to the ear, or whichever appears more suitable to the circumstances. Sometimes, however, there is an established form : we are all familiar with *romanus* and possibly *neapolitanus*, but I've never seen *romensis* or *neapolitensis*. Equally we see *hispaniensis* but seldom *hispanianus*, though I doubt that it's possible to insist on a general rule *-anus* for towns and *-ensis* for cities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a different way of expressing yourself, then just as in English we have 'I was born in Rome', in Latin there is *Romae natus sum*; note that this differs from *romanus natus sum* ('I was born a Roman'), as does similarly the proud boast *civis romanus sum* of someone claiming the full rights of a Roman citizen (as did St. Paul, who most certainly wasn't from Rome). If you were a visitor to Rome from Marseille, you might claim not *massiliensis sum* but *Massiliae ortus sum*, 'I originate from Marseille'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Finally, you may notice some difficulties stemming from the endings of the original town-names, as in Joonas's answer with the comments in reference to Londinium. I think that both *Londin(i)ensis* and *Londinianus*, insofar as the intended meaning is clear, are acceptable. Neither, if seen in an authentic Latin text, would cause an eyebrow to be raised, while either might be selected at discretion for a translation into Latin.]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8841" RevisionGUID="3c570ab2-e06a-4f81-a9de-4ef7faad2556" CreationDate="2019-01-09T10:27:01.783" UserId="3270" Text="In Austria-Hungary, I do not know how it was used in other countries,... anyway - it was used in official documents to inform that the person has noble roots. Dominus for men, Domina for women, usually written as  D. Name Surname." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8842" RevisionGUID="12be09fb-f930-44b7-9cca-65029e09126f" CreationDate="2019-01-09T12:56:25.743" UserId="469" Text="Two ideas worth mentioning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The [formula][1] used in the Catholic Church to announce a new Pope is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum:&#xD;&#xA;Habemus Papam!&#xD;&#xA;Eminentissimum ac reverendissimum Dominum,&#xD;&#xA;**Dominum** [first name, e.g. Georgium Marium] Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae **Cardinalem** [last name, e.g. Bergoglio],&#xD;&#xA;Qui sibi nomen imposuit [papal name, e.g. Franciscum]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I understand this can be argued not to be an example of what you are asking for, and I think more information is needed in order to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I remember seeing (but I doubt I can give a source, though) Dnus. Dr. [i.e., **Dominus Doctor**] in academic records when referring to a professor with a Doctor's degree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habemus_papam" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27348" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4954" RevisionGUID="2e5ba431-38ee-4c53-93e5-71a098daf950" CreationDate="2019-01-09T12:56:35.887" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|contemporary-latin|medieval-latin|new-latin|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8842" RevisionGUID="8b1422af-2ac9-4b79-95dc-b873a428d755" CreationDate="2019-01-09T13:32:22.840" UserId="469" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Two ideas worth mentioning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The [formula][1] used in the Catholic Church to announce a new Pope is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum:&#xD;&#xA;Habemus Papam!  &#xD;&#xA;Eminentissimum ac reverendissimum Dominum,&#xD;&#xA;**Dominum** [first name, e.g. Georgium Marium] Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae **Cardinalem** [last name, e.g. Bergoglio],  &#xD;&#xA;Qui sibi nomen imposuit [papal name, e.g. Franciscum]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I understand this can be argued not to be an example of what you are asking for, and I think more information is needed in order to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I remember seeing (but I doubt I can give a source, though) Dnus. Dr. [i.e., **Dominus Doctor**] in academic records when referring to a professor with a Doctor's degree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habemus_papam" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8843" RevisionGUID="989e0ed8-23ed-495d-b157-604adf2fefd4" CreationDate="2019-01-09T14:07:56.427" UserId="584" Text="The website [Tintinologist.org][1] gives the following suggestions but it is not complete for the latin language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be some good latin names for the various Tintin characters ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Names of Main Tintin Characters in Different Languages][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.tintinologist.org/guides/characters/names.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EhoBG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27351" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8843" RevisionGUID="989e0ed8-23ed-495d-b157-604adf2fefd4" CreationDate="2019-01-09T14:07:56.427" UserId="584" Text="Names of main Tintin characters in latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27352" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8843" RevisionGUID="989e0ed8-23ed-495d-b157-604adf2fefd4" CreationDate="2019-01-09T14:07:56.427" UserId="584" Text="|translation|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8843" RevisionGUID="289bc957-7ca9-4bc2-8912-16f2c49b7b33" CreationDate="2019-01-09T14:14:29.057" UserId="584" Comment="Added more characters" Text="The website [Tintinologist.org][1] gives the following suggestions but it is not complete for the latin language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be some good latin names for the various Tintin characters ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Names of Main Tintin Characters in Different Languages][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Other characters include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bianca Castafiore &#xD;&#xA; - Rastapopoulos&#xD;&#xA; - Nestor &#xD;&#xA; - Jolyon &#xD;&#xA; - Wagg &#xD;&#xA; - Dr. Müller&#xD;&#xA; - General Tapioca &#xD;&#xA; - General Alcazar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Adventures_of_Tintin_characters#Main_characters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.tintinologist.org/guides/characters/names.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EhoBG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27354" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="8844" RevisionGUID="d17a91c1-a68d-4f9c-b89d-833d90873338" CreationDate="2019-01-09T17:20:08.927" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/67951/different-greek-cases-for-theos" />
  <row Id="27355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8844" RevisionGUID="d659ff0c-fa79-4285-81bc-0854ef8eb499" CreationDate="2019-01-05T06:41:12.460" UserDisplayName="Rey Kabrom" Text="Trying to improve my understanding of biblical greek and ran across something odd. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theos - Θεός is nominative.&#xD;&#xA;Theon -  Θεόν is accusative.&#xD;&#xA;TheO - Θεῷ is dative.&#xD;&#xA;Theou - Θεοῦ genitive&#xD;&#xA;Theoi - θεοί seems to be plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would he vocative case version of Theos be?  From what I've read singular masculine words would generally replace the ός with an ε, leaving us with Θεε, which doesn't seem right.  ... if theos were to be used in the vocative case, would it just be written in the nominative form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27356" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8844" RevisionGUID="d659ff0c-fa79-4285-81bc-0854ef8eb499" CreationDate="2019-01-05T06:41:12.460" UserDisplayName="Rey Kabrom" Text="Different greek cases for Theos" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27357" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8844" RevisionGUID="d659ff0c-fa79-4285-81bc-0854ef8eb499" CreationDate="2019-01-05T06:41:12.460" UserDisplayName="Rey Kabrom" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8842" RevisionGUID="c3420000-b574-4d87-8a90-cbc2d1ccd161" CreationDate="2019-01-09T17:31:11.687" UserId="469" Comment="added 1397 characters in body" Text="**Dominus** + [title] has been used, indeed, in Ecclesiastical Latin, since at least the XVI century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The [formula][1] used in the Catholic Church to announce a new Pope is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum:&#xD;&#xA;Habemus Papam!  &#xD;&#xA;Eminentissimum ac reverendissimum Dominum,&#xD;&#xA;**Dominum** [first name, e.g. Georgium Marium] Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae **Cardinalem** [last name, e.g. Bergoglio],  &#xD;&#xA;Qui sibi nomen imposuit [papal name, e.g. Franciscum]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Updated: I found a number of examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Dominus Doctor** has been used in a number of documents when referring to a professor with a Doctor's degree, and is not the only title that has been used this way. A few examples:&#xD;&#xA; * [Censura Librorum Et Propositionum Bellarminiana][2], XVI or XVII centuries, also includes uses of **Dominus Episcopus**, **Dominus licentiatus**, and **Dominus Abbas**.&#xD;&#xA; * [This book][3] cites an author writing in Latin, apparently from the XVI century, using **Dominus Doctor** repeatedly to address his recipient.&#xD;&#xA; * [This book][4] reproduces a document dated 11 March, 1550 mentioning **Dominus Doctor** Antonius Lopez.&#xD;&#xA; * [This book][5] compiles history and documents about the Synod of Dort (XVI cent.), and mentions two **domini doctores** in one of the documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habemus_papam&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=7t74llzmoi4C&amp;lpg=PA362&amp;ots=cgSSeEeM8_&amp;dq=%22dominus%20doctor%22&amp;pg=PR9#v=onepage&amp;q=%22dominus%20doctor%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=tI2-w1GKVucC&amp;pg=PA78&amp;lpg=PA78&amp;dq=%22dominus%20doctor%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=izDc52um-G&amp;sig=cqm-iwnuSAVCUKoMP4BzQj0yHCE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjX4f7Dl-HfAhXEipAKHcnTD90Q6AEwCXoECAUQAQ#v=snippet&amp;q=%22dominus%20doctor%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=KcFMBAAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA260&amp;ots=-tBOY5rhvI&amp;dq=%22dominus%20doctor%22&amp;pg=PA260#v=onepage&amp;q=%22dominus%20doctor%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=oVIH4A8YpA0C&amp;pg=PA117&amp;lpg=PA117&amp;dq=%22dominus%20doctor%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=aTiqyEWwsn&amp;sig=i9e7jt3u0EntwHfCIPMYSpIiDUE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjX4f7Dl-HfAhXEipAKHcnTD90Q6AEwC3oECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22dominus%20doctor%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8844" RevisionGUID="b1e82b44-b938-4afb-8735-bbb15ae05c57" CreationDate="2019-01-09T20:49:20.007" UserId="79" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Trying to improve my understanding of biblical greek and ran across something odd. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theos - Θεός is nominative.  &#xD;&#xA;Theon -  Θεόν is accusative.  &#xD;&#xA;TheO - Θεῷ is dative.  &#xD;&#xA;Theou - Θεοῦ genitive.  &#xD;&#xA;Theoi - θεοί seems to be plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would he vocative case version of Theos be?  From what I've read singular masculine words would generally replace the ός with an ε, leaving us with Θεε, which doesn't seem right.  ... if theos were to be used in the vocative case, would it just be written in the nominative form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27360" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8844" RevisionGUID="b1e82b44-b938-4afb-8735-bbb15ae05c57" CreationDate="2019-01-09T20:49:20.007" UserId="79" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|greek|morphology|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8845" RevisionGUID="83fa4235-2164-4e41-a989-c778e108abe3" CreationDate="2019-01-09T21:16:41.893" UserId="3257" Text="It seems to me that the subject here is more the participle than anything, which could indeed take a singular verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8846" RevisionGUID="a323654a-e50d-44b6-9e4b-958210b6e999" CreationDate="2019-01-09T21:32:33.313" UserId="3271" Text="In fact, in classic authors *sal* is often neuter, like in *sal comune* and *sal populare* (Cato); *sal coctum* (Col.); *sal nitrum* (Plin.) but also masculine, e.g. in *sal fossilis, sal marinus*, *sal culinaris*. Most important, it is masculine when used in the sense of *wit*, e.g. *urbani sales* (Cic.).&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8847" RevisionGUID="10196f7b-91fb-4c60-a586-60f728e64ec8" CreationDate="2019-01-10T00:21:24.227" UserId="522" Text="It is not necessary to place ***semper*** first in the phrase:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sic semper tyrannis (motto of Virginia: Always like this to tyrants)  &#xD;&#xA;Bonus vir semper tiro: a good man is always learning.  &#xD;&#xA;semel Abbas, semper Abbas. Once an abbot, always an abbot.  &#xD;&#xA;semel et semper: once and always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But ***Semper*** is first in the motto of Queen Elizabeth I  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Semper eadem  means - &quot;always the same&quot; (feminine) —a motto of Queen Elizabeth I.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and a topic in *Latin Language Stack Exchange* **how-to-parse-semper-eadem**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Semper Idem (is the masculine form)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Horace earlier set the example of placing *Semper* first, and leaving out the verb *'esto,' 'estote.'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mottoes of the form ***&quot;Semper ...&quot;*** are popular for U.S. Service branches.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Semper fidelis: Motto of U.S. Marines&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semper_fidelis  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; What does the U.S. Navy's motto 'semper fortis' mean? - Quora  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; semper vigilans: ever watchful  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Semper Paratus: always prepared/ ever ready.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8847" RevisionGUID="7d06822b-e2bd-4c60-95aa-99c30b286d7c" CreationDate="2019-01-10T00:50:07.987" UserId="522" Comment="Horace traced" Text="It is not necessary to place ***semper*** first in the phrase:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sic semper tyrannis (motto of Virginia: Always like this to tyrants)  &#xD;&#xA;Bonus vir semper tiro: a good man is always learning.  &#xD;&#xA;semel Abbas, semper Abbas. Once an abbot, always an abbot.  &#xD;&#xA;semel et semper: once and always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But ***Semper*** is first in the motto of Queen Elizabeth I  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Semper eadem  means - &quot;always the same&quot; (feminine) —a motto of Queen Elizabeth I.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and a topic in *Latin Language Stack Exchange* **how-to-parse-semper-eadem**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Semper Idem (is the masculine form)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Horace earlier set the example of placing *Semper* first.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Epistulae, 1.2 56&#xD;&#xA;*Semper avarus eget , certum voto pete finem.*  &#xD;&#xA;A Miser always wants more: set a limit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mottoes of the form ***&quot;Semper ...&quot;*** are popular for U.S. Service branches.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Semper fidelis: Motto of U.S. Marines&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semper_fidelis  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; What does the U.S. Navy's motto 'semper fortis' mean? - Quora  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; semper vigilans: ever watchful  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Semper Paratus: always prepared/ ever ready.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is noticeable that there is no *esto, estote* in any of these U.S. mottoes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8837" RevisionGUID="bff76935-7174-4b35-9177-1513bead3d3a" CreationDate="2019-01-10T02:24:05.560" UserId="522" Comment="added 734 characters in body" Text="Thanks for your interesting question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the key is the sequence  **..ptonesh..**  which suggests Northamptonshire to me.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;et Joh.is Norgate de Naptoneshir &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that doesn't seem likely, Du CANGE, Charles du Fresne, 1610-1806   Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis (in 10 vols) is on line through ARCHIVE. I checked vol six p.247 for occupations beginning [**SH**][1] and found   &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Shawaldres ( *Gallic* chevaliers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ( a yeomen farmer, I believe provides own weapons, and horse)  The text could be an abbreviation *'Shw'* Would that fit? Sing. or plural. Not quite an occupation. The page refers you to SCH also::: [archive.org/details/glossariummediae06duca/page/n117][2] which offers other possible occupations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/glossariummediae06duca/page/n247&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://archive.org/details/glossariummediae06duca/page/n117" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8848" RevisionGUID="63cf7745-6221-4cbd-9d35-ade86c3da709" CreationDate="2019-01-10T02:43:52.583" UserId="3248" Text="Is there any **semantic** difference between _aret_ and _aridus est_ (cf. _rubet_/_ruber est_; _calet_/_calidus est_, _candet_/_candidus est_, i.a.)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aret. 	(Col. 2.8.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aridus	erat. (Sal. _Iug._ 90) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aspectual differences between _aret_, _arescit_, and _exarescit_ are for example more or less clear: state, atelic/non-resultative process, and telic/resultative event, respectively. The following text from Plautus nicely exemplifies them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Da mihi vestimenti aliquid _aridi_ / dum **arescunt** mea […] / Tegillum eccillud, mihi unum id **aret**; id si vis, dabo […] / Tu istaec mihi dato: **exarescent** faxo.&#xD;&#xA;Plaut. _Rud._, 573-578:" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27367" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8848" RevisionGUID="63cf7745-6221-4cbd-9d35-ade86c3da709" CreationDate="2019-01-10T02:43:52.583" UserId="3248" Text="aret = aridus est?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27368" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8848" RevisionGUID="63cf7745-6221-4cbd-9d35-ade86c3da709" CreationDate="2019-01-10T02:43:52.583" UserId="3248" Text="|classical-latin|verbs|adiectivum|early-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8848" RevisionGUID="1f55afaf-fffe-4ebe-a05b-c846e0eb0770" CreationDate="2019-01-10T03:00:58.510" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="Is there any **semantic** or **aspectual** difference between _aret_ and _aridus est_ (cf. _rubet_/_ruber est_; _calet_/_calidus est_, _candet_/_candidus est_, i.a.)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aret. 	(Col. 2.8.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aridus	erat. (Sal. _Iug._ 90) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aspectual differences between _aret_, _arescit_, and _exarescit_ are for example more or less clear: state, atelic/non-resultative process, and telic/resultative event, respectively. The following text from Plautus nicely exemplifies them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Da mihi vestimenti aliquid _aridi_ / dum **arescunt** mea […] / Tegillum eccillud, mihi unum id **aret**; id si vis, dabo […] / Tu istaec mihi dato: **exarescent** faxo.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;(Plaut. _Rud._, 573-578)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8849" RevisionGUID="51c805ff-7390-4826-a6c1-aa10aaafb610" CreationDate="2019-01-10T03:20:23.223" UserId="3272" Text="Derivative can be anything for liberi." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27371" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8849" RevisionGUID="51c805ff-7390-4826-a6c1-aa10aaafb610" CreationDate="2019-01-10T03:20:23.223" UserId="3272" Text="What is a derivative for the Latin word, liberi (children)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27372" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8849" RevisionGUID="51c805ff-7390-4826-a6c1-aa10aaafb610" CreationDate="2019-01-10T03:20:23.223" UserId="3272" Text="|derivation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8850" RevisionGUID="4b9cdd35-1b10-485b-b381-1cf6befe432d" CreationDate="2019-01-10T04:52:10.720" UserId="522" Text="If you are actually looking for words derived **from** *lībĕr,* or *lībĕri, ōrum,* then I suggest you look up all the words beginning with **lib-** in your own language, if that is English, French, Spanish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want words from which *lībĕri, ōrum,* is derived, this may help. It is taken from the Perseus [**Charlton T. Lewis; Charles Short**][1] Latin Dictionary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***lībĕri, ōrum,***  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***līber, ĕra, ĕrum*** old form, loebesum et loebertatem antiqui dicebant liberum et libertatem. Ita Graeci λοιβὴν et λείβειν, Paul. ex Fest. p. 121 Müll.; cf. 2. Liber), adj. Gr. root λιφ-, λίπτω, to desire; cf. Sanscr. lub-dhas, desirous; Lat. libet, libido,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin children are only *lībĕri* if they are  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;A Free, in a social point of view, not a slave **or**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; B Free, in a political point of view; said both of a people not under monarchical rule and of one not in subjection to another people&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise children are *puer* or *juvenis* (from the 15th year); but the same person is often called in one place *adulescens,* and in another *juvenis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/getobject.pl?c.10:1011.LewisShort18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8851" RevisionGUID="7885d712-ba0f-4669-b97f-a98d54306974" CreationDate="2019-01-10T14:16:59.217" UserId="3274" Text="Iuppiter comes from the vocative of the Indo-European *dyeus-patēr, cognate with Zeus in Greek. However, as *a &gt; a in Latin and 'pater' survives elsewhere in Latin, one would expect Iuppater. How has the /a/ changed to an /i/?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27375" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8851" RevisionGUID="7885d712-ba0f-4669-b97f-a98d54306974" CreationDate="2019-01-10T14:16:59.217" UserId="3274" Text="Why is it Iuppiter rather than Iuppater?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27376" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8851" RevisionGUID="7885d712-ba0f-4669-b97f-a98d54306974" CreationDate="2019-01-10T14:16:59.217" UserId="3274" Text="|etymology|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8852" RevisionGUID="de03d847-40d2-4c74-8b93-116ce1c38e5d" CreationDate="2019-01-10T16:02:00.833" UserId="2646" Text="Almost every verb has a noun that implies &quot;the act and effect of&quot; whatever the verb is. So, an *existence* is the act of *existing*. Nonetheless, the most simple verb, *to be* seems to lack such a noun, at least [in Spanish][1] (link in Spanish, sorry).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then someone came up with *essence* as a possibility for the noun of *to be*, but in Spanish it lacks that meaning (it means roughly &quot;the most important and charasteristic part of a thing&quot;). But what about Latin? In Latin we have *exsistĕre* and its noun *exsistentia*, and also *[essentĭa][2]* which seems to mean *the being* or *essence* of a thing, according to the Lewis &amp; Short dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can then *essentĭa* be understood as &quot;the act of being&quot; the same way as *exsistentia* is &quot;the act of existing&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://spanish.stackexchange.com/q/28280/12637&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DE%3Aentry%20group%3D25%3Aentry%3Dessentia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27378" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8852" RevisionGUID="de03d847-40d2-4c74-8b93-116ce1c38e5d" CreationDate="2019-01-10T16:02:00.833" UserId="2646" Text="Could &quot;essentia&quot; be understood in Latin as &quot;the act of being&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27379" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8852" RevisionGUID="de03d847-40d2-4c74-8b93-116ce1c38e5d" CreationDate="2019-01-10T16:02:00.833" UserId="2646" Text="|verbs|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8853" RevisionGUID="fc8a274b-9f6c-4f1a-b949-31c874ab945a" CreationDate="2019-01-10T17:46:43.093" UserId="406" Text="You're absolutely right that PIE `*a` gives *Old* Latin `/a/`. But somewhere between Old Latin and Classical Latin, *vowel reduction* happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, Old Latin stress was always on the first syllable. So short vowels in other (non-stressed) syllables tended to get reduced, sort of like how English keeps the *i* in &quot;combine&quot; but reduces it in &quot;combination&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *most* instances, the reduced vowels became `/i/`. This is why `/i/` appears in lots of prefixed verbs: the *a* in *faciō* is reduced to the *i* in *afficiō*, for example. (It's not always an *i*: consonant clusters and *r*, for example, tend to turn it into an *e* instead, which is why the participle of *afficiō* is *affectus*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's what happened in this case. In Old Latin, the word was something like *Jup-pater*, from Proto-Italic *Djous-patēr*; vowel reduction then turned the *a* into an *i*, giving *Juppiter*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8854" RevisionGUID="abf1b622-5c7a-4b5f-afe1-b4f2a090a9b0" CreationDate="2019-01-10T18:11:06.537" UserId="2363" Text="No. *Essentia* (to-be-ness) was coined by Cicero as a Latin counterpart for the Greek οὐσία (ousia). Both words refer to something's essence or nature, that which makes a thing &quot;to be&quot; the particular kind of thing that it is. Nature or essence is contrasted with accidents, those qualities of a thing that can change without changing what kind of thing something is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually, medieval philosophers would come up with three terms: *ens* (an existing thing), *essentia* (the nature of a thing), and *esse* (the act or property of being/existing).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8854" RevisionGUID="94e888ba-fd63-41ed-92c7-029825d65d99" CreationDate="2019-01-10T18:14:18.623" UserId="2363" Comment="clarity" Text="No. *Essentia* (to-be-ness) was coined by Cicero as a Latin counterpart for the Greek οὐσία (ousia). Both words refer to something's essence or nature, that which makes a thing &quot;to be&quot; the particular kind of thing that it is. Nature or essence is contrasted with accidents, those qualities of a thing that can change without changing what kind of thing something is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually, medieval philosophers would come up with three terms: *ens* (an existing thing), *essentia* (the nature of a thing), and *esse* (the act or property of being/existing). So, every thing that actually exists (*ens*) possesses both a particular nature (*essentia*) and the property of existing (*esse*). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8848" RevisionGUID="02810905-d396-49d2-919b-854b817c3ec8" CreationDate="2019-01-10T19:40:44.260" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; improved formatting" Text="Is there any **semantic** or **aspectual** difference between _aret_ and _aridus est_ (cf. _rubet_/_ruber est_; _calet_/_calidus est_, _candet_/_candidus est_, i.a.)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aret. 	(Col. 2.8.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aridus	erat. (Sal. _Iug._ 90) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aspectual differences between _aret_, _arescit_, and _exarescit_ are for example more or less clear: state, atelic/non-resultative process, and telic/resultative event, respectively. The following text from Plautus nicely exemplifies them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Da mihi vestimenti aliquid _aridi_ / dum **arescunt** mea […] / Tegillum eccillud, mihi unum id **aret**; id si vis, dabo […] / Tu istaec mihi dato: **exarescent** faxo.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;(Plaut. _Rud._, 573-578)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Spanish there are two main stative copular verbs: _ser_ (_esse_-derived) and _estar_ (_stare_-derived). The latter has a marked aspectual value, e.g., the state of 'dry' in the second example below holds as a _result_ of a previous event. I was wondering if a similar aspectual difference could be involved in the contrast (?) between _aridus est_ and _aret_. The origin of the Latin _-e-_ morpheme in _aret_ is resultative, isn't it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; La tierra *es* árida.                  (Spanish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; La tierra *está* árida. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8855" RevisionGUID="d39def65-b200-490c-8409-75b336d6ddae" CreationDate="2019-01-10T19:43:44.447" UserId="522" Text="Well I agree with Kingshorsey about *Essentia.* If I talked about Unicorns, or Justice, or Beauty, you know what I mean because you know their essence: *essentia.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if I asked you to describe them you might start with 'spiral horns and white hair;' or 'wigs, black robes, and juries;' or 'angel choirs and tangerine skies.' These are &#xD;&#xA;accidental properties which remind you of the 'Essentia.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in this world Unicorns are not alive; Justice turns out to be about plea bargaining and how much you can afford for a lawyer; and beauty means hours of sweat in a gym or sleepless nights creating a novel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What Unicorns don't have; but what Law, and ballet, and novels have is an extra something called 'ΥΛΗ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the word you are looking for is 'ΥΛΗ or hyle. Accusative hylen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm just an apocalyptic platonist. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8856" RevisionGUID="db6eee14-c891-4b1e-ba63-d9dc1c60ebf7" CreationDate="2019-01-10T19:52:55.197" UserId="3271" Text="Classical Greek doesn't use very much the name θεός in vocative case; in case, the vocative form is  θεός, like the nominative. But the vocative form θεέ is commonly used in later Greek (together with θεός): recall *Θεέ μου θεέ μου, ἵνα τί με ἐγκατέλιπες;* (Mt 27:46).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that also in Latin the vocative of deus is the same as the nominative: the same verse from Matthew, in the Latin version, has *Deus meus, Deus meus, ut quid dereliquisti me?* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8848" RevisionGUID="a58ed191-8692-4b70-b851-b37f28ccf8b1" CreationDate="2019-01-10T19:57:46.087" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="Is there any **semantic** or **aspectual** difference between _aret_ and _aridus est_ (cf. _rubet_/_ruber est_; _calet_/_calidus est_, _candet_/_candidus est_, i.a.)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aret. 	(Col. 2.8.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aridus	erat. (Sal. _Iug._ 90) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aspectual differences between _aret_, _arescit_, and _exarescit_ are for example more or less clear: state, atelic/non-resultative process, and telic/resultative event, respectively. The following text from Plautus nicely exemplifies them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Da mihi vestimenti aliquid _aridi_ / dum **arescunt** mea […] / Tegillum eccillud, mihi unum id **aret**; id si vis, dabo […] / Tu istaec mihi dato: **exarescent** faxo.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;(Plaut. _Rud._, 573-578)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Spanish there are two main stative copular verbs: _ser_ (_esse_-derived) and _estar_ (_stare_-derived). In the former example below the state of 'dry' would be conceptualized as a permanent characteristic of the subject. In contrast, in the latter the transitory state of 'dry' holds as a _result_ of a previous event. I was wondering if a similar aspectual difference could be involved in the contrast (?) between _aridus est_ and _aret_. The origin of the Latin _-e-_ morpheme in _aret_ is resultative, isn't it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; La tierra *es* árida.                  (Spanish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; La tierra *está* árida. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8848" RevisionGUID="e373c8cb-49cd-4018-a3b5-7745f3ab5fa9" CreationDate="2019-01-10T20:03:23.060" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Is there any **semantic** or **aspectual** difference between _aret_ and _aridus est_ (cf. _rubet_/_ruber est_; _calet_/_calidus est_, _candet_/_candidus est_, i.a.)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aret. 	(Col. 2.8.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aridus	erat. (Sal. _Iug._ 90) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aspectual differences between _aret_, _arescit_, and _exarescit_ are for example more or less clear: state, atelic/non-resultative process, and telic/resultative event, respectively. The following text from Plautus nicely exemplifies them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Da mihi vestimenti aliquid _aridi_ / dum **arescunt** mea […] / Tegillum eccillud, mihi unum id **aret**; id si vis, dabo […] / Tu istaec mihi dato: **exarescent** faxo.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;(Plaut. _Rud._, 573-578)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Spanish there are two main stative copular verbs: _ser_ (_esse_-derived) and _estar_ (_stare_-derived). In the former example below the state of 'dry' would be conceptualized as a permanent characteristic of the subject. In contrast, in the latter the transitory state of 'dry' holds as a _result_ of a previous event. I was wondering if a similar aspectual difference could be involved in the contrast (?) between _aridus est_ and _aret_. The origin of the Latin _-e-_ morpheme in the stative verb _aret_ is resultative, isn't it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; La tierra *es* árida.                  (Spanish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; La tierra *está* árida. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8853" RevisionGUID="b5c62292-6431-4287-bcf8-96d28927c487" CreationDate="2019-01-10T20:09:04.577" UserId="406" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="You're absolutely right that PIE `*a` gives *Old* Latin `/a/`. But somewhere between Old Latin and Classical Latin, *vowel reduction* happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, Old Latin stress was always on the first syllable. So short vowels in other (non-stressed) syllables tended to get reduced, sort of like how English keeps the *i* in &quot;combine&quot; but reduces it in &quot;combination&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *most* instances, the reduced vowels became `/i/`. This is why `/i/` appears in lots of prefixed verbs: the *a* in *faciō* is reduced to the *i* in *afficiō*, for example. (It's not always an *i*: consonant clusters and *r*, for example, tend to turn it into an *e* instead, which is why the participle of *afficiō* is *affectus*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's what happened in this case. In Old Latin, the word was something like *Jup-pater*, from Proto-Italic *Djou-patēr*; vowel reduction then turned the *a* into an *i*, giving *Juppiter*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Sometimes it's written *Jūpiter*, sometimes *Juppiter*; this alternation comes from the &quot;littera rule&quot;, named for *lītera~littera*.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8857" RevisionGUID="24a574c1-a78e-49c1-9b0f-ea33a1e52c81" CreationDate="2019-01-10T21:33:15.787" UserId="40" Text="This is not exactly a sound change, but a substitution: this *-am* is originally that of the 1sg. subjunctive, which for some reason came to replace the expected *-em* of the 1sg. fut. There's actually some evidence that Old Latin had the expected ending *-em*; this is discussed in an article by [Churchill 2000][1] (JSTOR link).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not totally obvious why this happened. The semantic change &quot;subjunctive &gt; future&quot; is pretty common, and indeed the rest of the future forms in the third and fourth conjugations continue the PIE subjunctive. But in this case there was a further substitution by the new Latin subjunctive in *-ā-*. I don't know if there's a good theory for why this latter change was restricted to the 1sg. But compare the use of *I might*, which in colloquial American English can mean basically *I will* (e.g. *I might take you up on your offer* can be a polite way of saying *I'm definitely going to take you up on your offer*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1561984" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8858" RevisionGUID="2f1acd7c-eea2-45c0-b2b4-4cad97dcd21c" CreationDate="2019-01-11T09:26:15.873" UserId="3278" Text="I want to translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;It's not my job, I'm not paid to do that.&quot;* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From English into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I work somewhere where I hear the phrase every day and I'm going to have a mug printed). Automatic translators struggle even with this simple sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27391" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8858" RevisionGUID="2f1acd7c-eea2-45c0-b2b4-4cad97dcd21c" CreationDate="2019-01-11T09:26:15.873" UserId="3278" Text="Somewhat tongue in cheek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27392" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8858" RevisionGUID="2f1acd7c-eea2-45c0-b2b4-4cad97dcd21c" CreationDate="2019-01-11T09:26:15.873" UserId="3278" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8859" RevisionGUID="a9236e7c-f391-42c2-abad-bcfe04e973a2" CreationDate="2019-01-11T10:10:30.573" UserId="645" Text="If you want something snappy, *nec opus nec merces mihi est*, 'neither the task nor the reward is for me' should do the trick." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8858" RevisionGUID="4d3709db-4023-4259-9c82-f2978a7d6f90" CreationDate="2019-01-11T10:43:50.963" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I want to translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;It's not my job, I'm not paid to do that.&quot;* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From English into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I work somewhere where I hear the phrase every day and I'm going to have a mug printed.) Automatic translators struggle even with this simple sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27395" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8858" RevisionGUID="4d3709db-4023-4259-9c82-f2978a7d6f90" CreationDate="2019-01-11T10:43:50.963" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Translation of &quot;It's not my job, I'm not paid to do that.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27396" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8858" RevisionGUID="4d3709db-4023-4259-9c82-f2978a7d6f90" CreationDate="2019-01-11T10:43:50.963" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2844" RevisionGUID="007b3e6b-63e6-4d16-bea4-a06ccc23b002" CreationDate="2019-01-11T12:36:46.020" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="Simple question really: *Noli quaerere quid vobis tua patria facere potest, sed quid facere tuae patriae potes.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this say &quot;Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27398" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2844" RevisionGUID="007b3e6b-63e6-4d16-bea4-a06ccc23b002" CreationDate="2019-01-11T12:36:46.020" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|translation-check|sentence-translation|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27399" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2749" RevisionGUID="402bdc5e-3b59-4363-a971-a0b8a58c9328" CreationDate="2019-01-11T12:37:25.573" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|translation-check|latin-to-english-translation|history|philosophy-terms|logic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8860" RevisionGUID="f237fc56-12be-4408-9805-d9cc949fc97c" CreationDate="2019-01-11T13:03:55.603" UserId="2129" Text="Please check if my translation is correct for this phrase: **I have forgotten more than you ever knew:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plus quam umquam sciebas oblitus sum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the word order correct, or should I put *oblitus sum* first? Should I have to use *tu* here or it can be omitted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27401" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8860" RevisionGUID="f237fc56-12be-4408-9805-d9cc949fc97c" CreationDate="2019-01-11T13:03:55.603" UserId="2129" Text="Plus quam umquam sciebas oblitus sum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27402" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8860" RevisionGUID="f237fc56-12be-4408-9805-d9cc949fc97c" CreationDate="2019-01-11T13:03:55.603" UserId="2129" Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27403" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8860" RevisionGUID="5f67f2a0-9a47-4a15-ba9b-a0451f3c5c68" CreationDate="2019-01-11T13:12:01.210" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8837" RevisionGUID="83dea063-e64f-4e1b-83de-37d319bfa1d2" CreationDate="2019-01-11T13:39:50.497" UserId="522" Comment="removed irrelevant material" Text="Thanks for your interesting question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the key is the sequence  **..ptonesh..**  which suggests Northamptonshire to me.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;et Joh.is Norgate de Naptoneshir &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that doesn't seem likely, Du CANGE, Charles du Fresne, 1610-1806   Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis (in 10 vols) is on line through ARCHIVE. I checked vol six p.247 for occupations beginning [**SH**][1] and found   &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Shawaldres ( *Gallic* chevaliers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  The text could be an abbreviation *'Shw'* Would that fit? Sing. or plural. Not quite an occupation. The page refers you to SCH also::: [archive.org/details/glossariummediae06duca/page/n117][2] which offers other possible occupations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/glossariummediae06duca/page/n247&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://archive.org/details/glossariummediae06duca/page/n117" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8861" RevisionGUID="03bf9e32-6d4e-45bc-b0a5-d7ad1a2bd53e" CreationDate="2019-01-11T13:56:42.793" UserId="324" Text="The original meaning of οὐσία is “that which is one’s own; property”, attested since Herodotus. In the philosophers (Plato, Aristotle and perhaps already Democritus) it takes on the sense “true nature of something” as opposed to πάθη. Latin essentia is a calque on οὐσία and is not attested before the imperial period, though Seneca says that he thinks it was coined by Cicero (&quot;Ciceronem auctorem hujus verbi habeo&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8862" RevisionGUID="88874dbf-2fb7-4d4f-a9bf-77e67824e57e" CreationDate="2019-01-11T14:24:53.490" UserId="469" Text="FWIW, *the act of being* in Medieval philosophy was called **actus essendi** (from which the English and Spanish expressions are mere translations). [The term][1] was apparently coined by St. Thomas Aquinas (XIII cent.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_Essendi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8863" RevisionGUID="e63a62b7-f21e-4456-92e3-bd40142ae89e" CreationDate="2019-01-11T21:41:40.177" UserId="3279" Text="I have read the thread on Domus optima, but I am looking for the idiom: how did Romans title their houses (vs. describe them)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, I would title our place &quot;House of the Large Cups&quot; because that's what everyone remembers about it: we have huge coffee/tea mugs. If a Roman was to do the same, how would they bestow a fatuous sobriquet so they could put it on invitations as a private joke with their friends?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27408" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8863" RevisionGUID="e63a62b7-f21e-4456-92e3-bd40142ae89e" CreationDate="2019-01-11T21:41:40.177" UserId="3279" Text="How to construct the title of a house: House of the Large Cups?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27409" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8863" RevisionGUID="e63a62b7-f21e-4456-92e3-bd40142ae89e" CreationDate="2019-01-11T21:41:40.177" UserId="3279" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8864" RevisionGUID="a5a0f068-d83d-4f42-85d3-b9adc5f12b26" CreationDate="2019-01-12T14:43:48.173" UserId="3281" Text="Wondering if any of the following letters were or are ever written in the way described for each.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Δ : If it is ever filled in black.&#xD;&#xA;- Ξ : If it is ever written as similar to `E` or `Ǝ`, with a side edge backing it up.&#xD;&#xA;- Ω : If it's ever written more spread out, such as like a top hat, sort of `_∩_` but with less protusion on the edges. But basically a wider gap in the center, and less folding inward.&#xD;&#xA;- ω : Likewise, if this is ever written as a `w`, perhaps not with sharp edges but not with a closing-in angle to the ending points of the lines on the top.&#xD;&#xA;- Σ : If this is ever written more rounded, sort of like `Ɛ`. But no, maybe that would confuse it with epsilon, be interesting to know if it's ever done like that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27412" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8864" RevisionGUID="a5a0f068-d83d-4f42-85d3-b9adc5f12b26" CreationDate="2019-01-12T14:43:48.173" UserId="3281" Text="If these Greek characters ever had alternative orthographies / typographies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27413" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8864" RevisionGUID="a5a0f068-d83d-4f42-85d3-b9adc5f12b26" CreationDate="2019-01-12T14:43:48.173" UserId="3281" Text="|greek|language-evolution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8865" RevisionGUID="ccae23d2-c175-49f8-b012-d28d85cb771f" CreationDate="2019-01-12T17:53:21.633" UserId="1694" Text="The answer will depend somewhat on whether you're asking about historical variants or modern typography.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I wouldn't be surprised to see a filled-in Δ in some sort of &quot;artistic&quot; modern typeface, but it would be unlikely to appear in a real written form, simply because filling the triangle in with a pen or other writing implement would be unnecessary work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ξ in ancient times was sometimes written with vertical stroke right through the middle (so not like an E), but that's historical only (as far as I know).  It's also seen in more modern times with the horizontal strokes connected with right-to-left oblique strokes, so that the net effect is somewhat like a two-layered Z.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both Ω and ω have been written with various proportions and details of the basic shapes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Σ was commonly written in a more cursive way as C, especially in uncial manuscripts.  This is referred to a &quot;lunate&quot; (or &quot;moon shaped&quot;) sigma." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8865" RevisionGUID="417d658f-00dd-4be6-b9fd-16aa6062c10d" CreationDate="2019-01-12T18:01:48.590" UserId="1694" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The answer will depend somewhat on whether you're asking about historical variants or modern typography.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I wouldn't be surprised to see a filled-in Δ in some sort of &quot;artistic&quot; modern typeface, but it would be unlikely to appear in a real written form, simply because filling the triangle in with a pen or other writing implement would be unnecessary work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ξ in ancient times was sometimes written with vertical stroke right through the middle (so not like an E), but that's historical only (as far as I know).  It's also seen in more modern times with the horizontal strokes connected with right-to-left oblique strokes, so that the net effect is somewhat like a two-layered Z.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both Ω and ω have been written with various proportions and details of the basic shapes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Σ was commonly written in a more cursive way as C, especially in uncial manuscripts.  This is referred to as a &quot;lunate&quot; (or &quot;moon shaped&quot;) sigma." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8865" RevisionGUID="d43f9499-7da7-4825-a367-ffd730de9c42" CreationDate="2019-01-12T18:18:46.323" UserId="1694" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The answer will depend somewhat on whether you're asking about historical variants or modern typography.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I wouldn't be surprised to see a filled-in Δ in some sort of &quot;artistic&quot; modern typeface, but it would be unlikely to appear in a real written form, simply because filling the triangle in with a pen or other writing implement would be unnecessary work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ξ in ancient times was sometimes written with a vertical stroke right through the middle (so not like an E), but that's historical only (as far as I know).  It's also seen in more modern times with the horizontal strokes connected with right-to-left oblique strokes, so that the net effect is somewhat like a two-layered Z.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both Ω and ω have been written with various proportions and details of the basic shapes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Σ was commonly written in a more cursive way as C, especially in uncial manuscripts.  This is referred to as a &quot;lunate&quot; (or &quot;moon shaped&quot;) sigma." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8866" RevisionGUID="398d39d7-1a05-481b-a0a8-4a579b114eaf" CreationDate="2019-01-12T19:43:31.977" UserId="406" Text="(I'm assuming you're asking about the use in ancient/Classical times; please correct me in the comments if this is wrong.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Delta (Δ) was never filled in with black, for a simple reason: the Greek alphabet (and similarly the Latin alphabet, and their predecessor, the Phoenician abjad) evolved to be carved with a stylus or chisel, not written with a pen or brush. That's why there are so many straight lines and simple half-circle curves. And that's also why there are never any solid blocks of color: modern pens could color in the inside of a delta, but on a wax tablet or a stone monument it would take lots of time and effort and potentially damage the medium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Xi (Ξ) was originally written with a line down the middle: it comes from Phoenician *samekh* which looks like a vertical line with three bars through it. However, this vertical line disappeared in Greek, probably because it made xi look too much like epsilon (Ε). In handwriting, the ends of the bars tended to get joined together; this is where you get the lowercase Greek form (ξ) and the Coptic form (Ⲝ). (Compare English cursive writing.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Omega was a Greek invention, which is why you don't see it in related alphabets like Phoenician. They took omicron (Ο) and broke the circle; when this wasn't obvious enough, they put little serif-like lines on the ends, to make the break more obvious (Ω). This worked great in inscriptions but wasn't always clear enough in handwriting, so the flat horizontal part got longer, then started curving up at the ends, and eventually you end up with the lowercase form (ω) where the circle itself has been reduced to a tiny nub! So yes, both your variant forms of omega existed as in-between stages of this process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sigma and epsilon were both written with straight lines because, again, it made them easier to carve/incise. Curves happened in handwriting (which is how you get ε) but sigma tended to be simplified further in these contexts: it was often written in a &quot;lunate&quot; (crescent-shaped) form, &quot;Ϲ&quot;, with the little indentation on the left totally gone. Alternately, the bottom stroke was sometimes left out, and when that version got curved in handwriting it gave &quot;S&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8867" RevisionGUID="44f516dc-70ac-47ec-b9c4-21cd594426d4" CreationDate="2019-01-12T19:55:35.467" UserId="2363" Text="Your translation is fine, but a Roman may have preferred to express the shared prepositional phrase only once, perhaps like this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ex nihilo igitur fiunt et aliquid et nihil. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8866" RevisionGUID="781c8a6b-923a-420a-8b47-9a4bf8a0f3f7" CreationDate="2019-01-12T20:03:34.867" UserId="406" Comment="added 330 characters in body" Text="(I'm assuming you're asking about the use in ancient/Classical times; please correct me in the comments if this is wrong.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Delta (Δ) was never filled in with black, for a simple reason: the Greek alphabet (and similarly the Latin alphabet, and their predecessor, the Phoenician abjad) evolved to be carved with a stylus or chisel, not written with a pen or brush. That's why there are so many straight lines and simple half-circle curves. And that's also why there are never any solid blocks of color: modern pens could color in the inside of a delta, but on a wax tablet or a stone monument it would take lots of time and effort and potentially damage the medium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later on, Greek was written on papyrus and other media, and at this point things started getting smoother and curvier. That's when delta lost its sharp corners and became a single smooth stroke, giving &quot;δ&quot;. But now the emphasis was on writing quickly and easily, and going back to fill in with ink would just make this harder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Xi (Ξ) was originally written with a line down the middle: it comes from Phoenician *samekh* which looks like a vertical line with three bars through it. However, this vertical line disappeared in Greek, probably because it made xi look too much like epsilon (Ε). In handwriting, the ends of the bars tended to get joined together; this is where you get the lowercase Greek form (ξ) and the Coptic form (Ⲝ). (Compare English cursive writing.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Omega was a Greek invention, which is why you don't see it in related alphabets like Phoenician. They took omicron (Ο) and broke the circle; when this wasn't obvious enough, they put little serif-like lines on the ends, to make the break more obvious (Ω). This worked great in inscriptions but wasn't always clear enough in handwriting, so the flat horizontal part got longer, then started curving up at the ends, and eventually you end up with the lowercase form (ω) where the circle itself has been reduced to a tiny nub! So yes, both your variant forms of omega existed as in-between stages of this process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sigma and epsilon were both written with straight lines because, again, it made them easier to carve/incise. Curves happened in handwriting (which is how you get ε) but sigma tended to be simplified further in these contexts: it was often written in a &quot;lunate&quot; (crescent-shaped) form, &quot;Ϲ&quot;, with the little indentation on the left totally gone. Alternately, the bottom stroke was sometimes left out, and when that version got curved in handwriting it gave &quot;S&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Plus, a couple other un-asked-for but potentially interesting notes, since orthographic history is something I'm excessively interested in! Latin &quot;C&quot; is unrelated to lunate sigma; its Greek sibling is gamma. And a few alphabets did in fact contrast the three-stroke and four-stroke sigma shapes, such as Etruscan, which used three strokes for the sound in &quot;sip&quot; and four strokes for the sound in &quot;ship&quot;; the four-stroke one came from a merger of four-stroke sigma and the separate letter &quot;shan&quot;. Now, some modern alphabets are doing the same, using Latin &quot;S&quot; for the &quot;sip&quot; sound and borrowing sigma back from Greek for the &quot;ship&quot; sound!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8868" RevisionGUID="45308248-823a-4c0f-9d03-0bbb5ecf564c" CreationDate="2019-01-12T20:48:56.817" UserId="406" Text="If you wanted an ostentatious and overly-grandiose name, *domus* is a nice word for &quot;house&quot;, and *ingēns, -tis* means something like &quot;impossibly or excessively large&quot;. (It's also a more poetic word than *magnus* or *longus*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;cup&quot;, a straightforward word is *calix*, whence &quot;chalice&quot;. But I would go with a Greek loan, *dīnus* (from *δεῖνος~δῖνος*). In Greek it was a common word for a round cup to drink out of, but it was also a technical term in Democritus's atomic theory, meaning something like &quot;the rotation of the universe&quot;. In the *Clouds*, Aristophanes uses this pun over and over, with Socrates studying cups to understand physics and knocking over statues of the gods to put huge cups in their place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting it all together grammatically, I would say ***Domus Dīnōrum Ingentum***, or ***Domus Calicum Ingentum***. (The lines over some of the letters can be included or left off, whichever you like; they represent a difference in sound that disappeared in later Latin.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8869" RevisionGUID="166bcbbf-39bd-47c8-af40-5673ee96fea3" CreationDate="2019-01-12T20:55:24.333" UserId="2363" Text="I would change three things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, instead of the adverb *plus*, which usually signals that the verb is to be repeated, I would use a plural direct object *plura* (more things). Now the comparison makes sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, I would use a perfect tense rather than an imperfect with *umquam*. The perfect is much more common, since the word means &quot;at any point.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, I would put the *quam* clause at the end rather than embedding it, since that's more natural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Plura oblitus sum quam umquam scivisti.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8868" RevisionGUID="667f1072-b3f2-4c09-8f35-fa78c81d0b3d" CreationDate="2019-01-12T20:58:12.627" UserId="406" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="If you wanted an ostentatious and overly-grandiose name, *domus* is a nice word for &quot;house&quot;, and *ingēns, -tis* means something like &quot;impossibly or excessively large&quot;. (It's also a more poetic word than *magnus* or *longus*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;cup&quot;, a straightforward word is *calix*, whence &quot;chalice&quot;. But I would go with a Greek loan, *dīnus* (from *δεῖνος~δῖνος*). In Greek it was a common word for a round cup to drink out of, but it was also a technical term in Democritus's atomic theory, meaning something like &quot;the rotation of the universe&quot;. In the *Clouds*, Aristophanes uses this pun over and over, with Socrates studying cups to understand physics and knocking over statues of the gods to put huge cups in their place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting it all together grammatically, I would say ***Domus Dīnōrum Ingentium***, or ***Domus Calicum Ingentium***. (The lines over some of the letters can be included or left off, whichever you like; they represent a difference in sound that disappeared in later Latin.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8869" RevisionGUID="39bb050f-c239-4f34-af2a-3c8bb13a3dee" CreationDate="2019-01-12T21:19:56.267" UserId="2363" Comment="correction" Text="I would change three things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, instead of *plus*, which in context would mean &quot;more often&quot; or &quot;to a greater extent&quot; and usually signals that the verb is to be repeated, I would use the plural direct object *plura* (more things). Now the comparison makes sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, I would use a perfect tense rather than an imperfect with *umquam*. The perfect is much more common, since the word means &quot;at any point.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, I would put the *quam* clause at the end rather than embedding it, since that's more natural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Plura oblitus sum quam umquam scivisti.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8866" RevisionGUID="c9d1454a-e61e-4677-9fe8-d03cc670aa69" CreationDate="2019-01-12T22:16:34.920" UserId="406" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="(I'm assuming you're asking about the use in ancient/Classical times; please correct me in the comments if this is wrong.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Delta (Δ) was never filled in with black, for a simple reason: the Greek alphabet (and similarly the Latin alphabet, and their predecessor, the early &quot;block&quot; form of the Phoenician abjad) evolved to be carved with a stylus or chisel, not written with a pen or brush. That's why there are so many straight lines and simple half-circle curves. And that's also why there are never any solid blocks of color: modern pens could color in the inside of a delta, but on a wax tablet or a stone monument it would take lots of time and effort and potentially damage the medium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later on, Greek was written on papyrus and other media, and at this point things started getting smoother and curvier. That's when delta lost its sharp corners and became a single smooth stroke, giving &quot;δ&quot;. But now the emphasis was on writing quickly and easily, and going back to fill in with ink would just make this harder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Xi (Ξ) was originally written with a line down the middle: it comes from Phoenician *samekh* which (in the &quot;block&quot; form) looks like a vertical line with three bars through it. However, this vertical line disappeared in Greek, probably because it made xi look too much like epsilon (Ε). In handwriting, the ends of the bars tended to get joined together; this is where you get the lowercase Greek form (ξ) and the Coptic form (Ⲝ). (Compare English cursive writing.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Omega was a Greek invention, which is why you don't see it in related alphabets like Phoenician. They took omicron (Ο) and broke the circle to make a new letter; when this wasn't an obvious enough difference, they put little serif-like lines on the ends, to make the break easier to see (Ω). This worked great in inscriptions but wasn't always clear enough in handwriting, so the flat horizontal part got longer, then started curving up at the ends, and eventually you end up with the lowercase form (ω) where the circle itself has been reduced to a tiny nub! So yes, both your variant forms of omega existed as in-between stages of this process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sigma and epsilon were both written with straight lines because, again, it made them easier to carve/incise. Curves happened in handwriting (which is how you get ε) but sigma tended to be simplified further in these contexts: it was often written in a &quot;lunate&quot; (crescent-shaped) form, &quot;Ϲ&quot;, with the little indentation on the left totally gone. Alternately, the bottom stroke was sometimes left out, and when that version got curved in handwriting it gave &quot;S&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Plus, a couple other un-asked-for but potentially interesting notes, since orthographic history is something I'm excessively interested in! Latin &quot;C&quot; is unrelated to lunate sigma; its Greek sibling is gamma. And a few alphabets did in fact contrast the three-stroke and four-stroke sigma shapes, such as Etruscan, which used three strokes for the sound in &quot;sip&quot; and four strokes for the sound in &quot;ship&quot;; the four-stroke one came from a merger of four-stroke sigma and the separate letter &quot;shan&quot;. Now, some modern alphabets are doing the same, using Latin &quot;S&quot; for the &quot;sip&quot; sound and borrowing sigma back from Greek for the &quot;ship&quot; sound!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8870" RevisionGUID="bd48836b-7a15-4b19-8691-3da5ae21850c" CreationDate="2019-01-12T22:24:56.533" UserId="2363" Text="There is a transcription error. It should read &quot;qui disserunt.&quot; &quot;Qui disserunt&quot; is the subject of the verb &quot;existimant&quot;. &quot;De ... mixtione&quot; defines the topic of &quot;disserunt&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Those who discuss [authoritatively] the mixture of colors are of the opinion that colors of almost every sort can arise from different mixtures.&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8870" RevisionGUID="97bcba3a-9400-4c81-be8f-c32a91cd788f" CreationDate="2019-01-13T00:07:20.697" UserId="2363" Comment="improvement" Text="There is a transcription error. It should read &quot;qui disserunt.&quot; &quot;Qui disserunt&quot; is the subject of the verb &quot;existimant.&quot; &quot;De ... mixtione&quot; defines the topic of &quot;disserunt.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Those who have written treatments about mixing colors are of the opinion that colors of almost every sort can arise from combining them in various ways.&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8865" RevisionGUID="156af19a-1985-4309-8472-41b759305ad7" CreationDate="2019-01-13T00:50:46.290" UserId="1694" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="The answer will depend somewhat on whether you're asking about historical variants or modern typography.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I wouldn't be surprised to see a filled-in Δ in some sort of &quot;artistic&quot; modern typeface, but it would be unlikely to appear in a real written form, simply because filling the triangle in with a pen or other writing implement would be unnecessary work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ξ in ancient times was sometimes written with a vertical stroke right through the middle (so not like an E), but that's historical only (as far as I know).  It's also seen in more modern times with the horizontal strokes connected with right-to-left oblique strokes, so that the net effect is somewhat like a two-layered Z.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both Ω and ω have been written with various proportions and details of the basic shapes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Σ was commonly written in a more cursive way as C, especially in uncial manuscripts.  This is referred to as a &quot;lunate&quot; (or &quot;moon shaped&quot;) sigma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Late addendum - Here's an image of the connected form of Ξ that I referred to above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Xi][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/coUvS.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1463" RevisionGUID="d7408b88-db06-469e-9db9-2794b9a017c7" CreationDate="2019-01-13T11:44:51.753" UserId="79" Comment="added 535 characters in body" Text="Your translation is definitely on the right track, but there are a couple of things I want to point out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Omnis* modifies *generis*; that is, *omnis generis* means &quot;of every kind&quot;. There doesn't seem to be any other word than *generis* that *omnis* could match.&#xD;&#xA;- *Existimant* doesn't have an obvious subject. The sentence you quote starts a section, so if there is an intended subject, it should be common enough in (that part of) the book to make it clear. I didn't look too far back to find such a recurring subject, but it may well be that there is none. You can translate that as &quot;they consider&quot;, &quot;people consider&quot;, &quot;the practitioners of this art consider&quot; or some passive structure like &quot;it is considered&quot;, depending on larger context.&#xD;&#xA;- I don't see a justification for the &quot;as far as&quot; structure you use at the beginning. Instead, *qui differunt* seems to be a simple relative clause modifying *colorum*. Since &quot;of colors, which are different&quot; is a bit heavy, I would go for &quot;of different colors&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- In my reading *de colorum mixtione* describes a topic and *ex varia [colorum] commixtione* describes raw materials. To clarify this in English, some restructuring is in order. I see no particular reason to use *mixtio* for one and *commixtio* for the other; I suppose it was done for the sake of variation and both words could be used for both meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These ideas lead me to this translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *De colorum mixtione, qui differunt, ex varia eorum commixtione omnis fere generis colores fieri posse existimant.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; People think the following about mixing different colors: a color of almost any kind can come from a varying mixture of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the verb is ***disserunt*** instead of ***differunt***, we get a different interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;Now *qui differunt* does not qualify *colores* but is the subject of *existimant*.&#xD;&#xA;This does admittedly make the Latin sound more natural.&#xD;&#xA;My suggested translation in this case is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *De colorum mixtione qui disserunt, ex varia eorum commixtione omnis fere generis colores fieri posse existimant.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Those who discuss mixing different colors think that a color of almost any kind can come from a varying mixture of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27429" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8794" RevisionGUID="c1a6ea07-d424-44b1-844b-8eacef1d411c" CreationDate="2019-01-13T13:39:08.917" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Minimal pair [y] – [y:] in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27430" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8794" RevisionGUID="c1a6ea07-d424-44b1-844b-8eacef1d411c" CreationDate="2019-01-13T13:39:08.917" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|phonology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27431" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="8848" RevisionGUID="4530eb3f-bfa1-4e86-a208-02c5b8398906" CreationDate="2019-01-13T13:42:54.287" UserId="9" Comment="95" />
  <row Id="27432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8871" RevisionGUID="74b6607c-faf0-4e99-8efc-6c8e468375d3" CreationDate="2019-01-13T15:06:48.087" UserId="2363" Text="The expressions may sometimes be equivalent, but there are two features particular to *areo*. First,the verb can communicate a durative or even progressive aspect, &quot;continues without water&quot; or &quot;is drying out.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vergil, Eclogae, 10.67: cum moriens alta liber aret in ulmo, (while&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the dying bark grows dry on the lofty elm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, the verb has a negative connotation, almost always carrying the additional connotation of thirst. That is, with the exception of the passage you cited from *Rudens*, the lack of water is viewed as problematic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ovid, Ars Amat. 2.606: Garrulus in media Tantalus aret aqua! (Blabby&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tantalus remains parched surrounded by water!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8871" RevisionGUID="6f934032-dc60-43a7-9172-7b5d8a8611fe" CreationDate="2019-01-13T15:14:06.540" UserId="2363" Comment="addition" Text="The expressions may sometimes be equivalent, but there are two features particular to *areo*. First,the verb can communicate a durative or even progressive aspect, &quot;continues without water&quot; or &quot;is drying out.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vergil, Eclogae, 10.67: cum moriens alta liber aret in ulmo, (while&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the dying bark grows dry on the lofty elm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, the verb has a negative connotation, almost always carrying the additional connotation of thirst. That is, with the exception of the passage you cited from *Rudens*, the lack of water is viewed as problematic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ovid, Ars Amat. 2.606: Garrulus in media Tantalus aret aqua! (Blabby&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tantalus remains parched surrounded by water!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, I would tend to read the relatively common phrase *ager aret* as durative rather than stative: &quot;the field continues without water.&quot; This seems to me to match best the resultative force of the past tense, as seen in the Vulgate, *pars super quam non plui aruit* (the part upon which I did not send rain has dried out). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8872" RevisionGUID="5f4b9112-4e80-4441-832c-e452af9f0a0a" CreationDate="2019-01-13T18:03:41.803" UserId="39" Text="Not a real answer to your question - just wanted to show how different Ancient Greek writing was from the way we perceive it now. Here's a possible (ortho)graphic reconstruction of the first ten lines in the Iliad by Barry Powell (Powell 1991):&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how many people would be able to recognize it.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/b0pAo.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8873" RevisionGUID="1ec89a53-b8ec-48e4-8dff-72a0fe30ab13" CreationDate="2019-01-13T21:15:21.647" UserId="79" Text="Both *ita* and *sic* mean roughly &quot;so&quot; or &quot;in such way&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I know they are not identical and I have a relatively good feeling of their respective meanings, but I couldn't quite put my finger on the difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone summarize what the main differences and similarities are?&#xD;&#xA;What are some example cases where one is appropriate but not the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27436" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8873" RevisionGUID="1ec89a53-b8ec-48e4-8dff-72a0fe30ab13" CreationDate="2019-01-13T21:15:21.647" UserId="79" Text="Comparing 'ita' and 'sic'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27437" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8873" RevisionGUID="1ec89a53-b8ec-48e4-8dff-72a0fe30ab13" CreationDate="2019-01-13T21:15:21.647" UserId="79" Text="|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8872" RevisionGUID="9f54cee4-142b-4b68-9dd9-d5f711647152" CreationDate="2019-01-14T01:56:47.943" UserId="39" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="Not a real answer to your question - just wanted to show how different Ancient Greek writing was from the way we perceive it now. Here's a possible (ortho)graphic reconstruction of the first ten lines in the Iliad by Barry Powell (originally presented in Powell 1991 with a typo; see a slightly revised version below taken from Powell 2009/2011):&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how many people would be able to recognize it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7yYEG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8875" RevisionGUID="add67dc7-3b7e-40ea-a518-ed2236b1310a" CreationDate="2019-01-14T02:40:50.363" UserId="985" Text="The first thing I thought of was Horace, *Epode* 9.33:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *capaciores adfer huc, puer, scyphos*  &#xD;&#xA;Fetch roomier goblets here, boy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Capaciores* is the comparative degree of the adjective *capax*, which has, as one of its definitions, '(of containers, places, etc.) Able to hold a lot, capacious, roomy.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *scyphus* (Greek σκύφος) was a large, two-handles drinking vessel, deeper than a *cylix* (κύλιξ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though the *scyphi* that Horace mentions had two handles instead of the single handle that modern mugs have, if you want something that has literary resonance, you you could say *domus capaciorum scyphorum*, 'the house of the roomier goblets.'&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8876" RevisionGUID="40f730f0-5b7a-4563-9d33-e2d1af56d105" CreationDate="2019-01-14T02:44:14.087" UserId="522" Text="Chasing another animal altogether, I came across this expression from Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid igitur? Non sic oportet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which, out of context, means:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;So what? There's no obligation thus.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've made a change in punctuation from the original where Cicero actually said:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;What then?&quot; followed by a second question, &quot;Is there not an obligation in this way?&quot; changed to &quot;There is no obligation in this way.&quot;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Lewis and Short** (Perseus) gives the source of the quotation in the [**entry for &quot;*sic*&quot;**][1] but the link from the entry to a web text does not function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=sic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8877" RevisionGUID="8af26f71-2429-4a89-8b95-d6f9b1cf10a1" CreationDate="2019-01-14T04:09:55.540" UserId="3261" Text="The *Oxford Latin Course* presents the numerous declensions of *is*, *ille*, *hic*, and *ipse* early in their introductory course (chapter 8 of 31).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering if I should stop here and memorize all of these declensions before proceeding.  How proficiently can one *read* Latin without memorizing all of the demonstrative pronoun declensions?  Or are they only needed for writing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27444" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8877" RevisionGUID="8af26f71-2429-4a89-8b95-d6f9b1cf10a1" CreationDate="2019-01-14T04:09:55.540" UserId="3261" Text="How essential are the demonstrative pronoun declensions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27445" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8877" RevisionGUID="8af26f71-2429-4a89-8b95-d6f9b1cf10a1" CreationDate="2019-01-14T04:09:55.540" UserId="3261" Text="|study-strategies|demonstrative-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8878" RevisionGUID="d447d504-d02f-4299-a407-e7b592a145cf" CreationDate="2019-01-14T05:02:20.303" UserId="40" Text="You can't read Latin proficiently without knowing these pronouns: they're all very common, and the meaning of a sentence often hinges on their precise form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, their declensions are complicated and tend to be something students of Latin come back to again and again until they're mastered. So you don't necessarily need to stop here until you've memorized them perfectly, but definitely make a start on learning the forms if you want to eventually read Latin well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Btw, I think many textbooks make a pedagogical mistake in presenting these pronouns together: too many forms at once, with the result that lots of students kind of give up on them. It might be better to learn one at a time, but I realize you may not have that option as you're following the OLC.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8879" RevisionGUID="5a4cc4f8-e962-42c4-a4fa-7637fc266b86" CreationDate="2019-01-14T10:17:01.523" UserId="1459" Text="Consider [2 Kings, 16:1](http://drbo.org/x/d?b=lvb&amp;bk=10&amp;ch=16&amp;l=1-#x) in the Vulgate (2 Samuel in modern bibles):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cumque David transisset paululum montis verticem, apparuit Siba puer Miphiboseth in occursum ejus, **cum duobus asinis**, qui onerati erant **ducentis panibus**, et centum alligaturis uvae passae, et centum massis palatharum, et utre vini.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first bold phrase does include the _cum_, whereas the second does not, albeit, both are in the ablative. Is there any _a priori_ reason why _cum_ is omitted in the second phrase? More generally, are other prepositions omitted sometimes? If so, when are prepositions omitted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27448" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8879" RevisionGUID="5a4cc4f8-e962-42c4-a4fa-7637fc266b86" CreationDate="2019-01-14T10:17:01.523" UserId="1459" Text="When to omit a preposition?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27449" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8879" RevisionGUID="5a4cc4f8-e962-42c4-a4fa-7637fc266b86" CreationDate="2019-01-14T10:17:01.523" UserId="1459" Text="|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8879" RevisionGUID="55cca15c-9469-4223-9817-574bc4e6e320" CreationDate="2019-01-14T10:22:12.250" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="Consider [2 Kings, 16:1](http://drbo.org/x/d?b=lvb&amp;bk=10&amp;ch=16&amp;l=1-#x) in the Vulgate (2 Samuel in modern bibles):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cumque David transisset paululum montis verticem, apparuit Siba puer Miphiboseth in occursum ejus, __cum duobus asinis__, qui onerati erant __ducentis panibus__, et centum alligaturis uvae passae, et centum massis palatharum, et utre vini.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first bold phrase does include the _cum_, whereas the second does not, albeit, both are in the ablative. Is there any _a priori_ reason why _cum_ is omitted in the second phrase? More generally, are other prepositions omitted sometimes? If so, when are prepositions omitted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27451" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8879" RevisionGUID="55cca15c-9469-4223-9817-574bc4e6e320" CreationDate="2019-01-14T10:22:12.250" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|vulgata|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8880" RevisionGUID="2a42c891-75b4-4bbd-8142-46cde4fcdf9a" CreationDate="2019-01-14T10:29:30.863" UserId="79" Text="I would not read that as an omitted preposition.&#xD;&#xA;The plain ablative also has its uses, and here it is used in the instrumental sense:&#xD;&#xA;the donkeys were loaded with breads.&#xD;&#xA;Notice that here the English &quot;with&quot; indicates an instrument, whereas in *cum asinis* (&quot;with donkeys&quot;) in indicates a companion.&#xD;&#xA;Companions are typically expressed with *cum* and ablative in Latin, instruments with a plain ablative.&#xD;&#xA;The breads are not companions with whom someone loaded the donkeys, nor are donkeys instruments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that in general prepositions are not omitted in Latin, but there are a number of uses for plain cases without prepositions.&#xD;&#xA;The dative and genitive cannot even be used with prepositions, although similar functions are expressed by prepositions in English and Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1858/79) for more on repeating prepositions with *et*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8881" RevisionGUID="0ac3a872-b683-46bc-961a-fe07eceb16be" CreationDate="2019-01-14T11:52:12.947" UserId="645" Text="I have to translate the word 'stirrup' into Latin. Since the Romans (famously) rode without stirrups  I can find no useful classical reference and have decided to use *stapes*, which is used by physicians to describe the smallest bone in the human body (in the ear).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bone is exactly of the right shape. Does anyone know the origin of this word? Or has any opinion or advice on its declension? My instinct is for 3rd Decl., gen. *stapitis*, rather than 5th, gen *stapei*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27454" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8881" RevisionGUID="0ac3a872-b683-46bc-961a-fe07eceb16be" CreationDate="2019-01-14T11:52:12.947" UserId="645" Text="A translation for 'stirrup'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27455" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8881" RevisionGUID="0ac3a872-b683-46bc-961a-fe07eceb16be" CreationDate="2019-01-14T11:52:12.947" UserId="645" Text="|vocabulary|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8880" RevisionGUID="9dea1eb4-ee85-4f17-8a23-ebd9e378680b" CreationDate="2019-01-14T12:41:44.793" UserId="79" Comment="added 203 characters in body" Text="I would not read that as an omitted preposition.&#xD;&#xA;The plain ablative also has its uses, and here it is used in the instrumental sense:&#xD;&#xA;the donkeys were loaded with breads.&#xD;&#xA;Notice that here the English &quot;with&quot; indicates an instrument, whereas in *cum asinis* (&quot;with donkeys&quot;) it indicates a companion.&#xD;&#xA;Companions are typically expressed with *cum* and ablative in Latin, instruments with a plain ablative.&#xD;&#xA;The breads are not companions with whom someone loaded the donkeys, nor are donkeys instruments.&#xD;&#xA;(The preposition *cum* is possible with instruments, at least in some situations.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that in general prepositions are not omitted in Latin, but there are a number of uses for plain cases without prepositions.&#xD;&#xA;The dative and genitive cannot even be used with prepositions, although similar functions are expressed by prepositions in English and Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;Prepositions go with ablative or accusative (with perhaps a very rare exception), but both cases can be used as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1858/79) for more on repeating prepositions with *et*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8882" RevisionGUID="54a6ba50-46b8-42fc-b68a-72a7d7121ca4" CreationDate="2019-01-14T12:46:19.957" UserId="3285" Text="Please could you help me to create a Latin motto which means ‘I am, therefore I thank.’ I’ve thought of sum ergo laudo, but perhaps laudo is closer to ‘I praise’. I’m looking for a word with a nuance closer to ‘I give thanks’ or ‘I am thankful’ but, because this is for a motto, I should like to capture the meaning of ‘I thank’ in a single Latin verb. Am I correct in thinking that the word order in the motto would be sum + ergo + (the word you suggest)? Thanks so much!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27458" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8882" RevisionGUID="54a6ba50-46b8-42fc-b68a-72a7d7121ca4" CreationDate="2019-01-14T12:46:19.957" UserId="3285" Text="Translation of ‘I am, therefore I thank’" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27459" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8882" RevisionGUID="54a6ba50-46b8-42fc-b68a-72a7d7121ca4" CreationDate="2019-01-14T12:46:19.957" UserId="3285" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8882" RevisionGUID="1791c062-4367-4a36-b740-f1943346329e" CreationDate="2019-01-14T12:53:32.937" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and some formatting." Text="Please could you help me to create a Latin motto which means ‘I am, therefore I thank.’ I’ve thought of *sum ergo laudo*, but perhaps *laudo* is closer to ‘I praise’. I’m looking for a word with a nuance closer to ‘I give thanks’ or ‘I am thankful’ but, because this is for a motto, I should like to capture the meaning of ‘I thank’ in a single Latin verb. Am I correct in thinking that the word order in the motto would be sum + ergo + (the word you suggest)? Thanks so much!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27461" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8882" RevisionGUID="1791c062-4367-4a36-b740-f1943346329e" CreationDate="2019-01-14T12:53:32.937" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and some formatting." Text="|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8883" RevisionGUID="698d28d0-ee57-42a3-b533-d3351f811076" CreationDate="2019-01-14T13:08:04.180" UserId="3286" Text="1. Both &lt;em&gt;ita&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt; are used in comparatives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ita... ut, sicut&#xD;&#xA;- sic... ut, velut&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example : &lt;em&gt;Ut sementem fecĕris, ita metes&lt;/em&gt;. (Cic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. They are also used with the subjunctive in consecutive (result) clauses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;em&gt;Atticus sic Graece loquebatur, ut Athenis natus videretur&lt;/em&gt;. (Nep.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;em&gt;Non sum ita hebes ut istud dicam&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adverbs which anticipate result clauses are not entirely interchangeable. &quot;Sic&quot; is used primarily to qualify verbs: &#xD;&#xA;- Id sic dixit ut..&#xD;&#xA;- sic Plinius narrat&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &lt;em&gt;ita&lt;/em&gt; can qualify verbs, adjectives or other adverbs: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Via erat tam ita longa ut.. &#xD;&#xA;- Id ita fecit ut..&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8884" RevisionGUID="8e8a8e17-db0c-4f36-97e2-f804aa201eba" CreationDate="2019-01-14T13:08:58.220" UserId="1459" Text="[This question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4145/saying-thank-you) deals with ways of saying &quot;thank you&quot; in Latin. Looking at [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dbene) entry for _bene_, we can see that &quot;I thank you&quot; can be said as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_bene facis, bene vocas, bene narras_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, you could say something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_sum ergo bene vocas_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later in the entry there is a suggestion _bene_ alone can also be used, as also stated in the linked question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: credit goes to the linked question for inspiration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8885" RevisionGUID="b5efae11-9b60-4871-b432-1bb3c1e98084" CreationDate="2019-01-14T13:11:29.663" UserId="79" Text="There is no Latin verb that means &quot;thank&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There is the noun &quot;thank&quot;, *gratia*, and you can &quot;give thanks&quot;, *agere gratias*.&#xD;&#xA;Using this, you'd get ***sum ergo gratias ago***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this might sound a little clumsy, so using *laudare* (which is more &quot;to praise&quot; than &quot;to thank&quot;) is a decent option.&#xD;&#xA;Whether you value simplicity or accuracy more is a matter of taste.&#xD;&#xA;With *laudare* you'd get ***sum ergo laudo*** as you suggest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27465" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3005" RevisionGUID="67068a9f-f61f-4bf3-9824-0c74254e98ad" CreationDate="2019-01-14T14:41:24.403" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|greek|translation-check|greek-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27466" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2637" RevisionGUID="8795f83f-1e81-467b-b82a-1fd50b10520a" CreationDate="2019-01-14T14:43:03.863" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|greek|translation-check|syntax|infinitive|dative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8886" RevisionGUID="dda9fc86-6b7b-4f44-8447-90617e43c741" CreationDate="2019-01-14T15:20:55.237" UserId="522" Text="In *Ainsworth* English-Latin there are three words for **Stirrup.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A stirop,* or *stirrup,* Scabelum, *vel* scamillum, equestre pendulum ; subex pedaneus, //* stapes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Stapes is not included in the main Latin-English section, but in a later section. *&quot;obsoletae, dubiae, corruptae Latinitatis.&quot;* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stapes, edis, m *A stirrup,* Jun. Stapia, f. *Vet. Inscript.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Scamillum, i n.* (also *scamillus -i m.) a footstool, a little bench. [so... a hanging equstrian foot-support]  &#xD;&#xA;*Subex, -icis* f  (1) anything put under,*(Ennius)* (2) a stirrup (Bud.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Voss.* a dictionary writer quoted by Ainsworth gives alternative spellings.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Strepa, *al.* Strapa, Stapes *Voss.* Strepus *pro* Strepus *vel* Stropus *vel* Stroppus *Id.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and from Isidore, Spanish Bishop of Seville, encyclopaedist 'Etymologies':&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Strupes, *id. quod* Scalmus *Isid.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Scalmus* is a primitive rowlock, a round piece of wood to which the oar is attached with a leather **strap** (and by synecdoche a boat) both uses Cicero" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8886" RevisionGUID="ceb5ea25-20e3-4a4e-bd34-9af8baf5f5fc" CreationDate="2019-01-14T15:33:54.710" UserId="522" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In *Ainsworth* English-Latin there are three words for **Stirrup.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A stirop,* or *stirrup,* Scabelum, *vel* scamillum, equestre pendulum ; subex pedaneus, //* stapes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Stapes is not included in the main Latin-English section, but in a later section. *&quot;obsoletae, dubiae, corruptae Latinitatis.&quot;* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stapes, edis, m *A stirrup,* Jun. Stapia, f. *Vet. Inscript.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Scamillum, i n.* (also *scamillus -i* m.) a footstool, a little bench. [so... a hanging equstrian foot-support]  &#xD;&#xA;*Subex, -icis* f  (1) anything put under,*(Ennius)* (2) a stirrup (Bud.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Voss.* a dictionary writer quoted by Ainsworth gives alternative spellings.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Strepa, *al.* Strapa, Stapes *Voss.* Strepus *pro* Strepus *vel* Stropus *vel* Stroppus *Id.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and from Isidore, Spanish Bishop of Seville, encyclopaedist 'Etymologies':&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Strupes, *id. quod* Scalmus *Isid.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Scalmus* is a primitive rowlock, a round piece of wood to which the oar is attached with a leather **strap** (and by synecdoche a boat) both uses Cicero" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8887" RevisionGUID="8b3c7ccb-0055-40cb-a192-fa242eabd7c1" CreationDate="2019-01-14T18:00:20.370" UserId="406" Text="I came across this picture attached to a clickbaity article this morning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![partial abecedary][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A nice, normal-looking Greek alphabet…except for something that looks like `S` in between epsilon and zeta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is this letter? The only letter that I can think of for that position is digamma, but I've never seen a digamma in that shape, only like `F`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KfIDg.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27470" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8887" RevisionGUID="8b3c7ccb-0055-40cb-a192-fa242eabd7c1" CreationDate="2019-01-14T18:00:20.370" UserId="406" Text="What is this letter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27471" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8887" RevisionGUID="8b3c7ccb-0055-40cb-a192-fa242eabd7c1" CreationDate="2019-01-14T18:00:20.370" UserId="406" Text="|greek|alphabet|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8888" RevisionGUID="9ee3627e-cb37-4546-b18b-e0321e644c8c" CreationDate="2019-01-14T18:20:00.973" UserId="406" Text="From what I've been able to determine, it might come from a Germanic word cognate with English &quot;step&quot; (from PGmc *_stap-iz_ &quot;step, stirrup&quot;), or it might be a Late Latin combination of *sta-* &quot;stand&quot; and *pēd-* &quot;foot&quot;. Or both!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, the declension was *stapēs, stapedis*, and it's [well-attested in post-classical sources][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.neulatein.de/words/start2.htm?../words/1/015565.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8888" RevisionGUID="990b02fa-663a-445e-abb0-64f4cab8d74a" CreationDate="2019-01-14T18:39:36.840" UserId="406" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="From what I've been able to determine, it might come from a Germanic word cognate with English &quot;step&quot; (from PGmc *_stap-iz_ &quot;step, stirrup&quot;), or it might be a Late Latin combination of *sta-* &quot;stand&quot; and *pēd-* &quot;foot&quot;. Or both!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, the declension was *stapēs, stapedis*, and it's [well-attested in post-classical sources][1]. I'd say you've definitely made the right choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.neulatein.de/words/start2.htm?../words/1/015565.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8889" RevisionGUID="9f9bbb35-e57a-4141-b8f4-508f2a8af4ca" CreationDate="2019-01-14T19:47:14.303" UserId="1694" Text="I'd guess it's the symbol for 6, originally digamma, but later taking on an S-like shape." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8888" RevisionGUID="23204933-bfac-42da-82ed-94354ab56cde" CreationDate="2019-01-14T19:54:48.780" UserId="406" Comment="fix a long mark" Text="From what I've been able to determine, it might come from a Germanic word cognate with English &quot;step&quot; (from PGmc *_stap-iz_ &quot;step, stirrup&quot;), or it might be a Late Latin combination of *sta-* &quot;stand&quot; and *ped-* &quot;foot&quot;. Or both!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, the declension was *stapēs, stapedis*, and it's [well-attested in post-classical sources][1]. I'd say you've definitely made the right choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.neulatein.de/words/start2.htm?../words/1/015565.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8889" RevisionGUID="5c6f4681-ce6d-40d3-817c-185c9885f39e" CreationDate="2019-01-14T20:18:18.617" UserId="1694" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="I'd guess it's the symbol for 6, originally digamma, but later taking on an S-like shape.  (It's a bit hard to make out, but I think the last two cells contain ΙΑ and ΙΒ, indicating a series of 1 to 12.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8848" RevisionGUID="d63fbadc-2dbb-4aa6-98e6-fdf9f39d1f8b" CreationDate="2019-01-15T00:51:59.227" UserId="3248" Comment="relevant changes due to insights from commentators" Text="Is there any **semantic** or **aspectual** difference between _aret_ and _aridus est_ (cf. _rubet_/_ruber est_; _calet_/_calidus est_, _candet_/_candidus est_, i.a.)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aret. 	(Col. 2.8.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aridus	erat. (Sal. _Iug._ 90) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aspectual differences between _aret_, _arescit_, and _exarescit_ are for example more or less clear: state, atelic/non-resultative process, and telic/resultative event, respectively. The following text from Plautus nicely exemplifies them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Da mihi vestimenti aliquid _aridi_ / dum **arescunt** mea […] / Tegillum eccillud, mihi unum id **aret**; id si vis, dabo […] / Tu istaec mihi dato: **exarescent** faxo.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;(Plaut. _Rud._, 573-578)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Spanish there are two main stative copular verbs: _ser_ (_esse_-derived) and _estar_ (_stare_-derived). In the former example below the state of 'dry' would be conceptualized as a permanent characteristic of the subject. In contrast, in the latter the transitory state of 'dry' holds as a _result_ of a previous event. I was wondering if a similar aspectual difference could be involved in the contrast (?) between _aridus est_ and _aret_. The origin of the Latin _-e-_ morpheme in the stative verb _aret_ is resultative, isn't it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; La tierra *es* árida.                  (Spanish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; La tierra *está* árida. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_________________________________________________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After reading the very interesting answer and comments (cf. infra), I think that some further remarks are in order: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that Kingshorsey’s interesting paraphrase of _aret_  as ‘continues without water’ is compatible with my intuition above that this verb expresses a resultant state, compared to _aridus est_, which could only (?) involve an attribution of a purely stative property expressed by the adjective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kingshorsey’s final point (i.e., “I would tend to read the relatively common phrase _ager aret_ as durative rather than stative&quot;) is not expressed correctly since “durativity” is **not** usually understood as a property that is incompatible with “stativity” (according to typical aspectual classifications of predicates (e.g., see the typical Vendlerian one), both states and activities are durative). However, Kingshorsey’s intuition is very interesting: I interpret his point as saying that _aret_ is more eventive than _aridus est_, which is correct, I think. In some contemporary semantic approaches to lexical aspect (so-called ‘aktionsart’), two types of states have been distinguished: the so-called Davidsonian states (let’s say, the more “eventive” ones) and the Kimian states (the less eventive or purely stative ones). According to this terminology, _ager aret_ would be a Davidsonian state, whereas _aridus est_ would be a Kimian state.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, Kingshorsey points out that the verb _aret_ can communicate “even progressive aspect (‘is drying out’)”. And it is here when Sumelic’s important allusion to so-called **aspectual coercion** is relevant: in my opinion, _aret_ can only express progressive aspect if and only if it is used as _arescit_ (NB: aspectual coercion is a typical phenomenon: for example, a stative predicate like _to know_ can acquire an achievement (hence eventive) reading in a context like _Finally he knew the answer_).  Notice then the logic of the aspectual classification: _aret_ is to be to put in the middle between the purely stative predicate _aridus est_ and the dynamic/eventive one _arescit_. It is then not surprising that _aret_ can be used in some contexts (i.e., “aspectually coerced”) as _arescit_. Similarly, although _arescit_ typically expresses an atelic/non-resultative event, I would not be surprised that this unprefixed verb can be _used_ (again aspectually coerced!) as a telic event (e.g., as _exarescit_) in some delimited contexts. Notice, again, the logic of the classification: unlike _arescit_, _aret_ is expected not to be used telically since it is placed “too far” from the telic scale. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I briefly address the following point made by TKR: “_aruit_ would naturally mean ‘it became dry’ whether you see it as deriving from _aresco_ or _areo_.” Here the following remark is in order: in Early and Classical Latin prose _aruit_ has been said to mean ‘it was dry’, whereas in Classical poetry it has been claimed to mean ‘it became dry’. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8848" RevisionGUID="f306c93e-79c2-4665-b896-52111b152966" CreationDate="2019-01-15T01:29:00.550" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; improved formatting" Text="Is there any **semantic** or **aspectual** difference between _aret_ and _aridus est_ (cf. _rubet_/_ruber est_; _calet_/_calidus est_, _candet_/_candidus est_, i.a.)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aret. 	(Col. 2.8.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aridus	erat. (Sal. _Iug._ 90) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aspectual differences between _aret_, _arescit_, and _exarescit_ are for example more or less clear: state, atelic/non-resultative process, and telic/resultative event, respectively. The following text from Plautus nicely exemplifies them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Da mihi vestimenti aliquid _aridi_ / dum **arescunt** mea […] / Tegillum eccillud, mihi unum id **aret**; id si vis, dabo […] / Tu istaec mihi dato: **exarescent** faxo.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;(Plaut. _Rud._, 573-578)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Spanish there are two main stative copular verbs: _ser_ (_esse_-derived) and _estar_ (_stare_-derived). In the former example below the state of 'dry' would be conceptualized as a permanent characteristic of the subject. In contrast, in the latter the transitory state of 'dry' holds as a _result_ of a previous event. I was wondering if a similar aspectual difference could be involved in the contrast (?) between _aridus est_ and _aret_. The origin of the Latin _-e-_ morpheme in the stative verb _aret_ is resultative, isn't it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; La tierra *es* árida.                  (Spanish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; La tierra *está* árida. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_________________________________________________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After reading the very interesting answer and comments (cf. infra), I think that some further remarks are in order: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that Kingshorsey’s interesting paraphrase of _aret_  as ‘continues without water’ is compatible with my intuition above that this verb expresses a resultant state, compared to _aridus est_, which could only (?) involve an attribution of a purely stative property expressed by the adjective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kingshorsey’s final point (i.e., “I would tend to read the relatively common phrase _ager aret_ as durative rather than stative&quot;) is not expressed correctly since “durativity” is **not** usually understood as a property that is incompatible with “stativity” (according to typical aspectual classifications of predicates (e.g., see the typical Vendlerian one), both states and activities are durative). However, Kingshorsey’s intuition is very interesting: I interpret his point as saying that _aret_ is more eventive than _aridus est_, which is correct, I think. In some contemporary semantic approaches to lexical aspect (so-called ‘aktionsart’), two types of states have been distinguished: the so-called Davidsonian states (let’s say, the more “eventive” ones) and the Kimian states (the less eventive or purely stative ones). According to this terminology, _ager aret_ would be a Davidsonian state, whereas _aridus est_ would be a Kimian state.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, Kingshorsey points out that the verb _aret_ can communicate “even progressive aspect (‘is drying out’)”. And it is here when Sumelic’s important allusion to so-called **aspectual coercion** is relevant: in my opinion, _aret_ can only express progressive aspect if and only if it is used as _arescit_ (NB: aspectual coercion is a typical phenomenon: for example, a stative predicate like _to know_ can acquire an achievement (hence eventive) reading in a context like _Finally he knew the answer_).  Notice then the logic of the aspectual classification: _aret_ is to be to put in the middle between the purely stative predicate _aridus est_ and the dynamic/eventive one _arescit_. It is then not surprising that _aret_ can be used in some contexts (i.e., “aspectually coerced”) as _arescit_. Similarly, although _arescit_ typically expresses an atelic/non-resultative event, I would not be surprised that this unprefixed verb can be _used_ (again aspectually coerced!) as a telic event (e.g., as _exarescit_) in some delimited contexts. Notice, again, the logic of the classification: unlike _arescit_, _aret_ is expected not to be used telically since it is placed “too far” from the telic scale. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I briefly address the following point made by TKR: “_aruit_ would naturally mean ‘it became dry’ whether you see it as deriving from _aresco_ or _areo_.” Here the following remark is in order: in Early and Classical Latin prose _aruit_ has been said to mean ‘it was dry’, whereas in Classical poetry it has been claimed to mean ‘it became dry’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Kingshorsey's point/example from the Vulgate, please note that the complex (and wonderful!) aspectual system of Early and Classical Latin was blurred in Late Latin. For example, a clearly eventive verb like _erubescere_ ('turn red') in Early and Classical Latin can turn into a stative verb ('be ashamed') in Late Latin. So one should not mix their aspectual systems because, as is well-known, they are quite different.    &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8890" RevisionGUID="2615b06e-190f-4f2a-b7bc-59c2840a90ce" CreationDate="2019-01-15T02:02:46.873" UserId="406" Text="In a comment on [this answer][1], luchonacho comments that *tenus* is a preposition taking the genitive; this seemed odd to me, since I'd never considered *tenus* anything akin to a preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Tenus* seems to be a &quot;postposition&quot;, in that it comes after a noun. But how does this work, syntactically? Are &quot;postpositions&quot; a proper category in Latin, like prepositions are? If not, what are they?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/8880/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27480" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8890" RevisionGUID="2615b06e-190f-4f2a-b7bc-59c2840a90ce" CreationDate="2019-01-15T02:02:46.873" UserId="406" Text="How do postpositions fit into Latin syntax?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27481" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8890" RevisionGUID="2615b06e-190f-4f2a-b7bc-59c2840a90ce" CreationDate="2019-01-15T02:02:46.873" UserId="406" Text="|syntax|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27482" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8881" RevisionGUID="723d3dec-b9aa-4a7d-b1eb-7edddb7a2e8d" CreationDate="2019-01-15T02:03:30.830" UserId="406" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8848" RevisionGUID="5f016efc-7a31-4bad-87de-2f6442b71966" CreationDate="2019-01-15T02:14:08.537" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="Is there any **semantic** or **aspectual** difference between _aret_ and _aridus est_ (cf. _rubet_/_ruber est_; _calet_/_calidus est_, _candet_/_candidus est_, i.a.)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aret. 	(Col. 2.8.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aridus	erat. (Sal. _Iug._ 90) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aspectual differences between _aret_, _arescit_, and _exarescit_ are for example more or less clear: state, atelic/non-resultative process, and telic/resultative event, respectively. The following text from Plautus nicely exemplifies them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Da mihi vestimenti aliquid _aridi_ / dum **arescunt** mea […] / Tegillum eccillud, mihi unum id **aret**; id si vis, dabo […] / Tu istaec mihi dato: **exarescent** faxo.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;(Plaut. _Rud._, 573-578)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Spanish there are two main stative copular verbs: _ser_ (_esse_-derived) and _estar_ (_stare_-derived). In the former example below the state of 'dry' would be conceptualized as a permanent characteristic of the subject. In contrast, in the latter the transitory state of 'dry' holds as a _result_ of a previous event. I was wondering if a similar aspectual difference could be involved in the contrast (?) between _aridus est_ and _aret_. The origin of the Latin _-e-_ morpheme in the stative verb _aret_ is resultative, isn't it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; La tierra *es* árida.                  (Spanish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; La tierra *está* árida. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_________________________________________________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After reading the very interesting answer and comments (cf. infra), I think that some further remarks are in order: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that Kingshorsey’s interesting paraphrase of _aret_  as ‘continues without water’ is compatible with my intuition above that this verb expresses a resultant state, compared to _aridus est_, which could only (?) involve an attribution of a purely stative property expressed by the adjective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kingshorsey’s final point (i.e., “I would tend to read the relatively common phrase _ager aret_ as durative rather than stative&quot;) is not expressed correctly since “durativity” is **not** usually understood as a property that is incompatible with “stativity” (according to typical aspectual classifications of predicates (e.g., see the typical Vendlerian one), both states and activities are durative). However, Kingshorsey’s intuition is very interesting: I interpret his point as saying that _aret_ is more eventive than _aridus est_, which is correct, I think. In some contemporary semantic approaches to lexical aspect (so-called ‘aktionsart’), two types of states have been distinguished: the so-called Davidsonian states (let’s say, the more “eventive” ones) and the Kimian states (the less eventive or purely stative ones). According to this terminology, _ager aret_ would be a Davidsonian state, whereas _aridus est_ would be a Kimian state.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, Kingshorsey points out that the verb _aret_ can communicate “even progressive aspect (‘is drying out’)”. And it is here when Sumelic’s important allusion to so-called **aspectual coercion** is relevant: in my opinion, _aret_ can only express progressive aspect if and only if it is used as _arescit_ (NB: aspectual coercion is a typical phenomenon: for example, a stative predicate like _to know_ can acquire an achievement (hence eventive) reading in a context like _Finally he knew the answer_).  Notice then the logic of the aspectual classification: _aret_ is to be to put in the middle between the purely stative predicate _aridus est_ and the dynamic/eventive one _arescit_. It is then not surprising that _aret_ can be used in some contexts (i.e., “aspectually coerced”) as _arescit_. Similarly, although _arescit_ typically expresses an atelic/non-resultative event, I would not be surprised that this unprefixed verb can be _used_ (again aspectually coerced!) as a telic event (e.g., as _exarescit_) in some delimited contexts. Notice, again, the logic of the classification: unlike _arescit_, _aret_ is expected not to be used telically since it is placed “too far” from the telic scale. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I briefly address the following point made by TKR: “_aruit_ would naturally mean ‘it became dry’ whether you see it as deriving from _aresco_ or _areo_.” Here the following remark is in order: in Early and Classical Latin prose _aruit_ has been said to mean ‘it was dry’, whereas in Classical poetry it has been claimed to mean ‘it became dry’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Kingshorsey's point/example from the Vulgate, it is perhaps worth pointing out that the complex aspectual system of Early and Classical Latin was blurred in Late Latin. For example, a clearly eventive verb like _erubescere_ ('turn red') in Early and Classical Latin can turn into a stative verb ('be ashamed') in Late Latin. So one should not mix their aspectual systems because, as is well-known, they are quite different.    &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8848" RevisionGUID="91262e7e-453b-463c-90c0-d8da4887d6d6" CreationDate="2019-01-15T02:53:41.093" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="Is there any **semantic** or **aspectual** difference between _aret_ and _aridus est_ (cf. _rubet_/_ruber est_; _calet_/_calidus est_, _candet_/_candidus est_, i.a.)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aret. 	(Col. 2.8.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aridus	erat. (Sal. _Iug._ 90) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aspectual differences between _aret_, _arescit_, and _exarescit_ are for example more or less clear: state, atelic/non-resultative process, and telic/resultative event, respectively. The following text from Plautus nicely exemplifies them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Da mihi vestimenti aliquid _aridi_ / dum **arescunt** mea […] / Tegillum eccillud, mihi unum id **aret**; id si vis, dabo […] / Tu istaec mihi dato: **exarescent** faxo.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;(Plaut. _Rud._, 573-578)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Spanish there are two main stative copular verbs: _ser_ (_esse_-derived) and _estar_ (_stare_-derived). In the former example below the state of 'dry' would be conceptualized as a permanent characteristic of the subject. In contrast, in the latter the transitory state of 'dry' holds as a _result_ of a previous event. I was wondering if a similar aspectual difference could be involved in the contrast (?) between _aridus est_ and _aret_. The origin of the Latin _-e-_ morpheme in the stative verb _aret_ is resultative, isn't it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; La tierra *es* árida.                  (Spanish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; La tierra *está* árida. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_________________________________________________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After reading the very interesting answer and comments (cf. infra), I think that some further remarks are in order: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that Kingshorsey’s interesting paraphrase of _aret_  as ‘continues without water’ is compatible with my intuition above that this verb expresses a resultant state, compared to _aridus est_, which could only (?) involve an attribution of a purely stative property expressed by the adjective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kingshorsey’s final point (i.e., “I would tend to read the relatively common phrase _ager aret_ as durative rather than stative&quot;) is not expressed correctly since “durativity” is **not** usually understood as a property that is incompatible with “stativity” (according to typical aspectual classifications of predicates (e.g., see the typical Vendlerian one), both states and activities are durative). However, Kingshorsey’s intuition is very interesting: I interpret his point as saying that _aret_ is more eventive than _aridus est_, which is correct, I think. In some contemporary semantic approaches to lexical aspect (so-called ‘aktionsart’), two types of states have been distinguished: the so-called Davidsonian states (let’s say, the more “eventive” ones) and the Kimian states (the less eventive or purely stative ones). According to this terminology, _ager aret_ would be a Davidsonian state, whereas _aridus est_ would be a Kimian state.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, Kingshorsey points out that the verb _aret_ can communicate “even progressive aspect (‘is drying out’)”. And it is here when Sumelic’s important allusion to so-called **aspectual coercion** is relevant: in my opinion, _aret_ can only express progressive aspect if and only if it is used as _arescit_ (NB: aspectual coercion is a typical phenomenon: for example, a stative predicate like _to know_ can acquire an achievement (hence eventive) reading in a context like _Finally he knew the answer_).  Notice then the logic of the aspectual classification: _aret_ is to be to put in the middle between the purely stative predicate _aridus est_ and the dynamic/eventive one _arescit_. It is then not surprising that _aret_ can be used in some contexts (i.e., “aspectually coerced”) as _arescit_. Similarly, although _arescit_ typically expresses an atelic/non-resultative event, I would not be surprised that this unprefixed verb can be _used_ (again aspectually coerced!) as a telic event (e.g., as _exarescit_) in some delimited contexts. Notice, again, the logic of the classification: unlike _arescit_, _aret_ is expected not to be used telically since it is placed “too far” from the telic scale. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I briefly address the following point made by TKR: “_aruit_ would naturally mean ‘it became dry’ whether you see it as deriving from _aresco_ or _areo_.” Here the following brief remark is in order: in Early and Classical Latin prose _aruit_ has been said to mean ‘it was dry’, whereas in Classical poetry it has been claimed to mean ‘it became dry’. In Classical Latin prose 'it became dry' was normally expressed by the prefixed form: e.g., _exaruit_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Kingshorsey's point/example from the Vulgate, it is perhaps worth pointing out that the complex aspectual system of Early and Classical Latin was blurred in Late Latin. For example, a clearly eventive verb like _erubescere_ ('turn red') in Early and Classical Latin can turn into a stative verb ('be ashamed') in Late Latin. Furthermore, unlike in Classical Latin prose, in Late Latin the unprefixed _aruit_ has a typical dynamic change-of-state sense, as noted by Kingshorsey.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8848" RevisionGUID="e66c9374-f5f5-4a85-abc9-d0510321a3ec" CreationDate="2019-01-15T03:07:50.633" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="Is there any **semantic** or **aspectual** difference between _aret_ and _aridus est_ (cf. _rubet_/_ruber est_; _calet_/_calidus est_, _candet_/_candidus est_, i.a.)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aret. 	(Col. 2.8.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aridus	erat. (Sal. _Iug._ 90) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aspectual differences between _aret_, _arescit_, and _exarescit_ are for example more or less clear: state, atelic/non-resultative process, and telic/resultative event, respectively. The following text from Plautus nicely exemplifies them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Da mihi vestimenti aliquid _aridi_ / dum **arescunt** mea […] / Tegillum eccillud, mihi unum id **aret**; id si vis, dabo […] / Tu istaec mihi dato: **exarescent** faxo.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;(Plaut. _Rud._, 573-578)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Spanish there are two main stative copular verbs: _ser_ (_esse_-derived) and _estar_ (_stare_-derived). In the former example below the state of 'dry' would be conceptualized as a permanent characteristic of the subject. In contrast, in the latter the transitory state of 'dry' holds as a _result_ of a previous event. I was wondering if a similar aspectual difference could be involved in the contrast (?) between _aridus est_ and _aret_. The origin of the Latin _-e-_ morpheme in the stative verb _aret_ is resultative, isn't it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; La tierra *es* árida.                  (Spanish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; La tierra *está* árida. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_________________________________________________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After reading the very interesting answer and comments (cf. infra), I think that some further remarks are in order: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that Kingshorsey’s interesting paraphrase of _aret_  as ‘continues without water’ is compatible with my intuition above that this verb expresses a resultant state, compared to _aridus est_, which could only (?) involve an attribution of a purely stative property expressed by the adjective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kingshorsey’s final point (i.e., “I would tend to read the relatively common phrase _ager aret_ as durative rather than stative&quot;) is not expressed correctly since “durativity” is **not** usually understood as a property that is incompatible with “stativity” (according to typical aspectual classifications of predicates (e.g., see the typical Vendlerian one), both states and activities are durative). However, Kingshorsey’s intuition is very interesting: I interpret his point as saying that _aret_ is more eventive than _aridus est_, which is correct, I think. In some contemporary semantic approaches to lexical aspect (so-called ‘aktionsart’), two types of states have been distinguished: the so-called Davidsonian states (let’s say, the more “eventive” ones) and the Kimian states (the less eventive or purely stative ones). According to this terminology, _ager aret_ would be a Davidsonian state, whereas _aridus est_ would be a Kimian state.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, Kingshorsey points out that the verb _aret_ can communicate “even progressive aspect (‘is drying out’)”. And it is here when Sumelic’s important allusion to so-called **aspectual coercion** is relevant: in my opinion, _aret_ can only express progressive aspect if and only if it is used as _arescit_ (NB: aspectual coercion is a typical phenomenon: for example, a stative predicate like _to know_ can acquire an achievement (hence eventive) reading in a context like _Finally he knew the answer_).  Notice then the logic of the aspectual classification: _aret_ is to be to put in the middle between the purely stative predicate _aridus est_ and the dynamic/eventive one _arescit_. It is then not surprising that _aret_ can be used in some contexts (i.e., “aspectually coerced”) as _arescit_. Similarly, although _arescit_ typically expresses an atelic/non-resultative event, I would not be surprised that this unprefixed verb can be _used_ (again aspectually coerced!) as a telic event (e.g., as _exarescit_) in some delimited contexts. Notice, again, the logic of the classification: unlike _arescit_, _aret_ is expected not to be used telically since it is placed “too far” from the telic scale. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I briefly address a complex point made by TKR: “_aruit_ would naturally mean ‘it became dry’ whether you see it as deriving from _aresco_ or _areo_”. Here the following brief remark is in order: in Early and Classical Latin prose _aruit_ means ‘it was dry’, whereas in Classical poetry it can sometimes mean ‘it became dry’. In Classical Latin prose 'it became dry' was normally expressed by a prefixed verb: e.g., _exaruit_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Kingshorsey's point/example from the Vulgate, it is perhaps worth pointing out that the complex aspectual system of Early and Classical Latin was blurred in Late Latin. For example, a clearly eventive verb like _erubescere_ ('turn red') in Early and Classical Latin can turn into a stative verb ('be ashamed') in Late Latin. Furthermore, unlike in Classical Latin prose, in Late Latin the unprefixed _aruit_ had a typical dynamic change-of-state sense, as noted by Kingshorsey.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27486" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8848" RevisionGUID="e66c9374-f5f5-4a85-abc9-d0510321a3ec" CreationDate="2019-01-15T03:07:50.633" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="|classical-latin|verbs|late-latin|early-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8848" RevisionGUID="5babda3e-60c8-4f4c-873c-c6987ddfad36" CreationDate="2019-01-15T03:30:56.017" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="Is there any **semantic** or **aspectual** difference between _aret_ and _aridus est_ (cf. _rubet_/_ruber est_; _calet_/_calidus est_, _candet_/_candidus est_, i.a.)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aret. 	(Col. 2.8.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aridus	erat. (Sal. _Iug._ 90) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aspectual differences between _aret_, _arescit_, and _exarescit_ are for example more or less clear: state, atelic/non-resultative process, and telic/resultative event, respectively. The following text from Plautus nicely exemplifies them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Da mihi vestimenti aliquid _aridi_ / dum **arescunt** mea […] / Tegillum eccillud, mihi unum id **aret**; id si vis, dabo […] / Tu istaec mihi dato: **exarescent** faxo.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;(Plaut. _Rud._, 573-578)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Spanish there are two main stative copular verbs: _ser_ (_esse_-derived) and _estar_ (_stare_-derived). In the former example below the state of 'dry' would be conceptualized as a permanent characteristic of the subject. In contrast, in the latter the transitory state of 'dry' holds as a _result_ of a previous event. I was wondering if a similar aspectual difference could be involved in the contrast (?) between _aridus est_ and _aret_. The origin of the Latin _-e-_ morpheme in the stative verb _aret_ is resultative, isn't it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; La tierra *es* árida.                  (Spanish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; La tierra *está* árida. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_________________________________________________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After reading the very interesting answer and comments (cf. infra), I think that some further remarks are in order: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that Kingshorsey’s interesting paraphrase of _aret_  as ‘continues without water’ is compatible with my intuition above that this verb expresses a resultant state, compared to _aridus est_, which could only (?) involve an attribution of a purely stative property expressed by the adjective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kingshorsey’s final point (i.e., “I would tend to read the relatively common phrase _ager aret_ as durative rather than stative&quot;) is not expressed correctly since “durativity” is **not** usually understood as a property that is incompatible with “stativity” (according to typical aspectual classifications of predicates (e.g., see the typical Vendlerian one), both states and activities are durative). However, Kingshorsey’s intuition is very interesting: I interpret his point as saying that _aret_ is more eventive than _aridus est_, which is correct, I think. In some contemporary semantic approaches to lexical aspect (so-called ‘aktionsart’), two types of states have been distinguished: the so-called Davidsonian states (let’s say, the more “eventive” ones) and the Kimian states (the less eventive or purely stative ones). According to this terminology, _ager aret_ would be a Davidsonian state, whereas _aridus est_ would be a Kimian state.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, Kingshorsey points out that the verb _aret_ can communicate “even progressive aspect (‘is drying out’)”. And it is here when Sumelic’s important allusion to so-called **aspectual coercion** is relevant: in my opinion, _aret_ can only express progressive aspect if and only if it is used as _arescit_ (NB: aspectual coercion is a typical phenomenon: for example, a stative predicate like _to know_ can acquire an achievement (hence eventive) reading in a context like _Finally he knew the answer_).  Notice then the logic of the aspectual classification: _aret_ is to be to put in the middle between the purely stative predicate _aridus est_ and the dynamic/eventive one _arescit_. It is then not surprising that _aret_ can be used in some contexts (i.e., “aspectually coerced”) as _arescit_. Similarly, although _arescit_ typically expresses an atelic/non-resultative event, I would not be surprised that this unprefixed verb can be _used_ (again aspectually coerced!) as a telic event (e.g., as _exarescit_) in some delimited contexts. Notice, again, the logic of the classification: unlike _arescit_, _aret_ is expected not to be used telically since it is placed “too far” from the telic scale. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I briefly address a complex point made by TKR: “_aruit_ would naturally mean ‘it became dry’ whether you see it as deriving from _aresco_ or _areo_”. Here the following brief remark is in order: in Early and Classical Latin prose _aruit_ means ‘it was dry’, whereas in Classical poetry it can sometimes mean ‘it became dry’. In Classical Latin prose 'it became dry' was normally expressed by a prefixed verb: e.g., _exaruit_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, as for Kingshorsey's point/example from the Vulgate, it is perhaps worth pointing out that the complex aspectual system of Early and Classical Latin became blurred in Late Latin. For example, a clearly eventive verb like _erubescere_ ('turn red') in Early and Classical Latin can turn into a stative verb ('be ashamed') in Late Latin. Furthermore, unlike in Classical Latin prose, in Late Latin the unprefixed _aruit_ had a typical dynamic change-of-state sense, as noted by Kingshorsey. Another well-known fact is that in Late Latin, stative verbs like _aret_ were typically replaced by the copular construction (_aridus est_; e.g., cf. also the Spanish copular pattern above).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8891" RevisionGUID="2c568d3b-1889-4aa2-b8b2-a20d2a036de2" CreationDate="2019-01-15T03:52:54.593" UserId="406" Text="Just to expand on Expedito Bipes's answer (and Alex B.'s and fdb's comments) and clarify a bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *θλυπίς* (*thlypis*) is a *hapax legomenon* (&quot;thing said only once&quot;), that is, a word found only once in the whole canon of Ancient Greek literature. In particular, it's found in a particular manuscript of Aristotle's *Historia Animalium* (VIII.3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most manuscripts have the passage the way Expedito quotes it: namely with the word *θ**ραυ**πίς* (*thraupis*). It's unclear whether *θ**λυ**πίς* is a typo, or whether it's another word for the same type of bird (so a synonym). Judging from Expedito's sources, many lexicographers take the second option, and that's how it ended up in scientific names for birds." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8848" RevisionGUID="97b2ab2f-d7ff-443e-8893-4ee043376a20" CreationDate="2019-01-15T17:09:42.187" UserId="3248" Comment="added 414 characters in body" Text="Is there any **semantic** or **aspectual** difference between _aret_ and _aridus est_ (cf. _rubet_/_ruber est_; _calet_/_calidus est_, _candet_/_candidus est_, i.a.)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aret. 	(Col. 2.8.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ager aridus	erat. (Sal. _Iug._ 90) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aspectual differences between _aret_, _arescit_, and _exarescit_ are for example more or less clear: state, atelic/non-resultative process, and telic/resultative event, respectively. The following text from Plautus nicely exemplifies them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Da mihi vestimenti aliquid _aridi_ / dum **arescunt** mea […] / Tegillum eccillud, mihi unum id **aret**; id si vis, dabo […] / Tu istaec mihi dato: **exarescent** faxo.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;(Plaut. _Rud._, 573-578)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Spanish there are two main stative copular verbs: _ser_ (_esse_-derived) and _estar_ (_stare_-derived). In the former example below the state of 'dry' would be conceptualized as a permanent characteristic of the subject. In contrast, in the latter the transitory state of 'dry' holds as a _result_ of a previous event. I was wondering if a similar aspectual difference could be involved in the contrast (?) between _aridus est_ and _aret_. The origin of the Latin _-e-_ morpheme in the stative verb _aret_ is resultative, isn't it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; La tierra *es* árida.                  (Spanish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; La tierra *está* árida. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_________________________________________________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After reading the very interesting answer and comments (cf. infra), I think that some further remarks are in order: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that Kingshorsey’s interesting paraphrase of _aret_  as ‘continues without water’ is compatible with my intuition above that this verb expresses a resultant state, compared to _aridus est_, which could only (?) involve an attribution of a purely stative property expressed by the adjective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kingshorsey’s final point (i.e., “I would tend to read the relatively common phrase _ager aret_ as durative rather than stative&quot;) is not expressed correctly since “durativity” is **not** usually understood as a property that is incompatible with “stativity” (according to typical aspectual classifications of predicates like the famous Vendlerian one both states and activities are durative). This said, Kingshorsey’s intuition is indeed very interesting: I interpret his point as saying that _aret_ is more eventive than _aridus est_, which is correct, I think. In some contemporary semantic approaches to lexical aspect (so-called ‘aktionsart’), two types of states have been distinguished: the so-called Davidsonian states (let’s say, the more “eventive” ones) and the Kimian states (the less eventive or purely stative ones). According to this terminology, _ager aret_ would be a Davidsonian state, whereas _aridus est_ would be a Kimian state.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, Kingshorsey points out that the verb _aret_ can communicate “even progressive aspect (‘is drying out’)”. And it is here when Sumelic’s important allusion to so-called **aspectual coercion** is relevant: in my opinion, _aret_ can only express progressive aspect if and only if it is used as _arescit_ (NB: aspectual coercion is a typical phenomenon: for example, a stative predicate like _to know_ can acquire an achievement (hence eventive) reading in a context like _Finally he knew the answer_). Notice then the logic of the aspectual classification: _aret_ is to be to put in the middle between the purely stative predicate _aridus est_ and the dynamic/eventive one _arescit_. It is then not surprising that _aret_ can be used in some contexts (i.e., “aspectually coerced”) as _arescit_. Similarly, although _arescit_ typically expresses an atelic/non-resultative event, I would not be surprised that this unprefixed _-sco_ verb can be _used_ (again aspectually coerced!) as a telic event (e.g., as _exarescit_) in some delimited contexts. Notice, again, the logic of the classification: unlike _arescit_, _aret_ is expected not to be used telically since it is placed “too far” from the telic scale. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I briefly address a complex point made by TKR: “_aruit_ would naturally mean ‘it became dry’ whether you see it as deriving from _aresco_ or _areo_”. Here the following brief remark is in order: in Early and Classical Latin prose _aruit_ means ‘it was dry’, whereas in Classical poetry it can sometimes mean ‘it became dry’. In Classical Latin prose 'it became dry' was normally expressed by a prefixed verb: e.g., _exaruit_. For more details, see the extensive monograph by G. Haverling (2000): _On Sco-Verbs, Prefixes and Semantic Functions: A study in the development of prefixed and unprefixed verbs from Early to Late Latin_   http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A345417&amp;dswid=https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/redirect-overlay/redirect-overlay-nav-mx-https-20150828._CB311575010_.css&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, as for Kingshorsey's point/example from the Vulgate, it is perhaps worth pointing out that the complex aspectual system of Early and Classical Latin became blurred in Late Latin. For example, a clearly eventive verb like _erubescere_ ('turn red') in Early and Classical Latin can turn into a stative verb ('be ashamed') in Late Latin. Furthermore, unlike in Classical Latin prose, in Late Latin the unprefixed _aruit_ had a typical dynamic change-of-state sense, as noted by Kingshorsey. Another well-known fact is that in Late Latin, stative verbs like _aret_ were typically replaced by the copular construction (_aridus est_; e.g., cf. also the Spanish copular pattern above).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8892" RevisionGUID="6ef519fa-22e5-4b7f-89cd-003f472de139" CreationDate="2019-01-15T21:33:38.340" UserId="3029" Text="I read in the very beginning of Platon's [Laches][1] ([perseus edition][2]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τεθέασθε μὲν τὸν ἄνδρα μαχόμενον ἐν ὅπλοις, ὦ Νικία τε καὶ Λάχης: οὗ δ᾽ ἕνεκα ὑμᾶς ἐκελεύσαμεν συνθεάσασθαι ἐγώ τε καὶ Μελησίας ὅδε, τότε μὲν οὐκ εἴπομεν, νῦν δ᾽ ἐροῦμεν. ἡγούμεθα γὰρ χρῆναι **πρός γε ὑμᾶς** παρρησιάζεσθαι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What bothers me is the meaning of **πρός γε ὑμᾶς** I read in [Kenneth Quandt][3] 's translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now you have seen the man's display of fighting in armor, Nicias and Laches. Why we asked you to watch it with us, Melesias here and myself, we did not tell you before but now we will, and the reason we will is that we are sure it is right and good to speak openly to **you, given who you are**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kenneth Quandt writes about &quot;πρός γε ὑμᾶς&quot; (note 4): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; πρός γε ὑμᾶς, γε causal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and translates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [good to speak openly to] **you, given who you are**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [particle γε has many meanings][4] and I thought to something simpler, maybe &quot;to speak openly, **especially to you**&quot;(emphasis) or &quot;to speak openly, **at any rate to you**&quot;(restriction).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I never heard of a &quot;γε causal&quot; and I don't understand what it could be but Quandt's translation makes sense and sounds interesting. **Do you have any reference explaining such a meaning ?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(dialogue)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0175%3Atext%3DLach.%3Asection%3D178a&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.onplatoslaches.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ge&amp;la=greek&amp;can=ge0&amp;prior=pro/s&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0175:text=Lach.:section=178a&amp;i=1#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27492" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8892" RevisionGUID="6ef519fa-22e5-4b7f-89cd-003f472de139" CreationDate="2019-01-15T21:33:38.340" UserId="3029" Text="(Greek) what's a &quot;γε causal&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27493" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8892" RevisionGUID="6ef519fa-22e5-4b7f-89cd-003f472de139" CreationDate="2019-01-15T21:33:38.340" UserId="3029" Text="|greek|translation|meaning|particle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8893" RevisionGUID="d09b4b22-2a4c-4fbf-98e4-346f7afff6ba" CreationDate="2019-01-16T00:23:04.483" UserId="406" Text="*(This answer may not be satisfying, and I'm happy to  have it supplanted in the future! But for now…)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've never heard of a &quot;γε causal&quot;, nor have any of the classicists I've talked to. A Google search brings up physics papers talking about &quot;gamma-epsilon geodesics&quot;, which seem to be something in relativity, but no relevant results about Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, I took *γε* as intensifying the prepositional phrase: we wouldn't talk to just anyone, but we would definitely talk to *you* (because you're Socrates). This is the same idea Quandt is using in his translation; he's just embellishing a bit more, to make it sound idiomatic in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notably, *γε* has some causal descendants: it's the root of *γάρ*, which could absolutely be called causal. But I've never seen *γε* alone with this meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27497" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="8849" RevisionGUID="2fd34169-afaf-4edc-b7c3-8e47726fbb10" CreationDate="2019-01-16T00:46:50.990" UserId="30" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:30,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Cerberus&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8894" RevisionGUID="4d3ecf89-a3c5-4c07-8153-0a92270ad6a1" CreationDate="2019-01-16T03:24:25.837" UserId="3264" Text="I am currently trying to translate&#xD;&#xA;&quot;May I forge the best me&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;May I forge&quot; seems easily translated as the present subjunctive first person &quot;excudam&quot;. However, I can't find how to express the rest. I thought about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Optimum me excudam&quot;, using reflexive case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Optimum memet mei excudam&quot;, something like &quot;Forge from the the best myself&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And others. What would be the best way to express this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27499" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8894" RevisionGUID="4d3ecf89-a3c5-4c07-8153-0a92270ad6a1" CreationDate="2019-01-16T03:24:25.837" UserId="3264" Text="How to express &quot;the best myself&quot; in latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27500" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8894" RevisionGUID="4d3ecf89-a3c5-4c07-8153-0a92270ad6a1" CreationDate="2019-01-16T03:24:25.837" UserId="3264" Text="|pronouns|personal-pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8894" RevisionGUID="d5c1102c-2235-4f55-9991-34ad77a2e3ed" CreationDate="2019-01-16T03:30:13.963" UserId="3264" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I am currently trying to translate&#xD;&#xA;&quot;May I forge the best me&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;May I forge&quot; seems easily translated as the present subjunctive first person &quot;excudam&quot;. However, I can't find how to express the rest. I thought about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Optimum me excudam&quot;, using reflexive case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Optimum memet mei excudam&quot;, something like &quot;Forge from me the best of myself&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And others. What would be the best way to express this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8895" RevisionGUID="3586bc34-c31b-4c13-a6c3-79f45f0c0e71" CreationDate="2019-01-16T03:31:47.697" UserId="522" Text="Can we broaden the discussion to cover these five postpositional prepositions, please.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[scuolaeculturaoggi][1]** lists &quot;PREPOSIZIONI CHE REGGONO IL  GENITIVO  (generalmente premesso): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***causa***  = *per*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***gratia***    = *per*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***tenus*** = *fino a  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***instar*** = a mo' di, a somiglianza di, come un  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **N.B.**	*tenus*  si può costruire indifferentemente e con lo stesso significato anche con l’ablativo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Paulo Barbosa][2]**, gives these five with Genitive (4 sempre **posposições**)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Emolumendi sui **gratia*** = por amor do seu interesse.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Usurpandi juris **causa*** = por motivos de exercer jurisdição.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Voluminis **instar*** = à maneira de volume  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Forminidis **ergo*** = por causa do medo. (porém Tito Lívio a emprega como preposição.)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Clam** patris* = às escondida do pai.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://scuolaeculturaoggi.myblog.it/media/00/01/1123728835.doc&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://topicosdelatinidade.blogspot.com/2011/05/preposicoes-e-ablativos-preposicionais.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8897" RevisionGUID="a4211105-224b-4119-889a-81ec28c64a17" CreationDate="2019-01-16T11:23:29.333" UserId="3293" Text="Kindly anyone change the name in Latin form please.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Name: Hafiz Muhammad Umer Jahagir&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;please convert it in Latin. Its urgent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27505" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8897" RevisionGUID="a4211105-224b-4119-889a-81ec28c64a17" CreationDate="2019-01-16T11:23:29.333" UserId="3293" Text="Request to convert name in latin characters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27506" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8897" RevisionGUID="a4211105-224b-4119-889a-81ec28c64a17" CreationDate="2019-01-16T11:23:29.333" UserId="3293" Text="|translation|word-request|sentence-translation|english-to-latin-translation|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8898" RevisionGUID="9cedc6f4-21a2-4d44-a55c-b943665a7718" CreationDate="2019-01-16T11:55:18.223" UserId="324" Text="It is already in “Latin characters”, but perhaps you asking for a Latin translation of your name? ʻUmar is a primary personal name in Arabic, without a transparent etymology, so perhaps it is best to transfer it as “Umarus”. Arabic Ḥāfiẓ could be “Protector”. Arabic Muḥammad is “Laudatus”. Persian Jahāngīr means “conquering the world”; I cannot think of a particularly good Latin equivalent, but you could try Greek “Cosmocrator”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8897" RevisionGUID="65b9731f-c942-4c61-b92c-e43f30b6c956" CreationDate="2019-01-16T15:55:42.190" UserId="1459" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="Kindly anyone change the name in Latin form please.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Name: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hafiz Muhammad Umer Jahagir&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please convert it in Latin. Its urgent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27509" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8897" RevisionGUID="65b9731f-c942-4c61-b92c-e43f30b6c956" CreationDate="2019-01-16T15:55:42.190" UserId="1459" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|word-request|sentence-translation|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27510" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8897" RevisionGUID="65b9731f-c942-4c61-b92c-e43f30b6c956" CreationDate="2019-01-16T15:55:42.190" UserId="1459" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="Request to convert name into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8899" RevisionGUID="e995495e-ad1b-41a5-a2ec-09326e366abf" CreationDate="2019-01-16T16:09:08.930" UserId="406" Text="fdb has already given an excellent translation, but I'll take a different angle: writing your name the way a Roman might have written it, without focusing on the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few different sounds here without exact equivalents in Latin, but adapting them is fairly straightforward. Here are two options which you can mix and match freely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hāfes Mohemmed Umer Zehāngīr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hāfiz Muhammad Umar Diahāngīr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Punic names like &quot;Hannibal&quot; and loans like *have* we know that the Romans turned `/ħ/` into `/h/` and dropped ayin entirely. In my experience, the vowel quality distinctions in Latin were much less extreme than in modern Arabic, so short `/a i u/` would likely be turned into short `/a~e i~e u~o/`—but this depends heavily on dialect, and if you like the look better, you can swap these for `a i u` as you like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Dz* is attested for affricates in barbarian names][1], but Jordanes isn't exactly the best source for standardized Latin. However, later Latin definitely used *z* for something like a palatal affricate (the sound in *Jahāngīr*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That palatal affricate seems to have developed out of earlier *di*, so depending on the time period, it might have been written with that sequence instead. Similarly, `/z/` at the beginning of a word was written with *s* at some times and *z* at others (see *sōna~zōna*), and I'm extrapolating that to the end too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6479/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8898" RevisionGUID="694ebf5c-adef-4ddb-93a8-38423ed70596" CreationDate="2019-01-16T16:27:27.127" UserId="324" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="It is already in “Latin characters”, but perhaps you are asking for a Latin translation of your name? ʻUmar is a primary personal name in Arabic, without a transparent etymology, so perhaps it is best to transfer it as “Umarus”. Arabic Ḥāfiẓ could be “Protector”. Arabic Muḥammad is “Laudatus”. Persian Jahāngīr means “conquering the world”; I cannot think of a particularly good Latin equivalent, but you could try Greek “Cosmocrator”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8899" RevisionGUID="2e1d3524-fe62-4300-a88a-b8e5f60c1fca" CreationDate="2019-01-16T17:01:39.813" UserId="406" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="fdb has already given an excellent translation, but I'll take a different angle. Imagine you went back in time to the forum in Ancient Rome (somewhere in the Classical period) and shouted your name at random people until one of them wrote it down. What would the result look like?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few different sounds here without exact equivalents in Latin, but adapting them is fairly straightforward. Here are two options which you can mix and match freely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hāfes Mohemmed Umer Zehāngīr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hāfiz Muhammad Umar Diahāngīr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Punic names like &quot;Hannibal&quot; and loans like *have* we know that the Romans turned `/ħ/` into `/h/` and dropped ayin entirely. In my experience, the vowel quality distinctions in Latin were much less extreme than in modern Arabic, so short `/a i u/` would likely be turned into short `/a~e i~e u~o/`—but this depends heavily on dialect, and if you like the look better, you can swap these for `a i u` as you like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Dz* is attested for affricates in barbarian names][1], but Jordanes isn't exactly the best source for standardized Latin. However, later Latin definitely used *z* for something like a palatal affricate (the sound in *Jahāngīr*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That palatal affricate seems to have developed out of earlier *di*, so depending on the time period, it might have been written with that sequence instead. Similarly, `/z/` at the beginning of a word was written with *s* at some times and *z* at others (see *sōna~zōna*), and I'm extrapolating that to the end too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6479/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8899" RevisionGUID="077b66e4-46ad-453d-8286-2b2652430bb3" CreationDate="2019-01-16T17:08:02.597" UserId="406" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="fdb has already given an excellent translation, but I'll take a different angle. Imagine you went back in time to the forum in Ancient Rome (somewhere in the Classical period) and shouted your name at random people until one of them wrote it down. What would the result look like?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few different sounds here without exact equivalents in Latin, but adapting them is fairly straightforward. Here are two options which you can mix and match freely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hāfes Mohemmed Umer Zehāngīr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hāfiz Muhammad Umar Diahāngīr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Punic names like &quot;Hannibal&quot; and loans like *have* we know that the Romans turned `/ħ/` into `/h/` and dropped ayin entirely. In my experience, the vowel quality distinctions in Latin were much less extreme than in modern Arabic, so short `/a i u/` would likely be turned into short `/a~e i~e u~o/`—but this depends heavily on dialect, and if you like the look better, you can swap these for `a i u` as you like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Dz* is attested for affricates in barbarian names][1], but Jordanes isn't exactly the best source for standardized Latin. However, later Latin definitely used *z* for something like a palatal affricate (the sound in *Jahāngīr*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That palatal affricate seems to have developed out of earlier *di*, so depending on the time period, it might have been written with that sequence instead. Similarly, `/z/` at the beginning of a word was written with *s* at some times and *z* at others (see *sōna~zōna*), and I'm extrapolating that to the end too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As fdb quite rightly points out, these names wouldn't have been exactly the same back around the first century AD. Suppose that, instead of travelling back, Mr Jahangir were a first-century Persian merchant coming to Rome to capitalize on the craze for exotic curiosities. In that case, his last name would probably be transcribed ***Gēhāngīr***. I'd have to do more research on the Arabic parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6479/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27515" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8897" RevisionGUID="06fbafb8-70de-468c-9219-8b537f58a599" CreationDate="2019-01-16T17:09:01.850" UserId="406" Comment="edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|names|transcription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8900" RevisionGUID="7c2a4a6c-6332-4fc3-b7dd-e3156377ec65" CreationDate="2019-01-16T23:17:36.777" UserId="2767" Text="It is indeed one of the forms of Digamma, the form particularly used as a numeral. See [Here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digamma" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8901" RevisionGUID="646f7d3d-d9ff-4666-b147-6f7b658a0d36" CreationDate="2019-01-17T10:42:22.063" UserId="1459" Text="Considerate Vulgatam. Exempli gratia, hi versiculi utuntur &quot;ad&quot; prepositione:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Numeri 11:2](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Nm.html#x11_2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cumque clamasset populus ad Moysen, oravit Moyses ad Dominum, et absorptus est ignis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4 Regnum 4:33](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/4Rg.html#x4_33)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ingressusque clausit ostium super se et super puerum, et oravit ad Dominum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interim, hi versiculi omittunt &quot;ad&quot; prepositionem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ecclesiasticus 38:9](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Sir.html#x38_9):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Fili, in tua infirmitate ne despicias teipsum :&#xD;&#xA;sed ora Dominum, et ipse curabit te.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Exodus 8:30](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Ex.html#x8_30):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Egressusque Moyses a Pharaone, oravit Dominum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;et cetera...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quid versiculi diferens sunt? Autem idem sunt?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do some verses use the &quot;ad&quot; preposition and others do not? Are they equivalent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27520" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8901" RevisionGUID="646f7d3d-d9ff-4666-b147-6f7b658a0d36" CreationDate="2019-01-17T10:42:22.063" UserId="1459" Text="&quot;Oro dominum&quot; vel &quot;Oro ad dominum&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27521" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8901" RevisionGUID="646f7d3d-d9ff-4666-b147-6f7b658a0d36" CreationDate="2019-01-17T10:42:22.063" UserId="1459" Text="|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27522" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8901" RevisionGUID="e9b28708-c1b3-4d2e-8e20-1027bc59ee8e" CreationDate="2019-01-17T10:50:46.030" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Oro Dominum&quot; vel &quot;Oro ad Dominum&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8901" RevisionGUID="e9b28708-c1b3-4d2e-8e20-1027bc59ee8e" CreationDate="2019-01-17T10:50:46.030" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="Considerate Vulgatam. Exempli gratia, hi versiculi utuntur &quot;ad&quot; prepositione:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Numeri 11:2](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Nm.html#x11_2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cumque clamasset populus ad Moysen, oravit Moyses ad Dominum, et absorptus est ignis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4 Regnum 4:33](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/4Rg.html#x4_33)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ingressusque clausit ostium super se et super puerum, et oravit ad Dominum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interim, hi versiculi omittunt &quot;ad&quot; prepositionem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ecclesiasticus 38:9](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Sir.html#x38_9):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Fili, in tua infirmitate ne despicias teipsum :&#xD;&#xA;sed ora Dominum, et ipse curabit te.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Exodus 8:30](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Ex.html#x8_30):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Egressusque Moyses a Pharaone, oravit Dominum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Et cetera...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quid versiculi diferens sunt? Autem idem sunt?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do some verses use the &quot;ad&quot; preposition and others do not? Are they equivalent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8897" RevisionGUID="62ae454a-fdce-44c0-888b-71685de0358d" CreationDate="2019-01-17T15:27:47.270" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Kindly anyone change the name in Latin form please.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Name: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hafiz Muhammad Umer Jahagir&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please translate it into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8901" RevisionGUID="f94eca26-deaa-43ea-a269-2ce231209a1b" CreationDate="2019-01-17T16:58:19.880" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="Considerate Vulgatam. Exempli gratia, hi versiculi utuntur &quot;ad&quot; prepositione:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Numeri 11:2](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Nm.html#x11_2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cumque clamasset populus ad Moysen, oravit Moyses ad Dominum, et absorptus est ignis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4 Regnum 4:33](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/4Rg.html#x4_33)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ingressusque clausit ostium super se et super puerum, et oravit ad Dominum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interim, hi versiculi omittunt &quot;ad&quot; prepositionem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ecclesiasticus 38:9](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Sir.html#x38_9):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Fili, in tua infirmitate ne despicias teipsum :&#xD;&#xA;sed ora Dominum, et ipse curabit te.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Exodus 8:30](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Ex.html#x8_30):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Egressusque Moyses a Pharaone, oravit Dominum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Et cetera...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quid versiculi differunt? An idem sunt?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do some verses use the &quot;ad&quot; preposition and others do not? Are they equivalent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8904" RevisionGUID="39c78785-1fc3-45fe-942e-7e07e90e1217" CreationDate="2019-01-17T20:04:18.500" UserId="406" Text="In English, &quot;heartbreak&quot; is a well-attested and living metaphor, with phrases like &quot;I'm going to break his heart&quot;, &quot;my heart is broken&quot;, &quot;he looks broken-hearted&quot;, &quot;he's dealing with heartbreak&quot;, &quot;he's a heartbreaker&quot;, and hundreds of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a Latin equivalent to these? The obvious would be *cor frangere* or *cor rumpere*, but that feels overly literal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(By the grace of Venus Obsequens, I'm asking about this for a work of fiction, not for real life.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27531" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8904" RevisionGUID="39c78785-1fc3-45fe-942e-7e07e90e1217" CreationDate="2019-01-17T20:04:18.500" UserId="406" Text="How do I break someone's heart?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27532" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8904" RevisionGUID="39c78785-1fc3-45fe-942e-7e07e90e1217" CreationDate="2019-01-17T20:04:18.500" UserId="406" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8905" RevisionGUID="d458867c-fddd-4bee-ae72-388085004baa" CreationDate="2019-01-17T21:46:50.260" UserId="2363" Text="In classical Latin, *oro* usually means &quot;I request&quot; and is transitive. Usually it takes two objects, the person asked and the thing requested, though one can be omitted if it's clear from context. (When used intransitively, *oro* usually means &quot;I orate&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In ecclesiastical Latin, *oro* takes on the more technical meaning of &quot;I make a prayer&quot; or &quot;I am engaging in prayer&quot; in the specifically religious sense, and when it does so, it's usually intransitive. At least, it isn't necessary to specify the thing requested, since the prayer doesn't have to be a request. But when ecclesiastical writers want to specify or imply a thing requested, they can still use the verb actively, just like classical writers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the two examples you gave without *ad*, the thing requested is stated immediately beforehand, so the classical transitive sense seems appropriate, with the request implied. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's not always correct to make a sharp distinction between the two constructions. For instance, in the Vulgate, you can find both &quot;oravit ad Dominum, dicens&quot; and &quot;oravit Dominum, dicens.&quot; I see no reason to press a distinction in that case. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8906" RevisionGUID="1f5a24e9-d4b1-47fe-bfc7-0afdef94a278" CreationDate="2019-01-17T21:55:19.980" UserId="3300" Text="I am getting a Latin tattoo so want to ensure that the Latin phrase is accurate before I get it inked!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin phrase is: &quot;Pulchre vive, vehementer somina, ardenter ama.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, this means &quot;live beautifully, dream passionately, love completely.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please can someone confirm that this is all correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mark." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27535" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8906" RevisionGUID="1f5a24e9-d4b1-47fe-bfc7-0afdef94a278" CreationDate="2019-01-17T21:55:19.980" UserId="3300" Text="Accurate translation from Latin to English" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27536" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8906" RevisionGUID="1f5a24e9-d4b1-47fe-bfc7-0afdef94a278" CreationDate="2019-01-17T21:55:19.980" UserId="3300" Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27537" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8906" RevisionGUID="0fa956ec-5077-4eac-911a-57984bda24bc" CreationDate="2019-01-17T22:22:54.593" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation-check|latin-to-english-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8907" RevisionGUID="9bd3a733-f9a9-4bb8-b8bc-0c376a0ebdff" CreationDate="2019-01-17T22:49:21.917" UserId="3301" Text="Does &quot;Dominus providebit&quot; mean &quot;The Lord will provide&quot; or &quot;The Lord provides&quot;? I once had a bit of an argument with a guy who studied Latin over that. It's an inscription that appears on the rim of some old Swiss coins that I have." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27539" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8907" RevisionGUID="9bd3a733-f9a9-4bb8-b8bc-0c376a0ebdff" CreationDate="2019-01-17T22:49:21.917" UserId="3301" Text="Dominus providebit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27540" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8907" RevisionGUID="9bd3a733-f9a9-4bb8-b8bc-0c376a0ebdff" CreationDate="2019-01-17T22:49:21.917" UserId="3301" Text="|meaning|latin-to-english-translation|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8908" RevisionGUID="3d83b15c-976f-4179-adc9-fdd9de424751" CreationDate="2019-01-17T22:55:24.670" UserId="3280" Text="How many words are in the Latin language total? There are many, but I am curious to see how many. More or less than English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27542" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8908" RevisionGUID="3d83b15c-976f-4179-adc9-fdd9de424751" CreationDate="2019-01-17T22:55:24.670" UserId="3280" Text="How many words are in the Latin language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27543" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8908" RevisionGUID="3d83b15c-976f-4179-adc9-fdd9de424751" CreationDate="2019-01-17T22:55:24.670" UserId="3280" Text="|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8909" RevisionGUID="84c8fcdb-438e-4ea6-bed0-3f7b516240af" CreationDate="2019-01-17T22:55:54.633" UserId="79" Text="First, there is a typo:&#xD;&#xA;It should be *somnia*, not *somina*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation is roughly correct, but the nuances of the adverbs are not exactly right.&#xD;&#xA;*Pulchre* is &quot;beautifully&quot;, but *vehementer* is &quot;eagerly, impetuously, ardently, violently, earnestly, vehemently, strongly, forcibly, powerfully, exceedingly, extremely, very much&quot; and *ardenter* is &quot;in a burning, fiery, eager, passionate manner, ardently, eagerly, passionately&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If this sounds fine to you, then it's fine.&#xD;&#xA;But *vehementer* sounds quite aggressive and *ardenter* does not imply &quot;completely&quot;, so the translation you offer is not quite right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can look up the details on these adverbs and look for more options in any [online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;I picked those translations from a version of Lewis and Short.&#xD;&#xA;Adverbs are easy to use: you can just put them in as such, whereas many other words need to be put in the correct form first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8910" RevisionGUID="72ca7941-06c8-4ca5-9586-e7e85624f276" CreationDate="2019-01-17T23:20:24.607" UserId="79" Text="There might be more nuance to the matter, but from a purely grammatical point of view it is clear:&#xD;&#xA;the form *providebit* is a future form, not present tense.&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding present form would be *providet*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore &quot;The Lord will provide&quot; is a better translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8907" RevisionGUID="e34c499a-f2d2-471d-87ec-3f0e33e4ed6e" CreationDate="2019-01-18T15:27:40.970" UserDisplayName="user1836" Comment="adjusted title to reflect question in body" Text="Does &quot;Dominus providebit&quot; mean &quot;The Lord will provide&quot; or &quot;The Lord provides&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I once had a bit of an argument with a guy who studied Latin over that. It's an inscription that appears on the rim of some old Swiss coins that I have." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27548" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8907" RevisionGUID="e34c499a-f2d2-471d-87ec-3f0e33e4ed6e" CreationDate="2019-01-18T15:27:40.970" UserDisplayName="user1836" Comment="adjusted title to reflect question in body" Text="What does &quot;Dominus providebit&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27549" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8907" RevisionGUID="e34c499a-f2d2-471d-87ec-3f0e33e4ed6e" CreationDate="2019-01-18T15:27:40.970" Comment="Proposed by 1836 approved by 45, 1459 edit id of 288" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8906" RevisionGUID="965ef733-e55e-4419-9215-78625db7cffd" CreationDate="2019-01-18T16:39:17.773" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am getting a Latin tattoo so want to ensure that the Latin phrase is accurate before I get it inked!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin phrase is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pulchre vive, vehementer somina, ardenter ama.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, this means &quot;live beautifully, dream passionately, love completely.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please can someone confirm that this is all correct?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27551" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8906" RevisionGUID="965ef733-e55e-4419-9215-78625db7cffd" CreationDate="2019-01-18T16:39:17.773" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body; edited title" Text="What does &quot;Pulchre vive, vehementer somina, ardenter ama&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8911" RevisionGUID="912adeb7-c1aa-4fe0-856d-08c4474e2536" CreationDate="2019-01-18T17:03:13.930" UserId="1459" Text="This is not likely to be the final answer, but I hope it might give some rough idea of the scale we might be talking about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perseus has a [tool](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/LatinFrequency.html) for studying word frequency, based on 301 texts (from Classical Latin authors to religious texts, e.g. the Vulgata). I did [a search](http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/LatinFrequency.pl?author=&amp;title=&amp;genre=&amp;editor=&amp;language=latin&amp;displaymorethan=0&amp;displaylessthan=10000000&amp;sortby=default&amp;searchby=searchbytoken) and, based on a list of 174 texts (see bottom of page for list; not sure why not all 301 were included), the total number of words produced were **6,321,361**. Now, a quick look at the list shows that not all declensions are in the list. For instance, the list includes _tulerit, tulerunt, tuli, tulisse, tulisset,_ and _tulit_, whereas there are many more declensions of the [corresponding verb](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fero#Latin) (in the active present) missing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the number above is well below the &quot;true&quot; value. But I hope it gives an idea of the scale we might be talking about, i.e. millions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8912" RevisionGUID="908dcddd-cc10-44b0-9955-90b099074988" CreationDate="2019-01-18T19:32:29.747" UserId="3280" Text="How do you tell time in latin? For instance, how do you translate it is 10 o'Clock or how would you translate it is 10:30? I also want to know how to tell what day it is in regards to the year. For instance, it is July 30, 2019. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am just curious and would appreciate a general response or a specific one. What I mean by general is the format and what I mean by specific is examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27554" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8912" RevisionGUID="908dcddd-cc10-44b0-9955-90b099074988" CreationDate="2019-01-18T19:32:29.747" UserId="3280" Text="Telling Time in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27555" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8912" RevisionGUID="908dcddd-cc10-44b0-9955-90b099074988" CreationDate="2019-01-18T19:32:29.747" UserId="3280" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8912" RevisionGUID="e66c465c-094a-4274-9c11-074eb117f5a0" CreationDate="2019-01-19T04:25:00.900" UserId="3280" Comment="deleted 106 characters in body" Text="How do you tell time in latin? For instance, how do you translate it is 10 o'Clock or how would you translate it is 10:30? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am just curious and would appreciate a general response or a specific one. What I mean by general is the format and what I mean by specific is examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8911" RevisionGUID="0e9b988b-323b-4414-bdf7-62dbfb579966" CreationDate="2019-01-19T11:11:56.227" UserId="1459" Comment="added 232 characters in body" Text="This is not likely to be the final answer, but I hope it might give some rough idea of the scale we might be talking about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perseus has a [tool](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/LatinFrequency.html) for studying word frequency, based on 301 texts (from Classical Latin authors to religious texts, e.g. the Vulgata). I did [a search](http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/LatinFrequency.pl?author=&amp;title=&amp;genre=&amp;editor=&amp;language=latin&amp;displaymorethan=0&amp;displaylessthan=10000000&amp;sortby=default&amp;searchby=searchbytoken) and, based on a list of 174 texts (see bottom of page for list; not sure why not all 301 were included), the total number of words produced were **6,321,361**. Now, a quick look at the list shows that not all declensions are in the list. For instance, the list includes _tulerit, tulerunt, tuli, tulisse, tulisset,_ and _tulit_, whereas there are many more declensions of the [corresponding verb](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fero#Latin) (in the active present) missing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the number above is well below the &quot;true&quot; value. But I hope it gives an idea of the scale we might be talking about, i.e. millions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: I have [a question](https://opendata.stackexchange.com/questions/13783/how-to-produce-a-list-of-all-words-of-a-given-language-from-wiktionary) elsewhere that might help to produce a more accurate number, based on Wiktionary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8912" RevisionGUID="5fd41421-3c39-44cc-acdc-32a4f63bea1e" CreationDate="2019-01-19T11:13:13.130" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="How do you tell time in Latin? For instance, how do you translate &quot;it is 10 o'Clock&quot; or how would you translate &quot;it is 10:30&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am just curious and would appreciate a general response or a specific one. What I mean by general is the format and what I mean by specific is examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8913" RevisionGUID="5eb87941-5603-4fc8-8d05-6eddb3fb6fc1" CreationDate="2019-01-19T11:18:54.197" UserId="1459" Text="I always get confused with _[benedictus]((https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/benedictus#Latin))_. It Christian prayers, it is found both as a noun and as a (passive) verb, e.g. _benedictus est_. When _est_ is omitted (not uncommon in Latin, it seems), both look identical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This issue made me think that there might be some connection between the two forms. In particular, that the verb &quot;produced&quot; the noun. So, consider (non-deponent?) verbs in their third person singular passive perfect conjugation. For the verb _benedico_, such conjugation is _benedictus est_. Is the latter the etymological origin of the noun _benedictus_? Well, this noun means &quot;a blessed person&quot;, this is, &quot;someone who has been blessed&quot; (_aliguis quod benedictus est_?). So there might be some sort of connection. Is this true? Is this a general rule for nouns ending in _-us_ that are related to a verb? Other examples I have found (without trying to be exhaustive) are _discursus_, _intellectus_, _loricatus_, _observatus_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, not all verbs whose passive perfect ends with _-us_ have a related noun ending in _-us_. Some are close to a noun ending in _-or_. For instance, for the verb _administro_, with passive perfect _administratus_, there is the noun _administrator_. Similar with _fabrico/fabricator_, _habito/habitator_, _loquor/loqutor_, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is there a connection (and perhaps a precedence) between the passive perfect conjugation and the noun for words with a common base? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27561" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8913" RevisionGUID="5eb87941-5603-4fc8-8d05-6eddb3fb6fc1" CreationDate="2019-01-19T11:18:54.197" UserId="1459" Text="Is the third person passive perfect of a verb a source of nouns, e.g. &quot;benedictus&quot; from &quot;bendico&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27562" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8913" RevisionGUID="5eb87941-5603-4fc8-8d05-6eddb3fb6fc1" CreationDate="2019-01-19T11:18:54.197" UserId="1459" Text="|etymology|noun|perfect-tense|passive-voice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8914" RevisionGUID="ecf9e306-1908-4a93-9bdc-4beda43e7534" CreationDate="2019-01-19T15:34:30.087" UserId="406" Text="They come from the same source, in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun *benedictus* is a **substantive**: that is, an adjective on its own, acting as a noun. This is very common in Latin, and also shows up sometimes in English, as in &quot;the good, the bad, and the ugly&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective *benedictus*, meanwhile, is a **participle**: a special form of a verb that acts like an adjective. There are three of these in Latin, and this is probably the most common, the *perfect passive participle*. It's equivalent to the English participle &quot;bless-ed&quot;, and actually comes from the same PIE source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *benedictus est* is a **periphrastic**. There are some verb forms that are just morphologically missing in Latin, for no apparent reason. So when writers needed to express a perfect passive meaning, they took the one perfect passive thing they had (the participle), and combined it with a form of *sum* to make it a verb. This is how English makes *all* its passives, since English has no passive morphology at all: &quot;he is blessed&quot;, &quot;she was blessed&quot;, and so on. Latin uses it only for a few missing passive forms (perfect, pluperfect, and future perfect).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also **derivations**: nouns created from verb stems by using various special suffixes (like the *-or* you mention). One of these, confusingly, involves putting *-us* on the fourth principal part; this is how we get *cursus* &quot;course&quot; from *currō* &quot;run&quot;. You can tell the difference because this derivation is fourth declension (*cursus, -ūs*), while the participle is second declension (*benedictus, -ī*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8915" RevisionGUID="43b77455-5dbb-4720-8d5c-b97e4efa39f7" CreationDate="2019-01-19T16:07:05.260" UserId="406" Text="I was taught that *meus* had a special irregular vocative, *mī*. (So &quot;my father&quot; in the vocative would be *pater mī*, not *pater meus*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there's a line that shows up a few times in the Vulgate that seems to contradict this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Deus, Deus **meus**, respice in me: quare me dereliquisti?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; God, my God, look back to me: why have you forsaken me? (Psalms 21:2 or 22:2 depending on version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Et circa horam nonam clamavit Jesus voce magna, dicens: Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani? hoc est: Deus **meus**, Deus **meus**, ut quid dereliquisti me?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And around the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, saying, *Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani*? That is: my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Et hora nona exclamavit Jesus voce magna, dicens: Eloi, eloi, lamma sabacthani? quod est interpretatum: Deus **meus**, Deus **meus**, ut quid dereliquisti me?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And at the ninth hour Jesus exclaimed in a loud voice, saying, *Eloi, eloi, lamma sabacthani*? Which is translated: my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? (Mark 15:34)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conjugation of the verb makes it clear that the speaker is addressing God directly. So why do all these instances use *meus* instead of *mī*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27565" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8915" RevisionGUID="43b77455-5dbb-4720-8d5c-b97e4efa39f7" CreationDate="2019-01-19T16:07:05.260" UserId="406" Text="&quot;Deus meus&quot;, aut &quot;Deus mī&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27566" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8915" RevisionGUID="43b77455-5dbb-4720-8d5c-b97e4efa39f7" CreationDate="2019-01-19T16:07:05.260" UserId="406" Text="|vulgata|vocative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27567" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8915" RevisionGUID="4237a00e-1ae3-4e53-8c01-3fa6852ba6da" CreationDate="2019-01-19T17:48:31.883" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|morphology|declension|vulgata|vocative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8916" RevisionGUID="c9c77ff1-7929-4c21-9130-87abf10f8602" CreationDate="2019-01-19T19:04:10.730" UserId="469" Text="*(work in progress)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two systems, 1) one based on day &amp; night, and 2) the AM/PM we use today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both systems divide the day in two halves of twelve hours. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that number zero wasn't known to Romans as a proper number, and precise time reckoning wan wasn't possible before the mechanical clock. The earliest known mention of the *minute* seems to be [from the XIII century](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The hours in the day/night system varied their length according to the time of the year&#xD;&#xA;* The AM/PM system is independent from the length of the daytime, and originally set the reference point at (astronomical) noon, i.e., the instant when the sun is highest in the local sky. This was the middle of the day and hence *meridies* in Latin; AM=*ante meridiem*, PM=*post meridiem*. The sun pointed South at noon for the Romans, so meridies got to mean South, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the specific hours are said **hora** + the corresponding ordinal number: **hora tertia**, **hora sexta**, **hora nona**, etc. Especially in the day/night system, these multiples of 3 also have a wider meaning (mid morning, noon, mid afternoon) and tend to be preferred). In this system hours of the night are called **vigiliae [noctis]**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name usually refers to the whole hour, so **hora prima** may well mean (around the equinox) any time from modern 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM, and **quarta vigilia noctis**--&gt; about 9 to 10 PM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be more specific without minutes, you can say **hora quasi decima** (cf. VG Ioh, 1:39). I suspect you can also say, for example, **hora prima dimidiata** to mean around 6:30 AM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the above also applies to AM/PM--&gt;**hora tertia post meridiem** --&gt; 3 to 4 PM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8917" RevisionGUID="ade1bdbd-1bc3-404c-ad23-43e6d2b47b9f" CreationDate="2019-01-19T21:14:16.330" UserId="2363" Text="First, the empirical facts, which are pretty much beyond controversy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In classical Latin, there is no attested vocative form of *deus*. That is, *dee* does not exist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. When a vocative *deus* became necessary for Christian Latin, they employed the nominative form *deus* rather than creating a new vocative form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. This was considered a nominative used in place of a vocative, not as a vocative form. Thus, the adjective *meus* was used for agreement. We can see this by the occurrence of phrases such as *Domine, deus meus*. We do not see *deus* regarded as a true vocative form, and thus used in phrases such as *mi Deus*, until well into the Middle Ages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, some additional information, which is more controversial among scholars. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The original choice to use the nominative *deus* instead of inventing a vocative may have been based on the nominative for vocative construction found in the Greek Septuagint and New Testament (Wackernagel, *Lectures on Syntax*, 18-19 et passim.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Some level of opposition to vocatives ending in -*ee* and to the vocative *mi* are visible within classical Latin literature, and these factors may sufficiently explain the choice of *deus meus* even apart from Greek influence. See [Dickey][1], &quot;O Dee Ree Pie: The Vocative of Latin Words Ending in -*eus*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/8113205/O_dee_ree_pie_The_Vocative_Problems_of_Latin_Words_Ending_in_-eus_in_Glotta_2002_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8918" RevisionGUID="63e55ca5-1aca-49c7-a06b-7477e0f642bf" CreationDate="2019-01-19T22:49:54.693" UserId="2363" Text="The *Oxford Latin Dictionary* has about 40,000 entries, according to its [Wikipedia page][1], so that's probably a good estimate for classical Latin. Du Cange's *Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis* has about 90,000 entries, according to [this website][2]. That should include most words up through the 19th century, though certainly not all words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's unclear to me how many Latin words have been coined since then, as proponents of &quot;Living Latin&quot; regularly coin new words for modern objects and concepts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Latin_Dictionary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8917" RevisionGUID="68ef9523-814c-41b2-8085-2d707911e848" CreationDate="2019-01-20T00:48:47.433" UserId="2363" Comment="incorporate info from comments" Text="First, the empirical facts, which are pretty much beyond controversy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In classical Latin, there is no (textually secure*) attested vocative form of *deus*. That is, *dee* does not exist, and *deus* is not used as a vocative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. When a vocative *deus* became necessary for Christian Latin, they employed the nominative form *deus* rather than creating a new vocative form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. This was considered a nominative used in place of a vocative, not as a vocative form. Thus, the adjective *meus* was used for agreement. We can see this by the occurrence of phrases such as *Domine, deus meus*. We do not see *deus* regarded as a true vocative form, and thus used in phrases such as *mi Deus*, until well into the Middle Ages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, some additional information, which is more controversial among scholars. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The original choice to use the nominative *deus* instead of inventing a vocative may have been based on the nominative for vocative construction found in the Greek Septuagint and New Testament (Wackernagel, *Lectures on Syntax*, 18-19 et passim.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Some level of opposition to vocatives ending in -*ee* and to the vocative *mi* are visible within classical Latin literature, and these factors may sufficiently explain the choice of *deus meus* even apart from Greek influence. See [Dickey][1], &quot;O Dee Ree Pie: The Vocative of Latin Words Ending in -*eus*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*John Rauk, &quot;The Classical Vocative of *Deus* and Its Problems,&quot; adduces two instances of *deus* used vocatively. But both passages are suspected of textual corruption, and one of them cannot even be distinguished from a nominative-for-vocative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/8113205/O_dee_ree_pie_The_Vocative_Problems_of_Latin_Words_Ending_in_-eus_in_Glotta_2002_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8916" RevisionGUID="61b9ebf7-ce71-4171-a1b5-6ac59f8360b8" CreationDate="2019-01-20T10:01:10.957" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="*(work in progress)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two systems, 1) one based on day &amp; night, and 2) the AM/PM we use today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both systems divide the day in two halves of twelve hours. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that number zero wasn't known to Romans as a proper number, and precise time reckoning wasn't possible before the mechanical clock. The earliest known mention of the *minute* seems to be [from the XIII century](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The hours in the day/night system varied their length according to the time of the year&#xD;&#xA;* The AM/PM system is independent from the length of the daytime, and originally set the reference point at (astronomical) noon, i.e., the instant when the sun is highest in the local sky. This was the middle of the day and hence *meridies* in Latin; AM=*ante meridiem*, PM=*post meridiem*. The sun pointed South at noon for the Romans, so meridies got to mean South, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the specific hours are said **hora** + the corresponding ordinal number: **hora tertia**, **hora sexta**, **hora nona**, etc. Especially in the day/night system, these multiples of 3 also have a wider meaning (mid morning, noon, mid afternoon) and tend to be preferred. In this system hours of the night are called **vigiliae [noctis]**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name usually refers to the whole hour, so **hora prima** may well mean (around the equinox) any time from modern 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM, and **quarta vigilia noctis**--&gt; about 9 to 10 PM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be more specific without minutes, you can say **hora quasi decima** (cf. VG Ioh, 1:39). I suspect you can also say, for example, **hora prima dimidiata** to mean around 6:30 AM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the above also applies to AM/PM--&gt;**hora tertia post meridiem** --&gt; 3 to 4 PM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27573" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="8848" RevisionGUID="e16b7a44-018a-453f-9e92-ead169c1dd05" CreationDate="2019-01-20T11:48:01.743" UserId="9" Comment="95" />
  <row Id="27574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6583" RevisionGUID="3a9be9c1-648c-47af-8272-d206527eba0e" CreationDate="2019-01-20T18:31:28.643" UserId="39" Comment="updated the broken link" Text="Since your question is about the use of i-u in *Post-Classical* Latin, I will address that point only and not its use in Old or Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have enough information - yet - about the specified time period and place (1500-1700, i.e. Neo-Latin in Malta), but here's what I've been able to find about **Medieval Latin**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peter Stotz (Stotz 1996, *Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters*, volume 3, p. 42) writes the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Das Schwanken von i und u for Labialen im röm. Latein äußert sich im MA nur noch in Form vereinzelter Schreibung, welche durch den uneinheitlichen Befund in den damals vorliegenden älteren Texten verursacht sind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in English: The alternation of i and u before labials [found] in Classical Latin manifests itself in the Middle Ages  only in the form of isolated spellings, which is caused by the inconsistent findings in the older texts available at that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;Gewisse Schwankungen zwischen ĭ und ŭ in älterer Zeit haben sich durch ihr Vorkommen in den älteren Texten ins MA fortgeschrieben&quot; (p. 69).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the relevant entry from Niermeyer's Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to look it up in part 2 of Ijsewijn and Sacré 1998 [Companion to Neo-Latin Studies][2] for Neo-Latin data - I don't have a copy at home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: Neo-Latin editorial (spelling) practices, here's what Tom Deneire ([Deneire 2014][3]) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Unlike classical texts, for which the original spelling can almost never be ascertained, **Neo-Latin texts often** exist in authorial copies (either in manuscript or in print) that **reflect the author’s particular spelling of the Latin language**. This spelling might be based on a consciously adopted system [...] or be completely haphazard [..] . In this way, one may encounter mediaeval remnants (lachryma), forms inspired by the vernacular (ottinere), hypercorrections (caeteri), just typical Neo-Latin spellings (caussa), or as regular a phenomenon as the reversal of u and v that produces spellings like vua (‘grape’)&quot; [emphasis mine - Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oraSX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://lup.be/products/99312&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004271296_enlo_B9789004271029_0020" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8920" RevisionGUID="7e36a85e-f3c1-453f-bfd4-39dc801e4736" CreationDate="2019-01-21T10:50:43.133" UserId="3306" Text="My aim is to express &quot;Promethean man&quot; and &quot;Epimethean man&quot; (as in the brothers Prometheus and Epimetheus) in the style of &quot;homo sapiens&quot; and &quot;homo erectus&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27580" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8920" RevisionGUID="7e36a85e-f3c1-453f-bfd4-39dc801e4736" CreationDate="2019-01-21T10:50:43.133" UserId="3306" Text="How to say &quot;Promethean&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27581" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8920" RevisionGUID="7e36a85e-f3c1-453f-bfd4-39dc801e4736" CreationDate="2019-01-21T10:50:43.133" UserId="3306" Text="|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8921" RevisionGUID="785614f7-c068-47b0-a899-d5128c413f7c" CreationDate="2019-01-21T12:41:22.107" UserId="1459" Text="[Prometheus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Prometheus#Latin) exists in Latin. Promethean man is something like &quot;a man of [the] Prometheus [kind]&quot;. So I would say you are looking for the genitive, which according to Wiktionary, is either _Promethei_ or _Prometheos_. Including &quot;man&quot; in the phrase, you would have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vir Promethei/Prometheos" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8921" RevisionGUID="d27b8582-477f-47c3-b550-fe7517643013" CreationDate="2019-01-21T12:50:57.813" UserId="1459" Comment="added 159 characters in body" Text="[Prometheus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Prometheus#Latin) exists in Latin. Promethean man is something like &quot;a man of [the] Prometheus [kind]&quot;. So I would say you are looking for the genitive, which according to Wiktionary, is either _Promethei_ or _Prometheos_. Including &quot;man&quot; in the phrase, you would have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vir Promethei/Prometheos&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Epimetheus [seems to follow](https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-dictionary-flexion.php?lemma=EPIMETHEUS100) the same declension than Prometheus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8916" RevisionGUID="ce348038-5834-4f19-a96e-d2d4238daa80" CreationDate="2019-01-21T13:20:35.923" UserId="469" Comment="added explanations, links, improved formatting a bit" Text="There are two systems, 1) one based on day &amp; night, and 2) the AM/PM we use today (kind of).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both systems divide the day in two halves of twelve hours: daylight and night, and before and after noon, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that number zero wasn't known to Romans as a proper number, and precise time reckoning wasn't possible before the mechanical clock. The earliest known mention of the *minute* (**pars minuta prima**, *the first small part* [of an hour]) seems to be [from the XIII century](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute). Hours were counted [from 1 to 12][1], and it didn't have to much sense to be overly precise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The hours in the day/night system varied their length according to the time of the year: summer → longer daytime hours, winter → shorter.&#xD;&#xA;* The AM/PM system is independent from the length of the daytime, and originally set the reference point at (astronomical) noon, i.e., the instant when the sun is highest in the local sky. This was the middle of the day and hence **[meridies][2]** in Latin; AM=**ante meridiem**, PM=**post meridiem**. The sun pointed South at noon for the Romans&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, so meridies got to mean South, too. Meridian and meridional- (related to the South in several languages) are derived from *meridies* too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the specific hours are said **hora + [ordinal number]**: **hora tertia**, **hora sexta**, **hora nona**, etc. Especially in the day/night system, these multiples of 3 also have a wider meaning (mid morning, noon, mid afternoon) and tend to be preferred. In this system, hours of the night are called **vigiliae [noctis]** and also adapt their length seasonally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name usually refers to the whole hour, so **hora prima** may well mean (around the equinox) any time from modern 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, and **quarta vigilia noctis** → about 9 to 10 PM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be more specific without knowing minutes, you can say **hora quasi decima** (cf. NVG [Ioh, 1:39][3]). I suspect you can also say, for example, **hora prima dimidiata** to mean around 6:30 AM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the above also applies to AM/PM → **hora tertia post meridiem** → 3 to 4 PM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also this question: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/639/how-to-express-a-time-exactly-on-the-hour/4644, already linked by Joonas which addresses a number of further details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Not so for those like me living in the Southern Hemisphere, nor all year long for those living in the tropics. I might have been in my twenties when I realized noon was a relevant astronomical event, so I think it's worth mentioning.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Provided that your timezone matches the natural *astronomical* time. It may be usually off by a few minutes, and in some places&amp;mdash;like western China&amp;mdash;may even be off by up to three hours. See [this map][4] for details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8887/what-is-this-letter&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmeridies&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-ioannem_lt.html#1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2572317/Are-YOU-living-sync-Amazing-map-reveals-manmade-timezones-countries-false-sense-sun-rises.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27585" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8912" RevisionGUID="5dd6b8ee-667b-4dca-88c5-ddd252393b1d" CreationDate="2019-01-21T13:23:39.690" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|time|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8916" RevisionGUID="f6d8e88d-9340-4f0b-bcac-64885a19c2ea" CreationDate="2019-01-21T13:33:48.627" UserId="469" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="There are two systems, 1) one based on day &amp; night, and 2) the AM/PM we use today (kind of).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both systems divide the day in two halves of twelve hours: daylight and night, and before and after noon, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that number zero wasn't known to Romans as a proper number, and precise time reckoning wasn't possible before the mechanical clock. The earliest known mention of the *minute* (**pars minuta prima**, *the first small part* [of an hour]) seems to be [from the XIII century](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute). Hours were counted [from 1 to 12][1], and it didn't have to much sense to be overly precise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The hours in the day/night system varied their length according to the time of the year: summer → longer daytime hours, winter → shorter. Days began at dawn.&#xD;&#xA;* The AM/PM system is independent from the length of the daytime, and originally set the reference point at (astronomical) noon, i.e., the instant when the sun is highest in the local sky. This was the middle of the day and hence **[meridies][2]** in Latin; AM=**ante meridiem**, PM=**post meridiem**. The sun pointed South at noon for the Romans&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, so meridies got to mean South, too. *Meridian* and the root *meridional*- (related to the South in several languages) are derived from *meridies* too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the specific hours are said **hora + [ordinal number]**: **hora tertia**, **hora sexta**, **hora nona**, etc. Especially in the day/night system, these multiples of 3 also have a wider meaning (mid morning, noon, mid afternoon) and tend to be preferred even if less precise. In this system, hours of the night are called **vigiliae [noctis]** and also adapt their length seasonally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name usually refers to the whole hour, so **hora prima** may well mean (around the equinox) any time from modern 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, and **quarta vigilia noctis** → about 9 to 10 PM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be more specific without knowing minutes, you can say **hora quasi decima** (cf. NVG [Ioh, 1:39][3]). I suspect you can also say, for example, **hora prima dimidiata** to mean around 6:30 AM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the above also applies to AM/PM → **hora tertia post meridiem** → 3 to 4 PM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also this question: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/639/how-to-express-a-time-exactly-on-the-hour/4644, already linked by Joonas which addresses a number of further details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Not so for those like me living in the Southern Hemisphere, nor all year long for those living in the tropics. I might have been in my twenties when I realized noon was a relevant astronomical event, so I think it's worth mentioning.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Provided that your timezone matches the natural *astronomical* time. It may be usually off by a few minutes, and in some places&amp;mdash;like western China&amp;mdash;may even be off by up to three hours. See [this map][4] for details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8887/what-is-this-letter&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmeridies&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-ioannem_lt.html#1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2572317/Are-YOU-living-sync-Amazing-map-reveals-manmade-timezones-countries-false-sense-sun-rises.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8922" RevisionGUID="1218090c-f0b2-4803-9aa9-8bcaf241264a" CreationDate="2019-01-21T14:27:35.517" UserId="522" Text="An [Essay][1] (cristianismeijusticia) accessible as pdf uses &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *homo prometheanus*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to contrast with *homo faber,* 'man as craftsman.' The phrases occur in the section marked Conclusion. The Essay is in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.cristianismeijusticia.net/sites/default/files/pdf/gui3_1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8916" RevisionGUID="24848ea5-0f0c-4e18-8160-63a19569b78b" CreationDate="2019-01-21T14:49:41.303" UserId="469" Comment="typo (to vs too)" Text="There are two systems, 1) one based on day &amp; night, and 2) the AM/PM we use today (kind of).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both systems divide the day in two halves of twelve hours: daylight and night, and before and after noon, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that number zero wasn't known to Romans as a proper number, and precise time reckoning wasn't possible before the mechanical clock. The earliest known mention of the *minute* (**pars minuta prima**, *the first small part* [of an hour]) seems to be [from the XIII century](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute). Hours were counted [from 1 to 12][1], and it didn't have too much sense to be overly precise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The hours in the day/night system varied their length according to the time of the year: summer → longer daytime hours, winter → shorter. Days began at dawn.&#xD;&#xA;* The AM/PM system is independent from the length of the daytime, and originally set the reference point at (astronomical) noon, i.e., the instant when the sun is highest in the local sky. This was the middle of the day and hence **[meridies][2]** in Latin; AM=**ante meridiem**, PM=**post meridiem**. The sun pointed South at noon for the Romans&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, so meridies got to mean South, too. *Meridian* and the root *meridional*- (related to the South in several languages) are derived from *meridies* too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the specific hours are said **hora + [ordinal number]**: **hora tertia**, **hora sexta**, **hora nona**, etc. Especially in the day/night system, these multiples of 3 also have a wider meaning (mid morning, noon, mid afternoon) and tend to be preferred even if less precise. In this system, hours of the night are called **vigiliae [noctis]** and also adapt their length seasonally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name usually refers to the whole hour, so **hora prima** may well mean (around the equinox) any time from modern 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, and **quarta vigilia noctis** → about 9 to 10 PM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be more specific without knowing minutes, you can say **hora quasi decima** (cf. NVG [Ioh, 1:39][3]). I suspect you can also say, for example, **hora prima dimidiata** to mean around 6:30 AM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the above also applies to AM/PM → **hora tertia post meridiem** → 3 to 4 PM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also this question: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/639/how-to-express-a-time-exactly-on-the-hour/4644, already linked by Joonas which addresses a number of further details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Not so for those like me living in the Southern Hemisphere, nor all year long for those living in the tropics. I might have been in my twenties when I realized noon was a relevant astronomical event, so I think it's worth mentioning.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Provided that your timezone matches the natural *astronomical* time. It may be usually off by a few minutes, and in some places&amp;mdash;like western China&amp;mdash;may even be off by up to three hours. See [this map][4] for details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8887/what-is-this-letter&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmeridies&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-ioannem_lt.html#1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2572317/Are-YOU-living-sync-Amazing-map-reveals-manmade-timezones-countries-false-sense-sun-rises.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8922" RevisionGUID="ab2778e7-3e87-4a31-ad5b-42b3944dcf59" CreationDate="2019-01-21T15:43:43.787" UserId="522" Comment="Second source" Text="An [Essay][1] (cristianismeijusticia) accessible as pdf uses &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *homo prometheanus*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to contrast with *homo faber,* 'man as craftsman.' The phrases occur in the section marked Conclusion. The Essay is in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Classical Latin, the phrase 'Made from Promethean clay' *Ficta Prometheo Luto,*   can be found in [Martial Epigrams Bk 10 #39][2] To Lesbia. Martial uses the adjective ***prǒmēthēŭs, -ă, -ŭm*** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sic quoque mentiris. Namque, ut tua saecula narrant,  &#xD;&#xA;Ficta Prometheo diceris esse luto.*  &#xD;&#xA;In this also you are not telling the truth.For, as your age clearly tells,  &#xD;&#xA;You might be said to have been made from Promethean clay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two translations, neither very close, are posted. [J A Pott and F A Wright][3] by Archive is the more literary.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.cristianismeijusticia.net/sites/default/files/pdf/gui3_1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://nodictionaries.com/martial/epigrams-10/39&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/martialtwelveboo0000tran/page/312" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8922" RevisionGUID="fdfe95ff-4c11-4093-8591-d7c3a606f5c6" CreationDate="2019-01-21T15:54:26.390" UserId="522" Comment="Second source" Text="An [Essay][1] (cristianismeijusticia) accessible as pdf uses &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *homo prometheanus*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to contrast with *homo faber,* 'man as craftsman.' The phrases occur in the section marked Conclusion. The Essay is in English.  &#xD;&#xA;*Epimetheanus, -a, -um,* would equally be a regular formation of a 2nd conjugation adjective from a 2nd conj. noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Classical Latin,** the phrase 'Made from Promethean clay' *Ficta Prometheo Luto,*   can be found in [Martial Epigrams Bk 10 #39][2] To Lesbia. Martial uses the adjective ***prǒmēthēŭs, -ă, -ŭm*** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sic quoque mentiris. Namque, ut tua saecula narrant,  &#xD;&#xA;Ficta Prometheo diceris esse luto.*  &#xD;&#xA;In this also you are not telling the truth.For, as your age clearly tells,  &#xD;&#xA;You might be said to have been made from Promethean clay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two translations, neither very close, are posted. [J A Pott and F A Wright][3] by Archive is the more literary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ĕpĭmēthēŭs, -ă, -ŭm*** would be formed in the same way.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.cristianismeijusticia.net/sites/default/files/pdf/gui3_1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://nodictionaries.com/martial/epigrams-10/39&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/martialtwelveboo0000tran/page/312" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8916" RevisionGUID="beda0bd1-c35f-4ec8-822a-6144429ef993" CreationDate="2019-01-21T16:37:20.163" UserId="469" Comment="Newfound attestation of _the second half_ and the _beginning_ of a time period. More formatting for readability (I hope)" Text="Two systems&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two systems, 1) one based on day &amp; night, and 2) the AM/PM we use today (kind of).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both systems divide the day in two halves of twelve hours: daylight and night, and before and after noon, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that number zero wasn't known to Romans as a proper number, and precise time reckoning wasn't possible before the mechanical clock. The earliest known mention of the *minute* (**pars minuta prima**, *the first small part* [of an hour]) seems to be [from the XIII century](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute). Hours were counted [from 1 to 12][1], and it didn't have too much sense to be overly precise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The hours in the day/night system varied their length according to the time of the year: summer → longer daytime hours, winter → shorter. Days began at dawn.&#xD;&#xA;* The AM/PM system is independent from the length of the daytime, and originally set the reference point at (astronomical) noon, i.e., the instant when the sun is highest in the local sky. This was the middle of the day and hence **[meridies][2]** in Latin; AM=**ante meridiem**, PM=**post meridiem**. The sun pointed South at noon for the Romans&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, so meridies got to mean South, too. *Meridian* and the root *meridional*- (related to the South in several languages) are derived from *meridies* too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Telling the time (hour)&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the specific hours are said **hora + [ordinal number]**: **hora tertia**, **hora sexta**, **hora nona**, etc. Especially in the day/night system, these multiples of 3 also have a wider meaning (mid morning, noon, mid afternoon) and tend to be preferred even if less precise. In this system, hours of the night are called **vigiliae [noctis]** and also adapt their length seasonally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name usually refers to the whole hour, so **hora prima** may well mean (around the equinox) any time from modern 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, and **quarta vigilia noctis** → about 9 to 10 PM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the above also applies to AM/PM → **hora tertia post meridiem** → 3 to 4 PM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be more specific&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be more specific without knowing minutes, you can say **hora quasi decima** (cf. NVG [Ioh, 1:39][3]).&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; I suspect you can also say, for example, **hora prima dimidiata** to mean around 6:30 AM. **Update:** I just found by chance a text in the Roman Missal for the feast day of St. Agnes (i.e., Ecclesiastical Latin, probably from Antiquity) that makes reference to the &quot;second half&quot;, and the &quot;beginning&quot; of a time period (a Century in this case):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Altera meditate saéculi III, vel probabilius initio saeculi IV, Romae martyr occubuit** / *She died a martyr during the second half of the III cent. or more probably at the beginning of the*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/639/how-to-express-a-time-exactly-on-the-hour/4644, already linked by Joonas which addresses a number of further details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Not so for those like me living in the Southern Hemisphere, nor all year long for those living in the tropics. I might have been in my twenties when I realized noon was a relevant astronomical event, so I think it's worth mentioning.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Provided that your timezone matches the natural *astronomical* time. It may be usually off by a few minutes, and in some places&amp;mdash;like western China&amp;mdash;may even be off by up to three hours. See [this map][4] for details.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; This could be debated, I think, since [**quasi**][5] means *almost*, but also *as if*. I've actually seen this verse translated to Spanish as *era* como *la hora décima* (*it was* approximately *the tenth hour*) in a [fairly literal translation][6]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8887/what-is-this-letter&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmeridies&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-ioannem_lt.html#1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2572317/Are-YOU-living-sync-Amazing-map-reveals-manmade-timezones-countries-false-sense-sun-rises.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquasi&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.bibliatodo.com/la-biblia/Nacar-colunga/juan-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8916" RevisionGUID="afd9d23e-d862-4883-9d43-b54d829bbc16" CreationDate="2019-01-21T16:45:54.360" UserId="469" Comment="examples with hora declined" Text="Two systems&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two systems, 1) one based on day &amp; night, and 2) the AM/PM we use today (kind of).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both systems divide the day in two halves of twelve hours: daylight and night, and before and after noon, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that number zero wasn't known to Romans as a proper number, and precise time reckoning wasn't possible before the mechanical clock. The earliest known mention of the *minute* (**pars minuta prima**, *the first small part* [of an hour]) seems to be [from the XIII century](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute). Hours were counted [from 1 to 12][1], and it didn't have too much sense to be overly precise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The hours in the day/night system varied their length according to the time of the year: summer → longer daytime hours, winter → shorter. Days began at dawn.&#xD;&#xA;* The AM/PM system is independent from the length of the daytime, and originally set the reference point at (astronomical) noon, i.e., the instant when the sun is highest in the local sky. This was the middle of the day and hence **[meridies][2]** in Latin; AM=**ante meridiem**, PM=**post meridiem**. The sun pointed South at noon for the Romans&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, so meridies got to mean South, too. *Meridian* and the root *meridional*- (related to the South in several languages) are derived from *meridies* too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Telling the time (hour)&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the specific hours are said **hora + [ordinal number]**: **hora tertia**, **hora sexta**, **hora nona**, etc. Especially in the day/night system, these multiples of 3 also have a wider meaning (mid morning, noon, mid afternoon) and tend to be preferred even if less precise. In this system, hours of the night are called **vigiliae [noctis]** and also adapt their length seasonally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name usually refers to the whole hour, so **hora prima** may well mean (around the equinox) any time from modern 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, and **quarta vigilia noctis** → about 9 to 10 PM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the above also applies to AM/PM → **hora tertia post meridiem** → 3 to 4 PM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be more specific&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be more specific without knowing minutes, you can say **hora quasi decima** (cf. NVG [Ioh, 1:39][3]).&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; I suspect you can also say, for example, **hora prima dimidiata** to mean around 6:30 AM. **Update:** I just found by chance a text in the Roman Missal for the feast day of St. Agnes (i.e., Ecclesiastical Latin, probably from Antiquity) that makes reference to the &quot;second half&quot;, and the &quot;beginning&quot; of a time period (a Century in this case):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Altera meditate saéculi III, vel probabilius initio saeculi IV, Romae martyr occubuit** / *She died a martyr during the second half of the III cent. or more probably at the beginning of the IV*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so you could probably say **altera meditate horae quartae** to signify at/during the time between 9:30 and 10:00 AM, and **strong text** and **initio horae quintae** to mean shortly after 10:00 AM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/639/how-to-express-a-time-exactly-on-the-hour/4644, already linked by Joonas which addresses a number of further details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Not so for those like me living in the Southern Hemisphere, nor all year long for those living in the tropics. I might have been in my twenties when I realized noon was a relevant astronomical event, so I think it's worth mentioning.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Provided that your timezone matches the natural *astronomical* time. It may be usually off by a few minutes, and in some places&amp;mdash;like western China&amp;mdash;may even be off by up to three hours. See [this map][4] for details.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; This could be debated, I think, since [**quasi**][5] means *almost*, but also *as if*. I've actually seen this verse translated to Spanish as *era* como *la hora décima* (*it was* approximately *the tenth hour*) in a [fairly literal translation][6]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8887/what-is-this-letter&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmeridies&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-ioannem_lt.html#1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2572317/Are-YOU-living-sync-Amazing-map-reveals-manmade-timezones-countries-false-sense-sun-rises.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquasi&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.bibliatodo.com/la-biblia/Nacar-colunga/juan-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8923" RevisionGUID="55aff4e5-accb-4764-a3ca-e23bf6f02d1c" CreationDate="2019-01-21T16:50:46.977" UserId="3307" Text="I would want the assistance of someone who will provide me with a link to download Cambridge Latin course book 3 or upload to upload if you have " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27594" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8923" RevisionGUID="55aff4e5-accb-4764-a3ca-e23bf6f02d1c" CreationDate="2019-01-21T16:50:46.977" UserId="3307" Text="Link to download Cambridge Latin course" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27595" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8923" RevisionGUID="55aff4e5-accb-4764-a3ca-e23bf6f02d1c" CreationDate="2019-01-21T16:50:46.977" UserId="3307" Text="|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27596" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8923" RevisionGUID="e0f898fa-3aeb-4e66-a33c-9ac333e72532" CreationDate="2019-01-21T17:13:58.313" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8921" RevisionGUID="5062f119-df84-4562-8d6f-6c0e41c2b8e7" CreationDate="2019-01-21T17:45:25.100" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="[Prometheus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Prometheus#Latin) exists in Latin. Promethean man is something like &quot;a man of [the] Prometheus [kind]&quot;. So I would say you are looking for the genitive, which, according to Wiktionary, is either _Promethei_ or _Prometheos_. Including &quot;man&quot; in the phrase, you would have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vir Promethei/Prometheos&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Epimetheus [seems to follow](https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-dictionary-flexion.php?lemma=EPIMETHEUS100) the same declension as Prometheus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8924" RevisionGUID="6ecde985-45b8-41d2-8641-710eae3792de" CreationDate="2019-01-21T17:56:34.003" UserId="1459" Text="As Rafael rightly pointed out, providing download links to copyrighted material is illegal, and thus beyond the scope of this site. However, the book you are asking for (Cambridge Latin Course) is, for the moment, freely accessible online (and online-only, i.e. no downloads) [here](https://www.clc.cambridgescp.com/online-textbooks). Notice the disclaimer though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We have put our Cambridge Latin Course textbooks online on this website. Access to these 'WebBooks' will eventually be via paid subscription, but for now they are freely available for you to try.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And later on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Students and teachers may start using the WebBooks now, either individually or with their classes. It is likely that we will introduce a paywall for access by 2018.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly hasn't happened yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27599" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="8923" RevisionGUID="e9f659c8-70ce-4de3-8431-f861b9d11ba6" CreationDate="2019-01-21T18:09:42.860" UserId="-1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:45,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;brianpck&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1459,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;luchonacho&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:985,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;cnread&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8921" RevisionGUID="8764da9a-a4f1-480f-b97e-9e2d3da4e347" CreationDate="2019-01-21T19:22:33.360" UserId="1459" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="[Prometheus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Prometheus#Latin) exists in Latin. Promethean man is something like &quot;a man of [the] Prometheus [kind]&quot;. So I would say you are looking for the genitive, which, according to Wiktionary, is either _Promethei_ or _Prometheos_. Including &quot;man&quot; (as in human) in the phrase, you would have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; homo Promethei/Prometheos&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Epimetheus [seems to follow](https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-dictionary-flexion.php?lemma=EPIMETHEUS100) the same declension as Prometheus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8916" RevisionGUID="0cf3cc2a-d280-47c1-9e3a-1c73f4b10979" CreationDate="2019-01-21T20:26:54.643" UserId="469" Comment="deleted excess nonsense text (typo)" Text="Two systems&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two systems, 1) one based on day &amp; night, and 2) the AM/PM we use today (kind of).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both systems divide the day in two halves of twelve hours: daylight and night, and before and after noon, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that number zero wasn't known to Romans as a proper number, and precise time reckoning wasn't possible before the mechanical clock. The earliest known mention of the *minute* (**pars minuta prima**, *the first small part* [of an hour]) seems to be [from the XIII century](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute). Hours were counted [from 1 to 12][1], and it didn't have too much sense to be overly precise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The hours in the day/night system varied their length according to the time of the year: summer → longer daytime hours, winter → shorter. Days began at dawn.&#xD;&#xA;* The AM/PM system is independent from the length of the daytime, and originally set the reference point at (astronomical) noon, i.e., the instant when the sun is highest in the local sky. This was the middle of the day and hence **[meridies][2]** in Latin; AM=**ante meridiem**, PM=**post meridiem**. The sun pointed South at noon for the Romans&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, so meridies got to mean South, too. *Meridian* and the root *meridional*- (related to the South in several languages) are derived from *meridies* too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Telling the time (hour)&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the specific hours are said **hora + [ordinal number]**: **hora tertia**, **hora sexta**, **hora nona**, etc. Especially in the day/night system, these multiples of 3 also have a wider meaning (mid morning, noon, mid afternoon) and tend to be preferred even if less precise. In this system, hours of the night are called **vigiliae [noctis]** and also adapt their length seasonally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name usually refers to the whole hour, so **hora prima** may well mean (around the equinox) any time from modern 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, and **quarta vigilia noctis** → about 9 to 10 PM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the above also applies to AM/PM → **hora tertia post meridiem** → 3 to 4 PM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be more specific&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be more specific without knowing minutes, you can say **hora quasi decima** (cf. NVG [Ioh, 1:39][3]).&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; I suspect you can also say, for example, **hora prima dimidiata** to mean around 6:30 AM. **Update:** I just found by chance a text in the Roman Missal for the feast day of St. Agnes (i.e., Ecclesiastical Latin, probably from Antiquity) that makes reference to the &quot;second half&quot;, and the &quot;beginning&quot; of a time period (a Century in this case):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Altera meditate saéculi III, vel probabilius initio saeculi IV, Romae martyr occubuit** / *She died a martyr during the second half of the III cent. or more probably at the beginning of the IV*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so you could probably say **altera meditate horae quartae** to signify at/during the time between 9:30 and 10:00 AM, and **initio horae quintae** to mean shortly after 10:00 AM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/639/how-to-express-a-time-exactly-on-the-hour/4644, already linked by Joonas which addresses a number of further details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Not so for those like me living in the Southern Hemisphere, nor all year long for those living in the tropics. I might have been in my twenties when I realized noon was a relevant astronomical event, so I think it's worth mentioning.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Provided that your timezone matches the natural *astronomical* time. It may be usually off by a few minutes, and in some places&amp;mdash;like western China&amp;mdash;may even be off by up to three hours. See [this map][4] for details.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; This could be debated, I think, since [**quasi**][5] means *almost*, but also *as if*. I've actually seen this verse translated to Spanish as *era* como *la hora décima* (*it was* approximately *the tenth hour*) in a [fairly literal translation][6]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8887/what-is-this-letter&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmeridies&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-ioannem_lt.html#1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2572317/Are-YOU-living-sync-Amazing-map-reveals-manmade-timezones-countries-false-sense-sun-rises.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquasi&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.bibliatodo.com/la-biblia/Nacar-colunga/juan-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8925" RevisionGUID="65d07120-d730-4907-a58a-9d01d81de5ea" CreationDate="2019-01-22T12:14:45.897" UserId="2646" Text="The word for *cat* is now, in almost every European language, derived from Latin *cattus*, as stated [in Etymonline][1]. It also says that the word was&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] in general use on the continent by c. 700, replacing Latin *feles*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *feles* ([meaning just &quot;cat&quot;][2]) derived in some words in Spanish, such as *felino* (meaning &quot;relating to or affecting cats&quot;) or *félido* (a word to refer to the cat family, including lions and others). Nonetheless, these are more cultured words. So maybe this distinction also happened in Latin? Was *feles* a more cultured word than *cattus*? Or maybe *feles* referred to any cat while *cattus* referred only to domestic cats? Why did *cattus* replace Latin *feles*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.etymonline.com/word/cat#etymonline_v_5462&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=feles&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8925" RevisionGUID="65d07120-d730-4907-a58a-9d01d81de5ea" CreationDate="2019-01-22T12:14:45.897" UserId="2646" Text="Why did &quot;cattus&quot; replace Latin &quot;feles&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8925" RevisionGUID="65d07120-d730-4907-a58a-9d01d81de5ea" CreationDate="2019-01-22T12:14:45.897" UserId="2646" Text="|classical-latin|language-evolution|noun|late-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8914" RevisionGUID="ceb7dbf5-2e1d-40d2-bd2c-4a3794b9bb4f" CreationDate="2019-01-22T14:56:12.480" UserId="406" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="They come from the same source, in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun *benedictus* is a **substantive**: that is, an adjective on its own, acting as a noun. This is very common in Latin, and also shows up sometimes in English, as in &quot;the good, the bad, and the ugly&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective *benedictus*, meanwhile, is a **participle**: a special form of a verb that acts like an adjective. There are three of these in Latin, and this is probably the most common, the *perfect passive participle*. It's equivalent to the English participle &quot;bless-ed&quot;, and actually comes from the same PIE source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *benedictus est* is a **periphrastic**. There are some verb forms that are just morphologically missing in Latin, for no apparent reason. So when writers needed to express a perfect passive meaning, they took the one perfect passive thing they had (the participle), and combined it with a form of *sum* to make it a verb. This is how English makes *all* its passives, since English has no passive morphology at all: &quot;he is blessed&quot;, &quot;she was blessed&quot;, and so on. Latin uses it only for a few missing passive forms (perfect, pluperfect, and future perfect).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also **derivations**: nouns created from verb stems by using various special suffixes (like the *-or* you mention). One of these, confusingly, involves putting *-us* on the fourth principal part; this is how we get *cursus* &quot;course&quot; from *currō* &quot;run&quot;. You can tell the difference because this derivation is fourth declension feminine (*cursus, -ūs, f*), while the participle is second declension masculine (*benedictus, -ī, m*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8927" RevisionGUID="142f94fb-7c7d-4cd8-8a2a-a797b26cbfab" CreationDate="2019-01-22T16:42:06.850" UserId="406" Text="The Romani (aka Gypsies, though some consider that a slur) are nomadic people who dispersed across Europe about a thousand years ago. In other languages they have exonyms like *tzigane*, *gitan*, and *bohème*, but &quot;Romani&quot; seems to be the preferred term nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if one wanted to speak about them in Latin, what term should be used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Romani* and *roma* are endonyms (names they use for themselves), but using *Romanus* seems overly confusing in Latin, since they don't come from Rome.&#xD;&#xA; - *Bohème* can be back-derived to *Bohemi(c)us*, but they're not from Bohemia/the Czech Republic either.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Gypsy&quot; and *gitan* both go back to *Aegypti(c)us*, but they're not from Egypt.&#xD;&#xA; - *Tzigane* and its relatives come from Greek *ἀθίγγανος* &quot;untouchable&quot;, which would give Latin *athinganus* or *intangibilis*, but I can't see that as anything other than insulting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Romanian they're called *Rromani* or *Rroma* to distinguish them from, well, Romanians. But starting a word with a double letter looks distinctly non-Latin to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27609" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8927" RevisionGUID="142f94fb-7c7d-4cd8-8a2a-a797b26cbfab" CreationDate="2019-01-22T16:42:06.850" UserId="406" Text="What is the Latin name for the Romani people?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27610" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8927" RevisionGUID="142f94fb-7c7d-4cd8-8a2a-a797b26cbfab" CreationDate="2019-01-22T16:42:06.850" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8928" RevisionGUID="7c46f49e-ace6-4bdf-9af8-27dd3cb0a1d6" CreationDate="2019-01-22T17:16:21.170" UserId="183" Text="The Latin wikipedia uses [Zingari][1] as generic term and offers a lot of more terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zingari" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8929" RevisionGUID="0aca97b9-9e95-4895-86d8-406d12d8de67" CreationDate="2019-01-22T17:21:21.667" UserId="645" Text="The relevant entry in *Smith's Copious &amp; Critical English-Latin* reads &quot;gipsy: Cingarus, Zingarus, *f*. -a :after their Italian name *Zingari, The Gipsies*, *Aegypti qui feruntur.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That seems quite acceptable to me. However, since there is no classical precedent, I should think that you can please yourself on this. My own preferred word is *gitanus*, which in a very small poll that I once conducted was felt to be more readily recognised as 'gipsy', presumably because of familiarity with the brand *Gitanes* of French cigarettes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[As an aside, there is a peripatetic cricket club in the UK and Australia, *I Zingari* so called because they have no home ground.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8930" RevisionGUID="a0ca435e-e792-4122-86c7-c3a893fbe59d" CreationDate="2019-01-22T18:10:29.497" UserId="183" Text="From the history of cats, it is clear that domesticated cats were introduced to the Romans from Egypt. Before that, the Romans had ferrets as mouse hunters. So the classical word *feles* refers to the wild cat, but the Wanderwort *cattus* (of unknown origin, maybe Nubian) refers to the the domesticated cat. Since domesticated cats are much more important to humans than wild cats, the word *cattus* was able to replace the word *feles* on a large scale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8931" RevisionGUID="2f35bd77-88ec-489b-a2ab-4d387e6b5ef5" CreationDate="2019-01-22T22:25:47.997" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27617" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8931" RevisionGUID="2f35bd77-88ec-489b-a2ab-4d387e6b5ef5" CreationDate="2019-01-22T22:25:47.997" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8932" RevisionGUID="5cf14858-b775-429b-92a4-10056c08c84f" CreationDate="2019-01-22T22:25:47.997" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27619" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8932" RevisionGUID="5cf14858-b775-429b-92a4-10056c08c84f" CreationDate="2019-01-22T22:25:47.997" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27620" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="248" RevisionGUID="f04aa6b9-251a-4572-b3e3-1f232d9a23a8" CreationDate="2019-01-22T22:29:02.437" UserId="183" Comment="Added 1 tag" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|poetry|vergilius|aeneis|color|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8933" RevisionGUID="b9e3f6af-575f-4304-98fc-22e73b07bc49" CreationDate="2019-01-23T03:39:41.387" UserId="3313" Text="παντοκράτωρ, pantokrator is generally translated as &quot;almighty,&quot; interpreted as a matter of power. I.e. the bible talks about one infinite God, El shaddai.  But im curious if we may have been misinterpreting the flavor of the word found in Revelation (particularly around the term &quot;Alpha and Omega&quot;) as a matter of authority, rather than power.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The panto part is obvious, but the secons half seems to be rooted in κρατέω, the basis of a democracy or theocracy.  Could therefore a pantokrator be pointing at the authority over all rather than it's power?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27622" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8933" RevisionGUID="b9e3f6af-575f-4304-98fc-22e73b07bc49" CreationDate="2019-01-23T03:39:41.387" UserId="3313" Text="παντοκράτωρ - a matter of power or authority?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27623" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8933" RevisionGUID="b9e3f6af-575f-4304-98fc-22e73b07bc49" CreationDate="2019-01-23T03:39:41.387" UserId="3313" Text="|greek|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8932" RevisionGUID="2e091cde-c444-42b9-9946-880c6ab74982" CreationDate="2019-01-23T04:53:32.643" UserId="183" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="For questions about the Latin colour terms and their metaphoric meanings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27625" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8932" RevisionGUID="2e091cde-c444-42b9-9946-880c6ab74982" CreationDate="2019-01-23T04:53:32.643" Comment="Proposed by 183 approved by 79 edit id of 290" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8934" RevisionGUID="4decf1e0-ca42-400c-830d-6bc006709c2a" CreationDate="2019-01-23T08:03:41.510" UserId="3314" Text="Both &quot;meridiem&quot; and &quot;mediam diem&quot; seem to have carried both the meaning &quot;midday&quot; and &quot;(the) south&quot; in Latin, if their Romance descendants are any indication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From &quot;meridiem&quot;, we get apparently Italian &quot;meriggio&quot; and Portuguese &quot;meridio&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From &quot;mediam diem&quot;, we get apparently Italian &quot;mezzodi&quot; and Portuguese &quot;meio-dia&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were there any differences in usage between &quot;meridiem&quot; and &quot;mediam diem&quot;? Was one more formal and one less? How did they come to be in competition?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27627" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8934" RevisionGUID="4decf1e0-ca42-400c-830d-6bc006709c2a" CreationDate="2019-01-23T08:03:41.510" UserId="3314" Text="Were &quot;meridies&quot; and &quot;mediam dies&quot; in free variation in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27628" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8934" RevisionGUID="4decf1e0-ca42-400c-830d-6bc006709c2a" CreationDate="2019-01-23T08:03:41.510" UserId="3314" Text="|etymology|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27629" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8934" RevisionGUID="23795516-d245-4766-8ee6-c3a7bef62e09" CreationDate="2019-01-23T08:40:07.223" UserId="3314" Comment="edited title" Text="Were &quot;meridiem&quot; and &quot;mediam diem&quot; in free variation in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8935" RevisionGUID="eac10bb2-2583-4143-b188-f943b7e047d3" CreationDate="2019-01-23T12:27:07.233" UserId="645" Text="I wouldn't say that any of these is 'in competition'. There are differences, as you suspect, but it's not too difficult to understand them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*meridies* is used in the same way as English 'noon', or French 'midi', i.e. the single point in time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Less precisely, an interval of time at the middle of the day is *meridianus tempus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ad mediam diem* means 'towards the middle of the day' — by which the approach of either of the two previous alternatives is indicated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8936" RevisionGUID="8146f92a-9800-4b59-829c-e05a6ac642a4" CreationDate="2019-01-24T04:05:33.390" UserId="3318" Text="When they anounce a new pope the &quot;Habemus Papam&quot; text says &quot;eminentissimum ad reverendissimum dominum, dominum &lt;name acc.&gt;&#xA;Why is it? Why isn't &quot;eminentissimus ac reverendissimus dominus &lt;name nom.&gt;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27632" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8936" RevisionGUID="8146f92a-9800-4b59-829c-e05a6ac642a4" CreationDate="2019-01-24T04:05:33.390" UserId="3318" Text="Why not &quot;eminentissimus&quot; and &quot;reverendissimus&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27633" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8936" RevisionGUID="8146f92a-9800-4b59-829c-e05a6ac642a4" CreationDate="2019-01-24T04:05:33.390" UserId="3318" Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|case|catechism-catholic-church|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8937" RevisionGUID="c7f22fc9-68e8-4e1c-9057-84424e5f8272" CreationDate="2019-01-24T04:45:34.663" UserId="406" Text="I would say it's the same reason you see *papam* instead of *papa* above. That is, the whole thing is the direct object of *habēmus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the meaning is &quot;we have a Pope, [we have a] most eminent and reverend…&quot; and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8936" RevisionGUID="e571aba2-88dd-492f-a634-10727566bf27" CreationDate="2019-01-24T13:51:45.967" UserId="1709" Comment="fixed spelling" Text="When they announce a new pope the &quot;Habemus Papam&quot; text says &quot;eminentissimum ac reverendissimum Dominum, Dominum &lt;name acc.&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it? Why isn't &quot;eminentissimus ac reverendissimus dominus &lt;name nom.&gt;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27636" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8936" RevisionGUID="e571aba2-88dd-492f-a634-10727566bf27" CreationDate="2019-01-24T13:51:45.967" Comment="Proposed by 1709 approved by 469, 45 edit id of 291" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8938" RevisionGUID="2e1b3502-93a4-4890-9474-1e0df91762d7" CreationDate="2019-01-24T13:59:45.290" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27638" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8938" RevisionGUID="2e1b3502-93a4-4890-9474-1e0df91762d7" CreationDate="2019-01-24T13:59:45.290" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8939" RevisionGUID="b0fb8166-c5d0-47ea-aa6b-dd6d9b7753e1" CreationDate="2019-01-24T13:59:45.290" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27640" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8939" RevisionGUID="b0fb8166-c5d0-47ea-aa6b-dd6d9b7753e1" CreationDate="2019-01-24T13:59:45.290" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8934" RevisionGUID="82116f84-3c38-4395-99df-c294318a675b" CreationDate="2019-01-24T16:08:14.410" UserId="3314" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="Both &quot;meridiem&quot; and &quot;mediam diem&quot; seem to have carried both the meaning &quot;midday&quot; and &quot;(the) south&quot; in Latin, if their Romance descendants are any indication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From &quot;meridiem&quot;, we get apparently Italian &quot;meriggio&quot; and Portuguese &quot;meridio&quot; (and English &quot;meridian&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From &quot;mediam diem&quot;, we get apparently Italian &quot;mezzodi&quot; and Portuguese &quot;meio-dia&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were there any differences in usage between &quot;meridiem&quot; and &quot;mediam diem&quot;? Was one more formal and one less? How did they come to be in competition?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8938" RevisionGUID="ca38732e-00df-4446-84a6-c8278e893a0d" CreationDate="2019-01-24T16:12:04.027" UserId="2980" Comment="added 288 characters in body" Text="Latin has an extensive inflection system for nouns, called &quot;Declension&quot;. Generally, a noun is declined into six cases (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative and vocative), and two numbers (single and plural). A few nouns have two additional cases (locative and instrumental)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27643" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8938" RevisionGUID="ca38732e-00df-4446-84a6-c8278e893a0d" CreationDate="2019-01-24T16:12:04.027" Comment="Proposed by 2980 approved by 79 edit id of 292" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8939" RevisionGUID="dd481301-4c4e-4d12-85d8-976d3d0b0e02" CreationDate="2019-01-24T16:12:12.353" UserId="2980" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="For questions about grammatical cases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27645" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8939" RevisionGUID="dd481301-4c4e-4d12-85d8-976d3d0b0e02" CreationDate="2019-01-24T16:12:12.353" Comment="Proposed by 2980 approved by 79 edit id of 293" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8939" RevisionGUID="62687ed2-bc7c-49a2-b33b-9a2c4f71d2de" CreationDate="2019-01-24T16:13:14.943" UserId="79" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="For questions about grammatical cases (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative and vocative). Consider also using the tags 'declension' and 'morphologia'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8935" RevisionGUID="8351a811-d56a-4f18-ac01-ca8de1328bdc" CreationDate="2019-01-24T17:04:11.903" UserId="645" Comment="edited body" Text="I wouldn't say that any of these is 'in competition'. There are differences, as you suspect, but it's not too difficult to understand them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*meridies* is used in the same way as English 'noon', or French 'midi', i.e. the single point in time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Less precisely, an interval of time at the middle of the day is *meridianum tempus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ad mediam diem* means 'towards the middle of the day' — by which the approach of either of the two previous alternatives is indicated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27648" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8936" RevisionGUID="b309c71b-b527-46ca-a4db-e8f9d50376a5" CreationDate="2019-01-24T17:17:46.927" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|case|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8940" RevisionGUID="edd92dbd-d4a0-4c2e-ae18-ae7b6ad72d50" CreationDate="2019-01-24T17:23:28.873" UserId="469" Text="The most important idea is already said by Draconis, but...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you are not familiar with *declensions*, nouns, adjectives and some pronouns in Latin change their ending depending on their grammatical function, in an analogous way as verbs in English end in -ed to signify they are in past tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the example you give, **Papam** and **dominum**, the -m ending means they are in the *accusative case*, i.e., they are objects to the verb, **habemus**. What do we have?&amp;mdash;A Pope, Mr. Jorge Mario Card. Bergoglio. **Eminentissimum** and **reverendissimum** are adjectives modifying **dominum**, and hence must agree (they are also in accusative case)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8941" RevisionGUID="fd39125c-b138-4619-95d8-abecbb37186b" CreationDate="2019-01-24T17:53:41.743" UserId="406" Text="*Faciō*, &quot;to make&quot; or &quot;to do&quot;, is a common Latin verb. It's famous for being suppletive: it's missing most of its passive forms, and instead uses the active forms of the separate verb *fiō* &quot;to become&quot;. (Compare English &quot;go&quot;, which lost its past tense and had to steal some forms from the separate verb &quot;wend&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I wanted to say that something &quot;must be made&quot;, using a gerundive of obligation, how would I do that? Is that one of the rare passive forms of *faciō* that does exist, and can be used normally? Or would I use a gerundive of *fiō* instead, even though it's morphologically a passive form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27651" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8941" RevisionGUID="fd39125c-b138-4619-95d8-abecbb37186b" CreationDate="2019-01-24T17:53:41.743" UserId="406" Text="Is there a gerundive of &quot;faciō&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27652" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8941" RevisionGUID="fd39125c-b138-4619-95d8-abecbb37186b" CreationDate="2019-01-24T17:53:41.743" UserId="406" Text="|morphology|passive-voice|gerundive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8942" RevisionGUID="bfcde76a-9762-459c-8209-47a79e848ff0" CreationDate="2019-01-24T18:13:46.653" UserId="469" Text="Yes, there is. A couple of notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Faciendus** (-a, -um) is attested. Perseus gives [21 results][1] of the former. These include several forms of faciendus + [esse] (est, erat, esset)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There is also [a number of instances][2] of gerund **faciendum, -i, -o**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Ad faciendum**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *Ad satis faciendum* ([Cic. Clu. 4][3]):&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Etenim tibi si in praesentia non potuero, tamen multae mihi **ad satis faciendum** reliquo tempore facultates dabuntur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *Ad male faciendum* ([Pl. Epid. 3.2][4].44):&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Nimis dóctus ille est **ad male faciendum**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;collections=Perseus:collection:Renaissance&amp;phrase=&amp;collections=Perseus:collection:PDILL&amp;page=1&amp;exclude_words=&amp;search=Search&amp;collections=Perseus:collection:Germanic&amp;any_words=&amp;collections=Perseus:collection:Arabic&amp;collections=Perseus:collection:RichTimes&amp;collections=Perseus:collection:cwar&amp;collections=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman&amp;all_words=faciendus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;all_words=faciendi&amp;phrase=&amp;any_words=&amp;exclude_words=&amp;documents=&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0010:text=Clu.:chapter=4&amp;highlight=faciendum&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0038:act=3:scene=2&amp;highlight=faciendum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8943" RevisionGUID="8a2078a9-4c3d-4d4a-be38-8c515cf561b1" CreationDate="2019-01-24T21:52:10.760" UserId="79" Text="There are a number of different flavours of, say, yogurts, and one of them is plain, without any added flavours besides what is needed to make the yogurt.&#xD;&#xA;In English this flavour seems to be often called &quot;natural&quot;, the Finnish expression translates to &quot;unflavoured&quot;, and there are also suitable words like &quot;plain&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good Latin adjective to describe an unflavoured variety of a product like yogurt?&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer an adjective to a prepositional phrase like &quot;without added flavours&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure what would be an idiomatic approach here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27656" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8943" RevisionGUID="8a2078a9-4c3d-4d4a-be38-8c515cf561b1" CreationDate="2019-01-24T21:52:10.760" UserId="79" Text="Natural or unflavoured products" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27657" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8943" RevisionGUID="8a2078a9-4c3d-4d4a-be38-8c515cf561b1" CreationDate="2019-01-24T21:52:10.760" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2185" RevisionGUID="18b3c331-d424-4b42-bf47-6fe53441c284" CreationDate="2019-01-24T21:53:56.570" UserId="3319" Comment="add line breaks" Text="Hogwarts, the School of Witchcraft and Wizardry in the *Harry Potter* books, has the following Latin motto: *Draco dormiens numquam titillandus*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most online sources translate this as &quot;Never tickle a sleeping dragon&quot;. However, it occurred to me that, since *titillandus* is a future passive participle, it should not necessarily be translated as the main verb. Additionally, *draco* and *dormiens* are both masculine, so I don't think they should be translated as the nominative subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have come up with a couple of potential translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A sleeping dragon never to be tickled.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not flow very well in English however, so I was thinking that perhaps *est* was omitted from the motto. On the basis that *est* should have been included, *titillandus est* would then be a passive periphrastic. As a result, we could then say&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A sleeping dragon is never to be tickled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A sleeping dragon must never be tickled. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though &quot;never tickle a sleeping dragon&quot; still preserves the meaning, I believe that the other translations I propose are more accurate with respect to the Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know if anyone can think of other potential translations that I am missing. Furthermore, can the active equivalents of intended passive phrases as such be considered equally legitimate? Are there any other historical or modern examples of this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27659" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2185" RevisionGUID="18b3c331-d424-4b42-bf47-6fe53441c284" CreationDate="2019-01-24T21:53:56.570" UserId="3319" Comment="add line breaks" Text="Hogwarts Motto from J.K. Rowling's &quot;Harry Potter&quot; series" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27660" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2185" RevisionGUID="18b3c331-d424-4b42-bf47-6fe53441c284" CreationDate="2019-01-24T21:53:56.570" UserId="3319" Comment="add line breaks" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|passive-voice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27661" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2185" RevisionGUID="18b3c331-d424-4b42-bf47-6fe53441c284" CreationDate="2019-01-24T21:53:56.570" Comment="Proposed by 3319 approved by -1 edit id of 294" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27662" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2185" RevisionGUID="e9a51144-ef34-4a20-a03f-bf96c4559278" CreationDate="2019-01-24T21:53:56.570" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|motto|passive-voice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8944" RevisionGUID="d242cdbe-d588-49a0-99de-5eb319a9d062" CreationDate="2019-01-24T22:14:01.817" UserId="3320" Text="How would one add the agent noun suffix (normally -tor) to the verb 'plecto' (I weave/twist)?  It's been a few years - about 10 - but if I recall correctly, verbs whose stem ends in 't' uses -sor as the agent suffix.  This would be 'plectsor', which seems very unwieldy; however, plecttor is *certainly* not correct.  Obviously in English there are verbs whose agent form is irregular, and some which have no such form.  Is this the case with this Latin verb?  If this is the case, what would be the correct way to form the noun *in theory*?&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27664" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8944" RevisionGUID="d242cdbe-d588-49a0-99de-5eb319a9d062" CreationDate="2019-01-24T22:14:01.817" UserId="3320" Text="'plecto, plectere, plexi', -tor/-sor form (agent noun)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27665" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8944" RevisionGUID="d242cdbe-d588-49a0-99de-5eb319a9d062" CreationDate="2019-01-24T22:14:01.817" UserId="3320" Text="|verbs|conjugation|agent|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8944" RevisionGUID="405aeae9-b19f-4a8c-a639-d44f4985e2d9" CreationDate="2019-01-24T22:29:37.347" UserId="79" Comment="Feel free to undo my edits or edit further!" Text="How would one add the agent noun suffix (normally -tor) to the verb 'plecto' (I weave/twist)?  It's been a few years &amp;mdash; about 10 &amp;mdash; but if I recall correctly, verbs whose stem ends in 't' uses -sor as the agent suffix.  This would be 'plectsor', which seems very unwieldy; however, plecttor is *certainly* not correct.  Obviously in English there are verbs whose agent form is irregular, and some which have no such form.  Is this the case with this Latin verb?  If this is the case, what would be the correct way to form the noun *in theory*?&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27667" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8944" RevisionGUID="405aeae9-b19f-4a8c-a639-d44f4985e2d9" CreationDate="2019-01-24T22:29:37.347" UserId="79" Comment="Feel free to undo my edits or edit further!" Text="|verbs|morphology|derivation|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8945" RevisionGUID="e4ef4697-f207-4706-b31a-9f97ca28c54f" CreationDate="2019-01-24T22:38:20.077" UserId="406" Text="Good question! Let's break it down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root of this verb is *plect-* (notably not *plēct-* which has a different meaning!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix is *usually* *-tor*, but is also seen as *-sor*. There's not a hard-and-fast rule on when to use which, but *-sor* is generally used for third-conjugation verbs with alveolar consonants in the stem. *Plect-*, in this case, qualifies (*t* is alveolar), and I think *-sor* sounds better here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting them together, you get *plect-sor*. But the combination *ts* isn't allowed within Latin words (with the singular exception of *etsi* which is really two words written together). So the *ts* simplifies to *s*, giving *plecsor*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *cs* in Latin is written as *x*, as in *duc-s → dux*. So our final result is ***plexor***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you instead wanted to use *-tor*, you'd end up with ***plector***, which is also perfectly valid. But I think the Romans would have preferred the *-sor* version.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8946" RevisionGUID="ee1120c2-b5c9-40c2-9ef7-8acc3a10e30c" CreationDate="2019-01-24T22:40:30.570" UserId="79" Text="You seem to be missing the four part in the verb's dictionary entry: [*plectō, plectere, plexī, plexus*](https://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2045610).&#xD;&#xA;The agent noun is derived from the perfect participle stem, which for this verb is *plex-*.&#xD;&#xA;This stem is obtained by removing *-us* from the participle listed in most dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To this stem you add *-or*, so the noun you are after is ***plexor***.&#xD;&#xA;(This kind of counts as *-sor* because *x=cs*.)&#xD;&#xA;The participle stem tends to be indicated by *-t-* or *-s-*.&#xD;&#xA;One important aspect of using the perfect participle stem is that you have one less thing to memorize." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8940" RevisionGUID="409fcb14-d70c-4282-8cae-abc51f770473" CreationDate="2019-01-24T23:28:23.267" UserId="469" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="The most important idea is already said by Draconis, but...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you are not familiar with *declensions*, nouns, adjectives and some pronouns in Latin change their ending depending on their grammatical function, in an analogous way as verbs in English end in -ed to signify they are in past tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the example you give&amp;mdash;**Papam** and **dominum**&amp;mdash;, the -m ending means they are in the *accusative case*, i.e., they are objects to the verb, **habemus**. What do we have?&amp;mdash;A Pope, Mr. Jorge Mario Card. Bergoglio. **Eminentissimum** and **reverendissimum** are adjectives modifying **dominum**, and hence must agree (they are also in accusative case)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8945" RevisionGUID="97eca005-1a26-462b-b0bf-a15c96911e21" CreationDate="2019-01-25T00:16:36.157" UserId="406" Comment="added 822 characters in body" Text="Good question! Let's break it down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root of this verb is *plect-* (notably not *plēct-* which has a different meaning!). If you look it up in a dictionary you'll see the four parts *plectō, plectere, plexī, plexus*, which literally mean &quot;I weave, to weave, I wove, having been woven&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the suffix is usually written as *-tor*, but a better way to think of it is *-or*, without the *t*. You put it on the *supine stem*, aka the *past participle stem*, aka the *fourth principle part*: this is the last form listed in the dictionary, the one that ends in *-us*. In this case, it's *plexus*. Take the *-us* off and add the *-or* and you're done, getting ***plex-or***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To go a bit more in depth, most verbs use a suffix *-t-* to make the fourth principle part, but some instead use *-s-*, especially third conjugation verbs ending in dental consonants. This verb happens to be one of those! The actual reasons for choosing one or the other are unclear, but seem to go back to Proto-Italic or even Proto-Italo-Celtic. Back then, either one could be used, but the speakers generally picked one and stuck with it by the time of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's where the *s* comes from, but why don't we see *_plectsor_? Well, that is indeed what you get when you glue all the pieces together. But the combination *ts* isn't allowed within Latin words (with the singular exception of *etsi* which is really two words written together for convenience). So the *ts* simplifies to *s*, giving *plecsor*. Compare the word for &quot;night&quot;, in the nominative: *noct-s → noc-s → nox*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *cs* in Latin is written as *x*, as in *duc-s → dux*. This doesn't actually change anything about the pronunciation, it's just a spelling quirk. So our final result is ***plexor***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8945" RevisionGUID="1d75e5a7-167e-425c-a0fa-e8b963426224" CreationDate="2019-01-25T05:14:43.297" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="Good question! Let's break it down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root of this verb is *plect-* (notably not *plēct-* which has a different meaning!). If you look it up in a dictionary you'll see the four parts *plectō, plectere, plexī, plexus*, which literally mean &quot;I weave, to weave, I wove, woven&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the suffix is usually written as *-tor*, but a better way to think of it is *-or*, without the *t*. You put it on the *supine stem*, aka the *past participle stem*, aka the *fourth principle part*: this is the last form listed in the dictionary, the one that ends in *-us*. In this case, it's *plexus*. Take the *-us* off and add the *-or* and you're done, getting ***plex-or***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To go a bit more in depth, most verbs use a suffix *-t-* to make the fourth principle part, but some instead use *-s-*, especially third conjugation verbs ending in dental consonants. This verb happens to be one of those! The actual reasons for choosing one or the other are unclear, but seem to go back to Proto-Italic or even Proto-Italo-Celtic. Back then, either one could be used, but the speakers generally picked one and stuck with it by the time of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's where the *s* comes from, but why don't we see *_plectsor_? Well, that is indeed what you get when you glue all the pieces together. But the combination *ts* isn't allowed within Latin words (with the singular exception of *etsi* which is really two words written together for convenience). So the *ts* simplifies to *s*, giving *plecsor*. Compare the word for &quot;night&quot;, in the nominative: *noct-s → noc-s → nox*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *cs* in Latin is written as *x*, as in *duc-s → dux*. This doesn't actually change anything about the pronunciation, it's just a spelling quirk. So our final result is ***plexor***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8947" RevisionGUID="181a07db-3f0a-4fad-887e-a758d59854bc" CreationDate="2019-01-25T06:11:08.633" UserId="79" Text="When answering [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/8944/79), I wrote that an agent noun is always derived from the perfect participle stem.&#xD;&#xA;As the (singular masculine form of the) perfect participle is listed in many dictionaries, deriving agent nouns is easy:&#xD;&#xA;*amatus &gt; amator*, *cursus &gt; cursor*&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;This simple principle works well and means that one does not need to memorize the agents and the participles separately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But are there any exceptions?&#xD;&#xA;Are there individual verbs or groups of verbs that do not follow this pattern?&#xD;&#xA;I am only speaking about agent nouns ending in *-or* derived from the verb, so pairs like *ductus&amp;ndash;dux* are excluded." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27674" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8947" RevisionGUID="181a07db-3f0a-4fad-887e-a758d59854bc" CreationDate="2019-01-25T06:11:08.633" UserId="79" Text="Does the agent noun always come from the perfect participle stem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27675" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8947" RevisionGUID="181a07db-3f0a-4fad-887e-a758d59854bc" CreationDate="2019-01-25T06:11:08.633" UserId="79" Text="|derivation|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27678" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8925" RevisionGUID="f6601541-e384-424a-be0f-fc9227987902" CreationDate="2019-01-25T11:34:10.030" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|language-evolution|noun|late-latin|romance-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27679" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="501" RevisionGUID="8f4dca8f-71f4-47e4-bdf2-547fcf86d81d" CreationDate="2019-01-25T11:41:56.837" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vulgar-latin|articles|demonstrative-pronoun|romance-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8949" RevisionGUID="3a51b874-65cb-4ca4-8084-501e5874c0ff" CreationDate="2019-01-25T13:19:13.583" UserId="3322" Text="How would you translate the name [Igor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_(given_name)) into Latin? The Latin Wikipedia uses _Inguarus_ (e.g. [Inguarus Stravinskij](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inguarus_Stravinskij)), which is the Latinised version of [Ingvar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingvar_(name))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27682" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8949" RevisionGUID="3a51b874-65cb-4ca4-8084-501e5874c0ff" CreationDate="2019-01-25T13:19:13.583" UserId="3322" Text="Latin form of Igor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27683" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8949" RevisionGUID="3a51b874-65cb-4ca4-8084-501e5874c0ff" CreationDate="2019-01-25T13:19:13.583" UserId="3322" Text="|vocabulary|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8950" RevisionGUID="976485b6-6517-40d7-85b4-9072046289cd" CreationDate="2019-01-25T13:21:18.843" UserId="3323" Text="Yes, there probably was rhyme in ancient literature - not in the Latin or Germanic traditions, but the Celtic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At any rate, rhyme seems to have been universal in Welsh poetry, right  back to the earliest written records - the works of Aneirin and Taliesin, which the Oxford Book of Welsh Verse dates to the 6th century AD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those early poets would often have a series of 6 or 8 lines all with the same end-rhyme - made easier because in Welsh, only the final syllable is rhymed, whether stressed or unstressed;  but they often added an internal rhyme as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that, if rhyme was so well-developed in 6th Century Celtic Britain, it was probably a feature long before that, and quite likely in the other Celtic languages too - including, of course, Gaulish. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as Rome was powerful and confident, with a flourishing written literature, Romans might ignore the cultures of the conquered peoples, but as the empire weakened, they might have had to muck in more with their neighbours and might even start to be influenced by their cultures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cou;d this be how rhyme came to enter later Latin poetry?   It's just an idea.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8951" RevisionGUID="23e0b8b4-ea6f-4647-9948-f0d4ef3da182" CreationDate="2019-01-25T13:39:19.590" UserId="9" Text="Apparently not always. &quot;The morphome [sic] vs. similarity-based syncretism&quot;, by Donca Steriade, says that *-&amp;#8288;sor* agent nouns always correspond to *-&amp;#8288;sus* perfect participles, but gives examples in (23) of *-tor* agent nouns that don't correspond (synchronically, at least) to *-tus* participles: *converritor* vs. *versus,* *imporcitor* vs. *imporcatus, infenditor* vs. *-fensus,* *favitor* (alongside *fautor*) vs. *fautus,* and *deversitor* vs. *deversatus* ([p. 131, *The Morphome Debate,*](https://books.google.com/books?id=rlOsDAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA131) edited by Ana R. Luís and Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, 2016).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steriade gives *bibitor* as an example of a *-tor* noun based on a verb that &quot;lacks a related t-participle&quot; (p. 132). I'm not sure what the exact situation is here: as far as I can tell, *bibitus* does seem to have existed at some point, but it seems that *potus* may have been used instead during the classical era. Maybe *bibitor* is attested earlier than *bibitus* as a past participle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8951" RevisionGUID="c470efaa-5dba-4ab8-a059-500d47af2608" CreationDate="2019-01-25T13:48:33.640" UserId="9" Comment="added 238 characters in body" Text="Apparently not always, but the exceptions seem rather marginal and hard to find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The morphome [sic] vs. similarity-based syncretism&quot;, by Donca Steriade, says that *-&amp;#8288;sor* agent nouns invariably correspond to *-&amp;#8288;sus* perfect participles, but gives examples in (23) of *-tor* agent nouns that don't correspond to *-tus* participles: *converritor* vs. *versus* from *verrī* 'to sweep', *Imporcitor* (the proper name of a god) vs. *imporcātus* from *imporcāre, infenditor* 'advocate' vs. *-fensus* from *-fendere, libritor* 'hurler' vs. *librātus* from *librāre, favitor* (alongside *fautor*) vs. *fautus* from *favēre,* and *deversitor* vs. *deversātus* from *deversārī* ([p. 131, *The Morphome Debate,*](https://books.google.com/books?id=rlOsDAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA131) edited by Ana R. Luís and Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, 2016).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steriade gives *bibitor* as an example of a *-tor* noun based on a verb that &quot;lacks a related t-participle&quot; (p. 132). I'm not sure what the exact situation is here: as far as I can tell, *bibitus* does seem to have existed at some point, but it seems that *potus* may have been used instead during the classical era. Maybe *bibitor* is attested earlier than *bibitus* as a past participle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8951" RevisionGUID="ffd92102-2fd0-4a5c-8dea-a4e4ee91a1ec" CreationDate="2019-01-25T13:57:44.020" UserId="9" Comment="added 238 characters in body" Text="Apparently not always, but the exceptions seem rather marginal and hard to find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The morphome [sic] vs. similarity-based syncretism&quot;, by Donca Steriade, says that *-&amp;#8288;sor* agent nouns invariably correspond to *-&amp;#8288;sus* perfect participles, but gives examples in (23) of *-tor* agent nouns that don't correspond to *-tus* participles: *converritor* vs. *versus* from *verrī* 'to sweep', *Imporcitor* (the proper name of a god) vs. *imporcātus* from *imporcāre, infenditor* 'advocate' vs. *-fensus* from *-fendere, libritor* 'hurler' vs. *librātus* from *librāre, favitor* (alongside *fautor*) vs. *fautus* from *favēre,* and *deversitor* vs. *deversātus* from *deversārī* ([p. 131, *The Morphome Debate,*](https://books.google.com/books?id=rlOsDAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA131) edited by Ana R. Luís and Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, 2016).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steriade gives *bibitor* as an example of a *-tor* noun based on a verb that &quot;lacks a related t-participle&quot; (p. 132). I'm not sure what the exact situation is here: as far as I can tell, *bibitus* does seem to have existed at some point, but it seems that *potus* may have been used instead during the classical era. Maybe *bibitor* is attested earlier than *bibitus* as a past participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The Suffix -tor-: Agent-Noun Formation in Latin and the Other Italic Languages&quot;, by Margaret M. T. Watmough (1995/1996), says that the PIE rule for forming *-tor* nouns was accented full grade of the verbal root + *-tor,* but describes forming these nouns on the perfect participle stem as an &quot;Italic rule&quot; that developed later on. Many words apparently have a form that is compatible with either rule (p. 84). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8951" RevisionGUID="50fa65c9-6f7f-4c56-b181-5f0e735de96b" CreationDate="2019-01-25T14:09:33.177" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 382 characters in body" Text="Apparently not always, but the exceptions seem to be rather marginal and hard to find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The morphome [sic] vs. similarity-based syncretism&quot;, by Donca Steriade, says that *-&amp;#8288;sor* agent nouns invariably correspond to *-&amp;#8288;sus* perfect participles, but gives examples in (23) of *-tor* agent nouns that don't correspond to *-tus* participles: *converritor* vs. *versus* from *verrī* 'to sweep', *Imporcitor* (the proper name of a god) vs. *imporcātus* from *imporcāre, infenditor* 'advocate' vs. *-fensus* from *-fendere, libritor* 'hurler' vs. *librātus* from *librāre, favitor* (alongside *fautor*) vs. *fautus* from *favēre,* and *deversitor* vs. *deversātus* from *deversārī* ([p. 131, *The Morphome Debate,*](https://books.google.com/books?id=rlOsDAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA131) edited by Ana R. Luís and Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, 2016).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The Suffix -tor-: Agent-Noun Formation in Latin and the Other Italic Languages&quot;, by Margaret M. T. Watmough (1995/1996), says that the PIE rule for forming *-tor* nouns was accented full grade of the verbal root + *-tor,* but describes forming these nouns on the perfect participle stem as an &quot;Italic rule&quot; that developed later on. Many words apparently have a form that is compatible with either rule (p. 84)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8946" RevisionGUID="5c7aab5f-f210-4cbe-89d0-652379add54d" CreationDate="2019-01-25T15:34:06.097" UserId="79" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="You seem to be missing the four part in the verb's dictionary entry: [*plectō, plectere, plexī, plexus*](https://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2045610).&#xD;&#xA;The agent noun is derived from the perfect participle stem, which for this verb is *plex-*.&#xD;&#xA;This stem is obtained by removing *-us* from the participle listed in most dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To this stem you add *-or*, so the noun you are after is ***plexor***.&#xD;&#xA;(This kind of counts as *-sor* because *x=cs*.)&#xD;&#xA;The participle stem tends to be indicated by *-t-* or *-s-*.&#xD;&#xA;One important aspect of using the perfect participle stem is that you have one less thing to memorize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There are exceptions](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/8947/79), but they are rare.&#xD;&#xA;Deriving agents from the perfect participle stem is an excellent rule of thumb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8953" RevisionGUID="6f159940-4fe5-4d87-a157-4204d8c90de6" CreationDate="2019-01-25T16:10:18.780" UserId="406" Text="_Cum_ is a common preposition meaning &quot;with&quot; (as in &quot;accompanying&quot;, not &quot;using&quot;). For example, if Caesar returned to Rome _with_ his soldiers, that would be _cum militibus suis_. As a preposition, it comes before what it modifies: *_militibus suis cum_ sounds distinctly odd to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it's combined with a personal pronoun, everything seems to go backwards. Instead of _cum me_ &quot;with me&quot;, we see _me-cum_; similarly, _te-cum_ &quot;with you&quot;, _nobis-cum_ &quot;with us&quot;, _vobis-cum_ &quot;with all of you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why does this happen? It seems to be peculiar to _cum_: we don't see *_me-ob_ for &quot;because of me&quot;, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Related: [this question][1] discusses _when_ this happens, but I'm interested in _why_.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1145/when-should-the-preposition-cum-be-added-as-a-suffix" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8953" RevisionGUID="6f159940-4fe5-4d87-a157-4204d8c90de6" CreationDate="2019-01-25T16:10:18.780" UserId="406" Text="Why is &quot;mecum&quot; backwards?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8953" RevisionGUID="6f159940-4fe5-4d87-a157-4204d8c90de6" CreationDate="2019-01-25T16:10:18.780" UserId="406" Text="|preposition|personal-pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8954" RevisionGUID="55436684-7f01-43da-b10a-2cb5c0837e96" CreationDate="2019-01-25T16:20:43.680" UserId="79" Text="In *Orator* Cicero writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid, illud non olet unde sit, quod dicitur cum illis, cum autem nobis non dicitur, sed nobiscum? Quia si ita diceretur, obscaenius concurrerent litterae, ut etiam modo, nisi autem interposuissem, concurrissent. Ex eo est mecum et tecum, non cum me et cum te, ut esset simile illis nobiscum atque vobiscum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To paraphrase, the Romans did not say *cum nobis* but *nobiscum*, because otherwise the letters would coincide obscenely, forming the word *cunnus*.&#xD;&#xA;Then the other pronouns get their *cum* at the end by analogy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8955" RevisionGUID="f610b63c-eddd-4df8-8f3b-197c89b8a452" CreationDate="2019-01-25T16:31:32.963" UserId="406" Text="Mostly, it depends what you're using it for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone named _Igor_ travelled back to Ancient Rome, his name would probably be kept the same: _Igor_ is valid Latin, and even looks like a standard agent noun (so it would probably be declined _Igor, Igoris, Igorī_…).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if, say, Rurik had decided to go to Rome instead of Kiev, then the name would have been transmitted from Old Norse as _Ingvar_. This might have gotten Latinized as _Ingvarus_, as Wikipedia did, or it might have been an indeclinable foreign noun, or it might have declined like _lar_ (so _Ingvaris, Ingvarī_…).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For someone like Stravinsky, I would just borrow it as _Igor_. Unlike other names that have attested Latin predecessors (such as _Maria_ for &quot;Mary&quot;), I don't know of any Latin sources which give a reliable form of this name. So it seems more reasonable to do what English does and just borrow it directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(P.S. I'd hoped that some of the old Slavic histories might have talked about Igor son of Rurik in Latin. Unfortunately, all the oldest sources I've found that mention Igor are written in Slavic languages instead of Latin, so they're not much help.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(P.P.S. I write it _Ingvar_ rather than _Inguar_ because the _v_ was a consonant in this context: compare _angvis_ &quot;snake&quot;, which is two syllables _an-gvis_ rather than three *_an-gu-is_. Basically, after _n_, _gv_ was a labialized consonant like _qv_ rather than a consonant and a vowel.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8950" RevisionGUID="a53672e1-0e1b-4738-883a-22b2e28bf8b5" CreationDate="2019-01-25T16:47:32.337" UserId="79" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="Yes, there probably was rhyme in ancient literature &amp;mdash; not in the Latin or Germanic traditions, but the Celtic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At any rate, rhyme seems to have been universal in Welsh poetry, right  back to the earliest written records &amp;mdash; the works of Aneirin and Taliesin, which the Oxford Book of Welsh Verse dates to the 6th century AD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those early poets would often have a series of 6 or 8 lines all with the same end-rhyme &amp;mdash; made easier because in Welsh, only the final syllable is rhymed, whether stressed or unstressed;  but they often added an internal rhyme as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that, if rhyme was so well-developed in 6th Century Celtic Britain, it was probably a feature long before that, and quite likely in the other Celtic languages too &amp;mdash; including, of course, Gaulish. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as Rome was powerful and confident, with a flourishing written literature, Romans might ignore the cultures of the conquered peoples, but as the empire weakened, they might have had to muck in more with their neighbours and might even start to be influenced by their cultures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this be how rhyme came to enter later Latin poetry?   It's just an idea.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8956" RevisionGUID="b67d1f61-0c40-4dd3-8443-f38fdf685363" CreationDate="2019-01-25T17:04:23.613" UserId="61" Text="So I realise this might not be a well defined question, but I hope it can still classify as not being a discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I have just finished highschool and after 6 years of Latin, I am not quite willing to give it up. I tried reading some texts by myself. Especially with Commentarii de bello gallico, I had some moderate succes in the first chapter as these parts were somewhat familiar as I had read simplied version of paragraphs here and there before, however I quickly ran into several problems which I also had with other texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first problem is encountering a lot of unknown specific vocabulary, which really breaks the flow as I would need to look up a word every other sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second problem is that I am not entirely familiar with some less common expressions. Searching such expression is especially time consuming and breaks the flow of reading a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think these problems are mainly due to the text being too difficult. So I wondered whether there are some easier Latin text out there or maybe text which is so well documented that if something unknown is encountered it can be quickly found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise that reading with a translation next to the Latin is always an option, but I personally enjoy that less." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27702" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8956" RevisionGUID="b67d1f61-0c40-4dd3-8443-f38fdf685363" CreationDate="2019-01-25T17:04:23.613" UserId="61" Text="Less complicated Latin texts to continue reading after highschool" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27703" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8956" RevisionGUID="b67d1f61-0c40-4dd3-8443-f38fdf685363" CreationDate="2019-01-25T17:04:23.613" UserId="61" Text="|resource-request|study-strategies|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8957" RevisionGUID="01ddf8a7-0d30-49f8-aa76-dc5fb5ff4f3e" CreationDate="2019-01-25T17:21:57.243" UserId="79" Text="One option, perhaps best alongside other approaches, is to read (and listen to) the Latin news broadcast [Nuntii Latini](https://areena.yle.fi/1-1931339).&#xD;&#xA;News come in every week and concern matters you have likely encountered in other media.&#xD;&#xA;The texts are fairly short and aimed at a broad readership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately the vocabulary is not all that well documented.&#xD;&#xA;The authors of Nuntii Latini cannot work entirely within classical Latin; new ideas often require new words.&#xD;&#xA;The familiar context helps a lot with the vocabulary, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also easy to try: just go and try to read some, and you will get a feeling of its suitability to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8958" RevisionGUID="46afb778-a6f3-4b7d-90ac-22517a712f6f" CreationDate="2019-01-25T18:35:38.170" UserId="1694" Text="Personally, I'd go with _Inguarus_ used by Wikipedia, since the name was basically Scandinavian and the form _Igor_ represents a Slavicized version of that.  (I will admit, this is purely a matter of taste.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Draconis, I can't find the name in any Latin sources, but (for what it's worth), it *does* appear in [Leo the Deacon's Byzantine historical work][1] as Ἴγγορ[ος] (Ingor), which looks like a Greek perception of the Scandinavian name.  (The context of the form ῎Ιγγορος seems to require a genitive, so I assume the nominative would be Ἴγγορ.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, ultimately, it's your choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=GCMAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA3&amp;dq=%22leonis+diaconi%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22leonis%20diaconi%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8959" RevisionGUID="097d5e78-40cd-4365-90dc-7a9a5b550e08" CreationDate="2019-01-25T19:10:46.000" UserId="1694" Text="If so you're inclined, I'd suggest the Latin Bible.  The syntax tends to be fairly straight-forward, and it's easy to consult English translations for comparison." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8959" RevisionGUID="d00a7832-3151-402e-8349-0c1eeb8ae860" CreationDate="2019-01-25T20:00:42.577" UserId="1694" Comment="edited body" Text="If you're so inclined, I'd suggest the Latin Bible.  The syntax tends to be fairly straight-forward, and it's easy to consult English translations for comparison." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8960" RevisionGUID="35c7d423-b4b2-4b25-a566-1536c1d15969" CreationDate="2019-01-25T20:03:25.280" UserId="406" Text="I've found I quite enjoy reading Ovid—his work is poetry, not prose, which adds a bit of difficulty, but the mythological subjects are pretty familiar, which makes it easier to deal with unknown words from context. And his style feels more transparent to me than e.g. Vergil's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I usually translate with [The Latin Library][1] open in one window and [Perseus's word study tool][2] in another; if I'm stuck on a word, I just select and drag it from the Latin to Perseus, and it gives me not only a dictionary definition but also exactly which form this is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most important thing, though, is to just keep at it! Time and practice will make all of this easier, and this StackExchange is around for any weird grammar questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/ovid.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8961" RevisionGUID="bf75267e-c421-4424-9c16-64e1f3a85291" CreationDate="2019-01-25T20:52:16.663" UserId="645" Text="A good place to start is at http://ephemeris.alcuinus.net/ This is a sort of newspaper with all kinds of contributions, from jokes and cartoons to serious current news items and fiction. It is edited by a Polish academic and is published from Warsaw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin isn't always perfect, because contributions are accepted from anyone with a basically sound competence, but it's generally easy enough for a beginner to follow. Since modern subjects are covered, the vocabulary is sometimes necessarily inventive, and even ingenious, but proper basic accidence and syntax are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have a look. You'll probably enjoy it!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8962" RevisionGUID="00589b75-7671-4f29-a421-609773710556" CreationDate="2019-01-25T22:12:08.433" UserId="1790" Text="One slightly offbeat option would be Asterix. It's not quite classic literature, but it's well written and fun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8963" RevisionGUID="27c3ca56-fcc4-46a5-8180-83c51e23c2c5" CreationDate="2019-01-26T00:15:52.757" UserId="2767" Text="This is a cross-linguistic phenomenon: pronouns, especially if they cliticise, can have a different syntax from the nouns they replace. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a very nearly parallel example, consider Germanic compounds, not with personal but with anaphoric pronouns: English _therewith_, German _damit_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a different example, consider French object pronouns: they have enclitic forms which precede the verb, unlike other object NPs: _Je te vois_ vs. _Je vois la maison_. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8951" RevisionGUID="7cf216e3-4373-42ba-826c-ffa696e9a2dc" CreationDate="2019-01-26T02:27:12.973" UserId="9" Comment="added 277 characters in body" Text="Apparently not always, but the exceptions seem to be rather marginal and hard to find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The morphome [sic] vs. similarity-based syncretism&quot;, by Donca Steriade, says that *-&amp;#8288;sor* agent nouns invariably correspond to *-&amp;#8288;sus* perfect participles, but gives examples in (23) of *-tor* agent nouns that don't correspond to *-tus* participles: *converritor* vs. *versus* from *verrī* 'to sweep', *Imporcitor* (the proper name of a god) vs. *imporcātus* from *imporcāre, infenditor* 'advocate' vs. *-fensus* from *-fendere, libritor* 'hurler' vs. *librātus* from *librāre, favitor* (alongside *fautor*) vs. *fautus* from *favēre,* and *deversitor* vs. *deversātus* from *deversārī* ([p. 131, *The Morphome Debate,*](https://books.google.com/books?id=rlOsDAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA131) edited by Ana R. Luís and Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, 2016).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, page 141, Steriade lists *[lūdor](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=ludor)* 'player' as an example of a word where the suffix takes the form *-or* rather than *-tor* or *-sor;* the regular variant *lūsor* also exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The Suffix -tor-: Agent-Noun Formation in Latin and the Other Italic Languages&quot;, by Margaret M. T. Watmough (1995/1996), says that the PIE rule for forming *-tor* nouns was accented full grade of the verbal root + *-tor,* but describes forming these nouns on the perfect participle stem as an &quot;Italic rule&quot; that developed later on. Many words apparently have a form that is compatible with either rule (p. 84)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8954" RevisionGUID="cd351e12-b16a-42c0-a01a-34d1f1f04a74" CreationDate="2019-01-26T12:19:09.980" UserId="79" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="In *Orator* Cicero writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid, illud non olet unde sit, quod dicitur cum illis, cum autem nobis non dicitur, sed nobiscum? Quia si ita diceretur, obscaenius concurrerent litterae, ut etiam modo, nisi autem interposuissem, concurrissent. Ex eo est mecum et tecum, non cum me et cum te, ut esset simile illis nobiscum atque vobiscum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To paraphrase, the Romans did not say *cum nobis* but *nobiscum*, because otherwise the letters would coincide obscenely, forming the word *cunnus*.&#xD;&#xA;Then the other pronouns get their *cum* at the end by analogy.&#xA;&#xA;I am not claiming that this is what necessarily happened, but that this is the rationalisation a notable Roman gave.&#xA;I would be glad to know whether Cicero got it right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8964" RevisionGUID="49cb9b2c-b168-40ab-8f27-2b31374a203f" CreationDate="2019-01-26T14:35:44.593" UserId="39" Text="(some brief notes so far)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Postpositive cum is rather unique in Latin in this regard, although there are some other postpositive uses found in Latin; they are well-known, e.g. Leumann mentions quo-ad (cf. ad-huc or ad-eo), see [Fortson 2010][1]: 136 for more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, there are two approaches - either postpositive cum is an archaic holdover (Clackson 2004) or innovation (Fortson 2010).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there are some prepositions in Latin that don't behave quite like typical prepositions, Weiss prefers to talk about **adpositions** instead (e.g. pp. 460-461).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Weiss also adds that &quot;[p]ostposition after pronominals is common with disyllabic forms like *inter, propter, contra*, etc.&quot; (footnote 45, p. 460).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40730915" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8964" RevisionGUID="47f8b5a7-24de-4dcf-a59c-431af7a41de9" CreationDate="2019-01-26T16:56:55.580" UserId="39" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="(some brief notes so far)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Postpositive cum is rather unique in Latin in this regard, although there are some other postpositive uses found in Latin; they are well-known, e.g. Leumann mentions quo-ad (cf. ad-huc or ad-eo), see [Fortson 2010][1]: 136 for more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, there are two approaches - either postpositive cum is an archaic holdover (this opinion is shared by many? - e.g. Clackson 2004) or innovation (a new approach? - see Fortson 2010).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there are some prepositions in Latin that don't behave quite like typical prepositions, Weiss prefers to talk about **adpositions** instead (e.g. pp. 460-461).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Weiss also adds that &quot;[p]ostposition after pronominals is common with disyllabic forms like *inter, propter, contra*, etc.&quot; (footnote 45, p. 460).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40730915" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8964" RevisionGUID="f6d71900-25f2-4d79-b001-ff55da26d61b" CreationDate="2019-01-26T17:08:34.200" UserId="39" Comment="added 212 characters in body" Text="(some brief notes so far)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Postpositive cum is rather unique in Latin in this regard, although there are some other postpositive uses found in Latin; they are well-known, e.g. Leumann mentions quo-ad (cf. ad-huc or ad-eo), see [Fortson 2010][1]: 136 for more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, there are two approaches - either postpositive cum is an archaic holdover (this opinion is shared by many - e.g. Clackson 2004) or innovation (a new approach? - see Fortson 2010).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. [Ivanov 1999][2] &quot;It can be suggested that the Indo-European particle/adverbial element *kom could be used both as an enclitic or as a proclitic.&quot; see [my other post][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there are some prepositions in Latin that don't behave quite like typical prepositions, Weiss prefers to talk about **adpositions** instead (e.g. pp. 460-461).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Weiss also adds that &quot;[p]ostposition after pronominals is common with disyllabic forms like *inter, propter, contra*, etc.&quot; (footnote 45, p. 460).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40730915&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://pies.ucla.edu/IESV/1/VVI_Gothic_syntax.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/15472/445" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8964" RevisionGUID="43101cc7-9f97-4e4c-88fb-168142629186" CreationDate="2019-01-26T17:20:53.490" UserId="39" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="(some brief notes so far)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Postpositive cum is rather unique in Latin in this regard, although there are some other postpositive uses found in Latin; they are well-known, e.g. Leumann mentions quo-ad (cf. ad-huc or ad-eo), see [Fortson 2010][1]: 136 for more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, there are two approaches - either postpositive cum is an archaic holdover (this opinion is shared by many - e.g. Clackson 2004 or s.v. com-, con-, co-; cum in de Vaan) or innovation (a new approach? - see Fortson 2010).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. [Ivanov 1999][2] &quot;It can be suggested that the Indo-European particle/adverbial element *kom could be used both as an enclitic or as a proclitic.&quot; see [my other post][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there are some prepositions in Latin that don't behave quite like typical prepositions, Weiss prefers to talk about **adpositions** instead (e.g. pp. 460-461).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Weiss also adds that &quot;[p]ostposition after pronominals is common with disyllabic forms like *inter, propter, contra*, etc.&quot; (footnote 45, p. 460).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40730915&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://pies.ucla.edu/IESV/1/VVI_Gothic_syntax.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/15472/445" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8964" RevisionGUID="d26c5205-408d-4c5f-8fee-e3b84cd73275" CreationDate="2019-01-26T17:43:28.133" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Postpositive cum is rather unique in Latin in this regard, although there are some other postpositive uses found in Latin; they are well-known, e.g. Leumann mentions quo-ad (cf. ad-huc or ad-eo), see [Fortson 2010][1]: 136 for more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, there are two approaches - either postpositive cum is an archaic holdover (communis opinio for decades - e.g. Clackson 2004 or s.v. com-, con-, co-; cum in de Vaan) or innovation (a new approach proposed in, for instance, in Fortson 2010).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. [Ivanov 1999][2] &quot;It can be suggested that the Indo-European particle/adverbial element *kom could be used both as an enclitic or as a proclitic.&quot; see [my other post][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there are some prepositions in Latin that don't behave quite like typical prepositions, Weiss prefers to talk about **adpositions** instead (e.g. pp. 460-461).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Weiss also adds that &quot;[p]ostposition after pronominals is common with disyllabic forms like *inter, propter, contra*, etc.&quot; (footnote 45, p. 460).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40730915&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://pies.ucla.edu/IESV/1/VVI_Gothic_syntax.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/15472/445" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8964" RevisionGUID="8477e4b6-754a-407a-8680-c70b4c849434" CreationDate="2019-01-26T17:55:47.980" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Postpositive cum is rather unique in Latin in this regard, although there are some other postpositive uses found in Latin; they are well-known, e.g. Leumann mentions quo-ad (cf. ad-huc or ad-eo), see [Fortson 2010b][1]: 136 for more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, there are two approaches - either postpositive cum is an archaic holdover (communis opinio for decades - e.g. Clackson 2004 or s.v. com-, con-, co-; cum in de Vaan) or innovation (a new approach proposed, for instance, in Fortson 2010b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After all, we usually don't reconstruct prepositions for PIE (see any textbook on PIE or historical linguistics, e.g. Beekes 2011: 245 or [Fortson 2010a][2]: 154, section 8.8), so it is quite common to trace IE prepositions back to PIE adverbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. [Ivanov 1999][3] &quot;It can be suggested that the Indo-European particle/adverbial element *kom could be used both as an enclitic or as a proclitic&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Fortson 2010a &quot;From the comparative evidence it is not entirely clear whether these forms were prepositions, or rather occurred after their objects as postpositions; probably both patterns were current, though many researchers assume postpositional usage to be older. [...] In the other older IE languages [i.e. not Anatolian or Vedic - Alex B.], prepositions are the rule, although some (e.g. Old Persian, Greek, and Latin) evince limited postpositional use, like [...] Latin mecum&quot; (&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see [my other post][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there are some prepositions in Latin that don't behave quite like typical prepositions, Weiss prefers to talk about **adpositions** instead (e.g. pp. 460-461).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Weiss also adds that &quot;[p]ostposition after pronominals is common with disyllabic forms like *inter, propter, contra*, etc.&quot; (footnote 45, p. 460).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40730915&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Indo+European+Language+and+Culture%3A+An+Introduction%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9781405188968&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://pies.ucla.edu/IESV/1/VVI_Gothic_syntax.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/15472/445" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8964" RevisionGUID="3fa3b747-8418-45cd-a48e-9a6008b1b8b7" CreationDate="2019-01-26T18:09:23.850" UserId="39" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="Postpositive cum is rather unique in Latin in this regard (but not for PIE - see below), although there are some other postpositive uses found in Latin; they are well-known, e.g. Leumann mentions quo-ad (cf. ad-huc or ad-eo), see [Fortson 2010b][1]: 136 for more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, there are two approaches - either postpositive cum is an archaic holdover (communis opinio for decades - e.g. Clackson 2004 or s.v. com-, con-, co-; cum in de Vaan) or innovation (a new approach proposed, for instance, in Fortson 2010b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After all, we usually don't reconstruct prepositions for PIE (see any textbook on PIE or historical linguistics, e.g. Beekes 2011: 245 or [Fortson 2010a][2]: 154, section 8.8), so it is quite common to trace IE prepositions back to PIE adverbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. [Ivanov 1999][3] &quot;It can be suggested that the Indo-European particle/adverbial element *kom could be used both as an enclitic or as a proclitic&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Fortson 2010a &quot;From the comparative evidence it is not entirely clear whether these forms were prepositions, or rather occurred after their objects as postpositions; probably both patterns were current, though many researchers assume postpositional usage to be older. [...] In the other older IE languages [i.e. not Anatolian or Vedic - Alex B.], prepositions are the rule, although some (e.g. Old Persian, Greek, and Latin) evince limited postpositional use, like [...] Latin mecum&quot; (&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see [my other post][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there are some prepositions in Latin that don't behave quite like typical prepositions, Weiss prefers to talk about **adpositions** instead (e.g. pp. 460-461).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Weiss also adds that &quot;[p]ostposition after pronominals is common with disyllabic forms like *inter, propter, contra*, etc.&quot; (footnote 45, p. 460).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40730915&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Indo+European+Language+and+Culture%3A+An+Introduction%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9781405188968&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://pies.ucla.edu/IESV/1/VVI_Gothic_syntax.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/15472/445" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8964" RevisionGUID="13574f70-0df6-43b7-9253-2a138b792697" CreationDate="2019-01-26T18:39:01.373" UserId="39" Comment="added 502 characters in body" Text="Postpositive cum is rather unique in Latin in this regard (but not for PIE - see below), although there are some other postpositive uses found in Latin; they are well-known, e.g. Leumann mentions quo-ad (cf. ad-huc or ad-eo), see [Fortson 2010b][1]: 136 for more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, there are two approaches - either postpositive cum is an archaic holdover (communis opinio for decades - e.g. Clackson 2004 or s.v. com-, con-, co-; cum in de Vaan) or innovation (a new approach proposed, for instance, in Fortson 2010b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After all, we usually don't reconstruct prepositions for PIE (see any textbook on PIE or historical linguistics, e.g. Beekes 2011: 245 or [Fortson 2010a][2]: 154, section 8.8), so it is quite common to trace IE prepositions back to PIE adverbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. [Ivanov 1999][3] &quot;It can be suggested that the Indo-European particle/adverbial element *kom could be used both as an enclitic or as a proclitic&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson 2010a &quot;From the comparative evidence it is not entirely clear whether these forms were prepositions, or rather occurred after their objects as postpositions; probably both patterns were current, though many researchers assume postpositional usage to be older. [...] In the other older IE languages [i.e. not Anatolian or Vedic - Alex B.], prepositions are the rule, although some (e.g. Old Persian, Greek, and Latin) evince limited postpositional use, like [...] Latin mecum.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Baldi 2017][4] explains this very clearly. When such particles (adpositions) combine with nomimals in PIE, they follow the noun they modify, whereas when they combine with verbs, they precede the modifying verb (p. 814). He also argues that data from other Italic languages (e.g. Umbrian), combined with Latin and Oscan data, &quot;provide significant evidence for postpositional Proto-Italic&quot; (p. 814).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see [my other post][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there are some prepositions in Latin that don't behave quite like typical prepositions, Weiss prefers to talk about **adpositions** instead (e.g. pp. 460-461).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Weiss also adds that &quot;[p]ostposition after pronominals is common with disyllabic forms like *inter, propter, contra*, etc.&quot; (footnote 45, p. 460).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40730915&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Indo+European+Language+and+Culture%3A+An+Introduction%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9781405188968&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://pies.ucla.edu/IESV/1/VVI_Gothic_syntax.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110523874/9783110523874-004/9783110523874-004.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/15472/445" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8965" RevisionGUID="cae3350e-6013-4b09-b7b9-2be6565ff84e" CreationDate="2019-01-26T20:32:48.193" UserId="61" Text="According to what I understand _num_ is used when the asker of the question is already aware that the answer will be no. Does this have any other uses besides rhetorical questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27726" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8965" RevisionGUID="cae3350e-6013-4b09-b7b9-2be6565ff84e" CreationDate="2019-01-26T20:32:48.193" UserId="61" Text="Why and when would _num_ be used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27727" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8965" RevisionGUID="cae3350e-6013-4b09-b7b9-2be6565ff84e" CreationDate="2019-01-26T20:32:48.193" UserId="61" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8966" RevisionGUID="cb01d9d5-05de-4871-b4ea-32a7ab48ea00" CreationDate="2019-01-26T20:40:09.367" UserId="406" Text="*Num* can also be used in questions that *expect* the answer &quot;no&quot;, even if they're not rhetorical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Num pater eius es?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Surely you're not his father?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You're not his father, are you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could certainly reply &quot;yes, actually, I am&quot; to this question (*immo* in Latin); it's just not the answer the questioner expects." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8967" RevisionGUID="b9803f7f-18f7-4c6f-b10a-0bc911581183" CreationDate="2019-01-26T21:10:26.883" UserId="985" Text="When a yes/no question is embedded in a sentence as an indirect question, *num* loses its negative meaning and is just one of the interrogative words that means 'whether' ('if').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *rogavi num Ciceronem vidisset.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I asked whether/if he had seen Cicero." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8967" RevisionGUID="aa3b2698-6086-429e-8603-6fc51baeb645" CreationDate="2019-01-26T21:51:57.260" UserId="985" Comment="Expanded answer" Text="For **direct questions**, *num* is one of the the explicit ways, together with *nonne* and *-ne*, of signalling a yes/no question. Whereas *-ne* is neutral and simply asks for either confirmation or denial of some detail (that is, the respondent can reply either 'Yes' or 'No'), *nonne* and *num* are used to ask leading questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When *nonne* is used, the person who's asking the question expects to receive the answer 'Yes' or 'Yes, of course'; and, as you've noted, when *num* is used, the answer 'No' or 'No, of course not' is expected. Questions with *nonne* are sometimes translated by saying something like 'You *did* see Cicero, didn't you?' (*nonne Ciceronem vidisti?*), questions with *num* by saying something like 'Surely, you didn't see Cicero, did you?' (*num Ciceronem vidisti?*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For **indirect questions**, *num* loses its negative leading force. Both it and *-ne* just mean 'whether' ('if') (*nonne* retains its positive leading force though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *rogavi num Ciceronem vidisset* = *rogavi Ciceronemne vidisset.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I asked whether he had seen Cicero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although Allen &amp; Greenough, *New Latin grammar* says (§332, b, Note) that *num* in indirect question '*commonly* loses its peculiar force' (emphasis added), I don't remember ever seeing instances where such a *num* had to be construed with negative leading force." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8964" RevisionGUID="604f66a3-66a0-4db2-966d-39c8bbeb1295" CreationDate="2019-01-27T03:17:48.087" UserId="39" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="Postpositive cum is rather unique in Latin in this regard (but not for PIE - see below), although there are some other postpositive uses found in Latin; they are well-known, e.g. Leumann mentions quo-ad (cf. ad-huc or ad-eo), see [Fortson 2010b][1]: 136 for more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, there are two approaches - either postpositive cum is an archaic holdover (communis opinio for decades - e.g. Clackson 2004 or s.v. com-, con-, co-; cum in [de Vaan][2]) or innovation (a new approach proposed, for instance, in Fortson 2010b).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After all, we usually don't reconstruct prepositions for PIE (see any textbook on PIE or historical linguistics, e.g. Beekes 2011: 245 or [Fortson 2010a][3]: 154, section 8.8), so it is quite common to trace IE prepositions back to PIE adverbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. [Ivanov 1999][4] &quot;It can be suggested that the Indo-European particle/adverbial element *kom could be used both as an enclitic or as a proclitic&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson 2010a &quot;From the comparative evidence it is not entirely clear whether these forms were prepositions, or rather occurred after their objects as postpositions; probably both patterns were current, though many researchers assume postpositional usage to be older. [...] In the other older IE languages [i.e. not Anatolian or Vedic - Alex B.], prepositions are the rule, although some (e.g. Old Persian, Greek, and Latin) evince limited postpositional use, like [...] Latin mecum.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Baldi 2017][5] explains this very clearly. When such particles (adpositions) combine with nomimals in PIE, they follow the noun they modify, whereas when they combine with verbs, they precede the modifying verb (p. 814). He also argues that data from other Italic languages (e.g. Umbrian), combined with Latin and Oscan data, &quot;provide significant evidence for postpositional Proto-Italic&quot; (p. 814).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see [my other post][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there are some prepositions in Latin that don't behave quite like typical prepositions, Weiss prefers to talk about **adpositions** instead (e.g. pp. 460-461).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: Weiss also adds that &quot;[p]ostposition after pronominals is common with disyllabic forms like *inter, propter, contra*, etc.&quot; (footnote 45, p. 460).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40730915&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://dictionaries.brillonline.com/latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Indo+European+Language+and+Culture%3A+An+Introduction%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9781405188968&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://pies.ucla.edu/IESV/1/VVI_Gothic_syntax.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110523874/9783110523874-004/9783110523874-004.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/15472/445" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8968" RevisionGUID="dfedc605-7c49-44c3-a17d-12b349992e0e" CreationDate="2019-01-27T06:11:28.087" UserId="3330" Text="This may not be for everyone, but I personally read one *articulus* of the [*Summa Theologica*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Theologica) by [Thomas Aquinas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas) every day. It can be found [online at corpusthomisticum.org](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/iopera.html), and there is [an English translation at CCEL](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.i.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each *articulus* is nicely bite-sized, just the right thing over a cup of coffee. The structure is extremely regular and repetitive, which helps in concentrating on the language. The vocabulary does contain some technical philosophical terms, but not too many of those, and you soon pick them up. (I'd still recommend an introduction to scholastic philosophy, e.g., Edward Feser's books, like [this one](https://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Guides/dp/1851686908/) or [that one](https://www.amazon.com/Scholastic-Metaphysics-A-Contemporary-Introduction/dp/3868385444/).) Of course, this is not classical Latin, but medieval, which has a charm of its own. [And you learn interesting things.](https://history.stackexchange.com/a/46164/1445)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27734" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8965" RevisionGUID="427e8a23-bac2-4d9b-ac61-6305be9a5b71" CreationDate="2019-01-27T14:37:56.663" UserDisplayName="user1836" Comment="removed markdown from title (where it's not applied)" Text="Why and when would &quot;num&quot; be used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27735" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8965" RevisionGUID="427e8a23-bac2-4d9b-ac61-6305be9a5b71" CreationDate="2019-01-27T14:37:56.663" Comment="Proposed by 1836 approved by 79 edit id of 296" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27736" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8863" RevisionGUID="ae9820ac-e77c-416f-a099-58aa21f2c98a" CreationDate="2019-01-27T14:38:03.603" UserId="1320" Comment="added new tag" Text="|idiom|roman-culture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27737" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8863" RevisionGUID="ae9820ac-e77c-416f-a099-58aa21f2c98a" CreationDate="2019-01-27T14:38:03.603" Comment="Proposed by 1320 approved by 79 edit id of 295" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8969" RevisionGUID="333ea7cc-efcd-49fa-b2a9-d7f0ac3315df" CreationDate="2019-01-27T14:53:16.457" UserId="2363" Text="The best resource list I know of is [this one][1] from Justin Slocum Bailey of [Indwelling Language][2]. Check especially the section titled &quot;Fairly simple Latin reading material.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1voCJtIGDouGt80TxpNlmaRChfIX5OmUf-2jMWmImNMg/edit&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://indwellinglanguage.com/about/justin-slocum-bailey/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8969" RevisionGUID="5bd29999-94eb-461b-86f2-de8916a445ea" CreationDate="2019-01-27T15:14:03.490" UserId="2363" Comment="formatting" Text="The best resource list I know of is [this one][1] from Justin Slocum Bailey of [Indwelling Language][2]. Check especially the section titled &quot;Fairly simple Latin reading material.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I've selectively reproduced part of the list and added a few of my own recommendations. These resources are modern Latin readers designed to help students practice reading. They are not classic literary texts, though they often contain simplified versions. Most of these texts are easily found on Google Books, Archive.org, or a similar service simply by searching for the title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Chickering, *First Latin Reader*&#xD;&#xA; - Miraglia, *Fabulae Syrae*&#xD;&#xA; - Nutting, *Ad Alpes*&#xD;&#xA; - Perry, *Fabulae Romanae*&#xD;&#xA; - Ritchie, *Fabulae Faciles*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also recommend the [Legamus Transitional Reader][3] series. These contain excerpts from classic Latin authors alongside extensive guidance. They simulate fairly well the experience of being in an intermediate level Latin course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1voCJtIGDouGt80TxpNlmaRChfIX5OmUf-2jMWmImNMg/edit&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://indwellinglanguage.com/about/justin-slocum-bailey/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.bolchazy.com/Vergil-A-LEGAMUS-Transitional-Reader-P3168.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8971" RevisionGUID="e957a10f-c0b2-4f7b-a361-5e16b19b3f7e" CreationDate="2019-01-27T22:48:58.673" UserId="3331" Text="I hope that my question won't seem to flippant or strange... I'm not any sort of Latin scholar or student, but I am trying to coin a term *based on* Latin. I've been trying through several routes to come up with a term with some linguistic basis to mean &quot;that which should/must be awaited&quot;. Noodling around with grammar and so on led me to the Latin gerundive, and while that leaves something that, in Latin, is a grammatical adjective, as I plan to use it in English that isn't really important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My problem, as one often faces when trying to use references to translate into a non-native language, is figuring which of the words that can be translated back into English as the word you want is most appropriate. Normally, my approach at this point is to find a native speaker and ask them, but that's not really an option for Latin. So, instead, I look to the internet to find people who are the nearest I can get without bothering a university lecturer (professor) or a Catholic priest... though I wouldn't be surprised if some people on this StackExchange were either of those things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I've come up with three verbs that all seem to relate to what I want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Exspecto, which as far as I can tell seems to carry the strongest implication of expectation - but all of the verbs have some of that.&#xD;&#xA; - Oppperior, which doesn't seem to have much more to say about it.&#xD;&#xA; - Maneo, which seems to carry an implication of remaining in one place while waiting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there anything anyone can add to help me figure out which one would be most appropriate? Without getting too specific (because that would require reams of explanation), the situation in question is where people are waiting, with a sense of expectation but no expectation as to when something will happen, with great patience, for something that they are looking forward to largely positively but perhaps with some sense of apprehension." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27742" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8971" RevisionGUID="e957a10f-c0b2-4f7b-a361-5e16b19b3f7e" CreationDate="2019-01-27T22:48:58.673" UserId="3331" Text="Choosing a &quot;wait&quot; - exspecto, opperior or maneo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27743" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8971" RevisionGUID="e957a10f-c0b2-4f7b-a361-5e16b19b3f7e" CreationDate="2019-01-27T22:48:58.673" UserId="3331" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27746" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8971" RevisionGUID="87019c52-ab56-40c7-bcbc-e04eaf4d0373" CreationDate="2019-01-28T11:49:06.130" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8972" RevisionGUID="ddabe7cb-52f9-437f-af20-d552fd2c47ce" CreationDate="2019-01-28T12:17:06.103" UserId="645" Text="The verb to use here is *exspectare*. *Opperior* means to wait for, loiter about, etc. and implies a lesser level of anticipation. *Maneo*, as you say, has more the sense of remaining, without implying a need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Book V of the Aeneid has a famous description of a boat race, part of the funeral games held after the death of Aeneas's father, Anchises. As you might imagine, the race was much anticipated and eagerly fought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The scene is set at line 104, which begins *Exspectata dies aderat*, 'the long-awaited day was at hand'. The phrase seems to me to encapsulate precisely what you need. I would suggest *exspectandum est*. You can modify the phrase in gender and number to match whatever is being anticipated, e,g. to the plural *exspectanda sunt*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8973" RevisionGUID="c48929ff-07c7-4ade-aeac-acc5c5f04778" CreationDate="2019-01-28T12:21:17.677" UserId="469" Text="I'd say opperior and maneo are only obliquely related to waiting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **exspecto**, I'd add **[spero][1]**, *to hope, to look for, expect*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the verbal form, I think you are right about the gerundive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, in Latin you have to worry about gender&amp;mdash;a gerundive may be feminine, masculine or neuter, depending on *what* is to be awaited&amp;mdash;and number&amp;mdash;whether there is one thing to be awaited, or many. Additionally, if you want to use it in a sentence (or make it sound as extracted from a sentence), you may want to add a *case* (an ending to mean a specific grammatical function, like *object* or different kinds of complements).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If you want to talk about *things* in general that have to be awaited, a neuter plural is a good option: **expectanda**, **speranda**.&#xD;&#xA;* If it is a man, a masculine singular **expectandus**, **sperandus**. If it is a woman, a feminine singular **expectanda**, **speranda** (just as the n. pl.)&#xD;&#xA;* If it is several people that may include both men and woman, a masculine plural: **expectandi**, **sperandi**.&#xD;&#xA;* All of the above could be modified to add meaning by giving them a more specific grammatical function. For example, you could use **expectandis**, suggesting the term was extracted from a sentence with a verb that is now missing, like **mementote expectandis** (remember [you all] about those who have to be awaited).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example that quickly comes to mind is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Est autem fides **sperandorum** substantia, rerum argumentum non apparentium ([Heb 11:1][2]),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;here, **sperandorum** is a genitive neuter plural: *of the things that have to be expected*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope it helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dspero&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.romanliturgy.org/?p=3588#hebr_11_1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8974" RevisionGUID="4412f4b3-a5b0-4b10-a85c-9f9375c1643a" CreationDate="2019-01-28T13:07:16.623" UserId="3338" Text="Sorry if this question seems silly, I do not know Latin...&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if someone can help me with the proper translation for:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I came,&#xD;&#xA;I attended,&#xD;&#xA;I left&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the help of google translate i got something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Veni,&#xD;&#xA;Attendi sum,&#xD;&#xA;ego abierunt&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, is that correct?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27750" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8974" RevisionGUID="4412f4b3-a5b0-4b10-a85c-9f9375c1643a" CreationDate="2019-01-28T13:07:16.623" UserId="3338" Text="Is this &quot;Veni vidi vici&quot; spin-off translation correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27751" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8974" RevisionGUID="4412f4b3-a5b0-4b10-a85c-9f9375c1643a" CreationDate="2019-01-28T13:07:16.623" UserId="3338" Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8975" RevisionGUID="cb4d49e8-d8ac-4384-862d-f0dc0da6e57a" CreationDate="2019-01-28T13:15:01.747" UserId="645" Text="No, it isn't correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Veni, adfui, abii* — literally I came, I was there, I went away." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8976" RevisionGUID="d712605e-75c8-4314-9289-f7e02103efcc" CreationDate="2019-01-28T15:15:28.230" UserId="3341" Text="For reference, here's what you _did_ write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Veni&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Attendi sum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Attendi](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/attendi) is either the first person perfectum *I have attended* or a second person present or imperative, *you attended* or *do attend!*. Sum is just 'I am'. Since you can't have two finite verbs in a sentence, I would think there's some ellipsis involved like &quot;I have attended [for] I am&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ego abierunt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin verbs don't need an explicit subject: *veni* means *I am*. In case &quot;ego&quot; is included as a subject (and it is, because ego is the first person nominative), it means to convey emphasis. However, [abierunt](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abierunt) means &quot;They have left', so the subject and verb don't match. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, it sounds like a small child who is upset that everybody left when they came, and is having trouble talking while crying at such indignity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I came, I have attended... I am... (sniffle) They left _I_!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8976" RevisionGUID="de18715b-d055-41ab-a8ce-2faceed57a76" CreationDate="2019-01-28T16:12:42.463" UserId="3341" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="For reference, here's what you _did_ write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Veni&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Attendi sum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Attendi](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/attendi) is either the first person perfectum *I have attended* or a second person present or imperative, *you attended* or *do attend!*. Sum is just 'I am'. Since you can't have two finite verbs in a sentence, I would think there's some ellipsis involved like &quot;I have attended [for] I am&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ego abierunt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin verbs don't need an explicit subject: *veni* means *I came*, not just *came*. In case &quot;ego&quot; is included as a subject (and it is, because ego is the first person nominative), it means to convey emphasis. However, [abierunt](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abierunt) means &quot;They have left', so the subject and verb don't match. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, it sounds like a small child who is upset that everybody left when they came, and is having trouble talking while crying at such indignity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I came, I have attended... I am... (sniffle) They left _I_!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8977" RevisionGUID="435e51a4-1ce9-4512-8fb9-3309993f892f" CreationDate="2019-01-28T19:25:58.947" UserId="3343" Text="there!&#xD;&#xA;I am new to this site; came here to have a question answered about using Adobe Illustrator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tom Cotton's *Veni, adfui, abii* is pretty good. In this case, one might also use the pluperfect forms of *venio* and *adsum*, as: *Veneram, adfueram, et abii*, though if you are looking for some kind of motto or something similar, that does take a little bit of the &quot;ring&quot; out of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, Google Translate is terrible for Latin; it cannot render correct parts of speech or forms for agreement. Those who study Latin know to never depend upon it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheers,&#xD;&#xA;Zwing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8978" RevisionGUID="d16bee46-1261-4b19-90f6-3aeb72b79d5e" CreationDate="2019-01-28T19:44:16.397" UserId="406" Text="One rule of Latin stress is that it can never go farther back than the *antepenult*: the third syllable from the end. For example, we have *cár-men* &quot;song&quot;, *cár-mi-ne* &quot;with a song&quot;, and *car-mí-ni-bus* &quot;with songs&quot;, but never *_cár-mi-ni-bus_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When an enclitic is added to a word, does it count against this three-syllable limit? For example, &quot;with a song&quot; is *cár-mi-ne*; if I want to say &quot;…or with a song&quot;, would that be *cár-mi-ne=ve*, or *car-mí-ne=ve*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Ideally I'd like an answer about Classical Latin, but unfortunately stress wasn't marked in Classical times. It should be possible to answer about later Latin, though, because later texts sometimes used an acute accent to mark stress.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27759" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8978" RevisionGUID="d16bee46-1261-4b19-90f6-3aeb72b79d5e" CreationDate="2019-01-28T19:44:16.397" UserId="406" Text="Were enclitics considered part of a word for stress purposes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27760" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8978" RevisionGUID="d16bee46-1261-4b19-90f6-3aeb72b79d5e" CreationDate="2019-01-28T19:44:16.397" UserId="406" Text="|pronunciation|phonology|stress|enclitic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8978" RevisionGUID="a3e2399e-1d3e-4246-882d-c72080794c98" CreationDate="2019-01-28T20:51:32.360" UserId="406" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="One rule of Latin stress is that it can never go farther back than the *antepenult*: the third syllable from the end. For example, we have *cár-men* &quot;song&quot;, *cár-mi-ne* &quot;with a song&quot;, and *car-mí-ni-bus* &quot;with songs&quot;, but never *_cár-mi-ni-bus_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When an enclitic is added to a word, does it count against this three-syllable limit? For example, &quot;with a song&quot; is *cár-mi-ne*; if I want to say &quot;…or with a song&quot;, would that be *cár-mi-ne=ve*, or *car-mí-ne=ve*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Or perhaps *car-mi-né=ve*, a third option proposed by Joonas Ilmavirta in the comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Ideally I'd like an answer about Classical Latin, but unfortunately stress wasn't marked in Classical times. It should be possible to answer about later Latin, though, because later texts sometimes used an acute accent to mark stress.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8979" RevisionGUID="4e629941-da54-4469-8a6a-7d6dd8d40a35" CreationDate="2019-01-28T22:45:30.203" UserId="406" Text="Just to add to the other answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I agree that *exspecto* is the right verb to use here.&#xD;&#xA; - To say &quot;a thing that must be X&quot;, you use the *gerundive* form, which typically has a *-nd-* before its ending.&#xD;&#xA; - If this is a single thing that should be expected, it's an *exspectandum*. Multiple things that should be expected are *exspectanda*.&#xD;&#xA;  - For some English comparisons, see *memorandum* &quot;something that should be remembered&quot; (hence the short form &quot;memo&quot;), *pudendum* &quot;something that you should be ashamed of&quot; (an archaic word for genitals), *addendum* &quot;something that should be added&quot;, *agenda* &quot;things that have to be done&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - An English-speaker will probably reduce this from *exspectandum* to *expectandum*, dropping the *s*. This is fine; the Romans often did this too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8977" RevisionGUID="d5e4341e-a51f-4825-aac7-0257ecce24d1" CreationDate="2019-01-29T10:32:07.353" UserId="2739" Comment="removed signature" Text="there!&#xD;&#xA;I am new to this site; came here to have a question answered about using Adobe Illustrator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tom Cotton's *Veni, adfui, abii* is pretty good. In this case, one might also use the pluperfect forms of *venio* and *adsum*, as: *Veneram, adfueram, et abii*, though if you are looking for some kind of motto or something similar, that does take a little bit of the &quot;ring&quot; out of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, Google Translate is terrible for Latin; it cannot render correct parts of speech or forms for agreement. Those who study Latin know to never depend upon it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27765" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8977" RevisionGUID="d5e4341e-a51f-4825-aac7-0257ecce24d1" CreationDate="2019-01-29T10:32:07.353" Comment="Proposed by 2739 approved by 79 edit id of 297" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8977" RevisionGUID="26a61bb0-ca5f-49a9-8bf7-57cedfbcdadb" CreationDate="2019-01-29T10:34:03.707" UserId="79" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="I am new to this site; came here to have a question answered about using Adobe Illustrator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tom Cotton's *Veni, adfui, abii* is pretty good. In this case, one might also use the pluperfect forms of *venio* and *adsum*, as: *Veneram, adfueram, et abii*, though if you are looking for some kind of motto or something similar, that does take a little bit of the &quot;ring&quot; out of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, [Google Translate is terrible for Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79); it cannot render correct parts of speech or forms for agreement. Those who study Latin know to never depend upon it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8980" RevisionGUID="c971b198-31f0-4a31-a514-26bc94e96a6c" CreationDate="2019-01-29T11:35:15.927" UserId="324" Text="There is a very famous quotation from one of the Roman authors to the effect that the best death is the one for which you can choose the time, and the second best is the one that comes unexpected. For some reason I am not able to find the source. Surely one of our expert Latinists can help me out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27768" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8980" RevisionGUID="c971b198-31f0-4a31-a514-26bc94e96a6c" CreationDate="2019-01-29T11:35:15.927" UserId="324" Text="Roman adage: The best death" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27769" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8980" RevisionGUID="c971b198-31f0-4a31-a514-26bc94e96a6c" CreationDate="2019-01-29T11:35:15.927" UserId="324" Text="|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27770" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8980" RevisionGUID="afc2e5b1-294a-468f-8c1b-37c48eecbf04" CreationDate="2019-01-29T12:34:47.113" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|resource-request|passage-request|passage-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="f8eb7b6b-1fef-4c02-85ed-30adcb2e9506" CreationDate="2019-01-29T20:54:18.567" UserId="9" Text="As you mentioned, it is very difficult to say anything clear about stress in Classical Latin, because there is little evidence, either direct or indirect, of the position of the stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Joonas Ilmavirta and Alex B. pointed out in the comments, there was supposedly a special rule in Latin about stressing the immediately preceding syllable, regardless of whether it is heavy or light, in words suffixed with a monosyllabic enclitic. The way that this rule violates the main heavy/light rule is often illustrated with the example Musaque [muːˈsa.kwe]. The &quot;qu&quot; here is not expected to make the preceding syllable heavy: &quot;qu&quot; is typically analyzed either as a singleton consonant with a secondary articulation of labialization (/kʷ/) or as a complex onset composed of a singleton /k/ followed by a glide /w~u̯/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I've only seen examples with *-que* in discussions of this alleged rule, I just saw upon reviewing [Mester 1994](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.461.8123&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf) that he uses the wording &quot;enclitics **like the** monosyllabic conjunction *-que*&quot; (p. 48); if this is accurate, it implies that this rule also applied to at least some other monosyllabic enclitics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question about whether we see an acute used on the syllable before *-ne* or *-ve* in postclassical texts is a good one. There is literature that says that the acute accent was used this way; &quot;Accent Notation in the Classical Languages and its Influence on Lithuanian Accent Notation&quot; by Mindaugas Strockis, cites Steenbakkers (1994) (see section 3.2.1 of Strockis). I don't know which specific documents show this feature, or how common it is (Strockis says that *-ne* and *-ve* were less frequent than *-que*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="10d8be5f-b15c-42c6-ba4e-05d8b84ac963" CreationDate="2019-01-29T21:04:52.653" UserId="9" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="As you mentioned, it is very difficult to say anything clear about stress in Classical Latin, because there is little evidence, either direct or indirect, of the position of the stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Joonas Ilmavirta and Alex B. pointed out in the comments, there was supposedly a special rule in Latin about stressing the immediately preceding syllable, regardless of whether it is heavy or light, in words suffixed with a monosyllabic enclitic. The way that this rule violates the main heavy/light rule is often illustrated with the example Musaque [muːˈsa.kwe]. The &quot;qu&quot; here is not expected to make the preceding syllable heavy: &quot;qu&quot; is typically analyzed either as a singleton consonant with a secondary articulation of labialization (/kʷ/) or as a complex onset composed of a singleton /k/ followed by a glide /w~u̯/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I've only seen examples with *-que* in discussions of this alleged rule, I just saw upon reviewing [Mester 1994](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.461.8123&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf) that he uses the wording &quot;enclitics **like the** monosyllabic conjunction *-que*&quot; (p. 48); if this is accurate, it implies that this rule also applied to at least some other monosyllabic enclitics. This is also how the rule is given in [C. M. Weimer's answer to the question *Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/601/9).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question about whether we see an acute used on the syllable before *-ne* or *-ve* in postclassical texts is a good one. There is literature that says that the acute accent was used this way; &quot;Accent Notation in the Classical Languages and its Influence on Lithuanian Accent Notation&quot; by Mindaugas Strockis, cites Steenbakkers (1994) (see section 3.2.1 of Strockis). I don't know which specific documents show this feature, or how common it is (Strockis says that *-ne* and *-ve* were less frequent than *-que*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8982" RevisionGUID="4bda55ee-be0d-4ad3-a276-3bff34e99452" CreationDate="2019-01-29T22:29:50.660" UserId="522" Text=" ***cor, cordis*** *neuter substantive* **heart** is also a well-attested basis for several metaphors in Latin. In Latin, however, the heart, and the ***praecordia, -ae,*** the midriff, is the seat of social harmony and memory as well as love and affection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SUFFER HEARTBREAK  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***cordoleo, -ere*** be heartbroken.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***misericordia, -ae*** f. **I** sympathy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **II** appeals to pity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SEAT OF SOCIAL EMOTION: added prefix  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *concordo*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *concors, concordis* adjective of the same mind.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *discors* discord  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *discordia*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[missing in Classical Latin: *accors, succor* ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;THE MIND centre of mental activity  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *excors -dis* adj senseless, without intelligence.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *recordatio, -tionis*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *recordor, -ari* to bring back to mind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8983" RevisionGUID="d1ed8aef-970a-4eee-bab5-d11ba5761c3c" CreationDate="2019-01-30T01:00:53.677" UserId="406" Text="The word for &quot;rich&quot; in most Romance languages looks something like, well, &quot;rich&quot;. It declines like a first/second declension adjective, and seems to go back to Germanic *_rīkijaz_ (possibly through Gothic *reiks*, cognate with Latin *rex* &quot;king&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Classical Latin, I'd normally use an adjective like *dīs* to mean &quot;rich&quot;. But I'm curious if something like *_rīcus_ is ever attested (even in graffiti or other Vulgar sources).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of plenty of attestations of Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, and so on, but I'm looking specifically for Latin usage—as a rule of thumb, I'd like it to be closer to *_rīcus_ than _rico_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27775" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8983" RevisionGUID="d1ed8aef-970a-4eee-bab5-d11ba5761c3c" CreationDate="2019-01-30T01:00:53.677" UserId="406" Text="Is *rīcus attested?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27776" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8983" RevisionGUID="d1ed8aef-970a-4eee-bab5-d11ba5761c3c" CreationDate="2019-01-30T01:00:53.677" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|example-request|vulgar-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27777" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8983" RevisionGUID="0c383333-1a64-4979-a6f6-b097bc9e7f78" CreationDate="2019-01-30T01:46:25.787" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|example-request|vulgar-latin|romance-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8984" RevisionGUID="778dc2fd-63f5-4257-8122-3a7eaafee7b2" CreationDate="2019-01-30T03:32:04.857" UserId="3349" Text="This is not a straight translation question. I am asking this because the above phrase, from 'Concede parum, nega frequenter, distingue semper' seems to be rendered by some unofficial sources (see [here][1] - the man who owns that blog is a priest and has a doctorate in Medieval philosophy, for what it's worth) as 'Seldom affirm, rarely deny, always distinguish', although it seems it would be better rendered 'Seldom affirm, frequently deny, always distinguish', which is quite a different expression. The only reason I'm not jumping to conclusions, is my Latin is rather rusty, and I wonder if I'm forgetting some idiom. A web search seems to pull up only that source, some forums, and the latin expression quoted in older scholarly writings (in Google books) without translation. &#xD;&#xA;Any help is appreciated! Thank you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blackbiretta.blogspot.com/2014/10/synod-cynicism-not-necessary.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27779" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8984" RevisionGUID="778dc2fd-63f5-4257-8122-3a7eaafee7b2" CreationDate="2019-01-30T03:32:04.857" UserId="3349" Text="How do you translate 'nega frequenter'? Is it 'deny frequently' or 'rarely deny'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27780" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8984" RevisionGUID="778dc2fd-63f5-4257-8122-3a7eaafee7b2" CreationDate="2019-01-30T03:32:04.857" UserId="3349" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8977" RevisionGUID="0af5aa99-a0b1-48ef-98cf-87ef1cd990ce" CreationDate="2019-01-30T06:57:23.117" UserId="1733" Comment="removed information unrelated to the question" Text="Tom Cotton's *Veni, adfui, abii* is pretty good. In this case, one might also use the pluperfect forms of *venio* and *adsum*, as: *Veneram, adfueram, et abii*, though if you are looking for some kind of motto or something similar, that does take a little bit of the &quot;ring&quot; out of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, [Google Translate is terrible for Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79); it cannot render correct parts of speech or forms for agreement. Those who study Latin know to never depend upon it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27782" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8977" RevisionGUID="0af5aa99-a0b1-48ef-98cf-87ef1cd990ce" CreationDate="2019-01-30T06:57:23.117" Comment="Proposed by 1733 approved by 79 edit id of 298" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8984" RevisionGUID="b7ec1178-c5a3-415b-88f3-841b24f2c5a1" CreationDate="2019-01-30T06:58:57.490" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="This is not a straight translation question. I am asking this because the above phrase, from 'Concede parum, nega frequenter, distingue semper' seems to be rendered by some unofficial sources (see [here][1] - the man who owns that blog is a priest and has a doctorate in Medieval philosophy, for what it's worth) as 'Seldom affirm, rarely deny, always distinguish', although it seems it would be better rendered 'Seldom affirm, frequently deny, always distinguish', which is quite a different expression. The only reason I'm not jumping to conclusions, is my Latin is rather rusty, and I wonder if I'm forgetting some idiom. A web search seems to pull up only that source, some forums, and the Latin expression quoted in older scholarly writings (in Google books) without translation. &#xD;&#xA;Any help is appreciated! Thank you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blackbiretta.blogspot.com/2014/10/synod-cynicism-not-necessary.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27784" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8984" RevisionGUID="b7ec1178-c5a3-415b-88f3-841b24f2c5a1" CreationDate="2019-01-30T06:58:57.490" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|translation-check|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8985" RevisionGUID="564e941e-e357-4e04-bfb9-643de246a087" CreationDate="2019-01-30T07:45:04.637" UserId="79" Text="You are right, *nega frequenter* does mean &quot;deny frequently&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I would guess that there was a confusion between *frequenter* (frequently) and *infrequenter* (infrequently)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8986" RevisionGUID="c997a562-b550-4ce0-9ecf-f7a6c0fb460f" CreationDate="2019-01-30T09:44:00.827" UserId="3350" Text="After a long time looking for latin names for the name of my startup, I came up with &quot;Scius&quot;, which from what I was reading means cognizant. This will be a company in the area of data science. So I'd like to make sure with you guys whether this would be an appropriate name. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27787" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8986" RevisionGUID="c997a562-b550-4ce0-9ecf-f7a6c0fb460f" CreationDate="2019-01-30T09:44:00.827" UserId="3350" Text="Scius as the name for a company" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27788" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8986" RevisionGUID="c997a562-b550-4ce0-9ecf-f7a6c0fb460f" CreationDate="2019-01-30T09:44:00.827" UserId="3350" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8986" RevisionGUID="87ba3c47-6249-4fe3-8c00-8d732b0ed2bb" CreationDate="2019-01-30T09:51:24.650" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="After a long time looking for Latin names for the name of my startup, I came up with &quot;Scius&quot;, which from what I was reading means cognizant. This will be a company in the area of data science. So I'd like to make sure with you guys whether this would be an appropriate name. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8987" RevisionGUID="94221a80-9f0e-4158-96a1-4646d938a183" CreationDate="2019-01-30T10:01:47.230" UserId="79" Text="The adjective *scius* means &quot;knowing&quot;, &quot;have knowledge&quot;, &quot;someone who knows&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It comes from the verb *scire*, &quot;to know&quot;, and is not semantically far from the present participle *sciens*.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to convey that your company has knowledge, using this adjective is a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you should pay some attention picking the form.&#xD;&#xA;Is it masculine, feminine, or neuter?&#xD;&#xA;Singular or plural?&#xD;&#xA;Latin has also case inflection, but I would stick with nominative.&#xD;&#xA;If you want your company to be a masculine entity &amp;mdash; which is particularly relevant if you want the name to refer to you in person &amp;mdash; then the singular masculine *scius* is the way to go.&#xD;&#xA;If you want it to be a general thing rather reference to a person, I would suggest the singular neuter *scium*.&#xD;&#xA;If you want there to be an implicit noun like &quot;[a] knowledgeable [machine]&quot;, then the gender and number depend on the noun.&#xD;&#xA;For this particular example it would be *machina scia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there are also non-Latin aspects worth considering.&#xD;&#xA;Does the name sound good?&#xD;&#xA;Is it easy to pronounce and distinguish?&#xD;&#xA;What other words in other relevant languages does it look or sound like?&#xD;&#xA;The weight of these questions is for you to consider.&#xD;&#xA;*Scius* is certainly reasonable, but I urge you to consider the other forms seriously." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8989" RevisionGUID="863e502c-e7e0-424b-9b9d-a7467e3f067a" CreationDate="2019-01-30T13:26:54.950" UserId="79" Text="I am not aware of a phrase corresponding to the English one(s) in frequency and tone, but here are some ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There is an ante- and post-classical word [*cordolium*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=cordolium&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), &quot;sorrow of heart&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ovid's *Remedia Amoris* is a poem about broken hearts, so I recommend reading it for inspiration in this direction.&#xD;&#xA;On a quick glance, I found these lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 15: *At si quis male fert indignae regna puellae*  &#xD;&#xA;Any man who suffers from the rule of an unworthy girl&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 42: *quos suus ex omni parte fefellit amor*  &#xD;&#xA;you who have been completely betrayed by love&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 54: *nec servum vitii pectus habere sui*  &#xD;&#xA;and not to let the heart be a slave to one's own vice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 105: *Interea tacitae serpunt in viscera flammae*  &#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile silent flames creep inside&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 148: *Adfluit incautis insidiosus Amor*  &#xD;&#xA;Love flows into the unexpecting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8990" RevisionGUID="7e118b84-027f-406d-89dc-52a223b6ab00" CreationDate="2019-01-30T13:40:07.743" UserId="79" Text="I have failed to find a way to say &quot;based on&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;For a concrete example, I want to be able to write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The movie is based on the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you go about phrasing this in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Going by the Italian (&quot;Il film è basato sul libro.&quot;), I am tempted to write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pellicula super librum basata est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can reasonably derive *basatus* from *basis*, but in particular the use of *super* strikes me as non-Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Taking more liberties, my current best guess is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pellicula de libro derivata est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there good classical or later phrases for this purpose?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27794" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8990" RevisionGUID="7e118b84-027f-406d-89dc-52a223b6ab00" CreationDate="2019-01-30T13:40:07.743" UserId="79" Text="Phrasing &quot;based on&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27795" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8990" RevisionGUID="7e118b84-027f-406d-89dc-52a223b6ab00" CreationDate="2019-01-30T13:40:07.743" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8992" RevisionGUID="ee94f3e4-62b6-48a9-ac51-fb4edbef11b5" CreationDate="2019-01-30T16:12:11.383" UserId="1982" Text="In North &amp; Hillard Ex. 194, a passage is to be translated into Latin: it begins:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Both Demosthenes and the common soldiers were greatly disheartened at this defeat, though Nicias seemed almost to have expected it.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer: &quot;et Demosthenes et milites ob hanc cladem metu sunt commoti, cum Nicias eam paene exspectasse videretur.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why the use of indirect infin. &quot;exspectasse (exspectavisse)&quot; given that the writer puts Demosthenes, the soldiers &amp; Nicias as three elements, facing the consequences, &quot;at this defeat&quot; (ob hanc cladem)--in the same sentence?&#xD;&#xA;There is no: &quot;he-said-that-he (or they) which would require all three elements to be treated indirectly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8992" RevisionGUID="ee94f3e4-62b6-48a9-ac51-fb4edbef11b5" CreationDate="2019-01-30T16:12:11.383" UserId="1982" Text="Expect the Unexpected" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8992" RevisionGUID="ee94f3e4-62b6-48a9-ac51-fb4edbef11b5" CreationDate="2019-01-30T16:12:11.383" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8993" RevisionGUID="c632b7b1-2c74-410a-a2f9-cbe30f335aa9" CreationDate="2019-01-30T16:27:34.147" UserId="2116" Text="As my very first contribution to this forum, two expressions come to mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) modus: *pellicula modo libri facta*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) secundum: *pellicula secundum librum (facta)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For *modus* I have not (yet) found solid support. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For *secundum* I found support in L&amp;S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8993" RevisionGUID="a4a8c6d2-ffe5-49ae-b1ec-28c04af5b90b" CreationDate="2019-01-30T16:34:53.317" UserId="2116" Comment="Gospel names added" Text="As my very first contribution to this forum, two expressions come to mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) modus: *pellicula modo libri facta*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) secundum: *pellicula secundum librum (facta)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For *modus* I have not (yet) found solid support. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For *secundum* I found support in L&amp;S. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that also the Gospels are titled *Secundum Matthaeum, Marcum, ...* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8994" RevisionGUID="67b8de7a-d048-4562-b8b9-381e7086442d" CreationDate="2019-01-30T16:50:45.557" UserId="79" Text="There is a chance that I misinterpret something, but I hope this answer helps a little anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I want to make sure that you know that *cum* is not only the preposition &quot;with&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Here it is the conjunction &quot;whereas&quot;, &quot;while&quot;, &quot;though&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The suggested translation contains two (almost) independent parts which are best parsed in isolation (at first):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *et Demosthenes et milites ob hanc cladem metu sunt commoti*&#xD;&#xA;2. *Nicias eam paene exspectasse videretur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first part I would read *ob* as &quot;because&quot; rather than &quot;at&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically, the second clause is subordinate to the first, and that is why it is in conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;The second part is an *nominativus cum infinitivo*: &quot;Nicias almost seems to have expected it&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is a passivised version of a more familiar *accusativus cum infinitivo*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Niciam eam paene expectasse video.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I see that Nicias has almost expected it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, Demosthenes and the soldiers are not treated indirectly.&#xD;&#xA;The second clause is subordinate to the first one, and the NCI is subordinate to the verb *videretur*.&#xD;&#xA;In particular, Demosthenes and the soldiers are treated together, but I do not quite see what you mean by Nicias being a third element.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that the what you call an &quot;answer&quot; is actually more of a &quot;suggested translation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is not the single correct way to phrase things, but of course it makes sense to try to understand how it works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8993" RevisionGUID="7692a5aa-5149-426d-a11d-da96a916ebb5" CreationDate="2019-01-30T16:52:27.733" UserId="79" Comment="Added a link." Text="As my very first contribution to this forum, two expressions come to mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) modus: *pellicula modo libri facta*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) secundum: *pellicula secundum librum (facta)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For *modus* I have not (yet) found solid support. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For *secundum* I found support in L&amp;S: see [II.B.1 of the entry for *secundum*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=secundum&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), which translates *secundum* as &quot;agreeably to, in accordance with, according to&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that also the Gospels are titled *Secundum Matthaeum, Marcum, ...* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8995" RevisionGUID="9a47a14b-5f4f-4a0d-8c2b-a30971d843ca" CreationDate="2019-01-30T19:46:32.250" UserId="576" Text="[*LSJ*][1] says [ἤ][1] is a &quot;disjunctive *or*&quot;, but does it correspond Latin's [*vel* (&quot;inclusive disjunction&quot;) or *aut* (&quot;exclusive cunjunction&quot;)][2]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?la=greek&amp;l=%CE%B7#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1378/576" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27809" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8995" RevisionGUID="9a47a14b-5f4f-4a0d-8c2b-a30971d843ca" CreationDate="2019-01-30T19:46:32.250" UserId="576" Text="ἤ = vel or ἤ = aut?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27810" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8995" RevisionGUID="9a47a14b-5f4f-4a0d-8c2b-a30971d843ca" CreationDate="2019-01-30T19:46:32.250" UserId="576" Text="|greek|word-comparison|conjunction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8997" RevisionGUID="9c4b63e2-4cb3-43b7-ab42-4275b00f1fc9" CreationDate="2019-01-30T21:12:02.327" UserId="3357" Text="Can anyone help me to translate this into Latin:&#xD;&#xA;“love is our true destiny. We do not find the meaning of life alone - we find it with another.”. Thank you &#xD;&#xA;It is an epitaph for my Dad, who was a Latin scholar. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27813" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8997" RevisionGUID="9c4b63e2-4cb3-43b7-ab42-4275b00f1fc9" CreationDate="2019-01-30T21:12:02.327" UserId="3357" Text="need translation of thomas merton for epitaph" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27814" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8997" RevisionGUID="9c4b63e2-4cb3-43b7-ab42-4275b00f1fc9" CreationDate="2019-01-30T21:12:02.327" UserId="3357" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8998" RevisionGUID="d8e7335f-b9f7-427c-a455-ce4da6dbc960" CreationDate="2019-01-30T21:21:51.563" UserId="3280" Text="I was reading a story in Latin, and part of it said &quot;i nunc, Mercuri&quot;. I don't know what i is in Latin. By the way, this line is said in dialogue. Is it a filler word similar to the &quot;umm&quot; or does it mean something else? I am really confused. Thank you for all the help! I also tried looking it up, but I didn't find any good results. What does it mean? Thanks in advance. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27816" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8998" RevisionGUID="d8e7335f-b9f7-427c-a455-ce4da6dbc960" CreationDate="2019-01-30T21:21:51.563" UserId="3280" Text="What does 'i' mean in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27817" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8998" RevisionGUID="d8e7335f-b9f7-427c-a455-ce4da6dbc960" CreationDate="2019-01-30T21:21:51.563" UserId="3280" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8999" RevisionGUID="6f506816-067a-442d-bcde-125ba3f20e29" CreationDate="2019-01-30T21:58:12.353" UserId="406" Text="*Ī* is the imperative singular of *eō, īre*, &quot;to go&quot;. So *ī* on its own means &quot;go!&quot; (as a command to a single person). In this case, the character is saying &quot;go now, Mercurius&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other one-letter words in Latin (that I know of) are *ā* (&quot;away from&quot;), *ē* (&quot;out of&quot;), and *ō* (used to address someone). As far as I know, *_ū_ is not a word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9000" RevisionGUID="cbbe312b-23fd-408e-8e19-8e3b00addc94" CreationDate="2019-01-31T00:32:44.333" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="From _[se-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/se-#Latin &quot;se-&quot;)_ (“away”) +‎ _[luō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/luo#Latin &quot;luo&quot;)_ (“to untie, set free, separate”), [*solvō*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/solvo#Latin) originally signified &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I [loosen](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/loosen &quot;loosen&quot;), [untie](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/untie &quot;untie&quot;), [undo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/undo &quot;undo&quot;); [free](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/free &quot;free&quot;) [up], [release](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/release &quot;release&quot;), acquit, exempt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how did it semantically broaden to signify &quot;2. I solve, explain&quot;? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27820" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9000" RevisionGUID="cbbe312b-23fd-408e-8e19-8e3b00addc94" CreationDate="2019-01-31T00:32:44.333" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What semantic notions underlie 'untie, separate' with 'solve, explain'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27821" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9000" RevisionGUID="cbbe312b-23fd-408e-8e19-8e3b00addc94" CreationDate="2019-01-31T00:32:44.333" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9001" RevisionGUID="78859a65-ac78-464e-a38e-5beb1131ba0e" CreationDate="2019-01-31T00:36:57.860" UserId="406" Text="In English, there are a few words that sound the same as a single letter. Some are spelled with a single letter (&quot;I&quot;, &quot;a&quot;) while others are just pronounced that way (&quot;eye&quot;, &quot;cue&quot;, &quot;why&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How many of these words exist in Latin? [I mentioned a few in another answer][1], but already off the top of my head I can think of more once we allow consonants. I'm curious how full of an alphabet one can make.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/8999/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27823" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9001" RevisionGUID="78859a65-ac78-464e-a38e-5beb1131ba0e" CreationDate="2019-01-31T00:36:57.860" UserId="406" Text="How many letters are words in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27824" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9001" RevisionGUID="78859a65-ac78-464e-a38e-5beb1131ba0e" CreationDate="2019-01-31T00:36:57.860" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|alphabet|homonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9002" RevisionGUID="67b4ca70-413a-4db5-8271-7f50b769720a" CreationDate="2019-01-31T00:53:33.460" UserId="406" Text="Think of a knot. _Solvō_ is the verb for working persistently at that knot until it comes undone and you have a nice, neat piece of rope again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Solvō_ means to do that to other things too. Metaphorically, that describes the process of taking a problem apart step by step until you understand it and can _solve_ it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9003" RevisionGUID="a322f32e-aad3-40b4-9122-9d03e095a0a4" CreationDate="2019-01-31T06:49:27.727" UserId="2646" Text="In the Spanish language site someone asked about the [etymology of the word *chichón*][1] (link in Spanish), meaning *bump* (typically in the head as a result of a hit). The most common theory is that it is just an augmentative for *chicha*, an informal version for *flesh*. But then I found this in a book from 1611:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Rosal, 1611][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This text properly defines what a *chichón* is, but then it states that it comes from Latin *citione*, a word with the same meaning, derived from the verb *cire*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not found the word *citione* in any Latin dictionaries. So in order to know the reliability of this book, I ask: did the word *citione* exist at any time in the history of the Latin language? If not, what were the words used in Latin for *bump* (as a blow in the head)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://spanish.stackexchange.com/q/28464/12637&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZzsTe.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27827" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9003" RevisionGUID="a322f32e-aad3-40b4-9122-9d03e095a0a4" CreationDate="2019-01-31T06:49:27.727" UserId="2646" Text="Did the word &quot;citione&quot; meaning &quot;bump in the head&quot; exist in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27828" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9003" RevisionGUID="a322f32e-aad3-40b4-9122-9d03e095a0a4" CreationDate="2019-01-31T06:49:27.727" UserId="2646" Text="|etymology|word-request|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27829" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9003" RevisionGUID="6c32a7a7-b3fe-4a61-8eb6-097bacb30c63" CreationDate="2019-01-31T09:29:11.243" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|etymology|word-request|noun|spanish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9004" RevisionGUID="711766ab-2889-45a2-bc94-dcfd56c4ed8c" CreationDate="2019-01-31T10:06:27.087" UserId="79" Text="My guess is that the Latin word is actually *caesio*, which means cutting, wounding, or killing and comes from *caedere*.&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be reasonably close to the meaning in Spanish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In compounds the *ae* turns into *i*, as in *occidere* and *occisio*.&#xD;&#xA;This explains how one might end up with *cisio*.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it was by analogy to the prefixed forms, or perhaps the same weakening applied to the original verb at some later point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some dialects of medieval Latin *-tio* and *-sio* are pronounced the same, so *cisio* can turn into *citio*.&#xD;&#xA;And when you take the ablative, you end up with *citione*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the cited verb *cire* is a corruption of *caedere*.&#xD;&#xA;This would not be a surprising Romance development, but I have never seen such a verb in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9005" RevisionGUID="b586a7cb-9686-4c72-9236-7ce7921ac4d7" CreationDate="2019-01-31T11:15:03.013" UserId="2363" Text="If we consider the idiom, I think it is reasonable to conclude that &quot;a film based on a book&quot; is really &quot;a film that derives its subject matter and/or plot from a book.&quot; With that in mind, I suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Haec pellicula ex libro [title] res arcessit/accersit* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Horace: *ex medio quia res accersit ... comoedia* (because comedy summons/derives its subject matter from daily life)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: *arcessit* and *accersit* are variant forms of the same verb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9006" RevisionGUID="9e1e1f59-6214-4303-8e5e-13a806d410d7" CreationDate="2019-01-31T11:58:52.813" UserId="645" Text="My guess, for what it's worth, is that *chichon* originates from the verb *cieo, cire,civi, citum*, (which loses the *e* in compounds *excio, accio* etc.). The verb's general sense, like that of its compounds, is to agitate, stir up, cause, stimulate and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not hard to imagine a noun *citio* being formed from the supine stem to mean a 'blow', 'incentive' etc. — or even the 'bump' suggested in the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9007" RevisionGUID="8a087499-7a15-47fe-806a-e47d0c4a7a9e" CreationDate="2019-01-31T12:24:10.000" UserId="3361" Text="Can someone help distiguish between &quot;ego satis&quot; vs &quot;sum satis&quot; vs &quot;Ego satis superque sum&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to say &quot;I am enough&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27834" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9007" RevisionGUID="8a087499-7a15-47fe-806a-e47d0c4a7a9e" CreationDate="2019-01-31T12:24:10.000" UserId="3361" Text="Correct Latin Phrase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27835" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9007" RevisionGUID="8a087499-7a15-47fe-806a-e47d0c4a7a9e" CreationDate="2019-01-31T12:24:10.000" UserId="3361" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9008" RevisionGUID="ccc09646-9504-4065-a02d-4302e3461c0f" CreationDate="2019-01-31T12:37:45.220" UserId="645" Text="I suggest *Caritas nobis est sors vera. Vitam non explicandum nisi cum altero petimus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly back-translated, 'Love for us is the true outcome. Life can't be explained except when we seek with another.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9008" RevisionGUID="0b9c408a-6357-49fb-a58e-3aca1656c6f0" CreationDate="2019-01-31T12:51:56.010" UserId="645" Comment="edited body" Text="I suggest *Caritas nobis est sors vera. Vitam non explicandam nisi cum altero petimus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly back-translated, 'Love for us is the true outcome. Life can't be explained except when we seek with another.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9007" RevisionGUID="6fc0eba9-fb8a-424c-82cb-4fc8a9496a1d" CreationDate="2019-01-31T13:54:22.270" UserId="79" Comment="added 27 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Can someone help me distinguish between &quot;ego satis&quot; vs &quot;sum satis&quot; vs &quot;Ego satis superque sum&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to say &quot;I am enough&quot; as in &quot;good enough as a person&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27839" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9007" RevisionGUID="6fc0eba9-fb8a-424c-82cb-4fc8a9496a1d" CreationDate="2019-01-31T13:54:22.270" UserId="79" Comment="added 27 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Phrasing &quot;I am enough&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27840" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9007" RevisionGUID="6fc0eba9-fb8a-424c-82cb-4fc8a9496a1d" CreationDate="2019-01-31T13:54:22.270" UserId="79" Comment="added 27 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9009" RevisionGUID="316ff27a-2592-4654-a66d-19ff402e7caa" CreationDate="2019-01-31T14:16:04.613" UserId="3362" Text="How would you translate 'Forward, Warsaw!'into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Varsovia' appears to be the accepted Latin name for the city. But I can't seem to find an adequate term for 'forward'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background: a 1905 Polish revolutionary song features the demand &quot;naprzod Warszawo&quot; in the chorus - literally &quot;forward, Warsaw&quot;, meaning'march forward, Warsaw' or 'push ahead, Warsaw'. I'd be interested in a Latin equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27842" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9009" RevisionGUID="316ff27a-2592-4654-a66d-19ff402e7caa" CreationDate="2019-01-31T14:16:04.613" UserId="3362" Text="'Forward, Warsaw!' in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27843" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9009" RevisionGUID="316ff27a-2592-4654-a66d-19ff402e7caa" CreationDate="2019-01-31T14:16:04.613" UserId="3362" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9009" RevisionGUID="401f146d-482e-45e6-81d2-d4e7cc2dcac0" CreationDate="2019-01-31T14:23:53.897" UserId="3362" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="How would you translate 'Forward, Warsaw!'into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Varsovia' appears to be the accepted Latin name for the city. But I can't seem to find an adequate term for 'forward'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background: a 1905 Polish revolutionary song features the demand &quot;naprzód Warszawo&quot; in the chorus - literally &quot;forward, Warsaw&quot; (meaning 'march ahead, Warsaw' or 'push ahead, Warsaw'). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the Latin equivalent - there must be something along the lines of &quot;forward, legions&quot; in Roman literature?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9010" RevisionGUID="b26e1c46-ac74-4ef2-ae69-89fc3a07a49d" CreationDate="2019-01-31T14:43:42.100" UserId="79" Text="I suggest: ***Porro, Varsovia!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adverb [*porro*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=porro&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) means &quot;forward&quot; and it used in exclamations like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name of the city seems to be used as both *Varsovia* and *Varsavia*.&#xD;&#xA;Either one seems acceptable to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9010" RevisionGUID="4c60bb07-3170-446e-ace1-a7bff002bd05" CreationDate="2019-01-31T14:52:20.740" UserId="79" Comment="added 221 characters in body" Text="I suggest: ***Porro, Varsovia!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adverb [*porro*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=porro&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) means &quot;forward&quot; and it used in exclamations like this.&#xD;&#xA;Both [Tertullian](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/tertullian/tertullian.valentinianos.shtml) and [Apuleius](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/apuleius/apuleius8.shtml) use the phrase *porro quirites* as &quot;forward, Romans&quot;!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name of the city seems to be used as both *Varsovia* and *Varsavia*.&#xD;&#xA;Either one seems acceptable to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9011" RevisionGUID="b5344bd7-7a3c-472d-92f9-6af318016edf" CreationDate="2019-01-31T15:44:28.963" UserId="3331" Text="Caveat: my Latin is extremely basic, and mostly gained from noodling around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I would worry about the other potential back-translations of *satis*, as an adjective. It can mean &quot;filled&quot;, for instance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there is a verb that means, among other things, &quot;is sufficient&quot; - and that meaning is the only intransitive one I can find. That would be *sufficio*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a transitive verb, it can mean a lot of things - supply, put under or among, to lay foundations for (a building), dip in/dye, and more. Intransitively, it simply means the subject is sufficient, adequate, capable. Though I don't find that in all references that I checked before writing this, and suspect context would affect things a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, bearing in mind all those caveats, it is possible that just &quot;sufficio&quot; alone means &quot;I am sufficient&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9011" RevisionGUID="9ca1ba48-a9f7-43b4-9c4e-be334c898c86" CreationDate="2019-01-31T16:04:48.720" UserId="3331" Comment="added 877 characters in body" Text="Caveat: my Latin is extremely basic, and mostly gained from noodling around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I would worry about the other potential back-translations of *satis*, as an adjective. It can mean &quot;filled&quot;, for instance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there is a verb that means, among other things, &quot;is sufficient&quot; - and that meaning is the only intransitive one I can find. That would be *sufficio*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a transitive verb, it can mean a lot of things - supply, put under or among, to lay foundations for (a building), dip in/dye, and more. Intransitively, it simply means the subject is sufficient, adequate, capable. Though I don't find that in all references that I checked before writing this, and suspect context would affect things a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, bearing in mind all those caveats, it is possible that just &quot;sufficio&quot; alone means &quot;I am sufficient&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ETA: To answer the direct question at the start of the question, though, I think that &quot;ego satis&quot; would be roughly translatable as &quot;I enough&quot; or &quot;I filled&quot;, as it is missing any verb to be. &quot;Sum satis&quot; is, I think, grammatical, and means &quot;I am enough&quot; or &quot;I am filled&quot;, or &quot;I am plenty&quot;, though it would feel more typical in terms of word order as &quot;satis sum&quot;, to me. The third option I just cannot parse. I mean, I can break it down into parsing units, but can't see how they can fit together grammatically in that way. *Satis* is an adjective in that construction, but *super* is an adverb or preposition. I'm not sure it's valid to &quot;and&quot; them together like that. If I try to read *satis* as an adverb, I guess it might mean &quot;I exist sufficiently and more than&quot;. Or &quot;I exist sufficiently and above&quot;. If the *-que* weren't there, I guess it could mean &quot;I am above enough&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9012" RevisionGUID="f974d241-3255-4df8-86e4-bd7be958c740" CreationDate="2019-01-31T17:34:11.373" UserId="3331" Text="I'd be tempted by something like &quot;satietas non insatis est&quot;, for &quot;sufficiency is not insufficient&quot;. *Insatis* is a logical construction, though I can't find it attested - but I think it would be entirely understood. I can't easily find a single word for &quot;insufficient&quot;, and even if there were one, the contrast between *satietas* and *insatis* is striking. You can indicate the necessity of the statement with *per se*, and/or emphasise it with *nunquam*, but I'm not confident about where you'd put them, and I think nunquam would be excessive. I'd probably take a stab at &quot;satietas per se non insatis est&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, that includes one word that makes sense but isn't attested as far as I can find, and some significant uncertainty about the appropriateness of word order." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9013" RevisionGUID="86ebb124-8f3b-4b97-b1c1-6c14836d11a8" CreationDate="2019-01-31T19:02:13.523" UserId="3363" Text="In accordance to [Wikipedia][1] *ae* diphtong should be pronounce like /ae̯/. So should I pronounce Graecae (Greek, *f.*, *pl.*) as /ˈgrae̯kae̯/?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation#Diphthongs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27852" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9013" RevisionGUID="86ebb124-8f3b-4b97-b1c1-6c14836d11a8" CreationDate="2019-01-31T19:02:13.523" UserId="3363" Text="&quot;Ae&quot; pronounciation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27853" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9013" RevisionGUID="86ebb124-8f3b-4b97-b1c1-6c14836d11a8" CreationDate="2019-01-31T19:02:13.523" UserId="3363" Text="|pronunciation|diphthong|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9014" RevisionGUID="287b1573-6fdb-49e3-b3e0-3c1e53f7abf4" CreationDate="2019-01-31T19:42:37.187" UserId="9" Text="There isn't just a single pronunciation of Latin in use, there are many. You can say  /ˈgrae̯kae̯/, but whether you &quot;should&quot; is a matter of opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The transcription [ae̯] is one way of representing a reconstructed pronunciation of Latin &quot;ae&quot;. (A very similar transcription would be [aɪ̯].) For various reasons, like etymology and sources that seem to indicate distinctions in pronunciation between &quot;ae&quot; and &quot;e&quot;, we believe that the pronunciation of &quot;ae&quot; passed through this stage, but it wasn't always pronounced that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation before [ae̯] or [aɪ̯] is thought to have been [ai̯] or [aj].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation after [ae̯] is thought to have been [ɛː]. The value [ɛ] can be reconstructed from Romance reflexes, and [ɛ], or a similar sound like [e], exists as a pronunciation of &quot;ae&quot; in most traditions of pronouncing Latin that have come down to the present era (e.g. the so-called &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of monophthongal pronunciations like [ɛ(ː)] typically goes along with the use of a fronted and affricated pronunciation of &quot;c&quot; before &quot;ae&quot;, &quot;e&quot;, &quot;i&quot; and &quot;y&quot;. The &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation of *Graecae* would be something like [ˈgrɛːt͡ʃɛ] (the vowels might be a bit variable: note that Italian, the main influence on Ecclesiastical pronunciation, does not have a phonemic distinction between &quot;short&quot; and &quot;long&quot; vowels, but uses long vowels predictably in certain phonetic contexts; Italian also only distinguishes between [e] and [ɛ] in certain accents and only in stressed syllables. So a phonemic transcription of the Ecclesiastical pronunciation could potentially be something like /ˈgret͡ʃe/.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9014" RevisionGUID="39160749-a3bd-4b76-8918-afd0cf4a0f60" CreationDate="2019-01-31T19:47:55.027" UserId="9" Comment="added 117 characters in body" Text="There isn't just a single pronunciation of Latin in use, there are many. You can say  /ˈgrae̯kae̯/, but whether you &quot;should&quot; is a matter of opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The transcription [ae̯] is one way of representing a reconstructed pronunciation of Latin &quot;ae&quot;. (A very similar transcription would be [aɪ̯]. English students of Latin are commonly told to use the diphthong found in English words like &quot;price&quot; for Latin &quot;ae&quot;.) For various reasons, like etymology and sources that seem to indicate distinctions in pronunciation between &quot;ae&quot; and &quot;e&quot;, we believe that the pronunciation of &quot;ae&quot; passed through this stage, but it wasn't always pronounced that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation before [ae̯] or [aɪ̯] is thought to have been [ai̯] or [aj].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation after [ae̯] is thought to have been [ɛː]. The value [ɛ] can be reconstructed from Romance reflexes, and [ɛ], or a similar sound like [e], exists as a pronunciation of &quot;ae&quot; in most traditions of pronouncing Latin that have come down to the present era (e.g. the so-called &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of monophthongal pronunciations like [ɛ(ː)] typically goes along with the use of a fronted and affricated pronunciation of &quot;c&quot; before &quot;ae&quot;, &quot;e&quot;, &quot;i&quot; and &quot;y&quot;. The &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation of *Graecae* would be something like [ˈgrɛːt͡ʃɛ] (the vowels might be a bit variable: note that Italian, the main influence on Ecclesiastical pronunciation, does not have a phonemic distinction between &quot;short&quot; and &quot;long&quot; vowels, but uses long vowels predictably in certain phonetic contexts; Italian also only distinguishes between [e] and [ɛ] in certain accents and only in stressed syllables. So a phonemic transcription of the Ecclesiastical pronunciation could potentially be something like /ˈgret͡ʃe/.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9015" RevisionGUID="c20526e0-9023-41c1-bab6-c1733a4c8c08" CreationDate="2019-01-31T19:53:02.830" UserId="423" Text="It is well-known that the Romans referred to a particular year by reporting the names of the two consuls that had been elected to serve during that year. We have numerous inscriptions that confirm this (see [here][1] for a few examples).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, how did they do this *in conversation*, or in prose? More specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How did they differentiate between different years during which the same magistrate was in charge? Inscriptions just use numerals (e.g. M CLAUDIO MARCELLO II CON), but I wonder how they would have read it out loud.&#xD;&#xA; - If necessary, would they have specified that there was a *dictator* in charge, and how? And what about *consules suffecti*, *tribuni consulares*, and *consules sine collega*? Do these specifications pertain exclusively to inscriptional writing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blogs.ashmolean.org/latininscriptions/2015/01/08/what-year-are-we-in-how-did-the-roman-talk-about-years-before-bcad-was-invented/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27857" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9015" RevisionGUID="c20526e0-9023-41c1-bab6-c1733a4c8c08" CreationDate="2019-01-31T19:53:02.830" UserId="423" Text="How did the Romans say what year it was?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27858" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9015" RevisionGUID="c20526e0-9023-41c1-bab6-c1733a4c8c08" CreationDate="2019-01-31T19:53:02.830" UserId="423" Text="|calendarium|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9014" RevisionGUID="29f13fed-e23d-4f94-8c0f-7e8a3de1d996" CreationDate="2019-01-31T19:58:44.750" UserId="9" Comment="added 235 characters in body" Text="There isn't just a single pronunciation of Latin in use, there are many. You can say  /ˈgrae̯kae̯/, but whether you &quot;should&quot; is a matter of opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The transcription [ae̯] is one way of representing a reconstructed pronunciation of Latin &quot;ae&quot;. (A very similar transcription would be [aɪ̯]. English students of Latin are commonly told to use the diphthong found in English words like &quot;price&quot; for Latin &quot;ae&quot;.) For various reasons, like etymology and sources that seem to indicate distinctions in pronunciation between &quot;ae&quot; and &quot;e&quot;, we believe that the pronunciation of &quot;ae&quot; passed through this stage, but it wasn't always pronounced that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation before [ae̯] or [aɪ̯] is thought to have been [ai̯] or [aj].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation after [ae̯] is thought to have been [ɛː]. The value [ɛ] can be reconstructed from Romance reflexes, and [ɛ], or a similar sound like [e], exists as a pronunciation of &quot;ae&quot; in most traditions of pronouncing Latin that have come down to the present era (e.g. the so-called &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of monophthongal pronunciations like [ɛ(ː)] typically goes along with the use of a fronted and affricated pronunciation of &quot;c&quot; before &quot;ae&quot;, &quot;e&quot;, &quot;i&quot; and &quot;y&quot;. The &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation of *Graecae* would be something like [ˈgrɛːt͡ʃɛ]. (The vowels might be a bit variable: note that Italian, the main influence on Ecclesiastical pronunciation, does not have a phonemic distinction between &quot;short&quot; and &quot;long&quot; vowels, but uses long vowels predictably in certain phonetic contexts; Italian also only distinguishes between [e] and [ɛ] in certain accents and only in stressed syllables. So a phonemic transcription of the Ecclesiastical pronunciation could potentially be something like /ˈgret͡ʃe/.) Other regional &quot;traditional&quot; pronunciations of Latin are now rarely used, but e.g. a conventional non-reconstructed German pronunciation would be /ˈgrɛːt͡sɛː/ and a conventional &quot;traditional English&quot; pronunciation would be /ˈgriːsiː/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9016" RevisionGUID="a435747d-8f00-4dee-a2f5-5b437f73e1a0" CreationDate="2019-01-31T20:49:32.590" UserId="469" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27861" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9016" RevisionGUID="a435747d-8f00-4dee-a2f5-5b437f73e1a0" CreationDate="2019-01-31T20:49:32.590" UserId="469" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9017" RevisionGUID="33a75290-647a-473f-abf1-737ef4649034" CreationDate="2019-01-31T20:49:32.590" UserId="469" Text="For questions related to Spanish, including but not limited to: Latin etymology of words, as well as translations between Latin and Spanish (in either direction)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27863" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9017" RevisionGUID="33a75290-647a-473f-abf1-737ef4649034" CreationDate="2019-01-31T20:49:32.590" UserId="469" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9018" RevisionGUID="d9bd8be9-efbe-410b-81ed-7dde2c3ea99a" CreationDate="2019-01-31T21:01:45.960" UserId="469" Text=" - For example, etymology, meaning change, sound change, etc. of words common to more than one Romance language that are not otherwise common with the same meaning in the Latin literature (e.g., horse: Latin **equus**, vulgar Latin **caballus**, French *cheval*, Spanish *caballo*, Italian *cavallo*, Romanian *cal/calul*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27865" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9018" RevisionGUID="d9bd8be9-efbe-410b-81ed-7dde2c3ea99a" CreationDate="2019-01-31T21:01:45.960" UserId="469" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9019" RevisionGUID="e87f3bbb-6696-4bec-906c-3ef0c4b7beb6" CreationDate="2019-01-31T21:01:45.960" UserId="469" Text="For questions related to the process of vulgar/medieval Latin becoming modern Romance languages " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9019" RevisionGUID="e87f3bbb-6696-4bec-906c-3ef0c4b7beb6" CreationDate="2019-01-31T21:01:45.960" UserId="469" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9020" RevisionGUID="44a89ec2-0b8b-4bc4-851a-84cc781221db" CreationDate="2019-01-31T21:28:16.880" UserId="79" Text="This answer is based on [this question and answer concerning the classical names of the letters](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/732/79).&#xD;&#xA;Given the pronunciation of a Latin word, there is typically a unique spelling (unlike in English!) so the exercise is pretty straightforward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ā: preposition&#xD;&#xA;- dē: preposition&#xD;&#xA;- ē: preposition&#xD;&#xA;- ī: imperative of *ire*&#xD;&#xA;- ō: interjection&#xD;&#xA;- ĕs: form of *esse*&#xD;&#xA;- tē: form of *te*&#xD;&#xA;- ĕx or ĭx: preposition (*ex*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No (with near hits):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- bē: noun *bes*, forms of *beare*&#xD;&#xA;- cē: imperative *cie*&#xD;&#xA;- ĕf: Perhaps one could argue that *ex* is pronounced as *ef* before a word starting with *f*, as in compounds we have *efficere* and others.&#xD;&#xA;- gē: One might Latinize the name of the Greek goddess as *Ge*, but I have never encountered it or even *Gaea*. One would expect *Terra* or *Tellus* in this use.&#xD;&#xA;- hā: If one argues that the initial *h-* is not pronounced, then this sounds like the preposition. But that would draw the very name of this letter into question.&#xD;&#xA;- cā: &amp;mdash;&#xD;&#xA;- ĕl: &amp;mdash;&#xD;&#xA;- ĕm: This looks it could be an accusative for of *is*, but it is not.&#xD;&#xA;- ĕn: interjection *&amp;emacr;n*&#xD;&#xA;- pē: noun *pes*&#xD;&#xA;- cū: pronoun *cui*&#xD;&#xA;- ĕr: forms of *esse*, nouns *era* and *erus*&#xD;&#xA;- ū: &amp;mdash;&#xD;&#xA;- y ([ī]) graeca: &amp;mdash;&#xD;&#xA;- zēta: &amp;mdash;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be eight letters that are words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9020" RevisionGUID="b36f7d92-fee3-42ef-b831-c625ec2668b4" CreationDate="2019-01-31T22:07:00.697" UserId="79" Comment="added 250 characters in body" Text="This answer is based on [this question and answer concerning the classical names of the letters](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/732/79).&#xD;&#xA;Given the pronunciation of a Latin word, there is typically a unique spelling (unlike in English!) so the exercise is pretty straightforward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ā: preposition&#xD;&#xA;- dē: preposition&#xD;&#xA;- ē: preposition&#xD;&#xA;- ī: imperative of *ire*&#xD;&#xA;- ō: interjection&#xD;&#xA;- ĕs: form of *esse*&#xD;&#xA;- tē: form of *te*&#xD;&#xA;- ĕx or ĭx: preposition (*ex*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No (with near hits):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- bē: noun *bes*, forms of *beare*&#xD;&#xA;- cē: imperative *cie*&#xD;&#xA;- ĕf: Perhaps one could argue that *ex* is pronounced as *ef* before a word starting with *f*, as in compounds we have *efficere* and others.&#xD;&#xA;- gē: One might Latinize the name of the Greek goddess as *Ge*, but I have never encountered it or even *Gaea*. One would expect *Terra* or *Tellus* in this use.&#xD;&#xA;- hā: If one argues that the initial *h-* is not pronounced, then this sounds like the preposition. But that would draw the very name of this letter into question.&#xD;&#xA;- cā: &amp;mdash;&#xD;&#xA;- ĕl: &amp;mdash;&#xD;&#xA;- ĕm: This looks it could be an accusative for of *is*, but it is not.&#xD;&#xA;- ĕn: interjection *&amp;emacr;n*&#xD;&#xA;- pē: noun *pes*&#xD;&#xA;- cū: pronoun *cui*&#xD;&#xA;- ĕr: forms of *esse*, nouns *era* and *erus*&#xD;&#xA;- ū: &amp;mdash;&#xD;&#xA;- y ([ī]) graeca: &amp;mdash;&#xD;&#xA;- zēta: &amp;mdash;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be eight letters that are words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Draconis points out in a comment, some letters have alternate names (*esse, elle, emme*&amp;hellip;).&#xD;&#xA;These do not seem to bring any new letters to the list, but S gets a new word in *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;This also produces the close hit *ille &amp;approx; elle*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9021" RevisionGUID="b5615e46-4b5a-4280-bcf4-4010bffb7c01" CreationDate="2019-02-01T02:01:48.313" UserId="406" Text="In Latin, every syllable is either &quot;light&quot; or &quot;heavy&quot;. A &quot;heavy&quot; syllable is one that has a long vowel and/or a coda consonant, and a &quot;light&quot; syllable is anything else. This distinction is important for metered poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek, there are a number of words that act as single light syllables: for example, *δέ* &quot;but&quot; or *σύ* &quot;you&quot;. But I can't think of any in Latin: every one-syllable word I can think of either has a long vowel (*ē* &quot;out of&quot;, *ī* &quot;go!&quot;) or a coda consonant (*es* &quot;you are&quot;, *ab* &quot;away from&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: are there any Latin words that consist of a single light syllable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27871" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9021" RevisionGUID="b5615e46-4b5a-4280-bcf4-4010bffb7c01" CreationDate="2019-02-01T02:01:48.313" UserId="406" Text="Are there any words in Latin that are &quot;light&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27872" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9021" RevisionGUID="b5615e46-4b5a-4280-bcf4-4010bffb7c01" CreationDate="2019-02-01T02:01:48.313" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|example-request|vowel-quantity|metre|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9023" RevisionGUID="9d3f82e8-48ff-4620-8f3f-23ad6e624f51" CreationDate="2019-02-01T03:03:20.857" UserId="9" Text="I remember seeing it given as a rule in some text that Latin words are minimally bimoraic, so I don't think there are any monosyllabic words that end in a short vowel in their lemma form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Monosyllabic words in Latin may *scan* light in certain contexts. The main example I can think of right now is words ending in V̆C (such as *in, ad, sed*) when they come before vowel-initial words. In this context, the word-final consonant was apparently resyllabified into the onset of the first syllable of the next word. This resyllabification clearly occurred in poetry, and is believed to have also occurred in the ordinary spoken language, at least within a phonological phrase. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9014" RevisionGUID="35cefa17-557d-453e-a8e7-02e865a8e417" CreationDate="2019-02-01T04:02:49.047" UserId="9" Comment="added oe to list of vowels that front a preceding velar" Text="There isn't just a single pronunciation of Latin in use, there are many. You can say  /ˈgrae̯kae̯/, but whether you &quot;should&quot; is a matter of opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The transcription [ae̯] is one way of representing a reconstructed pronunciation of Latin &quot;ae&quot;. (A very similar transcription would be [aɪ̯]. English students of Latin are commonly told to use the diphthong found in English words like &quot;price&quot; for Latin &quot;ae&quot;.) For various reasons, like etymology and sources that seem to indicate distinctions in pronunciation between &quot;ae&quot; and &quot;e&quot;, it is thought that the pronunciation of &quot;ae&quot; passed through this stage, but it wasn't always pronounced that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation before [ae̯] or [aɪ̯] is thought to have been [ai̯] or [aj].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation after [ae̯] is thought to have been [ɛː]. The value [ɛ] can be reconstructed from Romance reflexes, and [ɛ], or a similar sound like [e], exists as a pronunciation of &quot;ae&quot; in most traditions of pronouncing Latin that have come down to the present era (for example, the so-called &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of monophthongal pronunciations like [ɛ(ː)] typically goes along with the use of a fronted and affricated pronunciation of &quot;c&quot; before &quot;ae&quot;, &quot;e&quot;, &quot;i&quot;, &quot;oe&quot; and &quot;y&quot;. The &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation of *Graecae* would be something like [ˈgrɛːt͡ʃɛ]. (The vowels might be a bit variable: note that Italian, the main influence on Ecclesiastical pronunciation, does not have a phonemic distinction between &quot;short&quot; and &quot;long&quot; vowels, but uses long vowels predictably in certain phonetic contexts; Italian also only distinguishes between [e] and [ɛ] in certain accents and only in stressed syllables. So a phonemic transcription of the Ecclesiastical pronunciation could potentially be something like /ˈgret͡ʃe/.) Other regional &quot;traditional&quot; pronunciations of Latin are now rarely used, but e.g. a conventional non-reconstructed German pronunciation would be /ˈgrɛːt͡sɛː/ and a conventional &quot;traditional English&quot; pronunciation would be /ˈgriːsiː/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27879" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="6631" RevisionGUID="fe2decdc-154b-4e04-8d2b-9db01055165e" CreationDate="2019-02-01T08:50:01.820" UserId="9" Comment="97" />
  <row Id="27884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9013" RevisionGUID="9d942406-8eb2-4e78-b412-9abdb5ab5abe" CreationDate="2019-02-01T12:45:55.257" UserId="3363" Comment="added explanation in accordance to Rafael's comment" Text="In accordance to [Wikipedia][1] *ae* diphtong should be pronounce like /ae̯/. So should I pronounce Graecae (Greek, *f.*, *pl.*) as /ˈgrae̯kae̯/?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;In accordance to Rafael's comment please see the background of my question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm reading [Hans Ørberg's Lingua Latina per se Illustrata][2] and stuck with the *Graacae* pronounciation (Page 15, Line 49):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In familia Iulii sunt multi servi Graeci multaque ancillae Graecae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm from Russia and at our Soviet time textbooks the pronounciation of &quot;ae&quot; is like /ɛ(ː)/ so it was quite a surprise for me that &quot;ae&quot; is pronounced as /ae̯/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation#Diphthongs&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.amazon.com/Lingua-Latina-Illustrata-Pars-Familia/dp/1585104205" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8971" RevisionGUID="3dc94820-2227-46b2-b50a-69b8978b442f" CreationDate="2019-02-02T01:29:34.243" UserId="3331" Comment="Typo fix" Text="I hope that my question won't seem too flippant or strange... I'm not any sort of Latin scholar or student, but I am trying to coin a term *based on* Latin. I've been trying through several routes to come up with a term with some linguistic basis to mean &quot;that which should/must be awaited&quot;. Noodling around with grammar and so on led me to the Latin gerundive, and while that leaves something that, in Latin, is a grammatical adjective, as I plan to use it in English that isn't really important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My problem, as one often faces when trying to use references to translate into a non-native language, is figuring which of the words that can be translated back into English as the word you want is most appropriate. Normally, my approach at this point is to find a native speaker and ask them, but that's not really an option for Latin. So, instead, I look to the internet to find people who are the nearest I can get without bothering a university lecturer (professor) or a Catholic priest... though I wouldn't be surprised if some people on this StackExchange were either of those things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I've come up with three verbs that all seem to relate to what I want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Exspecto, which as far as I can tell seems to carry the strongest implication of expectation - but all of the verbs have some of that.&#xD;&#xA; - Oppperior, which doesn't seem to have much more to say about it.&#xD;&#xA; - Maneo, which seems to carry an implication of remaining in one place while waiting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there anything anyone can add to help me figure out which one would be most appropriate? Without getting too specific (because that would require reams of explanation), the situation in question is where people are waiting, with a sense of expectation but no expectation as to when something will happen, with great patience, for something that they are looking forward to largely positively but perhaps with some sense of apprehension." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="0621a596-ec70-4c42-9685-74de3d7deccf" CreationDate="2019-02-02T12:04:16.650" UserId="3365" Text="would someone be able to help me translate the following into Latin:&#xD;&#xA;“Love has no age, no limits, and no end.”&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for any help. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27893" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="0621a596-ec70-4c42-9685-74de3d7deccf" CreationDate="2019-02-02T12:04:16.650" UserId="3365" Text="Need further translation help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27894" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="0621a596-ec70-4c42-9685-74de3d7deccf" CreationDate="2019-02-02T12:04:16.650" UserId="3365" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="6335eb03-97f5-449e-b1bd-6531b0bc1cd8" CreationDate="2019-02-02T16:48:02.730" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted a little." Text="Would someone be able to help me translate the following into Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Love has no age, no limits, and no end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for any help. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27900" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="6335eb03-97f5-449e-b1bd-6531b0bc1cd8" CreationDate="2019-02-02T16:48:02.730" UserId="79" Comment="Reformatted a little." Text="&quot;Love has no age, no limits, and no end&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9028" RevisionGUID="fd6227e7-4ef6-42a3-8803-f52528d26174" CreationDate="2019-02-02T16:55:06.997" UserId="79" Text="I suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Amori nulla est aetas, nullus limes, nullus finis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a fairly direct translation of the original English phrase.&#xD;&#xA;I think a possessive dative with *nullus* is a nice choice, but there is freedom in picking the nouns.&#xD;&#xA;I recommend taking a look at my choices in any of [the many online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;The words *limes* and *finis* are quite close to each other in Latin, but one can reasonably read them as &quot;limit&quot; and &quot;end&quot;, respectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9029" RevisionGUID="d042f551-8408-415a-8ec0-8d0e83a23dce" CreationDate="2019-02-02T17:03:50.907" UserId="3371" Text="Maybe a word &quot;antipode&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;antipode&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    the direct opposite of something.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9030" RevisionGUID="ac34dab6-a6b8-4504-a03b-fafb809bac91" CreationDate="2019-02-02T19:43:31.923" UserId="3183" Text="In relation to the first words said by a pope when he is elected, would it be right to say that if he chose &quot;Thomas&quot; then the translation of the above is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Vocabor Thomas&quot; Or is it &quot;Vocabor Thoma&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, would &quot;I will be called God&quot; be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Vocabor Deus&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27905" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9030" RevisionGUID="ac34dab6-a6b8-4504-a03b-fafb809bac91" CreationDate="2019-02-02T19:43:31.923" UserId="3183" Text="&quot;I will be called Thomas.&quot; Translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27906" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9030" RevisionGUID="ac34dab6-a6b8-4504-a03b-fafb809bac91" CreationDate="2019-02-02T19:43:31.923" UserId="3183" Text="|translation|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27907" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6302" RevisionGUID="bd7d5590-2cab-4183-bfe9-fba52c47aa1b" CreationDate="2019-02-03T00:20:24.150" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|sentence-translation|latin-to-english-translation|grammar-identification|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27908" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="743" RevisionGUID="2963c335-735e-4a16-b2f0-47ee80e6f021" CreationDate="2019-02-03T00:21:13.633" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|idiom|latin-to-english-translation|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9031" RevisionGUID="d3aa3012-86a0-47d7-9485-9db3f2b53e5d" CreationDate="2019-02-03T00:27:34.930" UserId="79" Text="Passive forms of *vocare* go with nominative, not vocative.&#xD;&#xA;For example, in *Pro S. Roscio Amerino* Cicero writes:&#xD;&#xA;*iste qui adest Magnus vocatur*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, you would say *vocabor Thomas* and *vocabor Deus*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9032" RevisionGUID="e7c83db3-02e1-4d41-a703-7f1c2aeda4bb" CreationDate="2019-02-03T00:39:05.573" UserId="406" Text="I'm not sure what the conventional [first words of a Pope][1] are, but the traditional *announcement* of a new Pope goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum: Habemus Papam, eminentissimum ac reverendissimum Dominum, Dominum Georgium Marium Sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ Cardinalem Bergoglio, **qui sibi nomen imposuit Franciscum**.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I announce a great joy to all of you: we have a Pope, the most eminent and reverend lord, Lord Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, **who took for himself the name Francis**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that some Popes use the accusative and some use the genitive for the name at the end of the announcement; Francis chose the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use this phrasing, you would say ***mihi nomen impono Thomae*** (or accusative ***Thoman***): &quot;I take for myself the name [of] Thomas&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-succession-text/new-pope-franciss-first-words-after-election-idUSBRE92C19Y20130313" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9032" RevisionGUID="4b9f5da6-61f4-469a-b343-917df962edca" CreationDate="2019-02-03T05:16:56.680" UserId="406" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure what the conventional [first words of a Pope][1] are, but the traditional *announcement* of a new Pope goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum: Habemus Papam, eminentissimum ac reverendissimum Dominum, Dominum Georgium Marium Sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ Cardinalem Bergoglio, **qui sibi nomen imposuit Franciscum**.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I announce a great joy to all of you: we have a Pope, the most eminent and reverend lord, Lord Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, **who took for himself the name Francis**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that some Popes use the accusative and some use the genitive for the name at the end of the announcement; Francis chose the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use this phrasing, you would say ***mihi nomen impono Thomae*** (or accusative ***Thoman/Thomam***): &quot;I take for myself the name [of] Thomas&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: As brianpck points out, the accusative is *Thoman* in Greek and in earlier Latin, but *Thomam* in later Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-succession-text/new-pope-franciss-first-words-after-election-idUSBRE92C19Y20130313" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9033" RevisionGUID="2baa68e0-5931-4a2f-9b4e-622c1390993e" CreationDate="2019-02-03T10:59:38.677" UserId="1348" Text="I would like to know if this sentence is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; optimus magister is fuit qui scivit quid discipuli peterent: auxilium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I would like to say in English is: &quot;The best teacher was the one who knew what students were looking for: help&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what the colon in Latin was. Thus I used the English punctuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27913" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9033" RevisionGUID="2baa68e0-5931-4a2f-9b4e-622c1390993e" CreationDate="2019-02-03T10:59:38.677" UserId="1348" Text="Translation check: optimus magister is fuit qui scivit quid discipuli peterent: auxilium" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27914" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9033" RevisionGUID="2baa68e0-5931-4a2f-9b4e-622c1390993e" CreationDate="2019-02-03T10:59:38.677" UserId="1348" Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9034" RevisionGUID="30ce4f15-4434-49ae-9aaf-691e1ab8300f" CreationDate="2019-02-03T12:50:51.507" UserId="645" Text="This is, I think, 'love' in the sense of 1 Corinthians 13,13, *nunc autem manet fides spes caritas tria haec maior autem his est caritas*. Trying to stay in keeping with the style of the original, I would write *est caritati neque aetas nec fines nec exitus*, '[there] is for love neither age, nor limit, nor end'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9035" RevisionGUID="41004be8-ab6e-4f5f-a5ac-e2e5808a9754" CreationDate="2019-02-03T18:59:09.727" UserId="40" Text="*Scivit* should be subjunctive *sciret*, since (on the most natural reading) this is a relative clause of characteristic: whoever knew what students were looking for, that person was the best teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm doubtful about the colon with *auxilium*. My sense is that Latin prose doesn't generally use this construction in the way that English does, but would be more likely to use something like a &quot;namely&quot; instead. You could use *id est* for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might consider changing *fuit* to imperfect *erat*, but that depends on how you want to present the aspect of this sentence and on the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Is* could optionally be left out -- grammatically the sentence is fine either way, but the rhythm may be a bit better without it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I would change the order of the indirect question clause to *quid peterent discipuli*, which to me sounds better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: *Optimus magister (is) fuit/erat qui sciret quid peterent discipuli, id est auxilium*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9036" RevisionGUID="f157436a-3ba5-4692-98ec-9b432219f906" CreationDate="2019-02-04T09:55:58.663" UserId="2646" Text="Nowadays the English verb *solve* [means][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Find an answer to, explanation for, or means of effectively dealing with (a problem or mystery).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [etymology][2] of the word indicates that it comes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from Latin *solvere* &quot;to loosen, dissolve; untie, release, detach; depart; unlock; scatter; dismiss; accomplish, fulfill; explain; remove&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nonetheless, the verb used in Spanish with the same meaning is *[resolver][3]* (my translation of the definition):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Solve a problem, a doubt, a difficulty or something that involves them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This verb comes from Latin *[resolvĕre][4]*, from *re-* and *[solvĕre][5]*. So in Latin there also existed the verb *resolvĕre*. Both verbs appear in the Lewis &amp; Short dictionary, but their meanings appear to be somewhat different from (or maybe broader than) the current ones for both English and Spanish. So both *solve* and *resolver* have the same meaning today but come from different verbs *solvo* and *resolvo*. Question: Which one of them was most used in Latin for the same context as today's verbs? Or maybe both were used but in different periods?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Note: in Spanish there also existed a verb *[solver][6]* with the same meaning as *solve* and *resolver*, but was already deprecated in the 18th century.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/solve&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.etymonline.com/word/solve#etymonline_v_23868&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://dle.rae.es/?id=WBV06OC&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=resolvo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=solvo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://dle.rae.es/?id=YJmavLR" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27918" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9036" RevisionGUID="f157436a-3ba5-4692-98ec-9b432219f906" CreationDate="2019-02-04T09:55:58.663" UserId="2646" Text="Which Latin verb was closer to the current meaning of English &quot;solve&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27919" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9036" RevisionGUID="f157436a-3ba5-4692-98ec-9b432219f906" CreationDate="2019-02-04T09:55:58.663" UserId="2646" Text="|classical-latin|verbs|medieval-latin|late-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27920" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9036" RevisionGUID="0fa8791d-6fa0-4342-ace7-67a2dcdf3e14" CreationDate="2019-02-04T12:39:45.623" UserId="2646" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|verbs|medieval-latin|late-latin|spanish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9037" RevisionGUID="7fc116b9-fbaf-42b6-b971-9d96933f84da" CreationDate="2019-02-04T14:35:40.357" UserId="1459" Text="There is a &quot;famous&quot; phrase attributed to St. Augustine: &quot;_[solvitur ambulando](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvitur_ambulando)_&quot;, meaning &quot;it [the problem] is solved by walking&quot;. I have failed to track down such phrase in Augustine's texts (which can be found [here](https://www.augustinus.it/latino/index.htm)). However, a search for words related to _solvere_ in Augustine's texts yields several hits that, as far as I can tell, imply the meaning of the English &quot;to solve&quot;. For instance, [here](https://www.augustinus.it/latino/questioni_ettateuco/quest_ettateuco_1_libro.htm) you get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Solvitur ergo quaestio per recapitulationem, quae indissolubilis remaneret, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Recapitulatio itaque ista, si advertatur in Scripturis, multas quaestiones solvit, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sic itaque solvitur ista quaestio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conversely, searching words related to the verb _resolvere_ do not seem to give the English meaning. For instance, [here](https://www.augustinus.it/latino/lettere/lettera_141_testo.htm) you get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At vero flante austro, glacies resolvitur, et torrentes fluunt, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above is merely based on search for one author. Not sure how representative of the corpus us though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27922" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9033" RevisionGUID="12397986-d819-4e90-bff5-964fe1e7cbb5" CreationDate="2019-02-04T14:37:38.007" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="Checking translation of &quot;optimus magister is fuit qui scivit quid discipuli peterent: auxilium&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9030" RevisionGUID="659cd3a1-9983-44f2-8084-21986bf8669f" CreationDate="2019-02-04T14:38:06.183" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="In relation to the first words said by a pope when he is elected, would it be right to say that if he chose &quot;Thomas&quot; then the translation of the above is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Vocabor Thomas&quot; Or is it &quot;Vocabor Thoma&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, would &quot;I will be called God&quot; be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Vocabor Deus&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27924" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9030" RevisionGUID="659cd3a1-9983-44f2-8084-21986bf8669f" CreationDate="2019-02-04T14:38:06.183" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="Translating &quot;I will be called Thomas.&quot; into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27925" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9030" RevisionGUID="659cd3a1-9983-44f2-8084-21986bf8669f" CreationDate="2019-02-04T14:38:06.183" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="a717ff70-2df4-44c5-806b-c7d1d42752e7" CreationDate="2019-02-04T14:39:44.613" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body; edited title" Text="Would someone be able to help me translate the following into Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Love has no age, no limits, and no end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27927" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="a717ff70-2df4-44c5-806b-c7d1d42752e7" CreationDate="2019-02-04T14:39:44.613" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body; edited title" Text="Translating &quot;Love has no age, no limits, and no end&quot; into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9038" RevisionGUID="d38e92e5-a061-4533-93e1-808a16f4754d" CreationDate="2019-02-04T20:05:23.407" UserId="1459" Text="Literally, [this phrase](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_saecula_saeculorum#Latin) (found originally in the [New Testament](http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=in+saecula+saeculorum&amp;b=lvb&amp;t=0) of the Vulgata) is translated as &quot;into [the] ages of [the] ages&quot;. It's supposed to be an expression of eternity, and it's commonly translated in English as &quot;forever and ever&quot;. In Spanish, it is much more literal than in English: &quot;por los siglos de los siglos&quot;. But neither the Spanish nor the literal translation of the Latin seem, to me, to explicitly convey the meaning of eternity. In a sense, the expression itself doesn't make sense. Why &quot;of ages&quot;? What is &quot;an age of an age&quot;? More clear is _in aeternum_, which is used at least [223 times](http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=in+aeternum&amp;b=lvb) in the Vulgata (including in the Old Testament).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to make sense of the literal meaning of &quot;_in saecula saeculorum_&quot;? Or we must content with some figurative meaning, derived from that intended by the author of the phrase?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27929" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9038" RevisionGUID="d38e92e5-a061-4533-93e1-808a16f4754d" CreationDate="2019-02-04T20:05:23.407" UserId="1459" Text="On the literal meaning of &quot;in saecula saeculorum&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27930" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9038" RevisionGUID="d38e92e5-a061-4533-93e1-808a16f4754d" CreationDate="2019-02-04T20:05:23.407" UserId="1459" Text="|meaning|christianity|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9038" RevisionGUID="6f7d0423-c3f7-4eab-8e27-597cff131611" CreationDate="2019-02-04T20:34:59.707" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Literally, [this phrase](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_saecula_saeculorum#Latin) (found originally in the [New Testament](http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=in+saecula+saeculorum&amp;b=lvb&amp;t=0) of the Vulgata) is translated as &quot;into [the] ages of [the] ages&quot;. It's supposed to be an expression of eternity, and it's commonly translated in English as &quot;forever and ever&quot;. In Spanish it is much more literal than in English: &quot;por los siglos de los siglos&quot;. But neither the Spanish nor the literal translation of the Latin seem to me to explicitly convey the meaning of eternity. In a way, the expression itself doesn't make sense. Why &quot;of ages&quot;? What is &quot;an age of an age&quot;? More clear is _in aeternum_, which is used at least [223 times](http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=in+aeternum&amp;b=lvb) in the Vulgata (including in the Old Testament).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to make sense of the literal meaning of &quot;_in saecula saeculorum_&quot;? Or we must content with some figurative meaning, derived from that intended by the author of the phrase?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9038" RevisionGUID="4de393ec-618c-4932-9907-9497d006205b" CreationDate="2019-02-04T20:35:35.177" UserId="1459" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Literally, [this phrase](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_saecula_saeculorum#Latin) (found originally in the [New Testament](http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=in+saecula+saeculorum&amp;b=lvb&amp;t=0) of the Vulgata) is translated as &quot;into [the] ages of [the] ages&quot;. It's supposed to be an expression of eternity, and it's commonly translated in English as &quot;forever and ever&quot;. In Spanish it is much more literal than in English: &quot;por los siglos de los siglos&quot;. But neither the Spanish nor the literal translation of the Latin seem to me to explicitly convey the meaning of eternity. In a way, the expression itself doesn't make sense. Why &quot;of ages&quot;? What is &quot;an age of an age&quot;? More clear is _in aeternum_, which is used at least [223 times](http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=in+aeternum&amp;b=lvb) in the Vulgata (including in the Old Testament).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to make sense of the literal meaning of &quot;_in saecula saeculorum_&quot;? Or must we be content with some figurative meaning, derived from that intended by the author of the phrase?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9039" RevisionGUID="97426fcc-4be1-4c14-ab92-bae8c6d87994" CreationDate="2019-02-04T21:20:33.040" UserId="406" Text="This construction is found in particular in the New Testament, so while the answer to Vulgate questions is usually &quot;because that's how Hebrew works&quot;, this one is slightly different: &quot;because that's how *Koinē Greek* works&quot;!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, *saeculum* is being used as a translation for Greek *αἰών*. The most general meaning of both words is &quot;lifetime&quot; or &quot;generation&quot;; in Latin, it also gained the meaning of &quot;century&quot;, because that's a nice round number and also close to the maximum human lifetime. In Greek, on the other hand, it gained a meaning of &quot;a clearly-delineated length of time&quot; and thus &quot;existence/the world&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the literal meaning of this in Greek is, &quot;for the total lifetime of all generations&quot;, or &quot;for the total lifetime of all worlds&quot;. It's a kind of figurative/poetic term for eternity. In Latin, it also means &quot;for the centuries of the centuries&quot;, which doesn't make much sense; that's not the intended reading, Jerome was just sticking to the Greek as closely as possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9040" RevisionGUID="aa6b0676-21dc-492a-a124-19d8991815db" CreationDate="2019-02-04T23:30:26.713" UserId="324" Text="It is a Semitic idiom, as in “king of kings” or “vanities of vanities”. “X-singular of X-plural” means “X to the highest possible degree”. This particular expression (“eternity of eternities”), is Aramaic (ʻālam ʻālmayyā), not Hebrew, as here in Daniel 7:18:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 	וִיקַבְּלוּן מַלְכוּתָא קַדִּישֵׁי עֶלְיֹונִין וְיַחְסְנוּן&#xD;&#xA;&gt; מַלְכוּתָא עַד־עָלְמָא וְעַד עָלַם עָלְמַיָּא׃	&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suscipient autem regnum sancti Dei altissimi, et obtinebunt regnum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; usque in sæculum, et sæculum sæculorum.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 	καὶ παραλήψονται τὴν βασιλείαν ἅγιοι ὑψίστου καὶ καθέξουσι τὴν&#xD;&#xA;&gt; βασιλείαν ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9041" RevisionGUID="5b879a5a-bdf2-4289-a76c-bf0e6d391c91" CreationDate="2019-02-04T23:57:49.457" UserId="406" Text="In Tsakonian (a modern descendant of Doric Greek), the letter combination ΣΧ is pronounced `[ʃ]` (the first sound in English &quot;ship&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems clear that this wasn't the ancient pronunciation, since this combination wasn't used to transcribe Hebrew `[ʃ]` in the Septuagint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When did this pronunciation start?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27936" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9041" RevisionGUID="5b879a5a-bdf2-4289-a76c-bf0e6d391c91" CreationDate="2019-02-04T23:57:49.457" UserId="406" Text="When did σχ become [ʃ]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27937" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9041" RevisionGUID="5b879a5a-bdf2-4289-a76c-bf0e6d391c91" CreationDate="2019-02-04T23:57:49.457" UserId="406" Text="|greek|phonology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9041" RevisionGUID="97da420b-7af3-4d83-a129-d708284a6f00" CreationDate="2019-02-05T00:03:03.430" UserId="406" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="In Tsakonian (a modern descendant of Doric Greek), the letter combination ΣΧ is pronounced `[ʃ]` (the first sound in English &quot;ship&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems clear that this wasn't the ancient pronunciation, since this combination wasn't used to transcribe Hebrew `[ʃ]` in the Septuagint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When did this pronunciation start? Or is it a purely orthographic device, not applying to words that naturally have sigma and chi together like *σχίσμα* (*schisma*)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9042" RevisionGUID="172f2760-efdc-44d6-aff8-57942d7723a9" CreationDate="2019-02-05T08:57:51.147" UserId="2389" Text="Salvēte omnēs, hocc erit mihi prīmum rogātum hāc in sēde. Haud dūdum vīdī quendam hominem scīscitārī, quōmodo posset Latīnē dīcī &quot;he has a long tail, even for a cat&quot;. Ad quod rogātum cum respondēre cōnātus sum, prōtinus appāruit rem vix liquēre nec mihi, nec cēterīs sodālibus - id quod prīmum in buccam vēnerat, vidēlicet &quot;prō fēle&quot;, nūsquam repperī nec dīcī posse conclūdō. Dēnique vīsum est sīc dīcī: *&quot;longa cōda eī est, **etiam ut** fēlī&quot;*. Ecce quaedam exempla quae invēnī ad hunc ūsum confirmandum:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Archelāus, physicus, **ut** est captus antīquitātis, dīligens (SenPhil.Nat.6.12)  &#xD;&#xA;- satis exercitātum in dīcendō, **ut** Thebanum **scīlicet** (Nep.Vit.Ep.5.2)  &#xD;&#xA;- (ōrātiōnis genus) **ut** in ōrātore, exīle, inūsitātum (Cic.deOrat.3.66)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Item cētera utputa *&quot;ut illīs temporibus, ut tum rēs erant&quot;*. Alius sodālis prōposuit *&quot;vel/etsī prout fēlēs&quot;* - atquī ego exempla cum *&quot;prout&quot;* nōn reperiō nisi cum verbō, igitur plēnō ōrātiōnis membrō (quod Anglicē &quot;clause&quot;), nec cāsus &quot;fēlēs&quot; cum sententiā congruere vidētur - quō colligō sīc nōn dīcī posse. *&quot;Prout fēlēs est&quot;* sit grammaticē dictum, tamen valeat &quot;according to how much of a cat he is&quot; sīve &quot;inasmuch as&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quod ad *&quot;**vel**&quot;* et *&quot;**etiam**&quot;*, quōrum, licet prīmō obtūtū haud prāvē dicta videantur, nūllum docvmentum repperī nisi illud parum consentāneum utpote per oppositiōnem dictum, *&quot;vel ut&quot;* autem plānē aliud valet:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - vīcīna sunt haec, etiam ut dissimilia, paria vīribus, etiam ut mente dissentiant (Quint.DeclMaior.4.17.16)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quid sī *&quot;**ut** fēlī **quoque**&quot;*? *&quot;**ut vel** fēlī?&quot;* Praetereā invēnī tālem ūsum cum modō conjūnctīvō, quī vēritātem nisi autumet, concēdit tamen:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - vērum **ut** ita **sit**, tamen nōn potes quasi praeclārum aliquid praedicāre[...] cum[...] (Cic.Ver.2.3.151)  &#xD;&#xA;- **nē sit** summum malum dolor, certē malum est (Cic. Tusc. 2, 5, 14)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Itaque certior fierī velim utrum satis liqueat tālis sententia: *&quot;**Sit** fēlēs, longam **tamen** cōdam habet&quot;* vel membrīs retroāctīs (*&quot;habet..sit&quot;*). Huic, quō clārius oppositiō exprimerētur, putāvī adjiciendam quendam particulam conjūnctiōnemve corrōborātīvam - sed haud sciō an ūlla hārum valeat &quot;suprā spem&quot;, &quot;granted&quot;, neque &quot;contrā spem&quot;, &quot;even if&quot;. Quam hārum putātis potissvmum convenīre?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- etiamsī sit fēlēs (crēdō erit &quot;contrā&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- quamvīs sit fēlēs (crēdō erit &quot;however much&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- tametsī sit fēlēs (dubium)&#xD;&#xA;- licet sit fēlēs (dubium)&#xD;&#xA;- scīlicet sit fēlēs (haud sciō an conveniat)&#xD;&#xA;- fēlēs sānē sit (vidētur convenīre)&#xD;&#xA;- sit quidem fēlēs (nesciō)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Ut reī longiusculae summam faciam: quōmodo potest efferrī, quod aliquid in suō genere ēmineat et quālitāte quādam praeditum sit suprā spem et extrā ōrdinem, imprīmīs sī ōrdō iste per sē aliquantus? Ecce exempla Anglicē:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;he has a long tail even for a cat&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;she's pale even for someone who's lived in a crypt for 200 years&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;it moved quickly even for a meteor&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27940" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9042" RevisionGUID="172f2760-efdc-44d6-aff8-57942d7723a9" CreationDate="2019-02-05T08:57:51.147" UserId="2389" Text="&lt;quality&gt; even for being a &lt;noun&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27941" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9042" RevisionGUID="172f2760-efdc-44d6-aff8-57942d7723a9" CreationDate="2019-02-05T08:57:51.147" UserId="2389" Text="|vocabulary|idiom|translation|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6897" RevisionGUID="3b32c3fa-f4ba-477a-b960-ef92ec4367e7" CreationDate="2019-02-05T10:20:45.377" UserId="9" Comment="added 294 characters in body" Text="A little while back, I asked a question about the alleged Latin word &quot;[tribalis](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6793/has-tribalis-ever-been-used-in-latin)&quot; (which it seems was not actually used), and I mentioned that it seemed to me that it would be an irregular formation because *tribus* is a *u*-stem noun, but *tribālis* does not contain *-u-.* So far, nobody has informed me of any examples of parallel formations of that type. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But recently, I did run into an example of the reverse: an *o*-stem noun that has a derivative that seems to be built with *-u-.* It is *[lectŭārĭus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=lectuarius),* which Lewis &amp; Short says is a &quot;late Lat.&quot; adjective meaning &quot;*of or belonging to the bed, bed-*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The related noun *[lectus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlectus2)* seems to be declined as an *o*-stem. That said, I found some interesting notes in the L&amp;S entry that may be relevant: it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (nom. **lectum** , i, n., *Dig. 32, 1, 52, § 9; 34, 2, 19, § 8*; **lectus** , ūs, **Plaut. Am. 1, 3, 15**; al. lecti; **Sen. Ep. 95, 72** Haas; Cornif. ap. *Prisc. 711* P.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relevant line seems  to be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;prius abis quam **lectus** ubi cubuisti concaluit locus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[Amphitruo (Leo)](https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Amphitruo_(Leo))*, Wikisource)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;lectus&quot; here apparently should be [read as a a genitive](https://books.google.com/books?id=DpkoAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA109&amp;lpg=PA109).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't know if usage in Plautus would be relevant to a &quot;late Latin&quot; derived adjective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oddly, de Vaan's entry for *lectus* doesn't seem to mention this variant form directly, but seems to mention something similar as a theoretical etymology:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; WH rightly notice that a nominal formation *legʰ-to- 'bed' would be strange, but it does not seem impossible: 'lied upon' &gt; 'bed'. The form could be interpreted as a nominalized verbal adj. with regular e-grade in the root, [...] An alternative solution is to posit **a *tu*-stem *legʰ-tu- 'the lying', which could have switched to the *o*-stem inflection by the time of Plautus.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I was looking for more information about the possibility of *lectus* declining as a &quot;u-stem&quot; or &quot;fourth declension&quot; noun, I found an [interesting discussion](http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/12th-century-family-motto-lectus-generat-fortem.2212/) where some people suggest that *lectus, lectus* could be understood in certain contexts in post-Classical Latin as an [abstract *-(t)us* noun](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/891/what-is-the-difference-between-us-and-io) derived from *lego.* I don't know if that might be relevant to the formation of *lectuarius;* I would suppose not, but I'm not completely sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is going on with *lectuarius*—why isn't it *lectarius* instead? Are there any examples of similar formations with other roots where the adjective ends in *-uarius* even though the noun declines as an o-stem? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I found an article by Oscar Brugman that seems to discuss the declension of *lectus*, &quot;[Observations Plautinae et Terentianae](https://books.google.com/books?id=_oQGAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA95)&quot;, but it is in Latin so it's hard for me to read it. If anyone could write an answer that simply summarizes and explains what this source says, I would appreciate it. (I found this source via a citation in &quot;[Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft](https://books.google.com/books?id=DJ8NAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA413#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&quot;, 1873.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brugman mentions one example of *lectuariam* and one example of *lectualia*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;necnon pro nobis faciunt duo verba a stirpe ‘lectu’ derivata *lectuarius* et *lectualis*, quae ita ut de scriptura dubitari nequeat leguntur apud Nonium 537,&lt;sub&gt;20&lt;/sub&gt;: “plagae grande linteum tegmen quod nunc torale vel *lectuariam* syndonem dicimus” et in Possidii vit. Aug. cap. 22 : “vestes eius et calceamenta vel *lectualia* ex moderato et competenti habitu erant.” praeterea persaepe media aetate voces ‘lectuarium’ et ‘lectuale’ usurpatae sunt, quorum locorum multitudinem praebet Du Cange et Carpentarii gloss. med. et inf. Lat. ex omnibus autem quae protuli sequitur ut lectus non modo a Plauto Terentioque quarta declinatum sit, sed per totam latinitatem in usitato quidem sermonis genere, neque dubito quin qui in scriptoribus legendis hoc curent etiam alia exempla huius usus inventuri sint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 97)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I found one other example that seems similar: *annualis* corresponding to *annus, anni.* The [Lewis and Short entry](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=annualis) says &quot;*a year old* (post-class. and rare)&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27944" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="6211" RevisionGUID="1819a015-d7b7-43be-a281-9e9feef5ff7d" CreationDate="2019-02-05T19:16:48.050" UserId="12" Comment="98" />
  <row Id="27945" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="a7a09248-f5db-4e0a-8149-fe56b8861bea" CreationDate="2019-02-05T19:24:32.037" UserId="79" Comment="99" />
  <row Id="27946" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5251" RevisionGUID="8914fa5c-2fd5-45a4-824c-2a3b94c936ce" CreationDate="2019-02-05T19:51:01.730" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|sentence-translation|latin-to-english-translation|biology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9043" RevisionGUID="512cd11b-ed6c-47c3-b1a0-657789eb9495" CreationDate="2019-02-05T21:05:58.417" UserId="45" Text="Tibi ob rogatum tam polito sermone expressum gratias ago, etsi plene respondere nequere mihi videor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ut brevius viam qua opportune hanc comparationem reddere possis suggeram: omnes orationes quas proponis mihi videntur commune habere vitium, scilicet quia, licet praecellentiam quamdam in aliquo genere satis indicent, carent illa significatione in littera Anglica (ut credo) latente qua innuitur superius genus *iam* in aliquo praecellere, excluso casu qui nunc consideratur. Omnes fere orationes antepositae (&quot;etiamsi sit,&quot; &quot;quamvis sit,&quot; etc.) vim habent aliquantulo dissimilem &quot;concessivam&quot; (ut ita dicam), velut si mirum sit potius *hunc felem habere codam longam* quam *hunc felem habere codam longiorem aliis felibus (iam longas codas habentibus!).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nescio an sit idonea coniunctio vel particula quae valeat hoc significare sine mediantibus verbis vel quadam mutatione orationis. Si opus esset mihi hoc reddere Latine nec valde constringerer ad ordinem Anglicae orationis servandum, aliquid huiusmodi proponerem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Longam habet codam, supra morem felium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Longiorem habet codam et solito more felium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Longam habet codam. Ne feles quidem tantas habere codas solent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pallida erat. Nec qui ducentos annos in crypta habitabat tam pallida videri putabamus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9044" RevisionGUID="f59c2785-9cfc-4de1-a526-d4393a6a660f" CreationDate="2019-02-05T23:08:36.833" UserId="406" Text="To some extent, we know how sounds varied between ancient Greek dialects: the Aeolians lost rough breathings but preserved digamma, for example, while the Attics changed many of their long alphas into etas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But apart from alphabet changes, do we have any evidence of how dialectal pronunciation differed? For example, even if all dialects used theta to write the first letter in *θεος*, I doubt they all pronounced that theta the same way: at some point it shifted from a plosive to a fricative, and that can't have happened everywhere at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Writing could potentially give evidence: for example, if X dialect inscriptions tend to substitute hypsilon for iota, we can assume `/y/` and `/i/` were merging. Similarly, if a comedian has a character from Y island say &quot;ουάναξ&quot;, then Y dialect probably preserved the digamma even if they didn't write it. However, I don't know of any actual examples of this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27949" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9044" RevisionGUID="f59c2785-9cfc-4de1-a526-d4393a6a660f" CreationDate="2019-02-05T23:08:36.833" UserId="406" Text="Do we know how Greek dialects sounded?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27950" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9044" RevisionGUID="f59c2785-9cfc-4de1-a526-d4393a6a660f" CreationDate="2019-02-05T23:08:36.833" UserId="406" Text="|greek|example-request|phonology|dialects|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27951" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="7035" RevisionGUID="8ec9bd40-3715-4397-8833-c059766c11cb" CreationDate="2019-02-06T00:04:20.627" UserId="30" Comment="100" />
  <row Id="27952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9045" RevisionGUID="26b66a94-3607-4c1b-9818-29b80a0b24c1" CreationDate="2019-02-06T00:26:56.887" UserId="406" Text="Recently, [luchonacho asked][1] about the phrase _in saecula saeculōrum_: literally, &quot;into the lifetimes of the lifetimes&quot;. It's kind of a weird phrase, for multiple reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'd always thought the phrase was _in **saeculō** saeculōrum_: using singular instead of plural, and ablative instead of accusative. With singular, it's a common Hebraism (as in &quot;the holy of holies&quot;, &quot;the king of kings&quot;, &quot;the song of songs&quot;), and with the ablative, it means &quot;in&quot; (as in, &quot;during&quot;) instead of &quot;into&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems I may have fallen prey to the Mandela Effect, as I can't find that particular phrasing anywhere. Did I just make it up? Or does the version with ablative singular actually exist somewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/9038/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27953" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9045" RevisionGUID="26b66a94-3607-4c1b-9818-29b80a0b24c1" CreationDate="2019-02-06T00:26:56.887" UserId="406" Text="Do we ever see &quot;in saeculo saeculorum&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27954" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9045" RevisionGUID="26b66a94-3607-4c1b-9818-29b80a0b24c1" CreationDate="2019-02-06T00:26:56.887" UserId="406" Text="|christianity|passage-request|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4929" RevisionGUID="a36be37a-79e7-4027-a3a1-8e6d815ed6b4" CreationDate="2019-02-06T00:29:52.950" UserId="406" Comment="Marking phonetic symbols to separate them from normal text and make them easier to read" Text="##*Secundus* is regular, *eqvus* isn't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a sound change called the &quot;Boukólos Rule&quot;, which started back in Proto-Indo-European. When labiovelar consonants (like `/kʷ/` and `/gʷ/`) appeared next to `/w/` or `/u/`, they dissimilated and lost their labialization, becoming `/k/` and `/g/`. The rule is named after one of the first known examples, Greek *βουκόλος* &quot;cowherd&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, a *u* `/u/` vowel continued to turn a preceding labiovelar *qv* `/kʷ/` into a plain velar *c* `/k/`. So *seqv-* + *-undus* became *secundus*, which was perfectly regular at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule eventually ceased to be relevant in most Indo-European languages (for example Greek lost its labiovelars entirely). But in both Latin and Germanic, later sound changes created more `/u/` sounds. And the Boukólos Rule continued to apply to these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short *o* in the second-declension endings shifted to a *u* between Old and Classical Latin, giving the familiar endings *-us* and *-um*. And this new *u* transformed second-declension nouns ending with labiovelars. This also created the irregularity in the relative pronoun: *qvī qvae qvod*, but *cujus, cui* (originally *\*qvojos, \*qvoi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But while the relative pronouns were fairly fossilized (hence the archaic endings), and the gerundive in *-undus* was falling out of use, the second-declension endings were still very common and productive. And the paradigm *ecus, eqvī, eqvō, ecum, eqvō, eqve* looked inconsistent and wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in writing, it became standard to write *qv* for a plain velar `/k/`, **only before the second declension endings *-us, -um***. [Allen's *Vox Latina*][1] quotes Velius Longius (writing in the second century AD):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Auribus qvidem sufficiebat ut *eqvus* per unum *u* scriberetur, ratio tamen duo exigit.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Indeed, to the ears it is fine to write **eqvus** with a single **u**, but the mind demands two.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite this, forms like *ecus* are still found in inscriptions, indicating that the true pronunciation was still `/k/`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA20&amp;lpg=PA20&amp;dq=ecus%20equus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=TxPwnk4zUY&amp;sig=pM1w0pHT75ixsMSSsZZqWb_iQ5Y&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwicjuPL76PVAhUW52MKHQduA9Q4ChDoAQhBMAg#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9046" RevisionGUID="e41b6a7a-d977-420e-a758-2a8f8ad68760" CreationDate="2019-02-06T00:50:56.633" UserId="40" Text="The nice thing about Greek dialect inscriptions is that there was little in the way of standardized orthography: spellings seem to closely track the local pronunciation (or sometimes apparently the pronunciation of the scribe, who wasn't always necessarily a local). So the answer is yes, we know quite a bit;  this is the main reason we know anything about Greek dialect differences in the first place. The dialect handbooks, e.g. Buck's *Greek Dialects*, are full of examples. For an extreme case, look at Boeotian, which is full of spellings that look bizarre from an Attic point of view but seem to have been chosen for phonetic accuracy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, they didn't use IPA and there's a level of phonetic resolution that is difficult to capture with the Greek alphabet or any other, so our knowledge of exactly how the dialects sounded is necessarily incomplete. Some dialects actually invented new letters to represent sounds specific to them, e.g. Arcadian [&quot;tsan&quot;][1], and we can only make educated guesses at what those stood for. Your example of theta is interesting: the Greek alphabet had no sign for [θ], so we can't necessarily tell whether the use of theta in a given case stands for the aspirated plosive or the fricative, but in this case the fricative pronunciation of some dialects was marked enough that it left traces in literature: a Spartan character in Aristophanes' *Lysistrata* swears Ναὶ τὼ σιώ for Ναὶ τὼ θεώ &quot;by the Twin Gods&quot;. Presumably the sigma was the playwright's way of spelling [θ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_(letter)#Arcadian_%22tsan%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9046" RevisionGUID="3c83a364-6292-4c4b-b6de-14174a27f036" CreationDate="2019-02-06T01:21:50.250" UserId="40" Comment="added Boeotian examples" Text="The nice thing about Greek dialect inscriptions is that there was little in the way of standardized orthography: spellings seem to closely track the local pronunciation (or sometimes apparently the pronunciation of the scribe, who wasn't always necessarily a local). So the answer is yes, we know quite a bit;  this is the main reason we know anything about Greek dialect differences in the first place. The dialect handbooks, e.g. Buck's *Greek Dialects*, are full of examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an extreme case, look at Boeotian, which is full of spellings that look bizarre from an Attic point of view but seem to have been chosen for phonetic accuracy. These mostly involve vowels; here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The sound that Attic writes οι appears in Boeotian as υ (e.g. ϝυκια for Attic οἰκία). The explanation seems to be that [oi] has been monophthongized to some sort of front rounded vowel like [ø] or [y]. Since upsilon was used for [y] in Attic, the Boeotians decided to use it for this similar sound.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The sound that Attic writes υ appears in Boeotian as ου (e.g. ουπερ for Attic ὑπέρ). This clearly stands for [u], which is the original value of this phoneme, fronted in Attic. After dentals this is sometimes even spelled ιου (e.g. ονιουμα = ὄνομα), indicating some kind of palatalization or diphthongization.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Other monophthongizations include η for αι (e.g. κη for Attic καί) and ι for ει, foreshadowing already in the fifth century BC the much later phenomenon of Koine iotacism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the Greeks didn't use IPA and there's a level of phonetic resolution that is difficult to capture with the Greek alphabet or any other, so our knowledge of exactly how the dialects sounded is necessarily incomplete. Some dialects actually invented new letters to represent sounds specific to them, e.g. Arcadian [&quot;tsan&quot;][1], and we can only make educated guesses at what those stood for. Your example of theta is interesting: the Greek alphabet had no sign for [θ], so we can't necessarily tell whether the use of theta in a given case stands for the aspirated plosive or the fricative, but in this case the fricative pronunciation of some dialects was marked enough that it left traces in literature: a Spartan character in Aristophanes' *Lysistrata* swears Ναὶ τὼ σιώ for Ναὶ τὼ θεώ &quot;by the Twin Gods&quot;. Presumably the sigma was the playwright's way of spelling [θ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_(letter)#Arcadian_%22tsan%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9047" RevisionGUID="ae8989c8-731a-4513-a6d7-c50470a68d41" CreationDate="2019-02-06T03:10:07.537" UserId="45" Text="No, this only occurs as &quot;in saecula saeculorum&quot; or &quot;in saeculum saeculi.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proximate reason is that Jerome is literally translating the Greek terms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων (e.g. Gal 1:5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος (e.g. Heb 1:8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The equivalent Hebrew expression in the Psalms (e.g. Ps 132:14) was already translated in the Septuagint as &quot;εἰς αἰῶνα αἰῶνος.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek εἰς + acc. is literally much closer to Latin *in* + acc.; ἐν + dat., on the other hand, would be translated with *in* + abl." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9048" RevisionGUID="5ea91d96-efad-444f-8458-7c3a969bd0d6" CreationDate="2019-02-06T13:31:36.067" UserId="3378" Text="I remember a cartoon show I used to see when I was young.&#xD;&#xA;The hero there used to use a sort of magic tool to travel through time.&#xD;&#xA;He used to say something like &quot;Les tegratte, muri tempe, at intervalia&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know Latin, I thought these words were Latin. &#xD;&#xA;I want to know the meaning of these words in English please.&#xD;&#xA;If someone knows, that could bring some relief to me when I remember that scene with my brother (we used to see that cartoon together).&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27961" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9048" RevisionGUID="5ea91d96-efad-444f-8458-7c3a969bd0d6" CreationDate="2019-02-06T13:31:36.067" UserId="3378" Text="meaning of a sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27962" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9048" RevisionGUID="5ea91d96-efad-444f-8458-7c3a969bd0d6" CreationDate="2019-02-06T13:31:36.067" UserId="3378" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9043" RevisionGUID="0fad3daf-f015-47c6-9697-34d18fd72444" CreationDate="2019-02-06T13:54:55.270" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="Tibi ob rogatum tam polito sermone expressum gratias ago, etsi plene respondere nequere mihi videor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ut breviter viam qua opportune hanc comparationem reddere possis suggeram: omnes orationes quas proponis mihi videntur commune habere vitium, scilicet quia, licet praecellentiam quamdam in aliquo genere satis indicent, carent illa significatione in littera Anglica (ut credo) latente qua innuitur superius genus *iam* in aliquo praecellere, et excluso casu qui nunc consideratur. Omnes fere orationes antepositae (&quot;etiamsi sit,&quot; &quot;quamvis sit,&quot; etc.) vim habent aliquantulo dissimilem &quot;concessivam&quot; (ut ita dicam), velut si mirum sit potius *hunc felem habere codam longam* quam *hunc felem habere codam longiorem aliis felibus (iam longas codas habentibus!).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nescio an sit idonea coniunctio vel particula quae valeat hoc significare sine mediantibus verbis vel quadam mutatione orationis. Si opus esset mihi hoc reddere Latine nec valde constringerer ad ordinem Anglicae orationis servandum, aliquid huiusmodi proponerem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Longam habet codam, supra morem felium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Longiorem habet codam et solito more felium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Longam habet codam. Ne feles quidem tantas habere codas solent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nec qui ducentos annos in crypta habitabant tam pallidi videri solent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9039" RevisionGUID="37d6dbdc-4c5e-4cd3-8538-a1c7d568f818" CreationDate="2019-02-06T16:27:55.380" UserId="406" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="This construction is found in particular in the New Testament, so while the answer to Vulgate questions is usually &quot;because that's how the Hebrew of the Old Testament works&quot;, this one is slightly different: &quot;because that's how *the Greek of the New Testament* works&quot;!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, *saeculum* is being used as a translation for Greek *αἰών*. The most general meaning of both words is &quot;lifetime&quot; or &quot;generation&quot;; in Latin, it also gained the meaning of &quot;century&quot;, because that's a nice round number and also close to the maximum human lifetime. In Greek, on the other hand, it gained a meaning of &quot;a clearly-delineated length of time&quot; and thus &quot;existence/the world&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the literal meaning of this in Greek is, &quot;for the total lifetime of all generations&quot;, or &quot;for the total lifetime of all worlds&quot;. It's a kind of figurative/poetic term for eternity. In Latin, it also means &quot;for the centuries of the centuries&quot;, which doesn't make much sense; that's not the intended reading, Jerome was just sticking to the Greek as closely as possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9048" RevisionGUID="356aea90-2123-4f37-8912-a3f4e32aa25d" CreationDate="2019-02-06T18:36:59.897" UserId="3378" Comment="showing the cartoon name" Text="I remember a cartoon show named &quot;Gargoyles&quot; (follow [this link][1] please) I used to see when I was young.&#xD;&#xA;The hero there used to use a sort of magic tool to travel through time.&#xD;&#xA;He used to say something like &quot;Les tegratte, muri tempe, at intervalia&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know Latin, I thought these words were Latin. &#xD;&#xA;I want to know the meaning of these words in English please.&#xD;&#xA;If someone knows, that could bring some relief to me when I remember that scene with my brother (we used to see that cartoon together).&#xD;&#xA;I would like to mention that it was dubbed in Arabic (I'm Lebanese). I'm still hoping they've dubbed it right.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gargoyles_(TV_series)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9049" RevisionGUID="9bad9b93-a87b-4dcd-9fb3-3faffd1df3d6" CreationDate="2019-02-06T18:59:24.887" UserId="1694" Text="Since no-one has provided a more definitive answer, I will provide what I think is *probably* the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tsakonian, being considered a dialect of standard Greek,  is unlikely to have any type of traditional orthography, so any spelling conventions are comparatively recent.  Therefore, the use of ΣΧ for [ʃ] is most likely a simple orthographic device, unrelated to historical development.  I will guess that its use was suggested by the fact that in standard Greek ΣΧ is pronounced, at least before a front vowel, as [sç], which is acoustically similar to [ʃ].  Quite possibly, the German use of &quot;sch&quot; for the same sound provided additional impetus for the choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not definitive, I know, but I think something along the above lines is highly likely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9050" RevisionGUID="8c5e5e6a-374b-4ea0-bf10-8447842eeaa1" CreationDate="2019-02-06T19:59:49.550" UserId="40" Text="The Wikipedia article on Tsakonian gives [some information on relevant sound changes][1]. This supports varro's conjecture that the Tsakonian spelling of ΣΧ for [ʃ] is merely orthographic, and doesn't reflect a sound change like [sx] &gt; [ʃ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant points from the Wiki article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Word-initial [r] &gt; Tsakonian [ʃ]: *ράφων [ˈrafɔːn] &gt; σχάφου [ˈʃafu]. (It's not clear to me whether this is the only source of Tsakonian [ʃ].)&#xD;&#xA; - [sx] &gt; Tsakonian [kʰ]: ίσχων [isxɔːn] &gt; ίκχου [ˈikʰu]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsakonian_language#Sounds" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9051" RevisionGUID="fa9fe116-a49f-4eb7-91db-5040f3aa9b11" CreationDate="2019-02-06T21:00:08.793" UserId="79" Text="It seems that you can listen to the phrase [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8oAeHWG6Fk&amp;t=14m28s).&#xD;&#xA;To me it sounds like &quot;tesla grate muri tempi et intervalia&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like an attempt at something that sounds like Latin, but it doesn't quite make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the last four words are supposed to be something like &quot;intervals and walls of time&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The word *grate* means &quot;thankfully&quot; or &quot;willingly&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if the &quot;tesla&quot; is supposed to refer to the accompanying visual effects, contain *des* (as &quot;please give&quot;), or something else.&#xD;&#xA;I might also have misheard something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I don't think it's proper Latin.&#xD;&#xA;It might make sense in some other language, but I can't quite parse it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9048" RevisionGUID="b1ddbf8b-e32a-4eaa-943c-e9b26fc19c48" CreationDate="2019-02-06T21:41:05.627" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I remember a cartoon show named &quot;Gargoyles&quot; (follow [this link][1] please) I used to see when I was young.&#xD;&#xA;The hero there used to use a sort of magic tool to travel through time.&#xD;&#xA;He used to say something like &quot;Les tegratte, muri tempe, at intervalia&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know Latin, I thought these words were Latin. &#xD;&#xA;I want to know the meaning of these words in English please.&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone knows, that could bring some relief to me when I remember that scene with my brother (we used to see that cartoon together).&#xD;&#xA;I would like to mention that it was dubbed in Arabic (I'm Lebanese). I'm still hoping they've dubbed it right.&#xD;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gargoyles_(TV_series)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27970" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9048" RevisionGUID="b1ddbf8b-e32a-4eaa-943c-e9b26fc19c48" CreationDate="2019-02-06T21:41:05.627" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Translating a Latin phrase from an animated show" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27971" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9048" RevisionGUID="b1ddbf8b-e32a-4eaa-943c-e9b26fc19c48" CreationDate="2019-02-06T21:41:05.627" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|passage-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9052" RevisionGUID="b15e065f-7ab8-40bb-94bb-850d26a75279" CreationDate="2019-02-06T23:43:39.127" UserId="3280" Text="I was taught the way to say &quot;yes&quot; in Latin is two words: &quot;ita vero&quot;. It seems counter-intuitive that it's two words, but why is that so? In essence, why is the Latin word for yes two words? Does &quot;ita&quot; mean something by itself and &quot;vero&quot; mean something by itself and somehow &quot;ita vero&quot; means yes?&#xD;&#xA;~M.C." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27973" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9052" RevisionGUID="b15e065f-7ab8-40bb-94bb-850d26a75279" CreationDate="2019-02-06T23:43:39.127" UserId="3280" Text="why is ita vero two words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27974" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9052" RevisionGUID="b15e065f-7ab8-40bb-94bb-850d26a75279" CreationDate="2019-02-06T23:43:39.127" UserId="3280" Text="|vocabulary|word-choice|spoken-language|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9053" RevisionGUID="8f2db3f2-f620-4cab-8b32-a0f0347286f5" CreationDate="2019-02-07T00:13:48.580" UserId="522" Text="In the English phrases  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Even so,&quot; &quot;More so,&quot; or (historical) &quot;Exactly so,&quot; 'so' = *ita*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Ita*** (adverb) so, thus,in this way.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (and also by itself)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;***ita*** **C.** In affirmations, esp. in replies, yes, it is so, just so, true: quid istic tibi negoti est? Dav. Mihin'? Si. Ita, **[Lewis &amp; Short *TUFTS*][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where a bald and unconvincing monosyllable requires extra emphasis  &#xD;&#xA;*ita certe*  &#xD;&#xA;*ita vero*  &#xD;&#xA;*ita est*  &#xD;&#xA;*ita profecto*  &#xD;&#xA;and *ita plane,* 'clearly yes,' can be found in comedies and orations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DI%3Aentry%20group%3D78%3Aentry%3Dita" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9053" RevisionGUID="99ea7ce3-f62f-45df-8154-efed39286039" CreationDate="2019-02-07T01:31:02.607" UserId="522" Comment="Added 5 lines" Text="In the English phrases  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Even so,&quot; &quot;More so,&quot; or (historical) &quot;Exactly so,&quot; 'so' = *ita*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Ita*** (adverb) so, thus,in this way.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (and also by itself)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;***ita*** **C.** In affirmations, esp. in replies, yes, it is so, just so, true: quid istic tibi negoti est? Dav. Mihin'? Si. Ita, **[Lewis &amp; Short *TUFTS*][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where a bald and unconvincing monosyllable requires extra emphasis  &#xD;&#xA;*ita certe*  &#xD;&#xA;*ita vero*  &#xD;&#xA;*ita est*  &#xD;&#xA;*ita profecto*  &#xD;&#xA;and *ita plane,* 'clearly yes,' can be found in comedies and orations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and *vero* also, adverb from ***[vērus , a, um,][2]*** adj. (=true, real, actual) can also mean 'Yes,' by itself&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **B.** *vērō* , in truth, in fact, certainly, truly, to be sure, surely, assuredly:  &#xD;&#xA;**b. In corroborative replies,** yes, certainly, by all means, assuredly, etc. (class.; while verum in this sense is only ante-class.): De. *An quid est etiam amplius?* He. *Vero amplius,* '...even more?' 'Yes, more.'(Terence) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DI%3Aentry%20group%3D78%3Aentry%3Dita&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=v%C4%93rus&amp;la=la&amp;can=v%C4%93rus0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9054" RevisionGUID="f6555e30-2048-4dfc-80f2-7394e146b7cd" CreationDate="2019-02-07T01:54:43.203" UserId="3280" Text="How do you say &quot;three times a week&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For context, I want to say that I swim three times a week&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;~M.C.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27978" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9054" RevisionGUID="f6555e30-2048-4dfc-80f2-7394e146b7cd" CreationDate="2019-02-07T01:54:43.203" UserId="3280" Text="How do you say &quot;three times a week&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27979" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9054" RevisionGUID="f6555e30-2048-4dfc-80f2-7394e146b7cd" CreationDate="2019-02-07T01:54:43.203" UserId="3280" Text="|idiom|translation|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9055" RevisionGUID="1e183080-ee6a-44ed-9d79-c4bca330905a" CreationDate="2019-02-07T02:30:20.810" UserId="30" Text="I believe the instrumental case was absorbed by the ablative in Latin and by the dative in Greek. Is there any way at all in which influence of the old instrumental can be seen in Latin or Greek?—outside the bare fact that the ablative and dative, respectively, can be used to indicate an instrument. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any remains in morphology, in semantic oddities, in syntactic sequences, etc., or whatever you can think of, would be of interest. I know very little of the instrumental case, so I don't really know what to look for. Of course &quot;no&quot; is also a valid answer. (For comparison, I believe the typical vowel i of the Proto-Indo-European optative mood is in some way reflected in the Latin subjunctive.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9055" RevisionGUID="1e183080-ee6a-44ed-9d79-c4bca330905a" CreationDate="2019-02-07T02:30:20.810" UserId="30" Text="Are vestiges or influence of the instrumental case in any way identifiable in Latin and Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9055" RevisionGUID="1e183080-ee6a-44ed-9d79-c4bca330905a" CreationDate="2019-02-07T02:30:20.810" UserId="30" Text="|greek|proto-indo-european|case|ablativus-instrumenti|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="1a055125-9c2d-455f-9ec3-7e223e4edfc7" CreationDate="2019-02-07T02:38:21.233" UserId="522" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Mixing Youssef's version and Joonas's&#xD;&#xA;with what I could hear, I guessed the Latin was being mixed with back-slang.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Tes stegrat&quot; 'spells' Targets Set!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But almost all the other Gargoyle formulae are in Latin, or something like it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even so there is uncertainty about the  incantation for the Phoenix Gate. This version (collected by G.Guay for Katrina Dawn Nell) appears with two other versions on [The Gargoyles fans Website][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *“Deflagrate muri tempi et intervallia!”*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Burn down walls of time and space! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://%20http://www.gargoyles-fans.org/characters/spells.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9057" RevisionGUID="3d7c92bb-e4a9-43b1-ae7d-940c793cd64b" CreationDate="2019-02-07T03:04:44.877" UserId="522" Text="*hebdomas,* or *hebdomada* are late Latin for 'a week.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Each and every week' is *Singulis hebdomadis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once, twice, three times, four times (in Latin) are  &#xD;&#xA;*semel, bis, ter, quater.*  (like any other adverb, place it near to the verb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that it becomes more regular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*quotiens* how many times; *totiens* so many times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5x *quinquiens;* 6x *sexiens;* 7x *septiens.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9058" RevisionGUID="c2471d6e-14f2-412c-90df-0a229857f158" CreationDate="2019-02-07T05:27:01.710" UserId="406" Text="In medicine, taking a pill twice per day is _bis in diē_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So on this model, three times per week would be *ter in hebdomade*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you want to use the later word for &quot;week&quot; rather than the earlier/fancier one, that would be *ter in septimānā*.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9051" RevisionGUID="7e1a0e65-11f7-4666-b1e6-255ecbfa106d" CreationDate="2019-02-07T08:27:03.910" UserId="79" Comment="added 672 characters in body" Text="It seems that you can listen to the phrase [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8oAeHWG6Fk&amp;t=14m28s).&#xD;&#xA;To me it sounds like &quot;tesla grate muri tempi et intervalia&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like an attempt at something that sounds like Latin, but it doesn't quite make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the last four words are supposed to be something like &quot;intervals and walls of time&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The word *grate* means &quot;thankfully&quot; or &quot;willingly&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if the &quot;tesla&quot; is supposed to refer to the accompanying visual effects, contain *des* (as &quot;please give&quot;), or something else.&#xD;&#xA;I might also have misheard something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I don't think it's proper Latin.&#xD;&#xA;It might make sense in some other language, but I can't quite parse it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upon reading Hugh's answer, I realize that what I heard as &quot;tesla&quot; was &quot;defla&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It seems to be &quot;deflagrate muri tempi et intervalia&quot; or something similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make it proper Latin, you'd need to do the following modifications:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The walls should be in accusative, *muros*.&#xD;&#xA;- The genitive of *tempus* is not *tempi* but *temporis*. Not every Latin word ending in *-us* is declined the same way!&#xD;&#xA;- The correct spelling of &quot;intervals&quot; is *intervalla*. It's second declension, not third.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you modify the phrase to this, I'd be happier to accept it as Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deflagrate muros temporis et intervalla!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Burn down the walls and intervals of time!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9059" RevisionGUID="3576c878-16ae-43da-be65-25bb9a905e71" CreationDate="2019-02-07T08:30:18.877" UserId="79" Text="&quot;Three times&quot; is *ter*, but there are some options to saying &quot;per week&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The other answers have some suggestions, but mine is *quaque septimana* or *quaque hebdomade*, meaning &quot;every week&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;So I would say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nato ter quaque septimana/hebdomade.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I swim thrice every week." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9060" RevisionGUID="83047870-9800-4afc-b332-5db02d57b98b" CreationDate="2019-02-07T08:36:33.027" UserId="79" Text="Latin does not have a word &quot;yes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There are other ways to express the same idea, like the English &quot;exactly&quot;, &quot;indeed&quot;, &quot;very much so&quot;, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;From an English point of view, you need some kind of a circumlocution to say &quot;yes&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The common translation *ita vero* means &quot;truly so&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I would not say that this pair of words is yes, but that it can be used to convey the same message.&#xD;&#xA;Depending on context, you might say *ita*, *est*, *consentio*, *volo*, or something else.&#xD;&#xA;Thinking of *ita vero* as a direct and accurate translation of &quot;yes&quot; is misleading." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27989" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9052" RevisionGUID="9d7b3700-aa22-417b-b874-41f77018927e" CreationDate="2019-02-07T08:37:28.973" UserId="79" Comment="edited title" Text="Why is &quot;ita vero&quot; two words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9061" RevisionGUID="0ff00443-03ee-4a0b-9425-00a94838e7ac" CreationDate="2019-02-07T10:37:11.487" UserId="1459" Text="I'm a bit puzzled with some verses of the Vulgata, regarding the use or not of genitive. Consider 3 Regnum (1 Kings in non LXX-based bibles). Verses 13-15 in Chapter 10 go as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[13] Rex autem Salomon dedit **reginae Saba** omnia quae voluit et petivit ab eo : exceptis his, quae ultro obtulerat ei munere regio. Quae reversa est, et abiit in terram suam cum servis suis.   &#xD;&#xA;[14] Erat autem **pondus auri**, quod afferebatur Salomoni per annos singulos, sexcentorum sexaginta sex **talentorum auri** :   &#xD;&#xA;[15] excepto eo, quod afferebant viri qui super vectigalia erant, et negotiatores, universique scruta vendentes, et omnes **reges Arabiae, ducesque terrae**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I highlighted the words of interest. I don't understand why _reginae_ is not in accusative but in dative (genitive?). Compare with _pondus_, which is in nominative (and not accusative, because of the nature of the _esse_ verb, as I gather from [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6993/1459)). And then, _talentorum_ is in genitive but the talent (currency) are of gold (_auri_), so why not in accusative (as the direct object of _afferebatur_)? Verse 15 then shows two examples of &quot;proper&quot; use of genitive, with kings (of Arabia) and leaders (of the land) being in nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, I don't understand why sometimes the genitive is extended from the noun representing the attribute (_auri_) to the object/subject to which that attribute belongs (_talentorum_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27991" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9061" RevisionGUID="0ff00443-03ee-4a0b-9425-00a94838e7ac" CreationDate="2019-02-07T10:37:11.487" UserId="1459" Text="On the use (or not) of genitive in some verses of the Vulgata" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27992" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9061" RevisionGUID="0ff00443-03ee-4a0b-9425-00a94838e7ac" CreationDate="2019-02-07T10:37:11.487" UserId="1459" Text="|vulgata|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9062" RevisionGUID="eb6189ec-15d5-4ee9-8c19-b4a48fe09408" CreationDate="2019-02-07T12:13:09.410" UserId="79" Text="&gt; [13] Rex autem Salomon **dedit reginae Saba** omnia quae voluit et petivit ab eo : exceptis his, quae ultro obtulerat ei munere regio. Quae reversa est, et abiit in terram suam cum servis suis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something is given **to** the queen, and this is expressed with dative.&#xD;&#xA;For example, if I were to give you a gift, I could say *tibi donum do* but no *te donum do*.&#xD;&#xA;The second would mean giving you as a gift, and I have no intention to sell or give you as a slave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *reginae* is a dative, not a genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [14] Erat autem **pondus auri** [quod afferebatur Salomoni per annos singulos] sexcentorum sexaginta sex **talentorum auri**&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I put the relative clause in parentheses, as it has no effect on the syntax of the outside governing clause.&#xD;&#xA;The weight of gold was 66 talents of gold, so the subject is *pondus auri*, &quot;weight of gold&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The repetition of *auri*, &quot;of gold&quot;, seems unnecessary here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that the talents, *talenta*, could also be in nominative.&#xD;&#xA;However, it is not an object; the simplified clause is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pondus erat sex talenta/talentorum.*  &#xD;&#xA;The weight was six talents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of nominative, one can use a genitive to express quality.&#xD;&#xA;Compare with *giraffa erat colli longi*, &quot;the giraffe was of long neck&quot;, i.e. &quot;the giraffe had a long neck&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Such a use of genitive is idiomatic in Latin, and I find *talentorum* more natural although I would not reject *talenta*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The object of *afferebatur* is *quod*.&#xD;&#xA;They are both within the relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;Of course *quod* refers to *pondus auri*, but syntactically they are not the same entity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The genitive *auri* specifies *pondus* the same way as &quot;of gold&quot; tells more details about &quot;weight&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of genitive is common in English as well, but the qualitative one (*genetivus qualitatis*) is more specific to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I recommend ruminating on my giraffe example for a moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [15] excepto eo, quod afferebant viri qui super vectigalia erant, et negotiatores, universique scruta vendentes, et omnes **reges Arabiae, ducesque terrae**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are indeed the very basic genitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9061" RevisionGUID="30c90353-c180-4770-9713-8c4c2dbef5a6" CreationDate="2019-02-07T12:17:04.933" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm a bit puzzled with some verses of the Vulgata, regarding the use or not of genitive. Consider 3 Regnum (1 Kings in non LXX-based bibles). Verses 13-15 in Chapter 10 go as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[13] Rex autem Salomon dedit **reginae Saba** omnia quae voluit et petivit ab eo: exceptis his, quae ultro obtulerat ei munere regio. Quae reversa est, et abiit in terram suam cum servis suis.   &#xD;&#xA;[14] Erat autem **pondus auri**, quod afferebatur Salomoni per annos singulos, sexcentorum sexaginta sex **talentorum auri**:   &#xD;&#xA;[15] excepto eo, quod afferebant viri qui super vectigalia erant, et negotiatores, universique scruta vendentes, et omnes **reges Arabiae, ducesque terrae**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I highlighted the words of interest. I don't understand why _reginae_ is not in accusative but in dative (genitive?). Compare with _pondus_, which is in nominative (and not accusative, because of the nature of the _esse_ verb, as I gather from [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6993/1459)). And then, _talentorum_ is in genitive but the talent (currency) are of gold (_auri_), so why not in accusative (as the direct object of _afferebatur_)? Verse 15 then shows two examples of &quot;proper&quot; use of genitive, with kings (of Arabia) and leaders (of the land) being in nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, I don't understand why sometimes the genitive is extended from the noun representing the attribute (_auri_) to the object/subject to which that attribute belongs (_talentorum_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27995" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9061" RevisionGUID="30c90353-c180-4770-9713-8c4c2dbef5a6" CreationDate="2019-02-07T12:17:04.933" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|syntax|grammar-identification|vulgata|genitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9062" RevisionGUID="33d6e1fb-ba4c-4f2e-870b-579b7821e819" CreationDate="2019-02-07T13:27:20.100" UserId="79" Comment="added 504 characters in body" Text="&gt; [13] Rex autem Salomon **dedit reginae Saba** omnia quae voluit et petivit ab eo : exceptis his, quae ultro obtulerat ei munere regio. Quae reversa est, et abiit in terram suam cum servis suis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something is given **to** the queen, and this is expressed with dative.&#xD;&#xA;For example, if I were to give you a gift, I could say *tibi donum do* but no *te donum do*.&#xD;&#xA;The second would mean giving you as a gift, and I have no intention to sell or give you as a slave.&#xD;&#xA;The forms of &quot;queen of Saba&quot; are formed by declining &quot;queen&quot; and keeping &quot;of Saba&quot; in genitive, but it seems that the word *Saba* looks the same in all cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *reginae* is a dative, not a genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [14] Erat autem **pondus auri** [quod afferebatur Salomoni per annos singulos] sexcentorum sexaginta sex **talentorum auri**&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I put the relative clause in parentheses, as it has no effect on the syntax of the outside governing clause.&#xD;&#xA;The weight of gold was 66 talents of gold, so the subject is *pondus auri*, &quot;weight of gold&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The repetition of *auri*, &quot;of gold&quot;, seems unnecessary here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that the talents, *talenta*, could also be in nominative.&#xD;&#xA;However, it is not an object; the simplified clause is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pondus erat sex talenta/talentorum.*  &#xD;&#xA;The weight was six talents / of six talents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of nominative, one can use a genitive to express quality.&#xD;&#xA;Compare with *giraffa erat colli longi*, &quot;the giraffe was of long neck&quot;, i.e. &quot;the giraffe had a long neck&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Such a use of genitive is idiomatic in Latin, and I find *talentorum* more natural although I would not reject *talenta*.&#xD;&#xA;In English I find it more idiomatic to leave &quot;of&quot; out of &quot;of six talents&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The object of *afferebatur* is *quod*.&#xD;&#xA;They are both within the relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;Of course *quod* refers to *pondus auri*, but syntactically they are not the same entity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The genitive *auri* specifies *pondus* the same way as &quot;of gold&quot; tells more details about &quot;weight&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of genitive is common in English as well, but the qualitative one (*genetivus qualitatis*) is more specific to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I recommend ruminating on my giraffe example for a moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The genitive is often used to express quality when no adjective is available.&#xD;&#xA;The giraffe example is good again: there does not seem to be an adjective &quot;long-necked&quot;, so one uses the genitive instead.&#xD;&#xA;The ablative can also be used in this sense.&#xD;&#xA;The need for genitive or ablative of quality often arises when you want to use an adjective and a noun to describe something, as in &quot;long-necked&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is not exclusive, I think, but a good rule of thumb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [15] excepto eo, quod afferebant viri qui super vectigalia erant, et negotiatores, universique scruta vendentes, et omnes **reges Arabiae, ducesque terrae**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are indeed the very basic genitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9063" RevisionGUID="7919c7cc-fa46-41cf-bb4a-e022785ff945" CreationDate="2019-02-07T14:08:28.797" UserId="2646" Text="In Spanish we have a word *escala* that means &quot;stopover&quot; as &quot;a break in a journey&quot;, specially when travelling by sea. According to the dictionary by the Royal Spanish Academy, the word [comes from][1] Italian scala, and this one from Byzantine Greek σκάλα skála meaning &quot;harbour&quot; (or maybe &quot;port&quot; as &quot;city with a harbour&quot;). But in a question [a user commented][2] (link in Spanish) that the word actually meant &quot;berth&quot; or &quot;mooring&quot; (as &quot;the point where a ship moors in a harbour&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what did the word σκάλα exactly mean in Byzantine Greek?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: my apologies if Byzantine Greek is out of the scope of this site. I will gladly remove the question if it is off-topic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://dle.rae.es/?id=G67txjD&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://spanish.stackexchange.com/questions/26436/uso-del-verbo-escalar-como-sin%C3%B3nimo-de-hacer-escala#comment45644_27180" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27998" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9063" RevisionGUID="7919c7cc-fa46-41cf-bb4a-e022785ff945" CreationDate="2019-02-07T14:08:28.797" UserId="2646" Text="What did σκάλα exactly mean in Byzantine Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27999" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9063" RevisionGUID="7919c7cc-fa46-41cf-bb4a-e022785ff945" CreationDate="2019-02-07T14:08:28.797" UserId="2646" Text="|greek|noun|spanish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28000" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9063" RevisionGUID="f7c6d849-a09d-45b8-9ac1-d009a6330564" CreationDate="2019-02-07T14:22:15.980" UserId="2646" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|meaning|noun|spanish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9064" RevisionGUID="c05dd69f-8aa7-4dea-bf49-98da7e486e44" CreationDate="2019-02-07T16:08:15.683" UserId="3248" Text="**Deponent** verbs are often (always?) defined as verbs that have passive forms but **active meanings**. But how accurate is this typical definition/generalization? It seems clear that this definition applies without problems to deponent verbs like _loquor_ or _hortor_, which do have an agentive/active meaning. But what about _morior_, _orior_ or _nascor_? Can these also be said to have an &quot;active&quot; (?!) **meaning**? If so, in which sense? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, there is a clear syntactic test distinguishing deponent verbs that involve a **passive** meaning from the ones that encode an **active** one: e.g.,  only _morior_, _orior_ and _nascor_, i.a., can be easily found in Ablative Absolute constructions with a past perfect participle: cf. _Cicerone mortuo_ vs. ??_Cicerone locuto_. An intuitive explanation of this contrast comes to my mind: verbs like _morior_ or _nascor_ involve a PASSIVE meaning (a change of state), whereas verbs like _loquor_ involve an ACTIVE meaning (i.e., no passive change of state is involved in the latter case). Cf. also the related meaning distinction that is involved in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs in languages like Italian: typically, change of state/location verbs select _essere_, while agentive processes select _avere_: cf. It. _Gianni **è** morto_ vs. _Gianni **ha** parlato_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you tell me if there are textbooks of Latin grammar where a more appropriate/accurate definition of deponent verbs is made? Cf. the typical one given above. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28002" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9064" RevisionGUID="c05dd69f-8aa7-4dea-bf49-98da7e486e44" CreationDate="2019-02-07T16:08:15.683" UserId="3248" Text="How accurate is the typical definition of a deponent verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28003" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9064" RevisionGUID="c05dd69f-8aa7-4dea-bf49-98da7e486e44" CreationDate="2019-02-07T16:08:15.683" UserId="3248" Text="|verbs|deponent|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9064" RevisionGUID="a717b610-dedd-4e50-9932-c364db5a2a2c" CreationDate="2019-02-07T17:02:16.273" UserId="3248" Comment="relevant changes due to insights from commentators" Text="**Deponent** verbs are often (always?) defined as verbs that have passive forms but **active meanings**. But how accurate is this typical definition/generalization? It seems clear that this definition applies without problems to deponent verbs like _loquor_ or _hortor_, which do have a clear agentive/active meaning. But what about _morior_, _orior_ or _nascor_? Can these also be said to have an &quot;active&quot; (?!) **meaning**? If so, in which sense? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, there is a syntactic test distinguishing deponent verbs that involve a **passive** meaning from the ones that encode a more **active** one: e.g.,  verbs with a clear/stronger passive meaning like _morior_, _orior_ and _nascor_, i.a., can be easily/quite naturally found in Ablative Absolute constructions with a past perfect participle compared to more active verbs like _loqui_, which are more infrequent in this usage: cf. _Cicerone mortuo_ vs. (?)_Cicerone locuto_. An intuitive explanation of this difference of usage (i.e., the former is by far more frequent than the latter) comes to my mind: verbs like _morior_ or _nascor_ involve a clear/stronger PASSIVE meaning (a change of state), whereas verbs like _loquor_ involve an ACTIVE meaning (i.e., no passive change of state is typically involved in the latter case: but see Jonas's interesting example below). Cf. also the related meaning distinction that is involved in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs in languages like Italian: typically, change of state/location verbs select _essere_, while agentive processes select _avere_: cf. It. _Gianni **è** morto_ vs. _Gianni **ha** parlato_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you tell me if there are textbooks of Latin grammar where a more appropriate/accurate definition of deponent verbs is made? Cf. the typical one given above. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9065" RevisionGUID="e80eafa9-55bb-4c52-b553-ad0f4d8ef51c" CreationDate="2019-02-07T17:18:10.123" UserId="79" Text="It seems that we have three relevant dichotomies here: deponent&amp;ndash;non-deponent, transitive&amp;ndash;intransitive, and active&amp;ndash;passive.&#xD;&#xA;By the last one I mean &quot;active&quot; verbs that describe an action (like jumping or speaking) and &quot;passive&quot; verbs that describe a state or change thereof (like being red or being born).&#xD;&#xA;This has nothing to do with active and passive forms of a verb.&#xD;&#xA;I assume this is what you mean by active and passive in your question; please clarify if I misunderstood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The three dichotomies are mostly unrelated.&#xD;&#xA;The only restriction seems to be that a passive verb cannot be transitive; I cannot quite fathom what a transitive passive verb could mean.&#xD;&#xA;The other combinations are possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- deponent transitive active: *sequi*&#xD;&#xA;- deponent intransitive active: *loquor*&#xD;&#xA;- deponent intransitive passive: *nascor*&#xD;&#xA;- non-deponent transitive active: *trahere*&#xD;&#xA;- non-deponent intransitive active: *fluere*&#xD;&#xA;- non-deponent intransitive passive: *rubere*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see no connection between deponency and activity in either direction.&#xD;&#xA;There might be correlations, as the six classes above are not equal in size, but I wouldn't draw conclusions from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lucanus in *Bellum civile* uses [*locuto Caesare*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/917/1/6/14931-14938@1#6).&#xD;&#xA;I think *loqui* is rarer in this use than *mori*, but I can't see why it'd be impossible.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly [*agmine secuto*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1242/1/72/388-395@1#72) of Annius Florus looks like an absolute ablative of a transitive deponent verb.&#xD;&#xA;Absolute ablatives of certain kinds of deponent verbs might well be rare, but I cannot see why they would be impossible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the point is that you have misunderstood &quot;active meaning&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;**Passive forms of non-deponent verbs work so that the semantic object is the syntactical subject, whereas in active forms semantics and syntax agree.&#xD;&#xA;For deponent verbs all forms are passive (apart form the present participle), but still the syntactical subject is the semantic subject.**&#xD;&#xA;This relation between semantic and syntactical subjects is what &quot;active meaning&quot; refers to, not &quot;activity&quot; in the sense of making a conscious decision to act or anything like that.&#xD;&#xA;The bold-faced part above is what I would give as a more proper definition of a deponent verb, but I might certainly summarize it less rigorously as &quot;deponent verbs have passive forms but active meaning&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9066" RevisionGUID="ea9c491e-7088-4dd7-bd30-5d459a646c0c" CreationDate="2019-02-07T17:53:31.340" UserId="3382" Text="I came across [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5890/how-to-translate-machine-learning) and was wondering if other terminology in artificial intelligence can be translated to Latin. Considering how deeply entwined the field is with science and philosophy, it would only be fair for there to be proper scientific names for it like in biology :D" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28007" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9066" RevisionGUID="ea9c491e-7088-4dd7-bd30-5d459a646c0c" CreationDate="2019-02-07T17:53:31.340" UserId="3382" Text="Gradient Descent and Backpropagation in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28008" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9066" RevisionGUID="ea9c491e-7088-4dd7-bd30-5d459a646c0c" CreationDate="2019-02-07T17:53:31.340" UserId="3382" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9065" RevisionGUID="92f0d0e4-1593-475a-8153-b6fda500c400" CreationDate="2019-02-07T18:00:31.107" UserId="79" Comment="added 321 characters in body" Text="It seems that we have three relevant dichotomies here: deponent&amp;ndash;non-deponent, transitive&amp;ndash;intransitive, and active&amp;ndash;passive.&#xD;&#xA;By the last one I mean &quot;active&quot; verbs that describe an action (like jumping or speaking) and &quot;passive&quot; verbs that describe a state or change thereof (like being red or being born).&#xD;&#xA;This has nothing to do with active and passive forms of a verb.&#xD;&#xA;I assume this is what you mean by active and passive (meaning) in your question; please clarify if I misunderstood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The three dichotomies are mostly unrelated.&#xD;&#xA;The only restriction seems to be that a passive verb cannot be transitive; I cannot quite fathom what a transitive passive verb could mean.&#xD;&#xA;The other combinations are possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- deponent transitive active: *sequi*&#xD;&#xA;- deponent intransitive active: *loquor*&#xD;&#xA;- deponent intransitive passive: *nascor*&#xD;&#xA;- non-deponent transitive active: *trahere*&#xD;&#xA;- non-deponent intransitive active: *fluere*&#xD;&#xA;- non-deponent intransitive passive: *rubere*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see no connection between deponency and activity in either direction.&#xD;&#xA;There might be correlations, as the six classes above are not equal in size, but I wouldn't draw conclusions from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lucanus in *Bellum civile* uses [*locuto Caesare*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/917/1/6/14931-14938@1#6).&#xD;&#xA;I think *loqui* is rarer in this use than *mori*, but I can't see why it'd be impossible.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly [*agmine secuto*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1242/1/72/388-395@1#72) of Annius Florus looks like an absolute ablative of a transitive deponent verb.&#xD;&#xA;Absolute ablatives of certain kinds of deponent verbs might well be rare, but I cannot see why they would be impossible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the point is that you have misunderstood &quot;active meaning&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;**Passive forms of non-deponent verbs work so that the semantic object is the syntactical subject, whereas in active forms semantics and syntax agree.&#xD;&#xA;For deponent verbs all forms are passive (apart form the present participle), but still the syntactical subject is the semantic subject.**&#xD;&#xA;This relation between semantic and syntactical subjects is what &quot;active meaning&quot; refers to, not &quot;activity&quot; in the sense of making a conscious decision to act or anything like that.&#xD;&#xA;The bold-faced part above is what I would give as a more proper definition of a deponent verb, but I might certainly summarize it less rigorously as &quot;deponent verbs have passive forms but active meaning&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the definition of a deponent verb you cite, &quot;active meaning&quot; means that semantics and syntax agree on the subject like they do for active forms of non-deponent verbs.&#xD;&#xA;This can indeed be misleading or confusing.&#xD;&#xA;The point here is that &quot;active&quot; is related to active and passive forms, not &quot;being active&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9065" RevisionGUID="9da67ff2-ed75-4d0c-bcbe-7d830afd5af9" CreationDate="2019-02-07T18:20:19.510" UserId="79" Comment="added 764 characters in body" Text="Summary:&#xD;&#xA;It seems that you and the grammarian interpret the word &quot;active&quot; differently, and that seems to be the source of all confusion.&#xD;&#xA;The defining feature of deponent verbs is the semantics of the subject, and I could well call this &quot;active meaning&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It has nothing to do with how active some action is in practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that we have three relevant dichotomies here: deponent&amp;ndash;non-deponent, transitive&amp;ndash;intransitive, and active&amp;ndash;passive.&#xD;&#xA;By the last one I mean &quot;active&quot; verbs that describe an action (like jumping or speaking) and &quot;passive&quot; verbs that describe a state or change thereof (like being red or being born).&#xD;&#xA;This has nothing to do with active and passive forms of a verb.&#xD;&#xA;I assume this is what you mean by active and passive (meaning) in your question; please clarify if I misunderstood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The three dichotomies are mostly unrelated.&#xD;&#xA;The only restriction seems to be that a passive verb cannot be transitive; I cannot quite fathom what a transitive passive verb could mean.&#xD;&#xA;The other combinations are possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- deponent transitive active: *sequi*&#xD;&#xA;- deponent intransitive active: *loquor*&#xD;&#xA;- deponent intransitive passive: *nascor*&#xD;&#xA;- non-deponent transitive active: *trahere*&#xD;&#xA;- non-deponent intransitive active: *fluere*&#xD;&#xA;- non-deponent intransitive passive: *rubere*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that I speak of active and passive **meaning**, not active and passive **forms**.&#xD;&#xA;In this answer I will only treat active forms of non-deponent verbs and passive forms of deponent verbs (only forms in the &quot;principal voice&quot; of any given verb, if you will).&#xD;&#xA;I would not confuse passive forms into this discussion.&#xD;&#xA;[Passivization of verbs with two objects](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/144/79) might be of interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see no connection between deponency and activity in either direction.&#xD;&#xA;There might be correlations, as the six classes above are not equal in size, but I wouldn't draw conclusions from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lucanus in *Bellum civile* uses [*locuto Caesare*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/917/1/6/14931-14938@1#6).&#xD;&#xA;I think *loqui* is rarer in this use than *mori*, but I can't see why it'd be impossible.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly [*agmine secuto*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1242/1/72/388-395@1#72) of Annius Florus looks like an absolute ablative of a transitive deponent verb.&#xD;&#xA;Absolute ablatives of certain kinds of deponent verbs might well be rare, but I cannot see why they would be impossible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the point is that you have misunderstood &quot;active meaning&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;**Passive forms of non-deponent verbs work so that the semantic object is the syntactical subject, whereas in active forms semantics and syntax agree.&#xD;&#xA;For deponent verbs all forms are passive (apart form the present participle), but still the syntactical subject is the semantic subject.**&#xD;&#xA;This relation between semantic and syntactical subjects is what &quot;active meaning&quot; refers to, not &quot;activity&quot; in the sense of making a conscious decision to act or anything like that.&#xD;&#xA;The bold-faced part above is what I would give as a more proper definition of a deponent verb, but I might certainly summarize it less rigorously as &quot;deponent verbs have passive forms but active meaning&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the definition of a deponent verb you cite, &quot;active meaning&quot; means that semantics and syntax agree on the subject like they do for active forms of non-deponent verbs.&#xD;&#xA;This can indeed be misleading or confusing.&#xD;&#xA;The point here is that &quot;active&quot; is related to active and passive forms, not &quot;being active&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9064" RevisionGUID="61c8b536-3038-419e-b93e-7c15980f6b36" CreationDate="2019-02-07T19:35:16.043" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="**Deponent** verbs are often (always?) defined as verbs that have passive forms but **active meanings**. But how accurate is this typical definition/generalization? It seems clear that this definition applies without problems to deponent verbs like _loquor_ or _hortor_, which do have a clear agentive/active meaning. But what about _morior_, _orior_ or _nascor_? Can these verbs also be said to have an &quot;active&quot; (?!) **meaning**? If so, in which sense? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, there is a syntactic test that, in terms of usage frequency, can be claimed to distinguish deponent verbs that involve a **passive** meaning from the ones that encode a more **active** one: e.g., verbs with a clear/stronger passive meaning like _morior_, _orior_ and _nascor_, i.a., can be easily/quite naturally found in Ablative Absolute constructions with a past perfect participle, compared to more active verbs like _loqui_, which are not impossible but by far more infrequent in this usage: cf. _Cicerone mortuo_ vs. (?)_Cicerone locuto_. An intuitive explanation of this difference in usage (i.e., the former is by far more frequent than the latter) comes to my mind: verbs like _morior_ or _nascor_ involve a clear/stronger PASSIVE meaning (a change of state), whereas verbs like _loquor_ involve an ACTIVE meaning (i.e., no passive change of state is typically involved in the latter case: but see Joonas's interesting example below, which I would tentatively analyze as a case of 'coercion', hence its being by far less frequent). Cf. also the related meaning distinction that is involved in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs in languages like Italian: typically, change of {state/location} verbs select _essere_, while agentive processes select _avere_: cf. It. _Gianni **è** morto_ vs. _Gianni **ha** parlato_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you tell me if there are textbooks of Latin grammar where a more appropriate/accurate definition of deponent verbs is given? Cf. the typical one given above. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9067" RevisionGUID="587e8811-2b0e-4028-82db-2b48cf905a9d" CreationDate="2019-02-07T20:47:52.283" UserId="1694" Text="I think [this entry][1] in Du Cange's _Glossarium ad Scriptores Mediae et Infimae Graecitatis_ is what you want.  I find it a bit hard to make out the entire entry, but this excerpt in it seems relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὄρμος, τὸ μέρος τοῦ λιμένος, εἰς ὃ ἑλκόμεναι αἱ νῆες δέδενται · ὃ οἱ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; κοινοὶ σκάλαν λέγουσι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://anemi.lib.uoc.gr/php/pdf_pager.php?filename=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fanemi-portal%2Fmetadata%2Ff%2F4%2Fb%2Fattached-metadata-01-0000493%2F85778_02.pdf&amp;rec=%2Fmetadata%2Ff%2F4%2Fb%2Fmetadata-01-0000493.tkl&amp;do=85778_02.pdf&amp;width=644&amp;height=1004&amp;pagestart=1&amp;maxpage=581&amp;lang=en&amp;pageno=51&amp;pagenotop=51&amp;pagenobottom=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9064" RevisionGUID="191a3e0b-ecee-441d-8fdc-952f8c451feb" CreationDate="2019-02-07T22:12:11.483" UserId="3248" Comment="relevant changes due to insights from commentators" Text="**Deponent** verbs are often (always?) defined as verbs that have passive forms but **active meanings**. But how accurate is this typical definition/generalization? It seems clear that this definition applies without problems to deponent verbs like _loquor_ or _hortor_, which do have a clear agentive/active meaning. But what about _morior_, _orior_ or _nascor_? Can these verbs also be said to have an &quot;active&quot; (?!) **meaning**? If so, in which sense? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, there is a syntactic test that, in terms of usage frequency, can be claimed to distinguish deponent verbs that involve a **passive** meaning from the ones that encode a more **active** one: e.g., verbs with a clear/stronger passive meaning like _morior_, _orior_ and _nascor_, i.a., can be easily/quite naturally found in Ablative Absolute constructions with a past perfect participle, compared to more active verbs like _loqui_, which are not impossible but by far more infrequent in this usage: cf. _Cicerone mortuo_ vs. (?)_Cicerone locuto_. An intuitive explanation of this difference in usage (i.e., the former is by far more frequent than the latter) comes to my mind: verbs like _morior_ or _nascor_ involve a clear/stronger PASSIVE meaning (a change of state), whereas verbs like _loquor_ involve an ACTIVE meaning (i.e., no passive change of state is typically involved in the latter case: but see Joonas's interesting example below, which I would tentatively analyze as a case of 'coercion', hence its being by far less frequent). Cf. also the related meaning distinction that is involved in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs in languages like Italian: typically, change of {state/location} verbs select _essere_, while agentive processes select _avere_: cf. It. _Gianni **è** morto_ vs. _Gianni **ha** parlato_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you tell me if there are textbooks of Latin grammar where a more appropriate/accurate definition of deponent verbs is given? Cf. the typical one given above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that TKR hit the nail on the head in his comment below.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TKR: it's an inaccurate description: &quot;active meaning&quot; seems to mean nothing more than &quot;meaning which tends to be expressed with an active verb in modern European languages&quot;. To that extent the term may be pedagogically useful, but linguistically it's meaningless, and when one tries to make it meaningful as you have by translating &quot;active&quot; to something like &quot;agentive&quot;, the attempt fails. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mitomino: many thanks for this VERY useful paraphrase, which shows the confusion I alluded to above: the confusing phrase &quot;active meaning&quot; seems to mean nothing more than &quot;MEANING which tends to be expressed with an ACTIVE verbal FORM in modern European languages&quot;. Crucially, notice that ACTIVE here modifies (verbal) FORM, **_not_** meaning! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I see many of you think that the typical definition above is &quot;pedagogically useful&quot;. Well, I don't think so... (although I admit that many years ago I learned it without questioning it). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9068" RevisionGUID="cbcd6932-508a-431e-9fba-5c446b3c2c6c" CreationDate="2019-02-07T22:36:57.583" UserId="406" Text="The Greek alphabet currently has twenty-four letters, and this has been standard for millennia now. However, three extra symbols are used for numbers, and [other answers][1] mention letters like *tsan* used only in specific dialects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How many letters are known to have been used in the &quot;Greek alphabet&quot; over the years? (And, if possible, what are they all?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: by &quot;Greek alphabet&quot; I mean all the varieties used outside of Italy, up until the Latin alphabet took over. So Latin and Etruscan don't count, and Cyrillic doesn't count, but pretty much any variety of Greek does.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9046/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28016" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9068" RevisionGUID="cbcd6932-508a-431e-9fba-5c446b3c2c6c" CreationDate="2019-02-07T22:36:57.583" UserId="406" Text="How many Greek letters are there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28017" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9068" RevisionGUID="cbcd6932-508a-431e-9fba-5c446b3c2c6c" CreationDate="2019-02-07T22:36:57.583" UserId="406" Text="|greek|alphabet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9069" RevisionGUID="a636637f-c6bf-4fe8-afd1-8434733e4d54" CreationDate="2019-02-07T23:40:46.340" UserId="324" Text="It is a loan from Latin scala, &quot;staircase, ladder etc.&quot; Like English &quot;scale&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9066" RevisionGUID="5b0ab7f0-4c2f-4e7d-b3d9-06585ed946f8" CreationDate="2019-02-07T23:44:09.983" UserId="3382" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="I came across [this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5890/how-to-translate-machine-learning) and was wondering if other terminology in artificial intelligence can be translated to Latin. Considering how deeply entwined the field is with science and philosophy, it is only fair for there to be proper scientific names for it like in biology :D" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9070" RevisionGUID="f4d8ca15-07d9-4df6-a407-260ae630ff11" CreationDate="2019-02-07T23:51:16.180" UserId="2363" Text="To the second question, regarding the use of the genitive with *pondus*, the answer is that the sentence contains both a genitive of material (A&amp;G 344) and a genitive of measure (sometimes classified under the genitive of quality, as in A&amp;G 345b). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *pondus* most basically means &quot;a mass of something,&quot; so it's easy to see why you might want to specify both 1) of what kind of thing the mass consists (material) and 2) how large the mass is (measure). Both of these are functions of the genitive case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a classical example along with a translation that's somewhat unrealistic but emphasizes the point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Livius: tetrachma vocant, trium fere denariorum in singulis argenti&#xD;&#xA;&gt; est **pondus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(They call [these coins] &quot;tetrachma.&quot; The **mass** made of silver in each one is **a weight** measuring nearly three denarii.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now for the Vulgate passage: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Erat autem **pondus** auri ... sexcentorum sexaginta sex talentorum auri:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Now the **mass** made of gold ... was **a weight** measuring 666 talents made&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of gold.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9071" RevisionGUID="e2d33ea4-272b-400a-b343-25b70c53ea56" CreationDate="2019-02-08T00:15:41.550" UserId="406" Text="&quot;Propagation&quot;, as it happens, comes directly from the Latin verb _prōpāgō, -āre, -āvī, ātus_. A nice word for &quot;backwards&quot; is _rētrō_. So putting those together, you'd get **_rētrōprōpāgātiō_** &quot;back-propagation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Gradient descent&quot; is harder. English &quot;gradient&quot; comes from _gradior_ &quot;to go&quot;; the native Latin word for &quot;slope&quot; is _clīvus, -ī_. I think in this case I'd back-form from the English and get _gradientia, -ae_, &quot;gradient&quot;. Then &quot;to descend&quot; is _dēscendō, -endere, -endī, -ensus_. So &quot;the descent down a gradient&quot; is **_dēscensus per gradientiam_**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9064" RevisionGUID="7312f31b-87e5-4725-be89-18a9dbee7316" CreationDate="2019-02-08T01:26:35.697" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="**Deponent** verbs are often (always?) defined as verbs that have passive forms but **active meanings**. But how accurate is this typical definition/generalization? It seems clear that this definition applies without problems to deponent verbs like _loquor_ or _hortor_, which do have a clear agentive/active meaning. But what about _morior_, _orior_ or _nascor_? Can these verbs also be said to have an &quot;active&quot; (?!) **meaning**? If so, in which sense? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, there is a syntactic test that, in terms of usage frequency, can be claimed to distinguish deponent verbs that involve a **passive** meaning from the ones that encode a more **active** one: e.g., verbs with a clear/stronger passive meaning like _morior_, _orior_ and _nascor_, i.a., can be easily/quite naturally found in Ablative Absolute constructions with a past perfect participle, compared to more active verbs like _loqui_, which are not impossible but by far more infrequent in this usage: cf. _Cicerone mortuo_ vs. (?)_Cicerone locuto_. An intuitive explanation of this difference in usage (i.e., the former is by far more frequent than the latter) comes to my mind: verbs like _morior_ or _nascor_ involve a clear/stronger PASSIVE meaning (a change of state), whereas verbs like _loquor_ involve an ACTIVE meaning (i.e., no passive change of state is typically involved in the latter case: but see Joonas's interesting example below, which I would tentatively analyze as a case of 'coercion', hence its being by far less frequent). Cf. also the related meaning distinction that is involved in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs in languages like Italian: typically, change of {state/location} verbs select _essere_, while agentive processes select _avere_: cf. It. _Gianni **è** morto_ vs. _Gianni **ha** parlato_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you tell me if there are textbooks of Latin grammar where a more appropriate/accurate definition of deponent verbs is given? Cf. the typical one given above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that TKR hit the nail on the head in his comment below.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TKR**: it's an inaccurate description: &quot;active meaning&quot; seems to mean nothing more than &quot;meaning which tends to be expressed with an active verb in modern European languages&quot;. To that extent the term may be pedagogically useful, but linguistically it's meaningless, and when one tries to make it meaningful as you have by translating &quot;active&quot; to something like &quot;agentive&quot;, the attempt fails. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Mitomino**: many thanks, TKR, for your VERY useful paraphrase, which shows the confusion I alluded to above: the confusing phrase &quot;active meaning&quot; in the typical definition above seems to mean nothing more than &quot;MEANING which tends to be expressed with an ACTIVE verbal **FORM** in modern European languages&quot;. Crucially, notice that ACTIVE here modifies (verbal) FORM, **_not_** meaning! That's why the typical definition of deponent verbs above (in particular, its reference to &quot;active meanings&quot;) is quite confusing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I see many of you think that the typical definition above is &quot;pedagogically useful&quot;. Well, I don't think so... (although I admit that many years ago I learned it without questioning it). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9055" RevisionGUID="2616778c-9b3b-4a4a-8c69-53b8fbbc6fdf" CreationDate="2019-02-08T01:33:07.910" UserId="30" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="I believe the instrumental case was absorbed by the ablative in Latin and by the dative in Greek. Is there any way at all in which influence of the old instrumental can be seen in Latin or Greek?—outside the bare fact that the ablative and dative, respectively, can be used to indicate an instrument. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any remains in morphology, in semantic oddities, in syntactic sequences, etc., or whatever you can think of, would be of interest. I know very little of the instrumental case, so I don't really know what to look for. Of course &quot;no&quot; is also a valid answer. (For comparison, I believe the typical vowel i of the Proto-Indo-European optative mood is in some way reflected in the Latin subjunctive.) [Additional example: the way dual endings survive in words like *frenī*, suggested by Draconis.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9072" RevisionGUID="4a6de297-39ee-4227-87a9-ff8fbfb3bb4d" CreationDate="2019-02-08T03:13:09.867" UserId="3385" Text="* I think the meaning of the second part &quot;pedibus ioco&quot; could be &quot;I will refresh those on their feet &quot; which would make sense in German and would imply that the speaker tried to express the German word &quot;erquicken&quot; and could not find another latin word rhyming on &quot;voco&quot; and sure the speaker was not a native latin speaker, lol... &quot;erquicken&quot; has nothing to with the word &quot;to jest&quot;or &quot;to make a joke&quot; however jokes will ease you and can be a form of recreating, can be very refreshing... so the speaker used the latin word &quot;ioco&quot; maybe as a sort of synecdoche (pars pro toto!) for &quot;to refresh&quot;* in German &quot;erquicken&quot; is a very common term for &quot;recreation&quot; (refreshing) and used in many sayings and proverbs, in particular in poems &amp; songs and other lyrics. It would fit perfectly for a bench... however in latin... &quot;ioco!&quot; really sounds a bit too unusual..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9073" RevisionGUID="8cd2c35c-aa05-4c4d-baea-7dc2d6b8f202" CreationDate="2019-02-08T03:52:32.570" UserId="39" Text="An entry from the [*Greek lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine periods, from B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100.*][1] by E.A. Sophocles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021609395/page/n1015&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ziJXD.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9074" RevisionGUID="a7ee7ea2-2297-4e9f-8b18-8f6d675ce7c5" CreationDate="2019-02-08T03:54:21.803" UserId="3386" Text="I'm trying to create a title in latin: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*On the Nature of Renewal*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where Renewal could be exchanged with Rebirth or Regeneration. With this structure, I figured I could follow the structure of Lucretius' text, *de Rerum Natura*. Unfortunately, it seems that forming adjectives from nouns is more complicated than I'd hoped.  Nouns I'm looking at using: *renovamen*, *regeneratio*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to think, based on my crash-course understanding that I should be able to use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*de Regenerationis Natura* or *de Renovaminis Natura*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I'm correct, why does Natura come second in these titles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28027" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9074" RevisionGUID="a7ee7ea2-2297-4e9f-8b18-8f6d675ce7c5" CreationDate="2019-02-08T03:54:21.803" UserId="3386" Text="How do I translate &quot;On the Nature of Renewal&quot; into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28028" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9074" RevisionGUID="a7ee7ea2-2297-4e9f-8b18-8f6d675ce7c5" CreationDate="2019-02-08T03:54:21.803" UserId="3386" Text="|vocabulary|grammar-choice|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9073" RevisionGUID="b31f7db0-257b-432e-922f-f74caebc776a" CreationDate="2019-02-08T03:58:39.980" UserId="39" Comment="added 724 characters in body" Text="An entry from the [*Greek lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine periods, from B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100.*][1] by E.A. Sophocles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An entry from the magisterial [Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;σκάλα, ἡ (lat. scala) Leiter, Treppe: PhilogD 194,1.4. DelStyl 28,22 etc. PsElias 35,5. MaurD X 1,52. εἰληματική Wendeltreppe: DeCer I 391,17. Steigbügel: MaurD I 2,41; II 9,23. LeoTactD 6,49 etc. **Anlegestelle:** JoAntR 321,29. ChronPasch 569,3; 572,16. MirDem 177,19. **Terrasse, terrassiertes Gelände:** ALavra 30,18 (a.1037). Cusa 358 (a.1099?). 390 (a.1094) etc. σκάλλα (= σκαλιατικόν) Anlegegebühr: AKut 38,5.51 (a.1386).— LS, L, TLG, Daris (-η), Car, Soph, Tgl, Duc+App I, RBLG+Sup, ODB 1907.1958, Stam, Vasmer III 631; s. σχάλα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[emphasis mine - Alex B.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NB:** The LGB is &quot;the foremost lexicographical resource in Byzantine Studies mainly covering the period from the 4th to the 15th century A.D. taken from more than 3,000 texts.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021609395/page/n1015&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ziJXD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lbg/#eid=67293&amp;context=lsj&amp;action=from-search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9074" RevisionGUID="c49d8ae2-c4dd-4fba-973a-d520510e3286" CreationDate="2019-02-08T04:06:58.550" UserId="3386" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="I'm trying to create a title in latin: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*On the Nature of Renewal*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where *Renewal* could be exchanged with *Rebirth* or *Regeneration*, and *Nature* is maybe better as *Subject*. With this structure, I figured I could follow the structure of Lucretius' text, *de Rerum Natura*. Unfortunately, it seems that forming adjectives from nouns is more complicated than I'd hoped.  Nouns I'm looking at using: *renovamen*, *regeneratio*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to think, based on my crash-course understanding that I should be able to use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*de Regenerationis Natura* or *de Renovaminis Natura*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I'm correct, why does Natura come second in these titles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9063" RevisionGUID="3228e20c-a864-47ed-8a12-f069f5881dca" CreationDate="2019-02-08T10:52:24.047" UserId="2646" Comment="deleted 141 characters in body" Text="In Spanish we have a word *escala* that means &quot;stopover&quot; as &quot;a break in a journey&quot;, specially when travelling by sea. According to the dictionary by the Royal Spanish Academy, the word [comes from][1] Italian scala, and this one from Byzantine Greek σκάλα skála meaning &quot;harbour&quot; (or maybe &quot;port&quot; as &quot;city with a harbour&quot;). But in a question [a user commented][2] (link in Spanish) that the word actually meant &quot;berth&quot; or &quot;mooring&quot; (as &quot;the point where a ship moors in a harbour&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what did the word σκάλα exactly mean in Byzantine Greek?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://dle.rae.es/?id=G67txjD&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://spanish.stackexchange.com/questions/26436/uso-del-verbo-escalar-como-sin%C3%B3nimo-de-hacer-escala#comment45644_27180" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9075" RevisionGUID="2b758252-0744-4792-adb5-ccd4bbf00f26" CreationDate="2019-02-08T12:27:55.773" UserId="2605" Text="The instrumental [-φι suffix](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-%CF%86%CE%B9) in Homeric Greek seems to be derived from the [PIE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_nominals#Morphology) plural instrumental case, which apparently [still existed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Greek_language#Morphology) in Mycenaean Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [Smyth's grammar](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0007:smythp=280) (280):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;-φι（ν) is often added to noun stems in Hom. to express the relations of the lost instrumental, locative, and ablative, both singular and (more commonly) plural; rarely to express the relations of the genitive and dative cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example from Homer ([Odyssey 6.6](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0135%3Abook%3D6)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;οἵ σφεας σινέσκοντο, **βίηφι** δὲ φέρτεροι ἦσαν.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;[who] were stronger **in force** than they and plundered them" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9075" RevisionGUID="c74974e5-bc55-492b-840e-311d685a5822" CreationDate="2019-02-08T12:45:29.557" UserId="2605" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="The instrumental [-φι suffix](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-%CF%86%CE%B9) in Homeric Greek seems to be derived from the [PIE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_nominals#Morphology) plural instrumental case, which apparently [still existed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Greek_language#Morphology) in Mycenaean Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [Smyth's grammar](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0007:smythp=280) (280):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;-φι（ν) is often added to noun stems in Hom. to express the relations of the lost instrumental, locative, and ablative, both singular and (more commonly) plural; rarely to express the relations of the genitive and dative cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example from Homer ([Odyssey 6.6](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0135%3Abook%3D6)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;οἵ σφεας σινέσκοντο, **βίηφι** δὲ φέρτεροι ἦσαν.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;They [the Cyclopes] were stronger **in force** than they and plundered them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9076" RevisionGUID="c9617d55-dc89-48c6-a168-c3daa1fa0ced" CreationDate="2019-02-08T13:23:23.283" UserId="79" Text="Did the Greeks or Romans have any literature describing events in the future?&#xD;&#xA;The modern era has produced a number of books and movies concerning a future society with flying cars or other technological advances &amp;mdash; or post-apocalyptic dystopia.&#xD;&#xA;It occurred to me that I had never heard of anything similar in ancient literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I don't expect them to imagine a similar future than people two millennia later would, but some people must have had ideas about how life will be different in the future.&#xD;&#xA;If there are no full books, plays, or other that take place in the author's future, are there at least some passages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious to find what the ancient people imagine future might hold, however short or long the time jump is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(It occurs to me that ancient literature might not have had fiction as an established genre the way we do today. Much of the literature seems to concern history, mythology, philosophy, and matters of the present life. Perhaps the playwrights could have had something a little different?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28035" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9076" RevisionGUID="c9617d55-dc89-48c6-a168-c3daa1fa0ced" CreationDate="2019-02-08T13:23:23.283" UserId="79" Text="Did the Greeks or Romans have future fiction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28036" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9076" RevisionGUID="c9617d55-dc89-48c6-a168-c3daa1fa0ced" CreationDate="2019-02-08T13:23:23.283" UserId="79" Text="|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9077" RevisionGUID="7d01f46c-c629-4e58-89c9-1f38183419ec" CreationDate="2019-02-08T14:15:23.177" UserId="2605" Text="Hesiod famously divided time into [five ages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_Man#Hesiod's_Five_Ages). The bleak picture of the fifth age is told in the future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Thereafter, would that I were not among the men of the fifth generation, but either had died before or been born afterwards. For now truly is a race of iron, and men never rest from labor and sorrow by day, and from perishing by night; and the gods shall lay sore trouble upon them. But, notwithstanding, even these shall have some good mingled with their evils. And Zeus will destroy this race of mortal men also when they come to have grey hair on the temples at their birth. The father will not agree with his children, nor the children with their father, nor guest with his host, nor comrade with comrade; nor will brother be dear to brother as aforetime. Men will dishonor their parents as they grow quickly old, and will carp at them, chiding them with bitter words, hard-hearted they, not knowing the fear of the gods. They will not repay their aged parents the cost of their nurture, for might shall be their right: and one man will sack another's city. There will be no favor for the man who keeps his oath or for the just or for the good; but rather men will praise the evil-doer and his violent dealing. Strength will be right, and reverence will cease to be; and the wicked will hurt the worthy man, speaking false words against him, and will swear an oath upon them. Envy, foul-mouthed, delighting in evil, with scowling face, will go along with wretched men one and all. And then Aidos and Nemesis, with their sweet forms wrapped in white robes, will go from the wide-pathed earth and forsake mankind to join the company of the deathless gods: and bitter sorrows will be left for mortal men, and there will be no help against evil. ([*Works and Days* 174-201](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0132%3Acard%3D174))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9078" RevisionGUID="d21a335b-77f3-454f-a9f0-edba3a144da0" CreationDate="2019-02-08T15:10:45.250" UserId="3387" Text="Would ‘ destinatus ad sanandum’ be a good translation of or the medical term curative intent " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28039" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9078" RevisionGUID="d21a335b-77f3-454f-a9f0-edba3a144da0" CreationDate="2019-02-08T15:10:45.250" UserId="3387" Text="A translation into Latin of the medical term curative intent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28040" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9078" RevisionGUID="d21a335b-77f3-454f-a9f0-edba3a144da0" CreationDate="2019-02-08T15:10:45.250" UserId="3387" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9078" RevisionGUID="ea5e63ab-3164-44c9-a19d-d28fb9754440" CreationDate="2019-02-08T15:44:23.837" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="Would ‘destinatus ad sanandum’ be a good translation of or the medical term 'curative intent'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28042" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9078" RevisionGUID="ea5e63ab-3164-44c9-a19d-d28fb9754440" CreationDate="2019-02-08T15:44:23.837" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9067" RevisionGUID="45c35cec-ecdb-415b-badb-b9164c83dee9" CreationDate="2019-02-08T17:42:07.473" UserId="1694" Comment="added 503 characters in body" Text="I think [this entry][1] in Du Cange's _Glossarium ad Scriptores Mediae et Infimae Graecitatis_ is what you want.  I find it a bit hard to make out the entire entry, but this excerpt in it seems relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὄρμος, τὸ μέρος τοῦ λιμένος, εἰς ὃ ἑλκόμεναι αἱ νῆες δέδενται · ὃ οἱ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; κοινοὶ σκάλαν λέγουσι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This describes an ὄρμος (whose meanings include such meanings as &quot;cord&quot;, &quot;chain&quot;, ... **&quot;moorings&quot;**, **&quot;haven&quot;**, according to L&amp;S) as the part of the harbour where ships are drawn and tied (there are probably better nautical terms for this), and which the common people refer to as a σκάλα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an image of the entry:  (The bit I've quoted above is the first bit of Greek you see in the image below.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://anemi.lib.uoc.gr/php/pdf_pager.php?filename=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fanemi-portal%2Fmetadata%2Ff%2F4%2Fb%2Fattached-metadata-01-0000493%2F85778_02.pdf&amp;rec=%2Fmetadata%2Ff%2F4%2Fb%2Fmetadata-01-0000493.tkl&amp;do=85778_02.pdf&amp;width=644&amp;height=1004&amp;pagestart=1&amp;maxpage=581&amp;lang=en&amp;pageno=51&amp;pagenotop=51&amp;pagenobottom=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MWHlu.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9067" RevisionGUID="58b3706b-0a60-4356-b761-b63ad5edf1df" CreationDate="2019-02-08T17:53:09.167" UserId="1694" Comment="added 503 characters in body" Text="I think [this entry][1] in Du Cange's _Glossarium ad Scriptores Mediae et Infimae Graecitatis_ is what you want.  I find it a bit hard to make out the entire entry, but this excerpt in it seems relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὄρμος, τὸ μέρος τοῦ λιμένος, εἰς ὃ ἑλκόμεναι αἱ νῆες δέδενται · ὃ οἱ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; κοινοὶ σκάλαν λέγουσι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This describes an ὄρμος (whose meanings include such meanings as &quot;cord&quot;, &quot;chain&quot;, ... **&quot;moorings&quot;**, **&quot;haven&quot;**, according to L&amp;S) as the part of the harbour where ships are drawn and tied (there are probably better nautical terms for this), and which the common people refer to as a σκάλα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an image of the entry:  (The bit I've quoted above is the first bit of Greek you see in the image below.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few other points to note here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* First, Du Cange devotes more than one entry to ΣΚΑΛΑ, the first one being devoted to its meanings deriving from κλῖμαξ or ladder, and containing other definitions such as &quot;stirrup&quot;.  The entry I've provided an image for is a separate entry.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Second, I've included only the first part, which ends at the botton of a page.  The definition continues on the next page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://anemi.lib.uoc.gr/php/pdf_pager.php?filename=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fanemi-portal%2Fmetadata%2Ff%2F4%2Fb%2Fattached-metadata-01-0000493%2F85778_02.pdf&amp;rec=%2Fmetadata%2Ff%2F4%2Fb%2Fmetadata-01-0000493.tkl&amp;do=85778_02.pdf&amp;width=644&amp;height=1004&amp;pagestart=1&amp;maxpage=581&amp;lang=en&amp;pageno=51&amp;pagenotop=51&amp;pagenobottom=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MWHlu.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9067" RevisionGUID="76e1c5c5-1f2b-450e-b275-f2091fea7b53" CreationDate="2019-02-08T18:28:48.027" UserId="1694" Comment="added 503 characters in body" Text="I think [this entry][1] in Du Cange's _Glossarium ad Scriptores Mediae et Infimae Graecitatis_ is what you want.  I find it a bit hard to make out the entire entry, but this excerpt in it seems relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὄρμος, τὸ μέρος τοῦ λιμένος, εἰς ὃ ἑλκόμεναι αἱ νῆες δέδενται · ὃ οἱ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; κοινοὶ σκάλαν λέγουσι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This describes an ὄρμος (whose meanings include such meanings as &quot;cord&quot;, &quot;chain&quot;, ... **&quot;moorings&quot;**, **&quot;haven&quot;**, according to L&amp;S) as the part of the harbour where ships are drawn and tied (there are probably better nautical terms for this), and which the common people refer to as a σκάλα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an image of the entry:  (The bit I've quoted above is the first bit of Greek you see in the image below.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few other points to note here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* First, Du Cange devotes more than one entry to ΣΚΑΛΑ, the first one being devoted to its meanings deriving from κλῖμαξ or ladder, and containing other definitions such as &quot;stirrup&quot;.  The entry I've provided an image for is a separate entry.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Second, I've included only the first part, which ends at the botton of a page.  The definition continues on the next page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Third, at the very bottom of the image, you will see a quote from &quot;de Bellis Franc.[orum] in Morea&quot;.  This refers to the _Chronicle of Morea_.  I looked up where this line comes from for context, and will quote it below.&#xD;&#xA;*******&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a passage from the _Chronicle of Morea_ in which σκάλα is used, along with my own tentative translation.  (Disclaimer: I am *not* familiar with the type of Greek used in the _Chronicle of Morea_, so my translation is *quite* tentative, and may be full of errors.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;     Ὅμως, ὡς ἦτον φρόνιμος, ἐπαρηγορήθη μόνος&#xD;&#xA;    κι ὤρθωσεν τὰ φουσσᾶτα του, στὴν Κόρινθον ἀπῆλθεν·&#xD;&#xA;    μὲ δύναμιν ἀπέρασε τὴν σκάλαν τῶν Μεγάρων,&#xD;&#xA;    μὲ πόλεμον ἐκέρδισεν ἐκείνην τὴν κλεισοῦραν.&#xD;&#xA;    Ὁ Μέγας Κύρης τὸ ἔμαθεν κ᾿ ἐθλίβη το μεγάλως,&#xD;&#xA;    διατὶ ἔμαθε ὅτι ἐπέρασεν ὁ πρίγκιπας τὴν σκάλαν&#xD;&#xA;    κ᾿ ἐσέβην εἰς τὸν τόπον του κ᾿ ὑπάει γυρεύοντά τον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Nevertheless, as he was wise, he alone was given aid (?)&#xD;&#xA;    and raised up his armies, [and] departed for Corinth.&#xD;&#xA;    with power he passed across the σκάλαν of Megara,&#xD;&#xA;    with war he gained that strait.&#xD;&#xA;    The Great Lord learned of it, and was afflicted greatly,&#xD;&#xA;    because he learned that the prince had gotten through the σκάλαν&#xD;&#xA;    and felt fear in his place (?) and wandered around it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://anemi.lib.uoc.gr/php/pdf_pager.php?filename=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fanemi-portal%2Fmetadata%2Ff%2F4%2Fb%2Fattached-metadata-01-0000493%2F85778_02.pdf&amp;rec=%2Fmetadata%2Ff%2F4%2Fb%2Fmetadata-01-0000493.tkl&amp;do=85778_02.pdf&amp;width=644&amp;height=1004&amp;pagestart=1&amp;maxpage=581&amp;lang=en&amp;pageno=51&amp;pagenotop=51&amp;pagenobottom=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MWHlu.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9076" RevisionGUID="01e3cf08-ee18-4273-87d5-711662953f99" CreationDate="2019-02-08T20:15:30.317" UserId="79" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="Did the Greeks or Romans have any literature describing events in the future?&#xD;&#xA;The modern era has produced a number of books and movies concerning a future society with flying cars or other technological advances &amp;mdash; or post-apocalyptic dystopia.&#xD;&#xA;It occurred to me that I had never heard of anything similar in ancient literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I don't expect them to imagine a similar future than people two millennia later would, but some people must have had ideas about how life will be different in the future.&#xD;&#xA;If there are no full books, plays, or other that take place in the author's future, are there at least some passages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious to find what the ancient people imagined future might hold, however short or long the time jump is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(It occurs to me that ancient literature might not have had fiction as an established genre the way we do today. Much of the literature seems to concern history, mythology, philosophy, and matters of the present life. Perhaps the playwrights could have had something a little different? Or maybe future would be discussed in the form of a prophecy?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9080" RevisionGUID="ed896f91-d61c-440f-aa47-a4c98e57ef27" CreationDate="2019-02-08T21:51:29.987" UserId="645" Text="The Romans might have occupied their leisure with entertainment of all kinds, but when it is not dealing with history, war and so on, their literature includes poetry (ranging from the scurrilous to the sublime), and plays (mainly derivative), but is almost entirely lacking in fictional prose. In fact, apart from the *Satyricon* and the *Metamorphosen* of Apuleius (the *Golden Ass*)  I would call it non-existent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Romans were severely practical people, one might say more engineers than philosophers, very down-to-earth in their interests. Life for all classes was a struggle lived very close to the land. The basis of their religious beliefs was quite foreign to that of modern (western) civilisation, being a sort of 'compact with the gods' for whom they constructed shrines and temples and whom they consulted rather than worshipped: guidance rather than instruction was what they were after. Why waste time dreaming, when you could (if you knew how to go about it correctly) ask the all-knowing beings with whom you shared the world?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They were not completely incurious, and the *De Rerum Naturae* of Lucretius is certainly speculative about the Universe, but even that is more explanatory than prophetic. They looked back on a history of hundreds of years, without much in the way of 'light-bulb moments' but seeing a long and difficult process of defending themselves. There was plenty enough to think about in staying alive, even for the well-off; it's hard to think that they would want to spend much time imagining the future if there was no reason to think it was going to be much different to the past." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9081" RevisionGUID="83aada44-61d3-481c-81ef-64fdab662d71" CreationDate="2019-02-08T21:51:50.627" UserId="3095" Text="As S. Theodorsson argues in his work on the phonemic system of the Attic dialect, there is evidence that already in the IV century BC, 'popular' Athenian speech underwent changes such as the merger of ι, η, υ in [i]. Even more conservative reconstructions (such as by W.S. Allen) place at least the disappearance of the subscript iota and the monophthongization of οι into [ø:] before 350.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet the grammar textbooks by e.g. Dionysius of Halicarnassus often prescribe e.g. the pronunciation of subscript iota as &quot;correct&quot; hundreds of years after its disappearance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was that &quot;correct&quot; conservative pronunciation actually used? Did the politicians use different pronunciations in public and in private? Was there perhaps an equivalent of the Transatlantic accent (having artificial archaizing features such as wh = [ʍ]), taught to students of public speaking?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, how could e.g. Demosthenes know to pronounce οι as [oi] in speeches and not [ø:] as everyone around him? The Greeks didn't have our methods of linguistic reconstruction, so slowing down natural phonological change seems almost impossible -- and also useless, needlessly alienating the audience of politicians etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28052" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9081" RevisionGUID="83aada44-61d3-481c-81ef-64fdab662d71" CreationDate="2019-02-08T21:51:50.627" UserId="3095" Text="Received pronunciation in Ancient Greek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28053" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9081" RevisionGUID="83aada44-61d3-481c-81ef-64fdab662d71" CreationDate="2019-02-08T21:51:50.627" UserId="3095" Text="|greek|phonology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28054" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8839" RevisionGUID="fa85139d-aaaf-40a5-8ebe-a1caffe25050" CreationDate="2019-02-08T22:02:20.523" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="28055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9067" RevisionGUID="78a6aa5b-0ab8-407d-9eb8-490462e8c632" CreationDate="2019-02-08T23:31:10.783" UserId="1694" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="I think [this entry][1] in Du Cange's _Glossarium ad Scriptores Mediae et Infimae Graecitatis_ is what you want.  I find it a bit hard to make out the entire entry, but this excerpt in it seems relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὄρμος, τὸ μέρος τοῦ λιμένος, εἰς ὃ ἑλκόμεναι αἱ νῆες δέδενται · ὃ οἱ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; κοινοὶ σκάλαν λέγουσι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This describes an ὄρμος (whose meanings include such meanings as &quot;cord&quot;, &quot;chain&quot;, ... **&quot;moorings&quot;**, **&quot;haven&quot;**, according to L&amp;S) as the part of the harbour where ships are drawn and tied (there are probably better nautical terms for this), and which the common people refer to as a σκάλα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an image of the entry:  (The bit I've quoted above is the first bit of Greek you see in the image below.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few other points to note here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* First, Du Cange devotes more than one entry to ΣΚΑΛΑ, the first one being devoted to its meanings deriving from κλῖμαξ or ladder, and containing other definitions such as &quot;stirrup&quot;.  The entry I've provided an image for is a separate entry.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Second, I've included only the first part, which ends at the botton of a page.  The definition continues on the next page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Third, at the very bottom of the image, you will see a quote from &quot;de Bellis Francor.[um] in Morea&quot;.  This refers to the _Chronicle of Morea_.  I looked up where this line comes from for context, and will quote it below.&#xD;&#xA;*******&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a passage from the _Chronicle of Morea_ in which σκάλα is used, along with my own tentative translation.  (Disclaimer: I am *not* familiar with the type of Greek used in the _Chronicle of Morea_, so my translation is *quite* tentative, and may be full of errors.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;     Ὅμως, ὡς ἦτον φρόνιμος, ἐπαρηγορήθη μόνος&#xD;&#xA;    κι ὤρθωσεν τὰ φουσσᾶτα του, στὴν Κόρινθον ἀπῆλθεν·&#xD;&#xA;    μὲ δύναμιν ἀπέρασε τὴν σκάλαν τῶν Μεγάρων,&#xD;&#xA;    μὲ πόλεμον ἐκέρδισεν ἐκείνην τὴν κλεισοῦραν.&#xD;&#xA;    Ὁ Μέγας Κύρης τὸ ἔμαθεν κ᾿ ἐθλίβη το μεγάλως,&#xD;&#xA;    διατὶ ἔμαθε ὅτι ἐπέρασεν ὁ πρίγκιπας τὴν σκάλαν&#xD;&#xA;    κ᾿ ἐσέβην εἰς τὸν τόπον του κ᾿ ὑπάει γυρεύοντά τον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Nevertheless, as he was wise, he took counsel by himself (?)&#xD;&#xA;    and raised up his armies, [and] departed for Corinth.&#xD;&#xA;    with power he passed across the σκάλαν of Megara,&#xD;&#xA;    with war he gained that strait.&#xD;&#xA;    The Great Lord learned of it, and was afflicted greatly,&#xD;&#xA;    because he learned that the prince had gotten through the σκάλαν&#xD;&#xA;    and entered his place and wandered around it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://anemi.lib.uoc.gr/php/pdf_pager.php?filename=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fanemi-portal%2Fmetadata%2Ff%2F4%2Fb%2Fattached-metadata-01-0000493%2F85778_02.pdf&amp;rec=%2Fmetadata%2Ff%2F4%2Fb%2Fmetadata-01-0000493.tkl&amp;do=85778_02.pdf&amp;width=644&amp;height=1004&amp;pagestart=1&amp;maxpage=581&amp;lang=en&amp;pageno=51&amp;pagenotop=51&amp;pagenobottom=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MWHlu.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9067" RevisionGUID="2b198f04-74ef-456a-ad45-55ff031c805e" CreationDate="2019-02-08T23:37:51.240" UserId="1694" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="I think [this entry][1] in Du Cange's _Glossarium ad Scriptores Mediae et Infimae Graecitatis_ is what you want.  I find it a bit hard to make out the entire entry, but this excerpt in it seems relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὄρμος, τὸ μέρος τοῦ λιμένος, εἰς ὃ ἑλκόμεναι αἱ νῆες δέδενται · ὃ οἱ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; κοινοὶ σκάλαν λέγουσι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This describes an ὄρμος (whose meanings include such meanings as &quot;cord&quot;, &quot;chain&quot;, ... **&quot;moorings&quot;**, **&quot;haven&quot;**, according to L&amp;S) as the part of the harbour where ships are drawn and tied (there are probably better nautical terms for this), and which the common people refer to as a σκάλα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an image of the entry:  (The bit I've quoted above is the first bit of Greek you see in the image below.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few other points to note here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* First, Du Cange devotes more than one entry to ΣΚΑΛΑ, the first one being devoted to its meanings deriving from κλῖμαξ or ladder, and containing other definitions such as &quot;stirrup&quot;.  The entry I've provided an image for is a separate entry.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Second, I've included only the first part, which ends at the botton of a page.  The definition continues on the next page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Third, at the very bottom of the image, you will see a quote from &quot;de Bellis Francor.[um] in Morea&quot;.  This refers to the _Chronicle of Morea_.  I looked up where this line comes from for context, and will quote it below.&#xD;&#xA;*******&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a passage from the _Chronicle of Morea_ in which σκάλα is used, along with my own tentative translation.  (Disclaimer: I am *not* familiar with the type of Greek used in the _Chronicle of Morea_, so my translation is *quite* tentative, and may be full of errors.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Tentative translation has been revised due to suggestion by TKR.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;     Ὅμως, ὡς ἦτον φρόνιμος, ἐπαρηγορήθη μόνος&#xD;&#xA;    κι ὤρθωσεν τὰ φουσσᾶτα του, στὴν Κόρινθον ἀπῆλθεν·&#xD;&#xA;    μὲ δύναμιν ἀπέρασε τὴν σκάλαν τῶν Μεγάρων,&#xD;&#xA;    μὲ πόλεμον ἐκέρδισεν ἐκείνην τὴν κλεισοῦραν.&#xD;&#xA;    Ὁ Μέγας Κύρης τὸ ἔμαθεν κ᾿ ἐθλίβη το μεγάλως,&#xD;&#xA;    διατὶ ἔμαθε ὅτι ἐπέρασεν ὁ πρίγκιπας τὴν σκάλαν&#xD;&#xA;    κ᾿ ἐσέβην εἰς τὸν τόπον του κ᾿ ὑπάει γυρεύοντά τον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Nevertheless, as he was wise, he took counsel by himself (?)&#xD;&#xA;    and raised up his armies, [and] departed for Corinth.&#xD;&#xA;    with power he passed across the σκάλαν of Megara,&#xD;&#xA;    with war he gained that strait.&#xD;&#xA;    The Great Lord learned of it, and was afflicted greatly,&#xD;&#xA;    because he learned that the prince had gotten through the σκάλαν&#xD;&#xA;    and entered his place and wandered around it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://anemi.lib.uoc.gr/php/pdf_pager.php?filename=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fanemi-portal%2Fmetadata%2Ff%2F4%2Fb%2Fattached-metadata-01-0000493%2F85778_02.pdf&amp;rec=%2Fmetadata%2Ff%2F4%2Fb%2Fmetadata-01-0000493.tkl&amp;do=85778_02.pdf&amp;width=644&amp;height=1004&amp;pagestart=1&amp;maxpage=581&amp;lang=en&amp;pageno=51&amp;pagenotop=51&amp;pagenobottom=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MWHlu.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9082" RevisionGUID="f19a5e75-eb8e-405f-b955-1ebcc6610bc5" CreationDate="2019-02-09T06:22:32.147" UserId="2116" Text="In September 2018 a related question was asked: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7135/how-to-say-born-to-heal-in-latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the answers given there, I'd go for *ad sanandum*. Due to the nature of the gerundium, there is no need to further specify &quot;intent&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28058" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="6631" RevisionGUID="8a559714-daca-4755-8c9f-b6750fb25cc9" CreationDate="2019-02-09T10:00:45.277" UserId="-1" Comment="97" />
  <row Id="28059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9083" RevisionGUID="34be60e6-cc61-420b-80d3-ea44e1b5d569" CreationDate="2019-02-09T12:41:54.480" UserId="324" Text="As mentioned in my answer to this question: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/812/is-there-a-difference-between-septimana-and-hebdomas there is no word for &quot;week&quot; in Classical Latin. The answers to your question refer to the usage of Christian authors only." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9084" RevisionGUID="9f148305-ff02-4956-bee6-851c737d5062" CreationDate="2019-02-09T16:52:23.413" UserId="2549" Text="I came along these in a Latin song our choir is singing.&#xD;&#xA;How to pronounce them?&#xD;&#xA;I guess I can absorb an international phonetic alphabet transcription." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28062" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9084" RevisionGUID="9f148305-ff02-4956-bee6-851c737d5062" CreationDate="2019-02-09T16:52:23.413" UserId="2549" Text="How to pronounce 'que' and 'angeli'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28063" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9084" RevisionGUID="9f148305-ff02-4956-bee6-851c737d5062" CreationDate="2019-02-09T16:52:23.413" UserId="2549" Text="|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9054" RevisionGUID="a30e3d58-fc68-4de9-8761-024225a5e0c3" CreationDate="2019-02-09T18:08:25.393" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="How do you say &quot;three times a week&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For context, I want to say that I swim three times a week.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28065" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9054" RevisionGUID="a30e3d58-fc68-4de9-8761-024225a5e0c3" CreationDate="2019-02-09T18:08:25.393" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9085" RevisionGUID="9ef2a07c-6651-4d77-928b-27ae1231eab0" CreationDate="2019-02-09T22:27:53.773" UserId="3318" Text="It depends on the pronounciation you are using. &#xA;If you want classical reconstructed pronunciantion, the one Romans used, you say something like [kwe] and [ˈaŋ.ɡɛ.li]&#xA;If you want ecclesiastical proniunciation, which is used by the catholic church, you say some thing like [kwe] and [ˈan.d͡ʒe.li]&#xA;I hope it helped &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9086" RevisionGUID="d3e1dc11-79d4-497f-8aa4-949649703719" CreationDate="2019-02-09T22:32:27.170" UserId="406" Text="The first question is, *what tradition are you following*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the reconstructed Classical pronunciation, the way scholars think Romans spoke around the first century, they'd be pronounced `[kʷɛ]` and `[ˈɑŋ.gɛ.liː]`. In English, approximately &quot;kweh&quot; and &quot;AHNG-geh-lee&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the common Ecclesiastic pronunciation, the system the Vatican uses, they'd be pronounced `[kʷe]` `[ˈɑn.d͡ʒɛ.li]`. In English, approximately &quot;kway&quot; and &quot;AHN-jeh-lee&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there have been [a wide variety of Latin pronunciations][1] used across the centuries. It's worth asking which your chorus is using: while most use Ecclesiastic pronunciation, for example, some choruses would use a German pronunciation for Bach, but an Italian pronunciation for Palestrina.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_regional_pronunciation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9084" RevisionGUID="ae034762-c69e-4915-9cf2-80be1d847741" CreationDate="2019-02-10T00:20:28.507" UserId="2549" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="I came along these in a Latin song our choir is singing.&#xD;&#xA;How to pronounce them? I am interested in all possible pronunciations. Could e.g.'que' be pronounced as &quot;ke&quot; or &quot;kɛ&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;I guess I can absorb an international phonetic alphabet transcription." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9087" RevisionGUID="b710553e-ae75-42d5-8af8-dcb1af73daec" CreationDate="2019-02-10T00:57:14.167" UserId="1694" Text="Note: This answer should be regarded as an adjunct to the answers already given by user22198 and Draconis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both correctly mention that there are different traditions in pronouncing Latin, including a reconstructed Classical pronunciation, and an &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation.  There also have existed various national pronunciations, as Draconis mentions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question about _que_ being possibly pronounced as [kɛ] is most likely true for certain &quot;national&quot; pronunciations in the past (I'd guess e.g. probably French and Spanish), but is not followed by the pronunciations in common use to-day.  In fact, the _de facto_ pronunciation for Latin used in *singing* is nowadays the &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation (and therefore quite likely by your choir).  (Although I *have* heard some Mediaeval music pronounced with a German, or at least non-Italianate, mediaeval pronunciation, as Draconis alludes to.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might be interested in [this related post](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8781/what-is-the-rationale-for-modern-pronunciation-of-latin-in-music)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9084" RevisionGUID="e56ad748-d3ff-473e-a13f-4ff14db41553" CreationDate="2019-02-10T01:00:20.403" UserId="2549" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="I came along these in a Latin song our choir is singing.&#xD;&#xA;How to pronounce them? &#xD;&#xA;I guess I can absorb an international phonetic alphabet transcription.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update after reading some answers: I should have stated that I know that there are different traditions in pronouncing Latin. I am interested in all possible pronunciations. Could e.g.'que' be pronounced as &quot;ke&quot; or &quot;kɛ&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9086" RevisionGUID="c2103426-573b-4864-bb40-f2ed2eb78615" CreationDate="2019-02-10T01:09:39.693" UserId="406" Comment="added 422 characters in body" Text="The first question is, *what tradition are you following*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the reconstructed Classical pronunciation, the way scholars think Romans spoke around the first century, they'd be pronounced `[kʷɛ]` and `[ˈɑŋ.gɛ.liː]`. In English, approximately &quot;kweh&quot; and &quot;AHNG-geh-lee&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the common Ecclesiastic pronunciation, the system the Vatican uses, they'd be pronounced `[kʷe]` `[ˈɑn.d͡ʒɛ.li]`. In English, approximately &quot;kway&quot; and &quot;AHN-jeh-lee&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there have been [a wide variety of Latin pronunciations][1] used across the centuries. It's worth asking which your chorus is using: while most use Ecclesiastic pronunciation, for example, some choruses would use a German pronunciation for Bach, but an Italian pronunciation for Palestrina.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these regional pronunciations used `[k]` instead of `[kʷ]` before `[e]`, as you mention in the comments—based on how the Romance languages developed, I would expect this in France and Spain, but not in Portugal or Italy (or Germany or England for that matter). In Germany or Russia, on the other hand, you'd find something more like `[kv]`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*However*, these regional pronunciations aren't generally used nowadays, unless you're singing music by a specifically French or Spanish composer. You should talk to your director about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_regional_pronunciation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9089" RevisionGUID="907804d1-2800-4bf6-a90a-f91afd79fa88" CreationDate="2019-02-10T10:19:35.787" UserId="9" Text="&quot;All possible pronunciations&quot; is a pretty tall order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Que&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, *que* in Latin only exists as the enclitic/suffix &quot;-que&quot;, which doesn't receive stress in prose (the existence of &quot;stress&quot; in Latin poetry is a disputed point).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;Ecclesiastical&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; (Italian-based, although perhaps exactly identical to Italian) pronunciation would be something like [kwɛ]. There doesn't seem to be any clear rule about the use of [e] vs. [ɛ] in &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation, so [kwe] might also be possible. There is no contrast between [kw], [kʷ] and [ku̯] in this context, so you might see the onset transcribed as any of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;Classical&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation is approximately the same. The onset is the &quot;qu&quot; sound, and the nucleus is the &quot;ĕ&quot; (&quot;short e&quot;) sound (with the exception that, according to [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dque), the vowel may be lengthened in the &quot;arsis&quot; in poetry). The Classical Latin &quot;qu&quot; sound has been variously analyzed as either a single labiovelar phoneme /kʷ/ or as a sequence /kw/. We will never be able to be sure of the exact phonetic realization. Latin didn't have a contrast of velar vs. palatal plosives, or front rounded vs. back rounded glides; it has been suggested that in Classical Latin the glide of the &quot;qu&quot; sound was fronted before a front vowel. Wiktionary gives a reconstructed phonetic transcription &quot;[kᶣɛ]&quot;, although I would expect the plosive part of the &quot;qu&quot; to also be fronted in a context like that, so maybe something like [cᶣɛ] would be possible. (In various modern Romance languages, such as French, the velar stop phonemes are supposed to have palatal stop allophones that are used before front vowels.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be general agreement on the value of Classical Latin ĕ being [ɛ], although [e] may have existed as an allophone (e.g. it has been suggested that a realization like [e] could occur in words like *meum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The distinct phoneme ē (&quot;long e&quot;) is reconstructed as being [eː] for at least some of the Classical Latin time period; from what I've read, ē is often thought to have been [ɛː] at some earlier stage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Others&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned, other traditions have further variations in pronunciation. &quot;Qu&quot; is traditionally /kv/ (phonetically, devoicing of the /v/ may occur in contexts like this in many languages, so possibly [kf]) in German pronunciation, and I think in the pronunciation of some other regions. &quot;Qu&quot; in traditional French pronunciation is often pronounced as French /k/, which as mentioned above is supposed to have [c] as an allophone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I remember, in German pronunciation vowel &quot;length&quot; and &quot;quality&quot; is traditionally determined mostly from context (such as syllable structure), so the traditional German pronunciation of &quot;-que&quot; would I think be /kveː/, not /kvɛ/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how French traditional pronunciation treated the vowel &quot;e&quot; in contexts like this, but I doubt that /ɛ/ would be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;traditional English pronunciation&quot; of Latin, &quot;-que&quot; would be something like /kwi/ (since it is unstressed, I *think* the vowel would be /i/ and not /iː/, although I'm not entirely sure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Angeli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;Ecclesiastical&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation would be something like [ˈandʒɛli].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference accents of Italian feature assimilation of nasals to following plosives; I don't know enough to give a detailed description of the quality of &quot;[n]&quot; in this context, but [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_phonology#Consonants) suggests it would be something like [n̠ʲ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;a&quot; vowel of Italian and Ecclesiastical Latin is typically described as being phonetically central [a], not back [ɑ], although the difference is not contrastive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In actual Italian, the distinction between /e/ and /ɛ/ is neutralized in unstressed syllables, and the merged realization is typically transcribed as [e]. But as I mentioned earlier, there doesn't seem to be a clear rule about when [e] vs. [ɛ] should be used in an &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;Classical&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation is something like [ˈaŋgɛliː]. The final vowel is long. As mentioned earlier, there was no phonemic contrast between velar and palatal stops in Classical Latin, so we don't know whether coarticulation with/assimilation to the following front vowel might have caused the &quot;ng&quot; to be pronounced as something like [ɲɟ] in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Others&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;traditional English pronunciation&quot;, *angeli* would be ˈændʒəlaɪ (or possibly /ˈændʒɪlaɪ/? I'm not sure whether /ɪ/ would be possible in an accent without the &quot;weak vowel merger&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In traditional German pronunciation, I believe it would be [ˈaŋgeli]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9090" RevisionGUID="c26dfd32-2d20-41f7-8e8a-b8e0de75a5c9" CreationDate="2019-02-10T10:32:19.013" UserId="3390" Text="I'm not an expert nor a linguist, nevertheless I found a text which may give a hint:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[https://books.google.de/books?id=TG8UAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA30&amp;lpg=PA30&amp;dq=ad+rogare&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=it345RxoS0&amp;sig=ACfU3U3r2ODGmWyTa-7JYe8a3r3eSTGpmg&amp;hl=de&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj4jdLN9LDgAhXDIlAKHX9WAP8Q6AEwB3oECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=ad%20rogare&amp;f=false][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This mentions a distinction between *adoptatio* and *arrogatio*, the first means to choose a new father at a court (*pater adoptivus*) the latter could mean a &quot;claim&quot; on a child after asking the people (ad-rogare).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9089" RevisionGUID="b45839a8-f3ab-4576-b046-ffb5310a52fd" CreationDate="2019-02-10T10:33:56.277" UserId="9" Comment="added 251 characters in body" Text="&quot;All possible pronunciations&quot; is a pretty tall order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Que&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, *que* in Latin only exists as the enclitic/suffix &quot;-que&quot;, which doesn't receive stress in prose (the existence of &quot;stress&quot; in Latin poetry is a disputed point).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;Ecclesiastical&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; (Italian-based, although perhaps exactly identical to Italian) pronunciation would be something like [kwɛ]. There doesn't seem to be any clear rule about the use of [e] vs. [ɛ] in &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation, so [kwe] might also be possible. There is no contrast between [kw], [kʷ] and [ku̯] in this context, so you might see the onset transcribed as any of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;Classical&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation is approximately the same. The onset is the &quot;qu&quot; sound, and the nucleus is the &quot;ĕ&quot; (&quot;short e&quot;) sound (with the exception that, according to [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dque), the vowel may be lengthened in the &quot;arsis&quot; in poetry). The Classical Latin &quot;qu&quot; sound has been variously analyzed as either a single labiovelar phoneme /kʷ/ or as a sequence /kw/. We will never be able to be sure of the exact phonetic realization. Latin didn't have a contrast of velar vs. palatal plosives, or front rounded vs. back rounded glides; it has been suggested that in Classical Latin the glide of the &quot;qu&quot; sound was fronted before a front vowel. Wiktionary gives a reconstructed phonetic transcription &quot;[kᶣɛ]&quot;, although I would expect the plosive part of the &quot;qu&quot; to also be fronted in a context like that, so maybe something like [cᶣɛ] would be possible. (In various modern Romance languages, such as French, the velar stop phonemes are supposed to have palatal stop allophones that are used before front vowels.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be general agreement on the value of Classical Latin ĕ being [ɛ], although [e] may have existed as an allophone (e.g. it has been suggested that a realization like [e] could occur in words like *meum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The distinct phoneme ē (&quot;long e&quot;) is reconstructed as being [eː] for at least some of the Classical Latin time period; from what I've read, ē is often thought to have been [ɛː] at some earlier stage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Others&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned, other traditions have further variations in pronunciation. &quot;Qu&quot; is traditionally /kv/ (phonetically, devoicing of the /v/ may occur in contexts like this in many languages, so possibly [kf]) in German pronunciation, and I think in the pronunciation of some other regions. &quot;Qu&quot; in traditional French pronunciation is often pronounced as French /k/, which as mentioned above is supposed to have [c] as an allophone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I remember, in German pronunciation vowel &quot;length&quot; and &quot;quality&quot; is traditionally determined mostly from context (such as syllable structure), so the traditional German pronunciation of &quot;-que&quot; would I think be /kveː/, not /kvɛ/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how French traditional pronunciation treated the vowel &quot;e&quot; in contexts like this, but I doubt that /ɛ/ would be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;traditional English pronunciation&quot; of Latin, &quot;-que&quot; would be something like /kwi/ (since it is unstressed, I *think* the vowel would be /i/ and not /iː/, although I'm not entirely sure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Angeli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;Ecclesiastical&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation would be something like [ˈand͡ʒɛli].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a &quot;reference&quot; Italian accent, a coda nasal assimilates in place to a following plosive; I don't know enough to give a detailed description of the quality of &quot;[n]&quot; in this context, but [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_phonology#Consonants) suggests it would be something like [n̠ʲ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;a&quot; vowel of Italian and Ecclesiastical Latin is typically described as being phonetically central [a], not back [ɑ], although the difference is not contrastive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In actual Italian, the distinction between /e/ and /ɛ/ is neutralized in unstressed syllables, and the merged realization is typically transcribed as [e]. But as I mentioned earlier, there doesn't seem to be a clear rule about when [e] vs. [ɛ] should be used in an &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;Classical&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation is something like [ˈaŋgɛliː]. The final vowel is long. As mentioned earlier, there was no phonemic contrast between velar and palatal stops in Classical Latin, so we don't know whether coarticulation with/assimilation to the following front vowel might have caused the &quot;ng&quot; to be pronounced as something like [ɲɟ] in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, there is little evidence that would provide grounds for reconstructing the specific quality of the Classical Latin &quot;a&quot; sound. It is agreed that it was an open/low vowel, but that would be compatible with anything in the range of [a], [ɑ] or [ɐ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Others&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;traditional English pronunciation&quot;, *angeli* would be ˈændʒəlaɪ (or possibly /ˈændʒɪlaɪ/? I'm not sure whether /ɪ/ would be possible in an accent without the &quot;weak vowel merger&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In traditional German pronunciation, I believe it would be [ˈaŋgeli]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9089" RevisionGUID="90306568-f58e-449b-b32f-5464fa65e9aa" CreationDate="2019-02-10T10:45:53.867" UserId="9" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&quot;All possible pronunciations&quot; is a pretty tall order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Que&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, *que* in Latin only exists as the enclitic/suffix &quot;-que&quot;, which doesn't receive stress in prose (the existence of &quot;stress&quot; in Latin poetry is a disputed point).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;Ecclesiastical&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; (Italian-based, although perhaps not exactly identical to Italian) pronunciation would be something like [kwɛ]. There doesn't seem to be any clear rule about the use of [e] vs. [ɛ] in &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation, so [kwe] might also be possible. There is no contrast between [kw], [kʷ] and [ku̯] in this context, so you might see the onset transcribed as any of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;Classical&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation is approximately the same. The onset is the &quot;qu&quot; sound, and the nucleus is the &quot;ĕ&quot; (&quot;short e&quot;) sound (with the exception that, according to [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dque), the vowel may be lengthened in the &quot;arsis&quot; in poetry). The Classical Latin &quot;qu&quot; sound has been variously analyzed as either a single labiovelar phoneme /kʷ/ or as a sequence /kw/. We will never be able to be sure of the exact phonetic realization. Latin didn't have a contrast of velar vs. palatal plosives, or front rounded vs. back rounded glides; it has been suggested that in Classical Latin the glide of the &quot;qu&quot; sound was fronted before a front vowel. Wiktionary gives a reconstructed phonetic transcription &quot;[kᶣɛ]&quot;, although I would expect the plosive part of the &quot;qu&quot; to also be fronted in a context like that, so maybe something like [cᶣɛ] would be possible. (In various modern Romance languages, such as French, the velar stop phonemes are supposed to have palatal stop allophones that are used before front vowels.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be general agreement on the value of Classical Latin ĕ being [ɛ], although [e] may have existed as an allophone (e.g. it has been suggested that a realization like [e] could occur in words like *meum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The distinct phoneme ē (&quot;long e&quot;) is reconstructed as being [eː] for at least some of the Classical Latin time period; from what I've read, ē is often thought to have been [ɛː] at some earlier stage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Others&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned, other traditions have further variations in pronunciation. &quot;Qu&quot; is traditionally /kv/ (phonetically, devoicing of the /v/ may occur in contexts like this in many languages, so possibly [kf]) in German pronunciation, and I think in the pronunciation of some other regions. &quot;Qu&quot; in traditional French pronunciation is often pronounced as French /k/, which as mentioned above is supposed to have [c] as an allophone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I remember, in German pronunciation vowel &quot;length&quot; and &quot;quality&quot; is traditionally determined mostly from context (such as syllable structure), so the traditional German pronunciation of &quot;-que&quot; would I think be /kveː/, not /kvɛ/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how French traditional pronunciation treated the vowel &quot;e&quot; in contexts like this, but I doubt that /ɛ/ would be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;traditional English pronunciation&quot; of Latin, &quot;-que&quot; would be something like /kwi/ (since it is unstressed, I *think* the vowel would be /i/ and not /iː/, although I'm not entirely sure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Angeli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;Ecclesiastical&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation would be something like [ˈand͡ʒɛli].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a &quot;reference&quot; Italian accent, a coda nasal assimilates in place to a following plosive; I don't know enough to give a detailed description of the quality of &quot;[n]&quot; in this context, but [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_phonology#Consonants) suggests it would be something like [n̠ʲ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;a&quot; vowel of Italian and Ecclesiastical Latin is typically described as being phonetically central [a], not back [ɑ], although the difference is not contrastive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In actual Italian, the distinction between /e/ and /ɛ/ is neutralized in unstressed syllables, and the merged realization is typically transcribed as [e]. But as I mentioned earlier, there doesn't seem to be a clear rule about when [e] vs. [ɛ] should be used in an &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;Classical&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation is something like [ˈaŋgɛliː]. The final vowel is long. As mentioned earlier, there was no phonemic contrast between velar and palatal stops in Classical Latin, so we don't know whether coarticulation with/assimilation to the following front vowel might have caused the &quot;ng&quot; to be pronounced as something like [ɲɟ] in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, there is little evidence that would provide grounds for reconstructing the specific quality of the Classical Latin &quot;a&quot; sound. It is agreed that it was an open/low vowel, but that would be compatible with anything in the range of [a], [ɑ] or [ɐ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Others&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;traditional English pronunciation&quot;, *angeli* would be ˈændʒəlaɪ (or possibly /ˈændʒɪlaɪ/? I'm not sure whether /ɪ/ would be possible in an accent without the &quot;weak vowel merger&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In traditional German pronunciation, I believe it would be [ˈaŋgeli]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9091" RevisionGUID="6a6c7498-3645-4a40-8071-ee1b8d2480f7" CreationDate="2019-02-10T11:33:30.043" UserId="9" Text="I just came across some old notes I took when reading Harold Copeman's *Singing in Latin: Or Pronunciation Explor'd* (unfortunately, I forget which edition it was).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the section on Ecclesiastical/Italian Latin, Copeman says that xci/xci traditionally had /kS/, but that &quot;In Italian literary Latin xc is x-c, [kstS]. I understand that this is now generally preferred in singing; [ktS] is acceptable and [kS] is not recognized&quot; (p.228). This agrees with what Vincenzo Oliva says in the comments. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9089" RevisionGUID="78d6170b-6a7a-44f7-93b0-ca2ee8d9afde" CreationDate="2019-02-10T11:50:00.947" UserId="9" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="&quot;All possible pronunciations&quot; is a pretty tall order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#*-que*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, &quot;que&quot; in Latin does not exist as an independent word, only  as the enclitic/suffix *-que,* which doesn't receive stress in prose (the existence of &quot;stress&quot; in Latin poetry is a disputed point). Latin *-que* is a conjunction that can be translated as &quot;and&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;Ecclesiastical&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; (Italian-based, although perhaps not exactly identical to Italian) pronunciation of *-que* would be something like [kwɛ]. There doesn't seem to be any clear rule about the use of [e] vs. [ɛ] in &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation, so [kwe] might also be possible. There is no contrast between [kw], [kʷ] and [ku̯] in this context, so you might see the onset transcribed as any of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;Classical&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation is approximately the same. The onset is the &quot;qu&quot; sound, and the nucleus is the &quot;ĕ&quot; (&quot;short e&quot;) sound (with the exception that, according to [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dque), the vowel may be lengthened in the &quot;arsis&quot; in poetry). The Classical Latin &quot;qu&quot; sound has been variously analyzed as either a single labiovelar phoneme /kʷ/ or as a sequence /kw/. We will never be able to be sure of the exact phonetic realization. Latin didn't have a contrast of velar vs. palatal plosives, or front rounded vs. back rounded glides; it has been suggested that in Classical Latin the glide of the &quot;qu&quot; sound was fronted before a front vowel. Wiktionary gives a reconstructed phonetic transcription &quot;[kᶣɛ]&quot;, although I would expect the plosive part of the &quot;qu&quot; to also be fronted in a context like that, so maybe something like [cᶣɛ] would be possible. (In various modern Romance languages, such as French, the velar stop phonemes are supposed to have palatal stop allophones that are used before front vowels.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be general agreement on the value of Classical Latin ĕ being [ɛ], although [e] may have existed as an allophone (e.g. it has been suggested that a realization like [e] could occur in words like *meum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The distinct phoneme ē (&quot;long e&quot;) is reconstructed as being [eː] for at least some of the Classical Latin time period; from what I've read, ē is often thought to have been [ɛː] at some earlier stage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Others&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned, other traditions have further variations in pronunciation. &quot;Qu&quot; is traditionally /kv/ (phonetically, devoicing of the /v/ may occur in contexts like this in many languages, so possibly [kf]) in German pronunciation, and I think in the pronunciation of some other regions. &quot;Qu&quot; in traditional French pronunciation is often pronounced as French /k/, which as mentioned above is supposed to have [c] as an allophone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I remember, in German pronunciation vowel &quot;length&quot; and &quot;quality&quot; is traditionally determined mostly from context (such as syllable structure), so the traditional German pronunciation of &quot;-que&quot; would I think be /kveː/, not /kvɛ/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how French traditional pronunciation treated the vowel &quot;e&quot; in contexts like this, but I doubt that /ɛ/ would be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;traditional English pronunciation&quot; of Latin, &quot;-que&quot; would be something like /kwi/ (since it is unstressed, I *think* the vowel would be /i/ and not /iː/, although I'm not entirely sure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#*angeli*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;Ecclesiastical&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation would be something like [ˈand͡ʒɛli].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a &quot;reference&quot; Italian accent, a coda nasal assimilates in place to a following plosive; I don't know enough to give a detailed description of the quality of &quot;[n]&quot; in this context, but [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_phonology#Consonants) suggests it would be something like [n̠ʲ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;a&quot; vowel of Italian and Ecclesiastical Latin is typically described as being phonetically central [a], not back [ɑ], although the difference is not contrastive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In actual Italian, the distinction between /e/ and /ɛ/ is neutralized in unstressed syllables, and the merged realization is typically transcribed as [e]. But as I mentioned earlier, there doesn't seem to be a clear rule about when [e] vs. [ɛ] should be used in an &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;Classical&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation is something like [ˈaŋgɛliː]. The final vowel is long. As mentioned earlier, there was no phonemic contrast between velar and palatal stops in Classical Latin, so we don't know whether coarticulation with/assimilation to the following front vowel might have caused the &quot;ng&quot; to be pronounced as something like [ɲɟ] in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, there is little evidence that would provide grounds for reconstructing the specific quality of the Classical Latin &quot;a&quot; sound. It is agreed that it was an open/low vowel, but that would be compatible with anything in the range of [a], [ɑ] or [ɐ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Others&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;traditional English pronunciation&quot;, *angeli* would be ˈændʒəlaɪ (or possibly /ˈændʒɪlaɪ/? I'm not sure whether /ɪ/ would be possible in an accent without the &quot;weak vowel merger&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In traditional German pronunciation, I believe it would be [ˈaŋgeli]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9084" RevisionGUID="af74c96b-3b5a-4b93-919e-76ab94f1e783" CreationDate="2019-02-10T11:52:04.083" UserId="2549" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="I came along these in a Latin song our choir is singing.&#xD;&#xA;How to pronounce them? &#xD;&#xA;I guess I can absorb an international phonetic alphabet transcription.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update after reading some answers: I should have stated that I know that there are different traditions in pronouncing Latin. I am interested in all possible pronunciations. Could e.g.'que' be pronounced as &quot;ke&quot; (or &quot;kɛ&quot;, ...) i.e. without glide?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9091" RevisionGUID="24a7e921-7b8b-451d-88a9-4fce160b33ef" CreationDate="2019-02-10T11:54:00.940" UserId="9" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="I just came across some old notes I took when reading Harold Copeman's *Singing in Latin: Or Pronunciation Explor'd* (unfortunately, I forget which edition it was).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the section on Ecclesiastical/Italian Latin, Copeman says that xci/xci traditionally had /kS/ (I'm not sure exactly what that means, or on what basis he makes this statement), but that &quot;In Italian literary Latin xc is x-c, [kstS]. I understand that this is now generally preferred in singing; [ktS] is acceptable and [kS] is not recognized&quot; (p.228). This agrees with what Vincenzo Oliva says in the comments and in his answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9091" RevisionGUID="ae14675e-d23a-41af-8e3f-c211d2061082" CreationDate="2019-02-10T12:34:46.190" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="I just came across some old notes I took when reading Harold Copeman's *Singing in Latin: Or Pronunciation Explor'd* (unfortunately, I forget which edition it was).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the section on Ecclesiastical/Italian Latin, Copeman says that xci/xci traditionally had /kʃ/ (I'm not sure exactly what that means, or on what basis he makes this statement), but that &quot;In Italian literary Latin xc is x-c, [kstʃ]. I understand that this is now generally preferred in singing; [ktʃ] is acceptable and [kʃ] is not recognized&quot; (p.228). This agrees with what Vincenzo Oliva says in the comments and in his answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9092" RevisionGUID="5a13cf6f-1c66-4a49-9b1a-c89994e718cb" CreationDate="2019-02-10T19:32:59.740" UserId="3391" Text="I was in a store today when I came across a notebook that said &quot;Carpe That Diem&quot; on the cover. How would one translate this phrase into Latin properly? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first I thought to simply translate &quot;that&quot; with a Latin demonstrative pronoun, but then I realized that &quot;that&quot; in this context is being used idiomatically to express enthusiasm and positive encouragement, i.e. it is being used in the sense of &quot;Yeah! You got this! Go seize that day!&quot; not in the sense of &quot;Seize that particular day over there.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Latin have any similar idioms to express an imperative given with enthusiasm and positive encouragement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28086" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9092" RevisionGUID="5a13cf6f-1c66-4a49-9b1a-c89994e718cb" CreationDate="2019-02-10T19:32:59.740" UserId="3391" Text="How to translate &quot;Carpe That Diem&quot; properly into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28087" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9092" RevisionGUID="5a13cf6f-1c66-4a49-9b1a-c89994e718cb" CreationDate="2019-02-10T19:32:59.740" UserId="3391" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|imperative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9083" RevisionGUID="f5060427-1ff1-4d89-8c94-a4926064da41" CreationDate="2019-02-10T22:57:25.707" UserId="30" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="As mentioned in my answer to this question: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/812/is-there-a-difference-between-septimana-and-hebdomas there is no word for &quot;week&quot; in Classical Latin. The other answers to your question refer to the usage of Christian authors only. So, in Classical Latin, the answer to the question would be, &quot;it isn't possible&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9093" RevisionGUID="0321216d-2eb9-46f6-a50f-127270efaea7" CreationDate="2019-02-11T05:44:18.933" UserId="1142" Text="The oft-quoted dictum &quot;passive in form, active in meaning&quot; is utterly nonsensical from a linguistic standpoint (and many would argue too, from a pedagogical standpoint) for describing so-called &quot;deponent&quot; verbs. The saying &quot;middle in form, middle in meaning&quot; captures the truth with the same succinctness; these are not &quot;deponent&quot; verbs: they are *media tantum* (middle-only) verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The evolution of these *media tantum* verbs may at first seem perplexing: Latin has an active-passive opposition in voice; there exists no middle. However, it largely appears to be the case that these *media tantum* verbs arose from Proto-Indo-European middle verbs. There do exist some verbs whose origins remain murky, though. The so-called 'semi-deponents', suppletive in the perfect, are one such good example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are seven broad semantic categories into which the middle can be divided for the purpose of classifying Latin's *media tantum* verbs, those being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Direct Reflexive:** *an event in which the participant performs an action upon themselves.* This semantic category can be expressed with the reflexive marker *sē*, but there do exist verbs in the middle under several sub-categories, typically &quot;body action middles&quot;: *grooming*, *bodily movement*, *etc.*&#xD;&#xA;  - *ornor* - to adorn (oneself)&#xD;&#xA;  - *perluor* - to bathe (oneself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Indirect Reflexive:** *an event in which the participant performs an action for their own benefit.* Similarly to the direct reflexive, this semantic category *could* be expressed with the reflexive marker *sibi*, but there do again exist verbs in the middle under this category.&#xD;&#xA;  - *liceor* - to acquire (for oneself) by bidding&#xD;&#xA;  - *apiscor* - to get, acquire (for oneself)&#xD;&#xA;  - *potior* - to get possession of (for oneself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Naturally Reciprocal Events:** *reciprocal events in which participant A is performing an action on participant B, and participant B is performing the same action on participant A;* i.e, events which naturally involve reciprocity. &#xD;&#xA;  - *osculor* - to kiss&#xD;&#xA;  - *conflictor* - to fight&#xD;&#xA;  - *amplector* - to embrace&#xD;&#xA;  - *luctor* - to wrestle&#xD;&#xA;  - *altercor* - to wrangle&#xD;&#xA;  - *copulor* - to be joined &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Collective:** *an event which is similar to a naturally reciprocal event, but the action is instead carried out by the participants as a whole;* i.e, the participants are not highly distinguished from each other. &#xD;&#xA;  - *misceor* - to mix&#xD;&#xA;  - *congregor* - to assemble, congregate&#xD;&#xA;  - *colloquor* - to converse, discuss&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Chaining:** *an action in which participant A acts on participant B, B on participant C, C on participant D, D on participant E, and so forth.* There are very few verbs which encode this meaning, save for the obvious exception: *sequor* - to follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **The Cognitive Middle:** *a fairly broad category that can be tersely summed up as a mental event in which the subject is both the initiator and the affected;* this category can be split into several further sub-categories.&#xD;&#xA;  - *misereor* - to feel pity, pity&#xD;&#xA;  - *vereor* - to respect, revere; fear, dread&#xD;&#xA;  - *meditor* - to think, reflect upon&#xD;&#xA;  - *interpretor* - to explain, expound&#xD;&#xA;  - *comminiscor* - to devise, contrive&#xD;&#xA;  - *polliceor* - to promise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. **Spontaneous Process:** *an event in which one subject undergoes a change of state with no specified agent;* the subject is the nominal participant.&#xD;&#xA;  - *morior* - to die&#xD;&#xA;  - *scindor* - to tear, split&#xD;&#xA;  - *nascor* - to be born&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize all of the above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The concept of 'deponency' and the term 'deponent' are not useful for explaining Latin verbs that exist without active morphologies; they are better referred to as middle-only or *media tantum* verbs.&#xD;&#xA;- The Latin *media tantum verbs* are largely derived from historically middle Proto-Indo-European verbs.&#xD;&#xA;- These *media tantum* verbs can be divided into seven broad semantic categories, which themselves expand upon why the classification of middle makes the most logical sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bulk of this answer was largely paraphrased from Seumas Macdonald's *excellent* piece on the Latin (and Greek) middle voice: *Reconceiving the middle voice for Greek and Latin students*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I believe that I have, for the most part, given an effective summary of the work he has done, I *highly* recommend that you read his original work. A PDF of it can be found [here](https://thepatrologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Reconceiving-the-Middle-Voice-Greek-and-Latin.pdf); the original blog posts from which the piece was compiled can also be read on his website [The Patrologist](https://thepatrologist.com)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9093" RevisionGUID="3efd6ffc-1a32-4cd7-828d-bb2164ea5b59" CreationDate="2019-02-11T05:55:31.870" UserId="1142" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="The oft-quoted dictum &quot;passive in form, active in meaning&quot; is utterly nonsensical from a linguistic standpoint (and many would argue too, from a pedagogical standpoint) for describing so-called &quot;deponent&quot; verbs. The saying &quot;middle in form, middle in meaning&quot; captures the truth with the same succinctness; these are not &quot;deponent&quot; verbs: they are *media tantum* (middle-only) verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The evolution of these *media tantum* verbs may at first seem perplexing: Latin has an active-passive opposition in voice; there exists no middle. However, it largely appears to be the case that these *media tantum* verbs arose from Proto-Indo-European middle verbs. There do exist some verbs whose origins remain murky, though. The so-called 'semi-deponents', suppletive in the perfect, are one such good example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are seven broad semantic categories into which the middle can be divided for the purpose of classifying Latin's *media tantum* verbs, those being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Direct Reflexive:** *an event in which the participant performs an action upon themselves.* This semantic category can be expressed with the reflexive marker *sē*, but there do exist verbs in the middle under several sub-categories, typically &quot;body action middles&quot;: *grooming*, *bodily movement*, *etc.*&#xD;&#xA;  - *ornor* - to adorn (oneself)&#xD;&#xA;  - *perluor* - to bathe (oneself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Indirect Reflexive:** *an event in which the participant performs an action for their own benefit.* Similarly to the direct reflexive, this semantic category *could* be expressed with the reflexive marker *sibi*, but there do again exist verbs in the middle under this category.&#xD;&#xA;  - *liceor* - to acquire (for oneself) by bidding&#xD;&#xA;  - *apiscor* - to get, acquire (for oneself)&#xD;&#xA;  - *potior* - to get possession of (for oneself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Naturally Reciprocal Events:** *reciprocal events in which participant A is performing an action on participant B, and participant B is performing the same action on participant A;* i.e, events which naturally involve reciprocity. &#xD;&#xA;  - *osculor* - to kiss&#xD;&#xA;  - *conflictor* - to fight&#xD;&#xA;  - *amplector* - to embrace&#xD;&#xA;  - *luctor* - to wrestle&#xD;&#xA;  - *altercor* - to wrangle&#xD;&#xA;  - *copulor* - to be joined &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Collective:** *an event which is similar to a naturally reciprocal event, but the action is instead carried out by the participants as a whole;* i.e, the participants are not highly distinguished from each other. &#xD;&#xA;  - *misceor* - to mix&#xD;&#xA;  - *congregor* - to assemble, congregate&#xD;&#xA;  - *colloquor* - to converse, discuss&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Chaining:** *an action in which participant A acts on participant B, B on participant C, C on participant D, D on participant E, and so forth.* There are very few verbs which encode this meaning, save for the obvious exception: *sequor* - to follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **The Cognitive Middle:** *a fairly broad category that can be tersely summed up as a mental event in which the subject is both the initiator and the affected;* this category can be split into several further sub-categories.&#xD;&#xA;  - *misereor* - to feel pity, pity&#xD;&#xA;  - *vereor* - to respect, revere; fear, dread&#xD;&#xA;  - *meditor* - to think, reflect upon&#xD;&#xA;  - *interpretor* - to explain, expound&#xD;&#xA;  - *comminiscor* - to devise, contrive&#xD;&#xA;  - *polliceor* - to promise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. **Spontaneous Process:** *an event in which one subject undergoes a change of state with no specified agent;* the subject is the nominal participant.&#xD;&#xA;  - *morior* - to die&#xD;&#xA;  - *scindor* - to tear, split&#xD;&#xA;  - *nascor* - to be born&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize all of the above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The concept of 'deponency' and the term 'deponent' are not useful for explaining Latin verbs that exist without active morphologies; they are better referred to as middle-only or *media tantum* verbs.&#xD;&#xA;- The Latin *media tantum verbs* are largely derived from historically middle Proto-Indo-European verbs.&#xD;&#xA;- These *media tantum* verbs can be divided into seven broad semantic categories, which themselves expand upon why the classification of middle makes the most logical sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bulk of this answer was largely paraphrased from Seumas Macdonald's *excellent* piece on the Latin (and Greek) middle voice: *Reconceiving the middle voice for Greek and Latin students*, itself largely based on Suzanne Kemmer's work *The Middle Voice* and Rutger J. Allen's dissertation *The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek. A study in Polysemy*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I believe that I have, for the most part, given an effective summary of the work he has done, I *highly* recommend that you read his original work. A PDF of it can be found [here](https://thepatrologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Reconceiving-the-Middle-Voice-Greek-and-Latin.pdf); the original blog posts from which the piece was compiled can also be read on his website [The Patrologist](https://thepatrologist.com)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9094" RevisionGUID="bb41d782-988e-4d45-b298-a921c73b0329" CreationDate="2019-02-11T06:16:57.560" UserId="9" Text="&quot;Active meaning&quot; or &quot;active in meaning&quot; does seem to be an unfortunate expression. I agree with Joonas that it is a misinterpretation to think of this as being related to &quot;change of state&quot; or anything like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote a bit about my thoughts on the &quot;deponent&quot; terminology in my answer to this [ELU question](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/413122/are-there-only-active-and-passive-voices-in-english/413130#413130), but basically, I think the clear thing about deponent verbs is just that they are passive in form, and no &quot;corresponding&quot; active-form verb exists. If you think of the semantic meaning of an ordinary passive verb as being derived from the meaning of the corresponding active verb (e.g. you take the object of the active verb and turn it into the subject of the passive), then it's clear that deponent verbs are not &quot;passive in meaning&quot;. And if we think of all verbs as being either &quot;passive&quot; or &quot;active&quot; in meaning, then by elimination, deponent verbs must be active in meaning. This is very vague and doesn't require them to have any narrower a range of meanings than non-deponent active verbs (some of which are stative, and some of which are not)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9072" RevisionGUID="d2235803-dc66-4221-9f63-c5fcb096af71" CreationDate="2019-02-11T10:35:43.967" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I think the meaning of the second part &quot;pedibus ioco&quot; could be &quot;I will refresh those on their feet &quot; which would make sense in German and would imply that the speaker tried to express the German word &quot;erquicken&quot; and could not find another latin word rhyming on &quot;voco&quot; and sure the speaker was not a native latin speaker, lol... &quot;erquicken&quot; has nothing to with the word &quot;to jest&quot;or &quot;to make a joke&quot; however jokes will ease you and can be a form of recreating, can be very refreshing... so the speaker used the latin word &quot;ioco&quot; maybe as a sort of synecdoche (pars pro toto!) for &quot;to refresh&quot;* in German &quot;erquicken&quot; is a very common term for &quot;recreation&quot; (refreshing) and used in many sayings and proverbs, in particular in poems &amp; songs and other lyrics. It would fit perfectly for a bench... however in latin... &quot;ioco!&quot; really sounds a bit too unusual..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9096" RevisionGUID="fd1ffaed-d63e-4078-8c4f-7bffa654bb44" CreationDate="2019-02-11T11:52:33.243" UserId="324" Text="From the previous (non-)answers it is clear that this is not an easy one. I think, however, that Leo is on the right track, and that it is about football, perhaps commemorating a deceased local player. “To summon someone to something” is normally voco with accusative for the person, and ad + accusative for the thing, but to use the dative instead of ad + accusative is not perhaps excessively bad Latin. In that case, the inscription might mean:&#xD;&#xA;“I summon the living to a game with the feet”&#xD;&#xA;that is: “a game of football”.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9097" RevisionGUID="d79f12bb-9528-456f-a9d7-12e5bff398d2" CreationDate="2019-02-11T13:08:22.787" UserId="1348" Text="I heard once someone say: &quot;where you loved life, there you will return&quot;. My attempt to translate that into Latin is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ubi vitam amavisti, illuc revertēris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that correct? Or is there a way to improve that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28098" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9097" RevisionGUID="d79f12bb-9528-456f-a9d7-12e5bff398d2" CreationDate="2019-02-11T13:08:22.787" UserId="1348" Text="Checking translation of &quot;ubi vitam amavisti, illuc reverteris&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28099" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9097" RevisionGUID="d79f12bb-9528-456f-a9d7-12e5bff398d2" CreationDate="2019-02-11T13:08:22.787" UserId="1348" Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9098" RevisionGUID="6c1d1b42-2fef-4ea0-beab-6e43edb67a4a" CreationDate="2019-02-11T13:29:14.797" UserId="1459" Text="In [Galatians 2:9](https://biblehub.com/galatians/2-9.htm) there is a reference to a handshake between Paul and other Apostles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So, James, Cephas and John, these leaders, these pillars, shook hands with Barnabas and me as a sign of partnership: we were to go to the pagans and they to the circumcised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this respect, the Nova Vulgata reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Iacóbus et Cephas et Ioánnes, qui videbántur colúmnæ esse, **déxteras dedérunt** mihi et Bárnabæ communiónis, ut nos in gentes, ipsi autem in circumcisiónem;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(texts are taken from [here](https://universalis.com/L/0/readings.htm))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, they are not equivalent. The English one expresses the type of act, with the Latin expressing the way the act is performed. The latter is more akin to the Spanish case, where a handshake (_apretón de manos_) is also said _dar la mano_ (_dare manum_). Is there a more general way to describe a handshake in Latin than that of the action performed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28101" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9098" RevisionGUID="6c1d1b42-2fef-4ea0-beab-6e43edb67a4a" CreationDate="2019-02-11T13:29:14.797" UserId="1459" Text="How to say &quot;shake hands&quot; (or handshake) in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28102" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9098" RevisionGUID="6c1d1b42-2fef-4ea0-beab-6e43edb67a4a" CreationDate="2019-02-11T13:29:14.797" UserId="1459" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9093" RevisionGUID="356a9a42-6b29-43a8-b380-25008ac47f03" CreationDate="2019-02-11T14:05:42.550" UserId="1142" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="The oft-quoted dictum &quot;passive in form, active in meaning&quot; is utterly nonsensical from a linguistic standpoint (and many would argue too, from a pedagogical standpoint) for describing so-called &quot;deponent&quot; verbs. The saying &quot;middle in form, middle in meaning&quot; captures the truth with the same succinctness; these are not &quot;deponent&quot; verbs: they are *media tantum* (middle-only) verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The evolution of these *media tantum* verbs may at first seem perplexing: Latin has an active-passive opposition in voice; there exists no middle. However, it largely appears to be the case that these *media tantum* verbs arose from Proto-Indo-European middle verbs. There do exist some verbs whose origins remain murky, though. The so-called 'semi-deponents', suppletive in the perfect, are one such good example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are seven broad semantic categories into which the middle can be divided for the purpose of classifying Latin's *media tantum* verbs (and for affirming that these verbs are, in fact, semantically middle), those being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Direct Reflexive:** *an event in which the participant performs an action upon themselves.* This semantic category can be expressed with the reflexive marker *sē*, but there do exist verbs in the middle under several sub-categories, typically &quot;body action middles&quot;: *grooming*, *bodily movement*, *etc.*&#xD;&#xA;  - *ornor* - to adorn (oneself)&#xD;&#xA;  - *perluor* - to bathe (oneself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Indirect Reflexive:** *an event in which the participant performs an action for their own benefit.* Similarly to the direct reflexive, this semantic category *could* be expressed with the reflexive marker *sibi*, but there do again exist verbs in the middle under this category.&#xD;&#xA;  - *liceor* - to acquire (for oneself) by bidding&#xD;&#xA;  - *apiscor* - to get, acquire (for oneself)&#xD;&#xA;  - *potior* - to get possession of (for oneself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Naturally Reciprocal Events:** *reciprocal events in which participant A is performing an action on participant B, and participant B is performing the same action on participant A;* i.e, events which naturally involve reciprocity. &#xD;&#xA;  - *osculor* - to kiss&#xD;&#xA;  - *conflictor* - to fight&#xD;&#xA;  - *amplector* - to embrace&#xD;&#xA;  - *luctor* - to wrestle&#xD;&#xA;  - *altercor* - to wrangle&#xD;&#xA;  - *copulor* - to be joined &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Collective:** *an event which is similar to a naturally reciprocal event, but the action is instead carried out by the participants as a whole;* i.e, the participants are not highly distinguished from each other. &#xD;&#xA;  - *misceor* - to mix&#xD;&#xA;  - *congregor* - to assemble, congregate&#xD;&#xA;  - *colloquor* - to converse, discuss&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Chaining:** *an action in which participant A acts on participant B, B on participant C, C on participant D, D on participant E, and so forth.* There are very few verbs which encode this meaning, save for the obvious exception: *sequor* - to follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **The Cognitive Middle:** *a fairly broad category that can be tersely summed up as a mental event in which the subject is both the initiator and the affected;* this category can be split into several further sub-categories.&#xD;&#xA;  - *misereor* - to feel pity, pity&#xD;&#xA;  - *vereor* - to respect, revere; fear, dread&#xD;&#xA;  - *meditor* - to think, reflect upon&#xD;&#xA;  - *interpretor* - to explain, expound&#xD;&#xA;  - *comminiscor* - to devise, contrive&#xD;&#xA;  - *polliceor* - to promise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. **Spontaneous Process:** *an event in which one subject undergoes a change of state with no specified agent;* the subject is the nominal participant.&#xD;&#xA;  - *morior* - to die&#xD;&#xA;  - *scindor* - to tear, split&#xD;&#xA;  - *nascor* - to be born&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize all of the above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The concept of 'deponency' and the term 'deponent' are not useful for explaining Latin verbs that exist without active morphologies; they are better referred to as middle-only or *media tantum* verbs.&#xD;&#xA;- The Latin *media tantum verbs* are largely derived from historically middle Proto-Indo-European verbs.&#xD;&#xA;- These *media tantum* verbs can be divided into seven broad semantic categories, which themselves expand upon why the classification of middle makes the most logical sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bulk of this answer was largely paraphrased from Seumas Macdonald's *excellent* piece on the Latin (and Greek) middle voice: *Reconceiving the middle voice for Greek and Latin students*, itself largely based on Suzanne Kemmer's work *The Middle Voice* and Rutger J. Allen's dissertation *The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek. A study in Polysemy*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I believe that I have, for the most part, given an effective summary of the work he has done, I *highly* recommend that you read his original work. A PDF of it can be found [here](https://thepatrologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Reconceiving-the-Middle-Voice-Greek-and-Latin.pdf); the original blog posts from which the piece was compiled can also be read on his website [The Patrologist](https://thepatrologist.com)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9093" RevisionGUID="10438df5-75d7-49f8-bb5b-2c00cd7918a5" CreationDate="2019-02-11T14:13:53.073" UserId="1142" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="The oft-quoted dictum &quot;passive in form, active in meaning&quot; is utterly nonsensical from a linguistic standpoint (and many would argue too, from a pedagogical standpoint) for describing so-called &quot;deponent&quot; verbs. The saying &quot;middle in form, middle in meaning&quot; captures the truth with the same succinctness; these are not &quot;deponent&quot; verbs: they are *media tantum* (middle-only) verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The evolution of these *media tantum* verbs may at first seem perplexing: Latin has an active-passive opposition in voice; there exists no middle. However, it largely appears to be the case that these *media tantum* verbs arose from Proto-Indo-European middle verbs. There do exist some verbs whose origins remain murky, though. The so-called 'semi-deponents', suppletive in the perfect, are one such good example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are seven broad semantic categories into which the middle can be divided for the purpose of classifying Latin's *media tantum* verbs (and for affirming that these verbs are, in fact, semantically middle), those being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Direct Reflexive:** *an event in which the participant performs an action upon themselves.* This semantic category can be expressed with the reflexive marker *sē*, but there do exist verbs in the middle under several sub-categories, typically &quot;body action middles&quot;: *grooming*, *bodily movement*, *etc.*&#xD;&#xA;  - *ornor* - to adorn (oneself)&#xD;&#xA;  - *perluor* - to bathe (oneself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Indirect Reflexive:** *an event in which the participant performs an action for their own benefit.* Similarly to the direct reflexive, this semantic category *could* be expressed with the reflexive marker *sibi*, but there do again exist verbs in the middle under this category.&#xD;&#xA;  - *liceor* - to acquire (for oneself) by bidding&#xD;&#xA;  - *apiscor* - to get, acquire (for oneself)&#xD;&#xA;  - *potior* - to get possession of (for oneself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Naturally Reciprocal Events:** *reciprocal events in which participant A is performing an action on participant B, and participant B is performing the same action on participant A;* i.e, events which naturally involve reciprocity. &#xD;&#xA;  - *osculor* - to kiss&#xD;&#xA;  - *conflictor* - to fight&#xD;&#xA;  - *amplector* - to embrace&#xD;&#xA;  - *luctor* - to wrestle&#xD;&#xA;  - *altercor* - to wrangle&#xD;&#xA;  - *copulor* - to be joined &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Collective:** *an event which is similar to a naturally reciprocal event, but the action is instead carried out by the participants as a whole;* i.e, the participants are not highly distinguished from each other. &#xD;&#xA;  - *misceor* - to mix&#xD;&#xA;  - *congregor* - to assemble, congregate&#xD;&#xA;  - *colloquor* - to converse, discuss&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Chaining:** *an action in which participant A acts on participant B, B on participant C, C on participant D, D on participant E, and so forth.* There are very few verbs which encode this meaning, save for the obvious exception: *sequor* - to follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **The Cognitive Middle:** *a fairly broad category that can be tersely summed up as a mental event in which the subject is both the initiator and the affected;* this category can be split into several further sub-categories.&#xD;&#xA;  - *misereor* - to feel pity, pity&#xD;&#xA;  - *vereor* - to respect, revere; fear, dread&#xD;&#xA;  - *meditor* - to think, reflect upon&#xD;&#xA;  - *interpretor* - to explain, expound&#xD;&#xA;  - *comminiscor* - to devise, contrive&#xD;&#xA;  - *polliceor* - to promise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. **Spontaneous Process:** *an event in which one subject undergoes a change of state with no specified agent;* the subject is the nominal participant.&#xD;&#xA;  - *morior* - to die&#xD;&#xA;  - *scindor* - to tear, split&#xD;&#xA;  - *nascor* - to be born&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize all of the above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The concept of 'deponency' and the term 'deponent' are not useful for explaining Latin verbs that exist without active morphologies; they are better referred to as middle-only or *media tantum* verbs.&#xD;&#xA;- The Latin *media tantum* verbs are largely derived from historically middle Proto-Indo-European verbs; semi-deponent verbs, suppletive in the passive, represent the main exception.&#xD;&#xA;- These *media tantum* verbs can be divided into seven broad semantic categories, which themselves expand upon why the classification of middle makes the most logical sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bulk of this answer was largely paraphrased from Seumas Macdonald's *excellent* piece on the Latin (and Greek) middle voice: *Reconceiving the middle voice for Greek and Latin students*, itself largely based on Suzanne Kemmer's work *The Middle Voice* and Rutger J. Allen's dissertation *The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek. A study in Polysemy*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I believe that I have, for the most part, given an effective summary of the work he has done, I *highly* recommend that you read his original work. A PDF of it can be found [here](https://thepatrologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Reconceiving-the-Middle-Voice-Greek-and-Latin.pdf); the original blog posts from which the piece was compiled can also be read on his website [The Patrologist](https://thepatrologist.com)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9093" RevisionGUID="52f3fc29-a639-4a54-a64c-b0cf1369279b" CreationDate="2019-02-11T15:07:13.677" UserId="1142" Comment="added 444 characters in body" Text="The oft-quoted dictum &quot;passive in form, active in meaning&quot; is utterly nonsensical from a linguistic standpoint (and many would argue too, from a pedagogical standpoint) for describing so-called &quot;deponent&quot; verbs. The saying &quot;middle in form, middle in meaning&quot; captures the truth with the same succinctness; these are not &quot;deponent&quot; verbs: they are *media tantum* (middle-only) verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The evolution of these *media tantum* verbs may at first seem perplexing: Latin has an active-passive opposition in voice; there exists no middle. However, it largely appears to be the case that these *media tantum* verbs arose from Proto-Indo-European middle verbs. There do exist some verbs whose origins remain murky, though. The so-called 'semi-deponents', suppletive in the perfect, are one such good example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are seven broad semantic categories into which the middle can be divided for the purpose of classifying Latin's *media tantum* verbs (and for affirming that these verbs are, in fact, semantically middle), those being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Direct Reflexive:** *an event in which the participant performs an action upon themselves.* This semantic category can be expressed with the reflexive marker *sē*, but there do exist verbs in the middle under several sub-categories, typically &quot;body action middles&quot;: *grooming*, *bodily movement*, *etc.*&#xD;&#xA;  - *ornor* - to adorn (oneself)&#xD;&#xA;  - *perluor* - to bathe (oneself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Indirect Reflexive:** *an event in which the participant performs an action for their own benefit.* Similarly to the direct reflexive, this semantic category *could* be expressed with the reflexive marker *sibi*, but there do again exist verbs in the middle under this category.&#xD;&#xA;  - *liceor* - to acquire (for oneself) by bidding&#xD;&#xA;  - *apiscor* - to get, acquire (for oneself)&#xD;&#xA;  - *potior* - to get possession of (for oneself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Naturally Reciprocal Events:** *reciprocal events in which participant A is performing an action on participant B, and participant B is performing the same action on participant A;* i.e, events which naturally involve reciprocity. &#xD;&#xA;  - *osculor* - to kiss&#xD;&#xA;  - *conflictor* - to fight&#xD;&#xA;  - *amplector* - to embrace&#xD;&#xA;  - *luctor* - to wrestle&#xD;&#xA;  - *altercor* - to wrangle&#xD;&#xA;  - *copulor* - to be joined &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Collective:** *an event which is similar to a naturally reciprocal event, but the action is instead carried out by the participants as a whole;* i.e, the participants are not highly distinguished from each other. &#xD;&#xA;  - *misceor* - to mix&#xD;&#xA;  - *congregor* - to assemble, congregate&#xD;&#xA;  - *colloquor* - to converse, discuss&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Chaining:** *an action in which participant A acts on participant B, B on participant C, C on participant D, D on participant E, and so forth.* There are very few verbs which encode this meaning, save for the obvious exception: *sequor* - to follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **The Cognitive Middle:** *a fairly broad category that can be tersely summed up as a mental event in which the subject is both the initiator and the affected;* this category can be split into several further sub-categories.&#xD;&#xA;  - *misereor* - to feel pity, pity&#xD;&#xA;  - *vereor* - to respect, revere; fear, dread&#xD;&#xA;  - *meditor* - to think, reflect upon&#xD;&#xA;  - *interpretor* - to explain, expound&#xD;&#xA;  - *comminiscor* - to devise, contrive&#xD;&#xA;  - *polliceor* - to promise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. **Spontaneous Process:** *an event in which one subject undergoes a change of state with no specified agent;* the subject is the nominal participant.&#xD;&#xA;  - *morior* - to die&#xD;&#xA;  - *scindor* - to tear, split&#xD;&#xA;  - *nascor* - to be born&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize all of the above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The concept of 'deponency' and the term 'deponent' are not useful for explaining Latin verbs that exist without active morphologies; they are better referred to as middle-only or *media tantum* verbs.&#xD;&#xA;- The Latin *media tantum* verbs are largely derived from historically middle Proto-Indo-European verbs; semi-deponent verbs, suppletive in the passive, represent the main exception.&#xD;&#xA;- These *media tantum* verbs can be divided into seven broad semantic categories, which themselves expand upon why the classification of middle makes the most logical sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bulk of this answer was largely paraphrased from Seumas Macdonald's *excellent* piece on the Latin (and Greek) middle voice: *Reconceiving the middle voice for Greek and Latin students*, itself largely based on Suzanne Kemmer's work *The Middle Voice* and Rutger J. Allen's dissertation *The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek. A study in Polysemy*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I believe that I have, for the most part, given an effective summary of the work he has done, I *highly* recommend that you read his original work. A PDF of it can be found [here](https://thepatrologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Reconceiving-the-Middle-Voice-Greek-and-Latin.pdf); the original blog posts from which the piece was compiled can also be read on his website [The Patrologist](https://thepatrologist.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting aside: the accurate classification of so-called 'deponents' as *media tantum* verbs is not recent; the 9th century grammarian Georgius Choeroboscus was one such individual to recognize this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *οὐδεὶς γὰρ λέγει ἔρχω ἢ εὔχω ἢ πέτω ἢ δέχω ἢ ὀρχῶ καὶ τὰ λοιπά, ἐπειδὴ τὸ σημαινόμενον κωλύει.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *For no one says I 'go', or I 'pray', or I 'fly', or I 'receive', or I 'depart' and the rest, since the meaning prohibits it.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9093" RevisionGUID="bfbdaf11-be25-4f0c-9047-613313ac93b2" CreationDate="2019-02-11T15:14:22.707" UserId="1142" Comment="added 444 characters in body" Text="The oft-quoted dictum &quot;passive in form, active in meaning&quot; is utterly nonsensical from a linguistic standpoint (and many would argue too, from a pedagogical standpoint) for describing so-called &quot;deponent&quot; verbs. The saying &quot;middle in form, middle in meaning&quot; captures the truth with the same succinctness; these are not &quot;deponent&quot; verbs: they are *media tantum* (middle-only) verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The evolution of these *media tantum* verbs may at first seem perplexing: Latin has an active-passive opposition in voice; there exists no middle. However, it largely appears to be the case that these *media tantum* verbs arose from Proto-Indo-European middle verbs. There do exist some verbs whose origins remain murky, though. The so-called 'semi-deponents', suppletive in the perfect, are one such good example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are seven broad semantic categories into which the middle can be divided for the purpose of classifying Latin's *media tantum* verbs (and for affirming that these verbs are, in fact, semantically middle), those being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Direct Reflexive:** *an event in which the participant performs an action upon themselves.* This semantic category can be expressed with the reflexive marker *sē*, but there do exist verbs in the middle under several sub-categories, typically &quot;body action middles&quot;: *grooming*, *bodily movement*, *etc.*&#xD;&#xA;  - *ornor* - to adorn (oneself)&#xD;&#xA;  - *perluor* - to bathe (oneself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Indirect Reflexive:** *an event in which the participant performs an action for their own benefit.* Similarly to the direct reflexive, this semantic category *could* be expressed with the reflexive marker *sibi*, but there do again exist verbs in the middle under this category.&#xD;&#xA;  - *liceor* - to acquire (for oneself) by bidding&#xD;&#xA;  - *apiscor* - to get, acquire (for oneself)&#xD;&#xA;  - *potior* - to get possession of (for oneself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Naturally Reciprocal Events:** *reciprocal events in which participant A is performing an action on participant B, and participant B is performing the same action on participant A;* i.e, events which naturally involve reciprocity. &#xD;&#xA;  - *osculor* - to kiss&#xD;&#xA;  - *conflictor* - to fight&#xD;&#xA;  - *amplector* - to embrace&#xD;&#xA;  - *luctor* - to wrestle&#xD;&#xA;  - *altercor* - to wrangle&#xD;&#xA;  - *copulor* - to be joined &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Collective:** *an event which is similar to a naturally reciprocal event, but the action is instead carried out by the participants as a whole;* i.e, the participants are not highly distinguished from each other. &#xD;&#xA;  - *misceor* - to mix&#xD;&#xA;  - *congregor* - to assemble, congregate&#xD;&#xA;  - *colloquor* - to converse, discuss&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Chaining:** *an action in which participant A acts on participant B, B on participant C, C on participant D, D on participant E, and so forth.* There are very few verbs which encode this meaning, save for the obvious exception: *sequor* - to follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **The Cognitive Middle:** *a fairly broad category that can be tersely summed up as a mental event in which the subject is both the initiator and the affected;* this category can be split into several further sub-categories.&#xD;&#xA;  - *misereor* - to feel pity, pity&#xD;&#xA;  - *vereor* - to respect, revere; fear, dread&#xD;&#xA;  - *meditor* - to think, reflect upon&#xD;&#xA;  - *interpretor* - to explain, expound&#xD;&#xA;  - *comminiscor* - to devise, contrive&#xD;&#xA;  - *polliceor* - to promise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. **Spontaneous Process:** *an event in which one subject undergoes a change of state with no specified agent;* the subject is the nominal participant.&#xD;&#xA;  - *morior* - to die&#xD;&#xA;  - *scindor* - to tear, split&#xD;&#xA;  - *nascor* - to be born&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize all of the above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The concept of 'deponency' and the term 'deponent' are not useful for explaining Latin verbs that exist without active morphologies; they are better referred to as middle-only or *media tantum* verbs.&#xD;&#xA;- The Latin *media tantum* verbs are largely derived from historically middle Proto-Indo-European verbs; semi-deponent verbs, suppletive in the passive, represent the main exception.&#xD;&#xA;- These *media tantum* verbs can be divided into seven broad semantic categories, which themselves expand upon why the classification of middle makes the most logical sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bulk of this answer was largely paraphrased from Seumas Macdonald's *excellent* piece on the Latin (and Greek) middle voice: *Reconceiving the middle voice for Greek and Latin students*, itself largely based on Suzanne Kemmer's work *The Middle Voice* and Rutger J. Allen's dissertation *The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek. A study in Polysemy*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I believe that I have, for the most part, given an effective summary of the work he has done, I *highly* recommend that you read his original work. A PDF of it can be found [here](https://thepatrologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Reconceiving-the-Middle-Voice-Greek-and-Latin.pdf); the original blog posts from which the piece was compiled can also be read on his website [The Patrologist](https://thepatrologist.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting aside: the accurate re-classification of so-called 'deponents' as *media tantum* verbs is not recent; from George Choiroboskos' 9th century commentaries on the canons of Theodosius of Alexandria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;οὐδεὶς γὰρ λέγει ἔρχω ἢ εὔχω ἢ πέτω ἢ δέχω ἢ ὀρχῶ καὶ τὰ λοιπά, ἐπειδὴ τὸ σημαινόμενον κωλύει.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;For no one says I 'go', or I 'pray', or I 'fly', or I 'receive', or I 'depart' and the rest, since the meaning prohibits it.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9093" RevisionGUID="ed79a609-df59-4d99-91a9-94b653d3790d" CreationDate="2019-02-11T18:15:24.680" UserId="1142" Comment="added 241 characters in body" Text="The oft-quoted dictum &quot;passive in form, active in meaning&quot; is utterly nonsensical from a linguistic standpoint (and many would argue too, from a pedagogical standpoint) for describing most so-called &quot;deponent&quot; verbs. The saying &quot;middle in form, middle in meaning&quot; captures the truth with the same succinctness; these are not &quot;deponent&quot; verbs: they are *media tantum* (middle-only) verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The evolution of these *media tantum* verbs may at first seem perplexing: Latin has an active-passive opposition in voice; there exists no middle. However, it largely appears to be the case that these *media tantum* verbs arose from Proto-Indo-European middle verbs. There do exist some verbs whose origins remain murky, though. The so-called 'semi-deponents', suppletive in the perfect, are one such good example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also worth noting that Late Latin saw a subsequent rise in 'deponent coinages' (technically true deponents), followed by an equally quick regularization of these true deponents and *media tantum* verbs to active morphologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are seven broad semantic categories into which the middle can be divided for the purpose of classifying Latin's *media tantum* verbs (and for affirming that these verbs are, in fact, semantically middle), those being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Direct Reflexive:** *an event in which the participant performs an action upon themselves.* This semantic category can be expressed with the reflexive marker *sē*, but there do exist verbs in the middle under several sub-categories, typically &quot;body action middles&quot;: *grooming*, *bodily movement*, *etc.*&#xD;&#xA;  - *ornor* - to adorn (oneself)&#xD;&#xA;  - *perluor* - to bathe (oneself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Indirect Reflexive:** *an event in which the participant performs an action for their own benefit.* Similarly to the direct reflexive, this semantic category *could* be expressed with the reflexive marker *sibi*, but there do again exist verbs in the middle under this category.&#xD;&#xA;  - *liceor* - to acquire (for oneself) by bidding&#xD;&#xA;  - *apiscor* - to get, acquire (for oneself)&#xD;&#xA;  - *potior* - to get possession of (for oneself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Naturally Reciprocal Events:** *reciprocal events in which participant A is performing an action on participant B, and participant B is performing the same action on participant A;* i.e, events which naturally involve reciprocity. &#xD;&#xA;  - *osculor* - to kiss&#xD;&#xA;  - *conflictor* - to fight&#xD;&#xA;  - *amplector* - to embrace&#xD;&#xA;  - *luctor* - to wrestle&#xD;&#xA;  - *altercor* - to wrangle&#xD;&#xA;  - *copulor* - to be joined &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Collective:** *an event which is similar to a naturally reciprocal event, but the action is instead carried out by the participants as a whole;* i.e, the participants are not highly distinguished from each other. &#xD;&#xA;  - *misceor* - to mix&#xD;&#xA;  - *congregor* - to assemble, congregate&#xD;&#xA;  - *colloquor* - to converse, discuss&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Chaining:** *an action in which participant A acts on participant B, B on participant C, C on participant D, D on participant E, and so forth.* There are very few verbs which encode this meaning, save for the obvious exception: *sequor* - to follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **The Cognitive Middle:** *a fairly broad category that can be tersely summed up as a mental event in which the subject is both the initiator and the affected;* this category can be split into several further sub-categories.&#xD;&#xA;  - *misereor* - to feel pity, pity&#xD;&#xA;  - *vereor* - to respect, revere; fear, dread&#xD;&#xA;  - *meditor* - to think, reflect upon&#xD;&#xA;  - *interpretor* - to explain, expound&#xD;&#xA;  - *comminiscor* - to devise, contrive&#xD;&#xA;  - *polliceor* - to promise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. **Spontaneous Process:** *an event in which one subject undergoes a change of state with no specified agent;* the subject is the nominal participant.&#xD;&#xA;  - *morior* - to die&#xD;&#xA;  - *scindor* - to tear, split&#xD;&#xA;  - *nascor* - to be born&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize all of the above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The concept of 'deponency' and the term 'deponent' are not useful for explaining Latin verbs that exist without active morphologies; they are better referred to as middle-only or *media tantum* verbs.&#xD;&#xA;- The Latin *media tantum* verbs are largely derived from historically middle Proto-Indo-European verbs; semi-deponent verbs, suppletive in the passive, represent the main exception.&#xD;&#xA;- These *media tantum* verbs can be divided into seven broad semantic categories, which themselves expand upon why the classification of middle makes the most logical sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bulk of this answer was largely paraphrased from Seumas Macdonald's *excellent* piece on the Latin (and Greek) middle voice: *Reconceiving the middle voice for Greek and Latin students*, itself largely based on Suzanne Kemmer's work *The Middle Voice* and Rutger J. Allen's dissertation *The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek. A study in Polysemy*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I believe that I have, for the most part, given an effective summary of the work he has done, I *highly* recommend that you read his original work. A PDF of it can be found [here](https://thepatrologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Reconceiving-the-Middle-Voice-Greek-and-Latin.pdf); the original blog posts from which the piece was compiled can also be read on his website [The Patrologist](https://thepatrologist.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting aside: the accurate re-classification of so-called 'deponents' as *media tantum* verbs is not recent; from George Choiroboskos' 9th century commentaries on the canons of Theodosius of Alexandria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;οὐδεὶς γὰρ λέγει ἔρχω ἢ εὔχω ἢ πέτω ἢ δέχω ἢ ὀρχῶ καὶ τὰ λοιπά, ἐπειδὴ τὸ σημαινόμενον κωλύει.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;For no one says I 'go', or I 'pray', or I 'fly', or I 'receive', or I 'depart' and the rest, since the meaning prohibits it.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9093" RevisionGUID="01991a87-452f-4b9e-92fa-284ee136b94a" CreationDate="2019-02-11T18:28:06.120" UserId="1142" Comment="added 228 characters in body" Text="The oft-quoted dictum &quot;passive in form, active in meaning&quot; is utterly nonsensical from a linguistic standpoint (and many would argue too, from a pedagogical standpoint) for describing **most** so-called &quot;deponent&quot; verbs (there do exist exceptions; these will be outlined later). The saying &quot;middle in form, middle in meaning&quot; captures the truth with the same succinctness; these are not &quot;deponent&quot; verbs: they are *media tantum* (middle-only) verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The evolution of these *media tantum* verbs may at first seem perplexing: Latin has an active-passive opposition in voice; there exists no middle. However, it largely appears to be the case that these *media tantum* verbs arose from Proto-Indo-European middle verbs. There do exist some verbs whose origins remain murky, though. The so-called 'semi-deponents', suppletive in the perfect, are one such good example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also worth noting that Late Latin saw a subsequent rise in &quot;deponent coinages&quot; -- which can technically be considered &quot;true deponents&quot; -- followed by an equally quick regularization of these true deponents and *media tantum* verbs towards active morphologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are seven broad semantic categories into which the middle can be divided for the purpose of classifying Latin's *media tantum* verbs (and for affirming that these verbs are, in fact, semantically middle), those being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Direct Reflexive:** *an event in which the participant performs an action upon themselves.* This semantic category can be expressed with the reflexive marker *sē*, but there do exist verbs in the middle under several sub-categories, typically &quot;body action middles&quot;: *grooming*, *bodily movement*, *etc.*&#xD;&#xA;  - *ornor* - to adorn (oneself)&#xD;&#xA;  - *perluor* - to bathe (oneself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Indirect Reflexive:** *an event in which the participant performs an action for their own benefit.* Similarly to the direct reflexive, this semantic category *could* be expressed with the reflexive marker *sibi*, but there do again exist verbs in the middle under this category.&#xD;&#xA;  - *liceor* - to acquire (for oneself) by bidding&#xD;&#xA;  - *apiscor* - to get, acquire (for oneself)&#xD;&#xA;  - *potior* - to get possession of (for oneself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Naturally Reciprocal Events:** *reciprocal events in which participant A is performing an action on participant B, and participant B is performing the same action on participant A;* i.e, events which naturally involve reciprocity. &#xD;&#xA;  - *osculor* - to kiss&#xD;&#xA;  - *conflictor* - to fight&#xD;&#xA;  - *amplector* - to embrace&#xD;&#xA;  - *luctor* - to wrestle&#xD;&#xA;  - *altercor* - to wrangle&#xD;&#xA;  - *copulor* - to be joined &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Collective:** *an event which is similar to a naturally reciprocal event, but the action is instead carried out by the participants as a whole;* i.e, the participants are not highly distinguished from each other. &#xD;&#xA;  - *misceor* - to mix&#xD;&#xA;  - *congregor* - to assemble, congregate&#xD;&#xA;  - *colloquor* - to converse, discuss&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Chaining:** *an action in which participant A acts on participant B, B on participant C, C on participant D, D on participant E, and so forth.* There are very few verbs which encode this meaning, save for the obvious exception: *sequor* - to follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **The Cognitive Middle:** *a fairly broad category that can be tersely summed up as a mental event in which the subject is both the initiator and the affected;* this category can be split into several further sub-categories.&#xD;&#xA;  - *misereor* - to feel pity, pity&#xD;&#xA;  - *vereor* - to respect, revere; fear, dread&#xD;&#xA;  - *meditor* - to think, reflect upon&#xD;&#xA;  - *interpretor* - to explain, expound&#xD;&#xA;  - *comminiscor* - to devise, contrive&#xD;&#xA;  - *polliceor* - to promise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. **Spontaneous Process:** *an event in which one subject undergoes a change of state with no specified agent;* the subject is the nominal participant.&#xD;&#xA;  - *morior* - to die&#xD;&#xA;  - *scindor* - to tear, split&#xD;&#xA;  - *nascor* - to be born&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize all of the above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The concept of 'deponency' and the term 'deponent' are not useful for explaining Latin verbs that exist without active morphologies; they are better referred to as middle-only or *media tantum* verbs.&#xD;&#xA;- The Latin *media tantum* verbs are largely derived from historically middle Proto-Indo-European verbs; semi-deponent verbs, suppletive in the passive, represent the main exception.&#xD;&#xA;- There do exist &quot;deponent coinages&quot; -- verbs which can truly be considered deponent -- which exist outside the class of *media tantum*.&#xD;&#xA;- The *media tantum* verbs can be divided into seven broad semantic categories, which themselves clarify why the classification of middle makes the most logical sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bulk of this answer was largely paraphrased from Seumas Macdonald's *excellent* piece on the Latin (and Greek) middle voice: *Reconceiving the middle voice for Greek and Latin students*, itself largely based on Suzanne Kemmer's work *The Middle Voice* and Rutger J. Allen's dissertation *The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek. A study in Polysemy*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I believe that I have, for the most part, given an effective summary of the work he has done, I *highly* recommend that you read his original work. A PDF of it can be found [here](https://thepatrologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Reconceiving-the-Middle-Voice-Greek-and-Latin.pdf); the original blog posts from which the piece was compiled can also be read on his website [The Patrologist](https://thepatrologist.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting aside: the accurate re-classification of so-called 'deponents' as *media tantum* verbs is not recent; from George Choiroboskos' 9th century commentaries on the canons of Theodosius of Alexandria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;οὐδεὶς γὰρ λέγει ἔρχω ἢ εὔχω ἢ πέτω ἢ δέχω ἢ ὀρχῶ καὶ τὰ λοιπά, ἐπειδὴ τὸ σημαινόμενον κωλύει.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;For no one says I 'go', or I 'pray', or I 'fly', or I 'receive', or I 'depart' and the rest, since the meaning prohibits it.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9064" RevisionGUID="18d71d70-bfd4-4caf-8b6e-8be3072fe37d" CreationDate="2019-02-11T19:22:23.347" UserId="3248" Comment="add summary of some answers/comments" Text="**Deponent** verbs are often (always?) defined as verbs that have passive forms but **active meanings**. But how accurate is this typical definition/generalization? It seems clear that this definition applies without problems to deponent verbs like _loquor_ or _hortor_, which do have a clear agentive/active meaning. But what about _morior_, _orior_ or _nascor_? Can these verbs also be said to have an &quot;active&quot; (?!) **meaning**? If so, in which sense? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, there is a syntactic test that, in terms of usage frequency, can be claimed to distinguish deponent verbs that involve a **passive** meaning from the ones that encode a more **active** one: e.g., verbs with a clear/stronger passive meaning like _morior_, _orior_ and _nascor_, i.a., can be easily/quite naturally found in Ablative Absolute constructions with a past perfect participle, compared to more active verbs like _loqui_, which are not impossible but by far more infrequent in this usage: cf. _Cicerone mortuo_ vs. (?)_Cicerone locuto_. An intuitive explanation of this difference in usage (i.e., the former is by far more frequent than the latter) comes to my mind: verbs like _morior_ or _nascor_ involve a clear/stronger PASSIVE meaning (a change of state), whereas verbs like _loquor_ involve an ACTIVE meaning (i.e., no passive change of state is typically involved in the latter case: but see Joonas's interesting example below, which I would tentatively analyze as a case of 'coercion', hence its being by far less frequent). Cf. also the related meaning distinction that is involved in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs in languages like Italian: typically, change of {state/location} verbs select _essere_, while agentive processes select _avere_: cf. It. _Gianni **è** morto_ vs. _Gianni **ha** parlato_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you tell me if there are textbooks of Latin grammar where a more appropriate/accurate definition of deponent verbs is given? Cf. the typical one given above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;1st EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that TKR hit the nail on the head in his comment below.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TKR**: it's an inaccurate description: &quot;active meaning&quot; seems to mean nothing more than &quot;meaning which tends to be expressed with an active verb in modern European languages&quot;. To that extent the term may be pedagogically useful, but linguistically it's meaningless, and when one tries to make it meaningful as you have by translating &quot;active&quot; to something like &quot;agentive&quot;, the attempt fails. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Mitomino**: many thanks, TKR, for your VERY useful paraphrase, which shows the confusion I alluded to above: the confusing phrase &quot;active meaning&quot; in the typical definition above seems to mean nothing more than &quot;MEANING which tends to be expressed with an ACTIVE verbal **FORM** in modern European languages&quot;. Crucially, notice that ACTIVE here modifies (verbal) FORM, **_not_** meaning! That's why the typical definition of deponent verbs above (in particular, its reference to &quot;active meanings&quot;) is quite confusing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I see many of you think that the typical definition above is &quot;pedagogically useful&quot;. Well, I don't think so... (although I admit that many years ago I learned it without questioning it). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________________________________________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2nd EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ethan Bierlein provides a very nice semantic typology of deponent verbs (see his post below), which can be completed with the one found in Pinzin's (2017) PhD thesis _Stuck in the Middle_ (http://dspace.unive.it/bitstream/handle/10579/12877/956151-1197504.pdf?sequence=2 )&#xD;&#xA;Basically, Pinzin tries to justify the morphology of deponent verbs by arguing that the subject is not a true external argument, whereby, semantically speaking, it cannot be a proto-agent, and, syntactically speaking (in formal syntax jargon), cannot be a deep/non-derived subject. An intriguing connection then emerges between deponent verbs and so-called **unaccusative** verbs (those verbs that lack external argument).     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9099" RevisionGUID="ba196b55-cbd1-4a0e-82a2-24004ba8b4c7" CreationDate="2019-02-11T20:06:56.877" UserId="1142" Text="A cursory search of Smith &amp; Hall provides no results for &quot;handshake.&quot; A quick search for [*dextrās*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=dextras) or [*dextrās~iungere*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=dextras~iungere) on PHI's online word search tool, however, will provide a plethora of results. It generally seems that there are two accepted ways of expressing *to shake hands*: either *dex(e)trās jungere* or *dext(e)rās conjungere*. E.g:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Avidī conjungere dextrās ārdēbant&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;They burned, eager to join hands&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Vergil, Aeneid 1.514-515*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you need to express the word &quot;handshake&quot; or discuss the act of shaking hands, an expression utilizing the gerund of *jungere* or *conjungere* would be acceptable; i.e: *dext(e)rās jungendum* or *dext(e)rās conjugendum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrasing provided in your original question, *dext(e)rās dare*, also works equally well. If you wish to express the word &quot;handshake&quot; or discuss the act of shaking hands with the verb *dō* instead, you'd again utilize the gerund: *dext(e)rās dandum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28111" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="6211" RevisionGUID="8d612496-3867-4efc-b953-824a99520210" CreationDate="2019-02-11T20:16:27.323" UserId="12" Comment="98" />
  <row Id="28112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9099" RevisionGUID="da85fa47-0b59-4b11-8d7b-bdeafab031f1" CreationDate="2019-02-11T20:43:14.853" UserId="1142" Comment="edited body" Text="A cursory search of Smith &amp; Hall provides no results for &quot;handshake.&quot; A quick search for [*dextrās*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=dextras) or [*dextrās~iungere*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=dextras~iungere) on PHI's online word search tool, however, will provide a plethora of results. It generally seems that there are two accepted ways of expressing *to shake hands*: either *dext(e)rās jungere* or *dext(e)rās conjungere*. E.g:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Avidī conjungere dextrās ārdēbant&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;They burned, eager to join hands&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Vergil, Aeneid 1.514-515*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you need to express the word &quot;handshake&quot; or discuss the act of shaking hands, an expression utilizing the gerund of *jungere* or *conjungere* would be acceptable; i.e: *dext(e)rās jungendum* or *dext(e)rās conjugendum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrasing provided in your original question, *dext(e)rās dare*, also works equally well. If you wish to express the word &quot;handshake&quot; or discuss the act of shaking hands with the verb *dō* instead, you'd again utilize the gerund: *dext(e)rās dandum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9100" RevisionGUID="9ab7c05e-3aa5-42c6-be17-b50ae4f469e6" CreationDate="2019-02-11T21:22:50.963" UserId="1142" Text="It seems *mostly* fine to me. I would, however, propose the following changes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Utilize the adverb *quō* instead of *ubi* to eliminate potential temporal-spatial ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;- Utilize the adverb *istuc* instead of *illuc*. You are referring to place which is pragmatically close to the addressee but not to you, the speaker; the use of a 2nd person demonstrative is therefore justified.&#xD;&#xA;- Optionally syncopate the form *amāvistī* into *amāstī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quō vītam amā(vi)stī, istuc revertēris." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9081" RevisionGUID="d360734d-144d-481b-bd95-8cc8cd2bcbdc" CreationDate="2019-02-11T22:20:03.657" UserId="3095" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="As S. Teodorsson argues in his work on the phonemic system of the Attic dialect, there is evidence that already in the IV century BC, 'popular' Athenian speech underwent changes such as the merger of ι, η, υ in [i]. Even more conservative reconstructions (such as by W.S. Allen) place at least the disappearance of the subscript iota and the monophthongization of οι into [ø:] before 350.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet the grammar textbooks by e.g. Dionysius of Halicarnassus often prescribe e.g. the pronunciation of subscript iota as &quot;correct&quot; hundreds of years after its disappearance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was that &quot;correct&quot; conservative pronunciation actually used? Did the politicians use different pronunciations in public and in private? Was there perhaps an equivalent of the Transatlantic accent (having artificial archaizing features such as wh = [ʍ]), taught to students of public speaking?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, how could e.g. Demosthenes know to pronounce οι as [oi] in speeches and not [ø:] as everyone around him? The Greeks didn't have our methods of linguistic reconstruction, so slowing down natural phonological change seems almost impossible -- and also useless, needlessly alienating the audience of politicians etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9064" RevisionGUID="4575e641-07a5-406b-8dbc-b7ba1507b0bd" CreationDate="2019-02-12T00:00:56.820" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="**Deponent** verbs are often (always?) defined as verbs that have passive forms but **active meanings**. But how accurate is this typical definition/generalization? It seems clear that this definition applies without problems to deponent verbs like _loquor_ or _hortor_, which do have a clear agentive/active meaning. But what about _morior_, _orior_ or _nascor_? Can these verbs also be said to have an &quot;active&quot; (?!) **meaning**? If so, in which sense? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, there is a syntactic test that, in terms of usage frequency, can be claimed to distinguish deponent verbs that involve a **passive** meaning from the ones that encode a more **active** one: e.g., verbs with a clear/stronger passive meaning like _morior_, _orior_ and _nascor_, i.a., can be easily/quite naturally found in Ablative Absolute constructions with a past perfect participle, compared to more active verbs like _loqui_, which are not impossible but are by far more infrequent in this usage: cf. _Cicerone mortuo_ vs. (?)_Cicerone locuto_. An intuitive explanation of this difference in usage (i.e., the former is by far more frequent than the latter) comes to my mind: verbs like _morior_ or _nascor_ involve a clear/stronger PASSIVE meaning (a change of state), whereas verbs like _loquor_ involve an ACTIVE meaning (i.e., no passive change of state is typically involved in the latter case: but see Joonas's interesting example below, which I would tentatively analyze as a case of 'coercion', hence its being by far less frequent). Cf. also the related meaning distinction that is involved in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs in languages like Italian: typically, change of {state/location} verbs select _essere_, while agentive processes select _avere_: cf. It. _Gianni **è** morto_ ('Gianni died') vs. _Gianni **ha** parlato_ ('Gianni spoke/talked').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you tell me if there are textbooks of Latin grammar where a more appropriate/accurate definition of deponent verbs is given? Cf. the typical one given above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;1st EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that TKR hit the nail on the head in his comment below.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TKR**: it's an inaccurate description: &quot;active meaning&quot; seems to mean nothing more than &quot;meaning which tends to be expressed with an active verb in modern European languages&quot;. To that extent the term may be pedagogically useful, but linguistically it's meaningless, and when one tries to make it meaningful as you have by translating &quot;active&quot; to something like &quot;agentive&quot;, the attempt fails. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks, TKR, for your VERY useful paraphrase, which shows the confusion I alluded to above: the confusing phrase &quot;active meaning&quot; in the typical definition above seems to mean nothing more than &quot;MEANING which tends to be expressed with an ACTIVE verbal **FORM** in modern European languages&quot;. Crucially, notice that ACTIVE here modifies (verbal) FORM, **_not_** meaning! That's why the typical definition of deponent verbs above (in particular, its reference to &quot;active meanings&quot;) is quite confusing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I see many of you think that the typical definition above is &quot;pedagogically useful&quot;. Well, I don't think so... (although I admit that many years ago I learned it without questioning it). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________________________________________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2nd EDIT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ethan Bierlein provides a very nice descriptive semantic typology of deponent verbs (see his post below), which can be completed with the one found in Pinzin's (2017) PhD thesis _Stuck in the Middle_ (http://dspace.unive.it/bitstream/handle/10579/12877/956151-1197504.pdf?sequence=2 )&#xD;&#xA;Basically, Pinzin tries to justify the morphology of deponent verbs by arguing that the subject is not a true external argument, whereby, semantically speaking, it cannot be a proto-agent, and, syntactically speaking (in formal syntax jargon), cannot be a non-derived subject. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9094" RevisionGUID="b3e805dc-bb53-40be-b78a-b5217218cb5a" CreationDate="2019-02-12T01:15:25.700" UserId="9" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="&quot;Active meaning&quot; or &quot;active in meaning&quot; does seem to be an unfortunate expression. I agree with Joonas that it is a misinterpretation to think of this as being related to &quot;change of state&quot; or anything like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote a bit about my thoughts on the &quot;deponent&quot; terminology in my answer to this [ELU question](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/413122/are-there-only-active-and-passive-voices-in-english/413130#413130), but basically, I think the clear thing about deponent verbs is just that they are passive in form, and lack &quot;corresponding&quot; active forms. If you think of the semantic meaning of an ordinary passive verb as being derived from the meaning of the corresponding active form (e.g. you take the object of the active verb and turn it into the subject of the passive), then it's clear that deponent verbs are not &quot;passive in meaning&quot;: their meaning can't be derived from the &quot;corresponding active form&quot; because that doesn't exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if we think of all verbs as being either &quot;passive&quot; or &quot;active&quot; in meaning, then by elimination, deponent verbs must be active in meaning. This is very vague and doesn't require them to have any narrower a range of meanings than non-deponent active verbs (some of which are stative, and some of which are not)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9094" RevisionGUID="abde4e35-a404-4d24-abc9-00b1770d3a96" CreationDate="2019-02-12T01:33:21.647" UserId="9" Comment="added 1052 characters in body" Text="&quot;Active meaning&quot; or &quot;active in meaning&quot; does seem to be an unfortunate expression. I agree with Joonas that it is a misinterpretation to think of this as being related to &quot;change of state&quot; or anything like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote a bit about my thoughts on the &quot;deponent&quot; terminology in my answer to this [ELU question](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/413122/are-there-only-active-and-passive-voices-in-english/413130#413130), but basically, I think the clear thing about deponent verbs is just that they are passive in form*, and lack &quot;corresponding&quot; active forms. If you think of the semantic meaning of an ordinary passive verb as being derived from the meaning of the corresponding active form (e.g. you take the object of the active verb and turn it into the subject of the passive), then it's clear that deponent verbs are not &quot;passive in meaning&quot;: their meaning can't be derived from the &quot;corresponding active form&quot; because that doesn't exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if we think of all verbs as being either &quot;passive&quot; or &quot;active&quot; in meaning, then by elimination, deponent verbs must be active in meaning. This is very vague and doesn't require them to have any narrower a range of meanings than non-deponent active verbs (some of which are stative, and some of which are not).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*I don't think Latin has a distinction between &quot;passive&quot; and &quot;middle&quot; morphologies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By &quot;passive in form&quot;, I am just referring to the &quot;r&quot; set of inflectional endings. It seems that some (e.g. the Pinzin thesis that you linked to) prefer to refer to this set of forms as &quot;Middle&quot; morphology. I don't think terminology is very important, but my own opinion is that, since there only seem to be a two-way contrast in this area of Latin verb morphology, it's a bit confusing to refer to one of the two sets of forms as &quot;middle&quot; (which is what Pinzin seems to do: he says on p. 27 that &quot;I reserve the term Passive only to those morphologies that appear only in a passive structure, in which the external agentive argument is syntactically demoted but interpretatively still present and identified with an element that is external to the derivation. Following this definition, then, Latin does not have a Passive morphology&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that some people argue that &quot;passive&quot; is confusing because the verb forms called &quot;passive&quot; in certain modern languages, like English or German, don't behave the same way as the Latin form, but to me it seems better to just continue to use &quot;passive&quot; in reference to Latin while acknowledging the difference in meaning/usage from the English &quot;passive&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you prefer the term &quot;middle&quot;, you should just be able to replace &quot;passive&quot; with &quot;middle&quot; in the preceding section." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9094" RevisionGUID="7e9484ee-a0ee-4ee0-aed2-b9f309ea33cd" CreationDate="2019-02-12T01:39:18.880" UserId="9" Comment="added 1052 characters in body" Text="&quot;Active meaning&quot; or &quot;active in meaning&quot; does seem to be an unfortunate expression. I agree with Joonas that it is a misinterpretation to think of this as being related to &quot;change of state&quot; or anything like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote a bit about my thoughts on the &quot;deponent&quot; terminology in my answer to this [ELU question](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/413122/are-there-only-active-and-passive-voices-in-english/413130#413130), but basically, I think the clear thing about deponent verbs is just that they are passive in form*, and lack &quot;corresponding&quot; active forms. If you think of the semantic meaning of an ordinary passive verb as being derived from the meaning of the corresponding active form (e.g. you take the object of the active verb and turn it into the subject of the passive), then it's clear that deponent verbs are not &quot;passive in meaning&quot;: their meaning can't be derived from the &quot;corresponding active form&quot; because that doesn't exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if we think of all verbs as being either &quot;passive&quot; or &quot;active&quot; in meaning, then by elimination, deponent verbs must be active in meaning. This is very vague and doesn't require them to have any narrower a range of meanings than non-deponent active verbs (some of which are stative, and some of which are not).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*I don't think Latin has a distinction between &quot;passive&quot; and &quot;middle&quot; morphologies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By &quot;passive in form&quot;, I am just referring to the &quot;r&quot; set of inflectional endings. It seems that some (e.g. the Pinzin thesis that you linked to) prefer to refer to this set of forms as &quot;Middle&quot; morphology. I don't think terminology is very important, but my own opinion is that, since there only seems to be a two-way contrast in this area of Latin verb morphology, it's a bit confusing to refer to one of the two sets of forms as &quot;middle&quot;. Because the everyday meaning of the word &quot;middle&quot; refers to something between two other things, I had the misimpression that the use of this term implied a three-way active-middle-passive contrast, but Pinzin in fact seems to treat Latin morphology as having a two-way active-middle contrast: he says on p. 27 that &quot;I reserve the term Passive only to those morphologies that appear only in a passive structure, in which the external agentive argument is syntactically demoted but interpretatively still present and identified with an element that is external to the derivation. Following this definition, then, Latin does not have a Passive morphology&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that some people argue that &quot;passive&quot; is confusing because the verb forms called &quot;passive&quot; in certain modern languages, like English or German, don't behave the same way as the Latin form, but to me it seems better to just continue to use &quot;passive&quot; in reference to Latin while acknowledging the difference in meaning/usage from the English &quot;passive&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you prefer the term &quot;middle&quot;, you should just be able to replace &quot;passive&quot; with &quot;middle&quot; in the preceding section." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9078" RevisionGUID="490b890e-e2a0-40d0-912a-c34915a408cf" CreationDate="2019-02-12T02:47:16.313" UserId="9" Comment="added relevant information about context from a comment by the original poster" Text="Would ‘destinatus ad sanandum’ be a good translation of the medical term 'curative intent'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase 'curative intent' is used specifically for cancer patients where the surgeons or oncologist intends to cure the patient by eliminating or destroying the cancer cells. Thus a surgeon might say ‘I am going to treat the patient with curative intent by surgically removing the cancer tumour and surrounding tissues.’ I am looking for an appropriate Latin phrase that conveys the meaning of the medical phrase and whether other users can verify whether my Latin grammar is correct or to come up with something more suitable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28120" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9078" RevisionGUID="490b890e-e2a0-40d0-912a-c34915a408cf" CreationDate="2019-02-12T02:47:16.313" UserId="9" Comment="added relevant information about context from a comment by the original poster" Text="A translation into Latin of the medical term &quot;curative intent&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28121" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="6358" RevisionGUID="eaeaf093-1b8b-4ad3-af09-16552e989671" CreationDate="2019-02-12T02:53:42.390" UserId="9" Comment="101" />
  <row Id="28122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9101" RevisionGUID="608e2fa2-1f89-4ea9-8d0d-3d2d80933908" CreationDate="2019-02-12T03:07:53.000" UserId="9" Text="We don't know any phonetic details about Latin stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phonology of Latin stress is also somewhat uncertain, but it is not thought that there was a phonologically distinctive contrast in Latin between different types of stress contours for a syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([&quot;Coepio&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1017/9) might be a confusing example since apparently there is evidence that the &quot;o&quot; and &quot;e&quot; in this word were sometimes were pronounced as separate syllables.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ancient grammarians alleged there was a difference between &quot;acute&quot; and &quot;circumflex&quot; accentuation that was conditioned by the word's phonological form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin authors describe Latin syllables as being able to be pronounced with either an &quot;acute&quot; or &quot;circumflex&quot; accent, as in Greek, but there doesn't actually seem to have been a *contrast* in any context between acute and circumflex accentuation in Latin the way that there could be in Greek ultima syllables with long vowels. Rather, the described distribution of acute and circumflex accents in Latin is apparently predictable based on the vowel length and the position of the accent: supposedly, short accented vowels were pronounced with the acute accent (as in Greek), while long accented vowels were pronounced with an acute accent in antepenultimate syllables (again as in Greek), and with a circumflex accent in penultimate syllables or in monosyllabic words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you follow these rules, dīcō would have a &quot;circumflex&quot; accent on the penult and &#xD;&#xA;&quot;coepiō&quot; would have an acute accent on the antepenult.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;But modern scholars tend to dismiss these accounts as misrepresentations based on the model of Greek accentuation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="941dc39a-132f-4000-8611-5a1eb9d69d4e" CreationDate="2019-02-12T03:15:26.453" UserId="9" Comment="removed circumflex/acute description, since I put it in another answer" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that Latin adverbs (and certain other words) were stressed or accented on the last syllable seems to be considered so implausible by modern linguists that no modern linguistic source that I have found has contained either an explanation of why they might have had this stress pattern, or a detailed argument making the case for why they did not have this stress pattern. (I have not read all (or anything close to all) modern linguistic literature about Latin, so it's quite possible that such an explanation or argument exists in some source that I wasn't able to find.) In contrast, I have seen a  a number of sources that try to provide detailed analyses of the penult-weight-based stressed rule in terms of modern linguistic theories like Optimality Theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I don't know if the apparently widespread modern rejection of this idea is based on some kind of earlier arguments with more detailed coverage of the evidence for and against.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The types of evidence that I know of, and why they are controversial&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Descriptions of Latin accent in ancient grammarians&#xD;&#xA;There are apparently a number of descriptions of Latin accent in ancient grammarians, but sources I have read often suggest that these are unreliable because they may have been overly influenced by the traditional terminology and description of Greek accentuation. For example, they describe a supposed difference between &quot;acute&quot; and &quot;circumflex&quot; accentuation (which I describe in more detail [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9101/9)), but mainstream modern scholarship on Latin rejects the applicability of those terms to Latin accent, which casts a bit of a shadow on anything else that the ancient grammarians have to say about the subject. Concern about the unreliability of these kinds of sources also seems to be part of the reason for the controversy that [C. M. Weimer mentioned](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/601/9) about the rule that a light syllable was stressed (or according to the traditional account, took an &quot;acute accent&quot;) before a monosyllabic enclitic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, later accounts of Latin accent are often written by people who were influenced by the ancient grammarians' accounts, so the same suspicion seems to attach to post-classical sources that reference this kind of accentuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Ancient poetry&#xD;&#xA;It might be supposed that ancient poetry could provide some relevant evidence, but the question of how much we can learn about stress/accent from Latin poetry is apparently highly complex and disputed to this day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So there seems to be relatively little uncontroversial evidence about aspects of Latin stress and prosody beyond the well-known penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People who are arguing against the idea that the last syllable of an adverb took stress in Latin often seem to reference a passage by Quintilian where he says that, even though some people in his time apparently used an acute accent on the last syllable of the adverb &quot;circum&quot; in order to differentiate it from the noun form, he only hears one accented syllable in his own pronunciation of &quot;circum litora&quot; (by which he presumably means that he said &quot;circum lī́tora&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I am well aware that certain learned men and some professed teachers of literature, to ensure that certain words may be kept distinct, sometimes place an acute accent on the last syllable, both when they are teaching and in ordinary speech: as, for instance, in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; quae circus litora, circum piscosos scopulos,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *Aen. iv. 254.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[26] where they make the last syllable of *circum* acute on the ground that, if that syllable were given the grave accent, it might be thought that they meant *circus* not *circuitus.* Similarly when *quale* is interrogative, they give the final syllable a grave accent, but when using it in a comparison, make it acute. This practice, however, they restrict almost entirely to adverbs and pronouns; in other cases they follow the old usage. [27] Personally I think that in such phrases as these the circumstances are almost entirely altered by the fact that we join two words together. For when I say *circum litora* I pronounce the phrase as one word, concealing the fact that it is composed of two, consequently it contains but one acute accent, as though it were a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Quint. Inst. 1 5, *from* Quintilian. With an English Translation. Harold Edgeworth Butler. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1920. *Accessed through* [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0059%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D5#note13))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Quintilian's description of the position of the accent in Latin words mentions only one exception to the general rule that the accent does not fall on the ultima in Latin words (the exception is for monosyllabic words):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For in every word the acute accent is restricted to three syllables, whether these be the only syllables in the word or the three last, and will fall either on the penultimate or the antepenultimate. The middle of the three syllables of which I speak will be acute or circumflexed, if long, while if it be short, it will have a grave accent and the acute will be thrown back to the preceding syllable, that is to say the antepenultimate. [31] Every word has an acute accent, but never more than one. Further the acute never falls on the last syllable and therefore in dissyllabic words marks the first syllable. Moreover the acute accent and the circumflex are never found in one and the same word, since the circumflex itself contains an acute accent. Neither the circumflex nor the acute, therefore, will ever be found in the last syllable of a Latin word, with this exception, that monosyllables must either be acute or circumflexed; otherwise we should find words without an acute accent at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [*as the Priscian passage quoted above*] are to be found in **Donatus's *Ars maior*** 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and **Priscian's *Inst. gram*** (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too [*here Steenbakkers quotes a bit of the Quintilian passage mentioned above*] (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, **Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati*** (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say in your question, there seems to be a certain idea that this pattern of accentuation exists to differentiate homophones, which is the kind of explanation that modern linguists tend to regard with skepticism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not seen any attempts to provide a different kind of explanation for this stress pattern, so unfortunately, I don't know how to answer the &quot;why&quot; part of your question with sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, **everything that follows from this point on is just speculation**,&#xD;&#xA;and the references in the following sections are to literature that is about other topics that I think might possibly be relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some features of Latin adverbs that seem like they might possibly be relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adverbs are &quot;indeclinable&quot;: unlike adjectives, substantives, or verbs, they don't end in inflectional suffixes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Adverbs often come immediately before the modified word in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; - adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ideas about Latin prosody that seem relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these quotes, I wonder if the supposed stress on the last syllable of adverbs might be connected to possible lack of stress on the following word; for example, in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A serious problem with my suggestion here is that it would only explain this stress pattern in very particular phonological environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen does mention the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think it seems pretty far-fetched to suppose that sequences of adverb + iambic verb form were so common in Latin as to provide the basis for analogical extension of word-final stress to adverbs in general, in any position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that iambic verb forms in Classical Latin could be pronounced enclitic to the preceding word also seems to rest on fairly doubtful evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson also has a section about verbs where he says that there was probably no tendency to pronounce iambic verbs as enclitics after other iambic words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a sequence of iambic word followed by iambic verb (the type *pater petit*) barely ever fills a measure of Plautine verse, as discussed in Ch. 3, which indicates rather strongly that such a sequence was not prosodically equivalent to a four-syllable word of the same metrical shape, and that therefore the verb did not cliticize to the preceding word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 265)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find much discussion of the prosodic behavior of adverbs in Fortson.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9101" RevisionGUID="64eb3b4e-4afb-4b16-87f8-1ab82184c15f" CreationDate="2019-02-12T03:16:07.060" UserId="9" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="We don't know any phonetic details about Latin stress/accentuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phonology of Latin stress is also somewhat uncertain, but it is not thought that there was a phonologically distinctive contrast in Latin between different types of stress contours for a syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([&quot;Coepio&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1017/9) might be a confusing example since apparently there is evidence that the &quot;o&quot; and &quot;e&quot; in this word were sometimes were pronounced as separate syllables.  I would guess pronunciation as separate syllables might be theoretically possible wherever &quot;oe&quot; is derived from separate morphemes, rather than from an Old Latin diphthong. An example of &quot;oe&quot; that Lewis and Short seems to indicate was never pronounced as a diphthong is &quot;coemo&quot;—although there was a contracted form &quot;como&quot;. Another similarly ambiguous sequence of letters is &quot;eu&quot; as in &quot;neuter&quot; &lt; &quot;ne + uter&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ancient grammarians alleged there was a difference between &quot;acute&quot; and &quot;circumflex&quot; accentuation that was conditioned by the word's phonological form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin authors describe Latin syllables as being able to be pronounced with either an &quot;acute&quot; or &quot;circumflex&quot; accent, as in Greek, but there doesn't actually seem to have been a *contrast* in any context between acute and circumflex accentuation in Latin the way that there could be in Greek ultima syllables with long vowels. Rather, the described distribution of acute and circumflex accents in Latin is apparently predictable based on the vowel length and the position of the accent: supposedly, short accented vowels were pronounced with the acute accent (as in Greek), while long accented vowels were pronounced with an acute accent in antepenultimate syllables (again as in Greek), and with a circumflex accent in penultimate syllables or in monosyllabic words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you follow these rules, dīcō would have a &quot;circumflex&quot; accent on the penult and &#xD;&#xA;&quot;coepiō&quot; would have an acute accent on the antepenult.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;But modern scholars tend to dismiss these accounts as misrepresentations based on the model of Greek accentuation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="f330630f-7d0c-4e3b-9fde-afdd2506f167" CreationDate="2019-02-12T03:37:53.107" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 852 characters in body" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that Latin adverbs (and certain other words) were stressed or accented on the last syllable seems to be considered so implausible by modern linguists that no modern linguistic source that I have found has contained either an explanation of why they might have had this stress pattern, or a detailed argument making the case for why they did not have this stress pattern. (I have not read all (or anything close to all) modern linguistic literature about Latin, so it's quite possible that such an explanation or argument exists in some source that I wasn't able to find.) In contrast, I have seen a  a number of sources that try to provide detailed analyses of the penult-weight-based stressed rule in terms of modern linguistic theories like Optimality Theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I don't know if the apparently widespread modern rejection of this idea is based on some kind of earlier arguments with more detailed coverage of the evidence for and against.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The types of evidence that I know of, and why they are controversial&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Descriptions of Latin accent in ancient grammarians&#xD;&#xA;There are apparently a number of descriptions of Latin accent in ancient grammarians, but sources I have read often suggest that these are unreliable because they may have been overly influenced by the traditional terminology and description of Greek accentuation. For example, they describe a supposed difference between &quot;acute&quot; and &quot;circumflex&quot; accentuation (which I describe in more detail [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9101/9)), but mainstream modern scholarship on Latin rejects the applicability of those terms to Latin accent, which casts a bit of a shadow on anything else that the ancient grammarians have to say about the subject. Concern about the unreliability of these kinds of sources also seems to be part of the reason for the controversy that [C. M. Weimer mentioned](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/601/9) about the rule that a light syllable was stressed (or according to the traditional account, took an &quot;acute accent&quot;) before a monosyllabic enclitic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, later accounts of Latin accent are often written by people who were influenced by the ancient grammarians' accounts, so the same suspicion seems to attach to post-classical sources that reference this kind of accentuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Ancient poetry&#xD;&#xA;It might be supposed that ancient poetry could provide some relevant evidence, but the question of how much we can learn about stress/accent from Latin poetry is apparently highly complex and disputed to this day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So there seems to be relatively little uncontroversial evidence about aspects of Latin stress and prosody beyond the well-known penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People who are arguing against the idea that the last syllable of an adverb took stress in Latin often seem to reference a passage by Quintilian where he says that, even though some people in his time apparently used an acute accent on the last syllable of the adverb &quot;circum&quot; in order to differentiate it from the noun form, he only hears one accented syllable in his own pronunciation of &quot;circum litora&quot; (by which he presumably means that he said &quot;circum lī́tora&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I am well aware that certain learned men and some professed teachers of literature, to ensure that certain words may be kept distinct, sometimes place an acute accent on the last syllable, both when they are teaching and in ordinary speech: as, for instance, in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; quae circus litora, circum piscosos scopulos,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *Aen. iv. 254.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[26] where they make the last syllable of *circum* acute on the ground that, if that syllable were given the grave accent, it might be thought that they meant *circus* not *circuitus.* Similarly when *quale* is interrogative, they give the final syllable a grave accent, but when using it in a comparison, make it acute. This practice, however, they restrict almost entirely to adverbs and pronouns; in other cases they follow the old usage. [27] Personally I think that in such phrases as these the circumstances are almost entirely altered by the fact that we join two words together. For when I say *circum litora* I pronounce the phrase as one word, concealing the fact that it is composed of two, consequently it contains but one acute accent, as though it were a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Quint. Inst. 1 5, *from* Quintilian. With an English Translation. Harold Edgeworth Butler. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1920. *Accessed through* [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0059%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D5#note13))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Quintilian's description of the position of the accent in Latin words only mentions monosyllables as an exception to the general rule that the ultima is unaccented in Latin words. (It could be argued though that Quintilian's description was incomplete, since many modern scholars say that ultimate stress may have occurred in words like *produc* or *Samnis*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [*as the Priscian passage quoted above*] are to be found in **Donatus's *Ars maior*** 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and **Priscian's *Inst. gram*** (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too [*here Steenbakkers quotes a bit of the Quintilian passage mentioned above*] (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, **Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati*** (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate? (if it was real)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say in your question, there seems to be a certain idea that this pattern of accentuation exists to differentiate homophones, which is the kind of explanation that modern linguists tend to regard with skepticism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not seen any attempts to provide a different kind of explanation for this stress pattern, so unfortunately, I don't know how to answer the &quot;why&quot; part of your question with sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, **everything that follows from this point on is just speculation**,&#xD;&#xA;and the references in the following sections are to literature that is about other topics that I think might possibly be relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some features of Latin adverbs that seem like they might possibly be relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adverbs are &quot;indeclinable&quot;: unlike adjectives, substantives, or verbs, they don't end in inflectional suffixes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Adverbs often come immediately before the modified word in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; - adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ideas about Latin prosody that seem relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these quotes, I wonder if the supposed stress on the last syllable of adverbs might be connected to possible lack of stress on the following word; for example, in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A serious problem with my suggestion here is that it would only explain this stress pattern in very particular phonological environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen does mention the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think it seems pretty far-fetched to suppose that sequences of adverb + iambic verb form were so common in Latin as to provide the basis for analogical extension of word-final stress to adverbs in general, in any position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that iambic verb forms in Classical Latin could be pronounced enclitic to the preceding word also seems to rest on fairly doubtful evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson also has a section about verbs where he says that there was probably no tendency to pronounce iambic verbs as enclitics after other iambic words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a sequence of iambic word followed by iambic verb (the type *pater petit*) barely ever fills a measure of Plautine verse, as discussed in Ch. 3, which indicates rather strongly that such a sequence was not prosodically equivalent to a four-syllable word of the same metrical shape, and that therefore the verb did not cliticize to the preceding word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 265)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find much discussion of the prosodic behavior of adverbs in Fortson.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9102" RevisionGUID="070adb60-680b-4428-b432-fa5fe5246587" CreationDate="2019-02-12T04:45:22.693" UserId="3396" Text="Trying to come up with a sort of wordplay phrase that translates to “power takes control” but uses a Latin word that can mean both takes as in requires and takes as in takes away from you. This is for a motto. It’s meant to be ambiguous. Used either as a warning that power will overwhelm you, or that you need to take control to have power. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28127" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9102" RevisionGUID="070adb60-680b-4428-b432-fa5fe5246587" CreationDate="2019-02-12T04:45:22.693" UserId="3396" Text="Trying to come up with a sort of wordplay phrase that translates to “power takes control”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28128" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9102" RevisionGUID="070adb60-680b-4428-b432-fa5fe5246587" CreationDate="2019-02-12T04:45:22.693" UserId="3396" Text="|vocabulary|word-play|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9102" RevisionGUID="5641866f-eb7f-44e8-91ff-5001deff66b3" CreationDate="2019-02-12T04:52:57.630" UserId="3396" Comment="Added info" Text="Trying to come up with a sort of wordplay phrase that translates to “power takes control” but uses a Latin word that can mean both takes as in requires and takes as in takes away from you. This is for a motto. It’s meant to be ambiguous. Used either as a warning that power will overwhelm you, or that you need to take control to have power. “Potestatem sumit imperium“ is what google translate gave me but I don’t know if it’s the right take." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28130" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="422fa699-2b00-4239-bf21-10fed20b14c7" CreationDate="2019-02-12T06:06:13.460" UserId="79" Comment="99" />
  <row Id="28131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9101" RevisionGUID="ad4a4022-8282-457a-9570-015b1b153df6" CreationDate="2019-02-12T07:44:44.590" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 88 characters in body" Text="We don't know any phonetic details about Latin stress/accentuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phonology of Latin stress is also somewhat uncertain, but it is not thought that there was a phonologically distinctive contrast in Latin between different types of stress contours for a syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([&quot;Coepio&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1017/9) might be a confusing example since apparently there is evidence that the &quot;o&quot; and &quot;e&quot; in this word were sometimes were pronounced as separate syllables.  I would guess pronunciation as separate syllables might be theoretically possible wherever &quot;oe&quot; is derived from separate morphemes, rather than from an Old Latin diphthong. An example of &quot;oe&quot; that Lewis and Short seems to indicate was never pronounced as a diphthong is &quot;coemo&quot;—although there was a contracted form &quot;como&quot;. Another similarly ambiguous sequence of letters is &quot;eu&quot; as in &quot;neuter&quot; &lt; &quot;ne + uter&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ancient grammarians alleged there was a difference between &quot;acute&quot; and &quot;circumflex&quot; accentuation that was conditioned by the word's phonological form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin authors describe Latin syllables as being able to be pronounced with either an &quot;acute&quot; or &quot;circumflex&quot; accent, as in Greek, but there doesn't actually seem to have been a *contrast* in any context between acute and circumflex accentuation in Latin the way that there could be in Greek ultima syllables with long vowels. Rather, the described distribution of acute and circumflex accents in Latin is apparently predictable based on the vowel length and the position of the accent: supposedly, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- short accented vowels were pronounced with the acute accent (as in Greek), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- long accented vowels were pronounced:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - with an acute accent in antepenultimate syllables (again as in Greek), and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - with a circumflex accent in penultimate syllables (if the last syllable was short), or in monosyllabic words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But modern scholars tend to dismiss these accounts as misrepresentations based on the model of Greek accentuation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9101" RevisionGUID="f4341d7c-2a87-4dc8-8378-ef161ffe8cfe" CreationDate="2019-02-12T07:51:59.263" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 88 characters in body" Text="We don't know any phonetic details about Latin stress/accentuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phonology of Latin stress is also somewhat uncertain, but it is not thought that there was a phonologically distinctive contrast in Latin between different types of stress contours for a syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([&quot;Coepio&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1017/9) might be a confusing example since apparently there is evidence that the &quot;o&quot; and &quot;e&quot; in this word were sometimes were pronounced as separate syllables.  I would guess pronunciation as separate syllables might be theoretically possible wherever &quot;oe&quot; is derived from separate morphemes, rather than from an Old Latin diphthong. An example of &quot;oe&quot; that Lewis and Short seems to indicate was never pronounced as a diphthong is &quot;coemo&quot;—although there was a contracted form &quot;como&quot;. Another similarly ambiguous sequence of letters is &quot;eu&quot; as in &quot;neuter&quot; &lt; &quot;ne + uter&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ancient grammarians alleged there was a difference between &quot;acute&quot; and &quot;circumflex&quot; accentuation that was conditioned by the word's phonological form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin authors describe Latin syllables as being able to be pronounced with either an &quot;acute&quot; or &quot;circumflex&quot; accent, as in Greek, but there doesn't actually seem to have been a *contrast* in any context between acute and circumflex accentuation in Latin the way that there could be in Greek ultima syllables with long vowels. Rather, the described distribution of acute and circumflex accents in Latin is apparently predictable based on the vowel length and the position of the accent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Sturtevent 1920 (p. 216)](https://books.google.com/books?id=wWcwAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA216) cites Donatus iv, p. 371 8 ff. K. as giving the following rules. The acute accent is used in most contexts; the circumflex accent was only supposed to be used when the vowel was long and occurred in a monosyllable or in the penult syllable of a word with a short ultima.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these rules, *dīcō* and *coepiō* would both have an acute accent, while *pīla* and *rēs* would have a circumflex accent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But modern scholars tend to dismiss these accounts as misrepresentations based on the model of Greek accentuation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="9ae0a5d9-f61f-4186-96f9-f5a0ce3127f7" CreationDate="2019-02-12T07:57:00.237" UserId="9" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="This seems to be a mystery. I haven't found any good explanation yet; I don't know if this is because the subject has been neglected so far, or if it's because the very occurrence of the phenomenon is still controversial and so nobody has attempted to give an explanation for it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that Latin adverbs (and certain other words) were stressed or accented on the last syllable seems to be considered so implausible by modern linguists that no modern linguistic source that I have found has contained either an explanation of why they might have had this stress pattern, or a detailed argument making the case for why they did not have this stress pattern. (I have not read all (or anything close to all) modern linguistic literature about Latin, so it's quite possible that such an explanation or argument exists in some source that I wasn't able to find.) In contrast, I have seen a  a number of sources that try to provide detailed analyses of the penult-weight-based stressed rule in terms of modern linguistic theories like Optimality Theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I don't know if the apparently widespread modern rejection of this idea is based on some kind of earlier arguments with more detailed coverage of the evidence for and against.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The types of evidence that I know of, and why they are controversial&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Descriptions of Latin accent in ancient grammarians&#xD;&#xA;There are apparently a number of descriptions of Latin accent in ancient grammarians, but sources I have read often suggest that these are unreliable because they may have been overly influenced by the traditional terminology and description of Greek accentuation. For example, they describe a supposed difference between &quot;acute&quot; and &quot;circumflex&quot; accentuation (which I describe in more detail [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9101/9)), but mainstream modern scholarship on Latin rejects the applicability of those terms to Latin accent, which casts a bit of a shadow on anything else that the ancient grammarians have to say about the subject. Concern about the unreliability of these kinds of sources also seems to be part of the reason for the controversy that [C. M. Weimer mentioned](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/601/9) about the rule that a light syllable was stressed (or according to the traditional account, took an &quot;acute accent&quot;) before a monosyllabic enclitic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, later accounts of Latin accent are often written by people who were influenced by the ancient grammarians' accounts, so the same suspicion seems to attach to post-classical sources that reference this kind of accentuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Ancient poetry&#xD;&#xA;It might be supposed that ancient poetry could provide some relevant evidence, but the question of how much we can learn about stress/accent from Latin poetry is apparently highly complex and disputed to this day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So there seems to be relatively little uncontroversial evidence about aspects of Latin stress and prosody beyond the well-known penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##What is the evidence for this pattern of accentuation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Roman Pronunciation of Latin](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7528/7528-h/7528-h.htm),* by Frances E. Lord, contains a relevant Priscian (in fact, it seems to be a &quot;Pseudo-Priscian&quot;) quote. (It's from 1894, so I don't know if Lord's statements are outdated.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Priscian thus defines the accents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; [Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque necessitas. . . .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis pronuntians dicat *poné* et *ergó,* quod apud Latinos in ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est quod diximus *poné* et *ergó.* Ideo *poné* dicimus ne putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est *pōne*; *ergó* ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est *érgo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis dicat *interealoci*, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat *interea*, alteram *loci*, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt;Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in primis *doctus*, addat *que* conjunctionem, dicatque *doctusque,* ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as *ánte* and *anté*; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as *réges* and *regés*; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as *finīt* (for *finivit*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(41-43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would guess the reason this phenomenon is &quot;scarcely mentioned in Latin language classes&quot; is because it seems to be unclear and disputed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People who are arguing against the idea that the last syllable of an adverb took stress in Latin often seem to reference a passage by Quintilian where he says that, even though some people in his time apparently used an acute accent on the last syllable of the adverb &quot;circum&quot; in order to differentiate it from the noun form, he only hears one accented syllable in his own pronunciation of &quot;circum litora&quot; (by which he presumably means that he said &quot;circum lī́tora&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  I am well aware that certain learned men and some professed teachers of literature, to ensure that certain words may be kept distinct, sometimes place an acute accent on the last syllable, both when they are teaching and in ordinary speech: as, for instance, in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; quae circus litora, circum piscosos scopulos,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *Aen. iv. 254.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[26] where they make the last syllable of *circum* acute on the ground that, if that syllable were given the grave accent, it might be thought that they meant *circus* not *circuitus.* Similarly when *quale* is interrogative, they give the final syllable a grave accent, but when using it in a comparison, make it acute. This practice, however, they restrict almost entirely to adverbs and pronouns; in other cases they follow the old usage. [27] Personally I think that in such phrases as these the circumstances are almost entirely altered by the fact that we join two words together. For when I say *circum litora* I pronounce the phrase as one word, concealing the fact that it is composed of two, consequently it contains but one acute accent, as though it were a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Quint. Inst. 1 5, *from* Quintilian. With an English Translation. Harold Edgeworth Butler. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1920. *Accessed through* [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0059%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D5#note13))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Quintilian's description of the position of the accent in Latin words only mentions monosyllables as an exception to the general rule that the ultima is unaccented in Latin words. (It could be argued though that Quintilian's description was incomplete, since many modern scholars say that ultimate stress may have occurred in words like *produc* or *Samnis*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the matter has been uncertain for quite some time. *[Spinoza's Ethica from Manuscript to Print](https://books.google.com/books?id=WpLyabFPAYkC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=Latin+accent+adverb+ultima&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DNu50q0NDv&amp;sig=dEGZ1iWh49XnlKEkmf-rnv9AfuE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi10dLrv-jaAhUo7oMKHU9lBkA4ChDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20accent%20adverb%20ultima&amp;f=false),* by Piet Steenbakkers (1994), mentions the orthographic convention of putting a grave accent on the last syllable of certain words that is discussed in Jasper May's answer, and says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taking a closer look at the arguments adduced for the convention of putting the grave mark *differentiae causa,* we find that they fall into two groups: there are those who think of it as a merely orthographical phenomenon, and those who think it implies a different pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 73)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers says that Aldus Mantutius's Latin grammar recognizes these words as an exception to the main Latin penult-weight-based stress rule, and suggests that &quot;Manutius apparently derives these ideas from the traditional grammatical authorities: Donatus, Priscian, and Pseudo-Priscian&quot; (p.74). A footnote on the same page elaborates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Explicit statements to the same effect [*as the Priscian passage quoted above*] are to be found in **Donatus's *Ars maior*** 2.13 (ed. Holtz 1981, 610.11-2) and **Priscian's *Inst. gram*** (ed. Hertz 1855-9, GL 2-3), e.g. 'differentiae quoque causa multa solent vel taceri vel contra regulam proferri' (GL 2, 372); other examples: GL 3, 27.4-10; GL 3, 47.4-9. There is a hint of this in Quintilian too [*here Steenbakkers quotes a bit of the Quintilian passage mentioned above*] (*Inst. or.* 1.5.25; ed. Winterbottom 1970, 32-3). Statements to the effect that laws of accentuation have exceptions for the sake of distinction can also be found in other grammarians. See, for example, **Pompeius, *Commentum Artis Donati*** (ed. Keil 1868, GL 5, 131): 'nam quando dicimus poné [...], non ideo dicimus, quia sic debet dici, sed ut sit discretio. [...] ideo in ultima syllaba inveniuntur accentus.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steenbakkers goes on to mention a text from 1586, *De recte pronunciatione Latinae Linguae dialogus* by Justus Lipsius, that apparently contains a speech/dialogue/lecture attributed to the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret that is critical of the practice of pronouncing these words with stress on the final syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At one point in his lecture Muret sneers at the (apparently quite popular) assumption that the Latin accent can occasionally shift to the final syllable. He criticizes Latin as pronounced in his days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Cùm enim *Serò, Palàm, Doctè* efferunt, sic efferunt *Seró, Palam, Docté.* [...] idq́ue necessarium, vt effatu discernas à *Séro, Dócte.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;For when they pronounce 'serò', 'palàm', 'doctè', they pronounce it as though it should be 'seró', 'palám', 'docté'. [...] And you must do that, if you want to distinguish them in speech from 'séro' and 'dócte'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Such a pronunciation is absurd in view of unambiguous statements by ancient grammarians (e.g. Quintilian) that the ultima of a Latin word is never accented. If, on the other hand, the grave denotes the absence of stress, then *séro* and *serò* etc. are merely variant spellings for identically pronounced words. Summing up, Muret thinks the habit of putting a grave on the ultima is misguided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 75-76)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How did this pattern of accentuation originate? (if it was real)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say in your question, there seems to be a certain idea that this pattern of accentuation exists to differentiate homophones, which is the kind of explanation that modern linguists tend to regard with skepticism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not seen any attempts to provide a different kind of explanation for this stress pattern, so unfortunately, I don't know how to answer the &quot;why&quot; part of your question with sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, **everything that follows from this point on is just speculation**,&#xD;&#xA;and the references in the following sections are to literature that is about other topics that I think might possibly be relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some features of Latin adverbs that seem like they might possibly be relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adverbs are &quot;indeclinable&quot;: unlike adjectives, substantives, or verbs, they don't end in inflectional suffixes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Adverbs often come immediately before the modified word in Latin. &quot;[Latin Word Order](http://rharriso.sites.truman.edu/latin-language/latin-word-order/)&quot; from Rebecca Harrison’s *Cogitatorium* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Adverbs do not have endings to indicate agreement, so they are “velcroed” to the word they modify, usually coming directly before.&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; - adverb : verb/adjective/adverb&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - nōn venit&#xD;&#xA;  - tam pulchra&#xD;&#xA;  - tam celeriter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ideas about Latin prosody that seem relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin&quot;, by Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston (2016):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; More than a century’s worth of research has established that function words in Latin are prosodically dependent on nearby lexical words ... The combined evidence points to function words forming recursive prosodic words with nearby content words (Selkirk 1996)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Metrical work on where word-stress falls in a line of poetry shows that many function words fuse so closely with the following word that they are positioned within the line as if they were a single word.** Thus Frank (1904) finds that strings like *sed id* ‘but it’, *sed amor* ‘but love’, *sed homines* ‘but men’ pattern like two-, three- and four-syllable lexical words do. **With trisyllables in particular, Frank shows that function words so closely adhere to what follows that they can take the only accent of the group**: *séd agit* rather than *sed ágit* ‘but I lead’ and *séd erus* rather than *sed érus* ‘but the head of the family’, where **the recessive accent expected on the content word shows up on the preceding function word**. Frank points out that the same types of combination are often written together in manuscripts: *etea* for *et ea* ‘and those’, *utipse* for *ut ipse* ‘so that he’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (*Vox Latina,* 2nd edition) mentions in passing that in Classical Latin, certain multi-word [prosodic units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosodic_unit) may have been stressed as if they were single words. Two of the specific examples Allen mentions seem to be prosodic units ending in disyllabic verb forms with light penult syllables, where apparently it has been suggested that the verbs may have been pronounced without stress as enclitics (and consequently, a stress would fall on the immediately preceding syllable, which would be the last syllable of the preceding word in the prosodic unit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apart from the enclitic combinations, certain other **groups of closely connected words were liable to be treated as unities for accentual purposes.** We know from the grammarians that certain conjunctions were unaccented, e.g. *at, et, sed, igitur* (the last in fact probably arose by vowel weakening from *agitur* in expressions such as *quid agitur?*). When followed by a noun whose case they governed, prepositions were also subordinated accentually; one consequently finds inscriptional forms such as *intabulas,* written as a single word; and Plautus and Terence show evidence for enclitic accentuations of the type *apúd me,* *patér mi.* The same seems also to have applied to **idiomatically as well as grammatically connected words**, such as ***morém gerit, operám dare**;* but **we have only partial knowledge of such phenomena, and are largely dependent on not always clear&#xD;&#xA;metrical evidence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 88)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these quotes, I wonder if the supposed stress on the last syllable of adverbs might be connected to possible lack of stress on the following word; for example, in phrases where an adverb was followed by a disyllabic word with a light initial syllable that lost its accent and was pronounced as an enclitic? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Lewis and Short entry for [*pone*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpone) mentions the example &quot;Pone petunt, exim referunt ad pectora tonsas&quot;; from Ennius; if the first part of this was pronounced as /poːˈnepetunt/, it would have the stress pattern that would be regular for a single word according to the Classical Latin penult-weight-based stress rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A serious problem with my suggestion here is that it would only explain this stress pattern in very particular phonological environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier on the same page, Allen does mention the possiblity of enclitic accentual changes leading via analogy to the development of special stress rules that conflict with the main weight-based rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One cannot ... exclude the possibility of an analogical accentuation of the type *bonắque* after the pattern of *bonúsque,* etc. Priscian specifically mentions such an analogy in the case of the fused compounds *utrắque, plerắque,* after *utérque, plerúsque* (K. ii, 181: 'communis trium uult esse generum'). But it is doubtful whether these analogies apply to the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I think it seems pretty far-fetched to suppose that sequences of adverb + iambic verb form were so common in Latin as to provide the basis for analogical extension of word-final stress to adverbs in general, in any position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that iambic verb forms in Classical Latin could be pronounced enclitic to the preceding word also seems to rest on fairly doubtful evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue with the kind of &quot;metrical&quot; evidence that Agbayani &amp; Golston and Allen allude to is that apparently there is apparently still little consensus about how Latin stress accent related to meter. *[Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Mancini,+Marco+1997+Latin&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DWQ8RRmOnB&amp;sig=tQhrDjCj2Lvb9cLG6iTdMrW5tFM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVj6Cs0ejaAhWrmuAKHRgGCEsQ6AEILzAE#v=snippet&amp;q=accent&amp;f=false),* by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One metrical phenomenon that has historically been used to investigate the phrasal articulation of Latin speech is the verse *ictus,* the beat of the line. There is great disagreement about its nature and whether there even was such a thing in Plautine poetry at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortson also has a section about verbs where he says that there was probably no tendency to pronounce iambic verbs as enclitics after other iambic words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a sequence of iambic word followed by iambic verb (the type *pater petit*) barely ever fills a measure of Plautine verse, as discussed in Ch. 3, which indicates rather strongly that such a sequence was not prosodically equivalent to a four-syllable word of the same metrical shape, and that therefore the verb did not cliticize to the preceding word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 265)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find much discussion of the prosodic behavior of adverbs in Fortson.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to emphasize the uncertainty of this answer: it's really just something that I've been wondering about, and I think it has some information that may be relevant, but I don't think it is at all an adequate answer to the question posed. I hope someone will post a more complete answer in the future. (I'd prefer not to have this answer accepted, as I may want to delete it in the future if I discover something further that reveals that the information here is irrelevant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9101" RevisionGUID="d23a1ada-496c-4ed2-8107-97f91445e41f" CreationDate="2019-02-12T08:00:54.683" UserId="9" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="We don't know any phonetic details about Latin stress/accentuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phonology of Latin stress is also somewhat uncertain, but it is not thought that there was a phonologically distinctive contrast in Latin between different types of stress contours for a syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([&quot;Coepio&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1017/9) might be a confusing example since apparently there is evidence that the &quot;o&quot; and &quot;e&quot; in this word were sometimes were pronounced as separate syllables.  I would guess pronunciation as separate syllables might be theoretically possible wherever &quot;oe&quot; is derived from separate morphemes, rather than from an Old Latin diphthong. An example of &quot;oe&quot; that Lewis and Short seems to indicate was never pronounced as a diphthong is &quot;coemo&quot;—although there was a contracted form &quot;como&quot;. Another similarly ambiguous sequence of letters is &quot;eu&quot; as in &quot;neuter&quot; &lt; &quot;ne + uter&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ancient grammarians alleged there was a difference between &quot;acute&quot; and &quot;circumflex&quot; accentuation that was conditioned by the word's phonological form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin authors describe Latin syllables as being able to be pronounced with either an &quot;acute&quot; or &quot;circumflex&quot; accent, as in Greek, but there doesn't actually seem to have been a *contrast* in any context between acute and circumflex accentuation in Latin the way that there could be in Greek ultima syllables with long vowels. Rather, the described distribution of acute and circumflex accents in Latin is apparently predictable based on the vowel length and the position of the accent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Sturtevent 1920 (p. 216)](https://books.google.com/books?id=wWcwAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA216) cites Donatus iv, p. 371 8 ff. K. as giving the following rules. The acute accent is used in most contexts; the circumflex accent was only supposed to be used when the accented vowel was long and occurred in a monosyllable or in the penult syllable of a word with a short ultima.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these rules, *dīcō* and *coepiō* would both have an acute accent, while *pīla* and *rēs* would have a circumflex accent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But modern scholars tend to dismiss these accounts as misrepresentations based on the model of Greek accentuation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9101" RevisionGUID="762e12e2-babf-406d-ac27-a5b9b8ea529a" CreationDate="2019-02-12T08:13:36.117" UserId="9" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="We don't know any phonetic details about Latin stress/accentuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phonology of Latin stress is also somewhat uncertain, but it is not thought that there was a phonologically distinctive contrast in Latin between different types of stress contours for a syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([&quot;Coepio&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1017/9) might be a confusing example since apparently there is evidence that the &quot;o&quot; and &quot;e&quot; in this word were sometimes were pronounced as separate syllables.  I would guess pronunciation as separate syllables might be theoretically possible wherever &quot;oe&quot; is derived from separate morphemes, rather than from an Old Latin diphthong. An example of &quot;oe&quot; that Lewis and Short seems to indicate was never pronounced as a diphthong is &quot;coemo&quot;—although there was a contracted form &quot;como&quot;. Another similarly ambiguous sequence of letters is &quot;eu&quot; as in &quot;neuter&quot; &lt; &quot;ne + uter&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some ancient grammarians alleged there was a difference between &quot;acute&quot; and &quot;circumflex&quot; accentuation that was conditioned by the word's phonological form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin authors describe Latin syllables as being able to be pronounced with either an &quot;acute&quot; or &quot;circumflex&quot; accent, as in Greek, but there doesn't actually seem to have been a *contrast* in any context between acute and circumflex accentuation in Latin the way that there could be in Greek ultima syllables with long vowels. Rather, the described distribution of acute and circumflex accents in Latin is apparently predictable based on the vowel length and the position of the accent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Sturtevent 1920 (p. 216)](https://books.google.com/books?id=wWcwAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA216) cites Donatus iv, p. 371 8 ff. K. as giving the following rules. The acute accent is used in most contexts; the circumflex accent was only supposed to be used when the accented vowel was long and occurred in a monosyllable or in the penult syllable of a word with a short vowel in the ultima.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these rules, *dīcō* and *coepiō* would both have an acute accent, while *pīla* and *rēs* would have a circumflex accent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But modern scholars tend to dismiss these accounts as misrepresentations based on the model of Greek accentuation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="d705d3a4-7941-4bc8-8bcd-4610540d49d4" CreationDate="2019-02-12T08:18:52.880" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 166 characters in body" Text="As you mentioned, it is very difficult to say anything clear about stress in Classical Latin, because there is little evidence, either direct or indirect, of the position of the stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Joonas Ilmavirta and Alex B. pointed out in the comments, there was supposedly a special rule in Latin about stressing the immediately preceding syllable, regardless of whether it is heavy or light, in words suffixed with a monosyllabic enclitic. The way that this rule violates the main heavy/light rule is often illustrated with the example Musaque [muːˈsa.kwe]. The &quot;qu&quot; here is not expected to make the preceding syllable heavy: &quot;qu&quot; is typically analyzed either as a singleton consonant with a secondary articulation of labialization (/kʷ/) or as a complex onset composed of a singleton /k/ followed by a glide /w~u̯/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I've only seen examples with *-que* in discussions of this alleged rule, it is also described as applying to other monosyllabic enclitics like *-ne* and *-ve* ([Mester 1994](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.461.8123&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf), p. 48; [C. M. Weimer's answer to the question *Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/601/9)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question about whether we see an acute used on the syllable before *-ne* or *-ve* in postclassical texts is a good one. There is literature that says that the acute accent was used this way; &quot;Accent Notation in the Classical Languages and its Influence on Lithuanian Accent Notation&quot; by Mindaugas Strockis, cites Steenbakkers (1994) (see section 3.2.1 of Strockis). I don't know which specific documents show this feature, or how common it is (Strockis says that *-ne* and *-ve* were less frequent than *-que*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9103" RevisionGUID="5a9f3eb8-41bb-45aa-9015-4c11398abf27" CreationDate="2019-02-12T08:42:24.687" UserId="79" Text="I used corpus searches to constrain the possibility of participle comparison.&#xD;&#xA;Here are the observations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Superlative of future participle:&#xD;&#xA;The only words with [*-turissim-*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=turissim) are forms of *maturissimus*.&#xD;&#xA;No hits with *-surissim-* or *-xurissim-*.&#xD;&#xA;- Comparative of future participle:&#xD;&#xA;Searching for *-turior-* returns a number of forms of *maturior*, one [*promunturiorum*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/929/1/1/22433-22441@1), one [*Sturiorum*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/978/1/308/1269-1277@1), and one [*saturiorque*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1017/16/5/4997-5003@1).&#xD;&#xA;Searching for the neuter *-turius* gives names, *vulturius*, and a whole lot of *maturius*.&#xD;&#xA;The name *Iturius* looks like a compared participle, but is most likely completely unrelated.&#xD;&#xA;The searches for *-surior-*, *-surius*, *-xurior-*, and *-xurius* produce one candidate: [*luxurior*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1014/1/15/2174-2180@1).&#xD;&#xA;This could potentially be parsed as a compared future participle, but the verb *luxuriari* sounds more likely.&#xD;&#xA;- The past participle is too tedious to search, as there are a lot of adjectives ending in *-tus/-sus/-xus*.&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of candidates, like [*rectissime*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/22/1/3/8172-8178@1) and [*apertissimum*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/22/1/6/6113-6119@1).&#xD;&#xA;I actually think *apertissimum* makes a decent case, although one can always ask to what extent these participles have become normal adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;- A number of present participles have become adjectives, and perhaps one should not read compared forms of *diligens* as compared participles of *diligere*.&#xD;&#xA;I am less sure about [*confidentior*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/119/1/0/6807-6812@1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is way too much noise when searching for anything but future participles.&#xD;&#xA;I found a number of adjectivized participles, but also things that one can regard as genuinely compared participles.&#xD;&#xA;(The borderline seems arbitrary.)&#xD;&#xA;I feel that Cato's *locus apertissimus* makes a decent case in support of comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that comparison of participles is possible, but tends to be most common with participles that have solidified their status as an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be happy to see more robust answers if anyone has stronger evidence.&#xD;&#xA;Examples of participles compared with *magis* and *maxime* would also be quite interesting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9104" RevisionGUID="33ac01ed-f8cb-43bf-9332-01e4a0dcfef2" CreationDate="2019-02-12T08:46:33.153" UserId="9" Text="I don't know of any obvious or systematic effects that Classical Latin stress had on sound changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The non-obvious effects that I've seen proposed for Classical Latin stress are &quot;brevis brevians&quot; or &quot;iambic shortening&quot; and syncope of vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies*, by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says that brevis brevians (the change of a heavy syllable to a light syllable after a light syllable) is usually thought to have specifically affected post-tonic heavy syllables ([p. 183](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA183)). *Brevis brevians* was not a systematic sound change; there are many exceptions to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't remember any specific proposals about the relationship between stress and syncope in Latin, but I just have a vague memory that they have been associated by some authors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9104" RevisionGUID="9cae6581-dacc-45f9-b840-36fa42969450" CreationDate="2019-02-12T08:55:45.827" UserId="9" Comment="added 477 characters in body" Text="I don't know of any obvious or systematic effects that Classical Latin stress had on sound changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The non-obvious effects that I've seen proposed for Classical Latin stress are &quot;brevis brevians&quot; or &quot;iambic shortening&quot; and syncope of vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies*, by Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2008), says that brevis brevians (the change of a heavy syllable to a light syllable after a light syllable) is usually thought to have specifically affected post-tonic heavy syllables ([p. 183](https://books.google.com/books?id=RYWW_2EcJ3YC&amp;pg=PA183)). *Brevis brevians* was not a systematic sound change; there are many exceptions to it. Also, Fortson actually suggests that *brevis brevians* could sometimes affect stressed syllables, saying &quot;the aggregate of evidence that BB could affect the second syllable of trisyllables is far too great to be easily dismissed [...] Cross-linguistically, while tonic syllables resist syncope, they are not immune to shortening and other reduction processes; we must simply try to recover the conditions (if any) under which this was possible in Plautine Latin&quot; (p. 208).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't remember any specific proposals about the relationship between stress and syncope in Latin; I just have a vague memory that they have been associated by some authors. The type of syncope I'm talking about is things like *calidus* &gt; *caldus.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9093" RevisionGUID="e39ea116-9a73-4aee-8e27-41f767f06a98" CreationDate="2019-02-12T14:08:36.550" UserId="1142" Comment="edited body" Text="The oft-quoted dictum &quot;passive in form, active in meaning&quot; is utterly nonsensical from a linguistic standpoint (and many would argue too, from a pedagogical standpoint) for describing **most** so-called &quot;deponent&quot; verbs (there do exist exceptions; these will be outlined later). The saying &quot;middle in form, middle in meaning&quot; captures the truth with the same succinctness; these are not &quot;deponent&quot; verbs: they are *media tantum* (middle-only) verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The evolution of these *media tantum* verbs may at first seem perplexing: Latin has an active-passive opposition in voice; there exists no middle. However, it largely appears to be the case that these *media tantum* verbs arose from Proto-Indo-European middle verbs. There do exist some verbs whose origins remain murky, though. The so-called 'semi-deponents', suppletive in the perfect, are one such good example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also worth noting that Late Latin saw a subsequent rise in &quot;deponent coinages&quot; -- which can technically be considered &quot;true deponents&quot; -- followed by an equally quick regularization of these true deponents and *media tantum* verbs towards active morphologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are seven broad semantic categories into which the middle can be divided for the purpose of classifying Latin's *media tantum* verbs (and for affirming that these verbs are, in fact, semantically middle), those being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Direct Reflexive:** *an event in which the participant performs an action upon themselves.* This semantic category can be expressed with the reflexive marker *sē*, but there do exist verbs in the middle under several sub-categories, typically &quot;body action middles&quot;: *grooming*, *bodily movement*, *etc.*&#xD;&#xA;  - *ornor* - to adorn (oneself)&#xD;&#xA;  - *perluor* - to bathe (oneself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Indirect Reflexive:** *an event in which the participant performs an action for their own benefit.* Similarly to the direct reflexive, this semantic category *could* be expressed with the reflexive marker *sibi*, but there do again exist verbs in the middle under this category.&#xD;&#xA;  - *liceor* - to acquire (for oneself) by bidding&#xD;&#xA;  - *apiscor* - to get, acquire (for oneself)&#xD;&#xA;  - *potior* - to get possession of (for oneself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Naturally Reciprocal Events:** *reciprocal events in which participant A is performing an action on participant B, and participant B is performing the same action on participant A;* i.e, events which naturally involve reciprocity. &#xD;&#xA;  - *osculor* - to kiss&#xD;&#xA;  - *conflictor* - to fight&#xD;&#xA;  - *amplector* - to embrace&#xD;&#xA;  - *luctor* - to wrestle&#xD;&#xA;  - *altercor* - to wrangle&#xD;&#xA;  - *copulor* - to be joined &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Collective:** *an event which is similar to a naturally reciprocal event, but the action is instead carried out by the participants as a whole;* i.e, the participants are not highly distinguished from each other. &#xD;&#xA;  - *misceor* - to mix&#xD;&#xA;  - *congregor* - to assemble, congregate&#xD;&#xA;  - *colloquor* - to converse, discuss&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Chaining:** *an action in which participant A acts on participant B, B on participant C, C on participant D, D on participant E, and so forth.* There are very few verbs which encode this meaning, save for the obvious exception: *sequor* - to follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **The Cognitive Middle:** *a fairly broad category that can be tersely summed up as a mental event in which the subject is both the initiator and the affected;* this category can be split into several further sub-categories.&#xD;&#xA;  - *misereor* - to feel pity, pity&#xD;&#xA;  - *vereor* - to respect, revere; fear, dread&#xD;&#xA;  - *meditor* - to think, reflect upon&#xD;&#xA;  - *interpretor* - to explain, expound&#xD;&#xA;  - *comminiscor* - to devise, contrive&#xD;&#xA;  - *polliceor* - to promise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. **Spontaneous Process:** *an event in which one subject undergoes a change of state with no specified agent;* the subject is the nominal participant.&#xD;&#xA;  - *morior* - to die&#xD;&#xA;  - *scindor* - to tear, split&#xD;&#xA;  - *nascor* - to be born&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize all of the above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The concept of &quot;deponency&quot; and the term &quot;deponent&quot; are not useful for explaining Latin verbs that exist without active morphologies; they are better referred to as middle-only or *media tantum* verbs.&#xD;&#xA;- The Latin *media tantum* verbs are largely derived from historically middle Proto-Indo-European verbs; semi-deponent verbs, suppletive in the passive, represent the main exception.&#xD;&#xA;- There do exist &quot;deponent coinages&quot; -- verbs which can truly be considered deponent -- which exist outside the class of *media tantum*.&#xD;&#xA;- The *media tantum* verbs can be divided into seven broad semantic categories, which themselves clarify why the classification of middle makes the most logical sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bulk of this answer was largely paraphrased from Seumas Macdonald's *excellent* piece on the Latin (and Greek) middle voice: *Reconceiving the middle voice for Greek and Latin students*, itself largely based on Suzanne Kemmer's work *The Middle Voice* and Rutger J. Allen's dissertation *The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek. A study in Polysemy*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I believe that I have, for the most part, given an effective summary of the work he has done, I *highly* recommend that you read his original work. A PDF of it can be found [here](https://thepatrologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Reconceiving-the-Middle-Voice-Greek-and-Latin.pdf); the original blog posts from which the piece was compiled can also be read on his website [The Patrologist](https://thepatrologist.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting aside: the accurate re-classification of so-called 'deponents' as *media tantum* verbs is not recent; from George Choiroboskos' 9th century commentaries on the canons of Theodosius of Alexandria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;οὐδεὶς γὰρ λέγει ἔρχω ἢ εὔχω ἢ πέτω ἢ δέχω ἢ ὀρχῶ καὶ τὰ λοιπά, ἐπειδὴ τὸ σημαινόμενον κωλύει.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;For no one says I 'go', or I 'pray', or I 'fly', or I 'receive', or I 'depart' and the rest, since the meaning prohibits it.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9105" RevisionGUID="3b8efe1f-b8b4-450e-b570-968ce1b8ff90" CreationDate="2019-02-12T14:24:52.323" UserId="3397" Text="Prologues in Terence will be extremely helpful for finding an idiomatic way of expressing this idea, since most of the plays are based on earlier Greek versions and the prologus often makes reference to this fact:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Heauton*: &quot;ex integra Graeca integram comoediam	&#xD;&#xA;hodie sum acturus H[e]auton timorumenon,	5&#xD;&#xA;duplex quae ex argumento facta est simplici.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Andria*: &quot;Menander fecit Andriam et Perinthiam.	&#xD;&#xA;qui utramvis recte norit ambas noverit:	10&#xD;&#xA;non ita dissimili sunt argumento, [s]et tamen	&#xD;&#xA;dissimili oratione sunt factae ac stilo.	&#xD;&#xA;quae convenere in Andriam ex Perinthia	&#xD;&#xA;fatetur transtulisse atque usum pro suis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Adelphoe*: &quot;Synapothnescontes Diphili comoediast:	&#xD;&#xA;&lt;³ea&gt;³m Commorientis Plautu' fecit fabulam.	&#xD;&#xA;in Graeca adulescens est qui lenoni eripit	&#xD;&#xA;meretricem in prima fabula: &lt;³eu&gt;³m Plautus locum	&#xD;&#xA;reliquit integrum, &lt;³eu&gt;³m hic locum sumpsit sibi	10&#xD;&#xA;in Adelphos, verbum de verbo expressum extulit.	&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Eunuchus*: &quot;qui bene vortendo et easdem scribendo male	&#xD;&#xA;ex Graecis bonĭs Latinas fecit non bonas,&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28142" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="7035" RevisionGUID="bd0b42c1-4341-4898-9799-f58f59c3bd4a" CreationDate="2019-02-12T14:50:25.170" UserId="30" Comment="100" />
  <row Id="28143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9106" RevisionGUID="6528f522-38fb-42c9-ac18-ec9f45ec9450" CreationDate="2019-02-12T15:00:46.003" UserId="406" Text="As it happens, I came across an interesting answer to this question just the other day!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is, **yes**. For a specific example, in Western Romance, short *o* and *e* became `/ɔ ɛ/` in stressed syllables, but `/o e/` in unstressed syllables. In Spanish, `/ɔ ɛ/` then became *ie* and *ue*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *s**ó**lidum* &gt; *s**ue**ldo*, but *c**o**rrúptum* &gt; *c**o**rrupto*&#xD;&#xA; - *t**é**nerum* &gt; *t**ie**rno*, but *t**e**némus* &gt; *t**e**nemos*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These depend mainly on the Classical Latin stress system, not on anything later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9105" RevisionGUID="d3304926-d627-4214-89ab-304173187ab5" CreationDate="2019-02-12T16:43:46.107" UserId="3397" Comment="Expanded my answer upon request." Text="There are two complications here. First, the idiom &quot;based on&quot; in English doesn't have a single meaning. It is used in a variety of situations with somewhat different meanings; in the sentence &quot;Shakespeare's *Comedy of Errors* is **based on** Plautus' *Menaechmi*&quot; the phrase &quot;based on&quot; is not doing the same work as it is in the sentence &quot;we punish criminal offenders differently **based on** the results of their actions.&quot; So in order to answer your question accurately, we first need to identify exactly which sense of the idiom &quot;based on&quot; you are trying to find a matching idiom for in Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing, however, (based on the concrete example you provided) that you want to find something more like &quot;Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors is based on Plautus.&quot; Now it is unlikely that the image contained in the English idiom (that is, of creating a &quot;foundation&quot; or &quot;base&quot; and then putting something new on top of it) is going to be the exact same image used in Latin to express a similar thought (and corpus searches confirm this). So in order to translate the phrase into idiomatic Latin, we will have to find passages in the Latin corpus that express the same general idea but that use different words and formulas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reiterate: If we want to do more than merely dress up an English, Italian, etc. image in Latin clothing (which, with respect, is what &quot;basatus est&quot; would yield), we have to figure out not how to translate the *words* but the *idea itself* into idiomatic Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prologues in Terence will be extremely helpful for finding an idiomatic way of expressing the idea that plot material or the entire plot of one work is drawn from another, since most of the plays are based on earlier Greek versions and the prologus often makes reference to this fact:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Heauton*: &quot;ex integra Graeca integram comoediam	&#xD;&#xA;hodie sum acturus H[e]auton timorumenon,	5&#xD;&#xA;duplex quae ex argumento facta est simplici.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Andria*: &quot;Menander fecit Andriam et Perinthiam.	&#xD;&#xA;qui utramvis recte norit ambas noverit:	10&#xD;&#xA;non ita dissimili sunt argumento, [s]et tamen	&#xD;&#xA;dissimili oratione sunt factae ac stilo.	&#xD;&#xA;quae convenere in Andriam ex Perinthia	&#xD;&#xA;fatetur transtulisse atque usum pro suis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Adelphoe*: &quot;Synapothnescontes Diphili comoediast:	&#xD;&#xA;&lt;³ea&gt;³m Commorientis Plautu' fecit fabulam.	&#xD;&#xA;in Graeca adulescens est qui lenoni eripit	&#xD;&#xA;meretricem in prima fabula: &lt;³eu&gt;³m Plautus locum	&#xD;&#xA;reliquit integrum, &lt;³eu&gt;³m hic locum sumpsit sibi	10&#xD;&#xA;in Adelphos, verbum de verbo expressum extulit.	&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Eunuchus*: &quot;qui bene vortendo et easdem scribendo male	&#xD;&#xA;ex Graecis bonĭs Latinas fecit non bonas,&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what we see from the above examples is that there might not be a single formulaic phrase in Latin that perfectly matches the specific sense you are looking for. Rather, there are several phrases which can be used to describe the more concrete (and more general) idea of **taking** something **from** one thing and **using** it to **make** something new. So the sentence &quot;Shakespeare's *Comedy of Errors* is based on Plautus&quot; might be variously rendered as &quot;Shakespeare **ex** fabula Plautina Comediam **fecit** suam Errorum,&quot; or &quot;Shakespeare argumentum **ex** fabula Plautina **sumpsit** sibi **in** Comediam Errorum,&quot; or perhaps &quot;Shakespeare quae convenerunt in Comediam Errorum **transtulit** **ex** fabula Plautina atque **usus est** pro suis.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9107" RevisionGUID="5f6de338-f328-415c-8a39-f27e1867bfc2" CreationDate="2019-02-12T19:03:12.307" UserId="3397" Text="*Intellego.* and *Teneo.* are both used as stand-alone replies in Plautus and Terence with the sense of &quot;I understand&quot; or &quot;I get it&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of the following are examples from the *Andria* of Terence. The second one in particular is useful because you can clearly see that it is being used as an interjection by the second speaker to reassure the first-- she literally interrupts him to say it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;SI: rogitabam 'heus puer, dic sodes, quis heri Chrysidem habuit?' nam Andriae illi id erat nomen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**SO: Teneo.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;PA: propera. atque audin? verbum unum cavĕ de nuptiis, ne ad morbum hoc etiam . .&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**MY: Teneo.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples from Plautus: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;LYS: Primum ego te porrectiore fronte volo mecum loqui;	&#xD;&#xA;stultitia est ei te esse tristem, cuius potestas plus potest.	&#xD;&#xA;probum te et frugi hominem iam pridem esse arbitror. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**CHAL: Intellego.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;EP: Hoc quod actum est. egomet postquam id illas audivi loqui,	&#xD;&#xA;coepi rursum vorsum ad illas pauxillatim accedere,	&#xD;&#xA;quasi retruderet hominum me vis invitum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PER: Intellego.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I cannot find any examples in the PHI of *capio* being used as a stand-alone phrase/interjection in classical Latin with the meaning &quot;I understand.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9108" RevisionGUID="8004084d-1466-4930-9329-a1a65c8930bb" CreationDate="2019-02-12T20:14:05.133" UserId="2363" Text="We can semantically distinguish an adjective or adverb from a participle. Adjectives and adverbs have no dynamic or temporal force. They cannot take an accusative or clause as their object. They merely describe what they modify. Only such descriptions can take degrees of comparison. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Participles that retain any of their dynamic force cannot be made comparative or superlative. In fact, once a participle became commonly used as a simple adjective or substantive, the Romans seem to have (almost?) completely stopped using even the positive form dynamically. Only vary rarely will you find *amans*, *sciens*, or *sapiens* with an accusative or clausal object, despite *amo* and *scire* being rather common verbs. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9109" RevisionGUID="3f13bb42-1265-4e93-8aa9-0e7ae8a09793" CreationDate="2019-02-12T23:52:48.817" UserId="3153" Text="My teachers are 'Magisters.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My king is his 'Majesty.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My dragon is 'Majestic.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some etymological link between the Latin word for 'teacher' and the words we use for exaltation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28148" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9109" RevisionGUID="3f13bb42-1265-4e93-8aa9-0e7ae8a09793" CreationDate="2019-02-12T23:52:48.817" UserId="3153" Text="Latin Word Etymologies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28149" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9109" RevisionGUID="3f13bb42-1265-4e93-8aa9-0e7ae8a09793" CreationDate="2019-02-12T23:52:48.817" UserId="3153" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9110" RevisionGUID="3a85551d-b624-4446-ad3e-e6b0af91addf" CreationDate="2019-02-12T23:53:38.177" UserId="3398" Text="I want to translate &quot;Fear is a crossroads&quot; but I'm confused because in English, &quot;crossroads&quot; is plural, but uses the singular article &quot;a&quot;. So would my sentence be &quot;Timor est compitum&quot; or &quot;Timor sunt compita&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is nominative even the right form of these words to use in this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have other translations, I'm interested to know too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28151" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9110" RevisionGUID="3a85551d-b624-4446-ad3e-e6b0af91addf" CreationDate="2019-02-12T23:53:38.177" UserId="3398" Text="Translating sentence but how do I deal with conjugation - if it's plural in English, is it plural in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28152" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9110" RevisionGUID="3a85551d-b624-4446-ad3e-e6b0af91addf" CreationDate="2019-02-12T23:53:38.177" UserId="3398" Text="|grammar-choice|english-to-latin-translation|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9111" RevisionGUID="b059cba6-3062-4700-954a-5666ea47164f" CreationDate="2019-02-13T00:28:45.487" UserId="406" Text="In English, &quot;crossroads&quot; has an *-s* on the end, but isn't plural—that's why it takes a singular article, and singular verbs (&quot;**a** crossroads **is** a place where two roads meet&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, it's the same: a single crossing of roads is a *compitum*, and multiple crossings in different places are *compita*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from that, your translation is good: nominative is to some extent a &quot;default&quot; case you use when no other case applies, and all your word choices are fine (though I'd personally use *metus* for &quot;fear&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28154" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9109" RevisionGUID="3cafc1f0-fa80-4385-a10d-6c582f6ae76f" CreationDate="2019-02-13T03:53:39.750" UserId="45" Comment="edited title" Text="Are &quot;magister&quot; and &quot;majesty&quot; etymologically related?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9112" RevisionGUID="66402f52-80c0-4e2c-bef4-e0e7abaecf6c" CreationDate="2019-02-13T04:31:57.730" UserId="1142" Text="If you limit your etymological range to Latin alone, no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These three English words which you've listed *coincidentally* happen to have similar pronunciation in their first few syllables. Both *magister* and *majesty* find their roots in different Latin words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [majesty](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/majesty#English) &lt; *mājestās*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [majestic](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/majestic#English) &lt; *majesty-* + *-ic*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [magister](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/magister#English) &lt; *magister*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin words themselves, however, from which these English words originate, do share the same roots; both ultimately arrive from the same Proto-Indo-European adjective, *\*méǵh₂s*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [mājestās](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/maiestas#Latin) &lt; *major* + *-tās* &lt; *\*magjōs* &lt; *\*méǵh₂yōs‎* &lt; *\*méǵh₂s* + *\*-yōs*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [magister](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/magister#Latin) &lt; *magis* + *-tero* &lt; *magnus* &lt; *\*magnos* &lt; *\*méǵh₂s* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9113" RevisionGUID="22203a92-8c40-4758-b67a-f658136a8f4d" CreationDate="2019-02-13T14:56:33.733" UserId="984" Text="The way I learned 'uter' and 'uterque' was as follows.  'Uter' is like the Greek 'πότερος', meaning (in interrogative uses) 'which, of two?' and (in non-interrogative uses) 'either, of two'. I learned to translate 'uterque' into English as 'both', but is this strictly accurate? When it is said that Cicero uses the method of argumentation 'in utramque partem', this clearly does mean that he argues on *both* sides, but is the more literal translation 'on either side'? If the former is correct, why is partem singular and not plural? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28157" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9113" RevisionGUID="22203a92-8c40-4758-b67a-f658136a8f4d" CreationDate="2019-02-13T14:56:33.733" UserId="984" Text="Uter vs. Uterque" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28158" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9113" RevisionGUID="22203a92-8c40-4758-b67a-f658136a8f4d" CreationDate="2019-02-13T14:56:33.733" UserId="984" Text="|vocabulary|latin-to-english-translation|adjective|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9114" RevisionGUID="25a260b1-af1f-4680-a0a1-d78449aa675e" CreationDate="2019-02-13T15:01:02.803" UserId="45" Text="As an alternative perspective (which I hope will be corrected/supplemented by those who have more linguistic knowledge), I don't think you need to go quite so far back to see the relation of these words. Though the actual developmental relationship traces back to PIE, as Ethan shows, there's a simple connection that exists *in Latin* and which any reflective Roman would have grasped, namely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Maiestas* comes from *maior/maius*, which is the **comparative adjective form of *magnus***.&#xD;&#xA;* *Magister* comes from *magis*, which is the **comparative adverb form of *magnus***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, *magis* and *maior* are not regularly formed, and hence we need to look further back to trace their common ancestry. But they both have a clear relationship to one of the most common adjectives in Latin: *magnus*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9115" RevisionGUID="e431ab18-90f5-44aa-8e06-138f3ff87585" CreationDate="2019-02-13T15:27:51.247" UserId="645" Text="Basically, you are correct, inasmuch as *uter* does indeed mean 'which[of two]?', and *uterque* can be translated as 'both'. The former is interrogative, the second is distributive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that English has its own ways of expressing this kind of thing: for instance, 'did they both do it?' and 'did each of them do it?' and the replies 'yes, both did it' and 'yes, each of them/each one did it'. 'Both' refers to two acting in unison, while 'each' distributes the responsibility, not necessarily just to two.  The difference from Latin is that in English 'each' is a general distributive, is mostly synonymous with 'either'  and can refer to any number; while in Latin *uterque* is reserved for two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might also observe that we tend to be rather sloppy in colloquial English, relying on context to indicate the precise meaning — something that can become irritatingly apparent when translating into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9116" RevisionGUID="2fb13d4b-6000-46d1-9134-910fd69b581e" CreationDate="2019-02-13T16:35:54.063" UserId="79" Text="Indeed, *uter* is a question word &quot;which [of two]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;And *uterque* can be translated as &quot;both [of two]&quot;, but it might be better to think of it as &quot;each [of two]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The reason is that *uterque*, like &quot;each&quot;, is singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is clearest to say that *uterque* is &quot;each&quot; and *ambo* is &quot;both&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The meanings overlap significantly, but there are two main differences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Grammatically, *uterque* and &quot;each&quot; are singular.&#xD;&#xA;- Semantically, *ambo* or &quot;both&quot; refers to the two being together, whereas *uterque* or &quot;each&quot; means that the two are treated one by one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When one is arguing both sides of a case, it may be best to do so in turn: first against one party, then the other.&#xD;&#xA;Being against both parties at the same time would be in no party's interests and would look more like arguing against the whole system or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *in utramque partem* makes semantically more sense than *in ambas partes*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to juridical oratory, arguing *pro aliquo* means defending and arguing *in aliquem* means accusing.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore in an oratory context I would translate *in utramque partem* as &quot;against each party [in turn]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Translating with &quot;both&quot; is idiomatic English and fine, but I think &quot;each&quot; captures the idea somewhat more accurately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9113" RevisionGUID="c777df92-ed03-4b0d-afcb-1c6a195f0831" CreationDate="2019-02-13T16:38:31.293" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="The way I learned 'uter' and 'uterque' was as follows. 'Uter' is like the Greek 'πότερος', meaning (in interrogative uses) 'which, of two?' and (in non-interrogative uses) 'either, of two'. I learned to translate 'uterque' into English as 'both', but is this strictly accurate? When it is said that Cicero uses the method of argumentation 'in utramque partem', this clearly does mean that he argues on *both* sides, but is the more literal translation 'on either side'? If the former is correct, why is 'partem' singular and not plural? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28163" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9113" RevisionGUID="c777df92-ed03-4b0d-afcb-1c6a195f0831" CreationDate="2019-02-13T16:38:31.293" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|latin-to-english-translation|word-comparison|adjective|cicero|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9117" RevisionGUID="40c3212e-0300-445d-b98a-f218f9bd2fd9" CreationDate="2019-02-13T20:52:44.280" UserId="1304" Text="This is very difficult, because the distinction between “power” and “control” that your “sort of wordplay” implies is rather modern. In particular, the latin word _imperium_ could mean both (as well as “command”, “order”, and a bunch of other meanings...). _Potestas_ is a similar case. However, if ambiguity is what you are looking for, my proposal is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**POTENTIBVS IMPERIVM**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which does not have a verb (as usual in mottos) and can mean almost anything. Without any antefact, I would probably translate it “Let the powerful take control” or “If they can take control, let them do”, but also “The powerful do rule” and so on and so on. “Power takes control away from you” belongs to the set of possible interpretations. “Power requires control” fits in with some effort, but I can’t do better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As usual, Google Translate is of no value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9100" RevisionGUID="eb04656d-f047-4645-9801-50b1b015cf42" CreationDate="2019-02-14T03:34:39.250" UserId="1142" Comment="edited body" Text="It seems *mostly* fine to me. I would, however, propose the following changes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Utilize the adverb *quō* instead of *ubi* to eliminate potential temporal-spatial ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;- Utilize the adverb *istuc* instead of *illuc*. You are referring to place which pragmatically is close to the addressee but not to you, the speaker; the use of a 2nd person demonstrative is therefore justified.&#xD;&#xA;- Optionally syncopate the form *amāvistī* into *amāstī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quō vītam amā(vi)stī, istuc revertēris." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9118" RevisionGUID="9447d3e8-9900-4dca-b921-3b7fd2a78600" CreationDate="2019-02-14T04:05:19.287" UserId="30" Text="Welcome to the site! I can only think of an emphatic demonstrative pronoun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carpe huncine diem!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The emphasis expressed by the long form of the pronoun could be interpreted as enthouasism, although other interpretation would be possible. In context, though, I think the emphatic pronoun, the exclamation mark, and the meaning of the saying  together will probably have the desired effect? Just as in English there is a theoretical ambiguity, as you explained it, but I think that will probably disappear in context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9119" RevisionGUID="3a5d000d-ebd8-4ef5-a1f2-de8fd6dac3e5" CreationDate="2019-02-14T12:42:23.717" UserId="3400" Text="I'm trying to translate 'blood promises glory' into latin. Google translate provided me with ***Sanguinis Promissa Gloria*** and I like it, sounds good, but I really want to run it past someone who actually knows what they're talking about. Context for the phrase - it is for a book, the main character's family motto - a family steeped in pride and heritage for their bloodline, who above all else believe that they are meant for glory; their blood itself holds the promise of glory. I've tried to use other sites for reference and that implied it should be *'promitto'* or *'promittis'*. Just trying to not look like an idiot and I'd appreciate ideas. Thanks :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28169" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9119" RevisionGUID="3a5d000d-ebd8-4ef5-a1f2-de8fd6dac3e5" CreationDate="2019-02-14T12:42:23.717" UserId="3400" Text="Trying to translate 'Blood promises glory'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28170" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9119" RevisionGUID="3a5d000d-ebd8-4ef5-a1f2-de8fd6dac3e5" CreationDate="2019-02-14T12:42:23.717" UserId="3400" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9121" RevisionGUID="9054d12e-78cd-446a-83fb-fa2d4cf7e917" CreationDate="2019-02-14T14:47:31.880" UserId="79" Text="I'd say that *sanguinis promissa gloria* is grammatical, but not quite what you should use.&#xD;&#xA;It means roughly &quot;the promised glory of blood&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't convey the message you have, but is pretty close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *promittere* has various forms like *promitto* and *promissa* and *promittis*. These are all valid forms, but they mean different things. Choosing the correct form is something that [Google Translate consistently fails](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79) with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *promittere* (sometimes listed as *promitto*) can mean a number of things, including the literal meaning &quot;to send forward&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The English &quot;to promise&quot; is derived from this, but the meaning is not as close as one might think.&#xD;&#xA;I think a better verb for promising is *polliceri* (sometimes listed as *polliceor*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *sanguis* is a good word for &quot;blood&quot;, including this kind of use.&#xD;&#xA;It is used to denote descent, bloodline, origin, and things in that flavor, and that is certainly useful.&#xD;&#xA;One should be careful with the different kinds of blood, as for example *cruor* means the blood that flows out a wound.&#xD;&#xA;One might say that *sanguis* and *cruor* are both &quot;blood&quot;, but one refers to life and the other to death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Gloria* is a decent translation for &quot;glory&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There might be better words, but it's certainly understandable.&#xD;&#xA;I encourage you to look up these words and other potential candidates in [any online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more direct translation leads me to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sanguis pollicetur gloriam.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Blood promises glory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for a motto I find that nominal phrases without explicit verbs often work better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Gloria sanguine pollicita.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Glory promised by blood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9119" RevisionGUID="6c481d0a-06bf-48ae-a569-0c09dd163d42" CreationDate="2019-02-14T14:48:25.527" UserId="79" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm trying to translate 'blood promises glory' into Latin. Google translate provided me with ***Sanguinis Promissa Gloria*** and I like it, sounds good, but I really want to run it past someone who actually knows what they're talking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context for the phrase: It is for a book, the main character's family motto &amp;mdash; a family steeped in pride and heritage for their bloodline, who above all else believe that they are meant for glory; their blood itself holds the promise of glory. I've tried to use other sites for reference and that implied it should be *'promitto'* or *'promittis'*. Just trying to not look like an idiot and I'd appreciate ideas. Thanks! :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28175" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9119" RevisionGUID="6c481d0a-06bf-48ae-a569-0c09dd163d42" CreationDate="2019-02-14T14:48:25.527" UserId="79" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9119" RevisionGUID="d90b042d-9470-4467-b2df-840df9514044" CreationDate="2019-02-14T15:02:47.720" UserId="3400" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="I'm trying to translate 'blood promises glory' into Latin. Google translate provided me with ***Sanguinis Promissa Gloria*** and I like it, sounds good, but I really want to run it past someone who actually knows what they're talking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context for the phrase: It is for a book, the main character's family motto &amp;mdash; a family steeped in pride and heritage for their bloodline, who above all else believe that they are meant for glory; their blood itself holds the promise of glory. I've tried to use other sites for reference and that implied it should be *'promitto'* or *'promittis'*. Just trying to not look like an idiot and I'd appreciate ideas. Thanks! :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: First day on the site, sorry for replying with thanks. So I'll put it here. Thank you for the really helpful answers, and points to check up on moving forward." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9122" RevisionGUID="ac48f6bd-4ce7-4e8d-80f5-e46b9684a573" CreationDate="2019-02-14T19:19:49.597" UserId="522" Text="Welcome to the site Kat; does this come close to your meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Donatus, in Ars Major, listed ambiguity (in particular Amphiboly) as a fault:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10. Amphiboly is ambiguity in sentences which is either done through the accusative case, as if someone said: audio secutorem retiarium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; superasse ‘I hear shield-man conquered net-man/ or vice versa’;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plenty of people in politics and society disagreed about 'fault,' but made use of Donatus; and a suitable phrase could use 'I hear' *audio;* 'I know' *scio;* it is said' *dicitur:*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dicitur potestatem vincere imperium.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ambiguously &quot;It is said, Power conquers Imperium;&quot; or equally, &quot;It is said Imperium conquers Power.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In indirect speech, (accusative and infinitive construction for statements) both subject and object are in the Accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can ditch &quot;It is said...&quot; and keep the ambiguity, by using two neuter nouns. In addition *regulum,* forinstance, can mean 'rule,' and 'kingdom,' 'princedom,' and even the principle of 'law,'  'regulation.' More ambiguity. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Imperium regulum regit:*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; can mean: &quot;Government controls Law.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;which describes both dictatorship; and more generally 'principle overwhelmed  by might' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but the same words, *Imperium regulum regit:*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; can mean &quot;The Law controls the Government;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is what most democracies aim for; and describes 'might curbed by principle.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 12/13th C. amphiboly (edited) on (a)the altruistic and (b)the greedy ruler runs: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Rex sum regens regulum mihi mundus totus.*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) I am king when, faultless and uncompromised, I control my little kingdom. (meaning 'myself')  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) I am king controlling the legislature, the whole world is mine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9122" RevisionGUID="02c85de0-3ac4-4c7d-bc36-0d58970f7b61" CreationDate="2019-02-14T21:06:30.527" UserId="522" Comment="Dicitur to Dicunt (Grammar) Thanks Joonas" Text="Welcome to the site Kat; does this come close to your meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Donatus, in Ars Major, listed ambiguity (in particular Amphiboly) as a fault:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10. Amphiboly is ambiguity in sentences which is either done through the accusative case, as if someone said: audio secutorem retiarium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; superasse ‘I hear shield-man conquered net-man/ or vice versa’;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plenty of people in politics and society disagreed about 'fault,' but made use of Donatus; and a suitable phrase could use 'I hear' *audio;* 'I know' *scio;* 'they say' *dicunt:*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dicunt potestatem vincere imperium.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ambiguously &quot;They say, Power conquers Imperium;&quot; or equally, &quot;They say Imperium conquers Power.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In indirect speech, (accusative and infinitive construction for statements) both subject and object are in the Accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can ditch &quot;It is said...&quot; and keep the ambiguity, by using two neuter nouns. In addition *regulum,* forinstance, can mean 'rule,' and 'kingdom,' 'princedom,' and even the principle of 'law,'  'regulation.' More ambiguity. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Imperium regulum regit:*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; can mean: &quot;Government controls Law.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;which describes both dictatorship; and more generally 'principle overwhelmed  by might' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but the same words, *Imperium regulum regit:*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; can mean &quot;The Law controls the Government;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is what most democracies aim for; and describes 'might curbed by principle.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 12/13th C. amphiboly (edited) on (a)the altruistic and (b)the greedy ruler runs: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Rex sum regens regulum mihi mundus totus.*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) I am king when, faultless and uncompromised, I control my little kingdom. (meaning 'myself')  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) I am king controlling the legislature, the whole world is mine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28180" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8890" RevisionGUID="9adffbce-f991-4027-9e26-a6672131e277" CreationDate="2019-02-15T04:04:40.880" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="28181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9123" RevisionGUID="8a43ea43-094f-44f9-b409-373cb2c9b7ad" CreationDate="2019-02-15T05:12:33.280" UserId="3402" Text="I've been looking through some etymologies and it seems to me that cardinals past trēs aren't inflected. Is this correct, and if so, what's the logic in forming words with indeclinable numbers? Take, for example, the words &quot;duumviratus,&quot; &quot;triumviratus,&quot; and &quot;quīnquevirātus&quot;; meaning, respectively, a group of two, three, or five men. What confuses me is that &quot;duum&quot; is an inflection of &quot;duo,&quot; and &quot;trium&quot; is an inflection of &quot;trēs,&quot; but &quot;quinque&quot; is just... There? Sorry if I'm out of my gourd, I'm legitimately not very experienced with Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28182" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9123" RevisionGUID="8a43ea43-094f-44f9-b409-373cb2c9b7ad" CreationDate="2019-02-15T05:12:33.280" UserId="3402" Text="Why aren't cardinal numbers over three inflected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28183" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9123" RevisionGUID="8a43ea43-094f-44f9-b409-373cb2c9b7ad" CreationDate="2019-02-15T05:12:33.280" UserId="3402" Text="|morphology|declension|numbers|case|numerals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9124" RevisionGUID="9d8f6873-a247-40ac-98ae-3f97a2835c56" CreationDate="2019-02-15T10:35:19.340" UserId="1459" Text="#Context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an ongoing discussion [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/68634/what-does-it-mean-for-the-soul-to-be-immediately-created-by-god) on the intended meaning of the word &quot;immediately&quot; in a declaration by the Catholic Church that says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;human souls are immediately created by God. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being a word inherited from Latin (and given that official teaching of the Church is in Latin), I thought fit to look for the etymology of the word _immediatus_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the origin of the phrase under scrutiny in the above question goes back at least to Aquinas's [_Summa Theologiae_](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/sth1090.html). There we read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Objection 1:] Videtur quod anima rationalis non sit producta a Deo immediate, sed **mediantibus** Angelis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in his reply to the objection, he concludes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Et quia anima rationalis non potest produci per transmutationem alicuius materiae, ideo non potest produci nisi a Deo immediate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is evident from the discussion that Aquinas is referring to &quot;immediate&quot; as without mediation, rather than its other (perhaps more common) usage of &quot;adjacent in time&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In effect, there are instances where the word _immediatus_ is officially used as meaning &quot;without mediation&quot;. Without going too further back, in his encyclical _[Pascendi dominici gregis](https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/la/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html)_, Pope Pius X wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Praeteritis aetatibus vulgaris fuit error quod auctoritas in Ecclesiam extrinsecus accesserit nimirum **immediate** a Deo; quare autocratica merito habebatur. Sed haec nunc temporis obsolevere. Quo modo Ecclesiae e conscientiarum collectivitate emanasse dicitur, eo pariter auctoritas ab ipsa Ecclesia vitaliter emanat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The official [English](https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html) version reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In past times it was a common error that authority came to the Church from without, that is to say **directly** from God; and it was then rightly held to be autocratic. But his conception had now grown obsolete. For in the same way as the Church is a vital emanation of the collectivity of consciences, so too authority emanates vitally from the Church itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, when in the Latin version we read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... quia nempe Ecclesia a Deo, **sine medio**, ut ordinis supernaturalis est auctor, instituta ferebatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the English has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...because the Church was then regarded as having been instituted **immediately** by God as the author of the supernatural order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there seems to be recent instances where the Church does use immediately as meaning &quot;without mediation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, it seems true however that _immediatus_ does mean, in English and in Latin, &quot;unmediated&quot; and &quot;adjacent in time&quot;. For instance, this is suggested in [this book](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=p4VMAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PR25&amp;dq=immediatus+latin+etymology&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwih2-6TxL3gAhWSoXEKHQ84AFAQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=immediatus%20latin%20etymology&amp;f=false).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some reason, the word _immediatus_ is not part of L&amp;S (at least given my search attempts [here](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/LewisShort.html)). I would like to know:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The meanings of _immediatus_ in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;2. The change in those meanings over time. (for example, is the &quot;adjacent in time&quot; meaning recent and perhaps inherited from English, or of the last centuries?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds a lot to ask for, but I hope this proves interesting anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28185" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9124" RevisionGUID="9d8f6873-a247-40ac-98ae-3f97a2835c56" CreationDate="2019-02-15T10:35:19.340" UserId="1459" Text="Etymology of &quot;immediatus&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28186" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9124" RevisionGUID="9d8f6873-a247-40ac-98ae-3f97a2835c56" CreationDate="2019-02-15T10:35:19.340" UserId="1459" Text="|etymology|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9124" RevisionGUID="f7925f05-0068-4377-bf6a-8820ed7addd1" CreationDate="2019-02-15T10:42:15.143" UserId="1459" Comment="added 332 characters in body" Text="#Context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an ongoing discussion [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/68634/what-does-it-mean-for-the-soul-to-be-immediately-created-by-god) on the intended meaning of the word &quot;immediately&quot;, as found in the 1950's encyclical _Humani generis_, by Pope Pius XII. The declaration [states](https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;human souls are immediately created by God. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [original Latin](https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/la/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html) reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;animas enim a Deo immediate creari&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being a word inherited from Latin (and given that official teaching of the Church is in Latin), I thought fit to look for the etymology of the word _immediatus_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the origin of the phrase under scrutiny in the above question goes back at least to Aquinas's [_Summa Theologiae_](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/sth1090.html). There we read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Objection 1:] Videtur quod anima rationalis non sit producta a Deo immediate, sed **mediantibus** Angelis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in his reply to the objection, he concludes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Et quia anima rationalis non potest produci per transmutationem alicuius materiae, ideo non potest produci nisi a Deo immediate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is evident from the discussion that Aquinas is referring to &quot;immediate&quot; as without mediation, rather than its other (perhaps more common) usage of &quot;adjacent in time&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In effect, there are instances where the word _immediatus_ is officially used as meaning &quot;without mediation&quot;. Without going too further back, in his 1907's encyclical _[Pascendi dominici gregis](https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/la/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html)_, Pope Pius X wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Praeteritis aetatibus vulgaris fuit error quod auctoritas in Ecclesiam extrinsecus accesserit nimirum **immediate** a Deo; quare autocratica merito habebatur. Sed haec nunc temporis obsolevere. Quo modo Ecclesiae e conscientiarum collectivitate emanasse dicitur, eo pariter auctoritas ab ipsa Ecclesia vitaliter emanat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The official [English](https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html) version reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In past times it was a common error that authority came to the Church from without, that is to say **directly** from God; and it was then rightly held to be autocratic. But his conception had now grown obsolete. For in the same way as the Church is a vital emanation of the collectivity of consciences, so too authority emanates vitally from the Church itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, when in the Latin version we read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... quia nempe Ecclesia a Deo, **sine medio**, ut ordinis supernaturalis est auctor, instituta ferebatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the English has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...because the Church was then regarded as having been instituted **immediately** by God as the author of the supernatural order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there seems to be recent instances where the Church does use immediately as meaning &quot;without mediation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, it seems true however that _immediatus_ does mean, in English and in Latin, &quot;unmediated&quot; and &quot;adjacent in time&quot;. For instance, this is suggested in [this book](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=p4VMAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PR25&amp;dq=immediatus+latin+etymology&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwih2-6TxL3gAhWSoXEKHQ84AFAQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=immediatus%20latin%20etymology&amp;f=false).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some reason, the word _immediatus_ is not part of L&amp;S (at least given my search attempts [here](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/LewisShort.html)). I would like to know:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The meanings of _immediatus_ in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;2. The change in those meanings over time. (for example, is the &quot;adjacent in time&quot; meaning recent and perhaps inherited from English, or of the last centuries?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds a lot to ask for, but I hope this proves interesting anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9125" RevisionGUID="f15127d3-91f2-474e-b155-23a0814c2389" CreationDate="2019-02-15T17:15:52.357" UserId="645" Text="Cardinal numbers in Latin have some very peculiar rules. As you say, *unus*, *duo* and *tres* are inflected, but beyond those, from *quattuor*, four, to *centum*, hundred, they are indeclinable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cardinals from 200 (*ducenti*) to 900 (*nongenti*) are declined like the plural of adjectives such as *bonus*, agreeing in number and gender with the noun — *sescenti*, *sescentae*, *sescenta* and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then we have 1,000, *mille*, an adjective, but indeclinable; but in the plural it becomes *milia*, a (plural) neuter substantive, declined like *cubilia*. Thus, a mile is *mille passus*, a thousand (Roman) paces, while for two miles the paces are put into genitive plural, *duo milia passuum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole business of Roman numerals takes some effort to understand fully and use. I compound numbers, the above rules are mostly applied to the several parts. As far as xxix, the order is the same as in English. For the rest,  *unus* almost always stands first, but otherwise we find either the smaller followed by *et* and the larger next (*sex et sexaginta*), or in reverse without the conjunction (*sexaginta sex*). The complications change and continue after one hundred, but I think that's probably enough for this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your examples should have *-viri* instead of *-viratus* : *duumviri*, a [board] of two men, each man being a *duumvir* — only the *-vir* being declined; similarly with *triumvir*. Thereafter the numeral part is indeclinable, so we see, for instance, a *decemvir* as a member of the board of ten, *decemviri*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9125" RevisionGUID="23067798-112f-48a6-9ea5-0b9d34613d9c" CreationDate="2019-02-15T22:17:22.810" UserId="645" Comment="added 1 char. &amp; an italicisation" Text="Cardinal numbers in Latin have some very peculiar rules. As you say, *unus*, *duo* and *tres* are inflected, but beyond those, from *quattuor*, four, to *centum*, hundred, they are indeclinable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cardinals from 200 (*ducenti*) to 900 (*nongenti*) *are* declined like the plural of adjectives such as *bonus*, agreeing in number and gender with the noun — *sescenti*, *sescentae*, *sescenta* and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then we have 1,000, *mille*, an adjective, but indeclinable; but in the plural it becomes *milia*, a (plural) neuter substantive, declined like *cubilia*. Thus, a mile is *mille passus*, a thousand (Roman) paces, while for two miles the paces are put into genitive plural, *duo milia passuum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole business of Roman numerals takes some effort to understand fully and use. In compound numbers, the above rules are mostly applied to the several parts. As far as xxix, the order is the same as in English. For the rest,  *unus* almost always stands first, but otherwise we find either the smaller followed by *et* and the larger next (*sex et sexaginta*), or in reverse without the conjunction (*sexaginta sex*). The complications change and continue after one hundred, but I think that's probably enough for this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your examples should have *-viri* instead of *-viratus* : *duumviri*, a [board] of two men, each man being a *duumvir* — only the *-vir* being declined; similarly with *triumvir*. Thereafter the numeral part is indeclinable, so we see, for instance, a *decemvir* as a member of the board of ten, *decemviri*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9126" RevisionGUID="b52c040c-fb30-4304-bf5d-5edf947b479b" CreationDate="2019-02-16T16:49:13.653" UserId="3407" Text="What's the origin of this word?Is it indo-european?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28191" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9126" RevisionGUID="b52c040c-fb30-4304-bf5d-5edf947b479b" CreationDate="2019-02-16T16:49:13.653" UserId="3407" Text="Etimology of the word &quot;σκευή&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28192" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9126" RevisionGUID="b52c040c-fb30-4304-bf5d-5edf947b479b" CreationDate="2019-02-16T16:49:13.653" UserId="3407" Text="|greek|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9127" RevisionGUID="4f2ca675-36b4-446b-a582-1509b10c81dc" CreationDate="2019-02-16T18:58:40.017" UserId="40" Text="It seems to be unknown. Here's Beekes on σκεῦος:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chantraine has nothing useful to add (for once).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fhJCz.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9128" RevisionGUID="39e4b304-c194-4d94-833a-5debffc7102b" CreationDate="2019-02-16T20:13:01.303" UserId="3408" Text="I need to get the proper latin drug name for &quot;smoked jujube fruit&quot;, which might be &quot;fructus jujube fumatus&quot;, but I suspect there might be more than one word for smoked / cured products in Latin, which were common before the era of refrigerators. What adjective is usually used with smoked food items?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28195" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9128" RevisionGUID="39e4b304-c194-4d94-833a-5debffc7102b" CreationDate="2019-02-16T20:13:01.303" UserId="3408" Text="What is the latin word for &quot;smoked&quot; or &quot;cured&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28196" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9128" RevisionGUID="39e4b304-c194-4d94-833a-5debffc7102b" CreationDate="2019-02-16T20:13:01.303" UserId="3408" Text="|adjective|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9092" RevisionGUID="5af6874c-5b5e-422e-b4bf-b1f64c8389cf" CreationDate="2019-02-16T22:46:15.210" UserId="3391" Comment="added 293 characters in body" Text="I was in a store today when I came across a notebook that said &quot;Carpe That Diem&quot; on the cover. How would one translate this phrase into Latin properly? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first I thought to simply translate &quot;that&quot; with a Latin demonstrative pronoun, but then I realized that &quot;that&quot; in this context is being used idiomatically to express enthusiasm and positive encouragement, i.e. it is being used in the sense of &quot;Yeah! You got this! Go seize that day!&quot; not in the sense of &quot;Seize that particular day over there.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Latin have any similar idioms to express an imperative given with enthusiasm and positive encouragement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am thinking of something similar to what a Roman general might say to his men urging them into battle except a little more tongue-in-cheek. Imagine a father encouraging his young child playing soldier saying something like &quot;Go get that Carthaginian!&quot; as the child stabs a bush." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9118" RevisionGUID="dc93f280-512e-4826-9a14-76b2ec213678" CreationDate="2019-02-16T23:54:15.063" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Welcome to the site! I can only think of an emphatic demonstrative pronoun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carpe hunce diem!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The emphasis expressed by the long form of the pronoun could be interpreted as enthouasism, although other interpretation would be possible. In context, though, I think the emphatic pronoun, the exclamation mark, and the meaning of the saying  together will probably have the desired effect? Just as in English there is a theoretical ambiguity, as you explained it, but I think that will probably disappear in context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9127" RevisionGUID="8cba305c-f5c8-4e16-ad8c-a40c39cab94b" CreationDate="2019-02-17T00:31:49.150" UserId="40" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="It seems to be unknown. Here's Beekes on σκεῦος (which is from the same root as σκευή):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chantraine has nothing useful to add (for once).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fhJCz.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9127" RevisionGUID="76d2ffe9-5b57-4a04-98c1-64f8c173a504" CreationDate="2019-02-17T01:28:35.637" UserId="40" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="It seems to be unknown. Here's Beekes on the family of σκεῦος (which includes σκευή):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chantraine has nothing useful to add (for once).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fhJCz.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9129" RevisionGUID="6001269d-7de5-4105-bfeb-3bc5a2a41129" CreationDate="2019-02-17T14:56:43.593" UserId="39" Text="see relevant entries below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Niermeyer's *Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hoven' *Dictionary of Renaissance Latin from Prose Sources*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On how it evolved in English - see the relevant entry in the OED, esp. &quot;A.adj.1. Said of a person or thing in its relation to another: That has no intermediary or intervening member, medium, or agent; that is in actual contact or direct personal relation.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LZ0Y2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TwNLC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9129" RevisionGUID="59e0ec13-23d9-48b5-897e-48fe4d7013e0" CreationDate="2019-02-17T15:02:25.477" UserId="39" Comment="added 225 characters in body" Text="see relevant entries below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Niermeyer's *Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hoven' *Dictionary of Renaissance Latin from Prose Sources*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On how it evolved in English - see the relevant entry in the OED, esp. &quot;A.adj.1. Said of a person or thing in its relation to another: That has no intermediary or intervening member, medium, or agent; that is in actual contact or direct personal relation&quot; and &quot;2.a. Of a relation or action between two things: Acting or existing without any intervening medium or agency; involving actual contact or direct relation: **opposed to mediate and remote**&quot; [the emphasis is mine - A.B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is &quot;no person, thing, or space intervening, in place, order, or succession&quot; (3a), it could also apply to those cases when it stands or comes &quot;nearest or next; proximate, nearest, next; close, near.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LZ0Y2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TwNLC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9103" RevisionGUID="92b10303-0cbd-406d-a7ab-375cb96041df" CreationDate="2019-02-17T21:17:27.947" UserId="79" Comment="added 315 characters in body" Text="I used corpus searches to constrain the possibility of participle comparison.&#xD;&#xA;Here are the observations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Superlative of future participle:&#xD;&#xA;The only words with [*-turissim-*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=turissim) are forms of *maturissimus*.&#xD;&#xA;No hits with *-surissim-* or *-xurissim-*.&#xD;&#xA;- Comparative of future participle:&#xD;&#xA;Searching for *-turior-* returns a number of forms of *maturior*, one [*promunturiorum*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/929/1/1/22433-22441@1), one [*Sturiorum*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/978/1/308/1269-1277@1), and one [*saturiorque*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1017/16/5/4997-5003@1).&#xD;&#xA;Searching for the neuter *-turius* gives names, *vulturius*, and a whole lot of *maturius*.&#xD;&#xA;The name *Iturius* looks like a compared participle, but is most likely completely unrelated.&#xD;&#xA;The searches for *-surior-*, *-surius*, *-xurior-*, and *-xurius* produce one candidate: [*luxurior*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1014/1/15/2174-2180@1).&#xD;&#xA;This could potentially be parsed as a compared future participle, but the verb *luxuriari* sounds more likely.&#xD;&#xA;- The past participle is too tedious to search, as there are a lot of adjectives ending in *-tus/-sus/-xus*.&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of candidates, like [*rectissime*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/22/1/3/8172-8178@1) and [*apertissimum*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/22/1/6/6113-6119@1).&#xD;&#xA;I actually think *apertissimum* makes a decent case, although one can always ask to what extent these participles have become normal adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;- A number of present participles have become adjectives, and perhaps one should not read compared forms of *diligens* as compared participles of *diligere*.&#xD;&#xA;I am less sure about [*confidentior*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/119/1/0/6807-6812@1).&#xD;&#xA;I searched for *-ntior-* and *-ntius*, and they both return a large number of hits.&#xD;&#xA;The issue is deciding which ones are &quot;pure participles&quot; and which ones &quot;adjectivized participles&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I had hard time deciding that; perhaps accusative objects or other things that usually go with a verb would be a good indicator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is way too much noise when searching for anything but future participles.&#xD;&#xA;I found a number of adjectivized participles, but also things that one can regard as genuinely compared participles.&#xD;&#xA;(The borderline seems arbitrary.)&#xD;&#xA;I feel that Cato's *locus apertissimus* makes a decent case in support of comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that comparison of participles is possible, but tends to be most common with participles that have solidified their status as an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be happy to see more robust answers if anyone has stronger evidence.&#xD;&#xA;Examples of participles compared with *magis* and *maxime* would also be quite interesting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9108" RevisionGUID="e8510b05-275a-4b0b-acbb-044c9c8c15a1" CreationDate="2019-02-18T00:50:33.297" UserId="2363" Comment="reference" Text="We can semantically distinguish an adjective or adverb from a participle. Adjectives and adverbs have no dynamic or temporal force. They cannot take an accusative or clause as their object. They merely describe what they modify. Only such descriptions can take degrees of comparison. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Participles that retain any of their dynamic force cannot be made comparative or superlative. In fact, once a participle became commonly used as a simple adjective or substantive, the Romans seem to have (almost?) completely stopped using even the positive form dynamically. Only vary rarely will you find *amans*, *sciens*, or *sapiens* with an accusative or clausal object, despite *amo* and *scire* being rather common verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This state of affairs seems to be implied in A&amp;G 494. Note that participles &quot;may be compared,&quot; but only when they've become &quot;complete adjectives.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 494. The present and perfect participles are sometimes used as attributives, nearly like adjectives. ... a. Participles often become&#xD;&#xA;&gt; complete adjectives, and may be compared, or used as nouns." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9108" RevisionGUID="df764a74-9f4f-4973-b35c-56e1c0bd4043" CreationDate="2019-02-18T01:16:17.217" UserId="2363" Comment="added 284 characters in body" Text="We can semantically distinguish an adjective or adverb from a participle. Adjectives and adverbs have no dynamic or temporal force. They cannot take an accusative or clause as their object. They merely describe what they modify. Only such descriptions can take degrees of comparison. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Participles that retain any of their dynamic force cannot be made comparative or superlative. In fact, once a participle became commonly used as a simple adjective or substantive, the Romans seem to have (almost?) completely stopped using even the positive form dynamically. Only vary rarely will you find *amans*, *sciens*, or *sapiens* with an accusative or clausal object, despite *amo* and *scire* being rather common verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This state of affairs seems to be implied in A&amp;G 494. Note that participles &quot;may be compared,&quot; but only when they've become &quot;complete adjectives.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 494. The present and perfect participles are sometimes used as attributives, nearly like adjectives. ... a. Participles often become&#xD;&#xA;&gt; complete adjectives, and may be compared, or used as nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gildersleeve and Lodge 88 puts it similarly: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;88. Participles used as adjectives are subject also to the same laws of comparison [as other adjectives -- Kingshorsey]: as, **amans**, *loving*, **amantior**, **amantissimus**; **apertus**, *open*, **apertior**, **apertissimus**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9108" RevisionGUID="a2bb26fd-5bd7-42cb-a391-e4f680f072ba" CreationDate="2019-02-18T03:19:36.010" UserId="2363" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="We can semantically distinguish an adjective or adverb from a participle. Adjectives and adverbs have no dynamic or temporal force. They cannot take an accusative or clause as their object. They merely describe what they modify. Only such descriptions can take degrees of comparison. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Participles that retain any of their dynamic force cannot be made comparative or superlative. In fact, once a participle became commonly used as a simple adjective or substantive, the Romans seem to have (almost?) completely stopped using even the positive form dynamically. Only vary rarely will you find *amans*, *sciens*, or *sapiens* with an accusative or clausal object, despite *amo* and *scire* being rather common verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This state of affairs seems to be implied in A&amp;G 494. Note that participles &quot;may be compared,&quot; but only when they've become &quot;complete adjectives.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 494. The present and perfect participles are sometimes used as attributives, nearly like adjectives. ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a. Participles often become&#xD;&#xA;&gt; complete adjectives, and may be compared, or used as nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gildersleeve and Lodge 88 puts it similarly: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;88. Participles used as adjectives are subject also to the same laws of comparison [as other adjectives -- Kingshorsey]: as, **amans**, *loving*, **amantior**, **amantissimus**; **apertus**, *open*, **apertior**, **apertissimus**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9130" RevisionGUID="6f769f2e-e411-47be-94c8-de325c8a7cc0" CreationDate="2019-02-18T06:10:17.697" UserId="9" Text="In English, one common generalization is that &quot;-ing&quot; words only take direct objects when they are verb forms, not when they are true adjectives or true nouns. (There are only a few possible exceptions, like &quot;unbecoming&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm not sure if there is any comparable restriction about the use of accusative direct objects in Latin. Is there any source that addresses this question and gives a &quot;yes&quot; or &quot;no&quot; answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that it is definitely possible for an *-ns* word to take an accusative direct object in at least some circumstances. *The Latin Library*'s PDF on &quot;[Participles](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/Participles.pdf)&quot; gives the example of &quot;We saw Hercules drinking the wine: Vidimus Herculem vinum bibentem.&quot; But it doesn't seem to be necessary to analyze &quot;bibentem&quot; as an adjective here. I asked a previous question about how to distinguish participles from adjectives which may be relevant to this issue: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6462/how-can-participles-inflected-forms-be-distinguished-from-deverbal-adjectives&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was partly prompted by an interesting observation in Kingshorsey's answer to https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6358/comparison-of-participles saying that the forms *amans, sciens,* and *sapiens* rarely take a direct object." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28208" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9130" RevisionGUID="6f769f2e-e411-47be-94c8-de325c8a7cc0" CreationDate="2019-02-18T06:10:17.697" UserId="9" Text="When are -ns participles used with accusative direct objects?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28209" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9130" RevisionGUID="6f769f2e-e411-47be-94c8-de325c8a7cc0" CreationDate="2019-02-18T06:10:17.697" UserId="9" Text="|syntax|adjective|participle|accusative|object|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6817" RevisionGUID="79b6f128-3b30-4621-946c-233be64f57aa" CreationDate="2019-02-18T06:15:44.197" UserId="9" Comment="added section on negation" Text="###Participles and adjectives might inflect differently in the ablative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I didn't find any tests of the kind I was looking for, I did come across some information about words that apparently inflect differently depending on whether they are used as adjectives or participles. Bennett's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=pQD1AQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;lpg=PA39&amp;dq=%22vetera%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22vetera%22&amp;f=false)* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Participles in *-ans* and *-ens* follow the declension of **ĭ**-stems. But they do not have **-ī** in the Ablative, except when employed as adjectives; when used as participles or as substantives, they have **-e**; as--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; **ā sapientī virō,** *by a wise man ;* but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt; **ā sapiente,** *by a philosopher*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt; **Tarquiniō rēgnante,** *under the reign of Tarquin*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;Adjectives of the Third Declension&quot;, §70 &quot;Adjectives of One Termination&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Negation with *non* for participles vs. negation with *in-* for adjectives&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following information doesn't help much to distinguish participles from adjectives when a word is not negated, but it seems relevant to the overall question of whether Latin distinguished verbal and adjectival participles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in Classical Latin the synchronic negative of e.g. *patiens* ‘enduring’&#xD;&#xA;is *non patiens*, whereas participles with a negative prefix are synchronically non-participial adjectives, e.g. *impatiens* ‘impatient’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30, &quot;[Negated Participles in Ṛgvedic Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European](http://users.ox.ac.uk/~shug1472/IIJ_054_01_1075-Lowe_print-1.pdf),&quot; by John J. Lowe, *Indo-Iranian Journal* 54 (2011) 19-38)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9130" RevisionGUID="0b9f0b7d-17cf-4e98-992f-a095a7fe5e48" CreationDate="2019-02-18T06:17:11.417" UserId="9" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="In English, one common generalization is that &quot;-ing&quot; words only take direct objects when they are verb forms, not when they are true adjectives or true nouns. (There are only a few possible exceptions, like &quot;unbecoming&quot;, which is an adjective that may take either a bare NP complement or an *of*-PP complement.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm not sure if there is any comparable restriction about the use of accusative direct objects in Latin. Is there any source that addresses this question and gives a &quot;yes&quot; or &quot;no&quot; answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that it is definitely possible for an *-ns* word to take an accusative direct object in at least some circumstances. *The Latin Library*'s PDF on &quot;[Participles](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/Participles.pdf)&quot; gives the example of &quot;We saw Hercules drinking the wine: Vidimus Herculem vinum bibentem.&quot; But it doesn't seem to be necessary to analyze &quot;bibentem&quot; as an adjective here; the English translation uses the verbal participle &quot;drinking&quot; the same way. I asked a previous question about how to distinguish participles from adjectives which may be relevant to this issue: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6462/how-can-participles-inflected-forms-be-distinguished-from-deverbal-adjectives&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was partly prompted by an interesting observation in [Kingshorsey's answer to *Comparison of participles*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9108/9) saying that the forms *amans, sciens,* and *sapiens* rarely take a direct object." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6817" RevisionGUID="2cf97ee1-93d9-46d6-abfd-c6fcca5f4cca" CreationDate="2019-02-18T06:24:12.650" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="Although I didn't find any tests of the kind I was looking for, I did find some information about possible morphological differences between verbal participles and departicipial adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*-ns* participles and adjectives might inflect differently in the ablative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=pQD1AQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;lpg=PA39&amp;dq=%22vetera%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22vetera%22&amp;f=false)* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Participles in *-ans* and *-ens* follow the declension of **ĭ**-stems. But they do not have **-ī** in the Ablative, except when employed as adjectives; when used as participles or as substantives, they have **-e**; as--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; **ā sapientī virō,** *by a wise man ;* but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt; **ā sapiente,** *by a philosopher*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt; **Tarquiniō rēgnante,** *under the reign of Tarquin*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;Adjectives of the Third Declension&quot;, §70 &quot;Adjectives of One Termination&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###negation with *non* for participles vs. negation with *in-* for adjectives&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following information doesn't help much to distinguish participles from adjectives when a word is not negated, but it seems relevant to the overall question of whether Latin distinguished verbal and adjectival participles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in Classical Latin the synchronic negative of e.g. *patiens* ‘enduring’&#xD;&#xA;is *non patiens*, whereas participles with a negative prefix are synchronically non-participial adjectives, e.g. *impatiens* ‘impatient’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30, &quot;[Negated Participles in Ṛgvedic Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European](http://users.ox.ac.uk/~shug1472/IIJ_054_01_1075-Lowe_print-1.pdf),&quot; by John J. Lowe, *Indo-Iranian Journal* 54 (2011) 19-38)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9131" RevisionGUID="7e603c36-5a30-4dd8-9168-ade6128e0505" CreationDate="2019-02-18T08:51:31.120" UserId="3409" Text="Where does the saying &quot;Quod licet Jovis not lice bovis&quot; come from? My Google research was not satisfactory. Any book or article you know of that can guide me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28214" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9131" RevisionGUID="7e603c36-5a30-4dd8-9168-ade6128e0505" CreationDate="2019-02-18T08:51:31.120" UserId="3409" Text="Where does the saying &quot;Quod licet Jovis not lice bovis&quot; come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28215" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9131" RevisionGUID="7e603c36-5a30-4dd8-9168-ade6128e0505" CreationDate="2019-02-18T08:51:31.120" UserId="3409" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9103" RevisionGUID="a153e291-6f1b-4f1e-8c4b-715c14cd4d80" CreationDate="2019-02-18T09:25:56.653" UserId="79" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="I used corpus searches to constrain the possibility of participle comparison.&#xD;&#xA;Here are the observations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Superlative of future participle:&#xD;&#xA;The only words with [*-turissim-*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=turissim) are forms of *maturissimus*.&#xD;&#xA;No hits with *-surissim-* or *-xurissim-*.&#xD;&#xA;- Comparative of future participle:&#xD;&#xA;Searching for *-turior-* returns a number of forms of *maturior*, one [*promunturiorum*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/929/1/1/22433-22441@1), one [*Sturiorum*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/978/1/308/1269-1277@1), and one [*saturiorque*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1017/16/5/4997-5003@1).&#xD;&#xA;Searching for the neuter *-turius* gives names, *vulturius*, and a whole lot of *maturius*.&#xD;&#xA;The name *Iturius* looks like a compared participle, but is most likely completely unrelated.&#xD;&#xA;The searches for *-surior-*, *-surius*, *-xurior-*, and *-xurius* produce one candidate: [*luxurior*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1014/1/15/2174-2180@1).&#xD;&#xA;This could potentially be parsed as a compared future participle, but the verb *luxuriari* sounds more likely.&#xD;&#xA;- The past participle is too tedious to search, as there are a lot of adjectives ending in *-tus/-sus/-xus*.&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of candidates, like [*rectissime*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/22/1/3/8172-8178@1) and [*apertissimum*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/22/1/6/6113-6119@1).&#xD;&#xA;I actually think *apertissimum* makes a decent case, although one can always ask to what extent these participles have become normal adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;- A number of present participles have become adjectives, and perhaps one should not read compared forms of *diligens* as compared participles of *diligere*.&#xD;&#xA;I am less sure about [*confidentior*](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/119/1/0/6807-6812@1).&#xD;&#xA;I searched for *-ntior-* and *-ntius*, and they both return a large number of hits.&#xD;&#xA;The issue is deciding which ones are &quot;pure participles&quot; and which ones &quot;adjectivized participles&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I had hard time deciding that; perhaps accusative objects or other things that usually go with a verb would be a good indicator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is way too much noise when searching for anything but future participles.&#xD;&#xA;I found a number of adjectivized participles, but also things that one can regard as genuinely compared participles.&#xD;&#xA;(The borderline seems arbitrary.)&#xD;&#xA;I feel that Cato's *locus apertissimus* makes a decent case in support of comparison.&#xD;&#xA;However, my two best hits *apertissimus* and *confidentior* do not have anything to identify them clearly enough as participles as opposed to adjectives &amp;mdash; which is not unusual at all for participles in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that comparison of participles is possible, but tends to be most common with participles that have solidified their status as an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be happy to see more robust answers if anyone has stronger evidence.&#xD;&#xA;Examples of participles compared with *magis* and *maxime* would also be quite interesting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2161" RevisionGUID="6ebab755-9f1f-4730-b22e-d9f804ed96c0" CreationDate="2019-02-18T09:32:38.963" UserId="648" Comment="broken image fixed (click 'rendered output' to see the difference); for more info, see https://gist.github.com/Glorfindel83/9d954d34385d2ac2597bbe864466259f" Text="We know that meter existed because Aristotle in his *Poetics* flatly tells us so. Moreover, we have quite a bit of testimony from ancient grammarians like Quintilian and Victorinus, whose work [on meters](http://kaali.linguist.jussieu.fr/CGL/text.jsp?topic=de%20syllabis%20(etiam%20metrica%20ratione)&amp;ref=90,12-95,28%20M) is most informative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also have poets' own words about their meters, such as Catullus mentioning his *hendecasyllabi* or Ovid writing aobut how Cupid stole a beat from epic poetry. The testimony here though is huge and varied, but it aligns with what the later grammarians were saying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, many (most?) manuscripts of poetry preserved line division. You can see how clear that is from this manuscript of the *Iliad* before. The regular line division allowed scholars to note the patterns of long and shorts and match it to descriptions of ancient testimony. From there we just &quot;worked it out,&quot; for which there are still minor disputes today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Venetus A Iliad I][1]][1]  &#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(source: [historyofinformation.com](http://historyofinformation.com/images/venetus_a_folio_12r.jpg))&lt;/sub&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cmoZp.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28218" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2161" RevisionGUID="6ebab755-9f1f-4730-b22e-d9f804ed96c0" CreationDate="2019-02-18T09:32:38.963" Comment="Proposed by 648 approved by 79 edit id of 299" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9131" RevisionGUID="3eff2d4e-d88a-46be-a2de-0409b7524669" CreationDate="2019-02-18T09:34:22.667" UserId="79" Comment="Fixed the spelling of the phrase." Text="Where does the saying &quot;Quod licet Jovi not licet bovi&quot; come from? My Google research was not satisfactory. Any book or article you know of that can guide me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28220" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9131" RevisionGUID="3eff2d4e-d88a-46be-a2de-0409b7524669" CreationDate="2019-02-18T09:34:22.667" UserId="79" Comment="Fixed the spelling of the phrase." Text="Where does the saying &quot;Quod licet Jovii not licet bovi&quot; come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28221" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9131" RevisionGUID="3eff2d4e-d88a-46be-a2de-0409b7524669" CreationDate="2019-02-18T09:34:22.667" UserId="79" Comment="Fixed the spelling of the phrase." Text="|idiom|passage-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9132" RevisionGUID="a2fd8e47-8c7e-4011-a0fa-b0b26a8bfc3a" CreationDate="2019-02-18T09:38:08.393" UserId="79" Text="There is a [Wikipedia article on that phrase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quod_licet_Iovi,_non_licet_bovi).&#xD;&#xA;If it is to be trusted, the first known occurrence is in Aus dem Leben eines Taugenichts (1826) by Joseph Freiherr von Eichendorff.&#xD;&#xA;Terence had a similar phrase, but not quite the same: *Aliis si licet, tibi non licet*.&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has no citations beside the play for the origin of this phrase, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9131" RevisionGUID="f122390b-cea0-4ab1-bdee-fd8e2022e69b" CreationDate="2019-02-18T12:42:45.647" UserId="9" Comment="fixed spelling" Text="Where does the saying &quot;Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi&quot; come from? My Google research was not satisfactory. Any book or article you know of that can guide me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28224" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9131" RevisionGUID="f122390b-cea0-4ab1-bdee-fd8e2022e69b" CreationDate="2019-02-18T12:42:45.647" UserId="9" Comment="fixed spelling" Text="Where does the saying &quot;Quod licet Jovi not licet bovi&quot; come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9133" RevisionGUID="d593aacb-1f6b-4281-ac5f-7c50c2410aa7" CreationDate="2019-02-18T13:52:45.757" UserId="1459" Text="I was struck by some verses in Chapter 21 of _3 Regnum_, Vulgata. This tells the story of Naboth, an Israeli who owned a vineyard which was adjacent to the palace of the Israeli King, Achab. Naboth didn't want to sell the land to Achab. In return, the wife of Achab wrote letters to the leaders of Israel, in order to conspire against Naboth. Thus, [verses 9 and 10](http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=11&amp;ch=21&amp;l=9-#x) say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Litterarum autem haec erat sententia : Praedicate jejunium, et sedere facite Naboth inter primos populi, et submittite duos viros filios Belial contra eum, et falsum testimonium dicant : **Benedixit Deum et regem** : et educite eum, et lapidate, sicque moriatur. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it happened as the letters suggested, as the leaders of Israel &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;praedicaverunt jejunium, et sedere fecerunt Naboth inter primos populi.&#xD;&#xA;Et adductis duobus viris filiis diaboli, fecerunt eos sedere contra eum : at illi, scilicet ut viri diabolici, dixerunt contra eum testimonium coram multitudine : **Benedixit Naboth Deum et regem** : quam ob rem eduxerunt eum extra civitatem, et lapidibus interfecerunt. [verses 12 and 13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English translation gives &quot;blasphemed&quot; for _benedixit_, as it is expected, given the context of the story. However, this is the first time I see such a counterintuitive meaning of _benedicere_. [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=benedico) does not attest such meaning. Did it ever had this meaning? Why would Jerome use such a word, which pretty much everywhere else (?) is used to mean &quot;to bless&quot;? Am I missing something here? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28226" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9133" RevisionGUID="d593aacb-1f6b-4281-ac5f-7c50c2410aa7" CreationDate="2019-02-18T13:52:45.757" UserId="1459" Text="Did &quot;benedicere&quot; ever mean &quot;to blaspheme&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28227" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9133" RevisionGUID="d593aacb-1f6b-4281-ac5f-7c50c2410aa7" CreationDate="2019-02-18T13:52:45.757" UserId="1459" Text="|meaning|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9133" RevisionGUID="4306b8d5-37f0-4ea7-934e-b01eae34e588" CreationDate="2019-02-18T14:58:46.650" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I was struck by some verses in Chapter 21 of _3 Regum_, Vulgata. This tells the story of Naboth, an Israeli who owned a vineyard which was adjacent to the palace of the Israeli King, Achab. Naboth didn't want to sell the land to Achab. In return, the wife of Achab wrote letters to the leaders of Israel, in order to conspire against Naboth. Thus, [verses 9 and 10](http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=11&amp;ch=21&amp;l=9-#x) say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Litterarum autem haec erat sententia : Praedicate jejunium, et sedere facite Naboth inter primos populi, et submittite duos viros filios Belial contra eum, et falsum testimonium dicant : **Benedixit Deum et regem** : et educite eum, et lapidate, sicque moriatur. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it happened as the letters suggested, as the leaders of Israel &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;praedicaverunt jejunium, et sedere fecerunt Naboth inter primos populi.&#xD;&#xA;Et adductis duobus viris filiis diaboli, fecerunt eos sedere contra eum : at illi, scilicet ut viri diabolici, dixerunt contra eum testimonium coram multitudine : **Benedixit Naboth Deum et regem** : quam ob rem eduxerunt eum extra civitatem, et lapidibus interfecerunt. [verses 12 and 13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English translation gives &quot;blasphemed&quot; for _benedixit_, as it is expected, given the context of the story. However, this is the first time I see such a counterintuitive meaning of _benedicere_. [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=benedico) does not attest such meaning. Did it ever had this meaning? Why would Jerome use such a word, which pretty much everywhere else (?) is used to mean &quot;to bless&quot;? Am I missing something here? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6817" RevisionGUID="ea108670-9296-4ec8-afb5-ea648ca14a47" CreationDate="2019-02-18T16:17:18.837" UserId="9" Comment="added 747 characters in body" Text="Although I didn't find any tests of the kind I was looking for, I did find some information about possible morphological differences between verbal participles and departicipial adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*-ns* participles and adjectives might inflect differently in the ablative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=pQD1AQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;lpg=PA39&amp;dq=%22vetera%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22vetera%22&amp;f=false)* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Participles in *-ans* and *-ens* follow the declension of **ĭ**-stems. But they do not have **-ī** in the Ablative, except when employed as adjectives; when used as participles or as substantives, they have **-e**; as--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; **ā sapientī virō,** *by a wise man ;* but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt; **ā sapiente,** *by a philosopher*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt; **Tarquiniō rēgnante,** *under the reign of Tarquin*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;Adjectives of the Third Declension&quot;, §70 &quot;Adjectives of One Termination&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this may be a simplification or misrepresentation of the usage of these two forms. In &quot;[Declension of the Latin present participle in connection with its syntactico-semantic use](https://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle/j$002fjoll.2018.17.issue-1$002fjoll-2018-0001$002fjoll-2018-0001.xml)&quot; (2018), Hendrik Christiaan Walvoort says &quot;I conclude that a twofold declension paradigm of the ppa according to syntactico-semantic use is only mentioned in the sixth/seventh century by the anonymous author of the Ars Ambrosiana, but not by the ancient and the other medieval grammarians&quot; (§3). Even if it was a real rule, there are apparently many exceptions, so it wouldn't be a clear way to distinguish verbal participles from adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###negation with *non* for participles vs. negation with *in-* for adjectives&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following information doesn't help much to distinguish participles from adjectives when a word is not negated, but it seems relevant to the overall question of whether Latin distinguished verbal and adjectival participles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in Classical Latin the synchronic negative of e.g. *patiens* ‘enduring’&#xD;&#xA;is *non patiens*, whereas participles with a negative prefix are synchronically non-participial adjectives, e.g. *impatiens* ‘impatient’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30, &quot;[Negated Participles in Ṛgvedic Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European](http://users.ox.ac.uk/~shug1472/IIJ_054_01_1075-Lowe_print-1.pdf),&quot; by John J. Lowe, *Indo-Iranian Journal* 54 (2011) 19-38)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9134" RevisionGUID="5aa81916-d74e-478a-916a-5e131081b99e" CreationDate="2019-02-18T16:29:18.330" UserId="9" Text="It seems to be difficult to distinguish participles from nouns/adjectives. This is a problem, because it seems clear that some adjectives with the form of participles have comparative forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that the use of the comparative form implies that a participle has been converted to an adjective does seem to be out there: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In order to distinguish a noun from a participle the criterion of comparison can be used: a noun can have a comparative (amantior), a participle cannot (*docentior).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;[Declension of the Latin present participle in connection with its syntactico-semantic use](https://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle/j$002fjoll.2018.17.issue-1$002fjoll-2018-0001$002fjoll-2018-0001.xml)&quot;, Hendrik Christiaan Walvoort, 2018, §3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm unsure about the reliability of this criterion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28231" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="6358" RevisionGUID="0d05bd20-f5bb-4829-a381-31604a96b20b" CreationDate="2019-02-18T16:38:46.670" UserId="9" Comment="101" />
  <row Id="28232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9135" RevisionGUID="84116c59-4121-4257-b134-323daf5699db" CreationDate="2019-02-18T16:42:56.087" UserId="9" Text="I just found a few more mentioned in §3 of (=&quot;[Declension of the Latin present participle in connection with its syntactico-semantic use](https://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle/j$002fjoll.2018.17.issue-1$002fjoll-2018-0001$002fjoll-2018-0001.xml)&quot; (2018), by Hendrik Christiaan Walvoort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walvoort says that Priscianus gives the next two as examples of words that can take *-i* in the ablative singular but that can form plurals in *-a* instead of in *-ia*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *ludicra,* the neuter plural form of *[ludicer](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=ludicer).* Apparently, *o/a*-stem declension exists as an alternative for this word (*ludicrus* etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[aplustra](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daplustre),* the plural of *aplustre*. *Aplustria* is also supposed to exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently present participles can take *-a* instead of *-ia* in rare contexts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Kühner and Holzweissig [...] consider the ending *-a* as a striking singularity instead of *-ia* in such phrases as *silenta loca* and *pestilenta loca.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9136" RevisionGUID="6d05dcc5-dab5-40a7-965d-9ebdc4b11ff5" CreationDate="2019-02-18T17:38:13.473" UserId="324" Text="Benedixit is a perfectly literal translation of ηὐλόγησεν and of בֵּרַכְתָּ with the difference only that the Latin and the Greek use 3rd sing. where the Hebrew uses 2nd sing. in oratio obliqua. Apparently in Hebrew “bless” can be used as a euphemism for “curse”. In Greek and Latin this happens only in translations from Hebrew." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9132" RevisionGUID="fe493473-c67e-424a-9712-d4b2e2669a73" CreationDate="2019-02-18T19:22:54.627" UserId="79" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="There is a [Wikipedia article on that phrase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quod_licet_Iovi,_non_licet_bovi).&#xD;&#xA;If it is to be trusted, the first known occurrence is in Aus dem Leben eines Taugenichts (1826) by Joseph Freiherr von Eichendorff.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase can indeed be found [in the novel](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/35312/35312-h/35312-h.htm); see chapter 9 or search for the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terence had a similar phrase, but not quite the same: *Aliis si licet, tibi non licet*.&#xD;&#xA;Cicero also writes: *aliud bovi, aliud homini*.&#xD;&#xA;I think it is fair to say that the thought is ancient and known to the Romans, but the exact wording seems to be much more recent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6046" RevisionGUID="f39119d1-ec37-45de-8f8c-ac81661548ba" CreationDate="2019-02-18T19:36:42.010" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="I'm a novice interested in the history of reading comprehension, and I'm trying to piece together an English translation of any or all of Erasmus's two-page letter &quot;Qui sit modus repetendae lectionis&quot; &amp;mdash; a nice little guide to learning how to read from the early 1500s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The piece is included (in the original Latin) in *De conscribendis epistolis*; it appears with some very minimal English translation (or paraphrase; I can't tell) on pages 223-226 of William Harrison Woodward's 1904 [study][1] *Desiderius Erasmus concerning the aim and method of education*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my attempt at the first paragraph. I have basically no Latin; using Wiktionary, my extremely naive pass at the first section&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quibusdam prima ac unica fere cura est statim ad verbum  ediscere;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod equidem non probo, est enim **tum** magni laboris, **tum** fructus prope&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nullius. Quorsum enim attinet, psittaci more, verba non intellecta&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reddere? Commodiorem igitur viam accipe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To some people the first and generally only concern is to begin&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immediately by memorizing the words; for my part, I don't approve of this, because it requires a great deal of work and yields basically no fruit. Why indeed stick to the manner of a parrot, yielding no comprehension of the words? It is more suitable to learn of the right way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what &quot;tum&quot; is doing, and I'm not sure I've got the grammatical sense of the last two sentences right. I'm certain there's a more idiomatic translation of the final sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where have I made straight-up errors, and where have I made tolerable but sensible departures from the grammar?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/stream/desideriuserasmu00woodiala#page/222/mode/2up/search/mastering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28236" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6046" RevisionGUID="f39119d1-ec37-45de-8f8c-ac81661548ba" CreationDate="2019-02-18T19:36:42.010" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|translation-check|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9135" RevisionGUID="1296cc39-f307-450a-9035-6eee411d41db" CreationDate="2019-02-18T20:48:56.160" UserId="9" Comment="added 1848 characters in body" Text="The clearest examples of third-declension adjectives that decline as consonant stems in the neuter nominative/accusative plural seem to be the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the class of comparative-declined adjectives, such as neuter plural nominative/accusative adjectives ending in *-iōra* (including *maiōra/majōra*) and *minōra*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *vetera*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *plūra* (despite genitive *plurium*). It seems [*pluria* was maybe a very uncommon variant form, but the typical form was *plura*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5876/plura-or-pluria). The derived word *complura/compluria* apparently exists in both forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *ūbera.* Of course, this exists as a plural substantive, but according to Allen and Greenough §119, it also exists as a neuter plural adjective (although the ablative singular form of this adjective is usually *ūberī*). [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uber#Adjective_2) gives &quot;ūberia&quot;, but that form doesn't show up anywhere in the PHI Latin Texts corpus, so I'm guessing Wiktionary is just showing an incorrect declension table for this  word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Less clear examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found an old book (&quot;[Some improvements to the art of teaching...](https://books.google.com/books?id=Ms1lAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA13&amp;lpg=PA13&amp;dq=%22complura%22+%22plura%22+%22vetera%22+%22ubera%22+%22minora%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=UbW9Jh5IIg&amp;sig=aFVFEYoIZy338kgS6YSe9DJtcgY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiaorWdqsDbAhVLr1QKHcJxBpMQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22complura%22%20%22plura%22%20%22vetera%22%20%22ubera%22%20%22minora%22&amp;f=false),&quot; Fifth Edition, by William Walker, 1693) that also mentions compound adjectives ending in *-corpora* or *-colōra,* like *bicolōra,* but it seems to say that these actually originated as o-stem forms (corresponding to masc. singular nominative *-corporus, -colōrus*), not as consonant-stem forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a few more mentioned in §3 of &quot;[Declension of the Latin present participle in connection with its syntactico-semantic use](https://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle/j$002fjoll.2018.17.issue-1$002fjoll-2018-0001$002fjoll-2018-0001.xml)&quot; (2018), by Hendrik Christiaan Walvoort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walvoort says that in a discussion of words that can take *-i* in the ablative singular but that have plurals forms in *-a,* Priscian mentions *ludicra,* which is supposed to go with the ablative form *ludicri.* However, it seems that Priscian is the main evidence for this as a third-declension adjective; dictionary entries record instead a first/second declension adjective *ludicer* or *ludicrus.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walvoort also provides a citation indicating that present participles had neuter plural forms in *-a* instead of in *-ia* in rare contexts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Kühner and Holzweissig [...] consider the ending *-a* as a striking singularity instead of *-ia* in such phrases as *silenta loca* and *pestilenta loca.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6657" RevisionGUID="2e6f2b77-38dd-4390-baeb-e29ddf205f63" CreationDate="2019-02-18T20:48:59.500" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 1692 characters in body" Text="From what I have read, most third-declension Latin adjectives other than comparatives take the i-stem endings *-ī,* *ium* and *-ia* in the ablative singular, genitive plural and neuter nominative/accusative plural, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Allen and Greenough &amp;sect;114-119](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-classification-and-paradigms#fn2) discuss the general patterns, and [Allen and Greenough &amp;sect;121](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-case-forms-consonant-stems) discusses *-e* vs. *-ī* in the ablative singular,  *-ium* vs. *-um* in the genitive plural, and a few other variations like *-īs* vs. *-ēs* in the masculine/feminine accusative plural and feminine nominative singular forms in *-a,* like *clienta* and *hospita.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adjectives that take *-a* in the neuter plural nominative/accusative appear to be even less common than adjectives that take *-um* or *-e,* though. It seems that many third-declension adjectives of one ending lack attested neuter plural forms at all (discussed to some extent in [Allen and Greenough §122](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/irregularities-and-special-uses-adjectives)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which third-declension adjectives are attested with plurals in *-a*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28239" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="9135" RevisionGUID="1296cc39-f307-450a-9035-6eee411d41db" CreationDate="2019-02-18T20:48:56.160" UserId="9" Comment="added 1848 characters in body" />
  <row Id="28241" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6657" RevisionGUID="effe13bc-6500-4522-84a5-13844dd89994" CreationDate="2019-02-18T21:03:43.613" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="|adjective|morphology|declension|third-declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28242" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="7622" RevisionGUID="b6ee920e-edde-4e8f-8067-23e85acaaa53" CreationDate="2019-02-18T21:25:48.533" UserId="9" Comment="102" />
  <row Id="28243" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4153" RevisionGUID="e6f49611-0265-451d-9488-8a72a7d569cf" CreationDate="2019-02-18T21:30:42.283" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|declension|third-declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9137" RevisionGUID="4b0b39f2-1013-43ac-a961-ae816c2a7b69" CreationDate="2019-02-19T00:39:45.997" UserId="2363" Text="I think the confusion, here and on the previous question regarding degrees of comparison, stems from conflating syntactical and semantic approaches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Syntax focuses on structural relationships. In syntax, something is called adjectival if it modifies a noun. That modification can be either attributively (within the noun phrase) or predicatively (in a different phrase linked by a verbal). So, speaking syntactically, lots of things can function adjectivally: single words, prepositional phrases, relative clauses, participles, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semantics focuses on meaning. Here we are still concerned with modifying nouns, but we are particularly concerned with distinguishing qualitatively among different types of qualification. What sorts of assertions do different modifiers imply? Different taxonomies are possible, but the one most relevant is classification by temporal or dynamic force. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One class of modifiers ascribes some quality or attribute to a noun. This quality is asserted generally, in a way that lacks temporal force. For example, if we were to state the assertion implicit in &quot;the tall man&quot; (vir longus) in the form of a complete sentence, we could do so only with a stative verb: &quot;The man is tall&quot; (vir longus est). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But we can do some other things with a modifier of this sort. For one thing, qualities usually have the property of scale, meaning that the attribution can be qualified in terms of degree. We can say &quot;the very tall man&quot; (vir praelongus / longissimus), or &quot;the not very tall at all man&quot; (vir haud longus). Precisely because the assertion can be scaled, it can also be compared: &quot;a man taller than Mark&quot; (vir Marco longior). This kind of modifier I would call an adjective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, let's look another type of modifier: &quot;a running soldier&quot; (miles currens). What's different here? The modifier is not ascribing to the noun a quality but rather positing that the noun is engaged in a certain activity at a certain time. When we state the implied assertion as a sentence, we get a non-stative verb: &quot;A soldier is (currently*) running&quot; (miles [nunc*] currit). Actions, unlike qualities, do not possess the property of scale, as we cannot say &quot;a very running soldier&quot; (miles currentissimus), and consequently we cannot compare these assertions -- &quot;a more running soldier&quot; or &quot;a runningier soldier&quot; (miles currentior) without adding an adverb specifying with respect to what the comparison is being made, e.g., : &quot;a soldier running more often than Mark runs&quot; (miles Marco crebrius currens). This is a participle-qua-verbal being used, syntactically speaking, adjectivally. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If transitive, this kind of modifier can take a direct object. The assertion implied in &quot;The centurion drinking wine&quot; (centurio vinum bibens) is &quot;The centurion is (currently) drinking wine&quot; (centurio vinum [nunc] bibit). In both English and Latin, this kind of adjectival use is equivalent to a relative clause: &quot;The centurion who is (currently) drinking wine&quot; (centurio qui vinum [nunc] bibit). And again, the action doesn't possess scale: not &quot;the centurion very drinking wine&quot; (centurio vinum bibentissimus) but &quot;the centurion drinking a lot of wine&quot; (centurio multum vinum bibens). And it doesn't compare: not &quot;the centurion more drinking wine than Mark&quot; (centurio Marco vinum bibentior) but &quot;the centurion drinking more wine than Mark&quot; (centurio bibens plus vini quam Marcus). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Note: The same situation holds for participles functioning as the heads of adverbial clauses, which is probably the majority of participles, at least in the nominative.] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, let's look at one final category, using the example &quot;a loving wife&quot; (uxor amans). In both English and Latin, it's clear that the modifier is derived from a verb. The words have the morphology of participles. The semantic question remains, what is being asserted about the noun? In English, it's clear even apart from other context that &quot;loving&quot; is attributing a quality or perhaps a kind of habitual activity; it is not positing an action at a definite time. It can be rephrased &quot;a wife who behaves in a generally loving way,&quot; but not &quot;a wife who is currently engaged in loving.&quot; Like other qualities, it scales: &quot;a very loving wife.&quot; It compares: &quot;a wife more loving than Mark's&quot;). This is a participle-qua-adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in Latin, we would need more context to determine whether the participle is attributing a quality (participle-qua-adjective) or positing an action (participle-qua-verbal). But if it's acting as a mere adjective, it will behave like other adjectives. It will scale (amantissima) and compare (amantior quam Marci uxor). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can even be used substantively, becoming a noun. In such cases, it can take an oblique object: amantes patriae = nation-lovers. The important thing to note here is that such a usage still ascribes a general quality, it doesn't posit an activity with definite temporal force: &quot;people who love the nation&quot;, not &quot;people who are right now loving the nation.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I hope that clears things up. There are (for the purposes of this discussion) two kinds of modifiers, those that attribute qualities and those that posit actions.  Qualities possess scale, so they can take comparison; actions possess dynamic, temporal force, so they can take objects. Participles can perform either task, so in the positive degree rely on context for interpretation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9137" RevisionGUID="384bd228-a444-43f5-9bad-03d3d6776236" CreationDate="2019-02-19T00:48:26.190" UserId="2363" Comment="explanation" Text="I think the confusion, here and on the previous question regarding degrees of comparison, stems from conflating syntactical and semantic approaches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Syntax focuses on structural relationships. In syntax, something is called adjectival if it modifies a noun. That modification can be either attributively (within the noun phrase) or predicatively (in a different phrase linked by a verbal). So, speaking syntactically, lots of things can function adjectivally: single words, prepositional phrases, relative clauses, participles, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semantics focuses on meaning. Here we are still concerned with modifying nouns, but we are particularly concerned with distinguishing qualitatively among different types of qualification. What sorts of assertions do different modifiers imply? Different taxonomies are possible, but the one most relevant is classification by temporal or dynamic force. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One class of modifiers ascribes some quality or attribute to a noun. This quality is asserted generally, in a way that lacks temporal force. For example, if we were to state the assertion implicit in &quot;the tall man&quot; (vir longus) in the form of a complete sentence, we could do so only with a stative verb: &quot;The man is tall&quot; (vir longus est). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But we can do some other things with a modifier of this sort. For one thing, qualities usually have the property of scale, meaning that the attribution can be qualified in terms of degree. We can say &quot;the very tall man&quot; (vir praelongus / longissimus), or &quot;the not very tall at all man&quot; (vir haud longus). Precisely because the assertion can be scaled, it can also be compared: &quot;a man taller than Mark&quot; (vir Marco longior). This kind of modifier I would call an adjective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, let's look another type of modifier: &quot;a running soldier&quot; (miles currens). What's different here? The modifier is not ascribing to the noun a quality but rather positing that the noun is engaged in a certain activity at a certain time. When we state the implied assertion as a sentence, we get a non-stative verb: &quot;A soldier is (currently*) running&quot; (miles [nunc*] currit). Actions, unlike qualities, do not possess the property of scale, as we cannot say &quot;a very running soldier&quot; (miles currentissimus), and consequently we cannot compare these assertions -- &quot;a more running soldier&quot; or &quot;a runningier soldier&quot; (miles currentior) without adding an adverb specifying with respect to what the comparison is being made, e.g., : &quot;a soldier running more often than Mark runs&quot; (miles Marco crebrius currens). This is a participle-qua-verbal being used, syntactically speaking, adjectivally. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If transitive, this kind of modifier can take a direct object. The assertion implied in &quot;The centurion drinking wine&quot; (centurio vinum bibens) is &quot;The centurion is (currently) drinking wine&quot; (centurio vinum [nunc] bibit). In both English and Latin, this kind of adjectival use is equivalent to a relative clause: &quot;The centurion who is (currently) drinking wine&quot; (centurio qui vinum [nunc] bibit). And again, the action doesn't possess scale: not &quot;the centurion very drinking wine&quot; (centurio vinum bibentissimus) but &quot;the centurion drinking a lot of wine&quot; (centurio multum vinum bibens). And it doesn't compare: not &quot;the centurion more drinking wine than Mark&quot; (centurio Marco vinum bibentior) but &quot;the centurion drinking more wine than Mark&quot; (centurio bibens plus vini quam Marcus). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Note: The same situation holds for participles functioning as the heads of adverbial clauses, which is probably the majority of participles, at least in the nominative.] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, let's look at one final category, using the example &quot;a loving wife&quot; (uxor amans). In both English and Latin, it's clear that the modifier is derived from a verb. The words have the morphology of participles. The semantic question remains, what is being asserted about the noun? In English, it's clear even apart from other context that &quot;loving&quot; is attributing a quality or perhaps a kind of habitual activity; it is not positing an action at a definite time. It can be rephrased &quot;a wife who behaves in a generally loving way,&quot; but not &quot;a wife who is currently engaged in loving.&quot; Like other qualities, it scales: &quot;a very loving wife.&quot; It compares: &quot;a wife more loving than Mark's&quot;). This is a participle-qua-adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in Latin, we would need more context to determine whether the participle is attributing a quality (participle-qua-adjective) or positing an action (participle-qua-verbal). But if it's acting as a mere adjective, it will behave like other adjectives. It will scale (amantissima) and compare (amantior quam Marci uxor). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can even be used substantively, becoming a noun. In such cases, it can take an oblique object: amantes patriae = nation-lovers. The important thing to note here is that such a usage still ascribes a general quality, it doesn't posit an activity with definite temporal force: &quot;people who love the nation&quot;, not &quot;people who are right now loving the nation.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I hope that clears things up. There are (for the purposes of this discussion) two kinds of modifiers, those that attribute qualities and those that posit actions.  Qualities possess scale, so they can take comparison; actions possess dynamic, temporal force, so they can take objects. Participles can perform either task, so in the positive degree rely on context for interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* When I use &quot;currently&quot; (nunc) to express temporal force, the time should really be understood relatively in terms of the reference frame, not absolutely. E.g., Caesar viderat militem currentem = &quot;Caesar had seen a running man&quot; = &quot;Caesar had seen a man who was running at the time Caesar saw him&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28246" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9130" RevisionGUID="03af3386-44da-44e1-b039-8429aa241335" CreationDate="2019-02-19T00:53:00.767" UserId="9" Comment="edited title" Text="When are -ns words used with accusative direct objects?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9138" RevisionGUID="d73577cb-f32b-4f47-b613-7825dd8d87cc" CreationDate="2019-02-19T01:05:14.337" UserId="9" Text="As in English, the presence of a direct object seems to commonly be treated as evidence that a *-ns* word is a verbal participle rather than a departicipial adjective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[The use of the present participle in Livy](https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/19095/johnson_1916_3424325.pdf;sequence=1)&quot;, by Alice E. Johnson (1915) gives this as a criterion (pp. 4-5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Johnson ultimately defines the distinction between participle and adjective in terms of semantics, as in Kingshorsey's answer: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The distinction between adjective and participle employed in the present paper may be stated as follows: the participle denotes action or state which temporarily and under particular circumstances pertains to the substantive; the participle is therefore temporary: the adjective describes the substantive by designating a characteristic action a quality, a condition; the adjective is therefore permanent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One somewhat complicated phenomenon that Johnson mentions is that &quot;Participles of verbs which express action pertaining to the substantive only temporarily and which are therefore never used as adjectives, are sometimes used substantively&quot; (p. 24), and &quot;The substantive participle which has not developed from the adjective sometimes retains its verbal force to such an extent that it governs a direct object in the Accusative&quot; (p. 30)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9138" RevisionGUID="07d2fe2a-db39-4271-9fb7-8b93e18e6fb8" CreationDate="2019-02-19T08:52:20.553" UserId="9" Comment="added 524 characters in body" Text="As in English, the presence of a direct object seems to commonly be treated as evidence that a *-ns* word is a verbal participle rather than a departicipial adjective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[The use of the present participle in Livy](https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/19095/johnson_1916_3424325.pdf;sequence=1)&quot;, by Alice E. Johnson (1915) gives this as a criterion (pp. 4-5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Johnson ultimately defines the distinction between participle and adjective in terms of semantics, as in Kingshorsey's answer: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The distinction between adjective and participle employed in the present paper may be stated as follows: the participle denotes action or state which temporarily and under particular circumstances pertains to the substantive; the participle is therefore temporary: the adjective describes the substantive by designating a characteristic action a quality, a condition; the adjective is therefore permanent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Participles apparently are sometimes used as substantives without losing all of their verbal properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One somewhat complicated phenomenon that Johnson mentions is that &quot;Participles of verbs which express action pertaining to the substantive only temporarily and which are therefore never used as adjectives, are sometimes used substantively&quot; (p. 24), and &quot;The substantive participle which has not developed from the adjective sometimes retains its verbal force to such an extent that it governs a direct object in the Accusative&quot; (p. 30).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some of the examples (bolding in place of original underlines):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; adiciendae multi tudinis cause vetere consilio **condentium&#xD;&#xA;urbes** --- locum --- asylum aperit. I,8,5.&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;In accordance with the ancient plan of the founders of cities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (p. 30)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; iam caput fieri **libertatem repetentium** --- III,38,10.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; A head was now formed of those demanding back their liberty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (p. 31) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6817" RevisionGUID="88760f16-2568-4e60-a2a8-105bc0e16247" CreationDate="2019-02-19T09:01:15.373" UserId="9" Comment="added link to a more recent question I asked about direct objects" Text="Since posting this question, I have found some information, although I'm not as sure of it as I would like to be. I use some hedging in this answer, but this is only meant to indicate my personal lack of certainty; I'm not saying that the matter is objectively uncertain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Possible syntactic differences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*-ns* words may only take accusative direct objects when they are participles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in Latin, as in English, a verbal active participle can take a direct object in the accusative case, but a departicipial adjective typically can't. I asked a separate question about this topic: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9130/when-are-ns-words-used-with-accusative-direct-objects&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Adjectives, but not participles, can take comparative morphology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joonas Ilmavirta asked a question about &#xD;&#xA; https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6358/comparison-of-participles. Based on the current answers, it seems that the use of comparative or superlative morphology is typically viewed as a sign that a word is a departicipial adjective rather than a true verbal participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Possible morphological differences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###negation with *non* for participles vs. negation with *in-* for adjectives&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following information doesn't help much to distinguish participles from adjectives when a word is not negated, but it seems relevant to the overall question of whether Latin distinguished verbal and adjectival participles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in Classical Latin the synchronic negative of e.g. *patiens* ‘enduring’&#xD;&#xA;is *non patiens*, whereas participles with a negative prefix are synchronically non-participial adjectives, e.g. *impatiens* ‘impatient’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30, &quot;[Negated Participles in Ṛgvedic Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European](http://users.ox.ac.uk/~shug1472/IIJ_054_01_1075-Lowe_print-1.pdf),&quot; by John J. Lowe, *Indo-Iranian Journal* 54 (2011) 19-38)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*-ns* participles and adjectives might inflect differently in the ablative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=pQD1AQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;lpg=PA39&amp;dq=%22vetera%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22vetera%22&amp;f=false)* says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Participles in *-ans* and *-ens* follow the declension of **ĭ**-stems. But they do not have **-ī** in the Ablative, except when employed as adjectives; when used as participles or as substantives, they have **-e**; as--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; **ā sapientī virō,** *by a wise man ;* but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt; **ā sapiente,** *by a philosopher*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt; **Tarquiniō rēgnante,** *under the reign of Tarquin*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;Adjectives of the Third Declension&quot;, §70 &quot;Adjectives of One Termination&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems that this is at best a simplification, at worst a misrepresentation of the usage of these two forms. In &quot;[Declension of the Latin present participle in connection with its syntactico-semantic use](https://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle/j$002fjoll.2018.17.issue-1$002fjoll-2018-0001$002fjoll-2018-0001.xml)&quot; (2018), Hendrik Christiaan Walvoort says &quot;I conclude that a twofold declension paradigm of the ppa according to syntactico-semantic use is only mentioned in the sixth/seventh century by the anonymous author of the Ars Ambrosiana, but not by the ancient and the other medieval grammarians&quot; (§3). Even if it is a real rule, there are apparently many exceptions, so inflection is not a reliable way of distinguishing verbal participles from adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9133" RevisionGUID="2191d2e2-79c3-4568-b72d-f45959d0704e" CreationDate="2019-02-19T10:19:15.717" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I was struck by some verses in Chapter 21 of _3 Regum_, Vulgata. This tells the story of Naboth, an Israelite who owned a vineyard which was adjacent to the palace of the Israeli King, Achab. Naboth didn't want to sell the land to Achab. In return, the wife of Achab wrote letters to the leaders of Israel, in order to conspire against Naboth. Thus, [verses 9 and 10](http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&amp;bk=11&amp;ch=21&amp;l=9-#x) say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Litterarum autem haec erat sententia : Praedicate jejunium, et sedere facite Naboth inter primos populi, et submittite duos viros filios Belial contra eum, et falsum testimonium dicant : **Benedixit Deum et regem** : et educite eum, et lapidate, sicque moriatur. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it happened as the letters suggested, as the leaders of Israel &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;praedicaverunt jejunium, et sedere fecerunt Naboth inter primos populi.&#xD;&#xA;Et adductis duobus viris filiis diaboli, fecerunt eos sedere contra eum : at illi, scilicet ut viri diabolici, dixerunt contra eum testimonium coram multitudine : **Benedixit Naboth Deum et regem** : quam ob rem eduxerunt eum extra civitatem, et lapidibus interfecerunt. [verses 12 and 13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English translation gives &quot;blasphemed&quot; for _benedixit_, as it is expected, given the context of the story. However, this is the first time I see such a counterintuitive meaning of _benedicere_. [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=benedico) does not attest such meaning. Did it ever had this meaning? Why would Jerome use such a word, which pretty much everywhere else (?) is used to mean &quot;to bless&quot;? Am I missing something here? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9139" RevisionGUID="ecc39e36-54f0-47a4-bace-8d3be76984b1" CreationDate="2019-02-20T02:22:23.670" UserId="2937" Text="&gt;Ave, Regína cælórum,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ave, Dómina Angelórum:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Salve radix, salve porta,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ex qua mundo lux est orta:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Gaude, Virgo gloriósa,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Super omnes speciósa,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Vale, o valde decóra,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Et pro nobis Christum exóra.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am having trouble deciphering the bolded line of this hymn, especially the word *decora*. Is it an noun, adjective, or verb? The *o* makes me think it is either a noun or an adjective acting as a substantative, but then what is the adverb *valde* doing here?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28252" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9139" RevisionGUID="ecc39e36-54f0-47a4-bace-8d3be76984b1" CreationDate="2019-02-20T02:22:23.670" UserId="2937" Text="Parsing &quot;Vale, o valde decóra&quot; in the Ave Regina Caelorum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28253" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9139" RevisionGUID="ecc39e36-54f0-47a4-bace-8d3be76984b1" CreationDate="2019-02-20T02:22:23.670" UserId="2937" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9140" RevisionGUID="943d8f0e-7342-4508-b154-002b2337ab0f" CreationDate="2019-02-20T05:21:56.280" UserId="406" Text="There are a few instances in Latin where words are spelled with two vowels next to each other, in hiatus: _filii_ &quot;sons&quot;, _metuunt_ &quot;they fear&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the last words of the Emperor Julian II are normally quoted as _vicisti, Galilaee_. The second word here is the vocative of _Galilaeus_, &quot;man from Galilaea&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the ending *-ee* looks distinctly *wrong* to my eye. Is this sequence *ee* something found in Classical Latin? Or does it only appear in Later Latin? (Notably, common words like *meus* and *deus* don't take vocatives in *-e*.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28255" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9140" RevisionGUID="943d8f0e-7342-4508-b154-002b2337ab0f" CreationDate="2019-02-20T05:21:56.280" UserId="406" Text="Can &quot;ee&quot; appear in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28256" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9140" RevisionGUID="943d8f0e-7342-4508-b154-002b2337ab0f" CreationDate="2019-02-20T05:21:56.280" UserId="406" Text="|example-request|vowel|vocative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9141" RevisionGUID="b80506cf-5b76-4dd5-8203-742ef619bfb3" CreationDate="2019-02-20T08:03:03.490" UserId="79" Text="First, *Galilaee* sounds right.&#xD;&#xA;See [this question about the vocative of *Gnaeus*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/864/79) for details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are situations where one finds *-ee-* in Latin without the first *e* belonging to *ae*.&#xD;&#xA;What I found is not word-final, but I assume that is not important for your question.&#xD;&#xA;There are forms of *deesse* and *deerrare*, and if the diphthong *ae* is included, also forms of *praeesse*.&#xD;&#xA;There are lots of examples; you can see the dictionary entries for these words or make [a corpus search](https://latin.packhum.org/search).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, there are first conjugation verbs ending in *-eare*, and in conjunctive it leads to forms like *crees* and *recreetur* (Cicero, *In Q. Caecilium* and *Pro Quinctio*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that one can legitimately form the Latin wish *beer* (&quot;may I be happy&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;I found no attestations of this, but *beet* does exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28258" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9140" RevisionGUID="e19c9e44-c7a9-40fa-a2e2-6f7f7bb4e1bc" CreationDate="2019-02-20T08:17:21.023" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|morphology|example-request|spelling|vowel|vocative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9139" RevisionGUID="54e927e9-895a-43da-b364-46f041ca374a" CreationDate="2019-02-20T08:23:47.710" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="&gt;Ave, Regína cælórum,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ave, Dómina Angelórum:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Salve radix, salve porta,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ex qua mundo lux est orta:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Gaude, Virgo gloriósa,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Super omnes speciósa,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Vale, o valde decóra,**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Et pro nobis Christum exóra.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am having trouble deciphering the bolded line of this hymn, especially the word *decora*. Is it an noun, adjective, or verb? The *o* makes me think it is either a noun or an adjective acting as a substantative, but then what is the adverb *valde* doing here?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28260" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9139" RevisionGUID="54e927e9-895a-43da-b364-46f041ca374a" CreationDate="2019-02-20T08:23:47.710" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|christianity|song-lyrics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9142" RevisionGUID="7f7e4eb9-54ca-4157-a2c0-ef4ad85c5181" CreationDate="2019-02-20T10:40:30.157" UserId="1459" Text="The [Vulgata](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/vulsearch) is full with proper nouns having double _-ee_, specially as endings (e.g. _Bersabee_, _Phacee_, _Osee_). I imagine you are not particularly interested in these. Below are all the rest I could find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _deest, deerunt, deessent, deerit, deerant_, etc. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Nm 21:5](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Nm.html#x21_5) locutusque contra Deum et Moysen, ait : Cur eduxisti nos de Ægypto, ut moreremur in solitudine ? **deest** panis, non sunt aquæ : anima nostra jam nauseat super cibo isto levissimo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Dt 15:11](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Dt.html#x15_11) Non **deerunt** pauperes in terra habitationis tuæ : idcirco ego præcipio tibi, ut aperias manum fratri tuo egeno et pauperi, qui tecum versatur in terra. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _eleemosynæ_ and related. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Tob 2:22](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Tob.html#x2_22) Ad hæc uxor ejus irata respondit : Manifeste vana facta est spes tua, et **eleemosynæ** tuæ modo apparuerunt. (also in several other verses)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _reexspecta_. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Is 28:10](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Is.html#x28_10) Quia manda, remanda ; manda, remanda ; exspecta, **reexspecta** ; exspecta, **reexspecta** ; modicum ibi, modicum ibi. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _procreentur_. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Tob 6:21](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Tob.html#x6_21) Tertia autem nocte, benedictionem consequeris, ut filii ex vobis **procreentur** incolumes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _illaqueentur_. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Is 28:13](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Is.html#x28_13) Et erit eis verbum Domini : Manda, remanda ; manda, remanda ; exspecta, reexspecta ; exspecta, reexspecta ; modicum ibi, modicum ibi ; ut vadant, et cadant retrorsum, et conterantur, et **illaqueentur**, et capiantur. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _spontanee_. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Os 14:5](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Os.html#x14_5) Sanabo contritiones eorum ; diligam eos **spontanee** : quia aversus est furor meus ab eis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9142" RevisionGUID="4f8ea6bb-2f6d-495f-9c83-5946932e0af6" CreationDate="2019-02-20T10:45:56.947" UserId="1459" Comment="added 208 characters in body" Text="The [Vulgata](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/vulsearch) is full with proper nouns having double _-ee_, specially as endings (e.g. _Bersabee_, _Phacee_, _Osee_). I imagine you are not particularly interested in these. Below are all the rest I could find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _deest, deerunt, deessent, deerit, deerant_, etc. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Nm 21:5](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Nm.html#x21_5) locutusque contra Deum et Moysen, ait : Cur eduxisti nos de Ægypto, ut moreremur in solitudine ? **deest** panis, non sunt aquæ : anima nostra jam nauseat super cibo isto levissimo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Dt 15:11](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Dt.html#x15_11) Non **deerunt** pauperes in terra habitationis tuæ : idcirco ego præcipio tibi, ut aperias manum fratri tuo egeno et pauperi, qui tecum versatur in terra. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _eleemosynæ_ and related. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Tob 2:22](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Tob.html#x2_22) Ad hæc uxor ejus irata respondit : Manifeste vana facta est spes tua, et **eleemosynæ** tuæ modo apparuerunt. (also in several other verses)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _reexspecta_. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Is 28:10](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Is.html#x28_10) Quia manda, remanda ; manda, remanda ; exspecta, **reexspecta** ; exspecta, **reexspecta** ; modicum ibi, modicum ibi. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _procreentur_. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Tob 6:21](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Tob.html#x6_21) Tertia autem nocte, benedictionem consequeris, ut filii ex vobis **procreentur** incolumes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _illaqueentur_. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Is 28:13](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Is.html#x28_13) Et erit eis verbum Domini : Manda, remanda ; manda, remanda ; exspecta, reexspecta ; exspecta, reexspecta ; modicum ibi, modicum ibi ; ut vadant, et cadant retrorsum, et conterantur, et **illaqueentur**, et capiantur. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _spontanee_. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Os 14:5](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Os.html#x14_5) Sanabo contritiones eorum ; diligam eos **spontanee** : quia aversus est furor meus ab eis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the above have other declensions that are not in the Vulgata, but also have double _ee_. For instance, subjunctive passive declensions of _[procreo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/procreo#Latin)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the period, some seem to be Classical (e.g. _procreo_), with others being Late Latin (e.g. _eleemosynæ_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9142" RevisionGUID="06ca2300-b24a-4d4b-a7f3-03abe59d8262" CreationDate="2019-02-20T10:55:01.487" UserId="1459" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="The [Vulgata](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/vulsearch) is full with proper nouns having double _-ee_, specially as endings (e.g. _Bersabee_, _Phacee_, _Osee_). I imagine you are not particularly interested in these. Below are all the other words I could find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _deest, deerunt, deessent, deerit, deerant_, etc. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Nm 21:5](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Nm.html#x21_5) locutusque contra Deum et Moysen, ait : Cur eduxisti nos de Ægypto, ut moreremur in solitudine ? **deest** panis, non sunt aquæ : anima nostra jam nauseat super cibo isto levissimo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Dt 15:11](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Dt.html#x15_11) Non **deerunt** pauperes in terra habitationis tuæ : idcirco ego præcipio tibi, ut aperias manum fratri tuo egeno et pauperi, qui tecum versatur in terra. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _eleemosynæ_ and related. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Tob 2:22](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Tob.html#x2_22) Ad hæc uxor ejus irata respondit : Manifeste vana facta est spes tua, et **eleemosynæ** tuæ modo apparuerunt. (also in several other verses)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _reexspecta_. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Is 28:10](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Is.html#x28_10) Quia manda, remanda ; manda, remanda ; exspecta, **reexspecta** ; exspecta, **reexspecta** ; modicum ibi, modicum ibi. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _procreentur_. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Tob 6:21](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Tob.html#x6_21) Tertia autem nocte, benedictionem consequeris, ut filii ex vobis **procreentur** incolumes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _illaqueentur_. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Is 28:13](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Is.html#x28_13) Et erit eis verbum Domini : Manda, remanda ; manda, remanda ; exspecta, reexspecta ; exspecta, reexspecta ; modicum ibi, modicum ibi ; ut vadant, et cadant retrorsum, et conterantur, et **illaqueentur**, et capiantur. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _spontanee_. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Os 14:5](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Os.html#x14_5) Sanabo contritiones eorum ; diligam eos **spontanee** : quia aversus est furor meus ab eis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the above have other declensions that are not in the Vulgata, but also have double _ee_. For instance, subjunctive passive declensions of _[procreo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/procreo#Latin)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the period, some seem to be Classical (e.g. _procreo_), with others being Late Latin (e.g. _eleemosynæ_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9143" RevisionGUID="86abc076-ffe1-47d6-b8f6-1655d4d1f083" CreationDate="2019-02-20T14:02:18.520" UserId="947" Text="Rarely *ee* can be used as [geminatio vocalium][1], i.e. to denote that the *e* is pronounced long. This was mainly used in Oscan and sometimes borrowed to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/geminatio_vocalium" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9144" RevisionGUID="f0804fe7-88aa-4ebf-ae48-f06c8d9a6cc0" CreationDate="2019-02-20T14:33:10.583" UserId="45" Text="[*Decorus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddecorus) is an adjective that means, in this context, &quot;decorated, ornamented, adorned; elegant, fine, beautiful, handsome.&quot; In this case, it is substantivized, &quot;beautiful one.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Valde*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=vald%C4%93&amp;la=la&amp;can=vald%C4%930) is the adverb form of *validus* (&quot;strong&quot;) and can be used with a verb, adjective, or adverb to intensify it. It's essentially a glorified way of saying &quot;very.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole bolded part can thus be translated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Farewell, o most beautiful one.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9143" RevisionGUID="9ef0a35f-d195-473b-b758-a2bd0758b4ff" CreationDate="2019-02-20T16:12:15.717" UserId="947" Comment="added 482 characters in body" Text="Rarely *ee* can be used as [geminatio vocalium][1], i.e. to denote that the *e* is pronounced long. This was mainly used in Oscan and sometimes borrowed to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example l*ee*ge in [this inscription][2]: Vediovei patrei / genteiles Iuliei // Vedi[ov]ei aara // Leege Albana dicata&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;M. Loporcaro in Vowel Length from Latin to Romance notes that Accius (c. 170-90 BC) recommended to write long vowels by double letters. F. Rovai mentiones that this practice was chiefly restricted to either official epigraphy or poetic, archaising epitaphs.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/geminatio_vocalium&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epi_einzel.php?s_sprache=en&amp;p_belegstelle=CIL%2001,%2001439" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9143" RevisionGUID="2818000e-7c77-4231-9a87-2c11976e1792" CreationDate="2019-02-20T16:24:00.520" UserId="947" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="Rarely *ee* can be used as [geminatio vocalium][1], i.e. to denote that the *e* is pronounced long. This was mainly used in Oscan and sometimes borrowed to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example l*ee*ge in [this inscription][2]:  &#xD;&#xA; *Vediovei patrei / genteiles Iuliei // Vedi[ov]ei aara // Leege Albana dicata*   &#xD;&#xA;(*aa*ra also denotes long a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;M. Loporcaro in Vowel Length from Latin to Romance notes that Accius (c. 170-90 BC) recommended to write long vowels by double letters. F. Rovai mentiones that this practice was chiefly restricted to either official epigraphy or poetic, archaising epitaphs.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/geminatio_vocalium&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epi_einzel.php?s_sprache=en&amp;p_belegstelle=CIL%2001,%2001439" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9143" RevisionGUID="5178a726-87d4-49a4-ab8f-174628fd3121" CreationDate="2019-02-20T17:14:19.960" UserId="947" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="Rarely *ee* can be used as [geminatio vocalium][1], i.e. to denote that the *e* is pronounced long. This was mainly used in Oscan and sometimes borrowed to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example l*ee*ge in [this inscription][2]:  &#xD;&#xA; *Vediovei patrei / genteiles Iuliei // Vedi[ov]ei aara // Leege Albana dicata*   &#xD;&#xA;(*aa*ra also denotes long a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;M. Loporcaro in Vowel Length from Latin to Romance notes that Accius (c. 170-90 BC) recommended to write long vowels by double letters. F. Rovai (in the context of grave inscriptions) mentiones that this practice was chiefly restricted to either official epigraphy or poetic, archaising epitaphs.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/geminatio_vocalium&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epi_einzel.php?s_sprache=en&amp;p_belegstelle=CIL%2001,%2001439" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9145" RevisionGUID="48b98d06-bf3f-44e0-9245-576eef8c2f2d" CreationDate="2019-02-20T17:29:11.340" UserId="469" Text="A valid translation of the relevant piece would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O most (lit. very) beautiful [Lady]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [**Decora**][1] is an adjective, feminine in gender (see meaning II for the _beautiful_ sense).&#xD;&#xA;* **Valde** is an intensity adverb making **decora** an augmentative (i.e., very beautiful). The relevant part of the definition is: [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;* Not sure about the punctuation, but the noun is either virgo, or just elided. Anyway the context makes it reasonably obvious who we're talking about&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddecorus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iimgL.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1618" RevisionGUID="b1d2d85b-b2b9-479a-b7cd-99e87ecf836d" CreationDate="2019-02-21T02:41:46.013" UserId="9" Comment="replaced pair of images with text for better accessibility and search indexing" Text="&gt;ACC.PL. is **fĕrĕntīs**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final syllable is superheavy, i.e. it consists of three morae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FYI, the latest Teubner edition of Aeneis ([Conte 2009][1]) uses &quot;ferentis&quot;, and so does [Mynors 1969][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aut aliquis latet error: equo ne credite, Teucri.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;quidqud id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentis.’&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt; sic fatus ualidis ingentem uiribus hastam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(II 48-50, p. 34)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's the complete paradigm (from Tronskii 1960, p. 155):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LHS (Leumann, Hofmann and Szantyr 1977) discuss this archaic form in section 357.C.3 (p. 440),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Andrerseits als archaisierendes Kolorit etwa bei Vergil, und zwar nur **dieses *-īs*** auch bei *i*-Adjektiven und bei *nt*-Partizipien, so bei Vergil *trīs, omnīs* (substantiviert) und ***-entīs*** (*can- fer- ru- sil -* uws., *sonantīs*).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - canentīs&#xD;&#xA; - ferentīs&#xD;&#xA; - ruentīs&#xD;&#xA; - silentīs&#xD;&#xA; - sonantīs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110977882/9783110977882.32/9783110977882.32.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AVT6q.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.oxfordscholarlyeditions.com/view/10.1093/actrade/9780198146537.book.1/actrade-9780198146537-div1-16&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3z8Sh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6CA29.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9146" RevisionGUID="8b7387a9-4c28-4206-8027-ec070d88310d" CreationDate="2019-02-21T02:56:33.847" UserId="9" Text="I don't know enough to give a detailed answer, so this is just to start with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking generally, **-īs** is an &quot;i-stem&quot; accusative plural ending, so it's expected to go along with **-ium** in the genitive plural, **-ī** in the ablative singular, and **-ia** in the neuter nominative/accusative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the actual use of &quot;i-stem&quot; forms wasn't consistent in Latin: some case-forms were more likely than others to use an i-stem form. For example, the i-stem accusative singular ending *-im* was very rare; on the other hand, [the i-stem neuter nominative/accusative ending *-ia* was used for nearly all adjectives](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6657/adjectives-that-decline-as-consonant-stems-in-the-neuter-plural-nominative-accus) (provided that they had a neuter nominative/accusative form at all).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The masculine/feminine accusative plural seems to be one of the cases where the i-form was not too uncommon, but rarely mandatory. Unfortunately, I don't have a good sense of how frequent accusative plural **-īs** was: I've found a few web pages that call it an &quot;older&quot; or &quot;poetic&quot; variant, but I don't know how accurate that characterization is. (Specifically, [this page](https://www.hoban.org/s/1098/images/editor_documents/2009-10%20School%20Year/Academics/Latin/i-stems.pdf?sessionid=c8e6b9ea-b6ee-48f5-a505-81c2d973fea4&amp;cc=1) and [this Reddit discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/4t4ddb/whats_this_about_accusative_plurals_ending_is/).)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9146" RevisionGUID="e1a082f9-abe2-4be5-8841-27ea0996091f" CreationDate="2019-02-21T03:07:05.760" UserId="9" Comment="added 495 characters in body" Text="I don't know enough to give a detailed answer, so this is just some basic information to start with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking generally, **-īs** is an &quot;i-stem&quot; accusative plural ending, so it's expected to go along with **-ium** in the genitive plural, **-ī** in the ablative singular, and **-ia** in the neuter nominative/accusative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the actual use of &quot;i-stem&quot; forms wasn't consistent in Latin: some case/number combinations were more likely than others to use an i-form. For example, the i-stem accusative singular ending *-im* was very rare; on the other hand, [the i-stem neuter nominative/accusative plural ending *-ia* was used for nearly all adjectives](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6657/adjectives-that-decline-as-consonant-stems-in-the-neuter-plural-nominative-accus) (provided that they had a neuter nominative/accusative plural form at all).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The masculine/feminine accusative plural seems to be one of the cases where the i-form was not too uncommon, but rarely or never mandatory. Unfortunately, I don't have a good sense of how frequent accusative plural **-īs** was: I've found a few web pages that call it an &quot;older&quot; or &quot;poetic&quot; variant, but I can't tell you how accurate that characterization is. (Specifically, [this page](https://www.hoban.org/s/1098/images/editor_documents/2009-10%20School%20Year/Academics/Latin/i-stems.pdf?sessionid=c8e6b9ea-b6ee-48f5-a505-81c2d973fea4&amp;cc=1) and [this Reddit discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/4t4ddb/whats_this_about_accusative_plurals_ending_is/).) Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar calls **-īs** the &quot;regular accusative plural&quot; for i-stem nouns and says it is &quot;common, but not exclusively used in any word&quot; ([§77](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-summary-i-stem-forms)); [Section 117b and Section 118](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-classification-and-paradigms) specifically mention *-ns* present participles as words that can take **-īs** in the masculine/feminine accusative plural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9146" RevisionGUID="435541b2-3dd4-43f1-b467-3dae1b586062" CreationDate="2019-02-21T03:12:06.900" UserId="9" Comment="added 495 characters in body" Text="I don't know enough to give a detailed answer, so this is just some basic information to start with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking generally, **-īs** is an &quot;i-stem&quot; accusative plural ending, so it's expected to go along with **-ium** in the genitive plural, **-ī** in the ablative singular, and **-ia** in the neuter nominative/accusative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the actual use of &quot;i-stem&quot; forms wasn't consistent in Latin: some case/number combinations were more likely than others to use an i-form. For example, the i-stem accusative singular ending *-im* was very rare; on the other hand, [the i-stem neuter nominative/accusative plural ending *-ia* was used for nearly all adjectives](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6657/adjectives-that-decline-as-consonant-stems-in-the-neuter-plural-nominative-accus) (provided that they had a neuter nominative/accusative plural form at all).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The masculine/feminine accusative plural seems to be one of the cases where the i-form was not too uncommon, but also not mandatory for any word. Unfortunately, I don't have a good sense of how frequent accusative plural **-īs** was: I've found a few web pages that call it an &quot;older&quot; or &quot;poetic&quot; variant, but I can't tell you how accurate that characterization is. (Specifically, [this page](https://www.hoban.org/s/1098/images/editor_documents/2009-10%20School%20Year/Academics/Latin/i-stems.pdf?sessionid=c8e6b9ea-b6ee-48f5-a505-81c2d973fea4&amp;cc=1) and [this Reddit discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/4t4ddb/whats_this_about_accusative_plurals_ending_is/).) Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar calls **-īs** the &quot;regular accusative plural&quot; for i-stem nouns and says it is &quot;common, but not exclusively used in any word&quot; ([§77](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-summary-i-stem-forms)); [Section 117b and Section 118](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-classification-and-paradigms) specifically mention *-ns* present participles as words that can take **-īs** in the masculine/feminine accusative plural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9147" RevisionGUID="246d63ef-a97b-4124-bcf5-e1f11540969a" CreationDate="2019-02-21T03:29:23.467" UserId="9" Text="One thing that the Oxford Dictionaries entry may not make entirely clear is that the Greek word εὐθανασία was derived much earlier than the 17th century. It is listed in the [LSJ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=substring&amp;lookup=qanas&amp;lang=greek), along with seven other words containing the sequence &quot;θανασι&quot;. A sound change that applied in a certain stage of Greek changed -ti- to -si- ([mentioned in this Linguistics SE answer by TKR](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/13119/5581)). I don't know the details of how these words were derived, but I would guess that this sound change is responsible for the **s** in *euthanasia.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9148" RevisionGUID="ed474b41-7297-4d83-a6fe-993054cf3eaa" CreationDate="2019-02-21T03:45:37.853" UserId="9" Text="I searched Lewis and Short dictionary entries for &quot;smoked&quot; and found the following two additional candidates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [fūmōsus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfumosus): apparently used by Horace to describe &quot;smoke-dried&quot; meat (&quot;fumosae [...] pernae&quot;, Hor. S. 2.2.117)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [īnfūmātus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dinfumo): Pliny's *Natural History* apparently used &quot;asini cerebrum [...] infumatum&quot; to mean &quot;smoked ass's brain&quot; (28.225.1)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9149" RevisionGUID="6255a60f-4be6-4247-b2a9-8cd7b38367b4" CreationDate="2019-02-21T04:40:36.013" UserId="3419" Text="In a work of fiction, I have an Order of ordained detectives that do not exist.  I use the term Lictor Rebus Sanctorae for the Order, and Lictor Rebus Sanctorus for the male protagonist.  I know this is very far off, and wish to get it right.  He is officially a Sami Cupien, a Liaison between the Vatican and international officials, but is in fact more of a secret agent-type.  I will appreciate any input, gratias tibi!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28283" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9149" RevisionGUID="6255a60f-4be6-4247-b2a9-8cd7b38367b4" CreationDate="2019-02-21T04:40:36.013" UserId="3419" Text="Conjugation/grammar for fictitious title" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28284" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9149" RevisionGUID="6255a60f-4be6-4247-b2a9-8cd7b38367b4" CreationDate="2019-02-21T04:40:36.013" UserId="3419" Text="|grammar-choice|sentence-translation|conjugation|plural|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9150" RevisionGUID="59570560-4f36-4a06-85f1-9c8affdbe7b7" CreationDate="2019-02-21T14:10:18.957" UserDisplayName="user3421" Text="I know the popular phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *inter arma enim silent leges*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a time of war, the law falls silent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to modify the phrase to say 'in a time of **crisis**, the law falls silent'. I've not studied Latin before, but using Google translate gives this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *in discrimine tempus, quod cadit lex tacet*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems suspect to me, as the translated sentence structure is way off the '*inter arma enim silent leges*' form. In fact, Google translate gives '*in tempore belli, quod cadit lex tacet*' for 'in a time of war, the law falls silent'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, **how do I say 'in a time of crisis, the law falls silent' to have the same structure to 'inter arma enim silent leges'?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28286" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9150" RevisionGUID="59570560-4f36-4a06-85f1-9c8affdbe7b7" CreationDate="2019-02-21T14:10:18.957" UserDisplayName="user3421" Text="How to modify 'inter arma enim silent leges' to mean 'in a time of crisis, the law falls silent'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28287" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9150" RevisionGUID="59570560-4f36-4a06-85f1-9c8affdbe7b7" CreationDate="2019-02-21T14:10:18.957" UserDisplayName="user3421" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9151" RevisionGUID="77417b63-f08d-4df7-8c26-3cc351e81228" CreationDate="2019-02-21T14:51:55.817" UserId="984" Text="Greek distinguishes between verbals ending in -τέος and verbals ending in -τός. The latter (according to Smyth) express either possibility or the perfect passive participle (e.g. educated or think*able*), while the former express necessity in a way that is practically active in action (e.g. to-be-destroyed). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is this: does Latin have a similar distinction, or does the Gerundive do all the work of expressing both possibility and necessity? My hunch was that the Latin Gerundive does all the work, but then I am aware of words like 'expetibilis', where the suffix seems to give it a sense of possibility, as 'desirable'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks so much for any input you have! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28289" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9151" RevisionGUID="77417b63-f08d-4df7-8c26-3cc351e81228" CreationDate="2019-02-21T14:51:55.817" UserId="984" Text="Verbal Adjective of Necessity vs. Possibility" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28290" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9151" RevisionGUID="77417b63-f08d-4df7-8c26-3cc351e81228" CreationDate="2019-02-21T14:51:55.817" UserId="984" Text="|classical-latin|greek|grammarians|gerundive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9152" RevisionGUID="27cc2611-22d5-4bee-b79e-48b29ba20cc4" CreationDate="2019-02-21T16:02:05.483" UserId="3422" Text="I’m looking for the correct way to say “made by” or “created by” for a custom garment tag. I’m thinking about bookplates and the “ex Libris” header as the inspiration. Is there an equivalent for this phrase? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28292" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9152" RevisionGUID="27cc2611-22d5-4bee-b79e-48b29ba20cc4" CreationDate="2019-02-21T16:02:05.483" UserId="3422" Text="Translation for “Made by” or typical Latin equivalent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28293" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9152" RevisionGUID="27cc2611-22d5-4bee-b79e-48b29ba20cc4" CreationDate="2019-02-21T16:02:05.483" UserId="3422" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9153" RevisionGUID="4fef07cd-11de-44d7-9e15-857d41dab383" CreationDate="2019-02-21T16:39:09.207" UserId="1459" Text="_Crisis_ seems to be an attested Latin word (e.g. [here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=Crisis&amp;la=la&amp;can=crisis1&amp;prior=amor#lexicon)), derived from [Greek](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%AF%CF%83%CE%B9%CF%82#Ancient_Greek). It's used in [Wikipedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_pecuniaria) too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a more popular word seems to be _[discrimen](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/discrimen#Latin)_, as Google told you. This is attested in Classical Latin (e.g. [here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=discrimen)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I would say either&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;inter crisis enim silent leges&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(if we take it as indeclinable; otherwise, it might follow the Greek declension rules, being _criseos_) or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;inter discriminis enim silent leges&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9153" RevisionGUID="0f4cc9dc-b1eb-45ab-b0fc-f800fdcecf48" CreationDate="2019-02-21T16:45:32.177" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="_Crisis_ seems to be an attested Latin word (e.g. [here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=Crisis&amp;la=la&amp;can=crisis1&amp;prior=amor#lexicon)), derived from [Greek](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%AF%CF%83%CE%B9%CF%82#Ancient_Greek). It's used in [Wikipedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_pecuniaria) too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a more popular word seems to be _[discrimen](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/discrimen#Latin)_, as Google told you. This is attested in Classical Latin (e.g. [here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=discrimen)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I would say either&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;inter crisis enim silent leges&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(if we take it as indeclinable; otherwise, it might follow the Greek declension rules, being _criseos_) or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;inter discrimen enim silent leges&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9153" RevisionGUID="a097c6a0-7759-4140-be60-dd9907092e39" CreationDate="2019-02-21T16:50:53.273" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="_Crisis_ seems to be an attested Latin word (e.g. [here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=Crisis&amp;la=la&amp;can=crisis1&amp;prior=amor#lexicon)), derived from [Greek](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%AF%CF%83%CE%B9%CF%82#Ancient_Greek). It's used in [Wikipedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_pecuniaria) too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a more popular word seems to be _[discrimen](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/discrimen#Latin)_, as Google told you. This is attested in Classical Latin (e.g. [here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=discrimen)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I would say either&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;inter crisis enim silent leges&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(if we take it as indeclinable; otherwise, it might follow the Greek declension rules, being _crisin_) or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;inter discrimen enim silent leges&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice the [original order](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_arma_enim_silent_leges) of the phrase (from Cicero) was _Silent enim leges inter arma_. Order of words generally makes little difference in Latin, so you can stick to the more famous version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9154" RevisionGUID="a4ca9632-9d2d-4543-8a05-9822768c73af" CreationDate="2019-02-21T17:55:56.483" UserId="79" Text="The key is to find a good translation for &quot;crisis&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There is the Greek loan *crisis*, but I would go for a more Latin option.&#xD;&#xA;The best choice depends on what kind of crisis is meant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is ***tumultus***, which Lewis and Short translate as &quot;uproar&quot;, &quot;violent commotion&quot;, &quot;sudden or impending war&quot;, &quot;sedition&quot;, &quot;rebellion&quot;, &quot;anxiety&quot;, &quot;disturbance&quot;, &quot;agitation&quot;, &quot;disorder&quot;, and other similar terms.&#xD;&#xA;If the crisis is at the level of national politics or security, this is a good word.&#xD;&#xA;If the crisis is more personal, then *tumultus* would have to be taken as a figure of speech or one would need a different word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, *inter arma* means &quot;amidst weapons&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The preposition *inter* (&quot;between&quot; and similar) sounds less appropriate for *tumultus*, and I would replace it with *in*, which here would mean &quot;in time of&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *inter arma silent leges* would become ***in tumultu silent leges***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9155" RevisionGUID="f6cf62a7-6b14-4dee-b64d-a8084c102d3e" CreationDate="2019-02-21T18:03:12.240" UserId="3425" Text="I'm trying to translate an epitaph and I have no idea if I'm even close to right. It sounds really clunky at best. Can someone check it? Here's the original:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;stirpe fui, forma, natoque, opibusque, viroque, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;felix, ingenio, moribus atque animo.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;sed cum alter partus jam nuptae ageretur et annus, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;heu! nondum nata cum sobole interii. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tristius ut caderem, tantum mihi Parca bonorum &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ostendit potius perfida quam tribuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempted translation is:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I was with lineage, beauty, a son, wealth and a husband,&#xD;&#xA;with good temperament, character and spirit.&#xD;&#xA;But with the second childbirth of a wife in a year (???)&#xD;&#xA;Alas, I died with my child not yet born&#xD;&#xA;Sadder that I would fall only for good Fate&#xD;&#xA;She has shown more traitorous than attributed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28299" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9155" RevisionGUID="f6cf62a7-6b14-4dee-b64d-a8084c102d3e" CreationDate="2019-02-21T18:03:12.240" UserId="3425" Text="Can someone check my translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28300" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9155" RevisionGUID="f6cf62a7-6b14-4dee-b64d-a8084c102d3e" CreationDate="2019-02-21T18:03:12.240" UserId="3425" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9151" RevisionGUID="da0ba521-7ad1-458f-9627-855f51253a3b" CreationDate="2019-02-21T18:06:20.283" UserId="984" Comment="Minor changes to wording, for clarity. " Text="Greek distinguishes between verbal adjectives ending in -τέος and verbal adjectives ending in -τός. The latter (according to Smyth) express either possibility or the perfect passive participle (e.g. 'think*able*' or 'educated'), while the former express necessity in a way that is practically active in action (e.g. 'to-be-destroyed'). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is this: does Latin have a similar distinction, or does the Gerundive do all the work of expressing *both* possibility and necessity? My hunch is that the Latin Gerundive does all the work, but then I am aware of words like 'expetibilis', where the suffix gives it a sense of possibility in the way the Greek -τός does (as 'desirable'). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks so much for any input you have! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28302" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9151" RevisionGUID="da0ba521-7ad1-458f-9627-855f51253a3b" CreationDate="2019-02-21T18:06:20.283" UserId="984" Comment="Minor changes to wording, for clarity. " Text="|classical-latin|greek|verbs|adjective|gerundive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9155" RevisionGUID="6f4fcd6e-160d-4bd8-951e-28b24f08bd22" CreationDate="2019-02-21T18:28:20.953" UserId="79" Comment="added 15 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm trying to translate an epitaph and I have no idea if I'm even close to right. It sounds really clunky at best. Can someone check it? Here's the original:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;stirpe fui, forma, natoque, opibusque, viroque,  &#xD;&#xA;felix, ingenio, moribus atque animo.   &#xD;&#xA;sed cum alter partus jam nuptae ageretur et annus,  &#xD;&#xA;heu! nondum nata cum sobole interii.  &#xD;&#xA;Tristius ut caderem, tantum mihi Parca bonorum  &#xD;&#xA;Ostendit potius perfida quam tribuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempted translation is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;I was with lineage, beauty, a son, wealth and a husband,  &#xD;&#xA;with good temperament, character and spirit.  &#xD;&#xA;But with the second childbirth of a wife in a year (???)  &#xD;&#xA;Alas, I died with my child not yet born  &#xD;&#xA;Sadder that I would fall only for good Fate  &#xD;&#xA;She has shown more traitorous than attributed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28304" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9155" RevisionGUID="6f4fcd6e-160d-4bd8-951e-28b24f08bd22" CreationDate="2019-02-21T18:28:20.953" UserId="79" Comment="added 15 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation-check|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9152" RevisionGUID="151241cb-629c-405d-b04c-b7044a323791" CreationDate="2019-02-21T18:33:05.583" UserId="3423" Comment="further explanation " Text="I’m looking for the correct way to say “made by” or “created by” for a custom garment tag. I have heard of &quot;fecit&quot; coming after a name but I’m thinking about bookplates and the “ex Libris” header as the inspiration. Is there an equivalent for this phrase? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28306" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9152" RevisionGUID="151241cb-629c-405d-b04c-b7044a323791" CreationDate="2019-02-21T18:33:05.583" Comment="Proposed by 3423 approved by 406, 79 edit id of 300" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9156" RevisionGUID="6d6d4d47-ed9a-4106-bff8-c906e3a78dbe" CreationDate="2019-02-21T19:03:21.637" UserId="79" Text="The epitaph you have is written in elegiac couplet, a poetic form where lines of hexameter and pentameter alternate.&#xD;&#xA;Metric poetry can make the syntax a little wonky, so we should not expect clear prose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first two lines the key seems to be *fui felix*, &quot;I was happy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The rest is a list of ablatives of respect, indicating in which sense the deceased was happy.&#xD;&#xA;For fluent English, you could say something like: &quot;I was lucky for my origin, beauty, son, wealth, husband, intellect, character, and my spirit.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This answer is incomplete, and I will continue later.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9156" RevisionGUID="65b36bb1-0062-48ce-9193-fcf121018672" CreationDate="2019-02-21T19:56:23.467" UserId="79" Comment="added 2177 characters in body" Text="The epitaph you have is written in elegiac couplet, a poetic form where lines of hexameter and pentameter alternate.&#xD;&#xA;Metric poetry can make the syntax a little wonky, so we should not expect clear prose.&#xD;&#xA;This metric structure also suggests that reading two lines at a time might work &amp;mdash; and it does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first two lines the key seems to be *fui felix*, &quot;I was happy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The rest is a list of ablatives of respect, indicating in which sense the deceased was happy.&#xD;&#xA;For fluent English, you could say something like: &quot;I was lucky for my origin, beauty, son, wealth, husband, intellect, character, and my spirit.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;You got the words more or less right, but I think the structure was a little off.&#xD;&#xA;Identifying the key elements (like *fui felix* here) gets you started with the right foot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would reorder the second two lines like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed cum alter partus et [alter] annus nuptae jam ageretur,  &#xD;&#xA;interii cum sobole nondum nata.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but when it was the time of second childbirth and second year of my marriage,  &#xD;&#xA;I died with an unborn child.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The deceased appears to be a woman dying at some stage during her second pregnancy.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *alter annus nuptae* (lit. &quot;second year of the married woman&quot;) is more naturally &quot;second year of my marriage&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If it was a man dying without seeing his child born, I would expect an expression different from dying with the son.&#xD;&#xA;It could be an absolute ablative, but the preposition *cum* rules that out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last couplet, *tristius* is indeed a comparative, but a neuter one.&#xD;&#xA;It cannot therefore refer to the deceased person.&#xD;&#xA;It appears to be a comparative adverb: &quot;so that I would fall more sadly&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;What did Parca do to this end, then?&#xD;&#xA;She showed her so many good things (*tantum bonorum ostendit*, with partitive genitive) rather than (*potius quam*) giving them (*tribuit*).&#xD;&#xA;That is, Parca was so treacherous that rather than giving good things, she only showed them.&#xD;&#xA;With these thoughts, I might translate the last couplet as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So that I would fall more sadly, Fate was treacherous enough to show me so many good things rather than giving them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, the key is in identifying the core message and looking at possible interpretations.&#xD;&#xA;Frankly, I cannot quite make sense of your translation of the last two lines.&#xD;&#xA;The way I see translation, you should first understand what is written in one language, absorb the idea, and then express the same idea in another language.&#xD;&#xA;If the translated text does not tell a sensible story, something is (usually) awry.&#xD;&#xA;Your translation feels too word-by-word.&#xD;&#xA;One thing that helps immensely here is reading the couplets as complete sentences, but I recognize that that is hard to guess if you are not familiar with the poetic form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9156" RevisionGUID="67377bd6-515d-476b-9a8a-be81aa2ea70e" CreationDate="2019-02-21T20:02:08.740" UserId="79" Comment="added 2177 characters in body" Text="The epitaph you have is written in elegiac couplet, a poetic form where lines of hexameter and pentameter alternate.&#xD;&#xA;Metric poetry can make the syntax a little wonky, so we should not expect clear prose.&#xD;&#xA;This metric structure also suggests that reading two lines at a time might work &amp;mdash; and it does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first two lines the key seems to be *fui felix*, &quot;I was happy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The rest is a list of ablatives of respect, indicating in which sense the deceased was happy.&#xD;&#xA;For fluent English, you could say something like: &quot;I was lucky for my origin, beauty, son, wealth, husband, intellect, character, and my spirit.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;You got the words more or less right, but I think the structure was a little off.&#xD;&#xA;Identifying the key elements (like *fui felix* here) gets you started with the right foot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would reorder the second two lines like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed cum alter partus et [alter] annus nuptae jam ageretur,  &#xD;&#xA;interii cum sobole nondum nata.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but when it was the time of second childbirth and second year of my marriage,  &#xD;&#xA;I died with an unborn child.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The deceased appears to be a woman dying at some stage during her second pregnancy.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *alter annus nuptae* (lit. &quot;second year of the married woman&quot;) is more naturally &quot;second year of my marriage&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If it was a man dying without seeing his child born, I would expect an expression different from dying with the son.&#xD;&#xA;It could be an absolute ablative, but the preposition *cum* rules that out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last couplet, *tristius* is indeed a comparative, but a neuter one.&#xD;&#xA;It cannot therefore refer to the deceased person.&#xD;&#xA;It appears to be a comparative adverb: &quot;so that I would fall more sadly&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;What did Parca do to this end, then?&#xD;&#xA;She showed her so many good things (*tantum bonorum ostendit*, with partitive genitive) rather than (*potius quam*) giving them (*tribuit*).&#xD;&#xA;That is, Parca was so treacherous that rather than giving good things, she only showed them.&#xD;&#xA;With these thoughts, I might translate the last couplet as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So that I would fall more sadly, Fate was treacherous enough to show me so many good things rather than giving them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, the key is in identifying the core message and looking at possible interpretations.&#xD;&#xA;A good first question is to see which words might go together, bearing in mind that in a poem they might be far from each other.&#xD;&#xA;Frankly, I cannot quite make sense of your translation of the last two lines.&#xD;&#xA;The way I see translation, you should first understand what is written in one language, absorb the idea, and then express the same idea in another language.&#xD;&#xA;If the translated text does not tell a sensible story, something is (usually) awry.&#xD;&#xA;Your translation feels too word-by-word.&#xD;&#xA;One thing that helps immensely here is reading the couplets as complete sentences, but I recognize that that is hard to guess if you are not familiar with the poetic form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this did not come across too negative.&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to focus on what could be done to improve your translation &amp;mdash; not only with this epitaph, but as a process in general.&#xD;&#xA;Giving an improved translation would not help much, but I hope I could illuminate the process leading to it.&#xD;&#xA;I hope this gave you not only a fish but also some new ideas to fishing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9157" RevisionGUID="1b0411a5-2d6f-42a1-8b71-4b16188e2cd5" CreationDate="2019-02-21T22:35:37.057" UserId="3427" Text="Just as the title says.  Or should it really be &quot;Asclepiadae&quot;, since it comes from &quot;Asclepius&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28311" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9157" RevisionGUID="1b0411a5-2d6f-42a1-8b71-4b16188e2cd5" CreationDate="2019-02-21T22:35:37.057" UserId="3427" Text="How do you pronounce &quot;Aeclepiadae&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28312" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9157" RevisionGUID="1b0411a5-2d6f-42a1-8b71-4b16188e2cd5" CreationDate="2019-02-21T22:35:37.057" UserId="3427" Text="|pronunciation|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9158" RevisionGUID="aec62409-7c34-4ccb-805c-165fe9d958b8" CreationDate="2019-02-21T23:11:42.340" UserId="9" Text="This word that you are asking about is a patronymic derived from a Greek name with unknown ultimate etymology. The a in the second-to-last syllable of patronymics ending in &quot;adae&quot; is short. The e before the &quot;p&quot; is long, since the Greek source word is spelled with η. I don't know whether there is any certain way of determining the length of the first &quot;a&quot;, or of the &quot;i&quot;, but I would guess that they are both short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia entry on [Asclepius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius) contains a quotation from Beekes that makes the following comments on the form of the name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The name is typical for Pre-Greek words; apart from minor variations (β for π, αλ(α) for λα) we find α/αι (a well known variation; Fur. 335–339) followed by -γλαπ- or -σκλαπ-/-σχλαπ/β-, i.e. a voiced velar (without -σ-) or a voiceless velar (or an aspirated one: we know that there was no distinction between the three in the substr. language) with a -σ-. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That article also gives &quot;Aesculapius&quot; as a Latin version of the name. Based on this information, I am pretty puzzled by the absence of &quot;s&quot; in the form that you give, but I don't know enough to say anything definite. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Asclepiadae&quot; certainly seems to be a valid and used form in Latin. If you Google it, you will see a bunch of examples. It would be expected to be pronounced the way it is spelled: i.e. reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation would be something like [askleːˈpiada͡e], &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation would be something like [asklɛˈpiadɛ], &quot;Traditional English pronunciation&quot; would be /ˌæsklɪˈpaɪədiː/, English anglicized &quot;restored pronunciation&quot; would be something like /ˌɑːskleɪˈpiːədaɪ/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9158" RevisionGUID="b59bf390-cfb6-4b15-90ce-d7f16660e58c" CreationDate="2019-02-21T23:16:57.100" UserId="9" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="This word that you are asking about is the plural form of a patronymic derived from a Greek name with unknown ultimate etymology. The a in the second-to-last syllable of patronymics ending in &quot;adae&quot; is short as a rule. The e before the &quot;p&quot; is long, since the Greek source word is spelled with η. I don't know whether there is any certain way of determining the length of the first &quot;a&quot;, or of the &quot;i&quot;, but I would guess that they are both short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia entry on [Asclepius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius) contains a quotation from Beekes that makes the following comments on variant forms of the name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The name is typical for Pre-Greek words; apart from minor variations (β for π, αλ(α) for λα) we find α/αι (a well known variation; Fur. 335–339) followed by -γλαπ- or -σκλαπ-/-σχλαπ/β-, i.e. a voiced velar (without -σ-) or a voiceless velar (or an aspirated one: we know that there was no distinction between the three in the substr. language) with a -σ-. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That article also gives &quot;Aesculapius&quot; as a Latin version of the name. Based on this information, I am pretty puzzled by the absence of &quot;s&quot; in the form that you give, but I don't know enough to say anything definite about whether it is a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Asclepiadae&quot; certainly seems to be a valid and used form in Latin. If you Google it, you will see a bunch of examples. It would be expected to be pronounced the way it is spelled: i.e. reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation would be something like [askleːˈpiada͡e], &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation would be something like [asklɛˈpiadɛ], &quot;Traditional English pronunciation&quot; would be /ˌæsklɪˈpaɪədiː/, English anglicized &quot;restored pronunciation&quot; would be something like /ˌɑːskleɪˈpiːədaɪ/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9158" RevisionGUID="e9b8743a-f499-4485-9c24-ebc84907a73e" CreationDate="2019-02-21T23:23:24.700" UserId="9" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="This word that you are asking about is the plural form of a patronymic derived from a Greek name with unknown ultimate etymology. The a in the second-to-last syllable of patronymics ending in &quot;adae&quot; is short as a rule. The e before the &quot;p&quot; here is long, since the Greek source word is spelled with η. I don't know whether there is any certain way of determining the length of the first &quot;a&quot;, or of the &quot;i&quot;, but I would guess that they are both short, based on my intuitions about the distribution of long and short &quot;a&quot; and &quot;i&quot; in Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia entry on [Asclepius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius) contains a quotation from Beekes that makes the following comments on variant forms of the name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The name is typical for Pre-Greek words; apart from minor variations (β for π, αλ(α) for λα) we find α/αι (a well known variation; Fur. 335–339) followed by -γλαπ- or -σκλαπ-/-σχλαπ/β-, i.e. a voiced velar (without -σ-) or a voiceless velar (or an aspirated one: we know that there was no distinction between the three in the substr. language) with a -σ-. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That article also gives &quot;Aesculapius&quot; as a Latin version of the name. Based on this information, I am pretty puzzled by the absence of &quot;s&quot; in the form that you give, but I don't know enough to say anything definite about whether it is a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Asclepiadae&quot; certainly seems to be a valid and used form in Latin. If you Google it, you will see a bunch of examples. It would be expected to be pronounced the way it is spelled: i.e. reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation would be something like [askleːˈpiada͡e̯], &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation would be something like [asklɛˈpiadɛ], &quot;Traditional English pronunciation&quot; would be /ˌæsklɪˈpaɪədiː/, English anglicized &quot;restored pronunciation&quot; would be something like /ˌɑːskleɪˈpiːədaɪ/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9159" RevisionGUID="c8354cb9-f9ed-4f1a-9633-270ba03bb24f" CreationDate="2019-02-21T23:24:54.507" UserId="3428" Text="I'm typesetting a book wherein the author regularly references his other works, inviting the reader to study from one particular sub-section until or through the end of the chapter.  Unfortunately, footnote space is at a premium so everybody's happy with using a Latin term to replace the lengthy English statement &quot;through/until/to the end of the chapter.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, there isn't a standard Latin statement or abbreviation for this statement.  We're delighted to let the reader look it up, but we are not convinced Google Translate is trustworthy enough for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of the English in context is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; See also *This Other Book,* chapter 3, &quot;sub-header-name&quot; to the end of the chapter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google spat out these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Through the end of the chapter&quot; =&gt; per finem capituli&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;to the end of the chapter&quot; =&gt; usque ad finem capituli&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Until the end of the chapter&quot; =&gt; usque ad finem capituli&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which suggests the following usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; See also *This Other Book,* chapter 3 *usque ad finem capituli.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, shorter is better, so my preference would be &quot;per finem capituli,&quot; but frankly, none of us speak Latin and we don't even know if that's conveying the correct meaning.  If we're wrong, well... we'll get laughed at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is one of the two translations, above, acceptable for the purpose I've described, or is there a better translation for the concept?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* While shorter word count / line length is superior, the meaning must be recognizable by a Latin speaker or reasonably translatable via Google Translate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* No abbreviations unless they're well known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If you're a bit of a programmer and this is beginning to feel a bit like [code golf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_golf), you're not far off the truth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28317" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9159" RevisionGUID="c8354cb9-f9ed-4f1a-9633-270ba03bb24f" CreationDate="2019-02-21T23:24:54.507" UserId="3428" Text="Did Google Translate give me a literary grade translation of &quot;to the end of the chapter.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28318" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9159" RevisionGUID="c8354cb9-f9ed-4f1a-9633-270ba03bb24f" CreationDate="2019-02-21T23:24:54.507" UserId="3428" Text="|translation|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9158" RevisionGUID="045fdd7b-5f2e-4478-9ab5-a25d0d5d16c9" CreationDate="2019-02-21T23:28:37.293" UserId="9" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="This word that you are asking about is the plural form of a patronymic derived from a Greek name with unknown ultimate etymology. The a in the second-to-last syllable of patronymics ending in &quot;adae&quot; is short as a rule. The e before the &quot;p&quot; here is long, since the Greek source word is spelled with η. I don't know whether there is any certain way of determining the length of the first &quot;a&quot;, or of the &quot;i&quot;, but I would guess that they are both short, based on my intuitions about the distribution of long and short &quot;a&quot; and &quot;i&quot; in Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia entry on [Asclepius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius) contains a quotation from Beekes that makes the following comments on variant forms of the name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The name is typical for Pre-Greek words; apart from minor variations (β for π, αλ(α) for λα) we find α/αι (a well known variation; Fur. 335–339) followed by -γλαπ- or -σκλαπ-/-σχλαπ/β-, i.e. a voiced velar (without -σ-) or a voiceless velar (or an aspirated one: we know that there was no distinction between the three in the substr. language) with a -σ-. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That article also gives &quot;Aesculapius&quot; as a Latin version of the name. Based on this information, I am pretty puzzled by the absence of &quot;s&quot; in the form that you give, but I don't know enough to say anything definite about whether it is a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Asclepiadae&quot; certainly seems to be a valid and used form in Latin. If you Google it, you will see a bunch of examples. It would be expected to be pronounced the way it is spelled: i.e., reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation would be something like [askleːˈpiadae̯], &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation would be something like [asklɛˈpiadɛ], &quot;Traditional English pronunciation&quot; would be /ˌæsklɪˈpaɪədiː/, English anglicized &quot;restored pronunciation&quot; would be something like /ˌɑːskleɪˈpiːədaɪ/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9158" RevisionGUID="de1a273c-84bb-4ea2-9fa6-6512077c8b28" CreationDate="2019-02-21T23:40:38.593" UserId="9" Comment="added citation for patronymic vowel length" Text="This word that you are asking about is the plural form of a patronymic derived from a Greek name with unknown ultimate etymology. The a in the second-to-last syllable of patronymics ending in &quot;adae&quot; (including those ending in &quot;iadae&quot;) is short as a rule.* The e before the &quot;p&quot; here is long, since the Greek source word is spelled with η. I don't know whether there is any certain way of determining the length of the first &quot;a&quot;, or of the &quot;i&quot;, but I would guess that both are short, based on my intuitions about the distribution of long and short &quot;a&quot; and &quot;i&quot; in Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia entry on [Asclepius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius) contains a quotation from Beekes that makes the following comments on variant forms of the name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The name is typical for Pre-Greek words; apart from minor variations (β for π, αλ(α) for λα) we find α/αι (a well known variation; Fur. 335–339) followed by -γλαπ- or -σκλαπ-/-σχλαπ/β-, i.e. a voiced velar (without -σ-) or a voiceless velar (or an aspirated one: we know that there was no distinction between the three in the substr. language) with a -σ-. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That article also gives &quot;Aesculapius&quot; as a Latin version of the name. Based on this information, I am pretty puzzled by the absence of &quot;s&quot; in the form that you give, but I don't know enough to say anything definite about whether it is a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Asclepiadae&quot; certainly seems to be a valid and used form in Latin. If you Google it, you will see a bunch of examples. It would be expected to be pronounced the way it is spelled: i.e., reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation would be something like [askleːˈpiadae̯], &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation would be something like [asklɛˈpiadɛ], &quot;Traditional English pronunciation&quot; would be /ˌæsklɪˈpaɪədiː/, English anglicized &quot;restored pronunciation&quot; would be something like /ˌɑːskleɪˈpiːədaɪ/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*\*[Grammar of the Latin Language](https://books.google.com/books?id=OR8XAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA49&amp;lpg=PA49&amp;dq=Greek+patronymic+ades),* 64th Ed., Andrews and Stoddard, 1858; §100, p. 49" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9158" RevisionGUID="8f5360e0-912d-4810-98eb-e2864d63cc99" CreationDate="2019-02-21T23:46:05.953" UserId="9" Comment="added citation for patronymic vowel length" Text="This word that you are asking about is the plural form of a patronymic derived from a Greek name with unknown ultimate etymology. The a in the second-to-last syllable of patronymics ending in &quot;adae&quot; (including those ending in &quot;iadae&quot;) is short as a rule.* The e before the &quot;p&quot; here is long, since the Greek source word is spelled with η. I don't know whether there is any certain way of determining the length of the first &quot;a&quot;, or of the &quot;i&quot;, but I would guess that both are short, based on my intuitions about the distribution of long and short &quot;a&quot; and &quot;i&quot; in Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia entry on [Asclepius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius) contains a quotation from Beekes that makes the following comments on variant forms of the name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The name is typical for Pre-Greek words; apart from minor variations (β for π, αλ(α) for λα) we find α/αι (a well known variation; Fur. 335–339) followed by -γλαπ- or -σκλαπ-/-σχλαπ/β-, i.e. a voiced velar (without -σ-) or a voiceless velar (or an aspirated one: we know that there was no distinction between the three in the substr. language) with a -σ-. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That article also gives &quot;Aesculapius&quot; as a Latin version of the name. Based on this information, I am pretty puzzled by the absence of &quot;s&quot; in the form that you give, but I don't know enough to say anything definite about whether it is a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The LSJ Greek dictionary has an entry for *[Ἀσκληπιάδαι][1]*, defined as &quot;a name for physicians&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Asclepiadae&quot;, which is simply the regular latinization of &quot;Ἀσκληπιάδαι&quot;, certainly seems to be a valid and used form in Latin. If you Google it, you will see a bunch of examples. It would be expected to be pronounced the way it is spelled: i.e., reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation would be something like [askleːˈpiadae̯], &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation would be something like [asklɛˈpiadɛ], &quot;Traditional English pronunciation&quot; would be /ˌæsklɪˈpaɪədiː/, English anglicized &quot;restored pronunciation&quot; would be something like /ˌɑːskleɪˈpiːədaɪ/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*\*[Grammar of the Latin Language](https://books.google.com/books?id=OR8XAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA49&amp;lpg=PA49&amp;dq=Greek+patronymic+ades),* 64th Ed., Andrews and Stoddard, 1858; §100, p. 49&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3D*)asklhpia%2Fdai" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9158" RevisionGUID="b7d591b1-3760-479d-9973-96a25760271e" CreationDate="2019-02-21T23:59:37.217" UserId="9" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="The word that you are asking about was derived by adding (the plural form of) a patronymic suffix to a Greek name with unknown ultimate etymology. The a in the second-to-last syllable of patronymics ending in &quot;adae&quot; (including those ending in &quot;iadae&quot;) is short as a rule.* The e before the &quot;p&quot; here is long, since the Greek source word is spelled with η. I don't know whether there is any certain way of determining the length of the first &quot;a&quot;, or of the &quot;i&quot;, but I would guess that both are short, based on my intuitions about the distribution of long and short &quot;a&quot; and &quot;i&quot; in Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia entry on [Asclepius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius) contains a quotation from Beekes that makes the following comments on variant forms of the name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The name is typical for Pre-Greek words; apart from minor variations (β for π, αλ(α) for λα) we find α/αι (a well known variation; Fur. 335–339) followed by -γλαπ- or -σκλαπ-/-σχλαπ/β-, i.e. a voiced velar (without -σ-) or a voiceless velar (or an aspirated one: we know that there was no distinction between the three in the substr. language) with a -σ-. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That article also gives &quot;Aesculapius&quot; as a Latin version of the name. Based on this information, I am pretty puzzled by the absence of &quot;s&quot; in the form that you give, but I don't know enough to say anything definite about whether it is a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The LSJ Greek dictionary has an entry for *[Ἀσκληπιάδαι][1]*, defined as &quot;a name for physicians&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Asclepiadae&quot;, which is simply the regular latinization of &quot;Ἀσκληπιάδαι&quot;, certainly seems to be a valid and used form in Latin. If you Google it, you will see a bunch of examples. It would be expected to be pronounced the way it is spelled: i.e., reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation would be something like [askleːˈpiadae̯], &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation would be something like [asklɛˈpiadɛ], &quot;Traditional English pronunciation&quot; would be /ˌæsklɪˈpaɪədiː/, English anglicized &quot;restored pronunciation&quot; would be something like /ˌɑːskleɪˈpiːədaɪ/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*\*[Grammar of the Latin Language](https://books.google.com/books?id=OR8XAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA49&amp;lpg=PA49&amp;dq=Greek+patronymic+ades),* 64th Ed., Andrews and Stoddard, 1858; §100, p. 49&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3D*)asklhpia%2Fdai" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9160" RevisionGUID="c94f7322-32f5-416f-9554-562bc42d3a17" CreationDate="2019-02-22T00:17:56.483" UserId="3429" Text="[jclsource.org/dictionary][1] is a good free Latin to English and English to Latin dictionary. It uses Whitaker's words as a database. The rest of the site has lots of good resources, and as a developer of JCLSource, I strongly recommend the site not only for the dictionary. We are still working on improving the dictionary UI and adding auto-fill, but this is still a comprehensive dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://jclsource.org/dictionary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28324" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="9160" RevisionGUID="f6003da3-8af9-4fe9-9521-4d463a15aaed" CreationDate="2019-02-22T00:17:56.483" UserId="3429" />
  <row Id="28325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9161" RevisionGUID="e2abec16-625e-4c76-9c31-f1fcf4b17c30" CreationDate="2019-02-22T06:58:13.310" UserId="3430" Text="*usque ad finem capituli* is a reasonable translation of &quot;until the end of the chapter&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;*usque ad finem* is an idiomatic expression which was used by Roman authors. See for example https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=usque+ad+finem  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also translate &quot;through the end of the chapter&quot; as *per finem capituli* although a search for the expression in Packhum returns no results. https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=per+finem  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given a choice between the two, I would choose *usque ad finem capituli*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although Google Translate was surprisingly correct in this case, it is in general even less trustworthy for Latin than it is for modern languages, and should be avoided if possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9162" RevisionGUID="47602517-8492-4f94-96cb-f8ea2f525db7" CreationDate="2019-02-22T08:50:18.493" UserId="3432" Text="The &quot;b&quot; in providebit indicates future tense, while the &quot;I&quot; which follows the &quot;b&quot; is a connecting vowel having no significance other than ease of pronunciation.  So the word providebit literally means &quot;He will provide&quot;, being the third person singular form of the verb. It is understood to be masculine, following the masculine form of the word &quot;Dominus&quot;, which is understood to be in the mominative case indicating that it is the subject of the sentence. The meaning is therefore understood as &quot;The Lord will provide&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9163" RevisionGUID="322ce275-7cb5-4da6-8789-99d877c87f0d" CreationDate="2019-02-22T08:53:12.067" UserId="1459" Text="Notice _[usque ad finem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(U)#usque_ad_finem)_ is a common Latin phrase, meaning &quot;until the [very] end&quot;. Now, if your phrase is something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;See also This Other Book, chapter 3, from Section X _usque ad finem_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(notice the extra comma), to me it's pretty clear the _ad finem_ applies to the chapter 3. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice also the extra &quot;from&quot;, which to me feels necessary too (you might of course differ). You could instead use the Latin equivalent _a_ (_a_ comes from _ab_, but the _b_ is omitted when the next word is a consonant). However, perhaps not many readers might be familiar with what _a_ means (although in that case, not sure many would get _usque_ either).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9163" RevisionGUID="9b25d992-c08b-40e9-89c3-078a1918c997" CreationDate="2019-02-22T09:02:19.583" UserId="1459" Comment="added 234 characters in body" Text="Notice _[usque ad finem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(U)#usque_ad_finem)_ is a common Latin phrase, meaning &quot;until the [very] end&quot;. Now, if your phrase is something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;See also This Other Book, chapter 3, from Section X _usque ad finem_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(notice the extra comma), to me it's pretty clear the _ad finem_ applies to the chapter 3. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice also the extra &quot;from&quot;, which to me feels necessary too (you might of course differ). You could instead use the Latin equivalent _a_ (_a_ comes from _ab_, but the _b_ is omitted when the next word is a consonant). However, perhaps not many readers might be familiar with what _a_ means (although in that case, not sure many would get _usque_ either).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative approach is to say something like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;See also This Other Book, chapter 3, Section X _&amp; subsequentes_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(but here you could use the English, subsequent). You can also go for the classic &quot;etc&quot;, its Latin _et cetera_. Regardless of all, I think the comma after the chapter number is important to stress that the suggestion only pertains to such chapter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9161" RevisionGUID="bc488007-9b0c-4b1a-916c-368bd23b8fa5" CreationDate="2019-02-22T09:50:35.507" UserId="1459" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="*Usque ad finem capituli* is a reasonable translation of &quot;until the end of the chapter&quot;. *Usque ad finem* is an idiomatic expression which was used by Roman authors. See for example [here](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=usque+ad+finem).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also translate &quot;through the end of the chapter&quot; as *per finem capituli*, although a search for the expression in Packhum returns [no results](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=per+finem).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given a choice between the two, I would choose *usque ad finem capituli*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although Google Translate was surprisingly correct in this case, it is in general even less trustworthy for Latin than it is for modern languages, and should be avoided if possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9162" RevisionGUID="b8f45409-fdad-4ddf-8960-e05191ee7c06" CreationDate="2019-02-22T09:51:04.283" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The &quot;b&quot; in _providebit_ indicates future tense, while the &quot;i&quot; which follows the &quot;b&quot; is a connecting vowel having no significance other than ease of pronunciation.  So the word _providebit_ literally means &quot;He will provide&quot;, being the third person singular form of the verb. It is understood to be masculine, following the masculine form of the word _Dominus_, which is understood to be in the nominative case indicating that it is the subject of the sentence. The meaning is therefore understood as &quot;The Lord will provide&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9164" RevisionGUID="02836416-b7f8-43ab-a0e1-00ff99d4c081" CreationDate="2019-02-22T10:51:41.567" UserId="3431" Text="This came up as an idea for a team phrase for a sports team. The purpose would be to convey that people visited, joined, and are *still* playing the sport. (Disclaimer: I know almost nothing of Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think &quot;play&quot; is _ludo_ and would sound nice if they could say _veni, vidi, ludi._ However, if the _-i_ indicates past tense then that's not entirely right, it should be present tense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the present tense of &quot;to play&quot;, and how would you suggest to use this in a team phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28332" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9164" RevisionGUID="02836416-b7f8-43ab-a0e1-00ff99d4c081" CreationDate="2019-02-22T10:51:41.567" UserId="3431" Text="&quot;I came, I saw, I am playing&quot; = &quot;veni, vidi, ludo&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28333" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9164" RevisionGUID="02836416-b7f8-43ab-a0e1-00ff99d4c081" CreationDate="2019-02-22T10:51:41.567" UserId="3431" Text="|idiom|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9165" RevisionGUID="5240060d-fe51-4085-a86e-de847457804a" CreationDate="2019-02-22T10:53:50.697" UserId="324" Text="The usual academic practice is to write &quot;sqq.&quot; for &quot;et paginae sequentes&quot;, &quot;and the following pages&quot;. If you really want to make it clear that the reader must read all the way to the end of the chapter you could use something like &quot;ad fin.&quot;, but I am not sure I have ever seen that. Also, it could be understood to mean that you must read til the end of the book." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9166" RevisionGUID="11631665-b4e5-4eef-ae35-803c273a4f72" CreationDate="2019-02-22T11:05:54.543" UserId="1459" Text="There is no specific conjugation for the English present continuous in Latin. There is only present tense. As [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_conjugation#Present-tense_system) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A present tense like _portō_ can be translated as &quot;I carry,&quot; &quot;I do carry,&quot; or &quot;I am carrying&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, your translation is correct. The first person, indicative, present tens of &quot;I play&quot; is _[ludo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ludo#Inflection)_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9166" RevisionGUID="4a9eeea8-09ac-48ac-8c0d-533472d1ae36" CreationDate="2019-02-22T11:12:22.983" UserId="1459" Comment="added 307 characters in body" Text="There is no specific conjugation for the English present continuous in Latin. There is only present tense. As [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_conjugation#Present-tense_system) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A present tense like _portō_ can be translated as &quot;I carry,&quot; &quot;I do carry,&quot; or &quot;I am carrying&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, your translation is correct. The first person, indicative, present tens of &quot;I play&quot; is _[ludo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ludo#Inflection)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you want to put further emphasis in that you are still playing, you can add a word for &quot;still&quot;. As far as I know, some options are _etiam_, _adhuc_, _tamen_. So your phrase could be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;veni, vidi, ludo etiam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone might have a better idea which word fits better the context. I'm not an expert." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9166" RevisionGUID="092be6c6-c215-4ae5-aa38-83b5214cd2ec" CreationDate="2019-02-22T13:17:15.563" UserId="1459" Comment="edited body" Text="There is no specific conjugation for the English present continuous in Latin. There is only present tense. As [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_conjugation#Present-tense_system) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A present tense like _portō_ can be translated as &quot;I carry,&quot; &quot;I do carry,&quot; or &quot;I am carrying&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, your translation is correct. The first person, indicative, present tens of &quot;I play&quot; is _[ludo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ludo#Inflection)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to put further emphasis in that you are still playing, you can add a word for &quot;still&quot;. As far as I know, some options are _etiam_, _adhuc_, _tamen_. So your phrase could be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;veni, vidi, ludo etiam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone might have a better idea which word fits better the context. I'm not an expert." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9167" RevisionGUID="37051425-de35-4fec-83a4-da6aaca8e78e" CreationDate="2019-02-22T14:55:56.590" UserId="3433" Text="In the poem ‘O Fortuna’ (anon., 13th c., but made famous by Carl Orff’s setting), there is this verse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quod per sortem  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; sternit fortem  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; mecum omnes plangite!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is typically translated as ‘since luck strikes down the strong, everyone, weep with me!’ or something to that effect. I am confused about the use of ‘per sortem’ (prep.+acc.) for what seems to be the subject of the *quod*-clause. At first I thought it was some form of passive voice, but *sternit* is conjugated in the active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot seem to find any other examples of this usage of *quod per*. Is it even grammatical?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28339" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9167" RevisionGUID="37051425-de35-4fec-83a4-da6aaca8e78e" CreationDate="2019-02-22T14:55:56.590" UserId="3433" Text="What sort of grammatical construct is ‘Quod per sortem sternit fortem’?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28340" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9167" RevisionGUID="37051425-de35-4fec-83a4-da6aaca8e78e" CreationDate="2019-02-22T14:55:56.590" UserId="3433" Text="|medieval-latin|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9166" RevisionGUID="bacd94fe-9d97-41bc-a9ff-78f8941adc31" CreationDate="2019-02-22T15:09:28.213" UserId="1459" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="There is no specific conjugation for the English present continuous in Latin. There is only present tense. As [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_conjugation#Present-tense_system) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A present tense like _portō_ can be translated as &quot;I carry,&quot; &quot;I do carry,&quot; or &quot;I am carrying&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, your translation is correct. The first person, indicative, present tens of &quot;I play&quot; is _[ludo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ludo#Inflection)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to put further emphasis in that you are still playing, you can add a word for &quot;still&quot;. As far as I know, some options are _etiam_, _adhuc_, _tamen_. So your phrase could be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;veni, vidi, ludo etiam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone might have a better idea which word fits better the context. I'm not an expert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Tom suggests _adhuc_ &quot;better implies that the subject is continuing to play, even as he speaks.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9168" RevisionGUID="ea823f60-e222-4155-bed7-7420e090a160" CreationDate="2019-02-22T16:26:46.610" UserId="324" Text="The subject of sternit must be an unexpressed &quot;he&quot;, perhaps meaning &quot;God&quot;. &quot;Since, through the workings of fate, he lays low the strong, weep with me all of you.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9169" RevisionGUID="33abdd85-f2ec-418c-98be-12ac640a7f2d" CreationDate="2019-02-22T17:47:11.650" UserId="1459" Text="Well, on the one hand, it seems the two functions (which [Fairbairn 2011](https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Understanding_Language.html?id=n-6dWmYqVBgC&amp;redir_esc=y) calls relational and belonging function) are blended into the genitive. In his book, he states about the genitive function:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Genitive Function. This word comes from the Latin word for “to&#xD;&#xA;beget,” and it thus indicates some kind of relationship or belonging between two subjects. More generally, it is the function of&#xD;&#xA;indicating to whom or to what larger group a subject belongs.&#xD;&#xA;In English, we can perform this function using the possessive&#xD;&#xA;case or the preposition “of.” For example, in the phrase “David’s&#xD;&#xA;book,” the possessive “David’s” indicates the one to whom the&#xD;&#xA;book belongs. In the phrase “Lion of the tribe of Judah,” the&#xD;&#xA;word “of” introduces a prepositional phrase that shows the relationship between the Messiah and the Israelite tribe from which&#xD;&#xA;he is descended. In the phrase “Jesus of Nazareth,” the word “of”&#xD;&#xA;relates Jesus to the place from which he came. In a highly inflected Indo-European language, one could fulfill this relational&#xD;&#xA;or belonging function by placing the word (“David,” “tribe,” or&#xD;&#xA;“Nazareth,” in these examples) in the genitive case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, in his online book, [Lesson 23](http://www.frcoulter.com/latin/first/lesson23.html), Fr. Foster states the genitive has two possible meanings, Genitive of Object (relational) and Genitive of Ownership (belonging), but he mentions no method to differentiate them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far nothing special. However, there is something called the dative of possessor, or possesive dative. Collar and Daniell's book on Latin suggests ([page 11](https://archive.org/details/beginnerslatinbo00colluoft/page/10)), as an example of the latter, _Puellae est rosa_, translated litteraly as &quot;to the girl is a rose&quot;, but which intended meaning, according to the author, is &quot;the girl has a rose&quot; (_puella rosam habet_). This is unambiguous regarding the possessive function of the dative. The other alternative, as seen above, is the plain use of the verb _habere_, which means, among other things, &quot;to have&quot;, or &quot;to own&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, there seems to be no way to differentiate functions of the genitive. Alternatives include rephrasing using the possessive dative, or go straight for an explicit use of the verb &quot;to have/own&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9169" RevisionGUID="f13ae470-7863-4587-96ee-f77d9b695134" CreationDate="2019-02-22T18:11:17.747" UserId="1459" Comment="added 202 characters in body" Text="Well, on the one hand, it seems the two functions (which [Fairbairn 2011](https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Understanding_Language.html?id=n-6dWmYqVBgC&amp;redir_esc=y) calls relational and belonging function) are blended into the genitive. In his book, he states about the genitive function:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Genitive Function. This word comes from the Latin word for “to&#xD;&#xA;beget,” and it thus indicates some kind of relationship or belonging between two subjects. More generally, it is the function of&#xD;&#xA;indicating to whom or to what larger group a subject belongs.&#xD;&#xA;In English, we can perform this function using the possessive&#xD;&#xA;case or the preposition “of.” For example, in the phrase “David’s&#xD;&#xA;book,” the possessive “David’s” indicates the one to whom the&#xD;&#xA;book belongs. In the phrase “Lion of the tribe of Judah,” the&#xD;&#xA;word “of” introduces a prepositional phrase that shows the relationship between the Messiah and the Israelite tribe from which&#xD;&#xA;he is descended. In the phrase “Jesus of Nazareth,” the word “of”&#xD;&#xA;relates Jesus to the place from which he came. In a highly inflected Indo-European language, one could fulfill this relational&#xD;&#xA;or belonging function by placing the word (“David,” “tribe,” or&#xD;&#xA;“Nazareth,” in these examples) in the genitive case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, in his online book, [Lesson 23](http://www.frcoulter.com/latin/first/lesson23.html), Fr. Foster states the genitive has two possible meanings, Genitive of Object (relational) and Genitive of Ownership (belonging), but he mentions no method to differentiate them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far nothing special. However, there is something called the dative of possessor, or possesive dative. Collar and Daniell's book on Latin suggests ([page 11](https://archive.org/details/beginnerslatinbo00colluoft/page/10)), as an example of the latter, _Puellae est rosa_, translated litteraly as &quot;to the girl is a rose&quot;, but which intended meaning, according to the author, is &quot;the girl has a rose&quot; (_puella rosam habet_). This is unambiguous regarding the possessive function of the dative. The other alternative, as seen above, is the plain use of the verb _habere_, which means, among other things, &quot;to have&quot;, or &quot;to own&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, there seems to be no way to differentiate functions of the genitive. If you are writing in Latin, alternatives include rephrasing using the possessive dative, or go straight for an explicit use of the verb &quot;to have/own&quot;. An example of the latter could be to rephrase, for instance, &quot;I played John's guitar&quot; as &quot;I played the guitar that John has&quot;. Not very elegant, but there is no ambiguity on the belonging function used.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9170" RevisionGUID="777e0120-a060-4c58-a632-3914967635af" CreationDate="2019-02-22T18:40:24.577" UserId="1982" Text="In North &amp; Hillard Ex. 195 the following is to be translated into Latin: &quot;All order thus being lost, Nicias surrendered at discretion. He and Demosthenes, being condemned to death, died by poison;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a footnote N &amp; H recommend that the first clause be translated as: &quot;confusis signis et ordinibus,&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me this means: &quot;with (all) the orders and signals having-been-confused...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English (all order thus being lost) takes no account of &quot;signis&quot;; confundo does not normally mean lose/ lost; &quot;order&quot; is singular, &quot;ordinibus is (abl.) plural--have N &amp; H been a touch clumsy, here?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28346" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9170" RevisionGUID="777e0120-a060-4c58-a632-3914967635af" CreationDate="2019-02-22T18:40:24.577" UserId="1982" Text="Lost and Confused" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28347" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9170" RevisionGUID="777e0120-a060-4c58-a632-3914967635af" CreationDate="2019-02-22T18:40:24.577" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9169" RevisionGUID="fefeba4e-d099-446c-8d0c-9d562143e3f0" CreationDate="2019-02-22T18:40:44.193" UserId="1459" Comment="added 944 characters in body" Text="Well, on the one hand, it seems the two functions (which [Fairbairn 2011](https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Understanding_Language.html?id=n-6dWmYqVBgC&amp;redir_esc=y) calls relational and belonging function) are blended into the genitive. In his book, he states about the genitive function:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Genitive Function. This word comes from the Latin word for “to&#xD;&#xA;beget,” and it thus indicates some kind of relationship or belonging between two subjects. More generally, it is the function of&#xD;&#xA;indicating to whom or to what larger group a subject belongs.&#xD;&#xA;In English, we can perform this function using the possessive&#xD;&#xA;case or the preposition “of.” For example, in the phrase “David’s&#xD;&#xA;book,” the possessive “David’s” indicates the one to whom the&#xD;&#xA;book belongs. In the phrase “Lion of the tribe of Judah,” the&#xD;&#xA;word “of” introduces a prepositional phrase that shows the relationship between the Messiah and the Israelite tribe from which&#xD;&#xA;he is descended. In the phrase “Jesus of Nazareth,” the word “of”&#xD;&#xA;relates Jesus to the place from which he came. In a highly inflected Indo-European language, one could fulfill this relational&#xD;&#xA;or belonging function by placing the word (“David,” “tribe,” or&#xD;&#xA;“Nazareth,” in these examples) in the genitive case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, in his online book, [Lesson 23](http://www.frcoulter.com/latin/first/lesson23.html), Fr. Foster states the genitive has two possible meanings, Genitive of Object (relational) and Genitive of Ownership (belonging), but he mentions no method to differentiate them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far nothing special. Let's now focus on two things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Can we re-write the belonging function, to make it explicit or evident?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Well, there is something called the dative of possessor, or possesive dative. Collar and Daniell's book on Latin suggests ([page 11](https://archive.org/details/beginnerslatinbo00colluoft/page/10)), as an example of the latter, _Puellae est rosa_, translated litteraly as &quot;to the girl is a rose&quot;, but which intended meaning, according to the author, is &quot;the girl has a rose&quot; (_puella rosam habet_). This is unambiguous regarding the possessive function of the dative. The other alternative, as seen above, is the plain use of the verb _habere_, which means, among other things, &quot;to have&quot;, or &quot;to own&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In other words, if you are writing in Latin, alternatives include rephrasing using the possessive dative, or go straight for an explicit use of the verb &quot;to have/own&quot;. An example of the latter could be to rephrase, for instance, &quot;I played John's guitar&quot; as &quot;I played the guitar that John has&quot;. Not very elegant, but there is no ambiguity on the belonging function used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. How to differentiate between the two functions, for instance, in _amor Dei_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Well, in [this 1832](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PzABAAAAMAAJ&amp;lpg=PA170&amp;ots=NIhYxXhzcn&amp;dq=%22amor%20dei%22%20latin&amp;pg=PA170#v=onepage&amp;q=%22amor%20dei%22%20latin&amp;f=false) book about Latin and English, the author goes through many types of what seems to be called &quot;X governing Y&quot;. This seems to be intimately related to indicating cases of possessive genitive, for instance. A capture below, which includes the particular example of _amor Dei_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Thus, many times it is evident which substantive governs the other (e.g. _domus Caesaris_). If the dominant is in the genitive, then it is often a possessive. Yet, when the genitive is a person (in your case, _Dei_), ambiguity can arise. The book goes through plenty of more examples. The scope for a full answer here might be big enough to make a whole essay about Latin!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DImwQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9171" RevisionGUID="922b8894-333a-4777-9582-cfa2fd2eb52c" CreationDate="2019-02-22T19:00:32.777" UserId="3397" Text="The subject here is Fortuna (also called Sors) after whom the song is named. Perhaps this translation makes the passage clearer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quod [Fortuna]   =   Because [Fortuna] *(implied subject)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;per sortem       =   by lot *(idiomatically this means &quot;at random&quot;)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sternit fortem   =   strikes down the brave [man]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mecum omnes plangite = mourn with me, everyone!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9172" RevisionGUID="da3a2219-7b76-416f-9b56-91c36b518c8d" CreationDate="2019-02-22T19:17:44.310" UserId="79" Text="Although *ordo* appears to be etymologically related to &quot;order&quot;, it does not mean &quot;order&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Rather, it means a regular row or line in which soldiers in a formation are arranged.&#xD;&#xA;An orderly fight relies on soldiers being in nice lines (*ordo*) following their standards (*signum*).&#xD;&#xA;If both are confused, chaos ensues on the battlefield.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English version has &quot;order&quot;, which has far less detail and nuance than the Latin *ordines et signa*.&#xD;&#xA;The footnote suggests that one should elaborate on the idea of &quot;order&quot; in the suggested way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9170" RevisionGUID="ea4d4435-c287-4bf2-adbb-ba00b18d7066" CreationDate="2019-02-22T19:18:44.220" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In North &amp; Hillard Ex. 195 the following is to be translated into Latin: &quot;All order thus being lost, Nicias surrendered at discretion. He and Demosthenes, being condemned to death, died by poison.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a footnote N &amp; H recommend that the first clause be translated as: &quot;confusis signis et ordinibus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me this means: &quot;with (all) the orders and signals having-been-confused...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English (all order thus being lost) takes no account of &quot;signis&quot;; confundo does not normally mean lose/lost; &quot;order&quot; is singular, &quot;ordinibus is (abl.) plural--have N &amp; H been a touch clumsy, here?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28352" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9170" RevisionGUID="ea4d4435-c287-4bf2-adbb-ba00b18d7066" CreationDate="2019-02-22T19:18:44.220" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9174" RevisionGUID="d79d72f1-eb83-4a5c-ac35-0d70ba0de30f" CreationDate="2019-02-22T20:24:26.790" UserId="2363" Text="In early modern Europe, the common phrase was *ex officina* (from the workshop), followed by the establishment's name, either in the genitive or as an adjective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a practical way of implementing this in a modern, non-Latin-literate context is to put *ex officina* but keep your name or the name of your company in its normal form. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9158" RevisionGUID="e264b295-f1e9-4c85-98f3-0db0ba4b6bf6" CreationDate="2019-02-22T21:04:58.787" UserId="9" Comment="added link to related question about the etymology of the name" Text="The word that you are asking about was derived by adding (the plural form of) a patronymic suffix to [a Greek name with unknown ultimate etymology](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6495/etymology-of-%E1%BC%88%CF%83%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B7%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%8C%CF%82-greek). The a in the second-to-last syllable of patronymics ending in &quot;adae&quot; (including those ending in &quot;iadae&quot;) is short as a rule.* The e before the &quot;p&quot; here is long, since the Greek source word is spelled with η. I don't know whether there is any certain way of determining the length of the first &quot;a&quot;, or of the &quot;i&quot;, but I would guess that both are short, based on my intuitions about the distribution of long and short &quot;a&quot; and &quot;i&quot; in Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia entry on [Asclepius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius) contains a quotation from Beekes that makes the following comments on variant forms of the name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The name is typical for Pre-Greek words; apart from minor variations (β for π, αλ(α) for λα) we find α/αι (a well known variation; Fur. 335–339) followed by -γλαπ- or -σκλαπ-/-σχλαπ/β-, i.e. a voiced velar (without -σ-) or a voiceless velar (or an aspirated one: we know that there was no distinction between the three in the substr. language) with a -σ-. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That article also gives &quot;Aesculapius&quot; as a Latin version of the name. Based on this information, I am pretty puzzled by the absence of &quot;s&quot; in the form that you give, but I don't know enough to say anything definite about whether it is a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The LSJ Greek dictionary has an entry for *[Ἀσκληπιάδαι][1]*, defined as &quot;a name for physicians&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Asclepiadae&quot;, which is simply the regular latinization of &quot;Ἀσκληπιάδαι&quot;, certainly seems to be a valid and used form in Latin. If you Google it, you will see a bunch of examples. It would be expected to be pronounced the way it is spelled: i.e., reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation would be something like [askleːˈpiadae̯], &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation would be something like [asklɛˈpiadɛ], &quot;Traditional English pronunciation&quot; would be /ˌæsklɪˈpaɪədiː/, English anglicized &quot;restored pronunciation&quot; would be something like /ˌɑːskleɪˈpiːədaɪ/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*\*[Grammar of the Latin Language](https://books.google.com/books?id=OR8XAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA49&amp;lpg=PA49&amp;dq=Greek+patronymic+ades),* 64th Ed., Andrews and Stoddard, 1858; §100, p. 49&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3D*)asklhpia%2Fdai" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9175" RevisionGUID="31abd1eb-3019-4c4e-b577-3967e54395a4" CreationDate="2019-02-22T21:07:07.273" UserId="2363" Text="Serious students should have at their disposal at least one Latin-Latin dictionary. The [Forcellini Lexicon][1] is an early modern edition that is still very useful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://linguax.com/lexica/forc.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28358" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="9175" RevisionGUID="13953ea0-a3cc-44e2-89a8-0a5ff82f12e0" CreationDate="2019-02-22T21:07:07.273" UserId="2363" />
  <row Id="28359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9176" RevisionGUID="8e2d7b2a-e7cd-4436-9da1-d932101eaec1" CreationDate="2019-02-22T21:21:17.527" UserId="645" Text="The distinction — as well as the possible ambiguity — is nicely shown in your examples of English, in which the -'s indicates ownership, or indeed possession. 'John's photo', strictly, indicates John's ownership of a photo, and is equivalent to 'a photo of John's'. On the other hand 'a photo of John' means — and really  only means — that John is the subject of the photo, and not that he is its owner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The distinction in grammar  between 'possessive' and 'genitive' is rather fine, if not actually artificial. While the latter is almost invariably used in naming the grammatical case in Latin, the former is more usually reserved to physical possession or belonging. The possessive pronouns of Latin (which are in fact adjectives) are so named to indicate the fact of ownership, not of association and, in your example, *cuius* is the genitive singular ('mine') of the possessive pronoun *meus, mea, meum*, 'my' (the other possessive pronouns work in the same way).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An expression such *amor Dei* is always ambiguous without a defining context. It is avoidable by using the 'dative of possession': in this phrase *amor Deo*, 'love for God', or 'the love that is given to God', removes any ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9176" RevisionGUID="085fec85-d6ec-4ab2-b778-aa93d54c211b" CreationDate="2019-02-23T07:15:51.790" UserId="645" Comment="mistake corrected" Text="The distinction — as well as the possible ambiguity — is nicely shown in your examples of English, in which the -'s indicates ownership, or indeed possession. 'John's photo', strictly, indicates John's ownership of a photo, and is equivalent to 'a photo of John's'. On the other hand 'a photo of John' means — and really  only means — that John is the subject of the photo, and not that he is its owner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The distinction in grammar  between 'possessive' and 'genitive' is rather fine, if not actually artificial. While the latter is almost invariably used in naming the grammatical case in Latin, the former is more usually reserved to physical possession or belonging. The possessive pronouns of Latin (which are in fact adjectives) are so named to indicate the fact of ownership, not of association and, in your example, *cuius* is not the genitive singular ('mine') of the possessive pronoun *meus, mea, meum*, 'my', but of a relative prononoun (other pronouns work in the same way).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An expression such *amor Dei* is always ambiguous without a defining context. It is avoidable by using the 'dative of possession': in this phrase *amor Deo*, 'love for God', or 'the love that is given to God', removes any ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9177" RevisionGUID="0392ce8a-41c9-433b-8588-a93b9741108e" CreationDate="2019-02-23T11:29:32.080" UserId="2389" Text="The translation is fine, but two points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. at first I thought *eō* would be more fitting as a relative reference to *ubi* than *illūc*, but judging by [PHI][1] both are equally fine, with the latter having more demonstrative force:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Num mē **illūc** dūcis, **ubi** lapis lapidem terit? (Pl.As.31)  &#xD;&#xA;Sed adhibeat ōrātiō modum et redeat **illūc**, **unde** dēflexit. (Cic.Tusc.5.80.1)  &#xD;&#xA;..quae intrāre **eō ubi** jam virtūs honestumque est non potest.  (SenPhil.Dial.2.5.3.)  &#xD;&#xA;..ipse **eō**dem **unde** redierat proficīscitur. (Caes.Gal.5.11.8.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Istūc*, suggested by another answer, cannot be used thus because the place it points to is in the general vicinity of the conversation (probably but not necessarily near the speaker).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Unsyncopated -ā(vi)s- forms are archaising in Classical Latin, to the point that for a word like amāre they [might not even be attested][2] (though one does for *adamāre*, in a philophocal work, in its elevated literary meaning). I suggest avoiding these forms unless you're going for a consciously literary effect, and using *amāstī*, or indeed that same *adamāstī* of Cicero that underlines the start of genuine love for life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=amavis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9177" RevisionGUID="2921802a-9a6f-40ee-9742-dbf312dfd212" CreationDate="2019-02-23T11:58:28.083" UserId="2389" Comment="added 347 characters in body; deleted 1 character in body; added 2 characters in body" Text="The translation is fine, but a few points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- at first I thought *eō* would be more fitting as a relative reference to *ubi* than *illūc*, but judging by [PHI][1] both are equally fine, with the latter having more demonstrative force:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Num mē **illūc** dūcis, **ubi** lapis lapidem terit? (Pl.As.31)  &#xD;&#xA;Sed adhibeat ōrātiō modum et redeat **illūc**, **unde** dēflexit. (Cic.Tusc.5.80.1)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;..quae intrāre **eō ubi** jam virtūs honestumque est non potest.  (SenPhil.Dial.2.5.3.)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;..ipse **eō**dem **unde** redierat proficīscitur. (Caes.Gal.5.11.8.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Istūc*, suggested by another answer, cannot be used thus because the place it points to is in the general vicinity of the conversation (probably but not necessarily near the speaker).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The circumlocution *quō locī* [seems to be technical or colloquial][2] and thus doesn't fit.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;- Unsyncopated -ā(vi)s- forms are archaising in Classical Latin, to the point that for a word like *amāre* they [might not even be attested][3] (though one does for *adamāre*, in a philophocal work, in its elevated literary meaning). Quintilian, who lived in the 1st c. AD, lists mirror forms in -īvis- as examples of [&quot;most obnoxious pedantry&quot;][4]. I suggest avoiding these forms unless you're going for a consciously literary effect, and using *amāstī*, or indeed that same *adamāstī* of Cicero that will underline the start of genuine love for life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23quo%20loci&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=amavis&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1002/1/7/5024-5036#7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9164" RevisionGUID="c7e18076-75af-4565-835b-106b09484a25" CreationDate="2019-02-23T20:50:40.127" UserId="3431" Comment="added response to comments." Text="This came up as an idea for a team phrase for a sports team. The purpose would be to convey that people visited, joined, and are *still* playing the sport. (Disclaimer: I know almost nothing of Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think &quot;play&quot; is _ludo_ and would sound nice if they could say _veni, vidi, ludi._ However, if the _-i_ indicates past tense then that's not entirely right, it should be present tense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the present tense of &quot;to play&quot;, and how would you suggest to use this in a team phrase?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Edit: I know the alliteration is broken, but it's okay for the team.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="fe7d2255-e660-4dbf-931f-ab44df03a9c0" CreationDate="2019-02-24T14:54:01.307" UserId="39" Text="First of all, a very important note on your use of genitive and possessive (and some incorrect assertions expressed in someone else's post). We are very fortunate that Classical studies have benefitted immensely from contemporary linguistic research. The great Latinists of the past did a lot to collect data - manually! - and they tried to describe and analyze it to the best of their knowledge, *for their time*. However, this is 2019, not 1919, and one has to read Latin grammars of the past(replete with most interesting language minutiae) with great caution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By tradition (and for some other reasons), we distinguish six cases in Latin, the genitive being one of the them. Theoretically, we could posit more - if we take into account semantics solely and disregard morphology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have the genitive case in Latin that expresses different semantic relationships between the head and its dependent. **Possession is only one of the genitive uses.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to consult one of the best Latin grammars of our time, I cannot recommend enough the first volume of Harm Pinkster's *Oxford Latin Syntax: The Simple Clause* (OUP, 2015). It contains 1430 pages and this is just the first volume (we're still waiting, patiently, for the second volume to materialize, hopefully, in the next decade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to your question. How can we distinguish between possessive genitive and the genitive of description? (if I understood you correctly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster naturally addresses this in his monograph (see, for instance, 11.46-11.48).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the possessive genitive can be coordinated with a possessive adjective, whereas the genitive of description can be coordinated with a descriptive adjective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sermonem* **tuum** et **Pompei** cognovi ex tuis litteris (Cic.) - possessive genitive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as Pinskter observes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;For most combinations of head nouns and attributive NPs the precise semantic function of the genitive attribute is wholly dependent on the meanings of the head and attribute constituents involved and the way they are related in the extralinguistic world&quot; (p. 1000).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(will add more later)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="616bb8df-e6c2-40ae-ac11-be55ac30864d" CreationDate="2019-02-24T15:00:00.667" UserId="39" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="First of all, a very important note on your use of genitive and possessive (and some incorrect assertions expressed in someone else's post). We are very fortunate that Classical studies have benefitted immensely from contemporary linguistic research. The great Latinists of the past did a lot to collect data - manually! - and they tried to describe and analyze it to the best of their knowledge, *for their time*. However, this is 2019, not 1919, and one has to read Latin grammars of the past(replete with most interesting language minutiae) with great caution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By tradition (and for some other reasons), we distinguish six cases in Latin, the genitive being one of the them. Theoretically, we could posit more - if we take into account semantics solely and disregard morphology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have the genitive case in Latin that expresses different semantic relationships between the head and its dependent. **Possession is only one of the genitive uses.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to consult one of the best Latin grammars of our time, I cannot recommend enough the first volume of Harm Pinkster's *Oxford Latin Syntax: The Simple Clause* (OUP, 2015). It contains 1430 pages and this is just the first volume (we're still waiting, patiently, for the second volume to materialize, hopefully, in the next decade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to your question. How can we distinguish between possessive genitive and the genitive of description? (if I understood you correctly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster naturally addresses this in his monograph (see, for instance, 11.46-11.48).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the possessive genitive can be coordinated with a possessive adjective, whereas the genitive of description can be coordinated with a descriptive adjective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sermonem* **tuum** et **Pompei** cognovi ex tuis litteris (Cic.) - possessive genitive, *sermonem Pompei*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tu magnus amator mulierum es, Messenio, ego autem homo iracundus, animi perciti. (Pl.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as Pinskter observes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;For most combinations of head nouns and attributive NPs the precise semantic function of the genitive attribute is wholly dependent on the meanings of the head and attribute constituents involved and the way they are related in the extralinguistic world&quot; (p. 1000).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(will add more later)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="f5f31ccc-80a9-4624-b150-925f62d4fee2" CreationDate="2019-02-24T15:09:36.743" UserId="39" Comment="added 186 characters in body" Text="First of all, a very important note on your use of genitive and possessive (and some incorrect assertions expressed in someone else's post). We are very fortunate that Classical studies have benefitted immensely from contemporary linguistic research. The great Latinists of the past did a lot to collect data - manually! - and they tried to describe and analyze it to the best of their knowledge, *for their time*. However, this is 2019, not 1919, and one has to read Latin grammars of the past(replete with most interesting language minutiae) with great caution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By tradition (and for some other reasons), we distinguish six cases in Latin, the genitive being one of the them. Theoretically, we could posit more - if we take into account semantics solely and disregard morphology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have the genitive case in Latin that expresses different semantic relationships between the head and its dependent. **Possession is only one of the genitive uses.** For instance, [de Groot 1956][1] argues there are eight &quot;regular grammatical uses of the Genitive&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to consult one of the best Latin grammars of our time, I cannot recommend enough the first volume of Harm Pinkster's *Oxford Latin Syntax: The Simple Clause* (OUP, 2015). It contains 1430 pages and this is just the first volume (we're still waiting, patiently, for the second volume to materialize, hopefully, in the next decade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to your question. How can we distinguish between possessive genitive and the genitive of description? (if I understood you correctly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster naturally addresses this in his monograph (see, for instance, 11.46-11.48).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the possessive genitive can be coordinated with a possessive adjective, whereas the genitive of description can be coordinated with a descriptive adjective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sermonem* **tuum** et **Pompei** cognovi ex tuis litteris (Cic.) - possessive genitive, *sermonem Pompei*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tu magnus amator mulierum es, Messenio, ego autem homo iracundus, animi perciti. (Pl.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as Pinskter observes,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;For most combinations of head nouns and attributive NPs the precise semantic function of the genitive attribute is wholly dependent on the meanings of the head and attribute constituents involved and the way they are related in the extralinguistic world&quot; (p. 1000).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(will add more later)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024384156900031" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="8e5173d2-e5d7-44f5-9280-6401236b56a9" CreationDate="2019-02-24T17:33:40.473" UserId="39" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="First of all, a very important note on your use of genitive and possessive (and some incorrect assertions expressed in someone else's post). We are very fortunate that Classical studies have benefitted immensely from contemporary linguistic research. The great Latinists of the past did a lot to collect data - manually! - and they tried to describe and analyze it to the best of their knowledge, *for their time*. However, this is 2019, not 1919, and one has to read Latin grammars of the past(replete with most interesting language minutiae) with great caution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By tradition (and for some other reasons), we distinguish six cases in Latin, the genitive being one of the them. Theoretically, we could posit more - if we take into account semantics solely and disregard morphology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have the genitive case in Latin that expresses different semantic relationships between the head and its dependent. **Possession is only one of the genitive uses.** For instance, [de Groot 1956][1] argues there are eight &quot;regular grammatical uses of the Genitive&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to consult one of the best Latin grammars of our time, I cannot recommend enough the first volume of Harm Pinkster's *Oxford Latin Syntax: The Simple Clause* (OUP, 2015). It contains 1430 pages and this is just the first volume (we're still waiting, patiently, for the second volume to materialize, hopefully, in the next decade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to your question. How can we distinguish between possessive genitive and the genitive of description? (if I understood you correctly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster naturally addresses this in his monograph (see, for instance, 11.46-11.48).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For example, **the possessive genitive can be coordinated with a possessive adjective, whereas the genitive of description can be coordinated with a descriptive adjective**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sermonem* **tuum** et **Pompei** cognovi ex tuis litteris (Cic.) - possessive genitive, *sermonem Pompei*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tu magnus amator mulierum es, Messenio, ego autem homo *iracundus*, animi perciti. (Pl.) - the genitive of description&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as Pinskter correctly observes - and this answers your question - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;For most combinations of head nouns and attributive NPs the precise semantic function of the genitive attribute is wholly dependent on the meanings of the head and attribute constituents involved and the way they are related in the extralinguistic world&quot; (p. 1000).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(will add more examples and syntactic tests later)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024384156900031" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9169" RevisionGUID="7e13f886-9432-40dc-8a16-300a1ec9938e" CreationDate="2019-02-24T17:40:45.830" UserId="9" Comment="Replaced photo with transcription of quoted passage for better accessibility and search indexing" Text="Well, on the one hand, it seems the two functions (which [Fairbairn 2011](https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Understanding_Language.html?id=n-6dWmYqVBgC&amp;redir_esc=y) calls relational and belonging function) are blended into the genitive. In his book, he states about the genitive function:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Genitive Function. This word comes from the Latin word for “to beget,” and it thus indicates some kind of relationship or belonging between two subjects. More generally, it is the function of indicating to whom or to what larger group a subject belongs.&#xD;&#xA;In English, we can perform this function using the possessive case or the preposition “of.” For example, in the phrase “David’s book,” the possessive “David’s” indicates the one to whom the book belongs. In the phrase “Lion of the tribe of Judah,” the word “of” introduces a prepositional phrase that shows the relationship between the Messiah and the Israelite tribe from which&#xD;&#xA;he is descended. In the phrase “Jesus of Nazareth,” the word “of” relates Jesus to the place from which he came. In a highly inflected Indo-European language, one could fulfill this relational or belonging function by placing the word (“David,” “tribe,” or “Nazareth,” in these examples) in the genitive case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, in his online book, [Lesson 23](http://www.frcoulter.com/latin/first/lesson23.html), Fr. Foster states the genitive has two possible meanings, Genitive of Object (relational) and Genitive of Ownership (belonging), but he mentions no method to differentiate them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far nothing special. Let's now focus on two things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Can we re-write the belonging function, to make it explicit or evident?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Well, there is something called the dative of possessor, or possesive dative. Collar and Daniell's book on Latin suggests ([page 11](https://archive.org/details/beginnerslatinbo00colluoft/page/10)), as an example of the latter, _Puellae est rosa_, translated litteraly as &quot;to the girl is a rose&quot;, but which intended meaning, according to the author, is &quot;the girl has a rose&quot; (_puella rosam habet_). This is unambiguous regarding the possessive function of the dative. The other alternative, as seen above, is the plain use of the verb _habere_, which means, among other things, &quot;to have&quot;, or &quot;to own&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In other words, if you are writing in Latin, alternatives include rephrasing using the possessive dative, or go straight for an explicit use of the verb &quot;to have/own&quot;. An example of the latter could be to rephrase, for instance, &quot;I played John's guitar&quot; as &quot;I played the guitar that John has&quot;. Not very elegant, but there is no ambiguity on the belonging function used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. How to differentiate between the two functions, for instance, in _amor Dei_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Well, in [this 1832](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PzABAAAAMAAJ&amp;lpg=PA170&amp;ots=NIhYxXhzcn&amp;dq=%22amor%20dei%22%20latin&amp;pg=PA170#v=onepage&amp;q=%22amor%20dei%22%20latin&amp;f=false) book about Latin and English, the author goes through many types of what seems to be called &quot;X governing Y&quot;. This seems to be intimately related to indicating cases of possessive genitive, for instance. Here is a quotation which includes the particular example of _amor Dei_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;I. The Government of Substantives.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; VI. One Substantive governs another in the genitive, *(when the latter Substantive signifies a different thing from the former;)* as,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Amor Dei,* the love of God. *Lex naturæ,* The Law of nature. *Domus Cæsāris,* The house of Cæsar, *or* Cæsar's house.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Obs. 1. When one substantive is governed by another in the genitive, it expresses in general the relation of property or possession, and therefore is often elegantly turned into a possessive adjective; as, *Domus patris,* or *paterna,* a father's house; *Filius heri* or *herilis,* a master's son: and among the poets, *Labor Herculeus,* for *Herculis;* *Ensis Evandrius,* for *Evandri.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Obs. 2. When the substantive noun in the genitive signifies a person, it may be taken either in an active or a passive sense; thus, *Amor Dei,* the love of God, either means the love of God towards us, or our love towards him: So *caritas patris,* signifies either the affection of a father to his children, or theirs to him. But often the substantive can only be taken either in an active or in a passive sense; thus, *Timor Dei,* always implies *Deus timetur;* and *Providentia Dei, Deus providet.* So *Caritas ipsius soli,* affection to the very soil, Liv. ii. 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Thus, many times it is evident which substantive governs the other (e.g. _domus Caesaris_). If the dominant is in the genitive, then it is often a possessive. Yet, when the genitive is a person (in your case, _Dei_), ambiguity can arise. The book goes through plenty of more examples. The scope for a full answer here might be big enough to make a whole essay about Latin!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DImwQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="9bf47760-1c18-46d1-a148-3f7b2c7c0b5e" CreationDate="2019-02-24T17:53:40.273" UserId="39" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="First of all, a very important note on your use of genitive and possessive (and some incorrect assertions expressed in someone else's post). We are very fortunate that Classical studies have benefitted immensely from contemporary linguistic research. The great Latinists of the past did a lot to collect data - manually! - and they tried to describe and analyze it to the best of their knowledge, *for their time*. However, this is 2019, not 1919, and one has to read Latin grammars of the past(replete with most interesting language minutiae) with great caution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By tradition (and for some other reasons), we distinguish six cases in Latin, the genitive being one of the them. Theoretically, we could posit more - if we take into account semantics solely and disregard morphology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have the genitive case in Latin that expresses different semantic relationships between the head and its dependent. **Possession is only one of the genitive uses.** For instance, [de Groot 1956][1] argues there are eight &quot;regular grammatical uses of the Genitive&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to consult one of the best Latin grammars of our time, I cannot recommend enough the first volume of Harm Pinkster's *Oxford Latin Syntax: The Simple Clause* (OUP, 2015). It contains 1430 pages and this is just the first volume (we're still waiting, patiently, for the second volume to materialize, hopefully, in the next decade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to your question. How can we distinguish between possessive genitive and the genitive of description? (if I understood you correctly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster naturally addresses this in his monograph (see, for instance, 11.46-11.48).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For example, **the possessive genitive can be coordinated with a possessive adjective, whereas the genitive of description can be coordinated with a descriptive adjective**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sermonem* **tuum** et **Pompei** cognovi ex tuis litteris (Cic.) - possessive genitive, *sermonem Pompei*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;imperium tuom demutat atque edictum Apollinis. (Pl.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mea longinquitas aetatis (Ter.) - the last two examples are taken from Szantyr 1965 *Lateinische Syntax und Stilstik* (see p. 61 for more examples)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tu magnus amator mulierum es, Messenio, ego autem homo *iracundus*, animi perciti. (Pl.) - the genitive of description&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as Pinskter correctly observes - and this answers your question - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;For most combinations of head nouns and attributive NPs the precise semantic function of the genitive attribute is wholly dependent on the meanings of the head and attribute constituents involved and the way they are related in the extralinguistic world&quot; (p. 1000).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(will add more examples and syntactic tests later)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024384156900031" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="c88d313f-4754-4dca-ab83-a901808453c8" CreationDate="2019-02-24T18:09:34.993" UserId="39" Comment="added 177 characters in body" Text="First of all, a very important note on your use of genitive and possessive (and some incorrect assertions expressed in someone else's post). We are very fortunate that Classical studies have benefitted immensely from contemporary linguistic research. The great Latinists of the past did a lot to collect data - manually! - and they tried to describe and analyze it to the best of their knowledge, *for their time*. However, this is 2019, not 1919, and one has to read Latin grammars of the past(replete with most interesting language minutiae) with great caution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By tradition (and for some other reasons), we distinguish six cases in Latin, the genitive being one of the them. Theoretically, we could posit more - if we take into account semantics solely and disregard morphology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have the genitive case in Latin that expresses different semantic relationships between the head and its dependent. **Possession is only one of the genitive uses.** For instance, [de Groot 1956][1] argues there are eight &quot;regular grammatical uses of the Genitive&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to consult one of the best Latin grammars of our time, I cannot recommend enough the first volume of Harm Pinkster's *Oxford Latin Syntax: The Simple Clause* (OUP, 2015). It contains 1430 pages and this is just the first volume (we're still waiting, patiently, for the second volume to materialize, hopefully, in the next decade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to your question. How can we distinguish between possessive genitive and the genitive of description? (if I understood you correctly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster naturally addresses this in his monograph (see, for instance, 11.46-11.48).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Typically*, in a Latin possessive genitive construction the possessor is human and the possessee is inanimate (concrete) (Pinskter p. 727; see some exceptions on page 774).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some syntactic tests that might help us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For example, **the possessive genitive can be coordinated with a possessive adjective, whereas the genitive of description can be coordinated with a descriptive adjective**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sermonem* **tuum** et **Pompei** cognovi ex tuis litteris (Cic.) - possessive genitive, *sermonem Pompei*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;imperium tuom demutat atque edictum Apollinis. (Pl.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mea longinquitas aetatis (Ter.) - the last two examples are taken from Szantyr 1965 *Lateinische Syntax und Stilstik* (see p. 61 for more examples)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tu magnus amator mulierum es, Messenio, ego autem homo *iracundus*, animi perciti. (Pl.) - the genitive of description&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as Pinskter correctly observes - and this answers your question - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;For most combinations of head nouns and attributive NPs the precise semantic function of the genitive attribute is wholly dependent on the meanings of the head and attribute constituents involved and the way they are related in the extralinguistic world&quot; (p. 1000).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(will add more examples and syntactic tests later)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024384156900031" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="742e43cb-93e4-4ce8-9f4d-ef51aaad23c1" CreationDate="2019-02-24T18:15:38.507" UserId="39" Comment="added 177 characters in body" Text="First of all, a very important note on your use of genitive and possessive (and some incorrect assertions expressed in someone else's post). We are very fortunate that Classical studies have benefitted immensely from contemporary linguistic research. The great Latinists of the past did a lot to collect data - manually! - and they tried to describe and analyze it to the best of their knowledge, *for their time*. However, this is 2019, not 1919, and one has to read Latin grammars of the past(replete with most interesting language minutiae) with great caution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By tradition (and for some other reasons), we distinguish six cases in Latin, the genitive being one of the them. Theoretically, we could posit more - if we take into account semantics solely and disregard morphology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have the genitive case in Latin that expresses different semantic relationships between the head and its dependent. **Possession is only one of the genitive uses.** For instance, [de Groot 1956][1] argues there are eight &quot;regular grammatical uses of the Genitive&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to consult one of the best Latin grammars of our time, I cannot recommend enough the first volume of Harm Pinkster's *Oxford Latin Syntax: The Simple Clause* (OUP, 2015). It contains 1430 pages and this is just the first volume (we're still waiting, patiently, for the second volume to materialize, hopefully, in the next decade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to your question. How can we distinguish between possessive genitive and the genitive of description? (if I understood you correctly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster naturally addresses this in his monograph (see, for instance, 11.46-11.48).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Typically*, in a Latin possessive genitive construction the possessor is human and the possessee is inanimate (concrete) (Pinskter p. 727; see some exceptions on page 774).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some syntactic tests that might help us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For example, **the possessive genitive can be coordinated with a possessive adjective, whereas the genitive of description can be coordinated with a descriptive adjective**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sermonem* **tuum** et **Pompei** cognovi ex tuis litteris (Cic.) - possessive genitive, *sermonem Pompei*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;imperium tuom demutat atque edictum Apollinis. (Pl.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mea longinquitas aetatis (Ter.) - the last two examples are taken from Szantyr 1965 *Lateinische Syntax und Stilstik* (see p. 61 for more examples)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tu magnus amator mulierum es, Messenio, ego autem homo *iracundus*, animi perciti. (Pl.) - the genitive of description&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as Pinskter correctly observes - and this answers your question - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;For most combinations of head nouns and attributive NPs the precise semantic function of the genitive attribute is wholly dependent on the meanings of the head and attribute constituents involved and the way they are related in the extralinguistic world&quot; (p. 1000).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(will add more examples and syntactic tests later and might revise the post slightly - have a lot of papers to grade today)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024384156900031" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="40fd614c-7cbd-41ab-b912-5d39bc68e497" CreationDate="2019-02-24T18:22:12.763" UserId="39" Comment="added 177 characters in body" Text="First of all, a very important note on your use of genitive and possessive (and some incorrect assertions expressed in someone else's post). We are very fortunate that Classical studies have benefitted immensely from contemporary linguistic research. The great Latinists of the past did a lot to collect data - manually! - and they tried to describe and analyze it to the best of their knowledge, *for their time*. However, this is 2019, not 1919, and one has to read Latin grammars of the past (replete with most interesting language minutiae) with great caution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By tradition (and for some other reasons), we distinguish six cases in Latin, the genitive being one of the them. Theoretically, we could posit more - if we take into account semantics solely and disregard morphology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have the genitive case in Latin that expresses different semantic relationships between the head and its dependent. **Possession is only one of the genitive uses.** For instance, [de Groot 1956][1] argues there are eight &quot;regular grammatical uses of the Genitive&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A side note:* What exactly possession is is no trivial matter, either. See the first pages with lots of examples in [Baldi and Nuti 2010][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to consult one of the best Latin grammars of our time, I cannot recommend enough the first volume of Harm Pinkster's *Oxford Latin Syntax: The Simple Clause* (OUP, 2015). It contains 1430 pages and this is just the first volume (we're still waiting, patiently, for the second volume to materialize, hopefully, in the next decade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to your question. How can we distinguish between possessive genitive and the genitive of description? (if I understood you correctly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pinkster naturally addresses this in his monograph (see, for instance, 11.46-11.48).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Typically*, in a Latin possessive genitive construction the possessor is human and the possessee is inanimate (concrete) (Pinskter p. 727; see some exceptions on page 774).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some syntactic tests that might help us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For example, **the possessive genitive can be coordinated with a possessive adjective, whereas the genitive of description can be coordinated with a descriptive adjective**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sermonem* **tuum** et **Pompei** cognovi ex tuis litteris (Cic.) - possessive genitive, *sermonem Pompei*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;imperium tuom demutat atque edictum Apollinis. (Pl.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mea longinquitas aetatis (Ter.) - the last two examples are taken from Szantyr 1965 *Lateinische Syntax und Stilstik* (see p. 61 for more examples)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tu magnus amator mulierum es, Messenio, ego autem homo *iracundus*, animi perciti. (Pl.) - the genitive of description&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as Pinskter correctly observes - and this answers your question - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;For most combinations of head nouns and attributive NPs the precise semantic function of the genitive attribute is wholly dependent on the meanings of the head and attribute constituents involved and the way they are related in the extralinguistic world&quot; (p. 1000).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(will add more examples and syntactic tests later and might revise the post slightly - have a lot of papers to grade today)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024384156900031&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110215465/9783110215465.239/9783110215465.239.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9177" RevisionGUID="2c10adf3-b20e-4e6b-a7fe-3367de3ec189" CreationDate="2019-02-24T20:01:47.220" UserId="2389" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The translation is fine, but a few points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- at first I thought *eō* would be more fitting as a relative reference to *ubi* than *illūc*, but judging by [PHI][1] both are equally fine, with the latter having more demonstrative force:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Num mē **illūc** dūcis, **ubi** lapis lapidem terit? (Pl.As.31)  &#xD;&#xA;Sed adhibeat ōrātiō modum et redeat **illūc**, **unde** dēflexit. (Cic.Tusc.5.80.1)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;..quae intrāre **eō ubi** jam virtūs honestumque est non potest.  (SenPhil.Dial.2.5.3.)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;..ipse **eō**dem **unde** redierat proficīscitur. (Caes.Gal.5.11.8.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Istūc*, suggested by another answer, cannot be used thus because the place it points to is in the general vicinity of the conversation (probably but not necessarily near the addressee).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The circumlocution *quō locī* [seems to be technical or colloquial][2] and thus doesn't fit.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;- Unsyncopated -ā(vi)s- forms are archaising in Classical Latin, to the point that for a word like *amāre* they [might not even be attested][3] (though one does for *adamāre*, in a philophocal work, in its elevated literary meaning). Quintilian, who lived in the 1st c. AD, lists mirror forms in -īvis- as examples of [&quot;most obnoxious pedantry&quot;][4]. I suggest avoiding these forms unless you're going for a consciously literary effect, and using *amāstī*, or indeed that same *adamāstī* of Cicero that will underline the start of genuine love for life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23quo%20loci&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=amavis&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1002/1/7/5024-5036#7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9177" RevisionGUID="47763cdf-8c4e-42cf-ad08-280728b556c7" CreationDate="2019-02-24T20:08:39.143" UserId="2389" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="The translation is fine, but a few points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- at first I thought *eō* would be more fitting as a relative reference to *ubi* than *illūc*, but judging by [PHI][1] both are equally fine, with the latter having more demonstrative force:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Num mē **illūc** dūcis, **ubi** lapis lapidem terit? (Pl.As.31)  &#xD;&#xA;Sed adhibeat ōrātiō modum et redeat **illūc**, **unde** dēflexit. (Cic.Tusc.5.80.1)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;..quae intrāre **eō ubi** jam virtūs honestumque est non potest.  (SenPhil.Dial.2.5.3.)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;..ipse **eō**dem **unde** redierat proficīscitur. (Caes.Gal.5.11.8.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Istūc*, suggested by another answer, cannot be used thus because the place it points to is in the general vicinity of the conversation (probably but not necessarily near the addressee, either physically or textually, e.g. mentioned by them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The circumlocution *quō locī* [seems to be technical or colloquial][2] and thus doesn't fit.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;- Unsyncopated -ā(vi)s- forms are archaising in Classical Latin, to the point that for a word like *amāre* they [might not even be attested][3] (though one does for *adamāre*, in a philosophical work, in its elevated literary meaning). Quintilian, who lived in the 1st c. AD, lists mirror forms in -īvis- as examples of [&quot;most obnoxious pedantry&quot;][4]. I suggest avoiding these forms unless you're going for a consciously literary effect, and using *amāstī*, or indeed that same *adamāstī* of Cicero that will underline the start of genuine love for life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23quo%20loci&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=amavis&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1002/1/7/5024-5036#7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7622" RevisionGUID="e7ea975a-cb02-4a98-91b2-35146adbdb8b" CreationDate="2019-02-25T01:34:56.817" UserId="9" Comment="Edited to try to clarify the title and first sentence in line with comments" Text="In English, genitives formed with &quot; 's &quot; often have a possessive meaning, while &quot;of&quot; may function to form a kind of &quot;genitive&quot; with a non-possessive meaning, e.g., compare &quot;John's photo&quot; and &quot;a photo of John&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have not found anything similar in Latin, except in pronouns. For example, should the expression *amor Dei* be interpreted as the love *related to* or *concerning* God, or the love that is *possessed by* God? What about the word *cuius*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28379" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7622" RevisionGUID="e7ea975a-cb02-4a98-91b2-35146adbdb8b" CreationDate="2019-02-25T01:34:56.817" UserId="9" Comment="Edited to try to clarify the title and first sentence in line with comments" Text="Differentiating possessive and non-possessive uses of the genitive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9176" RevisionGUID="90a2b27b-1572-4374-b14e-286c447a32b4" CreationDate="2019-02-25T01:35:55.443" UserId="9" Comment="fixed typo" Text="The distinction — as well as the possible ambiguity — is nicely shown in your examples of English, in which the -'s indicates ownership, or indeed possession. 'John's photo', strictly, indicates John's ownership of a photo, and is equivalent to 'a photo of John's'. On the other hand 'a photo of John' means — and really  only means — that John is the subject of the photo, and not that he is its owner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The distinction in grammar  between 'possessive' and 'genitive' is rather fine, if not actually artificial. While the latter is almost invariably used in naming the grammatical case in Latin, the former is more usually reserved to physical possession or belonging. The possessive pronouns of Latin (which are in fact adjectives) are so named to indicate the fact of ownership, not of association and, in your example, *cuius* is not the genitive singular ('mine') of the possessive pronoun *meus, mea, meum*, 'my', but of a relative pronoun (other pronouns work in the same way).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An expression such *amor Dei* is always ambiguous without a defining context. It is avoidable by using the 'dative of possession': in this phrase *amor Deo*, 'love for God', or 'the love that is given to God', removes any ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9180" RevisionGUID="bda36abc-e60e-42d3-a685-738c5bb7becd" CreationDate="2019-02-25T15:57:47.497" UserId="3440" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this record of my great grandfather in a local church in Malaysia. Today, nobody use Latin anymore in this country. I should be much grateful if someone can help my family translating this document so that we can trace our root. My great grandfather's name on the certificate is Lam Fuk On.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UCFVb.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28382" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9180" RevisionGUID="bda36abc-e60e-42d3-a685-738c5bb7becd" CreationDate="2019-02-25T15:57:47.497" UserId="3440" Text="Latin &gt; English translation needed for 130 years old church document" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28383" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9180" RevisionGUID="bda36abc-e60e-42d3-a685-738c5bb7becd" CreationDate="2019-02-25T15:57:47.497" UserId="3440" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="8e273ef0-469a-465c-be61-f224b3c44d32" CreationDate="2019-02-25T16:03:41.407" UserId="2389" Comment="added and reorganised links; expanded text" Text="If you're looking for an English-to-Latin dictionary, I recommend *A Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary*, by William Smith and Theophilus (!) Hall. The most recent edition was published in 1871, so there are lots of ways in which it's not really suitable for today: many English words have changed their meanings since then, and many more have changed nuances - I find myself referring to Google to find appropriately archaic English synonyms when looking for the modern word returns no results. However, it's still an excellent resource and the best source of synonyms and phraseology I've yet encountered. It's one downside, besides the archaic English, is that the difference between the synonyms isn't always explained clearly. You can access the dictionary as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [a fully digital online version][1] by Johan Winge;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [a word-searchable scan online version][2] by Godmy;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [a full-text searchable online scan version][3] at hathitrust;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- searchable PDF scans can be downloaded from [archive.org #1][4] &amp; [#2][5] and [google books][6] (the latter in worse quality and less reliable OCR).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a reprint published by Bolchazy-Carducci.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.latinitium.com/smithhall?s=&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lexica.linguax.com/smith.php&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x000682428;view=1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/details/copiouscriticale00smit&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.88364&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.ru/books?id=dM0GAQAAIAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28385" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="8e273ef0-469a-465c-be61-f224b3c44d32" CreationDate="2019-02-25T16:03:41.407" Comment="Proposed by 2389 approved by 79 edit id of 301" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9181" RevisionGUID="7ddf8a9f-05a1-4302-b106-283e072af5e5" CreationDate="2019-02-25T16:28:33.950" UserId="1459" Text="It's a record of a baptism, stating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the date of the event (17 of April of 1887), which was four days after the baby was born&#xD;&#xA;- the minister officiating the ceremony (Father Jorin?)&#xD;&#xA;- the place (Church of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, in [Machang Bubok](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machang_Bubok))&#xD;&#xA;- the legal name of the baby (Lam Fuk On)&#xD;&#xA;- the Christian name given to the baby (_Justinus_, or Justin, in English)&#xD;&#xA;- the name of the godparents (fifth line)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9181" RevisionGUID="078da964-056e-4fd0-8707-f5ce69831032" CreationDate="2019-02-25T16:33:47.170" UserId="1459" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="It's a record of a baptism, stating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the date of the event (17 of April of 1887), which was four days after the baby was born&#xD;&#xA;- the minister officiating the ceremony (Father Jorin?)&#xD;&#xA;- the place (Church of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, in [Machang Bubok](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machang_Bubok))&#xD;&#xA;- the legal name of the (legitimate) baby (Lam Fuk On)&#xD;&#xA;- the Christian name given to the baby (_Justinus_, or Justin, in English)&#xD;&#xA;- the name of the godparents (fifth line)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9182" RevisionGUID="9303585c-6d91-4550-92f5-df61e17a877b" CreationDate="2019-02-25T16:34:58.893" UserId="406" Text="This looks like a standard baptism record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the Year of Our Lord 1887, on the true day 17 of the month of April, in this church of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus in Machang-Buboh, I, Sorin, M. Ap., solemnly baptized the legitimate son of Lam Fuk On and Virginia, born four days ago; the name &quot;Justinus&quot; was given to him. [illegible] and Lam Charlotte were named as his godparents. [Signed,] F. Sorin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having a bit of difficulty with the handwriting, so I'm not sure I got the priest's name right, and I'm not even able to make a good guess at the godfather's name: it's the first handwritten thing on the fifth line." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9181" RevisionGUID="67e0ed61-7bae-4b0f-891d-96292826a420" CreationDate="2019-02-25T16:37:15.623" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 29 characters in body" Text="It's a record of a baptism, stating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the date of the event (17 of April of 1887), which was four days after the baby was born&#xD;&#xA;- the minister officiating the ceremony (Father Jorin?)&#xD;&#xA;- the place (Church of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, in [Machang Bubok](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machang_Bubok))&#xD;&#xA;- the name of the parents&#xD;&#xA;- the Christian name given to the baby (_Justinus_, or Justin, in English)&#xD;&#xA;- the name of the godparents (fifth line)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9181" RevisionGUID="e0b30e83-a343-4bfe-b859-4775896431ca" CreationDate="2019-02-25T16:59:13.913" UserId="1459" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="It's a record of a baptism, stating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the date of the event (17 of April of 1887), which was four days after the baby was born&#xD;&#xA;- the minister officiating the ceremony (Father Jorin?)&#xD;&#xA;- the place (the extinct [Church of the Sacred Heart of Jesus](https://www.penang-traveltips.com/catholic-church-of-the-sacred-heart-of-jesus.htm), in Machang Bubok)&#xD;&#xA;- the name of the parents&#xD;&#xA;- the Christian name given to the baby (_Justinus_, or Justin, in English)&#xD;&#xA;- the name of the godparents (fifth line)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9181" RevisionGUID="420a8cfc-f9ac-471c-a534-c0a647bfb90e" CreationDate="2019-02-25T17:12:46.290" UserId="1459" Comment="added 243 characters in body" Text="It's a record of a baptism, stating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the date of the event (17 of April of 1887), which was four days after the baby was born&#xD;&#xA;- the minister officiating the ceremony ([Father F.P. Sorin](https://www.facebook.com/i1travel/photos/a.471589612877264/471590776210481/?type=3&amp;theater), who was a priest at the St. Anne's Church, [just a few miles away](https://binged.it/2H0gMw9)) (more info about the priest [here](http://butterworthguide.com.my/index.php/bukit-mertajam/95-church-of-st-anne-monument-to-faith-and-antiquity)) &#xD;&#xA;- the place (the extinct [Church of the Sacred Heart of Jesus](https://www.penang-traveltips.com/catholic-church-of-the-sacred-heart-of-jesus.htm), in Machang Bubok)&#xD;&#xA;- the name of the parents&#xD;&#xA;- the Christian name given to the baby (_Justinus_, or Justin, in English)&#xD;&#xA;- the name of the godparents (fifth line)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9181" RevisionGUID="28321b8b-c129-4c91-8b15-b1dfd66e7126" CreationDate="2019-02-25T17:18:42.943" UserId="1459" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="It's a record of a baptism, stating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the date of the event (17 of April of 1887), which was four days after the baby was born&#xD;&#xA;- the minister officiating the ceremony ([Father F.P. Sorin](https://www.facebook.com/i1travel/photos/a.471589612877264/471590776210481/?type=3&amp;theater), a French missionary priest, buried at St. Anne's Church, [just a few miles away](https://binged.it/2H0gMw9) from the church where the baptism took place) (more info about the priest [here](http://butterworthguide.com.my/index.php/bukit-mertajam/95-church-of-st-anne-monument-to-faith-and-antiquity)) &#xD;&#xA;- the place (the extinct [Church of the Sacred Heart of Jesus](https://www.penang-traveltips.com/catholic-church-of-the-sacred-heart-of-jesus.htm), in Machang Bubok)&#xD;&#xA;- the name of the parents&#xD;&#xA;- the Christian name given to the baby (_Justinus_, or Justin, in English)&#xD;&#xA;- the name of the godparents (fifth line)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9183" RevisionGUID="634a550c-8cda-4f14-9fdc-689a3572c303" CreationDate="2019-02-25T17:34:02.280" UserId="3441" Text="The ancient text of Matthew 24:3 reads: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Καθημένου δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοῦ ὄρους τῶν ἐλαιῶν προσῆλθον αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν λέγοντες· εἰπὲ ἡμῖν, πότε ταῦτα ἔσται καὶ τί τὸ σημεῖον τῆς σῆς παρουσίας καὶ **συντελείας** τοῦ αἰῶνος.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One modern Greek Bible translation has rendered the verse in the following way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Ενώ καθόταν στο Όρος των Ελαιών, οι μαθητές τον πλησίασαν ιδιαιτέρως, λέγοντας: «Πες μας, πότε θα γίνουν αυτά, και ποιο θα είναι το σημείο της παρουσίας σου και της **τελικής περιόδου** του συστήματος πραγμάτων.»”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the modern translation correct when it renders the word συντέλεια with the phrase “final period” (τελική περίοδος)?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28394" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9183" RevisionGUID="634a550c-8cda-4f14-9fdc-689a3572c303" CreationDate="2019-02-25T17:34:02.280" UserId="3441" Text="Translation of the Word Συντέλεια" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28395" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9183" RevisionGUID="634a550c-8cda-4f14-9fdc-689a3572c303" CreationDate="2019-02-25T17:34:02.280" UserId="3441" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28399" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9180" RevisionGUID="83869972-733b-47f2-849c-e4acba6bab64" CreationDate="2019-02-25T18:05:02.547" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="Translation needed for 130 years old church document" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28400" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9183" RevisionGUID="b4631cd9-3bc0-4e65-a5f6-f4acd62dfa29" CreationDate="2019-02-25T18:14:27.110" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|christianity|new-testament|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9184" RevisionGUID="80eb1db9-77e0-4f98-8644-e81526210c52" CreationDate="2019-02-25T18:26:12.930" UserId="1982" Text="I am advised to re-submit this as a separate question (had thought, initially, it was just an aside, barely worthy of mention); anyway, North &amp; Hillard Ex. 195: &quot;All order thus being lost, Nicias surrendered at discretion. He and Demosthenes, being condemned to death, died by poison;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N&amp;H give (Ans. Book): &quot;Nicias nullis conditionibus factis (footnote: &quot;latis&quot;) se dedidit: qui cum Demosthene capitis damnatus veneno necatus est;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Minor Q: any (significant) difference between using &quot;factis&quot;/ &quot;latis&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Main Q: deployment of &quot;capitis&quot;: (N&amp;H's English version takes no account of it) first thought it was &quot;captis&quot; so rushed into--they-having-been-captured; but, no: second instinct--of-the-head?! No! To Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict. displaying nineteen definitions of &quot;captus&quot;, capitis&quot;. The only one that could be made to fit was--&quot;of-the-capital-city&quot; in the ancient and Medieval tradition of calling important people eg Fred-of-Freetown, wasn't entirely convinced so mentioned it, en passant, to Joonas. No!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28402" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9184" RevisionGUID="80eb1db9-77e0-4f98-8644-e81526210c52" CreationDate="2019-02-25T18:26:12.930" UserId="1982" Text="Lost and Confused--Supplemental" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28403" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9184" RevisionGUID="80eb1db9-77e0-4f98-8644-e81526210c52" CreationDate="2019-02-25T18:26:12.930" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9185" RevisionGUID="8476d075-df24-4add-ae05-566c3ae10e94" CreationDate="2019-02-25T18:35:39.420" UserId="469" Text="A possible solution is that **capitis poena** means *capital/death penalty*, according to [L&amp;S][1], and also *life [and death]*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, it makes (some) sense to translate *condemned to death* as **capitis damnatus**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcaput&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/L8KB6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9184" RevisionGUID="2204c912-e8b2-4271-9904-a6904ed6f25b" CreationDate="2019-02-25T18:35:46.627" UserId="1982" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="I am advised to re-submit this as a separate question (had thought, initially, it was just an aside, barely worthy of mention); anyway, North &amp; Hillard Ex. 195: &quot;All order thus being lost, Nicias surrendered at discretion. He and Demosthenes, being condemned to death, died by poison;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N&amp;H give (Ans. Book): itaque confusis signis et ordinibus Nicias nullis conditionibus factis(footnote latis) se dedidit: qui cum Demosthene capitis damnatus veneno necatus est;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Minor Q: any (significant) difference between using &quot;factis&quot;/ &quot;latis&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Main Q: deployment of &quot;capitis&quot;: (N&amp;H's English version takes no account of it) first thought it was &quot;captis&quot; so rushed into--they-having-been-captured; but, no: second instinct--of-the-head?! No! To Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict. displaying nineteen definitions of &quot;captus&quot;, capitis&quot;. The only one that could be made to fit was--&quot;of-the-capital-city&quot; in the ancient and Medieval tradition of calling important people eg Fred-of-Freetown, wasn't entirely convinced so mentioned it, en passant, to Joonas. No!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9185" RevisionGUID="6308f327-cc9d-44c5-9e4c-d0202cb1d880" CreationDate="2019-02-25T18:48:51.427" UserId="469" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="A possible solution is that **capitis poena** means *capital/death penalty*, according to [L&amp;S][1], and **caput** in this context means *life [and death]*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, it makes sense (some, at least) to translate *condemned to death* as **capitis damnatus**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcaput&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/L8KB6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9182" RevisionGUID="d9b41048-170c-4c6a-9e6a-1b94bed8c162" CreationDate="2019-02-25T19:07:46.680" UserId="406" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="This looks like a standard baptism record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the Year of Our Lord 1887, on the 17th day of the month of April, in this church of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus in Machang-Buboh, I, Sorin, M. Ap., solemnly baptized the legitimate son of Lam Fuk On and Virginia, born four days ago; the name &quot;Justinus&quot; was given to him. Mian An Vu(?) and his wife, Lam Charlotte, were named as his godparents. [Signed,] F. Sorin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having a bit of difficulty with the handwriting, so I'm not sure I got the priest's name right, and I'm not even able to make a good guess at the godfather's name: it's the first handwritten thing on the fifth line." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9186" RevisionGUID="44bce9ab-7b20-4cde-ae5c-24bd88f4d769" CreationDate="2019-02-25T19:27:51.960" UserId="406" Text="Good question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Syntéleia* is formed from the verb *syn-teléō*, which originally meant &quot;to complete something&quot;. It was the verb for placing the final stone on a building, making the finishing touches on an artwork, or paying off the last part of a loan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of this last meaning, it also started to mean &quot;to contribute to a fund&quot;, even if you weren't the one to &quot;finish&quot; it. So if you look up *syntéleia* in a dictionary, the first meaning you'll find is &quot;a tax to be paid&quot;. And then the verb also started to mean &quot;to be in a certain tax bracket&quot;, so the second meaning you'll find for *syntéleia* is &quot;tax bracket&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in this case, we're interested in the original meaning: &quot;completion&quot;. *Syntéleia* is the moment of completion when everything finally falls into place. In the Vulgate it's rendered as *consummātio*, &quot;consummation&quot;, which is a very literal translation (con~syn, summa~télos).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. You'll notice the same root in *syn**tél**eia* and the modern ***tel**ikěs*: the word *télos* originally meant &quot;end&quot;, though its meaning weakened a lot over time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9182" RevisionGUID="c5c087e3-ccbb-4993-a14e-fa86a68776ea" CreationDate="2019-02-25T19:36:26.783" UserId="406" Comment="edited body" Text="This looks like a standard baptism record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the Year of Our Lord 1887, on the 17th day of the month of April, in this church of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus in Machang-Bubok, I, Sorin, M. Ap., solemnly baptized the legitimate son of Lam Fuk On and Virginia, born four days ago; the name &quot;Justinus&quot; was given to him. Mian An Vu(?) and his wife, Lam Charlotte, were named as his godparents. [Signed,] F. Sorin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having a bit of difficulty with the handwriting, so I'm not sure I got the priest's name right, and I'm not even able to make a good guess at the godfather's name: it's the first handwritten thing on the fifth line." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="603128af-8d2a-40b3-9ebf-016eb3209633" CreationDate="2019-02-25T19:48:42.470" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 544 characters in body" Text="First of all, a very important note on your use of genitive and possessive (and some incorrect assertions expressed in someone else's post). We are very fortunate that Classical studies have benefitted immensely from contemporary linguistic research. The great Latinists of the past did a lot to collect data - manually! - and they tried to describe and analyze it to the best of their knowledge, *for their time*. However, this is 2019, not 1919, and one has to read Latin grammars of the past (replete with most interesting language minutiae) with great caution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By tradition (and for some other reasons), we distinguish six cases in Latin, the genitive being one of the them. Theoretically, we could posit more - if we take into account semantics solely and disregard morphology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have the genitive case in Latin that expresses different semantic relationships between the head and its dependent. **Possession is only one of the genitive uses.** For instance, [de Groot 1956][1] argues there are eight &quot;regular grammatical uses of the Genitive&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A side note:* What exactly possession is is no trivial matter, either. See the first pages with lots of examples in [Baldi and Nuti 2010][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to consult one of the best Latin grammars of our time, I cannot recommend enough the first volume of Harm Pinkster's *Oxford Latin Syntax: The Simple Clause* (OUP, 2015). It contains 1430 pages and this is just the first volume (we're still waiting, patiently, for the second volume to materialize, hopefully, in the next decade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to your question. How can we distinguish between **the subjective genitive** and **the objective genitive**, if this is indeed what you were asking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take a look at the following example from Pinkster (p. 1040).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Non ego illam mi dotem duco esse quae dos dicitur / sed pudicitiam .../ deum metum, parentum amorem et cognatum concordiam ...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, we have two uses of **the objective genitive**, *deum metum* and p*arentum amorem*, and one use of **the subjective genitive**, *cognatum concordiam*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[insert more]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as Pinskter correctly observes - and this answers your question - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;For most combinations of head nouns and attributive NPs the precise semantic function of the genitive attribute is wholly dependent on the meanings of the head and attribute constituents involved and the way they are related in the extralinguistic world&quot; (p. 1000).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(will add more examples and syntactic tests later and might revise the post slightly - have a lot of papers to grade today)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024384156900031&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110215465/9783110215465.239/9783110215465.239.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="9d932594-a50e-4c71-a538-a4ba55d7f377" CreationDate="2019-02-25T19:54:42.250" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 544 characters in body" Text="First of all, a very important note on your use of genitive and possessive (and some incorrect assertions expressed in someone else's post). We are very fortunate that Classical studies have benefitted immensely from contemporary linguistic research. The great Latinists of the past did a lot to collect data - manually! - and they tried to describe and analyze it to the best of their knowledge, *for their time*. However, this is 2019, not 1919, and one has to read Latin grammars of the past (replete with most interesting language minutiae) with great caution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By tradition (and for some other reasons), we distinguish six cases in Latin, the genitive being one of the them. Theoretically, we could posit more - if we take into account semantics solely and disregard morphology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have the genitive case in Latin that expresses different semantic relationships between the head and its dependent. **Possession is only one of the genitive uses.** For instance, [de Groot 1956][1] argues there are eight &quot;regular grammatical uses of the Genitive&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A side note:* What exactly possession is is no trivial matter, either. See the first pages with lots of examples in [Baldi and Nuti 2010][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to consult one of the best Latin grammars of our time, I cannot recommend enough the first volume of Harm Pinkster's *Oxford Latin Syntax: The Simple Clause* (OUP, 2015). It contains 1430 pages and this is just the first volume (we're still waiting, patiently, for the second volume to materialize, hopefully, in the next decade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to your question. How can we distinguish between **the subjective genitive** and **the objective genitive**, if this is indeed what you were asking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take a look at the following example from Pinkster (p. 1040).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Non ego illam mi dotem duco esse quae dos dicitur / sed pudicitiam .../ deum metum, parentum amorem et cognatum concordiam ...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, we have two uses of **the objective genitive**, *deum metum* and *parentum amorem*, and one use of **the subjective genitive**, *cognatum concordiam*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This use is described in linguistics as adnominal arguments of verbal nouns. The head in such a noun phrase is the verbal noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[insert more]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as Pinskter correctly observes - and this answers your question - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;For most combinations of head nouns and attributive NPs the precise semantic function of the genitive attribute is wholly dependent on the meanings of the head and attribute constituents involved and the way they are related in the extralinguistic world&quot; (p. 1000).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(will add more examples and syntactic tests later and might revise the post slightly - have a lot of papers to grade today)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024384156900031&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110215465/9783110215465.239/9783110215465.239.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="803317c8-4f6b-44a3-a704-129b0bf540cb" CreationDate="2019-02-25T20:13:28.267" UserId="39" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="First of all, a very important note on your use of genitive and possessive (and some incorrect assertions expressed in someone else's post). We are very fortunate that Classical studies have benefitted immensely from contemporary linguistic research. The great Latinists of the past did a lot to collect data - manually! - and they tried to describe and analyze it to the best of their knowledge, *for their time*. However, this is 2019, not 1919, and one has to read Latin grammars of the past (replete with most interesting language minutiae) with great caution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By tradition (and for some other reasons), we distinguish six cases in Latin, the genitive being one of the them. Theoretically, we could posit more - if we take into account semantics solely and disregard morphology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have the genitive case in Latin that expresses different semantic relationships between the head and its dependent. **Possession is only one of the genitive uses.** For instance, [de Groot 1956][1] argues there are eight &quot;regular grammatical uses of the Genitive&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A side note:* What exactly possession is is no trivial matter, either. See the first pages with lots of examples in [Baldi and Nuti 2010][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to consult one of the best Latin grammars of our time, I cannot recommend enough the first volume of Harm Pinkster's *Oxford Latin Syntax: The Simple Clause* (OUP, 2015). It contains 1430 pages and this is just the first volume (we're still waiting, patiently, for the second volume to materialize, hopefully, in the next decade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to your question. How can we distinguish between **the subjective genitive** and **the objective genitive** vs. the possessive genitive, if this is indeed what you were asking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take a look at the following example from Pinkster (p. 1040).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Non ego illam mi dotem duco esse quae dos dicitur / sed pudicitiam .../ deum metum, parentum amorem et cognatum concordiam ...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, we have two uses of **the objective genitive**, *deum metum* and *parentum amorem*, and one use of **the subjective genitive**, *cognatum concordiam*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This use is described in linguistics as adnominal arguments of verbal nouns. The head in such a noun phrase is the verbal noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the most reliable syntactic test is to insert a possessive adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as Pinskter correctly observes - and this answers your question - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;For most combinations of head nouns and attributive NPs the precise semantic function of the genitive attribute is wholly dependent on the meanings of the head and attribute constituents involved and the way they are related in the extralinguistic world&quot; (p. 1000).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(will add more examples and syntactic tests later and might revise the post slightly - have a lot of papers to grade today)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024384156900031&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110215465/9783110215465.239/9783110215465.239.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="9d8fc2c1-079d-4ed2-8e72-dc42ad6e7849" CreationDate="2019-02-25T20:25:48.127" UserId="39" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="First of all, a very important note on your use of genitive and possessive (and some incorrect assertions expressed in someone else's post). We are very fortunate that Classical studies have benefitted immensely from contemporary linguistic research. The great Latinists of the past did a lot to collect data - manually! - and they tried to describe and analyze it to the best of their knowledge, *for their time*. However, this is 2019, not 1919, and one has to read Latin grammars of the past (replete with most interesting language minutiae) with great caution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By tradition (and for some other reasons), we distinguish six cases in Latin, the genitive being one of the them. Theoretically, we could posit more - if we take into account semantics solely and disregard morphology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have the genitive case in Latin that expresses different semantic relationships between the head and its dependent. **Possession is only one of the genitive uses.** For instance, [de Groot 1956][1] argues there are eight &quot;regular grammatical uses of the Genitive&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A side note:* What exactly possession is is no trivial matter, either. See the first pages with lots of examples in [Baldi and Nuti 2010][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to consult one of the best Latin grammars of our time, I cannot recommend enough the first volume of Harm Pinkster's *Oxford Latin Syntax: The Simple Clause* (OUP, 2015). It contains 1430 pages and this is just the first volume (we're still waiting, patiently, for the second volume to materialize, hopefully, in the next decade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to your question. How can we distinguish between **the subjective genitive** and **the objective genitive** vs. the possessive genitive, if this is indeed what you were asking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take a look at the following example from Pinkster (p. 1040).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Non ego illam mi dotem duco esse quae dos dicitur / sed pudicitiam .../ deum metum, parentum amorem et cognatum concordiam ...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, we have two uses of **the objective genitive**, *deum metum* and *parentum amorem*, and one use of **the subjective genitive**, *cognatum concordiam*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This use is described in linguistics as adnominal arguments of verbal nouns. The head in such a noun phrase is the verbal noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I think the most reliable syntactic test is to insert a possessive adjective. A possessive adjective would be incompatible with the possessive genitive. Such a possessive adjective cannot be co-referential with the other noun in the genitive.This is well known from the binding theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as Pinskter correctly observes - and this answers your question - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;For most combinations of head nouns and attributive NPs the precise semantic function of the genitive attribute is wholly dependent on the meanings of the head and attribute constituents involved and the way they are related in the extralinguistic world&quot; (p. 1000).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(will add more examples and syntactic tests later and might revise the post slightly - have a lot of papers to grade today)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024384156900031&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110215465/9783110215465.239/9783110215465.239.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9185" RevisionGUID="0caa03cc-91bd-48f9-bec1-8c6dfd6c9c71" CreationDate="2019-02-25T20:36:41.847" UserId="469" Comment="added 360 characters in body" Text="The most likely solution seems to be that **capitis poena** means *capital/death penalty*, according to [L&amp;S][1], and **caput** in this context means *life [and death]*, and even *death [penalty]* when in context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see the third-to-last line, it even goes to quote an occurrence of **capitis damnare** meaning *to condemn to death*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; postquam autem se **capitis damnatum** bonis publicatis audivit... ([Nep. Alc. 4.5][3])  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *But when he heard that he was **condemned to death***... ([Watson, 1886][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcaput&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/L8KB6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Nep.%20Alc.%204.5&amp;lang=original&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/nepos.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9187" RevisionGUID="3376f959-4714-4b8f-87b5-e48b48fcc136" CreationDate="2019-02-25T20:37:52.197" UserId="406" Text="I'd always learned that the regular way to say &quot;you loved&quot; was _amāvisti_, with the &quot;syncopated&quot; version _amāsti_ being poetic and uncommon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Unbrutal_Russian says differently (with good attestations!) in [this answer][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unsyncopated -ā(vi)s- forms are archaising in Classical Latin, to the point that for a word like amāre they [might not even be attested][2] (though one does for adamāre, in a philosophical work, in its elevated literary meaning). Quintilian, who lived in the 1st c. AD, lists mirror forms in -īvis- as examples of [&quot;most obnoxious pedantry&quot;][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard to argue with the Packhum corpus, so I'm curious: at what point did the syncopated forms take over? If I want to travel back in time to find _amāvisti_ &quot;in the wild&quot;, how far back will I have to go?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9177/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=amavis&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1002/1/7/5024-5036#7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28417" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9187" RevisionGUID="3376f959-4714-4b8f-87b5-e48b48fcc136" CreationDate="2019-02-25T20:37:52.197" UserId="406" Text="When did unsyncopated forms become archaic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28418" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9187" RevisionGUID="3376f959-4714-4b8f-87b5-e48b48fcc136" CreationDate="2019-02-25T20:37:52.197" UserId="406" Text="|language-evolution|morphology|perfect-tense|contraction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9185" RevisionGUID="dda89ed3-025a-4a96-92c6-c980c5e2f563" CreationDate="2019-02-25T20:43:04.223" UserId="469" Comment="improved redaction" Text="The most likely solution seems to be that **capitis poena** means *capital/death penalty*, according to [L&amp;S][1], and **caput** in this context means *life [and death]*, and even *death [penalty]* by itself when accompanied by specific nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see the third-to-last line, it even goes to quote an occurrence of **capitis damnare** meaning *to condemn to death*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; postquam autem se **capitis damnatum** bonis publicatis audivit... ([Nep. Alc. 4.5][3])  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *But when he heard that he was **condemned to death***... ([Watson, 1886][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcaput&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/L8KB6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Nep.%20Alc.%204.5&amp;lang=original&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/nepos.htm#p337" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28420" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9184" RevisionGUID="9e450bc5-68ce-481f-8895-5bd39236a792" CreationDate="2019-02-25T20:48:01.760" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9188" RevisionGUID="beb62e50-c1ae-4ac9-be03-ea1d5401b4cf" CreationDate="2019-02-25T20:54:17.570" UserId="9" Text="The usual form used in Classical Latin seems to have been *plura.* I don't know of any &quot;good reason&quot; to choose it over that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The discrepancy between *plura* and *plurium* was noted by past authors. The main historical source I've seen mentioned that discusses *pluria* is Aulus Gellius, who apparently recounts an anecdote where someone says *pluria,* is criticized for using this instead of *plura,* and then appeals to historical usage and an alleged letter by Sinnius Capito that says *pluria* and not *plura* should be used (*[Nox Philologiae](https://books.google.com/books?id=T1JnvNucVBkC&amp;pg=PA124&amp;lpg=PA124#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false),*&#xD;&#xA;by Erik Gunderson, 2009; p. 123-124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miscellaneous English sources that mention *pluria*: [Schipper 1832](https://books.google.com/books?id=4jMZAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA14&amp;lpg=PA14&amp;dq=latin+plus+plures+plura+neuter+masculine+feminine&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=bZnD6Kdvfz&amp;sig=ZeYe3tjEts_jgE1rd-VymYUJoZE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjnibuJwurYAhVIXKwKHQAHCSM4ChDoAQgmMAA#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20plus%20plures%20plura%20neuter%20masculine%20feminine&amp;f=false), [Hiley 1849](https://books.google.com/books?id=dmliAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA25&amp;lpg=PA25&amp;dq=latin+plus+plures+plura+neuter+masculine+feminine&amp;source=bl&amp;ots#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20plus%20plures%20plura%20neuter%20masculine%20feminine&amp;f=false)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9188" RevisionGUID="0ea91ed9-2c08-4263-9099-8774557431f0" CreationDate="2019-02-25T21:07:28.143" UserId="9" Comment="added 165 characters in body" Text="The usual form used in Classical Latin seems to have been *plura.* I don't know of any &quot;good reason&quot; to choose *plura* aside from that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The discrepancy between *plura* and *plurium* was noted by past authors. The main historical source I've seen mentioned&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; that discusses *pluria* is Aulus Gellius, who in *Noctes Atticae* 5.21 recounts an anecdote where someone says *pluria,* is criticized for using this instead of *plura,* and then appeals to historical usage and an alleged letter by Sinnius Capito that says *pluria* and not *plura* should be used. An English translation of the passage can be found [here](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Gellius/5*.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *[Nox Philologiae](https://books.google.com/books?id=T1JnvNucVBkC&amp;pg=PA124&amp;lpg=PA124#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false),*&#xD;&#xA;by Erik Gunderson, 2009; p. 123-124 and *[Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire](https://books.google.com/books?id=45eXJSpxdn4C&amp;pg=PA131&amp;lpg=PA131),* by William A. Johnson, 2010, p. 131.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9188" RevisionGUID="abda734a-f84b-4d39-b499-0ca92ed2d21a" CreationDate="2019-02-25T21:12:46.297" UserId="9" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="The usual form used in Classical Latin seems to have been *plura.* I don't know of any &quot;good reason&quot; to choose *plura* aside from that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The discrepancy between *plura* and *plurium* was noted by past authors. The main historical source I've seen mentioned&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; that discusses *pluria* is Aulus Gellius, who in *Noctes Atticae* 5.21 recounts an anecdote where someone says *pluria,* is criticized for using this instead of *plura,* and then appeals to historical usage of *pluria* (and *compluria*) and an alleged letter by Sinnius Capito that says *pluria* and not *plura* should be used. An English translation of the passage can be found [here](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Gellius/5*.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *[Nox Philologiae](https://books.google.com/books?id=T1JnvNucVBkC&amp;pg=PA124&amp;lpg=PA124#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false),*&#xD;&#xA;by Erik Gunderson, 2009; p. 123-124 and *[Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire](https://books.google.com/books?id=45eXJSpxdn4C&amp;pg=PA131&amp;lpg=PA131),* by William A. Johnson, 2010, p. 131.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9188" RevisionGUID="df8cbd0a-436d-441f-96bb-af44a20a42da" CreationDate="2019-02-25T21:21:40.683" UserId="9" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="The usual form used in Classical Latin seems to have been *plura.* I don't know of any &quot;good reason&quot; to choose *plura* aside from that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The discrepancy between *plura* and *plurium* was noted by past authors. The main historical source I've seen mentioned&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; that discusses *pluria* is Aulus Gellius, who in *Noctes Atticae* 5.21 recounts an anecdote where a friend of his says *pluria,* is criticized for using this instead of *plura,* and then appeals to historical usage of *pluria* (and *compluria*) and an alleged letter by Sinnius Capito that says *pluria* and not *plura* should be used. An English translation of the passage can be found [here](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Gellius/5*.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The critic argues that *plura* should be used based on the rule that comparatives take the ending *-ra* rather than *-ria,* but Gellius's friend disputes that *plus* is a comparative. (From a strictly etymological standpoint, de Vaan 2008 indicates that *plus* did in fact originate as a comparative form.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *[Nox Philologiae](https://books.google.com/books?id=T1JnvNucVBkC&amp;pg=PA124&amp;lpg=PA124#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false),*&#xD;&#xA;by Erik Gunderson, 2009; p. 123-124 and *[Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire](https://books.google.com/books?id=45eXJSpxdn4C&amp;pg=PA131&amp;lpg=PA131),* by William A. Johnson, 2010, p. 131.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28426" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="7622" RevisionGUID="009ea59e-739b-486c-8807-6f7a600eef0d" CreationDate="2019-02-25T21:38:02.577" UserId="9" Comment="102" />
  <row Id="28427" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="7622" RevisionGUID="71616958-c8d6-4fbb-a793-af62ae21235b" CreationDate="2019-02-25T21:42:26.040" UserId="9" Comment="104" />
  <row Id="28428" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="7265" RevisionGUID="aed92062-993c-410e-8cbb-b67c21d9de19" CreationDate="2019-02-25T21:59:35.060" UserId="9" Comment="105" />
  <row Id="28429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9189" RevisionGUID="ebadd074-e283-4290-af66-8a295bf77b65" CreationDate="2019-02-25T22:03:05.630" UserId="9" Text="It looks like the etymology of *titulus* may be unclear or disputed: [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/titulus) says &quot;Most likely from Etruscan&quot;, citing [Ostler, *Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin* (2007), p. 43](https://books.google.com/books?id=YpOeQjTW1E0C&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9189" RevisionGUID="e5565e1d-9c29-4273-a1ea-c9b81b1989b7" CreationDate="2019-02-25T22:10:16.350" UserId="9" Comment="added 407 characters in body" Text="It looks like the etymology of *titulus* may be unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Etruscan?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/titulus) says &quot;Most likely from Etruscan&quot;, citing [Ostler, *Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin* (2007), p. 43](https://books.google.com/books?id=YpOeQjTW1E0C&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what basis there is for thinking the word is from Etruscan. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9189" RevisionGUID="0c5171e0-09f7-443d-b4a4-db9c63bc4112" CreationDate="2019-02-25T22:17:15.437" UserId="9" Comment="added 407 characters in body" Text="It looks like the etymology of *titulus* is unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Etruscan?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/titulus) says &quot;Most likely from Etruscan&quot;, citing [Ostler, *Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin* (2007), p. 43](https://books.google.com/books?id=YpOeQjTW1E0C&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the suggestion that it is Etruscan seems to be based on rather slim evidence. Ostler describes his Appendix II (&quot;Etruscan Borrowings in Latin&quot;) as a &quot;liberal list, supplementing the list of clearly attested borrowings on the assumption that early words that have no Italic etymology are likely to be Etruscan, especially if they have recognizable Etruscan word endings (*-eus, -enna, -erna, -īna, -issa, -ō, -ulus, -urnum*)&quot;, and notes that &quot;hardly any of these words can be identified in Etruscan texts&quot; (p. 323).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ostler cites Ernout 1930 as a source that describes supposedly characteristic features of &quot;Etruscan Latin&quot; (*Ad Infinitum,* p. 334)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9189" RevisionGUID="7b10230a-aa70-4bc6-bbb1-b1cde8da84c4" CreationDate="2019-02-25T22:25:54.970" UserId="9" Comment="added 292 characters in body" Text="It looks like the etymology of *titulus* is unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Etruscan?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/titulus) says &quot;Most likely from Etruscan&quot;, citing [Ostler, *Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin* (2007), p. 43](https://books.google.com/books?id=YpOeQjTW1E0C&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form at least seems to be consistent with an Etruscan origin, since the phonemes /t/, /i/, /u/ and /l/ all existed in Etruscan. But the suggestion that *titulus* is Etruscan seems to be based on rather slim evidence. Ostler describes his Appendix II (&quot;Etruscan Borrowings in Latin&quot;) as a &quot;liberal list, supplementing the list of clearly attested borrowings on the assumption that early words that have no Italic etymology are likely to be Etruscan, especially if they have recognizable Etruscan word endings (*-eus, -enna, -erna, -īna, -issa, -ō, -ulus, -urnum*)&quot;, and notes that &quot;hardly any of these words can be identified in Etruscan texts&quot; (p. 323).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ostler cites Ernout 1930 as a source that describes supposedly characteristic features of &quot;Etruscan Latin&quot;, such as the list of endings that Ostler gives (*Ad Infinitum,* p. 334). I have found some later literature that critiques some of Ernout's criteria (Giuliano Bonfante, 1985,  &quot;[Etruscan Words in Latin][1]&quot;), but Bonfante doesn't seem to discuss *titulus* or any other words ending in *-ulus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00437956.1985.11435872" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9189" RevisionGUID="f0a6cd52-20c3-42c2-8a20-994409fc720f" CreationDate="2019-02-25T22:43:45.960" UserId="9" Comment="added 587 characters in body" Text="It looks like the etymology of *titulus* is unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Etruscan?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/titulus) says &quot;Most likely from Etruscan&quot;, citing [Ostler, *Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin* (2007), p. 43](https://books.google.com/books?id=YpOeQjTW1E0C&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form at least seems to be consistent with an Etruscan origin, since the phonemes /t/, /i/, /u/ and /l/ all existed in Etruscan. But the suggestion that *titulus* is Etruscan seems to be based on rather slim evidence. Ostler describes his Appendix II (&quot;Etruscan Borrowings in Latin&quot;) as a &quot;liberal list, supplementing the list of clearly attested borrowings on the assumption that early words that have no Italic etymology are likely to be Etruscan, especially if they have recognizable Etruscan word endings (*-eus, -enna, -erna, -īna, -issa, -ō, -ulus, -urnum*)&quot;, and notes that &quot;hardly any of these words can be identified in Etruscan texts&quot; (p. 323).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ostler cites Ernout 1930 as a source that describes supposedly characteristic features of &quot;Etruscan Latin&quot;, such as the list of endings that Ostler gives (*Ad Infinitum,* p. 334). I have found some later literature that critiques some of Ernout's criteria (Giuliano Bonfante, 1985,  &quot;[Etruscan Words in Latin][1]&quot;), but Bonfante doesn't seem to discuss *titulus* or any other words ending in *-ulus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*-ulus* as an Etruscan word ending?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some of the other *-ulus* words from Ostler's Appendix II:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - catulus 'puppy', botulus* 'black pudding', mitulus [sic]† 'mussel', situlus 'basket', populus 'people', tutulus 'priest's cap'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see a clear meaning associated with the alleged Etruscan ending *-ulus.* (Ostler's list also includes words ending in *-ula,* which I haven't reproduced here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*According to Bonfante, borrowings from Etruscan should not be expected to have /b/. Ostler doesn't seem to have used this criterion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;†The actual form seems to have been mītŭlus, with a long vowel in the first syllable. [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmitulus) indicate that it is in some way from Greek μύτυλος. (A Greek origin doesn't exclude the possibility of Etruscan as an intermediate source of the word.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00437956.1985.11435872" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9189" RevisionGUID="dba5164f-c7a7-47b3-8bad-93ace5a7fb3a" CreationDate="2019-02-25T22:49:51.383" UserId="9" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="It looks like the etymology of *titulus* is unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Etruscan?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/titulus) says &quot;Most likely from Etruscan&quot;, citing [Ostler, *Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin* (2007), p. 43](https://books.google.com/books?id=YpOeQjTW1E0C&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form at least seems to be consistent with an Etruscan origin, since the phonemes /t/, /i/, /u/ and /l/ all existed in Etruscan. But the suggestion that *titulus* is Etruscan seems to be based on rather slim evidence. Ostler describes his Appendix II (&quot;Etruscan Borrowings in Latin&quot;) as a &quot;liberal list, supplementing the list of clearly attested borrowings on the assumption that early words that have no Italic etymology are likely to be Etruscan, especially if they have recognizable Etruscan word endings (*-eus, -enna, -erna, -īna, -issa, -ō, -ulus, -urnum*)&quot;, and notes that &quot;hardly any of these words can be identified in Etruscan texts&quot; (p. 323).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ostler cites Ernout 1930 as a source that describes supposedly characteristic features of &quot;Etruscan Latin&quot;, such as the list of endings that Ostler gives (*Ad Infinitum,* p. 334). I have found some later literature that critiques some of Ernout's criteria (Giuliano Bonfante, 1985,  &quot;[Etruscan Words in Latin][1]&quot;), but Bonfante doesn't seem to discuss *titulus* or any other words ending in *-ulus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*-ulus* as an Etruscan word ending?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some of the other *-ulus* words from Ostler's Appendix II:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - catulus 'puppy', botulus* 'black pudding', mitulus [sic]† 'mussel', situlus 'basket', populus 'people', tutulus 'priest's cap'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see a clear meaning associated with the alleged Etruscan ending *-ulus.* (Ostler's list also includes words ending in *-ula,* which I haven't reproduced here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*According to Bonfante, borrowings from Etruscan should not be expected to have /b/, or any other voiced plosive. Ostler doesn't seem to have used this criterion when compiling his list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;†The actual form seems to have been mītŭlus, with a long vowel in the first syllable. [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmitulus) indicate that it is in some way from Greek μύτυλος. (A Greek origin doesn't exclude the possibility of Etruscan as an intermediate source of the word.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00437956.1985.11435872" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9189" RevisionGUID="3e8db922-8f9f-4731-b550-4cc04906e0e2" CreationDate="2019-02-26T02:31:30.420" UserId="9" Comment="added 296 characters in body" Text="It looks like the etymology of *titulus* is unclear. The Lewis and Short suggestion that it is related to *τίνω* seems a bit difficult (unless it was borrowed from some Greek form), as Wiktionary indicates that the initial consonant of *[τίνω](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%BD%CF%89)* is thought to have come from a PIE labiovelar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Etruscan?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/titulus) says &quot;Most likely from Etruscan&quot;, citing [Ostler, *Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin* (2007), p. 43](https://books.google.com/books?id=YpOeQjTW1E0C&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form at least seems to be consistent with an Etruscan origin, since the phonemes /t/, /i/, /u/ and /l/ all existed in Etruscan. But the suggestion that *titulus* is Etruscan seems to be based on rather slim evidence. Ostler describes his Appendix II (&quot;Etruscan Borrowings in Latin&quot;) as a &quot;liberal list, supplementing the list of clearly attested borrowings on the assumption that early words that have no Italic etymology are likely to be Etruscan, especially if they have recognizable Etruscan word endings (*-eus, -enna, -erna, -īna, -issa, -ō, -ulus, -urnum*)&quot;, and notes that &quot;hardly any of these words can be identified in Etruscan texts&quot; (p. 323).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ostler cites Ernout 1930 as a source that describes supposedly characteristic features of &quot;Etruscan Latin&quot;, such as the list of endings that Ostler gives (*Ad Infinitum,* p. 334). I have found some later literature that critiques some of Ernout's criteria (Giuliano Bonfante, 1985,  &quot;[Etruscan Words in Latin][1]&quot;), but Bonfante doesn't seem to discuss *titulus* or any other words ending in *-ulus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*-ulus* as an Etruscan word ending?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some of the other *-ulus* words from Ostler's Appendix II:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - catulus 'puppy', botulus* 'black pudding', mitulus [sic]† 'mussel', situlus 'basket', populus 'people', tutulus 'priest's cap'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see a clear meaning associated with the alleged Etruscan ending *-ulus.* (Ostler's list also includes words ending in *-ula,* which I haven't reproduced here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*According to Bonfante, borrowings from Etruscan should not be expected to have /b/, or any other voiced plosive. Ostler doesn't seem to have used this criterion when compiling his list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;†The actual form seems to have been mītŭlus, with a long vowel in the first syllable. [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmitulus) indicate that it is in some way from Greek μύτυλος. (A Greek origin doesn't exclude the possibility of Etruscan as an intermediate source of the word.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00437956.1985.11435872" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9189" RevisionGUID="1b038ee1-e392-4623-9d20-0f9f22f50876" CreationDate="2019-02-26T02:48:29.370" UserId="9" Comment="Added Cser citation" Text="It looks like the etymology of *titulus* is unclear. The Lewis and Short suggestion that it is related to *τίνω* seems a bit difficult (unless it was borrowed from some Greek form), as Wiktionary indicates that the initial consonant of *[τίνω](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%BD%CF%89)* is thought to have come from a PIE labiovelar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Etruscan?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/titulus) says &quot;Most likely from Etruscan&quot;, citing [Ostler, *Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin* (2007), p. 43](https://books.google.com/books?id=YpOeQjTW1E0C&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form at least seems to be consistent with an Etruscan origin, since the phonemes /t/, /i/, /u/ and /l/ all existed in Etruscan. But the suggestion that *titulus* is Etruscan seems to be based on rather slim evidence. Ostler describes his Appendix II (&quot;Etruscan Borrowings in Latin&quot;) as a &quot;liberal list, supplementing the list of clearly attested borrowings on the assumption that early words that have no Italic etymology are likely to be Etruscan, especially if they have recognizable Etruscan word endings (*-eus, -enna, -erna, -īna, -issa, -ō, -ulus, -urnum*)&quot;, and notes that &quot;hardly any of these words can be identified in Etruscan texts&quot; (p. 323).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ostler cites Ernout 1930 as a source that describes supposedly characteristic features of &quot;Etruscan Latin&quot;, such as the list of endings that Ostler gives (*Ad Infinitum,* p. 334). I have found some later literature that critiques some of Ernout's criteria (Giuliano Bonfante, 1985,  &quot;[Etruscan Words in Latin][1]&quot;), but Bonfante doesn't seem to discuss *titulus* or any other words ending in *-ulus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*-ulus* as an Etruscan word ending?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some of the other *-ulus* words from Ostler's Appendix II:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - catulus 'puppy', botulus* 'black pudding', mitulus [sic]† 'mussel', situlus 'basket', populus 'people', tutulus 'priest's cap'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see a clear meaning associated with the alleged Etruscan ending *-ulus.* (Ostler's list also includes words ending in *-ula,* which I haven't reproduced here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*According to Bonfante, borrowings from Etruscan should not be expected to have /b/, or any other voiced plosive. Ostler doesn't seem to have used this criterion when compiling his list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;†The actual form seems to have been mītŭlus, with a long vowel in the first syllable. [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmitulus) indicate that it is in some way from Greek μύτυλος. (A Greek origin doesn't exclude the possibility of Etruscan as an intermediate source of the word.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Indo-European?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be no obvious candidate for an Indo-European etymon. András Cser points out that C&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;VC&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;, with the same consonant before and after the vowel, is an uncharacteristic pattern for the start of a PIE root, and says that according to Walde and Hoffmann (1956 s.v.), the form *titulus* might be the result of reduplication (p.181, &quot;[Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot;, 2016).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00437956.1985.11435872" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="13f8465c-47f3-441a-8ef1-dc4d1ea16fac" CreationDate="2019-02-26T03:42:04.077" UserId="39" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="First of all, a very important note on your use of genitive and possessive (and some incorrect assertions expressed in someone else's post). We are very fortunate that Classical studies have benefitted immensely from contemporary linguistic research. The great Latinists of the past did a lot to collect data - manually! - and they tried to describe and analyze it to the best of their knowledge, *for their time*. However, this is 2019, not 1919, and one has to read Latin grammars of the past (replete with most interesting language minutiae) with great caution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By tradition (and for some other reasons), we distinguish six cases in Latin, the genitive being one of the them. Theoretically, we could posit more - if we take into account semantics solely and disregard morphology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have the genitive case in Latin that expresses different semantic relationships between the head and its dependent. **Possession is only one of the genitive uses.** For instance, [de Groot 1956][1] argues there are eight &quot;regular grammatical uses of the Genitive&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A side note:* What exactly possession is is no trivial matter, either. See the first pages with lots of examples in [Baldi and Nuti 2010][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to consult one of the best Latin grammars of our time, I cannot recommend enough the first volume of Harm Pinkster's *Oxford Latin Syntax: The Simple Clause* (OUP, 2015). It contains 1430 pages and this is just the first volume (we're still waiting, patiently, for the second volume to materialize, hopefully, in the next decade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to your question. How can we distinguish between **the subjective genitive** and **the objective genitive** vs. the possessive genitive, if this is indeed what you were asking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take a look at the following example from Pinkster (p. 1040).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Non ego illam mi dotem duco esse quae dos dicitur / sed pudicitiam .../ deum metum, parentum amorem et cognatum concordiam ...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, we have two uses of **the objective genitive**, *deum metum* and *parentum amorem*, and one use of **the subjective genitive**, *cognatum concordiam*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This use is described in linguistics as adnominal arguments of verbal nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I think the most reliable syntactic test is to insert a possessive adjective. A possessive adjective would be incompatible with the possessive genitive. Such a possessive adjective cannot be co-referential with the other noun in the genitive in such a close proximity (I've tried to avoid linguistics jargon in my answer as much as I could). This is well known from the binding theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as Pinskter correctly observes - and this answers your question - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;For most combinations of head nouns and attributive NPs the precise semantic function of the genitive attribute is wholly dependent on the meanings of the head and attribute constituents involved and the way they are related in the extralinguistic world&quot; (p. 1000).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(will add more examples and syntactic tests later and might revise the post slightly - have a lot of papers to grade today)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024384156900031&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110215465/9783110215465.239/9783110215465.239.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9189" RevisionGUID="da6824e4-907d-46a8-a892-bca2cc564017" CreationDate="2019-02-26T03:49:10.260" UserId="9" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="It looks like the etymology of *titulus* is unclear. The Lewis and Short suggestion that it is related to *τίνω* seems a bit difficult (unless it was borrowed from some Greek form), as Wiktionary indicates that the initial consonant of *[τίνω](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%BD%CF%89)* is thought to have come from a PIE labiovelar *kʷ. The change of *kʷ to /t/ before /i/ is specific to certain dialects of Greek; we wouldn't see it in a native Latin word (compare Latin *quis* vs. Attic Greek *τίς*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Etruscan?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/titulus) says &quot;Most likely from Etruscan&quot;, citing [Ostler, *Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin* (2007), p. 43](https://books.google.com/books?id=YpOeQjTW1E0C&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form at least seems to be consistent with an Etruscan origin, since the phonemes /t/, /i/, /u/ and /l/ all existed in Etruscan. But the suggestion that *titulus* is Etruscan seems to be based on rather slim evidence. Ostler describes his Appendix II (&quot;Etruscan Borrowings in Latin&quot;) as a &quot;liberal list, supplementing the list of clearly attested borrowings on the assumption that early words that have no Italic etymology are likely to be Etruscan, especially if they have recognizable Etruscan word endings (*-eus, -enna, -erna, -īna, -issa, -ō, -ulus, -urnum*)&quot;, and notes that &quot;hardly any of these words can be identified in Etruscan texts&quot; (p. 323).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ostler cites Ernout 1930 as a source that describes supposedly characteristic features of &quot;Etruscan Latin&quot;, such as the list of endings that Ostler gives (*Ad Infinitum,* p. 334). I have found some later literature that critiques some of Ernout's criteria (Giuliano Bonfante, 1985,  &quot;[Etruscan Words in Latin][1]&quot;), but Bonfante doesn't seem to discuss *titulus* or any other words ending in *-ulus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*-ulus* as an Etruscan word ending?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some of the other *-ulus* words from Ostler's Appendix II:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - catulus 'puppy', botulus* 'black pudding', mitulus [sic]† 'mussel', situlus 'basket', populus 'people', tutulus 'priest's cap'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see a clear meaning associated with the alleged Etruscan ending *-ulus.* (Ostler's list also includes words ending in *-ula,* which I haven't reproduced here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*According to Bonfante, borrowings from Etruscan should not be expected to have /b/, or any other voiced plosive. Ostler doesn't seem to have used this criterion when compiling his list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;†The actual form seems to have been mītŭlus, with a long vowel in the first syllable. [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmitulus) indicate that it is in some way from Greek μύτυλος. (A Greek origin doesn't exclude the possibility of Etruscan as an intermediate source of the word.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Indo-European?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be no obvious candidate for an Indo-European etymon. András Cser points out that C&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;VC&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;, with the same consonant before and after the vowel, is an uncharacteristic pattern for the start of a PIE root, and says that according to Walde and Hoffmann (1956 s.v.), the form *titulus* might be the result of reduplication (p.181, &quot;[Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot;, 2016).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00437956.1985.11435872" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="8b5d21aa-c351-4559-b5bc-53bccb8ba6dd" CreationDate="2019-02-26T04:03:52.163" UserId="39" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="First of all, a very important note on your use of genitive and possessive (and some incorrect assertions expressed in someone else's post). We are very fortunate that Classical studies have benefitted immensely from contemporary linguistic research. The great Latinists of the past did a lot to collect data - manually! - and they tried to describe and analyze it to the best of their knowledge, *for their time*. However, this is 2019, not 1919, and one has to read Latin grammars of the past (replete with most interesting language minutiae) with great caution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By tradition (and for some other reasons), we distinguish six cases in Latin, the genitive being one of the them. Theoretically, we could posit more - if we take into account semantics solely and disregard morphology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have the genitive case in Latin that expresses different semantic relationships between the head and its dependent. **Possession is only one of the genitive uses.** For instance, [de Groot 1956][1] argues there are eight &quot;regular grammatical uses of the Genitive&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A side note:* What exactly possession is is no trivial matter, either. See the first pages with lots of examples in [Baldi and Nuti 2010][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to consult one of the best Latin grammars of our time, I cannot recommend enough the first volume of Harm Pinkster's *Oxford Latin Syntax: The Simple Clause* (OUP, 2015). It contains 1430 pages and this is just the first volume (we're still waiting, patiently, for the second volume to materialize, hopefully, in the next decade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to your question. How can we distinguish between **the subjective genitive** and **the objective genitive** vs. the possessive genitive, if this is indeed what you were asking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take a look at the following example from Pinkster (p. 1040).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Non ego illam mi dotem duco esse quae dos dicitur / sed pudicitiam .../ deum metum, parentum amorem et cognatum concordiam ...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, we have two uses of **the objective genitive**, *deum metum* and *parentum amorem*, and one use of **the subjective genitive**, *cognatum concordiam*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This use is described in linguistics as adnominal arguments of verbal nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Syntactic tests:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The possessive genitive can be coordinated with a possessive adjective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sermonem* **tuum** et **Pompei** cognovi ex tius litteris. (Cic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A possessive adjective cannot be co-referential with the other noun in the genitive in such a close proximity (I've tried to avoid linguistics jargon in my answer as much as I could). This is well known from the binding theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as Pinskter correctly observes - and this answers your question - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;For most combinations of head nouns and attributive NPs the precise semantic function of the genitive attribute is wholly dependent on the meanings of the head and attribute constituents involved and the way they are related in the extralinguistic world&quot; (p. 1000).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(will add more examples and syntactic tests later and might revise the post slightly - have a lot of papers to grade today)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024384156900031&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110215465/9783110215465.239/9783110215465.239.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="2bfdd2fe-56b6-4ad7-a0fa-4371b4c8bed2" CreationDate="2019-02-26T04:12:47.723" UserId="39" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="First of all, a very important note on your use of genitive and possessive (and some incorrect assertions expressed in someone else's post). We are very fortunate that Classical studies have benefitted immensely from contemporary linguistic research. The great Latinists of the past did a lot to collect data - manually! - and they tried to describe and analyze it to the best of their knowledge, *for their time*. However, this is 2019, not 1919, and one has to read Latin grammars of the past (replete with most interesting language minutiae) with great caution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By tradition (and for some other reasons), we distinguish six cases in Latin, the genitive being one of the them. Theoretically, we could posit more - if we take into account semantics solely and disregard morphology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have the genitive case in Latin that expresses different semantic relationships between the head and its dependent. **Possession is only one of the genitive uses.** For instance, [de Groot 1956][1] argues there are eight &quot;regular grammatical uses of the Genitive&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A side note:* What exactly possession is is no trivial matter, either. See the first pages with lots of examples in [Baldi and Nuti 2010][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to consult one of the best Latin grammars of our time, I cannot recommend enough the first volume of Harm Pinkster's *Oxford Latin Syntax: The Simple Clause* (OUP, 2015). It contains 1430 pages and this is just the first volume (we're still waiting, patiently, for the second volume to materialize, hopefully, in the next decade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to your question. How can we distinguish between **the subjective genitive** and **the objective genitive** vs. the possessive genitive, if this is indeed what you were asking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take a look at the following example from Pinkster (p. 1040).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Non ego illam mi dotem duco esse quae dos dicitur / sed pudicitiam .../ deum metum, parentum amorem et cognatum concordiam ...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, we have two uses of **the objective genitive**, *deum metum* and *parentum amorem*, and one use of **the subjective genitive**, *cognatum concordiam*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This use is described in linguistics as adnominal arguments of verbal nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Syntactic tests:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The possessive genitive can be coordinated with a possessive adjective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sermonem* **tuum** et **Pompei** cognovi ex tius litteris. (Cic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A possessive adjective cannot be co-referential with the other noun in the genitive in such a close proximity (I've tried to avoid linguistics jargon in my answer as much as I could). This is well known from the binding theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Appositives are an exception to (2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...vereris ne tua domus, talis et viri et civis, ...a ceteris deseratur?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as Pinskter correctly observes - and this answers your question - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;For most combinations of head nouns and attributive NPs the precise semantic function of the genitive attribute is wholly dependent on the meanings of the head and attribute constituents involved and the way they are related in the extralinguistic world&quot; (p. 1000).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(will add more examples and syntactic tests later and might revise the post slightly sometime this weekend)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024384156900031&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110215465/9783110215465.239/9783110215465.239.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="441eb1e0-f58a-4335-b9b6-d299c9ae30c0" CreationDate="2019-02-26T04:24:42.830" UserId="39" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="First of all, a very important note on your use of genitive and possessive (and some incorrect assertions expressed in someone else's post). We are very fortunate that Classical studies have benefitted immensely from contemporary linguistic research. The great Latinists of the past did a lot to collect data - manually! - and they tried to describe and analyze it to the best of their knowledge, *for their time*. However, this is 2019, not 1919, and one has to read Latin grammars of the past (replete with most interesting language minutiae) with great caution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By tradition (and for some other reasons), we distinguish six cases in Latin, the genitive being one of the them. Theoretically, we could posit more - if we take into account semantics solely and disregard morphology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have the genitive case in Latin that expresses different semantic relationships between the head and its dependent. **Possession is only one of the genitive uses.** For instance, [de Groot 1956][1] argues there are eight &quot;regular grammatical uses of the Genitive&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A side note:* What exactly possession is is no trivial matter, either. See the first pages with lots of examples in [Baldi and Nuti 2010][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to consult one of the best Latin grammars of our time, I cannot recommend enough the first volume of Harm Pinkster's *Oxford Latin Syntax: The Simple Clause* (OUP, 2015). It contains 1430 pages and this is just the first volume (we're still waiting, patiently, for the second volume to materialize, hopefully, in the next decade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to your question. How can we distinguish between **the subjective genitive** and **the objective genitive** vs. the possessive genitive, if this is indeed what you were asking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take a look at the following example from Pinkster (p. 1040).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Non ego illam mi dotem duco esse quae dos dicitur / sed pudicitiam .../ deum metum, parentum amorem et cognatum concordiam ...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, we have two uses of **the objective genitive**, *deum metum* and *parentum amorem*, and one use of **the subjective genitive**, *cognatum concordiam*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This use is described in linguistics as adnominal arguments of verbal nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Syntactic tests:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The possessive genitive can be coordinated with a possessive adjective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sermonem* **tuum** et **Pompei** cognovi ex tius litteris. (Cic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A possessive adjective cannot be co-referential with the other noun in the genitive in such a close proximity (I've tried to avoid linguistics jargon in my answer as much as I could). This is well known from the binding theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Appositives are an exception to (2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...vereris ne tua domus, talis et viri et civis, ...a ceteris deseratur?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as Pinskter correctly observes - and this answers your question - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;For most combinations of head nouns and attributive NPs the precise semantic function of the genitive attribute is wholly dependent on the meanings of the head and attribute constituents involved and the way they are related in the extralinguistic world&quot; (p. 1000),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. the examples below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... dolorem **profectionis meaa** reditus dignitate consoler. (Cic.) the subjective genitive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eo, etsi scio pol is fore **meum conspectum** invisum hodie (Ter.) the objective genitive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uno eodemque tempore **domus mea** diripiebatur, ardebat ... (Cic.)  the possessive genitive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(will add more examples and syntactic tests later and might revise the post slightly sometime this weekend)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024384156900031&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110215465/9783110215465.239/9783110215465.239.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9135" RevisionGUID="3bf87b35-4508-4f8b-b785-0975fd33c713" CreationDate="2019-02-26T04:26:43.870" UserId="9" Comment="Added dubious example of &quot;memora&quot;" Text="The clearest examples of third-declension adjectives that have attested consonant-stem forms in the neuter nominative/accusative plural seem to be the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the class of comparative-declined adjectives, such as neuter plural nominative/accusative adjectives ending in *-iōra* (including *maiōra/majōra*) and *minōra*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *vetera.* It is thought that *[vetus* was originally a neuter substantive noun](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6651/cur-nullum-genus-adiectivo-vetus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *plūra* (despite genitive *plurium*). It seems [*pluria* was maybe a very uncommon variant form, but the typical form was *plura*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5876/plura-or-pluria). The derived word *complura/compluria* apparently exists in both forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *ūbera.* Of course, this exists as a plural substantive, but according to Allen and Greenough §119, the form *ūbera* is also used as a neuter plural adjective (although the ablative singular form of this adjective is usually *ūberī*). [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uber#Adjective_2) gives &quot;ūberia&quot;, but that form doesn't show up anywhere in the PHI Latin Texts corpus, so I'm guessing Wiktionary is just showing an incorrect declension table for this  word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Less clear examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found *memora* listed in a grammar (*[Grammatica Anglo-Romana: Or, A Syncritical Grammar,...,](https://books.google.com/books?id=5082kcor28AC&amp;pg=PA56)* by Samuel Shaw, 1689) as a neuter plural form, presumably of the adjective *memor* 'mindful', but I wasn't able to find any actual examples of *memora* being used as an adjective (rather than as the imperative of *memoro*) in a Latin document. As I mentioned in the question, it seems to be possible and not uncommon for third-declension adjectives of one ending to be defective in the neuter plural, so I don't particularly trust Shaw (or Wiktionary, which also lists the form *memora* in its declension table for *[memor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/memor)*) to be giving an attested and not just theoretical form. (The meaning of &quot;memor&quot; presumably contributes to the absence or scarcity of examples of neuter usages.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another old book (&quot;[Some improvements to the art of teaching...](https://books.google.com/books?id=Ms1lAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA13&amp;lpg=PA13&amp;dq=%22complura%22+%22plura%22+%22vetera%22+%22ubera%22+%22minora%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=UbW9Jh5IIg&amp;sig=aFVFEYoIZy338kgS6YSe9DJtcgY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiaorWdqsDbAhVLr1QKHcJxBpMQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22complura%22%20%22plura%22%20%22vetera%22%20%22ubera%22%20%22minora%22&amp;f=false),&quot; Fifth Edition, by William Walker, 1693) mentions compound adjectives ending in *-corpora* or *-colōra,* like *bicolōra,* but Walker seems to say that these actually originated as o-stem forms (corresponding to masc. singular nominative *-corporus, -colōrus*), not as consonant-stem forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a few more mentioned in §3 of &quot;[Declension of the Latin present participle in connection with its syntactico-semantic use](https://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle/j$002fjoll.2018.17.issue-1$002fjoll-2018-0001$002fjoll-2018-0001.xml)&quot; (2018), by Hendrik Christiaan Walvoort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walvoort says that in a discussion of words that can take *-i* in the ablative singular but that have plurals forms in *-a,* Priscian mentions *ludicra,* which is supposed to go with the ablative form *ludicri.* However, it seems that Priscian is the main evidence for this as a third-declension adjective; dictionary entries record instead a first/second declension adjective *ludicer* or *ludicrus.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walvoort also provides a citation indicating that present participles had neuter plural forms in *-a* instead of in *-ia* in rare contexts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Kühner and Holzweissig [...] consider the ending *-a* as a striking singularity instead of *-ia* in such phrases as *silenta loca* and *pestilenta loca.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9135" RevisionGUID="8676931f-ed58-472e-a06d-a020e5124649" CreationDate="2019-02-26T04:31:45.250" UserId="9" Comment="Added dubious example of &quot;memora&quot;" Text="The clearest examples of third-declension adjectives that have attested consonant-stem forms in the neuter nominative/accusative plural seem to be the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the class of comparative-declined adjectives, such as neuter plural nominative/accusative adjectives ending in *-iōra* (including *maiōra/majōra*) and *minōra*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *vetera.* It is thought that *[vetus* was originally a neuter substantive noun](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6651/cur-nullum-genus-adiectivo-vetus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *plūra* (despite genitive *plurium*). It seems [*pluria* was maybe a very uncommon variant form, but the typical form was *plura*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5876/plura-or-pluria). The derived word *complura/compluria* apparently exists in both forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *ūbera.* Of course, this exists as a plural substantive, but according to Allen and Greenough §119, the form *ūbera* is also used as a neuter plural adjective (although the ablative singular form of this adjective is usually *ūberī*). [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uber#Adjective_2) gives &quot;ūberia&quot;, but that form doesn't show up anywhere in the PHI Latin Texts corpus, so I'm guessing Wiktionary is just showing an incorrect declension table for this  word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Dubious or less clear examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found *memora* listed in a grammar (*[Grammatica Anglo-Romana: Or, A Syncritical Grammar,...,](https://books.google.com/books?id=5082kcor28AC&amp;pg=PA56)* by Samuel Shaw, 1689) as a neuter plural form, presumably of the adjective *memor* 'mindful', but I wasn't able to find any actual examples of *memora* being used as an adjective (rather than as the imperative of *memoro*) in a Latin document. As I mentioned in the question, it seems to be possible and not uncommon for third-declension adjectives of one ending to be defective in the neuter plural, so I don't particularly trust Shaw (or Wiktionary, which lists the form *memora* in its declension table for *[memor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/memor)*) to be giving an attested and not just theoretical form. (The meaning of &quot;memor&quot; presumably contributes to the absence or scarcity of examples of neuter usages.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another old book (&quot;[Some improvements to the art of teaching...](https://books.google.com/books?id=Ms1lAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA13&amp;lpg=PA13&amp;dq=%22complura%22+%22plura%22+%22vetera%22+%22ubera%22+%22minora%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=UbW9Jh5IIg&amp;sig=aFVFEYoIZy338kgS6YSe9DJtcgY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiaorWdqsDbAhVLr1QKHcJxBpMQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22complura%22%20%22plura%22%20%22vetera%22%20%22ubera%22%20%22minora%22&amp;f=false),&quot; Fifth Edition, by William Walker, 1693) mentions compound adjectives ending in *-corpora* or *-colōra,* like *bicolōra,* but Walker seems to say that these actually originated as o-stem forms (corresponding to masc. singular nominative *-corporus, -colōrus*), not as consonant-stem forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a few more mentioned in §3 of &quot;[Declension of the Latin present participle in connection with its syntactico-semantic use](https://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle/j$002fjoll.2018.17.issue-1$002fjoll-2018-0001$002fjoll-2018-0001.xml)&quot; (2018), by Hendrik Christiaan Walvoort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walvoort says that in a discussion of words that can take *-i* in the ablative singular but that have plurals forms in *-a,* Priscian mentions *ludicra,* which is supposed to go with the ablative form *ludicri.* However, it seems that Priscian is the main evidence for this as a third-declension adjective; dictionary entries record instead a first/second declension adjective *ludicer* or *ludicrus.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walvoort also provides a citation indicating that present participles had neuter plural forms in *-a* instead of in *-ia* in rare contexts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Kühner and Holzweissig [...] consider the ending *-a* as a striking singularity instead of *-ia* in such phrases as *silenta loca* and *pestilenta loca.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9106" RevisionGUID="4ec92db1-22c0-4109-96d5-1db38cb26c8c" CreationDate="2019-02-26T04:35:57.867" UserId="406" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="As it happens, I came across an interesting answer to this question just the other day!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is, **yes**. For a specific example, in Western Romance, short *o* and *e* became `/ɔ ɛ/` in stressed syllables, but `/o e/` in unstressed syllables. In Spanish, `/ɔ ɛ/` then became *ie* and *ue*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *s**ó**lidum* &gt; *s**ue**ldo*, but *c**o**rrúptum* &gt; *c**o**rrupto*&#xD;&#xA; - *t**é**nerum* &gt; *t**ie**rno*, but *t**e**némus* &gt; *t**e**nemos*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These depend specifically on the Classical Latin stress system, not on anything later: for example, we can put a suffix on *t**ié**rno* to get *t**ie**rnaménte*, but the *ie* remains even when the stress is removed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9135" RevisionGUID="ef8adcce-fff0-483b-beb5-150ac80611cc" CreationDate="2019-02-26T04:50:42.957" UserId="9" Comment="added 387 characters in body" Text="The clearest examples of third-declension adjectives that have attested consonant-stem forms in the neuter nominative/accusative plural seem to be the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the class of comparative-declined adjectives, such as neuter plural nominative/accusative adjectives ending in *-iōra* (including *maiōra/majōra*) and *minōra*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *vetera.* It is thought that *[vetus* was originally a neuter substantive noun](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6651/cur-nullum-genus-adiectivo-vetus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *plūra* (despite genitive *plurium*). It seems [*pluria* was maybe a very uncommon variant form, but the typical form was *plura*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5876/plura-or-pluria). The derived word *complura/compluria* apparently exists in both forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *ūbera.* Of course, this exists as a plural substantive, but according to Allen and Greenough §119, the form *ūbera* is also used as a neuter plural adjective (although the ablative singular form of this adjective is usually *ūberī*). [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uber#Adjective_2) gives &quot;ūberia&quot;, but that form doesn't show up anywhere in the PHI Latin Texts corpus, so I'm guessing Wiktionary is just showing an incorrect declension table for this  word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Dubious or less clear examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *pūbera.* Allen and Greenough §121d says that *pūbes* takes *-a* in the nominative and accusative plural, but I haven't found an actual example of *pubera,* so I suspect that this adjective might have been defective instead in Classical Latin. [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pubes#Latin) lists the neuter plural form as &quot;puberia&quot;, which I would guess is an erroneous auto-generated form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *memora.* I found *memora* listed in a grammar (*[Grammatica Anglo-Romana: Or, A Syncritical Grammar,...,](https://books.google.com/books?id=5082kcor28AC&amp;pg=PA56)* by Samuel Shaw, 1689) as a neuter plural form, presumably of the adjective *memor* 'mindful', but I wasn't able to find any actual examples of *memora* being used as an adjective (rather than as the imperative of *memoro*) in a Latin document. As I mentioned in the question, it seems to be possible and not uncommon for third-declension adjectives of one ending to be defective in the neuter plural, so I don't particularly trust Shaw (or Wiktionary, which lists the form *memora* in its declension table for *[memor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/memor)*) to be giving an attested and not just theoretical form. (The meaning of &quot;memor&quot; presumably contributes to the absence or scarcity of examples of neuter usages.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *-corpora, -colora.* Another old book (&quot;[Some improvements to the art of teaching...](https://books.google.com/books?id=Ms1lAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA13&amp;lpg=PA13&amp;dq=%22complura%22+%22plura%22+%22vetera%22+%22ubera%22+%22minora%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=UbW9Jh5IIg&amp;sig=aFVFEYoIZy338kgS6YSe9DJtcgY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiaorWdqsDbAhVLr1QKHcJxBpMQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22complura%22%20%22plura%22%20%22vetera%22%20%22ubera%22%20%22minora%22&amp;f=false),&quot; Fifth Edition, by William Walker, 1693) mentions compound adjectives ending in *-corpora* or *-colōra,* like *bicolōra,* but Walker seems to say that these actually originated as o-stem forms (corresponding to masc. singular nominative *-corporus, -colōrus*), not as consonant-stem forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a few more mentioned in §3 of &quot;[Declension of the Latin present participle in connection with its syntactico-semantic use](https://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle/j$002fjoll.2018.17.issue-1$002fjoll-2018-0001$002fjoll-2018-0001.xml)&quot; (2018), by Hendrik Christiaan Walvoort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walvoort says that in a discussion of words that can take *-i* in the ablative singular but that have plurals forms in *-a,* Priscian mentions *ludicra,* which is supposed to go with the ablative form *ludicri.* However, it seems that Priscian is the main evidence for this as a third-declension adjective; dictionary entries record instead a first/second declension adjective *ludicer* or *ludicrus.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walvoort also provides a citation indicating that present participles had neuter plural forms in *-a* instead of in *-ia* in rare contexts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Kühner and Holzweissig [...] consider the ending *-a* as a striking singularity instead of *-ia* in such phrases as *silenta loca* and *pestilenta loca.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9135" RevisionGUID="abb85d81-51bb-4a69-89e9-31669bbf11a1" CreationDate="2019-02-26T04:57:05.640" UserId="9" Comment="added 387 characters in body" Text="The clearest examples of third-declension adjectives that have attested consonant-stem forms in the neuter nominative/accusative plural seem to be the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the class of comparative-declined adjectives, such as neuter plural nominative/accusative adjectives ending in *-iōra* (including *maiōra/majōra*) and *minōra*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *vetera.* It is thought that *[vetus* was originally a neuter substantive noun](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6651/cur-nullum-genus-adiectivo-vetus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *plūra* (despite genitive *plurium*). It seems [*pluria* was maybe a very uncommon variant form, but the typical form was *plura*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5876/plura-or-pluria). The derived word *complura/compluria* apparently exists in both forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *ūbera.* Of course, this exists as a plural substantive, but according to Allen and Greenough §119, the form *ūbera* is also used as a neuter plural adjective (although the ablative singular form of this adjective is usually *ūberī*). [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uber#Adjective_2) gives &quot;ūberia&quot;, but that form doesn't show up anywhere in the PHI Latin Texts corpus, so I'm guessing Wiktionary is just showing an incorrect declension table for this  word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Dubious or less clear examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *pūbera.* Allen and Greenough §121d says that *pūbes* takes *-a* in the nominative and accusative plural, but I haven't found an actual example of *pubera,* so I suspect that this adjective might have been defective instead in Classical Latin. [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pubes#Latin) lists the neuter plural form as &quot;puberia&quot;, which I would guess is an erroneous auto-generated form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *memora.* I found *memora* listed in a grammar (*[Grammatica Anglo-Romana: Or, A Syncritical Grammar,...,](https://books.google.com/books?id=5082kcor28AC&amp;pg=PA56)* by Samuel Shaw, 1689) as a neuter plural form, presumably of the adjective *memor* 'mindful', but I wasn't able to find any actual examples of *memora* being used as an adjective (rather than as the imperative of *memoro*) in a Latin document. As I mentioned in the question, it seems to be possible and not uncommon for third-declension adjectives of one ending to be defective in the neuter plural, so I don't particularly trust Shaw (or Wiktionary, which lists the form *memora* in its declension table for *[memor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/memor)*) to be giving an attested and not just theoretical form. (The meaning of &quot;memor&quot; presumably contributes to the absence or scarcity of examples of neuter usages.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Guardia and Wierzejski (1875) include *puber* and *memor* in a list of adjectives that are defective in the neuter nominative/accusative plural (p. 133-134, *[Grammaire de la langue latine](https://books.google.com/books?id=TFdhHTcJk3EC&amp;pg=PA133&amp;lpg=PA133&amp;dq=&quot;puber&quot;)*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *-corpora, -colora.* Another old book (&quot;[Some improvements to the art of teaching...](https://books.google.com/books?id=Ms1lAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA13&amp;lpg=PA13&amp;dq=%22complura%22+%22plura%22+%22vetera%22+%22ubera%22+%22minora%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=UbW9Jh5IIg&amp;sig=aFVFEYoIZy338kgS6YSe9DJtcgY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiaorWdqsDbAhVLr1QKHcJxBpMQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22complura%22%20%22plura%22%20%22vetera%22%20%22ubera%22%20%22minora%22&amp;f=false),&quot; Fifth Edition, by William Walker, 1693) mentions compound adjectives ending in *-corpora* or *-colōra,* like *bicolōra,* but Walker seems to say that these actually originated as o-stem forms (corresponding to masc. singular nominative *-corporus, -colōrus*), not as consonant-stem forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a few more mentioned in §3 of &quot;[Declension of the Latin present participle in connection with its syntactico-semantic use](https://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle/j$002fjoll.2018.17.issue-1$002fjoll-2018-0001$002fjoll-2018-0001.xml)&quot; (2018), by Hendrik Christiaan Walvoort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walvoort says that in a discussion of words that can take *-i* in the ablative singular but that have plurals forms in *-a,* Priscian mentions *ludicra,* which is supposed to go with the ablative form *ludicri.* However, it seems that Priscian is the main evidence for this as a third-declension adjective; dictionary entries record instead a first/second declension adjective *ludicer* or *ludicrus.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walvoort also provides a citation indicating that present participles had neuter plural forms in *-a* instead of in *-ia* in rare contexts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Kühner and Holzweissig [...] consider the ending *-a* as a striking singularity instead of *-ia* in such phrases as *silenta loca* and *pestilenta loca.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6657" RevisionGUID="3bb654c2-e6f2-44a0-9002-7deb4819b1c8" CreationDate="2019-02-26T05:02:16.223" UserId="9" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="From what I have read, most third-declension Latin adjectives other than comparatives take the i-stem endings *-ī,* *ium* and *-ia* in the ablative singular, genitive plural and neuter nominative/accusative plural, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Allen and Greenough &amp;sect;114-119](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-classification-and-paradigms#fn2) discuss the general patterns, and [Allen and Greenough &amp;sect;121](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/3rd-declension-adjectives-case-forms-consonant-stems) discusses *-e* vs. *-ī* in the ablative singular,  *-ium* vs. *-um* in the genitive plural, and a few other variations like *-īs* vs. *-ēs* in the masculine/feminine accusative plural and feminine nominative singular forms in *-a,* like *clienta* and *hospita.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adjectives that take *-a* in the neuter plural nominative/accusative appear to be even less common than adjectives that take *-um* or *-e,* though. It seems that many third-declension adjectives of one ending lack attested neuter plural forms at all (discussed to some extent in [Allen and Greenough §122](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/irregularities-and-special-uses-adjectives)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which third-declension adjectives have attested plural forms in *-a*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9106" RevisionGUID="28ed9d61-6e5f-460b-82ab-90389f5e287f" CreationDate="2019-02-26T05:34:11.547" UserId="406" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="As it happens, I came across an interesting answer to this question just the other day!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is, **yes**. For a specific example, in Western Romance, short *o* and *e* became `/ɔ ɛ/` in stressed syllables, but `/o e/` in unstressed syllables. In Spanish, `/ɔ ɛ/` then became *ie* and *ue*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *s**ó**lidum* &gt; *s**ue**ldo*, but *c**o**rrúptum* &gt; *c**o**rrupto*&#xD;&#xA; - *t**é**nerum* &gt; *t**ie**rno*, but *t**e**némus* &gt; *t**e**nemos*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These depend specifically on the Classical Latin stress system, not on anything later: for example, we can put a suffix on *t**ié**rno* to get *t**ie**rnaménte*, but the *ie* remains even when the stress is removed. In other words, it's fossilized into the words now and doesn't change any more, even when the modern Spanish stress would." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9190" RevisionGUID="91917aa0-a3d5-4f66-a33b-d6c6c167d06b" CreationDate="2019-02-26T05:44:12.307" UserId="406" Text="Classical Latin stress was famously based on the &quot;penult rule&quot;: stress goes on the penult if heavy, the antepenult otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In later Latin, vowel length seems to have been lost very early: before Late Latin became Romance. But certain sound changes in the Romance languages, like posttonic vowel syncope (deleting vowels in the syllable right after the stress), still rely on the penult stress rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how long did penult stress last? Did it survive all the way into Romance, even though vowel length didn't—effectively becoming arbitrary? Or did rules like vowel syncope happen earlier, before vowel length had vanished?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28450" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9190" RevisionGUID="91917aa0-a3d5-4f66-a33b-d6c6c167d06b" CreationDate="2019-02-26T05:44:12.307" UserId="406" Text="When did the penult stress rule disappear?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28451" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9190" RevisionGUID="91917aa0-a3d5-4f66-a33b-d6c6c167d06b" CreationDate="2019-02-26T05:44:12.307" UserId="406" Text="|language-evolution|stress|romance-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9191" RevisionGUID="4b2d1ce9-ab53-4b28-b69e-7b959261df77" CreationDate="2019-02-26T13:57:52.567" UserId="1459" Text="The fact that the etymology of _titulus_ seems to be unclear, was definitely a held opinion in the past among some classicists. A book from 1889 about [loaned words in Latin](https://archive.org/details/loanwordsinlatin00whar/page/20) by Edward Ross Wharton, from the University of Oxford, includes _titulus_ as part of the &quot;un-Greek loan-words&quot; that &quot;seem foreign, though we cannot tell where they came from&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few years earlier, B.H. Kennedy, another English classicist, published an article titled &quot;[On the Derivation of the Latin Word 'Titulus'](https://www.jstor.org/stable/693242)&quot;, where he acknowledges the ignorance regarding its origin (discarding &quot;small Titus&quot;). However, he also advances a new origin, the Latin word _[stilus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stilus#Latin)_. I quote _in extenso_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;In the course of last year, dipping into Rabelais&#xD;&#xA; (for the sake of his old French, not of his matter), I&#xD;&#xA; came across the phrase _'tiltre au dessus,' the title&#xD;&#xA; above_ (the heading of the page). How came this _l_&#xD;&#xA; into the word? I asked myself; and it occurred to&#xD;&#xA; me forthwith that it came from _stilus_; and if so, that&#xD;&#xA; _titulus_ is a derivative of _stilus_. The more I have&#xD;&#xA; considered this matter, the more strong has become&#xD;&#xA; my conviction that this, and none other, is the origin&#xD;&#xA; of _titulus_, - the _stilus_ above the _stilus_, that which is&#xD;&#xA; written above to explain that which stands below&#xD;&#xA; in a book. Thence it became a brief _description_&#xD;&#xA; generally, however and wherever written, however and&#xD;&#xA; wherever spoken as our dictionaries tell us. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There are two ways in which we may suppose _stilus_&#xD;&#xA; to produce _titulus_: in both we strike off _s_ which is&#xD;&#xA; lost (as in _torus_, _taurus_, _tego_) by so many words.&#xD;&#xA; about 100 in number, beginning with _s_ and a second&#xD;&#xA; consonant. This leaves _tilus_; reduplication gives&#xD;&#xA; _titilus_, from which to _titulus_ is only the same step&#xD;&#xA; as from _minimus_ to _minumus_. This seems better&#xD;&#xA; than to imagine a deminutive _tilulus_ converted by&#xD;&#xA; assimilation (_t-t_) to _titulus_. That reduplication has&#xD;&#xA; sometimes a diminishing use, appears from such&#xD;&#xA; words as _cicindela_, _cincinnus_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the end of the article, there are two comments criticising Kennedy's theory (one by Edward Ross Wharton, mentioned above).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: was the original word _titulus_ or _titulum_? Recent debate [here]( https://www.jstor.org/stable/526456 )." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="f4b43326-5118-4ec9-a36f-25a83bc5f91f" CreationDate="2019-02-26T14:34:50.093" UserId="39" Comment="added 324 characters in body" Text="First of all, a very important note on your use of genitive and possessive (and some incorrect assertions expressed in someone else's post). We are very fortunate that Classical studies have benefitted immensely from contemporary linguistic research. The great Latinists of the past did a lot to collect data - manually! - and they tried to describe and analyze it to the best of their knowledge, *for their time*. However, this is 2019, not 1919, and one has to read Latin grammars of the past (replete with most interesting language minutiae) with great caution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By tradition (and for some other reasons), we distinguish six cases in Latin, the genitive being one of the them. Theoretically, we could posit more - if we take into account semantics solely and disregard morphology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have the genitive case in Latin that expresses different semantic relationships between the head and its dependent. **Possession is only one of the genitive uses.** For instance, [de Groot 1956][1] argues there are eight &quot;regular grammatical uses of the Genitive&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A side note:* What exactly possession is is no trivial matter, either. See the first pages with lots of examples in [Baldi and Nuti 2010][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to consult one of the best Latin grammars of our time, I cannot recommend enough the first volume of Harm Pinkster's *Oxford Latin Syntax: The Simple Clause* (OUP, 2015). It contains 1430 pages and this is just the first volume (we're still waiting, patiently, for the second volume to materialize, hopefully, in the next decade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to your question. How can we distinguish between **the subjective genitive** and **the objective genitive** vs. the possessive genitive, if this is indeed what you were asking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take a look at the following example from Pinkster (p. 1040).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Non ego illam mi dotem duco esse quae dos dicitur / sed pudicitiam .../ deum metum, parentum amorem et cognatum concordiam ...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, we have two uses of **the objective genitive**, *deum metum* and *parentum amorem*, and one use of **the subjective genitive**, *cognatum concordiam*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This use is described in linguistics as adnominal arguments of verbal nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Syntactic tests:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The possessive genitive can be coordinated with a possessive adjective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sermonem* **tuum** et **Pompei** cognovi ex tius litteris. (Cic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A possessive adjective cannot be co-referential with the other noun in the genitive in such a close proximity (I've tried to avoid linguistics jargon in my answer as much as I could). This is well known from the binding theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Appositives are an exception to (2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...vereris ne tua domus, talis et viri et civis, ...a ceteris deseratur?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A canonical example is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Metus hostium capit Caesarem*, where the ambiguity is resolved with a direct object (experiencer) (Benedetti 2013)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. &quot;“Metus” quoque et “iniuria” atque alia quaedam id genus sic utroqueversum dici possunt; nam “metus hostium” recte dicitur et cum timent hostes et cum timentur&quot; (Gellius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as Pinskter correctly observes - and this answers your question - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;For most combinations of head nouns and attributive NPs the precise semantic function of the genitive attribute is wholly dependent on the meanings of the head and attribute constituents involved and the way they are related in the extralinguistic world&quot; (p. 1000),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. the examples below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... dolorem **profectionis meaa** reditus dignitate consoler. (Cic.) the subjective genitive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eo, etsi scio pol is fore **meum conspectum** invisum hodie (Ter.) the objective genitive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uno eodemque tempore **domus mea** diripiebatur, ardebat ... (Cic.)  the possessive genitive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(will add more examples and syntactic tests later and might revise the post slightly sometime this weekend)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024384156900031&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110215465/9783110215465.239/9783110215465.239.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9182" RevisionGUID="86a439e8-536a-4abf-824c-71f2f4adc621" CreationDate="2019-02-26T17:12:26.917" UserId="406" Comment="edited body" Text="This looks like a standard baptism record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the Year of Our Lord 1887, on the 17th day of the month of April, in this church of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus in Machang-Bubok, I, Sorin, M. Ap., solemnly baptized the legitimate son of Lam Fuk On and Virginia, born four days ago; the name &quot;Justinus&quot; was given to him. Mian Ah Vu(?) and his wife, Lam Charlotte, were named as his godparents. [Signed,] F. Sorin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having a bit of difficulty with the handwriting, so I'm not sure I got the priest's name right, and I'm not even able to make a good guess at the godfather's name: it's the first handwritten thing on the fifth line." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9192" RevisionGUID="3e6f4f0a-f50b-4e2f-b254-72e4353400b0" CreationDate="2019-02-26T18:03:58.127" UserId="1694" Text="I think you're mistaken when you say &quot;certain sound changes in the Romance languages, like posttonic vowel syncope ..., still rely on the penult stress rules&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two separate processes involved: the loss of phonemic vowel quantity, and the syncope based on accentuation patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once vowel quantity ceases to be phonemic, the &quot;penult rule&quot; ceases to operate, but that doesn't change stress patterns, it just means that stress is no longer phonemically determined.  Consider, e.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L. _virĭdis_ -&gt; _víridis_ -&gt; Sp. _verde_  &#xD;&#xA;L. _catēna_ -&gt; _caténa_ -&gt; Sp. _cadena_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowel syncope in the first example is a result simply of the stress accent, not on the &quot;penult rule&quot;, and can happen whether or not there is still phonemic vowel length.  (I believe _virdis_ is occasionally attested in Classical times.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe Christian accent-based poetry is attested from the 3rd century, at any rate, probably indicating the quantitative vowel distinctions were being lost." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9193" RevisionGUID="d06baf65-0226-434d-b709-99349d43647f" CreationDate="2019-02-26T18:34:33.590" UserId="324" Text="I cannot agree with your statement that “vowel length seems to have been lost very early” in Latin. Latin long and short vowels develop differently in the daughter languages. For example Latin short e becomes e in French, but long ē regularly becomes oi (as in habēre &gt; avoir). It is probably true that the distinction was neutralised in the reading aloud of Latin texts, notably in the church, but this illustrates the fact that a reading tradition is not necessarily determined by the spoken language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9189" RevisionGUID="e1cf204a-afff-491d-9f02-426989185209" CreationDate="2019-02-26T19:19:49.633" UserId="9" Comment="added comments on the interesting proposed etymology from &quot;stilus&quot; that luchonacho found" Text="It looks like the etymology of *titulus* is unclear. The Lewis and Short suggestion that it is related to *τίνω* seems a bit difficult (unless it was borrowed from some Greek form), as Wiktionary indicates that the initial consonant of *[τίνω](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%BD%CF%89)* is thought to have come from a PIE labiovelar *kʷ. The change of *kʷ to /t/ before /i/ is specific to certain dialects of Greek; we wouldn't see it in a native Latin word (compare Latin *quis* vs. Attic Greek *τίς*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Etruscan?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/titulus) says &quot;Most likely from Etruscan&quot;, citing [Ostler, *Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin* (2007), p. 43](https://books.google.com/books?id=YpOeQjTW1E0C&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form at least seems to be consistent with an Etruscan origin, since the phonemes /t/, /i/, /u/ and /l/ all existed in Etruscan. But the suggestion that *titulus* is Etruscan seems to be based on rather slim evidence. Ostler describes his Appendix II (&quot;Etruscan Borrowings in Latin&quot;) as a &quot;liberal list, supplementing the list of clearly attested borrowings on the assumption that early words that have no Italic etymology are likely to be Etruscan, especially if they have recognizable Etruscan word endings (*-eus, -enna, -erna, -īna, -issa, -ō, -ulus, -urnum*)&quot;, and notes that &quot;hardly any of these words can be identified in Etruscan texts&quot; (p. 323).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ostler cites Ernout 1930 as a source that describes supposedly characteristic features of &quot;Etruscan Latin&quot;, such as the list of endings that Ostler gives (*Ad Infinitum,* p. 334). I have found some later literature that critiques some of Ernout's criteria (Giuliano Bonfante, 1985,  &quot;[Etruscan Words in Latin][1]&quot;), but Bonfante doesn't seem to discuss *titulus* or any other words ending in *-ulus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*-ulus* as an Etruscan word ending?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some of the other *-ulus* words from Ostler's Appendix II:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - catulus 'puppy', botulus* 'black pudding', mitulus [sic]† 'mussel', situlus 'basket', populus 'people', tutulus 'priest's cap'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see a clear meaning associated with the alleged Etruscan ending *-ulus.* (Ostler's list also includes words ending in *-ula,* which I haven't reproduced here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*According to Bonfante, borrowings from Etruscan should not be expected to have /b/, or any other voiced plosive. Ostler doesn't seem to have used this criterion when compiling his list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;†The actual form seems to have been mītŭlus, with a long vowel in the first syllable. [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmitulus) indicate that it is in some way from Greek μύτυλος. (A Greek origin doesn't exclude the possibility of Etruscan as an intermediate source of the word.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Indo-European?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be no obvious candidate for an Indo-European etymon. András Cser points out that C&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;VC&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;, with the same consonant before and after the vowel, is an uncharacteristic pattern for the start of a PIE root, and says that according to Walde and Hoffmann (1956 s.v.), the form *titulus* might be the result of reduplication (p.181, &quot;[Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot;, 2016).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Stilus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suggestion that luchonacho found of a relationship between *titulus* and *stilus* seemed intriguing to me, so I wanted to add some comments about that (without trying to copy luchonacho's answer, or take credit for finding Kennedy's article).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *stilus* actually also seems to have a somewhat unclear/disputed etymology. The suggestion that it is related to *titulus* seems to rely on the phenomenon of so-called &quot;[s mobile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_s-mobile)&quot;, which affects Indo-European roots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's not obvious whether *stilus* is based on an Indo-European root. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stilus#Latin) and [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=stilus) both suggest that *stilus* is related to Greek *στίζω.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- De Vaan says &quot;it is uncertain whether Latin *stilus, stimulus* and *stīva* all belong together, but one might see a root *sti-* 'sharp object' in them. It has been argued that they contain the core of the root *\*stig-* 'to sting' (see s.v. *stinguō*), the *-g-* of which would be a root enlargement; although this is not completely impossible, there are no positive indications ēra-* [m.] 'mountain-top' &lt; *\*(s)te/oir/lo-*, if to *stilus*. But since the root cannot be determined, this etymology remains gratuitous.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ostler says *stilus* &quot;has no etymology and has also been proposed as a loan from Etruscan&quot; (p. 43; he cites a source that I unfortunately can't see because page 335 of the book is not available for me on Google Books). Although at first glance, both words coming from Etruscan might seem to support the case for a relationship, I actually think that would make a connection harder to justify because I'm not sure that that &quot;s-mobile&quot; phenomenon would show up with an Etruscan root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00437956.1985.11435872" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9189" RevisionGUID="c5c3556e-de3c-4217-b44a-076a9c942a1b" CreationDate="2019-02-26T19:35:56.970" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="It looks like the etymology of *titulus* is unclear. The Lewis and Short suggestion that it is related to *τίνω* seems a bit difficult (unless it was borrowed from some Greek form), as Wiktionary indicates that the initial consonant of *[τίνω](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%BD%CF%89)* is thought to have come from a PIE labiovelar *kʷ. The change of *kʷ to /t/ before /i/ is specific to certain dialects of Greek; we wouldn't see it in a native Latin word (compare Latin *quis* vs. Attic Greek *τίς*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Etruscan?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/titulus) says &quot;Most likely from Etruscan&quot;, citing [Ostler, *Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin* (2007), p. 43](https://books.google.com/books?id=YpOeQjTW1E0C&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form at least seems to be consistent with an Etruscan origin, since the phonemes /t/, /i/, /u/ and /l/ all existed in Etruscan. But the suggestion that *titulus* is Etruscan seems to be based on rather slim evidence. Ostler describes his Appendix II (&quot;Etruscan Borrowings in Latin&quot;) as a &quot;liberal list, supplementing the list of clearly attested borrowings on the assumption that early words that have no Italic etymology are likely to be Etruscan, especially if they have recognizable Etruscan word endings (*-eus, -enna, -erna, -īna, -issa, -ō, -ulus, -urnum*)&quot;, and notes that &quot;hardly any of these words can be identified in Etruscan texts&quot; (p. 323).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ostler cites Ernout 1930 as a source that describes supposedly characteristic features of &quot;Etruscan Latin&quot;, such as the list of endings that Ostler gives (*Ad Infinitum,* p. 334). I have found some later literature that critiques some of Ernout's criteria (Giuliano Bonfante, 1985,  &quot;[Etruscan Words in Latin][1]&quot;), but Bonfante doesn't seem to discuss *titulus* or any other words ending in *-ulus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*-ulus* as an Etruscan word ending?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some of the other *-ulus* words from Ostler's Appendix II:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - catulus 'puppy', botulus* 'black pudding', mitulus [sic]† 'mussel', situlus 'basket', populus 'people', tutulus 'priest's cap'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see a clear meaning associated with the alleged Etruscan ending *-ulus.* (Ostler's list also includes words ending in *-ula,* which I haven't reproduced here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*According to Bonfante, borrowings from Etruscan should not be expected to have /b/, or any other voiced plosive. Ostler doesn't seem to have used this criterion when compiling his list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;†The actual form seems to have been mītŭlus, with a long vowel in the first syllable. [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmitulus) indicate that it is in some way from Greek μύτυλος. (A Greek origin doesn't exclude the possibility of Etruscan as an intermediate source of the word.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Indo-European?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be no obvious candidate for an Indo-European etymon. András Cser points out that C&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;VC&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;, with the same consonant before and after the vowel, is an uncharacteristic pattern for the start of a PIE root, and says that according to Walde and Hoffmann (1956 s.v.), the form *titulus* might be the result of reduplication (p.181, &quot;[Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot;, 2016).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Stilus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suggestion that luchonacho found of a relationship between *titulus* and *stilus* seemed intriguing to me, so I wanted to add some comments about that (without trying to copy luchonacho's answer, or take credit for finding Kennedy's article).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *stilus* actually also seems to have a somewhat unclear/disputed etymology. The suggestion that it is related to *titulus* seems to rely on the phenomenon of so-called &quot;[s mobile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_s-mobile)&quot;, which affects Indo-European roots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's not obvious whether *stilus* is based on an Indo-European root. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stilus#Latin) and [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=stilus) both suggest that *stilus* is related to Greek *στίζω.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- De Vaan says &quot;it is uncertain whether Latin *stilus, stimulus* and *stīva* all belong together, but one might see a root *sti-* 'sharp object' in them. It has been argued that they contain the core of the root *\*stig-* 'to sting' (see s.v. *stinguō*), the *-g-* of which would be a root enlargement; although this is not completely impossible, there are no positive indications ēra-* [m.] 'mountain-top' &lt; *\*(s)te/oir/lo-*, if to *stilus*. But since the root cannot be determined, this etymology remains gratuitous.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ostler says *stilus* &quot;has no etymology and has also been proposed as a loan from Etruscan&quot; (p. 43; he cites a source that I unfortunately can't see because page 335 of the book is not available for me on Google Books). Although at first glance, both words coming from Etruscan might seem to support the case for a relationship, I actually think that would make a connection harder to justify because I think that the &quot;s-mobile&quot; phenomenon would not be expected to affect an Etruscan root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00437956.1985.11435872" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9194" RevisionGUID="b55cf243-615a-4063-aa8f-f0c08141b478" CreationDate="2019-02-26T20:46:17.280" UserId="3397" Text="According to L&amp;S:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H. To connect an idea as either homogeneous or complementary to that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which precedes, *and so too, and also, and moreover, and at the same&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time; too, also, likewise* (hence, often in Liv., Curt., and late Lat.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rarely in Cic., = etiam; cf. Anton. Stud. pp. 26-69; Krebs, Antibarb.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; p. 420)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And according to Gildersleeve:&#xD;&#xA;[![Gildersleeve and Lodge][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in summary: this usage is occasional in early and Republican Latin and becomes more common starting with Livy. The best strategy if you want to work on being able to identify this particular use of the word &quot;et&quot; is to read over and digest the numerous examples [provided in the relative section of the entry for it in L&amp;S.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kWjb8.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://athirdway.com/glossa/?s=et" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9194" RevisionGUID="11ed1b0d-b212-471b-8b61-1e9e7fe4867f" CreationDate="2019-02-26T22:11:42.917" UserId="3397" Comment="fixed typo" Text="According to L&amp;S:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H. To connect an idea as either homogeneous or complementary to that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which precedes, *and so too, and also, and moreover, and at the same&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time; too, also, likewise* (hence, often in Liv., Curt., and late Lat.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rarely in Cic., = etiam; cf. Anton. Stud. pp. 26-69; Krebs, Antibarb.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; p. 420)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And according to Gildersleeve:&#xD;&#xA;[![Gildersleeve and Lodge][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in summary: this usage is occasional in early and Republican Latin and becomes more common starting with Livy. The best strategy if you want to work on being able to identify this particular use of the word &quot;et&quot; is to read over and digest the numerous examples [provided in the relevant section of the entry for it in L&amp;S.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kWjb8.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://athirdway.com/glossa/?s=et" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28463" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="7622" RevisionGUID="941b514d-5b09-4ebb-afe6-9ce6f98b6f46" CreationDate="2019-02-26T23:00:45.663" UserId="9" Comment="104" />
  <row Id="28464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9194" RevisionGUID="f688e8e1-b690-454d-b440-fe10f7e6da54" CreationDate="2019-02-26T23:09:49.913" UserId="9" Comment="replaced image with text for better accessibility and search indexing" Text="According to L&amp;S:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H. To connect an idea as either homogeneous or complementary to that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which precedes, *and so too, and also, and moreover, and at the same&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time; too, also, likewise* (hence, often in Liv., Curt., and late Lat.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rarely in Cic., = etiam; cf. Anton. Stud. pp. 26-69; Krebs, Antibarb.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; p. 420)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And according to Gildersleeve:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. Instead of **etiam, et** is occasional in Plautus, in a change of person. Cicero uses it also after an adversative conjunction, as **vērum et;** also after **nam** and **simul;** more often when a pronoun follows, as **et ille, et ipse.** Caesar never uses it so, Sallust rarely, but it becomes common from Livy on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in summary: this usage is occasional in early and Republican Latin and becomes more common starting with Livy. The best strategy if you want to work on being able to identify this particular use of the word &quot;et&quot; is to read over and digest the numerous examples [provided in the relevant section of the entry for it in L&amp;S.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kWjb8.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://athirdway.com/glossa/?s=et" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2010" RevisionGUID="8d36e4b2-7cc3-475f-a097-fe3e7c49bce0" CreationDate="2019-02-26T23:36:35.760" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 172 characters in body" Text="A full table of &quot;standard&quot; (post-Augustan) *-ius*/*-ium* endings would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    M SG    M PL    N SG    N PL&#xD;&#xA;NOM -ius    -iī     -ium    -ia&#xD;&#xA;GEN -iī     -iōrum  -iī     -iōrum&#xD;&#xA;DAT -iō     -iīs    -iō     -iīs&#xD;&#xA;ACC -ium    -iōs    -ium    -ia&#xD;&#xA;ABL -iō     -iīs    -iō     -iīs&#xD;&#xA;VOC -ī      -iī     -ium    -ia&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(O tempora! O mores! Why must upstanding citizens be disallowed from having proper &amp;lt;table&gt;s? Something something Catalina)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In earlier Latin, the genitive singular for both masculine and neuter was *-ī*. In other words, you would always see *auxilī* instead of *auxiliī*, and *fīlī* instead of *fīliī*. But during the Augustan period authors stopped treating *-i-* nouns specially, and this form was regularized to *-iī*. From the link below, &quot;the genitive in -iī occurs once in Virgil, and constantly in Ovid, but was probably unknown to Cicero.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For (a little bit) more information, see [Allen and Greenough section 49b][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Asmythp%3D49" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2013" RevisionGUID="5adc8f93-0933-4d98-8871-2a2482e07cce" CreationDate="2019-02-26T23:41:49.363" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 46 characters in body" Text="Edgar H. Sturtevant's dissertation &quot;[Contraction in the case forms of the Latin io- and ia stems, and of deus, is, and idem][1]&quot; (1902) seems to have some relevant info, although I don't know if more has been discovered since then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sturtevant starts out by summarizing the genitive forms: he says that in early Latin, substantives always used the contracted genitive forms in *-i,* while adjectives used *-ii.* Later on *-ii* became usual for substantives as well, although *-i* was still used in some proper nouns (29*). (I haven't used macrons because Sturtevant doesn't, but it seems that these forms would have normally been pronounced *-ĭī* and *-ī* respectively. Sturtevant mentions a theory of Klotz that involves scanning &quot;filii vos&quot; in a verse from Plautus as *filĭĭ vos,* but the shortness of the final vowel of &quot;filii&quot; here is supposed to be explained by the &quot;iambic shortening law&quot;/*brevis brevians*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is followed by a discussion of the masculine nominative plural and the dative/ablative plural. Apparently, contraction probably also occurred in these for at least some words, in some time periods, but the issue is rather complicated because the contraction may have been reversed by analogy. Also, spelling variants may not have always corresponded to pronunciation variants, due to either mis-spellings (e.g. leaving out a letter) or conservative spellings (such as *-iei, ieis,* which Sturtevant argues could represent the pronunciations *-ī, -īs*) (34*). The part about contraction in the nominative plural is only relevant for masculine nouns, since neuters get the suffix *-a,* but I'd imagine masculine and neuter nouns behaved similarly in the dative/ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: The linked scan has two systems of page numbers; I'm referencing the bottom ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021615152" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2013" RevisionGUID="27dd3a23-b454-4eb4-bea0-9b09c10d91c3" CreationDate="2019-02-27T00:18:26.250" UserId="9" Comment="expanded and clarified answer" Text="Edgar H. Sturtevant's dissertation &quot;[Contraction in the case forms of the Latin io- and ia stems, and of deus, is, and idem][1]&quot; (1902) seems to have some relevant info, although I don't know if more has been discovered since then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Contraction in the genitive singular&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sturtevant starts out by summarizing the genitive forms: he says that in early Latin, substantives always used the contracted genitive forms in *-i,* while adjectives used *-ii.* Later on *-ii* became usual for substantives as well, although *-i* was still used in some proper nouns (p. 3*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't used macrons here because Sturtevant doesn't, but these forms would have normally been pronounced *-ī* and *-ĭī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Contraction in plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is followed by a discussion of the masculine nominative plural and the dative/ablative plural. Apparently, contraction probably also occurred in these forms for at least some words, in some time periods, but the issue is rather complicated because the contraction may have been reversed by analogy. Also, spelling variants may not have always corresponded to pronunciation variants, due to either mis-spellings (e.g. leaving out a letter) or conservative spellings (such as *-iei, ieis,* which Sturtevant argues could represent the pronunciations *-ī, -īs*) (p. 8*). The part about contraction in the nominative plural is only relevant for masculine nouns, since neuters get the suffix *-a,* but I'd imagine masculine and neuter nouns behaved similarly in the dative/ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sturtevant says that Plautus probably only used uncontracted forms of the  masculine nominative plural and the dative/ablative plural, and references a theory of Klotz's that explains away apparent contracted versions of these forms in Plautus (p. 4*). According to Sturtevant, these forms would have contained something like [i.eː] in Plautus's time. I'm using [eː] as a broad IPA transcription of a long vowel that was closer than ē but opener than ī: Sturtevant mentions that a vowel with this quality is thought to have been the intermediate result of the coalescence of the etymological diphthongs *oi* and *ai,* before their reflexes merged into ī as [iː] (p. 6*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sturtevant says that as far as he knows, the earliest inscriptional examples of contraction in these plural forms occur on the Sententia Minuciorum, dated &quot;a. u. c. 637&quot;: i.e., 117 BC (p. 6*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: The linked scan has two systems of page numbers; I reference the top ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021615152" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2013" RevisionGUID="80421b3e-7570-4159-8505-f548c4986b8b" CreationDate="2019-02-27T00:24:09.293" UserId="9" Comment="expanded and clarified answer" Text="Edgar H. Sturtevant's dissertation &quot;[Contraction in the case forms of the Latin io- and ia stems, and of deus, is, and idem][1]&quot; (1902) seems to have some relevant info, although I don't know if more has been discovered since then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Contraction in the genitive singular&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sturtevant starts out by summarizing the genitive singular forms: he says that in early Latin, substantives always used contracted genitive singular forms in *-i,* while adjectives used *-ii.* Later on *-ii* became usual for substantives as well, although *-i* was still used in some proper nouns (p. 3*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't used macrons here because Sturtevant doesn't, but these forms would have normally been pronounced *-ī* and *-ĭī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Alex B.'s answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2036/9) provides more detailed information about the use of contraction forms for the genitive singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Contraction in plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, contraction probably also occurred in the **masculine nominative plural** (-ī) and the **dative/ablative plural** (-īs) for at least some words, in some time periods, but the issue is rather complicated because the contraction may have been reversed by analogy. Also, spelling variants may not have always corresponded to pronunciation variants, due to either mis-spellings (e.g. leaving out a letter) or conservative spellings (such as *-iei, ieis,* which Sturtevant argues could represent the pronunciations *-ī, -īs*) (p. 8*). The part about contraction in the nominative plural is only relevant for masculine nouns, since neuters get the suffix *-a,* but I'd imagine masculine and neuter nouns behaved similarly in the dative/ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sturtevant says that Plautus probably only used uncontracted forms of the  masculine nominative plural and the dative/ablative plural, and references a theory of Klotz's that explains away apparent contracted versions of these forms in Plautus (p. 4*). According to Sturtevant, these forms would have contained something like [i.eː] in Plautus's time. I'm using [eː] as a broad IPA transcription of a long vowel that was closer than ē but opener than ī: Sturtevant mentions that a vowel with this quality is thought to have been the intermediate result of the coalescence of the etymological diphthongs *oi* and *ai,* before their reflexes merged into ī as [iː] (p. 6*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sturtevant says that as far as he knows, the earliest inscriptional examples of contraction in these plural forms occur on the Sententia Minuciorum, dated &quot;a. u. c. 637&quot;: i.e., 117 BC (p. 6*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: The linked scan has two systems of page numbers; I reference the top ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021615152" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2013" RevisionGUID="b3fc302d-4f52-4c94-84e0-65b5686efbb1" CreationDate="2019-02-27T00:31:52.307" UserId="9" Comment="expanded and clarified answer" Text="Edgar H. Sturtevant's dissertation &quot;[Contraction in the case forms of the Latin io- and ia stems, and of deus, is, and idem][1]&quot; (1902) seems to have some relevant info, although I don't know if more has been discovered since then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Contraction in the genitive singular&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sturtevant starts out by summarizing the genitive singular forms: he says that in early Latin, substantives always used contracted genitive singular forms in *-i,* while adjectives used *-ii.* Later on *-ii* became usual for substantives as well, although *-i* was still used in some proper nouns (p. 3*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't used macrons here because Sturtevant doesn't, but these forms would have normally been pronounced *-ī* and *-ĭī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Alex B.'s answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2036/9) provides more detailed information about the use of contracted forms in *-ī* for the genitive singular of nouns with stems ending in *-io-.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Contraction in plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, contraction probably also occurred in the **masculine nominative plural** (*-ī*) and the **dative/ablative plural** (*-īs*) for at least some words, in some time periods, but the issue is rather complicated because the contraction may have been reversed by analogy. Also, spelling variants may not have always corresponded to pronunciation variants, due to either mis-spellings (e.g. leaving out a letter) or conservative spellings (such as *-iei, ieis,* which Sturtevant argues could represent the pronunciations *-ī, -īs*) (p. 8*). The part about contraction in the nominative plural is only relevant for masculine nouns, since neuters get the suffix *-a,* but I'd imagine masculine and neuter nouns behaved similarly in the dative/ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sturtevant says that Plautus probably only used uncontracted forms of the  masculine nominative plural and the dative/ablative plural, and references a theory of Klotz's that explains away apparent contracted versions of these forms in Plautus (p. 4*). According to Sturtevant, these forms would have contained something like [i.eː] in Plautus's time. I'm using [eː] as a broad IPA transcription of a long vowel that was closer than ē but opener than ī: Sturtevant mentions that a vowel with this quality is thought to have been the intermediate result of the coalescence of the etymological diphthongs *oi* and *ai,* before their reflexes merged into ī as /iː/ (p. 6*). The presence of [eː] in the sound system of Latin of this time period is thought to be the original reason for the use of the digraph &quot;ei&quot;, although after [eː] merged into /iː/, the digraph &quot;ei&quot; came to be just an alternative (eventually, archaic) spelling for &quot;i&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sturtevant says that as far as he knows, the earliest inscriptional examples of contraction in these plural forms occur on the Sententia Minuciorum, dated &quot;a. u. c. 637&quot;: i.e., 117 BC (p. 6*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: The linked scan has two systems of page numbers; I reference the top ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021615152" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2013" RevisionGUID="ffe3f478-2e17-42f5-872b-6bc5ac6d7aff" CreationDate="2019-02-27T00:54:12.233" UserId="9" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="Edgar H. Sturtevant's dissertation &quot;[Contraction in the case forms of the Latin io- and ia stems, and of deus, is, and idem][1]&quot; (1902) seems to have some relevant info, although I don't know if more has been discovered since then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Contraction in the genitive singular&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sturtevant starts out by summarizing the genitive singular forms: he says that in early Latin, substantives always used contracted genitive singular forms in *-i,* while adjectives used *-ii.* Later on *-ii* became usual for substantives as well, although *-i* was still used in some proper nouns (p. 3*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't used macrons here because Sturtevant doesn't, but these forms would have normally been pronounced *-ī* and *-ĭī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Alex B.'s answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2036/9) provides more detailed information about the use of contracted forms in *-ī* for the genitive singular of nouns with stems ending in *-io-.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Contraction in plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, contraction probably also occurred in the **masculine nominative plural** (*-ī*) and the **dative/ablative plural** (*-īs*) for at least some words, in some time periods, but the issue is rather complicated because the contraction may have been reversed by analogy. Also, spelling variants may not have always corresponded to pronunciation variants, due to either mis-spellings (e.g. leaving out a letter) or conservative spellings (such as *-iei, ieis,* which Sturtevant argues could represent the pronunciations *-ī, -īs*) (p. 8*). The part about contraction in the nominative plural is only relevant for masculine nouns, since neuters get the suffix *-a,* but I'd imagine masculine and neuter nouns behaved similarly in the dative/ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sturtevant says that Plautus probably only used uncontracted forms of the  masculine nominative plural and the dative/ablative plural, and references a theory of Klotz's that explains away apparent contracted versions of these forms in Plautus (p. 4*). According to Sturtevant, these forms would have contained something like [i.eː] in Plautus's time. I'm using [eː] as a broad IPA transcription of a long vowel that was closer than ē but opener than ī: Sturtevant mentions that a vowel with this quality is thought to have been the intermediate result of the coalescence (in non-initial syllables) of the etymological diphthongs *oi* and *ai,* before their reflexes merged into ī as /iː/ (p. 6*). The presence of [eː] in the sound system of Latin of this time period is thought to be the original reason for the use of the digraph &quot;ei&quot;, although after [eː] merged into /iː/, the digraph &quot;ei&quot; came to be just an alternative (eventually, archaic) spelling for &quot;i&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sturtevant says that as far as he knows, the earliest inscriptional examples of contraction in these plural forms occur on the Sententia Minuciorum, dated &quot;a. u. c. 637&quot;: i.e., 117 BC (p. 6*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: The linked scan has two systems of page numbers; I reference the top ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/cu31924021615152" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9195" RevisionGUID="fb5fdc8d-f0ab-4c67-8427-7b1fc78983d2" CreationDate="2019-02-27T19:09:21.693" UserId="406" Text="The English noun &quot;will&quot; has a few different meanings. One is the choice or intention to do something, as in &quot;willing&quot; and &quot;free will&quot;: Latin *voluntās*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another meaning, though, is more like &quot;resolve&quot; or &quot;mental strength&quot;: the force of mind that drives one to do something despite difficulties (as in &quot;willpower&quot;, &quot;force of will&quot;, &quot;will to live&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would I express this second meaning in Latin? For example, someone might have the desire to start something, but lack the willpower to follow through on it. What is the Latin word for what they lack?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28473" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9195" RevisionGUID="fb5fdc8d-f0ab-4c67-8427-7b1fc78983d2" CreationDate="2019-02-27T19:09:21.693" UserId="406" Text="What is the Latin word for &quot;will&quot;, as in &quot;willpower&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28474" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9195" RevisionGUID="fb5fdc8d-f0ab-4c67-8427-7b1fc78983d2" CreationDate="2019-02-27T19:09:21.693" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9197" RevisionGUID="2f37819e-7d71-4732-9c02-49d8ebd45aea" CreationDate="2019-02-27T19:57:49.003" UserId="469" Text="Not sure if I get the distinction in all its depth, but here's my attempt at answering. Please correct me if I'm wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two sources I cite are the fruit of the bibliographic work by Calvin G. Normore in [this book][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One could use **voluntas**, as Saint Augustine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Interest autem qualis sit voluntas hominis; quia si perversa est, perversos habebit hos motus; si autem recta est, non solum inculpabiles, verum etiam laudabiles erunt. Voluntas est quippe in omnibus; immo omnes nihil aliud quam voluntates sunt. Nam quid est cupiditas et laetitia nisi **voluntas** in eorum consensione quae volumus? Et quid est metus atque tristitia nisi **voluntas** in dissensione ab his quae nolumus? ([De Civitate Dei, XIV, VI][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *But the character of the human will is of moment; because, if it is wrong, these motions of the soul will be wrong, but if it is right, they will be not merely blameless, but even praiseworthy.  For the will is in them all; yea, none of them is anything else than will.  For what are desire and joy but a **volition** of consent to the things we wish?  And what are fear and sadness but a **volition** of aversion from the things which we do not wish?* ([Schaff et al.][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Also there is an instance of **voluntas vivendi** by [Robert Grosseteste][4] (XIII century):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Item, qui mentitur ob timorem mortis duas habet voluntates, unam vivendi et alteram non mentiendi. Sed voluntas vivendi maior est reliqua et superat reliquam, et, ut videtur, mentiri cogit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is also suggested in the answers to the question linked by fdb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another word that comes to mind by reading the quote of St. Augustine is **[cupiditas][5]**, though its connotation is ambiguous (i.e., it may be read in a good or a bad sense).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=vhsrBgAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA46&amp;ots=yLRHoSEB1j&amp;dq=%22voluntas%20vivendi%22&amp;pg=PA46#v=onepage&amp;q=%22voluntas%20vivendi%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/De_civitate_Dei/Liber_XIV#[VI]&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_I/Volume_II/City_of_God/Book_XIV/Chapter_6&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Grosseteste&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcupiditas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9198" RevisionGUID="55dae868-651c-4fa7-80e6-d017b7ec47e0" CreationDate="2019-02-27T20:25:11.663" UserId="9" Text="I have the impression that the ending *-m* appears on neuter nouns (in the nominative/accusative form) only in the second declension, but I don't know whether there are any exceptions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried browsing [Wiktionary's category of &quot;Latin neuter nouns in the third declension&quot;](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Latin_neuter_nouns_in_the_third_declension) but I wasn't able to find any clear examples. The only words ending in *-m* seemed to be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- city names of the second declension that had been miscategorized as third-declension nouns (all of these seem to have been added by the same editor)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the puzzling example of an alleged i-stem noun &quot;[aesum](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aesum#Latin)&quot;. The text gives the genitive as &quot;aesum&quot; (which would have to be plural), while the declension table gives singular &quot;aesis&quot; and plural &quot;aesium&quot;. I don't see how *aesum* could be an i-stem rather than an o-stem nominative form, but I can't tell whether the declension given by Wiktionary is an error (as I suspect it is), because I wasn't able to find any more information about the word. (The Wiktionary article references Charles du Fresne du Cange’s *Glossarium Mediæ et Infimæ Latinitatis*, but the link doesn't work to me. I found a [version of du Cange's work on archive.org](https://archive.org/details/b21904418_0001/page/122) but it only lists the nominative form Æsum; it doesn't indicate that the word belongs to the third declension.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any real examples of a neuter noun ending in *-m* that belongs to a declension other than the second? I know that Latin nouns sometimes had multiple declension patterns or multiple genders. For the purpose of this question, I'd accept a word that belongs to multiple declensions/genders as long as a neuter form ending in *-m* is the only attested nominative/accusative form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28478" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9198" RevisionGUID="55dae868-651c-4fa7-80e6-d017b7ec47e0" CreationDate="2019-02-27T20:25:11.663" UserId="9" Text="Do any non-second-declension neuter nouns end in m?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28479" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9198" RevisionGUID="55dae868-651c-4fa7-80e6-d017b7ec47e0" CreationDate="2019-02-27T20:25:11.663" UserId="9" Text="|declension|noun|neuter|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4906" RevisionGUID="5d580c70-4bca-4893-82cd-847eb66b1ef8" CreationDate="2019-02-27T20:38:48.013" UserId="469" Comment="added 842 characters in body" Text="I found the question very interesting, and got me researching _against my will_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the texts of the Mass —and specifically these— come from antiquity, a time when Latin was still alive. Had there been grammatical errors, twenty centuries would suffice to find and correct them. So it may be a little far-fetched to put a mistake as the default hypothesis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples you cite seem to have two different explanations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The _Agnus Dei_ is somehow controversial, not in that it is a mistake, but I've found a number of educated guesses that may be seen as complementary or even contradictory. [This forum][1] gathers a few of them. Anyway, it has been accepted in liturgy as it is. Maybe this is a good question for [Christianity.SE]! Some of the explanations are:&#xD;&#xA; 1. Agnus Dei as a whole is seen as a title or as a compound not to be declinable. Being a title makes a lot of theological sense, FTR. [**Edit**: title attributed to Jesus, just as the previous vocatives are directed toward Him. John the Baptists first called Him so, as he was to be the matter of a sacrifice —just as lambs were— to God]&#xD;&#xA; 2. Agnus would be an [accepted irregular vocative][2] of _agnus_ in Ecclesiastical Latin. (Comparable to the number IIII in clocks? This doesn't convince me a lot, but I cite it since it is sourced.)&#xD;&#xA; 3. It is a nominative. (I find this one very interesting.) Quoting a participant in the forum:&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Specifically, it's a nominative used in apposition with the understood subject of the imperative miserere. Although the vocative is more common, it's not unclassical to have the nominative instead, as in Livy (i.24): audi tu, populus Albanus (&quot;hear thou, people of Alba&quot;). See Allen and Greenough 340a.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The *Sanctus* is a mosaic from three different sources (two of them from both the Old and New Testament,) not intended to form a grammatical unit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth. (Is 6,3) &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Pleni sunt caeli et terra gloria tua. (*a different source*) &lt;br&gt; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Hosanna in excelsis. Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini. Hosanna in excelsis. (Mc 11, 9-10) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Translations use third person in the first and last pieces, and second person for the middle one, (although it is very common for people to mistakenly change it to third person, trying to form a unit artificially, because it just sounds better!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The _Gloria_ is also a mosaic in the sense that the two initial verses are a quote from the Gospel of St. Luke. As for the nominatives you cite, they can find a similar explanation to 1. I don't think they can be seen as copulative predicates, since there is a predicate to this sentence —*miserere nobis*—. The whole sentence being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Domine Fili unigenite, Jesu Christe, Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, Filius Patris, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis; &#xD;&#xA; &gt;qui tollis peccata mundi, suscipe deprecationem nostram.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** as noted in this [outstanding answer][3] by Kingshorsey, an explanation to **Agnus Dei** &amp;mdash;at least in the Gloria&amp;mdash; could come from *Deus*. In his words, _there is no (textually secure) attested vocative form of deus. (...) When a vocative became necessary for Christian Latin, they employed the nominative form (...). This was considered a nominative used in place of a vocative, not as a vocative form. Thus, the adjective meus was used for agreement._ Note that in the Gloria, **Deus** breaks the chain of vocatives, and nominatives follow. One could imagine (though it would need to be proven) that this led to a more permanent change in the way of syntactically treating Agnus Dei when referred to Deus Filius (i.e., Jesus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://linguaphiles.livejournal.com/4066631.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=rqoXOW6LmVMC&amp;lpg=PA154&amp;dq=vocative%20agnus&amp;pg=PA154#v=onepage&amp;q=vocative%20agnus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8915/deus-meus-aut-deus-m%C4%AB#8917" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9199" RevisionGUID="44f06230-8a2a-445e-aac2-f066228fbb8f" CreationDate="2019-02-27T20:46:51.480" UserId="469" Text="*(Work in progress)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [gluten, -inis][1], n. *glue*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgluten" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9199" RevisionGUID="653f0140-4df0-4ff3-a819-78ebe357eeca" CreationDate="2019-02-27T20:47:35.370" UserId="469" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="*(Work in progress)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [gluten, -inis][1], n. *glue*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [The New Latin Primer (Postgate)][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgluten&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_New_Latin_Primer_(Postgate).djvu/131" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28483" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="9199" RevisionGUID="ffe46519-ef47-4f60-b9ad-863dbda89424" CreationDate="2019-02-27T20:48:09.417" UserId="469" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:469,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Rafael&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9200" RevisionGUID="800e89a4-0fde-4824-aca8-bfd49060fe43" CreationDate="2019-02-27T20:53:13.107" UserId="3408" Text="In the scientific name *Bambusa tulda*, I would like to know what *tulda* (*tuldus*?) means." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28485" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9200" RevisionGUID="800e89a4-0fde-4824-aca8-bfd49060fe43" CreationDate="2019-02-27T20:53:13.107" UserId="3408" Text="What does the f. adjective &quot;tulda&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28486" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9200" RevisionGUID="800e89a4-0fde-4824-aca8-bfd49060fe43" CreationDate="2019-02-27T20:53:13.107" UserId="3408" Text="|adjective|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9198" RevisionGUID="d3b1cddf-4262-42af-8034-d5979b71be55" CreationDate="2019-02-27T20:54:46.210" UserId="9" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="I have the impression that the ending *-m* appears on neuter nouns (in the nominative/accusative form) only in the second declension, but I don't know whether there are any exceptions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried browsing [Wiktionary's category of &quot;Latin neuter nouns in the third declension&quot;](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Latin_neuter_nouns_in_the_third_declension) but I wasn't able to find any clear examples. The only words ending in *-m* seemed to be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- city names of the second declension that had been miscategorized as third-declension nouns (all of these seem to have been added by the same editor)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the puzzling example of an alleged i-stem noun &quot;[aesum](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aesum#Latin)&quot;. The text gives the genitive as &quot;aesum&quot; (which would have to be plural), while the declension table gives singular &quot;aesis&quot; and plural &quot;aesium&quot;. I don't see how *aesum* could be an i-stem rather than an o-stem nominative form, but I can't tell whether the declension given by Wiktionary is an error (as I suspect it is), because I wasn't able to find any more information about the word. (The Wiktionary article references Charles du Fresne du Cange’s *Glossarium Mediæ et Infimæ Latinitatis*, but the link doesn't work to me. I found a [version of du Cange's work on archive.org](https://archive.org/details/b21904418_0001/page/122) but it only lists the nominative form Æsum; it doesn't indicate that the word belongs to the third declension.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any real examples of a neuter noun ending in *-m* that belongs to a declension other than the second? I know that Latin nouns sometimes had multiple declension patterns or multiple genders. For the purpose of this question, I'd accept a word that belongs to multiple declensions/genders as long as a neuter form ending in *-m* is the only attested nominative/accusative form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no such words exist, I would be interested in knowing whether there is any etymological explanation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28488" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="9199" RevisionGUID="715d48f4-0f39-4648-b701-1ee7d67b9f46" CreationDate="2019-02-27T20:56:34.927" UserId="469" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:469,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Rafael&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9199" RevisionGUID="04caa758-8cfc-460a-8022-a539b82d30f1" CreationDate="2019-02-27T20:59:55.437" UserId="469" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="* [**Bethlehem**][1], n., indecl. Though a borrowing, clearly does not belong to the second declension. Note that there is also the alternative **Bethlehemum, -i**, which does belong to the 2nd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect there are no native Latin words, but it's just a suspicion with no etymological explanation. I'm certain other users could help with that. We have a number of experts in PIE here)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DBethlehem&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28490" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9200" RevisionGUID="fa4d423f-49b8-4f22-a8b1-d132f4020813" CreationDate="2019-02-27T21:08:22.063" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|adjective|scientific-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9198" RevisionGUID="d6c9ca42-0865-42b2-a877-953e8e4c2d13" CreationDate="2019-02-27T21:10:04.743" UserId="9" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="I have the impression that the ending *-m* appears on neuter nouns (in the nominative/accusative form) only in the second declension, but I don't know whether there are any exceptions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried browsing [Wiktionary's category of &quot;Latin neuter nouns in the third declension&quot;](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Latin_neuter_nouns_in_the_third_declension) but I wasn't able to find any clear examples. The only words ending in *-m* seemed to be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- city names of the second declension that had been miscategorized as third-declension nouns (all of these seem to have been added by the same editor)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the puzzling example of an alleged i-stem noun &quot;[aesum](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aesum#Latin)&quot;. The text gives the genitive as &quot;aesum&quot; (which would have to be plural), while the declension table gives singular &quot;aesis&quot; and plural &quot;aesium&quot;. I don't see how *aesum* could be an i-stem rather than an o-stem nominative form, but I can't tell whether the declension given by Wiktionary is an error (as I suspect it is), because I wasn't able to find any more information about the word. (The Wiktionary article references Charles du Fresne du Cange’s *Glossarium Mediæ et Infimæ Latinitatis*, but the link doesn't work to me. I found a [version of du Cange's work on archive.org](https://archive.org/details/b21904418_0001/page/122) but it only lists the nominative form Æsum; it doesn't indicate that the word belongs to the third declension.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any real examples of a neuter noun ending in *-m* that belongs to a declension other than the second? I know that Latin nouns sometimes had multiple declension patterns or multiple genders. For the purpose of this question, I'd accept a word that belongs to multiple declensions/genders, as long as it's clear that the neuter nominative/accusative form ending in *-m* isn't just part of a complete regular second-declension paradigm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no such words exist, I would be interested in knowing whether there is any etymological explanation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9201" RevisionGUID="50252176-6d9b-4fa7-a0f6-6c5b295df3f7" CreationDate="2019-02-27T23:10:57.480" UserId="9" Text="It seems that neuter nouns have vocative forms that are identical to their nominative/accusative forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most neuter nouns don't have a meaning that seems to me to fit easily with the use of the vocative. My guess is that it would show up mostly with rhetorical personifications of inanimate objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering what kinds of examples we have of neuter words being used in the vocative in Classical Latin. I'd be particularly interested in vocative singular forms ending in *-um,* but any examples are fine.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28493" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9201" RevisionGUID="50252176-6d9b-4fa7-a0f6-6c5b295df3f7" CreationDate="2019-02-27T23:10:57.480" UserId="9" Text="When were neuter nouns used in the vocative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28494" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9201" RevisionGUID="50252176-6d9b-4fa7-a0f6-6c5b295df3f7" CreationDate="2019-02-27T23:10:57.480" UserId="9" Text="|classical-latin|vocative|neuter|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9201" RevisionGUID="96e49561-2c64-4070-9fba-55021062556c" CreationDate="2019-02-27T23:17:27.837" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="It seems that neuter nouns have vocative forms that are identical to their nominative/accusative forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most neuter nouns don't have a meaning that seems to me to fit easily with the use of the vocative. My guess is that it would show up mostly with rhetorical personifications of inanimate objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering what kinds of examples we have of neuter words being used as vocatives in Classical Latin. I'd be particularly interested in examples of vocative singular forms ending in *-um,* but any examples are fine.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28496" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1497" RevisionGUID="4ef9250b-b7ee-4b8f-9ec3-00d2a58bb057" CreationDate="2019-02-27T23:29:16.363" UserId="9" Comment="Edited title to clarify that it is about how to figure out the length of a vowel" Text="How do I know where to place macrons?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4880" RevisionGUID="7461f952-3554-48ab-b510-db0050904d75" CreationDate="2019-02-28T00:52:12.613" UserId="9" Comment="replaced image with text for better accessibility and search indexing" Text="Weiss writes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**The *u*-forms are characteristic of legal and archaizing style**, e.g. *pecuniae repetundae* (the recovery of extorted money), and are found in the isolated forms *secundus* 'following' and *rotundus* 'round' (p. 444; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Powell 2007/2011][1] adds that even though &quot;the gerundive suffix in -*undus*, rather than -*endus*, has an old-fashioned flavor and is characteristic of legal Latin,&quot; **&quot;neither confined to it nor universal in it&quot;** (p. 482, note 21; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for specific authors, Leumann 1977 (p. 331) mentions first Plautus and Terence (Neue and Wagener write that the u-forms are *gewöhnliche*, i.e. usual/normal, in Plautus and Terence, p. 332); also Sallust and Gellius, cf.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c) Für *-endo-* erscheint bei Verben der 3. und 4. Konjug. archaisierend oft *-undo-* (aus *-ondo-*), so meist Plt. Ter., dann Sall. Gell., auch inschr. Lex repett. (ausgenommen 65 *tribuendei,* also hinter *u*), D 620 *veniundum est*; archaisch wohl *emundi* und *vendundi* bei Cic.; alte Formel dat. *iure dicundo*; immer *eundo-* (wie ptc. *eunt-*) zu *īre.* Nur hinter *u u̯ qu̯* scheint *-undo-* früh gemieden worden zu sein (doch beachte oben *secundus*): *loquendi* Plt., *volvendus* Enn., *restituendos* D 460, oben *tribuendei.* Danach ist vermutlich ursprüngliches *-ondo-* an ptc. *-ent-* zu *-endo-* angeglichen worden; bei dieser Annahme kann das *-end-* nicht auf idg. *-n̥d-* zurückgehen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the above quote from Leumann, we can also learn that in verbs whose stem ended in **u, u̯, qu** the *u*-forms were avoided in Latin - the only exception to this observation seems to be *secundus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more examples, see pp. 331-340 in [Neue and Wagener 1897, volume 3: Das Verbum][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch26/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/formenlehrederla03neueuoft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9202" RevisionGUID="c15e6d23-4d87-438d-bb71-8127a4575a00" CreationDate="2019-02-28T01:16:48.157" UserId="522" Text="**Bambusa tulda Roxb.**  &#xD;&#xA;synonym **Dendrocalamus tulda (Roxb.) Voigt** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the [Monaco Nature Encyclopedia][1], Giuseppe Mazza writes:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The name of the genus comes from the local Malay name “bambu”; the specific name is the local one, tulda bans, in Bengali language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Roxb.** refers to the botanist who listed the name:  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Dr William Roxburgh FRSE FRCPE FLS (3 or 29 June 1751 – 18 February 1815)&#xD;&#xA;a Scottish surgeon and botanist known as the founding father of Indian botany.&#xD;&#xA;He sent many illustrations to Sir Joseph Banks, who in May 1795, started publishing Plants of the coast of Coromandel in 3 volumes with over 300 drawings and descriptions of plants. [(Wikipedia)][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.monaconatureencyclopedia.com/bambusa-tulda-2/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Roxburgh" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9203" RevisionGUID="6650b1a7-75cf-4ba5-856c-f962cecff634" CreationDate="2019-02-28T02:08:56.240" UserId="9" Text="I hadn't noticed this when I posted the question, but it turned out that the Wiktionary list that I mentioned in the original question contained at least one genuine word of interest. The word *jūgerum/iūgerum* is a second-declension form, but it seems that in the plural oblique cases we almost always see third-declension forms (*jūgerum* and *jūgeribus*; with *jūgerīs* as an alternative ablative form attested in Varro's *Res Rusticae*). This is confirmed by the [Lewis and Short entry](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=jugerum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iugerum#Latin) says that there is no attested third-declension singular nominative/accusative form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28500" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9200" RevisionGUID="4a058ba4-8eb1-4ef5-822c-0f64d24a6ea9" CreationDate="2019-02-28T06:46:31.557" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|adjective|biology|scientific-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9204" RevisionGUID="a5e8f394-bd26-4482-9ca6-d652519a4b32" CreationDate="2019-02-28T09:53:00.990" UserId="1459" Text="_Londinium, Britannia_, 284 AD. The military commander _[Carausius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carausius)_ is leading a movement to take _Britannia_ out of the _Imperium Romanum_. He thinks there is a conspiracy between locals and foreigners to take control of power in _Roma_, orchestrated mainly by the new sect self-denominated as _Christianos_, suspiciously enough, founded by and composed of Jews, but also of many Greeks, both groups aiming to recover their glories of the past and remove Roman domination.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carausius calls for a _referendum_, under the slogans _recupera imperium_ and _age Britanniam magnum iterum_. Vote Leave (_Sententia Abire_) wins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can we call this result in Latin? One method is to adopt current practices to Latin. The other is to come up with something idiosyncratic. I cannot think of anything for the latter, but for the former, one option could be _Brexire_, which is the composition of both _Britannia_ and the verb &quot;to exit&quot;, _exire_. But is this the most appropriate meaning? Alternatives?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28502" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9204" RevisionGUID="a5e8f394-bd26-4482-9ca6-d652519a4b32" CreationDate="2019-02-28T09:53:00.990" UserId="1459" Text="How to say &quot;Brexit&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28503" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9204" RevisionGUID="a5e8f394-bd26-4482-9ca6-d652519a4b32" CreationDate="2019-02-28T09:53:00.990" UserId="1459" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9205" RevisionGUID="909eb6b2-4077-4600-829a-52111cd4cbc7" CreationDate="2019-02-28T10:00:08.747" UserId="79" Text="The noun &quot;exit&quot; is *exitus*, fourth declension.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore a natural analogue of the English &quot;Brexit&quot; would be ***Brexitus***.&#xD;&#xA;There might be some use for a verb *brexire*, but I believe the noun is most relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is very important that the word is recognized well.&#xD;&#xA;If you use a different word, you might be better off explaining the whole thing, like below.&#xD;&#xA;[Nuntii Latini](https://areena.yle.fi/1-4576757) had a news item on Brexit, but it makes not use of the word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suffragium de exitu Britanniae procrastinatum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Theresa May, prima ministra Britanniae decrevit, ut suffragium, quod die Martis (11.12.) de **exitu Britanniae** in parlamento Britanniae fieri debebat, procrastinaretur. Tum pars delegatorum factionis conservativae flagitavit, ut de fiducia illius factio suffragaretur, sed suffragio facto May votis ducentis contra centum septendecim (200-117) superior discessit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9206" RevisionGUID="2b15f74c-f49b-41e9-a1dd-b56207bdcd99" CreationDate="2019-02-28T11:18:32.993" UserId="645" Text="I pass on (without comment on the politics involved) the following letter from Dr. David Butterfield of Queen's College, Cambridge to the Editor of the *Daily Telegraph*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Quid sibi vult Brexit? qui Brexit ipse est? &#xD;&#xA;quomodo, qua, quando terra Britannica Bregat? nunc post lustra novem Bregere — an Brexire? — necesse est: parsne fuit Remanes parte abeunte minor? vox populi, divi est; at vox repetita fit echo. num referenda iterumk sunt referenda plebi? est gravius multo spectare futura Britannis: quid refert nobis extera vita novi? quaerere plura queam; meliore intendere malo: Europhilos ut nos dedecet usque queri.&#xD;&#xA;nam, Brecta EUropa, non parvam noster amoris stillam Euro paean inde favente teget.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9206" RevisionGUID="7489c4ed-c088-4b2c-8cc1-f54e54c0c717" CreationDate="2019-02-28T11:19:29.083" UserId="1459" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I pass on (without comment on the politics involved) the following letter from Dr. David Butterfield of Queen's College, Cambridge to the Editor of the *Daily Telegraph*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Quid sibi vult Brexit? qui Brexit ipse est? &#xD;&#xA;quomodo, qua, quando terra Britannica Bregat? nunc post lustra novem Bregere — an Brexire? — necesse est: parsne fuit Remanes parte abeunte minor? vox populi, divi est; at vox repetita fit echo. num referenda iterumk sunt referenda plebi? est gravius multo spectare futura Britannis: quid refert nobis extera vita novi? quaerere plura queam; meliore intendere malo: Europhilos ut nos dedecet usque queri.&#xD;&#xA;nam, Brecta EUropa, non parvam noster amoris stillam Euro paean inde favente teget.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9205" RevisionGUID="d8e3a450-2354-4cfb-814d-2ba9ed17e43a" CreationDate="2019-02-28T11:54:04.333" UserId="79" Comment="added 211 characters in body" Text="The word &quot;Brexit&quot; is a noun, meaning &quot;the exit of Britain from the EU&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The noun &quot;exit&quot; is *exitus*, fourth declension.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore a natural analogue of the English &quot;Brexit&quot; would be ***Brexitus***.&#xD;&#xA;There might be some use for a verb *brexire*, but I believe the noun is most relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is very important that the word is recognized well.&#xD;&#xA;If you use a different word, you might be better off explaining the whole thing, like below.&#xD;&#xA;[Nuntii Latini](https://areena.yle.fi/1-4576757) had a news item on Brexit, but it makes no use of the word (even though they rely on *exitus*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suffragium de exitu Britanniae procrastinatum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Theresa May, prima ministra Britanniae decrevit, ut suffragium, quod die Martis (11.12.) de **exitu Britanniae** in parlamento Britanniae fieri debebat, procrastinaretur. Tum pars delegatorum factionis conservativae flagitavit, ut de fiducia illius factio suffragaretur, sed suffragio facto May votis ducentis contra centum septendecim (200-117) superior discessit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, this use in Nuntii Latini confirms that *exitus* is a decent choice for this kind of an exit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9205" RevisionGUID="e18f21a4-4a15-497a-a1e2-a57919b781b1" CreationDate="2019-02-28T11:59:07.847" UserId="79" Comment="added 223 characters in body" Text="The word &quot;Brexit&quot; is a noun, meaning &quot;the exit of Britain from the EU&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The noun &quot;exit&quot; is *exitus*, fourth declension.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore a natural analogue of the English &quot;Brexit&quot; would be ***Brexitus***.&#xD;&#xA;There might be some use for a verb *brexire*, but I believe the noun is most relevant.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen &quot;Brexit&quot; used a number of times, and in all cases it has been a noun &amp;mdash; read and write complete sentences about Brexit to see how it behaves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is very important that the word is recognized well, so I urge you to use some form of *Br[itannia]* and *exire/exitus*.&#xD;&#xA;If you use a different word, you are better off explaining the whole thing, like below.&#xD;&#xA;[Nuntii Latini](https://areena.yle.fi/1-4576757) had a news item on Brexit, but it makes no use of the word (even though they rely on *exitus*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suffragium de exitu Britanniae procrastinatum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Theresa May, prima ministra Britanniae decrevit, ut suffragium, quod die Martis (11.12.) de **exitu Britanniae** in parlamento Britanniae fieri debebat, procrastinaretur. Tum pars delegatorum factionis conservativae flagitavit, ut de fiducia illius factio suffragaretur, sed suffragio facto May votis ducentis contra centum septendecim (200-117) superior discessit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, this use in Nuntii Latini confirms that *exitus* is a decent choice for this kind of an exit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1498" RevisionGUID="21e39b3d-a45d-40b6-81c7-16f7e64dffee" CreationDate="2019-02-28T12:27:16.703" UserId="79" Comment="Fixed links." Text="Macrons are mainly pronunciation guides, telling which vowels are pronounced long.&#xD;&#xA;In some cases they can resolve ambiguities, when two words only differ by the length a vowel.&#xD;&#xA;Using them is not necessary, and I would personally consider it better style not to use macrons when writing in Latin, unless there is a special reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macrons were not used in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;See [this separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1440/79) for the arrival of the macron.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also point out that there also a sign to indicate short vowels: the breve.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the absence of a macron does not make it sufficiently clear that a vowel is short.&#xD;&#xA;For example, we had recently a question about [*p&amp;omacr;pulus* and *po&amp;#x306;pulus*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1316/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your main question seems to be how to know when vowels are short and when they are long.&#xD;&#xA;The answer is simply that you have to learn the lengths when you learn the vowels.&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;man&quot; is *vi&amp;#x306;r*, not *vi&amp;#x304;r*.&#xD;&#xA;The singular genitive ending of the first declension is *-i&amp;#x304;*, not *-i&amp;#x306;*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore &quot;man's&quot; is *vi&amp;#x306;ri&amp;#x304;*.&#xD;&#xA;To get the lengths right, it is not enough to know that the word is *vir* and the ending is *-i*, and there are no simple rules that would allow you to efficiently guess where to put macrons in a given Latin word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you progress in studying Latin, you will develop some intuition to the lengths.&#xD;&#xA;But it does not come without work, and I can offer no shortcut.&#xD;&#xA;This has the unfortunate consequence that if you have already learned many Latin words and endings without paying attention to lengths and you now want to learn where to put macrons, you have to relearn all vowels to get the lengths right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In short:&#xD;&#xA;How do you know where to place macrons?&#xD;&#xA;You learn it case by case.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have instructions for producing a [breve](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/172/79) or a [macron](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2/79) on our meta." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9206" RevisionGUID="bdb8b2d4-ca19-486a-9f3f-0756e02f6025" CreationDate="2019-02-28T12:34:15.277" UserId="645" Comment="removed surplus letter" Text="I pass on (without comment on the politics involved) the following letter from Dr. David Butterfield of Queen's College, Cambridge to the Editor of the *Daily Telegraph*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Quid sibi vult Brexit? qui Brexit ipse est? &#xD;&#xA;quomodo, qua, quando terra Britannica Bregat? nunc post lustra novem Bregere — an Brexire? — necesse est: parsne fuit Remanes parte abeunte minor? vox populi, divi est; at vox repetita fit echo. num referenda iterum sunt referenda plebi? est gravius multo spectare futura Britannis: quid refert nobis extera vita novi? quaerere plura queam; meliore intendere malo: Europhilos ut nos dedecet usque queri.&#xD;&#xA;nam, Brecta EUropa, non parvam noster amoris stillam Euro paean inde favente teget.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9205" RevisionGUID="e63b26cd-fd5e-4f4a-ae26-cd072b1332a3" CreationDate="2019-02-28T12:41:31.847" UserId="79" Comment="added 201 characters in body" Text="The word &quot;Brexit&quot; is a noun, meaning &quot;the exit of Britain from the EU&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The noun &quot;exit&quot; is *exitus*, fourth declension.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore a natural analogue of the English &quot;Brexit&quot; would be ***Brexitus***.&#xD;&#xA;There might be some use for a verb *brexire*, but I believe the noun is most relevant.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen &quot;Brexit&quot; used a number of times, and in all cases it has been a noun &amp;mdash; read and write complete sentences about Brexit to see how it behaves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is very important that the word is recognized well, so I urge you to use some form of *Br[itannia]* and *exire/exitus*.&#xD;&#xA;If you use a different word, you are better off explaining the whole thing.&#xD;&#xA;However, my impression is that such portmanteaus would not be idiomatic third century Latin, so you would need to explain (i.e., say &quot;the Briths exit&quot; or something) instead of coining a new word (like &quot;brexit&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;[Nuntii Latini](https://areena.yle.fi/1-4576757) had a news item on Brexit, but it makes no use of the word (even though they rely on *exitus*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suffragium de exitu Britanniae procrastinatum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Theresa May, prima ministra Britanniae decrevit, ut suffragium, quod die Martis (11.12.) de **exitu Britanniae** in parlamento Britanniae fieri debebat, procrastinaretur. Tum pars delegatorum factionis conservativae flagitavit, ut de fiducia illius factio suffragaretur, sed suffragio facto May votis ducentis contra centum septendecim (200-117) superior discessit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, this use in Nuntii Latini confirms that *exitus* is a decent choice for this kind of an exit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9205" RevisionGUID="f232a329-a69a-4a62-9f8f-b3a0f7964fd2" CreationDate="2019-02-28T13:37:33.243" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The word &quot;Brexit&quot; is a noun, meaning &quot;the exit of Britain from the EU&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The noun &quot;exit&quot; is *exitus*, fourth declension.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore a natural analogue of the English &quot;Brexit&quot; would be ***Brexitus***.&#xD;&#xA;There might be some use for a verb *brexire*, but I believe the noun is most relevant.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen &quot;Brexit&quot; used a number of times, and in all cases it has been a noun &amp;mdash; read and write complete sentences about Brexit to see how it behaves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is very important that the word is recognized well, so I urge you to use some form of *Br[itannia]* and *exire/exitus*.&#xD;&#xA;If you use a different word, you are better off explaining the whole thing.&#xD;&#xA;However, my impression is that such portmanteaus would not be idiomatic third century Latin, so you would need to explain (i.e., say &quot;the British exit&quot; or something) instead of coining a new word (like &quot;Brexit&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;[Nuntii Latini](https://areena.yle.fi/1-4576757) had a news item on Brexit, but it makes no use of the word (even though they rely on *exitus*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suffragium de exitu Britanniae procrastinatum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Theresa May, prima ministra Britanniae decrevit, ut suffragium, quod die Martis (11.12.) de **exitu Britanniae** in parlamento Britanniae fieri debebat, procrastinaretur. Tum pars delegatorum factionis conservativae flagitavit, ut de fiducia illius factio suffragaretur, sed suffragio facto May votis ducentis contra centum septendecim (200-117) superior discessit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, this use in Nuntii Latini confirms that *exitus* is a decent choice for this kind of an exit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28515" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9204" RevisionGUID="0b388ab8-58af-4ac6-978e-04d0184e7b34" CreationDate="2019-02-28T16:04:58.647" />
  <row Id="28516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9207" RevisionGUID="0a3a3df4-4918-4a72-9638-d167d15dbb99" CreationDate="2019-02-28T16:10:25.417" UserId="324" Text="Given the ambiguity of &quot;exitus&quot; (departure, death) I should think that &quot;Brexitus&quot; is absolutely perfect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9204" RevisionGUID="b9b9bec6-ff05-4ae1-847b-c6877c12455a" CreationDate="2019-02-28T16:33:30.060" UserId="1459" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="_Londinium, Britannia_, 284 AD. The military commander _[Carausius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carausius)_ is leading a movement to take _Britannia_ out of the _Imperium Romanum_. He thinks there is a conspiracy between locals and foreigners to take control of power in _Roma_, orchestrated mainly by the new sect self-denominated as _Christianos_, suspiciously enough, founded by and composed of Jews, but also of many Greeks, both groups aiming to recover their glories of the past and remove Roman domination.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carausius calls for a _referendum_, under the slogans _recupera imperium_ (take back control) and _age Britanniam magnum iterum_ (make Britain great again). Vote Leave (_Sententia Abire_) wins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can we call this result in Latin? One method is to adopt current practices to Latin. The other is to come up with something idiosyncratic. I cannot think of anything for the latter, but for the former, one option could be _Brexire_, which is the composition of both _Britannia_ and the verb &quot;to exit&quot;, _exire_. But is this the most appropriate meaning? Alternatives?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9204" RevisionGUID="a2dd68bc-7f03-49a2-b48c-210b6541f4ac" CreationDate="2019-02-28T16:40:27.447" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="_Londinium, Britannia_, 284 AD. The military commander _[Carausius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carausius)_ is leading a movement to take _Britannia_ out of the _Imperium Romanum_. He thinks there is a conspiracy between locals and foreigners to take control of power in _Roma_, orchestrated mainly by the new sect self-denominated as _Christianos_, suspiciously enough, founded by and composed of Jews, but also of many Greeks, both groups aiming to recover their glories of the past and remove Roman domination.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carausius calls for a _referendum_, under the slogans _recupera imperium_ (take back control) and _age Britanniam magnum iterum_ (make Britain great again). Vote Leave (_Sententia Abire_) wins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can we call this result in Latin? One method is to adopt current practices to Latin. The other is to come up with something idiosyncratic. I cannot think of anything for the latter, but for the former, one option could be _**Brexire**_, which is the composition of both _Britannia_ and the verb &quot;to exit&quot;, _exire_. But is this the most appropriate meaning? Alternatives?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9205" RevisionGUID="b426a0be-3580-44db-8163-9092da90aade" CreationDate="2019-02-28T16:41:09.177" UserId="79" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="The word &quot;Brexit&quot; is a noun, meaning &quot;the exit of Britain from the EU&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The noun &quot;exit&quot; is *exitus*, fourth declension.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore a natural analogue of the English &quot;Brexit&quot; would be ***Brexitus***.&#xD;&#xA;There might be some use for a verb *brexire*, but I believe the noun is most relevant.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen &quot;Brexit&quot; used a number of times, and in all cases it has been a noun &amp;mdash; read and write complete sentences about Brexit to see how it behaves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is very important that the word is recognized well, so I urge you to use some form of *Br[itannia]* and *exire/exitus*.&#xD;&#xA;If you use a different word, you are better off explaining the whole thing.&#xD;&#xA;However, my impression is that such portmanteaus would not be idiomatic third century Latin, so you would need to explain (i.e., say &quot;the British exit&quot; or something) instead of coining a new word (like &quot;Brexit&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;I think words like *Brabitus* or *Bregressio* are way too hard to parse.&#xD;&#xA;[Nuntii Latini](https://areena.yle.fi/1-4576757) had a news item on Brexit, but it makes no use of the word (even though they rely on *exitus*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suffragium de exitu Britanniae procrastinatum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Theresa May, prima ministra Britanniae decrevit, ut suffragium, quod die Martis (11.12.) de **exitu Britanniae** in parlamento Britanniae fieri debebat, procrastinaretur. Tum pars delegatorum factionis conservativae flagitavit, ut de fiducia illius factio suffragaretur, sed suffragio facto May votis ducentis contra centum septendecim (200-117) superior discessit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, this use in Nuntii Latini confirms that *exitus* is a decent choice for this kind of an exit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9204" RevisionGUID="bf1f518e-703b-49f1-aa20-2f491a195705" CreationDate="2019-02-28T18:01:48.800" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="_Londinium, Britannia_, 284 AD. The military commander _[Carausius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carausius)_ is leading a movement to take _Britannia_ out of the _Imperium Romanum_. He thinks there is a conspiracy between locals and foreigners to take control of power in _Roma_, orchestrated mainly by the new sect self-denominated as _Christiani_, suspiciously enough, founded by and composed of Jews, but also of many Greeks, both groups aiming to recover their glories of the past and remove Roman domination.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carausius calls for a _referendum_, under the slogans _recupera imperium_ (take back control) and _age Britanniam magnam iterum_ (make Britain great again). Vote Leave (_Sententia Abire_) wins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can we call this result in Latin? One method is to adopt current practices to Latin. The other is to come up with something idiosyncratic. I cannot think of anything for the latter, but for the former, one option could be _**Brexire**_, which is the composition of both _Britannia_ and the verb &quot;to exit&quot;, _exire_. But is this the most appropriate meaning? Alternatives?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9208" RevisionGUID="88a17561-1c2c-4bc5-962e-b962c6450dff" CreationDate="2019-02-28T20:08:14.647" UserId="40" Text="The etymological explanation (which of course only takes the question a stage further back) is that in PIE, thematic inanimate nouns had the nom./acc. sg. ending *-om, while athematic inanimate nouns had a zero ending. The former became Latin second-declension neuters, the latter third-declension neuters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is only a partial explanation in that one might have expected some athematic inanimates with a stem ending in -m to have survived in the Latin third declension, but if there were any such nouns, none seem to have survived into Latin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9209" RevisionGUID="93a675c7-9876-4aa9-a01f-f6cf71bcf81b" CreationDate="2019-02-28T20:22:47.383" UserId="3397" Text="&quot;Questions&quot; that are actually requests using the archaic [&quot;potin?&quot;][1] are numerous in Plautus, and they appear in Terence as well. I think based on the evidence that a Roman would readily understand this type of request-phrased-as-a-question but might find it somewhat rude or abrupt: the examples in the corpus always seem to carry a hint of exasperation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus *Poenulus* 916&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Latin: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**M:** Potin ut taceas? **S:** Taceo atque abeo.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;English:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **M:** Can you be quiet? **S:** I'm quiet and I'm leaving!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Terence *Adelphoe* 539&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**C.** siquid rogabit, nusquam tu me: audistin? **S.** potin ut desinas?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; English:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **C.** If he asks, you haven't seen me anywhere: understand? **S.** Can you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; let it go?! *(i.e. I get it already!)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23potin%23" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9198" RevisionGUID="96fa0516-dc5e-4c35-b10f-e9879b428be6" CreationDate="2019-02-28T20:39:52.873" UserId="9" Comment="removed references to erroneous Wiktionary entries that have since been fixed" Text="I have the impression that the ending *-m* appears on neuter nouns (in the nominative/accusative form) only in the second declension, but I don't know whether there are any exceptions. Is there any example of a neuter noun ending in *-m* that belongs to a declension other than the second? &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I know that Latin nouns sometimes had multiple declension patterns or multiple genders. For the purpose of this question, I'd accept a word that belongs to multiple declensions/genders, as long as it's clear that the neuter nominative/accusative form ending in *-m* isn't just part of a complete regular second-declension paradigm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no such words exist, I would be interested in knowing whether there is any etymological explanation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9203" RevisionGUID="0911dbbe-fb63-46c7-82ae-d634fe8fc6df" CreationDate="2019-02-28T20:40:34.177" UserId="9" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="I hadn't noticed this when I posted the question, but it turned out that the [Wiktionary list](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Latin_neuter_nouns_in_the_third_declension) that I mentioned in the original question contained at least one genuine word of interest. The word *jūgerum/iūgerum* is a second-declension form, but it seems that in the plural oblique cases we almost always see third-declension forms (*jūgerum* and *jūgeribus*; with *jūgerīs* as an alternative ablative form attested in Varro's *Res Rusticae*). This is confirmed by the [Lewis and Short entry](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=jugerum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iugerum#Latin) says that there is no attested third-declension singular nominative/accusative form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9210" RevisionGUID="3d204684-a6c4-47bd-839a-28596af21603" CreationDate="2019-02-28T21:04:41.097" UserId="406" Text="[As TKR mentions][1], third-declension nouns in Latin have stems ending with a consonant (*). Off the top of my head, I can think of stems ending in various different consonants: *rex*, for example, has a G in its stem (*re**g**-em*), while *dux* has a C (*du**c**-em*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How many different consonants can appear in these stems? This question was inspired by [this one][2], which is looking for neuter M-stems in particular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) I'm ignoring the I-stems here, since they're not relevant to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9208/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/9198/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28527" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9210" RevisionGUID="3d204684-a6c4-47bd-839a-28596af21603" CreationDate="2019-02-28T21:04:41.097" UserId="406" Text="What consonants can a noun stem end in?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28528" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9210" RevisionGUID="3d204684-a6c4-47bd-839a-28596af21603" CreationDate="2019-02-28T21:04:41.097" UserId="406" Text="|morphology|declension|declinatio-tertia|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9211" RevisionGUID="eaaa6159-a26c-43aa-9591-450f6d4339ec" CreationDate="2019-02-28T22:13:54.020" UserId="3458" Text="There are some 200 archaeological finds known under the name &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dodecahedron&quot;&gt; &quot;Roman dodecahedron&quot;&lt;/a&gt;. There is no accepted or convincing explanation about their purpose and they have not been identified in any text. But, obviously, they have not been exceedingly uncommon, so perhaps there is some obscure word for them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that they are some kind of  magical objects and that might be a clue where to look for a name fitting these artefacts ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28530" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9211" RevisionGUID="eaaa6159-a26c-43aa-9591-450f6d4339ec" CreationDate="2019-02-28T22:13:54.020" UserId="3458" Text="Latin name of &quot;Roman Dodecahedron&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28531" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9211" RevisionGUID="eaaa6159-a26c-43aa-9591-450f6d4339ec" CreationDate="2019-02-28T22:13:54.020" UserId="3458" Text="|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9212" RevisionGUID="8a25618f-82d2-4906-b2dc-3249c19b0ae4" CreationDate="2019-03-01T07:14:55.623" UserId="79" Text="Here are some examples of different stem-final consonants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- B: plebs&#xD;&#xA;- C: dux&#xD;&#xA;- D: lapis&#xD;&#xA;- G: rex&#xD;&#xA;- H: Iphis&#xD;&#xA;- L: pellis&#xD;&#xA;- M: vermis&#xD;&#xA;- N: panis&#xD;&#xA;- P: apis&#xD;&#xA;- R: os&#xD;&#xA;- S: os&#xD;&#xA;- T: lis&#xD;&#xA;- V: Iuppiter&#xD;&#xA;- X: axis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found nothing with F.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any third declension nouns whose stem ends in a consonantal J.&#xD;&#xA;It can be argued that the stem of *Gaius* ends so, but examples like this seem to be in the first two declensions.&#xD;&#xA;K is too rare a letter.&#xD;&#xA;Q does not appear without U, and I am not aware of any third declension nouns with a stem ending in QU.&#xD;&#xA;Z is not a very Latin letter.&#xD;&#xA;All other letters are covered in the list above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9212" RevisionGUID="48eafade-7455-4a56-b5c6-b65c5c9f2dff" CreationDate="2019-03-01T07:29:36.507" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Here are some examples of different stem-final consonants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- B: plebs&#xD;&#xA;- C: dux&#xD;&#xA;- D: lapis&#xD;&#xA;- G: rex&#xD;&#xA;- H: Iphis&#xD;&#xA;- L: pellis&#xD;&#xA;- M: hiems&#xD;&#xA;- N: panis&#xD;&#xA;- P: apis&#xD;&#xA;- R: os&#xD;&#xA;- S: os&#xD;&#xA;- T: lis&#xD;&#xA;- V: Iuppiter&#xD;&#xA;- X: axis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found nothing with F.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any third declension nouns whose stem ends in a consonantal J.&#xD;&#xA;It can be argued that the stem of *Gaius* ends so, but examples like this seem to be in the first two declensions.&#xD;&#xA;K is too rare a letter.&#xD;&#xA;Q does not appear without U, and I am not aware of any third declension nouns with a stem ending in QU.&#xD;&#xA;Z is not a very Latin letter.&#xD;&#xA;All other letters are covered in the list above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9212" RevisionGUID="fee502c7-29d1-48fd-a4a7-60f7f4b641a8" CreationDate="2019-03-01T08:08:32.807" UserId="9" Comment="added macrons, replaced pellis with sōl" Text="Here are some examples of different stem-final consonants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- B: plēbs&#xD;&#xA;- C: dux&#xD;&#xA;- D: lapis&#xD;&#xA;- G: rēx&#xD;&#xA;- H: Iphis&#xD;&#xA;- L: sōl&#xD;&#xA;- M: hiems&#xD;&#xA;- N: panis&#xD;&#xA;- P: apis&#xD;&#xA;- R: ōs&#xD;&#xA;- S: os&#xD;&#xA;- T: līs&#xD;&#xA;- V: Iuppiter&#xD;&#xA;- X: axis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found nothing with F.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any third declension nouns whose stem ends in a consonantal J.&#xD;&#xA;It can be argued that the stem of *Gaius* ends so, but examples like this seem to be in the first two declensions.&#xD;&#xA;K is too rare a letter.&#xD;&#xA;Q does not appear without U, and I am not aware of any third declension nouns with a stem ending in QU.&#xD;&#xA;Z is not a very Latin letter.&#xD;&#xA;All other letters are covered in the list above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9212" RevisionGUID="4751eb1c-78cd-44ce-83ca-2e7367f5078e" CreationDate="2019-03-01T08:11:07.510" UserId="79" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="Here are some examples of different stem-final consonants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- B: plēbs, plēb-&#xD;&#xA;- C: dux, duc-&#xD;&#xA;- D: lapis, lapid-&#xD;&#xA;- G: rēx, rēg-&#xD;&#xA;- H: Iphis, Iph-&#xD;&#xA;- L: sōl, sōl-&#xD;&#xA;- M: hiems, hiem-&#xD;&#xA;- N: pānis, pān-&#xD;&#xA;- P: apis, ap-&#xD;&#xA;- R: ōs, ōr-&#xD;&#xA;- S: os, oss-&#xD;&#xA;- T: līs, līt-&#xD;&#xA;- V: Iuppiter, Iov-&#xD;&#xA;- X: axis, ax-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found nothing with F.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any third declension nouns whose stem ends in a consonantal J.&#xD;&#xA;It can be argued that the stem of *Gaius* ends so, but examples like this seem to be in the first two declensions.&#xD;&#xA;K is too rare a letter.&#xD;&#xA;Q does not appear without U, and I am not aware of any third declension nouns with a stem ending in QU.&#xD;&#xA;Z is not a very Latin letter.&#xD;&#xA;All other letters are covered in the list above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9213" RevisionGUID="9c659665-1f46-48c5-8036-7c3f9a3cc921" CreationDate="2019-03-01T09:29:56.963" UserId="3466" Text="Considering Shakespeare and all that, the answer is Brexeunt, surely  ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9204" RevisionGUID="3f36f525-6a63-43f8-9fb2-93bdb9a3f2b3" CreationDate="2019-03-01T10:46:22.580" UserId="2852" Comment="Copy edited." Text="_Londinium, Britannia_, 284 AD. The military commander _[Carausius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carausius)_ is leading a movement to take _Britannia_ out of the _Imperium Romanum_. He thinks there is a conspiracy between locals and foreigners to take control of power in _Roma_, orchestrated mainly by the new sect self-denominated as _Christiani_, suspiciously enough, founded by and composed of Jews, but also of many Greeks, both groups aiming to recover their glories of the past and remove Roman domination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carausius calls for a _referendum_, under the slogans _recupera imperium_ (take back control) and _age Britanniam magnam iterum_ (make Britain great again). Vote Leave (_Sententia Abire_) wins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can we call this result in Latin? One method is to adopt current practices to Latin. The other is to come up with something idiosyncratic. I cannot think of anything for the latter, but for the former, one option could be _**Brexire**_, which is the composition of both _Britannia_ and the verb &quot;to exit&quot;, _exire_. But is this the most appropriate meaning? Alternatives?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28541" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9204" RevisionGUID="3f36f525-6a63-43f8-9fb2-93bdb9a3f2b3" CreationDate="2019-03-01T10:46:22.580" UserId="2852" Comment="Copy edited." Text="How do I say &quot;Brexit&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28542" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9204" RevisionGUID="3f36f525-6a63-43f8-9fb2-93bdb9a3f2b3" CreationDate="2019-03-01T10:46:22.580" Comment="Proposed by 2852 approved by 79 edit id of 302" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9205" RevisionGUID="e9533ab3-e94c-4896-bb63-83334074ccfb" CreationDate="2019-03-01T10:50:11.833" UserId="79" Comment="added 311 characters in body" Text="The word &quot;Brexit&quot; is a noun, meaning &quot;the exit of Britain from the EU&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The noun &quot;exit&quot; is *exitus*, fourth declension.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore a natural analogue of the English &quot;Brexit&quot; would be ***Brexitus***.&#xD;&#xA;There might be some use for a verb *brexire*, but I believe the noun is most relevant.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen &quot;Brexit&quot; used a number of times, and in all cases it has been a noun &amp;mdash; read and write complete sentences about Brexit to see how it behaves.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is very important that the word is recognized well, so I urge you to use some form of *Br[itannia]* and *exire/exitus*.&#xD;&#xA;If you use a different word, you are better off explaining the whole thing.&#xD;&#xA;However, my impression is that such portmanteaus would not be idiomatic third century Latin, so you would need to explain (i.e., say &quot;the British exit&quot; or something) instead of coining a new word (like &quot;Brexit&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;I think words like *Brabitus* or *Bregressio* are way too hard to understand, and are therefore not that good choices for ordinary communication.&#xD;&#xA;I can't keep you from saying *Brexodus*, but I will struggle to understand if you do so (outside this question where I know to expect things like that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Nuntii Latini](https://areena.yle.fi/1-4576757) had a news item on Brexit, but it makes no use of the word (even though they rely on *exitus*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suffragium de exitu Britanniae procrastinatum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Theresa May, prima ministra Britanniae decrevit, ut suffragium, quod die Martis (11.12.) de **exitu Britanniae** in parlamento Britanniae fieri debebat, procrastinaretur. Tum pars delegatorum factionis conservativae flagitavit, ut de fiducia illius factio suffragaretur, sed suffragio facto May votis ducentis contra centum septendecim (200-117) superior discessit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, this use in Nuntii Latini confirms that *exitus* is a decent choice for this kind of an exit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Consider for example: &quot;When will Brexit happen?&quot; &quot;What will May do if Brexit fails?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The word here is a noun, and I have yet to see it used as a verb in the news.&#xD;&#xA;Phrases like *nolite brexire* are possible but come across humorous and weird.&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't say &quot;don't brexit&quot; in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28544" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="9213" RevisionGUID="dfcc2ac1-074e-45f4-9428-6f817dd65b6e" CreationDate="2019-03-01T12:24:30.933" UserId="79" Comment="106" />
  <row Id="28545" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8904" RevisionGUID="3561ec2e-7816-4c2c-b4ba-170bc5537dff" CreationDate="2019-03-01T14:03:00.630" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="28546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9214" RevisionGUID="a3065d88-a7a9-47b9-8fa2-a54d17746af9" CreationDate="2019-03-01T18:50:06.683" UserId="3475" Text="I know there are different ways to say sorcerer or enchanter, but I really want to use &quot;eloquii mystici&quot; I just don't know if it's written correctly in plural. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28547" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9214" RevisionGUID="a3065d88-a7a9-47b9-8fa2-a54d17746af9" CreationDate="2019-03-01T18:50:06.683" UserId="3475" Text="Is &quot;Omnus nos eloquii mystici&quot; correctly written to say &quot;We are all sorcerers/enchanters&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28548" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9214" RevisionGUID="a3065d88-a7a9-47b9-8fa2-a54d17746af9" CreationDate="2019-03-01T18:50:06.683" UserId="3475" Text="|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9215" RevisionGUID="9ab37a28-e862-4cb8-88e4-1e346bb445d1" CreationDate="2019-03-01T21:59:09.113" UserId="406" Text="Almost!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Omnus* is probably a typo: you want *omnēs* to mean &quot;all&quot;. *Nōs* is the correct word for &quot;us&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, *ēloquiī* literally means &quot;of eloquence&quot; or &quot;of an utterance&quot;, while *mysticī* is an adjective meaning &quot;mystical&quot; or &quot;relevant to secret rites&quot;. So the sentence currently means something like &quot;we are all [the people] of mystical eloquence&quot;. A bit of a strange phrasing, but not incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you mention &quot;in plural&quot;, however, I'm guessing these words don't actually mean quite what you think they mean—as it is, they're singular in your motto. If you clarify your intended meaning a bit, I might be able to help you more. (For a word for &quot;sorcerers&quot; or &quot;enchanters&quot;, I would use the straightforward *magī* or the Greek-derived *goētēs*; most of the other Latin words for sorcerers are pretty negative, meaning things like &quot;curse-maker&quot;.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9204" RevisionGUID="aba9e0a0-d3a0-4e9a-93c2-4a4963f734db" CreationDate="2019-03-01T22:15:16.570" UserId="-1" Comment="‎‎‎English" Text="_Londinium, Britannia_, 284 AD. The military commander _[Carausius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carausius)_ is leading a movement to take _Britannia_ out of the _Imperium Romanum_. He thinks there is a conspiracy between locals and foreigners to take control of power in _Roma_, orchestrated mainly by the new sect self-denominated as _Christiani_, suspiciously enough, founded by and composed of Jews, but also of many Greeks, both groups aiming to recover their glories of the past and remove Roman domination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carausius calls for a _referendum_, under the slogans _recupera imperium_ (take back control) and _age Britanniam magnam iterum_ (make Britain great again). Vote Leave (_Sententia Abire_) wins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can we call this result in Latin? One method is to adopt current practices to Latin. The other is to come up with something idiosyncratic. I cannot think of anything for the latter, but for the former, one option could be _**Brexire**_, which is the composition of both _Britannia_ and the verb &quot;to exit&quot;, _exire_. But is this the most appropriate meaning? Alternatives?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28551" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9204" RevisionGUID="aba9e0a0-d3a0-4e9a-93c2-4a4963f734db" CreationDate="2019-03-01T22:15:16.570" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 406, 79 edit id of 303" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9214" RevisionGUID="f633bd72-298a-4441-8961-344376ce3fa5" CreationDate="2019-03-01T22:17:34.450" UserId="79" Comment="Tried to make the title shorter and the text more descriptive. Feel free to re-edit or roll back!" Text="Is &quot;Omnus nos eloquii mystici&quot; correctly written to say &quot;We are all sorcerers/enchanters&quot;? I know there are different ways to say sorcerer or enchanter, but I really want to use &quot;eloquii mystici&quot;. I just don't know if it's written correctly in plural. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28553" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9214" RevisionGUID="f633bd72-298a-4441-8961-344376ce3fa5" CreationDate="2019-03-01T22:17:34.450" UserId="79" Comment="Tried to make the title shorter and the text more descriptive. Feel free to re-edit or roll back!" Text="Is &quot;eloquii mystici&quot; a correct translation of &quot;sorcerers/enchanters&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28554" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9214" RevisionGUID="f633bd72-298a-4441-8961-344376ce3fa5" CreationDate="2019-03-01T22:17:34.450" UserId="79" Comment="Tried to make the title shorter and the text more descriptive. Feel free to re-edit or roll back!" Text="|vocabulary|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9213" RevisionGUID="8f289f22-5762-4f6a-8f1f-16c4068cd280" CreationDate="2019-03-02T09:43:37.623" UserId="79" Comment="Brought in stuff from comments." Text="Considering Shakespeare and all that, the answer is Brexeunt, surely.  ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A famous Shakespearean stage direction reads &quot;Exeunt, pursued by a bear.&quot;, leading up to the off stage death of Antigonus in The Winter's Tale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="04828f84-0aa5-4e75-82af-744cce2ece72" CreationDate="2019-03-03T00:13:20.787" UserId="9" Text="Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*), dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), and nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There aren't many Latin nouns that take the accusative singular ending *-im*, but a fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that the presence of *-ium* in the plural genitive is enough to categorize a noun as being (at least partially) an i-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be characteristic of consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that there are no nouns with stems ending in F, J, Z, Q(U), or K (although I wouldn't consider K to be a true gap, as it was just a variant spelling for the sound of C).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B, P**: For the labial plosives B and P, *plēbs* and *apis* take the i-stem forms *plēbium* and *apium*. But *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1)* forms *opum.* I'm having trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum* (or a neuter nominative/accusative plural form ending in *-ba*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because historic s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural *ossa*, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H. So I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. PH, CH or TH stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: I'm not sure whether there are any examples. *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem, but the genitive plural looks like it may be *gryphium*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="e711d853-dd19-41c4-ad3b-5a5f39b5dbff" CreationDate="2019-03-03T00:18:34.873" UserId="9" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*), dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), and nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There aren't many Latin nouns that take the accusative singular ending *-im*, but a fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that the presence of *-ium* in the plural genitive is enough to categorize a noun as being (at least partially) an i-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be characteristic of consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that there are no nouns with stems ending in F, J, Z, Q(U), or K (although I wouldn't consider K to be a true gap, as it was just a variant spelling for the sound of C).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **N**: *panum* is definitely a consonant-stem form, but *panis* might be a bit of a complicated example because this noun looks like it should be an i-stem based on the nominative and genitive singular forms (*panis, panis*) and the &quot;parisyllabic&quot; rule. Regardless, there are a number of clear n-stem nouns in Latin, like *nōmen* and *carō.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B, P**: For the labial plosives B and P, *plēbs* and *apis* take the i-stem forms *plēbium* and *apium*. But *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1)* forms *opum.* I'm having trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum* (or a neuter nominative/accusative plural form ending in *-ba*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural *ossa*, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H. So I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. PH, CH or TH stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: I'm not sure whether there are any examples. *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem, but the genitive plural looks like it may be *gryphium*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="8ad09498-a984-4268-a451-5733651a3f26" CreationDate="2019-03-03T00:23:41.187" UserId="9" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*), dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), and nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There aren't many Latin nouns that take the accusative singular ending *-im*, but a fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that the presence of *-ium* in the plural genitive is enough to categorize a noun as being (at least partially) an i-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be a defining feature of consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that there are no nouns with stems ending in F, J, Z, Q(U), or K (although I wouldn't consider K to be a true gap, as it was just a variant spelling for the sound of C).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **N**: *pānum* is definitely a consonant-stem form, but *pānis* might be a bit of a complicated example because this noun looks like it should be an i-stem based on the nominative and genitive singular forms (*pānis, pānis*) along with the &quot;parisyllabic&quot; rule. Regardless, there are a number of clear n-stem nouns in Latin, like *nōmen* and *carō.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B, P**: For the labial plosives B and P, *plēbs* and *apis* take the i-stem forms *plēbium* and *apium*. But *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1)* forms *opum.* I'm having trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum* (or a neuter nominative/accusative plural form ending in *-ba*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural *ossa*, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H. So I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. PH, CH or TH stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: I'm not sure whether there are any examples. *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem, but the genitive plural looks like it may be *gryphium*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="0a28d68d-d455-4d74-924f-af676c0348b2" CreationDate="2019-03-03T00:31:35.597" UserId="9" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*), dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), and nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There aren't many Latin nouns that take the accusative singular ending *-im*, but a fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being (at least partially) an i-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that there are no nouns with stems ending in F, J, Z, Q(U), or K (although I wouldn't consider K to be a true gap, as it was just a variant spelling for the sound of C).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **N**: *pānum* is definitely a consonant-stem form, but *pānis* might be a bit of a complicated example because this noun looks like it should be an i-stem based on the nominative and genitive singular forms (*pānis, pānis*) along with the &quot;parisyllabic&quot; rule. Regardless, there are a number of clear n-stem nouns in Latin, like *nōmen* and *carō.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B, P**: For the labial plosives B and P, *plēbs* and *apis* take the i-stem forms *plēbium* and *apium*. But *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1)* forms *opum.* I'm having trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum* (or a neuter nominative/accusative plural form ending in *-ba*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural *ossa*, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H. So I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. PH, CH or TH stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: I'm not sure whether there are any examples. *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem, but the genitive plural looks like it may be *gryphium*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="8e803575-f4bc-44eb-a609-a7a7867f54d9" CreationDate="2019-03-03T01:04:40.650" UserId="9" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*), dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), and nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There aren't many Latin nouns that take the accusative singular ending *-im*, but a fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being (at least partially) an i-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that there are no nouns with stems ending in F, J, Z, Q(V), or K. I wouldn't consider K to be a true gap, as it was just a variant spelling for the sound of C. Q(V) is only a gap if you analyze QV as a consonant of its own rather than a /kw/ (CV) cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **N**: *pānum* is definitely a consonant-stem form, but *pānis* might be a bit of a complicated example because this noun looks like it should be an i-stem based on the nominative and genitive singular forms (*pānis, pānis*) along with the &quot;parisyllabic&quot; rule. Regardless, there are a number of clear n-stem nouns in Latin, like *nōmen* and *carō.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B, P**: For the labial plosives B and P, *plēbs* and *apis* take the i-stem forms *plēbium* and *apium*. But *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1)* forms *opum.* I'm having trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum* (or a neuter nominative/accusative plural form ending in *-ba*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural *ossa*, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H. So I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. PH, CH or TH stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: I'm not sure whether there are any examples. *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem, but the genitive plural looks like it may be *gryphium*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9218" RevisionGUID="d2e22d3f-8e3b-46cc-bae0-664cec44e3fb" CreationDate="2019-03-03T04:02:48.623" UserId="867" Text="Tibullus/Lygdamus, writing after the loss of his love Neaera, laments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *... **frangit** fortia **corda** dolor* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... an intense pain **breaks the heart**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Tibullus], *Elegies*, 3.2.6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which confirms your own guess!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9218" RevisionGUID="9f1e260e-2911-4e1a-8bef-cfc5864b17fd" CreationDate="2019-03-03T07:59:50.610" UserId="867" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Tibullus/Lygdamus, writing after the loss of his love Neaera, laments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *... **frangit** fortia **corda** dolor* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... pain **breaks** strong **hearts**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Tibullus], *Elegies*, 3.2.6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which confirms your own guess!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9219" RevisionGUID="fb46a763-e24e-4026-bca9-d3876fe76fe0" CreationDate="2019-03-03T10:39:31.010" UserId="3430" Text="J.N.Adams discusses this in [Bilingualism and the Latin language](https://books.google.com.au/books?id=AMc1WQAnRTkC&amp;pg=PA93&amp;lpg=PA93&amp;dq=bilingualism+and+the+latin+language+pidgins+and+reduced+languages&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zcDHvZvFzV&amp;sig=ACfU3U1OQgfVknuXcpsCxZEb9dA9pCH_nA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiIr77N4uXgAhXUXCsKHYyFCuYQ6AEwBHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=bilingualism%20and%20the%20latin%20language%20pidgins%20and%20reduced%20languages&amp;f=false). According to the author, there are examples of imperfect Greek and Latin by second language speakers, but not evidence of a pidgin language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="96dc1752-4252-44ea-9d90-a69080b27a33" CreationDate="2019-03-03T11:32:59.050" UserId="9" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*), dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), and nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There aren't many Latin nouns that take the accusative singular ending *-im*, but a fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being (at least partially) an i-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that there are no nouns with stems ending in F, J, Z*, Q(V), or K. I wouldn't consider K to be a true gap, as it was just a variant spelling for the sound of C. Q(V) is only a gap if you analyze QV as a consonant of its own rather than a /kw/ (CV) cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **N**: *pānum* is definitely a consonant-stem form, but *pānis* might be a bit of a complicated example because this noun looks like it should be an i-stem based on the nominative and genitive singular forms (*pānis, pānis*) along with the &quot;parisyllabic&quot; rule. Regardless, there are a number of clear n-stem nouns in Latin, like *nōmen* and *carō.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B, P**: For the labial plosives B and P, *plēbs* and *apis* take the i-stem forms *plēbium* and *apium*. But *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1)* forms *opum.* I'm having trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum* (or a neuter nominative/accusative plural form ending in *-ba*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural *ossa*, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H. So I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. PH, CH or TH stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: I'm not sure whether there are any examples. *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem, but the genitive plural looks like it may be *gryphium*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- \***Z**: If you include proper nouns and don't worry about the issue of i-stems vs. consonant-stems, I think the name *Gōtarzēs, Gōtarzis* (from Greek) would count." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9220" RevisionGUID="8dcb2699-26b0-4d8d-9a90-3216e046f70e" CreationDate="2019-03-03T19:04:38.760" UserId="406" Text="According to Wikipedia, the Scipios (as in Africanus) were known collectively as the _Scīpiadae_ rather than the _Scīpionēs_. This was a rather poetic Greek way to say &quot;sons of Scipio&quot;, as in the _Atreïdae_ (sons of Atreus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, following the penult rule, this name would be pronounced _Scīpíadae_. But in Greek, it would be _Scīpiádae_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know which of these pronunciations was used? In other words, do we know if the people who affected Greek-style names also pronounced them the Greek way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28568" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9220" RevisionGUID="8dcb2699-26b0-4d8d-9a90-3216e046f70e" CreationDate="2019-03-03T19:04:38.760" UserId="406" Text="How were Greek patronymics stressed in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28569" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9220" RevisionGUID="8dcb2699-26b0-4d8d-9a90-3216e046f70e" CreationDate="2019-03-03T19:04:38.760" UserId="406" Text="|names|stress|loanwords|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28570" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="b910a04b-0c96-44a9-9837-87652bf0ffaa" CreationDate="2019-03-03T21:30:51.387" UserId="9" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="69c0a1d9-8091-4ec7-9810-a02d958ae4f4" CreationDate="2019-03-03T21:37:13.373" UserId="9" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*), dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), and nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There aren't many Latin nouns that take the accusative singular ending *-im*, but a fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being (at least partially) an i-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that there are no nouns with stems ending in F, J, Z*, Q(V), or K. I wouldn't consider K to be a true gap, as it was just a variant spelling for the sound of C. Q(V) is only a gap if you analyze QV as a consonant of its own rather than a /kw/ (CV) cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **N**: *pānum* is definitely a consonant-stem form, but *pānis* might be a bit of a complicated example because this noun looks like it should be an i-stem based on the nominative and genitive singular forms (*pānis, pānis*) along with the &quot;parisyllabic&quot; rule. Regardless, there are a number of clear n-stem nouns in Latin, like *nōmen* and *carō.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: in the genitive plural, *apis* can take either the consonant-stem form *apum* or the i-stem form *apium.* The form *apum* is clearly built on a stem ending in P. Another example would be *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1),* which forms *opum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B**: *plēbs* takes the i-stem forms *plēbium*. I'm having trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural *ossa*, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H. So I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. PH, CH or TH stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: I'm not sure whether there are any examples. *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem, but the genitive plural looks like it may be *gryphium*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- \***Z**: If you include proper nouns and don't worry about the issue of i-stems vs. consonant-stems, I think the name *Gōtarzēs, Gōtarzis* (from Greek) would count." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28572" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="89d87a1e-a79a-4f03-aad5-53d0582adc11" CreationDate="2019-03-03T21:37:25.613" UserId="9" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="11ca4082-f01d-45fb-ad67-f3e3c0df728f" CreationDate="2019-03-04T01:07:14.590" UserId="9" Comment="added sardonyx as example of a CH stem" Text="###The definition of &quot;I-stems&quot; is relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*), dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), and nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There aren't many Latin nouns that take the accusative singular ending *-im*, but a fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being (at least partially) an i-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Most consonants can occur at the end of a noun stem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that there are no nouns with stems ending in F, J, Z*, Q(V), or K. I wouldn't consider K to be a true gap, as it was just a variant spelling for the sound of C. Q(V) is only a gap if you analyze QV as a consonant of its own rather than a /kw/ (CV) cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **N**: *pānum* is definitely a consonant-stem form, but *pānis* might be a bit of a complicated example because this noun looks like it should be an i-stem based on the nominative and genitive singular forms (*pānis, pānis*) along with the &quot;parisyllabic&quot; rule. Regardless, there are a number of clear n-stem nouns in Latin, like *nōmen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: in the genitive plural, *apis* can take either the consonant-stem form *apum* or the i-stem form *apium.* The form *apum* is clearly built on a stem ending in P. Another example would be *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1),* which forms *opum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B**: *plēbs* takes the i-stem form *plēbium*. I'm having trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural *ossa*, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H. So I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. PH, CH or TH stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: I'm not sure whether there are any good examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **PH**: *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem, but the genitive plural looks like it may be *gryphium*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **CH**: *[sardonyx](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsardonyx),* from Greek σαρδόνυξ, seems to conjugate as a CH-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- \***Z**: If you include proper nouns and don't worry about the issue of i-stems vs. consonant-stems, I think the name *Gōtarzēs, Gōtarzis* (from Greek) would count." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="b5b5e194-ae7b-4efc-bd0b-68b5f29fefd7" CreationDate="2019-03-04T01:15:41.417" UserId="9" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="###The definition of &quot;I-stems&quot; is relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*), dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), and nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period. But it seems consonant-stem nouns never take *-im* in the accusative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Because of the somewhat complicated formation of Latin nominative singular forms in the third declension, it can be difficult to analyze the nominative singular form in terms of a root + suffix. We can often figure out the origin of the form from comparative linguistics or internal reconstruction, but the etymological analysis may not always be the one that makes the most sense from a synchronic perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being (at least partially) an i-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Most consonants can occur at the end of a noun stem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that there are no nouns with stems ending in F, J, Z*, Q(V), or K. I wouldn't consider K to be a true gap, as it was just a variant spelling for the sound of C. Q(V) is only a gap if you analyze QV as a consonant of its own rather than a /kw/ (CV) cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **N**: *pānum* is definitely a consonant-stem form, but *pānis* might be a bit of a complicated example because this noun looks like it should be an i-stem based on the nominative and genitive singular forms (*pānis, pānis*) along with the &quot;parisyllabic&quot; rule. Regardless, there are a number of clear n-stem nouns in Latin, like *nōmen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: in the genitive plural, *apis* can take either the consonant-stem form *apum* or the i-stem form *apium.* The form *apum* is clearly built on a stem ending in P. Another example would be *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1),* which forms *opum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B**: *plēbs* takes the i-stem form *plēbium*. I'm having trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural *ossa*, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H. So I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. PH, CH or TH stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: I'm not sure whether there are any good examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **PH**: *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem, but the genitive plural looks like it may be *gryphium*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **CH**: *[sardonyx](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsardonyx),* from Greek σαρδόνυξ, seems to conjugate as a CH-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- \***Z**: If you include proper nouns and don't worry about the issue of i-stems vs. consonant-stems, I think the name *Gōtarzēs, Gōtarzis* (from Greek) would count." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="cdc118c9-aeb3-4c51-bdea-49d5bc8fdfce" CreationDate="2019-03-04T01:24:39.640" UserId="9" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="###The definition of &quot;I-stems&quot; is relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*), dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), and nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period. But it seems consonant-stem nouns never take *-im* in the accusative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Because of the somewhat complicated formation of Latin nominative singular forms in the third declension, it can be difficult to analyze the nominative singular form in terms of a root + suffix. We can often figure out the origin of the form from comparative linguistics or internal reconstruction, but the etymological analysis may not always be the one that makes the most sense from a synchronic perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being (at least partially) an i-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Most consonants can occur at the end of a noun stem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that there are no nouns with stems ending in F, J, Z*, Q(V), or K. I wouldn't consider K to be a true gap, as it was just a variant spelling for the /k/ sound of C. Q(V) is only a gap if you analyze QV as a consonant of its own (/kʷ/) rather than as a replacement spelling for a CV (/kw/) cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **N**: *pānum* is definitely a consonant-stem form, but *pānis* might be a bit of a complicated example because this noun looks like it should be an i-stem based on the nominative and genitive singular forms (*pānis, pānis*) along with the &quot;parisyllabic&quot; rule. Regardless, there are a number of clear n-stem nouns in Latin, like *nōmen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: in the genitive plural, *apis* can take either the consonant-stem form *apum* or the i-stem form *apium.* The form *apum* is clearly built on a stem ending in P. Another example would be *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1),* which forms *opum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B**: *plēbs* takes the i-stem form *plēbium*. I'm having trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural *ossa*, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H. So I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. PH, CH or TH stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: I'm not sure whether there are any good examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **PH**: *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem, but the genitive plural looks like it may be *gryphium*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **CH**: *[sardonyx](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsardonyx),* from Greek σαρδόνυξ, seems to conjugate as a CH-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- \***Z**: If you include proper nouns and don't worry about the issue of i-stems vs. consonant-stems, I think the name *Gōtarzēs, Gōtarzis* (from Greek) would count." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="fc64158c-d087-4b86-9b6a-f7acc62e4554" CreationDate="2019-03-04T01:38:50.177" UserId="9" Comment="added 140 characters in body" Text="###The definition of &quot;I-stems&quot; is relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*), dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), and nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period. But it seems consonant-stem nouns never take *-im* in the accusative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Because of the somewhat complicated formation of Latin nominative singular forms in the third declension, it can be difficult to analyze the nominative singular form in terms of a root + suffix. We can often figure out the origin of the form from comparative linguistics or internal reconstruction, but the etymological analysis may not always be the one that makes the most sense from a synchronic perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being (at least partially) an i-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Most consonants can occur at the end of a noun stem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that there are no nouns with stems ending in F, J, Z*, Q(V), or K. I wouldn't consider K to be a true gap, as it was just a variant spelling for the /k/ sound of C. Q(V) is only a gap if you analyze QV as a consonant of its own (/kʷ/) rather than as a replacement spelling for a CV (/kw/) cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, R, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **N**: *pānum* is definitely a consonant-stem form, but *pānis* might be a bit of a complicated example because this noun looks like it should be an i-stem based on the nominative and genitive singular forms (*pānis, pānis*) along with the &quot;parisyllabic&quot; rule. Regardless, there are a number of clear n-stem nouns in Latin, like *nōmen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: in the genitive plural, *apis* can take either the consonant-stem form *apum* or the i-stem form *apium.* The form *apum* is clearly built on a stem ending in P. Another example would be *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1),* which forms *opum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B**: *plēbs* takes the i-stem form *plēbium*. I'm having trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum.* I'm not sure whether any Latin nouns decline as &quot;pure&quot; b-stem throughout the entire paradigm, but accusative singular *-bem* and ablative singular *-be* certainly exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural *ossa*, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H. So I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. PH, CH or TH stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: I'm not sure whether there are any good examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **PH**: *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem, but the genitive plural looks like it may be *gryphium*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **CH**: *[sardonyx](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsardonyx),* from Greek σαρδόνυξ, seems to conjugate as a CH-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- \***Z**: If you include proper nouns and don't worry about the issue of i-stems vs. consonant-stems, I think the name *Gōtarzēs, Gōtarzis* (from Greek) would count." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9212" RevisionGUID="b676e6b6-646b-4003-bd66-31c8614eb52d" CreationDate="2019-03-04T01:50:18.963" UserId="9" Comment="replaced līs with mīles since the latter seems to more consistently decline as a consonant-stem" Text="Here are some examples of different stem-final consonants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- B: plēbs, plēb-&#xD;&#xA;- C: dux, duc-&#xD;&#xA;- D: lapis, lapid-&#xD;&#xA;- G: rēx, rēg-&#xD;&#xA;- H: Iphis, Iph-&#xD;&#xA;- L: sōl, sōl-&#xD;&#xA;- M: hiems, hiem-&#xD;&#xA;- N: pānis, pān-&#xD;&#xA;- P: apis, ap-&#xD;&#xA;- R: ōs, ōr-&#xD;&#xA;- S: os, oss-&#xD;&#xA;- T: mīles, mīlit-&#xD;&#xA;- V: Iuppiter, Iov-&#xD;&#xA;- X: axis, ax-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found nothing with F.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any third declension nouns whose stem ends in a consonantal J.&#xD;&#xA;It can be argued that the stem of *Gaius* ends so, but examples like this seem to be in the first two declensions.&#xD;&#xA;K is too rare a letter.&#xD;&#xA;Q does not appear without U, and I am not aware of any third declension nouns with a stem ending in QU.&#xD;&#xA;Z is not a very Latin letter.&#xD;&#xA;All other letters are covered in the list above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="79c473ab-91e7-46ac-8eeb-97901bb512ac" CreationDate="2019-03-04T01:50:37.650" UserId="9" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="###The definition of &quot;I-stems&quot; is relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*), dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), and nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period. But it seems consonant-stem nouns never take *-im* in the accusative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Because of the somewhat complicated formation of Latin nominative singular forms in the third declension, it can be difficult to analyze the nominative singular form in terms of a root + suffix. We can often figure out the origin of the form from comparative linguistics or internal reconstruction, but the etymological analysis may not always be the one that makes the most sense from a synchronic perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being (at least partially) an i-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Most consonants can occur at the end of a noun stem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that there are no nouns with stems ending in F, J, Z*, Q(V), or K. I wouldn't consider K to be a true gap, as it was just a variant spelling for the /k/ sound of C. Q(V) is only a gap if you analyze QV as a consonant of its own (/kʷ/) rather than as a replacement spelling for a CV (/kw/) cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **N**: *pānum* is definitely a consonant-stem form, but *pānis* might be a bit of a complicated example because this noun looks like it should be an i-stem based on the nominative and genitive singular forms (*pānis, pānis*) along with the &quot;parisyllabic&quot; rule. Regardless, there are a number of clear n-stem nouns in Latin, like *nōmen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: in the genitive plural, *apis* can take either the consonant-stem form *apum* or the i-stem form *apium.* The form *apum* is clearly built on a stem ending in P. Another example would be *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1),* which forms *opum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B**: *plēbs* takes the i-stem form *plēbium*. I'm having trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum.* I'm not sure whether any Latin nouns decline as &quot;pure&quot; b-stem throughout the entire paradigm, but accusative singular *-bem* and ablative singular *-be* certainly exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural *ossa*, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H. So I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. PH, CH or TH stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: I'm not sure whether there are any good examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **PH**: *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem, but the genitive plural looks like it may be *gryphium*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **CH**: *[sardonyx](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsardonyx),* from Greek σαρδόνυξ, seems to decline as a CH-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- \***Z**: If you include proper nouns and don't worry about the issue of i-stems vs. consonant-stems, I think the name *Gōtarzēs, Gōtarzis* (from Greek) would count." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9212" RevisionGUID="f15ad9cb-7fcd-4dfe-860a-ea1441a0d548" CreationDate="2019-03-04T01:56:34.117" UserId="9" Comment="replaced panis with nomen because the nominative form of nomen is more clearly built on a consonant stem" Text="Here are some examples of different stem-final consonants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- B: plēbs, plēb-&#xD;&#xA;- C: dux, duc-&#xD;&#xA;- D: lapis, lapid-&#xD;&#xA;- G: rēx, rēg-&#xD;&#xA;- H: Iphis, Iph-&#xD;&#xA;- L: sōl, sōl-&#xD;&#xA;- M: hiems, hiem-&#xD;&#xA;- N: nōmen, nōmin-&#xD;&#xA;- P: apis, ap-&#xD;&#xA;- R: ōs, ōr-&#xD;&#xA;- S: os, oss-&#xD;&#xA;- T: mīles, mīlit-&#xD;&#xA;- V: Iuppiter, Iov-&#xD;&#xA;- X: axis, ax-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found nothing with F.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any third declension nouns whose stem ends in a consonantal J.&#xD;&#xA;It can be argued that the stem of *Gaius* ends so, but examples like this seem to be in the first two declensions.&#xD;&#xA;K is too rare a letter.&#xD;&#xA;Q does not appear without U, and I am not aware of any third declension nouns with a stem ending in QU.&#xD;&#xA;Z is not a very Latin letter.&#xD;&#xA;All other letters are covered in the list above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="da1759cc-7cff-43dd-8f56-d0ad49ab7cd3" CreationDate="2019-03-04T01:56:53.920" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 340 characters in body" Text="###The definition of &quot;I-stems&quot; is relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*), dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), and nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period. But it seems consonant-stem nouns never take *-im* in the accusative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Because of the somewhat complicated formation of Latin nominative singular forms in the third declension, it can be difficult to analyze the nominative singular form in terms of a root + suffix. We can often figure out the origin of the form from comparative linguistics or internal reconstruction, but the etymological analysis may not always be the one that makes the most sense from a synchronic perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being (at least partially) an i-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Most consonants can occur at the end of a noun stem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that there are no nouns with stems ending in F, J, Z*, Q(V), or K. I wouldn't consider K to be a true gap, as it was just a variant spelling for the /k/ sound of C. Q(V) is only a gap if you analyze QV as a consonant of its own (/kʷ/) rather than as a replacement spelling for a CV (/kw/) cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, N, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: in the genitive plural, *apis* can take either the consonant-stem form *apum* or the i-stem form *apium.* The form *apum* is clearly built on a stem ending in P. Another example would be *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1),* which forms *opum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B**: *plēbs* takes the i-stem form *plēbium*. I'm having trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum.* I'm not sure whether any Latin nouns decline as &quot;pure&quot; b-stem throughout the entire paradigm, but accusative singular *-bem* and ablative singular *-be* certainly exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural *ossa*, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H. So I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. PH, CH or TH stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: I'm not sure whether there are any good examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **PH**: *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem, but the genitive plural looks like it may be *gryphium*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **CH**: *[sardonyx](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsardonyx),* from Greek σαρδόνυξ, seems to decline as a CH-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- \***Z**: If you include proper nouns and don't worry about the issue of i-stems vs. consonant-stems, I think the name *Gōtarzēs, Gōtarzis* (from Greek) would count." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="a86cccdd-1230-46f6-9643-bb621ce9c1c6" CreationDate="2019-03-04T03:36:49.293" UserId="9" Comment="added 251 characters in body" Text="###The definition of &quot;I-stems&quot; is relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*), dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), and nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period. But it seems consonant-stem nouns never take *-im* in the accusative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Because of the somewhat complicated formation of Latin nominative singular forms in the third declension, it can be difficult to analyze the nominative singular form in terms of a root + suffix. We can often figure out the origin of the form from comparative linguistics or internal reconstruction, but the etymological analysis may not always be the one that makes the most sense from a synchronic perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being (at least partially) an i-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Most consonants can occur at the end of a noun stem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that there are no nouns with stems ending in F*, J, Z†, Q(V), or K. I wouldn't consider K to be a true gap, as it was just a variant spelling for the /k/ sound of C. Q(V) is only a gap if you analyze QV as a consonant of its own (/kʷ/) rather than as a replacement spelling for a CV (/kw/) cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, N, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: in the genitive plural, *apis* can take either the consonant-stem form *apum* or the i-stem form *apium.* The form *apum* is clearly built on a stem ending in P. Another example would be *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1),* which forms *opum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B**: *plēbs* takes the i-stem form *plēbium*. I'm having trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum.* I'm not sure whether any Latin nouns decline as &quot;pure&quot; b-stem throughout the entire paradigm, but accusative singular *-bem* and ablative singular *-be* certainly exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural *ossa*, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H. So I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. PH, CH or TH stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: I'm not sure whether there are any good examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **PH**: *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem, but the genitive plural looks like it may be *gryphium*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **CH**: *[sardonyx](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsardonyx),* from Greek σαρδόνυξ, seems to decline as a CH-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- †**Z**: If you include proper nouns and don't worry about the issue of i-stems vs. consonant-stems, I think the name *Gōtarzēs, Gōtarzis* (from Greek) would count.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- \***F**: If you include Ecclesiastical Latin, than the word *scinifes/[cinifes](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcinifes)* might count, as it apparently has a genitive plural form *(s)cinifum.* A variant spelling with *ph* also seems to exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9221" RevisionGUID="79a3ad16-e109-4321-851d-3f6074cee4d7" CreationDate="2019-03-04T11:30:55.477" UserId="2389" Text="To check a word's part of speech, you need to see which syntactic equivalent you can replace it with, whose part of speech you already know. Picking synoymous expressions is the easiest way: the synonyms of &quot;et&quot; the conjunction are &quot;atque&quot; and &quot;que&quot;, the synonyms of the adverbial one are &quot;etiam&quot;, &quot;item&quot;, &quot;quoque&quot;. Conjunctions couple independent structures of the same syntactic level, conjunctive adverbs turn the clause they couple into a dependent adverbial modifier. Let's take some sentences:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Mārcus **et** Quīntus discvpulī sunt = Mārcus **ac** Quīntus discvpulī sunt = Mārcus discvpulus est **et** Quīntus discvpulus est.*&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - *Mārcus, **etiam** Quīntus, discvpulī sunt = Mārcus discvpulus est, **etiam/pariter et** Quīntus = Mārcus discvpulus est **dum** Quīntus **item** discvupulus est.*  &#xD;&#xA;Here it's clear that the rightful place of the etiam-clause would be at the end of the sentence, and placing it right next to Mārcus instead of using the coordinate conjuncton &quot;et&quot; feels clumsy, as if you'd forgotten about Quīntus.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - *Mārcus dormit **et** Quīntus vigilat* != *Mārcus dormit, **etiam** Quīntus vigilat.*  &#xD;&#xA;The latter makes Mārcus also perform the action that Quīntus is performing, equating *dormīre* with *vigilāre*, which makes the sentence incomprehensible. In proper grammatical terms I guess the verb in the etiam-clause would be right-dislocated from its rightful place as the top-level predicate with the subject Mārcus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now for some test examples from the L&amp;S entry for &quot;et&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  *tē enim jam appellō, **et** eā vōce, ut mē exaudīre possīs = ...**atque** eā vōce [id faciō = appellō]*  &#xD;&#xA;The verb is coordinate. *&quot;...etiam eā vōce, ut&quot;* would create an adverbial clause *&quot;tē appellō, **dum item** eā vōce appellō&quot;*, with the meaning *&quot;**nōn modo** hōc modō appellō, **sed etiam** eā vōce, ut exaudiāris&quot;*, or even *&quot;nōn sōlum hāc vōce, sed etiam eā&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *advēnit, **et** nāvibu’ complēvit lītora = advēnit, **atque** complēvit!= advēnit, **etiam** complēvit*  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;etiam&quot; turns it from a temporal relation into a dry list of what somone did, and without a conjunction (&quot;atque etiam&quot;) feels especially abrupt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Ubi tunc erās? Rōmae. Vērum quid ad rem? **Et** aliī multī = **etiam/item** aliī multī = **dum** aliī multī **quoque** Rōmae erant.*  &#xD;&#xA;Because there's nothing for the noun phrase &quot;aliī multī&quot; to coordinate with in the sentence, &quot;et&quot; cannot be a conjunction. *&quot;**atque** aliī multī&quot;* would mark the end of the previous thought and create a new clause that transitions from the topic and which needs completion, something like &quot;and besides&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *ego vērō **et** in ipsā suffocātiōne nōn dēsiī = **etiam** in suffocātiōne = **dum** suffocor, **tamen**..*  &#xD;&#xA;Again, since *&quot;in ipsā suffocātiōne nōn dēsiī&quot;* cannot be coordinated with anything, &quot;atque&quot; in place of &quot;et&quot; would start a whole new clause. The fact that &quot;et&quot; can be reverse-rephrased with &quot;tamen&quot; makes it even more obvious that it's an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *cantus nōs nonnumquam **et** citāta modulātiō instigat = cantus **et** modulātiō nōs instigat ~ cantus nōs, **item** citāta modulātiō, instigat*, the latter = *cantus instigat, **dum etiam** modulātiō instigat*  &#xD;&#xA;This one is a matter of interpretation. In the absence of intonation cues indicating that *&quot;et citāta modulātiō&quot;* is a parenthetical adverbial clause, &quot;et&quot; is assumed to coordinate &quot;cantus&quot; with &quot;modulātiō&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know I might not be explaining this in the most clear and structured way, but if I had to draw a bottom line, it would be that assuming you get the gist of the sentence, there hardly ever arises a need to consciously determine which part of speech &quot;et&quot; is, as only one interpretation will make sense, and you will arrive at it subconsciously. There might well be cases where it's difficult to determine, but these are also the cases where it matters the least. Still, if the need does arise, I hope the examples above prove useful as a guide." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9221" RevisionGUID="db9c6af8-20ba-4bf1-9022-e69aa0b42980" CreationDate="2019-03-04T11:44:50.690" UserId="2389" Comment="added 406 characters in body" Text="To check a word's part of speech, you need to see which syntactic equivalent you can replace it with, whose part of speech you already know. Picking synoymous expressions is the easiest way: the synonyms of &quot;et&quot; the conjunction are &quot;atque&quot; and &quot;que&quot;, the synonyms of the adverbial one are &quot;etiam&quot;, &quot;item&quot;, &quot;quoque&quot;. Conjunctions couple independent structures of the same syntactic level, conjunctive adverbs turn the clause they couple into a dependent adverbial modifier. Let's take some sentences:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Mārcus **et** Quīntus discvpulī sunt = Mārcus **ac** Quīntus discvpulī sunt = Mārcus discvpulus est **et** Quīntus discvpulus est.*&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - *Mārcus, **etiam** Quīntus, discvpulī sunt = Mārcus discvpulus est, **etiam/pariter et** Quīntus = Mārcus discvpulus est **dum** Quīntus **item** discvupulus est.*  &#xD;&#xA;Here it's clear that the rightful place of the etiam-clause would be at the end of the sentence, and placing it right next to Mārcus instead of using the coordinate conjuncton &quot;et&quot; feels clumsy, as if you'd forgotten about Quīntus.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - *Mārcus dormit **et** Quīntus vigilat* != *Mārcus dormit, **etiam** Quīntus vigilat.*  &#xD;&#xA;The latter makes Mārcus also perform the action that Quīntus is performing, equating *dormīre* with *vigilāre*, which makes the sentence incomprehensible. In proper grammatical terms I guess the verb in the etiam-clause would be right-dislocated from its rightful place as the top-level predicate with the subject Mārcus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Mārcus dormit. Quid? **Et** Quīntus? Hau crēdō! = **etiam** Quīntus dormit?!*  &#xD;&#xA;This contrasts with *&quot;atque Quīntus?&quot;*, which, only being a conjunction, serves as a logical transition &quot;but what about Quintus?&quot;, or, if we included the verb, *&quot;atque Quīntus dormit?&quot;* = &quot;whereas Quintus sleeps?&quot;, which makes no sense if the verb is the same, which is why it defaults to the &quot;what about&quot; meaning in its absence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now for some test examples from the L&amp;S entry for &quot;et&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  *tē enim jam appellō, **et** eā vōce, ut mē exaudīre possīs = ...**atque** eā vōce [id faciō = appellō]*  &#xD;&#xA;The verb is coordinate. *&quot;...etiam eā vōce, ut&quot;* would create an adverbial clause *&quot;tē appellō, **dum item** eā vōce appellō&quot;*, with the meaning *&quot;**nōn modo** hōc modō appellō, **sed etiam** eā vōce, ut exaudiāris&quot;*, or even *&quot;nōn sōlum hāc vōce, sed etiam eā&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *advēnit, **et** nāvibu’ complēvit lītora = advēnit, **atque** complēvit!= advēnit, **etiam** complēvit*  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;etiam&quot; turns it from a temporal relation into a dry list of what somone did, and without a conjunction (&quot;atque etiam&quot;) feels especially abrupt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Ubi tunc erās? Rōmae. Vērum quid ad rem? **Et** aliī multī = **etiam/item** aliī multī = **dum** aliī multī **quoque** Rōmae erant.*  &#xD;&#xA;Because there's nothing for the noun phrase &quot;aliī multī&quot; to coordinate with in the sentence, &quot;et&quot; cannot be a conjunction. *&quot;**atque** aliī multī&quot;* would mark the end of the previous thought and create a new clause that transitions from the topic and which needs completion, something like &quot;and besides&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *ego vērō **et** in ipsā suffocātiōne nōn dēsiī = **etiam** in suffocātiōne = **dum** suffocor, **tamen**..*  &#xD;&#xA;Again, since *&quot;in ipsā suffocātiōne nōn dēsiī&quot;* cannot be coordinated with anything, &quot;atque&quot; in place of &quot;et&quot; would start a whole new clause. The fact that &quot;et&quot; can be reverse-rephrased with &quot;tamen&quot; makes it even more obvious that it's an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *cantus nōs nonnumquam **et** citāta modulātiō instigat = cantus **et** modulātiō nōs instigat ~ cantus nōs, **item** citāta modulātiō, instigat*, the latter = *cantus instigat, **dum etiam** modulātiō instigat*  &#xD;&#xA;This one is a matter of interpretation. In the absence of intonation cues indicating that *&quot;et citāta modulātiō&quot;* is a parenthetical adverbial clause, &quot;et&quot; is assumed to coordinate &quot;cantus&quot; with &quot;modulātiō&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know I might not be explaining this in the most clear and structured way, but if I had to draw a bottom line, it would be that assuming you get the gist of the sentence, there hardly ever arises a need to consciously determine which part of speech &quot;et&quot; is, as only one interpretation will make sense, and you will arrive at it subconsciously. There might well be cases where it's difficult to determine, but these are also the cases where it matters the least. Still, if the need does arise, I hope the examples above prove useful as a guide." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9221" RevisionGUID="d5fdeda5-206f-4bdb-9566-90e40310f1fe" CreationDate="2019-03-04T11:54:15.227" UserId="2389" Comment="added 406 characters in body" Text="To check a word's part of speech, you need to see which syntactic equivalent you can replace it with, whose part of speech you already know. Picking synoymous expressions is the easiest way: the synonyms of &quot;et&quot; the conjunction are &quot;atque&quot; and &quot;que&quot;, the synonyms of the adverbial one are &quot;etiam&quot;, &quot;item&quot;, &quot;quoque&quot;. Conjunctions couple independent structures of the same syntactic level, conjunctive adverbs turn the clause they couple into a dependent adverbial modifier. This adverbial modifier can be replaced with an **adverbial clause**, such as a dum-clause. Let's take some sentences:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Mārcus **et** Quīntus discvpulī sunt = Mārcus **ac** Quīntus discvpulī sunt = Mārcus discvpulus est **et** Quīntus discvpulus est.*&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - *Mārcus, **etiam** Quīntus, discvpulī sunt = Mārcus discvpulus est, **etiam** Quīntus = Mārcus discvpulus est **dum** Quīntus **item** discvupulus est.*  &#xD;&#xA;Here it's clear that the rightful place of the etiam-clause would be at the end of the sentence, and placing it right next to Mārcus instead of using the coordinate conjuncton &quot;et&quot; feels clumsy, as if you'd forgotten about Quīntus.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - *Mārcus dormit **et** Quīntus vigilat* ≠ *Mārcus dormit, **etiam** Quīntus vigilat.*  &#xD;&#xA;The latter makes Marcus also perform the action that Quintus is performing, equating *dormīre* with *vigilāre*, which makes the sentence incomprehensible. In proper grammatical terms I guess the verb in the etiam-clause would be right-dislocated from its rightful place as the top-level predicate with the subject Mārcus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Mārcus dormit. Quid? **Et** Quīntus? Hau crēdō! = **etiam** Quīntus dormit?!*  &#xD;&#xA;This contrasts with *&quot;atque Quīntus?&quot;*, which, only being a conjunction, serves as a logical transition &quot;but what about Quintus?&quot;, or, if we included the verb, *&quot;atque Quīntus dormit?&quot;* = &quot;whereas Quintus sleeps?&quot;, which makes no sense if the verb is the same, which is why it defaults to the &quot;what about&quot; meaning in its absence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now for some test examples from the L&amp;S entry for &quot;et&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  *tē enim jam appellō, **et** eā vōce, ut mē exaudīre possīs = ...**atque** eā vōce [id faciō = appellō]*  &#xD;&#xA;The verb is coordinate. *&quot;...etiam eā vōce, ut&quot;* would create an adverbial clause *&quot;tē appellō, **dum item** eā vōce appellō&quot;*, with the meaning *&quot;**nōn modo** hōc modō appellō, **sed etiam** eā vōce, ut exaudiāris&quot;*, or even *&quot;nōn sōlum hāc vōce, sed etiam eā&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *advēnit, **et** nāvibu’ complēvit lītora = advēnit, **atque** complēvit ≠ advēnit, **etiam** complēvit*  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;etiam&quot; turns it from a temporal relation into a dry list of what somone did, and without a conjunction (&quot;atque etiam&quot;) feels especially abrupt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Ubi tunc erās? Rōmae. Vērum quid ad rem? **Et** aliī multī = **etiam/item** aliī multī = **dum** aliī multī **quoque** Rōmae erant.*  &#xD;&#xA;Because there's nothing for the noun phrase &quot;aliī multī&quot; to coordinate with in the sentence, &quot;et&quot; cannot be a conjunction. *&quot;**atque** aliī multī&quot;* would mark the end of the previous thought and create a new clause that transitions from the topic and which needs completion, something like &quot;and besides&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *ego vērō **et** in ipsā suffocātiōne nōn dēsiī = **etiam** in suffocātiōne = **dum** suffocor, **tamen**..*  &#xD;&#xA;Again, since *&quot;in ipsā suffocātiōne nōn dēsiī&quot;* cannot be coordinated with anything, &quot;atque&quot; in place of &quot;et&quot; would start a whole new clause. The fact that &quot;et&quot; can be reverse-rephrased with &quot;tamen&quot; makes it even more obvious that it's an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *cantus nōs nonnumquam **et** citāta modulātiō instigat = cantus **et** modulātiō nōs instigat ~ cantus nōs, **item** citāta modulātiō, instigat*, the latter = *cantus instigat, **dum etiam** modulātiō instigat*  &#xD;&#xA;This one is a matter of interpretation. In the absence of intonation cues indicating that *&quot;et citāta modulātiō&quot;* is a parenthetical adverbial clause, &quot;et&quot; is assumed to coordinate &quot;cantus&quot; with &quot;modulātiō&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know I might not be explaining this in the most clear and structured way, but if I had to draw a bottom line, it would be that assuming you get the gist of the sentence, there hardly ever arises a need to consciously determine which part of speech &quot;et&quot; is, as only one interpretation will make sense, and you will arrive at it subconsciously. There might well be cases where it's difficult to determine, but these are also the cases where it matters the least. Still, if the need does arise, I hope the examples above prove useful as a guide." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9222" RevisionGUID="b7e5b2c2-b743-4b42-a250-1db56de9ab5b" CreationDate="2019-03-04T12:37:45.860" UserId="324" Text="Neuter plural in &quot;o tempora, o mores&quot; (Cicero, as classical as you can get)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9223" RevisionGUID="64923037-6bf8-47dd-b18e-0d76fa34cd47" CreationDate="2019-03-04T14:22:25.743" UserId="1459" Text="_Regnavit_ is the &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; third-person singular perfect active indicative of _rēgnō_ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/regnavit))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, many times this word translated as if present, _regnat_, which is puzzling. For example, consider [Psalm 93](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_93#Hebrew_Bible_version), in the Hebrew bible. It seems the original text uses the active perfect of to reign. In effect, the Vulgata ([psalm 92](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Ps.html#x92_1)) uses that tense too, i.e. _regnavit_. Similar use of perfect is found, for instance, in the Hebrew psalm 97 ([psalm 96](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Ps.html#x96_1) in Vulgata). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, many English translation use the present instead. Just take the above two psalms as example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Psalm 93](https://biblehub.com/psalms/93-1.htm) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Psalm 97](https://biblehub.com/psalms/97-1.htm) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine in English the present tense makes a bit more sense, in the theological sense that &quot;the Lord still reigns&quot;. I.e. &quot;his reign hasn't stopped&quot;. The perfect tense conveys however the meaning of a finished action. Or does it? Is there perhaps something special about the verb &quot;to reign&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems clear Jerome remained faithful to the Hebrew. But why don't English translations? Is Latin helpful in understanding this discrepancy, or is this merely an issue with Hebrew?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28588" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9223" RevisionGUID="64923037-6bf8-47dd-b18e-0d76fa34cd47" CreationDate="2019-03-04T14:22:25.743" UserId="1459" Text="Understanding the use of &quot;regnavit&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28589" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9223" RevisionGUID="64923037-6bf8-47dd-b18e-0d76fa34cd47" CreationDate="2019-03-04T14:22:25.743" UserId="1459" Text="|vocabulary|vulgata|perfect-tense|hebrew|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28590" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7450" RevisionGUID="f7fb7a95-c0c0-4a5c-8819-38275836dcd6" CreationDate="2019-03-04T15:05:21.807" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|phonology|transliteration|loanwords|hebrew|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28591" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7" RevisionGUID="bf2d35ed-4ba1-466b-b840-3103b099ba31" CreationDate="2019-03-04T15:05:37.403" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|etymology|particle|hebrew|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28592" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1064" RevisionGUID="96c31db9-e693-4de7-9247-fe964b85d9a5" CreationDate="2019-03-04T15:06:51.943" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vulgata|perfect-tense|hebrew|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9225" RevisionGUID="312c2c01-ab64-4c70-9844-407f2ef81d98" CreationDate="2019-03-04T18:12:21.927" UserId="1982" Text="North &amp; Hillard Ex 196: the following is to be translated into Latin: &quot;He had almost reached the top of the alps, when some old men came to him in the guise of envoys...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ans: &quot; nam ad summas Alpes paene ascenderat cum legatorum more senes quidam eum aggressi profitebantur…&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These certain old men were declaring themselves to be in the character of envoys; but, if cum = when why is third principal part plural (of aggredior), aggressi (they having approached), used instead of imperfect subjunctive, aggrederentur?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28597" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9225" RevisionGUID="312c2c01-ab64-4c70-9844-407f2ef81d98" CreationDate="2019-03-04T18:12:21.927" UserId="1982" Text="Cum = When (Imperfect Subjunctive)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28598" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9225" RevisionGUID="312c2c01-ab64-4c70-9844-407f2ef81d98" CreationDate="2019-03-04T18:12:21.927" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9226" RevisionGUID="04ab1b8f-c3e1-4ca8-8a41-8504e323f533" CreationDate="2019-03-04T19:26:44.807" UserId="3482" Text="I am hoping to translate the following from English to Latin: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;From Your Grace, I shall know no fear.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin structure however doesn't use 'shall' apparently. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would the most accurate translation into Latin look like?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28600" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9226" RevisionGUID="04ab1b8f-c3e1-4ca8-8a41-8504e323f533" CreationDate="2019-03-04T19:26:44.807" UserId="3482" Text="How to translate without verb form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28601" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9226" RevisionGUID="04ab1b8f-c3e1-4ca8-8a41-8504e323f533" CreationDate="2019-03-04T19:26:44.807" UserId="3482" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28602" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9225" RevisionGUID="3d7a52bc-a4fb-486c-a542-b89abb612a2f" CreationDate="2019-03-04T19:44:50.460" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9227" RevisionGUID="d7ba6ec9-0c04-4134-acbd-c10046173655" CreationDate="2019-03-04T20:23:52.900" UserId="406" Text="The trick here is, Latin has a lot of _morphology_ on the verbs: lots of ways that you can change the verb word to express a distinction. English doesn't, really: English verbs are marked as &quot;past&quot; (*walked*), &quot;non-past&quot; (*walk*), &quot;non-past with a single subject who's not the speaker or the listener&quot; (*walks*), and nothing else. So in English we have to use extra words to make other distinctions, such as &quot;will&quot; + &quot;non-past&quot; = &quot;future&quot; (*will walk*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case, &quot;shall&quot; is being used to give a future meaning. In Latin, you would change the verb word itself, instead of adding another word to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would translate your phrase somewhat literally as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ā tē, domine, nullum metum sciam.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; From you, lord, no fear shall I know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Your grace&quot; is somewhat difficult to translate since it's an idiom the Romans didn't use; literally it would be *grātia tua*, but that doesn't feel right to me. So I swapped it out for &quot;lord&quot;, a generic respectful title, but you could also use e.g. *rex*, &quot;king&quot;, or something else more specific." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9228" RevisionGUID="77471743-b02d-4b2f-be4b-cd1aaf2fd8be" CreationDate="2019-03-04T20:26:58.177" UserId="1694" Text="This is really an issue with Hebrew.  The Hebrew &quot;tenses&quot; do not map into Greek/Latin/English tenses in a straight-forward manner, and their uses even seem to vary depending on whether they're being used in prose or poetry.  So Jerome gives a sort of litteralist translation, but the English translations probably reflect the sense of the Hebrew better.  (I'm no expert, but I expect the English translators *are* experts.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9229" RevisionGUID="682c79c9-d4a6-4bf8-9551-d86e74f597f6" CreationDate="2019-03-04T21:47:07.460" UserId="406" Text="Nowadays, most Latinists learn the &quot;reconstructed classical&quot; pronunciation: an attempt at reconstructing the way Cicero, Caesar, or Vergil might have spoken in formal settings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems fairly clear that this *wasn't* how an everyday Roman would have spoken in the forum. For example, Catullus 84 wouldn't make sense if `/h/` was still pronounced in everyday vulgar speech. And later sound changes in Romance, like the loss of vowel length, probably didn't appear out of nowhere at the end of the Empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: what do we know about how an everyday pleb would have spoken on the streets of Rome, somewhere around the first century? [This question][1] is unanswered, which I take to mean we don't know enough to make a full recording of it, but scholars certainly must know *something* about this topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1201/how-did-latin-sound" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28606" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9229" RevisionGUID="682c79c9-d4a6-4bf8-9551-d86e74f597f6" CreationDate="2019-03-04T21:47:07.460" UserId="406" Text="What do we know about Vulgar Latin pronunciation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28607" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9229" RevisionGUID="682c79c9-d4a6-4bf8-9551-d86e74f597f6" CreationDate="2019-03-04T21:47:07.460" UserId="406" Text="|pronunciation|phonology|vulgar-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28608" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="7265" RevisionGUID="b328b255-4a1f-4349-b1ff-c4e0a2174fef" CreationDate="2019-03-04T21:48:41.983" UserId="9" Comment="105" />
  <row Id="28609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9221" RevisionGUID="fee766b1-1652-477c-86a4-01e3c4f0a8cf" CreationDate="2019-03-05T00:47:39.380" UserId="2389" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="To check a word's part of speech, you need to see which syntactic equivalent you can replace it with, whose part of speech you already know. Picking synoymous expressions is the easiest way: the synonyms of &quot;et&quot; the conjunction are &quot;atque&quot; and &quot;que&quot;, the synonyms of the adverbial one are &quot;etiam&quot;, &quot;item&quot;, &quot;quoque&quot;. Conjunctions couple independent structures of the same syntactic level, conjunctive adverbs turn the clause they couple into a dependent adverbial modifier. This adverbial modifier can be replaced with an **adverbial clause**, such as a dum-clause. Let's take some sentences:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Mārcus **et** Quīntus discvpulī sunt = Mārcus **ac** Quīntus discvpulī sunt = Mārcus discvpulus est **et** Quīntus discvpulus est.*&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - *Mārcus, **etiam** Quīntus, discvpulī sunt = Mārcus discvpulus est, **etiam** Quīntus = Mārcus discvpulus est **dum** Quīntus **item** discvupulus est.*  &#xD;&#xA;Here it's clear that the rightful place of the etiam-clause would be at the end of the sentence, and placing it right next to Mārcus instead of using the coordinate conjuncton &quot;et&quot; feels clumsy, as if you'd forgotten about Quīntus.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - *Mārcus dormit **et** Quīntus vigilat* ≠ *Mārcus dormit, **etiam** Quīntus vigilat.*  &#xD;&#xA;The latter makes Marcus also perform the action that Quintus is performing, equating *dormīre* with *vigilāre*, which makes the sentence incomprehensible. In proper grammatical terms I guess the verb in the etiam-clause would be right-dislocated from its rightful place as the top-level predicate with the subject Mārcus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Mārcus dormit. Quid? **Et** Quīntus? Hau crēdō! = **etiam** Quīntus dormit?!*  &#xD;&#xA;This contrasts with *&quot;atque Quīntus?&quot;*, which, only being a conjunction, serves as a logical transition &quot;but what about Quintus?&quot;, or, if we included the verb, *&quot;atque Quīntus dormit?&quot;* = &quot;whereas Quintus sleeps?&quot;, which makes no sense if the verb is the same, which is why it defaults to the &quot;what about&quot; meaning in its absence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now for some test examples from the L&amp;S entry for &quot;et&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  *tē enim jam appellō, **et** eā vōce, ut mē exaudīre possīs = ...**atque** eā vōce [id faciō = appellō]*  &#xD;&#xA;The verb is coordinate. *&quot;...etiam eā vōce, ut&quot;* would create an adverbial clause *&quot;tē appellō, **dum item** eā vōce appellō&quot;*, with the meaning *&quot;**nōn modo** hōc modō appellō, **sed etiam** eā vōce, ut exaudiās&quot;*, or even *&quot;nōn sōlum hāc vōce, sed etiam eā&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *advēnit, **et** nāvibu’ complēvit lītora = advēnit, **atque** complēvit ≠ advēnit, **etiam** complēvit*  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;etiam&quot; turns it from a temporal relation into a dry list of what somone did, and without a conjunction (&quot;atque etiam&quot;) feels especially abrupt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Ubi tunc erās? Rōmae. Vērum quid ad rem? **Et** aliī multī = **etiam/item** aliī multī = **dum** aliī multī **quoque** Rōmae erant.*  &#xD;&#xA;Because there's nothing for the noun phrase &quot;aliī multī&quot; to coordinate with in the sentence, &quot;et&quot; cannot be a conjunction. *&quot;**atque** aliī multī&quot;* would mark the end of the previous thought and create a new clause that transitions from the topic and which needs completion, something like &quot;and besides&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *ego vērō **et** in ipsā suffocātiōne nōn dēsiī = **etiam** in suffocātiōne = **dum** suffocor, **tamen**..*  &#xD;&#xA;Again, since *&quot;in ipsā suffocātiōne nōn dēsiī&quot;* cannot be coordinated with anything, &quot;atque&quot; in place of &quot;et&quot; would start a whole new clause. The fact that &quot;et&quot; can be reverse-rephrased with &quot;tamen&quot; makes it even more obvious that it's an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *cantus nōs nonnumquam **et** citāta modulātiō instigat = cantus **et** modulātiō nōs instigat ~ cantus nōs, **item** citāta modulātiō, instigat*, the latter = *cantus instigat, **dum etiam** modulātiō instigat*  &#xD;&#xA;This one is a matter of interpretation. In the absence of intonation cues indicating that *&quot;et citāta modulātiō&quot;* is a parenthetical adverbial clause, &quot;et&quot; is assumed to coordinate &quot;cantus&quot; with &quot;modulātiō&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know I might not be explaining this in the most clear and structured way, but if I had to draw a bottom line, it would be that assuming you get the gist of the sentence, there hardly ever arises a need to consciously determine which part of speech &quot;et&quot; is, as only one interpretation will make sense, and you will arrive at it subconsciously. There might well be cases where it's difficult to determine, but these are also the cases where it matters the least. Still, if the need does arise, I hope the examples above prove useful as a guide." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9230" RevisionGUID="aa4bb719-42ac-46b5-bdf3-3e601f7df422" CreationDate="2019-03-05T03:57:44.633" UserId="2389" Text="Because there can be only one predicate per clause and that is the verb *profitēbantur*, while *aggressī* is a participle, describing *senēs* and standing in for the clause *&quot;postquam aggressī sunt&quot;*: &quot;..when, having approached him, some old men started saying that they were...&quot;. To see the effect of two predicates per clause, consider En. &quot;suddenly a man approached asked me&quot;. The *cum* here [is inverse][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. In inverted clauses, the principal sentence determining the time of the clause, cum ( = quo tempore) having the force of a relative; cum with the indic. always following the principal sentence; never in oblique discourse [..] principal sentence often with jam, vix, vixdum, nondum, tantum quod, and commodum; cum often with subito, repente, sometimes interim, tamen, etiamtum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be reversed as *&quot;cum paene ascendisset, senēs eum aggressī profitēbantur&quot;*. I must say that considering the part about *lēgātōrum mōre* (&quot;in the guise of envoys&quot;) is already expressed, I struggle to imagine what is supposed to follow *profitēbantur*.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=cum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9230" RevisionGUID="eea19ced-ec7e-4b59-9b91-ce2cdca6e267" CreationDate="2019-03-05T18:52:03.993" UserId="2389" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Because there can be only one predicate per clause and that is the verb *profitēbantur*, while *aggressī* is a participle, describing *senēs* and standing in for the clause *&quot;postquam aggressī sunt&quot;*: &quot;..when, having approached him, some old men started saying that they were...&quot;. To see the effect of two predicates per clause, consider En. &quot;suddenly a man approached asked me&quot;. The *cum* here [is inverse][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2.E.4.** In inverted clauses, the principal sentence determining the time of the clause, cum ( = quo tempore) having the force of a relative; cum with the indic. always following the principal sentence; never in oblique discourse [..] principal sentence often with jam, vix, vixdum, nondum, tantum quod, and commodum; cum often with subito, repente, sometimes interim, tamen, etiamtum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be reversed as *&quot;cum paene ascendisset, senēs eum aggressī profitēbantur&quot;*. I must say that considering the part about *lēgātōrum mōre* (&quot;in the guise of envoys&quot;) is already expressed, I struggle to imagine what is supposed to follow *profitēbantur*.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=cum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28612" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2474" RevisionGUID="b9a8d113-551c-4b0d-9715-84ea4723a017" CreationDate="2019-03-05T19:53:27.450" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|vocabulary|greek|translation-check|aristotle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4928" RevisionGUID="668cd93c-1356-4c4d-85d7-727ce87e8773" CreationDate="2019-03-05T19:54:41.490" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="Description of wanted meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First thing will be described by me. After first description is completed second one gets done. Then I will be describing fourth thing but not before I spend at least some time describing third one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rem primam descripsero ante describam secundam ante quartam describens ero post fuero describens tertiam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Perhaps there should be future perfect used twice instead of once?&#xD;&#xA; 2. What other word could be more fitting than *post*?&#xD;&#xA; 3. How to say it better?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28614" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4928" RevisionGUID="668cd93c-1356-4c4d-85d7-727ce87e8773" CreationDate="2019-03-05T19:54:41.490" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|tenses|future-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9231" RevisionGUID="d24aa5b0-3c4e-4086-aac9-8878cbab17a6" CreationDate="2019-03-05T21:17:28.107" UserId="79" Text="The Romans wrote about history and recognized monuments from past eras both at home and abroad.&#xD;&#xA;But it occurs to me that I have never heard of them digging anything up &amp;mdash; I fail to recall anything that resembles archaeology done by the Romans or their contemporaries.&#xD;&#xA;Does the Roman literature mention any kind of archaeological excavations or comparable attempts to physically unveil history?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28616" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9231" RevisionGUID="d24aa5b0-3c4e-4086-aac9-8878cbab17a6" CreationDate="2019-03-05T21:17:28.107" UserId="79" Text="Did the Romans mention any excavations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28617" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9231" RevisionGUID="d24aa5b0-3c4e-4086-aac9-8878cbab17a6" CreationDate="2019-03-05T21:17:28.107" UserId="79" Text="|history|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="ccfd179c-cc6c-4453-97e8-b36d708f0448" CreationDate="2019-03-05T23:36:07.450" UserId="-1" Comment="clarification of guideline (Johnny K, March 6th 2019)" Text="I'm not sure this covers all relevant ideas, so any addition/clarification is appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Four ideas that can help you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Regarding logics as to certain types of nouns being predictably neuter by semantics alone, the main rule is... **genders are arbitrary**.&#xD;&#xA; * It is not completely random: women are feminine and men are masculine, but I'd trust grammar and memory first. [Other languages have a stronger correspondence between grammatical gender and meaning][5], like [Defaka][6] from Nigeria. &#xD;&#xA; * *Things* tend to be neuter, yet endings usually give better clues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In view of that, the next best thing you can do is to pay attention to syntax and etymology: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. There is a number of rules of thumb for **declension genders** you may or may not be aware of, that can be helpful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1st decl. nouns are mostly feminine (with the notable exception of occupations like *poeta*, *agricola*, *nauta*, among other exceptions).&#xD;&#xA;* 2nd decl. nouns are mostly masculine or **neuter** (with exceptions like trees, such as *ficus*, fig tree).&#xD;&#xA;* 3rd decl. nouns may be **either gender**, but there is a number of lesser rules depending on endings. For example, nouns ending in -men (e.g. *flumen*) are neuter [thanks to Colin Fine], though there is the odd exception (putamen (peel) can be feminine).&#xD;&#xA;* 4th decl. nouns are mainly masculine (if ending in -us) and **neuter** (those in -u).&#xD;&#xA;* 5th decl. nouns are nearly all feminine (with the notable exception of dies that occurs as both m. and f., and compounds like meridies).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; See [this book][1] for more detailed (yet not exhaustive) rules. You can navigate the pages with the &lt; and &gt; buttons in the top-left corner. The rules include etymological derivations driving gender, like the one for -men/-minis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Cases** themselves give some clues too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Neuter nouns do **not change between nominative, vocative and accusative** (e.g. templum). Neither in singular or plural. Seemingly [there is absolutely no exception][2] to this rule.&#xD;&#xA;* Most neuter nouns and adjectives form **plurals in -a** (including -ia, -ua; I think this is the case of all 2nd declension neuter nouns, and most if not all of those belonging to 3rd and 4th declension). Examples: principia (2nd), corpora (3rd), cornua (4th).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Adjectives** are also important clues, since some of them are more predictable and must agree in gender with nouns:&#xD;&#xA; * **Rules for neuter nouns apply to adjectives** too: Not changing in voc. and acc., and forming plurals in -a.&#xD;&#xA; * Many adjectives follow the paradigm of bonus/-a/**-um** (sometimes called 1st/2nd declension adjectives).&#xD;&#xA; * **3rd declension** adjectives can either distinguish **all three genders** (e.g. *acer, acris, acre*), contrast m. and f. against **n.** (*levis, leve*), or make no distinction (*atrox*). In the first two cases, you still have the same clues (pl. in -a, acc.=nom.). Most of the neuter versions of 3rd decl. adjectives [**form sing. nom. and acc. in -e**][3].&#xD;&#xA; * **Comparatives** in -ior are also 3rd declension and form the **neuter in -ius**. Example: [prolixior][4] (m. and f.), prolixius (n.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_New_Latin_Primer_(Postgate).djvu/130&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/18/accusative-equals-nominative-for-neuter-words-how-universal-is-this-and-why&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cultus.hk/latin_lessons/declension/adj_3.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prolixior&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender#Gender_assignment&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defaka_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28619" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="ccfd179c-cc6c-4453-97e8-b36d708f0448" CreationDate="2019-03-05T23:36:07.450" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by -1 edit id of 304" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="88600823-2c21-4884-ab2d-290405ee4c15" CreationDate="2019-03-05T23:36:07.450" UserId="469" Comment="clarification of guideline (Johnny K, March 6th 2019)" Text="I'm not sure this covers all relevant ideas, so any addition/clarification is appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Four ideas that can help you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Regarding logics as to certain types of nouns being predictably neuter by semantics alone, the main rule is... **genders are arbitrary**.&#xD;&#xA; * It is not completely random: women are feminine and men are masculine, but I'd trust grammar and memory first. [Other languages have a stronger correspondence between grammatical gender and meaning][5], like [Defaka][6] from Nigeria. &#xD;&#xA; * *Things* tend to be neuter, yet endings usually give better clues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In view of that, the next best thing you can do is to pay attention to syntax and etymology: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. There is a number of rules of thumb for **declension genders** you may or may not be aware of, that can be helpful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1st decl. nouns are mostly feminine (with the notable exception of occupations like *poeta*, *agricola*, *nauta*, among other exceptions).&#xD;&#xA;* 2nd decl. nouns are mostly masculine or **neuter** (with exceptions like trees, such as *ficus*, fig tree).&#xD;&#xA;* 3rd decl. nouns may be **either gender**, but there is a number of lesser rules depending on endings. For example, most nouns ending in -men (e.g. *flumen*) are neuter [thanks to Colin Fine].&#xD;&#xA;* 4th decl. nouns are mainly masculine (if ending in -us) and **neuter** (those in -u).&#xD;&#xA;* 5th decl. nouns are nearly all feminine (with the notable exception of dies that occurs as both m. and f., and compounds like meridies).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; See [this book][1] for more detailed (yet not exhaustive) rules. You can navigate the pages with the &lt; and &gt; buttons in the top-left corner. The rules include etymological derivations driving gender, like the one for -men/-minis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Cases** themselves give some clues too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Neuter nouns do **not change between nominative, vocative and accusative** (e.g. templum). Neither in singular or plural. Seemingly [there is absolutely no exception][2] to this rule.&#xD;&#xA;* Most neuter nouns and adjectives form **plurals in -a** (including -ia, -ua; I think this is the case of all 2nd declension neuter nouns, and most if not all of those belonging to 3rd and 4th declension). Examples: principia (2nd), corpora (3rd), cornua (4th).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Adjectives** are also important clues, since some of them are more predictable and must agree in gender with nouns:&#xD;&#xA; * **Rules for neuter nouns apply to adjectives** too: Not changing in voc. and acc., and forming plurals in -a.&#xD;&#xA; * Many adjectives follow the paradigm of bonus/-a/**-um** (sometimes called 1st/2nd declension adjectives).&#xD;&#xA; * **3rd declension** adjectives can either distinguish **all three genders** (e.g. *acer, acris, acre*), contrast m. and f. against **n.** (*levis, leve*), or make no distinction (*atrox*). In the first two cases, you still have the same clues (pl. in -a, acc.=nom.). Most of the neuter versions of 3rd decl. adjectives [**form sing. nom. and acc. in -e**][3].&#xD;&#xA; * **Comparatives** in -ior are also 3rd declension and form the **neuter in -ius**. Example: [prolixior][4] (m. and f.), prolixius (n.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_New_Latin_Primer_(Postgate).djvu/130&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/18/accusative-equals-nominative-for-neuter-words-how-universal-is-this-and-why&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cultus.hk/latin_lessons/declension/adj_3.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prolixior&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender#Gender_assignment&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defaka_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9232" RevisionGUID="27b04679-ff30-4adc-a6fc-3713bb190b5a" CreationDate="2019-03-05T23:55:54.733" UserId="3485" Text="&quot;Memento Mori&quot; means &quot;Remember you will die&quot;, however, it comes from a Roman Imperial custom and, only much later, became a Christian motto with a different meaning and goal.&#xD;&#xA;In early Imperial Rome when an emperor or General, would return to Rome after a successful campaign (military or political) he would cruise the streets on a chariot surrounded with an ecstatic applauding crowd. Behind him, on the chariot, a man was constantly whispering him: &quot;Memento Mori&quot;.  This was a rule and not a random event. Its reason: remember the hero that his life was just like everyone else, and to maintain the current success he had to be humble, honest and useful to the people of Rome and the empire." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28623" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2229" RevisionGUID="fd7ee7fe-9ba8-4e32-8cb8-ddc5a6e3b32b" CreationDate="2019-03-06T07:51:09.773" UserId="79" Comment="107" />
  <row Id="28624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9233" RevisionGUID="adc5e7af-a9d9-4f08-ba4f-c51ece2b7d19" CreationDate="2019-03-06T12:53:27.090" UserId="3486" Text="I want to write a motto for self-control: Don't be a slave!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate translated that to : &quot;Ne fiat servus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know whether that is correct, or whether I should write &quot;servis&quot; insead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, What would be a better translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28625" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9233" RevisionGUID="adc5e7af-a9d9-4f08-ba4f-c51ece2b7d19" CreationDate="2019-03-06T12:53:27.090" UserId="3486" Text="How to say &quot;Do not be ...&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28626" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9233" RevisionGUID="adc5e7af-a9d9-4f08-ba4f-c51ece2b7d19" CreationDate="2019-03-06T12:53:27.090" UserId="3486" Text="|translation|imperative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9233" RevisionGUID="eeb44cd7-c5f4-4316-b20e-f56d151ecb67" CreationDate="2019-03-06T13:14:35.037" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I want to write a motto for self-control: Don't be a slave!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate translated that to: &quot;Ne fiat servus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know whether that is correct, or whether I should write &quot;servis&quot; insead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, What would be a better translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28628" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9233" RevisionGUID="eeb44cd7-c5f4-4316-b20e-f56d151ecb67" CreationDate="2019-03-06T13:14:35.037" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|imperative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9234" RevisionGUID="23ebe56c-4b43-48a9-ba85-ed63e9a40a6f" CreationDate="2019-03-06T13:18:18.863" UserId="79" Text="First of all, [Google Translate is horrible with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79) and should not be trusted at all.&#xD;&#xA;It fails here, too.&#xD;&#xA;I would translate &quot;Ne fiat servus&quot; as &quot;May he not become a slave&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is a reasonable wish for a third party, but not what you wanted to express.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a simple way to say &quot;don't X&quot; in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;just say *noli X*, where *X* is an infinitive form of a verb.&#xD;&#xA;The verb &quot;to be&quot; is *esse*, so &quot;don't be&quot; would be *noli esse*.&#xD;&#xA;Then we need to add the slave, and it should be in the singular nominative form *servus*.&#xD;&#xA;(*Servis* would be plural dative of ablative.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads to:&#xD;&#xA;***Noli esse servus.***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9235" RevisionGUID="652b8c0a-0330-42cf-be34-9f9941a64e38" CreationDate="2019-03-06T21:37:30.380" UserId="406" Text="Sumelic has answered this question wonderfully, but I wanted to add a lovely bit of folk etymology I came across.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Títan_ heitir sól, en þaðan af er minkat þat nafn, er _títúlus_ er á Látínu. Títull, kveðum ver, þat er sem lítil sól sé, því at svá sem sól lýsir, þar er áðr var myrkt, þá lýsir svá títull bók, ef fyrir er ritinn…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Sun is called _Titan_, and the diminutive of this name is _titulus_ in Latin. So we say the _titulus_ is like a little sun, for just as the sun illuminates things that were dark, the _titulus_ (title) illuminates a book, when it is written at the beginning…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is from the _First Grammatical Treatise_, written around the 12th century in Iceland. And while it's not a good authority on actual etymology, it does show what educated grammarians thought about it in the Middle Ages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9236" RevisionGUID="ab086ab1-ee4e-463b-a673-db3453b8ecbb" CreationDate="2019-03-06T23:49:57.480" UserId="406" Text="I've heard stories of Roman legions preparing for a battle by praying to the enemies' gods, offering them worship back in Rome if they'll switch sides and help the Romans win. This was one of the ways they reinforced the Pax Deōrum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I don't know any primary sources talking about this practice. Do we have any contemporary accounts of the Romans doing this, or attestations of deities &quot;converted&quot; in this way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28632" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9236" RevisionGUID="ab086ab1-ee4e-463b-a673-db3453b8ecbb" CreationDate="2019-03-06T23:49:57.480" UserId="406" Text="Do the Romans write about &quot;converting&quot; foreign gods?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28633" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9236" RevisionGUID="ab086ab1-ee4e-463b-a673-db3453b8ecbb" CreationDate="2019-03-06T23:49:57.480" UserId="406" Text="|passage-request|religio|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9189" RevisionGUID="763e7f98-2852-40c3-93e6-a56b919af655" CreationDate="2019-03-07T04:31:32.803" UserId="9" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="It looks like the etymology of *titulus* is unclear. The Lewis and Short suggestion that it is related to *τίνω* seems a bit difficult (unless it was borrowed from some Greek form), as Wiktionary indicates that the initial consonant of *[τίνω](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%BD%CF%89)* is thought to have come from a PIE labiovelar *kʷ. The change of *kʷ to /t/ before /i/ is specific to certain dialects of Greek; we wouldn't see it in a native Latin word (compare Latin *quis* vs. Attic Greek *τίς*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Etruscan?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/titulus) says &quot;Most likely from Etruscan&quot;, citing [Ostler, *Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin* (2007), p. 43](https://books.google.com/books?id=YpOeQjTW1E0C&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form at least seems to be consistent with an Etruscan origin, since the phonemes /t/, /i/, /u/ and /l/ all existed in Etruscan. But the suggestion that *titulus* is Etruscan seems to be based on rather slim evidence. Ostler describes his Appendix II (&quot;Etruscan Borrowings in Latin&quot;) as a &quot;liberal list, supplementing the list of clearly attested borrowings on the assumption that early words that have no Italic etymology are likely to be Etruscan, especially if they have recognizable Etruscan word endings (*-eus, -enna, -erna, -īna, -issa, -ō, -ulus, -urnum*)&quot;, and notes that &quot;hardly any of these words can be identified in Etruscan texts&quot; (p. 323).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ostler cites Ernout 1930 as a source that describes supposedly characteristic features of &quot;Etruscan Latin&quot;, such as the list of endings that Ostler gives (*Ad Infinitum,* p. 334). I have found some later literature that critiques some of Ernout's criteria (Giuliano Bonfante, 1985,  &quot;[Etruscan Words in Latin][1]&quot;), but Bonfante doesn't seem to discuss *titulus* or any other words ending in *-ulus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*-ulus* as an Etruscan word ending?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some of the other *-ulus* words from Ostler's Appendix II:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - catulus 'puppy', botulus* 'black pudding', mitulus [sic]† 'mussel', situlus 'basket', populus 'people', tutulus 'priest's cap'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see a clear meaning associated with the alleged Etruscan ending *-ulus.* (Ostler's list also includes words ending in *-ula,* which I haven't reproduced here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*According to Bonfante, borrowings from Etruscan should not be expected to have /b/, or any other voiced plosive. Ostler doesn't seem to have used this criterion when compiling his list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;†The actual form seems to have been mītŭlus, with a long vowel in the first syllable. [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmitulus) indicate that it is in some way from Greek μύτυλος. (A Greek origin doesn't exclude the possibility of Etruscan as an intermediate source of the word.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Indo-European?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be no obvious candidate for an Indo-European etymon. András Cser points out that C&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;VC&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;, with the same consonant before and after the vowel, is an uncharacteristic pattern for the start of a PIE root, and says that according to Walde and Hoffmann (1956 s.v.), the form *titulus* might be the result of reduplication (p.181, &quot;[Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot;, 2016).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Stilus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suggestion that luchonacho found of a relationship between *titulus* and *stilus* seemed intriguing to me, so I wanted to add some comments about that (without trying to copy luchonacho's answer, or take credit for finding Kennedy's article).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *stilus* actually also seems to have a somewhat unclear/disputed etymology. The suggestion that it is related to *titulus* seems to rely on the phenomenon of so-called &quot;[s mobile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_s-mobile)&quot;, which affects Indo-European roots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's not obvious whether *stilus* is based on an Indo-European root. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stilus#Latin) and [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=stilus) both suggest that *stilus* is related to Greek *στίζω.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- De Vaan says &quot;it is uncertain whether Latin *stilus, stimulus* and *stīva* all belong together, but one might see a root *sti-* 'sharp object' in them. It has been argued that they contain the core of the root *\*stig-* 'to sting' (see s.v. *stinguō*), the *-g-* of which would be a root enlargement; although this is not completely impossible, there are no positive indications ēra-* [m.] 'mountain-top' &lt; *\*(s)te/oir/lo-*, if to *stilus*. But since the root cannot be determined, this etymology remains gratuitous.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ostler says *stilus* &quot;has no etymology and has also been proposed as a loan from Etruscan&quot; (p. 43; he cites a source that I unfortunately can't see because page 335 of the book is not available for me on Google Books). Although at first glance, both words coming from Etruscan might seem to support the case for a relationship, I actually think that would make a connection harder to justify. As far as I know, the &quot;s-mobile&quot; phenomenon would not be expected to affect an Etruscan root, and I don't think word-initial partial reduplication is a known feature of the Etruscan language either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00437956.1985.11435872" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9189" RevisionGUID="26d4e5d3-c72c-4908-9552-2342c1878ef9" CreationDate="2019-03-07T04:36:46.473" UserId="9" Comment="fixed mangled quotation" Text="It looks like the etymology of *titulus* is unclear. The Lewis and Short suggestion that it is related to *τίνω* seems a bit hard to accept (unless *titulus* was borrowed at some point from some Greek form), as Wiktionary indicates that the initial consonant of *[τίνω](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%BD%CF%89)* is thought to have come from a PIE labiovelar *kʷ. The change of *kʷ to /t/ before /i/ is specific to certain dialects of Greek; we wouldn't see it in a native Latin word (compare Latin *quis* vs. Attic Greek *τίς*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Etruscan?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/titulus) says &quot;Most likely from Etruscan&quot;, citing [Ostler, *Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin* (2007), p. 43](https://books.google.com/books?id=YpOeQjTW1E0C&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form at least seems to be consistent with an Etruscan origin, since the phonemes /t/, /i/, /u/ and /l/ all existed in Etruscan. But the suggestion that *titulus* is Etruscan seems to be based on rather slim evidence. Ostler describes his Appendix II (&quot;Etruscan Borrowings in Latin&quot;) as a &quot;liberal list, supplementing the list of clearly attested borrowings on the assumption that early words that have no Italic etymology are likely to be Etruscan, especially if they have recognizable Etruscan word endings (*-eus, -enna, -erna, -īna, -issa, -ō, -ulus, -urnum*)&quot;, and notes that &quot;hardly any of these words can be identified in Etruscan texts&quot; (p. 323).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ostler cites Ernout 1930 as a source that describes supposedly characteristic features of &quot;Etruscan Latin&quot;, such as the list of endings that Ostler gives (*Ad Infinitum,* p. 334). I have found some later literature that critiques some of Ernout's criteria (Giuliano Bonfante, 1985,  &quot;[Etruscan Words in Latin][1]&quot;), but Bonfante doesn't seem to discuss *titulus* or any other words ending in *-ulus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*-ulus* as an Etruscan word ending?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some of the other *-ulus* words from Ostler's Appendix II:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - catulus 'puppy', botulus* 'black pudding', mitulus [sic]† 'mussel', situlus 'basket', populus 'people', tutulus 'priest's cap'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see a clear meaning associated with the alleged Etruscan ending *-ulus.* (Ostler's list also includes words ending in *-ula,* which I haven't reproduced here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*According to Bonfante, borrowings from Etruscan should not be expected to have /b/, or any other voiced plosive. Ostler doesn't seem to have used this criterion when compiling his list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;†The actual form seems to have been mītŭlus, with a long vowel in the first syllable. [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmitulus) indicate that it is in some way from Greek μύτυλος. (A Greek origin doesn't exclude the possibility of Etruscan as an intermediate source of the word.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Indo-European?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be no obvious candidate for an Indo-European etymon. András Cser points out that C&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;VC&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;, with the same consonant before and after the vowel, is an uncharacteristic pattern for the start of a PIE root, and says that according to Walde and Hoffmann (1956 s.v.), the form *titulus* might be the result of reduplication (p.181, &quot;[Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot;, 2016).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Stilus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suggestion that luchonacho found of a relationship between *titulus* and *stilus* seemed intriguing to me, so I wanted to add some comments about that (without trying to copy luchonacho's answer, or take credit for finding Kennedy's article).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *stilus* actually also seems to have a somewhat unclear/disputed etymology. The suggestion that it is related to *titulus* seems to rely largely on the phenomenon of so-called &quot;[s mobile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_s-mobile)&quot;, which affects Indo-European roots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's not obvious whether *stilus* is based on an Indo-European root. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stilus#Latin) and [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=stilus) both suggest that *stilus* is related to Greek *στίζω.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- De Vaan says &quot;it is uncertain whether Latin *stilus, stimulus* and *stīva* all belong together, but one might see a root *sti-* 'sharp object' in them. It has been argued that they contain the core of the root *\*stig-* 'to sting' (see s.v. *stinguō*), the *-g-* of which would be a root enlargement; although this is not completely impossible, there are no positive indications in this direction. Another possible cognate might be Av. *staēra-, taēra-* [m.] 'mountain-top' &lt; *\*(s)te/oir/lo-*, if to *stilus*. But since the root cannot be determined, this etymology remains gratuitous.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ostler says *stilus* &quot;has no etymology and has also been proposed as a loan from Etruscan&quot; (p. 43; he cites a source that I unfortunately can't see because page 335 of the book is not available for me on Google Books). Although at first glance, both words coming from Etruscan might seem to support the case for a relationship, I actually think that would make a connection harder to justify. As far as I know, the &quot;s-mobile&quot; phenomenon would not be expected to affect an Etruscan root, and I don't think word-initial partial reduplication is a known feature of the Etruscan language either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00437956.1985.11435872" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9234" RevisionGUID="e700afbb-e1dc-4ce5-873b-7b05c3c69338" CreationDate="2019-03-07T07:27:03.130" UserId="79" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="First of all, [Google Translate is horrible with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79) and should not be trusted at all.&#xD;&#xA;It fails here, too.&#xD;&#xA;I would translate &quot;Ne fiat servus&quot; as &quot;May he not become a slave&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is a reasonable wish for a third party, but not what you wanted to express.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a simple way to say &quot;don't X&quot; in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;just say *noli X*, where *X* is an infinitive form of a verb.&#xD;&#xA;The verb &quot;to be&quot; is *esse*, so &quot;don't be&quot; would be *noli esse*.&#xD;&#xA;Then we need to add the slave, and it should be in the singular nominative form *servus*.&#xD;&#xA;(*Servis* would be plural dative of ablative.)&#xD;&#xA;This construction is attested in classical Latin; [see this question for details](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6750/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads to:&#xD;&#xA;***Noli esse servus.***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9237" RevisionGUID="01ecca78-0a93-43ee-846d-9d541f5bac5c" CreationDate="2019-03-07T16:39:58.140" UserId="3489" Text="Source: [Memento Explained][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Memento mori translates to &quot;*remember you must die*&quot;. It is a medieval Latin Christian theory that focuses reflections on death not as a morbid practice but as an inspiration to truly live.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The philosophy intends its practitioners to live for a cause rather than in the pursuit of earthly goods as everything is temporary. It is also apt for the movie as the protagonist’s main reason for living is to avenge his wife and all his memories are temporary, allowing him to adopt any purpose he wants as long as it is based around vendetta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Memento, the word, also means – “an object kept as a reminder of a person or event”. In the movie of Memento, the protagonist uses a series of written notes, Polaroid photos, and tattoos to constantly remind himself of his wife, the new stories he accrues, the people he meets and what his next step should be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://squinoo.com/momento-explained/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9238" RevisionGUID="ec6e0491-9efe-4a4b-9cb1-2d35f3cf8631" CreationDate="2019-03-07T17:42:34.850" UserId="79" Text="I recently encountered a text written in new Latin in Finland using the form *axeos*.&#xD;&#xA;From context it was clear that it was a genitive, and it looks just like the Greek genitive of words like *polis*.&#xD;&#xA;But the word *axis* has also a Latin style genitive *axis*, and L&amp;S mentions it as the only genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When do genitives like *axeos* appear in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I assume they only appear in Greek loans where nominative and genitive would look alike, ending in *-is*.&#xD;&#xA;Is this form restricted to some contexts, eras, words, or authors?&#xD;&#xA;Is only used when ambiguity between nominative and genitive would be an issue?&#xD;&#xA;I understand the form but, frankly, I have no idea when to expect it.&#xD;&#xA;Any insight is welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28639" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9238" RevisionGUID="ec6e0491-9efe-4a4b-9cb1-2d35f3cf8631" CreationDate="2019-03-07T17:42:34.850" UserId="79" Text="Genitives like &quot;axeos&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28640" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9238" RevisionGUID="ec6e0491-9efe-4a4b-9cb1-2d35f3cf8631" CreationDate="2019-03-07T17:42:34.850" UserId="79" Text="|greek|morphology|declension|noun|third-declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9239" RevisionGUID="3f128c4d-3f10-4671-93b9-c0983b6344cf" CreationDate="2019-03-07T18:54:42.183" UserId="406" Text="For what it's worth, I think this was simply a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek nouns ending in *-is* are generally third-declension *i*-stems, like *póli-s*. In Attic, these nouns tend to show an *-i-* in some forms and an *-ei-* in others, with no particular logic that I've ever learned; quantitative metathesis and contraction then make the forms even less predictable. The genitive singular of *póli-s*, for example, shifted from *_póli-os_ to *_poléi-os_ to *póle-ōs*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since these forms are so unpredictable, they have to be memorized rather than derived; I imagine Greek-speakers just learned that *-is* went to *-eōs* in the genitive, as a special rule, treating *pól-* as the stem and *-eōs* as the ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This writer seems to have then brought it into Latin as a sort of hypercorrection: *axis* is a native Latin word that never came through Greek (the Greek cognate is *áxōn*, with a regular genitive *áxon-os*), and Latin never had the vowel alternations and shifts that created *póleōs*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9238" RevisionGUID="f29c24a4-8ef8-4456-83ff-389cce2573f9" CreationDate="2019-03-07T20:31:46.843" UserId="79" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="I recently encountered a text written in Latin in Finland about two centuries ago using the form *axeos*.&#xD;&#xA;From context it was clear that it was a genitive, and it looks just like the Greek genitive of words like *polis*.&#xD;&#xA;But the word *axis* has also a Latin style genitive *axis*, and L&amp;S mentions it as the only genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When do genitives like *axeos* appear in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I assume they only appear in (perceived) Greek loans where nominative and genitive would look alike, ending in *-is*.&#xD;&#xA;Is this form restricted to some contexts, eras, words, or authors?&#xD;&#xA;Is only used when ambiguity between nominative and genitive would be an issue?&#xD;&#xA;I understand the form but, frankly, I have no idea when to expect it.&#xD;&#xA;Any insight is welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28643" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9238" RevisionGUID="9acc6b6e-3587-4b9d-8964-cd89e759c698" CreationDate="2019-03-07T22:13:10.327" />
  <row Id="28644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9240" RevisionGUID="1bef9ad6-67f7-4433-a140-af6ff2f337d0" CreationDate="2019-03-08T00:46:19.363" UserId="867" Text="There is reference in Plutarch's *Moralia: the Genius of Socrates* to the deliberate opening of a tomb.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therein they discovered: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;a bronze bracelet of no great size and two pottery urns containing&#xD;&#xA;   earth which had by then, through the passage of time, become a&#xD;&#xA;   petrified and solid mass&quot; &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - and a bronze tablet &quot;with a long inscription of such amazing&#xD;&#xA;   antiquity that nothing could be made of it ... but the characters had&#xD;&#xA;   a peculiar and foreign conformation, greatly resembling that of&#xD;&#xA;   Egyptian writing.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - They also discovered that the body of the original occupant had been&#xD;&#xA;   replaced by a stone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the opening of the tomb appears to have been deliberate, it was with the intention of removing the remains to Sparta (from Boeotia), rather than to learn something about history.  But I think the bronze tablet, with its &quot;inscription of such amazing antiquity&quot;, which was passed on to Egyptian authorities for study and hopefully translation, makes this a case of 'accidental archaeology'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that Plutarch wrote in Greek but he was a Roman citizen, undoubtedly read by (educated) Romans, and you seemed open to accounts of &quot;contemporaries&quot;, so I hope this passes muster!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passage can be found at: Plutarch, *Moralia: the Genius of Socrates*, 577D-578B.  The translation I have used is that of Phillip H. de Lacy and Benedict Einarson (1959).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9241" RevisionGUID="d1030218-73b0-4b37-a1af-8451595bdcac" CreationDate="2019-03-08T06:06:15.127" UserId="867" Text="Macrobius gives the form of a spell (an *evocatio*) designed to call forth the gods of an enemy city before attacking it, inviting them to Rome:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *si deus, si dea est, cui populus civitasque Carthaginiensis   &#xD;&#xA;est in tutela, teque maxime, ille qui urbis   &#xD;&#xA;huius populique tutelam recepisti, precor venerorque   &#xD;&#xA;veniamquea vobis peto ut vos populum civitatemque   &#xD;&#xA;Carthaginiensem deseratis, loca templa   &#xD;&#xA;sacra urbemque eorum relinquatis, absque his abeatis ...   &#xD;&#xA;... propitiique Romam ad  &#xD;&#xA;me meosque veniatis, nostraque vobis loca templa   &#xD;&#xA;sacra urbs acceptior probatiorque sit ...*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I call upon the one in whose protection are the people and community&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of Carthage, whether it be a god or a goddess, and upon you above all,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; who have undertaken to protect this city and people, and ask you all&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for your favour: may you all desert the people and community of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carthage, leave their sacred places, temples, and city, and depart&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from them ... and come to Rome, to me and my people, and may our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sacred places, temples, city be more acceptable and approved ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Saturnalia*, 3.9.7 ff (trans. Robert A. Kaster)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9241" RevisionGUID="a4677b3e-7390-451c-9bea-22c78d5032f9" CreationDate="2019-03-08T06:21:41.410" UserId="867" Comment="added 616 characters in body" Text="Macrobius gives the form of a spell (an *evocatio*) designed to call forth the gods of an enemy city before attacking it, inviting them to Rome:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *si deus, si dea est, cui populus civitasque Carthaginiensis   &#xD;&#xA;est in tutela, teque maxime, ille qui urbis   &#xD;&#xA;huius populique tutelam recepisti, precor venerorque   &#xD;&#xA;veniamquea vobis peto ut vos populum civitatemque   &#xD;&#xA;Carthaginiensem deseratis, loca templa   &#xD;&#xA;sacra urbemque eorum relinquatis, absque his abeatis ...   &#xD;&#xA;... propitiique Romam ad  &#xD;&#xA;me meosque veniatis, nostraque vobis loca templa   &#xD;&#xA;sacra urbs acceptior probatiorque sit ...*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I call upon the one in whose protection are the people and community&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of Carthage, whether it be a god or a goddess, and upon you above all,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; who have undertaken to protect this city and people, and ask you all&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for your favour: may you all desert the people and community of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carthage, leave their sacred places, temples, and city, and depart&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from them ... and come to Rome, to me and my people, and may our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sacred places, temples, city be more acceptable and approved ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Saturnalia*, 3.9.7 ff (trans. Robert A. Kaster)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macrobius earlier clarifies the reasoning behind this tactic - the Romans believed either that a city could not be taken without the local gods first departing, or that it was against divine law to take a city in which its gods still resided (the existence and function of said gods being a given either way).  To this end, he continues, the Romans tried to keep the name of their city and its tutelary god a secret from their enemies (see 3.9.2-3).  As a side note, this then is less a case of 'conversion' (or *interpretatio romana*), and more a sincere piety that extended to any and all gods encountered.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9241" RevisionGUID="7101fc6e-8d60-4b81-894e-1f09dd429ab2" CreationDate="2019-03-08T06:30:59.283" UserId="867" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Macrobius gives the form of a spell (an *evocatio*) designed to call forth the gods of an enemy city before attacking it, inviting them to Rome:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *si deus, si dea est, cui populus civitasque Carthaginiensis   &#xD;&#xA;est in tutela, teque maxime, ille qui urbis   &#xD;&#xA;huius populique tutelam recepisti, precor venerorque   &#xD;&#xA;veniamquea vobis peto ut vos populum civitatemque   &#xD;&#xA;Carthaginiensem deseratis, loca templa   &#xD;&#xA;sacra urbemque eorum relinquatis, absque his abeatis ...   &#xD;&#xA;... propitiique Romam ad  &#xD;&#xA;me meosque veniatis, nostraque vobis loca templa   &#xD;&#xA;sacra urbs acceptior probatiorque sit ...*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I call upon the one in whose protection are the people and community&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of Carthage, whether it be a god or a goddess, and upon you above all,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; who have undertaken to protect this city and people, and ask you all&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for your favour: may you all desert the people and community of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carthage, leave their sacred places, temples, and city, and depart&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from them ... and come to Rome, to me and my people, and may our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sacred places, temples, city be more acceptable and approved ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Saturnalia*, 3.9.7 ff (trans. Robert A. Kaster)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macrobius earlier clarifies the reasoning behind this tactic - the Romans believed either that a city could not be taken without the local gods first departing, or that it was against divine law to take a city in which its gods still resided (the existence and function of said gods being a given either way).  To this end, he continues, the Romans tried to keep the Latin name of their city and its tutelary god a secret from their enemies (see 3.9.2-3).  As a side note, this then is less a case of 'conversion' (or *interpretatio romana*), and more a sincere piety that extended to any and all gods encountered.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28648" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2474" RevisionGUID="eff3d9f4-414c-409b-af2b-fa85ed1de1ec" CreationDate="2019-03-08T11:46:40.857" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|greek|translation-check|aristotle|greek-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9242" RevisionGUID="00d0825e-5ea0-4f9a-ae7f-137882b85716" CreationDate="2019-03-08T19:17:22.583" UserId="3494" Text="Would you please translate the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;‘forward, always forward’ and ‘what’s behind us is behind us’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28650" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9242" RevisionGUID="00d0825e-5ea0-4f9a-ae7f-137882b85716" CreationDate="2019-03-08T19:17:22.583" UserId="3494" Text="please translate, ‘forward, always forward’. and ‘what’s behind us is behind us’. thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28651" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9242" RevisionGUID="00d0825e-5ea0-4f9a-ae7f-137882b85716" CreationDate="2019-03-08T19:17:22.583" UserId="3494" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9243" RevisionGUID="51c87a70-0a85-4e29-a1d2-0e2ed8e96059" CreationDate="2019-03-08T19:20:13.437" UserId="406" Text="*Vulgus* &quot;crowd, mob, common people&quot; is a neuter second-declension noun. But unlike most second-declension neuters, it ends in *-us*, like a masculine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did this happen? Is there an etymological reason why *vulgus* got an *-us* ending while so many other neuters got *-um*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28653" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9243" RevisionGUID="51c87a70-0a85-4e29-a1d2-0e2ed8e96059" CreationDate="2019-03-08T19:20:13.437" UserId="406" Text="How did vulgus get its ending?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28654" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9243" RevisionGUID="51c87a70-0a85-4e29-a1d2-0e2ed8e96059" CreationDate="2019-03-08T19:20:13.437" UserId="406" Text="|etymology|declension|neuter|second-declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9244" RevisionGUID="968fec8a-aa45-40f0-af31-8144332aadca" CreationDate="2019-03-09T07:51:25.037" UserId="9" Text="I don't think that there are any rules about word-internal vowel contraction in Latin that are clear and simple enough to be useful. Contractions (or elisions, which I will consider to be a type of contraction) occurred at various times in various words, but they only contexts where I think contraction might be considered a synchronically regular and productive process are the contexts where it is easiest to make the argument that something else is happening instead (e.g. allomorphy, or some kind of morphemic alteration). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And on the other hand, the clearest examples of plain phonological contraction that I can think of are not regular/productive patterns. We see contraction of **ĕ** with a preceding vowel (to form a long vowel with the quality of the first vowel) in various prefixed words derived from the verb *emō*, such as *dēmō, cōmō, prōmō, sūmō*. The coexistence of *cōmō* and *cŏĕmō* (among other words starting in [ko.e]) indicates that contraction of o-e to [o:] did not always occur in prefixed words. We see a similar contraction in *cōgō* from *co- + agō*, and the Lewis and Short entry for *[cooperio][1]* mentions the existence of a &quot;contr. form coperiunt&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the negative slant of this answer as a whole, I guess I'll finish by explaining the allusions I made in the first paragraph to synchronic processes of contraction in Latin. If you think of a-stem and o-stem nouns as having a single stem ending in **a** or **o** that is used as the base of all of their forms, then you have to explain where the stem-final **a** or **o** goes in inflected forms like *magnī, magnīs,* and *magna* (neuter plural). One possible explanation is that these forms synchronically have the structure *magno-ī, magno-īs* or *magna-īs,* and *magno-a* with where a phonological process of elision deletes the stem-final **a** or **o** before an inflectional suffix that starts with a vowel. The behavior of derivational suffixes attached to a- and o-stem nouns can be analyzed similarly (e.g. *-ālis, -ōsus*). This analysis is not based on and does not seem to correspond with the etymological development of Latin noun inflectional endings. [Cser (2016)](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) gives the following specific formulation for a proposed synchronic rule: deletion of the non-high back vowels **a** and **o** before other vowels in derived environments (p. 96-98). The &quot;derived environments&quot; requirement makes the rule inapplicable to *Danaōs*, since the hiatus between [a] and [o:] in that name does not count as a derived environment in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser also supposes that a number of other fairly abstract processes can affect Latin vowels e.g. coalescence with an &quot;empty vowel&quot; is supposed to be the source of the long vowels found in forms like the ablative singular. Again, note that this is meant as a synchronic description of Latin grammar, not as a description of the etymology of these forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcooperio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9244" RevisionGUID="b701358d-4a01-45a1-9502-8ebdd9d0b5f5" CreationDate="2019-03-09T07:56:34.153" UserId="9" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I don't think that there are any rules about word-internal vowel contraction in Latin that are clear and simple enough to be useful. Contractions (or elisions, which I will consider to be a type of contraction) occurred at various times in various words, but they only contexts where I think contraction might be considered a synchronically regular and productive process are the contexts where it is easiest to make the argument that something else is happening instead (e.g. allomorphy, or some kind of morphemic alteration). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And on the other hand, the clearest examples of plain phonological contraction that I can think of are not regular/productive patterns. We see contraction of **ĕ** with a preceding vowel (to form a long vowel with the quality of the first vowel) in various prefixed words derived from the verb *emō*, such as *dēmō, cōmō, prōmō, sūmō*. The coexistence of *cōmō* and *cŏĕmō* (among other words starting in [ko.e]) indicates that contraction of o-e to [o:] did not always occur in prefixed words. We see a similar contraction in *cōgō* from *co- + agō*, and the Lewis and Short entry for *[cooperio][1]* mentions the existence of a &quot;contr. form coperiunt&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the negative slant of this answer as a whole, I guess I'll finish by explaining the allusions I made in the first paragraph to synchronic processes of contraction in Latin. If you think of a-stem and o-stem nouns as having a single stem ending in **a** or **o** that is used as the base of all of their forms, then you have to explain where the stem-final **a** or **o** goes in inflected forms like *magnī, magnīs,* and *magna* (neuter plural). One possible explanation is that these forms synchronically have the structure *magno-ī, magno-īs* or *magna-īs,* and *magno-a* with where a morpho-phonological process of elision deletes the stem-final **a** or **o** before an inflectional suffix that starts with a vowel. The behavior of derivational suffixes attached to a- and o-stem nouns can be analyzed similarly (e.g. *-ālis, -ōsus*). This analysis is not based on and does not seem to correspond with the etymological development of Latin noun inflectional endings. [Cser (2016)](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) gives the following specific formulation for a proposed synchronic rule: deletion of the non-high back vowels **a** and **o** before other vowels in derived environments (p. 96-98). The restriction to &quot;derived environments&quot; makes the rule inapplicable to *Danaōs*, since the hiatus between [a] and [o:] in that name does not count as a derived environment in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser also supposes that a number of other fairly abstract processes can affect Latin vowels e.g. coalescence with an &quot;empty vowel&quot; is supposed to be the source of the long vowels found in forms like the ablative singular. Again, note that this is meant as a synchronic description of Latin grammar, not as a description of the etymology of these forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcooperio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9244" RevisionGUID="35a8cf80-5a67-4b4e-979c-d53743f13dd2" CreationDate="2019-03-09T08:12:45.367" UserId="9" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="I don't think that there are any rules about word-internal vowel contraction in Latin that are clear and simple enough to be useful. Contractions (or elisions, which I will consider to be a type of contraction) occurred at various times in various words, but they only contexts where I think contraction might be considered a synchronically regular and productive process are the contexts where it is easiest to make the argument that something else is happening instead (e.g. allomorphy, or some kind of morphemic alteration). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And on the other hand, the clearest examples of plain phonological contraction that I can think of are not regular/productive patterns. We see contraction of **ĕ** with a preceding vowel (to form a long vowel with the quality of the first vowel) in various prefixed words derived from the verb *emō*, such as *dēmō, cōmō, prōmō, sūmō*. The coexistence of *cōmō* and *cŏĕmō* (among other words starting in [ko.e]) indicates that contraction of o-e to [o:] did not always occur in prefixed words. We see a similar contraction in *cōgō* from *co- + agō*, and the Lewis and Short entry for *[cooperio][1]* mentions the existence of a &quot;contr. form coperiunt&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example of contraction is *nīl*, a contracted form of *nihil.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the negative slant of this answer as a whole, I guess I'll finish by explaining the allusions I made in the first paragraph to synchronic processes of contraction in Latin. If you think of a-stem and o-stem nouns as having a single stem ending in **a** or **o** that is used as the base of all of their forms, then you have to explain where the stem-final **a** or **o** goes in inflected forms like *magnī, magnīs,* and *magna* (neuter plural). One possible explanation is that these forms synchronically have the structure *magno-ī, magno-īs* or *magna-īs,* and *magno-a* with where a morpho-phonological process of elision deletes the stem-final **a** or **o** before an inflectional suffix that starts with a vowel. The behavior of derivational suffixes attached to a- and o-stem nouns can be analyzed similarly (e.g. *-ālis, -ōsus*). This analysis is not based on and does not seem to correspond with the etymological development of Latin noun inflectional endings. [Cser (2016)](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) gives the following specific formulation for a proposed synchronic rule: deletion of the non-high back vowels **a** and **o** before other vowels in derived environments (p. 96-98). The restriction to &quot;derived environments&quot; makes the rule inapplicable to *Danaōs*, since the hiatus between [a] and [o:] in that name does not count as a derived environment in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser also supposes that a number of other fairly abstract processes can affect Latin vowels e.g. coalescence with an &quot;empty vowel&quot; is supposed to be the source of the long vowels found in forms like the ablative singular. Again, note that this is meant as a synchronic description of Latin grammar, not as a description of the etymology of these forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcooperio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28659" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="9244" RevisionGUID="d1254574-e92a-46bc-9e43-869bb5ed89dd" CreationDate="2019-03-09T08:15:46.703" UserId="9" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9244" RevisionGUID="160c32f7-5a03-4d5d-94c8-1079a9dfa9cb" CreationDate="2019-03-09T08:19:52.943" UserId="9" Comment="to edit later" Text="I don't think that there are any rules about word-internal vowel contraction in Latin that are clear and simple enough to be useful. Contractions (or elisions, which I will consider to be a type of contraction) occurred at various times in various words, but they only contexts where I think contraction might be considered a synchronically regular and productive process are the contexts where it is easiest to make the argument that something else is happening instead (e.g. allomorphy, or some kind of morphemic alteration). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And on the other hand, the clearest examples of plain phonological contraction that I can think of are not regular/productive patterns. We see contraction of **ĕ** with a preceding vowel (to form a long vowel with the quality of the first vowel) in various prefixed words derived from the verb *emō*, such as *dēmō, cōmō, prōmō, sūmō*. The coexistence of *cōmō* and *cŏĕmō* (among other words starting in [ko.e]) indicates that contraction of o-e to [o:] did not always occur in prefixed words. We see a similar contraction in *cōgō* from *co- + agō*, and the Lewis and Short entry for *[cooperio][1]* mentions the existence of a &quot;contr. form coperiunt&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example of contraction is *nīl*, a contracted form of *nihil.* Bennet (1918) gives a rule that contractions result in long vowels with the quality of the first (Part I).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;contraction types (to add): V-V, VhV,  VvV (e.g. *prorsus*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the negative slant of this answer as a whole, I guess I'll finish by explaining the allusions I made in the first paragraph to synchronic processes of contraction in Latin. If you think of a-stem and o-stem nouns as having a single stem ending in **a** or **o** that is used as the base of all of their forms, then you have to explain where the stem-final **a** or **o** goes in inflected forms like *magnī, magnīs,* and *magna* (neuter plural). One possible explanation is that these forms synchronically have the structure *magno-ī, magno-īs* or *magna-īs,* and *magno-a* with where a morpho-phonological process of elision deletes the stem-final **a** or **o** before an inflectional suffix that starts with a vowel. The behavior of derivational suffixes attached to a- and o-stem nouns can be analyzed similarly (e.g. *-ālis, -ōsus*). This analysis is not based on and does not seem to correspond with the etymological development of Latin noun inflectional endings. [Cser (2016)](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) gives the following specific formulation for a proposed synchronic rule: deletion of the non-high back vowels **a** and **o** before other vowels in derived environments (p. 96-98). The restriction to &quot;derived environments&quot; makes the rule inapplicable to *Danaōs*, since the hiatus between [a] and [o:] in that name does not count as a derived environment in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser also supposes that a number of other fairly abstract processes can affect Latin vowels e.g. coalescence with an &quot;empty vowel&quot; is supposed to be the source of the long vowels found in forms like the ablative singular. Again, note that this is meant as a synchronic description of Latin grammar, not as a description of the etymology of these forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcooperio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1577" RevisionGUID="cc152511-a315-4ede-adc3-0fc083cb937b" CreationDate="2019-03-09T11:59:03.633" UserId="79" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="Let me offer a new transcription and translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In tam perniciosa varietate fanaticarum et pestilentium opinionum, quibus hoc aevo misere orbem concutit Christianum Satan, non minimum eam momenti esse sentio, princeps ilustrissime: quam idem ille velut perditissimum seminarium, mentibus hominum insevit incantamentorum nomine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In such a pernicious variety of fanatic and dangerous beliefs, by which Satan shatters the Christian world in this miserable era, I do not consider this to be of little importance, o glorious prince: he himself, as a corrupted nursery garden, implanted human minds with the name of incantation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a relatively quick translation, and errors and room for improvement can probably be found.&#xD;&#xA;(Let me know if you have suggestions!)&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate can help you get started, sure, but it is often very unreliable with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Your translation includes some peculiar suggestions, like &quot;Chistian Satan&quot;, completely untranslated words, and a weird overall structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many grammatical details of the passage are unclear to me, although the big picture is clear.&#xD;&#xA;I think *minimum* is adverbial, like *minime*.&#xD;&#xA;I guess *eam* means *eam rem* and *quam* is an adverb, but it could also be a misprint for *tam* which goes together with the *quam*.&#xD;&#xA;Any insight into these would be welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9244" RevisionGUID="9f9ee6b3-8c4b-4496-bd3b-bf9f8d853d89" CreationDate="2019-03-09T13:01:43.067" UserId="9" Comment="added 601 characters in body" Text="I don't think that there are any rules about word-internal vowel contraction in Latin that are clear, simple, and non-obvious enough to be useful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennet (1918) gives a rule that contractions result in long vowels with the quality of the first vowel (Part I), but if you consider Latin to have a process of contraction that turns &quot;ama- + -ō&quot; into &quot;amō&quot;, then that would be a kind of contraction that doesn't follow Bennet's rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary of contexts for contraction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contractions (or elisions, which I will consider to be a type of contraction) occurred at various times in various words, but the only contexts where I think contraction might be considered a synchronically regular and productive process are the contexts where it is easiest to make the argument that something else is happening instead (e.g. allomorphy, or some kind of morphemic alteration). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And on the other hand, the clearest examples of plain phonological contraction that I can think of are not regular/productive patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few environments where we may see contraction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- V-V morpheme boundary between prefix and vowel-initial base&#xD;&#xA;- VhV sequences&#xD;&#xA;- VvV sequences (e.g. *prorsus*)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;###V-V contraction in prefixed words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We see contraction of **ĕ** with a preceding vowel (to form a long vowel with the quality of the first vowel) in various prefixed words derived from the verb *emō*, such as *dēmō, cōmō, prōmō, sūmō*. The coexistence of *cōmō* and *cŏĕmō* (among other words starting in [ko.e]) indicates that contraction of o-e to [o:] did not always occur in prefixed words. We see a similar contraction in *cōgō* from *co- + agō*, and the Lewis and Short entry for *[cooperio][1]* mentions the existence of a &quot;contr. form coperiunt&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###VhV contraction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example of contraction is *nīl*, a contracted form of *nihil.* Likewise, *[mī](http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/mi-mihi.14132/)* existed as a contracted form of *mihi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Elision of stem-final -a- or -o- as a proposed synchronic morpho-phonological rule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the negative slant of this answer as a whole, I guess I'll finish by explaining the allusions I made in the first paragraph to synchronic processes of contraction in Latin. If you think of a-stem and o-stem nouns as having a single stem ending in **a** or **o** that is used as the base of all of their forms, then you have to explain where the stem-final **a** or **o** goes in inflected forms like *magnī, magnīs,* and *magna* (neuter plural). One possible explanation is that these forms synchronically have the structure *magno-ī, magno-īs* or *magna-īs,* and *magno-a* with where a morpho-phonological process of elision deletes the stem-final **a** or **o** before an inflectional suffix that starts with a vowel. The behavior of derivational suffixes attached to a- and o-stem nouns can be analyzed similarly (e.g. *-ālis, -ōsus*). This analysis is not based on and does not seem to correspond with the etymological development of Latin noun inflectional endings. [Cser (2016)](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) gives the following specific formulation for a proposed synchronic rule: deletion of the non-high back vowels **a** and **o** before other vowels in derived environments (p. 96-98). The restriction to &quot;derived environments&quot; makes the rule inapplicable to *Danaōs*, since the hiatus between [a] and [o:] in that name does not count as a derived environment in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser also supposes that a number of other fairly abstract processes can affect Latin vowels e.g. coalescence with an &quot;empty vowel&quot; is supposed to be the source of the long vowels found in forms like the ablative singular. Again, note that this is meant as a synchronic description of Latin grammar, not as a description of the etymology of these forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcooperio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9244" RevisionGUID="f5f5d84d-e9c1-4935-b24d-ce8b8bd019dc" CreationDate="2019-03-09T13:07:58.227" UserId="9" Comment="added 601 characters in body" Text="I don't think that there are any rules about word-internal vowel contraction in Latin that are clear, simple, and non-obvious enough to be useful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennet (1918) gives a rule that contractions result in long vowels with the quality of the first vowel (Part I), but if you consider Latin to have a process of contraction that turns &quot;ama- + -ō&quot; into &quot;amō&quot;, then that would be a kind of contraction that doesn't follow Bennet's rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contractions (or elisions, which I will consider to be a type of contraction) occurred at various times in various words, but I think that the contexts where contraction might be considered a synchronically regular and productive process are the contexts where it is easiest to make the argument that something else is happening instead (e.g. allomorphy, or some kind of morphemic alteration). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary of contexts for contraction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The clearest examples of plain phonological contraction that I can think of are not regular/productive patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some phonological environments where contraction was possible in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- V-V morpheme boundary between prefix and vowel-initial base&#xD;&#xA;- VhV sequences&#xD;&#xA;- VvV sequences (e.g. *prorsus*)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;###V-V contraction in prefixed words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We see contraction of **ĕ** with a preceding vowel (to form a long vowel with the quality of the first vowel) in various prefixed words derived from the verb *emō*, such as *dēmō, cōmō, prōmō, sūmō*. The coexistence of *cōmō* and *cŏĕmō* (among other words starting in [ko.e]) indicates that contraction of o-e to [o:] did not always occur in prefixed words. We see a similar contraction in *cōgō* from *co- + agō*, and the Lewis and Short entry for *[cooperio][1]* mentions the existence of a &quot;contr. form coperiunt&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###VhV contraction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example of contraction is *nīl*, a contracted form of *nihil.* Likewise, *[mī](http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/mi-mihi.14132/)* existed as a contracted form of *mihi.* Other examples of *VhV* contraction would I think pretty much all fall into the previous category (of prefixed words) since prefixation seems to be the main source of intervocalic *h* in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Elision of stem-final -a- or -o- as a proposed synchronic morpho-phonological rule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the negative slant of this answer as a whole, I guess I'll finish by explaining the allusions I made in the first paragraph to synchronic processes of contraction in Latin. If you think of a-stem and o-stem nouns as having a single stem ending in **a** or **o** that is used as the base of all of their forms, then you have to explain where the stem-final **a** or **o** goes in inflected forms like *magnī, magnīs,* and *magna* (neuter plural). One possible explanation is that these forms synchronically have the structure *magno-ī, magno-īs* or *magna-īs,* and *magno-a* with where a morpho-phonological process of elision deletes the stem-final **a** or **o** before an inflectional suffix that starts with a vowel. The behavior of derivational suffixes attached to a- and o-stem nouns can be analyzed similarly (e.g. *-ālis, -ōsus*). This analysis is not based on and does not seem to correspond with the etymological development of Latin noun inflectional endings. [Cser (2016)](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) gives the following specific formulation for a proposed synchronic rule: deletion of the non-high back vowels **a** and **o** before other vowels in derived environments (p. 96-98). The restriction to &quot;derived environments&quot; makes the rule inapplicable to *Danaōs*, since the hiatus between [a] and [o:] in that name does not count as a derived environment in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser also supposes that a number of other fairly abstract processes can affect Latin vowels e.g. coalescence with an &quot;empty vowel&quot; is supposed to be the source of the long vowels found in forms like the ablative singular. Again, note that this is meant as a synchronic description of Latin grammar, not as a description of the etymology of these forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcooperio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9244" RevisionGUID="146b042b-2c42-4630-9fd8-5cf97302cb71" CreationDate="2019-03-09T13:19:08.863" UserId="9" Comment="added 601 characters in body" Text="I don't think that there are any general rules about word-internal vowel contraction in Latin that are clear, simple, and non-obvious enough to be useful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bennet (1918)](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect7) gives a rule that contractions result in long vowels with the quality of the first vowel (Part I, &quot;Vowel Changes&quot;), but if you consider Latin to have a process of contraction that turns &quot;ama- + -ō&quot; into &quot;amō&quot;, then that would be a kind of contraction that doesn't follow Bennet's rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contractions (or elisions, which I will consider to be a type of contraction) occurred at various times in various words, but I think that the contexts where contraction might be considered a synchronically regular and productive process are the contexts where it is easiest to make the argument that something else is happening instead (e.g. allomorphy, or some kind of morphemic alteration). And on the other hand, the clearest examples of plain phonological contraction that I can think of are not regular/productive patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary of contexts for contraction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some phonological environments where contraction was possible in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- V-V morpheme boundary between prefix and vowel-initial base&#xD;&#xA;- VhV sequences&#xD;&#xA;- VvV sequences (e.g. *prorsus*)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;###V-V contraction in prefixed words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We see contraction of **ĕ** with a preceding vowel (to form a long vowel with the quality of the first vowel) in various prefixed words derived from the verb *emō*, such as *dēmō, cōmō, prōmō, sūmō*. The coexistence of *cōmō* and *cŏĕmō* (among other words starting in [ko.e]) indicates that contraction of o-e to [o:] did not always occur in prefixed words. We see a similar contraction in *cōgō* from *co(n)- + agō*, and the Lewis and Short entry for *[cooperio][1]* mentions the existence of a &quot;contr. form coperiunt&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###VhV contraction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example of contraction is *nīl*, a contracted form of *nihil.* Likewise, *[mī](http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/mi-mihi.14132/)* existed as a contracted form of *mihi.* Other examples of *VhV* contraction would I think pretty much all fall into the previous category (of prefixed words) since prefixation seems to be the main source of intervocalic *h* in Latin. Bennet (1918) gives the example of *dēbeō* from *dē-* + *habeō.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###VvV sequences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This actually seems to be a fairly common context for contraction, but I don't know that much about this kind of contraction in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennet mentions *amāstī* for *amā(v)istī,* which is a specific example of a more general set of contracted perfect forms. In addition, Bennet mentions *mālō* from *ma(v)elō,* and *jūnior* from *ju(v)enior* (I think the latter would probably only count as an example of historical contraction, not as an example of a synchronic process).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Elision of stem-final -a- or -o- as a proposed synchronic morpho-phonological rule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the negative slant of this answer as a whole, I guess I'll finish by explaining the allusions I made in the first paragraph to synchronic processes of contraction in Latin. If you think of a-stem and o-stem nouns as having a single stem ending in **a** or **o** that is used as the base of all of their forms, then you have to explain where the stem-final **a** or **o** goes in inflected forms like *magnī, magnīs,* and *magna* (neuter plural). One possible explanation is that these forms synchronically have the structure *magno-ī, magno-īs* or *magna-īs,* and *magno-a* with where a morpho-phonological process of elision deletes the stem-final **a** or **o** before an inflectional suffix that starts with a vowel. The behavior of derivational suffixes attached to a- and o-stem nouns can be analyzed similarly (e.g. *-ālis, -ōsus*). This analysis is not based on and does not seem to correspond with the etymological development of Latin noun inflectional endings. [Cser (2016)](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) gives the following specific formulation for a proposed synchronic rule: deletion of the non-high back vowels **a** and **o** before other vowels in derived environments (p. 96-98). The restriction to &quot;derived environments&quot; makes the rule inapplicable to *Danaōs*, since the hiatus between [a] and [o:] in that name does not count as a derived environment in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser also supposes that a number of other fairly abstract processes can affect Latin vowels e.g. coalescence with an &quot;empty vowel&quot; is supposed to be the source of the long vowels found in forms like the ablative singular. Again, note that this is meant as a synchronic description of Latin grammar, not as a description of the etymology of these forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcooperio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28665" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="9244" RevisionGUID="7e3de8a1-10d4-4f49-9a74-d34743976e28" CreationDate="2019-03-09T13:19:16.220" UserId="9" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9246" RevisionGUID="d74de114-20c9-4131-a034-42c2db682b3a" CreationDate="2019-03-09T20:43:19.790" UserId="1238" Text="I've been slowly working my way through the Gospel of John translating from the Greek.  Coming to John 7:21-22, I am a bit stumped as to why editors have placed sentence and verse breaks where they did.  It reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;21 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· Ἓν ἔργον ἐποίησα καὶ πάντες θαυμάζετε.  22 διὰ τοῦτο Μωϋσῆς δέδωκεν ὑμῖν τὴν περιτομήν [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first part is straightforward: &quot;Jesus answered and said to them, 'One work I have done and [you] all are surprised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's messing me up is the δια τουτο.  Given that it's in the accusative and that the sentence and verse markers are added later, is it possible that the author intended for it to be understood with the end of verse 21?  Meaning that it ought to be translated: &quot;One work I have done and you are all surprised because of this.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that editors did not opt for this rendering, I'm assuming there's some grammatical reason that it doesn't work, but I fail to see it...  Can anyone enlighten me?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28669" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9246" RevisionGUID="d74de114-20c9-4131-a034-42c2db682b3a" CreationDate="2019-03-09T20:43:19.790" UserId="1238" Text="Why the placement of the verse break between John 7:21-22?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28670" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9246" RevisionGUID="d74de114-20c9-4131-a034-42c2db682b3a" CreationDate="2019-03-09T20:43:19.790" UserId="1238" Text="|greek|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28671" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9246" RevisionGUID="b159f013-e115-438b-849d-4625eb0882e3" CreationDate="2019-03-09T21:18:30.770" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|syntax|christianity|greek-translation|new-testament|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8792" RevisionGUID="5b3bb2d7-8a0b-4881-8029-0b9e55767aeb" CreationDate="2019-03-10T01:16:49.330" UserId="2476" Comment="added 2080 characters in body" Text="From the other question, it seems you agree that starting from the end of the 19th century, after the recommendations of Pope Pius X, the Italian pronunciation became the standard one for E. Latin. If you do, then the way [_excelsior_](https://www.dizionario-italiano.it/dizionario-italiano.php?lemma=EXCELSIOR100) (a loan word) is pronounced in Italian answers your question - [ksʧ], and indeed Wiktionary abides by such standard for the Ecclesiastical pronunciation of [_excelsus_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/excelsus). If instead you don't make this assumption, then it depends on taste and geography.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**:  In agreement with @sumelic's contribution, I've finally got an article that confirms the recommended pronunciation to be the Italian one, i.e. [ksʧ]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Pronunciación de los textos latinos puestos en música. Estudio práctico para la interpretación de&#xD;&#xA;la música española_ (Pronunciation of Latin texts put to music. Practical study for the interpretation of Spanish music) published by [Francisco Javier Estrada Ramiro](https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/autor?codigo=2492960) on _Nassarre : Revista aragonésa de musicología_, ISSN 0213-7305, Vol. 24, Nº 1, 2008, pages 59-96. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is available [here](https://ifc.dpz.es/recursos/publicaciones/28/97/03estrada.pdf), in Spanish. On page 77 one may read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Algunos han postulado dos pronunciaciones en el latín a la italiana: la clásica del siglo I, hasta el s. III d. C., y la italiana a partir de dicho siglo, por ejemplo para los textos de San Agustín.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A principios del s. XX, desde el papado se recomendó el uso de esta pronunciación para todo el mundo. Sus rasgos distintivos, con respecto a la clásica, son:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Los diptongos ae, oe se pronuncian e (Ecclesiae: [ecclésie]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Los grupos ce, ci, cae, coe, suenan palatales oclusivos sordos (**Caeci**lia: [**Chechí**lia]), aunque en la Edad Media sonaba más bien [ts], asibilación, así como el grupo ti más vocal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - De manera análoga, los grupos ge, gi, gy , – gae, goe, muy escasos –, palatales oclusivos sonoros (legem: [léyem]; gymnasia: [yimnásia]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - El Grupo gn resulta una ñ española si no va a principio de palabra (agnus: [añus]; pero gnosis: [gnosis]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - La s sonora intervocálica y sorda inicial o tras consonante.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Los grupos sce, sci, scae, scoe, suenan palatales fricativos ([∫] ch en&#xD;&#xA;francés, sh en inglés; suscipe: [sú∫ipe]). Y **los grupos xce, xci, xcae, xcoe, suenan sch (excelsis: [ekschelsis])**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where I have highlighted the bit we're interested in - and the example of _Caecilia_ and how it's pronounced, to show that the author doesn't use the IPA, and in particular writes [ch] for the usual [ʧ]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9247" RevisionGUID="3e721a9f-a9a8-4f3b-b137-5a3ac6f4fa4f" CreationDate="2019-03-10T02:30:59.437" UserId="3497" Text="For a game I'm working on, I'm looking for a phrase in Latin that describes a robot created for the purpose of making synthetic bacon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After looking at Latin grammar books, my current guess as to a reasonable translation is &quot;Machina Lardum.&quot; Does that make sense? It's OK if it translates more closely to &quot;Machine made of Bacon&quot; as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you! :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28674" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9247" RevisionGUID="3e721a9f-a9a8-4f3b-b137-5a3ac6f4fa4f" CreationDate="2019-03-10T02:30:59.437" UserId="3497" Text="Please translate: &quot;Bacon Machine&quot; (Apologies in advance for the somewhat silly question)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28675" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9247" RevisionGUID="3e721a9f-a9a8-4f3b-b137-5a3ac6f4fa4f" CreationDate="2019-03-10T02:30:59.437" UserId="3497" Text="|vocabulary|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9091" RevisionGUID="be681b05-d307-4a16-96ad-3563faa90b44" CreationDate="2019-03-10T03:18:58.833" UserId="9" Comment="added 345 characters in body" Text="I just came across some old notes I took when reading Harold Copeman's *Singing in Latin: Or Pronunciation Explor'd* (unfortunately, I forget which edition it was).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the section on Ecclesiastical/Italian Latin, Copeman says that xci/xci traditionally had /kʃ/ (I'm not sure exactly what that means, or on what basis he makes this statement*), but that &quot;In Italian literary Latin xc is x-c, [kstʃ]. I understand that this is now generally preferred in singing; [ktʃ] is acceptable and [kʃ] is not recognized&quot; (p.228). This agrees with what Vincenzo Oliva says in the comments and in his answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*As Rafael says in his answer, at least some editions of the *Liber Usualis* give [kʃ]. Here is a link to the [English translation of the 1957 *Liber Usualis*](http://www.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/13/08/14/14-39-54_0.pdf), which gives [kʃ] as the pronunciation of &quot;**XC** before the sounds of **E** and **I**&quot; (p. xxij). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28677" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9247" RevisionGUID="5a097603-b318-4cb6-a8c9-4e16c6c77be6" CreationDate="2019-03-10T04:57:25.070" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8792" RevisionGUID="127f1f5e-7861-47a2-86e4-530a74e274d0" CreationDate="2019-03-10T09:33:02.003" UserId="2476" Comment="added 1134 characters in body" Text="From the other question, it seems you agree that starting from the end of the 19th century, after the recommendations of Pope Pius X, the Italian pronunciation became the standard one for E. Latin. If you do, then the way [_excelsior_](https://www.dizionario-italiano.it/dizionario-italiano.php?lemma=EXCELSIOR100) (a loan word) is pronounced in Italian answers your question - [ksʧ], and indeed Wiktionary abides by such standard for the Ecclesiastical pronunciation of [_excelsus_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/excelsus). If instead you don't make this assumption, then it depends on taste and geography.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**:  In agreement with @sumelic's contribution, I've finally got an article that confirms the recommended pronunciation to be the Italian one, i.e. [ksʧ]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Pronunciación de los textos latinos puestos en música. Estudio práctico para la interpretación de&#xD;&#xA;la música española_ (Pronunciation of Latin texts put to music. Practical study for the interpretation of Spanish music) published by [Francisco Javier Estrada Ramiro](https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/autor?codigo=2492960) on _Nassarre : Revista aragonésa de musicología_, ISSN 0213-7305, Vol. 24, Nº 1, 2008, pages 59-96. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is available [here](https://ifc.dpz.es/recursos/publicaciones/28/97/03estrada.pdf), in Spanish. On page 77 one may read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Algunos han postulado dos pronunciaciones en el latín a la italiana: la clásica del siglo I, hasta el s. III d. C., y la italiana a partir de dicho siglo, por ejemplo para los textos de San Agustín.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A principios del s. XX, desde el papado se recomendó el uso de esta pronunciación para todo el mundo. Sus rasgos distintivos, con respecto a la clásica, son:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Los diptongos ae, oe se pronuncian e (Ecclesiae: [ecclésie]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Los grupos ce, ci, cae, coe, suenan palatales oclusivos sordos (**Caeci**lia: [**Chechí**lia]), aunque en la Edad Media sonaba más bien [ts], asibilación, así como el grupo ti más vocal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - De manera análoga, los grupos ge, gi, gy , – gae, goe, muy escasos –, palatales oclusivos sonoros (legem: [léyem]; gymnasia: [yimnásia]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - El Grupo gn resulta una ñ española si no va a principio de palabra (agnus: [añus]; pero gnosis: [gnosis]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - La s sonora intervocálica y sorda inicial o tras consonante.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Los grupos sce, sci, scae, scoe, suenan palatales fricativos ([∫] ch en&#xD;&#xA;francés, sh en inglés; suscipe: [sú∫ipe]). Y **los grupos xce, xci, xcae, xcoe, suenan sch (excelsis: [ekschelsis])**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where I have highlighted the bit we're interested in - and the example of _Caecilia_ and how it's pronounced, to show that the author doesn't use the IPA, and in particular writes [ch] for the usual [ʧ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**As an aside**, the penultimate listed feature (intervocalic -s- being always pronounced [z]) is supposedly inherited from _neostandard_ Italian (&quot;New Standard&quot; Italian), which coexists with Standard Italian without threatening to replace it. For the record, Standard Italian has various exceptions to the voiced intervocalic sibilant, and Southern Italian has _only_ the voiceless one, maintaining the Classical Latin pronunciation. This begs the question: did Ecclesiastical Latin really pick up this Northern Italian feature?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonologically, the &quot;New Standard&quot; picks up some Northern Italian contemporary peculiarities, as opposed to literary Tuscan-Florentine being the model for Standard Italian. There is a question about this on Italian.SE, [here](https://italian.stackexchange.com/questions/10267/la-pronuncia-standard-dellitaliano-è-effettivamente-cambiata-ed-in-particolare/10316?noredirect=1#comment24101_10316). Denis Nardin's answer quotes some excerpts in English from _The Italian Language Today_. The authors are Anna Laura Lepschy and Giulio Lepschy, both Northern Italian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28679" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9242" RevisionGUID="a2f18720-9cba-4a39-ac2f-44bcd242293d" CreationDate="2019-03-10T10:04:51.927" UserId="79" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9091" RevisionGUID="9b15bfb8-1f16-4aa6-b504-241958569c42" CreationDate="2019-03-10T10:37:15.953" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="I just came across some old notes I took when reading Harold Copeman's *Singing in Latin: Or Pronunciation Explor'd* (unfortunately, I forget which edition it was).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the section on Ecclesiastical/Italian Latin, Copeman says that xci/xce traditionally had /kʃ/ (I'm not sure exactly what that means, or on what basis he makes this statement*), but that &quot;In Italian literary Latin xc is x-c, [kstʃ]. I understand that this is now generally preferred in singing; [ktʃ] is acceptable and [kʃ] is not recognized&quot; (p.228). This agrees with what Vincenzo Oliva says in the comments and in his answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*As Rafael says in his answer, at least some editions of the *Liber Usualis* give [kʃ]. Here is a link to the [English translation of the 1957 *Liber Usualis*](http://www.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/13/08/14/14-39-54_0.pdf), which gives [kʃ] as the pronunciation of &quot;**XC** before the sounds of **E** and **I**&quot; (p. xxij). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9248" RevisionGUID="5a4cee70-a8d4-4629-ba37-af87547ef1ac" CreationDate="2019-03-10T14:21:08.637" UserId="79" Text="The first thing to be decided here is how to translate &quot;bacon&quot; to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Different Romance languages seem to take very different approaches, and I am not familiar with a clear Latin word for it.&#xD;&#xA;Studying the best word choice for &quot;bacon&quot; would make a nice separate question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will translate &quot;bacon&quot; as *lardum* here, as you suggest.&#xD;&#xA;It is analogous with the French *lard*, and is not an unreasonable choice anyway.&#xD;&#xA;I read *lardum* more as fat than meat, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English you can simply put two words together to make a &quot;bacon machine&quot;, but in Latin you cannot.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore your suggested translation does not quite make sense.&#xD;&#xA;I suggest forming the adjective *lardificus*, &quot;bacon-making&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I find this appropriate because it is easy enough to understand, the role of bacon is clear (the machine is not made of it), and it is a single word instead of a clumsy relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;This leads to the translation ***machina lardifica*** for &quot;bacon-making machine&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9249" RevisionGUID="8d68b487-f619-449e-ba9b-4458f08dd7dc" CreationDate="2019-03-10T20:02:39.400" UserId="3029" Text="I'm stuck while reading Ennius' [&quot;Cūrantēs magnā cum cūrā&quot;][1], written in [dactylic hexameters][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What bothers me is line 96:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [096]    laeua uolāuit auis. | Simul aureus exorītur sōl&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [096]    […] on the left flew a bird. Meanwhile a golden sun appeared […]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't scan this line as a regular dactylic hexameter. Everything happens as if *exorītur sōl* should be read *exoritur sōl*. But exorītur comes from *exorīrī*, hence my amazement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm missing ? Thanks !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [080]    Cūrantēs | magnā cum cūrā | tum cupientēs&#xD;&#xA;    [081]    regnī | dant operam | simul auspici(ō) auguriōque.&#xD;&#xA;    [083]    [-] Remus auspiciō | sē dēuouet | atque secundam&#xD;&#xA;    [084]    sōlus auem seruāt. | At Rōmulus pulcher in altō&#xD;&#xA;    [085]    quaerit Auentīnō | seruāt genus altiuolantum.&#xD;&#xA;    [086]    Certābant urbem | Rōmam Remoramne uocārent.&#xD;&#xA;    [087]    Omnibus cūra uirīs | uter essēt induperātor.&#xD;&#xA;    [088]    Exspectant uel utī | cōnsul cum mittere signum&#xD;&#xA;    [089]    uolt | omnēs auidī | spectant ad carceris ōrās&#xD;&#xA;    [090]    quam mox ēmittat | pictīs ē faucibus currus&#xD;&#xA;    [091]    sīc exspectābat | populus | atqu(e) ōra tenēbat&#xD;&#xA;    [092]    rēbus | utrī magnī | uictōria | sit data regnī.&#xD;&#xA;    [093]    intereā | sōl albus recessit | in īnfera noctis.&#xD;&#xA;    [094]    Exin candida sē radiīs | dēdit īcta forās lux&#xD;&#xA;    [095]    et simul ex altō | longe pulcherruma praepes&#xD;&#xA;    [096]    laeua uolāuit auis. | Simul aureus exorītur sōl&#xD;&#xA;    [097]    Cēdunt dē caelō | ter quattuor corpora sancta&#xD;&#xA;    [098]    auium | praepetibus sēsē | pulchrīsque locīs dant.&#xD;&#xA;    [099]    Cōnspicit inde sibī | data Rōmulus esse priōra&#xD;&#xA;    [100]    auspiciō regnī | stabilīta | scamna solumque.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/enn.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dactylic_hexameter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28683" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9249" RevisionGUID="8d68b487-f619-449e-ba9b-4458f08dd7dc" CreationDate="2019-03-10T20:02:39.400" UserId="3029" Text="Ennius' dactylic hexameter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28684" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9249" RevisionGUID="8d68b487-f619-449e-ba9b-4458f08dd7dc" CreationDate="2019-03-10T20:02:39.400" UserId="3029" Text="|poetry|scansion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9249" RevisionGUID="2e8ebff6-e9f2-4605-bb4a-6723f6fb20ce" CreationDate="2019-03-10T20:28:52.213" UserId="3029" Comment="added 284 characters in body" Text="I'm stuck while reading Ennius' [&quot;Cūrantēs magnā cum cūrā&quot;][1], written in [dactylic hexameters][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I added to the text some macrons and caesuras that are of my own. I scrupulously respected what little I knew about Ennius' latin, especially long vowels in active.indicative.present.3S (e.g. in *seruāt*). Caesuras are largely cosmetic here. Feel free to correct me if necessary !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What bothers me is line 96:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [096]    laeua uolāuit auis. | Simul aureus exorītur sōl&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [096]    […] on the left flew a bird. Meanwhile a golden sun appeared […]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't scan this line as a regular dactylic hexameter. Everything happens as if *exorītur sōl* should be read *exoritur sōl*. But exorītur comes from *exorīrī*, hence my amazement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm missing ? Thanks !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [080]    Cūrantēs | magnā cum cūrā | tum cupientēs&#xD;&#xA;    [081]    regnī | dant operam | simul auspici(ō) auguriōque.&#xD;&#xA;    [083]    [-] Remus auspiciō | sē dēuouet | atque secundam&#xD;&#xA;    [084]    sōlus auem seruāt. | At Rōmulus pulcher in altō&#xD;&#xA;    [085]    quaerit Auentīnō | seruāt genus altiuolantum.&#xD;&#xA;    [086]    Certābant urbem | Rōmam Remoramne uocārent.&#xD;&#xA;    [087]    Omnibus cūra uirīs | uter essēt induperātor.&#xD;&#xA;    [088]    Exspectant uel utī | cōnsul cum mittere signum&#xD;&#xA;    [089]    uolt | omnēs auidī | spectant ad carceris ōrās&#xD;&#xA;    [090]    quam mox ēmittat | pictīs ē faucibus currus&#xD;&#xA;    [091]    sīc exspectābat | populus | atqu(e) ōra tenēbat&#xD;&#xA;    [092]    rēbus | utrī magnī | uictōria | sit data regnī.&#xD;&#xA;    [093]    intereā | sōl albus recessit | in īnfera noctis.&#xD;&#xA;    [094]    Exin candida sē radiīs | dēdit īcta forās lux&#xD;&#xA;    [095]    et simul ex altō | longe pulcherruma praepes&#xD;&#xA;    [096]    laeua uolāuit auis. | Simul aureus exorītur sōl&#xD;&#xA;    [097]    Cēdunt dē caelō | ter quattuor corpora sancta&#xD;&#xA;    [098]    auium | praepetibus sēsē | pulchrīsque locīs dant.&#xD;&#xA;    [099]    Cōnspicit inde sibī | data Rōmulus esse priōra&#xD;&#xA;    [100]    auspiciō regnī | stabilīta | scamna solumque.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/enn.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dactylic_hexameter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9250" RevisionGUID="3baa5b3a-dd6b-48ce-81ef-a787401fc1d8" CreationDate="2019-03-10T20:56:56.037" UserId="79" Text="Here are some remarks concerning the marked vowel lengths, caesuras, and scansion.&#xD;&#xA;Many of them are tangential to your actual question, but I hope they are useful.&#xD;&#xA;Most of the caesuras and macrons are correct; I hope my analysis does not come across as too negative for picking mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [080]    Cūrantēs | magnā cum cūrā | tum cupientēs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caesuras are typically &amp;mdash; I would even say always, but there may be exceptions &amp;mdash; placed within a dactyl, not between them.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the second caesura seems invalid to me.&#xD;&#xA;Caesuras are typically (&amp;approx; always) confined to the second, third, and fourth feet of a verse.&#xD;&#xA;The two possible points for a ceasura here are before and after *magna*.&#xD;&#xA;You can consider it to have both caesuras.&#xD;&#xA;I would only put the one after *magna* so as to split the verse more evenly.&#xD;&#xA;(I do not typically put a caesura if there are several options in the same verse, like in 86.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [081]    regnī | dant operam | simul auspici(ō) auguriōque.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same caesura rules from [080] apply:&#xD;&#xA;The two possible positions are right before and after *operam*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [084]    sōlus auem seruāt. | At Rōmulus pulcher in altō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowel before the third person ending *-t* in *servat*, *audit*, and such is short.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the macron in *servat* should not be there.&#xD;&#xA;Scansion does require the syllable to be long (heavy) there, though.&#xD;&#xA;This is achieved by a longer pause, and my experience suggests that this is particularly common with punctuation.&#xD;&#xA;(Ennius may not have had punctuation like we do, but a pause for the shift from one sentence or thought to another still makes sense.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [085]    quaerit Auentīnō | seruāt genus altiuolantum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a spurious macron in *servat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [089]    uolt | omnēs auidī | spectant ad carceris ōrās&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There should be no caesura in the first foot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [091]    sīc exspectābat | populus | atqu(e) ōra tenēbat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I would only use the second caesura so as to emphasize it.&#xD;&#xA;Namely, the last syllable of *populus* needs to be scanned long, and a sole caesura helps there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [092]    rēbus | utrī magnī | uictōria | sit data regnī.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only two caesura possibilities are before and after *magni*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [093]    intereā | sōl albus recessit | in īnfera noctis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Curiously, the second syllable of *albus* needs to be scanned short here.&#xD;&#xA;Whether this is excessive poetic licence is a matter of taste, but it certainly helps that it is an unstressed syllable for both prose and meter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [094]    Exin candida sē radiīs | dēdit īcta forās lux&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scansion requires that the first syllable of *dedit* is short.&#xD;&#xA;And indeed, the vowel is short.&#xD;&#xA;This is not a present form of *dedere* but a perfect form of *dare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [095]    et simul ex altō | longe pulcherruma praepes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a macron missing from *longe*.&#xD;&#xA;The meter suggests it, and long *-e* is also standard morphology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [096]    laeua uolāuit auis. | Simul aureus exorītur sōl&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, the *i* in *exoritur* has to be scanned short.&#xD;&#xA;I, too, expected it to be long.&#xD;&#xA;At first I thought this is mere poetic licence, but then I checked that [Ovid would use a short *i* as well](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=oritur%23+%5Bov%5D).&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding active form has a short *i* (as is always the case before a word-final *t*), and the *i* is short in *i*-stem verbs of the third conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My dictionary suggests that *exoriri* is a mixture of third and fourth conjugations, unlike *oriri* which is pure fourth.&#xD;&#xA;Exploring the morphology of prefixed versions of *oriri* would make a nice separate question.&#xD;&#xA;I can only say that the short *i* seems to be correct, but I cannot give the whole paradigm with confidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [098]    auium | praepetibus sēsē | pulchrīsque locīs dant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first caesura looks misplaced.&#xD;&#xA;Both sides of *sese* work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More interestingly, *avium* seems to require a long (heavy) first syllable.&#xD;&#xA;This looks like poetic licence to me, but I feel there could be more to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [100]    auspiciō regnī | stabilīta | scamna solumque.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second caesura falls between feet.&#xD;&#xA;A caesura only fits on both sides of *regni*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9249" RevisionGUID="18fc1a41-9f05-45b2-8c74-d110200bff59" CreationDate="2019-03-10T21:41:41.090" UserId="3029" Comment="added 568 characters in body" Text="I'm stuck while reading Ennius' [&quot;Cūrantēs magnā cum cūrā&quot;][1], written in [dactylic hexameters][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I added to the text some macrons and caesuras that are of my own. I scrupulously respected what little I knew about Ennius' latin, especially long vowels in active.indicative.present.3S (e.g. in *seruāt*). **Caesuras are largely cosmetic here : please do not take them too seriously.**. Feel free to correct me if necessary !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What bothers me is line 96:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [096]    laeua uolāuit auis. | Simul aureus exorītur sōl&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [096]    […] on the left flew a bird. Meanwhile a golden sun appeared […]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't scan this line as a regular dactylic hexameter. Everything happens as if *exorītur sōl* should be read *exoritur sōl*. But exorītur comes from *exorīrī*, hence my amazement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm missing ? Thanks !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [080]    Cūrantēs | magnā cum cūrā | tum cupientēs&#xD;&#xA;    [081]    regnī | dant operam | simul auspici(ō) auguriōque.&#xD;&#xA;    [083]    [-] Remus auspiciō | sē dēuouet | atque secundam&#xD;&#xA;    [084]    sōlus auem seruāt. | At Rōmulus pulcher in altō&#xD;&#xA;    [085]    quaerit Auentīnō | seruāt genus altiuolantum.&#xD;&#xA;    [086]    Certābant urbem | Rōmam Remoramne uocārent.&#xD;&#xA;    [087]    Omnibus cūra uirīs | uter essēt induperātor.&#xD;&#xA;    [088]    Exspectant uel utī | cōnsul cum mittere signum&#xD;&#xA;    [089]    uolt | omnēs auidī | spectant ad carceris ōrās&#xD;&#xA;    [090]    quam mox ēmittat | pictīs ē faucibus currus&#xD;&#xA;    [091]    sīc exspectābat | populus | atqu(e) ōra tenēbat&#xD;&#xA;    [092]    rēbus | utrī magnī | uictōria | sit data regnī.&#xD;&#xA;    [093]    intereā | sōl albu(s) recessit | in īnfera noctis.&#xD;&#xA;    [094]    Exin candida sē radiīs | dedit īcta forās lux&#xD;&#xA;    [095]    et simul ex altō | longē pulcherruma praepes&#xD;&#xA;    [096]    laeua uolāuit auis. | Simul aureus exorītur sōl&#xD;&#xA;    [097]    Cēdunt dē caelō | ter quattuor corpora sancta&#xD;&#xA;    [098]    auium | praepetibus sēsē | pulchrīsque locīs dant.&#xD;&#xA;    [099]    Cōnspicit inde sibī | data Rōmulus esse priōra&#xD;&#xA;    [100]    auspiciō regnī | stabilīta | scamna solumque.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *auium*(098) is bisyllabic (confer Ernoux, Recueil de textes latins archaïques, p. 150)&#xD;&#xA;* same problem with *quattuor*(097), also bisyllabic (confer Ernoux), some editors read &quot;*quattor*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;*albus*&quot; must be read &quot;*albu*&quot; since &quot;[f]inal /s/ [...] was weakly articulated in Old Latin.&quot; (&quot;The Blackwell history of the Latin language, p.98&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;* *seruāt*(084, 085) : Old Latin (not Latin) had a long here. See e.g. &quot;The Blackwell history of the Latin language, p.98&quot; speaking about the &quot;charateristic Latin shortening of long vowels before [...] /-t/ (3rd person singular)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/enn.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dactylic_hexameter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9249" RevisionGUID="f20a3384-0009-4923-924f-ea27f25abfa7" CreationDate="2019-03-10T22:16:19.287" UserId="3029" Comment="added 239 characters in body" Text="I'm stuck while reading Ennius' [&quot;Cūrantēs magnā cum cūrā&quot;][1], written in [dactylic hexameters][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I added to the text some macrons and caesuras that are of my own. I scrupulously respected what little I knew about Ennius' latin, especially long vowels in active.indicative.present.3S (e.g. in *seruāt*). **Caesuras are largely cosmetic here : please do not take them too seriously.** Feel free to correct me if necessary !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What bothers me is line 96:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [096]    laeua uolāuit auis. | Simul aureus exorītur sōl&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [096]    […] on the left flew a bird. Meanwhile a golden sun appeared […]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't scan this line as a regular dactylic hexameter. Everything happens as if *exorītur sōl* should be read *exoritur sōl*. But exorītur comes from *exorīrī*, hence my amazement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm missing ? Thanks !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;update : There's something interesting about exoritur. Virgil has exoritur (not exorītur), e.g. in Eneid 2.213 and Eneid 5.765. The verb seems to hesitate between several stems : see oreris in Ovid Metam. 10.166.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [080]    Cūrantēs | magnā cum cūrā | tum cupientēs&#xD;&#xA;    [081]    regnī | dant operam | simul auspici(ō) auguriōque.&#xD;&#xA;    [083]    [-] Remus auspiciō | sē dēuouet | atque secundam&#xD;&#xA;    [084]    sōlus auem seruāt. | At Rōmulus pulcher in altō&#xD;&#xA;    [085]    quaerit Auentīnō | seruāt genus altiuolantum.&#xD;&#xA;    [086]    Certābant urbem | Rōmam Remoramne uocārent.&#xD;&#xA;    [087]    Omnibus cūra uirīs | uter essēt induperātor.&#xD;&#xA;    [088]    Exspectant uel utī | cōnsul cum mittere signum&#xD;&#xA;    [089]    uolt | omnēs auidī | spectant ad carceris ōrās&#xD;&#xA;    [090]    quam mox ēmittat | pictīs ē faucibus currus&#xD;&#xA;    [091]    sīc exspectābat | populus | atqu(e) ōra tenēbat&#xD;&#xA;    [092]    rēbus | utrī magnī | uictōria | sit data regnī.&#xD;&#xA;    [093]    intereā | sōl albu(s) recessit | in īnfera noctis.&#xD;&#xA;    [094]    Exin candida sē radiīs | dedit īcta forās lux&#xD;&#xA;    [095]    et simul ex altō | longē pulcherruma praepes&#xD;&#xA;    [096]    laeua uolāuit auis. | Simul aureus exoritur sōl&#xD;&#xA;    [097]    Cēdunt dē caelō | ter quattuor corpora sancta&#xD;&#xA;    [098]    auium | praepetibus sēsē | pulchrīsque locīs dant.&#xD;&#xA;    [099]    Cōnspicit inde sibī | data Rōmulus esse priōra&#xD;&#xA;    [100]    auspiciō regnī | stabilīta | scamna solumque.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *auium*(098) is bisyllabic (confer Ernoux, Recueil de textes latins archaïques, p. 150)&#xD;&#xA;* same problem with *quattuor*(097), also bisyllabic (confer Ernoux), some editors read &quot;*quattor*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;*albus*&quot; must be read &quot;*albu*&quot; since &quot;[f]inal /s/ [...] was weakly articulated in Old Latin.&quot; (&quot;The Blackwell history of the Latin language, p.98&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;* *seruāt*(084, 085) : Old Latin (not Latin) had a long here. See e.g. &quot;The Blackwell history of the Latin language, p.98&quot; speaking about the &quot;charateristic Latin shortening of long vowels before [...] /-t/ (3rd person singular)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/enn.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dactylic_hexameter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28689" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9249" RevisionGUID="f20a3384-0009-4923-924f-ea27f25abfa7" CreationDate="2019-03-10T22:16:19.287" UserId="3029" Comment="added 239 characters in body" Text="&quot;exoritur&quot; in Ennius' dactylic hexameter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9249" RevisionGUID="21236dfd-a12e-425a-9db4-cc0dc1074880" CreationDate="2019-03-10T22:45:47.477" UserId="3029" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="I'm stuck while reading Ennius' [&quot;Cūrantēs magnā cum cūrā&quot;][1], written in [dactylic hexameters][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I added to the text some macrons and caesuras that are of my own. I scrupulously respected what little I knew about Ennius' latin, especially long vowels in active.indicative.present.3S (e.g. in *seruāt*). **Caesuras are largely cosmetic here : please do not take them too seriously.** Feel free to correct me if necessary !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What bothers me is line 96:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [096]    laeua uolāuit auis. | Simul aureus exorītur sōl&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [096]    […] on the left flew a bird. Meanwhile a golden sun appeared […]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't scan this line as a regular dactylic hexameter. Everything happens as if *exorītur sōl* should be read *exoritur sōl*. But exorītur comes from *exorīrī*, hence my amazement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm missing ? Thanks !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;**update :** There's something interesting about *exoritur*. Virgil has *exoritur* (not *exorītur*), e.g. in Eneid 2.213 and Eneid 5.765. The verb seems to hesitate between several stems : see *oreris* in Ovid Metam. 10.166.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [080]    Cūrantēs | magnā cum cūrā | tum cupientēs&#xD;&#xA;    [081]    regnī | dant operam | simul auspici(ō) auguriōque.&#xD;&#xA;    [083]    [-] Remus auspiciō | sē dēuouet | atque secundam&#xD;&#xA;    [084]    sōlus auem seruāt. | At Rōmulus pulcher in altō&#xD;&#xA;    [085]    quaerit Auentīnō | seruāt genus altiuolantum.&#xD;&#xA;    [086]    Certābant urbem | Rōmam Remoramne uocārent.&#xD;&#xA;    [087]    Omnibus cūra uirīs | uter essēt induperātor.&#xD;&#xA;    [088]    Exspectant uel utī | cōnsul cum mittere signum&#xD;&#xA;    [089]    uolt | omnēs auidī | spectant ad carceris ōrās&#xD;&#xA;    [090]    quam mox ēmittat | pictīs ē faucibus currus&#xD;&#xA;    [091]    sīc exspectābat | populus | atqu(e) ōra tenēbat&#xD;&#xA;    [092]    rēbus | utrī magnī | uictōria | sit data regnī.&#xD;&#xA;    [093]    intereā | sōl albu(s) recessit | in īnfera noctis.&#xD;&#xA;    [094]    Exin candida sē radiīs | dedit īcta forās lux&#xD;&#xA;    [095]    et simul ex altō | longē pulcherruma praepes&#xD;&#xA;    [096]    laeua uolāuit auis. | Simul aureus exoritur sōl&#xD;&#xA;    [097]    Cēdunt dē caelō | ter quattuor corpora sancta&#xD;&#xA;    [098]    auium | praepetibus sēsē | pulchrīsque locīs dant.&#xD;&#xA;    [099]    Cōnspicit inde sibī | data Rōmulus esse priōra&#xD;&#xA;    [100]    auspiciō regnī | stabilīta | scamna solumque.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *auium*(098) is bisyllabic (confer Ernoux, Recueil de textes latins archaïques, p. 150)&#xD;&#xA;* same problem with *quattuor*(097), also bisyllabic (confer Ernoux), some editors read &quot;*quattor*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;*albus*&quot; must be read &quot;*albu*&quot; since &quot;[f]inal /s/ [...] was weakly articulated in Old Latin.&quot; (&quot;The Blackwell history of the Latin language, p.98&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;* *seruāt*(084, 085) : Old Latin (not Latin) had a long here. See e.g. &quot;The Blackwell history of the Latin language, p.98&quot; speaking about the &quot;charateristic Latin shortening of long vowels before [...] /-t/ (3rd person singular)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/enn.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dactylic_hexameter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9249" RevisionGUID="9b87aed7-fb4f-4d31-9c19-d7e6c4dbf5e6" CreationDate="2019-03-10T23:01:53.213" UserId="3029" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="I'm stuck while reading Ennius' [&quot;Cūrantēs magnā cum cūrā&quot;][1], written in [dactylic hexameters][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I added to the text some macrons and caesuras that are of my own. I scrupulously respected what little I knew about Ennius' latin, especially long vowels in active.indicative.present.3S (e.g. in *seruāt*). **Caesuras are largely cosmetic here : please do not take them too seriously.** Feel free to correct me if necessary !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What bothers me is line 96:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [096]    laeua uolāuit auis. | Simul aureus exorītur sōl&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [096]    […] on the left flew a bird. Meanwhile a golden sun appeared […]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't scan this line as a regular dactylic hexameter. Everything happens as if *exorītur sōl* should be read *exoritur sōl*. But exorītur comes from *exorīrī*, hence my amazement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm missing ? Thanks !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;**update :** There's something interesting about *exoritur*. Virgil has *exoritur* (not *exorītur*), e.g. in Eneid 2.213:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exoritur clāmorque uirum clangorque tubārum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb seems to hesitate between several stems : see *oreris* in Ovid Metam. 10.166. :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tū totiēns oreris uiridīqu(e) in caespite flōrēs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [080]    Cūrantēs | magnā cum cūrā | tum cupientēs&#xD;&#xA;    [081]    regnī | dant operam | simul auspici(ō) auguriōque.&#xD;&#xA;    [083]    [-] Remus auspiciō | sē dēuouet | atque secundam&#xD;&#xA;    [084]    sōlus auem seruāt. | At Rōmulus pulcher in altō&#xD;&#xA;    [085]    quaerit Auentīnō | seruāt genus altiuolantum.&#xD;&#xA;    [086]    Certābant urbem | Rōmam Remoramne uocārent.&#xD;&#xA;    [087]    Omnibus cūra uirīs | uter essēt induperātor.&#xD;&#xA;    [088]    Exspectant uel utī | cōnsul cum mittere signum&#xD;&#xA;    [089]    uolt | omnēs auidī | spectant ad carceris ōrās&#xD;&#xA;    [090]    quam mox ēmittat | pictīs ē faucibus currus&#xD;&#xA;    [091]    sīc exspectābat | populus | atqu(e) ōra tenēbat&#xD;&#xA;    [092]    rēbus | utrī magnī | uictōria | sit data regnī.&#xD;&#xA;    [093]    intereā | sōl albu(s) recessit | in īnfera noctis.&#xD;&#xA;    [094]    Exin candida sē radiīs | dedit īcta forās lux&#xD;&#xA;    [095]    et simul ex altō | longē pulcherruma praepes&#xD;&#xA;    [096]    laeua uolāuit auis. | Simul aureus exoritur sōl&#xD;&#xA;    [097]    Cēdunt dē caelō | ter quattuor corpora sancta&#xD;&#xA;    [098]    auium | praepetibus sēsē | pulchrīsque locīs dant.&#xD;&#xA;    [099]    Cōnspicit inde sibī | data Rōmulus esse priōra&#xD;&#xA;    [100]    auspiciō regnī | stabilīta | scamna solumque.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *auium*(098) is bisyllabic (confer Ernoux, Recueil de textes latins archaïques, p. 150)&#xD;&#xA;* same problem with *quattuor*(097), also bisyllabic (confer Ernoux), some editors read &quot;*quattor*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;*albus*&quot; must be read &quot;*albu*&quot; since &quot;[f]inal /s/ [...] was weakly articulated in Old Latin.&quot; (&quot;The Blackwell history of the Latin language, p.98&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;* *seruāt*(084, 085) : Old Latin (not Latin) had a long here. See e.g. &quot;The Blackwell history of the Latin language, p.98&quot; speaking about the &quot;charateristic Latin shortening of long vowels before [...] /-t/ (3rd person singular)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/enn.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dactylic_hexameter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9250" RevisionGUID="21aae437-6933-4019-9ac6-8c6fef33b97b" CreationDate="2019-03-11T12:39:41.640" UserId="79" Comment="added 602 characters in body" Text="Here are some remarks concerning the marked vowel lengths, caesuras, and scansion.&#xD;&#xA;Many of them are tangential to your actual question, but I hope they are useful.&#xD;&#xA;Most of the caesuras and macrons are correct; I hope my analysis does not come across as too negative for picking mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;First remarks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I should stress that my point of view is that of classical Latin, and may not be entirely appropriate for Ennius. I am not as familiar with older Latin.&#xD;&#xA;- Some authors use macrons to denote not only long vowels but also long syllables. I have assumed that you have used them for vowel length only. (I only ever use them so myself, but it is good to be aware of the alternatives.)&#xD;&#xA;- The answer to your actual question seems to be that **the length of *i* in the stem of *oriri* and derivatives can vary, and these verbs seem to be somewhere between conjugations three and four**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [080]    Cūrantēs | magnā cum cūrā | tum cupientēs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caesuras are typically &amp;mdash; I would even say always, but there may be exceptions &amp;mdash; placed within a dactyl, not between them.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the second caesura seems invalid to me.&#xD;&#xA;Caesuras are typically (&amp;approx; always) confined to the second, third, and fourth feet of a verse.&#xD;&#xA;The two possible points for a ceasura here are before and after *magna*.&#xD;&#xA;You can consider it to have both caesuras.&#xD;&#xA;I would only put the one after *magna* so as to split the verse more evenly.&#xD;&#xA;(I do not typically put a caesura if there are several options in the same verse, like in 86.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [081]    regnī | dant operam | simul auspici(ō) auguriōque.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same caesura rules from [080] apply:&#xD;&#xA;The two possible positions are right before and after *operam*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [084]    sōlus auem seruāt. | At Rōmulus pulcher in altō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowel before the third person ending *-t* in *servat*, *audit*, and such is short.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the macron in *servat* should not be there.&#xD;&#xA;Scansion does require the syllable to be long (heavy) there, though.&#xD;&#xA;This is achieved by a longer pause, and my experience suggests that this is particularly common with punctuation.&#xD;&#xA;(Ennius may not have had punctuation like we do, but a pause for the shift from one sentence or thought to another still makes sense.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [085]    quaerit Auentīnō | seruāt genus altiuolantum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a spurious macron in *servat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [089]    uolt | omnēs auidī | spectant ad carceris ōrās&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There should be no caesura in the first foot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [091]    sīc exspectābat | populus | atqu(e) ōra tenēbat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I would only use the second caesura so as to emphasize it.&#xD;&#xA;Namely, the last syllable of *populus* needs to be scanned long, and a sole caesura helps there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [092]    rēbus | utrī magnī | uictōria | sit data regnī.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only two caesura possibilities are before and after *magni*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [093]    intereā | sōl albus recessit | in īnfera noctis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Curiously, the second syllable of *albus* needs to be scanned short here.&#xD;&#xA;Whether this is excessive poetic licence is a matter of taste, but it certainly helps that it is an unstressed syllable for both prose and meter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [094]    Exin candida sē radiīs | dēdit īcta forās lux&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scansion requires that the first syllable of *dedit* is short.&#xD;&#xA;And indeed, the vowel is short.&#xD;&#xA;This is not a present form of *dedere* but a perfect form of *dare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [095]    et simul ex altō | longe pulcherruma praepes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a macron missing from *longe*.&#xD;&#xA;The meter suggests it, and long *-e* is also standard morphology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [096]    laeua uolāuit auis. | Simul aureus exorītur sōl&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, the *i* in *exoritur* has to be scanned short.&#xD;&#xA;I, too, expected it to be long.&#xD;&#xA;At first I thought this is mere poetic licence, but then I checked that [Ovid would use a short *i* as well](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=oritur%23+%5Bov%5D).&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding active form has a short *i* (as is always the case before a word-final *t*), and the *i* is short in *i*-stem verbs of the third conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My dictionary suggests that *exoriri* is a mixture of third and fourth conjugations, unlike *oriri* which is pure fourth.&#xD;&#xA;Exploring the morphology of prefixed versions of *oriri* would make a nice separate question.&#xD;&#xA;I can only say that the short *i* seems to be correct, but I cannot give the whole paradigm with confidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [098]    auium | praepetibus sēsē | pulchrīsque locīs dant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first caesura looks misplaced.&#xD;&#xA;Both sides of *sese* work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More interestingly, *avium* seems to require a long (heavy) first syllable.&#xD;&#xA;This looks like poetic licence to me, but I feel there could be more to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [100]    auspiciō regnī | stabilīta | scamna solumque.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second caesura falls between feet.&#xD;&#xA;A caesura only fits on both sides of *regni*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9250" RevisionGUID="7e20262f-bbfb-4d2f-afa9-38d77d1a84f5" CreationDate="2019-03-11T15:17:10.793" UserId="79" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="Here are some remarks concerning the marked vowel lengths, caesuras, and scansion.&#xD;&#xA;Many of them are tangential to your actual question, but I hope they are useful.&#xD;&#xA;Most of the caesuras and macrons are correct; I hope my analysis does not come across as too negative for picking mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;First remarks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I should stress that my point of view is that of classical Latin, and may not be entirely appropriate for Ennius. I am not as familiar with older Latin.&#xD;&#xA;- Some authors use macrons to denote not only long vowels but also long syllables. I have assumed that you have used them for vowel length only. (I only ever use them so myself, but it is good to be aware of the alternatives.)&#xD;&#xA;- The answer to your actual question seems to be that **the length of *i* in the stem of *oriri* and derivatives can vary, and these verbs seem to be somewhere between conjugations three and four**.&#xD;&#xA;- Caesuras might be just cosmetics for you, but as you have marked them, I find it beneficial for other readers to comment on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [080]    Cūrantēs | magnā cum cūrā | tum cupientēs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caesuras are typically &amp;mdash; I would even say always, but there may be exceptions &amp;mdash; placed within a dactyl, not between them.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the second caesura seems invalid to me.&#xD;&#xA;Caesuras are typically (&amp;approx; always) confined to the second, third, and fourth feet of a verse.&#xD;&#xA;The two possible points for a ceasura here are before and after *magna*.&#xD;&#xA;You can consider it to have both caesuras.&#xD;&#xA;I would only put the one after *magna* so as to split the verse more evenly.&#xD;&#xA;(I do not typically put a caesura if there are several options in the same verse, like in 86.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [081]    regnī | dant operam | simul auspici(ō) auguriōque.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same caesura rules from [080] apply:&#xD;&#xA;The two possible positions are right before and after *operam*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [084]    sōlus auem seruāt. | At Rōmulus pulcher in altō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowel before the third person ending *-t* in *servat*, *audit*, and such is short.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the macron in *servat* should not be there.&#xD;&#xA;Scansion does require the syllable to be long (heavy) there, though.&#xD;&#xA;This is achieved by a longer pause, and my experience suggests that this is particularly common with punctuation.&#xD;&#xA;(Ennius may not have had punctuation like we do, but a pause for the shift from one sentence or thought to another still makes sense.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [085]    quaerit Auentīnō | seruāt genus altiuolantum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a spurious macron in *servat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [089]    uolt | omnēs auidī | spectant ad carceris ōrās&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There should be no caesura in the first foot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [091]    sīc exspectābat | populus | atqu(e) ōra tenēbat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I would only use the second caesura so as to emphasize it.&#xD;&#xA;Namely, the last syllable of *populus* needs to be scanned long, and a sole caesura helps there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [092]    rēbus | utrī magnī | uictōria | sit data regnī.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only two caesura possibilities are before and after *magni*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [093]    intereā | sōl albus recessit | in īnfera noctis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Curiously, the second syllable of *albus* needs to be scanned short here.&#xD;&#xA;Whether this is excessive poetic licence is a matter of taste, but it certainly helps that it is an unstressed syllable for both prose and meter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [094]    Exin candida sē radiīs | dēdit īcta forās lux&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scansion requires that the first syllable of *dedit* is short.&#xD;&#xA;And indeed, the vowel is short.&#xD;&#xA;This is not a present form of *dedere* but a perfect form of *dare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [095]    et simul ex altō | longe pulcherruma praepes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a macron missing from *longe*.&#xD;&#xA;The meter suggests it, and long *-e* is also standard morphology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [096]    laeua uolāuit auis. | Simul aureus exorītur sōl&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, the *i* in *exoritur* has to be scanned short.&#xD;&#xA;I, too, expected it to be long.&#xD;&#xA;At first I thought this is mere poetic licence, but then I checked that [Ovid would use a short *i* as well](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=oritur%23+%5Bov%5D).&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding active form has a short *i* (as is always the case before a word-final *t*), and the *i* is short in *i*-stem verbs of the third conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My dictionary suggests that *exoriri* is a mixture of third and fourth conjugations, unlike *oriri* which is pure fourth.&#xD;&#xA;Exploring the morphology of prefixed versions of *oriri* would make a nice separate question.&#xD;&#xA;I can only say that the short *i* seems to be correct, but I cannot give the whole paradigm with confidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [098]    auium | praepetibus sēsē | pulchrīsque locīs dant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first caesura looks misplaced.&#xD;&#xA;Both sides of *sese* work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More interestingly, *avium* seems to require a long (heavy) first syllable.&#xD;&#xA;This can be achieved by reading it as *avjum*, with a consonantal *i* and only two syllables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [100]    auspiciō regnī | stabilīta | scamna solumque.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second caesura falls between feet.&#xD;&#xA;A caesura only fits on both sides of *regni*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9251" RevisionGUID="30348658-3e95-45b2-9852-e36ff7457f24" CreationDate="2019-03-11T15:48:59.913" UserId="1459" Text="_(Yes, this is an English word, but it's roots go through Latin and Greek, and so the question here. Hopefully that's OK. This intro can be deleted if a moderator agrees.)._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last International Women's Day I saw some footage showing a poster with the phrase &quot;women making herstory&quot;, as opposed to &quot;history&quot;. The phrase was playing with the fact that the word &quot;history&quot; can be decomposed as &quot;his+story&quot;, suggesting a male tone. I was curious if the origin of the word already includes this gendered tone. According to [wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/history), &quot;history&quot; comes from the Ancient Greek &quot;[ἱστορία](Ancient_Greek)&quot;, which is a female noun (is there a relation between noun of word and cultural gender of the word?). Now, ἱστορία comes from another Greek word, &quot;[ῐ̔́στωρ](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%B5%CF%83%CF%84%CF%89%CF%81#Ancient_Greek)&quot;, which, in turns comes from PIE. &quot;ῐ̔́στωρ&quot; is a male noun, perhaps because, since it means judge, culturally judges were men.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I now nothing of Greek, let alone of linguistics, so I'm not sure how to interpret the above to answer my question. It seems, the answer is &quot;no, there is no male tone in the word history&quot;. Any ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: related but unhelpful post [here](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/95146/etymology-of-history-and-why-the-hi-prefix).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28695" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9251" RevisionGUID="30348658-3e95-45b2-9852-e36ff7457f24" CreationDate="2019-03-11T15:48:59.913" UserId="1459" Text="Is &quot;history&quot; a male-biased word (&quot;his+story&quot;)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28696" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9251" RevisionGUID="30348658-3e95-45b2-9852-e36ff7457f24" CreationDate="2019-03-11T15:48:59.913" UserId="1459" Text="|greek|etymology|english|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9251" RevisionGUID="6b705c4d-fcfd-4d83-abb8-d8676a0b6865" CreationDate="2019-03-11T15:55:23.437" UserId="1459" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="_(Yes, this is an English word, but it's roots go through Latin and Greek, and so the question here. Hopefully that's OK. This intro can be deleted if a moderator agrees.)._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last International Women's Day I saw some footage showing a poster with the phrase &quot;women making herstory&quot;, as opposed to &quot;history&quot;. The phrase was playing with the fact that the word &quot;history&quot; can be decomposed as &quot;his+story&quot;, suggesting a male tone. I was curious if the origin of the word already includes this gendered tone. According to [wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/history), &quot;history&quot; comes from the Ancient Greek &quot;[ἱστορία](Ancient_Greek)&quot;, which is a female noun (is there a relation between noun of word and cultural gender of the word?). Now, ἱστορία comes from another Greek word, &quot;[ῐ̔́στωρ](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%B5%CF%83%CF%84%CF%89%CF%81#Ancient_Greek)&quot;, which, in turns comes from PIE. &quot;ῐ̔́στωρ&quot; is a male noun, perhaps because, since it means judge, culturally judges were men.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I know nothing of Greek, let alone of linguistics, so I'm not sure how to interpret the above to answer my question. It seems, the answer is &quot;no, there is no male tone in the word history&quot;. Any ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: related but unhelpful post [here](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/95146/etymology-of-history-and-why-the-hi-prefix).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9251" RevisionGUID="1c62a0e7-b7c4-49e4-a590-cdcf6d2b665f" CreationDate="2019-03-11T16:17:41.633" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="_(Yes, this is an English word, but it's roots go through Latin and Greek, and so the question here. Hopefully that's OK. This intro can be deleted if a moderator agrees.)._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last International Women's Day I saw some footage showing a poster with the phrase &quot;women making herstory&quot;, as opposed to &quot;history&quot;. The phrase was playing with the fact that the word &quot;history&quot; can be decomposed as &quot;his+story&quot;, suggesting a male tone. I wonder whether the origin of the word does includes this gendered tone. According to [wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/history), &quot;history&quot; comes from the Ancient Greek &quot;[ἱστορία](Ancient_Greek)&quot;, which is a female noun (is there a relation between noun of word and cultural gender of the word?). Now, ἱστορία comes from another Greek word, &quot;[ῐ̔́στωρ](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%B5%CF%83%CF%84%CF%89%CF%81#Ancient_Greek)&quot;, which, in turns comes from PIE. &quot;ῐ̔́στωρ&quot; is a male noun, perhaps because, since it means judge, culturally judges were men.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I know nothing of Greek, let alone of linguistics, so I'm not sure how to interpret the above to answer my question. It seems, the answer is &quot;no, there is no male tone in the word history&quot;. Any ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: related but unhelpful post [here](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/95146/etymology-of-history-and-why-the-hi-prefix).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9251" RevisionGUID="9bb9bee5-5dae-4180-9444-05ae598f1ad4" CreationDate="2019-03-11T16:23:35.737" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="_(Yes, this is an English word, but it's roots go through Latin and Greek, and so the question here. Hopefully that's OK. This intro can be deleted if a moderator agrees.)._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last International Women's Day I saw some footage showing a poster with the phrase &quot;women making herstory&quot;, as opposed to &quot;history&quot;. The phrase was playing with the fact that the word &quot;history&quot; can be decomposed as &quot;his+story&quot;, suggesting a male tone. I wonder whether the origin of the word does includes this gendered tone. According to [wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/history), &quot;history&quot; comes from the Ancient Greek &quot;[ἱστορία](Ancient_Greek)&quot;, which is a female noun (is there a relation between noun of word and cultural gender of the word?). Now, ἱστορία comes from another Greek word, &quot;[ῐ̔́στωρ](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%B5%CF%83%CF%84%CF%89%CF%81#Ancient_Greek)&quot;, which, in turns comes from PIE. &quot;ῐ̔́στωρ&quot; is a male noun, perhaps because, since it means judge, culturally judges were men (so notice the change from male to female in history)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I know nothing of Greek, let alone of linguistics, so I'm not sure how to interpret the above to answer my question. It seems, the answer is &quot;no, there is no male tone in the word history&quot;. In fact, as said, the word itself is feminine in both Latin and Greek. Any ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: related but unhelpful post [here](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/95146/etymology-of-history-and-why-the-hi-prefix).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9252" RevisionGUID="5b133c8f-89a8-43f4-9ca6-b907524a5274" CreationDate="2019-03-11T18:43:29.277" UserId="45" Text="While I'm sure a better-research answer might be able to give you more insight, perhaps a simple response will be a good place to start. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you found, &quot;history&quot; comes from Greek *ἱστορία* (*historia*) via Latin *historia*. A &quot;ἱστορία&quot; generically means an &quot;inquiry,&quot; and that is the sense that Herodotus intends in the famous opening lines of his *Histories*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ἡροδότου Ἁλικαρνησσέος **ἱστορίης** ἀπόδεξις ἥδε...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Godley's translation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the display of the inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassus...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Does English &quot;history&quot; come from &quot;his story&quot;? No.** &quot;Story&quot; comes from the same Greek word, but the &quot;hi&quot; is completely unrelated to the masculine pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;* **Does &quot;historia&quot; have a female connotation? No.** Except in certain obvious cases, grammatical gender has nothing to do with male and female &quot;in the real world.&quot; It's as silly (and wrong) to think that &quot;virtus&quot; or &quot;ἀρετή&quot; (virtue/excellence) are somehow &quot;female-associated&quot; or that &quot;μαστός&quot; (breast) is somehow &quot;male-associated.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;* **Are there problems with sexism in history? Yes.** But let's not try to fix that by appealing to a spurious etymology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28702" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9251" RevisionGUID="4e9931f0-198b-4e7b-a6c1-91311bfa984a" CreationDate="2019-03-11T19:32:33.733" />
  <row Id="28703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9253" RevisionGUID="19a3159d-f6f2-42cb-8acd-36e3a0e56ad4" CreationDate="2019-03-11T19:42:14.307" UserId="645" Text="'Herstory' is not much more than a nonce-word. It's the sort of thing that used to be quoted by feminists in order to demonstrate how wrongfully the world, even the English language, had been arranged to ensure that men would rule it. As @brianpck suggests, it's quite wrong to look for any other etymological explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the years, other words have been suggested with similar intent. You can see the sort of thing in the tongue-in-cheek suggestion that Manchester should become 'Personchester', which was in its turn corrected by some to 'Perchildchester' or 'Perkidchester'. Sadly enough, it all went to trivialise what was, in fact, a serious call for reform in an important aspect of British society, one that is still being addressed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9254" RevisionGUID="1a357ea8-464b-4711-a372-806345dea9d5" CreationDate="2019-03-11T22:36:51.913" UserId="1304" Text="My source for this answer is A. Ernout, *Morphologie historique du latin,* Paris 1974. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. orĭtur/orītur**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verbs in *-iō* (originated by a well-known indo-european *-ye/o-* suffix attached directly to the verbal root) belong either to the third (ĭ) or the fourth (ī) conjugation, according to a set of rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Monosyllabic radical, ī: **sciō, scīre.**&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; 2. After a long syllable, ī: **dormiō, dormīre; rūgiō, rūgīre.**    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; 3. After two short syllables, ī: **aperiō, aperīre.**     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. After a sequence of long+short, ĭ: **cōnspiciō, conspicere** (only&#xD;&#xA;    compounds.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. After one short syllable followed by a stop, ĭ: **capiō, capere;&#xD;&#xA;    faciō, facere.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. After one short syllable followed by *l, n, r, v,* ***mostly*** ī:&#xD;&#xA;    **veniō, venīre**, with several deviations and uncertainties (**morĭor, mori** but archaic **moriri**; **pariō, parere** but archaic **parire**...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. Verbs derived from nouns have a tendency to generalise ī, contrary to the above rules: **sĭtiō, sĭtire.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Orĭor** belongs to the uncertainties of point 6. In the infinitive, only **oriri** is attested, but forms like **oreris, orĭtur, orĕrētur** are the normal ones. Ennius is archaic, and uses **morīmur** instead of classical **morĭmur,** (Ann. 392), but also **horĭtur** (Ann. 432) and, as you noted, **orĭtur.** So, no problem here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Developments in Romance languages show that the forms in actual spoken usage must have been more varied than those codified by classical prose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. seruāt**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In classical times, the *a* was shortened and we have *amăt, servăt,* etc., but an *ā* is to be expected from etymology and we do find it in archaic times, in Ennius as in this quotation, but, e.g., also in Plautus: *fundum alienum arāt* (Asin. 874, troch. hept.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9254" RevisionGUID="963f0316-2f5b-42f3-9446-ebd38152e576" CreationDate="2019-03-11T22:42:00.907" UserId="1304" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="My source for this answer is A. Ernout, *Morphologie historique du latin,* Paris 1974. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. orĭtur/orītur**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verbs in *-iō* (originated by a well-known indo-european *-ye/o-* suffix attached directly to the verbal root) belong either to the third (ĭ) or the fourth (ī) conjugation, according to a set of rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Monosyllabic radical, ī: **sciō, scīre.**&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; 2. After a long syllable, ī: **dormiō, dormīre; rūgiō, rūgīre.**    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; 3. After two short syllables, ī: **aperiō, aperīre.**     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. After a sequence of long+short, ĭ: **cōnspiciō, conspicere** (only&#xD;&#xA;    compounds.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. After one short syllable followed by a stop, ĭ: **capiō, capere;&#xD;&#xA;    faciō, facere.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. After one short syllable followed by *l, n, r, v,* ***mostly*** ī:&#xD;&#xA;    **veniō, venīre**, with several deviations and uncertainties (**morĭor, mori** but archaic **moriri**; **pariō, parere** but archaic **parire**...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. Verbs derived from nouns have a tendency to generalise ī, contrary to the above rules: **sĭtiō, sĭtire.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Orĭor** belongs to the uncertainties of point 6. In the infinitive, only **oriri** is attested, but forms like **oreris, orĭtur, orĕrētur** are the normal ones. Ennius is archaic, and uses **morīmur** instead of classical **morĭmur,** (Ann. 392), but also **horĭtur** (Ann. 432) and, as you noted, **orĭtur.** So, no problem here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Developments in Romance languages show that the forms in actual spoken usage must have been more varied than those codified by classical prose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. seruāt**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In classical times, the *a* was shortened and we have *amăt, servăt,* etc., but an *ā* is to be expected from etymology and we do find it in archaic times, in Ennius as in this quotation, but, e.g., also in Plautus: *fundum alienum arāt, incultum familiarem deserit* (Asin. 874, troch. hept.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9255" RevisionGUID="a1bb72ec-ff6e-4968-bf39-23b19dad971a" CreationDate="2019-03-12T00:18:24.333" UserId="1304" Text="As any Ancient Greek dictionary would tell you, Θαυμάζω can be constructed in many ways, with somewhat different meanings: direct object, simple genitive, simple dative, ἀπὸ + gen., περὶ + gen., ἐπὶ + dat., etc., but *not* with διὰ + acc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answers the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the notes in Nestle-Aland’s critical edition *Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine* make it clear (well, if you know that book’s footnote code...) that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. it is legitimate to suppose διὰ τοῦτο to be a later insertion, even if they don’t think so, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. some old Greek texts did consider it part of the previous sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text you are working with was edited by someone more knowledgeable of NT Greek than the copyists of those old texts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All Latin manuscripts, it seems, consider the corresponding *Propterea* part of the following sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9256" RevisionGUID="6023455b-38db-45cf-8ae6-2a458642d63e" CreationDate="2019-03-12T00:50:45.210" UserId="1304" Text="There surely is an etymological reason, but unfortunately we don’t know it. Or there is no consensus about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All grammars mention the three second-declension neuters in *-us*, *pelagus, virus* and *vulgus*, and many go on explaining that *pelagus* is a recent Greek loanword which retained its gender (possibly influenced by *mare*), while *virus* has Indo-european cognates clarifying its history, and... what is said of *vulgus* is, at best, that both a regular masculine and a regular neuter exist alongside the irregular neuter in *-us*. They could be recent analogical forms, but somebody thinks that they are ancient and the irregular form was somehow conflated from them. *Vulgus* has known Indo-european cognates (Sanskrit *varga*, “group”), but they don’t explain its irregularity in an unambiguous way. At least, not in any sources I’ve consulted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9257" RevisionGUID="3941daa6-e34f-40a4-ac8a-a267cabdb496" CreationDate="2019-03-12T01:45:23.910" UserId="2363" Text="διὰ τοῦτο always occurs at the beginning of a clause. The τοῦτο can refer either backward, marking the previous clause as the reason for a statement, or forward, announcing that a reason is about to be introduced. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9252" RevisionGUID="d808b7b7-565e-4cd9-b974-26df470fe546" CreationDate="2019-03-12T03:15:42.650" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="While I'm sure a better-research answer might be able to give you more insight, perhaps a simple response will be a good place to start. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you found, &quot;history&quot; comes from Greek *ἱστορία* (*historia*) via Latin *historia*. A &quot;ἱστορία&quot; generically means an &quot;inquiry,&quot; and that is the sense that Herodotus intends in the famous opening lines of his *Histories*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ἡροδότου Ἁλικαρνησσέος **ἱστορίης** ἀπόδεξις ἥδε...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Godley's translation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the display of the inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassus...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Does English &quot;history&quot; come from &quot;his story&quot;? No.** &quot;Story&quot; comes from the same Greek word, but the &quot;hi&quot; is completely unrelated to the masculine pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;* **Does &quot;historia&quot; have a female connotation? No.** Except in certain obvious cases, grammatical gender has nothing to do with male and female &quot;in the real world.&quot; It's as silly (and wrong) to think that &quot;virtus&quot; or &quot;ἀρετή&quot; (virtue/excellence) are somehow &quot;female-associated&quot; or that &quot;μαστός&quot; (breast) is somehow &quot;male-associated.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;* **Are there problems with sexism in history? Yes.** But the word's etymology is not one of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9258" RevisionGUID="a2b0348c-85a1-4800-9da8-8c2333a2539a" CreationDate="2019-03-12T06:24:22.517" UserId="9" Text="###&quot;Herstory&quot; is completely unrelated to the etymology of &quot;history&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As others have mentioned, there is no etymological connection between the first part of &quot;history&quot; and the English masculine pronoun &quot;his&quot;. Nor does there need to be for &quot;herstory&quot; to make sense as a coinage in English. People frequently form new words in un-etymological ways: e.g., by separating the end of *alcoholic* and using it as a new suffix to form words like *workaholic*. I won't discuss *herstory* further, since you seem to already understand that it's irrelevant outside of the context of English. Instead, I'll assume the reference to &quot;herstory&quot; was just included as an interest-grabbing intro to the real question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The grammatically feminine noun *ἱστορία* (&quot;historia&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gender of *ἱστορία* is predictable from the morphological structure of the word: it ends in the abstract-noun-forming suffix *-ία.* Nouns ending in this suffix are grammatically feminine. Furthermore, the gender associated with the suffix *-ία* is predictable from its phonological form: words with this ending decline as first-declension noun, and in Ancient Greek, first-declension nouns are masculine if and only if the nominative singular form ends in ς, and feminine elsewise (I don't know whether any exceptions to that rule exist, but certainly not many). In modern linguistic terms, the gender assignment of *ἱστορία* would be considered **formal** (based on the form of the word), not **semantic** (not based on the word's meaning). Formal gender assignment is common as part of the gender systems of various Indo-European languages. Greek abstract nouns ending in *-ία* can refer to concepts associated with men: for example, *[διλοχία](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%87%CE%AF%CE%B1#Ancient_Greek)* was apparently a word used in military contexts for &quot;a body of thirty-two men&quot;. They can also refer to concepts that are not clearly associated with either men or women specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the impression that in Ancient Greek (as well as in various modern Indo-European languages with grammatical gender), grammatically feminine abstract nouns are more likely than nouns of another grammatical gender to be portrayed as female beings when the abstract concept is personified, but I don't know the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of the historical reasons for the gender assignment patterns of Ancient Greek nouns, we only have speculation, not definite explanations. One well-known hypothesis is that the **a** that characteristically appears at the end of neuter plural nouns, feminine gender abstract nouns, and feminine animate nouns in Greek (and Latin) comes from a Proto-Indo-European suffix \*&lt;b&gt;(e)h₂&lt;/b&gt; that was originally used to form collective nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The grammatically masculine noun *ἵστωρ* (&quot;histor&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun *ἵστωρ* seems to have been used as early as Homeric Greek, although the exact meaning is apparently debated or sometimes unclear. There also seems to be some uncertainty about the presence or absence of a &quot;rough breathing&quot; at the start, and about the etymology of the first part. One thing that does seem clear is that it ends in the agent noun suffix *-τωρ*; nouns with this ending are grammatically masculine as a rule in Attic Greek. Feminine agent nouns seem to have had one of the following endings instead: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *-τρια* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *-τειρα* (which seems to be a suffixed form of -τηρ*, a masculine alternative to *τωρ*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *-τρις*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *-τις*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(taken from [Goodell's *School Grammar of Attic Greek](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/goodell/chapters/Chapter-405.html)*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any attested feminine equivalent to &quot;ἵστωρ&quot;, but I don't think the absence of feminine equivalents to masculine agent nouns is unusual (compare the situation in Latin with *[professor](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/178)*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ancient Greek, as in many other Indo-European languages, grammatically masculine nouns were sometimes used to refer to people in general. Analyses of the connection between this phenomenon and sexism would probably apply just as well to Ancient Greek as they do to modern languages, since my impression is that the phenomenon is similar to what we see in e.g. modern French, Spanish, Russian or various other languages. I'm not sure how salient the presence of *τορ* in *ἱστορία* would have been to an Ancient Greek speaker; for comparison, the *-tor* in the English adjective ending *-tory* (as in *introductory*), seems to come mainly from the Latin agent suffix *-tor,* but I never consciously noticed that before looking up the etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A well-known hypothesis about the masculine gender in Indo-European languages that is thought to partially explain its use as a &quot;default&quot; gender in various linguistic contexts is that it comes from an older &quot;animate&quot; gender that became more restrictive in meaning after the development of a distinct feminine grammatical gender." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9258" RevisionGUID="0945b752-842d-4826-9089-dd36b7c1fd00" CreationDate="2019-03-12T06:29:35.807" UserId="9" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="###&quot;Herstory&quot; is completely unrelated to the etymology of &quot;history&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As others have mentioned, there is no etymological connection between the first part of &quot;history&quot; and the English masculine pronoun &quot;his&quot;. Nor does there need to be for &quot;herstory&quot; to make sense as a coinage in English. People frequently form new words in un-etymological ways: e.g., by separating the end of *alcoholic* and using it as a new suffix to form words like *workaholic*. I won't discuss *herstory* further, since you seem to already understand that it's irrelevant outside of the context of English. Instead, I'll assume the reference to &quot;herstory&quot; was just included as an interest-grabbing intro to the real question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The grammatically feminine noun *ἱστορία* (&quot;historia&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gender of *ἱστορία* is predictable from the morphological structure of the word: it ends in the abstract-noun-forming suffix *-ία.* Nouns ending in this suffix are grammatically feminine. Furthermore, the grammatical gender associated with the suffix *-ία* is predictable from its phonological form: words with this ending decline as first-declension noun, and in Ancient Greek, first-declension nouns are grammatically masculine if and only if the nominative singular form ends in ς, and grammatically feminine otherwise (I don't know whether any exceptions to that rule exist, but certainly not many). In modern linguistic terms, the gender assignment of *ἱστορία* would be considered **formal** (based on the form of the word), not **semantic** (not based on the word's meaning). Formal gender assignment is common as part of the grammatical gender systems of various Indo-European languages. Greek abstract nouns ending in *-ία* can refer to concepts associated with men: for example, *[διλοχία](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%87%CE%AF%CE%B1#Ancient_Greek)* was apparently a word used in military contexts for &quot;a body of thirty-two men&quot;. They can also refer to concepts that are not clearly associated with either men or women specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the impression that in Ancient Greek (as well as in various modern Indo-European languages with grammatical gender), grammatically feminine abstract nouns are more likely than nouns of another grammatical gender to be portrayed as female beings when the abstract concept is personified (e.g. in statues or allegorical stories), but I don't know the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of the historical reasons for the gender assignment patterns of Ancient Greek nouns, we only have speculation, not definite explanations, because the gender system had already developed by the time of the earliest Greek texts that we have found. One well-known hypothesis is that the **a** that characteristically appears at the end of neuter plural nouns, feminine gender abstract nouns, and feminine animate nouns in Greek (and Latin) comes from a Proto-Indo-European suffix \*&lt;b&gt;(e)h₂&lt;/b&gt; that was originally used to form collective nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The grammatically masculine noun *ἵστωρ* (&quot;histor&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun *ἵστωρ* seems to have been used as early as Homeric Greek, although the exact meaning is apparently debated or sometimes unclear. There also seems to be some uncertainty about the presence or absence of a &quot;rough breathing&quot; at the start, and about the etymology of the first part. One thing that does seem clear is that it ends in the agent noun suffix *-τωρ*; nouns with this ending are grammatically masculine as a rule in Attic Greek. Feminine agent nouns seem to have had one of the following endings instead: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *-τρια* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *-τειρα* (which seems to be a suffixed form of *-τηρ*, a masculine alternative to *τωρ*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *-τρις*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *-τις*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(taken from [Goodell's *School Grammar of Attic Greek](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/goodell/chapters/Chapter-405.html)*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any attested feminine equivalent to &quot;ἵστωρ&quot;, but I don't think the absence of feminine equivalents to masculine agent nouns is unusual (compare the situation in Latin with *[professor](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/178)*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ancient Greek, as in many other Indo-European languages, grammatically masculine nouns were sometimes used to refer to people in general. Analyses of the connection between this phenomenon and sexism would probably apply just as well to Ancient Greek as they do to modern languages, since my impression is that the phenomenon is similar to what we see in e.g. modern French, Spanish, Russian or various other languages. I'm not sure how salient the presence of *τορ* in *ἱστορία* would have been to an Ancient Greek speaker; for comparison, the *-tor* in the English adjective ending *-tory* (as in *introductory*), seems to come mainly from the Latin masculine-gender agent-noun suffix *-tor,* but I never consciously noticed that before looking up the etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A well-known hypothesis about the masculine gender in Indo-European languages that is thought to partially explain its use as a &quot;default&quot; gender in various linguistic contexts is that it comes from an older &quot;animate&quot; gender that became more restrictive in meaning after the development of a distinct feminine grammatical gender." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9258" RevisionGUID="ce4ca11c-f35e-4d49-a82c-280bff0e6373" CreationDate="2019-03-12T06:41:30.737" UserId="9" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="###&quot;Herstory&quot; is completely unrelated to the etymology of &quot;history&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As others have mentioned, there is no etymological connection between the first part of &quot;history&quot; and the English masculine pronoun &quot;his&quot;. Nor does there need to be for &quot;herstory&quot; to make sense as a coinage in English. People frequently form new words in un-etymological ways: e.g., by separating the end of *alcoholic* and using it as a new suffix to form words like *workaholic*. I won't discuss *herstory* further, since you seem to already understand that it's irrelevant outside of the context of English (and other answers have been posted that make that point). Instead, I'll assume the reference to &quot;herstory&quot; was just included as an interest-grabbing intro to the real question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The grammatically feminine noun *ἱστορία* (&quot;historia&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gender of *ἱστορία* is predictable from the morphological structure of the word: it ends in the abstract-noun-forming suffix *-ία.* Nouns ending in this suffix are grammatically feminine. Furthermore, the grammatical gender associated with the suffix *-ία* is predictable from its phonological form: words with this ending decline as first-declension noun, and in Ancient Greek, first-declension nouns are grammatically masculine if and only if the nominative singular form ends in ς, and grammatically feminine otherwise (I don't know whether any exceptions to that rule exist, but certainly not many). In modern linguistic terms, the gender assignment of *ἱστορία* would be considered **formal** (based on the form of the word), not **semantic** (not based on the word's meaning). Formal gender assignment is common as part of the grammatical gender systems of various Indo-European languages. Greek abstract nouns ending in *-ία* can refer to concepts associated with men: for example, *[διλοχία](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%87%CE%AF%CE%B1#Ancient_Greek)* was apparently a word used in military contexts for &quot;a body of thirty-two men&quot;. They can also refer to concepts that are not clearly associated with either men or women specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the impression that in Ancient Greek (as well as in various modern Indo-European languages with grammatical gender), grammatically feminine abstract nouns are more likely than nouns of another grammatical gender to be portrayed as female beings when the abstract concept is personified (e.g. in statues or allegorical stories), but I don't know the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of the historical reasons for the gender assignment patterns of Ancient Greek nouns, we only have speculation, not definite explanations, because the gender system had already developed by the time of the earliest Greek texts that we have found. One well-known hypothesis is that the **a** that characteristically appears at the end of neuter plural nouns, feminine gender abstract nouns, and feminine animate nouns in Greek (and Latin) comes from a Proto-Indo-European suffix \*&lt;b&gt;(e)h₂&lt;/b&gt; that was originally used to form collective nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The grammatically masculine noun *ἵστωρ* (&quot;histor&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun *ἵστωρ* seems to have been used as early as Homeric Greek, although the exact meaning is apparently debated or sometimes unclear. There also seems to be some uncertainty about the presence or absence of a &quot;rough breathing&quot; at the start, and about the etymology of the first part. Two things that do seem clear are that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the first part is a root, not a prefix, and it's not related to the English word &quot;his&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the ending is the agent noun suffix *-τωρ*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nouns ending in the suffix *-τωρ* are grammatically masculine as a rule in Attic Greek. Feminine agent nouns seem to have had one of the following endings instead: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *-τρια* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *-τειρα* (which seems to be a suffixed form of *-τηρ*, a masculine alternative to *τωρ*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *-τρις*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *-τις*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(taken from [Goodell's *School Grammar of Attic Greek](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/goodell/chapters/Chapter-405.html)*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any attested feminine equivalent to &quot;ἵστωρ&quot;, but I don't think the absence of feminine equivalents to masculine agent nouns is unusual (compare the situation in Latin with *[professor](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/178)*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ancient Greek, as in many other Indo-European languages, grammatically masculine nouns were sometimes used to refer to people in general. Analyses of the connection between this phenomenon and sexism would probably apply just as well to Ancient Greek as they do to modern languages, since my impression is that the phenomenon is similar to what we see in e.g. modern French, Spanish, Russian or various other languages. I'm not sure how salient the presence of *τορ* in *ἱστορία* would have been to an Ancient Greek speaker; for comparison, the *-tor* in the English adjective ending *-tory* (as in *introductory*), seems to come mainly from the Latin masculine-gender agent-noun suffix *-tor,* but I never consciously noticed that before looking up the etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A well-known hypothesis about the masculine gender in Indo-European languages that is thought to partially explain its use as a &quot;default&quot; gender in various linguistic contexts is that it comes from an older &quot;animate&quot; gender that became more restrictive in meaning after the development of a distinct feminine grammatical gender." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9258" RevisionGUID="4f74bd7f-80c8-4f2d-917c-c1bbc0964373" CreationDate="2019-03-12T06:54:20.567" UserId="9" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="###&quot;Herstory&quot; is completely unrelated to the etymology of &quot;history&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As others have mentioned, there is no etymological connection between the first part of &quot;history&quot; and the English masculine pronoun &quot;his&quot;. Nor does there need to be for &quot;herstory&quot; to make sense as a coinage in English. People frequently form new words in un-etymological ways: e.g., by separating the end of *alcoholic* and using it as a new suffix to form words like *workaholic*. I won't discuss *herstory* further, since you seem to already understand that it's irrelevant outside of the context of English (and other answers have been posted that make that point). Instead, I'll assume the reference to &quot;herstory&quot; was just included as an interest-grabbing intro to the real question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The grammatically feminine noun *ἱστορία* (&quot;historia&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gender of *ἱστορία* is predictable from the morphological structure of the word: it ends in the abstract-noun-forming suffix *-ία.* Nouns ending in this suffix are grammatically feminine. Furthermore, the grammatical gender associated with the suffix *-ία* is predictable from its phonological form: words with this ending decline as first-declension nouns, and in Ancient Greek, first-declension nouns are grammatically masculine if and only if the nominative singular form ends in ς, and grammatically feminine otherwise (I don't know whether any exceptions to that rule exist, but certainly not many). In modern linguistic terms, the gender assignment of *ἱστορία* would be considered **formal** (based on the form of the word), not **semantic** (not based on the word's meaning). Formal gender assignment is common as part of the grammatical gender systems of various Indo-European languages. Greek abstract nouns ending in *-ία* can refer to concepts associated with men: for example, *[διλοχία](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%87%CE%AF%CE%B1#Ancient_Greek)* was apparently a word used in military contexts for &quot;a body of thirty-two men&quot;. They can also refer to concepts that are not clearly associated with either men or women specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the impression that in Ancient Greek (as well as in various modern Indo-European languages with grammatical gender), grammatically feminine abstract nouns are more likely than nouns of another grammatical gender to be portrayed as female beings when the abstract concept is personified (e.g. in statues or allegorical stories), but I don't know the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of the historical reasons for the gender assignment patterns of Ancient Greek nouns, we only have speculation, not definite explanations, because the gender system had already developed by the time of the earliest Greek texts that we have found. One well-known hypothesis is that the **a** that characteristically appears at the end of neuter plural nouns, feminine gender abstract nouns, and feminine animate nouns in Greek (and Latin) comes from a Proto-Indo-European suffix \*&lt;b&gt;(e)h₂&lt;/b&gt; that was originally used to form collective nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The grammatically masculine noun *ἵστωρ* (&quot;histor&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun *ἵστωρ* seems to have been used as early as Homeric Greek, although the exact meaning is apparently debated or sometimes unclear. There also seems to be some uncertainty about the presence or absence of a &quot;rough breathing&quot; at the start, and about the etymology of the first part. Two things that do seem clear are that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the first part is a root, not a prefix, and it's not related to the English word &quot;his&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the ending is the agent noun suffix *-τωρ*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nouns ending in the suffix *-τωρ* are grammatically masculine as a rule in Attic Greek. Feminine agent nouns seem to have had one of the following endings instead: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *-τρια* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *-τειρα* (which seems to be a suffixed form of *-τηρ*, a masculine alternative to *τωρ*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *-τρις*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *-τις*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(taken from [Goodell's *School Grammar of Attic Greek](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/goodell/chapters/Chapter-405.html)*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any attested feminine equivalent to &quot;ἵστωρ&quot;, but I don't think the absence of feminine equivalents to certain masculine agent nouns is unusual (compare the situation in Latin with *[professor](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/178)*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ancient Greek, as in many other Indo-European languages, grammatically masculine nouns were sometimes used to refer to people in general. Analyses of the connection between this phenomenon and sexism would probably apply just as well to Ancient Greek as they do to modern languages, since my impression is that the phenomenon is similar to what we see in e.g. modern French, Spanish, Russian or various other languages. I'm not sure how salient the presence of *τορ* in *ἱστορία* would have been to an Ancient Greek speaker; for comparison, the *-tor* in the English adjective ending *-tory* (as in *introductory*), seems to come mainly from the Latin masculine-gender agent-noun suffix *-tor,* but I never consciously noticed that before looking up the etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A well-known hypothesis about the masculine gender in Indo-European languages that is thought to partially explain its use as a &quot;default&quot; gender in various linguistic contexts is that it comes from an older &quot;animate&quot; gender that became more restrictive in meaning after the development of a distinct feminine grammatical gender." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9255" RevisionGUID="3ec0c72a-7ac4-4faf-a74d-3ff79c16a8e5" CreationDate="2019-03-12T10:08:35.317" UserId="1304" Comment="added 201 characters in body" Text="The notes in Nestle-Aland’s critical edition *Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine* make it clear (well, if you know that book’s footnote code...) that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. it is legitimate to suppose διὰ τοῦτο to be a later insertion, even if they don’t think so, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. some old Greek texts did consider it part of the previous sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text you are working with was edited by someone more knowledgeable of NT Greek than the copyists of those old texts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All Latin manuscripts, it seems, consider the corresponding *Propterea* part of the following sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A previous version of this answer stated that Θαυμάζω cannot be constructed with διὰ + acc. As it stood, that statement was wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could try ot distinguish necessary arguments from plain causal adjuncts such as the one cited in the comments, θαυμαζόμενοι δὲ καὶ διὰ τὰς ἄλλας πράξεις (Isoc. 4 59: “they were admired because of their deeds”), but it would be a thorny discussion with highly debatable points at every turn, so I don’t enter it and I simply stand corrected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9255" RevisionGUID="19ef57de-7e2e-406a-b4d7-8275620762b1" CreationDate="2019-03-12T10:40:49.177" UserId="1304" Comment="edited body" Text="The notes in Nestle-Aland’s critical edition *Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine* make it clear (well, if you know that book’s footnote code...) that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. it is legitimate to suppose διὰ τοῦτο to be a later insertion, even if they don’t think so, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. some old Greek texts did consider it part of the previous sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text you are working with was edited by someone more knowledgeable of NT Greek than the copyists of those old texts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All Latin manuscripts, it seems, consider the corresponding *Propterea* part of the following sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A previous version of this answer stated that θαυμάζω cannot be constructed with διὰ + acc. As it stood, that statement was wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could try to distinguish necessary arguments from plain causal adjuncts such as the one cited in the comments, θαυμαζόμενοι δὲ καὶ διὰ τὰς ἄλλας πράξεις (Isoc. 4 59: “they were admired because of their deeds”), but it would be a thorny discussion with highly debatable points at every turn, so I don’t enter it and I simply stand corrected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9257" RevisionGUID="4b1e1437-e9c5-456b-83cf-a0e1d6663faa" CreationDate="2019-03-12T10:53:44.480" UserId="2363" Comment="correction" Text="διὰ τοῦτο in the Greek New Testament always occurs at the beginning of a clause, as can be seen from the results of [this search][1]. The τοῦτο can refer either backward, marking the previous clause as the reason for a statement, or forward, announcing that a reason is about to be introduced. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=SBLG%7Ctext=%22%CE%B4%CE%B9%E1%BD%B0%20%CF%84%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6%CF%84%CE%BF%22&amp;options=VGNHU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9259" RevisionGUID="4952df10-d4aa-4010-8500-1471f975e2f0" CreationDate="2019-03-12T11:48:31.293" UserId="3520" Text="As said already, history comes from the ancient greek ἱστορία. I am a native Greek, although my studies are not in literature, so I don't have as much info to provide as sumelic, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is a key point here. Notice the punctuation on the first letter: That is a δασεία (dasia). This punctutation is meant to imply an invisible first letter which provides an enlongation to the sound of the (actual) first letter. For these reasons, words with dasia are converted to English by adding the initial H-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There you have it then - the &quot;h&quot; comes from dasia, and &quot;is&quot; comes from the word letters directly - no connection with &quot;his&quot; at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You also mention ῐ̔́στωρ to be a male noun - this is not true. It is an adjective which is both male and female. [Here is a link][1] to its forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lexigram.gr/lex/arch/%E1%BC%B4%CF%83%CF%84%CF%89%CF%81#Hist3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9259" RevisionGUID="4feaf89a-6bbb-4b71-8975-56a54cf11971" CreationDate="2019-03-12T11:54:54.417" UserId="3520" Comment="deleted 60 characters in body" Text="As said already, history comes from the ancient greek ἱστορία. I am a native Greek, although my studies are not in literature, so I don't have as much info to provide as sumelic, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is a key point here. Notice the punctuation on the first letter: That is a δασεία (dasia). This punctutation implies an enlongation to the sound of the first letter. For these reasons, words with dasia are converted to English by adding the initial H-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There you have it then - the &quot;h&quot; comes from dasia, and &quot;is&quot; comes from the word letters directly - no connection with &quot;his&quot; at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You also mention ῐ̔́στωρ to be a male noun - this is not true. It is an adjective which is both male and female. [Here is a link][1] to its forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lexigram.gr/lex/arch/%E1%BC%B4%CF%83%CF%84%CF%89%CF%81#Hist3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9260" RevisionGUID="f86f9f5b-1f96-4aa6-9746-e337f142c6e3" CreationDate="2019-03-12T12:10:48.127" UserId="3495" Text="*Aurora* means dawn, that's well known. But there is more than one type of dawn. The [English Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn) knows three types: astronomical (18°), nautical (12°) and civil dawn (sun 6° below the horizon). [Latin Wikipedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora) knows - in the stub article Aurora - only the definition 6° below the horizon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am searching for an exakt definition (or a rule of thumb) for the time of aurora in canon law. As it is used here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c. 821 § 1 [CIC/1917][CIC/1917]: Missae celebrandae initium ne fiat citius quam una hora ante auroram vel serius quam una hora post meridiem.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The beginning of the celebrated mass shall not be before one hour before *aurora* and later than one hour after midday. [my translation]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the priest has to know when *aurora* is. There could be an specific canon-law definition or just the normal, traditional latin/roman definition. So I am interested in every definition avaivible, best canonistic/ecclesiastical, but ancient or medieval is okay too. It could use brightness, degree below the horizon or some other criterion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I asked a [similar question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/68880/what-exactly-was-the-earliest-start-time-of-a-catholic-mass-before-1957-what) on christianity.SE, but got no good answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[CIC/1917]: http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0813/_P2N.HTM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28723" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9260" RevisionGUID="f86f9f5b-1f96-4aa6-9746-e337f142c6e3" CreationDate="2019-03-12T12:10:48.127" UserId="3495" Text="Exact meaning of aurora in canon law?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28724" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9260" RevisionGUID="f86f9f5b-1f96-4aa6-9746-e337f142c6e3" CreationDate="2019-03-12T12:10:48.127" UserId="3495" Text="|meaning|christianity|ecclesiastical-latin|nature|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9261" RevisionGUID="c16ad1c4-6aaa-429d-ba65-65d36e81dc3f" CreationDate="2019-03-12T12:33:46.007" UserId="1102" Text="Two grammatical terms &quot;adposition&quot; and &quot;apposition&quot; are related to [adpositiō][1] which its alternative form is appositiō. in appositiō assimilation applied while in adpositiō assimilation does not occur.&#xD;&#xA;Could applying optional assimilation effects meaning of a word in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/adpositio#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28726" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9261" RevisionGUID="c16ad1c4-6aaa-429d-ba65-65d36e81dc3f" CreationDate="2019-03-12T12:33:46.007" UserId="1102" Text="Does applying assimilation effects meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28727" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9261" RevisionGUID="c16ad1c4-6aaa-429d-ba65-65d36e81dc3f" CreationDate="2019-03-12T12:33:46.007" UserId="1102" Text="|phonology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9259" RevisionGUID="17d6151a-bf7a-4697-8de1-21b975a2b789" CreationDate="2019-03-12T12:35:06.337" UserId="3520" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="As said already, history comes from the ancient greek ἱστορία. I am a native Greek, although my studies are not in literature, so I don't have as much info to provide as sumelic, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is a key point here. Notice the punctuation on the first letter: That is a δασεία (dasia). This punctutation implies an enlongation to the sound of the first letter. For these reasons, words with dasia are converted to English by adding the initial H-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There you have it then - the &quot;h&quot; comes from dasia, and &quot;is&quot; comes from the word letters directly - no connection with &quot;his&quot; at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You also mention ῐ̔́στωρ to be male - this is not true. It is both male and female. [Here is a link][1] to its forms. (Edit: I am not sure if it is a noun or adjective at this point...but I am sure it is both male and female).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lexigram.gr/lex/arch/%E1%BC%B4%CF%83%CF%84%CF%89%CF%81#Hist3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9261" RevisionGUID="8881b43f-2d72-4854-ac9f-834b268b893a" CreationDate="2019-03-12T12:41:32.127" UserId="1102" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Two grammatical terms &quot;adposition&quot; and &quot;apposition&quot; are related to [adpositiō][1] which its alternative form is appositiō. in appositiō assimilation applied while in adpositiō assimilation does not occur.&#xD;&#xA;Could applying optional assimilation affects meaning of a word in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/adpositio#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28730" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9261" RevisionGUID="8881b43f-2d72-4854-ac9f-834b268b893a" CreationDate="2019-03-12T12:41:32.127" UserId="1102" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Could applying assimilation affects meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9262" RevisionGUID="ad301369-1b3a-4bb9-87a3-d5f64452f4b8" CreationDate="2019-03-12T13:32:59.583" UserId="1142" Text="I'm unsure whether or not it is limited largely to verse, but one can find the following causative construction, *facere + inf.*, in Book II of the Aeneid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Quī nātī cōram mē *cernere* lētum / **fēcistī** ...&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;You, who **made** me *watch* the death of my son&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Aeneid, II.538-539*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would perhaps be cautious about using this outside the realm of poetry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9262" RevisionGUID="eb0d8884-8ea8-46f1-a984-8aced3cd7759" CreationDate="2019-03-12T14:47:38.510" UserId="1142" Comment="added 527 characters in body" Text="I'm unsure whether or not it is limited largely to verse, but one can find the following causative construction, *facere + inf.*, in Book II of the Aeneid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quī nātī cōram mē *cernere* lētum / **fēcistī** [...]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You, who **made** me *watch* the death of my son&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Aeneid, II.538-539*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would perhaps be cautious about using this outside the realm of poetry; Lewis &amp; Short, also citing Vergil, lists this construction as &quot;rare&quot; (under *I.A.γ*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With *inf.* = efficere, curare, *to cause* (rare): nulla res magis talis oratores videri facit, Cic. Brut. 38, 142; Pall. 6, 12: aspectus arborum macrescere facit volucres inclusas, Varr. R. R. 3, 5, 3; Sall. Fragm. ap. Sen. Ep. 114: **qui nati coram me cernere letum Fecisti, Verg. A. 2, 539**; Ov. H. 17, 174: mel ter infervere facito, Col. 12, 38, 5 (perh. also in Ov. H. 6, 100, instead of favet, v. Loers. ad h. l.; cf. infra, B. 4.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9251" RevisionGUID="06b5661c-6aa9-4c53-9d9d-b3a9f9e8d01d" CreationDate="2019-03-12T17:07:44.003" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 177 characters in body" Text="In the last International Women's Day I saw some footage showing a poster with the phrase &quot;women making herstory&quot;, as opposed to &quot;history&quot;. The phrase was playing with the fact that the word &quot;history&quot; can be decomposed as &quot;his+story&quot;, suggesting a male tone. I wonder whether the origin of the word does includes this gendered tone. According to [wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/history), &quot;history&quot; comes from the Ancient Greek &quot;[ἱστορία](Ancient_Greek)&quot;, which is a female noun (is there a relation between noun of word and cultural gender of the word?). Now, ἱστορία comes from another Greek word, &quot;[ῐ̔́στωρ](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%B5%CF%83%CF%84%CF%89%CF%81#Ancient_Greek)&quot;, which, in turns comes from PIE. &quot;ῐ̔́στωρ&quot; is a male noun, perhaps because, since it means judge, culturally judges were men (so notice the change from male to female in history)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I know nothing of Greek, let alone of linguistics, so I'm not sure how to interpret the above to answer my question. It seems, the answer is &quot;no, there is no male tone in the word history&quot;. In fact, as said, the word itself is feminine in both Latin and Greek. Any ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: related but unhelpful post [here](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/95146/etymology-of-history-and-why-the-hi-prefix).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9259" RevisionGUID="8598f7b9-4a4a-468b-8f42-df9407dc8e44" CreationDate="2019-03-12T18:31:22.120" UserId="3520" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="As said already, history comes from the ancient greek ἱστορία. I am a native Greek, although my studies are not in literature, so I don't have as much info to provide as sumelic, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is a key point here. Notice the punctuation on the first letter: That is a δασεία (dasia). This punctutation implies an additional sound*. For these reasons, words with dasia are converted to English by adding the initial H-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There you have it then - the &quot;h&quot; comes from dasia, and &quot;is&quot; comes from the word letters directly - no connection with &quot;his&quot; at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You also mention ῐ̔́στωρ to be male - this is not true. It is both male and female. [Here is a link][1] to its forms. (Edit: I am not sure if it is a noun or adjective at this point...but I am sure it is both male and female).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*: As mentioned in the comments, this sound is of &quot;heavy breathing&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lexigram.gr/lex/arch/%E1%BC%B4%CF%83%CF%84%CF%89%CF%81#Hist3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9263" RevisionGUID="4afaddf7-d7a4-410c-9532-b391cdf10070" CreationDate="2019-03-12T19:30:44.537" UserId="3534" Text="What is the syntax of ille in the sentence: &quot;numquam est ille miser cui facile est mori&quot;? I get that cui is indirect object, but what is the function of demonstrative pronoun ille in the sentence? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28739" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9263" RevisionGUID="4afaddf7-d7a4-410c-9532-b391cdf10070" CreationDate="2019-03-12T19:30:44.537" UserId="3534" Text="Syntax of Ille: &quot;numquam est ille miser cui facile est mori&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28740" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9263" RevisionGUID="4afaddf7-d7a4-410c-9532-b391cdf10070" CreationDate="2019-03-12T19:30:44.537" UserId="3534" Text="|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28741" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9263" RevisionGUID="51c29fa6-b1ff-4bd5-8377-9d0cac80203a" CreationDate="2019-03-12T19:39:02.520" UserId="406" Comment="edited tags" Text="|syntax|seneca-iunior|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9264" RevisionGUID="64abedca-8206-4b5a-a4b9-49f6ef70184c" CreationDate="2019-03-12T19:44:28.543" UserId="406" Text="In this case, *ille* is the subject of the sentence: just generically &quot;he&quot;, or &quot;that man&quot;, or &quot;that person&quot; (since masculine gender is sort of a default in Latin), or even just &quot;the one&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can split this sentence in half to make translation easier. The first half, *numqvam est ille miser*, is a full sentence in and of itself: &quot;that man is never miserable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And who is &quot;that man&quot;? That's what the second half clarifies: *…cui facile est mori* &quot;…for whom dying is easy&quot;. To make this a bit more idiomatic in English, I'd say &quot;a man who can die easily is never miserable&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9258" RevisionGUID="dbcd19be-9468-4a52-92c0-84c3418cc0a9" CreationDate="2019-03-12T20:20:54.067" UserId="9" Comment="Gender of tor nouns in Greek isn’t clear to me" Text="###&quot;Herstory&quot; is completely unrelated to the etymology of &quot;history&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As others have mentioned, there is no etymological connection between the first part of &quot;history&quot; and the English masculine pronoun &quot;his&quot;. Nor does there need to be for &quot;herstory&quot; to make sense as a coinage in English. People frequently form new words in un-etymological ways: e.g., by separating the end of *alcoholic* and using it as a new suffix to form words like *workaholic*. I won't discuss *herstory* further, since you seem to already understand that it's irrelevant outside of the context of English (and other answers have been posted that make that point). Instead, I'll assume the reference to &quot;herstory&quot; was just included as an interest-grabbing intro to the real question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The grammatically feminine noun *ἱστορία* (&quot;historia&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gender of *ἱστορία* is predictable from the morphological structure of the word: it ends in the abstract-noun-forming suffix *-ία.* Nouns ending in this suffix are grammatically feminine. Furthermore, the grammatical gender associated with the suffix *-ία* is predictable from its phonological form: words with this ending decline as first-declension nouns, and in Ancient Greek, first-declension nouns are grammatically masculine if and only if the nominative singular form ends in ς, and grammatically feminine otherwise (I don't know whether any exceptions to that rule exist, but certainly not many). In modern linguistic terms, the gender assignment of *ἱστορία* would be considered **formal** (based on the form of the word), not **semantic** (not based on the word's meaning). Formal gender assignment is common as part of the grammatical gender systems of various Indo-European languages. Greek abstract nouns ending in *-ία* can refer to concepts associated with men: for example, *[διλοχία](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%87%CE%AF%CE%B1#Ancient_Greek)* was apparently a word used in military contexts for &quot;a body of thirty-two men&quot;. They can also refer to concepts that are not clearly associated with either men or women specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the impression that in Ancient Greek (as well as in various modern Indo-European languages with grammatical gender), grammatically feminine abstract nouns are more likely than nouns of another grammatical gender to be portrayed as female beings when the abstract concept is personified (e.g. in statues or allegorical stories), but I don't know the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of the historical reasons for the gender assignment patterns of Ancient Greek nouns, we only have speculation, not definite explanations, because the gender system had already developed by the time of the earliest Greek texts that we have found. One well-known hypothesis is that the **a** that characteristically appears at the end of neuter plural nouns, feminine gender abstract nouns, and feminine animate nouns in Greek (and Latin) comes from a Proto-Indo-European suffix \*&lt;b&gt;(e)h₂&lt;/b&gt; that was originally used to form collective nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The noun *ἵστωρ* (&quot;histor&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun *ἵστωρ* seems to have been used as early as Homeric Greek, although the exact meaning is apparently debated or sometimes unclear. There also seems to be some uncertainty about the presence or absence of a &quot;rough breathing&quot; at the start, and about the etymology of the first part. Two things that do seem clear are that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the first part is a root, not a prefix, and it's not related to the English word &quot;his&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the ending is the agent noun suffix *-τωρ* &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9264" RevisionGUID="61a0081a-fd8a-470b-a698-ce66919dc35b" CreationDate="2019-03-12T21:04:12.640" UserId="406" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In this case, *ille* is the subject of the sentence: just generically &quot;he&quot;, or &quot;that man&quot;, or &quot;that person&quot; (since masculine gender is sort of a default in Latin), or even just &quot;the one&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can split this sentence in half to make translation easier. The first half, *numqvam est ille miser*, is a full sentence in and of itself: &quot;that man is never miserable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And who is &quot;that man&quot;? That's what the second half clarifies: *…cui facile est mori* &quot;…for whom dying is easy&quot;. To make this a bit more idiomatic in English, I'd say &quot;someone who can die easily is never miserable&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9263" RevisionGUID="33385e6b-bec2-4f37-b6d4-f3221a0da781" CreationDate="2019-03-12T21:06:27.863" UserId="79" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="What is the syntax of *ille* in the sentence: &quot;numquam est ille miser cui facile est mori&quot;? I get that *cui* is indirect object, but what is the function of the demonstrative pronoun *ille* in the sentence? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28749" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9263" RevisionGUID="33385e6b-bec2-4f37-b6d4-f3221a0da781" CreationDate="2019-03-12T21:06:27.863" UserId="79" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|syntax|grammar-identification|seneca-iunior|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9267" RevisionGUID="47b7134f-912c-48fc-adcd-a8b7a2a42f12" CreationDate="2019-03-12T21:31:57.990" UserId="3540" Text="I have a dictionary app that lists “Word Origin” in the entry. The word origin values I’ve seen have been XXXAX, XXXBX and XXXCX. What do those letters represent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28751" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9267" RevisionGUID="47b7134f-912c-48fc-adcd-a8b7a2a42f12" CreationDate="2019-03-12T21:31:57.990" UserId="3540" Text="What does the “word origin” mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28752" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9267" RevisionGUID="47b7134f-912c-48fc-adcd-a8b7a2a42f12" CreationDate="2019-03-12T21:31:57.990" UserId="3540" Text="|dictionary|origin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9268" RevisionGUID="9ea117fa-d87b-406d-a2e9-f77e89b599e9" CreationDate="2019-03-12T21:35:57.087" UserId="406" Text="[This recent question][1] brought up the quotation *numqvam est ille miser cui facile est mori*. A bit of Google indicates that this (probably) comes from Seneca.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But from there, how would I find the context, or any more details about the source?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I've tried putting the quote into the Loeb Classical Library's search (with normalized spelling), but while it found all sorts of hits, none of them actually had this quote: just other places where some of the words were near each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/9263/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28755" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9268" RevisionGUID="9ea117fa-d87b-406d-a2e9-f77e89b599e9" CreationDate="2019-03-12T21:35:57.087" UserId="406" Text="How do I locate a classical quotation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28756" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9268" RevisionGUID="9ea117fa-d87b-406d-a2e9-f77e89b599e9" CreationDate="2019-03-12T21:35:57.087" UserId="406" Text="|resource-request|text-corpus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9267" RevisionGUID="1591f37f-b0d0-44d4-938c-31700457c1b8" CreationDate="2019-03-12T21:41:25.453" UserId="3540" Comment="added 139 characters in body" Text="I have a dictionary app that lists “Word Origin” in the entry. The word origin values I’ve seen have been XXXAX, XXXBX and XXXCX. What do those letters represent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: a screenshot for reference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The app:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also see a number of examples [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xOCOx.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sites.google.com/site/asupernaturalaffection/home/the-great-renaissance-Robert" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9269" RevisionGUID="8b1464f8-23fb-4434-a514-6c474b19c59d" CreationDate="2019-03-12T21:43:50.153" UserId="79" Text="I would suggest the PHI corpus search.&#xD;&#xA;To try out your example, [I searched for *numquam*, *facile*, and *mori* close to each other](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=numquam+~+facile+~+mori), and the whole phrase by Seneca turns up &amp;mdash; among a couple of false positives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The syntax is quite flexible, allowing you to force word boundaries (so that searching for *mori* doesn't return *memoria*), decide whether words are adjacent or nearby, and choose author and book if you want to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This and other text corpora are described in [a dedicated list](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1854/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9270" RevisionGUID="320994d1-f663-4d26-a7a2-2ddfc7389955" CreationDate="2019-03-12T21:46:12.057" UserId="406" Text="I'm going to take a shot in the dark and guess that you're using [Whitaker's Words][1], since those look like Whitaker's origin codes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each letter in the code indicates something about the word: in order, they're `AGE`, `AREA`, `GEO`, `FREQ`, and `SOURCE`. The first indicates how early or late the word is attested; the second indicates what general topic it's related to; the third indicates where in the world the word was found; the fourth indicates how frequently the word appears in corpora; the fifth indicates which source Whitaker took the word from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For all of them, a value of `X` means &quot;not known&quot; or &quot;not applicable&quot;. So none of the words you've been looking at are associated with a specific time period, area of interest, or region, and Whitaker didn't note his sources for them. But the fourth letter tells you roughly how common the stem in question is: `A` is more common than `B`, `B` than `C`, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A full description of all the abbreviations and their meaning can be found [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://mk270.github.io/whitakers-words/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://mk270.github.io/whitakers-words/dictionary.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9267" RevisionGUID="e7a672d8-c5cb-4c4d-9acb-5c44aba30ef1" CreationDate="2019-03-12T21:47:08.450" UserId="3540" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I have a dictionary app that lists “Word Origin” in the entry. The word origin values I’ve seen have been XXXAX, XXXBX and XXXCX. What do those letters represent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: a screenshot for reference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The app:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also see a number of examples [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xOCOx.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sites.google.com/site/asupernaturalaffection/home/the-great-renaissance-robbery" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28761" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9268" RevisionGUID="d50660bf-4099-4c14-9884-24c8775560b3" CreationDate="2019-03-12T22:32:09.400" />
  <row Id="28763" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9267" RevisionGUID="2d846cb8-76f5-40b1-afd7-7ce67bb55acc" CreationDate="2019-03-13T02:02:24.153" />
  <row Id="28764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9271" RevisionGUID="23937ae8-9b75-4d09-9f40-b5bc41d72a75" CreationDate="2019-03-13T02:48:00.337" UserId="3544" Text="## The History of *Herstory*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robin Morgan coined the neologism in 1970.  She was well aware of the etymology of *history*.  As she recalled in her book, [*The Word of a Woman*][1] (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The essay] “Goodbye to All That” was my contribution to the first issue [Of *Rat* magazine upon its takeover by radical feminists in January 1970].  Beneath the byline, I identified myself as a member of WITCH—in this case, the flexible acronym stood for “Women Inspired to Commit Herstory.”  (This was the debut of the word “herstory.”  I intended it as a consciousness-raiser, **not as an etymological claim.**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She also used the word *herstory*, as part of the acronym W.I.T.C.H., on page 551 of her 1970 anthology, *Sisterhood is Powerful*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern usage, the word has come to mean writing about history from a feminist perspective, rather than making it.  (Wikipedia claims that “femistry” and “galgebra” are similar coinages, but in fact these appear to have been invented sarcastically by a right-wing pundit, Christina Hoff Sommers, in 2014.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Few if any influential feminists have ever said that *history* is a sexist word.  The 1988 edition of the *Handbook of Non-Sexist Writing*, for example, uses the word “history” throughout and pauses to sigh at “the belabored form of ridicule that we must find alternatives for every word containing the syllable” like *man*, *son* or *his*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have, however, personally been forced to sit through a college lecture by a woman who actually believed the urban legends *his+story*.  Despite her claim to diversity being that she was Latina, she also fell for *his+panic* (and misattributed it to the Reagan administration, being unaware that the Nixon administration first added it to the 1970 Census more than a decade earlier) and *per+son*. (I was sorely tempted to ask if she was familiar with the Spanish word *una persona*.)  So, a few ignoramuses like that do exist; in my life, I have met a total of one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The Etymology of *History*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we were to take the word absolutely literally according to its etymology, it would imply that “history” is written by an [istor][2], or “wise man.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to the fact that *historia* is grammatically feminine, theories about the Indo-European three-gender system include one that the gender that became “feminine” originally developed from a suffix for mass nouns, or that it originally primarily denoted abstract nouns, or that it started as a way to distinguish which of two subjects in a sentence someone was referring to, and only later came to include most words for women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The Etymology of *His*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since no one has gone into this yet, *his* comes from a Saxon root *is*, and meant either *his* or *its* until the 1600s.  There was a brief period of time when *hisis* was to *his* as *hers* is to *her*, but this failed to catch on.  *Its* was still new enough and slangy enough when the King James translation was written that it tries to avoid *its* and use *thereof* instead, for example, “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sZiWBAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT40#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%B5%CF%83%CF%84%CF%89%CF%81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9271" RevisionGUID="4053a483-d123-4718-a8ed-5c4a2bcf8060" CreationDate="2019-03-13T02:53:31.717" UserId="3544" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="## The History of *Herstory*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robin Morgan coined the neologism in 1970.  She was well aware of the etymology of *history*.  As she recalled in her book, [*The Word of a Woman*][1] (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The essay] “Goodbye to All That” was my contribution to the first issue [Of *Rat* magazine upon its takeover by radical feminists in January 1970].  Beneath the byline, I identified myself as a member of WITCH—in this case, the flexible acronym stood for “Women Inspired to Commit Herstory.”  (This was the debut of the word “herstory.”  I intended it as a consciousness-raiser, **not as an etymological claim.**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She also used the word *herstory*, as part of the name W.I.T.C.H., on page 551 of her 1970 anthology, *Sisterhood is Powerful*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern usage, the word has come to mean writing about history from a feminist perspective, rather than making it.  (*Wikipedia* claims that “femistry” and “galgebra” are similar coinages, but in fact these appear to have been invented sarcastically by a right-wing pundit, Christina Hoff Sommers, in 2014, and I could find no examples of any feminists using them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Few if any influential feminists have ever said that *history* is a sexist word.  The 1988 edition of the *Handbook of Non-Sexist Writing*, for example, uses the word “history” throughout and pauses to sigh at “the belabored form of ridicule that we must find alternatives for every word containing the syllable” *man*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have, however, personally been forced to sit through a college lecture by a woman who actually believed the urban legends *his+story*.  Despite her claim to diversity being that she was Latina, she also fell for *his+panic* (and misattributed it to the Reagan administration, being unaware that the Nixon administration first added it to the 1970 Census more than a decade earlier) and *per+son*. (I was sorely tempted to ask if she was familiar with the Spanish word *una persona*.)  So, a few ignoramuses like that do exist; in my life, I have met a total of one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The Etymology of *History*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we were to take the word absolutely literally according to its etymology, it would imply that “history” is written by an [istor][2], or “wise man.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to the fact that *historia* is grammatically feminine, theories about the Indo-European three-gender system include one that the gender that became “feminine” originally developed from a suffix for mass nouns, or that it originally primarily denoted abstract nouns, or that it started as a way to distinguish which of two subjects in a sentence someone was referring to, and only later came to include most words for women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The Etymology of *His*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since no one has gone into this yet, *his* comes from a Saxon root *is*, and meant either *his* or *its* until the 1600s.  There was a brief period of time when *hisis* was to *his* as *hers* is to *her*, but this failed to catch on.  *Its* was still new enough and slangy enough when the King James translation was written that it tries to avoid *its* and use *thereof* instead, for example, “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sZiWBAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT40#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%B5%CF%83%CF%84%CF%89%CF%81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9271" RevisionGUID="de9e305d-ed25-473a-8c3a-20d4cc1da0c8" CreationDate="2019-03-13T02:58:44.337" UserId="3544" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="## The History of *Herstory*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robin Morgan coined the neologism in 1970.  She was well aware of the etymology of *history*.  As she recalled in her book, [*The Word of a Woman*][1] (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The essay] “Goodbye to All That” was my contribution to the first issue [Of *Rat* magazine upon its takeover by radical feminists in January 1970].  Beneath the byline, I identified myself as a member of WITCH—in this case, the flexible acronym stood for “Women Inspired to Commit Herstory.”  (This was the debut of the word “herstory.”  I intended it as a consciousness-raiser, **not as an etymological claim.**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She also used the word *herstory*, as part of the name W.I.T.C.H., on page 551 of her 1970 anthology, *Sisterhood is Powerful*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern usage, the word has come to mean writing about history from a feminist perspective, rather than making it.  (*Wikipedia* claims that “femistry” and “galgebra” are similar coinages, but in fact these appear to have been invented sarcastically by a right-wing pundit, Christina Hoff Sommers, in 2014, and I could find no examples of any feminists using them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Few if any influential feminists have ever said that *history* is a sexist word.  The 1988 edition of the *Handbook of Non-Sexist Writing*, for example, uses the word “history” throughout and pauses to sigh at “the belabored form of ridicule that we must find alternatives for every word containing” a syllable such as *man*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have, however, personally been forced to sit through a college lecture by a woman who actually believed the urban legends *his+story*.  Despite her claim to diversity being that she was Latina, she also fell for *his+panic* (and misattributed it to the Reagan administration, being unaware that the Nixon administration first added it to the 1970 Census more than a decade earlier) and *per+son*. (I was sorely tempted to ask if she was familiar with the Spanish word *una persona*.)  So, a few ignoramuses like that do exist; in my life, I have met a total of one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The Etymology of *History*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we were to take the word absolutely literally according to its etymology, it would imply that “history” is written by an [istor][2], or “wise man.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to the fact that *historia* is grammatically feminine, theories about the Indo-European three-gender system include one that the gender that became “feminine” originally developed from a suffix for mass nouns, or that it originally primarily denoted abstract nouns, or that it started as a way to distinguish which of two subjects in a sentence someone was referring to, and only later came to include most words for women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The Etymology of *His*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since no one has gone into this yet, *his* comes from a Saxon root *is*, cognate with German *es*, and meant either *his* or *its* until the 1600s.  There was a brief period of time when *hisis* was to *his* as *hers* is to *her*, but this failed to catch on.  *Its* was still new enough and slangy enough when the King James translation was written that it tries to avoid *its* and use *thereof* instead, for example, “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sZiWBAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT40#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%B5%CF%83%CF%84%CF%89%CF%81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9271" RevisionGUID="f03f12f8-5510-4833-a514-ed9e9733df84" CreationDate="2019-03-13T03:06:25.727" UserId="3544" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="## The History of *Herstory*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robin Morgan coined the neologism in 1970.  She was well aware of the etymology of *history*.  As she recalled in her book, [*The Word of a Woman*][1] (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The essay] “Goodbye to All That” was my contribution to the first issue [Of *Rat* magazine upon its takeover by radical feminists in January 1970].  Beneath the byline, I identified myself as a member of WITCH—in this case, the flexible acronym stood for “Women Inspired to Commit Herstory.”  (This was the debut of the word “herstory.”  I intended it as a consciousness-raiser, **not as an etymological claim.**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She also used the word *herstory*, as part of the name W.I.T.C.H., on page 551 of her 1970 anthology, *Sisterhood is Powerful*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern usage, the word has come to mean writing about history from a feminist perspective, rather than making it.  (*Wikipedia* claims that “femistry” and “galgebra” are similar coinages, but in fact these appear to have been invented sarcastically by a right-wing pundit, Christina Hoff Sommers, in 2014, and I could find no examples of any feminists using them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Few if any influential feminists have ever said that *history* is a sexist word.  The 1988 edition of the *Handbook of Non-Sexist Writing*, for example, uses the word “history” throughout and pauses to sigh at “the belabored form of ridicule that we must find alternatives for every word containing” a syllable such as *man*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have, however, personally been forced to sit through a college lecture by a woman who actually believed the urban legends *his+story*.  Despite her claim to diversity being that she was Latina, she also fell for *his+panic* (and misattributed it to the Reagan administration, being unaware that the Nixon administration first added it to the 1970 Census more than a decade earlier) and *per+son*. (I was sorely tempted to ask if she was familiar with the Spanish word *una persona*.)  So, a few ignoramuses like that do exist; in my life, I have met a total of one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The Etymology of *History*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we were to take the word absolutely literally according to its etymology, it would imply that “history” is written by an [istor][2], or “wise man.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to the fact that *historia* is grammatically feminine, theories about the Indo-European three-gender system include one that the gender that became “feminine” originally developed from a suffix for mass nouns, or that it originally primarily denoted abstract nouns, or that it started as a way to distinguish which of two subjects in a sentence someone was referring to, and only later came to include most words for women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The Etymology of *His*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since no one has gone into this yet, *his* comes from a Saxon root *is*, cognate with German *es*, and meant either *his* or *its* until the 1600s.  There was a brief period of time when *hisis* was to *his* as *hers* is to *her*, but this failed to catch on.  *Its* was still new enough when the King James translation of the Bible was written that the translators did not consider it sufficiently formal, so they avoided both *his* and *its* for neuter possessives whenever possible, and used *thereof* instead.  This is how they came up with, “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sZiWBAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT40#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%B5%CF%83%CF%84%CF%89%CF%81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9271" RevisionGUID="e1198224-276d-4198-ad3d-508274efe366" CreationDate="2019-03-13T03:11:58.073" UserId="3544" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="## The History of *Herstory*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robin Morgan coined the neologism in 1970.  She was well aware of the etymology of *history*.  As she recalled in her book, [*The Word of a Woman*][1] (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The essay] “Goodbye to All That” was my contribution to the first issue [Of *Rat* magazine upon its takeover by radical feminists in January 1970].  Beneath the byline, I identified myself as a member of WITCH—in this case, the flexible acronym stood for “Women Inspired to Commit Herstory.”  (This was the debut of the word “herstory.”  I intended it as a consciousness-raiser, **not as an etymological claim.**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She also spelled out the word *herstory*, as part of the name W.I.T.C.H., on page 551 of her 1970 anthology, *Sisterhood is Powerful*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern usage, the word has come to mean writing about history from a feminist perspective, rather than making it.  (*Wikipedia* claims that “femistry” and “galgebra” are similar coinages, but in fact these appear to have been invented sarcastically by a right-wing pundit, Christina Hoff Sommers, in 2014, and I could find no examples of any feminists using them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Few if any influential feminists have ever said that *history* is a sexist word.  The 1988 edition of the *Handbook of Non-Sexist Writing*, for example, uses the word “history” throughout and pauses to sigh at “the belabored form of ridicule that we must find alternatives for every word containing” a syllable such as *man*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have, however, personally been forced to sit through a college lecture by a woman who actually believed the urban legends *his+story*.  Despite her claim to diversity being that she was Latina, she also fell for *his+panic* (and misattributed it to the Reagan administration, being unaware that the Nixon administration first added it to the 1970 Census more than a decade earlier) and *per+son*. (I was sorely tempted to ask if she was familiar with the Spanish word *una persona*.)  So, a few ignoramuses like that do exist; in my life, I have met a total of one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The Etymology of *History*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we were to take the word absolutely literally according to its etymology, it would imply that “history” is written by an [istor][2], or “wise man.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to the fact that *historia* is grammatically feminine, theories about the Indo-European three-gender system include one that the gender that became “feminine” originally developed from a suffix for mass nouns, or that it originally primarily denoted abstract nouns, or that it started as a way to distinguish which of two subjects in a sentence someone was referring to, and only later came to include most words for women.  English developed natural gender in the early modern period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The Etymology of *His*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since no one has gone into this yet, *his* comes from a Saxon root *is*, cognate with German *es*, and meant either *his* or *its* until the 1600s.  There was a brief period of time when *hisis* was to *his* as *hers* is to *her*, but this failed to catch on.  *Its* was still new enough when the King James translation of the Bible was written that the translators did not consider it sufficiently formal, so they avoided both *his* and *its* for neuter possessives whenever possible, and used *thereof* instead.  This is how they came up with, “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sZiWBAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT40#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%B5%CF%83%CF%84%CF%89%CF%81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9271" RevisionGUID="5008bdb2-4b3c-485b-b250-75f134d3521b" CreationDate="2019-03-13T03:21:42.010" UserId="3544" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="## The History of *Herstory*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robin Morgan coined the neologism in 1970.  She was well aware of the etymology of *history*.  As she recalled in her book, [*The Word of a Woman*][1] (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The essay] “Goodbye to All That” was my contribution to the first issue [Of *Rat* magazine upon its takeover by radical feminists in January 1970].  Beneath the byline, I identified myself as a member of WITCH—in this case, the flexible acronym stood for “Women Inspired to Commit Herstory.”  (This was the debut of the word “herstory.”  I intended it as a consciousness-raiser, **not as an etymological claim.**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She also spelled out the word *herstory*, as part of the name W.I.T.C.H., on page 551 of her 1970 anthology, *Sisterhood is Powerful*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern usage, the word has come to mean writing about history from a feminist perspective, rather than making it.  (*Wikipedia* claims that “femistry” and “galgebra” are similar coinages, but in fact these appear to have been invented sarcastically by a right-wing pundit, Christina Hoff Sommers, in 2014, and I could find no examples of any feminists using them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Few if any influential feminists have ever said that *history* is a sexist word, although many anti-feminists appear to believe that they do.  The 1988 edition of the *Handbook of Non-Sexist Writing*, for example, uses the word “history” throughout and pauses to sigh at “the belabored form of ridicule that we must find alternatives for every word containing” a syllable such as *man*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have, however, personally been forced to sit through a college lecture by a woman who actually believed the urban legends *his+story*.  Despite her claim to diversity being that she was Latina, she also fell for *his+panic* (and misattributed it to the Reagan administration, being unaware that the Nixon administration first added it to the 1970 Census more than a decade earlier) and *per+son*. (I was sorely tempted to ask if she was familiar with the Spanish word *una persona*.)  So, a few ignoramuses like that do exist; in my life, I have met a total of one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The Etymology of *History*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we were to take the word absolutely literally according to its etymology, it would imply that “history” is written by an [istor][2], or “wise man.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to the fact that *historia* is grammatically feminine, theories about the Indo-European three-gender system include one that the gender that became “feminine” originally developed from a suffix for mass nouns, or that it originally primarily denoted abstract nouns, or that it started as a way to distinguish which of two subjects in a sentence someone was referring to, and only later came to include most words for women.  English developed natural gender in the early modern period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The Etymology of *His*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since no one has gone into this yet, *his* comes from a Saxon root *is*, cognate with German *es*, and meant either *his* or *its* until the 1600s.  There was a brief period of time when *hisis* was to *his* as *hers* is to *her*, but this failed to catch on.  *Its* was still new enough when the King James translation of the Bible was written that the translators did not consider it sufficiently formal, so they avoided both *his* and *its* for neuter possessives whenever possible, and used *thereof* instead.  This is how they came up with, “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sZiWBAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT40#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%B5%CF%83%CF%84%CF%89%CF%81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9258" RevisionGUID="3e47f8f6-a0cc-40e3-afc9-f3428e8d9f3e" CreationDate="2019-03-13T03:40:40.937" UserId="9" Comment="added 602 characters in body" Text="###&quot;Herstory&quot; is completely unrelated to the etymology of &quot;history&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As others have mentioned, there is no etymological connection between the first part of &quot;history&quot; and the English masculine pronoun &quot;his&quot;. Nor does there need to be for &quot;herstory&quot; to make sense as a coinage in English. People frequently form new words in un-etymological ways: e.g., by separating the end of *alcoholic* and using it as a new suffix to form words like *workaholic*. I won't discuss *herstory* further, since you seem to already understand that it's irrelevant outside of the context of English (and other answers have been posted that make that point). Instead, I'll assume the reference to &quot;herstory&quot; was just included as an interest-grabbing intro to the real question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The grammatically feminine noun *ἱστορία* (&quot;historia&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gender of *ἱστορία* is predictable from the morphological structure of the word: it ends in the abstract-noun-forming suffix *-ία.* Nouns ending in this suffix are grammatically feminine. Furthermore, the grammatical gender associated with the suffix *-ία* is predictable from its phonological form: words with this ending decline as first-declension nouns, and in Ancient Greek, first-declension nouns are grammatically masculine if and only if the nominative singular form ends in ς, and grammatically feminine otherwise (I don't know whether any exceptions to that rule exist, but certainly not many). In modern linguistic terms, the gender assignment of *ἱστορία* would be considered **formal** (based on the form of the word), not **semantic** (not based on the word's meaning). Formal gender assignment is common as part of the grammatical gender systems of various Indo-European languages. Greek abstract nouns ending in *-ία* can refer to concepts associated with men: for example, *[διλοχία](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%87%CE%AF%CE%B1#Ancient_Greek)* was apparently a word used in military contexts for &quot;a body of thirty-two men&quot;. They can also refer to concepts that are not clearly associated with either men or women specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the impression that in Ancient Greek (as well as in various modern Indo-European languages with grammatical gender), grammatically feminine abstract nouns are more likely than nouns of another grammatical gender to be portrayed as female beings when the abstract concept is personified (e.g. in statues or allegorical stories), but I don't know the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of the historical reasons for the gender assignment patterns of Ancient Greek nouns, we only have speculation, not definite explanations, because the gender system had already developed by the time of the earliest Greek texts that we have found. One well-known hypothesis is that the **a** that characteristically appears at the end of neuter plural nouns, feminine gender abstract nouns, and feminine animate nouns in Greek (and Latin) comes from a Proto-Indo-European suffix \*&lt;b&gt;(e)h₂&lt;/b&gt; that was originally used to form collective nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The noun *ἵστωρ* (&quot;histor&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun *ἵστωρ* seems to have been used as early as Homeric Greek, although the exact meaning is apparently debated or sometimes unclear. There also seems to be some uncertainty about the presence or absence of a &quot;rough breathing&quot; at the start, and about the etymology of the first part. Two things that do seem clear are that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the first part is a root, not a prefix, and it's not related to the English word &quot;his&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the ending is the agent noun suffix *-τωρ* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought that nouns ending in the suffix *-τωρ* in Ancient Greek were masculine as a rule, but now I'm not sure. As you see, the answer posted by George Menoutis (a speaker of modern Greek) says that *ἵστωρ* can be feminine, and in addition to this, I found a [post on Reddit by the user correon](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/4qkohu/according_to_etymonlinecom_the_word_history_comes/d4u7e4v) that links to a [Perseus Greek Word Study Tool page](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=i%28%2Fstwr&amp;la=greek) that shows *ἵστωρ* as both a masculine and feminine nominative singular noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9258" RevisionGUID="24b3adf0-a4e2-408a-9e3f-9bce0c459735" CreationDate="2019-03-13T03:51:33.727" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 196 characters in body" Text="###&quot;Herstory&quot; is completely unrelated to the etymology of &quot;history&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As others have mentioned, there is no etymological connection between the first part of &quot;history&quot; and the English masculine pronoun &quot;his&quot;. Nor does there need to be for &quot;herstory&quot; to make sense as a coinage in English. People frequently form new words in un-etymological ways: e.g., by separating the end of *alcoholic* and using it as a new suffix to form words like *workaholic*. I won't discuss *herstory* further, since you seem to already understand that it's irrelevant outside of the context of English (and other answers have been posted that make that point). Instead, I'll assume the reference to &quot;herstory&quot; was just included as an interest-grabbing intro to the real question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The grammatically feminine noun *ἱστορία* (&quot;historia&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gender of *ἱστορία* is predictable from the morphological structure of the word: it ends in the abstract-noun-forming suffix *-ία.* Nouns ending in this suffix are grammatically feminine. Furthermore, the grammatical gender associated with the suffix *-ία* is predictable from its phonological form: words with this ending decline as first-declension nouns, and in Ancient Greek, first-declension nouns are grammatically masculine if and only if the nominative singular form ends in ς, and grammatically feminine otherwise (I don't know whether any exceptions to that rule exist, but certainly not many). In modern linguistic terms, the gender assignment of *ἱστορία* would be considered **formal** (based on the form of the word), not **semantic** (not based on the word's meaning). Formal gender assignment is common as part of the grammatical gender systems of various Indo-European languages. Greek abstract nouns ending in *-ία* can refer to concepts associated with men: for example, *[διλοχία](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%87%CE%AF%CE%B1#Ancient_Greek)* was apparently a word used in military contexts for &quot;a body of thirty-two men&quot;. They can also refer to concepts that are not clearly associated with either men or women specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the impression that in Ancient Greek (as well as in various modern Indo-European languages with grammatical gender), grammatically feminine abstract nouns are more likely than nouns of another grammatical gender to be portrayed as female beings when the abstract concept is personified (e.g. in statues or allegorical stories), but I don't know the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of the historical reasons for the gender assignment patterns of Ancient Greek nouns, we only have speculation, not definite explanations, because the gender system had already developed by the time of the earliest Greek texts that we have found. One well-known hypothesis is that the **a** that characteristically appears at the end of neuter plural nouns, feminine gender abstract nouns, and feminine animate nouns in Greek (and Latin) comes from a Proto-Indo-European suffix \*&lt;b&gt;(e)h₂&lt;/b&gt; that was originally used to form collective nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The noun *ἵστωρ* (&quot;histor&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun *ἵστωρ* seems to have been used as early as Homeric Greek, although the exact meaning is apparently debated or sometimes unclear. There also seems to be some uncertainty about the presence or absence of a &quot;rough breathing&quot; at the start, and about the etymology of the first part. Two things that do seem clear are that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the first part is a root, not a prefix, and it's not related to the English word &quot;his&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the ending is the agent noun suffix *-τωρ* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought that nouns ending in the suffix *-τωρ* in Ancient Greek were masculine as a rule, but I was mistaken: apparently some are common-gender nouns (nouns that can take masculine or feminine agreement depending on their meaning). As George Menoutis says, *ἵστωρ* seems to exist both as a masculine and as a feminine noun: this is indicated in a table in Thomas Dwight Goodell's *[School Grammar of Attic Greek](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/goodell/chapters/Chapter-405.html)* (1902) (§405)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9272" RevisionGUID="76515b64-fa13-46da-8ef5-59919853d090" CreationDate="2019-03-13T04:04:31.940" UserId="9" Text="In Ancient Greek, it seems that there were various endings for agent nouns. Thomas Dwight Goodell's *[School Grammar of Attic Greek](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/goodell/chapters/Chapter-405.html)* (1902) mentions *-τηρ, -τωρ, -της, -εύς, -τειρα, -τρια, -τρις (-τριδ-), -τις (-τιδ-)* (§405).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Goodell says that the first four are masculine, and the last four are feminine, but the table of examples in that section includes two *-τωρ* nouns that cross over between the masculine and feminine categories: *ῥήτωρ* &quot;speaker&quot; and *ἵστωρ* &quot;one who knοws&quot; (Goodell's definitions). I assume this means that these are what is called &quot;common gender&quot; nouns: grammatically feminine when they refer to a female person, and grammatically masculine when they refer to a male person. In contrast, *συλλήπτωρ* &quot;helper&quot; is shown as an exclusively masculine noun with a feminine counterpart *συλλήπτρια.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this description accurate? If so, how frequent is each type of agent noun? Are there any ways to predict which ending(s) an agent noun will take, and whether an agent noun ending in *-τωρ* will be common gender or (exclusively?) masculine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28773" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9272" RevisionGUID="76515b64-fa13-46da-8ef5-59919853d090" CreationDate="2019-03-13T04:04:31.940" UserId="9" Text="When were different agent noun endings used in Ancient Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28774" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9272" RevisionGUID="76515b64-fa13-46da-8ef5-59919853d090" CreationDate="2019-03-13T04:04:31.940" UserId="9" Text="|greek|morphology|noun|suffixes|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9271" RevisionGUID="add0eaf7-d86a-4f61-85dd-b6307137bb4d" CreationDate="2019-03-13T04:19:25.590" UserId="3544" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="## The History of *Herstory*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robin Morgan coined the neologism in 1970.  She was well aware of the etymology of *history*.  As she recalled in her book, [*The Word of a Woman*][1] (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The essay] “Goodbye to All That” was my contribution to the first issue [Of *Rat* magazine upon its takeover by radical feminists in January 1970].  Beneath the byline, I identified myself as a member of WITCH—in this case, the flexible acronym stood for “Women Inspired to Commit Herstory.”  (This was the debut of the word “herstory.”  I intended it as a consciousness-raiser, **not as an etymological claim.**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She also spelled out the word *herstory*, as part of the name W.I.T.C.H., on page 551 of her 1970 anthology, *Sisterhood is Powerful*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern usage, the word has come to mean writing about history from a feminist perspective, rather than making it.  (*Wikipedia* claims that “femistry” and “galgebra” are similar coinages, but in fact these appear to have been invented sarcastically by a right-wing pundit, Christina Hoff Sommers, in 2014, and I could find no examples of any feminists using them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Few if any influential feminists have ever said that *history* is a sexist word, although many anti-feminists appear to believe that they do.  The 1988 edition of the *Handbook of Non-Sexist Writing*, for example, uses the word “history” throughout and pauses to sigh at “the belabored form of ridicule that we must find alternatives for every word containing” a syllable such as *man*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Afro-futurist musician Sun Ra made the same pun in 1980 (“History is only his story. You haven’t heard my story yet.”) also fully aware that this is not where the word comes from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have, however, personally been forced to sit through a college lecture by a woman who actually believed the urban legends *his+story*.  Despite her claim to diversity being that she was Latina, she also fell for *his+panic* (and misattributed it to the Reagan administration, being unaware that the Nixon administration first added it to the 1970 Census more than a decade earlier) and *per+son*. (I was sorely tempted to ask if she was familiar with the Spanish word *una persona*.)  So, a few ignoramuses like that do exist; in my life, I have met a total of one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The Etymology of *History*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we were to take the word absolutely literally according to its etymology, it would imply that “history” is written by an [istor][2], or “wise man.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to the fact that *historia* is grammatically feminine, theories about the Indo-European three-gender system include one that the gender that became “feminine” originally developed from a suffix for mass nouns, or that it originally primarily denoted abstract nouns, or that it started as a way to distinguish which of two subjects in a sentence someone was referring to, and only later came to include most words for women.  English developed natural gender in the early modern period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The Etymology of *His*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since no one has gone into this yet, *his* comes from a Saxon root *is*, cognate with German *es*, and meant either *his* or *its* until the 1600s.  There was a brief period of time when *hisis* was to *his* as *hers* is to *her*, but this failed to catch on.  *Its* was still new enough when the King James translation of the Bible was written that the translators did not consider it sufficiently formal, so they avoided both *his* and *its* for neuter possessives whenever possible, and used *thereof* instead.  This is how they came up with, “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sZiWBAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT40#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%B5%CF%83%CF%84%CF%89%CF%81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9261" RevisionGUID="a94e87e5-f18b-4cf2-9d16-965691e65188" CreationDate="2019-03-13T04:53:46.900" UserId="9" Comment="Some English grammar edits, italicized mentioned words, added relevant tags" Text="The two grammatical terms &quot;adposition&quot; and &quot;apposition&quot; are related to [*adpositiō*][1], which has an alternative form *appositiō*. In *appositiō* assimilation applied, while in *adpositiō* assimilation does not occur.&#xD;&#xA;Could applying optional assimilation affect the meaning of a word in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/adpositio#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28778" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9261" RevisionGUID="a94e87e5-f18b-4cf2-9d16-965691e65188" CreationDate="2019-03-13T04:53:46.900" UserId="9" Comment="Some English grammar edits, italicized mentioned words, added relevant tags" Text="Could applying assimilation affect meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28779" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9261" RevisionGUID="a94e87e5-f18b-4cf2-9d16-965691e65188" CreationDate="2019-03-13T04:53:46.900" UserId="9" Comment="Some English grammar edits, italicized mentioned words, added relevant tags" Text="|prefix|phonology|consonants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9273" RevisionGUID="4042c706-1003-4ab4-84de-0b53578702ca" CreationDate="2019-03-13T04:59:11.023" UserId="2680" Text="As Tom Cotton answered, there are many possible answers in the natural world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Wikipedia, both Virgil and Cicero mention [aurichalc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orichalcum), which is famous enough to have its own Wikipedia page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ipse dehinc auro squalentem alboque **orichalco**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; circumdat loricam umeris, simul aptat habendo  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ensemque clipeumque et rubrae cornua cristae,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ensem, quem Dauno ignipotens deus ipse parenti  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; fecerat et Stygia candentem tinxerat unda.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Aeneid_, book 12, line 88&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Next he binds upon his shoulders a corslet stiff with gold and pale **mountain bronze**; withal, he fits for wear sword and shield and the horns of his ruddy crest; the sword the divine Lord of Fire had himself wrought for his father Daunus and dipped, all glowing, in the Stygian wave.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ([as translated by H. Rushton Fairclough](https://books.google.com/books?id=ThoMAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA305))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia: &quot;Orichalcum has been held to be either a gold-copper alloy, a copper-tin or copper-zinc brass, or a metal or metallic alloy no longer known.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this might not count as an answer to your question, since you asked specifically about *Latin*, and in the context of the Latin language, we know exactly what the word _orichalco_ means. It means &quot;whatever the Greeks meant by _ὀρείχαλκος_.&quot; The trouble is that we have no idea what _ὀρείχαλκος_ meant!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9274" RevisionGUID="299f0e36-86fc-4743-affd-c39762bacf20" CreationDate="2019-03-13T11:34:08.953" UserId="3547" Text="For a while I have been curious about the etymology of the English word 'ambulance' since it seems to be derived from the Latin word 'ambulare' (to walk). This seems a strange origin for the word. People who require medical attention are generally unable to move, much less walk. How did this word end up having the meaning it possesses? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28784" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9274" RevisionGUID="299f0e36-86fc-4743-affd-c39762bacf20" CreationDate="2019-03-13T11:34:08.953" UserId="3547" Text="You are in pain. Fancy an amble? (etymology of ambulance)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28785" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9274" RevisionGUID="299f0e36-86fc-4743-affd-c39762bacf20" CreationDate="2019-03-13T11:34:08.953" UserId="3547" Text="|classical-latin|etymology|history|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9275" RevisionGUID="f522c207-a5b4-4784-9f5f-5409dc508d32" CreationDate="2019-03-13T11:43:41.537" UserId="1459" Text="According to [this](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858000366918;view=1up;seq=445) XIX century book (a period when ambulances [were **still** driven by horses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_ambulance)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it might be related to the fact that ambulances were going around by walking (of horses).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1rd6T.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28787" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9274" RevisionGUID="7042b82e-099c-4252-8c39-b2ef3ac41ef8" CreationDate="2019-03-13T11:45:25.287" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="Etymology of ambulance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9275" RevisionGUID="cd3d2fc4-d8b9-4c13-a4ef-0d1033f3f52e" CreationDate="2019-03-13T11:50:51.863" UserId="1459" Comment="added 548 characters in body" Text="According to [this](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858000366918;view=1up;seq=445) XIX century book (a period when ambulances [were **still** driven by horses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_ambulance)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it might be related to the fact that ambulances were going around by walking (of horses).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems, however, that the word enter into English from French (which itself comes from Latin) in the XIX century. At least that's what the Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology says ([here](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-concise-oxford-dictionary-of-english-etymology-9780192830982?cc=gb&amp;lang=en&amp;), although paywalled):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;moving hospital accompanying an army; vehicle to convey injured. XIX. — F. _ambulance_, repl. _hôpital ambulant_ ‘walking hospital’, earlier _hôpital ambulatoire_; F. _ambulant_ — prp. of L. _ambulāre_ walk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More about the French word _ambulance_ can be found [here](http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/ambulance).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1rd6T.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1161" RevisionGUID="bf5d4f6b-9659-4210-9839-58371e5a664d" CreationDate="2019-03-13T11:59:42.903" UserId="13" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Many languages I know of have a way of making causative constructions. For example, English uses &quot;make&quot; or &quot;have&quot;: I _make_ you do something or _have_ you do something, or even _cause you_ to do something. How do you do that in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28790" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="9249" RevisionGUID="de3176e5-df06-488a-a092-ae39e8f602f2" CreationDate="2019-03-13T12:50:29.577" UserId="79" Comment="108" />
  <row Id="28791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6645" RevisionGUID="1addd980-dfc8-4388-a4f3-5d4a49c567e5" CreationDate="2019-03-13T12:57:59.240" UserId="9" Comment="added reference to adjectives that are first declension in the masculine as well as in the feminine" Text="I don't think *-theca* is relevant. To me, it seems that Italian *azteco* and Latin *aztecus* just represent an analysis where the last &quot;a&quot; in the original Nahuatl word is removed, giving the root *aztec-*,  and then this is &#xD;&#xA;treated like the root of a regular first/second adjective, taking the thematic vowel *-o-* for the stem of the masculine and neuter forms and the thematic vowel *-a-* for the stem of the feminine forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Aztecus* is definitely used, but most of the examples I was able to find are in [species names](https://books.google.com/books?id=YSBAAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA557&amp;lpg=PA557&amp;dq=Latin+%22azteca%22+%22aztecus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=IODu6cVLZt&amp;sig=AifZ0-EfWCv_epds6feryEQqRkc&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiu64aqnr7bAhUCGnwKHew5CbsQ6AEIQjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20%22azteca%22%20%22aztecus%22&amp;f=false), and biological Latin isn't always &quot;correct&quot; from a Classical perspective. Nonetheless, I don't see any strong reason to reject the form *aztecus* (and the other forms based on the stem *azteco-*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that a handful of Latin adjectives did in fact decline, irregularly, as a-stems in the masculine as well as in the feminine: [this answer by fvogel](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/380/9) cites Forcellini who mentions  *ruricola* and *indigena,* and says that *advena* also came to be used this way (and even came to be used as a neuter-gender adjective, apparently)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28792" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9274" RevisionGUID="5a3bb694-4c44-45b8-9c9a-c46780cd31a0" CreationDate="2019-03-13T13:03:13.287" />
  <row Id="28793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6645" RevisionGUID="2bf26a87-ff8c-4055-98c5-6ba2f32b4c9c" CreationDate="2019-03-13T13:59:06.660" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="I don't think *-theca* is relevant. To me, it seems that Italian *azteco* and Latin *aztecus* just represent an analysis where the last &quot;a&quot; in the original Nahuatl word is removed, giving the root *aztec-*,  and then this is &#xD;&#xA;treated like the root of a regular first/second adjective, taking the thematic vowel *-o-* for the stem of the masculine and neuter forms and the thematic vowel *-a-* for the stem of the feminine forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Aztecus* is definitely used, but most of the examples I was able to find are in [species names](https://books.google.com/books?id=YSBAAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA557&amp;lpg=PA557&amp;dq=Latin+%22azteca%22+%22aztecus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=IODu6cVLZt&amp;sig=AifZ0-EfWCv_epds6feryEQqRkc&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiu64aqnr7bAhUCGnwKHew5CbsQ6AEIQjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20%22azteca%22%20%22aztecus%22&amp;f=false), and biological Latin isn't always &quot;correct&quot; from a Classical perspective. Nonetheless, I don't see any strong reason to reject the form *aztecus* (and the other forms based on the stem *azteco-*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that a handful of Latin adjectives did in fact decline, irregularly, as a-stems in the masculine as well as in the feminine: [this answer by fvogel](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/380/9) cites Forcellini, who mentions  *ruricola* and *indigena* and says that *advena* also came to be used this way (and even came to be used as a neuter-gender adjective, apparently)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="423" RevisionGUID="9b1e61b2-8d57-4f5a-882e-b74154f8bd1a" CreationDate="2019-03-13T14:15:23.663" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="They are Etruscans. *Atavi* here does not mean any specific ancestor (i.e. pater abavi), but in general &quot;ancestors.&quot; Horace makes the connection explicit later (*Odes* 3.29.1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tyrrhena regum progenies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tyrrhenian progeny of kings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Note: Tyrrhenus, from Tyrrheni, and is the Greek designation for the Etruscans; also, that the adjective goes with *progenies* is an example of transferred epithet.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Propertius, whose patron, along with Horace's, was Maecenas, includes the claim as well (3.9.1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maecenas, eques Etrusco de saguine regum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Maecenas, *eques* from the Etruscan blood of kings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Transferred epithet again!&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even the Vergilian Elegy for Maecenas 1.13 has it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regis eras Etrusce, genus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maecenas' connection to the Etruscans lasted well beyond the Augustan Age, for Macrobius too, in his &quot;letter to Maecenas&quot;, writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vale, mi ebenum Medulliae, ebur ex Etruria, lasar Arretinum...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Farewell, my ebony tree of Medullia, you ivory from Etruria, lasar of Arretium...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact Maecenas claimed ancestry from the Cilnii, a noble Etruscan clan from Arretium, itself a prominent Etruscan city (Tac. *Ann* 6.11; Livy 10.3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *regibus* comes into play not only to highlight his nobility, but also as an allusion to the early kings of Rome. Tarquinius Priscus and Superbus were both Etruscan kings, and since Superbus was the last of the Roman kings, there was a deeply-felt sense in Roman society of the royalty of the Etruscans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, this is connected to the early history of Rome. J. F. Hall writes in his *Etruscan History* (Bloomington, 1996):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The role of Maecenas as right-hand man to Augustus was connected, not coincidentally, to his Etruscan heritage, for he was numbered among the group of Octavian's earliest supporters which shared ties through Etruscan ancestry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more on that last point, see Gurval's *Actium and Augustus: The Politics and Emotions of Civil War* (Ann Arbor, 1998)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9262" RevisionGUID="81a009b3-0604-4dbd-8489-c136421c9cc8" CreationDate="2019-03-13T14:45:56.447" UserId="1142" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I'm unsure whether or not it is limited largely to verse, but one can find the following causative construction, *facere + inf.*, in Book II of the Aeneid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quī nātī cōram mē *cernere* lētum / **fēcistī** [...]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You, who **made** me *watch* the death of my son&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Aeneid, II.538-539*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would perhaps be cautious about using this outside the realm of poetry; Lewis &amp; Short, also citing Vergil, lists this construction as &quot;rare&quot; (under *I.A.γ*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With *inf.* = efficere, curare, *to cause* **(rare)**: nulla res magis talis oratores videri facit, Cic. Brut. 38, 142; Pall. 6, 12: aspectus arborum macrescere facit volucres inclusas, Varr. R. R. 3, 5, 3; Sall. Fragm. ap. Sen. Ep. 114: **qui nati coram me cernere letum Fecisti, Verg. A. 2, 539**; Ov. H. 17, 174: mel ter infervere facito, Col. 12, 38, 5 (perh. also in Ov. H. 6, 100, instead of favet, v. Loers. ad h. l.; cf. infra, B. 4.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9271" RevisionGUID="fe8cad34-5332-4d31-b350-28bdf24125a9" CreationDate="2019-03-13T17:09:15.913" UserId="3544" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="## The History of *Herstory*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robin Morgan coined the neologism in 1970.  She was well aware of the etymology of *history*.  As she recalled in her book, [*The Word of a Woman*][1] (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The essay] “Goodbye to All That” was my contribution to the first issue [Of *Rat* magazine upon its takeover by radical feminists in January 1970].  Beneath the byline, I identified myself as a member of WITCH—in this case, the flexible acronym stood for “Women Inspired to Commit Herstory.”  (This was the debut of the word “herstory.”  I intended it as a consciousness-raiser, **not as an etymological claim.**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She also spelled out the word *herstory*, as part of the name W.I.T.C.H., on page 551 of her 1970 anthology, *Sisterhood is Powerful*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern usage, the word has come to mean writing about history from a feminist perspective, rather than making it.  (*Wikipedia* claims that “femistry” and “galgebra” are similar coinages, but in fact these appear to have been invented sarcastically by a right-wing pundit, Christina Hoff Sommers, in 2014, and I could find no examples of any feminists using them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Few if any influential feminists have ever said that *history* is a sexist word, although many anti-feminists appear to believe that they do.  The 1988 edition of the *Handbook of Non-Sexist Writing*, for example, uses the word “history” throughout and pauses to sigh at “the belabored form of ridicule that we must find alternatives for every word containing” a syllable such as *man*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Afro-futurist musician Sun Ra made the same pun in 1980 (“History is only his story. You haven’t heard my story yet.”) also fully aware that this is not where the word comes from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have, however, personally been forced to sit through a college lecture by a woman who actually believed and taught the urban legend *his+story*.  Despite her claim to diversity being that she was Latina, she also fell for *his+panic* (and misattributed it to the Reagan administration, being unaware that the Nixon administration first added it to the 1970 Census more than a decade earlier) and *per+son*. (I was sorely tempted to ask if she was familiar with the Spanish word *una persona*.)  So, a few ignoramuses like that do exist; in my life, I have met a total of one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The Etymology of *History*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we were to take the word absolutely literally according to its etymology, it would imply that “history” is written by an [istor][2], or “wise man.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to the fact that *historia* is grammatically feminine, theories about the Indo-European three-gender system include one that the gender that became “feminine” originally developed from a suffix for mass nouns, or that it originally primarily denoted abstract nouns, or that it started as a way to distinguish which of two subjects in a sentence someone was referring to, and only later came to include most words for women.  English developed natural gender in the early modern period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The Etymology of *His*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since no one has gone into this yet, *his* comes from a Saxon root *is*, cognate with German *es*, and meant either *his* or *its* until the 1600s.  There was a brief period of time when *hisis* was to *his* as *hers* is to *her*, but this failed to catch on.  *Its* was still new enough when the King James translation of the Bible was written that the translators did not consider it sufficiently formal, so they avoided both *his* and *its* for neuter possessives whenever possible, and used *thereof* instead.  This is how they came up with, “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sZiWBAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT40#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%B5%CF%83%CF%84%CF%89%CF%81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9271" RevisionGUID="90cd8874-1ed2-4748-bc61-6cb93da99f91" CreationDate="2019-03-13T17:25:16.697" UserId="3544" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="## The History of *Herstory*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robin Morgan coined the neologism in 1970.  She was well aware of the etymology of *history*.  As she recalled in her book, [*The Word of a Woman*][1] (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The essay] “Goodbye to All That” was my contribution to the first issue [Of *Rat* magazine upon its takeover by radical feminists in January 1970].  Beneath the byline, I identified myself as a member of WITCH—in this case, the flexible acronym stood for “Women Inspired to Commit Herstory.”  (This was the debut of the word “herstory.”  I intended it as a consciousness-raiser, **not as an etymological claim.**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She also spelled out the word *herstory*, as part of the name W.I.T.C.H., on page 551 of her 1970 anthology, *Sisterhood is Powerful*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern usage, the word has come to mean writing about history from a feminist perspective, rather than making it.  (*Wikipedia* claims that “femistry” and “galgebra” are similar coinages, but in fact these appear to have been invented sarcastically by a right-wing pundit, Christina Hoff Sommers, in 2014, and I could find no examples of any feminists using them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Few if any influential feminists have ever said that *history* is a sexist word, although many anti-feminists appear to believe that they do.  The 1988 edition of the *Handbook of Non-Sexist Writing*, for example, uses the word “history” throughout and pauses to sigh at “the belabored form of ridicule that we must find alternatives for every word containing” a syllable such as *man*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Afro-futurist musician Sun Ra made the same pun in 1980 (“History is only his story. You haven’t heard my story yet.”) also fully aware that this is not where the word comes from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have, however, personally been forced to sit through a college lecture by a woman who actually believed and taught the urban legend *his+story*.  Despite her claim to diversity being that she was Latina, she also told the joke *his+panic* (and misattributed it to the Reagan administration, being unaware that the Nixon administration first added it to the 1970 Census more than a decade earlier) and also fell for *per+son*. (I was sorely tempted to ask if she was familiar with the Spanish word *una persona*.)  So, a few ignoramuses like that do exist; in my life, I have met a total of one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The Etymology of *History*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we were to take the word absolutely literally according to its etymology, it would imply that “history” is written by an [istor][2], or “wise man.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to the fact that *historia* is grammatically feminine, theories about the Indo-European three-gender system include one that the gender that became “feminine” originally developed from a suffix for mass nouns, or that it originally primarily denoted abstract nouns, or that it started as a way to distinguish which of two subjects in a sentence someone was referring to, and only later came to include most words for women.  English developed natural gender in the early modern period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The Etymology of *His*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since no one has gone into this yet, *his* comes from a Saxon root *is*, cognate with German *es*, and meant either *his* or *its* until the 1600s.  There was a brief period of time when *hisis* was to *his* as *hers* is to *her*, but this failed to catch on.  *Its* was still new enough when the King James translation of the Bible was written that the translators did not consider it sufficiently formal, so they avoided both *his* and *its* for neuter possessives whenever possible, and used *thereof* instead.  This is how they came up with, “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sZiWBAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT40#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%B5%CF%83%CF%84%CF%89%CF%81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28799" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2547" RevisionGUID="361a5d2e-c6e0-4d1d-993e-88445417de85" CreationDate="2019-03-13T21:31:29.803" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|translation-check|latin-to-english-translation|augustinus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9262" RevisionGUID="bca31760-9196-48ff-9fac-0cb090173cdc" CreationDate="2019-03-13T21:39:12.897" UserId="1142" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="I'm unsure to what extent this was used, but one can find the following causative construction, *facere + inf.*, in Book II of the Aeneid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quī nātī cōram mē *cernere* lētum / **fēcistī** [...]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You, who **made** me *watch* the death of my son&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Aeneid, II.538-539*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would perhaps be cautious about using this outside the realm of poetry; Lewis &amp; Short, also citing Vergil, lists this construction as &quot;rare&quot; (under *I.A.γ*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With *inf.* = efficere, curare, *to cause* **(rare)**: nulla res magis talis oratores videri facit, Cic. Brut. 38, 142; Pall. 6, 12: aspectus arborum macrescere facit volucres inclusas, Varr. R. R. 3, 5, 3; Sall. Fragm. ap. Sen. Ep. 114: **qui nati coram me cernere letum Fecisti, Verg. A. 2, 539**; Ov. H. 17, 174: mel ter infervere facito, Col. 12, 38, 5 (perh. also in Ov. H. 6, 100, instead of favet, v. Loers. ad h. l.; cf. infra, B. 4.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9276" RevisionGUID="7805de82-76c5-44cc-ae53-39563524b259" CreationDate="2019-03-13T22:50:39.850" UserId="406" Text="Latin has some &quot;epicene nouns&quot;, like *canis* &quot;dog&quot;, which can be either masculine or feminine: a good dog could be either a *canis bonus* or a *canis bona*, depending on the dog in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any epicene names? That is, are there any attested names in Latin that could be used by either a man or a woman, without changing the form at all? (Names like *Julius/Julia* don't count, because the ending has to change along with the gender.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28802" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9276" RevisionGUID="7805de82-76c5-44cc-ae53-39563524b259" CreationDate="2019-03-13T22:50:39.850" UserId="406" Text="Are there gender-neutral names in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28803" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9276" RevisionGUID="7805de82-76c5-44cc-ae53-39563524b259" CreationDate="2019-03-13T22:50:39.850" UserId="406" Text="|names|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28805" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9078" RevisionGUID="677a8fa8-eb5b-496f-9f98-e7bd529c4678" CreationDate="2019-03-14T03:02:55.697" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="28806" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="9187" RevisionGUID="ab2dfb8e-08a4-46b1-bb60-9cd94cbd7450" CreationDate="2019-03-14T03:05:51.750" UserId="9" Comment="109" />
  <row Id="28809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5621" RevisionGUID="2dceed29-4150-4d58-97bb-1a0dffc26da3" CreationDate="2019-03-14T07:52:18.850" UserId="79" Comment="added 272 characters in body" Text="It appears that the noun can be singular or plural but the ordinals should be singular.&#xD;&#xA;That is, you'd need *capitulum* or *capitula* with *primum et secundum*.&#xD;&#xA;If you go with *capitula prima et secunda*, it sounds like there are several first chapters and several second chapters as in a collection of books.&#xD;&#xA;(At least I found no evidence to support this possibility to express what you want.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[§234.1 of Bennett's New Latin Grammar](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bennett.html#sect234) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Two Adjectives in the Singular may limit a noun in the Plural, as; **prīma et vīcēsima legiōnēs**, *the first and twentieth legions*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example in the Grammar seems to be lifted from Tacitus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Primam ac vicesimam legiones Caecina legatus in civitatem Vbiorum reduxit&amp;hellip;*  &#xD;&#xA;(*Annales*, 1.37)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is also possible for the noun to be singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Primam et secundam aciem in armis esse&amp;hellip;*  &#xD;&#xA;(Caesar, *De Bello Gallico*, 1.49)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5617" RevisionGUID="e064f51f-f1d7-46b6-96b6-ae378af304ea" CreationDate="2019-03-14T07:59:51.837" UserId="79" Comment="added 412 characters in body" Text="I would offer two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp;hellip;capitula a primo (usque) ad decimum&amp;hellip;*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;hellip;chapters from the first one (all the way) to the tenth&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp;hellip;a primo capitulo (usque) ad decimum&amp;hellip;*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;hellip;from the first chapter one (all the way) to the tenth&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not repeat the word *capitulum* twice unless I wanted more emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the second one is more idiomatic, but the first one is clear, too.&#xD;&#xA;(It has an implicit *capitulum* which is easy enough for the reader to supply in the correct form.)&#xD;&#xA;The first one has the benefit that the word *capitula* has a clear case and the grammatical role is more transparent; it's a matter of choosing between a noun phrase and an adverbial phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When using *usque* to express the length of a range, [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=usque&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) indicate that you should use a preposition.&#xD;&#xA;To be honest, I had hard time parsing the bold part of your sentence.&#xD;&#xA;If nothing else, prepositions make the the range clearer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that you can leave *usque* out if you will, just as you can drop &quot;all the way&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;It is a matter of tone and emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making *prima* and *decima* plural sounds fishy; there are several chapters but only one first and one tenth.&#xD;&#xA;You could say *capitula primum et decimum* for &quot;the first and tenth chapters&quot;, which does not explicitly indicate a range.&#xD;&#xA;It is also correct to say *capitulum primum et decimum*.&#xD;&#xA;See [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5620/79) for further details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The agreement of a noun with several adjectives makes it reasonable, to me at least, to use *capitula a primo ad decimum* without repeating *capitulum* in the relevant case after the prepositions.&#xD;&#xA;It is clear what the numerals refer to, so I would consider it clumsy and unnecessary to repeat the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a somewhat similar range expression in *Ab Urbe condita* 31.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp;hellip;tres et sexaginta annos&amp;mdash;tot enim sunt **a primo Punico ad secundum bellum** finitum&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will look for more range examples, but I hope this makes my *a primo ad decimum* more plausible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9278" RevisionGUID="765a6cc3-8fb4-47c4-8bb0-e16e6c521541" CreationDate="2019-03-14T12:08:39.600" UserId="645" Text="This apparently simple question produced before this a single answer and much interesting comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would put it simply as [Ecce in hac pagina Iohannis Ørbergii] *primum usque ad decimum capitulorum*. The genitive plural suggests there there are further chapters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9279" RevisionGUID="b33b2c38-826c-487a-b723-7c91b12448e3" CreationDate="2019-03-14T12:47:24.677" UserId="3567" Text="I would like to translate the sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The ignorance and the hubris (arrogance) of our adversaries is our biggest asset.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;into latin. Google translations do not seem to be entirely correct and I want to have it perfect. My rusty knowledge of latin from almost 30 years ago :-) let me tweak it to these two versions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ignorantia et superbia adversariorum maximum dignissim nostrum est.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ignorantia et superbia adversariorum, hic noster dignissim.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first version I am not sure if it is better to omit the &quot;est&quot; at the end. The second is a bit more loosly translated, but seems to be a bit more catchy. But is it correct, too?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any comments from the experts are highly welcome. Thanks! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Apart of that, since I am not a native English speaker, I am not sure if it's actually &quot;The ignorance and the hubris (arrogance) of our adversaries are our biggest assets.&quot; and this would also be reflected in the latin sentence?!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28813" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9279" RevisionGUID="b33b2c38-826c-487a-b723-7c91b12448e3" CreationDate="2019-03-14T12:47:24.677" UserId="3567" Text="&quot;The ignorance and the hubris (arrogance) of our adversaries is our biggest asset.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28814" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9279" RevisionGUID="b33b2c38-826c-487a-b723-7c91b12448e3" CreationDate="2019-03-14T12:47:24.677" UserId="3567" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9280" RevisionGUID="e0f2214c-e341-4349-bec3-feac62053c42" CreationDate="2019-03-14T13:01:28.953" UserId="3568" Text="Can someone explain the meaning of the words &quot;SEVERA INDEOVI VAS&quot; on this slab:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Adoration of the Magi][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus, the above image is of an &quot;Incised sarcophagus slab with the Adoration of the Magi from the Catacombs of Rome, 3rd century. Plaster cast with added colour.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, can someone tell me if the person on the far left side of the slab is supposed to be a 3rd century representation of a young Jesus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Utpmu.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28816" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9280" RevisionGUID="e0f2214c-e341-4349-bec3-feac62053c42" CreationDate="2019-03-14T13:01:28.953" UserId="3568" Text="Meaning of &quot;SEVERA INDEOVI VAS&quot; from 3rd Century &quot;Adoration of the Magi&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28817" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9280" RevisionGUID="e0f2214c-e341-4349-bec3-feac62053c42" CreationDate="2019-03-14T13:01:28.953" UserId="3568" Text="|classical-latin|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9281" RevisionGUID="3bc3cf72-ffab-42a7-9af2-3b3812784ebf" CreationDate="2019-03-14T13:14:48.070" UserId="9" Text="This inscription does not use spacing to separate words. (Word division was often not marked consistently, or not marked at all in Roman inscriptions.) The second and third lines actually say &quot;IN DEO VIVAS&quot;. &quot;IN&quot; is a preposition (meaning &quot;in&quot;), &quot;DEO&quot; is a noun (&quot;god/God&quot;) in the ablative case, and &quot;VIVAS&quot; is a verb (&quot;live&quot;) in the second-person singular present active subjunctive. [This website](http://osjusa.org/st-joseph/art/the-epitaph-of-severa/) gives the English translation as &quot;May you live in God.&quot; &quot;Severa&quot; is apparently the name of the woman whose burial is commemorated by the slab." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28819" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9280" RevisionGUID="0469f5ba-fd15-4600-92dc-0d0802864c60" CreationDate="2019-03-14T13:16:34.930" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|latin-to-english-translation|christianity|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9281" RevisionGUID="93da7c5f-4202-4ad6-b6e1-60f700ef24d0" CreationDate="2019-03-14T13:22:19.140" UserId="9" Comment="added 371 characters in body" Text="This inscription does not use spacing to separate words. (Word division was often not marked consistently, or not marked at all in Roman inscriptions.) The second and third lines actually say &quot;IN DEO VIVAS&quot;. &quot;IN&quot; is a preposition (meaning &quot;in&quot;), &quot;DEO&quot; is a noun (&quot;god/God&quot;) in the ablative case, and &quot;VIVAS&quot; is a verb (&quot;live&quot;) in the second-person singular present active subjunctive. [This website](http://osjusa.org/st-joseph/art/the-epitaph-of-severa/) gives the English translation as &quot;May you live in God.&quot; &quot;Severa&quot; is apparently the name of the woman whose burial is commemorated by the slab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know whether the figure on the left is meant to be Jesus (if I had to guess, I would say no, though; my first impression is that it is meant to be a depiction of Severa). There is certainly a depiction of Jesus as a baby on the right side of the slab: he is being held by Mary. In front of baby Jesus and Mary (to their left on the slab) are the three magi bringing gifts; behind Mary (on the right) is a figure that presumably is Joseph." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="1d392d33-a4db-44ae-8059-4a7647d4aa7c" CreationDate="2019-03-14T14:23:46.867" UserId="9" Comment="Now that I think about it, &quot;Gotarzes&quot; looks like a first-declension noun" Text="###The definition of &quot;I-stems&quot; is relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*), dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), and nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period. But it seems consonant-stem nouns never take *-im* in the accusative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Because of the somewhat complicated formation of Latin nominative singular forms in the third declension, it can be difficult to analyze the nominative singular form in terms of a root + suffix. We can often figure out the origin of the form from comparative linguistics or internal reconstruction, but the etymological analysis may not always be the one that makes the most sense from a synchronic perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being (at least partially) an i-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Most consonants can occur at the end of a noun stem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that there are no nouns with stems ending in F*, J, Z, Q(V), or K. I wouldn't consider K to be a true gap, as it was just a variant spelling for the /k/ sound of C. Q(V) is only a gap if you analyze QV as a consonant of its own (/kʷ/) rather than as a replacement spelling for a CV (/kw/) cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, N, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: in the genitive plural, *apis* can take either the consonant-stem form *apum* or the i-stem form *apium.* The form *apum* is clearly built on a stem ending in P. Another example would be *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1),* which forms *opum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B**: *plēbs* takes the i-stem form *plēbium*. I'm having trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum.* I'm not sure whether any Latin nouns decline as &quot;pure&quot; b-stem throughout the entire paradigm, but accusative singular *-bem* and ablative singular *-be* certainly exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural *ossa*, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H. So I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. PH, CH or TH stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: I'm not sure whether there are any good examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **PH**: *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem, but the genitive plural looks like it may be *gryphium*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **CH**: *[sardonyx](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsardonyx),* from Greek σαρδόνυξ, seems to decline as a CH-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- \***F**: If you include Ecclesiastical Latin, than the word *scinifes/[cinifes](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcinifes)* might count, as it apparently has a genitive plural form *(s)cinifum.* A variant spelling with *ph* also seems to exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28822" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4531" RevisionGUID="86da4232-3470-432d-994e-77ff6c78efcf" CreationDate="2019-03-14T14:25:47.950" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="|declension|names|mythology|declinatio-prima|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28823" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5852" RevisionGUID="14200954-0149-4476-aec3-cb989c08d192" CreationDate="2019-03-14T14:26:07.483" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="|etymology|morphology|suffixes|declinatio-prima|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9282" RevisionGUID="01f67d07-457d-4c3e-8864-d8a0806965bb" CreationDate="2019-03-14T14:57:12.433" UserId="1459" Text="Sumelic is right. I just want to add a few things. First, the expression _in Deo vivas_ and related (e.g. _vivatis in Christo_, &quot;may you live in Christ&quot;) seem to be of common use among Christians of the period. For instance, it's also found in [a ring](https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/547965)) saying &quot;Antoni vivas in Deo&quot; (it appears reversed):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples are cited [here](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=70SacST0k6EC&amp;lpg=PA68&amp;ots=mC6qJ0eXF9&amp;dq=SEVERA%20christian%20roman%20in%20deo%20vivas&amp;pg=PA68#v=onepage&amp;q=SEVERA%20christian%20roman%20in%20deo%20vivas&amp;f=false) and [here](https://saesferd.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/late-roman-christian-disc-and-viking-silver-ingot/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly enough, it seems a ring containing a similar expression (the so called &quot;[Ring of Silvianus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Silvianus)&quot;, with the inscription _SENICIANE VIVAS IIN DE_) was an inspiration for J.R.R. Tolkien in his creation of the Middle Earth mythology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, regarding the slab in question, [this site](https://bstorage.wordpress.com/2013/04/13/severa-in-deo-vivas/) provides further speculation about the context and meaning of it. Although it does not mention anything about who Severa might have been, who knows, it could have been [Marcia Otacilia Severa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcia_Otacilia_Severa), a 3rd century Empress of Rome, with the article suggests (witout providing sources), could have been a Christian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3WKiT.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28825" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9280" RevisionGUID="f6497387-eb89-4a22-b0ca-7ef7a2798a6f" CreationDate="2019-03-14T14:57:48.320" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning of &quot;SEVERA INDEOVI VAS&quot; from 3rd Century slab" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28826" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9280" RevisionGUID="d4a84f49-fe4c-4bed-acbd-efc49c76b2ac" CreationDate="2019-03-14T15:05:42.757" />
  <row Id="28827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9283" RevisionGUID="dc25add4-d828-455d-954c-b5ca5f7ca92f" CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:02:56.080" UserId="9" Text="Declinatione nominum latinorum a nominibus graecis quae *-ης* finiuntur perturbor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dictionarium L&amp;S exhibet &quot;Arsăces, is m.&quot; a nomine graeco *Ἀρσάκης*. (E in syllaba ultima de &quot;Arsăces&quot; longum esse praesumo.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nomen graecum primae est declinationis, sed nomen latinum tertiae est. Et dictionarium Wiktionary exhibet &quot;Gōtarzēs, Gōtarzis&quot; a nomine Graeco *Γωτάρζης*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cur dicimus &quot;Arsacis&quot; et &quot;Gotarzis&quot; et non &quot;Arsacae&quot; et &quot;Gotarzae&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Latine scribere volui, sed male scribere timeo. Anglice scribam.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm feeling a bit uncertain right now about how nouns taken from Greek nouns ending in -ης are declined. According to Lewis and Short, &quot;Arsăces, is m.&quot; is the Latin name corresponding to the Greek name Ἀρσάκης. Although L&amp;S do not mark the e in the last syllable with a macron, I assume it is long (-ēs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek name seems to be first declension, but the Latin name is given as a third-declension noun. Similarly, the Wiktionary entry for the name Gotarzes (from Greek Γωτάρζης) marks it as a third-declension noun with the forms Gōtarzēs, Gōtarzis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused because I expected that Greek first-declension nouns ending in -ης would be taken into Latin as first-declension nouns of the &quot;Greek&quot; sub-type, with nominative singular forms in -ēs and genitive singular forms in -ae (as described in [Joonas's answer here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4533/9)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I do a Google search for &quot;Arsacis&quot; or &quot;Gotarzis&quot;, I do get many results. I tried searching for &quot;Gotarzae&quot; and found an example in this document: [Flavii Iosephi Antiqvitatvm Ivdaicarvm libri XX.](https://books.google.com/books?id=RXhnAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA535&amp;lpg=PA535&amp;dq=&quot;Gotarzae&quot;) Should this be categorized as an erroneous form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28828" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9283" RevisionGUID="dc25add4-d828-455d-954c-b5ca5f7ca92f" CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:02:56.080" UserId="9" Text="How are &quot;Arsaces&quot; and &quot;Gotarzes&quot; declined, and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28829" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9283" RevisionGUID="dc25add4-d828-455d-954c-b5ca5f7ca92f" CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:02:56.080" UserId="9" Text="|greek|declension|names|third-declension|declinatio-prima|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9284" RevisionGUID="4b49cf80-e3b9-44bc-9839-02c8c30ade07" CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:10:04.093" UserId="3568" Text="Here is a very old (possibly 2nd century) depiction of the Crucifixion of Jesus on an engraved gem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Crucifiction][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do the words say?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_in_the_arts#Late_Antiquity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Nrwf6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28831" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9284" RevisionGUID="4b49cf80-e3b9-44bc-9839-02c8c30ade07" CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:10:04.093" UserId="3568" Text="What do these Greek words say? Possibly 2nd century" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28832" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9284" RevisionGUID="4b49cf80-e3b9-44bc-9839-02c8c30ade07" CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:10:04.093" UserId="3568" Text="|greek|greek-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9283" RevisionGUID="5580d58e-7b99-445e-8f88-67d0e32a64da" CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:11:44.793" UserId="9" Comment="added 173 characters in body" Text="Declinatione nominum latinorum a nominibus graecis quae *-ης* finiuntur perturbor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dictionarium L&amp;S exhibet &quot;Arsăces, is m.&quot; a nomine graeco *Ἀρσάκης*. (E in syllaba ultima de &quot;Arsăces&quot; longum esse praesumo.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nomen graecum primae est declinationis, sed nomen latinum tertiae est. Et dictionarium Wiktionary exhibet &quot;Gōtarzēs, Gōtarzis&quot; a nomine Graeco *Γωτάρζης*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cur dicimus &quot;Arsacis&quot; et &quot;Gotarzis&quot; et non &quot;Arsacae&quot; et &quot;Gotarzae&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Latine scribere volui, sed male scribere timeo. Anglice scribam.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm feeling a bit uncertain right now about how nouns taken from Greek nouns ending in -ης are declined. According to Lewis and Short, &quot;Arsăces, is m.&quot; is the Latin name corresponding to the Greek name Ἀρσάκης. Although L&amp;S do not mark the e in the last syllable with a macron, I assume it is long (-ēs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek name seems to be first declension, but the Latin name is given as a third-declension noun. Similarly, the Wiktionary entry for the name Gotarzes (from Greek Γωτάρζης) marks it as a third-declension noun with the forms Gōtarzēs, Gōtarzis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused because I expected that Greek first-declension nouns ending in -ης would be taken into Latin as first-declension nouns of the &quot;Greek&quot; sub-type, with nominative singular forms in -ēs and genitive singular forms in -ae (as described in [Joonas's answer here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4533/9)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I do a Google search for &quot;Arsacis&quot; or &quot;Gotarzis&quot;, I do get many results. I tried searching for &quot;Gotarzae&quot; and found an example in this document: [Flavii Iosephi Antiqvitatvm Ivdaicarvm libri XX.](https://books.google.com/books?id=RXhnAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA535&amp;lpg=PA535&amp;dq=&quot;Gotarzae&quot;) Should this be categorized as an erroneous form? (I realize that names like this aren't necessarily attested in many places, so maybe there is no good way to judge which forms aside from the nominative are &quot;correct&quot; in Latin. If the situation is like that, an explanation of this would also count as an answer.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9285" RevisionGUID="92b67600-b12b-4e17-8937-e48fda57a8ab" CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:22:39.540" UserId="1459" Text="According to [this site](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_comparative_mythology#Iconography), it has the image of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a crucified man identified as ΟΡΦΕΩΣ ΒΑΚΧΙΚΟΣ (Orpheos Bacchikos).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A dedicated scientific article analysing the stone (in relation to, for instance, the Crucifixion of Jesus) can be found [here](http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/articula/Orpheos_Bakkikos_en.pdf)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9283" RevisionGUID="733c335a-3831-4159-8b04-dfe88dd0fd05" CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:23:19.960" UserId="9" Comment="added links" Text="Declinatione nominum latinorum a nominibus graecis quae *-ης* finiuntur perturbor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dictionarium L&amp;S exhibet &quot;[Arsăces][1], is m.&quot; a nomine graeco *Ἀρσάκης*. (E in syllaba ultima de &quot;Arsăces&quot; longum esse praesumo.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nomen graecum primae est declinationis, sed nomen latinum tertiae est. Et dictionarium Wiktionary exhibet &quot;[Gōtarzēs][2], Gōtarzis&quot; a nomine Graeco *Γωτάρζης*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cur dicimus &quot;Arsacis&quot; et &quot;Gotarzis&quot; et non &quot;Arsacae&quot; et &quot;Gotarzae&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Latine scribere volui, sed male scribere timeo. Anglice scribam.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm feeling a bit uncertain right now about how nouns taken from Greek nouns ending in -ης are declined. According to Lewis and Short, &quot;[Arsăces][1], is m.&quot; is the Latin name corresponding to the Greek name Ἀρσάκης. Although L&amp;S do not mark the e in the last syllable with a macron, I assume it is long (-ēs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek name seems to be first declension, but the Latin name is given as a third-declension noun. Similarly, the Wiktionary entry for the name [Gotarzes][2] (from Greek Γωτάρζης) marks it as a third-declension noun with the forms Gōtarzēs, Gōtarzis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused because I expected that Greek first-declension nouns ending in -ης would be taken into Latin as first-declension nouns of the &quot;Greek&quot; sub-type, with nominative singular forms in -ēs and genitive singular forms in -ae (as described in [Joonas's answer here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4533/9)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I do a Google search for &quot;Arsacis&quot; or &quot;Gotarzis&quot;, I do get many results. I tried searching for &quot;Gotarzae&quot; and found an example in this document: [Flavii Iosephi Antiqvitatvm Ivdaicarvm libri XX.](https://books.google.com/books?id=RXhnAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA535&amp;lpg=PA535&amp;dq=&quot;Gotarzae&quot;) Should this be categorized as an erroneous form? I also found results for &quot;Arsacen&quot; and &quot;Gotarzen&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I realize that names like this aren't necessarily attested in many places, so maybe there is no good way to judge which forms aside from the nominative are &quot;correct&quot; in Latin. If the situation is like that, an explanation of this would also count as an answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DArsaces&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gotarzes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9286" RevisionGUID="816f6adc-ec9b-4c52-b5b9-56c82cbbf8a2" CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:29:20.523" UserId="406" Text="The words are Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ΟΡΦΕΟϹ ΒΑΚΚΙΚΟϹ  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Orpheos Baccicos&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that it was meant to be *Orphe**u**s Bacc**h**icos*, either misspelled or written in a different dialect. In this case, it would mean &quot;Bacchic Orpheus&quot; (where &quot;Bacchic&quot; refers to the worship of Bacchus, and &quot;Orpheus&quot; is the singer who went down to the Underworld and returned).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both Bacchus and Orpheus had cults relating to death and resurrection, and they were sometimes unified into a single deity called &quot;Zagreus&quot;, so I wouldn't be too surprised to see their names associated with the Christian idea of the Resurrection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9285" RevisionGUID="b1f748cd-23e7-4b90-93b4-1402739fc33d" CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:31:08.710" UserId="1459" Comment="added 1240 characters in body" Text="According to [this site](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_comparative_mythology#Iconography), it has the image of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a crucified man identified as ΟΡΦΕΩΣ ΒΑΚΧΙΚΟΣ (Orpheos Bacchikos).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A dedicated scientific article analysing the stone (in relation to, for instance, the Crucifixion of Jesus) can be found [here](http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/articula/Orpheos_Bakkikos_en.pdf). Notice that it is unclear if the image is that of Jesus. For instance, the article states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The fact&#xD;&#xA;that Christ appears represented on a cross, but is designated OPΦEOC BAKKIKOC—“Bacchic&#xD;&#xA;Orpheus”—, is of remarkable singularity in religious history, because Christ has taken the&#xD;&#xA;place of Orpheus, and not _vice versa_, as it is well-known from catacomb frescoes, for&#xD;&#xA;example with Orpheus as the Good Shepherd. Therefore the artefact would be&#xD;&#xA;syncretistic or Orphic, however with an Orpheus subjected to Dionysian suffering like Marsyas at the stake, and not like the Apollonian Orpheus with his _lyra_ amidst tamed beasts. _Bakkikos_ as an epithet of _Orpheos_ is not tautologic, because beside the tradition that (as it seems to be the case here) Orpheus was killed by the enemies of his own following, there was among many others one famous variant, in which Orpheus, after returning from the Hades, abandoned his earlier habit of worshipping Dionysus-Bacchus and turned to Helios-Apollo instead, for which the insulted god had him dismembered by his Maenads. Therefore the designation _Bakkikos_ would contrast this Orpheus on the&#xD;&#xA;cross from the follower of Apollo and identify him as the founder of the Dionysian&#xD;&#xA;Mysteries (see below)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9283" RevisionGUID="e1f56fc4-f032-4944-95bc-93509b63d700" CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:34:59.937" UserId="9" Comment="added 380 characters in body" Text="Declinatione nominum latinorum a nominibus graecis quae *-ης* finiuntur perturbor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dictionarium L&amp;S exhibet &quot;[Arsăces][1], is m.&quot; a nomine graeco *Ἀρσάκης*. (E in syllaba ultima de &quot;Arsăces&quot; longum esse praesumo.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nomen graecum primae est declinationis, sed nomen latinum tertiae est. Et dictionarium Wiktionary exhibet &quot;[Gōtarzēs][2], Gōtarzis&quot; a nomine Graeco *Γωτάρζης*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cur dicimus &quot;Arsacis&quot; et &quot;Gotarzis&quot; et non &quot;Arsacae&quot; et &quot;Gotarzae&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Latine scribere volui, sed male scribere timeo. Anglice scribam.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm feeling a bit uncertain right now about how nouns taken from Greek nouns ending in -ης are declined. According to Lewis and Short, &quot;[Arsăces][1], is m.&quot; is the Latin name corresponding to the Greek name Ἀρσάκης. Although L&amp;S do not mark the e in the last syllable with a macron, I assume it is long (-ēs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek name seems to be first declension, but the Latin name is given as a third-declension noun. Similarly, the Wiktionary entry for the name [Gotarzes][2] (from Greek Γωτάρζης) marks it as a third-declension noun with the forms Gōtarzēs, Gōtarzis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused because I expected that Greek first-declension nouns ending in -ης would be taken into Latin as first-declension nouns of the &quot;Greek&quot; sub-type, with nominative singular forms in -ēs and genitive singular forms in -ae (as described in [Joonas's answer here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4533/9)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I do a Google search for &quot;Arsacis&quot; or &quot;Gotarzis&quot;, I do get many results. I tried searching for &quot;Gotarzae&quot; and found an example in this document: [Flavii Iosephi Antiqvitatvm Ivdaicarvm libri XX.](https://books.google.com/books?id=RXhnAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA535&amp;lpg=PA535&amp;dq=&quot;Gotarzae&quot;) Should this be categorized as an erroneous form? I also found results for &quot;Arsacen&quot; and &quot;Gotarzen&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I realize that names like this aren't necessarily attested in many places, so maybe there is no good way to judge which forms aside from the nominative are &quot;correct&quot; in Latin. If the situation is like that, an explanation of this would also count as an answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, the only reference I have found that seems to be applicable is this passage from [Allen and Greenough §44b](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/1st-declension-greek-nouns):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Many Greek nouns vary among the 1st, the 2nd, and the 3rd declensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;***Boōtae*** (genitive of ***Boōtēs, -is***),&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;***Thūcȳdidās*** (accusative plural of ***Thūcȳdidēs, -is***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reference to the 2nd declension makes the situation even more complicated: would &quot;Arsaci&quot; and &quot;Gotarzi&quot; also be possible genitive forms? [Allen and Greenough §52a](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/2nd-declension-greek-nouns) says that  &quot;Many names in -ēs belonging to the 3rd declension have also a genitive in -ī&quot;, giving the example &quot;Thūcȳdidēs, Thūcȳdidī&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DArsaces&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gotarzes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9285" RevisionGUID="d5d80577-87d2-43b3-8f83-e2ef60c655e0" CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:37:19.017" UserId="1459" Comment="added 1240 characters in body" Text="According to [this site](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_comparative_mythology#Iconography), it has the image of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a crucified man identified as ΟΡΦΕΩΣ ΒΑΚΧΙΚΟΣ (Orpheos Bacchikos).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A dedicated scientific article analysing the stone (in relation to, for instance, the Crucifixion of Jesus) can be found [here](http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/articula/Orpheos_Bakkikos_en.pdf). Notice that it is unclear if the image is that of Jesus. Orpheos might be a reference to the [Greek legendary figure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orpheus) of that name. For instance, the article states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The fact&#xD;&#xA;that Christ appears represented on a cross, but is designated OPΦEOC BAKKIKOC—“Bacchic&#xD;&#xA;Orpheus”—, is of remarkable singularity in religious history, because Christ has taken the&#xD;&#xA;place of Orpheus, and not _vice versa_, as it is well-known from catacomb frescoes, for&#xD;&#xA;example with Orpheus as the Good Shepherd. Therefore the artefact would be&#xD;&#xA;syncretistic or Orphic, however with an Orpheus subjected to Dionysian suffering like Marsyas at the stake, and not like the Apollonian Orpheus with his _lyra_ amidst tamed beasts. _Bakkikos_ as an epithet of _Orpheos_ is not tautologic, because beside the tradition that (as it seems to be the case here) Orpheus was killed by the enemies of his own following, there was among many others one famous variant, in which Orpheus, after returning from the Hades, abandoned his earlier habit of worshipping Dionysus-Bacchus and turned to Helios-Apollo instead, for which the insulted god had him dismembered by his Maenads. Therefore the designation _Bakkikos_ would contrast this Orpheus on the&#xD;&#xA;cross from the follower of Apollo and identify him as the founder of the Dionysian&#xD;&#xA;Mysteries (see below)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9282" RevisionGUID="8d943498-1b63-4ae8-81a6-d125b6c16a5a" CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:40:45.010" UserId="-1" Comment="minor changes and odd English fixed." Text="Sumelic is right. I just want to add a few things. First, the expression _in Deo vivas_ and related (e.g. _vivatis in Christo_, &quot;may you live in Christ&quot;) seem to be of common use among Christians of the period. For instance, it's also found in [a ring](https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/547965) saying &quot;Antoni vivas in Deo&quot; (it appears reversed):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples are cited [here](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=70SacST0k6EC&amp;lpg=PA68&amp;ots=mC6qJ0eXF9&amp;dq=SEVERA%20christian%20roman%20in%20deo%20vivas&amp;pg=PA68#v=onepage&amp;q=SEVERA%20christian%20roman%20in%20deo%20vivas&amp;f=false) and [here](https://saesferd.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/late-roman-christian-disc-and-viking-silver-ingot/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly enough, it seems a ring containing a similar expression (the so called &quot;[Ring of Silvianus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Silvianus)&quot;, with the inscription _SENICIANE VIVAS IIN DE_) was an inspiration for J.R.R. Tolkien in his creation of the Middle Earth mythology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, regarding the slab in question, [this site](https://bstorage.wordpress.com/2013/04/13/severa-in-deo-vivas/) provides further speculation about the context and meaning of it. It does not mention anything about who Severa might have been though. Who knows, maybe it was [Marcia Otacilia Severa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcia_Otacilia_Severa), a 3rd century Empress of Rome, with the article suggests (without providing sources), could have been a Christian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3WKiT.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28841" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9282" RevisionGUID="8d943498-1b63-4ae8-81a6-d125b6c16a5a" CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:40:45.010" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 1459 edit id of 306" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="8a097fdb-467b-406d-9142-1b283979e441" CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:44:01.323" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 44 characters in body" Text="It is generally believed is that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The Italic &quot;1st declension&quot; continues PIE feminine formations (&quot;ā-stems&quot;) built with an invariable suffix *-eh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(-)&quot; ([Vine 2017:][1] 755)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Beekes 2011 proposal of an ablauting suffix *eh&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(-) ~ *-h&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(-)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss notes that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Masculine nouns of the first declension that we find in Latin are largely personalizations of feminine abstracts&quot; (p. 228), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Klingenschmitt 1992 (&quot;Die lateinische Nominalflexion&quot; in O. Pangal and Th. Krisch (eds.), *Latein und Indogermanisch: Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Salzburg 23. - 26. September 1986*. Innsbruck, 1992):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Das Vorhandensein maskuliner *ā*-Stämme stellt eine nach grundsprachliche Neuerung dar. Die maskulinen *ā*-Stämme sind, soweit es sich um einheimische Elemente handelt,  durch metonymischen Gebrauch ursprünglicher Feminina sekundär entstanden. So sind etwa * *skrīfā*- 'das Schreiben' oder alte Determinativkomposita wie * *agro-k&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;olā*- 'Feldbau' zur Bezeichnung der die betreffende Tätigkeit ausübenden Person verwendet worden, was dann eine Maskulinisierung dieser Wörter nach sich zog (lat. *scrība* m. 'Schreiber', *agricola* m. 'Bauer')&quot; (p. 89).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clackson adds that such nouns are mostly **compound** ([Clackson 2011:][2] 106), cf. *advena*, *agricola*, *conviva*, *incola*, or *indigena*. The only simplex native masculine noun is *scriba*. [will rewrite this section later, based on the discussion in Leumann 1977; this is more complicated than it seems]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ernout 1952/2014 calls them **formes archaïques** (p. 12).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann explains it with Greek influence, cf. &quot;muss man die ersten lat. mask. Komposita auf -a als Nachbildung griechischer Muster auffasen&quot; (p. 281). For *collega*, he proposes an ad-hoc explanation (*lega, from legatus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Greek loans: *nauta*, *poeta*;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Etruscan names: *Caecina*, *Perpenna* (*Perperna*), *Sisenna*, *Spurinna* (Leumann 1977: 279);&#xD;&#xA; 3. loans of uncertain origin: *verna* 'house-slave;'&#xD;&#xA; 4. Etruscan loans: *cacula* 'servant', *sculna* 'arbitrator', *verpa* 'male member' ([Baldi 1999:][3] 317).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110523874/9783110523874-003/9783110523874-003.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444343397.ch8/summary&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110807110/9783110807110.300b/9783110807110.300b.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9281" RevisionGUID="acb41c04-e169-4e5e-9306-ef6aaca11a5b" CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:44:28.593" UserId="9" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="This inscription does not use spacing to separate words. (Word division was often not marked consistently, or not marked at all in Roman inscriptions.) The second and third lines actually say &quot;IN DEO VIVAS&quot;. &quot;IN&quot; is a preposition (meaning &quot;in&quot;), &quot;DEO&quot; is a noun (&quot;god/God&quot;) in the ablative case, and &quot;VIVAS&quot; is a verb (&quot;live&quot;) in the second-person singular present active subjunctive. [This website](http://osjusa.org/st-joseph/art/the-epitaph-of-severa/) gives the English translation as &quot;May you live in God.&quot; &quot;Severa&quot; is apparently the name of the woman whose burial is commemorated by the slab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know whether the figure on the left is meant to be Jesus (if I had to guess, I would say no, though; my first impression is that it is meant to be a depiction of Severa). There is certainly a depiction of Jesus as a baby on the right side of the slab: he is being held by Mary. In front of baby Jesus and Mary (to their left on the slab) are the three magi bringing gifts; behind Mary (on the right) is another figure that I guessed was Joseph (but the author of the blog post that luchonacho found suggests that he is Balaam)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9287" RevisionGUID="a5e82a7f-d794-4010-83d9-e6efb07e493e" CreationDate="2019-03-14T17:50:03.620" UserId="3571" Text="I'm getting a custom wedding band made and I'd like to have a line of Ovid inscribed along the outside of the band. Specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    iunctaque semper erunt nomina nostra tuis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my Latin isn't terribly rusty, that translates to something like &quot;And our names will be linked forever&quot;. Now, I don't quite understand what the &quot;tuis&quot; is doing there, is it just there for emphasis? Nomina nostra already gets across the notion that it's &quot;our names&quot;, is it something about iuncta being a participle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, this line is a bit too long to fit comfortably and legibly on a wedding band, so I thought to shorten it while preserving the underlying meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I came up with is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    iuncta nomina nostra sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which if I'm not mistaken, translates to &quot;our names are linked&quot;. I also considered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    iuncta semper erunt nomina nostra&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which should be &quot;Our names will be linked forever&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have I missed any grammatical subtlety here, or otherwise botched these translations? Is there any shorter way to express the sentiment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28846" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9287" RevisionGUID="a5e82a7f-d794-4010-83d9-e6efb07e493e" CreationDate="2019-03-14T17:50:03.620" UserId="3571" Text="Check this abbreviation of Amores 1.3.26?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28847" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9287" RevisionGUID="a5e82a7f-d794-4010-83d9-e6efb07e493e" CreationDate="2019-03-14T17:50:03.620" UserId="3571" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9287" RevisionGUID="998343e4-6f14-4648-86de-4e5baccfdf7f" CreationDate="2019-03-14T18:13:05.213" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="I'm getting a custom wedding band made and I'd like to have a line of Ovid inscribed along the outside of the band. Specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;iunctaque semper erunt nomina nostra tuis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my Latin isn't terribly rusty, that translates to something like &quot;And our names will be linked forever&quot;. Now, I don't quite understand what the &quot;_tuis_&quot; is doing there, is it just there for emphasis? _Nomina nostra_ already gets across the notion that it's &quot;our names&quot;, is it something about _iuncta_ being a participle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, this line is a bit too long to fit comfortably and legibly on a wedding band, so I thought to shorten it while preserving the underlying meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I came up with is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;iuncta nomina nostra sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which if I'm not mistaken, translates to &quot;our names are linked&quot;. I also considered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;iuncta semper erunt nomina nostra&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which should be &quot;Our names will be linked forever&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have I missed any grammatical subtlety here, or otherwise botched these translations? Is there any shorter way to express the sentiment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9288" RevisionGUID="480d3b38-f488-4472-92ee-a3aca28a184f" CreationDate="2019-03-14T18:35:45.233" UserId="1459" Text="You can try using another passive verb, instead of using the verb &quot;to be + [something]&quot;. For instance, something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;catenabuntur nomina nostra semper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other verbs, perhaps shorter, could also do, like _ligabuntur_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are used in the future tense, &quot;they will be joined&quot;. In present tense (&quot;they are joined&quot;), you can use _catenantur_ or _ligantur_, respectively. Someone might know better what word is more poetically suited for the case (for instance, _apantur_?). You can see more verbs associated to join [here](https://www.ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/dictionary#src_lang=English&amp;dest_lang=Latin&amp;query=join) and [here](https://www.ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/dictionary#src_lang=English&amp;dest_lang=Latin&amp;query=bind+together).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding &quot;forever&quot;, as far as I have learnt so far, _semper_ seems to be the shortest (versus e.g. _in sempiternum_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9288" RevisionGUID="715588fa-3509-44a1-8c77-32440615fa65" CreationDate="2019-03-14T18:41:49.303" UserId="1459" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="You can try using another passive verb, instead of using the verb &quot;to be + [something]&quot;. For instance, something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;catenabuntur nomina nostra semper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other verbs, perhaps shorter, could also do, like _ligabuntur_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are used in the future tense, &quot;they will be joined&quot;. In present tense (&quot;they are joined&quot;), you can use _catenantur_ or _ligantur_, respectively. Someone might know better what word is more poetically suited for the case (for instance, _apantur_?). You can see more verbs associated with &quot;to join&quot; [here](https://www.ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/dictionary#src_lang=English&amp;dest_lang=Latin&amp;query=join) and [here](https://www.ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/dictionary#src_lang=English&amp;dest_lang=Latin&amp;query=bind+together).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding &quot;forever&quot;, as far as I have learnt so far, _semper_ seems to be the shortest (versus e.g. _in sempiternum_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28851" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9287" RevisionGUID="ff0d133a-9cd9-4fec-b656-1de4c3c05ca5" CreationDate="2019-03-14T18:42:36.370" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="Check this translation of Amores 1.3.26" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28852" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9287" RevisionGUID="3d56ae44-ff6c-4594-9d27-f66d6b3d502e" CreationDate="2019-03-14T18:50:59.963" UserId="406" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation-check|latin-to-english-translation|ovidius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9289" RevisionGUID="7cc6d29f-9f8a-4c0a-905d-b5a593deb1d6" CreationDate="2019-03-14T19:08:18.170" UserId="406" Text="The full sentence from Ovid goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nōs qvoque per totum pariter cantābimur orbem,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; juncta-qve semper erunt | nōmina nōstra tuīs.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Songs will be sung about us, too, throughout the whole world,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and my name will always be joined to yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nōstra* &quot;our&quot; here is a poetic replacement for *mea* &quot;my&quot;; *tuīs* is in the dative, the thing Ovid's name is being joined to (treat it as *nōminibus tuīs*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nōmina* is sometimes used in the singular and sometimes in the plural in Latin, even for just a single person's name, because the different parts of the name were sometimes treated as separate. For comparison, imagine if your first name and your middle name and your last name could be called &quot;your names&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That all aside, I like your first translation! You can make it even shorter by leaving off *sunt*; forms of &quot;to be&quot; are often left out in Latin, especially in poetry and mottos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *juncta nōmina nōstra*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; our names have been joined together&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that, when *erunt* is replaced by *sunt*, it becomes past tense instead of present. But that's what you want here, since the present tense (*junguntur*) would mean &quot;our names are currently being joined together&quot;. In English the present tense can have a &quot;perfective&quot; meaning, but in Latin it can't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also add *semper* to mean &quot;forever&quot;, or move the words around however you like; Latin word order is quite free, and in this case moving words around won't change the meaning at all. So go with whatever sounds best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. The lines over certain vowels and the use of *j* and *v* (instead of *i* and *u*) are optional. Go with what looks best to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28854" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9287" RevisionGUID="06942f42-4b37-4fd5-9ea6-af0361513e5b" CreationDate="2019-03-14T19:21:06.053" />
  <row Id="28855" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9284" RevisionGUID="3feaaea8-c547-4848-9b7c-ffc5842e9d99" CreationDate="2019-03-14T20:06:10.997" />
  <row Id="28856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9290" RevisionGUID="39c2ef5d-b6c1-4c60-8628-e07b0679f121" CreationDate="2019-03-14T21:17:35.890" UserId="9" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28857" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9290" RevisionGUID="39c2ef5d-b6c1-4c60-8628-e07b0679f121" CreationDate="2019-03-14T21:17:35.890" UserId="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9291" RevisionGUID="7f06526a-8b02-49b7-97b9-eb50a33cae0c" CreationDate="2019-03-14T21:17:35.890" UserId="9" Text="For questions about the first declension." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28859" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9291" RevisionGUID="7f06526a-8b02-49b7-97b9-eb50a33cae0c" CreationDate="2019-03-14T21:17:35.890" UserId="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9292" RevisionGUID="622c94a6-6bf1-45f3-bf4c-3b3b96fcad65" CreationDate="2019-03-14T21:23:51.907" UserId="9" Text="Maybe in rare cases for names that end in *-ēs* in the nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Allen and Greenough §52a](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/2nd-declension-greek-nouns) says that  &quot;Many names in ***-ēs*** belonging to the 3rd declension have also a genitive in ***-ī***&quot;, giving the example &quot;Thūcȳdidēs, Thūcȳdidī&quot;. This grammar classifies &quot;Thūcȳdidī&quot; as a second-declension rather than a first-declension form, so technically you could say that the answer is &quot;no&quot;, but I think this is the kind of thing that you were asking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I can't give you any illustrative quotations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28861" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="977" RevisionGUID="a7566b88-0278-4972-970b-2949eb0fc933" CreationDate="2019-03-14T21:26:40.043" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|declension|genitive|declinatio-prima|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28862" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5096" RevisionGUID="6fa0338f-d676-4bb6-9e55-0f3e4b6874c3" CreationDate="2019-03-14T21:31:28.467" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="|declension|genitive|plural|ending|declinatio-prima|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9292" RevisionGUID="d83c7f41-7c1a-4d15-a9b3-6b7efb90c4ff" CreationDate="2019-03-14T21:32:26.757" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Maybe in rare cases for names that end in *-ēs* in the nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Allen and Greenough §52a](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/2nd-declension-greek-nouns) says that  &quot;Many names in ***-ēs*** belonging to the 3rd declension have also a genitive in ***-ī***&quot;, giving the example &quot;Thūcȳdidēs, Thūcȳdidī&quot;. This grammar classifies &quot;Thūcȳdidī&quot; as a second-declension rather than a first-declension form, so technically you could say that the answer is &quot;no&quot;, but I think this is the kind of thing that you were asking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I don't know of any illustrative quotations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9279" RevisionGUID="ae9385e8-9e0e-49c6-b0a0-df1484349d2a" CreationDate="2019-03-14T22:31:28.293" UserId="3567" Comment="Replaced this strange word &quot;dignissum&quot; by &quot;commodum&quot; which seems quite appropriate" Text="I would like to translate the sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The ignorance and the hubris (arrogance) of our adversaries is our biggest asset.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;into latin. Google translations do not seem to be entirely correct and I want to have it perfect. My rusty knowledge of latin from almost 30 years ago :-) let me tweak it to these two versions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ignorantia et superbia adversariorum maximum commodum nostrum est.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ignorantia et superbia adversariorum, hic noster commodum.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first version I am not sure if it is better to omit the &quot;est&quot; at the end. The second is a bit more loosly translated, but seems to be a bit more catchy. But is it correct, too?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any comments from the experts are highly welcome. Thanks! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Apart of that, since I am not a native English speaker, I am not sure if it's actually &quot;The ignorance and the hubris (arrogance) of our adversaries are our biggest assets.&quot; and this would also be reflected in the latin sentence?!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9292" RevisionGUID="b904a826-c360-4b9d-80f0-ec57ba4e8586" CreationDate="2019-03-14T22:36:11.097" UserId="9" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Maybe in rare cases for names that end in *-ēs* in the nominative (but in that case, it's unclear whether they should be classified as &quot;first declension&quot; nouns in the context of Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Allen and Greenough §52a](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/2nd-declension-greek-nouns) says that  &quot;Many names in ***-ēs*** belonging to the 3rd declension have also a genitive in ***-ī***&quot;, giving the example &quot;Thūcȳdidēs, Thūcȳdidī&quot;. This grammar classifies &quot;Thūcȳdidī&quot; as a second-declension form, and &quot;Thūcȳdidēs&quot; as a third-declension form, so technically you could say that the answer is &quot;no&quot;, but I think this is the kind of thing that you were asking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a comment, Draconis mentioned finding a single example of genitive singular &quot;Thucydidi&quot; in Quintilian: &quot;imitator Thucydidi et ut multo infirmior&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9292" RevisionGUID="cef5c0b4-5bc9-450c-9822-a1e66c7fe2be" CreationDate="2019-03-14T22:41:22.333" UserId="9" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Maybe in rare cases for names that end in *-ēs* in the nominative (but I'm not sure whether any of the ones with a singular genitive form in *-ī*  would be classified as &quot;first declension&quot; nouns in the context of Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Allen and Greenough §52a](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/2nd-declension-greek-nouns) says that  &quot;Many names in ***-ēs*** belonging to the 3rd declension have also a genitive in ***-ī***&quot;, giving the example &quot;Thūcȳdidēs, Thūcȳdidī&quot;. This grammar classifies *Thūcȳdidī* as a second-declension form, and *Thūcȳdidēs* as a third-declension form, so technically you could say that the answer is &quot;no&quot;, but I think this is the kind of thing that you were asking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a comment, Draconis mentioned finding a single example of genitive singular *Thūcȳdidī* in Quintilian: &quot;imitator Thucydidi et ut multo infirmior&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Side note:** I have asked a separate question about the use of third-declension forms like &#xD;&#xA;gen. sg. *Thūcȳdidis* for names like this: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9283/how-are-arsaces-and-gotarzes-declined-and-why" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="17b3130a-99ba-433b-b3f4-7682faff0acd" CreationDate="2019-03-14T23:22:02.913" UserId="9" Comment="added example of TH-stem noun (from Greek)" Text="###The definition of &quot;I-stems&quot; is relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*), dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), and nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period. But it seems consonant-stem nouns never take *-im* in the accusative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Because of the somewhat complicated formation of Latin nominative singular forms in the third declension, it can be difficult to analyze the nominative singular form in terms of a root + suffix. We can often figure out the origin of the form from comparative linguistics or internal reconstruction, but the etymological analysis may not always be the one that makes the most sense from a synchronic perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being (at least partially) an i-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Most consonants can occur at the end of a noun stem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that there are no nouns with stems ending in F*, J, Z, Q(V), or K. I wouldn't consider K to be a true gap, as it was just a variant spelling for the /k/ sound of C. Q(V) is only a gap if you analyze QV as a consonant of its own (/kʷ/) rather than as a replacement spelling for a CV (/kw/) cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, N, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: in the genitive plural, *apis* can take either the consonant-stem form *apum* or the i-stem form *apium.* The form *apum* is clearly built on a stem ending in P. Another example would be *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1),* which forms *opum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B**: *plēbs* takes the i-stem form *plēbium*. I'm having trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum.* I'm not sure whether any Latin nouns decline as &quot;pure&quot; b-stem throughout the entire paradigm, but accusative singular *-bem* and ablative singular *-be* certainly exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural *ossa*, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H. So I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. PH, CH or TH stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: I'm not sure whether there are any good examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **PH**: *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem, but the genitive plural looks like it may be *gryphium*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **CH**: *[sardonyx](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsardonyx),* from Greek σαρδόνυξ, seems to decline as a CH-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **TH**: *Tiryns, Tirynthis,* from Greek, seems to decline as a TH-stem (&quot;[Grammar of the Latin Language](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA21#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false), by C. G. Zumpt, 1836; p. 21).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- \***F**: If you include Ecclesiastical Latin, than the word *scinifes/[cinifes](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcinifes)* might count, as it apparently has a genitive plural form *(s)cinifum.* A variant spelling with *ph* also seems to exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="df276d73-8f10-4db5-b20a-2e62e83c173d" CreationDate="2019-03-14T23:38:32.237" UserId="9" Comment="Added citations for some statements" Text="###The definition of &quot;I-stems&quot; is relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*), dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), and nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period. But it seems consonant-stem nouns never take *-im* in the accusative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Because of the somewhat complicated formation of Latin nominative singular forms in the third declension, it can be difficult to analyze the nominative singular form in terms of a root + suffix. We can often figure out the origin of the form from comparative linguistics or internal reconstruction, but the etymological analysis may not always be the one that makes the most sense from a synchronic perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being (at least partially) an i-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Most consonants can occur at the end of a noun stem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that there are no nouns with stems ending in F*, J, Z, Q(V), or K. I wouldn't consider K to be a true gap, as it was just a variant spelling for the /k/ sound of C. Q(V) is only a gap if you analyze QV as a consonant of its own (/kʷ/) rather than as a replacement spelling for a CV (/kw/) cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, N, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: in the genitive plural, *apis* can take either the consonant-stem form *apum* or the i-stem form *apium.* The form *apum,* which is clearly built on a stem ending in P, does seem to be more common ([Zumpt 1836, p. 28](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA28)). Another example would be *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1),* which forms *opum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B**: *plēbs* takes the i-stem form *plēbium*. I'm having trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum.* I'm not sure whether any Latin nouns decline as &quot;pure&quot; b-stem throughout the entire paradigm, but accusative singular *-bem* and ablative singular *-be* certainly exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural *ossa*, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H. So I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. PH, CH or TH stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: I'm not sure whether there are any good examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **PH**: *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem. I don't think the genitive plural form can be used as a criterion because it's not clear what it is: Zumpt 1836 says that the genitive plural of *gryps* &quot;does not occur&quot; ([p. 29](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA29)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **CH**: *[sardonyx](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsardonyx),* from Greek *σαρδόνυξ*, seems to decline as a CH-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **TH**: *Tiryns, Tirynthis,* from Greek *Τίρυνς*, seems to decline as a TH-stem ([Zumpt 1836, p. 21](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA21#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)). Since it is a proper noun, I don't think any attested genitive plural form exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- \***F**: If you include Ecclesiastical Latin, than the word *scinifes/[cinifes](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcinifes)* might count, as it apparently has a genitive plural form *(s)cinifum.* A variant spelling with *ph* also seems to exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zumpt, C.G. 1836. &quot;[Grammar of the Latin Language](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="b40df668-79d3-4d02-914a-4e23fe7ef9fe" CreationDate="2019-03-14T23:50:53.710" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="###The definition of &quot;I-stems&quot; is relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*), dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), and nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period. But it seems consonant-stem nouns never take *-im* in the accusative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Because of the somewhat complicated formation of Latin nominative singular forms in the third declension, it can be difficult to analyze the nominative singular form in terms of a root + suffix. We can often figure out the origin of the form from comparative linguistics or internal reconstruction, but the etymological analysis may not always be the one that makes the most sense from a synchronic perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being (at least partially) an i-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Most consonants can occur at the end of a noun stem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that there are no nouns with stems ending in F*, J, Z, Q(V), or K. I wouldn't consider K to be a true gap, as it was just a variant spelling for the /k/ sound of C. Q(V) is only a gap if you analyze QV as a consonant of its own (/kʷ/) rather than as a replacement spelling for a CV (/kw/) cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, N, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: in the genitive plural, *apis* can take either the consonant-stem form *apum* or the i-stem form *apium.* The form *apum,* which is clearly built on a stem ending in P, does seem to be more common ([Zumpt 1836, p. 28](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA28)). Another example would be *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1),* which forms *opum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B**: *plēbs* takes the i-stem form *plēbium*. I'm having trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum.* I'm not sure whether any Latin nouns decline as &quot;pure&quot; b-stem throughout the entire paradigm, but accusative singular *-bem* and ablative singular *-be* certainly exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural *ossa*, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H. So I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. PH, CH or TH stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: I'm not sure whether there are any good examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **PH**: *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem. I don't think the genitive plural form can be used as a criterion because it's not clear what it is: Zumpt 1836 says that the genitive plural of *gryps* &quot;does not occur&quot; ([p. 29](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA29)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **CH**: *[sardonyx](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsardonyx),* from Greek *σαρδόνυξ*, seems to decline as a CH-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **TH**: *Tiryns, Tirynthis,* from Greek *Τίρυνς*, seems to decline as a TH-stem ([Zumpt 1836, p. 21](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA21#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)). Since it is a proper noun, I don't think any attested genitive plural form exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- \***F**: If you include Ecclesiastical Latin, than the word *scinifes/[cinifes](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcinifes)* might count, as it apparently has a genitive plural form *(s)cinifum.* A variant spelling with *ph* also seems to exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zumpt, C.G. 1836. *[Grammar of the Latin Language](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9292" RevisionGUID="90875c14-d9f8-4097-aa3b-70c2d9299f4d" CreationDate="2019-03-15T00:01:55.093" UserId="9" Comment="Added relevant quotes from Zumpt 1836" Text="Maybe in rare cases for names that end in *-ēs* in the nominative. But although many of these come from Greek first-declension nouns, they typically seem to be classified as third-declension rather than first-declension nouns in the context of Latin, so technically you could say that the answer to your question is &quot;no&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Allen and Greenough §52a](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/2nd-declension-greek-nouns) says that  &quot;Many names in ***-ēs*** belonging to the 3rd declension have also a genitive in ***-ī***&quot;, giving the example &quot;Thūcȳdidēs, Thūcȳdidī&quot;. This grammar classifies *Thūcȳdidī* as a second-declension form, and *Thūcȳdidēs* as a third-declension form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Grammar of the Latin Language,* by C.G. Zumpt (1836), says the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;the greater part of Greek nouns in *ης, ου,* if not patronymics, are declined after the third declension in Latin, as *Alcibiades, Miltiades, Xerxes*&quot;  ([Sect. VII.3, pp. 11-12](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA11)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Cicero very commonly, and other authors of the best age occasionally, form from Greek nouns proper in *es* a genitive in *i,* instead of *is*; e.g. gr. *Achilli, Ulixi* (see p. 15), *Isocrati, Archimedi,* especially from those in *cles, Agathcli, Diocli, Neocli, Procli, Pericli, Themistocli.* So in the barbarian names *Mithridati, Xerxi,* and others.&quot; ([Sect XIII, Remark 1, p. 25-26](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA25#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a comment, Draconis mentioned finding a single example of genitive singular *Thūcȳdidī* in Quintilian: &quot;imitator Thucydidi et ut multo infirmior&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Side note:** I have asked a separate question about the use of third-declension forms like &#xD;&#xA;gen. sg. *Thūcȳdidis* for names like this: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9283/how-are-arsaces-and-gotarzes-declined-and-why" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9283" RevisionGUID="0afd26fc-7f37-4d6e-a3cd-0f846252149f" CreationDate="2019-03-15T00:04:17.690" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 753 characters in body" Text="Declinatione nominum latinorum a nominibus graecis quae *-ης* finiuntur perturbor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dictionarium L&amp;S exhibet &quot;[Arsăces][1], is m.&quot; a nomine graeco *Ἀρσάκης*. (E in syllaba ultima de &quot;Arsăces&quot; longum esse praesumo.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nomen graecum primae est declinationis, sed nomen latinum tertiae est. Et dictionarium Wiktionary exhibet &quot;[Gōtarzēs][2], Gōtarzis&quot; a nomine Graeco *Γωτάρζης*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cur dicimus &quot;Arsacis&quot; et &quot;Gotarzis&quot; et non &quot;Arsacae&quot; et &quot;Gotarzae&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Latine scribere volui, sed male scribere timeo. Anglice scribam.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm feeling a bit uncertain right now about how nouns taken from Greek nouns ending in -ης are declined. According to Lewis and Short, &quot;[Arsăces][1], is m.&quot; is the Latin name corresponding to the Greek name Ἀρσάκης. Although L&amp;S do not mark the e in the last syllable with a macron, I assume it is long (-ēs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek name seems to be first declension, but the Latin name is given as a third-declension noun. Similarly, the Wiktionary entry for the name [Gotarzes][2] (from Greek Γωτάρζης) marks it as a third-declension noun with the forms Gōtarzēs, Gōtarzis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused because I expected that Greek first-declension nouns ending in -ης would be taken into Latin as first-declension nouns of the &quot;Greek&quot; sub-type, with nominative singular forms in -ēs and genitive singular forms in -ae (as described in [Joonas's answer here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4533/9)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I do a Google search for &quot;Arsacis&quot; or &quot;Gotarzis&quot;, I do get many results. I tried searching for &quot;Gotarzae&quot; and found an example in this document: [Flavii Iosephi Antiqvitatvm Ivdaicarvm libri XX.](https://books.google.com/books?id=RXhnAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA535&amp;lpg=PA535&amp;dq=&quot;Gotarzae&quot;) Should this be categorized as an erroneous form? I also found results for &quot;Arsacen&quot; and &quot;Gotarzen&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I realize that names like this aren't necessarily attested in many places, so maybe there is no good way to judge which forms aside from the nominative are &quot;correct&quot; in Latin. If the situation is like that, an explanation of this would also count as an answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DArsaces&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gotarzes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9293" RevisionGUID="95e8ab63-57a2-4d98-8de1-f481e31d8de7" CreationDate="2019-03-15T00:15:09.597" UserId="9" Text="Here are all the references that I have found so far that have relevant information  about the declension of nouns ending in *-es* that come from Greek. These references don't specifically mention *Arsaces* and *Gotarzes.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen and Greenough:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; Many Greek nouns vary among the 1st, the 2nd, and the 3rd declensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt;&gt;***Boōtae*** (genitive of ***Boōtēs, -is***),&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;***Thūcȳdidās*** (accusative plural of ***Thūcȳdidēs, -is***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ([§44b](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/1st-declension-greek-nouns))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Many names in -ēs belonging to the 3rd declension have also a genitive in -ī&quot;, giving the example &quot;Thūcȳdidēs, Thūcȳdidī&quot; ([§52a](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/2nd-declension-greek-nouns))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Grammar of the Latin Language,* by C.G. Zumpt (1836):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;the greater part of Greek nouns in *ης, ου*, if not patronymics, are declined after the third declension in Latin, as *Alcibiades, Miltiades, Xerxes.* Many of them, however, still form their accusatives in en (*Euphraten, Mithridaten*,) and their vocative in *e*&quot; ([Sect. VII.3, pp. 11-12](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA11)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Cicero very commonly, and other authors of the best age occasionally, form from Greek nouns proper in *es* a genitive in *i*, instead of *is*; e.g. gr. *Achilli, Ulixi* (see p. 15), *Isocrati, Archimedi,* especially from those in *cles, Agathcli, Diocli, Neocli, Procli, Pericli, Themistocli.* So in the barbarian names *Mithridati, Xerxi,* and others.&quot; ([Sect XIII, Remark 1, pp. 25-26](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA25)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Proper names in *es,* genitive *is,* which in Greek are of the first declension, have in Latin, along with the accusative in *em*, the termination *ēn, Achillen, Aeschinen*; especially barbarous names, as *Xerxen, Euphraten.* This form in *en* is also found, though rarely, of those words which in Greek are declined after the third declension, but make *ην* as well as *η* in the accusative, e. gr. *Sophoclen* (Cic. Off. i. 40.), *Hippocraten, Epicyden,* in Livy. Words which in Greek are doubly declined, in *ου* and *ητος,* as *Χρέμης, Θαλῆς*, have in Latin also both forms, *is* and *etis,* and in the accusative make also *en*, e. gr. *Chremetem, Chremem* and *Chremen; Thalem, Thaletem* and *Thalen,* Ab. *Thale*.&quot; ([Sect XIV.2, p. 32](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA32))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9292" RevisionGUID="bb0690bd-3a8f-4a40-9c4e-463338d7608e" CreationDate="2019-03-15T00:22:38.250" UserId="9" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="Sort of. It seems that *-i* was sometimes used as a genitive singular ending for masculine names from Greek that end in *-ēs* in the nominative. But although many of these come from Greek first-declension nouns, they typically seem to be classified as third-declension rather than first-declension nouns in the context of Latin, so technically you could say that the answer to your question is &quot;no&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Allen and Greenough §52a](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/2nd-declension-greek-nouns) says that  &quot;Many names in ***-ēs*** belonging to the 3rd declension have also a genitive in ***-ī***&quot;, giving the example &quot;Thūcȳdidēs, Thūcȳdidī&quot;. This grammar classifies *Thūcȳdidī* as a second-declension form, and *Thūcȳdidēs* as a third-declension form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Grammar of the Latin Language,* by C.G. Zumpt (1836), says the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;the greater part of Greek nouns in *ης, ου,* if not patronymics, are declined after the third declension in Latin, as *Alcibiades, Miltiades, Xerxes*&quot;  ([Sect. VII.3, pp. 11-12](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA11)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Cicero very commonly, and other authors of the best age occasionally, form from Greek nouns proper in *es* a genitive in *i,* instead of *is*; e.g. gr. *Achilli, Ulixi* (see p. 15), *Isocrati, Archimedi,* especially from those in *cles, Agathcli, Diocli, Neocli, Procli, Pericli, Themistocli.* So in the barbarian names *Mithridati, Xerxi,* and others.&quot; ([Sect XIII, Remark 1, p. 25-26](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA25#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a comment, Draconis mentioned finding a single example of genitive singular *Thūcȳdidī* in Quintilian: &quot;imitator Thucydidi et ut multo infirmior&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Side note:** I have asked a separate question about the use of third-declension forms like &#xD;&#xA;gen. sg. *Thūcȳdidis* for names like this: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9283/how-are-arsaces-and-gotarzes-declined-and-why" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9279" RevisionGUID="da02953b-fef2-4799-8b05-aea3da0b3da4" CreationDate="2019-03-15T01:31:34.183" UserId="45" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I would like to translate the sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ignorance and the hubris (arrogance) of our adversaries is our biggest asset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;into Latin. Google translations do not seem to be entirely correct and I want to have it perfect. My rusty knowledge of Latin is from almost 30 years ago :-) Let me tweak it to these two versions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ignorantia et superbia adversariorum maximum commodum nostrum est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ignorantia et superbia adversariorum, hic noster commodum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first version I am not sure if it is better to omit the &quot;est&quot; at the end. The second is a bit more loosely translated, but seems to be a bit more catchy. But is it correct, too?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any comments from the experts are highly welcome. Thanks! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Apart from that, since I am not a native English speaker, I am not sure if it's actually, &quot;The ignorance and the hubris (arrogance) of our adversaries are our biggest assets.&quot; And this would also be reflected in the Latin sentence!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="9fb10cba-4b2a-4ae0-9c15-da968e7bbff9" CreationDate="2019-03-15T18:16:11.650" UserId="9" Comment="added more explanation of gaps" Text="##The definition of &quot;I-stems&quot; is relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*), dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), and nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period. But it seems consonant-stem nouns never take *-im* in the accusative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Because of the somewhat complicated formation of Latin nominative singular forms in the third declension, it can be difficult to analyze the nominative singular form in terms of a root + suffix. We can often figure out the origin of the form from comparative linguistics or internal reconstruction, but the etymological analysis may not always be the one that makes the most sense from a synchronic perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being (at least partially) an i-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Most consonants can occur at the end of a noun stem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A noun stem can end in almost any consonant. It's easier to list the consonants that *don't* appear at the end of noun stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No noun stem ends in /j/ or /h/, and it seems doubtful that any could&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say the clearest absolute gaps that I know of are /j/ (consonantal I) and /h/ (H): I'm pretty certain that no native Latin noun stem ends in either of these consonants, and I think it's also unlikely that stems ending in these consonants would show up in any pre-modern word of foreign origin. Both of these sounds have particularly restricted distributions in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- J: In Latin, /j/ is mostly restricted to two positions: word-initially (also in prefixed or compound words built from a word starting with /j/), or as part of an intervocalic geminate /j.j/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Traditionally, &quot;ae&quot; and &quot;oe&quot; are analyzed as diphthongs, but even if you analyze them as VC sequences /aj/, oj/, I don't know of any noun with a stem ending in &quot;ae&quot; or &quot;oe&quot;. Ancient Greek seems to have some nouns with stems that (from an etymological perspective at least) end in -οι- (Wikipedia gives the example *[ἠχώ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_nouns#Stems_in_oi)*), but the /j/ is lost through contraction in all forms except for the vocative singular, so it seems impossible for Greek to be a source of Latin nouns with stems ending in /j/.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- H: In Latin, /h/ is rare outside of morpheme-initial position. Although there are some Latin words with non-morpheme-initial intervocalic H, like *veho,* there doesn't seem to be any native Latin noun stem ending in H. As far as I know, Greek also has no stems ending in /h/. (&quot;Interaspiration&quot; in Greek seems to only be attested in the word [ταὧς](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7106/9), and possibly in [compounds/prefixed words](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4523/9)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No commonly encountered noun stem ends in /z/ or /f/. This seems to be a predictable result of historical processes, but not necessarily an active restriction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are clearly no noun stems ending in Z or F in native Latin vocabulary, but there seem to be very marginal examples of stems ending in these sounds in words of foreign origin (see the section below on &quot;Stems ending in unusual consonants&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Z is absent in general from native Latin words (as Joonas mentioned), so the Z gap is not really something specific to stem-final position. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- F in native Latin words is almost completely confined to the start of morphemes as the result of certain historical sound changes, so the gap in F at the end of noun stems can also be seen as just a specific case of a more general pattern to the distribution of this consonant sound. The existence of morpheme-medial F in non-native Latin words like *rūfus* and *būfō* shows that this pattern doesn't represent any absolute synchronic constraint that was active in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No noun stem ends in a consonant spelled with the letter K or Q, but these letters don't really correspond to distinct consonant sounds of their own&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that the letter K seems to never be used to spell a stem-final consonant, but I wouldn't consider this to be a true gap, as K was just a variant spelling for the /k/ sound that was usually represented by the letter C. I also agree with Joonas about the lack of stems ending in Q(V), but that only counts as a gap if you analyze QV as a consonant of its own (/kʷ/) rather than as a replacement spelling for a CV (/kw/) cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Examples for the rest of the consonant sounds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, N, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: in the genitive plural, *apis* can take either the consonant-stem form *apum* or the i-stem form *apium.* The form *apum,* which is clearly built on a stem ending in P, does seem to be more common ([Zumpt 1836, p. 28](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA28)). Another example would be *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1),* which forms *opum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B**: *plēbs* takes the i-stem form *plēbium*. I'm having trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum.* I'm not sure whether any Latin nouns decline as &quot;pure&quot; b-stem throughout the entire paradigm, but accusative singular *-bem* and ablative singular *-be* certainly exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural *ossa*, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H. So I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. PH, CH or TH stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: see below for possible examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Stems ending in unusual consonants (mostly from Greek):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Aspirated plosives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **PH**: *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem. I don't think the genitive plural form can be used as a criterion because it's not clear what it is: Zumpt 1836 says that the genitive plural of *gryps* &quot;does not occur&quot; ([p. 29](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA29)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **CH**: *[sardonyx](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsardonyx),* from Greek *σαρδόνυξ*, seems to decline as a CH-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **TH**: *Tiryns, Tirynthis,* from Greek *Τίρυνς*, seems to decline as a TH-stem ([Zumpt 1836, p. 21](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA21#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)). Since it is a proper noun, I don't think any attested genitive plural form exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **F**: If you include Ecclesiastical Latin, than the word *scinifes/[cinifes](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcinifes)* might count, as it apparently has a genitive plural form *(s)cinifum.* A variant spelling with *ph* also seems to exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Z**: If you include proper nouns and don't worry about the issue of i-stems vs. consonant-stems, the name *Gōtarzēs* (from Greek *Γωτάρζης*) would probably count. It seems that in Latin, it has a third-declension genitive form *Gōtarzis* that could be seen as being built on the stem *Gōtarz-.* (I asked a separate question about [the declension of masculine nouns like this from Greek nouns ending in *-ης*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9283/how-are-arsaces-and-gotarzes-declined-and-why)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zumpt, C.G. 1836. *[Grammar of the Latin Language](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="a9bfe1b7-560e-4ea7-8679-496ff68eb488" CreationDate="2019-03-15T18:26:20.013" UserId="9" Comment="added more explanation of gaps" Text="##The definition of &quot;I-stems&quot; is relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*), dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), and nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period. But it seems consonant-stem nouns never take *-im* in the accusative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Because of the somewhat complicated formation of Latin nominative singular forms in the third declension, it can be difficult to analyze the nominative singular form in terms of a root + suffix. We can often figure out the origin of the form from comparative linguistics or internal reconstruction, but the etymological analysis may not always be the one that makes the most sense from a synchronic perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being (at least partially) an i-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Most consonants can occur at the end of a noun stem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A noun stem can end in almost any consonant. It's easier to list the consonants that *don't* appear at the end of noun stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No noun stem ends in /j/ or /h/, and it seems doubtful that any could&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say the clearest absolute gaps that I know of are /j/ (consonantal I) and /h/ (H): I'm pretty certain that no native Latin noun stem ends in either of these consonants, and I think it's also unlikely that stems ending in these consonants would show up in any pre-modern word of foreign origin. Both of these sounds have particularly restricted distributions in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- J: In Latin, /j/ is mostly restricted to two positions: word-initially (also in prefixed or compound words built from a word starting with /j/), or as part of an intervocalic geminate /j.j/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Traditionally, &quot;ae&quot; and &quot;oe&quot; are analyzed as diphthongs, but even if you analyze them as VC sequences /aj/, oj/, I don't know of any noun with a stem ending in &quot;ae&quot; or &quot;oe&quot;. Ancient Greek seems to have some nouns with stems that (from an etymological perspective at least) end in -οι- (Wikipedia gives the example *[ἠχώ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_nouns#Stems_in_oi)*), but the /j/ is lost through contraction in all forms except for the vocative singular, so it seems impossible for Greek to be a source of Latin nouns with stems ending in /j/.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- H: In Latin, /h/ is rare outside of morpheme-initial position. Although there are some Latin words with non-morpheme-initial intervocalic H, like *veho,* there doesn't seem to be any native Latin noun stem ending in H. As far as I know, Greek also has no stems ending in /h/. (&quot;Interaspiration&quot; in Greek seems to only be attested in the word [ταὧς](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7106/9), and possibly in [compounds/prefixed words](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4523/9)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No commonly encountered noun stem ends in Z or F. This seems to be a predictable result of historical processes, but not necessarily an active restriction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are clearly no noun stems ending in Z or F in native Latin vocabulary, but there seem to be very marginal examples of stems ending in these sounds in words of foreign origin (see the section below on &quot;Stems ending in unusual consonants&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Z is absent in general from native Latin words (as Joonas mentioned), so the Z gap is not really something specific to stem-final position. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- F in native Latin words is almost completely confined to the start of morphemes as the result of certain historical sound changes, so the gap in F at the end of noun stems can also be seen as just a specific case of a more general pattern to the distribution of this consonant sound. The existence of morpheme-medial F in non-native Latin words like *rūfus* and *būfō* shows that this pattern doesn't represent any absolute synchronic constraint that was active in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, it could be argued that Latin wouldn't tolerate Z or F in word-final position or pre-consonantal position as easily as it tolerated them in intervocalic position. But if there was a phonological restriction like that, it would only be relevant to the nominative singular form of third-declension words. Although the historically expected nominative singular suffixes for the third declension are -s and -#, some Classical Latin nouns that otherwise declined as consonant-stems had a nominative singular form ending in *-is* or *-ēs.* A Z- or F-stem noun that took one of these nominative singular endings would not violate any phonological rule against word-final or pre-consonantal Z or F.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No noun stem ends in a consonant spelled with the letter K or Q, but these letters don't really correspond to distinct consonant sounds of their own&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that the letter K seems to never be used to spell a stem-final consonant, but I wouldn't consider this to be a true gap, as K was just a variant spelling for the /k/ sound that was usually represented by the letter C. I also agree with Joonas about the lack of stems ending in Q(V), but that only counts as a gap if you analyze QV as a consonant of its own (/kʷ/) rather than as a replacement spelling for a CV (/kw/) cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Examples for the rest of the consonant sounds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, N, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: in the genitive plural, *apis* can take either the consonant-stem form *apum* or the i-stem form *apium.* The form *apum,* which is clearly built on a stem ending in P, does seem to be more common ([Zumpt 1836, p. 28](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA28)). Another example would be *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1),* which forms *opum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B**: *plēbs* takes the i-stem form *plēbium*. I'm having trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum.* I'm not sure whether any Latin nouns decline as &quot;pure&quot; b-stem throughout the entire paradigm, but accusative singular *-bem* and ablative singular *-be* certainly exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural *ossa*, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H. So I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. PH, CH or TH stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: see below for possible examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Stems ending in unusual consonants (mostly from Greek):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Aspirated plosives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **PH**: *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem. I don't think the genitive plural form can be used as a criterion because it's not clear what it is: Zumpt 1836 says that the genitive plural of *gryps* &quot;does not occur&quot; ([p. 29](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA29)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **CH**: *[sardonyx](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsardonyx),* from Greek *σαρδόνυξ*, seems to decline as a CH-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **TH**: *Tiryns, Tirynthis,* from Greek *Τίρυνς*, seems to decline as a TH-stem ([Zumpt 1836, p. 21](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA21#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)). Since it is a proper noun, I don't think any attested genitive plural form exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **F**: If you include Ecclesiastical Latin, than the word *scinifes/[cinifes](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcinifes)* might count, as it apparently has a genitive plural form *(s)cinifum.* A variant spelling with *ph* also seems to exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Z**: If you include proper nouns and don't worry about the issue of i-stems vs. consonant-stems, the name *Gōtarzēs* (from Greek *Γωτάρζης*) would probably count. It seems that in Latin, it has a third-declension genitive form *Gōtarzis* that could be seen as being built on the stem *Gōtarz-.* (I asked a separate question about [the declension of masculine nouns like this from Greek nouns ending in *-ης*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9283/how-are-arsaces-and-gotarzes-declined-and-why)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zumpt, C.G. 1836. *[Grammar of the Latin Language](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="0eebc8d1-0e22-4ac1-b820-3ef01b5d6568" CreationDate="2019-03-15T18:48:51.703" UserId="9" Comment="added 439 characters in body" Text="##The definition of &quot;I-stems&quot; is relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*), dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), and nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period. But it seems consonant-stem nouns never take *-im* in the accusative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Because of the somewhat complicated formation of Latin nominative singular forms in the third declension, it can be difficult to analyze the nominative singular form in terms of a root + suffix. We can often figure out the origin of the form from comparative linguistics or internal reconstruction, but the etymological analysis may not always be the one that makes the most sense from a synchronic perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being (at least partially) an i-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Most consonants can occur at the end of a noun stem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A noun stem can end in almost any consonant. It's easier to list the consonants that *don't* appear at the end of noun stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No noun stem ends in /j/ or /h/, and it seems doubtful that any could&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say the clearest absolute gaps that I know of are /j/ (consonantal I) and /h/ (H): I'm pretty certain that no native Latin noun stem ends in either of these consonants, and I think it's also unlikely that stems ending in these consonants would show up in any pre-modern word of foreign origin. Both of these sounds have particularly restricted distributions in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **J**: In Latin, /j/ is mostly restricted to two positions: word-initially (also in prefixed or compound words built from a word starting with /j/), or as part of an intervocalic geminate /j.j/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Traditionally, &quot;ae&quot; and &quot;oe&quot; are analyzed as diphthongs, but even if you analyze them as VC sequences /aj/, oj/, I don't know of any noun with a stem ending in &quot;ae&quot; or &quot;oe&quot;. Ancient Greek seems to have some nouns with stems that (from an etymological perspective at least) end in -οι- (Wikipedia gives the example *[ἠχώ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_nouns#Stems_in_oi)*), but the /j/ is lost through contraction in all forms except for the vocative singular, so it seems impossible for Greek to be a source of Latin nouns with stems ending in /j/.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: In Latin, /h/ is rare outside of morpheme-initial position. H doesn't act like a consonant for the purposes of certain phonological rules: in V̆ChV sequences (between words or produced by combining a prefix ending in V̆C with a base starting with hV) the first syllable scans as short (as in V̆CV sequences), and in VhV sequences the first vowel is regularly short (as in VV sequences) and there is sometimes the possibility of contraction to one syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Although there are some Latin words with non-morpheme-initial intervocalic H, like *veho,* there doesn't seem to be any native Latin noun stem ending in H. As far as I know, Greek also has no stems ending in /h/. (&quot;Interaspiration&quot; in Greek seems to only be attested in the word [ταὧς](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7106/9), and possibly in [compounds/prefixed words](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4523/9).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No commonly encountered noun stem ends in Z or F. This seems to be a predictable result of historical processes, but not necessarily an active restriction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are clearly no noun stems ending in Z or F in native Latin vocabulary, but there seem to be very marginal examples of stems ending in these sounds in words of foreign origin (see the section below on &quot;Stems ending in unusual consonants&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Z** is absent in general from native Latin words (as Joonas mentioned), so the Z gap is not really something specific to stem-final position. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **F** in native Latin words is almost completely confined to the start of morphemes as the result of certain historical sound changes, so the gap in F at the end of noun stems can also be seen as just a specific case of a more general pattern to the distribution of this consonant sound. The existence of morpheme-medial F in non-native Latin words like *rūfus* and *būfō* shows that this pattern doesn't represent any absolute synchronic constraint that was active in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, it could be argued that Latin wouldn't tolerate Z or F in word-final position or pre-consonantal position as easily as it tolerated them in intervocalic position. But if there was a phonological restriction like that, it would only be relevant to the nominative singular form of third-declension words. Although the historically expected nominative singular suffixes for the third declension are -s and -#, some Classical Latin nouns that otherwise declined as consonant-stems had a nominative singular form ending in *-is* or *-ēs.* A Z- or F-stem noun that took one of these nominative singular endings would not violate any phonological rule against word-final or pre-consonantal Z or F.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No noun stem ends in a consonant spelled with the letter K or Q, but these letters don't really correspond to distinct consonant sounds of their own&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that the letter K seems to never be used to spell a stem-final consonant, but I wouldn't consider this to be a true gap, as K was just a variant spelling for the /k/ sound that was usually represented by the letter C. I also agree with Joonas about the lack of stems ending in Q(V), but that only counts as a gap if you analyze QV as a consonant of its own (/kʷ/) rather than as a replacement spelling for a CV (/kw/) cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Examples for the rest of the consonant sounds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, N, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: in the genitive plural, *apis* can take either the consonant-stem form *apum* or the i-stem form *apium.* The form *apum,* which is clearly built on a stem ending in P, does seem to be more common ([Zumpt 1836, p. 28](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA28)). Another example would be *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1),* which forms *opum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B**: *plēbs* takes the i-stem form *plēbium*. I'm having trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum.* I'm not sure whether any Latin nouns decline as &quot;pure&quot; b-stem throughout the entire paradigm, but accusative singular *-bem* and ablative singular *-be* certainly exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural *ossa*, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: As I mentioned above, I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H.  PH-, CH- or TH-stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: see below for possible examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Stems ending in unusual consonants (mostly from Greek):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Aspirated plosives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **PH**: *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem. I don't think the genitive plural form can be used as a criterion because it's not clear what it is: Zumpt 1836 says that the genitive plural of *gryps* &quot;does not occur&quot; ([p. 29](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA29)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **CH**: *[sardonyx](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsardonyx),* from Greek *σαρδόνυξ*, seems to decline as a CH-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **TH**: *Tiryns, Tirynthis,* from Greek *Τίρυνς*, seems to decline as a TH-stem ([Zumpt 1836, p. 21](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA21#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)). Since it is a proper noun, I don't think any attested genitive plural form exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **F**: If you include Ecclesiastical Latin, than the word *scinifes/[cinifes](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcinifes)* might count, as it apparently has a genitive plural form *(s)cinifum.* A variant spelling with *ph* also seems to exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Z**: If you include proper nouns and don't worry about the issue of i-stems vs. consonant-stems, the name *Gōtarzēs* (from Greek *Γωτάρζης*) would probably count. It seems that in Latin, it has a third-declension genitive form *Gōtarzis* that could be seen as being built on the stem *Gōtarz-.* (I asked a separate question about [the declension of masculine nouns like this from Greek nouns ending in *-ης*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9283/how-are-arsaces-and-gotarzes-declined-and-why).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zumpt, C.G. 1836. *[Grammar of the Latin Language](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="18046d00-f6e5-4b6a-9c9c-400c7565559a" CreationDate="2019-03-15T18:54:34.007" UserId="9" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="##The definition of &quot;I-stems&quot; is relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*), dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), and nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period. But it seems consonant-stem nouns never take *-im* in the accusative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Because of the somewhat complicated formation of Latin nominative singular forms in the third declension, it can be difficult to analyze the nominative singular form in terms of a root + suffix. We can often figure out the origin of the form from comparative linguistics or internal reconstruction, but the etymological analysis may not always be the one that makes the most sense from a synchronic perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being (at least partially) an i-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Most consonants can occur at the end of a noun stem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A noun stem can end in almost any consonant. It's easier to list the consonants that *don't* appear at the end of noun stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No noun stem ends in /j/ or /h/, and it seems doubtful that any could&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say the clearest absolute gaps that I know of are /j/ (consonantal I) and /h/ (H): I'm pretty certain that no native Latin noun stem ends in either of these consonants, and I think it's also unlikely that stems ending in these consonants would show up in any pre-modern word of foreign origin. Both of these sounds have particularly restricted distributions in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **J**: In Latin, /j/ is mostly restricted to two positions: word-initially (also in prefixed or compound words built from a word starting with /j/), or as part of an intervocalic geminate /j.j/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Traditionally, &quot;ae&quot; and &quot;oe&quot; are analyzed as diphthongs, but even if you analyze them as VC sequences /aj/, oj/, I don't know of any noun with a stem ending in &quot;ae&quot; or &quot;oe&quot;. Ancient Greek seems to have some nouns with stems that (from an etymological perspective at least) end in -οι- (Wikipedia gives the example *[ἠχώ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_nouns#Stems_in_oi)*), but the /j/ is lost through contraction in all forms except for the vocative singular, so it seems impossible for Greek to be a source of Latin nouns with stems ending in /j/.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: In Latin, /h/ is rare outside of morpheme-initial position. H doesn't act like a consonant for the purposes of certain phonological rules: in V̆ChV sequences (between words or produced by combining a prefix ending in V̆C with a base starting with hV) the first syllable scans as short (as in V̆CV sequences), and in VhV sequences the first vowel is regularly short (as in VV sequences) and there is sometimes the possibility of contraction to one syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Although there are some Latin words with non-morpheme-initial intervocalic H, like *veho,* there doesn't seem to be any native Latin noun stem ending in H. As far as I know, Greek also has no stems ending in /h/. (&quot;Interaspiration&quot; in Greek seems to only be attested in the word [ταὧς](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7106/9), and possibly in [compounds/prefixed words](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4523/9).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No commonly encountered noun stem ends in Z or F. This seems to be a predictable result of historical processes, but not necessarily an active restriction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are clearly no noun stems ending in Z or F in native Latin vocabulary, but there do seem to be very marginal examples of stems ending in these sounds in words of foreign origin (see the section below on &quot;Stems ending in unusual consonants&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Z** is absent in general from native Latin words (as Joonas mentioned), so the Z gap is not really something specific to stem-final position. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **F** in native Latin words is almost completely confined to the start of morphemes as the result of certain historical sound changes, so the gap in F at the end of noun stems can also be seen as just a specific case of a more general pattern to the distribution of this consonant sound. The existence of morpheme-medial F in non-native Latin words like *rūfus* and *būfō* shows that this pattern doesn't represent any absolute synchronic constraint that was active in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, it could be argued that Latin wouldn't tolerate Z or F in word-final position or pre-consonantal position as easily as it tolerated them in intervocalic position. But if there was a phonological restriction like that, it would only be relevant to the nominative singular form of third-declension words. Although the historically expected nominative singular suffixes for the third declension are -s and -#, some Classical Latin nouns that otherwise declined as consonant-stems had a nominative singular form ending in *-is* or *-ēs.* A Z- or F-stem noun that took one of these nominative singular endings would not violate any phonological rule against word-final or pre-consonantal Z or F.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No noun stem ends in a consonant spelled with the letter K or Q, but these letters don't really correspond to distinct consonant sounds of their own&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that the letter K seems to never be used to spell a stem-final consonant, but I wouldn't consider this to be a true gap, as K was just a variant spelling for the /k/ sound that was usually represented by the letter C. I also agree with Joonas about the lack of stems ending in Q(V), but that only counts as a gap if you analyze QV as a consonant of its own (/kʷ/) rather than as a replacement spelling for a CV (/kw/) cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Examples for the rest of the consonant sounds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, N, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: in the genitive plural, *apis* can take either the consonant-stem form *apum* or the i-stem form *apium.* The form *apum,* which is clearly built on a stem ending in P, does seem to be more common ([Zumpt 1836, p. 28](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA28)). Another example would be *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1),* which forms *opum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B**: *plēbs* takes the i-stem form *plēbium*. I'm having trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum.* I'm not sure whether any Latin nouns decline as &quot;pure&quot; b-stem throughout the entire paradigm, but accusative singular *-bem* and ablative singular *-be* certainly exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural *ossa*, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: As I mentioned above, I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H.  PH-, CH- or TH-stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: see below for possible examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Stems ending in unusual consonants (mostly from Greek):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Aspirated plosives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **PH**: *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem. I don't think the genitive plural form can be used as a criterion because it's not clear what it is: Zumpt 1836 says that the genitive plural of *gryps* &quot;does not occur&quot; ([p. 29](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA29)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **CH**: *[sardonyx](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsardonyx),* from Greek *σαρδόνυξ*, seems to decline as a CH-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **TH**: *Tiryns, Tirynthis,* from Greek *Τίρυνς*, seems to decline as a TH-stem ([Zumpt 1836, p. 21](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA21#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)). Since it is a proper noun, I don't think any attested genitive plural form exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **F**: If you include Ecclesiastical Latin, than the word *scinifes/[cinifes](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcinifes)* might count, as it apparently has a genitive plural form *(s)cinifum.* A variant spelling with *ph* also seems to exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Z**: If you include proper nouns and don't worry about the issue of i-stems vs. consonant-stems, the name *Gōtarzēs* (from Greek *Γωτάρζης*) would probably count. It seems that in Latin, it has a third-declension genitive form *Gōtarzis* that could be seen as being built on the stem *Gōtarz-.* (I asked a separate question about [the declension of masculine nouns like this from Greek nouns ending in *-ης*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9283/how-are-arsaces-and-gotarzes-declined-and-why).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zumpt, C.G. 1836. *[Grammar of the Latin Language](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="df1bb801-2da1-4021-a40a-ce01cd41b7bc" CreationDate="2019-03-16T09:43:37.713" UserId="9" Comment="brief discussion on etymology of &quot;Maius&quot;, removed broken link" Text="Obviously, you can check a dictionary. If you can't or don't feel like it, here are a few &quot;rules of thumb&quot; I use. I can't guarantee these will work in all cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you're an English speaker, look at a related English word from Latin. If it's spelled with &quot;j,&quot; it was probably consonantal &quot;j&quot; in Latin as well. For example, we can compare Latin MAIVS to English &quot;major,&quot; Latin OBIECTVM to English &quot;object,&quot; and so on.&#xD;&#xA;2. Generally, derivatives of IACIO (&quot;throw&quot;) are pronounced with /j/. There's a lot of them, so this is somewhat useful to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note: unlike most long consonants, phonetically long /jj/ was normally not written double in Latin. In addition, it seems that written I may have corresponded to /ji/ or /jji/ in some cases in words like [*TRAICIO*][1]  &quot;throw over&quot; (composed of TRANS + IACIO). This means that you actually have to choose between five options for written *i*: /i/ /j/, /jj/ /ji/ and /jji/. (Or at least six if the source doesn't use macrons!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some of what W. Sidney Allen wrote about consonantal I in *Vox Latina*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the interior of a word, this sound rarely occurred singly between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vowels. Where once it had been present, it was lost prehistorically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (thus Latin *trēs* beside Sanskrit *trayas*). With a few exceptions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; noted below, whenever a single, intervocalic *i*-consonant is written,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it stands for a *double* consonant, i.e. [yy]. Thus *aio, maior,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; peior, Troia* stand for *aiio, maiior,* etc. This is quite clear from various types of evidence. It is specifically mentioned by Quintilian and other grammarians, who also tell us that Cicero and Caesar used in fact to spell such words with *ii* (†Qu. i, 4, 11; †Priscian, K. ii, 14) and it is supported by frequent inscriptional spellings (e.g. `PompeIius, cuiIus, eiius, maiIorem`). In Italian a double consonant has been maintained in, for example, *peggio* from *peius.* Moreover, the consonant must be double in order to account for the fact that the preceding syllable is always metrically heavy; for the actual vowel is *short*—this is specifically mentioned by Ter. Maurus (†K. vi, 343), and is further evident from other considerations: e.g. *maior* is connected with *măgis,* being derived from *măg-iōs.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 39)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it appears sources that use a macron in &quot;māius&quot; (greater) are assigning false quantity to the vowel; according to Allen, the actual pronunciation would have been /majjus/ with a short &quot;a&quot; and a long &quot;j.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that &quot;Maius&quot; was probably pronounced the same as &quot;maius&quot;: with two syllables, the first long because of a following double /j.j/ sound. I'm not sure why you learned that they were different. In Italian at least, the modern pronunciation is indistinguishable from that of words that we know had intervocalic consonantal /jj/ (the Italian descendant of &quot;Maius&quot; is [*maggio*][3]). The etymology of &quot;Maius&quot; seems to be a bit unclear, but one hypotheses seems to be that it ultimately comes from the same root as *maius.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/traicio#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/maggio#Italian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28883" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5855" RevisionGUID="e867ebe5-e8c5-4fc6-9337-377418951b10" CreationDate="2019-03-16T11:16:40.647" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|morphology|noun|vowel-quantity|declinatio-prima|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="61b5cb95-e263-4dca-b431-5029a577b226" CreationDate="2019-03-16T11:17:26.300" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="There doesn't seem to be any single rule that can be used to determine without fail if a first-declension feminine noun ends in ᾰ or ᾱ just from the unaccented spelling of the nominative singular. (I would recommend learning the accented spelling of words, though, since it seems like something that you should know for other reasons.)There are apparently certain rules that apply in certain situations, and certain rules that apply in general but have exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the genitive, there is a fairly straightforward rule that can sometimes be applied.&#xD;&#xA;According to *From Alpha to Omega: A Beginning Course in Classical Greek,* fourth edition, by Anne H. Groton:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  If a noun’s genitive singular ending has an eta, but its nominative singular ending has an alpha (e.g., θάλαττα, -ης), you can be sure that the α in the nominative singular ending is short. (p. 27)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This allows you to deduce that *δόξα* ends in a short vowel, because its genitive singular is *δόξης*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it doesn't help with any of the other words you mention. First declension nouns whose genitive singular ends in *-ᾱς* can have short or long alpha in the singular nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Another thing that seems related to this is that &quot;δόξα&quot; is the only one of these words where a letter other than ρ, ι or ε comes before the α. In general, Proto-Greek long /aː/ became η in Attic except for after these three letters. There are exceptions to the usual distribution of -ᾱ vs. -η according to the ρ/ι/ε rule, but I don't know exactly how many or if there are any rules about which words can be exceptions.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Greek Grammar][1],* First Edition (by H. W. Smyth) hosted online by the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, lists the following rules and tendencies, among others, for the forms of first-declension nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **d.** When the genitive singular has -ης, final α of the nominative singular is always short; when the genitive singular has -ᾱς, the final α is generally long.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Feminines fall into two classes:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**218.** (I) Feminines with ᾱ or η in all the cases of the singular. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**219.**  (II) Feminines with ᾰ in the nominative, accusative, and vocative singular. The quantity of the vowel is generally shown by the accent (163, 164).&#xD;&#xA;In this class are included:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;1. Substantives having σ (ξ, ψ, ττ, or σς), ζ, λλ, or αιν before the final α show ᾰ in nom., accus., and voc. sing., and η in gen. and dat. sing. Thus, μοῦσα muse, μούσης, μούσῃ, ἅμαξα wagon, τράπεζα table, γλῶττα tongue, ῥίζα root, ἅμιλλα contest, λέαινα lioness. Others are τόλμα daring, δίαιτα mode of life, ἄκανθα thorn, μυῖα fly.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;2. Substantives in ᾰ in nom., accus., and voc. sing., and ᾱ in gen. and dat. sing.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**a.** Substantives in -εια and -τρια denoting females, as βασίλεια queen (but βασιλείᾱ kingdom), ψάλτρια female harper; so the fem. of adj. in -υς, as γλυκύς, γλυκεῖα sweet.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**b.** Abstracts in -εια and -οια from adjectives in -ης and -οος, as ἀλήθεια truth (from ἀληθής true), εὔνοια good will (from εὔνους, εὔνοος kind, 290).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**c.** Most substantives in -ρα after a diphthong or ῡ, as μοῖρα fate, γέφῡρα bridge.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**220.**  Exceptions to 219, 1:  κόρση temple (later κόρρη), ἕρση dew; to 2 b:  in Attic poetry, ἀληθείᾱ, εὐνοίᾱ, ἀγνοίᾱ ignorance, which owe their ᾱ to the influence of the genitive and dative ἀληθείᾱς, ἀληθείᾳ, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**221.**  Most, if not all, of the substantives in ᾰ are formed by the addition of the suffix ι ̯α or ια (20); thus, γλῶττα from γλωχ-ι ̯α (cp. γλωχῖν-ες points), γέφῡρα from γεφυρ-ι ̯α, δότειρα giver from δοτερ-ι ̯α (and so φέρουσα bearing from φεροντι ̯α), μοῖρα from μορ-ι ̯α, ψάλτρ-ια.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ccel.org/s/smyth/grammar/html/smyth_2b_uni.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28885" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1368" RevisionGUID="6d20f6e0-8c36-425a-8e25-ed85df9b3359" CreationDate="2019-03-16T11:18:34.920" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="|contemporary-latin|vowel-quantity|ablative|spoken-language|declinatio-prima|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28886" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1367" RevisionGUID="3adbb047-9d1d-4f1c-a0d6-2fc906295820" CreationDate="2019-03-16T11:18:55.560" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="|ambiguity|ablative|declinatio-prima|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9295" RevisionGUID="fdc4a765-2f02-404f-8b99-3a4baeedd187" CreationDate="2019-03-16T11:40:02.330" UserId="9" Text="As other answers have said, there are examples of *sal* being used as a neuter noun &quot;salt&quot; in the singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be no attestations of a plural neuter nominative/accusative form; the attested plural nominative/accusative form *salēs* (which as Pietro Majer mentioned was used in the sense of &quot;wit&quot;) is always masculine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9295" RevisionGUID="e14cecfb-15c7-4cbe-a4d2-a792c607aed4" CreationDate="2019-03-16T11:55:40.990" UserId="9" Comment="added 308 characters in body" Text="As other answers have said, there are examples of *sal* being used as a neuter noun &quot;salt&quot; in the singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The attested plural nominative/accusative form *salēs* (which as Pietro Majer mentioned was used in the sense of &quot;wit&quot;) is always masculine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be no attestations of a neuter plural nominative/accusative form: a PHI Latin Texts search for &quot;salia&quot; gave no results, and &quot;sala&quot; only showed up once, in the single phrase/term &quot;sala cattabia&quot;, from Caelius Apicius' *De Re Coquinaria,* where it doesn't seem to be a form of the substantive *sal* (although it is probably derived in some way from the same root as *sal*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9295" RevisionGUID="ab9b1206-f6b1-41f0-b5e3-c1499d6b4227" CreationDate="2019-03-16T12:11:08.040" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="As other answers have said, there are examples of *sal* being used as a neuter noun &quot;salt&quot; in the singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The attested plural nominative/accusative form *salēs* (which as Pietro Majer says was used in the sense of &quot;wit&quot;) is always masculine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be no attestations of a neuter plural nominative/accusative form: a PHI Latin Texts search for &quot;salia&quot; gave no results, and &quot;sala&quot; only showed up once, in the single phrase/term &quot;sala cattabia&quot;, from Caelius Apicius' *De Re Coquinaria,* where it doesn't seem to be a form of the substantive *sal* (although it is probably derived in some way from the same root as *sal*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9295" RevisionGUID="97f14a9e-dd2e-4a7d-bfde-9419f4926bc9" CreationDate="2019-03-16T12:25:00.240" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="As other answers have said, there are examples of *sal* being used as a neuter noun &quot;salt&quot; in the singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The attested plural nominative/accusative form *sales* (which as Pietro Majer says was used in the sense of &quot;wit&quot;) is always masculine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be no attestations of a neuter plural nominative/accusative form: a PHI Latin Texts search for &quot;salia&quot; gave no results, and &quot;sala&quot; only showed up once, in the single phrase/term &quot;sala cattabia&quot;, from Caelius Apicius' *De Re Coquinaria,* where it doesn't seem to be a form of the substantive *sal* (although it is probably derived in some way from the same root as *sal*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="16569a60-de50-4c79-a8e6-053d8a8e2014" CreationDate="2019-03-16T12:46:22.243" UserId="9" Comment="added section on the use of /j/ in atypical contexts in poetry" Text="Here are a few &quot;rules of thumb&quot; I use. I can't guarantee these will work in all cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you're an English speaker, look at a related English word from Latin. If it's spelled with &quot;j,&quot; it was probably consonantal &quot;j&quot; in Latin as well. For example, we can compare Latin MAIVS to English &quot;major,&quot; Latin OBIECTVM to English &quot;object,&quot; and so on.&#xD;&#xA;2. Generally, derivatives of IACIO (&quot;throw&quot;) are pronounced with /j/. There's a lot of them, so this is somewhat useful to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note: unlike most long consonants, phonetically long /jj/ was normally not written double in Latin. In addition, it seems that written I may have corresponded to /ji/ or /jji/ in some cases in words like [*TRAICIO*][1]  &quot;throw over&quot; (composed of TRANS + IACIO). This means that you actually have to choose between five options for written *i*: /i/ /j/, /jj/ /ji/ and /jji/. (Or at least six if the source doesn't use macrons!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some of what W. Sidney Allen wrote about consonantal I in *Vox Latina*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the interior of a word, this sound rarely occurred singly between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vowels. Where once it had been present, it was lost prehistorically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (thus Latin *trēs* beside Sanskrit *trayas*). With a few exceptions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; noted below, whenever a single, intervocalic *i*-consonant is written,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it stands for a *double* consonant, i.e. [yy]. Thus *aio, maior,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; peior, Troia* stand for *aiio, maiior,* etc. This is quite clear from various types of evidence. It is specifically mentioned by Quintilian and other grammarians, who also tell us that Cicero and Caesar used in fact to spell such words with *ii* (†Qu. i, 4, 11; †Priscian, K. ii, 14) and it is supported by frequent inscriptional spellings (e.g. `PompeIius, cuiIus, eiius, maiIorem`). In Italian a double consonant has been maintained in, for example, *peggio* from *peius.* Moreover, the consonant must be double in order to account for the fact that the preceding syllable is always metrically heavy; for the actual vowel is *short*—this is specifically mentioned by Ter. Maurus (†K. vi, 343), and is further evident from other considerations: e.g. *maior* is connected with *măgis,* being derived from *măg-iōs.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 39)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it appears sources that use a macron in &quot;māius&quot; (greater) are assigning false quantity to the vowel; according to Allen, the actual pronunciation would have been /majjus/ with a short &quot;a&quot; and a long &quot;j.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that &quot;Maius&quot; was probably pronounced the same as &quot;maius&quot;: with two syllables, the first long because of a following double /j.j/ sound. I'm not sure why you learned that they were different. In Italian at least, the modern pronunciation is indistinguishable from that of words that we know had intervocalic consonantal /jj/ (the Italian descendant of &quot;Maius&quot; is [*maggio*][3]). The etymology of &quot;Maius&quot; seems to be a bit unclear, but one hypotheses seems to be that it ultimately comes from the same root as *maius.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Interchange between /j/ and /i/ in poetry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In poetry, words that usually have syllabic /i/ sometimes have /j/ instead. (Similarly, /u/ and /w/ are sometimes substituted for one another in poetry.) I don't know the details about when this can occur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/traicio#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/maggio#Italian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9296" RevisionGUID="9abf0c45-9319-48c4-9f56-8bbaf55aac80" CreationDate="2019-03-16T15:47:33.167" UserId="52" Text="I am a Dominican friar; in our convent in Olomouc in Czech Republic we pray parts of the Liturgy of the Hours in Latin. Brothers most fluent in Latin pronounce all the lengths mostly correctly, others (including me) try to pronounce them making many mistakes. Since our native language distinguishes long and short vowels, pronouncing everything short sound bit strange to us, but we don't pay much attention to the lengths in Latin - we expect others' pronuntiotion to correspond rather to their feelings than to the grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main factor is native language of the speaker - lengthening is very rare among those who are not accustomed to it from their native language. The factor number two is how we have been thought - even when distinguishing lengths is natural, their correct pronuntiation is often not emphasized, so we learn just few basic rules, and even though listening the difference is no problem, few people *rely* on it. The third factor is whether one is expected to speak (or better, sing or recite prayers) in the language - some brothers in our convent have very little understanding of Latin, but they can pronounce it (in Czech dialect of Ecclesiastical Latin, of course) better than many professors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9297" RevisionGUID="8c31b13d-fb65-4317-890d-1b900de64aa0" CreationDate="2019-03-16T18:24:11.353" UserId="9" Text="I and J not only represented the same sound, I can't find evidence that they were considered separate letters in medieval times. Instead, it seems that during the medieval period, they were variant forms of the same letter (like Greek σ and ς, or β and ϐ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Hugh mentioned in the comments, the form &amp;lt;j&gt; seems to have been used in the context &amp;lt;ij&gt;, especially at the end of numerals. This use is mentioned in the [Wikipedia article on J](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J#History) and in this [guide to English handwriting 1500-1700](https://www.english.cam.ac.uk/ceres/ehoc/conventions.html) (although that source is about English, it makes several statements that may provide useful context about the development of I and J as distinct letters).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found any source that mentions any other special contexts that would condition the use of the form  &amp;lt;j&gt; in the medieval time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9297" RevisionGUID="f6820fef-bb8e-47bf-be6e-0feeba970409" CreationDate="2019-03-16T18:29:11.503" UserId="9" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I and J not only represented the same sound, I can't find evidence that they were ever considered separate letters in medieval times. Instead, it seems that during the medieval period, they were variant forms of the same letter (like Greek σ and ς, or β and ϐ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Hugh mentioned in the comments, the form &amp;lt;j&gt; seems to have been used in the context &amp;lt;ij&gt;, especially at the end of numerals. This use is mentioned in the [Wikipedia article on J](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J#History) and in this [guide to English handwriting 1500-1700](https://www.english.cam.ac.uk/ceres/ehoc/conventions.html) (although that source is about English, it makes several statements that may provide useful context about the development of I and J as distinct letters).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found any source that mentions any other special contexts that would condition the use of the form  &amp;lt;j&gt; in the medieval time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9298" RevisionGUID="60bc1fea-622a-4d0e-8611-968a1a7a0aa1" CreationDate="2019-03-17T02:46:23.027" UserId="79" Text="In contemporary spoken Latin in Finnish all vowel quantities are carefully articulated.&#xD;&#xA;There is nothing special about the first declension ablative.&#xD;&#xA;I have therefore learned to expect it, and it will be easy to confuse me by ignoring vowel lengths in pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin news broadcast Nuntii Latini is a prime example of Latin spoken in Finland, but it can be heard in other contexts as well, including certain academic events." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9299" RevisionGUID="57a16543-f292-4f6d-9bf2-92e1e6bea54c" CreationDate="2019-03-17T11:29:29.973" UserId="9" Text="As far as I can tell, the answer that fdb provided to my question is completely correct; I just wanted to add some relevant information that I discovered recently when I was studying the [inflection of nouns (particularly names) ending in *-ēs](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9283).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many names ending in *-ēs* come from Greek nouns of the first declension (which means that from an etymological perspective, they are built on a stem ending in &quot;a&quot;). Greek masculine nouns of the first declension end in *-ηs* or *-ᾱs.* Not all Greek masculine nouns ending in *-ηs* belonged to the first declension; some (including  *Ἡρακλῆς*, in fact) belonged to the third declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The declension of a name in Latin does not necessarily correspond to the declension of the corresponding name in Greek. In Latin, names ending in *-ēs* were usually declined as third-declension nouns (with genitive singular forms in *-is*), regardless of whether they came from Greek names of the first or third declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, names ending in *-ēs* did sometimes take some non-third-declension forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- masculine names ending in *-ēs* sometimes had second-declension genitive singular forms in *-ī*. It seems like this might be related in some way to the use of *-ου* in Greek as a termination for the genitive singular of masculine first-declension nouns. That said, there isn't a perfect correspondence between the existence of a Greek genitive singular in *-ου* and a Latin genitive singular in *-ī*: *Diomedes,* from the Greek third-declension noun *Διομήδης, Διομήδους,* had a genitive singular form in *-ī* alongside a regular third-declension genitive singular form in *-is.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- masculine names ending in *-ēs* sometimes had Greek-style accusative singular forms in *-ēn.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The name *Hercules*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, it seems plausible to me that the spelling &quot;Herculæus&quot; is related to the use of *-ηs* as a termination for Greek first-declension masculine nouns, even though (as mentioned above) Greek *Ἡρακλῆς* is not a first-declension noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin name *Hercules* is ultimately from Greek, but apparently not a direct borrowing. [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Hercules#Latin) says that the Latin form *Hercules* comes from an Etruscan form &quot;Hercle&quot;. Nevertheless, it ends the same way in the nominative singular as a first-declension noun like *Hermes.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek first-declension nouns sometimes had derivatives spelled with *ae* in Latin: the [Lewis and Short entry on *Hermes*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Hermes) mentions the related word *Hermaeum,* and from the Greek name *Δίρκη,* there was the Latin adjective *Dircaeus*. I think that the spelling *Herculæus* might have been used partly because of analogy with forms like those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9299" RevisionGUID="71f1da44-3893-48da-8a7b-a82680997c8b" CreationDate="2019-03-17T11:34:36.530" UserId="9" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="As far as I can tell, the answer that fdb provided to my question is completely correct; I just wanted to add some relevant information that I discovered recently when I was studying the [inflection of nouns (particularly names) ending in *-ēs](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9283).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many names ending in *-es* come from Greek nouns of the first declension (which means that from an etymological perspective, they are built on a stem ending in &quot;a&quot;). Greek masculine nouns of the first declension end in *-ηs* or *-αs.* Not all Greek masculine nouns ending in *-ηs* belonged to the first declension; some (including  *Ἡρακλῆς*, in fact) belonged to the third declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The declension of a name in Latin does not necessarily correspond to the declension of the corresponding name in Greek. In Latin, names ending in *-es* were usually declined as third-declension nouns (with genitive singular forms in *-is*), regardless of whether they came from Greek names of the first or third declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, masculine names ending in *-es* did sometimes take some non-third-declension forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- masculine names ending in *-es* sometimes had second-declension genitive singular forms in *-i*. It seems like this might be related in some way to the use of *-ου* in Greek as a termination for the genitive singular of masculine first-declension nouns. That said, there isn't a perfect correspondence between the existence of a Greek genitive singular in *-ου* and a Latin genitive singular in *-i*: *Diomedes,* from the Greek third-declension noun *Διομήδης, Διομήδους,* had a genitive singular form in *-i* alongside a regular third-declension genitive singular form in *-is.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- masculine names ending in *-es* sometimes had Greek-style accusative singular forms in *-en* (*-ēn*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The name *Hercules*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, it seems plausible to me that the spelling &quot;Herculæus&quot; is related to the use of *-ηs* as a termination for Greek first-declension masculine nouns, even though (as mentioned above) Greek *Ἡρακλῆς* is not a first-declension noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin name *Hercules* is ultimately from Greek, but apparently not a direct borrowing. [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Hercules#Latin) says that the Latin form *Hercules* comes from an Etruscan form &quot;Hercle&quot;. Nevertheless, it ends the same way in the nominative singular as a first-declension noun like *Hermes.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek first-declension nouns sometimes had derivatives spelled with *ae* in Latin: the [Lewis and Short entry on *Hermes*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Hermes) mentions the related word *Hermaeum,* and from the Greek name *Δίρκη,* there was the Latin adjective *Dircaeus*. I think that the spelling *Herculæus* might have been used partly because of analogy with forms like those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9292" RevisionGUID="45280ade-6617-4494-8cb6-b9c8558736b1" CreationDate="2019-03-17T11:40:05.607" UserId="9" Comment="added 378 characters in body" Text="Sort of, but technically &quot;no&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that *-i* was sometimes used as a genitive singular ending for masculine names from Greek that end in *-ēs* in the nominative. But although many of these come from Greek first-declension nouns, they typically seem to be classified as third-declension rather than first-declension nouns in the context of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that genitive singular forms in *-i* existed even for some masculine names ending in *-ēs* that weren't from Greek first-declension nouns, such as *Diomedes* (from Greek *Διομήδης, Διομήδους*) and *Hercules* (from Greek *Ἡρακλῆς, Ἡρακλέους,* but not directly: the intermediary is supposed to have been an Etruscan form &quot;Hercle&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Sources that discuss this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Allen and Greenough §52a](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/2nd-declension-greek-nouns) says that  &quot;Many names in ***-ēs*** belonging to the 3rd declension have also a genitive in ***-ī***&quot;, giving the example &quot;Thūcȳdidēs, Thūcȳdidī&quot;. This grammar classifies *Thūcȳdidī* as a second-declension form, and *Thūcȳdidēs* as a third-declension form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Grammar of the Latin Language,* by C.G. Zumpt (1836), says the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;the greater part of Greek nouns in *ης, ου,* if not patronymics, are declined after the third declension in Latin, as *Alcibiades, Miltiades, Xerxes*&quot;  ([Sect. VII.3, pp. 11-12](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA11)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Cicero very commonly, and other authors of the best age occasionally, form from Greek nouns proper in *es* a genitive in *i,* instead of *is*; e.g. gr. *Achilli, Ulixi* (see p. 15), *Isocrati, Archimedi,* especially from those in *cles, Agathcli, Diocli, Neocli, Procli, Pericli, Themistocli.* So in the barbarian names *Mithridati, Xerxi,* and others.&quot; ([Sect XIII, Remark 1, p. 25-26](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA25#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a comment, Draconis mentioned finding a single example of genitive singular *Thūcȳdidī* in Quintilian: &quot;imitator Thucydidi et ut multo infirmior&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Side note:** I have asked a separate question about the use of third-declension forms like &#xD;&#xA;gen. sg. *Thūcȳdidis* for names like this: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9283/how-are-arsaces-and-gotarzes-declined-and-why" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9292" RevisionGUID="4e37bdb5-cecf-4165-994f-336cb2de6ef9" CreationDate="2019-03-17T11:52:06.050" UserId="9" Comment="added 378 characters in body" Text="Sort of, but technically &quot;no&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that *-i* was sometimes used as a genitive singular ending for masculine names from Greek that end in *-ēs* in the nominative. But although many of these come from Greek first-declension nouns, they typically seem to be classified as third-declension rather than first-declension nouns in the context of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, genitive singular forms in *-i* existed even for some masculine names ending in *-ēs* that weren't from Greek first-declension nouns, such as *Diomedes* (from Greek *Διομήδης, Διομήδους*) and *Hercules* (from Greek *Ἡρακλῆς, Ἡρακλέους,* but not directly: the intermediary is supposed to have been an Etruscan form &quot;Hercle&quot;). Varro mentions the variability between *-i* and *-is* in the genitive singular of these two names in [*De Lingua Latina,* Book 10, §49](https://archive.org/stream/onlatinlanguage02varruoft#page/572/mode/2up).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though this irregular use of Latin genitive *-i* looks suggestively similar to the Greek use of *-ου* as a masculine first-declension genitive ending, I can find no evidence that *-i* was viewed as a first-declension ending in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Sources that discuss genitive singular forms in *-i* for names in *-es*&#xD;&#xA;[Allen and Greenough §52a](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/2nd-declension-greek-nouns) says that  &quot;Many names in ***-ēs*** belonging to the 3rd declension have also a genitive in ***-ī***&quot;, giving the example &quot;Thūcȳdidēs, Thūcȳdidī&quot;. This grammar classifies *Thūcȳdidī* as a second-declension form, and *Thūcȳdidēs* as a third-declension form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Grammar of the Latin Language,* by C.G. Zumpt (1836), says the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;the greater part of Greek nouns in *ης, ου,* if not patronymics, are declined after the third declension in Latin, as *Alcibiades, Miltiades, Xerxes*&quot;  ([Sect. VII.3, pp. 11-12](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA11)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Cicero very commonly, and other authors of the best age occasionally, form from Greek nouns proper in *es* a genitive in *i,* instead of *is*; e.g. gr. *Achilli, Ulixi* (see p. 15), *Isocrati, Archimedi,* especially from those in *cles, Agathcli, Diocli, Neocli, Procli, Pericli, Themistocli.* So in the barbarian names *Mithridati, Xerxi,* and others.&quot; ([Sect XIII, Remark 1, p. 25-26](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA25#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a comment, Draconis mentioned finding a single example of genitive singular *Thūcȳdidī* in Quintilian: &quot;imitator Thucydidi et ut multo infirmior&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Side note:** I have asked a separate question about the use of third-declension forms like &#xD;&#xA;gen. sg. *Thūcȳdidis* for names like this: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9283/how-are-arsaces-and-gotarzes-declined-and-why" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="977" RevisionGUID="f15dbd10-02cc-4e5f-bff9-36ba58e16e7d" CreationDate="2019-03-17T11:56:34.023" UserId="9" Comment="clarified that that &quot;as/es&quot; type genitives are a feminine type in Greek" Text="In Greek masculines of the first declension borrow the singular genitive ending *-&amp;omicron;&amp;upsilon;* from second declension.&#xD;&#xA;Latin uses the ending *-ae* for all of first declension: *puellae*, *nautae*, *Anchisae*, *Aeneae*.&#xD;&#xA;There are also occasional genitives similar to the Greek first declension feminine ones (*familias*, *musices*, *Melpomenes*), but these are besides my point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was *-i* ever used as a genitive ending for masculines of the first declension?&#xD;&#xA;If this happens, it is presumably due to Greek influence, and I suspect it is more likely to happen in words or names of Greek origin.&#xD;&#xA;Despite seeing many Greek loan words, I have never seen this genitive in any text or grammar.&#xD;&#xA;Searches for *nauti* and *Anchisi* give nothing, and *Aenei* gives unrelated hits for the adjective *a&amp;emacr;neus*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9292" RevisionGUID="f1206b9a-6c1e-4e3c-833e-f81247a766b2" CreationDate="2019-03-17T11:57:11.430" UserId="9" Comment="added 378 characters in body" Text="Sort of, but technically &quot;no&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that *-i* was sometimes used as a genitive singular ending for masculine names from Greek that end in *-ēs* in the nominative. But although many of these come from Greek first-declension nouns, they typically seem to be classified as third-declension rather than first-declension nouns in the context of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, genitive singular forms in *-i* existed even for some masculine names ending in *-ēs* that weren't from Greek first-declension nouns, such as *Diomedes* (from Greek *Διομήδης, Διομήδους*) and *Hercules* (from Greek *Ἡρακλῆς, Ἡρακλέους,* but not directly: the direct source of Latin *Hercules* is supposed to have been an Etruscan form &quot;Hercle&quot;). Varro mentions the variability between *-i* and *-is* in the genitive singular of these two names in [*De Lingua Latina,* Book 10, §49](https://archive.org/stream/onlatinlanguage02varruoft#page/572/mode/2up).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though this irregular use of Latin genitive *-i* looks suggestively similar to the Greek use of *-ου* as a masculine first-declension genitive ending, I can find no evidence that *-i* was ever viewed as a first-declension ending in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Grammars that mention genitive singular forms in *-i* for names in *-es*&#xD;&#xA;[Allen and Greenough §52a](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/2nd-declension-greek-nouns) says that  &quot;Many names in ***-ēs*** belonging to the 3rd declension have also a genitive in ***-ī***&quot;, giving the example &quot;Thūcȳdidēs, Thūcȳdidī&quot;. This grammar classifies *Thūcȳdidī* as a second-declension form, and *Thūcȳdidēs* as a third-declension form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Grammar of the Latin Language,* by C.G. Zumpt (1836), says the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;the greater part of Greek nouns in *ης, ου,* if not patronymics, are declined after the third declension in Latin, as *Alcibiades, Miltiades, Xerxes*&quot;  ([Sect. VII.3, pp. 11-12](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA11)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Cicero very commonly, and other authors of the best age occasionally, form from Greek nouns proper in *es* a genitive in *i,* instead of *is*; e.g. gr. *Achilli, Ulixi* (see p. 15), *Isocrati, Archimedi,* especially from those in *cles, Agathcli, Diocli, Neocli, Procli, Pericli, Themistocli.* So in the barbarian names *Mithridati, Xerxi,* and others.&quot; ([Sect XIII, Remark 1, p. 25-26](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA25#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a comment, Draconis mentioned finding a single example of genitive singular *Thūcȳdidī* in Quintilian: &quot;imitator Thucydidi et ut multo infirmior&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Side note:** I have asked a separate question about the use of third-declension forms like &#xD;&#xA;gen. sg. *Thūcȳdidis* for names like this: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9283/how-are-arsaces-and-gotarzes-declined-and-why" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9299" RevisionGUID="0c981fe4-c9f6-46cf-806f-e342d0361512" CreationDate="2019-03-17T12:05:11.307" UserId="9" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="As far as I can tell, the answer that fdb provided to my question is completely correct; I just wanted to add some relevant information that I discovered recently when I was studying the [inflection of nouns (particularly names) ending in *-ēs](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9283).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Nouns/names ending in *-es*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many names ending in *-es* come from Greek nouns of the first declension (which means that from an etymological perspective, they are built on a stem ending in &quot;a&quot;). Greek masculine nouns of the first declension end in *-ηs* or *-αs.* Not all Greek masculine nouns ending in *-ηs* belonged to the first declension; some (including  *Ἡρακλῆς*, in fact) belonged to the third declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The declension of a name in Latin does not necessarily correspond to the declension of the corresponding name in Greek. In Latin, names ending in *-es* were usually declined as third-declension nouns (with genitive singular forms in *-is*), regardless of whether they came from Greek names of the first or third declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, masculine names ending in *-es* did sometimes take some non-third-declension forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- masculine names ending in *-es* sometimes had second-declension genitive singular forms in *-i*. It seems like this might be related in some way to the use of *-ου* in Greek as a termination for the genitive singular of masculine first-declension nouns. That said, there isn't a perfect correspondence between the existence of a Greek genitive singular in *-ου* and a Latin genitive singular in *-i*: *Diomedes,* from the Greek third-declension noun *Διομήδης, Διομήδους,* had a genitive singular form in *-i* alongside a regular third-declension genitive singular form in *-is.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- masculine names ending in *-es* sometimes had Greek-style accusative singular forms in *-en* (*-ēn*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The name *Hercules*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, it seems plausible to me that the spelling &quot;Herculæus&quot; is related to the use of *-ηs* as a termination for Greek first-declension masculine nouns, even though (as mentioned above) Greek *Ἡρακλῆς* is not a first-declension noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin name *Hercules* is ultimately from Greek, but apparently not a direct borrowing. [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Hercules#Latin) says that the Latin form *Hercules* comes from an Etruscan form &quot;Hercle&quot;. Although *Hercules* seems to have a somewhat complicated and variable declension, it is not classified as a first-declension noun in any of its forms. But in the nominative singular, it does end the same way as a first-declension noun like *Hermes.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek first-declension nouns sometimes had derivatives spelled with *ae* in Latin: the [Lewis and Short entry on *Hermes*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Hermes) mentions the related word *Hermaeum,* and from the Greek name *Δίρκη,* there was the Latin adjective *Dircaeus*. I think that the spelling *Herculæus* might have been used partly because of analogy with forms like those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9299" RevisionGUID="dc18cee0-a29e-4d6d-9ed0-eddd9fdb1b41" CreationDate="2019-03-17T16:08:31.523" UserId="9" Comment="fixed spelling from s &gt; ς" Text="As far as I can tell, the answer that fdb provided to my question is completely correct; I just wanted to add some relevant information that I discovered recently when I was studying the [inflection of nouns (particularly names) ending in *-ēs](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9283).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Nouns/names ending in *-es*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many names ending in *-es* come from Greek nouns of the first declension (which means that from an etymological perspective, they are built on a stem ending in &quot;a&quot;). Greek masculine nouns of the first declension end in *-ης* or *-ας.* Not all Greek masculine nouns ending in *-ης* belonged to the first declension; some (including  *Ἡρακλῆς*, in fact) belonged to the third declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The declension of a name in Latin does not necessarily correspond to the declension of the corresponding name in Greek. In Latin, names ending in *-es* were usually declined as third-declension nouns (with genitive singular forms in *-is*), regardless of whether they came from Greek names of the first or third declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, masculine names ending in *-es* did sometimes take some non-third-declension forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- masculine names ending in *-es* sometimes had second-declension genitive singular forms in *-i*. It seems like this might be related in some way to the use of *-ου* in Greek as a termination for the genitive singular of masculine first-declension nouns. That said, there isn't a perfect correspondence between the existence of a Greek genitive singular in *-ου* and a Latin genitive singular in *-i*: *Diomedes,* from the Greek third-declension noun *Διομήδης, Διομήδους,* had a genitive singular form in *-i* alongside a regular third-declension genitive singular form in *-is.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- masculine names ending in *-es* sometimes had Greek-style accusative singular forms in *-en* (*-ēn*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The name *Hercules*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, it seems plausible to me that the spelling &quot;Herculæus&quot; is related to the use of *-ης* as a termination for Greek first-declension masculine nouns, even though (as mentioned above) Greek *Ἡρακλῆς* is not a first-declension noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin name *Hercules* is ultimately from Greek, but apparently not a direct borrowing. [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Hercules#Latin) says that the Latin form *Hercules* comes from an Etruscan form &quot;Hercle&quot;. Although *Hercules* seems to have a somewhat complicated and variable declension, it is not classified as a first-declension noun in any of its forms. But in the nominative singular, it does end the same way as a first-declension noun like *Hermes.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek first-declension nouns sometimes had derivatives spelled with *ae* in Latin: the [Lewis and Short entry on *Hermes*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Hermes) mentions the related word *Hermaeum,* and from the Greek name *Δίρκη,* there was the Latin adjective *Dircaeus*. I think that the spelling *Herculæus* might have been used partly because of analogy with forms like those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5852" RevisionGUID="0f248eeb-f58e-4281-9993-f55d873ce8a9" CreationDate="2019-03-17T20:06:55.620" UserId="30" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="There are a couple of masculine (or common) nouns of the first declension. Some are from masculine Greek -ês, like *poeta, nauta*. But others, like *collega, advena, parricida, scriba, incola, agricola, indigena, conviva, auriga* are natively Latin. What is the origin of this native *-a*? And can the same root be observed in other endings / forms? Judging by *parricida*, there might be a conexion with masculine *-as*. But is that also the case with other words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis &amp; Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parrĭcīda (pārĭcīda; old collat. form of the nom. sing. PARICID**AS**, Fragm. XII. Tab. ap. Fest. s. v. parrici, p. 221 Müll.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9300" RevisionGUID="f9e013e6-3fb2-42e9-acc9-b5c950a313cb" CreationDate="2019-03-18T01:09:21.837" UserId="2476" Text="I could only find **Cotta**: Julius Caesar's mother was called [Aurelia Cotta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelia_Cotta), probably daughter of the [Lucius Aurelius Cotta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Aurelius_Cotta_(consul_119_BC)) mentioned by Cicero in his _De Natura Deorum_. It belongs to the first declension, as this excerpt shows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Est enim et philosophi et pontificis et Cottae de dis immortalibus habere non errantem et vagam ut Academici, sed ut nostri stabilem certamque sententiam." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28910" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="379" RevisionGUID="1d5ffc10-52e1-427b-8ac1-58ac781d280b" CreationDate="2019-03-18T08:04:51.893" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="|declension|noun|gender|declinatio-prima|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9300" RevisionGUID="0bd7e4f4-962f-4b31-a0ea-b82245cbbb17" CreationDate="2019-03-18T13:15:59.307" UserId="2476" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="I could find two such examples, both _cognomina_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Sulla**: Sulla's daughter was called Cornelia Sulla.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- **Cotta**: Julius Caesar's mother was called [Aurelia Cotta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelia_Cotta), probably daughter of the [Lucius Aurelius Cotta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Aurelius_Cotta_(consul_119_BC)) mentioned by Cicero in his _De Natura Deorum_. It belongs to the first declension, as this excerpt shows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Est enim et philosophi et pontificis et Cottae de dis immortalibus habere non errantem et vagam ut Academici, sed ut nostri stabilem certamque sententiam." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28913" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4939" RevisionGUID="37facb01-24ab-45c4-99f7-409fe7b216c7" CreationDate="2019-03-18T14:16:44.520" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2717" RevisionGUID="6aa32954-9381-42f7-856c-1cff8f1df356" CreationDate="2019-03-18T14:17:39.657" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited tags" Text="If &quot;_ex nihilo nihil fit_&quot; means &quot;out of nothing comes nothing&quot; then how would one say &quot;out of nothing comes something&quot;? The best I can come up with is &quot;_ex quidem nihil fit_.&quot; Is that translation correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28915" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2717" RevisionGUID="6aa32954-9381-42f7-856c-1cff8f1df356" CreationDate="2019-03-18T14:17:39.657" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited tags" Text="|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2737" RevisionGUID="e3ba76b9-731f-4638-9dc9-c9cdbeceee58" CreationDate="2019-03-18T14:18:33.657" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="There is an awesome quote in the brilliant book &quot;Le Petit Prince&quot; by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry that is commonly translated to English as &quot;what is essential is invisible to the eye&quot; or simple &quot;the essential is invisible to the eyes&quot;. I'm trying to translate it to Latin for a birthday card and the best that I could was &quot;_quod est per se invisibilis oculum_&quot;. It is right? Does anyone suggest a better translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28917" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2737" RevisionGUID="e3ba76b9-731f-4638-9dc9-c9cdbeceee58" CreationDate="2019-03-18T14:18:33.657" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28918" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2737" RevisionGUID="e3ba76b9-731f-4638-9dc9-c9cdbeceee58" CreationDate="2019-03-18T14:18:33.657" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Translation of phrase from &quot;Le Petit Prince&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28919" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5806" RevisionGUID="bed15414-2794-421e-b9cd-519dec21b16b" CreationDate="2019-03-18T14:20:15.833" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28920" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5245" RevisionGUID="c09e4dcd-33fd-4ff3-827a-614d256e477a" CreationDate="2019-03-18T14:21:09.300" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation-explanation|relative-clause|demonstrative-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28921" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4278" RevisionGUID="9e29c90e-5ab4-4c52-b19a-9693295926b4" CreationDate="2019-03-18T14:21:45.973" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|christianity|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28922" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2045" RevisionGUID="f646c6ee-cd71-476b-9174-716b81af2408" CreationDate="2019-03-18T14:22:56.800" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation-explanation|spinoza|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2204" RevisionGUID="4b9fde67-b358-488b-be09-6144e6793335" CreationDate="2019-03-18T14:23:57.040" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 33 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Here is a really complicated sentence, I am trying to understand how to translate it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Nam cum posse existere potentia sit, sequitur quo plus realitatis alicujus rei naturæ competit eo plus virium a se habere ut existat adeoque Ens absolute infinitum sive Deum infinitam absolute potentiam existendi a se habere, qui propterea absolute existit**.(Spinoza, Ethics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*For, as the potentiality of existence is a power, it follows that, in proportion as reality increases in the nature of a thing, so also will it increase its strength for existence. Therefore a being absolutely infinite, such as God, has from himself an absolutely infinite power of existence, and hence he does absolutely exist*. (R.H.M.Elwes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first part I understand -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cum + Subjunctive - *Nam cum posse existere potentia* (f.Nom.) *sit*, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it follows that - *sequitur*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;now comes that part which I found difficult -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;quo plus realitatis alicuius rei naturae competit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so what is subject for  *competit*, if it is *potentia*, then it would be *qua*? *Plus* is followed by Partitive Genitive and more Genitives here - so  should I translate it 'more reality of some nature of a thing'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*competo* - 2. Of other things, to agree or coincide with something, to answer to it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next comes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;eo plus virium  - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;again Partitive Genitive , so ' more strength to, of,  something', again it is unclear what is the subject, should be the same as for '*quo*' but what is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a se habere ut existat (ut + Sub.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'it could (have something to)  exist from itself' -does it belong to the first half of the sentence?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28924" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2204" RevisionGUID="4b9fde67-b358-488b-be09-6144e6793335" CreationDate="2019-03-18T14:23:57.040" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 33 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation-explanation|spinoza|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2205" RevisionGUID="de368847-4a57-4c54-add3-500e5679f5d8" CreationDate="2019-03-18T15:12:17.297" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The first thing to observe here is the *quo&amp;ndash;eo* structure.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quo plus edo, eo laetior sum.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The more I eat, the happier I am.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *quo plus&amp;hellip;eo plus* means &quot;the more&amp;hellip;the more&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In the translation you quote this is rendered as &quot;as reality increases, so also will increase&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;These *quo* and *eo* are neuter ablatives, but it might be better to see the pair as a fixed phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second confusing thing is the use of partitive genitives.&#xD;&#xA;Here *plus realitatis* means &quot;more reality&quot; and *plus virium* is &quot;more strength&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The subject of *competit* is *plus realitatis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand correctly, *naturae* is dative, not genitive.&#xD;&#xA;The basic idea is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Realitas naturae competit.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reality meets (or increases in) nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many other structures, but expanding around this short phrase helps make sense of *quo plus realitatis alicujus rei naturæ competit*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find the passage *eo plus virium a se habere ut existat* confusing, so my interpretation may be off.&#xD;&#xA;Here *ut existat* is a final *ut* clause &quot;so that he may exist&quot;, and it is best paired with *vires*.&#xD;&#xA;I read *plus virium ut existat* as &quot;more strength to exist&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The source of the strength is the entity under discussion, the strength comes from it (*a se*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The infinitive sounds weird to me.&#xD;&#xA;I would read the first half of your passage like this, simplifying or rewording into different versions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nam cum posse existere potentia sit, sequitur quo plus realitatis alicujus rei naturæ competit eo plus virium a se habet ut existat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Potentia est posse existere. Itaque, quo plus realitatis naturae competit, eo plus virium habet. Vires habet, ut existat.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Si existere potest, potentiam habet. Realitas naturae competit, et vires habet. Vires habet, ut existat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would therefore translate this part as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ability to exist is a power. Therefore it follows: the more reality there is in the nature of some thing, the more strength it has to exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This agrees more or less with the translation you have.&#xD;&#xA;Do ask if something needs more explanation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5253" RevisionGUID="d4127048-bbc5-46a5-8c6a-9b5a81a0bfdd" CreationDate="2019-03-18T17:56:04.273" UserId="30" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="The relative pronoun *qui* is masculine plural, and you translate it as &quot;those who&quot;. As you can see, in English, we have a demonstrative/personal pronoun &quot;those&quot; and a relative pronoun &quot;who&quot;. In Latin (and some other languages), the demonstrative pronoun can be left out in certain such cases. You have left it out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that's acceptable, but you could add the Latin pronoun, representing English &quot;those&quot;. That pronoun would be *ei*, which is masculine plural, and nominative, because it is the subject of the main clause (...*debent*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this construction has nothing to do with indirect speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28929" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="9249" RevisionGUID="57b70fcc-c9bf-4b09-b60a-75cd516a1cc5" CreationDate="2019-03-19T14:38:41.470" UserId="79" Comment="108" />
  <row Id="28930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9296" RevisionGUID="a20f951b-01b3-4724-82e5-edb22b498793" CreationDate="2019-03-19T14:58:51.850" UserId="52" Comment="added 524 characters in body" Text="I am a Dominican friar; in our priory in Olomouc in Czech Republic we pray parts of the Liturgy of the Hours in Latin. Brothers most fluent in Latin pronounce all the lengths mostly correctly, others (including me) try to pronounce them making many mistakes. Since our native language distinguishes long and short vowels, pronouncing everything short sound bit strange to us, but not everyone pays much attention to the lengths in Latin - some of us expect others' pronuntiotion to correspond rather to their feelings than to the grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main factor is native language of the speaker - lengthening is very rare among those who are not accustomed to it from their native language. The factor number two is how we have been thought - even when distinguishing lengths is natural, their correct pronuntiation is often not emphasized, so we learn just few basic rules, and even though spotting the difference while listening is no problem, few people *rely* on it. The third factor is the typical occasion to speak, whether it's teaching or conversation or prayer. Some brothers in our convent have very little understanding of Latin, and even though they can pronounce it (in Czech dialect of Ecclesiastical Latin, of course) better than many professors, they can't distinguish nominative and ablative in most contexts. Even though I try to pronounce the lengths properly (especially nominative vs. ablative), I often err even while reading or speaking slowly, and while praying together, I focus on the melody and then general meaning and I most often lack time to process the cases. People whose main concern is not recitation of psalms but teaching or even communicating in the language usually can be relied upon concerning the vowel lengths." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9301" RevisionGUID="ae501f28-1b3a-429d-9ba8-e4cca19eedf9" CreationDate="2019-03-19T15:52:35.210" UserId="406" Text="I subscribe to a &quot;Latin word of the day&quot; email, which sends me a random vocabulary word and an example sentence every day. Last night's email had this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _pecco_, to sin.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Nemo accusator caret culpa; omnes peccavimus._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation seems to be &quot;no accuser is free from guilt; we have all sinned&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm confused by the _nemo_ at the beginning. I'm used to _nemo_ being a noun; if I were translating this sentence into Latin, I would have used _nullus_ here instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it correct to use _nemo_ as an adjective like this? If so, what's the difference in meaning—that is, what would be different if I used _nullus_ instead here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28932" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9301" RevisionGUID="ae501f28-1b3a-429d-9ba8-e4cca19eedf9" CreationDate="2019-03-19T15:52:35.210" UserId="406" Text="Can _nemo_ be an adjective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28933" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9301" RevisionGUID="ae501f28-1b3a-429d-9ba8-e4cca19eedf9" CreationDate="2019-03-19T15:52:35.210" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28934" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9301" RevisionGUID="62087a03-e00d-45d2-a04c-4379dcb8b3d8" CreationDate="2019-03-19T16:09:57.803" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="Can &quot;nemo&quot; be an adjective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9302" RevisionGUID="ec13d3e0-44eb-44aa-861d-c30791790e9b" CreationDate="2019-03-19T16:43:03.503" UserId="2476" Text="While it's mostly used as a noun, _nemo_ may rarely be found as an adjective. The Vulgate reports the following phrase by Jesus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ait autem: Amen dico vobis, quia nemo propheta acceptus est in patria sua.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Lucas 4:24)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't back this up, but since _nemo_ is the contraction of _ne_+_hemo_ (where _hemo_ is an archaic form of _homo_), I guess it could be exploited to highlight the _humanitas_ involved - as in, _nullus_ works for objects and animals as well, _nemo_ does not. But really, there isn't much difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9303" RevisionGUID="675302b0-8f7c-431b-b654-2f13f88032cf" CreationDate="2019-03-19T17:41:26.153" UserId="79" Text="Are there idiomatic Latin exclamations similar to the English &quot;oh no!&quot; used when one finds oneself in an unfortunate situation?&#xA;&#xA;The only thing that I came up with is that I might want to use *vae* or *o* one way or another, but I couldn't find anything natural and concise.&#xA;*O me miserum* feels too long, but perhaps Latin has no shorter options.&#xA;A short curse like *malum!* is an option, but the tone is different from &quot;oh no!&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28937" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9303" RevisionGUID="675302b0-8f7c-431b-b654-2f13f88032cf" CreationDate="2019-03-19T17:41:26.153" UserId="79" Text="&quot;Oh no!&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28938" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9303" RevisionGUID="675302b0-8f7c-431b-b654-2f13f88032cf" CreationDate="2019-03-19T17:41:26.153" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9304" RevisionGUID="1d5452db-f38c-4550-8ab8-efd7d1c7ed9a" CreationDate="2019-03-19T17:53:12.100" UserId="406" Text="I think the word you want is ***ēheu***, which L&amp;S define as [&quot;an interjection of pain or grief&quot;][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's often translated as &quot;alas&quot;, mostly because it appears in epic poetry where a grandiose and formal translation is appropriate. But it's also common in the vulgar speech of Plautus, where I would translate it as &quot;ah, f---&quot; or some similar profanity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Deheu" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9302" RevisionGUID="b2e73507-9e7a-4463-8682-d17db6f6dc27" CreationDate="2019-03-19T17:55:03.290" UserId="2476" Comment="added 231 characters in body" Text="While it's mostly used as a noun, _nemo_ may rarely be found as an adjective. The Vulgate reports the following phrase by Jesus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ait autem: Amen dico vobis, quia nemo propheta acceptus est in patria sua.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Lucas 4:24)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian [Treccani Vocabulary](http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/nemo-propheta-in-patria/) translates the sentence with _nemo_ as an adjective: _nessun profeta è gradito in patria_, &quot;no prophet is welcome in ther own land&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't back this up, but since _nemo_ is the contraction of _ne_+_hemo_ (where _hemo_ is an archaic form of _homo_), I guess it could be exploited to highlight the _humanitas_ involved - as in, _nullus_ works for objects and animals as well, _nemo_ does not. But really, there isn't much difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9302" RevisionGUID="e9009e11-e8ec-4dbf-87af-8ecd8cbabada" CreationDate="2019-03-19T18:05:38.843" UserId="2476" Comment="added 218 characters in body" Text="While it's mostly used as a noun, _nemo_ may rarely be found as an adjective. The Vulgate reports the following phrase by Jesus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ait autem: Amen dico vobis, quia nemo propheta acceptus est in patria sua.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Lucas 4:24)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian [Treccani Vocabulary](http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/nemo-propheta-in-patria/) translates the sentence with _nemo_ as an adjective: _nessun profeta è gradito in patria_, &quot;no prophet is welcome in ther own land&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that in the comments it has been suggested the above sentence may not be the best example, here's a better one from Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nemo doctus umquam dixit mutationem consilii esse constantiam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't back this up, but since _nemo_ is the contraction of _ne_+_hemo_ (where _hemo_ is an archaic form of _homo_), I guess it could be exploited to highlight the _humanitas_ involved - as in, _nullus_ works for objects and animals as well, _nemo_ does not. But really, there isn't much difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9302" RevisionGUID="ac3b61d4-a27e-41b6-86cf-1ff72e351cb4" CreationDate="2019-03-19T18:19:14.460" UserId="2476" Comment="added 272 characters in body" Text="While it's mostly used as a noun, _nemo_ may rarely be found as an adjective. The Vulgate reports the following phrase by Jesus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ait autem: Amen dico vobis, quia nemo propheta acceptus est in patria sua.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Lucas 4:24)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian [Treccani Vocabulary](http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/nemo-propheta-in-patria/) translates the sentence with _nemo_ as an adjective: _nessun profeta è gradito in patria_, &quot;no prophet is welcome in ther own land&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that in the comments it has been suggested the above sentence may not be the best example, here's a better one from Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nemo doctus umquam dixit mutationem consilii esse constantiam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps one could translate this as &quot;no one that has been instructed ever said...&quot;, but the most natural meaning here is &quot;no man of culture&quot;, with _doctus_ being a substantive and _nemo_ an adjective - see the [entry](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=doctus) for _doctus_ in L&amp;S. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't back this up, but since _nemo_ is the contraction of _ne_+_hemo_ (where _hemo_ is an archaic form of _homo_), I guess it could be exploited to highlight the _humanitas_ involved - as in, _nullus_ works for objects and animals as well, _nemo_ does not. But really, there isn't much difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28943" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9303" RevisionGUID="e7604a77-e2ce-419d-9dd7-21f4b6bb10ac" CreationDate="2019-03-19T20:14:07.380" />
  <row Id="28945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9305" RevisionGUID="62c88f49-35cd-4c98-95a6-ab44ab53b687" CreationDate="2019-03-19T23:07:50.947" UserId="2476" Text="Seneca the Younger gave the following irreverent account of Claudius' last words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ultima vox eius haec inter homines audita est, cum maiorem sonitum emisisset illa parte qua facilius loquebatur: &quot;**vae me**, puto, concacavi me.&quot; Quod an fecerit, nescio: omnia certe concacavit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;These were the final words he was heard to utter among men, when he had let out a rather loud noise from that part with which he spoke more easily: &quot;**Oh dear**, I do believe I've shat myself.&quot; Whether he did so, I don't know - he certainly did shit all over everything [as emperor].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore _vae me!_ seems another appropriate interjection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9306" RevisionGUID="3816aab4-4596-4e7a-859d-06a5dcf2ba5c" CreationDate="2019-03-20T00:08:07.377" UserId="1202" Text="In english you can conjugate like so&#xA;I eat&#xA;You eat&#xA;He/she/it eats&#xA;We eat&#xA;You all eat&#xA;They eat&#xA;&#xA;But you can also conjugate with a variety of “indefinite” pronouns:&#xA;&#xA;One eats&#xA;Everyone eats&#xA;No one eats&#xA;Few eat&#xA;Some eat&#xA;Many eat&#xA;Etc.&#xA;&#xA;I’m wondering what this would look like in latin and how you would categorise it in terms of person and number? Eg, is “one eats” first, second or third person? Is it singular or plural?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28947" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9306" RevisionGUID="3816aab4-4596-4e7a-859d-06a5dcf2ba5c" CreationDate="2019-03-20T00:08:07.377" UserId="1202" Text="How to do indefinite person with verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28948" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9306" RevisionGUID="3816aab4-4596-4e7a-859d-06a5dcf2ba5c" CreationDate="2019-03-20T00:08:07.377" UserId="1202" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9307" RevisionGUID="5bfdda83-bba1-4f11-9c78-587e3117844b" CreationDate="2019-03-20T00:25:06.673" UserId="406" Text="The rules in Latin are somewhat the same as in English: use a separate word for the subject, then conjugate the verb to agree with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, you say &quot;one *eats*&quot; but &quot;many *eat*&quot; because the former is third person singular and the latter is third person plural; in Latin, the same applies: *aliquis edit*, *multī edunt*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Direct translations of the words you ask for are *aliquis* &quot;someone&quot;, *omnis* &quot;every person&quot;, *nemō* &quot;no one&quot;, *paucī* &quot;a few&quot;, *aliquī* &quot;some people&quot;, and *multī* &quot;many&quot;. But you can really use any adjective or noun like this: *ūnus* &quot;exactly one person&quot;, *duō* &quot;two people&quot;, *malī* &quot;the evil people&quot;, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9306" RevisionGUID="269e315a-4734-4ec5-88af-ac4b663bb492" CreationDate="2019-03-20T00:30:58.693" UserId="79" Comment="added 49 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In English you can conjugate like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I eat  &#xD;&#xA;You eat  &#xD;&#xA;He/she/it eats  &#xD;&#xA;We eat  &#xD;&#xA;You all eat  &#xD;&#xA;They eat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can also conjugate with a variety of “indefinite” pronouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One eats  &#xD;&#xA;Everyone eats  &#xD;&#xA;No one eats  &#xD;&#xA;Few eat  &#xD;&#xA;Some eat  &#xD;&#xA;Many eat  &#xD;&#xA;Etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’m wondering what this would look like in Latin and how you would categorise it in terms of person and number? E.g., is “one eats” first, second or third person? Is it singular or plural?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28951" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9306" RevisionGUID="269e315a-4734-4ec5-88af-ac4b663bb492" CreationDate="2019-03-20T00:30:58.693" UserId="79" Comment="added 49 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|verbs|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9308" RevisionGUID="1f06e430-b80e-484a-ad50-b1ec7e2ca105" CreationDate="2019-03-20T03:56:02.647" UserId="30" Text="In addition to Draconis's suggestions, you can use the passive voice to express an indefinite 'agent':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Romam itur. &quot;[indefinite subject / 'it'] is being gone to Rome&quot; =&gt; &quot;One goes to Rome&quot;, in context probably &quot;We/I/they/etc. goes to Rome&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In horto esum est. &quot;One ate in the garden&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Noctis pugnandum est. &quot;One ought to fight at night&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="35" RevisionGUID="eaf6d010-eeae-4ae0-a6de-f9dfc57bb098" CreationDate="2019-03-20T04:12:07.433" UserId="79" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="Dictionaries often explicitly mark long and short vowels, with a macron and breve accent, respectively. In such a dictionary, you will recognize a consonantic _i_ from not having either accent: _māiŭs_¹. The same applies to consonantic _u_ (if the dictionary doesn’t use _v_). This only applies to dictionaries that mark both short and long vowels explicitly; this is not a phonotactic rule about intervocalic _i_ or _u_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the spelling alone is not enough to determine whether _i_ or _u_, in a particular word, stands for the consonant or the vowel. This is a shortcoming of Latin orthography, comparable in English to the different spoken forms [riːd], [red] associated with the spelling _read_. For a Latin example, _uoluit_ can be both _uōlŭĭt_ (‘he wanted’) and _uŏluĭt_ (‘he rolled’).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¹ It‘s actually uncertain whether the _a_ really was long, but usually it is given like that in dictionaries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9309" RevisionGUID="d0298faa-8307-4f11-9b3f-f874d98afde0" CreationDate="2019-03-20T08:52:53.627" UserId="1459" Text="In the Vulgata, rather than _eheu_, the word used to express something akin to &quot;Oh no!&quot; (and, as Draconis said, translated as alas!) is _heu_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, a verse which clearly captures the meaning you intend is [2 Kings 6:15](http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&amp;bk=12&amp;ch=6&amp;l=15-#x):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Consurgens autem diluculo minister viri Dei, egressus, vidit exercitum in circuitu civitatis, et equos et currus : nuntiavitque ei, dicens : Heu heu heu, domine mi, quid faciemus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which a direct translation (see link above) has it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And the servant of the man of God rising early, went out, and saw an army round about the city, and horses and chariots: and he told him, saying: Alas, alas, alas, my lord, what shall we do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is also attested in Classical Latin. E.g. see list [here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;all_words=heu&amp;phrase=&amp;any_words=&amp;exclude_words=&amp;documents=).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9309" RevisionGUID="96d37aa0-437e-4fda-bc5f-fff06ccd43ca" CreationDate="2019-03-20T09:13:16.603" UserId="1459" Comment="added 766 characters in body" Text="Three options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. _heu_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In the Vulgata, rather than _eheu_, the word used to express something akin to &quot;Oh no!&quot; (and, as Draconis said, translated as alas!) is _heu_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; For instance, a verse which clearly captures the meaning you intend is [2 Kings 6:15](http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&amp;bk=12&amp;ch=6&amp;l=15-#x):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Consurgens autem diluculo minister viri Dei, egressus, vidit exercitum in circuitu civitatis, et equos et currus : nuntiavitque ei, dicens : Heu heu heu, domine mi, quid faciemus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Which a direct translation (see link above) has it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;And the servant of the man of God rising early, went out, and saw an army round about the city, and horses and chariots: and he told him, saying: Alas, alas, alas, my lord, what shall we do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is also attested in Classical Latin. E.g. see list [here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=la&amp;all_words=heu&amp;phrase=&amp;any_words=&amp;exclude_words=&amp;documents=).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. _ei_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; According to [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dei2), this interjection is also  used to mean &quot;oh, alas!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. _atat_ and derivations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is an interesting option! It seems more like a malleable verbal expression than a proper word. [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Datat) states that the options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ătăt or attat , also several times repeated, atatatae, attatatatae, or atatte, atattate, etc.,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; which can be &quot;an exclamation of joy, pain, wonder, fright, warning, etc.,&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now you know. _Attatatatae, merus novem dies donec [Brexitus](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9205/1459)!_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9310" RevisionGUID="35cd6b46-f54e-436d-b97c-ff35a43d251a" CreationDate="2019-03-21T03:03:43.530" UserId="406" Text="Many introductory Latin books will explain that Classical Latin has four diphthongs: *ae* and *au* are common, while *oe* and *ei* are rarer. (*Eu* and *ui* also show up, but if I understand right that's a Greek influence that doesn't appear in native words.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's hard for me to think of *any* common Latin words with an *ei* diphthong. For example, the pronoun *eī* is pronounced with two syllables, and *ē-iciō* &quot;to throw out&quot; with three.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cassel's dictionary lists *dē-inde* as an example of the diphthong. But how can I, as a non-native speaker, keep track of which is which? Both *dē-inde* and *ē-iciō* have a long *ē*, a short *i*, and a morpheme boundary in the middle. Why does one have a diphthong and the other not? Is there a rule I can learn for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(P.S. Does anyone write the diphthong as *ej* and the hiatus as *ei*? That would be really convenient.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(P.P.S. *Oe* mostly shows up in Greek words, but is also found in some nice native Latin roots, like *foedus* &quot;treaty&quot;.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28958" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9310" RevisionGUID="35cd6b46-f54e-436d-b97c-ff35a43d251a" CreationDate="2019-03-21T03:03:43.530" UserId="406" Text="When is &quot;ei&quot; a diphthong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28959" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9310" RevisionGUID="35cd6b46-f54e-436d-b97c-ff35a43d251a" CreationDate="2019-03-21T03:03:43.530" UserId="406" Text="|pronunciation|spelling|vowel|diphthong|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9311" RevisionGUID="1e896f35-7196-4b91-b602-6b7429b37b01" CreationDate="2019-03-21T03:14:56.257" UserId="79" Text="The diphthong *ei* is found before vowels: *eius*, *peior*.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of occurrences before a consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is quite similar to *ui* appearing in *cuius* and *huius*.&#xD;&#xA;It also appears in *cui*.&#xD;&#xA;If you are unconvinced that it should not be *cu&amp;imacr;* instead, see for example [the occurrences in the Aeneid](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=cui%23+%5Bverg%3Aa%5D), including the very first syllable of a number of verses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an answer to the [&quot;Oh no!&quot; question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/9303/79) luchonacho mentioned the interjection [*ei*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dei2).&#xD;&#xA;Judging by this line in Ovid's *Amores*, it is a single diphthong unlike the pronoun(s) *ei*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ei mihi, quod dominam nec vir nec femina servas*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9312" RevisionGUID="8855bb97-76d0-4610-925c-c73ea5fc9d13" CreationDate="2019-03-21T03:52:57.357" UserId="9" Text="&quot;Ei&quot; is almost never a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact list of examples depends on what you call a &quot;diphthong&quot;. [Cser (2016)](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) argues that Latin has no genuine diphthongs, only vowel + glide sequences. Cser says that, if we set aside words with geminate /j.j/, /ej/ occurs in the following three related words: *deinde, dein, deinceps* (p. 32). As far as I know, these are never written with &amp;lt;ej&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some instances of &amp;lt;ei&gt; are thought to have been pronounced /ej.ji/. Cser mentions *reicere* (p. 149) and *Pompei* (p. 13).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words with /ej.j/ followed by a vowel other than /i/ have had spelling variants with &amp;lt;ej&gt;, like the word *eius/ejus* mentioned in Joonas's answer. One thing to keep in mind is that some sources, particularly older dictionaries like L&amp;S, may write this as *ēi*, where the macron represents syllable weight rather than necessarily representing the length of the vowel itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be a few more examples of /ej/ before a consonant, but it's not necessarily clear. Cser brings it up as a potential pronunciation of &amp;lt;ei&gt; in &quot;anteis&quot;, &quot;anteit&quot; and &quot;anteire&quot; but suggests that /iː/ is a more likely pronunciation in this word (p. 150).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9312" RevisionGUID="48a36df5-b01f-4282-bec5-3659fdd4760c" CreationDate="2019-03-21T04:00:35.973" UserId="9" Comment="added 275 characters in body" Text="&quot;Ei&quot; is almost never a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact list of examples depends on what you call a &quot;diphthong&quot;. [Cser (2016)](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) argues that Latin has no genuine diphthongs, only vowel + glide sequences. Cser says that, if we set aside words with geminate /j.j/, /ej/ occurs in the following three related words: *deinde, dein, deinceps* (p. 32). As far as I know, these are never written with &amp;lt;ej&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some instances of &amp;lt;ei&gt; are thought to have been pronounced /ej.ji/. Cser mentions *reicere* (p. 149) and *Pompei* (p. 13).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words with /ej.j/ followed by a vowel other than /i/ have had spelling variants with &amp;lt;ej&gt;, like the word *eius/ejus* mentioned in Joonas's answer. One thing to keep in mind is that some sources, particularly older dictionaries like L&amp;S, may write this as *ēi*, where the macron represents syllable weight rather than necessarily representing the length of the vowel itself. There are some words where, based on etymology, we would expect /eː.j/, although metrically there's no way of distinguishing this from /ej.j/. You mentioned *eicio,* which is thought to have started with /eː.ji/; another word that is thought to have had /eː.j/ is *seiungo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be a few other examples of /ej/ before a consonant, but it's not necessarily clear. Cser brings it up as a potential pronunciation of &amp;lt;ei&gt; in &quot;anteis&quot;, &quot;anteit&quot; and &quot;anteire&quot; but suggests that /iː/ is a more likely pronunciation in this word (p. 150).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9312" RevisionGUID="65ddd671-b909-417e-8c1b-30663678ca5e" CreationDate="2019-03-21T04:12:33.787" UserId="9" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="&quot;Ei&quot; is almost never a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact list of examples depends on what you call a &quot;diphthong&quot;. [Cser (2016)](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) argues that Latin has no genuine diphthongs, only vowel + glide sequences. Cser says that, if we set aside words with geminate /j.j/, /ej/ occurs in the following three related words: *deinde, dein, deinceps* (p. 32). As far as I know, these are never written with &amp;lt;ej&gt;. L&amp;S says that *[dehinc](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddehinc)* is frequently a monosyllable in poetry, which could be interpreted as implying a pronunciation /dejnk/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some instances of &amp;lt;ei&gt; are thought to have been pronounced /ej.ji/. Cser mentions *reicere* (p. 149) and *Pompei* (p. 13).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words with /ej.j/ followed by a vowel other than /i/ have had spelling variants with &amp;lt;ej&gt;, like the word *eius/ejus* mentioned in Joonas's answer. One thing to keep in mind is that some sources, particularly older dictionaries like L&amp;S, may write this as *ēi*, where the macron represents syllable weight rather than necessarily representing the length of the vowel itself. There are some words where, based on etymology, we would expect /eː.j/, although metrically there's no way of distinguishing this from /ej.j/. You mentioned *eicio,* which is thought to have started with /eː.ji/; another word that is thought to have had /eː.j/ is *seiungo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be a few other examples of /ej/ before a consonant, but it's not necessarily clear. Cser brings it up as a potential pronunciation of &amp;lt;ei&gt; in &quot;anteis&quot;, &quot;anteit&quot; and &quot;anteire&quot; but suggests that /iː/ is a more likely pronunciation in this word (p. 150).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9312" RevisionGUID="0097bfa4-eeff-4b59-9b94-aa345c1b519b" CreationDate="2019-03-21T04:19:30.137" UserId="9" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="&quot;Ei&quot; is almost never a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact list of examples depends on what you call a &quot;diphthong&quot;. [Cser (2016)](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) argues that Latin has no genuine diphthongs, only vowel + glide sequences. Cser says that, if we set aside words with geminate /j.j/, /ej/ occurs in the following three related words: *deinde, dein, deinceps* (p. 32). As far as I know, these are never written with &amp;lt;ej&gt;. L&amp;S says that *[dehinc](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddehinc)* is frequently a monosyllable in poetry, which could be interpreted as implying a pronunciation /dejnk/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scansion alone wouldn't tell us the exact pronunciation of &amp;lt;ei&gt; here, so I'm not sure why it is thought that these words had /ej/ specifically, as opposed to something like /eː/, /iː/, or even e/, /i/ (with the syllable being heavy because of coda /n/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##/ej/ before a vowel&#xD;&#xA;Some instances of &amp;lt;ei&gt; are thought to have been pronounced /ej.ji/. Cser mentions *reicere* (p. 149) and *Pompei* (p. 13).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words with /ej.j/ followed by a vowel other than /i/ have had spelling variants with &amp;lt;ej&gt;, like the word *eius/ejus* mentioned in Joonas's answer. One thing to keep in mind is that some sources, particularly older dictionaries like L&amp;S, may write this as *ēi*, where the macron represents syllable weight rather than necessarily representing the length of the vowel itself. Intervocalically, /j/ is almost always found geminate in Latin—that is, as /j.j/. There are some prefixed words where, based on etymology, we would expect /eː.j/, although metrically there's no way of distinguishing this from /ej.j/. You mentioned *eicio,* which is thought to have started with /eː.ji/; another word that is thought to have had /eː.j/ is *seiungo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##other /ej/ before a consonant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be a few other examples of /ej/ before a consonant, but it's not necessarily clear. Cser brings it up as a potential pronunciation of &amp;lt;ei&gt; in &quot;anteis&quot;, &quot;anteit&quot; and &quot;anteire&quot; but suggests that /iː/ is a more likely pronunciation in this word (p. 150).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9312" RevisionGUID="b1495615-5b86-438b-8331-074809e5336c" CreationDate="2019-03-21T04:25:50.663" UserId="9" Comment="added 160 characters in body" Text="&quot;Ei&quot; is almost never a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact list of examples depends on what you call a &quot;diphthong&quot;. [Cser (2016)](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) argues that Latin has no genuine diphthongs, only vowel + glide sequences. Cser says that, if we set aside words with geminate /j.j/, /ej/ occurs in the following three related words: *deinde, dein, deinceps* (p. 32). As far as I know, these are never written with &amp;lt;ej&gt;. L&amp;S says that *[dehinc](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddehinc)* is frequently a monosyllable in poetry, which could be interpreted as implying a pronunciation /dejnk/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scansion alone wouldn't tell us the exact pronunciation of &amp;lt;ei&gt; here, so I'm not sure why Cser thinks these words had /ej/ specifically, as opposed to something like /eː/, /iː/, or even e/, /i/ (with the syllable being heavy because of coda /n/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##/ej.j/ before a vowel&#xD;&#xA;Some instances of &amp;lt;ei&gt; are thought to have been pronounced /ej.ji/. Cser mentions *reicere* (p. 149) and *Pompei* (p. 13).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words with /ej.j/ followed by a vowel other than /i/ have had spelling variants with &amp;lt;ej&gt;, like the word *eius/ejus* mentioned in Joonas's answer. One thing to keep in mind is that some sources, particularly older dictionaries like L&amp;S, may write this as *ēi*, where the macron represents syllable weight rather than necessarily representing the length of the vowel itself. Intervocalically, /j/ is almost always found geminate in Latin—that is, as /j.j/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some prefixed words where, based on etymology, we would expect /eː.j/, although metrically there's no way of distinguishing this from /ej.j/. You mentioned *eicio,* which is thought to have started with /eː.ji/; another word that is thought to have had /eː.j/ is *seiungo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For more discussion of pronunciations like /ji/, /j.ji/, or /j.j/ for &amp;lt;i&gt; in contexts other than just &amp;lt;ei&gt;, see my answer to [When is an I not an I?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/91/9)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##other /ej/ before a consonant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be a few other examples of /ej/ before a consonant, but it's not necessarily clear. Cser brings it up as a potential pronunciation of &amp;lt;ei&gt; in &quot;anteis&quot;, &quot;anteit&quot; and &quot;anteire&quot; but suggests that /iː/ is a more likely pronunciation in this word (p. 150).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9312" RevisionGUID="36c0e693-6727-4a90-b060-e2da9ab018b1" CreationDate="2019-03-21T04:31:45.223" UserId="9" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&quot;Ei&quot; is almost never a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact list of examples depends on what you call a &quot;diphthong&quot;. [Cser (2016)](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) argues that Latin has no genuine diphthongs, only vowel + glide sequences. Cser says that, if we set aside words with geminate /j.j/, /ej/ occurs in the following three related words: *deinde, dein, deinceps* (p. 32). As far as I know, these are never written with &amp;lt;ej&gt;. L&amp;S says that *[dehinc](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddehinc)* is frequently a monosyllable in poetry, which could be interpreted as implying a pronunciation /dejnk/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scansion alone wouldn't tell us the exact pronunciation of &amp;lt;ei&gt; here, so I'm not sure why Cser thinks these words had /ej/ specifically, as opposed to something like /eː/, /iː/, or even /e/ or /i/ (with the syllable being heavy because of coda /n/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##/ej.j/ before a vowel&#xD;&#xA;Some instances of &amp;lt;ei&gt; are thought to have been pronounced /ej.ji/. Cser mentions *reicere* (p. 149) and *Pompei* (p. 13).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words with /ej.j/ followed by a vowel other than /i/ have had spelling variants with &amp;lt;ej&gt;, like the word *eius/ejus* mentioned in Joonas's answer. One thing to keep in mind is that some sources, particularly older dictionaries like L&amp;S, may write this as *ēi*, where the macron represents syllable weight rather than necessarily representing the length of the vowel itself. Intervocalically, /j/ is almost always found geminate in Latin—that is, as /j.j/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some prefixed words where, based on etymology, we would expect /eː.j/, although metrically there's no way of distinguishing this from /ej.j/. You mentioned *eicio,* which is thought to have started with /eː.ji/; another word that is thought to have had /eː.j/ is *seiungo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For more discussion of pronunciations like /ji/, /j.ji/, or /j.j/ for &amp;lt;i&gt; in contexts other than just &amp;lt;ei&gt;, see my answer to [When is an I not an I?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/91/9)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##other /ej/ before a consonant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be a few other examples of /ej/ before a consonant, but it's not necessarily clear. Cser brings it up as a potential pronunciation of &amp;lt;ei&gt; in &quot;anteis&quot;, &quot;anteit&quot; and &quot;anteire&quot; but suggests that /iː/ is a more likely pronunciation in this word (p. 150).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28967" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9310" RevisionGUID="21691a75-4413-4ed9-868e-ca4b9072c497" CreationDate="2019-03-21T04:32:16.290" />
  <row Id="28968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9312" RevisionGUID="6345095c-4455-4697-8d72-64e7ea458098" CreationDate="2019-03-21T04:39:34.010" UserId="9" Comment="added 120 characters in body" Text="&quot;Ei&quot; is almost never a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact list of examples depends on what you call a &quot;diphthong&quot;. [Cser (2016)](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) argues that Latin has no genuine diphthongs, only vowel + glide sequences. Cser says that, if we set aside words with geminate /j.j/, /ej/ occurs in the following three related words: *deinde, dein, deinceps* (p. 32). As far as I know, these are never written with &amp;lt;ej&gt;. L&amp;S says that *[dehinc](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddehinc)* is frequently a monosyllable in poetry, which could be interpreted as implying a pronunciation /dejnk/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scansion alone wouldn't tell us the exact pronunciation of &amp;lt;ei&gt; here, so I'm not sure why Cser thinks these words had /ej/ specifically, as opposed to something like /eː/, /iː/, or even /e/ or /i/ (with the syllable being heavy because of coda /n/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some sources seem to categorize the disyllabic pronunciation of *deinde* and/or *dehinc* as an example of synizesis, alongside e.g. the pronunciation of &quot;eo&quot; in one syllable in words like *alveo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##/ej.j/ before a vowel&#xD;&#xA;Some instances of &amp;lt;ei&gt; are thought to have been pronounced /ej.ji/. Cser mentions *reicere* (p. 149) and *Pompei* (p. 13).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words with /ej.j/ followed by a vowel other than /i/ have had spelling variants with &amp;lt;ej&gt;, like the word *eius/ejus* mentioned in Joonas's answer. One thing to keep in mind is that some sources, particularly older dictionaries like L&amp;S, may write this as *ēi*, where the macron represents syllable weight rather than necessarily representing the length of the vowel itself. Intervocalically, /j/ is almost always found geminate in Latin—that is, as /j.j/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some prefixed words where, based on etymology, we would expect /eː.j/, although metrically there's no way of distinguishing this from /ej.j/. You mentioned *eicio,* which is thought to have started with /eː.ji/; another word that is thought to have had /eː.j/ is *seiungo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For more discussion of pronunciations like /ji/, /j.ji/, or /j.j/ for &amp;lt;i&gt; in contexts other than just &amp;lt;ei&gt;, see my answer to [When is an I not an I?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/91/9)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##other /ej/ before a consonant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be a few other examples of /ej/ before a consonant, but it's not necessarily clear. Cser brings it up as a potential pronunciation of &amp;lt;ei&gt; in &quot;anteis&quot;, &quot;anteit&quot; and &quot;anteire&quot; but suggests that /iː/ is a more likely pronunciation in this word (p. 150).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9312" RevisionGUID="c5c4535b-7b2f-4ed2-9e9d-74eb551c5ef4" CreationDate="2019-03-21T04:45:53.277" UserId="9" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="&quot;Ei&quot; is almost never a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact list of examples depends on what you call a &quot;diphthong&quot;. [Cser (2016)](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) argues that Latin has no genuine diphthongs, only vowel + glide sequences. Cser says that, if we set aside words with geminate /j.j/, /ej/ occurs in the following three related words: *deinde, dein, deinceps* (p. 32). As far as I know, these are never written with &amp;lt;ej&gt;. L&amp;S says that *[dehinc](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddehinc)* is frequently a monosyllable in poetry, which could be interpreted as implying a pronunciation /dejnk/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scansion alone wouldn't tell us the exact pronunciation of &amp;lt;ei&gt; here, so I'm not sure why Cser thinks these words had /ej/ specifically, as opposed to something like /eː/, /iː/, or even /e/ or /i/ (with the syllable being heavy because of coda /n/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some sources seem to categorize the disyllabic pronunciation of *deinde* and/or *dehinc* as an example of synizesis, alongside e.g. the pronunciation of &quot;eo&quot; in one syllable in words like *alveo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##/ej.j/ before a vowel&#xD;&#xA;Some instances of &amp;lt;ei&gt; are thought to have been pronounced /ej.ji/. Cser mentions *reicere* (p. 149) and the genitive form *Pompei* (p. 13).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words with /ej.j/ followed by a vowel other than /i/ have had spelling variants with &amp;lt;ej&gt;, like the word *eius/ejus* mentioned in Joonas's answer. One thing to keep in mind is that some sources, particularly older dictionaries like L&amp;S, may write this as *ēi*, where the macron represents syllable weight rather than necessarily representing the length of the vowel itself. Intervocalically, /j/ is almost always found geminate in Latin—that is, as /j.j/, but it became usual to write this with just a single letter I (or in modern-era texts, J).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some prefixed words where, based on etymology, we would expect /eː.j/, although metrically there's no way of distinguishing this from /ej.j/. You mentioned *eicio,* which is thought to have started with /eː.ji/; another word that is thought to have had /eː.j/ is *seiungo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For more discussion of pronunciations like /ji/, /j.ji/, or /j.j/ for &amp;lt;i&gt; in contexts other than just &amp;lt;ei&gt;, see my answer to [When is an I not an I?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/91/9)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##other /ej/ before a consonant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be a few other examples of /ej/ before a consonant, but it's not necessarily clear. Cser brings it up as a potential pronunciation of &amp;lt;ei&gt; in &quot;anteis&quot;, &quot;anteit&quot; and &quot;anteire&quot; but suggests that /iː/ is a more likely pronunciation in this word (p. 150).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9312" RevisionGUID="0abaa238-3978-488d-b33e-28b9d29921a3" CreationDate="2019-03-21T05:36:44.230" UserId="9" Comment="added 1550 characters in body" Text="&quot;Ei&quot; is almost never a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact list of examples depends on what you call a &quot;diphthong&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##*deinde* and friends&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Cser (2016)](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) argues that Latin has no genuine diphthongs, only vowel + glide sequences. Cser says that, if we set aside words with geminate /j.j/, /ej/ occurs in the following three related words: *deinde, dein, deinceps* (p. 32). As far as I know, these are never written with &amp;lt;ej&gt;. L&amp;S says that *[dehinc](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddehinc)* is frequently a monosyllable in poetry, which could be interpreted as implying a pronunciation /dejnk/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scansion alone wouldn't tell us the exact pronunciation of &amp;lt;ei&gt; here, so I'm not sure why Cser thinks these words had /ej/ specifically, as opposed to something like /eː/, /iː/, or even /e/ or /i/ (with the syllable being heavy because of coda /n/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some sources seem to categorize the disyllabic pronunciation of *deinde* and/or *dehinc* as an example of synizesis, alongside e.g. the pronunciation of &quot;eo&quot; in one syllable in words like *alveo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[An Anthology of Informal Latin, 200 BC–AD 900: Fifty Texts with Translations and Linguistic Commentary](https://books.google.com/books?id=UIMHDgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT392),* edited by J. N. Adams (2016), gives *dende* as a 2nd-century spelling of *deinde* (Chapter 22, &quot;Letter of Claudius Terentianus (*P. MICH.* VIII.471, *CEL* 146), of the Early Second Century&quot;; the text is sourced from Kramer (2007).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the notes, Adams says that &quot;the phonetics [of &quot;synezesis&quot; in *deinde*] tend not to be addressed&quot;, and that &quot;it remains unclear in what way (or ways) the term was pronounced in the early period; for the scansion *dĕīnde* in Terence see Questa (2007: 439).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adams suggests that a form with ē developed eventually in Latin, bringing up  *cōgo* from *co-* + *ago* as an example of a contraction resulting in a long vowel with quality of the first component. As evidence against reading the first syllable of &amp;lt;dende&gt; as [dɛn], Adams brings up (obsolete) reflexes in Spanish and Portuguese with forms like *dende*: these point towards Proto-Western-Romance \*e rather than \*ɛ, because \*ɛ would lead to the form \**diende,* which is apparently not attested (&quot;information from Adam Ledgeway&quot;). Adams says the same would go for Spanish *dentro* (not \**dientro*) from Latin *de-* + *intro.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adams doesn't seem to mention that Proto-Western-Romance \*e corresponds not only to Latin ē, but also to Latin ĭ, which I think is relevant because *de* + *ĭ* &gt; *dĭ* seems like a plausible alternative kind of contraction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##/ej.j/ before a vowel&#xD;&#xA;Some instances of &amp;lt;ei&gt; are thought to have been pronounced /ej.ji/. Cser mentions *reicere* (p. 149) and the genitive form *Pompei* (p. 13).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words with /ej.j/ followed by a vowel other than /i/ have had spelling variants with &amp;lt;ej&gt;, like the word *eius/ejus* mentioned in Joonas's answer. One thing to keep in mind is that some sources, particularly older dictionaries like L&amp;S, may write this as *ēi*, where the macron represents syllable weight rather than necessarily representing the length of the vowel itself. Intervocalically, /j/ is almost always found geminate in Latin—that is, as /j.j/, but it became usual to write this with just a single letter I (or in modern-era texts, J).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some prefixed words where, based on etymology, we would expect /eː.j/, although metrically there's no way of distinguishing this from /ej.j/. You mentioned *eicio,* which is thought to have started with /eː.ji/; another word that is thought to have had /eː.j/ is *seiungo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For more discussion of pronunciations like /ji/, /j.ji/, or /j.j/ for &amp;lt;i&gt; in contexts other than just &amp;lt;ei&gt;, see my answer to [When is an I not an I?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/91/9)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##other /ej/ before a consonant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be a few other examples of /ej/ before a consonant, but it's not necessarily clear. Cser brings it up as a potential pronunciation of &amp;lt;ei&gt; in &quot;anteis&quot;, &quot;anteit&quot; and &quot;anteire&quot; but suggests that /iː/ is a more likely pronunciation in this word (p. 150).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9311" RevisionGUID="9bc07fa2-b986-47a5-9289-05364d6760e3" CreationDate="2019-03-21T13:56:39.850" UserId="79" Comment="added 268 characters in body" Text="The diphthong *ei* is found before vowels: *eius*, *peior*.&#xD;&#xA;The intervocalic *i* is typically geminated (see [this question about I and J](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/14/79)) so that *eius* is pronounced like /ej.jus/ which is practically the same as /ei.jus/.&#xD;&#xA;I find it most reasonable to see this *ei* as a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of occurrences before a consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is quite similar to *ui* appearing in *cuius* and *huius*.&#xD;&#xA;It also appears in *cui*.&#xD;&#xA;If you are unconvinced that it should not be *cu&amp;imacr;* instead, see for example [the occurrences in the Aeneid](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=cui%23+%5Bverg%3Aa%5D), including the very first syllable of a number of verses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an answer to the [&quot;Oh no!&quot; question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/9303/79) luchonacho mentioned the interjection [*ei*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dei2).&#xD;&#xA;Judging by this line in Ovid's *Amores*, it is a single diphthong unlike the pronoun(s) *ei*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ei mihi, quod dominam nec vir nec femina servas*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9313" RevisionGUID="2c07d9ae-c596-4a2e-9832-80a47c51c801" CreationDate="2019-03-21T22:47:53.340" UserId="406" Text="In my experience, [Latin has a short list of diphthongs that are found in native words][1]. This list includes *ei* `/ej/`, as in *dēinde*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are other vowels that can appear before `/j/`: see *major* `/maj.jor/`, *cujus* `/cuj.jus/`, *ejus* `/ej.jus/`, *Troja* `/troj.ja/`. Should these be considered diphthongs too, or just sequences of a vowel plus `/j/`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/9310/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28975" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9313" RevisionGUID="2c07d9ae-c596-4a2e-9832-80a47c51c801" CreationDate="2019-03-21T22:47:53.340" UserId="406" Text="Do vowels before /j/ make diphthongs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28976" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9313" RevisionGUID="2c07d9ae-c596-4a2e-9832-80a47c51c801" CreationDate="2019-03-21T22:47:53.340" UserId="406" Text="|spelling|vowel|diphthong|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28977" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="9187" RevisionGUID="06fce30d-5e74-4c5e-90ad-fac0ec1cb049" CreationDate="2019-03-22T04:56:52.957" UserId="-1" Comment="109" />
  <row Id="28978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9314" RevisionGUID="323950d7-cd0c-4462-b291-70a9c9a63427" CreationDate="2019-03-22T08:50:35.673" UserId="3590" Text="![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7aaBO.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;I started learning Latin yesterday by myself using the Wheelock's Latin textbook&#xD;&#xA;My question was why are there 4 variations given of a word but only one translated meaning? What do these words mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28979" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9314" RevisionGUID="323950d7-cd0c-4462-b291-70a9c9a63427" CreationDate="2019-03-22T08:50:35.673" UserId="3590" Text="How do I translate this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28980" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9314" RevisionGUID="323950d7-cd0c-4462-b291-70a9c9a63427" CreationDate="2019-03-22T08:50:35.673" UserId="3590" Text="|wheelocks-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9314" RevisionGUID="0b2d9f7d-2871-40fa-a350-e7019d8cc0bf" CreationDate="2019-03-22T13:38:09.057" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7aaBO.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I started learning Latin yesterday by myself using the Wheelock's Latin textbook&#xD;&#xA;My question was why are there 4 variations given of a word but only one translated meaning? What do these words mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9315" RevisionGUID="95468cad-34f8-4c5c-804f-01e231a98b46" CreationDate="2019-03-22T13:39:10.767" UserId="1459" Text="This is a common way to present the words. See for instance [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amo#Latin).  The represent, respectively, the first person present active indicative (_amo_), the infinitive (_amare_), the perfect active (_amavi_) and the supine (_amatum_). In other words, they are **the same verb**, but in different conjugations. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28983" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9314" RevisionGUID="815555a0-6cc9-402e-8d05-2183bb9bd701" CreationDate="2019-03-22T13:42:04.937" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="Understanding entries in Latin dictionary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9316" RevisionGUID="76156539-ecf4-4d5a-8f0e-dd57684ca863" CreationDate="2019-03-22T15:37:11.063" UserId="406" Text="These are called the *principal parts* of the verb. They're the same verb, but in different forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, one form isn't enough to know how to use a verb properly. Imagine if you didn't know English, and looked up the verb *give* in a dictionary. From that one form, how would you know the past tense? You'd probably guess *_gived_, but that would be wrong. How are you supposed to know it's actually _gave_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So English verbs have three principal parts: if you look up *give* in a dictionary for English-learners, it'll list these parts as *give, gave, given*. From these three forms, you can create all the other forms you might need: *he will give*, *I have given*, *you are giving*, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin has these same three principal parts: _dare_ means &quot;give&quot;, _dedī_ means &quot;gave&quot;, and _datum_ means &quot;given&quot;. But there's a slight oddity in Latin that means you need one extra form as well: _dō_ specifically means &quot;I give&quot;, because that one sometimes looks different from what you'd expect. So those are the four forms every dictionary will list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(P.S. Sometimes verbs won't have all these forms; you'll see some verbs listed with only three, or some with only two. This generally means certain forms are _unattested_: they've never been seen &quot;in the wild&quot;, and are assumed not to exist. For example, _meminī, meminisse_, &quot;remember&quot;, only appears in the past tense. A good dictionary will also explain which forms are missing and how to work around that.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28986" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9314" RevisionGUID="3679fb16-b3ff-4a16-8763-2cd0f4838223" CreationDate="2019-03-22T16:06:15.000" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|verbs|dictionary|wheelocks-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28987" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9314" RevisionGUID="3702cca4-fdb8-46cb-a9d1-d301b07b243c" CreationDate="2019-03-22T16:06:18.870" UserId="79" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[823],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2476,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Vincenzo Oliva&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1459,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;luchonacho&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9317" RevisionGUID="344e85bb-b41a-4064-94c4-3051617859f1" CreationDate="2019-03-22T18:16:15.127" UserId="1982" Text="Lines 154-157: &#xD;&#xA;&quot;hoc tamen amborum verbis estote rogati,&#xD;&#xA;o multum miseri meus illusque parentes,&#xD;&#xA;ut, quos certus amor, quos hora novissima iunxit,&#xD;&#xA;conponi tumulo non invideatis eodem&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, line 154: this nevertheless you-have-been-asked (rogati) in the words of both of us (Firstly, what does &quot;estote&quot; mean, here; the only thing can find is--a future plural active imperative of sum--you will?),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;line 155: Oh wretched parents, mine and his (lit; and of him) (Secondly, multum (much, many) if it's referring to the parents why isn't it multi (adj)?),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lines 156-7: so that you do not begrudge those to whom certain love has joined in the final hour (Thirdly, should pluperf., &quot;iunxerit&quot; be deployed? Fourth, why are two clauses required, creating the clumsy necessity of writing &quot;quos&quot; twice, to produce this concept? I kept thinking that &quot;certus amor should be in the accusative, but if &quot;amor&quot; is the subject of iunxit; then, no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last bit: &quot;to be arranged in the same tomb&quot;, was easy enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28989" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9317" RevisionGUID="344e85bb-b41a-4064-94c4-3051617859f1" CreationDate="2019-03-22T18:16:15.127" UserId="1982" Text="Ovid, Metamorphoses IV" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28990" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9317" RevisionGUID="344e85bb-b41a-4064-94c4-3051617859f1" CreationDate="2019-03-22T18:16:15.127" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9318" RevisionGUID="97d26eff-58b0-4a5b-a4ed-f9716c196eb9" CreationDate="2019-03-22T18:24:39.953" UserId="3592" Text="I apologize beforehand for my english.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would you cosider *te* to be dependent from *pari* (&quot;with a position as powerful as yours&quot;) or *saepius* (&quot;more often than you&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*par* can be constructed with simple ablative, but rarely and more common is *cum* + abl. As for saepius, it just sounds strange, i would expect *seapius profuit **quam (tu)***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28992" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9318" RevisionGUID="97d26eff-58b0-4a5b-a4ed-f9716c196eb9" CreationDate="2019-03-22T18:24:39.953" UserId="3592" Text="nemo te alius pari potestate saepius profuit (Apul. Florida 9)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28993" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9318" RevisionGUID="97d26eff-58b0-4a5b-a4ed-f9716c196eb9" CreationDate="2019-03-22T18:24:39.953" UserId="3592" Text="|ablative|apuleius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9317" RevisionGUID="2e3d14bb-8edc-4108-9499-ed7c81ec53a0" CreationDate="2019-03-22T18:31:22.277" UserId="1982" Comment="edited body" Text="Lines 154-157: &#xD;&#xA;&quot;hoc tamen amborum verbis estote rogati,&#xD;&#xA;o multum miseri meus illusque parentes,&#xD;&#xA;ut, quos certus amor, quos hora novissima iunxit,&#xD;&#xA;conponi tumulo non invideatis eodem&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, line 154: this nevertheless you-have-been-asked (rogati) in the words of both of us (Firstly, what does &quot;estote&quot; mean, here; the only thing can find is--a future plural active imperative of sum--you will?),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;line 155: Oh wretched parents, mine and his (lit; and of him) (Secondly, multum (much, many) if it's referring to the parents why isn't it multi (adj)?),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lines 156-7: so that you do not begrudge those to whom certain love has joined in the final hour (Thirdly, should pluperf., &quot;iunxerat&quot; be deployed? Fourth, why are two clauses required, creating the clumsy necessity of writing &quot;quos&quot; twice, to produce this concept? I kept thinking that &quot;certus amor should be in the accusative, but if &quot;amor&quot; is the subject of iunxit; then, no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last bit: &quot;to be arranged in the same tomb&quot;, was easy enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9317" RevisionGUID="8eec46df-d690-4ece-affd-6cf650e997f3" CreationDate="2019-03-22T18:32:09.967" UserId="79" Comment="added 26 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Lines 154&amp;ndash;157:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;hoc tamen amborum verbis estote rogati,  &#xD;&#xA;o multum miseri meus illusque parentes,  &#xD;&#xA;ut, quos certus amor, quos hora novissima iunxit,  &#xD;&#xA;conponi tumulo non invideatis eodem&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, line 154: this nevertheless you-have-been-asked (rogati) in the words of both of us (Firstly, what does &quot;estote&quot; mean, here; the only thing can find is&amp;mdash;a future plural active imperative of sum&amp;mdash;you will?),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;line 155: Oh wretched parents, mine and his (lit; and of him) (Secondly, multum (much, many) if it's referring to the parents why isn't it multi (adj)?),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lines 156&amp;ndash;7: so that you do not begrudge those to whom certain love has joined in the final hour (Thirdly, should pluperf., &quot;iunxerat&quot; be deployed? Fourth, why are two clauses required, creating the clumsy necessity of writing &quot;quos&quot; twice, to produce this concept? I kept thinking that &quot;certus amor should be in the accusative, but if &quot;amor&quot; is the subject of iunxit; then, no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last bit: &quot;to be arranged in the same tomb&quot;, was easy enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28996" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9317" RevisionGUID="8eec46df-d690-4ece-affd-6cf650e997f3" CreationDate="2019-03-22T18:32:09.967" UserId="79" Comment="added 26 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation-check|latin-to-english-translation|ovidius|metamorphoses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9319" RevisionGUID="84edc8c9-cb42-4df2-9d78-d5ea3e977a1a" CreationDate="2019-03-22T20:33:32.160" UserId="985" Text="*Rogati* goes with *estote*: 'Be asked.' (I myself might translate as something like 'Consider yourselves asked.') The so-called 'future imperative' lends an air of solemnity to Thisbe's request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Hoc* supplies the object of *rogati estoti*. (The active forms of *rogo*, like *doceo*, can take two accusative objects, one for the person who is asked/taught, and one for the thing that is asked/taught; in passive forms, the latter accusative is retained. In fact, it's sometimes referred to as a 'retained accusative.') This *hoc* is proleptic, a sort of placeholder for the *ut...invideatis* clause that will give the actual substance of the request later: 'Be asked this thing..., namely that...'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Multum* is an adverbial accusative modifying *miseri*: 'greatly wretched' (literally 'wretched in respect to much')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Meus illiusque parentes** has to be understood to represent **meus parens illiusque parens*, but the two occurrences of the singular form *parens* have been combined into the plural form *parentes*: 'O fathers, mine and his'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ut...invideatis* isn't a purpose clause, as you seem to be construing it, but, as mentioned above, gives the substance of the request. It's an indirect command/jussive noun clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quos* is accusative, not dative; so it's not '*to* whom certain love has joined' but simply 'whom certain love has joined' (though 'certain' isn't a very good translation for *certus* here). *Certus amor* can be only nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that *hora novissima* is nominative, not ablative. It's another thing that has joined Pyramus and Thisbe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9319" RevisionGUID="4fee41e1-8110-4e86-827c-564945fe15eb" CreationDate="2019-03-22T20:54:02.457" UserId="985" Comment="Tweaks" Text="*Rogati* goes with *estote*: 'Be asked.' (I myself might translate as something like 'Consider yourselves asked.') The so-called 'future imperative' lends an air of solemnity to Thisbe's request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Hoc* supplies the object of *rogati estoti*. (The active forms of *rogo*, like *doceo*, can take two accusative objects, one for the person who is asked/taught, and one for the thing that is asked/taught; in passive forms, the latter accusative is retained. In fact, it's sometimes referred to as a 'retained accusative.') This *hoc* is proleptic, a sort of placeholder for the *ut...invideatis* clause that will give the actual substance of the request later: 'Be asked this thing..., namely that...'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Multum* is an adverbial accusative modifying *miseri*: 'greatly wretched' (literally 'wretched in respect to much')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Meus illiusque parentes* has to be understood to represent *meus parens illiusque parens*, but the two occurrences of the singular form *parens* have been combined into the plural form *parentes*: 'O fathers, mine and his'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ut...invideatis* isn't a purpose clause, as you seem to be construing it, but, as mentioned above, gives the substance of the request. It's an indirect command/jussive noun clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quos* is accusative, not dative; so it's not '*to* whom certain love has joined' but simply 'whom certain love has joined' (though 'certain' isn't a very good translation for *certus* here). *Certus amor* can be only nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that *hora novissima* is nominative, not ablative. It's another thing that has joined Pyramus and Thisbe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Still, consider yourself asked this thing by the words of both of us, o greatly wretched fathers, mine and his: namely, that you not begrudge that we, whom indisputable love has joined, and whom a final hour has joined, be laid to rest in the same grave." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9319" RevisionGUID="aa3c1b03-597f-4e65-9ce9-54a9d4c8f496" CreationDate="2019-03-23T03:39:53.957" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="*Rogati* goes with *estote*: 'Be asked.' (I myself might translate as something like 'Consider yourselves asked.') The so-called 'future imperative' lends an air of solemnity to Thisbe's request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Hoc* supplies the object of *rogati estote*. (The active forms of *rogo*, like *doceo*, can take two accusative objects, one for the person who is asked/taught, and one for the thing that is asked/taught; in passive forms, the latter accusative is retained. In fact, it's sometimes referred to as a 'retained accusative.') This *hoc* is proleptic, a sort of placeholder for the *ut...invideatis* clause that will give the actual substance of the request later: 'Be asked this thing..., namely that...'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Multum* is an adverbial accusative modifying *miseri*: 'greatly wretched' (literally 'wretched in respect to much')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Meus illiusque parentes* has to be understood to represent *meus parens illiusque parens*, but the two occurrences of the singular form *parens* have been combined into the plural form *parentes*: 'O fathers, mine and his'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ut...invideatis* isn't a purpose clause, as you seem to be construing it, but, as mentioned above, gives the substance of the request. It's an indirect command/jussive noun clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quos* is accusative, not dative; so it's not '*to* whom certain love has joined' but simply 'whom certain love has joined' (though 'certain' isn't a very good translation for *certus* here). *Certus amor* can be only nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that *hora novissima* is nominative, not ablative. It's another thing that has joined Pyramus and Thisbe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Still, consider yourself asked this thing by the words of both of us, o greatly wretched fathers, mine and his: namely, that you not begrudge that we, whom indisputable love has joined, and whom a final hour has joined, be laid to rest in the same grave." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29000" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4153" RevisionGUID="4c0e7b7f-bace-4473-bd9b-d1ec4cfcd6bd" CreationDate="2019-03-23T04:22:40.240" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="29001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9320" RevisionGUID="ef2cfafd-fc7f-41b8-b9fc-201361b7ed1a" CreationDate="2019-03-23T09:42:15.120" UserId="1459" Text="The famous French philosopher [Rene Descartes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes) is Latinised as _Renatus Cartesius_. Those unfamiliar with this, or with his thought in general, might then not realise that some words are derived from his name. For instance, Cartesian is a common term used in philosophy and mathematics (e.g. Cartesian dualism and Cartesian system of coordinates, respectively).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is the Latinisation of Descartes _Cartesius_? In particular, where is &quot;Des&quot;? Is it omitted because Descartes is literally translated as &quot;[of the](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/des#French) + [card/maps](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartes#French)&quot;, and Latin generally omits prepositions? It seems however that _cartesius_ is not a Latin word (although _charta_ and _carta_ are).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this Latinisation style common? Notice that, for example, the Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh is translated as _Vincentius van Gogh_, even that _van_ also means &quot;[of/from](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/van#Dutch)&quot;. [Miguel de Cervantes](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_de_Cervantes_Saavedra) (contemporary with Descartes) is another example where the &quot;of&quot; is not omitted. Is there a rule here or is this just arbitrary?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29002" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9320" RevisionGUID="ef2cfafd-fc7f-41b8-b9fc-201361b7ed1a" CreationDate="2019-03-23T09:42:15.120" UserId="1459" Text="Why is Descartes Latinised as Cartesius?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29003" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9320" RevisionGUID="ef2cfafd-fc7f-41b8-b9fc-201361b7ed1a" CreationDate="2019-03-23T09:42:15.120" UserId="1459" Text="|names|latinization|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9318" RevisionGUID="bb89fc64-b5b4-4a7b-90bf-609855bec7db" CreationDate="2019-03-23T09:48:17.250" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 41 characters in body; edited title" Text="Would you consider *te* to be dependent from *pari* (&quot;with a position as powerful as yours&quot;) or *saepius* (&quot;more often than you&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*par* can be constructed with simple ablative, but rarely and more common is *cum* + abl. As for saepius, it just sounds strange, i would expect *seapius profuit **quam (tu)***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29005" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9318" RevisionGUID="bb89fc64-b5b4-4a7b-90bf-609855bec7db" CreationDate="2019-03-23T09:48:17.250" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 41 characters in body; edited title" Text="Nemo te alius pari potestate saepius profuit (Apul. Florida 9)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9321" RevisionGUID="371b9fb8-dc57-4c7e-80b7-26a7628fff56" CreationDate="2019-03-23T16:12:37.883" UserId="645" Text="I'm looking for a way to express in Latin &quot;she broke a blood-vessel in a fit of passion&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an English idiom, not to be taken literally, but used to express a burst of outrage or anger. I need something idiomatic, if such a thing exists, rather than a clumsy-looking direct translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29007" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9321" RevisionGUID="371b9fb8-dc57-4c7e-80b7-26a7628fff56" CreationDate="2019-03-23T16:12:37.883" UserId="645" Text="Expressing outrage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29008" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9321" RevisionGUID="371b9fb8-dc57-4c7e-80b7-26a7628fff56" CreationDate="2019-03-23T16:12:37.883" UserId="645" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9322" RevisionGUID="1049862d-3e9e-4e04-a44b-fc63a2a0dcae" CreationDate="2019-03-23T23:05:39.383" UserId="1694" Text="There is some arbitrariness in the practice, but Latinization of names was normal until at least the 17th century, but the more modern pattern is to leave surnames un-Latinized.  Thus, van Gogh's name is left alone.  The Wikipedia article on Cervantes proves nothing, since it also is modern.  (Since Cervantes himself did not write in Latin, one can hardly expect to see how he would have it done himself.)  Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Christiaan Huygens][huygens] (d. 1695) -&gt; Hugenius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz][leibnitz] (d. 1716) -&gt; Leibnitius/Leibnüzius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Johannes Kepler][kepler] (d. 1630) -&gt; Joannes Kep(p)lerus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Francis Willughby][willughby] (d. 1672) -&gt; Franciscus Willughbeius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Isaac Newton][newton] (d. 1726) -&gt; variously not Latinized *or* Isaacus(!) Newtonus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-but-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Blaise Pascal][pascal]  (d. 1662) -&gt; Blasius Pascal (I would have thought that &quot;Paschalis&quot; would have been the obvious Latinization)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[huygens]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiaan_Huygens&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[newton]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Principia_Mathematica_1713.JPG&#xD;&#xA;[kepler]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[leibnitz]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[pascal]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[willughby]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9323" RevisionGUID="ce19b626-586a-43af-acec-aa9720cbc89e" CreationDate="2019-03-23T23:08:26.513" UserId="3593" Text="How would you say &quot;In this sign love&quot; as in the similar style saying of &quot;In hoc signo vinces&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29011" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9323" RevisionGUID="ce19b626-586a-43af-acec-aa9720cbc89e" CreationDate="2019-03-23T23:08:26.513" UserId="3593" Text="I am looking for the correct translation of love for the phrase &quot;in this sign love&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29012" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9323" RevisionGUID="ce19b626-586a-43af-acec-aa9720cbc89e" CreationDate="2019-03-23T23:08:26.513" UserId="3593" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9324" RevisionGUID="2f1c789a-32f6-42bb-b894-d0876c82577b" CreationDate="2019-03-23T23:44:58.917" UserId="406" Text="The phrase _in hōc signō vincēs_, as in the words Constantine saw, uses a future indicative form: it's not an order to conquer, it's a statement of pure fact. &quot;In this sign *you will conquer*.&quot; The word you'd want to change is _vincēs_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to keep that same grammatical form, &quot;you will love&quot; as a statement of fact, that would be _amābis_ in the singular (like _vincēs_), but _amābitis_ in the plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want it to be a command (&quot;love!&quot;), that would be _amā_ singular, _amāte_ plural (the present imperative). And if you want it to be a suggestion or a wish, &quot;may you love&quot;, that would be _amēs_ or _amētis_, the present/future subjunctive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9323" RevisionGUID="b3f90a8b-e848-426d-81b4-6c11955fe122" CreationDate="2019-03-24T03:58:51.830" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="How would you say &quot;In this sign love&quot; as in the similar style saying of &quot;In hoc signo vinces&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29015" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9323" RevisionGUID="b3f90a8b-e848-426d-81b4-6c11955fe122" CreationDate="2019-03-24T03:58:51.830" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29016" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9323" RevisionGUID="c3d86904-cbc6-447b-898b-137d368b5c28" CreationDate="2019-03-24T04:02:58.950" />
  <row Id="29018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9325" RevisionGUID="ae3c5dc6-7918-4818-8c1d-43ecc8a900bf" CreationDate="2019-03-24T05:05:40.257" UserId="79" Text="Many European last names have some kind of &quot;of&quot; in them, like the &quot;des&quot; of Descartes.&#xD;&#xA;In Latin this is most naturally expressed with a derivative.&#xD;&#xA;This goes with many kinds of titles with an &quot;of&quot;; for example, I would translate &quot;Caesar of Rome&quot; as *Caesar Romanus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Alex B. comments under another answer, de Montaigne (&quot;of mountain&quot;) was Latinized as *Montanus*.&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to the Latinization of a specific name, I can only guess, but it seems to me that &quot;of Cartes&quot; was Latinized as *Cartes-ius*.&#xD;&#xA;This sounds very natural in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a lot of variation in Latinization of names, and there are no hard rules.&#xD;&#xA;However, one can try to understand patterns and common processes.&#xD;&#xA;There are multiple ways one could have Latinized the name Descartes &amp;mdash; or Des Cartes; many French names seem to have shifted to being spelled together at some point.&#xD;&#xA;One could have analyzed the name further and observed that the French *carte* comes from the Latin *charta*, and from there one can derive *Chartarius*.&#xD;&#xA;One has to balance between one's good Latin style (as sensed by oneself and the community), ease of understanding, and existing traditions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9326" RevisionGUID="8ad2e389-10ee-4cc7-9c00-ba0be5fd055d" CreationDate="2019-03-24T13:12:53.617" UserId="3594" Text="![Culdees castle church](https://i.stack.imgur.com/UvWxo.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This piece of stained glass (about 500mm x 400mm) is in our house but came from our adjoining castle.  I think it came from a since ruined church on the same site.  Anyone know what it means? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29020" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9326" RevisionGUID="8ad2e389-10ee-4cc7-9c00-ba0be5fd055d" CreationDate="2019-03-24T13:12:53.617" UserId="3594" Text="Translation of Scottish 16th century church stained glass" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29021" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9326" RevisionGUID="8ad2e389-10ee-4cc7-9c00-ba0be5fd055d" CreationDate="2019-03-24T13:12:53.617" UserId="3594" Text="|translation|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9327" RevisionGUID="d4bd6456-1695-4190-b3d1-4645211a321b" CreationDate="2019-03-24T13:55:05.197" UserId="522" Text="The heraldry makes play on **ACRE** (plough and barley brew) and **HACKER** (with the bladed instrument above the plough and the halberd).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latinised name below the heraldry simply reads  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Marci Ackerman (?Ackermani) **:** 1561&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Of Mark Ackerman : 1561&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;The words are in the possessive case to indicate whose window (or whose castle, or room).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29023" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9326" RevisionGUID="db669f36-d086-4d0e-b7d6-733d957691e5" CreationDate="2019-03-24T16:03:48.467" />
  <row Id="29024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9325" RevisionGUID="779ee022-defd-4032-9628-189b240d3403" CreationDate="2019-03-24T18:03:38.927" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Many European last names have some kind of &quot;of&quot; in them, like the &quot;des&quot; of Descartes.&#xD;&#xA;In Latin this is most naturally expressed with a derivative.&#xD;&#xA;This goes with many kinds of titles with an &quot;of&quot;; for example, I would translate &quot;Caesar of Rome&quot; as *Caesar Romanus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Alex B. comments under another answer, de Montaigne (&quot;of mountain&quot;) was Latinized as *Montanus*.&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to the Latinization of a specific name, I can only guess, but it seems to me that &quot;of Cartes&quot; was Latinized as *Cartes-ius*.&#xD;&#xA;This sounds very natural in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a lot of variation in Latinization of names, and there are no hard rules.&#xD;&#xA;However, one can try to understand patterns and common processes.&#xD;&#xA;There are multiple ways one could have Latinized the name Descartes &amp;mdash; or Des Cartes; many French names seem to have shifted to being spelled together at some point.&#xD;&#xA;One could have analyzed the name further and observed that the French *carte* comes from the Latin *charta*, and from there one can derive *Chartarius*.&#xD;&#xA;One has to balance between good Latin style (as sensed by oneself and the community), ease of understanding, and existing traditions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9328" RevisionGUID="4e78bf5c-569c-4f73-a80d-04c46af32b2f" CreationDate="2019-03-24T18:27:08.060" UserId="3377" Text="I am self-teaching Latin and have no instructors to whom I can ask questions. I am at a loss for learning subjunctive (mostly its uses and translating into English) and would like a resource that handles teaching subjunctive particularly well (even if it is less good at teaching other aspects of Latin). I am currently working systematically through *Latin: An Intensive Course* by Moreland and Fleischer. There is no answer key included with the book, and I have found several mistakes in ones that have been posted online.&#xA;To make this answer more applicable to others, suggestions on self-teaching in general are also welcome!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29026" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9328" RevisionGUID="4e78bf5c-569c-4f73-a80d-04c46af32b2f" CreationDate="2019-03-24T18:27:08.060" UserId="3377" Text="Self-teaching: Good resource for learning subjunctive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29027" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9328" RevisionGUID="4e78bf5c-569c-4f73-a80d-04c46af32b2f" CreationDate="2019-03-24T18:27:08.060" UserId="3377" Text="|classical-latin|resource-request|mood|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9328" RevisionGUID="b1096e2b-aa2d-4bbf-9443-de62ae67899f" CreationDate="2019-03-24T19:25:59.543" UserId="3377" Comment="Deleted secondary question" Text="I am self-teaching Latin and have no instructors to whom I can ask questions. I am at a loss for learning subjunctive (mostly its uses and translating into English) and would like a resource that handles teaching subjunctive particularly well (even if it is less good at teaching other aspects of Latin). I am currently working systematically through *Latin: An Intensive Course* by Moreland and Fleischer. There is no answer key included with the book, and I have found several mistakes in ones that have been posted online." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9329" RevisionGUID="75cbf9c4-217a-408f-93d6-f1ae96047d2c" CreationDate="2019-03-24T20:48:17.037" UserId="79" Text="This may unfortunately be something of a non-answer, but please bear with me.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin conjunctive or subjunctive (one thing, two names) is a little tricky and can easily be confusing.&#xD;&#xA;I actually imagine you made this very observation and asked the question for that very reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be good sources out there that explain how it works, but I am not sure if any source will be clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I recommend taking a look at several different sources.&#xD;&#xA;Different focuses, points of view, analogies, and examples help you get a more multi-faceted view to the matter.&#xD;&#xA;An excellent way to get explanations to tricky properties of the subjunctive is to ask (focused) questions on this site.&#xD;&#xA;We can help you put things in context and explain why things work as they do.&#xD;&#xA;But this site alone will not suffice; we probably won't answer requests like &quot;please explain what the subjunctive is and how it's used&quot;, so you need to get the basics elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;But when you work your way through texts and examples, I am sure questions will arise, and those we will be happy to help you with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope someone has actual resources to suggest for learning the subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;There are some good Latin grammars out there, but I guess their approach isn't that good a fit for someone learning something for the first time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29030" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9152" RevisionGUID="d4acaf81-2ca4-4357-840e-d116c42774bb" CreationDate="2019-03-24T21:23:00.047" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="29031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6995" RevisionGUID="25f08c3b-f7a3-432a-b656-fefcb9f88929" CreationDate="2019-03-24T23:12:06.923" UserId="30" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="In all Indo-European languages that I know, copulae are intransitive and normally take the *nominative*. So everything below will apply to other Indo-European languages, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to distinguish between objects and other complements. A direct object, which you mean, is always a kind of complement, accompanying a transitive verb; but there are other complements that aren't direct objects and don't require a transitive verb. Note that, in Latin, only direct objects can be passivised (just as in Dutch and German, but unlike English and Greek). Cf.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I went **to Rome**: the complement *to Rome* is not an object, let alone a direct object, but rather a prepositional phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **In Italiam** ii: same as above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Romam** ii: even though the complement is accusative, it's not a direct object. This can be seen in what happens when we make it passive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Romam** itur a me: normally, a direct object turns into a subject when we make the sentence passive, which does not happen here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Tibi** parceo: &quot;I spare you&quot;: the complement is a dative, not an accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Tibi** parcitur a me: this is again visible in the passive (unnatural though *a me* sounds here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Te** video =&gt; videris a me: only direct objects become subjects when passivised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary complement of a (finite) copula—or the secondary, if you count the subject as the primary complement—is always a nominative. This applies both to adjectives and substantives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Canis** sum: I am a dog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Vetus** sum: I am old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine if the adjective had to be in the accusative case: wouldn't that be weird?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;s&gt;**Veterem** sum.&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would have an adjective sitting there alone in the accusative. It would agree with nothing. So it has to be its own constituent; but it is very strange to have an adjective that clearly describes a property of the subject (&quot;I&quot;) but that isn't in the same case and that isn't the same constituent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, because the complement of a copula always describes a property or identity of the subject, it has to be in the same case as the subject. This applies as well to the accusative with infinitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dico me **canem** esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dico me **veterem** esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The complement of a copula doesn't have an independent case: it must always take the same case as that of the 'subject' of the copula even when the latter isn't in the nominative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9330" RevisionGUID="26eb9213-4685-4fd0-8406-bf619e3a39e0" CreationDate="2019-03-25T02:02:41.040" UserId="522" Text="Dido goes a bit off the rails at the end of [Aeneid IV][1]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In dreams she feels cruel Aeneas goad her madness on,/ &#xD;&#xA;and ever seems she, friendless and alone,/ &#xD;&#xA;some lengthening path to travel, or to seek/ &#xD;&#xA;her Tyrians through wide wastes of barren lands./ &#xD;&#xA;Thus frantic Pentheus flees the stern array /&#xD;&#xA;of the Eumenides, and thinks to see/ &#xD;&#xA;two noonday lights blaze oer his doubled Thebes;/ &#xD;&#xA;or murdered Agamemnon's haunted son,/  &#xD;&#xA;Orestes, flees his mother's phantom scourge/ &#xD;&#xA;of flames and serpents foul, while at his door &#xD;&#xA;avenging horrors wait. &#xD;&#xA;*Vergil. Aeneid. tr. Theodore C. Williams*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From that passage, are any of these three useful? &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;mad, as if she sees the columns of the Eumenides&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Eumenidum veluti demens videt agmina.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;agitated by visions&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *agitatus scaenis.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Avenging horrors sit upon the doorstep&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ultrices sedent in limine Dirae.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0055%3Abook%3D4%3Acard%3D450" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9331" RevisionGUID="317b0c8b-cb99-485f-819e-78932b2610c2" CreationDate="2019-03-25T03:38:05.747" UserId="9" Text="Manu Leumann's *Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre* (Munich 1977) groups the contraction of *-āvis-* to *-ās-* in forms like *amāstī* and *amāssem* together with the contraction of *-āver-* to *-ār-* in forms like *amāram* and *amāro*. Leumann says that &quot;Bei Plautus sind noch die Kurzformen seltener als die Vollformen&quot; (&quot;in Plautus, the short forms are still rarer than the full forms&quot;) (§438.II.B, p. 599).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details, he says to consult &quot;Stolz, KZ 38, 429&quot;. I haven't looked at Stolz yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That remark is just for first-conjugation perfect forms of the *āvī* type; Leumann discusses other types of perfects, and other specific words, in other parts of that section. For example, he says that Plautus prefers the short forms of *audīre.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9331" RevisionGUID="ee6477fa-9e32-48b8-b942-46bb00368f23" CreationDate="2019-03-25T03:46:45.583" UserId="9" Comment="added 1239 characters in body" Text="Manu Leumann's *Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre* (Munich 1977) groups the contraction of *-āvis-* to *-ās-* in forms like *amāstī* and *amāssem* together with the contraction of *-āver-* to *-ār-* in forms like *amāram* and *amāro*. Leumann says that &quot;Bei Plautus sind noch die Kurzformen seltener als die Vollformen&quot; (&quot;in Plautus, the short forms are still rarer than the full forms&quot;) (§438.II.B, p. 599).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details, he says to consult &quot;Stolz, KZ 38, 429&quot;. I haven't looked at Stolz yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That remark is just for first-conjugation perfect forms of the *āvī* type; Leumann discusses other types of perfects, and other specific words, in other parts of that section. For example, he says that Plautus prefers the short forms of *audīre.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;A Note on Servivisti (Petr. 57.4)&quot; (1998), Brent Vine quotes Leumann's statement that short forms of the perfect (in general, not of *-āvī*-perfects specifically) &quot;gehören seit Plautus der Umgangssprache an&quot; and goes on to discuss two passages that Leumann cites to support this: one is the Quintilian passage that you have already mentioned (1.6.17), and the other is Cicero Orat. 155-62. Vine says that the context of these passages is the argument between the &quot;anomalist&quot; and &quot;analogist&quot; schools of grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Orator* 155-62, Cicero says that the full forms *novisse* and *iudicavisse* are the ones that are thought of as &quot;correct&quot;, but the short forms *nosse* and *iudicasse* are the ones that are spoken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a footnote (8), Vine says &quot;I hope to treat elsewhere the pedagogical implications of the fact that we routinely teach our beginning students forms like *audivisti* (and similarly *audivisse, audivissem* etc.) which are in fact largely unattested.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the title indicates, Vine's article is mostly about a particular occurrence of &quot;servisti&quot;. Vine says that *servivisti* is &quot;the sole uncontracted *-vis*-perfect form in the entire Satyricon (including 2 sg. pl. perf. *-visti/-vistis,* perf. act. infin. *-visse*, and plupf. subj. *-vissem, -visses,* etc.)&quot; (p. 543).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9331" RevisionGUID="f1c385c2-8b6a-4c5f-bd09-37c6d4991e39" CreationDate="2019-03-25T03:52:23.117" UserId="406" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="Manu Leumann's *Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre* (Munich 1977) groups the contraction of *-āvis-* to *-ās-* in forms like *amāstī* and *amāssem* together with the contraction of *-āver-* to *-ār-* in forms like *amāram* and *amāro*. Leumann says that &quot;Bei Plautus sind noch die Kurzformen seltener als die Vollformen&quot; (&quot;in Plautus, the short forms are still rarer than the full forms&quot;) (§438.II.B, p. 599).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details, he says to consult &quot;Stolz, KZ 38, 429&quot;. I haven't looked at Stolz yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That remark is just for first-conjugation perfect forms of the *āvī* type; Leumann discusses other types of perfects, and other specific words, in other parts of that section. For example, he says that Plautus prefers the short forms of *audīre.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;A Note on Servivisti (Petr. 57.4)&quot; (1998), Brent Vine quotes Leumann's statement that short forms of the perfect (in general, not of *-āvī*-perfects specifically) &quot;gehören seit Plautus der Umgangssprache an&quot; (are heard from the Vulgar Latin of Plautus onward) and goes on to discuss two passages that Leumann cites to support this: one is the Quintilian passage that you have already mentioned (1.6.17), and the other is Cicero Orat. 155-62. Vine says that the context of these passages is the argument between the &quot;anomalist&quot; and &quot;analogist&quot; schools of grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Orator* 155-62, Cicero says that the full forms *novisse* and *iudicavisse* are the ones that are thought of as &quot;correct&quot;, but the short forms *nosse* and *iudicasse* are the ones that are spoken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a footnote (8), Vine says &quot;I hope to treat elsewhere the pedagogical implications of the fact that we routinely teach our beginning students forms like *audivisti* (and similarly *audivisse, audivissem* etc.) which are in fact largely unattested.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the title indicates, Vine's article is mostly about a particular occurrence of &quot;servisti&quot;. Vine says that *servivisti* is &quot;the sole uncontracted *-vis*-perfect form in the entire Satyricon (including 2 sg. pl. perf. *-visti/-vistis,* perf. act. infin. *-visse*, and plupf. subj. *-vissem, -visses,* etc.)&quot; (p. 543).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9331" RevisionGUID="42365b22-bae5-4d37-8689-6df4f0648637" CreationDate="2019-03-25T03:52:46.297" UserId="9" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="Manu Leumann's *Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre* (Munich 1977) groups the contraction of *-āvis-* to *-ās-* in forms like *amāstī* and *amāssem* together with the contraction of *-āver-* to *-ār-* in forms like *amāram* and *amāro*. Leumann says that &quot;Bei Plautus sind noch die Kurzformen seltener als die Vollformen&quot; (&quot;in Plautus, the short forms are still rarer than the full forms&quot;) (§438.II.B, p. 599).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details, he says to consult &quot;Stolz, KZ 38, 429&quot;. I haven't looked at Stolz yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That remark is just for first-conjugation perfect forms of the *āvī* type; Leumann discusses other types of perfects, and other specific words, in other parts of that section. For example, he says that Plautus prefers the short forms of *audīre.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;A Note on Servivisti (Petr. 57.4)&quot; (1998), Brent Vine quotes Leumann's statement that short forms of the perfect (in general, not of *-āvī*-perfects specifically) &quot;gehören seit Plautus der Umgangssprache an&quot; (are heard from the Vulgar Latin of Plautus onward) and goes on to discuss two passages that Leumann cites to support this: one is the Quintilian passage that you have already mentioned (1.6.17), and the other is Cicero Orat. 155-62. Vine says that the context of these passages is the argument between the &quot;anomalist&quot; and &quot;analogist&quot; schools of grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Orator* 155-62, Cicero says that the full forms *novisse* and *iudicavisse* are the ones that are thought of as &quot;correct&quot;, but the short forms *nosse* and *iudicasse* are the ones that are spoken. Wikipedia says that *Orator* was written in 46 B.C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a footnote (8), Vine says &quot;I hope to treat elsewhere the pedagogical implications of the fact that we routinely teach our beginning students forms like *audivisti* (and similarly *audivisse, audivissem* etc.) which are in fact largely unattested.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the title indicates, Vine's article is mostly about a particular occurrence of &quot;servisti&quot;. Vine says that *servivisti* is &quot;the sole uncontracted *-vis*-perfect form in the entire Satyricon (including 2 sg. pl. perf. *-visti/-vistis,* perf. act. infin. *-visse*, and plupf. subj. *-vissem, -visses,* etc.)&quot; (p. 543).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9331" RevisionGUID="44039956-6dd5-4fae-9fee-fb9bb4809062" CreationDate="2019-03-25T03:55:01.790" UserId="9" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="Manu Leumann's *Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre* (Munich 1977) groups the contraction of *-āvis-* to *-ās-* in forms like *amāstī* and *amāssem* together with the contraction of *-āver-* to *-ār-* in forms like *amāram* and *amāro*. Leumann says that &quot;Bei Plautus sind noch die Kurzformen seltener als die Vollformen&quot; (&quot;in Plautus, the short forms are still rarer than the full forms&quot;) (§438.II.B, p. 599).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details, he says to consult &quot;Stolz, KZ 38, 429&quot;. I haven't looked at Stolz yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That remark is just for first-conjugation perfect forms of the *āvī* type; Leumann discusses other types of perfects, and other specific words, in other parts of that section. For example, he says that Plautus prefers the short forms of *audīre.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;A Note on Servivisti (Petr. 57.4)&quot; (1998), Brent Vine quotes Leumann's statement that short forms of the perfect (in general, not of *-āvī*-perfects specifically) &quot;gehören seit Plautus der Umgangssprache an&quot; (are heard from the Vulgar Latin of Plautus onward) and goes on to discuss two passages that Leumann cites to support this: one is the Quintilian passage that you have already mentioned (1.6.17), and the other is Cicero Orat. 155-62. Vine says that the context of these passages is the argument between the &quot;anomalist&quot; and &quot;analogist&quot; schools of grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Orator* 155-62, Cicero says that the full forms *novisse* and *iudicavisse* are the ones that are thought of as &quot;correct&quot;, but the short forms *nosse* and *iudicasse* are the ones that are usual in speech. Wikipedia says that *[Orator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orator_(Cicero))* was written in 46 B.C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a footnote (8), Vine says &quot;I hope to treat elsewhere the pedagogical implications of the fact that we routinely teach our beginning students forms like *audivisti* (and similarly *audivisse, audivissem* etc.) which are in fact largely unattested.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the title indicates, Vine's article is mostly about a particular occurrence of &quot;servisti&quot;. Vine says that *servivisti* is &quot;the sole uncontracted *-vis*-perfect form in the entire Satyricon (including 2 sg. pl. perf. *-visti/-vistis,* perf. act. infin. *-visse*, and plupf. subj. *-vissem, -visses,* etc.)&quot; (p. 543). Wikipedia says that there is now a consensus that the *[Satyricon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyricon#Date_and_authorship)* was written in the time period of Nero (1st century AD).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9331" RevisionGUID="fba339c3-0499-415a-8fef-b6d062b9f0c7" CreationDate="2019-03-25T04:12:11.027" UserId="9" Comment="added 255 characters in body" Text="Manu Leumann's *Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre* (Munich 1977) groups the contraction of *-āvis-* to *-ās-* in forms like *amāstī* and *amāssem* together with the contraction of *-āver-* to *-ār-* in forms like *amāram* and *amāro*. Leumann says that &quot;Bei Plautus sind noch die Kurzformen seltener als die Vollformen&quot; (&quot;in Plautus, the short forms are still rarer than the full forms&quot;) (§438.II.B, p. 599).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details, he says to consult &quot;Stolz, KZ 38, 429&quot;. I haven't looked at Stolz yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That remark is just for first-conjugation perfect forms of the *āvī* type; Leumann discusses other types of perfects, and other specific words, in other parts of that section. For example, he says that Plautus prefers the short forms of *audīre.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;A Note on Servivisti (Petr. 57.4)&quot; (1998), Brent Vine quotes Leumann's statement that short forms of the perfect (in general, not of *-āvī*-perfects specifically) &quot;gehören seit Plautus der Umgangssprache an&quot; (are heard from the Vulgar Latin of Plautus onward) and goes on to discuss two passages that Leumann cites to support this: one is the Quintilian passage that you have already mentioned (1.6.17), and the other is Cicero Orat. 155-62. Vine says that the context of these passages is the argument between the &quot;anomalist&quot; and &quot;analogist&quot; schools of grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Orator* 155-62, Cicero says that the full forms *novisse* and *iudicavisse* are the ones that are thought of as &quot;correct&quot;, but the short forms *nosse* and *iudicasse* are the ones that are usual in speech. Wikipedia says that *[Orator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orator_(Cicero))* was written in 46 B.C. In fact, Cicero does seem to have used the form &quot;[iudicavisse](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23iudicavisse%23)&quot; occasionally in his earlier works (e.g. *[In Verrem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Verrem),* which Wikipedia says is from 70 BC).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a footnote (8), Vine says &quot;I hope to treat elsewhere the pedagogical implications of the fact that we routinely teach our beginning students forms like *audivisti* (and similarly *audivisse, audivissem* etc.) which are in fact largely unattested.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the title indicates, Vine's article is mostly about a particular occurrence of &quot;servisti&quot;. Vine says that *servivisti* is &quot;the sole uncontracted *-vis*-perfect form in the entire Satyricon (including 2 sg. pl. perf. *-visti/-vistis,* perf. act. infin. *-visse*, and plupf. subj. *-vissem, -visses,* etc.)&quot; (p. 543). Wikipedia says that there is now a consensus that the *[Satyricon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyricon#Date_and_authorship)* was written in the time period of Nero (1st century AD).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9331" RevisionGUID="850fcfdb-2283-44aa-b547-13b80e158d0f" CreationDate="2019-03-25T04:18:26.963" UserId="9" Comment="added 255 characters in body" Text="Manu Leumann's *Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre* (Munich 1977) groups the contraction of *-āvis-* to *-ās-* in forms like *amāstī* and *amāssem* together with the contraction of *-āver-* to *-ār-* in forms like *amāram* and *amāro*. Leumann says that &quot;Bei Plautus sind noch die Kurzformen seltener als die Vollformen&quot; (&quot;in Plautus, the short forms are still rarer than the full forms&quot;) (§438.II.B, p. 599).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details, he says to consult &quot;Stolz, KZ 38, 429&quot;, which based on the table of abbreviations seems to be *Historische Grammatik der lat. Sprache,* 1895. I haven't looked at Stolz yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That remark is just for first-conjugation perfect forms of the *āvī* type; Leumann discusses other types of perfects, and other specific words, in other parts of that section. For example, he says that Plautus prefers the short forms of *audīre.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;A Note on Servivisti (Petr. 57.4)&quot; (1998), Brent Vine quotes Leumann's statement that short forms of the perfect (in general, not of *-āvī*-perfects specifically) &quot;gehören seit Plautus der Umgangssprache an&quot; (are heard from the Vulgar Latin of Plautus onward) and goes on to discuss two passages that Leumann cites to support this: one is the Quintilian passage that you have already mentioned (1.6.17), and the other is Cicero Orat. 155-62. Vine says that the context of these passages is the argument between the &quot;anomalist&quot; and &quot;analogist&quot; schools of grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Orator* 155-62, Cicero says that the full forms *novisse* and *iudicavisse* are the ones that are thought of as &quot;correct&quot;, but the short forms *nosse* and *iudicasse* are the ones that are usual in speech. Wikipedia says that *[Orator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orator_(Cicero))* was written in 46 B.C. In fact, Cicero does seem to have used the form &quot;[iudicavisse](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23iudicavisse%23)&quot; occasionally in his earlier works (e.g. *[In Verrem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Verrem),* which Wikipedia says is from 70 BC).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a footnote (8), Vine says &quot;I hope to treat elsewhere the pedagogical implications of the fact that we routinely teach our beginning students forms like *audivisti* (and similarly *audivisse, audivissem* etc.) which are in fact largely unattested.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the title indicates, Vine's article is mostly about a particular occurrence of &quot;servisti&quot;. Vine says that *servivisti* is &quot;the sole uncontracted *-vis*-perfect form in the entire Satyricon (including 2 sg. pl. perf. *-visti/-vistis,* perf. act. infin. *-visse*, and plupf. subj. *-vissem, -visses,* etc.)&quot; (p. 543). Wikipedia says that there is now a consensus that the *[Satyricon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyricon#Date_and_authorship)* was written in the time period of Nero (1st century AD).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9332" RevisionGUID="104c370a-8e20-4851-ba31-25593c38b2d5" CreationDate="2019-03-25T05:26:08.030" UserId="9" Text="&quot;[The vocative’s calling? The syntax of address in Latin](https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:e666d76a-de0e-454e-83ba-77e06e64c492/download_file?safe_filename=Item&amp;file_format=application%2Fpdf&amp;type_of_work=Journal+article)&quot;, by Richard Ashdowne, mentions one example that seems fairly clear because it occurs in a list of vocative phrases that includes nouns of other genders that are clearly not accusative in form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5) *o Troia, o patria, **o Pergamum**, o Priame ... senex* (Plaut. Bacch. 933) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;O Troy! O fatherland! O Pergamum! O old man, Priam!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, a city name is perhaps one of the more likely contexts for a neuter vocative, since there are a number of cities or towns with neuter-gender names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The article starts with an amusing anecdote about Winston Churchill's puzzlement when he was taught that *mensa* could be translated as &quot;O table&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9332" RevisionGUID="649c7496-060d-46b0-a097-5a73d47301a0" CreationDate="2019-03-25T05:31:32.473" UserId="9" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="&quot;[The vocative’s calling? The syntax of address in Latin](https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:e666d76a-de0e-454e-83ba-77e06e64c492/download_file?safe_filename=Item&amp;file_format=application%2Fpdf&amp;type_of_work=Journal+article)&quot;, by Richard Ashdowne, mentions one example that seems fairly clear because it occurs in a list of vocative phrases that includes the unambiguous form &quot;Priame&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5) *o Troia, o patria, **o Pergamum**, o Priame ... senex* (Plaut. Bacch. 933) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;O Troy! O fatherland! O Pergamum! O old man, Priam!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology &amp; Phonetics](https://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/files/owp2002.pdf),* Volume 7, May 2002, p. 145)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, a city name is perhaps one of the more likely contexts for a neuter vocative, since there are a number of cities or towns with neuter-gender names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The article starts with an amusing anecdote that was new to me about Winston Churchill's puzzlement when he was taught that *mensa* could be translated as &quot;O table&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9333" RevisionGUID="cec22dd5-5504-41cf-bb5e-87f2508066a8" CreationDate="2019-03-25T07:00:21.287" UserId="9" Text="There seems to be a certain amount of evidence that suggests the possibility of a phonetic process of vowel lengthening, or perhaps raising* before *-gn-.* However, evidence from Romance languages indicates that any lengthening or raising sound change did not run to completion (or was reversed) in this context: Italian has [e] in *degno* and *segnare.* For this reason, most recent sources that I've read only mark a vowel before *-gn-* with a macron if it is etymologically long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant inscriptional evidence is mentioned in Leumann 1977 (*Lateinische Laui- und Formenlehre,* §127, p. 113) and Allen 1989 (*Vox Latina,* pp. 72-73). Actually, the most complete description I've found so far is in Lindsay 1894 (*[The Latin Language: An Historical Account of Latin Sounds, Stems and Flexions](https://books.google.com/books?id=o9akwAEACAAJ&amp;pg=PA138#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false),* p 138), which mentions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  `prIvIgno` (*Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum* vi. 3541)&#xD;&#xA;- `dIgne` (*Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum* vi. 6314)&#xD;&#xA;- `sIgnum` (*C.I.L.* vi. 10234), `sIgnificabo` (vi. 16664)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann mentions inscriptions `seignum` &quot;D 44&quot; and &quot;`sIgnum` 353&quot;: I'm not sure what the source for these is (the table of abbreviations says D = Diehl).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A separate historical sound change that raised etymological *\*ĕ* to *i* before *-gn-* was clearly complete already in Classical Latin. This is usually interpreted as a change of *ĕŋ to ĭŋ. What would be controversial or arguable would be a further change of ĭŋ to [iːŋ] or [iŋ] (as opposed to [ɪŋ], with more or less the same value as for ĭ in other contexts)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29043" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="9333" RevisionGUID="17617982-b6c7-42f1-80a0-ec883d13a5bf" CreationDate="2019-03-25T07:08:02.907" UserId="9" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9333" RevisionGUID="785cc752-71fd-4025-aa3e-8eaaa89d31fb" CreationDate="2019-03-25T07:11:02.913" UserId="9" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="There seems to be a certain amount of evidence that suggests the possibility of a phonetic process of vowel lengthening, or perhaps raising* before *-gn-.* However, evidence from Romance languages indicates that any lengthening or raising sound change did not run to completion (or was reversed) in this context: Italian has [e] in *degno* and *segnare.* For this reason, most recent sources that I've read only mark a vowel before *-gn-* with a macron if it is etymologically long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant inscriptional evidence is mentioned in Allen 1989 (*Vox Latina,* pp. 72-73; cited in Nathaniel's answer) and Leumann 1977 (*Lateinische Laui- und Formenlehre,* §127, p. 113). Actually, the most complete description I've found so far is in Lindsay 1894 (*[The Latin Language: An Historical Account of Latin Sounds, Stems and Flexions](https://books.google.com/books?id=o9akwAEACAAJ&amp;pg=PA138#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false),* p 138), which mentions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  `prIvIgno` (*Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum* vi. 3541)&#xD;&#xA;- `dIgne` (*Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum* vi. 6314)&#xD;&#xA;- `sIgnum` (*C.I.L.* vi. 10234), `sIgnificabo` (vi. 16664)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann mentions inscriptions `seignum` &quot;D 44&quot; and &quot;`sIgnum` 353&quot;: I'm not sure what the source for these is (the table of abbreviations says D = Diehl).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A separate historical sound change that raised etymological *\*ĕ* to *i* before *-gn-* was clearly complete already in Classical Latin. This is usually interpreted as a change of *ĕŋ to ĭŋ. What would be arguable would be a further change of ĭŋ to [iːŋ] or [iŋ] (as opposed to [ɪŋ], with more or less the same value as for ĭ in other contexts)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29045" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="9333" RevisionGUID="afb938bb-f439-45be-bf20-9014665b8213" CreationDate="2019-03-25T07:11:05.380" UserId="9" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9334" RevisionGUID="ce883fee-1a3c-4de0-9b08-634c9ef9f91d" CreationDate="2019-03-25T11:29:30.200" UserId="867" Text="Valentinian apparently literally burst a blood vessel after an angry outburst, dying of a stroke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ammianus Marcellinus describes how Valentinian ***ictu sanguinis exstinguitur*** after angrily berating envoys of the Quadi (*History*, XXX.6).  Perhaps this could suit your purpose.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, the furious Valentinian is described as being ***ira vehementi perculsus*** (XXX.6.3) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9335" RevisionGUID="b4ca2889-ce56-4b14-abf7-3410085c4fbb" CreationDate="2019-03-25T12:13:09.577" UserId="45" Text="To put a bit of a point on the accepted answers telling you that there was no fixed convention, perhaps it's worth pointing out that not even &quot;Cartesius&quot; was consistently used. In the original 1641 title page for Descartes' *Meditationes*, for instance, note that the French name is hyphenated but otherwise untouched:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![*Meditationes* 1641 title page][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KSnFE.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9332" RevisionGUID="0bc734ac-21e2-476c-be72-2f215e222dbc" CreationDate="2019-03-25T19:10:53.147" UserId="9" Comment="Added other example with &quot;limen&quot;" Text="*[Syntax of Early Latin: Vol II—The Cases](https://books.google.com/books?id=IH8KAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA268#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false),* by Charles Edwin Bennett (1914), seems to have a long list of examples of the vocative. One in particular that seems to fit is *limen* in Plautus's *Mercator* 830 (p. 268).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###limen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Playing with your role in Plautine Theater](https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1211552932&amp;disposition=inline)&quot;, by Christopher William Bungard (2008) provides the following translation of the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Limen superum inferumque, salve, simul autem vale. (830)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Doorway above and below, hello and at the same time moreover farewell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 167)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###o Pergamum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found another possible example mentioned in &#xD;&#xA;&quot;[The vocative’s calling? The syntax of address in Latin](https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:e666d76a-de0e-454e-83ba-77e06e64c492/download_file?safe_filename=Item&amp;file_format=application%2Fpdf&amp;type_of_work=Journal+article)&quot;, by Richard Ashdowne. *O Pergamum* occurs in a list of vocative phrases that includes the unambiguous form &quot;Priame&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5) *o Troia, o patria, **o Pergamum**, o Priame ... senex* (Plaut. Bacch. 933) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;O Troy! O fatherland! O Pergamum! O old man, Priam!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology &amp; Phonetics](https://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/files/owp2002.pdf),* Volume 7, May 2002, p. 145)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, a city name is perhaps one of the more likely contexts for a neuter vocative, since there are a number of cities or towns with neuter-gender names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The article starts with an amusing anecdote that was new to me about Winston Churchill's puzzlement when he was taught that *mensa* could be translated as &#xD;&#xA; &quot;O table&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9332" RevisionGUID="04afa2b3-e445-40f1-98f5-e3da3393d19c" CreationDate="2019-03-25T19:16:06.077" UserId="9" Comment="Added other example with &quot;limen&quot;" Text="*[Syntax of Early Latin: Vol II—The Cases](https://books.google.com/books?id=IH8KAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA268#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false),* by Charles Edwin Bennett (1914), seems to have a long list of examples of the vocative. One in particular that seems to fit is *limen* in Plautus's *Mercator* 830 (p. 268).&#xD;&#xA;Other candidates that I haven't looked into more yet are *Paegnium, Phoenicium,* and *Stephaniscidium.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A class of words that I had forgotten about when I posted my original question is neuter nouns used as terms of endearment, like *mel.* Using these in the vocative case seems entirely natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###limen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Playing with your role in Plautine Theater](https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1211552932&amp;disposition=inline)&quot;, by Christopher William Bungard (2008) provides the following translation of the sentence with *limen*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Limen superum inferumque, salve, simul autem vale. (830)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Doorway above and below, hello and at the same time moreover farewell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 167)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###o Pergamum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found another possible example mentioned in &#xD;&#xA;&quot;[The vocative’s calling? The syntax of address in Latin](https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:e666d76a-de0e-454e-83ba-77e06e64c492/download_file?safe_filename=Item&amp;file_format=application%2Fpdf&amp;type_of_work=Journal+article)&quot;, by Richard Ashdowne. *O Pergamum* occurs in a list of vocative phrases that includes the unambiguous form &quot;Priame&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5) *o Troia, o patria, **o Pergamum**, o Priame ... senex* (Plaut. Bacch. 933) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;O Troy! O fatherland! O Pergamum! O old man, Priam!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology &amp; Phonetics](https://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/files/owp2002.pdf),* Volume 7, May 2002, p. 145)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, a city name is perhaps one of the more likely contexts for a neuter vocative, since there are a number of cities or towns with neuter-gender names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The article starts with an amusing anecdote that was new to me about Winston Churchill's puzzlement when he was taught that *mensa* could be translated as &#xD;&#xA; &quot;O table&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9336" RevisionGUID="e86adc4a-3dcc-4620-a391-1630de4b88ec" CreationDate="2019-03-25T19:17:11.493" UserId="406" Text="The [Antikythera Mechanism][1] is an early analogue computer, discovered in a Roman shipwreck off the coast of Antikythera. It was ridiculously advanced for its time, being able to calculate eclipses, chart planetary positions, and convert between the solar and lunar calendars using a system of bronze gears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some [fragmentary inscriptions][1] (scroll down a bit to see them) were found along with the mechanism, possibly a sort of &quot;instruction manual&quot;. They were definitely written in Greek—but what sort of Greek?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's thought the device was made somewhere around the second century BC, so the obvious answer is Koinē. But other dialects definitely still existed at that point; I'm curious if the inscriptions show any hint at them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A better transcription can be found in the supplement to Freeth et al, &quot;Decoding the ancient Greek astronomical calculator known as the Antikythera Mechanism&quot;, 2006. But that's not freely available, while Wikipedia is.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29054" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9336" RevisionGUID="e86adc4a-3dcc-4620-a391-1630de4b88ec" CreationDate="2019-03-25T19:17:11.493" UserId="406" Text="What dialect are the Antikythera Mechanism inscriptions in?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29055" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9336" RevisionGUID="e86adc4a-3dcc-4620-a391-1630de4b88ec" CreationDate="2019-03-25T19:17:11.493" UserId="406" Text="|greek|inscription|dialects|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9332" RevisionGUID="51ea54d5-d5ed-49ce-bdfe-c639ae14033f" CreationDate="2019-03-25T19:21:21.143" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="*[Syntax of Early Latin: Vol II—The Cases](https://books.google.com/books?id=IH8KAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA268#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false),* by Charles Edwin Bennett (1914), seems to have a long list of examples of the vocative. One in particular that seems to fit is *limen* in Plautus's *Mercator* 830 (p. 268).&#xD;&#xA;Other candidates that I haven't looked into more yet are *Paegnium, Phoenicium,* and *Stephaniscidium.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A class of words that I had forgotten about when I posted my original question is neuter nouns used as terms of endearment, like *mel.* Using these as vocatives seems entirely natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###limen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Playing with your role in Plautine Theater](https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1211552932&amp;disposition=inline)&quot;, by Christopher William Bungard (2008) provides the following translation of the sentence with *limen*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Limen superum inferumque, salve, simul autem vale. (830)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Doorway above and below, hello and at the same time moreover farewell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 167)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###o Pergamum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found another possible example mentioned in &#xD;&#xA;&quot;[The vocative’s calling? The syntax of address in Latin](https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:e666d76a-de0e-454e-83ba-77e06e64c492/download_file?safe_filename=Item&amp;file_format=application%2Fpdf&amp;type_of_work=Journal+article)&quot;, by Richard Ashdowne. *O Pergamum* occurs in a list of vocative phrases that includes the unambiguous form &quot;Priame&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5) *o Troia, o patria, **o Pergamum**, o Priame ... senex* (Plaut. Bacch. 933) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;O Troy! O fatherland! O Pergamum! O old man, Priam!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology &amp; Phonetics](https://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/files/owp2002.pdf),* Volume 7, May 2002, p. 145)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, a city name is perhaps one of the more likely contexts for a neuter vocative, since there are a number of cities or towns with neuter-gender names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The article starts with an amusing anecdote that was new to me about Winston Churchill's puzzlement when he was taught that *mensa* could be translated as &#xD;&#xA; &quot;O table&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9337" RevisionGUID="ff603a98-12d1-4064-93ea-4f791654a8ff" CreationDate="2019-03-25T20:05:36.913" UserDisplayName="user3597" Text="25 years ago I was reasonably good in modern Greek, could read Popeye comic books and have a basic conversation with a taxi driver. I was thinking it would be a fun and challenging project to try to learn enough ancient Greek to read Homer. I assume this would take several years of pretty intensive part-time study. I'm worried/uncomfortable about interference between my remaining modern Greek and Homeric Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For pronunciation, is anything likely to go wrong if I just mentally pronounce Homer using modern pronunciation? Pronouncing βλέπω as &quot;blepo&quot; rather than &quot;vlepo&quot; actually gives me an involuntary feeling of ridiculousness. It just sounds extremely silly to my ear. I don't even know if Homer rhymes or has meter, but if so, will this get messed up? For example, οίκος is two syllables in modern Greek, but I assume it's three in ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm reluctant to put a lot of effort into programming the ancient language into my brain if that then means I'll be stumbling and unable to speak if I ever go back to Greece." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29058" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9337" RevisionGUID="ff603a98-12d1-4064-93ea-4f791654a8ff" CreationDate="2019-03-25T20:05:36.913" UserDisplayName="user3597" Text="Pronouncing Homer as in modern Greek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29059" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9337" RevisionGUID="ff603a98-12d1-4064-93ea-4f791654a8ff" CreationDate="2019-03-25T20:05:36.913" UserDisplayName="user3597" Text="|greek|homer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9338" RevisionGUID="cca3aca1-1427-43c2-9e07-d13e79adb8bc" CreationDate="2019-03-25T20:28:34.630" UserId="406" Text="The differences aren't really too intense, fortunately. Here are the big ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - β, δ, γ, φ, θ, χ are fricatives in Modern Greek but plosives in Ancient Greek. If you substitute one for the other, nothing much really changes: my introductory Greek professor was from Greece and used the fricative pronunciation, and we understood him just fine.&#xD;&#xA; - Homer's Greek had a few sounds that Modern Greek has lost completely, like the English &quot;w&quot; and &quot;h&quot;. These won't cause huge problems if you ignore them, though you'll sometimes see weird alternations in prefixes that won't make a lot of sense.&#xD;&#xA; - Ancient Greek had a whole lot more vowels. In Epic Greek in particular, α, ε, η, ει, ι, υ, ου, ω, ο, αι, οι, υι, ῳ, ῃ, ᾳ, ᾱ, ῑ, ῡ were all pronounced differently. Keeping their pronunciations distinct will help you keep them straight in your head, and make learning words easier.&#xD;&#xA; - Ancient Greek had vowel length. This is the big one: out of the vowels listed above, α, ε, ι, υ, ο are short, while η, ει, ου, ω, αι, οι, υι, ῳ, ῃ, ᾳ, ᾱ, ῑ, ῡ are all long. And this is what Homer's meter is primarily based on. If you pronounce the vowels like in Modern Greek, the meter won't make as much sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd suggest learning the ancient pronunciations of the vowels, but not particularly worrying about the consonants. Even if you pronounce Modern Greek a bit more like Ancient, people will still understand you (though they might think you have a bit of an accent)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9339" RevisionGUID="b961185b-c26a-48b8-a522-6c4b18df9e26" CreationDate="2019-03-25T20:29:04.030" UserId="9" Text="Whether or not it's worth it to learn how to read Homer as poetry is a matter of opinion; you'll have to decide for yourself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homer does have meter, but the pronunciation of consonants like β isn't related to that. The main Greek sound change that is relevant to meter is the loss of vowel and consonant length. Ancient Greek meter is based on patterns of long and short syllables." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9339" RevisionGUID="2cb42d3e-4b7c-4bf6-a657-eebeb90a26fa" CreationDate="2019-03-25T20:35:41.667" UserId="9" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="Whether or not it's worth it to learn how to read Homer as poetry is a matter of opinion; you'll have to decide for yourself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homer does have meter, but the pronunciation of consonants like β isn't related to that. The main Greek sound change that is relevant to meter is the loss of vowel and consonant length. Ancient Greek meter is based on patterns of long and short (or &quot;heavy&quot; and &quot;light&quot;) syllables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Ancient Greek word οἶκος was two syllables, but the first syllable was heavy because it contained the diphthong οι." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9339" RevisionGUID="7f183bc0-aafe-4a78-a3ec-3c2f919931ca" CreationDate="2019-03-25T20:47:57.837" UserId="9" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="Homer does have meter. Whether or not it's worth it to learn how to read Homer's poetry aloud with meter is a matter of opinion; you'll have to decide for yourself. I think that native Greek speakers learning Homer typically give the usual modern Greek pronunciations to the letters and letter combinations (I don't know Greek at all, so don't take my word for it, but the only thing I can think of that might be different is that ι might not be given its non-syllabic value after a consonant as often as it is in modern Greek pronunciation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation of consonants like β isn't related to meter. The main Greek sound change that is relevant to meter is the loss of vowel and consonant length. Ancient Greek meter is based on patterns of long and short (or &quot;heavy&quot; and &quot;light&quot;) syllables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Ancient Greek word οἶκος was two syllables, but the first syllable was heavy because it contained the diphthong οι." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9339" RevisionGUID="e21e9a43-cca0-488b-8e5b-ddf6451f57a0" CreationDate="2019-03-25T21:07:51.810" UserId="9" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Homer does have meter. Whether or not it's worth it to learn how to read Homer's poetry aloud with meter is a matter of opinion; you'll have to decide for yourself. I think that native Greek speakers learning Homer typically give the usual modern Greek pronunciations to the letters and letter combinations (I don't know Greek at all, so don't take my word for it, but the only thing I can think of that might be different is that ι might not be given its non-syllabic value after a consonant the way it often is in modern Greek pronunciation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation of consonants like β isn't related to meter. The main Greek sound change that is relevant to meter is the loss of vowel and consonant length. Ancient Greek meter is based on patterns of long and short (or &quot;heavy&quot; and &quot;light&quot;) syllables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Ancient Greek word οἶκος was two syllables, but the first syllable was heavy because it contained the diphthong οι." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29065" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9337" RevisionGUID="8de90b32-800d-4895-95be-f24d17cc5cb7" CreationDate="2019-03-25T21:21:14.303" />
  <row Id="29066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9340" RevisionGUID="6a17739c-23d0-4de2-80a1-f9814edf1061" CreationDate="2019-03-25T23:14:27.390" UserId="3598" Text="I am not at all an expert in Latin, but I am a Spanish speaker so our languages are a little related, at least. I was wondering if I could just add suffixes to words to make new words. Sometimes, in Spanish, they don't make a lot of sense, so I was wondering if this word made some sense, or if it could at least exist because I didn't find it anywhere on the internet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29067" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9340" RevisionGUID="6a17739c-23d0-4de2-80a1-f9814edf1061" CreationDate="2019-03-25T23:14:27.390" UserId="3598" Text="Does &quot;Dominei&quot; mean something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29068" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9340" RevisionGUID="6a17739c-23d0-4de2-80a1-f9814edf1061" CreationDate="2019-03-25T23:14:27.390" UserId="3598" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9341" RevisionGUID="56804354-0590-440b-bb77-5e209d826e25" CreationDate="2019-03-25T23:42:59.137" UserId="406" Text="##Yes, but it's either archaic or incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, all nouns follow a *declension pattern*. You know how verbs in Spanish act differently depending if they end in *-ar* versus *-er* versus *-ir*? In Latin, nouns work the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *dominus* &quot;lord&quot; follows the &quot;second declension pattern&quot;, which means that the plural (&quot;lords&quot;) and the genitive singular (&quot;of the lord&quot;) are both *dominī* in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*However*, in Old Latin, the genitive singular was *dominī*, and the plural was ***dominei***. (If you go back even further, it was *dominoi*.) So in Old Latin, *dominei* means &quot;lords&quot;, or &quot;the lords&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, *ei* started being pronounced just the same as *ī*. Eventually it started being spelled as *ī* too. But for a while in the middle, people mostly used *ei* and *ī* interchangeably. During this time, the genitive singular might also be spelled ***dominei*** just by &quot;mistake&quot;, like how people sometimes substitute an *s* for a *c* in English. While Cicero wouldn't consider this correct, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it in graffiti." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9341" RevisionGUID="b531e61c-726c-46ea-a78a-a4b779766028" CreationDate="2019-03-26T00:00:50.653" UserId="9" Comment="clarified that &quot;dominei&quot; was specifically a nominative plural form" Text="##Yes, but it's either archaic or incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, all nouns follow a *declension pattern*. You know how verbs in Spanish act differently depending if they end in *-ar* versus *-er* versus *-ir*? In Latin, nouns work the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *dominus* &quot;lord&quot; follows the &quot;second declension pattern&quot;, which means that the nominative plural (&quot;lords&quot;) and the genitive singular (&quot;of the lord&quot;) are both *dominī* in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*However*, in Old Latin, the genitive singular was *dominī*, and the nominative plural was ***dominei***. (If you go back even further, it was *dominoi*.) So in Old Latin, *dominei* means &quot;lords&quot;, or &quot;the lords&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, *ei* started being pronounced just the same as *ī*. Eventually it started being spelled as *ī* too. But for a while in the middle, people mostly used *ei* and *ī* interchangeably. During this time, the genitive singular might also be spelled ***dominei*** just by &quot;mistake&quot;, like how people sometimes substitute an *s* for a *c* in English. While Cicero wouldn't consider this correct, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it in graffiti." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9342" RevisionGUID="8a6711fa-c969-4108-9a2b-fbaa151ed420" CreationDate="2019-03-26T01:03:22.137" UserId="406" Text="It turns out, we know quite a bit about this!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three main sources for Vulgar Latin pronunciations: Classical texts imitating (or mocking or correcting) Vulgar speech, graffiti from actual plebs, and reconstruction from the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the first of those, we have bits by Petronius and Catullus (the _Cena Trimalchionis_ and _Carmen 84_), as well as the third-century _Appendix Probī_. And for the second, we have well-preserved writings from first-century Pompeii. These give hints at how Vulgar Latin was pronounced (by showing how it was spelled), and Romance reconstructions can fill in some of the gaps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a short summary of what I've found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *H* disappeared completely: *harena* → *arena* &quot;sand&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *Qv* merged into *c* before front vowels: *coqvens* → *cocens*&#xD;&#xA; - Unstressed vowels in medial syllables (not the start or end of a word) disappear: _spéculum_ → _spéclum_ &quot;mirror&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Unstressed *e* and *i* turn into *j* before vowels: _vínea_ → _vínja_ &quot;vineyard&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *V* started being pronounced `/v/` instead of `/w/`; later, *b* between vowels merged with it. (They both probably started as `[β]`, but there's no way to know when that changed.)&#xD;&#xA; - Nasals at the end of words and before *s* became nasalized vowels, then disappeared: *consul* → *cõsul* → *cosul* &quot;consul&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Consonants at the ends of words disappeared *in some places*: graffiti in Pompeii has *valeat* → *valia* &quot;may he flourish&quot;, but French still has remnants of final *t*s, so this wasn't universal&#xD;&#xA; - Vowel length was slowly turning into vowel quality: *ī*, *ū*, and *o* remained intact, while the pairs *ō/u*, *ē/i/oe*, *ā/a*, and *e/ae* merged into something like *ō ē a e*&#xD;&#xA; - Diminutives were all over the place: *fax* → *facla* &quot;torch&quot;, *neptis* → *nepticla* &quot;granddaughter&quot;, *ānus* → *anucla* &quot;old woman&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Regular first/second-declension forms spread to other words: *glis/gliris* → *glirus/gliri* &quot;dormouse&quot;, *pauper mulier* → *paupera mulier* &quot;poor woman&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9343" RevisionGUID="7dae3b9b-082a-4a73-87f6-bf96e24ceda3" CreationDate="2019-03-26T01:44:21.177" UserId="3153" Text="The word &quot;fortasse&quot; (meaning 'perhaps') looks like it's two words squished together, but I can't find any etymology for it. Does anyone know where fortasse comes from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29075" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9343" RevisionGUID="7dae3b9b-082a-4a73-87f6-bf96e24ceda3" CreationDate="2019-03-26T01:44:21.177" UserId="3153" Text="Etymology of Fortasse" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29076" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9343" RevisionGUID="7dae3b9b-082a-4a73-87f6-bf96e24ceda3" CreationDate="2019-03-26T01:44:21.177" UserId="3153" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9344" RevisionGUID="a79401df-4cf4-44c5-8adb-dda6dfab9871" CreationDate="2019-03-26T02:31:21.150" UserId="3153" Text="Can the verb &quot;exigo, exigere, exegi, exactum,&quot; be used to mean &quot;that man will pull through, despite his many injuries?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wheelocks' translation allows for the meanings of &quot;drive through, complete, perfect.&quot; I'm trying to get a good grasp of the verb, so this might help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29078" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9344" RevisionGUID="a79401df-4cf4-44c5-8adb-dda6dfab9871" CreationDate="2019-03-26T02:31:21.150" UserId="3153" Text="Usage of Exigo, Exigere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29079" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9344" RevisionGUID="a79401df-4cf4-44c5-8adb-dda6dfab9871" CreationDate="2019-03-26T02:31:21.150" UserId="3153" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29080" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9340" RevisionGUID="3800f8d7-35da-4c34-8423-b59f3583b032" CreationDate="2019-03-26T02:51:35.310" />
  <row Id="29081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9345" RevisionGUID="4a87e6fc-c217-4917-8c96-8c642f86d33b" CreationDate="2019-03-26T03:13:15.627" UserId="30" Text="It comes from *forte* &quot;perhaps&quot;, which seems to be from the ablative of *fors* &quot;chance, luck&quot; (Proto-Indo-European root *\*bʰr-ti-* 'bearing, case'). That in turn is derived from the same root as *fero* &quot;to bring&quot; (Proto-Indo-European *\*bʰer-e/o-* 'to carry' [s.v. De Vaan]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan s.v. *fors*:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIE *\*bʰr-ti-* 'bearing, case'? IE cognates: see s.v.*ferō*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The origin of *fortasse* seems to be *\*forte an sīt/s*, but the phonetics (especially the short final vowel) are unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Forte an sit* would mean something like &quot;[it is] chance whether that is [so]&quot;. Cf. *forsitan, fortassean*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9346" RevisionGUID="ea9184dd-13fe-48e7-be57-704ef6eaf748" CreationDate="2019-03-26T03:30:03.300" UserId="79" Text="To get a good grasp of the verb, I recommend taking a look at what [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=exigo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) have to say about it.&#xD;&#xA;The verb has a very broad array of meanings, not all clearly connected to being the combination of *ex* and *agere*.&#xD;&#xA;The one most relevant for your question seems to be meaning II.B.8, &quot;to endure&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Also the meanings &quot;drive through, complete, perfect&quot; appear in the entry in L&amp;S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want us to help study the possible meanings of the verb in some specific context, I recommend asking a separate question about a sentence or a passage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9345" RevisionGUID="1f71fb72-e297-4827-9bb2-d675cbc770b7" CreationDate="2019-03-26T03:31:28.860" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="It comes from *forte* &quot;perhaps&quot;, which seems to be from the ablative of *fors* &quot;chance, luck&quot; (Proto-Indo-European root *\*bʰr-ti-* 'bearing, case'). That in turn is derived from the same root as *fero* &quot;to bring&quot; (Proto-Indo-European *\*bʰer-e/o-* 'to carry', De Vaan s.v.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan s.v. *fors*:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIE *\*bʰr-ti-* 'bearing, case'? IE cognates: see s.v.*ferō*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The origin of *fortasse* seems to be *\*forte an sīt/s*, but the phonetics (especially the short final vowel) are unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Forte an sit* would mean something like &quot;[it is] chance whether that is [so]&quot;. Cf. *forsitan, fortassean*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9342" RevisionGUID="ffd77329-2237-456e-a0c5-e03d44593dc5" CreationDate="2019-03-26T14:40:25.800" UserId="406" Comment="edited body" Text="It turns out, we know quite a bit about this!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three main sources for Vulgar Latin pronunciations: Classical texts imitating (or mocking or correcting) Vulgar speech, graffiti from actual plebs, and reconstruction from the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the first of those, we have bits by Petronius and Catullus (the _Cena Trimalchionis_ and _Carmen 84_), as well as the third-century _Appendix Probī_. And for the second, we have well-preserved writings from first-century Pompeii. These give hints at how Vulgar Latin was pronounced (by showing how it was spelled), and Romance reconstructions can fill in some of the gaps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a short summary of what I've found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *H* disappeared completely: *harena* → *arena* &quot;sand&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *Qv* merged into *c* before front vowels: *coqvens* → *cocens*&#xD;&#xA; - Unstressed vowels in medial syllables (not the start or end of a word) disappear: _spéculum_ → _spéclum_ &quot;mirror&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Unstressed *e* and *i* turn into *j* before vowels: _vínea_ → _vínja_ &quot;vineyard&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *V* started being pronounced `/v/` instead of `/w/`; later, *b* between vowels merged with it. (They both probably started as `[β]`, but there's no way to know when that changed.)&#xD;&#xA; - Nasals at the end of words and before *s* became nasalized vowels, then disappeared: *consul* → *cõsul* → *cosul* &quot;consul&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Consonants at the ends of words disappeared *in some places*: graffiti in Pompeii has *valeat* → *valja* &quot;may he flourish&quot;, but French still has remnants of final *t*s, so this wasn't universal&#xD;&#xA; - Vowel length was slowly turning into vowel quality: *ī*, *ū*, and *o* remained intact, while the pairs *ō/u*, *ē/i/oe*, *ā/a*, and *e/ae* merged into something like *ō ē a e*&#xD;&#xA; - Diminutives were all over the place: *fax* → *facla* &quot;torch&quot;, *neptis* → *nepticla* &quot;granddaughter&quot;, *ānus* → *anucla* &quot;old woman&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Regular first/second-declension forms spread to other words: *glis/gliris* → *glirus/gliri* &quot;dormouse&quot;, *pauper mulier* → *paupera mulier* &quot;poor woman&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9345" RevisionGUID="db025b28-5447-40ec-9002-7e31c54424cb" CreationDate="2019-03-26T15:09:40.463" UserId="30" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="It comes from *forte* &quot;perhaps&quot;, which seems to be from the ablative of *fors* &quot;chance, luck&quot; (Proto-Indo-European root *\*bʰr-ti-* 'bearing, case'). That in turn is derived from the same root as *fero* &quot;to bring&quot; (Proto-Indo-European *\*bʰer-e/o-* 'to carry', De Vaan s.v.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan s.v. *fors*:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIE *\*bʰr-ti-* 'bearing, case'? IE cognates: see s.v.*ferō*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The origin of *fortasse* seems to be *\*forte an sīt/s*, but the phonetics (especially the short final vowel) are unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Forte an sit* would mean something like &quot;[it is] chance whether that is [so]&quot;. Cf. *forsitan, fortassean*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9347" RevisionGUID="c3f9cedb-3bec-44a1-8764-b8be9d6a430a" CreationDate="2019-03-26T18:18:33.093" UserId="406" Text="While Freeth's 2006 paper (with the good transcriptions) isn't freely available, [his 2012 paper][1] (analyzing the text in more detail) is!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [here][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The inscriptions are engraved in skilfully executed serifed capital letters very similar to the lettering of inscriptions on stone from the last three centuries BC. The letter forms are most characteristic of the second half of the 2nd century BC, though a dating as early as the end of the third century or as late as the middle of the first cannot be excluded. Even by the standards of this period, when stone inscriptions with letter height about 5 mm were not uncommon, the lettering on the Mechanism is tiny, with the letter height ranging from about 2.7 mm in the &quot;parapegma&quot; inscription down to about 1.2 mm (i.e. smaller than modern 4 point type) in the inscriptions on the back spiral dials. The layout is stypical [sic] of contemporary stone inscriptions, with no space between words (but occasionally a bit of space before and after numerals and at the start of new sections of text) and no punctuation. At the ends of lines, words that are too long to be completed on one line are divided syllabically according to the standard rules for ancient Greek. Errors in the inscriptions are rare; it is likely that the text was first painted on the bronze plates as a guide to the inscriber, though of course no trace of such preparation survives. **The text is in the standard _koinê_ Greek of the time, with no characteristics of local dialects except for the Doric features of the Corinthian month names on the calendar dial.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/isaw-papers/4/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/isaw-papers/4/#p39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9348" RevisionGUID="9452110d-e898-4887-bffc-87d2f2f130fd" CreationDate="2019-03-26T20:26:07.937" UserId="45" Text="A recent [*New York Times* article about procrastination](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/smarter-living/why-you-procrastinate-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-self-control.html) begins with an etymology lesson:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Etymologically, “procrastination” is derived from the Latin verb *procrastinare* — to put off until tomorrow. But it’s more than just voluntarily delaying. Procrastination is also derived from the ancient Greek word *akrasia* — doing something against our better judgment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first part is obvious, but the second part struck me as odd, since I'm not aware of any etymological link between the Latin *cras* (&quot;tomorrow&quot;) and Greek *κρατέω*, *krate&amp;omacr;*, from which *akrasia* derives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is this a valid etymology? If not, is it a common folk etymology, or just a one-off false claim by the article?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29088" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9348" RevisionGUID="9452110d-e898-4887-bffc-87d2f2f130fd" CreationDate="2019-03-26T20:26:07.937" UserId="45" Text="Does this NY Times article give a proper etymology of &quot;procrastinate&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29089" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9348" RevisionGUID="9452110d-e898-4887-bffc-87d2f2f130fd" CreationDate="2019-03-26T20:26:07.937" UserId="45" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9349" RevisionGUID="27018054-62c6-4487-aeae-3459f1d09b7a" CreationDate="2019-03-26T22:55:03.183" UserId="406" Text="##It seems to be an invention of the author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say, *procrastinate* comes from the Latin (from *cras* &quot;tomorrow&quot;). It's complete coincidence that it looks similar to *acrasia* &quot;weakness of will&quot;; the two have no etymological connection that I can find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find any other instances of this folk etymology on the web, so I would guess the author of this article just made it up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9350" RevisionGUID="bc53f13f-6d2c-4b21-a5ae-951c1d1f7c4f" CreationDate="2019-03-26T23:00:40.760" UserId="2937" Text="Consider the following excerpt from Psalm 94 in the Vulgate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hódie, si vocem eius **audiéritis**, nolíte obduráre corda vestra, sicut in exacerbatióne secúndum diem tentatiónis in desérto: ubi tentavérunt me patres vestri, probavérunt et vidérunt ópera mea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that an English translation of the same Psalm reads, &quot;If today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts.&quot; At first glance, it looks to me like the present subjunctive should have been used and the translator should have written *audieritis* in place of *audiatis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *audieritis* is the future perfect (why isn't it *audiveritis*?), in which case a literal translation would be, &quot;If today you will have heard his voice, refuse to harden your hearts.&quot; But this seems odd. Is there a certain Latin grammatical rule I'm missing? Why would the future perfect be used here? And why wouldn't it be written *audiveritis*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29092" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9350" RevisionGUID="bc53f13f-6d2c-4b21-a5ae-951c1d1f7c4f" CreationDate="2019-03-26T23:00:40.760" UserId="2937" Text="Understanding &quot;audieritis&quot; in Psalm 94" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29093" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9350" RevisionGUID="bc53f13f-6d2c-4b21-a5ae-951c1d1f7c4f" CreationDate="2019-03-26T23:00:40.760" UserId="2937" Text="|classical-latin|verbs|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9350" RevisionGUID="f28954e7-f8a0-4a2b-ad31-5c1fa0bed6fe" CreationDate="2019-03-26T23:23:12.287" UserId="30" Comment="edited body" Text="Consider the following excerpt from Psalm 94 in the Vulgate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hódie, si vocem eius **audiéritis**, nolíte obduráre corda vestra, sicut in exacerbatióne secúndum diem tentatiónis in desérto: ubi tentavérunt me patres vestri, probavérunt et vidérunt ópera mea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that an English translation of the same Psalm reads, &quot;If today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts.&quot; At first glance, it looks to me like the present subjunctive should have been used and the translator should have written *audiatis* in place of *audieritis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *audieritis* is the future perfect (why isn't it *audiveritis*?), in which case a literal translation would be, &quot;If today you will have heard his voice, refuse to harden your hearts.&quot; But this seems odd. Is there a certain Latin grammatical rule I'm missing? Why would the future perfect be used here? And why wouldn't it be written *audiveritis*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9351" RevisionGUID="e8273a88-9162-40aa-b81f-a6ef380582c6" CreationDate="2019-03-26T23:23:45.567" UserId="406" Text="You might be surprised to learn that forms with *-āv-* and *-īv-* (*amāvī*, *audīvī*) are extremely rare in Classical Latin, considered archaic and pretentious by major grammarians! It certainly came as a surprise to me about a month ago, after eight years studying classics…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The upshot is, you should absolutely expect *audīeritis* instead of *audī**v**eritis*. Contraction is more common than you've been taught!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you've rightly surmised, this is a future perfect form. Literally, something like &quot;you all will have heard&quot;. However, this &quot;will have heard&quot; phrasing is awkward in English. English uses the normal present instead, so in any context except a Latin class I would just say &quot;if you hear&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why it's future perfect: Latin uses future tense for anything that hasn't happened yet. English doesn't always: consider something like &quot;if you go to the store, make sure to get some eggs&quot;. If I'm saying this, you're clearly *not* going to the store yet. But English leaves off future marking after &quot;if&quot;. In particular, Latin would use the future *perfect*, since it's describing something that hasn't happened yet, but has to happen *before* something else. The audience can't refuse to harden their hearts until they've heard him speaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why it's indicative: this is something the speaker actually thinks will happen. The listeners *are* going to go hear him. Subjunctive is used when it's not likely that the condition will actually come true (or, if you know it actually hasn't happened)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9352" RevisionGUID="e9753494-cdb3-41af-8954-838b390f6930" CreationDate="2019-03-27T00:48:12.810" UserId="406" Text="Many verbs have a suffix *-v-* in the perfect tense, which tends to disappear (or &quot;contract&quot; or &quot;syncopate&quot;) before the ending: *amā-* &gt; *amāvisti* &gt; *amāsti* &quot;you loved&quot;, *audī-* &gt; *audīvisti* &gt; *audīsti* &quot;you heard&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd always assumed that the resulting &quot;contracted vowels&quot; were long, since vowels generally lengthen when something disappears in Latin (and they were long in the uncontracted form). But [it seems this isn't always the case][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: in contracted perfects like this, when is the vowel long, and when is it short?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9350/understanding-audieritis-in-psalm-94#comment19012_9351" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29097" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9352" RevisionGUID="e9753494-cdb3-41af-8954-838b390f6930" CreationDate="2019-03-27T00:48:12.810" UserId="406" Text="Do contracted perfects have long or short vowels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29098" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9352" RevisionGUID="e9753494-cdb3-41af-8954-838b390f6930" CreationDate="2019-03-27T00:48:12.810" UserId="406" Text="|verbs|morphology|vowel-quantity|perfect-tense|syncopated-perfect|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29099" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9350" RevisionGUID="7a0d1f60-6d1f-4b65-9277-c1363efd9a7c" CreationDate="2019-03-27T00:48:27.393" UserId="406" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|verbs|vulgata|syncopated-perfect|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29100" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9187" RevisionGUID="3c945d76-d932-43a3-96f5-15d601b88ed2" CreationDate="2019-03-27T00:48:44.353" UserId="406" Comment="edited tags" Text="|language-evolution|morphology|perfect-tense|contraction|syncopated-perfect|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9353" RevisionGUID="79bda872-f885-4577-864d-daeeef5f7d7e" CreationDate="2019-03-27T03:02:50.097" UserId="9" Text="(Partial answer; will be updated later.) The vowel is definitely thought to have been long in contracted forms like *amāsti.* In my comment, I was saying that the vowel might be shortened in forms that show loss of intervocalic -v- but do not contract the originally separate syllables into one (e.g. forms with sequences like ie or ii). A vowel before another vowel in Latin was usually short, even when derived from an originally long vowel; that rule has exceptions, but it seems to have possibly applied in forms like this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9353" RevisionGUID="c3aa9c0f-889e-4814-a401-d2c633eff259" CreationDate="2019-03-27T03:15:32.503" UserId="9" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="(Partial answer; will be updated later.) The vowel is definitely thought to have been long in contracted forms like *amāsti.* In my comment, I was saying that the first vowel might be shortened in forms that show loss of intervocalic -v- but do not contract the originally separate syllables into one (e.g. forms with sequences like ie or ii). A vowel before another vowel in Latin was usually short, even when derived from an originally long vowel; that rule has exceptions, but it seems to have possibly applied in forms like this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29103" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9350" RevisionGUID="f1cc40fb-6b79-4de7-933b-b3d1dfae9593" CreationDate="2019-03-27T03:23:29.867" />
  <row Id="29104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9354" RevisionGUID="0b4b99a0-9ec8-49e7-bb0e-7095b4586932" CreationDate="2019-03-27T04:11:46.817" UserId="79" Text="I agree with sumelic's answer in that the vowel is long before a consonant in forms like *amasti* and *iurarunt*.&#xD;&#xA;The unexpected shortening you are asking about occurs in my understanding exclusively when the *v* is lost but the second vowel is not lost.&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen this happen outside the fourth conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be sure that the vowel is indeed short before another vowel in *v*-less perfect forms, let us consider [a sample of perfect forms of *audire* from Vergilius](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=audie+%5Bverg%5D), all in hexameter (follow the link for more examples):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Certe equidem **audieram**, qua se subducere colles*  &#xD;&#xA;(Eclogae 9.7)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Audieras**, et fama fuit; sed carmina tantum*  &#xD;&#xA;(Eclogae 9.11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***audieram**? numeros memini, si uerba tenerem*  &#xD;&#xA;(Eclogae 9.45)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scansion leaves two options:&#xD;&#xA;The vowels *ie* in *audiera-* make either two short syllables or one long one.&#xD;&#xA;As *ie* is not a Latin diphthong (apart from perhaps the occasional poetic licence), it seems safe to conclude that both vowels are short." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9353" RevisionGUID="34b72db9-0d5d-4c0c-aadc-98f95f44863c" CreationDate="2019-03-27T07:01:47.437" UserId="9" Comment="added 719 characters in body" Text="The vowel is definitely thought to have been long in contracted forms like *amāsti.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my comment, I was saying that the first vowel might be shortened in certain forms that show loss of intervocalic -v- without contraction of the originally separate syllables into one: *-ie-* and *-ii-* from *-īve-* and *-īvi-*. A vowel before another vowel in Latin was usually short, even when derived from an originally long vowel; that rule has exceptions, but it seems to have possibly applied in forms like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main examples of the last vowel of the perfect stem being shortened before another vowel seem to be verbs with *-īvī* perfects: either from the fourth conjugation, or in some cases from the third conjugation, such as *[appeto](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/appeto#Latin)*, which Wiktionary notes can have forms like *appetiī.* Leumann 1977 says that for verbs with *-īvī* perfects, short forms without *v* have been used since Plautus, and he says that as a rule *-īvis-* is shortened to *-īs-* and *-īver-* is shortened to *-ĭer-.* Also, *-īvī* may be shortened to *-iī,* but the similar shortened forms *-iit* and *-iimus* are supposed to be rare in the Classical period. (*Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre,* §438.II.C, p. 600). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9353" RevisionGUID="03cd7d3e-321f-4b22-b752-873521089b3a" CreationDate="2019-03-27T07:07:12.890" UserId="9" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="The vowel is definitely thought to have been long in contracted forms like *amāsti.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my comment, I was saying that the first vowel might be shortened in certain forms that show loss of intervocalic -v- without contraction of the originally separate syllables into one: *-ie-* and *-ii-* from *-īve-* and *-īvi-*. A vowel before another vowel in Latin was usually short, even when derived from an originally long vowel; that rule has exceptions, but it seems to have possibly applied in forms like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main examples of the last vowel of the perfect stem being shortened before another vowel seem to be verbs with *-īvī* perfects: either from the fourth conjugation, or in some cases from the third conjugation, such as *[appeto](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/appeto#Latin)*, which Wiktionary notes can have forms like *appetiī.* Leumann 1977 says that for verbs with *-īvī* perfects, short forms without *v* have been used since Plautus, and he says that as a rule *-īvis-* is shortened to *-īs-* and *-īver-* is shortened to *-ĭer-.* Also, *-īvī* may be shortened to *-iī,* but the similar shortened forms *-iit* and *-iimus* are supposed to be rare in the Classical period. (*Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre,* §438.II.C, p. 600). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9353" RevisionGUID="50ed8457-eedd-436a-be9e-bde720f6d0a6" CreationDate="2019-03-27T07:19:37.433" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="The vowel is definitely thought to have been long in contracted forms like *amāsti.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my comment, I was saying that the first vowel might be shortened in certain forms that show loss of intervocalic -v- without contraction of the originally separate syllables into one: *-ie-* and *-ii-* from *-īve-* and *-īvi-*. A vowel before another vowel in Latin was usually short, even when derived from an originally long vowel; that rule has exceptions, but it seems to have been applied in forms like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main examples of the last vowel of the perfect stem being shortened before another vowel are verbs with *-īvī* perfects: either from the fourth conjugation, or in some cases from the third conjugation, such as *[appeto](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/appeto#Latin)*, which Wiktionary notes can have forms like *appetiī.* Leumann 1977 says that for verbs with *-īvī* perfects, short forms without *v* have been used since Plautus, and he says that as a rule *-īvis-* is shortened to *-īs-* and *-īver-* is shortened to *-ĭer-.* Also, *-īvī* may be shortened to *-iī,* but the similar shortened forms *-iit* and *-iimus* are supposed to be rare in the Classical period. (*Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre,* §438.II.C, p. 600). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9353" RevisionGUID="ddc69171-4404-431d-ae75-96fcd5d334b3" CreationDate="2019-03-27T07:37:06.270" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="The vowel is definitely thought to have been long in forms like *amāsti.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my comment, I was saying that the first vowel might be shortened in certain forms that show loss of intervocalic -v- without contraction of the originally separate syllables into one: *-ie-* and *-ii-* from *-īve-* and *-īvi-*. A vowel before another vowel in Latin was usually short, even when derived from an originally long vowel; that rule has exceptions, but it seems to have been applied in forms like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main examples of the last vowel of the perfect stem being shortened before another vowel are verbs with *-īvī* perfects: either from the fourth conjugation, or in some cases from the third conjugation, such as *[appeto](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/appeto#Latin)*, which Wiktionary notes can have forms like *appetiī.* Leumann 1977 says that for verbs with *-īvī* perfects, short forms without *v* have been used since Plautus, and he says that as a rule *-īvis-* is shortened to *-īs-* and *-īver-* is shortened to *-ĭer-.* Also, *-īvī* may be shortened to *-iī,* but the similar shortened forms *-iit* and *-iimus* are supposed to be rare in the Classical period. (*Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre,* §438.II.C, p. 600). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side note: I'm not sure about the stress of *-ii, iit, -iimus* forms. In his answer to [Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/604/9), Alex B. says that contracted perfect forms like *audīt* from *audīvit* or *disturbāt* from *disturbāvit* are supposed to have had ultimate stress. [Andras Cser (2016)](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) says that neither i in *abiit* was stressed (6.2.3.3; p. 121); however, Cser analyzes *eo* and its compounds as having a perfect stem that underlyingly ends in *-i,* which might be relevant. I don't know how we would know for sure where the stress fell in such words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9353" RevisionGUID="8ca0c047-df45-41b2-8577-169df797b6ee" CreationDate="2019-03-27T07:48:58.717" UserId="9" Comment="added 185 characters in body" Text="The vowel is definitely thought to have been long in forms like *amāsti.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my comment, I was saying that the first vowel might be shortened in certain forms that show loss of intervocalic -v- without contraction of the originally separate syllables into one: *-ie-* and *-ii-* from *-īve-* and *-īvi-*. A vowel before another vowel in Latin was usually short, even when derived from an originally long vowel; that rule has exceptions, but it seems to have been applied in forms like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main examples of the last vowel of the perfect stem being shortened before another vowel are verbs with *-īvī* perfects: either from the fourth conjugation, or in some cases from the third conjugation, such as *[appeto](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/appeto#Latin)*, which Wiktionary notes can have forms like *appetiī.* Leumann 1977 says that for verbs with *-īvī* perfects, short forms without *v* have been used since Plautus, and he says that as a rule *-īvis-* is shortened to *-īs-* and *-īver-* is shortened to *-ĭer-.* Also, *-īvī* may be shortened to *-iī,* but the similar shortened forms *-iit* and *-iimus* are supposed to be rare in the Classical period. (*Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre,* §438.II.C, p. 600). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side note: I'm not sure about the stress of *-ii, iit, -iimus* forms. The question [Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/604/9) has an [answer by Joel Derfner](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/602/9) saying that *dormiī, audiī, veniī* have penult stress, and an [answer by Alex B.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/604/9) saying that contracted perfect forms like *audīt* from *audīvit* or *disturbāt* from *disturbāvit* are supposed to have had ultimate stress. [Andras Cser (2016)](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) says that neither i in *abiit* was stressed (6.2.3.3; p. 121); however, Cser analyzes *eo* and its compounds as having a perfect stem that underlyingly ends in *ī-,* which might be relevant. I don't know how we would know for sure where the stress fell in such words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9353" RevisionGUID="a21340c5-c039-4089-b8f1-37d9c318fad9" CreationDate="2019-03-27T07:54:14.580" UserId="9" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="The vowel is definitely thought to have been long in forms like *amāsti.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my comment, I was saying that the first vowel might be shortened in certain forms that show loss of intervocalic -v- without contraction of the originally separate syllables into one: *-ie-* and *-ii-* from *-īve-* and *-īvi-*. A vowel before another vowel in Latin was usually short, even when derived from an originally long vowel; that rule has exceptions, but it seems to have been applied in forms like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main examples of the last vowel of the perfect stem being shortened before another vowel are verbs with *-īvī* perfects: either from the fourth conjugation, or in some cases from the third conjugation, such as *[appeto](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/appeto#Latin)*, which Wiktionary notes can have forms like *appetiī.* Leumann 1977 says that for verbs with *-īvī* perfects, short forms without *v* have been used since Plautus, and he says that as a rule *-īvis-* is shortened to *-īs-* and *-īver-* is shortened to *-ĭer-.* Also, *-īvī* may be shortened to *-iī,* but the similar shortened forms *-iit* and *-iimus* are supposed to be rare in the Classical period. (*Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre,* §438.II.C, p. 600). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side note: I'm not sure about the stress of *-ii, iit, -iimus* forms. The question [Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/604/9) has an [answer by Joel Derfner](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/602/9) saying that *dormiī, audiī, veniī* have penult stress, and an [answer by Alex B.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/604/9) saying that contracted perfect forms like *audīt* from *audīvit* or *disturbāt* from *disturbāvit* are supposed to have had ultimate stress. [Andras Cser (2016)](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) says that neither i in *abiit* was stressed (6.2.3.3; p. 121); however, Cser analyzes *eo* and its compounds as having a perfect stem that underlyingly ends in *ī-* (p. 117), which might be relevant. I don't know how we would know for sure where the stress fell in such words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9355" RevisionGUID="80e0acd1-4440-427d-b905-b9a376b1f967" CreationDate="2019-03-27T09:52:31.630" UserId="2646" Text="In Spanish we have the verb *sumergir*, coming from Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **[sum-mergo][1] (subm-)**, si, sum, 3, v. a.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. *to dip* or *plunge under, to sink, overwhelm, submerge, submerse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nonetheless, some related word such as *inmersión* and *inmerso* come from a similar Latin verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **[immergo][2] (inm-)**, si, sum, 3 (&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. *perf. sync.* immersti, Plaut. Bacch. 4, 4, 26; acc. to the second conj., *inf. pres. pass.* immergeri, Col. 5, 9, 3), v. a. in-mergo, *to dip, plunge, sink*, or *stick into* any thing, *to immerse* (mostly poet. and in post-Aug. prose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The definitions for both verbs are quite similar, but only the *summergo* verb reached the Spanish language as *sumergir*. There were attempts to stablish an *inmergir* verb but the Royal Spanish Academy stated that such verb was pointless in the Spanish language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have *sumergir* but not *inmergir* and I'm trying to understand why. I see in the definition for *immergo* that that verb was mostly used in poetry. So was it a cultured word and hence less used? Was in fact the verb *summergo* most used in Latin than *immergo* with the meaning of *to dip, plunge* or *sink*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=summergo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=immergo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29112" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9355" RevisionGUID="80e0acd1-4440-427d-b905-b9a376b1f967" CreationDate="2019-03-27T09:52:31.630" UserId="2646" Text="Difference between &quot;immergo&quot; and &quot;summergo&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29113" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9355" RevisionGUID="80e0acd1-4440-427d-b905-b9a376b1f967" CreationDate="2019-03-27T09:52:31.630" UserId="2646" Text="|verbs|meaning|spanish|differences|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9356" RevisionGUID="de7cf408-f378-4aa9-94e6-969786b08fca" CreationDate="2019-03-27T15:20:54.170" UserId="1982" Text="North &amp; Hillard Ex. 196: the following is to be translated into Latin: &quot;He (Hannibal) had almost reached the top of the Alps, when some old men came to him in the guise of envoys. The misfortunes of others, they said, had been a warning to them, and they preferred to make trial of the friendship rather than the might of the Carthaginians, and were ready to do whatever he wished. Hannibal, considering that he must not rashly either trust or slight them, accepted them as guides,&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tricky part (Answer Book): &quot;...quos Hannibal duces quidem accepit (accepted those who are guides, the English requires &quot;as guides&quot;-ducendos?), neque iis a se temere credendum ratus neque omnino asperandos eos esse;&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The narrator is reporting what the fake envoys said to Hannibal--indirect speech requiring the acc.-infin. construction for the indirect statement: &quot;omnino aspernandos eos esse&quot;--they had not to be offended at all.&#xD;&#xA;The preceding gerundive is given differently--neuter, impersonal &quot;credendum&quot;; not, &quot;credendum est&quot;--is this permissible, omitting &quot;est&quot;? Presumably, given that credo takes dative, dative-plural &quot;iis&quot; must be deployed (for them to be believed). In the acc.-inf. credendos eos esse--&quot;eos&quot; would clash with &quot;iis&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this why the impersonal construction has been used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all the examples I have found on this, &quot;est&quot; has been deployed eg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;mihi currendum est&quot;--I must run (it ought to be run by me); &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Romanis cum hostibus pugnandum est&quot;--the Romans ought to fight with the enemy (it ought to be fought, by the Romans, with the enemy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, thought that these were gerundives-of-obligation; but, that would have needed Hannibal to go into the dative, Hannibali, as the person upon whom the obligations were falling--neither for him ( a se) to be believing nor offending.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29116" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9356" RevisionGUID="de7cf408-f378-4aa9-94e6-969786b08fca" CreationDate="2019-03-27T15:20:54.170" UserId="1982" Text="Gerundive Confusion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29117" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9356" RevisionGUID="de7cf408-f378-4aa9-94e6-969786b08fca" CreationDate="2019-03-27T15:20:54.170" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9342" RevisionGUID="8a9433c5-aba3-4b64-997a-5b8aa9ce6ea7" CreationDate="2019-03-27T15:26:18.487" UserId="406" Comment="edited body" Text="It turns out, we know quite a bit about this!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three main sources for Vulgar Latin pronunciations: Classical texts imitating (or mocking or correcting) Vulgar speech, graffiti from actual plebs, and reconstruction from the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the first of those, we have bits by Petronius and Catullus (the _Cena Trimalchionis_ and _Carmen 84_), as well as the third-century _Appendix Probī_. And for the second, we have well-preserved writings from first-century Pompeii. These give hints at how Vulgar Latin was pronounced (by showing how it was spelled), and Romance reconstructions can fill in some of the gaps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a short summary of what I've found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *H* disappeared completely: *harena* → *arena* &quot;sand&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *Qv* merged into *c* before front vowels: *coqvens* → *cocens*&#xD;&#xA; - Unstressed vowels in medial syllables (not the start or end of a word) disappear: _spéculum_ → _spéclum_ &quot;mirror&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Unstressed *e* and *i* turn into *j* before vowels: _vínea_ → _vínja_ &quot;vineyard&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *V* started being pronounced `/v/` instead of `/w/`; later, *b* between vowels merged with it. (They both probably started as `[β]`, but there's no way to know when that changed.)&#xD;&#xA; - Nasals at the end of words and before *s* became nasalized vowels, then disappeared: *consul* → *cõsul* → *cosul* &quot;consul&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Consonants at the ends of words disappeared *in some places*: graffiti in Pompeii has *valeat* → *valja* &quot;may he flourish&quot;, but French still has remnants of final *t*s, so this wasn't universal&#xD;&#xA; - Vowel length was slowly turning into vowel quality: *ī*, *ū*, and *o* remained intact, while the pairs *ō/u*, *ē/i/oe*, *ā/a*, and *e/ae* merged into something like *ō ē a e*&#xD;&#xA; - Diminutives were all over the place: *fax* → *facla* &quot;torch&quot;, *neptis* → *nepticla* &quot;granddaughter&quot;, *ānus* → *anucla* &quot;old woman&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Regular first/second-declension forms spread to other words: *glis/gliris* → *glirus/glirī* &quot;dormouse&quot;, *pauper mulier* → *paupera mulier* &quot;poor woman&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9327" RevisionGUID="5d10c942-c6b1-45ed-8c6f-37dea5891c48" CreationDate="2019-03-27T15:29:38.557" UserId="522" Comment="Link to canting Heraldry" Text="The heraldry makes play on **ACRE** (plough and barley brew) and **HACKER** (with the bladed instrument above the plough and the halberd). Such visual puns are called Canting Heraldry as the [Heraldry Society][1] explains. (Thanks! to TRiG)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latinised name below the heraldry simply reads  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Marci Ackerman (?Ackermani) **:** 1561&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Of Mark Ackerman : 1561&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;The words are in the possessive case to indicate whose window (or whose castle, or room).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://theheraldrysociety.com/class/canting-arms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9357" RevisionGUID="01616cda-c55e-4336-a8e0-0aac0a7b0eaf" CreationDate="2019-03-27T16:44:26.147" UserId="3608" Text="Because our San Francisco Presidio hiking group is nearing its 20th anniversary, many of us have taken falls. I want a create a sew-on patch, in Latin, for those who have fallen but are still going strong. I only have choir Latin, but I know enough to see that Google Translate is wrong. I'd like a pithy translation of: I FALL, YET I RISE AGAIN. Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29121" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9357" RevisionGUID="01616cda-c55e-4336-a8e0-0aac0a7b0eaf" CreationDate="2019-03-27T16:44:26.147" UserId="3608" Text="Need pithy translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29122" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9357" RevisionGUID="01616cda-c55e-4336-a8e0-0aac0a7b0eaf" CreationDate="2019-03-27T16:44:26.147" UserId="3608" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9358" RevisionGUID="c41dea22-b781-44db-a006-0c804095d029" CreationDate="2019-03-27T17:44:58.087" UserId="1459" Text="I would propose _Cado, sed resurgo_, meaning &quot;I fall, but I rise again&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9358" RevisionGUID="9e6fdb68-69e9-4628-a2fc-8ea454c343d2" CreationDate="2019-03-27T17:52:13.727" UserId="1459" Comment="added 270 characters in body" Text="I would propose _Cado, sed resurgo_, meaning &quot;I fall, but I rise again&quot;. Another option instead of _cado_, perhaps more related to &quot;fall down&quot;, and therefore to hiking, is _praecipito_. [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=praecipito) state that this is appropriate for involuntary falling. So, you can have _praecipito, sed resurgo_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9357" RevisionGUID="75816986-6a58-4a19-9315-0b28d496f0aa" CreationDate="2019-03-27T17:54:10.830" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Because our San Francisco Presidio hiking group is nearing its 20th anniversary, many of us have taken falls. I want a create a sew-on patch, in Latin, for those who have fallen but are still going strong. I only have choir Latin, but I know enough to see that Google Translate is wrong. I'd like a pithy translation of: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I FALL, YET I RISE AGAIN." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29126" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9357" RevisionGUID="75816986-6a58-4a19-9315-0b28d496f0aa" CreationDate="2019-03-27T17:54:10.830" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Need pithy translation for &quot;I fall, yet I rise again&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9358" RevisionGUID="2cd302db-f3c2-42f3-a966-368609928090" CreationDate="2019-03-27T18:01:24.617" UserId="1459" Comment="added 270 characters in body" Text="I would propose _Cado, sed resurgo_, meaning &quot;I fall, but I rise again&quot;. _Cado_ is good in the sense that is very short. _Resurgo_ is literally &quot;rise again&quot;, so there might not be something more direct and shorter than that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatives might come from changing _cado_, more in the context of &quot;falling down&quot; or &quot;falling off&quot;. For instance, [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=praecipito) state that _praecipito_ is appropriate for involuntary falling down. This word is also related to the English [precipice](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/precipice), which is surely used in hiking circles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is _[decido](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/decido#Latin)_, also with the meaning of &quot;falling off/down&quot;. This however is related to the English [decide](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/decide#English), and so might lead to some confusion for non-Latin speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, perhaps the one with the clearest meaning, even for those without knowledge of Latin is _praecipito, sed resurgo_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9359" RevisionGUID="c432dd73-dd09-4cac-8b67-37dfe3ec9bbe" CreationDate="2019-03-27T20:02:06.823" UserId="3377" Text="This is probably a pretty basic question, but I am new to Latin and am having trouble understanding the subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence &quot;Pūgnāverō ut nautam superem&quot; is translated to &quot;I shall have fought in order that I may overcome the sailor&quot; (according to my textbook). I understand that *pūgnāverō* is active, indicative, future perfect, first person, singular, which so far I would have believed to be translated as &quot;I will have fought (already).&quot; I am confused because my book uses the word &quot;shall,&quot; which to me signals that it is subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Am I misunderstanding the way &quot;shall&quot; is used?&#xD;&#xA; - Is this something that only occurs in clauses of purpose, i.e., is this occurring because &quot;superem&quot; is subjunctive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a [similar][1] post here, but I feel it does not answer my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6518/help-finding-the-use-of-the-subjunctive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29129" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9359" RevisionGUID="c432dd73-dd09-4cac-8b67-37dfe3ec9bbe" CreationDate="2019-03-27T20:02:06.823" UserId="3377" Text="Sequence of Tenses: Translating the subjunctive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29130" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9359" RevisionGUID="c432dd73-dd09-4cac-8b67-37dfe3ec9bbe" CreationDate="2019-03-27T20:02:06.823" UserId="3377" Text="|conjunctive|purpose-clause|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9360" RevisionGUID="953e669b-de97-4e8e-a001-dcab74fb2c4f" CreationDate="2019-03-27T20:14:13.427" UserId="985" Text="You're misunderstanding 'shall.' The traditional convention ('rule') in English is that 'shall' is used with first person subjects (I/we) to form the future and future perfect tenses, whereas 'will' is used for second person (you) and third person (he/she/it/they). Your textbook is clearly following this convention. The fact that there's also a purpose clause in the sentence has nothing to do with it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9360" RevisionGUID="c3278a6e-21bc-41ea-b98e-c67c21810dc4" CreationDate="2019-03-27T20:22:59.843" UserId="985" Comment="added 214 characters in body" Text="You're misunderstanding 'shall.' The traditional convention ('rule') in English is that 'shall' is used with first person subjects (I/we) to form the future and future perfect tenses, whereas 'will' is used for second person (you) and third person (he/she/it/they).\* Your textbook is clearly following this convention. The fact that there's also a purpose clause in the sentence has nothing to do with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* (Except in emphatic utterances, where the future expresses strong determination to do something; in such cases, 'will' is traditionally used for the first person, 'shall' for the second and third persons.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9361" RevisionGUID="c0efb7c3-dbb0-450c-adfe-ce3cf563841e" CreationDate="2019-03-27T20:28:52.497" UserId="1982" Text="The future-perfect is a primary tense for something that has still to be completed; &quot;already&quot; would refer to the past. This is a purpose/ final clause therefore, after ut, the present subjunctive is deployed--superem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9356" RevisionGUID="1142c251-595c-4ddb-ba73-98c443e4bec5" CreationDate="2019-03-27T21:17:04.247" UserId="79" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="North &amp; Hillard Ex. 196: the following is to be translated into Latin: &quot;He (Hannibal) had almost reached the top of the Alps, when some old men came to him in the guise of envoys. The misfortunes of others, they said, had been a warning to them, and they preferred to make trial of the friendship rather than the might of the Carthaginians, and were ready to do whatever he wished. Hannibal, considering that he must not rashly either trust or slight them, accepted them as guides,&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tricky part (Answer Book): &quot;...quos Hannibal duces quidem accepit (accepted those who are guides, the English requires &quot;as guides&quot;-ducendos?), neque iis a se temere credendum ratus neque omnino asperandos eos esse;&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The narrator is reporting what the fake envoys said to Hannibal&amp;mdash;indirect speech requiring the acc.-infin. construction for the indirect statement: &quot;omnino aspernandos eos esse&quot;&amp;mdash;they had not to be offended at all.&#xD;&#xA;The preceding gerundive is given differently&amp;mdash;neuter, impersonal &quot;credendum&quot;; not, &quot;credendum est&quot;&amp;mdash;is this permissible, omitting &quot;est&quot;? Presumably, given that credo takes dative, dative-plural &quot;iis&quot; must be deployed (for them to be believed). In the acc.-inf. credendos eos esse&amp;mdash;&quot;eos&quot; would clash with &quot;iis&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this why the impersonal construction has been used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all the examples I have found on this, &quot;est&quot; has been deployed eg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;mihi currendum est&quot;&amp;mdash;I must run (it ought to be run by me); &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Romanis cum hostibus pugnandum est&quot;&amp;mdash;the Romans ought to fight with the enemy (it ought to be fought, by the Romans, with the enemy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, thought that these were gerundives-of-obligation; but, that would have needed Hannibal to go into the dative, Hannibali, as the person upon whom the obligations were falling--neither for him (a se) to be believing nor offending.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29135" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9356" RevisionGUID="1142c251-595c-4ddb-ba73-98c443e4bec5" CreationDate="2019-03-27T21:17:04.247" UserId="79" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|sentence-translation|gerundive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29136" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9359" RevisionGUID="b20410e3-9b21-4139-842a-f473f5129923" CreationDate="2019-03-27T21:24:52.017" />
  <row Id="29137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9362" RevisionGUID="e70dcfb2-911c-4f52-970d-00f31aeb1ff6" CreationDate="2019-03-27T21:40:25.760" UserId="79" Text="A basic problem here is that trust or belief works with dative in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tibi credo.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I trust you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can express obligation with gerunds, putting the subject (implicit *ego*) into dative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Mihi tibi credendum est.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have to trust you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But given the flexible word order, which one of *mihi* and *tibi* is supposed to be the subject and which one the object of trusting?&#xD;&#xA;To clear the ambiguity, one can use an agent instead of the dative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A me tibi credendum est.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have to trust you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the roles are clear.&#xD;&#xA;This is how something like *iis ab Hannibale credendum est* appears in the suggested translation.&#xD;&#xA;The obligation is personal, but the obliged person is now unusually expressed with agent instead of dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have thus arrived at the translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He must not trust them.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ab eo non iis credendum est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, we build up from this, introducing this as Hannibal's thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hannibal thinks that he must not trust them.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hannibal retur a se non iis credendum esse.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The previous translation turns from direct speech to ACI, and the pronoun referring to Hannibal (*eo*) becomes reflexive (*se*).&#xD;&#xA;There is indeed a missing verb, but it is *esse* instead of *est* because we are within an ACI.&#xD;&#xA;To avoid repeat, the same *esse* is used for the two obligations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To take a step further, Hannibal makes a choice based on these thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thinking that he must not trust them, Hannibal accepts them.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hannibal, ratus a se non iis credendum esse, eos accipit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The personal verb *retur* becomes a participle *ratus*, an attribute to the subject *Hannibal* of the new main verb *accipit*.&#xD;&#xA;This already has most of the structure that confused you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I very, very warmly recommend slowly building a sentence up like this.&#xD;&#xA;There is no need to understand the whole structure in one go; strip everything unnecessary and start adding layers to get closer to what you want.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, when analyzing a Latin sentence, try to identify the key component and throw the rest out.&#xD;&#xA;It also helps you identify the issue and ask for help that clears the key confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of things need explanation.&#xD;&#xA;The relative pronoun can be used to refer to people mentioned in the previous sentence.&#xD;&#xA;You should understand here *quos* as *eos*.&#xD;&#xA;Consider, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quidam amicus meus Romae vivit. **Qui** cum mecum loquitur, gaudeo.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A friend of mine lives in Rome. When **he** speaks with me, I am happy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To accept X as Y, you *X Y accipis*, with both X and Y in accusative.&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Te ducem accipio.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I accept you as a guide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is essentially what happens in the suggested translation.&#xD;&#xA;The one being accepted is *quos*, meaning &quot;they&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;That is, the translation is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quos Hannibal duces accepit.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;del&gt;Hannibal accepted those who are guides.&lt;/del&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hannibal accepted them as guides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this analysis makes things clearer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9331" RevisionGUID="aac6dba5-eafe-4d72-86bb-c24e45ce8985" CreationDate="2019-03-27T22:17:04.563" UserId="9" Comment="added 1017 characters in body" Text="Manu Leumann's *Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre* (Munich 1977) groups the contraction of *-āvis-* to *-ās-* in forms like *amāstī* and *amāssem* together with the contraction of *-āver-* to *-ār-* in forms like *amāram* and *amāro*. Leumann says that &quot;Bei Plautus sind noch die Kurzformen seltener als die Vollformen&quot; (&quot;in Plautus, the short forms are still rarer than the full forms&quot;) (§438.II.B, p. 599).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That remark is only for first-conjugation perfect forms of the *āvī* type; Leumann discusses other types of perfects, and other specific words, in other parts of that section. For example, he says that Plautus prefers the short forms of *audīre.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further details, Leumann says to consult &quot;Stolz, KZ 38, 429&quot;, which Alex B has identified in a comment as &quot;Über Angeblichen Wandel Von Lat. āνĕ Zu ā.&quot; Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen 38, no. 3 (1905)&quot;. I'm still processing what Stolz says, but the main thing that's relevant to your question is some figures and some suggestions about the development of the forms in *-ās-* and *-ār-.* Stolz says that in Plautus, forms in *-āverim -āveram -āverō* are seven times as common as forms in *-ārim -āram -ārō,* forms in *-āvistī* are a little less than twice as common as forms in *āstī,* and forms in *-āvērunt* are more common than forms in *-ārunt;* but forms in *-āvisse(m)* are not quite as common as those in *-āsse(m)* (citing Brock 140, 134, 143, 124) (pp. 429-430). Based on frequency of forms and phonetic considerations, Stolz suggests that the replacement of *-āvis-/-āver-* with *-ās-/-ār-* developed by analogy with the loss of *-v-* in perfect forms of *-ēvi* and *-īvi* verbs (p. 429). Stolz doesn't think that *-āvĕ-* &gt; *-ā-* was a usual sound change in Latin, because we can find *-āvĕ-* in *cadāver* and *papāver* (p. 426).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;A Note on Servivisti (Petr. 57.4)&quot; (1998), Brent Vine quotes Leumann's statement that short forms of the perfect (in general, not of *-āvī*-perfects specifically) &quot;gehören seit Plautus der Umgangssprache an&quot; (are heard from the Vulgar Latin of Plautus onward) and goes on to discuss two passages that Leumann cites to support this: one is the Quintilian passage that you have already mentioned (1.6.17), and the other is Cicero Orat. 155-62. Vine says that the context of these passages is the argument between the &quot;anomalist&quot; and &quot;analogist&quot; schools of grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *Orator* 155-62, Cicero says that the full forms *novisse* and *iudicavisse* are the ones that are thought of as &quot;correct&quot;, but the short forms *nosse* and *iudicasse* are the ones that are usual in speech. Wikipedia says that *[Orator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orator_(Cicero))* was written in 46 B.C. In fact, Cicero does seem to have used the form &quot;[iudicavisse](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23iudicavisse%23)&quot; occasionally in his earlier works (e.g. *[In Verrem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Verrem),* which Wikipedia says is from 70 BC).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a footnote (8), Vine says &quot;I hope to treat elsewhere the pedagogical implications of the fact that we routinely teach our beginning students forms like *audivisti* (and similarly *audivisse, audivissem* etc.) which are in fact largely unattested.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the title indicates, Vine's article is mostly about a particular occurrence of &quot;servisti&quot;. Vine says that *servivisti* is &quot;the sole uncontracted *-vis*-perfect form in the entire Satyricon (including 2 sg. pl. perf. *-visti/-vistis,* perf. act. infin. *-visse*, and plupf. subj. *-vissem, -visses,* etc.)&quot; (p. 543). Wikipedia says that there is now a consensus that the *[Satyricon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyricon#Date_and_authorship)* was written in the time period of Nero (1st century AD).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9353" RevisionGUID="d73bdd86-76df-4202-bb58-b3a12d602206" CreationDate="2019-03-27T22:39:21.303" UserId="9" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="The vowel is definitely thought to have been long in forms like *amāsti.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my comment, I was saying that the first vowel might be shortened in certain forms that show loss of intervocalic -v- without contraction of the originally separate syllables into one: *-ie-* and *-ii-* from *-īve-* and *-īvi-*. A vowel before another vowel in Latin was usually short, even when derived from an originally long vowel; that rule has exceptions, but it seems to have been applied in forms like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main examples of the last vowel of the perfect stem being shortened before another vowel are verbs with *-īvī* perfects: either from the fourth conjugation, or in some cases from the third conjugation, such as *[appeto](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/appeto#Latin)*, which Wiktionary notes can have forms like *appetiī.* Leumann 1977 says that for verbs with *-īvī* perfects, short forms without *v* have been used since Plautus, and he says that as a rule *-īvis-* is shortened to *-īs-* and *-īver-* is shortened to *-ĭer-.* Also, *-īvī* may be shortened to *-iī,* but the similar shortened forms *-iit* and *-iimus* are supposed to be rare in the Classical period. (*Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre,* §438.II.C, p. 600). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side note: I'm not sure about the stress of *-ii, iit, -iimus* forms. The question [Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/604/9) has an [answer by Joel Derfner](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/602/9) saying that *dormiī, audiī, veniī* have penult stress, and an [answer by Alex B.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/604/9) saying that contracted perfect forms like *audīt* from *audīvit* or *disturbāt* from *disturbāvit* are supposed to have had ultimate stress. [Andras Cser (2016)](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) says that neither i in *abiit* was stressed (6.2.3.3; p. 121); however, Cser analyzes *eo* and its compounds as having a perfect stem that underlyingly ends in *ī-* (p. 117), which might be relevant. I don't know how we would know for sure where the stress fell in such words. Italian &quot;[udii](https://forvo.com/search/udii/)&quot; seems to have penult stress, but Italian stress isn't always in the same place as Latin stress." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9363" RevisionGUID="aa888919-98c5-413d-afe0-e0f24eafb9b8" CreationDate="2019-03-27T23:11:06.980" UserId="9" Text="The question [Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/604/9) has an [answer by Joel Derfner](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/602/9) saying that the first-person perfect forms *dormiī, audiī, veniī* (for *dormīvī, audīvī, venīvī*) have penult stress, and an [answer by Alex B.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/604/9) saying that contracted perfect forms like *audīt* from *audīvit* or *disturbāt* from *disturbāvit* are supposed to have had ultimate stress. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That sounds plausible to me, but I'm confused because at one point in [&quot;Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin&quot; (2016)](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) Andras Cser says that neither i in *abiit* was stressed (6.2.3.3; p. 121). Cser analyzes *eo* and its compounds as having a perfect stem that underlyingly ends in *ī-* (p. 117), which might be relevant, but I'm not sure whether it is commonly accepted that *audii(t)* and *abiit* had different stress patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This made me wonder how we would even know for sure where the stress fell in such words. The &quot;remote past tenses&quot; in Romance languages seem to indicate stress on the *i* (e.g. Italian &quot;[udii](https://forvo.com/search/udii/)&quot; seems to have penult stress), but the position of stress in Italian and other Romance languages isn't always the same as the position of stress in Classical Latin. Is there any other evidence for the stress patterns of these perfect forms in Classical or Pre-Classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29141" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9363" RevisionGUID="aa888919-98c5-413d-afe0-e0f24eafb9b8" CreationDate="2019-03-27T23:11:06.980" UserId="9" Text="How do we know how -iī and -iit perfects were stressed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29142" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9363" RevisionGUID="aa888919-98c5-413d-afe0-e0f24eafb9b8" CreationDate="2019-03-27T23:11:06.980" UserId="9" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|perfect-tense|stress|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9353" RevisionGUID="8c5dbfb2-31ef-4278-88f9-45fab77ef570" CreationDate="2019-03-27T23:12:12.927" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 556 characters in body" Text="The vowel is definitely thought to have been long in forms like *amāsti.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my comment, I was saying that the first vowel might be shortened in certain forms that show loss of intervocalic -v- without contraction of the originally separate syllables into one: *-ie-* and *-ii-* from *-īve-* and *-īvi-*. A vowel before another vowel in Latin was usually short, even when derived from an originally long vowel; that rule has exceptions, but it seems to have been applied in forms like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main examples of the last vowel of the perfect stem being shortened before another vowel are verbs with *-īvī* perfects: either from the fourth conjugation, or in some cases from the third conjugation, such as *[appeto](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/appeto#Latin)*, which Wiktionary notes can have forms like *appetiī.* Leumann 1977 says that for verbs with *-īvī* perfects, short forms without *v* have been used since Plautus, and he says that as a rule *-īvis-* is shortened to *-īs-* and *-īver-* is shortened to *-ĭer-.* Also, *-īvī* may be shortened to *-iī,* but the similar shortened forms *-iit* and *-iimus* are supposed to be rare in the Classical period. (*Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre,* §438.II.C, p. 600). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side note: The question *Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?* has an [answer by Joel Derfner](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/602/9) saying that even though the penult syllable is light, it is still stressed in forms like *dormiī, audiī, veniī,* but [I'm not sure how we know this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9363/how-do-we-know-how-i%C4%AB-and-iit-perfects-were-stressed).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9363" RevisionGUID="710f8d7e-8214-46b2-820d-2b5edd253c94" CreationDate="2019-03-27T23:24:03.880" UserId="9" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="The question [Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/604/9) has an [answer by Joel Derfner](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/602/9) saying that the first-person singular perfect forms *dormiī, audiī, veniī* (for *dormīvī, audīvī, venīvī*) have penult stress, and an [answer by Alex B.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/604/9) saying that contracted perfect forms like *audīt* from *audīvit* or *disturbāt* from *disturbāvit* are supposed to have had ultimate stress. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That sounds plausible to me, but I'm confused because at one point in [&quot;Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin&quot; (2016)](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) Andras Cser says that neither i in *abiit* was stressed (6.2.3.3; p. 121). Cser analyzes *eo* and its compounds as having a perfect stem that underlyingly ends in *ī-* (p. 117), which might be relevant, but I'm not sure whether it is commonly accepted that *audii(t)* and *abiit* had different stress patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This made me wonder how we would even know for sure where the stress fell in such words. The &quot;remote past tenses&quot; in Romance languages seem to indicate stress on the *i* (e.g. Italian &quot;[udii](https://forvo.com/search/udii/)&quot; seems to have penult stress), but the position of stress in Italian and other Romance languages isn't always the same as the position of stress in Classical Latin. Is there any other evidence for the stress patterns of these perfect forms in Classical or Pre-Classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9363" RevisionGUID="d878f117-27f6-4305-ab32-d19da0a65fd3" CreationDate="2019-03-28T00:26:49.050" UserId="9" Comment="added 422 characters in body" Text="The question [Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/604/9) has an [answer by Joel Derfner](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/602/9) saying that the first-person singular perfect forms *dormiī, audiī, veniī* (for *dormīvī, audīvī, venīvī*) have penult stress, and an [answer by Alex B.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/604/9) saying that contracted perfect forms like *audīt* from *audīvit* or *disturbāt* from *disturbāvit* are supposed to have had ultimate stress. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That sounds plausible to me, but I'm confused because at one point in [&quot;Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin&quot; (2016)](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) Andras Cser says that neither i in *abiit* was stressed (6.2.3.3; p. 121). Cser analyzes *eo* and its compounds as having a perfect stem that underlyingly ends in *ī-* (p. 117), which might be relevant, but I'm not sure whether it is commonly accepted that *audii(t)* and *abiit* had different stress patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, Leumann 1977 says &quot;diese Akzentuation perf. *audít cupít fumát* gegenüber praes. *aúdit* usw. ist sicher von Grammatikern differentiae causa für Dichterinterpretation in der Schule festgelegt (vgl. § 237, 1d); also faßten sie *audít* als verkürztes *audīvit*, d. h. als kontrahiertes *audī́it*, nicht *aúdiit*&quot;, which if I understand correctly implies that *aúdiit,* with antepenultimate stress, was a form that was actually used (*Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre,* p. 601).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This made me wonder how we would even know where the stress fell in such words. The &quot;remote past tenses&quot; in Romance languages seem to indicate stress on the *i* (e.g. Italian &quot;[udii](https://forvo.com/search/udii/)&quot; seems to have penult stress), but the position of stress in Italian and other Romance languages isn't always the same as the position of stress in Classical Latin. Is there any other evidence for the stress patterns of these perfect forms in Classical or Pre-Classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9353" RevisionGUID="0be4fc4d-38de-4fd5-a673-140cea3be0d0" CreationDate="2019-03-28T00:43:14.117" UserId="9" Comment="added 219 characters in body" Text="The vowel is definitely thought to have been long in forms like *amāsti.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my comment, I was saying that the first vowel might be shortened in certain forms that show loss of intervocalic -v- without contraction of the originally separate syllables into one: *-ie-* and *-ii-* from *-īve-* and *-īvi-*. A vowel before another vowel in Latin was usually short, even when derived from an originally long vowel; that rule has exceptions, but it seems to have been applied in forms like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main examples of the last vowel of the perfect stem being shortened before another vowel are verbs with *-īvī* perfects: either from the fourth conjugation, or in some cases from the third conjugation, such as *[appeto](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/appeto#Latin)*, which Wiktionary notes can have forms like *appetiī.* Leumann 1977 says that for verbs with *-īvī* perfects, short forms without *v* have been used since Plautus, and he says that as a rule *-īvis-* is shortened to *-īs-* and *-īver-* is shortened to *-ĭer-.* Also, *-īvī* may be shortened to *-iī,* but the similar shortened forms *-iit* and *-iimus* are supposed to be rare for most verbs in the Classical period.&#xD;&#xA;Leumann mentions two examples of long *ī* in forms from the verb *eo*: *īero* in Plautus' *Captivi* 194 and *īerant* in Terence's *Adelphoe* 27, but certain editions of both of these texts seem to give *-īv-* instead. (*Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre,* §438.II.C, p. 600). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side note: The question *Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?* has an [answer by Joel Derfner](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/602/9) saying that even though the penult syllable is light, it is still stressed in forms like *dormiī, audiī, veniī,* but [I'm not sure how we know this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9363/how-do-we-know-how-i%C4%AB-and-iit-perfects-were-stressed).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9353" RevisionGUID="559b5ae1-64ba-493c-8f20-43162fce3d03" CreationDate="2019-03-28T00:52:29.583" UserId="9" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="The vowel is definitely thought to have been long in forms like *amāsti.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my comment, I was saying that the first vowel might be shortened in certain forms that show loss of intervocalic -v- without contraction of the originally separate syllables into one: *-ie-* and *-ii-* from *-īve-* and *-īvi-*. A vowel before another vowel in Latin was usually short, even when derived from an originally long vowel; that rule has exceptions, but it seems to have been applied in forms like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main examples of the last vowel of the perfect stem being shortened before another vowel are verbs with *-īvī* perfects: either from the fourth conjugation, or in some cases from the third conjugation, such as *[appeto](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/appeto#Latin)*, which Wiktionary notes can have forms like *appetiī.* Leumann 1977 says that for verbs with *-īvī* perfects, short forms without *v* have been used since Plautus, and he says that as a rule *-īvis-* is shortened to *-īs-* and *-īver-* is shortened to *-ĭer-.* Also, *-īvī* may be shortened to *-iī,* but the similar shortened forms *-iit* and *-iimus* are supposed to be rare for most verbs in the Classical period. Leumann mentions two possible exception to pre-vowel shortening, which are both examples of long *ī* in forms of the verb *eo*: *īero* in Plautus' *Captivi* 194 and *īerant* in Terence's *Adelphoe* 27. But certain editions of both of these texts give *-īv-* instead. (*Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre,* §438.II.C, p. 600). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side note: The question *Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?* has an [answer by Joel Derfner](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/602/9) saying that even though the penult syllable is light, it is still stressed in forms like *dormiī, audiī, veniī,* but [I'm not sure how we know this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9363/how-do-we-know-how-i%C4%AB-and-iit-perfects-were-stressed).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9353" RevisionGUID="2eefe4d9-5827-4f75-beab-bb530bb00e68" CreationDate="2019-03-28T00:58:00.360" UserId="9" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="The vowel is definitely thought to have been long in forms like *amāsti.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my comment, I was saying that the first vowel might be shortened in certain forms that show loss of intervocalic -v- without contraction of the originally separate syllables into one: *-ie-* and *-ii-* from *-īve-* and *-īvi-*. A vowel before another vowel in Latin was usually short, even when derived from an originally long vowel; that rule has exceptions, but it seems to have been applied in forms like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main examples of the last vowel of the perfect stem being shortened before another vowel are verbs with *-īvī* perfects: either from the fourth conjugation, or in some cases from the third conjugation, such as *[appeto](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/appeto#Latin)*, which Wiktionary notes can have forms like *appetiī.* Leumann 1977 says that for verbs with *-īvī* perfects, short forms without *v* have been used since Plautus, and he says that as a rule *-īvis-* is shortened to *-īs-* and *-īver-* is shortened to *-ĭer-.* Leumann mentions two possible examples of *ī* remaining unshortened in this context. Both examples are forms of the verb *eo*: *īero* in Plautus' *Captivi* 194 and *īerant* in Terence's *Adelphoe* 27. But certain editions of both of these texts give *-īv-* instead. (*Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre,* §438.II.C, p. 600). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Also, *-īvī* may be shortened to *-iī,* but the similar shortened form *-iit* is supposed to be rare for most verbs in the Classical period, and *-iimus* may be even rarer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side note: The question *Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?* has an [answer by Joel Derfner](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/602/9) saying that even though the penult syllable is light, it is still stressed in forms like *dormiī, audiī, veniī,* but [I'm not sure how we know this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9363/how-do-we-know-how-i%C4%AB-and-iit-perfects-were-stressed).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9353" RevisionGUID="6e18f828-f5bc-4d3e-9cc1-68a5a7e8469f" CreationDate="2019-03-28T01:07:26.053" UserId="9" Comment="added 194 characters in body" Text="The vowel is definitely thought to have been long in forms like *amāsti.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my comment, I was saying that the first vowel might be shortened in certain forms that show loss of intervocalic -v- without contraction of the originally separate syllables into one: *-ie-* and *-ii-* from *-īve-* and *-īvi-*. A vowel before another vowel in Latin was usually short, even when derived from an originally long vowel; that rule has exceptions, but it seems to have been applied in forms like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main examples of the last vowel of the perfect stem being shortened before another vowel are verbs with *-īvī* perfects: either from the fourth conjugation, or in some cases from the third conjugation, such as *[appeto](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/appeto#Latin)*, which Wiktionary notes can have forms like *appetiī.* Leumann 1977 says that for verbs with *-īvī* perfects, short forms without *v* have been used since Plautus, and he says that as a rule *-īvis-* is shortened to *-īs-* and *-īver-* is shortened to *-ĭer-.* Leumann mentions two possible examples of *ī* remaining unshortened in this context. Both examples are forms of the verb *eo*: *īero* in Plautus' *Captivi* 194 and *īerant* in Terence's *Adelphoe* 27. But certain editions of both of these texts give *-īv-* instead. (*Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre,* §438.II.C, p. 600). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Also, *-īvī* may be shortened to *-iī,* but the similar shortened form *-iit* is supposed to be rare for most verbs in the Classical period, and *-iimus* might be even rarer than *-iit*. [Cser 2016](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) says that for *eo* and compounds, the usual first-person plural perfect forms are *īmus, abīmus, obīmus,* etc., with a single long [iː] sound (p. 121).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side note: The question *Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?* has an [answer by Joel Derfner](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/602/9) saying that even though the penult syllable is light, it is still stressed in forms like *dormiī, audiī, veniī,* but [I'm not sure how we know this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9363/how-do-we-know-how-i%C4%AB-and-iit-perfects-were-stressed).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9353" RevisionGUID="b33e960a-e088-402f-b5aa-998c66dddd9d" CreationDate="2019-03-28T01:14:23.603" UserId="9" Comment="added 194 characters in body" Text="The vowel is definitely thought to have been long in forms like *amāsti.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my comment, I was saying that the first vowel might be shortened in certain forms that show loss of intervocalic -v- without contraction of the originally separate syllables into one: *-ie-* and *-ii-* from *-īve-* and *-īvi-*. A vowel before another vowel in Latin was usually short, even when derived from an originally long vowel; that rule has exceptions, but it seems to have been applied in forms like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main examples of the last vowel of the perfect stem being shortened before another vowel are verbs with *-īvī* perfects: either from the fourth conjugation, or in some cases from the third conjugation, such as *[appeto](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/appeto#Latin)*, which Wiktionary notes can have forms like *appetiī.* Leumann 1977 says that for verbs with *-īvī* perfects, short forms without *v* have been used since Plautus, and he says that as a rule *-īvis-* is shortened to *-īs-* and *-īver-* is shortened to *-ĭer-.* Leumann mentions two possible examples of *ī* remaining unshortened in this context. Both examples are forms of the verb *eo*: *īero* in Plautus' *Captivi* 194 and *īerant* in Terence's *Adelphoe* 27. But certain editions of both of these texts give *-īv-* instead. (*Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre,* §438.II.C, p. 600). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Also, *-īvī* may be shortened to *-iī,* but the similar shortened form *-iit* is supposed to be rare for most verbs in the Classical period, and *-iimus* might be even rarer than *-iit*. [Cser 2016](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) says that for *eo* and compounds, the usual first-person plural perfect forms are *īmus, abīmus, obīmus,* etc., with a single long [iː] sound; for all (other) fourth-conjugation verbs, the usual form is apparently *-īvimus* with *-v-* (p. 121).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side note: The question *Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?* has an [answer by Joel Derfner](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/602/9) saying that even though the penult syllable is light, it is still stressed in forms like *dormiī, audiī, veniī,* but [I'm not sure how we know this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9363/how-do-we-know-how-i%C4%AB-and-iit-perfects-were-stressed).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9353" RevisionGUID="0d179888-bc2f-472d-8b09-b3af64b111f0" CreationDate="2019-03-28T01:30:00.320" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 48 characters in body" Text="The vowel is definitely thought to have been long in forms like *amāsti.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my comment, I was saying that the first vowel might be shortened in certain forms that show loss of intervocalic -v- without contraction of the originally separate syllables into one: *-ie-* and *-ii-* from *-īve-* and *-īvi-*. A vowel before another vowel in Latin was usually short, even when derived from an originally long vowel; that rule has exceptions, but it seems to have been applied in forms like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main examples of the last vowel of the perfect stem being shortened before another vowel are verbs with *-īvī* perfects: either from the fourth conjugation, or in some cases from the third conjugation, such as *[appeto](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/appeto#Latin)*, which Wiktionary notes can have forms like *appetiī.* Leumann 1977 says that for verbs with *-īvī* perfects, short forms without *v* have been used since Plautus, and he says that as a rule *-īvis-* is shortened to *-īs-* and *-īver-* is shortened to *-ĭer-.* Leumann mentions two possible examples of *ī* remaining unshortened in this context. Both examples are forms of the verb *eo*: *īero* in Plautus' *Captivi* 194 and *īerant* in Terence's *Adelphoe* 27. But certain editions of both of these texts give *-īv-* instead. (*Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre,* §438.II.C, p. 600). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Also, *-īvī* may be shortened to *-iī,* or *-īvit* to *-iit* (this might be less common than *-iī*? but there still seem to be a fair amount of examples of *-iit* in poetry), but the similar shortened form *-iimus* for *īvimus* is supposed to be rare. [Cser 2016](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) says that for *eo* and compounds, the usual first-person plural perfect forms are *īmus, abīmus, obīmus,* etc., with a single long [iː] sound, and for all (other) fourth-conjugation verbs, the usual form is apparently *-īvimus* with *-v-* (p. 121).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side note: The question *Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?* has an [answer by Joel Derfner](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/602/9) saying that even though the penult syllable is light, it is still stressed in forms like *dormiī, audiī, veniī,* but [I'm not sure how we know this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9363/how-do-we-know-how-i%C4%AB-and-iit-perfects-were-stressed).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9353" RevisionGUID="e2b49d20-3d7b-4e0b-ac39-634acb3b2793" CreationDate="2019-03-28T01:38:37.723" UserId="9" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="The vowel is definitely thought to have been long in forms like *amāsti.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my comment, I was saying that the first vowel might be shortened in certain forms that show loss of intervocalic -v- without contraction of the originally separate syllables into one: *-ie-* and *-ii-* from *-īve-* and *-īvi-*. A vowel before another vowel in Latin was usually short, even when derived from an originally long vowel; that rule has exceptions, but it seems to have been applied in forms like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main examples of the last vowel of the perfect stem being shortened before another vowel are verbs with *-īvī* perfects: either from the fourth conjugation, or in some cases from the third conjugation, such as *[appeto](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/appeto#Latin)*, which Wiktionary notes can have forms like *appetiī.* Leumann 1977 says that for verbs with *-īvī* perfects, short forms without *v* have been used since Plautus, and he says that as a rule *-īvis-* is shortened to *-īs-* and *-īver-* is shortened to *-ĭer-.* Leumann mentions two possible examples of *ī* remaining unshortened in this context. Both examples are forms of the verb *eo*: *īero* in Plautus' *Captivi* 194 and *īerant* in Terence's *Adelphoe* 27. But certain editions of both of these texts give *-īv-* instead. (*Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre,* §438.II.C, p. 600). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Also, *-īvī* may be shortened to *-iī,* or *-īvit* to *-iit* (this might be less common than *-iī*? but there still seem to be a number of examples of *-iit* for *-īvit* in poetry), but the similar shortened form *-iimus* for *īvimus* is supposed to be quite rare. [Cser 2016](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) says that for *eo* and compounds, the usual first-person plural perfect forms are *īmus, abīmus, obīmus,* etc., with a single long [iː] sound, and for all (other) fourth-conjugation verbs, the usual form is apparently *-īvimus* with *-v-* (p. 121).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side note: The question *Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?* has an [answer by Joel Derfner](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/602/9) saying that even though the penult syllable is light, it is still stressed in forms like *dormiī, audiī, veniī,* but [I'm not sure how we know this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9363/how-do-we-know-how-i%C4%AB-and-iit-perfects-were-stressed).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9353" RevisionGUID="64aad05f-b09d-40c0-be0b-361338b7b03e" CreationDate="2019-03-28T01:53:19.530" UserId="9" Comment="added 253 characters in body" Text="The vowel is definitely thought to have been long in forms like *amāsti.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my comment, I was saying that the first vowel might be shortened in certain forms that show loss of intervocalic -v- without contraction of the originally separate syllables into one: *-ie-* and *-ii-* from *-īve-* and *-īvi-*. A vowel before another vowel in Latin was usually short, even when derived from an originally long vowel; that rule has exceptions, but it seems to have been applied in forms like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main examples of the last vowel of the perfect stem being shortened before another vowel are verbs with *-īvī* perfects: either from the fourth conjugation, or in some cases from the third conjugation, such as *[appeto](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/appeto#Latin)*, which Wiktionary notes can have forms like *appetiī.* Leumann 1977 says that for verbs with *-īvī* perfects, short forms without *v* have been used since Plautus, and he says that as a rule long forms with *-īvis-* and *-īver-* correspond to short forms with *-īs-* and *-ĭer-.* Leumann mentions two possible examples of *ī* remaining unshortened in this context. Both examples are forms of the verb *eo*: *īero* in Plautus' *Captivi* 194 and *īerant* in Terence's *Adelphoe* 27. But certain editions of both of these texts give *-īv-* instead. (*Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre,* §438.II.C, p. 600)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some sources that I've read (e.g. [Cser 2016](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)) seem to indicate that for *eo,* the perfect forms without *-v-* are actually older, and the perfect forms with *-īv-* are an innovation, but I'm not sure why this would be thought to be the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Also, *-īvī* may be shortened to *-iī,* or *-īvit* to *-iit* (this might be less common than *-iī*? but there still seem to be a number of examples of *-iit* for *-īvit* in poetry), but the similar shortened form *-iimus* for *īvimus* is supposed to be quite rare. Cser 2016 says that for *eo* and compounds, the usual first-person plural perfect forms are *īmus, abīmus, obīmus,* etc., with a single long [iː] sound, and for all (other) fourth-conjugation verbs, the usual form is apparently *-īvimus* with *-v-* (p. 121).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side note: The question *Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?* has an [answer by Joel Derfner](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/602/9) saying that even though the penult syllable is light, it is still stressed in forms like *dormiī, audiī, veniī,* but [I'm not sure how we know this](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9363/how-do-we-know-how-i%C4%AB-and-iit-perfects-were-stressed).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29154" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9363" RevisionGUID="85a0e12c-adca-4b76-ae15-91c283ccf11f" CreationDate="2019-03-28T02:10:20.837" UserId="406" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|perfect-tense|stress|syncopated-perfect|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9364" RevisionGUID="89c0e9b7-1df6-40b3-a441-a7e56a9d599d" CreationDate="2019-03-28T03:25:38.387" UserId="9" Text="[Cser 2016](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) gives the rule that *-v-* cannot be lost when it is &quot;part of the lexical makeup of the verb&quot; (&quot;Aspects of the Phonology and Morphology of Classical Latin&quot;, p. 117), agreeing with [TKR's suggestion in the comments](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/779/can-i-contract-with-an-irregular-perfect-stem-in-v#comment1565_779). In other words, *-v-* won't be lost when it is found in the present stem as well as in the perfect stem of the word, which means that *lavisti* and *adiuvisti* would not be expected to have *v*-less  variant forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When *-v-* appears as a &quot;suffix&quot; marking the perfect stem, it might or might not be able to be deleted: this isn't completely predictable based on the form, it also seems to depend on the lexical identity of the verb.  Cser says that *cerno* has *v*-less variants alongside the forms built on *crēv-,* but *sperno* has only *sprēv-* perfect forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*V*-deletion is possible not only for verbs with *-ēvī/-īvī/-āvī* perfects, but also for some verbs with *-ōvī* perfects; Cser gives the example of *nōsco* with the forms *nōvērunt*~*nōrunt* and *nōvisse~nōsse.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="779" RevisionGUID="59ed2de8-e17c-4ef0-adb7-9515c68cee32" CreationDate="2019-03-28T03:29:13.053" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I know that if I have a regular first conjugation verb, I can contract some forms.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *amavisti* and *amaverunt* can become *amasti* and *amarunt*, and I have come across such forms repeatedly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I contract the V away if the perfect stem is irregular but still comes with a V?&#xD;&#xA;For example, I was thinking of *lavisti* and *adiuvisti* becoming *lasti* and *adiusti*.&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen such forms for irregular perfect stems although they are easy to form by analogy.&#xD;&#xA;Can such forms be found in the Latin literature?&#xD;&#xA;A quick search turned up nothing, but I only checked a couple of forms for a couple of verbs.&#xD;&#xA;Is there perhaps a source that suggests that such contraction is wrong if they are nowhere to be found?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29157" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="779" RevisionGUID="59ed2de8-e17c-4ef0-adb7-9515c68cee32" CreationDate="2019-03-28T03:29:13.053" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|verbs|perfect-tense|contraction|syncopated-perfect|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29158" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="308" RevisionGUID="4be4a2bc-2583-4d46-8ccd-6472093e1f0b" CreationDate="2019-03-28T03:30:43.187" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|morphology|conjugation|perfect-tense|infinitive|syncopated-perfect|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9364" RevisionGUID="b7fbecc3-921d-45b0-930f-d4482427dad6" CreationDate="2019-03-28T03:31:58.610" UserId="9" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="[Cser 2016](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) gives the rule that *-v-* cannot be lost when it is &quot;part of the lexical makeup of the verb&quot; (&quot;Aspects of the Phonology and Morphology of Classical Latin&quot;, p. 117), agreeing with [TKR's suggestion in the comments](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/779/can-i-contract-with-an-irregular-perfect-stem-in-v#comment1565_779). In other words, *-v-* won't be lost when it is found in the present stem as well as in the perfect stem of the word, which means that *lavisti* and *adiuvisti* would not be expected to have *v*-less  variant forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When *-v-* appears as a &quot;suffix&quot; marking the perfect stem, it might or might not be able to be deleted: this isn't completely predictable based on the form, it also seems to depend on the lexical identity of the verb.  Cser says that *cerno* has *v*-less variants alongside the forms built on *crēv-,* but *sperno* has only *sprēv-* perfect forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*V*-deletion is possible not only for some verbs with *-ēvī/-īvī/-āvī* perfects, but also for some verbs with *-ōvī* perfects; Cser gives the example of *nōsco* with the forms *nōvērunt*~*nōrunt* and *nōvisse~nōsse.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9365" RevisionGUID="01617f27-28d4-45cf-95a9-c9f1d29b1978" CreationDate="2019-03-28T21:02:32.063" UserId="9" Text="It's been a bit difficult for me to find good information about the etymology of the suffix *-aster.* De Vaan doesn't seem to talk about it. A number of sources indicate that it is from Greek; e.g. [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-aster#Etymology_2) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From suffix originally forming Ancient Greek nouns from verbs ending in -άζειν (-ázein).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and says that *-astrum* is an alternative form, which seems to imply that it would go back to a Greek ending *-αστρον* or *-αστρος.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's been hard for me to find information about the use of *-αστρον* in Greek. Searching Perseus only turned up [20 examples of words ending in *-αστρον*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=astron&amp;lang=greek), and most of them don't look very similar in meaning to Latin forms suffixed with *-aster.* The only one that looks close to me is *[λαίμαστρον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlai%2Fmastron),* which LSJ defines as &quot;greedy beast', term of abuse&quot;: it seems to be derived from a verb *λαιμάσσω.* The results for [*-αστρος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=astros&amp;lang=greek) don't look much better: 14 nouns, of which 5 seem to be derived from *ἄστρον* &quot;star&quot; and 4 seem to be derived from *γαστήρ* &quot;belly&quot;. I also looked at words ending in [*-αστήρ*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=asthr&amp;lang=greek) (which I'm not sure is even very plausible as a candidate source of the Latin second-declension form *-aster*) and they mostly don't look too similar to Latin *-aster* words either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the exact hypothesis about how Latin is supposed to have developed a relatively productive suffix *-aster* based on some Greek ending? Or if there are other hypotheses that are currently considered plausible, please tell me about them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29161" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9365" RevisionGUID="01617f27-28d4-45cf-95a9-c9f1d29b1978" CreationDate="2019-03-28T21:02:32.063" UserId="9" Text="What is the etymology of the suffix -aster, -astri?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29162" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9365" RevisionGUID="01617f27-28d4-45cf-95a9-c9f1d29b1978" CreationDate="2019-03-28T21:02:32.063" UserId="9" Text="|greek|etymology|suffixes|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9365" RevisionGUID="23f916a9-d57c-4ff5-9b98-7ef58888baac" CreationDate="2019-03-28T21:09:19.677" UserId="9" Comment="added 372 characters in body" Text="It's been a bit difficult for me to find good information about the etymology of the suffix *-aster.* De Vaan doesn't seem to talk about it. A number of sources indicate that it is from Greek; e.g. [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-aster#Etymology_2) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From suffix originally forming Ancient Greek nouns from verbs ending in -άζειν (-ázein).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and says that *-astrum* is an alternative form, which seems to imply that it would go back to a Greek ending *-αστρον* or *-αστρος.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's been hard for me to find information about the use of *-αστρον* in Greek. Searching Perseus only turned up [20 examples of words ending in *-αστρον*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=astron&amp;lang=greek), and most of them don't look very similar in meaning to Latin forms suffixed with *-aster.* The only one that looks close to me is *[λαίμαστρον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlai%2Fmastron),* which LSJ defines as &quot;greedy beast', term of abuse&quot;: it seems to be derived from a verb *λαιμάσσω.* The results for [*-αστρος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=astros&amp;lang=greek) don't look much better: 14 nouns, of which 5 seem to be derived from *ἄστρον* &quot;star&quot; and 4 seem to be derived from *γαστήρ* &quot;belly&quot;. I also looked at words ending in [*-αστήρ*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=asthr&amp;lang=greek) (which I'm not sure is even very plausible as a candidate source of the Latin second-declension form *-aster*) and they mostly don't look too similar to Latin *-aster* words either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the exact hypothesis about how Latin is supposed to have developed a relatively productive suffix *-aster* based on some Greek ending? Or if there are other hypotheses that are currently considered plausible, please tell me about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of one alternative proposal that was criticized by Fr. Stolz in 1905: H. Ehrlich apparently tried to derive *patraster* (with a form *patrāster*) from *patrāvester,* but Stolz argues that the change āνĕ &gt; ā is implausible in this context (&quot;Über Angeblichen Wandel Von Lat. āνĕ Zu ā.&quot; Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen 38, no. 3)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9365" RevisionGUID="6426d3bf-1e0e-4dad-91d4-f7db7239a6a3" CreationDate="2019-03-28T21:10:59.063" UserId="9" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="It's been a bit difficult for me to find good information about the etymology of the suffix *-aster.* De Vaan doesn't seem to talk about it. A number of sources indicate that it is from Greek; e.g. [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-aster#Etymology_2) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From suffix originally forming Ancient Greek nouns from verbs ending in -άζειν (-ázein).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and says that *-astrum* is an alternative form, which seems to imply that it would go back to a Greek ending *-αστρον* or *-αστρος.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's been hard for me to find information about the use of *-αστρον* in Greek. Searching Perseus only turned up [20 examples of words ending in *-αστρον*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=astron&amp;lang=greek), and most of them don't look very similar in meaning to Latin forms suffixed with *-aster.* The only one that looks close to me is *[λαίμαστρον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlai%2Fmastron),* which LSJ defines as &quot;greedy beast', term of abuse&quot;: it seems to be derived from a verb *λαιμάσσω.* The results for [*-αστρος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=astros&amp;lang=greek) don't look much better: 14 nouns, of which 5 seem to be derived from *ἄστρον* &quot;star&quot; and 4 seem to be derived from *γαστήρ* &quot;belly&quot;. I also looked at words ending in [*-αστήρ*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=asthr&amp;lang=greek) (which I'm not sure is even very plausible as a candidate source of the Latin second-declension form *-aster*) and they mostly don't look too similar to Latin *-aster* words either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the exact hypothesis about how Latin is supposed to have developed a relatively productive suffix *-aster* based on some Greek ending? Or if there are other hypotheses that are currently considered plausible, please tell me about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of one alternative proposal (at least for the word *patraster*) that was criticized by Fr. Stolz in 1905: H. Ehrlich apparently tried to derive *patraster* (which he apparently supposed to have a long vowel in the penult:  *patrāster*) from *patrāvester,* but Stolz argues that the change āvĕ &gt; ā is implausible in this context (&quot;Über Angeblichen Wandel Von Lat. āvĕ Zu ā.&quot; Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen 38, no. 3)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9365" RevisionGUID="11c62cb7-f982-4f99-b7c2-091d817a2e08" CreationDate="2019-03-28T21:25:35.763" UserId="9" Comment="added 1088 characters in body" Text="It's been a bit difficult for me to find good information about the etymology of the suffix *-aster.* De Vaan doesn't seem to talk about it. A number of sources indicate that it is from Greek; e.g. [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-aster#Etymology_2) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From suffix originally forming Ancient Greek nouns from verbs ending in -άζειν (-ázein).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and says that *-astrum* is an alternative form, which seems to imply that it would go back to a Greek ending *-αστρον* or *-αστρος.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's been hard for me to find information about the use of *-αστρον* in Greek. Searching Perseus only turned up [20 examples of words ending in *-αστρον*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=astron&amp;lang=greek), and most of them don't look very similar in meaning to Latin forms suffixed with *-aster.* The only one that looks close to me is *[λαίμαστρον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlai%2Fmastron),* which LSJ defines as &quot;greedy beast', term of abuse&quot;: it seems to be derived from a verb *λαιμάσσω.* The results for [*-αστρος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=astros&amp;lang=greek) don't look much better: 14 nouns, of which 5 seem to be derived from *ἄστρον* &quot;star&quot; and 4 seem to be derived from *γαστήρ* &quot;belly&quot;. I also looked at words ending in [*-αστήρ*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=asthr&amp;lang=greek) (which I'm not sure is even very plausible as a candidate source of the Latin second-declension form *-aster*) and they mostly don't look too similar to Latin *-aster* words either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the exact hypothesis about how Latin is supposed to have developed a relatively productive suffix *-aster* based on some Greek ending? Or if there are other hypotheses that are currently considered plausible, please tell me about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of one alternative proposal (at least for the word *patraster*) that was criticized by Fr. Stolz in 1905: H. Ehrlich apparently tried to derive *patraster* (which he apparently supposed to have a long vowel in the penult:  *patrāster*) from *patrāvester,* but Stolz argues that the change āvĕ &gt; ā is implausible in this context (&quot;Über Angeblichen Wandel Von Lat. āvĕ Zu ā.&quot; Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen 38, no. 3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are examples of the three main usages that I know of for this suffix. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *-aster* is found at the end of some adjectives with the sense &quot;somewhat&quot;, such as *[surdaster](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsurdaster)* &quot;somewhat deaf&quot; from *surdus.* I've seen it called a diminutive suffix in this context (see e.g. this question, the answer and comments: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2885/translating-ish-and-aster-endings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It also appeared in the kinship terms *[patraster](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpatraster)* and *[filiaster](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfiliaster).* The meaning seems to be not entirely straightforward to translate into English, but it appears that these words could refer to either what in English would be called &quot;in-law&quot; relationships or what in English would be called &quot;step&quot; relationships. Wiktionary says that in Italian, &quot;[fratellastro](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fratellastro#Italian)&quot; can mean &quot;half brother&quot;. I suppose that in theory, these words could have a different origin, but the meaning does seem relatively similar (a &quot;patraster&quot; is somewhat like a &quot;pater&quot;, but somewhat different).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It appeared in some pejorative derived nouns like *[philosophaster](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=philosophaster)* &quot;a bad philosopher&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9365" RevisionGUID="70da249e-0a63-4f32-b349-69de6b1ee1ba" CreationDate="2019-03-28T21:30:51.820" UserId="9" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="It's been a bit difficult for me to find good information about the etymology of the derivational suffix *-aster.* De Vaan doesn't seem to talk about it. A number of sources indicate that it is from Greek; e.g. [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-aster#Etymology_2) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From suffix originally forming Ancient Greek nouns from verbs ending in -άζειν (-ázein).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and says that *-astrum* is an alternative form, which seems to imply that it would go back to a Greek ending *-αστρον* or *-αστρος.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's been hard for me to find information about the use of *-αστρον* in Greek. Searching Perseus only turned up [20 examples of words ending in *-αστρον*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=astron&amp;lang=greek), and most of them don't look very similar in meaning to Latin forms suffixed with *-aster.* The only one that looks close to me is *[λαίμαστρον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlai%2Fmastron),* which LSJ defines as &quot;greedy beast', term of abuse&quot;: it seems to be derived from a verb *λαιμάσσω.* The results for [*-αστρος*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=astros&amp;lang=greek) don't look much better: 14 nouns, of which 5 seem to be derived from *ἄστρον* &quot;star&quot; and 4 seem to be derived from *γαστήρ* &quot;belly&quot;. I also looked at words ending in [*-αστήρ*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=asthr&amp;lang=greek) (which I'm not sure is even very plausible as a candidate source of the Latin second-declension form *-aster*) and they mostly don't look too similar to Latin *-aster* words either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the exact hypothesis about how Latin is supposed to have developed a  suffix *-aster* based on some Greek ending? Or if there are other hypotheses that are currently considered plausible, please tell me about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of one alternative proposal (at least for the word *patraster*) that was criticized by Fr. Stolz in 1905: H. Ehrlich apparently tried to derive *patraster* (which he apparently supposed to have a long vowel in the penult:  *patrāster*) from *patrāvester,* but Stolz argues that the change āvĕ &gt; ā is implausible in this context (&quot;Über Angeblichen Wandel Von Lat. āvĕ Zu ā.&quot; Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen 38, no. 3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are examples of the three main usages that I know of for this suffix. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *-aster, -astra, -astrum* is found at the end of some adjectives with the sense &quot;somewhat&quot;, such as *[surdaster](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsurdaster)* &quot;somewhat deaf&quot; from *surdus.* I've seen it called a diminutive suffix in this context (see e.g. this question, the answer and comments: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2885/translating-ish-and-aster-endings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It also appeared in the kinship terms *[patraster](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpatraster)* and *[filiaster](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfiliaster).* The meaning seems to be not entirely straightforward to translate into English, but it appears that these words could refer to either what in English would be called &quot;in-law&quot; relationships or what in English would be called &quot;step&quot; relationships. Wiktionary says that in Italian, &quot;[fratellastro](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fratellastro#Italian)&quot; can mean &quot;half brother&quot;. I suppose that in theory, these words could have a different origin, but the meaning does seem relatively similar (a &quot;patraster&quot; is somewhat like a &quot;pater&quot;, but somewhat different).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It appeared in some pejorative derived nouns like *[philosophaster](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=philosophaster)* &quot;a bad philosopher&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9366" RevisionGUID="d6c7ae19-91a3-4276-9455-078020fb386b" CreationDate="2019-03-29T00:19:03.900" UserId="9" Text="This is just a guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Elision frequently deletes vowels that are part of &quot;grammatical&quot; endings, or sometimes part of highly &quot;grammaticalized&quot; monosyllabic words such as *est.* Grammatical endings often have a certain amount of redundancy, and they also are frequently changed between different forms of a word: e.g. the *a* at the end of *nauta* is not present in the inflected form *nautīs,* and the *um* at the end of *medium* is replaced with *ō* in the inflected form *mediōrum.* So elision often leaves unchanged the pronunciation of the most recognizable part of a word.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9367" RevisionGUID="444769d8-695f-4faf-960c-78427147bce2" CreationDate="2019-03-29T01:14:03.907" UserId="9" Text="Evidence from the Romance languages provides fairly good evidence for distinct qualities, [ɛ] vs. [eː], for ĕ and ē in stressed syllables when followed by consonant. Likewise for ŏ and ō as [ɔ] vs. [oː]. For ĭ vs. ī, the reflexes before a consonant are expected to be different not only in stressed syllables, but also in unstressed syllables for Western Romance (as /e/ vs. /i/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But before a vowel in unstressed syllables, ĕ and ĭ often develop to palatal glides or coalesce with the preceding consonant to form a palatal(ized) consonant. This has been interpreted as evidence that the short vowels ĕ ĭ ŭ may have had closer pronunciations [e i u] that were used before other vowels (vs. the opener [ɛ ɪ ʊ] that are supposed to have been used, in unstressed as well as in stressed syllables, before consonants). There is also some evidence related to the reflexes of prevocalic ĕ ĭ ŭ in stressed syllables, e.g. in disyllabic words like *via* or *meus,* but that seems a bit more complicated so I won't try to summarize it here. The pronunciation of words like that is not the subject of this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm wondering about instead is what is thought to have been the quality of short ĕ ĭ ŏ in word-final position. (I'm not asking about ŭ because there don't seem to be any words where final -ŭ is firmly established; Cser 2016 says it could conceivably have occurred in the nom/sing of neuters ending in *-u,* although he presumes that these had *-ū* (p 127)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word-final short vowels should I think occur in several phonological contexts: they might be phrase-final, or they might be followed by a consonant, or they might be followed by vowel. Elision was a definite possibility when a vowel followed, and it may even have been quite strongly favored (it was certainly frequent in poetry) but I have the impression that hiatus was not absolutely ruled out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a speaker of American English, I'm somewhat biased against word-final [ɛ ɪ ɔ]; [e i o] are more comfortable for me. My feelings have little relevance to the question of what Latin speakers did. But there are also other reasons why closer qualities for ĕ ĭ ŏ in word-final position seem plausible to me. As a rule, word-final i o are expected to be long. Final short ĭ ŏ seem to derive mainly from processes like *brevis brevians* and for some words, both a short and a long pronunciation exist (e.g. *tibi, sibi, ibi,* and too many words to list in *-o*). Final short ĕ is sometimes derived from ē (as in *bene*), but usually it isn't. However, it does often derive from lowering of word-final ĭ (e.g. in the nominative/accusative singular forms of i-stem neuters); it seems like this would necessarily have passed through a close-mid position [e] on the way to an open-mid position [ɛ], and I'm wondering whether we have any strong reasons for supposing that the vowel actually was lowered all the way to open-mid [ɛ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't recall seeing a discussion of the quality of ĕ ĭ ŏ in this context in any grammars or pedagogical texts that I have read. Allen's *Vox Latina* doesn't seem to address it (which presumably means he would give word-final ĕ ĭ ŏ the pronunciations [ɛ ɪ ɔ]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, my own research has uncovered the following piece of evidence for word-final [ĭ] having the quality [ɪ] rather than [i]: Italian has *(d)[ove](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ove#Etymology)* from Latin *(de) ubi.* I don't find this especially convincing as evidence for the pronunciation of ĕ and ŏ, though, because it seems to me that high vowel phonemes might have behaved differently from mid vowel phonemes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29169" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9367" RevisionGUID="444769d8-695f-4faf-960c-78427147bce2" CreationDate="2019-03-29T01:14:03.907" UserId="9" Text="Quality of final ĕ ĭ ŏ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29170" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9367" RevisionGUID="444769d8-695f-4faf-960c-78427147bce2" CreationDate="2019-03-29T01:14:03.907" UserId="9" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|vowel-quantity|vowel|phonetics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9367" RevisionGUID="6f02d576-a5e6-44fc-a346-80565159a40a" CreationDate="2019-03-29T01:28:29.500" UserId="9" Comment="added 338 characters in body" Text="Evidence from the Romance languages provides fairly good evidence for distinct qualities, [ɛ] vs. [eː], for ĕ and ē in stressed syllables when followed by consonant. Likewise for ŏ and ō as [ɔ] vs. [oː]. For ĭ vs. ī, the reflexes before a consonant are expected to be different not only in stressed syllables, but also in unstressed syllables for Western Romance (as /e/ vs. /i/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But before a vowel in unstressed syllables, ĕ and ĭ often develop to palatal glides or coalesce with the preceding consonant to form a palatal(ized) consonant. This has been interpreted as evidence that the short vowels ĕ ĭ ŭ may have had closer pronunciations [e i u] that were used before other vowels (vs. the opener [ɛ ɪ ʊ] that are supposed to have been used, in unstressed as well as in stressed syllables, before consonants). There is also some evidence related to the reflexes of prevocalic ĕ ĭ ŭ in stressed syllables, e.g. in disyllabic words like *via* or *meus,* but that seems a bit more complicated so I won't try to summarize it here. The pronunciation of words like that is not the subject of this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm wondering about instead is what is thought to have been the quality of short ĕ ĭ ŏ in word-final position. (I'm not asking about ŭ because there don't seem to be any words where final -ŭ is firmly established; Cser 2016 says it could conceivably have occurred in the nom/sing of neuters ending in *-u,* although he presumes that these had *-ū* (p 127)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word-final short vowels should I think occur in several phonological contexts: they might be phrase-final, or they might be followed by a consonant, or they might be followed by vowel. Elision was a definite possibility when a vowel followed, and it may even have been quite strongly favored (it was certainly frequent in poetry) but I have the impression that hiatus was not absolutely ruled out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a speaker of American English, I'm somewhat biased against word-final [ɛ ɪ ɔ]; [e i o] are more comfortable for me. My feelings have little relevance to the question of what Latin speakers did. But there are also other reasons why closer qualities for ĕ ĭ ŏ in word-final position seem plausible to me. As a rule, word-final i o are expected to be long. Final short ĭ ŏ seem to derive mainly from processes like *brevis brevians* and for some words, both a short and a long pronunciation exist (e.g. *tibi, sibi, ibi,* and too many words to list in *-o*). Final short ĕ is sometimes derived from ē (as in *bene*), but usually it isn't. However, it does often derive from lowering of word-final ĭ (e.g. in the nominative/accusative singular forms of i-stem neuters); it seems like this would necessarily have passed through a close-mid position [e] on the way to an open-mid position [ɛ], and I'm wondering whether we have any strong reasons for supposing that the vowel actually was lowered all the way to open-mid [ɛ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't recall seeing a discussion of the quality of ĕ ĭ ŏ in this context in any grammars or pedagogical texts that I have read. Allen's *Vox Latina* doesn't seem to address it (which presumably means he would give word-final ĕ ĭ ŏ the pronunciations [ɛ ɪ ɔ]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, my own research has uncovered the following piece of evidence for word-final ĭ having the quality [ɪ] rather than [i]: Italian has *(d)[ove](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ove#Etymology)* from Latin *(de) ubi.* I don't find this especially convincing as evidence for the pronunciation of ĕ and ŏ, though, because it seems to me that high vowel phonemes might have behaved differently from mid vowel phonemes. It could be somewhat indirect evidence against word-final ĕ being [e], in that if word-final ĭ and ĕ were [ɪ] and [e] respectively, they would be extremely similar in quality, and we might expect them to be conflated in spelling more often than they actually are (I don't actually know what the evidence from E vs. I spellings is, though). So I guess ŏ is the vowel for which it seems most plausible to me that the quality would be closer in word-final position than in word-internal position." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9366" RevisionGUID="80e5daad-ca56-4fba-bb81-8335ec4abf38" CreationDate="2019-03-29T03:19:10.950" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="This is just a guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Elision frequently deletes vowels that are part of grammatical endings, or sometimes part of highly grammaticalized monosyllabic words such as *est.* Grammatical endings often have a certain amount of redundancy, and they also are frequently changed between different forms of a word: e.g. the *a* at the end of *nauta* is not present in the inflected form *nautīs,* and the *um* at the end of *medium* is replaced with *ō* in the inflected form *mediōrum.* So elision often leaves unchanged the pronunciation of the most recognizable part of a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9366" RevisionGUID="d52faa27-0bc8-43a7-900c-d2cb8a0a6744" CreationDate="2019-03-29T03:37:24.010" UserId="9" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="This is just a guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Elision frequently deletes vowels that are part of grammatical endings, or sometimes part of highly grammaticalized monosyllabic words such as *est.* Grammatical endings often have a certain amount of redundancy, and they also are frequently changed between different forms of a word: e.g. the *a* at the end of *nauta* is not present in the inflected form *nautīs,* and the *um* at the end of *medium* is replaced with *ō* in the inflected form *mediōrum.* So elision often leaves unchanged the pronunciation of the most recognizable part of a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the context, synizesis might not do that (I'm not sure about that though, so this isn't a complete answer at all.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9368" RevisionGUID="84973576-b224-4d1b-b438-00e9af744a18" CreationDate="2019-03-29T03:41:40.360" UserId="9" Text="Synizesis of *ee* (presumably with the result [eː]) is supposed to occur in forms of the verb *deesse.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Evidence from poetry indicates that those imperfective forms of deesse ‘be missing, absent’ where the stem begins with [e] are contracted even if the writing does not normally indicate it (i.e. deesse INF, deerat 3SINGPASTIMPF etc. are disyllabic, deest 3SINGPRESIMPF is monosyllabic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Andras Cser, [&quot;Aspects of the Phonology and Morphology of Classical Latin&quot;](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf), 2016, p.147)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9368" RevisionGUID="a608cc15-96c9-4e58-adaa-722d8c9940ab" CreationDate="2019-03-29T03:47:20.097" UserId="9" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="Synizesis of *ee* (presumably with the result [eː]) is supposed to occur in forms of the verb *deesse.* This seems comparable to the contraction seen in words like *dēbeo* or *dēmo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Evidence from poetry indicates that those imperfective forms of deesse ‘be missing, absent’ where the stem begins with [e] are contracted even if the writing does not normally indicate it (i.e. deesse INF, deerat 3SINGPASTIMPF etc. are disyllabic, deest 3SINGPRESIMPF is monosyllabic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Andras Cser, [&quot;Aspects of the Phonology and Morphology of Classical Latin&quot;](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf), 2016, p.147)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9367" RevisionGUID="ac8b83d1-29af-4e57-9b9e-912b1d8dbb00" CreationDate="2019-03-29T05:41:30.440" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Evidence from the Romance languages provides fairly good evidence for distinct qualities, [ɛ] vs. [eː], for ĕ and ē in stressed syllables when followed by consonant. Likewise for ŏ and ō as [ɔ] vs. [oː]. For ĭ vs. ī, the reflexes before a consonant are expected to be different not only in stressed syllables, but also in unstressed syllables for Western Romance (as /e/ vs. /i/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But before a vowel in unstressed syllables, ĕ and ĭ often develop to palatal glides or coalesce with the preceding consonant to form a palatal(ized) consonant. This has been interpreted as evidence that the short vowels ĕ ĭ ŭ may have had closer pronunciations [e i u] that were used before other vowels (vs. the opener [ɛ ɪ ʊ] that are supposed to have been used, in unstressed as well as in stressed syllables, before consonants). There is also some evidence related to the reflexes of prevocalic ĕ ĭ ŭ in stressed syllables, e.g. in disyllabic words like *via* or *meus,* but that seems a bit more complicated so I won't try to summarize it here. The pronunciation of words like that is not the subject of this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm wondering about instead is what is thought to have been the quality of short ĕ ĭ ŏ in word-final position. (I'm not asking about ŭ because there don't seem to be any words where final -ŭ is firmly established; Cser 2016 says it could conceivably have occurred in the nom/acc sing of neuters ending in *-u,* but he presumes that these had *-ū* (p 127)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that word-final short vowels occur in several phonological contexts: they might be phrase-final, or they might be followed by a consonant, or they might be followed by vowel. Elision was a definite possibility when a vowel followed, and it may even have been quite strongly favored (it was certainly frequent in poetry) but I have the impression that hiatus was not absolutely ruled out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a speaker of American English, I'm somewhat biased against word-final [ɛ ɪ ɔ]; [e i o] are more comfortable for me. My feelings have little relevance to the question of what Latin speakers did. But there are also other reasons why closer qualities for ĕ ĭ ŏ in word-final position seem plausible to me. As a rule, word-final i o are expected to be long. Final short ĭ ŏ seem to derive mainly from processes like *brevis brevians* and for some words, both a short and a long pronunciation exist (e.g. *tibi, sibi, ibi,* and too many words to list in *-o*). Final short ĕ is sometimes derived from ē (as in *bene*), but usually it isn't. However, it does often derive from lowering of word-final ĭ (e.g. in the nominative/accusative singular forms of i-stem neuters); it seems like this would necessarily have passed through a close-mid position [e] on the way to an open-mid position [ɛ], and I'm wondering whether we have any strong reasons for supposing that the vowel actually was lowered all the way to open-mid [ɛ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't recall seeing a discussion of the quality of ĕ ĭ ŏ in this context in any grammars or pedagogical texts that I have read. Allen's *Vox Latina* doesn't seem to address it (which presumably means he would give word-final ĕ ĭ ŏ the pronunciations [ɛ ɪ ɔ]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, my own research has uncovered the following piece of evidence for word-final ĭ having the quality [ɪ] rather than [i]: Italian has *(d)[ove](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ove#Etymology)* from Latin *(de) ubi.* I don't find this especially convincing as evidence for the pronunciation of ĕ and ŏ, though, because it seems to me that high vowel phonemes might have behaved differently from mid vowel phonemes. It could be somewhat indirect evidence against word-final ĕ being [e], in that if word-final ĭ and ĕ were [ɪ] and [e] respectively, they would be extremely similar in quality, and we might expect them to be conflated in spelling more often than they actually are (I don't actually know what the evidence from E vs. I spellings is, though). So I guess ŏ is the vowel for which it seems most plausible to me that the quality would be closer in word-final position than in word-internal position." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9367" RevisionGUID="e44eadb3-4d5c-493b-a531-968ad4b91595" CreationDate="2019-03-29T08:08:53.627" UserId="9" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="Evidence from the Romance languages provides fairly good evidence for distinct qualities, [ɛ] vs. [eː], for ĕ and ē in stressed syllables when followed by a consonant. Likewise for ŏ and ō as [ɔ] vs. [oː]. For ĭ vs. ī, the reflexes before a consonant are expected to be different not only in stressed syllables, but also in unstressed syllables for Western Romance (as *e vs. *i, reconstructed as going back to Latin [ɪ] vs. [iː]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But before a vowel in unstressed syllables, ĕ and ĭ often develop to palatal glides or coalesce with the preceding consonant to form a palatal(ized) consonant. This has been interpreted as evidence that the short vowels ĕ ĭ ŭ may have had closer pronunciations [e i u] that were used before other vowels (vs. the opener [ɛ ɪ ʊ] that are supposed to have been used, in unstressed as well as in stressed syllables, before consonants). There is also some evidence related to the reflexes of prevocalic ĕ ĭ ŭ in stressed syllables, e.g. in disyllabic words like *via* or *meus,* but that seems a bit more complicated so I won't try to summarize it here. The pronunciation of words like that is not the subject of this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm wondering about instead is what is thought to have been the quality of short ĕ ĭ ŏ in word-final position. (I'm not asking about ŭ because there don't seem to be any words where final -ŭ is firmly established; Cser 2016 says it could conceivably have occurred in the nom/acc sing of neuters ending in *-u,* but he presumes that these had *-ū* (p 127)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that word-final short vowels occur in several phonological contexts: they might be phrase-final, or they might be followed by a consonant, or they might be followed by vowel. Elision was a definite possibility when a vowel followed, and it may even have been quite strongly favored (it was certainly frequent in poetry) but I have the impression that hiatus was not absolutely ruled out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a speaker of American English, I'm somewhat biased against word-final [ɛ ɪ ɔ]; [e i o] are more comfortable for me. My feelings have little relevance to the question of what Latin speakers did. But there are also other reasons why closer qualities for ĕ ĭ ŏ in word-final position seem plausible to me. As a rule, word-final i o are expected to be long. Final short ĭ ŏ seem to derive mainly from processes like *brevis brevians* and for some words, both a short and a long pronunciation exist (e.g. *tibi, sibi, ibi,* and too many words to list in *-o*). Final short ĕ is sometimes derived from ē (as in *bene*), but usually it isn't. However, it does often derive from lowering of word-final ĭ (e.g. in the nominative/accusative singular forms of i-stem neuters); it seems like this would necessarily have passed through a close-mid position [e] on the way to an open-mid position [ɛ], and I'm wondering whether we have any strong reasons for supposing that the vowel actually was lowered all the way to open-mid [ɛ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't recall seeing a discussion of the quality of ĕ ĭ ŏ in this context in any grammars or pedagogical texts that I have read. Allen's *Vox Latina* doesn't seem to address it (which presumably means he would give word-final ĕ ĭ ŏ the pronunciations [ɛ ɪ ɔ]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, my own research has uncovered the following piece of evidence for word-final ĭ having the quality [ɪ] rather than [i]: Italian has *(d)[ove](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ove#Etymology)* from Latin *(de) ubi.* I don't find this especially convincing as evidence for the pronunciation of ĕ and ŏ, though, because it seems to me that high vowel phonemes might have behaved differently from mid vowel phonemes. It could be somewhat indirect evidence against word-final ĕ being [e], in that if word-final ĭ and ĕ were [ɪ] and [e] respectively, they would be extremely similar in quality, and we might expect them to be conflated in spelling more often than they actually are (I don't actually know what the evidence from E vs. I spellings is, though). So I guess ŏ is the vowel for which it seems most plausible to me that the quality would be closer in word-final position than in word-internal position." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9367" RevisionGUID="cb78c978-4532-4b5a-a13a-6e75abd5c3b8" CreationDate="2019-03-29T08:45:38.853" UserId="9" Comment="added 314 characters in body" Text="Evidence from the Romance languages provides fairly good evidence for distinct qualities, [ɛ] vs. [eː], for ĕ and ē in stressed syllables when followed by a consonant. Likewise for ŏ and ō as [ɔ] vs. [oː]. For ĭ vs. ī, the reflexes before a consonant are expected to be different not only in stressed syllables, but also in unstressed syllables for Western Romance (as *e vs. *i, reconstructed as going back to Latin [ɪ] vs. [iː]—although apparently there are some further complications in pre-tonic position for some languages, such as Italian, according to [Unbrutual_Russian's comment on this Reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/95yxez/vowel_pronunciation_beyond_allens_vox_latina/e3xdt0t?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=web2x)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But before a vowel in unstressed syllables, ĕ and ĭ often develop to palatal glides or coalesce with the preceding consonant to form a palatal(ized) consonant. This has been interpreted as evidence that the short vowels ĕ ĭ ŭ may have had closer pronunciations [e i u] that were used before other vowels (vs. the opener [ɛ ɪ ʊ] that are supposed to have been used, in unstressed as well as in stressed syllables, before consonants). There is also some evidence related to the reflexes of prevocalic ĕ ĭ ŭ in stressed syllables, e.g. in disyllabic words like *via* or *meus,* but that seems a bit more complicated so I won't try to summarize it here. The pronunciation of words like that is not the subject of this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm wondering about instead is what is thought to have been the quality of short ĕ ĭ ŏ in word-final position. (I'm not asking about ŭ because there don't seem to be any words where final -ŭ is firmly established; Cser 2016 says it could conceivably have occurred in the nom/acc sing of neuters ending in *-u,* but he presumes that these had *-ū* (p 127)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that word-final short vowels occur in several phonological contexts: they might be phrase-final, or they might be followed by a consonant, or they might be followed by vowel. Elision was a definite possibility when a vowel followed, and it may even have been quite strongly favored (it was certainly frequent in poetry) but I have the impression that hiatus was not absolutely ruled out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a speaker of American English, I'm somewhat biased against word-final [ɛ ɪ ɔ]; [e i o] are more comfortable for me. My feelings have little relevance to the question of what Latin speakers did. But there are also other reasons why closer qualities for ĕ ĭ ŏ in word-final position seem plausible to me. As a rule, word-final i o are expected to be long. Final short ĭ ŏ seem to derive mainly from processes like *brevis brevians* and for some words, both a short and a long pronunciation exist (e.g. *tibi, sibi, ibi,* and too many words to list in *-o*). Final short ĕ is sometimes derived from ē (as in *bene*), but usually it isn't. However, it does often derive from lowering of word-final ĭ (e.g. in the nominative/accusative singular forms of i-stem neuters); it seems like this would necessarily have passed through a close-mid position [e] on the way to an open-mid position [ɛ], and I'm wondering whether we have any strong reasons for supposing that the vowel actually was lowered all the way to open-mid [ɛ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't recall seeing a discussion of the quality of ĕ ĭ ŏ in this context in any grammars or pedagogical texts that I have read. Allen's *Vox Latina* doesn't seem to address it (which presumably means Allen would give word-final ĕ ĭ ŏ the pronunciations [ɛ ɪ ɔ]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, my own research has uncovered the following piece of evidence for word-final ĭ having the quality [ɪ] rather than [i]: Italian has *(d)[ove](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ove#Etymology)* from Latin *(de) ubi.* I don't find this especially convincing as evidence for the pronunciation of ĕ and ŏ, though, because it seems to me that high vowel phonemes might have behaved differently from mid vowel phonemes. It could be somewhat indirect evidence against word-final ĕ being [e], in that if word-final ĭ and ĕ were [ɪ] and [e] respectively, they would be extremely similar in quality, and we might expect them to be conflated in spelling more often than they actually are (I don't actually know what the evidence from E vs. I spellings is, though). So I guess ŏ is the vowel for which it seems most plausible to me that the quality would be closer in word-final position than in word-internal position." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9367" RevisionGUID="6ea84fd2-2c7f-46e1-bea6-4273bcd89823" CreationDate="2019-03-29T08:55:39.447" UserId="9" Comment="added 202 characters in body" Text="Evidence from the Romance languages provides fairly good evidence for distinct qualities, [ɛ] vs. [eː], for ĕ and ē in stressed syllables when followed by a consonant. Likewise for ŏ and ō as [ɔ] vs. [oː]. For ĭ vs. ī, the reflexes before a consonant are expected to be different not only in stressed syllables, but also in unstressed syllables for Western Romance (as *e vs. *i, reconstructed as going back to Latin [ɪ] vs. [iː]—although apparently there are some further complications in pre-tonic position for some languages, such as Italian, according to [Unbrutual_Russian's comment on this Reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/95yxez/vowel_pronunciation_beyond_allens_vox_latina/e3xdt0t?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=web2x)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But before a vowel in unstressed syllables, ĕ and ĭ often develop to palatal glides or coalesce with the preceding consonant to form a palatal(ized) consonant. This has been interpreted as evidence that the short vowels ĕ ĭ ŭ may have had closer pronunciations [e i u] that were used before other vowels (vs. the opener [ɛ ɪ ʊ] that are supposed to have been used, in unstressed as well as in stressed syllables, before consonants). There is also some evidence related to the reflexes of prevocalic ĕ ĭ ŭ in stressed syllables, e.g. in disyllabic words like *via* or *meus,* but that seems a bit more complicated so I won't try to summarize it here. The pronunciation of words like that is not the subject of this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm wondering about instead is what is thought to have been the quality of short ĕ ĭ ŏ in word-final position. (I'm not asking about ŭ because there don't seem to be any words where final -ŭ is firmly established; Cser 2016 says it could conceivably have occurred in the nom/acc sing of neuters ending in *-u,* but he presumes that these had *-ū* (p 127)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that word-final short vowels occur in several phonological contexts: they might be phrase-final, or they might be followed by a consonant, or they might be followed by vowel. Elision was a definite possibility when a vowel followed, and it may even have been quite strongly favored (it was certainly frequent in poetry) but I have the impression that hiatus was not absolutely ruled out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a speaker of American English, I'm somewhat biased against word-final [ɛ ɪ ɔ]; [e i o] are more comfortable for me. My feelings have little relevance to the question of what Latin speakers did. But there are also other reasons why closer qualities for ĕ ĭ ŏ in word-final position seem plausible to me. As a rule, word-final i o are expected to be long. Final short ĭ ŏ seem to derive mainly from processes like *brevis brevians* and for some words, both a short and a long pronunciation exist (e.g. *tibi, sibi, ibi,* and too many words to list in *-o*). Final short ĕ is sometimes derived from ē (as in *bene*), but usually it isn't. However, it does often derive from lowering of word-final ĭ (e.g. in the nominative/accusative singular forms of i-stem neuters); it seems like this would necessarily have passed through a close-mid position [e] on the way to an open-mid position [ɛ], and I'm wondering whether we have any strong reasons for supposing that the vowel actually was lowered all the way to open-mid [ɛ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't recall seeing a discussion of the quality of ĕ ĭ ŏ in this context in any grammars or pedagogical texts that I have read. Allen's *Vox Latina* doesn't seem to address it (which presumably means Allen would give word-final ĕ ĭ ŏ the pronunciations [ɛ ɪ ɔ]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Evidence I've found for an opened quality for word-final ĭ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, my own research has uncovered the following piece of evidence for word-final ĭ having the quality [ɪ] rather than [i]: Italian has *(d)[ove](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ove#Etymology)* from Latin *(de) ubi.* I don't find this especially convincing as evidence for the pronunciation of ĕ and ŏ, though, because it seems to me that high vowel phonemes might have behaved differently from mid vowel phonemes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be somewhat indirect evidence against word-final ĕ being [e], in that if word-final ĭ and ĕ were [ɪ] and [e] respectively, they would be extremely similar in quality, and we might expect them to be conflated in spelling more often than they actually are (I don't actually know what the evidence from E vs. I spellings is, though: an *e* spelling does seem to be attested for *ubi,* but I'm not sure whether *i* spellings are attested for words ending in -ĕ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I guess ŏ is the vowel for which it seems most plausible to me that the quality would be closer in word-final position than in word-internal position." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9367" RevisionGUID="11000fd8-183e-40e9-9944-46c6e40088da" CreationDate="2019-03-29T09:17:34.720" UserId="9" Comment="added 631 characters in body" Text="Evidence from the Romance languages provides fairly good evidence for distinct qualities, [ɛ] vs. [eː], for ĕ and ē in stressed syllables when followed by a consonant. Likewise for ŏ and ō as [ɔ] vs. [oː]. For ĭ vs. ī, the reflexes before a consonant are expected to be different not only in stressed syllables, but also in unstressed syllables for Western Romance (as *e vs. *i, reconstructed as going back to Latin [ɪ] vs. [iː]—although apparently there are some further complications in pre-tonic position for some languages, such as Italian, according to [Unbrutual_Russian's comment on this Reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/95yxez/vowel_pronunciation_beyond_allens_vox_latina/e3xdt0t?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=web2x)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But before a vowel in unstressed syllables, ĕ and ĭ often develop to palatal glides or coalesce with the preceding consonant to form a palatal(ized) consonant. This has been interpreted as evidence that the short vowels ĕ ĭ ŭ may have had closer pronunciations [e i u] that were used before other vowels (vs. the opener [ɛ ɪ ʊ] that are supposed to have been used, in unstressed as well as in stressed syllables, before consonants). There is also some evidence related to the reflexes of prevocalic ĕ ĭ ŭ in stressed syllables, e.g. in disyllabic words like *via* or *meus,* but that seems a bit more complicated so I won't try to summarize it here. The pronunciation of words like that is not the subject of this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm wondering about instead is what is thought to have been the quality of short ĕ ĭ ŏ in word-final position. (I'm not asking about ŭ because there don't seem to be any words where final -ŭ is firmly established; Cser 2016 says it could conceivably have occurred in the nom/acc sing of neuters ending in *-u,* but he presumes that these had *-ū* (p 127)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that word-final short vowels occur in several phonological contexts: they might be phrase-final, or they might be followed by a consonant, or they might be followed by vowel. Elision was a definite possibility when a vowel followed, and it may even have been quite strongly favored (it was certainly frequent in poetry) but I have the impression that hiatus was not absolutely ruled out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a speaker of American English, I'm somewhat biased against word-final [ɛ ɪ ɔ]; [e i o] are more comfortable for me. My feelings have little relevance to the question of what Latin speakers did. But there are also other reasons why closer qualities for ĕ ĭ ŏ in word-final position seem plausible to me. As a rule, word-final i o are expected to be long. Final short ĭ ŏ seem to derive mainly from processes like *brevis brevians* and for some words, both a short and a long pronunciation exist (e.g. *tibi, sibi, ibi,* and too many words to list in *-o*). Final short ĕ is sometimes derived from ē (as in *bene*), but usually it isn't. However, it does often derive from lowering of word-final ĭ (e.g. in the nominative/accusative singular forms of i-stem neuters); it seems like this would necessarily have passed through a close-mid position [e] on the way to an open-mid position [ɛ], and I'm wondering whether we have any strong reasons for supposing that the vowel actually was lowered all the way to open-mid [ɛ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't recall seeing a discussion of the quality of ĕ ĭ ŏ in this context in any grammars or pedagogical texts that I have read. Allen's *Vox Latina* doesn't seem to address it (which presumably means Allen would give word-final ĕ ĭ ŏ the pronunciations [ɛ ɪ ɔ]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Evidence I've found for an opened quality for word-final ĭ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, my own research has uncovered the following piece of evidence for word-final ĭ having the quality [ɪ] rather than [i]: Italian has *(d)[ove](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ove#Etymology)* from Latin *(de) ubi.* I don't find this especially convincing as evidence for the pronunciation of ĕ and ŏ, though, because it seems to me that high vowel phonemes might have behaved differently from mid vowel phonemes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be somewhat indirect evidence against word-final ĕ being [e], in that if word-final ĭ and ĕ were [ɪ] and [e] respectively, they would be extremely similar in quality, and we might expect them to be conflated in spelling more often than they actually are (I don't actually know what the evidence from E vs. I spellings is, though: an *e* spelling does seem to be attested for *ubi,* but I'm not sure whether *i* spellings are attested for words ending in -ĕ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I guess ŏ is the vowel for which it seems most plausible to me that the quality would be closer in word-final position than in word-internal position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###For the purposes of this question, assume more than 5 vowel qualities existed &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that some sources disagree with Allen's description and instead say that Classical Latin, or Latin in certain periods during/around the Classical era, had only 5 phonetic vowel qualities corresponding to the 5 phonemic vowel qualities (e.g. Andrea Calabrese's proposal of [ɑ ɛ i ɔ u], mentioned in the Reddit thread I linked to in the first paragraph). Obviously my question would have a very simple answer in a 5-qualities system, so for this question, I'm only interested in answers that postulate systems with more than 5 notably distinct phonetic vowel qualities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9367" RevisionGUID="cbd7efd7-da0f-4f13-8f48-da98d78c80c2" CreationDate="2019-03-29T09:24:29.273" UserId="9" Comment="added 631 characters in body" Text="Evidence from the Romance languages provides fairly good evidence for distinct qualities, [ɛ] vs. [eː], for ĕ and ē in stressed syllables when followed by a consonant. Likewise for ŏ and ō as [ɔ] vs. [oː]. For ĭ vs. ī, the reflexes before a consonant are expected to be different not only in stressed syllables, but also in unstressed syllables for Western Romance (as *e vs. *i, reconstructed as going back to Latin [ɪ] vs. [iː]—although apparently there are some further complications in pre-tonic position for some languages, such as Italian, according to [Unbrutual_Russian's comment on this Reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/95yxez/vowel_pronunciation_beyond_allens_vox_latina/e3xdt0t?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=web2x)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But before a vowel in unstressed syllables, ĕ and ĭ often develop to palatal glides or coalesce with the preceding consonant to form a palatal(ized) consonant. This has been interpreted as evidence that the short vowels ĕ ĭ ŭ may have had closer pronunciations [e i u] that were used before other vowels (vs. the opener [ɛ ɪ ʊ] that are supposed to have been used, in unstressed as well as in stressed syllables, before consonants). There is also some evidence related to the reflexes of prevocalic ĕ ĭ ŭ in stressed syllables, e.g. in disyllabic words like *via* or *meus,* but that seems a bit more complicated so I won't try to summarize it here. The pronunciation of words like that is not the subject of this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm wondering about instead is what is thought to have been the quality of short ĕ ĭ ŏ in word-final position. (I'm not asking about ŭ because there don't seem to be any words where final -ŭ is firmly established; Cser 2016 says it could conceivably have occurred in the nom/acc sing of neuters ending in *-u,* but he presumes that these had *-ū* (p 127)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that word-final short vowels occur in several phonological contexts: they might be phrase-final, or they might be followed by a consonant, or they might be followed by vowel. Elision was a definite possibility when a vowel followed, and it may even have been quite strongly favored (it was certainly frequent in poetry) but I have the impression that hiatus was not absolutely ruled out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a speaker of American English, I'm somewhat biased against word-final [ɛ ɪ ɔ]; [e i o] are more comfortable for me. My feelings have little relevance to the question of what Latin speakers did. But there are also other reasons why closer qualities for ĕ ĭ ŏ in word-final position seem plausible to me. As a rule, word-final i o are expected to be long. Final short ĭ ŏ seem to derive mainly from processes like *brevis brevians* and for some words, both a short and a long pronunciation exist (e.g. *tibi, sibi, ibi,* and too many words to list in *-o*). Final short ĕ is sometimes derived from ē (as in *bene*), but usually it isn't. However, it does often derive from lowering of word-final ĭ (e.g. in the nominative/accusative singular forms of i-stem neuters); it seems like this would necessarily have passed through a close-mid position [e] on the way to an open-mid position [ɛ], and I'm wondering whether we have any strong reasons for supposing that the vowel actually was lowered all the way to open-mid [ɛ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't recall seeing a discussion of the quality of ĕ ĭ ŏ in this context in any grammars or pedagogical texts that I have read. Allen's *Vox Latina* doesn't seem to address it (which presumably means Allen would give word-final ĕ ĭ ŏ the pronunciations [ɛ ɪ ɔ]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Evidence I've found for an opened quality for word-final ĭ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, my own research has uncovered the following piece of evidence for word-final ĭ having the quality [ɪ] rather than [i]: Italian has *(d)[ove](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ove#Etymology)* from Latin *(de) ubi.* I don't find this especially convincing as evidence for the pronunciation of ĕ and ŏ, though, because it seems to me that high vowel phonemes might have behaved differently from mid vowel phonemes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be somewhat indirect evidence against word-final ĕ being [e], in that if word-final ĭ and ĕ were [ɪ] and [e] respectively, they would be extremely similar in quality, and we might expect them to be conflated in spelling more often than they actually are (I don't actually know what the evidence from E vs. I spellings is, though: an *e* spelling does seem to be attested for *ubi,* but I'm not sure whether *i* spellings are attested for words ending in -ĕ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I guess ŏ is the vowel for which it seems most plausible to me that the quality would be closer in word-final position than in word-internal position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###For the purposes of this question, assume more than 5 vowel qualities existed &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that some sources disagree with Allen's description and instead say that Classical Latin, or Latin in certain periods during/around the Classical era, had only 5 phonetic vowel qualities corresponding to the 5 phonemic vowel qualities (e.g. Andrea Calabrese's proposal of [ɑ ɛ i ɔ u], mentioned in the Reddit thread I linked to in the first paragraph). My question would obviously have a trivial answer in a 5-qualities system, so I'm only interested in answers that accept the hypothesis that we can meaningfully speak of more than 5 phonetic vowel qualities for Classical Latin vowels." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9279" RevisionGUID="14e3408a-aadd-4026-9105-86888b490248" CreationDate="2019-03-29T13:13:25.660" UserId="3567" Comment="noster -&gt; nostrum" Text="I would like to translate the sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ignorance and the hubris (arrogance) of our adversaries is our biggest asset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;into Latin. Google translations do not seem to be entirely correct and I want to have it perfect. My rusty knowledge of Latin is from almost 30 years ago :-) Let me tweak it to these two versions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ignorantia et superbia adversariorum maximum commodum nostrum est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ignorantia et superbia adversariorum, hic nostrum commodum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first version I am not sure if it is better to omit the &quot;est&quot; at the end. The second is a bit more loosely translated, but seems to be a bit more catchy. But is it correct, too?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any comments from the experts are highly welcome. Thanks! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Apart from that, since I am not a native English speaker, I am not sure if it's actually, &quot;The ignorance and the hubris (arrogance) of our adversaries are our biggest assets.&quot; And this would also be reflected in the Latin sentence!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9369" RevisionGUID="3b4296cf-54d8-4349-828e-09c551b73d85" CreationDate="2019-03-29T19:22:25.890" UserId="30" Text="Your first option would seem to be OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your second one should probably have *hoc nostrum commodum* (neuter *hoc*) or *haec nostra commoda* (neuter plural). *Hoc/haec* would be the subject of the clause and should hence agree with the subject complement *commodum/commoda*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few more suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ignorantia superbiaque adversorum nobis maxime prosunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;We benefit the most from the ignorance and arrogance of our adversaries.&quot; *Adversorum* is shorter and means the same thing. Using *-que* is common with parallel words. *[Prosum][1]* has just the right meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; prō-sum, fŭi, prōdesse, v. n., *to be useful* or *of use*, *to do good, benefit, profit*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ignorantia superbiaque adversorum, ecce arma nostra acerrima.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The ignorance and arrogance of our adversaries, (behold) [these are] our sharpest/finest weapons.&quot; The metaphor of *arma* for &quot;tools/means&quot; is common enough in classical Latin (as in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... potestas maxima.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot; ... greatest strength/power.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9369" RevisionGUID="49e341d5-e07c-4a6e-b4cc-af0e05104d60" CreationDate="2019-03-29T19:27:58.247" UserId="30" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="Your first option would seem to be OK, except that I would read the beginning as the subject, whence *sunt*. The verb is indeed somewhat optional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your second one should probably have *hoc nostrum commodum* (neuter *hoc*) or *haec nostra commoda* (neuter plural). *Hoc/haec* would be the subject of the clause and should hence agree with the subject complement *commodum/commoda*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few more suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ignorantia superbiaque adversorum nobis maxime prosunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;We benefit the most from the ignorance and arrogance of our adversaries.&quot; *Adversorum* is shorter and means the same thing. Using *-que* is common with parallel words. *[Prosum][1]* has just the right meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; prō-sum, fŭi, prōdesse, v. n., *to be useful* or *of use*, *to do good, benefit, profit*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ignorantia superbiaque adversorum, ecce arma nostra acerrima.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The ignorance and arrogance of our adversaries, (behold) [these are] our sharpest/finest weapons.&quot; The metaphor of *arma* for &quot;tools/means&quot; is common enough in classical Latin (as in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... potestas maxima.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot; ... greatest strength/power.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;You could combine elements from different suggestions to make your own version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=prosum%231&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9370" RevisionGUID="3195b387-3fba-4aaa-9521-becb351bb03a" CreationDate="2019-03-29T20:24:29.853" UserId="3248" Text="In many textbooks of Latin grammar it is often noted that, besides the typical periphrastic modal passive (e.g., _Caesari omnia erant agenda_), Gerundives can also be used **predicatively**, typically in agreement with the direct object of transitive verbs such as _do, trado, mitto, peto, curo, relinquo, suscipio,_ etc.  Some examples extracted from Woodcock’s (1959) “A New Latin Syntax” follow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Diviti homini id aurum servandum dedit_ (Pl. _Bacch_. 338)&#xD;&#xA;‘He gave that gold to a rich man to keep’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ibi agrum de nostro patre colendum habebat_ (Ter. _Phorm_. 305)&#xD;&#xA;‘He had there a piece of land from my father to farm’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Caesar pontem in Arare faciendum curat_ (Caes. _BG_ 1, 13,1).&#xD;&#xA;‘Caesar arranged for the building of a bridge over the Arar’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Epaminondam pecunia corrumpendum suscepit_ (Nep. 15,4,1) &#xD;&#xA;‘He undertook the bribing of Epaminondas with money’.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his (1990: 145) _Latin syntax and semantics_ book, Pinkster also deals with this use but only gives the two following examples of Gerundive used as 'Praedicativum': &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Populus Romanus consuli potius Crasso quam privato Africano bellum gerendum dedit_ (Cic. _Phil._ 11.18)&#xD;&#xA;‘The Roman people preferred the consul C. to the private person A. as their leader in the war’ (Pinkster’s translation). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Domos nostras et patriam ipsam vel diripiendam vel inflammandam reliquimus_ (Cic. _Fam._ 16.12.1)&#xD;&#xA;‘We have left our homes and our very fatherland to be destroyed or set on fire’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted above, many textbooks of Latin syntax mention this predicative use of Gerundives and, in fact, the list of verbs is very similar if not the same (e.g., _do, trado, mitto_, etc). However, when commenting on this typical section, no author appears to point out that at least TWO syntactic types of predicative use of Gerundives should be differentiated: the one where the Gerundive is an optional adjunct/modifier (e.g., _Diviti homini id aurum servandum dedit_) and the one where the Gerundive behaves like in a so-called “dominant” participle construction (aka _ab urbe condita_ construction), like _Epaminondam pecunia corrumpendum suscepit_. **Are there other types of predicative Gerundives to be distinguished? In my opinion, _two_ basic types must be distinguished but perhaps other finer distinctions should be made. Any thoughts?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps my bipartite syntactic distinction above is superfluous… In fact, I recognize that it is not always easy to see if the predicative Gerundive is optional (it is an adjunct) or rather behaves like a dominant participle. For example, in my view, Pinkster’s first example above is better to be interpreted as a dominant participle construction, whereby I do prefer Lavency’s (1987: 193) French translation as the typical one of a Latin dominant participle, i.e., via a deverbal nominalization: ‘Le peuple romain confia à Crassus **la conduite de la guerre**’ (bold mine). Extr. from his famous VSVS textbook. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some of you will tell me that I'm too much influenced by the translation(s) and that the alleged parallelism between predicative Gerundives with so-called &quot;dominant&quot; participles does not hold in Latin. Well, I think that this possible criticism can be easily refuted just by noting well-known examples like _ante conditam condendamve urbem_, which clearly shows that Latin speakers did establish a parallelism between dominant participles and Gerundives. So, _mutatis mutandis_, the same could be applied to **predicative** Gerundives.          &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9370" RevisionGUID="3195b387-3fba-4aaa-9521-becb351bb03a" CreationDate="2019-03-29T20:24:29.853" UserId="3248" Text="How many types of so-called “predicative Gerundives” can be differentiated in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9370" RevisionGUID="3195b387-3fba-4aaa-9521-becb351bb03a" CreationDate="2019-03-29T20:24:29.853" UserId="3248" Text="|predicate|gerundive|dominant-participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9371" RevisionGUID="cce7feee-da81-42bf-a3e3-1dcc68121851" CreationDate="2019-03-29T20:51:11.840" UserId="3614" Text="I want a proper translation for the English sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Quiet your mind&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and also&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Quiet yourself&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean in the sense of calming your mind and yourself. I want this to be translated as a command (reflective command?) please. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've done quite some googling. I don't know whether to use the present imperative or future imperative. Also, I believe &quot;your mind&quot; will translate to Latin in the vocative but am not sure. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29189" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9371" RevisionGUID="cce7feee-da81-42bf-a3e3-1dcc68121851" CreationDate="2019-03-29T20:51:11.840" UserId="3614" Text="Translate &quot;Quiet your mind&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29190" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9371" RevisionGUID="cce7feee-da81-42bf-a3e3-1dcc68121851" CreationDate="2019-03-29T20:51:11.840" UserId="3614" Text="|translation|english-to-latin-translation|sentence-translation|reflexive-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9371" RevisionGUID="d9ab10fb-7a4d-4040-bc5b-cd30e2dae218" CreationDate="2019-03-29T20:59:29.757" UserId="3614" Comment="added 443 characters in body" Text="I want a proper translation for the English sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Quiet your mind&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and also&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Quiet yourself&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean this in the sense of calming your mind and yourself. I want this to be translated as a command (reflective command?) please. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've done quite some googling. I don't know whether to use the present imperative or future imperative. Also, some Latin words I've come with for the verb are: &#xD;&#xA;mitescere (to calm down),&#xD;&#xA;quietare (to be quiet, to rest, to be calm),&#xD;&#xA;taceo (to be silent), and &#xD;&#xA;conquiescere (to rest). The one I think may fit best is quietare, but I could see using taceo. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe &quot;your mind&quot; will translate to Latin in the vocative but am not sure; so, I need help on that too. For &quot;mind&quot;, I would rather use animus than mens due to the fact I don't mean to refer solely to the physical mind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9372" RevisionGUID="972f57d9-34c5-4e64-9d0d-00493f06c142" CreationDate="2019-03-29T22:29:15.183" UserId="79" Text="*Tacere* means &quot;to be quiet&quot;, not &quot;to make quiet&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Unless you want to do something like &quot;make it so that your mind is quiet&quot;, *tacere* is not an option.&#xD;&#xA;One possibility in this direction is *cura ut mens tua taceat*, &quot;take care that your mind becomes silent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *tacere* does work for &quot;quiet yourself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The simple order *tace* means &quot;be quiet&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to combine the two orders to a single maxim &quot;quiet your mind and yourself&quot;, you might want to use two different verbs in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *quietare* (or deponent *quietari*) seems to mean &quot;to make quiet&quot;, but I was unable to find any classical attestations.&#xD;&#xA;However, it is a very naturally derived word for this meaning, so I have nothing against using it unless you have a specific era or style you want to follow.&#xD;&#xA;This appears to be a transitive verb, so you can make &quot;your mind&quot; into an accusative object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most suitable words for &quot;mind&quot; in this context seem to be *mens*, *animus*, and *anima*.&#xD;&#xA;You can compare these words in [a number of online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;If you want it to mean more &quot;mind&quot; than &quot;soul&quot;, I recommend *mens*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brings me to the translation *mentem tuam quieta*, which is very literally &quot;quiet your mind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I would tweak this a little and use dative instead of a possessive pronoun (which plays the role of a genitive of *ego* here).&#xD;&#xA;With dative it becomes more &quot;quiet the mind for yourself&quot;; it indicates that you will benefit from quieting your mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like having the two orders together, and certain emphasis can be added by putting the imperatives at the ends.&#xD;&#xA;My recommendation is this phrase (or a part thereof if you only want one at a time):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tace et mentem tibi quieta.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Be silent and quiet your mind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9371" RevisionGUID="bf29a74c-1912-4a83-9284-e92a84ab6d8a" CreationDate="2019-03-29T22:30:34.783" UserId="79" Comment="added 30 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I want a proper translation for the English sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Quiet your mind&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and also&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Quiet yourself&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean this in the sense of calming your mind and yourself. I want this to be translated as a command (reflective command?) please. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've done quite some googling. I don't know whether to use the present imperative or future imperative. Also, some Latin words I've come with for the verb are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *mitescere* (to calm down),&#xD;&#xA;- *quietare* (to be quiet, to rest, to be calm),&#xD;&#xA;- *taceo* (to be silent), and &#xD;&#xA;- *conquiescere* (to rest).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one I think may fit best is *quietare*, but I could see using *taceo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe &quot;your mind&quot; will translate to Latin in the vocative but am not sure; so, I need help on that too. For &quot;mind&quot;, I would rather use *animus* than *mens* due to the fact I don't mean to refer solely to the physical mind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29194" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9371" RevisionGUID="bf29a74c-1912-4a83-9284-e92a84ab6d8a" CreationDate="2019-03-29T22:30:34.783" UserId="79" Comment="added 30 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|sentence-translation|motto|reflexive-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9370" RevisionGUID="9089ff13-88cf-4e21-a73b-861871fa2c78" CreationDate="2019-03-29T23:28:06.110" UserId="3248" Comment="fixed grammar " Text="In many textbooks of Latin grammar it is often noted that, besides appearing in the typical periphrastic modal passive (e.g., _Caesari omnia erant agenda_), Gerundives can also be used **predicatively**, typically in agreement with the direct object of transitive verbs such as _do, trado, mitto, peto, curo, relinquo, suscipio,_ etc.  Some examples from Woodcock’s (1959) “A New Latin Syntax” follow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Diviti homini id aurum servandum dedit_ (Pl. _Bacch_. 338)&#xD;&#xA;‘He gave that gold to a rich man to keep’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ibi agrum de nostro patre colendum habebat_ (Ter. _Phorm_. 305)&#xD;&#xA;‘He had there a piece of land from my father to farm’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Caesar pontem in Arare faciendum curat_ (Caes. _BG_ 1, 13,1).&#xD;&#xA;‘Caesar arranged for the building of a bridge over the Arar’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Epaminondam pecunia corrumpendum suscepit_ (Nep. 15,4,1) &#xD;&#xA;‘He undertook the bribing of Epaminondas with money’.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his (1990:145) _Latin syntax and semantics_ book, Pinkster also deals with this use but only gives the two following examples of Gerundive used as 'Praedicativum': &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Populus Romanus consuli potius Crasso quam privato Africano bellum gerendum dedit_ (Cic. _Phil._ 11.18)&#xD;&#xA;‘The Roman people preferred the consul C. to the private person A. as their leader in the war’ (Pinkster’s translation). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Domos nostras et patriam ipsam vel diripiendam vel inflammandam reliquimus_ (Cic. _Fam._ 16.12.1)&#xD;&#xA;‘We have left our homes and our very fatherland to be destroyed or set on fire’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted above, many textbooks of Latin syntax devote a section to this predicative use of Gerundives. However, when commenting on the data of such a section, authors typically pay special attention to the list of particular transitive verbs the construction is dependent on (see above) but no one appears to point out that at least TWO syntactic types of predicative Gerundives should be differentiated: the one where the Gerundive is an optional adjunct/modifier (e.g., _Diviti homini id aurum (servandum) dedit_) and the one where the Gerundive behaves like in a so-called “dominant” participle construction (aka _ab urbe condita_ construction), like _Epaminondam *(pecunia corrumpendum) suscepit_. **Are there other types of predicative Gerundives to be distinguished? In my opinion, _two_ basic types must be distinguished but perhaps other finer distinctions should be made. Any thoughts?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps my bipartite syntactic distinction above can be said to be superfluous… In fact, it is not always easy to see if the predicative Gerundive is optional (it is an adjunct) or rather behaves like a dominant participle. For example, in my view, Pinkster’s first example above is better to be interpreted as a dominant participle construction, whereby I prefer Lavency’s (1987: 193) French translation, i.e., via a deverbal nominalization: ‘Le peuple romain confia à Crassus **la conduite de la guerre**’ (bold mine). Extr. from his famous VSVS textbook. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some of you will tell me that I'm too much influenced by the translation(s) and that the alleged parallelism between predicative Gerundives and so-called &quot;dominant&quot; participles does not hold in Latin. Well, I think that this criticism can be easily refuted by the existence of well-known examples like _ante conditam condendamve urbem_, which clearly shows that Latin speakers did establish a parallelism between dominant participles and Gerundives. So, _mutatis mutandis_, the same could be applied to the abovementioned **predicative** Gerundives.          &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9370" RevisionGUID="b0b1122a-a0c9-4486-89d7-428ff6d3c339" CreationDate="2019-03-30T00:06:39.820" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="In many textbooks of Latin grammar it is often noted that, besides appearing in the typical periphrastic modal passive (e.g., _Caesari omnia erant agenda_), Gerundives can also be used **predicatively** in agreement with the direct object of transitive verbs such as _do, trado, mitto, peto, curo, relinquo, suscipio,_ etc.  Some examples from Woodcock’s (1959) “A New Latin Syntax” follow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Diviti homini id aurum servandum dedit_ (Pl. _Bacch_. 338)&#xD;&#xA;‘He gave that gold to a rich man to keep’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ibi agrum de nostro patre colendum habebat_ (Ter. _Phorm_. 305)&#xD;&#xA;‘He had there a piece of land from my father to farm’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Caesar pontem in Arare faciendum curat_ (Caes. _BG_ 1, 13,1).&#xD;&#xA;‘Caesar arranged for the building of a bridge over the Arar’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Epaminondam pecunia corrumpendum suscepit_ (Nep. 15,4,1) &#xD;&#xA;‘He undertook the bribing of Epaminondas with money’.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his (1990:145) _Latin syntax and semantics_ book, Pinkster also deals with this use but only gives the two following examples of Gerundive used as 'Object Praedicativum': &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Populus Romanus consuli potius Crasso quam privato Africano bellum gerendum dedit_ (Cic. _Phil._ 11.18)&#xD;&#xA;‘The Roman people preferred the consul C. to the private person A. as their leader in the war’ (Pinkster’s translation). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Domos nostras et patriam ipsam vel diripiendam vel inflammandam reliquimus_ (Cic. _Fam._ 16.12.1)&#xD;&#xA;‘We have left our homes and our very fatherland to be destroyed or set on fire’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted above, many textbooks of Latin syntax devote a section to this predicative use of Gerundives. However, when commenting on the data of such a section, the authors typically pay special attention to the list of particular transitive verbs the Gerundive construction is dependent on (see above; by the way, why these verbs (mostly of transfer) and not others?) but no one appears to point out that at least TWO syntactic types of Object Praedicativa should be differentiated in the Gerundive constructions above: the one where the Gerundive is an optional adjunct/modifier (e.g., _Diviti homini id aurum (servandum) dedit_) and the one where the Gerundive behaves like in a so-called “dominant” participle construction (aka _ab urbe condita_ construction), like _Epaminondam *(pecunia corrumpendum) suscepit_. **Are there other types of predicative Gerundives to be distinguished? In my opinion, _two_ basic types must be distinguished but perhaps other finer distinctions should be made. Any thoughts?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, it is not always easy to see if the predicative Gerundive is optional (it is an adjunct) or rather behaves like a dominant participle. For example, in my view, Pinkster’s first example above is better to be interpreted as a dominant participle construction, whereby I prefer Lavency’s (1985: 193) French translation, i.e., via a deverbal nominalization: ‘Le peuple romain confia à Crassus **la conduite de la guerre**’ (bold mine). Extr. from his famous VSVS textbook. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some of you will tell me that I'm too much influenced by the translation(s) and that the alleged parallelism between predicative Gerundives and so-called &quot;dominant&quot; participles does not hold in Latin. Well, I think that this criticism can be easily refuted by the existence of well-known examples like _ante conditam condendamve urbem_, which clearly shows that Latin speakers did establish a parallelism between dominant participles and Gerundives. So, _mutatis mutandis_, the same could be applied to some Gerundives used as 'Object Praedicativa'.          &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9370" RevisionGUID="df6e43ed-db5e-45d9-9aed-aab9c493b252" CreationDate="2019-03-30T01:07:19.077" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="In many textbooks of Latin grammar it is often noted that Gerundives can be used **predicatively** in agreement with the direct object of transitive verbs such as _do, trado, mitto, peto, curo, relinquo, suscipio,_ etc.  Some examples from Woodcock’s (1959) “A New Latin Syntax” follow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Diviti homini id aurum servandum dedit_ (Pl. _Bacch_. 338)&#xD;&#xA;‘He gave that gold to a rich man to keep’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ibi agrum de nostro patre colendum habebat_ (Ter. _Phorm_. 305)&#xD;&#xA;‘He had there a piece of land from my father to farm’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Caesar pontem in Arare faciendum curat_ (Caes. _BG_ 1, 13,1).&#xD;&#xA;‘Caesar arranged for the building of a bridge over the Arar’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Epaminondam pecunia corrumpendum suscepit_ (Nep. 15,4,1) &#xD;&#xA;‘He undertook the bribing of Epaminondas with money’.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his (1990:145) book _Latin syntax and semantics_, Pinkster also deals with this use but only gives the two following examples of Gerundive used as 'Object Praedicativum': &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Populus Romanus consuli potius Crasso quam privato Africano bellum gerendum dedit_ (Cic. _Phil._ 11.18)&#xD;&#xA;‘The Roman people preferred the consul C. to the private person A. as their leader in the war’ (Pinkster’s translation). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Domos nostras et patriam ipsam vel diripiendam vel inflammandam reliquimus_ (Cic. _Fam._ 16.12.1)&#xD;&#xA;‘We have left our homes and our very fatherland to be destroyed or set on fire’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted above, many textbooks of Latin syntax devote a section to this predicative use of Gerundives. However, when commenting on the data of such a section, the authors typically pay special attention to the list of particular transitive verbs the Gerundive construction is dependent on but no one appears to point out that at least TWO syntactic types of Object Praedicativa should be differentiated in the Gerundive constructions above: the one where the Gerundive is an optional adjunct/modifier (e.g., _Diviti homini id aurum (servandum) dedit_) and the one where the Gerundive behaves like in a so-called “dominant” participle construction (aka _ab urbe condita_ construction), like _Epaminondam *(pecunia corrumpendum) suscepit_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting aside the ones appearing in the periphrastic modal passive (e.g., _Caesari omnia erant agenda_), **how many types of predicative Gerundives can be distinguished? As noted above, in my opinion, _two_ basic syntactic types of predicative Gerundives (adjunct vs. &quot;dominant&quot; ones) must be distinguished but perhaps other finer distinctions should be made. Any thoughts?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, it is not always easy to see if the predicative Gerundive is optional (it is an adjunct) or rather behaves like a dominant participle. For example, in my view, Pinkster’s first example above is to be interpreted as a dominant participle construction, whereby I prefer Lavency’s (1985: 193) French translation, i.e., via a deverbal nominalization: ‘Le peuple romain confia à Crassus **la conduite de la guerre**’ (bold mine). Extr. from his famous VSVS textbook. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some of you will tell me that I'm too much influenced by the translation(s) and that the alleged parallelism between (some) predicative Gerundives and so-called &quot;dominant&quot; participles does not hold in Latin. Well, I think that this criticism can be easily refuted by the existence of well-known examples like _ante conditam condendamve urbem_, which clearly shows that Latin speakers did establish a grammatical parallelism between so-called &quot;dominant&quot; participles and Gerundives. So, _mutatis mutandis_, the same could be applied to some Gerundives used as 'Object Praedicativa'.          &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9370" RevisionGUID="4d3ebdb1-5b1a-4159-b553-393593e2ea1a" CreationDate="2019-03-30T01:22:28.647" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; improved formatting" Text="In many textbooks of Latin grammar it is often noted that Gerundives can be used **predicatively** in agreement with the direct object of transitive verbs such as _do, trado, mitto, peto, curo, relinquo, suscipio,_ etc. Some examples from Woodcock’s (1959: 164) “A New Latin Syntax” follow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Diviti homini id aurum servandum dedit_ (Pl. _Bacch_. 338)&#xD;&#xA;‘He gave that gold to a rich man to keep’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ibi agrum de nostro patre colendum habebat_ (Ter. _Phorm_. 305)&#xD;&#xA;‘He had there a piece of land from my father to farm’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Caesar pontem in Arare faciendum curat_ (Caes. _BG_ 1, 13,1).&#xD;&#xA;‘Caesar arranged for the building of a bridge over the Arar’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Epaminondam pecunia corrumpendum suscepit_ (Nep. 15,4,1) &#xD;&#xA;‘He undertook the bribing of Epaminondas with money’.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his (1990:145) book _Latin syntax and semantics_, Pinkster also deals with this use but only gives the two following examples of Gerundive used as 'Object Praedicativum': &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Populus Romanus consuli potius Crasso quam privato Africano bellum gerendum dedit_ (Cic. _Phil._ 11.18)&#xD;&#xA;‘The Roman people preferred the consul C. to the private person A. as their leader in the war’ (NB: Pinkster's translation). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Domos nostras et patriam ipsam vel diripiendam vel inflammandam reliquimus_ (Cic. _Fam._ 16.12.1)&#xD;&#xA;‘We have left our homes and our very fatherland to be destroyed or set on fire’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted above, many textbooks of Latin syntax devote a section to this predicative use of Gerundives. However, when commenting on the data of such a section, the authors typically pay special attention to the list of particular transitive verbs the Gerundive construction is dependent on but no one appears to point out that at least TWO syntactic types of Object Praedicativa should be differentiated in the Gerundive constructions above: the one where the Gerundive is an optional adjunct/modifier (e.g., _Diviti homini id aurum (servandum) dedit_) and the one where the Gerundive behaves like in a so-called “dominant” participle construction (aka _ab urbe condita_ construction), like _Epaminondam *(pecunia corrumpendum) suscepit_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting aside the ones appearing in the periphrastic modal passive (e.g., _Caesari omnia erant agenda_), **how many types of predicative Gerundives can be distinguished? As noted above, in my opinion, _two_ basic syntactic types of predicative Gerundives (adjunct vs. &quot;dominant&quot; ones) must be distinguished but perhaps other finer distinctions should be made. Any thoughts?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, it is not always easy to see if the predicative Gerundive is optional (it is an adjunct) or rather behaves like a dominant participle. For example, in my view, Pinkster’s first example above is to be interpreted as a dominant participle construction, whereby I prefer Lavency’s (1985: 193) French translation, i.e., via a deverbal nominalization: ‘Le peuple romain confia à Crassus **la conduite de la guerre**’ (bold mine). Extr. from his famous VSVS textbook. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some of you will tell me that I'm too much influenced by the translation(s) and that the alleged parallelism between (some) predicative Gerundives and so-called &quot;dominant&quot; participles does not hold in Latin. Well, I think that this criticism can be easily refuted by the existence of well-known examples like _ante conditam condendamve urbem_, which clearly shows that there _is_ a grammatical parallelism between so-called &quot;dominant&quot; participles and Gerundives. So, _mutatis mutandis_, the same could be applied to some Gerundives used as 'Object Praedicativa'.          &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9370" RevisionGUID="c84f65aa-d6d2-4080-a273-9386e80591fa" CreationDate="2019-03-30T01:51:45.700" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="In many textbooks of Latin grammar it is often noted that Gerundives can be used **predicatively** in agreement with the direct object of transitive verbs such as _do, trado, mitto, peto, curo, relinquo, suscipio,_ etc. Some examples from Woodcock’s (1959: 164) “A New Latin Syntax” follow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Diviti homini id aurum **servandum** dedit_ (Pl. _Bacch_. 338)&#xD;&#xA;‘He gave that gold to a rich man to keep’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ibi agrum de nostro patre **colendum** habebat_ (Ter. _Phorm_. 305)&#xD;&#xA;‘He had there a piece of land from my father to farm’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Caesar pontem in Arare **faciendum** curat_ (Caes. _BG_ 1, 13,1).&#xD;&#xA;‘Caesar arranged for the building of a bridge over the Arar’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Epaminondam pecunia **corrumpendum** suscepit_ (Nep. 15,4,1) &#xD;&#xA;‘He undertook the bribing of Epaminondas with money’.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his (1990:145) book _Latin syntax and semantics_, Pinkster also deals with this use but only gives the two following examples of Gerundive used as 'Object Praedicativum': &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Populus Romanus consuli potius Crasso quam privato Africano bellum **gerendum** dedit_ (Cic. _Phil._ 11.18)&#xD;&#xA;‘The Roman people preferred the consul C. to the private person A. as their leader in the war’ (NB: Pinkster's translation). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Domos nostras et patriam ipsam vel **diripiendam** vel **inflammandam** reliquimus_ (Cic. _Fam._ 16.12.1)&#xD;&#xA;‘We have left our homes and our very fatherland to be destroyed or set on fire’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted above, many textbooks of Latin syntax devote a section to this predicative use of Gerundives. However, when commenting on the data of such a section, the authors typically pay special attention to the list of particular transitive verbs this Gerundive construction is dependent on but no one appears to point out that at least TWO syntactic types of Object Praedicativa should be differentiated in the Gerundive constructions above: the one where the Gerundive is an optional adjunct/modifier (e.g., _Diviti homini id aurum (servandum) dedit_) and the one where the Gerundive behaves like in a so-called “dominant” participle construction (aka _ab urbe condita_ construction): e.g., _Epaminondam *(pecunia corrumpendum) suscepit_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting aside the ones appearing in the periphrastic modal passive (e.g., _Caesari omnia erant agenda_), **how many types of predicative Gerundives can be distinguished? As noted above, in my opinion, _two_ basic syntactic types of predicative Gerundives (adjunct vs. &quot;dominant&quot; ones) must be distinguished but perhaps other finer distinctions should be made. Any thoughts?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, it is not always easy to see if the predicative Gerundive is optional (it is an adjunct) or rather behaves like a dominant participle. For example, in my view, Pinkster’s first example above is to be interpreted as a dominant participle construction, whereby I prefer Lavency’s (1985: 193) French translation, i.e., via a deverbal nominalization: ‘Le peuple romain confia à Crassus **la conduite de la guerre**’ (bold mine). Extr. from his famous VSVS textbook. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some of you will tell me that I'm too much influenced by the translation(s) and that the alleged parallelism between (some) predicative Gerundives and so-called &quot;dominant&quot; participles does not hold in Latin. Well, I think that this criticism can be easily refuted by the existence of well-known examples like _ante conditam condendamve urbem_, which clearly shows that there _is_ a grammatical parallelism between so-called &quot;dominant&quot; participles and Gerundives. So, _mutatis mutandis_, the same could be applied to some Gerundives used as 'Object Praedicativa'.          &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9373" RevisionGUID="aa7228cd-77b1-4319-9a19-54d260da9e6c" CreationDate="2019-03-30T02:22:11.927" UserId="406" Text="I know that some Greeks and Romans kept pet _canēs_, _cattī_, [and even _draconēs_][1]. My question now is: what did they name them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, do we have attestations of how the ancients named their pets? And if so, was there any sort of pattern behind it? (For instance, were they named like humans, or with adjectives, or something else?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4338/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29201" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9373" RevisionGUID="aa7228cd-77b1-4319-9a19-54d260da9e6c" CreationDate="2019-03-30T02:22:11.927" UserId="406" Text="What did the Greeks and Romans call their pets?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29202" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9373" RevisionGUID="aa7228cd-77b1-4319-9a19-54d260da9e6c" CreationDate="2019-03-30T02:22:11.927" UserId="406" Text="|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9373" RevisionGUID="27751270-4dde-4eb6-8e9e-0fcb44f9a933" CreationDate="2019-03-30T02:33:46.477" UserId="9" Comment="added macron" Text="I know that some Greeks and Romans kept pet _canēs_, _cattī_, [and even _dracōnēs_][1]. My question now is: what did they name them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, do we have attestations of how the ancients named their pets? And if so, was there any sort of pattern behind it? (For instance, were they named like humans, or with adjectives, or something else?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4338/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29204" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9373" RevisionGUID="d638f7f8-502a-442e-90c3-1e0c74b448da" CreationDate="2019-03-30T02:40:47.110" UserId="79" Comment="Added tags." Text="|names|roman-culture|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9370" RevisionGUID="b38ad613-4fb1-47f7-8683-7806e44eb2f8" CreationDate="2019-03-30T04:25:38.340" UserId="3248" Comment="fixed grammar and improved formatting" Text="In many textbooks of Latin grammar it is often noted that Gerundives can be used **predicatively** in agreement with the direct object of transitive verbs such as _do, trado, mitto, peto, curo, relinquo, suscipio,_ etc. Some examples from Woodcock’s (1959: 164) “A New Latin Syntax” follow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Diviti homini id aurum **servandum** dedit_ (Pl. _Bacch_. 338)&#xD;&#xA;‘He gave that gold to a rich man to keep’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ibi agrum de nostro patre **colendum** habebat_ (Ter. _Phorm_. 305)&#xD;&#xA;‘He had there a piece of land from my father to farm’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Caesar pontem in Arare **faciendum** curat_ (Caes. _BG_ 1, 13,1).&#xD;&#xA;‘Caesar arranged for the building of a bridge over the Arar’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Epaminondam pecunia **corrumpendum** suscepit_ (Nep. 15,4,1) &#xD;&#xA;‘He undertook the bribing of Epaminondas with money’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: in the passive voice the object becomes the subject, whereby the predicative Gerundive agrees with it in nominative case: cf. _(Sicilia) mihi defendenda tradita est_ (Cic. _Verr._ 5, 188). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his (1990:145) book _Latin syntax and semantics_, Pinkster also deals with this use but only gives the two following examples of Gerundive used as 'Object Praedicativum': &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Populus Romanus consuli potius Crasso quam privato Africano bellum **gerendum** dedit_ (Cic. _Phil._ 11.18)&#xD;&#xA;‘The Roman people preferred the consul C. to the private person A. as their leader in the war’ (NB: Pinkster's translation). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Domos nostras et patriam ipsam vel **diripiendam** vel **inflammandam** reliquimus_ (Cic. _Fam._ 16.12.1)&#xD;&#xA;‘We have left our homes and our very fatherland to be destroyed or set on fire’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted above, many textbooks of Latin syntax devote a section to this predicative use of Gerundives. However, when commenting on the data of such a section, the authors typically pay special attention to the list of particular transitive verbs this Gerundive construction is dependent on but no one appears to point out that at least TWO syntactic types of Object Praedicativa should be differentiated in the Gerundive constructions above: the one where the Gerundive is an optional adjunct/modifier (e.g., _Diviti homini id aurum (servandum) dedit_) and the one where the Gerundive behaves like in a so-called “dominant” participle construction (aka _ab urbe condita_ construction): e.g., _Epaminondam *(pecunia corrumpendum) suscepit_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting aside the ones appearing in the periphrastic modal passive construction (e.g., _Caesari omnia erant agenda_), **how many types of predicative Gerundives can be distinguished? As noted above, in my opinion, _two_ basic syntactic types of predicative Gerundives (adjunct vs. &quot;dominant&quot; ones) must be distinguished but perhaps other finer distinctions should be made. Any thoughts?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, it is not always easy to see if the predicative Gerundive is optional (it is an adjunct) or rather behaves like a dominant/obligatory participle. For example, in my opinion, Pinkster’s first example above is to be interpreted as a dominant participle construction, whereby I prefer Lavency’s (1985: 193) French translation, i.e., via a deverbal nominalization: ‘Le peuple romain confia à Crassus **la conduite de la guerre**’ (bold mine). Extr. from his famous VSVS textbook. Perhaps some of you will tell me that here I'm too much influenced by the translation and that the alleged parallelism between (some) predicative Gerundives and so-called &quot;dominant&quot; participles does not hold in Latin. Well, I think that this criticism can be easily refuted by the existence of well-known examples like _ante conditam condendamve urbem_, which clearly shows that there _is_ a grammatical parallelism between so-called &quot;dominant&quot; participles and Gerundives. So, _mutatis mutandis_, the same could be applied to some Gerundives used as 'Object/Subject Praedicativa'.          &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="e3b5b802-f28e-4c8a-8ecb-244c40aa314f" CreationDate="2019-03-30T07:24:22.027" UserId="9" Comment="fixed errors in quotations" Text="I don't know anywhere near enough to give a complete, or even a definitely correct answer, but there seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb that is true for &quot;regular&quot; verbs. It seems the usual identity of the stems for the perfect and future participles may be coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect](https://books.google.com/books?id=NbXsjEqOHKIC&amp;pg=PA271&amp;lpg=PA271&amp;dq=latin+participle+inflection+verbal+adjectival&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=gjEokeware&amp;sig=irBQf-FsBFMu7gegdspS-80kcpM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjyi9jgyY3cAhWUHjQIHYf6DhA4ChDoAQhNMAY#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20participle%20inflection%20verbal%20adjectival&amp;f=false)&quot;, Eva-Maria Remberger writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form of the FPart [...] probably represents a derivation of a supine in the form of a locative, ending in *-tū* (Leumann et al. 1963: 342); however, later it was interpreted as being derived from the stem of the PPart (cf. Ernout 1953: §320, among others). Nevertheless, these latter assumptions are contradicted by a large number of exceptions which clearly are not derived from the stem of the PPart. The following FPart forms are all derived from the stem of the present and not the PPart: *moritūrus* (vs. *mortus*), *nāscitūrus* (vs. *nātus*), *oritūrus* (vs. ortus), *pariturus* (vs. *partus*) (cf. Ernout 1953); *abnuitūrus* (vs. *nūtus* 'the hint'), *vincitūrus* (vs. *victus*), *consequitūrus* (vs. *consecūtus*), *haurītūrus* (vs. *haustus*), *ignoscītūrus* (vs. *ignōtus*), *crēscitūrus* (vs. *crētus*), *gauditūrus* (vs. *gāvīsus*), *iuvatūrus* (vs. *iūtus*); Moreover, there are verbal paradigms which have a FPart form without displaying a PPart form, at least in Latin, like *fugitūrus, futūrus* (cf. Leumann  et al. 1963:342).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* edited by Sascha Gaglia and  Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false)* (1903) also gives some examples of exceptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**182. The Future Active Participle.** This is formed with the suffix *-tūro-,* and is declined like an Adjective of the First and Second Declensions. As regards the form of the stem to which the suffix is added, it usually follows the formation of the Perfect Passive Participle; e.g. **amātūrus,** like **amātus**. But there are occasional variations, as :&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **moritūrus** beside **mortuus**, from **morior**, *die*, **morī**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **oritūrus** &quot; **ortus**, &quot; **orior**, *arise*, **orīrī**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **paritūrus** &quot; **partus**, &quot; **pario**, *bring forth*, **parere**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **ruitūrus** &quot; **-rutus**, &quot; **ruo**, *tumble down*, **ruere**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.* (On the other hand, I have found a few sources that indicate that &quot;partūrus&quot; was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. Similarly, the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples&#xD;&#xA; [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9)  mention *partus* vs. *părĭtūrus* as well as one other possible example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- stō: stătus vs. stātūrus (Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found some lists of (possible) exceptions in some books, such as *[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and],* by J.R. (1705) and *[A Latin grammar][Leonard],* by J Russell Leonard. (I removed the examples with *-uiturus,* since you already mentioned them in the question, as well as *moriturus* and *oriturus,* which I mentioned earlier in this answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nāscĭtūrus** beside **nātus** from **nāscor** (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **nōscĭtūrus** beside **nōtus** from **nōsco** (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **sŏnātūrus** beside **sŏnĭtus** from **[sŏno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsono)** (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **jŭvātūrus** beside **jūtum** from **[jŭvo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Djuvo)** (Leonard, p. 51); however, [Peter Bullions](https://books.google.com/books?id=cxoPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=juvaturus#v=onepage&amp;q=juvaturus&amp;f=false) (1867) and [Albert Harkness](https://books.google.com/books?id=n4sAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=juvaturus) (1867) say that in compounds, *jūtūrus* is also used &#xD;&#xA;- **sĕcātūrus** beside **sectum** from **[sĕco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dseco)** (Leonard, p. 51); however, Bede's *[De Orthographia][Bede]* seems to say &quot;secturus, non secaturus&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Johnson (1718) has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples, like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adduco: adduciturus *instead of* adducturus (once, in Plautus)&#xD;&#xA;- frico: fricaturus *instead of* fricturus ([Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/frico#Latin) says *fricatum* is a possible supine form, but *frictum* is more common)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leonard]: &#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=EZACAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=moriturus+oriturus+pariturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-bBNdzFRHw&amp;sig=wgji1qbBOqFDyxCBhaoAiTDEE9s&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilhPa8mIXbAhVJm-AKHfWKA94Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moriturus%20oriturus%20pariturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bede]: https://books.google.com/books?id=tOQHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=%22secaturus%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22secaturus%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="3d3bb86e-0327-4b0e-846b-6191e39f48e8" CreationDate="2019-03-30T07:30:16.820" UserId="9" Comment="fixed errors in quotations" Text="I don't know anywhere near enough to give a complete, or even a definitely correct answer, but there seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb that is true for &quot;regular&quot; verbs. It seems the usual identity of the stems for the perfect and future participles may be coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect](https://books.google.com/books?id=NbXsjEqOHKIC&amp;pg=PA271&amp;lpg=PA271&amp;dq=latin+participle+inflection+verbal+adjectival&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=gjEokeware&amp;sig=irBQf-FsBFMu7gegdspS-80kcpM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjyi9jgyY3cAhWUHjQIHYf6DhA4ChDoAQhNMAY#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20participle%20inflection%20verbal%20adjectival&amp;f=false)&quot;, Eva-Maria Remberger writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form of the FPart [...] probably represents a derivation of a supine in the form of a locative, ending in *-tū* (Leumann et al. 1963: 342); however, later it was interpreted as being derived from the stem of the PPart (cf. Ernout 1953: §320, among others). Nevertheless, these latter assumptions are contradicted by a large number of exceptions which clearly are not derived from the stem of the PPart. The following FPart forms are all derived from the stem of the present and not the PPart: *moritūrus* (vs. *mortus*), *nāscitūrus* (vs. *nātus*), *oritūrus* (vs. ortus), *pariturus* (vs. *partus*) (cf. Ernout 1953); *abnuitūrus* (vs. *nūtus* 'the hint'), *vincitūrus* (vs. *victus*), *consequitūrus* (vs. *consecūtus*), *haurītūrus* (vs. *haustus*), *ignoscītūrus* (vs. *ignōtus*), *crēscitūrus* (vs. *crētus*), *gauditūrus* (vs. *gāvīsus*), *iuvatūrus* (vs. *iūtus*); Moreover, there are verbal paradigms which have a FPart form without displaying a PPart form, at least in Latin, like *fugitūrus, futūrus* (cf. Leumann  et al. 1963:342).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* edited by Sascha Gaglia and  Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false)* (1903) also mentions this phenomenon and gives some examples of exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.* (On the other hand, I have found a few sources that indicate that &quot;partūrus&quot; was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. Similarly, the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples&#xD;&#xA; [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9)  mention *partus* vs. *părĭtūrus* as well as one other possible example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- stō: stătus vs. stātūrus (Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found some lists of (possible) exceptions in some books, such as *[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and],* by J.R. (1705) and *[A Latin grammar][Leonard],* by J Russell Leonard. (I removed the examples with *-uiturus,* since you already mentioned them in the question, as well as *moriturus* and *oriturus,* which I mentioned earlier in this answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nāscĭtūrus** beside **nātus** from **nāscor** (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **nōscĭtūrus** beside **nōtus** from **nōsco** (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **sŏnātūrus** beside **sŏnĭtus** from **[sŏno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsono)** (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **jŭvātūrus** beside **jūtum** from **[jŭvo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Djuvo)** (Leonard, p. 51); however, [Peter Bullions](https://books.google.com/books?id=cxoPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=juvaturus#v=onepage&amp;q=juvaturus&amp;f=false) (1867) and [Albert Harkness](https://books.google.com/books?id=n4sAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=juvaturus) (1867) say that in compounds, *jūtūrus* is also used &#xD;&#xA;- **sĕcātūrus** beside **sectum** from **[sĕco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dseco)** (Leonard, p. 51); however, Bede's *[De Orthographia][Bede]* seems to say &quot;secturus, non secaturus&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Johnson (1718) has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples, like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- adduco: adduciturus *instead of* adducturus (once, in Plautus)&#xD;&#xA;- frico: fricaturus *instead of* fricturus ([Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/frico#Latin) says *fricatum* is a possible supine form, but *frictum* is more common)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leonard]: &#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=EZACAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=moriturus+oriturus+pariturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-bBNdzFRHw&amp;sig=wgji1qbBOqFDyxCBhaoAiTDEE9s&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilhPa8mIXbAhVJm-AKHfWKA94Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moriturus%20oriturus%20pariturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bede]: https://books.google.com/books?id=tOQHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=%22secaturus%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22secaturus%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="07dc1247-2ce8-482e-8bad-65d129763192" CreationDate="2019-03-30T08:13:32.247" UserId="9" Comment="fixed errors in quotations" Text="I don't know anywhere near enough to give a complete, or even a definitely correct answer, but there seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb that is true for &quot;regular&quot; verbs. It seems the usual identity of the stems for the perfect and future participles may be coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect](https://books.google.com/books?id=NbXsjEqOHKIC&amp;pg=PA271&amp;lpg=PA271&amp;dq=latin+participle+inflection+verbal+adjectival&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=gjEokeware&amp;sig=irBQf-FsBFMu7gegdspS-80kcpM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjyi9jgyY3cAhWUHjQIHYf6DhA4ChDoAQhNMAY#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20participle%20inflection%20verbal%20adjectival&amp;f=false)&quot;, Eva-Maria Remberger writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form of the FPart [...] probably represents a derivation of a supine in the form of a locative, ending in *-tū* (Leumann et al. 1963: 342); however, later it was interpreted as being derived from the stem of the PPart (cf. Ernout 1953: §320, among others). Nevertheless, these latter assumptions are contradicted by a large number of exceptions which clearly are not derived from the stem of the PPart. The following FPart forms are all derived from the stem of the present and not the PPart: [...] *abnuitūrus* (vs. *nūtus* 'the hint'), *vincitūrus* (vs. *victus*), *consequitūrus* (vs. *consecūtus*), *haurītūrus* (vs. *haustus*), *ignoscītūrus* (vs. *ignōtus*), *crēscitūrus* (vs. *crētus*), *gauditūrus* (vs. *gāvīsus*) [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Moreover, there are verbal paradigms which have a FPart form without displaying a PPart form, at least in Latin, like *fugitūrus, futūrus* (cf. Leumann  et al. 1963:342).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* edited by Sascha Gaglia and  Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Forms that I include in my list below have been removed from the quote)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false)* (1903) also mentions this phenomenon and gives some examples of exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.* (On the other hand, I have found a few sources that indicate that &quot;partūrus&quot; was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718).) Johnson has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, *[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272), but the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin. (I asked this as a [separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6462), and it seems that the main criterion that would establish participle-hood in Latin is taking an accusative direct object, which is only relevant for transitive verbs.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples by category&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A. Deponent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These apparently also have passive-form future participles in *-ndus*. I'm not sure about the difference in meaning, if any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nāscĭtūrus** from *nāscor, nascī, nātus*  (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*nascendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **moritūrus** from *morior, morī, mortuus.*	&#xD;&#xA; *moriendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **oritūrus** from *orior, orīrī, ortus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*oriendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###B. in *-uitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You already mentioned this category. Hale and Buck mention the example *ruitūrus* vs. *-rutus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###C. In *-ātūrus,* from first-declension verbs with past participles not ending in *-ātus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **sŏnātūrus** from *[sŏno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsono), sŏnāre/sŏnĕre, sŏnŭi, sŏnĭtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **jŭvātūrus** from *[jŭvo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Djuvo), jŭvāre, jūvi, jūtum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, [Peter Bullions] (1867) and [Albert Harkness] (1867) say that in compounds, *jūtūrus* is also used. &#xD;&#xA;- **sĕcātūrus**  from *[sĕco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dseco), sĕcāre, sĕcuī, sectum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, Bede's *[De Orthographia][Bede]* seems to say &quot;secturus, non secaturus&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **stātūrus** from *stō, stāre, stetī, stătus.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **frĭcātūrus** from *frĭco, frĭcāre, frĭcuī, frictum.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;([Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/frico#Latin) says *fricatum* is a possible supine form, but *frictum* is more common)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###D. Others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nōscĭtūrus** from *nōsco, nōscĕre, nōvī, nōtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **adduciturus** once instead of *adducturus* from *addūco, addūcere, addūxī, adductum* (Johnson says the single occurrence of *adduciturus* is in Plautus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **părĭtūrus** from *păriō, părĕre, pĕpĕrī, partus/părĭtus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt; Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Remberger says &quot;cf. Ernout 1953&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Some sources mentioned in the list above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some books with lists of (possible) exceptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and],* by J.R. (1705)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[A Latin grammar][Leonard],* by J Russell Leonard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leonard]: &#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=EZACAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=moriturus+oriturus+pariturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-bBNdzFRHw&amp;sig=wgji1qbBOqFDyxCBhaoAiTDEE9s&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilhPa8mIXbAhVJm-AKHfWKA94Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moriturus%20oriturus%20pariturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bede]: https://books.google.com/books?id=tOQHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=%22secaturus%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22secaturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Peter Bullions]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cxoPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=juvaturus#v=onepage&amp;q=juvaturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Albert Harkness]: https://books.google.com/books?id=n4sAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=juvaturus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="6084adee-4abe-435d-b05f-f3ddf708e974" CreationDate="2019-03-30T08:27:18.277" UserId="9" Comment="fixed errors in quotations" Text="I don't know anywhere near enough to give a complete, or even a definitely correct answer, but there seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb that is true for &quot;regular&quot; verbs. It seems the usual identity of the stems for the perfect and future participles may be coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect](https://books.google.com/books?id=NbXsjEqOHKIC&amp;pg=PA271&amp;lpg=PA271&amp;dq=latin+participle+inflection+verbal+adjectival&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=gjEokeware&amp;sig=irBQf-FsBFMu7gegdspS-80kcpM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjyi9jgyY3cAhWUHjQIHYf6DhA4ChDoAQhNMAY#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20participle%20inflection%20verbal%20adjectival&amp;f=false)&quot;, Eva-Maria Remberger writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form of the FPart [...] probably represents a derivation of a supine in the form of a locative, ending in *-tū* (Leumann et al. 1963: 342); however, later it was interpreted as being derived from the stem of the PPart (cf. Ernout 1953: §320, among others). Nevertheless, these latter assumptions are contradicted by a large number of exceptions which clearly are not derived from the stem of the PPart. The following FPart forms are all derived from the stem of the present and not the PPart: [...] *vincitūrus* (vs. *victus*), *consequitūrus* (vs. *consecūtus*), *haurītūrus* (vs. *haustus*), [...], *gauditūrus* (vs. *gāvīsus*) [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Forms that I include in my list below have been removed from the quote)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Moreover, there are verbal paradigms which have a FPart form without displaying a PPart form, at least in Latin, like *fugitūrus, futūrus* (cf. Leumann  et al. 1963:342).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* edited by Sascha Gaglia and  Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false)* (1903) also mentions this phenomenon and gives some examples of exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.* (On the other hand, I have found a few sources that indicate that &quot;partūrus&quot; was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718).) Johnson has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples of non-matching forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, *[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272), but the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin. (I asked this as a [separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6462), and it seems that the main criterion that would establish participle-hood in Latin is taking an accusative direct object, which is only relevant for transitive verbs.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples by category&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A. Deponent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These apparently also have passive-form future participles in *-ndus*. I'm not sure about the difference in meaning, if any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nāscĭtūrus** from *nāscor, nascī, nātus*  (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*nascendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **moritūrus** from *morior, morī, mortuus.*	&#xD;&#xA; *moriendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **oritūrus** from *orior, orīrī, ortus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*oriendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###B. in *-uitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You already mentioned this category. Hale and Buck mention the example *ruitūrus* vs. *-rutus.* Remberger mentions the example &quot;*abnuitūrus* (vs. *nūtus* 'the hint')&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###C. In *-ātūrus,* from first-declension verbs with past participles not ending in *-ātus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **sŏnātūrus** from *[sŏno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsono), sŏnāre/sŏnĕre, sŏnŭi, sŏnĭtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **jŭvātūrus** from *[jŭvo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Djuvo), jŭvāre, jūvi, jūtum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, [Peter Bullions] (1867) and [Albert Harkness] (1867) say that in compounds, *jūtūrus* is also used. &#xD;&#xA;- **sĕcātūrus**  from *[sĕco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dseco), sĕcāre, sĕcuī, sectum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, Bede's *[De Orthographia][Bede]* seems to say &quot;secturus, non secaturus&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **stātūrus** from *stō, stāre, stetī, stătus.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **frĭcātūrus** from *frĭco, frĭcāre, frĭcuī, frictum.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;([Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/frico#Latin) says *fricatum* is a possible supine form, but *frictum* is more common)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###D. Others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nōscĭtūrus** from *nōsco, nōscĕre, nōvī, nōtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;Remberger mentions the prefixed form &quot;*ignoscītūrus* (vs. *ignōtus*)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **crēscitūrus** from *crēscō, crēscĕre, crēvī, crētus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;I'm not sure where we have examples of the form *crēscitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **adduciturus** once instead of *adducturus* from *addūco, addūcere, addūxī, adductum* (Johnson says the single occurrence of *adduciturus* is in Plautus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **părĭtūrus** from *păriō, părĕre, pĕpĕrī, partus/părĭtus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt; Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Remberger says &quot;cf. Ernout 1953&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Some sources mentioned in the list above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some books with lists of (possible) exceptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and],* by J.R. (1705)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[A Latin grammar][Leonard],* by J Russell Leonard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leonard]: &#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=EZACAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=moriturus+oriturus+pariturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-bBNdzFRHw&amp;sig=wgji1qbBOqFDyxCBhaoAiTDEE9s&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilhPa8mIXbAhVJm-AKHfWKA94Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moriturus%20oriturus%20pariturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bede]: https://books.google.com/books?id=tOQHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=%22secaturus%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22secaturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Peter Bullions]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cxoPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=juvaturus#v=onepage&amp;q=juvaturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Albert Harkness]: https://books.google.com/books?id=n4sAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=juvaturus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="3afb3aad-2be9-48ee-97d5-76c30d19576e" CreationDate="2019-03-30T08:54:08.720" UserId="9" Comment="fixed errors in quotations" Text="I don't know anywhere near enough to give a complete, or even a definitely correct answer, but there seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb that is true for &quot;regular&quot; verbs. It seems the usual identity of the stems for the perfect and future participles may be coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect](https://books.google.com/books?id=NbXsjEqOHKIC&amp;pg=PA271&amp;lpg=PA271&amp;dq=latin+participle+inflection+verbal+adjectival&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=gjEokeware&amp;sig=irBQf-FsBFMu7gegdspS-80kcpM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjyi9jgyY3cAhWUHjQIHYf6DhA4ChDoAQhNMAY#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20participle%20inflection%20verbal%20adjectival&amp;f=false)&quot;, Eva-Maria Remberger writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form of the FPart [...] probably represents a derivation of a supine in the form of a locative, ending in *-tū* (Leumann et al. 1963: 342); however, later it was interpreted as being derived from the stem of the PPart (cf. Ernout 1953: §320, among others). Nevertheless, these latter assumptions are contradicted by a large number of exceptions which clearly are not derived from the stem of the PPart. The following FPart forms are all derived from the stem of the present and not the PPart: [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: I have removed the list of forms mentioned, as they are included in my own list below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Moreover, there are verbal paradigms which have a FPart form without displaying a PPart form, at least in Latin, like *fugitūrus, futūrus* (cf. Leumann  et al. 1963:342).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* edited by Sascha Gaglia and  Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false)* (1903) also mentions this phenomenon and gives some examples of exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.* (On the other hand, I have found a few sources that indicate that &quot;partūrus&quot; was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718).) Johnson has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples of non-matching forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, *[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272), but the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin. (I asked this as a [separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6462), and it seems that the main criterion that would establish participle-hood in Latin is taking an accusative direct object, which is only relevant for transitive verbs.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples by category&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A. From intransitive deponents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These apparently also have passive-form future participles in *-ndus*. I'm not sure about the difference in meaning, if any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nāscĭtūrus** from *nāscor, nascī, nātus*  (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*nascendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **moritūrus** from *morior, morī, mortuus.*	&#xD;&#xA; *moriendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **oritūrus** from *orior, orīrī, ortus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*oriendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###B. in *-uitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You already mentioned this category. Hale and Buck mention the example *ruitūrus* vs. *-rutus.* Remberger mentions the example &quot;*abnuitūrus* (vs. *nūtus* 'the hint')&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###C. In *-ātūrus,* from first-declension verbs with past participles not ending in *-ātus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **sŏnātūrus** from *[sŏno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsono), sŏnāre/sŏnĕre, sŏnŭi, sŏnĭtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **jŭvātūrus** from *[jŭvo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Djuvo), jŭvāre, jūvi, jūtum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, [Peter Bullions] (1867) and [Albert Harkness] (1867) say that in compounds, *jūtūrus* is also used. &#xD;&#xA;- **sĕcātūrus**  from *[sĕco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dseco), sĕcāre, sĕcuī, sectum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, Bede's *[De Orthographia][Bede]* seems to say &quot;secturus, non secaturus&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **stātūrus** from *stō, stāre, stetī, stătus.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **frĭcātūrus** from *frĭco, frĭcāre, frĭcuī, frictum.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;([Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/frico#Latin) says *fricatum* is a possible supine form, but *frictum* is more common)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###D. Others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nōscĭtūrus** from *nōsco, nōscĕre, nōvī, nōtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;Remberger mentions the prefixed form &quot;*ignoscītūrus* (vs. *ignōtus*)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **crēscitūrus** from *crēscō, crēscĕre, crēvī, crētus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;I'm not sure where we have examples of the form *crēscitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **adduciturus** once instead of *adducturus* from *addūco, addūcĕre, addūxī, adductum* (Johnson says the single occurrence of *adduciturus* is in Plautus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **părĭtūrus** from *păriō, părĕre, pĕpĕrī, partus/părĭtus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt; Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Remberger says &quot;cf. Ernout 1953&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **cōnsequitūrus** from *cōnsequor, cōnsequī, cōnsecūtus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;I'm not sure where we have examples of the form *consequitūrus.* Because *cōnsequor* can take a direct object (unlike the verbs listed in section A above), I think that the passive form *cōnsequendus* has a clearly distinct, passive meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **vincitūrus** from *vīvō, vīvĕre, vīxī, victus* (Remberger). &#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;However, [*De Orthographia* by Flavius Caper](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1229/1/0/1434-1443#0) (or maybe in part by a Pseudo-Flavius Caper?) seems to give an analogical argument in favor of using *victurus* instead of *vinciturus,* which suggests that there may have been some degree of confusion during the time of the author (although I guess the regular form mentioned here could just be a hypothetical invention).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **haurītūrus** (Remberger) or **hausurus** (Johnson) from *hauriō, haurīre, hausī, haustus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **gauditūrus** from *gaudeō, gaudēre, gāvīsus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;Note: [*gavisurus* does seem to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23gavisur).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Some sources mentioned in the list above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some books with lists of (possible) exceptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and],* by J.R. (1705)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[A Latin grammar][Leonard],* by J Russell Leonard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leonard]: &#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=EZACAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=moriturus+oriturus+pariturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-bBNdzFRHw&amp;sig=wgji1qbBOqFDyxCBhaoAiTDEE9s&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilhPa8mIXbAhVJm-AKHfWKA94Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moriturus%20oriturus%20pariturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bede]: https://books.google.com/books?id=tOQHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=%22secaturus%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22secaturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Peter Bullions]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cxoPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=juvaturus#v=onepage&amp;q=juvaturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Albert Harkness]: https://books.google.com/books?id=n4sAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=juvaturus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="3e1aa510-e7ef-4b4e-a5eb-e832d09eae41" CreationDate="2019-03-30T09:05:09.083" UserId="9" Comment="fixed errors in quotations" Text="I don't know anywhere near enough to give a complete, or even a definitely correct answer, but there seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb that is true for &quot;regular&quot; verbs. It seems the usual identity of the stems for the perfect and future participles may be coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, Eva-Maria Remberger writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form of the FPart [...] probably represents a derivation of a supine in the form of a locative, ending in *-tū* (Leumann et al. 1963: 342); however, later it was interpreted as being derived from the stem of the PPart (cf. Ernout 1953: §320, among others). Nevertheless, these latter assumptions are contradicted by a large number of exceptions which clearly are not derived from the stem of the PPart. The following FPart forms are all derived from the stem of the present and not the PPart: [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: I have removed the list of forms mentioned, as they are included in my own list below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Moreover, there are verbal paradigms which have a FPart form without displaying a PPart form, at least in Latin, like *fugitūrus, futūrus* (cf. Leumann  et al. 1963:342).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* edited by Sascha Gaglia and  Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]* (1903) also mentions this phenomenon and gives some examples of exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.* (On the other hand, I have found a few sources that indicate that &quot;partūrus&quot; was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718).) Johnson has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples of non-matching forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, *[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272), but the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin. (I asked this as a [separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6462), and it seems that the main criterion that would establish participle-hood in Latin is taking an accusative direct object, which is only relevant for transitive verbs.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples by category&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A. From intransitive deponents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These apparently also have passive-form future participles in *-ndus*. I'm not sure about the difference in meaning, if any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nāscĭtūrus** from *nāscor, nascī, nātus*  (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*nascendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **moritūrus** from *morior, morī, mortuus.*	&#xD;&#xA; *moriendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **oritūrus** from *orior, orīrī, ortus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*oriendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###B. in *-uitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You already mentioned this category. Hale and Buck mention the example *ruitūrus* vs. *-rutus.* Remberger mentions the example &quot;*abnuitūrus* (vs. *nūtus* 'the hint')&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###C. In *-ātūrus,* from first-declension verbs with past participles not ending in *-ātus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **sŏnātūrus** from *[sŏno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsono), sŏnāre/sŏnĕre, sŏnŭi, sŏnĭtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **jŭvātūrus** from *[jŭvo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Djuvo), jŭvāre, jūvi, jūtum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, [Peter Bullions] (1867) and [Albert Harkness] (1867) say that in compounds, *jūtūrus* is also used. &#xD;&#xA;- **sĕcātūrus**  from *[sĕco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dseco), sĕcāre, sĕcuī, sectum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, Bede's *[De Orthographia][Bede]* seems to say &quot;secturus, non secaturus&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **stātūrus** from *stō, stāre, stetī, stătus.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **frĭcātūrus** from *frĭco, frĭcāre, frĭcuī, frictum.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;([Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/frico#Latin) says *fricatum* is a possible supine form, but *frictum* is more common)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###D. Others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nōscĭtūrus** from *nōsco, nōscĕre, nōvī, nōtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;Remberger mentions the prefixed form &quot;*ignoscītūrus* (vs. *ignōtus*)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **crēscitūrus** from *crēscō, crēscĕre, crēvī, crētus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;I'm not sure where we have examples of the form *crēscitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **adduciturus** once instead of *adducturus* from *addūco, addūcĕre, addūxī, adductum* (Johnson says the single occurrence of *adduciturus* is in Plautus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **părĭtūrus** from *păriō, părĕre, pĕpĕrī, partus/părĭtus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt; Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Remberger says &quot;cf. Ernout 1953&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **cōnsequitūrus** from *cōnsequor, cōnsequī, cōnsecūtus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;I'm not sure where we have examples of the form *consequitūrus.* Because *cōnsequor* can take a direct object (unlike the verbs listed in section A above), I think that the passive form *cōnsequendus* has a clearly distinct, passive meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **vincitūrus** from *vīvō, vīvĕre, vīxī, victus* (Remberger). &#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;However, [*De Orthographia* by Flavius Caper](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1229/1/0/1434-1443#0) (or maybe in part by a Pseudo-Flavius Caper?) seems to give an analogical argument in favor of using *victurus* instead of *vinciturus,* which suggests that there may have been some degree of confusion during the time of the author (although I guess the regular form mentioned here could just be a hypothetical invention).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **haurītūrus** (Remberger) or **hausurus** (Johnson) from *hauriō, haurīre, hausī, haustus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **gauditūrus** from *gaudeō, gaudēre, gāvīsus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;Note: [*gavisurus* does seem to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23gavisur).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Sources for the listed participles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The books with lists of (possible) exceptions that I used to compile my list above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Hale, William Gardner and Carl Darling Buck (1903). *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- J.R. (1705). *[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Johnson, Richard (1718). [*Grammatical Commentaries*][johnson]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leonard, J Russell (written some time before 1882). *[A Latin grammar][Leonard]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Remberger, Eva-Maria. &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, *Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* (2012), edited by Sascha Gaglia and Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [remberger]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NbXsjEqOHKIC&amp;pg=PA271&amp;lpg=PA271&amp;dq=latin+participle+inflection+verbal+adjectival&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=gjEokeware&amp;sig=irBQf-FsBFMu7gegdspS-80kcpM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjyi9jgyY3cAhWUHjQIHYf6DhA4ChDoAQhNMAY#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20participle%20inflection%20verbal%20adjectival&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[hale and buck]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leonard]: &#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=EZACAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=moriturus+oriturus+pariturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-bBNdzFRHw&amp;sig=wgji1qbBOqFDyxCBhaoAiTDEE9s&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilhPa8mIXbAhVJm-AKHfWKA94Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moriturus%20oriturus%20pariturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bede]: https://books.google.com/books?id=tOQHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=%22secaturus%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22secaturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Peter Bullions]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cxoPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=juvaturus#v=onepage&amp;q=juvaturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Albert Harkness]: https://books.google.com/books?id=n4sAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=juvaturus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="3ff93026-5d2a-4aaa-8cdd-8b6e74967982" CreationDate="2019-03-30T09:10:32.627" UserId="9" Comment="fixed errors in quotations" Text="I don't know anywhere near enough to give a complete, or even a definitely correct answer, but there seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb that is true for &quot;regular&quot; verbs. It seems the usual identity of the stems for the perfect and future participles may be coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, Eva-Maria Remberger writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form of the FPart [...] probably represents a derivation of a supine in the form of a locative, ending in *-tū* (Leumann et al. 1963: 342); however, later it was interpreted as being derived from the stem of the PPart (cf. Ernout 1953: §320, among others). Nevertheless, these latter assumptions are contradicted by a large number of exceptions which clearly are not derived from the stem of the PPart. The following FPart forms are all derived from the stem of the present and not the PPart: [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: I have removed the list of forms mentioned, as they are included in my own list below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Moreover, there are verbal paradigms which have a FPart form without displaying a PPart form, at least in Latin, like *fugitūrus, futūrus* (cf. Leumann  et al. 1963:342).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* edited by Sascha Gaglia and  Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]* (1903) also mentions this phenomenon and gives some examples of exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.* (On the other hand, I have found a few sources that indicate that &quot;partūrus&quot; was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718).) Johnson has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples of non-matching forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, *[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272), but the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin. (I asked this as a [separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6462), and it seems that the main criterion that would establish participle-hood in Latin is taking an accusative direct object, which is only relevant for transitive verbs.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples by category&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A. From intransitive deponents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These apparently also have passive-form future participles in *-ndus*. I'm not sure about the difference in meaning, if any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nāscĭtūrus** from *nāscor, nascī, nātus*  (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*nascendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **moritūrus** from *morior, morī, mortuus.*	&#xD;&#xA; *moriendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **oritūrus** from *orior, orīrī, ortus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*oriendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###B. in *-uitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You already mentioned this category. Hale and Buck mention the example *ruitūrus* vs. *-rutus.* Remberger mentions the example &quot;*abnuitūrus* (vs. *nūtus* 'the hint')&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###C. In *-ātūrus,* from first-declension verbs with past participles not ending in *-ātus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **sŏnātūrus** from *[sŏno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsono), sŏnāre/sŏnĕre, sŏnŭi, sŏnĭtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **jŭvātūrus** from *[jŭvo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Djuvo), jŭvāre, jūvi, jūtum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, [Peter Bullions] (1867) and [Albert Harkness] (1867) say that in compounds, *jūtūrus* is also used. &#xD;&#xA;- **sĕcātūrus**  from *[sĕco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dseco), sĕcāre, sĕcuī, sectum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, Bede's *[De Orthographia][Bede]* seems to say &quot;secturus, non secaturus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **stātūrus** from *stō, stāre, stetī, stătus.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **frĭcātūrus** from *[frĭco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfrico), frĭcāre, frĭcuī, frictum/(fricātum).*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;(The L&amp;S entry says that the supine is &quot;rarely&quot; *fricātum*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###D. Others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nōscĭtūrus** from *nōsco, nōscĕre, nōvī, nōtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;Remberger mentions the prefixed form &quot;*ignoscītūrus* (vs. *ignōtus*)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **crēscitūrus** from *crēscō, crēscĕre, crēvī, crētus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;I'm not sure where we have examples of the form *crēscitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **adduciturus** once instead of *adducturus* from *addūco, addūcĕre, addūxī, adductum* (Johnson says the single occurrence of *adduciturus* is in Plautus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **părĭtūrus** from *păriō, părĕre, pĕpĕrī, partus/părĭtus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt; Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Remberger says &quot;cf. Ernout 1953&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **cōnsequitūrus** from *cōnsequor, cōnsequī, cōnsecūtus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;I'm not sure where we have examples of the form *consequitūrus.* Because *cōnsequor* can take a direct object (unlike the verbs listed in section A above), I think that the passive form *cōnsequendus* has a clearly distinct, passive meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **vincitūrus** from *vīvō, vīvĕre, vīxī, victus* (Remberger). &#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;However, [*De Orthographia* by Flavius Caper](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1229/1/0/1434-1443#0) (or maybe in part by a Pseudo-Flavius Caper?) seems to give an analogical argument in favor of using *victurus* instead of *vinciturus,* which suggests that there may have been some degree of confusion during the time of the author (although I guess the regular form mentioned here could just be a hypothetical invention).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **haurītūrus** (Remberger) or **hausurus** (Johnson) from *hauriō, haurīre, hausī, haustus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **gauditūrus** from *gaudeō, gaudēre, gāvīsus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;Note: [*gavisurus* does seem to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23gavisur).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Sources for the listed participles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The books with lists of (possible) exceptions that I used to compile my list above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Hale, William Gardner and Carl Darling Buck (1903). *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- J.R. (1705). *[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Johnson, Richard (1718). [*Grammatical Commentaries*][johnson]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leonard, J Russell (written some time before 1882). *[A Latin grammar][Leonard]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Remberger, Eva-Maria. &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, *Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* (2012), edited by Sascha Gaglia and Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [remberger]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NbXsjEqOHKIC&amp;pg=PA271&amp;lpg=PA271&amp;dq=latin+participle+inflection+verbal+adjectival&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=gjEokeware&amp;sig=irBQf-FsBFMu7gegdspS-80kcpM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjyi9jgyY3cAhWUHjQIHYf6DhA4ChDoAQhNMAY#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20participle%20inflection%20verbal%20adjectival&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[hale and buck]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leonard]: &#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=EZACAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=moriturus+oriturus+pariturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-bBNdzFRHw&amp;sig=wgji1qbBOqFDyxCBhaoAiTDEE9s&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilhPa8mIXbAhVJm-AKHfWKA94Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moriturus%20oriturus%20pariturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bede]: https://books.google.com/books?id=tOQHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=%22secaturus%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22secaturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Peter Bullions]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cxoPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=juvaturus#v=onepage&amp;q=juvaturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Albert Harkness]: https://books.google.com/books?id=n4sAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=juvaturus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="06e67eb1-f578-4bbe-9d5b-d80286743845" CreationDate="2019-03-30T09:20:27.833" UserId="9" Comment="fixed errors in quotations" Text="I don't know anywhere near enough to give a complete, or even a definitely correct answer, but there seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb that is true for &quot;regular&quot; verbs. It seems the usual identity of the stems for the perfect and future participles may be coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, Eva-Maria Remberger writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form of the FPart [...] probably represents a derivation of a supine in the form of a locative, ending in *-tū* (Leumann et al. 1963: 342); however, later it was interpreted as being derived from the stem of the PPart (cf. Ernout 1953: §320, among others). Nevertheless, these latter assumptions are contradicted by a large number of exceptions which clearly are not derived from the stem of the PPart. The following FPart forms are all derived from the stem of the present and not the PPart: [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: I have removed the list of forms mentioned, as they are included in my own list below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Moreover, there are verbal paradigms which have a FPart form without displaying a PPart form, at least in Latin, like *fugitūrus, futūrus* (cf. Leumann  et al. 1963:342).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* edited by Sascha Gaglia and  Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]* (1903) also mentions this phenomenon and gives some examples of exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.* (On the other hand, I have found a few sources that indicate that &quot;partūrus&quot; was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718).) Johnson has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples of non-matching forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, *[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272), but the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin. (I asked this as a [separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6462), and it seems that the main criterion that would establish participle-hood in Latin is taking an accusative direct object, which is only relevant for transitive verbs.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples by category&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A. From intransitive deponents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These apparently also have passive-form future participles in *-ndus*. I'm not sure about the difference in meaning, if any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nāscĭtūrus** from *nāscor, nascī, nātus*  (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*nascendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **moritūrus** from *morior, morī, mortuus.*	&#xD;&#xA; *moriendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **oritūrus** from *orior, orīrī, ortus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*oriendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###B. in *-uitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You already mentioned this category. Hale and Buck mention the example *ruitūrus* vs. *-rutus.* Remberger mentions the example &quot;*abnuitūrus* (vs. *nūtus* 'the hint')&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###C. In *-ātūrus,* from first-declension verbs with past participles not ending in *-ātus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **sŏnātūrus** from *[sŏno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsono), sŏnāre/sŏnĕre, sŏnŭi, sŏnĭtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **jŭvātūrus** from *[jŭvo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Djuvo), jŭvāre, jūvi, jūtum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, [Peter Bullions] (1867) and [Albert Harkness] (1867) say that in compounds, *jūtūrus* is also used. &#xD;&#xA;- **sĕcātūrus**  from *[sĕco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dseco), sĕcāre, sĕcuī, sectum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, Bede's *[De Orthographia][Bede]* seems to say &quot;secturus, non secaturus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **stātūrus** from *stō, stāre, stetī, stătus.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **frĭcātūrus** from *[frĭco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfrico), frĭcāre, frĭcuī, frictum/(fricātum).*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;(The L&amp;S entry says that the supine is &quot;rarely&quot; *fricātum*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Emmanuelis Alvari E Societate Iesu Grammatica Sive Institutionum Linguae Latinae](https://books.google.com/books?id=eEgRotn5jmgC&amp;pg=PA152)* (1627) gives a long list including the following forms, but I haven't verified it yet: *cubaturus, domaturus, crepaturus, vetaturus, tomaturus*. *[Hoole's Terminations for nouns and verbs](https://books.google.com/books?id=cI0CAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA95&amp;lpg=PA95)* describes both *crepaturus* and *crepatum* as rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###D. Others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nōscĭtūrus** from *nōsco, nōscĕre, nōvī, nōtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;Remberger mentions the prefixed form &quot;*ignoscītūrus* (vs. *ignōtus*)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **crēscitūrus** from *crēscō, crēscĕre, crēvī, crētus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;I'm not sure where we have examples of the form *crēscitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **adduciturus** once instead of *adducturus* from *addūco, addūcĕre, addūxī, adductum* (Johnson says the single occurrence of *adduciturus* is in Plautus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **părĭtūrus** from *păriō, părĕre, pĕpĕrī, partus/părĭtus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt; Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Remberger says &quot;cf. Ernout 1953&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **cōnsequitūrus** from *cōnsequor, cōnsequī, cōnsecūtus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;I'm not sure where we have examples of the form *consequitūrus.* Because *cōnsequor* can take a direct object (unlike the verbs listed in section A above), I think that the passive form *cōnsequendus* has a clearly distinct, passive meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **vincitūrus** from *vīvō, vīvĕre, vīxī, victus* (Remberger). &#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;However, [*De Orthographia* by Flavius Caper](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1229/1/0/1434-1443#0) (or maybe in part by a Pseudo-Flavius Caper?) seems to give an analogical argument in favor of using *victurus* instead of *vinciturus,* which suggests that there may have been some degree of confusion during the time of the author (although I guess the regular form mentioned here could just be a hypothetical invention).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **haurītūrus** (Remberger) or **hausurus** (Johnson) from *hauriō, haurīre, hausī, haustus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **gauditūrus** from *gaudeō, gaudēre, gāvīsus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;Note: [*gavisurus* does seem to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23gavisur).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Sources for the listed participles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The books with lists of (possible) exceptions that I used to compile my list above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Hale, William Gardner and Carl Darling Buck (1903). *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- J.R. (1705). *[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Johnson, Richard (1718). [*Grammatical Commentaries*][johnson]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leonard, J Russell (written some time before 1882). *[A Latin grammar][Leonard]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Remberger, Eva-Maria. &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, *Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* (2012), edited by Sascha Gaglia and Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [remberger]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NbXsjEqOHKIC&amp;pg=PA271&amp;lpg=PA271&amp;dq=latin+participle+inflection+verbal+adjectival&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=gjEokeware&amp;sig=irBQf-FsBFMu7gegdspS-80kcpM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjyi9jgyY3cAhWUHjQIHYf6DhA4ChDoAQhNMAY#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20participle%20inflection%20verbal%20adjectival&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[hale and buck]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leonard]: &#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=EZACAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=moriturus+oriturus+pariturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-bBNdzFRHw&amp;sig=wgji1qbBOqFDyxCBhaoAiTDEE9s&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilhPa8mIXbAhVJm-AKHfWKA94Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moriturus%20oriturus%20pariturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bede]: https://books.google.com/books?id=tOQHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=%22secaturus%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22secaturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Peter Bullions]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cxoPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=juvaturus#v=onepage&amp;q=juvaturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Albert Harkness]: https://books.google.com/books?id=n4sAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=juvaturus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="5bec22d1-3048-489f-8dbb-4d7ca033d6d3" CreationDate="2019-03-30T09:26:28.517" UserId="9" Comment="fixed errors in quotations" Text="I don't know anywhere near enough to give a complete, or even a definitely correct answer, but there seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb that is true for &quot;regular&quot; verbs. It seems the usual identity of the stems for the perfect and future participles may be coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, Eva-Maria Remberger writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form of the FPart [...] probably represents a derivation of a supine in the form of a locative, ending in *-tū* (Leumann et al. 1963: 342); however, later it was interpreted as being derived from the stem of the PPart (cf. Ernout 1953: §320, among others). Nevertheless, these latter assumptions are contradicted by a large number of exceptions which clearly are not derived from the stem of the PPart. The following FPart forms are all derived from the stem of the present and not the PPart: [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: I have removed the list of forms mentioned, as they are included in my own list below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Moreover, there are verbal paradigms which have a FPart form without displaying a PPart form, at least in Latin, like *fugitūrus, futūrus* (cf. Leumann  et al. 1963:342).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* edited by Sascha Gaglia and  Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]* (1903) also mentions this phenomenon and gives some examples of exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.* (On the other hand, I have found a few sources that indicate that &quot;partūrus&quot; was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718).) Johnson has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples of non-matching forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, *[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272), but the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin. (I asked this as a [separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6462), and it seems that the main criterion that would establish participle-hood in Latin is taking an accusative direct object, which is only relevant for transitive verbs.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples by category&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A. From intransitive deponents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These apparently also have passive-form future participles in *-ndus*. I'm not sure about the difference in meaning, if any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nāscĭtūrus** from *nāscor, nascī, nātus*  (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*nascendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **moritūrus** from *morior, morī, mortuus.*	&#xD;&#xA; *moriendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **oritūrus** from *orior, orīrī, ortus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*oriendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###B. in *-uitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You already mentioned this category. Hale and Buck mention the example *ruitūrus* vs. *-rutus.* Remberger mentions the example &quot;*abnuitūrus* (vs. *nūtus* 'the hint')&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###C. In *-ātūrus,* from first-conjugation verbs with past participles not ending in *-ātus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **sŏnātūrus** from *[sŏno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsono), sŏnāre/sŏnĕre, sŏnŭi, sŏnĭtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **jŭvātūrus** from *[jŭvo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Djuvo), jŭvāre, jūvi, jūtum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, [Peter Bullions] (1867) and [Albert Harkness] (1867) say that in compounds, *jūtūrus* is also used. &#xD;&#xA;- **sĕcātūrus**  from *[sĕco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dseco), sĕcāre, sĕcuī, sectum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, Bede's *[De Orthographia][Bede]* seems to say &quot;secturus, non secaturus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **stātūrus** from *stō, stāre, stetī, stătus.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **frĭcātūrus** from *[frĭco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfrico), frĭcāre, frĭcuī, frictum/(fricātum).*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;(The L&amp;S entry says that the supine is &quot;rarely&quot; *fricātum*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Emmanuelis Alvari E Societate Iesu Grammatica Sive Institutionum Linguae Latinae](https://books.google.com/books?id=eEgRotn5jmgC&amp;pg=PA152)* (1627) gives a long list including the following forms, but I haven't verified it yet, and some seem a bit doubtful: *cubaturus, domaturus, crepaturus, vetaturus, tonaturus*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*cubiturus* seems to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23cubitur)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*domiturus* seems to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23domitur)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Hoole's Terminations for nouns and verbs](https://books.google.com/books?id=cI0CAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA95&amp;lpg=PA95)* describes both *crepaturus* and *crepatum* as rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###D. Others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nōscĭtūrus** from *nōsco, nōscĕre, nōvī, nōtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;Remberger mentions the prefixed form &quot;*ignoscītūrus* (vs. *ignōtus*)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **crēscitūrus** from *crēscō, crēscĕre, crēvī, crētus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;I'm not sure where we have examples of the form *crēscitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **adduciturus** once instead of *adducturus* from *addūco, addūcĕre, addūxī, adductum* (Johnson says the single occurrence of *adduciturus* is in Plautus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **părĭtūrus** from *păriō, părĕre, pĕpĕrī, partus/părĭtus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt; Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Remberger says &quot;cf. Ernout 1953&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **cōnsequitūrus** from *cōnsequor, cōnsequī, cōnsecūtus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;I'm not sure where we have examples of the form *consequitūrus.* Because *cōnsequor* can take a direct object (unlike the verbs listed in section A above), I think that the passive form *cōnsequendus* has a clearly distinct, passive meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **vincitūrus** from *vīvō, vīvĕre, vīxī, victus* (Remberger). &#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;However, [*De Orthographia* by Flavius Caper](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1229/1/0/1434-1443#0) (or maybe in part by a Pseudo-Flavius Caper?) seems to give an analogical argument in favor of using *victurus* instead of *vinciturus,* which suggests that there may have been some degree of confusion during the time of the author (although I guess the regular form mentioned here could just be a hypothetical invention).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **haurītūrus** (Remberger) or **hausurus** (Johnson) from *hauriō, haurīre, hausī, haustus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **gauditūrus** from *gaudeō, gaudēre, gāvīsus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;Note: [*gavisurus* does seem to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23gavisur).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Sources for the listed participles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The books with lists of (possible) exceptions that I used to compile my list above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Hale, William Gardner and Carl Darling Buck (1903). *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- J.R. (1705). *[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Johnson, Richard (1718). [*Grammatical Commentaries*][johnson]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leonard, J Russell (written some time before 1882). *[A Latin grammar][Leonard]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Remberger, Eva-Maria. &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, *Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* (2012), edited by Sascha Gaglia and Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [remberger]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NbXsjEqOHKIC&amp;pg=PA271&amp;lpg=PA271&amp;dq=latin+participle+inflection+verbal+adjectival&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=gjEokeware&amp;sig=irBQf-FsBFMu7gegdspS-80kcpM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjyi9jgyY3cAhWUHjQIHYf6DhA4ChDoAQhNMAY#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20participle%20inflection%20verbal%20adjectival&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[hale and buck]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leonard]: &#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=EZACAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=moriturus+oriturus+pariturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-bBNdzFRHw&amp;sig=wgji1qbBOqFDyxCBhaoAiTDEE9s&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilhPa8mIXbAhVJm-AKHfWKA94Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moriturus%20oriturus%20pariturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bede]: https://books.google.com/books?id=tOQHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=%22secaturus%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22secaturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Peter Bullions]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cxoPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=juvaturus#v=onepage&amp;q=juvaturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Albert Harkness]: https://books.google.com/books?id=n4sAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=juvaturus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="12dd50df-bece-4eff-a9cf-84b11e1fec38" CreationDate="2019-03-30T09:36:12.813" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 95 characters in body" Text="There seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb that is true for &quot;regular&quot; verbs. Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]* (1903) mentions this phenomenon and gives some other examples of exceptions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the usual identity of the stems for the perfect and future participles may be coincidental. In &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, Eva-Maria Remberger writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form of the FPart [...] probably represents a derivation of a supine in the form of a locative, ending in *-tū* (Leumann et al. 1963: 342); however, later it was interpreted as being derived from the stem of the PPart (cf. Ernout 1953: §320, among others). Nevertheless, these latter assumptions are contradicted by a large number of exceptions which clearly are not derived from the stem of the PPart. The following FPart forms are all derived from the stem of the present and not the PPart: [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: I have removed the list of forms mentioned, as they are included in my own list below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Moreover, there are verbal paradigms which have a FPart form without displaying a PPart form, at least in Latin, like *fugitūrus, futūrus* (cf. Leumann  et al. 1963:342).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* edited by Sascha Gaglia and  Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.* (On the other hand, I have found a few sources that indicate that &quot;partūrus&quot; was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718).) Johnson has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples of non-matching forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, *[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272), but the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin. (I asked this as a [separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6462), and it seems that the main criterion that would establish participle-hood in Latin is taking an accusative direct object, which is only relevant for transitive verbs.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples by category&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A. From intransitive deponents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These apparently also have passive-form future participles in *-ndus*. I'm not sure about the difference in meaning, if any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nāscĭtūrus** from *nāscor, nascī, nātus*  (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*nascendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **moritūrus** from *morior, morī, mortuus.*	&#xD;&#xA; *moriendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **oritūrus** from *orior, orīrī, ortus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*oriendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###B. in *-uitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You already mentioned this category. Hale and Buck mention the example *ruitūrus* vs. *-rutus.* Remberger mentions the example &quot;*abnuitūrus* (vs. *nūtus* 'the hint')&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###C. In *-ātūrus,* from first-conjugation verbs with past participles not ending in *-ātus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **sŏnātūrus** from *[sŏno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsono), sŏnāre/sŏnĕre, sŏnŭi, sŏnĭtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **jŭvātūrus** from *[jŭvo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Djuvo), jŭvāre, jūvi, jūtum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, [Peter Bullions] (1867) and [Albert Harkness] (1867) say that in compounds, *jūtūrus* is also used. &#xD;&#xA;- **sĕcātūrus**  from *[sĕco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dseco), sĕcāre, sĕcuī, sectum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, Bede's *[De Orthographia][Bede]* seems to say &quot;secturus, non secaturus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **stātūrus** from *stō, stāre, stetī, stătus.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **frĭcātūrus** from *[frĭco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfrico), frĭcāre, frĭcuī, frictum/(fricātum).*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;(The L&amp;S entry says that the supine is &quot;rarely&quot; *fricātum*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Emmanuelis Alvari E Societate Iesu Grammatica Sive Institutionum Linguae Latinae](https://books.google.com/books?id=eEgRotn5jmgC&amp;pg=PA152)* (1627) gives a long list including the following forms, but I haven't verified it yet, and some seem a bit doubtful: *cubaturus, domaturus, crepaturus, vetaturus, tonaturus*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*cubiturus* seems to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23cubitur)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*domiturus* seems to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23domitur)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Hoole's Terminations for nouns and verbs](https://books.google.com/books?id=cI0CAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA95&amp;lpg=PA95)* describes both *crepaturus* and *crepatum* as rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###D. Others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nōscĭtūrus** from *nōsco, nōscĕre, nōvī, nōtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;Remberger mentions the prefixed form &quot;*ignoscītūrus* (vs. *ignōtus*)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **crēscitūrus** from *crēscō, crēscĕre, crēvī, crētus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;I'm not sure where we have examples of the form *crēscitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **adduciturus** once instead of *adducturus* from *addūco, addūcĕre, addūxī, adductum* (Johnson says the single occurrence of *adduciturus* is in Plautus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **părĭtūrus** from *păriō, părĕre, pĕpĕrī, partus/părĭtus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt; Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Remberger says &quot;cf. Ernout 1953&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **cōnsequitūrus** from *cōnsequor, cōnsequī, cōnsecūtus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;I'm not sure where we have examples of the form *consequitūrus.* Because *cōnsequor* can take a direct object (unlike the verbs listed in section A above), I think that the passive form *cōnsequendus* has a clearly distinct, passive meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **vincitūrus** from *vīvō, vīvĕre, vīxī, victus* (Remberger). &#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;However, [*De Orthographia* by Flavius Caper](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1229/1/0/1434-1443#0) (or maybe in part by a Pseudo-Flavius Caper?) seems to give an analogical argument in favor of using *victurus* instead of *vinciturus,* which suggests that there may have been some degree of confusion during the time of the author (although I guess the regular form mentioned here could just be a hypothetical invention).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **haurītūrus** (Remberger) or **hausurus** (Johnson) from *hauriō, haurīre, hausī, haustus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **gauditūrus** from *gaudeō, gaudēre, gāvīsus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;Note: [*gavisurus* does seem to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23gavisur).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Sources for the listed participles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The books with lists of (possible) exceptions that I used to compile my list above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Hale, William Gardner and Carl Darling Buck (1903). *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- J.R. (1705). *[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Johnson, Richard (1718). [*Grammatical Commentaries*][johnson]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leonard, J Russell (written some time before 1882). *[A Latin grammar][Leonard]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Remberger, Eva-Maria. &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, *Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* (2012), edited by Sascha Gaglia and Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [remberger]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NbXsjEqOHKIC&amp;pg=PA271&amp;lpg=PA271&amp;dq=latin+participle+inflection+verbal+adjectival&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=gjEokeware&amp;sig=irBQf-FsBFMu7gegdspS-80kcpM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjyi9jgyY3cAhWUHjQIHYf6DhA4ChDoAQhNMAY#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20participle%20inflection%20verbal%20adjectival&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[hale and buck]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leonard]: &#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=EZACAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=moriturus+oriturus+pariturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-bBNdzFRHw&amp;sig=wgji1qbBOqFDyxCBhaoAiTDEE9s&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilhPa8mIXbAhVJm-AKHfWKA94Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moriturus%20oriturus%20pariturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bede]: https://books.google.com/books?id=tOQHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=%22secaturus%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22secaturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Peter Bullions]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cxoPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=juvaturus#v=onepage&amp;q=juvaturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Albert Harkness]: https://books.google.com/books?id=n4sAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=juvaturus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="4472ec7f-f6d0-43b8-b860-f904b045020e" CreationDate="2019-03-30T09:46:16.110" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 95 characters in body" Text="There seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb that is true for &quot;regular&quot; verbs. Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]* (1903) mentions this phenomenon and gives some other examples of exceptions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the usual identity of the stems for the perfect and future participles may be coincidental. In &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, Eva-Maria Remberger writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form of the FPart [...] probably represents a derivation of a supine in the form of a locative, ending in *-tū* (Leumann et al. 1963: 342); however, later it was interpreted as being derived from the stem of the PPart (cf. Ernout 1953: §320, among others). Nevertheless, these latter assumptions are contradicted by a large number of exceptions which clearly are not derived from the stem of the PPart. The following FPart forms are all derived from the stem of the present and not the PPart: [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: I have removed the list of forms mentioned, as they are included in my own list below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Moreover, there are verbal paradigms which have a FPart form without displaying a PPart form, at least in Latin, like *fugitūrus, futūrus* (cf. Leumann  et al. 1963:342).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* edited by Sascha Gaglia and  Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.* (On the other hand, I have found a few sources that indicate that &quot;partūrus&quot; was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718).) Johnson has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples of non-matching forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, *[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272), but the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin. (I asked this as a [separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6462), and it seems that the main criterion that would establish participle-hood in Latin is taking an accusative direct object, which is only relevant for transitive verbs.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples by category&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A. From intransitive deponents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These apparently also have passive-form future participles in *-ndus*. I'm not sure about the difference in meaning, if any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nāscĭtūrus** from *nāscor, nascī, nātus*  (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*nascendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **moritūrus** from *morior, morī, mortuus.*	&#xD;&#xA; *moriendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **oritūrus** from *orior, orīrī, ortus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*oriendus* is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###B. in *-uitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You already mentioned this category. Hale and Buck mention the example *ruitūrus* vs. *-rutus.* Remberger mentions the example &quot;*abnuitūrus* (vs. *nūtus* 'the hint')&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###C. In *-ātūrus,* from first-conjugation verbs with past participles not ending in *-ātus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **sŏnātūrus** from *[sŏno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsono), sŏnāre/sŏnĕre, sŏnŭi, sŏnĭtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **jŭvātūrus** from *[jŭvo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Djuvo), jŭvāre, jūvi, jūtum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, [Peter Bullions] (1867) and [Albert Harkness] (1867) say that in compounds, *jūtūrus* is also used. &#xD;&#xA;- **sĕcātūrus**  from *[sĕco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dseco), sĕcāre, sĕcuī, sectum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, Bede's *[De Orthographia][Bede]* seems to say &quot;secturus, non secaturus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **stātūrus** from *stō, stāre, stetī, stătus.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **frĭcātūrus** from *[frĭco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfrico), frĭcāre, frĭcuī, frictum/(fricātum).*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;(The L&amp;S entry says that the supine is &quot;rarely&quot; *fricātum*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Emmanuelis Alvari E Societate Iesu Grammatica Sive Institutionum Linguae Latinae](https://books.google.com/books?id=eEgRotn5jmgC&amp;pg=PA152)* (1627) gives a long list including the following forms, but I haven't verified it yet, and some seem a bit doubtful: *cubaturus, domaturus, crepaturus, vetaturus, tonaturus*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*cubiturus* seems to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23cubitur)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*domiturus* seems to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23domitur)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Hoole's Terminations for nouns and verbs](https://books.google.com/books?id=cI0CAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA95&amp;lpg=PA95)* describes both *crepaturus* and *crepatum* as rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Grandgent 1907](https://books.google.com/books?id=JDQFAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA183) (&quot;An Introduction to Vulgar Latin&quot;) says that in Vulgar Latin, *-ātus* was extended to many past participles of first-conjugation verbs that formerly had past participles in *-ĭtus*: the examples given are *\*crepatus, domatus, plicatus,* *\*sonatus,* *\*tonatus, vetatus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###D. Others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nōscĭtūrus** from *nōsco, nōscĕre, nōvī, nōtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;Remberger mentions the prefixed form &quot;*ignoscītūrus* (vs. *ignōtus*)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **crēscitūrus** from *crēscō, crēscĕre, crēvī, crētus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;I'm not sure where we have examples of the form *crēscitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **adduciturus** once instead of *adducturus* from *addūco, addūcĕre, addūxī, adductum* (Johnson says the single occurrence of *adduciturus* is in Plautus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **părĭtūrus** from *păriō, părĕre, pĕpĕrī, partus/părĭtus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt; Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Remberger says &quot;cf. Ernout 1953&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **cōnsequitūrus** from *cōnsequor, cōnsequī, cōnsecūtus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;I'm not sure where we have examples of the form *consequitūrus.* Because *cōnsequor* can take a direct object (unlike the verbs listed in section A above), I think that the passive form *cōnsequendus* has a clearly distinct, passive meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **vincitūrus** from *vīvō, vīvĕre, vīxī, victus* (Remberger). &#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;However, [*De Orthographia* by Flavius Caper](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1229/1/0/1434-1443#0) (or maybe in part by a Pseudo-Flavius Caper?) seems to give an analogical argument in favor of using *victurus* instead of *vinciturus,* which suggests that there may have been some degree of confusion during the time of the author (although I guess the regular form mentioned here could just be a hypothetical invention).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **haurītūrus** (Remberger) or **hausurus** (Johnson) from *hauriō, haurīre, hausī, haustus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **gauditūrus** from *gaudeō, gaudēre, gāvīsus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;Note: [*gavisurus* does seem to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23gavisur).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Sources for the listed participles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The books with lists of (possible) exceptions that I used to compile my list above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Hale, William Gardner and Carl Darling Buck (1903). *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- J.R. (1705). *[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Johnson, Richard (1718). [*Grammatical Commentaries*][johnson]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leonard, J Russell (written some time before 1882). *[A Latin grammar][Leonard]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Remberger, Eva-Maria. &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, *Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* (2012), edited by Sascha Gaglia and Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [remberger]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NbXsjEqOHKIC&amp;pg=PA271&amp;lpg=PA271&amp;dq=latin+participle+inflection+verbal+adjectival&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=gjEokeware&amp;sig=irBQf-FsBFMu7gegdspS-80kcpM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjyi9jgyY3cAhWUHjQIHYf6DhA4ChDoAQhNMAY#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20participle%20inflection%20verbal%20adjectival&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[hale and buck]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leonard]: &#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=EZACAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=moriturus+oriturus+pariturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-bBNdzFRHw&amp;sig=wgji1qbBOqFDyxCBhaoAiTDEE9s&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilhPa8mIXbAhVJm-AKHfWKA94Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moriturus%20oriturus%20pariturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bede]: https://books.google.com/books?id=tOQHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=%22secaturus%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22secaturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Peter Bullions]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cxoPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=juvaturus#v=onepage&amp;q=juvaturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Albert Harkness]: https://books.google.com/books?id=n4sAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=juvaturus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9374" RevisionGUID="bc8c6922-31a0-41e9-b8ee-57f0ca04d1d6" CreationDate="2019-03-30T14:43:13.020" UserId="1982" Text="The problem, here, may be one of flow. The separation of the &quot;sed&quot; &amp; &quot;quod&quot; clauses works: hard truth: (another) hard truth; it's punchy, driving the story forward; consequently, the &quot;quod&quot; clause flows into the next line: they-could-not-forbid-(therefore)-both-burned..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your own translation: &quot;but the parents forbade what they could not forbid.&quot;, sounds good, in English, but requires a jerky re-start for the next line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brookes More was probably more concerned with erudition than poetic flow; but, nothing wrong with that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9375" RevisionGUID="9b9aeba5-d45f-4f2b-8dad-e80b14fa62d2" CreationDate="2019-03-30T20:14:49.610" UserId="3248" Text="In Catalan we do have the verb _immergir_ (vid. http://dlc.iec.cat/results.asp)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Spanish, I've seen that _inmergir_ is found in authors like Ramón y Cajal o Pérez Galdós. Vid. [https://twitter.com/RAEinforma/status/648450561776427008][2] According to RAE (_Real Academia Española_), &quot;sería raro, pero perfectamente correcto&quot; ('[to use this verb] would be odd, but perfectly correct/accepted' [in Spanish]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dlc.iec.cat/results.asp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://twitter.com/RAEinforma/status/648450561776427008" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9375" RevisionGUID="80817eed-36a0-47e7-a8b0-f411e0caa2e1" CreationDate="2019-03-30T20:22:24.977" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Both verbs do exist in Catalan: _immergir_ and _submergir_ (vid. [https://dlc.iec.cat/][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Spanish, I've seen that _inmergir_ is found in authors like Ramón y Cajal o Pérez Galdós. Vid. [https://twitter.com/RAEinforma/status/648450561776427008][2] According to RAE (_Real Academia Española_), &quot;[su uso] sería raro, pero perfectamente correcto&quot; ('[its use] would be odd, but perfectly correct'). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://dlc.iec.cat/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://twitter.com/RAEinforma/status/648450561776427008" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9375" RevisionGUID="c499a0ee-1901-4117-b70e-c8b1e6407a32" CreationDate="2019-03-30T20:39:25.773" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="Both verbs do exist in Catalan: _immergir_ and _submergir_ (vid. [https://dlc.iec.cat/][1]). _Immergir_: &quot;ficar **dins** un líquid&quot; ('to put **into** a liquid') / _Submergir_: &quot;Posar **sota** l’aigua o altre líquid&quot; ('to put **under** the water or other liquid&quot;).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Spanish, I've seen that _inmergir_ is found in authors like Ramón y Cajal o Pérez Galdós. Vid. [https://twitter.com/RAEinforma/status/648450561776427008][2] According to RAE (_Real Academia Española_), &quot;[su uso] sería raro, pero perfectamente correcto&quot; ('[its use] would be odd, but perfectly correct'). So feel free to use both verbs!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://dlc.iec.cat/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://twitter.com/RAEinforma/status/648450561776427008" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9375" RevisionGUID="29abe350-683f-4231-a782-7be17e5ae0b7" CreationDate="2019-03-30T20:44:33.087" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="Both verbs do exist in Catalan: _immergir_ and _submergir_ (vid. [https://dlc.iec.cat/][1]). _Immergir_: &quot;ficar **dins** un líquid&quot; ('to introduce **into** a liquid') / _Submergir_: &quot;Posar **sota** l’aigua o altre líquid&quot; ('to put **under** the water or other liquid&quot;).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Spanish, I've seen that _inmergir_ is found in authors like Ramón y Cajal o Pérez Galdós. Vid. [https://twitter.com/RAEinforma/status/648450561776427008][2] According to RAE (_Real Academia Española_), &quot;[su uso] sería raro, pero perfectamente correcto&quot; ('[its use] would be odd, but perfectly correct'). So feel free to use both verbs!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://dlc.iec.cat/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://twitter.com/RAEinforma/status/648450561776427008" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="6c853893-4adb-478c-872b-7ad7091ad608" CreationDate="2019-03-30T21:00:43.493" UserId="9" Comment="added 388 characters in body" Text="There seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb that is true for &quot;regular&quot; verbs. Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]* (1903) mentions this phenomenon and gives some other examples of exceptions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the usual identity of the stems for the perfect and future participles may be coincidental. In &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, Eva-Maria Remberger writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form of the FPart [...] probably represents a derivation of a supine in the form of a locative, ending in *-tū* (Leumann et al. 1963: 342); however, later it was interpreted as being derived from the stem of the PPart (cf. Ernout 1953: §320, among others). Nevertheless, these latter assumptions are contradicted by a large number of exceptions which clearly are not derived from the stem of the PPart. The following FPart forms are all derived from the stem of the present and not the PPart: [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: I have removed the list of forms mentioned, as they are included in my own list below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Moreover, there are verbal paradigms which have a FPart form without displaying a PPart form, at least in Latin, like *fugitūrus, futūrus* (cf. Leumann  et al. 1963:342).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* edited by Sascha Gaglia and  Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.* (On the other hand, I have found a few sources that indicate that &quot;partūrus&quot; was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718).) Johnson has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples of non-matching forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, *[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272), but the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin. (I asked this as a [separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6462), and it seems that the main criterion that would establish participle-hood in Latin is taking an accusative direct object, which is only relevant for transitive verbs.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples by category&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A. From intransitive deponents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least some of these apparently also have passive-form future participles in *-ndus*. I'm not sure about the difference in meaning or usage, if any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nāscĭtūrus** from *nāscor, nascī, nātus*  (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*nascendus* also seems to be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **moritūrus** from *morior, morī, mortuus.*	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **oritūrus** from *orior, orīrī, ortus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **graditūrus** from *gradior, gradī, gressus* (Neue and Wagener, p. 588).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###B. in *-uitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You already mentioned this category. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  *ruitūrus* vs. *-rutus* (Hale and Buck).&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;*abnuitūrus* (vs. *nūtus* 'the hint')&quot; (Remberger)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *fruiturus* and *construiturus* (Neue and Wagener)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###C. In *-ātūrus,* from first-conjugation verbs with past participles not ending in *-ātus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **sŏnātūrus** from *[sŏno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsono), sŏnāre/sŏnĕre, sŏnŭi, sŏnĭtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **jŭvātūrus** from *[jŭvo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Djuvo), jŭvāre, jūvi, jūtum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, [Peter Bullions] (1867) and [Albert Harkness] (1867) say that in compounds, *jūtūrus* is also used. &#xD;&#xA;- **sĕcātūrus**  from *[sĕco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dseco), sĕcāre, sĕcuī, sectum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, Bede's *[De Orthographia][Bede]* seems to say &quot;secturus, non secaturus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **stātūrus** from *stō, stāre, stetī, stătus.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **frĭcātūrus** from *[frĭco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfrico), frĭcāre, frĭcuī, frictum/(fricātum).*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;(The L&amp;S entry says that the supine is &quot;rarely&quot; *fricātum*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Emmanuelis Alvari E Societate Iesu Grammatica Sive Institutionum Linguae Latinae](https://books.google.com/books?id=eEgRotn5jmgC&amp;pg=PA152)* (1627) gives a long list including the following forms, but I haven't verified it yet, and some seem a bit doubtful: *cubaturus, domaturus, crepaturus, vetaturus, tonaturus*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*cubiturus* seems to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23cubitur)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*domiturus* seems to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23domitur)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Hoole's Terminations for nouns and verbs](https://books.google.com/books?id=cI0CAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA95&amp;lpg=PA95)* describes both *crepaturus* and *crepatum* as rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Grandgent 1907](https://books.google.com/books?id=JDQFAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA183) (&quot;An Introduction to Vulgar Latin&quot;) says that in Vulgar Latin, *-ātus* was extended to many past participles of first-conjugation verbs that formerly had past participles in *-ĭtus*: the examples given are *\*crepatus, domatus, plicatus,* *\*sonatus,* *\*tonatus, vetatus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###D. Others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nōscĭtūrus** from *nōsco, nōscĕre, nōvī, nōtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;Remberger mentions the prefixed form &quot;*ignoscītūrus* (vs. *ignōtus*)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **părĭtūrus** from *păriō, părĕre, pĕpĕrī, partus/părĭtus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt; Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Remberger says &quot;cf. Ernout 1953&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **vincitūrus** from *vīvō, vīvĕre, vīxī, victus* (Remberger). &#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;However, [*De Orthographia* by Flavius Caper](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1229/1/0/1434-1443#0) (or maybe in part by a Pseudo-Flavius Caper?) seems to give an analogical argument in favor of using *victurus* instead of *vinciturus,* which suggests that there may have been some degree of confusion during the time of the author (although I guess the regular form mentioned here could just be a hypothetical invention).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **haurītūrus** (Remberger) or **hausurus** (Johnson) from *hauriō, haurīre, hausī, haustus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **gauditūrus** from *gaudeō, gaudēre, gāvīsus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;Note: [*gavisurus* does seem to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23gavisur).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###E. Others (rare?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **crēscitūrus** from *crēscō, crēscĕre, crēvī, crētus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;I'm not sure where we have examples of the form *crēscitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **adduciturus** once instead of *adducturus* from *addūco, addūcĕre, addūxī, adductum* (Johnson says the single occurrence of *adduciturus* is in Plautus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **cōnsequitūrus** from *cōnsequor, cōnsequī, cōnsecūtus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;But Neue and Wagener, who say that *consequiturus* occurs in one inscription, &quot;aus dem J. 257 n. Chr., I. Neap. 1524&quot;, suggest that it is just a mistake. Because *cōnsequor* can take a direct object (unlike the verbs listed in section A above), I think that the passive form *cōnsequendus* has a clearly distinct, passive meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Sources for the listed participles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The books with lists of (possible) exceptions that I used to compile my list above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Hale, William Gardner and Carl Darling Buck (1903). *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- J.R. (1705). *[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Johnson, Richard (1718). [*Grammatical Commentaries*][johnson]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leonard, J Russell (written some time before 1882). *[A Latin grammar][Leonard]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Remberger, Eva-Maria. &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, *Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* (2012), edited by Sascha Gaglia and Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Neue, Christian Friedrich and Carl Wagener. 1985. *[Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache](https://books.google.com/books?id=TJOpnoQYfJoC&amp;pg=PA588&amp;lpg=PA588&amp;dq=&quot;vinciturus&quot;),* (pp. 586-590).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [remberger]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NbXsjEqOHKIC&amp;pg=PA271&amp;lpg=PA271&amp;dq=latin+participle+inflection+verbal+adjectival&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=gjEokeware&amp;sig=irBQf-FsBFMu7gegdspS-80kcpM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjyi9jgyY3cAhWUHjQIHYf6DhA4ChDoAQhNMAY#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20participle%20inflection%20verbal%20adjectival&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[hale and buck]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leonard]: &#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=EZACAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=moriturus+oriturus+pariturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-bBNdzFRHw&amp;sig=wgji1qbBOqFDyxCBhaoAiTDEE9s&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilhPa8mIXbAhVJm-AKHfWKA94Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moriturus%20oriturus%20pariturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bede]: https://books.google.com/books?id=tOQHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=%22secaturus%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22secaturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Peter Bullions]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cxoPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=juvaturus#v=onepage&amp;q=juvaturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Albert Harkness]: https://books.google.com/books?id=n4sAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=juvaturus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9376" RevisionGUID="49081263-52c3-4f7c-8b8f-4bffeb2ebf9e" CreationDate="2019-03-30T21:14:40.090" UserId="9" Text="I'm not going to use the term &quot;ergative&quot; because I don't understand its exact definition and when it is appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something that seems to match what you describe on the surface level is something called &quot;verba communia&quot;. Apparently, some transitive deponent verbs have forms that can be can be used intransitively with a passive meaning (&quot;[Features, Syntax, and Categories&#xD;&#xA;in the Latin Perfect](http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/embick-deponent.pdf)&quot;, by David Embick, p. 194).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Embick gives the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (11) Ab amīcīs hortā-rē-tur. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;by friends urge-IMPERF.SUBJ-PASS.3SG&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;‘He was urged by friends.’ (subjunctive)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(Varro in Prisc., GL II 387,2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, a similar ambiguity applies to the perfect participle of many deponent verbs, according to this [Reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/4vmcut/can_a_deponent_verb_be_translated_passively/d5zkfmy?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=web2x) that quotes Gildersleeve 167 n. 2." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="385798d5-86eb-46e7-9355-eeeeee4c4342" CreationDate="2019-03-30T21:23:14.453" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 88 characters in body" Text="There seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb that is true for &quot;regular&quot; verbs. Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]* (1903) mentions this phenomenon and gives some other examples of exceptions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the usual identity of the stems for the perfect and future participles may be coincidental. In &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, Eva-Maria Remberger writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form of the FPart [...] probably represents a derivation of a supine in the form of a locative, ending in *-tū* (Leumann et al. 1963: 342); however, later it was interpreted as being derived from the stem of the PPart (cf. Ernout 1953: §320, among others). Nevertheless, these latter assumptions are contradicted by a large number of exceptions which clearly are not derived from the stem of the PPart. The following FPart forms are all derived from the stem of the present and not the PPart: [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: I have removed the list of forms mentioned, as they are included in my own list below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Moreover, there are verbal paradigms which have a FPart form without displaying a PPart form, at least in Latin, like *fugitūrus, futūrus* (cf. Leumann  et al. 1963:342).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* edited by Sascha Gaglia and  Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.* (On the other hand, I have found a few sources that indicate that &quot;partūrus&quot; was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718).) Johnson has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples of non-matching forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, *[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272), but the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin. (I asked this as a [separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6462), and it seems that the main criterion that would establish participle-hood in Latin is taking an accusative direct object, which is only relevant for transitive verbs.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples categorized by ending&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A. In *-ātūrus,* from first-conjugation verbs with past participles not ending in *-ātus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **sŏnātūrus** from *[sŏno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsono), sŏnāre/sŏnĕre, sŏnŭi, sŏnĭtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **jŭvātūrus** from *[jŭvo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Djuvo), jŭvāre, jūvi, jūtum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, [Peter Bullions] (1867) and [Albert Harkness] (1867) say that in compounds, *jūtūrus* is also used. &#xD;&#xA;- **sĕcātūrus**  from *[sĕco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dseco), sĕcāre, sĕcuī, sectum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, Bede's *[De Orthographia][Bede]* seems to say &quot;secturus, non secaturus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **stātūrus** from *stō, stāre, stetī, stătus.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **frĭcātūrus** from *[frĭco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfrico), frĭcāre, frĭcuī, frictum/(fricātum).*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;(The L&amp;S entry says that the supine is &quot;rarely&quot; *fricātum*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Emmanuelis Alvari E Societate Iesu Grammatica Sive Institutionum Linguae Latinae](https://books.google.com/books?id=eEgRotn5jmgC&amp;pg=PA152)* (1627) gives a long list including the following forms, but I haven't verified it yet, and some seem a bit doubtful: *cubaturus, domaturus, crepaturus, vetaturus, tonaturus*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*cubiturus* seems to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23cubitur)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*domiturus* seems to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23domitur)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Hoole's Terminations for nouns and verbs](https://books.google.com/books?id=cI0CAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA95&amp;lpg=PA95)* describes both *crepaturus* and *crepatum* as rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Grandgent 1907](https://books.google.com/books?id=JDQFAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA183) (&quot;An Introduction to Vulgar Latin&quot;) says that in Vulgar Latin, *-ātus* was extended to many past participles of first-conjugation verbs that formerly had past participles in *-ĭtus*: the examples given are *\*crepatus, domatus, plicatus,* *\*sonatus,* *\*tonatus, vetatus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###B. in *-uitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You already mentioned this category. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  *ruitūrus* vs. *-rutus* (Hale and Buck).&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;*abnuitūrus* (vs. *nūtus* 'the hint')&quot; (Remberger)&#xD;&#xA;- *fruiturus* and *construiturus* (Neue and Wagener)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###C. in *-Citūrus* (C = any consonant)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nāscĭtūrus** from *nāscor, nascī, nātus*  (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*nascendus* also seems to be used, but I'm not sure whether there is a difference in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **moritūrus** from *morior, morī, mortuus.*	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **oritūrus** from *orior, orīrī, ortus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **graditūrus** from *gradior, gradī, gressus* (Neue and Wagener, p. 588).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nōscĭtūrus** from *nōsco, nōscĕre, nōvī, nōtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;Remberger mentions the prefixed form &quot;*ignoscītūrus* (vs. *ignōtus*)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **părĭtūrus** from *păriō, părĕre, pĕpĕrī, partus/părĭtus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt; Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Remberger says &quot;cf. Ernout 1953&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **vincitūrus** from *vīvō, vīvĕre, vīxī, victus* (Remberger). &#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;However, [*De Orthographia* by Flavius Caper](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1229/1/0/1434-1443#0) (or maybe in part by a Pseudo-Flavius Caper?) seems to give an analogical argument in favor of using *victurus* instead of *vinciturus,* which suggests that there may have been some degree of confusion during the time of the author (although I guess the regular form mentioned here could just be a hypothetical invention).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **haurītūrus** (Remberger) or **hausurus** (Johnson) from *hauriō, haurīre, hausī, haustus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **gauditūrus** from *gaudeō, gaudēre, gāvīsus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;Note: [*gavisurus* does seem to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23gavisur).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###E. In *-Citurus*, might be rare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **crēscitūrus** from *crēscō, crēscĕre, crēvī, crētus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;I'm not sure where we have examples of the form *crēscitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **adduciturus** once instead of *adducturus* from *addūco, addūcĕre, addūxī, adductum* (Johnson says the single occurrence of *adduciturus* is in Plautus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **cōnsequitūrus** from *cōnsequor, cōnsequī, cōnsecūtus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;But Neue and Wagener, who say that *consequiturus* occurs in one inscription, &quot;aus dem J. 257 n. Chr., I. Neap. 1524&quot;, suggest that it is just a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Sources for the listed participles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The books with lists of (possible) exceptions that I used to compile my list above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Hale, William Gardner and Carl Darling Buck (1903). *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- J.R. (1705). *[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Johnson, Richard (1718). [*Grammatical Commentaries*][johnson]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leonard, J Russell (written some time before 1882). *[A Latin grammar][Leonard]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Remberger, Eva-Maria. &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, *Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* (2012), edited by Sascha Gaglia and Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Neue, Christian Friedrich and Carl Wagener. 1985. *[Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache](https://books.google.com/books?id=TJOpnoQYfJoC&amp;pg=PA588&amp;lpg=PA588&amp;dq=&quot;vinciturus&quot;),* (pp. 586-590).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [remberger]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NbXsjEqOHKIC&amp;pg=PA271&amp;lpg=PA271&amp;dq=latin+participle+inflection+verbal+adjectival&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=gjEokeware&amp;sig=irBQf-FsBFMu7gegdspS-80kcpM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjyi9jgyY3cAhWUHjQIHYf6DhA4ChDoAQhNMAY#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20participle%20inflection%20verbal%20adjectival&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[hale and buck]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leonard]: &#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=EZACAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=moriturus+oriturus+pariturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-bBNdzFRHw&amp;sig=wgji1qbBOqFDyxCBhaoAiTDEE9s&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilhPa8mIXbAhVJm-AKHfWKA94Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moriturus%20oriturus%20pariturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bede]: https://books.google.com/books?id=tOQHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=%22secaturus%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22secaturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Peter Bullions]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cxoPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=juvaturus#v=onepage&amp;q=juvaturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Albert Harkness]: https://books.google.com/books?id=n4sAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=juvaturus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="0a7f6b75-b419-449f-ae09-357cb24eb0f7" CreationDate="2019-03-30T21:31:34.703" UserId="9" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="There seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb that is true for &quot;regular&quot; verbs. Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]* (1903) mentions this phenomenon and gives some other examples of exceptions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the usual identity of the stems for the perfect and future participles may be coincidental. In &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, Eva-Maria Remberger writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form of the FPart [...] probably represents a derivation of a supine in the form of a locative, ending in *-tū* (Leumann et al. 1963: 342); however, later it was interpreted as being derived from the stem of the PPart (cf. Ernout 1953: §320, among others). Nevertheless, these latter assumptions are contradicted by a large number of exceptions which clearly are not derived from the stem of the PPart. The following FPart forms are all derived from the stem of the present and not the PPart: [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: I have removed the list of forms mentioned, as they are included in my own list below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Moreover, there are verbal paradigms which have a FPart form without displaying a PPart form, at least in Latin, like *fugitūrus, futūrus* (cf. Leumann  et al. 1963:342).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* edited by Sascha Gaglia and  Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.* (On the other hand, I have found a few sources that indicate that &quot;partūrus&quot; was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718).) Johnson has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples of non-matching forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, *[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272), but the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin. (I asked this as a [separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6462), and it seems that the main criterion that would establish participle-hood in Latin is taking an accusative direct object, which is only relevant for transitive verbs.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples categorized by ending&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A. In *-ātūrus,* from first-conjugation verbs with past participles not ending in *-ātus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **sŏnātūrus** from *[sŏno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsono), sŏnāre/sŏnĕre, sŏnŭi, sŏnĭtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **jŭvātūrus** from *[jŭvo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Djuvo), jŭvāre, jūvi, jūtum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, [Peter Bullions] (1867) and [Albert Harkness] (1867) say that in compounds, *jūtūrus* is also used. &#xD;&#xA;- **sĕcātūrus**  from *[sĕco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dseco), sĕcāre, sĕcuī, sectum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, Bede's *[De Orthographia][Bede]* seems to say &quot;secturus, non secaturus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **stātūrus** from *stō, stāre, stetī, stătus.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **frĭcātūrus** from *[frĭco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfrico), frĭcāre, frĭcuī, frictum/(fricātum).*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;(The L&amp;S entry says that the supine is &quot;rarely&quot; *fricātum*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Emmanuelis Alvari E Societate Iesu Grammatica Sive Institutionum Linguae Latinae](https://books.google.com/books?id=eEgRotn5jmgC&amp;pg=PA152)* (1627) gives a long list including the following forms, but I haven't verified it yet, and some seem a bit doubtful: *cubaturus, domaturus, crepaturus, vetaturus, tonaturus*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*cubiturus* seems to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23cubitur)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*domiturus* seems to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23domitur)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Hoole's Terminations for nouns and verbs](https://books.google.com/books?id=cI0CAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA95&amp;lpg=PA95)* describes both *crepaturus* and *crepatum* as rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Grandgent 1907](https://books.google.com/books?id=JDQFAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA183) (&quot;An Introduction to Vulgar Latin&quot;) says that in Vulgar Latin, *-ātus* was extended to many past participles of first-conjugation verbs that formerly had past participles in *-ĭtus*: the examples given are *\*crepatus, domatus, plicatus,* *\*sonatus,* *\*tonatus, vetatus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###B. in *-uitūrus,* from verbs ending in *-uo(r)* in the present.&#xD;&#xA;You already mentioned this category. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  *ruitūrus* vs. *-rutus* (Hale and Buck).&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;*abnuitūrus* (vs. *nūtus* 'the hint')&quot; (Remberger)&#xD;&#xA;- *fruiturus* and *construiturus* (Neue and Wagener)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###C. in *-Citūrus* (C = any consonant)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nāscĭtūrus** from *nāscor, nascī, nātus*  (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*nascendus* also seems to be used, but I'm not sure whether there is a difference in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **moritūrus** from *morior, morī, mortuus.*	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **oritūrus** from *orior, orīrī, ortus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **graditūrus** from *gradior, gradī, gressus* (Neue and Wagener, p. 588).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nōscĭtūrus** from *nōsco, nōscĕre, nōvī, nōtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;Remberger mentions the prefixed form &quot;*ignoscītūrus* (vs. *ignōtus*)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **părĭtūrus** from *păriō, părĕre, pĕpĕrī, partus/părĭtus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt; Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Remberger says &quot;cf. Ernout 1953&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **vincitūrus** from *vīvō, vīvĕre, vīxī, victus* (Remberger). &#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;However, [*De Orthographia* by Flavius Caper](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1229/1/0/1434-1443#0) (or maybe in part by a Pseudo-Flavius Caper?) seems to give an analogical argument in favor of using *victurus* instead of *vinciturus,* which suggests that there may have been some degree of confusion during the time of the author (although I guess the regular form mentioned here could just be a hypothetical invention).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **haurītūrus** (Remberger) or **hausurus** (Johnson) from *hauriō, haurīre, hausī, haustus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **gauditūrus** from *gaudeō, gaudēre, gāvīsus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;Note: [*gavisurus* does seem to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23gavisur).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###E. In *-Citurus*, might be rare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **crēscitūrus** from *crēscō, crēscĕre, crēvī, crētus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;I'm not sure where we have examples of the form *crēscitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **adduciturus** once instead of *adducturus* from *addūco, addūcĕre, addūxī, adductum* (Johnson says the single occurrence of *adduciturus* is in Plautus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **cōnsequitūrus** from *cōnsequor, cōnsequī, cōnsecūtus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;But Neue and Wagener, who say that *consequiturus* occurs in one inscription, &quot;aus dem J. 257 n. Chr., I. Neap. 1524&quot;, suggest that it is just a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Sources for the listed participles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The books with lists of (possible) exceptions that I used to compile my list above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Hale, William Gardner and Carl Darling Buck (1903). *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- J.R. (1705). *[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Johnson, Richard (1718). [*Grammatical Commentaries*][johnson]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leonard, J Russell (written some time before 1882). *[A Latin grammar][Leonard]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Remberger, Eva-Maria. &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, *Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* (2012), edited by Sascha Gaglia and Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Neue, Christian Friedrich and Carl Wagener. 1985. *[Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache](https://books.google.com/books?id=TJOpnoQYfJoC&amp;pg=PA588&amp;lpg=PA588&amp;dq=&quot;vinciturus&quot;),* (pp. 586-590).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [remberger]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NbXsjEqOHKIC&amp;pg=PA271&amp;lpg=PA271&amp;dq=latin+participle+inflection+verbal+adjectival&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=gjEokeware&amp;sig=irBQf-FsBFMu7gegdspS-80kcpM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjyi9jgyY3cAhWUHjQIHYf6DhA4ChDoAQhNMAY#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20participle%20inflection%20verbal%20adjectival&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[hale and buck]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leonard]: &#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=EZACAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=moriturus+oriturus+pariturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-bBNdzFRHw&amp;sig=wgji1qbBOqFDyxCBhaoAiTDEE9s&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilhPa8mIXbAhVJm-AKHfWKA94Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moriturus%20oriturus%20pariturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bede]: https://books.google.com/books?id=tOQHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=%22secaturus%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22secaturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Peter Bullions]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cxoPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=juvaturus#v=onepage&amp;q=juvaturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Albert Harkness]: https://books.google.com/books?id=n4sAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=juvaturus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="e642a990-29f5-410c-8994-92369df9c1c5" CreationDate="2019-03-30T23:54:57.450" UserId="9" Comment="added 209 characters in body" Text="There seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb that is true for &quot;regular&quot; verbs. Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]* (1903) mentions this phenomenon and gives some other examples of exceptions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the usual identity of the stems for the perfect and future participles may be coincidental. In &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, Eva-Maria Remberger writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form of the FPart [...] probably represents a derivation of a supine in the form of a locative, ending in *-tū* (Leumann et al. 1963: 342); however, later it was interpreted as being derived from the stem of the PPart (cf. Ernout 1953: §320, among others). Nevertheless, these latter assumptions are contradicted by a large number of exceptions which clearly are not derived from the stem of the PPart. The following FPart forms are all derived from the stem of the present and not the PPart: [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: I have removed the list of forms mentioned, as they are included in my own list below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Moreover, there are verbal paradigms which have a FPart form without displaying a PPart form, at least in Latin, like *fugitūrus, futūrus* (cf. Leumann  et al. 1963:342).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* edited by Sascha Gaglia and  Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.* (On the other hand, I have found a few sources that indicate that &quot;partūrus&quot; was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718).) Johnson has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples of non-matching forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, *[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272), but the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin. (I asked this as a [separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6462), and it seems that the main criterion that would establish participle-hood in Latin is taking an accusative direct object, which is only relevant for transitive verbs.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples categorized by ending&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A. In *-ātūrus,* from first-conjugation verbs with past participles not ending in *-ātus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **stātūrus** from *stō, stāre, stetī, stătus.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Neue and Wagener have a long list of sources that attest to the length of the a in this future active participle ([p. 590](https://books.google.com/books?id=TJOpnoQYfJoC&amp;pg=PA590&amp;lpg=PA588&amp;dq=&quot;staturus)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **sŏnātūrus** from *[sŏno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsono), sŏnāre/sŏnĕre, sŏnŭi, sŏnĭtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **jŭvātūrus** from *[jŭvo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Djuvo), jŭvāre, jūvi, jūtum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, [Peter Bullions] (1867) and [Albert Harkness] (1867) say that in compounds, *jūtūrus* is also used. &#xD;&#xA;- **sĕcātūrus**  from *[sĕco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dseco), sĕcāre, sĕcuī, sectum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, Bede's *[De Orthographia][Bede]* seems to say &quot;secturus, non secaturus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **frĭcātūrus** from *[frĭco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfrico), frĭcāre, frĭcuī, frictum/(fricātum).*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;(The L&amp;S entry says that the supine is &quot;rarely&quot; *fricātum*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Emmanuelis Alvari E Societate Iesu Grammatica Sive Institutionum Linguae Latinae](https://books.google.com/books?id=eEgRotn5jmgC&amp;pg=PA152)* (1627) gives a long list including the following forms, but I haven't verified it yet, and some seem a bit doubtful: *cubaturus, domaturus, crepaturus, vetaturus, tonaturus*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*cubiturus* seems to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23cubitur)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*domiturus* seems to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23domitur)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Hoole's Terminations for nouns and verbs](https://books.google.com/books?id=cI0CAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA95&amp;lpg=PA95)* describes both *crepaturus* and *crepatum* as rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Grandgent 1907](https://books.google.com/books?id=JDQFAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA183) (&quot;An Introduction to Vulgar Latin&quot;) says that in Vulgar Latin, *-ātus* was extended to many past participles of first-conjugation verbs that formerly had past participles in *-ĭtus*: the examples given are *\*crepatus, domatus, plicatus,* *\*sonatus,* *\*tonatus, vetatus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###B. in *-uitūrus,* from verbs ending in *-uo(r)* in the present.&#xD;&#xA;You already mentioned this category. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  *ruitūrus* vs. *-rutus* (Hale and Buck).&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;*abnuitūrus* (vs. *nūtus* 'the hint')&quot; (Remberger)&#xD;&#xA;- *fruiturus* and *construiturus* (Neue and Wagener)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###C. in *-Citūrus* (C = any consonant)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nāscĭtūrus** from *nāscor, nascī, nātus*  (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*nascendus* also seems to be used, but I'm not sure whether there is a difference in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **moritūrus** from *morior, morī, mortuus.*	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **oritūrus** from *orior, orīrī, ortus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **graditūrus** from *gradior, gradī, gressus* (Neue and Wagener, p. 588).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nōscĭtūrus** from *nōsco, nōscĕre, nōvī, nōtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;Remberger mentions the prefixed form &quot;*ignoscītūrus* (vs. *ignōtus*)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **părĭtūrus** from *păriō, părĕre, pĕpĕrī, partus/părĭtus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt; Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Remberger says &quot;cf. Ernout 1953&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **vincitūrus** from *vīvō, vīvĕre, vīxī, victus* (Remberger). &#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;However, [*De Orthographia* by Flavius Caper](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1229/1/0/1434-1443#0) (or maybe in part by a Pseudo-Flavius Caper?) seems to give an analogical argument in favor of using *victurus* instead of *vinciturus,* which suggests that there may have been some degree of confusion during the time of the author (although I guess the regular form mentioned here could just be a hypothetical invention).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **haurītūrus** (Remberger) or **hausurus** (Johnson) from *hauriō, haurīre, hausī, haustus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **gauditūrus** from *gaudeō, gaudēre, gāvīsus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;Note: [*gavisurus* does seem to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23gavisur).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###E. In *-Citurus*, might be rare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **crēscitūrus** from *crēscō, crēscĕre, crēvī, crētus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;I'm not sure where we have examples of the form *crēscitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **adduciturus** once instead of *adducturus* from *addūco, addūcĕre, addūxī, adductum* (Johnson says the single occurrence of *adduciturus* is in Plautus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **cōnsequitūrus** from *cōnsequor, cōnsequī, cōnsecūtus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;But Neue and Wagener, who say that *consequiturus* occurs in one inscription, &quot;aus dem J. 257 n. Chr., I. Neap. 1524&quot;, suggest that it is just a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Sources for the listed participles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The books with lists of (possible) exceptions that I used to compile my list above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Hale, William Gardner and Carl Darling Buck (1903). *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- J.R. (1705). *[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Johnson, Richard (1718). [*Grammatical Commentaries*][johnson]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leonard, J Russell (written some time before 1882). *[A Latin grammar][Leonard]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Remberger, Eva-Maria. &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, *Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* (2012), edited by Sascha Gaglia and Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Neue, Christian Friedrich and Carl Wagener. 1985. *[Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache](https://books.google.com/books?id=TJOpnoQYfJoC&amp;pg=PA588&amp;lpg=PA588&amp;dq=&quot;vinciturus&quot;),* (pp. 586-590).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [remberger]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NbXsjEqOHKIC&amp;pg=PA271&amp;lpg=PA271&amp;dq=latin+participle+inflection+verbal+adjectival&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=gjEokeware&amp;sig=irBQf-FsBFMu7gegdspS-80kcpM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjyi9jgyY3cAhWUHjQIHYf6DhA4ChDoAQhNMAY#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20participle%20inflection%20verbal%20adjectival&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[hale and buck]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leonard]: &#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=EZACAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=moriturus+oriturus+pariturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-bBNdzFRHw&amp;sig=wgji1qbBOqFDyxCBhaoAiTDEE9s&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilhPa8mIXbAhVJm-AKHfWKA94Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moriturus%20oriturus%20pariturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bede]: https://books.google.com/books?id=tOQHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=%22secaturus%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22secaturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Peter Bullions]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cxoPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=juvaturus#v=onepage&amp;q=juvaturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Albert Harkness]: https://books.google.com/books?id=n4sAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=juvaturus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9377" RevisionGUID="32393eb2-1f5c-4ccc-b2da-312eab1d5dfd" CreationDate="2019-03-31T00:34:57.307" UserId="3617" Text="Just to correct what Rafael has said above: the verb “memoror” is NOT attested in Classical Latin. It won’t even come up as such in most dictionaries, and when it does, it is clearly indicated it is Ecclesiastica Latin / Medieval Latin. All the occurrences in Classical Latin in the link given reger actually to memor, adjective. “Memini” is definitely the verb for “to remember” in Classical Latin, while “memoror” is just a Late Latin invention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9378" RevisionGUID="f46f77b6-db2b-4d7d-86f1-264823f9fa48" CreationDate="2019-03-31T01:04:27.733" UserId="3248" Text="If &quot;ergativity&quot; is to be (mis)understood à la Burzio (1986), i.e., as &quot;unaccusativity&quot; (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzio%27s_generalization ), yes, Latin has been claimed to present so-called &quot;split intransitivity&quot;, whereby the typical distinction within intransitive verbs (the one between unergatives vs. unaccusatives/Burzio’s ergatives) can be claimed to apply not only to English (e.g., see the classical work by Levin, Beth; Rappaport-Hovav, Malka (1995). _Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-lexical Semantics Interface_. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.) but also to Latin: e.g., https://www.academia.edu/6483921/Dos_tipos_de_intransitividad_en_lat%C3%ADn_sintaxis_y_sem%C3%A1ntica&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within the set of English unaccusative verbs, it is true that many of them correspond to the anticausative **labile** type exemplified by the anticausative _The glass broke_ (cf. the causative _John broke the glass_; NB: this phenomenon is often referred to as ‘causative alternation’). **Lability**, which involves no morphological mark, has been said to be particularly rare in languages with “middle inflection” (Ancient Greek, Latin, Arabic, Kartvelian): see http://aletuchiy.narod.ru/handouts_articles/Transitivity/handout_Lancaster_new.pdf . Probably, many of you will not be sympathetic with the fact that Latin is said to have middle voice. Well, this hypothesis is currently being defended by many linguists: e.g., for a very recent discussion, see Pinzin’s Doctoral dissertation _Stuck in the Middle: a morphosyntactic analysis of the deponent verbs from Latin to Romance_ (pdf downloadable at http://dspace.unive.it/handle/10579/12877 ), where you’ll also find an interesting criticism of Embick’s (2000) idiosyncratic syntactic approach to deponent verbs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of **labile** verbs in Latin follow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Foris **aperit**_.&#xD;&#xA;'The door is opening'. (Pl. _Pers._ 300)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Ecquis has **aperit** foris_?&#xD;&#xA;‘Is anyone going to open this door?’ (Pl., _Most._ 900)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(cf. the non-labile use: _ecce autem commodum aperitur foris_ ‘and look, at this very moment the door is opening’(Pl. _Mil._ 1198)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Hannibal post Cannensem pugnam [castraque] capta ac direpta confestim ex Apulia in Samnium **moverat**_&#xD;&#xA;‘After the battle of Cannae and the capture and plunder of the camp, Hannibal&#xD;&#xA;had moved at once out of Apulia into Samnium’&#xD;&#xA;(Liv.23.1.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Hannibal silentio **movit** castra_&#xD;&#xA;‘Hannibal quietly moved the camp’ (Liv. 27.2.10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9376" RevisionGUID="b47ff795-9555-420d-b564-a11875881cc7" CreationDate="2019-03-31T01:18:20.560" UserId="9" Comment="added 427 characters in body" Text="I'm not going to use the term &quot;ergative&quot; because I don't understand its exact definition and when it is appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Passive in form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something that seems to match what you describe on the surface level is something called &quot;verba communia&quot;. Apparently, some transitive deponent verbs have forms that can be can be used intransitively with a passive meaning (&quot;[Features, Syntax, and Categories&#xD;&#xA;in the Latin Perfect](http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/embick-deponent.pdf)&quot;, by David Embick, p. 194).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Embick gives the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (11) Ab amīcīs hortā-rē-tur. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;by friends urge-IMPERF.SUBJ-PASS.3SG&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;‘He was urged by friends.’ (subjunctive)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(Varro in Prisc., GL II 387,2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, a similar ambiguity applies to the perfect participle of many deponent verbs, according to this [Reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/4vmcut/can_a_deponent_verb_be_translated_passively/d5zkfmy?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=web2x) that quotes Gildersleeve 167 n. 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Active in form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I Googled the example of &quot;Foris aperit&quot; in Mitomino's answer, I found that it is mentioned in *The Oxford Latin Syntax, Volume 1,* (2015), by Harm Pinkster, which also gives the example of *[grandio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgrandio)* ([§5.32, p. 281](https://books.google.com/books?id=yxxfCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA164-IA50))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9376" RevisionGUID="48b8fbf1-c96f-4f81-bcd2-7a5aa6e2191a" CreationDate="2019-03-31T01:27:49.357" UserId="9" Comment="added 249 characters in body" Text="I'm not going to use the term &quot;ergative&quot; because I don't understand its exact definition and when it is appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Passive in form &quot;verba communia&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something that seems to match what you describe on the surface level is something called &quot;verba communia&quot;. Apparently, some transitive deponent verbs have forms that can be can be used intransitively with a passive meaning (&quot;[Features, Syntax, and Categories&#xD;&#xA;in the Latin Perfect](http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/embick-deponent.pdf)&quot;, by David Embick, p. 194).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Embick gives the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (11) Ab amīcīs hortā-rē-tur. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;by friends urge-IMPERF.SUBJ-PASS.3SG&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;‘He was urged by friends.’ (subjunctive)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(Varro in Prisc., GL II 387,2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Fraenkel 1964](https://books.google.com/books?id=H16DU4ZhpRMC&amp;pg=337) cites Gellius as giving *utor, vereor, hortor,* and *consolor* as examples of &quot;&quot;verba communia&quot;; and *testor* and *interpretor* are also mentioned similarly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, a similar ambiguity applies to the perfect participle of many deponent verbs, according to this [Reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/4vmcut/can_a_deponent_verb_be_translated_passively/d5zkfmy?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=web2x) that quotes Gildersleeve 167 n. 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Active in form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I Googled the example of &quot;Foris aperit&quot; in Mitomino's answer, I found that it is mentioned in *The Oxford Latin Syntax, Volume 1,* (2015), by Harm Pinkster, which also gives the example of *[grandio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgrandio)* ([§5.32, p. 281](https://books.google.com/books?id=yxxfCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA164-IA50))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9376" RevisionGUID="69ab2622-002a-4c00-b261-b3be39ea0b46" CreationDate="2019-03-31T01:29:26.607" UserId="9" Comment="added 249 characters in body" Text="I'm not going to use the term &quot;ergative&quot; because I don't understand its exact definition and when it is appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Passive in form &quot;verba communia&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something that seems to match what you describe on the surface level is something called &quot;verba communia&quot;. Apparently, some transitive deponent verbs have forms that can be can be used intransitively with a passive meaning (&quot;[Features, Syntax, and Categories&#xD;&#xA;in the Latin Perfect](http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/embick-deponent.pdf)&quot;, by David Embick, p. 194).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Embick gives the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (11) Ab amīcīs hortā-rē-tur. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;by friends urge-IMPERF.SUBJ-PASS.3SG&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;‘He was urged by friends.’ (subjunctive)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(Varro in Prisc., GL II 387,2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Fraenkel 1964](https://books.google.com/books?id=H16DU4ZhpRMC&amp;pg=337) cites Gellius as giving *utor, vereor, hortor,* and *consolor* as examples of &quot;verba communia&quot;; and *testor* and *interpretor* are also mentioned similarly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify a point that was brought up in the comments, I'm not claiming that this passive construction was productive or applicable to all transitive deponent verbs: I haven't seen a source that makes that claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, a similar ambiguity applies to the perfect participle of many deponent verbs, according to this [Reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/4vmcut/can_a_deponent_verb_be_translated_passively/d5zkfmy?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=web2x) that quotes Gildersleeve 167 n. 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Active in form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I Googled the example of &quot;Foris aperit&quot; in Mitomino's answer, I found that it is mentioned in *The Oxford Latin Syntax, Volume 1,* (2015), by Harm Pinkster, which also gives the example of *[grandio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgrandio)* ([§5.32, p. 281](https://books.google.com/books?id=yxxfCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA164-IA50))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9376" RevisionGUID="7c7c847b-b1eb-4cae-b70f-a5125f692b42" CreationDate="2019-03-31T01:38:21.710" UserId="9" Comment="added 249 characters in body" Text="I'm not going to use the term &quot;ergative&quot; because I don't understand its exact definition and when it is appropriate (and as the comments mention, it has another definition, so it can be confusing to use this terminology).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Passive in form &quot;verba communia&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something that seems to match what you describe on the surface level is something called &quot;verba communia&quot;. Apparently, for some transitive deponent verbs, an identical form can be can be used intransitively with a passive meaning (&quot;[Features, Syntax, and Categories&#xD;&#xA;in the Latin Perfect](http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/embick-deponent.pdf)&quot;, by David Embick, p. 194).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Embick gives the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (11) Ab amīcīs hortā-rē-tur. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;by friends urge-IMPERF.SUBJ-PASS.3SG&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;‘He was urged by friends.’ (subjunctive)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(Varro in Prisc., GL II 387,2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Fraenkel 1964](https://books.google.com/books?id=H16DU4ZhpRMC&amp;pg=337) cites Gellius as giving *utor, vereor, hortor,* and *consolor* as examples of &quot;verba communia&quot;; and *testor* and *interpretor* are also mentioned similarly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify a point that was brought up in the comments, I'm not claiming that this passive construction was productive or applicable to all transitive deponent verbs: I haven't seen a source that makes that claim. Wright (&quot;[Passive morphology in Late Latin](https://www.academia.edu/33636019/PASSIVE_MORPHOLOGY_IN_LATE_LATIN)&quot;) implies that the verbs used in this passive construction come from non-deponent alternatives to deponent verbs (e.g. *horto*) (p. 71, 77), and so should only exist for deponent verbs that had alternative non-deponent active forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, a similar ambiguity applies to the perfect participle of many deponent verbs, according to this [Reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/4vmcut/can_a_deponent_verb_be_translated_passively/d5zkfmy?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=web2x) that quotes Gildersleeve 167 n. 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Active in form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I Googled the example of &quot;Foris aperit&quot; in Mitomino's answer, I found that it is mentioned in *The Oxford Latin Syntax, Volume 1,* (2015), by Harm Pinkster, which also gives the example of *[grandio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgrandio)* ([§5.32, p. 281](https://books.google.com/books?id=yxxfCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA164-IA50))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9376" RevisionGUID="dc63c92b-363c-49ef-bd00-2dc951b8260f" CreationDate="2019-03-31T01:46:12.583" UserId="9" Comment="added 249 characters in body" Text="I'm not going to use the term &quot;ergative&quot; because I don't understand its exact definition and when it is appropriate (and as the comments mention, it has another definition, so it can be confusing to use this terminology).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Passive in form &quot;verba communia&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something that seems to match what you describe on the surface level is something called &quot;verba communia&quot;. Apparently, for some transitive deponent verbs, an identical form can be can be used intransitively with a passive meaning (&quot;[Features, Syntax, and Categories&#xD;&#xA;in the Latin Perfect](http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/embick-deponent.pdf)&quot;, by David Embick, p. 194).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Embick gives the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (11) Ab amīcīs hortā-rē-tur. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;by friends urge-IMPERF.SUBJ-PASS.3SG&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;‘He was urged by friends.’ (subjunctive)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(Varro in Prisc., GL II 387,2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Fraenkel 1964](https://books.google.com/books?id=H16DU4ZhpRMC&amp;pg=337) cites Gellius as giving *utor, vereor, hortor,* and *consolor* as examples of &quot;verba communia&quot;; and *testor* and *interpretor* are also mentioned similarly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify a point that was brought up in the comments, I'm not claiming that this passive construction was productive or applicable to all transitive deponent verbs: I haven't seen a source that makes that claim. Wright (&quot;[Passive morphology in Late Latin](https://www.academia.edu/33636019/PASSIVE_MORPHOLOGY_IN_LATE_LATIN)&quot;) implies that the verbs used in this passive construction come from non-deponent alternatives to deponent verbs (e.g. *horto*) (p. 71, 77), and so should only exist for deponent verbs that had alternative non-deponent active forms. If you consider deponent *hortor* and non-deponent *horto* to be separate verbs, then *hortārētur* in Embick's example could be analyzed as only being a form of the second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I also feel like English *break* (tr.) and *break* (intr.) could be analyzed as separate verbs, so I'm not sure whether this disqualifies &quot;verba communia&quot; as an example of something similar in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, a similar ambiguity applies to the perfect participle of many deponent verbs, according to this [Reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/4vmcut/can_a_deponent_verb_be_translated_passively/d5zkfmy?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=web2x) that quotes Gildersleeve 167 n. 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Active in form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I Googled the example of &quot;Foris aperit&quot; in Mitomino's answer, I found that it is mentioned in *The Oxford Latin Syntax, Volume 1,* (2015), by Harm Pinkster, which also gives the example of *[grandio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgrandio)* ([§5.32, p. 281](https://books.google.com/books?id=yxxfCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA164-IA50))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9376" RevisionGUID="2aeb2a75-d2d7-4dd9-9da9-ba80f68f2bdf" CreationDate="2019-03-31T01:54:27.053" UserId="9" Comment="added 249 characters in body" Text="I'm not going to use the term &quot;ergative&quot; because I don't understand its exact definition and when it is appropriate (and as the comments mention, it has another definition, so it can be confusing to use this terminology).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Passive in form &quot;verba communia&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something that seems to match what you describe on the surface level is something called &quot;verba communia&quot;. Apparently, for some transitive deponent verbs, an identical form can be can be used intransitively with a passive meaning (&quot;[Features, Syntax, and Categories&#xD;&#xA;in the Latin Perfect](http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/embick-deponent.pdf)&quot;, by David Embick, p. 194).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Embick gives the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (11) Ab amīcīs hortā-rē-tur. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;by friends urge-IMPERF.SUBJ-PASS.3SG&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;‘He was urged by friends.’ (subjunctive)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(Varro in Prisc., GL II 387,2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Fraenkel 1964](https://books.google.com/books?id=H16DU4ZhpRMC&amp;pg=337) cites Gellius as giving *utor, vereor, hortor,* and *consolor* as examples of &quot;verba communia&quot;; and *testor* and *interpretor* are also mentioned similarly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify a point that was brought up in the comments, I'm not claiming that this passive construction was productive or applicable to all transitive deponent verbs: I haven't seen a source that makes that claim. Embick says &quot;**some** deponents like *hortor* may also appear in passive syntax&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wright (&quot;[Passive morphology in Late Latin](https://www.academia.edu/33636019/PASSIVE_MORPHOLOGY_IN_LATE_LATIN)&quot;) mentions the alternative of analyzing the verbs used in this passive construction as forms of non-deponent alternatives to deponent verbs (e.g. *horto*) (p. 71, 77), which would imply that this passive construction should only exist for deponent verbs that had alternative non-deponent active forms. If you consider deponent *hortor* and non-deponent *horto* to be separate verbs, then *hortārētur* in Embick's example could be analyzed as only being a form of the second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I also feel like English *break* (tr.) and *break* (intr.) could be analyzed as separate verbs, so I'm not sure whether this disqualifies &quot;verba communia&quot; as an example of something similar in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, a similar ambiguity applies to the perfect participle of many deponent verbs, according to this [Reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/4vmcut/can_a_deponent_verb_be_translated_passively/d5zkfmy?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=web2x) that quotes Gildersleeve 167 n. 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Active in form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I Googled the example of &quot;Foris aperit&quot; in Mitomino's answer, I found that it is mentioned in *The Oxford Latin Syntax, Volume 1,* (2015), by Harm Pinkster, which also gives the example of *[grandio](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dgrandio)* ([§5.32, p. 281](https://books.google.com/books?id=yxxfCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA164-IA50))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9376" RevisionGUID="4b9db2ae-80f5-4356-83bc-6867ed7aa9d8" CreationDate="2019-03-31T02:04:44.663" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 401 characters in body" Text="I'm not going to use the term &quot;ergative&quot; because I don't understand its exact definition and when it is appropriate (and as the comments mention, it has another definition, so it can be confusing to use this terminology).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Passive in form &quot;verba communia&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something that seems to match what you describe on the surface level is something called &quot;verba communia&quot;. Apparently, for some transitive deponent verbs, an identical form can be can be used intransitively with a passive meaning (&quot;[Features, Syntax, and Categories&#xD;&#xA;in the Latin Perfect](http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/embick-deponent.pdf)&quot;, by David Embick, p. 194).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Embick gives the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (11) Ab amīcīs hortā-rē-tur. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;by friends urge-IMPERF.SUBJ-PASS.3SG&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;‘He was urged by friends.’ (subjunctive)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(Varro in Prisc., GL II 387,2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Fraenkel 1964](https://books.google.com/books?id=H16DU4ZhpRMC&amp;pg=337) cites Gellius as giving *utor, vereor, hortor,* and *consolor* as examples of &quot;verba communia&quot;; and *testor* and *interpretor* are also mentioned similarly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify a point that was brought up in the comments, I'm not claiming that this passive construction was productive or applicable to all transitive deponent verbs: I haven't seen a source that makes that claim. Embick says &quot;**some** deponents like *hortor* may also appear in passive syntax&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wright (&quot;[Passive morphology in Late Latin](https://www.academia.edu/33636019/PASSIVE_MORPHOLOGY_IN_LATE_LATIN)&quot;) mentions the alternative of analyzing the verbs used in this passive construction as forms of non-deponent alternatives to deponent verbs (e.g. *horto*) (p. 71, 77), which would imply that this passive construction should only exist for deponent verbs that had alternative non-deponent active forms. If you consider deponent *hortor* and non-deponent *horto* to be separate verbs, then *hortārētur* in Embick's example could be analyzed as only being a form of the second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I also feel like English *break* (tr.) and *break* (intr.) could be analyzed as separate verbs, so I'm not sure whether this disqualifies &quot;verba communia&quot; as an example of something similar in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, a similar ambiguity applies to the perfect participle of many deponent verbs, according to this [Reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/4vmcut/can_a_deponent_verb_be_translated_passively/d5zkfmy?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=web2x) that quotes Gildersleeve 167 n. 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9379" RevisionGUID="11934563-b838-4b23-a413-83678a712724" CreationDate="2019-03-31T02:13:17.643" UserId="3248" Text="I’ve just discussed with Sumelic Embick’s (2000) intriguing example of a passive construction of a transitive deponent verb: _Ab amīcīs hortārētur_ ([https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs][1] ). As a follow-up of this discussion, I was wondering why there are not impersonal passives of deponent verbs like *_Mortuum est beate_ ‘One died happily’ (cf. ok _Pugnatum est acriter_). In contrast, we do have impersonal passive periphrastic constructions with Gerundive like _Moriendum est omnibus_. Any thoughts? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29237" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9379" RevisionGUID="11934563-b838-4b23-a413-83678a712724" CreationDate="2019-03-31T02:13:17.643" UserId="3248" Text="On the absence of impersonal passives of deponent verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29238" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9379" RevisionGUID="11934563-b838-4b23-a413-83678a712724" CreationDate="2019-03-31T02:13:17.643" UserId="3248" Text="|passive-voice|deponent|impersonal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9379" RevisionGUID="e5551060-8a1c-4b7b-b22c-4e076eb2cd5f" CreationDate="2019-03-31T02:34:46.440" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="I’ve just discussed with Sumelic Embick’s (2000) intriguing example of a passive construction of a transitive deponent verb: _Ab amīcīs hortārētur_ ([https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs][1] ). As a follow-up of this discussion, I was wondering why there are not impersonal passives of deponent verbs like *_Mortuum est beate_ ‘One died happily’ (cf. ok _Pugnatum est acriter_). In contrast, we do have impersonal passive periphrastic constructions like _Moriendum est omnibus_. Any thoughts? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9379" RevisionGUID="e4a67b70-789e-40a7-9935-0a79ccaea18e" CreationDate="2019-03-31T03:44:34.187" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="I’ve just discussed with Sumelic Embick’s (2000) intriguing example of a passive construction of a transitive deponent verb: _Ab amīcīs hortārētur_ ([https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs][1] ). As a follow-up of this discussion, I was wondering why there are not impersonal passives of deponent verbs like *_Mortuum est beate_ ‘{One/people} died happily’ (cf. ok _Pugnatum est acriter_). In contrast, we do have impersonal passive periphrastic constructions like _Moriendum est omnibus_. Any thoughts? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9380" RevisionGUID="b9d2f2ff-b452-4895-9004-a9cb8bbf21f9" CreationDate="2019-03-31T06:10:33.553" UserId="9" Text="A number of personal names in the works of Plautus end in *-um* in the nominative singular, which struck me as odd when I first encountered them, since nominative singular *-um* is characteristically found at the end of neuter nouns (specifically, those of the second declension).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A male example seems to be *[Paegnium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Paegnium)*; female examples, *Philematium* and *[Stephanium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Stephanium).* According to Henry John Roby, such names appear in the works of Plautus and Terence, and their grammatical gender in Latin corresponds to their natural gender, even though they are apparently from Greek words (or names?) that are neuter gender (*[Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius, Part 1][roby],* p. 106). Harm Pinkster gives the phrase &quot;amoena Stephanium&quot; as an example of this principle of semantic gender assignment (*[Oxford Latin Syntax: Volume 1: The Simple Clause][pinkster],* p. 40).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found them discussed briefly in one section of &quot;[Some Roman Slave-names](https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/slave-names_bruce.pdf)&quot; by F. F. Bruce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Greek diminutives in *-ιον,* mainly names of women [...]&#xD;&#xA;appear in .. Latin· with the ending *-ium* as well [as the ending *-io*]. Thus *Φιλημάτιον* takes in Latin the forms Philematium and (as here) Philematio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found an interesting [comment by the Wiktionary editor Smurrayinchester](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:Pyrgopolynices#Deletion_discussion) which makes the point that at least some of the examples from Plautus' plays &quot;aren't Latin names any more than Nanki-Poo or Obi-Wan Kenobi are English names&quot;, and cites a text that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there are good reasons to believe that Plautus invented many of his characters' names, especially those with humorous Greek etymologies. [...] The *-ium* at the end of courtesans' names is derived from an affectionate Greek diminutive; *Philocomasium* means &quot;Love a Party&quot; and *Acroleutium* &quot;The Absolute End&quot;. We cannot tell how many members of Plautus' Roman audience knew enough Greek to appreciate these etymologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;[Introduction to Miles Gloriosus][smith]&quot;, by Peter L. Smith, in *Plautus: Three Comedies,* (1991), p. 13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious about how much evidence we have for names of this type being used in Latin outside of fictional contexts. Naively, I would assume that if Plautus used this ending extensively in his plays, he would expect his audiences to at least be familiar with names ending in *-(i)um*, even if they didn't know enough Greek to identify all of the meaningful elements of the names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, could anyone tell me more about the use of names ending in *-ιον* in Greek-language contexts? The Lewis and Short entry for *Paegnium* says that it comes from the Greek neuter noun *[παίγνιον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpai%2Fgnion)* 'plaything, toy', which LSJ says could also be used of persons in the sense &quot;darling, pet&quot;. Is it true, as Roby seems to say, that in Greek there were proper names ending in *-ιον* that belonged to the neuter gender? If so, did they trigger neuter agreement without exception, or might they show varying or mixed patterns of agreement (for instance, I wonder whether perhaps they could have triggered neuter agreement within the noun phrase—i.e. on the article and on attributive adjectives—but had natural gender agreement as a possibility outside of the noun phrase—e.g. on predicate adjectives). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[roby]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA106&#xD;&#xA;[pinkster]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA21-IA7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[smith]: https://books.google.de/books?id=Aj-5l63TFxwC&amp;pg=PA13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29242" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9380" RevisionGUID="b9d2f2ff-b452-4895-9004-a9cb8bbf21f9" CreationDate="2019-03-31T06:10:33.553" UserId="9" Text="Personal names ending in -um" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29243" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9380" RevisionGUID="b9d2f2ff-b452-4895-9004-a9cb8bbf21f9" CreationDate="2019-03-31T06:10:33.553" UserId="9" Text="|greek|names|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9380" RevisionGUID="a016b794-3107-4a13-b2b1-ba880244aae7" CreationDate="2019-03-31T06:16:10.920" UserId="9" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="A number of personal names in the works of Plautus end in *-um* in the nominative singular, which struck me as odd when I first encountered them, since nominative singular *-um* is characteristically found at the end of neuter nouns (specifically, those of the second declension).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A male example seems to be *[Paegnium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Paegnium)*; female examples, *Philematium* and *[Stephanium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Stephanium).* According to Henry John Roby, such names appear in the works of Plautus and Terence, and their grammatical gender in Latin corresponds to their natural gender, even though they are apparently from Greek words (or names?) that are neuter gender (*[Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius, Part 1][roby],* p. 106). Harm Pinkster gives the phrase &quot;amoena Stephanium&quot; as an example of this principle of semantic gender assignment (*[Oxford Latin Syntax: Volume 1: The Simple Clause][pinkster],* p. 40).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found them discussed briefly in one section of &quot;[Some Roman Slave-names](https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/slave-names_bruce.pdf)&quot; by F. F. Bruce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Greek diminutives in *-ιον,* mainly names of women [...]&#xD;&#xA;appear in .. Latin· with the ending *-ium* as well [as the ending *-io*]. Thus *Φιλημάτιον* takes in Latin the forms Philematium and (as here) Philematio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found an interesting [comment by the Wiktionary editor Smurrayinchester](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:Pyrgopolynices#Deletion_discussion) which makes the point that at least some of the examples from Plautus' plays &quot;aren't Latin names any more than Nanki-Poo or Obi-Wan Kenobi are English names&quot;, and cites a text that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there are good reasons to believe that Plautus invented many of his characters' names, especially those with humorous Greek etymologies. [...] The *-ium* at the end of courtesans' names is derived from an affectionate Greek diminutive; *Philocomasium* means &quot;Love a Party&quot; and *Acroleutium* &quot;The Absolute End&quot;. We cannot tell how many members of Plautus' Roman audience knew enough Greek to appreciate these etymologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;[Introduction to Miles Gloriosus][smith]&quot;, by Peter L. Smith, in *Plautus: Three Comedies,* (1991), p. 13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious about how much evidence we have for names of this type being used in Latin outside of fictional contexts. Naively, I would assume that if Plautus used this ending extensively in his plays, he would expect his audiences to at least be familiar with personal names ending in *-(i)um*, even if they didn't know enough Greek to identify all of the meaningful elements of the names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, could anyone tell me more about the use of names ending in *-ιον* in Greek-language contexts? The Lewis and Short entry for *Paegnium* says that it comes from the Greek neuter noun *[παίγνιον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpai%2Fgnion)* 'plaything, toy', which LSJ says could also be used of persons in the sense &quot;darling, pet&quot;. Is it true, as Roby seems to say, that in Greek there were personal names ending in *-ιον* that belonged to the neuter gender? If so, did they trigger neuter agreement without exception, or might they show varying or mixed patterns of agreement (for instance, I wonder whether perhaps they could have triggered neuter agreement within the noun phrase—i.e. on the article and on attributive adjectives—but had natural gender agreement as a possibility outside of the noun phrase—e.g. on predicate adjectives)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[roby]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA106&#xD;&#xA;[pinkster]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA21-IA7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[smith]: https://books.google.de/books?id=Aj-5l63TFxwC&amp;pg=PA13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9380" RevisionGUID="d845de18-aae4-46d7-8c12-2abb31f6a289" CreationDate="2019-03-31T06:53:24.317" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="A number of personal names in the works of Plautus end in *-um* in the nominative singular, which struck me as odd when I first encountered them, since nominative singular *-um* is characteristically found at the end of neuter nouns (specifically, those of the second declension).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A male example seems to be *[Paegnium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Paegnium)*; female examples, *Philematium* and *[Stephanium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Stephanium).* According to Henry John Roby, such names also appear in the works of Terence, and their grammatical gender in Latin corresponds to their natural gender, even though they are apparently from Greek words (or names?) that are neuter gender (*[Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius, Part 1][roby],* p. 106). Harm Pinkster gives the phrase &quot;amoena Stephanium&quot; as an example of this principle of semantic gender assignment (*[Oxford Latin Syntax: Volume 1: The Simple Clause][pinkster],* p. 40).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found them discussed briefly in one section of &quot;[Some Roman Slave-names](https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/slave-names_bruce.pdf)&quot; by F. F. Bruce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Greek diminutives in *-ιον,* mainly names of women [...]&#xD;&#xA;appear in .. Latin· with the ending *-ium* as well [as the ending *-io*]. Thus *Φιλημάτιον* takes in Latin the forms Philematium and (as here) Philematio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found an interesting [comment by the Wiktionary editor Smurrayinchester](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:Pyrgopolynices#Deletion_discussion) which makes the point that at least some of the examples from Plautus' plays &quot;aren't Latin names any more than Nanki-Poo or Obi-Wan Kenobi are English names&quot;, and cites a text that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there are good reasons to believe that Plautus invented many of his characters' names, especially those with humorous Greek etymologies. [...] The *-ium* at the end of courtesans' names is derived from an affectionate Greek diminutive; *Philocomasium* means &quot;Love a Party&quot; and *Acroleutium* &quot;The Absolute End&quot;. We cannot tell how many members of Plautus' Roman audience knew enough Greek to appreciate these etymologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;[Introduction to Miles Gloriosus][smith]&quot;, by Peter L. Smith, in *Plautus: Three Comedies,* (1991), p. 13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious about how much evidence we have for names of this type being used in Latin outside of fictional contexts. Naively, I would assume that if Plautus used this ending extensively in his plays, he would expect his audiences to at least be familiar with personal names ending in *-(i)um*, even if they didn't know enough Greek to identify all of the meaningful elements of the names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, could anyone tell me more about the use of names ending in *-ιον* in Greek-language contexts? The Lewis and Short entry for *Paegnium* says that it comes from the Greek neuter noun *[παίγνιον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpai%2Fgnion)* 'plaything, toy', which LSJ says could also be used of persons in the sense &quot;darling, pet&quot;. Is it true, as Roby seems to say, that in Greek there were personal names ending in *-ιον* that belonged to the neuter gender? If so, did they trigger neuter agreement without exception, or might they show varying or mixed patterns of agreement (for instance, I wonder whether perhaps they could have triggered neuter agreement within the noun phrase—i.e. on the article and on attributive adjectives—but had natural gender agreement as a possibility outside of the noun phrase—e.g. on predicate adjectives)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[roby]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA106&#xD;&#xA;[pinkster]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA21-IA7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[smith]: https://books.google.de/books?id=Aj-5l63TFxwC&amp;pg=PA13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9380" RevisionGUID="aede9c40-8084-4efd-a68d-1ee7523fccbc" CreationDate="2019-03-31T07:09:48.897" UserId="9" Comment="added 433 characters in body" Text="A number of personal names in the works of Plautus end in *-um* in the nominative singular, which struck me as odd when I first encountered them, since nominative singular *-um* is characteristically found at the end of neuter nouns (specifically, those of the second declension).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A male example seems to be *[Paegnium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Paegnium)*; female examples, *Philematium* and *[Stephanium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Stephanium).* According to Henry John Roby, such names also appear in the works of Terence, and their grammatical gender in Latin corresponds to their natural gender, even though they are apparently from Greek words (or names?) that are neuter gender (*[Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius, Part 1][roby],* p. 106). Harm Pinkster gives the phrase &quot;amoena Stephanium&quot; as an example of this principle of semantic gender assignment (*[Oxford Latin Syntax: Volume 1: The Simple Clause][pinkster],* p. 40).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found them discussed briefly in one section of &quot;[Some Roman Slave-names](https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/slave-names_bruce.pdf)&quot; by F. F. Bruce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Greek diminutives in *-ιον,* mainly names of women [...]&#xD;&#xA;appear in .. Latin· with the ending *-ium* as well [as the ending *-io*]. Thus *Φιλημάτιον* takes in Latin the forms Philematium and (as here) Philematio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found an interesting [comment by the Wiktionary editor Smurrayinchester](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:Pyrgopolynices#Deletion_discussion) which makes the point that at least some of the examples from Plautus' plays &quot;aren't Latin names any more than Nanki-Poo or Obi-Wan Kenobi are English names&quot;, and cites a text that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there are good reasons to believe that Plautus invented many of his characters' names, especially those with humorous Greek etymologies. [...] The *-ium* at the end of courtesans' names is derived from an affectionate Greek diminutive; *Philocomasium* means &quot;Love a Party&quot; and *Acroleutium* &quot;The Absolute End&quot;. We cannot tell how many members of Plautus' Roman audience knew enough Greek to appreciate these etymologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;[Introduction to Miles Gloriosus][smith]&quot;, by Peter L. Smith, in *Plautus: Three Comedies,* (1991), p. 13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some questions that I have about names of this type:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How much evidence do we have for names of this type being used in Latin outside of fictional contexts? Naively, I would assume that if Plautus used this ending extensively in his plays, he would expect his audiences to at least be familiar with personal names ending in *-(i)um*, even if they didn't know enough Greek to identify all of the meaningful elements of the names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Could anyone tell me more about the use of names ending in *-ιον* in Greek-language contexts? The Lewis and Short entry for *Paegnium* says that it comes from the Greek neuter noun *[παίγνιον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpai%2Fgnion)* 'plaything, toy', which LSJ says could also be used of persons in the sense &quot;darling, pet&quot;. Is it true, as Roby seems to say, that in Greek there were personal names ending in *-ιον* that belonged to the neuter gender? If so, did they trigger neuter agreement without exception, or might they show varying or mixed patterns of agreement (for instance, I wonder whether perhaps they could have triggered neuter agreement within the noun phrase—i.e. on the article and on attributive adjectives—but had natural gender agreement as a possibility outside of the noun phrase—e.g. on predicate adjectives)? In *[Greek Personal Names and Linguistic Continuity](https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/104p015.pdf),* by Anna Morpurgo Davies, I found the following footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 13 Some women's names in Greek are neuter, but this need not count as an exception to the general need for marking sex differences. Men's names are never neuter. (p. 21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This suggests the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are there any male examples other than *Paegnium*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[roby]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA106&#xD;&#xA;[pinkster]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA21-IA7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[smith]: https://books.google.de/books?id=Aj-5l63TFxwC&amp;pg=PA13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9381" RevisionGUID="f9073fbd-4d10-4308-9941-3fd8480c4538" CreationDate="2019-03-31T08:01:02.807" UserId="2522" Text="'Mortuum est beate' can both be translated as he, she or it. So it can mean: 'It has died happily', which doesn't refer to a person, but is semantically equivalent to an animal in English. &#xA;&#xA;If you mean why it can't refer to an inanimate object, then that's something which depends on the meaning of the verb, as inanimate objects obviously can't die. So the answer primarily lies in the meaning of deponent verbs.&#xA;&#xA;It also isn't true that there are no deponent verbs which are impersonal, considering 'conatum est' for example means: 'It has been tried/attemped', which refers to the thing which has been attempted and not the person. Same with the sentence 'pugnatum est', which is a non-deponent verb but is used similarly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9332" RevisionGUID="adb4d203-88a6-45cd-ac45-a249ed86c0ee" CreationDate="2019-03-31T08:40:34.147" UserId="9" Comment="Deleted mention of -um names, since they apparently are not neuter in Latin; added Bennett's examples of terms of endearment" Text="*[Syntax of Early Latin: Vol II—The Cases](https://books.google.com/books?id=IH8KAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA268#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false),* by Charles Edwin Bennett (1914), seems to have a long list of examples of the vocative. One in particular that seems to fit is *limen* in Plautus's *Mercator* 830 (p. 268).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A class of words that I had forgotten about when I posted my original question is neuter nouns used as terms of endearment, like *mel.* Using these as vocatives seems entirely natural. In the section on &quot;Expressions of Endearment&quot;, Bennett mentions *meum cor, meum corculum, mel meum, meum savium, meum labellum.* But I'm not sure that this use characteristically requires a &quot;vocative case&quot; form since there are some masculine examples in the same section that look like nominatives: *meus ocellus, meus molliculus caseus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###limen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Playing with your role in Plautine Theater](https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1211552932&amp;disposition=inline)&quot;, by Christopher William Bungard (2008) provides the following translation of the sentence with *limen*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Limen superum inferumque, salve, simul autem vale. (830)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Doorway above and below, hello and at the same time moreover farewell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 167)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###o Pergamum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found another possible example mentioned in &#xD;&#xA;&quot;[The vocative’s calling? The syntax of address in Latin](https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:e666d76a-de0e-454e-83ba-77e06e64c492/download_file?safe_filename=Item&amp;file_format=application%2Fpdf&amp;type_of_work=Journal+article)&quot;, by Richard Ashdowne. *O Pergamum* occurs in a list of vocative phrases that includes the unambiguous form &quot;Priame&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5) *o Troia, o patria, **o Pergamum**, o Priame ... senex* (Plaut. Bacch. 933) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;O Troy! O fatherland! O Pergamum! O old man, Priam!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology &amp; Phonetics](https://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/files/owp2002.pdf),* Volume 7, May 2002, p. 145)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, a city name is perhaps one of the more likely contexts for a neuter vocative, since there are a number of cities or towns with neuter-gender names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The article starts with an amusing anecdote that was new to me about Winston Churchill's puzzlement when he was taught that *mensa* could be translated as &#xD;&#xA; &quot;O table&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9332" RevisionGUID="2fdbfc02-42a3-4e81-b145-2209718aa0e4" CreationDate="2019-03-31T08:49:14.013" UserId="9" Comment="added 273 characters in body" Text="*[Syntax of Early Latin: Vol II—The Cases](https://books.google.com/books?id=IH8KAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA268#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false),* by Charles Edwin Bennett (1914), seems to have a long list of examples of the vocative. One in particular that seems to fit is *limen* in Plautus's *Mercator* 830 (p. 268).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A class of words that I had forgotten about when I posted my original question is neuter nouns used as terms of endearment, like *mel.* Using these as vocatives seems entirely natural. In the section on &quot;Expressions of Endearment&quot;, Bennett mentions *meum cor, meum corculum, mel meum, meum savium, meum labellum.* But I'm not sure that this use characteristically requires a &quot;vocative case&quot; form since there are some masculine examples in the same section that look like nominatives: *meus ocellus, meus molliculus caseus.* Maybe looking at the exact context would make the situation more certain: [Alex B.'s answer to *How do you address someone in a case other than the vocative?*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7682/9) indicates that the nominative case is used for appositive expressions specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###limen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Playing with your role in Plautine Theater](https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1211552932&amp;disposition=inline)&quot;, by Christopher William Bungard (2008) provides the following translation of the sentence with *limen*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Limen superum inferumque, salve, simul autem vale. (830)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Doorway above and below, hello and at the same time moreover farewell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 167)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###o Pergamum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found another possible example mentioned in &#xD;&#xA;&quot;[The vocative’s calling? The syntax of address in Latin](https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:e666d76a-de0e-454e-83ba-77e06e64c492/download_file?safe_filename=Item&amp;file_format=application%2Fpdf&amp;type_of_work=Journal+article)&quot;, by Richard Ashdowne. *O Pergamum* occurs in a list of vocative phrases that includes the unambiguous form &quot;Priame&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5) *o Troia, o patria, **o Pergamum**, o Priame ... senex* (Plaut. Bacch. 933) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;O Troy! O fatherland! O Pergamum! O old man, Priam!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology &amp; Phonetics](https://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/files/owp2002.pdf),* Volume 7, May 2002, p. 145)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, a city name is perhaps one of the more likely contexts for a neuter vocative, since there are a number of cities or towns with neuter-gender names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The article starts with an amusing anecdote that was new to me about Winston Churchill's puzzlement when he was taught that *mensa* could be translated as &#xD;&#xA; &quot;O table&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9382" RevisionGUID="12dacace-1f3b-456e-8c8d-cf293db67286" CreationDate="2019-03-31T17:26:52.773" UserDisplayName="user3165" Text="I'm working on a calendar. To choose the name of the months I focused on Latin and in particular on a systematisation of the names finishing with 'ber'. I was wondering if my choices were correct and realistic.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the name of the twelfth month is too long so if you think you know how it would have evolved in English, I'm interested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Premember&#xD;&#xA;2. Secember&#xD;&#xA;3. Tertiember&#xD;&#xA;4. Quatember&#xD;&#xA;5. Quintember&#xD;&#xA;6. Sextember&#xD;&#xA;7. September&#xD;&#xA;8. October&#xD;&#xA;9. November&#xD;&#xA;10. December&#xD;&#xA;11. Unodecember&#xD;&#xA;12. Duodecember" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29251" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9382" RevisionGUID="12dacace-1f3b-456e-8c8d-cf293db67286" CreationDate="2019-03-31T17:26:52.773" UserDisplayName="user3165" Text="Is the name of these months realistic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29252" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9382" RevisionGUID="12dacace-1f3b-456e-8c8d-cf293db67286" CreationDate="2019-03-31T17:26:52.773" UserDisplayName="user3165" Text="|language-evolution|time|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9383" RevisionGUID="606021d9-cd77-4d37-a916-972c6525c0af" CreationDate="2019-03-31T18:03:12.667" UserId="79" Text="In addition to the familiar *September&amp;mdash;December*, there were two more numerically named months before they were renamed in early imperial era: *Quintilis* and *Sextilis*.&#xD;&#xA;These should definitely go to your slots 5 and 6.&#xD;&#xA;In English you could call these Quintile and Sextile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You seem to have slightly misanalyzed the ending.&#xD;&#xA;What you add to the end of a number is not *-ember* but *-ber*.&#xD;&#xA;This is an easy mistake to make, as three of the four month numbers (*septem*, *octo*, *novem*, *decem*) end in *-em*.&#xD;&#xA;The key observation is that we have October, not Octember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that the numbers 7&amp;ndash;10 get the ending *-ber* to the cardinal number, whereas 5&amp;ndash;6 get the ending *-ilis* to the (stem of the) ordinal number.&#xD;&#xA;That is, *Quin(c)tilis* and *Sextilis* seem to be based on *quintus* and *sextus*, not *quinque* and *sex*.&#xD;&#xA;So, there are two attested ways to produce month names from numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it sounds more natural to use the ordinal one for the first months:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *primus &gt; Primilis*&#xD;&#xA;2. *secundus/alter &gt; Secundilis/Altrilis*&#xD;&#xA;3. *tertius &gt; Tertilis* (somehow *Tertiilis* sounds unnatural)&#xD;&#xA;4. *quartus &gt; Quartilis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Tertilis* and *Quartilis* (or Tertile and Quartile in English) sound quite natural to me, but the first two less so.&#xD;&#xA;However, they feel more understandable and Latin to me than the ones you proposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find no way around the somewhat clumsy *Undecember* and *Duodecember*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An option worth serious consideration is having the year start in March instead of January.&#xD;&#xA;This is what the Roman calendar did, and this is why the names are off by two.&#xD;&#xA;This would have the benefit of the months names aligning with the ones already in use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29254" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9382" RevisionGUID="1223bec9-27a2-4fc0-ad27-6d24216267c1" CreationDate="2019-03-31T18:04:05.100" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Are the names of these months realistic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29255" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9382" RevisionGUID="1223bec9-27a2-4fc0-ad27-6d24216267c1" CreationDate="2019-03-31T18:04:05.100" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|language-evolution|time|calendarium|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9384" RevisionGUID="cc7c8d45-fe99-4288-820b-83feb4e3f644" CreationDate="2019-03-31T18:42:51.053" UserId="406" Text="To supplement Joonas's wonderful answer, the words for &quot;eleven&quot; and &quot;twelve&quot; in Latin are _undecim_ and _duodecim_, with an _i_. So I would suggest those months be changed to _Undecimber_ and _Duodecimber_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9383" RevisionGUID="53fb6e96-b788-46f2-9810-401f616b8469" CreationDate="2019-03-31T18:45:46.080" UserId="79" Comment="added 267 characters in body" Text="In addition to the familiar *September&amp;mdash;December*, there were two more numerically named months before they were renamed in early imperial era: *Quintilis* and *Sextilis*.&#xD;&#xA;These should definitely go to your slots 5 and 6.&#xD;&#xA;In English you could call these Quintile and Sextile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You seem to have slightly misanalyzed the ending.&#xD;&#xA;What you add to the end of a number is not *-ember* but *-ber*.&#xD;&#xA;This is an easy mistake to make, as three of the four month numbers (*septem*, *octo*, *novem*, *decem*) end in *-em*.&#xD;&#xA;The key observation is that we have October, not Octember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that the numbers 7&amp;ndash;10 get the ending *-ber* to the cardinal number, whereas 5&amp;ndash;6 get the ending *-ilis* to the (stem of the) ordinal number.&#xD;&#xA;That is, *Quin(c)tilis* and *Sextilis* seem to be based on *quintus* and *sextus*, not *quinque* and *sex*.&#xD;&#xA;So, there are two attested ways to produce month names from numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it sounds more natural to use the ordinal one for the first months:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *primus &gt; Primilis*&#xD;&#xA;2. *secundus/alter &gt; Secundilis/Altrilis*&#xD;&#xA;3. *tertius &gt; Tertilis* (somehow *Tertiilis* sounds unnatural)&#xD;&#xA;4. *quartus &gt; Quartilis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Tertilis* and *Quartilis* (or Tertile and Quartile in English) sound quite natural to me, but the first two less so.&#xD;&#xA;However, they feel more understandable and Latin to me than the ones you proposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find no way around the somewhat clumsy *Undecember* and *Duodecember*.&#xD;&#xA;As Draconis points out in another answer, the Latin numbers 11 and 12 are *undecim* and *duodecim*, so maybe you could change the month names to Undecimber and Duodecimber.&#xD;&#xA;However, it would not be unreasonable to keep the *-e-* by analogy in the English versions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An option worth serious consideration is having the year start in March instead of January.&#xD;&#xA;This is what the Roman calendar did, and this is why the names are off by two.&#xD;&#xA;This would have the benefit of the months names aligning with the ones already in use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29258" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9382" RevisionGUID="6b203c47-7b91-4cb7-bd12-33393216c193" CreationDate="2019-03-31T18:47:00.877" />
  <row Id="29259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9380" RevisionGUID="0631972b-3291-4478-a2af-72884e5e9949" CreationDate="2019-03-31T20:43:47.413" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="A number of personal names in the works of Plautus end in *-um* in the nominative singular, which struck me as odd when I first encountered them, since nominative singular *-um* is characteristically found at the end of neuter nouns (specifically, those of the second declension).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A male example seems to be *[Paegnium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Paegnium)*; female examples, *Philematium* and *[Stephanium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Stephanium).* According to Henry John Roby, such names also appear in the works of Terence, and their grammatical gender in Latin corresponds to their natural gender, even though they are apparently from Greek words (or names?) that are neuter gender (*[Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius, Part 1][roby],* p. 106). Harm Pinkster gives the phrase &quot;amoena Stephanium&quot; as an example of this principle of semantic gender assignment (*[Oxford Latin Syntax: Volume 1: The Simple Clause][pinkster],* p. 40).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found them discussed briefly in one section of &quot;[Some Roman Slave-names](https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/slave-names_bruce.pdf)&quot; by F. F. Bruce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Greek diminutives in *-ιον,* mainly names of women [...]&#xD;&#xA;appear in Latin with the ending *-ium* as well [as the ending *-io*]. Thus *Φιλημάτιον* takes in Latin the forms Philematium and (as here) Philematio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found an interesting [comment by the Wiktionary editor Smurrayinchester](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:Pyrgopolynices#Deletion_discussion) which makes the point that at least some of the examples from Plautus' plays &quot;aren't Latin names any more than Nanki-Poo or Obi-Wan Kenobi are English names&quot;, and cites a text that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there are good reasons to believe that Plautus invented many of his characters' names, especially those with humorous Greek etymologies. [...] The *-ium* at the end of courtesans' names is derived from an affectionate Greek diminutive; *Philocomasium* means &quot;Love a Party&quot; and *Acroleutium* &quot;The Absolute End&quot;. We cannot tell how many members of Plautus' Roman audience knew enough Greek to appreciate these etymologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;[Introduction to Miles Gloriosus][smith]&quot;, by Peter L. Smith, in *Plautus: Three Comedies,* (1991), p. 13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some questions that I have about names of this type:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How much evidence do we have for names of this type being used in Latin outside of fictional contexts? Naively, I would assume that if Plautus used this ending extensively in his plays, he would expect his audiences to at least be familiar with personal names ending in *-(i)um*, even if they didn't know enough Greek to identify all of the meaningful elements of the names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Could anyone tell me more about the use of names ending in *-ιον* in Greek-language contexts? The Lewis and Short entry for *Paegnium* says that it comes from the Greek neuter noun *[παίγνιον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpai%2Fgnion)* 'plaything, toy', which LSJ says could also be used of persons in the sense &quot;darling, pet&quot;. Is it true, as Roby seems to say, that in Greek there were personal names ending in *-ιον* that belonged to the neuter gender? If so, did they trigger neuter agreement without exception, or might they show varying or mixed patterns of agreement (for instance, I wonder whether perhaps they could have triggered neuter agreement within the noun phrase—i.e. on the article and on attributive adjectives—but had natural gender agreement as a possibility outside of the noun phrase—e.g. on predicate adjectives)? In *[Greek Personal Names and Linguistic Continuity](https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/104p015.pdf),* by Anna Morpurgo Davies, I found the following footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 13 Some women's names in Greek are neuter, but this need not count as an exception to the general need for marking sex differences. Men's names are never neuter. (p. 21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This suggests the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are there any male examples other than *Paegnium*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[roby]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA106&#xD;&#xA;[pinkster]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA21-IA7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[smith]: https://books.google.de/books?id=Aj-5l63TFxwC&amp;pg=PA13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9383" RevisionGUID="c105c963-fe41-4acd-9e7c-2b6aebefa438" CreationDate="2019-03-31T21:24:28.177" UserId="79" Comment="added 292 characters in body" Text="In addition to the familiar *September&amp;ndash;December*, there were two more numerically named months before they were renamed in early imperial era: *Quintilis* and *Sextilis*.&#xD;&#xA;These should definitely go to your slots 5 and 6.&#xD;&#xA;In English you could call these Quintile and Sextile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You seem to have slightly misanalyzed the ending.&#xD;&#xA;What you add to the end of a number is not *-ember* but *-ber*.&#xD;&#xA;This is an easy mistake to make, as three of the four usual month numbers (*septem*, *octo*, *novem*, *decem*) end in *-em*.&#xD;&#xA;The key observation is that we have October, not Octember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that the numbers 7&amp;ndash;10 get the ending *-ber* to the cardinal number, whereas 5&amp;ndash;6 get the ending *-ilis* to the (stem of the) ordinal number.&#xD;&#xA;That is, *Quin(c)tilis* and *Sextilis* seem to be based on *quintus* and *sextus*, not *quinque* and *sex*.&#xD;&#xA;So, there are two attested ways to produce month names from numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it sounds more natural to use the ordinal one for the first months:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *primus &gt; Primilis*&#xD;&#xA;2. *secundus/alter &gt; Secundilis/Altrilis*&#xD;&#xA;3. *tertius &gt; Tertilis* (somehow *Tertiilis* sounds unnatural)&#xD;&#xA;4. *quartus &gt; Quartilis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Tertilis* and *Quartilis* (or Tertile and Quartile in English) sound quite natural to me, but the first two less so.&#xD;&#xA;However, they feel more understandable and Latin to me than the ones you proposed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find no way around the somewhat clumsy *Undecember* and *Duodecember*.&#xD;&#xA;As Draconis points out in another answer, the Latin numbers 11 and 12 are *undecim* and *duodecim*, so maybe you could change the month names to Undecimber and Duodecimber.&#xD;&#xA;However, it would not be unreasonable to keep the *-e-* by analogy in the English versions.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know whether adding *-ber* in Latin would change the vowel or whether later developments in English would naturally lead to a vowel change, but this is just a minor detail.&#xD;&#xA;One practical benefit of the *-i-* is that it sets the eleventh and twelfth month apart from December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An option worth serious consideration is having the year start in March instead of January.&#xD;&#xA;This is what the Roman calendar did, and this is why the names are off by two.&#xD;&#xA;This would have the benefit of the months names aligning with the ones already in use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9383" RevisionGUID="6987667e-3ade-4be5-a6b9-fc4085030729" CreationDate="2019-04-01T00:36:35.527" UserId="79" Comment="added 375 characters in body" Text="In addition to the familiar *September&amp;ndash;December*, there were two more numerically named months before they were renamed in early imperial era: *Quintilis* and *Sextilis*.&#xD;&#xA;These should definitely go to your slots 5 and 6.&#xD;&#xA;In English you could call these Quintile and Sextile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You seem to have slightly misanalyzed the ending.&#xD;&#xA;What you add to the end of a number is not *-ember* but *-ber*.&#xD;&#xA;This is an easy mistake to make, as three of the four usual month numbers (*septem*, *octo*, *novem*, *decem*) end in *-em*.&#xD;&#xA;The key observation is that we have October, not Octember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that the numbers 7&amp;ndash;10 get the ending *-ber* to the cardinal number, whereas 5&amp;ndash;6 get the ending *-ilis* to the (stem of the) ordinal number.&#xD;&#xA;That is, *Quin(c)tilis* and *Sextilis* seem to be based on *quintus* and *sextus*, not *quinque* and *sex*.&#xD;&#xA;So, there are two attested ways to produce month names from numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it sounds more natural to use the ordinal one for the first months:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *primus &gt; Primilis*&#xD;&#xA;2. *secundus/alter &gt; Secundilis/Altrilis*&#xD;&#xA;3. *tertius &gt; Tertilis* (somehow *Tertiilis* sounds unnatural)&#xD;&#xA;4. *quartus &gt; Quartilis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Tertilis* and *Quartilis* (or Tertile and Quartile in English) sound quite natural to me, but the first two less so.&#xD;&#xA;However, they feel more understandable and Latin to me than the ones you proposed.&#xD;&#xA;With this pattern the first half of the year has *-ilis*, the second half has *-ber*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find no way around the somewhat clumsy *Undecember* and *Duodecember*.&#xD;&#xA;As Draconis points out in another answer, the Latin numbers 11 and 12 are *undecim* and *duodecim*, so maybe you could change the month names to Undecimber and Duodecimber.&#xD;&#xA;However, it would not be unreasonable to keep the *-e-* by analogy in the English versions.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know whether adding *-ber* in Latin would change the vowel or whether later developments in English would naturally lead to a vowel change, but this is just a minor detail.&#xD;&#xA;One practical benefit of the *-i-* is that it sets the eleventh and twelfth month apart from December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An option worth serious consideration is having the year start in March instead of January.&#xD;&#xA;This is what the Roman calendar did, and this is why the names are off by two.&#xD;&#xA;This would have the benefit of the months names aligning with the ones already in use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the suggested list in English resulting from the considerations above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Primile&#xD;&#xA;2. Altrile or Secundile&#xD;&#xA;3. Tertile&#xD;&#xA;4. Quartile&#xD;&#xA;5. Quintile&#xD;&#xA;6. Sextile&#xD;&#xA;7. September&#xD;&#xA;8. October&#xD;&#xA;9. November&#xD;&#xA;10. December&#xD;&#xA;11. Undecember or Undecimber&#xD;&#xA;12. Duodecember or Duodecimber&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9385" RevisionGUID="ae2f6db1-faf0-4aa8-b2c5-184d1057f3b8" CreationDate="2019-04-01T01:22:17.953" UserId="39" Text="Pinacium, a slave-boy in Plautus *Stichus*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9385" RevisionGUID="391681d1-75a2-4ce5-92c2-080dca7ff4e7" CreationDate="2019-04-01T01:37:39.873" UserId="39" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="Pinacium, a slave-boy in Plautus *Stichus* and also in *Mostellaria*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9386" RevisionGUID="dff91ae7-fca9-401f-b7c0-51a996e5f2da" CreationDate="2019-04-01T03:43:48.907" UserId="1694" Text="Since there has not been a better answer as yet, I will put forth the example of Odysseus' famous dog, Ἄργος (which seems to be an epithet, rather than a human-type name)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9387" RevisionGUID="b5d5d844-af67-4f42-bb87-0240cb61f221" CreationDate="2019-04-01T04:29:45.700" UserId="985" Text="In Petronius, *Satyricon* 64, Trimalchio's favorite, Croesus, has an 'indecently fat black puppy' (*catellam nigram atque indecenter pinguem*) named Margarita, which means 'Pearl', and Trimalchio himself has a dog, the 'bulwark of the house and household' (*praesidium domus familiaeque*) named Scylax, which is Greek for 'young dog' or 'puppy'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9387" RevisionGUID="7c75ae5a-29a6-45fa-87c3-05769cf902bc" CreationDate="2019-04-01T06:06:53.507" UserId="985" Comment="Expanded answer" Text="In Petronius, *Satyricon* 64, Trimalchio's favorite, Croesus, has an 'indecently fat black puppy' (*catellam nigram atque indecenter pinguem*) named Margarita, which means 'pearl', and Trimalchio himself has a dog, the 'bulwark of the house and household' (*praesidium domus familiaeque*) named Scylax, which is Greek for 'young dog' or 'puppy'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also remember once coming across grave inscriptions for a dog and, maybe, a bird of some sort; but I don't recall whether the animals were named. I'll try to track down the texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure something like Toynbee's book about animals in the Roman world would cover this subject, but I don't seem to be able to find my copy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the meantime, though this doesn't really qualify as a pet, since I thought of it and went to the effort of finding it, there's also this late 2nd-century (CE) inscription from Rome for a racing horse named Euthydikos ('righteous-judging'). It was found on the Aventine, near the Circus Maximus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; στήλη μαρμαρέη  &#xD;&#xA;τίνος εἶ τάφος;  &#xD;&#xA;ὠκέος ἵππου.  &#xD;&#xA;τίς δ' ὄνομα; Εὐθύδικος.  &#xD;&#xA;τί κλέος; ἀθλοφόρος.  &#xD;&#xA;ποσ&lt;σ&gt;άκις ἐστέφθης δρόμον;  &#xD;&#xA;πολλάκις. τί δ' ἔλαέν μιν;  &#xD;&#xA;κοίρανος. ὢ τιμῆς  &#xD;&#xA;κρέσσ&lt;ο&gt;νος ἡμιθέων.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marble slab, whose tomb are you? That of a swift horse. Who by name? Euthydikos. What was his fame? As a prizewinner. How many times was he crowned for racing? Often. Who drove him? The ruler. O honor superior to that of the demigods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(From Guarducci, *L'epigrafia greca dalle origine al tardo impero*, pp 414–416; photo on p 415)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9388" RevisionGUID="30c3d22e-2678-4985-900e-62a2cf69fb2c" CreationDate="2019-04-01T07:04:41.637" UserId="9" Text="I asked a previous question about names ending in *-um.* I found an interesting [comment by the Wiktionary editor Smurrayinchester](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:Pyrgopolynices#Deletion_discussion) which makes the point that at least some of the examples from Plautus' plays &quot;aren't Latin names any more than Nanki-Poo or Obi-Wan Kenobi are English names&quot;, and cites a text that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there are good reasons to believe that Plautus invented many of his characters' names, especially those with humorous Greek etymologies. [...] The *-ium* at the end of courtesans' names is derived from an affectionate Greek diminutive; *Philocomasium* means &quot;Love a Party&quot; and *Acroleutium* &quot;The Absolute End&quot;. We cannot tell how many members of Plautus' Roman audience knew enough Greek to appreciate these etymologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;[Introduction to Miles Gloriosus][smith]&quot;, by Peter L. Smith, in *Plautus: Three Comedies,* (1991), p. 13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much evidence do we have for names of this type being used in Latin outside of fictional contexts? Naively, I would assume that if Plautus used this ending extensively in his plays, he would expect his audiences to at least be familiar with personal names ending in *-(i)um*, even if they didn't know enough Greek to identify all of the meaningful elements of the names.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29268" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9388" RevisionGUID="30c3d22e-2678-4985-900e-62a2cf69fb2c" CreationDate="2019-04-01T07:04:41.637" UserId="9" Text="How often were names ending in -um used in real life?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29269" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9388" RevisionGUID="30c3d22e-2678-4985-900e-62a2cf69fb2c" CreationDate="2019-04-01T07:04:41.637" UserId="9" Text="|classical-latin|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29270" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="9388" RevisionGUID="266147f1-2cb8-469c-9d02-58d8152d56b8" CreationDate="2019-04-01T07:04:50.720" UserId="9" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9380" RevisionGUID="595dd5e7-2c80-4630-a604-a37fde1d1955" CreationDate="2019-04-01T07:06:52.297" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 936 characters in body" Text="A number of personal names in the works of Plautus end in *-um* in the nominative singular, which struck me as odd when I first encountered them, since nominative singular *-um* is characteristically found at the end of neuter nouns (specifically, those of the second declension).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A male example seems to be *[Paegnium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Paegnium)*; female examples, *Philematium* and *[Stephanium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Stephanium).* According to Henry John Roby, such names also appear in the works of Terence, and their grammatical gender in Latin corresponds to their natural gender, even though they are apparently from Greek words (or names?) that are neuter gender (*[Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius, Part 1][roby],* p. 106). Harm Pinkster gives the phrase &quot;amoena Stephanium&quot; as an example of this principle of semantic gender assignment (*[Oxford Latin Syntax: Volume 1: The Simple Clause][pinkster],* p. 40).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found them discussed briefly in one section of &quot;[Some Roman Slave-names](https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/slave-names_bruce.pdf)&quot; by F. F. Bruce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Greek diminutives in *-ιον,* mainly names of women [...]&#xD;&#xA;appear in Latin with the ending *-ium* as well [as the ending *-io*]. Thus *Φιλημάτιον* takes in Latin the forms Philematium and (as here) Philematio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some questions that I have about names of this type:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Could anyone tell me more about the use of names ending in *-ιον* in Greek-language contexts? The Lewis and Short entry for *Paegnium* says that it comes from the Greek neuter noun *[παίγνιον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpai%2Fgnion)* 'plaything, toy', which LSJ says could also be used of persons in the sense &quot;darling, pet&quot;. Is it true, as Roby seems to say, that in Greek there were personal names ending in *-ιον* that belonged to the neuter gender? If so, did they trigger neuter agreement without exception, or might they show varying or mixed patterns of agreement (for instance, I wonder whether perhaps they could have triggered neuter agreement within the noun phrase—i.e. on the article and on attributive adjectives—but had natural gender agreement as a possibility outside of the noun phrase—e.g. on predicate adjectives)? In *[Greek Personal Names and Linguistic Continuity](https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/104p015.pdf),* by Anna Morpurgo Davies, I found the following footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 13 Some women's names in Greek are neuter, but this need not count as an exception to the general need for marking sex differences. Men's names are never neuter. (p. 21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This suggests the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are there any male examples other than *Paegnium*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[roby]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA106&#xD;&#xA;[pinkster]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA21-IA7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29272" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="9388" RevisionGUID="b2636386-43c3-4244-917b-8e324ac3ac68" CreationDate="2019-04-01T07:07:20.093" UserId="9" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9388" RevisionGUID="cb2ef3e3-8442-460e-8074-26ac0a7a5d18" CreationDate="2019-04-01T07:09:51.497" UserId="9" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="I just asked a question about names ending in *-um,* which seem to not be extremely rare in the works of Plautus. I found an interesting [comment by the Wiktionary editor Smurrayinchester](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:Pyrgopolynices#Deletion_discussion) which makes the point that at least some of the names found in Plautus' plays &quot;aren't Latin names any more than Nanki-Poo or Obi-Wan Kenobi are English names&quot;, and cites a text that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there are good reasons to believe that Plautus invented many of his characters' names, especially those with humorous Greek etymologies. [...] The *-ium* at the end of courtesans' names is derived from an affectionate Greek diminutive; *Philocomasium* means &quot;Love a Party&quot; and *Acroleutium* &quot;The Absolute End&quot;. We cannot tell how many members of Plautus' Roman audience knew enough Greek to appreciate these etymologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;[Introduction to Miles Gloriosus][smith]&quot;, by Peter L. Smith, in *Plautus: Three Comedies,* (1991), p. 13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much evidence do we have for names of this type being used in Latin outside of fictional contexts? Naively, I would assume that if Plautus used this ending extensively in his plays, he would expect his audiences to at least be familiar with personal names ending in *-(i)um*, even if they didn't know enough Greek to identify all of the meaningful elements of the names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[smith]: https://books.google.de/books?id=Aj-5l63TFxwC&amp;pg=PA13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9380" RevisionGUID="022bb3af-605b-4e0e-87a4-4c2e7d412d3c" CreationDate="2019-04-01T07:13:41.797" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 96 characters in body" Text="A number of personal names in the works of Plautus end in *-um* in the nominative singular, which struck me as odd when I first encountered them, since nominative singular *-um* is characteristically found at the end of neuter nouns (specifically, those of the second declension).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A male example seems to be *[Paegnium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Paegnium)*; female examples, *Philematium* and *[Stephanium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Stephanium).* According to Henry John Roby, such names also appear in the works of Terence, and their grammatical gender in Latin corresponds to their natural gender, even though they are apparently from Greek words (or names?) that are neuter gender (*[Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius, Part 1][roby],* p. 106). Harm Pinkster gives the phrase &quot;amoena Stephanium&quot; as an example of this principle of semantic gender assignment (*[Oxford Latin Syntax: Volume 1: The Simple Clause][pinkster],* p. 40).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found them discussed briefly in one section of &quot;[Some Roman Slave-names](https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/slave-names_bruce.pdf)&quot; by F. F. Bruce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Greek diminutives in *-ιον,* mainly names of women [...]&#xD;&#xA;appear in Latin with the ending *-ium* as well [as the ending *-io*]. Thus *Φιλημάτιον* takes in Latin the forms Philematium and (as here) Philematio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some questions that I have about names of this type:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lewis and Short entry for *Paegnium* says that it comes from the Greek neuter noun *[παίγνιον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpai%2Fgnion)* 'plaything, toy', which LSJ says could also be used of persons in the sense &quot;darling, pet&quot;. Is it true, as Roby seems to say, that in Greek there were personal names ending in *-ιον* that belonged to the neuter gender? If so, did they trigger neuter agreement without exception, or might they show varying or mixed patterns of agreement (for instance, I wonder whether perhaps they could have triggered neuter agreement within the noun phrase—i.e. on the article and on attributive adjectives—but had natural gender agreement as a possibility outside of the noun phrase—e.g. on predicate adjectives)? In *[Greek Personal Names and Linguistic Continuity](https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/104p015.pdf),* by Anna Morpurgo Davies, I found the following footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 13 Some women's names in Greek are neuter, but this need not count as an exception to the general need for marking sex differences. Men's names are never neuter. (p. 21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This suggests the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are there any male examples other than *Paegnium*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[roby]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA106&#xD;&#xA;[pinkster]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA21-IA7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9389" RevisionGUID="3f55fe8a-2bf1-44e6-a4b2-c814f3871508" CreationDate="2019-04-01T07:14:42.367" UserId="9" Text="Is it true that in Greek there were personal names ending in *-ιον* that belonged to the neuter gender? If so, did they trigger neuter agreement without exception, or might they show varying or mixed patterns of agreement (for instance, I wonder whether perhaps they could have triggered neuter agreement within the noun phrase—i.e. on the article and on attributive adjectives—but had natural gender agreement as a possibility outside of the noun phrase—e.g. on predicate adjectives)? In *[Greek Personal Names and Linguistic Continuity](https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/104p015.pdf),* by Anna Morpurgo Davies, I found the following footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 13 Some women's names in Greek are neuter, but this need not count as an exception to the general need for marking sex differences. Men's names are never neuter. (p. 21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anyone tell me more about the use of names ending in *-ιον* in Greek-language contexts? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29276" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9389" RevisionGUID="3f55fe8a-2bf1-44e6-a4b2-c814f3871508" CreationDate="2019-04-01T07:14:42.367" UserId="9" Text="How were names ending in *-ιον* used in Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29277" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9389" RevisionGUID="3f55fe8a-2bf1-44e6-a4b2-c814f3871508" CreationDate="2019-04-01T07:14:42.367" UserId="9" Text="|greek|names|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9380" RevisionGUID="989acaab-09c4-4014-abde-43a15031f5c0" CreationDate="2019-04-01T07:19:33.603" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 96 characters in body" Text="A number of personal names in the works of Plautus end in *-um* in the nominative singular, which struck me as odd when I first encountered them, since nominative singular *-um* is characteristically found at the end of neuter nouns (specifically, those of the second declension).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A male example seems to be *[Paegnium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Paegnium)*; female examples, *Philematium* and *[Stephanium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Stephanium).* According to Henry John Roby, such names also appear in the works of Terence, and their grammatical gender in Latin corresponds to their natural gender, even though they are apparently from Greek words (or names?) that are neuter gender (*[Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius, Part 1][roby],* p. 106). Harm Pinkster gives the phrase &quot;amoena Stephanium&quot; as an example of this principle of semantic gender assignment (*[Oxford Latin Syntax: Volume 1: The Simple Clause][pinkster],* p. 40).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found them discussed briefly in one section of &quot;[Some Roman Slave-names](https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/slave-names_bruce.pdf)&quot; by F. F. Bruce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Greek diminutives in *-ιον,* mainly names of women [...]&#xD;&#xA;appear in Latin with the ending *-ium* as well [as the ending *-io*]. Thus *Φιλημάτιον* takes in Latin the forms Philematium and (as here) Philematio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lewis and Short entry for *Paegnium* says that it comes from the Greek neuter noun *[παίγνιον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpai%2Fgnion)* 'plaything, toy', which LSJ says could also be used of persons in the sense &quot;darling, pet&quot;. In *[Greek Personal Names and Linguistic Continuity](https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/104p015.pdf),* by Anna Morpurgo Davies, I found the following footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 13 Some women's names in Greek are neuter, but this need not count as an exception to the general need for marking sex differences. Men's names are never neuter. (p. 21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This suggests the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are there any male examples other than *Paegnium*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[roby]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA106&#xD;&#xA;[pinkster]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA21-IA7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29279" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9380" RevisionGUID="989acaab-09c4-4014-abde-43a15031f5c0" CreationDate="2019-04-01T07:19:33.603" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 96 characters in body" Text="Male personal names ending in -um" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9388" RevisionGUID="656673b0-2743-4636-8174-21e62fbfb5a7" CreationDate="2019-04-01T07:21:06.820" UserId="9" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="I just asked a question about [names ending in *-um,*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9380/personal-names-ending-in-um) which seem to not be extremely rare in the works of Plautus. I found an interesting [comment by the Wiktionary editor Smurrayinchester](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:Pyrgopolynices#Deletion_discussion) which makes the point that at least some of the names found in Plautus' plays &quot;aren't Latin names any more than Nanki-Poo or Obi-Wan Kenobi are English names&quot;, and cites a text that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there are good reasons to believe that Plautus invented many of his characters' names, especially those with humorous Greek etymologies. [...] The *-ium* at the end of courtesans' names is derived from an affectionate Greek diminutive; *Philocomasium* means &quot;Love a Party&quot; and *Acroleutium* &quot;The Absolute End&quot;. We cannot tell how many members of Plautus' Roman audience knew enough Greek to appreciate these etymologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;[Introduction to Miles Gloriosus][smith]&quot;, by Peter L. Smith, in *Plautus: Three Comedies,* (1991), p. 13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much evidence do we have for names of this type being used in Latin outside of fictional contexts? Naively, I would assume that if Plautus used this ending extensively in his plays, he would expect his audiences to at least be familiar with personal names ending in *-(i)um*, even if they didn't know enough Greek to identify all of the meaningful elements of the names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[smith]: https://books.google.de/books?id=Aj-5l63TFxwC&amp;pg=PA13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9389" RevisionGUID="3bf67dc0-80e4-4021-8313-34c0300e4f5c" CreationDate="2019-04-01T07:23:16.143" UserId="9" Comment="added 355 characters in body" Text="According to one section of &quot;[Some Roman Slave-names](https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/slave-names_bruce.pdf)&quot; by F. F. Bruce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Greek diminutives in *-ιον,* mainly names of women [...]&#xD;&#xA;appear in Latin with the ending *-ium* as well [as the ending *-io*]. Thus *Φιλημάτιον* takes in Latin the forms Philematium and (as here) Philematio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it true that in Greek there were personal names ending in *-ιον* that belonged to the neuter gender? If so, did they trigger neuter agreement without exception, or might they show varying or mixed patterns of agreement (for instance, I wonder whether perhaps they could have triggered neuter agreement within the noun phrase—i.e. on the article and on attributive adjectives—but had natural gender agreement as a possibility outside of the noun phrase—e.g. on predicate adjectives)? In *[Greek Personal Names and Linguistic Continuity](https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/104p015.pdf),* by Anna Morpurgo Davies, I found the following footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 13 Some women's names in Greek are neuter, but this need not count as an exception to the general need for marking sex differences. Men's names are never neuter. (p. 21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The note saying there were no male neuter name is interesting, since in the plays of Plautus there do seem to be some https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9380/male-personal-names-ending-in-um (which are treated as masculine nouns in Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anyone tell me more about the use of names ending in *-ιον* in Greek-language contexts? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29282" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="9389" RevisionGUID="4d2215df-6912-424e-bd93-199898940d18" CreationDate="2019-04-01T07:26:20.387" UserId="9" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29283" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="9388" RevisionGUID="4f6ed72c-e3e7-4bb6-b66c-bc5094bfd731" CreationDate="2019-04-01T07:28:00.650" UserId="9" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9390" RevisionGUID="74a4d23e-3237-459a-8fdb-7c058ff421dc" CreationDate="2019-04-01T08:34:14.710" UserId="1459" Text="According to [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prodigo#Latin), _prodigo_ is a verb which etymology comes from &quot;pro + ago&quot;. The same is suggested by [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=prodigo). However, I cannot see how _ago_ fits here. The [conjugation](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ago#Inflection) of this verb seems at odds with that of _prodigo_. Is there some mutation involved? How did _proago_ become _prodigo_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29285" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9390" RevisionGUID="74a4d23e-3237-459a-8fdb-7c058ff421dc" CreationDate="2019-04-01T08:34:14.710" UserId="1459" Text="Prodigo = pro + ago?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29286" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9390" RevisionGUID="74a4d23e-3237-459a-8fdb-7c058ff421dc" CreationDate="2019-04-01T08:34:14.710" UserId="1459" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9390" RevisionGUID="0e9a63a9-4c0b-47c6-a387-2558d6262e34" CreationDate="2019-04-01T14:16:12.490" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="According to [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prodigo#Latin), _prodigo_ is a verb which etymology comes from &quot;pro + ago&quot;. The same is suggested by [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=prodigo). However, I cannot see how _ago_ fits here. The [conjugation](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ago#Inflection) of this verb seems at odds with that of _prodigo_. Is there some mutation involved? How did _proago_ become _prodigo_?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29290" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9390" RevisionGUID="0e9a63a9-4c0b-47c6-a387-2558d6262e34" CreationDate="2019-04-01T14:16:12.490" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|etymology|verbs|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9393" RevisionGUID="8b21f398-c353-4333-820c-629347ecc5e2" CreationDate="2019-04-01T14:21:52.553" UserId="79" Text="Before vowels the prefix *pro-* becomes *prod-*.&#xD;&#xA;In addition to *prodigere*, we have *prodire*, *prodesse*, and maybe others that I forget now.&#xD;&#xA;Where the *-d-* comes from is another question, but for practical purposes of learning Latin one can just learn the prevocalic version of the prefix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very common that a short *a* in a short first syllable of a verb becomes *i* when a prefix is added.&#xD;&#xA;For example, consider *ex-facere &gt; efficere*.&#xD;&#xA;This has happened with *agere*, too, turning it into *-igere* after (one-syllable) prefixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you change the short *a* into a short *i* in the present stem (otherwise the vowel or syllable is long) and remember to put the extra *d* in *pro-*, the conjugations of *agere* and *prodigere* match perfectly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9394" RevisionGUID="c1d04b49-968c-4c05-bc72-266dbab680de" CreationDate="2019-04-01T15:28:49.387" UserId="406" Text="Joonas's answer is entirely correct, but just to add onto it a bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I learned it, ***prod* is an archaic form of *prō***.  You'll also sometimes see *por* as in *porrigō*, *polluō*, etc: these three all came from different forms of the same PIE root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, *prō* was the one that won out, and so that's the only one you'll see used as a preposition. But all three of them show up in verb prefixes. *Prod* was generally used in front of vowels, because Latin doesn't like vowels in hiatus (next to each other with nothing in between). And *por* was generally used before *l* or *r*, where *prō* would be awkward (forms like *_prorigō_ are somewhat unwieldy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(It's also possible that *prod* turned into *prō*, because Latin generally got rid of final *d*s and lengthened the vowels to compensate: that's how we got *filiā* &lt; *filiad* and *mē* &lt; *med*. But that's just conjecture; I don't actually know where the different forms came from.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re the vowel, **Old Latin used to stress the first syllable of a word**. And during this time, short vowels in unstressed syllables (that is, any syllable besides the first) got &quot;reduced&quot;. The following rules aren't watertight, but they're decent guidelines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the vowel was next to an *r*, it became *e*&#xD;&#xA; - If the vowel came before two consonants, it became *e*.&#xD;&#xA; - If the vowel was next to a &quot;dark *l*&quot; (short *l* not touching a front vowel), it became *u*&#xD;&#xA; - Otherwise, it became *i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see this in a lot of prefixed verbs, like *f**a**ciō* ~ *aff**i**ciō* ~ *aff**e**ctus*, or *c**e**lō* ~ *occ**u**ltus*. The *a* was the original vowel here, but it only survives when it's in the first syllable of the word. (You also see this reduction a lot in reduplicated perfects, like *c**a**dō* ~ *cec**i**dī*. Basically any time you have a prefix before a short vowel.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's what happened here: the original vowel was an *a*, but when it was pushed out of the first syllable, it got reduced to an *i*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you make that change, you'll see that the conjugation actually lines up quite nicely! It's just one of the quirks of Latin that you have to get used to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29294" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9390" RevisionGUID="a18edc31-547b-405c-8f41-1dccd39c6116" CreationDate="2019-04-01T15:33:21.220" />
  <row Id="29295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9394" RevisionGUID="e655457c-2060-442a-ad81-9baee24715b8" CreationDate="2019-04-01T16:06:43.993" UserId="406" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="Joonas's answer is entirely correct, but just to add onto it a bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I learned it, ***prod* is an archaic form of *prō***.  You'll also sometimes see *por* as in *porrigō*, *polluō*, etc: these three all came from different forms of the same PIE root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, *prō* was the one that won out, and so that's the only one you'll see used as a preposition. But all three of them show up in verb prefixes. *Prod* was generally used in front of vowels, because Latin doesn't like vowels in hiatus (next to each other with nothing in between). And *por* was generally used before *l* or *r*, where *prō* would be awkward (forms like *_prorigō_ are somewhat unwieldy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(It's also possible that *prod* turned into *prō*, because Latin generally got rid of final *d*s and lengthened the vowels to compensate: that's how we got *filiā* &lt; *filiad* and *mē* &lt; *med*. But that's just conjecture; I don't actually know where the different forms came from.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re the vowel, **Old Latin used to stress the first syllable of a word**. And during this time, short vowels in non-final unstressed syllables (that is, any syllable besides the first and the last) got &quot;reduced&quot;. The following rules aren't watertight, but they're decent guidelines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the vowel was next to an *r*, it became *e*&#xD;&#xA; - If the vowel came before two consonants, it became *e*.&#xD;&#xA; - If the vowel was next to a &quot;dark *l*&quot; (short *l* not touching a front vowel), it became *u*&#xD;&#xA; - Otherwise, it became *i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see this in a lot of prefixed verbs, like *f**a**ciō* ~ *aff**i**ciō* ~ *aff**e**ctus*, or *c**e**lō* ~ *occ**u**ltus*. The *a* was the original vowel here, but it only survives when it's in the first syllable of the word. (You also see this reduction a lot in reduplicated perfects, like *c**a**dō* ~ *cec**i**dī*. Basically any time you have a prefix before a short vowel.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's what happened here: the original vowel was an *a*, but when it was pushed out of the first syllable, it got reduced to an *i*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you make that change, you'll see that the conjugation actually lines up quite nicely! It's just one of the quirks of Latin that you have to get used to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9382" RevisionGUID="7b077577-0c44-4551-ad8d-e8e894d4d475" CreationDate="2019-04-01T16:59:16.637" UserDisplayName="user3165" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I'm working on a calendar. To choose the name of the months I focused on Latin and in particular on a systematisation of the names finishing with 'ber'. I was wondering if my choices were correct and realistic.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the name of the twelfth month is too long so if you think you know how it would have evolved in English, I'm interested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Premember&#xD;&#xA;2. Secember&#xD;&#xA;3. Tertiember&#xD;&#xA;4. Quatember&#xD;&#xA;5. Quintember&#xD;&#xA;6. Sextember&#xD;&#xA;7. September&#xD;&#xA;8. October&#xD;&#xA;9. November&#xD;&#xA;10. December&#xD;&#xA;11. Undecember&#xD;&#xA;12. Duodecember" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29297" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7545" RevisionGUID="b2d00785-b245-4756-8b1d-b116b8d9431a" CreationDate="2019-04-01T17:52:28.423" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|dictionary|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7545" RevisionGUID="b2d00785-b245-4756-8b1d-b116b8d9431a" CreationDate="2019-04-01T17:52:28.423" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="I'm using a university account to sign into [Oxford Scholarly Editions Online](http://www.oxfordscholarlyeditions.com/) (OSEO).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. To what 'widget' does [the official webpage](http://www.oxfordscholarlyeditions.com/page/the-oxford-latin-dictionary) refer? Is it online? Must it be downloaded?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A **widget** enabling users to look up words in the *Oxford Latin Dictionary*, ed. P. G. W. Glare (2nd edn, 2012), is included for all users of the Latin content on *Oxford Scholarly Editions Online*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I [searched for it on OSEO](http://www.oxfordscholarlyeditions.com/search?q=The+Oxford+Latin+Dictionary&amp;isNewSearch=true&amp;onlyPreferredWorks=true&amp;searchBtn=Search), but see no result? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6309" RevisionGUID="1421177a-9994-4cdc-9aea-932c3f1d54c3" CreationDate="2019-04-01T19:36:51.967" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I've been learning Latin on my own for the last 4 months or so using Wheelock and Moreland &amp; Fleischer. I've not been able to find answers to the following accentuation questions in either of those texts. Hoping someone here can help&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Where do you put the accent in a compound Latin word like &quot;circumeo&quot;. Taken separately, the accent is on the first syllable for both circum and eo. The accentuation rules that I've learned suggest that the accent on circumeo should be on the second syllable (cu) &amp;mdash; i.e. the antepenult. But, as an English speaker, that sounds funny.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  How about when there's an enclitic? Where's the accent in animusque? Taken separately, the accent in animus is on the first syllable, the antepenult (a). The accentuation rules suggest that the accent in animusque should be on the penult (mus). Is that right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29300" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6309" RevisionGUID="1421177a-9994-4cdc-9aea-932c3f1d54c3" CreationDate="2019-04-01T19:36:51.967" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|pronunciation|prefix|stress|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9395" RevisionGUID="686620ee-bf3c-48c4-8cf8-a3fc9af66f03" CreationDate="2019-04-01T20:17:15.993" UserId="406" Text="Good question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the first part, it depends on the prefix, and how firmly attached that prefix is. Most common prefixes (_ex-_, _ad-_, _in-_, etc) attach very firmly to the stem and become part of the word: *éxit*, *ádsum*, *íngens*. You'll notice that these prefixes also change their form when necessary to fit into the sounds around them: *i**m**par*, *a**f**ficiō*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Circum_, on the other hand, never really attached in the same way. Romans often wrote it separately from the verb—_circum eō_ instead of _circumeō_—and in some cases even stuck extra words in the middle! It also doesn't assimilate to the words it's stuck to: *circu**m**torqueō* is written consistently with an *m* instead of an *n*. So whether you write the parts as one word or two, there's evidence that you should accent them separately, as *círcum-éō*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the second part, the rule I learned ([which this answer cites to Allen and Greenough][1]) is that *the accent always goes right before the enclitic*. This happens when the stressed syllable is heavy, but *also* when it's light: *animús-que*, but also *caderé-ve*, etc. However, C. M. Weimer says this isn't universally accepted, and it's difficult to find solid proof at this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/601/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9396" RevisionGUID="9d2f9444-65d4-4ea9-afd1-f0df21f8f152" CreationDate="2019-04-02T02:06:22.193" UserId="9" Text="The question about enclitics has been addressed elsewhere on this site; e.g. in [C. M. Weimer's answer to *Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/601/9) and [my answer to *Were enclitics considered part of a word for stress purposes?*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/8981/9). (My answer to that second question is not very good; it would be nice if somebody could post a better one.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question about *circumeo* is different, but hard to answer. As mentioned in the answers to the linked posts above, there were exceptions to the Latin stress rule. Even in cases where the rule applies regularly, it can be difficult to determine the relevant boundaries for the application of the rule. C. M. Weimer's answer explains that even though forms like *benefacit* may be found written without spacing, the forms of *benefacio* are thought to have been stressed the same way as the verb *facio;* i.e. *beneˈfacit* and not *\*beˈnefacit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*Circumeo* is an usual *circum-* word&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Andras Cser's &quot;[Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot; (2016) has a section on *circum-* (8.2.3.4.). Like Draconis, Cser notes that the spelling of *circum-* does not change before consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in *circumeo,* *circum-* is not followed by a consonant. In fact, in this word we can find the alternative form *circu-,* as in *circuit.* Cser says the following about the distribution of *circum-* and *circu-* in this word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With *ire* there is an interesting imbalance between *circum-* vs. *circu-*: if the stem form begins with [i], the form *circu-* is more frequent, when the stem form begins with [e], *circum-* is more usual (thus *circu-it* but *circum-eunt* rather than vice versa, though all variants occur). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser says that, although in most words *circum-* behaves more like the first element of a compound than like a prefix, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *circuire* suggests prefixation rather than a compound boundary, and hence deletion of the placeless nasal just as is *coire*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 157)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser also says that it is uncertain whether the forms spelled with &amp;lt;um&gt; followed by a vowel, such as *circumeunt,* were pronounced with a consonant sound [m]. Cser doesn't seem to discuss stress, but I assume that that would likewise be somewhat uncertain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other *Circum-* words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the details of what Cser says about other *circum-* words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Words prefixed with *circum-* are much more like compounds than words&#xD;&#xA;prefixed with *con-*: their meanings are usually more compositional, stem vowel&#xD;&#xA;weakening is hardly ever found in them (*circumcidere* ‘cut around’ and&#xD;&#xA;*circumcludere* ‘enclose’ were probably lexicalised early), and *circum-* can precede other prefixes (e.g. *circumobruere* ‘wrap around’ with *ob-*). In this respect *circum* resembles the other disyllables *retro* ‘backwards’, *intro* ‘in’, *extra* ‘out’, which formed compounds (if at all), but did not function as prefixes in the strict sense of the word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 157)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, Cser doesn't address the topic of stress in this section, so I'm not sure whether compound words starting with *circum-* would be expected to be stressed any differently from prefixed words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9396" RevisionGUID="1664befa-fc68-448f-9f1a-a207b878d218" CreationDate="2019-04-02T02:20:06.010" UserId="9" Comment="added 1097 characters in body" Text="The question about enclitics has been addressed elsewhere on this site; e.g. in [C. M. Weimer's answer to *Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/601/9) and [my answer to *Were enclitics considered part of a word for stress purposes?*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/8981/9). (My answer to that second question is not very good; it would be nice if somebody could post a better one.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question about *circumeo* is different, but hard to answer. As mentioned in the answers to the linked posts above, there were exceptions to the Latin stress rule. Even in cases where the rule applies regularly, it can be difficult to determine the relevant boundaries for the application of the rule. C. M. Weimer's answer explains that even though forms like *benefacit* may be found written without spacing, the forms of *benefacio* are thought to have been stressed the same way as the verb *facio;* i.e. *beneˈfacit* and not *\*beˈnefacit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The issue of the pronunciation of *-um*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some background information about another issue of Latin pronunciation that is relevant. When a word ending in *-um* comes before a word that starts with a vowel, the two-word sequence typically scans as if the *-um* were absent. This, along with some statements from Latin grammarians about the pronunciation of word-final M, has been interpreted as implying that word-final *-um* (or any other word-final vowel + m sequence) was pronounced not as a vowel followed by the consonant sound [m], but as a nasal vowel sound, which changed according to its environment in the following ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- before another vowel, a nasal vowel was usually elided. I will look for an example of *circum* having the *um* elided in verse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- before a plosive or nasal consonant, a nasal vowel was converted into a sequence of short vowel + a nasal consonant homorganic to the following consonant. E.g. *circ[uŋ] capita.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- before other kinds of consonants, a nasal vowel would remain as a nasal vowel, which scanned as a long vowel. E.g. *circ[ũː] familias.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*Circumeo* is an usual *circum-* word&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Andras Cser's &quot;[Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot; (2016) has a section on *circum-* (8.2.3.4.). Like Draconis, Cser notes that the spelling of *circum-* does not change before consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in *circumeo,* *circum-* is not followed by a consonant. In fact, in this word we can find the alternative form *circu-,* as in *circuit.* Cser says the following about the distribution of *circum-* and *circu-* in this word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With *ire* there is an interesting imbalance between *circum-* vs. *circu-*: if the stem form begins with [i], the form *circu-* is more frequent, when the stem form begins with [e], *circum-* is more usual (thus *circu-it* but *circum-eunt* rather than vice versa, though all variants occur). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser says that, although in most words *circum-* behaves more like the first element of a compound than like a prefix, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *circuire* suggests prefixation rather than a compound boundary, and hence deletion of the placeless nasal just as is *coire*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 157)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser also says that it is uncertain whether the forms spelled with &amp;lt;um&gt; followed by a vowel, such as *circumeunt,* were pronounced with a consonant sound [m]. Cser doesn't seem to discuss stress, but I assume that that would likewise be somewhat uncertain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other *Circum-* words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the details of what Cser says about other *circum-* words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Words prefixed with *circum-* are much more like compounds than words&#xD;&#xA;prefixed with *con-*: their meanings are usually more compositional, stem vowel&#xD;&#xA;weakening is hardly ever found in them (*circumcidere* ‘cut around’ and&#xD;&#xA;*circumcludere* ‘enclose’ were probably lexicalised early), and *circum-* can precede other prefixes (e.g. *circumobruere* ‘wrap around’ with *ob-*). In this respect *circum* resembles the other disyllables *retro* ‘backwards’, *intro* ‘in’, *extra* ‘out’, which formed compounds (if at all), but did not function as prefixes in the strict sense of the word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 157)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, Cser doesn't address the topic of stress in this section, so I'm not sure whether compound words starting with *circum-* would be expected to be stressed any differently from prefixed words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other links&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to a relevant discussion on the &quot;Latin Discussion&quot; forum: [Composite words](http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/composite-words.11462/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9396" RevisionGUID="21978d6c-167a-4189-b948-13741493db5c" CreationDate="2019-04-02T02:33:31.010" UserId="9" Comment="added 180 characters in body" Text="The question about enclitics has been addressed elsewhere on this site; e.g. in [C. M. Weimer's answer to *Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/601/9) and [my answer to *Were enclitics considered part of a word for stress purposes?*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/8981/9). (My answer to that second question is not very good; it would be nice if somebody could post a better one.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question about *circumeo* is different, but hard to answer. As mentioned in the answers to the linked posts above, there were exceptions to the Latin stress rule. Even in cases where the rule applies regularly, it can be difficult to determine the relevant boundaries for the application of the rule. C. M. Weimer's answer explains that even though forms like *benefacit* may be found written without spacing, the forms of *benefacio* are thought to have been stressed the same way as the verb *facio;* i.e. *beneˈfacit* and not *\*beˈnefacit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The issue of the pronunciation of *-um*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some background information about another issue of Latin pronunciation that is relevant. When a word ending in *-um* comes before a word that starts with a vowel, the two-word sequence typically scans as if the *-um* were absent. This, along with some statements from Latin grammarians about the pronunciation of word-final M, has been interpreted as implying that word-final *-um* (or any other word-final vowel + m sequence) was pronounced not as a vowel followed by the consonant sound [m], but as a nasal vowel sound, which changed according to its environment in the following ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- before another vowel, a nasal vowel was usually elided. I say &quot;usually&quot; because I think that exceptions are possible, but I know nothing about how frequent they are or whether an unelided *-um* before a vowel would scan short or light. I will look to see if there are examples of the word *circum* having the *um* elided in verse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- before a plosive or nasal consonant, a nasal vowel was converted into a sequence of short vowel + a nasal consonant homorganic to the following consonant. E.g. *circ[uŋ] capita.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- before other kinds of consonants, a nasal vowel would remain as a nasal vowel, which scanned as a long vowel. E.g. *circ[ũː] familias.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*Circumeo* is an usual *circum-* word&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Andras Cser's &quot;[Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot; (2016) has a section on *circum-* (8.2.3.4.). Like Draconis, Cser notes that the spelling of *circum-* does not change before consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in *circumeo,* *circum-* is not followed by a consonant. In fact, in this word we can find the alternative form *circu-,* as in *circuit.* Cser says the following about the distribution of *circum-* and *circu-* in this word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With *ire* there is an interesting imbalance between *circum-* vs. *circu-*: if the stem form begins with [i], the form *circu-* is more frequent, when the stem form begins with [e], *circum-* is more usual (thus *circu-it* but *circum-eunt* rather than vice versa, though all variants occur). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser says that, although in most words *circum-* behaves more like the first element of a compound than like a prefix, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *circuire* suggests prefixation rather than a compound boundary, and hence deletion of the placeless nasal just as is *coire*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 157)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser also says that it is uncertain whether the forms spelled with &amp;lt;um&gt; followed by a vowel, such as *circumeunt,* were pronounced with a consonant sound [m]. Cser doesn't seem to discuss stress, but I assume that that would likewise be somewhat uncertain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other *Circum-* words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the details of what Cser says about other *circum-* words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Words prefixed with *circum-* are much more like compounds than words&#xD;&#xA;prefixed with *con-*: their meanings are usually more compositional, stem vowel&#xD;&#xA;weakening is hardly ever found in them (*circumcidere* ‘cut around’ and&#xD;&#xA;*circumcludere* ‘enclose’ were probably lexicalised early), and *circum-* can precede other prefixes (e.g. *circumobruere* ‘wrap around’ with *ob-*). In this respect *circum* resembles the other disyllables *retro* ‘backwards’, *intro* ‘in’, *extra* ‘out’, which formed compounds (if at all), but did not function as prefixes in the strict sense of the word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 157)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, Cser doesn't address the topic of stress in this section, so I'm not sure whether compound words starting with *circum-* would be expected to be stressed any differently from prefixed words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other links&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to a relevant discussion on the &quot;Latin Discussion&quot; forum: [Composite words](http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/composite-words.11462/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9396" RevisionGUID="be455ea3-3a6b-433c-b055-8d0089ceadcc" CreationDate="2019-04-02T03:36:33.417" UserId="9" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The question about enclitics has been addressed elsewhere on this site; e.g. in [C. M. Weimer's answer to *Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/601/9) and [my answer to *Were enclitics considered part of a word for stress purposes?*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/8981/9). (My answer to that second question is not very good; it would be nice if somebody could post a better one.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question about *circumeo* is different, but hard to answer. As mentioned in the answers to the linked posts above, there were exceptions to the Latin stress rule. Even in cases where the rule applies regularly, it can be difficult to determine the relevant boundaries for the application of the rule. C. M. Weimer's answer explains that even though forms like *benefacit* may be found written without spacing, the forms of *benefacio* are thought to have been stressed the same way as the verb *facio;* i.e. *beneˈfacit* and not *\*beˈnefacit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The issue of the pronunciation of *-um*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some background information about another issue of Latin pronunciation that is relevant. When a word ending in *-um* comes before a word that starts with a vowel, the two-word sequence typically scans as if the *-um* were absent. This, along with some statements from Latin grammarians about the pronunciation of word-final M, has been interpreted as implying that word-final *-um* (or any other word-final vowel + m sequence) was pronounced not as a vowel followed by the consonant sound [m], but as a nasal vowel sound, which changed according to its environment in the following ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- before another vowel, a nasal vowel was usually elided. I say &quot;usually&quot; because it seems likely that hiatus was possible. As far as I can gather, in the case of hiatus, the first vowel would apparently scan as short. There is more information about elision in general in the following article: &quot;[Elision and Hiatus in Latin Prose and Verse](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3287750?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents)&quot;, by E. H. Sturtevant. I will look to see if there are examples of the word *circum* having the *um* elided in verse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- before a plosive or nasal consonant, a nasal vowel was converted into a sequence of short vowel + a nasal consonant homorganic to the following consonant. E.g. *circ[uŋ] capita.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- before other kinds of consonants, a nasal vowel would remain as a nasal vowel, which scanned as a long vowel. E.g. *circ[ũː] familias.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*Circumeo* is an unusual *circum-* word&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Andras Cser's &quot;[Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot; (2016) has a section on *circum-* (8.2.3.4.). Like Draconis, Cser notes that the spelling of *circum-* does not change before consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in *circumeo,* *circum-* is not followed by a consonant. In fact, in this word we can find the alternative form *circu-,* as in *circuit.* Cser says the following about the distribution of *circum-* and *circu-* in this word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With *ire* there is an interesting imbalance between *circum-* vs. *circu-*: if the stem form begins with [i], the form *circu-* is more frequent, when the stem form begins with [e], *circum-* is more usual (thus *circu-it* but *circum-eunt* rather than vice versa, though all variants occur). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser says that, although in most words *circum-* behaves more like the first element of a compound than like a prefix, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *circuire* suggests prefixation rather than a compound boundary, and hence deletion of the placeless nasal just as is *coire*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 157)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser also says that it is uncertain whether the forms spelled with &amp;lt;um&gt; followed by a vowel, such as *circumeunt,* were pronounced with a consonant sound [m]. Cser doesn't seem to discuss stress, but I assume that that would likewise be somewhat uncertain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other *Circum-* words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the details of what Cser says about other *circum-* words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Words prefixed with *circum-* are much more like compounds than words&#xD;&#xA;prefixed with *con-*: their meanings are usually more compositional, stem vowel&#xD;&#xA;weakening is hardly ever found in them (*circumcidere* ‘cut around’ and&#xD;&#xA;*circumcludere* ‘enclose’ were probably lexicalised early), and *circum-* can precede other prefixes (e.g. *circumobruere* ‘wrap around’ with *ob-*). In this respect *circum* resembles the other disyllables *retro* ‘backwards’, *intro* ‘in’, *extra* ‘out’, which formed compounds (if at all), but did not function as prefixes in the strict sense of the word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 157)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, Cser doesn't address the topic of stress in this section, so I'm not sure whether compound words starting with *circum-* would be expected to be stressed any differently from prefixed words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other links&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to a relevant discussion on the &quot;Latin Discussion&quot; forum: [Composite words](http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/composite-words.11462/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9396" RevisionGUID="16461a65-6f25-4739-ad74-40e91b0bf7cc" CreationDate="2019-04-02T03:42:40.037" UserId="9" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="The question about enclitics has been addressed elsewhere on this site; e.g. in [C. M. Weimer's answer to *Are there exceptions to the Latin stress rules?*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/601/9) and [my answer to *Were enclitics considered part of a word for stress purposes?*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/8981/9). (My answer to that second question is not very good; it would be nice if somebody could post a better one.) The correct general rule is debated, but in the specific case of words like *animusque,* there is agreement that the accent would fall on the heavy syllable immediately preceding *-que.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question about *circumeo* is different, but hard to answer. As mentioned in the answers to the linked posts above, there were exceptions to the Latin stress rule. Even in cases where the rule applies regularly, it can be difficult to determine the relevant boundaries for the application of the rule. C. M. Weimer's answer explains that even though forms like *benefacit* may be found written without spacing, the forms of *benefacio* are thought to have been stressed the same way as the verb *facio;* i.e. *beneˈfacit* and not *\*beˈnefacit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The issue of the pronunciation of *-um*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some background information about another issue of Latin pronunciation that is relevant. When a word ending in *-um* comes before a word that starts with a vowel, the two-word sequence typically scans as if the *-um* were absent. This, along with some statements from Latin grammarians about the pronunciation of word-final M, has been interpreted as implying that word-final *-um* (or any other word-final vowel + m sequence) was pronounced not as a vowel followed by the consonant sound [m], but as a nasal vowel sound, which changed according to its environment in the following ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- before another vowel, a nasal vowel was usually elided. I say &quot;usually&quot; because it seems likely that hiatus was possible. As far as I can gather, in the case of hiatus, the first vowel would apparently scan as short. There is more information about elision in general in the following article: &quot;[Elision and Hiatus in Latin Prose and Verse](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3287750?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents)&quot;, by E. H. Sturtevant. I will look to see if there are examples of the word *circum* having the *um* elided in verse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- before a plosive or nasal consonant, a nasal vowel was converted into a sequence of short vowel + a nasal consonant homorganic to the following consonant. E.g. *circ[uŋ] capita.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- before other kinds of consonants, a nasal vowel would remain as a nasal vowel, which scanned as a long vowel. E.g. *circ[ũː] familias.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*Circumeo* is an unusual *circum-* word&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Andras Cser's &quot;[Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot; (2016) has a section on *circum-* (8.2.3.4.). Like Draconis, Cser notes that the spelling of *circum-* does not change before consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in *circumeo,* *circum-* is not followed by a consonant. In fact, in this word we can find the alternative form *circu-,* as in *circuit.* Cser says the following about the distribution of *circum-* and *circu-* in this word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With *ire* there is an interesting imbalance between *circum-* vs. *circu-*: if the stem form begins with [i], the form *circu-* is more frequent, when the stem form begins with [e], *circum-* is more usual (thus *circu-it* but *circum-eunt* rather than vice versa, though all variants occur). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser says that, although in most words *circum-* behaves more like the first element of a compound than like a prefix, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *circuire* suggests prefixation rather than a compound boundary, and hence deletion of the placeless nasal just as is *coire*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 157)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser also says that it is uncertain whether the forms spelled with &amp;lt;um&gt; followed by a vowel, such as *circumeunt,* were pronounced with a consonant sound [m]. Cser doesn't seem to discuss stress, but I assume that that would likewise be somewhat uncertain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other *Circum-* words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the details of what Cser says about other *circum-* words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Words prefixed with *circum-* are much more like compounds than words&#xD;&#xA;prefixed with *con-*: their meanings are usually more compositional, stem vowel&#xD;&#xA;weakening is hardly ever found in them (*circumcidere* ‘cut around’ and&#xD;&#xA;*circumcludere* ‘enclose’ were probably lexicalised early), and *circum-* can precede other prefixes (e.g. *circumobruere* ‘wrap around’ with *ob-*). In this respect *circum* resembles the other disyllables *retro* ‘backwards’, *intro* ‘in’, *extra* ‘out’, which formed compounds (if at all), but did not function as prefixes in the strict sense of the word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 157)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, Cser doesn't address the topic of stress in this section, so I'm not sure whether compound words starting with *circum-* would be expected to be stressed any differently from prefixed words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other links&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to a relevant discussion on the &quot;Latin Discussion&quot; forum: [Composite words](http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/composite-words.11462/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9394" RevisionGUID="5edc97de-638f-4e22-832e-d17909908c4d" CreationDate="2019-04-02T03:47:39.147" UserId="406" Comment="Adding macra" Text="Joonas's answer is entirely correct, but just to add onto it a bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I learned it, ***prōd* is an archaic form of *prō***.  You'll also sometimes see *pōr* as in *pōrrigō*, *pōlluō*, etc: these three all came from different forms of the same PIE root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, *prō* was the one that won out, and so that's the only one you'll see used as a preposition. But all three of them show up in verb prefixes. *Prōd* was generally used in front of vowels, because Latin doesn't like vowels in hiatus (next to each other with nothing in between). And *pōr* was generally used before *l* or *r*, where *prō* would be awkward (forms like *_prōrigō_ are somewhat unwieldy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(It's also possible that *prōd* turned into *prō*, because Latin generally got rid of final *d*s: that's how we got *filiā* &lt; *filiad* and *mē* &lt; *med*. But that's just conjecture; I don't actually know where the different forms came from.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re the vowel, **Old Latin used to stress the first syllable of a word**. And during this time, short vowels in non-final unstressed syllables (that is, any syllable besides the first and the last) got &quot;reduced&quot;. The following rules aren't watertight, but they're decent guidelines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the vowel was next to an *r*, it became *e*&#xD;&#xA; - If the vowel came before two consonants, it became *e*.&#xD;&#xA; - If the vowel was next to a &quot;dark *l*&quot; (short *l* not touching a front vowel), it became *u*&#xD;&#xA; - Otherwise, it became *i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see this in a lot of prefixed verbs, like *f**a**ciō* ~ *aff**i**ciō* ~ *aff**e**ctus*, or *c**e**lō* ~ *occ**u**ltus*. The *a* was the original vowel here, but it only survives when it's in the first syllable of the word. (You also see this reduction a lot in reduplicated perfects, like *c**a**dō* ~ *cec**i**dī*. Basically any time you have a prefix before a short vowel.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's what happened here: the original vowel was an *a*, but when it was pushed out of the first syllable, it got reduced to an *i*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you make that change, you'll see that the conjugation actually lines up quite nicely! It's just one of the quirks of Latin that you have to get used to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9380" RevisionGUID="00d3e249-1198-4808-851d-d6c05a0c65e1" CreationDate="2019-04-02T04:15:40.600" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="A number of personal names in the works of Plautus end in *-um* in the nominative singular, which struck me as odd when I first encountered them, since nominative singular *-um* is characteristically found at the end of neuter nouns (specifically, those of the second declension).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A male example is *[Paegnium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Paegnium)*; female examples, *Philematium* and *[Stephanium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Stephanium).* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Henry John Roby, such names also appear in the works of Terence, and their grammatical gender in Latin corresponds to their natural gender, even though they are apparently from Greek words (or names?) that are neuter gender (*[Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius, Part 1][roby],* p. 106). Harm Pinkster gives the phrase &quot;amoena Stephanium&quot; as an example of this principle of semantic gender assignment (*[Oxford Latin Syntax: Volume 1: The Simple Clause][pinkster],* p. 40).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found them discussed briefly in one section of &quot;[Some Roman Slave-names](https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/slave-names_bruce.pdf)&quot; by F. F. Bruce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Greek diminutives in *-ιον,* mainly names of women [...]&#xD;&#xA;appear in Latin with the ending *-ium* as well [as the ending *-io*]. Thus *Φιλημάτιον* takes in Latin the forms Philematium and (as here) Philematio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lewis and Short entry for *Paegnium* says that it comes from the Greek neuter noun *[παίγνιον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpai%2Fgnion)* 'plaything, toy', which LSJ says could also be used of persons in the sense &quot;darling, pet&quot;. In *[Greek Personal Names and Linguistic Continuity](https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/104p015.pdf),* by Anna Morpurgo Davies, I found the following footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 13 Some women's names in Greek are neuter, but this need not count as an exception to the general need for marking sex differences. Men's names are never neuter. (p. 21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This suggests the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are there any male examples other than *Paegnium*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[roby]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA106&#xD;&#xA;[pinkster]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA21-IA7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29309" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="9389" RevisionGUID="9c55862e-86b9-46e5-a183-51eae393f2b3" CreationDate="2019-04-02T04:16:10.810" UserId="9" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9389" RevisionGUID="c5838744-1a42-4809-b47a-87d8aa6e0cfd" CreationDate="2019-04-02T04:26:27.570" UserId="9" Comment="added 583 characters in body" Text="In the plays of Plautus, there are some names ending in *-um.* They are generally formed as Greek names (whether genuine or pseudo-Greek), and the Latin ending *-um* here seems to correspond to the Greek ending *-ον,* as is usual. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although [some of these names ending in *-um* are male](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9380/male-personal-names-ending-in-um), most of them are female. According to one section of &quot;[Some Roman Slave-names](https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/slave-names_bruce.pdf)&quot; by F. F. Bruce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Greek diminutives in *-ιον,* mainly names of women [...]&#xD;&#xA;appear in Latin with the ending *-ium* as well [as the ending *-io*]. Thus *Φιλημάτιον* takes in Latin the forms Philematium and (as here) Philematio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When discussing Latin *-ium* names for women, Henry John Roby interestingly remarks that these names are feminine in Latin, but belong to the neuter gender in Greek. (Roby's specific examples are *Planesium, Glycerium, Phronesium, Stephanium, Delphium.*) (*[Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius][roby],* Part 1, p. 106)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Greek Personal Names and Linguistic Continuity](https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/104p015.pdf),* by Anna Morpurgo Davies, I found the following footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 13 Some women's names in Greek are neuter, but this need not count as an exception to the general need for marking sex differences. Men's names are never neuter. (p. 21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anyone tell me more about the use of names ending in *-ιον* in Greek-language contexts?  Did they trigger neuter agreement without exception, or might they show varying or mixed patterns of agreement (for instance, I wonder whether perhaps they could have triggered neuter agreement within the noun phrase—i.e. on the article and on attributive adjectives—but had natural gender agreement as a possibility outside of the noun phrase—e.g. on predicate adjectives)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[roby]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA106" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29311" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9389" RevisionGUID="c5838744-1a42-4809-b47a-87d8aa6e0cfd" CreationDate="2019-04-02T04:26:27.570" UserId="9" Comment="added 583 characters in body" Text="How were names ending in -ιον used in Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9394" RevisionGUID="714ae83b-c827-4d00-bc73-39890112ee9a" CreationDate="2019-04-02T04:29:01.000" UserId="406" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Joonas's answer is entirely correct, but just to add onto it a bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I learned it, ***prōd* is an archaic form of *prō***.  You'll also sometimes see *pōr* as in *pōrrigō*, *pōlluō*, etc: these three all came from different forms of the same PIE root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, *prō* was the one that won out, and so that's the only one you'll see used as a preposition. But all three of them show up in verb prefixes. *Prōd* was generally used in front of vowels, because Latin doesn't like vowels in hiatus (next to each other with nothing in between). And *pōr* was generally used before *l* or *r*, where *prō* would be awkward (forms like *_prōrigō_ are somewhat unwieldy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(It's also possible that *prōd* turned into *prō*, because Latin generally got rid of final *d*s: that's how we got *filiā* &lt; *filiād* and *mē* &lt; *med* (*mēd*?). But that's just conjecture; I don't actually know where the different forms came from.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re the vowel, **Old Latin used to stress the first syllable of a word**. And during this time, short vowels in non-final unstressed syllables (that is, any syllable besides the first and the last) got &quot;reduced&quot;. The following rules aren't watertight, but they're decent guidelines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the vowel was next to an *r*, it became *e*&#xD;&#xA; - If the vowel came before two consonants, it became *e*.&#xD;&#xA; - If the vowel was next to a &quot;dark *l*&quot; (short *l* not touching a front vowel), it became *u*&#xD;&#xA; - Otherwise, it became *i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see this in a lot of prefixed verbs, like *f**a**ciō* ~ *aff**i**ciō* ~ *aff**e**ctus*, or *c**e**lō* ~ *occ**u**ltus*. The *a* was the original vowel here, but it only survives when it's in the first syllable of the word. (You also see this reduction a lot in reduplicated perfects, like *c**a**dō* ~ *cec**i**dī*. Basically any time you have a prefix before a short vowel.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's what happened here: the original vowel was an *a*, but when it was pushed out of the first syllable, it got reduced to an *i*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you make that change, you'll see that the conjugation actually lines up quite nicely! It's just one of the quirks of Latin that you have to get used to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9389" RevisionGUID="f2c702bb-7529-4f71-81ce-a3c326b46a09" CreationDate="2019-04-02T04:32:00.680" UserId="9" Comment="added 583 characters in body" Text="In the plays of Plautus, there are some names ending in *-um.* They are generally formed as Greek names (whether genuine or pseudo-Greek), and the Latin ending *-um* here seems to correspond to the Greek ending *-ον,* as is usual. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although [some of these names ending in *-um* are male](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9380/male-personal-names-ending-in-um), most of them are female. According to one section of &quot;[Some Roman Slave-names](https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/slave-names_bruce.pdf)&quot; by F. F. Bruce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Greek diminutives in *-ιον,* mainly names of women [...]&#xD;&#xA;appear in Latin with the ending *-ium* as well [as the ending *-io*]. Thus *Φιλημάτιον* takes in Latin the forms Philematium and (as here) Philematio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When discussing Latin *-ium* names for women, Henry John Roby interestingly remarks that although these names belong to the feminine grammatical gender in Latin, they belong to the neuter grammatical gender in Greek. (Roby's specific examples are *Planesium, Glycerium, Phronesium, Stephanium, Delphium.*) (*[Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius][roby],* Part 1, p. 106)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Greek Personal Names and Linguistic Continuity](https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/104p015.pdf),* by Anna Morpurgo Davies, I found the following footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 13 Some women's names in Greek are neuter, but this need not count as an exception to the general need for marking sex differences. Men's names are never neuter. (p. 21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anyone tell me more about the use of names ending in *-ιον* in Greek-language contexts?  Did they trigger neuter agreement without exception, or might they show varying or mixed patterns of agreement (for instance, I wonder whether perhaps they could have triggered neuter agreement within the noun phrase—i.e. on the article and on attributive adjectives—but had natural gender agreement as a possibility outside of the noun phrase—e.g. on predicate adjectives)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[roby]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA106" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9380" RevisionGUID="bdd0638e-5b1c-4324-99e6-97d8fe7f23ae" CreationDate="2019-04-02T04:45:11.723" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 229 characters in body" Text="A number of personal names in the works of Plautus end in *-um* in the nominative singular, which struck me as odd when I first encountered them, since nominative singular *-um* is characteristically found at the end of neuter nouns (specifically, those of the second declension). An example is  *[Stephanium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Stephanium).* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found names ending in *-ium* discussed briefly in one section of &quot;[Some Roman Slave-names](https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/slave-names_bruce.pdf)&quot; by F. F. Bruce. Bruce says that these are from Greek diminutives in -ιον, which were &quot;mainly names of women&quot;. Women's names ending in *-ium* are grammatically feminine in Latin, although they are apparently from [Greek names that were grammatically neuter](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9389/how-were-names-ending-in-%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD-used-in-greek)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. Harm Pinkster gives the phrase &quot;amoena Stephanium&quot; as an example of this principle of semantic gender assignment&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Anna Morpurgo Davies, some women's names in Greek are neuter, but no men's names are neuter&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, in the context of Latin, there does seem to be at least one example of a **male** name ending in *-ium*: *[Paegnium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Paegnium).* The Lewis and Short entry for *Paegnium* says that it comes from the Greek neuter noun *[παίγνιον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpai%2Fgnion)* 'plaything, toy', which LSJ says could also be used of persons in the sense &quot;darling, pet&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any examples other than *Paegnium* of male names ending in *-um*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Citations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Henry John Roby, *[Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius, Part 1][roby],* p. 106&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *[Oxford Latin Syntax: Volume 1: The Simple Clause][pinkster],* p. 40&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  *[Greek Personal Names and Linguistic Continuity](https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/104p015.pdf),* p. 21&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[roby]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA106&#xD;&#xA;[pinkster]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA21-IA7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29315" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="9388" RevisionGUID="b47b2bf1-519a-4bfb-a7ec-6e2d22e10565" CreationDate="2019-04-02T04:51:24.867" UserId="9" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9388" RevisionGUID="1c9f67c8-9dcb-481e-a717-92c6239cb7b9" CreationDate="2019-04-02T04:51:55.627" UserId="9" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="I recently asked a question about [names ending in *-um,*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9380/personal-names-ending-in-um) which seem to not be extremely rare in the works of Plautus. In a discussion on Wiktionary, I found an interesting [comment by the editor Smurrayinchester](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:Pyrgopolynices#Deletion_discussion) which makes the point that at least some of the names found in Plautus' plays &quot;aren't Latin names any more than Nanki-Poo or Obi-Wan Kenobi are English names&quot;, and cites a text that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there are good reasons to believe that Plautus invented many of his characters' names, especially those with humorous Greek etymologies. [...] The *-ium* at the end of courtesans' names is derived from an affectionate Greek diminutive; *Philocomasium* means &quot;Love a Party&quot; and *Acroleutium* &quot;The Absolute End&quot;. We cannot tell how many members of Plautus' Roman audience knew enough Greek to appreciate these etymologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;[Introduction to Miles Gloriosus][smith]&quot;, by Peter L. Smith, in *Plautus: Three Comedies,* (1991), p. 13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much evidence do we have for names ending in *(i)um* being used in Latin outside of fictional contexts? Naively, I would assume that if Plautus used this ending extensively in his plays, he would expect his audiences to at least be familiar with personal names ending in *-(i)um*, even if they didn't know enough Greek to identify all of the meaningful elements of the names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[smith]: https://books.google.de/books?id=Aj-5l63TFxwC&amp;pg=PA13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9380" RevisionGUID="80f5d804-bda5-41dd-8875-cfaa96ed824f" CreationDate="2019-04-02T04:54:36.083" UserId="9" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="A number of personal names in the works of Plautus end in *-um* in the nominative singular, which struck me as odd when I first encountered them, since nominative singular *-um* is characteristically found at the end of neuter nouns (specifically, those of the second declension). An example is  *[Stephanium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Stephanium).* In fact, all of these names seem to end more specifically in *-ium.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found names ending in *-ium* discussed briefly in one section of &quot;[Some Roman Slave-names](https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/slave-names_bruce.pdf)&quot; by F. F. Bruce. Bruce says that these are from Greek diminutives in -ιον, which were &quot;mainly names of women&quot;. Women's names ending in *-ium* are grammatically feminine in Latin, although they are apparently from [Greek names that were grammatically neuter](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9389/how-were-names-ending-in-%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD-used-in-greek)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. Harm Pinkster gives the phrase &quot;amoena Stephanium&quot; as an example of this principle of semantic gender assignment&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Anna Morpurgo Davies, some women's names in Greek are neuter, but no men's names are neuter&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, in the context of Latin, there does seem to be at least one example of a **male** name ending in *-ium*: *[Paegnium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Paegnium),* the name of a male slave in Plautus's *Persa.* The Lewis and Short entry for *Paegnium* says that it comes from the Greek neuter noun *[παίγνιον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpai%2Fgnion)* 'plaything, toy', which LSJ says could also be used of persons in the sense &quot;darling, pet&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any examples other than *Paegnium* of male names ending in *-um*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Citations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Henry John Roby, *[Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius, Part 1][roby],* p. 106&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *[Oxford Latin Syntax: Volume 1: The Simple Clause][pinkster],* p. 40&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  *[Greek Personal Names and Linguistic Continuity](https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/104p015.pdf),* p. 21&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[roby]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA106&#xD;&#xA;[pinkster]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA21-IA7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9380" RevisionGUID="448e2e0a-88f1-4169-b2d6-8fdacf0ddd2e" CreationDate="2019-04-02T05:00:22.030" UserId="9" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="A number of personal names in the works of Plautus end in *-um* in the nominative singular, which struck me as odd when I first encountered them, since nominative singular *-um* is characteristically found at the end of neuter nouns (specifically, those of the second declension). An example is  *[Stephanium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Stephanium).* In fact, all of these names seem to end more specifically in *-ium.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found names ending in *-ium* discussed briefly in one section of &quot;[Some Roman Slave-names](https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/slave-names_bruce.pdf)&quot; by F. F. Bruce. Bruce says that these are from Greek diminutives in -ιον, which were &quot;mainly names of women&quot;. Women's names ending in *-ium* are grammatically feminine in Latin, although they are apparently from [Greek names that were grammatically neuter](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9389/how-were-names-ending-in-%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD-used-in-greek)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. Harm Pinkster gives the phrase &quot;amoena Stephanium&quot; as an example of this principle of semantic gender assignment&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Anna Morpurgo Davies, although some women's names in Greek are neuter, no men's names in Greek are neuter&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;. Nevertheless, in the context of Latin, there does seem to be at least one example of a **male** name ending in *-ium*: *[Paegnium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Paegnium),* the name of a male slave in Plautus's *Persa.* The Lewis and Short entry for *Paegnium* says that it comes from the Greek neuter noun *[παίγνιον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpai%2Fgnion)* 'plaything, toy', which LSJ says could also be used of persons in the sense &quot;darling, pet&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any examples other than *Paegnium* of male names ending in *-um*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Citations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Henry John Roby, *[Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius, Part 1][roby],* p. 106&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *[Oxford Latin Syntax: Volume 1: The Simple Clause][pinkster],* p. 40&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  *[Greek Personal Names and Linguistic Continuity](https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/104p015.pdf),* p. 21&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[roby]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA106&#xD;&#xA;[pinkster]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA21-IA7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9388" RevisionGUID="192904eb-7a49-4e51-864e-5fc7026df4bc" CreationDate="2019-04-02T05:23:56.647" UserId="9" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="There seem to be a number of examples of personal names ending in *-um* in the works of Plautus (apparently, they also show up in Terence&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;). In a discussion on Wiktionary, I found an interesting [comment by the editor Smurrayinchester](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:Pyrgopolynices#Deletion_discussion) which makes the point that at least some of the names found in Plautus' plays &quot;aren't Latin names any more than Nanki-Poo or Obi-Wan Kenobi are English names&quot;, and cites a text that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there are good reasons to believe that Plautus invented many of his characters' names, especially those with humorous Greek etymologies. [...] The *-ium* at the end of courtesans' names is derived from an affectionate Greek diminutive; *Philocomasium* means &quot;Love a Party&quot; and *Acroleutium* &quot;The Absolute End&quot;. We cannot tell how many members of Plautus' Roman audience knew enough Greek to appreciate these etymologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;[Introduction to Miles Gloriosus][smith]&quot;, by Peter L. Smith, in *Plautus: Three Comedies,* (1991), p. 13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much evidence do we have for names ending in *(i)um* being used in Latin outside of fictional contexts? Naively, I would assume that if Plautus used this ending extensively in his plays, he would expect his audiences to at least be familiar with personal names ending in *-(i)um*, even if they didn't know enough Greek to identify all of the meaningful elements of the names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Citations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Henry John Roby, *[Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius, Part 1][roby],* p. 106&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[roby]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA106&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[smith]: https://books.google.de/books?id=Aj-5l63TFxwC&amp;pg=PA13&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9397" RevisionGUID="2003c05f-3cdc-4734-9c07-f6afa602c000" CreationDate="2019-04-02T06:09:43.813" UserId="9" Text="Here is some information that I have found since posting the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the -τηρ and -τωρ suffixes were not productive in forming agent nouns in Greek. Already in Ionic-Attic Greek, the agent noun suffix -της was being substituted for  -τηρ, and by the time of Hellenistic Greek, the -της suffix became the predominant suffix for agent nouns.&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; In fact, -της had so overtaken -τηρ as an agent noun suffix that Palmer claims that “-τηρ agent nouns survived as words with an archaic flavour in the vocabulary of law and religion [e.g. σωτήρ from σῴζω]. The insertion of -τηρ for -της was a self-conscious device of high stylization.”&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; (2) More commonly in Hellenistic Greek, the -τηρ suffix designated numerous words for&#xD;&#xA;*tools and instruments*, [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;Moulton and Howard, *Grammar,* Vol. II, 365 §150. Statistically, Palmer recognizes the predominance of -της in the Post-Ptolemaic papyri, finding 421 words with the -της suffix, while finding 25 with the -τηρ suffix and 24 with the -τωρ suffix. See Leonard R. Palmer, *A Grammar of the Post-Ptolemaic Papyri, Volume I:  Accidence and Word-Formation* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1945), 6-8. This can also be seen in the NT and early Christian literature, where Bauer’s&#xD;&#xA;*Greek-English Lexicon*&#xD;&#xA;, 3&lt;sup&gt;rd&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; ed. lists 216 words with the -της suffix, in contrast to 11 words with the -τηρ&#xD;&#xA; suffix and 15 words with the -τωρ suffix. Tribulato attempts to explain why the -της suffix dominated; see Olga Tribulato, *Ancient Greek Verb-Initial Compounds: Their Diachronic Development Within the Greek Compound System* (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2015), 93-97.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;Palmer, *The Greek Language,* 254.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;[The -τηριον Suffix: Its Origin and Development, Morphology, and Semantics](https://www.academia.edu/31599326/The_-%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD_Greek_Suffix_Its_Origin_and_Development_Morphology_and_Semantics_With_%E1%BC%B1%CE%BB%CE%B1%CF%83%CF%84%CE%AE%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD_in_Romans_3_25_as_Test_Case)&quot;, by Nelson S. Hsieh, 2016)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9389" RevisionGUID="0e615d7f-bf38-453a-99e1-f24165b39302" CreationDate="2019-04-02T06:14:13.957" UserId="9" Comment="added 609 characters in body" Text="In the plays of Plautus, there are some names ending in *-um.* They are generally formed as Greek names (whether genuine or pseudo-Greek), and the Latin ending *-um* here seems to correspond to the Greek ending *-ον,* as is usual. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although [some of these names ending in *-um* are male](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9380/male-personal-names-ending-in-um), most of them are female. According to one section of &quot;[Some Roman Slave-names](https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/slave-names_bruce.pdf)&quot; by F. F. Bruce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Greek diminutives in *-ιον,* mainly names of women [...]&#xD;&#xA;appear in Latin with the ending *-ium* as well [as the ending *-io*]. Thus *Φιλημάτιον* takes in Latin the forms Philematium and (as here) Philematio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When discussing Latin *-ium* names for women, Henry John Roby interestingly remarks that although these names belong to the feminine grammatical gender in Latin, they belong to the neuter grammatical gender in Greek. (Roby's specific examples are *Planesium, Glycerium, Phronesium, Stephanium, Delphium.*) (*[Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius][roby],* Part 1, p. 106)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Greek Personal Names and Linguistic Continuity](https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/104p015.pdf),* by Anna Morpurgo Davies, I found the following footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 13 Some women's names in Greek are neuter, but this need not count as an exception to the general need for marking sex differences. Men's names are never neuter. (p. 21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anyone tell me more about the use of names ending in *-ιον* in Greek-language contexts?  Did they trigger neuter agreement without exception, or might they show varying or mixed patterns of agreement (for instance, I wonder whether perhaps they could have triggered neuter agreement within the noun phrase—i.e. on the article and on attributive adjectives—but had natural gender agreement as a possibility outside of the noun phrase—e.g. on predicate adjectives)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that these names were not the only Greek neuter diminutive nouns in *-ιον* that could be used to refer to people. Smyth's *[Greek Grammar](https://www.ccel.org/s/smyth/grammar/html/smyth_2a_uni.htm#197b)* (1st ed.) says that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 197b. Diminutives in -ιον are neuter (199 d), as τὸ ἀνθρώπιον manikin (ὁ ἄνθρωπος man), τὸ παιδίον little child (male or female, ὁ or ἡ παῖς child), τὸ γύναιον little woman (ἡ γυνή woman). Also the words τέκνον, τέκος child (strictly ‘thing born’), ἀνδράποδον captive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if anyone has information about the agreement behavior of those common nouns, that would also be welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Confusingly, Smyth seems to give an example of a woman's name in -ιον being used with a **female** definite article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;199d. N. some names of women end in -ιον (197 b): ἡ Γλυκέριον Glycerium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[roby]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA106" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9389" RevisionGUID="c94be367-d44d-4978-a823-9fc29e8052ef" CreationDate="2019-04-02T06:21:46.390" UserId="9" Comment="added 224 characters in body" Text="In the plays of Plautus, there are some names ending in *-um.* They are generally formed as Greek names (whether genuine or pseudo-Greek), and the Latin ending *-um* here seems to correspond to the Greek ending *-ον,* as is usual. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although [some of these names ending in *-um* are male](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9380/male-personal-names-ending-in-um), most of them are female. According to one section of &quot;[Some Roman Slave-names](https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/slave-names_bruce.pdf)&quot; by F. F. Bruce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Greek diminutives in *-ιον,* mainly names of women [...]&#xD;&#xA;appear in Latin with the ending *-ium* as well [as the ending *-io*]. Thus *Φιλημάτιον* takes in Latin the forms Philematium and (as here) Philematio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When discussing Latin *-ium* names for women, Henry John Roby interestingly remarks that although these names belong to the feminine grammatical gender in Latin, they belong to the neuter grammatical gender in Greek. (Roby's specific examples are *Planesium, Glycerium, Phronesium, Stephanium, Delphium.*) (*[Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius][roby],* Part 1, p. 106)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Greek Personal Names and Linguistic Continuity](https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/104p015.pdf),* by Anna Morpurgo Davies, I found the following footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 13 Some women's names in Greek are neuter, but this need not count as an exception to the general need for marking sex differences. Men's names are never neuter. (p. 21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anyone tell me more about the use of names ending in *-ιον* in Greek-language contexts?  Did they trigger neuter agreement without exception, or might they show varying or mixed patterns of agreement (for instance, I wonder whether perhaps they could have triggered neuter agreement within the noun phrase—i.e. on the article and on attributive adjectives—but had natural gender agreement as a possibility outside of the noun phrase—e.g. on predicate adjectives)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that these names were not the only Greek neuter diminutive nouns in *-ιον* that could be used to refer to people. Smyth's *[Greek Grammar](https://www.ccel.org/s/smyth/grammar/html/smyth_2a_uni.htm#197b)* (1st ed.) says that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 197b. Diminutives in -ιον are neuter (199 d), as τὸ ἀνθρώπιον manikin (ὁ ἄνθρωπος man), τὸ παιδίον little child (male or female, ὁ or ἡ παῖς child), τὸ γύναιον little woman (ἡ γυνή woman). Also the words τέκνον, τέκος child (strictly ‘thing born’), ἀνδράποδον captive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if anyone has information about the agreement behavior of those common nouns, that would also be welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Confusingly, Smyth seems to give an example of a woman's name in -ιον being used with a **female** definite article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;199d. N. some names of women end in -ιον (197 b): ἡ Γλυκέριον Glycerium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a discussion [here](https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&amp;t=68037) that indicates that Smyth may not be a very good source, but I didn't find the discussion very helpful beyond that warning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[roby]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA106" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9398" RevisionGUID="36d64166-88b7-4360-9d86-75c49d72b37e" CreationDate="2019-04-02T06:48:43.687" UserId="9" Text="Well, I haven't found an answer, but I found some additional information that I will post here because I don't want to make the question too long. It might be considered the rudiments of an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't yet found an example of a woman's name being used with neuter agreement in Greek, not even with an article, and in fact, I've found alleged examples of Greek names in -ιον taking a *feminine* article! But the sources of the following examples don't seem very trustworthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently Priscian, in his *Institutiones Grammaticae,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  identifies some female names from Greek that end in *–on* and take a feminine article (i.e. demonstrative) but decline like a neuter noun in –um e.g. *ἡ Δόρκιον haec Dorcium, ἡ Γλυκέριον haec Glycerium, ἡ Χρύσιον haec Chrysium,* etc. (VI: 24). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*The Western Classical Tradition in Linguistics,* 2nd ed., by Keith Allan, 2009, p. 116)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example of ἡ Γλυκέριον is also given in [Smyth's *Greek Grammar* (1st ed.), 199d](https://www.ccel.org/s/smyth/grammar/html/smyth_2a_uni.htm#199d).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a discussion [here](https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&amp;t=68037) that indicates that Smyth may not be the best source for information about this kind of thing, but I didn't find the discussion very helpful beyond that warning, and some pointers to other sources (namely, a suggestion by Timothée to consult &quot;Schwyzer—Debrunner, p. 37.&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9389" RevisionGUID="54d4b40f-212a-49fe-9ecf-118d8c83d4ac" CreationDate="2019-04-02T06:49:12.293" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 421 characters in body" Text="In the plays of Plautus, there are some names ending in *-um.* They are generally formed as Greek names (whether genuine or pseudo-Greek), and the Latin ending *-um* here seems to correspond to the Greek ending *-ον,* as is usual. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although [some of these names ending in *-um* are male](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9380/male-personal-names-ending-in-um), most of them are female. According to one section of &quot;[Some Roman Slave-names](https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/slave-names_bruce.pdf)&quot; by F. F. Bruce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Greek diminutives in *-ιον,* mainly names of women [...]&#xD;&#xA;appear in Latin with the ending *-ium* as well [as the ending *-io*]. Thus *Φιλημάτιον* takes in Latin the forms Philematium and (as here) Philematio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When discussing Latin *-ium* names for women, Henry John Roby interestingly remarks that although these names belong to the feminine grammatical gender in Latin, they belong to the neuter grammatical gender in Greek. (Roby's specific examples are *Planesium, Glycerium, Phronesium, Stephanium, Delphium.*) (*[Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius][roby],* Part 1, p. 106)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *[Greek Personal Names and Linguistic Continuity](https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/104p015.pdf),* by Anna Morpurgo Davies, I found the following footnote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 13 Some women's names in Greek are neuter, but this need not count as an exception to the general need for marking sex differences. Men's names are never neuter. (p. 21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anyone tell me more about the use of names ending in *-ιον* in Greek-language contexts?  Did they trigger neuter agreement without exception, or might they show varying or mixed patterns of agreement (for instance, I wonder whether perhaps they could have triggered neuter agreement within the noun phrase—i.e. on the article and on attributive adjectives—but had natural gender agreement as a possibility outside of the noun phrase—e.g. on predicate adjectives)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[roby]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA106" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9398" RevisionGUID="12b77319-e1d2-4b64-8f46-be3c9cdd8605" CreationDate="2019-04-02T06:54:43.763" UserId="9" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="Well, I haven't found an answer, but I found some additional information that I will post here because I don't want to make the question too long. It might be considered the rudiments of an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't yet found an example of a woman's name being used with neuter agreement in Greek, not even with an article, and in fact, I've found alleged examples of Greek names in -ιον taking a *feminine* article! But the sources of the following examples don't seem extremely trustworthy, as what I really want is a nice and detailed summary of the behavior of these names, not just passing mentions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently Priscian, in his *Institutiones Grammaticae,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  identifies some female names from Greek that end in *–on* and take a feminine article (i.e. demonstrative) but decline like a neuter noun in –um e.g. *ἡ Δόρκιον haec Dorcium, ἡ Γλυκέριον haec Glycerium, ἡ Χρύσιον haec Chrysium,* etc. (VI: 24). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*The Western Classical Tradition in Linguistics,* 2nd ed., by Keith Allan, 2009, p. 116)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example of ἡ Γλυκέριον is also given in [Smyth's *Greek Grammar* (1st ed.), 199d](https://www.ccel.org/s/smyth/grammar/html/smyth_2a_uni.htm#199d).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a discussion [here](https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&amp;t=68037) that indicates that Smyth may not be the best source for information about this kind of thing, but I didn't find the discussion very helpful beyond that warning, and some pointers to other sources (namely, a suggestion by Timothée to consult &quot;Schwyzer—Debrunner, p. 37.&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9398" RevisionGUID="61c49e51-2a88-48f9-91a7-bdad4afdc320" CreationDate="2019-04-02T07:01:05.863" UserId="9" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="Well, I haven't found an answer, but I found some additional information that I will post here because I don't want to make the question too long. It might be considered the rudiments of an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't yet found an example of a woman's name being used with neuter agreement in Greek, not even with an article, and in fact, I've found alleged examples of Greek names in -ιον taking a *feminine* article! So, I haven't found support so far for the idea that these names are neuter in Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the sources of the example of ιον names with feminine articles don't seem to be extremely trustworthy. They are just passing mentions in grammars, when what I really want is either a nice and detailed summary of the behavior of these names, or examples of how the names were actually used in primary sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently Priscian, in his *Institutiones Grammaticae,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  identifies some female names from Greek that end in *–on* and take a feminine article (i.e. demonstrative) but decline like a neuter noun in –um e.g. *ἡ Δόρκιον haec Dorcium, ἡ Γλυκέριον haec Glycerium, ἡ Χρύσιον haec Chrysium,* etc. (VI: 24). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*The Western Classical Tradition in Linguistics,* 2nd ed., by Keith Allan, 2009, p. 116)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example of ἡ Γλυκέριον is also given in [Smyth's *Greek Grammar* (1st ed.), 199d](https://www.ccel.org/s/smyth/grammar/html/smyth_2a_uni.htm#199d).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a discussion [here](https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&amp;t=68037) that indicates that Smyth may not be the best source for information about this kind of thing, but I didn't find the discussion very helpful beyond that warning, and some pointers to other sources (namely, a suggestion by Timothée to consult &quot;Schwyzer—Debrunner, p. 37.&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9398" RevisionGUID="1cc70735-47db-4f7b-9cc5-f0e4c2ddca1a" CreationDate="2019-04-02T07:51:06.910" UserId="9" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Well, I haven't found an answer, but I found some additional information that I will post here because I don't want to make the question too long. It might be considered the rudiments of an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't yet found an example of a woman's name being used with neuter agreement in Greek, not even with an article, and in fact, I've found alleged examples of Greek names in -ιον taking a *feminine* article! So, I haven't found support so far for the idea that these names are neuter in Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the sources of the examples of ιον names with feminine articles don't seem to be extremely trustworthy. They are just passing mentions in grammars, when what I really want is either a nice and detailed summary of the behavior of these names, or examples of how the names were actually used in primary sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently Priscian, in his *Institutiones Grammaticae,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  identifies some female names from Greek that end in *–on* and take a feminine article (i.e. demonstrative) but decline like a neuter noun in –um e.g. *ἡ Δόρκιον haec Dorcium, ἡ Γλυκέριον haec Glycerium, ἡ Χρύσιον haec Chrysium,* etc. (VI: 24). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*The Western Classical Tradition in Linguistics,* 2nd ed., by Keith Allan, 2009, p. 116)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example of ἡ Γλυκέριον is also given in [Smyth's *Greek Grammar* (1st ed.), 199d](https://www.ccel.org/s/smyth/grammar/html/smyth_2a_uni.htm#199d).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a discussion [here](https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&amp;t=68037) that indicates that Smyth may not be the best source for information about this kind of thing, but I didn't find the discussion very helpful beyond that warning, and some pointers to other sources (namely, a suggestion by Timothée to consult &quot;Schwyzer—Debrunner, p. 37.&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="f2ce78c4-ed0b-40c3-a04a-46b5b178523c" CreationDate="2019-04-02T08:28:44.100" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 219 characters in body" Text="Saying that Italian noun and adjective forms are derived from Latin accusative forms is a simplification. The nominative is also a source in some cases, such as for the singular form of the noun *uomo.* In other cases, neither the Classical Latin nominative nor the Classical Latin accusative seems to be sufficient to explain the form of an Italian word (because of things like reanalysis of stems or nouns moving to different noun classes), although it may be the case that the Italian form corresponds to an accusative form that existed in an intermediate language variety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does seem likely that in general/overall, the accusative forms had more of an influence on the development of the Italian forms than the ablative forms specifically, because as far as I know there is in the great majority of cases nothing ***particular to Latin ablative forms*** that helps explain the Italian forms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically, the ablative form is fairly similar to the accusative form in Latin in many situations. They are built on the same stem, and frequently differ only by the presence or absence of final *m* and/or the length or quality of the vowel in the last syllable; in the situations where the accusative and ablative forms are most distinct (like in the first- or third-declension plural) we don't see a reflex in Italian of the Latin ablative endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have as many sources in this answer as I would like, but I want to link to this WordReference thread with some prior discussion: [Accusative declension from Latin -&gt; Italian][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that this answer does not address the topic of changes in the use of ablative case in different stages of Latin. I'm sorry if I approach off-topicness in this post, which deals more with Italian forms really than with questions of Latin usage. There is one area mentioned below where it seems knowledge of Old Latin endings may be relevant, although I would have to do more research to confirm what Wikipedia says about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Singular forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1st declension &amp; 2nd declension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, just based on regular sound changes, we would expect the same reflexes in Italian for the accusative and the ablative cases in the first-declension singular (Latin /am#/ and /aː/ both go to Italian /a/; in fact, this also merges with the expected reflex of the Latin nominative ending for first-declension nouns, /a/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;THe same goes for the second-declension accusative singular and ablative singular (Latin /um#/ and /oː/ both go to Italian /o/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###3rd declension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin third-declension masculine or feminine nouns generally ended in *-em* in the accusative, which regularly developed to Italian *-e* due to the loss of Latin word-final &quot;m&quot;. (Although in some words, like *città* &lt; *cīvitātem,* this was later lost). This is identical to the expected reflex of the third-declension singular ablative ending *-e.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any sign of Latin third-declension i-stem ablative singular forms in *-ī* contributing to Italian, but [the use of *-ī* vs. *-e*][2] was somewhat variable even in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[A Linguistic History of Italian][3]* (by Martin Maiden, 2013) points out that because of the loss of Latin word-final &quot;m&quot;, words derived from the nominative/accusative form of Latin third-declension neuters that ended in *-e* in Latin, such as *mare,* came to have the same ending words derived from the accusative form of Latin third-declension masculine/feminine nouns (p. 108). This seems to have contributed to the dissolution of &quot;neuter&quot; as a distinct gender in Italian; I would guess that it also reinforced the use of &quot;e&quot; as an ending for nouns that were not a-stems or u/o-stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The remaining third-declension neuters (which are I believe a relatively small group compared to all of the above) seem to have developed in/been taken into Italian in various ways. In some cases, we phenomena like reanalysis of stems, noun-class or gender shifts, and learned borrowings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, in the development from Latin to Romance, Latin third-declension neuters seem to have often become assimilated to the conjugation pattern of third-declension masculine and feminine nouns. According to the chapter &quot;Latin&quot;, by Nigel Vincent, in *[The Romance Languages][4],* edited by Martin Harris and Nigel Vincent (2003), one such example is It. &quot;latte&quot;, Fr. &quot;lait&quot;, Spanish &quot;leche&quot; etc. which can be accounted for by reconstructing an accusative form *lacte(m) in Proto-Romance (p. 44). But Vincent points out that words like It. &quot;cuore&quot; and &quot;nome&quot; do not come from the Latin oblique stems of *cor* and *nomen* (*cord-* and *nomin-* respectively), and must be seen as derived from the Latin nominative/accusative form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Misc. examples: *fiume, fiumi* from Latin *flumen*; *corpo, corpi* from Latin *corpus.* The Italian words *femore, -i; crimine, -i; inguine, -i;* and *onere, -i* obviously cannot be from the Classical Latin nominative or accusative singular forms of *femur, crimen, inguen, onus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###4th declension&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Draconis mentioned the fourth-declension nouns as a possible case where we would expect different reflexes for the accusative and ablative, but I actually don't know of any evidence against /o/ as the regular Italian reflex of Latin /uː/ in word-final unstressed syllables (and there seems to be some separate evidence for it: see the section below about the dialectal Italian plural ending *-o* that appears to come from the Latin fourth-declension nominative/accusative plural ending /uːs/). Also, we know in any case that fourth-declension nouns could be transferred to the second-declension pattern by analogy in the precursors to the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary&#xD;&#xA;So overall, Italian singular forms seem to give no strong indications of whether they are from the Latin accusative vs. the Latin ablative form; but sound changes are sufficient as an explanation for why the modern Italian forms are often inconclusive for determining if the form of a word comes from the Latin accusative or the Latin ablative. This means that we'd need to look at other sources of information to decide which Latin case-form was likely to have had the most influence on the origin of the singular forms of Italian nouns (substantives and adjectives).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a limited number of singular forms like *nome, fiume, cuore, corpo* that are fairly obviously not derived from the Classical Latin ablative singular forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Plural forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian plural forms actually don't just seem to be from Latin accusative forms, but also from Latin nominative forms. (And it's sometimes difficult to tell, because there are cases like neuter nouns or third-declension nouns where the nominative and accusative forms are identical in Classical Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is stronger evidence in the plural that Italian forms are *not* from Classical Latin ablative forms: the only type of noun I can find where that looks at all plausible is words that were second-declension (ending in /iːs/ in the ablative plural) in Latin, and that end in *-i* in Italian.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has an article &quot;[Romance plurals][5]&quot; (which has a disclaimer saying it needs to be better sourced, so take all of this with as many grains of salt as appropriate) that gives an overview of some theories about the origin of the Italian plural suffixes *-i* and *-e.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-i*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Italian plural in &quot;-i&quot; for masculine words that end in &quot;-o&quot; in the singular seems to be descended from the Latin second-declension masculine nominative plural suffix in &quot;-i&quot;. (I guess the Latin ablative &quot;-i:s&quot; would produce an indistinguishable result from the nominative with loss of &quot;s&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-e*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is apparently somewhat tricky to explain the exact development of the Italian plural in &quot;-e&quot; for feminine words that end in &quot;-a&quot; in the singular, but the Latin first-declension plural ablative ending /i:s/ seems to have definitely had zero influence on any Italian forms, so I would say the first-declension plural is an area where it doesn't make sense to treat the ablative case as the &quot;origin&quot; of Italian forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, what Wikipedia says is that the Italian plural ending &quot;-e&quot; is generally thought to be from /aːs/ (via some sequence of sound changes along the lines of *as &gt; *ai̯ / _#, followed by *ai̯ &gt; e in unstressed syllables). The Wikipedia article supports this etymology with the following arguments (among others): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian plural *-e* is apparently never associated with alteration of a preceding /k/ or /g/, as would be expected if it were from Latin *ae,* which developed fairly early on in the ancestors of the Romance languages to a monophthongal front vowel. The example given is *amico, amici* vs. *amica, amiche.* But I would say this argument is slightly weakened by the fact that there are also words in Italian that don't alter /k/ or /g/ before the masculine plural suffix /i/, presumably due to analogical leveling (like *fuoco, fuochi*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the change *as &gt; *ai̯ / _# is apparently supported by words like *tu stai* &lt; *tū stās.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Wikipedia article suggests that this /aːs/ may not have just been taken from the Classical Latin accusative plural ending, but might instead represent a retention in Vulgar Latin of the archaic first-declension nominative plural ending *-ās*. [Old French][6], which maintained the Latin nominative-accusative distinction for a while in the form of a two-case nominative-oblique system, used the ending &quot;-es&quot; for both nominative feminine plurals and oblique feminine plurals. The Wikipedia article points out that this supports the idea that &quot;Proto-Romance had **nominative** plural -ĀS, not *-AE&quot; (bolding added by me, to emphasize that this is talking about forms in a language that has not yet lost the nominative-accusative distinction in general). But the evidence from French doesn't indicate how Proto-(Italo-Western?)Romance developed the form -ĀS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to &quot;[The Italian Plural Formative *-e*][7]&quot; (Helmut Lüdtke, in *Italic and Romance: Linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram,* edited by Herbert J. Izzo, 1980), the Italian feminine plural article *le* has been proposed to come from either Latin ILLAE, ILLAS or ILLAEC (which he says was proposed by Merlo as a formation on the analogy of HAEC) (p. 122).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lüdtke argues that the  *as &gt; *ai̯ &gt; e sound-change explanation cannot account for the existence of syntactic doubling in some Italian dialects after this article, something that usually occurs as the reflex of a former consonant cluster. As far as I can tell, his argument is that, if we start from *-as* and assume that the s vocalized to i̯, then [s] would no longer be present to assimilate to the following consonant to cause syntactic doubling, and if we start from *-as* and assume the s assimilated to the following consonant to cause syntactic doubling, then [s] would no longer be present to vocalize to i̯. He seems to argue that the existence of varieties of Italian that have both the vowel &quot;e&quot; in the feminine plural article, and syntactic gemination after the feminine plural article, implies that at some point it ended in -eC, where &quot;C&quot; is some consonant. Because of this, he argues that the vowel in the suffix must have changed before the loss of the final consonant; he assumes this vowel change was analogical (suggesting *-as* changed to *-es* under the influence of either third-declension *-es,* the Classical Latin nominative ending *-ae,* or the influence of QUAE on ILLA). I'm not sure what to think about this but in any case, Lüdtke agrees with the Wikipedia article about  the ultimate source of Italian plural *-e* being Latin *-as,* although Lüdtke does describe this as an accusative form (p. 123). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, he also mentions the existence of two &quot;marginal zones ... the northwestern corner of Tuscany ... and the Bregaglia Valley ... where we find the plural type *la porta*&quot; which he says is from ILLAS PORTAS with loss of the final /s/ without a change of the vowel in the final syllable (p. 124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No plural *\*-evo* or *\*-ivo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find no example of an Italian word that seems to have the reflex of the Latin third- and fourth-declension ablative plural ending *-ibus* (I don't even know what it would be expected to look like with Italian sound changes; my best guess is &lt;strike&gt;*\*evo*&lt;/strike&gt; *\*ivo*). Italian words ending in *-e* in the singular instead take the plural ending *-i,* which Wikipedia indicates may  have come from Latin nominative or accusative *-ēs* (via the sound change *es &gt; *ei̯ / _#, followed by *ei̯ &gt; i in unstressed syllables), or, via analogy, from the plural in *-i* that developed in second-declension words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-a*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Italian nouns that end in *-o* in the singular end in *-a* in the plural: this goes back to the Latin neuter nominative/singular plural ending. (No plural adjectives end in *-a*: plural nouns in *-a* trigger the same agreement as feminine plural nouns, so an agreeing adjective will take the suffix *-e* or *-i*). Since Latin neuter nouns always have the same form in nominative and accusative, this doesn't provide evidence one way or the other for choosing between these cases as the origin, but it does provide evidence against taking the ablative as the origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Plural *-o*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in dialectal forms of Italian and in some related languages, certain words descended from Latin fourth-declension nouns like *[fico][8]* can or could take plurals in *-o*; this appears to have developed from Latin *-ūs,* and again, while this could be either from the Latin nominative plural or accusative plural, it couldn't be from the Classical Latin ablative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, we see no reflex in Italian of the distinctively formed Classical Latin plural ablative ending *-(i)bus.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form of the Italian plural ending *-i,* corresponding to singular *-o,* seems consistent with a derivation from the Latin second-declension ablative plural ending *-īs,* but it also is consistent with a derivation from the Latin second-declension nominative masculine plural ending *-ī.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the Italian plural ending *-i* corresponds to singular *-e,* a derivation from the Latin third-declension nominative/accusative masculine/feminine plural ending *-ēs* seems much more plausible than a derivation from any Latin ablative plural ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form of the common Italian feminine plural ending *-e* (corresponding to singular *-a*) seems inconsistent with derivation from any Classical Latin ablative endings. The same goes for the form of the uncommon Italian feminine plural ending *-a* (corresponding to singular *-o*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dialectal Italian plural ending *-o,* corresponding to singular *-o,* also doesn't seem to have a form consistent with a derivation from a Classical Latin ablative ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Notes about notation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my transcriptions of Latin, I am using the same IPA symbols for long and short vowels since the length marker is enough to disambiguate what phoneme I am talking about. I used the symbol &quot;#&quot; to represent a word boundary:  &quot;am&quot; developed to &quot;a&quot; word-finally in Romance, but generally had other developments when it occured in other positions in Latin words (e.g. &quot;amo&quot; or &quot;cambio&quot;). Something like &quot;*as &gt; *ai̯ / _#&quot; means &quot;/as/ became /ai̯/ in word-final contexts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/accusative-declension-from-latin-italian.2256785/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/675/why-do-ablatives-of-the-3rd-declension-sometimes-end-on-e-at-other-times-on-i&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=J3jJAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA108&amp;lpg=PA108&amp;dq=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ULI1F96Ssj&amp;sig=URlxVIUk6VCaY--2L8Z6vRNNmUg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjC7-no6cTYAhWE14MKHbzIC6oQ6AEIMzAC#v=onepage&amp;q=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=lULWOT1o0SsC&amp;pg=PA44&amp;lpg=PA44&amp;dq=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=MwR9_CEpiO&amp;sig=S_VWBTnxg4MpFJ3dhVGNuW5mZ4M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjC7-no6cTYAhWE14MKHbzIC6oQ6AEITzAK#v=onepage&amp;q=Romance%20loss%20of%20the%20neuter%20third%20declension&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_plurals&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French#Grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hV5AAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA123&amp;lpg=PA123&amp;dq=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=PKzB-2byuE&amp;sig=z3uhJpQbwIYG1hzBGKJcqs_ha44&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiotLaQvLjYAhVDRyYKHa81AHcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Italian%20plural%20e%20velar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sE-N3v0IoXcC&amp;pg=PA163&amp;lpg=PA163&amp;dq=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=vxdp34Nykv&amp;sig=-TzebKP--rY9zQJA-NYIq7wYRCo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi39vbkhLjYAhUl0oMKHZu8CccQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=fourth%20declension%20Latin%20words%20Romance%20reflex&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="bdfa1630-951b-413d-b9fc-0e04de800df3" CreationDate="2019-04-02T09:30:54.903" UserId="9" Comment="not sure about early history of using the letter Z" Text="The Etruscan alphabet you presented in your question is actually a transliteration. The actual Etruscan inscriptions are in one of the &quot;[Old Italic][1]&quot; alphabets derived from the Greek one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unicode now has separate code points for these (although it unifies various related alphabets like Etruscan, Oscan, and Old Latin) and if you [download the right fonts][2], you'll be able to see them (although of course, a single font cannot represent the diversity of forms that used to be used). Here is the Etruscan alphabet encoded in &quot;Old Italic&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;                            &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;([picture in case the characters don't display correctly][3])&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(taken from this Wikipedia article: [Old Italic script][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see (or maybe you can't) that the Etruscan letter transliterated as &quot;G&quot; actually has the form of C. This also applies to the Etruscan letter transliterated as &quot;V,&quot; which actually had the form of F. Etruscan did not have a /g/ sound distinct from /k/ (or any distinct voiced plosive [consonants][4] in general), so when it adapted this letter from Greek gamma, it repurposed it for the sound /k/. This carried over into Latin; in Old Latin the letter C was used for both /k/ and /g/. The modern Latin letter G was created to distinguish the sound /g/ from the sound /k/, which came to be represented mostly by C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter Z ended up not being used to represent any native Latin sound, so the new letter G took the place of Z in the Latin alphabet. Later, when Z came to be used regularly as a way of representing Greek zeta, it was added to the end of the alphabet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Italic_script&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wazu.jp/gallery/Fonts_OldItalic.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZHw7V.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language#Consonants" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9399" RevisionGUID="8b7b9897-a48a-4ac0-803d-c4dd9dd425c3" CreationDate="2019-04-02T11:22:12.390" UserId="867" Text="Martial wrote a poem about Publius' dog called Issa.  It begins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Issa est passere nequior Catulli,   &#xD;&#xA;Issa est purior osculo columbae,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Issa est blandior omnibus puellis,   &#xD;&#xA;Issa est carior Indicis lapillis,  &#xD;&#xA;Issa est deliciae catella Publi.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Issa is naughtier than Catullus’ sparrow,   &#xD;&#xA;Issa is purer than a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dove’s kiss,    &#xD;&#xA;Issa is more winning than any girl,    &#xD;&#xA;Issa is more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; precious than Indian pearls,    &#xD;&#xA;Issa is a lapdog, Publius’ darling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Epigrams*, 1.109.1-5 (trans. D. R. Shackleton-Bailey)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole poem is uncharacteristically sweet.  If it's actually full of euphemisms for sordidness, like so much of Martial, please don't tell me.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9399" RevisionGUID="688d1915-fbad-4cad-82a9-af7c2e682ae9" CreationDate="2019-04-02T12:09:40.733" UserId="867" Comment="added the Ovid excerpt" Text="Martial wrote a poem about Publius' dog called **Issa**.  It begins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Issa est passere nequior Catulli,   &#xD;&#xA;Issa est purior osculo columbae,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Issa est blandior omnibus puellis,   &#xD;&#xA;Issa est carior Indicis lapillis,  &#xD;&#xA;Issa est deliciae catella Publi.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Issa is naughtier than Catullus’ sparrow,   &#xD;&#xA;Issa is purer than a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dove’s kiss,    &#xD;&#xA;Issa is more winning than any girl,    &#xD;&#xA;Issa is more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; precious than Indian pearls,    &#xD;&#xA;Issa is a lapdog, Publius’ darling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Epigrams*, 1.109.1-5 (trans. D. R. Shackleton-Bailey)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole poem is uncharacteristically sweet.  If it's actually full of euphemisms for sordidness, like so much of Martial, please don't tell me.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, Ovid names *some* of Actaeon's dogs in the *Metamorphoses*, 3.206-225:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dum dubitat, videre canes, primique Melampus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ichnobatesque sagax latratu signa dedere,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cnosius Ichnobates, Spartana gente Melampus.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; inde ruunt alii rapida velocius aura,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pamphagos et Dorceus et Oribasos, Arcades omnes,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nebrophonosque valens et trux cum Laelape Theron  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et pedibus Pterelas et naribus utilis Agre  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hylaeusque ferox nuper percussus ab apro  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; deque lupo concepta Nape pecudesque secuta  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Poemenis et natis comitata Harpyia duobus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et substricta gerens Sicyonius ilia Ladon  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et Dromas et Canache Sticteque et Tigris et Alce  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et niveis Leucon et villis Asbolos atris  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; praevalidusque Lacon et cursu fortis Aello  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et Thoos et Cyprio velox cum fratre Lycisce  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et nigram medio frontem distinctus ab albo  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Harpalos et Melaneus hirsutaque corpore Lachne  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et patre Dictaeo, sed matre Laconide nati  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Labros et Argiodus et acutae vocis Hylactor*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But while he stands perplexed he sees his hounds. And first come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Melampus** and keen-scented **Ichnobates**, baying loud on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trail—Ichnobates a Cretan dog, Melampus a Spartan; then others come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rushing on swifter than the wind: **Pamphagus, Dorceus,** and **Oribasos**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arcadians all; staunch **Nebrophonos**, fierce **Theron** and **Laelaps**;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Pterelas**, the swift of foot, and keen-scented **Agre**; savage **Hylaeus**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but lately ripped up by a boar; the wolf-dog **Nape** and the trusty&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shepherd **Poemenis**; **Harpyia** with her two pups; Sicyonian **Ladon**, thin in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the flanks; **Dromas, Canache, Sticte, Tigris, Alce**; white-haired&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Leucon**, black **Asbolos**; **Lacon**, renowned for strength, and fleet **Aëllo**;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Thoos** and swift **Lycisce** with her brother **Cyprius**; **Harpalos**, with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; white spot in the middle of his black forehead; **Melaneus** and shaggy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lachne**; two dogs from a Cretan father and a Spartan mother, **Labros** and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Argiodus**; shrill-tongued **Hylactor** ...&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The English translations of these would be, in order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Black-foot, Trail-follower, Voracious, Gazelle, Mountain-ranger, Faun-killer, Hurricane, Hunter, Winged, Hunter, Sylvan, Glen, Shepherd, Seizer, Catcher, Runner, Gnasher, Spot, Tigress, Might, White, Soot, Spartan, Whirlwind, Swift, Cyprian, Wolf, Grasper, Black, Shag, Fury, White-tooth, Barker, Black-hair, Beast-killer, Mountaineer (trans. Frank Justus Miller, rev. G. P. Goold)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These seem to suggest that a pattern for naming dogs was simply to call them by their attributes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9399" RevisionGUID="20986e0a-32b0-4dfc-aba1-0e400389f163" CreationDate="2019-04-02T12:19:29.843" UserId="867" Comment="added the Xenophon excerpt" Text="Martial wrote a poem about Publius' dog called **Issa**.  It begins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Issa est passere nequior Catulli,   &#xD;&#xA;Issa est purior osculo columbae,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Issa est blandior omnibus puellis,   &#xD;&#xA;Issa est carior Indicis lapillis,  &#xD;&#xA;Issa est deliciae catella Publi.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Issa is naughtier than Catullus’ sparrow,   &#xD;&#xA;Issa is purer than a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dove’s kiss,    &#xD;&#xA;Issa is more winning than any girl,    &#xD;&#xA;Issa is more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; precious than Indian pearls,    &#xD;&#xA;Issa is a lapdog, Publius’ darling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Epigrams*, 1.109.1-5 (trans. D. R. Shackleton-Bailey)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole poem is uncharacteristically sweet.  If it's actually full of euphemisms for sordidness, like so much of Martial, please don't tell me.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, Ovid names *some* of Actaeon's dogs in the *Metamorphoses*, 3.206-225:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dum dubitat, videre canes, primique Melampus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ichnobatesque sagax latratu signa dedere,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cnosius Ichnobates, Spartana gente Melampus.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; inde ruunt alii rapida velocius aura,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pamphagos et Dorceus et Oribasos, Arcades omnes,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nebrophonosque valens et trux cum Laelape Theron  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et pedibus Pterelas et naribus utilis Agre  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hylaeusque ferox nuper percussus ab apro  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; deque lupo concepta Nape pecudesque secuta  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Poemenis et natis comitata Harpyia duobus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et substricta gerens Sicyonius ilia Ladon  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et Dromas et Canache Sticteque et Tigris et Alce  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et niveis Leucon et villis Asbolos atris  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; praevalidusque Lacon et cursu fortis Aello  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et Thoos et Cyprio velox cum fratre Lycisce  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et nigram medio frontem distinctus ab albo  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Harpalos et Melaneus hirsutaque corpore Lachne  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et patre Dictaeo, sed matre Laconide nati  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Labros et Argiodus et acutae vocis Hylactor*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But while he stands perplexed he sees his hounds. And first come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Melampus** and keen-scented **Ichnobates**, baying loud on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trail—Ichnobates a Cretan dog, Melampus a Spartan; then others come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rushing on swifter than the wind: **Pamphagus, Dorceus,** and **Oribasos**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arcadians all; staunch **Nebrophonos**, fierce **Theron** and **Laelaps**;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Pterelas**, the swift of foot, and keen-scented **Agre**; savage **Hylaeus**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but lately ripped up by a boar; the wolf-dog **Nape** and the trusty&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shepherd **Poemenis**; **Harpyia** with her two pups; Sicyonian **Ladon**, thin in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the flanks; **Dromas, Canache, Sticte, Tigris, Alce**; white-haired&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Leucon**, black **Asbolos**; **Lacon**, renowned for strength, and fleet **Aëllo**;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Thoos** and swift **Lycisce** with her brother **Cyprius**; **Harpalos**, with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; white spot in the middle of his black forehead; **Melaneus** and shaggy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lachne**; two dogs from a Cretan father and a Spartan mother, **Labros** and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Argiodus**; shrill-tongued **Hylactor** ...&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The English translations of these would be, in order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Black-foot, Trail-follower, Voracious, Gazelle, Mountain-ranger, Faun-killer, Hurricane, Hunter, Winged, Hunter, Sylvan, Glen, Shepherd, Seizer, Catcher, Runner, Gnasher, Spot, Tigress, Might, White, Soot, Spartan, Whirlwind, Swift, Cyprian, Wolf, Grasper, Black, Shag, Fury, White-tooth, Barker, Black-hair, Beast-killer, Mountaineer (trans. Frank Justus Miller, rev. G. P. Goold)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These seem to suggest that a pattern for naming dogs was simply to call them by their attributes.  Xenophon advises giving hunting dogs short names, &quot;so as to be able to call to them easily&quot;.  He continues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εἶναι δὲ χρὴ τοιάδε, Ψυχή, Θυμός, Πόρπαξ, Στύραξ, Λόγχη, Λόχος,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Φρουρά, Φύλαξ, Τάξις, Ξίφων, Φόναξ, Φλέγων, Ἀλκή, Τεύχων, Ὑλεύς,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Μήδας, Πόρθων, Σπέρχων, Ὀργή, Βρέμων, Ὕβρις, Θάλλων, Ῥώμη, Ἀνθεύς,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ἥβα, Γηθεύς, Χαρά, Λεύσσων, Αὐγώ, Πολύς, Βία, Στίχων, Σπουδή, Βρύας,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Οἰνάς, Στερρός, Κραύγη, Καίνων, Τύρβας, Σθένων, Αἰθήρ, Ἀκτίς, Αἰχμή,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Νόης, Γνώμη, Στίβων, Ὁρμή.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;The following are the right sort: Psyche, Thymus, Porpax, Styrax,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lonché, Lochus, Phrura, Phylax, Taxis, Xiphon, Phonax, Phlegon, Alcé,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Teuchon, Hyleus, Medas, Porthon, Sperchon, Orgé, Bremon, Hybris,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thallon, Rhomé, Antheus, Hebe, Getheus, Chara, Leusson, Augo, Polys,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bia, Stichon, Spudé, Bryas, Oenas, Sterrus, Craugé, Caenon, Tyrbas,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sthenon, Aether, Actis, Aechmé, Noës, Gnomé, Stibon, Elormé.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*On Hunting*, 7.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translators (Marchant &amp; Bowersock) note: &quot;The names are significant of the colour, strength, spirit, sagacity or behaviour of the hounds. Hebe and Psyche are still in the list of bitches’ names, and modern equivalents of several of the other names are in use, e.g. Lance (Lonché), Sentinel (Phylax), Ecstasy (Chara), Blueskin (Oenas), Crafty (Medas), Hasty (Sperchon), Vigorous (Thallon), Impetus (Hormé), Counsellor (Noës), Bustler (dog) or Hasty (bitch); cf. Sperchon. For Πολύς we should probably read Πολεύς, “Rover.”&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="407f4e66-ae80-4f73-b655-818442fbd6aa" CreationDate="2019-04-02T18:17:01.700" UserId="406" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="The different declensions started in Proto-Indo-European. Latin regularized and simplified them, giving the five somewhat-regular patterns you're familiar with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PIE nouns came in a few different types:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Stems ending in *-eh₂&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_*h₂_ was a &quot;laryngeal&quot; sound, so-called because we don't have a better name for it. Scholars can't agree on what its actual sound was; there are arguments to be made for various different sounds, though I'm partial to the voiceless velar fricative as in &quot;Ba**ch**&quot; (`/x/`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Proto-Indo-European broke apart, all the laryngeals disappeared. But when they were next to a vowel they left &quot;color&quot; on it before vanishing. _*h₂_ in particular tended to turn _e_ into _a_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So these turned into the Latin &quot;a-stem&quot; nouns: the first declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Stems ending in a &quot;thematic vowel&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some nouns were formed using suffixes ending in *o*. These were the only true &quot;vowel-stem nouns&quot; in PIE, and the &quot;thematic&quot; _o_ occasionally became _e_ (such as in the vocative singular). If you know Ancient Greek, you'll recognize this intermittent *o/e* immediately from verb conjugations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Old Latin, short *o* tended to turn into *u* in many environments. So the original forms _-os, -om_ became _-us, -um_. This formed the second declension. (Note that this pattern didn't affect long *ō*, which persisted in the accusative plural.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Stems ending in *-y&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PIE didn't distinguish much between the vowel *i* and the consonant *y* (IPA `/j/`), a trend which persisted into Latin. So when endings were applied to nouns ending in *_-y_, it tended to become a vowel *i*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These became the &quot;i-stem nouns&quot;, a subset of the third declension. These are the ones like *turris* which have *-im* in the accusative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Stems ending in *-w&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like with _y/i_, PIE didn't have much of a distinction between *u* and *w*. (Same as Latin: compare *auspex* with a vowel and *avis* with a consonant, from the same stem *au-*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nouns whose stems ended in *_-w_ became the Latin &quot;u-stems&quot;, the fourth declension. Unlike the second declension, the *u* that appears here actually comes from a PIE *w/u*, so you don't see it alternating with *o*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Stems ending in laryngeals (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure of the etymology of this class, actually. And someone with a better knowledge of Proto-Indo-European should feel free to correct me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I believe stems ending in &quot;laryngeals&quot; other than *_h₂_ became the fifth-declension, with the preceding vowel becoming the characteristic *e*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Stems ending in anything else&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PIE was fine with consonants smashed together, but most of its descendants reversed this tendency. So when the endings involving consonants were put onto the stems involving consonants, extra vowels often got inserted in between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, these ended up becoming &quot;consonant-stems&quot;, which make up the majority of the third declension. These are the ones like *rex* which have *-em* in the accusative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A few exceptions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nouns which didn't fit cleanly into any of these groups were generally shoved into the nearest one. *Diēs*, for example, became the only masculine in the fifth-declension, while *domus* can't decide whether it's second or fourth. But almost no nouns actually remained &quot;irregular&quot;; Latin was very good at forcing them into these five categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And thus, the variety of PIE nouns became Latin's five-declension system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9398" RevisionGUID="37f1361a-e511-4923-af26-120cd958253a" CreationDate="2019-04-02T22:01:37.127" UserId="9" Comment="added 757 characters in body" Text="Well, I don't have an answer, but I found some additional information that I will post here because I don't want to make the question too long. It might be considered the rudiments of an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found any evidence to support the idea that these names belonged to the neuter gender in Greek any more than *-ium* names belonged to the neuter gender in Latin. Even though diminutive nouns formed with the suffix *-ιον* are neuter as a rule (e.g. *τὸ παιδίον* or *τὸ γύναιον*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;), there seem to be examples of womens' names ending in *-ιον* taking the *feminine* article, which implies that these names are not neuter but feminine. In contrast, I haven't yet found an example of a woman's name being used with any kind of neuter agreement in Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Grammars that indicate that *-ιον* names take feminine agreement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently Priscian, in his *Institutiones Grammaticae,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  identifies some female names from Greek that end in *–on* and take a feminine article (i.e. demonstrative) but decline like a neuter noun in –um e.g. *ἡ Δόρκιον haec Dorcium, ἡ Γλυκέριον haec Glycerium, ἡ Χρύσιον haec Chrysium,* etc. (VI: 24). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*The Western Classical Tradition in Linguistics,* 2nd ed., by Keith Allan, 2009, p. 116)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example of ἡ Γλυκέριον is also given in [Smyth's *Greek Grammar* (1st ed.), 199d](https://www.ccel.org/s/smyth/grammar/html/smyth_2a_uni.htm#199d).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a discussion [here](https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&amp;t=68037) that indicates that Smyth may not be the best source for information about this kind of thing. There are also some pointers to other sources (namely, a suggestion by Timothée to consult &quot;Schwyzer—Debrunner, p. 37.&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Specific quotations that show feminine grammatical agreement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; TKR pointed out in a comment that the first entry in the linked discussion cites an occurrence of &quot;ἡ Λυκαίνιον&quot; in [*Daphnis &amp; Chloe* by Longus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Longus+3.15&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0642).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard for me to figure out what this example tells us. A discussion on the talk page of the [Wikipedia entry for *Daphnis and Chloe*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daphnis_and_Chloe) indicates that it may have been written anywhere from 100 - 400 AD, possibly by someone who did not &quot;write as a native ancient Greek speaker&quot; (I'm not sure whether the suggested alternative native language for Longus would be non-ancient Greek, or Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Citations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Smyth's Greek Grammar (1st ed.), 197b" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9380" RevisionGUID="61ce5c04-931f-4c4e-902b-dc91b4bf466e" CreationDate="2019-04-02T22:06:58.573" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body" Text="A number of personal names in the works of Plautus end in *-um* in the nominative singular, which struck me as odd when I first encountered them, since nominative singular *-um* is characteristically found at the end of neuter nouns (specifically, those of the second declension). An example is  *[Stephanium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Stephanium).* In fact, all of these names seem to end more specifically in *-ium.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found names ending in *-ium* discussed briefly in one section of &quot;[Some Roman Slave-names](https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/slave-names_bruce.pdf)&quot; by F. F. Bruce. Bruce says that these are from Greek diminutives in -ιον, which were &quot;mainly names of women&quot;. Women's names ending in *-ium* are grammatically feminine in Latin.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; (I'm not sure [how names ending in -ιον behave in Greek](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9389/how-were-names-ending-in-%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD-used-in-greek).) Harm Pinkster gives the phrase &quot;amoena Stephanium&quot; as an example of this principle of semantic gender assignment&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Anna Morpurgo Davies, although some women's names in Greek are neuter, no men's names in Greek are neuter&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;. Nevertheless, in the context of Latin, there does seem to be at least one example of a **male** name ending in *-ium*: *[Paegnium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Paegnium),* the name of a male slave in Plautus's *Persa.* The Lewis and Short entry for *Paegnium* says that it comes from the Greek neuter noun *[παίγνιον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpai%2Fgnion)* 'plaything, toy', which LSJ says could also be used of persons in the sense &quot;darling, pet&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any examples other than *Paegnium* of male names ending in *-um*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Citations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Henry John Roby, *[Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius, Part 1][roby],* p. 106&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *[Oxford Latin Syntax: Volume 1: The Simple Clause][pinkster],* p. 40&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  *[Greek Personal Names and Linguistic Continuity](https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/104p015.pdf),* p. 21&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[roby]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA106&#xD;&#xA;[pinkster]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA21-IA7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9398" RevisionGUID="f56fcecc-5da0-407d-9613-aa3f56717a46" CreationDate="2019-04-02T22:53:42.810" UserId="9" Comment="added 237 characters in body" Text="Well, I don't have an answer, but I found some additional information that I will post here because I don't want to make the question too long. It might be considered the rudiments of an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found any evidence to support the idea that these names belonged to the neuter gender in Greek any more than *-ium* names belonged to the neuter gender in Latin. Even though diminutive nouns formed with the suffix *-ιον* are neuter as a rule (e.g. *τὸ παιδίον* or *τὸ γύναιον*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;), there seem to be examples of womens' names ending in *-ιον* taking the *feminine* article, which implies that these names are not neuter but feminine. In contrast, I haven't yet found an example of a woman's name being used with any kind of neuter agreement in Greek. (From a theoretical viewpoint, neuter agreement doesn't seem too implausible. German seems to have some diminutive names that take a neuter article, e.g. as far as I can tell the way to say &quot;the poor Gretchen&quot; in German would be &quot;das arme Gretchen&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Grammars that indicate that *-ιον* names take feminine agreement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently Priscian, in his *Institutiones Grammaticae,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  identifies some female names from Greek that end in *–on* and take a feminine article (i.e. demonstrative) but decline like a neuter noun in –um e.g. *ἡ Δόρκιον haec Dorcium, ἡ Γλυκέριον haec Glycerium, ἡ Χρύσιον haec Chrysium,* etc. (VI: 24). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*The Western Classical Tradition in Linguistics,* 2nd ed., by Keith Allan, 2009, p. 116)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example of ἡ Γλυκέριον is also given in [Smyth's *Greek Grammar* (1st ed.), 199d](https://www.ccel.org/s/smyth/grammar/html/smyth_2a_uni.htm#199d).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a discussion [here](https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&amp;t=68037) that indicates that Smyth may not be the best source for information about this kind of thing. There are also some pointers to other sources (namely, a suggestion by Timothée to consult &quot;Schwyzer—Debrunner, p. 37.&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Specific quotations that show feminine grammatical agreement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; TKR pointed out in a comment that the first entry in the linked discussion cites an occurrence of &quot;ἡ Λυκαίνιον&quot; in [*Daphnis &amp; Chloe* by Longus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Longus+3.15&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0642).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard for me to figure out what this example tells us. A discussion on the talk page of the [Wikipedia entry for *Daphnis and Chloe*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daphnis_and_Chloe) indicates that it may have been written anywhere from 100 - 400 AD, possibly by someone who did not &quot;write as a native ancient Greek speaker&quot; (I'm not sure whether the suggested alternative native language for Longus would be non-ancient Greek, or Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Citations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Smyth's Greek Grammar (1st ed.), 197b" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9398" RevisionGUID="eb90625e-95f0-4b99-9c34-8b8b5c17b603" CreationDate="2019-04-02T22:58:59.060" UserId="9" Comment="added 237 characters in body" Text="Well, I don't have an answer, but I found some additional information that I will post here because I don't want to make the question too long. It might be considered the rudiments of an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found any evidence to support the idea that these names belonged to the neuter gender in Greek any more than *-ium* names belonged to the neuter gender in Latin. Even though diminutive nouns formed with the suffix *-ιον* are neuter as a rule (e.g. *τὸ παιδίον* or *τὸ γύναιον*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;), there seem to be examples of womens' names ending in *-ιον* taking the *feminine* article, which implies that these names are not neuter but feminine. In contrast, I haven't yet found an example of a woman's name being used with any kind of neuter agreement in Greek. (From a theoretical viewpoint, neuter agreement doesn't seem too implausible. As far as I can tell, it is possible to use a neuter article in German with the name &quot;Gretchen&quot;, as in &quot;das arme Gretchen&quot;, although feminine agreement may also be an option--I need to check.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Grammars that indicate that *-ιον* names take feminine agreement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently Priscian, in his *Institutiones Grammaticae,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  identifies some female names from Greek that end in *–on* and take a feminine article (i.e. demonstrative) but decline like a neuter noun in –um e.g. *ἡ Δόρκιον haec Dorcium, ἡ Γλυκέριον haec Glycerium, ἡ Χρύσιον haec Chrysium,* etc. (VI: 24). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*The Western Classical Tradition in Linguistics,* 2nd ed., by Keith Allan, 2009, p. 116)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example of ἡ Γλυκέριον is also given in [Smyth's *Greek Grammar* (1st ed.), 199d](https://www.ccel.org/s/smyth/grammar/html/smyth_2a_uni.htm#199d).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a discussion [here](https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&amp;t=68037) that indicates that Smyth may not be the best source for information about this kind of thing. There are also some pointers to other sources (namely, a suggestion by Timothée to consult &quot;Schwyzer—Debrunner, p. 37.&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Specific quotations that show feminine grammatical agreement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; TKR pointed out in a comment that the first entry in the linked discussion cites an occurrence of &quot;ἡ Λυκαίνιον&quot; in [*Daphnis &amp; Chloe* by Longus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Longus+3.15&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0642).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard for me to figure out what this example tells us. A discussion on the talk page of the [Wikipedia entry for *Daphnis and Chloe*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daphnis_and_Chloe) indicates that it may have been written anywhere from 100 - 400 AD, possibly by someone who did not &quot;write as a native ancient Greek speaker&quot; (I'm not sure whether the suggested alternative native language for Longus would be non-ancient Greek, or Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Citations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Smyth's Greek Grammar (1st ed.), 197b" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9398" RevisionGUID="2a26b98e-5a5a-4328-8e13-289ede8bfda6" CreationDate="2019-04-02T23:20:24.780" UserId="9" Comment="added 179 characters in body" Text="Well, I don't have an answer, but I found some additional information that I will post here because I don't want to make the question too long. It might be considered the rudiments of an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found any evidence to support the idea that these names belonged to the neuter gender in Greek any more than *-ium* names belonged to the neuter gender in Latin. Even though diminutive nouns formed with the suffix *-ιον* are neuter as a rule (e.g. *τὸ παιδίον* or *τὸ γύναιον*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;), there seem to be examples of womens' names ending in *-ιον* taking the *feminine* article, which implies that these names are not neuter but feminine. In contrast, I haven't yet found an example of a woman's name being used with any kind of neuter agreement in Greek. (From a theoretical viewpoint, neuter agreement doesn't seem too implausible. As far as I can tell, it is possible to use a neuter article in German with the diminutive name &quot;Gretchen&quot;, as in &quot;das arme Gretchen&quot;, although Otto Jespersen indicates that feminine agreement may also be an option—I asked a question to check about that situation [on German SE](https://german.stackexchange.com/questions/50463/das-arme-gretchen-oder-die-arme-gretchen).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Grammars that indicate that *-ιον* names take feminine agreement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently Priscian, in his *Institutiones Grammaticae,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  identifies some female names from Greek that end in *–on* and take a feminine article (i.e. demonstrative) but decline like a neuter noun in –um e.g. *ἡ Δόρκιον haec Dorcium, ἡ Γλυκέριον haec Glycerium, ἡ Χρύσιον haec Chrysium,* etc. (VI: 24). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*The Western Classical Tradition in Linguistics,* 2nd ed., by Keith Allan, 2009, p. 116)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example of ἡ Γλυκέριον is also given in [Smyth's *Greek Grammar* (1st ed.), 199d](https://www.ccel.org/s/smyth/grammar/html/smyth_2a_uni.htm#199d).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a discussion [here](https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&amp;t=68037) that indicates that Smyth may not be the best source for information about this kind of thing. There are also some pointers to other sources (namely, a suggestion by Timothée to consult &quot;Schwyzer—Debrunner, p. 37.&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Specific quotations that show feminine grammatical agreement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; TKR pointed out in a comment that the first entry in the linked discussion cites an occurrence of &quot;ἡ Λυκαίνιον&quot; in [*Daphnis &amp; Chloe* by Longus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Longus+3.15&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0642).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard for me to figure out what this example tells us. A discussion on the talk page of the [Wikipedia entry for *Daphnis and Chloe*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daphnis_and_Chloe) indicates that it may have been written anywhere from 100 - 400 AD, possibly by someone who did not &quot;write as a native ancient Greek speaker&quot; (I'm not sure whether the suggested alternative native language for Longus would be non-ancient Greek, or Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Citations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Smyth's Greek Grammar (1st ed.), 197b" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9400" RevisionGUID="4933d471-db8d-425d-8c30-ff6406eec390" CreationDate="2019-04-03T00:22:18.147" UserId="406" Text="In Classical times, the first singular ablative pronoun  (&quot;from me&quot;) was _mē_, with a long *ē*. However, the older form seems to have been *med*, with a final *-d*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know whether this earlier form was *med* or *mēd*? In other words, was the vowel long or short? Evidence from etymology, or poetry, or an apex in an inscription, etc, would all be appreciated: since it's an older form, I doubt there'll be as many attestations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29341" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9400" RevisionGUID="4933d471-db8d-425d-8c30-ff6406eec390" CreationDate="2019-04-03T00:22:18.147" UserId="406" Text="Was the old ablative pronoun &quot;med&quot; or &quot;mēd&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29342" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9400" RevisionGUID="4933d471-db8d-425d-8c30-ff6406eec390" CreationDate="2019-04-03T00:22:18.147" UserId="406" Text="|pronouns|vowel-quantity|old-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9401" RevisionGUID="88f7b5c5-c4b9-4ca3-8137-e63a84da911d" CreationDate="2019-04-03T00:35:22.350" UserId="406" Text="As Sumelic and Alex B have noted, it's almost certain that vowels became a bit nasalized before nasal consonants. This is somewhat of a universal in phonetics. Different languages nasalize the vowels to different extents (e.g. English has a *lot* more nasalization than Italian), but some amount of nasalization is a given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_However…_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In three particular environments, there's evidence that the nasal consonant disappeared entirely, leaving the nasalized vowel on its own. Those environments seem to be *-Vm*, *-Vns-*, and *-Vnf-*, where `V` stands for &quot;any vowel&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's some solid Classical evidence for this: final *-Vm* elides in poetry, for example, while no other final consonant does, and the word *cōnsul* is generally abbreviated *COS*. But there's also evidence from the Romance languages, where we see e.g. *-Vm* turning into plain *-V* in inflectional endings, and vowels before *-ns-* and *-nf* always acting long. This doesn't happen in other environments, where e.g. the *n* in *erunt* and the *m* in *amat* show through clearly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. In Romance, final nasals notably *don't* disappear in one-syllable words, so *sum* and *rem* keep their *m*s. This is also the only time they're ever in stressed syllables. I don't know if that reflects any Classical reality or just a later change." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="2b34f9ff-0ff5-4fe3-9928-642663937bea" CreationDate="2019-04-03T00:59:45.770" UserId="9" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="A pronunciation like [sũːmʊs] for *summus* in Classical Latin seems rather unlikely considering that the Italian reflex is *[sommo](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/sommo)* [somːo] and not [suːmo].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, the letter M in Latin is thought to have represented the consonant /m/ in any position but word-final.* So *sumus, summus, amplecti, sumpsisti* are something like [sʊmʊs], [sʊmːʊs], [amplɛktiː], [suːmpsɪstiː]. It seems plausible that the vowels preceding [m] in these words were pronounced with some amount of phonetic nasalization, but this kind of &quot;nasal vowel&quot; wouldn't have been phonologically distinct from a regular Latin vowel phoneme: the presence of nasalization here would be entirely predictable from the phonological context (as is the case for vowel nasalization in present-day English, which isn't normally marked in phonetic transcriptions). As far as I know, we don't have any actual evidence that these vowels were nasalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The (possible) presence of nasal vowels in word-final position, or before voiceless fricatives, is notable because we have evidence that the nasal consonants that originally conditioned the nasality of the vowels may have been lost in these two contexts, with &quot;compensatory&quot; lengthening of the vowel. We have clear evidence of the lengthening of vowels before *nf* and *ns*, and fairly clear evidence of the possible loss of *n* before *f* or *s* and of *m* in word-final position (particularly before a vowel). My understanding is that the existence of distinctively nasal long vowels in Latin (as opposed to non-nasal long vowels, or vowel + nasal consonant sequences) is mostly an inference, not something that we have clear evidence for (and so, as Alex B.'s answer mentions, it is a bit controversial).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The pronunciation of compound words where the first element ends in *m,* e.g. *circumeo,* is apparently doubtful. Andras Cser's &quot;[Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot; (2016) has a section on *circum-* (8.2.3.4.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="0afd032f-cecc-4add-98ff-b061c728b97e" CreationDate="2019-04-03T01:16:06.230" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="A pronunciation like [sũːmʊs] for *summus* in Classical Latin seems rather unlikely considering that the Italian reflex is *[sommo](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/sommo)* [somːo] and not [suːmo].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, the letter M in Latin is thought to have represented the consonant /m/ in any position but word-final.* So *sumus, summus, amplecti, sumpsisti* are something like [sʊmʊs], [sʊmːʊs], [amplɛktiː], [suːmpsɪstiː]. It seems plausible that the vowels preceding [m] in these words were pronounced with some amount of phonetic nasalization, but this kind of &quot;nasal vowel&quot; wouldn't have been phonologically distinct from a regular Latin vowel phoneme: the presence of nasalization here would be entirely predictable from the phonological context (as is the case for vowel nasalization in present-day English, which isn't normally marked in phonetic transcriptions). I don't know of any actual evidence that these vowels were nasalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The (possible) presence of nasal vowels in word-final position, or before voiceless fricatives, is notable because we have evidence that the nasal consonants that originally conditioned the nasality of the vowels may have been lost in these two contexts, with &quot;compensatory&quot; lengthening of the vowel. We have clear evidence of the lengthening of vowels before *nf* and *ns*, and fairly clear evidence of the possible loss of *n* before *f* or *s* and of *m* in word-final position (particularly before a vowel). My understanding is that the existence of distinctively nasal long vowels in Latin (as opposed to non-nasal long vowels, or vowel + nasal consonant sequences) is mostly an inference, not something that we have clear evidence for (and so, as Alex B.'s answer mentions, it is a bit controversial).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The pronunciation of compound words where the first element ends in *m* and the second element starts with a vowel, e.g. *circumeo,* is apparently doubtful. Andras Cser's &quot;[Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot; (2016) has a section on *circum-* (8.2.3.4.). Before a nasal consonant, however, word-final **m** is supposed to have been pronounced as a consonant, forming a geminate, so a word like circummunio* would presumably have been pronounced with [ʊmːuː]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="b9f57fa5-3131-46be-aba2-3873e581fe28" CreationDate="2019-04-03T01:24:37.147" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="A pronunciation like [sũːmʊs] for *summus* in Classical Latin seems rather unlikely considering that the Italian reflex is *[sommo](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/sommo)* [somːo] and not [suːmo].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, the letter M in Latin is thought to have represented the consonant /m/ in any position but word-final.* So *sumus, summus, amplecti, sumpsisti* are something like [sʊmʊs], [sʊmːʊs], [amplɛktiː], [suːmpsɪstiː]. It seems plausible that the vowels preceding [m] in these words were pronounced with some amount of phonetic nasalization, but this kind of &quot;nasal vowel&quot; wouldn't have been phonologically distinct from a regular Latin vowel phoneme: the presence of nasalization here would be entirely predictable from the phonological context (as is the case for vowel nasalization in present-day English, which isn't normally marked in phonetic transcriptions). I don't know of any actual evidence that these vowels were nasalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The (possible) presence of nasal vowels in word-final position, or before voiceless fricatives, is notable because we have evidence that the nasal consonants that originally conditioned the nasality of the vowels may have been lost in these two contexts, with &quot;compensatory&quot; lengthening of the vowel. We have clear evidence of the lengthening of vowels before *nf* and *ns*, and fairly clear evidence of the possible loss of *n* before *f* or *s* and of *m* in word-final position (particularly before a vowel). My understanding is that the existence of distinctively nasal long vowels in Latin (as opposed to non-nasal long vowels, or vowel + nasal consonant sequences) is mostly an inference, not something that we have clear evidence for (and so, as Alex B.'s answer mentions, it is a bit controversial).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Compounds might be a bit unclear in some cases&#xD;&#xA;*The pronunciation of compound words where the first element ends in *m* and the second element starts with a vowel, e.g. *circumeo,* is apparently doubtful. Andras Cser's &quot;[Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot; (2016) has a section on *circum-* (8.2.3.4.). Before a nasal consonant, however, the probable pronunciation of elements like *circum-* seems fairly clear: in this context, word-final **m** is supposed to have been pronounced as a nasal consonant, forming a geminate, so a word like *circummunio* would have been pronounced presumably with [ʊmːuː] and a word like *circumnavigo* possibly with [ʊnːaː] (even though /mn/ was a possible word-internal consonant cluster in Latin, assimilation of word-final *m* to the place of a following /n/ is suggested by Cicero's pun on *\*cum nobis* and *cunnobis*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9388" RevisionGUID="ff5e2cb0-2c0f-422c-960c-ff3ad3733250" CreationDate="2019-04-03T01:45:01.167" UserId="9" Comment="added 582 characters in body" Text="There seem to be a number of examples of personal names ending in *-um* in the works of Plautus (apparently, they also show up in Terence&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;). In a discussion on Wiktionary, I found an interesting [comment by the editor Smurrayinchester](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:Pyrgopolynices#Deletion_discussion) which makes the point that at least some of the names found in Plautus' plays &quot;aren't Latin names any more than Nanki-Poo or Obi-Wan Kenobi are English names&quot;, and cites a text that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there are good reasons to believe that Plautus invented many of his characters' names, especially those with humorous Greek etymologies. [...] The *-ium* at the end of courtesans' names is derived from an affectionate Greek diminutive; *Philocomasium* means &quot;Love a Party&quot; and *Acroleutium* &quot;The Absolute End&quot;. We cannot tell how many members of Plautus' Roman audience knew enough Greek to appreciate these etymologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;[Introduction to Miles Gloriosus][smith]&quot;, by Peter L. Smith, in *Plautus: Three Comedies,* (1991), p. 13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much evidence do we have for names ending in *(i)um* being used in Latin outside of fictional contexts? Naively, I would assume that if Plautus used this ending extensively in his plays, he would expect his audiences to at least be familiar with personal names ending in *-(i)um*, even if they didn't know enough Greek to identify all of the meaningful elements of the names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a brief mention of such names in a section of &quot;[Some Roman Slave-names](https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/slave-names_bruce.pdf)&quot; by F. F. Bruce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Greek diminutives in *-ιον,* mainly names of women [...]&#xD;&#xA;appear in Latin with the ending *-ium* as well [as the ending *-io*]. Thus *Φιλημάτιον* takes in Latin the forms Philematium and (as here) Philematio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bruce lists many inscriptional examples of names ending in *-io;* some examples of names written with the ending *-ion;* but as far as I can see no examples of inscriptions that spell a name with *-ium.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Citations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Henry John Roby, *[Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius, Part 1][roby],* p. 106&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[roby]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA106&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[smith]: https://books.google.de/books?id=Aj-5l63TFxwC&amp;pg=PA13&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9388" RevisionGUID="939a07ea-10af-4c0d-bf90-c2cf4adda747" CreationDate="2019-04-03T01:50:44.600" UserId="9" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="There seem to be a number of examples of personal names ending in *-um* in the works of Plautus (apparently, they also show up in Terence&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;). In a discussion on Wiktionary, I found an interesting [comment by the editor Smurrayinchester](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:Pyrgopolynices#Deletion_discussion) which makes the point that at least some of the names found in Plautus' plays &quot;aren't Latin names any more than Nanki-Poo or Obi-Wan Kenobi are English names&quot;, and cites a text that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there are good reasons to believe that Plautus invented many of his characters' names, especially those with humorous Greek etymologies. [...] The *-ium* at the end of courtesans' names is derived from an affectionate Greek diminutive; *Philocomasium* means &quot;Love a Party&quot; and *Acroleutium* &quot;The Absolute End&quot;. We cannot tell how many members of Plautus' Roman audience knew enough Greek to appreciate these etymologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;[Introduction to Miles Gloriosus][smith]&quot;, by Peter L. Smith, in *Plautus: Three Comedies,* (1991), p. 13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much evidence do we have for names ending in *(i)um* being used in Latin outside of fictional contexts? Naively, I would assume that if Plautus used this ending extensively in his plays, he would expect his audiences to at least be familiar with personal names ending in *-(i)um*, even if they didn't know enough Greek to identify all of the meaningful elements of the names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a brief mention of such names in a section of &quot;[Some Roman Slave-names](https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/slave-names_bruce.pdf)&quot; by F. F. Bruce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Greek diminutives in *-ιον,* mainly names of women [...]&#xD;&#xA;appear in Latin with the ending *-ium* as well [as the ending *-io*]. Thus *Φιλημάτιον* takes in Latin the forms Philematium and (as here) Philematio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bruce lists many inscriptional examples of names ending in *-io;* some examples of names written with the ending *-ion;* but as far as I can see no examples of inscriptions that spell a name with *-ium.* (There are some other sources for names ending in *-io* and *-ion.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Citations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Henry John Roby, *[Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius, Part 1][roby],* p. 106&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[roby]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA106&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[smith]: https://books.google.de/books?id=Aj-5l63TFxwC&amp;pg=PA13&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9402" RevisionGUID="8f4ddbdc-27c3-439b-b04d-71f950b2912b" CreationDate="2019-04-03T01:55:27.780" UserId="1694" Text="This is what Andrew Sihler says in his _New Comparitive Grammar of Greek and Latin_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abl.sg. L. _mē_, _tē_, _sē_, are from OL _mēd_, _tēd_, _sēd_, with the same&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ablative _-d_ as in nouns and other pronouns.  Cf. Ved. _mát_, _tvát_, ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whose short vowels, being unexpected, are likely to be faithful to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; original state of affairs.  The significance of the long vowels in L.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is ambiguous; they may be from lengthening in monosyllables, but are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more likely to be importations from the otherwise ubiquitous long&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vowels in the abl. ending of various noun classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9402" RevisionGUID="8f535817-c1ed-433e-8dc7-7302f6cad70f" CreationDate="2019-04-03T02:02:23.047" UserId="1694" Comment="edited body" Text="This is what Andrew Sihler says in his _New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Abl.sg. L. _mē_, _tē_, _sē_, are from OL _mēd_, _tēd_, _sēd_, with the same&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ablative _-d_ as in nouns and other pronouns.  Cf. Ved. _mát_, _tvát_, ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whose short vowels, being unexpected, are likely to be faithful to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; original state of affairs.  The significance of the long vowels in L.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is ambiguous; they may be from lengthening in monosyllables, but are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more likely to be importations from the otherwise ubiquitous long&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vowels in the abl. ending of various noun classes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29351" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9400" RevisionGUID="26117cd6-da71-47b2-b50f-b38c38104280" CreationDate="2019-04-03T02:35:57.513" />
  <row Id="29352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9387" RevisionGUID="8eea0305-a8f9-46f2-82fb-c42ca31baea2" CreationDate="2019-04-03T04:58:19.617" UserId="985" Comment="Expanded" Text="In Petronius, *Satyricon* 64, Trimalchio's favorite, Croesus, has an 'indecently fat black puppy' (*catellam nigram atque indecenter pinguem*) named Margarita, which means 'pearl', and Trimalchio himself has a dog, the 'bulwark of the house and household' (*praesidium domus familiaeque*) named Scylax, which is Greek for 'young dog' or 'puppy'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the meantime, though this doesn't really qualify as a pet, since I thought of it and went to the effort of finding it, there's also this late 2nd-century (CE) inscription from Rome for a racing horse named Euthydikos ('righteous-judging'). It was found on the Aventine, near the Circus Maximus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; στήλη μαρμαρέη  &#xD;&#xA;τίνος εἶ τάφος;  &#xD;&#xA;ὠκέος ἵππου.  &#xD;&#xA;τίς δ' ὄνομα; Εὐθύδικος.  &#xD;&#xA;τί κλέος; ἀθλοφόρος.  &#xD;&#xA;ποσ&lt;σ&gt;άκις ἐστέφθης δρόμον;  &#xD;&#xA;πολλάκις. τί δ' ἔλαέν μιν;  &#xD;&#xA;κοίρανος. ὢ τιμῆς  &#xD;&#xA;κρέσσ&lt;ο&gt;νος ἡμιθέων.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marble slab, whose tomb are you? That of a swift horse. Who by name? Euthydikos. What was his fame? As a prizewinner. How many times was he crowned for racing? Often. Who drove him? The ruler. O honor superior to that of the demigods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(From Guarducci, *L'epigrafia greca dalle origine al tardo impero*, pp 414–416; photo on p 415)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 2 names from Petronius appear elsewhere as names for dogs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *De re rustica* 7.12.13, Columella actually gives his recommendations for the names of dogs, both male and female. One of the recommendations is Scylax:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nominibus autem non longissimis appellandi sunt, quo celerius quisque uocatus exaudiat, nec tamen breuioribus quam quae duabus syllabis enuntiantur, sicuti Graecum est **Σκύλαξ**, Latinum Ferox, Graecum Λάκων, Latinum Celer, uel femina, ut sunt Graeca Σπουδή, Ἀλκή, Ῥώμη, Latina Lupa, Cerua, Tigris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They should be called by names that aren't overly long, so that each may heed more quickly here when it has been called, but neverthless not by names shorter than what are pronounced in 2 syllables, like the Greek name **Scylax** ['Pup'], the Latin name Ferox ['Fierce'], the Greek Lakōn ['Spartan'], Latin Celer ['Swift'], or feminine, such as are Greek Spoudē ['Zeal'], Alkē ['Prowess'], Rhomē ['Might'], and Latin Lupa ['She-wolf'], Cerva ['Doe'], Tigris ['Tigress'].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL) VI.29896 includes, in the short section headed 'Canum sepulcra', an epitaph for a dog named Margarita:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gallia me genuit nomen mihi divitis undae  &#xD;&#xA;concha dedit formae nominis aptus honos  &#xD;&#xA;docta per incertas audax discurrere silvas  &#xD;&#xA;collibus hirsutas atque agitare feras  &#xD;&#xA;non gravibus vinclis unquam consueta teneri  &#xD;&#xA;verbera nec niveo corpore saeva pati  &#xD;&#xA;molli namque sinu domini dominaeque iacebam  &#xD;&#xA;et noram in strato lassa cubare toro  &#xD;&#xA;et plus quam licuit muto canis ore loquebar  &#xD;&#xA;nulli latratus pertimuere meos  &#xD;&#xA;sed iam fata subii partu iactata sinistro  &#xD;&#xA;quam nunc sub parvo marmore terra tegit  &#xD;&#xA;**Margarita**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Incidentally, the other inscription in that section of vol. 6, pt. 4, fasc. 1 of CIL, VI.29895, records a marble tablet that shows a relief of a dog and, under it, the word AMINNARACUS, apparently the dog's name. I'm not sure what that would mean though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="409c4df5-4c0d-4bac-8716-9b09896e1ed7" CreationDate="2019-04-03T06:47:25.480" UserId="9" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="A pronunciation like [sũːmʊs] for *summus* in Classical Latin seems rather unlikely considering that the Italian reflex is *[sommo](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/sommo)* [somːo] and not [suːmo].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, the letter M in Latin is thought to have represented the nasal consonant /m/ in any position but word-final (and excluding compound words, which I will discuss in the section below)*. So *sumus, summus, amplecti, sumpsisti* are something like [sʊmʊs], [sʊmːʊs], [amplɛktiː], [suːmpsɪstiː]. It seems plausible that the vowels preceding [m] in these words were pronounced with some amount of phonetic nasalization, but this kind of &quot;nasal vowel&quot; wouldn't have been phonologically distinct from a regular Latin vowel phoneme: the presence of nasalization here would be entirely predictable from the phonological context (as is the case for vowel nasalization in present-day English, which isn't normally marked in phonetic transcriptions). I don't know of any actual evidence that these vowels were nasalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The (possible) presence of nasal vowels in word-final position, or before voiceless fricatives, is notable because we have evidence that the nasal consonants that originally conditioned the nasality of the vowels may have been lost in these two contexts, with &quot;compensatory&quot; lengthening of the vowel. We have clear evidence of the lengthening of vowels before *nf* and *ns*, and fairly clear evidence of the possible loss of *n* before *f* or *s* and of *m* in word-final position (particularly before a vowel). My understanding is that the existence of distinctively nasal long vowels in Latin (as opposed to non-nasal long vowels, or vowel + nasal consonant sequences) is mostly an inference, not something that we have clear evidence for (and so, as Alex B.'s answer mentions, it is a bit controversial).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*Compounds might be a bit unclear in some cases&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation of compound words where the first element ends in *m* and the second element starts with a vowel, e.g. *circumeo,* is apparently doubtful. Andras Cser's &quot;[Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot; (2016) has a section on *circum-* (8.2.3.4.). In some forms of *circumeo,* it was common to not write the letter M (e.g. *circuit*), which could be interpreted as an indication that nasality was totally lost in these forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before a nasal consonant, however, the probable pronunciation of elements like *circum-* seems fairly clear: in this context, word-final M is supposed to have been pronounced as a nasal consonant, forming a geminate, so a word like *circummunio* would have been pronounced presumably with [ʊmːuː] and a word like *circumnavigo* possibly with [ʊnːaː] (even though /mn/ was a possible word-internal consonant cluster in Latin, assimilation of word-final M to the place of a following /n/ is suggested by Cicero's pun on *\*cum nobis* and *cunnobis*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="3ec0f238-80ce-4b37-9ec5-6fec316d7a0a" CreationDate="2019-04-03T07:06:07.603" UserId="9" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="A pronunciation like [sũːmʊs] for *summus* in Classical Latin seems rather unlikely considering that the Italian reflex is *[sommo](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/sommo)* [somːo] and not [suːmo].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, the letter M in Latin is thought to have represented the nasal consonant /m/ in any position but word-final (and excluding compound words, which I will discuss in the section below)*. So *sumus, summus, amplecti, sumpsisti* are something like [sʊmʊs], [sʊmːʊs], [amplɛktiː], [suːmpsɪstiː]. It seems plausible that the vowels preceding [m] in these words were pronounced with some amount of phonetic nasalization, but this kind of &quot;nasal vowel&quot; wouldn't have been phonologically distinct from a regular Latin vowel phoneme: the presence of nasalization here would be entirely predictable from the phonological context (as is the case for vowel nasalization in present-day English, which isn't normally marked in phonetic transcriptions). I don't know of any actual evidence that these vowels were nasalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The (possible) presence of nasal vowels in word-final position, or before voiceless fricatives, is notable because we have evidence that the nasal consonants that originally conditioned the nasality of the vowels may have been lost in these two contexts, with &quot;compensatory&quot; lengthening of the vowel. We have clear evidence of the lengthening of vowels before *nf* and *ns*, and fairly clear evidence of the possible loss of *n* before *f* or *s* and of *m* in word-final position (particularly before a vowel). My understanding is that the existence of distinctively nasal long vowels in Latin (as opposed to non-nasal long vowels, or vowel + nasal consonant sequences) is mostly an inference, not something that we have clear evidence for (and so, as Alex B.'s answer mentions, it is a bit controversial).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*Compounds might be a bit unclear in some cases&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation of compound words where the first element ends in *m* and the second element starts with a vowel, e.g. *circumeo,* is apparently doubtful. Andras Cser's &quot;[Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot; (2016) has a section on *circum-* (8.2.3.4.). In some forms of *circumeo,* it was common to not write the letter M (e.g. *circuit*), which could be interpreted as an indication that nasality was totally lost in these forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before a nasal consonant, however, the probable pronunciation of elements like *circum-* seems fairly clear: in this context, word-final M is supposed to have been pronounced as a nasal consonant, forming a geminate, so a word like *circummunio* would have been pronounced presumably with [ʊmːuː] and a word like *circumnavigo* possibly with [ʊnːaː] (even though /mn/ was a possible word-internal consonant cluster in Latin, assimilation of word-final M to the place of a following /n/ is suggested by Cicero's pun on *\*cum nobis* and *cunnobis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Place assimilation is assumed to have turned originally word-final M into [m] before P B, [n] before T D, and [ŋ] before C G. For some words, we have evidence for these changes in the form of a spelling with N: thus *eam* + *-dem* &gt; *eandem.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The behavior before approximants seems to be less certain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="afde8288-ff19-4a9f-97f5-7b9ceff61321" CreationDate="2019-04-03T07:14:10.437" UserId="9" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="A pronunciation like [sũːmʊs] for *summus* in Classical Latin seems rather unlikely considering that the Italian reflex is *[sommo](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/sommo)* [somːo] and not [suːmo].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, the letter M in Latin is thought to have represented the nasal consonant /m/ in any position but word-final (and excluding compound words, which I will discuss in the section below)*. So *sumus, summus, amplecti, sumpsisti* are something like [sʊmʊs], [sʊmːʊs], [amplɛktiː], [suːmpsɪstiː]. It seems plausible that the vowels preceding [m] in these words were pronounced with some amount of phonetic nasalization, but this kind of &quot;nasal vowel&quot; wouldn't have been phonologically distinct from a regular Latin vowel phoneme: the presence of nasalization here would be entirely predictable from the phonological context (as is the case for vowel nasalization in present-day English, which isn't normally marked in phonetic transcriptions). I don't know of any actual evidence that these vowels were nasalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The (possible) presence of nasal vowels in word-final position, or before voiceless fricatives, is notable because we have evidence that the nasal consonants that originally conditioned the nasality of the vowels may have been lost in these two contexts, with &quot;compensatory&quot; lengthening of the vowel. We have clear evidence of the lengthening of vowels before *nf* and *ns*, and fairly clear evidence of the possible loss of *n* before *f* or *s* and of *m* in word-final position (particularly before a vowel). My understanding is that the existence of distinctively nasal long vowels in Latin (as opposed to non-nasal long vowels, or vowel + nasal consonant sequences) is mostly an inference, not something that we have clear evidence for (and so, as Alex B.'s answer mentions, it is a bit controversial).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*The pronunciation of M inside compounds might be a bit unclear in some cases&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation of certain compound words where the first element ends in *m* and the second element starts with a vowel, e.g. *circumeo,* is apparently doubtful. Andras Cser's &quot;[Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot; (2016) has a section on *circum-* (8.2.3.4.). In some forms of *circumeo,* it was common to not write the letter M (e.g. *circuit*), which could be interpreted as an indication that nasality was totally lost in these forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Place assimilation is assumed to have turned originally word-final M into [m] before [p b], [n] before [t d], and [ŋ] before [k g]. For some words, we have evidence for these changes in the form of a spelling with N: thus *eam* + *-dem* &gt; *eandem.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of place assimilation is thought to have applied, even when unwritten, to the M that occurs as part of inflectional suffixes. So the form &quot;uirumque&quot;, with the enclitic *-que,* probably would have been pronounced without an [m] sound: something like [wɪˈrʊŋkwɛ]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="0bd3c9f3-354f-4b73-81ab-8155e17c1b50" CreationDate="2019-04-03T07:28:31.990" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 26 characters in body" Text="A pronunciation like [sũːmʊs] for *summus* in Classical Latin seems rather unlikely considering that the Italian reflex is *[sommo](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/sommo)* [somːo] and not [suːmo].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, the letter M in Latin is thought to have represented the nasal consonant [m] in any position but word-final (and excluding compound words, which I will discuss in the section below)*. So *sumus, summus, amplecti, sumpsisti* are something like [sʊmʊs], [sʊmːʊs], [amplɛktiː], [suːmpsɪstiː]. It seems plausible that the vowels preceding [m] in these words were pronounced with some amount of phonetic nasalization, but this kind of &quot;nasal vowel&quot; wouldn't have been phonologically distinct from a regular Latin vowel phoneme: the presence of nasalization here would be entirely predictable from the phonological context (as is the case for vowel nasalization in present-day English, which isn't normally marked in phonetic transcriptions). I don't know of any actual evidence that these vowels were nasalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The (possible) presence of nasal vowels in word-final position, or before voiceless fricatives, is notable because we have evidence that the nasal consonants that originally conditioned the nasality of the vowels may have been lost in these two contexts, with &quot;compensatory&quot; lengthening of the vowel. We have clear evidence of the lengthening of vowels before NF and NS, and fairly clear evidence of the possible loss of N before F or S, and of M in word-final position before a vowel. My understanding is that the existence of distinctively nasal long vowels in Latin (as opposed to non-nasal long vowels, or vowel + nasal consonant sequences) is mostly an inference, not something that we have clear evidence for (and so, as Alex B.'s answer mentions, it is a bit controversial).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*The pronunciation of M inside compounds might be a bit unclear in some cases&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation of certain compound words where the first element ends in *m* and the second element starts with a vowel, e.g. *circumeo,* is apparently doubtful. Andras Cser's &quot;[Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot; (2016) has a section on *circum-* (8.2.3.4.). In some forms of *circumeo,* it was common to not write the letter M (e.g. *circuit*), which could be interpreted as an indication that nasality was totally lost in these forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Place assimilation is assumed to have turned originally word-final M into [m] before [p b], [n] before [t d], and [ŋ] before [k g]. For some words, we have evidence for these changes in the form of a spelling with N: thus *eam* + *-dem* &gt; *eandem.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of place assimilation is thought to have applied, even when unwritten, to the M that occurs as part of inflectional suffixes. So the form &quot;uirumque&quot;, with the enclitic *-que,* probably would have been pronounced without an [m] sound as something like [wɪˈrʊŋkwɛ]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9399" RevisionGUID="a9bcf97a-c05d-4dd2-9970-af56bcfc8e0a" CreationDate="2019-04-03T07:45:51.363" UserId="867" Comment="fixed up translations of Ovid's dog names" Text="Martial wrote a poem about Publius' dog called **Issa**.  It begins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Issa est passere nequior Catulli,   &#xD;&#xA;Issa est purior osculo columbae,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Issa est blandior omnibus puellis,   &#xD;&#xA;Issa est carior Indicis lapillis,  &#xD;&#xA;Issa est deliciae catella Publi.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Issa is naughtier than Catullus’ sparrow,   &#xD;&#xA;Issa is purer than a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dove’s kiss,    &#xD;&#xA;Issa is more winning than any girl,    &#xD;&#xA;Issa is more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; precious than Indian pearls,    &#xD;&#xA;Issa is a lapdog, Publius’ darling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Epigrams*, 1.109.1-5 (trans. D. R. Shackleton-Bailey)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole poem is uncharacteristically sweet.  If it's actually full of euphemisms for sordidness, like so much of Martial, please don't tell me.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, Ovid names *some* of Actaeon's dogs in the *Metamorphoses*, 3.206-225:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dum dubitat, videre canes, primique Melampus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ichnobatesque sagax latratu signa dedere,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cnosius Ichnobates, Spartana gente Melampus.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; inde ruunt alii rapida velocius aura,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pamphagos et Dorceus et Oribasos, Arcades omnes,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nebrophonosque valens et trux cum Laelape Theron  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et pedibus Pterelas et naribus utilis Agre  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hylaeusque ferox nuper percussus ab apro  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; deque lupo concepta Nape pecudesque secuta  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Poemenis et natis comitata Harpyia duobus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et substricta gerens Sicyonius ilia Ladon  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et Dromas et Canache Sticteque et Tigris et Alce  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et niveis Leucon et villis Asbolos atris  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; praevalidusque Lacon et cursu fortis Aello  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et Thoos et Cyprio velox cum fratre Lycisce  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et nigram medio frontem distinctus ab albo  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Harpalos et Melaneus hirsutaque corpore Lachne  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et patre Dictaeo, sed matre Laconide nati  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Labros et Argiodus et acutae vocis Hylactor*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But while he stands perplexed he sees his hounds. And first come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Melampus** and keen-scented **Ichnobates**, baying loud on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trail—Ichnobates a Cretan dog, Melampus a Spartan; then others come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rushing on swifter than the wind: **Pamphagus, Dorceus,** and **Oribasos**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arcadians all; staunch **Nebrophonos**, fierce **Theron** and **Laelaps**;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Pterelas**, the swift of foot, and keen-scented **Agre**; savage **Hylaeus**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but lately ripped up by a boar; the wolf-dog **Nape** and the trusty&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shepherd **Poemenis**; **Harpyia** with her two pups; Sicyonian **Ladon**, thin in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the flanks; **Dromas, Canache, Sticte, Tigris, Alce**; white-haired&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Leucon**, black **Asbolos**; **Lacon**, renowned for strength, and fleet **Aëllo**;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Thoos** and swift **Lycisce** with her brother **Cyprius**; **Harpalos**, with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; white spot in the middle of his black forehead; **Melaneus** and shaggy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lachne**; two dogs from a Cretan father and a Spartan mother, **Labros** and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Argiodus**; shrill-tongued **Hylactor** ...&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The English translations of these would be, in order (NB: revised since first posting):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Black-foot, Trail-follower, Voracious, Gazelle, Mountain-ranger, Faun-killer, Hunter (Theron from θήρα, hunting), Hurricane, Winged, Hunter (&quot;keen-scented&quot; Agre), Sylvan, Glen, Shepherd, Seizer, Catcher, Runner, Gnasher (or Noisy from καναχός), Spot, Tigress, Might, White, Soot, Spartan, Whirlwind, Swift (Thoos from θοός, quick, nimble), Lycisce (untranslated), Cyprian, Grasper, Black, Shaggy, Fury (Labros from λάβρος, furious), White-tooth (Argiodus a compound of ἀργής, white + ὀδούς, tooth), Barker (&quot;shrill-tongued&quot; Hylactor). (List adapted from trans. Frank Justus Miller, rev. G. P. Goold)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These seem to suggest that a pattern for naming dogs was simply to call them by their attributes.  Xenophon advises giving hunting dogs short names, &quot;so as to be able to call to them easily&quot;.  He continues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εἶναι δὲ χρὴ τοιάδε, Ψυχή, Θυμός, Πόρπαξ, Στύραξ, Λόγχη, Λόχος,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Φρουρά, Φύλαξ, Τάξις, Ξίφων, Φόναξ, Φλέγων, Ἀλκή, Τεύχων, Ὑλεύς,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Μήδας, Πόρθων, Σπέρχων, Ὀργή, Βρέμων, Ὕβρις, Θάλλων, Ῥώμη, Ἀνθεύς,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ἥβα, Γηθεύς, Χαρά, Λεύσσων, Αὐγώ, Πολύς, Βία, Στίχων, Σπουδή, Βρύας,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Οἰνάς, Στερρός, Κραύγη, Καίνων, Τύρβας, Σθένων, Αἰθήρ, Ἀκτίς, Αἰχμή,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Νόης, Γνώμη, Στίβων, Ὁρμή.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;The following are the right sort: Psyche, Thymus, Porpax, Styrax,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lonché, Lochus, Phrura, Phylax, Taxis, Xiphon, Phonax, Phlegon, Alcé,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Teuchon, Hyleus, Medas, Porthon, Sperchon, Orgé, Bremon, Hybris,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thallon, Rhomé, Antheus, Hebe, Getheus, Chara, Leusson, Augo, Polys,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bia, Stichon, Spudé, Bryas, Oenas, Sterrus, Craugé, Caenon, Tyrbas,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sthenon, Aether, Actis, Aechmé, Noës, Gnomé, Stibon, Elormé.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*On Hunting*, 7.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translators (Marchant &amp; Bowersock) note: &quot;The names are significant of the colour, strength, spirit, sagacity or behaviour of the hounds. Hebe and Psyche are still in the list of bitches’ names, and modern equivalents of several of the other names are in use, e.g. Lance (Lonché), Sentinel (Phylax), Ecstasy (Chara), Blueskin (Oenas), Crafty (Medas), Hasty (Sperchon), Vigorous (Thallon), Impetus (Hormé), Counsellor (Noës), Bustler (dog) or Hasty (bitch); cf. Sperchon. For Πολύς we should probably read Πολεύς, “Rover.”&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9399" RevisionGUID="de015a63-983e-4a14-8b4b-ae0fbc0234e1" CreationDate="2019-04-03T08:03:22.110" UserId="867" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Martial wrote a poem about Publius' dog called **Issa**.  It begins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Issa est passere nequior Catulli,   &#xD;&#xA;Issa est purior osculo columbae,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Issa est blandior omnibus puellis,   &#xD;&#xA;Issa est carior Indicis lapillis,  &#xD;&#xA;Issa est deliciae catella Publi.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Issa is naughtier than Catullus’ sparrow,   &#xD;&#xA;Issa is purer than a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dove’s kiss,    &#xD;&#xA;Issa is more winning than any girl,    &#xD;&#xA;Issa is more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; precious than Indian pearls,    &#xD;&#xA;Issa is a lapdog, Publius’ darling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Epigrams*, 1.109.1-5 (trans. D. R. Shackleton-Bailey)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole poem is uncharacteristically sweet.  If it's actually full of euphemisms for sordidness, like so much of Martial, please don't tell me.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, Ovid names *some* of Actaeon's dogs in the *Metamorphoses*, 3.206-225:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dum dubitat, videre canes, primique Melampus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ichnobatesque sagax latratu signa dedere,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cnosius Ichnobates, Spartana gente Melampus.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; inde ruunt alii rapida velocius aura,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pamphagos et Dorceus et Oribasos, Arcades omnes,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nebrophonosque valens et trux cum Laelape Theron  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et pedibus Pterelas et naribus utilis Agre  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hylaeusque ferox nuper percussus ab apro  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; deque lupo concepta Nape pecudesque secuta  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Poemenis et natis comitata Harpyia duobus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et substricta gerens Sicyonius ilia Ladon  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et Dromas et Canache Sticteque et Tigris et Alce  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et niveis Leucon et villis Asbolos atris  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; praevalidusque Lacon et cursu fortis Aello  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et Thoos et Cyprio velox cum fratre Lycisce  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et nigram medio frontem distinctus ab albo  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Harpalos et Melaneus hirsutaque corpore Lachne  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et patre Dictaeo, sed matre Laconide nati  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Labros et Argiodus et acutae vocis Hylactor*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But while he stands perplexed he sees his hounds. And first come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Melampus** and keen-scented **Ichnobates**, baying loud on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trail—Ichnobates a Cretan dog, Melampus a Spartan; then others come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rushing on swifter than the wind: **Pamphagus, Dorceus,** and **Oribasos**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arcadians all; staunch **Nebrophonos**, fierce **Theron** and **Laelaps**;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Pterelas**, the swift of foot, and keen-scented **Agre**; savage **Hylaeus**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but lately ripped up by a boar; the wolf-dog **Nape** and the trusty&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shepherd **Poemenis**; **Harpyia** with her two pups; Sicyonian **Ladon**, thin in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the flanks; **Dromas, Canache, Sticte, Tigris, Alce**; white-haired&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Leucon**, black **Asbolos**; **Lacon**, renowned for strength, and fleet **Aëllo**;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Thoos** and swift **Lycisce** with her brother **Cyprius**; **Harpalos**, with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; white spot in the middle of his black forehead; **Melaneus** and shaggy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lachne**; two dogs from a Cretan father and a Spartan mother, **Labros** and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Argiodus**; shrill-tongued **Hylactor** ...&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The English translations of these would be, in order (NB: revised since first posting):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Black-foot, Trail-follower, Voracious, Gazelle, Mountain-ranger, Faun-killer, Hunter (Theron from θήρα, hunting), Hurricane, Winged, Hunter (&quot;keen-scented&quot; Agre), Sylvan, Glen, Shepherd, Seizer, Catcher, Runner, Gnasher (or Noisy from καναχός), Spot, Tigress, Might, White, Soot, Spartan, Whirlwind, Swift (Thoos from θοός, quick, nimble), Lycisce (untranslated), Cyprian, Grasper, Black, Shaggy, Fury (Labros from λάβρος, furious), White-tooth (Argiodus a compound of ἀργής, white + ὀδούς, tooth), Barker (Hylactor from ὑλακτέω, to bark or howl). (List adapted from trans. Frank Justus Miller, rev. G. P. Goold)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These seem to suggest that a pattern for naming dogs was simply to call them by their attributes.  Xenophon advises giving hunting dogs short names, &quot;so as to be able to call to them easily&quot;.  He continues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εἶναι δὲ χρὴ τοιάδε, Ψυχή, Θυμός, Πόρπαξ, Στύραξ, Λόγχη, Λόχος,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Φρουρά, Φύλαξ, Τάξις, Ξίφων, Φόναξ, Φλέγων, Ἀλκή, Τεύχων, Ὑλεύς,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Μήδας, Πόρθων, Σπέρχων, Ὀργή, Βρέμων, Ὕβρις, Θάλλων, Ῥώμη, Ἀνθεύς,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ἥβα, Γηθεύς, Χαρά, Λεύσσων, Αὐγώ, Πολύς, Βία, Στίχων, Σπουδή, Βρύας,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Οἰνάς, Στερρός, Κραύγη, Καίνων, Τύρβας, Σθένων, Αἰθήρ, Ἀκτίς, Αἰχμή,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Νόης, Γνώμη, Στίβων, Ὁρμή.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;The following are the right sort: Psyche, Thymus, Porpax, Styrax,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lonché, Lochus, Phrura, Phylax, Taxis, Xiphon, Phonax, Phlegon, Alcé,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Teuchon, Hyleus, Medas, Porthon, Sperchon, Orgé, Bremon, Hybris,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thallon, Rhomé, Antheus, Hebe, Getheus, Chara, Leusson, Augo, Polys,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bia, Stichon, Spudé, Bryas, Oenas, Sterrus, Craugé, Caenon, Tyrbas,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sthenon, Aether, Actis, Aechmé, Noës, Gnomé, Stibon, Elormé.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*On Hunting*, 7.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translators (Marchant &amp; Bowersock) note: &quot;The names are significant of the colour, strength, spirit, sagacity or behaviour of the hounds. Hebe and Psyche are still in the list of bitches’ names, and modern equivalents of several of the other names are in use, e.g. Lance (Lonché), Sentinel (Phylax), Ecstasy (Chara), Blueskin (Oenas), Crafty (Medas), Hasty (Sperchon), Vigorous (Thallon), Impetus (Hormé), Counsellor (Noës), Bustler (dog) or Hasty (bitch); cf. Sperchon. For Πολύς we should probably read Πολεύς, “Rover.”&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9399" RevisionGUID="910e0724-f9d7-4373-bc93-e1b3a1ef7b7a" CreationDate="2019-04-03T08:09:28.487" UserId="867" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Martial wrote a poem about Publius' dog called **Issa**.  It begins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Issa est passere nequior Catulli,   &#xD;&#xA;Issa est purior osculo columbae,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Issa est blandior omnibus puellis,   &#xD;&#xA;Issa est carior Indicis lapillis,  &#xD;&#xA;Issa est deliciae catella Publi.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Issa is naughtier than Catullus’ sparrow,   &#xD;&#xA;Issa is purer than a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dove’s kiss,    &#xD;&#xA;Issa is more winning than any girl,    &#xD;&#xA;Issa is more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; precious than Indian pearls,    &#xD;&#xA;Issa is a lapdog, Publius’ darling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Epigrams*, 1.109.1-5 (trans. D. R. Shackleton-Bailey)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole poem is uncharacteristically sweet.  If it's actually full of euphemisms for sordidness, like so much of Martial, please don't tell me.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, Ovid names *some* of Actaeon's dogs in the *Metamorphoses*, 3.206-225:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dum dubitat, videre canes, primique Melampus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ichnobatesque sagax latratu signa dedere,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cnosius Ichnobates, Spartana gente Melampus.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; inde ruunt alii rapida velocius aura,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pamphagos et Dorceus et Oribasos, Arcades omnes,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nebrophonosque valens et trux cum Laelape Theron  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et pedibus Pterelas et naribus utilis Agre  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hylaeusque ferox nuper percussus ab apro  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; deque lupo concepta Nape pecudesque secuta  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Poemenis et natis comitata Harpyia duobus  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et substricta gerens Sicyonius ilia Ladon  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et Dromas et Canache Sticteque et Tigris et Alce  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et niveis Leucon et villis Asbolos atris  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; praevalidusque Lacon et cursu fortis Aello  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et Thoos et Cyprio velox cum fratre Lycisce  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et nigram medio frontem distinctus ab albo  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Harpalos et Melaneus hirsutaque corpore Lachne  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et patre Dictaeo, sed matre Laconide nati  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Labros et Argiodus et acutae vocis Hylactor*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But while he stands perplexed he sees his hounds. And first come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Melampus** and keen-scented **Ichnobates**, baying loud on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trail—Ichnobates a Cretan dog, Melampus a Spartan; then others come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rushing on swifter than the wind: **Pamphagus, Dorceus,** and **Oribasos**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Arcadians all; staunch **Nebrophonos**, fierce **Theron** and **Laelaps**;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Pterelas**, the swift of foot, and keen-scented **Agre**; savage **Hylaeus**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but lately ripped up by a boar; the wolf-dog **Nape** and the trusty&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shepherd **Poemenis**; **Harpyia** with her two pups; Sicyonian **Ladon**, thin in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the flanks; **Dromas, Canache, Sticte, Tigris, Alce**; white-haired&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Leucon**, black **Asbolos**; **Lacon**, renowned for strength, and fleet **Aëllo**;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Thoos** and swift **Lycisce** with her brother **Cyprius**; **Harpalos**, with a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; white spot in the middle of his black forehead; **Melaneus** and shaggy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Lachne**; two dogs from a Cretan father and a Spartan mother, **Labros** and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Argiodus**; shrill-tongued **Hylactor** ...&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The English translations of these would be, in order (NB: revised since first posting):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Black-foot, Trail-follower, Voracious, Gazelle, Mountain-ranger, Faun-killer, Hunter (Theron from θήρα, hunting), Hurricane, Winged, Hunter (&quot;keen-scented&quot; Agre), Sylvan, Glen, Shepherd, Seizer, Catcher, Runner, Gnasher (or Noisy from καναχός), Spot, Tigress, Might, White, Soot, Spartan, Whirlwind, Swift (Thoos from θοός, quick, nimble), Lycisce (perhaps related to λύκος, wolf), Cyprian, Grasper, Black, Shaggy, Fury (Labros from λάβρος, furious), White-tooth (Argiodus a compound of ἀργής, white + ὀδούς, tooth), Barker (Hylactor from ὑλακτέω, to bark or howl). (List adapted from trans. Frank Justus Miller, rev. G. P. Goold)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These seem to suggest that a pattern for naming dogs was simply to call them by their attributes.  Xenophon advises giving hunting dogs short names, &quot;so as to be able to call to them easily&quot;.  He continues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εἶναι δὲ χρὴ τοιάδε, Ψυχή, Θυμός, Πόρπαξ, Στύραξ, Λόγχη, Λόχος,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Φρουρά, Φύλαξ, Τάξις, Ξίφων, Φόναξ, Φλέγων, Ἀλκή, Τεύχων, Ὑλεύς,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Μήδας, Πόρθων, Σπέρχων, Ὀργή, Βρέμων, Ὕβρις, Θάλλων, Ῥώμη, Ἀνθεύς,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ἥβα, Γηθεύς, Χαρά, Λεύσσων, Αὐγώ, Πολύς, Βία, Στίχων, Σπουδή, Βρύας,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Οἰνάς, Στερρός, Κραύγη, Καίνων, Τύρβας, Σθένων, Αἰθήρ, Ἀκτίς, Αἰχμή,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Νόης, Γνώμη, Στίβων, Ὁρμή.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;The following are the right sort: Psyche, Thymus, Porpax, Styrax,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lonché, Lochus, Phrura, Phylax, Taxis, Xiphon, Phonax, Phlegon, Alcé,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Teuchon, Hyleus, Medas, Porthon, Sperchon, Orgé, Bremon, Hybris,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thallon, Rhomé, Antheus, Hebe, Getheus, Chara, Leusson, Augo, Polys,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bia, Stichon, Spudé, Bryas, Oenas, Sterrus, Craugé, Caenon, Tyrbas,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sthenon, Aether, Actis, Aechmé, Noës, Gnomé, Stibon, Elormé.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*On Hunting*, 7.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translators (Marchant &amp; Bowersock) note: &quot;The names are significant of the colour, strength, spirit, sagacity or behaviour of the hounds. Hebe and Psyche are still in the list of bitches’ names, and modern equivalents of several of the other names are in use, e.g. Lance (Lonché), Sentinel (Phylax), Ecstasy (Chara), Blueskin (Oenas), Crafty (Medas), Hasty (Sperchon), Vigorous (Thallon), Impetus (Hormé), Counsellor (Noës), Bustler (dog) or Hasty (bitch); cf. Sperchon. For Πολύς we should probably read Πολεύς, “Rover.”&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9403" RevisionGUID="dbe315db-6fc6-4292-88ee-0025fc0ab737" CreationDate="2019-04-03T15:02:06.250" UserId="79" Text="The word &quot;romance&quot; seems to come from Latin, but no similar Latin word appears to mean anything related.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a good Latin word for a romance, a kind of an intimate relationship?&#xD;&#xA;I cannot think of anything close than *amicitia*, but that is not quite a romance unless I am mistaken." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29362" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9403" RevisionGUID="dbe315db-6fc6-4292-88ee-0025fc0ab737" CreationDate="2019-04-03T15:02:06.250" UserId="79" Text="What is a romance in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29363" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9403" RevisionGUID="dbe315db-6fc6-4292-88ee-0025fc0ab737" CreationDate="2019-04-03T15:02:06.250" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9404" RevisionGUID="e01fba96-30bb-4be7-b796-afeb25651c1a" CreationDate="2019-04-03T15:23:53.760" UserId="45" Text="I would suggest [*amor*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Damor) and especially its plural: *amores*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the plural would be better because singular *amor* is quite common and generic, though it covers what we mean by &quot;romance.&quot; My sense (despite the fact that L&amp;S does not distinguish the meaning of singular and plural) is that *amores* has a slightly difference nuance, even though it still be used generically for more things than English &quot;romance,&quot; e.g. the actual object of my romance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good example comes from Plautus' *Mercator*, which begins with Charinus laying out the *argumentum*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Duas res simul nunc agere decretumst mihi:  &#xD;&#xA;et argumentum et meos amores eloquar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Riley translates as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Two things have I now resolved to do at the same time;  &#xD;&#xA;both the subject and my own amours will I disclose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we can feasibly translate &quot;meos amores eloquar&quot; as: &quot;I shall tell you of my romance.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9406" RevisionGUID="aaac8e6f-15ec-40cd-bbf8-66ff59632474" CreationDate="2019-04-03T16:32:11.980" UserId="645" Text="Plautus seems to use *intimus* substantively at Mil Gl  II,i (l. 108) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*itaque intimum ibi se miles apud lenam facit*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it is perhaps not exactly a 'romance' in this case (!), it does suggest (to me, at any rate) that *intimitia* might serve, though it is not, I think, attested." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29368" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9403" RevisionGUID="1d5d602e-2f99-4e9c-98b0-514f596d8440" CreationDate="2019-04-03T18:22:01.737" />
  <row Id="29370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9387" RevisionGUID="724fb9e6-5721-4923-9553-936cc51a402b" CreationDate="2019-04-03T19:49:10.963" UserId="985" Comment="Added translation" Text="In Petronius, *Satyricon* 64, Trimalchio's favorite, Croesus, has an 'indecently fat black puppy' (*catellam nigram atque indecenter pinguem*) named Margarita, which means 'pearl', and Trimalchio himself has a dog, the 'bulwark of the house and household' (*praesidium domus familiaeque*) named Scylax, which is Greek for 'young dog' or 'puppy'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the meantime, though this doesn't really qualify as a pet, since I thought of it and went to the effort of finding it, there's also this late 2nd-century (CE) inscription from Rome for a racing horse named Euthydikos ('righteous-judging'). It was found on the Aventine, near the Circus Maximus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; στήλη μαρμαρέη  &#xD;&#xA;τίνος εἶ τάφος;  &#xD;&#xA;ὠκέος ἵππου.  &#xD;&#xA;τίς δ' ὄνομα; Εὐθύδικος.  &#xD;&#xA;τί κλέος; ἀθλοφόρος.  &#xD;&#xA;ποσ&lt;σ&gt;άκις ἐστέφθης δρόμον;  &#xD;&#xA;πολλάκις. τί δ' ἔλαέν μιν;  &#xD;&#xA;κοίρανος. ὢ τιμῆς  &#xD;&#xA;κρέσσ&lt;ο&gt;νος ἡμιθέων.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marble slab, whose tomb are you? That of a swift horse. Who by name? Euthydikos. What was his fame? As a prizewinner. How many times was he crowned for racing? Often. Who drove him? The ruler. O honor superior to that of the demigods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(From Guarducci, *L'epigrafia greca dalle origine al tardo impero*, pp 414–416; photo on p 415)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 2 names from Petronius appear elsewhere as names for dogs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *De re rustica* 7.12.13, Columella actually gives his recommendations for the names of dogs. Some of them match the names recommended by Xenophon in Penelope's answer. One of the recommendations is Scylax:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nominibus autem non longissimis appellandi sunt, quo celerius quisque uocatus exaudiat, nec tamen breuioribus quam quae duabus syllabis enuntiantur, sicuti Graecum est **Σκύλαξ**, Latinum Ferox, Graecum Λάκων, Latinum Celer, uel femina, ut sunt Graeca Σπουδή, Ἀλκή, Ῥώμη, Latina Lupa, Cerua, Tigris.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They should be called by names that aren't overly long, so that each may heed more quickly here when it has been called, but neverthless not by names shorter than what are pronounced in 2 syllables, like the Greek name **Scylax** ['Pup'], the Latin name Ferox ['Fierce'], the Greek Lakōn ['Spartan'], Latin Celer ['Swift'], or feminine, such as are Greek Spoudē ['Zeal'], Alkē ['Prowess'], Rhomē ['Might'], and Latin Lupa ['She-wolf'], Cerva ['Doe'], Tigris ['Tigress'].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL) VI.29896 includes, in the short section headed 'Canum sepulcra', an epitaph for a dog named Margarita:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Gallia me genuit nomen mihi divitis undae  &#xD;&#xA;concha dedit formae nominis aptus honos  &#xD;&#xA;docta per incertas audax discurrere silvas  &#xD;&#xA;collibus hirsutas atque agitare feras  &#xD;&#xA;non gravibus vinclis unquam consueta teneri  &#xD;&#xA;verbera nec niveo corpore saeva pati  &#xD;&#xA;molli namque sinu domini dominaeque iacebam  &#xD;&#xA;et noram in strato lassa cubare toro  &#xD;&#xA;et plus quam licuit muto canis ore loquebar  &#xD;&#xA;nulli latratus pertimuere meos  &#xD;&#xA;sed iam fata subii partu iactata sinistro  &#xD;&#xA;quam nunc sub parvo marmore terra tegit  &#xD;&#xA;**Margarita***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gaul produced me. The seashell/pearl of the wealthy wave gave me my name. The honor of the name is suited to my beauty. Trained to run boldly about through unsafe [pathless? dimly lit?] forests and to chase shaggy beasts on hills. Never accustomed to being held by heavy chains, nor to suffer savage lashes on my snow-white body. In fact, I would lie in the soft bosom of my master and mistress, and knew how to lie down on a made-up bed when I was all tuckered out. And more than was permissible, I would speak with my inarticulate dog's mouth. But no one took excessive fright at my barking. But now, after being shaken by an ill-favored childbirth, I have met my fate, and the earth now covers me beneath a small piece of marble: **Margarita**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Incidentally, the other inscription in that section of vol. 6, pt. 4, fasc. 1 of CIL, VI.29895, records a marble tablet that shows a relief of a dog and, under it, the word AMINNARACUS, apparently the dog's name. I'm not sure what that would mean though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9379" RevisionGUID="a50d628d-c510-4356-8e13-9f1d6ef3db8c" CreationDate="2019-04-03T20:31:56.640" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="I've recently discussed with Sumelic on the intriguing example of a passive construction of a transitive (allegedly) deponent verb: _Ab amīcīs hortārētur_ ([https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs][1] ). The cautious parentheses are added because of the existence of the non-deponent forms _horto, -are_: http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/gaffiot/hortor  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a follow-up of this discussion, it has been claimed that impersonal passives of deponent verbs like *_Mortuum est beate_ ‘{One/people} died happily’ are ill-formed, compared to ok _Pugnatum est acriter_: e.g., the former is an unaccusative verb, whereas the latter is an unergative one (vid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonal_passive_voice ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This notwithstanding, I was wondering **WHY** the previous impersonal passive construction with the deponent verb _mori_ is ill-formed but _Moriendum est omnibus_ is well-formed. Any thoughts on this contrast? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9379" RevisionGUID="73bc62d4-147d-4a17-8459-457f542f4bda" CreationDate="2019-04-03T21:51:47.933" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; improved formatting" Text="I've recently discussed with Sumelic the intriguing example of a passive construction of a transitive (allegedly) deponent verb: _Ab amīcīs hortārētur_ ([https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs][1] ). The cautious parentheses are added because of the existence of the non-deponent forms _horto, -are_: e.g., vid. http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/gaffiot/hortor  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a follow-up of this discussion, it is worth pointing out that impersonal passives of intransitive deponent verbs like *_Mortuum est beate_ ‘{One/people} died happily’ are ill-formed, compared to ok _Pugnatum est acriter_: the explanation of this contrast has been argued to be related to the fact that the former is an unaccusative verb, whereas the latter is an unergative one (vid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonal_passive_voice ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This notwithstanding, I was wondering **WHY** the previous impersonal passive construction with the deponent verb _mori_ (*_Mortuum est beate_) is **ill-formed** whereas _Moriendum est omnibus_ is **well-formed**. Any thoughts on this contrast?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9379" RevisionGUID="ad294934-f7f1-49a4-aa49-20aa671298cc" CreationDate="2019-04-03T22:11:23.720" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="I've recently discussed with Sumelic the intriguing example of a passive construction of a transitive (allegedly) deponent verb: _Ab amīcīs hortārētur_ ([https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs][1] ). The cautious parentheses are added because of the existence of the non-deponent forms _horto, -are_: e.g., vid. http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/gaffiot/hortor  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a follow-up from this discussion, it is worth pointing out that impersonal passives of intransitive deponent verbs like *_Mortuum est beate_ ‘{One/people} died happily’ are ill-formed, compared to ok _Pugnatum est acriter_. The explanation of this contrast has been argued to be related to the fact that the former is an unaccusative verb, whereas the latter is an unergative one (vid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonal_passive_voice  ; for the well-known distinction between unaccusative vs. unergative verbs, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unaccusative_verb  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This distinction notwithstanding, I was wondering **WHY** the previous impersonal passive construction with the deponent verb _mori_ (*_Mortuum est beate_) is **ill-formed** whereas _Moriendum est omnibus_ is **well-formed**. Any thoughts on this contrast?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9379" RevisionGUID="e89755f5-20c2-48e2-8406-3726fa3f2c16" CreationDate="2019-04-03T22:18:21.577" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="I've recently discussed with Sumelic the intriguing example of a passive construction of a transitive (allegedly) deponent verb: _Ab amīcīs hortārētur_ ([https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs][1] ). The cautious parentheses are added because of the existence of the non-deponent forms _horto, -are_: e.g., vid. http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/gaffiot/hortor  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a follow-up from this discussion, it is worth pointing out that **impersonal passives** of intransitive deponent verbs like *_Mortuum est beate_ ‘{One/people} died happily’ are ill-formed, compared to ok _Pugnatum est acriter_. The explanation of this contrast has been argued to be related to the fact that the former is an unaccusative verb, whereas the latter is an unergative one (vid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonal_passive_voice  ; for the well-known distinction between unaccusative vs. unergative verbs, vid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unaccusative_verb ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This distinction notwithstanding, I was wondering **WHY** the previous impersonal passive construction with the deponent verb _mori_ (*_Mortuum est beate_) is **ill-formed** whereas _Moriendum est omnibus_ is **well-formed**. Any thoughts on this contrast?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9407" RevisionGUID="278561ab-c269-424a-b3b3-0d8ad0d1ca0e" CreationDate="2019-04-04T03:55:47.240" UserId="9" Text="If this question has an answer, the most likely answer is &quot;No, they don't&quot;. But in my opinion, the question is not really meaningful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;No&quot; from a traditional perspective. As far as I know, things like [ej] in words like &quot;ejus&quot; were not traditionally categorized as diphthongs.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- &quot;No&quot; from at least one modern perspective. If anything is a diphthong in Latin, &quot;au&quot; in words like *cautus* is. &quot;Au&quot; in this position was traditionally classified as a diphthong, and even though there are some indications of potential monophthongization to a long mid back vowel (e.g. *cauda* &gt; *coda*) that change did not run to completion in the ancestor of all the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; But some sources such as [Cser 2016](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) say that even &quot;au&quot; was not a diphthong, but rather the same vowel + consonant sequence that was found in a forms like *c**ăv**eo* (p. 35). Cser analyzes Latin as having no phonemic diphthongs of any type.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9407" RevisionGUID="286d9852-da59-422a-a44a-1439650dcfac" CreationDate="2019-04-04T04:15:40.530" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="If this question has an answer, the most likely answer is &quot;No, they don't&quot;. But in my opinion, the question is not really meaningful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;No&quot; from a traditional perspective. As far as I know, things like [ej] in words like &quot;ejus&quot; were not traditionally categorized as diphthongs.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- &quot;No&quot; from at least one modern perspective. If anything is a diphthong in Latin, &quot;au&quot; in words like *cautus* is. &quot;Au&quot; in this position was traditionally classified as a diphthong, and even though there are some indications of potential monophthongization to a long mid back vowel (e.g. *cauda* &gt; *coda*) that change did not run to completion in the ancestor of all the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; But some sources such as [Cser 2016](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) say that even &quot;au&quot; was not a diphthong, but rather the same vowel + consonant sequence /aw/ that was found in a form like *c**ăv**eo* (p. 35). Cser analyzes Latin as having no phonemic diphthongs of any type.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9408" RevisionGUID="db807b0a-17f2-4550-8912-0c972e59f4dc" CreationDate="2019-04-04T04:33:34.023" UserId="40" Text="It would be strange if Latin had diphthongs that could only appear before /j/ -- why the arbitrary restriction? The examples you mention seem to be most naturally analyzed as containing a geminate /j:/ preceded by a short vowel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9407" RevisionGUID="8aa9adc9-527b-48b8-b83e-bb814052fd30" CreationDate="2019-04-04T04:37:38.990" UserId="9" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="If this question has an answer, the most likely answer is &quot;No, they don't&quot;. But in my opinion, the question is not really meaningful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;No&quot; from a traditional perspective. As far as I know, things like [ej] in words like &quot;ejus&quot; were not traditionally categorized as diphthongs.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- &quot;No&quot; from at least one modern perspective. If anything is a diphthong in Latin, &quot;au&quot; in words like *cautus* is. &quot;Au&quot; in this position was traditionally classified as a diphthong, and even though there are some indications of potential monophthongization to a long mid back vowel (e.g. *cauda* &gt; *coda*) that change did not run to completion in the ancestor of all the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; But some sources such as [Cser 2016](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) say that even &quot;au&quot; in pre-consonantal position was not a diphthong, but rather the same vowel + consonant sequence /aw/ that can be found before a vowel in forms like *c**ăv**eo* (p. 35). Cser analyzes Latin as having no phonemic diphthongs of any type.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9409" RevisionGUID="0731cf58-f1db-4833-a989-59cac77c982e" CreationDate="2019-04-04T04:39:20.083" UserId="79" Text="Do you think a distinction between /ej:us/ and /eijus/ is meaningful?&#xD;&#xA;They are not identical, but the difference is small, especially in the context of Latin pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;I would consider this as allophonic variation &amp;mdash; I can well imagine that the two pronunciations of *eius* have been in simultaneous use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this point of view, the answer to your question is a matter of taste.&#xD;&#xA;You can analyze those cases with or without diphthongs, and it makes hardly any difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9410" RevisionGUID="f49750a7-c1f0-4672-8b11-56c6e4327b51" CreationDate="2019-04-04T04:53:51.747" UserId="40" Text="As varro says, the forms are reconstructed with a long vowel, as *mēd, tēd, sēd*. AFAIK there's no direct evidence for the vowel quantity. The reason for the long-vowel reconstruction is that there seems to have been a sound change between Old Latin and Classical Latin in which final *-d* was lost after a long vowel; this is the reason for the final long vowel of ablatives in -ā (&lt; -ād), -ō, (&lt; -ōd), etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The loss of *-d* is thought to have occurred only after long vowels. I'm not sure how certain we can be about that, though. Old Latin did have *-d* after short vowels, resulting from word-final voicing, e.g. FECED = *fecit*, and it's true that these were not lost. But it's also true that these *-d* were replaced by *-t* (perhaps analogically) at some point, and if that happened before the *-d*-loss sound change, then these forms aren't evidence either way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Sihler mentions, Sanskrit has short vowels in the corresponding forms (*mat*) etc., but as he says, it's plausible that these could have been lengthened in Latin by analogy to the noun declensions, so that also isn't too helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may well be other relevant evidence I'm missing, but it seems that the answer is &quot;probably the vowel was long but we can't be sure&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9411" RevisionGUID="f05fb781-42f2-4d84-9c52-91461643da86" CreationDate="2019-04-04T05:11:33.547" UserId="40" Text="It seems to me that there's a strong reason to take *quod non potuere vetare* with the following line, namely, that their parents could and did forbid it! The whole point of the story is that their parents forbade the marriage, which is why it all ends in tears. It would be strange to say &quot;They would have got married, but they didn't, because their parents forbade what they couldn't forbid&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, this reading gives point to the following line by drawing a contrast: the parents forbade the marriage, but they couldn't forbid their love. Otherwise the line *Ex aequo...* is rather pointless and tells us nothing we didn't know already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ETA: syntactically, *quod* is not a conjunction but a relative pronoun, whose antecedent is the entire following line: &quot;What they *couldn't* forbid, though, [was that] both burned equally...&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9407" RevisionGUID="7f56ff27-d557-4476-bcfe-446c29bcece2" CreationDate="2019-04-04T05:14:11.813" UserId="9" Comment="added 494 characters in body" Text="If this question has an answer, the most likely answer is &quot;No, they don't&quot;. But in my opinion, the question is not really meaningful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;No&quot; from a traditional perspective. As far as I know, things like [ej] in words like &quot;ejus&quot; were not traditionally categorized as diphthongs.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- &quot;No&quot; from at least one modern perspective. If anything is a diphthong in Latin, &quot;au&quot; in words like *cautus* is. &quot;Au&quot; in this position was traditionally classified as a diphthong, and even though there are some indications of potential monophthongization to a long mid back vowel (e.g. *cauda* &gt; *coda*) that change did not run to completion in the ancestor of all the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; But some sources such as [Cser 2016](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) say that even &quot;au&quot; in pre-consonantal position was not a diphthong, but rather the same vowel + consonant sequence /aw/ that can be found before a vowel in forms like *c**ăv**eo* (p. 35). Cser analyzes Latin as having no phonemic diphthongs of any type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some etymological arguments for thinking that /j.j/ was a geminate consonant, although they are not conclusive. In Italian, the regular reflex seems to be the long consonant /ʤ.ʤ/ (note: phonetically, there is only one release, so something like [dːʒ], but the phonological representation seems to be generally thought of as geminate /ʤ/). The Latin sequence /j.j/ sometimes represented an older sequence of some other consonant + /j/: e.g. in *major,* /j.j/ comes from *gj." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9407" RevisionGUID="b8b1de46-2b29-45dd-9c0a-5b2a75db7d33" CreationDate="2019-04-04T05:19:44.780" UserId="9" Comment="added 494 characters in body" Text="If this question has an answer, the most likely answer is &quot;No, they don't&quot;. But in my opinion, the question is not really meaningful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;No&quot; from a traditional perspective. As far as I know, things like [ej] in words like &quot;ejus&quot; were not traditionally categorized as diphthongs.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- &quot;No&quot; from at least one modern perspective. If anything is a diphthong in Latin, &quot;au&quot; in words like *cautus* is. &quot;Au&quot; in this position was traditionally classified as a diphthong, and even though there are some indications of potential monophthongization to a long mid back vowel (e.g. *cauda* &gt; *coda*) that change did not run to completion in the ancestor of all the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; But some sources such as [Cser 2016](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) say that even &quot;au&quot; in pre-consonantal position was not a diphthong, but rather the same vowel + consonant sequence /aw/ that can be found before a vowel in forms like *c**ăv**eo* (p. 35). Cser analyzes Latin as having no phonemic diphthongs of any type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some etymological arguments for thinking that /j.j/ was a geminate consonant (with the first &quot;part&quot; occupying the coda of the preceding syllable, the second &quot;part&quot; occupying the onset of the following syllable, and no part in the nucleus of any syllable), although they are not conclusive. In Italian, the regular reflex seems to be the long consonant /ʤ.ʤ/ (note: phonetically, there is only one release, so something like [dːʒ], but the phonological representation seems to be generally thought of as geminate /ʤ/). The Latin sequence /j.j/ sometimes represented an older sequence of some other consonant + /j/: e.g. in *major,* /j.j/ comes from *gj." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9368" RevisionGUID="90d7ec83-b859-4136-b895-22febaed7448" CreationDate="2019-04-04T05:28:41.100" UserId="9" Comment="added information from comments" Text="Synizesis of *ee*  is supposed to occur in forms of the verb *deesse.* Presumably the result was [eː], with the same pronunciation as *ē.* This seems very similar to the contraction seen in words like *dēbeo* or *dēmo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Evidence from poetry indicates that those imperfective forms of deesse ‘be missing, absent’ where the stem begins with [e] are contracted even if the writing does not normally indicate it (i.e. deesse INF, deerat 3SINGPASTIMPF etc. are disyllabic, deest 3SINGPRESIMPF is monosyllabic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(András Cser, [&quot;Aspects of the Phonology and Morphology of Classical Latin&quot;](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf), 2016, p.147)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[TKR](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/40/tkr) left a [comment](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2396/does-scansion-ever-require-synizesis-of-two-similar-vowels/9368?noredirect=1#comment19124_9368) mentioning an example of *deerunt*: &quot;Martial (Epigrams, 8,56): *Sint Maecenates, non deerunt, Flacce, Marones*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a [comment](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2396/does-scansion-ever-require-synizesis-of-two-similar-vowels/9368?noredirect=1#comment19034_9368), [blagae](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/1289/blagae) mentions that we also see synizesis of *ee* in the word *deerraverat*: &quot;Verg. Buc. 7, 7: vir gregis ipse caper deerraverat; atque ego Daphnim&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: there are apparently rare cases in Latin of the spelling *ee* being used to represent a long E sound even in words where it was not the result of synizesis of originally separate E's. There are examples in the following answers from [Vladimir F](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9143/9) and [Alex B.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5889/9)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9368" RevisionGUID="57a0975f-1472-4049-a4ac-34d03e8e4c14" CreationDate="2019-04-04T05:35:00.730" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Synizesis of *ee*  is supposed to occur in forms of the verb *deesse.* Presumably the result was [eː], with the same pronunciation as *ē.* This seems very similar to the contraction seen in words like *dēbeo* or *dēmo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Evidence from poetry indicates that those imperfective forms of deesse ‘be missing, absent’ where the stem begins with [e] are contracted even if the writing does not normally indicate it (i.e. deesse INF, deerat 3SINGPASTIMPF etc. are disyllabic, deest 3SINGPRESIMPF is monosyllabic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(András Cser, [&quot;Aspects of the Phonology and Morphology of Classical Latin&quot;](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf), 2016, p.147)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[TKR](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/40/tkr) left a [comment](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2396/does-scansion-ever-require-synizesis-of-two-similar-vowels/9368?noredirect=1#comment19124_9368) mentioning an example of *deerunt*: &quot;Martial (Epigrams, 8,56): *Sint Maecenates, non deerunt, Flacce, Marones*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a [comment](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2396/does-scansion-ever-require-synizesis-of-two-similar-vowels/9368?noredirect=1#comment19034_9368), [blagae](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/1289/blagae) mentions that we also see synizesis of *ee* in the word *deerraverat*: &quot;Verg. Buc. 7, 7: vir gregis ipse caper deerraverat; atque ego Daphnim&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: there are apparently rare cases in Latin of the spelling *ee* being used to represent a long E sound even in words where it was not the result of synizesis of originally separate E's. There are examples in the following answers from [Vladimir F](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9143/9) and [Alex B.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5889/9)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29387" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5843" RevisionGUID="b2569dfa-0008-4384-ae76-a76a9c9fd724" CreationDate="2019-04-04T06:11:38.587" UserId="9" Comment="110" />
  <row Id="29388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9023" RevisionGUID="79cebb54-66d6-4984-99de-e1df0b6605c7" CreationDate="2019-04-04T07:04:45.167" UserId="9" Comment="added 284 characters in body" Text="I remember seeing it given as a rule in some text that Latin words are minimally bimoraic, so I don't think there are any monosyllabic words that end in a short vowel when pronounced in isolation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are of course monosyllabic *enclitics* that end in a short vowel: *-que, -ne, -ve.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Monosyllabic words in Latin may **scan** light in certain contexts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The most common example is words ending in V̆C (such as *in, ad, sed*) when they come before vowel-initial words. In this context, the word-final consonant was apparently resyllabified into the onset of the first syllable of the next word. This resyllabification clearly occurred in poetry, and is believed to have also occurred in the ordinary spoken language, at least within a phonological phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There is also the phenomenon of &quot;correption&quot; where in poetry, a word-final vowel that is typically long may scan as short before another vowel. It can result in scansions like ŏ or quĭ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some words have phonologically clitic contracted forms that don't contain any syllables, such as *'st* for *est.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9023" RevisionGUID="d6cac45f-6b1a-4bf1-b61f-506302d5e7db" CreationDate="2019-04-04T07:12:26.457" UserId="9" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="I remember seeing it given as a rule in some text that Latin words are minimally bimoraic, so I don't think there are any monosyllabic words that end in a short vowel when pronounced in isolation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are of course monosyllabic *enclitics* that end in a short vowel: *-que, -ne, -ve.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Monosyllabic words in Latin may **scan** light in certain contexts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The most common example is words ending in V̆C (such as *in, ad, sed*) when they come before vowel-initial words. In this context, the word-final consonant was apparently resyllabified into the onset of the first syllable of the next word. This resyllabification clearly occurred in poetry, and is believed to have also occurred in the ordinary spoken language, at least within a phonological phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There is also the phenomenon of &quot;correption&quot; where in poetry, a word-final vowel that is typically long may scan as short before another vowel. It can result in light scansions of monosyllabic vowel-final words like ŏ or quĭ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some words have phonologically clitic contracted forms that don't contain any syllables, such as *'st* for *est.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9023" RevisionGUID="0bdcd952-3142-4412-b9f4-2762fe45e219" CreationDate="2019-04-04T07:19:12.080" UserId="9" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="I remember seeing it given as a rule in some text that Latin words are minimally bimoraic, so I don't think there are any monosyllabic words that end in a short vowel when pronounced in isolation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are of course monosyllabic *enclitics* that end in a short vowel: *-que, -ne, -ve.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Monosyllabic words in Latin may **scan** light in certain contexts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The most common example is words ending in V̆C (such as *in, ad, sed*) when they come before vowel-initial words. In this context, the word-final consonant was apparently resyllabified into the onset of the first syllable of the next word. This resyllabification clearly occurred in poetry, and is believed to have also occurred in the ordinary spoken language, at least within a phonological phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There is also the phenomenon of &quot;correption&quot; where in poetry, a word-final vowel that is typically long may scan as short before another vowel. It can result in light scansions of monosyllabic vowel-final words like ŏ or quĭ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some words have phonologically clitic contracted forms that are non-syllabic, such as *'st* for *est.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9412" RevisionGUID="826c9975-9451-475b-b26b-81e967e859dd" CreationDate="2019-04-04T16:07:53.673" UserId="3248" Text="Typically, so-called **&quot;dominant&quot;** participle constructions (aka _Ab urbe condita_ constructions; AUC for short) are defined by saying that the predicative participle is **compulsory**, whereby it cannot be eliminated without a significant change of meaning (e.g., (1a)). In some cases its elimination can be said to give semantic anomaly (e.g., (1b)).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1)	a.	_Ab urbe condita_ vs. _Ab urbe (condita)_&#xD;&#xA;		‘Since the foundation of the city’ // From the city (which was founded) &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;   &gt;b.	_Virtus constat ex hominibus tuendis_ (Cic. _Off._ 1.157) vs. _Virtus constat ex hominibus (tuendis)_&#xD;&#xA;‘Virtue centres in protecting people’ // #Virtue centres in people, who must be protected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are some cases where the participle/secondary predicate in AUC constructions seems **optional**, although often in different degrees (cf. (2a) and (2b)). Is there any relevant generalization to be made here? **How natural does (2b) sound without the nominal predicative?** In my native language, Catalan, it sounds good (like the case in (2a)), but what about in Latin)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2)	a.	_Ante Christum natum // Ante Christum (natum)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt;    b.	_Post Ciceronem consulem // Post Ciceronem (consulem)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, it is not always easy to work out if the participle is dominant/compulsory or optional: e.g., vid. (3a) (cf. (3b), where _servandum_ is a final/purpose optional adjunct). For some related discussion, see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9370/how-many-types-of-so-called-predicative-gerundives-can-be-differentiated-in-la  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3)	a.	_Populus Romanus consuli potius Crasso quam privato Africano bellum gerendum dedit_ (Cic. _Phil._ 11.18) ‘The Roman people preferred the consul C. to the private person A. as their leader in the war’ (NB: Pinkster's (1990) translation). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b.	_Diviti homini id aurum servandum dedit_ (Pl. _Bacch._ 338) ‘He gave that gold to a rich man to keep’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could conclude that the distinction found in Latin grammar textbooks between dominant/obligatory predicates and optional ones is not “real” but is a by-product from our attempt of imposing the grammatical schemata of our native languages (e.g., the ones of English, Catalan, etc). However, I don’t think this relativistic point is correct but rather it seems to me that there’s something grammatically real behind the (allegedly) universal syntactic distinction between being an obligatory secondary predicate and being an optional attributive modifier. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I was wondering if there are meaning differences between the following pairs. Or are they merely &quot;stylistic&quot;?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (4)	a.	_Post Ciceronem consulem  // Post Ciceronis consulatum_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt;	b.	_Ab urbe condita // Ab urbis conditione_&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29392" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9412" RevisionGUID="826c9975-9451-475b-b26b-81e967e859dd" CreationDate="2019-04-04T16:07:53.673" UserId="3248" Text="How obligatory is the predicate in a dominant participle construction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29393" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9412" RevisionGUID="826c9975-9451-475b-b26b-81e967e859dd" CreationDate="2019-04-04T16:07:53.673" UserId="3248" Text="|classical-latin|participle|dominant-participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9412" RevisionGUID="6a6bed7a-cb29-4b27-aa97-19e8e7ebd614" CreationDate="2019-04-04T16:18:52.580" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes (formatting)" Text="Typically, so-called **&quot;dominant&quot;** participle constructions (aka _Ab urbe condita_ constructions; AUC for short) are defined by saying that the predicative participle is **compulsory**, whereby it cannot be eliminated without a significant change of meaning (e.g., (1a)). In some cases its elimination can be said to give semantic anomaly (e.g., (1b)).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1)	a.	_Ab urbe condita_ vs. _Ab urbe (condita)_&#xD;&#xA;		‘Since the foundation of the city’ // 'From the city (which was founded)' &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;   &gt;b.	_Virtus constat ex hominibus tuendis_ (Cic. _Off._ 1.157) vs. _Virtus constat ex hominibus (tuendis)_&#xD;&#xA;‘Virtue centres in protecting people’ // #'Virtue centres in people (who must be protected').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are some cases where the participle/secondary predicate in AUC constructions seems **optional**, although perhaps in different degrees (e.g., cf. (2a) and (2b)). Is there any relevant generalization to be made here? **How natural does (2b) sound without the nominal predicative?** In my native language, Catalan, it sounds good (like the case in (2a)), but what about in Latin)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2)	a.	_Ante Christum natum_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt;    b.	_Post Ciceronem consulem_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, it is not always easy to work out if the participle is dominant/compulsory or optional: e.g., vid. (3a) (cf. (3b), where _servandum_ is a final/purpose optional adjunct). For some related discussion, see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9370/how-many-types-of-so-called-predicative-gerundives-can-be-differentiated-in-la  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3)	a.	_Populus Romanus consuli potius Crasso quam privato Africano bellum gerendum dedit_ (Cic. _Phil._ 11.18) ‘The Roman people preferred the consul C. to the private person A. as their leader in the war’ (NB: Pinkster's (1990) translation). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b.	_Diviti homini id aurum servandum dedit_ (Pl. _Bacch._ 338) ‘He gave that gold to a rich man to keep’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could conclude that the distinction found in Latin grammar textbooks between dominant/obligatory predicates and optional ones is not “real” but is a by-product from our attempt of imposing the grammatical schemata of our native languages (e.g., the ones of English, Catalan, etc). However, I don’t think this relativistic point is correct but rather it seems to me that there’s something grammatically real behind the (allegedly) universal syntactic distinction between being an obligatory secondary predicate and being an optional attributive modifier. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I was wondering if there are meaning differences between the following pairs. Or are they merely &quot;stylistic&quot;?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (4)	a.	_Post Ciceronem consulem  // Post Ciceronis consulatum_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt;	b.	_Ab urbe condita // Ab urbis conditione_&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29395" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9412" RevisionGUID="6a6bed7a-cb29-4b27-aa97-19e8e7ebd614" CreationDate="2019-04-04T16:18:52.580" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes (formatting)" Text="|dominant-participle|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9413" RevisionGUID="c097a8ee-e0ef-49b4-abb6-9dbd1306e0cf" CreationDate="2019-04-04T16:26:40.237" UserId="645" Text="The closest Latin word in meaning is probably *immobilis*, 'immoveable, unalterable' — though it is usually applied to some physical entity.  However, if that isn't acceptable, then *indemobilis* might be reasonably derived from the verb *demoveo*, which can certainly be applied to individuals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Such positions are found in England, defending against dismissal in all but extreme circumstances, but there's no general rule about them. The principle still seems to be applied in some universities, but not nowadays in the Civil Service, which until a few decades ago spoke of officers not as tenured, but 'with establishment'.]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9412" RevisionGUID="a94dfcab-a232-43dd-a88b-e744a748384c" CreationDate="2019-04-04T16:47:17.207" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes (grammar &amp; formatting)" Text="Typically, so-called **&quot;dominant&quot;** participle constructions (aka _Ab urbe condita_ constructions; AUC for short) are defined by saying that the predicative participle is **compulsory**, whereby it cannot be eliminated without a significant change of meaning (e.g., (1a)). In some cases its elimination can be said to give semantic anomaly (e.g., (1b)).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1)	a.	_Ab urbe **condita**_ vs. _Ab urbe (condita)_&#xD;&#xA;		‘Since the foundation of the city’ // 'From the city (which was founded)' &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;   &gt;b.	_Virtus constat ex hominibus **tuendis**_ (Cic. _Off._ 1.157) vs. _Virtus constat ex hominibus (tuendis)_&#xD;&#xA;‘Virtue centres in protecting people’ // #'Virtue centres in people (who must be protected').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are some cases where the participle/secondary predicate in AUC constructions becomes **optional**, although perhaps in different degrees (e.g., cf. (2a) and (2b)). Is there any relevant generalization to be made here or each case has its own story? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2)	a.	_Ante Christum **natum**_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt;    b.	_Post Ciceronem **consulem**_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, it is not always easy to work out if the participle is dominant/compulsory or optional: e.g., vid. (3a) (cf. (3b), where _servandum_ is a final/purpose optional adjunct). For some related discussion, see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9370/how-many-types-of-so-called-predicative-gerundives-can-be-differentiated-in-la  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3)	a.	_Populus Romanus consuli potius Crasso quam privato Africano bellum **gerendum** dedit_ (Cic. _Phil._ 11.18) ‘The Roman people preferred the consul C. to the private person A. as their leader in the war’ (NB: Pinkster's (1990) translation). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b.	_Diviti homini id aurum **servandum** dedit_ (Pl. _Bacch._ 338) ‘He gave that gold to a rich man to keep’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could conclude that the distinction found in Latin grammar textbooks between dominant/obligatory predicates and optional ones is not “real” but is a by-product from our attempt of imposing the grammatical schemata of our native languages (e.g., the ones of English, Catalan, etc). However, I don’t think this relativistic point is correct but rather it seems to me that there’s something grammatically real behind the (allegedly) universal syntactic distinction between being an obligatory secondary predicate and being an optional attributive modifier. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I was wondering if there are meaning differences between the following pairs. Or are they merely &quot;stylistic&quot;?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (4)	a.	_Post Ciceronem consulem  // Post Ciceronis consulatum_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt;	b.	_Ab urbe condita // Ab urbis conditione_&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9414" RevisionGUID="e8575c61-cacd-48eb-84d8-96302592e426" CreationDate="2019-04-04T16:58:28.767" UserId="79" Text="&gt; How natural does (2b) sound without the nominal predicative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; (2) a. Ante Christum natum  &#xD;&#xA;b. Post Ciceronem consulem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say *post Ciceronem*, it simply means &quot;after Cicero&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It could mean a number of things: After his death, after his office, behind him in a queue, after his speech&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;The ambiguity is the same as in English.&#xD;&#xA;It does sound natural, but it doesn't mean &quot;after Cicero's consulate&quot; but simply &quot;after Cicero&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't understand that you are trying to refer to his consulate without much more context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The case (2a) is similar:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Before Christ&quot; and &quot;before Christ's birth&quot; are not the same thing, but in many contexts one would interpret a plain *ante Christum* as referring to his birth.&#xD;&#xA;The literal meaning is different, but in this particular case the difference is quite small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Indeed, it is not always easy to work out if the participle is dominant/compulsory or optional: e.g., vid. (3a) (cf. (3b), where servandum is a final/purpose optional adjunct).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; (3) a. Populus Romanus consuli potius Crasso quam privato Africano bellum gerendum dedit (Cic. Phil. 11.18) ‘The Roman people preferred the consul C. to the private person A. as their leader in the war’ (NB: Pinkster's (1990) translation).  &#xD;&#xA;b. Diviti homini id aurum servandum dedit (Pl. Bacch. 338) ‘He gave that gold to a rich man to keep’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do find a difference in the interpretation of (3a) if you drop the gerundive *gerendum*.&#xD;&#xA;(I cannot resist pointing out that *gerendum* or *gerundum* is a gerund that gives name to gerunds.)&#xD;&#xA;If you give someone *bellum gerendum*, you give them the leadership of a war.&#xD;&#xA;If you give someone *bellum*, you give them a war.&#xD;&#xA;Giving a war could be understood in a number of ways, for example as declaring war at the person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In (2b) the meaning is again changed by the gerundive.&#xD;&#xA;Without it, the gold is simply given to the man.&#xD;&#xA;With it, it is given to him to keep; it seems to imply obligation to hold on to the money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving out the gerundive or participle or noun will typically make the sentence grammatical, but changes the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;In particular, the meaning becomes less specific.&#xD;&#xA;In some cases the loss of specificity is small, in some cases big.&#xD;&#xA;This is indeed what one should expect when it comes to dropping and attribute.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *ab urbe* is grammatical, but one wouldn't typically parse it as &quot;from the founding of the city&quot;, so an additional clarifying word is much needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I see all of this is that a certain type of metonymy is idiomatic in Latin: &quot;an eaten pizza&quot; can also stand for &quot;the fact that a pizza has been eaten&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *urbs condita* can be read as &quot;a founded city&quot; or &quot;the founding of a city&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This metonymy is the source of what you call AUC constructions.&#xD;&#xA;Semantically, one can analyze these situations as the participle (or some such thing) taking the dominant role.&#xD;&#xA;(Personally, I find the concept of dominant participle quite unnecessary. But there are many possible ways to see Latin grammar.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finally, I was wondering if there are meaning differences between the following pairs. Or are they merely &quot;stylistic&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; (4) a. Post Ciceronem consulem // Post Ciceronis consulatum  &#xD;&#xA;b. Ab urbe condita // Ab urbis conditione&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second options are grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;And one could see them as preferable because they are unambiguous:&#xD;&#xA;One can read *ab urbe condita* as &quot;from the city that was founded&quot; in some situations, but *a conditione urbis* prevents that reading.&#xD;&#xA;However, Latin seems to prefer the kind of metonymy I mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;The first options are indeed more idiomatic Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9415" RevisionGUID="b71b204c-0587-44e3-bd10-30f257fb1d3d" CreationDate="2019-04-04T17:08:38.510" UserId="79" Text="To make sure the word is understood correctly as referring to the academic concept of tenure, I suggest taking a word that is easily connected to the English &quot;tenure&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is ***tentura***, &quot;holding&quot; (roughly), from the past participle *tentus* of *tenere*, &quot;to hold, master, guard, or stay&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9412" RevisionGUID="eda9dea4-7a37-4bac-8f10-fac25cdad08a" CreationDate="2019-04-04T18:09:12.640" UserId="3248" Comment="new changes due to commentators" Text="Typically, so-called **&quot;dominant&quot;** participle constructions (aka _Ab urbe condita_ constructions; AUC for short) are defined by saying that the predicative participle is **compulsory**, whereby it cannot be eliminated without a significant change of meaning (e.g., (1a)). In some cases its elimination can be said to give semantic anomaly (e.g., (1b)).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1)	a.	_Ab urbe **condita**_ vs. _Ab urbe (condita)_&#xD;&#xA;		‘Since the foundation of the city’ // 'From the city (which was founded)' &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;   &gt;b.	_Virtus constat ex hominibus **tuendis**_ (Cic. _Off._ 1.157) vs. _Virtus constat ex hominibus (tuendis)_&#xD;&#xA;‘Virtue centres in protecting people’ // #'Virtue centres in people (who must be protected').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are some cases where the participle/secondary predicate in AUC constructions becomes **optional**, although perhaps in different degrees (e.g., cf. (2a) and (2b)). Is there any relevant generalization to be made here or each case has its own story? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2)	a.	_Ante Christum **natum**_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt;    b.	_Post Ciceronem **consulem**_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, it is not always easy to work out if the participle is dominant/compulsory or optional: e.g., vid. (3a) (cf. (3b), where _servandum_ is a final/purpose optional adjunct). For some related discussion, see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9370/how-many-types-of-so-called-predicative-gerundives-can-be-differentiated-in-la  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3)	a.	_Populus Romanus consuli potius Crasso quam privato Africano bellum **gerendum** dedit_ (Cic. _Phil._ 11.18) ‘The Roman people preferred the consul C. to the private person A. as their leader in the war’ (NB: Pinkster's (1990) translation). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b.	_Diviti homini id aurum **servandum** dedit_ (Pl. _Bacch._ 338) ‘He gave that gold to a rich man to keep’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - &#xD;&#xA;EDIT 1 (thanks to Joonas's excellent answer below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that there seems to be a **grammatical** distinction to be made between (3a) and (3b): (3a) can be considered an AUC to the extent that the predicative gerundive is part of the argumental direct object of _dedit_: what was given was not war but the leadership of war. In contrast, in (3b) what was given was a thing (gold), whereby _servandum_ is to be considered as a predicative adjunct outside of the argumental direct object (_id aurum_). As noted below, the grammatically optional predicative adjunct _servandum_ appears to be obligatory for information reasons (feel free to google so-called &quot;obligatory adjuncts&quot;: e.g., Engl. _These horses saddle easily_. &quot;Easily&quot; is a a grammatical adjunct but cannot be eliminated for informational/pragmatic reasons: cf. ??_These horses saddle_).       &#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could conclude that the distinction found in Latin grammar textbooks between dominant/obligatory predicates and optional ones is not “real” but is a by-product from our attempt of imposing the grammatical schemata of our native languages (e.g., the ones of English, Catalan, etc). However, I don’t think this relativistic point is correct but rather it seems to me that there’s something grammatically real behind the (allegedly) universal syntactic distinction between being an obligatory secondary predicate and being an optional attributive modifier. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I was wondering if there are meaning differences between the following pairs. Or are they merely &quot;stylistic&quot;?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (4)	a.	_Post Ciceronem consulem  // Post Ciceronis consulatum_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt;	b.	_Ab urbe condita // Ab urbis conditione_&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9412" RevisionGUID="aebe052e-a913-451a-a3a9-fe9849d166b3" CreationDate="2019-04-04T18:40:02.163" UserId="3248" Comment="new changes due to commentators" Text="Typically, so-called **&quot;dominant&quot;** participle constructions (aka _Ab urbe condita_ constructions; AUC for short) are defined by saying that the predicative participle is **compulsory**, whereby it cannot be eliminated without a significant change of meaning (e.g., (1a)). In some cases its elimination can be said to give semantic anomaly (e.g., (1b)).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1)	a.	_Ab urbe **condita**_ vs. _Ab urbe (condita)_&#xD;&#xA;		‘Since the foundation of the city’ // 'From the city (which was founded)' &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;   &gt;b.	_Virtus constat ex hominibus **tuendis**_ (Cic. _Off._ 1.157) vs. _Virtus constat ex hominibus (tuendis)_&#xD;&#xA;‘Virtue centres in protecting people’ // #'Virtue centres in people (who must be protected').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are some cases where the participle/secondary predicate in AUC constructions becomes **optional**, although perhaps in different degrees (e.g., cf. (2a) and (2b)). Is there any relevant generalization to be made here or each case has its own story? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2)	a.	_Ante Christum **natum**_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt;    b.	_Post Ciceronem **consulem**_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, it is not always easy to work out if the participle is dominant/compulsory or optional: e.g., vid. (3a) (cf. (3b), where _servandum_ is a final/purpose optional adjunct). For some related discussion, see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9370/how-many-types-of-so-called-predicative-gerundives-can-be-differentiated-in-la  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3)	a.	_Populus Romanus consuli potius Crasso quam privato Africano bellum **gerendum** dedit_ (Cic. _Phil._ 11.18) ‘The Roman people preferred the consul C. to the private person A. as their leader in the war’ (NB: Pinkster's (1990) translation). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b.	_Diviti homini id aurum **servandum** dedit_ (Pl. _Bacch._ 338) ‘He gave that gold to a rich man to keep’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - &#xD;&#xA;EDIT 1 (thanks to Joonas's excellent answer below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that there seems to be a **grammatical** distinction to be made between (3a) and (3b): (3a) can be considered an AUC to the extent that the predicative gerundive is part of the argumental direct object of _dedit_: what was given was not war but the leadership of war. In contrast, in (3b) what was given was a thing (gold), whereby _servandum_ is to be considered as a predicative adjunct outside of the argumental direct object (_id aurum_). As noted below, this is not an obstacle for the grammatically optional predicative adjunct _servandum_ to become obligatory for informational reasons (feel free to google so-called &quot;obligatory adjuncts&quot;: e.g., Engl. _These horses saddle easily_. &quot;Easily&quot; is a a grammatical adjunct but cannot be eliminated due to informational/pragmatic reasons: cf. ??_These horses saddle_).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also worth pointing out another insightful remark made by Joonas. See below for his very interesting connection between the so-called AUC and what he refers to a cognitive principle known as **metonymy**. It's really fascinating for me to see that his insightful intuition is also found in the specialized literature on the topic of dominant participles &amp; gerundives (e.g., see http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/24318 ).        &#xD;&#xA;END EDIT 1&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;One could conclude that the distinction found in Latin grammar textbooks between dominant/obligatory predicates and optional ones is not “real” but is a by-product from our attempt of imposing the grammatical schemata of our native languages (e.g., the ones of English, Catalan, etc). However, I don’t think this relativistic point is correct but rather it seems to me that there’s something grammatically real behind the (allegedly) universal syntactic distinction between being an obligatory secondary predicate and being an optional attributive modifier. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I was wondering if there are meaning differences between the following pairs. Or are they merely &quot;stylistic&quot;?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (4)	a.	_Post Ciceronem consulem  // Post Ciceronis consulatum_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt;	b.	_Ab urbe condita // Ab urbis conditione_&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9415" RevisionGUID="81d875fc-c4b8-4637-964d-6d920dd45d4a" CreationDate="2019-04-04T18:55:33.077" UserId="79" Comment="added 355 characters in body" Text="To make sure the word is understood correctly as referring to the academic concept of tenure, I suggest taking a word that is easily connected to the English &quot;tenure&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is ***tentura***, &quot;holding&quot; (roughly), from the past participle *tentus* of *tenere*, &quot;to hold, master, guard, or stay&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I think this captures the idea quite nicely is easy to recognize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The derivation of *tentura &lt; tenere* is similar to *censura &lt; censere* and *cultura &lt; colere*; it should not be confused with a future participle.&#xD;&#xA;For a comparison of the two, [see this question on whether *cultura* is a future participle](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1353/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9412" RevisionGUID="df0b1942-8178-4b48-9b84-67789ce655ae" CreationDate="2019-04-04T19:03:35.520" UserId="3248" Comment="new changes due to commentators" Text="Typically, so-called **&quot;dominant&quot;** participle constructions (aka _Ab urbe condita_ constructions; AUC for short) are defined by saying that the predicative participle is **compulsory**, whereby it cannot be eliminated without a significant change of meaning (e.g., (1a)). In some cases its elimination can be said to give semantic anomaly (e.g., (1b)).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1)	a.	_Ab urbe **condita**_ vs. _Ab urbe (condita)_&#xD;&#xA;		‘Since the foundation of the city’ // 'From the city (which was founded)' &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;   &gt;b.	_Virtus constat ex hominibus **tuendis**_ (Cic. _Off._ 1.157) vs. _Virtus constat ex hominibus (tuendis)_&#xD;&#xA;‘Virtue centres in protecting people’ // #'Virtue centres in people (who must be protected').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are some cases where the participle/secondary predicate in AUC constructions becomes **optional**, although perhaps in different degrees (e.g., cf. (2a) and (2b)). Is there any relevant generalization to be made here or each case has its own story? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2)	a.	_Ante Christum **natum**_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt;    b.	_Post Ciceronem **consulem**_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, it is not always easy to work out if the participle is dominant/compulsory or optional: e.g., vid. (3a) (cf. (3b), where _servandum_ is a final/purpose optional adjunct). For some related discussion, see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9370/how-many-types-of-so-called-predicative-gerundives-can-be-differentiated-in-la  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3)	a.	_Populus Romanus consuli potius Crasso quam privato Africano bellum **gerendum** dedit_ (Cic. _Phil._ 11.18) ‘The Roman people preferred the consul C. to the private person A. as their leader in the war’ (NB: Pinkster's (1990) translation). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b.	_Diviti homini id aurum **servandum** dedit_ (Pl. _Bacch._ 338) ‘He gave that gold to a rich man to keep’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - &#xD;&#xA;EDIT 1 (thanks to Joonas's excellent answer below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that there seems to be a **grammatical** distinction to be made between (3a) and (3b): (3a) can be considered an AUC to the extent that the predicative gerundive is part of the argumental direct object of _dedit_: what was given was not war but **the leadership of war**. In contrast, in (3b) what was given was a thing (gold), whereby _servandum_ is to be considered as a predicative adjunct outside of the argumental direct object (_id aurum_). As noted below, this is not an obstacle for the grammatically optional predicative adjunct _servandum_ to become obligatory for informational reasons (as for so-called &quot;obligatory adjuncts&quot; feel free to google these terms: e.g., Engl. _These horses saddle easily_. &quot;Easily&quot; is a a grammatical adjunct but cannot be eliminated due to informational/pragmatic reasons: cf. ??_These horses saddle_). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accordingly, to the extent that (3a) contains an AUC construction, note that this example (3a) is more similar to (3c) rather than (3b):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3c) _Epaminondam pecunia **corrumpendum** suscepit_ (Nep. 15,4,1) ‘He undertook the bribing of Epaminondas with money’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also worth pointing out another insightful remark made by Joonas. See below for his very interesting connection between the so-called AUC and what he refers to a cognitive principle known as **metonymy**. It's really fascinating for me to see that his insightful intuition is also found in the specialized literature on the topic of dominant participles &amp; gerundives (e.g., see http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/24318 ). &#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;END EDIT 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;One could conclude that the distinction found in Latin grammar textbooks between dominant/obligatory predicates and optional ones is not “real” but is a by-product from our attempt of imposing the grammatical schemata of our native languages (e.g., the ones of English, Catalan, etc). However, I don’t think this relativistic point is correct but rather it seems to me that there’s something grammatically real behind the (allegedly) universal syntactic distinction between being an obligatory secondary predicate and being an optional attributive modifier. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I was wondering if there are meaning differences between the following pairs. Or are they merely &quot;stylistic&quot;?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (4)	a.	_Post Ciceronem consulem  // Post Ciceronis consulatum_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt;	b.	_Ab urbe condita // Ab urbis conditione_&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9412" RevisionGUID="1d5048f6-ce7a-4a64-b8e0-ce43f1de0630" CreationDate="2019-04-04T19:27:36.657" UserId="3248" Comment="new changes due to commentators" Text="Typically, so-called **&quot;dominant&quot;** participle constructions (aka _Ab urbe condita_ constructions; AUC for short) are defined by saying that the predicative participle is **compulsory**, whereby it cannot be eliminated without a significant change of meaning (e.g., (1a)). In some cases its elimination can be said to give semantic anomaly (e.g., (1b)).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1)	a.	_Ab urbe **condita**_ vs. _Ab urbe (condita)_&#xD;&#xA;		‘Since the foundation of the city’ // 'From the city (which was founded)' &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;   &gt;b.	_Virtus constat ex hominibus **tuendis**_ (Cic. _Off._ 1.157) vs. _Virtus constat ex hominibus (tuendis)_&#xD;&#xA;‘Virtue centres in protecting people’ // #'Virtue centres in people (who must be protected').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are some cases where the participle/secondary predicate in AUC constructions becomes **optional**, although perhaps in different degrees (e.g., cf. (2a) and (2b)). Is there any relevant generalization to be made here or each case has its own story? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2)	a.	_Ante Christum **natum**_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt;    b.	_Post Ciceronem **consulem**_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, it is not always easy to work out if the participle is dominant/compulsory or optional: e.g., vid. (3a) (cf. (3b), where _servandum_ is a final/purpose optional adjunct). For some related discussion, see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9370/how-many-types-of-so-called-predicative-gerundives-can-be-differentiated-in-la  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3)	a.	_Populus Romanus consuli potius Crasso quam privato Africano bellum **gerendum** dedit_ (Cic. _Phil._ 11.18) ‘The Roman people preferred the consul C. to the private person A. as their leader in the war’ (NB: Pinkster's (1990) translation). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b.	_Diviti homini id aurum **servandum** dedit_ (Pl. _Bacch._ 338) ‘He gave that gold to a rich man to keep’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - &#xD;&#xA;EDIT 1 (thanks to Joonas's excellent answer below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that there seems to be a grammatical distinction to be made between (3a) and (3b): (3a) can be considered an AUC construction to the extent that the predicative gerundive is part of the argumental direct object of _dedit_: as pointed out by Joonas, what was given was not war but **the leadership of war**. In contrast, in (3b) what was given was a thing (gold), whereby _servandum_ is to be considered as a predicative adjunct outside of the argumental direct object (_id aurum_). Note this is not an obstacle for the grammatically optional predicative adjunct _servandum_ to be considered as obligatory for informational reasons (as for so-called &quot;obligatory adjuncts&quot;, feel free to google these terms: e.g., Engl. _These horses saddle easily_. &quot;Easily&quot; is a a grammatical adjunct but cannot be eliminated due to informational/pragmatic reasons: cf. ??_These horses saddle_). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accordingly, to the extent that (3a) contains an AUC construction, note that this example (3a) is more similar to (3c) rather than to (3b):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) c._Epaminondam pecunia **corrumpendum** suscepit_ (Nep. 15,4,1) ‘He undertook the bribing of Epaminondas with money’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also worth pointing out another insightful remark made by Joonas. See his very interesting connection between the so-called AUC construction and what he refers to as a cognitive principle known as **metonymy**. It's really fascinating for me to see that his insightful intuition is also found in the specialized literature on the topic of dominant participles &amp; gerundives (e.g., see http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/24318 ). &#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;END EDIT 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;One could conclude that the distinction found in Latin grammar textbooks between dominant/obligatory predicates and optional ones is not “real” but is a by-product from our attempt of imposing the grammatical schemata of our native languages (e.g., the ones of English, Catalan, etc). However, I don’t think this relativistic point is correct but rather it seems to me that there’s something grammatically real behind the (allegedly) universal syntactic distinction between being an obligatory secondary predicate and being an optional attributive modifier. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I was wondering if there are meaning differences between the following pairs. Or are they merely &quot;stylistic&quot;?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (4)	a.	_Post Ciceronem consulem  // Post Ciceronis consulatum_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt;	b.	_Ab urbe condita // Ab urbis conditione_&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9416" RevisionGUID="c26b1553-4612-4cbb-8161-1b8e6e666a56" CreationDate="2019-04-04T23:51:28.283" UserId="40" Text="This question is about the Greek equivalent of sentences like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do not fear the Greeks, but I do fear the Romans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Socrates didn't write dialogues, but Plato did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These sentences use or imply the same verb in both parts of a parallel construction, of which the first is negative and the second is positive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These sentences can be translated literally as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1.  τοὺς μὲν Ἕλληνας οὐ φοβοῦμαι, τοὺς δὲ Ῥωμαίους φοβοῦμαι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Σωκράτης μὲν διαλόγους οὐκ ἔγραψεν, Πλάτων δὲ ἔγραψεν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm wondering is whether the second verb can be left out, to give&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. τοὺς μὲν Ἕλληνας οὐ φοβοῦμαι, τοὺς δὲ Ῥωμαίους.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Σωκράτης μὲν διαλόγους οὐκ ἔγραψεν, Πλάτων δέ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that this is possible at least sometimes. Searching the TLG for &quot;δέ.&quot; at the end of a sentence yields some relevant examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἔστιν δὲ τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσι περὶ μυθολογίαν καθαρμὸς ἀρχαῖος, ὃν Ὅμηρος μὲν οὐκ ᾔσθετο, Στησίχορος δέ (Plato *Phaedrus* 243) &quot;for those who have sinned in matters of mythology there is an ancient purification, unknown to Homer, but known to Stesichorus&quot; (tr. Fowler)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εἰσὶν οὐ πόρρω τῶν εὐελπίδων, χείρους δ’ ὅσῳ ἀξίωμα οὐδὲν ἔχουσιν, ἐκεῖνοι δέ (Arist. *Nic. Eth.* 1117a) &quot;they come very near to those whose bravery rests on a sanguine temperament, though inferior to them inasmuch as they lack self-confidence, which the sanguine possess&quot; (tr. Rackham)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The last example isn't a μέν ... δέ, but it's the same idea.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These examples make me think that at least 4 above is good Greek. I'm still not sure about 3, though, because in that sentence the δέ is not final, and it's much harder to search for cases of this construction with non-final δέ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, are there examples like 3, with non-final δέ? And more broadly, how productive, restricted, or idiomatic is the use of verb elision as in 3-4, as opposed to repeating the verb as in 1-2? Are there pragmatic or other constraints on this construction? Since this is a somewhat difficult question to get a handle on, I'd also be interested in answers that simply give potentially relevant examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29406" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9416" RevisionGUID="c26b1553-4612-4cbb-8161-1b8e6e666a56" CreationDate="2019-04-04T23:51:28.283" UserId="40" Text="Omission of a repeated verb in second part of a μέν ... δέ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29407" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9416" RevisionGUID="c26b1553-4612-4cbb-8161-1b8e6e666a56" CreationDate="2019-04-04T23:51:28.283" UserId="40" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9417" RevisionGUID="c947f1f4-e87f-4665-9f97-0b5d5acc2667" CreationDate="2019-04-05T19:48:15.373" UserId="30" Text="On a rather informative [website on aqueducts][1], I came across the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Frontinus** is another classical author who wrote about aqueducts. Around 100 AD he was supervising the aqueducts of Rome and wrote the book 'de aquae ductu'. Remarkably **he did not make any reference to siphons** although in his time they were already applied all over the Greek and Roman world and even in and around Rome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is remarkable indeed. Is it true? I wouldn't even know any word for &quot;siphon&quot;; *vectis* seems rather broad?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.romanaqueducts.info/siphons/siphons.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29409" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9417" RevisionGUID="c947f1f4-e87f-4665-9f97-0b5d5acc2667" CreationDate="2019-04-05T19:48:15.373" UserId="30" Text="Did Frontinus mention siphons?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29410" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9417" RevisionGUID="c947f1f4-e87f-4665-9f97-0b5d5acc2667" CreationDate="2019-04-05T19:48:15.373" UserId="30" Text="|technology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9023" RevisionGUID="4ce705fc-3dea-4f63-b2f9-52bebd6805eb" CreationDate="2019-04-06T03:06:49.613" UserId="9" Comment="added 360 characters in body" Text="As far as I know, Latin does not have any monosyllabic words that end in a short vowel when pronounced in isolation. This is given as a fact by Diana Apoussidou and Paul Boersma, who suggest that the absence of words of this type would be explained by the following two rules: &quot;every word must contain at least one foot&quot;, and a foot cannot consist of a single light syllable (&quot;[The Learnability of Latin Stress](http://fonsg3.hum.uva.nl/paul/papers/ApousBoers_IFA25.pdf)&quot;, p. 115).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are of course monosyllabic *enclitics* that end in a short vowel: *-que, -ne, -ve.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Monosyllabic words in Latin may **scan** light in certain contexts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The most common example is words ending in V̆C (such as *in, ad, sed*) when they come before vowel-initial words. In this context, the word-final consonant was apparently resyllabified into the onset of the first syllable of the next word. This resyllabification clearly occurred in poetry, and is believed to have also occurred in the ordinary spoken language, at least within a phonological phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There is also the phenomenon of &quot;correption&quot; where in poetry, a word-final vowel that is typically long may scan as short before another vowel. It can result in light scansions of monosyllabic vowel-final words like ŏ or quĭ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some words have phonologically clitic contracted forms that are non-syllabic: for example, *est* has the contracted form *'st,* which is phonologically dependent on the previous word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9023" RevisionGUID="e2521bed-76f1-4aaf-9973-e4280f51935d" CreationDate="2019-04-06T03:16:05.247" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 196 characters in body" Text="As far as I know, Latin does not have any monosyllabic words that end in a short vowel when pronounced in isolation. This is given as a fact by Diana Apoussidou and Paul Boersma in &quot;[The Learnability of Latin Stress](http://fonsg3.hum.uva.nl/paul/papers/ApousBoers_IFA25.pdf)&quot;, p. 115.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are of course monosyllabic *enclitics* that end in a short vowel: *-que, -ne, -ve.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Monosyllabic words in Latin may **scan** light when followed by another word in certain contexts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The most common example is words ending in V̆C (such as *in, ad, sed*) when they come before vowel-initial words. In this context, the word-final consonant was apparently resyllabified into the onset of the first syllable of the next word. This resyllabification clearly occurred in poetry, and is believed to have also occurred in the ordinary spoken language, at least within a phonological phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There is also the phenomenon of &quot;correption&quot; where in poetry, a word-final vowel that is typically long may scan as short before another vowel. It can result in light scansions of monosyllabic vowel-final words like ŏ or quĭ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some words have phonologically clitic contracted forms that are non-syllabic: for example, *est* has the contracted form *'st,* which is phonologically dependent on the previous word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9023" RevisionGUID="a539dbfd-0213-40cb-8480-be057f4de35d" CreationDate="2019-04-06T06:36:21.233" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="As far as I know, Latin does not have any monosyllabic words that end in a short vowel when pronounced in isolation. This is given as a fact by Diana Apoussidou and Paul Boersma in &quot;[The Learnability of Latin Stress](http://fonsg3.hum.uva.nl/paul/papers/ApousBoers_IFA25.pdf)&quot;, p. 115.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Monosyllabic words in Latin may **scan** light when followed by another word in certain contexts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The most common example is words ending in V̆C (such as *in, ad, sed*) when they come before vowel-initial words. In this context, the word-final consonant was apparently resyllabified into the onset of the first syllable of the next word. This resyllabification clearly occurred in poetry, and is believed to have also occurred in the ordinary spoken language, at least within a phonological phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There is also the phenomenon of &quot;correption&quot; where in poetry, a word-final vowel that is typically long may scan as short before another vowel. It can result in light scansions of monosyllabic vowel-final words like ŏ or quĭ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are monosyllabic *enclitics* that end in a short vowel: *-que, -ne, -ve.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some words have phonologically clitic contracted forms that are non-syllabic: for example, *est* has the contracted form *'st,* which is phonologically dependent on the previous word. (For more details on the contraction of forms of *esse,* see *Terence and the Verb 'to Be' in Latin,* by Giuseppe Pezzini, 2015.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9418" RevisionGUID="212166ba-48ed-4af1-a6e5-0aa58000e217" CreationDate="2019-04-06T09:32:53.717" UserId="3635" Text="Google translate is obviously not good as it gives very different words depending on the structure of the english version, so i can't really tell what is correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29415" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9418" RevisionGUID="212166ba-48ed-4af1-a6e5-0aa58000e217" CreationDate="2019-04-06T09:32:53.717" UserId="3635" Text="How to correctly translate phrase &quot;knowledge builds upon knowledge&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29416" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9418" RevisionGUID="212166ba-48ed-4af1-a6e5-0aa58000e217" CreationDate="2019-04-06T09:32:53.717" UserId="3635" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9418" RevisionGUID="cb7cc87d-03cf-43b4-bea5-71dd097b7fed" CreationDate="2019-04-06T19:49:28.707" UserId="79" Comment="added 72 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I would like to translate &quot;knowledge builds upon knowledge&quot; into Latin. Google Translate is obviously not good as it gives very different words depending on the structure of the English version, so I can't really tell what is correct. How should it be translated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29418" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9418" RevisionGUID="cb7cc87d-03cf-43b4-bea5-71dd097b7fed" CreationDate="2019-04-06T19:49:28.707" UserId="79" Comment="added 72 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9419" RevisionGUID="1859cdef-ea71-435e-ae9c-23aa71671278" CreationDate="2019-04-06T20:16:48.997" UserId="79" Text="I would like to have a good idiom or two to express working in some position.&#xD;&#xA;A structure like this seems to be missing from my vocabulary, or at least I don't feel confident enough that what I might say is actually a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I would like to be able to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I work as a teacher.&#xD;&#xA;- My nephew wants to work as an astronaut.&#xD;&#xA;- What do you work as?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be an idiomatic way to put this kind of thing in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I don't think *magister laboro* works well for my first example although it matches well literally.&#xD;&#xA;I imagine *(in) munere magistri fungor* could work, but I'm not sure.&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure there is more than one way to phrase this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29420" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9419" RevisionGUID="1859cdef-ea71-435e-ae9c-23aa71671278" CreationDate="2019-04-06T20:16:48.997" UserId="79" Text="An idiom for working as something" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29421" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9419" RevisionGUID="1859cdef-ea71-435e-ae9c-23aa71671278" CreationDate="2019-04-06T20:16:48.997" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9420" RevisionGUID="4d0e57b3-9ab0-4e47-8d8b-403d85b70782" CreationDate="2019-04-06T20:29:35.310" UserId="406" Text="When messaging a British colleague, I noticed something interesting in the orthography. Where I would write &quot;she killed&quot; as _necāvit_, she writes _necarvit_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a non-rhotic accent, this makes perfect sense: _ar_ in this environment is a longer version of _a_, and it can be typed on an English keyboard more easily than _ā_ can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm curious: is this any sort of official or common practice? Or is it an accident of the sort the _Appendix Probī_ hates so much, replacing one spelling with another that sounds identical?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(My accent, by comparison, is rhotic: I pronounce the _r_ there as a consonant, which makes it sound completely different.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29423" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9420" RevisionGUID="4d0e57b3-9ab0-4e47-8d8b-403d85b70782" CreationDate="2019-04-06T20:29:35.310" UserId="406" Text="Using &quot;R&quot; to mark vowel length" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29424" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9420" RevisionGUID="4d0e57b3-9ab0-4e47-8d8b-403d85b70782" CreationDate="2019-04-06T20:29:35.310" UserId="406" Text="|orthography|vowel-quantity|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29425" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="9416" RevisionGUID="1972928c-5634-417e-a267-2557e536dd20" CreationDate="2019-04-07T00:07:38.263" UserId="40" Comment="111" />
  <row Id="29426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6803" RevisionGUID="8d5a52a3-abc2-48a6-92fd-ef54359bc087" CreationDate="2019-04-07T01:49:19.060" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="If someone disagrees with you and the argument makes you change your opinion, you might say &quot;Fair enough!&quot; in English. This seems to be essentially equivalent to &quot;Oh, good point! I agree.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a similar phrase in Latin? Of course, one can use verbs like *consentio* or *assentior*, but I was hoping there would be something indicating a change of opinion &amp;mdash; or at least something a little more colorful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume something like this could be found in Plautus, but I'm not familiar with his work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9421" RevisionGUID="3d562a5f-e634-47fa-9d76-1d8d3f29c387" CreationDate="2019-04-07T03:03:42.670" UserId="3248" Text="After having provided an answer to Draconis’ question ( https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs ), I was wondering about the **meaning differences** involved in triads like _{aperit/se aperit/aperitur}_,  _{movet/se movet/movetur}_, etc. I’m interested in how this grammatical triad {labile-anticausative/reflexive-anticausative/middle}, which is found in some **verbs of change**, is understood in Early &amp; Classical Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond the particular preferences involved in different authors/registers/… and beyond the particular encyclopedic differences (e.g., in _terra movet_ an earthquake is involved), are there any **semantic generalizations** associated to the abovementioned triad? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples follow:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Foris **aperit**_ (Pl. _Pers._ 300) ‘The door is opening’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Valvae **se** ipsae **aperuerunt**_ (Cic. _Div._ 1, 74) ‘The doors opened by themselves’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Flos numquam **se aperit** nisi vento spirante_ (Plin. _Nat._ 21.94.165) ‘the flower never opens unless the wind blows’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Tum sumus incauti, studioque **aperimur** in ipso, / nudaque per lusus pectora nostra patent_ (Ov. _A.A._ 3 371-372) (‘…we reveal ourselves in our very zest…’).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ubi aliud os amnis **aperitur**_ (Curt. 6,4, 7) ‘Where another mouth of the river opens’. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29428" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9421" RevisionGUID="3d562a5f-e634-47fa-9d76-1d8d3f29c387" CreationDate="2019-04-07T03:03:42.670" UserId="3248" Text="How things change in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29429" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9421" RevisionGUID="3d562a5f-e634-47fa-9d76-1d8d3f29c387" CreationDate="2019-04-07T03:03:42.670" UserId="3248" Text="|classical-latin|verbs|reflexive-pronoun|voice|early-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9421" RevisionGUID="4620de09-5ed2-4697-bdd4-b18ec645d76d" CreationDate="2019-04-07T03:20:56.857" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; improved formatting" Text="After having provided an answer to Draconis’ question ( https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs ), I was wondering about the **meaning differences** involved in triads like _{aperit/se aperit/aperitur}_,  _{movet/se movet/movetur}_, etc. I’m interested in how this grammatical triad {labile-anticausative/reflexive-anticausative/middle}, which is found in some **verbs of change**, is understood in Early &amp; Classical Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond the particular preferences involved in different authors/registers/… and beyond the particular encyclopedic differences (e.g., in _terra movet_ an earthquake is involved), are there any **semantic generalizations** associated to the abovementioned triad? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples follow:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Foris **aperit**_ (Pl. _Pers._ 300) ‘The door is opening’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Valvae **se** ipsae **aperuerunt**_ (Cic. _Div._ 1, 74) ‘The doors opened by themselves’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ecce autem commodum **aperitur** foris_ (Pl. _Mil._ 1198) ‘and look, at this very moment the door is opening'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Flos numquam **se aperit** nisi vento spirante_ (Plin. _Nat._ 21.94.165) ‘the flower never opens unless the wind blows’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Tum sumus incauti, studioque **aperimur** in ipso, / nudaque per lusus pectora nostra patent_ (Ov. _A.A._ 3 371-372) (‘…we reveal ourselves in our very zest…’).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ubi aliud os amnis **aperitur**_ (Curt. 6,4, 7) ‘Where another mouth of the river opens’. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9421" RevisionGUID="374e6cc1-ec85-4719-b7eb-05794f38ed30" CreationDate="2019-04-07T03:29:27.217" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; improved formatting" Text="After having provided an answer to Draconis’ question ( https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs ), I was wondering about the **meaning differences** involved in triads like _{aperit/se aperit/aperitur}_,  _{movet/se movet/movetur}_, etc. I’m mainly interested in how this grammatical triad, which is found in some **verbs of change**, is understood in Early &amp; Classical Latin (comments on Late Latin are also welcome). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond the particular preferences involved in different authors/registers/… and beyond the particular encyclopedic differences (e.g., in _terra movet_ an earthquake is involved), are there any **semantic generalizations** associated to the grammatical triad {labile-anticausative/reflexive-anticausative/middle}? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples follow:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Foris **aperit**_ (Pl. _Pers._ 300) ‘The door is opening’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Valvae **se** ipsae **aperuerunt**_ (Cic. _Div._ 1, 74) ‘The doors opened by themselves’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ecce autem commodum **aperitur** foris_ (Pl. _Mil._ 1198) ‘and look, at this very moment the door is opening'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Flos numquam **se aperit** nisi vento spirante_ (Plin. _Nat._ 21.94.165) ‘the flower never opens unless the wind blows’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Tum sumus incauti, studioque **aperimur** in ipso, / nudaque per lusus pectora nostra patent_ (Ov. _A.A._ 3 371-372) (‘…we reveal ourselves in our very zest…’).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ubi aliud os amnis **aperitur**_ (Curt. 6,4, 7) ‘Where another mouth of the river opens’. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9421" RevisionGUID="196069e2-8c2d-4225-bbf4-16fa6afff3b0" CreationDate="2019-04-07T03:54:28.453" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; improved formatting" Text="After having provided an answer to Draconis’ question ( https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs ), I was wondering about the **meaning differences** involved in triads like _{aperit/se aperit/aperitur}_,  _{movet/se movet/movetur}_, etc. I’m mainly interested in how this grammatical triad, which is found in some **verbs of change**, is understood in Early &amp; Classical Latin (comments on Late Latin are also welcome). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond the particular preferences involved in different authors/registers/… and beyond the particular encyclopedic differences (e.g., in _terra movet_ an earthquake is involved), are there any **semantic generalizations** associated to the abovementioned grammatical triad {labile / reflexive / middle}? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples follow:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Foris **aperit**_ (Pl. _Pers._ 300) ‘The door is opening’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Valvae **se** ipsae **aperuerunt**_ (Cic. _Div._ 1, 74) ‘The doors opened by themselves’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ecce autem commodum **aperitur** foris_ (Pl. _Mil._ 1198) ‘and look, at this very moment the door is opening'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Flos numquam **se aperit** nisi vento spirante_ (Plin. _Nat._ 21.94.165) ‘the flower never opens unless the wind blows’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Tum sumus incauti, studioque **aperimur** in ipso, / nudaque per lusus pectora nostra patent_ (Ov. _A.A._ 3 371-372) (‘…we reveal ourselves in our very zest…’).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ubi aliud os amnis **aperitur**_ (Curt. 6,4, 7) ‘Where another mouth of the river opens’. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9421" RevisionGUID="0f84a83e-947d-443b-a597-499139d055c9" CreationDate="2019-04-07T04:24:15.273" UserId="3248" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="After having provided an answer to Draconis’ question ( https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs ), I was wondering about the **meaning differences** involved in triads like _{aperit/se aperit/aperitur}_,  _{movet/se movet/movetur}_, etc. I’m mainly interested in how this grammatical triad, which is found in some **verbs of change**, is understood in Early &amp; Classical Latin (comments on Late Latin are also welcome). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond the particular preferences involved in different authors/registers/… and beyond the particular lexical encyclopedic-like differences (e.g., in _terra movet_ an earthquake is involved), are there any **semantic generalizations** associated to the abovementioned grammatical triad {labile / reflexive / middle}? **When is each of them used**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples follow:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Foris **aperit**_ (Pl. _Pers._ 300) ‘The door is opening’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Valvae **se** ipsae **aperuerunt**_ (Cic. _Div._ 1, 74) ‘The doors opened by themselves’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ecce autem commodum **aperitur** foris_ (Pl. _Mil._ 1198) ‘and look, at this very moment the door is opening'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Flos numquam **se aperit** nisi vento spirante_ (Plin. _Nat._ 21.94.165) ‘the flower never opens unless the wind blows’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Tum sumus incauti, studioque **aperimur** in ipso, / nudaque per lusus pectora nostra patent_ (Ov. _A.A._ 3 371-372) (‘…we reveal ourselves in our very zest…’).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ubi aliud os amnis **aperitur**_ (Curt. 6,4, 7) ‘Where another mouth of the river opens’. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9422" RevisionGUID="378e9d59-3ecc-494d-87d6-6f5bd853bb3e" CreationDate="2019-04-07T12:04:02.790" UserId="1982" Text="Suetonius, Caius 58: &quot;...alii Sabinum summota per conscious centuriones turba signum more militiae petisse et Gaio &quot;lovem&quot; dante Chaeream exclamasse : &quot;accipe ratum!&quot; respicientique maxillam ictu discidisse. Iacentum contractisque membris clamitantem se vivere ceteri vulneribus triginta confecerunt, nam signum erat omnium: &quot;repete!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, though this passage is written indirectly, the reply from Caligula (Gaio dante--with Caius giving) is inside quotation marks so should be direct-speech, &quot;luppiter&quot;; why the acc., &quot;lovem&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the present participle &quot;respicienti(que) linked to the ablative absolute &quot;Gaio dante&quot;--&quot;with Caius looking up&quot;; if so the case-ending would be &quot;e&quot;, not &quot;i&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thirdly, the last sentence: &quot;Iacentem…&quot; continues indirectly from &quot;alii&quot;--the others say that...As Caligula lies on the ground, with writhing limbs, crying out that he was still alive (indirect accusative-infinitive speech) the others (assassins) finished the job with thirty wounds--given as &quot;confecerunt&quot;--perfect tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why the switch from indirect speech? the others (alii) are still narrating the story: they-said-that-they (the assassins) finished the job....&quot;confecisse&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29435" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9422" RevisionGUID="378e9d59-3ecc-494d-87d6-6f5bd853bb3e" CreationDate="2019-04-07T12:04:02.790" UserId="1982" Text="Direct &amp; Indirect Speech" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29436" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9422" RevisionGUID="378e9d59-3ecc-494d-87d6-6f5bd853bb3e" CreationDate="2019-04-07T12:04:02.790" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="431d3692-d581-4103-8cbf-32989b4bdba6" CreationDate="2019-04-07T17:37:13.170" UserId="406" Text="In Christian Latin, the word _maleficia_ is used for &quot;witchcraft&quot; or &quot;sorcery&quot;: supernatural powers that don't come from God, and are probably associated with demons. A person who uses these powers is a _maleficus_ or a _malefica_. (For example, Exodus 22:18, _maleficōs non patieris vivere_: &quot;you shall not allow sorcerers to live&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious if the Romans had a similar conception: not of demons or Satanic pacts, but of barbarians doing unclean, uncivilized magicks that were an affront to Roman propriety. Is there a Classical word for this sort of &quot;sorcery&quot;, or for someone who uses it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Off the top of my head, Lucan describes a grove sacred to strange, horrifying &quot;old gods&quot;, and some blasphemous rituals to converse with the dead. But _necromantia_ in and of itself isn't inherently uncivilized: Aeneas and Odysseus both talked to ghosts to divine the future. The sorcerous meaning of _maleficia_ also seems to be post-classical: most of the examples of L&amp;S use it to mean simply &quot;doing harm&quot;.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29438" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="431d3692-d581-4103-8cbf-32989b4bdba6" CreationDate="2019-04-07T17:37:13.170" UserId="406" Text="What would the Romans have called &quot;sorcery&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29439" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="431d3692-d581-4103-8cbf-32989b4bdba6" CreationDate="2019-04-07T17:37:13.170" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|religio|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9425" RevisionGUID="867eee37-5f8a-45f7-a01d-e18a72cd8aaf" CreationDate="2019-04-07T18:19:58.547" UserId="40" Text="Virgil uses *magicas artes* in Aeneid 4.493:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Testor, cara, deos et te, germana, tuumque&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dulce caput, magicas invitam accingier artes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective *[magicus][1]* seems to be right in the semantic field you're looking for, and it has barbarian connotations baked into the [etymology][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmagicus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9425" RevisionGUID="c1946fb7-44b1-4014-96b9-d933eb20b29c" CreationDate="2019-04-07T18:55:29.810" UserId="79" Comment="Changed line spacing, breaking a line with two spaces at the end." Text="Virgil uses *magicas artes* in Aeneid 4.493:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Testor, cara, deos et te, germana, tuumque  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; dulce caput, magicas invitam accingier artes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective *[magicus][1]* seems to be right in the semantic field you're looking for, and it has barbarian connotations baked into the [etymology][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmagicus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29446" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4407" RevisionGUID="f9d220f5-c1bf-4611-9d15-f1daeb20c6a9" CreationDate="2019-04-07T19:12:39.093" UserId="40" Comment="112" />
  <row Id="29447" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="11ce3e3f-8cbb-43a9-9fdd-ecbd6d251bb2" CreationDate="2019-04-07T22:27:54.013" />
  <row Id="29448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9342" RevisionGUID="c4b588c0-ea83-403b-a2e4-c1687fb9101d" CreationDate="2019-04-08T00:51:35.103" UserId="406" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="It turns out, we know quite a bit about this!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three main sources for Vulgar Latin pronunciations: Classical texts imitating (or mocking or correcting) Vulgar speech, graffiti from actual plebs, and reconstruction from the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the first of those, we have bits by Petronius and Catullus (the _Cena Trimalchionis_ and _Carmen 84_), as well as the third-century _Appendix Probī_. And for the second, we have well-preserved writings from first-century Pompeii. These give hints at how Vulgar Latin was pronounced (by showing how it was spelled), and Romance reconstructions can fill in some of the gaps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a short summary of what I've found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *H* disappeared completely: *harena* → *arena* &quot;sand&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *Qv* merged into *c* before front vowels: *coqvens* → *cocens*&#xD;&#xA; - Unstressed vowels in medial syllables (not the start or end of a word) disappear: _spéculum_ → _spéclum_ &quot;mirror&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Unstressed *e* and *i* turn into *j* before vowels: _vínea_ → _vínja_ &quot;vineyard&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *V* started being pronounced `/v/` instead of `/w/`; later, *b* between vowels merged with it. (They both probably started as `[β]`, but there's no way to know when that changed.)&#xD;&#xA; - Nasals at the end of words and before *s* became nasalized vowels, then disappeared: *consul* → *cõsul* → *cosul* &quot;consul&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Consonants at the ends of words disappeared *in some regions*: graffiti in Pompeii has *valeat* → *valja* &quot;may he flourish&quot;, but modern French still shows remnants of final *t*s, so this wasn't universal&#xD;&#xA; - Vowel length was slowly turning into vowel quality: *ī*, *ū*, and *o* remained intact, while the pairs *ō/u*, *ē/i/oe*, *ā/a*, and *e/ae* merged into something like *ō ē a e*&#xD;&#xA; - Diminutives were all over the place: *fax* → *facla* &quot;torch&quot;, *neptis* → *nepticla* &quot;granddaughter&quot;, *ānus* → *anucla* &quot;old woman&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Regular first/second-declension forms spread to other words: *glis/gliris* → *glirus/glirī* &quot;dormouse&quot;, *pauper mulier* → *paupera mulier* &quot;poor woman&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9426" RevisionGUID="7c8315e9-e4fa-43ab-be31-9f48b43ad75b" CreationDate="2019-04-08T03:31:47.903" UserId="406" Text="A couple days ago, a friend sent me an excerpt from a new game, asking about a Latin phrase in it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Contra Diabolus enim et alii Daemones*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In the game, this is the motto of a group of Catholic monster hunters—so it's meant to be Church Latin, not Classical.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation seems fairly straightforward: &quot;Against the Devil and other Demons&quot;. I would have used *diabolum* in the accusative, but that's a separate matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What confused me, though, was the word *enim* in the middle. I would normally translate *enim* as &quot;for&quot; or &quot;because&quot;. So what's it doing here, right before *et*? Is it just an error on the translator's part, or is this a usage of *enim* I'm not familiar with?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29450" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9426" RevisionGUID="7c8315e9-e4fa-43ab-be31-9f48b43ad75b" CreationDate="2019-04-08T03:31:47.903" UserId="406" Text="What does &quot;enim et&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29451" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9426" RevisionGUID="7c8315e9-e4fa-43ab-be31-9f48b43ad75b" CreationDate="2019-04-08T03:31:47.903" UserId="406" Text="|motto|grammar-identification|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9427" RevisionGUID="512cb6e3-ab28-47b1-8495-88279ab90174" CreationDate="2019-04-08T04:20:17.280" UserId="79" Text="I would indeed expect the accusatives *Diabolum* and *alios* together with *contra*.&#xD;&#xA;But there is a way to make the nominative work; then *contra* has to be read as an adverb, not a preposition (which would require accusative).&#xD;&#xA;Ignoring the *enim*, the whole phrase could be read as &quot;in front [of us are] the Devil and other Demons&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make sense of *enim*, I think it modifies the entire motto, not just the second part.&#xD;&#xA;It usually comes as the second word, but if the first two words are closely connected, it can come a little later.&#xD;&#xA;This tight connection would make sense for me if *contra* was used as a preposition, but not so much in the adverbial use.&#xD;&#xA;I find the position a little odd but not completely wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [Leqis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=enim&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) write, *enim* is a corroborative particle.&#xD;&#xA;An apt English counterpart here might be &quot;indeed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would read the whole as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In front [of us are] indeed the Devil and other Demons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this does feel a little odd.&#xD;&#xA;*Enim* is in a weird place (and not even necessary in my opinion), and the use of *contra* strikes me as weird too.&#xD;&#xA;The motto may well be a well-composed Latin motto, but it could also be a mistaken attempt at translating &quot;Against the Devil and other Demons&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9428" RevisionGUID="13f6e6a6-d3f4-444c-864c-edb87ee83470" CreationDate="2019-04-08T04:25:42.470" UserId="985" Text="A quick web search shows that the phrase 'Diabolus enim et alii Daemones' (without the *contra*) appears to originate from the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215). The full sentence is *Diabolus enim et alii daemones a Deo quidem natura creati sunt boni, sed ipsi per se facti sunt mali*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that whoever created the phrase for the game knew of this sentence, knew that *contra* means 'against', but didn't know that it requires a change of case or that *enim* doesn't really belong unless it's serving a connecting function; therefore, he or she just stuck *contra* at the beginning instead of changing to *contra Diabolum et alios daemones*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9428" RevisionGUID="5f0b875a-a33e-47ec-9420-7a8f3deb6fd5" CreationDate="2019-04-08T04:39:41.143" UserId="985" Comment="Added translation" Text="A quick web search shows that the phrase 'Diabolus enim et alii Daemones' (without the *contra*) appears to originate from the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215). The full sentence is *Diabolus enim et alii daemones a Deo quidem natura creati sunt boni, sed ipsi per se facti sunt mali*, which I would translate as something like, 'For the Devil and other demons were created by God (to be) good by nature, it's true, but they became, on their own, through their own agency, wicked.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that whoever created the phrase for the game knew of this sentence, knew that *contra* means 'against', but didn't know that it requires a change of case or that *enim* doesn't really belong unless it's serving a connecting function; therefore, he or she just stuck *contra* at the beginning instead of changing to *contra Diabolum et alios daemones*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29455" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9426" RevisionGUID="73f4abba-7ffe-48f6-bb42-203453b2054a" CreationDate="2019-04-08T04:43:13.040" />
  <row Id="29456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9427" RevisionGUID="57ed0f04-5d82-4ffb-abca-15158d333462" CreationDate="2019-04-08T07:26:27.080" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="I would indeed expect the accusatives *Diabolum* and *alios* together with *contra*.&#xD;&#xA;But there is a way to make the nominative work; then *contra* has to be read as an adverb, not a preposition (which would require accusative).&#xD;&#xA;Ignoring the *enim*, the whole phrase could be read as &quot;in front [of us are] the Devil and other Demons&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make sense of *enim*, I think it modifies the entire motto, not just the second part.&#xD;&#xA;It usually comes as the second word, but if the first two words are closely connected, it can come a little later.&#xD;&#xA;This tight connection would make sense for me if *contra* was used as a preposition, but not so much in the adverbial use.&#xD;&#xA;I find the position a little odd but not completely wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=enim&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) write, *enim* is a corroborative particle.&#xD;&#xA;An apt English counterpart here might be &quot;indeed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I would read the whole as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In front [of us are] indeed the Devil and other Demons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this does feel a little odd.&#xD;&#xA;*Enim* is in a weird place (and not even necessary in my opinion), and the use of *contra* strikes me as weird too.&#xD;&#xA;The motto may well be a well-composed Latin motto, but it could also be a mistaken attempt at translating &quot;Against the Devil and other Demons&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9429" RevisionGUID="6bfb222a-8c1c-4165-baea-822ee2ac2a21" CreationDate="2019-04-08T08:54:10.470" UserId="1459" Text="Consider the picture below, depicting a cross allegedly found by monks of Galstonbury Abbey in a tomb (allegedly) containing the remains of King Arthur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's suppose to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hic jacet sepultus inclitus rex Arturius in insula Avalonia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(source of quote and image [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalon))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find odd that the N is depicted like an H. Notice there is also another H (_Hic_), but they might not be the same (the latter has a thinner middle stroke). Is this representation of N common to a region/period? Or is it rare? I've never seen it before. There is no mention of it in [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet), for instance. Searching [this index](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Inscriptions/Index/home.html) of Latin inscriptions seems to show no such use for H either. N seems to be always used for N.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HQTwM.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29458" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9429" RevisionGUID="6bfb222a-8c1c-4165-baea-822ee2ac2a21" CreationDate="2019-04-08T08:54:10.470" UserId="1459" Text="Is this simbol for the letter N common?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29459" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9429" RevisionGUID="6bfb222a-8c1c-4165-baea-822ee2ac2a21" CreationDate="2019-04-08T08:54:10.470" UserId="1459" Text="|alphabet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9422" RevisionGUID="11484162-7363-4f5a-9c12-394382e17ad4" CreationDate="2019-04-08T10:38:22.860" UserId="1982" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Suetonius, Caius 58: &quot;...alii Sabinum summota per conscious centuriones turba signum more militiae petisse et Gaio &quot;lovem&quot; dante Chaeream exclamasse : &quot;accipe ratum!&quot; respicientique maxillam ictu discidisse. Iacentum contractisque membris clamitantem se vivere ceteri vulneribus triginta confecerunt, nam signum erat omnium: &quot;repete!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, though this passage is written indirectly, the reply from Caligula (Gaio dante--with Caius giving) is inside quotation marks so should be direct-speech, &quot;luppiter&quot;; why the acc., &quot;lovem&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the present participle &quot;respicienti(que) linked to the ablative absolute &quot;Gaio dante&quot;--&quot;with Caius looking up&quot;; if so the case-ending would be &quot;e&quot;, not &quot;i&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thirdly, the last sentence: &quot;Iacentem…&quot; continues indirectly from &quot;alii&quot;--the others say that...As Caligula lies on the ground, with writhing limbs, crying out that he was still alive (indirect, accusative-infinitive, speech) the others (assassins) finished the job with thirty wounds--given as &quot;confecerunt&quot;--perfect tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why the switch from indirect speech? the others (alii) are still narrating the story: they-said-that-they (the assassins) finished the job....&quot;confecisse&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9430" RevisionGUID="de4db75c-fca0-4ffc-a617-e458e866265b" CreationDate="2019-04-08T11:25:35.753" UserId="947" Text="Central-European have a similar concept where the important step is a habilitation. *habilitatio* (medieval) - making qualified or eligible, *declaratio habilitatis* - declaration of qualification. After a habilitation one becomes a docent - *docens* - teaching (a lecturer)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9431" RevisionGUID="9b782ccb-3d92-4661-a92e-1a63e0868554" CreationDate="2019-04-08T13:44:48.583" UserId="3641" Text="How would you say &quot;same thing&quot; in Latin? As in the sentence: If only you were feeling the same thing that I feel for you?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29463" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9431" RevisionGUID="9b782ccb-3d92-4661-a92e-1a63e0868554" CreationDate="2019-04-08T13:44:48.583" UserId="3641" Text="How would you say &quot;same thing&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29464" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9431" RevisionGUID="9b782ccb-3d92-4661-a92e-1a63e0868554" CreationDate="2019-04-08T13:44:48.583" UserId="3641" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9432" RevisionGUID="85850a09-39c7-4ebd-b1ef-d22afb2e2a44" CreationDate="2019-04-08T14:06:58.660" UserId="2476" Text="In Italy, quoting [the website of the European University Institute](https://www.eui.eu/ProgrammesAndFellowships/AcademicCareersObservatory/AcademicCareersbyCountry/Italy), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;apart from ‘assegno di ricerca’, ‘professore a contratto’, and ‘ricercatore di tipo B’, all other positions are tenure or tenure-track.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular any position of Associate Professor (‘professore associato’) is a tenure-track or tenured one, and that of Full Professor (‘professore ordinario’) is tenured after a probationary period ('professore straordinario').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We may generalise saying that &quot;tenure&quot; (somewhat) corresponds to _titolarità di cattedra_ - literally &quot;ownership of a professorship chair&quot;. Since _titularis_ is an attested Late Latin word, we may translate tenure as _**titularitas cathedrae**_. [This German website](https://adw-goe.de/la/forschung/forschungsprojekte-akademienprogramm/papsturkunden-neuerscheinungen/fundatio-pii-pp-xi-pro-romanorum-pontificum-documentorum-editione-et-studiis-promovendis/historia-operis/) describes [Paul Fridolin Kehr](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Fridolin_Kehr) as _titularis cathedrae historiae medii aevi Gottingensis,_ so &quot;tenured professor&quot; may be translated as _**(professor/docens) titularis cathedrae**._&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9432" RevisionGUID="b4e67927-4b99-441e-abef-c7f306f00d96" CreationDate="2019-04-08T14:13:26.327" UserId="2476" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="In Italy, quoting [the website of the European University Institute](https://www.eui.eu/ProgrammesAndFellowships/AcademicCareersObservatory/AcademicCareersbyCountry/Italy), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;apart from ‘assegno di ricerca’, ‘professore a contratto’, and ‘ricercatore di tipo B’, all other positions are tenure or tenure-track.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular any position of Associate Professor (‘professore associato’) is a tenure-track or tenured one, and that of Full Professor (‘professore ordinario’) is tenured after a probationary period ('professore straordinario').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We may generalise saying that &quot;tenure&quot; (somewhat if not perfectly) corresponds to _titolarità di cattedra_, and is usually translated as such - literally &quot;ownership of a professorship chair&quot;. Since _titularis_ is an attested Late Latin word, we may translate tenure as _**titularitas cathedrae**_. [This German website](https://adw-goe.de/la/forschung/forschungsprojekte-akademienprogramm/papsturkunden-neuerscheinungen/fundatio-pii-pp-xi-pro-romanorum-pontificum-documentorum-editione-et-studiis-promovendis/historia-operis/) describes [Paul Fridolin Kehr](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Fridolin_Kehr) as _titularis cathedrae historiae medii aevi Gottingensis,_ so &quot;tenured professor&quot; may be translated as _**(professor/docens) titularis cathedrae**._&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9433" RevisionGUID="ca730f35-8832-499c-ac2c-d9ac93fef2ff" CreationDate="2019-04-08T14:34:42.200" UserId="3641" Text="how do you translate the following sentence: What things, then, will you do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am particularly doubtful of the translation of &quot;things&quot; here. Would we use res, rei?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29468" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9433" RevisionGUID="ca730f35-8832-499c-ac2c-d9ac93fef2ff" CreationDate="2019-04-08T14:34:42.200" UserId="3641" Text="How do you translate: What things, then, will you do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29469" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9433" RevisionGUID="ca730f35-8832-499c-ac2c-d9ac93fef2ff" CreationDate="2019-04-08T14:34:42.200" UserId="3641" Text="|vocabulary|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9434" RevisionGUID="90200f10-1461-4d6f-a189-095d1128e1ff" CreationDate="2019-04-08T16:13:24.990" UserId="79" Text="This is best expressed with the neuter pronoun *idem*, &quot;same&quot;, in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Utinam idem sentires ac ipsa/ipse sentio!*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If only you felt the same as I (fem/masc) feel!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you could use the plural *eadem*, &quot;same things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The difference in meaning is not huge, and Latin tends to favour plurals here more than English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume you were only after an expression for &quot;same thing&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to find a good way to phrase the &quot;for you&quot; in &quot;what I feel for you&quot; in Latin, I recommend asking a new question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9434" RevisionGUID="d4852cc8-51ae-47e1-9399-75768268f51a" CreationDate="2019-04-08T16:18:43.887" UserId="79" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="This is best expressed with the neuter pronoun *idem*, &quot;same&quot;, in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Utinam idem sentires ac ipsa/ipse sentio!*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If only you felt the same as I (fem/masc) feel!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you could use the plural *eadem*, &quot;same things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The difference in meaning is not huge, and Latin tends to favour plurals here more than English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin doesn't usually use a noun for &quot;thing&quot; the same way English and many other languages do.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, a pronoun or an adjective in neuter is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume you were only after an expression for &quot;same thing&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to find a good way to phrase the &quot;for you&quot; in &quot;what I feel for you&quot; in Latin, I recommend asking a new question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9435" RevisionGUID="e8cbedaa-e06b-43b7-8434-7a5b21f93b26" CreationDate="2019-04-08T16:22:28.630" UserId="3643" Text="Seems like you're working too hard; why not translate directly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Live beautifully, dream vehemently, love ardently.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9436" RevisionGUID="0527fc91-f4bf-47af-8682-7c799f66acae" CreationDate="2019-04-08T16:27:11.987" UserId="522" Text="Welcome to the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The neuter plural of the Interrogative Pronoun is simplest. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Then' can be translated in a number of ways:  &#xD;&#xA;*prorsum* means 'then,' 'next,'  'straightaway.'  &#xD;&#xA;*igitur* (usually placed second word) 'then,' 'therefore.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9422" RevisionGUID="9ad28151-84c3-4f7d-bb4a-f26de0e9b55c" CreationDate="2019-04-08T17:38:53.500" UserId="30" Comment="added 81 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Suetonius, Caius (Caligula) 58:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alii [tradunt] Sabinum summota per conscios centuriones turba &#xD;&#xA;signum more militiae petisse et Gaio '**Iouem**' dante &#xD;&#xA;Chaeream exclamasse: 'accipe ratum!' **respicienti**que	&#xD;&#xA;maxillam ictu discidisse. iacentem contractisque membris clamitantem se uiuere ceteri uulneribus triginta 	confecerunt; nam signum erat omnium: 'repete!' quidam etiam per obscaena ferrum adegerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, though this passage is written indirectly, the reply from Caligula (Gaio dante--with Caius giving) is inside quotation marks so should be direct-speech, &quot;luppiter&quot;; why the acc., &quot;**lovem**&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the present participle &quot;**respicienti**(que)&quot; linked to the ablative absolute &quot;Gaio dante&quot;—&quot;with Caius looking up&quot;; if so the case-ending would be &quot;e&quot;, not &quot;i&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thirdly, the last sentence: &quot;Iacentem…&quot; continues indirectly from &quot;alii&quot;—*the others say that...As Caligula lies on the ground, with writhing limbs, crying out that he was still alive* (indirect, accusative-infinitive, speech) *the others (assassins) finished the job with thirty wounds*—given as &quot;**confecerunt**&quot;—perfect tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why the switch from indirect speech? The others (alii) are still narrating the story: they-said-that-they (the assassins) finished the job....&quot;confecisse&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29475" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9422" RevisionGUID="9ad28151-84c3-4f7d-bb4a-f26de0e9b55c" CreationDate="2019-04-08T17:38:53.500" UserId="30" Comment="added 81 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation|participle|suetonius|accusativus-cum-infinitivo|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29476" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9422" RevisionGUID="9ad28151-84c3-4f7d-bb4a-f26de0e9b55c" CreationDate="2019-04-08T17:38:53.500" UserId="30" Comment="added 81 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Switches between Direct &amp; Indirect Speech in Suetonius" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9437" RevisionGUID="c2a72155-04fa-4823-a853-f014562a2daf" CreationDate="2019-04-08T17:57:01.067" UserId="30" Text="Ad 1.: the distinction between direct and indirect speech was perhaps no so strict in Latin as we would have it. Strictly speaking, *Iovem* should be indirect speech, as you say, without quotation marks, because of the accusative. Then it would be translated as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...and that, when Gaius gave Jupiter (as the password), Chaerea exclaimed...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We moderns may be inclined to put *Jupiter* in quotation marks, lest the passage be read as if Caligula were handing over the god Jupiter to someone: for he gives the word Jupiter, not Jupiter himself. That is why the editor added quotation marks, which the Romans did not use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Your three questions are about the same passage, so I understand why you asked them in one Question; but we should prefer that you open three different Questions, as they can be answered separately and don't depend upon each other. Can you do that? If you'd prefer not to, I'd be happy to do it for you, but then you'd miss out on the reputation points..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9421" RevisionGUID="2ef0b0bc-5b03-4963-80df-68ad0cac9edb" CreationDate="2019-04-08T18:32:41.437" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes " Text="After having provided an answer to Draconis’ question ( https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs ), I was wondering about the (very subtle?) **meaning differences** involved in triads like _{aperit/se aperit/aperitur}_,  _{movet/se movet/movetur}_, etc. I’m mainly interested in how this grammatical triad, which is mainly found with some **verbs of change**, was interpreted in Early &amp; Classical Latin (comments on Late Latin are also welcome). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond the particular preferences involved in different authors/registers/… and beyond the particular lexical encyclopedic-like differences (e.g., in _terra movet_ an earthquake is involved), are there any **semantic generalizations** associated to the abovementioned grammatical triad {labile / reflexive / middle}? **When is each of them used**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples follow:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Foris **aperit**_ (Pl. _Pers._ 300) ‘The door is opening’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Valvae **se** ipsae **aperuerunt**_ (Cic. _Div._ 1, 74) ‘The doors opened by themselves’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ecce autem commodum **aperitur** foris_ (Pl. _Mil._ 1198) ‘and look, at this very moment the door is opening'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Flos numquam **se aperit** nisi vento spirante_ (Plin. _Nat._ 21.94.165) ‘the flower never opens unless the wind blows’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Tum sumus incauti, studioque **aperimur** in ipso, / nudaque per lusus pectora nostra patent_ (Ov. _A.A._ 3 371-372) (‘…we reveal ourselves in our very zest…’).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ubi aliud os amnis **aperitur**_ (Curt. 6,4, 7) ‘Where another mouth of the river opens’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first sight, there appears to be no meaningful difference between the {labile / reflexive / middle} examples above. But is this **non-native** intuition true? For example, for all of us who speak a Romance language natively, it is not surprising that subtle differences may sometimes emerge from using the reflexive or not: e.g., cf. Spanish _Juan {se murió /murió} anoche_ 'Juan died last night'. Apparently, the meaning of this example with or without the pronoun is the same but, **on a closer look**, it is not the same in all contexts: cf. ok _Juan murió anoche fusilado_ vs. *_Juan se murió anoche fusilado_ ('John was shot dead'). Cf. also the following contrast from French: _Jean (*se) rougit_ vs. _Il vit le mouchoir *(se) rougir soudain_.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9438" RevisionGUID="82176a99-8e70-4632-afae-bcffff6f5551" CreationDate="2019-04-08T19:13:21.377" UserId="30" Text="It was somewhat common in the Middle Ages for capital N to have an horizontal connective stroke, resembling H, at least in manuscript. Here are a few examples of abbreviations using capital N, taken from [Cappelli][1] (Roman numerals are centuries):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ub.uni-koeln.de/cdm/ref/collection/mono20/id/8533&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MxGzN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gIoU0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/10aUZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5579" RevisionGUID="35e977cf-6da5-41c3-8556-43cd38cb6f31" CreationDate="2019-04-08T19:22:33.157" UserId="30" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="Modality is a purely semantic category; that is, it is only about *meaning*, not about specific constructions. The same meaning, and hence the same modality, can be expressed through different constructions. That said, there are certain words and certain constructions that are typically used to express a certain modality, as indirect speech is often (though by no means always) used to express various kinds of epistemic modality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it doesn't work that way the other way around: epistemic modality can be expressed by using a main verb + indirect speech (*constat* + a.c.i.), or by an adverb (*certo, fortasse*), by a parenthetical clause (*ut ferunt*), etc. (note that these are different kinds of epistemic modality). So your version, using a main verb + indirect speech instead of *ut ferunt*, would be perfectly fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other issue, mentioned by Cnread, is that *quod* can be used with the subjunctive or indicative to distinguish between what one might call two different kinds of epistemic modality. *Quod* + indicative indicates that this was objectively the reason for whatever happened, where 'objectively' usually means 'according to the author'. So it establishes a certain attitude of the author towards the *quod* clause / the reason. With the subjunctive, it indicates a subjective reason: it is the reason according to someone other than the author, such as the Ephori in context. The author may or may not agree with this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29481" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9429" RevisionGUID="ee721604-e4fc-4974-8d07-8c7a19288a78" CreationDate="2019-04-08T19:23:22.063" UserId="30" Comment="edited title" Text="Is this symbol for the letter N common?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9439" RevisionGUID="10b33dfc-186b-4bb6-b05c-623bf9992ead" CreationDate="2019-04-08T21:21:49.770" UserId="2047" Text="In his *Preface to Judith*, Jerome writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Apud Hebraeos liber Judith inter apocrypha legitur: **cujus auctoritas ad roboranda illa quae in contentionem veniunt, minus idonea judicatur.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, with an atrociously minimal knowledge of Latin, would translate this thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Among the Hebrews, the book of Judith is counted among the Apocrypha: **the authority of which, for confirmation on matters which come into dispute, is judged less than sufficient.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, [another translator](http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_judith.htm) translates it thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha; **its warrant for affirming those [apocryphal texts] which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which doesn't make sense to me in the slightest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have I captured the sense, or am I completely mistaken?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29483" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9439" RevisionGUID="10b33dfc-186b-4bb6-b05c-623bf9992ead" CreationDate="2019-04-08T21:21:49.770" UserId="2047" Text="A Question about a Portion of Jerome's Preface to Judith" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29484" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9439" RevisionGUID="10b33dfc-186b-4bb6-b05c-623bf9992ead" CreationDate="2019-04-08T21:21:49.770" UserId="2047" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9440" RevisionGUID="a8e2279c-fc8f-4740-808b-ad3213dc2576" CreationDate="2019-04-08T22:01:58.233" UserId="2047" Text="This question was inspired by a comment to an answer on this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How would you say “same thing” in Latin?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9431/how-would-you-say-same-thing-in-latin/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In which an answerer translated &quot;Utinam idem sentires ac **ipsa/ipse** sentio!&quot; as &quot;If only you felt the same as **I** (fem/masc) feel!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29487" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9440" RevisionGUID="a8e2279c-fc8f-4740-808b-ad3213dc2576" CreationDate="2019-04-08T22:01:58.233" UserId="2047" Text="Is ipso/ipsa/ipse a third person pronoun, or can it serve other functions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29488" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9440" RevisionGUID="a8e2279c-fc8f-4740-808b-ad3213dc2576" CreationDate="2019-04-08T22:01:58.233" UserId="2047" Text="|personal-pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9441" RevisionGUID="5c551fe0-9163-4acf-8b44-545a3e15e58f" CreationDate="2019-04-08T22:02:59.377" UserId="79" Text="The pronoun *ipse* is not a third person pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;It can be used with the first or second person just as well.&#xD;&#xA;The closest English word I can think of is &quot;-self&quot; from which one can form &quot;myself&quot;, &quot;yourself&quot;, &quot;himself&quot;, and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference to first or second (or third!) person can be left implicit.&#xD;&#xA;You can say *ipse sentio* (&quot;I myself feel&quot;), no need to say *ego ipse sentio*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to use it together with *ego* or *tu* as well, and that gives more emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;It also proves inambiguously that the pronoun can go together with first and second persons.&#xD;&#xA;For a couple of examples, you can check uses of [*ego ipse*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=ego+ipse+%5Bcic%5D) and [*tu ipse*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=tu+ipse+%5Bcic%5D) in Cicero." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29490" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9440" RevisionGUID="a171b1a7-2a4e-4cdd-9dd0-84f87f165ea0" CreationDate="2019-04-08T22:05:12.167" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and fixed the spelling in the neuter." Text="Is ipsum/ipsa/ipse a third person pronoun, or can it serve other functions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29491" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9440" RevisionGUID="a171b1a7-2a4e-4cdd-9dd0-84f87f165ea0" CreationDate="2019-04-08T22:05:12.167" UserId="79" Comment="Added a tag and fixed the spelling in the neuter." Text="|pronouns|personal-pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9441" RevisionGUID="16ee468f-3311-410c-aac2-e9c80a10f8e1" CreationDate="2019-04-08T22:07:39.857" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="The pronoun *ipse* is not a third person pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;It can be used with the first or second person just as well.&#xD;&#xA;The closest English word I can think of is &quot;-self&quot; from which one can form &quot;myself&quot;, &quot;yourself&quot;, &quot;himself&quot;, and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference to first or second (or third!) person can be left implicit.&#xD;&#xA;You can say *ipse sentio* (&quot;I myself feel&quot;), no need to say *ego ipse sentio*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to use it together with *ego* or *tu* as well, and that gives more emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;It also proves unambiguously that the pronoun can go together with first and second persons.&#xD;&#xA;For a couple of examples, you can check uses of [*ego ipse*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=ego+ipse+%5Bcic%5D) and [*tu ipse*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=tu+ipse+%5Bcic%5D) in Cicero." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9442" RevisionGUID="c038861b-e03c-44bf-8e58-d0eaa12ada29" CreationDate="2019-04-08T23:04:26.010" UserId="406" Text="As Joonas said, _ipse_ is an intensifier, not a pronoun in and of itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Caesar ipse hoc dixit.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caesar *himself* said this!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trick is, Latin leaves out pronouns all the time. So you'll sometimes see *ipse* standing on its own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ipse hoc aedificavi.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I built this *myself*!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the ending of the verb is what supplies the &quot;I&quot; and &quot;my-&quot; parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a word of caution: *ipse* does **not** mean &quot;-self&quot; in the sense of &quot;he's talking to himself&quot;. In English, the &quot;intensive&quot; pronoun and the &quot;reflexive&quot; pronoun look the same, but in Latin this isn't the case! So only use *ipse* when you're emphasizing something, *not* when you're saying that the subject and the object are the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9441" RevisionGUID="60328eb2-8d30-4eb1-bbb5-7fd60c40c817" CreationDate="2019-04-09T00:44:32.287" UserId="79" Comment="added 199 characters in body" Text="The pronoun *ipse* is not a third person pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;It can be used with the first or second person just as well.&#xD;&#xA;The closest English word I can think of is &quot;-self&quot; from which one can form &quot;myself&quot;, &quot;yourself&quot;, &quot;himself&quot;, and others.&#xD;&#xA;(For clarity, I should add that *ipse* is not quite the same as &quot;-self&quot;; it is just the simplest one-word translation. Forms of *se* can also be translated as &quot;-self&quot;, but in a very different way.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference to first or second (or third!) person can be left implicit.&#xD;&#xA;You can say *ipse sentio* (&quot;I myself feel&quot;), no need to say *ego ipse sentio*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to use it together with *ego* or *tu* as well, and that gives more emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;It also proves unambiguously that the pronoun can go together with first and second persons.&#xD;&#xA;For a couple of examples, you can check uses of [*ego ipse*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=ego+ipse+%5Bcic%5D) and [*tu ipse*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=tu+ipse+%5Bcic%5D) in Cicero." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29495" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9440" RevisionGUID="b9327988-a58a-4ab6-b11e-83bb9fbd8d1d" CreationDate="2019-04-09T00:44:42.103" />
  <row Id="29496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9443" RevisionGUID="c33b0afa-52e4-40c7-a81c-59b7533b0829" CreationDate="2019-04-09T08:53:52.130" UserId="1982" Text="Suetonius, Caius (Caligula) 58:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...alii Sabinum summota per conscios centuriones turba signum more militiae petisse et Caio &quot;lovem&quot; dante Chaeream exclamasse: &quot;accipe ratum&quot; respicientique maxillam ictu discidisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The present participle, respicienti(que), is it linked to the ablative absolute &quot;Caio dante&quot;--with Caligula giving; continuing--with Caligula looking up; if so, respicienti would require the case-ending &quot;e&quot;, not &quot;i&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29497" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9443" RevisionGUID="c33b0afa-52e4-40c7-a81c-59b7533b0829" CreationDate="2019-04-09T08:53:52.130" UserId="1982" Text="Present Participles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29498" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9443" RevisionGUID="c33b0afa-52e4-40c7-a81c-59b7533b0829" CreationDate="2019-04-09T08:53:52.130" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9444" RevisionGUID="c5cc9b68-fad1-4c72-b7d8-b72fd78ba123" CreationDate="2019-04-09T09:13:28.557" UserId="1982" Text="Suetonius, Caius (Caligula) 58: concerns the assassination of Emperor Caius (Caligula) on January 21st., AD41. At this point, the assassins have struck the first blows and Caius, still alive, collapses to the floor: &quot;...alii...iacentem contractisque membris clamitantem se vivere ceteri vulneribus triginta confecerunt; nam erat omnium: &quot;repete!&quot; quidam etiam per obscaena ferrum adegerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passage is narrated by the others (&quot;alii&quot;) and is therefore written indirectly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Caligula lies on the floor, with writhing limbs, crying out that he was still alive (indirect, accusative-infinitive, speech) they (the assassins) finished the job with thirty wounds--given as &quot;confecerunt&quot;, the perfect tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why the switch from indirect speech? The others (&quot;alii&quot;) are still narrating the story: they-said-that-they (the assassins) finished the job--&quot;confecisse&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29500" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9444" RevisionGUID="c5cc9b68-fad1-4c72-b7d8-b72fd78ba123" CreationDate="2019-04-09T09:13:28.557" UserId="1982" Text="Switches Between Direct &amp; Indirect Speech in Suetonius-Supplemental" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29501" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9444" RevisionGUID="c5cc9b68-fad1-4c72-b7d8-b72fd78ba123" CreationDate="2019-04-09T09:13:28.557" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9445" RevisionGUID="870ecb57-2f25-4cdd-841d-ce70e7bdcdfe" CreationDate="2019-04-09T12:54:20.583" UserId="3645" Text="I strongly suggest you to read english translations of William White and Samuel Shirley. These are more precise than Elwes translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9446" RevisionGUID="b07e2fce-be8d-4b0a-b267-2714c1ed2c85" CreationDate="2019-04-09T14:50:01.367" UserId="30" Text="As Sumelic says, both *-i* and *-e* can be used as the ablative ending of a participle. Even so, mixing them in the same sentence would probably be unusual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But *respicienti* is really a dative; the new a.c.i. (*discidisse*) has a different construction from the previous one (*exclamasse* with an ablative absolute *Caio dante*). The new construction is like *Chaerea [Gaio] respicienti maxillam discidit*: &quot;Chaerea split him his jaw when he looked back&quot;. The archetype is *alicui maxillam disci*: to split the jaw for someone = to split someone's jaw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf.  Suetonius, *De Vita Caesarum Aug*. 67.2.4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thallo a manu, quod pro epistula prodita denarios quingentos accepisset, **crura ei fregit**; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;He broke his (Thallus's) legs&quot;, with dative *ei*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9443" RevisionGUID="b49d17da-3ed9-4a20-954b-08bb2ff64226" CreationDate="2019-04-09T14:52:07.230" UserId="30" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Suetonius, *Caius* (Caligula) 58:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...alii Sabinum summota per conscios centuriones turba signum more militiae petisse et Caio &quot;lovem&quot; dante Chaeream exclamasse: &quot;accipe ratum&quot; respicientique maxillam ictu discidisse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The present participle, *respicienti(que),* is it linked to the ablative absolute *Caio dante*—with Caligula giving; continuing—with Caligula looking up; if so, *respicienti* would require the case-ending &quot;e&quot;, not &quot;i&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9444" RevisionGUID="e86a82d5-d433-4b7b-be1a-e71b9ee225c2" CreationDate="2019-04-09T14:53:21.403" UserId="30" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Suetonius, Caius (Caligula) 58: concerns the assassination of Emperor Caius (Caligula) on January 21st., AD 41. At this point, the assassins have struck the first blows and Caius, still alive, collapses to the floor:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...alii...iacentem contractisque membris clamitantem se vivere ceteri vulneribus triginta confecerunt; nam erat omnium: &quot;repete!&quot; quidam etiam per obscaena ferrum adegerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passage is narrated by the others (*alii*) and is therefore written indirectly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Caligula lies on the floor, with writhing limbs, crying out that he was still alive (indirect, accusative-infinitive, speech) they (the assassins) finished the job with thirty wounds—given as *confecerunt*, the perfect tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why the switch from indirect speech? The others (*alii*) are still narrating the story: they-said-that-they (the assassins) finished the job—*confecisse*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9447" RevisionGUID="bc2dddee-8dbb-4105-91cf-f8f68c30da72" CreationDate="2019-04-09T15:09:19.710" UserId="30" Text="I need a bit more context to come up with an explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cum in crypta, per quam transeundum erat, pueri nobiles ex Asia ad edendas in scaena operas evocati praepararentur, ut eos inspiceret hortareturque restitit, ac nisi princeps gregis algere se diceret, redire ac repraesentare spectaculum (2) **voluit**. ***Duplex dehinc fama est*: alii tradunt** *[here begins indirect speech]* adloquenti pueros a tergo Chaeream cervicem gladio caesim graviter **percussisse** praemissa voce: “Hoc age!” dehinc Cornelium Sabinum, alterum e coniuratis, tribunum ex adverso **traiecisse** pectus; **alii** Sabinum summota per conscios centuriones turba signum more militiae **petisse** et Gaio “Iovem” dante Chaeream **exclamasse**: “Accipe ratum!” (3) respicientique maxillam ictu **discidisse** *[here ends indirect speech]*. Iacentem contractisque membris clamitantem se vivere ceteri vulneribus triginta **confecerunt**; nam signum **erat** omnium: “Repete!”. Quidam etiam per obscaena ferrum **adegerunt**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First Suetonius uses direct speech, *voluit*, to narrate what happened. He presents it as fact. Then he says, &quot;from hereon, there are two different stories: some say that ...&quot; (*alii tradunt*). He proceeds to give both versions in a.c.i., the second one introduced by another *alii*. When he continues with direct speech (*confecerunt*), we must assume that he is finished with the uncertain alternative stories and returns to a factual narration about which there is no doubt (modern historians have a lot to say about that, though)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9448" RevisionGUID="d192660d-59bc-45c0-bfd7-9ecf136fe8be" CreationDate="2019-04-09T16:03:34.707" UserId="45" Text="It appears abundantly clear to me that you have correctly captured the sense and that the translation you cited is mistaken in identifying *apocrypha* as the antecedent of *illa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three brief reasons I can think of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Such restrictive relative clauses as *id quod* or *illa quae* need not--and most often do not--refer to a previously introduced antecedent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Most important, it makes no sense if *illa* refers to *apocrypha.* What does it even mean to be &quot;suitable for establishing contentious apocryphal texts&quot;? Presumably the author means something like, &quot;suitable for establishing the non-apocryphal status of certain texts that are judged to be apocryphal,&quot; but that too is problematic. Judith isn't used to establish *other* apocryphal texts: it would presumably be used to confirm *doctrines*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Finally, every reference I can find to the text adopts this interpretation. I found, for instance, an old [Compendium of Theology](https://books.google.com/books?id=MW8rAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA151-IA1&amp;lpg=PA151-IA1) that says the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ...Ex solis enim libris canonicis auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam veteres censuerunt, sicut testimonia supra allegata sunt. **Solius canonicae Scripturae auctoritas idonea judicata fuit ad roboranda illa, quae in contentionem veniunt; reliquos vero libros quos Cyprianus *ecclesiasticos*, Hieronymus *apocryphos* nominat, legi quidem voluerunt in ecclesia ad aedificationem plebis non ad auctoritatem ecclesiarum dogmatum confirmandam.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Here, it is clear that the &quot;things that come into contention&quot; are putative doctrines of the Church--not putative apocryphal works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9446" RevisionGUID="414c5500-aecb-4b99-9c47-4e754e07a830" CreationDate="2019-04-09T16:10:09.413" UserId="30" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="As Sumelic says, both *-i* and *-e* can be used as the ablative ending of a participle. Even so, mixing them in the same sentence would probably be unusual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But *respicienti* is really a dative; the new a.c.i. (*discidisse*) has a different construction from the previous one (*exclamasse* with an ablative absolute *Caio dante*). The new construction is like *Chaerea [Gaio] respicienti maxillam discidit*: &quot;Chaerea split him his jaw when he looked back&quot;. The archetype is *alicui maxillam discindere*: to split the jaw for someone = to split someone's jaw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf.  Suetonius, *De Vita Caesarum Aug*. 67.2.4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thallo a manu, quod pro epistula prodita denarios quingentos accepisset, **crura ei fregit**; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;He broke his (Thallus's) legs&quot;, with dative *ei*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9448" RevisionGUID="c975f639-16ee-40b3-b324-66c67e9ae759" CreationDate="2019-04-09T16:25:09.093" UserId="45" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It appears abundantly clear to me that you have correctly captured the sense and that the translation you cited is mistaken in identifying *apocrypha* as the antecedent of *illa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three brief reasons I can think of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Such restrictive relative clauses as *id quod* or *illa quae* need not--and most often do not--refer to a previously introduced antecedent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Most important, it makes no sense if *illa* refers to *apocrypha.* What does it even mean to be &quot;suitable for establishing contentious apocryphal texts&quot;? Presumably the author means something like, &quot;suitable for establishing the non-apocryphal status of certain texts that are judged to be apocryphal,&quot; but that too is problematic. Judith isn't used to establish *other* apocryphal texts: it would presumably be used to confirm *doctrines*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Finally, every reference I can find to the text adopts this interpretation. I found, for instance, an old [Compendium of Theology](https://books.google.com/books?id=MW8rAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA151-IA1&amp;lpg=PA151-IA1) that says the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ...Ex solis enim libris canonicis auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam veteres censuerunt, sicut testimonia supra allegata sunt. **Solius canonicae Scripturae auctoritas idonea judicata fuit ad roboranda illa, quae in contentionem veniunt; reliquos vero libros quos Cyprianus *ecclesiasticos*, Hieronymus *apocryphos* nominat, legi quidem voluerunt in ecclesia ad aedificationem plebis non ad auctoritatem ecclesiarum dogmatum confirmandam.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Here, it is clear that the &quot;things that come into contention&quot; are putative ecclesiastical doctrines--not putative apocryphal works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9444" RevisionGUID="e21ed5e9-01d6-4450-bea9-6d4a6497af03" CreationDate="2019-04-09T18:53:30.937" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Suetonius, Caius (Caligula) 58: concerns the assassination of Emperor Caius (Caligula) on January 21st., AD 41. At this point, the assassins have struck the first blows and Caius, still alive, collapses to the floor:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...alii...iacentem contractisque membris clamitantem se vivere ceteri vulneribus triginta confecerunt; nam erat omnium: &quot;repete!&quot; quidam etiam per obscaena ferrum adegerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passage is narrated by the others (*alii*) and is therefore written indirectly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Caligula lies on the floor, with writhing limbs, crying out that he was still alive (indirect, accusative-infinitive, speech) they (the assassins) finished the job with thirty wounds—given as *confecerunt*, the perfect tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why the switch from indirect speech? The others (*alii*) are still narrating the story: they-said-that-they (the assassins) finished the job—*confecisse*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29512" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9444" RevisionGUID="e21ed5e9-01d6-4450-bea9-6d4a6497af03" CreationDate="2019-04-09T18:53:30.937" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|latin-to-english-translation|suetonius|accusativus-cum-infinitivo|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29513" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9422" RevisionGUID="a544de05-8b2d-4c91-8b51-415f053eedd9" CreationDate="2019-04-09T18:54:06.647" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|latin-to-english-translation|participle|suetonius|accusativus-cum-infinitivo|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9449" RevisionGUID="57901b45-686a-4d91-8f19-940c8ed66078" CreationDate="2019-04-09T18:54:51.700" UserId="645" Text="My first teachers were anxious that I should write Latin that was plain and simple; later they allowed more relaxation of style to a degree where they felt I could handle the idioms comfortably. I constantly remind myself of this. There's seldom just a single way to express yourself, and it all finally depends on your style. In Latin, just as in English (and, I imagine, in most languages), you can be quite economical with your words (Tacitus generally) or orotund (Cicero). To answer your particular query:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are simply claiming to do any kind of job, 'work' is implied in the title. This makes it much simpler.  In your first example, *pedagogus sum* would be quite adequate: it just as much means 'I'm a teacher' as 'I work as a teacher', or 'my work is teaching', etc. Similarly, if your nephew wants to be an astronaut, there's no need to imply that he will work when he becomes one. But if you need to say something more explicit, there are alternatives to such bald statements. You might say *habeo statum pedagogi*, for instance. If you are a barrister representing an orphan in court, you act *in loco parentis*. If you want to emphasise the duty, then construction with *fungor* is fine (I wouldn't be surprised to find Cicero using *dum consulatu fungor* rather than *dum consul sum*). There is also that very useful little adverb *qua*, which has a range of nuanced meanings, including 'considered as', etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if you want to extend the subject, then an ablative absolute is often appropriate. *me pedagogo discipuli bene discunt*,  'When I'm the teacher, pupils learn well'.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9450" RevisionGUID="d3ce0540-3c11-4a2f-9950-46a98a838d6a" CreationDate="2019-04-09T18:55:22.650" UserId="79" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29516" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9450" RevisionGUID="d3ce0540-3c11-4a2f-9950-46a98a838d6a" CreationDate="2019-04-09T18:55:22.650" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9451" RevisionGUID="fc0ff890-8ae7-44a1-851f-006e57013533" CreationDate="2019-04-09T18:55:22.650" UserId="79" Text="For questions about the accusativus cum infinitivo structure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29518" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9451" RevisionGUID="fc0ff890-8ae7-44a1-851f-006e57013533" CreationDate="2019-04-09T18:55:22.650" UserId="79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29519" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9443" RevisionGUID="7b077bb1-335a-4125-bebd-6822323d326d" CreationDate="2019-04-09T19:02:16.187" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|morphology|participle|suetonius|ablative-absolute|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9452" RevisionGUID="40ccb117-9878-48cb-83de-70f34f78e44f" CreationDate="2019-04-09T19:19:49.440" UserId="1459" Text="I want to pick up on Joonas' answer, and just provide the sentence with the literal translation for &quot;same thing&quot;:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Utinam sentires eandem rem quam sentio tibi_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst this might not be very common or appropriate for the particular context,  _eadem res_ is a valid expression in Roman Law (see top of page [here](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oR0LAAAAIAAJ&amp;lpg=PA460&amp;ots=sUNtW_gCcG&amp;dq=eadem%20res&amp;pg=PA447#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9447" RevisionGUID="bf6e1722-20ca-493c-8a45-a469ad19bdcf" CreationDate="2019-04-09T20:39:15.527" UserId="30" Comment="added 391 characters in body" Text="I need a bit more context to come up with an explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cum in crypta, per quam transeundum erat, pueri nobiles ex Asia ad edendas in scaena operas evocati praepararentur, ut eos inspiceret hortareturque restitit, ac nisi princeps gregis algere se diceret, redire ac repraesentare spectaculum (2) **voluit**. ***Duplex dehinc fama est*: alii tradunt** *[here begins indirect speech]* adloquenti pueros a tergo Chaeream cervicem gladio caesim graviter **percussisse** praemissa voce: “Hoc age!” dehinc Cornelium Sabinum, alterum e coniuratis, tribunum ex adverso **traiecisse** pectus; **alii** Sabinum summota per conscios centuriones turba signum more militiae **petisse** et Gaio “Iovem” dante Chaeream **exclamasse**: “Accipe ratum!” (3) respicientique maxillam ictu **discidisse** *[here ends indirect speech]*. Iacentem contractisque membris clamitantem se vivere ceteri vulneribus triginta **confecerunt**; nam signum **erat** omnium: “Repete!”. Quidam etiam per obscaena ferrum **adegerunt**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First Suetonius uses direct speech, *voluit*, to narrate what happened. He presents it as fact. Then he says, &quot;from hereon, there are two different stories: some say that ...&quot; (*alii tradunt*). He proceeds to give both versions in a.c.i., the second one introduced by another *alii*. When he continues with direct speech (*confecerunt*), we must assume that he is finished with the uncertain alternative stories and returns to a factual narration about which there is no doubt (modern historians have a lot to say about that, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The infinitive *vivere* is part of the *confecerunt* sentence and indirectly depends upon it: *&quot;they killed him lying down and...crying out **that he was alive** (* vivere *)&quot;*. So *vivere* depends on *clamitantem*, which in turn belongs to the object (&quot;him when he was crying out&quot;) of *confecerunt*. You couldn't read *vivere* etc. as yet another a.c.i., for then the finite verb *confecerunt* would be left dangling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9446" RevisionGUID="53880361-364f-4947-84cf-9ab6161504ee" CreationDate="2019-04-09T20:40:48.650" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="As Sumelic says, both *-i* and *-e* can be used as the ablative ending of a participle. Even so, mixing them in the same sentence would probably be unusual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Respicienti* is really a dative; the new a.c.i. (*discidisse*) has a different construction from the previous one (*exclamasse* with an ablative absolute *Caio dante*). The new construction is like *Chaerea [Gaio] respicienti maxillam discidit*: &quot;Chaerea split him his jaw when he looked back&quot;. The archetype is *alicui maxillam discindere*: to split the jaw for someone = to split someone's jaw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf.  Suetonius, *De Vita Caesarum Aug*. 67.2.4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thallo a manu, quod pro epistula prodita denarios quingentos accepisset, **crura ei fregit**; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;He broke his (Thallus's) legs&quot;, with dative *ei*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29523" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9443" RevisionGUID="edd5b469-89be-4c22-9dd9-e3e31d8656b0" CreationDate="2019-04-09T20:41:41.437" UserId="30" Comment="edited title" Text="Present Participles: can &quot;respicienti&quot; be part of an ablative absolute in this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9437" RevisionGUID="0b1864ff-e796-4819-9bef-8b24aecca8eb" CreationDate="2019-04-09T20:43:06.100" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 362 characters in body" Text="Ad 1.: the distinction between direct and indirect speech was perhaps no so strict in Latin as we would have it. Strictly speaking, *Iovem* should be indirect speech, as you say, without quotation marks, because of the accusative. Then it would be translated as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...and that, when Gaius gave Jupiter (as the password), Chaerea exclaimed...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We moderns may be inclined to put *Jupiter* in quotation marks, lest the passage be read as if Caligula were handing over the god Jupiter to someone: for he gives the word Jupiter, not Jupiter himself. That is why the editor added quotation marks, which the Romans did not use.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9422" RevisionGUID="c717fa1d-db91-4708-8c9d-c11739c94bc2" CreationDate="2019-04-09T20:45:38.453" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 364 characters in body" Text="Suetonius, Caius (Caligula) 58:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alii [tradunt] Sabinum summota per conscios centuriones turba &#xD;&#xA;signum more militiae petisse et Gaio '**Iouem**' dante &#xD;&#xA;Chaeream exclamasse: 'accipe ratum!' **respicienti**que	&#xD;&#xA;maxillam ictu discidisse. iacentem contractisque membris clamitantem se uiuere ceteri uulneribus triginta 	confecerunt; nam signum erat omnium: 'repete!' quidam etiam per obscaena ferrum adegerunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though this passage is written indirectly, the reply from Caligula (Gaio dante--with Caius giving) is inside quotation marks so should be direct-speech, &quot;luppiter&quot;; why the acc., &quot;**lovem**&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Supplemental questions about the same passage:  &#xD;&#xA;- [Present Participles: can &quot;respicienti be part of an ablative absolute in this sentence?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/9443/30)  &#xD;&#xA;- [Switches Between Direct &amp; Indirect Speech in Suetonius-Supplemental](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/9444/30)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9446" RevisionGUID="0edea430-cdbf-49a2-b403-0bc402a7efde" CreationDate="2019-04-09T20:46:50.563" UserId="30" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="As Sumelic says, both *-i* and *-e* can be used as the ablative ending of a participle. Even so, mixing them in the same sentence would probably be unusual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Respicienti* is really a dative here; the new a.c.i. (*discidisse*) has a different construction from the previous one (*exclamasse* with an ablative absolute *Caio dante*). The new construction is like *Chaerea [Gaio] respicienti maxillam discidit*: &quot;Chaerea split him his jaw when he looked back&quot;. The archetype is *alicui maxillam discindere*: to split the jaw for someone = to split someone's jaw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf.  Suetonius, *De Vita Caesarum Aug*. 67.2.4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thallo a manu, quod pro epistula prodita denarios quingentos accepisset, **crura ei fregit**; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;He broke his (Thallus's) legs&quot;, with dative *ei*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9453" RevisionGUID="001e0e60-e0dd-41a1-8a86-68fbcdcbf397" CreationDate="2019-04-09T21:30:24.620" UserId="3646" Text="In law enforcement (and the judicial system in general - U.S.) nearly every legal process has a Latin term. Although, one has escaped us and our legal staff. Our agency is looking for a Latin term that would best describe a Search Warrant for Digital/Virtual Data maintained in another state (location that is). A term that encompasses what is obviously not tangible like paper or articles - but, well, virtual... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another words something that means, &quot;an order (from a court) to search and deliver intangible electronic (digital) information stored on a computer far way&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29528" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9453" RevisionGUID="001e0e60-e0dd-41a1-8a86-68fbcdcbf397" CreationDate="2019-04-09T21:30:24.620" UserId="3646" Text="Looking for best latin term for a legal document" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29529" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9453" RevisionGUID="001e0e60-e0dd-41a1-8a86-68fbcdcbf397" CreationDate="2019-04-09T21:30:24.620" UserId="3646" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|legal-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9454" RevisionGUID="b29df92c-ecae-40ec-8d35-1973e42767c3" CreationDate="2019-04-09T22:02:27.120" UserId="406" Text="I'm not aware of a Latin word for a &quot;search warrant&quot; in general, but an &quot;arrest warrant&quot; is known as a *capias*: literally, &quot;you should seize [this person]&quot;. In Latin it's a verb, but it's used as a noun in English, like with *habeas corpus* (&quot;you should have the body&quot;): officially it's probably something like &quot;a writ of *capias*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So perhaps we could call a search warrant an *inquiras*, &quot;you should search for damning evidence&quot;. (The verb *inquiro* means to search for something in general, but it was also a legal term, when a prosecutor searched for evidence against the defendant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;virtual&quot; part is a bit harder, since the Romans didn't have computer files. _Virtualia_ are literally &quot;virtual things&quot;, or you could go with _electronica_, &quot;electronic things&quot;; neither would make sense in an ancient Roman or mediaeval European court, but I don't think the concept would either. For an English-speaking audience you could even use _data_, but in Latin that's literally &quot;the things that have been handed over&quot;, which is totally different in a legal context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whichever noun you choose, I'd put it after the verb, on the model of _habeas corpus_. So your warrant might be, perhaps, &quot;a writ of _inquiras virtualia_&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9454" RevisionGUID="5b42d193-049f-4a99-a86f-45b645983bd2" CreationDate="2019-04-09T22:31:07.527" UserId="406" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="I'm not aware of a Latin word for a &quot;search warrant&quot; in general, but an &quot;arrest warrant&quot; is known as a *capias*: literally, &quot;you should seize [this person]&quot;. In Latin it's a verb, but it's used as a noun in English, like with *habeas corpus* (&quot;you should have the body&quot;): officially it's probably something like &quot;a writ of *capias*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So perhaps we could call a search warrant an *inquiras*, &quot;you should search for damning evidence&quot;. (The verb *inquiro* means to search for something in general, but it was also a legal term, when a prosecutor searched for evidence against the defendant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;virtual&quot; part is a bit harder, since the Romans didn't have computer files. _Virtualia_ are literally &quot;virtual things&quot;, or you could go with _electronica_, &quot;electronic things&quot;; neither would make sense in an ancient Roman or mediaeval European court, but I don't think the concept would either. For an English-speaking audience you could even use _data_, but in Latin that's literally &quot;the things that have been handed over&quot;, which is totally different in a legal context—if you're carrying out a search warrant, the user probably isn't &quot;handing over&quot; anything willingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whichever noun you choose, I'd put it after the verb, on the model of _habeas corpus_. So your warrant might be, perhaps, &quot;a writ of _inquiras virtualia_&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29532" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9453" RevisionGUID="766eba06-8256-45f4-9428-bb8f9f80e807" CreationDate="2019-04-10T02:02:20.050" />
  <row Id="29533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9453" RevisionGUID="33338287-3a2b-4318-8c46-df0cd28434a9" CreationDate="2019-04-10T03:43:20.203" UserId="79" Comment="added 27 characters in body; edited title" Text="In law enforcement (and the judicial system in general in the U.S.) nearly every legal process has a Latin term. Although, one has escaped us and our legal staff. Our agency is looking for a Latin term that would best describe a Search Warrant for Digital/Virtual Data maintained in another state (location that is). A term that encompasses what is obviously not tangible like paper or articles &amp;mdash; but, well, virtual... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words I'm looking for something that means, &quot;an order (from a court) to search and deliver intangible electronic (digital) information stored on a computer far way&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29534" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9453" RevisionGUID="33338287-3a2b-4318-8c46-df0cd28434a9" CreationDate="2019-04-10T03:43:20.203" UserId="79" Comment="added 27 characters in body; edited title" Text="Looking for best Latin term for a legal document" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9455" RevisionGUID="2a8213d5-1d5f-41ba-be4d-6f755956b948" CreationDate="2019-04-10T06:22:28.080" UserId="9" Text="Alex B.'s answer of *Pinacium* is the only other example of a male name ending in *-um* that I have been able to find (aside from &quot;Paecnium&quot;, which just seems to be a variant form of &quot;Paegnium&quot;), so I have accepted that post. I wanted to make a post of my own to add some further information I have found about the name *Pinacium.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It seems to be from the Greek common noun *[πινάκιον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpina%2Fkion),* a diminutive of *πίναξ.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In *Stichus,* there seems to be a wordplay involving this name and the Latin noun *pictura* (*[Studies in the Word-Play of Plautus](https://books.google.com/books?id=JXVvDwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA23&amp;lpg=PA23&amp;dq=&quot;pinacium&quot;),* 1907, by Charles Mendelson, p. 23). This suggests that the LSJ definition &quot;small or bad picture&quot; is relevant to the meaning of the name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In &quot;Plautus Undoing Himself&quot;,  Sophia Papaioannou suggests that the name might allude to food, since πινάκιον could have the sense of &quot;small plate&quot;, but I'm not convinced about this connection (*[Roman Drama and its Contexts](https://books.google.com/books?id=9aLUCwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA192#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false),* 2016).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The authors of some sources seem to have had the impression that *Pinacium* was a female name: currently, the best explanation I know of for this is that it was simply an error because of the rarity of male *-ium* names. For example, *[Auf Geschichte und Kritik gegründete lateinische Sprachlehre](https://books.google.com/books?id=s95FAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA66&amp;lpg=PA66&amp;dq=Pinacium#v=onepage&amp;q=Pinacium&amp;f=false),* by E.J.A. Seyferts (1800), lists &quot;Pinacium&quot; along with female *-ium* names like *Crocotium, Dorcium, Glycerium, Chrysium,* etc. and shows &quot;haec&quot; as the corresponding demonstrative (p. 66)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9455" RevisionGUID="e91d78a5-23d4-4e0a-a1f5-0261f3f9ecac" CreationDate="2019-04-10T07:34:19.957" UserId="9" Comment="added 375 characters in body" Text="Alex B.'s answer of *Pinacium* is the only other example of a male name ending in *-um* that I have been able to find (aside from &quot;Paecnium&quot;, which just seems to be a variant form of &quot;Paegnium&quot;), so I have accepted that post. I wanted to make a post of my own to add some further information I have found about the name *Pinacium.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It seems to be from the Greek common noun *[πινάκιον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpina%2Fkion),* a diminutive of *πίναξ.* It looks like *pinacium* was also used at least sometimes as a neuter common noun in Latin, since I get Google results for phrases like &quot;pinacium ligneum&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In *Stichus,* there seems to be a wordplay involving this name and the Latin noun *pictura* (*[Studies in the Word-Play of Plautus](https://books.google.com/books?id=JXVvDwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA23&amp;lpg=PA23&amp;dq=&quot;pinacium&quot;),* 1907, by Charles Mendelson, p. 23; also *[The Introduction of Characters by Name in Greek and Roman Comedy](https://books.google.com/books?id=2ptJAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA49&amp;lpg=PA49&amp;dq=pinacium),* 1923, by David Martin Key, p. 49). This suggests that the LSJ definition &quot;small or bad picture&quot; is relevant to the meaning of the name (mentioned by Charles Knapp in &quot;[References to Painting in Plautus and Terence](https://books.google.com/books?id=YK1JAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA152&amp;lpg=PA152&amp;dq=pinacium#v=onepage&amp;q=pinacium&amp;f=false)&quot;, *Classical Philology* p. 152).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In &quot;Plautus Undoing Himself&quot;,  Sophia Papaioannou suggests that the name might allude to food, since πινάκιον could have the sense of &quot;small plate&quot;, but I'm not convinced about this connection (*[Roman Drama and its Contexts](https://books.google.com/books?id=9aLUCwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA192#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false),* 2016).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The authors of some sources seem to have had the impression that *Pinacium* was a female name: currently, the best explanation I know of for this is that it was simply an error because of the rarity of male *-ium* names. For example, *[Auf Geschichte und Kritik gegründete lateinische Sprachlehre](https://books.google.com/books?id=s95FAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA66&amp;lpg=PA66&amp;dq=Pinacium#v=onepage&amp;q=Pinacium&amp;f=false),* by E.J.A. Seyferts (1800), lists &quot;Pinacium&quot; along with female *-ium* names like *Crocotium, Dorcium, Glycerium, Chrysium,* etc. and shows &quot;haec&quot; as the corresponding demonstrative (p. 66)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9455" RevisionGUID="81eab282-bcdb-4c51-a380-958160b06c39" CreationDate="2019-04-10T08:00:38.193" UserId="9" Comment="added 820 characters in body" Text="Alex B.'s answer of *Pinacium* is the only other example of a male name ending in *-um* that I have been able to find (aside from &quot;Paecnium&quot;, which just seems to be a variant form of &quot;Paegnium&quot;, and an unclear example I discuss in the next section below), so I have accepted that post. I wanted to make a post of my own to add some further information I have found about the name *Pinacium.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It seems to be from the Greek common noun *[πινάκιον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpina%2Fkion),* a diminutive of *πίναξ.* It looks like *pinacium* was also used at least sometimes as a neuter common noun in Latin, since I get Google results for phrases like &quot;pinacium ligneum&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In *Stichus,* there seems to be a wordplay involving this name and the Latin noun *pictura* (*[Studies in the Word-Play of Plautus](https://books.google.com/books?id=JXVvDwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA23&amp;lpg=PA23&amp;dq=&quot;pinacium&quot;),* 1907, by Charles Mendelson, p. 23; also *[The Introduction of Characters by Name in Greek and Roman Comedy](https://books.google.com/books?id=2ptJAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA49&amp;lpg=PA49&amp;dq=pinacium),* 1923, by David Martin Key, p. 49). This suggests that the LSJ definition &quot;small or bad picture&quot; is relevant to the meaning of the name (mentioned by Charles Knapp in &quot;[References to Painting in Plautus and Terence](https://books.google.com/books?id=YK1JAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA152&amp;lpg=PA152&amp;dq=pinacium#v=onepage&amp;q=pinacium&amp;f=false)&quot;, *Classical Philology* p. 152).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In &quot;Plautus Undoing Himself&quot;,  Sophia Papaioannou suggests that the name might allude to food, since πινάκιον could have the sense of &quot;small plate&quot;, but I'm not convinced about this connection (*[Roman Drama and its Contexts](https://books.google.com/books?id=9aLUCwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA192#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false),* 2016).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The authors of some sources seem to have had the impression that *Pinacium* was a female name: currently, the best explanation I know of for this is that it was simply an error because of the rarity of male *-ium* names. For example, *[Auf Geschichte und Kritik gegründete lateinische Sprachlehre](https://books.google.com/books?id=s95FAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA66&amp;lpg=PA66&amp;dq=Pinacium#v=onepage&amp;q=Pinacium&amp;f=false),* by E.J.A. Seyferts (1800), lists &quot;Pinacium&quot; along with female *-ium* names like *Crocotium, Dorcium, Glycerium, Chrysium,* etc. and shows &quot;haec&quot; as the corresponding demonstrative (p. 66).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##One other possible example: Tranium?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A footnote in &quot;[De nominibus propriis, quae sunt apud Plautum et Terentium](https://books.google.com/books?id=4TdnAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA21)&quot; (*Jahresbericht des Städtischen Katholischen Gymnasiums zu Patschkau*), mentions *Tranium* as a possible third servant name ending in *-ium* (p. 21). This name seems to be from *Mostellaria.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[The Declension of Greek Nouns in Plautus](https://books.google.com/books?id=9M0NAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA100&amp;lpg=PA100&amp;dq=&quot;Tranium&quot;)&quot;, by H. M. Hopkins, indicates that the form &quot;Tranium&quot; occurs only once, as a heteroclitic variant form of the proper name *Tranio.* It occurs in an accusative context (&quot;eccum Tranium&quot;) so I'm not sure that it really counts as an example of what I was asking for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9455" RevisionGUID="b0e09fc6-eccf-4422-9529-8f4b40a2b703" CreationDate="2019-04-10T08:06:18.003" UserId="9" Comment="added 820 characters in body" Text="Alex B.'s answer of *Pinacium* is the only other example of a male name ending in *-um* that I have been able to find (aside from &quot;Paecnium&quot;, which just seems to be a variant form of &quot;Paegnium&quot;, and an unclear example I discuss in the next section below), so I have accepted that post. I wanted to make a post of my own to add some further information I have found about the name *Pinacium.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It seems to be from the Greek common noun *[πινάκιον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpina%2Fkion),* a diminutive of *πίναξ.* It looks like *pinacium* was also used at least sometimes as a neuter common noun in Latin, since I get Google results for phrases like &quot;pinacium ligneum&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In *Stichus,* there seems to be a wordplay involving this name and the Latin noun *pictura* (*[Studies in the Word-Play of Plautus](https://books.google.com/books?id=JXVvDwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA23&amp;lpg=PA23&amp;dq=&quot;pinacium&quot;),* 1907, by Charles Mendelson, p. 23; also *[The Introduction of Characters by Name in Greek and Roman Comedy](https://books.google.com/books?id=2ptJAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA49&amp;lpg=PA49&amp;dq=pinacium),* 1923, by David Martin Key, p. 49). This suggests that the LSJ definition &quot;small or bad picture&quot; is relevant to the meaning of the name (mentioned by Charles Knapp in &quot;[References to Painting in Plautus and Terence](https://books.google.com/books?id=YK1JAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA152&amp;lpg=PA152&amp;dq=pinacium#v=onepage&amp;q=pinacium&amp;f=false)&quot;, *Classical Philology* p. 152).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In &quot;Plautus Undoing Himself&quot;,  Sophia Papaioannou suggests that the name might allude to food, since πινάκιον could have the sense of &quot;small plate&quot;, but I'm not convinced about this connection (*[Roman Drama and its Contexts](https://books.google.com/books?id=9aLUCwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA192#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false),* 2016).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The authors of some sources seem to have had the impression that *Pinacium* was a female name. For example, *[Auf Geschichte und Kritik gegründete lateinische Sprachlehre](https://books.google.com/books?id=s95FAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA66&amp;lpg=PA66&amp;dq=Pinacium#v=onepage&amp;q=Pinacium&amp;f=false),* by E.J.A. Seyferts (1800), lists &quot;Pinacium&quot; along with female *-ium* names like *Crocotium, Dorcium, Glycerium, Chrysium,* etc. and shows &quot;haec&quot; as the corresponding demonstrative (p. 66). I found some discussion of the possible source of this error in &quot;[The Scene-Headings in the Early Recensions of Plautus](https://books.google.com/books?id=9M0NAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA107&amp;lpg=PA107&amp;dq=%22Pinacium#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Pinacium&amp;f=false)&quot;, by H. W. Prescott: Prescott indicates that this error may come from a scribal mistake in the &quot;Palatine&quot; manuscripts of the text that caused *Pinacium* to be given as the name of one of a pair of sisters in *Stichus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##One other possible example: Tranium?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A footnote in &quot;[De nominibus propriis, quae sunt apud Plautum et Terentium](https://books.google.com/books?id=4TdnAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA21)&quot; (*Jahresbericht des Städtischen Katholischen Gymnasiums zu Patschkau*), mentions *Tranium* as a possible third servant name ending in *-ium* (p. 21). This name seems to be from *Mostellaria.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[The Declension of Greek Nouns in Plautus](https://books.google.com/books?id=9M0NAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA100&amp;lpg=PA100&amp;dq=&quot;Tranium&quot;)&quot;, by H. M. Hopkins, indicates that the form &quot;Tranium&quot; occurs only once, as a heteroclitic variant form of the proper name *Tranio.* It occurs in an accusative context (&quot;eccum Tranium&quot;) so I'm not sure that it really counts as an example of what I was asking for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9456" RevisionGUID="8ec0ce10-eb10-492f-9d04-a790ec7a4cba" CreationDate="2019-04-10T09:00:06.050" UserId="3648" Text="What option is preferable in the translation of a phrase, say, &quot;*bad thoughts give rise\lead to bad results*&quot; in your opinion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Option 1: **cogitationes malae – praemia mala** &#xD;&#xA; - Option 2:&#xD;&#xA;   **cogitationes malae praemia mala sunt** &#xD;&#xA; - Option 3 (possibly): yours&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for helping me out with new translation strategies (for a new language to me)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29540" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9456" RevisionGUID="8ec0ce10-eb10-492f-9d04-a790ec7a4cba" CreationDate="2019-04-10T09:00:06.050" UserId="3648" Text="Translation norms: a dash instead of &quot;esse&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29541" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9456" RevisionGUID="8ec0ce10-eb10-492f-9d04-a790ec7a4cba" CreationDate="2019-04-10T09:00:06.050" UserId="3648" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9456" RevisionGUID="73a9d90e-f0a6-46ac-a3a6-613284c00333" CreationDate="2019-04-10T09:34:31.610" UserId="3648" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="What option is preferable in the translation of a phrase, say, &quot;*bad thoughts give rise\lead to bad results*&quot; in your opinion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Option 1: **cogitationes malae – praemia mala** &#xD;&#xA; - Option 2:&#xD;&#xA;   **cogitationes malae praemia mala sunt** &#xD;&#xA; - Option 3 (possibly): yours&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for helping me out with translation strategies for a new language to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9457" RevisionGUID="b8245b32-9753-4676-bd62-705670934bc2" CreationDate="2019-04-10T10:30:47.020" UserId="1459" Text="It seems _perquisitio_ is a Latin term that might be associated with a Search Warrant. At least that is the term that [this](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oR0LAAAAIAAJ&amp;lpg=PA460&amp;dq=eadem%20res&amp;pg=PA782#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) encyclopedia of Roman Law associates to the expression &quot;search for stolen things&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice the Italian for Search Warrant is [_Perquisizione_](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perquisizione), derived from the related Latin term (similar in [French](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perquisition)). Meanwhile, the [OED](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/perquisition) gives the English term &quot;perquisition&quot; (also from the Latin) the meaning of a formal search too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A thorough or diligent search, especially one made officially; careful investigation or inquiry; (Law) a search of property to find a person, incriminating documents, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More succinctly, [Merriam-Webster dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perquisition) defines the term as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a thorough search  &#xD;&#xA;_specifically_: a search by warrant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is however another option, also suggested by the encyclopedia of Roman Law linked above, which is _quaestio lance et licio_, or (simplified, I imagine, from common usage) just _lance et licio_. The encyclopedia defines this as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, [Brill's New Pauly](https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/quaestio-lance-et-licio-e1016810) (subscription-walled) defines this expression as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(literally 'search with dish and girdle'). **In Roman law, this referred to a formal house search** (described in Fest. 104; Gai. Inst. 3,192,193; Gell. NA 11,18,9; 16,10,8), conveying to a thief the status of a _fur manifestus_ (a 'manifest thief' or a thief 'caught in the act'); even as early as the 2nd cent. BC, it had already fallen out of common use. The ritual in which the searcher had to appear naked, equipped with _lanx_ and _licium_, had already become incomprehensible to ancient commentators (Gai. loc. cit. 'res tota ridicula', 'a totally ridiculous affair'). Despite various attempted interpretations (tools to carry any stolen goods that may have been found; magical or sacred relics of an ancient sacrificial ritual, and most recently [1. 177]: measures of capacity and length in order to record and assess the stolen goods), it will probably no longer be possible to identify its original purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure if relevant or not, but [here](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-28446-X_9) is an academic article in German entitled _Lance et licio_, published in the journal _Usus Antiquus Juris Romani_ (so might be pertinent). It requires subscription though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in conclusion, _perquisitio_ might be enough for a general term. _Lance et licio_ is clearly an idiom which literally makes no sense in your context, and yet seems to be an established Latin idiom for exactly what you want. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0991v.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29544" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9453" RevisionGUID="b646b7e7-8629-40d2-b024-f4895058ea78" CreationDate="2019-04-10T10:35:29.950" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="How to say &quot;search warrant&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9456" RevisionGUID="57c51479-b9c9-497e-8189-52caf0b624d6" CreationDate="2019-04-10T13:17:42.867" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="What option is preferable in the translation of a phrase, say, &quot;*bad thoughts give rise/lead to bad results*&quot; in your opinion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Option 1: **cogitationes malae – praemia mala** &#xD;&#xA; - Option 2:&#xD;&#xA;   **cogitationes malae praemia mala sunt** &#xD;&#xA; - Option 3 (possibly): yours&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for helping me out with translation strategies for a new language to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29546" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9456" RevisionGUID="57c51479-b9c9-497e-8189-52caf0b624d6" CreationDate="2019-04-10T13:17:42.867" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9458" RevisionGUID="a651fad3-400d-410d-adc5-22152b2a4d85" CreationDate="2019-04-10T13:17:49.840" UserId="522" Text="Would you be prepared to rephrase it as &quot;Out of bad thoughts, bad results&quot; ? E or Ex + Ablative means 'out of,' or 'resulting from.' Is that close enough to your original idea?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *cogitationes malae – praemia mala* becomes  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *E cogitationibus malis praemia mala* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- no need for *'est'*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simpler still, or perhaps only shorter, use a Past Participle to give precedence of time to the *cogitationes.* Lierally &quot;Bad things having been thought, (there are) evil rewards;&quot; or &quot;With bad thinking, outcomes are evil.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Malis cogitatis, praemia mala.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This uses the Ablative Absolute construction. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9459" RevisionGUID="74901a76-1e01-49b8-b96a-69f2b049c63e" CreationDate="2019-04-10T13:39:55.350" UserId="79" Text="Replacing *esse* with a dash does not feel like idiomatic Latin to me.&#xD;&#xA;One important reason is that the dash did not exist in the era of classical Latin, at least not like today.&#xD;&#xA;Using a dash instead of a &quot;to be&quot; is common in Russian (and maybe other Slavic languages), and I have seen a number of people who were educated in Russian using dash similarly in English and other languages.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore option 1 looks like Russian influence to me, and I don't think it sits as well with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;A much more idiomatic choice in Latin is to leave out the *esse* completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 2 feels more idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;However, it doesn't mean &quot;bad thoughts give rise/lead to bad results&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It means &quot;bad thoughts are bad results&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, option 1 might be preferable as the dash could be read as &quot;therefore&quot; instead of a form of *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer option 3; something else would be better.&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Hugh that &quot;*ex X*[abl] *Y*[nom]&quot; is a good way to translate &quot;from X Y&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;No verb is needed.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to add a verb, it should not be *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;The English original has &quot;give rise&quot; or &quot;lead to&quot;, not &quot;are&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;A better fit would be *fieri*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *E cogitationibus malis praemia mala fiunt*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; From bad thoughts arise bad results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can also rewrite the whole sentence to get more options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Mala cogitans male facit*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; One who things bad does bad&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Per cogitationes malas male accidit*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Through bad thoughts bad things happen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9460" RevisionGUID="2a739bd0-3713-4b4c-8b4c-5576e8dfc286" CreationDate="2019-04-10T13:58:47.043" UserId="2476" Text="As long as we want to convey that we've been talked into something, we may do it with _persuadeo_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One must be careful though: the expressions _mihi persuasum est_ and _persuasum habeo_ usually mean &quot;I am convinced that...&quot;, **not** &quot;I've been convinced&quot;: see [here](https://books.google.it/books?id=D5rj4TQnbE4C&amp;pg=PA486&amp;lpg=PA486&amp;dq=mihi+persuasum+est+you+convinced&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=6aiWH43CU0&amp;sig=ACfU3U0dQtW02J7kIALtb-YOVtT_xS4hpA&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjrgIK2qcXhAhVBDGMBHTBgBKsQ6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=mihi%20persuasum%20est%20you%20convinced&amp;f=false). However, Seneca does start one of his letters to Lucilius with &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid non potest mihi persuaderi, cui persuasum est ut navigarem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What may I not be persuaded to do, when I have been persuaded to sail?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to say &quot;You've changed my mind!&quot; we may thus either say _**(Mihi) persuasum est!**_ - and after all, the &quot;I'm convinced&quot; nuance is excluded by the fact that we didn't originally agree - or _**Mihi persuasisti!**_: in the _Digesta Iustiniani_ we have &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...], falso mihi persuasisti, tamquam eam pecuniam servo meo aut procuratori solvisses;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...], you falsely persuaded me that you would pay that money to my slave or my procurator; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29550" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9456" RevisionGUID="53e9a295-38c7-4add-a820-36178e6c6178" CreationDate="2019-04-10T14:03:13.350" />
  <row Id="29551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9459" RevisionGUID="a00b900b-a993-4f7e-8cfb-a96ee3a98cdc" CreationDate="2019-04-10T17:05:45.003" UserId="79" Comment="added 236 characters in body" Text="Replacing *esse* with a dash does not feel like idiomatic Latin to me.&#xD;&#xA;One important reason is that the dash did not exist in the era of classical Latin, at least not like today.&#xD;&#xA;Using a dash instead of a &quot;to be&quot; is common in Russian (and maybe other Slavic languages), and I have seen a number of people who were educated in Russian using dash similarly in English and other languages.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore option 1 looks like Russian influence to me, and I don't think it sits as well with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;A much more idiomatic choice in Latin is to leave out the *esse* completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 2 feels more idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;However, it doesn't mean &quot;bad thoughts give rise/lead to bad results&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It means &quot;bad thoughts are bad results&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, option 1 might be preferable as the dash could be read as &quot;therefore&quot; instead of a form of *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer option 3; something else would be better.&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Hugh that &quot;*ex X*[abl] *Y*[nom]&quot; is a good way to translate &quot;from X Y&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;No verb is needed.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to add a verb, it should not be *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;The English original has &quot;give rise&quot; or &quot;lead to&quot;, not &quot;are&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;A better fit would be *fieri*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *E cogitationibus malis praemia mala fiunt*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; From bad thoughts arise bad results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can also rewrite the whole sentence to get more options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Mala cogitans mala facit*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; One who things bad does bad things&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you can replace *mala* (&quot;bad things&quot;) with *male* (&quot;badly&quot;) in one or both instances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Per cogitationes malas male accidit*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Through bad thoughts bad things happen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between these two options is whether you want to give more agency to someone doing bad or the bad events themselves." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9446" RevisionGUID="9eca0e7c-eacc-4226-8b7d-3f20c62fdc9d" CreationDate="2019-04-10T17:50:13.637" UserId="30" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="As Sumelic says, both *-i* and *-e* can be used as the ablative ending of a participle. Even so, mixing them in the same sentence would probably be unusual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Respicienti* is really a dative here; the new a.c.i. (*discidisse*) has a different construction from the previous one (*exclamasse* with an ablative absolute *Caio dante*). The new construction is like *Chaerea [Gaio] respicienti maxillam discidit*: &quot;Chaerea split (for) him his jaw when he looked back&quot;. The archetype is *alicui maxillam discindere*: to split the jaw for someone = to split someone's jaw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf.  Suetonius, *De Vita Caesarum Aug*. 67.2.4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thallo a manu, quod pro epistula prodita denarios quingentos accepisset, **crura ei fregit**; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;He broke his (Thallus's) legs&quot;, with dative *ei*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9461" RevisionGUID="a8a8ae64-5d58-4583-9044-e2930eb5bf8d" CreationDate="2019-04-10T22:48:54.243" UserId="79" Text="The word for a university in many languages (not Finnish though!) comes the Latin word *universitas*.&#xD;&#xA;The word appears to mean roughly &quot;the whole&quot;, but one might also analyze it along the lines of &quot;turning into one&quot; or &quot;coming together&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But how did this word end up being used for universities and what is it trying to convey?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did the word originally refer to something slightly different than an institution we would call a university today?&#xD;&#xA;(I understand that universities as institutions have evolved over the centuries, but it is not immediately clear to me whether the word originally referred to, say, the academic community or a seminar meeting instead of a university.)&#xD;&#xA;Are there any descriptions from the time when the term came to use about the intended meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29554" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9461" RevisionGUID="a8a8ae64-5d58-4583-9044-e2930eb5bf8d" CreationDate="2019-04-10T22:48:54.243" UserId="79" Text="In what sense is a university (universitas) a whole?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29555" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9461" RevisionGUID="a8a8ae64-5d58-4583-9044-e2930eb5bf8d" CreationDate="2019-04-10T22:48:54.243" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|medieval-latin|new-latin|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9461" RevisionGUID="66450857-0e2c-4be4-a400-c7ee79789992" CreationDate="2019-04-10T22:55:22.057" UserId="79" Comment="added 259 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The word for a university in many languages (not Finnish though!) comes the Latin word *universitas*.&#xD;&#xA;The word appears to mean roughly &quot;the whole&quot;, but one might also analyze it along the lines of &quot;turning into one&quot; or &quot;coming together&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But how did this word end up being used for universities and what is it trying to convey?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did the word originally refer to something slightly different than an institution we would call a university today?&#xD;&#xA;(I understand that universities as institutions have evolved over the centuries, but it is not immediately clear to me whether the word originally referred to, say, the academic community or a seminar meeting instead of a university.)&#xD;&#xA;Are there any descriptions from the time when the term came to use about the intended meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia tells me that the Latin term was coined at the foundation of the university of Bologna in 1088, but does not really seem to discuss the message behind the chosen word *universitas* &amp;mdash; nor whether the word was really taken to use on day one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29557" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9461" RevisionGUID="66450857-0e2c-4be4-a400-c7ee79789992" CreationDate="2019-04-10T22:55:22.057" UserId="79" Comment="added 259 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|medieval-latin|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9462" RevisionGUID="ba690b25-1535-40d1-ac90-12e596d042e8" CreationDate="2019-04-11T01:18:48.407" UserId="3651" Text="I have found this quote in a variety of sources, but am wary of the Greek translation (knowing nothing of greek in its many forms over the years) COuld someone help me correctly find the original Koine (or Attic) translation for this quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;All things come into being through opposition and all are in flux like a river&quot; (DK 22A1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate:&#xD;&#xA;Όλα τα πράγματα έχουν δημιουργηθεί μέσω της αντιπολίτευσης και όλα είναι ρευστή σαν ένα ποτάμι&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Óla ta prágmata échoun dimiourgitheí méso tis antipolítefsis kai óla eínai refstí san éna potámi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help - thank you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29559" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9462" RevisionGUID="ba690b25-1535-40d1-ac90-12e596d042e8" CreationDate="2019-04-11T01:18:48.407" UserId="3651" Text="Looking for Correct Greek Translation for Heraclitus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29560" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9462" RevisionGUID="ba690b25-1535-40d1-ac90-12e596d042e8" CreationDate="2019-04-11T01:18:48.407" UserId="3651" Text="|greek|sentence-translation|greek-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9463" RevisionGUID="c4cb3b5f-890a-4016-9567-ee5381d4fbf2" CreationDate="2019-04-11T01:26:40.553" UserId="406" Text="Recently, I came across an excerpt from a _scholium_ on Dionysius Thrax:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Διὰ τί τὸ &quot;η&quot; πρὸ τοῦ &quot;τ&quot; ψιλοῦται, ἐν δὲ τῷ ἧτα τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ στοιχείου δασύνεται; Ἐπειδὴ παρὰ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ὁ τύπος τοῦ &quot;Η&quot; ἐν τύπῳ δασείας ἔκειτο, ὥσπερ καὶ νῦν τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Why is Ē before T pronounced smooth, when the name of the letter &quot;hēta&quot; is pronounced rough? It's because the ancients applied the shape of the hēta to the rough-breathing mark—like the Romans still do nowadays.* (Trans. mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a nice little bit of trivia (that grammarians in the time of Dionysius Thrax still associated heta with `/h/`). But that first bit makes me wonder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it a rule that heta before tau is always smooth? If so, are there other rules like this that allow us to predict rough versus smooth breathing? If not, what did the author mean by this? (I unfortunately have no context for the quote, which might provide more explanation.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29562" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9463" RevisionGUID="c4cb3b5f-890a-4016-9567-ee5381d4fbf2" CreationDate="2019-04-11T01:26:40.553" UserId="406" Text="Is rough vs smooth breathing predictable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29563" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9463" RevisionGUID="c4cb3b5f-890a-4016-9567-ee5381d4fbf2" CreationDate="2019-04-11T01:26:40.553" UserId="406" Text="|greek|alphabet|aspiration|breathing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9464" RevisionGUID="5216c28c-3270-4e87-b1f6-4df7a7e1e97f" CreationDate="2019-04-11T02:01:44.413" UserId="406" Text="I would never trust Google Translate for quotes, especially ancient ones; even if it's totally accurate, it's giving you Modern Greek, and isn't smart enough to look up the original source of quotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;DK 22A1&quot; means it's listed in Diels and Kranz's _Fragments of the Presocratic Philosophers_, chapter 22, secondary sources, source number 1. Checking their book, that source is Diogenes Laertius's _Lives of Eminent Philosophers_, book 9, chapter 1. And _that_ work is contained in LCL 185, the 185th book in the _Loeb Classical Library_ collection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After chasing down these pointers for a while and reading through Laertius's rather amusing summary, it seems like the quote you want is in the middle of section 8:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Γίνεσθαί τε πάντα κατ' ἐναντιότητα καὶ ῥεῖν τὰ ὅλα ποταμοῦ δίκην, πεπεράνθαι τε τὸ πᾶν καὶ ἕνα εἶναι κόσμον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[Heraclitus] also [says] that everything is born out of opposing forces, and the whole system flows in the manner of a river—and also that all of it is finite, and forms a single universe.* (Trans. mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this isn't an actual quote from Heraclitus: it's from a later historian/philosopher summarizing his belief system. The words right before this quote are actually *σαφῶς δ' οὐδὲν ἐκτίθεται*: &quot;…but he never actually explains this properly&quot;!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9464" RevisionGUID="2029935b-75f2-4654-9409-98d22225c2aa" CreationDate="2019-04-11T02:16:08.897" UserId="406" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="I would never trust Google Translate for quotes, especially ancient ones; even if it's totally accurate, it's giving you Modern Greek, and isn't smart enough to look up the original source of quotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;DK 22A1&quot; means it's listed in Diels and Kranz's _Fragments of the Presocratic Philosophers_, chapter 22, secondary sources, source number 1. Checking their book, that source is Diogenes Laertius's _Lives of Eminent Philosophers_, book 9, chapter 1. And _that_ work is contained in LCL 185, the 185th book in the _Loeb Classical Library_ collection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After chasing down these pointers for a while and reading through Laertius's rather amusing summary, it seems like the quote you want is in the middle of section 8:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Γίνεσθαί τε πάντα κατ' ἐναντιότητα καὶ ῥεῖν τὰ ὅλα ποταμοῦ δίκην, πεπεράνθαι τε τὸ πᾶν καὶ ἕνα εἶναι κόσμον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gínesthaí te pánta kat' enantiótēta kaì rheîn tà hóla potamoû díkēn, peperánthai te tò pân kaì héna eînai kósmon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[Heraclitus] also [says] that everything is born out of opposing forces, and the whole system flows in the manner of a river—and also that all of it is finite, and forms a single universe.* (Trans. mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this isn't an actual quote from Heraclitus: it's from a later historian/philosopher summarizing his belief system. The words right before this quote are actually *σαφῶς δ' οὐδὲν ἐκτίθεται*: &quot;…but he never actually explains this properly&quot;!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29566" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9462" RevisionGUID="eb79d57b-3bc4-4c2c-b234-56d3d1d25dfe" CreationDate="2019-04-11T05:04:18.617" />
  <row Id="29567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9465" RevisionGUID="0fbeeec5-a088-450c-8c35-aefbfe7a3cad" CreationDate="2019-04-11T05:14:30.870" UserId="3641" Text="I'm doing English to Latin translation and wanted to know if anyone could help me address the mistakes of my translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who is there who would allow the city walls to be destroyed on account of the treachery of a few disloyal men? If our soldiers fight bravely, the city will not fall!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Quis est qui patiatur moenias delenda sunt pro insidiam pauci impiorum hominibus? Si nostri milites pugnabunt fortitier, urbs non cadet.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29568" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9465" RevisionGUID="0fbeeec5-a088-450c-8c35-aefbfe7a3cad" CreationDate="2019-04-11T05:14:30.870" UserId="3641" Text="Is this translation right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29569" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9465" RevisionGUID="0fbeeec5-a088-450c-8c35-aefbfe7a3cad" CreationDate="2019-04-11T05:14:30.870" UserId="3641" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9465" RevisionGUID="720ddfaa-0a39-433c-b628-936d19a84287" CreationDate="2019-04-11T09:11:28.903" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm doing English to Latin translation and wanted to know if anyone could help me address the mistakes of my translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Who is there who would allow the city walls to be destroyed on account of the treachery of a few disloyal men? If our soldiers fight bravely, the city will not fall!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Quis est qui patiatur moenias delenda sunt pro insidiam pauci impiorum hominibus? Si nostri milites pugnabunt fortitier, urbs non cadet._&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29571" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9465" RevisionGUID="720ddfaa-0a39-433c-b628-936d19a84287" CreationDate="2019-04-11T09:11:28.903" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9466" RevisionGUID="566aa545-8ba2-4f5f-b4d5-8b1330da0994" CreationDate="2019-04-11T09:28:28.907" UserId="1459" Text="Interesting question! I quote _in extenso_ from a 1907's book titled &quot;The rise and early constitution of universities, with a survey of mediæval education&quot; (available [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015003511972;view=1up;seq=213;size=175)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The term &quot;universitas&quot; had no connection with &quot;universale,&quot; and did not, any more than the word &quot;generale,&quot; carry with it any reference to the universality of the curriculum of study. This is now beyond all question. It was again and again formally applied by popes and kings to institutions which made no pretension to teach the circle of knowledge. Mr. Anstey scarcely exaggerates when he says that &quot; vestra universitas&quot; in a papal rescript may often be translated simply &quot;all of you.&quot; In running over the works of John of Salisbury, I find a letter (cclxi.), written in 1168 to the Conventus of the Ecclesia Cantuariensis, which begins thus: &quot;Universitati sanctorum qui in prima Britanniarum sede . . . Domino famulantur,&quot; etc. In fact, the term &quot;universitas&quot; was in the earlier part of the Middle Ages applied to towns or _communia_ regarded as organized bodies; hence its application by John of Salisbury to a conventus. As applied to a studium, it simply meant a community, the word being in the course of time restricted to a learned community—a _universitas literaria_. We learned in a previous lecture that in Bologna the general _universitas_ of students divided itself into two sections — the _universitas ultramontanorum_ and the _universitas citramontanorum_. When the popes issued letters of privilege to an university, they addressed it (as did Frederick in the case of the University of Naples, founded by him) as a _universitas_ (or community) _doctorum et scholarium_. Now, the mere epistolary recognition of these com- munities, by pope or monarch, as possessing certain privileges and internal rights of self-government, was practically their incorporation, and the term &quot;universitas&quot; thus gradually acquired the signification of &quot;incorporated community,&quot; at about the same time that it began to be restricted to learned institutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book itself looks very interesting and there is more context and discussion in pages around the quoted text. But the answer seems fairly clear: _universitas_ was a term used to designate a community, and it is not related to universality (of topics of study, or of the unity of knowledge)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9462" RevisionGUID="7b77cf25-aff0-4701-9f2a-17b75fa8dfe9" CreationDate="2019-04-11T09:33:19.720" UserId="1459" Comment="minor changes" Text="I have found this quote in a variety of sources, but am wary of the Greek translation (knowing nothing of greek in its many forms over the years) COuld someone help me correctly find the original Koine (or Attic) translation for this quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;All things come into being through opposition and all are in flux like a river&quot; (DK 22A1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Όλα τα πράγματα έχουν δημιουργηθεί μέσω της αντιπολίτευσης και όλα είναι ρευστή σαν ένα ποτάμι&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Óla ta prágmata échoun dimiourgitheí méso tis antipolítefsis kai óla eínai refstí san éna potámi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9467" RevisionGUID="7199a679-516e-4724-8815-5b571deb7ede" CreationDate="2019-04-11T10:33:36.613" UserId="3653" Text="I know that usually we do not translate names, but how would you translate *Indiana Jones* into Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Wikipedia][1], *Jones* is literally *John's son* in Welsh, and it's related to Latin *Ioannes* and *Iohannes*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_(surname)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29575" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9467" RevisionGUID="7199a679-516e-4724-8815-5b571deb7ede" CreationDate="2019-04-11T10:33:36.613" UserId="3653" Text="Indiana Jones in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29576" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9467" RevisionGUID="7199a679-516e-4724-8815-5b571deb7ede" CreationDate="2019-04-11T10:33:36.613" UserId="3653" Text="|names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29577" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9467" RevisionGUID="ca8a3cee-0900-46ef-a769-9595e957928c" CreationDate="2019-04-11T10:35:20.707" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="How to say &quot;Indiana Jones&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9466" RevisionGUID="d6ea6357-1f82-498f-8f23-c6d610866469" CreationDate="2019-04-11T12:55:11.443" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Interesting question! I quote _in extenso_ from a 1907's book titled &quot;The rise and early constitution of universities, with a survey of mediæval education&quot; (available [here](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015003511972;view=1up;seq=213;size=175)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The term &quot;universitas&quot; had no connection with &quot;universale,&quot; and did not, any more than the word &quot;generale,&quot; carry with it any reference to the universality of the curriculum of study. This is now beyond all question. It was again and again formally applied by popes and kings to institutions which made no pretension to teach the circle of knowledge. Mr. Anstey scarcely exaggerates when he says that &quot; vestra universitas&quot; in a papal rescript may often be translated simply &quot;all of you.&quot; In running over the works of John of Salisbury, I find a letter (cclxi.), written in 1168 to the Conventus of the Ecclesia Cantuariensis, which begins thus: &quot;Universitati sanctorum qui in prima Britanniarum sede . . . Domino famulantur,&quot; etc. In fact, the term &quot;universitas&quot; was in the earlier part of the Middle Ages applied to towns or _communia_ regarded as organized bodies; hence its application by John of Salisbury to a conventus. As applied to a studium, it simply meant a community, the word being in the course of time restricted to a learned community—a _universitas literaria_. We learned in a previous lecture that in Bologna the general _universitas_ of students divided itself into two sections — the _universitas ultramontanorum_ and the _universitas citramontanorum_. When the popes issued letters of privilege to an university, they addressed it (as did Frederick in the case of the University of Naples, founded by him) as a _universitas_ (or community) _doctorum et scholarium_. Now, the mere epistolary recognition of these communities, by pope or monarch, as possessing certain privileges and internal rights of self-government, was practically their incorporation, and the term &quot;universitas&quot; thus gradually acquired the signification of &quot;incorporated community,&quot; at about the same time that it began to be restricted to learned institutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book itself looks very interesting and there is more context and discussion in pages around the quoted text. But the answer seems fairly clear: _universitas_ was a term used to designate a community, and it is not related to universality (of topics of study, or of the unity of knowledge)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9468" RevisionGUID="4ba445d2-8322-4624-aa26-d55f9df0613d" CreationDate="2019-04-11T15:20:13.100" UserId="406" Text="Perhaps surprisingly, &quot;Indiana&quot; is already Latin! It comes from something like _terra Indiāna_, &quot;Indian territory&quot;, because when it was first colonized it had a larger Native American population than any of the surrounding states. So you could either keep that the same, or put it into the masculine (meaning &quot;the Indian man&quot;), _Indiānus_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Jones&quot; is a patronymic, as you mention, meaning &quot;son of John&quot;. Classical Latin didn't really do patronymics, but Greek did, so an educated Roman would certainly recognize them. One method was to just put the father's name in the genitive, which would be _Jōannis_. Another method, the fancier/more poetic one, was to use the suffix _-idēs_, giving _Jōannidēs_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9469" RevisionGUID="4ed53dd3-d612-492e-bff0-18034b983135" CreationDate="2019-04-11T15:20:21.287" UserId="79" Text="I would translate Indiana Jones to Latin as Indiana Jones.&#xD;&#xA;This is common practice in contemporary Latin: names are used as such, and sometimes given names are Latinized slightly.&#xD;&#xA;Here the given name Indiana &amp;mdash; which was not actually the name given to the character as we learn in the movie Last Crusade &amp;mdash; fits Latin language perfectly and no adaptation is needed.&#xD;&#xA;It is not an issue that a male's name looks like a first declension feminine, and [such names](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Vibius_Pansa_Caetronianus) existed in ancient Rome too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want more justification, there is a classical Latin precedent for this.&#xD;&#xA;The Romans wrote about a number of Greeks but they were (almost?) always called with their Greek names.&#xD;&#xA;They were transliterated to the different alphabet and the endings might have been Latinized (from *-os* to *-us*, for example), but the names were not translated.&#xD;&#xA;Many Greek names mean something and the Romans did know enough Greek to form Latin versions if they wanted to.&#xD;&#xA;But they didn't; names were kept mostly intact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course one could translate or adapt a number of names to be fully Latin, but I don't think that's a good idea here.&#xD;&#xA;My own last name is a meaningful Finnish word, but I still use the name Ionas Ilmavirta in Latin; my first name is a Finnish variant of something of Biblical origin, but translating the last name would make it very hard for people to connect my actual name to the Latin one.&#xD;&#xA;After all, I do use the same name in all languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9470" RevisionGUID="602f6447-99ac-4fac-8e23-59d9fcbe98ce" CreationDate="2019-04-11T16:02:30.787" UserId="3654" Text="As per the title, I am looking for how you you would say 'Spirit Subjugator' or 'Soul Enslaver' or something similar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29582" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9470" RevisionGUID="602f6447-99ac-4fac-8e23-59d9fcbe98ce" CreationDate="2019-04-11T16:02:30.787" UserId="3654" Text="How would one say 'Spirit Subjugator' or something similar in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29583" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9470" RevisionGUID="602f6447-99ac-4fac-8e23-59d9fcbe98ce" CreationDate="2019-04-11T16:02:30.787" UserId="3654" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9471" RevisionGUID="cd0258c9-c595-47a7-8a48-dcc726eb53e9" CreationDate="2019-04-11T16:42:21.463" UserId="3652" Text="I am in search of a direct quote (as close as possible) from Heraclitus that expresses the idea that life is flux -or- everything changes.  With the help of this website I have been told that Heraclitus has many quotes from people talking about him and his ideas, but very few quotes that are directly his.  Ultimately I am looking for the quote to be translated into the correct (Koine or Attic) Greek." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29585" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9471" RevisionGUID="cd0258c9-c595-47a7-8a48-dcc726eb53e9" CreationDate="2019-04-11T16:42:21.463" UserId="3652" Text="Looking for a direct quote from Heraclitus expressing that everything changes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29586" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9471" RevisionGUID="cd0258c9-c595-47a7-8a48-dcc726eb53e9" CreationDate="2019-04-11T16:42:21.463" UserId="3652" Text="|greek|sentence-translation|greek-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9472" RevisionGUID="c0bd1b9b-ff5d-4878-97a7-bdc40d5c23d0" CreationDate="2019-04-11T16:44:30.947" UserId="522" Text="*delenda sunt* means &quot;Those things must be destroyed.&quot; (in Direct sp.) After *patior,* 3rdconj, use present passive infinitive ( or acc.+ inf.; or subjunctive) of *deleo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;of a few disloyal men,&quot; will be a noun and two adjectives, all three in agreement in the Genitive plural.(You have one nominative (or genitive singular), one genitive plural, and one ablative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can *pro* mean 'because of'? I would have expected *ob* +Accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*fortitier* is a typo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The down-vote probably expresses a wariness of interfering between real-world teachers and students." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9473" RevisionGUID="7210aac1-d39f-4bfd-870b-609d6de2ca9c" CreationDate="2019-04-11T17:26:35.573" UserId="406" Text="One of the better-known and less-reliable sources of Heraclitus quotes is Plato's _Cratylus_, which is also a wonderfully amusing source of completely wrong etymologies. However, it's not clear if this part (402a) is meant to be a direct quote or a paraphrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Σ: Τὸν Ἡράκλειτόν μοι δοκῶ καθορᾶν παλαί' ἄττα σοφὰ λέγοντα, ἀτεχνῶς τὰ ἐπὶ Κρόνου καὶ ῾Ρέας, ἃ καὶ Ὅμηρος ἔλεγεν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ε: Πῶς τοῦτο λέγεις;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Σ: Λέγει που Ἡράκλειτος ὅτι **πάντα χωρεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει**, καὶ ποταμοῦ ῥοῇ ἀπεικάζων τὰ ὄντα λέγει ὡς **δὶς ἐς τὸν αὐτὸν ποταμὸν οὐκ ἂν ἐμβαίης**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *S: I seem to remember Heraclitus saying some ancient wisdom, old as Cronus and Rhea, that Homer said too…*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *H: What does that mean?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *S: See, Heraclitus says that **everything is in motion and nothing stays fixed**, and, comparing the universe to the flow of a river, he says that **you cannot step into the same river twice**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ancient Greek didn't have quotation marks, so Socrates could be quoting Heraclitus directly, or could be paraphrasing his teachings; the Greek would look the same either way. (I could just as well have translated that &quot;Heraclitus says: 'everything flows…'&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most famous version is simply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; πάντα ῥεῖ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Everything flows.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This version comes from Simplicius, in his commentary on Aristotle's _Physica_. But again it's not clear if he's quoting or paraphrasing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe more accurately, here's a quote preserved via Cleanthes, via Arius Didymus, via Eusebius. This one is commonly claimed to be a direct quote, though I'm not sure what evidence there is for that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ποταμοῖσι τοῖσιν αὐτοῖσιν ἐμβαίνουσιν ἕτερα καὶ ἕτερα ὕδατα ἐπιρρεῖ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ever-different water flows over those who step in the same river.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, this almost certainly isn't what you want, but Seneca makes a direct quote (translated into Latin), in his *Moral Letters* (58.23):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc est quod ait Heraclitus: in idem flumen bis descendimus et non discendimus. manet enim idem fluminis nomen, aqua transmissa est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *This is what Heraclitus says: we both do and do not step twice into the same river. Because, you see, the name of the river stays the same, but the water keeps flowing.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(All translations mine; all Latin and Greek from the Loeb Classical Library.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9473" RevisionGUID="6485e6ab-6fef-44bf-ac4d-5f4ad234b8ac" CreationDate="2019-04-11T17:51:28.580" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="One of the better-known and less-reliable sources of Heraclitus quotes is Plato's _Cratylus_, which is also a wonderfully amusing source of completely wrong etymologies. However, it's not clear if this part (402a) is meant to be a direct quote or a paraphrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Σ: Τὸν Ἡράκλειτόν μοι δοκῶ καθορᾶν παλαί' ἄττα σοφὰ λέγοντα, ἀτεχνῶς τὰ ἐπὶ Κρόνου καὶ Ῥέας, ἃ καὶ Ὅμηρος ἔλεγεν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ε: Πῶς τοῦτο λέγεις;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Σ: Λέγει που Ἡράκλειτος ὅτι **πάντα χωρεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει**, καὶ ποταμοῦ ῥοῇ ἀπεικάζων τὰ ὄντα λέγει ὡς **δὶς ἐς τὸν αὐτὸν ποταμὸν οὐκ ἂν ἐμβαίης**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *S: I seem to remember Heraclitus saying some ancient wisdom, old as Cronus and Rhea, that Homer said too…*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *H: What does that mean?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *S: See, Heraclitus says that **everything is in motion and nothing stays fixed**, and, comparing the universe to the flow of a river, he says that **you cannot step into the same river twice**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ancient Greek didn't have quotation marks, so Socrates could be quoting Heraclitus directly, or could be paraphrasing his teachings; the Greek would look the same either way. (I could just as well have translated that &quot;Heraclitus says: 'everything flows…'&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most famous version is simply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; πάντα ῥεῖ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Everything flows.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This version comes from Simplicius, in his commentary on Aristotle's _Physica_. But again it's not clear if he's quoting or paraphrasing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe more accurately, here's a quote preserved via Cleanthes, via Arius Didymus, via Eusebius. This one is commonly claimed to be a direct quote, though I'm not sure what evidence there is for that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ποταμοῖσι τοῖσιν αὐτοῖσιν ἐμβαίνουσιν ἕτερα καὶ ἕτερα ὕδατα ἐπιρρεῖ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ever-different water flows over those who step in the same river.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, this almost certainly isn't what you want, but Seneca makes a direct quote (translated into Latin), in his *Moral Letters* (58.23):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc est quod ait Heraclitus: in idem flumen bis descendimus et non discendimus. manet enim idem fluminis nomen, aqua transmissa est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *This is what Heraclitus says: we both do and do not step twice into the same river. Because, you see, the name of the river stays the same, but the water keeps flowing.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(All translations mine; all Latin and Greek from the Loeb Classical Library.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9473" RevisionGUID="22f8d80a-384e-44c3-b8ee-d40c94e39ba9" CreationDate="2019-04-11T17:55:55.267" UserId="406" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="One of the better-known and less-reliable sources of Heraclitus quotes is Plato's _Cratylus_, which is also a wonderfully amusing source of completely wrong etymologies. However, it's not clear if this part (402a) is meant to be a direct quote or a paraphrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Σ: Τὸν Ἡράκλειτόν μοι δοκῶ καθορᾶν παλαί' ἄττα σοφὰ λέγοντα, ἀτεχνῶς τὰ ἐπὶ Κρόνου καὶ Ῥέας, ἃ καὶ Ὅμηρος ἔλεγεν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ε: Πῶς τοῦτο λέγεις;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Σ: Λέγει που Ἡράκλειτος ὅτι **πάντα χωρεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει**, καὶ ποταμοῦ ῥοῇ ἀπεικάζων τὰ ὄντα λέγει ὡς **δὶς ἐς τὸν αὐτὸν ποταμὸν οὐκ ἂν ἐμβαίης**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *S: I seem to remember Heraclitus saying some ancient wisdom, old as Cronus and Rhea, that Homer said too…*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *H: What does that mean?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *S: See, Heraclitus says that **everything is in motion and nothing stays fixed**, and, comparing the universe to the flow of a river, he says that **you cannot step into the same river twice**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ancient Greek didn't have quotation marks, so Socrates could be quoting Heraclitus directly, or could be paraphrasing his teachings; the Greek would look the same either way. (I could just as well have translated that &quot;Heraclitus says: 'everything flows…'&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most famous version is simply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; πάντα ῥεῖ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Everything flows.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This version comes from Simplicius, in his commentary on Aristotle's _Physica_ (1313.11). But again it's not clear if he's quoting or paraphrasing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe more accurately, here's a quote preserved via Cleanthes, via Arius Didymus, via Eusebius. This one is commonly claimed to be a direct quote, though I'm not sure what evidence there is for that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ποταμοῖσι τοῖσιν αὐτοῖσιν ἐμβαίνουσιν ἕτερα καὶ ἕτερα ὕδατα ἐπιρρεῖ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ever-different water flows over those who step in the same river.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, this almost certainly isn't what you want, but Seneca makes a direct quote (translated into Latin), in his *Moral Letters* (58.23):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc est quod ait Heraclitus: in idem flumen bis descendimus et non discendimus. manet enim idem fluminis nomen, aqua transmissa est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *This is what Heraclitus says: we both do and do not step twice into the same river. Because, you see, the name of the river stays the same, but the water keeps flowing.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(All translations mine; all Latin and Greek from the Loeb Classical Library.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9474" RevisionGUID="7ce251a4-b933-4509-8760-279addff555d" CreationDate="2019-04-11T20:10:59.053" UserId="3153" Text="Subiunctor Animorum, perhaps?&#xD;&#xA;Subiunctor Spirituum?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are fairly literal translations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9475" RevisionGUID="e622b733-69ff-4ac4-b992-3a18101c7ec7" CreationDate="2019-04-11T23:14:16.510" UserId="3655" Text="I'm writing a book right now about a cult. I've tried using google translate to take the initiation vows for the cult and put them in Latin, but it ends up terrible. If anyone could help me get this into Latin, and actually preserve the intended meaning, that would be amazing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All things that carry power, hear me now&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Give me my virtue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me live according to my will&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And give myself to those who have shown me the way&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me teach others as I have been taught:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An inverted funnel system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And let them relinquish their power to me in the same way&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forever&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. This is probably too much to ask, but if there is a way to alter word use to make it rhyme you would literally be my favorite person in the world." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29593" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9475" RevisionGUID="e622b733-69ff-4ac4-b992-3a18101c7ec7" CreationDate="2019-04-11T23:14:16.510" UserId="3655" Text="Help translating short poem for book" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29594" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9475" RevisionGUID="e622b733-69ff-4ac4-b992-3a18101c7ec7" CreationDate="2019-04-11T23:14:16.510" UserId="3655" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation|poetry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9476" RevisionGUID="7382cef8-da56-49e4-9255-7d6d3458fb67" CreationDate="2019-04-11T23:21:33.473" UserId="406" Text="For &quot;soul&quot;, you have a couple options. One of these is _spīritus_. Quoting [Tom Cotton's answer][1] to another question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Spiritus_ was more tangible, the very ‘breath of life’, the actual ‘life force’, or ‘life principle’. It became symbolic of the spirit by which men might feel themselves driven, and thus the ‘mental spirit’ related to ardour and courage. It was later used for ‘spirit’, ‘soul’ or ‘mind’, and was close in meaning to _mens_, the active faculty of recollection, intellect and understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Christianity in particular, the Holy Spirit is the _spīritus sanctus_, and when Jesus died he _ēmīsit spīritum_. In the Vulgate, it generally corresponds to Greek _pneuma_, Hebrew _ruahh_, English &quot;spirit&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is _animus_. I don't have as poetic an explanation for it as Tom, but the _animus_ is what humans have that animals don't: sentience, consciousness, the rational mind, however you want to put it. It's notably _not_ quite the same as _mens_, &quot;mind&quot;, since _mens atque animus_ &quot;mind and heart&quot; was a common idiom (like English &quot;mind, body, and soul&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Christianity, this is the usual term for a &quot;soul&quot;, as in &quot;the part of a person that isn't the body&quot;. In the Vulgate, it generally corresponds to Greek _psychē_, Hebrew _nephesh_, English &quot;soul&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;enslaver&quot; or &quot;subjugator&quot; you also have a few options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most literally, the person who sells slaves to people is an _addictor_, with someone who had been legally enslaved (usually for a debt) being _addictus_ rather than _servus_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more explicit verb is _sub-jugō_, &quot;to put under the yoke (*jugum*)&quot;. So a subjugator might be, quite straightforwardly, _subjugātor_. This has a sense of conquering a new territory and selling its people into slavery, rather than just overseeing an auction: it's what Caesar did to Gaul.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammatically, you'll probably want &quot;subjugator&quot; in the nominative, and &quot;soul&quot; in the genitive plural: _subjugātor_ or _addictor_, and _spīrituum_ or _animōrum_. Literally, &quot;the subjugator of souls&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5783/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9477" RevisionGUID="350a021a-58bf-4a7d-b93b-ef047a516bfc" CreationDate="2019-04-11T23:48:34.587" UserId="406" Text="About a month and a half later, I stumbled across another possibility for this! (Which is useful, since I was trying to draw a distinction between &quot;the desire to do something&quot; and &quot;the resolve to do something&quot;, both of which could be _voluntas_.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From LSJ on _Animus_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _The power of willing, the will, inclination, desire, purpose, design, intention_ (syn.: voluntas, arbitrium, mens, consilium, propositum)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a particular note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inducere in animum _or_ animum, _to resolve upon doing something_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9475" RevisionGUID="6737bcac-085a-44b9-956b-3c4fe587ef42" CreationDate="2019-04-12T07:28:27.510" UserId="1459" Comment="minor changes" Text="I'm writing a book right now about a cult. I've tried using google translate to take the initiation vows for the cult and put them in Latin, but it ends up terrible. If anyone could help me get this into Latin, and actually preserve the intended meaning, that would be amazing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;All things that carry power, hear me now&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Give me my virtue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Let me live according to my will&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And give myself to those who have shown me the way    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Let me teach others as I have been taught:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;An inverted funnel system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And let them relinquish their power to me in the same way&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Forever&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. This is probably too much to ask, but if there is a way to alter word use to make it rhyme you would literally be my favorite person in the world." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9478" RevisionGUID="2c2ada5b-5e14-4ade-b97e-f9b48949aa3f" CreationDate="2019-04-12T07:29:19.227" UserId="3656" Text="I am having some difficulty figuring out the latin translation for the following sentances: 1. My favourite animal is a dog. Will dog (Canis) be considered as nominative or accusative (canem)?&#xD;&#xA;2. I want a dog. Will it be canis or canem in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would think that the 'I' in the sentences would be the nominative which would make dog the accusative but I am not sure. Thanks in advance! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29599" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9478" RevisionGUID="2c2ada5b-5e14-4ade-b97e-f9b48949aa3f" CreationDate="2019-04-12T07:29:19.227" UserId="3656" Text="When to use accusative and nominative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29600" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9478" RevisionGUID="2c2ada5b-5e14-4ade-b97e-f9b48949aa3f" CreationDate="2019-04-12T07:29:19.227" UserId="3656" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29601" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="5843" RevisionGUID="8ee0098f-e41b-437b-8d59-e3e61061bac5" CreationDate="2019-04-12T08:01:20.670" UserId="-1" Comment="110" />
  <row Id="29602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9479" RevisionGUID="24d6c9d4-bad2-430a-8992-70e67fdb7b16" CreationDate="2019-04-12T11:08:40.387" UserId="2973" Text="I've tought myself to read the Greek alphabet, and it is still confusing to read and identify &quot;h&quot; sound in the ancient Greek. For example, Athena talks about Circe that she has &quot;αἱμύλιοι λόγοι&quot; in Odyssey(1, 56). It seems 'aimylioi logoi' to me, because α has no diacritical mark on, but I have seen that is read as 'haimylioi logoi' elsewhere. Which one is right, and why? Is it to do with the Homeric Greek, or does ἱ after α affect the pronunciation? Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29603" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9479" RevisionGUID="24d6c9d4-bad2-430a-8992-70e67fdb7b16" CreationDate="2019-04-12T11:08:40.387" UserId="2973" Text="How to read αἱμύλιος" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29604" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9479" RevisionGUID="24d6c9d4-bad2-430a-8992-70e67fdb7b16" CreationDate="2019-04-12T11:08:40.387" UserId="2973" Text="|greek|pronunciation|homer|aspiration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29605" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9479" RevisionGUID="653bbdc8-b9fb-49f1-ab09-0209ea1209cd" CreationDate="2019-04-12T11:14:12.853" UserId="2973" Comment="edited title" Text="How to read αἱμύλιος or when to aspirate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9480" RevisionGUID="7e0f541c-4089-4f9f-9504-66b545e04393" CreationDate="2019-04-12T11:20:42.847" UserId="324" Text="If a word begins with a diphthong, the breathing sign is written over the second vowel letter. &quot;Haimylioi&quot; is correct.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9481" RevisionGUID="a7f1c01b-2b76-4fce-83e7-82cdf7cb9962" CreationDate="2019-04-12T11:29:30.830" UserId="522" Text="&#xD;&#xA;All words beginning with a vowel are marked with a 'breathing.' This looks like a single inverted comma. When the breathing is 'rough' (aspirate) it is c shaped &lt; ;when the breathing is 'smooth' the inverted comma is reversed &gt; . In the case of αἱμύλιοι the aspirate, the rough breathing, has been placed over the second letter of the vowel pair αἱ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other diacritical marks are tonal accents:  &#xD;&#xA;αἱμύλιοι is proparoxytone;  &#xD;&#xA;λόγοι is paroxytone.&#xD;&#xA;perispomenon and properispomenon are only found on long vowels and diphthongs, and can be, barely, heard as a rising-falling tone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29608" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9479" RevisionGUID="26e60135-bf73-472a-8fad-e148b10646cc" CreationDate="2019-04-12T12:07:03.027" />
  <row Id="29609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9482" RevisionGUID="3ccd7303-bb3c-42c0-8e52-64f1240f08cd" CreationDate="2019-04-12T12:32:19.393" UserId="522" Text="&gt;  1. My favourite animal is a dog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dog will be *canis,* nominative because **'is'** isn't a transitive verb, it's a copular. However (just to confuse you) *Animal mihi gratiosum,* the subject, is also nominative; the nominative ends in *-um*  because *animal* is neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. I want a dog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a straightforward transitive verb; the subject if it is stated, will be nominative - *'ego;'*  the object will be accusative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9475" RevisionGUID="23f07108-c464-45e0-bd84-ae22f2d7090a" CreationDate="2019-04-12T15:02:41.830" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm writing a book right now about a cult. I've tried using google translate to take the initiation vows for the cult and put them in Latin, but it ends up terrible. If anyone could help me get this into Latin, and actually preserve the intended meaning, that would be amazing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;All things that carry power, hear me now  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Give me my virtue  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Let me live according to my will  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;And give myself to those who have shown me the way    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Let me teach others as I have been taught:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;An inverted funnel system  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;And let them relinquish their power to me in the same way  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Forever&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. This is probably too much to ask, but if there is a way to alter word use to make it rhyme you would literally be my favorite person in the world." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29611" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9475" RevisionGUID="23f07108-c464-45e0-bd84-ae22f2d7090a" CreationDate="2019-04-12T15:02:41.830" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|poetry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9483" RevisionGUID="29ca51f3-9cb0-42e1-bb6a-24ed49754994" CreationDate="2019-04-12T15:29:49.357" UserId="79" Text="Hugh's answer is good and correct, but let me offer you a different point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English makes a distinction between nominative and accusative only for some pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;The nominatives (I, he, she) are used in different situations than accusatives (me, him, her).&#xD;&#xA;Latin and English use the two cases quite similarly, and in simple sentences like your examples the correspondence is excellent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;**To figure out which case to use, write the sentence in English with the noun replaced by a pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;The correct English form of the pronoun tells you which case to use in Latin.**&#xD;&#xA;I repeat that this is not infallible, but a good rule of thumb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using your examples with a pronoun, we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. He is my favourite animal. (Nominative!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I want him. (Accusative!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English uses the cases weirdly with &quot;be&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;it is he/him&quot; many would choose &quot;him&quot;, whereas Latin requires nominative.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it would be a good supplement to this rule of thumb that **the verb *esse* needs nominative**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9483" RevisionGUID="07b6c51e-744b-41e2-a951-e5ee329d0e7a" CreationDate="2019-04-12T15:32:42.093" UserId="79" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="Hugh's answer is good and correct, but let me offer you a different point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English makes a distinction between nominative and accusative only for some pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;The nominatives (I, he, she) are used in different situations than accusatives (me, him, her).&#xD;&#xA;Latin and English use the two cases quite similarly, and in simple sentences like your examples the correspondence is excellent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;**To figure out which case to use, write the sentence in English with the noun replaced by a pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;The correct English form of the pronoun tells you which case to use in Latin.**&#xD;&#xA;I repeat that this is not infallible, but a good rule of thumb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using your examples with a pronoun, we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. He is my favourite animal. (Nominative!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I want him. (Accusative!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English uses the cases weirdly with &quot;be&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;it is he/him&quot; many would choose &quot;him&quot;, whereas Latin requires nominative.&#xD;&#xA;(This is why I reworded your first example! In the original form the rule of thumb would indeed suggest accusative.)&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it would be a good supplement to this rule of thumb that **the verb *esse* needs nominative**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9484" RevisionGUID="a0e5b116-46a1-463a-9e4e-ed03951ca7fb" CreationDate="2019-04-12T15:38:49.750" UserId="406" Text="Hugh is absolutely right, but just to add a bit more explanation…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nominative is the &quot;default case&quot; in Latin. If all else fails, use the nominative. It's also, conveniently, the form listed in dictionaries, and the form people will use when talking about the word itself (&quot;The Latin word for 'lord' is _dominus_&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative is used when it's the direct object of a verb. In other words, when there's a verb, with a subject, and the subject is doing something to your noun—that's when the noun becomes accusative. Unlike in English, this can even apply to verbs with passive forms, like _Marcus sequitur **canem**_, &quot;Marcus is following the dog&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your first sentence, nothing is _happening_ to the dog: the verb &quot;is&quot; doesn't represent any sort of action. Since nothing is making the noun accusative, it'll remain nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your second sentence, though, the verb &quot;want&quot; is happening to the dog. It's a direct object, so it becomes accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that, as Joonas notes, these aren't quite the same rules as in English! In English, _any verb_ makes a following noun accusative, even verbs like &quot;is&quot;: consider &quot;**he** is my favorite person&quot; versus &quot;my favorite person is **him**&quot;. If you ever hear an exchange like &quot;Is Alex here?&quot; &quot;This is **he**.&quot;, that's a prescriptivist Latin influence rearing its head." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9485" RevisionGUID="f0b4c9f0-dc9a-49c0-aa01-d7f286ea4326" CreationDate="2019-04-12T15:50:42.603" UserId="406" Text="fdb is absolutely correct (+1), but to address this part of your question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; does ἱ after α affect the pronunciation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is, **yes, it absolutely does!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In (most dialects of) Ancient Greek, there were fourteen vowels (*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - α, ε, η, ι, ο, ω, υ are written with single letters&#xD;&#xA; - αι, ει, οι, υι, αυ, ευ, ου are written with double letters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowels in the second group are conventionally called &quot;diphthongs&quot;, even though not all of them were actually diphthongs in the linguistic sense (ει and ου were monophthongs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even though they're written with two letters, **these diphthongs act as single vowels**. So the convention is, whenever you put an accent or breathing mark on a diphthong, it goes on **the second letter**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when you have a word like *αἱμύλιοι*, it has four syllables, each with one vowel: *αἱ-μύ-λι-οι*. The first vowel is *αι*, marked with a rough breathing, and transcribed *hai* in the Latin alphabet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) Some dialects had more, some had less. In Epic, there were also three long diphthongs that disappeared before Classical Attic (ᾱι ηι ωι), and three long monophthongs that weren't indicated in writing (ᾱ ῑ ῡ). Other dialects had a distinction between ει and ε̄, and ου and ο̄, which Attic didn't—but I don't know if Epic is one of these." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9485" RevisionGUID="686bfb78-63c9-4acd-9126-368868c747fc" CreationDate="2019-04-12T18:28:16.730" UserId="406" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="fdb is absolutely correct (+1), but to address this part of your question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; does ἱ after α affect the pronunciation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is, **yes, it absolutely does!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In (most dialects of) Ancient Greek, there were fourteen vowels (*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - α, ε, η, ι, ο, ω, υ are written with single letters&#xD;&#xA; - αι, ει, οι, υι, αυ, ευ, ου are written with double letters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowels in the second group are conventionally called &quot;diphthongs&quot;, even though not all of them were actually diphthongs in the linguistic sense (ει and ου were monophthongs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even though they're written with two letters, **these diphthongs act as single vowels**. So the convention is, whenever you put an accent or breathing mark on a diphthong, it goes on **the second letter**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when you have a word like *αἱμύλιοι*, it has four syllables, each with one vowel: *αἱ-μύ-λι-οι*. The first vowel is *αι*, marked with a rough breathing, and transcribed *hai* in the Latin alphabet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) Some dialects had more, some had less. In Epic, there were also three long diphthongs that disappeared before Classical Attic (ᾱι ηι ωι), and three long monophthongs that weren't indicated in writing (ᾱ ῑ ῡ). Other dialects had a distinction between ει and ε̄, and ου and ο̄, which Attic didn't—but I don't know if Epic is one of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: As fdb points out, the long diphthongs were still written in Classical Attic. My bad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9380" RevisionGUID="be140a4c-5308-44e2-99e5-b199f86ec744" CreationDate="2019-04-13T01:48:25.500" UserId="9" Comment="added mention of another Paegnium" Text="A number of personal names in the works of Plautus end in *-um* in the nominative singular, which struck me as odd when I first encountered them, since nominative singular *-um* is characteristically found at the end of neuter nouns (specifically, those of the second declension). An example is  *[Stephanium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Stephanium).* In fact, all of these names seem to end more specifically in *-ium.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found names ending in *-ium* discussed briefly in one section of &quot;[Some Roman Slave-names](https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/slave-names_bruce.pdf)&quot; by F. F. Bruce. Bruce says that these are from Greek diminutives in -ιον, which were &quot;mainly names of women&quot;. Women's names ending in *-ium* are grammatically feminine in Latin.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; (I'm not sure [how names ending in -ιον behave in Greek](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9389/how-were-names-ending-in-%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD-used-in-greek).) Harm Pinkster gives the phrase &quot;amoena Stephanium&quot; as an example of this principle of semantic gender assignment&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Anna Morpurgo Davies, although some women's names in Greek are neuter, no men's names in Greek are neuter&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;. Nevertheless, in the context of Latin, there does seem to be at least one example of a **male** name ending in *-ium*: *[Paegnium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Paegnium),* the name of a male slave in Plautus' *Persa,* and one of the names of the character Tyndarus in Plautus' *Captivi*&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;. The Lewis and Short entry for *Paegnium* says that it comes from the Greek neuter noun *[παίγνιον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpai%2Fgnion)* 'plaything, toy', which LSJ says could also be used of persons in the sense &quot;darling, pet&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any examples other than *Paegnium* of male names ending in *-um*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Citations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Henry John Roby, *[Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius, Part 1][roby],* p. 106&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *[Oxford Latin Syntax: Volume 1: The Simple Clause][pinkster],* p. 40&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  *[Greek Personal Names and Linguistic Continuity](https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/104p015.pdf),* p. 21&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;[Tyndarus' Past: The Name Paegnium in Plautus' *Captivi*](https://www.academia.edu/9055970/Foka_A._2011_Beauty_and_the_Beast_Femininity_Animals_and_Humour_in_Middle_Comedy_Classica_et_Medievalia_Danish_Journal_of_Philology_and_History_62_51-80)&quot;, by Katerina Philippides, *Classica et Mediaevalia* 62:1 (2011).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[roby]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA106&#xD;&#xA;[pinkster]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA21-IA7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9380" RevisionGUID="1565b75b-1a2d-43a1-ade8-5a2d8ee44b6e" CreationDate="2019-04-13T01:54:23.150" UserId="9" Comment="added mention of another Paegnium" Text="A number of personal names in the works of Plautus end in *-um* in the nominative singular, which struck me as odd when I first encountered them, since nominative singular *-um* is characteristically found at the end of neuter nouns (specifically, those of the second declension). An example is  *[Stephanium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Stephanium).* In fact, all of these names seem to end more specifically in *-ium.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found names ending in *-ium* discussed briefly in one section of &quot;[Some Roman Slave-names](https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/slave-names_bruce.pdf)&quot; by F. F. Bruce. Bruce says that these are from Greek diminutives in -ιον, which were &quot;mainly names of women&quot;. Women's names ending in *-ium* are grammatically feminine in Latin.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; (I'm not sure [how names ending in -ιον behave in Greek](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9389/how-were-names-ending-in-%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD-used-in-greek).) Harm Pinkster gives the phrase &quot;amoena Stephanium&quot; as an example of this principle of semantic gender assignment&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Anna Morpurgo Davies, although some women's names in Greek are neuter, no men's names in Greek are neuter&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;. Nevertheless, in the context of Latin, there does seem to be at least one example of a **male** name ending in *-ium*: *[Paegnium](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Paegnium),* the name of a male slave in Plautus' *Persa,* and one of the names of the character Tyndarus in Plautus' *Captivi*&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;. The Lewis and Short entry for *Paegnium* says that it comes from the Greek neuter noun *[παίγνιον](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpai%2Fgnion)* 'plaything, toy', which LSJ says could also be used of persons in the sense &quot;darling, pet&quot;. Philippides suggests a comparison with the Latin term *delicium* (p. 107). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any examples other than *Paegnium* of male names ending in *-um*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Citations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Henry John Roby, *[Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius, Part 1][roby],* p. 106&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *[Oxford Latin Syntax: Volume 1: The Simple Clause][pinkster],* p. 40&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  *[Greek Personal Names and Linguistic Continuity](https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/104p015.pdf),* p. 21&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;[Tyndarus' Past: The Name Paegnium in Plautus' *Captivi*](https://www.academia.edu/9055970/Foka_A._2011_Beauty_and_the_Beast_Femininity_Animals_and_Humour_in_Middle_Comedy_Classica_et_Medievalia_Danish_Journal_of_Philology_and_History_62_51-80)&quot;, by Katerina Philippides, *Classica et Mediaevalia* 62:1 (2011).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[roby]: https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA106&#xD;&#xA;[pinkster]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Y05zCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA21-IA7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9486" RevisionGUID="4de61529-1b2f-466b-b49f-b30ee7ab08f2" CreationDate="2019-04-13T02:18:04.047" UserId="9" Text="I'm not sure whether you meant for it to go without saying, but here are some basic facts about the distribution of the rough and smooth breathing marks in polytonic Greek orthography. For some words, it is predictable and for others, it isn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The smooth and rough breathings don't appear on consonants, except for on ρ in some typographical traditions. When breathings are used on ρ, the distribution is almost completely predictable according to the following rules: ρ is written with rough breathing when at the start of the word, or after another ρ, and ρ is written with a smooth breathing when followed by ρ. The possible exceptions to these rules for ρ are very marginal: for more information, see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6243/when-transliterating-from-latin-to-greek-what-kind-of-rho-is-used?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1 and https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4516/why-does-%E1%BF%A4%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82-have-a-smooth-breathing?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The smooth and rough breathings don't appear on word-internal vowels, except:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) a rough or smooth breathing is used on the second vowel of a word-initial &quot;diphthong&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) a &quot;[coronis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_breathing#Coronis)&quot;, which apparently has the form of a smooth breathing in modern typography, is used word-internally to mark vowel contraction (Wikipedia)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; c) a rough breathing occurs exceptionally in the middle of the word ταὧς, and sporadically (but usually not) in the middle of certain prefixed or compound words (brianpck's answer to https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4515/greek-pronunciation-invisible-aspirations)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Word-initial υ always takes a rough breathing, with possible exceptions for interjections or the name of the letter (&quot;[Gaps in the System](http://www.opoudjis.net/unicode/unicode_gaps.html)&quot;, Nick Nicholas). The smooth breathing can occur on the letter υ as the second element of a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would leave as unpredictable the use of rough vs. smooth breathing on word-initial vowels other than υ. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9486" RevisionGUID="53953ccc-e2bb-4cd8-8b5f-57175f087c9e" CreationDate="2019-04-13T02:24:40.690" UserId="9" Comment="added 416 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure whether you meant for it to go without saying, but here are some basic facts about the distribution of the rough and smooth breathing marks in polytonic Greek orthography. The rough breathing is thought to have represented aspiration (possibly a consonant phoneme /h/, but there are more complicated suggestions for its phonemic representation) and the smooth breathing is thought to have represented the absence of aspiration. This contrast is phonemic, so the two types of breathing are not in complementary distribution (I won't bother to try to find a minimal pair). For some words, the distribution is predictable, but for others, it isn't.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The smooth and rough breathings don't appear on consonants, except for on ρ in some typographical traditions. When breathings are used on ρ, the distribution is almost completely predictable according to the following rules: ρ is written with rough breathing when at the start of the word, or after another ρ, and ρ is written with a smooth breathing when followed by ρ. The possible exceptions to these rules for ρ are very marginal: for more information, see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6243/when-transliterating-from-latin-to-greek-what-kind-of-rho-is-used?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1 and https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4516/why-does-%E1%BF%A4%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82-have-a-smooth-breathing?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The smooth and rough breathings don't appear on word-internal vowels, except:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) a rough or smooth breathing is used on the second vowel of a word-initial &quot;diphthong&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) a &quot;[coronis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_breathing#Coronis)&quot;, which apparently has the form of a smooth breathing in modern typography, is used word-internally to mark vowel contraction (Wikipedia)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; c) a rough breathing occurs exceptionally in the middle of the word ταὧς, and sporadically (but usually not) in the middle of certain prefixed or compound words (brianpck's answer to https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4515/greek-pronunciation-invisible-aspirations)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Word-initial υ always takes a rough breathing, with possible exceptions for interjections or the name of the letter (&quot;[Gaps in the System](http://www.opoudjis.net/unicode/unicode_gaps.html)&quot;, Nick Nicholas). The smooth breathing can occur on the letter υ as the second element of a diphthong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would leave as unpredictable the use of rough vs. smooth breathing on word-initial vowels other than υ. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9486" RevisionGUID="890acba7-97c5-4bc1-8c88-80fd44a7774b" CreationDate="2019-04-13T02:31:49.317" UserId="9" Comment="added 416 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure whether you meant for it to go without saying, but here are some basic facts about the distribution of the rough and smooth breathing marks in polytonic Greek orthography. The rough breathing is thought to have represented aspiration (possibly a consonant phoneme /h/, but there are more complicated suggestions for its phonemic representation) and the smooth breathing is thought to have represented the absence of aspiration. This contrast is phonemic, so the two types of breathing are not in complementary distribution in all contexts (I won't bother to try to find a minimal pair). For some words, the distribution is predictable, but for others, it isn't.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The smooth and rough breathings don't appear on consonants, except for on ρ in some typographical traditions. When breathings are used on ρ, the distribution is almost completely predictable according to the following rules: ρ is written with rough breathing when at the start of the word, or after another ρ, and ρ is written with a smooth breathing when followed by ρ. The possible exceptions to these rules for ρ are very marginal: for more information, see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6243/when-transliterating-from-latin-to-greek-what-kind-of-rho-is-used?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1 and https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4516/why-does-%E1%BF%A4%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82-have-a-smooth-breathing?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The smooth and rough breathings don't appear on word-internal vowels, except:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; a) a rough or smooth breathing is used on the second vowel of a word-initial &quot;diphthong&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b) a &quot;[coronis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_breathing#Coronis)&quot;, which apparently has the form of a smooth breathing in modern typography, is used word-internally to mark vowel contraction (Wikipedia)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; c) a rough breathing occurs exceptionally in the middle of the word ταὧς, and sporadically (but usually not) in the middle of certain prefixed or compound words (brianpck's answer to https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4515/greek-pronunciation-invisible-aspirations)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Word-initial υ always takes a rough breathing, with possible exceptions for interjections or the name of the letter (&quot;[Gaps in the System](http://www.opoudjis.net/unicode/unicode_gaps.html)&quot;, Nick Nicholas). The smooth breathing can occur on the letter υ as the second element of a diphthong. I asked on [Linguistics SE about this gap](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/12139/why-does-word-initial-upsilon-always-have-a-rough-breathing), and it seems that we don't really know why it exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would leave as unpredictable the use of rough vs. smooth breathing on word-initial vowels other than υ. You could try to derive rules to predict the occurrence from certain historical sound changes, but I don't think those would actually work to describe the synchronic distribution of the breathings, so I wouldn't recommend trying. (For example, you might think that &quot;[Grassmann's law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grassmann%27s_law)&quot; means that we shouldn't see a rough breathing when the second syllable of a word contains an aspirated consonant, but Ἥφαιστος is a counterexample to that candidate rule.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9487" RevisionGUID="f796d10e-539c-4d6b-aaad-558807fdf474" CreationDate="2019-04-13T06:05:11.233" UserId="3659" Text="My ambition allows me to realise I do not have to sacrifice. &#xD;&#xA;Mea ambitia concedo mea comprehendo non habeo sacrifico.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29623" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9487" RevisionGUID="f796d10e-539c-4d6b-aaad-558807fdf474" CreationDate="2019-04-13T06:05:11.233" UserId="3659" Text="English &gt; Latin: How should this sentence be translated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29624" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9487" RevisionGUID="f796d10e-539c-4d6b-aaad-558807fdf474" CreationDate="2019-04-13T06:05:11.233" UserId="3659" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9487" RevisionGUID="f2ae13de-76e4-4bdf-9a6c-16383f1b9fd7" CreationDate="2019-04-13T07:33:21.773" UserId="1459" Comment="minor changes" Text="English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;My ambition allows me to realise I do not have to sacrifice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Mea ambitia concedo mea comprehendo non habeo sacrifico._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29626" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9487" RevisionGUID="f2ae13de-76e4-4bdf-9a6c-16383f1b9fd7" CreationDate="2019-04-13T07:33:21.773" UserId="1459" Comment="minor changes" Text="How should this sentence be translated to Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9488" RevisionGUID="5a14a8f4-683f-4211-9b7b-965f72b41c03" CreationDate="2019-04-13T07:38:10.743" UserId="1459" Text="I think a more appropriate translation is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ambitio mea adprobat me comprehendere non habeo sacrificare" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9488" RevisionGUID="e2f3fb51-ea89-427f-ab7b-f8f5e29c4ba4" CreationDate="2019-04-13T07:45:03.753" UserId="1459" Comment="added 680 characters in body" Text="I think a more appropriate translation is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ambitio mea approbat me comprehendere non habeo sacrificare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[ambitio](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ambitio#Latin)_ is the nominative, the &quot;subject&quot; of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[approbat](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=approbo)_ seems to be used as allow, although I am not totally sure here. There might be a better option. Your suggestion _concedo_ seems to be fine too, but notice it is the ambition (third person) that allows, so it would be _[concedit](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concedo#Latin)_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, the verbs, as far as I know, should in infinitive (although I remember someone pointed me this is mostly a Vulgata thing, which is where I am mostly sourcing my Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9488" RevisionGUID="3acec8b0-1fa2-4593-9851-0638b8d5ba03" CreationDate="2019-04-13T07:56:35.080" UserId="1459" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="I think a more appropriate translation is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ambitio mea approbat me comprehendere [ut/quod] non habeo sacrificare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[ambitio](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ambitio#Latin)_ is the nominative, the &quot;subject&quot; of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[approbat](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=approbo)_ seems to be used as allow, although I am not totally sure here. There might be a better option. Your suggestion _concedo_ seems to be fine too, but notice it is &quot;the ambition&quot; (third person single) that allows, so it would be _[concedit](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concedo#Latin)_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the verbs, as far as I know, should in infinitive (although I remember someone pointed to me this is mostly a Vulgata thing, which is where I am mostly sourcing my Latin from).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same with _ut/quod_. Not sure if they are pertinent or not, and they might be also a Vulgate/mediaeval Latin thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9478" RevisionGUID="50bd8214-1651-4918-9d99-ffcfe5b965f7" CreationDate="2019-04-13T08:02:10.060" UserId="1459" Comment="minor changes" Text="I am having some difficulty figuring out the Latin translation for the following sentences: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. My favourite animal is a dog. Will dog (_canis_) be considered as nominative or accusative (_canem_)?&#xD;&#xA;2. I want a dog. Will it be _canis_ or _canem_ in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would think that the 'I' in the sentences would be the nominative which would make dog the accusative but I am not sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29631" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9478" RevisionGUID="50bd8214-1651-4918-9d99-ffcfe5b965f7" CreationDate="2019-04-13T08:02:10.060" UserId="1459" Comment="minor changes" Text="|accusative|nominativus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9489" RevisionGUID="db1f5a03-6b6e-492f-b58c-5f83e0a26adb" CreationDate="2019-04-13T08:19:05.770" UserId="3659" Text="I am currently learning Latin and is a beginner. However, I am unsure of my answers and is looking for help to proofread and provide suggestions for improvement. Would appreciate all feedback I receive. Thank you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Therefore, I choose to work in the food and beverage industry because I can learn many skills from the cook. Igitur eligo operam in pabulo et pota industria quod possum disco multas sollertias ex coqua.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. I learned to use the knife to slice raw fish and prepare special and delicious desserts. Dicobam adhibeo cultum seco crudo pisco et paro peculiaram et delicatam secundam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. I learned to make saffron salmon. Dicobam facio croceum salmum. [Salmon &gt; Salmo however how should it be translated if it is a direct object/acc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. For I am happy, I will not complain of the long work hours and tough job. Enim sum fortunatus, ero non queror longam operam horas et tenax officio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29633" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9489" RevisionGUID="db1f5a03-6b6e-492f-b58c-5f83e0a26adb" CreationDate="2019-04-13T08:19:05.770" UserId="3659" Text="Feedback on Latin to English Translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29634" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9489" RevisionGUID="db1f5a03-6b6e-492f-b58c-5f83e0a26adb" CreationDate="2019-04-13T08:19:05.770" UserId="3659" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9489" RevisionGUID="b62025bf-0cd4-4638-af51-90cfeb3bca98" CreationDate="2019-04-13T09:23:26.220" UserId="1459" Comment="minor changes" Text="I am currently learning Latin and is a beginner. However, I am unsure of my answers and is looking for help to proofread and provide suggestions for improvement. Would appreciate all feedback I receive. Thank you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Therefore, I choose to work in the food and beverage industry because I can learn many skills from the cook. _Igitur eligo operam in pabulo et pota industria quod possum disco multas sollertias ex coqua._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. I learned to use the knife to slice raw fish and prepare special and delicious desserts. _Dicobam adhibeo cultum seco crudo pisco et paro peculiaram et delicatam secundam._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. I learned to make saffron salmon. _Dicobam facio croceum salmum._ [Salmon &gt; Salmo however how should it be translated if it is a direct object/acc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. For I am happy, I will not complain of the long work hours and tough job. _Enim sum fortunatus, ero non queror longam operam horas et tenax officio._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9482" RevisionGUID="9b1d0957-3bb9-4890-ba8f-779609c1a8ef" CreationDate="2019-04-13T10:25:49.773" UserId="522" Comment="supplementary question" Text="&gt;  1. My favourite animal is a dog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dog will be *canis,* nominative because **'is'** isn't a transitive verb, it's a copular. However (just to confuse you) *Animal mihi gratiosum,* the subject, is also nominative; the nominative ends in *-um*  because *animal* is neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. I want a dog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a straightforward transitive verb; the subject if it is stated, will be nominative - *'ego;'*  the object will be accusative except after *egeo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ěgěo* (followed by Genitive or ablative) *cănis,* I seriously need a dog;  &#xD;&#xA;*cănem fingo,* if only I could have a dog; (unlikely)    &#xD;&#xA;*cănem spero,* I hope I can have a dog." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9482" RevisionGUID="26433074-ee69-4087-83dd-b4f0a09751d6" CreationDate="2019-04-13T10:52:25.630" UserId="522" Comment="minor corrections" Text="&gt;  1. My favourite animal is a dog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dog will be *canis,* nominative because **'is'** isn't a transitive verb, it's a copular. However (just to confuse you) *Animal mihi gratiosum,* the subject, is also nominative; the nominative ends in *-um*  because *animal* is neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. I want a dog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a straightforward transitive verb; the subject if it is stated, will be nominative - *'ego;'*  the object will be accusative except after *egeo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ěgěo* (followed by Genitive or ablative) *cănis,* I need a dog;  &#xD;&#xA;*cănem fingo,* I would like a dog; (unlikely)    &#xD;&#xA;*cănem spero,* I hope for a dog." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9490" RevisionGUID="dc2eb2fa-f2ee-49e9-8716-de0f0541a56a" CreationDate="2019-04-13T11:10:39.057" UserId="1982" Text="In the TV series, &quot;I Claudius&quot; (BBC, 1976) there was a scene in which the Ambassador, Appius Iunius Silanus, attempts to assassinate Emperor Claudius (occupational hazard) and fails. In the aftermath, a restrained Silanus awaits his fate. Imperatrix, The &quot;Lady&quot; Messalina, entreats for mercy, counselling exile. A senior aide and civil servant, Pallas, warns: &quot;An attempt on the life of Caeser cannot be punished by banishment; such a precedent would only encourage others to try.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A translation of this might be: &quot;conatum Caesarem insidiis interficere non exsilio est puniri; ne talis exemplum alios solum hortetur conari.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Toyed with: &quot;non potest exsilio punire&quot;, but thought that &quot;possum&quot; means &quot;can&quot; in the sense of to-be-physically-able e.g. I-can-walk; as opposed to it-cannot-be-done simply because it's a bad idea. &#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, gerundive-of-obligation, &quot;non exsilio punendum est&quot;, it-ought-not-to-be-punished-by-exile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The character, Pallas, was highly articulate and would have said this in the most succinct way, which is?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29639" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9490" RevisionGUID="dc2eb2fa-f2ee-49e9-8716-de0f0541a56a" CreationDate="2019-04-13T11:10:39.057" UserId="1982" Text="Such A Precedent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29640" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9490" RevisionGUID="dc2eb2fa-f2ee-49e9-8716-de0f0541a56a" CreationDate="2019-04-13T11:10:39.057" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9437" RevisionGUID="361e7175-c2ae-4672-984c-e3d5be210534" CreationDate="2019-04-13T13:44:51.250" UserId="30" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Strictly speaking, *Iovem* should be indirect speech, as you say, without quotation marks, because of the accusative. Then it would be translated as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...and that, when Gaius gave Jupiter (as the password), Chaerea exclaimed...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We moderns may be inclined to put *Jupiter* in quotation marks, lest the passage be read as if Caligula were handing over the god Jupiter to someone: for he gives the word Jupiter, not Jupiter himself. That is why the editor added quotation marks, which the Romans did not use. The distinction between direct and indirect speech was perhaps not so strict in Latin as we would have it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29643" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9490" RevisionGUID="c33d581b-dec3-4b72-8091-19d2f7dfa415" CreationDate="2019-04-13T14:17:08.910" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9490" RevisionGUID="d37a646e-1e69-49e7-a0c4-778ad775188a" CreationDate="2019-04-13T14:42:55.573" UserId="1982" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In the TV series, &quot;I Claudius&quot; (BBC, 1976) there was a scene in which the Ambassador, Appius Iunius Silanus, attempts to assassinate Emperor Claudius (occupational hazard) and fails. In the aftermath, a restrained Silanus awaits his fate. Imperatrix, The &quot;Lady&quot; Messalina, entreats for mercy, counselling exile. A senior aide and civil servant, Pallas, warns: &quot;An attempt on the life of Caeser cannot be punished by banishment; such a precedent would only encourage others to try.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A translation of this might be: &quot;conatum Caesarem insidiis interficere non exsilio est puniri; ne talis exemplum alios solum hortetur conari.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Toyed with: &quot;non potest exsilio punire&quot;, but thought that &quot;possum&quot; means &quot;can&quot; in the sense of to-be-physically-able e.g. I-can-walk; as opposed to it-cannot-be-done, simply because it's a bad idea. &#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, gerundive-of-obligation, &quot;non exsilio punendum est&quot;, it-ought-not-to-be-punished-by-exile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The character, Pallas, was highly articulate and would have said this in the most succinct way, which is?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9491" RevisionGUID="c4202981-1a7b-42cd-a720-c2c7de487dce" CreationDate="2019-04-13T16:07:19.967" UserId="406" Text="Nowadays, the letter Η/η is called &quot;ita&quot; by Greeks and &quot;eta&quot; by physicists. But I'm curious: if I went back in time and talked to Socrates, what name would he have used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background: historically, Η came from the Phoenician letter *het* (or *heth*), which represented a `/ħ/` sound. Some Greek dialects used it as a consonant, which is how we get the English letter &quot;H&quot;, while others used it as a vowel, which is how we get the Greek letter &quot;Η&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name clearly comes from *het*, and in the consonant-using dialects it would make perfect sense to call the letter *heta*. I've also come across this quote from a *scholium* on Dionysius Thrax:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Διὰ τί τὸ &quot;η&quot; πρὸ τοῦ &quot;τ&quot; ψιλοῦται, ἐν δὲ τῷ ἧτα τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ στοιχείου δασύνεται; Ἐπειδὴ παρὰ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ὁ τύπος τοῦ &quot;Η&quot; ἐν τύπῳ δασείας ἔκειτο, ὥσπερ καὶ νῦν τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Why is Ē before T pronounced without an `/h/`, when the name of the letter &quot;hēta&quot; is pronounced with one? It's because the ancients used the letter hēta for the `/h/` consonant—like the Romans still do nowadays.* (Trans. mine, and somewhat loose)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I've never actually heard someone call the letter &quot;heta&quot;, and [it seems I'm not alone in this][1]. I *have* heard people call Υ/υ *hypsilon*, so it's probably not just `/h/` disappearing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I'm most interested in what the post-Eucleidian Attics called it, since they still had an `/h/` phoneme, but used the letter Η as a vowel. Answers from other dialects would also be interesting, but Attic is most relevant here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9463/is-rough-vs-smooth-breathing-predictable#comment19215_9463" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29646" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9491" RevisionGUID="c4202981-1a7b-42cd-a720-c2c7de487dce" CreationDate="2019-04-13T16:07:19.967" UserId="406" Text="Was η called &quot;eta&quot; or &quot;heta&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29647" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9491" RevisionGUID="c4202981-1a7b-42cd-a720-c2c7de487dce" CreationDate="2019-04-13T16:07:19.967" UserId="406" Text="|greek|alphabet|breathing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9491" RevisionGUID="63d17c09-30e1-4205-bce4-4f5bc9530a48" CreationDate="2019-04-13T16:30:23.230" UserId="406" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="Nowadays, the letter Η/η is called &quot;ita&quot; by Greeks and &quot;eta&quot; by physicists. But I'm curious: if I went back in time and talked to Socrates, what name would he have used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background: historically, Η came from the Phoenician letter *het* (or *heth*), which represented a `/ħ/` sound. Some Greek dialects used it as a consonant, which is how we get the English letter &quot;H&quot;, while others used it as a vowel, which is how we get the Greek letter &quot;Η&quot;. (EDIT: As Alex B points out, some used it for both a consonant _and_ a vowel, like how Latin used &quot;V&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name clearly comes from *het*, and in the consonant-using dialects it would make perfect sense to call the letter *heta*. I've also come across this quote from a *scholium* on Dionysius Thrax:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Διὰ τί τὸ &quot;η&quot; πρὸ τοῦ &quot;τ&quot; ψιλοῦται, ἐν δὲ τῷ ἧτα τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ στοιχείου δασύνεται; Ἐπειδὴ παρὰ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ὁ τύπος τοῦ &quot;Η&quot; ἐν τύπῳ δασείας ἔκειτο, ὥσπερ καὶ νῦν τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Why is Ē before T pronounced without an `/h/`, when the name of the letter &quot;hēta&quot; is pronounced with one? It's because the ancients used the letter hēta for the `/h/` consonant—like the Romans still do nowadays.* (Trans. mine, and somewhat loose)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I've never actually heard someone call the letter &quot;heta&quot;, and [it seems I'm not alone in this][1]. I *have* heard people call Υ/υ *hypsilon*, so it's probably not just `/h/` disappearing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I'm most interested in what the post-Eucleidian Attics called it, since they still had an `/h/` phoneme, but used the letter Η as a vowel. Answers from other dialects would also be interesting, but Attic is most relevant here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9463/is-rough-vs-smooth-breathing-predictable#comment19215_9463" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9490" RevisionGUID="df31b748-bbfe-47e3-bca1-8d8e1be2ee7d" CreationDate="2019-04-13T16:48:13.513" UserId="1459" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="In the TV series, &quot;I Claudius&quot; (BBC, 1976) there was a scene in which the Ambassador, Appius Iunius Silanus, attempts to assassinate Emperor Claudius (occupational hazard) and fails. In the aftermath, a restrained Silanus awaits his fate. Imperatrix, The &quot;Lady&quot; Messalina, entreats for mercy, counselling exile. A senior aide and civil servant, Pallas, warns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;An attempt on the life of Caeser cannot be punished by banishment; such a precedent would only encourage others to try.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A translation of this might be: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;conatum Caesarem insidiis interficere non exsilio est puniri; ne talis exemplum alios solum hortetur conari.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Toyed with: &quot;non potest exsilio punire&quot;, but thought that &quot;possum&quot; means &quot;can&quot; in the sense of to-be-physically-able e.g. I-can-walk; as opposed to it-cannot-be-done, simply because it's a bad idea. &#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, gerundive-of-obligation, &quot;non exsilio punendum est&quot;, it-ought-not-to-be-punished-by-exile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The character, Pallas, was highly articulate and would have said this in the most succinct way, which is?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9492" RevisionGUID="d01a289a-1d56-4127-bfe3-6ef286c8d6a9" CreationDate="2019-04-13T18:16:24.973" UserId="406" Text="Incomplete answer while I do more research! Here are all the ones I've found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Letters that survived as numbers:&#xD;&#xA;  - Digamma/waw (Ϝϝ) was originally used for `/w/`, and left traces of itself all over Homer's writing, but the phoneme disappeared from Attic quite early so the letter never caught on there. It remained alive in Aeolian, so we find the letter used in Sappho (at least in the papyri), and also travelled west to become Latin &quot;F&quot; via Etruscan. In mainstream Greek, it survived only as the number 6.&#xD;&#xA;  - Qoppa (Ϙϙ) came from Phoenician *qoph* (`/q/`), and was used for `/k/` before back vowels, where it was somewhat more retracted. Eventually the Greeks realized that `/k/` was just a single phoneme and dropped it, though Corinth kept it as sort of a local symbol (calling their city *Ϙόρινθος* and branding their horses with a *Ϙ*, as Aristophanes mentions in the *Clouds*). In mainstream Greek, it survived only as the number 90.&#xD;&#xA;  - Sampi (Ͳͳ) was used only in Ionian, possibly for `/ʃ/`. It's unclear if this letter came from Phoenician or was borrowed from Carian, and might be the same as *san* (below). It survived better as the number 900 than as any sort of letter.&#xD;&#xA;   - Pamphylian also had a sibilant letter that looked vaguely like Ͳ or Ψ, distinct from *psi*. It's not clear how it got there, but *sampi* might have been more widespread than the inscriptions imply, and [might have been the first letter in Sappho's name][1].&#xD;&#xA; - Extra sibilants:&#xD;&#xA;  - San (Ϻϻ) was one result of the Greeks confusing and rearranging all the Phoenician sibilants. Abecedaria included both *sigma* and *san* for a long while, but each individual dialect generally chose one or the other for `/s/` and left the other unused. In the end, Etruscan found a use for both of them, but none of the Greek dialects did, and *san* was unceremoniously disposed of.&#xD;&#xA;  - Sho (Ϸϸ) was never used in Greece itself: it was invented for the Bactrian language (written in the Greek alphabet). It was almost certainly used for the `/ʃ/` sound in &quot;ship&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  - Tsan (Ͷͷ) appears in exactly one inscription in Arcadia, but it's used several times in that inscription, always where Attic has `/t/` and Cypriot has `/s/`. So it was probably a sibilant or affricate.&#xD;&#xA; - Miscellaneous:&#xD;&#xA;  - Pamphylian digamma/vav (Ͷͷ) looks identical to *tsan* and was unified with it for Unicode purposes, even though it was a completely separate letter. According to Brixhe, it was a re-borrowing of Semitic *waw* to represent allophony: Ϝ was used for `/w/ [v]`, while Ͷ was used for `/w/ [w]`. Confusingly, Ϝ is transliterated *w*, while Ͷ is transliterated *v*, for historical reasons.&#xD;&#xA;  - Heta (Ͱͱ) was a Heracleian modification of *eta* used specifically for the consonant sound, distinct from the vowel. Sometimes it looked like a box with a line through the middle, other times like half an H; the latter was eventually adapted into the rough-breathing mark.&#xD;&#xA;  - Ei (not in Unicode, but sort of like ᔑ) was used in Corinth, in places where Attic would use *beta*—since the Corinthians repurposed *beta* for something totally unrelated. Attic *ε η ει* correspond to Corinthian *β β ε*.&#xD;&#xA;  - Zigzag (not in Unicode, but sort of like ⥌) was used in both Greek and non-Greek languages as a high front vowel distinct from *iota*. Or it might have been an early *chi*. There's not really enough data to tell, and most people just treat it as a glyph variant of *iota*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Honorable mention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The letter &quot;yot&quot; (ϳ) gets Unicode codepoint U+03F3 despite never actually being used by the actual Greeks. In all the fonts that I've checked, it looks exactly like a Latin `j`. Why this exists, I cannot say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7496/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9493" RevisionGUID="0c7713d1-7308-4632-af4d-71c85361a7a2" CreationDate="2019-04-14T00:12:33.373" UserId="406" Text="The predecessor to the modern Greek alphabet was the Phoenician alphabet, which had four &quot;sibilant&quot; letters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  *zayin* `/z/`&#xD;&#xA; -  *samekh* `/s/`&#xD;&#xA; -  *ṣade* `/ṣ/`&#xD;&#xA; -  *šin* `/š/`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Jeffery, these turned into the four Greek letters Ϻ Ζ Ξ Σ — but the names, forms, sound values, and alphabetical order got all mixed up in the process. So for example, Σ took its name and sound value from , but its shape and place in the alphabet from .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Others have suggested that this theory is wrong][1], and indeed it would be rather odd for all the forms and sound values to get mixed up for no reason. But I've never seen any alternative explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: what other theories are there on where the Greek sibilant letters came from? And what evidence is there either way (either for or against Jeffery's theory)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9068/how-many-greek-letters-are-there#comment19244_9492" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29653" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9493" RevisionGUID="0c7713d1-7308-4632-af4d-71c85361a7a2" CreationDate="2019-04-14T00:12:33.373" UserId="406" Text="Where did the Greek sibilant letters come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29654" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9493" RevisionGUID="0c7713d1-7308-4632-af4d-71c85361a7a2" CreationDate="2019-04-14T00:12:33.373" UserId="406" Text="|greek|alphabet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9494" RevisionGUID="04a5f982-b320-413e-820b-5501c1a5b40f" CreationDate="2019-04-14T13:10:50.017" UserId="79" Text="Here is a suggestion:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; *Ne tales insidias expellendo puniamus, ne quis iterum conetur.*&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Let us not punish such conspiracy by expelling, so that nobody else tries again.&#xA;&#xA;My plane is taking off in a minute, so I will elaborate later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9495" RevisionGUID="c08504aa-251e-476a-9a35-fcff49e28bea" CreationDate="2019-04-14T14:05:42.987" UserId="645" Text="I'm looking for a way to describe striped cloth — that is, with regular stripes all over, or like the stripes on the flag of the USA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm well aware of the stripe on a toga, *angusticlavus*, etc. But is it appropriate to use *clavus* in the general sense, or is there a better word? I have considered *striatum*, but am not sure that I'm exactly on the right track. Or am I missing something obvious?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29657" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9495" RevisionGUID="c08504aa-251e-476a-9a35-fcff49e28bea" CreationDate="2019-04-14T14:05:42.987" UserId="645" Text="How to say 'striped' in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29658" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9495" RevisionGUID="c08504aa-251e-476a-9a35-fcff49e28bea" CreationDate="2019-04-14T14:05:42.987" UserId="645" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9496" RevisionGUID="52795e4c-604c-4c45-b108-961f6c7c3d13" CreationDate="2019-04-14T15:15:18.680" UserId="2476" Text="_**Ambitio mea permittit ut intellegam necesse non esse mihi vitam dare.**_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, &quot;My ambition allows [me] to understand/realise it is not necessary for me to give [my] life&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the verb _concedo_ (in the present tense, third person form _concedit_) could work, but it is often more akin to &quot;grant&quot;, rather than &quot;allow&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess _comprehendo_ might also be fine, but I prefer _intellego_. Anyway one needs to either use the infinitive, as luchonacho did, or &quot;_ut_ + subjunctive&quot; - instead &quot;_ut_ + indicative&quot; has a modal, temporal, or causal value, not suitable here. I used the latter to avoid three infinitives in a row. The final part of the sentence is reminiscent of Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nunc audi quod, etsi intellego scribi necesse non esse, scribo tamen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for &quot;to sacrifice&quot;, there is a problem: the active _sacrifico_ (used intransitively) and deponent _sacrificor_ both seem to only mean celebrate a sacrifice (or sacrifices, generally) to the gods. At least, I couldn't find any instances of them where they meant &quot;to sacrifice oneself&quot;, and [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=sacrifico) seems to support this.&#xD;&#xA;That's why I opted for _vitam dare_, which is attested in [Justin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_(historian)): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Codrus, Atheniensium rex, pro patria vitam dedit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Codrus, King of the Athenians, gave his life for his fatherland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and indeed he [**sacrificed himself**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codrus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a remark on _ambitio_: unlikely English &quot;ambition&quot;, Italian &quot;ambizione&quot;, etc. , it had a somewhat negative connotation - just think of Mark Antony's speech in Shakespeare's _Julius Caesar_, or even the original one in Cassius Dio's _Historia Romana_.  On the other hand, though, Quintilian did have to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet ipsa vitium sit ambitio, frequenter tamen causa virtutum est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although ambition is a vice, it is frequently a source of virtue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's fine to use _ambitio_. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9496" RevisionGUID="417681b6-6e05-4403-b52a-6d2cdabf2fe7" CreationDate="2019-04-14T15:27:52.930" UserId="2476" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="_**Ambitio mea permittit ut intellegam necesse non esse mihi vitam dare.**_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, &quot;My ambition allows [me] to understand/realise it is not necessary for me to give [my] life&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the verb _concedo_ (in the present tense, third person form _concedit_) could work, but it is often more akin to &quot;grant&quot;, rather than &quot;allow&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess _comprehendo_ might also be fine, but I prefer _intellego_. Anyway one needs to either use the infinitive, or &quot;_ut_ + subjunctive&quot; - instead &quot;_ut_ + indicative&quot; has a modal, temporal, or causal value, not suitable here. I used the latter to avoid three infinitives in a row. The final part of the sentence is reminiscent of Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nunc audi quod, etsi intellego scribi necesse non esse, scribo tamen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for &quot;to sacrifice&quot;, there is a problem: the active _sacrifico_ (used intransitively) and deponent _sacrificor_ both seem to only mean celebrate a sacrifice (or sacrifices, generally) to the gods. At least, I couldn't find any instances of them where they meant &quot;to sacrifice oneself&quot;, and [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=sacrifico) seems to support this.&#xD;&#xA;That's why I opted for _vitam dare_, which is attested in [Justin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_(historian)): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Codrus, Atheniensium rex, pro patria vitam dedit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Codrus, King of the Athenians, gave his life for his fatherland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and indeed he [**sacrificed himself**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codrus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a remark on _ambitio_: unlikely English &quot;ambition&quot;, Italian &quot;ambizione&quot;, etc. , it had a somewhat negative connotation - just think of Mark Antony's speech in Shakespeare's _Julius Caesar_, or even the original one in Cassius Dio's _Historia Romana_.  On the other hand, though, Quintilian did have to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet ipsa vitium sit ambitio, frequenter tamen causa virtutum est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although ambition is a vice, it is frequently a source of virtue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's fine to use _ambitio_. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9496" RevisionGUID="f229388b-c123-4dda-9f42-a27313e69867" CreationDate="2019-04-14T15:49:10.120" UserId="2476" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="_**Ambitio mea permittit ut intellegam necesse non esse mihi vitam dare.**_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, &quot;My ambition allows [me] to understand/realise it is not necessary for me to give [my] life&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the verb _concedo_ (in the present tense, third person form _concedit_) could work, but it is often more akin to &quot;grant&quot;, rather than &quot;allow&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess _comprehendo_ might also be fine, but I prefer _intellego_. Anyway one needs to either use the infinitive, or &quot;_ut_ + subjunctive&quot; - instead &quot;_ut_ + indicative&quot; has a modal, temporal, or causal value, not suitable here. I used the latter to avoid three infinitives in a row. The final part of the sentence is reminiscent of Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nunc audi quod, etsi intellego scribi necesse non esse, scribo tamen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for &quot;to sacrifice&quot;, there is a problem: the active _sacrifico_ (used intransitively) and deponent _sacrificor_ both seem to only mean celebrate a sacrifice (or sacrifices, generally) to the gods. At least, I couldn't find any instances of them where they meant &quot;to sacrifice oneself&quot;, and [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=sacrifico) seems to support this.&#xD;&#xA;That's why I opted for _vitam dare_, which is attested in [Justin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_(historian)): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Codrus, Atheniensium rex, pro patria vitam dedit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Codrus, King of the Athenians, gave his life for his fatherland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and indeed he [**sacrificed himself**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codrus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a remark on _ambitio_: unlikely English &quot;ambition&quot;, Italian &quot;ambizione&quot;, etc. , it had a somewhat negative connotation - just think of Mark Antony's speech in Shakespeare's _Julius Caesar_, or even the original one in Cassius Dio's _Historia Romana_.  On the other hand, though, Quintilian did have to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Licet ipsa vitium sit ambitio, frequenter tamen causa virtutum est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although ambition itself is a vice, it is frequently a source of virtue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's fine to use _ambitio_. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9497" RevisionGUID="987868ab-0aed-4837-854d-631a9d833cfd" CreationDate="2019-04-14T17:23:06.250" UserId="522" Text="In the Corpus Christi Alea Evangelii there is a playing piece which is coloured differently. This is sometimes translated 'speckled,' sometimes 'striped.' &quot;Now we pass the variegated man...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Varium nunc transgrediamur virum . et postea Marcus in trianguli&#xD;&#xA;&gt; primo angulo ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same description of a board game the ranks and files are called *'trames.'* A word borrowed from weaving. *Trasmeo* is the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*toga alba, nigrore transmente* a white toga woven across with black.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had misremembered *'trames;'* I thought it meant a furrow. And perhaps that would be a better metaphor: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*toga candida et nigra sulcatim.* A toga, furrowed black and white.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9497" RevisionGUID="dbf2fedf-88f8-4903-9777-b4d77e2891bc" CreationDate="2019-04-14T17:42:06.870" UserId="522" Comment="*tramites* examples." Text="In the Corpus Christi Alea Evangelii there is a playing piece which is coloured differently. This is sometimes translated 'speckled,' sometimes 'striped.' &quot;Now we pass the variegated man...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Varium nunc transgrediamur virum . et postea Marcus in trianguli&#xD;&#xA;&gt; primo angulo ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same description of a board game the ranks and files are called *'trames.'* A word borrowed from weaving. *Trasmeo* is the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *.X. et .VIII. tramites in longitudine* 18 ranks in length.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *singuli per singulos tramites,* one by one across the separate ranks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*toga alba, nigrore transmente* a white toga woven across with black.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had misremembered *'trames;'* I thought it meant a furrow. And perhaps that would be a better metaphor: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*toga candida et nigra sulcatim.* A toga, furrowed black and white.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9498" RevisionGUID="0062d396-e6d5-41ce-8ff7-3d9fd3aeae94" CreationDate="2019-04-14T17:53:57.150" UserId="406" Text="From biological Latin, I would suggest **striātus, -a, -um**. While it literally means &quot;fluted&quot; or &quot;furrowed&quot;, it's is the word I've most often seen for &quot;striped&quot; in scientific names: for example, the &quot;striped pondweed&quot; is *Stuckenia striata*, the &quot;striped bladderwort&quot; is *Utricularia striata*, and the &quot;striped snakehead&quot; (a type of fish) is *Channa striata*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9497" RevisionGUID="0186aed5-cdee-4d4e-8306-baf29572278a" CreationDate="2019-04-14T20:37:49.703" UserId="522" Comment="typo" Text="In the Corpus Christi Alea Evangelii there is a playing piece which is coloured differently. This is sometimes translated 'speckled,' sometimes 'striped.' &quot;Now we pass the variegated man...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Varium nunc transgrediamur virum . et postea Marcus in trianguli&#xD;&#xA;&gt; primo angulo ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same description of a board game the ranks and files are called *'trames.'* A word borrowed from weaving. *Transmeo* is the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *.X. et .VIII. tramites in longitudine* 18 ranks in length.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *singuli per singulos tramites,* one by one across the separate ranks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*toga alba, nigrore transmente* a white toga woven across with black.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had misremembered *'trames;'* I thought it meant a furrow. And perhaps that would be a better metaphor: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*toga candida et nigra sulcatim.* A toga, furrowed black and white.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9499" RevisionGUID="05416891-c8a1-41a3-9a1e-4d7b5ab8184c" CreationDate="2019-04-14T21:40:37.117" UserId="30" Text="My dictionary offers four options for &quot;striped&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  [**Virgatus**][1] &quot;striped&quot; (has been used for striped clothing, at least in&#xD;&#xA;   poetry and post-classically)&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  [**Virgulatus**][2] &quot;striped&quot; (seems to be very similar to *virgatus* but less&#xD;&#xA;   frequent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of these are from *[virga][3]* &quot;twig&quot;, which was also used to mean &quot;stripe&quot; in clothing (II C).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Ostreatus** (striped or ridged like an oyster shell: doesn't seem to have been used to describe a pattern in clothing)&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  **Striatus** (more like furrowed, from *stria* &quot;furrow&quot;: doesn't seem to have been used for clothing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=virgatus&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=virgulatus&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=virga&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29667" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9495" RevisionGUID="6a299044-8066-450f-887f-6fffb5304c90" CreationDate="2019-04-15T01:56:26.480" />
  <row Id="29668" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="9416" RevisionGUID="3f004756-50a4-4f9f-af0d-e46f108ffe21" CreationDate="2019-04-15T02:01:40.280" UserId="-1" Comment="111" />
  <row Id="29669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9500" RevisionGUID="07d28b6a-1cf9-4dc1-917e-0209e3c84f83" CreationDate="2019-04-15T02:12:02.613" UserId="40" Text="This is a technical question, but I hope it's on topic. The [Perseus project][1] contains lots and lots of Latin and Greek texts (and other languages too). I sometimes want to download an entire text from Perseus. There is an XML button at the bottom of every text page which gives you the XML for that page, which is useful; but since texts come &quot;chunked&quot; into books or sections, that button only yields the XML for that book or section. Is there a way to get the entire text?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, at the moment I'd like to download the text of Dionysius of Halicarnassus *De Demosthene*. It's available [here][2], but chunked into chapters. I could fetch the XML for each of the 58 chapters and then paste them together, but that's unappealingly laborious and I suspect there's a quicker way. Is there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://perseus.tufts.edu&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0081.tlg006.perseus-grc1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29670" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9500" RevisionGUID="07d28b6a-1cf9-4dc1-917e-0209e3c84f83" CreationDate="2019-04-15T02:12:02.613" UserId="40" Text="How to download an entire text from Perseus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29671" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9500" RevisionGUID="07d28b6a-1cf9-4dc1-917e-0209e3c84f83" CreationDate="2019-04-15T02:12:02.613" UserId="40" Text="|technology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9494" RevisionGUID="b1c78818-a816-447f-8d03-d6c0d3e7b542" CreationDate="2019-04-15T02:22:34.430" UserId="79" Comment="added 1388 characters in body" Text="Here is a suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ne tales insidias expellendo puniamus, ne quis alius talia conetur.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let us not punish such conspiracy by expelling, so that nobody else tries such things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to keep it succinct but as a single sentence.&#xD;&#xA;I don't actually know what would be a good translation of &quot;attempt at someone's life&quot;, but at any rate it would be longer than &quot;such conspiracy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In the context this should still convey the same message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can punish by exile, but I thought that it would get more weight and activity if the punishment was given by expelling, *expellendo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your suggested translation does not quite seem to work grammatically.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say &quot;an attempt cannot be punished&quot; (this was the key part of the first half), you should say *conatum punire non licet* rather than *conatum non est puniri*.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin *licet* is stronger than the English &quot;can&quot;, but a stronger message of not being allowed seems appropriate here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *ne* clause for an unwanted consequence (&quot;so that something doesn't happen&quot;) is a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;*Talis* should be neuter (*tale*) to match *exemplum*.&#xD;&#xA;The subject of *conetur* is unclear to me.&#xD;&#xA;Is it supposed to be the entire first clause?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *hortari* can be used in a number of ways, and one of them is with the infinitive as you wrote.&#xD;&#xA;The infinitive is quite rare though, so I'm not sure if it's a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;One can render &quot;I encourage you to try&quot; in a number of ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *te hortor ad conandum*&#xD;&#xA;- *te hortor in conandum*&#xD;&#xA;- *te hortor conari*&#xD;&#xA;- *te hortor ut coneris*&#xD;&#xA;- *te hortor coneris*&#xD;&#xA;- and more; see L&amp;S or another dictionary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9500" RevisionGUID="8f30ec95-6d47-4423-9917-4c1c941bc645" CreationDate="2019-04-15T02:26:38.447" UserId="40" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="This is a technical question, but I hope it's on topic. The [Perseus project][1] contains lots and lots of Latin and Greek texts (and other languages too). I sometimes want to download an entire text from Perseus. There is an XML button at the bottom of every text page which gives you the XML for that page, which is useful; but since texts come &quot;chunked&quot; into books or sections, that button only yields the XML for that book or section. Is there a way to get the entire text?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, at the moment I'd like to download the text of Dionysius of Halicarnassus *De Demosthene*. It's available [here][2], but chunked into chapters. I could fetch the XML for each of the 58 chapters and then paste them together, but that's unappealingly laborious and I suspect there's a quicker way. Is there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ETA: I'm mostly interested in Greek texts, so I specifically don't want to download an XML in beta code, but a readable Greek-script text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://perseus.tufts.edu&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0081.tlg006.perseus-grc1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29674" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9500" RevisionGUID="fbc3d732-ebae-4635-ba3f-1eb95a4d8641" CreationDate="2019-04-15T02:28:30.113" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|technology|text-corpus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9500" RevisionGUID="407ca0fd-285f-4c81-a204-3c64a23d3f1f" CreationDate="2019-04-15T03:12:02.560" UserId="40" Comment="added 312 characters in body" Text="This is a technical question, but I hope it's on topic. The [Perseus project][1] contains lots and lots of Latin and Greek texts (and other languages too). I sometimes want to download an entire text from Perseus. There is an XML button at the bottom of every text page which gives you the XML for that page, which is useful; but since texts come &quot;chunked&quot; into books or sections, that button only yields the XML for that book or section. Is there a way to get the entire text?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, at the moment I'd like to download the text of Dionysius of Halicarnassus *De Demosthene*. It's available [here][2], but chunked into chapters. I could fetch the XML for each of the 58 chapters and then paste them together, but that's unappealingly laborious and I suspect there's a quicker way. Is there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ETA: I'm mostly interested in Greek texts, so I specifically don't want to download an XML in beta code, but a readable Greek-script text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ETA 2: The entire Perseus corpus can be downloaded [here][3] as a single archive. This almost solves the problem, except that the texts are in XML, and the Greek texts are in beta code. It would be nice to have XML-stripped, Greek-script texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://perseus.tufts.edu&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0081.tlg006.perseus-grc1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/opensource/download" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9501" RevisionGUID="c8b3c41a-b851-413c-92e4-c97f7dcefc7b" CreationDate="2019-04-15T03:39:31.193" UserId="867" Text="The most common words I have found for *striped* are *virgatus*, *varius*, and *striatus*, used for all sorts of stripes including those on clothing.  But this is only what others have already posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My small contribution, then, is to address your question specifically about *clavus*, or rather ***clavatus***.  I have found one reference in which this is used unambiguously for stripes on material yet which does not seem to be linked to the purple stripes of consuls etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *uxorem gemmis uti non est passus. auro clavatis vestibus idem&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interdixit.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He did not permit his wife to use jewels and also forbade her to wear&#xD;&#xA;&gt; garments with gold stripes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Historia Augusta*, Tacitus, 11&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9502" RevisionGUID="553271ad-fbe9-4499-a62b-86bacf67ee8d" CreationDate="2019-04-15T04:48:08.267" UserId="985" Text="I presume that you've been clicking the orange **XML** button directly below the chunk of text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look beneath that, in the gray box that gives licensing info, the second paragraph has an **XML version** link. This will open/download a copy of the complete text (in Betacode though, which I know you don't really want), not just the chunk that you're viewing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![XML button and XML version link][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v1nUU.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9488" RevisionGUID="677caae1-360d-4d9a-bbb8-1ed4cd0fa1c4" CreationDate="2019-04-15T07:23:54.357" UserId="1459" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I think a more appropriate translation is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ambitio mea approbat me comprehendere [ut/quod] non habeam sacrificare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[ambitio](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ambitio#Latin)_ is the nominative, the &quot;subject&quot; of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[approbat](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=approbo)_ seems to be used as allow, although I am not totally sure here. There might be a better option. Your suggestion _concedo_ seems to be fine too, but notice it is &quot;the ambition&quot; (third person single) that allows, so it would be _[concedit](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concedo#Latin)_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the verbs, as far as I know, should in infinitive (although I remember someone pointed to me this is mostly a Vulgata thing, which is where I am mostly sourcing my Latin from).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same with _ut/quod_. Not sure if they are pertinent or not, and they might be also a Vulgate/mediaeval Latin thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9488" RevisionGUID="24ac72b4-83c7-49ef-b452-cc4cefcd266e" CreationDate="2019-04-15T08:07:59.440" UserId="1459" Comment="added 419 characters in body" Text="I think a more appropriate translation is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ambitio mea admittit me comprehendere [ut/quod] non habeam sacrificare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[ambitio](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ambitio#Latin)_ is the nominative, the &quot;subject&quot; of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[_admittit_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=admitto) seems to be a decent word for &quot;to allow&quot;. Other options seem to be [_liberat_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=libero&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), [_mittit_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=mitto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) (these two, in the sense of &quot;to release&quot;), [_permittit_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=permitto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), [_sinit_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=sino&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059). An earlier suggestion of mine, [_approbat_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=approbo) seems not to be appropriate (see VO comment below). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the verbs, as far as I know, should in infinitive (although I remember someone pointed to me this is mostly a Vulgata thing, which is where I am mostly sourcing my Latin from).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same with _ut/quod_. Not sure if they are pertinent or not, and they might be also a Vulgate/mediaeval Latin thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9503" RevisionGUID="28f41ee5-22c7-4bb8-8238-2ff83f37e04e" CreationDate="2019-04-15T08:48:33.410" UserId="1459" Text="The [FAQ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/help/faq#scroll) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can I download a complete text file?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Our copyright agreements with the publishers of our texts **do not permit us to offer full text downloading** for all works in Perseus at this time. Texts for which XML downloads are available are indicated as such by a creative commons license and links to download options. You will find these in the center of a text viewing page, below the main focus text. We do not offer other formats for texts at this time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This of course, does not mean you cannot do it yourself. Some method would go like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Use a command line tool (or perhaps a software?) to download many pages in one go. For Linux, check [these instructions](https://www.abeautifulsite.net/downloading-a-list-of-urls-automatically). For all platforms, check [this tool](https://ugetdm.com/). Notice all the XML pages have this format:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/xmlchunk?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0580%3Achapter%3D1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and chapters go from 3D1 to 3D58, so the download can be easily automatised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Merge the XML files. There are tons of tools for this (e.g. [here](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/80609/merge-xml-documents)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Convert to PDF or other format. Notice you will need an encoding different from &quot;utf-8&quot; to parse the Greek letters. Best tools might be based on [XSLT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XSLT). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9504" RevisionGUID="df1e1811-b125-4d46-bee1-63adcfcdd3cf" CreationDate="2019-04-15T09:08:47.463" UserId="1459" Text="On top of others already suggested (particularly _virgatus_), the 2016 OLD also suggests _maculosus_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (of animals, etc) Variegated, spotted, or striped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(etc not including minerals, listed later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also suggests _polygrammos_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (of a kind of jasper) Many-striped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this might be too specific. [Pliny the Elder](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book=37:chapter=37&amp;highlight=polygrammos) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The variety of this stone [jasper] which resembles smaragdus in colour is often found with a white line running transversely through the middle; in which case it is known as &quot;monogrammos:&quot; when it is streaked with several lines, it is called &quot;polygrammos.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9505" RevisionGUID="f7d8fd44-ec28-4811-bcd4-50f0e74cf1cc" CreationDate="2019-04-15T10:31:04.960" UserId="645" Text="The sentence to be translated is from the description of the driver of a stagecoach in 'Old Christmas' by Washington Irving (pub. 1875). It begins *His waistcoat is commonly of some bright colour, striped*, and I have finally decided on something not yet put forward, but which I think fits the case fairly well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Subuculam variis fere coloribus claris delineatam gerit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am grateful for the interest in this question, and indeed for so many sensible and suggestions, which I apologise for ultimately disregarding.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9505" RevisionGUID="b7870116-f247-41de-b2f5-e33880a557f8" CreationDate="2019-04-15T11:26:05.910" UserId="645" Comment="word added" Text="The sentence to be translated is from the description of the driver of a stagecoach in 'Old Christmas' by Washington Irving (pub. 1875). It begins *His waistcoat is commonly of some bright colour, striped*, and I have finally decided on something not yet put forward, but which I think fits the case fairly well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Subuculam variis fere coloribus claris delineatam gerit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am grateful for the interest in this question, and indeed for so many sensible and interesting suggestions, which I apologise for ultimately disregarding.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9494" RevisionGUID="e495d817-d343-4e74-93bf-500bef351d3f" CreationDate="2019-04-15T14:29:30.013" UserId="79" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="Here is a suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ne tales insidias expellendo puniamus, ne quis alius talia conetur.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let us not punish such conspiracy by expelling, so that nobody else tries such things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to keep it succinct but as a single sentence.&#xD;&#xA;I don't actually know what would be a good translation of &quot;attempt at someone's life&quot;, but at any rate it would be longer than &quot;such conspiracy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In the context this should still convey the same message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can punish by exile, but I thought that it would get more weight and activity if the punishment was given by expelling, *expellendo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used *talia* (&quot;such things&quot; rather than &quot;such conspiracy&quot;) in the second clause.&#xD;&#xA;You can also use *tales*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your suggested translation does not quite seem to work grammatically.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say &quot;an attempt cannot be punished&quot; (this was the key part of the first half), you should say *conatum punire non licet* rather than *conatum non est puniri*.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin *licet* is stronger than the English &quot;can&quot;, but a stronger message of not being allowed seems appropriate here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A *ne* clause for an unwanted consequence (&quot;so that something doesn't happen&quot;) is a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;*Talis* should be neuter (*tale*) to match *exemplum*.&#xD;&#xA;The subject of *conetur* is unclear to me.&#xD;&#xA;Is it supposed to be the entire first clause?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *hortari* can be used in a number of ways, and one of them is with the infinitive as you wrote.&#xD;&#xA;The infinitive is quite rare though, so I'm not sure if it's a good choice.&#xD;&#xA;One can render &quot;I encourage you to try&quot; in a number of ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *te hortor ad conandum*&#xD;&#xA;- *te hortor in conandum*&#xD;&#xA;- *te hortor conari*&#xD;&#xA;- *te hortor ut coneris*&#xD;&#xA;- *te hortor coneris*&#xD;&#xA;- and more; see L&amp;S or another dictionary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="155" RevisionGUID="d780a6c5-f3b9-4ab4-875a-b3bb82174733" CreationDate="2019-04-15T14:32:50.967" UserId="648" Comment="broken link fixed" Text="***[Clipeus][1]*** was originally a round, metal shield. It is [fairly common][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***[Scutum][3]*** was originally a long, oval wooden shield with iron fittings and covered with leather, used by soldiers. It is also used for a shield in general. It is [about as common][4] as *clipeus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both words were also used metaphorically for a defence or protection in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=clipeus&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=clipeo&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=scutum&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=scuto" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29687" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="155" RevisionGUID="d780a6c5-f3b9-4ab4-875a-b3bb82174733" CreationDate="2019-04-15T14:32:50.967" Comment="Proposed by 648 approved by 30 edit id of 307" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9506" RevisionGUID="e4e9a05a-c1df-48d6-9256-0299f635870c" CreationDate="2019-04-15T17:19:15.887" UserId="406" Text="Just to supplement…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a very highbrow, poetic term, you can borrow the Greek ***aegis, aegidis, f***. See, for example, Ovid's _Remedia Amoris_ 343-6, where he recommends distracting attention from any unflattering physical features with jewelry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Auferimur cultu; gemmis auroque teguntur  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Omnia; pars minima est ipsa puella sui.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Saepe ubi sit, quod ames, inter tam multa requiras;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Decipit hac oculos **aegide** dives Amor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *We men are won over by splendor: jewels and gold can hide everything else. A girl is really the least part of herself. Often you might ask, what is there really to love, underneath all that? But **with this shield** of wealth, Cupid can trick the eyes.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, Tom Cotton also recommends ***tūtāmen, tūtāminis, n***. This is a nice general-purpose word for _defense_ or _protection_: anything that keeps you safe against attack. So I'd say it's exactly the opposite of *aegis*, a simple, straightforward term instead of a lofty metaphor. L&amp;S's example for it comes from Aeneid 5.258-62, describing a prize given at the funeral games:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at qui deinde locum tenuit virtute secundum,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; levibus huic hamis consertam auroque trilicem  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; loricam, quam Demoleo detraxerat ipse  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; victor apud rapidum Simoenta sub Ilio alto,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; donat habere, viro decus et **tutamen** in armis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *And as for the man who came in second place, Aeneas gave him a shirt of chainmail, bound together with polished rings and triple-reinforced with pure gold, that he [Aeneas] himself had ripped off of Demoleus after defeating him under the high walls of Troy, on the banks of the river Simois—it was both a mark of glory, and **a useful defense** against weapons.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, ***tegāmen, tegāminis, n*** is another word for &quot;protection&quot;, from the same root as English *protect*. But while the other words refer to armor, this one refers to a cloak, and can mean &quot;concealment&quot; as well. Metaphorically, Cicero uses it to mean a solid defense against accusations and implications. It's less common than the other two, but would be just as easily understood by a classical Roman." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29689" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4407" RevisionGUID="b16cd411-9662-489b-9e2f-9e124a5a8fcf" CreationDate="2019-04-15T21:01:10.200" UserId="-1" Comment="112" />
  <row Id="29690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9507" RevisionGUID="6fbf4281-97b5-4539-8efe-0df089850cc7" CreationDate="2019-04-16T03:49:59.390" UserId="39" Text="perhaps not an answer but rather a comment - I just found my notes, based on Woodard 2010/2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adaptation: Greek-Phoenician bilingual speakers (scribes or mercenaries literate in the syllabic Cypriot orthographic tradition), “proceeding with intentionality and arbitrariness” (p. 35).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consonant clusters with /s/ in Phonetician: three affricates, /dz/ (grapheme: zayin), /ts/ (grapheme: samek), /ts’/ (grapheme: sade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consonant clusters with /s/ in Ancient Greek: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hTxKr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9508" RevisionGUID="b7839e8e-3241-4264-9b88-f41117d64f4d" CreationDate="2019-04-16T03:57:58.827" UserId="1694" Text="Since some time has gone by without anyone else supplying documentary evidence concerning the matter, I'll provide an answer based on what I think *must* have happened, but without any ancient quotations to back it up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, the name of the letter Η *must* have been _heta_ (ͱῆτα or hε͂τα) at the time when the letter was still being used to indicate /h/ - after all, it came from the Phoenician letter /ḥet, and the first sound represented its value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also know that ultimately it became known as _eta_ (ἦτα), no doubt because it no longer represented /h/ but rather /ɛ:/ (subsequently -&gt; /e:/ -&gt; /i(:)/), and there is always a *tendency* to have the initial sound of a letter name to represent sound of the letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the real question is, when did people start pronouncing the name of the letter /ɛ:ta/ rather than /hɛ:ta/?  It seem difficult to believe that after adoption of the Ionic alphabet in Athens people that were used to call the letter [hɛ:ta] would immediately switch to calling it [ɛ:ta] - people are just not like that.  We must imagine *some* transition time in which people started calling it [ɛ:ta], under the pressure of wanting to have its initial sound reflect how the letter was used.  How long?  No doubt some people were more conservative than others, but the quote from Dionysios Thrax indicates that it persisted in *some* quarters for a considerable time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an interesting parallel (or perhaps &quot;anti-parallel&quot;) in English.  In my speech, and the speech of everyone I normally come into contact with (I'm speaking from New England), the name of English letter H is [eiʧ], but apparently elsewhere (especially in the UK), other people consider [heiʧ] to be the perfectly normal name for the letter.  The pronunciation of the name of H without the initial [h] comes from French, and is ultimately a result of the loss of /h/ in vulgar Latin.  The re-introduction of the aspirate in [heiʧ] is due to a desire to make the name of the letter reflect its normal pronunciation in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9509" RevisionGUID="3e99c3ed-143f-483d-8e3d-672699063af1" CreationDate="2019-04-16T13:13:48.493" UserId="3627" Text="How do I type Macrons on an Android device? This wretched thing is making me type lots of unnecessary words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29693" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9509" RevisionGUID="3e99c3ed-143f-483d-8e3d-672699063af1" CreationDate="2019-04-16T13:13:48.493" UserId="3627" Text="How do I type Macrons on an Android device?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29694" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9509" RevisionGUID="3e99c3ed-143f-483d-8e3d-672699063af1" CreationDate="2019-04-16T13:13:48.493" UserId="3627" Text="|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9499" RevisionGUID="f4f315c2-7d27-44d8-bddf-6ee4c3e365d0" CreationDate="2019-04-16T14:28:21.477" UserId="30" Comment="Changed odd past tenses" Text="My dictionary offers four options for &quot;striped&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  [**Virgatus**][1] &quot;striped&quot; (is used for striped clothing, at least in&#xD;&#xA;   poetry and post-classically)&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  [**Virgulatus**][2] &quot;striped&quot; (seems to be very similar to *virgatus* but less&#xD;&#xA;   frequent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of these are from *[virga][3]* &quot;twig&quot;, which is also used to mean &quot;stripe&quot; in clothing (II C).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Ostreatus** (striped or ridged like an oyster shell: doesn't seem to be used to describe a pattern in clothing)&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  **Striatus** (more like furrowed, from *stria* &quot;furrow&quot;: doesn't seem to be used for clothing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=virgatus&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=virgulatus&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=virga&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5852" RevisionGUID="5713843f-eba3-4357-9d03-3e81b59d3dad" CreationDate="2019-04-16T18:20:31.183" UserId="30" Comment="added 294 characters in body" Text="There are a couple of masculine (or common) nouns of the first declension. Some are from masculine Greek -ês, like *poeta, nauta*. But others, like *collega, advena, parricida, scriba, incola, agricola, indigena, conviva, auriga* are natively Latin. What is the origin of this native *-a*? And can the same root be observed in other endings / forms? Judging by *parricida*, there might be a conexion with masculine *-as*. But is that also the case with other words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis &amp; Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parrĭcīda (pārĭcīda; old collat. form of the nom. sing. PARICID**AS**, Fragm. XII. Tab. ap. Fest. s. v. parrici, p. 221 Müll.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another interesting word is *\*druida*, &quot;druid&quot;, which, however, [seems to be of Celtic origin][1]. It does show that the Romans were quite used to masculine words of the first declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%AAne#%C3%89tymologie_et_diff%C3%A9rentes_appellations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29697" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7161" RevisionGUID="e547bbcb-3695-4af5-a4a0-a3400c2a44be" CreationDate="2019-04-16T18:49:44.347" UserId="1142" Comment="edited title" Text="Ūtāturne linguā Latīnā aliquis adverbō «ferē» velut linguā Anglicā verbō «almost» ūtimur?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9510" RevisionGUID="4e40d493-be3c-4c1a-951d-0c505f1e7aa1" CreationDate="2019-04-17T02:25:39.403" UserId="40" Text="LSJ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tells us that in Hippocrates, Plato, and elsewhere, the name of the letter is spelled with smooth breathing. (Of course the breathings would have been added by Alexandrian editors, so we can't be 100% that Plato didn't actually call it ἧτα.) The last citation, with rough breathing, is your scholium on Dionysius Thrax.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mlkzu.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9511" RevisionGUID="0d1ca43d-9c6c-418d-acd2-a1c3a8263ebe" CreationDate="2019-04-17T04:03:03.367" UserId="39" Text="Some more interesting examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Callias II (&quot;The Athenian&quot;), frag. *The Tragedy of Letters*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;τὸ ἄλφα&gt;, βῆτα, γάμμα, δέλτα, θεοῦ γὰρ εἶ, ζῆτ᾿, **ἦτα**, θῆτ᾿, ἰῶτα, κάππα, λάβδα, μῆ, νῦ, ξεῖ, τὸ οὖ, πεῖ, ῥῶ, τὸ σίγμα, ταῦ, &lt;τὸ&gt; ὖ, παρὸν &lt;τὸ&gt; φεῖ, &lt;τὸ&gt; χεῖ, τε τῷ ψεῖ εἰς τὸ ὦ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;βῆτα **ἦτα** βη&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;{A.} **ἦτ᾿** ἄρα φήσω&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Plato, *Cratylus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν τοῦτό γε ἕξιν νοῦ σημαίνει, τὸ μὲν ταῦ ἀφελόντι, ἐμβαλόντι δὲ τὸ οὖ μεταξὺ τοῦ χῖ Cκαὶ τοῦ νῦ καὶ τοῦ νῦ καὶ2 τοῦ **ἦτα**; (414C)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;τῷ ἄλφα ξενικῶς ἀντὶ τοῦ **ἦτα** χρησάμενος καὶ τὸ ἰῶτα καὶ τὸ σῖγμα ἀφελών. (407B)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν οὗτος μὲν παντὶ δῆλος Φαῖστος ὤν, τὸ **ἦτα** προσελκυσάμενος; (407C)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9512" RevisionGUID="850f9217-2290-42dc-a02d-5a06f10a3f44" CreationDate="2019-04-17T10:17:44.170" UserId="2476" Text="ā, ă, ē, ě, ī, ū are all easily typable on an Android device by long-pressing the corresponding vowel. So ĭ, ŏ, ō, ŭ, ȳ and y̆ are missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Samsung, I'll quote a post from [here](https://www.google.com/amp/s/forums.androidcentral.com/ask-question/468670-where-macron-letter-o-galaxy-s5-samsung-keyboard.html%3famp), but only in part because that procedure doesn't seem to work for me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In your browser, find and copy the letter you need from any site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Go to Settings &gt; Language and input &gt; Samsung keyboard &gt; Predictive text &gt; Text shortcuts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Here, you can set keyboard shortcuts for whenever you write a certain word. Add a shortcut with your copied letter, and naturally set the corresponding vowel as the needed input for the shortcut to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9512" RevisionGUID="aabc8686-83a9-4a31-b2a2-d6dc9e295aa4" CreationDate="2019-04-17T12:35:10.760" UserId="2476" Comment="edited body" Text="ā, ă, ē, ĕ, ī, ū are all easily typable on an Android device by long-pressing the corresponding vowel. So ĭ, ŏ, ō, ŭ, ȳ and y̆ are missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Samsung, I'll quote a post from [here](https://www.google.com/amp/s/forums.androidcentral.com/ask-question/468670-where-macron-letter-o-galaxy-s5-samsung-keyboard.html%3famp), but only in part because that procedure doesn't seem to work for me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In your browser, find and copy the letter you need from any site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Go to Settings &gt; Language and input &gt; Samsung keyboard &gt; Predictive text &gt; Text shortcuts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Here, you can set keyboard shortcuts for whenever you write a certain word. Add a shortcut with your copied letter, and naturally set the corresponding vowel as the needed input for the shortcut to be shown.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9513" RevisionGUID="deebc4cf-326c-44ee-84ea-723510586880" CreationDate="2019-04-17T18:48:33.003" UserId="2693" Text="I want to translate the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's just like a big recorder&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where &quot;recorder&quot; is the musical instrument.  The generic Latin for &quot;flute&quot; seems to be &quot;tibia&quot; (pipe), so I settled on using the Latin for the Italian &quot;flauta dolce&quot;, which at first glance would be &quot;tibia dulcis&quot; but I fear I don't have the right inflection on &quot;sweet&quot;.  My uneducated attempt is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tamquam (or possibly Quasi) magna tibia dulcis est&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this even close, or is there a better way of expressing this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29703" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9513" RevisionGUID="deebc4cf-326c-44ee-84ea-723510586880" CreationDate="2019-04-17T18:48:33.003" UserId="2693" Text="Declining &quot;dulcis&quot; in context" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29704" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9513" RevisionGUID="deebc4cf-326c-44ee-84ea-723510586880" CreationDate="2019-04-17T18:48:33.003" UserId="2693" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|adjective|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9514" RevisionGUID="238efb80-1c87-46ac-960f-9dab6435497d" CreationDate="2019-04-17T19:17:59.410" UserId="406" Text="*Quasi* is &quot;as if&quot;; for this, I'd use *similis*, &quot;like&quot;. I think I'd also use *longa* instead of *magna*, to express size rather than quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The older (pre-Augustan) way to use *similis* is with the genitive, which would be *longae flautae dulcis*. The newer (post-Augustan) way is with the dative, which would be *longae flautae dulcī*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9514" RevisionGUID="155fc3c5-ec94-4d41-aecb-c87deb3b0c3d" CreationDate="2019-04-17T20:03:19.953" UserId="406" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="*Quasi* is &quot;as if&quot;; for this, I'd use *similis*, &quot;like&quot;. I think I'd also use *longa* instead of *magna*, to express size rather than quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The older (pre-Augustan) way to use *similis* is with the genitive, which would be *longae flautae dulcis*. The newer (post-Augustan) way is with the dative, which would be *longae flautae dulcī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Vincenzo Oliva in the comments suggests using *tibia recta* instead of *flauta dulcis*; in this case, it would be a *longae tibiae rectae* in either case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9513" RevisionGUID="996c9616-62e8-4582-b72f-cb8a5184a96b" CreationDate="2019-04-17T20:44:09.507" UserId="2476" Comment="edited body" Text="I want to translate the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's just like a big recorder&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where &quot;recorder&quot; is the musical instrument.  The generic Latin for &quot;flute&quot; seems to be &quot;tibia&quot; (pipe), so I settled on using the Latin for the Italian &quot;flauto dolce&quot;, which at first glance would be &quot;tibia dulcis&quot; but I fear I don't have the right inflection on &quot;sweet&quot;.  My uneducated attempt is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tamquam (or possibly Quasi) magna tibia dulcis est&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this even close, or is there a better way of expressing this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9514" RevisionGUID="11f17fc6-982e-44a8-81f7-c2be8384ca8e" CreationDate="2019-04-17T23:14:51.280" UserId="406" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="*Quasi* is &quot;as if&quot;; for this, I'd use *similis*, &quot;like&quot;. I think I'd also use *longa* instead of *magna*, to express size rather than quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The older (pre-Augustan) way to use *similis* is with the genitive, which would be *longae tibiae dulcis*. The newer (post-Augustan) way is with the dative, which would be *longae tibiae dulcī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Vincenzo Oliva in the comments suggests using *recta* &quot;straight&quot; instead of *dulcis*; if you go with this, it would be a *longae tibiae rectae* in either case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29709" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9513" RevisionGUID="3ebeb5d0-f063-4834-9494-92efc4ad8cbf" CreationDate="2019-04-17T23:16:33.520" />
  <row Id="29710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9515" RevisionGUID="6a7f027b-0ac7-4eb1-b20d-0079e0d303c4" CreationDate="2019-04-17T23:17:20.180" UserId="30" Text="I use the Swype keyboard, which has macra available for all vowels except y, by long-pressing the letter. So you could use that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9509" RevisionGUID="d542bd4a-76dd-4c34-ad14-9eede3fa5d6c" CreationDate="2019-04-18T03:48:19.303" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 64 characters in body; edited tags" Text="How do I type Macrons on an Android device?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29712" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9509" RevisionGUID="d542bd4a-76dd-4c34-ad14-9eede3fa5d6c" CreationDate="2019-04-18T03:48:19.303" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 64 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|resource-request|latin-on-devices|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9516" RevisionGUID="59dbcdfd-06e4-4c39-8518-e7428ca5f50e" CreationDate="2019-04-18T09:29:51.440" UserId="1982" Text="Try (id est) istum; giving well-grounded/ well-deserved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9517" RevisionGUID="fe9e1fe1-d1b5-4933-8fc9-3fb8f12be8d5" CreationDate="2019-04-18T10:04:01.740" UserId="1982" Text="The use of ut + subjunctive in final/ purpose clauses is well-known/ well-established. But &quot;quod&quot; &amp; &quot;quin&quot; seem to be deployed in near-identical circumstances e.g. in Ex 197 (North &amp; Hillard): &quot;non quidem est dubium quin ceteros duces aspernandi causa hoc dixerit:&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So quin + perfect subj., (denoting something that definitely happened)  &quot;there indeed is no doubt that (quin) he (definitely) said this in order to upset the other generals.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it correct that expressing &quot;that&quot;/ &quot;so that&quot;/ &quot;in order that&quot; by &quot;ut&quot; or &quot;quod&quot; or &quot;quin&quot; requires the subjunctive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29715" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9517" RevisionGUID="fe9e1fe1-d1b5-4933-8fc9-3fb8f12be8d5" CreationDate="2019-04-18T10:04:01.740" UserId="1982" Text="Deploying &quot;Ut&quot;/ &quot;Quod&quot;/ &quot;Quin&quot; plus Subjunctive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29716" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9517" RevisionGUID="fe9e1fe1-d1b5-4933-8fc9-3fb8f12be8d5" CreationDate="2019-04-18T10:04:01.740" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9518" RevisionGUID="eba4fa39-33f8-4b89-92c4-9e5c5ad00aea" CreationDate="2019-04-18T19:42:23.737" UserId="2363" Text="If you want to keep the idea of understated or grudging respect, a good choice might be *non male dictum* (not badly said) or *non male dixisti* (you've spoken not badly), the understated counterpart of the more common *bene dictum* (well said). Both phrases are used with the connotation of &quot;made a good point.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Varro, On Agriculture: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non male ... Diophanes Bithynos scribit (Diophanes of Bithynia makes a not too shabby point...)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9517" RevisionGUID="5afc0454-6e1e-4d7f-9439-03384b78175f" CreationDate="2019-04-19T00:41:19.363" UserId="30" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The use of *ut* + subjunctive in final/ purpose clauses is well-known/ well-established. But &quot;quod&quot; &amp; &quot;quin&quot; seem to be deployed in near-identical circumstances e.g. in Ex 197 (North &amp; Hillard):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non quidem est dubium quin ceteros duces aspernandi causa hoc dixerit...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *quin* + perfect subj., (denoting something that definitely happened)  &quot;there indeed is no doubt that (quin) he (definitely) said this in order to upset the other generals.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it correct that expressing &quot;that&quot;/ &quot;so that&quot;/ &quot;in order that&quot; by &quot;ut&quot; or &quot;quod&quot; or &quot;quin&quot; requires the subjunctive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29719" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9517" RevisionGUID="5afc0454-6e1e-4d7f-9439-03384b78175f" CreationDate="2019-04-19T00:41:19.363" UserId="30" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|conjunctive|subordinate-clause|purpose-clause|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9519" RevisionGUID="6bd42c25-bc6c-4156-a7a3-d84636e82ba5" CreationDate="2019-04-19T01:31:35.147" UserId="30" Text="&gt; non quidem est dubium quin ceteros duces aspernandi causa hoc dixerit...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;There is indeed no doubt **that** he said this in order to upset the other generals.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could translate it thus, but a (somewhat less desirable) alternative is possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;There is indeed no doubt **whether** he said this in order to upset the other generals.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When there is no doubt whether something happened, the conversational [implicature][1] is, in most contexts, that it did happen. This applies to most languages I know. Even so, *whether...* is an indirect question, not a mere declarative content clause (which would usually be expressed in an a.c.i.). Indirect questions normally require the subjunctive mood. So this suggests to me why it is considered an indirect question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, indirect declarative clauses are expressed in the a.c.i (although I'm sure there are exceptions, which I will ignore for the moment...). By an indirect declarative clause, I mean that the speaker does not express his modal attitude towards the content of the clause: he does not say explicitly whether it is desirable, nor whether it is probable. This usually means it is presented as a plain fact. The word &quot;doubt&quot;, however, strongly suggests an attitude about probability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One might think the word *non* cancels this attitude; but, in practice, it does not; it's merely considered by Romans to be an extra modifier to the doubt—or that is how I have always interpreted this use—just as we can still use *there is no doubt whether* in English even though it feels like a fact. This *that* might even be considered an oddity of the English language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;As to *quod*, you haven't given an example. Perhaps you were thinking of its use as a relative pronoun?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Templum aedificaverunt quod omnes finitimi inviderent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;They built a temple (of a quality) **such that** all neighbours envied it.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever relative pronouns are used to define something, such that you can translate them by &quot;such that&quot;, the relative clause is felt to be consecutive, akin to *ut* &quot;such that&quot;, whence the subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possible translation is &quot;they built a temple, **in order that** all neighbours should envy it&quot;. Then the use of relative + subjunctive isn't defining–consecutive, but final (indicating purpose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet another construction is *quod* &quot;because&quot; with a subjunctive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nero servos misit ad domum Agrippinae, quod timeret ne mater vulnerata esset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Nero sent slaves to the house of his mother Agrippina, **because** he (claimed that he) was afraid she had been wounded.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subjunctive (*timeret*) can be used with *quod* (&quot;because&quot;) to express that it is not the author who professes this reason/cause, but rather someone else. The author does not commit himself to the truth of the *quod* clause. He may doubt or disavow Nero's motives for sending the slaves (is Nero intending to have her killed?). The author might simply not know whether that was the true reason. Had he considered it a fact that Nero sent the slaves because he was afraid for her, he would have used the indicative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicature" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9519" RevisionGUID="4dbe1671-6e9c-4749-b72e-8bc84f62e552" CreationDate="2019-04-19T12:33:50.093" UserId="30" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; non quidem est dubium quin ceteros duces aspernandi causa hoc dixerit...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;There is indeed no doubt **that** he said this in order to upset the other generals.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could translate it thus, but a (somewhat less desirable) alternative is possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;There is indeed no doubt **whether** he said this in order to upset the other generals.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When there is no doubt whether something happened, the conversational [implicature][1] is, in most contexts, that it did happen. This applies to most languages I know. Even so, *whether...* is an indirect question, not a mere declarative content clause (which would usually be expressed in an a.c.i.). Indirect questions normally require the subjunctive mood. So this suggests to me why it is considered an indirect question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, indirect declarative clauses are expressed in the a.c.i (although I'm sure there are exceptions, which I will ignore for the moment...). By an indirect declarative clause, I mean that the speaker does not express his modal attitude towards the content of the clause: he does not say explicitly whether it is desirable, nor whether it is probable. This usually means it is presented as a plain fact. The word &quot;doubt&quot;, however, strongly suggests an attitude about probability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One might think the word *non* cancels this attitude; but, in practice, it does not; it's merely considered by Romans to be an extra modifier to the doubt—or that is how I have always interpreted this use—just as we can still use *there is no doubt whether* in English even though it feels like a fact. This *that* might even be considered an oddity of the English language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;As to *quod*, you haven't given an example. Perhaps you were thinking of its use as a relative pronoun?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Templum aedificaverunt quod omnes finitimi inviderent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;They built a temple (of a quality) **such that** all neighbours envied it.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever relative pronouns are used to define something, such that you can translate them as &quot;such that&quot;, the relative clause is felt to be consecutive, akin to *ut* &quot;such that&quot;, whence the subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possible translation is &quot;they built a temple, **in order that** all neighbours should envy it&quot;. Then the use of relative + subjunctive isn't defining–consecutive, but final (indicating purpose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet another construction is *quod* &quot;because&quot; with a subjunctive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nero servos misit ad domum Agrippinae, quod timeret ne mater vulnerata esset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Nero sent slaves to the house of his mother Agrippina, **because** he (claimed that he) was afraid she had been wounded.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subjunctive (*timeret*) can be used with *quod* (&quot;because&quot;) to express that it is not the author who professes this reason/cause, but rather someone else. The author does not commit himself to the truth of the *quod* clause. He may doubt or disavow Nero's motives for sending the slaves (is Nero intending to have her killed?). The author might simply not know whether that was the true reason. Had he considered it a fact that Nero sent the slaves because he was afraid for her, he would have used the indicative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicature" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9520" RevisionGUID="674e7e9c-21ad-4914-8c07-5ed7d6027126" CreationDate="2019-04-19T22:05:51.630" UserId="79" Text="Now that it is Easter time, I wonder whether the Romans wrote about Easter.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for non-Christian accounts in Latin describing the events of Jesus's death and subsequent resurrection.&#xD;&#xA;I assume that it would have been an interesting piece of news in Rome that a notable Jewish leader was condemned to death and the allegedly came back to life and was elevated to a god.&#xD;&#xA;I can well imagine the Romans rolling their eyes at the stories Christians told about the events around Jesus's death." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29723" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9520" RevisionGUID="674e7e9c-21ad-4914-8c07-5ed7d6027126" CreationDate="2019-04-19T22:05:51.630" UserId="79" Text="Are there Roman accounts of Easter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29724" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9520" RevisionGUID="674e7e9c-21ad-4914-8c07-5ed7d6027126" CreationDate="2019-04-19T22:05:51.630" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|history|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9521" RevisionGUID="d5fe5d21-99c4-4831-83ad-64bd23781d51" CreationDate="2019-04-20T03:52:59.160" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="This quote hails from the liner notes to [this CD](https://www.earbox.com/john-adams-violin-concerto-leila-josefowicz-david-robertson-st-louis-symphony-orchestra/): John Adams's Violin Concerto performed by Leila Josefowicz, David Robertson of St. Louis Symphony Orchestra. Alice Miller Cotter has a [BA in Music (Berkeley), PhD in Musicology (Princeton)](https://www.linkedin.com/in/alice-miller-cotter-26b5438/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oxford Latin Dictionary (p 1060) and &#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ipse#Latin) avouches nothing on 'change'.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JubRa.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29726" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9521" RevisionGUID="d5fe5d21-99c4-4831-83ad-64bd23781d51" CreationDate="2019-04-20T03:52:59.160" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Does 'ipse' truly mean change?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29727" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9521" RevisionGUID="d5fe5d21-99c4-4831-83ad-64bd23781d51" CreationDate="2019-04-20T03:52:59.160" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9522" RevisionGUID="fd40f019-32c5-4b98-b6b3-57d362a868ac" CreationDate="2019-04-20T18:25:55.593" UserId="45" Text="There are two significant references to Christ's death from non-Christian Roman sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 1. Flavius Josephus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Romano-Jewish historian [Flavius Josephus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus) (AD 37-100), who wrote in Greek, mentions Christ twice and John the Baptist once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most famous reference to Jesus is in the so-called [&quot;Testimonium Flavianum&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum). Although many scholars believe it is partially interpolated, it is generally agreed that there was at least a reference to Christ's death. Here is the text and translation from the [*Antiquities of the Jews*, bk. 18, c. 3](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XVIII#Chapter_3):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο: ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. **καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων.** εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. **And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.** And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 2. Publius Cornelius Tacitus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Tacitus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus) (AD 56-120) refers to Christ in his [*Annals*, bk. 15, c. 44.](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0077%3Abook%3D15%3Achapter%3D44), in the context of the Great Fire of Rome during the reign of Nero. Here is the full passage where he describes how Christians were blamed for the fire, including a brief account of their origins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia quin iussum incendium crederetur. ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat. **auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque.** igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. et pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent, aut crucibus adfixi aut flammandi, atque ubi defecisset dies in usum nocturni luminis urerentur. hortos suos ei spectaculo Nero obtulerat et circense ludicrum edebat, habitu aurigae permixtus plebi vel curriculo insistens. unde quamquam adversus sontis et novissima exempla meritos miseratio oriebatur, tamquam non utilitate publica sed in saevitiam unius absumerentur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. **Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.** Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9522" RevisionGUID="29b159ca-1b54-4450-a944-2a80cbb65032" CreationDate="2019-04-20T18:34:20.923" UserId="45" Comment="added 242 characters in body" Text="There are two significant references to Christ's death from non-Christian Roman sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 1. Flavius Josephus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Romano-Jewish historian [Flavius Josephus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus) (AD 37-100), who wrote in Greek, mentions Christ twice and John the Baptist once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most famous reference to Jesus is in the so-called [&quot;Testimonium Flavianum&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum). Although many scholars believe it is partially interpolated, it is generally agreed that there was at least a reference to Christ's death. Here is the text and translation from the [*Antiquities of the Jews*, bk. 18, c. 3](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XVIII#Chapter_3):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο: ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. **καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων.** εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. **And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.** And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 2. Publius Cornelius Tacitus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Tacitus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus) (AD 56-120) refers to Christ in his [*Annals*, bk. 15, c. 44.](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0077%3Abook%3D15%3Achapter%3D44), in the context of the Great Fire of Rome during the reign of Nero. Here is the full passage (whose integral authenticity is generally acknowledged) where he describes how Christians were blamed for the fire, including a brief account of their origins. Note that he only mentions Christ's death explicitly, though the immediate reference to a &quot;superstition&quot; arising afterwards implies that he knew the Christians had more to say about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia quin iussum incendium crederetur. ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat. **auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque.** igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. et pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent, aut crucibus adfixi aut flammandi, atque ubi defecisset dies in usum nocturni luminis urerentur. hortos suos ei spectaculo Nero obtulerat et circense ludicrum edebat, habitu aurigae permixtus plebi vel curriculo insistens. unde quamquam adversus sontis et novissima exempla meritos miseratio oriebatur, tamquam non utilitate publica sed in saevitiam unius absumerentur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. **Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.** Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9522" RevisionGUID="01e99f22-99b4-488c-b60a-677a172db1ef" CreationDate="2019-04-20T18:39:36.133" UserId="45" Comment="added 242 characters in body" Text="There are two significant references to Christ's death from non-Christian Roman sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 1. Flavius Josephus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Romano-Jewish historian [Flavius Josephus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus) (AD 37-100), who wrote in Greek, mentions Christ twice and John the Baptist once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most famous reference to Jesus is in the so-called [&quot;Testimonium Flavianum&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum). Although many scholars believe it is partially interpolated, it is generally agreed that there was at least a reference to Christ's death. Here is the text and translation from the [*Antiquities of the Jews*, bk. 18, c. 3](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XVIII#Chapter_3):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο: ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. **καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων.** εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. **And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.** And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 2. Publius Cornelius Tacitus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Tacitus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus) (AD 56-120) refers to Christ in his [*Annals*, bk. 15, c. 44.](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0077%3Abook%3D15%3Achapter%3D44), in the context of the Great Fire of Rome during the reign of Nero. Here is the full passage (whose integral authenticity is generally acknowledged) where he describes how Christians were blamed for the fire, including a brief account of their origins. Note that he only mentions Christ's death explicitly, though the immediate reference to a &quot;superstition&quot; arising afterwards implies that he knew the Christians had more to say about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia quin iussum incendium crederetur. ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat. **auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque.** igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. et pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent, aut crucibus adfixi aut flammandi, atque ubi defecisset dies in usum nocturni luminis urerentur. hortos suos ei spectaculo Nero obtulerat et circense ludicrum edebat, habitu aurigae permixtus plebi vel curriculo insistens. unde quamquam adversus sontis et novissima exempla meritos miseratio oriebatur, tamquam non utilitate publica sed in saevitiam unius absumerentur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. **Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.** Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(See [this Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus#Non-Christian_sources) for further non-Christian references to Christ and Christians, some of which are oblique or doubtful.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9523" RevisionGUID="a96a3f89-781e-4f05-859a-f1e508290073" CreationDate="2019-04-20T20:33:06.420" UserId="79" Text="I cannot see how *ipse* would indicate change.&#xA;I would rather say that both *idem* and *ipse* indicate sameness, although in a different way.&#xA;&#xA;There might be an argument for the kind of distinction the text is trying to make, but no such argument is provided in what you quote.&#xA;Therefore, until further proof is provided, I see that as a failed analysis of those Latin words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9521" RevisionGUID="6f5eb810-9bd0-4d2a-9bd5-319a504b3be1" CreationDate="2019-04-20T20:37:18.597" UserId="79" Comment="added 53 characters in body; edited tags" Text="This quote hails from the liner notes to [this CD](https://www.earbox.com/john-adams-violin-concerto-leila-josefowicz-david-robertson-st-louis-symphony-orchestra/): John Adams's Violin Concerto performed by Leila Josefowicz, David Robertson of St. Louis Symphony Orchestra. Alice Miller Cotter has a [BA in Music (Berkeley), PhD in Musicology (Princeton)](https://www.linkedin.com/in/alice-miller-cotter-26b5438/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oxford Latin Dictionary (p 1060) and &#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ipse#Latin) avouches nothing on 'change'.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![image of a book mentioning that idem indicates sameness and idem indicates change][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JubRa.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29733" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9521" RevisionGUID="6f5eb810-9bd0-4d2a-9bd5-319a504b3be1" CreationDate="2019-04-20T20:37:18.597" UserId="79" Comment="added 53 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9524" RevisionGUID="0f5a6e51-0502-464f-87ee-72b0589e3daf" CreationDate="2019-04-21T02:49:22.310" UserId="3248" Text="I'm afraid that this question has nothing/little to do with linguistics but rather with philosophy. In particular, this question can be understood in the following context where a distinction put forward by Ricoeur is addressed: [Paradoxes of Authenticity: Studies on a Critical Concept][1] Cf. &quot;_ipse_, which indicates a potential change in time, and _idem_, which indicates permanence of character, ...&quot; (p. 85). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck in trying to understand the philosophical discussion involved here. I'm afraid that I was not able to understand it fully... Anyway, I hope the link above will be helpful to you: cf. **pages 84, 85, and 86**.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.es/books?id=fY2TBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA85&amp;lpg=PA85&amp;dq=%22ipse,%20which%20indicates%20a%20potential%20change%20in%20time%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Ydl2LYDTHL&amp;sig=ACfU3U0pggjFinTA3AvDDZvWz6GZKGuaCw&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwilvrunk-DhAhVyxYUKHTNUCy4Q6AEwAHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22ipse%2C%20which%20indicates%20a%20potential%20change%20in%20time%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9524" RevisionGUID="a904c1b9-e911-436a-b354-7875e6aeda76" CreationDate="2019-04-21T03:16:49.683" UserId="3248" Comment="to provide a better link" Text="I'm afraid that this question has nothing/little to do with linguistics but rather with **philosophy**. In particular, this question must be understood in the following context where a distinction put forward by **Ricoeur** is summarized: [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ricoeur/][1] &#xD;&#xA;Cf.  &quot;_Idem_ identity is the identity of something that is always the same which never changes, _ipse_ identity is sameness across and through change&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.es/books?id=fY2TBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA85&amp;lpg=PA85&amp;dq=%22ipse,%20which%20indicates%20a%20potential%20change%20in%20time%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Ydl2LYDTHL&amp;sig=ACfU3U0pggjFinTA3AvDDZvWz6GZKGuaCw&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwilvrunk-DhAhVyxYUKHTNUCy4Q6AEwAHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22ipse%2C%20which%20indicates%20a%20potential%20change%20in%20time%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9524" RevisionGUID="46688779-32de-4c75-9f46-f9f8a3e2b8fa" CreationDate="2019-04-21T03:23:52.403" UserId="3248" Comment="to provide a better link" Text="I'm afraid that this question has nothing/little to do with linguistics but rather with **philosophy**. In particular, this question must be understood in the following context where **Ricoeur**'s (famous?) distinction between two kinds of identity in relation to selfhood is summarized: [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ricoeur/][1]&#xD;&#xA;Cf.  &quot;_Idem_ identity is the identity of something that is always the same which never changes, _ipse_ identity is sameness across and through change&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ricoeur/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9524" RevisionGUID="c43e398b-fb3d-4180-8181-079bb4ad1e69" CreationDate="2019-04-21T03:39:21.000" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="I'm afraid that this question has nothing/little to do with linguistics but rather with **philosophy**. In particular, this question must be understood in the following context where **Ricoeur**'s (famous?) distinction between two kinds of identity in relation to selfhood is summarized: see Section 5. _Narrative Identity and the Turn to Selfhood_ in [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ricoeur/][1]&#xD;&#xA;Cf.  &quot;_Idem_ identity is the identity of something that is always the same which never changes, _ipse_ identity is sameness across and through change&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ricoeur/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9421" RevisionGUID="4926275d-b250-4c5d-9a0a-6a6c26c18cd2" CreationDate="2019-04-21T04:38:44.013" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; improved formatting" Text="After having answered a question on &quot;_ipse_&quot; from a very different perspective (a philosophical one: [Ricoeur on _ipse_][1]), I turn to linguistics: now I was wondering if _ipse_ must be considered just a sort of &quot;reinforcer&quot; of the reflexive in the following **change** construction (Ricoeur again? No, don't worry!): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Valvae se **ipsae** aperuerunt_ (Cic. _Div._ 1, 74) ‘The doors opened by themselves’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible in Latin to say the following example without _se_? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Foris **ipsa** aperit_ ‘The door is opening by itself’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is the difference between the previous example and the following one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Foris se aperit_ ‘The door is opening (by itself?)’ (cf. the attested example below: _Foris aperit_ (Pl. _Pers_. 300) ‘The door is opening’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more context, please read my expanded question below, which, unfortunately, remains unanswered... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After having provided an answer to Draconis’ question ( https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs ), I was wondering about the (very subtle?) **meaning differences** involved in triads like _{aperit/se aperit/aperitur}_,  _{movet/se movet/movetur}_, etc. I’m basically interested in how this grammatical triad, which is mainly found with some **verbs of change**, was interpreted in Early &amp; Classical Latin (comments on Late Latin are also welcome). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond the particular preferences involved in different authors/registers/… and beyond the particular lexical encyclopedic-like differences (e.g., in _terra movet_ an earthquake is involved), are there any **semantic generalizations** associated to the abovementioned grammatical triad {labile / reflexive / middle}? **When is each of them used**? Is it a case of (full?!) synonymy?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples follow:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Foris **aperit**_ (Pl. _Pers._ 300) ‘The door is opening’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Valvae **se** ipsae **aperuerunt**_ (Cic. _Div._ 1, 74) ‘The doors opened by themselves’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ecce autem commodum **aperitur** foris_ (Pl. _Mil._ 1198) ‘and look, at this very moment the door is opening'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Flos numquam **se aperit** nisi vento spirante_ (Plin. _Nat._ 21.94.165) ‘the flower never opens unless the wind blows’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Tum sumus incauti, studioque **aperimur** in ipso, / nudaque per lusus pectora nostra patent_ (Ov. _A.A._ 3 371-372) (‘…we reveal ourselves in our very zest…’).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ubi aliud os amnis **aperitur**_ (Curt. 6,4, 7) ‘Where another mouth of the river opens’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first sight, there appears to be no meaningful difference between the {labile / reflexive / middle} examples above. But is this **non-native** intuition true? For example, for all of us who speak a Romance language natively, it is not surprising that subtle differences may sometimes emerge from using the reflexive or not: e.g., cf. Spanish _Juan {se murió /murió} anoche_ 'Juan died last night'. Apparently, the meaning of this example with or without the pronoun is the same but, **on a closer look**, it is not the same in all contexts: cf. ok _Juan murió anoche fusilado_ vs. *_Juan se murió anoche fusilado_ ('John was shot dead'). Cf. also the following contrast from French: _Jean (*se) rougit_ vs. _Il vit le mouchoir *(se) rougir soudain_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9521/does-ipse-truly-mean-change" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9421" RevisionGUID="3c8bc754-4f15-488c-b85d-83b01a4fb082" CreationDate="2019-04-21T05:01:18.280" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="After having answered a question on &quot;_ipse_&quot; from a very different perspective (a philosophical one: [Ricoeur on _ipse_][1]), I turn to linguistics: now I was wondering if _ipse_ must be considered just a sort of &quot;reinforcer&quot; of the reflexive in the following **change** construction (Ricoeur again? No, don't worry!): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Valvae se **ipsae** aperuerunt_ (Cic. _Div._ 1, 74) ‘The doors opened by themselves’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible in Latin to say the following example without _se_? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Foris **ipsa** aperit_ ‘The door is opening by itself’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is the difference between the previous example and the following one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Foris se aperit_ ‘The door is opening (by itself?)’ (cf. the attested example below: _Foris aperit_ (Pl. _Pers_. 300) ‘The door is opening’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more context, please read my expanded question below, which, unfortunately, remains unanswered... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After having provided an answer to Draconis’ question ( https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs ), I was wondering about the (very subtle?) **meaning differences** involved in triads like _{aperit/se aperit/aperitur}_,  _{movet/se movet/movetur}_, _{mutat/se mutat/mutatur}_, etc. I’m basically interested in how this grammatical triad, which is mainly found with some **verbs of change**, was interpreted in Early &amp; Classical Latin (comments on Late Latin are also welcome). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond the particular preferences involved in different authors/registers/… and beyond the particular lexical encyclopedic-like differences (e.g., in _terra movet_ an earthquake is involved), are there any **semantic generalizations** associated to the abovementioned grammatical triad {labile / reflexive / middle}? **When is each of them used**? Is it a case of (full?!) synonymy?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples follow:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Foris **aperit**_ (Pl. _Pers._ 300) ‘The door is opening’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Valvae **se** ipsae **aperuerunt**_ (Cic. _Div._ 1, 74) ‘The doors opened by themselves’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ecce autem commodum **aperitur** foris_ (Pl. _Mil._ 1198) ‘and look, at this very moment the door is opening'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Flos numquam **se aperit** nisi vento spirante_ (Plin. _Nat._ 21.94.165) ‘the flower never opens unless the wind blows’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Tum sumus incauti, studioque **aperimur** in ipso, / nudaque per lusus pectora nostra patent_ (Ov. _A.A._ 3 371-372) (‘…we reveal ourselves in our very zest…’).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ubi aliud os amnis **aperitur**_ (Curt. 6,4, 7) ‘Where another mouth of the river opens’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first sight, there appears to be no meaningful difference between the {labile / reflexive / middle} examples above. But is this **non-native** intuition correct? For example, for those all of us who speak a Romance language natively, it is not surprising that subtle differences may sometimes emerge from using the reflexive or not: e.g., cf. Spanish _Juan {se murió /murió} anoche_ 'Juan died last night'. Apparently, the meaning of this example with or without the pronoun is the same but, **on a closer look**, it is not the same in all contexts: cf. ok _Juan murió anoche fusilado_ vs. *_Juan se murió anoche fusilado_ ('John was shot dead'). Cf. also the following contrast from French: _Jean (*se) rougit_ vs. _Il vit le mouchoir *(se) rougir soudain_. NB: the star _*_ means ungrammaticality.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9521/does-ipse-truly-mean-change" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9421" RevisionGUID="96600502-b9b8-4828-be28-d035c6c60cef" CreationDate="2019-04-21T05:15:59.803" UserId="3248" Comment="to divide one question into two" Text="After having provided an answer to Draconis’ question ( https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs ), I was wondering about the (very subtle?) **meaning differences** involved in triads like _{aperit/se aperit/aperitur}_,  _{movet/se movet/movetur}_, _{mutat/se mutat/mutatur}_, etc. I’m basically interested in how this grammatical triad, which is mainly found with some **verbs of change**, was interpreted in Early &amp; Classical Latin (comments on Late Latin are also welcome). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond the particular preferences involved in different authors/registers/… and beyond the particular lexical encyclopedic-like differences (e.g., in _terra movet_ an earthquake is involved), are there any **semantic generalizations** associated to the abovementioned grammatical triad {labile / reflexive / middle}? **When is each of them used**? Is it a case of (full?!) synonymy?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples follow:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Foris **aperit**_ (Pl. _Pers._ 300) ‘The door is opening’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Valvae **se** ipsae **aperuerunt**_ (Cic. _Div._ 1, 74) ‘The doors opened by themselves’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ecce autem commodum **aperitur** foris_ (Pl. _Mil._ 1198) ‘and look, at this very moment the door is opening'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Flos numquam **se aperit** nisi vento spirante_ (Plin. _Nat._ 21.94.165) ‘the flower never opens unless the wind blows’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Tum sumus incauti, studioque **aperimur** in ipso, / nudaque per lusus pectora nostra patent_ (Ov. _A.A._ 3 371-372) (‘…we reveal ourselves in our very zest…’).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ubi aliud os amnis **aperitur**_ (Curt. 6,4, 7) ‘Where another mouth of the river opens’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first sight, there appears to be no meaningful difference between the {labile / reflexive / middle} examples above. But is this **non-native** intuition correct? For example, for those all of us who speak a Romance language natively, it is not surprising that subtle differences may sometimes emerge from using the reflexive or not: e.g., cf. Spanish _Juan {se murió /murió} anoche_ 'Juan died last night'. Apparently, the meaning of this example with or without the pronoun is the same but, **on a closer look**, it is not the same in all contexts: cf. ok _Juan murió anoche fusilado_ vs. *_Juan se murió anoche fusilado_ ('John was shot dead'). Cf. also the following contrast from French: _Jean (*se) rougit_ vs. _Il vit le mouchoir *(se) rougir soudain_. NB: the star _*_ means ungrammaticality.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9521/does-ipse-truly-mean-change" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9525" RevisionGUID="b85b89d0-4a04-4c03-bff6-805374774d70" CreationDate="2019-04-21T05:29:44.793" UserId="3248" Text="After having answered a question on &quot;_ipse_&quot; from a very different perspective (a philosophical one: [Ricoeur on _ipse_][1]), I turn to linguistics: now I was wondering if _ipse_ must be considered just a sort of &quot;reinforcer&quot; of the reflexive in the following **change** construction (Ricoeur again? No, don't worry!): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Valvae se **ipsae** aperuerunt_ (Cic. _Div._ 1, 74) ‘The doors opened by themselves’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible in Latin to say the following example without _se_? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Foris **ipsa** aperit_ ‘The door is opening by itself’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is the difference between the previous example and the following one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Foris se aperit_ ‘The door is opening (by itself)’ (cf. the attested example: _Foris aperit_ (Pl. _Pers_. 300) ‘The door is opening’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more context, please read my expanded question in [How things change in Latin][1], which, unfortunately, remains unanswered... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/how-things-change-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29742" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9525" RevisionGUID="b85b89d0-4a04-4c03-bff6-805374774d70" CreationDate="2019-04-21T05:29:44.793" UserId="3248" Text="On the interpretation of &quot;ipse&quot; in anticausative constructions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29743" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9525" RevisionGUID="b85b89d0-4a04-4c03-bff6-805374774d70" CreationDate="2019-04-21T05:29:44.793" UserId="3248" Text="|verbs|pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9525" RevisionGUID="e65a2af7-7d41-42b8-86ce-8ce1ad128826" CreationDate="2019-04-21T05:42:19.833" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="After having answered a question on &quot;_ipse_&quot; from a very different perspective (a philosophical one: [https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9521/does-ipse-truly-mean-change ), I turn to linguistics: now I was wondering if _ipse_ must be considered just a sort of &quot;reinforcer&quot; of the reflexive in the following **change** construction (Ricoeur again? No, don't worry!): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Valvae se **ipsae** aperuerunt_ (Cic. _Div._ 1, 74) ‘The doors opened by themselves’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible in Latin to say the following example without _se_? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Foris **ipsa** aperit_ ‘The door is opening by itself’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is the difference between the previous example and the following one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Foris se aperit_ ‘The door is opening (by itself)’ (cf. the attested example: _Foris aperit_ (Pl. _Pers_. 300) ‘The door is opening’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more context, please read my expanded question in [How things change in Latin][1], which, unfortunately, remains unanswered... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/how-things-change-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9525" RevisionGUID="144f46ba-b3f2-44df-bbd1-60e56b514035" CreationDate="2019-04-21T12:50:33.937" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="After having answered a question on &quot;_ipse_&quot; from a very different perspective (a philosophical one: [https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9521/does-ipse-truly-mean-change ), I return to linguistics: now I was wondering if _ipse_ must be considered just a sort of &quot;reinforcer&quot; of the reflexive in the following **change** construction (Ricoeur again? No, don't worry!): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Valvae se **ipsae** aperuerunt_ (Cic. _Div._ 1, 74) ‘The doors opened by themselves’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible in Latin to say the following example without _se_? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Foris **ipsa** aperit_ ‘The door is opening by itself’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is the difference between the previous example and the following one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Foris se aperit_ ‘The door is opening (by itself)’ (cf. the attested example without _se_: _Foris aperit_ (Pl. _Pers_. 300) ‘The door is opening’). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more context, please read my related question in [How things change in Latin][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/how-things-change-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9525" RevisionGUID="c0b64d46-c65b-49b7-959a-02da45a28556" CreationDate="2019-04-21T13:14:16.527" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="After having answered a question on &quot;_ipse_&quot; from a very different perspective (a philosophical one: [https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9521/does-ipse-truly-mean-change ), I return to linguistics: now I was wondering if _ipse_ must be considered just a sort of emphatic &quot;reinforcer&quot; of the reflexive in the following **change** construction (Ricoeur again? No, don't worry!): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Valvae se **ipsae** aperuerunt_ (Cic. _Div._ 1, 74) ‘The doors opened by themselves’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible in Latin to say the following example without _se_? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Foris **ipsa** aperit_ ‘The door is opening by itself’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. the non-emphatic example _Foris se aperit_ ‘The door is opening (by itself)’ and the also attested example without _se_: _Foris aperit_ (Pl. _Pers_. 300) ‘The door is opening’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more context, please read my related question in [How things change in Latin][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/how-things-change-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9525" RevisionGUID="d18c159f-ce59-4091-9cd9-2904b42205b4" CreationDate="2019-04-21T13:21:18.497" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="After having answered a question on &quot;_ipse_&quot; from a very different perspective (a philosophical one: [https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9521/does-ipse-truly-mean-change ), I return to linguistics: now I was wondering if _ipse_ must be considered just a sort of emphatic &quot;reinforcer&quot; of the reflexive in the following **change** construction (Ricoeur again? No, don't worry!): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Valvae se **ipsae** aperuerunt_ (Cic. _Div._ 1, 74) ‘The doors opened by themselves’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible in Latin to say the following example without _se_? _Ipse_ can of course be used in other non-change and non-reflexive contexts (_Ipse dixit_) but I'm not sure if the following example would be well-formed in Latin: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Foris **ipsa** aperit_ ‘The door is opening by itself’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. the non-emphatic example _Foris se aperit_ ‘The door is opening (by itself)’ and the also attested example without _se_: _Foris aperit_ (Pl. _Pers_. 300) ‘The door is opening’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more context, please read my related question in [How things change in Latin][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/how-things-change-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9526" RevisionGUID="0c1d887d-849d-4dcf-9965-b48e2e52250f" CreationDate="2019-04-21T19:32:24.297" UserId="406" Text="I'm used to translating English auxiliary &quot;must&quot; with a Latin gerundive: *hic necāturus est* &quot;this man must be killed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what if I want to say &quot;this man must *not* be killed&quot;? I would read *non necāturus est* as &quot;it's not necessary to kill him&quot;, which is a somewhat different meaning (it's ambivalent about whether he *should* be killed or not)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29749" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9526" RevisionGUID="0c1d887d-849d-4dcf-9965-b48e2e52250f" CreationDate="2019-04-21T19:32:24.297" UserId="406" Text="How do I say &quot;this must not happen&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29750" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9526" RevisionGUID="0c1d887d-849d-4dcf-9965-b48e2e52250f" CreationDate="2019-04-21T19:32:24.297" UserId="406" Text="|grammar-choice|gerundive|negation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9527" RevisionGUID="b6c5f744-50d0-4762-9b25-09a08a9389c9" CreationDate="2019-04-21T19:37:23.500" UserId="3682" Text="I have seen the definitions of caprificus (caper + ficus = goat + fig) include both pride and fig trees /goat-figs. Are goats considered particularly prideful? I would think they would be more associated with gluttony than any of the other sins. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29752" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9527" RevisionGUID="b6c5f744-50d0-4762-9b25-09a08a9389c9" CreationDate="2019-04-21T19:37:23.500" UserId="3682" Text="What is the connection between figs and pride in the word Caprificus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29753" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9527" RevisionGUID="b6c5f744-50d0-4762-9b25-09a08a9389c9" CreationDate="2019-04-21T19:37:23.500" UserId="3682" Text="|etymology|meaning|definitions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="1e9f137b-7b5b-4fa5-841e-bde25486ba2e" CreationDate="2019-04-21T20:16:30.110" UserId="648" Comment="broken link fixed" Text="I think *abdomunculum* would be the most regular diminutive of *abdomen.* But it seems a bit difficult to me to give a clear answer because the rules about &quot;proper&quot; diminutive suffixes are often based on the form and gender of the original noun, and I know of no existing diminutives formed on nouns with precisely the same morphological form and gender as *abdomen, abdominis*. If you get it &quot;wrong,&quot; you may at least be able to take some comfort from the knowledge that Romans even criticized one another sometimes for using supposedly malformed diminutives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Abdomen, abdominis* is a neuter noun of the third declension, of the &quot;consonant stem&quot; sub-declension class, with a stem ending in the consonant &quot;n&quot; specifically. My impression is that any of these features might be relevant to the formation of the diminutive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Words with stems ending in *n* often take diminutives in *-cul-*&#xD;&#xA;[brianpck's answer][1] to *[Variations on the diminutive: -olus and -ulus][2]* contained a link to a page from [Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar][3] that I consulted to try to answer this question. It says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These diminutive endings are all formed by adding *-lus* to various stems. [...] *-culus* comes from -lus added to adjectives in *-cus* formed from stems in *n-* and *s-*: as, *iuven-cus, Aurun-cus* (cf. *Aurunculeius*), *prís-cus,* whence the *cu* becomes a part of the termination, and the whole ending (*-culus*) is used elsewhere, but mostly with *n-* and *s-* stems, in accordance with its origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Usually, *...in-* + *-cul-* = *...uncul-,* apparently&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Formation of Latin&#xD;&#xA;Diminutives of Nouns and Adjectives][4],* compiled by Ian Andreas Miller,  indicates that stems ending *-in-* regularly change the vowel and have *-un-* before *-culus/-culum/-cula.* cnread's answer mentions *homunculus,* from *homo, hominis,* which shows this pattern. There is an interesting note in Miller about the history of this formation saying that the *u* is analogical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The *-uncul-* formation in these diminutives was originally created by adding *-culā-, -culo-* to stems in *-on-,* where the *-o-* became *-u-* by phonetic change (cf. *hunc,* earlier *honc*). Some original stems in *-nō-* (*-on-*) later became stems in *-in-* (e.g. *homin-,* earlier *homon-* or *homōn-*) with nominative singular endings in *-ō,* and through the power of analogy the *-uncul-* formation was used with other stems in *-in-* (e.g. *pecten,* stem *pectin-*) and stems in *-n-* with nominative singular forms in *-o* (e.g. *caro,* stem *carn-*) even if they do not actually have stems in *-in-* or *-on-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any Latin diminutives ending in &quot;...in-cul-&quot; (*vinculum* is derived from the base *vinc-*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Gender of diminutives, and the rarity of *-unculum*/*-munculum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller says it is a rule that diminutive nouns derived from third-declension nouns retain the gender of the original noun, which for *abdomen* is neuter. So it seems to me that *abdomunculum* would be most regular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm not entirely certain about recommending *-unculum* rather than *-unculus* as in cnread's answer. There are exceptions to the gender-matching rule; Miller mentions *rana* &gt; *ranunculus.* And since most nouns ending in *-ō* in the nominative are masculine or feminine,  *-unculus* and  *uncula* seem to be much more established in Latin than *-unculum* as suffixes for deriving diminutive nouns from third-declension n-stems. A Perseus search does turn up some existing [nouns ending in *-unculum][5],* but none of those results seems to be derived from a third-declension noun with a stem ending in *-in-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there are certainly diminutives ending in *-culum* with something else before it; for example, *[corpusculum][6],* from the third-declension neuter noun *corpus.* So perhaps the scarcity of words ending in *-un-culum* specifically is just coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, *[pectunculus][7]* from *pecten* is actually the only example I have seen of a diminutive from a noun ending in *-en, -inis.* It is masculine, but so is the original noun *pecten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most Latin nouns that end in *-en* in the nominative and *-inis* in the genitive seem to have an &quot;m&quot; before this and are neuter. Wiktionary indicates that many of them have a &quot;noun-forming suffix [*-men*][8]&quot; and lists a number of them; I searched on Perseus for words starting with the stems up to the &quot;m&quot; of around 10 of them (like &quot;agm,&quot; &quot;germ,&quot; &quot;carm&quot;) but I wasn't able to find any diminutive forms with their own entries. Another neuter third-declension with a consonant other than *m* before *-en,* *-inis* is *gluten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found a passage in Italian that seems to say that &quot;vimunculum&quot; (which is apparently not attested) would be the expected diminutive form of *vimen*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Dal positivo *vimen* uscirono *viminculus, vinculus, vinclus* (sic). Da quest'ultimo poi abbiamo fatto *vinco* a significare quel frutice lento e pieghevole donde usci il verbo *vincio,* se non anche l'altro *vinco.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quasi superfluo il notare che da *vimen* neutro sarebbesi più verisimilmente derivato un neutro, qui poi tanto più certo, in quanto il supposto derivato è realmente *vinculum,* non *vinculus.* Non sarebbe poi gran fatto probabile una tale derivazione da neutri in *-men,* non avendosene alcun esempio; e quando poi si dovesse ammettere, sarebbe stato piuttosto *vimunculum* che *viminculus* (cfr. *pectunculus,* dal masch. *pecten*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([Archivio Glottologico italiano, Volume 2][11])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't speak Italian, but judging from Google translate and cognates, this seems to say that there are no examples of diminutives of neuter nouns in *-men.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Post-classical examples of *-munculum* from *-men* neuters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, I was able to find one example of &quot;germunculum&quot; via Google, in *[Dissertatio inauguralis medica de hominis aetatibus][9],* 1824:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; En, amicitiae vagabundae in juventute ortum! en, primum pro firmioribus radicibus amoris in alterum sexum figendis **germunculum** primum! (§27, p. 41)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Stamunculum&quot;, from *stamen, staminis,* also seems to have been used, in *[Hortus Malabaricus][10].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So at least some other people also seem to have had the same idea as me about how to form the diminutives of words like this, if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other sources on diminutive formation in Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other possibly relevant sources I found that I have not yet got a chance to look through:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Word Formation in the Roman Sermo Plebeius,* by Frederic Taber Cooper (1895) -- has a section on &quot;Diminutives&quot; starting on [page 164][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cooper cites some articles by &quot;Paucker,&quot; one of which had a title that sounded like it might be helpful: &quot;Deminutive mit d. Suffix -c-ulus, a, um&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Zeitschr. f. d. oesterr. Gymn. XXVII, p. 273-284. (=&quot;Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien&quot;) I looked though a [Google Books result][13] related to this, and found a long list of words with the suffix &quot;-uncul-&quot; that contained many ending in &quot;-uncula&quot; and &quot;-unculus&quot; but none that I could see ending in &quot;-unculum&quot; aside from those already mentioned that are indexed by Perseus and have entries in Lewis &amp; Short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2903/9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2900/variations-on-the-diminutive-olus-and-ulus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.243.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://diesgaudii.genvid.com/latin/diminutives/diminutives.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=unculum&amp;lang=la&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=corpusculum&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=pectunculus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-men#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://books.google.com/books?id=YrJUAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA41&amp;lpg=PA41&amp;dq=%22germunculum%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=wHkWxqdxy7&amp;sig=HzvbYWmIEdfz-UI-gwNf_-TVA9c&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiglo2PvqfWAhVH6IMKHVgTDWIQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22germunculum%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://books.google.com/books?id=xYLOojXB8hgC&amp;pg=PT319&amp;lpg=PT319&amp;dq=%22stamunculum%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=M4YnbfIvch&amp;sig=LiCOu8ZEh3XvebJ5R63kW37s7Jk&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjM3s_ggajWAhUM54MKHaXBC8MQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22stamunculum%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://books.google.com/books?id=VnVIAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA34&amp;lpg=PA34&amp;dq=%22vimunculum%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=CwQaDElPDJ&amp;sig=eIgOIFjHpFDCkKJEViBYjX2HDsE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiHlpzYgqjWAhUD7YMKHTJ4CKkQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22vimunculum%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=724PAAAAYAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;output=reader&amp;hl=en&amp;pg=GBS.PA164&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cY0NAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA597&amp;lpg=PA597&amp;dq=Paucker%20%22Deminutive%22%20mit%20Suffix%20-c-ulus,%20a,%20um%20%22ZEITSCHRIFT%20f%C3%BCr%20die%20%C3%B6sterreichischen%20GYMNASIEN%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QNovpHHp0X&amp;sig=bxKBq0FqnimxK1ZSAc1QuVpX270&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj5i-7rhPXSAhUI1GMKHTH9AIcQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Paucker%20%22Deminutive%22%20mit%20Suffix%20-c-ulus%2C%20a%2C%20um%20%22ZEITSCHRIFT%20f%C3%BCr%20die%20%C3%B6sterreichischen%20GYMNASIEN%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29755" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="1e9f137b-7b5b-4fa5-841e-bde25486ba2e" CreationDate="2019-04-21T20:16:30.110" Comment="Proposed by 648 approved by 9 edit id of 308" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9526" RevisionGUID="2c4afe7d-2bcc-4304-9733-93cb88432543" CreationDate="2019-04-21T20:20:13.697" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I'm used to translating English auxiliary &quot;must&quot; with a Latin gerundive: *hic necāndus est* &quot;this man must be killed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what if I want to say &quot;this man must *not* be killed&quot;? I would read *non necāndus est* as &quot;it's not necessary to kill him&quot;, which is a somewhat different meaning (it's ambivalent about whether he *should* be killed or not)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9528" RevisionGUID="4d42f68a-2e3d-4e9d-8522-ff65accba23e" CreationDate="2019-04-21T21:34:34.713" UserId="79" Text="In my experience many languages confuse lack of desire and desire of the contrary.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I would like to be able to say &quot;I don't want coffee&quot; as the negation of &quot;I want coffee&quot;, meaning that I don't have a desire to have coffee.&#xD;&#xA;To say that I am actively against drinking coffee, I would prefer to say &quot;I want not to have coffee&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But, unfortunately, English doesn't work this way, and &quot;I don't want coffee&quot; is construed as &quot;I want not to have coffee&quot; instead of the more ambivalent reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, the Latin *non necandus est* is more literally &quot;it is not necessary to kill him&quot; but could also be read as &quot;it is necessary not to kill him&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I found [examples of similar constructions](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=ndus+non+est), but it is not easy to decide which meaning is intended in each case.&#xD;&#xA;I would consider both readings valid in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see a couple of ways to express &quot;it is necessary to not kill him&quot; without ambiguity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Take a new verb with the opposite meaning: *servandus est*&#xD;&#xA;2. Explain in more words: *necesse est eum non necare*&#xD;&#xA;3. Work it into the structure of a sentence: *curemus ne necetur*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9526" RevisionGUID="1625292a-e7f4-44c7-8018-8837fcd2d6a1" CreationDate="2019-04-21T21:44:55.093" UserId="406" Comment="edited body" Text="I'm used to translating English auxiliary &quot;must&quot; with a Latin gerundive: *hic necandus est* &quot;this man must be killed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what if I want to say &quot;this man must *not* be killed&quot;? I would read *non necandus est* as &quot;it's not necessary to kill him&quot;, which is a somewhat different meaning (it's ambivalent about whether he *should* be killed or not)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9528" RevisionGUID="219ecae0-9dc5-40b6-b238-43daa0230520" CreationDate="2019-04-21T21:50:00.767" UserId="79" Comment="added 167 characters in body" Text="In my experience many languages confuse lack of desire and desire of the contrary.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I would like to be able to say &quot;I don't want coffee&quot; as the negation of &quot;I want coffee&quot;, meaning that I don't have a desire to have coffee.&#xD;&#xA;To say that I am actively against drinking coffee, I would prefer to say &quot;I want not to have coffee&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But, unfortunately, English doesn't work this way, and &quot;I don't want coffee&quot; is construed as &quot;I want not to have coffee&quot; instead of the more ambivalent reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, the Latin *non necandus est* is more literally &quot;it is not necessary to kill him&quot; but could also be read as &quot;it is necessary not to kill him&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I found [examples of similar constructions](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=ndus+non+est), but it is not easy to decide which meaning is intended in each case.&#xD;&#xA;I would consider both readings valid in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see a couple of ways to express &quot;it is necessary to not kill him&quot; without ambiguity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Take a new verb with the opposite meaning: *servandus est*&#xD;&#xA;2. Explain in more words: *necesse est eum non necare*&#xD;&#xA;3. Work it into the structure of a sentence: *curemus ne necetur*&#xD;&#xA;4. In some cases you might be able to use a negative order: *noli(te) eum necare*  &#xD;&#xA;(There are also [passive imperatives](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/62/79).)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9529" RevisionGUID="258bc6fc-0d85-4739-9591-568c3ac3c049" CreationDate="2019-04-21T22:52:56.147" UserId="406" Text="In its original sense, _capri-fīcus_ just means &quot;wild fig-tree&quot;. Its fruits are harder to eat and less pleasant than the domesticated fig-tree (_fīcus_), but goats can eat them just fine, so the Romans named it the &quot;goat-fig&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, one thing the _caprifīcus_ was known for was its tenacity: it had a reputation for pushing its roots up underneath the pavement and ruining it. See Persius's _Satires_ 1.25-6:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quo didicisse, nisi hoc fermentum et quae semel intus innata est rupto iecore exierit **caprificus**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *What's the point of having learned, if not to let this roiling passion, this **caprifīcus** inside me, tear its way out of my liver all at once?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've never seen _caprifīcus_ defined as &quot;pride&quot;, but I'd guess it comes from this metaphorical usage: it's a tree that doesn't know its place, that strikes back against man-made walls and structures confining it and will happily tear down a house in order to keep growing where it likes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29761" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9526" RevisionGUID="902d2120-4f20-43af-9e5c-03a753e57ce1" CreationDate="2019-04-21T23:52:43.350" />
  <row Id="29762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9528" RevisionGUID="0d4baa21-0563-4daf-be84-5ecc6faf4d83" CreationDate="2019-04-21T23:57:29.347" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="In my experience many languages confuse lack of desire and desire of the contrary.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I would like to be able to say &quot;I don't want coffee&quot; as the negation of &quot;I want coffee&quot;, meaning that I don't have a desire to have coffee.&#xD;&#xA;To say that I am actively against drinking coffee, I would prefer to say &quot;I want not to have coffee&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But, unfortunately, English doesn't work this way, and &quot;I don't want coffee&quot; is construed as &quot;I want not to have coffee&quot; instead of the more ambivalent reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, the Latin *non necandus est* is more literally &quot;it is not necessary to kill him&quot; but could also be read as &quot;it is necessary not to kill him&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I found [examples of similar constructions](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=ndus+non+est), but it is not easy to decide which meaning is intended in each case.&#xD;&#xA;I would consider both readings valid in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see a couple of ways to express &quot;it is necessary to not kill him&quot; without ambiguity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Take a new verb with the opposite meaning: *servandus est*&#xD;&#xA;2. Explain in more words: *necesse est eum non necare*&#xD;&#xA;3. Work it into the structure of a sentence: *curandum est ne necetur*&#xD;&#xA;4. In some cases you might be able to use a negative order: *noli(te) eum necare*  &#xD;&#xA;(There are also [passive imperatives](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/62/79).)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9530" RevisionGUID="db0cd955-0077-4de9-8301-8d3d9470e6ff" CreationDate="2019-04-22T02:11:08.140" UserId="522" Text="There are three or four **impersonal verbs** to express what is appropriate, or  legal, or obligatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1** *děcet,* it is appropriate  &#xD;&#xA;**2** *dēděcet,* it is inapproptiate, unseemly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ut nobis decet;* As seems right to us.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Oratorem irasci minime decet, simulare non dēděcet.* It is not professional for an orator to get angry, it is not unprofessional to pretend (to get angry). *Cicero Tusc., 4,25*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Non nos decet necare;*  ‘It is not right for us to kill.’  &#xD;&#xA;*Dedecet necare;*  ‘It is unseemly (uncouth? it is not very nice?) to kill.’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3** *Lĭcet,* it is lawful  &#xD;&#xA;(cf. *illĭcĭtē,* adv. illegally;  *illĭcĭtus* adj., illegal)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Lĭcet nemini peccare,* Cicero Tusc., 5,19  'Nobody is permitted to do evil.'   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, *Licet nemini eum necare.* 'It is not lawful to kill him.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4** *Oportet,*  it is a duty, one ought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Est aliquid, quod non oporteat, etiam si licet; quicquid vero non licet, certe non oportet.*  &#xD;&#xA;'There is something which one ought not to do, even if it is legal; but anything illegal, certainly ought not to be done.' Cicero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Certe oportet non eum necare,* 'Undoubtedly, one ought not to kill him.'&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9531" RevisionGUID="e8a807e0-39d8-43da-a14e-f0437866603d" CreationDate="2019-04-22T02:18:00.107" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="[Etymonline entry of 'accurate'](https://www.etymonline.com/word/accurate#etymonline_v_132):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1610s, &quot;done with care,&quot; from Latin *accuratus* &quot;prepared with care, exact, elaborate,&quot; past participle of *accurare* &quot;take care of,&quot; from *ad* &quot;to&quot; (see [ad-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/ad-?ref=etymonline_crossreference)) + *curare* &quot;take care of&quot; (see [cure](https://www.etymonline.com/word/cure?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_476) (n.1)). The notion of doing something carefully led to that of being precise (1650s). A stronger word than *correct* (adj.), weaker than *exact* (adj.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Etymonline entry of 'precision'](https://www.etymonline.com/word/precision#etymonline_v_30393):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1630s, &quot;a cutting off (mentally), abstraction,&quot; from French *précision* (16c.) and directly from Latin *praecisionem* (nominative *praecisio*) &quot;a cutting off,&quot; noun of action from past participle stem of *praecidere* &quot;to cut off, shorten,&quot; from *prae* &quot;before&quot; (see [pre-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/pre-?ref=etymonline_crossreference)) + *-cidere*, combining form of *caedere* &quot;to cut&quot; (from PIE root [\*kae-id-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*kae-id-?ref=etymonline_crossreference) &quot;to strike&quot;). Meaning &quot;preciseness&quot; is from 1740.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qVwW8.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google found [this Reddit post](https://redd.it/9r5tql). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29765" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9531" RevisionGUID="e8a807e0-39d8-43da-a14e-f0437866603d" CreationDate="2019-04-22T02:18:00.107" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How do the statistics definitions of 'accuracy' and 'precision' relate to their etymons?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29766" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9531" RevisionGUID="e8a807e0-39d8-43da-a14e-f0437866603d" CreationDate="2019-04-22T02:18:00.107" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|statistics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9532" RevisionGUID="8ee62d23-baad-4744-bdc3-459a4164efff" CreationDate="2019-04-22T05:49:03.827" UserDisplayName="user3136" Text="To wit, how does 'loosen, release' semantically shift to mean 'able to pay all one owes'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Etymonline on 'solvent (adj.)](https://www.etymonline.com/word/solvent?ref=etymonline_crossreference)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1650s, &quot;able to pay all one owes,&quot; from French *solvent*,    &#xD;&#xA;from Latin *solventem* (nominative *solvens*), present participle of *solvere* &quot;to loosen, release, accomplish, fulfill,&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;from PIE *\*se-lu-*, from reflexive pronoun *\*s(w)e-* (see [idiom](https://www.etymonline.com/word/idiom?ref=etymonline_crossreference)) + root *[\*leu-*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*leu-?ref=etymonline_crossreference) &quot;to loosen, divide, cut apart.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/section&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29768" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9532" RevisionGUID="8ee62d23-baad-4744-bdc3-459a4164efff" CreationDate="2019-04-22T05:49:03.827" UserDisplayName="user3136" Text="What semantic notions underlie 'loosen, release' and 'able to pay all one owes'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29769" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9532" RevisionGUID="8ee62d23-baad-4744-bdc3-459a4164efff" CreationDate="2019-04-22T05:49:03.827" UserDisplayName="user3136" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9532" RevisionGUID="cfdf585e-e218-46b1-853e-bb90b67d3e1f" CreationDate="2019-04-22T05:54:05.970" UserDisplayName="user3136" Comment="added 399 characters in body" Text="To wit, how does 'loosen, release' semantically shift to mean 'able to pay all one owes'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Etymonline on 'solvent (adj.)](https://www.etymonline.com/word/solvent?ref=etymonline_crossreference)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1650s, &quot;able to pay all one owes,&quot; from French *solvent*,    &#xD;&#xA;from Latin *solventem* (nominative *solvens*), present participle of *solvere* &quot;to loosen, release, accomplish, fulfill,&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;from PIE *\*se-lu-*, from reflexive pronoun *\*s(w)e-* (see [idiom](https://www.etymonline.com/word/idiom?ref=etymonline_crossreference)) + root *[\*leu-*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*leu-?ref=etymonline_crossreference) &quot;to loosen, divide, cut apart.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/section&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm discombublated how [&quot;the process of taking a problem apart step by step&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9002/37) relates to financial solvency, if they relate at all? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The CFI Institute](https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/finance/solvency/) and [Zacks](https://finance.zacks.com/liquidity-vs-solvency-4979.html) outline solvency, if anyone needs a definition. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9533" RevisionGUID="bc8775ae-efea-4b46-9fe0-f299e74be492" CreationDate="2019-04-22T05:55:24.800" UserId="79" Text="When one owes money, one is tied to an obligation: the money has to be paid back or the matter has to be settled in some alternative way.&#xD;&#xA;When everything is paid off, one is free of this obligation.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore it makes a lot of sense to me that being released is a good metaphor for paying back all one owes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9532" RevisionGUID="b0a377d5-26c3-4701-8bab-47ddc12c66ff" CreationDate="2019-04-22T06:03:23.953" UserDisplayName="user3136" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="To wit, how does 'loosen, release' semantically shift to mean 'able to pay all one owes'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Etymonline on 'solvent (adj.)](https://www.etymonline.com/word/solvent?ref=etymonline_crossreference)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1650s, &quot;able to pay all one owes,&quot; from French *solvent*,    &#xD;&#xA;from Latin *solventem* (nominative *solvens*), present participle of *solvere* &quot;to loosen, release, accomplish, fulfill,&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;from PIE *\*se-lu-*, from reflexive pronoun *\*s(w)e-* (see [idiom](https://www.etymonline.com/word/idiom?ref=etymonline_crossreference)) + root *[\*leu-*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*leu-?ref=etymonline_crossreference) &quot;to loosen, divide, cut apart.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/section&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm discombublated how [&quot;the process of taking a problem apart step by step&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9002/37) relates to financial solvency, if they relate at all? I read about [liquid metaphors in the world of finance](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/209112/50720). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The CFI Institute](https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/finance/solvency/) and [Zacks](https://finance.zacks.com/liquidity-vs-solvency-4979.html) outline solvency, if anyone needs a definition. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9534" RevisionGUID="ce12cde2-2aba-4ac1-afc1-10947d8a72b5" CreationDate="2019-04-22T06:43:23.733" UserDisplayName="user3136" Text="Paul Davies. [*JC Smith's The Law of Contract* (2018 2 ed)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Smiths-Law-Contract-Paul-Davies/dp/0198807813/ref=dp_ob_title_bk). p. 466&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qScyP.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to understand the etymology of the function words in the definition of 'liquidated damages'. I read  [Is liquidate(-tion) inspired by the French word, &quot;liquide&quot; (cash)?](https://redd.it/95o6fd) and [Liquid Metaphors in the World of Finance](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/209112/50720).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Am I correct that [Alain Pannetier's explanation](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/78589/334589) of [limpidity](https://www.etymonline.com/word/limpid) (clarity, transparency) explain &quot;liquidated&quot;? Large commercial parties who like commercial certainty would obviously &#xD;&#xA;like to [&quot;to set out clearly&quot; a sense now obsolete](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=liquidate) damages. To wit, they like to have damages liquidated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;The meaning is already present in the Latin *liquidus* which means both &quot;liquid&quot; and &quot;clear, evident&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;This obviously comes from liquids being limpid (transparent).&#xD;&#xA;Limpid by the way (another Latin cognate, originally from Oscan origin) gives [Spanish *limpido* and *limpiar*](http://etimologias.dechile.net/?limpio).  &#xD;&#xA;Also *liquare* means &quot;to filter&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;So that the idea of transparency and purity is already strongly associated with liquids in Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;From *clarify* you then get the financial aspect: to clarify a balance sheet: assets and liabilities.  &#xD;&#xA;This is [attested in France in the 16th century](http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/liquider), and in England in the 17th century (OED liquidate v. 1).&#xD;&#xA;It is also used in the sense of selling all one's possessions (19th century).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. But I don't wholly agree with how liquid is related to limpidity. Obviously transparent liquids (pure water) are limpid, but translucent and opaque liquids (sauces, bodies of water)  aren't. Thus can someome help with my distrust in the semantic shift from &quot;liquid&quot; to &quot;limipidity&quot;? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29774" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9534" RevisionGUID="ce12cde2-2aba-4ac1-afc1-10947d8a72b5" CreationDate="2019-04-22T06:43:23.733" UserDisplayName="user3136" Text="How does the notion of 'limpidity' explain the etymology of 'liquidated' in 'liquidated damages'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29775" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9534" RevisionGUID="ce12cde2-2aba-4ac1-afc1-10947d8a72b5" CreationDate="2019-04-22T06:43:23.733" UserDisplayName="user3136" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9535" RevisionGUID="bcfae874-da50-4943-beb7-85d157479045" CreationDate="2019-04-22T07:03:59.330" UserDisplayName="user3136" Text="I was reading the etymology of the English ['liquidate'](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/78589/334589), when I read on [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/liquidate#Etymology) that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The sense &quot;to kill, do away with&quot; is a [semantic loan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_loan &quot;w:Semantic loan&quot;) from [Russian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language &quot;w:Russian language&quot;) _[ликвиди́ровать](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C#Russian &quot;ликвидировать&quot;)_ (likvidírovatʹ), ultimately from [Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin &quot;w:Latin&quot;) _[liquidus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/liquidus#Latin &quot;liquidus&quot;)_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aforementioned link for the Russian etymon lists its meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1.  to [eliminate](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eliminate &quot;eliminate&quot;), to [abolish](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abolish &quot;abolish&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;2.  to [dissolve](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dissolve &quot;dissolve&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;3.  to [stamp out](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stamp_out &quot;stamp out&quot;), to [do](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/do &quot;do&quot;) away with, to [destroy](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/destroy &quot;destroy&quot;), to [kill](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kill &quot;kill&quot;) (off)&#xD;&#xA;4.  to [liquidate](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/liquidate &quot;liquidate&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Were meanings 1 and 3 in any Latin etymon? I don't see them in [*liquidus*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/liquidus#Latin) on Wiktionary or *liquo* from the Oxford Latin Dictionary (2012 2 ed):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If I'm correct, then how did  meanings 1 and 3 arise in Russian? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that live humans can be killed by [dissolving them in acid](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11793116/French-students-tried-to-dissolve-body-of-murder-victim-in-acid.html), but this method of killing appears too uncommon (I hope!), unethical and frightful to beget this semantic shift?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/W6ZpP.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29777" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9535" RevisionGUID="bcfae874-da50-4943-beb7-85d157479045" CreationDate="2019-04-22T07:03:59.330" UserDisplayName="user3136" Text="Did 'liquidus' or 'liquo' mean 'abolish' and 'destroy, kill'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29778" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9535" RevisionGUID="bcfae874-da50-4943-beb7-85d157479045" CreationDate="2019-04-22T07:03:59.330" UserDisplayName="user3136" Text="|etymology|russian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9536" RevisionGUID="90242866-fdad-4d08-90a8-4a48b19342c9" CreationDate="2019-04-22T13:20:22.990" UserId="39" Text="Let's ignore the quote in your question for the moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is can a person, writing in a language other than Latin, take a Latin word - or rather, its sound form, perhaps with some &quot;semantical load&quot;, shall we say - and use it in a language other than Latin, and use in a sense that they deem necessary?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is - yes. Examples galore. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it have any bearing on Latin? The answer is no." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9536" RevisionGUID="a54b0371-1c29-4a53-9e62-50fc037c0918" CreationDate="2019-04-22T14:26:19.660" UserId="39" Comment="added 314 characters in body" Text="Let's ignore the quote in your question for the moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is can a person, writing in a language other than Latin, take a Latin word - or rather, its sound form, perhaps with - or without- some &quot;semantic load&quot;, shall we say - and use it in a language other than Latin, and use in a sense that they deem necessary?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is - yes. Examples galore. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it have any bearing on Latin? The answer is no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, back to nos moutons (the quote in your question. Unfortunately, Ricouer’s philosophical distinction is presented there as a fact of Latin lexicology (vocabulary studies). This is certainly not true and imho should be rewritten, with a reference to Ricouer’s philosophy, not the Latin language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9536" RevisionGUID="4d41d379-db3a-43f3-8d39-f9bde21aa7d3" CreationDate="2019-04-22T14:28:38.813" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Let's ignore the quote in your question for the moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is can a person, writing in a language other than Latin, take a Latin word - or rather, its sound form, perhaps with - or without- some &quot;semantic load&quot;, shall we say - and use it in a language other than Latin, and use in a sense that they deem necessary?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is - yes. Examples galore. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it have any bearing on Latin? The answer is no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, back to nos moutons (the quote in your question. Unfortunately, Ricoeur’s philosophical distinction is presented there as a fact of Latin lexicology (vocabulary studies). This is certainly not true and imho should be rewritten, with a reference to Ricoeur’s philosophy, not the Latin language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="db034e2d-5818-4195-beee-b2a6cff2015f" CreationDate="2019-04-22T16:09:40.407" UserId="79" Text="If a gerundive is used with *non*, can it mean both lack of obligation and negative obligation?&#xD;&#xA;For example, can *non loquendum est* mean both &quot;it is not necessary to speak&quot; and &quot;it is necessary not to speak&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Does the word order have a role here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to argue that a gerundive with *non* can have a certain meaning, can you please **provide a classical quotation** where the meaning is clearly only one of the two possibilities?&#xD;&#xA;In the cases I have seen, I find it hard to decide whether a lack of obligation or a negative obligation was meant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me the literal reading of such a phrase is lack of obligation, but negative obligation is possible too.&#xD;&#xA;This was discussed in connection to [the earlier question concerning negative obligations](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/9526/79), but I wanted to ask this separate focused question to settle this matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29784" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="db034e2d-5818-4195-beee-b2a6cff2015f" CreationDate="2019-04-22T16:09:40.407" UserId="79" Text="Can 'non' with gerundive mean both lack of obligation and negative obligation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29785" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="db034e2d-5818-4195-beee-b2a6cff2015f" CreationDate="2019-04-22T16:09:40.407" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|gerundive|negation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9538" RevisionGUID="3a5147ec-a6a2-460f-8dbe-d8ca763e32b3" CreationDate="2019-04-22T16:57:34.177" UserId="2363" Text="The pair *faciendum* / *non faciendum* is used to indicate positive and negative obligation, as evidenced by the parallelism with *sequi* / *fugere*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Videsne ut quibus summa est in voluptate perspicuum sit **quid iis faciendum** sit aut **non faciendum**? ut nemo dubitet eorum omnia officia quo spectare, **quid sequi**, **quid fugere debeant**? (Cic. De Fin. 4.17.46)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The grammarians consistently use *dicendum* and *non dicendum* to mean &quot;an obligatory expression&quot; and &quot;a prohibited expression.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mi Paula et mi Aemilia **non dicendum**, quia mi masculini est generis	&#xD;&#xA;pronomen, non feminini, et ortum est a prima positione meus; **sed dicen-	&#xD;&#xA;dum** mea Paula et mea Aemilia, o meum caput, o meumque brachium. (Flavius Caper, De Orthographia, 102) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A slightly post-classical example clearly signifying prohibition: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod in facto reicitur, etiam in dicto non est recipiendum. (Tertullian, De Spectaculis, 17)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9538" RevisionGUID="ceea23ae-6bf4-4e7a-9f7f-cec206626610" CreationDate="2019-04-22T17:03:22.310" UserId="2363" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="The following examples are of the negated gerundive clearly equivalent to a prohibition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pair *faciendum* / *non faciendum* is used to indicate positive and negative obligation, as evidenced by the parallelism with *sequi* / *fugere*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Videsne ut quibus summa est in voluptate perspicuum sit **quid iis faciendum** sit aut **non faciendum**? ut nemo dubitet eorum omnia officia quo spectare, **quid sequi**, **quid fugere debeant**? (Cic. De Fin. 4.17.46)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The grammarians consistently use *dicendum* and *non dicendum* to mean &quot;an obligatory expression&quot; and &quot;a prohibited expression.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mi Paula et mi Aemilia **non dicendum**, quia mi masculini est generis	&#xD;&#xA;pronomen, non feminini, et ortum est a prima positione meus; **sed dicen-	&#xD;&#xA;dum** mea Paula et mea Aemilia, o meum caput, o meumque brachium. (Flavius Caper, De Orthographia, 102) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A slightly post-classical example clearly signifying prohibition: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod in facto reicitur, etiam in dicto non est recipiendum. (Tertullian, De Spectaculis, 17)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29788" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="a0a19ba8-4156-4669-84a2-7b07d24d233c" CreationDate="2019-04-22T17:23:38.703" />
  <row Id="29789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9538" RevisionGUID="14ec1e4a-4321-4479-98b7-88b098b51fe0" CreationDate="2019-04-22T17:34:22.697" UserId="2363" Comment="added 369 characters in body" Text="The following examples are of the negated gerundive clearly equivalent to a prohibition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pair *faciendum* / *non faciendum* is used to indicate positive and negative obligation, as evidenced by the parallelism with *sequi* / *fugere*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Videsne ut quibus summa est in voluptate perspicuum sit **quid iis faciendum** sit aut **non faciendum**? ut nemo dubitet eorum omnia officia quo spectare, **quid sequi**, **quid fugere debeant**? (Cic. De Fin. 4.17.46)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The grammarians consistently use *dicendum* and *non dicendum* to mean &quot;an obligatory expression&quot; and &quot;a prohibited expression.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mi Paula et mi Aemilia **non dicendum**, quia mi masculini est generis	&#xD;&#xA;pronomen, non feminini, et ortum est a prima positione meus; **sed dicen-	&#xD;&#xA;dum** mea Paula et mea Aemilia, o meum caput, o meumque brachium. (Flavius Caper, De Orthographia, 102) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Legal Latin frequently uses the negated gerundive to signify prohibition. (The *Digests* itself is post-classical but consists largely of extracts of earlier Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proculus ait ... [in a case where one crime/tort could be prosecuted under two different legal statutes] si uno iudicio res esset iudicata, altero amplius **non agendum**. (Digesta, 9.2.27.11.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A slightly post-classical example clearly signifying prohibition: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod in facto reicitur, etiam in dicto non est recipiendum. (Tertullian, De Spectaculis, 17)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9530" RevisionGUID="5967e93e-675e-4666-b8b7-8d759273e52a" CreationDate="2019-04-22T18:00:40.987" UserId="522" Comment="Add 'opus est'" Text="There are three or four **impersonal verbs** to express what is appropriate, or  legal, or obligatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1** *děcet,* it is appropriate  &#xD;&#xA;**2** *dēděcet,* it is inapproptiate, unseemly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ut nobis decet;* As seems right to us.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Oratorem irasci minime decet, simulare non dēděcet.* It is not professional for an orator to get angry, it is not unprofessional to pretend (to get angry). *Cicero Tusc., 4,25*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Non nos decet necare;*  ‘It is not right for us to kill.’  &#xD;&#xA;*Dedecet necare;*  ‘It is unseemly (uncouth? it is not very nice?) to kill.’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3** *Lĭcet,* it is lawful  &#xD;&#xA;(cf. *illĭcĭtē,* adv. illegally;  *illĭcĭtus* adj., illegal)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Lĭcet nemini peccare,* Cicero Tusc., 5,19  'Nobody is permitted to do evil.'   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, *Licet nemini eum necare.* 'It is not lawful to kill him.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4** *Oportet,*  it is a duty, one ought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Est aliquid, quod non oporteat, etiam si licet; quicquid vero non licet, certe non oportet.*  &#xD;&#xA;'There is something which one ought not to do, even if it is legal; but anything illegal, certainly ought not to be done.' Cicero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Certe oportet non eum necare,* 'Undoubtedly, one ought not to kill him.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***5*** *Opus est,* (3) can mean 'must be,' necessarily.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9540" RevisionGUID="488705b0-b5f8-47dc-a9f3-bee535246db6" CreationDate="2019-04-22T19:21:44.890" UserId="645" Text="I'm OK with 'accuracy' as you see its etymology described in your question, but no amount of care will get the correct result if the method of getting it is biased. Accuracy and precision are almost, but not quite complementary. You can obtain a result, whether accurate or not, with great reproducibility, but you do need a word to distinguish the two and 'precision evidently got the vote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that use of the word 'precision' in modern science stems from the characteristics of Gauss's 'bell curve', which allow a mathematical  estimate of it to be made. It was given an impetus about 100 years ago by Gosset's discovery of the (Student's) t-distribution, which allows real-world estimates not of accuracy, but of reproducibility, for which 'precision' is the preferred word.  'Precision' is a less cumbersome word than 'reproducibility index', which might be considered more appropriate; it is indeed quite neat in use, but it's a concept with a lot of mathematics behind it, and it would probably be hard to think of anything more apposite. I think we just have to accept what has come down to us for what it is, and forget the etymology!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9541" RevisionGUID="6f6ef710-b492-465d-8ab4-625c651bbf4b" CreationDate="2019-04-22T20:24:09.023" UserId="406" Text="Most newly-formed Latin verbs were put into the nice, regular first conjugation: both deriving from existing words (*dīcō, -ere* &gt; *dīctō, -āre*) and with borrowings (*[Graecissō, -āre][1]*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English is mostly the same, with verbs like *google, googled, googled* and *xerox, xeroxed, xeroxed* falling into the &quot;weak conjugation&quot;. But occasionally, existing words will fall into the rare, mostly-closed &quot;strong conjugation&quot;: *dive, dove, dived*. And even more rarely, newly-coined verbs will end up in the &quot;strong conjugation&quot;: *yeet, yote, yoten*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did this ever happen in Latin? That is, did a Latin word ever shift from the first conjugation into a different one, or was a newly-coined verb put into one of the other conjugations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/776/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29796" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9541" RevisionGUID="6f6ef710-b492-465d-8ab4-625c651bbf4b" CreationDate="2019-04-22T20:24:09.023" UserId="406" Text="Did the Romans create any irregular verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29797" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9541" RevisionGUID="6f6ef710-b492-465d-8ab4-625c651bbf4b" CreationDate="2019-04-22T20:24:09.023" UserId="406" Text="|verbs|derivation|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9542" RevisionGUID="3daa94a7-b53d-4f40-97a6-ce2045cc2b23" CreationDate="2019-04-22T23:42:32.857" UserId="79" Text="One example of derivation pushing first conjugation verbs to the third conjugation is given by prefixed versions of *dare*.&#xD;&#xA;The short *a* is weakened and one ends up with verbs like *addere* which behave according to the third conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second example arises in derivation of verbs from adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;You can derive *ruber &gt; rubere* and *albus &gt; albere* and many others.&#xD;&#xA;These second conjugation verbs describe state rather than action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are willing to stretch the definition of &quot;newly-coined verb&quot;, one example is adding prefixes to just about any verb and another one is deriving new verbs from *facere/fiere* by adding something like *cale-*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9543" RevisionGUID="c9df8188-4bdf-40d6-8b60-9e4f0b52e85b" CreationDate="2019-04-22T23:50:09.853" UserId="3261" Text="I noticed &quot;senissimus&quot; appears [on Wiktionary][1], but it's not obvious if there are any other attestations of this word.  How does one investigate whether this is a spurious Wiktionary page, or is indeed a Latin word once in use?  The same goes for [juvenissimus][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/senissimus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iuvenissimus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9543" RevisionGUID="c9df8188-4bdf-40d6-8b60-9e4f0b52e85b" CreationDate="2019-04-22T23:50:09.853" UserId="3261" Text="How to determine if &quot;senissimus&quot; is a Latin word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9543" RevisionGUID="c9df8188-4bdf-40d6-8b60-9e4f0b52e85b" CreationDate="2019-04-22T23:50:09.853" UserId="3261" Text="|superlatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9544" RevisionGUID="ff8cec01-c9c7-4f7e-9680-cf5b3dbae554" CreationDate="2019-04-23T00:11:25.947" UserId="2767" Text="The Wiktionary entry you linked to has a reference &quot;senissimus in Charles du Fresne du Cange’s Glossarium Mediæ et Infimæ Latinitatis (augmented edition, 1883–1887)&quot;, which in turn links to http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/SENISSIMUS :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SENISSIMUS, Valde senex. Vita S. Landoaldi tom. 3. Mart. pag. 37 :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      Huic repositioni interfuit quidam Frangerus, homo nostra ætate Senissimus. Testes Senissimi,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in vet. Notitia tom. 2. Capitular. Baluzii col. 823." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9545" RevisionGUID="ae5ba75c-3211-4621-9b8e-dcd0a91d69a8" CreationDate="2019-04-23T02:23:26.527" UserId="3686" Text="Is the following the correct way to translate Argument To Proof of Work&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;Argumentum Ad Probationem Operis&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intention is to translate it in the same way as Argument to the Person&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;Argumentum Ad Hominem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29804" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9545" RevisionGUID="ae5ba75c-3211-4621-9b8e-dcd0a91d69a8" CreationDate="2019-04-23T02:23:26.527" UserId="3686" Text="How to translate &quot;Argument To Proof of Work&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29805" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9545" RevisionGUID="ae5ba75c-3211-4621-9b8e-dcd0a91d69a8" CreationDate="2019-04-23T02:23:26.527" UserId="3686" Text="|idiom|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9546" RevisionGUID="beee407c-bf1c-4c4d-a781-1341bf6fbf93" CreationDate="2019-04-23T03:45:38.250" UserId="79" Text="Latin is a heavily inflected language, and only very specific forms are found in dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;To see whether a form would be legitimate, it is best to understand how it is formed.&#xD;&#xA;Even if a specific form was not attested at all, we can be perfectly sure that it is a fully legitimate Latin word &amp;mdash; by analogy to attested forms of a word and inflection of other words.&#xD;&#xA;This does require some expertise, and it is not wrong to ask for help.&#xD;&#xA;(That's what this site is for!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this specific instance the question is whether superlatives of *senex* are really *senissim-*.&#xD;&#xA;The answer from a classical point of view is &quot;not really&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The best way to check whether something was actually used is to consult a [text corpus](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1854/79).&#xD;&#xA;They all have their limitations, but they do give good hints at least.&#xD;&#xA;There is only one hit for [*senissim-*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=senissim) but 27 for [*veterrim-*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=veterrim) and 105 for [*vetustissim-*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=vetustissim).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you consult the irregular comparative and superlative section of a Latin grammar, it is likely to mention that superlative forms of *senex* tend to be replaced by something based on *vetus*.&#xD;&#xA;The comparative *senior* is common, and so is *iunior*.&#xD;&#xA;I urge you to try a corpus tool to see how common *iuvenissim-* is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8825" RevisionGUID="c00132df-57c8-4492-a484-b38c476b62e3" CreationDate="2019-04-23T05:24:20.710" UserId="9" Comment="added 1414 characters in body" Text="Since posting the question, I found a small amount of relevant information that I thought I'd put as a partial answer. I'd still appreciate answers from other members of this site!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Evidence from other languages showing that [t] may assibilate while [tt] does not&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assibilation of singleton [t] but not geminate [tt] seems to have occurred also in Finnic. &quot;Towards a Typology of Stop Assibilation,&quot; by T. A. Hall and Silke Hamann (2003), says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An argument that the length of the frication phase is perceived in relation to the overall duration of the sequence is illustrated by assibilation in Finnic. Here the /t/ was fricativized to [s] before a high front vowel, but the geminate /tt/ remained unchanged (Posti 1954: 51). This can be explained by the fact that the friction phase is perceived as longer if it follows a singleton than if it follows a geminate plosive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([p. 125](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9520/1009ffb230382c3c6e5ca118f47cad62a3a0.pdf))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This explanation seems relatively satisfactory to me. I still would be interested in learning more details about how we know that -ttiV- did not palatalize in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Evidence from Romance suggesting that [tt] might have assibilated in vulgar speech&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, I found that the Italian name of the island *[Brazza](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Brazza)* is supposed to come from Latin *[Brattia](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DBrattia).* Similarly, *mattiana* seems to have developed to Asturian *[mazana](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mazana)* and Mirandese *[maçana](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ma%C3%A7ana),* although Wiktionary says that *matianium* has been suggested as an alternative source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the pronunciations of these words developed naturally, and if they are from Latin forms with [tt] rather than coming from forms with non-geminate [t], it suggests that the rule about not assibilating *-ttiV-* may have developed artificially, rather than as a natural rule of the spoken language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some other sources, I've seen it suggested that *-ti-* in words from Greek might not assibilate, which seems similar and also seems like it might be an artificial rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, I have the impression that there is not enough evidence to clearly establish whether [tti] before a vowel naturally developed differently from [ti] before a vowel in Latin. There weren't many Latin words with [tti] before a vowel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9548" RevisionGUID="48740454-0e4d-4dde-85e3-3b7025d00a2a" CreationDate="2019-04-23T22:23:57.747" UserId="3690" Text="For a Latin-language artificial intelligence called [Mensa Latina][1] the user manual will need to discuss and therefore refer to the phenomenon in Latin prose where meaning comes from grammar and inflections more than from syntax or word-order. But what is the name of that process of scattering words all about in a seemingly random word-order?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ai.neocities.org/Abracadabra.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29812" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9548" RevisionGUID="48740454-0e4d-4dde-85e3-3b7025d00a2a" CreationDate="2019-04-23T22:23:57.747" UserId="3690" Text="What is the term for extremely loose Latin word order?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29813" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9548" RevisionGUID="48740454-0e4d-4dde-85e3-3b7025d00a2a" CreationDate="2019-04-23T22:23:57.747" UserId="3690" Text="|syntax|technology|word-order|terminology|latin-on-devices|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9549" RevisionGUID="91a7189a-f800-4aa6-b5d8-9d31912b8cd2" CreationDate="2019-04-23T23:11:29.783" UserId="406" Text="I've always heard it described as **free word order**. That is, the word order is &quot;free&quot; in that it can be pushed and pulled and twisted every which way while still being understandable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10549" RevisionGUID="72f02170-b0df-462c-a254-013c9198b27c" CreationDate="2019-04-24T01:21:43.850" UserId="3248" Text="If Latin prose had an &quot;extremely loose word order&quot;, which is (generally) not the case, the appropriate linguistic term would be &quot;**non-configurationality**&quot; (e.g., cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-configurational_language ). However, rather than being vaguely classified as a free word order language, Latin has often been referred to in the recent Latin linguistics literature as a &quot;discourse configurational language&quot;. Latin word order is strongly driven by so-called &quot;information structure&quot; (involving notions like &quot;old information&quot;, &quot;new information&quot;, &quot;focus&quot;, &quot;emphasis&quot;, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: the key word/expression in Mentifex's question is &quot;**seemingly** random&quot;, whereas the key word in Draconis's answer is &quot;**understandable**&quot;. The former expression is to be related to the fact that, **despite appearances**, Latin is **not** a free word order language (unlike Latin, the Australian language Warlpiri, for example, _is_ a non-configurational language), whereas the latter expression (&quot;understandable&quot;) is to be related to the fact that word order in Latin prose is clearly determined by **pragmatics** (stricto sensu, by **information structure**. For a very recent reference on this topic, please take a look at https://global.oup.com/academic/product/pragmatics-for-latin-9780190939472?cc=es&amp;lang=en&amp;#  ).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10549" RevisionGUID="2c4f6e16-b344-4996-8929-f4bc64e5e205" CreationDate="2019-04-24T01:39:39.163" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes, mostly improved formatting" Text="If Latin prose had an &quot;extremely loose word order&quot;, which is (generally) not the case, the appropriate linguistic term involved would be &quot;**non-configurationality**&quot; (e.g., cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-configurational_language ). However, rather than being vaguely classified as a free word order language or as a non-configurational language, Latin has often been referred to in the recent Latin linguistics literature as a &quot;discourse configurational language&quot;. Latin word order is strongly driven by so-called &quot;information structure&quot; (involving notions like &quot;old information&quot;, &quot;new information&quot;, &quot;focus&quot;, &quot;emphasis&quot;, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: the key word/expression in Mentifex's question is &quot;**seemingly** random&quot;, whereas the key word in Draconis's answer is &quot;**understandable**&quot;. The former expression is to be related to the fact that, **despite appearances**, Latin is **not** a free word order language (unlike Latin, the Australian language Warlpiri, for example, _is_ a non-configurational language), whereas the latter expression (&quot;understandable&quot;) is to be related to the fact that word order in Latin prose is clearly determined by **pragmatics** (stricto sensu, by **information structure**. For a very recent reference on this topic, please take a look at https://global.oup.com/academic/product/pragmatics-for-latin-9780190939472?cc=es&amp;lang=en&amp;#  ).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30816" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9548" RevisionGUID="fa60608e-4316-46dd-ae88-51a4c84da0c2" CreationDate="2019-04-24T03:11:04.013" />
  <row Id="30817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10550" RevisionGUID="5dcad2e3-c8b8-489e-a145-0472ff107120" CreationDate="2019-04-24T07:48:20.057" UserId="3645" Text="Spinoza's ethics, On the God, Proposition 8, Scholium 2:&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;ut satis attendenti sit manifestum&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4 translation of this sentence:&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;White:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;as is evident to any one who pays a little attention&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Shirley:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;as is obvious to anyone who gives his mind to it&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Boyle:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;as will be manifest to any one who regards it carefully&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Elwes:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;a little consideration will make this plain&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;They render **sit** to **is** or **will** and i can't understand why and where is its subjunctive sense.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover literal meaning of **satis** is **sufficient** or **sufficiently** and regarding to **satis** is not ablative, it likely must be adverb. But none of them translate it **sufficiently** or **adequately** or et cetera.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30818" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10550" RevisionGUID="5dcad2e3-c8b8-489e-a145-0472ff107120" CreationDate="2019-04-24T07:48:20.057" UserId="3645" Text="Ethics of Spinoza - Translation of &quot;sit&quot; and &quot;satis&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30819" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10550" RevisionGUID="5dcad2e3-c8b8-489e-a145-0472ff107120" CreationDate="2019-04-24T07:48:20.057" UserId="3645" Text="|conjunctive|spinoza|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9445" RevisionGUID="9296542a-b360-4617-a2ec-8dc1376c2cfa" CreationDate="2019-04-24T15:31:12.737" UserId="79" Comment="added 977 characters in body" Text="I strongly suggest you to read English translations of William White and Samuel Shirley. These are more precise than Elwes translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;White:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I fully expect that those who judge things confusedly, and who have not been accustomed to cognise things through their first causes, will find it difficult to comprehend the demonstration of the 7th Proposition, since they do not distinguish between the modifications of substances and substances themselves, and are ignorant of the manner in which things are produced. Hence it comes to pass that they erroneously ascribe to substances a beginning like that which they see belongs to natural things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shirley:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do not doubt that for those who judge things confusedly and are not accustomed to know things through their primary causes it is difficult to grasp the proof of Proposition 7. Surely, this is because they neither distinguish between the modification of substances and substances themselves, nor do they know how things are produced. And so it comes about that they ascribe to substances a beginning which they see natural things as having." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10551" RevisionGUID="ab4b6bdd-f4d8-4663-955b-46de4b760c50" CreationDate="2019-04-24T16:11:51.293" UserId="2767" Text="It's subjunctive because it is hypothetical. It is not a particular person paying attention: there might not be anybody paying attention at all. But _if_ somebody pays sufficient attention, _then_ it will be obvious to them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not certain about _satis_, but I would take it as an adverb. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10552" RevisionGUID="51e8dc45-9631-4f78-a196-675ea866b7e3" CreationDate="2019-04-24T16:13:21.123" UserId="1982" Text="A simple approach might be, with intransitive verbs, the neuter of the gerundive (-of-obligation) is used in an impersonal construction: e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mihi non currendum est = I must not run (literally: it ought not to be run by me);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Romanis cum hostibus non pugnandum est = the Romans must not fight with the enemy (lit. it ought not to be fought, by the Romans, with the enemy);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a recent Q: non exsilio punendum est = it ought not to be punished by banishment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English &quot;ought not&quot; is a weak prohibition; but, not in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10553" RevisionGUID="81e6932e-42fb-46c2-99e4-af4b1075bf66" CreationDate="2019-04-24T16:39:30.897" UserId="79" Text="The translations are not literal, but they convey the message well.&#xD;&#xA;The adverb *satis* modifies the participle *attendens*, leading to &quot;someone who pays enough attention&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Shirley and Boyle get the nuance, whereas the other two translate *satis* in a weaker form.&#xD;&#xA;In this context *satis* means essentially the same as &quot;carefully&quot; &amp;mdash; but not if some other kind of word was modified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no specific person who pays attention.&#xD;&#xA;Latin often uses conjunctive when referring to an indefinite person.&#xD;&#xA;If you want, you can read it as a conditional: &quot;in case anyone is paying enough attention, it will be clear to them&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conjunctive also finds its way to indefinite relative clauses.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sunt qui sic dicant.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are people who say so. (But I won't or can't name any!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt that Spinoza meant *sit* to be a wish or a potential conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;And the translators all agree: it is translated as a factual statement.&#xD;&#xA;Using &quot;will be&quot; instead of &quot;is&quot; is just a matter of idiomatic English in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a more literal translation (which is worse English):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ut satis attendenti sit manifestum*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; as is clear to anyone who pays enough attention" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10550" RevisionGUID="769e4137-7c30-4d5e-978b-a6e509e1fad0" CreationDate="2019-04-24T16:42:30.223" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 99 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Spinoza's ethics, On the God, Proposition 8, Scholium 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ut satis attendenti sit manifestum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4 translations of this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. White:&#xD;&#xA; &gt;as is evident to any one who pays a little attention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Shirley:&#xD;&#xA; &gt;as is obvious to anyone who gives his mind to it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Boyle:&#xD;&#xA; &gt;as will be manifest to any one who regards it carefully&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Elwes:&#xD;&#xA; &gt;a little consideration will make this plain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They render *sit* to **is** or **will** and I can't understand why and where its subjunctive sense is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the literal meaning of *satis* is **sufficient** or **sufficiently** and regarding to *satis* is not ablative, it likely must be adverb. But none of them translate it **sufficiently** or **adequately** or similar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30826" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10550" RevisionGUID="769e4137-7c30-4d5e-978b-a6e509e1fad0" CreationDate="2019-04-24T16:42:30.223" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 99 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation-explanation|conjunctive|spinoza|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10554" RevisionGUID="fb01558d-5e0f-4625-9e3d-dfc88a99649d" CreationDate="2019-04-24T17:00:49.580" UserId="645" Text="Pretty much everything put forward in other answers is correct in its way. I'm just a bit surprised that none has rendered the subjunctive by 'would', as in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*As would be obvious to anyone attentive enough*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10549" RevisionGUID="87d931ef-d523-4ea2-bb54-60d82bc53266" CreationDate="2019-04-24T17:37:48.577" UserId="3248" Comment="new changes due to commentators" Text="If Latin prose had an &quot;extremely loose word order&quot;, which is (generally) not the case, the appropriate linguistic term involved would be &quot;**non-configurationality**&quot; (e.g., cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-configurational_language ). However, rather than being vaguely classified as a free word order language or as a non-configurational language, Latin has often been referred to in the recent literature on Latin syntax as a &quot;discourse configurational language&quot;. Latin word order is strongly driven by so-called &quot;information structure&quot; (involving notions like &quot;focus&quot;, &quot;topic&quot;, etc: cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_structure ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: the key word/expression in Mentifex's question is &quot;**seemingly** random&quot;, whereas the key word in Draconis's answer is &quot;**understandable**&quot;. The former expression is to be related to the fact that, **despite appearances**, Latin is **not** a free word order language, whereas the latter expression (&quot;understandable&quot;) is to be related to the fact that word order in Latin prose is clearly determined by **pragmatics** (stricto sensu, by **information structure**). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following a suggestion made by Draconis, I add the following quote by Jules Marouzeau (1949: 191), which nicely summarizes his/her answer: &quot;l’ordre des mots en latin est libre, il n’est pas indifférent&quot; (‘Word order in Latin is free, it is not arbitrary'). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Marouzeau, J. (1949). _L'ordre des mots dans la phrase latine. III. Les articulations de l'énoncé_. Paris: Belles Lettres.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Four more recent references on the topic are the following ones (NB: it is a personal selection, of course. As you can imagine, there are many more works, since word order is a (the?) constant hot topic of Latin syntax). There seems to be a consensus among generative and functional approaches (e.g., cf. Danckaert and Devine-Stephens, on the one hand, and Spevak, on the other) on the relevant role of pragmatics and information structure. Cf. the important role given to stylistics in the excellent traditional work by Marouzeau. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Danckaert, Lieven (2017). _The Development of Latin Clause Structure: A Study of the Extended Verb Phrase_. Oxford: Oxford University Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Devine, Andrew M. &amp; Laurence D. Stephens (2006). _Latin Word Order. Structured Meaning and Information._ New York: Oxford University Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Devine, Andrew M. &amp; Laurence D. Stephens (2019). _Pragmatics for Latin. From Syntax to Information Structure_. New York: Oxford University Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spevak, Olga (2010). _Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose_. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10549" RevisionGUID="3e249658-1cd7-4231-acfc-f2331de0a15c" CreationDate="2019-04-24T18:15:00.010" UserId="3248" Comment="new changes due to commentators" Text="If Latin prose had an &quot;extremely loose word order&quot;, which is (generally) not the case, the appropriate linguistic term involved would be &quot;**non-configurationality**&quot; (e.g., cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-configurational_language ). However, rather than being vaguely classified as a free word order language or as a non-configurational language, Latin has often been referred to in the recent literature on Latin syntax as a &quot;discourse configurational language&quot;. Latin word order is strongly driven by so-called &quot;information structure&quot; (involving notions like &quot;focus&quot;, &quot;topic&quot;, etc: cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_structure ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: the key word/expression in Mentifex's question is &quot;**seemingly** random&quot;, whereas the key word in Draconis's answer is &quot;**understandable**&quot;. The former expression is to be related to the fact that, **despite appearances**, Latin is **not** a free word order language, whereas the latter expression (&quot;understandable&quot;) is to be related to the fact that word order in Latin prose is clearly determined by **pragmatics** (stricto sensu, by **information structure**). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following a suggestion made by Draconis, I add the following quote by Jules Marouzeau (1949: 191), which nicely summarizes his/her answer: &quot;l’ordre des mots en latin est libre, il n’est pas indifférent&quot; (‘Word order in Latin is free, it is not arbitrary'). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Marouzeau, J. (1949). _L'ordre des mots dans la phrase latine. III. Les articulations de l'énoncé_. Paris: Belles Lettres.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Four more recent references on the topic are the following ones (NB: it is a personal selection, of course. As you can imagine, there are many more works, since word order is a (the?) constant hot topic of Latin syntax). There seems to be a consensus among generative and functional approaches (e.g., cf. Danckaert and Devine-Stephens, on the one hand, and Spevak, on the other) on the relevant role of pragmatics and information structure. Cf. the important role given to stylistics in the excellent traditional work by Marouzeau. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Danckaert, Lieven (2017). _The Development of Latin Clause Structure: A Study of the Extended Verb Phrase_. Oxford: Oxford University Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Devine, Andrew M. &amp; Laurence D. Stephens (2006). _Latin Word Order. Structured Meaning and Information._ New York: Oxford University Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Devine, Andrew M. &amp; Laurence D. Stephens (2019). _Pragmatics for Latin. From Syntax to Information Structure_. New York: Oxford University Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spevak, Olga (2010). _Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose_. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveat: these monographic books are perhaps mainly useful for the latinist and for the linguist interested in Latin. If you are more interested in the topic from a more basic/**didactic** perspective, I recommend you the reading of the excellent chap. 18 &quot;Word Order&quot; from the very useful textbook &quot;Latin Grammar&quot; by the late Dr. Dirk Panhuis, who, by the way, was an expert on the topic of Latin word order (NB: he wrote a doctoral dissertation on this topic from a functionalist/communicative perspective). Cf. a brief review of his excellent  _Latin Grammar_ (one of my favorite textbooks) in: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2007/2007-08-49.html  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10555" RevisionGUID="bc90749b-d9a4-4d5c-909b-a47c972e250b" CreationDate="2019-04-24T19:01:34.557" UserId="3029" Text="I have a question about [the following extract][1] ([Platon's Symposion][2], 215)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[Alcibiades describes Socrates as a Silenus's statue and as Marsyas, a satyr.]* ὅτι μὲν οὖν τό γε εἶδος ὅμοιος εἶ τούτοις, ὦ Σώκρατες, οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸς ἄν που ἀμφισβητήσαις: ὡς δὲ καὶ τἆλλα ἔοικας, **μετὰ τοῦτο ἄκουε**. ὑβριστὴς εἶ [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;my translation:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On the one hand, that you are similar to them, at least in terms of appearance, that is what you cannot dispute, O Socrates. But that on the other hand you also look like the rest of them, listen to this again. You're a mocker [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What bothers is me is the exact meaning of &quot;μετὰ&quot; in &quot;μετὰ τοῦτο ἄκουε&quot; : litteraly, something like &quot;hear after that&quot;, **but after what ?**&#xD;&#xA;My own translation (&quot;listen to this again&quot;) sounds plausible but nothing allows me to treat μετὰ as an adverb meaning &quot;again&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* is &quot;μετὰ&quot; an [adverb][3] (~ &quot;then&quot;) here ? &quot;Then, hear that&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* is &quot;μετὰ&quot; a [preposition][3] (+acc ~ &quot;after&quot;) ? &quot;After that, hear &lt;me&gt;&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* for the sake of completeness, [&quot;μετὰ&quot; can't be a preposition introducing the &#xD;&#xA;complement of ἀκούω][4];&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* for the sake of completeness, &quot;μετακούω&quot; doesn't exist;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help would be appreciated !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Full extract:][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Σωκράτη δ᾽ ἐγὼ ἐπαινεῖν, ὦ ἄνδρες, οὕτως ἐπιχειρήσω, δι᾽ εἰκόνων. οὗτος μὲν οὖν ἴσως οἰήσεται ἐπὶ τὰ γελοιότερα, ἔσται δ᾽ ἡ εἰκὼν τοῦ ἀληθοῦς ἕνεκα, οὐ τοῦ γελοίου. φημὶ γὰρ δὴ ὁμοιότατον αὐτὸν εἶναι τοῖς σιληνοῖς τούτοις τοῖς [215β] ἐν τοῖς ἑρμογλυφείοις καθημένοις, οὕστινας ἐργάζονται οἱ δημιουργοὶ σύριγγας ἢ αὐλοὺς ἔχοντας, οἳ διχάδε διοιχθέντες φαίνονται ἔνδοθεν ἀγάλματα ἔχοντες θεῶν. καὶ φημὶ αὖ ἐοικέναι αὐτὸν τῷ σατύρῳ τῷ Μαρσύᾳ. ὅτι μὲν οὖν τό γε εἶδος ὅμοιος εἶ τούτοις, ὦ Σώκρατες, οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸς ἄν που ἀμφισβητήσαις: ὡς δὲ καὶ τἆλλα ἔοικας, μετὰ τοῦτο ἄκουε. ὑβριστὴς εἶ: ἢ οὔ;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Translation:][5]**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And now, my boys, I shall praise Socrates in a figure which will appear to him to be a caricature, and yet I speak, not to make fun of him, but only for the truth's sake. I say, that he is exactly like the busts of Silenus, which are set up in the statuaries, shops, holding pipes and flutes in their mouths; and they are made to open in the middle, and have images of gods inside them. I say also that hit is like Marsyas the satyr. You yourself will not deny, Socrates, that your face is like that of a satyr. Aye, and there is a resemblance in other points too. For example, you are a bully [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.%20Sym.%20215&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0173&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symposium_(Plato)&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=meta%5C&amp;la=greek&amp;can=meta%5C0&amp;prior=e)/oikas&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0173:text=Sym.:page=215&amp;i=1#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=a%29%2Fkoue&amp;la=greek&amp;can=a%29%2Fkoue0&amp;prior=tou=to&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0173:text=Sym.:page=215&amp;i=1#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/symposium.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30831" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10555" RevisionGUID="bc90749b-d9a4-4d5c-909b-a47c972e250b" CreationDate="2019-04-24T19:01:34.557" UserId="3029" Text="μετὰ τοῦτο ἄκουε (Symposion.215)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30832" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10555" RevisionGUID="bc90749b-d9a4-4d5c-909b-a47c972e250b" CreationDate="2019-04-24T19:01:34.557" UserId="3029" Text="|greek|translation-check|grammar-identification|greek-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10549" RevisionGUID="327c9d13-acfb-4402-b0d1-e60d93d2e0ef" CreationDate="2019-04-24T19:51:00.270" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes (formatting)" Text="If Latin prose had an &quot;extremely loose word order&quot;, which is (generally) not the case, the appropriate linguistic term involved would be &quot;**non-configurationality**&quot;. However, rather than being vaguely classified as a free word order language or as a non-configurational language, Latin has been referred to in the recent literature on Latin syntax as a &quot;discourse configurational language&quot; (cf. the references by Devine &amp; Stephens (2006, 2019) and Danckaert (2017) below). Latin word order has been claimed to be strongly driven by so-called &quot;information structure&quot; (involving notions like &quot;focus&quot;, &quot;topic&quot;, etc: cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_structure ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: a key expression in Mentifex's question is &quot;**seemingly** random&quot;, whereas a key word in Draconis's answer is &quot;**understandable**&quot;. The former expression is to be related to the fact that, **despite appearances**, Latin is **_not_** a free word order language, whereas the latter expression (&quot;understandable&quot;) is to be related to the fact that word order in Latin prose is determined by **pragmatics** (by **information structure**. E.g., see the authoritative works by Devine &amp; Stephens (2006, 2019) and also the impressive work by Danckaert (2017) below). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following a suggestion made by Draconis, I add the following quote by Jules Marouzeau (1949: 191), which nicely summarizes his/her answer: &quot;l’ordre des mots en latin est libre, il n’est pas indifférent&quot; (‘Word order in Latin is free, it is not arbitrary'). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Marouzeau, J. (1949). _L'ordre des mots dans la phrase latine. III. Les articulations de l'énoncé_. Paris: Belles Lettres.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Four more recent references on the topic are the following ones (NB: it is a personal selection, of course. As you can imagine, there are many more works, since word order is a (the?) constant hot topic of Latin syntax). There seems to be a consensus among generative and functional approaches (e.g., cf. Danckaert and Devine-Stephens, on the one hand, and Spevak, on the other) on the relevant role of pragmatics and information structure. Cf. the important role given to stylistics in the excellent traditional work by Marouzeau. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Danckaert, Lieven (2017). _The Development of Latin Clause Structure: A Study of the Extended Verb Phrase_. Oxford: Oxford University Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Devine, Andrew M. &amp; Laurence D. Stephens (2006). _Latin Word Order. Structured Meaning and Information._ New York: Oxford University Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Devine, Andrew M. &amp; Laurence D. Stephens (2019). _Pragmatics for Latin. From Syntax to Information Structure_. New York: Oxford University Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spevak, Olga (2010). _Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose_. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveat: these monographic books are perhaps mainly useful for the latinist and for the linguist interested in Latin. If you are more interested in the topic from a more basic/simpler/**didactic** perspective, I recommend you the reading of chap. 18 &quot;Word Order&quot; from the very useful textbook _Latin Grammar_ by the late Dr. Dirk Panhuis, who, by the way, was an expert on the topic of Latin word order (NB: he wrote a doctoral dissertation on this topic from a functionalist/communicative perspective). Cf. a brief review of his excellent  _Latin Grammar_ (one of my favorite textbooks) in: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2007/2007-08-49.html  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10556" RevisionGUID="b1a698e9-a3a3-4338-87e3-1794447d31b3" CreationDate="2019-04-24T20:59:31.987" UserId="30" Text="As to your first question: I can't find anything in Lewis &amp; Short either. If both the Oxford Latin Dictionary and Lewis &amp; Short have nothing close to that sense for any word related to liquid (*liquo, liqueo, liquor, liquidus, liquido*), then it seems the origin must indeed lie elsewhere. The closest I found was a secondary sense of the verb *liquor*, but it's still not close enough by far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. Trop., *to melt or waste away*: &quot;ilico res foras labitur, liquitur&quot;, Plaut. Trin. 2, 1, 17: &quot;in partem pejorem liquitur aetas&quot;, Lucr. 2, 1132: per poli liquentis axem, Prud. στεφ. 1, 88. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10557" RevisionGUID="4a4387e3-97e0-47be-b118-6d33f3194566" CreationDate="2019-04-24T21:10:52.880" UserId="30" Text="I believe the metaphor is liquid versus solid, rather than limpid versus opaque. When assets are liquid, they can be moved or transferred immediately, in the form of money—just as liquids run easily and quickly. When they are not liquid, they are stuck in some form that is not immediately transferable into money, such as a building, stocks, or long-term credit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of liquidating assets is to turn them into money and use that for something else, not making them easy to analyse/comprehend. Cf. *[liquidity][1]*: if a bank does not have enough liquid assets available (money and similar), it may not be able to pay out money to clients quickly enough (even if it has enough other assets), which can be a huge problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accounting_liquidity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10556" RevisionGUID="39e5dd30-109b-437f-9d90-80216c2aa205" CreationDate="2019-04-24T21:34:29.033" UserId="30" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="As to your first question: I can't find anything in Lewis &amp; Short either. If both the Oxford Latin Dictionary and Lewis &amp; Short have nothing close to that sense for any word related to liquid (*liquo, liqueo, liquor, liquidus, liquido*), then it seems the origin must indeed lie elsewhere. The closest I found was a secondary sense of the verb *[liquor][1]*, but it's still not close enough by far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. Trop., *to melt or waste away*: &quot;ilico res foras labitur, liquitur&quot;, Plaut. Trin. 2, 1, 17: &quot;in partem pejorem liquitur aetas&quot;, Lucr. 2, 1132: per poli liquentis axem, Prud. στεφ. 1, 88. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=liquor%232&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10557" RevisionGUID="42d0b5a3-099d-41dc-972f-13da795cd3f7" CreationDate="2019-04-24T21:36:56.330" UserId="30" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="I believe the metaphor is liquid versus solid, rather than limpid versus opaque. When assets are liquid, they can be moved or transferred immediately, in the form of money—just as liquids run easily and quickly. When they are not liquid, they are stuck in some form that is not immediately transferable into money, such as a building, stocks, or long-term credit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of liquidating assets is turning them into money and using that for something else, not (primarily) making them easy to analyse/comprehend. Cf. *[liquidity][1]*: if a bank does not have enough liquid assets available (money and similar), it may not be able to pay out money to clients quickly enough (even if it has enough other assets), which can be a huge problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accounting_liquidity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10558" RevisionGUID="1b388a19-243f-42f0-9bb6-ec24a23e2786" CreationDate="2019-04-25T00:16:32.960" UserId="45" Text="This sounds very similar to *Crito* 49e2-3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εἰ δ’ ἐμμένεις τοῖς πρόσθε, τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο ἄκουε.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which translates to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you abide by [what we agreed] beforehand, listen to what follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, &quot;τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο&quot; means &quot;the after that.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the article τό makes the *Crito* passage more obvious, it seems pretty clear that this is what is going on in the *Symposium* as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;μετὰ τοῦτο&quot; clearly should be construed together as preposition + object, meaning &quot;after that.&quot; &quot;That,&quot; in this case, refers to the similarity with respect to appearance (&quot;τό . . . εἶδος&quot;) that he just made. In order to hear the other similarities--Alcibiades chides Socrates--&quot;listen to what follows.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="2e1821a1-7776-4909-b494-c8f82eaa0620" CreationDate="2019-04-25T03:45:04.490" UserId="4693" Text="nō&#xD;&#xA;nato&#xD;&#xA;adno&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are all verb which means to swim. They have their own conjugation respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe there are not only three, but I'm not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why there are serval words in the same meaning and are formed from the same root word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30840" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="2e1821a1-7776-4909-b494-c8f82eaa0620" CreationDate="2019-04-25T03:45:04.490" UserId="4693" Text="why there are several words for swim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30841" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="2e1821a1-7776-4909-b494-c8f82eaa0620" CreationDate="2019-04-25T03:45:04.490" UserId="4693" Text="|vocabulary|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10560" RevisionGUID="6bcb09ea-56f2-4b0f-96e8-20f550c551dd" CreationDate="2019-04-25T05:21:51.560" UserId="79" Text="There are two basic forms of the verb: *natare* and *nare* (or *nato* and *no* if you prefer first person singular to the infinitive).&#xD;&#xA;This amount of variation is not unusual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of other swimming verbs are obtained with prefixes you can add to either one:&#xD;&#xA;*ad-*, *e-*, *de-*, *in-*, *prae-*, *re-*, *tra-*, *ab-*.&#xD;&#xA;As with many verbs of motion, you can give details of the motion with a prefix.&#xD;&#xA;Are you swimming back, in front of someone, across something, away from something, to something, in a groups, down the stream, or something else?&#xD;&#xA;Just add a prefix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meanings are not exactly the same, although all of them can be translated in many contexts as a mere &quot;swim&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="4e3191ad-0b8b-4eb0-8e3c-d91f5be6e321" CreationDate="2019-04-25T05:23:02.163" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="The words *nō, natō, adnō* are all verbs which means to swim. They have their own conjugation respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe there are not only three, but I'm not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why there are several words in the same meaning and are formed from the same root word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30844" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="4e3191ad-0b8b-4eb0-8e3c-d91f5be6e321" CreationDate="2019-04-25T05:23:02.163" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Why there are several words for swimming?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30845" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="4e3191ad-0b8b-4eb0-8e3c-d91f5be6e321" CreationDate="2019-04-25T05:23:02.163" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|vocabulary|verbs|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10561" RevisionGUID="19841b10-ecd9-409f-bf9a-4d14000e7123" CreationDate="2019-04-25T06:24:58.127" UserId="4693" Text="I am wondering if the stem of every word has an exact form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for the word `genus`, how could you determine is it `gen` or `gener`?&#xD;&#xA;for the word `līber`, how could you determine is it `līber` or `lībe`?&#xD;&#xA;for the word `videō`, how could you determine is it `vide` or `vidē`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30847" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10561" RevisionGUID="19841b10-ecd9-409f-bf9a-4d14000e7123" CreationDate="2019-04-25T06:24:58.127" UserId="4693" Text="Is that every word has a stem definitely?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30848" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10561" RevisionGUID="19841b10-ecd9-409f-bf9a-4d14000e7123" CreationDate="2019-04-25T06:24:58.127" UserId="4693" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="98b9bbfc-eb5e-4dc3-916f-c046a8294956" CreationDate="2019-04-25T06:32:03.853" UserId="406" Text="Unfortunately, there's no foolproof way to predict a noun stem from the nominative form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, you *can* predict the stem from the *genitive* form. So good Latin dictionaries will list both: your examples would be listed as *genus, generis* and *līber, līberī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The genitive endings are predictable, and also tell you which declension the noun belongs to: first will be *-ae*, second will be *-ī*, third will be *-is*, fourth will be *-ūs*, and fifth will be *-eī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Since you've added verbs, there's a trick to that too. Dictionaries will list both the citation form, *videō*, and the present active infinitive, *vidēre*. The latter is more informative on where the stem ends and the ending begins." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="7d4fb9dd-f4a9-458e-88c2-8f7cd7c95fbc" CreationDate="2019-04-25T07:43:25.813" UserId="9" Text="The concept of a &quot;stem&quot; is not completely clear/unambiguous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin words have to be analyzed as being built on at least two stems: this is called &quot;heteroclisy&quot;. One clear example of a heteroclite Latin noun is *vās*: the ablative singular *vāse* is built on the stem *vās-,* while the genitive plural *vāsōrum* is built on the stem *vāsō-.* (Historically, the explanation in this case is that the different stem is derived from a &quot;collateral&quot; form of the noun; [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvas2) says that in anteclassical Latin, *vāsum* existed as a separate nominative singular form. But in Classical Latin, the stems came to be used in complementary contexts, which allows *vāse* and *vāsōrum* to be analyzed as forms of a single noun.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of other Latin nouns may or may not be analyzed as &quot;heteroclite&quot; depending on how you think of the idea of a &quot;stem&quot;. This issue came up in a discussion I had with Joonas Ilmavirta beneath the answer that he posted to the question *[What consonants can a noun stem end in?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9212/9)* Many third-declension nouns show an *i* in the genitive plural (before the ending *-um*) but not in most of the other forms (e.g. *vermis* has the genitive plural *vermium,* which seems to be built on the stem *vermi-,* but the accusative *vermem* and the ablative *verme,* which seem to be built on the stem *verm-*). The situation gets even more complicated if you try to include nominative singular forms in your analysis; for this reason, I've seen a number of pedagogical texts that don't attempt to relate the nominative singular form to a stem, but that just present the nominative singular as a form that must be memorized as a whole. Nonetheless, from an etymological perspective, almost all Latin nominative singular forms can in fact be analyzed as being composed of a stem and a suffix. I've also seen attempts to analyze Latin nominative singular forms as being synchronically composed of a stem + suffix (usually *-s*): for example, the nominative singular form *rēx* be seen as being built on the same stem *rēg-* as the other forms of this noun (*rēg-* + *-s* becomes *rēx* according to known rules for combining Latin sounds). However, I haven't yet seen an approach that tries to explain away the vowel alternations found in words like *genus* vs. *generis* in a similar fashion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="aa43d749-bff8-4791-882a-6fba1cb82276" CreationDate="2019-04-25T07:58:48.517" UserId="9" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="The concept of a &quot;stem&quot; is not completely clear/unambiguous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin words have to be analyzed as being built on at least two stems: this is called &quot;heteroclisy&quot;. One clear example of a heteroclite Latin noun is *vās*: the ablative singular *vāse* is built on the stem *vās-,* while the genitive plural *vāsōrum* is built on the stem *vāsō-.* (Historically, the explanation in this case is that the different stem is derived from a &quot;collateral&quot; form of the noun; [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvas2) says that in anteclassical Latin, *vāsum* existed as a separate nominative singular form. But in Classical Latin, the stems *vās-* and *vāsō-* came to be used in complementary contexts, which allows *vāse* and *vāsōrum* to be analyzed as forms of a single noun. I've generally seen this noun described as having the stem *vās-* in the singular and *vāsō-* in the plural, although the nominative/accusative plural *vāsa* is formally ambiguous: it would look the same regardless of whether it represented *vās-* + *-a* or *vāsō-* + *-a*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of other Latin nouns may or may not be analyzed as &quot;heteroclite&quot; depending on how you think of the idea of a &quot;stem&quot;. This issue came up in a discussion I had with Joonas Ilmavirta beneath the answer that he posted to the question *[What consonants can a noun stem end in?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9212/9)* Many third-declension nouns show an *i* in the genitive plural (before the ending *-um*) but not in most of the other forms (e.g. *vermis* has the genitive plural *vermium,* which seems to be built on the stem *vermi-,* but the accusative *vermem* and the ablative *verme,* which seem to be built on the stem *verm-*). The situation gets even more complicated if you try to include nominative singular forms in your analysis; for this reason, I've seen a number of pedagogical texts that don't attempt to relate the nominative singular form to a stem, but that just present the nominative singular as a form that must be memorized as a whole. Nonetheless, from an etymological perspective, almost all Latin nominative singular forms can in fact be analyzed as being composed of a stem and a suffix. I've also seen attempts to analyze Latin nominative singular forms as being synchronically composed of a stem + suffix (usually *-s*): for example, the nominative singular form *rēx* be seen as being built on the same stem *rēg-* as the other forms of this noun (*rēg-* + *-s* becomes *rēx* according to known rules for combining Latin sounds). However, I don't remember seeing an approach that tries to explain away the vowel alternations found in words like *genus* vs. *generis* in a similar fashion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="1eacce7f-fb53-442c-a8dc-aee10273b8d7" CreationDate="2019-04-25T08:12:38.153" UserId="9" Comment="Fixed link that seemed to be broken; added small clarification" Text="I think *abdomunculum* would be the most regular diminutive of *abdomen.* But it seems a bit difficult to me to give a clear answer because the rules about &quot;proper&quot; diminutive suffixes are often based on the form and gender of the original noun, and I know of no existing diminutives formed on nouns with precisely the same morphological form and gender as *abdomen, abdominis*. If you get it &quot;wrong,&quot; you may at least be able to take some comfort from the knowledge that Romans even criticized one another sometimes for using supposedly malformed diminutives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Abdomen, abdominis* is a neuter noun of the third declension, of the &quot;consonant stem&quot; sub-declension class, with a stem ending in the consonant &quot;n&quot; specifically. My impression is that any of these features might be relevant to the formation of the diminutive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Words with stems ending in *n* often take diminutives in *-cul-*&#xD;&#xA;[brianpck's answer][1] to *[Variations on the diminutive: -olus and -ulus][2]* contained a link to a page from [Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar][3] that I consulted to try to answer this question. It says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These diminutive endings are all formed by adding *-lus* to various stems. [...] *-culus* comes from -lus added to adjectives in *-cus* formed from stems in *n-* and *s-*: as, *iuven-cus, Aurun-cus* (cf. *Aurunculeius*), *prís-cus,* whence the *cu* becomes a part of the termination, and the whole ending (*-culus*) is used elsewhere, but mostly with *n-* and *s-* stems, in accordance with its origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Usually, *...in-* + *-cul-* = *...uncul-,* apparently&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[The Formation of Latin&#xD;&#xA;Diminutives of Nouns and Adjectives][4],* compiled by Ian Andreas Miller,  indicates that stems ending *-in-* regularly change the vowel and have *-un-* before *-culus/-culum/-cula.* cnread's answer mentions *homunculus,* from *homo, hominis,* which shows this pattern. There is an interesting note in Miller about the history of this formation saying that the *u* is analogical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The *-uncul-* formation in these diminutives was originally created by adding *-culā-, -culo-* to stems in *-on-,* where the *-o-* became *-u-* by phonetic change (cf. *hunc,* earlier *honc*). Some original stems in *-nō-* (*-on-*) later became stems in *-in-* (e.g. *homin-,* earlier *homon-* or *homōn-*) with nominative singular endings in *-ō,* and through the power of analogy the *-uncul-* formation was used with other stems in *-in-* (e.g. *pecten,* stem *pectin-*) and stems in *-n-* with nominative singular forms in *-o* (e.g. *caro,* stem *carn-*) even if they do not actually have stems in *-in-* or *-on-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any Latin diminutives ending in &quot;...in-cul-&quot; (*vinculum* is derived from the base *vinc-*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Gender of diminutives, and the rarity of *-unculum*/*-munculum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller says it is a rule that diminutive nouns derived from third-declension nouns retain the gender of the original noun—which for *abdomen* is neuter—and take the endings *-us, -a* or *-um* according to the usual correspondences between form and gender. So it seems to me that *abdomunculum* would be most regular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm not entirely certain about recommending *-unculum* rather than *-unculus* as in cnread's answer. There are exceptions to the gender-matching rule; Miller mentions *rana* &gt; *ranunculus.* And since most nouns ending in *-ō* in the nominative are masculine or feminine,  *-unculus* and  *uncula* seem to be much more established in Latin than *-unculum* as suffixes for deriving diminutive nouns from third-declension n-stems. A Perseus search does turn up some existing [nouns ending in *-unculum][5],* but none of those results seems to be derived from a third-declension noun with a stem ending in *-in-.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there are certainly diminutives ending in *-culum* with something else before it; for example, *[corpusculum][6],* from the third-declension neuter noun *corpus.* So perhaps the scarcity of words ending in *-un-culum* specifically is just coincidental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, *[pectunculus][7]* from *pecten* is actually the only example I have seen of a diminutive from a noun ending in *-en, -inis.* It is masculine, but so is the original noun *pecten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most Latin nouns that end in *-en* in the nominative and *-inis* in the genitive seem to have an &quot;m&quot; before this and are neuter. Wiktionary indicates that many of them have a &quot;noun-forming suffix [*-men*][8]&quot; and lists a number of them; I searched on Perseus for words starting with the stems up to the &quot;m&quot; of around 10 of them (like &quot;agm,&quot; &quot;germ,&quot; &quot;carm&quot;) but I wasn't able to find any diminutive forms with their own entries. Another neuter third-declension with a consonant other than *m* before *-en,* *-inis* is *gluten.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found a passage in Italian that seems to say that &quot;vimunculum&quot; (which is apparently not attested) would be the expected diminutive form of *vimen*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Dal positivo *vimen* uscirono *viminculus, vinculus, vinclus* (sic). Da quest'ultimo poi abbiamo fatto *vinco* a significare quel frutice lento e pieghevole donde usci il verbo *vincio,* se non anche l'altro *vinco.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quasi superfluo il notare che da *vimen* neutro sarebbesi più verisimilmente derivato un neutro, qui poi tanto più certo, in quanto il supposto derivato è realmente *vinculum,* non *vinculus.* Non sarebbe poi gran fatto probabile una tale derivazione da neutri in *-men,* non avendosene alcun esempio; e quando poi si dovesse ammettere, sarebbe stato piuttosto *vimunculum* che *viminculus* (cfr. *pectunculus,* dal masch. *pecten*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([Archivio Glottologico italiano, Volume 2][11])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't speak Italian, but judging from Google translate and cognates, this seems to say that there are no examples of diminutives of neuter nouns in *-men.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Post-classical examples of *-munculum* from *-men* neuters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, I was able to find one example of &quot;germunculum&quot; via Google, in *[Dissertatio inauguralis medica de hominis aetatibus][9],* 1824:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; En, amicitiae vagabundae in juventute ortum! en, primum pro firmioribus radicibus amoris in alterum sexum figendis **germunculum** primum! (§27, p. 41)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Stamunculum&quot;, from *stamen, staminis,* also seems to have been used, in *[Hortus Malabaricus][10].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So at least some other people also seem to have had the same idea as me about how to form the diminutives of words like this, if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other sources on diminutive formation in Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other possibly relevant sources I found that I have not yet got a chance to look through:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Word Formation in the Roman Sermo Plebeius,* by Frederic Taber Cooper (1895) -- has a section on &quot;Diminutives&quot; starting on [page 164][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cooper cites some articles by &quot;Paucker,&quot; one of which had a title that sounded like it might be helpful: &quot;Deminutive mit d. Suffix -c-ulus, a, um&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Zeitschr. f. d. oesterr. Gymn. XXVII, p. 273-284. (=&quot;Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien&quot;) I looked though a [Google Books result][13] related to this, and found a long list of words with the suffix &quot;-uncul-&quot; that contained many ending in &quot;-uncula&quot; and &quot;-unculus&quot; but none that I could see ending in &quot;-unculum&quot; aside from those already mentioned that are indexed by Perseus and have entries in Lewis &amp; Short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2903/9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2900/variations-on-the-diminutive-olus-and-ulus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.243.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323534846_The_Formation_of_Latin_Diminutives_of_Nouns_and_Adjectives&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=unculum&amp;lang=la&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=corpusculum&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=pectunculus&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-men#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://books.google.com/books?id=YrJUAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA41&amp;lpg=PA41&amp;dq=%22germunculum%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=wHkWxqdxy7&amp;sig=HzvbYWmIEdfz-UI-gwNf_-TVA9c&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiglo2PvqfWAhVH6IMKHVgTDWIQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22germunculum%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://books.google.com/books?id=xYLOojXB8hgC&amp;pg=PT319&amp;lpg=PT319&amp;dq=%22stamunculum%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=M4YnbfIvch&amp;sig=LiCOu8ZEh3XvebJ5R63kW37s7Jk&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjM3s_ggajWAhUM54MKHaXBC8MQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22stamunculum%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://books.google.com/books?id=VnVIAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA34&amp;lpg=PA34&amp;dq=%22vimunculum%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=CwQaDElPDJ&amp;sig=eIgOIFjHpFDCkKJEViBYjX2HDsE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiHlpzYgqjWAhUD7YMKHTJ4CKkQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22vimunculum%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=724PAAAAYAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;output=reader&amp;hl=en&amp;pg=GBS.PA164&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cY0NAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA597&amp;lpg=PA597&amp;dq=Paucker%20%22Deminutive%22%20mit%20Suffix%20-c-ulus,%20a,%20um%20%22ZEITSCHRIFT%20f%C3%BCr%20die%20%C3%B6sterreichischen%20GYMNASIEN%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QNovpHHp0X&amp;sig=bxKBq0FqnimxK1ZSAc1QuVpX270&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj5i-7rhPXSAhUI1GMKHTH9AIcQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Paucker%20%22Deminutive%22%20mit%20Suffix%20-c-ulus%2C%20a%2C%20um%20%22ZEITSCHRIFT%20f%C3%BCr%20die%20%C3%B6sterreichischen%20GYMNASIEN%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10564" RevisionGUID="fe24bf39-d91b-4a86-abcb-cae128fb6462" CreationDate="2019-04-25T08:58:47.590" UserId="1982" Text="How about &quot;non loquendum est&quot; = literally: &quot;it ought not to be spoken&quot;; equivalent to &quot;it must not be spoken&quot;; therefore your second choice: &quot;it is necessary not to speak&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suspect that if you want to introduce &quot;necessary&quot; you may have to deploy &quot;necessitas&quot;; not the gerundive-of-obligation impersonal-construction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="a3a5049d-9f17-41e3-b070-e031a2e36e7e" CreationDate="2019-04-25T09:22:40.857" UserId="1982" Text="omnes (or omnibus), qui vires gerunt, audite;&#xD;&#xA;date mihi (meam) virtutem&#xD;&#xA;vivam de voluntate (or ambitione; or proposito; or auctoritate. In a recent Q on Will/ Willpower, &quot;voluntas&quot; won the prize.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;me (ipsum) do or dem (if it's still following &quot;let me&quot;, from previous line, requiring pres. subj.) hos, qui moderati sunt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;doceam alios perinde doctus sum;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(you've-nailed-this-line);&#xD;&#xA;relinquant mihi vires eodem modo;&#xD;&#xA;in aeternum (or in perpetuo [tempore])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will not be the best version, by any means; nor, is it written in the format of Latin verse. You will need contributions, from other colleagues, in order to achieve something worthy of publication.&#xD;&#xA;Good luck with the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="b6a75c6f-d7a0-4418-8ef4-8cae0f20bc25" CreationDate="2019-04-25T10:39:27.237" UserId="1982" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="omnes (or omnibus), qui vires gerunt, audite;&#xD;&#xA;date mihi (meam) virtutem;&#xD;&#xA;vivam de voluntate (or ambitione; or proposito; or auctoritate. In a recent Q on Will/ Willpower, &quot;voluntas&quot; won the prize.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;me (ipsum) do or dem (if it's still following &quot;let me&quot;, from previous line, requiring pres. subj.) hos, qui moderati sunt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;doceam alios perinde doctus sum;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(you've-nailed-this-line);&#xD;&#xA;relinquant mihi vires eodem modo;&#xD;&#xA;in aeternum (or in perpetuo [tempore])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will not be the best version, by any means; nor, is it written in the format of Latin verse. You will need contributions, from other colleagues, in order to achieve something worthy of publication.&#xD;&#xA;Good luck with the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1848" RevisionGUID="51c78cfe-8385-4af3-a08a-854d986389c5" CreationDate="2019-04-25T12:39:28.620" UserId="648" Comment="broken link fixed" Text="In Classical Latin the Genitive and Dative, first declension are **-ae** but in Medieval Latin, **-e.**  So this is the abbreviated form of **ecclesie.** ***&quot;of the church.&quot;***  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not all through-strikes have the same significance: though *per* and *pro* in this passage might originally have had  / and - strikes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Johannes persona ecclesie de EVERESHOLT dat domino Regi dimidiam&#xD;&#xA;&gt; marcam pro licencia habenda **...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The National Archive has posted  [beginners][1] and [advanced][2] Latin course on its website.  &#xD;&#xA;The abbreviations can be found on pages posted by Wikipedia under 'Scribal [Abbreviations][3]' and Archive under ***&quot;Sigla&quot;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/latin/beginners/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/latin/advanced/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribal_abbreviation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30857" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1848" RevisionGUID="51c78cfe-8385-4af3-a08a-854d986389c5" CreationDate="2019-04-25T12:39:28.620" Comment="Proposed by 648 approved by 522 edit id of 309" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10560" RevisionGUID="3ebe566f-1ac0-4abd-a3f7-c626e956d793" CreationDate="2019-04-25T13:35:26.437" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="There are two basic forms of the verb: *natare* and *nare* (or *nato* and *no* if you prefer first person singular to the infinitive).&#xD;&#xA;This amount of variation is not unusual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of other swimming verbs are obtained with prefixes you can add to either one:&#xD;&#xA;*ad-*, *e-*, *de-*, *in-*, *prae-*, *re-*, *tra-*, *ab-*.&#xD;&#xA;As with many verbs of motion, you can give details of the motion with a prefix.&#xD;&#xA;Are you swimming back, in front of someone, across something, away from something, to something, in a group, down the stream, or something else?&#xD;&#xA;Just add a prefix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meanings are not exactly the same, although all of them can be translated in many contexts as a mere &quot;swim&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10566" RevisionGUID="554e69fb-2695-4b52-b678-301d3632968c" CreationDate="2019-04-25T13:53:13.633" UserId="30" Text="The word *nato* is derived from *no*, so they ultimately have the same root. The verbal suffix *-t(a)-o* was attached to the stem *na-* to form *na-ta-o* (contracted to *nato*). This suffix usually has an intensifying or repetitive function, so the the original meaning of *nato* might have been &quot;[to float about, be tossed about][1]&quot; or similar; but often the suffix has lost most of its meaning, so it may be used to mean just &quot;swim&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://to%20float%20about,%20be%20tossed%20about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10561" RevisionGUID="4462e515-6ca9-4822-9864-f4c3f1b6ee93" CreationDate="2019-04-25T14:07:25.363" UserId="79" Comment="Feel free to undo my edits or edit further." Text="I am wondering if the stem of every word has an exact form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For the word `genus`, how could you determine is it `gen` or `gener`?&#xD;&#xA;- For the word `līber`, how could you determine is it `līber` or `lībe`?&#xD;&#xA;- For the word `videō`, how could you determine is it `vide` or `vidē`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30861" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10561" RevisionGUID="4462e515-6ca9-4822-9864-f4c3f1b6ee93" CreationDate="2019-04-25T14:07:25.363" UserId="79" Comment="Feel free to undo my edits or edit further." Text="How to find the stem of any word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30862" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10561" RevisionGUID="4462e515-6ca9-4822-9864-f4c3f1b6ee93" CreationDate="2019-04-25T14:07:25.363" UserId="79" Comment="Feel free to undo my edits or edit further." Text="|vocabulary|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="5a7b7f77-cf52-4cdb-8ec2-4c6a6459a14c" CreationDate="2019-04-25T14:08:01.553" UserId="79" Comment="Removed &quot;edit&quot;; no need for that, usually." Text="Unfortunately, there's no foolproof way to predict a noun stem from the nominative form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, you *can* predict the stem from the *genitive* form. So good Latin dictionaries will list both: your examples would be listed as *genus, generis* and *līber, līberī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The genitive endings are predictable, and also tell you which declension the noun belongs to: first will be *-ae*, second will be *-ī*, third will be *-is*, fourth will be *-ūs*, and fifth will be *-eī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you've added verbs, there's a trick to that too. Dictionaries will list both the citation form, *videō*, and the present active infinitive, *vidēre*. The latter is more informative on where the stem ends and the ending begins." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30864" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10561" RevisionGUID="77f548d2-21a8-47b5-8f0e-00dd468ce9c9" CreationDate="2019-04-25T14:12:38.393" />
  <row Id="30865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10566" RevisionGUID="09ab49d6-4f20-4f21-88d0-9582841deaf9" CreationDate="2019-04-25T14:31:40.803" UserId="30" Comment="added 582 characters in body" Text="The word *nato* is derived from *no*, so they ultimately have the same root. The verbal suffix *-t(a)-o* was attached to the stem *na-* to form *na-ta-o* (contracted to *nato*). This suffix usually has an intensifying or repetitive function, so the the original meaning of *nato* might have been &quot;[to float about, be tossed about][1]&quot; or similar; but often the suffix has lost most of its meaning, so it may be used to mean just &quot;swim&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very common to use this suffix to create new verbs. The *-t-* is basically the same suffix that forms supine stems and hence past participles (so it can also be something other than *-t-*, such as *-s-*). And the same suffix can even be stacked:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- iacio &quot;throw&quot; → iacto &quot;toss about&quot;, but also plain &quot;throw&quot; → iactito (probably originally &quot;throw or toss about&quot;) &quot;utter&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- cogo (from co-ago) &quot;drive together, collect&quot; → cogito (from co-ag-it-o) (probably originally &quot;collect repeatedly&quot;) &quot;pursue in the mind, ponder&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- clamo &quot;call out, exclaim&quot; → clamito &quot;exclaim loudly&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://to%20float%20about,%20be%20tossed%20about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10567" RevisionGUID="300f8d27-86e4-4360-a289-5d2fd25eeae9" CreationDate="2019-04-25T16:06:11.240" UserId="3248" Text="As pointed out by Joonas, in Latin &quot;a number of other swimming verbs are obtained with prefixes you can add to either one: _ad-, e-, de-, in-, prae-, re-, tra-, ab-_&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that the present question becomes even more interesting if (re)formulated in the following terms: **why** is it the case that Latin, compared to Romance languages, has so many complex/prefixed verbs for swimming (e.g., _abnato_ 'to swim away',  _eno/enato_ 'to swim out',  _praenato_ 'to swim by', _reno_ 'to swim back', _subnato_ 'to swim under', _trano_ 'to swim over', etc.)? To put it the following typological (not genetic!) terms, why is it the case that, concerning this aspect of word formation, Latin is quite different from Romance languages but is very similar to Slavic languages (where the path/directionality is also typically expressed by a prefix)?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, notice that, unlike Germanic languages, it is the case that Latin and Slavic (Russian, Polish, etc.), where path/directionality is typically expressed via a prefix), lack adjectival resultative constructions like _John swam himself tired_. A possible explanation has to do with the fact that adjectival resultatives involve a change of state where the resultative adjective encodes a sort of abstract path (i.e., 'John be-**_came**_ tired as a result of swimming'). Accordingly, Latin and Slavic languages lack these resultative constructions because result (i.e., abstract path) is prefixed onto the verb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those readers interested in the important typological change from Latin to Romance languages (for example, if you want to know _why_ Jonas's list of Latin verbs disappeared or is not productive in Romance), I recommend you the reading of the following reference:&#xD;&#xA;https://benjamins.com/catalog/cilt.331 . As for the typologic (not genetic!) parallelism between Latin and Slavic languages, you can take a look at http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733287.001.0001/acprof-9780198733287 (note the following text in the description of this book: &quot;Latin is compared with Slavic and the generalization is explored that neither language allows the expression of complex adjectival resultative constructions. This generalization is shown to relate to a further one, namely, that both languages express the result state/location of a complex transition through prefixes&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, for some related discussion (see the comments in the following post), cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8809/why-can-t-we-wipe-the-slate-clean-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10567" RevisionGUID="01c0cf5c-61ea-47b4-9840-2141e06e7168" CreationDate="2019-04-25T16:15:50.353" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes " Text="As pointed out by Joonas, in Latin &quot;a number of other swimming verbs are obtained with prefixes you can add to either one: _ad-, e-, de-, in-, prae-, re-, tra-, ab-_&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that the present question becomes even more interesting if (re)formulated in the following terms: **why** is it the case that Latin, compared to Romance languages, has so many complex/prefixed verbs for swimming (e.g., _abnato_ 'to swim away',  _eno/enato_ 'to swim out',  _praenato_ 'to swim by', _reno_ 'to swim back', _subnato_ 'to swim under', _trano_ 'to swim over', etc.)? To put it the following typological (not genetic!) terms, why is it the case that, concerning this aspect of word formation, Latin is quite **different** from Romance languages but is very **similar** to Slavic languages (where the path/directionality is also typically expressed by a prefix)? So the answer to the interesting question _Why there are several words for swimming (in Latin)?_ is essentially the same to the question _Why there are several words for swimming (in Slavic)_? Is there any speaker of a Slavic language to confirm this typological point?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, notice that, unlike Germanic languages, it is the case that Latin and Slavic (Russian, Polish, etc.), where path/directionality is typically expressed via a prefix, lack adjectival resultative constructions like _John swam himself tired_. A possible explanation has to do with the fact that adjectival resultatives involve a change of state where the resultative adjective encodes a sort of abstract path (i.e., 'John be-**_came**_ tired as a result of swimming'). Accordingly, Latin and Slavic languages lack these resultative constructions because result (i.e., abstract path) is prefixed onto the verb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those readers interested in the important typological change from Latin to Romance languages (for example, if you want to know _why_ Jonas's list of Latin verbs disappeared or is not productive in Romance), I recommend you the reading of the following reference:&#xD;&#xA;https://benjamins.com/catalog/cilt.331 . As for the typologic (not genetic!) parallelism between Latin and Slavic languages, you can take a look at http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733287.001.0001/acprof-9780198733287 (note the following text in the description of this book: &quot;Latin is compared with Slavic and the generalization is explored that neither language allows the expression of complex adjectival resultative constructions. This generalization is shown to relate to a further one, namely, that both languages express the result state/location of a complex transition through prefixes&quot;). For some related discussion on this point (see the comments in the following post), cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8809/why-can-t-we-wipe-the-slate-clean-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10567" RevisionGUID="6808db1e-ae90-485f-b606-d0eac69cc65b" CreationDate="2019-04-25T16:21:41.793" UserId="3248" Comment="Discussion simplified" Text="As pointed out by Joonas, in Latin &quot;a number of other swimming verbs are obtained with prefixes you can add to either one: _ad-, e-, de-, in-, prae-, re-, tra-, ab-_&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that the present question becomes even more interesting if (re)formulated in the following terms: **why** is it the case that Latin, compared to Romance languages, has so many complex/prefixed verbs for swimming (e.g., _abnato_ 'to swim away',  _eno/enato_ 'to swim out',  _praenato_ 'to swim by', _reno_ 'to swim back', _subnato_ 'to swim under', _trano_ 'to swim over', etc.)? To put it the following typological (not genetic!) terms, why is it the case that, concerning this aspect of word formation, Latin is quite **different** from Romance languages but is very **similar** to Slavic languages (where the path/directionality is also typically expressed by a prefix)? So the answer to the interesting question _Why there are several words for swimming in Latin?_ is essentially the same to the question _Why there are several words for swimming in Slavic_? Is there any native speaker of a Slavic language to confirm this typological point?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those readers interested in the important typological change from Latin to Romance languages (for example, if you want to know _why_ Jonas's list of Latin verbs disappeared or is not productive in Romance), I recommend you the reading of the following reference:&#xD;&#xA;https://benjamins.com/catalog/cilt.331 . " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10567" RevisionGUID="af0b778e-738c-40a1-8178-786c996bc3a8" CreationDate="2019-04-25T16:30:01.557" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes + more references " Text="As pointed out by Joonas, in Latin &quot;a number of other swimming verbs are obtained with prefixes you can add to either one: _ad-, e-, de-, in-, prae-, re-, tra-, ab-_&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a case study to show the importance of separating genetic from typological classification of languages, I think that the present question becomes even more interesting if (re)formulated in the following terms: **why** is it the case that Latin, **compared to** Romance languages, has so many complex/prefixed verbs for swimming (e.g., _abnato_ 'to swim away',  _eno/enato_ 'to swim out',  _praenato_ 'to swim by', _reno_ 'to swim back', _subnato_ 'to swim under', _trano_ 'to swim over', etc.)? To put it in the following typological (not genetic!) terms, why is it the case that, concerning this aspect of word formation, Latin is quite **different** from Romance languages but is very **similar** to Slavic languages (where the path/directionality is also typically expressed by a prefix)? So the answer to the interesting question _Why there are several words for swimming in Latin?_ is essentially the same to the question _Why there are several words for swimming in Slavic_? Is there any native speaker of a Slavic language to confirm this typological point?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those readers interested in the important typological change from Latin to Romance languages (for example, if you want to know _why_ Joonas's list of Latin verbs disappeared or is not productive in Romance), I recommend you the reading of the following book:&#xD;&#xA;https://benjamins.com/catalog/cilt.331 .&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Finally, as for the typological parallelism between Latin and Slavic, take a look at https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-morphosyntax-of-transitions-9780198733287?cc=es&amp;lang=en&amp;# (you'll see that both Latin and Slavic belong to the SAME typological class: so-called &quot;weak satellite-framed languages&quot;). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10567" RevisionGUID="3f632964-d79d-4774-8706-009245696a39" CreationDate="2019-04-25T16:43:44.063" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes " Text="As pointed out by Joonas, in Latin &quot;a number of other swimming verbs are obtained with prefixes you can add to either one: _ad-, e-, de-, in-, prae-, re-, tra-, ab-_&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a case study to show the importance of separating genetic from typological classification of languages, I think that the present question becomes even more interesting if (re)formulated in the following terms: **why** is it the case that Latin, **compared to** Romance languages, has many complex/prefixed verbs for swimming (e.g., _abnato_ 'to swim away',  _eno/enato_ 'to swim out',  _praenato_ 'to swim by', _reno_ 'to swim back', _subnato_ 'to swim under', _trano_ 'to swim over', etc.)? To put it in the following typological (not genetic!) terms, why is it the case that, concerning this aspect of word formation, Latin is quite **different** from Romance languages and, in contrast, is very **similar** to Slavic languages (where the path/directionality is also typically expressed by a prefix)? So the answer to the interesting question _Why there are several words for swimming in Latin_ is essentially the same to the question _Why there are several words for swimming in Slavic_. Is there any native speaker of a Slavic language to confirm this typological point?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those readers interested in knowing more about the previous important typological change from Latin to Romance languages (for example, if you want to know _why_ Joonas's list of Latin verbs above disappeared or is not productive in Romance), I recommend you the reading of the following book:&#xD;&#xA;https://benjamins.com/catalog/cilt.331 .&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Finally, as for the interesting typological parallelism between Latin and Slavic, take a look at https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-morphosyntax-of-transitions-9780198733287?cc=es&amp;lang=en&amp;# (You'll see that both Latin and Slavic belong to the SAME typological class: so-called &quot;weak satellite-framed languages&quot;). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="70fccc70-d5c6-44e2-a9ee-223ecc06ecb3" CreationDate="2019-04-25T20:40:06.510" UserId="406" Comment="added 864 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately, there's no foolproof way to predict a noun stem from the nominative form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, you *can* predict the stem from the *genitive* form. So good Latin dictionaries will list both: your examples would be listed as *genus, generis* and *līber, līberī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The genitive endings are predictable, and also tell you which declension the noun belongs to: first will be *-ae*, second will be *-ī*, third will be *-is*, fourth will be *-ūs*, and fifth will be *-eī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for a few examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *servus, servī* (or *servus, -ī*) → _serv-_, second&#xD;&#xA; - *corpus, corporis* (or *corpus, -oris*) → _corpor-_, third&#xD;&#xA; - *tellūs, tellūris* → _tellūr-_, third&#xD;&#xA; - *genus, generis* (or *genus, -eris*) → _gener-_, third&#xD;&#xA; - *manus, manūs* (or *manus, -ūs*) → _man-_, fourth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number of the declension is important to know, since it determines the endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you've added verbs, there's a trick to that too. Dictionaries will list both the citation form, *videō*, and the present active infinitive, *vidēre*. The latter is more informative on where the stem ends and the ending begins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *amō, amāre* (or *amō, -1*) → stem _amā-_&#xD;&#xA; - *habeō, habēre* (or *habeō,-2*) → stem _habē-_&#xD;&#xA; - *currō, currere* (or *currō, -3*) → stem _curr-_&#xD;&#xA; - *faciō, facere* (or *faciō, -3*) → stem _fac-_ with a couple special forms having an extra *-i-*&#xD;&#xA; - *audiō, audīre* (or *audiō, -4*) → stem _audī-_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, knowing the specific conjugation number is less important for the present tense, since the endings are basically predictable—but it is important for the future!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30872" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10561" RevisionGUID="9ebcbe61-c1cc-4c36-bcaf-1888f839ec87" CreationDate="2019-04-25T20:42:23.910" UserId="406" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|morphology|declension|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="a1444fd5-cf50-435f-9c85-78cf0f288def" CreationDate="2019-04-25T21:22:58.483" UserId="9" Comment="added 620 characters in body" Text="The concept of a &quot;stem&quot; is not completely clear/unambiguous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Heteroclisy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin words have to be analyzed as being built on at least two stems: this is called &quot;heteroclisy&quot;. One clear example of a heteroclite Latin noun is *vās*: the ablative singular *vāse* is built on the stem *vās-,* while the genitive plural *vāsōrum* is built on the stem *vāsō-.* (Historically, the explanation in this case is that the different stem is derived from a &quot;collateral&quot; form of the noun; [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvas2) says that in anteclassical Latin, *vāsum* existed as a separate nominative singular form. But in Classical Latin, the stems *vās-* and *vāsō-* came to be used in complementary contexts, which allows *vāse* and *vāsōrum* to be analyzed as forms of a single noun. I've generally seen this noun described as having the stem *vās-* in the singular and *vāsō-* in the plural, although the nominative/accusative plural *vāsa* is formally ambiguous: it would look the same regardless of whether it represented *vās-* + *-a* or *vāsō-* + *-a*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of other Latin nouns may or may not be analyzed as &quot;heteroclite&quot; depending on how you think of the idea of a &quot;stem&quot;. This issue came up in a discussion I had with Joonas Ilmavirta beneath the answer that he posted to the question *[What consonants can a noun stem end in?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9212/9)* Many third-declension nouns show an *i* in the genitive plural (before the ending *-um*) but not in most of the other forms (e.g. *vermis* has the genitive plural *vermium,* which seems to be built on the stem *vermi-,* but the accusative *vermem* and the ablative *verme,* which seem to be built on the stem *verm-*). The situation gets even more complicated if you try to include nominative singular forms in your analysis; for this reason, I've seen a number of pedagogical texts that don't attempt to relate the nominative singular form to a stem, but that just present the nominative singular as a form that must be memorized as a whole. Nonetheless, from an etymological perspective, almost all Latin nominative singular forms can in fact be analyzed as being composed of a stem and a suffix. I've also seen attempts to analyze Latin nominative singular forms as being synchronically composed of a stem + suffix (usually *-s*): for example, the nominative singular form *rēx* be seen as being built on the same stem *rēg-* as the other forms of this noun (*rēg-* + *-s* becomes *rēx* according to known rules for combining Latin sounds). However, I don't remember seeing an approach that tries to explain away the vowel alternations found in words like *genus* vs. *generis* in a similar fashion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The &quot;stem&quot; usually is viewed as including the &quot;theme vowel&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern analyses, I believe it's usual to include the &quot;theme vowel&quot; of a noun when giving its stem. For example, *servus* has the stem *servō-.* The form we get when we truncate the vowel (*serv-*) would be called the &quot;root&quot;. (If I remember correctly, from an etymological perspective, I think only second-declension nouns have stems that end in a PIE &quot;theme vowel&quot;; the first-declension *ā*-stem nouns and fourth-declension *u*-stem nouns come from PIE forms that ended in a consonant that was vocalized in the history of Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar analysis is often used for Romance languages, the modern descendants of Latin. You can see an overview of this approach applied to Spanish in the article &quot;[The Spanish lexicon stores stems with theme vowels, not roots with inflectional class features](https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002773)&quot;, by Ricardo Bermudez-Otero&#xD;&#xA;(September 2012). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="3b1e0b84-c6d5-4e1d-8a23-c22ea1848918" CreationDate="2019-04-25T21:31:10.530" UserId="9" Comment="added 620 characters in body" Text="The concept of a &quot;stem&quot; is not completely clear/unambiguous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Heteroclisy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin words have to be analyzed as being built on at least two stems: this is called &quot;heteroclisy&quot;. One clear example of a heteroclite Latin noun is *vās*: the ablative singular *vāse* is built on the stem *vās-,* while the genitive plural *vāsōrum* is built on the stem *vāsō-.* (Historically, the explanation in this case is that the different stem is derived from a &quot;collateral&quot; form of the noun; [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvas2) says that in anteclassical Latin, *vāsum* existed as a separate nominative singular form. But in Classical Latin, the stems *vās-* and *vāsō-* came to be used in complementary contexts, which allows *vāse* and *vāsōrum* to be analyzed as forms of a single noun. I've generally seen this noun described as having the stem *vās-* in the singular and *vāsō-* in the plural, although the nominative/accusative plural *vāsa* is formally ambiguous: it would look the same regardless of whether it represented *vās-* + *-a* or *vāsō-* + *-a*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of other Latin nouns may or may not be analyzed as &quot;heteroclite&quot; depending on how you think of the idea of a &quot;stem&quot;. This issue came up in a discussion I had with Joonas Ilmavirta beneath the answer that he posted to the question *[What consonants can a noun stem end in?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9212/9)* Many third-declension nouns show an *i* in the genitive plural (before the ending *-um*) but not in most of the other forms (e.g. *vermis* has the genitive plural *vermium,* which seems to be built on the stem *vermi-,* but the accusative *vermem* and the ablative *verme,* which seem to be built on the stem *verm-*). The situation gets even more complicated if you try to include nominative singular forms in your analysis; for this reason, I've seen a number of pedagogical texts that don't attempt to relate the nominative singular form to a stem, but that just present the nominative singular as a form that must be memorized as a whole. Nonetheless, from an etymological perspective, almost all Latin nominative singular forms can in fact be analyzed as being composed of a stem and a suffix. I've also seen attempts to analyze Latin nominative singular forms as being synchronically composed of a stem + suffix (usually *-s*): for example, the nominative singular form *rēx* be seen as being built on the same stem *rēg-* as the other forms of this noun (*rēg-* + *-s* becomes *rēx* according to known rules for combining Latin sounds). However, I don't remember seeing an approach that tries to explain away the vowel alternations found in words like *genus* vs. *generis* in a similar fashion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The &quot;stem&quot; usually is viewed as including the &quot;theme vowel&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern analyses (I don't know about the traditional perspective), I believe it's usual to include the &quot;theme vowel&quot; of a noun when giving its stem. For example, *servus* has the stem *servō-.* The form we get when we truncate the vowel (*serv-*) would be called the &quot;root&quot;. (If I remember correctly, from an etymological perspective, I think only second-declension nouns have stems that end in a PIE &quot;theme vowel&quot;; the first-declension *ā*-stem nouns and fourth-declension *u*-stem nouns come from PIE forms that ended in a consonant that was vocalized in the history of Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin stems in this sense do show some allomorphy: for example, in the nominative singular form of *servus* we find [servu] (with short *u*) rather than [servō]. This is explainable in terms of diachronic sound changes, but the correct synchronic analysis isn't necessarily the same as the diachronic explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar analysis is often used for Romance languages, the modern descendants of Latin. You can see an overview of this approach applied to Spanish in the article &quot;[The Spanish lexicon stores stems with theme vowels, not roots with inflectional class features](https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002773)&quot;, by Ricardo Bermudez-Otero&#xD;&#xA;(September 2012).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="30c7de0b-42cd-48ed-a6d0-e8d101d28e44" CreationDate="2019-04-25T21:37:20.757" UserId="9" Comment="added 620 characters in body" Text="The concept of a &quot;stem&quot; is not completely clear/unambiguous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Heteroclisy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin words have to be analyzed as being built on at least two stems: this is called &quot;heteroclisy&quot;. One clear example of a heteroclite Latin noun is *vās*: the ablative singular *vāse* is built on the stem *vās-,* while the genitive plural *vāsōrum* is built on the stem *vāsō-.* (Historically, the explanation in this case is that the different stem is derived from a &quot;collateral&quot; form of the noun; [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvas2) says that in anteclassical Latin, *vāsum* existed as a separate nominative singular form. But in Classical Latin, the stems *vās-* and *vāsō-* came to be used in complementary contexts, which allows *vāse* and *vāsōrum* to be analyzed as forms of a single noun. I've generally seen this noun described as having the stem *vās-* in the singular and *vāsō-* in the plural, although the nominative/accusative plural *vāsa* is formally ambiguous: it would look the same regardless of whether it represented *vās-* + *-a* or *vāsō-* + *-a*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of other Latin nouns may or may not be analyzed as &quot;heteroclite&quot; depending on how you think of the idea of a &quot;stem&quot;. This issue came up in a discussion I had with Joonas Ilmavirta beneath the answer that he posted to the question *[What consonants can a noun stem end in?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9212/9)* Many third-declension nouns show an *i* in the genitive plural (before the ending *-um*) but not in most of the other forms (e.g. *vermis* has the genitive plural *vermium,* which seems to be built on the stem *vermi-,* but the accusative *vermem* and the ablative *verme,* which seem to be built on the stem *verm-*). The situation gets even more complicated if you try to include nominative singular forms in your analysis; for this reason, I've seen a number of pedagogical texts that don't attempt to relate the nominative singular form to a stem, but that just present the nominative singular as a form that must be memorized as a whole. Nonetheless, from an etymological perspective, almost all Latin nominative singular forms can in fact be analyzed as being composed of a stem and a suffix. I've also seen attempts to analyze Latin nominative singular forms as being synchronically composed of a stem + suffix (usually *-s*): for example, the nominative singular form *rēx* be seen as being built on the same stem *rēg-* as the other forms of this noun (*rēg-* + *-s* becomes *rēx* according to known rules for combining Latin sounds). However, I don't remember seeing an approach that tries to explain away the vowel alternations found in words like *genus* vs. *generis* in a similar fashion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The &quot;stem&quot; usually is viewed as including the &quot;theme vowel&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern analyses (I don't know about the traditional perspective), I believe it's usual to include the &quot;theme vowel&quot; of a noun when giving its stem. For example, *servus* has the stem *servō-.* The form we get when we truncate the vowel (*serv-*) would be called the &quot;root&quot;. (If I remember correctly, from an etymological perspective, I think only second-declension nouns have stems that end in a PIE &quot;theme vowel&quot;; the first-declension *ā*-stem nouns and fourth-declension *u*-stem nouns come from PIE forms that ended in a consonant that was vocalized in the history of Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin stems in this sense do show some allomorphy: for example, in the nominative singular form of *servus* we find [servu] (with short *u*) rather than [servō]. This is explainable in terms of diachronic sound changes, but the correct synchronic analysis isn't necessarily the same as the diachronic explanation. The stem vowel may (appear to) disappear entirely in some forms, such as the ablative/dative plural *servīs.* One possible synchronic analysis (given in &quot;[Aspects of the phonology and morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot; by András Cser) is that *servīs* is divisible into a vowel-final stem *servō-* and a vowel-initial suffix *-īs,* with a morphophonological process of vowel deletion resulting in the lack of [ō] in the surface form *servīs.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar analysis is often used for Romance languages, the modern descendants of Latin. You can see an overview of this approach applied to Spanish in the article &quot;[The Spanish lexicon stores stems with theme vowels, not roots with inflectional class features](https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002773)&quot;, by Ricardo Bermudez-Otero&#xD;&#xA;(September 2012).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="0b4295b8-92e0-48af-a164-788f2478a6a3" CreationDate="2019-04-25T21:38:50.313" UserId="9" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="The concept of a &quot;stem&quot; is not completely clear/unambiguous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Heteroclisy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin words have to be analyzed as being built on at least two stems: this is called &quot;heteroclisy&quot;. One clear example of a heteroclite Latin noun is *vās*: the ablative singular *vāse* is built on the stem *vās-,* while the genitive plural *vāsōrum* is built on the stem *vāsō-.* (Historically, the explanation in this case is that the different stem is derived from a &quot;collateral&quot; form of the noun; [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvas2) says that in anteclassical Latin, *vāsum* existed as a separate nominative singular form. But in Classical Latin, the stems *vās-* and *vāsō-* came to be used in complementary contexts, which allows *vāse* and *vāsōrum* to be analyzed as forms of a single noun. I've generally seen this noun described as having the stem *vās-* in the singular and *vāsō-* in the plural, although the nominative/accusative plural *vāsa* is formally ambiguous: it would look the same regardless of whether it represented *vās-* + *-a* or *vāsō-* + *-a*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of other Latin nouns may or may not be analyzed as &quot;heteroclite&quot; depending on how you think of the idea of a &quot;stem&quot;. This issue came up in a discussion I had with Joonas Ilmavirta beneath the answer that he posted to the question *[What consonants can a noun stem end in?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9212/9)* Many third-declension nouns show an *i* in the genitive plural (before the ending *-um*) but not in most of the other forms (e.g. *vermis* has the genitive plural *vermium,* which seems to be built on the stem *vermi-,* but the accusative *vermem* and the ablative *verme,* which seem to be built on the stem *verm-*). The situation gets even more complicated if you try to include nominative singular forms in your analysis; for this reason, I've seen a number of pedagogical texts that don't attempt to relate the nominative singular form to a stem, but that just present the nominative singular as a form that must be memorized as a whole. Nonetheless, from an etymological perspective, almost all Latin nominative singular forms can in fact be analyzed as being composed of a stem and a suffix. I've also seen attempts to analyze Latin nominative singular forms as being synchronically composed of a stem + suffix (usually *-s*): for example, the nominative singular form *rēx* be seen as being built on the same stem *rēg-* as the other forms of this noun (*rēg-* + *-s* becomes *rēx* according to known rules for combining Latin sounds). However, I don't remember seeing an approach that tries to explain away the vowel alternations found in words like *genus* vs. *generis* in a similar fashion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The &quot;stem&quot; usually is viewed as including the &quot;theme vowel&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern analyses (I don't know about the traditional perspective), I believe it's usual to include the &quot;theme vowel&quot; of a noun when giving its stem. For example, *servus* has the stem *servō-.* The form we get when we truncate the vowel (*serv-*) would be called the &quot;root&quot;. (If I remember correctly, from an etymological perspective, I think only second-declension nouns have stems that end in a PIE &quot;theme vowel&quot;; the first-declension *ā*-stem nouns and fourth-declension *u*-stem nouns come from PIE forms that ended in a consonant that was vocalized in the history of Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin stems in this sense do show some allomorphy: for example, in the nominative singular form of *servus* we find [servu] (with short *u*) rather than [servō]. This is explainable in terms of diachronic sound changes, but the correct synchronic analysis isn't necessarily the same as the diachronic explanation. The stem vowel may (appear to) disappear entirely in some forms, such as the ablative/dative plural *servīs.* One possible synchronic analysis (given in &quot;[Aspects of the phonology and morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot; by András Cser) is that *servīs* is divisible into a vowel-final stem *servō-* and a vowel-initial suffix *-īs,* with a morphophonological process of vowel deletion resulting in the lack of [ō] in the surface form *servīs.* If I remember correctly, the historical development is a bit different: I think that the *ī* in forms like this comes from earlier diphthongs *oi* (or for a-stem nouns, *ai*), which were weakened outside of the first syllable to *ei,* which later monophthongized to [ī].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar analysis is often used in the linguistic analysis of Romance languages, the modern descendants of Latin. You can see an overview of this approach applied to Spanish in the article &quot;[The Spanish lexicon stores stems with theme vowels, not roots with inflectional class features](https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002773)&quot;, by Ricardo Bermudez-Otero&#xD;&#xA;(September 2012).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="f01a77c1-1e9b-4d85-a186-eddcd628113b" CreationDate="2019-04-25T21:51:34.143" UserId="9" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="The concept of a &quot;stem&quot; is not completely clear/unambiguous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Heteroclisy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin words have to be analyzed as being built on at least two stems: this is called &quot;heteroclisy&quot;. One clear example of a heteroclite Latin noun is *vās*: the ablative singular *vāse* is built on the stem *vās-,* while the genitive plural *vāsōrum* is built on the stem *vāsō-.* (Historically, the explanation in this case is that the different stem is derived from a &quot;collateral&quot; form of the noun; [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvas2) says that in anteclassical Latin, *vāsum* existed as a separate nominative singular form. But in Classical Latin, the stems *vās-* and *vāsō-* came to be used in complementary contexts, which allows *vāse* and *vāsōrum* to be analyzed as forms of a single noun. I've generally seen this noun described as having the stem *vās-* in the singular and *vāsō-* in the plural, although the nominative/accusative plural *vāsa* is formally ambiguous: it would look the same regardless of whether it represented *vās-* + *-a* or *vāsō-* + *-a*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of other Latin nouns may or may not be analyzed as &quot;heteroclite&quot; depending on how you think of the idea of a &quot;stem&quot;. This issue came up in a discussion I had with Joonas Ilmavirta beneath the answer that he posted to the question *[What consonants can a noun stem end in?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9212/9)* Many third-declension nouns show an *i* in the genitive plural (before the ending *-um*) but not in most of the other forms (e.g. *vermis* has the genitive plural *vermium,* which seems to be built on the stem *vermi-,* but the accusative *vermem* and the ablative *verme,* which seem to be built on the stem *verm-*). The situation gets even more complicated if you try to include nominative singular forms in your analysis; for this reason, I've seen a number of pedagogical texts that don't attempt to relate the nominative singular form to a stem, but that just present the nominative singular as a form that must be memorized as a whole. Nonetheless, from an etymological perspective, almost all Latin nominative singular forms can in fact be analyzed as being composed of a stem and a suffix. I've also seen attempts to analyze Latin nominative singular forms as being synchronically composed of a stem + suffix (usually *-s*): for example, the nominative singular form *rēx* be seen as being built on the same stem *rēg-* as the other forms of this noun (*rēg-* + *-s* becomes *rēx* according to known rules for combining Latin sounds). However, I don't remember seeing an approach that tries to explain away the vowel alternations found in words like *genus* vs. *generis* in a similar fashion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The &quot;stem&quot; usually is viewed as including the &quot;theme vowel&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern analyses (I don't know about the traditional perspective), I believe it's usual to include the &quot;theme vowel&quot; of a noun when giving its stem. For example, *servus* is an &quot;o-stem&quot; noun, so the stem would end in o: *servo-*. The form we get when we truncate the vowel (*serv-*) would be called the &quot;root&quot;. (If I remember correctly, from an etymological perspective, I think only second-declension nouns have stems that end in a PIE &quot;theme vowel&quot;; the first-declension *ā*-stem nouns and fourth-declension *u*-stem nouns come from PIE forms that ended in a consonant that was vocalized in the history of Latin). Allen and Greenough's grammar, which seems to use a very etymology-based definition of &quot;stem&quot;, says that *servus* has the &quot;base&quot; *serv-* and the &quot;stem&quot; *servo-* ([27a](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/roots-stems-and-bases)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin stems in this sense do show some allomorphy: for example, in the nominative singular form of *servus* we find [servu] (with short *u*) rather than [servo]. This is explainable in terms of diachronic sound changes, but the correct synchronic analysis isn't necessarily the same as the diachronic explanation. The stem vowel may (appear to) disappear entirely in some forms, such as the ablative/dative plural *servīs.* One possible synchronic analysis (given in &quot;[Aspects of the phonology and morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot; by András Cser) is that *servīs* is divisible into a vowel-final stem *servō-* and a vowel-initial suffix *-īs,* with a morphophonological process of vowel deletion resulting in the lack of [o] or [ō] in the surface form *servīs.* If I remember correctly, the historical development is a bit different: I think that the *ī* in forms like this comes from earlier diphthongs *oi* (or for a-stem nouns, *ai*), which were weakened outside of the first syllable to *ei,* which later monophthongized to [ī].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar analysis is often used in the linguistic analysis of Romance languages, the modern descendants of Latin. You can see an overview of this approach applied to Spanish in the article &quot;[The Spanish lexicon stores stems with theme vowels, not roots with inflectional class features](https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002773)&quot;, by Ricardo Bermudez-Otero&#xD;&#xA;(September 2012).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="324e2214-63cc-4585-84f9-a466b98353b2" CreationDate="2019-04-25T21:59:29.347" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="The concept of a &quot;stem&quot; is not completely clear/unambiguous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Heteroclisy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin words have to be analyzed as being built on at least two stems: this is called &quot;heteroclisy&quot;. One clear example of a heteroclite Latin noun is *vās*: the ablative singular *vāse* is built on the stem *vās-,* while the genitive plural *vāsōrum* is built on the stem *vāsō-.* (Historically, the explanation in this case is that the different stem is derived from a &quot;collateral&quot; form of the noun; [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvas2) says that in anteclassical Latin, *vāsum* existed as a separate nominative singular form. But in Classical Latin, the stems *vās-* and *vāsō-* came to be used in complementary contexts, which allows *vāse* and *vāsōrum* to be analyzed as forms of a single noun. I've generally seen this noun described as having the stem *vās-* in the singular and *vāsō-* in the plural, although the nominative/accusative plural *vāsa* is formally ambiguous: it would look the same regardless of whether it represented *vās-* + *-a* or *vāsō-* + *-a*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of other Latin nouns may or may not be analyzed as &quot;heteroclite&quot; depending on how you think of the idea of a &quot;stem&quot;. This issue came up in a discussion I had with Joonas Ilmavirta beneath the answer that he posted to the question *[What consonants can a noun stem end in?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9212/9)* Many third-declension nouns show an *i* in the genitive plural (before the ending *-um*) but not in most of the other forms (e.g. *vermis* has the genitive plural *vermium,* which seems to be built on the stem *vermi-,* but the accusative *vermem* and the ablative *verme,* which seem to be built on the stem *verm-*). The situation gets even more complicated if you try to include nominative singular forms in your analysis; for this reason, I've seen a number of pedagogical texts that don't attempt to relate the nominative singular form to a stem, but that just present the nominative singular as a form that must be memorized as a whole. Nonetheless, from an etymological perspective, almost all Latin nominative singular forms can in fact be analyzed as being composed of a stem and a suffix. I've also seen attempts to analyze Latin nominative singular forms as being synchronically composed of a stem + suffix (usually *-s*): for example, the nominative singular form *rēx* be seen as being built on the same stem *rēg-* as the other forms of this noun (*rēg-* + *-s* becomes *rēx* according to known rules for combining Latin sounds). However, I don't remember seeing an approach that tries to explain away the vowel alternations found in words like *genus* vs. *generis* in a similar fashion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The &quot;stem&quot; usually is viewed as including the &quot;theme vowel&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern analyses (I don't know about the traditional perspective), I believe it's usual to include the &quot;theme vowel&quot; of a noun when giving its stem. For example, *servus* is an &quot;o-stem&quot; noun, so the stem would end in o: *servo-*. The form we get when we truncate the vowel (*serv-*) would be called the &quot;root&quot;. (If I remember correctly, from an etymological perspective, I think only second-declension nouns have stems that end in a PIE &quot;theme vowel&quot;; the first-declension *a*-stem nouns and fourth-declension *u*-stem nouns come from PIE forms that ended in a consonant that was vocalized in the history of Latin). Allen and Greenough's grammar, which seems to use a very etymology-based definition of &quot;stem&quot;, says that *servus* has the &quot;base&quot; *serv-* and the &quot;stem&quot; *servo-* ([27a](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/roots-stems-and-bases)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin stems in this sense do show some allomorphy: for example, in the nominative singular form of *servus* we find [servu] (with short *u*) rather than [servo]. This is explainable in terms of diachronic sound changes, but the correct synchronic analysis isn't necessarily the same as the diachronic explanation. The stem vowel may (appear to) disappear entirely in some forms, such as the ablative/dative plural *servīs.* One possible synchronic analysis (given in &quot;[Aspects of the phonology and morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot; by András Cser) is that *servīs* is divisible into a vowel-final stem *servō-* and a vowel-initial suffix *-īs,* with a morphophonological process of vowel deletion resulting in the lack of [o] or [ō] in the surface form *servīs.* If I remember correctly, the historical development is a bit different: I think that the *ī* in forms like this comes from earlier diphthongs *oi* (or for a-stem nouns, *ai*), which were weakened outside of the first syllable to *ei,* which later monophthongized to [ī].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar analysis is often used in the linguistic analysis of Romance languages, the modern descendants of Latin. You can see an overview of this approach applied to Spanish in the article &quot;[The Spanish lexicon stores stems with theme vowels, not roots with inflectional class features](https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002773)&quot;, by Ricardo Bermudez-Otero&#xD;&#xA;(September 2012).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="2df1fbb0-9fad-48a7-b177-47ea096fba88" CreationDate="2019-04-25T22:25:53.587" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="The concept of a &quot;stem&quot; is not completely clear/unambiguous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Heteroclisy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Latin words have to be analyzed as being built on at least two stems: this is called &quot;heteroclisy&quot;. One clear example of a heteroclite Latin noun is *vās*: the ablative singular *vāse* is built on the stem *vās-,* while the genitive plural *vāsōrum* is built on the stem *vāso-.* (Historically, the explanation in this case is that the different stem is derived from a &quot;collateral&quot; form of the noun; [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvas2) says that in anteclassical Latin, *vāsum* existed as a separate nominative singular form. But in Classical Latin, the stems *vās-* and *vāsō-* came to be used in complementary contexts, which allows *vāse* and *vāsōrum* to be analyzed as forms of a single noun. I've generally seen this noun described as having the stem *vās-* in the singular and *vāso-* in the plural, although the nominative/accusative plural *vāsa* is formally ambiguous: it would look the same regardless of whether it represented *vās-* + *-a* or *vāso-* + *-a*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of other Latin nouns may or may not be analyzed as &quot;heteroclite&quot; depending on how you think of the idea of a &quot;stem&quot;. This issue came up in a discussion I had with Joonas Ilmavirta beneath the answer that he posted to the question *[What consonants can a noun stem end in?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9212/9)* Many third-declension nouns show an *i* in the genitive plural (before the ending *-um*) but not in most of the other forms (e.g. *vermis* has the genitive plural *vermium,* which seems to be built on the stem *vermi-,* but the accusative *vermem* and the ablative *verme,* which seem to be built on the stem *verm-*). The situation gets even more complicated if you try to include nominative singular forms in your analysis; for this reason, I've seen a number of pedagogical texts that don't attempt to relate the nominative singular form to a stem, but that just present the nominative singular as a form that must be memorized as a whole. Nonetheless, from an etymological perspective, almost all Latin nominative singular forms can in fact be analyzed as being composed of a stem and a suffix. I've also seen attempts to analyze Latin nominative singular forms as being synchronically composed of a stem + suffix (usually *-s*): for example, the nominative singular form *rēx* be seen as being built on the same stem *rēg-* as the other forms of this noun (*rēg-* + *-s* becomes *rēx* according to known rules for combining Latin sounds). However, I don't remember seeing an approach that tries to explain away the vowel alternations found in words like *genus* vs. *generis* in a similar fashion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The &quot;stem&quot; usually is viewed as including the &quot;theme vowel&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern analyses (I don't know about the traditional perspective), I believe it's usual to include the &quot;theme vowel&quot; of a noun when giving its stem. For example, *servus* is an &quot;o-stem&quot; noun, so the stem would end in o: *servo-*. The form we get when we truncate the vowel (*serv-*) would be called the &quot;root&quot;. (If I remember correctly, from an etymological perspective, I think only second-declension nouns have stems that end in a PIE &quot;theme vowel&quot;; the first-declension *a*-stem nouns and fourth-declension *u*-stem nouns come from PIE forms that ended in a consonant that was vocalized in the history of Latin). Allen and Greenough's grammar, which seems to use a very etymology-based definition of &quot;stem&quot;, says that *servus* has the &quot;base&quot; *serv-* and the &quot;stem&quot; *servo-* ([27a](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/roots-stems-and-bases)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin stems in this sense do show some allomorphy: for example, in the nominative singular form of *servus* we find [servu] (with short *u*) rather than [servo]. This is explainable in terms of diachronic sound changes, but the correct synchronic analysis isn't necessarily the same as the diachronic explanation. The stem vowel may (appear to) disappear entirely in some forms, such as the ablative/dative plural *servīs.* One possible synchronic analysis (given in &quot;[Aspects of the phonology and morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot; by András Cser) is that *servīs* is divisible into a vowel-final stem *servō-* and a vowel-initial suffix *-īs,* with a morphophonological process of vowel deletion resulting in the lack of [o] or [ō] in the surface form *servīs.* If I remember correctly, the historical development is a bit different: I think that the *ī* in forms like this comes from earlier diphthongs *oi* (or for a-stem nouns, *ai*), which were weakened outside of the first syllable to *ei,* which later monophthongized to [ī].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar analysis is often used in the linguistic analysis of Romance languages, the modern descendants of Latin. You can see an overview of this approach applied to Spanish in the article &quot;[The Spanish lexicon stores stems with theme vowels, not roots with inflectional class features](https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002773)&quot;, by Ricardo Bermudez-Otero&#xD;&#xA;(September 2012).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="c04bfc64-a192-4028-9898-c920e133f21f" CreationDate="2019-04-25T23:31:32.573" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="It depends on what you mean by &quot;has an exact form&quot;. If you mean &quot;has a single, invariant form&quot;, the answer would most likely be &quot;no&quot;. According to several definitions of &quot;stem&quot;, Latin words (including nouns) may have more than one stem (or alternatively, you could say that the stem of a word may have more than one form: it's a bit difficult to distinguish these two possibilities). The use of different stems for different forms of the word is called &quot;heteroclisy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Different definitions of &quot;stem&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concept of a &quot;stem&quot; is not completely clear/unambiguous. I'm aware of at least three distinct definitions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Etymological/historical linguistics/comparative IE linguistics: The &quot;stem&quot; of *genus* in a historical sense can be said to be *genos* (the reconstructed form of the nominative singular in Proto-Italic). The Classical Latin nominative form *genus* is derived from that by weakening of ŏ to ŭ in a final syllable; the Classical Latin genitive form *generis* is derived from that by rhotacism of intervocalic s and weakening of ŏ to ĕ in a word-internal syllable before r (including r derived from rhotacized s). The stem of *līber* in a historical sense is *lībero-*; the nominative singular form is historically derived from *lībero-s* via syncope and loss of s after r (as explained in the &quot;Type A.&quot; section of Alex B.'s answer to https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/377). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; These two words happen to be built on a single stem/single form in a historical sense, but that is not true for all words. IE &quot;heteroclite&quot; nouns existed; an example of a descendant in Latin is *iecur* &quot;liver&quot;. This type of heteroclite noun is mentioned in the answers to https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6661&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Synchronic analysis of Latin morphophonology according to certain modern linguistic theories: the stem of *genus* might have multiple forms (allomorphs). If vowel-weakening rules are not analyzed as being part of the synchronic phonology of Classical Latin, the stem of the genitive form would most likely be viewed as *gener-.* The nominative singular form could be seen as being composed of a stem allomorph *genus* with a null inflectional suffix -∅. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The stem of *līberis* is a bit difficult to analyze; one option would be to treat this as a synchronically heteroclite adjective in Classical Latin, with the masculine nominative being built on a consonant-final stem *līber-* and the other masculine forms being built on a vowel-final stem *lībero-*. This seems to be the analysis that would be adopted by Cser 2016, who refers to the masculine nominative singular *piger* as being built on a stem *pigr-*, with no stem-final vowel (p. 129).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Draconis's answer indicates that &quot;stem&quot; has been used in some sources to refer to a different concept that is similar to what the other two approaches would call the &quot;root&quot; or &quot;base&quot; of a noun. I'm not sure which specific sources use that definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Heteroclisy in more detail&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One clear example of a heteroclite Latin noun is *vās*: the ablative singular *vāse* is built on the stem *vās-,* while the genitive plural *vāsōrum* is built on the stem *vāso-.* (Historically, the explanation in this case is that the different stem is derived from a &quot;collateral&quot; form of the noun; [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvas2) says that in anteclassical Latin, *vāsum* existed as a separate nominative singular form. But in Classical Latin, the stems *vās-* and *vāsō-* came to be used in complementary contexts, which allows *vāse* and *vāsōrum* to be analyzed as forms of a single noun. I've generally seen this noun described as having the stem *vās-* in the singular and *vāso-* in the plural, although the nominative/accusative plural *vāsa* is formally ambiguous: it would look the same regardless of whether it represented *vās-* + *-a* or *vāso-* + *-a*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of other Latin nouns may or may not be analyzed as &quot;heteroclite&quot; depending on how you think of the idea of a &quot;stem&quot;. This issue came up in a discussion I had with Joonas Ilmavirta beneath the answer that he posted to the question *[What consonants can a noun stem end in?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9212/9)* Many third-declension nouns show an *i* in the genitive plural (before the ending *-um*) but not in most of the other forms (e.g. *vermis* has the genitive plural *vermium,* which seems to be built on the stem *vermi-,* but the accusative *vermem* and the ablative *verme,* which seem to be built on the stem *verm-*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The stems of nominative singular forms&#xD;&#xA;The situation gets even more complicated if you try to include nominative singular forms in your analysis; for this reason, I've seen a number of pedagogical texts that don't attempt to relate the nominative singular form to a stem, but that just present the nominative singular as a form that must be memorized as a whole. Nonetheless, from an etymological and possibly even from a synchronic perspective, almost all Latin nominative singular forms can in fact be analyzed as being composed of a stem and a suffix. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the theories that use definitions 1 or 2 of the term &quot;stem&quot;, Latin has a nominative singular suffix with a fairly small number of variant forms or allomorphs: mainly -s, -∅, and -m. (Cser 2016 lists one additional allomorph, *-ēs,* to account for certain third-declension nouns (p. 127)). The form of this suffix is conditioned morphologically by the gender of the noun, and conditioned phonologically by the form of the end of the noun's stem (for example, nouns with a stem ending in a consistently take -∅).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some words, the stem of nominative singular can be analyzed as being the same in an &quot;underlying&quot; way as the stem of the other forms, even though it appears different on the &quot;surface&quot;. For example, the nominative singular form *rēx* be seen as being built synchronically on the same stem *rēg-* as the other forms of this noun. The explanation is that *rēg-* + *-s* becomes *rēx* according to known rules for combining Latin sounds: g turns into k before s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember encountering theories that take a different approach to explaining variant phonetic forms like this (I forget where, and which language was being discussed): we could say instead that the stem of the noun *rēx* is &quot;stored with&quot; two allomorphs, **rēg** and **rēk**, and that there are rules that take these two allomorphs as an input and select the appropriate allomorph (rather than taking **rēg** as an input and turning its **g** into a **k**). This is a bit of a hairsplitting distinction in most contexts, however. Cser 2016 says that the &quot;rule-based&quot; framework adopted in that dissertation is simply for convenience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The &quot;stem&quot; (def 1 or 2) is viewed as including the &quot;theme vowel&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to definitions 1 or 2, the &quot;stem&quot; of a noun includes the &quot;theme vowel&quot;/&quot;thematic vowel&quot;. For example, *servus* is an &quot;o-stem&quot; noun, so the stem would end in o: *servo-*. (If I remember correctly, from an etymological perspective, I think only second-declension nouns have stems that end in a PIE &quot;theme vowel&quot;; the first-declension *a*-stem nouns and fourth-declension *u*-stem nouns come from PIE forms that ended in a consonant that was vocalized in the history of Latin). Allen and Greenough's grammar, which seems to use a very etymology-based definition of &quot;stem&quot;, says that *servus* has the &quot;base&quot; *serv-* and the &quot;stem&quot; *servo-* ([27a](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/roots-stems-and-bases)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form we get when we truncate the vowel (*serv-*) would be called the &quot;root&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to definition 2, Latin stems in this sense do show some allomorphy: for example, in the nominative singular form of *servus* we find [servu] (with short *u*) rather than [servo]. This is explainable in terms of diachronic sound changes, but the correct synchronic analysis isn't necessarily the same as the diachronic explanation. The stem vowel may (appear to) disappear entirely in some forms, such as the ablative/dative plural *servīs.* One possible synchronic analysis (given in &quot;[Aspects of the phonology and morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot; by András Cser) is that *servīs* is divisible into a vowel-final stem *servō-* and a vowel-initial suffix *-īs,* with a morphophonological process of vowel deletion resulting in the lack of [o] or [ō] in the surface form *servīs.* If I remember correctly, the historical development is a bit different: I think that the *ī* in forms like this comes from earlier diphthongs *oi* (or for a-stem nouns, *ai*), which were weakened outside of the first syllable to *ei,* which later monophthongized to [ī].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar analysis is often used in the linguistic analysis of Romance languages, the modern descendants of Latin. You can see an overview of this approach applied to Spanish in the article &quot;[The Spanish lexicon stores stems with theme vowels, not roots with inflectional class features](https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002773)&quot;, by Ricardo Bermudez-Otero&#xD;&#xA;(September 2012).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Sources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser, András. 2016. &quot;[Aspects of the phonology and morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="677dd442-a265-4805-8e1f-9ca6d952ae72" CreationDate="2019-04-25T23:37:03.237" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="It depends on what you mean by &quot;has an exact form&quot;. If you mean &quot;has a single, invariant form&quot;, the answer would most likely be &quot;no&quot;. According to several definitions of &quot;stem&quot;, Latin words (including nouns) may have more than one stem (or alternatively, you could say that the stem of a word may have more than one form: it's a bit difficult to distinguish these two possibilities). The use of different stems for different forms of the word is called &quot;heteroclisy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Different definitions of &quot;stem&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concept of a &quot;stem&quot; is not completely clear/unambiguous. I'm aware of at least three distinct definitions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Etymological/historical linguistics/comparative IE linguistics: The &quot;stem&quot; of *genus* in a historical sense can be said to be *genos* (the reconstructed form of the nominative singular in Proto-Italic). The Classical Latin nominative form *genus* is derived from that by weakening of ŏ to ŭ in a final syllable; the Classical Latin genitive form *generis* is derived from that by rhotacism of intervocalic s and weakening of ŏ to ĕ in a word-internal syllable before r (including r derived from rhotacized s). The stem of *līber* in a historical sense is *lībero-*; the nominative singular form is historically derived from *lībero-s* via syncope and loss of s after r (as explained in the &quot;Type A.&quot; section of Alex B.'s answer to https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/377). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; These two words happen to be built on a single stem/single form in a historical sense, but that is not true for all words. IE &quot;heteroclite&quot; nouns existed; an example of a descendant in Latin is *iecur* &quot;liver&quot;. This type of heteroclite noun is mentioned in the answers to https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6661&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Synchronic analysis of Latin morphophonology according to certain modern linguistic theories: the stem of *genus* might have multiple forms (allomorphs). If vowel-weakening rules are not analyzed as being part of the synchronic phonology of Classical Latin, the stem of the genitive form would most likely be viewed as *gener-.* The nominative singular form could be seen as being composed of a stem allomorph *genus* with a null inflectional suffix -∅. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The stem of *līberis* is a bit difficult to analyze; one option would be to treat this as a synchronically heteroclite adjective in Classical Latin, with the masculine nominative being built on a consonant-final stem *līber-* and the other masculine forms being built on a vowel-final stem *lībero-*. This seems to be the analysis that would be adopted by Cser 2016, who refers to the masculine nominative singular *piger* as being built on a stem *pigr-*, with no stem-final vowel (p. 129), despite the use of [ō] in the ablative singular form *pigrō.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Draconis's answer indicates that &quot;stem&quot; has been used in some sources to refer to a different concept that is similar to what the other two approaches would call the &quot;root&quot; or &quot;base&quot; of a noun. I'm not sure which specific sources use that definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Heteroclisy in more detail&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One clear example of a heteroclite Latin noun is *vās*: the ablative singular *vāse* is built on the stem *vās-,* while the genitive plural *vāsōrum* is built on the stem *vāso-.* (Historically, the explanation in this case is that the different stem is derived from a &quot;collateral&quot; form of the noun; [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvas2) says that in anteclassical Latin, *vāsum* existed as a separate nominative singular form. But in Classical Latin, the stems *vās-* and *vāsō-* came to be used in complementary contexts, which allows *vāse* and *vāsōrum* to be analyzed as forms of a single noun. I've generally seen this noun described as having the stem *vās-* in the singular and *vāso-* in the plural, although the nominative/accusative plural *vāsa* is formally ambiguous: it would look the same regardless of whether it represented *vās-* + *-a* or *vāso-* + *-a*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of other Latin nouns may or may not be analyzed as &quot;heteroclite&quot; depending on how you think of the idea of a &quot;stem&quot;. This issue came up in a discussion I had with Joonas Ilmavirta beneath the answer that he posted to the question *[What consonants can a noun stem end in?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9212/9)* Many third-declension nouns show an *i* in the genitive plural (before the ending *-um*) but not in most of the other forms (e.g. *vermis* has the genitive plural *vermium,* which seems to be built on the stem *vermi-,* but the accusative *vermem* and the ablative *verme,* which seem to be built on the stem *verm-*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The stems of nominative singular forms&#xD;&#xA;The situation gets even more complicated if you try to include nominative singular forms in your analysis; for this reason, I've seen a number of pedagogical texts that don't attempt to relate the nominative singular form to a stem, but that just present the nominative singular as a form that must be memorized as a whole. Nonetheless, from an etymological and possibly even from a synchronic perspective, almost all Latin nominative singular forms can in fact be analyzed as being composed of a stem and a suffix. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the theories that use definitions 1 or 2 of the term &quot;stem&quot;, Latin has a nominative singular suffix with a fairly small number of variant forms or allomorphs: mainly -s, -∅, and -m. (Cser 2016 lists one additional allomorph, *-ēs,* to account for certain third-declension nouns (p. 127)). The form of this suffix is conditioned morphologically by the gender of the noun, and conditioned phonologically by the form of the end of the noun's stem (for example, nouns with a stem ending in a consistently take -∅).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I did not include *-r* in my list of forms of the nominative singular suffix. As far as I know, Latin has no words ending in *-er* that would be analyzed as having a stem ending in *-e.* If you're familiar with that fact, you can determine that *līber* does not have the stem *lībe.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some words, the stem of nominative singular can be analyzed as being the same in an &quot;underlying&quot; way as the stem of the other forms, even though it appears different on the &quot;surface&quot;. For example, the nominative singular form *rēx* be seen as being built synchronically on the same stem *rēg-* as the other forms of this noun. The explanation is that *rēg-* + *-s* becomes *rēx* according to known rules for combining Latin sounds: g turns into k before s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember encountering theories that take a different approach to explaining variant phonetic forms like this (I forget where, and which language was being discussed): we could say instead that the stem of the noun *rēx* is &quot;stored with&quot; two allomorphs, **rēg** and **rēk**, and that there are rules that take these two allomorphs as an input and select the appropriate allomorph (rather than taking **rēg** as an input and turning its **g** into a **k**). This is a bit of a hairsplitting distinction in most contexts, however. Cser 2016 says that the &quot;rule-based&quot; framework adopted in that dissertation is simply for convenience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The &quot;stem&quot; (def 1 or 2) is viewed as including the &quot;theme vowel&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to definitions 1 or 2, the &quot;stem&quot; of a noun includes the &quot;theme vowel&quot;/&quot;thematic vowel&quot;. For example, *servus* is an &quot;o-stem&quot; noun, so the stem would end in o: *servo-*. (If I remember correctly, from an etymological perspective, I think only second-declension nouns have stems that end in a PIE &quot;theme vowel&quot;; the first-declension *a*-stem nouns and fourth-declension *u*-stem nouns come from PIE forms that ended in a consonant that was vocalized in the history of Latin). Allen and Greenough's grammar, which seems to use a very etymology-based definition of &quot;stem&quot;, says that *servus* has the &quot;base&quot; *serv-* and the &quot;stem&quot; *servo-* ([27a](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/roots-stems-and-bases)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form we get when we truncate the vowel (*serv-*) would be called the &quot;root&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to definition 2, Latin stems in this sense do show some allomorphy: for example, in the nominative singular form of *servus* we find [servu] (with short *u*) rather than [servo]. This is explainable in terms of diachronic sound changes, but the correct synchronic analysis isn't necessarily the same as the diachronic explanation. The stem vowel may (appear to) disappear entirely in some forms, such as the ablative/dative plural *servīs.* One possible synchronic analysis (given by Cser 2016) is that *servīs* is divisible into a vowel-final stem *servo-* and a vowel-initial suffix *-īs,* with a morphophonological process of vowel deletion resulting in the lack of [o] or [ō] in the surface form *servīs.* If I remember correctly, the historical development is a bit different: I think that the *ī* in forms like this comes from earlier diphthongs *oi* (or for a-stem nouns, *ai*), which were weakened outside of the first syllable to *ei,* which later monophthongized to [ī].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar analysis is often used in the linguistic analysis of Romance languages, the modern descendants of Latin. You can see an overview of this approach applied to Spanish in Bermudez-Otero 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Sources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser, András. 2016. &quot;[Aspects of the phonology and morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bermudez-Otero, Ricardo. 2012.  &quot;[The Spanish lexicon stores stems with theme vowels, not roots with inflectional class features](https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002773)&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="82d6117a-7316-4045-90a0-d5f9fee1795c" CreationDate="2019-04-25T23:43:11.307" UserId="9" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="It depends on what you mean by &quot;has an exact form&quot;. If you mean &quot;has a single, invariant form&quot;, the answer would most likely be &quot;no&quot;. According to several definitions of &quot;stem&quot;, Latin words (including nouns) may have more than one stem (or alternatively, you could say that the stem of a word may have more than one form: it's a bit difficult to distinguish these two possibilities). The use of different stems for different forms of the word is called &quot;heteroclisy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Different definitions of &quot;stem&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concept of a &quot;stem&quot; is not completely clear/unambiguous. I'm aware of at least three distinct definitions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Etymological/historical linguistics/comparative IE linguistics: The stem of *līber* in a historical sense is *lībero-*; the nominative singular form is historically derived from *lībero-s* via syncope and loss of s after r (as explained in the &quot;Type A.&quot; section of Alex B.'s answer to https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/377). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This word happens to be built on a single stem/single form in a historical sense, but that is not true for all words. IE &quot;heteroclite&quot; nouns existed; an example of a descendant in Latin is *iecur* &quot;liver&quot;. This type of heteroclite noun is mentioned in the answers to https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6661&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Synchronic analysis of Latin morphophonology according to certain modern linguistic theories: The stem of *līber* is a bit difficult to analyze; one option would be to treat this as a synchronically heteroclite adjective in Classical Latin, with the masculine nominative being built on a consonant-final stem *līber-* and the other masculine forms being built on a vowel-final stem *lībero-*. This seems to be the analysis that would be adopted by Cser 2016, who refers to the masculine nominative singular *piger* as being built on a stem *pigr-*, with no stem-final vowel (p. 129), despite the use of [ō] in the ablative singular form *pigrō.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Draconis's answer indicates that &quot;stem&quot; has been used in some sources to refer to a different concept that is similar to what the other two approaches would call the &quot;root&quot; or &quot;base&quot; of a noun. I'm not sure which specific sources use that definition. It might have lasted longer in pedagogical contexts than in linguistic texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Heteroclisy in more detail&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One clear example of a heteroclite Latin noun is *vās*: the ablative singular *vāse* is built on the stem *vās-,* while the genitive plural *vāsōrum* is built on the stem *vāso-.* (Historically, the explanation in this case is that the different stem is derived from a &quot;collateral&quot; form of the noun; [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvas2) says that in anteclassical Latin, *vāsum* existed as a separate nominative singular form. But in Classical Latin, the stems *vās-* and *vāsō-* came to be used in complementary contexts, which allows *vāse* and *vāsōrum* to be analyzed as forms of a single noun. I've generally seen this noun described as having the stem *vās-* in the singular and *vāso-* in the plural, although the nominative/accusative plural *vāsa* is formally ambiguous: it would look the same regardless of whether it represented *vās-* + *-a* or *vāso-* + *-a*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of other Latin nouns may or may not be analyzed as &quot;heteroclite&quot; depending on how you think of the idea of a &quot;stem&quot;. This issue came up in a discussion I had with Joonas Ilmavirta beneath the answer that he posted to the question *[What consonants can a noun stem end in?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9212/9)* Many third-declension nouns show an *i* in the genitive plural (before the ending *-um*) but not in most of the other forms (e.g. *vermis* has the genitive plural *vermium,* which seems to be built on the stem *vermi-,* but the accusative *vermem* and the ablative *verme,* which seem to be built on the stem *verm-*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The stems of nominative singular forms&#xD;&#xA;The situation gets even more complicated if you try to include nominative singular forms in your analysis; for this reason, I've seen a number of pedagogical texts that don't attempt to relate the nominative singular form to a stem, but that just present the nominative singular as a form that must be memorized as a whole. Nonetheless, from an etymological and possibly even from a synchronic perspective, almost all Latin nominative singular forms can in fact be analyzed as being composed of a stem and a suffix. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the theories that use definitions 1 or 2 of the term &quot;stem&quot;, Latin has a nominative singular suffix with a fairly small number of variant forms or allomorphs: mainly -s, -∅, and -m. (Cser 2016 lists one additional allomorph, *-ēs,* to account for certain third-declension nouns (p. 127)). The form of this suffix is conditioned morphologically by the gender of the noun, and conditioned phonologically by the form of the end of the noun's stem (for example, nouns with a stem ending in a consistently take -∅).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I did not include *-r* in my list of forms of the nominative singular suffix. As far as I know, Latin has no words ending in *-er* that would be analyzed as having a stem ending in *-e.* If you're familiar with that fact, you can determine that *līber* does not have the stem *lībe.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some words, the stem of nominative singular can be analyzed as being the same in an &quot;underlying&quot; way as the stem of the other forms, even though it appears different on the &quot;surface&quot;. For example, the nominative singular form *rēx* be seen as being built synchronically on the same stem *rēg-* as the other forms of this noun. The explanation is that *rēg-* + *-s* becomes *rēx* according to known rules for combining Latin sounds: g turns into k before s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember encountering theories that take a different approach to explaining variant phonetic forms like this (I forget where, and which language was being discussed): we could say instead that the stem of the noun *rēx* is &quot;stored with&quot; two allomorphs, **rēg** and **rēk**, and that there are rules that take these two allomorphs as an input and select the appropriate allomorph (rather than taking **rēg** as an input and turning its **g** into a **k**). This is a bit of a hairsplitting distinction in most contexts, however. Cser 2016 says that the &quot;rule-based&quot; framework adopted in that dissertation is simply for convenience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The &quot;stem&quot; (def 1 or 2) is viewed as including the &quot;theme vowel&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to definitions 1 or 2, the &quot;stem&quot; of a noun includes the &quot;theme vowel&quot;/&quot;thematic vowel&quot;. For example, *servus* is an &quot;o-stem&quot; noun, so the stem would end in o: *servo-*. (If I remember correctly, from an etymological perspective, I think only second-declension nouns have stems that end in a PIE &quot;theme vowel&quot;; the first-declension *a*-stem nouns and fourth-declension *u*-stem nouns come from PIE forms that ended in a consonant that was vocalized in the history of Latin). Allen and Greenough's grammar, which seems to use a very etymology-based definition of &quot;stem&quot;, says that *servus* has the &quot;base&quot; *serv-* and the &quot;stem&quot; *servo-* ([27a](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/roots-stems-and-bases)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form we get when we truncate the vowel (*serv-*) would be called the &quot;root&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to definition 2, Latin stems in this sense do show some allomorphy: for example, in the nominative singular form of *servus* we find [servu] (with short *u*) rather than [servo]. This is explainable in terms of diachronic sound changes, but the correct synchronic analysis isn't necessarily the same as the diachronic explanation. The stem vowel may (appear to) disappear entirely in some forms, such as the ablative/dative plural *servīs.* One possible synchronic analysis (given by Cser 2016) is that *servīs* is divisible into a vowel-final stem *servo-* and a vowel-initial suffix *-īs,* with a morphophonological process of vowel deletion resulting in the lack of [o] or [ō] in the surface form *servīs.* If I remember correctly, the historical development is a bit different: I think that the *ī* in forms like this comes from earlier diphthongs *oi* (or for a-stem nouns, *ai*), which were weakened outside of the first syllable to *ei,* which later monophthongized to [ī].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar analysis is often used in the linguistic analysis of Romance languages, the modern descendants of Latin. You can see an overview of this approach applied to Spanish in Bermudez-Otero 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Sources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser, András. 2016. &quot;[Aspects of the phonology and morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bermudez-Otero, Ricardo. 2012.  &quot;[The Spanish lexicon stores stems with theme vowels, not roots with inflectional class features](https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002773)&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10568" RevisionGUID="d4ef96e3-8354-4b13-87f0-e45137cc6f19" CreationDate="2019-04-26T01:03:36.680" UserId="406" Text="Lucretius argued in _Dē Rerum Nātūrā_ book 5 that language was innate; he had no explanation for why Greeks and Romans spoke differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; proinde putare aliquem tum nomina distribuisse  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; rebus et inde homines didicisse vocabula prima,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; desiperest. nam cur hic posset cuncta notare  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; vocibus et varios sonitus emittere linguae,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; tempore eodem alii facere id non quisse putentur?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *So to think that one human first gave out names to things, and that humans then learned their first words from them, is downright idiotic. Because, why should this one hypothetical person be able to name everything with words, and make the various sounds of the language, when you think other people at the same time couldn't do the same thing?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He goes on to explain that different words are equivalent to the different noises animals make by instinct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10568" RevisionGUID="b8c4a74a-9f55-4193-8aff-daa1ebea0532" CreationDate="2019-04-26T01:19:03.927" UserId="406" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Lucretius argued in _Dē Rerum Nātūrā_ book 5 (lines 1041-1045) that language was innate; he had no explanation for why Greeks and Romans spoke differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; proinde putare aliquem tum nomina distribuisse  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; rebus et inde homines didicisse vocabula prima,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; desiperest. nam cur hic posset cuncta notare  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; vocibus et varios sonitus emittere linguae,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; tempore eodem alii facere id non quisse putentur?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *So to think that one human first gave out names to things, and that humans then learned their first words from them, is downright idiotic. Because, why should this one hypothetical person be able to name everything with words, and make the various sounds of the language, when you think other people at the same time couldn't do the same thing?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He goes on to explain that different words are equivalent to the different noises animals make by instinct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10569" RevisionGUID="20f3e232-800d-4e36-b204-bcc936ac61c8" CreationDate="2019-04-26T01:37:03.867" UserId="406" Text="Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in his _Ῥωμαϊκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία_ (_Roman Antiquities_) 1.90, explains that Latin was actually a dialect of Greek, corrupted by contact with European barbarians:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ῥωμαῖοι δὲ φωνὴν μὲν οὔτ᾿ ἄκρως βάρβαρον οὔτ᾿ ἀπηρτισμένως Ἑλλάδα φθέγγονται, μικτὴν δέ τινα ἐξ ἀμφοῖν, ἧς ἐστιν ἡ πλείων Αἰολίς, τοῦτο μόνον ἀπολαύσαντες ἐκ τῶν πολλῶν ἐπιμιξιῶν, τὸ μὴ πᾶσι τοῖς φθόγγοις ὀρθοεπεῖν…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The language the Romans speak isn't totally barbarous, but also isn't completely Greek. No, it's a mixture made with something of each; the majority of it is Aeolian, and the only &quot;benefit&quot; they get from being so promiscuous with other [languages] is that they don't pronounce all of their sounds right any more…*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jeffrey Henderson, in his notes on LCL 319, says that there were probably three reasons for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The Greek dialects diverged a lot, so it's reasonable that Latin could be a very very divergent dialect&#xD;&#xA; - Latin had the letter F, which came from the Greek waw/digamma, which eventually died out in all dialects except Aeolian (though the Aeolians pronounced it `/w/` and the Romans pronounced it `/f/`)&#xD;&#xA; - Aeolian and Latin both kept long `/aː/` in words like *μᾱτηρ/māter*, while Attic and Ionian shifted it to long `/ɛː/` (*μητηρ*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll add one more to this list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A big part of Dionysius's goal in writing the _RA_ was to convince the newly-conquered Greeks that Rome was properly civilized, so drawing a contrast between the &quot;Greek&quot; Latin and the &quot;non-Greek&quot; barbarian languages would help with that" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10570" RevisionGUID="c347a1bb-c611-4b6f-9576-030f8204ed05" CreationDate="2019-04-26T01:57:57.873" UserId="406" Text="For yet another account, more pure-Roman than Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Quintilian (1.6) seems to agree that Latin is close to Aeolian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Etymologia, quae verborum originem inquirit, a Cicerone dicta est notatio, quia nomen eius apud Aristotelen invenitur &quot;σύμβολον&quot;, quod est &quot;nota&quot;. […] Continet autem in se multam eruditionem, sive ex Graecis orta tractemus, quae sunt plurima praecipueque Aeolica ratione, cui est sermo noster simillimus, declinata, sive…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Etymology, which investigates the origin of words, Cicero calls &quot;notation&quot;, because the word &quot;symbol&quot; was found in Aristotle, which means &quot;note&quot;. […] See, it involves quite a lot of learning, whether we're facing down [words] from Greek—which are all over the place, especially the ones derived from the Aeolian style, which is most similar to our own language, or…*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quintilian mentions digamma several other times, for example in 1.4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …in his &quot;servus&quot; et &quot;vulgus&quot; Aeolicum digammon desideratur…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *…in these words, &quot;servus&quot; and &quot;vulgus&quot;, we long for the Aeolian digamma…*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And 1.7:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …neutro sane modo vox quam sentimus efficitur, nec inutiliter Claudius Aeolicam illam ad hos usus litteram adiecerat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Neither version [**seruos** or **seruus**, for modern **servus**] properly makes the sound that we hear. Claudius did a good deed when he adopted the Aeolian letter `Ⅎ` for these purposes.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in all these other instances, he's complaining that Latin *doesn't* have digamma for `/w/`: he's definitely not conflating it with Latin `F`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10569" RevisionGUID="10568ce7-40d3-4902-a8e2-c70677c776cf" CreationDate="2019-04-26T01:58:16.137" UserId="406" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in his _Ῥωμαϊκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία_ (_Roman Antiquities_) 1.90, explains that Latin was actually a dialect of Greek, corrupted by contact with European barbarians:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ῥωμαῖοι δὲ φωνὴν μὲν οὔτ᾿ ἄκρως βάρβαρον οὔτ᾿ ἀπηρτισμένως Ἑλλάδα φθέγγονται, μικτὴν δέ τινα ἐξ ἀμφοῖν, ἧς ἐστιν ἡ πλείων Αἰολίς, τοῦτο μόνον ἀπολαύσαντες ἐκ τῶν πολλῶν ἐπιμιξιῶν, τὸ μὴ πᾶσι τοῖς φθόγγοις ὀρθοεπεῖν…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The language the Romans speak isn't totally barbarous, but also isn't completely Greek. No, it's a mixture made with something of each; the majority of it is Aeolian, and the only &quot;benefit&quot; they get from being so promiscuous with other [languages] is that they don't pronounce all of their sounds right any more…*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jeffrey Henderson, in his notes on LCL 319, says that there were probably three reasons for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The Greek dialects diverged a lot, so it's reasonable that Latin could be a very very divergent dialect&#xD;&#xA; - Latin had the letter `F`, which came from the Greek waw/digamma, which eventually died out in all dialects except Aeolian (though the Aeolians pronounced it `/w/` and the Romans pronounced it `/f/`)&#xD;&#xA; - Aeolian and Latin both kept long `/aː/` in words like *μᾱτηρ/māter*, while Attic and Ionian shifted it to long `/ɛː/` (*μητηρ*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll add one more to this list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A big part of Dionysius's goal in writing the _RA_ was to convince the newly-conquered Greeks that Rome was properly civilized, so drawing a contrast between the &quot;Greek&quot; Latin and the &quot;non-Greek&quot; barbarian languages would help with that" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10571" RevisionGUID="d6d0ec41-5be6-49d0-950c-c5f028bf414f" CreationDate="2019-04-26T02:21:58.507" UserId="406" Text="For one last answer, it seems another author has quoted a source no less Roman than Cato himself (though Cato's original doesn't survive):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὁ Ῥωμύλος, ἢ οἱ κατὰ αὐτόν, δείκνυται κατ' ἑκεῖνο καιροῦ τὴν Ἑλλάδα φωνήν, τὴν Αἱολίδα λέγω…Εὑάνδρου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων Ἀρκάδων εἰς Ἰταλίαν ἐλθόντων ποτὲ καὶ τὴν Αἱολίδα τοῖς βαρβάροις ἐνσπειράντων φωνήν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *At that moment in time Romulus, or his retinue, showed the Greek language, I mean, the Aeolian dialect…because of Evander and the other Arcadians, who went to Italy, and scattered the seeds of Aeolian among the barbarians there.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't been able to locate the original text, unfortunately, but this seems like a pretty good indication that the quintessential Roman thought that his language did indeed descend from Aeolian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Source: Benjamin Stevens, [_Aeolism: Latin as a Dialect of Greek_][1], 2006)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30038039#metadata_info_tab_contents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10571" RevisionGUID="8b119a79-1b98-48dc-b371-93513ccb33e5" CreationDate="2019-04-26T04:14:07.987" UserId="406" Comment="I hate breathing marks" Text="For one last answer, it seems another author has quoted a source no less Roman than Cato himself (though Cato's original doesn't survive):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὁ Ῥωμύλος, ἢ οἱ κατὰ αὐτόν, δείκνυται κατ' ἑκεῖνο καιροῦ τὴν Ἑλλάδα φωνήν, τὴν Αἱολίδα λέγω…Εὐάνδρου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων Ἀρκάδων εἰς Ἰταλίαν ἐλθόντων ποτὲ καὶ τὴν Αἱολίδα τοῖς βαρβάροις ἐνσπειράντων φωνήν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *At that moment in time Romulus, or his retinue, showed the Greek language, I mean, the Aeolian dialect…because of Evander and the other Arcadians, who went to Italy, and scattered the seeds of Aeolian among the barbarians there.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't been able to locate the original text, unfortunately, but this seems like a pretty good indication that the quintessential Roman thought that his language did indeed descend from Aeolian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Source: Benjamin Stevens, [_Aeolism: Latin as a Dialect of Greek_][1], 2006)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30038039#metadata_info_tab_contents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10572" RevisionGUID="21ea278c-b74a-4f8d-9b9e-7893ebf77498" CreationDate="2019-04-26T10:25:57.267" UserId="1982" Text="When personal pronouns of the first and second persons are used reflexively, they may be strengthened by a part of &quot;ipse&quot; e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wounded myself = me (ipsum) vulneravi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We wounded ourselves = nos (ipsos) vulneravimus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The part of &quot;ipse&quot; is, of course, optional; the personal pronoun is not. Both would be mandatory in e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The king himself had killed himself = rex ipse se interfecerat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not to say that &quot;ipse&quot; cannot stand alone: it can translate as &quot;the very...&quot; as in &quot;femina ipsa&quot; = &quot;the very woman&quot; as an alternative to &quot;the woman herself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;foris ipsa aperit&quot; = &quot;the very door opens&quot;/ &quot;that-specific-door-opens&quot;; suspect it's ablative in an attempt to achieve &quot;by itself&quot;? Clever; but, don't think so. The strengthening agent (ipsa) needs something to strengthen--the reflexive pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10572" RevisionGUID="dc900086-12e2-47c3-bd9d-79cbfcbc2738" CreationDate="2019-04-26T10:49:44.193" UserId="1982" Comment="added 174 characters in body" Text="When personal pronouns of the first and second persons are used reflexively, they may be strengthened by a part of &quot;ipse&quot; e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wounded myself = me (ipsum) vulneravi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We wounded ourselves = nos (ipsos) vulneravimus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The part of &quot;ipse&quot; is, of course, optional; the personal pronoun is not. Both would be mandatory in e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The king himself had killed himself = rex ipse se interfecerat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not to say that &quot;ipse&quot; cannot stand alone: it can translate as &quot;the very...&quot; as in &quot;femina ipsa&quot; = &quot;the very woman&quot; as an alternative to &quot;the woman herself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;foris ipsa aperit&quot; = &quot;the very door opens&quot;/ &quot;that-specific-door-opens&quot;; suspect it's ablative in an attempt to achieve &quot;by itself&quot;? Clever; but, don't think so. The strengthening agent (ipsa) needs something to strengthen--the reflexive pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ipse dixit&quot;; &quot;ipse&quot; is nominative and a reflexive pronoun cannot be nom., by definition; instead of the accepted &quot;he himself said&quot;, it should be: &quot;he, the very man, said&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10573" RevisionGUID="b402e533-dd55-4e2f-9c1a-b766b6a3a211" CreationDate="2019-04-26T16:37:22.007" UserId="1982" Text="A worker is having to prove that he has done his job?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How about: opera perfecto prima facie facile constituit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the work having been completed it was easily established on firt sight. Showing the finished job, presumably, killed the argument." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10573" RevisionGUID="3566be93-63b2-447e-8305-686096b7f33b" CreationDate="2019-04-26T17:46:29.753" UserId="1982" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="A worker is having to prove that he has done his job?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How about: opera perfecto veritas prima facie facile constituit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With the work having been completed the truth was easily established on firt sight.&quot; Showing the finished job, presumably, killed the argument." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10574" RevisionGUID="31582eaa-939c-45f0-9c71-ef57c6328652" CreationDate="2019-04-26T21:39:53.820" UserId="406" Text="The basic structure you want is _argumentum ad…_ with an accusative noun: that is, an argument aimed at something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Amusingly, the most common word for &quot;proof&quot; is also _argumentum_, in the sense of proving something in court, or finishing a mathematical theorem. Instead, I'd use _indicium_, which means evidence you can present before a court.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;work&quot;, since this is specifically work designed to be difficult without actually accomplishing anything useful, I'd say _labor_: literally &quot;toil&quot; or &quot;drudgery&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All together, that would be **_argumentum ad indicium laboris_**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this sounds somewhat unwieldy, and is kind of an obvious calque: it's a literal translation from English, not an idiomatic one. For an idiomatic translation, I would use _onus_. Literally it means &quot;burden&quot;, but in the sense of &quot;something you have to suffer through&quot; or &quot;a duty that has to be done&quot; (as in &quot;burden of proof&quot;, a literal translation of Latin _onus probandi_). So an **_argumentum ad onus_** is proving your point by demonstrating what you've been through, which in this case is the one-way computation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10575" RevisionGUID="9f495299-527b-4632-8e9f-4a991439cc3a" CreationDate="2019-04-27T02:25:44.840" UserId="4698" Text="The meaning of the idiom might become clearer if we look at the original meaning of poena: &quot;the payment made as an attonement&quot; by a criminal. In your example, &quot;Sine philosophiā saepe errāmus et poenās damus&quot;, the meaning would be &quot;we give a payment&quot; for our lack of philosophy, or &quot;we pay the price&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10573" RevisionGUID="fd05241b-699a-43ad-8127-5042450f5c1c" CreationDate="2019-04-27T09:36:16.537" UserId="1982" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="A worker is having to prove that he has done his job?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How about: opera perfecto veritas prima facie facile constituit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;With the work having been completed the truth was easily established on first sight.&quot; Showing the finished job, presumably, killed the argument." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10576" RevisionGUID="9d309677-1e6b-4743-9b34-575ecce1584f" CreationDate="2019-04-27T11:58:51.777" UserId="4699" Text="This is a motto for a charity. We have tried per arbitrium fortis but want to know if this can be improved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30898" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10576" RevisionGUID="9d309677-1e6b-4743-9b34-575ecce1584f" CreationDate="2019-04-27T11:58:51.777" UserId="4699" Text="Translate 'Strong by Choice&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30899" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10576" RevisionGUID="9d309677-1e6b-4743-9b34-575ecce1584f" CreationDate="2019-04-27T11:58:51.777" UserId="4699" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9479" RevisionGUID="5a7990a1-19a0-437d-9220-f430798eee77" CreationDate="2019-04-27T12:21:24.590" UserId="30" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I've tought myself to read the Greek alphabet, and it is still confusing to read and identify &quot;h&quot; sound in the ancient Greek. For example, Athena talks about Calypso that she has &quot;αἱμύλιοι λόγοι&quot; in Odyssey(1, 56). It seems 'aimylioi logoi' to me, because α has no diacritical mark on, but I have seen that is read as 'haimylioi logoi' elsewhere. Which one is right, and why? Is it to do with the Homeric Greek, or does ἱ after α affect the pronunciation? Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10577" RevisionGUID="220c1c9d-1a38-4bb4-b48d-f5c200d73547" CreationDate="2019-04-27T13:03:26.813" UserId="1982" Text="&quot;Eligimus fortis esse&quot;; fortis also means brave; powerful; resourceful: all of these fortify the effect. Possibly, a bit militaristic; but, then so is &quot;Onward Christian Soldiers&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10577" RevisionGUID="51d4f556-682f-422d-bec7-0ed116a3c1b6" CreationDate="2019-04-27T13:21:58.957" UserId="1982" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="&quot;Eligimus fortis esse&quot;; (We Choose to be Strong) fortis also means brave; powerful; resourceful: all of these fortify the effect. Possibly, a bit militaristic; but, then so is &quot;Onward Christian Soldiers&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10577" RevisionGUID="8c666d13-f8d9-4222-99bb-ba1a32ca5105" CreationDate="2019-04-27T14:38:48.357" UserId="1982" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="&quot;Eligimus fortis esse&quot;; (We Choose to be Strong) fortis also means brave; powerful; resourceful: all of these fortify the effect. Possibly, a bit militaristic, for a charity; but, then, so is &quot;Onward Christian Soldiers&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10576" RevisionGUID="877cb335-49a9-444e-a57c-04c1cbe74938" CreationDate="2019-04-27T18:51:40.653" UserId="79" Comment="added 51 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I would like to translate &quot;Strong by Choice&quot; to Latin as a motto for a charity. We have tried *per arbitrium fortis* but want to know if this can be improved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30905" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10576" RevisionGUID="877cb335-49a9-444e-a57c-04c1cbe74938" CreationDate="2019-04-27T18:51:40.653" UserId="79" Comment="added 51 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Translate &quot;Strong by Choice&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30906" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10576" RevisionGUID="877cb335-49a9-444e-a57c-04c1cbe74938" CreationDate="2019-04-27T18:51:40.653" UserId="79" Comment="added 51 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10578" RevisionGUID="a50be4ba-bcb1-4dd2-b265-4100d0312d1c" CreationDate="2019-04-27T19:27:13.807" UserId="79" Text="*Fortis* is a good word for &quot;strong&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;A harder problem is to find a good word for &quot;choice&quot; (or the verb &quot;choose&quot; if you are willing to reword a little).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Arbitrium* means a legal judgement, a decision by an arbiter, an opinion, a decision, and similar things.&#xD;&#xA;A better option would be *optio*, which means free choice and the liberty to choose.&#xD;&#xA;(There is also the verb *optare*.)&#xD;&#xA;Another option is *voluntas*, which is more in the direction of desire, free will, and choice.&#xD;&#xA;The most appropriate tone depends on what suits your purpose.&#xD;&#xA;I recommend that you compare these words in [any online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correct form of *fortis* depends on what it refers to.&#xD;&#xA;If it refers to a single person, it is *fortis* (singular masculine or feminine).&#xD;&#xA;If it refers to a group of people, use *fortes* (plural masculine or feminine).&#xD;&#xA;If instead of people it refers to an institution, use *forte* (singular neuter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most idiomatic way to say &quot;strong by something&quot; is to put the something in ablative.&#xD;&#xA;Using *per* is grammatical, but I find that a plain ablative gives more gravity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore my suggestion is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Voluntate/optione fortis/fortes/forte*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves you with six choices, depending on the exact circumstances and nuance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10571" RevisionGUID="274d9464-49f9-47e2-8d7b-b8f2899db1be" CreationDate="2019-04-27T20:29:39.807" UserId="406" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="For one last answer, it seems another author has quoted a source no less Roman than Cato himself (though Cato's original doesn't survive):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὁ Ῥωμύλος, ἢ οἱ κατὰ αὐτόν, δείκνυται κατ' ἑκεῖνο καιροῦ τὴν Ἑλλάδα φωνήν, τὴν Αἱολίδα λέγω…Εὐάνδρου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων Ἀρκάδων εἰς Ἰταλίαν ἐλθόντων ποτὲ καὶ τὴν Αἱολίδα τοῖς βαρβάροις ἐνσπειράντων φωνήν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *At that moment Romulus, or his retinue, showed off the Greek language—I mean, the Aeolian dialect…because of Evander and the other Arcadians, who went to Italy at one point, and scattered the seeds of Aeolian among the barbarians there.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't been able to locate the original text, unfortunately, but this seems like a pretty good indication that the quintessential Roman thought that his language did indeed descend from Aeolian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Source: Benjamin Stevens, [_Aeolism: Latin as a Dialect of Greek_][1], 2006)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30038039" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10570" RevisionGUID="83ba1832-6d91-47ea-b716-cb56f4014cd5" CreationDate="2019-04-27T20:32:02.207" UserId="406" Comment="added 326 characters in body" Text="For yet another account, more pure-Roman than Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Quintilian (1.6) seems to agree that Latin is close to Aeolian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Etymologia, quae verborum originem inquirit, a Cicerone dicta est notatio, quia nomen eius apud Aristotelen invenitur &quot;σύμβολον&quot;, quod est &quot;nota&quot;. […] Continet autem in se multam eruditionem, sive ex Graecis orta tractemus, quae sunt plurima praecipueque Aeolica ratione, cui est sermo noster simillimus, declinata, sive…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Etymology, which investigates the origin of words, Cicero calls &quot;notation&quot;, because the word &quot;symbol&quot; was found in Aristotle, which means &quot;note&quot;. […] See, it involves quite a lot of learning, whether we're facing down [words] from Greek—which are all over the place, especially the ones derived from the Aeolian style, which is most similar to our own language, or…*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quintilian also mentions the Aeolian letter digamma (`Ϝ`, pronounced `/w/`) several times, for example in 1.4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …in his &quot;servus&quot; et &quot;vulgus&quot; Aeolicum digammon desideratur…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *…in these words, &quot;servus&quot; and &quot;vulgus&quot;, we long for the Aeolian digamma…*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And 1.7:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …neutro sane modo vox quam sentimus efficitur, nec inutiliter Claudius Aeolicam illam ad hos usus litteram adiecerat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Neither version [**seruos** or **seruus**, for modern **servus**] properly makes the sound that we hear. Claudius did a good deed when he adopted the Aeolian letter `Ⅎ` for these purposes.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(All translations mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in all these other instances, he's complaining that Latin *doesn't* have digamma for `/w/`: he's definitely not conflating it with Latin `F`, and might not have seen the connection there at all. There were other correspondences between the Latin and Greek alphabets that were seen as pure coincidence, like Latin `P` `/p/` with Greek `Ρ` `/r/`, and `F/Ϝ` might have been just another one of those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10569" RevisionGUID="4510a9fb-4e88-474d-883c-4c1fbb1b1afe" CreationDate="2019-04-27T20:32:42.683" UserId="406" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in his _Ῥωμαϊκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία_ (_Roman Antiquities_) 1.90, explains that Latin was actually a dialect of Greek, corrupted by contact with European barbarians:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ῥωμαῖοι δὲ φωνὴν μὲν οὔτ᾿ ἄκρως βάρβαρον οὔτ᾿ ἀπηρτισμένως Ἑλλάδα φθέγγονται, μικτὴν δέ τινα ἐξ ἀμφοῖν, ἧς ἐστιν ἡ πλείων Αἰολίς, τοῦτο μόνον ἀπολαύσαντες ἐκ τῶν πολλῶν ἐπιμιξιῶν, τὸ μὴ πᾶσι τοῖς φθόγγοις ὀρθοεπεῖν…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The language the Romans speak isn't totally barbarous, but also isn't completely Greek. No, it's a mixture made with something of each; the majority of it is Aeolian, and the only &quot;benefit&quot; they get from being so promiscuous with other [languages] is that they don't pronounce all of their sounds right any more…*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jeffrey Henderson, in his notes on LCL 319, says that there were probably three reasons for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The Greek dialects diverged a lot, so it's reasonable that Latin could be a very very divergent dialect&#xD;&#xA; - Latin had the letter `F`, derived from the Greek waw/digamma `Ϝ`, which eventually died out in all Greek dialects except Aeolian (though the Aeolians pronounced it `/w/` and the Romans pronounced it `/f/`)&#xD;&#xA; - Aeolian and Latin both kept long `/aː/` in words like *μᾱτηρ/māter*, while Attic and Ionian shifted it to long `/ɛː/` (*μητηρ*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll add one more to this list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A big part of Dionysius's goal in writing the _RA_ was to convince the newly-conquered Greeks that Rome was properly civilized, so drawing a contrast between the &quot;Greek&quot; Latin and the &quot;non-Greek&quot; barbarian languages would help with that" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10579" RevisionGUID="8f318e28-3c52-4b2c-85bd-d4e0316acd38" CreationDate="2019-04-27T23:49:12.027" UserId="13" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The image shows two papyrus fragments, and seems to suggest they should join as placed, perhaps with some space in between. In fact, it seems there is sellotape putting them together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bigger fragment on the left is P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 4, which is the source for Sappho Lobel-Page 65, given by Campbell as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other fragment I cannot seem to identify. To my eyes, it reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;]MNĀ . [&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;] . KAN̤T€Ι[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;] . Ϲ̣Ḳ[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone help me identify this, and figure out why it's placed with fr. 4?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9zvIi.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vcsu3.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30912" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10579" RevisionGUID="8f318e28-3c52-4b2c-85bd-d4e0316acd38" CreationDate="2019-04-27T23:49:12.027" UserId="13" Text="What papyrus is this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30913" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10579" RevisionGUID="8f318e28-3c52-4b2c-85bd-d4e0316acd38" CreationDate="2019-04-27T23:49:12.027" UserId="13" Text="|sappho|passage-identification|papyrology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10580" RevisionGUID="b6ba46b4-4ef1-448d-851c-f945990486c0" CreationDate="2019-04-28T10:08:35.153" UserId="3029" Text="I have two questions about the following sentences ([Herodot][1], [Histories][2], [2.124.3][3]) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The workers working for the pyramid of Cheops...* ἐργάζοντο δὲ κατὰ δέκα μυριάδας ἀνθρώπων **αἰεὶ τὴν τρίμηνον ἑκάστην**. χρόνον δὲ ἐγγενέσθαι τριβομένῳ τῷ λεῷ δέκα ἔτεα μὲν τῆς ὁδοῦ κατ᾽ ἣν εἷλκον τοὺς λίθους, **τὴν ἔδειμαν ἔργον ἐὸν** οὐ πολλῷ τεῳ ἔλασσον τῆς πυραμίδος. ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκέειν. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[my translation] &#xD;&#xA;&gt; They worked in teams of 100,000 people, continuously, **each team working for 3 months**. As for the time spent by the people exhausting themselves, the time necessary to make the road along which they pulled stones, it seems to me that it was 10 years; **they built the road, a structure that was** not, by far, less than the pyramid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**my two questions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **(question #1)** &quot;αἰεὶ&quot; in  &quot;αἰεὶ τὴν τρίμηνον ἑκάστην&quot; may modify &quot;ἐργάζοντο&quot; (→ &quot;They worked continuously&quot;) but also &quot;τὴν τρίμηνον ἑκάστην&quot; (&quot;→ &quot;... each team working continously for 3 months&quot;). **Is there a way to choose between these two interpretations?**&#xD;&#xA;* for the sake of completeness, the singular &quot;ἑκάστην&quot; in &quot;αἰεὶ τὴν τρίμηνον ἑκάστην&quot; is normal; see e.g. [Iliad 18.495-496][4].&#xD;&#xA;* **(question #2)** Why is &quot;ἔργον&quot; an accusative ? Is it an apposition to &quot;τὴν&quot; in &quot;τὴν ἔδειμαν ἔργον ἐὸν&quot; (→ &quot;They builed this [road], [it was] a work being...&quot;) ?&#xD;&#xA;* For the sake of completenesse, see [here][5] for &quot;πολλῷ τεῳ&quot; (dative of τις).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help would be appreciated !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histories_(Herodotus)&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hdt.%202.124&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0125&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hom.%20Il.%2018.495&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0133&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pollw%3D%7C&amp;la=greek&amp;can=pollw%3D%7C0&amp;prior=ou)&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0125:book=2:chapter=124&amp;i=1#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30915" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10580" RevisionGUID="b6ba46b4-4ef1-448d-851c-f945990486c0" CreationDate="2019-04-28T10:08:35.153" UserId="3029" Text="Herodot 2.124 (&quot;τὴν ἔδειμαν ἔργον ἐὸν&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30916" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10580" RevisionGUID="b6ba46b4-4ef1-448d-851c-f945990486c0" CreationDate="2019-04-28T10:08:35.153" UserId="3029" Text="|greek|grammar-choice|translation-check|greek-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10581" RevisionGUID="1fc32e84-3f9c-4adc-a86f-c5ff5be11002" CreationDate="2019-04-28T13:36:32.970" UserId="1051" Text="How does one form composites from words in '-σις'?&#xD;&#xA;For example, if one wishes to name the fear of vaxing fat,&#xD;&#xA;using πάχυνσις, is it παχυνσοφοβία; or παχυνσεοφοβία?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30918" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10581" RevisionGUID="1fc32e84-3f9c-4adc-a86f-c5ff5be11002" CreationDate="2019-04-28T13:36:32.970" UserId="1051" Text="Composites from -σις words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30919" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10581" RevisionGUID="1fc32e84-3f9c-4adc-a86f-c5ff5be11002" CreationDate="2019-04-28T13:36:32.970" UserId="1051" Text="|greek|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9516" RevisionGUID="646403c5-8a10-40eb-b15f-a4933acfbe67" CreationDate="2019-04-28T15:09:40.137" UserId="1982" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Try (id est) iustum; giving well-grounded/ well-deserved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10582" RevisionGUID="2f50b05f-f9ca-4f24-9d84-33ddcb531d1a" CreationDate="2019-04-28T15:45:06.337" UserId="1982" Text="A recent Q concerned the use of &quot;fair enough&quot; at the termination of a conversation/ debate-cum-argument about Brexit, or extending the Empire, or whatever. The OP (What does OP stand for?) advised a Russian colleague, presumably the rest of us, to ask a new Q if we wished to pursue this. What was required, here, was a quote from the literature. Overwhelmed at the prospect of such a search, deployed initiative, a pithy aphorism: &quot;(id est) iustum&quot; giving &quot;well-grounded&quot;; &quot;well-deserved&quot;. The OP was, quite naturally, disgruntled; but, failed to respond to the follow-up--how would a Roman have interpreted this; if the Latin is incorrect, why is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30922" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10582" RevisionGUID="2f50b05f-f9ca-4f24-9d84-33ddcb531d1a" CreationDate="2019-04-28T15:45:06.337" UserId="1982" Text="Fair Enough--Revisited" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30923" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10582" RevisionGUID="2f50b05f-f9ca-4f24-9d84-33ddcb531d1a" CreationDate="2019-04-28T15:45:06.337" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="557dcfa3-c2d8-4c58-bd9c-a095e61b6326" CreationDate="2019-04-28T16:39:22.407" UserId="648" Comment="broken link fixed" Text="Mixing Youssef's version and Joonas's&#xD;&#xA;with what I could hear, I guessed the Latin was being mixed with back-slang.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Tes stegrat&quot; 'spells' Targets Set!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But almost all the other Gargoyle formulae are in Latin, or something like it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even so there is uncertainty about the  incantation for the Phoenix Gate. This version (collected by G.Guay for Katrina Dawn Nell) appears with two other versions on [The Gargoyles fans Website][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *“Deflagrate muri tempi et intervallia!”*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Burn down walls of time and space! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gargoyles-fans.org/characters/spells.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30925" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="557dcfa3-c2d8-4c58-bd9c-a095e61b6326" CreationDate="2019-04-28T16:39:22.407" Comment="Proposed by 648 approved by 79 edit id of 310" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10582" RevisionGUID="cde041b9-1f78-4ae3-af19-3b7b05a1e44e" CreationDate="2019-04-28T16:45:01.533" UserId="79" Comment="Added a link and changed tags." Text="[A recent Q](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6803/79) concerned the use of &quot;fair enough&quot; at the termination of a conversation/ debate-cum-argument about Brexit, or extending the Empire, or whatever. The OP (What does OP stand for?) advised a Russian colleague, presumably the rest of us, to ask a new Q if we wished to pursue this. What was required, here, was a quote from the literature. Overwhelmed at the prospect of such a search, deployed initiative, a pithy aphorism: &quot;(id est) iustum&quot; giving &quot;well-grounded&quot;; &quot;well-deserved&quot;. The OP was, quite naturally, disgruntled; but, failed to respond to the follow-up--how would a Roman have interpreted this; if the Latin is incorrect, why is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30927" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10582" RevisionGUID="cde041b9-1f78-4ae3-af19-3b7b05a1e44e" CreationDate="2019-04-28T16:45:01.533" UserId="79" Comment="Added a link and changed tags." Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30928" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10581" RevisionGUID="e618ba98-7050-4479-a9c9-52e2a5dbbfde" CreationDate="2019-04-28T16:50:42.933" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|morphology|derivation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10578" RevisionGUID="717dfb86-81fa-4c5a-a92e-a05da50831aa" CreationDate="2019-04-28T17:07:32.390" UserId="79" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="*Fortis* is a good word for &quot;strong&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;A harder problem is to find a good word for &quot;choice&quot; (or the verb &quot;choose&quot; if you are willing to reword a little).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Arbitrium* means a legal judgement, a decision by an arbiter, an opinion, a decision, and similar things.&#xD;&#xA;A better option would be *optio*, which means free choice and the liberty to choose.&#xD;&#xA;(There is also the verb *optare*.)&#xD;&#xA;Another option is *voluntas*, which is more in the direction of desire, free will, and choice.&#xD;&#xA;The most appropriate tone depends on what suits your purpose.&#xD;&#xA;I recommend that you compare these words in [any online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correct form of *fortis* depends on what it refers to.&#xD;&#xA;If it refers to a single person, it is *fortis* (singular masculine or feminine).&#xD;&#xA;If it refers to a group of people, use *fortes* (plural masculine or feminine).&#xD;&#xA;If instead of people it refers to an institution, use *forte* (singular neuter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most idiomatic way to say &quot;strong by something&quot; is to put the something in ablative.&#xD;&#xA;Using *per* is grammatical, but I find that a plain ablative gives more gravity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore my suggestion is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Voluntate/optione fortis/fortes/forte*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves you with six choices, depending on the exact circumstances and nuance.&#xD;&#xA;The ablatives of the nouns *voluntas* and *optio* stay the same, no matter which form of *fortis* you choose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10583" RevisionGUID="0f220d81-300d-4ba6-bc30-35d9f86a8dce" CreationDate="2019-04-28T17:08:59.457" UserId="1694" Text="My expectation would be that the base stem would be used, thus παχυνσιφοβία.  I haven't found a lot of examples to support this, but there is, for example, πραξι‐κοπεῖν &quot;to take by surprise&quot; from πρᾶξις and στασι‐ωρός &quot;watcher of the station&quot; from στάσις." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10583" RevisionGUID="68033883-49c2-4c5e-aefb-bbff41e4a9fa" CreationDate="2019-04-28T17:15:24.973" UserId="1694" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="My expectation would be that the base stem would be used, thus παχυνσιφοβία.  I haven't found a lot of examples to support this, but there is, for example, πραξι‐κοπεῖν &quot;to take by surprise&quot; from πρᾶξις and στασι‐ωρός &quot;watcher of the station&quot; from στάσις.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. What's &quot;vaxing fat&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10584" RevisionGUID="86367519-28ca-47f5-820f-eac1a6cf17e1" CreationDate="2019-04-28T20:25:02.993" UserId="40" Text="Tacitus, *Annales* 4.3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pellit domo Seianus uxorem Apicatam, ex qua tres liberos genuerat, **ne paelici suspectaretur**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation on [Perseus][1] (Church and Brodribb) gives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sejanus, **to avert his mistress's jealousy**, divorced his wife Apicata, by whom he had had three children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does *ne paelici suspectaretur* mean *to avert his mistress's jealousy*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ne suspectaretur* is easy: &quot;lest he should be suspected&quot;. *Paelici* is a dative of *paelex* &quot;mistress&quot;. But I'm not seeing what a dative could be doing in this clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, too, there's an alternate reading of this phrase: L&amp;S under *[suspecto][2]* quote this as *ne pellici suspectaretur*, with a passive infinitive of *pellicio* &quot;allure, entice&quot;. It would then mean &quot;lest he be suspected of being enticed&quot;. This at least works grammatically, but I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's going on with this phrase?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0077%3Abook%3D4%3Achapter%3D3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsuspecto1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30933" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10584" RevisionGUID="86367519-28ca-47f5-820f-eac1a6cf17e1" CreationDate="2019-04-28T20:25:02.993" UserId="40" Text="&quot;ne paelici suspectaretur&quot; (Tacitus)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30934" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10584" RevisionGUID="86367519-28ca-47f5-820f-eac1a6cf17e1" CreationDate="2019-04-28T20:25:02.993" UserId="40" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5106" RevisionGUID="5c01f7a5-0791-462b-95b4-016d70eee3e0" CreationDate="2019-04-28T23:02:35.903" UserId="79" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="## Languages don't usually have flags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very few languages have flags per se.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Finnish flag stands for Finland, a constitutionally bilingual country, not the Finnish language, which is also spoken outside Finland to some extent.&#xD;&#xA;There is no flag for the Finnish language.&#xD;&#xA;Nor for English as far as I know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some languages can be easily identified with some flags; consider Italian, French, Greek, and German, for example.&#xD;&#xA;But the languages are not confined to their main countries, nor are they the sole language in them.&#xD;&#xA;Although often innocent and sometimes useful, identifying a flag with a language can be seen as a political statement.&#xD;&#xA;A Canadian might be upset that their native language is identified with a foreign flag (French), or a Swedish-speaking Finn might be upset that the flag of their fatherland is identified with another language (Finnish).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Esperanto has a flag dedicated to the language, it is a rare exception.&#xD;&#xA;Flags are typically for countries and other administrative entities, not languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## No flag is sufficiently strongly associated with Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some languages can be easily identified from a flag in contexts like language learning software or choosing the language of a website.&#xD;&#xA;I would argue that Latin is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proposed Latin flag linked to in the comments combines Rome and Vatican.&#xD;&#xA;However, both Rome and Vatican operate mostly in Italian today.&#xD;&#xA;The role of Latin in Vatican is mostly ceremonial.&#xD;&#xA;Although Vatican is the country most strongly linked with the Latin language, Latin is (in my opinion) not the language most strongly linked with Vatican.&#xD;&#xA;Some may argue that the Vatican flag stands more for Latin than Italian; perhaps it does, but the ambiguity is inevitable.&#xD;&#xA;If the purpose of a flag is to make the user interface better, ambiguity is certainly something to avoid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Rafael commented, perhaps the best symbol is the Vexilloid of the Roman Empire (image from Wikipedia):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Vexilloid of the Roman Empire](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Vexilloid_of_the_Roman_Empire.svg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This corresponds quite uniquely to Latin.&#xD;&#xA;However, I see two issues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It is not of the typical flag format, so it might be cumbersome to use. (Admittedly, there are cases like Nepal with a similar problem.)&#xD;&#xA;2. Without the [abbreviation SPQR](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5045/79) it is hard to recognize and identify with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, it can be associated with Italian or German fascism, as those movements imitated Roman symbols.&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks for pointing this out, Sam K!)&#xD;&#xA;And even then some are not going to understand.&#xD;&#xA;You are much better off using one more letter: the word &quot;Latin&quot; would make things clear beyond any doubt.&#xD;&#xA;The best word to choose depends on the language context, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Nobody has jurisdiction over Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anybody can decide to issue a flag for anything.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I could draw and publish a flag for mathematics.&#xD;&#xA;Such declarations will have little effect unless done by a suitable body.&#xD;&#xA;Latin spans many eras and areas in Europe, and no single institution can claim it to itself.&#xD;&#xA;It might be taken seriously if Vatican or [ALF](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia_Latinitati_Fovendae) issued a flag, but it is unlikely to catch on unless several organizations and individuals agree to it and start using it.&#xD;&#xA;A flag without public awareness and support is quite useless, and no person or institution has [sufficient power over Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4211/79) to do anything about the language unilaterally.&#xD;&#xA;There is no central authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any institution would need a strong reason to introduce such a flag.&#xD;&#xA;Adding a symbol retroactively to something of such a great historical importance would easily be frowned upon.&#xD;&#xA;I believe I am not the only one who will not be easily convinced to accept a flag for Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30937" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10584" RevisionGUID="64d7bfa9-e92c-43a6-b987-d8f83021b789" CreationDate="2019-04-28T23:23:00.383" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10585" RevisionGUID="64965e95-7703-4709-9176-db2efd5efa83" CreationDate="2019-04-28T23:31:25.340" UserId="3215" Text="Was looking to do an inscription on a ring for my fiance (engagement ring)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Mei Uxor animusque&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My (plural m) wife (f) and soul(m)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The que implies that these things are close together by making them textually closer together, and the plural masculine my covers the mixed gendered list of words.  Just wanted to make sure this made sense and was correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30939" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10585" RevisionGUID="64965e95-7703-4709-9176-db2efd5efa83" CreationDate="2019-04-28T23:31:25.340" UserId="3215" Text="Trouble with the adjective my" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30940" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10585" RevisionGUID="64965e95-7703-4709-9176-db2efd5efa83" CreationDate="2019-04-28T23:31:25.340" UserId="3215" Text="|adjective|gender|plural|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10585" RevisionGUID="8e7a8fa0-0cc9-4ad7-bfc1-e0aedfd5c605" CreationDate="2019-04-28T23:36:43.303" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="Was looking to do an inscription on a ring for my fiance (engagement ring)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mei Uxor animusque&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My (plural m) wife (f) and soul(m)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *-que* implies that these things are close together by making them textually closer together, and the plural masculine my covers the mixed gendered list of words.  Just wanted to make sure this made sense and was correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30942" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10585" RevisionGUID="8e7a8fa0-0cc9-4ad7-bfc1-e0aedfd5c605" CreationDate="2019-04-28T23:36:43.303" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|translation-check|adjective|gender|inscription|plural|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10586" RevisionGUID="a202dc5c-02ea-4c01-8484-d01b2dab3e57" CreationDate="2019-04-29T00:29:37.663" UserId="9" Text="(This is only a partial answer; I need to look at some more sources to check what I say here. Also, I'm not a professional or expert, so don't get your inscription made right after reading this post!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [brianpck says in his answer here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/20/9), in Latin, attributive adjectives that semantically refer to multiple coordinated nouns tend to agree in gender and number with the closest noun, rather than with the number and gender of the total combination. I would therefore advise against the wording &quot;Mei Uxor animusque&quot;. (I'm not sure whether it would be outright ungrammatical, or just a dispreferred pattern of agreement.) I believe &quot;Mea uxor animusque&quot; would be grammatical and could convey the intended meaning; I'm not sure about the details of word order and the use of *-que* vs. *et.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10586" RevisionGUID="08b6ab83-ac34-4520-ae7d-b89e4e79ab60" CreationDate="2019-04-29T00:35:37.547" UserId="9" Comment="added 120 characters in body" Text="(This is only a partial answer; I need to look at some more sources to check what I say here. Also, I'm not a professional or expert, so don't get your inscription made right after reading this post!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [brianpck says in his answer here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/20/9), in Latin, attributive adjectives that semantically refer to multiple coordinated nouns tend to agree in gender and number with the closest noun, rather than with the number and gender of the total combination. You can see some examples in the following forum discussion: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/agreement.4137/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I would therefore advise against the wording &quot;Mei Uxor animusque&quot;. (I'm not sure whether it would be outright ungrammatical, or just a dispreferred pattern of agreement.) I believe &quot;Mea uxor animusque&quot; would be grammatical and could convey the intended meaning; I'm not sure about the details of word order and the use of *-que* vs. *et.* With a different word order, the possessive adjective might take a different form according to this rule (e.g. *Uxor animusque meus*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10586" RevisionGUID="5edeea8a-80c5-4b98-bf87-692f6af6138e" CreationDate="2019-04-29T00:48:18.647" UserId="9" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="(This is only a partial answer; I need to look at some more sources to check what I say here. Also, I'm not a professional or expert, so don't get your inscription made right after reading this post!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [brianpck says in his answer here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/20/9), in Latin, attributive adjectives that semantically refer to multiple coordinated nouns tend to agree in gender and number with the closest noun, rather than with the number and gender of the total combination (the latter strategy is called &quot;resolution&quot;). You can see some examples in the following forum discussion: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/agreement.4137/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I would therefore advise against the wording &quot;Mei Uxor animusque&quot;. (I'm not sure whether it would be outright ungrammatical, or just a dispreferred pattern of agreement.) I believe &quot;Mea uxor animusque&quot; would be grammatical and could convey the intended meaning; I'm not sure about the details of word order and the use of *-que* vs. *et.* With a different word order, the possessive adjective might take a different form according to this rule (e.g. *Uxor animusque meus*).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10587" RevisionGUID="d73df2ce-1d42-478f-9323-d3d5b5566542" CreationDate="2019-04-29T00:51:15.400" UserId="79" Text="Usually an adjective (and here *meus* works like an adjective) takes the form of the closest referent when used attributively.&#xD;&#xA;The masculine plural would be used in a sentence like &quot;the wife and soul are mine&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it better to put the adjective at the end, which would give you *uxor animusque meus*.&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to use *anima* instead of *animus* ([they mean different things](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6095/79)), there will be both a masculine and a feminine, and I find it a little awkward to refer to a wife with a masculine word even if grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Swapping the word order is one way around this, giving *animus uxorque mea*.&#xD;&#xA;I prefer this also because of more balanced word lengths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is to use *mihi*, &quot;to me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If I may take some liberties, I suggest *[tu/es] animus uxorque mihi*, &quot;[you are] the soul and wife to me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Whether you want to include *tu* or *es* or both is a matter of taste.&#xD;&#xA;On a quick thought, I would go with *es animus uxorque mihi*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before making a choice here, I suggest waiting a day or two to see if others have other suggestions or if their comments or votes suggests that mine is not to be trusted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10586" RevisionGUID="bd1f471a-ec32-4a82-b419-64b688093e64" CreationDate="2019-04-29T00:53:54.230" UserId="9" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="(This is only a partial answer; I need to look at some more sources to check what I say here. Also, I'm not a professional or expert, so don't get your inscription made right after reading this post!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Brianpck says in his answer here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/20/9) that in Latin, attributive adjectives that semantically refer to multiple coordinated nouns tend to agree in gender and number with the closest noun, rather than with the number and gender of the total combination (the latter strategy is called &quot;resolution&quot;). You can see some examples in the following forum discussion: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/agreement.4137/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I would therefore advise against the wording &quot;Mei Uxor animusque&quot;. (I'm not sure whether it would be outright ungrammatical, or just a dispreferred pattern of agreement.) I believe &quot;Mea uxor animusque&quot; would be grammatical and could convey the intended meaning; I'm not sure about the details of word order and the use of *-que* vs. *et.* With a different word order, the possessive adjective might take a different form according to this rule (e.g. *Uxor animusque meus*).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10586" RevisionGUID="819c2ee9-4bed-4920-b55a-c2d7d5cf7ef0" CreationDate="2019-04-29T00:59:15.883" UserId="9" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="(This is only a partial answer; I need to look at some more sources to check what I say here. Also, I'm not a professional or expert, so don't get your inscription made right after reading this post!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Brianpck says in his answer here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/20/9) that in Latin, attributive adjectives that semantically refer to multiple coordinated nouns tend to agree in gender and number with the closest noun, rather than with the number and gender of the total combination (the latter strategy is called &quot;resolution&quot;). You can see some examples in the following forum discussion: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/agreement.4137/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I would therefore advise against the wording &quot;Mei Uxor animusque&quot;. I'm not sure whether it would be outright ungrammatical, or just a dispreferred pattern of agreement. I found a dissertation that implies that resolution was categorically avoided for attributive adjectives in Latin: &quot;Attributive targets always show Nearest Antecedent Agreement&quot;, p. 65 in &quot;[Deconstructing and Reconstructing Semantic Agreement: A Case Study of Multiple Antecedent Agreement in Indo-European](https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1417714779&amp;disposition=inline)&quot;, by Cynthia A. Johnson, 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe &quot;Mea uxor animusque&quot; would be grammatical and could convey the intended meaning; I'm not sure about the details of word order and the use of *-que* vs. *et.* With a different word order, the possessive adjective might take a different form according to this rule (e.g. *Uxor animusque meus*).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10588" RevisionGUID="d4b05419-712e-42da-b661-fc7ecbc474e4" CreationDate="2019-04-29T01:14:16.257" UserId="30" Text="This can be read as a **dativus auctoris**. It should then be translated thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lest he should be suspected **by his mistress** / lest he should be suspect **to his mistress**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Common in gerundive constructions *(hostis **nobis** vincendus est)*, it is also occasionally used with other passive verbs; the dative is then most common with perfect stems or past participles (*mihi cognitum est*: &quot;it is known by me&quot; or &quot;it is known to me&quot;). It indicates the person by whom something is done. Especially with verbs expressing a judgement, it is somewhat similar to the ordinary dative of *videtur mihi* &quot;it seems to me&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Kühner–Stegmann¹, this dative was only used with a perfect stem and a personal pronoun in older Latin (pace their own Accius example, see below); but Cicero and various later authors also used it with other passive forms and substantive nouns. They also mention Tacitus specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In poetry, it is (especially) used by the Augustan poets, even non metri causa. They say the construction is originally Latin, but was extended under Greek influence (after all, the agent in a passive construction is normally expressed by a dative in Greek).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here follow a few examples taken from K.–S. and Gildersleeve:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accius, *Tragoediae* 284:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   DIOMEDES:  &#xD;&#xA; Ergo me Argos referam, nam hic sum gnobilis  &#xD;&#xA;  ne **cui** cognoscar **noto**.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Then I will go back to Argos, for here I am notable, lest I be recognised by someone I know.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Tusculanae Disputationes* 5.68.4:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &quot;Sumatur...**nobis** quidam praestans vir...&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Let us assume an excellent man...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, *Annales* 2.50.13:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... ut exemplo maiorum **propinquis suis** ultra ducentesimum lapidem removeretur suasit.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot; ...he suggested that, according to ancient custom, she should be removed by her next of kin beyond the two-hundredth milestone.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, *Annales* 12.1.1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aelia Paetina...**Narcisso** fovebatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Aelia Paetina was favoured by Narcissus.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;The past participle or adjective *suspectus* is often used with a dative, which may also have influenced Tacitus to use the dativus auctoris with a passive imperfect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sallustius, *Bellum Iugurthinum* 70.1.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bomilcar...suspectus **regi** et ipse eum suspiciens novas res cupere...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Bomilcar, suspected by the King [or: suspect to the King], and himself suspecting the King, desired a change of power...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, Annales 14.44.10:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suspecta **maioribus nostris** fuerunt ingenia servorum...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;To our ancestors, the temper of their slaves was suspect...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;¹) Satzlehre vol. I (1912), §76 8d, p. 324:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oMBi8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10588" RevisionGUID="0a07fb46-315f-4975-ab95-30b0a6f718dc" CreationDate="2019-04-29T01:25:13.160" UserId="30" Comment="added 208 characters in body" Text="This can be read as a **dativus auctoris**. It should then be translated thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lest he should be suspected **by his mistress** / lest he should be suspect **to his mistress**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Common in gerundive constructions *(hostis **nobis** vincendus est)*, the dativus auctoris is also occasionally used with other passive verbs; it is then most common with past participles (*mihi cognitum est*: &quot;it is known by me&quot; or &quot;it is known to me&quot;). It indicates the person by whom something is done. Especially with verbs expressing a judgement, it is somewhat similar to the ordinary dative of *videtur mihi* &quot;it seems to me&quot; etc. [Lewis &amp; Short][1] say the verb in this particular quotation is passive, i.e. not the deponent verb *suspector*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Kühner–Stegmann¹, this dativus auctoris was only used in the perfect and with a personal pronoun in older Latin (pace their own Accius example, see below); but Cicero and various later authors used it with other passive forms and substantive nouns, too. K.–S. also mention Tacitus specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In poetry, it is (especially) used by the Augustan poets, even non metri causa. They say the construction is originally Latin, but was extended under Greek influence (after all, the agent in a passive construction is normally expressed by a dative in Greek).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here follow a few examples taken from K.–S. and Gildersleeve:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accius, *Tragoediae* 284:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   DIOMEDES:  &#xD;&#xA; Ergo me Argos referam, nam hic sum gnobilis  &#xD;&#xA;  ne **cui** cognoscar **noto**.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Then I will go back to Argos, for here I am notable, lest I be recognised by someone I know.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Tusculanae Disputationes* 5.68.4:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &quot;Sumatur...**nobis** quidam praestans vir...&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Let us assume an excellent man...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, *Annales* 2.50.13:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... ut exemplo maiorum **propinquis suis** ultra ducentesimum lapidem removeretur suasit.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot; ...he suggested that, according to ancient custom, she should be removed by her next of kin beyond the two-hundredth milestone.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, *Annales* 12.1.1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aelia Paetina...**Narcisso** fovebatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Aelia Paetina was favoured by Narcissus.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;The past participle or adjective *suspectus* is often used with a dative, which may also have influenced Tacitus to use the dativus auctoris with a passive imperfect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sallustius, *Bellum Iugurthinum* 70.1.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bomilcar...suspectus **regi** et ipse eum suspiciens novas res cupere...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Bomilcar, suspected by the King [or: suspect to the King], and himself suspecting the King, desired a change of power...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, Annales 14.44.10:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suspecta **maioribus nostris** fuerunt ingenia servorum...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;To our ancestors, the temper of their slaves was suspect...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;¹) Satzlehre vol. I (1912), §76 8d, p. 324:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=suspecto%232&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oMBi8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30951" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10584" RevisionGUID="f22ec255-bee9-4469-8780-8b2512b3a609" CreationDate="2019-04-29T01:32:21.513" />
  <row Id="30952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10588" RevisionGUID="2c30a6d6-b2e1-4465-a66e-a55cb0fda598" CreationDate="2019-04-29T01:36:14.803" UserId="30" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="This can be read as a **dativus auctoris**. It should then be translated thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lest he should be suspected **by his mistress** / lest he should be suspect **to his mistress**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Common in gerundive constructions *(hostis **nobis** vincendus est)*, the dativus auctoris is also occasionally used with other passive verbs; it is then most common with past participles (*mihi cognitum est*: &quot;it is known by me&quot; or &quot;it is known to me&quot;). It indicates the person by whom something is done. Especially with verbs expressing a judgement, it is somewhat similar to the ordinary dative of *videtur mihi* &quot;it seems to me&quot; etc. [Lewis &amp; Short][1] say the verb in this particular quotation is passive, i.e. not the deponent verb *suspector*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Kühner–Stegmann¹, this dativus auctoris was only used in the perfect and with a personal pronoun in older Latin (pace their own Accius example, see below); but Cicero and various later authors used it with other passive forms and substantive nouns, too. K.–S. also mention Tacitus specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In poetry, it is (especially) used by the Augustan poets, even non metri causa. They say the construction is originally Latin, but was extended under Greek influence (after all, the agent in a passive construction is normally expressed by a dative in Greek).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here follow a few examples taken from K.–S. and Gildersleeve:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accius, *Tragoediae* 284:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   DIOMEDES:  &#xD;&#xA; Ergo me Argos referam, nam hic sum gnobilis  &#xD;&#xA;  ne **cui** cognoscar **noto**.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Then I will go back to Argos, for here I am notable, lest I be recognised by someone I know.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Tusculanae Disputationes* 5.68.4:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &quot;Sumatur...**nobis** quidam praestans vir...&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Let us assume an excellent man...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, *Annales* 2.50.13:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... ut exemplo maiorum **propinquis suis** ultra ducentesimum lapidem removeretur suasit.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot; ...he suggested that, according to ancient custom, she should be removed by her next of kin beyond the two-hundredth milestone.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, *Annales* 12.1.1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aelia Paetina...**Narcisso** fovebatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Aelia Paetina was favoured by Narcissus.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;The past participle or adjective *suspectus* is often used with a dative, which may also have influenced Tacitus to use the dativus auctoris with a passive imperfect (as in the quotation in question). Two examples with *suspectus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sallustius, *Bellum Iugurthinum* 70.1.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bomilcar...suspectus **regi** et ipse eum suspiciens novas res cupere...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Bomilcar, suspected by the King [or: suspect to the King], and himself suspecting the King, desired a change of power...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, Annales 14.44.10:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suspecta **maioribus nostris** fuerunt ingenia servorum...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;To our ancestors, the temper of their slaves was suspect...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;¹) Satzlehre vol. I (1912), §76 8d, p. 324:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=suspecto%232&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oMBi8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30953" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10584" RevisionGUID="7b4ddcf4-d185-479e-9ecb-d5e9e14acf3d" CreationDate="2019-04-29T01:37:20.177" UserId="30" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|meaning|dative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10588" RevisionGUID="0031f70e-e129-4fa8-bd10-0dd3c1dfb12e" CreationDate="2019-04-29T01:41:40.603" UserId="30" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="This can be read as a **dativus auctoris**. It should then be translated thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lest he should be suspected **by his mistress** / be suspect **to his mistress**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Common in gerundive constructions *(hostis **nobis** vincendus est)*, the dativus auctoris is also occasionally used with other passive verbs; it is then most common with past participles (*mihi cognitum est*: &quot;it is known by me&quot; or &quot;it is known to me&quot;). It indicates the person by whom something is done. Especially with verbs expressing a judgement, it is somewhat similar to the ordinary dative of *videtur mihi* &quot;it seems to me&quot; etc. [Lewis &amp; Short][1] say the verb in this particular quotation is passive, i.e. not the deponent verb *suspector*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Kühner–Stegmann¹, this dativus auctoris was only used in the perfect and with a personal pronoun in older Latin (pace their own Accius example, see below); but Cicero and various later authors used it with other passive forms and substantive nouns, too. K.–S. also mention Tacitus specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In poetry, it is (especially) used by the Augustan poets, even non metri causa. They say the construction is originally Latin, but was extended under Greek influence (after all, the agent in a passive construction is normally expressed by a dative in Greek).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here follow a few examples taken from K.–S. and Gildersleeve:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accius, *Tragoediae* 284:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   DIOMEDES:  &#xD;&#xA; Ergo me Argos referam, nam hic sum gnobilis  &#xD;&#xA;  ne **cui** cognoscar **noto**.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Then I will go back to Argos, for here I am notable, lest I be recognised by someone I know.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Tusculanae Disputationes* 5.68.4:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &quot;Sumatur...**nobis** quidam praestans vir...&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Let us assume an excellent man...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, *Annales* 2.50.13:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... ut exemplo maiorum **propinquis suis** ultra ducentesimum lapidem removeretur suasit.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot; ...he suggested that, according to ancient custom, she should be removed by her next of kin beyond the two-hundredth milestone.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, *Annales* 12.1.1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aelia Paetina...**Narcisso** fovebatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Aelia Paetina was favoured by Narcissus.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;The past participle or adjective *suspectus* is often used with a dative, which may also have influenced Tacitus to use the dativus auctoris with a passive imperfect (as in the quotation in question). Two examples with *suspectus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sallustius, *Bellum Iugurthinum* 70.1.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bomilcar...suspectus **regi** et ipse eum suspiciens novas res cupere...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Bomilcar, suspected by the King [or: suspect to the King], and himself suspecting the King, desired a change of power...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, Annales 14.44.10:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suspecta **maioribus nostris** fuerunt ingenia servorum...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;To our ancestors, the temper of their slaves was suspect...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;¹) Satzlehre vol. I (1912), §76 8d, p. 324:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=suspecto%232&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oMBi8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10589" RevisionGUID="9c8fc56f-fbc6-481d-9c73-c123f23ac1cc" CreationDate="2019-04-29T09:34:24.130" UserId="4693" Text="In Latin, some vowels are marked by a macron, they are long vowels. However, I found that in French and Spanish there's no macron in their writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the long vowel future completely lost in the derived languages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30957" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10589" RevisionGUID="9c8fc56f-fbc6-481d-9c73-c123f23ac1cc" CreationDate="2019-04-29T09:34:24.130" UserId="4693" Text="Is long vowel future completely lost in deviated languages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30958" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10589" RevisionGUID="9c8fc56f-fbc6-481d-9c73-c123f23ac1cc" CreationDate="2019-04-29T09:34:24.130" UserId="4693" Text="|pronunciation|orthography|vowel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10590" RevisionGUID="4d4c16d4-d80e-4d1a-90f7-78fab09d8517" CreationDate="2019-04-29T10:23:46.477" UserId="1459" Text="I found this in an ecological park:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Cola_ is actually a Latin word (a scientific one, referring to the plant), albeit its etymology is [African](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cola#Etymology_1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious about whether it is &quot;probably&quot; the best-known Latin word in the world. If not, which one might it be? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think we could agree that _Cola_ it is likely to be indeed very well known. We could also agree that it might be impossible to satisfactorily settle the issue of the &quot;best-known&quot; Latin word. Yet, hopefully, by comparing with other well-known words, we could gauge the extent to which that claim is likely to be true or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lrDeA.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30960" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10590" RevisionGUID="4d4c16d4-d80e-4d1a-90f7-78fab09d8517" CreationDate="2019-04-29T10:23:46.477" UserId="1459" Text="Is Cola &quot;probably the best-known&quot; Latin word in the world? If not, which might it be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30961" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10590" RevisionGUID="4d4c16d4-d80e-4d1a-90f7-78fab09d8517" CreationDate="2019-04-29T10:23:46.477" UserId="1459" Text="|vocabulary|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10591" RevisionGUID="96b67ccb-fda1-429a-afdd-ad7f42c8e60f" CreationDate="2019-04-29T10:26:10.430" UserId="9" Text="I don't know of any way of interpreting &quot;necarvit&quot; other than as a simple spelling error. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usual way of typing a Latin long a in the ASCII character set would be &quot;a&quot;. Classical Latin writing did not consistently mark vowel length, and this feature of the Latin writing system has continued to the present day. When people want to mark length in the Latin spelling system, they use macrons, or less commonly, apices. Disambiguation is rarely necessary for successful communication: there is no *necăvit* to confuse with *necāvit.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even for a non-rhotic speaker of British English, &quot;R&quot; would not a be particularly natural way to write vowel length for most vowels: British English speakers tend to pronounce &amp;lt;er&gt;, &amp;lt;ir&gt;, &amp;lt;ur&gt; as [ɜː~əː] in stressed syllables, or as [ə] in unstressed syllables (or as [ɛɹ, ɪɹ, ʌɹ] when a vowel follows, although that is an uncommon context for Latin long vowels)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10591" RevisionGUID="576d0fce-528a-4129-9096-d60c1fef48bf" CreationDate="2019-04-29T10:52:12.553" UserId="9" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="I don't know of any way of interpreting &quot;necarvit&quot; other than as a simple spelling error. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usual way of typing a Latin long a in the ASCII character set would be &quot;a&quot;. Classical Latin writing did not consistently mark vowel length, and this feature of the Latin writing system has continued to the present day. When people want to mark length in the Latin spelling system, they use macrons, or less commonly, apices. Disambiguation is rarely necessary for successful communication: there is no *necăvit* to confuse with *necāvit.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even for a non-rhotic speaker of British English, &quot;R&quot; would not a be particularly natural way to write vowel length for most vowels: British English speakers tend to pronounce &amp;lt;er&gt;, &amp;lt;ir&gt;, &amp;lt;ur&gt; as [ɜː~əː] in stressed syllables, or as [ə] in unstressed syllables (or as [ɛɹ, ɪɹ, ʌɹ] when followed by a vowel within the same word, although that is an uncommon context for Latin long vowels)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10592" RevisionGUID="209c88cf-3d15-41cc-9d93-0c91a3279f13" CreationDate="2019-04-29T14:21:57.953" UserId="13" Text="This is actually LP 66(c), from a papyrus published directly in Lobel's Σαπφοῦς μελῶν. From LP's text and notes, we get his transcription as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;]MNĀ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;] . ΚΑΤ̣€Γ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;]Ḳ€Κ[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where some options for the vestige in l. 2 are ινρ and l. 3 could end in a nu or lambda too. To reconcile my transcription with his:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I see now I missed the top of the gamma in l. 2, which is therefore certain as in LP;&#xD;&#xA; - I seem to have read my AN in what was actually just an alpha with some bad fading;&#xD;&#xA; - I'm still convinced the tau is certain in l. 2, I really don't see what else it could be;&#xD;&#xA; - L. 3 starts with traces that could form a K, but also a chi IMO, so I leave the vestige;&#xD;&#xA; - I see absolutely no reason to make that a certain epsilon, though of course it's a possible choice, and given my choice of sigma would very likely lead to three consonants in a row, which is not a thing in Greek, I change to uncertain epsilon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I revise my transcription as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;]MNĀ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;] . ΚΑT€Γ[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;] . €̣Κ[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why they join, LP says «e regione 65 vv. 6-8 collocandum esse liquet», «is clearly to be collocated in the region of ll. 6-8 of fr. 65», and LP 65 is from the big fragment, so LP is convinced they go together, but doesn't explain why. So that question stays open." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10593" RevisionGUID="b7cdf85c-bab0-40bf-bcb4-190bb52f382c" CreationDate="2019-04-29T15:53:25.587" UserId="406" Text="*Cola* is a Latinized form of *kola*, taken from some Niger-Congo language (it's not clear which) and applied to a genus of plants. It isn't a native Latin word and would have been unfamiliar to the Romans (except as the plural of the Greek borrowing *colon*, used as a technical term in rhetoric—completely unrelated).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So by these standards, I'd agree with K-HB and say the best-known Latinized name in the world is ***Jesus***, adapted from Greek *Iēsous*, adapted from Hebrew *Yešua*. It's similarly a foreign word respelled in the Latin alphabet, so it's at least as Latin as *Cola* is, possibly more so (since the adaptation happened while Latin was still alive and thriving)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10594" RevisionGUID="a447d23b-a7ee-406c-b0eb-318fdebdf8bc" CreationDate="2019-04-29T16:02:35.223" UserId="79" Text="My impression is that &quot;Latin name&quot; here means &quot;scientific name (of a species)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Many people seem to conflate scientific names and Latin names, although [the two are different concepts](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/371/79).&#xD;&#xA;The way I see it, **the claim is that *cola* is the best-known scientific name of a species in taxonomy**.&#xD;&#xA;This claim is not unreasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scientific names are formally in Latin, but they use elements from various languages.&#xD;&#xA;Some scientific names are proper Latin, but not very many.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the claim isn't really about the Latin language at all, although it is worded as if it were." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30967" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10589" RevisionGUID="436762c3-8a13-456c-b21f-e7779cd32953" CreationDate="2019-04-29T16:04:17.803" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|pronunciation|language-evolution|orthography|vowel|romance-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10579" RevisionGUID="1596d4ce-57cf-4508-8005-01bc1a55425b" CreationDate="2019-04-29T16:29:50.227" UserId="13" Comment="added update" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The image shows two papyrus fragments, and seems to suggest they should join as placed, perhaps with some space in between. In fact, it seems there is sellotape putting them together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bigger fragment on the left is P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 4, which is the source for Sappho Lobel-Page 65, given by Campbell as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other fragment I cannot seem to identify. To my eyes, it reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;]MNĀ . [&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;] . KAN̤T€Ι[&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;] . Ϲ̣Ḳ[&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone help me identify this, and figure out why it's placed with fr. 4?&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9zvIi.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vcsu3.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've identified the papyrus, but the reason for the joint is still unclear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10595" RevisionGUID="0556f3dd-0839-4c49-b7de-fc3db7f67b33" CreationDate="2019-04-29T17:33:56.190" UserId="406" Text="Not just the long vowel future—_all_ Latin future-tense marking was lost in the Romance languages!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few different factors conspired to make the future tense no longer useful in Vulgar Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For an emphatic future meaning, Vulgar Latin used an infinitive plus a form of *habeō*: this is even found in Cicero for extra emphasis.&#xD;&#xA; - `b` in between vowels and `v` everywhere both turned into something kind of like English `v`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And most importantly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The future tense was never really a popular one: the _Explicationes Artis Donati_ (an anonymous commentary on Donatus's grammars, mid-fourth century) rants against people consistently using the present tense instead of the proper future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this was really the death knell of the original future tense. Forms like _amābit_ became _amāvit_, identical to the perfect, and came too close to _amābat_ &gt; _amāvat_ for comfort. Later, forms like _audiēs_ became _audjes_ through sound changes, too close to the present _audis_. With all this confusion, at least one tense would have to go, and the unpopular future was the obvious choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, with the synthetic future gone, the periphrastic in _habeō_ got bleached to a plain future meaning during the first few centuries CE. This is mostly where the Western Romance future tense comes from: Spanish _amará_ comes from _amāre hábet_ &gt; _amar' ávɛ_ &gt; _amará_, while _amarás_ comes from _amāre hábēs_ &gt; _amar' áves_ &gt; _amarás_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Eastern Romance future forms come from a few different sources, such as _debeō_ &quot;to owe&quot;, but they're not as consistent as in Western Romance. None are from the original Latin future.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30970" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10590" RevisionGUID="762d07af-bcc4-4fdb-b43e-f8ad803de12d" CreationDate="2019-04-29T17:48:25.320" />
  <row Id="30971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10595" RevisionGUID="f7380cb3-b8e8-499d-ada7-1be4ca30859d" CreationDate="2019-04-29T18:18:41.527" UserId="406" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="Not just the long vowel future—_all_ Latin future-tense marking was lost in the Romance languages!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few different factors conspired to make the future tense no longer useful in Vulgar Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For an emphatic future meaning, Vulgar Latin used an infinitive plus a form of *habeō*: this is even found in Cicero for extra emphasis.&#xD;&#xA; - `b` in between vowels and `v` everywhere both turned into something kind of like English `v`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And most importantly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The future tense was never really a popular one: the _Explicationes Artis Donati_ (an anonymous commentary on Donatus's grammars, mid-fourth century) rants against people consistently using the present tense instead of the proper future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this was really the death knell of the original future tense. Forms like _amābit_ became _amāvit_, identical to the perfect, and came too close to _amābat_ &gt; _amāvat_ for comfort (differing only in a single, short, unstressed vowel). Later, forms like _audiēs_ became _audjes_ through sound changes, too close to the present _audis_. With all this confusion, at least one tense would have to go, and the unpopular future was the obvious choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, with the synthetic future gone, the periphrastic in _habeō_ got bleached to a plain future meaning during the first few centuries CE. This is mostly where the Western Romance future tense comes from: Spanish _amará_ comes from _amāre hábet_ &gt; _amar' ávɛ_ &gt; _amará_, while _amarás_ comes from _amāre hábēs_ &gt; _amar' áves_ &gt; _amarás_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Eastern Romance future forms come from a few different sources, such as _debeō_ &quot;to owe&quot;, but they're not as consistent as in Western Romance. None are from the original Latin future.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. If it seems like the third/fourth &quot;long vowel&quot; future was less confusing and disposable than the first/second &quot;-bi-&quot; future, that's absolutely true. But it was still one additional point of confusion, and it was easier to use _habeō_ with all conjugations rather than two completely different sets of morphology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10595" RevisionGUID="b2b3b34c-6ce9-45a3-89b8-dfeacdf452a0" CreationDate="2019-04-29T19:32:09.923" UserId="406" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Not just the long vowel future—_all_ Latin future-tense marking was lost in the Romance languages!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few different factors conspired to make the future tense no longer useful in Vulgar Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For an emphatic future meaning, Vulgar Latin used an infinitive plus a form of *habeō*: this is even found in Cicero for extra emphasis.&#xD;&#xA; - `b` in between vowels and `v` everywhere both turned into something kind of like English `v`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And most importantly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The future tense was never really a popular one: the _Explicationes Artis Donati_ (an anonymous commentary on Donatus's grammars, mid-fourth century) rants against people consistently using the present tense instead of the proper future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this was really the death knell of the original future tense. Forms like _amābit_ became _amāvit_, identical to the perfect, and came too close to _amābat_ &gt; _amāvat_ for comfort (differing only in a single, short, unstressed vowel). Later, forms like _audiet_ became _audjet_ through sound changes, too close to the present _audit_ &gt; _audet_. With all this confusion, at least one tense would have to go, and the unpopular future was the obvious choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, with the synthetic future gone, the periphrastic in _habeō_ got bleached to a plain future meaning during the first few centuries CE. This is mostly where the Western Romance future tense comes from: Spanish _amará_ comes from _amāre hábet_ &gt; _amar' ávɛ_ &gt; _amará_, while _amarás_ comes from _amāre hábēs_ &gt; _amar' áves_ &gt; _amarás_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Eastern Romance future forms come from a few different sources, such as _debeō_ &quot;to owe&quot;, but they're not as consistent as in Western Romance. None are from the original Latin future.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. If it seems like the third/fourth &quot;long vowel&quot; future was less confusing and disposable than the first/second &quot;-bi-&quot; future, that's absolutely true. But it was still one additional point of confusion, and it was easier to use _habeō_ with all conjugations rather than two completely different sets of morphology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10596" RevisionGUID="5fa7dd0c-1fe0-4a3b-a3ea-4b3f6afd2f71" CreationDate="2019-04-29T20:20:17.853" UserId="3645" Text="What is the meaning of **individuandum**?&#xD;&#xA;I guess that it is an accusative gerund of unknown verb to me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30974" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10596" RevisionGUID="5fa7dd0c-1fe0-4a3b-a3ea-4b3f6afd2f71" CreationDate="2019-04-29T20:20:17.853" UserId="3645" Text="Meaning of &quot;individuandum&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30975" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10596" RevisionGUID="5fa7dd0c-1fe0-4a3b-a3ea-4b3f6afd2f71" CreationDate="2019-04-29T20:20:17.853" UserId="3645" Text="|meaning|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10597" RevisionGUID="a509236a-6ad1-45c1-b3db-8bc0cc5055eb" CreationDate="2019-04-29T20:29:32.357" UserId="406" Text="It looks like this word comes from a verb *_indīviduāre_, which I've never seen before and can't find in Lewis and Short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd say it's a one-off formation from _indīviduus_ &quot;indivisible, inseparable&quot;. It's hard to tell without context, but I'm guessing it means something like &quot;to be inseparable&quot;; the gerund is then &quot;being inseparable&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10598" RevisionGUID="23266dc1-7621-4656-bb0d-dce3346ee11e" CreationDate="2019-04-29T20:48:19.080" UserId="406" Text="Just to clarify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *-as* here is actually the Greek masculine ending *-ᾱς*. It's a dialectal variation on the *-ης* (*-ēs*) you see in names like Socrates, Euripides, Achilles, and so on: probably the most common ending for male names in Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when people started translating the Bible and the Torah into Ancient Greek, and came across the word *שָׂטָן* (*satan*, &quot;adversary&quot;), they had two choices for how to represent it. One option was to translate it literally, with the Greek word *διάβολος* (*diábolos*, &quot;betrayer&quot;). The other option was to take the word *satan* and just respell it in the Greek alphabet as *σαταν*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, translators weren't consistent. Sometimes they used *diábolos*, sometimes they used *satan*. But *satan* doesn't look much like a Greek word, and if anything would be an accusative form, which is just confusing. So since the Hebrew *satan* is masculine, they stuck the most common Greek masculine ending onto it, creating *Satanās*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the Bible then came into Latin, the translators had *three* options: translate the word again into Latin, transcribe the Greek word, or transcribe the Hebrew word. They generally chose the second, so the Latin Vulgate has *diabolus* and *Satanas* (whence English &quot;diabolical&quot;, &quot;Satanic&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll also often see the form *Satana* with no final *-s* (as in the Exorcism of Saint Benedict, which starts *vade retro Satana*, &quot;go back, Satan&quot;). This is what happens when the word assimilates a little bit into Latin: the native Latin equivalent of Greek *-ās* is *-a*. This is very close to the original Greek form found in Homer, *-ᾱ* (*-ā*), and it's the form we see in older borrowings like *poeta* &quot;poet&quot;. It's more Latin than the Greek *-ās*, so it's more common for thoroughly assimilated words than for names (the legendary hero Aeneas always keeps his *-s*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. One of the easiest ways to distinguish Ancient Greek dialects is how they deal with long alphas in endings. Ionian always turns them into etas, Dorian and Aeolian never do, Attic varies depending on what letter comes before it. So if you see the *-es* in an ancient name, it most likely came to us via Athens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.P.S. A plain *-a* ending would also mark the vocative, the form used when speaking to someone directly. This would be correct for the context of the Exorcism formula—but the vocative case died out quite early, and you'll also see *Satanas* in direct speech and *Satana* in other positions. It was always the most neglected of the &quot;traditional&quot; Latin cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30978" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9355" RevisionGUID="68ca54c8-295e-4e6b-9c79-92fdc275cd8b" CreationDate="2019-04-29T21:01:45.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10598" RevisionGUID="3c002d9b-f899-47bf-afec-14421e284184" CreationDate="2019-04-29T21:08:46.663" UserId="406" Comment="added 194 characters in body" Text="Just to clarify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *-as* here is actually the Greek masculine ending *-ᾱς*. It's a dialectal variation on the *-ης* (*-ēs*) you see in names like Socrates, Euripides, Achilles, and so on: probably the most common ending for male names in Ancient Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when people started translating the Bible and the Torah into Ancient Greek, and came across the word *שָׂטָן* (*satan*, &quot;adversary&quot;), they had two choices for how to represent it. One option was to translate it literally, with the Greek word *διάβολος* (*diábolos*, &quot;betrayer&quot;). The other option was to take the word *satan* and just respell it in the Greek alphabet as *σαταν*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, translators weren't consistent. Sometimes they used *diábolos*, sometimes they used *satan*. But *satan* doesn't look much like a Greek word, and if anything would be an accusative form, which is just confusing. So since the Hebrew *satan* is masculine, they stuck the most common Greek masculine ending onto it, creating *Satanâs*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the Bible then came into Latin, the translators had *three* options: translate the word again into Latin, transcribe the Greek word, or transcribe the Hebrew word. They generally chose the second, so the Latin Vulgate has *diabolus* and *Satanas* (whence English &quot;diabolical&quot;, &quot;Satanic&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll also often see the form *Satana* with no final *-s* (as in the Exorcism of Saint Benedict, which starts *vade retro Satana*, &quot;go back, Satan&quot;). This is what happens when the word assimilates a little bit into Latin: the native Latin equivalent of Greek *-ās* is *-a*. It's very close to the original Greek form found in Homer, *-ᾱ* (*-ā*), and it's the form we see in older borrowings like *poeta* &quot;poet&quot;. It's more Latin than the Greek *-ās*, so it's more common for thoroughly assimilated words than for names (the legendary hero Aeneas always keeps his *-s*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. One of the easiest ways to distinguish Ancient Greek dialects is how they deal with long alphas in endings. Ionian always turns them into etas, Dorian and Aeolian never do, Attic varies depending on what letter comes before it. So if you see the *-es* in an ancient name, it most likely came to us via Athens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.P.S. A plain *-a* ending would also mark the vocative, the form used when speaking to someone directly. This would be correct for the context of the Exorcism formula—but the vocative case died and fossilized quite early, and you'll also see *Satanas* in direct speech and *Satana* in other positions. It was always the most neglected of the &quot;traditional&quot; Latin cases, [and you'll frequently see &quot;errors&quot; like _Domine Deus, agnus Dei_][1] (&quot;Lord God&quot; in the vocative, &quot;Lamb of God&quot; in the nominative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4904/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10599" RevisionGUID="55d9abf1-022f-4566-93c9-97096ff67ec9" CreationDate="2019-04-29T21:20:18.417" UserId="406" Text="In Ancient Greek, the Hebrew word *שָׂטָן* (*satan*, &quot;adversary&quot;) is sometimes translated as *διάβολος* (*diábolos*, &quot;betrayer&quot;) and sometimes adapted as *Σατανᾶς* (*Satanâs*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, it seems like there would be three translation options: translate the word into Latin, transcribe the Greek, or transcribe the Hebrew. Jerome seems to have chosen the second and third exclusively, which is why we have Latin *diabolus* and *Satanas*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if he'd chosen the first, what would be an appropriate word? Something like *inimicus* &quot;enemy&quot; feels too tame for a fallen angel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This question arose while [answering another question about *Satanas*][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Is the #english-to-latin tag appropriate when it's really more Hebrew-to-Latin and/or Greek-to-Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/10598/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10599" RevisionGUID="55d9abf1-022f-4566-93c9-97096ff67ec9" CreationDate="2019-04-29T21:20:18.417" UserId="406" Text="What would be a literal translation of &quot;Satan&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10599" RevisionGUID="55d9abf1-022f-4566-93c9-97096ff67ec9" CreationDate="2019-04-29T21:20:18.417" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|ecclesiastical-latin|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10600" RevisionGUID="3de04b59-5fe5-4b32-b194-56cd5c3e9814" CreationDate="2019-04-29T21:42:48.010" UserId="406" Text="As you mention, Lewis and Short say that _immergō_ was &quot;mostly poet[ic] and in post-Aug[ustan] prose&quot;. Whitaker marks its frequency with a C, which means between 5 and 20 citations were found in his corpus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, L&amp;S say that _submergō_ was &quot;class[ical]; most freq[uently] pass[ive]&quot;. Whitaker marks both _submergō_ and _summergō_ with a C, giving them separate entries, which may or may not actually mean it's more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also worth noting that English has verbs from the frequentitive forms &quot;immerse&quot; and &quot;submerse&quot;, and a verb &quot;submerge&quot;, but no *&quot;immerge&quot; (at least not that I've ever heard as a native speaker). This hints that _submergō_'s descendant was more popular in the Norman French that affected English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this, I'd take away that _submergō_ was the common classical form, while _immergō_ started off as a poetic word and got somewhat more popular later on. _Submergō_ was always more common, and is the form that got better-established in Spanish and English, while _immergō_ remained rarer; however, both have descendants in many Romance languages, so one never fully displaced the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(P.S. As a linguist, I wouldn't trust the Spanish Academy to determine what's a &quot;real word&quot; and what isn't. Mitomino's answer points out that _inmerger_ was used by Benito Pérez Galdós, a novelist often compared to Dickens and Tolstoy, and Santiago Ramón y Cajal, a Nobel prize winner. I'd take their testimony as native speakers over the Academy's prescription any day. It might be archaic or outdated, but it seems to be a real word.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10596" RevisionGUID="4cf8562f-0798-42bb-9543-1246d8d42d64" CreationDate="2019-04-29T21:57:06.647" UserId="3645" Comment="added 341 characters in body" Text="What is the meaning and structure of **individuandum**?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that it is an accusative gerund of unknown verb to me.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For example in this context: (Siger de Brabant, *Quaestiones in metaphysicam*, 1981, p.435)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;quia materia non est per se sufficiens ad **individuandum**, dicitur quod conditiones quaedam materiae et accidentia individui, sicut esse hic et esse nun, individuant, a quibus abstrahit ration universalis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4518" RevisionGUID="92072808-980a-42e3-91b3-722787feee4a" CreationDate="2019-04-29T21:59:08.387" UserId="9" Comment="fixed quotation that oddly changed Greek to Latin alphabet, loosing the relevant accents" Text="I wasn't able to find out why this word, or name, has a smooth breathing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you may have seen already, LSJ actually has separate entries for &quot;[Raros][1]&quot;, a name, and &quot;[raros][2]&quot;, the &quot;embryo&quot; word that TKR's answer deals with. It's unclear to me if these have the same origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LSJ seems to have a bit more information and examples of words related to the name in its entry for &quot;[Rarion pedion][3]&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the field&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;A. *of Rarus,* where tillage was first practised, and which was sacred to Demeter, Paus.1.38.6, *St.Byz.;* (without πεδίον) **Ρ̓άριον**, τό, h.Cer.450; **Ρ̓αρία**, ἡ (sc. γῆ), *Plu.2.144b;* whence the goddess was herself called **Ρ̓αριάς**, ἡ, St.Byz. [α is long, h.Cer. l.c., so that the accent is prob. not Ρ̓άρος, as in most codd.:—for the smooth breathing, v. Hdn.Gr.*2.402, 940.*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a relevant Quora post: [Why is “ρ” translitered as “rh” instead of “r”?][4] Philip Newton's answer cites a passage from *[Gaps in the System][5]* by&#xD;&#xA;[Nick Nicholas][6]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  rho with smooth breathing appears [...] in Ancient representations of psilotic dialects. The TLG corpus manages 57 instances, all of them Aeolic, with the exception of Rarus, father of Triptolemus, the first human to have been taught agriculture by Demeter; his name was apparently back-formed from the (non-Attic) Rarian field in Eleusis associated with the cult of Demeter. In the surviving corpus, Rarus and his field are predictably mentioned more by the grammarians, who loved a good exception, than by the classics themselves:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Τὸ ρ ἀρχόμενον λέξεως δασύνεσθαι θέλει, ῥά, ῥανίς, ῥάξ χωρὶς τοῦ Ρ̓ᾶρος (ἔστι δὲ ὄνομα κύριον) καὶ χωρὶς τῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ οἷον  «Ρ̓αρίδος Δηοῦς» καὶ Ρ̓αρία γῆ καὶ Ρ̓αριάς, σημαίνει δὲ τὴν Δήμητρα, καὶ Ρ̓άριον πεδίον ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι, ἐπὶ τούτων γάρ φασι τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ρ ψιλοῦσθαι, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον δασύνεσθαι. ἀλλὰ τὰ δύο ρρ ψιλωτέον ἐπὶ τούτων καὶ κατὰ τὴν πρώτην συλλαβὴν καὶ κατὰ τὴν δευτέραν. (Herodian, *De prosodia catholica* 3.1.547)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;At the beginning of a word, *r* takes a rough breathing, as in *rhá* &quot;then&quot;, *rhanís* &quot;drop&quot;, *rháx* &quot;grape&quot;, except for *Rarus* (a proper name) and the words derived from it, such as &quot;*Rarian* Demeter&quot; and &quot;*Rarian* earth&quot; and *Rarias,* which is a name for Demeter, and the *Rarian* field in Eleusis. It is said that for these the first *r* has a smooth breathing and the second a rough; but the two *r*'s in these words should bear a smooth breathing both in the first and in the second syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Not all authorities put up with the exception; the *[Suda][7]* preferred to call Demeter *[Rharias][8].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found a short allusion to dialectal variation in the realization of rho in an extract from the book *Asianic Elements in Greek Civilisation* (1938), by William Ramsay, &quot;[Chapter XXI: General Principles][9]&quot;, hosted by The Gifford Lectures online:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The letter “r” appears and disappears in perplexing fashion in Anatolian words as written in Greek alphabet. Probably a soft “r” was used in Asia Minor as in the English word pretty; but there were doubtless more sounds than one “rho” in Anatolian although they cannot now be distinguished. In Greek the “rho” was rougher and is written ῥ except in Aeolic (which is more Anatolian in type).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, all modern dialects of Greek are psilotic; according to [Wikipedia][10] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The loss of /h/ happened at different times in different dialects of Greek. The eastern Ionic dialects, the Aeolic dialect of Lesbos, as well as the Doric dialects of Crete and Elis, were already psilotic at the beginning of their written record. In Attic, there was widespread variation in popular speech during the classical period, but the formal standard language retained /h/. This variation continued into the Hellenistic Koine. [...] By the late Roman and early Byzantine period, /h/ had been lost in all forms of the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So at later time periods at least, and in earlier time periods for some varieties of Greek, there would have been no difference in pronunciation between rho with a rough and smooth breathing. It would just have been a spelling exception to memorize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D*)ra%3Dros&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dr)a%2Fros&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3D*r%3Aentry%20group%3D4%3Aentry%3D*)ra%2Frion&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-%E2%80%9C%CF%81%E2%80%9D-translitered-as-%E2%80%9Crh%E2%80%9D-instead-of-%E2%80%9Cr%E2%80%9D&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.opoudjis.net/unicode/unicode_gaps.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.opoudjis.net&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.stoa.org/sol/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.stoa.org/sol-bin/search.pl?db=REAL&amp;search_method=QUERY&amp;login=guest&amp;enlogin=guest&amp;user_list=LIST&amp;page_num=1&amp;searchstr=rho%2C50&amp;field=adlerhw_gr&amp;num_per_page=50&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.giffordlectures.org/books/asianic-elements-greek-civilisation/chapter-xxi-general-principles&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilosis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10597" RevisionGUID="53354d37-9781-4358-8498-7eea1f4bc1f7" CreationDate="2019-04-29T22:44:56.253" UserId="406" Comment="added 932 characters in body" Text="It looks like this word comes from a verb *_indīviduāre_, which I've never seen before and can't find in Lewis and Short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd say it's a one-off formation from _indīviduus_ &quot;indivisible, inseparable&quot;. It's hard to tell without context, but I'm guessing it means something like &quot;to be inseparable&quot;; the gerund is then &quot;being inseparable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Now that there's context provided:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, dear, this is some of the densest Latin I've had to translate! I'm pretty sure I've messed up some of the technical terms, since I'm not used to metaphysics vocabulary, but let's see here…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quia materia non est per se sufficiens ad **individuandum**, dicitur quod conditiones quaedam materiae et accidentia individui, sicut esse hic et esse nun, individuant, a quibus abstrahit ration universalis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Because there is no substance that acts as a foundation for itself to such an extent **that it can't be divided up**, it's said that the circumstances, the particular substance, and its happenings(?) are all indivisible, just like how being &quot;here&quot; and being &quot;now&quot; are indivisible, and from these we can derive a universal theory.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm pretty sure I mangled the middle section, since I have no idea what the *quaedam* and *accidentia* are supposed to mean in metaphysics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10601" RevisionGUID="8544ca24-cda5-4590-bf2a-2b8dab4eec7b" CreationDate="2019-04-30T00:12:20.440" UserId="522" Text="This seems to me to be part of the debate about Universals, and especially about Abstract nouns.  An **Essence** which is universal, unchanging,and indivisible, is distinct from an  &#xD;&#xA;**Accidental** like colour, position, size which is variable, inconstant and can be divided up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quia materia non est per se sufficiens ad individuandum,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because matter is not in itself sufficient for having indivisibility,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dicitur quod conditiones quaedam materiae et accidentia individui,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it is said that certain *states* of matter, and (certain) *accidents* of an indivisible thing,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sicut esse hic et esse nun, individuant, a quibus abstrahit ration&#xD;&#xA;&gt; universalis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;such as here-ness and now-ness, are indivisible, from which the Universal concept abstracted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last four words are untranslatable: the easiest solution would be to read ***rationes universalis*** as accusative plural: 'from which he has derived the universal concepts,'  or   '...the universal principles.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10596" RevisionGUID="165876f7-885c-46c6-a18b-ac9cb805c2fd" CreationDate="2019-04-30T00:36:25.413" UserId="45" Comment="edited body" Text="What is the meaning and structure of **individuandum**?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that it is an accusative gerund of unknown verb to me.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For example in this context: (Siger de Brabant, *Quaestiones in metaphysicam*, 1981, p.435)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;quia materia non est per se sufficiens ad **individuandum**, dicitur quod conditiones quaedam materiae et accidentia individui, sicut esse hic et esse nunc, individuant, a quibus abstrahit ratio universalis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10597" RevisionGUID="a435865f-f770-41af-b756-149243858c11" CreationDate="2019-04-30T00:41:00.700" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 141 characters in body" Text="It looks like this word comes from a verb *_indīviduāre_, which I've never seen before and can't find in Lewis and Short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd say it's a one-off formation from _indīviduus_ &quot;indivisible, inseparable&quot;. It's hard to tell without context, but I'm guessing it means something like &quot;to be inseparable&quot;; the gerund is then &quot;being inseparable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Now that there's context provided:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, dear, this is some of the densest Latin I've had to translate! I'm pretty sure I've messed up some of the technical terms, since I'm not used to metaphysics vocabulary, but let's see here…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quia materia non est per se sufficiens ad **individuandum**, dicitur quod conditiones quaedam materiae et accidentia individui, sicut esse hic et esse nun, individuant, a quibus abstrahit ratio universalis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Because having substance in and of itself isn't enough **to be indivisible**, it's said that certain states of that substance and certain properties of an indivisible thing, like &quot;being here&quot; and &quot;being now&quot;, are indivisible. From these we can derive a universal theory.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Many thanks to Hugh for his metaphysics understanding! Updated my translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="41dd2393-5ac5-4fdd-8fa2-58b8ee36da9c" CreationDate="2019-04-30T00:49:51.207" UserId="45" Text="Siger de Brabant was a &quot;Latin Averroist&quot;, who were famously criticized by such thinkers as Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure for rationalist tendencies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Individuation is an important philosophical concept with a wide range of uses, and basically refers to how universals (such as &quot;dog&quot; and &quot;man&quot;) are instantiated in individuals (such as &quot;Fido&quot; and &quot;Socrates&quot;). Jorge E. Gracia wrote a monumental study on the issue: [*Individuation in Scholasticism. The Later Middle Ages and the Counter-Reformation 1150-1650*](https://philpapers.org/rec/GRAIIS-2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best translation of &quot;individuare&quot; is &quot;to individuate.&quot; Here is my translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since matter is not sufficient in itself to individuate, it is said that certain conditions of the matter and accidents of the individual, such as &quot;being here&quot; and &quot;being now,&quot; individuate, from which universal reason abstracts.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="240fd4cf-2f8d-40e9-90c8-4505679c8239" CreationDate="2019-04-30T01:00:02.020" UserId="45" Comment="added 662 characters in body" Text="Siger de Brabant was a &quot;Latin Averroist&quot;, who were famously criticized by such thinkers as Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure for rationalist tendencies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Individuation is an important philosophical concept with a wide range of uses, and basically refers to how universals (such as &quot;dog&quot; and &quot;man&quot;) are instantiated in individuals (such as &quot;Fido&quot; and &quot;Socrates&quot;). Jorge E. Gracia wrote a monumental study on the issue: [*Individuation in Scholasticism. The Later Middle Ages and the Counter-Reformation 1150-1650*](https://philpapers.org/rec/GRAIIS-2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best translation of &quot;individuare&quot; is &quot;to individuate&quot;: it is a transitive verb whose subject is what makes a universal form actually individual. According to Aristotelian hylomorphism, &quot;matter&quot; is the usual candidate for the so-called &quot;principium individuationis,&quot; i.e. &quot;principle of individuation.&quot; Here is my full translation in light of that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since matter is not sufficient in itself to individuate, it is said that certain conditions of the matter and accidents of the individual, such as &quot;being here&quot; and &quot;being now,&quot; individuate, from which universal reason abstracts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only part that I am hesitant about is the end: I would have expected &quot;abstrahitur,&quot; since &quot;ratio universalis&quot; usually refers to a &quot;universal account,&quot; i.e. &quot;dog-ness.&quot; An account is *abstracted*, according to Scholastic terminology, and does not do the *abstracting*, which is the work of reason. By suspicion, which I don't have the time to confirm, is that this is a relic of Siger's Averroism: Averroes famously taught that the so-called &quot;agent intellect,&quot; which abstracts universal concepts, is not particular to individuals, but that it is common to all men. He might plausibly refer to it as &quot;universalis ratio,&quot; i.e. the reason shared by all people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="a4d47ab9-9980-4feb-91bb-84bc46e43b79" CreationDate="2019-04-30T01:14:45.770" UserId="45" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Siger de Brabant was one of the &quot;Latin Averroists&quot;, who were famously criticized by such thinkers as Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure for rationalist tendencies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Individuation is an important philosophical concept with a wide range of uses, and basically refers to how universals (such as &quot;dog&quot; and &quot;man&quot;) are instantiated in individuals (such as &quot;Fido&quot; and &quot;Socrates&quot;). Jorge E. Gracia wrote a monumental study on the issue: [*Individuation in Scholasticism. The Later Middle Ages and the Counter-Reformation 1150-1650*](https://philpapers.org/rec/GRAIIS-2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best translation of &quot;individuare&quot; is &quot;to individuate&quot;: it is a transitive verb whose subject is what makes a universal form actually individual. According to Aristotelian hylomorphism, &quot;matter&quot; is the usual candidate for the so-called &quot;principium individuationis,&quot; i.e. &quot;principle of individuation.&quot; Here is my full translation in light of that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since matter is not sufficient in itself to individuate, it is said that certain conditions of the matter and accidents of the individual, such as &quot;being here&quot; and &quot;being now,&quot; individuate, from which universal reason abstracts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only part that I am hesitant about is the end: I would have expected &quot;abstrahitur,&quot; since &quot;ratio universalis&quot; usually refers to a &quot;universal account,&quot; i.e. &quot;dog-ness.&quot; An account is *abstracted*, according to Scholastic terminology, and does not do the *abstracting*, which is the work of reason. By suspicion, which I don't have the time to confirm, is that this is a relic of Siger's Averroism: Averroes famously taught that the so-called &quot;agent intellect,&quot; which abstracts universal concepts, is not particular to individuals, but that it is common to all men. He might plausibly refer to it as &quot;universalis ratio,&quot; i.e. the reason shared by all people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30995" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10596" RevisionGUID="30729350-f4c7-4701-8cfa-f81b47d2a96f" CreationDate="2019-04-30T01:18:54.153" />
  <row Id="30996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10589" RevisionGUID="8a3783e8-7d4c-4192-8003-cc738a8cdf6d" CreationDate="2019-04-30T01:23:31.860" UserId="4693" Comment="typo" Text="In Latin, some vowels are marked by a macron, they are long vowels. However, I found that in French and Spanish there's no macron in their writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the long vowel feature completely lost in the derived languages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30997" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10589" RevisionGUID="8a3783e8-7d4c-4192-8003-cc738a8cdf6d" CreationDate="2019-04-30T01:23:31.860" UserId="4693" Comment="typo" Text="Is long vowel feature completely lost in deviated languages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10603" RevisionGUID="44f25e32-8952-4d28-871d-c23f811b95c3" CreationDate="2019-04-30T02:21:51.950" UserId="406" Text="Since the question's changed, here's an answer to the updated one…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, long vowels were lost very early in Vulgar Latin, in the first few centuries CE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, Latin's long and short vowels (excluding `ȳ`, `y`, and `æ`, which don't fit into the 5+5 system) were identical in *quality*: the long and short version of each vowel were pronounced exactly the same, one was just, quite literally, longer than the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But over time, this system changed, with the vowels being distinct in quality as well as length. Then length disappeared entirely and only quality was left. Roughly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`/iː i eː e aː a o oː u uː/` →  &#xD;&#xA;`/iː ɪ eː ɛ aː a ɔ oː ʊ uː/` →  &#xD;&#xA;`/i  e e  ɛ a  a ɔ o  o u /`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seven-vowel system is what was inherited into the earliest forms of Romance, with length being entirely gone. The mid vowels `/ɛ ɔ/` tended to disappear too, but they left different traces in each language: in Spanish, for instance, they &quot;broke&quot; into diphthongs when stressed (`/ɛ ɔ/` → `/je we/`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some languages later re-established vowel length, but I don't believe it's phonemic in any modern Romance language—that is, given a word without any vowel length marking, you can figure out precisely which vowels are long and which are short. That's *not* the case in Latin, where *ālium* &quot;garlic&quot; and *alium* &quot;another&quot; are distinguished only by length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. One and only one Romance language didn't go through this vowel development: Sardinian, which is a very strange outlier. Sardinia was abandoned by the Romans very early, before these sound changes happened in Vulgar Latin, so it evolved on its own and ended up just dropping length with no other changes to give a five-vowel system `/i e a o u/`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10603" RevisionGUID="3c05d49b-942b-4a45-8b4a-c232955a1234" CreationDate="2019-04-30T02:28:47.510" UserId="406" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="Since the question's changed, here's an answer to the updated one…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, long vowels were lost very early in Vulgar Latin, in the first few centuries CE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally, Latin's long and short vowels (excluding `ȳ`, `y`, and `æ`, which don't fit into the 5+5 system) were identical in *quality*: the long and short version of each vowel were pronounced exactly the same, one was just, quite literally, longer than the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But over time, this system changed, with the vowels being distinct in quality as well as length. Then length disappeared entirely and only quality was left. Roughly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`/iː i eː e aː a o oː u uː/` →  &#xD;&#xA;`/iː ɪ eː ɛ aː a ɔ oː ʊ uː/` →  &#xD;&#xA;`/i  e e  ɛ a  a ɔ o  o u /`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seven-vowel system is what was inherited into the earliest forms of Romance, with length being entirely gone. The mid vowels `/ɛ ɔ/` tended to disappear too, but they left different traces in each language: in Spanish, for instance, they &quot;broke&quot; into diphthongs when stressed (`/ɛ ɔ/` → `/je we/`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some languages later re-established vowel length, but I don't believe it's phonemic in any modern Romance language—that is, given a word without any vowel length marking, you can figure out precisely which vowels are long and which are short. That's *not* the case in Latin, where *ālium* &quot;garlic&quot; and *alium* &quot;another&quot; are distinguished only by length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. One and only one Romance language didn't go through this vowel development: Sardinian, which is a very strange outlier. Sardinia was abandoned by the Romans very early, before these sound changes happened in Vulgar Latin, so it evolved on its own and ended up just dropping length with no other changes to give a five-vowel system `/i e a o u/`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.P.S. `ȳ y` merged into `ī i` early on, except in very refined/educated speech. `æ` survived somewhat longer before merging with `ē`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10604" RevisionGUID="732f3736-7a9d-435d-ad55-9b47846baebd" CreationDate="2019-04-30T08:32:41.527" UserId="645" Text="'Fair enough' is a phrase that implies its speaker's reluctance in giving assent. It can cover a range of situations, but it finally it's an agreement to concede a point and to move on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that the simplest equivalent is an unqualified  *habeas*.  Another possibility is *(con)cedo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difficulty with this phrase, I think, stems from the fact that English, with its simple, easily-learnt grammar, needs a much greater appreciation of its peculiar idioms than is often conceded by non-native users. To turn the question back, Is that fair enough, or is more explanation required?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31001" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="6466" RevisionGUID="1a7a6dad-81cc-477e-a2e5-e14f8d3fc4bf" CreationDate="2019-04-30T12:36:19.650" UserId="645" Comment="113" />
  <row Id="31003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10605" RevisionGUID="6940b6cf-1228-417a-815a-4777c0cec94a" CreationDate="2019-04-30T14:38:27.187" UserId="1459" Text="#TL;DR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Payments were not only carried out through physical money transfer. In fact, it seems there used to be a pretty developed financial intermediation system (with varying space-time heterogeneity). Moreover, coinage was fairly widespread, diminishing the need for money transfers between places. And, when money had to be transferred, there might have been some fairly advanced system for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems loans were not only paid with money. Sometimes payments were made with land. For example, sometimes wealthy individuals loaned money to the state (this might have involved some initial money transfer). But then, as [this article](https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/13401/Proefschrift%20Roselaar%20Public%20land.pdf?sequence=2) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;in 200 the state gave citizens _[ager publicus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ager_publicus)_ as repayment of loans instead of money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Land was of particular interest in the Roman economy. As the article states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; land was not only used for agricultural production, but also as a safe&#xD;&#xA;investment. In societies where, in the absence of a complex banking system,&#xD;&#xA;there are few possibilities of keeping money safe, buying real estate is the most&#xD;&#xA;secure investment that can be made. Land, as opposed to many other&#xD;&#xA;investments, does not lose its value and cannot be stolen as easily as precious&#xD;&#xA;metals. Land was used as the security for other investments; therefore people&#xD;&#xA;who did not own any land would find it difficult to invest in other enterprises.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, even those who were not interested in producing for the market may&#xD;&#xA;have been willing to buy land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Money transfers might have been performed also through other means. [This article](https://princeton.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.23943/princeton/9780691147680.001.0001/upso-9780691147680-chapter-008) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Clearing between banks could be managed without any movement of coin by using rent payments, transfers of tax revenues, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, [this one](https://www.histecon.magd.cam.ac.uk/docs/temin.pdf) reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The inscription of a second-century Dacian loan says that the borrower will repay&#xD;&#xA;whomever is holding the loan when it comes due (Sheldon, 1998, pp. 136-37). This&#xD;&#xA;contract exemplifies the assignability of loans assumed by Livy. If the obligation went&#xD;&#xA;directly from the borrower to the eventual holder of the loan without involving the&#xD;&#xA;original lender, then the loan was negotiable as well. If so, then the loan might have&#xD;&#xA;functioned as money, as notes obligatory did in 18th century England. The inscription&#xD;&#xA;survives because it was immobile and largely indestructible; we do not know if there was&#xD;&#xA;a wax copy that could circulate as paper contracts did later in England. In the absence of&#xD;&#xA;documentary evidence for paper money, historians have tended to assume that all&#xD;&#xA;transactions were made in coin. The existence of assignable loans at least raises the&#xD;&#xA;possibility that there was “paper” money in use as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-roman-studies/article/revisionist-view-of-roman-money/B3E4379D90E24850EF27FA24E90B8FB3) dedicates itself entirely to deal with the issue of money beyond coins. It states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How did Cicero transfer the 3½ million sesterces he paid for his famous house on the Palatine (Fam. 5.6.2—this was by no means the largest property price we know of in the | classical city of Rome), at a time when Rome had practically no gold coinage? It seems singularly unlikely that his slaves counted out and loaded 3½ tons of silver coins and transported this cargo through the streets of Rome (not that Roman ideas of inconvenience were necessarily the same as ours). When a certain C. Albanius bought an estate from a certain C. Pilius for 11½ million sesterces (Cic. Att. 13.31.4), did he physically send him this sum in silver coins? Without much doubt, these were at least for the most part paper, or rather documentary, transactions (the crucial documents will have been waxed tablets). The commonest procedure for large property purchases in this period was probably the one casually alluded to by Cicero elsewhere: a Roman knight becomes enamoured of a certain property at Syracuse, and ‘nomina facit, negotium conficit’, ‘he provides the credits [or “bonds” ], &lt;and so&gt; completes the purchase’ (De off. 3.59). This practice is reflected in Cicero’s letters. And when in Pro Caecina Aebutius’ bid for a rural property being sold at auction is successful, he concludes the affair by (p.226) ‘promising money to the argentarius’, the banker (Caec. 16), and about that at least there was nothing in the least irregular: no one denied that the property had really been sold—the only question about the sale was whether Aebutius was acting for someone else. And you might buy in instalments: when Cicero bought out the share of the horti Cluviani that had gone to another legatee (Att. 13.46.3), he did so in three payments spread out over nearly a year (Att. 16.2.1), in effect taking a loan from the seller.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And later on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One underlying reason for this growth in documentary transactions was clearly that in a Mediterranean-wide empire it was dangerous as well as inconvenient to send large sums of specie backwards and forwards over long distances. It was, of course, known to be risky to transport large sums of coin by sea, and both officials and private citizens probably tried to avoid it whenever they could. We have noticed that shipwrecked trading ships seldom seem to have carried many coins in high-classical times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article](https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723714.001.0001/acprof-9780198723714-chapter-3) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Transfers of money were needed for investing in new voyages. Such transfers, which were effected by book entries, could pass through the hands of different intermediaries, publicans, ‘financiers to the aristocracy’, or members of the elites with interests or bonds of amicitia in the provinces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This practice was not new to the ancient world. The Greeks also practiced it, as [this article](https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199233359.001.0001/acprof-9780199233359-chapter-5) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Settlement of overseas commercial obligations by transporting moneys from Athens might have significantly reduced the supply of silver circulating in Attika. By guaranteeing payment of funds at far-off locations, the banks averted this drain and allowed customers to avoid the dangers and inconvenience inherent in transporting a large amount of coins or bullion. Thus when Stratokles, about to journey to the distant Black Sea, anticipated the need for currency there, he was able to leave his own money on loan in Athens and carry instead a bank guarantee of payment of principal and interest on 300 Kyzikene staters. This bank commitment was issued by Athens' largest bank, that of Pasion, in reliance on money remaining on deposit in the bank.64 Bank deposits thus effectively became ‘bank money’, enhancing the supply of coinage in circulation in Athens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More about banking and financial intermediaries in some part of Roman history [here](https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780198790662.001.0001/oso-9780198790662-chapter-5?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that the production of coins wasn't centralised. As [this article](http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199211524.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199211524-e-009) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This rather straightforward history does not do justice to the coinage that must have illed the purses of most residents of empire, which was produced closer to home. Although denarii and (from the time of Augustus) aurei were certainly current everywhere, most coinage was produced in the provinces. ... During the Severan period as many as 400 cities issued coin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the supply of money was descentralised. I.e. not all money was produced in e.g. Rome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This book](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/money-and-government-in-the-roman-empire/F9242BE5A8DACD51489B7A0557D9675E) might be also interesting, but I have no access to it. Further references that might be of interest are [here](http://oxrep.classics.ox.ac.uk/oxford_studies_on_the_roman_economy/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, naturally some (large) sums of money had to be transported. But it seems the Romans had designed advanced systems of transport. For instance, [this aricle](https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780198790662.001.0001/oso-9780198790662-chapter-17) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;how the actual system for transporting merchandise and coins over the desert worked. The cargoes would leave Alexandria, the big _emporion_ on the Mediterranean, to be conveyed to Coptos on the Nile and from there overland to Berenike. As far as we know, merchants would borrow the money for their commercial expeditions from wealthy people willing to finance such trade, reaping huge profits from these loans. It is reasonable to imagine that these financers would also have provided the merchants with the coins to trade in India. At this point it is worth remembering that Roman coins found in India are mostly _denarii_ or _aurei_ —that is, types of coins of officially forbidden circulation in Roman Egypt. In fact, although the excavations at Berenike yielded Roman bronze coins and Ptolemaic _tetradrachmai_, not a single _denarius_ or _aureus_ was found. However, as the Roman _denarii_ found in India did indeed arrive from Egypt, we are confronted with a seemingly insoluble contradiction. The answer to such a puzzle is, in my opinion, represented by the μαρσίππιον ἐσφραγίσμενος‎. The coins necessary for the trade with the Indians would be collected in sealed bags with a standard amount of coins (and, consequently, of standard weight). This would guarantee both the financer and the merchant: the financer would be sure that the traders could not open the bags and try to steal some coins, and the traders would be able to count the coins more quickly (they could be counted bag by bag, rather than one by one). Comparative examples for this hypothesis do exist. The first one is the so-called ‘tesoretto di Rimigliano’, discovered in 2002 off the shores of Italy. The ‘tesoretto’ (‘treasure’, or ‘hoard’) comes from a wreck in the Tyrrhenian Sea, and is composed of a group of silver coins (overall c.3,600, mainly _antoniniani_, but also a few _denarii_). Because of oxidation, the coins are still in the position they were in when the ship wrecked. They form a block of vaguely spherical shape, which led the editors to think that the coins were originally kept in a basket. The coins also appear to have been divided into smaller globular packages, small leather bags put into the basket. The small bags contain a standard amount of silver coins, split into groups of ten units, in order to facilitate the process of counting them. The ‘tesoretto’ has been interpreted as an example of the standard way of transporting coins on the Roman ships. Its structure can easily be compared with the one proposed for the μαρσίππια‎ attested in the Berenike ostraka." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1041" RevisionGUID="2fe8b8c6-6637-47dc-93be-6dc559e40c3e" CreationDate="2019-04-30T14:42:30.370" UserId="30" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="I get [zero results for the locative *Lesbi*][1] in the HP corpus (the results appear to be all genitives), but I find [a handful of *in Lesbo*][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies to a [locative *Euboeae*][3], in favour of [*in Euboea*][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [locative *Rhodi*][5], on the other hand, is common, commoner than [*in Rhodo*][6], which seems to be limited to Plinius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rhodus did contain [several major settlements in Antiquity][7], but the capital was Rhodus from ca. 408 BC. So it appears that the Wikipaedian rule is wrong; your first rule (a) is wrong too, since the island contained more than one major settlement; but your second rule (b) may be true, the island and its capital sharing a name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one thing to consider: perhaps every time that the locative is used, the city of Rhodus is intended, not the island, since the city is the most likely place for people to be located, especially Roman travellers or generals. If so, we may never find out. It is not easy to find a passage where we are certain that the island is meant and not the city.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was easy to find several examples of the locative *Cretae*, so I'm afraid even uncontestedly 'large' islands can have the locative case. Below a few examples, found through the [HP corpus][8]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed ne illud quidem pertinet ad agricolas, quando et in qua regione primum natae sunt, utrum in Thessalia sub Aristaeo, an in insula Cea, ut scribit Euhemerus, an Erechthei temporibus in monte Hymetio, ut Eu&amp;lt;p&gt;hronius, an **Cretae** Saturni temporibus, ut Nicander; ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Columella, *De Re Rustica* 9.2.4.4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Loeb translation][9]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;But it does not even concern husbandmen when and in what country bees first came into existence, whether in Thessaly under Aristaeus, or in the island of Cea, as Euhemerus writes, or on Mount Hymettus in the time of Erechtheus, as Euthronius says, or **in Crete** in the time of Saturn, as Nicander says.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not a genitive here, because it is &quot;the times of Saturn&quot;, and &quot;the times of Saturn of Crete&quot; does not make sense: bees may have come into existence *in* or *on* Crete, so it is a locative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ... Non haec tibi litora suasit&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Delius aut **Cretae** iussit considere Apollo. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Vergilius, *Aeneis* 3.162.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Translation by M. Wifstrand Schiebe (2009)][10]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Not these the shores the Delian Apollo counselled, not **in Crete** did&#xD;&#xA;he bid you settle.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Consido* does not take a dative [according to Lewis &amp; Short][11], so it can't be a dative. Perhaps *aut [litora] Cretae* could be reconstructed, but I think the locative makes much more sense, if only because a poet is expected to take liberties with rules of grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non magis quam quid ita siluestres capreas **Cretae** genitas tantopere dilexerit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; —  Valerius Maximus, *Facta et Dicta Memorabilia* 1.8(ext).18.7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Loeb translation][12]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Why does Nature favour the wild goats born **on Crete** so much?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The participle *genitas* &quot;born&quot; requires a modifier: the goats have to be born in some way or somewhere. *Silvestres* is too far back, and only *Cretae* seems to be able to fulfil that role. Perhaps *genitus* can be constructed with a dative, &quot;born to Crete&quot;; but I believe words like *natus* normally express the origin of birth in an ablative. [Lewis &amp; Short][13] mention the ablative for the origin of *genitus*, and also give examples with *a* and *e*, as expected. They don't mention a dative. So I don't think a dative is possible. The same applies a fortiori to a genitive. A locative seems by far the best reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=Lesbi%23&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=in%20Lesbo%23&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=Euboeae%23&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=in%20Euboea%23&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=Rhodi%23&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23in%20Rhodo%23&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Graecia_Vetus_Map_of_Ancient_Greece.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23Cretae%23&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.loebclassics.com/view/columella-agriculture/1941/pb_LCL407.431.xml&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-85AM_jT5l4J:www2.lingfil.uu.se/klassiska/personal/MWS%2520Discrepancy.pdf%20&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=nl&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=consido&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&amp;id=LqAtAwAAQBAJ&amp;q=Cretae#v=onepage&amp;q=Crete&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=gigno&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10601" RevisionGUID="a565356c-51e8-4009-913b-b907ccd2d79c" CreationDate="2019-04-30T16:30:51.560" UserId="522" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="This seems to me to be part of the debate about Universals, and especially about Abstract nouns.  An **Essence** which is universal, unchanging,and indivisible, is distinct from an  &#xD;&#xA;**Accidental** like colour, position, size which is variable, inconstant and can be divided up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quia materia non est per se sufficiens ad individuandum,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because matter is not in itself sufficient for (having indivisibility) *[better]* individuatation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dicitur quod conditiones quaedam materiae et accidentia individui,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it is said that certain *states* of matter, and (certain) *accidents* of an indivisible thing,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sicut esse hic et esse nun, individuant, a quibus abstrahit ration&#xD;&#xA;&gt; universalis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;such as here-ness and now-ness, are indivisible, from which the Universal concept abstracted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last four words are untranslatable: the easiest solution would be to read ***rationes universalis*** as accusative plural: 'from which he has derived the universal concepts,'  or   '...the universal principles.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10606" RevisionGUID="66a4a188-1993-4b17-b0eb-a5215d3d85ab" CreationDate="2019-04-30T17:03:13.920" UserId="2363" Text="English and Latin tend to express general evaluations differently. English prefers a substantive; Latin uses an adverb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's right! = *recte*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good job! = *bene* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's true! = *vere* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I saw *id est iustum* in Latin, I would expect the *id* to connect to a relative clause that would provide further elaboration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g., *Id est iustum, quod in lege ponitur.* (What is written in the law is just.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10607" RevisionGUID="3ccbc5f6-a96f-4150-b9f1-91df5d9d4376" CreationDate="2019-04-30T18:03:20.790" UserId="2363" Text="&gt;Because matter by itself does not suffice *to render something a distinct, individual thing*, it is said that certain qualities of matter and accidents (such as here-ness and now-ness) of an individual thing *render that thing an individual*. From these qualities and accidents, universal reason abstracts (what kind of thing the individual is). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to know some Aristotelian metaphysics. Basically, an individual thing consists of a union between specific pieces of matter and a universal form. If there were no forms, the universe would just be a blob of undifferentiated matter. If there were no matter, the forms wouldn't instantiate anywhere. Universal reason is a cognitive faculty that recognizes/abstracts the form based on perceptible accidents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But here there's a twist. What makes me me and you you is not which atoms make up our bodies but certain accidental properties, like our spatial-temporal location. This goes into metaphysical arguments about identity over time. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10607" RevisionGUID="9684c73b-6c7b-4f26-91fc-0e1ff865e797" CreationDate="2019-04-30T18:35:10.537" UserId="2363" Comment="correction" Text="&gt;Because matter by itself does not suffice *to render something a distinct, individual thing*, it is said that certain qualities of matter and accidents (such as here-ness and now-ness) of an individual thing *render that thing an individual*. These qualities and accidents are the ones that universal reason does not take into account.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to know some Aristotelian metaphysics. Basically, an individual thing consists of a union between specific pieces of matter and a universal form. If there were no forms, the universe would just be a blob of undifferentiated matter. If there were no matter, the forms wouldn't instantiate anywhere. Universal reason is a cognitive faculty that recognizes something's form, the kind of thing that it is, based on its perceptible accidents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there's a further distinction between different kinds of accidents. Certain accidents are used by universal reason to determine the essence of a thing. So, when we perceive an animal with four legs, a wagging tail, saying &quot;bark&quot;, our universal reason concludes &quot;dog.&quot; But what differentiates two identical dogs? Other accidents, such as spatio-temporal location, which universal reason ignores (*abstrahit*) when determining form/type. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10608" RevisionGUID="af886744-4441-44c4-95fa-5e16c9d7198e" CreationDate="2019-04-30T19:41:18.567" UserId="406" Text="In everyday English, obscene words like &quot;fuck&quot; and &quot;hell&quot; have been somewhat semantically bleached into intensifiers. For example, &quot;fucking ridiculous&quot; and &quot;weird as hell&quot; are common idioms that aren't considered particularly obscene in context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek, I would translate these intensifiers with a particle like _δή_. But what's the Latin equivalent? For example, if I want to paraphrase Horace and say &quot;seize the fucking day&quot; (intensifying _carpe diem_), what equivalent can I use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31010" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10608" RevisionGUID="af886744-4441-44c4-95fa-5e16c9d7198e" CreationDate="2019-04-30T19:41:18.567" UserId="406" Text="How can I intensify a phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31011" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10608" RevisionGUID="af886744-4441-44c4-95fa-5e16c9d7198e" CreationDate="2019-04-30T19:41:18.567" UserId="406" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|particle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10609" RevisionGUID="f8e1f60d-0ec6-422b-8a20-9bc6d66d3f1d" CreationDate="2019-04-30T22:37:57.097" UserId="4724" Text="As others already noticed Cola is not originally Latin. It is a loan-word.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would presume that Ave (or Amen) would be more appropriate. Every Christian and a lot of other people know those 2 words, which covers probably over a billion people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, as far as I know, both are truly original Latin words.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10610" RevisionGUID="2d7414b6-6855-4618-ae5e-38cb4351d549" CreationDate="2019-05-01T04:16:49.337" UserId="9" Text="I'm uncertain about the length of the **u** in the perfect and perfect passive participle stems of the verb *uro* /uːroː/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Lewis (1890)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=uro) gives &quot;ūrō ūssī, ūstus&quot; but doesn't explain why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- On the other hand, [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=uro) leaves the vowel unmarked &quot;ūro , ussi, ustum&quot;, which doesn't indicate any specific length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The [Wiktionary entry for *ūrō*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uro#Latin) gives &quot;perfect active ussī, supine ūstum&quot;, also with no explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- De Vaan gives &quot;ūrō&quot; &quot;ussī&quot; and &quot;ustum&quot;. I feel like I've seen De Vaan leave off macrons in closed syllables in some places, but in this case I am fairly sure that De Vaan really thought of the vowel as short, because a separate PIE form &quot;*\*usto-* 'burnt'&quot; is given for the past participle (vs. the etymology &quot;*ouse/o*- 'to burn'&quot; given for the stem of the forms with a long vowel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know enough about PIE morphology to understand whether an alternation between *ou and *u, which looks like ablaut, would be plausible in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary gives the PIE root as *[h₁ews-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%81ews-) (a form that agrees better with what I recall of a theorized phonotactic constraint against word-initial vowels in PIE). The Wiktionary entry for *h₁ews- does agree with De Vaan in showing a short *u* in the participle: the PIE form is given by Wiktionary as *h₁us-tós, yielding &quot;Sanskrit: उष्ण (uṣṇá)&quot; as well as Italic *ustos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it lists Latin &quot;ussī&quot; as a descendant of a supposed &quot;s-aorist&quot; form &quot;h₁ḗwst ~ *h₁éws-n̥t&quot;, which is also supposed to be the source of Ancient Greek *εὗσα,* the aorist form of *εὕω.* As far as I can tell, neither the Ancient Greek form, nor the PIE aorist form that Wiktionary gives is a zero-grade form, so the alleged short u in Latin *ussi* does not seem to be explained by the etymology given in the Wiktionary article for *h₁ews-. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leveling of vowel length between the perfect and perfect participle doesn't seem implausible (I forget the details of how these forms developed in Latin, but I remember learning that they influenced each other by analogy in at least some cases) but I don't know how we could know that leveling occurred for this verb, or that the short rather than the long vowel was leveled. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't seen any evidence from the Romance languages that clearly points towards a short vowel in either form. Italian *[comburere](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/comburere)* has reformed both the perfect (to *comburei*) and the past participle (to *comburuto*). There seem to be Romance reflexes of a derived verb *[ustulo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ustulo#Latin),* and the vowels I see in Italian &quot;ustolare, brustolare&quot; and French &quot;brûler&quot; look more consistent with a long than a short quantity in the Latin etymon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31014" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10610" RevisionGUID="2d7414b6-6855-4618-ae5e-38cb4351d549" CreationDate="2019-05-01T04:16:49.337" UserId="9" Text="Is the U long or short in the forms ussi and ustus of the verb ūro?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31015" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10610" RevisionGUID="2d7414b6-6855-4618-ae5e-38cb4351d549" CreationDate="2019-05-01T04:16:49.337" UserId="9" Text="|etymology|conjugation|participle|vowel-quantity|perfect-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10610" RevisionGUID="c58df37c-90bc-499d-8cfc-8f49e3d6aecf" CreationDate="2019-05-01T04:22:05.813" UserId="9" Comment="added 209 characters in body" Text="I'm uncertain about the length of the **u** in the perfect and perfect passive participle stems of the verb *uro* /uːroː/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###My research&#xD;&#xA;- [Lewis (1890)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=uro) gives &quot;ūrō ūssī, ūstus&quot; but doesn't explain why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- On the other hand, [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=uro) leaves the vowel unmarked &quot;ūro , ussi, ustum&quot;, which doesn't indicate any specific length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The [Wiktionary entry for *ūrō*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uro#Latin) gives &quot;perfect active ussī, supine ūstum&quot;, also with no explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- De Vaan gives &quot;ūrō&quot; &quot;ussī&quot; and &quot;ustum&quot;. I feel like I've seen De Vaan leave off macrons in closed syllables in some places, but in this case I am fairly sure that De Vaan really thought of the vowel as short, because a separate PIE form &quot;*\*usto-* 'burnt'&quot; is given for the past participle (vs. the etymology &quot;*ouse/o*- 'to burn'&quot; given for the stem of the forms with a long vowel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know enough about PIE morphology to understand whether an alternation between *ou and *u, which looks like ablaut, would be plausible in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary gives the PIE root as *[h₁ews-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%81ews-) (a form that agrees better with what I recall of a theorized phonotactic constraint against word-initial vowels in PIE). The Wiktionary entry for *h₁ews- does agree with De Vaan in showing a short *u* in the participle: the PIE form is given by Wiktionary as *h₁us-tós, yielding Sanskrit &quot;उष्ट (uṣṭá)&quot; as well as Italic *ustos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it lists Latin &quot;ussī&quot; as a descendant of a supposed &quot;s-aorist&quot; form &quot;h₁ḗwst ~ *h₁éws-n̥t&quot;, which is also supposed to be the source of Ancient Greek *εὗσα,* the aorist form of *εὕω.* As far as I can tell, neither the Ancient Greek form, nor the PIE aorist form that Wiktionary gives is a zero-grade form, so the alleged short u in Latin *ussi* does not seem to be explained by the etymology given in the Wiktionary article for *h₁ews-. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leveling of vowel length between the perfect and perfect participle doesn't seem implausible (I forget the details of how these forms developed in Latin, but I remember learning that they influenced each other by analogy in at least some cases) but I don't know how we could know that leveling occurred for this verb, or that the short rather than the long vowel was leveled. To me, it also seems plausible to suppose that the past participle could have gained a long vowel by analogy with the present stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't seen any evidence from the Romance languages that clearly points towards a short vowel in either form. Italian *[comburere](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/comburere)* has re-formed both the perfect (to *comburei*) and the past participle (to *comburuto*). There seem to be Romance reflexes of a derived verb *[ustulo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ustulo#Latin),* and the vowels I see in Italian &quot;ustolare, brustolare&quot; and French &quot;brûler&quot; look more consistent with a long than a short quantity in the Latin etymon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What was the length of the **u** in *ussi* and *ustus,* and how do we know? &#xD;&#xA;More specifically, what reasons, if any, are there for thinking that *ussi* had a short vowel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10610" RevisionGUID="fdb2c2f6-5bc4-403a-8185-cf235f40bf4a" CreationDate="2019-05-01T04:28:47.217" UserId="9" Comment="added 209 characters in body" Text="I'm uncertain about the length of the **u** in the perfect and perfect passive participle stems of the verb *uro* /uːroː/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###My research&#xD;&#xA;- [Lewis (1890)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=uro) gives &quot;ūrō ūssī, ūstus&quot; but doesn't explain why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- On the other hand, [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=uro) leaves the vowel unmarked &quot;ūro , ussi, ustum&quot;, which doesn't indicate any specific length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The [Wiktionary entry for *ūrō*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uro#Latin) gives &quot;perfect active ussī, supine ūstum&quot;, also with no explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- De Vaan gives &quot;ūrō&quot; &quot;ussī&quot; and &quot;ustum&quot;. I feel like I've seen De Vaan leave off macrons in closed syllables in some places, but in this case I am fairly sure that De Vaan really thought of the vowel as short, because a separate PIE form &quot;*\*usto-* 'burnt'&quot; is given for the past participle (vs. the etymology &quot;*ouse/o*- 'to burn'&quot; given for the stem of the forms with a long vowel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know enough about PIE morphology to understand whether an alternation between *ou and *u, which looks like ablaut, would be plausible in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary gives the PIE root as *[h₁ews-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%81ews-) (a form that agrees better with what I recall of a theorized phonotactic constraint against word-initial vowels in PIE). The Wiktionary entry for *h₁ews- does agree with De Vaan in showing a short *u* in the participle: the PIE form is given by Wiktionary as *h₁us-tós, yielding Sanskrit &quot;उष्ट (uṣṭá)&quot; as well as Italic *ustos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it lists Latin &quot;ussī&quot; as a descendant of a supposed &quot;s-aorist&quot; form &quot;h₁ḗwst ~ *h₁éws-n̥t&quot;, which is also supposed to be the source of Ancient Greek *εὗσα,* the aorist form of *εὕω.* As far as I can tell, neither the Ancient Greek form, nor the PIE aorist form that Wiktionary gives is a zero-grade form, so the alleged short u in Latin *ussi* does not seem to be explained by the etymology given in the Wiktionary article for *h₁ews-. I would expect PIE *ew to become Latin *ū* (I also can't think of a Latin sound change that would shorten *ū* to *u* in this context).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leveling of vowel length between the perfect and perfect participle doesn't seem implausible (I forget the details of how these forms developed in Latin, but I remember learning that they influenced each other by analogy in at least some cases) but I don't know how we could know that leveling occurred for this verb, or that the short rather than the long vowel was leveled. To me, it also seems plausible to suppose that the past participle could have gained a long vowel by analogy with the present stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't seen any evidence from the Romance languages that clearly points towards a short vowel in either form. Italian *[comburere](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/comburere)* has re-formed both the perfect (to *comburei*) and the past participle (to *comburuto*). There seem to be Romance reflexes of a derived verb *[ustulo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ustulo#Latin),* and the vowels I see in Italian &quot;ustolare, brustolare&quot; and French &quot;brûler&quot; look more consistent with a long than a short quantity in the Latin etymon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What was the length of the **u** in *ussi* and *ustus,* and how do we know? &#xD;&#xA;More specifically, what reasons, if any, are there for thinking that *ussi* had a short vowel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10610" RevisionGUID="4922f473-847f-492e-b826-28a73c36f6bd" CreationDate="2019-05-01T05:20:11.823" UserId="9" Comment="added 393 characters in body" Text="I'm uncertain about the length of the **u** in the perfect and perfect passive participle stems of the verb *uro* /uːroː/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##My research&#xD;&#xA;- [Lewis (1890)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=uro) gives &quot;ūrō ūssī, ūstus&quot; but doesn't explain why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- On the other hand, [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=uro) leaves the vowel unmarked &quot;ūro , ussi, ustum&quot;, which doesn't indicate any specific length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The [Wiktionary entry for *ūrō*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uro#Latin) gives &quot;perfect active ussī, supine ūstum&quot;, also with no explanation. (Unmarked vowels in Wiktionary are supposed to be interpreted as short, because unlike L&amp;S, Wiktionary does not use breves.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- De Vaan gives &quot;ūrō&quot; &quot;ussī&quot; and &quot;ustum&quot;. I feel like I've seen De Vaan leave off macrons in closed syllables in some places, but in this case I am fairly sure that De Vaan really thought of the vowel as short, because a separate PIE form &quot;*\*usto-* 'burnt'&quot; is given for the past participle (vs. the etymology &quot;*ouse/o*- 'to burn'&quot; given for the stem of the forms with a long vowel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know enough about PIE morphology to understand whether an alternation between *ou and *u, which looks like ablaut, would be plausible in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Based on IE comparison, a short vowel seems to be expected in the p. participle, but not in the perfect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary gives the PIE root as *[h₁ews-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%81ews-) (a form that agrees better with what I recall of a theorized phonotactic constraint against word-initial vowels in PIE). The Wiktionary entry for *h₁ews- does agree with De Vaan in showing a short *u* in the participle: the PIE form is given by Wiktionary as *h₁us-tós, yielding Sanskrit &quot;उष्ट (uṣṭá)&quot; as well as Italic *ustos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it lists Latin &quot;ussī&quot; as a descendant of a supposed &quot;s-aorist&quot; form &quot;h₁ḗwst ~ *h₁éws-n̥t&quot;, which is also supposed to be the source of Ancient Greek *εὗσα,* the aorist form of *εὕω.* As far as I can tell, neither the Ancient Greek form, nor the PIE aorist form that Wiktionary gives is a zero-grade form, so the alleged short u in Latin *ussi* does not seem to be explained by the etymology given in the Wiktionary article for *h₁ews-. I would expect PIE *ew to become Latin *ū* (I also can't think of a Latin sound change that would shorten *ū* to *u* in this context).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leveling of vowel length between the perfect and perfect participle doesn't seem implausible (I forget the details of how these forms developed in Latin, but I remember learning that they influenced each other by analogy in at least some cases) but I don't know how we could know that leveling occurred for this verb, or that the short rather than the long vowel was leveled. To me, it also seems plausible to suppose that the past participle could have gained a long vowel by analogy with the present stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was looking at the length of the vowel in some other verbs, and I saw that in *iubeo,* leveling is supposed to have resulting in a short vowel being generalized from the perfect passive participle to both the perfect and the present stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Romance evidence doesn't seem clear&#xD;&#xA;I haven't seen any evidence from the Romance languages that clearly points towards a short vowel in either form. Italian *[comburere](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/comburere)* has re-formed both the perfect (to *comburei*) and the past participle (to *comburuto*). There seem to be Romance reflexes of a derived verb *[ustulo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ustulo#Latin),* and the vowels I see in Italian &quot;ustolare, brustolare&quot; and French &quot;brûler&quot; look more consistent with a long than a short quantity in the Latin etymon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What was the length of the **u** in *ussi* and *ustus,* and how do we know? &#xD;&#xA;More specifically, what reasons, if any, are there for thinking that *ussi* had a short vowel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10610" RevisionGUID="eaf3662a-9d88-4da7-b239-bfcebf19508e" CreationDate="2019-05-01T05:30:15.187" UserId="9" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I'm uncertain about the length of the **u** in the perfect and perfect passive participle stems of the verb *uro* /uːroː/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##My research&#xD;&#xA;- [Lewis (1890)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=uro) gives &quot;ūrō ūssī, ūstus&quot; but doesn't explain why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- On the other hand, [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=uro) leaves the vowel unmarked &quot;ūro , ussi, ustum&quot;, which doesn't indicate any specific length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The [Wiktionary entry for *ūrō*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uro#Latin) gives &quot;perfect active ussī, supine ūstum&quot;, also with no explanation. (Unmarked vowels in Wiktionary are supposed to be interpreted as short, because unlike L&amp;S, Wiktionary does not use breves.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- De Vaan gives &quot;ūrō&quot; &quot;ussī&quot; and &quot;ustum&quot;. I feel like I've seen De Vaan leave off macrons in closed syllables in some places, but in this case I am fairly sure that De Vaan really thought of the vowel as short, because a separate PIE form &quot;*\*usto-* 'burnt'&quot; is given for the past participle (vs. the etymology &quot;*ouse/o*- 'to burn'&quot; given for the stem of the forms with a long vowel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know enough about PIE morphology to understand whether an alternation between *ou and *u, which looks like ablaut, would be plausible in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Based on IE comparison, a short vowel seems to be expected in the p.p. participle, but not in the perfect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary gives the PIE root as *[h₁ews-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%81ews-) (a form that agrees better with what I recall of a theorized phonotactic constraint against word-initial vowels in PIE). The Wiktionary entry for *h₁ews- does agree with De Vaan in showing a short *u* in the participle: the PIE form is given by Wiktionary as *h₁us-tós, yielding Sanskrit &quot;उष्ट (uṣṭá)&quot; as well as Italic *ustos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it lists Latin &quot;ussī&quot; as a descendant of a supposed &quot;s-aorist&quot; form &quot;h₁ḗwst ~ *h₁éws-n̥t&quot;, which is also supposed to be the source of Ancient Greek *εὗσα,* the aorist form of *εὕω.* As far as I can tell, neither the Ancient Greek form, nor the PIE aorist form that Wiktionary gives is a zero-grade form, so the alleged short u in Latin *ussi* does not seem to be explained by the etymology given in the Wiktionary article for *h₁ews-. I would expect PIE *ew to become Latin *ū* (I also can't think of a Latin sound change that would shorten *ū* to *u* in this context).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leveling of vowel length between the perfect and perfect participle doesn't seem implausible (I forget the details of how these forms developed in Latin, but I remember learning that they influenced each other by analogy in at least some cases) but I don't know how we could know that leveling occurred for this verb, or that the short rather than the long vowel was leveled. To me, it also seems plausible to suppose that the past participle could have gained a long vowel by analogy with the present stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was looking at the length of the vowel in some other verbs, and I saw that in *iubeo,* leveling is supposed to have resulting in a short vowel being generalized from the perfect passive participle to both the perfect and the present stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Romance evidence doesn't seem clear&#xD;&#xA;I haven't seen any evidence from the Romance languages that clearly points towards a short vowel in either form. Italian *[comburere](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/comburere)* has re-formed both the perfect (to *comburei*) and the past participle (to *comburuto*). There seem to be Romance reflexes of a derived verb *[ustulo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ustulo#Latin),* and the vowels I see in Italian &quot;ustolare, brustolare&quot; and French &quot;brûler&quot; look more consistent with a long than a short quantity in the Latin etymon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What was the length of the **u** in *ussi* and *ustus,* and how do we know? &#xD;&#xA;More specifically, what reasons, if any, are there for thinking that *ussi* had a short vowel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10610" RevisionGUID="7fbc75d7-a6c8-4984-b232-c8c227d36627" CreationDate="2019-05-01T05:36:49.280" UserId="9" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="I'm uncertain about the length of the **u** in the perfect and perfect passive participle stems of the verb *uro* /uːroː/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##My research&#xD;&#xA;- [Lewis (1890)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=uro) gives &quot;ūrō ūssī, ūstus&quot; but doesn't explain why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- On the other hand, [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=uro) leaves the vowel unmarked &quot;ūro , ussi, ustum&quot;, which doesn't indicate any specific length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The [Wiktionary entry for *ūrō*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uro#Latin) gives &quot;perfect active ussī, supine ūstum&quot;, also with no explanation. (Unmarked vowels in Wiktionary are supposed to be interpreted as short, because unlike L&amp;S, Wiktionary does not use breves.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- De Vaan gives &quot;ūrō&quot; &quot;ussī&quot; and &quot;ustum&quot;. I feel like I've seen De Vaan leave off macrons in closed syllables in some places, but in this case I am fairly sure that De Vaan really thought of the vowel as short, because a separate PIE form &quot;*\*usto-* 'burnt'&quot; is given for the past participle (vs. the etymology &quot;*ouse/o*- 'to burn'&quot; given for the stem of the forms with a long vowel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know enough about PIE morphology to understand whether an alternation between *ou and *u, which looks like ablaut, would be plausible in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Based on IE comparison, a short vowel seems to be expected in the p.p. participle, but not in the perfect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary gives the PIE root as *[h₁ews-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%81ews-) (a form that agrees better with what I recall of a theorized phonotactic constraint against word-initial vowels in PIE). The Wiktionary entry for *h₁ews- does agree with De Vaan in showing a short *u* in the participle: the PIE form is given by Wiktionary as *h₁us-tós, yielding Sanskrit &quot;उष्ट (uṣṭá)&quot; as well as Italic *ustos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it lists Latin &quot;ussī&quot; as a descendant of a supposed &quot;s-aorist&quot; form &quot;h₁ḗwst ~ *h₁éws-n̥t&quot;, which is also supposed to be the source of Ancient Greek *εὗσα,* the aorist form of *εὕω.* As far as I can tell, neither the Ancient Greek form, nor the PIE aorist form that Wiktionary gives is a zero-grade form, so the alleged short u in Latin *ussi* does not seem to be explained by the etymology given in the Wiktionary article for *h₁ews-. I would expect PIE *ew to become Latin *ū* (I also can't think of a Latin sound change that would shorten *ū* to *u* in this context).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leveling of vowel length between the perfect and perfect participle doesn't seem implausible (I forget the details of how these forms developed in Latin, but I remember learning that they influenced each other by analogy in at least some cases) but I don't know how we could know that leveling occurred for this verb, or that the short rather than the long vowel was leveled. To me, it also seems plausible to suppose that the past participle could have gained a long vowel by analogy with the present stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was looking at the length of the vowel in some other verbs, and I saw that in *iubeo,* De Vaan says that leveling is supposed to have resulting in a short vowel being generalized from the perfect passive participle to both the perfect and the present stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Romance evidence doesn't seem clear&#xD;&#xA;I haven't seen any evidence from the Romance languages that clearly points towards a short vowel in either form. Italian *[comburere](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/comburere)* has re-formed both the perfect (to *comburei*) and the past participle (to *comburuto*). There seem to be Romance reflexes of a derived verb *[ustulo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ustulo#Latin),* and the vowels I see in Italian &quot;ustolare, brustolare&quot; and French &quot;brûler&quot; look more consistent with a long than a short quantity in the Latin etymon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What was the length of the **u** in *ussi* and *ustus,* and how do we know? &#xD;&#xA;More specifically, what reasons, if any, are there for thinking that *ussi* had a short vowel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="78d17791-0620-469d-b043-4875d4265800" CreationDate="2019-05-01T05:45:25.667" UserId="9" Text="Just a short time after posting this question, I remembered something that is probably relevant. Even though there wasn't (as far as I know) a regular Latin sound change that would have shortened **ū** to **u** in this context, there was a Latin sound change that would have shortened **ss** to **s** *after* a long vowel. So the fact that we have *ussi* rather than \**ūsī* may be relevant evidence suggesting that the initial vowel in this form was short when the sound change from **ss** to **s** occurred. I haven't yet found a source that discusses this matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="4a5cfc9b-33bd-47f9-afd9-4027099753eb" CreationDate="2019-05-01T05:52:40.403" UserId="9" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="Just a short time after posting this question, I remembered something that is probably relevant. Even though there wasn't (as far as I know) a regular Latin sound change that would have shortened **ū** to **u** in this context, there was a Latin sound change that would have shortened **ss** to **s** *after* a long vowel. So the fact that we have *ussi* rather than \**ūsī* may be relevant evidence suggesting that the initial vowel in this form was short when the sound change from **ss** to **s** occurred. (In contrast, *haurio* has the perfect *hausī* in place of *haussī*). I haven't yet found a source that discusses this matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="e459ceef-ae43-43b2-812e-8e91e8450ab3" CreationDate="2019-05-01T05:58:21.340" UserId="9" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="Just a short time after posting this question, I remembered something that is probably relevant. Even though there wasn't (as far as I know) a regular Latin sound change that would have shortened **ū** to **u** in this context, there was a Latin sound change that would have shortened **ss** to **s** *after* a long vowel. So the fact that we have *ussi* rather than \**ūsī* is indirect evidence suggesting that the initial vowel in this form was short when the sound change from **ss** to **s** occurred. (In contrast, *haurio* has the perfect *hausī* in place of *haussī*). I haven't yet found a source that discusses this matter (maybe this piece of evidence is too obvious to an expert to be worth pointing out explicitly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found that [Sihler 1995 (*New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin*)](https://books.google.com/books?id=u8C7GqCt494C&amp;pg=PT986#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) does account for the short *u* in *ussī* by analogical alteration of original *\*ūssī* to match the short vowel in the inherited participle *ustus* (§527)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="5a5789f2-78c0-4d47-a7d7-cd0af8d21791" CreationDate="2019-05-01T06:04:00.887" UserId="9" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Just a short time after posting this question, I remembered something that is probably relevant. Even though there wasn't (as far as I know) a regular Latin sound change that would have shortened **ū** to **u** in this context, there was a Latin sound change that would have shortened **ss** to **s** *after* a long vowel. So the fact that we have &amp;lt;ussi&gt; rather than &amp;lt;usi&gt;  /uːsiː/ is indirect evidence suggesting that the initial vowel in this form was short when the sound change from **ss** to **s** occurred. (In contrast, *haurio* has the perfect *hausī* in place of *haussī*). I haven't yet found a source that discusses this matter (maybe this piece of evidence is too obvious to an expert to be worth pointing out explicitly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found that [Sihler 1995 (*New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin*)](https://books.google.com/books?id=u8C7GqCt494C&amp;pg=PT986#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) does account for a short *u* in *ussī* by analogical alteration of original *\*ūssī* to match an inherited short vowel in the participle *ustus* (§527)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="1487271e-3dda-4dac-8d42-68004021c25f" CreationDate="2019-05-01T06:59:04.590" UserId="4725" Text="Are the Latin words &quot;[negative][1]&quot;, &quot;nego&quot; and &quot;niger&quot;, &quot;nox&quot; are cognates?&#xD;&#xA;In accordance to bible, word is a light and its absence is a dark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_(photography)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31026" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="1487271e-3dda-4dac-8d42-68004021c25f" CreationDate="2019-05-01T06:59:04.590" UserId="4725" Text="Are the words &quot;negative&quot;, &quot;nego&quot; and &quot;niger&quot;, &quot;nox&quot; are cognates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31027" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="1487271e-3dda-4dac-8d42-68004021c25f" CreationDate="2019-05-01T06:59:04.590" UserId="4725" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31028" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="a4b87878-c5b0-4efd-b64c-94d2037bd44c" CreationDate="2019-05-01T07:35:00.513" UserId="2476" Comment="edited title" Text="Are the words &quot;negative&quot;, &quot;nego&quot; and &quot;niger&quot;, &quot;nox&quot; cognates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7153" RevisionGUID="ba96e2a6-6b51-4dfc-8036-eb7e3ce2f637" CreationDate="2019-05-01T11:20:03.810" UserId="648" Comment="broken link fixed" Text="[Ainsworth][1] has a section on abbreviations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ob *=obiit,* he died.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing you knew that and discounted it. But the second meaning is more interesting, and only context can show if it is appropriate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ob = *obryza*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Obryza* vid. *obrussa*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Obrussa,* (various spellings *obrisa,obrusa,obryza, etc,* uncertain etymology) (1) the test or essay for gold whether it be fine or no. (2) meton. any trial, or probation.     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Obryzatus,* made of the finest gold. *ex auro ad obrussam* Pliny 33.3. *aurum obryzum,* made of the finest gold, Suetonius Ner. 44&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/dictionaryenglis02ainsuoft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31030" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7153" RevisionGUID="ba96e2a6-6b51-4dfc-8036-eb7e3ce2f637" CreationDate="2019-05-01T11:20:03.810" Comment="Proposed by 648 approved by 522 edit id of 311" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7153" RevisionGUID="f24c9dcf-5a57-4bc1-a0cf-93cedc763a70" CreationDate="2019-05-01T11:31:39.400" UserId="522" Comment="abbreviation link" Text="[Ainsworth][1] has a section on [abbreviations][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ob *=obiit,* he died.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing you knew that and discounted it. But the second meaning is more interesting, and only context can show if it is appropriate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ob = *obryza*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Obryza* vid. *obrussa*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Obrussa,* (various spellings *obrisa,obrusa,obryza, etc,* uncertain etymology) (1) the test or essay for gold whether it be fine or no. (2) meton. any trial, or probation.     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Obryzatus,* made of the finest gold. *ex auro ad obrussam* Pliny 33.3. *aurum obryzum,* made of the finest gold, Suetonius Ner. 44&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/dictionaryenglis02ainsuoft&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/dictionaryenglis02ainsuoft/page/n799" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10613" RevisionGUID="60567348-477f-482e-8c40-7749168a1ed7" CreationDate="2019-05-01T12:57:42.207" UserId="4725" Text="In the Old Slavonic there is only one meaning of the word рѣчь (rech') &quot;speech&quot; but in the Polish there are two meanings &quot;speech&quot; and &quot;thing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the second meaning of the Polish word inherired since the beginning of the 1569 year, when the [Rzeczpospolita][1] was established, and only by analogy with latin rēs &quot;thing&quot; + pūblica. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it acceptable to argue, that the latin word &quot;rēs&quot; also has the &quot;speech&quot; meaning and that the latin word &quot;rēx&quot; also means the man, who has a right &quot;to speak&quot; (has a voice in) or that man to whose speak all other people are to obey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In accordance to bible, the God is a Word (speech) and there is none good (well) but one, that is, God.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Jn 1:1&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Mt 19:17&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;there is none good but one, that is, God&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Commonwealth" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31033" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10613" RevisionGUID="60567348-477f-482e-8c40-7749168a1ed7" CreationDate="2019-05-01T12:57:42.207" UserId="4725" Text="Do the Latin words rēs/rēx have the &quot;speech&quot; meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31034" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10613" RevisionGUID="60567348-477f-482e-8c40-7749168a1ed7" CreationDate="2019-05-01T12:57:42.207" UserId="4725" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10614" RevisionGUID="cdbc0dcd-fedb-4d33-93eb-11b61e02d67f" CreationDate="2019-05-01T14:01:05.560" UserDisplayName="user3165" Text="Latino sine flexione is a variant of latin created by Peano in 1903. As far as I know it was used in scientific literature but since forgotten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this site https://sites.google.com/site/latinosineflexio/ and a few discussions (here on [Duolingo](https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/26079920/What-about-Latino-Sine-Flexione-aka-Peano’s-Interlingua)) but not a single speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this wonderful project dead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31036" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10614" RevisionGUID="cdbc0dcd-fedb-4d33-93eb-11b61e02d67f" CreationDate="2019-05-01T14:01:05.560" UserDisplayName="user3165" Text="Is latino sine flexione dead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31037" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10614" RevisionGUID="cdbc0dcd-fedb-4d33-93eb-11b61e02d67f" CreationDate="2019-05-01T14:01:05.560" UserDisplayName="user3165" Text="|language-evolution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10615" RevisionGUID="6c9392eb-008d-4d15-bb19-a50b4709e1e6" CreationDate="2019-05-01T15:28:27.800" UserId="406" Text="First of all, it's worth noting that the words _rēx_ and _rēs_ are unrelated: _rēx_ goes back to PIE `*h₃reǵs` &quot;king&quot; from `*h₃r-ǵ-` &quot;just&quot; (compare *rectus*, *rogō*, *rēgula*), while _rēs_ goes back to PIE `*reh₁is` &quot;goods&quot; from `*r-h₁y-` (compare Sanskrit *raí* &quot;property&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Rēs* is a very general-purpose word, so I wouldn't be surprised to hear it applied to speech. Its basic meaning is &quot;thing&quot; but it's also applied to everything from a system of government to a historical narrative to the current state of reality. In an expression like _dixit rem hoc_ &quot;she said this thing&quot; it would clearly mean a statement or utterance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also often translate _rēs_ into Greek as _lógos_, literally &quot;word&quot;, which is the same word used in the Gospel of John. However, in the phrase _rēspublica_ it's definitely **not** referring to an act of speaking: there it has the meaning of &quot;political system&quot;, same as in _rēs nova_ &quot;revolution&quot;. _Rēs_ itself never reached Polish on its own (_rēspublica_ was borrowed as a single unit), so if its descendant means &quot;speech&quot; in Polish it's a coincidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Rēx_, on the other hand, seems to have no meanings that don't pertain to rulership. It means &quot;king&quot; all the way back as far as we can reconstruct into PIE, never with any meaning related to speech. King, tyrant, (metaphorically) high priest, ruling over something, master, lord, but never &quot;one who speaks&quot; or anything like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. All of this is concerned with Classical Latin rather than Church Latin; in Christianity, words like _verbum_ are almost always used instead of _rēs_ to refer to speech. Similarly, _rēx_ in Christianity always has the literal meaning of &quot;king&quot;: see 1 Timothy 6:15's _rēx rēgium_, &quot;king of kings&quot;. So it's safe to say the Bible had little to no impact on either of these words referring to speaking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10614" RevisionGUID="f266af72-2d79-4fb1-80b3-76e1d97a4565" CreationDate="2019-05-01T15:49:31.403" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="_Latino sine flexione_ is a variant of Latin created by Peano in 1903. As far as I know it was used in scientific literature but since forgotten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found [this site](https://sites.google.com/site/latinosineflexio/) and a few discussions on [Duolingo](https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/26079920/What-about-Latino-Sine-Flexione-aka-Peano’s-Interlingua) but not a single speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this wonderful project dead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10616" RevisionGUID="8e6b582e-c6ed-4f57-9da7-16272f0145b7" CreationDate="2019-05-01T15:59:18.743" UserId="1459" Text="It seems the original project evolved into what is now called Interlingua. The [Oxford Essential Dictionary of Foreign Terms in English](http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199891573.001.0001/acref-9780199891573) defines _Latino Sine Flexione_ as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The language Interlingua, in which nouns are taken from the ablative case of Latin nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, the [Encyclopedia Brittanica](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Interlingua) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Interlingua, also called Latino Sine Flexione, simplified form of Latin intended for use as an international second language. Interlingua was originally developed in 1903 by the Italian mathematician Giuseppe Peano, but lack of clarity as to what parts of Latin were to be retained and what were to be discarded led to numerous “dialects” of Interlingua, confusion, and its dying out among enthusiasts. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the linguist Alexander Gode, with the sponsorship of the International Auxiliary Language Association, reformulated and revived Interlingua and promoted its use in the international scientific community. As reformulated, Interlingua’s grammar is not much more complex than that of Esperanto; it has only one form for nouns (taken from the Latin ablative case), no gender, no case, plurals in -s, one form for adjectives with no noun-adjective agreement, one definite article, and verbs with no inflection for person or number. **Abstracts and summaries are published in Interlingua by several international scientific journals, but in general the language has not been widely adopted.** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10585" RevisionGUID="79886c79-f7bf-44cb-8259-5f5cf69b5a18" CreationDate="2019-05-01T16:06:25.290" UserId="3215" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="Was looking to do an inscription on a ring for my fiance (engagement ring)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mei Uxor animusque&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My (plural m) wife (f) and soul(m)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *-que* implies that these things are close together by making them textually closer together, and the plural masculine my covers the mixed gendered list of words.  Just wanted to make sure this made sense and was correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:  Appreciate the detailed feedback.  Think I'm going with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Uxor Animaque Mea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10617" RevisionGUID="8df5539d-c9d7-4f25-8bae-ba00b7ac4269" CreationDate="2019-05-01T16:12:00.750" UserId="406" Text="A few things first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Negative&quot; comes from _negō_; the photography meaning came millennia later and isn't really relevant to the etymology&#xD;&#xA; - _Negō_ comes from the negater _nē_ plus the old word for &quot;to speak&quot;, which looked something like _*agjō_—so _nē_ is what's relevant here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, for the three words in question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _Nē_ goes all the way back to PIE without change; it's also the source of English negatives like &quot;un-&quot;, &quot;not&quot;, &quot;no,&quot; and &quot;never&quot; (which accumulated other morphemes through Jespersen's Cycle)&#xD;&#xA; - _Nox_ comes from PIE `*nokʷts`, which *might* come from `*n-gʷ-` &quot;naked&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - _Niger_'s etymology is uncertain, but it might come from `*nokʷts` &quot;night&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it's possible that _nox_ and _niger_ are related, but it's not completely accepted. It's pretty clear that _nē_ isn't related within the timeframe that we can reconstruct; anything before that is pure speculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. In linguistics (and most other sciences), the Bible isn't generally considered a reliable source. While you may believe in it, many other people in the world do not, and it can't be backed up with evidence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10616" RevisionGUID="90e7dc0c-bc5e-4661-9bc4-fb525e9cae4b" CreationDate="2019-05-01T16:12:52.433" UserId="1459" Comment="added 1984 characters in body" Text="It seems the original project evolved into what is now called Interlingua. The [Oxford Essential Dictionary of Foreign Terms in English](http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199891573.001.0001/acref-9780199891573) defines _Latino Sine Flexione_ as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The language Interlingua, in which nouns are taken from the ablative case of Latin nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, the [Encyclopedia Brittanica](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Interlingua) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Interlingua, also called Latino Sine Flexione, simplified form of Latin intended for use as an international second language. Interlingua was originally developed in 1903 by the Italian mathematician Giuseppe Peano, but lack of clarity as to what parts of Latin were to be retained and what were to be discarded led to numerous “dialects” of Interlingua, confusion, and its dying out among enthusiasts. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the linguist Alexander Gode, with the sponsorship of the International Auxiliary Language Association, reformulated and revived Interlingua and promoted its use in the international scientific community. As reformulated, Interlingua’s grammar is not much more complex than that of Esperanto; it has only one form for nouns (taken from the Latin ablative case), no gender, no case, plurals in -s, one form for adjectives with no noun-adjective agreement, one definite article, and verbs with no inflection for person or number. **Abstracts and summaries are published in Interlingua by several international scientific journals, but in general the language has not been widely adopted.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlingua), on the entry of Interlingua, says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Today, interest in Interlingua has expanded from the scientific community to the general public. Individuals, governments, and private companies use Interlingua for learning and instruction, travel, online publishing, and communication across language barriers. Interlingua is promoted internationally by the Union Mundial pro Interlingua. Periodicals and books are produced by many national organizations, such as the Societate American pro Interlingua, the Svenska Sällskapet för Interlingua, and the Union Brazilian pro Interlingua. ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Interlingua has active speakers on all continents, especially in South America and in Eastern and Northern Europe, most notably Scandinavia; also in Russia and Ukraine. There are copious Interlingua web pages, including editions of Wikipedia and Wiktionary, and a number of periodicals, including Panorama in Interlingua from the Union Mundial pro Interlingua (UMI) and magazines of the national societies allied with it. There are several active mailing lists, and Interlingua is also in use in certain Usenet newsgroups, particularly in the europa.* hierarchy. Interlingua is presented on CDs, radio, and television.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Interlingua is taught in many high schools and universities, sometimes as a means of teaching other languages quickly, presenting interlinguistics, or introducing the international vocabulary. The University of Granada in Spain, for example, offers an Interlingua course in collaboration with the Centro de Formación Continua.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Every two years, the UMI organizes an international conference in a different country. In the year between, the Scandinavian Interlingua societies co-organize a conference in Sweden. National organizations such as the Union Brazilian pro Interlingua also organize regular conferences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of curiosity, yet there seems to be no Unix OS, Mac OS, nor Windows OS supporting Interlingua. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10585" RevisionGUID="f03ad0fa-27c2-4393-a462-f5605ea33aaf" CreationDate="2019-05-01T16:14:03.257" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Was looking to do an inscription on a ring for my fiance (engagement ring)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mei Uxor animusque&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My (plural m) wife (f) and soul(m)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *-que* implies that these things are close together by making them textually closer together, and the plural masculine my covers the mixed gendered list of words.  Just wanted to make sure this made sense and was correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:  Appreciate the detailed feedback.  Think I'm going with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Uxor Animaque Mea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31046" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10585" RevisionGUID="f03ad0fa-27c2-4393-a462-f5605ea33aaf" CreationDate="2019-05-01T16:14:03.257" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Trouble with the adjective &quot;my&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="d1722b36-015c-4cb4-b348-20dc7fd8740d" CreationDate="2019-05-01T16:16:16.793" UserId="9" Comment="added 1106 characters in body" Text="###The double ss is evidence for a short vowel in *ussi*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just a short time after posting this question, I remembered something that is probably relevant. Even though there wasn't (as far as I know) a regular Latin sound change that would have shortened **ū** to **u** in this context, there was a Latin sound change that would have shortened **ss** to **s** *after* a long vowel. So the fact that we have &amp;lt;ussi&gt; rather than &amp;lt;usi&gt;  /uːsiː/ is indirect evidence suggesting that the initial vowel in this form was short when the sound change from **ss** to **s** occurred. (In contrast, *haurio* has the perfect *hausī* in place of *haussī*). I found that Bennett (cited below) discusses the significance of **ss** in this kind of context as evidence for a short vowel in *jussī* (*iussī*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###More sources that say that the *u* was short in *ussi* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found that [Sihler 1995 (*New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin*)](https://books.google.com/books?id=u8C7GqCt494C&amp;pg=PT986#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) does account for a short *u* in *ussī* by analogical alteration of original *\*ūssī* to match an inherited short vowel in the participle *ustus* (§527).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, [Hale and Buck](https://books.google.com/books?id=XoMXAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA105) (1903) gives *ūrō, ussī, ustus* (§180.1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bennett (1895)](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA61&amp;lpg=PA61&amp;dq=&quot;ussi&quot;+&quot;uro&quot;+&quot;ustus&quot;) gives *ūrō, ussī, ūstus,*  specifying that *ū* in the p.p. participle is &quot;acc[ording] to the Romance&quot; (p. 61); and for evidence of a short vowel in *ussī,* cites &quot;Priscian (Keil i. 466. 6)&quot; ([p. 68](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA68#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)). Bennett cross-references the entry for *jubeō,* where he discusses how the double **ss** in *jussī* points towards a short vowel in the Classical era (p. 66). Bennett says that shortening is *jussī* is supposed to occur &quot;in accordance with the principle explained in § 88&quot;; §88 is about what has been called &quot;littera&quot;-type shortening (e.g. *Juppiter, cuppa, littera, bucca*) ([p. 94](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA94#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)), something that I doubt has much relevance to the form of perfect stems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10613" RevisionGUID="433f002f-fe69-40d8-ba61-4c071e0c8351" CreationDate="2019-05-01T16:16:39.000" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="In the Old Slavonic there is only one meaning of the word рѣчь (rech') &quot;speech&quot; but in the Polish there are two meanings &quot;speech&quot; and &quot;thing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the second meaning of the Polish word inherired since the beginning of the 1569 year, when the [Rzeczpospolita][1] was established, and only by analogy with latin rēs &quot;thing&quot; + pūblica. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it acceptable to argue, that the latin word &quot;rēs&quot; also has the &quot;speech&quot; meaning and that the latin word &quot;rēx&quot; also means the man, who has a right &quot;to speak&quot; (has a voice in) or that man to whose speak all other people are to obey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In accordance to bible, the God is a Word (speech) and there is none good (well) but one, that is, God.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jn 1:1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mt 19:17:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;there is none good but one, that is, God&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Commonwealth" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="170477c4-33c3-4bb6-a623-d0538976f51c" CreationDate="2019-05-01T16:21:59.177" UserId="9" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="###The double ss is evidence for a short vowel in *ussi*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just a short time after posting this question, I remembered something that is probably relevant. Even though there wasn't (as far as I know) a regular Latin sound change that would have shortened **ū** to **u** in this context, there was a Latin sound change that would have shortened **ss** to **s** *after* a long vowel. So the fact that we have &amp;lt;ussi&gt; rather than &amp;lt;usi&gt;  /uːsiː/ is indirect evidence suggesting that the initial vowel in this form was short when the sound change from **ss** to **s** occurred. (In contrast, *haurio* has the perfect *hausī* in place of *haussī*). I found that Bennett (cited below) discusses the significance of **ss** in this kind of context as evidence for a short vowel in *jussī* (*iussī*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###More sources that say that the *u* was short in *ussi* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found that [Sihler 1995 (*New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin*)](https://books.google.com/books?id=u8C7GqCt494C&amp;pg=PT986#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) does account for a short *u* in *ussī* by analogical alteration of original *\*ūssī* to match an inherited short vowel in the participle *ustus* (§527).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, [Hale and Buck](https://books.google.com/books?id=XoMXAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA105) (1903) gives *ūrō, ussī, ustus* (§180.1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bennett (1895)](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA61&amp;lpg=PA61&amp;dq=&quot;ussi&quot;+&quot;uro&quot;+&quot;ustus&quot;) gives *ūrō, ussī, ūstus,*  specifying that *ū* in the p.p. participle is &quot;acc[ording] to the Romance&quot; (p. 61); and for evidence of a short vowel in *ussī,* cites &quot;Priscian (Keil i. 466. 6)&quot; ([p. 68](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA68#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)). Bennett cross-references the entry for *jubeō,* where he discusses how the double **ss** in *jussī* points towards a short vowel in the Classical era ([p. 66](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA66)). Bennett says that shortening is *jussī* is supposed to occur &quot;in accordance with the principle explained in § 88&quot;, but §88 is about what has been called &quot;littera&quot;-type shortening (e.g. *Juppiter, cuppa, littera, bucca*) ([p. 94](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA94#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)), something that I doubt has much relevance to the form of perfect stems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="8dcd79a9-075a-4922-8308-6090d0b90be7" CreationDate="2019-05-01T16:45:58.647" UserId="9" Comment="added Schrijver" Text="###The double ss is evidence for a short vowel in *ussi*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just a short time after posting this question, I remembered something that is probably relevant. Even though there wasn't (as far as I know) a regular Latin sound change that would have shortened **ū** to **u** in this context, there was a Latin sound change that would have shortened **ss** to **s** *after* a long vowel. So the fact that we have &amp;lt;ussi&gt; rather than &amp;lt;usi&gt;  /uːsiː/ is indirect evidence suggesting that the initial vowel in this form was short when the sound change from **ss** to **s** occurred. (In contrast, *haurio* has the perfect *hausī* in place of *haussī*). I found that Bennett (cited below) discusses the significance of **ss** in this kind of context as evidence for a short vowel in *jussī* (*iussī*), and Schrijver 1991 (also cited below) applies the same reasoning directly to the form *ussī.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###More sources that say that the *u* was short in *ussi* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found that [Sihler 1995 (*New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin*)](https://books.google.com/books?id=u8C7GqCt494C&amp;pg=PT986#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) does account for a short *u* in *ussī* by analogical alteration of original *\*ūssī* to match an inherited short vowel in the participle *ustus* (§527).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, [Hale and Buck](https://books.google.com/books?id=XoMXAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA105) (1903) gives *ūrō, ussī, ustus* (§180.1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bennett (1895)](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA61&amp;lpg=PA61&amp;dq=&quot;ussi&quot;+&quot;uro&quot;+&quot;ustus&quot;) gives *ūrō, ussī, ūstus,*  specifying that *ū* in the p.p. participle is &quot;acc[ording] to the Romance&quot; (p. 61); and for evidence of a short vowel in *ussī,* cites &quot;Priscian (Keil i. 466. 6)&quot; ([p. 68](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA68#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)). Bennett cross-references the entry for *jubeō,* where he discusses how the double **ss** in *jussī* points towards a short vowel in the Classical era ([p. 66](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA66)). Bennett says that shortening is *jussī* is supposed to occur &quot;in accordance with the principle explained in § 88&quot;, but §88 is about what has been called &quot;littera&quot;-type shortening (e.g. *Juppiter, cuppa, littera, bucca*) ([p. 94](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA94#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)), something that I doubt has much relevance to the form of perfect stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schrijver 1991 (*The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin*) likewise notes that the double **ss** of the perfect *ussī* implies that the initial vowel was short in Latin. Schrijver also provides some useful additional points about the Indo-European etymology of the verb. He confirms my understanding that  *ūrō*'s root would require an initial laryngeal to be phonotactically well-formed in PIE, and argues that *\*HuC-* regularly yielded Latin *uC-*, and not Latin *auC-* (contra &quot;Forssman 1982-3, 291, Ringe 1988, 432-3, hesitating&quot;) (p. 74). Schrijver marks the vowel in the p.p. participle stem as short (*ŭstum*) in accordance with this sound change.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10614" RevisionGUID="258316bf-df69-4076-a51f-1beb07894cda" CreationDate="2019-05-01T17:04:36.700" UserDisplayName="user3165" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="_Latino sine flexione_ is a variant of Latin created by Peano in 1903. As far as I know it was used in scientific literature but since forgotten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found [this site](https://sites.google.com/site/latinosineflexio/) and a few discussions on [Duolingo](https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/26079920/What-about-Latino-Sine-Flexione-aka-Peano’s-Interlingua) but not a single speaker.&#xA;&#xA;A quite complete grammar can be found [here](http://mi.anihost.ru/Peano/lsf.htm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this wonderful project dead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31052" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10613" RevisionGUID="07f2bfe2-26a9-4321-9013-442bd844bc24" CreationDate="2019-05-01T17:06:42.767" />
  <row Id="31053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="016916f8-b9a3-43b8-8aeb-cb24eb41729c" CreationDate="2019-05-01T17:11:40.203" UserId="9" Comment="added Schrijver" Text="###The double ss is evidence for a short vowel in *ussi*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just a short time after posting this question, I remembered a relevant fact. Even though there wasn't (as far as I know) a regular Latin sound change that would have shortened **ū** to **u** in this context, there was a Latin sound change that would have shortened **ss** to **s** *after* a long vowel (or diphthong). For example, *haurio* has the perfect *hausī* in place of *haussī.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the fact that we have &amp;lt;ussi&gt; rather than &amp;lt;usi&gt;  /uːsiː/ is indirect evidence suggesting that the initial vowel in this form was short when the sound change from **ss** to **s** occurred. Schrijver 1991 notes that the double **ss** of the perfect *ussī* implies that the initial vowel was short in Latin, and Bennett 1895 applies the same reasoning to argue for a short vowel in the word *jussī* (*iussī*) ([p. 66](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA66)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As additional evidence for a short vowel in *ussī*, Bennett 1895 cites &quot;Priscian (Keil i. 466. 6)&quot; ([p. 68](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA68#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Explanations for how the short vowel developed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett's entry for *jubeō* (p. 66) says that shortening in *jussī* is supposed to occur &quot;in accordance with the principle explained in § 88&quot;, but §88 is about what has been called &quot;littera&quot;-type shortening (e.g. *Juppiter, cuppa, littera, bucca*) ([p. 94](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA94#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)), something that I doubt has much relevance to the form of perfect stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some discussion of the short vowel in the participle in Schrijver 1991. Schrijver confirms my understanding that  *ūrō*'s root would require an initial laryngeal to be phonotactically well-formed in PIE, and argues that *\*HuC-* regularly yielded Latin *uC-*, and not Latin *auC-* (contra &quot;Forssman 1982-3, 291, Ringe 1988, 432-3, hesitating&quot;) (p. 74). Schrijver marks the vowel in the p.p. participle stem as short (*ŭstum*) in accordance with this sound change. Schrijver also marks the vowel in the perfect *ŭssī* as short, but doesn't explain how it came to be that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sihler 1995 does account for a short *u* in *ussī* by analogical alteration of original *\*ūssī* to match an inherited short vowel in the participle *ustus* ([Sihler §527](https://books.google.com/books?id=u8C7GqCt494C&amp;pg=PT986)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Vowel length of the *u* in the participle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the sources that I've looked at agree that *ussī* had a short vowel, and most say that *ustus* also had a short vowel (e.g. [Hale and Buck (1903) §180.1](https://books.google.com/books?id=XoMXAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA105) gives *ūrō, ussī, ustus* and explicitly notes that the vowel in the participle and perfect is short, unlike the vowel in the present).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Bennett 1895 gives *ūrō, ussī, ūstus,*  specifying that *ū* in the p.p. participle is &quot;acc[ording] to the Romance&quot; ([Bennett p. 61](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA61&amp;lpg=PA61&amp;dq=&quot;ussi&quot;+&quot;uro&quot;+&quot;ustus&quot;)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett, Charles Edwin. 1895. *[Appendix to Bennett's Latin Grammar for Teachers and Advanced Students](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;printsec=frontcover).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hale, William Gardner, and Carl Darling Buck. 1903. *A Latin Grammar.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schrijver, Peter. 1991. *The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. *New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31054" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10614" RevisionGUID="71bd6685-3194-421e-9696-9b10f6bd862d" CreationDate="2019-05-01T17:21:44.260" />
  <row Id="31055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="8df13e82-3787-4bb8-a7b8-730c7e725740" CreationDate="2019-05-01T17:21:49.410" UserId="9" Comment="added 431 characters in body" Text="###The double ss is evidence for a short vowel in *ussi*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just a short time after posting this question, I remembered a relevant fact. Even though there wasn't (as far as I know) a regular Latin sound change that would have shortened **ū** to **u** in this context, there was a Latin sound change that would have shortened **ss** to **s** *after* a long vowel (or diphthong). For example, *haurio* has the perfect *hausī* in place of *haussī.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the fact that we have &amp;lt;ussi&gt; rather than &amp;lt;usi&gt;  /uːsiː/ is indirect evidence suggesting that the initial vowel in this form was short when the sound change from **ss** to **s** occurred. Schrijver 1991 notes that the double **ss** of the perfect *ussī* implies that the initial vowel was short in Latin, and Bennett 1895 applies the same reasoning to argue for a short vowel in the word *jussī* (*iussī*) ([p. 66](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA66)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As additional evidence for a short vowel in *ussī*, Bennett 1895 cites &quot;Priscian (Keil i. 466. 6)&quot; ([p. 68](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA68#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)). However, I would guess that it's not a good idea to put too much weight on this evidence, because Bennett indicates that Priscian gave unreliable testimony about the length of vowels in the perfect in some other cases (&quot;Priscian lends the weight of his authority to such forms as *trăxī, mănsī, dŭxī,* which certainly had a long vowel in the best period&quot; ([Bennett p. 62](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA62))).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Explanations for how the short vowel developed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett's entry for *jubeō* (p. 66) says that shortening in *jussī* is supposed to occur &quot;in accordance with the principle explained in § 88&quot;, but §88 is about what has been called &quot;littera&quot;-type shortening (e.g. *Juppiter, cuppa, littera, bucca*) ([p. 94](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA94#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)), something that I doubt has much relevance to the form of perfect stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some discussion of the short vowel in the participle in Schrijver 1991. Schrijver confirms my understanding that  *ūrō*'s root would require an initial laryngeal to be phonotactically well-formed in PIE, and argues that *\*HuC-* regularly yielded Latin *uC-*, and not Latin *auC-* (contra &quot;Forssman 1982-3, 291, Ringe 1988, 432-3, hesitating&quot;) (p. 74). Schrijver marks the vowel in the p.p. participle stem as short (*ŭstum*) in accordance with this sound change. Schrijver also marks the vowel in the perfect *ŭssī* as short, but doesn't explain how it came to be that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sihler 1995 does account for a short *u* in *ussī* by analogical alteration of original *\*ūssī* to match an inherited short vowel in the participle *ustus* ([Sihler §527](https://books.google.com/books?id=u8C7GqCt494C&amp;pg=PT986)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Vowel length of the *u* in the participle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the sources that I've looked at agree that *ussī* had a short vowel, and most say that *ustus* also had a short vowel (e.g. [Hale and Buck (1903) §180.1](https://books.google.com/books?id=XoMXAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA105) gives *ūrō, ussī, ustus* and explicitly notes that the vowel in the participle and perfect is short, unlike the vowel in the present).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Bennett 1895 gives *ūrō, ussī, ūstus,*  specifying that *ū* in the p.p. participle is &quot;acc[ording] to the Romance&quot; ([Bennett p. 61](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA61&amp;lpg=PA61&amp;dq=&quot;ussi&quot;+&quot;uro&quot;+&quot;ustus&quot;)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett, Charles Edwin. 1895. *[Appendix to Bennett's Latin Grammar for Teachers and Advanced Students](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;printsec=frontcover).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hale, William Gardner, and Carl Darling Buck. 1903. *A Latin Grammar.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schrijver, Peter. 1991. *The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. *New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10618" RevisionGUID="42affd37-b895-48a2-93cb-52ceda28cc95" CreationDate="2019-05-01T17:22:16.880" UserId="4725" Text="Do the Latin have the cognate verb/noun for the adjectives maximus, magnus?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;something resembling the following:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;rex rego;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;vox voco;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;nox ?nego?;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;lux luceo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31057" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10618" RevisionGUID="42affd37-b895-48a2-93cb-52ceda28cc95" CreationDate="2019-05-01T17:22:16.880" UserId="4725" Text="Do the Latin have the cognate verb/noun for words maximus, magnus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31058" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10618" RevisionGUID="42affd37-b895-48a2-93cb-52ceda28cc95" CreationDate="2019-05-01T17:22:16.880" UserId="4725" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="eb4d48ec-e9b7-452f-825a-189e3587df10" CreationDate="2019-05-01T17:42:17.767" UserId="9" Comment="added Laurent source" Text="###The double ss is evidence for a short vowel in *ussi*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just a short time after posting this question, I remembered a relevant fact. Even though there wasn't (as far as I know) a regular Latin sound change that would have shortened **ū** to **u** in this context, there was a Latin sound change that would have shortened **ss** to **s** *after* a long vowel (or diphthong). For example, *haurio* has the perfect *hausī* in place of *haussī.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the fact that we have &amp;lt;ussi&gt; rather than &amp;lt;usi&gt;  /uːsiː/ is indirect evidence suggesting that the initial vowel in this form was short when the sound change from **ss** to **s** occurred. Schrijver 1991 notes that the double **ss** of the perfect *ussī* implies that the initial vowel was short in Latin, and Bennett 1895 applies the same reasoning to argue for a short vowel in the word *jussī* (*iussī*) ([p. 66](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA66)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As additional evidence for a short vowel in *ussī*, Bennett 1895 cites &quot;Priscian (Keil i. 466. 6)&quot; ([p. 68](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA68#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)). However, I would guess that it's not a good idea to put too much weight on this evidence, because Bennett indicates that Priscian gave unreliable testimony about the length of vowels in the perfect in some other cases (&quot;Priscian lends the weight of his authority to such forms as *trăxī, mănsī, dŭxī,* which certainly had a long vowel in the best period&quot; ([Bennett p. 62](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA62))).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Explanations for how the short vowel developed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett's entry for *jubeō* (p. 66) says that shortening in *jussī* is supposed to occur &quot;in accordance with the principle explained in § 88&quot;, but §88 is about what has been called &quot;littera&quot;-type shortening (e.g. *Juppiter, cuppa, littera, bucca*) ([p. 94](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA94#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)), something that I doubt has much relevance to the form of perfect stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some discussion of the short vowel in the participle in Schrijver 1991. Schrijver confirms my understanding that  *ūrō*'s root would require an initial laryngeal to be phonotactically well-formed in PIE, and argues that *\*HuC-* regularly yielded Latin *uC-*, and not Latin *auC-* (contra &quot;Forssman 1982-3, 291, Ringe 1988, 432-3, hesitating&quot;) (p. 74). Schrijver marks the vowel in the p.p. participle stem as short (*ŭstum*) in accordance with this sound change. Schrijver also marks the vowel in the perfect *ŭssī* as short, but doesn't explain how it came to be that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sihler 1995 does account for a short *u* in *ussī* by analogical alteration of original *\*ūssī* to match an inherited short vowel in the participle *ustus* ([Sihler §527](https://books.google.com/books?id=u8C7GqCt494C&amp;pg=PT986)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Vowel length of the *u* in the participle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the sources that I've looked at agree that *ussī* had a short vowel. Most say that *ustus* also had a short vowel: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Hale and Buck (1903) §180.1](https://books.google.com/books?id=XoMXAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA105) gives *ūrō, ussī, ustus* and explicitly notes that the vowel in the participle and perfect is short, unlike the vowel in the present&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Laurent 1953 says that &quot;Several CL verbs had short vowels in the past participle and perfect contrasting with long vowels in the present: the stressed vowels in past participles like CESSUM 'yielded' and USTUM 'charred' matched  those in perfect CESSĪ and USSĪ but not those in pres. CĒDŌ and ŪRŌ&quot; ([p. 23](https://books.google.com/books?id=h64wDwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA23&amp;lpg=PA23&amp;dq=&quot;ustum&quot;+&quot;ussi&quot;)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Bennett 1895 gives *ūrō, ussī, ūstus,*  specifying that *ū* in the p.p. participle is &quot;acc[ording] to the Romance&quot; ([Bennett p. 61](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA61&amp;lpg=PA61&amp;dq=&quot;ussi&quot;+&quot;uro&quot;+&quot;ustus&quot;)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett, Charles Edwin. 1895. *[Appendix to Bennett's Latin Grammar for Teachers and Advanced Students](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;printsec=frontcover).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hale, William Gardner, and Carl Darling Buck. 1903. *A Latin Grammar.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Laurent, Richard. 1953. *Past Participles from Latin to Romance.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schrijver, Peter. 1991. *The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. *New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="3e1455a2-baed-4893-9e18-43cfec20c5a9" CreationDate="2019-05-01T18:02:02.307" UserId="9" Comment="added 477 characters in body" Text="###The double ss is evidence for a short vowel in *ussi* (at least at some point)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just a short time after posting this question, I remembered a relevant fact. Even though there wasn't (as far as I know) a regular Latin sound change that would have shortened **ū** to **u** in this context, there was a Latin sound change that would have shortened **ss** to **s** *after* a long vowel (or diphthong). For example, *haurio* has the perfect *hausī* in place of *haussī.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the fact that we have &amp;lt;ussi&gt; rather than &amp;lt;usi&gt;  /uːsiː/ is indirect evidence suggesting that the initial vowel in this form was short when the sound change from **ss** to **s** occurred. Schrijver 1991 notes that the double **ss** of the perfect *ussī* implies that the initial vowel was short in Latin, and Bennett 1895 applies the same reasoning to argue for a short vowel in the word *jussī* (*iussī*) ([p. 66](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA66)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know whether this evidence rules out the possibility of earlier /ussiː/ being replaced by /uːssiː/ at a time when the **ss**  &gt; **s** sound change was no longer active. I think that in the Classical Latin period, it was phonotactically possible for a long vowel to come before **ss**: as far as I know, sequences of that sort are believed to exist in certain contracted forms like *amāsse* (for *amāvisse*) and *dīvīsse* (for *dīvīsisse*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Bennett cites Priscian for short *u* in *ussi*&#xD;&#xA;As additional evidence for a short vowel in *ussī*, Bennett 1895 cites &quot;Priscian (Keil i. 466. 6)&quot; ([p. 68](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA68#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)). However, I would guess that it's not a good idea to put too much weight on this evidence, because Bennett indicates that Priscian gave unreliable testimony about the length of vowels in the perfect in some other cases (&quot;Priscian lends the weight of his authority to such forms as *trăxī, mănsī, dŭxī,* which certainly had a long vowel in the best period&quot; ([Bennett p. 62](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA62))).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Explanations for how the short vowel developed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett's entry for *jubeō* (p. 66) says that shortening in *jussī* is supposed to occur &quot;in accordance with the principle explained in § 88&quot;, but §88 is about what has been called &quot;littera&quot;-type shortening (e.g. *Juppiter, cuppa, littera, bucca*) ([p. 94](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA94#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)), something that I doubt has much relevance to the form of perfect stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some discussion of the short vowel in the participle in Schrijver 1991. Schrijver confirms my understanding that  *ūrō*'s root would require an initial laryngeal to be phonotactically well-formed in PIE, and argues that *\*HuC-* regularly yielded Latin *uC-*, and not Latin *auC-* (contra &quot;Forssman 1982-3, 291, Ringe 1988, 432-3, hesitating&quot;) (p. 74). Schrijver marks the vowel in the p.p. participle stem as short (*ŭstum*) in accordance with this sound change. Schrijver also marks the vowel in the perfect *ŭssī* as short, but doesn't explain how it came to be that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sihler 1995 does account for a short *u* in *ussī* by analogical alteration of original *\*ūssī* to match an inherited short vowel in the participle *ustus* ([Sihler §527](https://books.google.com/books?id=u8C7GqCt494C&amp;pg=PT986)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Vowel length of the *u* in the participle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the sources that I've looked at agree that *ussī* had a short vowel. Most say that *ustus* also had a short vowel: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Hale and Buck (1903) §180.1](https://books.google.com/books?id=XoMXAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA105) gives *ūrō, ussī, ustus* and explicitly notes that the vowel in the participle and perfect is short, unlike the vowel in the present&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Laurent 1953 says that &quot;Several CL verbs had short vowels in the past participle and perfect contrasting with long vowels in the present: the stressed vowels in past participles like CESSUM 'yielded' and USTUM 'charred' matched  those in perfect CESSĪ and USSĪ but not those in pres. CĒDŌ and ŪRŌ&quot; ([p. 23](https://books.google.com/books?id=h64wDwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA23&amp;lpg=PA23&amp;dq=&quot;ustum&quot;+&quot;ussi&quot;)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Bennett 1895 gives *ūrō, ussī, ūstus,*  specifying that *ū* in the p.p. participle is &quot;acc[ording] to the Romance&quot; ([Bennett p. 61](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA61&amp;lpg=PA61&amp;dq=&quot;ussi&quot;+&quot;uro&quot;+&quot;ustus&quot;)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett, Charles Edwin. 1895. *[Appendix to Bennett's Latin Grammar for Teachers and Advanced Students](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;printsec=frontcover).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hale, William Gardner, and Carl Darling Buck. 1903. *A Latin Grammar.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Laurent, Richard. 1953. *Past Participles from Latin to Romance.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schrijver, Peter. 1991. *The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. *New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10619" RevisionGUID="ed346eb2-4bca-4e39-a1e9-8f63a8147aaa" CreationDate="2019-05-01T20:03:53.487" UserId="4725" Text="Can anybody please explain to me why the Latin word focus &quot;fireplace&quot; and the Old Slavonic word пещь (peshch') &quot;stove&quot;* are not cognates in accordance with Grimm's law (PIE /f/ yields Old Slavonic Slavic /p/)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Old Slavonic letter щ (shch) is always derived from the letters к (k) or г (g) + т (t); Я пеку (Ya peku) &quot;I bake&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*see &quot;The russian stove&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31062" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10619" RevisionGUID="ed346eb2-4bca-4e39-a1e9-8f63a8147aaa" CreationDate="2019-05-01T20:03:53.487" UserId="4725" Text="Are the Latin word “focus” and the Old Slavonic пещь (peshch') &quot;stove&quot; cognates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31063" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10619" RevisionGUID="ed346eb2-4bca-4e39-a1e9-8f63a8147aaa" CreationDate="2019-05-01T20:03:53.487" UserId="4725" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10619" RevisionGUID="92c59cbe-89b1-4457-a874-ef77cd566fef" CreationDate="2019-05-01T20:10:38.213" UserId="4725" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="Can anybody please explain to me why the Latin word focus &quot;fireplace&quot; and the Old Slavonic word пещь (peshch') &quot;stove&quot;* are not cognates in accordance with Grimm's law (PIE /f/ yields Old Slavonic /p/)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Old Slavonic letter щ (shch) is always derived from the letters к (k) or г (g) + т (t); Я пеку (Ya peku) &quot;I bake&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*see &quot;The russian stove&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10621" RevisionGUID="3fd429b5-2e8c-4881-bde8-38b28aefdb4b" CreationDate="2019-05-01T21:52:24.987" UserId="406" Text="Grimm's Law only applies to Germanic languages; PIE as usually reconstructed has no `*f`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin _focus_ probably comes from PIE `*bʰ-h₂-` &quot;shine&quot; (see _fax_ &quot;torch&quot;); Slavic пещь seems to come from PIE `*p-kʷ-` &quot;cook&quot;. They're not related." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10623" RevisionGUID="49f428d6-924e-474d-b37d-aeeabb63abcf" CreationDate="2019-05-02T01:17:08.550" UserId="4731" Text="So, from what I learned in Latin III (gratas magistrae Donnettae ago), *magnus* was one of those adjectives with irregular comparative and superlative forms (e.g: *bonus* [good], *melior* [better], *optimus* [best]). In this case we have *magnus* (great/large) in the positive, *maior* (greater/larger) in the comparative, and *maximus* (greatest/largest) in the superlative. So maximus is the superlative of magnus. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, adjectives can be used as substantives, meaning they totally replace the noun they modify, but they are still adjectives first. Because of that, I do not believe that those words would qualify under that category of noun/verb cognate, in that those are adjectives, not nouns (unless when used in the manner aforementioned or as a proper name).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, however, when researching Latin-dictionary.net (my go-to source), there appear to be a couple verbs which appear to have *magnus* as their root:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - magnufico, magnuficare&#xD;&#xA; - magnifico, magnificare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;both mean &quot;praise, extol&quot; and &quot;to esteem greatly.&quot; There are also a host of other adjectives as well as nouns and adverbs that also use *magnus* or *maximus* as their root, and would, therefore, be cognates of *magnus* or *maximus*. I hope that answers your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10624" RevisionGUID="303955a6-acf8-4ccb-aed5-084e9e4bf85f" CreationDate="2019-05-02T01:28:26.637" UserId="4731" Text="I would figure words like *Rex* (eg: tyrannosaurus Rex, Oedipus Rex) would be better known." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10625" RevisionGUID="394fe1c0-00f7-4a5d-b1c1-24f0de6fa5a1" CreationDate="2019-05-02T01:57:52.473" UserId="4731" Text="I understand that when dates are written, the years are expressed in Roman numerals (eg.: 2019 is written MMXIX), but it has been years since I heard the numbers actually pronounced. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How were the numbers of the years expressed verbally? Were they cardinal, ordinal, or otherwise; and with that in what case were they: nominative or ablative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AD 2019 is pronounced anno domini... (what)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31076" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10625" RevisionGUID="394fe1c0-00f7-4a5d-b1c1-24f0de6fa5a1" CreationDate="2019-05-02T01:57:52.473" UserId="4731" Text="Pronunciation of numbers with respect to years" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31077" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10625" RevisionGUID="394fe1c0-00f7-4a5d-b1c1-24f0de6fa5a1" CreationDate="2019-05-02T01:57:52.473" UserId="4731" Text="|grammar-choice|pronunciation|numerals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10627" RevisionGUID="79ba9958-ed4a-4b1f-9436-2f1132065e82" CreationDate="2019-05-02T03:46:29.173" UserId="4731" Text="First off, de takes the ablative, so you should remember to use macrons (long marks) over that ending &quot;A&quot;. Now, usually the possessive genitive comes after the noun it possesses, and I do not recall seeing the prepositional phrase split like that, so I would say that that ought to be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*de Natura Renovaminis* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(remembering to add proper macrons). Someone, please correct me if I am wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10628" RevisionGUID="4197191a-5918-471b-8569-b4fe7f8b4169" CreationDate="2019-05-02T04:09:17.710" UserId="79" Text="The numbers are ordinals in the singular masculine ablative.&#xD;&#xA;They modify the word *anno*, having its form.&#xD;&#xA;In Latin you say literally &quot;on the 2019th year&quot;, which is *anno bis millesimo undevicesimo*.&#xD;&#xA;You can of course add *Domini* or *ante Christum natum* or some such phrase if you want, but it is often clear enough in context &amp;mdash; just like in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10629" RevisionGUID="eb696444-a68f-4170-a976-4f87301aad4f" CreationDate="2019-05-02T04:09:29.783" UserId="4731" Text="It would really depend on several factors. Like the comment above stated, it would depend mainly on the case used for the slogan. This would be determined by how that phrase would apply to you and be used in a sentence reflecting that. Are you saying that you belong to God and family, that you are giving yourself to God and family, or that you draw your essence from or by God and family?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also while both of those &quot;and&quot;s work, usually in slogans you we see A et B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given those factors your options are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;of God and Family: Dei et Familiae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to/for God and family (especially if you are dedicating yourself to them): Deo et Familiae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;by/from God and Family: Deo et Familia (remembering to put macrons over the final &quot;o&quot; and &quot;a&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Syntax and case matter. Remember that slogans are usually derived from a complete thought and their role in that thought is what determines what case is used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10625" RevisionGUID="3688180b-34ca-4cce-a319-be5f0062c6ee" CreationDate="2019-05-02T04:10:23.853" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I understand that when dates are written, the years are expressed in Roman numerals (e.g.: 2019 is written MMXIX), but it has been years since I heard the numbers actually pronounced. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How were the numbers of the years expressed verbally? Were they cardinal, ordinal, or otherwise? And with that in what case were they: nominative or ablative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AD 2019 is pronounced *anno domini...* (what)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31084" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10625" RevisionGUID="3688180b-34ca-4cce-a319-be5f0062c6ee" CreationDate="2019-05-02T04:10:23.853" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|pronunciation|calendarium|numerals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10630" RevisionGUID="2a600b3c-1448-4fb7-892e-4898f1f4347b" CreationDate="2019-05-02T04:22:01.743" UserId="79" Text="I am not aware of a Latin verb that goes together with *magnus* the way *albeo* and *rubeo* go with *albus* and *ruber*, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;The words *magnus*, *maximus*, and *magis* are unsurprisingly related, and the only surprising related word that comes to mind is *magister*.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if I understand the question correctly, but this is the closest to an answer that seems possible to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10629" RevisionGUID="aa7497dc-9b36-4680-b222-c5b9832a5bee" CreationDate="2019-05-02T04:34:07.673" UserId="4731" Comment="added nominative option in response to a comment under P.S. then fixed the quote." Text="It would really depend on several factors. Like the comment above stated, it would depend mainly on the case used for the slogan. This would be determined by how that phrase would apply to you and be used in a sentence reflecting that. Are you saying that you belong to God and family, that you are giving yourself to God and family, or that you draw your essence from or by God and family?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also while both of those &quot;and&quot;s work, usually in slogans you we see A et B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given those factors your options are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;of God and Family: Dei et Familiae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to/for God and family (especially if you are dedicating yourself to them): Deo et Familiae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;by/from God and Family: Deo et Familia (remembering to put macrons over the final &quot;o&quot; and &quot;a&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Syntax and case matter. Remember that slogans are usually derived from a complete thought and their role in that thought is what determines what case is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.&#xD;&#xA;As is noted in the comment below if what you wanted to say was &quot;[the most important things to me in life are] God and family,&quot; that would be *Deus et familia*. Still, the other uses might make more sense especially since tattoos are usually an act of dedication, but it is really up to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10629" RevisionGUID="30ad89ae-a801-4b0f-9731-d2026f0485dc" CreationDate="2019-05-02T04:59:03.443" UserId="4731" Comment="removed superfluous incorrect pronoun" Text="It would really depend on several factors. Like the comment above stated, it would depend mainly on the case used for the slogan. This would be determined by how that phrase would apply to you and be used in a sentence reflecting that. Are you saying that you belong to God and family, that you are giving yourself to God and family, or that you draw your essence from or by God and family?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also while both of those &quot;and&quot;s work, usually in slogans we see A et B.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given those factors your options are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;of God and Family: Dei et Familiae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to/for God and family (especially if you are dedicating yourself to them): Deo et Familiae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;by/from God and Family: Deo et Familia (remembering to put macrons over the final &quot;o&quot; and &quot;a&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Syntax and case matter. Remember that slogans are usually derived from a complete thought and their role in that thought is what determines what case is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.&#xD;&#xA;As is noted in the comment below if what you wanted to say was &quot;[the most important things to me in life are] God and family,&quot; that would be *Deus et familia*. Still, the other uses might make more sense especially since tattoos are usually an act of dedication, but it is really up to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31090" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10625" RevisionGUID="18e65866-f224-4e02-86e6-0c12c5ddd972" CreationDate="2019-05-02T05:07:21.573" />
  <row Id="31092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10619" RevisionGUID="45b894fd-5857-4e23-a440-dcb8ed7403a9" CreationDate="2019-05-02T05:11:58.853" UserId="4725" Comment="deleted 31 characters in body" Text="Can anybody please explain to me why the Latin word focus &quot;fireplace&quot; and the Old Slavonic word пещь (peshch') &quot;stove&quot;* are not cognates (PIE /f/ yields Old Slavonic /p/)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Old Slavonic letter щ (shch) is always derived from the letters к (k) or г (g) + т (t); Я пеку (Ya peku) &quot;I bake&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*see &quot;The russian stove&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10616" RevisionGUID="26f694bf-bc95-45ae-a621-1d1a437fa4b7" CreationDate="2019-05-02T08:29:47.083" UserId="1459" Comment="edited body" Text="It seems the original project evolved into what is now called Interlingua. The [Oxford Essential Dictionary of Foreign Terms in English](http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199891573.001.0001/acref-9780199891573) defines _Latino Sine Flexione_ as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The language Interlingua, in which nouns are taken from the ablative case of Latin nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, the [Encyclopedia Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Interlingua) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Interlingua, also called Latino Sine Flexione, simplified form of Latin intended for use as an international second language. Interlingua was originally developed in 1903 by the Italian mathematician Giuseppe Peano, but lack of clarity as to what parts of Latin were to be retained and what were to be discarded led to numerous “dialects” of Interlingua, confusion, and its dying out among enthusiasts. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the linguist Alexander Gode, with the sponsorship of the International Auxiliary Language Association, reformulated and revived Interlingua and promoted its use in the international scientific community. As reformulated, Interlingua’s grammar is not much more complex than that of Esperanto; it has only one form for nouns (taken from the Latin ablative case), no gender, no case, plurals in -s, one form for adjectives with no noun-adjective agreement, one definite article, and verbs with no inflection for person or number. **Abstracts and summaries are published in Interlingua by several international scientific journals, but in general the language has not been widely adopted.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlingua), on the entry of Interlingua, says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Today, interest in Interlingua has expanded from the scientific community to the general public. Individuals, governments, and private companies use Interlingua for learning and instruction, travel, online publishing, and communication across language barriers. Interlingua is promoted internationally by the Union Mundial pro Interlingua. Periodicals and books are produced by many national organizations, such as the Societate American pro Interlingua, the Svenska Sällskapet för Interlingua, and the Union Brazilian pro Interlingua. ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Interlingua has active speakers on all continents, especially in South America and in Eastern and Northern Europe, most notably Scandinavia; also in Russia and Ukraine. There are copious Interlingua web pages, including editions of Wikipedia and Wiktionary, and a number of periodicals, including Panorama in Interlingua from the Union Mundial pro Interlingua (UMI) and magazines of the national societies allied with it. There are several active mailing lists, and Interlingua is also in use in certain Usenet newsgroups, particularly in the europa.* hierarchy. Interlingua is presented on CDs, radio, and television.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Interlingua is taught in many high schools and universities, sometimes as a means of teaching other languages quickly, presenting interlinguistics, or introducing the international vocabulary. The University of Granada in Spain, for example, offers an Interlingua course in collaboration with the Centro de Formación Continua.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Every two years, the UMI organizes an international conference in a different country. In the year between, the Scandinavian Interlingua societies co-organize a conference in Sweden. National organizations such as the Union Brazilian pro Interlingua also organize regular conferences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of curiosity, yet there seems to be no Unix OS, Mac OS, nor Windows OS supporting Interlingua. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10633" RevisionGUID="4877db4e-b4ef-45a9-9f9b-c7fa18abcb2f" CreationDate="2019-05-02T13:42:47.630" UserId="4731" Text="Ethan's answer is okay as far as diction, but there is more nuance with what cases should be used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First off, ad + accusative indicates motion toward or facing in the direction of, rather than the receiver of a gift or a favor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that case, the receiver of a gift or tribute is the indirect object with the direct object being the gift, itself. Think of it as &quot;[we (must) give] blood/gore to the god of blood/gore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, indirect objects take the **dative** (you have no idea how many times we were drilled and grilled over that), while the tributes, or direct objects, are in the accusative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Cruōrem deō cruōris*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[I/we give, have, or offer] blood/gore to/for the god of Blood/gore&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest you look up the scene in *Life of Brian* where Brian was caught painting &quot;Romans go home!&quot; on the wall and nearly gets his throat sliced for confusing the two cases. You can find it on [the YouTube link here](https://youtu.be/wjOfQfxmTLQ)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10634" RevisionGUID="bb07a29a-122a-4d38-a6e5-fb779df90df5" CreationDate="2019-05-02T16:28:55.273" UserId="4725" Text="Are the Latin word &quot;octo&quot; is derived from the serial number of the letter &quot;h&quot; in the alpabet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        The origin verb   The perfect passive participle   The derivative verb&#xD;&#xA;         veho                      vectus                        vecto&#xD;&#xA;         traho                     tractus                       tracto&#xD;&#xA;         ?h?                       ?octus?                       octo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1 a&#xD;&#xA;    2 b&#xD;&#xA;    3 c&#xD;&#xA;    4 d&#xD;&#xA;    5 e&#xD;&#xA;    6 f&#xD;&#xA;    7 g&#xD;&#xA;    8 h&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31115" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10634" RevisionGUID="bb07a29a-122a-4d38-a6e5-fb779df90df5" CreationDate="2019-05-02T16:28:55.273" UserId="4725" Text="Are the Latin word &quot;octo&quot; is derived from the serial number of the letter &quot;h&quot; in the alpabet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31116" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10634" RevisionGUID="bb07a29a-122a-4d38-a6e5-fb779df90df5" CreationDate="2019-05-02T16:28:55.273" UserId="4725" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10635" RevisionGUID="fad4f32a-819f-49c7-b3bb-94bbd1980559" CreationDate="2019-05-02T16:56:47.767" UserId="406" Text="_Octō_ comes from the dual of an old PIE stem `*oḱto-` meaning &quot;four fingers&quot; (compare Avestan _ašti-_ &quot;four fingerwidths&quot; which has gone through satemization). The alphabet came much later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10634" RevisionGUID="356ca19b-bb40-45ee-adeb-cd5e05fcfd0c" CreationDate="2019-05-02T17:57:34.163" UserId="4725" Comment="added 470 characters in body" Text="Are the Latin word &quot;octo&quot; is derived from the serial number of the letter &quot;h&quot; in the alpabet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latin words &quot;veho&quot; and &quot;traho&quot; transform into the latin words &quot;vecto&quot; and &quot;tracto&quot; respectively by analogy with the English word &quot;bear&quot; transforms into the English word &quot;bring&quot;. The latin language also has the word &quot;octo&quot;. I have tried to reconstruate it origin.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        The origin verb   The perfect passive participle   The derivative verb&#xD;&#xA;         veho                      vectus                        vecto&#xD;&#xA;         traho                     tractus                       tracto&#xD;&#xA;         ?oho?                     ?octus?                       octo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1 a&#xD;&#xA;    2 b&#xD;&#xA;    3 c&#xD;&#xA;    4 d&#xD;&#xA;    5 e&#xD;&#xA;    6 f&#xD;&#xA;    7 g&#xD;&#xA;    8 h&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For better understanding the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The origin verb   The past passive participle       The derivative verb     &#xD;&#xA;          bear                     born                          bring        " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10634" RevisionGUID="fa7bfb3e-caa0-4c5b-928f-795a7e89271c" CreationDate="2019-05-02T18:11:15.243" UserId="4725" Comment="edited body" Text="Are the Latin word &quot;octo&quot; is derived from the serial number of the letter &quot;h&quot; in the alpabet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latin words &quot;veho&quot; and &quot;traho&quot; transform into the latin words &quot;vecto&quot; and &quot;tracto&quot; respectively by analogy with the English word &quot;bear&quot; transforms into the English word &quot;bring&quot;. The latin language also has the word &quot;octo&quot;. I have tried to reconstruate it origin.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        The origin verb   The perfect passive participle   The derivative verb&#xD;&#xA;         veho                      vectus                        vecto&#xD;&#xA;         traho                     tractus                       tracto&#xD;&#xA;         ?oho?                     ?octus?                       octo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    a 1&#xD;&#xA;    b 2&#xD;&#xA;    c 3&#xD;&#xA;    d 4&#xD;&#xA;    e 5&#xD;&#xA;    f 6&#xD;&#xA;    g 7&#xD;&#xA;    h 8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For better understanding the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The origin verb   The past passive participle       The derivative verb     &#xD;&#xA;          bear                     born                          bring        " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10636" RevisionGUID="70b02486-b9d9-427f-bad0-7007a403a40e" CreationDate="2019-05-03T02:29:24.927" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="I'm trying to understand the etymology of [injunction](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=injunct).  To wit, how did &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *in-* &quot;on&quot; (from PIE root [*en](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*en) &quot;in&quot;)    &#xD;&#xA; + *iungere* &quot;to join together&quot; (from nasalized form of PIE root [*yeug-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*yeug-) &quot;to join&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;compound to mean &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Late Latin *iniunctionem* (nominative *iniunctio*) &quot;a command,&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31123" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10636" RevisionGUID="70b02486-b9d9-427f-bad0-7007a403a40e" CreationDate="2019-05-03T02:29:24.927" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What semantic notions underlie 'join together' and 'impose, inflict' (ie injunct)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31124" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10636" RevisionGUID="70b02486-b9d9-427f-bad0-7007a403a40e" CreationDate="2019-05-03T02:29:24.927" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10637" RevisionGUID="2017f039-7bcf-40f8-bfd7-f941bb5ab909" CreationDate="2019-05-03T02:39:05.127" UserId="406" Text="*Jungere* means to bind things together. With the *in-* &quot;into, onto&quot; prefix, it means to attach one thing onto something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, this is used for physical objects, like vines joining themselves onto a wall. But metaphorically, it can mean to attach new restrictions or punishments onto someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, an *injunction* is when these restrictions and commands are attached to someone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31126" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10634" RevisionGUID="54f7827c-14c7-4a5f-a0cb-32b2bad625ec" CreationDate="2019-05-03T02:43:18.573" UserId="79" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:406,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Draconis&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10640" RevisionGUID="268f09a0-e29a-4fc2-aace-d4e87f8d0611" CreationDate="2019-05-03T15:02:49.810" UserId="3645" Text="I have encountered with **apparatus fontium** for example in this reference:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Gundissalinus, *De divisione philosophiae*, **apparatus fontium** ad pp. 36 –7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is it and what is it's the literal meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31135" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10640" RevisionGUID="268f09a0-e29a-4fc2-aace-d4e87f8d0611" CreationDate="2019-05-03T15:02:49.810" UserId="3645" Text="What is the &quot;apparatus fontium&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31136" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10640" RevisionGUID="268f09a0-e29a-4fc2-aace-d4e87f8d0611" CreationDate="2019-05-03T15:02:49.810" UserId="3645" Text="|medieval-latin|philosophy-terms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10641" RevisionGUID="ede7bcde-ade4-48cb-a5e6-8bd2e924ab0f" CreationDate="2019-05-03T16:04:03.407" UserId="406" Text="*Apparātus* is a very general-purpose word in Latin, but in classics and textual criticism, it refers to extra material that an editor has attached to a work; I'd translate it as &quot;footnote&quot;. For example, an *apparātus criticus* explains how the primary sources differ for a given line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An *apparātus fontium*, then, is a &quot;footnote of sources&quot;. In other words, an editor has added a list of the sources that the original author refers to. If the author quotes Vergil, for instance, the *apparātus fontium* for that line will provide the book and line numbers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10642" RevisionGUID="9c451cd1-113b-4877-9cfc-99264a16ba17" CreationDate="2019-05-03T22:07:29.453" UserId="1891" Text="Orberg, in Familia Latina, uses amica in the sense of girlfriend or fiancee." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31145" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9379" RevisionGUID="7dddd254-4f00-43b6-b505-625b0359adfd" CreationDate="2019-05-03T23:02:25.770" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="5c18cc28-aeb7-4b59-b56e-a8e44936fccb" CreationDate="2019-05-04T00:31:44.800" UserId="4731" Text="As much as it pains me to say this, because of my stance on profanity, there is a book that might benefit you. It is called ***X-treme Latin: All the Latin You Need to Know for Survival in the 21st Century***, by Henry Beard. In it you will find some rather colorful phrases, some of them profane, some not, that can be used in many situations. It is a hilarious book that also teaches the Latin word for NAZI. Below is the Turabian reference, which should help you find it (try your local main branch library).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Beard, Henry. *X-TREME LATIN: All the Latin You Need to Know for Survival in the 21st Century*. New York, NY: Gotham Books, 2005.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He also has similar books which also include slang and other terms that might suit your needs, but I would start here. Happy hunting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10644" RevisionGUID="2a3aa8b6-a558-4828-8b8c-18f1fc12d11f" CreationDate="2019-05-04T00:54:47.577" UserId="4731" Text="Well, first off, the Romans, themselves, referred to him as *Satana* in the Vulgate (cf: I Timothy 5:15 VULG). However, if you wanted to refer to him in the literal sense as the &quot;enemy&quot; or &quot;adversary,&quot; you have several options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *Advorsarius*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *Adversarius*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - *Perduellis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seeing as *Perduellis* means &quot;national enemy,&quot; I think that would be more appropriate here; however, since Satan is commonly referred to as &quot;the Adversary,&quot; the other two would also be appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5437" RevisionGUID="6e3817f4-ec00-4da2-945c-e2f4376ad21e" CreationDate="2019-05-04T00:55:12.783" UserId="9" Comment="updated links" Text="As TKR's answer says, the consensus seems to be in favor of reconstructing all intervocalic &quot;s&quot; in Classical Latin as voiceless: [s]. (I have seen some speculation about the exact *place of articulation* of this consonant: since it didn't contrast with any other sibilants, some authors suggest it was, or at least could be, somewhat &quot;retracted&quot;: see the Wikipedia article on the [voiceless alveolar fricative][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to Church pronunciation/&quot;ecclesiastical&quot; pronunciation/sung Latin, I haven't found a clear, established consensus. (Which is not unusual, in my experience—&quot;ecclesiastical&quot; Latin is not really a single standard since it is pretty much based on Italian pronunciation, which itself varies between different locations, and many people using this pronunciation nowadays aren't native Italian speakers. It's hard to find good resources giving detailed decriptions of Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation, as opposed to impressionistic stuff intended to allow singers to get it approximately right. I also haven't found consensus about the height of &quot;e&quot;, &quot;ae/æ&quot;, and &quot;oe/œ&quot; as /e/ vs. /ɛ/ in this variety of Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some sources say things like &quot;never z as in raise&quot; ([SUNG ECCLESIASTICAL LATIN (ROMAN) PRONUNCIATION GUIDE][2], in rehearsal notes from the website of James F. Daugherty at the University of Kansas).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it seems like some people do use /z/ for at least some intervocalic &quot;s&quot;, and maybe /[gz][3]/ for at least some intervocalic &quot;x&quot;, in sung Latin, as you have noticed. See the following thread on the Latin Discussion forum: [Church-type pronunciation.][4] Also see the following document which uses the wishy-washy description &quot;when it comes between two&#xD;&#xA;vowels, it is closer to the sound of 'z' but softer, like the 's' in 'misery' &quot; ([Latin Pronunciation Guide][5]). If we're talking about a native English pronunciation of &quot;misery&quot;, that's what an English speaker would just call /z/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Ecclesiastical Latin][6]&quot;, by Andrew Crow (Chapter 4, *The Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet in the Choral Rehearsal,* edited by Duane Richard Karna) even describes the following odd pattern of usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **s** is never voiced. That is, [s] not [z]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Some sources make an exception for borrowed words—especially *Jesu* as [jɛ zu] rather than [jɛ su]. Either version is acceptable in this case. (p. 40)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if a native Italian speaker would instinctively pronounce *all* intervocalic &quot;s&quot; in Latin as /z/. I know that in some varieties of Italian—including the one that is as far as I know most often regarded as being &quot;standard&quot;—intervocalic single &quot;s&quot; can actually correspond to either voiceless /s/ or voiced /z/ depending on some complicated factors, and there is a fair amount of variability in contemporary Italian accents. Wikipedia's &quot;[Italian Phonology][7]&quot; article says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [s] and [z] [...] can only contrast between two vowels within a word. According to Canepari,&lt;sup&gt;[16]&lt;/sup&gt; though, the traditional standard has been replaced by a modern neutral pronunciation which always prefers /z/ when intervocalic, except when the intervocalic s is the initial sound of a word, if the compound is still felt as such: for example, presento /preˈsɛnto/&lt;sup&gt;[17]&lt;/sup&gt; ('I foresee', with pre meaning 'before' and sento meaning 'I see') vs presento /preˈzɛnto/&lt;sup&gt;[18]&lt;/sup&gt; ('I present'). There are many words in which dictionaries now indicate that both pronunciations with /z/ and with /s/ are acceptable. The two phonemes have merged in many regional varieties of Italian, either into /z/ (Northern-Central) or /s/ (Southern-Central). Geminate /ss/ can be pronounced as single [s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another related discussion thread: [Latin: S or Z between two vowels?][8], on Choral Net, which provides some more examples of equivocal descriptions like &quot;Not &quot;z&quot; nor &quot;s&quot;, blend the sound&quot; and &quot;a z-ish s&quot;. Apparently, this wishy-washiness is present in some edition of the *Liber usualis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_alveolar_fricative&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://cmed.faculty.ku.edu/rehnotes/latin.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/LatinPronunciation.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/church-type-pronunciation.24707/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.dominicanlaity.ca/DominicanLaity/Events_files/LatinPronunciation.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cB7ety_ht_IC&amp;pg=PA40&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_phonology&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://archive.li/df7j8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10645" RevisionGUID="25080bb2-9fb0-4f3f-a34f-c398cdba7dcb" CreationDate="2019-05-04T01:58:41.470" UserId="9" Text="&quot;Adversarius&quot; is in fact used in the Vulgate to refer to the devil, so it presumably was felt to have a fitting meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sobrii estote, et vigilate: quia **adversarius vester diabolus** tamquam leo rugiens circuit, quaerens quem devoret&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1 Petri 5:8)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10645" RevisionGUID="7c5529ba-f230-4ee9-a43f-2b2390f06a65" CreationDate="2019-05-04T02:05:27.653" UserId="9" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="&quot;Adversarius&quot; is in fact used at least once in the Vulgate to refer to the devil, so it presumably was felt to have a fitting meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sobrii estote, et vigilate: quia **adversarius vester diabolus** tamquam leo rugiens circuit, quaerens quem devoret&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1 Petri 5:8)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10646" RevisionGUID="77729b9c-5b1b-4533-b3b7-027d807aac81" CreationDate="2019-05-04T06:59:13.050" UserId="9" Text="Before today, I thought that there was no neuter substantive noun with a nominative singular in *a* and a genitive singular in *ae*. However, I have encountered references to a possible exception: some sources indicate that the noun *pascha/Pascha*, referring to Passover or Easter, could inflect according to the first declension and at the same time be neuter in gender. I'd like to see if I can verify this surprising fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###How the word *pascha* entered Latin&#xD;&#xA;This is supposed to be explained by the background of the word: it comes from a masculine Aramaic word via Greek πάσχα, which is indeclinable and neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in Latin, the word came to be declined, but retained the neuter gender of the Greek noun. It is supposed to have also developed a consonant-stem declension by analogy with Greek *-ma* neuter nouns, gaining a stem *paschat-* with unetymological *-t-* that was used to form genitive singular *paschatis,* genitive plural *paschatum* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The first-declension forms: sometimes feminine—ever neuter?&#xD;&#xA;It's fairly easy for me to find examples of the first-declension forms: e.g. &quot;pascharum&quot; in &quot;pascharum diem&quot; seems to be a first-declension genitive plural. But it's harder to find evidence supporting the idea that these forms are ever grammatically neuter rather than grammatically feminine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, it seems that it must have been possible for *pascha* to be a feminine noun in at least some situations, because the accusative singular form *pascham* seems to exist: this could not be neuter because it would violate the rule that neuters are always identical in nominative and accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in accordance with the form *pascham*, two sources list *pascha, paschae* as a feminine noun, and not as a neuter noun (reserving the neuter gender for the paradigm of *pascha, paschatis*): [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=pascha) and [Félix Gaffiot](http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/gaffiot/pascha).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as I mentioned at the start, I have also found sources that say that the noun could be neuter when declined according to the first declension:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Nouvelle méthode pour apprendre facilement la langue latine,*  12th ed.,&#xD;&#xA;by Claude Lancelot (? et al?) (1761) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Pascha,* est du Neutre. : *Pascha próximum,* Pâque prochain; &amp; se décline de la premiere ou de la troisiéme: *Pascha, æ, Pascha, ătis*. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;les Grecs l'ont fait Neutre, parce qu'ils l'ont pris comme indéclinable [...] les Latins les ont suivis dans le Genre, **quoiqu'ils ayent décliné ce nom, ou de la premiere, ou de la troisiéme**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ([p. 49](https://books.google.com/books?id=22MSAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA49))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The bolded part says &quot;the Latins followed the Greeks [in making the gender neuter] whether they inflected the noun according to the first or second declension&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I found a text that gives an entire declension in the neuter, but it looks a bit suspicious. Unfortunately, I don't have full access to the text; I just saw a page through Google Books. The text is given in *Donati Graeci: Learning Greek in the Renaissance,* by Federica Ciccolella (2008); if I understand correctly, the Latin is the original, so it shouldn't have been erroneously influenced Greek grammar. Ciccolella says &quot;version *a* [...] probably originated as a simple word-for-word translation of the Latin textbook for Greeks who wanted to learn Latin. During the fifteenth century, this version, perhaps originally written in the interlinear spaces of a Latin text, became an independent grammar and was used to learn Greek; apparently, Greek Donatus *a* did not undergo the process of adaptation of Latin morphology to the &quot;target language&quot; that led to the composition of *Donati* in modern languages&quot; (p. xvi).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Nominativo hoc Pascha, gentivo huius Paschae, dativo huic Paschae, accusativo hoc Pascha, vocativo o Pascha, ablativo ab hoc Pascha, pluralia non habet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (*Donatus graecus a*, &quot;De Nomine&quot;, lines 53-55, [p. 271 in *Donati Graeci*](https://books.google.com/books?id=67P2aOn1iUYC&amp;pg=PA271))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The corresponding lines in Greek (53-55, p. 270) use the indeclinable form πάσχα, but as I mentioned above, it doesn't seem like the Greek translation could have influenced the Latin text because the Latin is supposed to be the original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The statement that plural forms do not exist seems to be false for at least some stages of the language, since as I mentioned above, the genitive plural form *Pascharum* seems to have been used sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; Perhaps there is only one instance of a neuter noun of the first declension: viz., *pascha*—the passover&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (p. 12, *[A Commentary on the Eton Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=EhhgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA12),* by Richard Haynes, 1843)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The kind of evidence that I think would work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it true that *pascha* can be a &quot;neuter noun of the first declension&quot;, or are these three sources wrong? Aside from the declension explicitly given by the quoted *Donatus,* I suppose that the only way to clearly show that it is a neuter noun is to find an example in text where it triggers neuter agreement. Are there any such examples when the word has a clearly first-declension form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31153" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10646" RevisionGUID="77729b9c-5b1b-4533-b3b7-027d807aac81" CreationDate="2019-05-04T06:59:13.050" UserId="9" Text="Was &quot;Pascha&quot; ever used as a neuter first-declension noun?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31154" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10646" RevisionGUID="77729b9c-5b1b-4533-b3b7-027d807aac81" CreationDate="2019-05-04T06:59:13.050" UserId="9" Text="|declension|gender|neuter|declinatio-prima|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10646" RevisionGUID="9cdc572f-e8a7-46db-b37c-3dd1665242e6" CreationDate="2019-05-04T07:05:25.987" UserId="9" Comment="added 679 characters in body" Text="Before today, I thought that there was no neuter substantive&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; noun with a nominative singular in *a* and a genitive singular in *ae*. However, I have encountered references to a possible exception: some sources indicate that the noun *pascha/Pascha*, referring to Passover or Easter, could inflect according to the first declension and at the same time be neuter in gender. I'd like to see if I can verify this surprising fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###How the word *pascha* entered Latin&#xD;&#xA;This is supposed to be explained by the background of the word: it comes from a masculine Aramaic word via Greek πάσχα, which is indeclinable and neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in Latin, the word came to be declined, but retained the neuter gender of the Greek noun. It is supposed to have also developed a consonant-stem declension by analogy with Greek *-ma* neuter nouns, gaining a stem *paschat-* with unetymological *-t-* that was used to form genitive singular *paschatis,* genitive plural *paschatum* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The first-declension forms: sometimes feminine—ever neuter?&#xD;&#xA;It's fairly easy for me to find examples of the first-declension forms: e.g. &quot;pascharum&quot; in &quot;pascharum diem&quot; seems to be a first-declension genitive plural. But it's harder to find evidence supporting the idea that these forms are ever grammatically neuter rather than grammatically feminine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, it seems that it must have been possible for *pascha* to be a feminine noun in at least some situations, because the accusative singular form *pascham* seems to exist: this could not be neuter because it would violate the rule that neuters are always identical in nominative and accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in accordance with the form *pascham*, two sources list *pascha, paschae* as a feminine noun, and not as a neuter noun (reserving the neuter gender for the paradigm of *pascha, paschatis*): [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=pascha) and [Félix Gaffiot](http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/gaffiot/pascha).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as I mentioned at the start, I have also found sources that say that the noun could be neuter when declined according to the first declension:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Nouvelle méthode pour apprendre facilement la langue latine,*  12th ed.,&#xD;&#xA;by Claude Lancelot (? et al?) (1761) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Pascha,* est du Neutre. : *Pascha próximum,* Pâque prochain; &amp; se décline de la premiere ou de la troisiéme: *Pascha, æ, Pascha, ătis*. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;les Grecs l'ont fait Neutre, parce qu'ils l'ont pris comme indéclinable [...] les Latins les ont suivis dans le Genre, **quoiqu'ils ayent décliné ce nom, ou de la premiere, ou de la troisiéme**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ([p. 49](https://books.google.com/books?id=22MSAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA49))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The bolded part says &quot;the Latins followed the Greeks [in making the gender neuter] whether they inflected the noun according to the first or second declension&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I found a text that gives an entire declension in the neuter, but it looks a bit suspicious. Unfortunately, I don't have full access to the text; I just saw a page through Google Books. The text is given in *Donati Graeci: Learning Greek in the Renaissance,* by Federica Ciccolella (2008); if I understand correctly, the Latin is the original, so it shouldn't have been erroneously influenced Greek grammar. Ciccolella says &quot;version *a* [...] probably originated as a simple word-for-word translation of the Latin textbook for Greeks who wanted to learn Latin. During the fifteenth century, this version, perhaps originally written in the interlinear spaces of a Latin text, became an independent grammar and was used to learn Greek; apparently, Greek Donatus *a* did not undergo the process of adaptation of Latin morphology to the &quot;target language&quot; that led to the composition of *Donati* in modern languages&quot; (p. xvi).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Nominativo hoc Pascha, gentivo huius Paschae, dativo huic Paschae, accusativo hoc Pascha, vocativo o Pascha, ablativo ab hoc Pascha, pluralia non habet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (*Donatus graecus a*, &quot;De Nomine&quot;, lines 53-55, [p. 271 in *Donati Graeci*](https://books.google.com/books?id=67P2aOn1iUYC&amp;pg=PA271))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The corresponding lines in Greek (53-55, p. 270) use the indeclinable form πάσχα, but as I mentioned above, it doesn't seem like the Greek translation could have influenced the Latin text because the Latin is supposed to be the original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The statement that plural forms do not exist seems to be false for at least some stages of the language, since as I mentioned above, the genitive plural form *Pascharum* seems to have been used sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; Perhaps there is only one instance of a neuter noun of the first declension: viz., *pascha*—the passover&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (p. 12, *[A Commentary on the Eton Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=EhhgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA12),* by Richard Haynes, 1843)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The kind of evidence that I think would work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it true that *pascha* can be a &quot;neuter noun of the first declension&quot;, or are these three sources wrong? Aside from the declension explicitly given by the quoted *Donatus,* I suppose that the only way to clearly show that it is a neuter noun is to find an example in text where it triggers neuter agreement: for example, if *Paschae* in the genitive singular were modified by an adjective ending in *-i.* Are there any such examples when the word has a clearly first-declension form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Notes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I specified &quot;substantive&quot; because I had heard of some common-gender adjectives ending in *-a* that allegedly could modify neuter nouns; e.g. *advena* and apparently also *verna* (see this passage in *[Beiträge zur Griechischen und Römischen Literaturgeschichte, Volume 2*](https://books.google.com/books?id=MfkUAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA220)). I'm not sure whether these adjectives were defective in some cases/numbers; it seems plausible to me (although I haven't checked) that they were defective at least in the neuter nominative/accusative plural, which seems to have been fairly common even for the more typical third-declension adjectives of a single ending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31156" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="10646" RevisionGUID="da8caa63-970d-4f31-9f18-e72b46dea7b0" CreationDate="2019-05-04T07:06:54.867" UserId="9" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31157" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="10646" RevisionGUID="6be8b1ce-36fe-4832-aaee-f3d783d0ffec" CreationDate="2019-05-04T07:07:04.167" UserId="9" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10646" RevisionGUID="416b09be-a695-4201-bb43-595105f8e6ea" CreationDate="2019-05-04T07:11:10.567" UserId="9" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="Before today, I thought that there was no neuter substantive&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; noun with a nominative singular in *a* and a genitive singular in *ae*. However, I have encountered references to a possible exception: some sources indicate that the noun *pascha/Pascha*, referring to Passover or Easter, could inflect according to the first declension and at the same time be neuter in gender. I'd like to see if I can verify this surprising fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###How the word *pascha* entered Latin&#xD;&#xA;This is supposed to be explained by the background of the word: it comes from a masculine Aramaic word via Greek πάσχα, which is indeclinable and neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in Latin, the word came to be declined, but retained the neuter gender of the Greek noun. It is supposed to have also developed a consonant-stem declension by analogy with Greek *-ma* neuter nouns, gaining a stem *paschat-* with unetymological *-t-* that was used to form genitive singular *paschatis,* genitive plural *paschatum* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The first-declension forms: sometimes feminine—ever neuter?&#xD;&#xA;It's fairly easy for me to find examples of the first-declension forms: e.g. &quot;pascharum&quot; in &quot;pascharum diem&quot; seems to be a first-declension genitive plural. But it's harder to find evidence supporting the idea that these forms are ever grammatically neuter rather than grammatically feminine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, it seems that it must have been possible for *pascha* to be a feminine noun in at least some situations, because the accusative singular form *pascham* seems to exist: this could not be neuter because it would violate the rule that neuters are always identical in nominative and accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in accordance with the form *pascham*, two sources list *pascha, paschae* as a feminine noun, and not as a neuter noun (reserving the neuter gender for the paradigm of *pascha, paschatis*): [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=pascha) and [Félix Gaffiot](http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/gaffiot/pascha).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as I mentioned at the start, I have also found sources that say that the noun could be neuter when declined according to the first declension:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Nouvelle méthode pour apprendre facilement la langue latine,*  12th ed.,&#xD;&#xA;by Claude Lancelot (? et al?) (1761) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Pascha,* est du Neutre. : *Pascha próximum,* Pâque prochain; &amp; se décline de la premiere ou de la troisiéme: *Pascha, æ, Pascha, ătis*. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;les Grecs l'ont fait Neutre, parce qu'ils l'ont pris comme indéclinable [...] les Latins les ont suivis dans le Genre, **quoiqu'ils ayent décliné ce nom, ou de la premiere, ou de la troisiéme**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ([p. 49](https://books.google.com/books?id=22MSAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA49))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The bolded part says &quot;the Latins followed the Greeks [in making the gender neuter] whether they inflected the noun according to the first or second declension&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I found a text that gives an entire declension in the neuter, but it looks a bit suspicious. Unfortunately, I don't have full access to the text; I just saw a page through Google Books. The text is given in *Donati Graeci: Learning Greek in the Renaissance,* by Federica Ciccolella (2008); if I understand correctly, the Latin is the original, so it shouldn't have been erroneously influenced Greek grammar. Ciccolella says &quot;version *a* [...] probably originated as a simple word-for-word translation of the Latin textbook for Greeks who wanted to learn Latin. During the fifteenth century, this version, perhaps originally written in the interlinear spaces of a Latin text, became an independent grammar and was used to learn Greek; apparently, Greek Donatus *a* did not undergo the process of adaptation of Latin morphology to the &quot;target language&quot; that led to the composition of *Donati* in modern languages&quot; (p. xvi).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Nominativo hoc Pascha, gentivo huius Paschae, dativo huic Paschae, accusativo hoc Pascha, vocativo o Pascha, ablativo ab hoc Pascha, pluralia non habet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (*Donatus graecus a*, &quot;De Nomine&quot;, lines 53-55, [p. 271 in *Donati Graeci*](https://books.google.com/books?id=67P2aOn1iUYC&amp;pg=PA271))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The corresponding lines in Greek (53-55, p. 270) use the indeclinable form πάσχα, but as I mentioned above, it doesn't seem like the Greek translation could have influenced the Latin text because the Latin is supposed to be the original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The statement that plural forms do not exist seems to be false for at least some stages of the language, since as I mentioned above, the genitive plural form *Pascharum* seems to have been used sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; Perhaps there is only one instance of a neuter noun of the first declension: viz., *pascha*—the passover&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (p. 12, *[A Commentary on the Eton Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=EhhgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA12),* by Richard Haynes, 1843)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The kind of evidence that I think would work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it true that *pascha* can be a &quot;neuter noun of the first declension&quot;, or are these three sources wrong? Aside from the declension explicitly given by the quoted *Donatus,* I suppose that the only way to clearly show that it is a neuter noun is to find an example in text where it triggers neuter agreement: for example, if *Paschae* in the genitive singular were modified by an adjective ending in *-i.* Are there any such examples when the word has a clearly first-declension form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Notes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I specified &quot;substantive&quot; because I had heard of some common-gender adjectives ending in *-a* in the nominative singular that allegedly could modify neuter nouns; e.g. *advena* and apparently also *verna* (see this passage in *[Beiträge zur Griechischen und Römischen Literaturgeschichte, Volume 2*](https://books.google.com/books?id=MfkUAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA220)). I'm not sure whether these unusual adjectives were defective in some cases/numbers; it seems plausible to me (although I haven't checked) that they were defective at least in the neuter nominative/accusative plural, because it seems to have been fairly common for even the more typical third-declension adjectives of a single ending to lack a neuter plural in *-a.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10646" RevisionGUID="2cfc4608-96e8-4179-a9cb-31cbef4a73f5" CreationDate="2019-05-04T07:33:55.090" UserId="9" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="Before today, I thought that there was no neuter substantive&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; noun with a nominative singular in *a* and a genitive singular in *ae*. However, I have encountered references to a possible exception: some sources indicate that the noun *pascha/Pascha*, referring to Passover or Easter, could inflect according to the first declension and at the same time be neuter in gender. I'd like to see if I can verify this surprising fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###How the word *pascha* entered Latin&#xD;&#xA;This is supposed to be explained by the background of the word: it comes from a masculine Aramaic word via Greek πάσχα, which is indeclinable and neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in Latin, the word came to be declined, but retained the neuter gender of the Greek noun. It is supposed to have also developed a consonant-stem declension by analogy with Greek *-ma* neuter nouns, gaining a stem *paschat-* with unetymological *-t-* that was used to form genitive singular *paschatis,* genitive plural *paschatum* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The first-declension forms: sometimes feminine—ever neuter?&#xD;&#xA;It's fairly easy for me to find examples of the first-declension forms: e.g. &quot;pascharum&quot; in &quot;pascharum diem&quot; seems to be a first-declension genitive plural. But it's harder to find evidence supporting the idea that these forms are ever grammatically neuter rather than grammatically feminine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, it seems that it must have been possible for *pascha* to be a feminine noun in at least some situations, because the accusative singular form *pascham* seems to exist: this could not be neuter because it would violate the rule that neuters are always identical in nominative and accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in accordance with the form *pascham*, two sources list *pascha, paschae* as a feminine noun, and not as a neuter noun (reserving the neuter gender for the paradigm of *pascha, paschatis*): [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=pascha) and [Félix Gaffiot](http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/gaffiot/pascha).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as I mentioned at the start, I have also found sources that say that the noun could be neuter when declined according to the first declension:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Nouvelle méthode pour apprendre facilement la langue latine,*  12th ed.,&#xD;&#xA;by Claude Lancelot (? et al?) (1761) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Pascha,* est du Neutre. : *Pascha próximum,* Pâque prochain; &amp; se décline de la premiere ou de la troisiéme: *Pascha, æ, Pascha, ătis*. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;les Grecs l'ont fait Neutre, parce qu'ils l'ont pris comme indéclinable [...] les Latins les ont suivis dans le Genre, **quoiqu'ils ayent décliné ce nom, ou de la premiere, ou de la troisiéme**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ([p. 49](https://books.google.com/books?id=22MSAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA49))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The bolded part says &quot;the Latins followed the Greeks [in making the gender neuter] whether they inflected the noun according to the first or second declension&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I found a text that gives an entire declension in the neuter, but it looks a bit suspicious. Unfortunately, I don't have full access to the text; I just saw a page through Google Books. The text is given in *Donati Graeci: Learning Greek in the Renaissance,* by Federica Ciccolella (2008); if I understand correctly, the Latin is the original, so it shouldn't have been erroneously influenced Greek grammar. Ciccolella says &quot;version *a* [...] probably originated as a simple word-for-word translation of the Latin textbook for Greeks who wanted to learn Latin. During the fifteenth century, this version, perhaps originally written in the interlinear spaces of a Latin text, became an independent grammar and was used to learn Greek; apparently, Greek Donatus *a* did not undergo the process of adaptation of Latin morphology to the &quot;target language&quot; that led to the composition of *Donati* in modern languages&quot; (p. xvi).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Nominativo hoc Pascha, gentivo huius Paschae, dativo huic Paschae, accusativo hoc Pascha, vocativo o Pascha, ablativo ab hoc Pascha, pluralia non habet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (*Donatus graecus a*, &quot;De Nomine&quot;, lines 53-55, [p. 271 in *Donati Graeci*](https://books.google.com/books?id=67P2aOn1iUYC&amp;pg=PA271))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The corresponding lines in Greek (53-55, p. 270) use the indeclinable form πάσχα, but as I mentioned above, it doesn't seem like the Greek translation could have influenced the Latin text because the Latin is supposed to be the original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The statement that plural forms do not exist seems to be false for at least some stages of the language, since as I mentioned above, the genitive plural form *Pascharum* seems to have been used sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; Perhaps there is only one instance of a neuter noun of the first declension: viz., *pascha*—the passover&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (p. 12, *[A Commentary on the Eton Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=EhhgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA12),* by Richard Haynes, 1843)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The kind of evidence that I think would work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it true that *pascha* can be a &quot;neuter noun of the first declension&quot;, or are these three sources wrong? Aside from the declension explicitly given by the quoted *Donatus,* I suppose that the only way to clearly show that it is a neuter noun is to find an example in text where it triggers neuter agreement: for example, if *Paschae* in the genitive singular were modified by an adjective ending in *-i.* Are there any such examples when the word has a clearly first-declension form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Notes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I specified &quot;substantive&quot; because I had heard of some common-gender adjectives ending in *-a* in the nominative singular that allegedly could modify neuter nouns; e.g. [*advena* (mentioned in an answer by fvogel)](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/380/9) and apparently also *verna* (see this passage in *[Beiträge zur Griechischen und Römischen Literaturgeschichte, Volume 2*](https://books.google.com/books?id=MfkUAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA220)). I'm not sure whether these unusual adjectives were defective in some cases/numbers; it seems plausible to me (although I haven't checked) that they were defective at least in the neuter nominative/accusative plural, because it seems to have been fairly common for even the more typical third-declension adjectives of a single ending to lack a neuter plural in *-a.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10646" RevisionGUID="dd8f109c-791e-49a2-9141-c000fdf4edd8" CreationDate="2019-05-04T07:35:40.783" UserId="9" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="Before today, I thought that there was no neuter substantive&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; noun with a nominative singular in *a* and a genitive singular in *ae*. However, I have encountered references to a possible exception: some sources indicate that the noun *pascha/Pascha*, referring to Passover or Easter, could inflect according to the first declension and at the same time be neuter in gender. I'd like to see if I can verify this surprising fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###How the word *pascha* entered Latin&#xD;&#xA;This is supposed to be explained by the background of the word: it comes from a masculine Aramaic word via Greek πάσχα, which is indeclinable and neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in Latin, the word came to be declined, but retained the neuter gender of the Greek noun. It is supposed to have also developed a consonant-stem declension by analogy with Greek *-ma* neuter nouns, gaining a stem *paschat-* with unetymological *-t-* that was used to form genitive singular *paschatis,* genitive plural *paschatum* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The first-declension forms: sometimes feminine—ever neuter?&#xD;&#xA;It's fairly easy for me to find examples of the first-declension forms: e.g. &quot;pascharum&quot; in &quot;pascharum diem&quot; seems to be a first-declension genitive plural. But it's harder to find evidence supporting the idea that these forms are ever grammatically neuter rather than grammatically feminine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, it seems that it must have been possible for *pascha* to be a feminine noun in at least some situations, because the accusative singular form *pascham* seems to exist: this could not be neuter because it would violate the rule that neuters are always identical in nominative and accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in accordance with the form *pascham*, two sources list *pascha, paschae* as a feminine noun, and not as a neuter noun (reserving the neuter gender for the paradigm of *pascha, paschatis*): [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=pascha) and [Félix Gaffiot](http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/gaffiot/pascha).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as I mentioned at the start, I have also found sources that say that the noun could be neuter when declined according to the first declension:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Nouvelle méthode pour apprendre facilement la langue latine,*  12th ed.,&#xD;&#xA;by Claude Lancelot (? et al?) (1761) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Pascha,* est du Neutre. : *Pascha próximum,* Pâque prochain; &amp; se décline de la premiere ou de la troisiéme: *Pascha, æ, Pascha, ătis*. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;les Grecs l'ont fait Neutre, parce qu'ils l'ont pris comme indéclinable [...] les Latins les ont suivis dans le Genre, **quoiqu'ils ayent décliné ce nom, ou de la premiere, ou de la troisiéme**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ([p. 49](https://books.google.com/books?id=22MSAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA49))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The bolded part says &quot;the Latins followed the Greeks [in making the gender neuter] whether they inflected the noun according to the first or second declension&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I found a text that gives an entire declension in the neuter, but it looks a bit suspicious. Unfortunately, I don't have full access to the text; I just saw a page through Google Books. The text is given in *Donati Graeci: Learning Greek in the Renaissance,* by Federica Ciccolella (2008); if I understand correctly, the Latin is the original, so it shouldn't have been erroneously influenced Greek grammar. Ciccolella says &quot;version *a* [...] probably originated as a simple word-for-word translation of the Latin textbook for Greeks who wanted to learn Latin. During the fifteenth century, this version, perhaps originally written in the interlinear spaces of a Latin text, became an independent grammar and was used to learn Greek; apparently, Greek Donatus *a* did not undergo the process of adaptation of Latin morphology to the &quot;target language&quot; that led to the composition of *Donati* in modern languages&quot; (p. xvi).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Nominativo hoc Pascha, gentivo huius Paschae, dativo huic Paschae, accusativo hoc Pascha, vocativo o Pascha, ablativo ab hoc Pascha, pluralia non habet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (*Donatus graecus a*, &quot;De Nomine&quot;, lines 53-55, [p. 271 in *Donati Graeci*](https://books.google.com/books?id=67P2aOn1iUYC&amp;pg=PA271))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The corresponding lines in Greek (53-55, p. 270) use the indeclinable form πάσχα, but as I mentioned above, it doesn't seem like the Greek translation could have influenced the Latin text because the Latin is supposed to be the original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The statement that plural forms do not exist seems to be false for at least some stages of the language, since as I mentioned above, the genitive plural form *Pascharum* seems to have been used sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; Perhaps there is only one instance of a neuter noun of the first declension: viz., *pascha*—the passover&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (p. 12, *[A Commentary on the Eton Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=EhhgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA12),* by Richard Haynes, 1843)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The kind of evidence that I think would work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it true that *pascha* can be a &quot;neuter noun of the first declension&quot;, or are these three sources wrong? Aside from the declension explicitly given by the quoted *Donatus,* I suppose that the only way to clearly show that it is a neuter noun is to find an example in text where it triggers neuter agreement: for example, if *Paschae* in the genitive singular were modified by an adjective ending in *-i.* Are there any such examples when the word has a clearly first-declension form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Notes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I specified &quot;substantive&quot; because I had heard of some common-gender adjectives ending in *-a* in the nominative singular that allegedly could modify neuter nouns; e.g. [*advena* (mentioned in an answer by fvogel)](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/380/9) and apparently also *verna* (see this passage in *[Beiträge zur Griechischen und Römischen Literaturgeschichte, Volume 2*](https://books.google.com/books?id=MfkUAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA220)). I'm not sure whether these unusual adjectives were defective in some cases/numbers; it seems plausible to me (although I haven't checked) that they were defective at least in the neuter nominative/accusative plural, because it seems to have been fairly common for even the more typical third-declension adjectives of a single ending to lack a neuter plural in *-a.* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10647" RevisionGUID="cd624d12-6d23-42b5-a28d-50ef92fa267c" CreationDate="2019-05-04T11:02:22.220" UserId="469" Text="Never realized that, but you have an example (nominative-only, though) in ecclesiastical Latin in the hymn [_Lauda Sion_](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Sion):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In having mensa novi Regis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Novum Pascha** novae legis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Phase vetus terminat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation (lyrical):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On this table of the [new] King,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our **new Paschal offering**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Brings to end the olden rite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10647" RevisionGUID="70fdff0f-63d6-422f-8e62-c615f95f8bf5" CreationDate="2019-05-04T11:17:24.273" UserId="469" Comment="added 709 characters in body" Text="Never realized that, but you have an example (nominative-only, though) in ecclesiastical Latin in the hymn [_Lauda Sion_](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Sion):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In having mensa novi Regis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Novum Pascha** novae legis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Phase vetus terminat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation (lyrical):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On this table of the [new] King,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our **new Paschal offering**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Brings to end the olden rite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I did the exercise and searched for examples in genitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Saint Robert, Abbott (XI Century) in his comentary [on the Gospel of St. Matthew](https://books.google.cl/books?id=sJLDDEL26mkC&amp;pg=RA2-PT660&amp;lpg=RA2-PT660&amp;dq=%22novi+paschae%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=JRFA6cNRAY&amp;sig=ACfU3U2jF2thGngnca88oR2zHhAOEb9KLw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjx79y83YHiAhVQLLkGHXbrC90Q6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22novi%20paschae%22&amp;f=false) uses **sacramentum novi Paschae**.&#xD;&#xA;* [Here](https://books.google.cl/books?id=kS0vslVFtxcC&amp;pg=PA218&amp;lpg=PA218&amp;dq=%22novi+paschae%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=--c8o3wDAz&amp;sig=ACfU3U0fzNCbTaQ92Z2umQkh38nUojowYg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjx79y83YHiAhVQLLkGHXbrC90Q6AEwAnoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22novi%20paschae%22&amp;f=false) is also **conformari observantiae novi Paschae** by St. Thomas Aquinas (XIII Century).&#xD;&#xA;* A [Google search](https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&amp;client=firefox-b&amp;q=%22novi+paschae%22&amp;oq=%22novi+paschae%22&amp;aqs=heirloom-srp..) of &quot;novi Paschae&quot; gives a few more results (from later times).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10647" RevisionGUID="a97d49d0-479d-4c53-824c-892d1079a4d4" CreationDate="2019-05-04T11:28:29.663" UserId="469" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Never realized that, but you have an example (nominative-only, though) in ecclesiastical Latin in the hymn [_Lauda Sion_](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Sion):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In hac mensa novi Regis     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Novum Pascha** novae legis     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Phase vetus terminat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation (lyrical):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On this table of the [new] King,   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our **new Paschal offering**    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Brings to end the olden rite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I did the exercise and searched for examples in genitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Saint Robert, Abbott (XI Century) in his comentary [on the Gospel of St. Matthew](https://books.google.cl/books?id=sJLDDEL26mkC&amp;pg=RA2-PT660&amp;lpg=RA2-PT660&amp;dq=%22novi+paschae%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=JRFA6cNRAY&amp;sig=ACfU3U2jF2thGngnca88oR2zHhAOEb9KLw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjx79y83YHiAhVQLLkGHXbrC90Q6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22novi%20paschae%22&amp;f=false) uses **sacramentum novi Paschae**.&#xD;&#xA;* [Here](https://books.google.cl/books?id=kS0vslVFtxcC&amp;pg=PA218&amp;lpg=PA218&amp;dq=%22novi+paschae%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=--c8o3wDAz&amp;sig=ACfU3U0fzNCbTaQ92Z2umQkh38nUojowYg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjx79y83YHiAhVQLLkGHXbrC90Q6AEwAnoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22novi%20paschae%22&amp;f=false) is also **conformari observantiae novi Paschae** by St. Thomas Aquinas (XIII Century).&#xD;&#xA;* A [Google search](https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&amp;client=firefox-b&amp;q=%22novi+paschae%22&amp;oq=%22novi+paschae%22&amp;aqs=heirloom-srp..) of &quot;novi Paschae&quot; gives a few more results (from later times).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10648" RevisionGUID="6a9c44b4-cfa7-40f3-bf15-e50e131f5a87" CreationDate="2019-05-04T12:52:48.863" UserId="4739" Text="I mean this in a way of being able to mentally heal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31165" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10648" RevisionGUID="6a9c44b4-cfa7-40f3-bf15-e50e131f5a87" CreationDate="2019-05-04T12:52:48.863" UserId="4739" Text="How do you say ‘You will heal’ in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31166" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10648" RevisionGUID="6a9c44b4-cfa7-40f3-bf15-e50e131f5a87" CreationDate="2019-05-04T12:52:48.863" UserId="4739" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10649" RevisionGUID="146f38c4-4dd1-45e0-920e-ed3b0e830d3a" CreationDate="2019-05-04T15:49:07.170" UserId="3153" Text="You could try a fun supine construction: &quot;Fortis Actu Sumus&quot; literally meaning &quot;We are strong with respect to doing.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10650" RevisionGUID="32446dee-7789-40a8-bae1-8be2a46ec534" CreationDate="2019-05-04T16:10:00.097" UserId="406" Text="&quot;Heal&quot; in English is what's called an &quot;ergative verb&quot;. When it's used with a single noun, that noun is the person who gets better; when it's used with two nouns, the subject is the doctor, the object is the person who gets better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relevant verbs in Latin unfortunately don't have that property: a literal translation of &quot;you will heal&quot; would be more like &quot;you will work as a doctor and make people better&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So instead, I would use a passive verb: literally, &quot;you will be healed&quot;. Passive verbs in Latin also sometimes have a &quot;middle&quot; meaning, something like &quot;you will heal yourself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conveniently, this is a single word in Latin: **sānāberis** for a single person, **sānābiminī** for multiple people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to express what exactly will be good for their health, you can add a noun in the ablative. If you want to say they will be healed by *time*, for example (because time heals all wounds), add the word **tempore**; if you want to say they will be healed by *therapy*, add the word **therapīā**, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10650" RevisionGUID="df564f52-d6ab-4a06-9915-d930b0f5dc88" CreationDate="2019-05-04T16:40:10.597" UserId="406" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="&quot;Heal&quot; in English is what's called an &quot;ergative verb&quot;. When it's used with a single noun, that noun is the person who gets better; when it's used with two nouns, the subject is the doctor, the object is the person who gets better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relevant verbs in Latin unfortunately don't have that property: if it's used with a single noun, that noun is the doctor. So a literal translation of &quot;you will heal&quot; would be more like &quot;you will make people better&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So instead, I would use a passive verb: literally, &quot;you will be healed&quot;. Passive verbs in Latin also sometimes have a &quot;middle&quot; meaning, something like &quot;you will heal yourself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conveniently, this is a single word in Latin: **sānāberis** for a single person, **sānābiminī** for multiple people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to express what exactly will be good for their health, you can add a noun in the ablative. If you want to say they will be healed by *time*, for example (because time heals all wounds), add the word **tempore**; if you want to say they will be healed by *therapy*, add the word **therapīā**, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10651" RevisionGUID="fb2c6e57-689d-49e7-b59e-f779090184c3" CreationDate="2019-05-04T18:31:31.897" UserId="40" Text="1. In sense, αἰεί naturally goes with τὴν τρίμηνον ἑκάστην. αἰεί can mean something like &quot;each time&quot;, here meaning that each team of 100,000 worked for three months. It's hard to take it with ἐργάζοντο partly because of the placement, but more because &quot;they always worked&quot; doesn't seem to mean anything in this context, and αἰεί doesn't really mean &quot;continuously&quot; (which might be e.g. συνεχῶς).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Yes, ἔργον is in apposition to the relative pronoun τήν. &quot;The road which they built, being a work not much less...&quot; Logically one might expect ἐόν to agree in gender with its subject τήν, but it's normal for it to agree with the predicate in cases like this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31171" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10648" RevisionGUID="5652cd0f-5795-4bc3-b57b-2a7c2c903f78" CreationDate="2019-05-04T18:40:50.987" />
  <row Id="31172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10652" RevisionGUID="79733576-4b39-48bd-b0d8-b876265e64ac" CreationDate="2019-05-04T18:47:15.820" UserId="68" Text="In *Rōma Æterna*, p. 239, in a passage from Eutropius, book 28, comes the paragraph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;P. Scīpiō in Hispāniā cum Poenīs dēbellāvit quārtō decimō annō eius bellī; et ā Tarracōne in Āfricam ad Syphācem, rēgem Massȳlōrum, trānsvectus, foedus cum eō iūnxit. Et amīcitiā factā cum Masinissā, rēge Numidārum (quī illī auxilium 'sī in Āfricam **trāiēcisset**' pollicēbātur), Rōmam reversus cōnsulque creātus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd expect *trāiceret* or *trāiectūrus esset*. Why the pluperfect subjunctive here? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31173" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10652" RevisionGUID="79733576-4b39-48bd-b0d8-b876265e64ac" CreationDate="2019-05-04T18:47:15.820" UserId="68" Text="weird pluperfect subjunctive in Eutropius" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31174" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10652" RevisionGUID="79733576-4b39-48bd-b0d8-b876265e64ac" CreationDate="2019-05-04T18:47:15.820" UserId="68" Text="|conjunctive|tenses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10653" RevisionGUID="eec8a16b-aa3c-44cf-abaa-340072eb9c2f" CreationDate="2019-05-04T19:35:34.030" UserId="40" Text="This is a quirk of conditions in indirect statement: a perfect subjunctive in the protasis of a future less vivid condition turns to pluperfect subjunctive when in indirect statement. For examples see [Allen and Greenough 589][1], 2.a.3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's a little unusual about this example is that *pollicebatur* isn't introducing a full indirect statement, but just takes an object *auxilium*. However, the 'if' clause is still behaving as if it part of a complete condition (e.g. *pollicebatur se auxilium laturum esse si...*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-589.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31176" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10652" RevisionGUID="40b96583-da75-418e-81ad-73de5273b7d4" CreationDate="2019-05-04T19:40:54.503" />
  <row Id="31178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10653" RevisionGUID="e144a007-d257-4bb9-8e33-4d14c74f9cd6" CreationDate="2019-05-04T20:47:04.307" UserId="40" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="This is a quirk of conditions in indirect statement: a perfect subjunctive in the protasis of a future less vivid condition turns to pluperfect subjunctive when in indirect statement. For examples see [Allen and Greenough 589][1], 2.a.3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's a little unusual about this example is that *pollicebatur* isn't introducing a full indirect statement, but just takes an object *auxilium*. However, the 'if' clause is still behaving as if it's part of a complete condition (e.g. *pollicebatur se auxilium laturum esse si...*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-589.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10646" RevisionGUID="e67efd28-1949-4d6f-89c6-060ab7db7aba" CreationDate="2019-05-04T21:18:20.317" UserId="9" Comment="fixed mistake in translation" Text="Before today, I thought that there was no neuter substantive&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; noun with a nominative singular in *a* and a genitive singular in *ae*. However, I have encountered references to a possible exception: some sources indicate that the noun *pascha/Pascha*, referring to Passover or Easter, could inflect according to the first declension and at the same time be neuter in gender. I'd like to see if I can verify this surprising fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###How the word *pascha* entered Latin&#xD;&#xA;This is supposed to be explained by the background of the word: it comes from a masculine Aramaic word via Greek πάσχα, which is indeclinable and neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in Latin, the word came to be declined, but retained the neuter gender of the Greek noun. It is supposed to have also developed a consonant-stem declension by analogy with Greek *-ma* neuter nouns, gaining a stem *paschat-* with unetymological *-t-* that was used to form genitive singular *paschatis,* genitive plural *paschatum* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The first-declension forms: sometimes feminine—ever neuter?&#xD;&#xA;It's fairly easy for me to find examples of the first-declension forms: e.g. &quot;pascharum&quot; in &quot;pascharum diem&quot; seems to be a first-declension genitive plural. But it's harder to find evidence supporting the idea that these forms are ever grammatically neuter rather than grammatically feminine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, it seems that it must have been possible for *pascha* to be a feminine noun in at least some situations, because the accusative singular form *pascham* seems to exist: this could not be neuter because it would violate the rule that neuters are always identical in nominative and accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in accordance with the form *pascham*, two sources list *pascha, paschae* as a feminine noun, and not as a neuter noun (reserving the neuter gender for the paradigm of *pascha, paschatis*): [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=pascha) and [Félix Gaffiot](http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/gaffiot/pascha).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as I mentioned at the start, I have also found sources that say that the noun could be neuter when declined according to the first declension:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Nouvelle méthode pour apprendre facilement la langue latine,*  12th ed.,&#xD;&#xA;by Claude Lancelot (? et al?) (1761) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Pascha,* est du Neutre. : *Pascha próximum,* Pâque prochain; &amp; se décline de la premiere ou de la troisiéme: *Pascha, æ, Pascha, ătis*. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;les Grecs l'ont fait Neutre, parce qu'ils l'ont pris comme indéclinable [...] les Latins les ont suivis dans le Genre, **quoiqu'ils ayent décliné ce nom, ou de la premiere, ou de la troisiéme**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ([p. 49](https://books.google.com/books?id=22MSAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA49))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The bolded part says &quot;the Latins followed the Greeks [in making the gender neuter] whether they inflected the noun according to the first or third declension&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I found a text that gives an entire declension in the neuter (for the singular only), but it looks a bit suspicious. Unfortunately, I don't have full access to the text; I just saw a page through Google Books. The text is given in *Donati Graeci: Learning Greek in the Renaissance,* by Federica Ciccolella (2008); if I understand correctly, the Latin is the original, so it shouldn't have been erroneously influenced Greek grammar. Ciccolella says &quot;version *a* [...] probably originated as a simple word-for-word translation of the Latin textbook for Greeks who wanted to learn Latin. During the fifteenth century, this version, perhaps originally written in the interlinear spaces of a Latin text, became an independent grammar and was used to learn Greek; apparently, Greek Donatus *a* did not undergo the process of adaptation of Latin morphology to the &quot;target language&quot; that led to the composition of *Donati* in modern languages&quot; (p. xvi).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Nominativo hoc Pascha, gentivo huius Paschae, dativo huic Paschae, accusativo hoc Pascha, vocativo o Pascha, ablativo ab hoc Pascha, pluralia non habet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (*Donatus graecus a*, &quot;De Nomine&quot;, lines 53-55, [p. 271 in *Donati Graeci*](https://books.google.com/books?id=67P2aOn1iUYC&amp;pg=PA271))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The corresponding lines in Greek (53-55, p. 270) use the indeclinable form πάσχα, but as I mentioned above, it doesn't seem like the Greek translation could have influenced the Latin text because the Latin is supposed to be the original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The statement that plural forms do not exist seems to be false for at least some stages of the language, since as I mentioned above, the genitive plural form *Pascharum* seems to have been used sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; Perhaps there is only one instance of a neuter noun of the first declension: viz., *pascha*—the passover&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (p. 12, *[A Commentary on the Eton Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=EhhgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA12),* by Richard Haynes, 1843)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The kind of evidence that I think would work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it true that *pascha* can be a &quot;neuter noun of the first declension&quot;, or are these three sources wrong? Aside from the declension explicitly given by the quoted *Donatus,* I suppose that the only way to clearly show that it is a neuter noun is to find an example in text where it triggers neuter agreement: for example, if *Paschae* in the genitive singular were modified by an adjective ending in *-i.* Are there any such examples when the word has a clearly first-declension form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Notes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I specified &quot;substantive&quot; because I had heard of some common-gender adjectives ending in *-a* in the nominative singular that allegedly could modify neuter nouns; e.g. [*advena* (mentioned in an answer by fvogel)](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/380/9) and apparently also *verna* (see this passage in *[Beiträge zur Griechischen und Römischen Literaturgeschichte, Volume 2*](https://books.google.com/books?id=MfkUAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA220)). I'm not sure whether these unusual adjectives were defective in some cases/numbers; it seems plausible to me (although I haven't checked) that they were defective at least in the neuter nominative/accusative plural, because it seems to have been fairly common for even the more typical third-declension adjectives of a single ending to lack a neuter plural in *-a.* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10655" RevisionGUID="27b1c94b-3b3d-4d5a-9d03-2fca98c6c5cc" CreationDate="2019-05-04T21:37:28.317" UserId="4740" Text="Actually DuCange records a lot of examples of the neuter form Pascha, -ae, which he seems to prefer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*Gregorius Turon. lib. 9. cap. 44 :&#xD;&#xA;Eo anno **post clausum Pascha**, etc.*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*Orat. et prec. **de Pascha annotino***&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*Micrologus de Eccles. observ. cap. 56 :&#xD;&#xA;Romani **Annotinum Pascha**, quasi **anniversarium Pascha** dicunt, quia antiquitus apud illos qui **in priori Pascha** baptizati erant, insequenti anno, eadem die, ad Ecclesiam convenere, suæque regenerationis anniversarium diem cum oblationibus solenniter celebraverunt.*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*In prima die Sabbati, quæ fuit **post Pascha** Resurrectionis Domini ann. 1158.* &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*Charta Radulfi de Castro Port. in Chartul. Campan. fol. 223. r° :&#xD;&#xA;Actum anno gratiæ M. CC. XVI. in die **magni Paschæ**.*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*Comput. ann. 1382. ex Tabul. S. Vulfr. Abbavil. :&#xD;&#xA;Item die Lunæ **ante magnum Pascha**, nuncio domini nostri regis ...*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DuCange also records &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the neuter Pascha, -atis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*propter Paschatis diversos in singulis annis dies*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*officium seu Missa Paschatis Annotini*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*Quatuor in Paschate, et totidem in Pentecoste dies celebrandos statuit Concilium Exoniense*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the feminine Pascha, -ae:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*Missa matutinalis per totam Pascham*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*Kalendarium editum ab Allatio lib. de Dominicis et hebdomad. Græcor. n. 37 :&#xD;&#xA;Dominica Octava Paschæ ad Lateranis... in Pascha Annotina, in illo tempore erat homo ex Pharisæis.*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a lot more examples (sometimes with the mention of the year when they where written, especially for more obscure texts or manuscripts) see:&#xD;&#xA;http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/pascha" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10656" RevisionGUID="3fc053ef-e4bb-477c-b079-7435b9605233" CreationDate="2019-05-04T22:41:42.107" UserId="406" Text="We have [a solid understanding of what the Romans called the letters of the alphabet][1], and the names of the Greek letters (alpha, beta, gamma…) are well-known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there seems to be a step missing here. The Greek names are clearly adaptations of the Phoenician (*'ālep, bēt, gīml…*), while the Latin names clearly aren't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happened in the middle here? Historically, Greek colonists brought the alphabet to Italy where it was picked up by the Etruscans, who eventually introduced it to Rome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: **do we know whether the Etruscans called their letters by Greek-style names, or Latin-style ones?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/732/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31185" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10656" RevisionGUID="3fc053ef-e4bb-477c-b079-7435b9605233" CreationDate="2019-05-04T22:41:42.107" UserId="406" Text="What did the Etruscans call their letters?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31186" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10656" RevisionGUID="3fc053ef-e4bb-477c-b079-7435b9605233" CreationDate="2019-05-04T22:41:42.107" UserId="406" Text="|alphabet|etruscan|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10655" RevisionGUID="e8c43d2f-8abb-48db-86bf-6b894405fe9f" CreationDate="2019-05-04T22:56:22.507" UserId="4740" Comment="deleted 250 characters in body" Text="Actually Du Cange (*Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis*)  records a lot of examples of the neuter form Pascha, -ae, which he seems to prefer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*Orat. et prec. **de Pascha annotino***&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*Micrologus de Eccles. observ. cap. 56 : Romani **Annotinum Pascha**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quasi **anniversarium Pascha** dicunt, quia antiquitus apud illos qui&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **in priori Pascha** baptizati erant, insequenti anno, eadem die, ad Ecclesiam convenere, suæque regenerationis anniversarium diem cum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; oblationibus solenniter celebraverunt.*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*Charta Radulfi de Castro Port. in Chartul. Campan. fol. 223. r° :&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Actum anno gratiæ M. CC. XVI. in die **magni Paschæ**.*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Du Cange also records: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the neuter Pascha, -atis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*propter Paschatis diversos in singulis annis dies*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*officium seu Missa Paschatis Annotini*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*Quatuor in Paschate, et totidem in Pentecoste dies celebrandos&#xD;&#xA;&gt; statuit Concilium Exoniense*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the feminine Pascha, -ae:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*Missa matutinalis per totam Pascham*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*Kalendarium editum ab Allatio lib. de Dominicis et hebdomad. Græcor.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; n. 37 : Dominica Octava Paschæ ad Lateranis... in Pascha Annotina, in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; illo tempore erat homo ex Pharisæis.*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a lot more examples (sometimes with the mention of the year when they where written, especially for more obscure texts or manuscripts) see:&#xD;&#xA;http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/pascha&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10657" RevisionGUID="608de392-14a3-4936-ad71-105d5dcd3c50" CreationDate="2019-05-04T23:18:53.597" UserId="9" Text="Although almost all first-declension nouns are feminine or masculine, there seem to be a handful of adjectives that belong to the first declension for all genders, and at least one substantive noun, *Pascha,* that could belong to the first declension while being treated as a neuter noun (see my previous question https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10646).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These &quot;first-declension neuters&quot; don't seem to inflect exactly the same as feminine or masculine nouns of the first declension. For example, when neuter, *Pascha* seems to follow the rule that nominative and accusative of neuter nouns are always identical, so we have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nominativo hoc Pascha, gentivo huius Paschae, dativo huic Paschae, accusativo hoc Pascha, vocativo o Pascha, ablativo ab hoc Pascha&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Donatus graecus a,* &quot;De Nomine&quot;, lines 53-55, p. 271 in *[Donati Graeci](https://books.google.com/books?id=67P2aOn1iUYC&amp;pg=PA271),* by Federica Ciccolella (2008))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage from *Donatus graecus a* says that *Pascha* has no plural forms (&quot;pluralia non habet&quot;). I know that the genitive plural *Pascharum* has in fact been used in some texts, so at first I assumed that the absence of plural forms in the *Donatus graecus* was simply because of semantic reasons (*Pascha* being a proper noun, it would rarely be necessary to pluralize it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But now that I think on it further, it actually seems to me that in the nom/acc/voc plural, there is no form that would be unproblematic as a candidate for the plural of a first-declension neuter. Almost without exception, neuter plural nouns end in the suffix *-a* in the nominative, accusative and vocative case (the only exceptions I know of, mentioned in this [mailing list post](http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200106/msg01075.html), are historical duals like *duo* and *ambo,* and *haec* and *quae;* in *haec* at least the part after *a* is derived from a separate suffixed element). So the regular plural of an a-stem neuter *Pascha* would be expected to be *Pascha-* + *-a,* which presumably would yield the form *Pascha* (identical to the singular). Although  homophony between singular and plural forms undoubtably exists for some Latin words, it seems odd to me in this situation, and I feel like there might be a tendency to avoid it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I feel very doubtful that a neuter noun could take the *-ae*-type plural that is found for feminine and masculine nouns of the first declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm now more inclined than I was at first to accept *Donatus graecus a*'s statement that plural forms do not exist for the neuter noun (at least, not in the nominative, accusative or vocative cases). And it seems to me that the same would likely apply to the adjectives that are supposed to have been used in the first declension to modify neuter nouns, like [*advena* (mentioned in an answer by fvogel)](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/380/9) and *verna* (see this passage in *[Beiträge zur Griechischen und Römischen Literaturgeschichte, Volume 2*](https://books.google.com/books?id=MfkUAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA220)). It doesn't seem to have been too uncommon for Latin adjectives of one ending to be defective in the neuter nom/acc/voc plural; that is allegedly the case for a number of third-declension adjectives (I mention some relevant references in my [question here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6657/9)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone confirm or disprove my hypothesis that first-declension neuters were defective in the nominative/accusative/vocative plural? If I'm wrong, how were the plurals formed: with *-a* or *-ae*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31190" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10657" RevisionGUID="608de392-14a3-4936-ad71-105d5dcd3c50" CreationDate="2019-05-04T23:18:53.597" UserId="9" Text="Do first-declension neuter nouns or adjectives have plural forms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31191" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10657" RevisionGUID="608de392-14a3-4936-ad71-105d5dcd3c50" CreationDate="2019-05-04T23:18:53.597" UserId="9" Text="|declension|plural|neuter|declinatio-prima|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10657" RevisionGUID="a307ce55-4c54-45d4-9d7e-2f3d5bc56fef" CreationDate="2019-05-04T23:28:32.327" UserId="9" Comment="fixed spelling of genitivo" Text="Although almost all first-declension nouns are feminine or masculine, there seem to be a handful of adjectives that belong to the first declension for all genders, and at least one substantive noun, *Pascha,* that could belong to the first declension while being treated as a neuter noun (see my previous question https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10646).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;first-declension neuters&quot; don't seem to inflect exactly the same as feminine or masculine nouns of the first declension. For example, when neuter, *Pascha* seems to follow the rule that nominative and accusative of neuter nouns are always identical, so we have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nominativo hoc Pascha, genitivo huius Paschae, dativo huic Paschae, accusativo hoc Pascha, vocativo o Pascha, ablativo ab hoc Pascha&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Donatus graecus a,* &quot;De Nomine&quot;, lines 53-55, p. 271 in *[Donati Graeci](https://books.google.com/books?id=67P2aOn1iUYC&amp;pg=PA271),* by Federica Ciccolella (2008))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage from *Donatus graecus a* says that *Pascha* has no plural forms (&quot;pluralia non habet&quot;). I know that the genitive plural *Pascharum* has in fact been used in some texts, so at first I assumed that the absence of plural forms in the *Donatus graecus* was simply because of semantic reasons (*Pascha* being a proper noun, it would rarely be necessary to pluralize it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But now that I think on it further, it actually seems to me that in the nom/acc/voc plural, there is no form that would be unproblematic as a candidate for the plural of a first-declension neuter. Almost without exception, neuter plural nouns end in the suffix *-a* in the nominative, accusative and vocative case (the only exceptions I know of, mentioned in this [mailing list post](http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200106/msg01075.html), are historical duals like *duo* and *ambo,* and *haec* and *quae;* in *haec* at least the part after *a* is derived from a separate suffixed element). So the regular plural of an a-stem neuter *Pascha* would be expected to be *Pascha-* + *-a,* which presumably would yield the form *Pascha* (identical to the singular). Although  homophony between singular and plural forms undoubtably exists for some Latin words, it seems odd to me in this situation, and I feel like there might be a tendency to avoid it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I feel very doubtful that a neuter noun could take the *-ae*-type plural that is found for feminine and masculine nouns of the first declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm now more inclined than I was at first to accept *Donatus graecus a*'s statement that plural forms do not exist for the neuter noun (at least, not in the nominative, accusative or vocative cases). And it seems to me that the same would likely apply to the adjectives that are supposed to have been used in the first declension to modify neuter nouns, like [*advena* (mentioned in an answer by fvogel)](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/380/9) and *verna* (see this passage in *[Beiträge zur Griechischen und Römischen Literaturgeschichte, Volume 2*](https://books.google.com/books?id=MfkUAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA220)). It doesn't seem to have been too uncommon for Latin adjectives of one ending to be defective in the neuter nom/acc/voc plural; that is allegedly the case for a number of third-declension adjectives (I mention some relevant references in my [question here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6657/9)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone confirm or disprove my hypothesis that first-declension neuters were defective in the nominative/accusative/vocative plural? If I'm wrong, how were the plurals formed: with *-a* or *-ae*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10658" RevisionGUID="ac93d457-aca0-435d-8840-c7c4f1e9edab" CreationDate="2019-05-05T02:06:22.950" UserId="4740" Text="I would actually suggest a third solution: alius + ablative (*nemo alius te: nobody else than you*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alius + ablative is recorded by the Oxford Latin Dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;nec quicquam aliud libertate communi quaesisse&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;quodsi accusator alius Seiano foret&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The position of *te* between *nemo* and *alius* could also be a further argument for this interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10648" RevisionGUID="b794c353-1c5c-43c3-8912-b6f5c19bf28b" CreationDate="2019-05-05T03:06:07.640" UserId="79" Comment="added 42 characters in body; edited tags" Text="How do you say ‘You will heal’ in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I mean this in a way of being able to mentally heal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31195" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10648" RevisionGUID="b794c353-1c5c-43c3-8912-b6f5c19bf28b" CreationDate="2019-05-05T03:06:07.640" UserId="79" Comment="added 42 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10660" RevisionGUID="d5cb9101-1acc-4c52-9089-f75895da6542" CreationDate="2019-05-05T05:04:17.523" UserId="9" Text="The IALA's language &quot;Interlingua&quot; seems to have been influenced by, but not identical to Peano's *Latino sine flexione,* which was also called &quot;Interlingua&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia article on Interlingua](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlingua) (the IALA language), which luchonacho's answer links to, says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; In its early years, IALA concerned itself with three tasks: finding other organizations around the world with similar goals; building a library of books about languages and interlinguistics; and **comparing extant IALs,** including Esperanto, Esperanto II, Ido, **Peano’s Interlingua (Latino sine flexione)**, Novial, and Interlingue (Occidental).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; Originally, the association had not set out to create its own language. Its goal was to identify which auxiliary language already available was best suited for international communication, and how to promote it most effectively. However, after ten years of research, more and more members of IALA concluded that none of the existing interlanguages were up to the task. By 1937, the members had made the decision to **create a new language**, to the surprise of the world's interlanguage community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; The vocabulary and grammar of Interlingua were first presented in 1951, when IALA published the finalized Interlingua Grammar and the 27,000-word Interlingua–English Dictionary (IED). In 1954, IALA published an introductory manual entitled Interlingua a Prime Vista (&quot;Interlingua at First Sight&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;**Interlingua as presented by the IALA is very close to Peano’s Interlingua (Latino sine flexione), both in its grammar and especially in its vocabulary. Accordingly, the very name &quot;Interlingua&quot; was kept, yet a distinct abbreviation was adopted**: IA instead of IL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some differences that I can find based on the Wikipedia articles on [Peano's Interlingua](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino_sine_flexione) and IALA Interlingua:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Minor pronunciation differences: Peano apparently was in favor of giving C and T the values [k] and [t] in all positions, while Interlingua seems to use the value [ts] or [s] for C before *e, i, y* and for T before *i* followed by another vowel. Both of these spelling-to-pronunciation rules exist as variant styles of pronouncing Latin itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Possessives seem to be formed differently: Wiktionary gives LSF &quot;nostro&quot; and &quot;tuo&quot; vs. IA &quot;nostre&quot; and &quot;tu&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Certain function words: IA seems to have a definite article &quot;le&quot; that is not present in Peano's LSF. IA seems to use &quot;a&quot; in place of LSF &quot;ad&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10662" RevisionGUID="139e74c5-d325-492c-9180-8f83fda6859f" CreationDate="2019-05-05T13:28:49.697" UserId="39" Text="This is what Rex Wallace wrote in *Zikh Rasna: A manual of the Etruscan language and inscriptions* (Wallace 2008):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“In our discussion, we employ the ancient Greek letters for the letters of the [Etruscan - Alex B.] alphabet because **we do not know by what names the Etruscans referred to them**” (p. 20) [emphasis mine - Alex B.]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10662" RevisionGUID="725a1376-78dd-4fd9-a74f-22e23cda334b" CreationDate="2019-05-05T16:07:08.017" UserId="39" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="This is what Rex Wallace wrote in [Zikh Rasna: A manual of the Etruscan language and inscriptions][1] (Wallace 2008):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“In our discussion, we employ the ancient Greek letters for the letters of the [Etruscan - Alex B.] alphabet because **we do not know by what names the Etruscans referred to them**” (p. 20) [emphasis mine - Alex B.].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.beechstave.com/etruscan.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10663" RevisionGUID="6262da34-756c-46a4-8662-cd34dbb3b26e" CreationDate="2019-05-05T17:48:03.230" UserId="3248" Text="Celsius (c. 25 BC – c. 50 AD) often uses the intransitive verb _sanescere_ in his _De Medicina_ to get the **non-causative** change of state meaning.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Insanientes sub somno sanescunt_ (Cels. 3, 18).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike _sanari_, which is in principle ambiguous between a passive interpretation (involving an (implicit) agent: &quot;by someone&quot;) and a middle one (cf. Draconis's answer), notice that _sanescere_ is not ambiguous. So **_sanesces_/_sanescetis_** is a better translation for 'You will heal' if an **internal** process is involved. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the use of adjuncts pointed out by Draconis, here are my choices/preferences: _tempore_ is compatible with both _sanari_ and _sanescere_, whereas _therapia_ is probably better with _sanari_ (NB: only the latter involves an **external** cause).      &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10663" RevisionGUID="2c9c5712-9414-4bf2-a8b3-e91b8a1dc220" CreationDate="2019-05-05T17:59:23.940" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="Celsius (c. 25 BC – c. 50 AD) often uses the intransitive verb _sanescere_ in his _De Medicina_ to get the **non-causative** change of state meaning.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Insanientes sub somno sanescunt_ (Cels. 3, 18).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike _sanari_, which is in principle ambiguous between a passive interpretation (involving an (implicit) agent/cause: &quot;by someone/something&quot;) and a middle one (cf. Draconis's answer), notice that _sanescere_ is not ambiguous. So **_sanesces_/_sanescetis_** is a better translation for 'You will heal' if an **internal** process is involved. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the use of adjuncts pointed out by Draconis, here are my choices/preferences: _tempore_ is compatible with both _sanari_ and _sanescere_, whereas _therapia_ is probably better with _sanari_ (NB: only the latter involves an **external** cause).      &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10663" RevisionGUID="758cc031-815c-43af-998d-6986dd8a0482" CreationDate="2019-05-05T18:41:45.723" UserId="3248" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Celsus (c. 25 BC – c. 50 AD) often uses the intransitive verb _sanescere_ in his _De Medicina_ to express the **non-causative** change of state meaning.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Insanientes sub somno sanescunt_ (Cels. 3, 18).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike _sanari_, which is in principle ambiguous between a passive interpretation (involving an (implicit) agent/cause: &quot;by someone/something&quot;) and a middle one (cf. Draconis's answer), notice that _sanescere_ is not ambiguous. So **_sanesces_/_sanescetis_** is a better translation for 'You will heal' if an **internal** process is involved. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the use of adjuncts pointed out by Draconis, here are my choices/preferences: _tempore_ is compatible with both _sanari_ and _sanescere_, whereas _therapia_ is probably better with _sanari_ (NB: only the latter involves an **external** cause).      &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10664" RevisionGUID="05fc6e02-2d57-4f59-b614-eec41e9c3986" CreationDate="2019-05-05T20:28:39.737" UserId="9" Text="It looks like a couple of neuter nouns of the fourth declension might have nominative singular forms derived from PIE duals. (Note that the nominative neuter ending *-u* might have been pronounced either as *-ŭ* or *-ū;* it seems that we don't have any clear evidence either way for the quality of the vowel in this context.) A form *-ū* with a long vowel could be explained as deriving from PIE dual *\*-uh₁*; the dual form is mentioned as a possible source of a Latin form in De Vaan's entries for *genu* &quot;knee&quot; (&quot;PIE *ǵen-u(-h₁ dual), *ǵen-u- (obl.)&quot;) and *cornu* &quot;horn&quot; (&quot;If *ū* is original, *cornu* may reflect the nom.acc.dual ending *\*-uh₁*; especially for *cornū* *'pair of horns' &gt; 'horn'&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10665" RevisionGUID="61989d71-6c7d-4f00-b500-0979a4623b63" CreationDate="2019-05-05T20:56:07.033" UserId="4745" Text="I am creating a program that helps people learn a growth mindset and “grow” into what they want to become. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31215" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10665" RevisionGUID="61989d71-6c7d-4f00-b500-0979a4623b63" CreationDate="2019-05-05T20:56:07.033" UserId="4745" Text="Is crescere the correct word meaning to to grow or cultivate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31216" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10665" RevisionGUID="61989d71-6c7d-4f00-b500-0979a4623b63" CreationDate="2019-05-05T20:56:07.033" UserId="4745" Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10666" RevisionGUID="85f4ee36-8bc8-4f07-848d-8b4864bf1a75" CreationDate="2019-05-05T21:25:06.840" UserId="79" Text="I think *crescere* is an excellent word for growing, be it concrete or spiritual.&#xD;&#xA;Check [its dictionary entry in Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=cresco&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in sentences like &quot;I grow to be a better person&quot; and &quot;the pumpkin grows&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want &quot;I grow pumpkins&quot;, the word *crescere* is not suitable.&#xD;&#xA;It is intransitive and the subject is the one to grow.&#xD;&#xA;If you want something transitive, like &quot;cultivate&quot;, I recommend *colere*.&#xD;&#xA;Check [its entry in L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=colo1&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) to see a range of meanings.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the English &quot;cultivate&quot; comes from this very verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the person or thing growing *crescit* and the person or thing that helps something grow *colit*.&#xD;&#xA;The choice of words and especially forms depends on how you want to use these words.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to ask about sentences or short phrases using these words, I recommend asking a new question focusing on syntax." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10665" RevisionGUID="22b35e06-09d4-48de-ac9e-b16b6040606a" CreationDate="2019-05-05T21:25:34.620" UserId="79" Comment="added 63 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am creating a program that helps people learn a growth mindset and “grow” into what they want to become. Is *crescere* the correct word meaning to to grow or cultivate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31219" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10665" RevisionGUID="22b35e06-09d4-48de-ac9e-b16b6040606a" CreationDate="2019-05-05T21:25:34.620" UserId="79" Comment="added 63 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31220" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10665" RevisionGUID="5ad03273-9a9a-4264-9249-2b7e8581faf7" CreationDate="2019-05-05T22:57:28.980" />
  <row Id="31221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10637" RevisionGUID="cba54628-a587-4475-a715-1864ed7bfdfa" CreationDate="2019-05-06T00:05:23.560" UserId="406" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="*Jungere* means to bind things together. With the *in-* &quot;into, onto&quot; prefix, it means to attach one thing onto something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, this is used for physical objects, like vines joining themselves onto a wall. But metaphorically, it can mean to attach new restrictions or punishments onto someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, an *injunction* is when these restrictions and commands are attached to someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: In the comments, Cerberus has pointed out a connection with _jugum_ &quot;yoke&quot;, which is another nice analogy for a punishment attached to someone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10667" RevisionGUID="9e9884db-cf5b-4ba9-9bc9-b74b649f1983" CreationDate="2019-05-06T02:17:15.197" UserId="4746" Text="Can someone provide the original Latin translation for Publilius Syrus's famous axiom, &quot;Would you have a great empire? Rule over yourself.&quot; I have searched online and not been able to find it in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With thanks..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31224" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10667" RevisionGUID="9e9884db-cf5b-4ba9-9bc9-b74b649f1983" CreationDate="2019-05-06T02:17:15.197" UserId="4746" Text="Would you have a great empire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31225" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10667" RevisionGUID="9e9884db-cf5b-4ba9-9bc9-b74b649f1983" CreationDate="2019-05-06T02:17:15.197" UserId="4746" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10668" RevisionGUID="a5ad8d0c-e545-43db-84ec-88c31f28a1ad" CreationDate="2019-05-06T03:57:56.317" UserId="4693" Text="[exter][1], `magnus`, `diduus`, they all belong to the first declension and also the second declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why these adjectives are so special?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exter#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31227" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10668" RevisionGUID="a5ad8d0c-e545-43db-84ec-88c31f28a1ad" CreationDate="2019-05-06T03:57:56.317" UserId="4693" Text="words belong to the first and second declension at the same time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31228" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10668" RevisionGUID="a5ad8d0c-e545-43db-84ec-88c31f28a1ad" CreationDate="2019-05-06T03:57:56.317" UserId="4693" Text="|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10669" RevisionGUID="0b7fbc17-e10b-4e26-a452-c55da8f7d34b" CreationDate="2019-05-06T10:02:26.713" UserId="1459" Text="According to [this site](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/syrus.html), it would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Imperium habere vis magnum? impera tibi_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10669" RevisionGUID="2ff776c8-e4d6-4d3a-8564-ca08f5ecc7ea" CreationDate="2019-05-06T10:07:57.837" UserId="1459" Comment="added 237 characters in body" Text="According to [this site](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/syrus.html), it would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Imperium habere vis magnum? impera tibi_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The source is his collection of sayings, _Sententiae_. Their English version might have been partly popularised by the [translation](https://archive.org/details/moralsayingspub00lymagoog) done by Darius Lyman, in the mid XIX century." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10667" RevisionGUID="39589799-18b6-4a70-b894-30bd7ff59861" CreationDate="2019-05-06T10:09:08.570" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="Can someone provide the original Latin translation for Publilius Syrus's famous axiom, &quot;Would you have a great empire? Rule over yourself.&quot; I have searched online and not been able to find it in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31232" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10667" RevisionGUID="39589799-18b6-4a70-b894-30bd7ff59861" CreationDate="2019-05-06T10:09:08.570" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="Latin original for &quot;Would you have a great empire?&quot; saying, by Publilius Syrus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31233" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="6466" RevisionGUID="d4d9adf6-f8d0-47b2-889e-5a94d00846c8" CreationDate="2019-05-06T10:34:25.763" UserId="645" Comment="113" />
  <row Id="31234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10670" RevisionGUID="df41de89-03f8-447d-9f4b-1634b2040196" CreationDate="2019-05-06T15:07:10.473" UserId="3495" Text="I am not sure this conveys the connotation you want, but here is my idea: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You search for a placeholder, so just use the placholder-names the Romans used when writing legal formulas: Aulus Agerius for the actor and Numerius Negidius for the defendant (see [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerius_Negidius))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If *agere* and *negare* do not fit, you can use the idea of this play on words with other verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10671" RevisionGUID="4a59a5d6-be5f-40ad-8884-f4565fa62e89" CreationDate="2019-05-06T16:10:44.643" UserId="4731" Text="Professional Latin tutor to the rescue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For #1: &quot;to work&quot; is an infinitive verb, and &quot;food and beverage&quot; would be in the genitive (think &quot;the industry of food and beverage&quot;). Also, when there is a form of &quot;possum,&quot; the verb that denotes what is abled is also in the infinitive. With respect to diction, I think *cibus, cibi* would better for food and *operor* (careful, this is a deponent verb). Further, verbs tend to go last in a clause. Therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. *Igitur (Ideo), in industriā cibī potūsque operārī eligō (optō), quod multās pertiās ē coquō/ā* [depending on gender of the cook] *discāre possum.* &lt;br&gt;(words in parentheses are other suggested words which might better fit)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For #2: Most of the verbs aside from &quot;learned&quot; are either in the infinitive or in the subjunctive mood. Moreover, &quot;dicobam&quot; is not a word (at least in this context). Finally, you need to expand your sentences first &quot;I learned how to...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. *(Quōmodō) cultrō uti ut piscem crudum secem et bellaria (secundās) eximia(-ās) deliciosa(-ās-)que parem discebām (didicī).*&lt;br&gt; (the (-ās) is used in place of the &quot;-a&quot; ending if the (*secundās*) is used. (*Didicī*) is the perdect tense.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For #3: Salmon = *esicia. There is an adjective form of Saffron.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Esiciam croceam facere discebam (didicī)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For #4: Happy=*felix*, or *laetus*, and always use the future tense of the verb itself, not the verb &quot;to be.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;therefore&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Nam felix (laetus) sum; dē longīs horīs operae et officio difficillī non querebor.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10671" RevisionGUID="b1ad2c89-0c73-4f5a-9d38-19fd07457352" CreationDate="2019-05-06T16:46:46.720" UserId="4731" Comment="added numbers to the last 2 translations and fixed a conjugation error." Text="Professional Latin tutor to the rescue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For #1: &quot;to work&quot; is an infinitive verb, and &quot;food and beverage&quot; would be in the genitive (think &quot;the industry of food and beverage&quot;). Also, when there is a form of &quot;possum,&quot; the verb that denotes what is abled is also in the infinitive. With respect to diction, I think *cibus, cibi* would better for food and *operor* (careful, this is a deponent verb). Further, verbs tend to go last in a clause. Therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. *Igitur (Ideo), in industriā cibī potūsque operārī eligō (optō), quod multās pertiās ē coquō/ā* [depending on gender of the cook] *discere possum.* &lt;br&gt;(words in parentheses are other suggested words which might better fit)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For #2: Most of the verbs aside from &quot;learned&quot; are either in the infinitive or in the subjunctive mood. Moreover, &quot;dicobam&quot; is not a word (at least in this context). Finally, you need to expand your sentences first &quot;I learned how to...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. *(Quōmodō) cultrō uti ut piscem crudum secem et bellaria (secundās) eximia(-ās) deliciosa(-ās-)que parem discebām (didicī).*&lt;br&gt; (the (-ās) is used in place of the &quot;-a&quot; ending if the (*secundās*) is used. (*Didicī*) is the perdect tense.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For #3: Salmon = *esicia. There is an adjective form of Saffron.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. *Esiciam croceam facere discebam (didicī)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For #4: Happy=*felix*, or *laetus*, and always use the future tense of the verb itself, not the verb &quot;to be.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;therefore&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. *Nam felix (laetus) sum; dē longīs horīs operae et officio difficillī non querebor.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10671" RevisionGUID="e3595cf3-6f4a-4c95-bd3b-a355b88760d5" CreationDate="2019-05-06T16:53:27.350" UserId="4731" Comment="macronized the &quot;o&quot; in &quot;officio&quot; and fixed spelling error: &quot;perdect&quot; to &quot;perfect&quot;" Text="Professional Latin tutor to the rescue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For #1: &quot;to work&quot; is an infinitive verb, and &quot;food and beverage&quot; would be in the genitive (think &quot;the industry of food and beverage&quot;). Also, when there is a form of &quot;possum,&quot; the verb that denotes what is abled is also in the infinitive. With respect to diction, I think *cibus, cibi* would better for food and *operor* (careful, this is a deponent verb). Further, verbs tend to go last in a clause. Therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. *Igitur (Ideo), in industriā cibī potūsque operārī eligō (optō), quod multās pertiās ē coquō/ā* [depending on gender of the cook] *discere possum.* &lt;br&gt;(words in parentheses are other suggested words which might better fit)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For #2: Most of the verbs aside from &quot;learned&quot; are either in the infinitive or in the subjunctive mood. Moreover, &quot;dicobam&quot; is not a word (at least in this context). Finally, you need to expand your sentences first &quot;I learned how to...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. *(Quōmodō) cultrō uti ut piscem crudum secem et bellaria (secundās) eximia(-ās) deliciosa(-ās-)que parem discebām (didicī).*&lt;br&gt; (the (-ās) is used in place of the &quot;-a&quot; ending if the (*secundās*) is used. (*Didicī*) is the perfect tense.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For #3: Salmon = *esicia. There is an adjective form of Saffron.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. *Esiciam croceam facere discebam (didicī)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For #4: Happy=*felix*, or *laetus*, and always use the future tense of the verb itself, not the verb &quot;to be.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;therefore&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. *Nam felix (laetus) sum; dē longīs horīs operae et officiō difficillī non querebor.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10672" RevisionGUID="952b6d58-39e2-4341-bed4-5e6f7394c46e" CreationDate="2019-05-06T18:16:50.907" UserId="4731" Text="I never heard of using an adverbial form of a nation or an ethnicity to refer to its language and speaking in it. Usually, it is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;*Linguā Latinā loquī*&quot;&lt;br&gt;to speak by means of the Latin language...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as in the ablative adjectival phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Iceland = *Islandia*, and Icelandic= *Islandiēnsis*; &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Malta = *Melitae*, and Maltese = Melitensis;&lt;br&gt; &#xD;&#xA;and Thailand = *Thailandia*, and Thai = *Thailandiēnsis*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore (assuming these adjectives are I-stem):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Linguā Islandiēnsī loquī* = to speak (by means of/in the) Icelandic (language)&lt;br&gt;*Linguā Melitensī loquī* = to speak (by means of/in the) Maltese (language)&lt;br&gt;*Linguā Thailandiēnsī loquī* = to speak (by means of/in the) Thai (language). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. Joonas Ilmavirta, response Aug 6, 2016 to &quot;What are the Latin names for modern countries?&quot; by Sam K, Aug 6, 2016, (accessed May 6, 2019), https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1330/4731; &quot;List of Latin names of countries,&quot; *Wikipedia*, last edited May 6, 2019, (accessed May 6, 2019), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_names_of_countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10673" RevisionGUID="f1ff4a1c-fc94-45ce-8959-491a750cac2e" CreationDate="2019-05-06T18:18:45.903" UserId="4751" Text="I wanted a phrase that means something like &quot;invincible independence&quot; or &quot;undefeatable independence&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate gave me: &quot;invicta independentiae&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just wanted to check that that seems grammatically correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31240" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10673" RevisionGUID="f1ff4a1c-fc94-45ce-8959-491a750cac2e" CreationDate="2019-05-06T18:18:45.903" UserId="4751" Text="Translation of &quot;invincible independence&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31241" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10673" RevisionGUID="f1ff4a1c-fc94-45ce-8959-491a750cac2e" CreationDate="2019-05-06T18:18:45.903" UserId="4751" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10674" RevisionGUID="3d17bfa4-888b-495e-b5fc-d64b648b6a11" CreationDate="2019-05-06T18:59:14.730" UserId="4731" Text="It is not (at least, I think).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*independentia invicta*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would be better. Remember, adjectives must match the nouns they modify in **gender**, **number**, and **case**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10675" RevisionGUID="c6ed04f2-b0fe-433d-87b2-2ad0ded0e923" CreationDate="2019-05-06T19:39:03.690" UserDisplayName="user4752" Text="Is the Latin word verenda a noun? If so, which lexical root it has?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deu.25:11&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Si habuerint inter se jurgium viri duo, et unus contra alterum rixari coeperit, volensque uxor alterius eruere virum suum de manu fortioris, miseritque manum, et apprehenderit verenda ejus&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31244" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10675" RevisionGUID="c6ed04f2-b0fe-433d-87b2-2ad0ded0e923" CreationDate="2019-05-06T19:39:03.690" UserDisplayName="user4752" Text="Is the Latin word verenda a noun? If so, which lexical root it has?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31245" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10675" RevisionGUID="c6ed04f2-b0fe-433d-87b2-2ad0ded0e923" CreationDate="2019-05-06T19:39:03.690" UserDisplayName="user4752" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10676" RevisionGUID="69fc6718-b5b3-4fe7-a58c-786b1ba55e9f" CreationDate="2019-05-06T20:30:38.177" UserId="4754" Text="I'm a beginner in Latin language studies, and I wanted to translate a sentence from English to Latin. I'm a self-taught student, and since it's for something important, I'd like it to be right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence could be either &quot;It's hard following you, but it's impossible not to.&quot; or &quot;It's hard to go with you but it's impossible to go without you.&quot;. Maybe something like: &quot;The path with you is hard, but without you it's harder&quot;. The sentences have a clear religious motivation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd say: &quot;Difficilis est tecum ire, sed impossiblis est sine tibi ire.&quot; Or &quot;Difficilis est te sequire, sed impossiblis est te non sequire&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentences may be wrong, but even if right they are inelegant. I'd like some tips to make them more refined. Could anyone help me out? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31248" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10676" RevisionGUID="69fc6718-b5b3-4fe7-a58c-786b1ba55e9f" CreationDate="2019-05-06T20:30:38.177" UserId="4754" Text="English to Latin translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31249" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10676" RevisionGUID="69fc6718-b5b3-4fe7-a58c-786b1ba55e9f" CreationDate="2019-05-06T20:30:38.177" UserId="4754" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10675" RevisionGUID="636e914b-416f-4c3f-a4dc-da18d4f46b93" CreationDate="2019-05-06T20:32:08.753" UserId="79" Comment="added 13 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Is the Latin word *verenda* a noun? If so, which lexical root does it have?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deu.25:11:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Si habuerint inter se jurgium viri duo, et unus contra alterum rixari coeperit, volensque uxor alterius eruere virum suum de manu fortioris, miseritque manum, et apprehenderit verenda ejus&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31251" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10675" RevisionGUID="636e914b-416f-4c3f-a4dc-da18d4f46b93" CreationDate="2019-05-06T20:32:08.753" UserId="79" Comment="added 13 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10673" RevisionGUID="dd8f517f-65f4-41da-88f7-05f7966c3240" CreationDate="2019-05-06T20:32:42.603" UserId="79" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I wanted a phrase that means something like &quot;invincible independence&quot; or &quot;undefeatable independence&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate gave me: &quot;invicta independentiae&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just wanted to check that that seems grammatically correct. Is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31253" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10673" RevisionGUID="dd8f517f-65f4-41da-88f7-05f7966c3240" CreationDate="2019-05-06T20:32:42.603" UserId="79" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10677" RevisionGUID="8bb3b7c9-3394-40a9-8a0b-f0d51064be7c" CreationDate="2019-05-06T20:34:45.780" UserId="79" Text="No, it is not a noun.&#xD;&#xA;It is a gerundive form of the verb [*vereri*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=vereor&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest looking up this verb in a dictionary you like, and also looking into gerundives if you are not already familiar with them.&#xD;&#xA;If you are still puzzled, I recommend asking a follow-up question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10677" RevisionGUID="21bb031e-dcce-45fc-9901-131ecc021d66" CreationDate="2019-05-06T21:05:31.753" UserId="79" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="No, it is not a noun.&#xD;&#xA;It is a gerundive form of the verb [*vereri*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=vereor&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;Gerundives can function like nouns, but they will not be listed separately in dictionaries; the keyword is the underlying verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest looking up this verb in a dictionary you like, and also looking into gerundives if you are not already familiar with them.&#xD;&#xA;If you are still puzzled, I recommend asking a follow-up question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31256" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10673" RevisionGUID="3c385f9f-1fb9-4ff4-93e7-8a0fdb23444b" CreationDate="2019-05-06T21:13:32.643" />
  <row Id="31257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10677" RevisionGUID="6e5078bc-c25a-4cc2-b720-114efd14ff56" CreationDate="2019-05-06T21:26:10.763" UserId="79" Comment="added 237 characters in body" Text="No, it is not a noun.&#xD;&#xA;It is a gerundive form of the verb [*vereri*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=vereor&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059).&#xD;&#xA;Gerundives can function like nouns, but they will not be listed separately in dictionaries; the keyword is the underlying verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest looking up this verb in a dictionary you like, and also looking into gerundives if you are not already familiar with them.&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive behaves like an adjective of the first and second declension.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *verenda* can be feminine singular nominative or neuter plural nominative or accusative.&#xD;&#xA;(Not all of these are possible in the context, of course!)&#xD;&#xA;If you are still puzzled, I recommend asking a follow-up question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31258" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7673" RevisionGUID="275f13a6-c655-4135-afab-5e2ccc3a7977" CreationDate="2019-05-07T01:01:00.163" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10678" RevisionGUID="a38377d9-d492-466a-98d1-14da046d574c" CreationDate="2019-05-07T04:14:15.263" UserId="9" Text="I just found that *Nouvelle méthode pour apprendre facilement la langue latine,*  by Claude Lancelot (? et al?), which I quoted in my previous question about *Pascha,* includes this word in a list of &quot;those nouns which, as grammarians say, are not used in the plural, though we sometimes meet with examples to the contrary&quot; ([p. 150, *A New Method of Learning with Facility the Latin Tongue,*](https://books.google.com/books?id=hpTix6yVjrIC&amp;pg=PA150) translated from the French by T. Nugent, 1791).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nugent's translation says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pascha, is ranked in this number [of nouns found only in the singular] by Aldus and by Verep. Yet Vossius thinks we may say *tria Pascha,* or *tres Paschas Christus celebravit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([p. 155](https://books.google.com/books?id=hpTix6yVjrIC&amp;pg=PA155); here is a link to the original French passage, [p. 180](https://books.google.com/books?id=22MSAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA180))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume *tres Paschas* would be feminine, rather than masculine, so that part doesn't really teach me anything new (since I already knew that some authors use *Pascha* as a feminine noun of the first declension). But *tria Pascha* is evidence that Vossius at least preferred to use a plural form identical to the singular when the word is neuter (and not given the stem *Paschat-*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10678" RevisionGUID="6eb333e3-65f6-4711-964a-319336d7ac30" CreationDate="2019-05-07T04:23:38.963" UserId="9" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="I just found that *Nouvelle méthode pour apprendre facilement la langue latine,*  by Claude Lancelot (? et al?), which I quoted in my previous question about *Pascha,* includes this word in a list of &quot;those nouns which, as grammarians say, are not used in the plural, though we sometimes meet with examples to the contrary&quot; ([p. 150, *A New Method of Learning with Facility the Latin Tongue,*](https://books.google.com/books?id=hpTix6yVjrIC&amp;pg=PA150) translated from the French by T. Nugent, 1791).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nugent's translation says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pascha, is ranked in this number [of nouns found only in the singular] by Aldus and by Verep [I think this is [Simon Verep(a)eus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Verepaeus)/Verrept]. Yet Vossius thinks we may say *tria Pascha,* or *tres Paschas Christus celebravit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([p. 155](https://books.google.com/books?id=hpTix6yVjrIC&amp;pg=PA155); here is a link to the original French passage, [p. 180](https://books.google.com/books?id=22MSAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA180))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume *tres Paschas* would be feminine, rather than masculine, so that part doesn't really teach me anything new (since I already knew that some authors use *Pascha* as a feminine noun of the first declension). But *tria Pascha* is evidence that Vossius at least preferred to use a plural form identical to the singular when the word is neuter (and not given the stem *Paschat-*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10679" RevisionGUID="fa2906de-1dcb-4700-9025-c82a22a75ab1" CreationDate="2019-05-07T07:15:58.287" UserId="9" Text="Both *nasciturus* and *nascendus* seem to exist.  Words ending in *-turus* are often described as future active participles, and words ending in *-ndus* as future passive participles (they are also called gerundives), but as *[nascor](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=nascor)* is always an intransitive verb, it doesn't seem like it could have any truly passive forms. (I think this differentiates *nascendus* from examples like *patiendus,* discussed in brianpck's answer here: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2476/how-do-i-use-gerundives-of-obligation-for-deponent-verbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I would guess that there is a difference in meaning something like &quot;about to be born&quot; vs. &quot;needing to be born&quot;, but I don't understand the Latin participle system well enough to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Research&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a passage in *Ars* by (pseudo?) Palaemon that mentions the two forms, but my Latin is not strong enough to extract any information about potential differences in meaning or usage between the two forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; futuri temporis participia a passivis vel communibus semper in dus. nam deponens numquam habet duo futura: nec enim dicimus 'luctandus est ille' aut nascendus,	sed habet unum, ut luctaturus nasciturus locuturus; licet apud veteres talia quoque communis generis reperiantur. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;De Participio&quot;, *Ars [sp.],* in Keilor 1868, 546.9-13, accessed via PHI Latin Texts)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found an interesting but not very enlightening anecdote about a poor gentleman who shared my confusion and was excoriated by a bishop ([*The Downside Review,* p. 228](https://books.google.com/books?id=I_MHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA228)). Basically, all this does is confirm my understanding that both *nasciturus* and *nascendus* are valid forms. The bishop brings up the “ad homines nascendos vim hujus numeri (septenarii) pertinere ait” quote that is also mentioned in the Lewis and Short entry for *nascor;* L&amp;S say that it can be translated as &quot;to the formation of man in the womb&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching for the text of this passage also led me to a section of Roby (1875; *A Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius, Part II*) that discusses this use of the gerundive. This was more helpful. Roby says that there are &quot;very few&quot; exceptions to the rule that the gerundive is passive, and therefore not used for intransitive verbs; he lists some examples and says &quot;three of them are from Varro; they are all expressions of the same nature and all from verbs in *-sc-*&quot; ([p. lxx](https://books.google.com/books?id=9opfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PR70)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples seem to go against my guess that the gerundive would have a sense of obligation in this context; Roby translates them with phrases like &quot;of the X-ing of Y&quot;. After reading Roby, I have the impression that even though *nascendus* isn't 'wrong' per se, there wouldn't be very many situations where I should use it. Does anybody have any further advice or information about the use of these two participial forms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31262" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10679" RevisionGUID="fa2906de-1dcb-4700-9025-c82a22a75ab1" CreationDate="2019-05-07T07:15:58.287" UserId="9" Text="What is the difference in meaning/usage between &quot;nasciturus&quot; and &quot;nascendus&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31263" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10679" RevisionGUID="fa2906de-1dcb-4700-9025-c82a22a75ab1" CreationDate="2019-05-07T07:15:58.287" UserId="9" Text="|meaning|participle|gerundive|deponent-verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10679" RevisionGUID="9ccb1bc0-5833-4191-b231-9fadfd0ac901" CreationDate="2019-05-07T07:39:20.033" UserId="9" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Both *nasciturus* and *nascendus* seem to exist.  Words ending in *-turus* are often described as future active participles, and words ending in *-ndus* as future passive participles (they are also called gerundives), but as *[nascor](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=nascor)* is always an intransitive verb, it doesn't seem like it could have any truly passive forms. (I think this differentiates *nascendus* from examples like *patiendus,* discussed in brianpck's answer here: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2476/how-do-i-use-gerundives-of-obligation-for-deponent-verbs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I would guess that there is a difference in meaning something like &quot;about to be born&quot; vs. &quot;needing to be born&quot;, but I don't understand the Latin participle system well enough to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Research&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a passage in *Ars* by (pseudo?) Palaemon that mentions the two forms, but my Latin is not strong enough to extract any information about potential differences in meaning or usage between the two forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; futuri temporis participia a passivis vel communibus semper in dus. nam deponens numquam habet duo futura: nec enim dicimus 'luctandus est ille' aut nascendus,	sed habet unum, ut luctaturus nasciturus locuturus; licet apud veteres talia quoque communis generis reperiantur. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;De Participio&quot;, *Ars [sp.],* in Keilor 1868, 546.9-13, accessed via PHI Latin Texts)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found an interesting but not very enlightening anecdote about a poor gentleman who shared my confusion and was excoriated by a bishop ([*The Downside Review,* p. 228](https://books.google.com/books?id=I_MHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA228)). Basically, all this does is confirm my understanding that both *nasciturus* and *nascendus* are valid forms. The bishop brings up the “ad homines nascendos vim hujus numeri (septenarii) pertinere ait” quote that is also mentioned in the Lewis and Short entry for *nascor;* L&amp;S say that it can be translated as &quot;to the formation of man in the womb&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching for the text of this passage also led me to a section of Roby (1875; *A Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius, Part II*) that discusses this use of the gerundive. This was more helpful. Roby says that there are &quot;very few&quot; exceptions to the rule that the gerundive is passive, and therefore not used for intransitive verbs; he lists some examples and says &quot;three of them are from Varro; they are all expressions of the same nature and all from verbs in *-sc-*&quot; ([p. lxx](https://books.google.com/books?id=9opfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PR70)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples seem to go against my guess that the gerundive would have a sense of obligation in this context; Roby translates them with phrases like &quot;of the X-ing of Y&quot;. After reading Roby, I have the impression that even though *nascendus* isn't 'wrong' per se, there wouldn't be very many situations where I should use it. Does anybody have any further advice or information about the use of these two participial forms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10680" RevisionGUID="a98538a7-4e89-40fc-9ede-f1152b569088" CreationDate="2019-05-07T07:51:31.833" UserId="1459" Text="_Lailaps_ is found in the New Testament. Textual studies of the Bible suggest its etymology to be &quot;uncertain&quot; (e.g. [here](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=nasb&amp;strongs=g2978)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, [this site](https://translate.academic.ru/%CE%BB%CE%B1%E1%BF%96%CE%BB%CE%B1%CF%88/el/xx/) has this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ME7vq.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10673" RevisionGUID="190a2abd-4ac6-46e6-9601-a6fbfe8ed2f6" CreationDate="2019-05-07T07:52:10.720" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="I wanted a phrase that means something like &quot;invincible independence&quot; or &quot;undefeatable independence&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate gave me: &quot;_invicta independentiae_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just wanted to check that that seems grammatically correct. Is it?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10676" RevisionGUID="7a458662-928f-45b8-8173-4f96b5ab3ed0" CreationDate="2019-05-07T07:52:53.500" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="I'm a beginner in Latin language studies, and I wanted to translate a sentence from English to Latin. I'm a self-taught student, and since it's for something important, I'd like it to be right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence could be either &quot;It's hard following you, but it's impossible not to.&quot; or &quot;It's hard to go with you but it's impossible to go without you.&quot;. Maybe something like: &quot;The path with you is hard, but without you it's harder&quot;. The sentences have a clear religious motivation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd say: &quot;_Difficilis est tecum ire, sed impossiblis est sine tibi ire._&quot; Or &quot;_Difficilis est te sequire, sed impossiblis est te non sequire&quot;_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentences may be wrong, but even if right they are inelegant. I'd like some tips to make them more refined. Could anyone help me out? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10681" RevisionGUID="17e39abf-1a7e-40c8-aaf3-248b3c2051ef" CreationDate="2019-05-07T13:45:11.217" UserId="2476" Text="In his _Corso elementare di lingua latina_ (&quot;Elementary Latin course&quot;, 1844), Vincenzo De Angelis deals with this in Volume 1, p. 191:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Se il verbo indica azione vi sarà il passivo, come _amo_ ed _amor_... e perciò _amans_ ed _amatus-amaturus_ ed _amandus_. Ma ove indicasse uno stato intransitivo, nè il verbo vi sarà con questo doppio valore, e forma; nè participi attivi e passivi potranno darsì: ma di uno stato assoluto un presente può aversi ed un futuro _nascens_ o _natus_, _nasciturus_ o _nascendus_. Il perché mancando qui diverso valore, ogni differenza tra _nascens_ e _natus_, tra _nasciturus_ e _nascendus_ si risolve nel tempo, ove le due coppie fossero in uso;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;If the verb indicates an action there will be a passive form, like _amo_ and _amor_... whence _amans_, _amatus_ - _amaturus_ and _amandus_. But for an intransitive one, neither will it have such double value and form, nor will active and passive participles be possible: however a present form and a future form of an absolute construction are possible, [e.g.] _nascens_ or _natus_, _nasciturus_ or _nascendus_. Since there is no difference in value, any difference between _nascens_ and _natus_, _nasciturus_ and _nascendus_, [and the like] resides in the time [of &quot;action&quot;], where the two pairs are both in use;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being a dated work, the original wording is a bit convoluted (in my eyes, at least) -  I tried my best to make it clearer, but any improvement in the translation is welcome. Anyway, it seems De Angelis is suggesting that for pairs like _nasciturus_/_nascendus_, only one form really means &quot;**about to be** born&quot; (_nascendus_ in this case, as your _ad homines nascendos..._ quote would confirm) whereas the other one would be more distant in the future, &quot;**that will be** born&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, only _nasciturus_ made it into Italian as _nascituro_ (though perhaps this also has to do with _nascendo_ being the gerund present of _nascere_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's interesting to draw a parallel with _moriturus_ / _moriendus_, quoting Leo De Lacy here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There are some verbs which have no passive participle in -dus. Some as _vapulo_, and other neuter passives which, having no passive form whatever, cannot have that participle, and yet the gerund occurs with _est_ [...]. It is very significant and conclusive on this point that, of the deponent _morior_, the future participle in use is _moriturus_, never _moriendus_ (instead of which the verbal adjective _moribundus_ is very frequently found)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9332" RevisionGUID="0ebb769d-be28-4c08-9689-8ebb78868dd6" CreationDate="2019-05-07T19:31:11.730" UserId="9" Comment="Added discussion of the definition of vocative" Text="##Defining the vocative: something like &quot;a form used for address&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't give a definition of &quot;vocative&quot; in my original question, but it seems like it might be worthwhile, since there are a few constructions that look similar that we might want to distinguish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems necessary to start with non-neuter *-us* nouns of the second declension like &quot;Brutus&quot; and &quot;Marcus&quot;, because they are the only category of nouns that show a distinct form for what is called the &quot;vocative case&quot;. So for an initial definition, we could say that in the context of Latin, &quot;vocative&quot; refers to a form that is used in the contexts where forms like &quot;Brute&quot; and &quot;Marce&quot; would be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What remains is to determine in which contexts forms like &quot;Brute&quot; and &quot;Marce&quot; are used.&#xD;&#xA;Although I don't have a full understanding of this, Ashdowne (2002) indicates that the factor connecting the different contexts in which the vocative case is used is the function of address. [Alex B.'s answer to *How do you address someone in a case other than the vocative?*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7682/9), which cites Pinkster 2016, also indicates that there is a connection between forms of address and the vocative (Alex B.: &quot;forms of address are always in the vocative&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The particle O can be used with addresses, but also with exclamations, so its use doesn't seem to be a completely reliable diagnostic of the vocative case for neuter nouns. Ashdowne mentions O and says &quot;it is reasonable to assume that a form which could be either nominative or vocative is in fact vocative when accompanied by o!&quot; (p. 144) but also says in a footnote that &quot;A neuter noun in such circumstances could also be accusative and accordingly could be a *thing exclaimed over*&quot; (p. 145). I think that &quot;o tempora, o mores&quot; in the passage quoted in fdb's answer refers to &quot;a thing exclaimed over&quot; rather than acting as an address, and for this reason, I don't think it is a true example of a neuter noun in the vocative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##At least one example of a neuter vocative does seem to exist&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Limen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett (1914) seems to have a long list of examples of the vocative. One in particular that seems to fit is *limen* in Plautus's *Mercator* 830 ([Bennett p. 268](https://books.google.com/books?id=IH8KAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA268)). Bungard (2008) provides the following translation of the sentence with *limen*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Limen superum inferumque**, salve, simul autem vale. (830)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Doorway above and below, hello and at the same time moreover farewell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 167)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is certainly an unusual situation, but it seems to be a quite literal case of addressing an inanimate object, so I think there is no reason to interpret the phrase at the start of the sentence as anything other than a vocative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other possible examples&#xD;&#xA;###O Pergamum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ashdowne (2002) mentions another possible example. *O Pergamum* occurs in a list of vocative phrases that includes the unambiguous form &quot;Priame&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5) *o Troia, o patria, **o Pergamum**, o Priame ... senex* (Plaut. Bacch. 933) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;O Troy! O fatherland! O Pergamum! O old man, Priam!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 145)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in a comment, Unbrutal_Russian suggested that it's not actually totally clear that the successive nouns preceded by &quot;O&quot; here all have the same function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not this is actually a solid example, it seems plausible to me that a city name might be used in the vocative to address a city as a whole, and there are a number of cities or towns with neuter-gender names, so this seems like a situation where a neuter vocative might be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Terms of endearment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A class of words that I had forgotten about when I posted my original question is neuter nouns used as terms of endearment, like *mel.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the section on &quot;Expressions of Endearment&quot;, Bennett mentions *meum cor, meum corculum, mel meum, meum savium, meum labellum* (p. 273). But I'm not sure that this use characteristically requires a &quot;vocative case&quot; form since there are some masculine examples in the same section that look like nominatives: *meus ocellus, meus molliculus caseus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe looking at the exact context would make the situation more certain: the answer by Alex B. that I linked to above indicates that the nominative case is used for appositive expressions specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ashdowne, Richard. &quot;[The vocative’s calling? The syntax of address in Latin](https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:e666d76a-de0e-454e-83ba-77e06e64c492/download_file?safe_filename=Item&amp;file_format=application%2Fpdf&amp;type_of_work=Journal+article)&quot;. *[Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology &amp; Phonetics](https://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/files/owp2002.pdf),* Volume 7, May 2002, pp. 143-162.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett, Charles Edwin. 1914. *[Syntax of Early Latin: Vol II—The Cases](https://books.google.com/books?id=IH8KAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA268#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bungard, Christopher William. 2008. &quot;[Playing with your role in Plautine Theater](https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1211552932&amp;disposition=inline)&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9332" RevisionGUID="b57d68f6-2c88-4987-af53-8762a69027d7" CreationDate="2019-05-07T19:42:12.747" UserId="9" Comment="added 434 characters in body" Text="##Defining the vocative: something like &quot;a form used for address&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't give a definition of &quot;vocative&quot; in my original question, but it seems like it might be worthwhile, since there are a few constructions that look similar that we might want to distinguish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems necessary to start with non-neuter *-us* nouns of the second declension like &quot;Brutus&quot; and &quot;Marcus&quot;, because they are the only category of nouns that show a distinct form for what is called the &quot;vocative case&quot;. So for an initial definition, we could say that in the context of Latin, &quot;vocative&quot; refers to a form that is used in the contexts where forms like &quot;Brute&quot; and &quot;Marce&quot; would be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What remains is to determine in which contexts forms like &quot;Brute&quot; and &quot;Marce&quot; are used.&#xD;&#xA;Although I don't have a full understanding of this, Ashdowne (2002) indicates that the factor connecting the different contexts in which the vocative case is used is the function of address. [Alex B.'s answer to *How do you address someone in a case other than the vocative?*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7682/9), which cites Pinkster 2016, also indicates that there is a connection between forms of address and the vocative (Alex B.: &quot;forms of address are always in the vocative&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The particle O can be used with addresses, but also with exclamations, so its use doesn't seem to be a completely reliable diagnostic of the vocative case for neuter nouns. Ashdowne mentions O and says &quot;it is reasonable to assume that a form which could be either nominative or vocative is in fact vocative when accompanied by o!&quot; (p. 144) but also says in a footnote that &quot;A neuter noun in such circumstances could also be accusative and accordingly could be a *thing exclaimed over*&quot; (p. 145). I think that &quot;o tempora, o mores&quot; in the passage quoted in fdb's answer refers to &quot;a thing exclaimed over&quot; rather than acting as an address, and for this reason, I don't think it is a true example of a neuter noun in the vocative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##At least one example of a neuter vocative does seem to exist&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Limen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett (1914) seems to have a long list of examples of the vocative. One in particular that seems to fit is *limen* in Plautus's *Mercator* 830 ([Bennett p. 268](https://books.google.com/books?id=IH8KAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA268)). Bungard (2008) provides the following translation of the sentence with *limen*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Limen superum inferumque**, salve, simul autem vale. (830)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Doorway above and below, hello and at the same time moreover farewell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 167)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is certainly an unusual situation, but it seems to be a quite literal case of addressing an inanimate object, so I think there is no reason to interpret the phrase at the start of the sentence as anything other than a vocative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other possible examples&#xD;&#xA;###O Pergamum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ashdowne (2002) mentions another possible example. *O Pergamum* occurs in a list of vocative phrases that includes the unambiguous form &quot;Priame&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5) *o Troia, o patria, **o Pergamum**, o Priame ... senex* (Plaut. Bacch. 933) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;O Troy! O fatherland! O Pergamum! O old man, Priam!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 145)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in a comment, Unbrutal_Russian suggested that it's not actually totally clear that the successive nouns preceded by &quot;O&quot; here all have the same function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not this is actually a solid example, it seems plausible to me that a city name might be used in the vocative to address a city as a whole, and there are a number of cities or towns with neuter-gender names, so this seems like a situation where a neuter vocative might be used. The following quotation is not Classical Latin and doesn't involve a neuter noun, but it does seem to be an unambiguous example of a city name being put into the vocative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Et erit in die illa: in oblivione eris, **o Tyre**! septuaginta annis, sicut dies regis unius; post septuaginta autem annos erit Tyro quasi canticum meretricis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([Isaias 23:15, Vulgata](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaias+23:15&amp;version=VULGATE))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Terms of endearment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A class of words that I had forgotten about when I posted my original question is neuter nouns used as terms of endearment, like *mel.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the section on &quot;Expressions of Endearment&quot;, Bennett mentions *meum cor, meum corculum, mel meum, meum savium, meum labellum* (p. 273). But I'm not sure that this use characteristically requires a &quot;vocative case&quot; form since there are some masculine examples in the same section that look like nominatives: *meus ocellus, meus molliculus caseus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe looking at the exact context would make the situation more certain: the answer by Alex B. that I linked to above indicates that the nominative case is used for appositive expressions specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ashdowne, Richard. &quot;[The vocative’s calling? The syntax of address in Latin](https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:e666d76a-de0e-454e-83ba-77e06e64c492/download_file?safe_filename=Item&amp;file_format=application%2Fpdf&amp;type_of_work=Journal+article)&quot;. *[Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology &amp; Phonetics](https://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/files/owp2002.pdf),* Volume 7, May 2002, pp. 143-162.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett, Charles Edwin. 1914. *[Syntax of Early Latin: Vol II—The Cases](https://books.google.com/books?id=IH8KAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA268#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bungard, Christopher William. 2008. &quot;[Playing with your role in Plautine Theater](https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1211552932&amp;disposition=inline)&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9332" RevisionGUID="44dd0b8b-b6c4-4c03-8a10-d020edb955e1" CreationDate="2019-05-07T19:49:46.553" UserId="9" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="##Defining the vocative: something like &quot;a form used for address&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't give a definition of &quot;vocative&quot; in my original question, but it seems like it might be worthwhile, since there are a few constructions that look similar that we might want to distinguish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems necessary to start with non-neuter *-us* nouns of the second declension like &quot;Brutus&quot; and &quot;Marcus&quot;, because they are the only category of nouns (if we set aside borrowed nouns) that show a distinct form for what is called the &quot;vocative case&quot;. So for an initial definition, we could say that in the context of Latin, &quot;vocative&quot; refers to a form that is used in the contexts where forms like &quot;Brute&quot; and &quot;Marce&quot; would be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What remains is to determine in which contexts forms like &quot;Brute&quot; and &quot;Marce&quot; are used.&#xD;&#xA;Although I don't have a full understanding of this, Ashdowne (2002) indicates that the factor connecting the different contexts in which the vocative case is used is the function of address. [Alex B.'s answer to *How do you address someone in a case other than the vocative?*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7682/9), which cites Pinkster 2016, also indicates that there is a connection between forms of address and the vocative (Alex B.: &quot;forms of address are always in the vocative&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The particle O can be used with addresses, but also with exclamations, so its use doesn't seem to be a completely reliable diagnostic of the vocative case for neuter nouns. Ashdowne mentions O and says &quot;it is reasonable to assume that a form which could be either nominative or vocative is in fact vocative when accompanied by o!&quot; (p. 144) but also says in a footnote that &quot;A neuter noun in such circumstances could also be accusative and accordingly could be a *thing exclaimed over*&quot; (p. 145). I think that &quot;o tempora, o mores&quot; in the passage quoted in fdb's answer refers to &quot;a thing exclaimed over&quot; rather than acting as an address, and for this reason, I don't think it is a true example of a neuter noun in the vocative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##At least one example of a neuter vocative does seem to exist&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Limen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett (1914) seems to have a long list of examples of the vocative. One in particular that seems to fit is *limen* in Plautus's *Mercator* 830 ([Bennett p. 268](https://books.google.com/books?id=IH8KAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA268)). Bungard (2008) provides the following translation of the sentence with *limen*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Limen superum inferumque**, salve, simul autem vale. (830)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Doorway above and below, hello and at the same time moreover farewell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 167)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is certainly an unusual situation, but it seems to be a quite literal case of addressing an inanimate object, so I think there is no reason to interpret the phrase at the start of the sentence as anything other than a vocative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other possible examples&#xD;&#xA;###O Pergamum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ashdowne (2002) mentions another possible example. *O Pergamum* occurs in a list of vocative phrases that includes the unambiguous form &quot;Priame&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5) *o Troia, o patria, **o Pergamum**, o Priame ... senex* (Plaut. Bacch. 933) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;O Troy! O fatherland! O Pergamum! O old man, Priam!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 145)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in a comment, Unbrutal_Russian suggested that it's not actually totally clear that the successive nouns preceded by &quot;O&quot; here all have the same function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not this is actually a solid example, it seems plausible to me that a city name might be used in the vocative to address a city as a whole, and there are a number of cities or towns with neuter-gender names, so this seems like a situation where a neuter vocative might be used. The following quotation is not Classical Latin and doesn't involve a neuter noun, but it does seem to be an unambiguous example of a city name being put into the vocative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Et erit in die illa: in oblivione eris, **o Tyre**! septuaginta annis, sicut dies regis unius; post septuaginta autem annos erit Tyro quasi canticum meretricis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([Isaias 23:15, Vulgata](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaias+23:15&amp;version=VULGATE))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Terms of endearment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A class of words that I had forgotten about when I posted my original question is neuter nouns used as terms of endearment, like *mel.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the section on &quot;Expressions of Endearment&quot;, Bennett mentions *meum cor, meum corculum, mel meum, meum savium, meum labellum* (p. 273). But I'm not sure that this use characteristically requires a &quot;vocative case&quot; form since there are some masculine examples in the same section that look like nominatives: *meus ocellus, meus molliculus caseus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe looking at the exact context would make the situation more certain: the answer by Alex B. that I linked to above indicates that the nominative case is used for appositive expressions specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ashdowne, Richard. &quot;[The vocative’s calling? The syntax of address in Latin](https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:e666d76a-de0e-454e-83ba-77e06e64c492/download_file?safe_filename=Item&amp;file_format=application%2Fpdf&amp;type_of_work=Journal+article)&quot;. *[Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology &amp; Phonetics](https://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/files/owp2002.pdf),* Volume 7, May 2002, pp. 143-162.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bennett, Charles Edwin. 1914. *[Syntax of Early Latin: Vol II—The Cases](https://books.google.com/books?id=IH8KAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA268#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bungard, Christopher William. 2008. &quot;[Playing with your role in Plautine Theater](https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1211552932&amp;disposition=inline)&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10684" RevisionGUID="cee4fa5d-e94c-4475-9484-6aba8b48572a" CreationDate="2019-05-07T21:21:23.223" UserId="9" Text="There is no single standard for Latin pronunciation. The main division is between reconstructed pronunciation (based on our idea of what Classical Latin sounded like) vs. everything else. As Draconis mentioned, in reconstructed pronunciation &quot;ti&quot; is just pronounced as a sequence of the T sound [t] followed by one of the two I sounds, **ĭ** [i~ɪ] or **ī** [iː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most other pronunciation systems, &quot;ti&quot; has a special pronunciation where the T is &quot;assibilated&quot; in certain contexts. This phenomenon is based on a sound change that is thought to have occurred naturally in the development of the spoken language; however, I think that the &quot;rules&quot; or &quot;standards&quot; connecting the use of this pronunciation in modern speech to particular written contexts may be partly artificial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's thought that the original development of the assibilated T was to an affricate sound [t͡s]; in some languages such as French and English, this underwent further developments (to [s] or in English often to [ʃ]). I don't know of any tradition of Latin pronunciation that uses an elongated sound in this context: in fact, I've heard that Ecclesiastical Latin has specifically short [t͡s] in words like *natio* in contrast to the long [tt͡s] that many Italian speakers use in Italian words like *spazzi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the conditions that I know of for the palatalization of T in Latin pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, two clear conditions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The assibilated pronunciation of T developed only when the I was followed by another vowel. (The original conditioning factor for the assibilation may have been a change of I to a glide [j].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The assibilated pronunciation of T did not develop after the sound [s]. There are numerous examples with the spelling &amp;lt;sti&gt;; there aren't so many with the spelling &amp;lt;xti&gt;, but *mixtio* seems to be given by a number of sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (In English, the [tj] of words spelled with &amp;lt;sti&gt; and &amp;lt;xti&gt; developed for many speakers via palatalization to [tʃ], as in the words *bestial* and *question.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, some conditions that are more uncertain:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- According to Blair (1873), the T in *totius* was not assibilated because the I was long (*tōtīus*) (*[Latin Pronunciation: An Inquiry Into the Proper Sound of the Latin Language during the Classical Period](https://books.google.com/books?id=s3NXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA118),* p. 118). As Draconis mentioned, contrastive vowel length *per se* is lost in Ecclesiastical Latin, but it is not irrelevant in all cases to pronunciation: the position of stress in Ecclesiastical Latin corresponds to the stress of Classical Latin, which was assigned by a length-based rule. For example, *termĭnus* is stressed on the third-to-last syllable in both Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin, and *bovīnus* is stressed on the second-to-last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A complication in the case of *totius* is that an alternative scansion *tōtĭus* was used sometimes in poetry. I don't know whether this led to the development of an Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation *ˈto[t͡s]ius* with initial stress. If a pronunciation of *totius* with stress on the second syllable is/was used in Ecclesiastical Latin, I feel like it would be more likely to be *to[ˈti]us* than *to[ˈtsi]us,* but I'm not entirely sure. This online &quot;[Guide to Latin Pronunciation](http://www.olrl.org/pray/gtolatin.shtml)&quot; does give *totius* (without marking of the stress) as an example of a word where *t* is pronounced as [t͡s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Supposedly, the assibilated pronunciation of T is not used in words spelled with &amp;lt;tti&gt;. There are very few examples of &amp;lt;tti&gt; followed by a vowel in Latin, so I asked a separate question to try to determine the evidence for this rule: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8824&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I've seen a few sources that say that T was not or should not be assibilated in words from Greek. Blair's explanation is that &quot;in Greek words (as *Aegyptius*), as the I is not consonantal, the T cannot be hissed&quot; (p. 118). I have the impression that the actual pronunciation used with words of this sort is sporadic and might vary between different time periods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm not sure what the usual practice is for words starting with *ti-* followed by a vowel (such as *tiara*). I would not assibilate the T in *tiara,* since I'm used to pronouncing [t] in the English word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10684" RevisionGUID="227abfec-c3a7-42d9-b2e6-43d08a143f6e" CreationDate="2019-05-07T21:39:48.320" UserId="9" Comment="added 904 characters in body" Text="There is no single standard for Latin pronunciation. The main division is between reconstructed pronunciation (based on our idea of what Classical Latin sounded like) vs. everything else. As Draconis mentioned, in reconstructed pronunciation &quot;ti&quot; is just pronounced as a sequence of the T sound [t] followed by one of the two I sounds, **ĭ** [i~ɪ] or **ī** [iː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most other pronunciation systems, &quot;ti&quot; has a special pronunciation where the T is &quot;assibilated&quot; in certain contexts. This phenomenon is based on a sound change that is thought to have occurred naturally in the development of the spoken language; however, I think that the &quot;rules&quot; or &quot;standards&quot; connecting the use of this pronunciation in modern speech to particular written contexts may be partly artificial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's thought that the original development of the assibilated T was to an affricate sound [t͡s]; in some languages such as French and English, this underwent further developments (to [s] or in English often to [ʃ]). I don't know of any tradition of Latin pronunciation that uses an elongated sound in this context: in fact, I've heard that Ecclesiastical Latin has specifically short [t͡s] in words like *natio* in contrast to the long [tt͡s] that many Italian speakers use in Italian words like *spazzi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the conditions that I know of for the palatalization of T in Latin pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, two clear conditions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The assibilated pronunciation of T developed only when the I was followed by another vowel. (The original conditioning factor for the assibilation may have been a change of I to a glide [j].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The assibilated pronunciation of T did not develop after the sound [s]. There are numerous examples with the spelling &amp;lt;sti&gt;; there aren't so many with the spelling &amp;lt;xti&gt;, but *mixtio* seems to be given by a number of sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (In English, the [tj] of words spelled with &amp;lt;sti&gt; and &amp;lt;xti&gt; developed for many speakers via palatalization to [tʃ], as in the words *bestial* and *question.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, some conditions that are more uncertain:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- According to Blair (1873), the T in *totius* was not assibilated because the I was long (*tōtīus*) (*[Latin Pronunciation: An Inquiry Into the Proper Sound of the Latin Language during the Classical Period](https://books.google.com/books?id=s3NXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA118),* p. 118). As Draconis mentioned, contrastive vowel length *per se* is lost in Ecclesiastical Latin, but it is not irrelevant in all cases to pronunciation: the position of stress in Ecclesiastical Latin corresponds to the stress of Classical Latin, which was assigned by a length-based rule. For example, *termĭnus* is stressed on the third-to-last syllable in both Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin, and *bovīnus* is stressed on the second-to-last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A complication in the case of *totius* is that an alternative scansion *tōtĭus* was used sometimes in poetry. I don't know whether this led to the development of an Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation *ˈto[t͡s]ius* with initial stress. If a pronunciation of *totius* with stress on the second syllable is/was used in Ecclesiastical Latin, I feel like it would be more likely to be *to*[ˈti]*us* than *to*[ˈtsi]*us,* but I'm not entirely sure. This online &quot;[Guide to Latin Pronunciation](http://www.olrl.org/pray/gtolatin.shtml)&quot; does give *totius* (without marking of the stress) as an example of a word where *t* is pronounced as [t͡s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Long vowels rarely occur before other vowels in Latin. Aside from the small class of words with *-īus* genitives, such as *tōtīus,* a sequence of *tī* and a vowel mainly shows up in words taken from Greek (which I mention further down as a possible doubtful case for assibilation of T). Specifically, there are a fair number of words that end in *-tīa* (or at least, that are expected to based on the Greek form), such as *[necromantīa](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnecromantia)* and *goētīa.* I don't know whether these have any single established pronunciation in Ecclesiastical Latin, or whether there is variation between pronunciations like *necroˈman*[ts]*ia, necroman*ˈ[ts]*ia* and *necroman*ˈ[t]*ia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The English form *necromancy,* with [s], is ultimately descended from some form with assibilation, but I don't know the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Supposedly, the assibilated pronunciation of T is not used in words spelled with &amp;lt;tti&gt;. There are very few examples of &amp;lt;tti&gt; followed by a vowel in Latin, so I asked a separate question to try to determine the evidence for this rule: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8824&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I've seen a few sources that say that T was not or should not be assibilated in words from Greek. Blair's explanation is that &quot;in Greek words (as *Aegyptius*), as the I is not consonantal, the T cannot be hissed&quot; (p. 118). I have the impression that the actual pronunciation used with words of this sort is sporadic and might vary between different time periods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm not sure what the usual practice is for words starting with *ti-* followed by a vowel (such as *tiara*). I would not assibilate the T in *tiara,* since I'm used to pronouncing [t] in the English word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10684" RevisionGUID="57e648cf-4367-4143-b769-19a3129d37e0" CreationDate="2019-05-07T21:45:40.073" UserId="9" Comment="added 904 characters in body" Text="There is no single standard for Latin pronunciation. The main division is between reconstructed pronunciation (based on our idea of what Classical Latin sounded like) vs. everything else. As Draconis mentioned, in reconstructed pronunciation &quot;ti&quot; is just pronounced as a sequence of the T sound [t] followed by one of the two I sounds, **ĭ** [i~ɪ] or **ī** [iː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most other pronunciation systems, &quot;ti&quot; has a special pronunciation where the T is &quot;assibilated&quot; in certain contexts. This phenomenon is based on a sound change that is thought to have occurred naturally in the development of the spoken language; however, I think that the &quot;rules&quot; or &quot;standards&quot; connecting the use of this pronunciation in modern speech to particular written contexts may be partly artificial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's thought that the original development of the assibilated T was to an affricate sound [t͡s]; in some languages such as French and English, this underwent further developments (to [s] or in English often to [ʃ]). I don't know of any tradition of Latin pronunciation that uses an elongated sound in this context: in fact, I've heard that Ecclesiastical Latin has specifically short [t͡s] in words like *natio* in contrast to the long [tt͡s] that many Italian speakers use in Italian words like *spazzi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the conditions that I know of for the palatalization of T in Latin pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, two clear conditions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The assibilated pronunciation of T developed only when the I was followed by another vowel. (The original conditioning factor for the assibilation may have been a change of I to a glide [j].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The assibilated pronunciation of T did not develop after the sound [s]. There are numerous examples with the spelling &amp;lt;sti&gt;; there aren't so many with the spelling &amp;lt;xti&gt;, but *mixtio* seems to be given by a number of sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (In English, the [tj] of words spelled with &amp;lt;sti&gt; and &amp;lt;xti&gt; developed for many speakers via palatalization to [tʃ], as in the words *bestial* and *question.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, some conditions that are more uncertain:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- According to Blair (1873), the T in *totius* was not assibilated because the I was long (*tōtīus*) (*[Latin Pronunciation: An Inquiry Into the Proper Sound of the Latin Language during the Classical Period](https://books.google.com/books?id=s3NXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA118),* p. 118). As Draconis mentioned, contrastive vowel length *per se* is lost in Ecclesiastical Latin, but it is not irrelevant in all cases to pronunciation: the position of stress in Ecclesiastical Latin corresponds to the stress of Classical Latin, which was assigned by a length-based rule. For example, *termĭnus* is stressed on the third-to-last syllable in both Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin, and *bovīnus* is stressed on the second-to-last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A complication in the case of *totius* is that an alternative scansion *tōtĭus* was used sometimes in poetry. I don't know whether this led to the development of an Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation *ˈto[t͡s]ius* with initial stress. If a pronunciation of *totius* with stress on the second syllable is/was used in Ecclesiastical Latin, I feel like it would be more likely to be *to*[ˈti]*us* than *to*[ˈtsi]*us,* but I'm not entirely sure. This online &quot;[Guide to Latin Pronunciation](http://www.olrl.org/pray/gtolatin.shtml)&quot; does give *totius* (without marking of the stress) as an example of a word where *t* is pronounced as [t͡s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Long vowels rarely occur before other vowels in Latin. Aside from the small class of words with *-īus* genitives, such as *tōtīus,* a sequence of *tī* and a vowel mainly shows up in words taken from Greek (which I mention further down as a possible doubtful case for assibilation of T). Specifically, there are a fair number of words that end in *-tīa* (or at least, that are expected to based on the Greek form), such as *[necromantīa](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnecromantia)* and *goētīa.* I don't know whether these have any single established pronunciation in Ecclesiastical Latin, or whether there is variation between pronunciations like *necroˈman*[ts]*ia, necroman*ˈ[ts]*ia* and *necroman*ˈ[t]*ia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The English form *necromancy,* with [s], is ultimately descended from some form with assibilation, but I don't know the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Italian seems to have [ˈtsia] in the word *[negromanzia](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/negromanzia).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Supposedly, the assibilated pronunciation of T is not used in words spelled with &amp;lt;tti&gt;. There are very few examples of &amp;lt;tti&gt; followed by a vowel in Latin, so I asked a separate question to try to determine the evidence for this rule: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8824&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I've seen a few sources that say that T was not or should not be assibilated in words from Greek. Blair's explanation is that &quot;in Greek words (as *Aegyptius*), as the I is not consonantal, the T cannot be hissed&quot; (p. 118). I have the impression that the actual pronunciation used with words of this sort is sporadic and might vary between different time periods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm not sure what the usual practice is for words starting with *ti-* followed by a vowel (such as *tiara*). I would not assibilate the T in *tiara,* since I'm used to pronouncing [t] in the English word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Italian also seems to have [t] rather than [ts] in *[tiara](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/tiara).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10684" RevisionGUID="11e10402-6109-4ecc-b79a-3bf317549e90" CreationDate="2019-05-07T21:50:50.220" UserId="9" Comment="added 904 characters in body" Text="There is no single standard for Latin pronunciation. The main division is between reconstructed pronunciation (based on our idea of what Classical Latin sounded like) vs. everything else. As Draconis mentioned, in reconstructed pronunciation &quot;ti&quot; is just pronounced as a sequence of the T sound [t] followed by one of the two I sounds, **ĭ** [i~ɪ] or **ī** [iː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most other pronunciation systems, &quot;ti&quot; has a special pronunciation where the T is &quot;assibilated&quot; in certain contexts. This phenomenon is based on a sound change that is thought to have occurred naturally in the development of the spoken language; however, I think that the &quot;rules&quot; or &quot;standards&quot; connecting the use of this pronunciation in modern speech to particular written contexts may be partly artificial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's thought that the original development of the assibilated T was to an affricate sound [t͡s]; in some languages such as French and English, this underwent further developments (to [s] or in English often to [ʃ]). I don't know of any tradition of Latin pronunciation that uses an elongated sound in this context: in fact, I've heard that Ecclesiastical Latin has specifically short [t͡s] in words like *natio* in contrast to the long [tt͡s] that many Italian speakers use in Italian words like *spazzi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the conditions that I know of for the palatalization of T in Latin pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, two clear conditions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The assibilated pronunciation of T developed only when the I was followed by another vowel. (The original conditioning factor for the assibilation may have been a change of I to a glide [j].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The assibilated pronunciation of T did not develop after the sound [s]. There are numerous examples with the spelling &amp;lt;sti&gt;; there aren't so many with the spelling &amp;lt;xti&gt;, but *mixtio* seems to be given by a number of sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (In English, the [tj] of words spelled with &amp;lt;sti&gt; and &amp;lt;xti&gt; developed for many speakers via palatalization to [tʃ], as in the words *bestial* and *question.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, some conditions that are more uncertain:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- According to Blair (1873), the T in *totius* was not assibilated because the I was long (*tōtīus*) (*[Latin Pronunciation: An Inquiry Into the Proper Sound of the Latin Language during the Classical Period](https://books.google.com/books?id=s3NXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA118),* p. 118). As Draconis mentioned, contrastive vowel length *per se* is lost in Ecclesiastical Latin, but it is not irrelevant in all cases to pronunciation: the position of stress in Ecclesiastical Latin corresponds to the stress of Classical Latin, which was assigned by a length-based rule. For example, *termĭnus* is stressed on the third-to-last syllable in both Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin, and *bovīnus* is stressed on the second-to-last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A complication in the case of *totius* is that an alternative scansion *tōtĭus* was used sometimes in poetry. I don't know whether this led to the development of an Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation *ˈto[t͡s]ius* with initial stress. If a pronunciation of *totius* with stress on the second syllable is/was used in Ecclesiastical Latin, I feel like it would be more likely to be *to*[ˈti]*us* than *to*[ˈtsi]*us,* but I'm not entirely sure. This online &quot;[Guide to Latin Pronunciation](http://www.olrl.org/pray/gtolatin.shtml)&quot; does give *totius* (without marking of the stress) as an example of a word where *t* is pronounced as [t͡s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Long vowels rarely occur before other vowels in Latin. Aside from the small class of words with *-īus* genitives, such as *tōtīus,* a sequence of *tī* and a vowel mainly shows up in words taken from Greek (which I mention further down as a possible doubtful case for assibilation of T). Specifically, there are a fair number of words that end in *-tīa* (or at least, that are expected to based on the Greek form), such as *[necromantīa](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnecromantia)* and *goētīa.* I don't know whether these have any single established pronunciation in Ecclesiastical Latin, or whether there is variation between pronunciations like *necroˈman*[ts]*ia, necroman*ˈ[ts]*ia* and *necroman*ˈ[t]*ia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The English form *necromancy,* with [s], is ultimately descended from some form with assibilation, but I don't know the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Italian seems to have [ˈtsia] in the word *[negromanzia](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/negromanzia),* and also in some words from Greek *-τία* nouns like *[democrazia](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/democrazia)* (from δημοκρατία).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Supposedly, the assibilated pronunciation of T is not used in words spelled with &amp;lt;tti&gt;. There are very few examples of &amp;lt;tti&gt; followed by a vowel in Latin, so I asked a separate question to try to determine the evidence for this rule: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8824&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I've seen a few sources that say that T was not or should not be assibilated in words from Greek. Blair's explanation is that &quot;in Greek words (as *Aegyptius*), as the I is not consonantal, the T cannot be hissed&quot; (p. 118). I have the impression that the actual pronunciation used with words of this sort is sporadic and might vary between different time periods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm not sure what the usual practice is for words starting with *ti-* followed by a vowel (such as *tiara*). I would not assibilate the T in *tiara,* since I'm used to pronouncing [t] in the English word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Italian also seems to have [t] rather than [ts] in *[tiara](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/tiara).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10685" RevisionGUID="8972fbb7-3757-4df3-af1e-40607fe1fda1" CreationDate="2019-05-07T23:12:30.950" UserId="13" Text="Somewhat recently, I stumbled upon [this Italian Sappho anthology](https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/11675/1/Saffo_frammenti_2015.pdf), where, among other combinations, the following is found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First off, they are not listing all the fragments joined into this combination. Besides LP 86, LP 60, and LP 65, there are also LP 66(c) and LP 67(a) in here. I tried to trace all I saw here, and mostly succeeded, except for ll. 12-13, which seem to have come from nowhere. I color-coded LP 60 black, LP 67(a) blue, LP 65 red, LP 66(c) green, the unidentified end-of-lines pink, and LP 86 purple, and, with minimal adjustments to the text (including reinstating a completely ignored line of 67(a) which gives the very beginning of l. 21 - and the translation &quot;circonda&quot;, &quot;surrounds&quot;, makes me optimist since I know ἀμφιβάσκει means &quot;surrounds&quot; from an Edmonds restoration reading μυρίαν ἄμμω]ν ῤύτιν ἀμφιβάσκει), I got the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the supplements are usually left black, unless they are somehow &quot;called for&quot; by a papyrus fragment, in which case they take the color of that fragment. Note also that this is a preview of a blog post due next Saturday, hence the green background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a couple guesses as to the origin of those pink letters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. They come from lines in P.Halle 3 (source of the black part of my collage) which for some reason weren't included in the Lobel-Page text. Which would clearly beg the question: why did LP not include those lines? And why did this anthology do it? Then again, P.Halle 3 was republished as P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 44, and the volume of &quot;The Oxyrhynchus Papyri&quot; containing P.Oxy. 1787 (vol. XV) doesn't have those lines, so I guess we can exclude this.&#xD;&#xA; 2. They come from another LP fragment, in which case they'd somehow have to come from LP 87(15), the only one from P.Oxy. 1787 vaguely matching those things. Which would beg the question: where is l. 1 of that fragment, and where are the vestige in «.ν» and the uncertain alpha in the following line come from, since LP didn't have them in the text of 87(15)?&#xD;&#xA; 3. They come from another P.Oxy. 1787 fragment which was relocated among another author's works, e.g. one of the hundred-odd that Lobel decided were Pindar (cfr. [this older question of mine](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7061/about-p-oxy-1787-fr-9)). Which begs the questions: (a) Was it just two lines? (b) If so, why was it relocated? (c) If not, where is the rest of it in this joining? Looking at _The Oxyrhynchus Papyri_ vol. XV, I realized 87(15) was not P.Oxy. 1787, but P.Oxy 2166(d), so those may have to be searched too. The Oxyrhynchus volume doesn't give any fragments that could be the source of those pink lines, and LP has all 2166(d) fragments from 1 to 13, so either it's 2166(d) fr. 5 (aka LP 87(15)), or it's a 2166(d) fragment with number not between 1 and 13, or I'm missing something.&#xD;&#xA; 4. They come from a very recent fragment I have never heard about, found after Lobel-Page. Which obviously makes me curious to know more about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you help me trace those to their source?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/L9seT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JVtvS.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xZbaq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gHlu6l.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31288" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10685" RevisionGUID="8972fbb7-3757-4df3-af1e-40607fe1fda1" CreationDate="2019-05-07T23:12:30.950" UserId="13" Text="Tracing mysterious line ends in a combination of Sappho fragments found in an Italian anthology" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31289" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10685" RevisionGUID="8972fbb7-3757-4df3-af1e-40607fe1fda1" CreationDate="2019-05-07T23:12:30.950" UserId="13" Text="|greek|sappho|text-corpus|passage-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10684" RevisionGUID="4abf899d-c886-4aac-b2b3-796e4bbc8b6a" CreationDate="2019-05-07T23:21:20.160" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="There is no single standard for Latin pronunciation. The main division is between reconstructed pronunciation (based on our idea of what Classical Latin sounded like) vs. everything else. As Draconis mentioned, in reconstructed pronunciation &quot;ti&quot; is just pronounced as a sequence of the T sound [t] followed by one of the two I sounds, **ĭ** [i~ɪ] or **ī** [iː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most other pronunciation systems, &quot;ti&quot; has a special pronunciation where the T is &quot;assibilated&quot; in certain contexts. This phenomenon is based on a sound change that is thought to have occurred naturally in the development of the spoken language; however, I think that the &quot;rules&quot; or &quot;standards&quot; connecting the use of this pronunciation in modern speech to particular written contexts may be partly artificial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's thought that the original development of the assibilated T was to an affricate sound [t͡s]; in some languages such as French and English, this underwent further developments (to [s] or in English often to [ʃ]). I don't know of any tradition of Latin pronunciation that uses an elongated sound in this context: in fact, I've heard that Ecclesiastical Latin has specifically short [t͡s] in words like *natio* in contrast to the long [tt͡s] that many Italian speakers use in Italian words like *spazzi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the conditions that I know of for the assibilation of T in Latin pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, two clear conditions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The assibilated pronunciation of T developed only when the I was followed by another vowel. (The original conditioning factor for the assibilation may have been a change of I to a glide [j].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The assibilated pronunciation of T did not develop after the sound [s]. There are numerous examples with the spelling &amp;lt;sti&gt;; there aren't so many with the spelling &amp;lt;xti&gt;, but *mixtio* seems to be given by a number of sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (In English, the [tj] of words spelled with &amp;lt;sti&gt; and &amp;lt;xti&gt; developed for many speakers via palatalization to [tʃ], as in the words *bestial* and *question.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, some conditions that are more uncertain:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- According to Blair (1873), the T in *totius* was not assibilated because the I was long (*tōtīus*) (*[Latin Pronunciation: An Inquiry Into the Proper Sound of the Latin Language during the Classical Period](https://books.google.com/books?id=s3NXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA118),* p. 118). As Draconis mentioned, contrastive vowel length *per se* is lost in Ecclesiastical Latin, but it is not irrelevant in all cases to pronunciation: the position of stress in Ecclesiastical Latin corresponds to the stress of Classical Latin, which was assigned by a length-based rule. For example, *termĭnus* is stressed on the third-to-last syllable in both Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin, and *bovīnus* is stressed on the second-to-last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A complication in the case of *totius* is that an alternative scansion *tōtĭus* was used sometimes in poetry. I don't know whether this led to the development of an Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation *ˈto[t͡s]ius* with initial stress. If a pronunciation of *totius* with stress on the second syllable is/was used in Ecclesiastical Latin, I feel like it would be more likely to be *to*[ˈti]*us* than *to*[ˈtsi]*us,* but I'm not entirely sure. This online &quot;[Guide to Latin Pronunciation](http://www.olrl.org/pray/gtolatin.shtml)&quot; does give *totius* (without marking of the stress) as an example of a word where *t* is pronounced as [t͡s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Long vowels rarely occur before other vowels in Latin. Aside from the small class of words with *-īus* genitives, such as *tōtīus,* *ī* followed by a vowel mainly shows up in words taken from Greek (which I mention further down as a possible doubtful case for assibilation of T). Specifically, there are a fair number of words that end in *-tīa* (or at least, that are expected to based on the Greek form), such as *[necromantīa](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnecromantia)* and *goētīa.* I don't know whether these have any single established pronunciation in Ecclesiastical Latin, or whether there is variation between pronunciations like *necroˈman*[ts]*ia, necroman*ˈ[ts]*ia* and *necroman*ˈ[t]*ia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The English form *necromancy,* with [s], is ultimately descended from some form with assibilation, but I don't know the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Italian seems to have [ˈtsia] in the word *[negromanzia](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/negromanzia),* and also in some words from Greek *-τία* nouns like *[democrazia](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/democrazia)* (from δημοκρατία).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Supposedly, the assibilated pronunciation of T is not used in words spelled with &amp;lt;tti&gt;. There are very few examples of &amp;lt;tti&gt; followed by a vowel in Latin, so I asked a separate question to try to determine the evidence for this rule: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8824&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I've seen a few sources that say that T was not or should not be assibilated in words from Greek. Blair's explanation is that &quot;in Greek words (as *Aegyptius*), as the I is not consonantal, the T cannot be hissed&quot; (p. 118). I have the impression that the actual pronunciation used with words of this sort is sporadic and might vary between different time periods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm not sure what the usual practice is for words starting with *ti-* followed by a vowel (such as *tiara*). I would not assibilate the T in *tiara,* since I'm used to pronouncing [t] in the English word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Italian also seems to have [t] rather than [ts] in *[tiara](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/tiara).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10686" RevisionGUID="931a4449-ed38-44db-af90-19b74003b138" CreationDate="2019-05-07T23:46:43.267" UserId="3248" Text="I think that the meanings attributed by sumelic to _nasciturus_ and _nascendus_ (&quot;about to be born&quot; and &quot;needing to be born&quot;, respectively) are quite appropriate. _Nasciturus_ is not problematic. So I guess that the question has to do with the somewhat unexpected form _nascendus_. In this sense I consider sumelic's excerpt above from Roby's (1875) grammar quite interesting. So if I understand the question above correctly, one would like to know **WHY** the apparently unexpected _-nd-_ forms of the _nascendus_-type commented on by Roby are found with **_-sc-_** verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I think that part of the answer can have to do with the fact that the class of intransitive _-sc-_ verbs is formed by **unaccusative** verbs, namely, those intransitive verbs that, semantically speaking, have a Theme/Patient argument, which, syntactically speaking, has been claimed to act as a &quot;direct internal argument&quot;. In the linguistic literature, there are two types of direct internal arguments: direct objects of transitive verbs **and** subjects of unaccusative verbs. In fact, according to many formal syntacticians, the (derived) subject of unaccusatives is generated as a **direct object**. So perhaps the existence of this parallelism (the one between direct objects of transitives and subjects of unaccusatives) makes Roby's point on _-sc-_ verbs less unexpected or at least not so surprising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The previous explanation has a non-trivial problem: intransitive _-sc-_ verbs form a very important subclass of unaccusative verbs (probably, the most productive one), but what about unaccusatives like _mori_? As pointed out by Vincenzo Oliva, _moriendus_ is not a possible form. Well, perhaps a &quot;blocking&quot; phenomenon is relevant here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_(linguistics)): the existence of _moribundus_ can be said to prevent the formation of _moriendus_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for sumelic's final impression that &quot;there wouldn't be very many situations where one should use _nascendus_&quot;, please take a look at the examples below. I've just consulted Pinkster's (2015) _Oxford Latin Syntax_ and he, basically, gives examples that confirm Roby's insightful point on _-sc-_ verbs without providing any explanation of why this class of verbs is the one affected. Indeed, the topic is complex... Here is the list of examples given by Pinkster on page 296:    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cui testis aestas et hiems, quod in altera aer ardet et spica aret, in altera natura ad&#xD;&#xA;**nascenda** cum imbre et frigore luctare non volt . . . (Var. _L_ 5.61)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Seclum spatium annorum centum vocarunt, dictum a sene, quod longissimum spatium **senescendorum** hominum id putarunt. (Var. L. 6.11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Genethliaci quidam scripserunt, inquit (Varro) esse in **renascendis** hominibus quam appellant 'palliggenesían' Graeci. (Varro _ap._ August. _Civ._ 22.28) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AEDIS·FLORAE QUAE·REBUS **FLORESCENDIS** PRAEEST DEDICATA EST PROPTER STERILITATEM·FRUGUM (_CIL_ I1, p. 236.28 (Fasti Praenestini, between 6 and 9 AD))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Semel haec mihi videnda sint, an saepe **nascendum**? (Sen. _Ep._ 65.20)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... in moribus **inolescendis** magnam fere partem ingenium altricis et natura lactis&#xD;&#xA;tenet... (Gell. 12.1.20)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...exque eo genitos vel **nascendos** filios [‘sons yet to be born’!] similiter paternae condicioni subiacere praecipimus. (_Cod. Just._ 5.27.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, when discussing the nature of gerundive, some lines above Pinkster (2015: 295) concludes: &quot;It **seems**, then, that interpretation of a gerundive as passive or (more frequently) active depends on **contextual** and sometimes on **extralinguistic** information&quot; (bold/emphasis mine). Well, perhaps he is right or perhaps he is not... For a more grammatical perspective, see the following work by Miller:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller, D. Gary. (2000). &quot;Gerund and gerundive in Latin&quot;. _Diachronica_ 17 (2): 293–349. DOI: 10.1075/dia.17.2.03mil &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, as you can see, this topic of Latin grammar is very complex. Perhaps some of you would like to write some work (paper, doctoral dissertation, ...) on gerundives. If so, please keep me posted (by the way, I don't know if comments like this one are allowed in this site. If they are not appropriate, please, editors, feel free to delete it. Thanks!).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10687" RevisionGUID="c82e03e6-d1b9-4b05-a3c3-98c619eb2b52" CreationDate="2019-05-08T01:04:19.307" UserId="9" Text="This is not an example of a &quot;Roman view&quot; on wolves and dogs, but a story that seems to have come from the Greek world that Romans became aware of at some point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fable of &quot;[The Dog and the Wolf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dog_and_the_Wolf)&quot; is included in at least some collections of the fables of Aesop; Wikipedia says it is &quot;well attested in later Greek sources, including the collection of Babrius, as well as in the Latin collection of Phaedrus&quot;. I found a Latin version here (&quot;[Lupus ad Canem](http://mftd.org/index.php?action=story&amp;id=7868)&quot;) although I'm not sure exactly where the text comes from. The Wikipedia article on [Phaedrus the fabulist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaedrus_(fabulist)) says that he lived in Rome in the first century CE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fable compares the dog's comfortable life of servitude to the wolf's life which has less security but more freedom. The use of these two animals in the story could imply a certain understanding of the similarities of wolves and dogs, and of the way dogs differ in being domesticated rather than wild." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10687" RevisionGUID="023130dc-4a76-42be-b8c9-7440906f4dae" CreationDate="2019-05-08T01:11:58.253" UserId="9" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="This is not an example of a &quot;Roman view&quot; on wolves and dogs, but a story that seems to have come from the Greek world that Romans became aware of at some point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fable of &quot;[The Dog and the Wolf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dog_and_the_Wolf)&quot; is included in at least some collections of the fables of Aesop; Wikipedia says it is &quot;well attested in later Greek sources, including the collection of Babrius, as well as in the Latin collection of Phaedrus&quot;. I found a Latin version here (&quot;[Lupus ad Canem](http://mftd.org/index.php?action=story&amp;id=7868)&quot;) although I'm not sure exactly where the text comes from. The Wikipedia article on [Phaedrus the fabulist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaedrus_(fabulist)) says that he lived in Rome in the first century CE. Apparently, although Martial mentions Phaedrus’ work, there are not many references to Phaedrus in ancient times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fable compares the dog's comfortable life of servitude to the wolf's life which has less security but more freedom. The use of these two animals in the story could imply a certain understanding of the similarities of wolves and dogs, and of the way dogs differ in being domesticated rather than wild." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10688" RevisionGUID="5ebb16b0-e59a-4674-9118-9ef5324d914c" CreationDate="2019-05-08T02:05:38.100" UserId="9" Text="It seems the frequency of the assimilation -NL- &gt; -LL- may depend on the word. [Hale and Buck's *Latin Grammar*](https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA24) (first published 1903) says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spellings like **adferō, adsignō, conlocō,** etc., prevailed to the almost total exclusion of **afferiō, assignō, collocō** until several centuries after Christ, so that we must believe that **ad** and **con** were actually so pronounced in such words. Yet [...] the spelling **conlēgium,** exclusively employed down to the time of Augustus, gives way to **collēgium** in the Augustan period, though **conlocō** and other similar forms continue to prevail until a much later period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 24)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next page gives the following summary for the use of *con-l-* vs. *col-l-*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Before **l**, the unassimilated form is preferable except in **col-ligo** and its compounds, e.g. **con-locō, con-loquium, con-lāpsus,** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 25)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser (2016) argues that the high rate of assimilation in *colligo* arose from its frequency (&quot;[Aspects of the Phonology and Morphology of Classical Latin](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf)&quot;, Figure 36, p. 173)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10686" RevisionGUID="fb48900f-1480-4c71-ba0a-bdcd5e092555" CreationDate="2019-05-08T03:20:55.357" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="I think that the meanings attributed by sumelic to _nasciturus_ and _nascendus_ (&quot;about to be born&quot; and &quot;needing to be born&quot;, respectively) are more or less appropriate (NB: the modal meaning &quot;needing&quot; is not present in all gerundives. Rather the &quot;conditio sine qua non&quot; for gerundives seems to be that their argument must be a Patient/Theme). The form _nasciturus_ is not problematic. So I guess that the question has to do with the apparently somewhat unexpected form _nascendus_. In this sense I consider sumelic's excerpt above from Roby's (1875) grammar quite interesting and, in fact, crucial to understand the problem (why _nascendus_ is a possible form). So if I understand the question above correctly, one would like to know **WHY** the apparently unexpected _-nd-_ forms of the _nascendus_-type commented on by Roby are found with **_-sc-_** verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I think that part of the answer can have to do with the fact that the class of intransitive _-sc-_ verbs is formed by **unaccusative** verbs, namely, those intransitive verbs that, semantically speaking, have a Theme/Patient argument, which, syntactically speaking, has been claimed to act as a &quot;direct internal argument&quot;. In the linguistic literature, there are two types of direct internal arguments: direct objects of transitive verbs **and** subjects of unaccusative verbs. In fact, according to many formal syntacticians, the (derived) subject of unaccusatives is generated as a **direct object**. So perhaps the existence of this parallelism (the one between direct objects of transitives and subjects of unaccusatives) makes Roby's point on _-sc-_ verbs less unexpected or at least not so surprising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The previous explanation has a non-trivial problem: intransitive _-sc-_ verbs form a very important subclass of unaccusative verbs (probably, the most productive one), but what about unaccusatives like _mori_? As pointed out by Vincenzo Oliva, _moriendus_ is not a possible form. Well, perhaps a &quot;blocking&quot; phenomenon is relevant here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_(linguistics)): the existence of _moribundus_ can be said to prevent the formation of _moriendus_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for sumelic's final impression that &quot;there wouldn't be very many situations where one should use _nascendus_&quot;, please take a look at the examples below. I've just consulted Pinkster's (2015) _Oxford Latin Syntax_ and he, basically, gives examples that confirm Roby's insightful point on _-sc-_ verbs without providing any explanation of why this class of verbs is the one affected. Indeed, the topic is complex... Here is the list of examples given by Pinkster on page 296:    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cui testis aestas et hiems, quod in altera aer ardet et spica aret, in altera natura ad&#xD;&#xA;**nascenda** cum imbre et frigore luctare non volt . . . (Var. _L_ 5.61)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Seclum spatium annorum centum vocarunt, dictum a sene, quod longissimum spatium **senescendorum** hominum id putarunt. (Var. L. 6.11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Genethliaci quidam scripserunt, inquit (Varro) esse in **renascendis** hominibus quam appellant 'palliggenesían' Graeci. (Varro _ap._ August. _Civ._ 22.28) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AEDIS·FLORAE QUAE·REBUS **FLORESCENDIS** PRAEEST DEDICATA EST PROPTER STERILITATEM·FRUGUM (_CIL_ I1, p. 236.28 (Fasti Praenestini, between 6 and 9 AD))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Semel haec mihi videnda sint, an saepe **nascendum**? (Sen. _Ep._ 65.20)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... in moribus **inolescendis** magnam fere partem ingenium altricis et natura lactis&#xD;&#xA;tenet... (Gell. 12.1.20)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...exque eo genitos vel **nascendos** filios [‘sons yet to be born’!] similiter paternae condicioni subiacere praecipimus. (_Cod. Just._ 5.27.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, when discussing the nature of gerundive, some lines above Pinkster (2015: 295) concludes: &quot;It **seems**, then, that interpretation of a gerundive as passive or (more frequently) active depends on **contextual** and sometimes on **extralinguistic** information&quot; (bold/emphasis mine). Well, perhaps he is right or perhaps he is not... For a more grammatical perspective, see the following work by Miller:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller, D. Gary. (2000). &quot;Gerund and gerundive in Latin&quot;. _Diachronica_ 17 (2): 293–349. DOI: 10.1075/dia.17.2.03mil &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, as you can see, this topic of Latin grammar is very complex. Perhaps some of you would like to write some work (paper, doctoral dissertation, ...) on gerundives. If so, please keep me posted (by the way, I don't know if comments like this one are allowed in this site. If they are not appropriate, please, editors, feel free to delete it. Thanks!).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10686" RevisionGUID="fe5dbeb9-b054-4b0f-a5e5-4910425d5075" CreationDate="2019-05-08T03:45:27.203" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="I think that the meanings attributed by sumelic to _nasciturus_ and _nascendus_ (&quot;about to be born&quot; and &quot;needing to be born&quot;, respectively) are more or less appropriate (NB: the modal meaning &quot;needing&quot; is not present in all gerundives. Rather the &quot;conditio sine qua non&quot; for gerundives seems to be that their argument must be a Patient/Theme). The form _nasciturus_ is not problematic. So I guess that the question has to do with the apparently somewhat unexpected form _nascendus_. In this sense I consider sumelic's excerpt above from Roby's (1875) grammar quite interesting and, in fact, crucial to understand the problem (why _nascendus_ is a possible form). So if I understand the question above correctly, one would like to know **WHY** the apparently unexpected **gerundive** forms of the _nascendus_-type commented on by Roby can be found with **intransitive** _-sc-_ verbs. It would seem that gerundives can only be obtained from verbs that can be passivized (cf. Roby's traditional claim that gerundives are passive forms).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I think that part of the answer can have to do with the fact that the class of intransitive _-sc-_ verbs is formed by **unaccusative** verbs, namely, those intransitive verbs that, semantically speaking, have a Theme/Patient argument, which, syntactically speaking, has been claimed to act as a &quot;direct internal argument&quot;. In the linguistic literature, there are two types of direct internal arguments: direct objects of transitive verbs **and** subjects of unaccusative verbs. In fact, according to many formal syntacticians, the (derived) subject of unaccusatives is generated as a **direct object**. So perhaps the existence of this parallelism (the one between direct objects of transitives and subjects of unaccusatives) makes Roby's point on _-sc-_ verbs less unexpected or at least not so surprising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The previous explanation has a non-trivial problem: intransitive _-sc-_ verbs form a very important subclass of unaccusative verbs (probably, the most productive one), but what about unaccusatives like _mori_? As pointed out by Vincenzo Oliva, _moriendus_ is not a possible form. Well, perhaps a &quot;blocking&quot; phenomenon is relevant here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_(linguistics)): the existence of _moribundus_ can be said to prevent the formation of _moriendus_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for sumelic's final impression that &quot;there wouldn't be very many situations where one should use _nascendus_&quot;, please take a look at the examples below. I've just consulted Pinkster's (2015) _Oxford Latin Syntax_ and he, basically, gives examples that confirm Roby's insightful point on _-sc-_ verbs without providing any explanation of why this class of verbs is the one affected. Indeed, the topic is complex... Here is the list of examples given by Pinkster on page 296:    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cui testis aestas et hiems, quod in altera aer ardet et spica aret, in altera natura ad&#xD;&#xA;**nascenda** cum imbre et frigore luctare non volt . . . (Var. _L_ 5.61)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Seclum spatium annorum centum vocarunt, dictum a sene, quod longissimum spatium **senescendorum** hominum id putarunt. (Var. L. 6.11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Genethliaci quidam scripserunt, inquit (Varro) esse in **renascendis** hominibus quam appellant 'palliggenesían' Graeci. (Varro _ap._ August. _Civ._ 22.28) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AEDIS·FLORAE QUAE·REBUS **FLORESCENDIS** PRAEEST DEDICATA EST PROPTER STERILITATEM·FRUGUM (_CIL_ I1, p. 236.28 (Fasti Praenestini, between 6 and 9 AD))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Semel haec mihi videnda sint, an saepe **nascendum**? (Sen. _Ep._ 65.20)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... in moribus **inolescendis** magnam fere partem ingenium altricis et natura lactis&#xD;&#xA;tenet... (Gell. 12.1.20)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...exque eo genitos vel **nascendos** filios [‘sons yet to be born’!] similiter paternae condicioni subiacere praecipimus. (_Cod. Just._ 5.27.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, when discussing the nature of gerundive, some lines above Pinkster (2015: 295) concludes: &quot;It **seems**, then, that interpretation of a gerundive as passive or (more frequently) active depends on **contextual** and sometimes on **extralinguistic** information&quot; (bold/emphasis mine). Well, perhaps he is right or perhaps he is not... For a more grammatical perspective, see the following work by Miller:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller, D. Gary. (2000). &quot;Gerund and gerundive in Latin&quot;. _Diachronica_ 17 (2): 293–349. DOI: 10.1075/dia.17.2.03mil &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, as you can see, this topic of Latin grammar is very complex. Perhaps some of you would like to write some work (paper, doctoral dissertation, ...) on gerundives. If so, please keep me posted (by the way, I don't know if comments like this one are allowed in this site. If they are not appropriate, please, editors, feel free to delete it. Thanks!).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10686" RevisionGUID="6556d212-9366-4c9b-8309-55a4e3d0aafb" CreationDate="2019-05-08T03:54:47.530" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="I think that the meanings attributed by sumelic to _nasciturus_ and _nascendus_ (&quot;about to be born&quot; and &quot;needing to be born&quot;, respectively) are more or less appropriate (NB: the modal meaning &quot;needing&quot; is not present in all gerundives. Rather the &quot;conditio sine qua non&quot; for gerundives seems to be that their argument must be a Patient/Theme). The form _nasciturus_ is not problematic. So I guess that the question has to do with the apparently somewhat unexpected form _nascendus_. In this sense I consider sumelic's excerpt above from Roby's (1875) grammar quite interesting and, in fact, crucial to understand the problem (why _nascendus_ is a possible form). So one would like to know **WHY** the apparently unexpected **gerundive** forms of the _nascendus_-type commented on by Roby can be found with **intransitive** _-sc-_ verbs. It would seem that gerundives can only be obtained from verbs that can be passivized (cf. Roby's traditional claim that gerundives are passive forms).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I think that part of the answer can have to do with the fact that the class of intransitive _-sc-_ verbs is formed by **unaccusative** verbs, namely, those intransitive verbs that, semantically speaking, have a Theme/Patient argument, which, syntactically speaking, has been claimed to act as a &quot;direct internal argument&quot;. In the linguistic literature, there are two types of direct internal arguments: direct objects of transitive verbs **and** subjects of unaccusative verbs. In fact, according to many formal syntacticians, the (derived) subject of unaccusatives is generated as a **direct object**. So perhaps the existence of this parallelism (the one between direct objects of transitives and subjects of unaccusatives) makes Roby's point on _-sc-_ verbs less unexpected or at least not so surprising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The previous explanation has a non-trivial problem: intransitive _-sc-_ verbs form a very important subclass of unaccusative verbs (probably, the most productive one), but what about unaccusatives like _mori_? As pointed out by Vincenzo Oliva, _moriendus_ is not a possible form. Well, perhaps a &quot;blocking&quot; phenomenon is relevant here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_(linguistics)): the existence of _moribundus_ can be said to prevent the formation of _moriendus_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for sumelic's final impression that &quot;there wouldn't be very many situations where one should use _nascendus_&quot;, please take a look at the examples below. I've just consulted Pinkster's (2015) _Oxford Latin Syntax_ and he, basically, gives examples that confirm Roby's insightful point on _-sc-_ verbs without providing any explanation of why this class of verbs is the one affected. Indeed, the topic is complex... Here is the list of examples given by Pinkster on page 296:    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cui testis aestas et hiems, quod in altera aer ardet et spica aret, in altera natura ad&#xD;&#xA;**nascenda** cum imbre et frigore luctare non volt . . . (Var. _L_ 5.61)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Seclum spatium annorum centum vocarunt, dictum a sene, quod longissimum spatium **senescendorum** hominum id putarunt. (Var. L. 6.11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Genethliaci quidam scripserunt, inquit (Varro) esse in **renascendis** hominibus quam appellant 'palliggenesían' Graeci. (Varro _ap._ August. _Civ._ 22.28) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; AEDIS·FLORAE QUAE·REBUS **FLORESCENDIS** PRAEEST DEDICATA EST PROPTER STERILITATEM·FRUGUM (_CIL_ I1, p. 236.28 (Fasti Praenestini, between 6 and 9 AD))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Semel haec mihi videnda sint, an saepe **nascendum**? (Sen. _Ep._ 65.20)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... in moribus **inolescendis** magnam fere partem ingenium altricis et natura lactis&#xD;&#xA;tenet... (Gell. 12.1.20)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...exque eo genitos vel **nascendos** filios [‘sons yet to be born’!] similiter paternae condicioni subiacere praecipimus. (_Cod. Just._ 5.27.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, when discussing the nature of gerundive, some lines above Pinkster (2015: 295) concludes: &quot;It **seems**, then, that interpretation of a gerundive as passive or (more frequently) active depends on **contextual** and sometimes on **extralinguistic** information&quot; (bold/emphasis mine). Well, perhaps he is right or perhaps he is not... For a more grammatical perspective, see the following work by Miller:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miller, D. Gary. (2000). &quot;Gerund and gerundive in Latin&quot;. _Diachronica_ 17 (2): 293–349. DOI: 10.1075/dia.17.2.03mil &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, as you can see, this topic of Latin grammar is very complex. Perhaps some of you would like to write some work (paper, doctoral dissertation, ...) on gerundives. If so, please keep me posted (by the way, I don't know if comments like this one are allowed in this site. If they are not appropriate, please, editors, feel free to delete it. Thanks!).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6463" RevisionGUID="c4bd1a65-a74e-41f4-8593-5dddcfff14af" CreationDate="2019-05-08T04:51:33.283" UserId="406" Comment="Short final vowels become e, not i!" Text="The etymology of the present active infinitive seems well-documented. Proto-Italic had an infinitive-like suffix *_-si_, so *_dōnā-_ + *_-si_ = *_dōnāsi_ &gt; *dōnāre* by regular sound changes (*s* → *z* → *r* between vowels, and all short vowels → *e* word-finally).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But where did the passive infinitive come from? It looks like the active infinitive with some sort of suffix added, but where would such a suffix come from? Why does it look different in the third conjugation? And for that matter, where did *_-si_ come from in the first place? It doesn't seem to line up with anything from PIE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This came up while investigating [the infinitive of *fierī*][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6460/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="0e72ad77-9cbb-4e2e-b972-861f921006ef" CreationDate="2019-05-08T06:24:44.810" UserId="9" Comment="added &quot;Arabum&quot; example for B-stem noun" Text="##The definition of &quot;I-stems&quot; is relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*), dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), and nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period. But it seems consonant-stem nouns never take *-im* in the accusative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Because of the somewhat complicated formation of Latin nominative singular forms in the third declension, it can be difficult to analyze the nominative singular form in terms of a root + suffix. We can often figure out the origin of the form from comparative linguistics or internal reconstruction, but the etymological analysis may not always be the one that makes the most sense from a synchronic perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being (at least partially) an i-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Most consonants can occur at the end of a noun stem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A noun stem can end in almost any consonant. It's easier to list the consonants that *don't* appear at the end of noun stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No noun stem ends in /j/ or /h/, and it seems doubtful that any could&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say the clearest absolute gaps that I know of are /j/ (consonantal I) and /h/ (H): I'm pretty certain that no native Latin noun stem ends in either of these consonants, and I think it's also unlikely that stems ending in these consonants would show up in any pre-modern word of foreign origin. Both of these sounds have particularly restricted distributions in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **J**: In Latin, /j/ is mostly restricted to two positions: word-initially (also in prefixed or compound words built from a word starting with /j/), or as part of an intervocalic geminate /j.j/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Traditionally, &quot;ae&quot; and &quot;oe&quot; are analyzed as diphthongs, but even if you analyze them as VC sequences /aj/, oj/, I don't know of any noun with a stem ending in &quot;ae&quot; or &quot;oe&quot;. Ancient Greek seems to have some nouns with stems that (from an etymological perspective at least) end in -οι- (Wikipedia gives the example *[ἠχώ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_nouns#Stems_in_oi)*), but the /j/ is lost through contraction in all forms except for the vocative singular, so it seems impossible for Greek to be a source of Latin nouns with stems ending in /j/.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: In Latin, /h/ is rare outside of morpheme-initial position. H doesn't act like a consonant for the purposes of certain phonological rules: in V̆ChV sequences (between words or produced by combining a prefix ending in V̆C with a base starting with hV) the first syllable scans as short (as in V̆CV sequences), and in VhV sequences the first vowel is regularly short (as in VV sequences) and there is sometimes the possibility of contraction to one syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Although there are some Latin words with non-morpheme-initial intervocalic H, like *veho,* there doesn't seem to be any native Latin noun stem ending in H. As far as I know, Greek also has no stems ending in /h/. (&quot;Interaspiration&quot; in Greek seems to only be attested in the word [ταὧς](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7106/9), and possibly in [compounds/prefixed words](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4523/9).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No commonly encountered noun stem ends in Z or F. This seems to be a predictable result of historical processes, but not necessarily an active restriction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are clearly no noun stems ending in Z or F in native Latin vocabulary, but there do seem to be very marginal examples of stems ending in these sounds in words of foreign origin (see the section below on &quot;Stems ending in unusual consonants&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Z** is absent in general from native Latin words (as Joonas mentioned), so the Z gap is not really something specific to stem-final position. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **F** in native Latin words is almost completely confined to the start of morphemes as the result of certain historical sound changes, so the gap in F at the end of noun stems can also be seen as just a specific case of a more general pattern to the distribution of this consonant sound. The existence of morpheme-medial F in non-native Latin words like *rūfus* and *būfō* shows that this pattern doesn't represent any absolute synchronic constraint that was active in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, it could be argued that Latin wouldn't tolerate Z or F in word-final position or pre-consonantal position as easily as it tolerated them in intervocalic position. But if there was a phonological restriction like that, it would only be relevant to the nominative singular form of third-declension words. Although the historically expected nominative singular suffixes for the third declension are -s and -#, some Classical Latin nouns that otherwise declined as consonant-stems had a nominative singular form ending in *-is* or *-ēs.* A Z- or F-stem noun that took one of these nominative singular endings would not violate any phonological rule against word-final or pre-consonantal Z or F.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No noun stem ends in a consonant spelled with the letter K or Q, but these letters don't really correspond to distinct consonant sounds of their own&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that the letter K seems to never be used to spell a stem-final consonant, but I wouldn't consider this to be a true gap, as K was just a variant spelling for the /k/ sound that was usually represented by the letter C. I also agree with Joonas about the lack of stems ending in Q(V), but that only counts as a gap if you analyze QV as a consonant of its own (/kʷ/) rather than as a replacement spelling for a CV (/kw/) cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Examples for the rest of the consonant sounds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, N, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: in the genitive plural, *apis* can take either the consonant-stem form *apum* or the i-stem form *apium.* The form *apum,* which is clearly built on a stem ending in P, does seem to be more common ([Zumpt 1836, p. 28](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA28)). Another example would be *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1),* which forms *opum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B**: *plēbs* takes the i-stem form *plēbium*. There are certainly many nouns that take *-bem* in the accusative singular and *-be* in the ablative singular; I had some trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum,* but I think *Arabs* (from Greek *Ἄραψ*) may count as an example, since it seems to have as its genitive plural the form *Arabum.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural *ossa*, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: As I mentioned above, I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H.  PH-, CH- or TH-stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: see below for possible examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Stems ending in unusual consonants (mostly from Greek):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Aspirated plosives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **PH**: *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem. I don't think the genitive plural form can be used as a criterion because it's not clear what it is: Zumpt 1836 says that the genitive plural of *gryps* &quot;does not occur&quot; ([p. 29](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA29)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **CH**: *[sardonyx](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsardonyx),* from Greek *σαρδόνυξ*, seems to decline as a CH-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **TH**: *Tiryns, Tirynthis,* from Greek *Τίρυνς*, seems to decline as a TH-stem ([Zumpt 1836, p. 21](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA21#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)). Since it is a proper noun, I don't think any attested genitive plural form exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **F**: If you include Ecclesiastical Latin, than the word *scinifes/[cinifes](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcinifes)* might count, as it apparently has a genitive plural form *(s)cinifum.* A variant spelling with *ph* also seems to exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Z**: If you include proper nouns and don't worry about the issue of i-stems vs. consonant-stems, the name *Gōtarzēs* (from Greek *Γωτάρζης*) would probably count. It seems that in Latin, it has a third-declension genitive form *Gōtarzis* that could be seen as being built on the stem *Gōtarz-.* (I asked a separate question about [the declension of masculine nouns like this from Greek nouns ending in *-ης*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9283/how-are-arsaces-and-gotarzes-declined-and-why).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zumpt, C.G. 1836. *[Grammar of the Latin Language](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10689" RevisionGUID="8ac682e6-da54-4be7-b13f-4df68e483350" CreationDate="2019-05-08T11:40:34.943" UserId="3645" Text="I am looking for a Latin book that has word by word English translation and explanation. I mean after the translation, it explains that this word has ablative case and that has nominative or this verb has perfect tense and that has imperfect and all related explanations. Something likes **dependency grammar**:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_grammar&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31302" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10689" RevisionGUID="8ac682e6-da54-4be7-b13f-4df68e483350" CreationDate="2019-05-08T11:40:34.943" UserId="3645" Text="A Latin book with dependency tree" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31303" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10689" RevisionGUID="8ac682e6-da54-4be7-b13f-4df68e483350" CreationDate="2019-05-08T11:40:34.943" UserId="3645" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10690" RevisionGUID="2e858d1e-61b8-43f4-92e4-4ef7b0425ebc" CreationDate="2019-05-08T12:14:18.087" UserId="2476" Text="Besides what Hugh pointed out in the comments, note that _sine_ takes the ablative. Hence _te_, not _tibi_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would go with _**Tecum ire difficile est, sine te impossibile**_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging from your sentences, it seems you want to emphasise a sense of &quot;motion&quot;. Otherwise you could also go (pun intended) for **_Tecum difficile, sine te impossibile**_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A formally similar construction in form is found in Quintilian's _Institutio Oratoria_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nocere facile est, prodesse difficile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It is easy to do harm, hard to be good.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also reminds of Martial (Epigrams XII, 46):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nec possum tecum vivere nec sine te.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Neither can I live with you, nor without you.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10689" RevisionGUID="c24c3620-4d04-4957-8e1e-300e93676aa1" CreationDate="2019-05-08T12:31:39.613" UserId="3645" Comment="edited body" Text="I am looking for a Latin text that has word by word English translation and explanation. I mean after the translation, it explains that this word has ablative case and that has nominative or this verb has perfect tense and that has imperfect and all related explanations. Something likes **dependency grammar**:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_grammar&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31306" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10689" RevisionGUID="c24c3620-4d04-4957-8e1e-300e93676aa1" CreationDate="2019-05-08T12:31:39.613" UserId="3645" Comment="edited body" Text="A Latin text with dependency tree" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10691" RevisionGUID="9204e5dd-dca9-4eef-989a-da2f271713de" CreationDate="2019-05-08T12:45:12.780" UserId="1459" Text="There is a project called [The Ancient Greek and Latin Dependency Treebank](https://perseusdl.github.io/treebank_data/), which has done Dependency trees for some Greek and Latin texts. There is a document explaining the project [here](http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~dbamman/pubs/pdf/latech2011.pdf)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10689" RevisionGUID="3c66fef6-dd63-4516-83d6-9a262e8a7311" CreationDate="2019-05-08T12:46:15.707" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am looking for a Latin text that has word by word English translation and explanation. I mean after the translation, it explains that this word has ablative case and that has nominative or this verb has perfect tense and that has imperfect and all related explanations. Something like **[dependency grammar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_grammar)**.&#xD;&#xA;Is there any? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31309" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10689" RevisionGUID="3c66fef6-dd63-4516-83d6-9a262e8a7311" CreationDate="2019-05-08T12:46:15.707" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10691" RevisionGUID="e9a3b7ba-9c4a-404b-862a-7f3142176216" CreationDate="2019-05-08T12:50:39.850" UserId="1459" Comment="added 571 characters in body" Text="There is a project called [The Ancient Greek and Latin Dependency Treebank](https://perseusdl.github.io/treebank_data/), which has done dependency trees for some Greek and Latin texts. There is a document explaining the project [here](http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~dbamman/pubs/pdf/latech2011.pdf). It seems it does not contain English translations, but if you combine their work with a dictionary, or an English translation of the text, you might get further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the project is open-source and community based, so you could suggest the option of translation or contribute with it yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice however that, as far as I know, it is not always possible to do word-by-word translations from Latin to English. Also, the word order in English might not correspond to that in Latin (which has no compulsory order). So maybe, what you are after, doesn't really exist (and wouldn't be totally helpful either)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10691" RevisionGUID="136e4d86-cd34-48aa-810d-897dc03a3279" CreationDate="2019-05-08T12:59:04.657" UserId="1459" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="There is a project called [The Ancient Greek and Latin Dependency Treebank](https://perseusdl.github.io/treebank_data/), which has done dependency trees for some Greek and Latin texts. There is a document explaining the project [here](http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~dbamman/pubs/pdf/latech2011.pdf). It seems it does not contain English translations, but if you combine their work with a dictionary, or an English translation of the text, you might get further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There three similar projects listed [here](https://universaldependencies.org/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these projects are open-source and community based, so you could suggest the option of translation or contribute with it yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice however that, as far as I know, it is not always possible to do word-by-word translations from Latin to English. Also, the word order in English might not correspond to that in Latin (which has no compulsory order). So maybe, what you are after, doesn't really exist (and wouldn't be totally helpful either)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10692" RevisionGUID="b4eb3a17-bb6c-4036-9520-9090426b458f" CreationDate="2019-05-08T16:04:18.580" UserId="1982" Text="Try &quot;Completely Parsed Cicero&quot; by Maclardy. It´s on Amazon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31313" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10689" RevisionGUID="2c9ccc14-63a1-4f31-b399-0b5122cf5601" CreationDate="2019-05-08T16:16:21.930" />
  <row Id="31314" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9433" RevisionGUID="f6a20563-7b91-4495-bd74-7f6bf8cbeaea" CreationDate="2019-05-08T17:03:00.527" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10691" RevisionGUID="5cc123de-984e-4cfa-9390-63ca06003748" CreationDate="2019-05-08T17:41:07.427" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="There is a project called [The Ancient Greek and Latin Dependency Treebank](https://perseusdl.github.io/treebank_data/), which has done dependency trees for some Greek and Latin texts. There is a document explaining the project [here](http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~dbamman/pubs/pdf/latech2011.pdf). It seems it does not contain English translations, but if you combine their work with a dictionary, or an English translation of the text, you might get further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three similar projects listed [here](https://universaldependencies.org/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these projects are open-source and community based, so you could suggest the option of translation or contribute with it yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice however that, as far as I know, it is not always possible to do word-by-word translations from Latin to English. Also, the word order in English might not correspond to that in Latin (which has no compulsory order). So maybe, what you are after doesn't really exist (and wouldn't be totally helpful either)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10690" RevisionGUID="1acc90ee-8dfb-4ba7-849b-224150a20495" CreationDate="2019-05-08T18:09:22.523" UserId="2476" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Besides what Hugh pointed out in the comments, note that _sine_ takes the ablative. Hence _te_, not _tibi_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would go with _**Tecum ire difficile est, sine te impossibile**_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging from your sentences, it seems you want to emphasise a sense of &quot;motion&quot;. Otherwise you could also go (pun intended) for **_Tecum difficile, sine te impossibile**_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A formally similar construction is found e.g. in Quintilian's _Institutio Oratoria_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nocere facile est, prodesse difficile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It is easy to do harm, hard to be good.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also reminds of Martial (Epigrams XII, 46):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nec possum tecum vivere nec sine te.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Neither can I live with you, nor without you.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10693" RevisionGUID="815eef13-8c98-454a-9795-b9c65f0106d0" CreationDate="2019-05-08T20:05:16.170" UserId="406" Text="According to Vine's &quot;The Morphology of Italic&quot;, all the infinitive endings **originated with the consonant (third non-IO) conjugation**, and were extrapolated from there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many third-conjugation verbs in Latin used to share a root with an S-stem noun. For example, the Old Latin verb *gen-ō* &quot;give birth to&quot; shares its root with the S-stem *gen-os-* &quot;birth&quot; (later *genus*). The locative singular of this noun was *gen-es-i* &quot;in birth&quot;, which became ***gen-er-e* &quot;to give birth to&quot;** by regular sound change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over time, this got re-analyzed as *-se* attached to the present stem of a verb. And since it was quite useful having an infinitive form, this was extrapolated to all the other conjugations, as well as other forms that didn't have S-stem nouns: *habu-is-**se*** &quot;to have held&quot;, *es-**se*** &quot;to be&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other Italic languages, though, formed their infinitives somewhat differently—and it's likely that pre-Old-Latin followed some of these patterns too. The passive was never quite as common, so it took longer to settle down and never got fully regularized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The oldest infinitive pattern, with cognates in Indo-Iranian languages, goes back to a PIE suffix like _*-dʰyēi_. In Italic this became _*-ðjē_, which we see in words like Umbrian _pihafei_ (on the Iguvine Tablets—stem cognate with Latin *piāre*).&#xD;&#xA;  - In Oscan, an extra passive *-r* was stuck on the end, the same one seen in most other passive endings (*-r*, *-tur*, *-ntur*, etc). This formed the passive infinitive _sacrafīr_ (stem cognate with Latin *sacrificāre*).&#xD;&#xA;  - Latin did the same thing, but turned the _*ð_ into a _r_ between vowels and deleted it after consonants. So the &quot;original&quot; Latin passive infinitive was *-ier* as in *agier*, *amārier*, etc.&#xD;&#xA; - Another option came from _root_ nouns in the third conjugations: instead of _gen-os-_, the root noun's stem would be simply _gen-_. Root nouns were never very prominent in Italic, but Vedic used the dative singular of root nouns as a passive infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;  - And in fact, the dative singular of a root noun in Latin would look like ***ag-ī* &quot;to be driven&quot;** (&lt; _*-ej_), which is exactly what we see in the third conjugation!&#xD;&#xA;  - Once the *-rier* passive infinitive died out, this is the formation that stuck in the third conjugation. But it never spread to the other conjugations, which didn't have root nouns to work with.&#xD;&#xA; - Yet another option was to use the dative singular, but from the S-stem noun instead of the root noun. This ending would be _*-es-ej_, becoming Latin _-er-ī_, and it was quickly applied to the first, second, and fourth conjugations. It looked a lot like the _-ere_ active infinitive so it was easy to remember and that was a big advantage. Hence, forms like ***amā-rī* &quot;to be loved&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;  - But, this new form never managed to displace the root-noun *-ī* infinitive in the third conjugation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10694" RevisionGUID="a82dff9d-4ec6-4064-b11a-db4d395d7fdd" CreationDate="2019-05-08T20:11:04.703" UserId="406" Text="Colin Fine's comment hit it on the head:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think it's syncretism - historically different forms being reanalysed as playing the same role (like several historically different past forms being levelled out as the &quot;perfect&quot; in Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin, historically, had three different ways of forming the present passive infinitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A suffix *-(r)ier*, cognate with some Indo-Aryan infinitives plus the passive *-r*&#xD;&#xA; - A suffix *-(e)rī*, from the dative of an S-stem noun&#xD;&#xA; - A suffix *-ī*, from the dative of a root noun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first used to be the most popular, but it died out somewhere in Old Latin. The other two originally only applied to the consonant (third non-IO) conjugation, but *-rī* quickly spread to the other conjugations by analogy with active *-re* (which came from the locative of the S-stem noun). On the other hand, *-ī* was significantly more popular than *-(e)rī* in the consonant-stems, and refused to be displaced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more details, [see this other answer][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/10693/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10695" RevisionGUID="309949cd-59ad-4a09-b44e-cdcf5486fdbe" CreationDate="2019-05-08T20:15:04.323" UserId="406" Text="Off the top of my head, I can think of a few Latin verbs with obvious Greek cognates: *pherō~ferō* &quot;to bear&quot;, *pheugō~fugiō* &quot;to flee&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But all the words I can think of are in the third conjugation. Are there any first-, second-, and fourth-conjugation verbs with straightforward Greek relatives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31320" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10695" RevisionGUID="309949cd-59ad-4a09-b44e-cdcf5486fdbe" CreationDate="2019-05-08T20:15:04.323" UserId="406" Text="Are there Latin verbs with Greek cognates in all four conjugations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31321" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10695" RevisionGUID="309949cd-59ad-4a09-b44e-cdcf5486fdbe" CreationDate="2019-05-08T20:15:04.323" UserId="406" Text="|greek|verbs|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10697" RevisionGUID="1dc919ab-e126-4eef-9623-435e00908e45" CreationDate="2019-05-08T21:55:09.410" UserId="183" Text="There is [Index Thomisticus][1], a treebank consisting of work of Thomas Aquinas. It is a free resource under a Creative Commons licence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://uni-tuebingen.de/fakultaeten/philosophische-fakultaet/fachbereiche/neuphilologie/seminar-fuer-sprachwissenschaft/arbeitsbereiche/allg-sprachwissenschaft-computerlinguistik/ressourcen/corpora/index-thomisticus-baumbank.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10684" RevisionGUID="3ee22b65-cd1e-45ab-89e0-b3249c68455d" CreationDate="2019-05-08T22:16:32.517" UserId="9" Comment="added 1618 characters in body" Text="There is no single standard for Latin pronunciation. The main division is between reconstructed pronunciation (based on our idea of what Classical Latin sounded like) vs. everything else. As Draconis mentioned, in reconstructed pronunciation &quot;ti&quot; is just pronounced as a sequence of the T sound [t] followed by one of the two I sounds, **ĭ** [i~ɪ] or **ī** [iː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most other pronunciation systems, &quot;ti&quot; has a special pronunciation where the T is &quot;assibilated&quot; in certain contexts. This phenomenon is based on a sound change that is thought to have occurred naturally in the development of the spoken language; however, I think that the &quot;rules&quot; or &quot;standards&quot; connecting the use of this pronunciation in modern speech to particular written contexts may be partly artificial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's thought that the original development of the assibilated T was to an affricate sound [t͡s]; in some languages such as French and English, this underwent further developments (to [s] or in English often to [ʃ]). I don't know of any tradition of Latin pronunciation that uses an elongated sound in this context: in fact, I've heard that Ecclesiastical Latin has specifically short [t͡s] in words like *natio* in contrast to the long [tt͡s] that many Italian speakers use in Italian words like *spazzi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the conditions that I know of for the assibilation of T in Latin pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##First, two clear conditions for not assibilating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Don't assibilate unless the I comes before another vowel&#xD;&#xA;The assibilated pronunciation of T developed only when the I was followed by another vowel. (The original conditioning factor for the assibilation may have been a change of I to a glide [j].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Don't assibilate after the sound [s] (whether spelled S or X)&#xD;&#xA;The assibilated pronunciation of T did not develop after the sound [s]. There are numerous examples with the spelling &amp;lt;sti&gt;; there aren't so many with the spelling &amp;lt;xti&gt;, but *mixtio* seems to be given by a number of sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (In English, the [tj] of words spelled with &amp;lt;sti&gt; and &amp;lt;xti&gt; developed for many speakers via palatalization to [tʃ], as in the words *bestial* and *question.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Next, some unclear conditions for not assibilating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following conditions are less clear, or more marginal in scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###After another T&#xD;&#xA;Supposedly, the assibilated pronunciation of T is not used in words spelled with &amp;lt;tti&gt;. There are very few examples of &amp;lt;tti&gt; followed by a vowel in Latin, so I asked a separate question to try to determine the evidence for this rule: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8824&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the non-obviousness of this rule to me, sources seem to be fairly consistent in saying not to assibilate in this context, so I would recommend following that practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###In (some) words from Greek (maybe also applies to TY)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen a few sources that say that T was not or should not be assibilated in words from Greek. According to Blair (1873), &quot;in Greek words (as *Aegyptius*), as the I is not consonantal, the T cannot be hissed&quot; (*[Latin Pronunciation: An Inquiry Into the Proper Sound of the Latin Language during the Classical Period](https://books.google.com/books?id=s3NXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA118),* p. 118). I have the impression that the actual pronunciation used with words of this sort is sporadic and might vary between different time periods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what the usual practice is for words starting with *ti-* followed by a vowel (such as *tiara*). I would not assibilate the T in *tiara,* since I'm used to pronouncing [t] in the English word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian also seems to have [t] rather than [ts] in *[tiara](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/tiara).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###In certain forms of passive or deponent verbs with infinitives ending in *-ti*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the infinitive *pati,* the I is not followed by a vowel, so it's regular to not assibilate the T. A number of sources say that the archaic infinitive forms ending in *-ier* like *patier* were exceptions to the assibilation of T (Blair gives *nitier* and *quatier* as examples, p. 118).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found another source that seems to apply this rule also to finite forms such as *patior* (&quot;[The Correct Pronunciation of Latin According to Roman Usage](http://www.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/12/07/05/19-20-13_0.pdf)&quot;, by Michael de Angelis, p. 20).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###When the I is long and/or stressed (very uncertain to me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blair (1873) says that the T in *totius* did not undergo the sound change of assibilation because the I was long (*tōtīus*) (p. 118). As Draconis mentioned, contrastive vowel length *per se* is lost in Ecclesiastical Latin, but it is not irrelevant in all cases to pronunciation: the position of stress in Ecclesiastical Latin corresponds to the stress of Classical Latin, which was assigned by a length-based rule. For example, *termĭnus* is stressed on the third-to-last syllable in both Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin, and *bovīnus* is stressed on the second-to-last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A complication in the case of *totius* is that an alternative scansion *tōtĭus* was used sometimes in poetry. I don't know whether this led to the development of an Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation *ˈto[t͡s]ius* with initial stress. If a pronunciation of *totius* with stress on the second syllable is/was used in Ecclesiastical Latin, I'm not entirely sure whether it would be more regular for it to be *to*ˈ[tsi]*us* or *to*[ˈti]*us*. This online &quot;[Guide to Latin Pronunciation](http://www.olrl.org/pray/gtolatin.shtml)&quot; does give *totius* (without marking of the stress) as an example of a word where *t* is pronounced as [t͡s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long vowels rarely occur before other vowels in Latin. Aside from the small class of words with *-īus* genitives, such as *tōtīus,* *ī* followed by a vowel mainly shows up in words taken from Greek (which I mentioned above as a possible doubtful case for assibilation of T). Specifically, there are a fair number of words that end in *-tīa* (or at least, that are expected to based on the Greek form), such as *[necromantīa](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnecromantia)* and *goētīa.* I don't know whether these have any single established pronunciation in Ecclesiastical Latin, or whether there is variation between pronunciations like *necroˈman*[ts]*ia, necroman*ˈ[ts]*ia* and *necroman*ˈ[t]*ia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The English form *necromancy,* with [s], is ultimately descended from some form with assibilation, but I don't know the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian seems to have [ˈtsia] in the word *[negromanzia](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/negromanzia),* and also in some words from Greek *-τία* nouns like *[democrazia](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/democrazia)* (from δημοκρατία). (Note: even though Greek *-ία* actually has a short vowel, the I ended up being stressed in languages like Italian.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Italian does have nouns spelled with *-tia* and pronounced with [ˈtia], but all of the ones that I can find actually represent *-thia* (e.g. [simpatia][1]), so they don't seem directly relevant to the issue of pronouncing words that end in *-tia* in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wordreference.com/iten/simpatia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10684" RevisionGUID="7600b505-a105-4eb2-8850-24a554b02954" CreationDate="2019-05-08T22:22:25.850" UserId="9" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="There is no single standard for Latin pronunciation. The main division is between reconstructed pronunciation (based on our idea of what Classical Latin sounded like) vs. everything else. As Draconis mentioned, in reconstructed pronunciation &quot;ti&quot; is just pronounced as a sequence of the T sound [t] followed by one of the two I sounds, **ĭ** [i~ɪ] or **ī** [iː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most other pronunciation systems, &quot;ti&quot; has a special pronunciation where the T is &quot;assibilated&quot; in certain contexts. This phenomenon is based on a sound change that is thought to have occurred naturally in the development of the spoken language; however, I think that the &quot;rules&quot; or &quot;standards&quot; connecting the use of this pronunciation in modern speech to particular written contexts may be partly artificial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's thought that the original development of the assibilated T was to an affricate sound [t͡s]; in some languages such as French and English, this underwent further developments (to [s] or in English often to [ʃ]). I don't know of any tradition of Latin pronunciation that uses an elongated sound in this context: in fact, I've heard that Ecclesiastical Latin has specifically short [t͡s] in words like *natio* in contrast to the long [tt͡s] that many Italian speakers use in Italian words like *spazzi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the conditions that I know of for the assibilation of T in Latin pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##First, two clear conditions for not assibilating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Don't assibilate unless the I comes before another vowel&#xD;&#xA;The assibilated pronunciation of T developed only when the I was followed by another vowel. (The original conditioning factor for the assibilation may have been a change of I to a glide [j].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Don't assibilate after the sound [s] (whether spelled S or X)&#xD;&#xA;The assibilated pronunciation of T did not develop after the sound [s]. There are numerous examples with the spelling &amp;lt;sti&gt;; there aren't so many with the spelling &amp;lt;xti&gt;, but *mixtio* seems to be given by a number of sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (In English, the [tj] of words spelled with &amp;lt;sti&gt; and &amp;lt;xti&gt; developed for many speakers via palatalization to [tʃ], as in the words *bestial* and *question.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Next, some unclear conditions for not assibilating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following conditions are less clear, or more marginal in scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###After another T&#xD;&#xA;Supposedly, the assibilated pronunciation of T is not used in words spelled with &amp;lt;tti&gt;. There are very few examples of &amp;lt;tti&gt; followed by a vowel in Latin, so I asked a separate question to try to determine the evidence for this rule: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8824&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the non-obviousness of this rule to me, sources seem to be fairly consistent in saying not to assibilate in this context, so I would recommend following that practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###In (some) words from Greek (maybe also applies to TY)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen a few sources that say that T was not or should not be assibilated in words from Greek. According to Blair (1873), &quot;in Greek words (as *Aegyptius*), as the I is not consonantal, the T cannot be hissed&quot; (*[Latin Pronunciation: An Inquiry Into the Proper Sound of the Latin Language during the Classical Period](https://books.google.com/books?id=s3NXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA118),* p. 118). I have the impression that the actual pronunciation used with words of this sort is sporadic and might vary between different time periods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what the usual practice is for words starting with *ti-* followed by a vowel (such as *tiara*). I would not assibilate the T in *tiara,* since I'm used to pronouncing [t] in the English word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italian also seems to have [t] rather than [ts] in *[tiara](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/tiara).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###In certain forms of passive or deponent verbs with infinitives ending in *-ti*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the infinitive *pati,* the I is not followed by a vowel, so it's regular to not assibilate the T. A number of sources say that the archaic infinitive forms ending in *-ier* like *patier* also have non-assibilated T, and so were exceptions to the rule (Blair gives *nitier* and *quatier* as examples, p. 118).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found another source that seems to apply this exception also to finite forms such as *patior* (&quot;[The Correct Pronunciation of Latin According to Roman Usage](http://www.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/12/07/05/19-20-13_0.pdf)&quot;, by Michael de Angelis, p. 20).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###When the I is long and/or stressed (very uncertain to me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blair (1873) says that the T in *totius* did not undergo the sound change of assibilation because the I was long (*tōtīus*) (p. 118). As Draconis mentioned, contrastive vowel length *per se* is lost in Ecclesiastical Latin, but it is not irrelevant in all cases to pronunciation: the position of stress in Ecclesiastical Latin corresponds to the stress of Classical Latin, which was assigned by a length-based rule. For example, *termĭnus* is stressed on the third-to-last syllable in both Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin, and *bovīnus* is stressed on the second-to-last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A complication in the case of *totius* is that an alternative scansion *tōtĭus* was used sometimes in poetry. I don't know whether this led to the development of an Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation *ˈto[t͡s]ius* with initial stress. If a pronunciation of *totius* with stress on the second syllable is/was used in Ecclesiastical Latin, I'm not entirely sure whether it would be more regular for it to be *to*ˈ[tsi]*us* or *to*[ˈti]*us*. This online &quot;[Guide to Latin Pronunciation](http://www.olrl.org/pray/gtolatin.shtml)&quot; does give *totius* (without marking of the stress) as an example of a word where *t* is pronounced as [t͡s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long vowels rarely occur before other vowels in Latin. Aside from the small class of words with *-īus* genitives, such as *tōtīus,* *ī* followed by a vowel mainly shows up in words taken from Greek (which I mentioned above as a possible doubtful case for assibilation of T). Specifically, there are a fair number of words that end in *-tīa* (or at least, that are expected to based on the Greek form), such as *[necromantīa](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnecromantia)* and *goētīa.* I don't know whether these have any single established pronunciation in Ecclesiastical Latin, or whether there is variation between pronunciations like *necroˈman*[ts]*ia, necroman*ˈ[ts]*ia* and *necroman*ˈ[t]*ia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The English form *necromancy,* with [s], is ultimately descended from some form with assibilation, but I don't know the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Italian seems to have [ˈtsia] in the word *[negromanzia](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/negromanzia),* and also in some words from Greek *-τία* nouns like *[democrazia](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/democrazia)* (from δημοκρατία). (Note: even though Greek *-ία* actually has a short vowel, the I ended up being stressed in languages like Italian.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Italian does have nouns spelled with *-tia* and pronounced with [ˈtia], but all of the ones that I can find actually represent *-thia* (e.g. [simpatia][1]), so they don't seem directly relevant to the issue of pronouncing words that end in *-tia* in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wordreference.com/iten/simpatia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10698" RevisionGUID="c1a17533-3b2f-4980-9fe2-0f605662183c" CreationDate="2019-05-09T00:50:34.743" UserId="4731" Text="&gt;*A viro mulieri (datus est).* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would be a literal phrase, like what you would pot on a gift, but since this is more like a letter than anything, it would be more like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Vir mulieri Sal.* or *Vir mulieri s.p.d.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10699" RevisionGUID="d3928b90-99e6-443d-8079-1d1c974492e9" CreationDate="2019-05-09T01:11:29.340" UserId="40" Text="Sure, lots, though some are less obvious because of sound changes etc. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st conjugation: *dō* : δίδωμι, *stō* : ἵστημι, *vocō* : εἶπον&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2nd conjugation: *videō* : εἶδον, οἶδα, *moneō* : μιμνήσκω, *maneō* : μένω, *pleō* : πίμπλημι&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4th conjugation: *veniō* : βαίνω, *saliō* : ἅλλομαι, *potior* : δεσ-πότης" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10700" RevisionGUID="e3a09641-fb3b-45a0-8d28-bc71247d6a96" CreationDate="2019-05-09T02:17:16.657" UserId="4731" Text="In English, when we want to express parts of wholes and certain numbers of said parts, we use fractions consisting of a denominator indicating how many equal pieces an item has been broken or divided expressed in the ordinal fashion (except for 2 pieces=halves) sitting under a bar or behind a slash under or behind a numerator indicating how many of those pieces are present expressed cardinally prior to the denominator:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1/2 - one-half; 3/4 - three-fourths, and so on...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did they express this concept and these numbers in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31330" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10700" RevisionGUID="e3a09641-fb3b-45a0-8d28-bc71247d6a96" CreationDate="2019-05-09T02:17:16.657" UserId="4731" Text="How were fractions written and pronounced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31331" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10700" RevisionGUID="e3a09641-fb3b-45a0-8d28-bc71247d6a96" CreationDate="2019-05-09T02:17:16.657" UserId="4731" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|numbers|numerals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10571" RevisionGUID="2c0f10e1-353b-4ebd-8728-6dd2e93ec50d" CreationDate="2019-05-09T02:29:22.837" UserId="406" Comment="There were two Catones and it's worth specifying" Text="For one last answer, it seems another author has quoted a source no less Roman than Cato the Elder himself (though Cato's original doesn't survive):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὁ Ῥωμύλος, ἢ οἱ κατὰ αὐτόν, δείκνυται κατ' ἑκεῖνο καιροῦ τὴν Ἑλλάδα φωνήν, τὴν Αἱολίδα λέγω…Εὐάνδρου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων Ἀρκάδων εἰς Ἰταλίαν ἐλθόντων ποτὲ καὶ τὴν Αἱολίδα τοῖς βαρβάροις ἐνσπειράντων φωνήν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *At that moment Romulus, or his retinue, showed off the Greek language—I mean, the Aeolian dialect…because of Evander and the other Arcadians, who went to Italy at one point, and scattered the seeds of Aeolian among the barbarians there.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't been able to locate the original text, unfortunately, but this seems like a pretty good indication that the quintessential Roman thought that his language did indeed descend from Aeolian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Source: Benjamin Stevens, [_Aeolism: Latin as a Dialect of Greek_][1], 2006)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30038039" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31333" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10700" RevisionGUID="ab799766-a7d2-499a-96c0-68e89d76a0eb" CreationDate="2019-05-09T02:44:28.247" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|word-request|mathematics|numbers|numerals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6631" RevisionGUID="41af4c05-15b4-459a-b9df-f494784f4723" CreationDate="2019-05-09T02:55:52.063" UserId="79" Comment="added 449 characters in body" Text="Most Latin adjectives related to [names of countries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1328/79) and languages are of first and second declension: *Latinus*, *Graecus*, *Anglicus*&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to express that I speak in any such language, I will simply use the derived adverb: *Latine/Graece/Anglice loquor.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how does it work if the adjective belongs to the third declension?&#xD;&#xA;The list in the linked question contains, for example, *Islandiensis*, *Melitensis*, and *Thailandiensis*.&#xD;&#xA;If I want to express speaking or otherwise using these languages, do I use the adverb normally?&#xD;&#xA;Saying *Islandiensiter/Melitensiter/Thailandiensiter loquor* sounds weird.&#xD;&#xA;I have never seen such adjectives in such use, so I have no intuition.&#xD;&#xA;(I don't know whether the Romans ever had third declension adjectives together with *lingua*, so there may or may not be classical help.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the *-iter* ending used under such circumstances?&#xD;&#xA;Is a first and second declension alternative always used instead (*Islandice*, *Melitice* etc.)?&#xD;&#xA;Or should I simply use the ablative like *lingua Melitensi loquor*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be a hard question to answer, so answers based on experienced intuition are also welcome.&#xD;&#xA;To decisively settle the matter, I imagine one would have to give examples of use, clear avoidance (where the adverb is used for first and second declension but not third), or using first and second declension alternatives for this purpose but third declension elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;I understand that is much to ask for, so I do not expect airtight proof." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1940" RevisionGUID="9ad94425-27ae-4e66-a808-0dd9a32373b5" CreationDate="2019-05-09T03:13:47.680" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Partial answer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, most mathematical discourse would be done in Greek. Latin was used for engineering purposes, but speaking unambiguously about mathematics became rather awkward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Vitruvius's description of the Pythagorean formula, from *De Architectura IX.6*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; namque si sumantur regulae tres e quibus una sit pedes III altera pedes IIII tertia pedes V, eaeque regulae inter se compositae tangant alia aliam suis cacuminibus extremis schema habentes trigoni, deformabunt normam emendatam. ad eas autem regularum singularum longitudines si singula quadrata paribus lateribus describantur, quod erit trium latus, areae habebit pedes VIIII, quod IIII, XVI, quod V erit, XXV. ita quantum areae pedum numerum duo quadrata ex tribus pedibus longitudinis laterum et quattuor efficiunt, aeque tantum numerum reddidit unum ex quinque descriptum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For if three straight rods are acquired (and from these let one be three feet, the other four feet, and the third five feet) and these rods are arranged together so that they touch each other at the very tip, making the shape of a triangle, they will form a perfect right angle. Then, if squares are marked out, with sides equal to the lengths of each of the rods, then the [square with the] side [length] of three will have an area of nine feet, the four, sixteen, and the five, twenty-five. Thus how many feet of area two squares with sides of three and four feet in length contain, is equal to how many one [square] marked out from five [feet] contained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words: *a² + b² = c²*, expressed geometrically and in far too many words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frontinus' *De Aquis* shows similarly how unwieldy numbers could be in Roman numerals. A small excerpt starting from I.50:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fistula quadragenaria: diametri digitos septem   ℈III, perimetri digitos XXII   , capit quinarias XXXII S .  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fistula quadragenum quinum: diametri digitos septem S  ℈ octo, perimetri digitos XXIII S   , capit quinarias XXXVI S   ℈ octo; in usu non est.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fistula quinquagenaria: diametri digitos septem S     ℈ quinque, perimetri digitos XXV  ℈VII, capit quinarias XL S   ℈V.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fistula quinquagenum quinum: diametri digitos octo   ℈ decem, perimetri digitos XXVI   , capit quinarias XLIIII S    ℈II; in usu non est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation from LacusCurtius, since I'm not familiar enough with the fractions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The 40‑pipe: 7 digits plus 1/12 plus 1/24 plus 3/288 in diameter; 22 digits plus 5/12 in circumference; it has a capacity of 32 quinariae plus 1/2 plus 1/12.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The 45‑pipe: 7 digits plus 1/12 plus 1/24 plus 8/288 in diameter; 23 digits plus 1/2 plus 3/12 plus 1/24 in circumference; it has a capacity of 36 quinariae plus 1/2 plus 1/12 plus 1/24 plus 8/288; is not in use.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The 50‑pipe: 7 digits plus 1/2 plus 5/12 plus 1/24 plus 5/288 in diameter; 25 digits plus 1/24 plus 7/288 in circumference; it has a capacity of 40 quinariae plus 1/2 plus 2/12 plus 1/24 plus 5/288.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The 55‑pipe: 8 digits plus 4/12 plus 10/288 in diameter; 26 digits plus 3/12 plus 1/24 in circumference; it has a capacity of 44 quinariae plus 1/2 plus 3/12 plus 1/24 plus 2/288; is not in use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is more likely that educated Romans preferred to speak about mathematics in Greek—especially as the most important mathematical texts at the time had all been written in Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Vitruvius's description shows, mathematics at that time was more focused on geometry than on formulas. Rather than calculating a number, the goal would be to construct a line segment of that length, or a triangle of that area, etc. This made certain things far more difficult: numerical methods can approximate the cube root of 2 to arbitrary precision, but with only a compass and straightedge it is *impossible* to construct exactly. Plato famously mocked this failing when the geometers couldn't double the volume of a cube, as related by Vitruvius, Plutarch, and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this also had the advantage of making it much easier to read out loud. Vitruvius's description of the Pythagorean formula may be harder to visualize than a diagram, but unlike a diagram it can be spoken without losing any information. As another example, from Euclid's *Elements*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; κγʹ. Παράλληλοί εἰσιν εὐθεῖαι, αἵτινες ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ἐπιπέδῳ οὖσαι καὶ ἐκβαλλόμεναι εἰς ἄπειρον ἐφ ̓ ἑκάτερα τὰ μέρη ἐπὶ μηδέτερα συμπίπτουσιν ἀλλήλαις.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 23. Lines which are in the same plane, and are projected infinitely in both directions, but touch each other in neither direction, are &quot;parallel&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's pretty much the same way I would describe parallel lines to someone if I didn't have pen and paper on hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(More to come when I find more examples: later usage, for instance.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10701" RevisionGUID="0509336b-c79a-4c26-9f00-ad619b53ec4a" CreationDate="2019-05-09T03:33:27.057" UserId="406" Text="*Partial answer since I don't know the pronunciation*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fractions were written, as you might expect, using Roman numerals. This wasn't particularly elegant for anything more complex than adding and subtracting, but it worked great for commerce, and that was where it was most often used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The units worked sort of like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I = 1 (*as*)&#xD;&#xA; - S = 1/2 (*semis*)&#xD;&#xA; -  (or •) = 1/12 (*uncia* = ounce)&#xD;&#xA; -  (or ••) = 2/12 (*sextans*)&#xD;&#xA;  - And so on for multiples of 1/12&#xD;&#xA; - Ɔ = 1/48 (*sicilius*)&#xD;&#xA; -  = 1/72 (*sextula* = 1/6 ounce)&#xD;&#xA; -  = 1/144 (half a *sextula*)&#xD;&#xA; - ℈ = 1/288 (*scripulum* = scruple)&#xD;&#xA; -  = 1/1728 (*siliqua*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two things to notice here!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One, the fraction system works sort of in base-12, because it turns out it's a lot easier to divide things when you're in base-12.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And two, most of these names are units of currency, which isn't a coincidence. Many coins were equivalent to weights (since their value came from their weight in precious metal), and were given names either from their value (*sextans* = &quot;one-sixth&quot;) or from how much they weighed (*siliqua* = &quot;carob seed&quot;). Since these names meant fractions of currency, *or* fractions of weight, they got applied to fractions of other things too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an engineering example, from Frontinus's _De Aquibus_ (&quot;About Aqueducts&quot;). This is in the middle of a list of specifications of pipes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fistula quadragenaria: diametri digitos septem ℈III, perimetri digitos XXII, capit quinarias XXXIIS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pipe 40. Diameter: seven digits, plus one ounce, plus a half-ounce, plus three scruples. Perimeter: 22 digits, plus five ounces. Capacity: 32 quinariae, plus a half, plus an ounce.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frontinus uses a shorthand here: a full number after a fractional unit means &quot;multiply that unit by this number&quot;. So ℈III means &quot;three scruples&quot;. I've never seen this used with ounces, only smaller amounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to answer your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;One-half&quot; is *S*&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Three-fourths&quot; is *S•••*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10701" RevisionGUID="2584adb2-22d7-467a-9f3a-b68c8d526ed9" CreationDate="2019-05-09T03:40:05.130" UserId="406" Comment="added 160 characters in body" Text="*Partial answer since I don't know the pronunciation*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fractions were written, as you might expect, using Roman numerals. This wasn't particularly elegant for anything more complex than adding and subtracting, but it worked great for commerce, and that was where it was most often used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The units worked sort of like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I = 1 (*as*)&#xD;&#xA; - S = 1/2 (*semis*)&#xD;&#xA; -  (or •) = 1/12 (*uncia* = ounce)&#xD;&#xA; -  (or ••) = 2/12 (*sextans*)&#xD;&#xA;  - And so on for multiples of 1/12&#xD;&#xA; - Ɔ = 1/48 (*sicilius*)&#xD;&#xA; -  = 1/72 (*sextula* = 1/6 ounce)&#xD;&#xA; -  = 1/144 (half a *sextula*)&#xD;&#xA; - ℈ = 1/288 (*scripulum* = scruple)&#xD;&#xA; -  = 1/1728 (*siliqua*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two things to notice here!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One, the fraction system works sort of in base-12, because it turns out it's a lot easier to divide things when you're in base-12.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And two, most of these names are units of currency, which isn't a coincidence. Many coins were equivalent to weights (since their value came from their weight in precious metal), and were given names either from their value (*sextans* = &quot;one-sixth&quot;) or from how much they weighed (*siliqua* = &quot;carob seed&quot;). Since these names meant fractions of currency, *or* fractions of weight, they got applied to fractions of other things too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an engineering example, from Frontinus's _De Aquibus_ (&quot;About Aqueducts&quot;), with two translations (both mine). This is in the middle of a list of specifications of pipes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fistula quadragenaria: diametri digitos septem ℈III, perimetri digitos XXII, capit quinarias XXXIIS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The forty-pipe: diameter seven digits, plus one ounce, plus a half-ounce, plus three scruples. Circumference 22 digits, plus five ounces. It holds 32 quinariae, plus a half, plus an ounce.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pipe #40. Diameter: 7 + 1/12 + 1/24 + 3/288. Circumference: 22 + 5/12. Cross-sectional area: 32 + 1/2 + 1/12.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frontinus uses a shorthand here: a full number after a fractional unit means &quot;multiply that unit by this number&quot;. So ℈III means &quot;three scruples&quot;. I've never seen this used with ounces, only smaller amounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to answer your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;One-half&quot; is *S*&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Three-fourths&quot; is *S•••*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10700" RevisionGUID="dc8a3801-287a-4902-8fa1-8d5b781c17aa" CreationDate="2019-05-09T05:34:43.770" UserId="4731" Comment="added types of numbers to express that I did not just mean the two I gave in my example." Text="In English, when we want to express parts of wholes and certain numbers of said parts, we use fractions consisting of a denominator indicating how many equal pieces an item has been broken or divided expressed in the ordinal fashion (except for 2 pieces=halves) sitting under a bar or behind a slash under or behind a numerator indicating how many of those pieces are present expressed cardinally prior to the denominator:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1/2 - one-half; 3/4 - three-fourths, and so on...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did they express this concept and these types of numbers in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31339" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10700" RevisionGUID="720e7c45-40f9-4b5f-ab60-eb84020cddde" CreationDate="2019-05-09T07:47:26.977" />
  <row Id="31340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10702" RevisionGUID="3a9a6f2b-5bbd-46b3-bc14-653ffeaef4ba" CreationDate="2019-05-09T10:57:38.263" UserId="1982" Text="In North &amp; Hillard Ex. 200; the following is to be translated into Latin: &quot;He forgot all the wrongs which he had suffered, and by his arrival brought safety to the state which had treated him so unjustly.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer: &quot;qui omnium iniuriarum quas passus erat oblitus adventu suo civibus qui sese tam iniuste usi erant salutem attulit.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tried: &quot;...omnium iniuriarum quarum (gen. pl.) passus erat...&quot; giving &quot;...of all of the injustices of which he had suffered...&quot; instesd of the given &quot;...of all of the injustices which/ that/ these (&quot;quas&quot; - acc. pl.) he had suffered...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this permissible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Case changes caused by the introduction of a new clause; not denoted by a comma, can catch the unwary. Continuing: &quot;...oblitus adventu suo civibus qui sese...&quot;; &quot;having forgotten, upon his arrival, to the citizens, &quot;civibus&quot;, (dative plural) who, &quot;qui&quot;, (nominative, not dative, plural) he brought safety...&quot;; but, above, it does not read like a new clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was going to ask about species, &quot;sese&quot;, but it`s well-covered in Wiktionary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31341" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10702" RevisionGUID="3a9a6f2b-5bbd-46b3-bc14-653ffeaef4ba" CreationDate="2019-05-09T10:57:38.263" UserId="1982" Text="A Quas/ Quarum Conflict" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31342" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10702" RevisionGUID="3a9a6f2b-5bbd-46b3-bc14-653ffeaef4ba" CreationDate="2019-05-09T10:57:38.263" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10703" RevisionGUID="6cdd43f8-6b1d-482d-b4d6-6a502b14aece" CreationDate="2019-05-09T10:59:22.557" UserId="3645" Text="In my version it was wrote **sit**. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Today I saw other versions have recorded it **fit**.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;By **fit** the meaning is understandable.&#xD;&#xA;The origin of fault is that **s** is wrote very similarly to **f** in Latin manuscripts.   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10655" RevisionGUID="6b62147d-aa45-453e-994c-7ef37ceb55c2" CreationDate="2019-05-09T13:08:19.733" UserId="4740" Comment="more examples" Text="Actually Du Cange (*Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis*)  records a lot of examples of the neuter form Pascha, -ae, which he seems to prefer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*Orat. et prec. **de Pascha annotino***&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*Micrologus de Eccles. observ. cap. 56 : Romani **Annotinum Pascha**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quasi **anniversarium Pascha** dicunt, quia antiquitus apud illos qui&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **in priori Pascha** baptizati erant, insequenti anno, eadem die, ad Ecclesiam convenere, suæque regenerationis anniversarium diem cum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; oblationibus solenniter celebraverunt.*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*Charta Radulfi de Castro Port. in Chartul. Campan. fol. 223. r° :&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Actum anno gratiæ M. CC. XVI. in die **magni Paschæ**.*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other examples from Corpus Corporum (University of Zurich), http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rabanus Maurus, Liber de computo, 107, 0720B (auctor 780-856):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **De nostro** ergo **Pascha** valde desidero ut plenam rationem reddas.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ado Viennensis, Chronicon, 123, 0104D (auctor -875):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Desperatione deposita reditur ad Ecclesiam, in eaque vigiliarum nocte&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **sancti Paschae**, concepit animo Rogationes, atque ibi cum Deo tacitus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; definivit quidquid hodie psalmis ac precibus mundus inclamat.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Albericus Aquensis, Historia expeditionis Hierosolymitanae, 166, 0625A&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (auctor 1095-1125):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In qua septem dies commorantes, et Sabbato **sancti Paschae** ignem de&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coelo operientes, sanctam civitatem in orationibus et eleemosynis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perlustraverunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Du Cange also records: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the neuter Pascha, -atis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*propter Paschatis diversos in singulis annis dies*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*officium seu Missa Paschatis Annotini*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*Quatuor in Paschate, et totidem in Pentecoste dies celebrandos&#xD;&#xA;&gt; statuit Concilium Exoniense*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the feminine Pascha, -ae:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*Missa matutinalis per totam Pascham*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*Kalendarium editum ab Allatio lib. de Dominicis et hebdomad. Græcor.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; n. 37 : Dominica Octava Paschæ ad Lateranis... in Pascha Annotina, in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; illo tempore erat homo ex Pharisæis.*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some authors seem to use more than one declension:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Petrus Comestor, Historia scholastica, 198, 1554D (auctor -c.1178):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et secundum hoc vixit Iesus tantum triginta duobus annis, et dimidio;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quia eadem die revoluto anno convertit aquam in vinum, et **sequenti&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pascha**, id est **in Pascha** tricesimi primi anni, incarceratus est&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ioannes, et **in Pascha sequenti**, id est tricesimi secundi anni,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; decollatus est, et **in tertio Paschate**, id est tricesimi tertii anni,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; passus est Dominus, et ita vixit Dominus triginta duobus annis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; integris, et de trigesimo tertio quantum fluxit temporis a Natali&#xD;&#xA;&gt; usque **ad Pascha**, quod pro dimidio anno computatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some 9th-11th-c. treaties preserved in manuscripts (which have as a starting base Priscian, *Instítutio de nomine, pronomine et verbo*) seem to record both the neuter and feminine forms in the first declension:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Prima igitur declinatio habet litteras terminales duas, a et s,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terminationes vero tres, a as es : a ut poeta, as ut Aeneas, es ut&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anchises.  [...] In prima declinatione, masculina propria Graeca in a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inveniuntur, ut Iugurtha ; appellativa Graeca masculina, ut hic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; citharista ; propria feminina, ut haec Eleana ; appellativa, ut haec&#xD;&#xA;&gt; syllaba  [...] **Alii dicunt neutra Graeca in a, ut hoc pascha et hoc&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manna, quae alii Hebraica et feminini generis esse dicuntur** [...].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The paragraph appears *apud* Colette Jeudy, *L'Institutio de nomine, pronomine et verbo de Priscien: manuscrits et commentaires médiévaux*. In: Revue d'histoire des textes, bulletin n°2 (1972), 1973. pp. 73-144; https://www.persee.fr/doc/rht_0373-6075_1973_num_2_1972_1071&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a lot more examples (sometimes with the mention of the year when they where written, especially for more obscure texts or manuscripts) see:&#xD;&#xA;http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/pascha&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;Corpus Corporum (University of Zurich), http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10705" RevisionGUID="1aa00867-0ad7-4b56-967e-c09edc1b9bcd" CreationDate="2019-05-09T13:42:17.967" UserId="1459" Text="The inscription below has this line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;MORTUO XV KAL. OCT. A.S. MDCCCLVII &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what `KAL.` nor `A.S.` stand for. The [source of the image](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Foulkes) states that the person died the 17th of September. The inscription says instead that he died the 15th of October. What is `KAL.` to do with it? Is some sort of calendar correction? The year is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And regarding `A.S.`, is this _anno sancti_? I was surprised not to find `A.D.`, as usual in these inscriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WfsS0.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31349" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10705" RevisionGUID="1aa00867-0ad7-4b56-967e-c09edc1b9bcd" CreationDate="2019-05-09T13:42:17.967" UserId="1459" Text="What do &quot;KAL.&quot; and &quot;A.S.&quot; stand for in this inscription?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31350" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10705" RevisionGUID="1aa00867-0ad7-4b56-967e-c09edc1b9bcd" CreationDate="2019-05-09T13:42:17.967" UserId="1459" Text="|inscription|calendarium|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10706" RevisionGUID="6df965ae-ba0f-43f2-8af4-7c87762a7566" CreationDate="2019-05-09T14:20:15.623" UserId="79" Text="&gt; The source of the image states that the person died the 17th of September. The inscription says instead that he died the 15th of October. What is KAL. to do with it? Is some sort of calendar correction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is how the Roman calendar works.&#xD;&#xA;The day is *an diem quindecimum Kalendas Octobres*, &quot;on the fifteenth day before the first of October&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;With the Roman inclusive counting&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, this amounts to 17th of September.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question on writing dates](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1943/79) contains a detailed description of how the dates work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And regarding A.S., is this anno sancti? I was surprised not to find A.D., as usual in these inscriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, *Anno Domini* is far more common in my experience.&#xD;&#xA;This one has *Anno Sancto*, &quot;on the holy year&quot; but not &quot;on the year of the holy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;We would call it the fourteenth day.&#xD;&#xA;For the Romans the day before yesterday would be the third day before today &amp;mdash; you have to count today, yesterday, and the day before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10707" RevisionGUID="d330b225-c3d7-4678-a135-bf04624c28d5" CreationDate="2019-05-09T14:26:29.490" UserId="522" Text="If you are going to use the two deponent verbs ***patior*** suffer; and ***obliviscor*** forget; then you have to stick to the rules and put the object of *patior* into the accusative, and the object of *oblivisco*r into the genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the relative clause &quot;which he had suffered,&quot; **which** is the object of *passus est* so it must be Accusative. But it takes number and gender from 'the things/ the injuries'  In the model answer 'injuries' give fem pl. In your example you seem to be edging towards 'those things.' neuter plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Participle phrase &quot;Having forgotten all those injuries&quot; *Oblitus* is going to be Nominative (the same case as the Subject of the main verb 'he brought') and *omnium injuriarum* is going to be Genitive as the object of *oblitus,* having forgotten. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If you prefer *cum* instead of the participle, *Cum oblitus est/sit omnium inj. ...* When he had forgotten/ Since he had forgotten...  &#xD;&#xA;If you want to keep two main clauses as in the original:  *Oblitus est omnium ... autem salutem attulit.* 'He forgot all ... but he brought safety.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10708" RevisionGUID="f0774446-ab9e-4927-af31-f79741bc87c2" CreationDate="2019-05-09T14:31:10.513" UserId="645" Text="The Romans counted backwards from one of three datum days,and  included both the datum and the day itself. KAL is short for Kalendis, the first day of the month, so 15 KAL indicates 13 days *between*  the 1st October,and the day itself, giving us the 17th September. This inscription appears to be unusual in two ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, it's usual to find A.D. before the numeral (*ante diem*, literally the day  before the numbered day). The other datum points are the Nones and the Ides, both of which have a rule for the day on which they fall after the Kalends that preceded them. It's very confusing to the uninitiated! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, A.S. is sometimes (if rarely) used instead of A.D. It stands for *Anno Salvatoris*, 'Year of the Saviour', where A.D. is the familiar *Anno Domini*, 'Year of the Lord'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10707" RevisionGUID="4a4d4ae6-0420-4860-aafa-5bd55f81a97c" CreationDate="2019-05-09T14:40:15.650" UserId="522" Comment="Second question reply" Text="If you are going to use the two deponent verbs ***patior*** suffer; and ***obliviscor*** forget; then you have to stick to the rules and put the object of *patior* into the accusative, and the object of *oblivisco*r into the genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the relative clause &quot;which he had suffered,&quot; **which** is the object of *passus est* so it must be Accusative. But it takes number and gender from 'the things/ the injuries'  In the model answer 'injuries' give fem pl. In your example you seem to be edging towards 'those things.' neuter plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Participle phrase &quot;Having forgotten all those injuries&quot; *Oblitus* is going to be Nominative (the same case as the Subject of the main verb 'he brought') and *omnium injuriarum* is going to be Genitive as the object of *oblitus,* having forgotten. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If you prefer *cum* instead of the participle, *Cum oblitus est/sit omnium inj. ...* When he had forgotten/ Since he had forgotten...  &#xD;&#xA;If you want to keep two main clauses as in the original:  *Oblitus est omnium ... autem salutem attulit.* 'He forgot all ... but he brought safety.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your second question on *qui... qui,*  [Lewis and Short][1] **Qui II** C., D., E., F. may be helpful. That is: ***Qui*** used as a demonstrative; or to introduce qualitative or final clauses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DQ%3Aentry%20group%3D6%3Aentry%3Dqui1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10706" RevisionGUID="3162948e-13e6-47dc-bee3-ec3353b2fafd" CreationDate="2019-05-09T14:44:45.217" UserId="79" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="&gt; The source of the image states that the person died the 17th of September. The inscription says instead that he died the 15th of October. What is KAL. to do with it? Is some sort of calendar correction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is how the Roman calendar works.&#xD;&#xA;The day is *an diem quindecimum Kalendas Octobres*, &quot;on the fifteenth day before the first of October&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;With the Roman inclusive counting&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, this amounts to 17th of September.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question on writing dates](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1943/79) contains a detailed description of how the dates work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And regarding A.S., is this anno sancti? I was surprised not to find A.D., as usual in these inscriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, *Anno Domini* is far more common in my experience.&#xD;&#xA;This one might have *Anno Sancto*, &quot;on the holy year&quot; but not &quot;on the year of the holy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;A more common choice appears to be *Anno Salvatoris* as Tom Cotton suggests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;We would call it the fourteenth day.&#xD;&#xA;For the Romans the day before yesterday would be the third day before today &amp;mdash; you have to count today, yesterday, and the day before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31359" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10705" RevisionGUID="e86f1d5a-3bed-4ebf-8c42-49060dcdc227" CreationDate="2019-05-09T15:02:54.593" />
  <row Id="31369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10701" RevisionGUID="09c732b4-5469-46f3-aaca-00205d34fbb1" CreationDate="2019-05-09T16:12:23.033" UserId="406" Comment="added 1009 characters in body" Text="Fractions were written, as you might expect, using Roman numerals. This wasn't particularly elegant for anything more complex than adding and subtracting, but it worked great for commerce, and that was where it was most often used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The units worked sort of like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I = 1 (*as*) *[vertical line]*&#xD;&#xA; - S = 1/2 (*semis*) *[letter S]*&#xD;&#xA; -  (or •) = 1/12 (*uncia* = ounce) *[horizontal line or dot]*&#xD;&#xA; -  (or ••) = 2/12 (*sextans*) *[two horizontal lines or dots]*&#xD;&#xA;  - And so on for multiples of 1/12&#xD;&#xA; -  = 1/24 (*semuncia* = half an ounce) *[either capital sigma, or British pound sign without the crossbar)&#xD;&#xA; - Ɔ = 1/48 (*sicilius*) *[backward C]*&#xD;&#xA; -  = 1/72 (*sextula* = 1/6 ounce) *[backward S]*&#xD;&#xA; -  = 1/144 (half a *sextula*) *[backward S with a line through it]*&#xD;&#xA; - ℈ = 1/288 (*scripulum* = scruple) *[backward C with a line through it]*&#xD;&#xA; -  = 1/1728 (*siliqua*) *[double backward C]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two things to notice here!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One, the fraction system works sort of in base-12, because it turns out it's a lot easier to divide things when you're in base-12.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And two, most of these names are units of currency, which isn't a coincidence. Many coins were equivalent to weights (since their value came from their weight in precious metal), and were given names either from their value (*sextans* = &quot;one-sixth&quot;) or from how much they weighed (*siliqua* = &quot;carob seed&quot;). Since these names meant fractions of currency, *or* fractions of weight, they got applied to fractions of other things too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an engineering example, from Frontinus's _De Aquibus_ (&quot;About Aqueducts&quot;), with two translations (both mine). This is in the middle of a list of specifications of pipes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fistula quadragenaria: diametri digitos septem ℈III, perimetri digitos XXII, capit quinarias XXXIIS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The forty-pipe: diameter seven digits, plus one ounce, plus a half-ounce, plus three scruples. Circumference 22 digits, plus five ounces. It holds 32 quinariae, plus a half, plus an ounce.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pipe #40. Diameter: 7 + 1/12 + 1/24 + 3/288. Circumference: 22 + 5/12. Cross-sectional area: 32 + 1/2 + 1/12.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frontinus uses a shorthand here: a full number after a fractional unit means &quot;multiply that unit by this number&quot;. So ℈III means &quot;three scruples&quot;. I've never seen this used with ounces, only smaller amounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to answer your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;One-half&quot; is *S*&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Three-fourths&quot; is *S•••*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not entirely sure how these numbers would have been spoken out loud, since the main sources we have are written, and numerals were pretty much always used in writing (like how in English we'd write &quot;69105.1&quot; instead of &quot;sixty-nine thousand, one hundred and five, and one-tenth&quot;). But based on the currency, here's my best guess, using the example from Frontinus again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; septem ℈III&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Septem, et uncia, et semuncia, et scripuli tres*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, join the units together with *et*, using normal numbers for multipliers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google also leads me to [this table on Wikipedia][1], which gives special names for each integer multiple of one-twelfth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#Fractions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10702" RevisionGUID="e94f1682-37e5-4ef1-ba7a-24d807729b79" CreationDate="2019-05-09T16:30:06.090" UserId="1982" Comment="deleted 357 characters in body" Text="In North &amp; Hillard Ex. 200; the following is to be translated into Latin: &quot;He forgot all the wrongs which he had suffered, and by his arrival brought safety to the state which had treated him so unjustly.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer: &quot;qui omnium iniuriarum quas passus erat oblitus adventu suo civibus qui sese tam iniuste usi erant salutem attulit.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tried: &quot;...omnium iniuriarum quarum (gen. pl.) passus erat...&quot; giving &quot;...of all of the injustices of which he had suffered...&quot; instesd of the given &quot;...of all of the injustices which/ that/ these (&quot;quas&quot; - acc. pl.) he had suffered...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this permissible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was going to ask about species, &quot;sese&quot;, but it`s well-covered in Wiktionary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10706" RevisionGUID="4fe48798-09ab-46ff-a955-3b1b896b406e" CreationDate="2019-05-09T16:32:40.967" UserId="645" Comment="corr. to Latin in 2nd paragraph" Text="&gt; The source of the image states that the person died the 17th of September. The inscription says instead that he died the 15th of October. What is KAL. to do with it? Is some sort of calendar correction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is how the Roman calendar works.&#xD;&#xA;The day is *ante diem quintum decimum Kalendas Octobres*, &quot;before the fifteenth day before the first of October&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;With the Roman inclusive counting&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, this amounts to 17th of September.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question on writing dates](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1943/79) contains a detailed description of how the dates work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And regarding A.S., is this anno sancti? I was surprised not to find A.D., as usual in these inscriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, *Anno Domini* is far more common in my experience.&#xD;&#xA;This one might have *Anno Sancto*, &quot;on the holy year&quot; but not &quot;on the year of the holy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;A more common choice appears to be *Anno Salvatoris* as Tom Cotton suggests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;We would call it the fourteenth day.&#xD;&#xA;For the Romans the day before yesterday would be the third day before today &amp;mdash; you have to count today, yesterday, and the day before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10693" RevisionGUID="c5c958a1-1982-42e6-ab68-58ebaad0d3ba" CreationDate="2019-05-09T16:40:37.710" UserId="406" Comment="added 782 characters in body" Text="According to Vine's &quot;The Morphology of Italic&quot;, all the infinitive endings **originated with the third/consonant conjugation**, and were extrapolated from there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many consonant-stem verbs in Latin used to share a root with an S-stem noun: in other words, the verb was formed by putting (thematic) verb endings directly on the PIE root, and the noun was formed with an extra *-s* before the noun endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Old Latin verb *gen-ō* &quot;give birth to&quot; shares its root with the S-stem *gen-os-s, gen-os-is* &quot;birth&quot; (later *genus, generis*). The locative singular of this noun was *gen-es-i* &quot;in birth&quot;, which became ***gen-er-e* &quot;to give birth to&quot;** by regular sound change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over time, this got re-analyzed as *gene-se*: in other words, a suffix *-se* attached to the present stem of a verb. And since it was really useful having an infinitive form, this was extrapolated to all the other conjugations, as well as other forms that didn't have S-stem nouns in the first place: *habu-is-**se*** &quot;to have held&quot;, *es-**se*** &quot;to be&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(The alternation between S and R is due to rhotacism: sometime in the Old Latin period, S between vowels turned into Z, then into R. This is why habē-re has an R in the suffix while habuis-se has an S.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other Italic languages, though, formed their infinitives somewhat differently—and it's likely that pre-Old-Latin followed some of these patterns too. The passive was never quite as common, so it took longer to settle down and never got fully regularized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The oldest infinitive pattern, with cognates in Indo-Iranian languages, goes back to a PIE suffix like _*-dʰyēi_. In Italic this became _*-ðjē_, which we see in words like Umbrian _pihafei_ (on the Iguvine Tablets—stem cognate with Latin *piāre*).&#xD;&#xA;  - In Oscan, an extra passive *-r* was stuck on the end, the same one seen in most other passive endings (*-or*, *-tur*, *-ntur*, etc). This formed the passive infinitive _sacrafīr_ (stem cognate with Latin *sacrificāre*).&#xD;&#xA;  - Latin did the same thing, but turned the _*ð_ into a _z_ between vowels and deleted it after consonants. So the &quot;original&quot; Latin passive infinitive was *-ier* as in *ag-(z)ier*, *amā-(z)ier*, etc, which led to the archaic-but-Classically-attested forms like ***agier, amārier***: these used to be far and away the most popular infinitives in the third conjugation.&#xD;&#xA; - Another option came from _root_ nouns in the third conjugations, where noun endings were stuck on the PIE root with no adulteration: instead of _gen-os-s_, the root noun would be simply _gen-s_. Root nouns were never very prominent in Italic, but Vedic used the dative singular of root nouns as a passive infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;  - And in fact, the dative singular of a root noun in Latin would look like ***ag-ī* &quot;to be driven&quot;** (&lt; _*ag-ej_ &quot;to/for driving&quot;), which is exactly what we see in the third conjugation!&#xD;&#xA;  - Once the *-rier* passive infinitive fell out of fashion, this is the formation that stuck in the third conjugation. But it never spread to the other conjugations, which didn't have root nouns to work with.&#xD;&#xA; - Yet another option was to use the dative singular, but from the S-stem noun instead of the root noun. This ending would be _*-s-ej_, becoming Latin _-s-ī_, and this was quickly applied to the first, second, and fourth conjugations. It looked a lot like the _-se_ active infinitive so it was easy to remember and that was a big advantage. Hence, forms like ***amārī* &quot;to be loved&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;  - But, this new form never managed to displace the root-noun *-ī* infinitive in the consonant conjugation, which stuck around and gave us the unexpected third-conjugation forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10694" RevisionGUID="27568bcd-c582-4073-acf9-fc85ffc66b04" CreationDate="2019-05-09T16:42:34.557" UserId="406" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Colin Fine's comment hit it on the head:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think it's syncretism - historically different forms being reanalysed as playing the same role (like several historically different past forms being levelled out as the &quot;perfect&quot; in Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin, historically, had three different ways of forming the present passive infinitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A suffix *-(r)ier*, cognate with some Indo-Aryan infinitives plus the passive *-r*&#xD;&#xA; - A suffix *-(e)rī*, from the dative of an S-stem noun&#xD;&#xA; - A suffix *-ī*, from the dative of a root noun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first used to be the most popular, but it fell out of fashion in pre-Classical times. The other two originally only applied to the consonant (third) conjugation, but *-rī* quickly spread to the other conjugations by analogy with active *-re* (which came from the locative of the S-stem noun). On the other hand, *-ī* was significantly more popular than *-(e)rī* in the consonant-stems, and refused to be displaced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more details, [see this other answer][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/10693/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10711" RevisionGUID="94510be0-c2b3-46d2-8a6c-cc8f36f44a5d" CreationDate="2019-05-09T17:17:13.243" UserId="4767" Text="Modern translations of medieval texts frequently translate the Latin verb 'sit'  as he/she/it *is*. However, 'sit' is the subjunctive mood of the verb 'sum'. &#xD;&#xA;In my view it should be translated as he/she/it *be* as in:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Videtur quod pater non sit in filio ...&quot; which is frequently translated as &quot;It seems the father *is* not in the son.&quot; Instead I prefer &quot;It seems the father *be* not in the son.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Comments please. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31375" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10711" RevisionGUID="94510be0-c2b3-46d2-8a6c-cc8f36f44a5d" CreationDate="2019-05-09T17:17:13.243" UserId="4767" Text="Translation of the latin word 'sit' in Thomas Aquinas' works" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31376" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10711" RevisionGUID="94510be0-c2b3-46d2-8a6c-cc8f36f44a5d" CreationDate="2019-05-09T17:17:13.243" UserId="4767" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10693" RevisionGUID="b291caba-8f79-4341-8d61-98319e8e855c" CreationDate="2019-05-09T17:17:39.307" UserId="406" Comment="Turns out linking to a specific part of an answer doesn't work :(" Text="According to Vine's &quot;The Morphology of Italic&quot;, all the infinitive endings **originated with the third/consonant conjugation**, and were extrapolated from there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many consonant-stem verbs in Latin used to share a root with an S-stem noun: in other words, the verb was formed by putting (thematic) verb endings directly on the PIE root, and the noun was formed with an extra *-s* before the noun endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Old Latin verb *gen-ō* &quot;give birth to&quot; shares its root with the S-stem *gen-os-s, gen-os-is* &quot;birth&quot; (later *genus, generis*). The locative singular of this noun was *gen-es-i* &quot;in birth&quot;, which became ***gen-er-e* &quot;to give birth to&quot;** by regular sound change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over time, this got re-analyzed as *gene-se*: in other words, a suffix *-se* attached to the present stem of a verb. And since it was really useful having an infinitive form, this was extrapolated to all the other conjugations, as well as other forms that didn't have S-stem nouns in the first place: *habu-is-**se*** &quot;to have held&quot;, *es-**se*** &quot;to be&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(The alternation between S and R is due to rhotacism: sometime in the Old Latin period, S between vowels turned into Z, then into R. This is why habē-re has an R in the suffix while es-se has an S.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other Italic languages, though, formed their infinitives somewhat differently—and it's likely that pre-Old-Latin followed some of these patterns too. The passive was never quite as common, so it took longer to settle down and never got fully regularized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The oldest infinitive pattern, with cognates in Indo-Iranian languages, goes back to a PIE suffix like _*-dʰyēi_. In Italic this became _*-ðjē_, which we see in words like Umbrian _pihafei_ (on the Iguvine Tablets—stem cognate with Latin *piāre*).&#xD;&#xA;  - In Oscan, an extra passive *-r* was stuck on the end, the same one seen in most other passive endings (*-or*, *-tur*, *-ntur*, etc). This formed the passive infinitive _sacrafīr_ (stem cognate with Latin *sacrificāre*).&#xD;&#xA;  - Latin did the same thing, but turned the _*ð_ into a _z_ between vowels and deleted it after consonants. So the &quot;original&quot; Latin passive infinitive was *-ier* as in *ag-(z)ier*, *amā-(z)ier*, etc, which led to the archaic-but-Classically-attested forms like ***agier, amārier***: these used to be far and away the most popular infinitives in the third conjugation.&#xD;&#xA; - Another option came from _root_ nouns in the third conjugations, where noun endings were stuck on the PIE root with no adulteration: instead of _gen-os-s_, the root noun would be simply _gen-s_. Root nouns were never very prominent in Italic, but Vedic used the dative singular of root nouns as a passive infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;  - And in fact, the dative singular of a root noun in Latin would look like ***ag-ī* &quot;to be driven&quot;** (&lt; _*ag-ej_ &quot;to/for driving&quot;), which is exactly what we see in the third conjugation!&#xD;&#xA;  - Once the *-rier* passive infinitive fell out of fashion, this is the formation that stuck in the third conjugation. But it never spread to the other conjugations, which didn't have root nouns to work with.&#xD;&#xA; - Yet another option was to use the dative singular, but from the S-stem noun instead of the root noun. This ending would be _*-s-ej_, becoming Latin _-s-ī_, and this was quickly applied to the first, second, and fourth conjugations. It looked a lot like the _-se_ active infinitive so it was easy to remember and that was a big advantage. Hence, forms like ***amārī* &quot;to be loved&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;  - But, this new form never managed to displace the root-noun *-ī* infinitive in the consonant conjugation, which stuck around and gave us the unexpected third-conjugation forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10712" RevisionGUID="1c4a0192-9f3d-4dff-afe1-935a2b9f9040" CreationDate="2019-05-09T17:26:12.400" UserId="406" Text="[At one point][1], the Latin passive infinitive was formed with a suffix *-(r)ier*, as in *agier* &quot;to be driven&quot;, *amārier* &quot;to be loved&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen and Greenough call this an &quot;ancient form[…] found chiefly in poetry&quot;, but it is indeed well-attested poetically: it shows up in Vergil, Ovid, Lucretius, Naevius, and others, as well as the older Latin of Plautus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know when this transition happened: when *-(r)ier* became archaic and poetic, and *-(r)ī* took over? To put it another way, if I went back in time to Ancient Rome, at what point would I not sound pretentious saying *agier* and *amārier* in place of *agī* and *amārī*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/10693/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31379" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10712" RevisionGUID="1c4a0192-9f3d-4dff-afe1-935a2b9f9040" CreationDate="2019-05-09T17:26:12.400" UserId="406" Text="When did the infinitive in -ier fall out of use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31380" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10712" RevisionGUID="1c4a0192-9f3d-4dff-afe1-935a2b9f9040" CreationDate="2019-05-09T17:26:12.400" UserId="406" Text="|language-evolution|morphology|passive-voice|infinitive|old-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10713" RevisionGUID="47d7db84-a93d-4dc8-b0a4-d221daa07cab" CreationDate="2019-05-09T17:44:24.940" UserId="406" Text="The trick is the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, you have a subordinate clause with *videtur* &quot;it seems&quot; and *quod* &quot;that&quot;. This is mostly a mediaeval-Latin construction; in Classical prose I would expect *ut* or an accusative-plus-infinitive instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in mediaeval Latin, ***videtur quod* generally takes the subjunctive**. See [this answer][1] by brianpck (and the question itself) for some further analysis. In particular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The moment we depart from such words and move on to verbs like *cogito* and (especially in medieval Latin!) *videtur*, the **subjunctive predominates**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a philosophical level, you could say that the subjunctive is because &quot;it seems&quot; to be a certain way, it isn't necessarily fact. But linguistically, it's easiest just to say &quot;this is a construction that puts its verb in the subjunctive&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, on the other hand, the subjunctive is nearly extinct and very rarely used. The English impersonal &quot;seems&quot; always takes an indicative: &quot;it seems like he wasn't here&quot;, not *&quot;it seems like he weren't here&quot; or *&quot;it seems like he be not here&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in this case, I would say &quot;it seems that the Father is not in the Son&quot; without reservation. A phrasing like *&quot;the Father be not in the Son&quot; just sounds somewhere between archaic and ungrammatical to my Modern English ear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1352/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10706" RevisionGUID="79a8aa37-0ae4-4604-b169-67fa7c7c5a3e" CreationDate="2019-05-09T17:59:52.050" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="&gt; The source of the image states that the person died the 17th of September. The inscription says instead that he died the 15th of October. What is KAL. to do with it? Is some sort of calendar correction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is how the Roman calendar works.&#xD;&#xA;The day is *ante diem quintum decimum Kalendas Octobres*, &quot;on the fifteenth day before the first of October&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;With the Roman inclusive counting&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, this amounts to 17th of September.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question on writing dates](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1943/79) contains a detailed description of how the dates work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And regarding A.S., is this anno sancti? I was surprised not to find A.D., as usual in these inscriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, *Anno Domini* is far more common in my experience.&#xD;&#xA;This one might have *Anno Sancto*, &quot;on the holy year&quot; but not &quot;on the year of the holy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;A more common choice appears to be *Anno Salvatoris* as Tom Cotton suggests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;We would call it the fourteenth day.&#xD;&#xA;For the Romans the day before yesterday would be the third day before today &amp;mdash; you have to count today, yesterday, and the day before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10714" RevisionGUID="02ed4634-a329-4fb4-9c36-443fdc8acb9f" CreationDate="2019-05-09T18:26:58.140" UserId="2476" Text="&#xD;&#xA; - Icelandic is _lingua Islandica_: the [Latin Wikipedia page](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_Islandica#cite_note-1) gives Conradus Gesnerus, _Mithridates: de differentiis linguarum_ (1555) as a source. It can (not easily) be read [here](https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=yTVUAAAAcAAJ&amp;hl=it&amp;pg=GBS.PP2). Ludovico Antonio Muratori speaks of _Islandica Lingua_ in his _Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi_ (1738-43), see [here](https://books.google.it/books?id=mkFLAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA1199&amp;lpg=PA1199&amp;dq=lingua+islandica&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=6rYlPgmtwg&amp;sig=ACfU3U06xcYmLWKiBQeXaQSSrhBhshLtlw&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiOq9OA34viAhUgxcQBHe20DYM4ChDoATAHegQIBxAB#v=onepage&amp;q=lingua%20islandica&amp;f=false).&#xD;&#xA; And here's what appears a lexicon of Icelandic (1959):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adverb _Islandice_ is also attested, see below the front covers of a 17th century work and a 2009 book:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Maybe by analogy, being the only official and national language of _Thailandia_, Thai is often seen on Latin websites as _Lingua Thailandica_. For example, it's in Vicipaedia's [_Linguarum&#xD;&#xA;   officialium&#xD;&#xA;   catalogus_](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguarum_officialium_catalogus#Lingua_Thailandica). However that's pseudo-Latin at best, apparently absent in any official document. Instead, the [_Acta Apostolicae Sedis_ (January 1983, Vol. LXXV, Pars I)](https://biblioteca.unisal.it/repository/Acta_Apostolicae_Sedis_075_1983_1_SL-10.4-D-2.w.pdf) reports the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Liturgia verbi expleta, Summus Pontifex, post audita verba dicta&#xD;&#xA;a Beatissimo Domino Antonio Petro Kòraiche, Patriarcha Antiocheno&#xD;&#xA;Maronitarum, ex noviter creatis primo, hanc allocutionem habuit, adhibita lingua : Italica, Gallica, Anglica, Hispanica, Germanica, Lusitana,&#xD;&#xA;**Thailandiensi**, Lettonica, Croata, Polonica [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems clear that if &quot;Thailandica&quot; had been a possible choice, the editor would have used it. However, unlike _Islandice_, _Thailandiensiter_ is not found by a Google verbatim search. Thus, apparently the way to go here is _lingua Thailandiensi loqui_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The same seems to be true for Maltese. The adjective is indeed _Melitensis_ (not &quot;_Meliticus/a/um_&quot;), it can be found in Cicero's _In Verrem_, and did not change in modern times. [Mikiel Anton Vassalli](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikiel_Anton_Vassalli) published a lexicon _Melitense-Latino-Italum_ (it should've been _Latinum_, I think) in 1796:[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inside, the abbreviations &quot;It.&quot; and &quot;Lat.&quot; are used for _Italice_ and _Latine_, but _Melitensiter_ is nowhere to be found, and there are a couple of _in Melitensi sermone_ that really seem to substitute the adverb. I believe this is enough evidence to conclude the ablative is necessary to &quot;speak Maltese&quot; too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For Chinese there is the problem of distinguishing the group of related language varieties, and what is commonly referred to, i.e. Standard Mandarin. The former appears to be described as _lingua(e) Sinica(e)_, the latter by _lingua Sinensis_ - see [the Vicipaedia discussion](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputatio:Lingua_Sinensis), but in practice there may be no difference. The [Latin Wikipedia page](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguae_Sinicae) references [_Lingua Sinica_ by Petrus Ribadenaira, Philippus Alegambe, Nathaniel Sotvellus, Bibliotheca Scriptorum Societatis Iesu, vol. 2 (1676), p. 598](https://books.google.it/books?id=GKtLAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA598&amp;q=%22lingua+sinica%22&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=%22lingua%20sinica%22&amp;f=false). Besides that, Frédéric Guillaume Bergmann speaks of _lingua sinica_ and _scriptura sinica_ in his [De linguarum origine atque natura: dissertatio philosophica (1839)](https://books.google.it/books?id=yhpJAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA27&amp;lpg=PA27&amp;dq=lingua+sinica&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=eDLWa6iMqw&amp;sig=ACfU3U1vJCk_AdcC3h1sYckJJ-dLrFqTSg&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiCvcnx9Y7iAhXOyqQKHbjRDaY4FBDoATAIegQIBxAB#v=snippet&amp;q=sinica&amp;f=false). On the other hand one has Martino Martini's _Grammatica Linguae Sinensis_ (1651-1653), which deals with Mandarin specifically. At any rate, as was to be expected, _Sinensiter loqui_ is [not](https://www.google.com/search?q=sinensiter&amp;source=lnt&amp;tbs=li:1&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjP8ciE_47iAhUM6KQKHeIxD2sQpwUIJQ&amp;biw=1440&amp;bih=740) attested, whereas _Sinice loqui_ [is](https://books.google.it/books?id=62l2miMFD-QC&amp;pg=RA1-PA150&amp;lpg=RA1-PA150&amp;dq=sinice+loqui&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=KPCqstExhg&amp;sig=ACfU3U3Su-Zov-fAwpoPdXZaFPUnUvGFoQ&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwigr9HQ7Y7iAhWwPOwKHSVKDIAQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=snippet&amp;q=sinice&amp;f=false).&#xD;&#xA; - Irish is _lingua Hibernica_ (as seen below; the work is by Vernam Hull (1954)) and _Hibernice loqui_ [is even attested](https://books.google.it/books?id=_YkJAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA186&amp;lpg=PA186&amp;dq=hibernice+loqui&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=5d0l4twEVQ&amp;sig=ACfU3U0RYog6fZsylPZ1UPk5NnwNR2cbdg&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiQ3eLhg4_iAhWJCuwKHbLsAMoQ6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=hibernice%20loqui&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Dutch is _lingua Nederlandica_, attested in [Humanistica Lovaniensia - Volume XLIII, Corona Martiniana](https://books.google.it/books?id=q--UDgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA476&amp;lpg=PA476&amp;dq=lingua+nederlandica&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Soffe_zLl6&amp;sig=ACfU3U0JXmvmAe-D28NLKL-KSeSvDsqiaQ&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjyzL66hI_iAhXBaFAKHTL8CIUQ6AEwBHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=lingua%20nederlandica&amp;f=false). This is also the expression used by [the Belgian _Schola Nova_](http://www.scholanova.be/index.php/la/admissio#fn4). And indeed, the adverb is present e.g. in de Groot's [_Lineamenta theologiae christianae universae_](https://books.google.it/books?id=IT0-AAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=nederlandice+loqui&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=V8HRB38x4P&amp;sig=ACfU3U0wy2La9wCbB5dV3nuWPM966TQG0g&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiZ2Y2ziI_iAhUfwAIHHf3QA8oQ6AEwCnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=nederlandice&amp;f=false). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KMoTi.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cPgUJ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/py7ca.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KDDrb.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E7ZmO.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31385" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10711" RevisionGUID="09db2771-2208-42d4-8d2d-f39da066307b" CreationDate="2019-05-09T20:03:15.583" />
  <row Id="31386" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="6631" RevisionGUID="ceb04659-2cc2-4892-ac6a-85001791f767" CreationDate="2019-05-09T20:04:48.703" UserId="469" Comment="114" />
  <row Id="31387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10715" RevisionGUID="67480429-f00a-49f3-9b29-479616b27650" CreationDate="2019-05-09T21:19:10.557" UserId="522" Text="&gt; *Quadrans,* a quarter.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;To answer your questions precisely, (but notice that with *egit,* ='there is lacking,' *Varro's* definition shows another formula to use) the word for three-quarters is &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***dōdrans,*** = threequarters, or more precisely nine twelfths.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ita dict. quod ad deficiendum assem desit quadrans. *Varr.*]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *dodrantalis,* adj, three-quarter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Half' is more complicated:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Dimidium,** pars media; medietas.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but in many cases there is a specific word.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *semiiugerum,* half an acre;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *semipes,* half a foot;  &#xD;&#xA;*sesquipes,* a foot and a half.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that dōdrans fits the twelfths mentioned by Draconis in his post.&#xD;&#xA;[Also, I'm sure I read somewhere that 'five sixths,' was *quinque partes;* 'seven-eighths,' *septem partes;* but I can only find any support at all for 'nine tenths,' *novem vero partes.* ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10714" RevisionGUID="2be843bc-53ec-40f9-a108-404811e77c74" CreationDate="2019-05-09T21:42:45.083" UserId="9" Comment="Moved left margin to make it match across bullets. Replaced a few images with transcriptions to save space and for better searchability." Text=" - Icelandic is _lingua Islandica_: the [Latin Wikipedia page](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_Islandica#cite_note-1) gives Conradus Gesnerus, _Mithridates: de differentiis linguarum_ (1555) as a source. It can (not easily) be read [here](https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=yTVUAAAAcAAJ&amp;hl=it&amp;pg=GBS.PP2). Ludovico Antonio Muratori speaks of _Islandica Lingua_ in his _Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi_ (1738-43), see [here](https://books.google.it/books?id=mkFLAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA1199&amp;lpg=PA1199&amp;dq=lingua+islandica&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=6rYlPgmtwg&amp;sig=ACfU3U06xcYmLWKiBQeXaQSSrhBhshLtlw&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiOq9OA34viAhUgxcQBHe20DYM4ChDoATAHegQIBxAB#v=onepage&amp;q=lingua%20islandica&amp;f=false).&#xD;&#xA; And here's what appears to be a lexicon of Icelandic (1959): *Lingua Islandica: Íslenzk tunga*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The adverb _Islandice_ is also attested: see the front cover of a 17th century work (below) and the title of a 2009 book, *Clari Fabella: Islandice et Latine,* by Gustaf Cederschiöld, Samuel Cavallin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Maybe by analogy, being the only official and national language of _Thailandia_, Thai is often seen on Latin websites as _Lingua Thailandica_. For example, it's in Vicipaedia's [_Linguarum&#xD;&#xA;   officialium&#xD;&#xA;   catalogus_](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguarum_officialium_catalogus#Lingua_Thailandica). However that's pseudo-Latin at best, apparently absent in any official document. Instead, the [_Acta Apostolicae Sedis_ (January 1983, Vol. LXXV, Pars I)](https://biblioteca.unisal.it/repository/Acta_Apostolicae_Sedis_075_1983_1_SL-10.4-D-2.w.pdf) reports the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Liturgia verbi expleta, Summus Pontifex, post audita verba dicta&#xD;&#xA;a Beatissimo Domino Antonio Petro Kòraiche, Patriarcha Antiocheno&#xD;&#xA;Maronitarum, ex noviter creatis primo, hanc allocutionem habuit, adhibita lingua : Italica, Gallica, Anglica, Hispanica, Germanica, Lusitana,&#xD;&#xA;**Thailandiensi**, Lettonica, Croata, Polonica [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It seems clear that if &quot;Thailandica&quot; had been a possible choice, the editor would have used it. However, unlike _Islandice_, _Thailandiensiter_ is not found by a Google verbatim search. Thus, apparently the way to go here is _lingua Thailandiensi loqui_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The same seems to be true for Maltese. The adjective is indeed _Melitensis_ (not &quot;_Meliticus/a/um_&quot;), it can be found in Cicero's _In Verrem_, and did not change in modern times. [Mikiel Anton Vassalli](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikiel_Anton_Vassalli) published a lexicon _Melitense-Latino-Italum_ (it should've been _Latinum_, I think) in 1796:[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Inside, the abbreviations &quot;It.&quot; and &quot;Lat.&quot; are used for _Italice_ and _Latine_, but _Melitensiter_ is nowhere to be found, and there are a couple of _in Melitensi sermone_ that really seem to substitute the adverb. I believe this is enough evidence to conclude the ablative is necessary to &quot;speak Maltese&quot; too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For Chinese there is the problem of distinguishing the group of related language varieties, and what is commonly referred to, i.e. Standard Mandarin. The former appears to be described as _lingua(e) Sinica(e)_, the latter by _lingua Sinensis_ - see [the Vicipaedia discussion](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputatio:Lingua_Sinensis), but in practice there may be no difference. The [Latin Wikipedia page](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguae_Sinicae) references [_Lingua Sinica_ by Petrus Ribadenaira, Philippus Alegambe, Nathaniel Sotvellus, Bibliotheca Scriptorum Societatis Iesu, vol. 2 (1676), p. 598](https://books.google.it/books?id=GKtLAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA598&amp;q=%22lingua+sinica%22&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=%22lingua%20sinica%22&amp;f=false). Besides that, Frédéric Guillaume Bergmann speaks of _lingua sinica_ and _scriptura sinica_ in his [De linguarum origine atque natura: dissertatio philosophica (1839)](https://books.google.it/books?id=yhpJAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA27&amp;lpg=PA27&amp;dq=lingua+sinica&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=eDLWa6iMqw&amp;sig=ACfU3U1vJCk_AdcC3h1sYckJJ-dLrFqTSg&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiCvcnx9Y7iAhXOyqQKHbjRDaY4FBDoATAIegQIBxAB#v=snippet&amp;q=sinica&amp;f=false). On the other hand one has Martino Martini's _Grammatica Linguae Sinensis_ (1651-1653), which deals with Mandarin specifically. At any rate, as was to be expected, _Sinensiter loqui_ is [not](https://www.google.com/search?q=sinensiter&amp;source=lnt&amp;tbs=li:1&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjP8ciE_47iAhUM6KQKHeIxD2sQpwUIJQ&amp;biw=1440&amp;bih=740) attested, whereas _Sinice loqui_ [is](https://books.google.it/books?id=62l2miMFD-QC&amp;pg=RA1-PA150&amp;lpg=RA1-PA150&amp;dq=sinice+loqui&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=KPCqstExhg&amp;sig=ACfU3U3Su-Zov-fAwpoPdXZaFPUnUvGFoQ&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwigr9HQ7Y7iAhWwPOwKHSVKDIAQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=snippet&amp;q=sinice&amp;f=false).&#xD;&#xA; - Irish is _lingua Hibernica_ (as seen in the title of the article &quot;Noticulae De Lingua Hibernica&quot;, by Vernam Hull (1954)) and _Hibernice loqui_ [is even attested](https://books.google.it/books?id=_YkJAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA186&amp;lpg=PA186&amp;dq=hibernice+loqui&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=5d0l4twEVQ&amp;sig=ACfU3U0RYog6fZsylPZ1UPk5NnwNR2cbdg&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiQ3eLhg4_iAhWJCuwKHbLsAMoQ6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=hibernice%20loqui&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Dutch is _lingua Nederlandica_, attested in [Humanistica Lovaniensia - Volume XLIII, Corona Martiniana](https://books.google.it/books?id=q--UDgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA476&amp;lpg=PA476&amp;dq=lingua+nederlandica&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Soffe_zLl6&amp;sig=ACfU3U0JXmvmAe-D28NLKL-KSeSvDsqiaQ&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjyzL66hI_iAhXBaFAKHTL8CIUQ6AEwBHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=lingua%20nederlandica&amp;f=false). This is also the expression used by [the Belgian _Schola Nova_](http://www.scholanova.be/index.php/la/admissio#fn4). And indeed, the adverb is present e.g. in de Groot's [_Lineamenta theologiae christianae universae_](https://books.google.it/books?id=IT0-AAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=nederlandice+loqui&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=V8HRB38x4P&amp;sig=ACfU3U0wy2La9wCbB5dV3nuWPM966TQG0g&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiZ2Y2ziI_iAhUfwAIHHf3QA8oQ6AEwCnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=nederlandice&amp;f=false). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KMoTi.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cPgUJ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/py7ca.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KDDrb.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E7ZmO.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10701" RevisionGUID="57283061-066d-479e-b391-cb09decfaa65" CreationDate="2019-05-09T23:38:56.837" UserId="406" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Fractions were written, as you might expect, using Roman numerals. This wasn't particularly elegant for anything more complex than adding and subtracting, but it worked great for commerce, and that was where it was most often used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The units worked sort of like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I = 1 (*as*) *[vertical line]*&#xD;&#xA; - S = 1/2 (*semis*) *[letter S]*&#xD;&#xA; -  (or •) = 1/12 (*uncia* = ounce) *[horizontal line or dot]*&#xD;&#xA; -  (or ••) = 2/12 (*sextans*) *[two horizontal lines or dots]*&#xD;&#xA;  - And so on for multiples of 1/12&#xD;&#xA; -  = 1/24 (*semuncia* = half an ounce) *[either capital sigma, or British pound sign without the crossbar]*&#xD;&#xA; - Ɔ = 1/48 (*sicilius*) *[backward C]*&#xD;&#xA; -  = 1/72 (*sextula* = 1/6 ounce) *[backward S]*&#xD;&#xA; -  = 1/144 (half a *sextula*) *[backward S with a line through it]*&#xD;&#xA; - ℈ = 1/288 (*scripulum* = scruple) *[backward C with a line through it]*&#xD;&#xA; -  = 1/1728 (*siliqua*) *[double backward C]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two things to notice here!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One, the fraction system works sort of in base-12, because it turns out it's a lot easier to divide things when you're in base-12.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And two, most of these names are units of currency, which isn't a coincidence. Many coins were equivalent to weights (since their value came from their weight in precious metal), and were given names either from their value (*sextans* = &quot;one-sixth&quot;) or from how much they weighed (*siliqua* = &quot;carob seed&quot;). Since these names meant fractions of currency, *or* fractions of weight, they got applied to fractions of other things too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an engineering example, from Frontinus's _De Aquibus_ (&quot;About Aqueducts&quot;), with two translations (both mine). This is in the middle of a list of specifications of pipes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fistula quadragenaria: diametri digitos septem ℈III, perimetri digitos XXII, capit quinarias XXXIIS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The forty-pipe: diameter seven digits, plus one ounce, plus a half-ounce, plus three scruples. Circumference 22 digits, plus five ounces. It holds 32 quinariae, plus a half, plus an ounce.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pipe #40. Diameter: 7 + 1/12 + 1/24 + 3/288. Circumference: 22 + 5/12. Cross-sectional area: 32 + 1/2 + 1/12.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frontinus uses a shorthand here: a full number after a fractional unit means &quot;multiply that unit by this number&quot;. So ℈III means &quot;three scruples&quot;. I've never seen this used with ounces, only smaller amounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to answer your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;One-half&quot; is *S*&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Three-fourths&quot; is *S•••*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not entirely sure how these numbers would have been spoken out loud, since the main sources we have are written, and numerals were pretty much always used in writing (like how in English we'd write &quot;69105.1&quot; instead of &quot;sixty-nine thousand, one hundred and five, and one-tenth&quot;). But based on the currency, here's my best guess, using the example from Frontinus again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; septem ℈III&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Septem, et uncia, et semuncia, et scripuli tres*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, join the units together with *et*, using normal numbers for multipliers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google also leads me to [this table on Wikipedia][1], which gives special names for each integer multiple of one-twelfth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#Fractions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10716" RevisionGUID="6c2f3685-1f0d-4c76-9876-345b0655ee70" CreationDate="2019-05-10T00:55:42.430" UserId="4731" Text="Simply put:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Quae [actionēs] tum faciēs (agēs)?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Tum* was the go to word for &quot;then&quot; in out Latin text books at school; *facere* means to do or make, while *agere* means do or drive. Actions might be the better word here than things.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10717" RevisionGUID="a5b2cf12-ad1a-467a-8909-34043b68e9f4" CreationDate="2019-05-10T01:08:31.803" UserId="4731" Text="In my old Latin text book, the word for Lover was *amans, amantis* (M/F). *Amicus, Amica* usually mean just friend." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10718" RevisionGUID="418966c1-5ba4-43f1-9e19-e8c7bd0571c4" CreationDate="2019-05-10T02:08:19.137" UserId="4731" Text="Well, here we have the reflexive pronouns *tē* and *mē*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, with the tone you are setting with the phrase &quot;explain yourself,&quot; I would think *excusa* would be better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tē excusa!* Explain yourself!&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Mē non bene (clare; delucide) explicare.* I did not explain myself well (clearly).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Non mē clarus/-a (dilucidus/-a) fuī.* I was not clear.&lt;br&gt; -or better-&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Non mē claravī.* I did not make myself clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(someone correct me on the case of the reflexive)&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9433" RevisionGUID="5fc6730d-fce8-4497-848d-c1fcd54e68ce" CreationDate="2019-05-10T07:14:34.207" UserId="1459" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="How do you translate the following sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What things, then, will you do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am particularly doubtful of the translation of &quot;things&quot; here. Would we use _res_, _rei_?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31394" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9433" RevisionGUID="5fc6730d-fce8-4497-848d-c1fcd54e68ce" CreationDate="2019-05-10T07:14:34.207" UserId="1459" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9436" RevisionGUID="f8360c96-bb62-4355-8586-11b022169fa7" CreationDate="2019-05-10T07:15:19.283" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body" Text="The neuter plural of the Interrogative Pronoun is simplest. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Then' can be translated in a number of ways:  &#xD;&#xA;*prorsum* means 'then,' 'next,'  'straightaway.'  &#xD;&#xA;*igitur* (usually placed second word) 'then,' 'therefore.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10719" RevisionGUID="d3a6107d-a954-4169-880b-7dfcb2a036c8" CreationDate="2019-05-10T11:53:33.203" UserDisplayName="user4768" Text="Do the Latin have any other verbs, whose perfect tense forms base on the lexical root, that differs from the lexical root of the infinitive form (by analogy with the verb fero -&gt; tuli)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31397" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10719" RevisionGUID="d3a6107d-a954-4169-880b-7dfcb2a036c8" CreationDate="2019-05-10T11:53:33.203" UserDisplayName="user4768" Text="The lexical root of the perfect tense forms differs from the lexical root of the infinitive form" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31398" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10719" RevisionGUID="d3a6107d-a954-4169-880b-7dfcb2a036c8" CreationDate="2019-05-10T11:53:33.203" UserDisplayName="user4768" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10720" RevisionGUID="d4a75277-1d5d-4fa2-9a5f-389c6e248a88" CreationDate="2019-05-10T13:26:25.940" UserId="79" Text="*Ferre* is not the only example, but the phenomenon is quite rare.&#xD;&#xA;Here are the examples that come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *ferre* (*tul-*) and prefixed versions&#xD;&#xA;- *esse* (*fu-*) and prefixed versions&#xD;&#xA;- *tollere* (*sustul-*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Predicting the perfect stem from the present stem is quite hard outside the first conjugation, but they do still generally come from the same origin with some adjustments.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *tang-* and *tetig-* both have the element *tag*, one with a nasal augment and one with reduplication and weakening." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10719" RevisionGUID="3a3ce693-b7a1-4f9b-a0ed-1e777c9bdf2a" CreationDate="2019-05-10T13:26:56.757" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="Do the Latin have any other verbs, whose perfect tense forms base on the lexical root, that differs from the lexical root of the infinitive form (by analogy with the verb *fero &gt; tuli*)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31401" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10719" RevisionGUID="3a3ce693-b7a1-4f9b-a0ed-1e777c9bdf2a" CreationDate="2019-05-10T13:26:56.757" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|etymology|morphology|perfect-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10721" RevisionGUID="76bebb93-ddd1-46dc-9d39-da4180541468" CreationDate="2019-05-10T14:01:57.820" UserId="522" Text="Also  &#xD;&#xA;*ferio, ici (percussi), ictum (percussum)* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some inceptives as  &#xD;&#xA;*adolesco, adolevi.* grow up.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And groups with oblique links to the present stem:  &#xD;&#xA;*struo, struxi.*  &#xD;&#xA;*torqueo, torsi.* twist  &#xD;&#xA;*torreo, torri.* scorch&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31403" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10719" RevisionGUID="ed10b277-ad01-4d86-9aa6-6e0fa154d0cd" CreationDate="2019-05-10T15:04:21.910" />
  <row Id="31404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10722" RevisionGUID="cc101700-3392-4faa-b983-d39ba831593a" CreationDate="2019-05-10T15:16:01.260" UserId="406" Text="In general, this is called *suppletion*: when some forms of a verb are stolen from a totally different verb. For example, English *to go* has no past-tense forms; the past tense is taken from the unrelated verb *to wend* (as in &quot;wend your way&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In later Latin leading into Romance, for an extreme example, the verb *eō, īre* lost many of its conjugations, replacing them with forms from *ambulāre* &quot;to walk&quot;, *vadere* &quot;to advance&quot;, and even *esse* &quot;to be&quot;! The choice of which to use isn't consistent even within a tense: compare French *je vais* &lt; *ego vadō* with *nous allons* &lt; *nōs ambulāmus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some more Latin examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *fīō, fierī, **factus***, &quot;become&quot;, suppleted with *faciō* &quot;make&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *sum, esse, **fuī, futurus***, &quot;be&quot;, suppleted with a PIE root for &quot;become&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - As you mentioned, *ferō, ferre, **tulī, lātus***, &quot;carry&quot;, suppleted with *tollō*, &quot;lift&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *tollō, tollere, **sustulī, sublātus***, &quot;lift&quot;, plus a prefix because the original perfect forms were stolen by *ferō*&#xD;&#xA; - *feriō, ferīre, **percussī, percussus***, &quot;hit&quot;, suppleted with *percutiō* &quot;beat&quot; (thanks to Hugh for this one)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the other ones I can think of are compounds from one of these, usually *sum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10723" RevisionGUID="3ee3d931-7212-411d-b051-42746d5f34f2" CreationDate="2019-05-10T15:32:27.147" UserId="183" Text="The Russian usage may be influenced by the German term *liquidieren* in the economical sense &quot;to sell all commodities of an enterprise and shut it down&quot;, mostly but not necessarily in the case of bancruptcy. Metaphorically, money is a liquid, and the commodities are solids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;German *liquidieren* also has the meaning (attested since the 16th century) &quot;to cash in&quot;, see https://drw-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/drw-cgi/zeige?index=lemmata&amp;term=liquidieren" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10724" RevisionGUID="f2071e60-f501-4227-9bc6-3dc6776d1fe0" CreationDate="2019-05-10T15:53:56.323" UserId="2787" Text="Is &quot;Fīliolō me&quot; the ablative of the phrase or &quot;me&quot; refers to &quot;me auctum&quot; in the accusative? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31408" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10724" RevisionGUID="f2071e60-f501-4227-9bc6-3dc6776d1fe0" CreationDate="2019-05-10T15:53:56.323" UserId="2787" Text="&quot;Fīliolō me auctum scito, salva Terentia&quot;; what is &quot;Fīliolō me&quot; role in this phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31409" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10724" RevisionGUID="f2071e60-f501-4227-9bc6-3dc6776d1fe0" CreationDate="2019-05-10T15:53:56.323" UserId="2787" Text="|classical-latin|latin-to-english-translation|ablative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31412" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10724" RevisionGUID="93b5562f-2b34-487d-93cb-e8cd1364f679" CreationDate="2019-05-10T16:21:58.073" UserId="2787" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Fīliolō me auctum scito, salva Terentia&quot;; what is &quot;me&quot; role in this phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10724" RevisionGUID="93b5562f-2b34-487d-93cb-e8cd1364f679" CreationDate="2019-05-10T16:21:58.073" UserId="2787" Comment="edited title" Text="Is &quot;Fīliolō me&quot; the ablative of the phrase or &quot;me&quot; refers to &quot;me auctum&quot; in the accusative? If is in the ablative, how does it translates?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10722" RevisionGUID="7c8a64b5-05a5-41cc-957e-c54282d9ef86" CreationDate="2019-05-10T16:28:45.630" UserId="406" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="In general, this is called *suppletion*: when some forms of a verb are stolen from a totally different verb. For example, English *to go* has no past-tense forms; the past tense is taken from the unrelated verb *to wend* (as in &quot;wend your way&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In later Latin leading into Romance, for an extreme example, the verb *eō, īre* lost many of its conjugations, replacing them with forms from *ambulāre* &quot;to walk&quot;, *vadere* &quot;to advance&quot;, and even *esse* &quot;to be&quot;! The choice of which to use isn't consistent even within a tense: compare French *je vais* &lt; *ego vadō* with *nous allons* &lt; *nōs ambulāmus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some more Latin examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *sum, esse, **fuī, futurus***, &quot;be&quot;, suppleted with (effectively) *fīō* &quot;become&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *fīō, fierī, **factus***, &quot;become&quot;, suppleted with *faciō* &quot;make&quot; because *esse* stole its perfect stem&#xD;&#xA; - As you mentioned, *ferō, ferre, **tulī, lātus***, &quot;carry&quot;, suppleted with *tollō*, &quot;lift&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - *tollō, tollere, **sustulī, sublātus***, &quot;lift&quot;, plus a prefix because the original perfect forms were stolen by *ferō*&#xD;&#xA; - *feriō, ferīre, **percussī, percussus***, &quot;hit&quot;, suppleted with *percutiō* &quot;beat&quot; (thanks to Hugh for this one)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the other ones I can think of are compounds from one of these, usually *sum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10726" RevisionGUID="ce578957-5f70-4e57-810c-61f7959cd5d9" CreationDate="2019-05-10T17:03:12.030" UserId="985" Text="*Me* is accusative subject of the infinitive (*auctum* = *auctum esse*) in indirect statement triggered by the imperative form *scito*. *Filiolo* is ablative of means: 'Know that I have been enriched/enhanced by (provided with) a little son.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, this is from the opening of Cicero, *Ad Atticum* I.2. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10727" RevisionGUID="f096976a-7876-4461-97c8-d6d9ed9cd262" CreationDate="2019-05-10T17:08:11.887" UserId="522" Text="Every student of Latin soon learns about the **Ablative Absolute..**  &#xD;&#xA;This is used when the Noun and the Participle have no position in the clause as Subject or Object. So in this Sentence the opening words are in the Ablative because they are &quot;loosed from&quot; (Absolute) from the clause, (confer: *Nominativus Pendens)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; L. Iulio Caesare, C. Marcio Figulo consulibus &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the Noun Participle phrase is the Subject it ought to be Nominative:  &#xD;&#xA;And, if it is the **object** of the verb (here= *scito),* then it will be *accusative* (here= *me)* and the participle will also be accusative in agreement (here= *auctum).* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Scito*** know ***me*** me ***auctum*** having been increased ***fīliolō*** by one little son.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--apologies for the mangled English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10728" RevisionGUID="62970633-9b81-49a5-af8b-30f767ae669b" CreationDate="2019-05-10T17:20:32.487" UserId="406" Text="This might be clearer if we add the implicit *esse*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fīliolō mē auctum *esse* scitō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(It's common to leave out forms of *esse* for brevity; they're seldom actually necessary.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now it's clear this is an indirect accusative+infinitive construction: the main verb is _scitō_, the accusative is _mē_, and the infinitive is _auctum esse_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *(literally)* Know me to have been increased&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *(that is)* Know that I have been increased&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since _auctum esse_ is passive, it can take an ablative noun indicating who's doing the increasing: *fīliolō*, by a baby son.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some possible translations into English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Know that I've been enriched by a baby son&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Know that my life has been made better by my new baby son" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31418" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10701" RevisionGUID="24dd4945-0411-48cd-875b-5ba168ea1818" CreationDate="2019-05-10T17:56:17.807" UserId="406" Comment="added 334 characters in body" Text="Fractions were written, as you might expect, using Roman numerals. This wasn't particularly elegant for anything more complex than adding and subtracting, but it worked great for commerce, and that was where it was most often used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The units worked sort of like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I = 1 (*as*) *[vertical line]*&#xD;&#xA; - S = 1/2 (*semis*) *[letter S]*&#xD;&#xA; -  (or •) = 1/12 (*uncia* = ounce) *[horizontal line or dot]*&#xD;&#xA; -  (or ••) = 2/12 (*sextans*) *[two horizontal lines or dots]*&#xD;&#xA;  - And so on for multiples of 1/12&#xD;&#xA; -  = 1/24 (*semuncia* = half an ounce) *[either capital sigma, or British pound sign without the crossbar]*&#xD;&#xA; - Ɔ = 1/48 (*sicilius*) *[backward C]*&#xD;&#xA; -  = 1/72 (*sextula* = 1/6 ounce) *[backward S]*&#xD;&#xA; -  = 1/144 (half a *sextula*) *[backward S with a line through it]*&#xD;&#xA; - ℈ = 1/288 (*scripulum* = scruple) *[backward C with a line through it]*&#xD;&#xA; -  = 1/1728 (*siliqua*) *[double backward C]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two things to notice here!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One, the fraction system works sort of in base-12, because it turns out it's a lot easier to divide things when you're in base-12.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And two, most of these names are units of currency, which isn't a coincidence. Many coins were equivalent to weights (since their value came from their weight in precious metal), and were given names either from their value (*sextans* = &quot;one-sixth&quot;) or from how much they weighed (*siliqua* = &quot;carob seed&quot;). Since these names meant fractions of currency, *or* fractions of weight, they got applied to fractions of other things too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an engineering example, from Frontinus's _De Aquibus_ (&quot;About Aqueducts&quot;), with two translations (both mine). This is in the middle of a list of specifications of pipes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fistula quadragenaria: diametri digitos septem ℈III, perimetri digitos XXII, capit quinarias XXXIIS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The forty-pipe: diameter seven digits, plus one ounce, plus a half-ounce, plus three scruples. Circumference 22 digits, plus five ounces. It holds 32 quinariae, plus a half, plus an ounce.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pipe #40. Diameter: 7 + 1/12 + 1/24 + 3/288. Circumference: 22 + 5/12. Cross-sectional area: 32 + 1/2 + 1/12.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frontinus uses a shorthand here: a full number after a fractional unit means &quot;multiply that unit by this number&quot;. So ℈III means &quot;three scruples&quot;. I've never seen this used with ounces, only smaller amounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to answer your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;One-half&quot; is *S*&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Three-fourths&quot; is *S•••*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not entirely sure how these numbers would have been spoken out loud, since the main sources we have are written, and numerals were pretty much always used in writing (like how in English we'd write &quot;69105.1&quot; instead of &quot;sixty-nine thousand, one hundred and five, and one-tenth&quot;). But based on the currency, here's my best guess, using the example from Frontinus again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; septem ℈III&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Septem, et uncia, et semuncia, et scripuli tres*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, join the units together with *et*, using normal numbers for multipliers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google also leads me to [this table on Wikipedia][1], which gives special names for each integer multiple of one-twelfth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: This is how the list of symbols looks for me, using Google Noto fonts. Unfortunately I can't find a way to align it with the actual list, and turning the text of the answer into an image makes it useless for screen readers. [![picture of badly supported Unicode characters][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#Fractions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/o12on.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10730" RevisionGUID="5b682475-19c2-4d0b-802e-e6c8ea40757b" CreationDate="2019-05-10T18:26:41.040" UserId="2363" Text="Since your question concerned a conditional clause, I'll focus my answer there. In a conditional clause, the present subjunctive refers to an indefinite time, including the future. *Si dicas* does not (usually) mean &quot;If you are now saying,&quot; but rather, &quot;If you should (at some point) say.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the conditions refers to a specific future time, the future or future perfect indicative is used. Thus, there's just no need or room for a separate future subjunctive. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31424" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10724" RevisionGUID="4a8d29a0-cf86-4215-baf8-6e75b1122ed0" CreationDate="2019-05-10T18:34:34.073" />
  <row Id="31425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10730" RevisionGUID="94e99232-5600-4b2b-b5a7-a1b4d83d8a57" CreationDate="2019-05-10T19:36:49.350" UserId="2363" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Since your question concerned a conditional clause, I'll focus my answer there. In a conditional clause, the present subjunctive refers to an indefinite time, including the future. *Si dicas* does not (usually) mean &quot;If you are now saying,&quot; but rather, &quot;If you should (at some point) say.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the condition refers to a specific future time, the future or future perfect indicative is used. Thus, there's just no need or room for a separate future subjunctive. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10727" RevisionGUID="472054ef-b4fa-4044-a079-4c5c77a78e56" CreationDate="2019-05-10T19:56:10.587" UserId="522" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="Every student of Latin soon learns about the **Ablative Absolute..**  &#xD;&#xA;This is used when the Noun and the Participle have no position in the clause as Subject or Object. So in this Sentence [the opening words][1] are in the Ablative because they are &quot;loosed from&quot; (Absolute) from the clause, (confer: *Nominativus Pendens)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; L. Iulio Caesare, C. Marcio Figulo consulibus &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the Noun Participle phrase is the Subject it ought to be Nominative:  &#xD;&#xA;And, if it is the **object** of the verb (here= *scito),* then it will be *accusative* (here= *me)* and the participle will also be accusative in agreement (here= *auctum).* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Scito*** know ***me*** me ***auctum*** having been increased ***fīliolō*** by one little son.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--apologies for the mangled English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=PerseusLatinTexts&amp;query=Cic.%20Att.%201.2&amp;getid=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10684" RevisionGUID="6817d8ec-0206-4e4d-a531-c899d16d3787" CreationDate="2019-05-11T10:59:29.543" UserId="9" Comment="added summary; further discussion of &quot;patior&quot;" Text="There is no single standard for Latin pronunciation. The main division is between reconstructed pronunciation (based on our idea of what Classical Latin sounded like) vs. everything else. As Draconis mentioned, in reconstructed pronunciation &amp;lt;ti&gt; is just pronounced as a sequence of the T sound [t] followed by one of the two I sounds, **ĭ** [i~ɪ] or **ī** [iː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most other pronunciation systems, &amp;lt;ti&gt; has a special pronunciation where the T is &quot;assibilated&quot; in certain contexts. This phenomenon is based on a sound change that is thought to have occurred naturally in the development of the spoken language; however, I think that the &quot;rules&quot; or &quot;standards&quot; connecting the use of this pronunciation in modern speech to particular written contexts may be partly artificial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's thought that the original sound of the assibilated T was an affricate [t͡s]; in some languages such as French and English, this underwent further developments (to [s] or in English often to [ʃ] (the sound of &quot;sh&quot; in &quot;fish&quot;; for example, the English word *nation* is pronounced with [ʃ]). I don't know of any tradition of Latin pronunciation that uses an elongated sound in this context: in fact, I've heard that Ecclesiastical Latin has specifically **short** [t͡s] in words like *natio,* in contrast to the **long** [tt͡s] sound that many Italian speakers use in Italian words like *spazzi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the conditions that I know of for using the assibilated pronunciation of T in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##First, two clear conditions for not assibilating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ###Don't assibilate unless the I comes before another vowel&#xD;&#xA;The assibilated pronunciation of T in the sequence &amp;lt;ti&gt; developed only when the I was followed by another vowel. (The original conditioning factor for the assibilation may have been a change of I to a glide [j].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ###Don't assibilate after the sound [s] (whether spelled S or X)&#xD;&#xA;The assibilated pronunciation of T did not develop after the sound [s]. There are numerous examples with the spelling &amp;lt;sti&gt;; there aren't so many with the spelling &amp;lt;xti&gt;, but *mixtio* seems to be given by a number of sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (In English, the [tj] of words spelled with &amp;lt;sti&gt; and &amp;lt;xti&gt; developed for many speakers via palatalization to the affricate [t͡ʃ], as in the words *bestial* and *question.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Next, some unclear conditions for not assibilating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following conditions are either less clear, or more marginal in scope (or both).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. ###After another T&#xD;&#xA;Supposedly, the assibilated pronunciation of T is not used in words spelled with &amp;lt;tti&gt;. There are very few examples of &amp;lt;tti&gt; followed by a vowel in Latin, so I asked a separate question to try to determine the evidence for this rule: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8824&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Despite the non-obviousness of this rule to me, sources seem to be fairly consistent in saying not to assibilate in this context, so I would recommend following that practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. ###In (some) words from Greek (maybe also applies to TY)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I've seen a few sources that say that T was not or should not be assibilated in words from Greek. According to Blair (1873), &quot;in Greek words (as *Aegyptius*), as the I is not consonantal, the T cannot be hissed&quot; (*[Latin Pronunciation: An Inquiry Into the Proper Sound of the Latin Language during the Classical Period](https://books.google.com/books?id=s3NXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA118),* p. 118). I have the impression that the actual pronunciation used with words of this sort is sporadic and might vary between different time periods. Despite what Blair says, I wouldn't recommend making a special exception for words like *Aegyptius.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; On the other hand, I would not assibilate the T in a word starting with &amp;lt;ti&gt; followed by a vowel (the only example I know of is *tiara*). I'm used to pronouncing [t] in the English word, and Italian also seems to have [t] rather than [t͡s] in *[tiara](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/tiara).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. ###In certain forms of passive or deponent verbs with infinitives ending in *-ti*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In the infinitive *pati,* the I is not followed by a vowel, so it's regular to not assibilate the T. A number of sources say that the archaic infinitive forms ending in *-ier* like *patier* also have non-assibilated T, and so were exceptions to the rule (Blair gives *nitier* and *quatier* as examples, p. 118).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I found another source that seems to apply this exception also to finite forms such as *patior* (&quot;[The Correct Pronunciation of Latin According to Roman Usage](http://www.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/12/07/05/19-20-13_0.pdf)&quot;, by Michael de Angelis, p. 20). But I'm a bit doubtful that this is actually an observed as opposed to a theoretical exception. There seems to be a spelling variant *[pacior](https://books.google.com/books?id=OQYhDpaDH2MC&amp;pg=PA52&amp;lpg=PA52&amp;dq=%22pacior%22+%22pati%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pacior%22%20%22pati%22&amp;f=false),* which implies that at least some speakers at some point in time assibilated the T in this word (in some varieties of spoken Latin, assibilated T sounded the same as &quot;soft C&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. ###When the I is long and/or stressed (very uncertain to me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Blair (1873) says that the T in *totius* did not undergo the sound change of assibilation because the I was long (*tōtīus*) (p. 118). As Draconis mentioned, contrastive vowel length *per se* is lost in Ecclesiastical Latin, but it is not irrelevant in all cases to pronunciation: the position of stress in Ecclesiastical Latin corresponds to the stress of Classical Latin, which was assigned by a length-based rule. For example, *termĭnus* is stressed on the third-to-last syllable in both Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin, and *bovīnus* is stressed on the second-to-last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A complication in the case of *totius* is that an alternative scansion *tōtĭus* was used sometimes in poetry. I don't know whether this led to the development of an Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation *ˈto[t͡s]ius* with initial stress. If a pronunciation of *totius* with stress on the second syllable is/was used in Ecclesiastical Latin, I'm not entirely sure whether it would be more regular for it to be *to*ˈ[tsi]*us* or *to*[ˈti]*us*. This online &quot;[Guide to Latin Pronunciation](http://www.olrl.org/pray/gtolatin.shtml)&quot; does give *totius* (without marking of the stress) as an example of a word where *t* is pronounced as [t͡s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Long vowels rarely occur before other vowels in Latin. Aside from the small class of words with *-īus* genitives, such as *tōtīus,* *ī* followed by a vowel mainly shows up in words taken from Greek (which I mentioned above as a possible doubtful case for assibilation of T). Specifically, there are a fair number of words that end in *-tīa* (or at least, that are expected to based on the Greek form), such as *[necromantīa](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnecromantia)* and *goētīa.* I don't know whether these have any single established pronunciation in Ecclesiastical Latin, or whether there is variation between pronunciations like *necroˈman*[ts]*ia, necroman*ˈ[ts]*ia* and *necroman*ˈ[t]*ia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The English form *necromancy,* with [s], is ultimately descended from some form with assibilation, but I don't know the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Italian seems to have [ˈtsia] in the word *[negromanzia](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/negromanzia),* and also in some words from Greek *-τία* nouns like *[democrazia](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/democrazia)* (from δημοκρατία). (Note: even though Greek *-ία* actually has a short vowel, the I ended up being stressed in languages like Italian.) &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Italian does have nouns spelled with *-tia* and pronounced with [ˈtia], but all of the ones that I can find actually represent *-thia* (e.g. [simpatia][1]), so they don't seem directly relevant to the issue of pronouncing words that end in *-tia* in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Summary&#xD;&#xA;All in all, when speaking in Latin with an Ecclesiastical-style pronunciation, I wouldn't try to make any exceptions to the assibilation of T based on stress, historical vowel length, or language of origin (even though, as you can see, some sources suggest that there are exceptions related to these things). I would just stick with the simple rules about not assibilating after S, X, or T (or at the very start of a word) and of course, not assibilating unless the T comes before an I followed by another vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wordreference.com/iten/simpatia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10714" RevisionGUID="aa146d6b-7360-49de-903c-99a1a67d9468" CreationDate="2019-05-11T12:05:28.700" UserId="2476" Comment="added 279 characters in body" Text="Indeed, the _-ensiter_ adverbs are not an option. As shown below, either a language actually has (or also has) a first/second declension adjective and one may use the corresponding adverb, or only a third declension one is possible, in which case one has to use the ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Icelandic is _lingua Islandica_: the [Latin Wikipedia page](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_Islandica#cite_note-1) gives Conradus Gesnerus, _Mithridates: de differentiis linguarum_ (1555) as a source. It can (not easily) be read [here](https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=yTVUAAAAcAAJ&amp;hl=it&amp;pg=GBS.PP2). Ludovico Antonio Muratori speaks of _Islandica Lingua_ in his _Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi_ (1738-43), see [here](https://books.google.it/books?id=mkFLAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA1199&amp;lpg=PA1199&amp;dq=lingua+islandica&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=6rYlPgmtwg&amp;sig=ACfU3U06xcYmLWKiBQeXaQSSrhBhshLtlw&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiOq9OA34viAhUgxcQBHe20DYM4ChDoATAHegQIBxAB#v=onepage&amp;q=lingua%20islandica&amp;f=false).&#xD;&#xA; And here's what appears to be a lexicon of Icelandic (1959): *Lingua Islandica: Íslenzk tunga*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The adverb _Islandice_ is also attested: see the front cover of a 17th century work (below) and the title of a 2009 book, *Clari Fabella: Islandice et Latine,* by Gustaf Cederschiöld, Samuel Cavallin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Maybe by analogy, being the only official and national language of _Thailandia_, Thai is often seen on Latin websites as _Lingua Thailandica_. For example, it's in Vicipaedia's [_Linguarum&#xD;&#xA;   officialium&#xD;&#xA;   catalogus_](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguarum_officialium_catalogus#Lingua_Thailandica). However that's pseudo-Latin at best, apparently absent in any official document. Instead, the [_Acta Apostolicae Sedis_ (January 1983, Vol. LXXV, Pars I)](https://biblioteca.unisal.it/repository/Acta_Apostolicae_Sedis_075_1983_1_SL-10.4-D-2.w.pdf) reports the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Liturgia verbi expleta, Summus Pontifex, post audita verba dicta&#xD;&#xA;a Beatissimo Domino Antonio Petro Kòraiche, Patriarcha Antiocheno&#xD;&#xA;Maronitarum, ex noviter creatis primo, hanc allocutionem habuit, adhibita lingua : Italica, Gallica, Anglica, Hispanica, Germanica, Lusitana,&#xD;&#xA;**Thailandiensi**, Lettonica, Croata, Polonica [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It seems clear that if &quot;Thailandica&quot; had been a possible choice, the editor would have used it. However, unlike _Islandice_, _Thailandiensiter_ is not found by a Google verbatim search. Thus, apparently the way to go here is _lingua Thailandiensi loqui_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The same seems to be true for Maltese. The adjective is indeed _Melitensis_ (not &quot;_Meliticus/a/um_&quot;), it can be found in Cicero's _In Verrem_, and did not change in modern times. [Mikiel Anton Vassalli](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikiel_Anton_Vassalli) published a lexicon _Melitense-Latino-Italum_ (it should've been _Latinum_, I think) in 1796:[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Inside, the abbreviations &quot;It.&quot; and &quot;Lat.&quot; are used for _Italice_ and _Latine_, but _Melitensiter_ is nowhere to be found, and there are a couple of _in Melitensi sermone_ that really seem to substitute the adverb. I believe this is enough evidence to conclude the ablative is necessary to &quot;speak Maltese&quot; too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For Chinese there is the problem of distinguishing the group of related language varieties, and what is commonly referred to, i.e. Standard Mandarin. The former appears to be described as _lingua(e) Sinica(e)_, the latter by _lingua Sinensis_ - see [the Vicipaedia discussion](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputatio:Lingua_Sinensis), but in practice there may be no difference. The [Latin Wikipedia page](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguae_Sinicae) references [_Lingua Sinica_ by Petrus Ribadenaira, Philippus Alegambe, Nathaniel Sotvellus, Bibliotheca Scriptorum Societatis Iesu, vol. 2 (1676), p. 598](https://books.google.it/books?id=GKtLAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA598&amp;q=%22lingua+sinica%22&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=%22lingua%20sinica%22&amp;f=false). Besides that, Frédéric Guillaume Bergmann speaks of _lingua sinica_ and _scriptura sinica_ in his [De linguarum origine atque natura: dissertatio philosophica (1839)](https://books.google.it/books?id=yhpJAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA27&amp;lpg=PA27&amp;dq=lingua+sinica&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=eDLWa6iMqw&amp;sig=ACfU3U1vJCk_AdcC3h1sYckJJ-dLrFqTSg&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiCvcnx9Y7iAhXOyqQKHbjRDaY4FBDoATAIegQIBxAB#v=snippet&amp;q=sinica&amp;f=false). On the other hand one has Martino Martini's _Grammatica Linguae Sinensis_ (1651-1653), which deals with Mandarin specifically. At any rate, as was to be expected, _Sinensiter loqui_ is [not](https://www.google.com/search?q=sinensiter&amp;source=lnt&amp;tbs=li:1&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjP8ciE_47iAhUM6KQKHeIxD2sQpwUIJQ&amp;biw=1440&amp;bih=740) attested, whereas _Sinice loqui_ [is](https://books.google.it/books?id=62l2miMFD-QC&amp;pg=RA1-PA150&amp;lpg=RA1-PA150&amp;dq=sinice+loqui&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=KPCqstExhg&amp;sig=ACfU3U3Su-Zov-fAwpoPdXZaFPUnUvGFoQ&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwigr9HQ7Y7iAhWwPOwKHSVKDIAQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=snippet&amp;q=sinice&amp;f=false).&#xD;&#xA; - Irish is _lingua Hibernica_ (as seen in the title of the article &quot;Noticulae De Lingua Hibernica&quot;, by Vernam Hull (1954)) and _Hibernice loqui_ [is even attested](https://books.google.it/books?id=_YkJAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA186&amp;lpg=PA186&amp;dq=hibernice+loqui&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=5d0l4twEVQ&amp;sig=ACfU3U0RYog6fZsylPZ1UPk5NnwNR2cbdg&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiQ3eLhg4_iAhWJCuwKHbLsAMoQ6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=hibernice%20loqui&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Dutch is _lingua Nederlandica_, attested in [Humanistica Lovaniensia - Volume XLIII, Corona Martiniana](https://books.google.it/books?id=q--UDgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA476&amp;lpg=PA476&amp;dq=lingua+nederlandica&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Soffe_zLl6&amp;sig=ACfU3U0JXmvmAe-D28NLKL-KSeSvDsqiaQ&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjyzL66hI_iAhXBaFAKHTL8CIUQ6AEwBHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=lingua%20nederlandica&amp;f=false). This is also the expression used by [the Belgian _Schola Nova_](http://www.scholanova.be/index.php/la/admissio#fn4). And indeed, the adverb is present e.g. in de Groot's [_Lineamenta theologiae christianae universae_](https://books.google.it/books?id=IT0-AAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=nederlandice+loqui&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=V8HRB38x4P&amp;sig=ACfU3U0wy2La9wCbB5dV3nuWPM966TQG0g&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiZ2Y2ziI_iAhUfwAIHHf3QA8oQ6AEwCnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=nederlandice&amp;f=false). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KMoTi.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cPgUJ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/py7ca.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KDDrb.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E7ZmO.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10685" RevisionGUID="bd411514-bf20-493a-b6bf-cfccf930d72b" CreationDate="2019-05-11T13:07:44.373" UserId="13" Comment="added 330 characters in body" Text="Somewhat recently, I stumbled upon [this Italian Sappho anthology](https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/11675/1/Saffo_frammenti_2015.pdf), where, among other combinations, the following is found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First off, they are not listing all the fragments joined into this combination. Besides LP 86, LP 60, and LP 65, there are also LP 66(c) and LP 67(a) in here. I tried to trace all I saw here, and mostly succeeded, except for ll. 12-13, which seem to have come from nowhere. I color-coded LP 60 black, LP 67(a) blue, LP 65 red, LP 66(c) green, the unidentified end-of-lines pink, and LP 86 purple, and, with minimal adjustments to the text (including reinstating a completely ignored line of 67(a) which gives the very beginning of l. 21 and fixing the inmetrical ἀμφιβιβάσκει in l. 27 to ἀμφιβάσκει, hopefully without altering the meaning too much - and the translation &quot;circonda&quot;, &quot;surrounds&quot;, makes me optimist since I know ἀμφιβάσκει means &quot;surrounds&quot; from an Edmonds restoration reading μυρίαν ἄμμω]ν ῤύτιν ἀμφιβάσκει), I got the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the supplements are usually left black, unless they are somehow &quot;called for&quot; by a papyrus fragment, in which case they take the color of that fragment. Note also that this is a preview of a blog post due next Saturday, hence the green background. Finally, note that I introduced the notation of underlined letters for those letters that, in a raw transcription, would be simple &quot;.&quot;s, but are guessed based on surrounding words/letters or on accent marks above them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a couple guesses as to the origin of those pink letters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. They come from lines in P.Halle 3 (source of the black part of my collage) which for some reason weren't included in the Lobel-Page text. Which would clearly beg the question: why did LP not include those lines? And why did this anthology do it? Then again, P.Halle 3 was republished as P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 44, and the volume of &quot;The Oxyrhynchus Papyri&quot; containing P.Oxy. 1787 (vol. XV) doesn't have those lines, so I guess we can exclude this.&#xD;&#xA; 2. They come from another LP fragment, in which case they'd somehow have to come from LP 87(15), the only one from P.Oxy. 1787 vaguely matching those things. Which would beg the question: where is l. 1 of that fragment, and where are the vestige in «.ν» and the uncertain alpha in the following line come from, since LP didn't have them in the text of 87(15)?&#xD;&#xA; 3. They come from another P.Oxy. 1787 fragment which was relocated among another author's works, e.g. one of the hundred-odd that Lobel decided were Pindar (cfr. [this older question of mine](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7061/about-p-oxy-1787-fr-9)). Which begs the questions: (a) Was it just two lines? (b) If so, why was it relocated? (c) If not, where is the rest of it in this joining? Looking at _The Oxyrhynchus Papyri_ vol. XV, I realized 87(15) was not P.Oxy. 1787, but P.Oxy 2166(d), so those may have to be searched too. The Oxyrhynchus volume doesn't give any fragments that could be the source of those pink lines, and LP has all 2166(d) fragments from 1 to 13, so either it's 2166(d) fr. 5 (aka LP 87(15)), or it's a 2166(d) fragment with number not between 1 and 13, or I'm missing something.&#xD;&#xA; 4. They come from a very recent fragment I have never heard about, found after Lobel-Page. Which obviously makes me curious to know more about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you help me trace those to their source?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/L9seT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JVtvS.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xZbaq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gHlu6l.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10734" RevisionGUID="b2043fcc-32db-462e-a588-8768a8f9938c" CreationDate="2019-05-11T15:43:16.377" UserId="324" Text="The other answers have correctly explained &quot;Kal&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AS stands for anno salutis. The English equivalent is &quot;in the year of grace&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Salutis&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31443" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10735" RevisionGUID="e21e8d8e-8011-4d31-8bdd-4298c102eea7" CreationDate="2019-05-11T15:43:39.660" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/498080/what-is-plautus-s-pun-about-frustum-and-frustrum" />
  <row Id="31444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10735" RevisionGUID="c5342149-8e18-44e1-a6f7-55dfef663091" CreationDate="2019-05-11T14:33:04.380" UserDisplayName="Kantura" Text="The word *frustum* is often mispronounced as *frustrum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frustum#Notes) states that this mispronunciation goes back a long time and a pun about them is included in the [works of Plautus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plautus#Jokes_and_wordplay).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone direct me to this pun?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31445" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10735" RevisionGUID="c5342149-8e18-44e1-a6f7-55dfef663091" CreationDate="2019-05-11T14:33:04.380" UserDisplayName="Kantura" Text="What is Plautus’s pun about frustum and frustrum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31446" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10735" RevisionGUID="c5342149-8e18-44e1-a6f7-55dfef663091" CreationDate="2019-05-11T14:33:04.380" UserDisplayName="Kantura" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10736" RevisionGUID="d9ae85c7-84d1-499c-9b65-ca1dd2d4a93a" CreationDate="2019-05-11T16:23:36.310" UserId="4778" Text="I wrote a longer answer to this, but in the migration process it got deleted. &#xD;&#xA;Shorter answer: the quote is **'ne sis frustra'** from Plautus's play [Miles Glorius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Gloriosus_(play)) and is a pun on **&quot;ne si frusta&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Pyrgopolynices] is ambushed by Periplectomenus, and his cook Cario.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The two men begin to beat him for trying to make advances on a married&#xD;&#xA;&gt; woman. Pyrgopolynices begs them to stop; eventually giving the men a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hundred drachmae to halt their punches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more literal translation of ***ne si frustra*** is something like &quot;don't fool yourself&quot;. In an [English version](https://epdf.tips/queue/roman-laughter-the-comedy-of-plautus.html) of the play Cario, the cook, demands the money of Pyrgopolynices &quot;to let you go without testifying&quot;.  It is [presumably](https://books.google.de/books?id=SFPUvjlSUIsC&amp;pg=PA117&amp;lpg=PA117&amp;dq=Plautus+frustum+frustrum&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=HNMxlq61or&amp;sig=ACfU3U2gJUaNzn3e__-EeKTJilx6rdaGXg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwimyb2d25PiAhUjsKQKHcctBrwQ6AEwBHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=ne%20sis%20frustra&amp;f=false) an allusion to ***ne si frusta*** -- that you not be cutlets -- alluding to the cook's knife and involuntary castration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10736" RevisionGUID="d75635e8-2b77-41c8-9ad6-121853573fc9" CreationDate="2019-05-11T16:31:13.027" UserId="4778" Comment="added 191 characters in body" Text="I wrote a longer answer to this, but in the migration process it got deleted. &#xD;&#xA;Shorter answer: the quote is **'ne sis frustra'** from Plautus's play [Miles Glorius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Gloriosus_(play)) and is a pun on **&quot;ne si frusta&quot;**. Wikipedia synopsis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Pyrgopolynices] is ambushed by Periplectomenus, and his cook Cario.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The two men begin to beat him for trying to make advances on a married&#xD;&#xA;&gt; woman. Pyrgopolynices begs them to stop; eventually giving the men a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hundred drachmae to halt their punches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more literal translation of ***ne si frustra*** is something like &quot;don't fool yourself&quot;. Cairo, demanding the money, [says](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/plautus-braggart_soldier/2011/pb_LCL163.301.xml) &quot;otherwise you won't get away, don't fool yourself&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aliter hinc non ibis, ne sis frustra.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In another [English version](https://epdf.tips/queue/roman-laughter-the-comedy-of-plautus.html) the money is &quot;to let you go without testifying&quot;.  **Ne sis frustra** is [presumably](https://books.google.de/books?id=SFPUvjlSUIsC&amp;pg=PA117&amp;lpg=PA117&amp;dq=Plautus+frustum+frustrum&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=HNMxlq61or&amp;sig=ACfU3U2gJUaNzn3e__-EeKTJilx6rdaGXg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwimyb2d25PiAhUjsKQKHcctBrwQ6AEwBHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=ne%20sis%20frustra&amp;f=false) a pun on ***ne sis frusta*** -- that you not be cutlets -- alluding to the cook's knife and involuntary castration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10736" RevisionGUID="fde64ef8-840b-4344-b63c-d4052cf945fa" CreationDate="2019-05-11T16:36:34.423" UserId="4778" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="I wrote a longer answer to this on the English language stack exchange, but in the migration process it got deleted. &#xD;&#xA;Shorter answer: the quote is **'ne sis frustra'** from Plautus's play [Miles Glorius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Gloriosus_(play)) and is a pun on **&quot;ne si frusta&quot;**. Wikipedia synopsis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Pyrgopolynices] is ambushed by Periplectomenus, and his cook Cario.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The two men begin to beat him for trying to make advances on a married&#xD;&#xA;&gt; woman. Pyrgopolynices begs them to stop; eventually giving the men a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hundred drachmae to halt their punches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more literal translation of ***ne si frustra*** is something like &quot;don't fool yourself&quot;. Cairo, demanding the money, [says](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/plautus-braggart_soldier/2011/pb_LCL163.301.xml) &quot;otherwise you won't get away, don't fool yourself&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aliter hinc non ibis, ne sis frustra.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In another [English version](https://epdf.tips/queue/roman-laughter-the-comedy-of-plautus.html) the money is &quot;to let you go without testifying&quot;.  **Ne sis frustra** is [presumably](https://books.google.de/books?id=SFPUvjlSUIsC&amp;pg=PA117&amp;lpg=PA117&amp;dq=Plautus+frustum+frustrum&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=HNMxlq61or&amp;sig=ACfU3U2gJUaNzn3e__-EeKTJilx6rdaGXg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwimyb2d25PiAhUjsKQKHcctBrwQ6AEwBHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=ne%20sis%20frustra&amp;f=false) a pun on ***ne sis frusta*** -- that you not be cutlets -- alluding to the cook's knife and involuntary castration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10736" RevisionGUID="39053c11-a3b0-4955-92d6-6d2506ce3014" CreationDate="2019-05-11T16:54:02.950" UserId="4778" Comment="edited body" Text="I wrote a longer answer to this on the English language stack exchange, but in the migration process it got deleted. &#xD;&#xA;Shorter answer: the quote is **'ne sis frustra'** from Plautus's play [Miles Glorius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Gloriosus_(play)) and is a pun on **&quot;ne si frusta&quot;**. Wikipedia synopsis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Pyrgopolynices] is ambushed by Periplectomenus, and his cook Cario.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The two men begin to beat him for trying to make advances on a married&#xD;&#xA;&gt; woman. Pyrgopolynices begs them to stop; eventually giving the men a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hundred drachmae to halt their punches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more literal translation of ***ne si frustra*** is something like &quot;don't fool yourself&quot;. Cario, demanding the money, [says](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/plautus-braggart_soldier/2011/pb_LCL163.301.xml) &quot;otherwise you won't get away, don't fool yourself&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aliter hinc non ibis, ne sis frustra.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In another [English version](https://epdf.tips/queue/roman-laughter-the-comedy-of-plautus.html) the money is &quot;to let you go without testifying&quot;.  **Ne sis frustra** is [presumably](https://books.google.de/books?id=SFPUvjlSUIsC&amp;pg=PA117&amp;lpg=PA117&amp;dq=Plautus+frustum+frustrum&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=HNMxlq61or&amp;sig=ACfU3U2gJUaNzn3e__-EeKTJilx6rdaGXg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwimyb2d25PiAhUjsKQKHcctBrwQ6AEwBHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=ne%20sis%20frustra&amp;f=false) a pun on ***ne sis frusta*** -- that you not be cutlets -- alluding to the cook's knife and involuntary castration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31451" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9465" RevisionGUID="12b99eb6-be55-4cc7-921f-1d5ca52c8e36" CreationDate="2019-05-11T17:02:30.503" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10737" RevisionGUID="c2273a9c-e6fb-4cd3-a007-db409c185530" CreationDate="2019-05-11T17:03:42.630" UserId="4731" Text="This is a video that should help you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[NativeLang, &quot;What Latin Sounded Like - and how we know&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://youtu.be/_enn7NIo-S0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10736" RevisionGUID="4600c44d-fcf3-43c9-8619-5d9007d87d84" CreationDate="2019-05-11T17:05:54.130" UserId="4778" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I wrote a longer answer to this on the English language stack exchange, but in the migration process it got deleted. &#xD;&#xA;Shorter answer: the quote is **&quot;ne sis frustra&quot;** from Plautus's play [Miles Glorius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Gloriosus_(play)) and is a pun on **&quot;ne si frusta&quot;**. Wikipedia synopsis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Pyrgopolynices] is ambushed by Periplectomenus, and his cook Cario.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The two men begin to beat him for trying to make advances on a married&#xD;&#xA;&gt; woman. Pyrgopolynices begs them to stop; eventually giving the men a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hundred drachmae to halt their punches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more literal translation of ***ne si frustra*** is something like &quot;don't fool yourself&quot;. Cario, demanding the money, [says](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/plautus-braggart_soldier/2011/pb_LCL163.301.xml) &quot;otherwise you won't get away, don't fool yourself&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aliter hinc non ibis, ne sis frustra.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In another [English version](https://epdf.tips/queue/roman-laughter-the-comedy-of-plautus.html) the money is &quot;to let you go without testifying&quot;.  ***Ne sis frustra*** is [presumably](https://books.google.de/books?id=SFPUvjlSUIsC&amp;pg=PA117&amp;lpg=PA117&amp;dq=Plautus+frustum+frustrum&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=HNMxlq61or&amp;sig=ACfU3U2gJUaNzn3e__-EeKTJilx6rdaGXg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwimyb2d25PiAhUjsKQKHcctBrwQ6AEwBHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=ne%20sis%20frustra&amp;f=false) a pun on ***ne sis frusta*** -- that you not be cutlets -- alluding to the cook's knife and involuntary castration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31454" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10735" RevisionGUID="aebb42b4-da1c-46cb-b774-dfefe6d7b2f4" CreationDate="2019-05-11T18:36:13.990" />
  <row Id="31455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10736" RevisionGUID="6b518160-443d-4bd4-b148-18d2ccfad169" CreationDate="2019-05-11T18:42:23.500" UserId="4778" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="I wrote a longer answer to this on the English language stack exchange, but in the migration process it got deleted. &#xD;&#xA;Shorter answer: the quote is **&quot;ne sis frustra&quot;** from Plautus's play [Miles Glorius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Gloriosus_(play)) and is a pun on **&quot;ne si frusta&quot;**. Wikipedia synopsis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Pyrgopolynices] is ambushed by Periplectomenus, and his cook Cario.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The two men begin to beat him for trying to make advances on a married&#xD;&#xA;&gt; woman. Pyrgopolynices begs them to stop; eventually giving the men a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hundred drachmae to halt their punches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more literal translation of ***ne si frustra*** is something like &quot;don't fool yourself&quot;. Cario, demanding the money, [says](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/plautus-braggart_soldier/2011/pb_LCL163.301.xml) &quot;otherwise you won't get away, don't fool yourself&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aliter hinc non ibis, ne sis frustra.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ***Ne sis frustra*** is [presumably](https://books.google.de/books?id=SFPUvjlSUIsC&amp;pg=PA117&amp;lpg=PA117&amp;dq=Plautus+frustum+frustrum&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=HNMxlq61or&amp;sig=ACfU3U2gJUaNzn3e__-EeKTJilx6rdaGXg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwimyb2d25PiAhUjsKQKHcctBrwQ6AEwBHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=ne%20sis%20frustra&amp;f=false) a pun on ***ne sis frusta*** -- that you not be cutlets -- alluding to the cook's knife and involuntary castration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In another [English version](https://epdf.tips/queue/roman-laughter-the-comedy-of-plautus.html) the translators preserve the pun, having Cario say that the money is &quot;to let you go without testifying&quot; (testify-testicles ho ho.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10714" RevisionGUID="32ee87a4-b519-4f76-b800-1c441f50d268" CreationDate="2019-05-11T19:03:51.013" UserId="79" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Indeed, the _-ensiter_ adverbs are not an option. As shown below, either a language actually has (or also has) a first/second declension adjective and one may use the corresponding adverb, or only a third declension one is possible, in which case one has to use the ablative with the noun *lingua*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Icelandic is _lingua Islandica_: the [Latin Wikipedia page](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_Islandica#cite_note-1) gives Conradus Gesnerus, _Mithridates: de differentiis linguarum_ (1555) as a source. It can (not easily) be read [here](https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=yTVUAAAAcAAJ&amp;hl=it&amp;pg=GBS.PP2). Ludovico Antonio Muratori speaks of _Islandica Lingua_ in his _Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi_ (1738-43), see [here](https://books.google.it/books?id=mkFLAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA1199&amp;lpg=PA1199&amp;dq=lingua+islandica&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=6rYlPgmtwg&amp;sig=ACfU3U06xcYmLWKiBQeXaQSSrhBhshLtlw&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiOq9OA34viAhUgxcQBHe20DYM4ChDoATAHegQIBxAB#v=onepage&amp;q=lingua%20islandica&amp;f=false).&#xD;&#xA; And here's what appears to be a lexicon of Icelandic (1959): *Lingua Islandica: Íslenzk tunga*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [![Cover of Lingua Islandica][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The adverb _Islandice_ is also attested: see the front cover of a 17th century work (below) and the title of a 2009 book, *Clari Fabella: Islandice et Latine,* by Gustaf Cederschiöld, Samuel Cavallin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [![Cover of Islandice et Latine][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Maybe by analogy, being the only official and national language of _Thailandia_, Thai is often seen on Latin websites as _Lingua Thailandica_. For example, it's in Vicipaedia's [_Linguarum&#xD;&#xA;   officialium&#xD;&#xA;   catalogus_](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguarum_officialium_catalogus#Lingua_Thailandica). However that's pseudo-Latin at best, apparently absent in any official document. Instead, the [_Acta Apostolicae Sedis_ (January 1983, Vol. LXXV, Pars I)](https://biblioteca.unisal.it/repository/Acta_Apostolicae_Sedis_075_1983_1_SL-10.4-D-2.w.pdf) reports the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Liturgia verbi expleta, Summus Pontifex, post audita verba dicta&#xD;&#xA;a Beatissimo Domino Antonio Petro Kòraiche, Patriarcha Antiocheno&#xD;&#xA;Maronitarum, ex noviter creatis primo, hanc allocutionem habuit, adhibita lingua : Italica, Gallica, Anglica, Hispanica, Germanica, Lusitana,&#xD;&#xA;**Thailandiensi**, Lettonica, Croata, Polonica [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It seems clear that if &quot;Thailandica&quot; had been a possible choice, the editor would have used it. However, unlike _Islandice_, _Thailandiensiter_ is not found by a Google verbatim search. Thus, apparently the way to go here is _lingua Thailandiensi loqui_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The same seems to be true for Maltese. The adjective is indeed _Melitensis_ (not &quot;_Meliticus/a/um_&quot;), it can be found in Cicero's _In Verrem_, and did not change in modern times. [Mikiel Anton Vassalli](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikiel_Anton_Vassalli) published a lexicon _Melitense-Latino-Italum_ (it should've been _Latinum_, I think) in 1796:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [![Cover of the lexicon][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Inside, the abbreviations &quot;It.&quot; and &quot;Lat.&quot; are used for _Italice_ and _Latine_, but _Melitensiter_ is nowhere to be found, and there are a couple of _in Melitensi sermone_ that really seem to substitute the adverb. I believe this is enough evidence to conclude the ablative is necessary to &quot;speak Maltese&quot; too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For Chinese there is the problem of distinguishing the group of related language varieties, and what is commonly referred to, i.e. Standard Mandarin. The former appears to be described as _lingua(e) Sinica(e)_, the latter by _lingua Sinensis_ - see [the Vicipaedia discussion](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputatio:Lingua_Sinensis), but in practice there may be no difference. The [Latin Wikipedia page](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguae_Sinicae) references [_Lingua Sinica_ by Petrus Ribadenaira, Philippus Alegambe, Nathaniel Sotvellus, Bibliotheca Scriptorum Societatis Iesu, vol. 2 (1676), p. 598](https://books.google.it/books?id=GKtLAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA598&amp;q=%22lingua+sinica%22&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=%22lingua%20sinica%22&amp;f=false). Besides that, Frédéric Guillaume Bergmann speaks of _lingua sinica_ and _scriptura sinica_ in his [De linguarum origine atque natura: dissertatio philosophica (1839)](https://books.google.it/books?id=yhpJAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA27&amp;lpg=PA27&amp;dq=lingua+sinica&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=eDLWa6iMqw&amp;sig=ACfU3U1vJCk_AdcC3h1sYckJJ-dLrFqTSg&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiCvcnx9Y7iAhXOyqQKHbjRDaY4FBDoATAIegQIBxAB#v=snippet&amp;q=sinica&amp;f=false). On the other hand one has Martino Martini's _Grammatica Linguae Sinensis_ (1651-1653), which deals with Mandarin specifically. At any rate, as was to be expected, _Sinensiter loqui_ is [not](https://www.google.com/search?q=sinensiter&amp;source=lnt&amp;tbs=li:1&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjP8ciE_47iAhUM6KQKHeIxD2sQpwUIJQ&amp;biw=1440&amp;bih=740) attested, whereas _Sinice loqui_ [is](https://books.google.it/books?id=62l2miMFD-QC&amp;pg=RA1-PA150&amp;lpg=RA1-PA150&amp;dq=sinice+loqui&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=KPCqstExhg&amp;sig=ACfU3U3Su-Zov-fAwpoPdXZaFPUnUvGFoQ&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwigr9HQ7Y7iAhWwPOwKHSVKDIAQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=snippet&amp;q=sinice&amp;f=false).&#xD;&#xA; - Irish is _lingua Hibernica_ (as seen in the title of the article &quot;Noticulae De Lingua Hibernica&quot;, by Vernam Hull (1954)) and _Hibernice loqui_ [is even attested](https://books.google.it/books?id=_YkJAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA186&amp;lpg=PA186&amp;dq=hibernice+loqui&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=5d0l4twEVQ&amp;sig=ACfU3U0RYog6fZsylPZ1UPk5NnwNR2cbdg&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiQ3eLhg4_iAhWJCuwKHbLsAMoQ6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=hibernice%20loqui&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Dutch is _lingua Nederlandica_, attested in [Humanistica Lovaniensia - Volume XLIII, Corona Martiniana](https://books.google.it/books?id=q--UDgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA476&amp;lpg=PA476&amp;dq=lingua+nederlandica&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Soffe_zLl6&amp;sig=ACfU3U0JXmvmAe-D28NLKL-KSeSvDsqiaQ&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjyzL66hI_iAhXBaFAKHTL8CIUQ6AEwBHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=lingua%20nederlandica&amp;f=false). This is also the expression used by [the Belgian _Schola Nova_](http://www.scholanova.be/index.php/la/admissio#fn4). And indeed, the adverb is present e.g. in de Groot's [_Lineamenta theologiae christianae universae_](https://books.google.it/books?id=IT0-AAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=nederlandice+loqui&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=V8HRB38x4P&amp;sig=ACfU3U0wy2La9wCbB5dV3nuWPM966TQG0g&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiZ2Y2ziI_iAhUfwAIHHf3QA8oQ6AEwCnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=nederlandice&amp;f=false). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KMoTi.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cPgUJ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/py7ca.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KDDrb.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E7ZmO.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10736" RevisionGUID="ba19d506-cedc-4b94-87d2-14c3c5b7094d" CreationDate="2019-05-11T19:09:41.440" UserId="4778" Comment="edited body" Text="I wrote a longer answer to this on the English language stack exchange, but in the migration process it got deleted. &#xD;&#xA;Shorter answer: the quote is **&quot;ne sis frustra&quot;** from Plautus's play [Miles Glorius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Gloriosus_(play)) and is a pun on **&quot;ne si frusta&quot;**. Wikipedia synopsis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Pyrgopolynices] is ambushed by Periplectomenus, and his cook Cario.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The two men begin to beat him for trying to make advances on a married&#xD;&#xA;&gt; woman. Pyrgopolynices begs them to stop; eventually giving the men a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hundred drachmae to halt their punches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more literal translation of ***ne si frustra*** is something like &quot;don't fool yourself&quot;. Cario, demanding the money, [says](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/plautus-braggart_soldier/2011/pb_LCL163.301.xml) &quot;otherwise you won't get away, don't fool yourself&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aliter hinc non ibis, ne sis frustra.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ***Ne sis frustra*** is [presumably](https://books.google.de/books?id=SFPUvjlSUIsC&amp;pg=PA117&amp;lpg=PA117&amp;dq=Plautus+frustum+frustrum&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=HNMxlq61or&amp;sig=ACfU3U2gJUaNzn3e__-EeKTJilx6rdaGXg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwimyb2d25PiAhUjsKQKHcctBrwQ6AEwBHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=ne%20sis%20frustra&amp;f=false) a pun on ***ne sis frusta*** -- that you not be cutlets -- alluding to the cook's knife and involuntary castration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In another [English version](https://epdf.tips/queue/roman-laughter-the-comedy-of-plautus.html) the translators preserve the pun, having Cario say that the money is &quot;to let you go without testifying&quot; (testify-testicles ho ho)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31458" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10735" RevisionGUID="44c42bc3-924e-4cae-b0e3-7f4abb8e3ef1" CreationDate="2019-05-11T19:57:06.643" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|pronunciation|spelling|plautus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10738" RevisionGUID="d75985f4-8c33-4982-bfb1-25cc8f367905" CreationDate="2019-05-12T04:16:21.977" UserId="4781" Text="I having been searching the web like crazy trying to find a resource that list Latin root morphemes. That is, words which all share the same base meaning and are listed in their word families. &#xD;&#xA;For example, 'candere', 'candescens', 'candidus', share the same base meaning. &#xD;&#xA;As with, 'fabrica', 'fabri', 'fabricare'.&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know of a resource that groups words in this way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks, cainnech  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31462" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10738" RevisionGUID="d75985f4-8c33-4982-bfb1-25cc8f367905" CreationDate="2019-05-12T04:16:21.977" UserId="4781" Text="Does anyone know of a resource that lists 'root morphemes' of latin words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31463" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10738" RevisionGUID="d75985f4-8c33-4982-bfb1-25cc8f367905" CreationDate="2019-05-12T04:16:21.977" UserId="4781" Text="|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10739" RevisionGUID="e19be218-6e9b-44d2-878f-ad797a0011ef" CreationDate="2019-05-12T09:02:11.523" UserId="1982" Text="Latin Wiktionary lists &quot;Related Terms&quot; &amp; &quot;Descendants&quot;; so do the most expensive dictionaries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10741" RevisionGUID="51f99792-681c-43c2-b694-5f796be6736b" CreationDate="2019-05-12T13:49:19.450" UserDisplayName="user3165" Text="I was trying to translate a quote from Leibniz:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nominum casus semper eliminari possunt substitutis in eorum locum particulis quibusdam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We can always eliminate the nominal case, instead of them some particles are substituted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I improve this translation to be closer to the original?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31467" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10741" RevisionGUID="51f99792-681c-43c2-b694-5f796be6736b" CreationDate="2019-05-12T13:49:19.450" UserDisplayName="user3165" Text="Quote from Leibniz" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31468" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10741" RevisionGUID="51f99792-681c-43c2-b694-5f796be6736b" CreationDate="2019-05-12T13:49:19.450" UserDisplayName="user3165" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10742" RevisionGUID="37ad0e4d-0a77-4b96-8e16-0118cc86d7b0" CreationDate="2019-05-12T13:56:08.077" UserDisplayName="user3165" Text="In an article from G. Peano,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; §1. Casus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; §2. Genere masculino, feminino et neutro&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; §3. Numero singulare et plurale&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if *casus* should be understood as singular or as plural.&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know it belongs to the 4th declension, I guess the case is nominative so I have no way to distinguish between &quot;The case&quot; and &quot;The cases&quot;. Maybe the other titles will help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31470" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10742" RevisionGUID="37ad0e4d-0a77-4b96-8e16-0118cc86d7b0" CreationDate="2019-05-12T13:56:08.077" UserDisplayName="user3165" Text="Which case is used for titles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31471" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10742" RevisionGUID="37ad0e4d-0a77-4b96-8e16-0118cc86d7b0" CreationDate="2019-05-12T13:56:08.077" UserDisplayName="user3165" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10743" RevisionGUID="98b76082-1377-4783-a0db-80d7bc962ad4" CreationDate="2019-05-12T14:33:40.650" UserId="522" Text="'Nomen' here means Noun. Leibnitz is explaining a version of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The cases of nouns can always be eliminated by particles of some sort substituted in their place.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*quibusdam* is the ablative plural of quidem 'particular,' 'certain.'  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'in their place,' i.e. in place of traditional cases Acc., Gen., Dat., Ablative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31474" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10741" RevisionGUID="726f3b71-bec8-43d7-af95-3b6945d247ac" CreationDate="2019-05-12T14:52:10.563" />
  <row Id="31475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10744" RevisionGUID="38f5e5a1-c60f-4985-aa10-4b2d4300f3b1" CreationDate="2019-05-12T16:55:33.083" UserId="522" Text="As you say *casŭs, casūs* could be either singular or plural Nominative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Genere, 'gender,' and Numero 'number,' although both Singular are not in the Nominative. I personally don't think your question can be answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a list of titles you might expect all to be Nominative singular: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Casus, Genus, Numerus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or else all nom plural &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Casūs, Genera, Numeri. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or else all Ablative singular:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Casu, Numero, Genere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no consistency. So it is up to you. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10744" RevisionGUID="7bc9c697-e785-4c1d-90f6-e4373713cd8d" CreationDate="2019-05-12T17:07:20.500" UserId="522" Comment="added 209 characters in body" Text="As you say *casŭs, casūs* could be either singular or plural Nominative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Genere, 'gender,' and Numero 'number,' although both Singular are not in the Nominative. I personally don't think your question can be answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a list of titles you might expect all to be Nominative singular: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Casus, Genus, Numerus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or else all nom plural &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Casūs, Genera, Numeri. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or else all Ablative singular:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Casu, Numero, Genere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no consistency. So it is up to you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in this paper, when *'casus,'* even without a macron, occurs in the next two sentences, it is definitely plural. In context *'casus'*  should be translated as plural or implying Case in general. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10744" RevisionGUID="d8959336-d3c5-4401-9b3c-537efdc83a47" CreationDate="2019-05-12T17:12:36.603" UserId="522" Comment="acitation after added 209 characters in body" Text="As you say *casŭs, casūs* could be either singular or plural Nominative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Genere, 'gender,' and Numero 'number,' although both Singular are not in the Nominative. I personally don't think your question can be answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a list of titles you might expect all to be Nominative singular: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Casus, Genus, Numerus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or else all nom plural &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Casūs, Genera, Numeri. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or else all Ablative singular:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Casu, Numero, Genere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no consistency. So it is up to you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, [in this paper][1], when *'casus,'* even without a macron, occurs in the next two sentences, it is definitely plural. In context *'casus'*  sounds better translated as plural or implying Case in general. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sites.google.com/site/latinosineflexio/de-latino-sine-flexione-1903" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10745" RevisionGUID="23d1f3ee-1c7d-43eb-869c-a64676eb7812" CreationDate="2019-05-12T17:56:59.143" UserId="4783" Text="What are the longest texts, say top 5, transmitted via manuscript from the Classical/Early Medieval period?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31480" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10745" RevisionGUID="23d1f3ee-1c7d-43eb-869c-a64676eb7812" CreationDate="2019-05-12T17:56:59.143" UserId="4783" Text="Longest Text in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31481" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10745" RevisionGUID="23d1f3ee-1c7d-43eb-869c-a64676eb7812" CreationDate="2019-05-12T17:56:59.143" UserId="4783" Text="|classical-latin|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10746" RevisionGUID="421ec187-c542-4406-95bd-7e9fed4ea262" CreationDate="2019-05-12T18:39:27.643" UserId="522" Text="The longest in one package may be   &#xD;&#xA;***Codex Amiatinus,***  https://smarthistory.org/codex-amiatinus/  which is the earliest complete text of the Bible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Isidore of Seville's *[Etymologies][1]*** aimed to include all knowledge in one volume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In monastery Libraries the commonest large multivolume work with most pages was Gregory's [Commentary on Job][2], but this is partly because it was dinnertime reading in big script designed to be read by candle-light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymologiae&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentary_on_Job" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31483" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10745" RevisionGUID="2668cf77-af57-482d-a78c-6bbcfbffb0e9" CreationDate="2019-05-12T19:37:24.850" />
  <row Id="31484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10747" RevisionGUID="497e8737-2235-4993-87b1-5c0049398d38" CreationDate="2019-05-12T20:50:27.080" UserId="324" Text="I assume the (unidentified) article by Peano is in Italian. In no. 2 and 3 the title is a mixture of Latin and Italian. Actually only &quot;et&quot; is Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10748" RevisionGUID="b81f4f31-8a38-44dc-9b97-a4350eed1acf" CreationDate="2019-05-12T20:56:53.590" UserId="406" Text="I don't know of any recordings. But we can make a good guess:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The high-class, &quot;proper&quot; pronunciation is documented in books on oratory and rhetoric; Allen's _Vox Latina_ summarizes and explains it thoroughly&#xD;&#xA; - We know [how the common/vulgar pronunciation differed][1] from this standard&#xD;&#xA; - Common features of prosody like stress and elision are known through poetry (and through descendants in Romance languages)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - We don't know how fast or slow the Romans spoke (this varies a lot between modern languages)&#xD;&#xA; - We know where the stress was placed, [but not how it was actually distinguished][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this, it should be possible to imitate a passable Vulgar Latin conversation. But it would be a reconstruction by non-native speakers, with all the drawbacks that entails.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9342/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9101/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10746" RevisionGUID="d8da04b0-9427-47e7-919c-73b30a69c8f2" CreationDate="2019-05-12T21:22:03.380" UserId="522" Comment="Addition of classical texts. and link to Isidore" Text="The longest in one package may be   &#xD;&#xA;***Codex Amiatinus,***  https://smarthistory.org/codex-amiatinus/  which is the earliest complete text of the Bible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Isidore of Seville's *[Etymologies][1]*** aimed to include all knowledge in one volume. [Text][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In monastery Libraries the commonest large multivolume work with most pages was Gregory's [Commentary on Job][3], but this is partly because it was dinnertime reading in big script designed to be read by candle-light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The longest classical texts change abruptly with the move from the **scroll** to the **codex.** Just as there is a jump from manuscript to printed book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among the printed books:  &#xD;&#xA;**Cicero**  ***Orationes*** in 12 Volumes 1642;  &#xD;&#xA;**Ovid** 3 volumes.1682    &#xD;&#xA;**Augustine** ***Opera***  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before that &#xD;&#xA;**Euclid** in ?five books (translated, I think, by Boethius c.500 Gk to Latin (Lost) and Adelard of Bath c1100 Arabic to Latin.)  &#xD;&#xA;**Vergilius** Aeneid in six books.   &#xD;&#xA;**Lucretius** DRM in six books.  &#xD;&#xA;**Livy** histories&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymologiae&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Isidore/home.html#note:Guntherus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentary_on_Job" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10749" RevisionGUID="0166dd7e-d7e3-4abc-8a58-aeeafc5cc25e" CreationDate="2019-05-12T21:28:28.900" UserId="40" Text="I'm wondering about the proper Greek translation of a sentence like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He ordered me to do whatever I wanted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence has an indefinite relative clause (*whatever I wanted*) after a verb of ordering in a past tense (*ordered*). What verb form would be used for the subordinate clause?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking specifically about the reading in which &quot;whatever I wanted&quot; is the *general* type of indefinite relative clause, not an &quot;open/simple/particular&quot; type. That is, the reported order is &quot;Whatever you might want from here on out, do that&quot;, rather than &quot;Whatever it is you want right now, do that&quot;. General indefinites use subjunctive with ἄν in the present, optative in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this sentence is about the past, I'm pretty sure the optative is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. ἐκέλευσέ με ποιεῖν ὅτι βουλοίμην.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about the subjunctive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. ἐκέλευσέ με ποιεῖν ὅτι ἂν βούλωμαι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems this would be correct if the verb κελεύω can be used as introducing indirect discourse, because in indirect discourse, there's the option of retaining the original tense and mood for &quot;vividness&quot;, rather than applying sequence of moods. In this case, the original would be ποίει ὅτι ἂν βούλῃ, so can we keep the subjunctive with ἄν?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't figure out whether verbs of ordering that take an infinitive, like κελεύω, can introduce the type of construction where sequence of moods is applicable. I haven't found anything relevant in Goodwin, and Smyth (1998a) is unhelpful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some verbs, as κελεύω, which might be held to introduce indirect discourse, are classed under verbs of will or desire, because, like these verbs, they do not regularly take the future infinitive; and because, unlike verbs of saying and thinking (which admit all the tenses of the infinitive) they introduce infinitives which do not show differences of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, but does that mean that, other than taking a present/aorist infinitive rather than a future infinitive, these verbs act like those that introduce indirect discourse, and therefore that sequence of moods should be applicable in sentences like the above?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31488" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10749" RevisionGUID="0166dd7e-d7e3-4abc-8a58-aeeafc5cc25e" CreationDate="2019-05-12T21:28:28.900" UserId="40" Text="Greek: indirect discourse / sequence of moods after κελεύω etc.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31489" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10749" RevisionGUID="0166dd7e-d7e3-4abc-8a58-aeeafc5cc25e" CreationDate="2019-05-12T21:28:28.900" UserId="40" Text="|greek|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10747" RevisionGUID="d4492bbc-3247-4ecf-bd3b-ce08c10793a7" CreationDate="2019-05-12T21:39:57.557" UserId="324" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="I assume the (unidentified) article by Peano is in Italian. In no. 2 and 3 the title is a mixture of Latin and Italian. Actually only &quot;et&quot; is Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: The correct answer is in my comment below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10750" RevisionGUID="dce498ff-6d8c-4679-8786-0338984f7be5" CreationDate="2019-05-12T21:56:25.530" UserId="406" Text="For the sake of having it in an answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This article seems to be _De Latino sine Flexione_, where Peano proposes using Latin as the international language, but without any inflections. Nouns, for example, generally go in the ablative singular (which looks the closest to the Romance forms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article starts out in proper Classical Latin, so *casūs* is plural: &quot;The Cases&quot;. But as it goes on, it drops more and more of the inflections: _genere_ is also plural (&quot;The Genders&quot;), but it's been given an ablative singular ending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10751" RevisionGUID="e7860361-df76-4ef3-925f-f55334c23b57" CreationDate="2019-05-12T22:41:34.350" UserId="4785" Text=" What is the closest meaning of this statement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Single comma there is intentional, it's not an enumeration.  I understand that liberty cures, but struggling to connect the two words in first part." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31493" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10751" RevisionGUID="e7860361-df76-4ef3-925f-f55334c23b57" CreationDate="2019-05-12T22:41:34.350" UserId="4785" Text="amore honora, libertatem cura" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31494" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10751" RevisionGUID="e7860361-df76-4ef3-925f-f55334c23b57" CreationDate="2019-05-12T22:41:34.350" UserId="4785" Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10752" RevisionGUID="f90f75d0-9f9c-4e9f-8253-754079bb6748" CreationDate="2019-05-12T23:51:09.353" UserId="522" Text="*honoro* means 'cherish,' 'show respect.'  &#xD;&#xA; With the Ablative it shows how respect is shown (with a ceremony: *Suetonius* or with a gift, or a position/ or status *Vet. Patr.* )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*curo* (does sometimes mean cure or heal) but here means 'care for,' 'look after.' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: two maxims to be followed.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amore honora, libertatem cura,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Show respect by means of love, take good care of freedom.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10746" RevisionGUID="e42db687-e9c3-467c-93b3-6dc633e3ca4e" CreationDate="2019-05-13T00:23:53.967" UserId="522" Comment="Euclid link" Text="The longest in one package may be   &#xD;&#xA;***Codex Amiatinus,***  https://smarthistory.org/codex-amiatinus/  which is the earliest complete text of the Bible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Isidore of Seville's *[Etymologies][1]*** aimed to include all knowledge in one volume. [Text][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In monastery Libraries the commonest large multivolume work with most pages was Gregory's [Commentary on Job][3], but this is partly because it was dinnertime reading in big script designed to be read by candle-light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The longest classical texts change abruptly with the move from the **scroll** to the **codex.** Just as there is a jump from manuscript to printed book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among the printed books:  &#xD;&#xA;**Cicero**  ***Orationes*** in 12 Volumes 1642;  &#xD;&#xA;**Ovid** 3 volumes.1682    &#xD;&#xA;**Augustine** ***Opera***  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before that &#xD;&#xA;**Euclid** in **fifteen** books (translated, I think, by Boethius c.500 Gk to Latin (Lost) and by [Adelard of Bath c1100][4] Arabic to Latin.)  &#xD;&#xA;**Vergilius** Aeneid in six books.   &#xD;&#xA;**Lucretius** DRM in six books.  &#xD;&#xA;**Livy** histories&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymologiae&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Isidore/home.html#note:Guntherus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentary_on_Job&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.worldcat.org/title/first-latin-translation-of-euclids-elements-commonly-ascribed-to-adelard-of-bath-books-i-viii-and-books-x36-xv-2/oclc/236351236" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31498" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10751" RevisionGUID="cb6cece4-6ccd-4026-8066-d74b62129526" CreationDate="2019-05-13T08:16:54.813" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning of &quot;amore honora, libertatem cura&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10738" RevisionGUID="18704625-06e5-4749-ac46-79d2ef008c5a" CreationDate="2019-05-13T08:18:58.013" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body" Text="I having been searching the web like crazy trying to find a resource that list Latin root morphemes. That is, words which all share the same base meaning and are listed in their word families. &#xD;&#xA;For example, 'candere', 'candescens', 'candidus', share the same base meaning. &#xD;&#xA;As with, 'fabrica', 'fabri', 'fabricare'.&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know of a resource that groups words in this way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10753" RevisionGUID="3081eb2c-4b98-4780-894f-3ca7fd40cea3" CreationDate="2019-05-13T08:44:24.467" UserId="1982" Text="The first part could be an abl. absol. giving--&quot;with love having been honest&quot; in the sense of &quot;free from deceit&quot;. The second part (agree with Hugh) seems only tenuously linked to the first, requiring a colon; not, a comma." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10754" RevisionGUID="45718d1a-6164-4e95-bde2-94cb9c431fd6" CreationDate="2019-05-13T09:02:33.273" UserId="1982" Text="There is often a temptation to translate word-for-word; as the Romans used fewer words than we do, to express the same meanings, this can be frustrating. Here they might well have said: &quot;quae facies?&quot;; &quot;actiones&quot; would have been understood; &quot;then&quot; unnecessary as, by definition, it is referring to the future, leading to an alternative: &quot;quae facias?&quot; a pres. subj., &quot;what (things) might/ would you do; or, even some imperative force--demanding to know as in &quot;habeas corpus&quot; a pres. subj., not: &quot;you may have a body&quot;; but &quot;you HAVE a body&quot;. Jerky &amp; clumsy to us; but, not them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10716" RevisionGUID="880b3c88-875a-4157-b839-f70dd52fada7" CreationDate="2019-05-13T14:11:57.747" UserId="4731" Comment="Remodified adjective pronoun added other forms of &quot;then.&quot;" Text="Simply put:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Quas [actionēs] tum (ergo/igitur) faciēs (agēs)?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Tum* was the go to word for &quot;then&quot; in out Latin text books at school; *facere* means to do or make, while *agere* means do or drive. Actions might be the better word here than things, but I would rather leave it out. In such case use the pronoun, *Quae*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10752" RevisionGUID="471d6551-37a8-4982-9350-4bf9966394c3" CreationDate="2019-05-13T14:15:09.613" UserId="522" Comment="second version" Text="*honoro* means 'cherish,' 'show respect' &quot; to clothe or adorn with honor; to honor, respect; to adorn, ornament, embellish, decorate.&quot; (Tufts [Lewis and Short][1])  &#xD;&#xA;The Accusative *Libertatem,* Liberty, shows what is honoured, respected &#xD;&#xA; With the Ablative it shows how respect is shown (with a ceremony: *Suetonius* or with a gift, or a position/ or status *Vet. Patr.*  see esp. &quot;to honour virtue&quot; Cicero Philippics 9/2/4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Cura* is the tricky word.  &#xD;&#xA;If it is from the verb *curo* 'care for,' 'look after,' these are two imperatives,  two maxims to be followed.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amore honora, libertatem cura,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Show respect by means of love, take good care of freedom. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**II** But if it is the noun: *cura,* &quot;trouble, care, attention, pains, industry, diligence, exertion.&quot; wh., is **statistically more likel**y (see [perseus tufts Lewis &amp; Short][2]) Then *amore, cura,* (asyndeton) together mean &quot;with love, with diligence.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amore honora, libertatem cura,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; With love, with care show your respect for freedom. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DH%3Aentry%20group%3D17%3Aentry%3Dhonoro&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=c%C5%ABra&amp;la=la&amp;can=c%C5%ABra0&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:alphabetic%20letter=C:entry%20group=122:entry=cura&amp;i=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10752" RevisionGUID="87d21252-a345-483e-aea9-53051f8407fe" CreationDate="2019-05-13T14:23:15.423" UserId="522" Comment="adopt @Rafael suggestion" Text="*honoro* means 'cherish,' 'show respect' &quot; to clothe or adorn with honor; to honor, respect; to adorn, ornament, embellish, decorate.&quot; (Tufts [Lewis and Short][1])  &#xD;&#xA;The Accusative *Libertatem,* Liberty, shows what is honoured, respected &#xD;&#xA; With the Ablative it shows how respect is shown (with a ceremony: *Suetonius* or with a gift, or a position/ or status *Vet. Patr.*  see esp. &quot;to honour virtue&quot; Cicero Philippics 9/2/4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Cura* is the tricky word.  &#xD;&#xA;If it is from the verb *curo* 'care for,' 'look after,' these are two imperatives,  two maxims to be followed. These are the two obligations, the personal and the civic. As @Rafael puts it &quot;honour [someone/others] with [your] love, pursue [your] freedom.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amore honora, libertatem cura,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Show respect by means of love, take good care of freedom. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**II** But if it is the noun: *cura,* &quot;trouble, care, attention, pains, industry, diligence, exertion.&quot; wh., is **statistically more likel**y (see [perseus tufts Lewis &amp; Short][2]) Then *amore, cura,* (asyndeton) together mean &quot;with love, with diligence.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amore honora, libertatem cura,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; With love, with care show your respect for freedom. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DH%3Aentry%20group%3D17%3Aentry%3Dhonoro&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=c%C5%ABra&amp;la=la&amp;can=c%C5%ABra0&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:alphabetic%20letter=C:entry%20group=122:entry=cura&amp;i=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10755" RevisionGUID="c9882f77-1377-4ac9-b201-47a347d77ff4" CreationDate="2019-05-13T17:36:58.310" UserId="469" Text="A way to make sense of the phrase as a whole is if the context is religious. This could be a piece of an explanation of the [Fourth Commandment][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **honora patrem tuum et matrem**/*Honour thy father and thy mother* (Ex 20:12, Eph 6:2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would make a lot of sense if it is trying to explain that one has to honor one's parents with love, aiming to grow up to be free, autonomous adults. This, while continuing to love them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation in that case would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Honor* [them/your parents] *with love,* [but] *pursue* [your] *freedom*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if it is not an explanation of the fourth commandment, it makes the most sense to me if translated this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour_thy_father_and_thy_mother" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31506" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10751" RevisionGUID="4f67d30a-ca52-4d02-a8a3-e19533b148ff" CreationDate="2019-05-13T17:44:24.790" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10756" RevisionGUID="ff780daa-fd17-4be3-babc-5415426493b8" CreationDate="2019-05-13T17:47:58.277" UserId="3252" Text="&gt; 14 Τῷ δὲ θεῷ χάρις τῷ πάντοτε θριαμβεύοντι ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ καὶ τὴν&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὀσμὴν τῆς γνώσεως αὐτοῦ φανεροῦντι δι᾽ ἡμῶν ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ· 15 ὅτι&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Χριστοῦ εὐωδία ἐσμὲν... (2Cor 2:14-15)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am translating this passage at the moment. And althought I have dealt with much more problematic issues (like e.g θριαμβεύοντι) I'm stuck on the little ὅτι...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why NA28 put a semicolon before it. Not taking this into account, I would say that ὅτι refer to &quot;Τῷ δὲ θεῷ χάρις&quot; and it introduces a fact for which the apostle gives thanks (cf. Rom 6:17) - &quot;thanks be to God (...) **that** we are a sweet aroma of Christ&quot;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But participles θριαμβεύοντι and φανεροῦντι must have very simillar function there. I suppose that editor of NA interprets only mentioned participles as refering to fact for which Paul gives thanks, but ὅτι as something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I wonder what other meaning of ὅτι would be suitable in this passage; and if is it for sure a better option than my previous understanding. For example I know that ὅτι sometimes introduces some general statement, but it applies to citations and we have no citation there. Moreover sometimes it is a marker of causality, but I doubt that Paul intends to express a cause there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would you mind to give me some advice how to resolve this problem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31508" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10756" RevisionGUID="ff780daa-fd17-4be3-babc-5415426493b8" CreationDate="2019-05-13T17:47:58.277" UserId="3252" Text="Greek: Function of ὅτι in 2Cor 2:14-15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31509" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10756" RevisionGUID="ff780daa-fd17-4be3-babc-5415426493b8" CreationDate="2019-05-13T17:47:58.277" UserId="3252" Text="|greek|greek-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10755" RevisionGUID="835a284c-7f2e-4984-bc26-2f469205faeb" CreationDate="2019-05-13T17:48:27.427" UserId="469" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="A way to make sense of the phrase as a whole is if the context is religious. This could be a piece of an explanation of the [Fourth Commandment][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **honora patrem tuum et matrem**/*Honour thy father and thy mother* (Ex 20:12, Eph 6:2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would make a lot of sense if it is trying to explain that one has to honor one's parents with love, aiming to grow up to be free, autonomous adults. This, while continuing to love them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation in that case would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Honor* [them/your parents] *with love,* [but] *pursue* [your] *freedom*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if it is not an explanation of the fourth commandment, it makes the most sense to me if translated this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding _libery cures_, I'm afraid it is not quite a suitable translation, since I think the verb **curo** would need to be in 3rd person: (e.g., **curat**, or something else ending in **-t**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour_thy_father_and_thy_mother" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10752" RevisionGUID="d129d5a2-7a44-4deb-8808-ca121181f156" CreationDate="2019-05-13T17:49:09.330" UserId="522" Comment="deleted 86 characters in body" Text="*honoro* means 'cherish,' 'show respect' &quot; to clothe or adorn with honor; to honor, respect; to adorn, ornament, embellish, decorate.&quot; (Tufts [Lewis and Short][1])  &#xD;&#xA;The Accusative *Libertatem,* Liberty, shows what is honoured, respected &#xD;&#xA; With the Ablative it shows how respect is shown (with a ceremony: *Suetonius* or with a gift, or a position/ or status *Vet. Patr.*  see esp. &quot;to honour virtue&quot; Cicero Philippics 9/2/4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Cura* is the tricky word.  &#xD;&#xA;If it is from the verb *curo* 'care for,' 'look after,' these are two imperatives,  two maxims to be followed. These are the two obligations, the personal and the civic.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amore honora, libertatem cura,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Show respect by means of love, take good care of freedom. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**II** But if it is the noun: *cura,* &quot;trouble, care, attention, pains, industry, diligence, exertion.&quot; wh., is **statistically more likel**y (see [perseus tufts Lewis &amp; Short][2]) Then *amore, cura,* (asyndeton) together mean &quot;with love, with diligence.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amore honora, libertatem cura,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; With love, with care show your respect for freedom. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DH%3Aentry%20group%3D17%3Aentry%3Dhonoro&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=c%C5%ABra&amp;la=la&amp;can=c%C5%ABra0&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:alphabetic%20letter=C:entry%20group=122:entry=cura&amp;i=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10756" RevisionGUID="955c9e26-4640-4036-82cd-497b66d3c29f" CreationDate="2019-05-13T19:04:59.383" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="&gt; 14 Τῷ δὲ θεῷ χάρις τῷ πάντοτε θριαμβεύοντι ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ καὶ τὴν&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὀσμὴν τῆς γνώσεως αὐτοῦ φανεροῦντι δι᾽ ἡμῶν ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ· 15 ὅτι&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Χριστοῦ εὐωδία ἐσμὲν... (2Cor 2:14-15)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am translating this passage at the moment. And although I have dealt with much more problematic issues (like e.g θριαμβεύοντι) I'm stuck on the little ὅτι...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why NA28 put a semicolon before it. Not taking this into account, I would say that ὅτι refer to &quot;Τῷ δὲ θεῷ χάρις&quot; and it introduces a fact for which the apostle gives thanks (cf. Rom 6:17) - &quot;thanks be to God (...) **that** we are a sweet aroma of Christ&quot;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But participles θριαμβεύοντι and φανεροῦντι must have very similar function there. I suppose that editor of NA interprets only mentioned participles as referring to fact for which Paul gives thanks, but ὅτι as something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I wonder what other meaning of ὅτι would be suitable in this passage; and if is it for sure a better option than my previous understanding. For example I know that ὅτι sometimes introduces some general statement, but it applies to citations and we have no citation there. Moreover sometimes it is a marker of causality, but I doubt that Paul intends to express a cause there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would you mind to give me some advice how to resolve this problem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31513" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10756" RevisionGUID="955c9e26-4640-4036-82cd-497b66d3c29f" CreationDate="2019-05-13T19:04:59.383" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|greek|greek-translation|new-testament|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31514" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="6631" RevisionGUID="72d98346-0dc9-495d-88f4-8351ae84dece" CreationDate="2019-05-13T22:22:36.933" UserId="469" Comment="114" />
  <row Id="31515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10757" RevisionGUID="51f128e3-9052-4a94-9089-6eec9e033651" CreationDate="2019-05-14T00:23:50.843" UserId="2363" Text="The ὅτι clause is explaining the participial clause governed by φανεροῦντι. How can it be that it is δι᾽ ἡμῶν that God is manifesting τὴν ὀσμὴν τῆς γνώσεως αὐτοῦ? In the sense that (ὅτι) Χριστοῦ εὐωδία ἐσμὲν... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10758" RevisionGUID="17f1481a-4913-4889-8b25-65a112edae9a" CreationDate="2019-05-14T01:07:02.530" UserId="40" Text="The Hebrew for &quot;air&quot; is אוויר *avir*, earlier *awīr* or *awēr*. This is obviously a borrowing of the Greek word that appears in Attic as ἀήρ, and would be ἀϝήρ in other dialects. The Hebrew word must have been borrowed from a Greek dialect that retained intervocalic digamma, but which dialect? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Klein's etymological dictionary of Hebrew simply says &quot;from Greek&quot; without specifying further. There were numerous dialects in which intervocalic digamma survived. Do we know, or can we plausibly guess, which dialect was the source of this loanword?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31517" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10758" RevisionGUID="17f1481a-4913-4889-8b25-65a112edae9a" CreationDate="2019-05-14T01:07:02.530" UserId="40" Text="From which Greek dialect did Hebrew borrow *awēr* &quot;air&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31518" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10758" RevisionGUID="17f1481a-4913-4889-8b25-65a112edae9a" CreationDate="2019-05-14T01:07:02.530" UserId="40" Text="|greek|loanwords|hebrew|borrowing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10759" RevisionGUID="6d176749-977b-49f6-8d2c-630ccedaadc4" CreationDate="2019-05-14T01:55:43.777" UserId="406" Text="This is, perhaps surprisingly, how the vast majority of Latin adjectives work!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, there are two types of Latin adjectives: &quot;first-second&quot; and &quot;third&quot;. These are all &quot;first-second&quot; adjectives, which take first-declension endings in the feminine, and second-declension endings everywhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is based on the noun's gender, not its own declension: *qvercus magna* (f), *nauta magnus* (m), *vulgus magnum* (n)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10588" RevisionGUID="32b0c7fe-4790-42ab-a52b-5b720cca635c" CreationDate="2019-05-14T03:37:14.460" UserId="30" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="This can be read as a **dativus auctoris**. It should then be translated thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lest he should be suspected **by his mistress** / be suspect **to his mistress**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Common in gerundive constructions *(hostis **nobis** vincendus est)*, the dativus auctoris is also occasionally used with other passive verbs; it is then most common with past participles (*mihi cognitum est*: &quot;it is known by me&quot; or &quot;it is known to me&quot;). It indicates the person by whom something is done. Especially with verbs expressing a judgement, it is somewhat similar to the ordinary dative of *videtur mihi* &quot;it seems to me&quot; etc. [Lewis &amp; Short][1] say the verb *suspectaretur* in this particular quotation is passive, i.e. not from the deponent verb *suspector*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Kühner–Stegmann¹, this dativus auctoris was only used in the perfect and with a personal pronoun in older Latin (pace their own Accius example, see below); but Cicero and various later authors used it with other passive forms and substantive nouns, too. K.–S. also mention Tacitus specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In poetry, it is (especially) used by the Augustan poets, even non metri causa. They say the construction is originally Latin, but was extended under Greek influence (after all, the agent in a passive construction is normally expressed by a dative in Greek).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here follow a few examples taken from K.–S. and Gildersleeve:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accius, *Tragoediae* 284:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   DIOMEDES:  &#xD;&#xA; Ergo me Argos referam, nam hic sum gnobilis  &#xD;&#xA;  ne **cui** cognoscar **noto**.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Then I will go back to Argos, for here I am notable, lest I be recognised by someone I know.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Tusculanae Disputationes* 5.68.4:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &quot;Sumatur...**nobis** quidam praestans vir...&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Let us assume an excellent man...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, *Annales* 2.50.13:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... ut exemplo maiorum **propinquis suis** ultra ducentesimum lapidem removeretur suasit.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot; ...he suggested that, according to ancient custom, she should be removed by her next of kin beyond the two-hundredth milestone.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, *Annales* 12.1.1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aelia Paetina...**Narcisso** fovebatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Aelia Paetina was favoured by Narcissus.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;The past participle or adjective *suspectus* is often used with a dative, which may also have influenced Tacitus to use the dativus auctoris with a passive imperfect (as in the quotation in question). Two examples with *suspectus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sallustius, *Bellum Iugurthinum* 70.1.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bomilcar...suspectus **regi** et ipse eum suspiciens novas res cupere...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Bomilcar, suspected by the King [or: suspect to the King], and himself suspecting the King, desired a change of power...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Tacitus, Annales 14.44.10:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Suspecta **maioribus nostris** fuerunt ingenia servorum...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;To our ancestors, the temper of their slaves was suspect...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;¹) Satzlehre vol. I (1912), §76 8d, p. 324:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=suspecto%232&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oMBi8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10668" RevisionGUID="37281f22-6fd0-4c2f-8266-cdf68a642c75" CreationDate="2019-05-14T04:32:58.753" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="*[Exter][1]*, *magnus*, *diduus*, they all belong to the first declension and also the second declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why these adjectives are so special?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exter#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31522" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10668" RevisionGUID="37281f22-6fd0-4c2f-8266-cdf68a642c75" CreationDate="2019-05-14T04:32:58.753" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Words belong to the first and second declension at the same time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31523" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10668" RevisionGUID="37281f22-6fd0-4c2f-8266-cdf68a642c75" CreationDate="2019-05-14T04:32:58.753" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|adjective|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10760" RevisionGUID="1c3a3a40-9e11-47a0-88c0-2d3fb36bfa7b" CreationDate="2019-05-14T09:40:11.303" UserId="324" Text="The Greek ἀήρ seems to have entered (post-Biblical) Hebrew via Aramaic ʼwwyr. Syriac Aramaic also has the more Greek-looking form ʼʼr. The replacement of an intervocalic glottal stop by a semi-vowel (here: ʼāʼer &gt; ʼāwer) is typical of Aramaic, and other Semitic languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10755" RevisionGUID="3d4abeac-d510-4083-8375-eb1f9f3e0207" CreationDate="2019-05-14T13:02:56.973" UserId="30" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="A way to make sense of the phrase as a whole is if the context is religious. This could be a piece of an explanation of the [Fourth Commandment][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **honora patrem tuum et matrem**/*Honour thy father and thy mother* (Ex 20:12, Eph 6:2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would make a lot of sense if it is trying to explain that one has to honor one's parents with love, aiming to grow up to be free, autonomous adults. This, while continuing to love them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation in that case would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Honor* [them/your parents] *with love,* [but] *pursue* [your] *freedom*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if it is not an explanation of the fourth commandment, it makes the most sense to me if translated this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding _liberty cures_, I'm afraid it is not quite a suitable translation, since I think the verb **curo** would need to be in 3rd person: (e.g., **curat**, or something else ending in **-t**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour_thy_father_and_thy_mother" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10761" RevisionGUID="eba63594-426d-414c-83fd-a6ee585bb67d" CreationDate="2019-05-14T13:40:12.257" UserId="4731" Text="So, the past tenses are quite interesting, and they have to do with the duration of the action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imperfect** tense deals with **continuing actions** that happened in the **past**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hic **incolebam***. I used to live here.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ibi **sedēbam**.* I was sitting there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Perfect** tense deals with **remote** or **completed actions** that happened in the **past**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ibi **fuī**.* I have been there.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Illud **fēcī**.* I have done that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is the **past-perfect** or **pluperfect** tense which deals with actions in the **distant past**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Illud **fēceram**.* I had done that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Future-perfect** deals with actions that are **expected to be completed in the by some time in the future**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tunc **decesserit**.* He will have left by then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10761" RevisionGUID="e22318c7-2904-4e3a-873e-6941e7df0b82" CreationDate="2019-05-14T14:30:17.040" UserId="4731" Comment="removed &quot;in the&quot;" Text="So, the past tenses are quite interesting, and they have to do with the duration of the action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imperfect** tense deals with **continuing actions** that happened in the **past**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hic **incolebam***. I used to live here.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ibi **sedēbam**.* I was sitting there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Perfect** tense deals with **remote** or **completed actions** that happened in the **past**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ibi **fuī**.* I have been there.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Illud **fēcī**.* I have done that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is the **past-perfect** or **pluperfect** tense which deals with actions in the **distant past**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Illud **fēceram**.* I had done that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Future-perfect** deals with actions that are **expected to be completed by some time in the future**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tunc **decesserit**.* He will have left by then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10762" RevisionGUID="ec8bf254-3158-4fce-819d-b8eeca66f24f" CreationDate="2019-05-14T15:52:32.140" UserId="406" Text="There are a few tricky points here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key is the **tense-aspect distinction**: Latin &quot;tenses&quot; really represent a combination of time and *aspect*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin has three aspects, inherited from Proto-Indo-European:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The **imperfective aspect** is for when the duration is important: the action is continuing, or habitual, or going on for a long time.&#xD;&#xA; - The **aoristic aspect** is for when the duration is unimportant: you can think of the action as a single point in time.&#xD;&#xA; - The **perfective aspect** is for when the action is over and done, but its consequences are important at the moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also has three tenses, which didn't exist in PIE but were invented in Proto-Italo-Celtic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The **past tense** is about the past.&#xD;&#xA; - The **present tense** is about right now.&#xD;&#xA; - The **future tense** is about the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, each of the Latin &quot;tenses&quot; represents a pair (or multiple pairs) of these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The Latin **present** is **present imperfective** and **present aorist**: talking about right now, actions that are still going on, or duration doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA; - The Latin **imperfect** is **past imperfective**: talking about the past, actions that have a long duration or are habitual.&#xD;&#xA; - The Latin **perfect** is **past aoristic** and **present perfective**: either talking about the past, actions where duration doesn't matter, *or* talking about completed actions that impact the *present*.&#xD;&#xA; - The Latin **pluperfect** is **past perfective**: talking about completed actions that impact the *past*.&#xD;&#xA; - The Latin **future** is **future imperfective** and **future aoristic**: talking about the future, actions that will have a long duration, or where duration doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA; - The Latin **future perfect** is **future perfective**: in the future, some already-completed action will be having an impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English is, formally, somewhat similar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Have&quot; + past participle makes a verb perfective.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Be&quot; + present participle makes a verb imperfective.&#xD;&#xA; - Using neither makes a verb aoristic.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Will&quot; + infinitive makes a verb future.&#xD;&#xA; - A special ending (usually *-ed*, sometimes not) makes a verb past.&#xD;&#xA; - Using neither makes a verb present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So by combining these, we can distinguish all nine combinations in ways Latin can't: Latin can't distinguish &quot;he will be working&quot; (future imperfective) from &quot;he will work&quot; (future aoristic), for instance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But on the other hand, **the distinctions aren't mandatory** in English. The only distinction that's actually *mandatory* in English is **past versus non-past**, with everything else being optional. For example, &quot;I hope it goes well&quot; and &quot;when we get home&quot; both use a &quot;present&quot; form for a future action—because the context makes it clear that this non-past form is meant to be future, and extra words are unnecessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when translating from English to Latin, a translator needs to take the context into account and figure out exactly which tense-aspect combination is actually meant for each verb—and when translating from Latin to English, they need to use English-speaking intuition to figure out how much of the tense actually needs to be specified. A sentence like &quot;after he will have gotten the job, he should negotiate his paycheck&quot; is *technically* correct English, but the &quot;after&quot; and &quot;should&quot; make it clear that future perfective is meant, so a native speaker would simplify it to &quot;after he gets the job&quot; (specifying only the mandatory &quot;non-past&quot; and letting context do the rest)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10763" RevisionGUID="be6e10ab-5c8d-4a35-a9ee-c00527de28be" CreationDate="2019-05-14T15:54:48.087" UserId="183" Text="Here is an addition to the excellent list by Draconis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    03DA Ϛ GREEK LETTER STIGMA&#xD;&#xA;    • apparently in origin a cursive form of digamma&#xD;&#xA;    • the name “stigma” originally applied to a medieval sigma-tau ligature,&#xD;&#xA;      whose shape was confusably similar to the cursive digamma&#xD;&#xA;    • used as a symbol with a numeric value of 6→ ↅ  roman numeral six late form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    03DB ϛ GREEK SMALL LETTER STIGMA→ ς  greek small letter final sigma&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(quotes are from the Unicode standard, and I have nothing to add)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10764" RevisionGUID="a1c669e7-9889-476e-a613-70c8cdad315b" CreationDate="2019-05-14T15:59:46.037" UserId="4731" Text="So here's what I got. His reasoning is okay, but when it is put together, it should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quis [ibi],*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; *[qui], ob paucōs virōs (hominēs)*&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; *infidelēs, murōs tollī (delērī/conrumpī) patiatur [est]? Si militēs nostrī fortiter pugnant, urbs non succumbed!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Words in brackets are direct translations of words that are best left out.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Words in parentheses are words that may also work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My preference therefore would be:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quis, ob paucōs virōs infidelēs, murōs tollī (conrumpī) patiatur? Si militēs nostrī fortiter pugnant, urbs non succumbet!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10763" RevisionGUID="f1ea4b2f-a4e4-489a-a609-b7e13db799e8" CreationDate="2019-05-14T16:05:18.117" UserId="183" Comment="replaced private use characters from the font on the Unicode webseite with clear text, formatting" Text="Here is an addition to the excellent list by Draconis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    03DA Ϛ GREEK LETTER STIGMA&#xD;&#xA;    • apparently in origin a cursive form of digamma&#xD;&#xA;    • the name “stigma” originally applied to a medieval sigma-tau ligature,&#xD;&#xA;      whose shape was confusably similar to the cursive digamma&#xD;&#xA;    • used as a symbol with a numeric value of 6&#xD;&#xA;    →2185 ↅ  roman numeral six late form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    03DB ϛ GREEK SMALL LETTER STIGMA&#xD;&#xA;    →03C2 ς  greek small letter final sigma&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(quotes are from the Unicode standard, and I have nothing to add)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10765" RevisionGUID="466b8f48-1246-407b-bcad-3490194ddbaf" CreationDate="2019-05-14T17:43:42.323" UserId="406" Text="I don't know if this is the oldest, but from Dionysius of Halicarnassus's _Roman Antiquities_ 2.34 (first century BCE):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Μετὰ δὲ τὴι πομπήν τε καὶ θυσίαν νεὼν κατασκευάσας ὁ Ῥωμύλος ἐπὶ τῆς κορυφῆς τοῦ Καπιτωλίου **Διός, ὃν ἐπικαλοῦσι Ῥωμαῖοι Φερέτριον**, οὐ μέγαν (ἔτι γὰρ αὐτοῦ σώζεται τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἴχνος ἐλάττονας ἢ πέντε ποδῶν καὶ δέκα τὰς μείζους πλευρὰς ἔχον)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Then, after that triumph, and the sacrifice, Romulus built a new temple **to Zeus (whom the Romans call &quot;Feretrius&quot;)** at the top of the Capitoline Hill. It wasn't very big—the old foundations still survive, and the longest side is less than fifteen feet long.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was the Temple of Jupiter Feretrius, the oldest temple in Rome, where the *spolia opima* were brought after a war. According to Nepos, it fell into ruin sometime before Caesar and was rebuilt by Augustus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10761" RevisionGUID="de1ae6f9-61c5-483c-90ec-f19606d9a174" CreationDate="2019-05-14T18:17:53.763" UserId="4731" Comment="included an example of when to use pluperfect." Text="So, the past tenses are quite interesting, and they have to do with the duration of the action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imperfect** tense deals with **continuing actions** that happened in the **past**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hic **incolebam***. I used to live here.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ibi **sedēbam**.* I was sitting there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Perfect** tense deals with **remote** or **completed actions** that happened in the **past**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ibi **fuī**.* I have been there.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Illud **fēcī**.* I have done that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is the **past-perfect** or **pluperfect** tense which deals with actions in the **distant past**, use especially when talking about a prior event or action relative to a past event or action (see comment below):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Illud **fēceram**.* I had done that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Future-perfect** deals with actions that are **expected to be completed by some time in the future**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tunc **decesserit**.* He will have left by then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10766" RevisionGUID="57cc1663-deef-4eb3-9d3d-0a4aacd8bcb4" CreationDate="2019-05-14T18:20:42.140" UserId="406" Text="There is, in fact!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you mention, the Latin &quot;perfect tense&quot; is a combination of the [*present perfective* and *past aoristic* tense-aspect combinations][1], which remained separate in Greek (the &quot;perfect&quot; and &quot;aorist&quot;). So a &quot;perfect&quot; verb form can be either a present perfective (an action was completed in the past and affects the present) or a past aoristic (an action happened in the past and we don't care about its duration).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The distinction is purely semantic by Latin times, not morphological, with some verbs using PIE perfective forms (_cucurrī_) and some using PIE aoristic forms (_dixī_) pretty much arbitrarily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_But…_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The famous &quot;sequence of tenses&quot; depends on the semantic tense, not on the morphological tense-aspect combination! The primary sequence is used for non-past verbs, and the secondary sequence is used for past verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, a present perfective &quot;perfect&quot; will invoke the primary sequence, and a past aoristic &quot;perfect&quot; will invoke the secondary sequence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cum doleam, vinum nimium bibō.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm drinking too much wine because I'm sad.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Present aoristic → primary)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cum **doluerim**, vinum nimium bibī.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I drank too much wine (and am now drunk) because I was sad.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Present perfective → primary)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cum **doluissem**, vinum nimium bibī.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I drank too much wine (and it's over now) because I was sad.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Past aoristic → secondary)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cum doluissem, vinum nimium bibēbam.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I was drinking too much wine (habitually or for a long time) because I was sad.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Past imperfective → secondary)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/10762/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10767" RevisionGUID="a8e8c7e2-d716-4abd-a688-f1d3fe43739d" CreationDate="2019-05-14T18:34:58.203" UserId="406" Text="###They're pretty much arbitrary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A papyrus is assigned a P.Oxy. number when it's published, by order of publication. In other words, P.Oxy. 7 (the first Sappho fragment found at Oxyrhynchus) is the seventh papyrus to be published: no more, no less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if multiple scraps are grouped together, it's because some academic or archaeologist thought they belonged together, and believed it strongly enough to publish them as a single piece.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Sometimes a volume is listed as well, as in &quot;P.Oxy. X1231&quot;: the 1231st fragment published (total), which can be found in volume ten. This is just a convenience to make them easier to locate; &quot;P.Oxy. 1231&quot; is just as correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10768" RevisionGUID="e1a879e2-6b54-4d80-ac42-90c062f4dff0" CreationDate="2019-05-14T19:04:35.290" UserId="406" Text="According to Alkire and Rosen (_Romance Languages: a Historical Introduction_), a perfective construction with _habeō_ wasn't uncommon in Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caput cinctum habēbant filō.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *They had their heads encircled with cord.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Varro 5.15, translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over time, this got extended to intransitive verbs. In other words, _habeō_ became an auxiliary; the subject didn't necessarily &quot;have&quot; any specific noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dē eā rē supra scriptum habēmus.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *We've written about this above.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Vitruvius 9.1.4, translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, _habēmus_ has no direct object: it's just supporting *scriptum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This turned out to be a very useful construction! Latin (like all Italo-Celtic languages) had [combined its present perfective and past aoristic tense-aspect combinations][1], but being able to distinguish those two meanings was really nice. So this new _habeō_-perfect generally took over the present perfective, leaving the original &quot;perfect&quot; to handle the past aoristic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first, when _habeō_ had a direct object, the participle would agree with it. But when it didn't, the neuter singular was used by default. And over time, the neuter singular took over everywhere: the agreement didn't really add anything meaningful, and it only appeared half the time anyway. This was a slow and inconsistent process:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Metuō enim nē **vōs** ibi habeam **fatigātōs**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *But I'm afraid I might have exhausted you here.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Augustine _Sermones_ 37.27, translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Haec **omnia probātum** habēmus.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *We've already tried all these things.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Oribasius 7.48.189f, translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of these examples are from educated, formal writings in the fourth century CE: Augustine was a prolific philosopher, and Oribasius was an imperial physician. So it seems both forms were perfectly acceptable at that point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over time, the &quot;always neuter singular&quot; form won out (unless the noun comes immediately before *habēre*, as pointed out in the comments—then it still acts like a direct object). And this is what we see in all the modern Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. A bit of searching has turned up people calling this the &quot;composite perfect&quot;, &quot;_habeō_-perfect&quot;, &quot;Romance perfect&quot;, or &quot;true perfect&quot; (since it actually has a perfective meaning). I think all of those names would be understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7179/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10769" RevisionGUID="0ca1bb2f-faf8-4edb-bf0b-5cc1c81a60af" CreationDate="2019-05-14T19:18:14.737" UserId="406" Text="To my understanding, there is indeed a difference!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin's &quot;perfect&quot; tense is a fusion of two separate tense-aspect combinations: the &quot;present perfective&quot; (an action that was completed before the present, and affects the present) and the &quot;past aoristic&quot; (an action that takes place in the past, where the duration doesn't matter). The two forms look the same, but [are semantically distinct][1], and it's sometimes useful to make that distinction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In post-Classical Latin (and presumably Classical-era Vulgar Latin too), the &quot;_habeō_-perfect&quot; was invented to distinguish them. It seems to have evolved out of constructions like _litteram scriptam habeō_ &quot;I have a letter that's been written&quot; → &quot;I have written a letter&quot;, and involves a verb in the present, marking an action in the past. In other words, it's definitively present perfective, not past aoristic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as time went on, this construction took over to represent the present perfective, with the &quot;perfect&quot; forms like _scripsī_ representing past aoristic (also called &quot;preterite&quot; or &quot;simple past&quot; to distinguish it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what we eventually see in the Romance languages: Italian, for example, uses _ho amato_ (&lt; _habeō amātum_) for past actions affecting the present, and _amai_ (&lt; _amāvī_) for past actions with no connections to present events. In Italian the distinction is now weakening, and is somewhat turning into a &quot;recent past&quot; tense and a &quot;distant past&quot; tense—but it's evident where that distinction must have originated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/10766/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10768" RevisionGUID="04930bee-cc43-447d-91ac-37a24926727f" CreationDate="2019-05-14T19:19:16.537" UserId="406" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="According to Alkire and Rosen (_Romance Languages: a Historical Introduction_), a perfective construction with _habeō_ wasn't uncommon in Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caput cinctum habēbant filō.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *They had their heads encircled with cord.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Varro 5.15, translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over time, this got extended to intransitive verbs. In other words, _habeō_ became an auxiliary; the subject didn't necessarily &quot;have&quot; any specific noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dē eā rē supra scriptum habēmus.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *We've written about this above.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Vitruvius 9.1.4, translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, _habēmus_ has no direct object: it's just supporting *scriptum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This turned out to be a very useful construction! Latin (like all Italo-Celtic languages) had [combined its present perfective and past aoristic tense-aspect combinations][1], but being able to distinguish those two meanings was really nice. [So this new _habeō_-perfect generally took over the present perfective][2], leaving the original &quot;perfect&quot; to handle the past aoristic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first, when _habeō_ had a direct object, the participle would agree with it. But when it didn't, the neuter singular was used by default. And over time, the neuter singular took over everywhere: the agreement didn't really add anything meaningful, and it only appeared half the time anyway. This was a slow and inconsistent process:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Metuō enim nē **vōs** ibi habeam **fatigātōs**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *But I'm afraid I might have exhausted you here.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Augustine _Sermones_ 37.27, translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Haec **omnia probātum** habēmus.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *We've already tried all these things.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Oribasius 7.48.189f, translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of these examples are from educated, formal writings in the fourth century CE: Augustine was a prolific philosopher, and Oribasius was an imperial physician. So it seems both forms were perfectly acceptable at that point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over time, the &quot;always neuter singular&quot; form won out (unless the noun comes immediately before *habēre*, as pointed out in the comments—then it still acts like a direct object). And this is what we see in all the modern Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. A bit of searching has turned up people calling this the &quot;composite perfect&quot;, &quot;_habeō_-perfect&quot;, &quot;Romance perfect&quot;, or &quot;true perfect&quot; (since it actually has a perfective meaning). I think all of those names would be understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7179/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/10769/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31540" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10751" RevisionGUID="add43784-83fc-4e2c-9af5-869a9df6bf82" CreationDate="2019-05-14T19:21:04.120" UserId="30" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:30,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Cerberus&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10762" RevisionGUID="f2cf2028-4f43-4f24-b697-0151e1028846" CreationDate="2019-05-14T20:15:45.890" UserId="406" Comment="added 224 characters in body" Text="There are a few tricky points here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key is the **tense-aspect distinction**: Latin &quot;tenses&quot; really represent a combination of time and *aspect*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin has three aspects, inherited from Proto-Indo-European:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The **imperfective aspect** is for when the duration is important: the action is continuing, or habitual, or going on for a long time.&#xD;&#xA; - The **aoristic aspect** is for when the duration is unimportant: you can think of the action as a single point in time.&#xD;&#xA; - The **perfective aspect** is for when the action is over and done, but its consequences are important at the moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also has three tenses, which didn't exist in PIE but were invented in Proto-Italo-Celtic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The **past tense** is about the past.&#xD;&#xA; - The **present tense** is about right now.&#xD;&#xA; - The **future tense** is about the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, each of the Latin &quot;tenses&quot; represents a pair (or multiple pairs) of these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The Latin **present** is **present imperfective** and **present aorist**: talking about right now, actions that are still going on, or duration doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA; - The Latin **imperfect** is **past imperfective**: talking about the past, actions that have a long duration or are habitual.&#xD;&#xA; - The Latin **perfect** is **past aoristic** and **present perfective**: either talking about the past, actions where duration doesn't matter, *or* talking about completed actions that impact the *present*.&#xD;&#xA; - The Latin **pluperfect** is **past perfective**: talking about completed actions that impact the *past*.&#xD;&#xA; - The Latin **future** is **future imperfective** and **future aoristic**: talking about the future, actions that will have a long duration, or where duration doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA; - The Latin **future perfect** is **future perfective**: in the future, some already-completed action will be having an impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English is, formally, somewhat similar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Have&quot; + past participle makes a verb perfective.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Be&quot; + present participle makes a verb imperfective.&#xD;&#xA; - Using neither makes a verb aoristic.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Will&quot; + infinitive makes a verb future.&#xD;&#xA; - A special ending (usually *-ed*, sometimes not) makes a verb past.&#xD;&#xA; - Using neither makes a verb present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So by combining these, we can distinguish all nine combinations in ways Latin can't: Latin can't distinguish &quot;he will be working&quot; (future imperfective) from &quot;he will work&quot; (future aoristic), for instance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But on the other hand, **the distinctions aren't mandatory** in English. The only distinction that's actually *mandatory* in English is **past versus non-past**, with everything else being optional. For example, &quot;I hope it goes well&quot; and &quot;when we get home&quot; both use a &quot;present&quot; form for a future action—because the context makes it clear that this non-past form is meant to be future, and extra words are unnecessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when translating from English to Latin, a translator needs to take the context into account and figure out exactly which tense-aspect combination is actually meant for each verb—and when translating from Latin to English, they need to use English-speaking intuition to figure out how much of the tense actually needs to be specified. A sentence like &quot;after he will have gotten the job, he should negotiate his paycheck&quot; is *technically* correct English, but the &quot;after&quot; and &quot;should&quot; make it clear that future perfective is meant, so a native speaker would simplify it to &quot;after he gets the job&quot; (specifying only the mandatory &quot;non-past&quot; and letting context do the rest).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: [Later Latin also had a special &quot;true perfect&quot; tense][1] which separates out the _present perfective_ meaning, leaving the normal &quot;perfect&quot; for _past aoristic_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/10769/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10770" RevisionGUID="f56f7470-3cdd-4af2-b94e-359a5e424287" CreationDate="2019-05-14T21:09:45.520" UserId="406" Text="In this particular case, yes. _Sagittārius_ is the masculine form of an adjective meaning &quot;pertaining to arrows&quot;; the feminine form would be _sagittāria_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general…it depends. Many masculine Latin words are in the second declension, and these can be made feminine by changing the ending to *-a*. Many others can be treated as &quot;common gender&quot;, used as masculine or feminine with no change (e.g. a _poeta_ can be a poet of either sex).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a rule of thumb, if it ends in *-us*, change it to *-a*, otherwise don't change anything. This isn't perfect and will sometimes fail, but 90% of the time it'll get you the right answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10771" RevisionGUID="8c6daf72-c373-4b07-9dc1-b9036f9f5027" CreationDate="2019-05-14T22:00:07.520" UserId="406" Text="#By the third century BCE…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###…probably. We're not quite sure when.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [a question about Old Latin meters][1], an anonymous user brought up [Mercado's convincing argument][2] that the Saturnian was based on accent. The idea isn't new, but Mercado backs it up with some nice information-theoretical analysis: basically, the accent theory passes some statistical tests that all the quantity theories I've seen fail at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His idea is that a Saturnian line generally resembles one of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; '⏑'⏑|⏑'⏑ || ⏑'⏑|⏑'⏑  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; '⏑'⏑|⏑'⏑ || '⏑⏑|⏑'⏑&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where `'` marks a stressed syllable and `⏑` an unstressed one. For example, the Epitaph of Naevius:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ímmortálēs mortálēs / si fóret fas flére,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; flérent dévae Caménae / Náevium poétam:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ítaque póstqu' est Órchi / tráditus thesáuro  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; oblítī sunt Rómae / lóquier línguā Latínā.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *If gods could weep for mortals, the divine Muses would mourn the poet Naevius: after he was delivered to the vault of Hades, Rome forgot how to speak Latin.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mercado concludes that this pattern fits the majority of the surviving Saturnians, with some additional rules about elision and hiatus and two light syllables next to each other. (Unfortunately, Mahoney doesn't quote that part in her review, and the only copy of this book at the university library has been overdue for a year now—but I'll add more detail if I find a copy.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crucially, though, the Saturnian relies on the accent system of Plautus's era:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the second-to-last syllable is long, it gets stressed&#xD;&#xA; - Else, if the third-to-last syllable is long, it gets stressed&#xD;&#xA; - Else, the *fourth*-to-last syllable gets stressed&#xD;&#xA; - Every second syllable before that one gets *lightly* stressed, if applicable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is notably *not* the Classical penult system. But it's very close: the difference is, the Classical system never lets the fourth-to-last syllable get the stress (it sticks on the third-to-last instead). This is a pretty rare edge case, showing up mostly in inflected forms like *géneribus/genéribus*, so I don't have qualms about calling this an early form of the &quot;penult rule&quot;. (The &quot;proto-penult rule&quot;?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A date of somewhere before the third century also makes intuitive sense. As Mercado puts it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It would otherwise have to be assumed that the (pre-?) Old Latin *[initial stress]* system was replaced wholesale by the Plautine *[proto-penult stress]* one at almost the same time that Andronicus, Naevius, Plautus, and Ennius flourished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mahoney adds that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …even if Saturnians were being composed when Latin had word-initial stress, the poems that survive presumably use the stress patterns of their authors' own time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We know from other Italic languages that the word-initial stress arose after Venetic split off, but while all the other Italic languages were still a more-or-less-homogeneous blob in the middle of Italy. Etruscan had the same system, so Italic might have borrowed it from there. The timeline of these events is extremely fuzzy, but it seems like there was plenty of time for word-initial stress to leave its mark and then give way to the proto-penult rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, short answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Carthágō delénda est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Or, for the purists: *céterum cénseō Cartháginem ésse deléndam.* Either way, Cato the Elder would have known the penult rule.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5062/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2013/2013-07-30.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10772" RevisionGUID="ee1ddc5c-d9b3-45a6-932d-974601fb8012" CreationDate="2019-05-14T22:08:34.567" UserId="406" Text="There's an adage I've heard about grief: look back and be happy about the time you had, rather than regret what might have been.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Roman lyricists seem to have poems for every possible aspect of love and heartbreak. Are there any that express this particular sentiment? (Greek lyric poetry also works, I'm just focusing on Latin because more of it survives.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. The most famous English example I can think of is Tennyson: *'tis better to have loved and lost / than never to have loved at all*. Something along those lines." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31545" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10772" RevisionGUID="ee1ddc5c-d9b3-45a6-932d-974601fb8012" CreationDate="2019-05-14T22:08:34.567" UserId="406" Text="A poem about looking back without regret" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31546" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10772" RevisionGUID="ee1ddc5c-d9b3-45a6-932d-974601fb8012" CreationDate="2019-05-14T22:08:34.567" UserId="406" Text="|poetry|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10773" RevisionGUID="1895657b-0562-4461-afc7-568f2dc84b16" CreationDate="2019-05-14T22:49:49.693" UserId="406" Text="My guess is, the answer for *eqvus* will be earlier than the answer for most other words. In the Classical period *eqvus* was a common, everyday word, but at some point in Vulgar Latin it was displaced by the Gaulish loan *caballus*. Once *eqvus* wasn't used in day-to-day speech, it would be easy for a spelling pronunciation to take over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, though, I'd date these sorts of spelling pronunciations to **the European Renaissance**. That's the point where Latin somewhat stopped evolving naturally: Desiderius Erasmus and others realized that their Latin pronunciation had been heavily affected by Romance, and decided to &quot;purify&quot; it. Erasmus in particular wrote [a long treatise][1] on how the pronunciation of Greek and Latin had degraded, and listed ways to make it Latin again: distinguishing *ae* from *ē*, removing palatalization before *i*, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before Erasmus, I wouldn't expect any Romance-speaker to go from the easier `/ku/` to the more difficult `/kwu/` (except through spelling pronunciation for an obscure word). But once there was a conscious attempt to imitate the gold standard of Cicero and Vergil—that is, to imitate specifically the *written* words of Cicero and Vergil—less natural but more prestigious pronunciations make complete sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/De_recta_latini_graecique_sermonis_pronuntiatione_1643" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10774" RevisionGUID="38811929-ed3a-463e-a415-63e25efd7732" CreationDate="2019-05-14T22:56:01.083" UserId="576" Text="What is the etymology of [*procreo*][1]? How does it differ from [*creo*][1]? Does the &quot;*pro-*&quot; in [*procreo*][1] refer to someone or something specific—e.g., to God or country, in the sense that procreation is for the sake of God or for a nation ([*natio*][2] = birth)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?la=la&amp;l=procreo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?la=la&amp;l=natio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31549" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10774" RevisionGUID="38811929-ed3a-463e-a415-63e25efd7732" CreationDate="2019-05-14T22:56:01.083" UserId="576" Text="Etymologically, does the &quot;pro-&quot; in &quot;procreo&quot; have a specific referrant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31550" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10774" RevisionGUID="38811929-ed3a-463e-a415-63e25efd7732" CreationDate="2019-05-14T22:56:01.083" UserId="576" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10771" RevisionGUID="fcddd2d4-070a-4de7-8431-887e7bc00c66" CreationDate="2019-05-14T23:05:29.230" UserId="406" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="#By the third century BCE…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###…probably. We're not quite sure when.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [a question about Old Latin meters][1], an anonymous user brought up [Mercado's convincing argument][2] that the Saturnian was based on accent. The idea isn't new, but Mercado backs it up with some nice information-theoretical analysis: basically, the accent theory passes some statistical tests that all the quantity theories I've seen fail at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His idea is that a Saturnian line generally resembles one of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; '⏑'⏑|⏑'⏑ || ⏑'⏑|⏑'⏑  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; '⏑'⏑|⏑'⏑ || '⏑⏑|⏑'⏑&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where `'` marks a stressed syllable and `⏑` an unstressed one. For example, the Epitaph of Naevius:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ímmortálēs mortálēs / si fóret fas flére,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; flérent dévae Caménae / Náevium poétam:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ítaque póstqu' est Órchi / tráditus thesáuro  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; oblítī sunt Rómae / lóquier línguā Latínā.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *If gods could weep for mortals, the divine Muses would mourn the poet Naevius: after he was delivered to the vault of Hades, Rome forgot how to speak Latin.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mercado concludes that this pattern fits the majority of the surviving Saturnians, with some additional rules about elision and hiatus and two light syllables next to each other. (Unfortunately, Mahoney doesn't quote that part in her review, and the only copy of this book at the university library has been overdue for a year now—but I'll add more detail if I find a copy.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crucially, though, the Saturnian relies on the accent system of Plautus's era:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the second-to-last syllable is long, it gets stressed&#xD;&#xA; - Else, if the third-to-last syllable is long, it gets stressed&#xD;&#xA; - Else, if the fourth-to-last syllable is *short*, it gets stressed&#xD;&#xA; - Else, the third-to-last syllable gets stressed&#xD;&#xA; - Finally, every second syllable before that one gets *lightly* stressed, if applicable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is notably *not* the Classical penult system. But it's very close: the difference is, the Classical system never lets the fourth-to-last syllable get the stress. This is a pretty rare edge case, showing up mostly in inflected forms like *géneribus/genéribus*, so I don't have qualms about calling this an early form of the &quot;penult rule&quot;. (The &quot;proto-penult rule&quot;?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A date of somewhere before the third century also makes intuitive sense. As Mercado puts it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It would otherwise have to be assumed that the (pre-?) Old Latin *[initial stress]* system was replaced wholesale by the Plautine *[proto-penult stress]* one at almost the same time that Andronicus, Naevius, Plautus, and Ennius flourished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mahoney adds that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …even if Saturnians were being composed when Latin had word-initial stress, the poems that survive presumably use the stress patterns of their authors' own time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We know from other Italic languages that the word-initial stress arose after Venetic split off, but while all the other Italic languages were still a more-or-less-homogeneous blob in the middle of Italy. Etruscan had the same system, so Italic might have borrowed it from there. The timeline of these events is extremely fuzzy, but it seems like there was plenty of time for word-initial stress to leave its mark and then give way to the proto-penult rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, short answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Carthágō delénda est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Or, for the purists: *céterum cénseō Cartháginem ésse deléndam.* Either way, Cato the Elder would have known the penult rule.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5062/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2013/2013-07-30.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10775" RevisionGUID="323afa32-af77-44c0-80d1-7aa21ac1d03e" CreationDate="2019-05-14T23:08:39.027" UserId="406" Text="Nothing to do with the purpose, even though _prō_ is normally all about purpose. Weird, isn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin really likes to stick prepositional prefixes on verbs; sometimes these change the meaning in predictable ways (*ob-* makes the action intentional), sometimes they make idioms you wouldn't expect (*per-eō* &quot;through&quot; + &quot;go&quot; = polite word for &quot;die&quot;), but most of the time **they just make the verb more intense**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's what's happening here. _Creō_ and _prōcreō_ mean the same thing, but the latter puts more emphasis on it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10775" RevisionGUID="c9855126-2b29-4c88-87c3-fd450ac62c34" CreationDate="2019-05-14T23:57:24.467" UserId="406" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Nothing to do with the purpose, even though _prō_ (as a preposition) generally shows purpose. Weird, isn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin really likes to stick prepositional prefixes on verbs; sometimes these change the meaning in predictable ways (*ob-* makes the action intentional), sometimes they make idioms you wouldn't expect (*per-eō* &quot;through&quot; + &quot;go&quot; = polite word for &quot;die&quot;), but most of the time **they just make the verb more intense**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's what's happening here. _Creō_ and _prōcreō_ mean the same thing, but the latter puts more emphasis on it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9507" RevisionGUID="4c8ed437-042c-46f2-80f0-13a5e403d2ec" CreationDate="2019-05-15T09:57:32.907" UserId="183" Comment="fixed spelling" Text="perhaps not an answer but rather a comment - I just found my notes, based on Woodard 2010/2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adaptation: Greek-Phoenician bilingual speakers (scribes or mercenaries literate in the syllabic Cypriot orthographic tradition), “proceeding with intentionality and arbitrariness” (p. 35).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consonant clusters with /s/ in Phoenician: three affricates, /dz/ (grapheme: zayin), /ts/ (grapheme: samek), /ts’/ (grapheme: sade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consonant clusters with /s/ in Ancient Greek: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hTxKr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10776" RevisionGUID="f425f55b-e136-4caf-895c-94f7fc5af9c5" CreationDate="2019-05-15T13:19:03.137" UserId="4794" Text="The phrase I'm wondering about is &quot;causas sui odii&quot; - 'the cause of their hatred'.  The men are discussing the cause of their (the men's) hatred? or the cause of their (the women's) hatred? If it was the women's hatred would it be 'causas suae odii' or could this phrase be translated either way depending on the context of the whole paragraph? thanks in advance for your help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31557" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10776" RevisionGUID="f425f55b-e136-4caf-895c-94f7fc5af9c5" CreationDate="2019-05-15T13:19:03.137" UserId="4794" Text="&quot;their&quot; being masculine or feminine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31558" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10776" RevisionGUID="f425f55b-e136-4caf-895c-94f7fc5af9c5" CreationDate="2019-05-15T13:19:03.137" UserId="4794" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10776" RevisionGUID="6aaa24e6-8485-4ceb-9c5b-b317c78c2bb2" CreationDate="2019-05-15T14:13:22.820" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="The phrase I'm wondering about is &quot;causas sui odii&quot; &amp;mdash; 'the cause of their hatred'.  The men are discussing the cause of their (the men's) hatred? or the cause of their (the women's) hatred? If it was the women's hatred would it be &quot;causas suae odii&quot; or could this phrase be translated either way depending on the context of the whole paragraph? Thanks in advance for your help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31560" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10776" RevisionGUID="6aaa24e6-8485-4ceb-9c5b-b317c78c2bb2" CreationDate="2019-05-15T14:13:22.820" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is &quot;their&quot; being masculine or feminine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31561" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10776" RevisionGUID="6aaa24e6-8485-4ceb-9c5b-b317c78c2bb2" CreationDate="2019-05-15T14:13:22.820" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|meaning|gender|agreement|possessive-pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10777" RevisionGUID="86dfe935-8186-4129-b610-b4f321b0daf3" CreationDate="2019-05-15T14:17:00.743" UserId="79" Text="The form of *suus* (and *meus* and others) only depends on the noun it modifies.&#xD;&#xA;The gender, number, or other details of the owner do not matter at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be helpful to think of *suus* as an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;In particular, one should not consider it as a form of *se/sibi*, but as a related adjective.&#xD;&#xA;Then the right form comes more automatically.&#xD;&#xA;This adjective just happens to mean &quot;possessed by them&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, these pronouns are sometimes called possessive adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore it would be *sui odii* because of the form and gender of *odii*.&#xD;&#xA;The genders of the human parties involved are irrelevant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10778" RevisionGUID="86d90c36-823f-43b7-b49b-8d5c1d8c9608" CreationDate="2019-05-15T14:32:57.617" UserId="4795" Text="Looking for a word that expresses &quot;Area of Interest&quot;, &quot;Sphere of Interest&quot; basically a word that expresses everything a person may be interested in.&#xD;&#xA;Google translate says &quot;Rem&quot; means interest, but translating &quot;rem&quot; back to English says &quot;business&quot;. Is this correct ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31564" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10778" RevisionGUID="86d90c36-823f-43b7-b49b-8d5c1d8c9608" CreationDate="2019-05-15T14:32:57.617" UserId="4795" Text="A latin word for &quot;area of interest&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31565" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10778" RevisionGUID="86d90c36-823f-43b7-b49b-8d5c1d8c9608" CreationDate="2019-05-15T14:32:57.617" UserId="4795" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10779" RevisionGUID="af5698ab-c0e9-49e4-b373-a4d7a8bc951c" CreationDate="2019-05-15T15:21:31.493" UserId="1459" Text="One option could be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_materia curiositatis_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[Materia](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=materia)_ is &quot;subject, argument, course of thought, topic&quot;, whereas _[curiositatis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/curiositas)_ is the genitive of _curiositas_, curiosity. So, the above would be &quot;topic of interest&quot;. Area, although [a Latin word itself](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/area#Latin) (and the origin of the English one, it seems), did not have the equivalent English meaning intended in the phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10779" RevisionGUID="1e34614e-2a35-496c-a3cd-a0df3c0c3ed1" CreationDate="2019-05-15T15:29:56.570" UserId="1459" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="One option could be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_materia curiositatis_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[Materia](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=materia)_ is &quot;subject, argument, course of thought, topic&quot;, whereas _[curiositatis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/curiositas)_ is the genitive of _curiositas_, curiosity. So, the above would be &quot;topic of interest&quot;. _Res curiositatis_ is probably also fine, but _res_ seems to be much broader than _materia_. Finally, _area_, although [a Latin word itself](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/area#Latin) (and the origin of the English one, it seems), did not have the equivalent English meaning intended in the phrase. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10779" RevisionGUID="dc5a718f-7465-49cc-a42a-d0d6ab59842c" CreationDate="2019-05-15T15:39:38.017" UserId="1459" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="One option could be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_materia curiositatis_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[Materia](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=materia)_ is &quot;subject, argument, course of thought, topic&quot;, whereas _[curiositatis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/curiositas)_ is the genitive of _curiositas_, curiosity. So, the above would be &quot;topic of curiosity&quot;. _Res curiositatis_ is probably also fine, but _res_ seems to be much broader than _materia_. Finally, _area_, although [a Latin word itself](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/area#Latin) (and the origin of the English one, it seems), did not have the equivalent English meaning intended in the phrase. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10780" RevisionGUID="526959e2-e9ae-42f2-a865-7426221bf809" CreationDate="2019-05-15T15:57:30.163" UserId="79" Text="Let me comment on the translation offered by Google Translate.&#xD;&#xA;*Rem* is an accusative form of *res*.&#xD;&#xA;Unless there is more context, I would recommend using the nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun *res* is perhaps the broadest noun in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;It can be reasonably translated as &quot;interest&quot; or &quot;business&quot; in a suitable context, but the basic translation is often given as &quot;thing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I might even give the rule of thumb that when you need a Latin noun and don't know which one would be appropriate, use *res*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See a [dictionary entry for *res*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=res&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) to get an impression of its breadth.&#xD;&#xA;(There are [a number of online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) to choose from.)&#xD;&#xA;These are the translations the linked entry gives:&#xD;&#xA;thing, object, being, matter, affair, event, fact, circumstance, occurrence, deed, condition, case, something, reality, truth, effects, substance, property, possessions, benefit, profit, advantage, interest, weal, cause, reason, ground, account, business, case, lawsuit, cause, suit, battle, campaign, military operation, act, state, republic, civil affairs, administration, power, political changes, revolution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line is that ***res* (which looks the same in singular and plural) can be used for &quot;area of interest&quot; and is idiomatic**, but on its own it would not be understood as &quot;area of interest&quot; without proper context.&#xD;&#xA;You could say *res meae* to mean &quot;my area of interest&quot; just like the literal translation &quot;my things&quot; can mean it.&#xD;&#xA;If you want something unambiguous, you will need something else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10778" RevisionGUID="b70c9fa0-e090-451b-9f48-573555c7b9a3" CreationDate="2019-05-15T16:28:40.733" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Looking for a word that expresses &quot;Area of Interest&quot;, &quot;Sphere of Interest&quot; basically a word that expresses everything a person may be interested in.&#xD;&#xA;Google translate says &quot;Rem&quot; means interest, but translating &quot;rem&quot; back to English says &quot;business&quot;. Is this correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31571" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10778" RevisionGUID="ab2a7e3a-4e61-42a9-a03d-6b2b679dc19a" CreationDate="2019-05-15T16:41:35.933" />
  <row Id="31572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10781" RevisionGUID="8122703d-a72c-4a0c-9bca-4aedde6c0e31" CreationDate="2019-05-15T16:49:07.793" UserId="406" Text="Krahmalkov, in his _Phoenician-Punic Grammar_, suggests (based on data from later Punic) that the &quot;traditional&quot; sound values OP mentions are wrong. Instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Zayin was pronounced `[zd]` or `[dz]`, depending on dialect. It was definitely some sort of affricate, because inscriptions often add an extra aleph before words starting with zayin, indicating an epenthetic vowel. The old Phoenician form looked something like `⌶`.&#xD;&#xA;  - So the sound, form, and alphabet position all line up nicely with `Ζ`.&#xD;&#xA; - Šin was originally some unknown fricative, but it had merged into `[s]` before 500 BCE (the &quot;sibboleth merger&quot;). Inscriptions consistently confuse šin and samekh, and Roman-era puns confirm that it was pronounced the same as Latin *s*. The old Phoenician form looked something like `W`.&#xD;&#xA;  - So the sound, form, and alphabet position all line up nicely with `Σ`.&#xD;&#xA; - Ṣadhe's pronunciation varied significantly over time, but the earliest available evidence indicates `[ts]`: Plautus transcribes it inconsistently as either *t* or *ss*, and Punic inscriptions in the Latin alphabet sometimes use a `T` superposed on an `S` to represent it. The old Phoenician form looked something like ``.&#xD;&#xA;  - So the form and alphabet position line up nicely with `Ϻ`.&#xD;&#xA; - Samekh was almost certainly `[s]`: in later Punic, when the four sounds merged entirely, samekh is the letter most often used by mistake. The old Phoenician form looked something like &lt;s&gt;`⌶`&lt;/s&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;  - So the form and alphabet position line up nicely with `Ξ`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only problems now are the sounds of *san* and *xi*, and the names of the letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sound problem is far from insurmountable. Nobody's quite sure *what* sound *san* originally had, since [no Greek dialect distinguished it from *sigma*][1] (each dialect generally chose one or the other for `/s/` and ignored the other); Etruscan distinguished *sigma* and *san* but it inherited them through Greek so it's not too informative. And *xi* seems to be a case of the Greeks taking a redundant letter and co-opting it for their own purposes, like how *ʕayin* `[ʕ]` became `Ο` `[o]` and *he* `[h]` became `Ε` `[e]`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name problem is harder, and I haven't found any solid explanation for it. *Sigma* could be a *-ma* noun from *sízō* &quot;to hiss&quot; (so literally &quot;a hissing&quot;), *xi* (like *psi*) was renamed for its new purpose, and *zēta* could be by analogy with the following *ēta* and *thēta*. But this is all speculation on my part, and for *san* I have no idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL;DR: Jeffery's assumption of mixing up all the sounds and signs isn't necessary if we reconstruct Punic-esque values for the sibilant phonemes.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9492/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10774" RevisionGUID="a19f59bc-91b4-4041-9093-26a3f26291ec" CreationDate="2019-05-15T17:47:39.917" UserId="576" Comment="added OED's oldest quote" Text="What is the etymology of [*procreo*][1]? How does it differ from [*creo*][1]? Does the &quot;*pro-*&quot; in [*procreo*][1] refer to someone or something specific—e.g., to God or country, in the sense that procreation is for the sake of God or for a nation ([*natio*][2] = birth)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [*OED*][3], the earliest English usage of &quot;procreate&quot; is in the context of begetting children for God:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a1525&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;in W. A. Craigie *Asloan MS* (1923) I. 301/2&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Adam of iij&lt;sup&gt;c&lt;/sup&gt; &amp; xxx&lt;sup&gt;ti&lt;/sup&gt; ȝeris procreat Seth of quhom com the sonnis of God.&lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[Adam of 130 years procreated Seth of whom come the sons of God.]&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?la=la&amp;l=procreo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?la=la&amp;l=natio&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://oed.com/view/Entry/151869" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10780" RevisionGUID="8bf8c633-86f4-4f82-a0af-daaca9b3bbdf" CreationDate="2019-05-15T18:12:21.473" UserId="79" Comment="added 322 characters in body" Text="Let me comment on the translation offered by Google Translate.&#xD;&#xA;*Rem* is an accusative form of *res*.&#xD;&#xA;Unless there is more context, I would recommend using the nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun *res* is perhaps the broadest noun in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;It can be reasonably translated as &quot;interest&quot; or &quot;business&quot; in a suitable context, but the basic translation is often given as &quot;thing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I might even give the rule of thumb that when you need a Latin noun and don't know which one would be appropriate, use *res*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See a [dictionary entry for *res*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=res&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) to get an impression of its breadth.&#xD;&#xA;(There are [a number of online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) to choose from.)&#xD;&#xA;These are the translations the linked entry gives:&#xD;&#xA;thing, object, being, matter, affair, event, fact, circumstance, occurrence, deed, condition, case, something, reality, truth, effects, substance, property, possessions, benefit, profit, advantage, interest, weal, cause, reason, ground, account, business, case, lawsuit, cause, suit, battle, campaign, military operation, act, state, republic, civil affairs, administration, power, political changes, revolution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example where *res* would stand for &quot;area of interest&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; Mea interest lingua Latina. Et tua?  &#xD;&#xA;(I am interested in Latin. How about you?)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; Res meae sunt historia et musica.  &#xD;&#xA;(My areas of interest are history and music.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line is that ***res* (which looks the same in singular and plural) can be used for &quot;area of interest&quot; and is idiomatic**, but on its own it would not be understood as &quot;area of interest&quot; without proper context.&#xD;&#xA;You could say *res meae* to mean &quot;my area of interest&quot; just like the literal translation &quot;my things&quot; can mean it.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin *res* is more formal than the English &quot;thing(s)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you want something unambiguous, you will need something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might also be worthwhile to look at [this question about the meaning of *rem*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/309/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10782" RevisionGUID="844ef9cd-0cb5-4337-b1ae-14a06baa330a" CreationDate="2019-05-15T21:07:43.713" UserId="4796" Text="I [saw][1] that &quot;donec&quot; might mean: &quot;as long as&quot;, but it also can mean &quot;till&quot;. In a sense those are opposing meanings. let's consider this example:  &#xD;&#xA;I'm happy ***as long as*** there is daylight outside   &#xD;&#xA;I'm happy ***until*** there is daylight outside&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we rely only on context (which indeed should be quite obvious), or there is a grammatical issue that makes only one of the options valid each time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=donec" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31576" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10782" RevisionGUID="844ef9cd-0cb5-4337-b1ae-14a06baa330a" CreationDate="2019-05-15T21:07:43.713" UserId="4796" Text="the opposing meanings of the word donec?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31577" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10782" RevisionGUID="844ef9cd-0cb5-4337-b1ae-14a06baa330a" CreationDate="2019-05-15T21:07:43.713" UserId="4796" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10783" RevisionGUID="ac140fb4-ddae-4c61-b524-d969e27fea66" CreationDate="2019-05-16T01:32:08.140" UserId="522" Text="Charles Burnett *[De Eodem et Diverso][1]* introduction, writes,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The contrast between *res,* the perceptible realities with which Philocosmia deals, and *verba,* the mental concepts of Philosophia, runs through the whole work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The five serving girls attending Philocosmia in Adelard are drawn from *Boethius,* [III prose 2 Consolation][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Habes igitur ante oculos propositam fere formam felicitatis humane: **opes, honores, potentiam, gloriam, voluptates,***  &#xD;&#xA;...the epitome of human happiness: wealth, honours, power, fame, pleasures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if your interest is one of these, and why not? then the translation is ***res.***  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if your interest has more in common with the seven attendants of Philosophia:  &#xD;&#xA;**grammar, rhetoric [eloquence], dialectic; arithmetic, music, geometry, astronomy** then choose (quotations from *De Eodem Et Diverso,' last three paragraphs)    &#xD;&#xA;*artes, artium, artibus*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *studiosius singulis artibus animum applicavi.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I put my mind more intensely to the areas of interest one by one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*lectio, lectionis, lectione.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *eum asserentem audivi, lectiones [scilicet   disciplinares earumque labores] penitentiam non*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I heard him insisting that the areas of interest [particularly the discipline and hard work] were not a matter of regret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/literature/anglo-saxon-and-medieval-literature/adelard-bath-conversations-his-nephew-same-and-different-questions-natural-science-and-birds?format=PB&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/CSEL67/page/n77" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10784" RevisionGUID="4779a49e-8270-4ab1-8be4-488020cfbcfe" CreationDate="2019-05-16T06:53:58.300" UserId="985" Text="Another possibility is *studium*, which would denote more keenly felt interest than a general word such as *res* – one's area of particular interest, one's pet interest, or one's passion. Definition 3 in the *Oxford Latin dictionary* is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That which forms the object of one's interest or energy, an aim or concern&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in book 14 of Ovid's *Metamorphoses*, orchard trees are Pomona's area of special interest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rege sub hoc Pomona fuit, qua nulla Latinas  &#xD;&#xA;inter hamadryadas coluit sollertius hortos  &#xD;&#xA;nec fuit arborei studiosior altera fetus;  &#xD;&#xA;unde tenet nomen: non silvas illa nec amnes,  &#xD;&#xA;rus amat et ramos felicia poma ferentes;  &#xD;&#xA;nec iaculo gravis est, sed adunca dextera falce,  &#xD;&#xA;qua modo luxuriem premit et spatiantia passim  &#xD;&#xA;bracchia conpescit, fisso modo cortice virgam  &#xD;&#xA;inserit et sucos alieno praestat alumno;  &#xD;&#xA;nec sentire sitim patitur bibulaeque recurvas  &#xD;&#xA;radicis fibras labentibus inrigat undis.  &#xD;&#xA;hic amor, **hoc studium**, Veneris quoque nulla cupido est;  &#xD;&#xA;vim tamen agrestum metuens pomaria claudit  &#xD;&#xA;intus et accessus prohibet refugitque viriles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Lines 623–636)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pomona lived in good king Proca's reign  &#xD;&#xA;And none of all the Latin woodland-nymphs  &#xD;&#xA;Was cleverer than she in garden lore  &#xD;&#xA;Nor keener in the care of orchard trees.  &#xD;&#xA;Thence came her name. For in her heart she loved  &#xD;&#xA;Not woods nor rivers, but a plot of ground  &#xD;&#xA;And boughs of smiling apples all around.  &#xD;&#xA;She had no spear, only a pruning-knife  &#xD;&#xA;To check too greedy growth and trim to shape  &#xD;&#xA;The spreading shoots, or slit the bark and set  &#xD;&#xA;A slip for sap to feed a foreign stock.  &#xD;&#xA;She never let them thirst; her trickling rills  &#xD;&#xA;Watered the twisting fibres of their roots.  &#xD;&#xA;This was her love, **her passion**. Venus' charms  &#xD;&#xA;Meant nothing; yet for fear of rustic force  &#xD;&#xA;She walled her orchard in to keep away  &#xD;&#xA;The sex she shunned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Trans. A.D. Melville)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10785" RevisionGUID="4499423a-0115-43e7-bc0f-cfabcf83137f" CreationDate="2019-05-16T08:15:25.887" UserId="1459" Text="Cerberus made this valid point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Can you define length? Number of pages in modern print? In Ancient manuscript? In number of sentences? Words? Letters? I think in words or letters will be quite difficult to compare...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, if we were to merely define length by size, then the longest text would be the [Codex Gigas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Gigas) (13th century though), which is the largest manuscript of the Bible ever made (before the printing press) (it also contains other texts though; see article). Here is a picture, just to given a idea of its size:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other examples of massive medieval bibles (e.g. [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Bible)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option to add to the list is _[Saturnalia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia_(Macrobius))_, written around 400 AD by somebody called [Macrobius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrobius). According to [this site](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/home.html): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Although we only have parts of it, this book, written in the 5c A.D., is one of the longest extant works from Late Antiquity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9eMhm.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10786" RevisionGUID="0ac89794-2690-41f8-929b-6e272f5924fc" CreationDate="2019-05-16T09:32:52.837" UserId="1982" Text="Donec denotes the relationship between two actions, at the same time. Check out Wiktionary for apposite examples and references." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10787" RevisionGUID="8ddc3ad6-af61-4100-841f-f603d2ff291a" CreationDate="2019-05-16T12:59:29.597" UserId="4797" Text="I have a very short partial sentence to translate in context from english to Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have tried numerous sites. In all cases only some of the words are translated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translate ‘and the ones I have loved’" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31583" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10787" RevisionGUID="8ddc3ad6-af61-4100-841f-f603d2ff291a" CreationDate="2019-05-16T12:59:29.597" UserId="4797" Text="Translate in context" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31584" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10787" RevisionGUID="8ddc3ad6-af61-4100-841f-f603d2ff291a" CreationDate="2019-05-16T12:59:29.597" UserId="4797" Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10786" RevisionGUID="19c8d62e-2626-483c-a748-39d285c1e5c3" CreationDate="2019-05-16T17:52:14.553" UserId="1982" Comment="added 531 characters in body" Text="Donec denotes the relationship between two actions, at the same time e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;donec, infecta pace, armis desilirent&quot; giving &quot;&quot;while&quot;, with peace having been broken off, they came to strive with arms&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...et non cognoscebat eam, donec peperit filium, et vocavit nomen eius Iusum.&quot; giving &quot;...and he did not know (have carnal-knowledge of) her &quot;until&quot; she had given birth to a son, and the name of him she called Jesus.&quot; Hence, or otherwise, he did not have sexual relations with her &quot;as-long-as&quot; she was pregnant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apologies for sparsity, earlier; didn´t want to claim other´´s work as own. The Wiki entry has required some embellishment, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10788" RevisionGUID="b53b8c10-5d20-4329-906c-d8be279f4a1c" CreationDate="2019-05-16T19:24:15.993" UserId="4800" Text="My niece is turning 18 and I want to get her a bracelet with something in Latin engraved. Im looking for something in the lines of &quot;keep on dreaming&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31587" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10788" RevisionGUID="b53b8c10-5d20-4329-906c-d8be279f4a1c" CreationDate="2019-05-16T19:24:15.993" UserId="4800" Text="Keep on dreaming" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31588" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10788" RevisionGUID="b53b8c10-5d20-4329-906c-d8be279f4a1c" CreationDate="2019-05-16T19:24:15.993" UserId="4800" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10789" RevisionGUID="8dcc943d-735e-4b16-a4b0-a0c5dc9bb695" CreationDate="2019-05-16T20:52:51.743" UserId="2116" Text="Welcome to the site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the text has to go on a bracelet, it must be short. &#xD;&#xA;Rather than providing a literal translation, I'd go for something that reflects the spirit.&#xD;&#xA;If we interpret &quot;keep on dreaming&quot; as &quot;may you always have dreams&quot;, you could write&#xD;&#xA;**Semper somnia tecum sint** (literally: &quot;May dreams be always with you&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;You can leave out **sint** as that might be implicit. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10787" RevisionGUID="15cd5f80-eccc-4c7b-80de-11c3aaefd814" CreationDate="2019-05-16T23:56:23.243" UserId="79" Comment="added 107 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have a very short partial sentence to translate in context from English to Latin. &#xD;&#xA;It is for a memorial to my brother.&#xD;&#xA;It is his photo then ... and the ones I have loved.&#xD;&#xA;How can I translate &quot;and the ones I have loved&quot; to Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have tried numerous sites. In all cases only some of the words are translated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31591" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10787" RevisionGUID="15cd5f80-eccc-4c7b-80de-11c3aaefd814" CreationDate="2019-05-16T23:56:23.243" UserId="79" Comment="added 107 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10790" RevisionGUID="48aa9ab7-d68a-4bd6-a30a-681f64fad4d2" CreationDate="2019-05-17T06:00:47.907" UserId="645" Text="There are various pronouns that you might use for 'those', but I would choose *quisque*, 'each one severally'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This produces *et quemque amavi*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10790" RevisionGUID="59f2afc2-65cc-43de-a37f-224cb74c235e" CreationDate="2019-05-17T06:12:03.113" UserId="645" Comment="rearranged" Text="There are various pronouns that you might use for 'those', but I would choose *quisque*, 'each one severally'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It isn't necessary to use a plural in this compound pronoun : the Latin will mean 'and whomsoever I have loved', not restricted in either number or gender. This produces *et quemque amavi*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10786" RevisionGUID="c17ec096-2ae8-4ce9-aa57-85c86e68910f" CreationDate="2019-05-17T08:48:54.613" UserId="1982" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Donec denotes the relationship between two actions, at the same time e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;donec, infecta pace, armis desilirent&quot; giving  &quot;&quot;while&quot;, with peace having been broken off, they came to strive with arms&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...et non cognoscebat eam, donec peperit filium, et vocavit nomen eius Iusum.&quot; giving &quot;...and he did not know (have carnal-knowledge of) her &quot;until&quot; she had given birth to a son, and the name of him she called Jesus.&quot; Hence, or otherwise, he did not have sexual relations with her for &quot;as-long-as&quot; she was pregnant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apologies for sparsity, earlier; didn´t want to claim other´´s work as own. The Wiki entry has required some embellishment, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10786" RevisionGUID="8abf4bd8-b4c2-45e2-bf0a-2db49200b4c3" CreationDate="2019-05-17T08:55:19.157" UserId="1982" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Donec denotes the relationship between two actions, at the same time e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;donec, infecta pace, armis desilirent&quot; giving  &quot;&quot;while&quot;, with peace having been broken off, they came to strive with arms&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...et non cognoscebat eam, donec peperit filium, et vocavit nomen eius Iusum.&quot; giving &quot;...and he did not know (have carnal-knowledge of) her &quot;until&quot; she had given birth to a son, and the name of him she called Jesus.&quot; Hence, or otherwise: &quot;He did not have sexual relations with her for &quot;as-long-as&quot; she was pregnant.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apologies for sparsity, earlier; didn´t want to claim other´´s work as own. The Wiki entry has required some embellishment, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With problems like this, type in the word, nothing else, a Wiki-option will appear. If the net cannot identify the word as Latin, it´´s too similar to its English descendant, then add &quot;Latin,&quot; followed by the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10791" RevisionGUID="a9b02d2c-d554-48c9-98d0-73fcec8e6392" CreationDate="2019-05-17T09:14:57.577" UserId="1982" Text="The imperfect subjunctive &quot;somniares&quot; giving &quot;might/ may you dream&quot;--a non-specific gentle way of expression." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10792" RevisionGUID="76af544c-c20b-4ea2-8224-efb68785818b" CreationDate="2019-05-17T09:27:13.803" UserId="1459" Text="One option could be _obdura imaginans_, where _[obdura](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/obduro#Latin)_ is &quot;endure&quot;, and _[imaginans](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imaginor)_ is &quot;imagining&quot;. As Colin suggested, the word &quot;dream&quot; (_somnium_) seems not to have the meaning you want in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10793" RevisionGUID="d14e8f44-8aca-46ae-a8a9-94fb5ccdca9c" CreationDate="2019-05-17T12:27:52.140" UserId="4801" Text="Can anyone help with information about the words below, which we sang in language class, which I think was the English national anthem.&#xD;&#xA;Forgive the mistakes, as I never studied Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Salve Britanniae, Regina nobilis, ..floreat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd be interested in the rest of the song, if anyone can help.&#xD;&#xA;With thanks,&#xD;&#xA;Marianne" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31599" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10793" RevisionGUID="d14e8f44-8aca-46ae-a8a9-94fb5ccdca9c" CreationDate="2019-05-17T12:27:52.140" UserId="4801" Text="Latin words remembered from high school 50 years ago" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31600" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10793" RevisionGUID="d14e8f44-8aca-46ae-a8a9-94fb5ccdca9c" CreationDate="2019-05-17T12:27:52.140" UserId="4801" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10794" RevisionGUID="282e1abc-8a2e-4d8e-acd6-80f2bb45ef41" CreationDate="2019-05-17T12:51:54.993" UserId="1459" Text="Perhaps you meant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Salve Britannia, Regina nobilis, ...flore&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which can be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hail Britannia, noble Queen, ... prosper" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10794" RevisionGUID="e0e2fafd-d513-448f-b53a-0c349cde4977" CreationDate="2019-05-17T12:58:49.080" UserId="1459" Comment="added 532 characters in body" Text="Perhaps you meant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Salve Britannia, Regina nobilis, ...flore&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which can be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hail Britannia, noble Queen, ... prosper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[Salve](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/salve#Latin)_ is a greeting, of praise, or welcoming, or goodbye. _[Nobilis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nobilis)_ can mean noble, but also famous. So you would need the full context to asses the exact meaning intended. And _[flore](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/floreo#Latin)_ is the imperative of &quot;to prosper&quot;. _Floreat_ is the present of the same verb, which make sense within a phrase, but I think it doesn't by itself (maybe the dots were to indicate you forgot part of the phrase?)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10782" RevisionGUID="e9ba27a8-fe8d-4811-81b4-45ffa6f749f1" CreationDate="2019-05-17T13:00:05.157" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="I [saw][1] that &quot;donec&quot; might mean: &quot;as long as&quot;, but it also can mean &quot;till&quot;. In a sense those are opposing meanings. let's consider this example:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm happy ***as long as*** there is daylight outside   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm happy ***until*** there is daylight outside&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we rely only on context (which indeed should be quite obvious), or there is a grammatical issue that makes only one of the options valid each time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=donec" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31604" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10782" RevisionGUID="e9ba27a8-fe8d-4811-81b4-45ffa6f749f1" CreationDate="2019-05-17T13:00:05.157" UserId="1459" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="The opposing meanings of the word donec?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10795" RevisionGUID="0c993e79-3793-43b8-b620-b644c9310dea" CreationDate="2019-05-17T13:20:19.303" UserId="1459" Text="The context is indeed relevant. If you want the memorial to be, in a sense, a list of people, the nominative is appropriate. If you instead are dedicating the memorial **to** the listed people (as is often done), then it is the dative which is appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, in either case, I would propose something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;et omnes qui amavi (nominative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;et omnibus quibus amavi (dative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(both meaning &quot;and [to] all whom I loved&quot;; the second one having the &quot;to&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that for the former example, I have selected the masculine (_qui_) for the general gender of the group (as it is often done in some languages, e.g. Spanish), but you can also select the feminine, _quae_ (an issue Tom's answer doesn't need to deal with). The second option above does not have such gender choice.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10794" RevisionGUID="6ab93dbb-5a37-47ce-a79a-e1d3bbc68fbe" CreationDate="2019-05-17T13:23:18.240" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Perhaps you meant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Salve Britannia, Regina nobilis, ...flore&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which can be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hail Britannia, noble Queen, ... prosper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[Salve](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/salve#Latin)_ is an expression of praise, or welcoming, or goodbye. _[Nobilis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nobilis)_ can mean noble, but also famous. So you would need the full context to asses the exact meaning intended. And _[flore](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/floreo#Latin)_ is the imperative of &quot;to prosper&quot;. _Floreat_ is the present of the same verb, which make sense within a phrase, but I think it doesn't by itself (maybe the dots were to indicate you forgot part of the phrase?)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10796" RevisionGUID="af61c428-1b37-4b2d-ae78-5ad05225fdc4" CreationDate="2019-05-17T13:48:25.073" UserId="522" Text="The first comma is just phrasing in the tune; it doesn't add to the sense. It may have been&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Salve Britanniae Regina gracilis, ..floreat nobilis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(God) keep safe the gracious Queen of Britain; long live the noble...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll see if I can track down some more" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10796" RevisionGUID="15c5f14c-3b59-4391-86ef-5884ee69e313" CreationDate="2019-05-17T14:21:00.680" UserId="522" Comment="Other Versions" Text="The first comma is just phrasing in the tune; it doesn't add to the sense. It may have been&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Salve Britanniae Regina gracilis, ..floreat nobilis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(God) keep safe the gracious Queen of Britain; long live the noble...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for comparison, a completely different Latin versionof the National Anthem is given at [latinisedhymns.org.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latinisedhymns.org.uk/hymn/310" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10796" RevisionGUID="58e22de5-a569-4691-b2e5-b56ff5b148b1" CreationDate="2019-05-17T16:28:13.833" UserId="522" Comment="Vocatives" Text="The first comma is just phrasing in the tune; it doesn't add to the sense. It may have been&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Salve Britanniae Regina gracilis, ..floreat nobilis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(God) save you, gracious Queen of Britain; may she flourish the noble...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for comparison, a completely different Latin version of the National Anthem is given at [latinisedhymns.org.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latinisedhymns.org.uk/hymn/310" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10794" RevisionGUID="bd1890c5-ccf3-4161-a422-1db29f8f0330" CreationDate="2019-05-17T16:50:31.743" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 200 characters in body" Text="Perhaps you meant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Salve Britannia, Regina nobilis, ...floreat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which can be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hail Britannia, noble Queen, ... may [she] prosper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(thanks to draconis for correcting an earlier error).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[Salve](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/salve#Latin)_ is an expression of praise, or welcoming, or goodbye. _[Nobilis](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nobilis)_ can mean noble, but also famous. So you would need the full context to asses the exact meaning intended. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31611" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10793" RevisionGUID="f94ccd40-0c36-4f10-acee-a741179371b7" CreationDate="2019-05-17T16:59:24.143" />
  <row Id="31612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10793" RevisionGUID="f097f06e-615c-4aee-89e4-b9dd61f28702" CreationDate="2019-05-17T17:22:18.330" UserId="-1" Comment="minor changes" Text="Can anyone help with information about the words below, which we sang in language class, which I think was the English national anthem.&#xD;&#xA;Forgive the mistakes, as I never studied Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Salve Britanniae, Regina nobilis, ..floreat_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd be interested in the rest of the song, if anyone can help.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31613" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10793" RevisionGUID="f097f06e-615c-4aee-89e4-b9dd61f28702" CreationDate="2019-05-17T17:22:18.330" UserId="-1" Comment="minor changes" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31614" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10793" RevisionGUID="f097f06e-615c-4aee-89e4-b9dd61f28702" CreationDate="2019-05-17T17:22:18.330" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 1459, -1 edit id of 314" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10793" RevisionGUID="dea1e4ee-33db-4c90-94d4-09eca3e08032" CreationDate="2019-05-17T17:22:18.330" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and reformatted to improve the suggested edit." Text="Can anyone help with information about the words below, which we sang in language class, which I think was the English national anthem?&#xD;&#xA;Forgive the mistakes, as I never studied Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Salve Britanniae, Regina nobilis, &amp;hellip; floreat_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd be interested in the rest of the song, if anyone can help.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31616" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10793" RevisionGUID="dea1e4ee-33db-4c90-94d4-09eca3e08032" CreationDate="2019-05-17T17:22:18.330" UserId="79" Comment="Retagged and reformatted to improve the suggested edit." Text="|passage-identification|song-lyrics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10796" RevisionGUID="564511d9-7558-447e-a05b-3b8757bd0572" CreationDate="2019-05-17T17:22:46.737" UserId="522" Comment="added 452 characters in body" Text="The first comma is just phrasing in the tune; it doesn't add to the sense. It may have been&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Salve Britanniae Regina gracilis, ..floreat nobilis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(God) save you, gracious Queen of Britain; may she flourish the noble...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for comparison, a completely different Latin version of the National Anthem is given at [latinisedhymns.org.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here, poems to the **first** Queen Elizabeth by [philological.bham.ac][2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I.** *Silva nemusque virens, et flore fragrantior hortus*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Flourishing wood and grove, and garden pretty fragrant wiht flower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this, which includes a lady from the poet's private life:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ELISA claro tota fulgis auRO  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; LImbos et oras. Proxime tuo SI  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; SAltem nitori, en aurea est ROSI NA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latinisedhymns.org.uk/hymn/310&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/schede/text.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10764" RevisionGUID="b6317daa-415d-493b-ab10-cc2d9fae3924" CreationDate="2019-05-17T23:05:50.660" UserId="4731" Comment="Moved &quot;*est*&quot;  added macrons over &quot;*qui*&quot; and &quot;*ibi*&quot;" Text="So here's what I got. His reasoning is okay, but when it is put together, it should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quis [ibī est],*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; *[quī], ob paucōs virōs (hominēs)*&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; *infidelēs, murōs tollī (delērī/conrumpī) patiatur? Si militēs nostrī fortiter pugnant, urbs non succumbed!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Words in brackets are direct translations of words that are best left out.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Words in parentheses are words that may also work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My preference therefore would be:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quis, ob paucōs virōs infidelēs, murōs tollī (conrumpī) patiatur? Si militēs nostrī fortiter pugnant, urbs non succumbet!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10797" RevisionGUID="ef5ed63c-be56-497e-b2d4-56c9ab7053ef" CreationDate="2019-05-18T03:40:14.000" UserId="4731" Text="So, what you posted looks like you want to say, &quot;Lictor of Holy Matters&quot; or &quot;Lictor for Holy Matters,&quot; which would be:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Lictor Rērum Sanctārum* or *Lictor Rēbus Sanctis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, based on your comment you were thinking something to the tune of &quot;Order of Vatican Intelligence Operatives,&quot; which presents a quandary, seeing as, per the Wikipedia pages, it would depend on which branch of Vatican government would govern this body. It turns out that, military and civilian offices are under different bodies altogether, namely Vatican City State and Holy See are two different bodies that represent the same areas but hold different function, though both are run by the Pope. In this case, the Vatican City State handles civil matters like the police, while the Holy See runs international and military matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it would depend on what type of intelligence agency this would be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is civil, then it would be something like:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ordō [Lictorum] Intelligentiae (Rērum Secretārum) prō Statō Civitate Vaticanae* Order [of the Magistrates (Lictors)] of Intelligence for the Vatican City State&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and someone in it would be:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Lictor Intelligentiae (Rērum Secretārum) prō Statō Civitate Vaticanae* Magistrate (Lictor) of Intelligence for the Vatican City State&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, of it is a military order, then it would be something like:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pontificium Ordō [Lictorum] Intelligentiae (Rērum Secretārum) [pro Sanctā Sedī]* Papal Order [of Magistrates (Lictors)] of Intelligence [for the Holy See]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and someone in it would be: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Pontificius Lictor Intelligentiae (Rērum Secretārum) [prō Sanctā Sedī]* Pontifical Magistrate (Lictor) of Intelligence [for the Holy See]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, words written in brackets are optional and words in parentheses are alternates. I hope his gives you a starting point. Interestingly, though, it appears that the Holy See is a member of Interpol, so you might want to try it from that angle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10795" RevisionGUID="6b086eae-f0f3-46b2-9503-89624b887731" CreationDate="2019-05-18T07:22:10.663" UserId="1459" Comment="added 380 characters in body" Text="The context is indeed relevant. If you want the memorial to be, in a sense, a list of people, the nominative is appropriate. If you instead are dedicating the memorial **to** the listed people (as is often done), then it is the dative which is appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, in either case, I would propose something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;et omnes quos amavi (nominative, masculine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;et omnibus quos amavi (dative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(both meaning &quot;and [to] all whom I loved&quot;; the second one having the &quot;to&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that for the former example, I have selected the masculine (_qui_) for the general gender of the group (as it is often done in some languages, e.g. Spanish), but you can also select the feminine, _quae_ (an issue Tom's answer doesn't need to deal with). The second option above does not have such gender choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, one can say &quot;and [to] all **those** whom I loved&quot;, noticing that  &quot;those&quot;, like _qui/quae_, is no gender neutral in the nominative. Thus, you would need to pick one: _illi_ or _illae_ for the masculine and feminine, respectively. The dative is the same, _illis_. Thus, you can have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;et omnes illi quos amavi (nominative, masculine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;et omnibus illis quos amavi (dative)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10798" RevisionGUID="17de1ced-c26b-40d6-b0b5-d16a27db9bce" CreationDate="2019-05-18T09:24:04.440" UserId="3404" Text="Why do we use the nominative case in this example: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Liber legendus est.  = The book needs to be read.&#xA;&#xA;If liber is a direct object, then why not put it in accusative?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31622" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10798" RevisionGUID="17de1ced-c26b-40d6-b0b5-d16a27db9bce" CreationDate="2019-05-18T09:24:04.440" UserId="3404" Text="Why use nominative in Coniugatio periphrastica passiva" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31623" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10798" RevisionGUID="17de1ced-c26b-40d6-b0b5-d16a27db9bce" CreationDate="2019-05-18T09:24:04.440" UserId="3404" Text="|declinatio|accusative|nominativus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10791" RevisionGUID="347a3e0f-efc2-4568-ac6a-6074b9d98f19" CreationDate="2019-05-18T09:32:57.893" UserId="1982" Comment="added 196 characters in body" Text="The imperfect subjunctive &quot;somniares&quot; giving &quot;might/ may you dream&quot;--a non-specific gentle way of expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the wake of the contribution from Joonas, it may be more appropriate to use the present subjunctive, &quot;somnies&quot; (may you dream). It is shorter and will more readily fit in the limited space." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10799" RevisionGUID="1fbe179e-27c9-4675-80d5-a0841a99603d" CreationDate="2019-05-18T09:59:20.097" UserId="1982" Text="The gerundive is a passive entity: it (whatever it is)-ought-to-be-done. Here: &quot;The book: it-ought-to-be-read&quot;. So, &quot;book&quot; is the subject and is therefore  nominative, by definition; not &quot;he read the book&quot; in which case &quot;book&quot; would be in the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This confusion can arise in other areas: remember, &quot;consul fieret&quot;; was convinced that it should be &quot;consulem&quot;; no: &quot;the consul he would become&quot;, not quite the same as &quot;he is made consul&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was clear from Qs, asked in April (&quot;positive &amp; negative&quot;, Joonas) that the gerundive can be something of a trial (me, with indirect speech). With any gerundive apply &quot;it-ought-to-be&quot;; or, &quot;it-ought-not-to-be&quot; then manipulate as appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31626" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10798" RevisionGUID="cf548721-f0e4-4abb-9c9d-0d301d54930c" CreationDate="2019-05-18T13:00:49.430" />
  <row Id="31627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10800" RevisionGUID="22573812-5696-4461-939e-9c55818e85d8" CreationDate="2019-05-18T13:07:39.410" UserId="79" Text="Comparison to English might help here.&#xD;&#xA;(English is often misleading for Latin, but here it can at least illustrate the same phenomenon.)&#xD;&#xA;English distinguishes between nominative and accusative for personal pronouns, for example &quot;he&quot; vs. &quot;him&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the best analogue is found with pronouns instead of nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the sentence: *Ille amandus est*.&#xD;&#xA;Why is it not *illum*?&#xD;&#xA;Compare this with English.&#xD;&#xA;We say &quot;he is to be loved&quot;, not &quot;him is to be loved&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The passive meaning comes from &quot;loved&quot; being a passive participle.&#xD;&#xA;The pronoun &quot;he&quot; is the subject of &quot;is&quot; and therefore in nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This works the same way in Latin: the gerundive (or a perfect participle) is passive in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also worth noting that there is the object-free option *legendum est*, &quot;one has to read&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;An object can't be added to this kind of construction; instead, you get nominatives like in your example.&#xD;&#xA;This relation is explored [in this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1144/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10798" RevisionGUID="68118d4d-82db-4201-a31a-c841b759aaa5" CreationDate="2019-05-18T13:16:53.527" UserId="79" Comment="Mild reformatting. Feel free to cancel or edit further!" Text="Why do we use the nominative case in this example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Liber legendus est.  = The book needs to be read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If *liber* is a direct object, then why not put it in accusative?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31629" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10798" RevisionGUID="68118d4d-82db-4201-a31a-c841b759aaa5" CreationDate="2019-05-18T13:16:53.527" UserId="79" Comment="Mild reformatting. Feel free to cancel or edit further!" Text="Why use nominative in Coniugatio periphrastica passiva?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31630" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10798" RevisionGUID="68118d4d-82db-4201-a31a-c841b759aaa5" CreationDate="2019-05-18T13:16:53.527" UserId="79" Comment="Mild reformatting. Feel free to cancel or edit further!" Text="|grammar-choice|accusative|nominativus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10801" RevisionGUID="9033527d-79e7-4503-9cad-b5704613a893" CreationDate="2019-05-18T16:35:22.477" UserId="2363" Text="The gerundive has no object; it functions as a passive adjective. It can be used attributively or predicately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Liber legendus = a/the needing-to-be-read book&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Liber legendus est = a/the book is needing-to-be-read" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10802" RevisionGUID="cea16cf4-5934-42c5-a913-fa430550ac8a" CreationDate="2019-05-18T18:32:20.680" UserId="3248" Text="The answers given by Tony, Kingshorsey, and Joonas are correct and should be enough for learners of Latin. However, it is true (and interesting!) that, from a linguistic/philological point of view, the apparently innocent question raised above by Imc (&quot;If _liber_ is a direct object, then why not put it in accusative?&quot;) is more complex if one considers, for example, what Woodcock (1959: 159) [_A New Latin Syntax_] says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In early Latin the impersonal construction is still found with the gerundive of transitive verbs, as Plaut. _Trin._ 869 _Agitandum est vigilias_ 'One must keep watch'&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(Cf. the Classical construction _Agitandae sunt vigiliae_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems that at least in Early Latin a transitive impersonal construction like _Legendum est **libros**_ is not unexpected. This construction is said to be an archaism in Classical Latin: e.g., Cic. _De Sen._ _viam quam nobis quoque ingrediendum sit_ 'the road which we, too, must tread' (cf. the more usual _viam quae...ingredienda sit_). Cf. also Lucr. 1, 111: _aternas quoniam poenas in morte timendum est_ ('Since one must fear after death eternal punishment').     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10802" RevisionGUID="76d99fdb-9d63-4c56-99a1-60f152474ac6" CreationDate="2019-05-18T21:57:31.730" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar" Text="The answers given by Tony, Kingshorsey, and Joonas are correct and should be enough for learners of Latin. However, it is true (and interesting!) that, from a linguistic/philological point of view, the apparently innocent question raised above by Imc (&quot;If _liber_ is a direct object, then why not put it in accusative?&quot;) is more complex if one considers, for example, what Woodcock (1959: 159) [_A New Latin Syntax_] says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In early Latin the impersonal construction is still found with the gerundive of transitive verbs, as Plaut. _Trin._ 869 _Agitandum est vigilias_ 'One must keep watch'&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(Cf. the Classical construction _Agitandae sunt vigiliae_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems that at least in Early Latin a transitive impersonal construction like _Legendum est **libros**_ is not unexpected. This construction is said to be an archaism in Classical Latin: e.g., Cic. _De Sen._ _viam quam nobis quoque ingrediendum sit_ 'the road which we, too, must tread' (cf. the more usual _viam quae...ingredienda sit_). Cf. also Lucr. 1, 111: _aeternas quoniam poenas in morte timendum est_ ('Since one must fear after death eternal punishment').     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10800" RevisionGUID="80af688a-367e-49d2-9f01-b37769291f8f" CreationDate="2019-05-19T01:24:12.800" UserId="79" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Comparison to English might help here.&#xD;&#xA;(English is often misleading for Latin, but here it can at least illustrate the same phenomenon.)&#xD;&#xA;English distinguishes between nominative and accusative for personal pronouns, for example &quot;he&quot; vs. &quot;him&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the best analogue is found with pronouns instead of nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the sentence: *Ille amandus est*.&#xD;&#xA;Why is it not *illum*?&#xD;&#xA;Compare this with English.&#xD;&#xA;We say &quot;he is to be loved&quot;, not &quot;him is to be loved&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The passive meaning comes from &quot;loved&quot; being a passive participle.&#xD;&#xA;The pronoun &quot;he&quot; is the subject of &quot;is&quot; and therefore in nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This works the same way in Latin: the gerundive (or a perfect participle) is passive in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also worth noting that there is the object-free option *legendum est*, &quot;one has to read&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;An object can't be added to this kind of construction in classical Latin; instead, you get nominatives like in your example.&#xD;&#xA;This relation is explored [in this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1144/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10804" RevisionGUID="9fe84a61-26c8-450a-8a52-3e1b82b116db" CreationDate="2019-05-19T02:22:50.103" UserId="3248" Text="The linguistic meanings of _creare_ and _procreare_ are not the same: the latter contains a directional prefix, which indeed has a semantic contribution that goes beyond the meaning of 'in front of'. For example, according to García-Hernández, a Spanish Latinist scholar who has analyzed the very complex topic of Latin preverbs, _pro-_ enters into an important opposition with _ob-_: e.g., vid. García-Hernández (1991): [_pro-_ vs. _ob-_][1]. In particular, I like his image-schematic representation of Latin preverbs.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is well-known that the path/directional meaning of Latin preverbs became grammaticalized into other more abstract notions (e.g., aspect; cf. also the &quot;intensive&quot; value attributed by Draconis in his answer). It is worth pointing out that, in the specialized literature, complex/prefixed verbs like _procreare_ or _producere_ are considered as good examples of the so-called &quot;satellite-framed&quot; nature of Latin: path/directionality (and aspect) is encoded in the preverb or particle (aka. &quot;satellite&quot;) in so-called &quot;satellite-framed languages&quot; (e.g., Early &amp; Classical Latin, German, Russian, etc.), whereas it is expressed in the verbal root in so-called &quot;verb-framed languages&quot; (e.g., Catalan, Spanish, Turkish, Japanese, etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A typical linguistic analysis of Latin complex verbs like _procreare_ involves (i) to consider the preverb _pro_ as the so-called &quot;framing event&quot;, i.e., as the main predicate and (ii) to consider the verbal root as the so-called &quot;co-event&quot;, i.e., as the subordinate predicate. So **_procreare_ (originally) means &quot;to bring forth by creating&quot;**. In contrast, the meaning of _creare_ is less complex since it lacks the path/aspectual meaning attributed to the prefix. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For readers interested in this complex topic of Latin linguistics, here is a recent reference: [Latin as a satellite-framed language][2]. Among other interesting things, this author shows a very important parallelism between Latin and Slavic languages (both are classified as &quot;satellite-framed languages&quot; in Talmy's famous typology: [A typology of event conflation][3]). Typically, when dealing with verbal prefixation, the prefix expresses the main semantic idea, whereas the verbal root expresses the subordinate one (something similar to the English &quot;out-prefixation construction&quot;: e.g., _John {outran/outdanced/outdrank/outworked/... Mary}_; lit.,'John surpassed Mary by V-ing' (cf. the lexical subordination meaning of _procreare_ above). As noted above, this is also quite typical of another satellite-framed language like Russian (e.g., see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248315875_Verb_prefixation_in_Russian_as_lexical_subordination ).    &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.es/books?id=2WdGEJF3A2YC&amp;pg=PA24&amp;lpg=PA24&amp;dq=garc%C3%ADa%20hernandez%20prefijos%20ob%20pro&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ga6Q6MEgPF&amp;sig=ACfU3U3MP7_RF3sPWTcdfAZjNeuTt2ZzDg&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwidrqXptabiAhViUBUIHWeYA_EQ6AEwDHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=garc%C3%ADa%20hernandez%20prefijos%20ob%20pro&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733287.001.0001/acprof-9780198733287-chapter-4&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a687/50b28a6c9cd922e9070e5a2945e7b90f4130.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10804" RevisionGUID="1b250102-1414-4515-a8a3-f4cf4cf7e338" CreationDate="2019-05-19T02:44:32.030" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar &amp; format" Text="The linguistic meanings of _creare_ and _procreare_ are not the same: the latter contains a directional prefix, which indeed has a semantic contribution that goes beyond the meaning of 'in front of'. For example, according to García-Hernández, a Spanish Latinist scholar who has analyzed the very complex topic of Latin preverbs, _pro-_ enters into an important opposition with _ob-_: e.g., vid. García-Hernández (1991): [_pro-_ vs. _ob-_][1]. In particular, I like his image-schematic representation of Latin preverbs.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is well-known that the path/directional meaning of Latin preverbs became grammaticalized into other more abstract notions (e.g., aspect; cf. also the &quot;intensive&quot; value attributed by Draconis in his answer). It is worth pointing out that, in the specialized literature, complex/prefixed verbs like _procreare_ or _producere_ are considered as good examples of the so-called &quot;satellite-framed&quot; nature of Latin: path/directionality (and aspect) is typically encoded in the preverb or particle (aka. &quot;satellite&quot;) in so-called &quot;satellite-framed languages&quot; (e.g., Early &amp; Classical Latin, German, Russian, etc.), whereas it is typically expressed in the verbal root in so-called &quot;verb-framed languages&quot; (e.g., Catalan, Spanish, Turkish, Japanese, etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accordingly, a typical linguistic analysis of Latin complex verbs like _procreare_ involves (i) to consider the preverb _pro-_ as the so-called &quot;framing event&quot;, i.e., as the main predicate and (ii) to consider the verbal root as the so-called &quot;co-event&quot;, i.e., as the subordinate predicate. So **_procreare_ (originally) means** something like **&quot;to bring forth by creating&quot;**. In contrast, the meaning of _creare_ is obviously less complex since it lacks the path/aspectual meaning attributed to the prefix. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For readers interested in this complex topic of Latin linguistics, here is a recent reference: [Latin as a satellite-framed language][2]. Among other interesting things, this author shows a very important parallelism between Latin and Slavic languages (both are classified as &quot;satellite-framed languages&quot; in Talmy's famous typology: [A typology of event conflation][3]). Typically, when dealing with verbal prefixation in Latin and Slavic, the prefix expresses the main semantic idea, whereas the verbal root expresses the subordinate one (something similar to the English &quot;out-prefixation construction&quot;: e.g., _John {outran/outdanced/outdrank/outworked/...} Mary_; lit.,'John surpassed Mary by V-ing' (cf. the lexical subordination meaning of _procreare_ above). As noted above, this is also quite typical of other satellite-framed languages like Russian (e.g., see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248315875_Verb_prefixation_in_Russian_as_lexical_subordination ).    &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.es/books?id=2WdGEJF3A2YC&amp;pg=PA24&amp;lpg=PA24&amp;dq=garc%C3%ADa%20hernandez%20prefijos%20ob%20pro&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ga6Q6MEgPF&amp;sig=ACfU3U3MP7_RF3sPWTcdfAZjNeuTt2ZzDg&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwidrqXptabiAhViUBUIHWeYA_EQ6AEwDHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=garc%C3%ADa%20hernandez%20prefijos%20ob%20pro&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733287.001.0001/acprof-9780198733287-chapter-4&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a687/50b28a6c9cd922e9070e5a2945e7b90f4130.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10802" RevisionGUID="0c69daff-60d0-4e6c-a01c-5636cece127d" CreationDate="2019-05-19T03:09:00.747" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="The answers given by Tony, Kingshorsey, and Joonas are correct and should be enough for learners of Latin. However, it is true (and interesting!) that, from a linguistic/philological point of view, the apparently innocent question raised above by Imc (&quot;If _liber_ is a direct object, then why not put it in accusative?&quot;) is more complex if one considers, for example, what Woodcock (1959: 159) [_A New Latin Syntax_] says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In early Latin the impersonal construction is still found with the gerundive of transitive verbs, as Plaut. _Trin._ 869 _Agitandum est vigilias_ 'One must keep watch'&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(Cf. the Classical construction _Agitandae sunt vigiliae_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems that at least in Early Latin a transitive impersonal construction like _Legendum est **libros**_ is not unexpected. This construction is said to be an archaism in Classical Latin: e.g., Cic. _De Sen._ _viam quam nobis quoque ingrediendum sit_ 'the road which we, too, must tread' (cf. the more usual _viam quae...ingredienda sit_). Cf. also Lucr. 1, 111: _aeternas quoniam poenas in morte timendum est_ ('Since one must fear after death eternal punishment'). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: it is worth pointing out that not all Latinist scholars agree with Woodcock in analyzing _agitandum_ as a gerundive in Plautus's example above. Some have claimed that it is a gerund. But if so, some obvious questions arise: e.g., (i) is there a nominative form for the gerund?, (ii) what about the clear modal meaning of _agitandum_ above (cf. English transl. 'must'), which is typically absent from gerunds, etc.      " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10805" RevisionGUID="aef42241-a606-48d9-b66e-09dfa7c8643e" CreationDate="2019-05-19T08:24:33.810" UserId="3404" Text="I've another question about Coniugatio periphrastica passiva. If I'm a girl and I wanted to say I need to read, would it be: &#xA;&gt; Mihi legendum est.&#xA;&#xA;Or &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Mihi legenda est. &#xA;&#xA;So, does the gerundivum stay in neuter or not? &#xA;Thanks in advance. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31642" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10805" RevisionGUID="aef42241-a606-48d9-b66e-09dfa7c8643e" CreationDate="2019-05-19T08:24:33.810" UserId="3404" Text="Mihi legendum/legenda est?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31643" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10805" RevisionGUID="aef42241-a606-48d9-b66e-09dfa7c8643e" CreationDate="2019-05-19T08:24:33.810" UserId="3404" Text="|grammar-choice|gender|gerundive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="d63fa5b8-0f94-4df1-8716-e6eddf50be98" CreationDate="2019-05-19T09:24:18.947" UserId="1982" Text="The gerundive, again, makes indirect speech look like paradise! Here: &quot;mihi legenda est&quot; giving &quot;by me it-ought-to-be-read&quot;. A gerundive with a part of sum is the gerundive-of-obligation. The person upon whom the obligation falls goes into the dative; here, &quot;mihi&quot;, so looks like you have got it sussed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The neuter form, without a noun, provides an impersonal expression e.g. faciendum est = it-ought-to-be-done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="87a6516a-e6a7-48f7-b0ca-6fc6545ec3c9" CreationDate="2019-05-19T09:43:10.400" UserId="1982" Comment="added 354 characters in body" Text="The gerundive, again, makes indirect speech look like paradise! Here: &quot;mihi legenda est&quot; giving &quot;by me it-ought-to-be-read&quot;. A gerundive with a part of sum is the gerundive-of-obligation. The person upon whom the obligation falls goes into the dative; here, &quot;mihi&quot;, so looks like you have got it sussed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The neuter form, without a noun, provides an impersonal expression e.g. faciendum est = it-ought-to-be-done.&#xD;&#xA;North &amp; Hillard Ex. 210: Blosius refuses to condemn his late friend, Gracchus, before the Senate; thereby, inviting his own execution. &quot;si moriendum erit, moriar amicis fidelis.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;If I am to die (if it-ought-to-be-death), let me die loyal to my friends.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A man of the highest integrity. Do you think Boris Johnson would say, or mean, such a thing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10807" RevisionGUID="cd2e8a4f-bb18-4bd6-bad4-aea1c05b68b5" CreationDate="2019-05-19T13:05:00.147" UserId="79" Text="The gerundive should be neuter if you just want to say &quot;I need to read&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Any other form than singular neuter should only be used when the gerundive modifies a noun.&#xD;&#xA;The modified noun can in principle be left implicit; consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ubi est ista scriptio? Mihi legenda est!**  &#xD;&#xA;Where is that writing? I have to read it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that the gerundive is not neuter in Latin corresponds here to adding the explicit object &quot;it&quot; in English (referring to the feminine *scriptio*).&#xD;&#xA;Hardly anyone would repeat *scriptio* in the second sentence, but it is easily understood and therefore supplying the feminine *legenda* makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no specific object, go with the singular neuter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10808" RevisionGUID="fa0bab44-69c4-4c33-84fd-6f106e7865ac" CreationDate="2019-05-19T14:35:49.020" UserId="645" Text="It's necessary to distinguish between gerund and gerundive. The former is an active verbal noun, declinable, but with no plural. The gerundive is a passive verbal adjective, declinable in both numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your first example translates to *reading is for me*, or even *it's time for me to read*. Think of Horace's 'Cleopatra Ode' (Odes 1, 37), beginning *Nunc est bibendum*, usually translated as something like 'Now's the time for drinking'. Unquestionably a gerund.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Mihi* is a dative pronoun of either gender and, if you want to make it clear that it's a girl that is doing the reading, you must indicate gender by some other device. It can't be done as you are trying to do it in your second example which, as it stands, is impossible. *Legenda* can only be gerundive and, being adjectival, ought to have an associated noun. Nodding to Joonas's suggestion, this might be *scriptio*, producing *scriptio est mihi legenda*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that *legenda* cannot be defended as a plural gerund — see my opening paragraph — but, even were that possible, the verb would then have to be *sunt*, and not *est*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a verb is transitive, it is usual to prefer the gerundive (this is known as 'gerundive attraction'). It carries then a sense of obligation. The gerund is, even so, preferred in certain circumstances which, like all the other tricky exceptions and modifications of syntax possible with this pair of verbal parts, would be better understood by consulting a grammar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="5bd2c7dc-bb2f-4623-ac89-c5d00419ac3f" CreationDate="2019-05-19T17:56:42.620" UserId="1982" Comment="deleted 92 characters in body" Text="The gerundive, again, makes indirect speech look like paradise! Here: &quot;mihi legenda est&quot; giving &quot;by me it-ought-to-be-read&quot;. A gerundive with a part of sum is the gerundive-of-obligation. The person upon whom the obligation falls goes into the dative; here, &quot;mihi&quot;, so looks like you have got it sussed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The neuter form, without a noun, provides an impersonal expression e.g. faciendum est = it-ought-to-be-done.&#xD;&#xA;North &amp; Hillard Ex. 210: Blosius refuses to condemn his late friend, Gracchus, before the Senate; thereby, inviting his own execution. &quot;si moriendum erit, moriar amicis fidelis.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;If I am to die (if it-ought-to-be-death), let me die loyal to my friends.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10809" RevisionGUID="6e29ac91-5ba1-4684-badd-30da6a5a75f7" CreationDate="2019-05-19T17:57:27.787" UserId="3248" Text="When providing answers to some apparently basic questions (e.g., cf. Tom Cotton's and mine in [Mihi legendum/legenda est?][1] &amp; [Why use nominative in Coniugatio periphrastica passiva?][2] , respectively), a new question (in fact, an old one) came to my mind after reading Tom's answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the relevant example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _**Nunc est bibendum**, nunc pede libero pulsanda tellus_ (Horace, _Odes_, Book 1, Poem XXXVII). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is clear that _pulsanda_ is (a predicative) gerundive (sc. _est_), but what about _bibendum_? Is it a gerundive (&quot;Now one must drink&quot;, &quot;Now there is a need for drinking/to drink&quot;, &quot;Now there must be drinking&quot; or &quot;Now it is necessary to drink&quot;, i.a.) or is it a gerund (&quot;Now it is time to drink&quot;, &quot;Now there is time for drinking&quot;&quot;, i.a.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If _bibendum_ is a gerund, as Tom and many other scholars have claimed, which form does this verbal noun take? Nominative? What about its alleged modal meaning? If _bibendum_ is (a predicative) gerundive in an impersonal construction (which is, for example, Woodcock's (1959: 159) claim in his _A New Latin Syntax_; see my answer above), what about its alleged passive meaning?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically, notice that Woodcock, who claims that it is a gerundive, gives examples from Early Latin where the relevant form takes a direct object, which could be taken as more compatible with the gerund analysis (e.g., Pl. _Trin._ 869 _agitandum est vigilias_ ; cf. the more usual/Classical construction: _Agitandae sunt vigiliae_). Notice however that Woodcock does give a translation that is in agreement with the modal meaning of a gerundive: &quot;One _must_ keep watch&quot;.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you also please give your _favorite_ translation of _Nunc est bibendum_? Most of the abovementioned ones are quite horrible (especially, the ones related to the gerundive analysis, which is, by the way, the one I've always assumed as valid, perhaps erroneously).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10805/mihi-legendum-legenda-est&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://Why%20use%20nominative%20in%20Coniugatio%20periphrastica%20passiva?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31650" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10809" RevisionGUID="6e29ac91-5ba1-4684-badd-30da6a5a75f7" CreationDate="2019-05-19T17:57:27.787" UserId="3248" Text="Nunc est bibendum: gerund or gerundive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31651" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10809" RevisionGUID="6e29ac91-5ba1-4684-badd-30da6a5a75f7" CreationDate="2019-05-19T17:57:27.787" UserId="3248" Text="|gerund|gerundive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10809" RevisionGUID="30dc300e-08db-49d7-a9cf-264ef78d1777" CreationDate="2019-05-19T18:02:31.643" UserId="3248" Comment="format" Text="When providing answers to some apparently basic questions (e.g., cf. Tom Cotton's and mine in [Mihi legendum/legenda est?][1] &amp; [Why use nominative in Coniugatio periphrastica passiva?][2] , respectively), a new question (in fact, an old one) came to my mind after reading Tom's answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the relevant example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _**Nunc est bibendum**, nunc pede libero pulsanda tellus_ (Horace, _Odes_, Book 1, Poem XXXVII). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is clear that _pulsanda_ is (a predicative) gerundive (sc. _est_), but what about _bibendum_? Is it a gerundive (&quot;Now one must drink&quot;, &quot;Now there is a need for drinking/to drink&quot;, &quot;Now there must be drinking&quot; or &quot;Now it is necessary to drink&quot;, i.a.) or is it a gerund (&quot;Now it is time to drink&quot;, &quot;Now there is time for drinking&quot;&quot;, i.a.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If _bibendum_ is a gerund, as Tom and many other scholars have claimed, which form does this verbal noun take? Nominative? What about its alleged modal meaning? If _bibendum_ is (a predicative) gerundive in an impersonal construction (which is, for example, Woodcock's (1959: 159) claim in his _A New Latin Syntax_; see my answer above), what about its alleged passive meaning?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically, notice that Woodcock, who claims that it is a gerundive, gives examples from Early Latin where the relevant form takes a direct object, which could be taken as more compatible with the gerund analysis (e.g., Pl. _Trin._ 869 _agitandum est vigilias_ ; cf. the more usual/Classical construction: _Agitandae sunt vigiliae_). Notice however that Woodcock does give a translation that is in agreement with the modal meaning of a gerundive: &quot;One _must_ keep watch&quot;.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you also please give your _favorite_ translation of _Nunc est bibendum_? Most of the abovementioned ones are quite horrible (especially, the ones related to the gerundive analysis, which is, by the way, the one I've always assumed as valid, perhaps erroneously).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10805/mihi-legendum-legenda-est&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10798/why-use-nominative-in-coniugatio-periphrastica-passiva" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10809" RevisionGUID="74b2ef7c-b43b-455e-af17-f100a4dd37be" CreationDate="2019-05-19T18:23:53.823" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar" Text="When providing answers to some apparently basic questions (e.g., cf. Tom Cotton's and mine in [Mihi legendum/legenda est?][1] &amp; [Why use nominative in Coniugatio periphrastica passiva?][2] , respectively), a new question (in fact, an old one) came to my mind after reading Tom's answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the relevant example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _**Nunc est bibendum**, nunc pede libero pulsanda tellus_ (Horace, _Odes_, Book 1, Poem XXXVII). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is clear that _pulsanda_ is (a predicative) gerundive (sc. _est_), but what about _bibendum_? Is it a gerundive (&quot;Now one must drink&quot;, &quot;Now there is a need for drinking/to drink&quot;, &quot;Now there must be drinking&quot; or &quot;Now it is necessary to drink&quot;, i.a.) or is it a gerund (&quot;Now it is time to drink&quot;, &quot;Now there is time for drinking&quot;&quot;, i.a.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If _bibendum_ is a gerund, as Tom and other scholars have claimed, which form does this verbal noun take? Nominative? What about its alleged modal meaning? If _bibendum_ is (a predicative) gerundive in an impersonal construction (which is, for example, Woodcock's (1959: 159) claim in his _A New Latin Syntax_; see my answer above), what about its alleged passive meaning?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, Woodcock, who claims that it is a gerundive, gives examples from Early Latin where the relevant form takes a direct object, which could be taken as more compatible with the gerund analysis (e.g., Pl. _Trin._ 869 _agitandum est vigilias_ ; cf. the more usual/Classical construction: _Agitandae sunt vigiliae_). Notice however that Woodcock does give a translation that is in agreement with the modal meaning of a gerundive: &quot;One _must_ keep watch&quot;.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please give your _favorite_ translation of _Nunc est bibendum_? Most of the abovementioned ones are quite horrible (especially, the ones related to the gerundive interpretation, which is, by the way, the analysis I've always assumed as valid, perhaps erroneously).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10805/mihi-legendum-legenda-est&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10798/why-use-nominative-in-coniugatio-periphrastica-passiva" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10810" RevisionGUID="be567214-19b1-4fb0-81f6-b2e163445973" CreationDate="2019-05-19T18:38:42.027" UserId="2363" Text="I strongly incline to the view that *bibendum* is a gerundive, not only because it is paired with an unambiguous gerundive, but also because the context demands some kind of obligation, a notion not communicated by gerunds. I understand the gerund to have the same modal force as the infinitive (which explains its absence in the nominative), so I don't think a gerund could communicate the meaning &quot;time for X&quot; unless in the genitive: *Nunc est [tempus] bibendi*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the passivity of the gerundive seems awkward in these cases, I don't think it's any more awkward than other Latin impersonal passives: *persuasum est*, *pugnatum est*, etc. In these cases, the passive morphology is employed not as a true passive but as a promotion of the occurrence of the act (forget the technical term). I understand the impersonal gerundive as this same kind of event promotion, but with the added modal force of obligation/necessity. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10810" RevisionGUID="16cf6df0-dd1d-4f57-b777-d14efa33ac94" CreationDate="2019-05-19T18:44:55.797" UserId="2363" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="I strongly incline to the view that *bibendum* is a gerundive, not only because it is paired with an unambiguous gerundive, but also because the context demands some kind of obligation, a notion not communicated by gerunds. I understand the gerund to have the same modal force as the infinitive (which explains its absence in the nominative), so I don't think a gerund could communicate the meaning &quot;time for X&quot; unless in the genitive: *Nunc est [tempus] bibendi*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the passivity of the gerundive seems awkward in these cases, I don't think it's any more awkward than other Latin impersonal passives: *persuasum est*, *pugnatum est*, etc. In these cases, the passive morphology is employed not as a true passive but as a promotion of the occurrence of the act (forget the technical term). I understand the impersonal gerundive as this same kind of event promotion, but with the added modal force of obligation/necessity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation would be something like: &quot;Drinking needs to happen right now.&quot;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10811" RevisionGUID="bc9286ef-da71-476b-85b2-b91f8d2c9d9d" CreationDate="2019-05-19T18:46:08.107" UserId="1982" Text="If &quot;bibendum&quot; is a gerund, it seems to be accepted as such, then &quot;bibendum est&quot; is neuter, impersonal (no noun): &quot;it-ought-to-be-drunk&quot;; &quot;it&quot;, presumably, any liquid that appeals to the speaker, and his pals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31657" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10809" RevisionGUID="3247e3a9-3ea1-4d12-987c-9228125d4457" CreationDate="2019-05-19T18:47:34.613" />
  <row Id="31658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10812" RevisionGUID="83653c1f-7eb9-4f1a-9fe3-8fe6d2857487" CreationDate="2019-05-19T20:05:26.357" UserId="2363" Text="Impersonal passive deponents are rare, but not unknown. See Pinkster, *Oxford Latin Syntax*, 1.5.34. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As forms that occur more than once, he lists *morabitur*, *sortiri*, and *medeatur*. He refers to a fuller list in Flobert, Pierre (1975). *Les verbes déponents latins: Des origines à Charlemagne*. Paris: Les Belles Lettres." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10807" RevisionGUID="d90ab6b2-003c-4de8-858c-5f1c4ef2b502" CreationDate="2019-05-19T20:24:47.343" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The gerundive should be neuter if you just want to say &quot;I need to read&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Any other form than singular neuter should only be used when the gerundive modifies a noun.&#xD;&#xA;The modified noun can in principle be left implicit; consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ubi est ista scriptio? Mihi legenda est!*  &#xD;&#xA;Where is that writing? I have to read it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that the gerundive is not neuter in Latin corresponds here to adding the explicit object &quot;it&quot; in English (referring to the feminine *scriptio*).&#xD;&#xA;Hardly anyone would repeat *scriptio* in the second sentence, but it is easily understood and therefore supplying the feminine *legenda* makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no specific object, go with the singular neuter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10813" RevisionGUID="c32b44ec-a109-4fae-86b6-af24fb7346a2" CreationDate="2019-05-20T03:12:42.783" UserId="30" Text="This is a synchronic answer, pertaining only to classical Latin, as I believe the use of gerunds and gerundives was subject to some change praeclassically; what is more, they may have once been the same thing, or one may have been born from the other. So it would not make sense for me, especially without enough information, to distinguish between them in archaeic Latin or earlier. Looking at *agitandum est vigilias*, one might call that a mixed Ur-form of sorts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary of my position: this construction is generally considered by classicists to be a nominative **gerundive**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;The main reason is its **modality**: there is no way to translate *nunc est bibendum* without a flavour of obligation or similar; gerunds by themselves never have a sense of obligation. This suggests that it cannot be a gerund. As a check, I went through [all the instances of *bibendum* in the HP corpus][1] where it is used in the relevant construction: in each case, a modal translation seems to be required. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *uitandi acres cibi, lacte uinoque pingui utendum, **bibendum**que liberalius quam edendum **est***  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;one must drink more liberally than one must eat&quot; (not: &quot;one drinks more liberally&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;— Celsus, *De Medicina* 6.6.15b&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your translation &quot;?now it is time to drink&quot; does not seem possible to me: how can a translation &quot;time to&quot; be found within the gerund? One would rather translate it as &quot;\*this is drinking&quot; or &quot;\*drinking is thus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, an *-ndum* word is never used as the **subject of a verb** with a non-modal translation: to express &quot;drinking is this&quot;, I believe classical authors always used the infinitive, *bibere hoc est*. (The same applies to direct objects, which are never gerunds but always infinitives, i.e. &lt;s&gt;incipio bibendum&lt;/s&gt; → *incipio bibere*.) Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *radicem decoctam **bibere** spasticis, eversis, convulsis, suspiriosis salutare **est***  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;drinking root extract is salutary&quot; (notice the agreement of *salutare* with the neuter infinitive)  &#xD;&#xA;— Plinius the Elder, *Naturalis Historia* 21.132&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words: whenever you come across an *-ndum* form as the subject of a verb, I believe you will find that you need a modal translation of sorts. In yet other words: the only time writers used the construction in question is precisely when they wanted to express this modality; when they didn't, they used the infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to passivity, it is not uncommon to use the **passive in impersonal constructions**, with a neuter participle where applicable: *Romam itur* &quot;one goes to Rome&quot; (or, more liberally, &quot;we/they/etc. go to Rome&quot;). *Cognitum est* &quot;it was thought&quot;. This is the same type of construction, for we have 1.) a passive, 2.) a neuter nominative, and 3.) no agent except as a dativus auctoris (cf. [uncommon] *cognitum est nobis* &quot;we thought&quot;). It might even be a feature of Indo-European, cf. Dutch *er werd gegaan* &quot;[there was gone]&quot; =&gt; &quot;one went&quot;, and English &quot;it was decided that...&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its **similarity to (other) gerundive constructions** also points in the gerundive direction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bibendum est &quot;[there is to be drunk]&quot; (= &quot;one must drink&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; bibendum est vinum &quot;wine is to be drunk&quot; (= &quot;one must drink wine&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; bibendum vinum dedi &quot;I gave wine to be drunk&quot; (= &quot;I gave wine that must be drunk / to drink&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these are common, and they share the same praedicate frames except where complements are absent. Any substantive noun agreeing with the *-ndum* word takes the same thematic role as would the object in an active sentence: the role is theme here, ***vinum** bibit → **vinum** bibendum est*. This is itself a clear sign of passivity (cf. passive participles). Any dative takes the same thematic role as would the subject in an active sentence: the role is agent here, ***nos** vinum bibimus → **nobis** vinum bibendum est*). The dativus auctoris is another sign of passivity. When you apply the construction to some other verb, you will notice the same telling transformation of praedicate frames. This is not at all similar to (other) gerund constructions, which have very different transformations of the praedicate frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to its case, the **nominative** would seem our only option, since the verb *sum* takes only nominative complements. Further, when you keep the same praedicate frame but add a subject, such as *vinum* or *pocula*, the *-nd-* form changes along with it, always to agree with the subject, in the nominative: *pocula bibenda sunt*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is probably best considered a [**dominant construction**][2] (à la *Caesar occisus senatoribus placet*); for the real message here is not &quot;there is wine, which must be drunk&quot;, but &quot;the drinking of wine must be done&quot;. This is just as in other gerundive constructions. It also explains perceived similarities to the gerund: *mordebatur in floribus carpendis* means the same thing as *in flores carpendo* because the gerundive, an adjective, is used dominantly there, i.e. as if it were a substantive noun—and a substantive &quot;plucking&quot; is a gerund. Dominancy is a bit more difficult to sense in the impersonal construction; but, if we did assume this construction to be dominant as well, that would make the construction seem more 'logical'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to translations, one often supplies a logical agent from context: &quot;Now let us drink!&quot;. An imperative is also possible: &quot;Now drink!&quot;. Add &quot;all ye&quot; for fun?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=bibendum&amp;first=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/110/why-do-we-say-that-an-ablative-absolute-has-a-participle/116#116" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10813" RevisionGUID="367acebe-8b8a-4111-9ac5-4abf050f8094" CreationDate="2019-05-20T03:21:34.007" UserId="30" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="This is a synchronic answer, pertaining only to classical Latin, as I believe the use of gerunds and gerundives was subject to some change praeclassically; what is more, they may have once been the same thing, or one may have been born from the other. So it would not make sense for me, especially without enough information, to distinguish between them in archaeic Latin or earlier. Looking at *agitandum est vigilias*, one might call that a mixed Ur-form of sorts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary of my position: this construction is generally considered by classicists to be a nominative **gerundive**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;The main reason is its **modality**: there is no way to translate *nunc est bibendum* without a flavour of obligation or similar; gerunds by themselves never have a sense of obligation. This suggests that it cannot be a gerund. As a check, I went through [all the instances of *bibendum* in the HP corpus][1] where it is used in the relevant construction: in each case, a modal translation seems to be required. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *uitandi acres cibi, lacte uinoque pingui utendum, **bibendum**que liberalius quam edendum **est***  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;one must drink more liberally than one must eat&quot; (not: &quot;one drinks more liberally&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;— Celsus, *De Medicina* 6.6.15b&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your translation &quot;?now it is time to drink&quot; does not seem possible to me: how can a translation &quot;time to&quot; be found within the gerund? One would rather translate it as &quot;\*this is drinking&quot; or &quot;\*drinking is thus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, an *-ndum* word is never used as the **subject of a verb** with a non-modal translation: to express &quot;drinking is this&quot;, I believe classical authors always used the infinitive, *bibere hoc est*. (The same applies to direct objects, which are never gerunds but always infinitives, i.e. &lt;s&gt;incipio bibendum&lt;/s&gt; → *incipio bibere*.) Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *radicem decoctam **bibere** spasticis, eversis, convulsis, suspiriosis salutare **est***  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;drinking root extract is salutary&quot; (notice the agreement of *salutare* with the neuter infinitive)  &#xD;&#xA;— Plinius the Elder, *Naturalis Historia* 21.132&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words: whenever you come across an *-ndum* form as the subject of a verb, I believe you will find that you need a modal translation of sorts. In yet other words: the only time writers used the construction in question is precisely when they wanted to express this modality; when they didn't, they used the infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to passivity, it is not uncommon to use the **passive in impersonal constructions**, with a neuter participle where applicable: *Romam itur* &quot;one goes to Rome&quot; (or, more liberally, &quot;we/they/etc. go to Rome&quot;). *Cognitum est* &quot;it was thought&quot;. This is the same type of construction, for we have 1.) a passive, 2.) a neuter nominative, and 3.) no agent except as a dativus auctoris (cf. [uncommon] *cognitum est nobis* &quot;we thought&quot;). It might even be a feature of Indo-European, cf. Dutch *er werd gegaan* &quot;[there was gone]&quot; =&gt; &quot;one went&quot;, and English &quot;it was decided that...&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its **similarity to (other) gerundive constructions** also points in the gerundive direction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bibendum est &quot;[there is to be drunk]&quot; (= &quot;one must drink&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; bibendum est vinum &quot;wine is to be drunk&quot; (= &quot;one must drink wine&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; bibendum vinum dedi &quot;I gave wine to be drunk&quot; (= &quot;I gave wine that must be drunk / to drink&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these are common, and they share the same praedicate frames except where complements are absent. Any substantive noun agreeing with the *-ndum* word takes the same thematic role as would the object in an active sentence: the role is theme here, ***vinum** bibit → **vinum** bibendum est*. This is itself a clear sign of passivity (cf. passive participles). Any dative takes the same thematic role as would the subject in an active sentence: the role is agent here, ***nos** vinum bibimus → **nobis** vinum bibendum est*). The dativus auctoris is another sign of passivity. When you apply the construction to some other verb, you will notice the same telling transformation of praedicate frames. This is not at all similar to (other) gerund constructions, which have very different transformations of the praedicate frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to its case, the **nominative** would seem our only option, since the verb *sum* takes only nominative complements. Further, when you keep the same praedicate frame but add a subject, such as *vinum* or *pocula*, the *-nd-* form changes along with it, always to agree with the subject, in the nominative: *pocula bibenda sunt*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is probably best considered a [**dominant construction**][2] (à la *Caesar occisus senatoribus placet*); for the real message here is not &quot;there is wine, which must be drunk&quot;, but &quot;the drinking of wine must be done&quot;. This is just as in other gerundive constructions. It also explains perceived similarities to the gerund: *mordebatur in floribus carpendis* (&quot;she was bitten during the picking of flowers&quot;, not &quot;during the flowers to be picked&quot;) means the same thing as *in flores carpendo* because the gerundive, an adjective, is used dominantly there, i.e. as if it were a substantive noun—and a substantive &quot;plucking&quot; is a gerund. Dominancy is a bit more difficult to sense in the impersonal construction; but, if we did assume this construction to be dominant as well, that would make the construction seem more 'logical'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to translations, one often supplies a logical agent from context: &quot;Now let us drink!&quot;. An imperative is also possible: &quot;Now drink!&quot;. Add &quot;all ye&quot; for fun?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=bibendum&amp;first=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/110/why-do-we-say-that-an-ablative-absolute-has-a-participle/116#116" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7199" RevisionGUID="772606c6-0830-4746-ab81-1cdde56031ab" CreationDate="2019-05-20T03:28:14.893" UserId="9" Comment="added 4238 characters in body" Text="All syllables containing long vowels are heavy, but not all heavy syllables contain long vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Syllabification is in general a fairly abstract linguistic concept, and so there are several different ways of thinking about Latin syllabification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the most common current analysis would be that a syllable is heavy **either (a)** if it contains a long vowel, **or (b)** if it ends with a consonant, and light if it ends with a short vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The consonant rule is the more complicated one. Syllables containing a diphthong are heavy (except for in a few rare special circumstances); different sources treat this as an example of **(a)** or **(b)**, depending on [whether you analyze diphthongs as vowel-consonant sequences](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9407/9).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Latin syllabification for intervocalic consonant clusters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##a common modern system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I mentioned, syllabification is a tricky subject, and there are different approaches to it (in general, and in Latin specifically).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the approach that I am familiar with from modern linguistic literature about Latin, almost all consonant clusters in Latin were split between syllables when they occurred in between vowels in the middle of a word. This includes double (also called &quot;geminate&quot;) consonants, and it also includes *-sp-, -st-, sc-.* So words like *sinister, minister, magister* were stressed on the second-to-last syllable in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that Latin didn’t always write double consonants with two letters. Z and most intervocalic I/J scan as double consonants, despite being written with only  single letter, and therefore the penultimate syllables of words like *major* and *Trapezus* (from Greek *Τραπεζοῦς*) are heavy, even though they likely contained short rather than long vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Mute + liquid sequences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exception to the rule that word-internal intervocalic consonant clusters were split between syllables consists of “mute + liquid” clusters, composed of an obstruent followed by R or L (e.g. *tr, pr, cr, br, cl,* ...). These could either be split between syllables (in which case the preceding syllable would be heavy), or could occur at the start of a syllable (in which case the preceding syllable would be light). There seems to have been some variability in the division of syllables for some words with mute + liquid clusters (perhaps especially in poetry). One rule that I have read applied in general in the Classical period is that these clusters were split between syllables when they come from combining a consonant-final prefix (e.g. *sub-, ab-, ob-, ad-*) with a base starting with R or L, and they formed the onset of a syllable in other cases. So *abruptus* would typically have a heavy first syllable (*ab.ruptus*), but *celebris* would typically have a light second syllable (as *cele.bris*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Joonas mentions, QU is also an exception if you analyze it as a consonant cluster (it can also be analyzed as a unitary sound /kʷ/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other systems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alex B.'s answer suggests a somewhat different system, since he treats **gn** as another intervocalic cluster that might be put entirely in the onset of the second syllable rather than being split between the first and second syllable. I would disagree; I think the syllabification of *regnum* ought to be *rēg.num* (long vowels do come before consonant clusters in some words, such as *nūl.lus* or various past participles such as *āctus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reminded me that at least one older tradition of Latin syllabification takes an extreme approach to syllable onsets, and treats any intervocalic consonant cluster that can start a word as an onset. (I think this is connected to some similar old tradition for the syllabification of Ancient Greek.) Thus Zumpt's *[Grammar of the Latin Language](https://books.google.com/books?id=WElXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA11#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)* (1845) gives the following account:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Those consonants which, in Latin or Greek, may together begin a word, go together in the division of syllables; e.g. [...] *i-gnis (gnomon), o-mnis, dam-num (μνάομαι), a-ctus, pun-ctum (κτῆμα), ra-ptus, scri-ptus, pro-pter (Ptolemaeus), Ca-dmus (δμῶες), re-gnum (γνούς), va-fre (fretus), a-thleta (θλίβω), i-pse, scri-psi (ψαύω), Le-sbos (σβέννυμι), e-sca, po-sco (scando), a-sper, ho-spes (spes), pa-stor, fau-stus, i-ste (stare).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, if you divide syllables this way, you can't use the rule that a syllable is light if it ends with a short vowel. So older texts make use of terminology like &quot;heavy by position&quot; and &quot;a short vowel followed by two or more consonants&quot; rather than basing weight on syllable structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, it seems simplest to use the first approach to syllabification that I presented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Word boundaries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't talk yet about word boundaries. It's usual in Latin for a consonant to be syllabified with a following vowel even when that vowel is in another word. This means that words ending in a short vowel followed by a single consonant, like *in,* regularly scan as light in contexts like &quot;in urbe&quot; [ɪˈnʊr.bɛ]. Before a consonant, however, such words scan with a heavy final syllable: *in vino* [ɪnˈwiː.noː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be some uncertainty about whether the word-initial sequences *st, sc, sp* may be split between syllables after a vowel-final word, making the preceding syllable heavy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also aware of vowels before mute + liquid clusters being treated in post-Classical Latin as &quot;common&quot; even when there is a word boundary, but as far as  I know these clusters did not usually resyllabify in Classical Latin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7199" RevisionGUID="10742b25-28c0-4139-a5d2-287a0271a671" CreationDate="2019-05-20T03:48:19.773" UserId="9" Comment="added 563 characters in body" Text="All syllables containing long vowels are heavy, but not all heavy syllables contain long vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Syllabification is in general a fairly abstract linguistic concept, and so there are several different ways of thinking about Latin syllabification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the most common current analysis would be that a syllable is heavy **either (a)** if it contains a long vowel, **or (b)** if it ends with a consonant, and light if it ends with a short vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The consonant rule is the most complicated part. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Syllables containing a diphthong are heavy, except for in a few rare special circumstances. Different sources treat this as an example of **(a)** or **(b)**, depending on [whether you analyze diphthongs as vowel-consonant sequences](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9407/9).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Latin syllabification for intervocalic consonant clusters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##a common modern system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I mentioned, syllabification is a tricky subject, and there are different approaches to it (in general, and in Latin specifically).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the approach that I am familiar with from modern linguistic literature about Latin, almost all consonant clusters in Latin were split between syllables when they occurred in between vowels in the middle of a word. This includes double (also called &quot;geminate&quot;) consonants, and it also includes *-sp-, -st-, sc-.* So words like *sinister, minister, magister* were stressed on the second-to-last syllable in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that Latin didn’t always write double consonants with two letters. Z and most intervocalic I/J scan as double consonants, despite being written with only  single letter, and therefore the penultimate syllables of words like *major* and *Trapezus* (from Greek *Τραπεζοῦς*) are heavy, even though they likely contained short rather than long vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Mute + liquid sequences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exception to the rule that word-internal intervocalic consonant clusters were split between syllables consists of “mute + liquid” clusters, composed of an obstruent followed by R or L (e.g. *tr, pr, cr, br, cl,* ...). These could either be split between syllables (in which case the preceding syllable would be heavy), or could occur at the start of a syllable (in which case the preceding syllable would be light). There seems to have been some variability in the division of syllables for some words with mute + liquid clusters (perhaps especially in poetry). One rule that I have read applied in general in the Classical period is that these clusters were split between syllables when they come from combining a consonant-final prefix (e.g. *sub-, ab-, ob-, ad-*) with a base starting with R or L, and they formed the onset of a syllable in other cases. So *abruptus* would typically have a heavy first syllable (*ab.ruptus*), but *celebris* would typically have a light second syllable (as *cele.bris*). But this is a complicated topic; syllabifications like *celeb.ris* were also possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Joonas mentions, QU is also an exception if you analyze it as a consonant cluster (it can also be analyzed as a unitary sound /kʷ/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Diphthongs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A syllable containing a diphthong is heavy when there is a consonant after the diphthong (it doesn't matter whether the consonant and diphthong are in the same syllable). For example, the first syllable of *nau.ta* is heavy. As I mentioned above, in some analyses such syllables are treated as ending in a consonant (/naw.ta/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Diphthongs rarely come before vowels in Latin. The main circumstance where this causes a complication is in words with the prefix *prae-;* this prefix may scan as a light syllable when it is followed by a vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other systems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alex B.'s answer suggests a somewhat different system, since he treats **gn** as another intervocalic cluster that might be put entirely in the onset of the second syllable rather than being split between the first and second syllable. I would disagree; I think the syllabification of *regnum* ought to be *rēg.num* (long vowels do come before consonant clusters in some words, such as *nūl.lus* or various past participles such as *āctus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reminded me that at least one older tradition of Latin syllabification takes an extreme approach to syllable onsets, and treats any intervocalic consonant cluster that can start a word as an onset. (I think this is connected to some similar old tradition for the syllabification of Ancient Greek.) Thus Zumpt's *[Grammar of the Latin Language](https://books.google.com/books?id=WElXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA11#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)* (1845) gives the following account:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Those consonants which, in Latin or Greek, may together begin a word, go together in the division of syllables; e.g. [...] *i-gnis (gnomon), o-mnis, dam-num (μνάομαι), a-ctus, pun-ctum (κτῆμα), ra-ptus, scri-ptus, pro-pter (Ptolemaeus), Ca-dmus (δμῶες), re-gnum (γνούς), va-fre (fretus), a-thleta (θλίβω), i-pse, scri-psi (ψαύω), Le-sbos (σβέννυμι), e-sca, po-sco (scando), a-sper, ho-spes (spes), pa-stor, fau-stus, i-ste (stare).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, if you divide syllables Zumpt's way, you can't use the rule that a syllable is light if it ends with a short vowel. So older texts make use of terminology like &quot;heavy by position&quot; and &quot;a short vowel followed by two or more consonants&quot; rather than basing weight on whether a syllable ends in a consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, it seems simplest to use the first approach to syllabification that I presented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Word boundaries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't talk yet about word boundaries. It's usual in Latin for a consonant to be syllabified with a following vowel even when that vowel is in another word. This means that words ending in a short vowel followed by a single consonant, like *in,* regularly scan as light in contexts like &quot;in urbe&quot; [ɪˈnʊr.bɛ]. Before a consonant, however, such words scan with a heavy final syllable: *in vino* [ɪnˈwiː.noː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be some uncertainty about whether the word-initial sequences *st, sc, sp* may be split between syllables after a vowel-final word, making the preceding syllable heavy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also aware of vowels before mute + liquid clusters being treated in post-Classical Latin as &quot;common&quot; even when there is a word boundary, but as far as  I know these clusters did not usually resyllabify in Classical Latin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7199" RevisionGUID="9562f1ba-4059-4ecd-8a1d-9de548a6696b" CreationDate="2019-05-20T04:18:23.047" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="All syllables containing long vowels are heavy, but not all heavy syllables contain long vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Syllabification is in general a fairly abstract linguistic concept, and so there are several different ways of thinking about Latin syllabification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the most common current analysis would be that a syllable is heavy **either (a)** if it contains a long vowel, **or (b)** if it ends with a consonant, and light if it ends with a short vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The consonant rule is the most complicated part. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Syllables containing a diphthong are heavy, except for in a few rare special circumstances. Different sources treat this as an example of **(a)** or **(b)**, depending on [whether you analyze diphthongs as vowel-consonant sequences](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9407/9).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Latin syllabification for intervocalic consonant clusters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##a common modern system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I mentioned, syllabification is a tricky subject, and there are different approaches to it (in general, and in Latin specifically).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the approach that I am familiar with from modern linguistic literature about Latin, almost all consonant clusters in Latin were split between syllables when they occurred in between vowels in the middle of a word. This includes double (also called &quot;geminate&quot;) consonants, and it also includes *-sp-, -st-, sc-.* So words like *sinister, minister, magister* were stressed on the second-to-last syllable in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that Latin didn’t always write double consonants with two letters. Z and most intervocalic I/J scan as double consonants, despite being written with only  single letter, and therefore the penultimate syllables of words like *major* and *Trapezus* (from Greek *Τραπεζοῦς*) are heavy, even though they likely contained short rather than long vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Mute + liquid sequences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exception to the rule that word-internal intervocalic consonant clusters were split between syllables consists of “mute + liquid” clusters, composed of an obstruent followed by R or L (e.g. *tr, pr, cr, br, cl,* ...). These could either be split between syllables (in which case the preceding syllable would be heavy), or could occur at the start of a syllable (in which case the preceding syllable would be light). There seems to have been some variability in the division of syllables for some words with mute + liquid clusters (perhaps especially in poetry). One rule that I have read applied in general in the Classical period is that these clusters were split between syllables when they come from combining a consonant-final prefix (e.g. *sub-, ab-, ob-, ad-*) with a base starting with R or L, and they formed the onset of a syllable in other cases. So *abruptus* would typically have a heavy first syllable (*ab.ruptus*), but *celebris* would typically have a light second syllable (as *cele.bris*). But this is a complicated topic; syllabifications like *celeb.ris* were also possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Joonas mentions, QU is also an exception if you analyze it as a consonant cluster (it can also be analyzed as a unitary sound /kʷ/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Diphthongs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A syllable containing a diphthong is heavy when there is a consonant after the diphthong (it doesn't matter whether the consonant and diphthong are in the same syllable). For example, the first syllable of *nau.ta* is heavy. As I mentioned above, in some analyses such syllables are treated as ending in a consonant (/naw.ta/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Diphthongs rarely come before vowels in Latin. The main circumstance where this causes a complication is in words with the prefix *prae-;* this prefix may scan as a light syllable when it is followed by a vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other systems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alex B.'s answer suggests a somewhat different system, since he treats **gn** as another intervocalic cluster that might be put entirely in the onset of the second syllable rather than being split between the first and second syllable. I would disagree; I think the syllabification of *regnum* ought to be *rēg.num* (long vowels do come before consonant clusters in some words, such as *nūl.lus* or various past participles such as *āctus*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reminded me that at least one older tradition of Latin syllabification takes an extreme approach to syllable onsets, and treats any intervocalic consonant cluster that can start a word as an onset. (I think this is connected to some similar old tradition for the syllabification of Ancient Greek.) Thus Zumpt's *[Grammar of the Latin Language](https://books.google.com/books?id=WElXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA11#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)* (1845) gives the following account:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Those consonants which, in Latin or Greek, may together begin a word, go together in the division of syllables; e.g. [...] *i-gnis (gnomon), o-mnis, dam-num (μνάομαι), a-ctus, pun-ctum (κτῆμα), ra-ptus, scri-ptus, pro-pter (Ptolemaeus), Ca-dmus (δμῶες), re-gnum (γνούς), va-fre (fretus), a-thleta (θλίβω), i-pse, scri-psi (ψαύω), Le-sbos (σβέννυμι), e-sca, po-sco (scando), a-sper, ho-spes (spes), pa-stor, fau-stus, i-ste (stare).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, if you divide syllables Zumpt's way, you can't use the rule that a syllable is light if it ends with a short vowel. So older texts make use of terminology like &quot;heavy by position&quot; and &quot;a short vowel followed by two or more consonants&quot; rather than basing weight on whether a syllable ends in a consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, it seems simplest to use the first approach to syllabification that I presented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Word boundaries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't talk yet about word boundaries. It's usual in Latin for a consonant to be syllabified with a following vowel even when that vowel is in another word. This means that words ending in a short vowel followed by a single consonant, like *in,* regularly scan as light in contexts like *in urbe* [ɪˈnʊr.bɛ]. Before a consonant, however, such words scan with a heavy final syllable: *in vino* [ɪnˈwiː.noː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be some uncertainty about whether the word-initial sequences *st, sc, sp* may be split between syllables after a vowel-final word, making the preceding syllable heavy. I don't know that much about this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also aware of vowels before mute + liquid clusters being treated in post-Classical Latin as &quot;common&quot; even when there is a word boundary, but as far as  I know these clusters did not usually resyllabify across word boundaries in Classical Latin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10814" RevisionGUID="ba453a6d-ad16-427e-859e-e589c1bb9e1c" CreationDate="2019-05-20T06:45:05.633" UserId="645" Text="I don't wish to pose as an expert in this sort of grammatical analysis, and perhaps should remain silent here. However, I like to regard the opening three words *nunc est bibendum* as a kind of stand-alone introduction, a way of declaring the fact of celebration: 'Now there is drinking', leading to a description of the festivities and their cause. Thus it seems to me that the verbal noun —the gerund — is appropriately used by the poet. It is, if you like, the Ockham's Razor solution, avoiding anything needlessly elaborate. (I wonder, incidentally, why we don't see *iam* rather than *nunc* — but that's another question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest translation that I know, and the first that I ever read, is the beautifully lyrical version of Philip Francis, made in the 18th century. It may be my bad luck, but I have come across no other that improves on this expression of Horace's sentiment. It is still my favourite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let the Bowl with Wine be crown'd/Now lighter dance the merry Round,/And let the sacred Couch be flor'd/With the rich Dainties of a priestly Board …&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10811" RevisionGUID="25717803-e590-4b3b-aa48-023a8ee2a613" CreationDate="2019-05-20T09:38:58.370" UserId="1982" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="If &quot;bibendum&quot; is a gerundive, it seems to be accepted as such, then &quot;bibendum est&quot; is neuter, impersonal (no noun): &quot;it-ought-to-be-drunk&quot;; &quot;it&quot;, presumably, any liquid that appeals to the speaker, and his pals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10805" RevisionGUID="e74944e8-5711-4ff2-9728-d1c22829897c" CreationDate="2019-05-20T15:42:57.583" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="I've another question about Coniugatio periphrastica passiva. If I'm a girl and I wanted to say I need to read, would it be: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mihi legendum est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mihi legenda est. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, does the gerundivum stay in neuter or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10808" RevisionGUID="8f07f79e-63d5-4d8b-a795-91160571b775" CreationDate="2019-05-20T16:19:40.333" UserId="645" Comment="modified para. 2" Text="It's necessary to distinguish between gerund and gerundive. The former is an active verbal noun, declinable, but with no plural. The gerundive is a passive verbal adjective, declinable in both numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your first example translates to *reading is for me*, or even *it's time for me to read*. Think of Horace's 'Cleopatra Ode' (Odes 1, 37), beginning *Nunc est bibendum*, usually translated as something like 'Now's the time for drinking'. To my mind, this is unquestionably a gerund, though others see it differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Mihi* is a dative pronoun of either gender and, if you want to make it clear that it's a girl that is doing the reading, you must indicate gender by some other device. It can't be done as you are trying to do it in your second example which, as it stands, is impossible. *Legenda* can only be gerundive and, being adjectival, ought to have an associated noun. Nodding to Joonas's suggestion, this might be *scriptio*, producing *scriptio est mihi legenda*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that *legenda* cannot be defended as a plural gerund — see my opening paragraph — but, even were that possible, the verb would then have to be *sunt*, and not *est*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a verb is transitive, it is usual to prefer the gerundive (this is known as 'gerundive attraction'). It carries then a sense of obligation. The gerund is, even so, preferred in certain circumstances which, like all the other tricky exceptions and modifications of syntax possible with this pair of verbal parts, would be better understood by consulting a grammar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10815" RevisionGUID="7f680e09-02df-4e4f-8bfb-2d39cc365761" CreationDate="2019-05-20T17:11:01.237" UserId="1982" Text="Re: Q asked by colleague, Clark (6/5/2019). So &quot;imperium habere vis magnum?&quot; given as &quot;Would you have a great Empire?&quot;. If this is indirect speech, then He (Publilius Syrus) said that the empire (imperium--accusative) has (habere--infinitive) great power (vis magnum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how is the doubt, in the questioning, &quot;would-you-have...?&quot;, expressed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31670" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10815" RevisionGUID="7f680e09-02df-4e4f-8bfb-2d39cc365761" CreationDate="2019-05-20T17:11:01.237" UserId="1982" Text="Would You Have a Great Empire--Revisited?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31671" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10815" RevisionGUID="7f680e09-02df-4e4f-8bfb-2d39cc365761" CreationDate="2019-05-20T17:11:01.237" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10816" RevisionGUID="27f581d4-cab1-4709-8f8b-5b568c0f1119" CreationDate="2019-05-20T18:31:24.860" UserId="522" Text="Latin has a large number of homonyms, and all the grammarians have a chapter on the subject: Donatus, Quintilian and Isidore all mention ***olla,*** an old form of *illa,* used by Cicero as a derogatory form for &quot;that&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***olla*** that; ***olla*** a cooking pot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***eo*** there; ***eo*** I am going.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Vis*** you wish (+infinitive); from *volo, vis, vult, volumus, vultis, volunt.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Vis*** (nominative) force strength.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Vis habere,* means &quot;you wish to have&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10816" RevisionGUID="ecb28e9e-c5b9-4e72-8b1b-52372d8bee5a" CreationDate="2019-05-20T19:18:51.517" UserId="522" Comment="Homonym list" Text="Latin has a large number of homonyms, and all the grammarians have a chapter on the subject: Donatus, Quintilian and Isidore all mention ***olla,*** an old form of *illa,* used by Cicero as a derogatory form for &quot;that&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***olla*** that; ***olla*** a cooking pot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***eo*** there; ***eo*** I am going.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Vis*** you wish (+infinitive); from *volo, vis, vult, volumus, vultis, volunt.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Vis*** (nominative) force strength.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Vis habere,* means &quot;you wish to have&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here are another twenty to watch out for:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Aggere;  canes;   (canam,canas,cani); decora; fide; labes; labor; latere; leges, -is; malam, -is; mane; mensis; miseris; nisi; nota; novi; rege, -es, -is, -i; rosa; sede, -es; vade, -es, is; velis; veneris, Veneris; vires; voces.*** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10817" RevisionGUID="b18994d8-933c-4c44-8c61-7feac767fb06" CreationDate="2019-05-20T23:42:09.980" UserId="4807" Text="All excellent answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would think that an often-used polite formula like “please” would be brief, although I wouldn’t doubt that Cicero would have constructed whole nuanced sentences to express the idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to approach it would be to look at what it became. “Si tibi placet” became “si os place” in Castilian Spanish and “sis plau” in Catalán. These usages probably survive because they were commonplace in colloquial. Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10807" RevisionGUID="c371b577-b264-4586-88bb-074858bcad58" CreationDate="2019-05-21T02:39:23.807" UserId="79" Comment="added 312 characters in body" Text="The gerundive should be neuter if you just want to say &quot;I need to read&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Any other form than singular neuter should only be used when the gerundive modifies a noun.&#xD;&#xA;The modified noun can in principle be left implicit; consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ubi est ista scriptio? Mihi legenda est!*  &#xD;&#xA;Where is that writing? I have to read it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that the gerundive is not neuter in Latin corresponds here to adding the explicit object &quot;it&quot; in English (referring to the feminine *scriptio*).&#xD;&#xA;Hardly anyone would repeat *scriptio* in the second sentence, but it is easily understood and therefore supplying the feminine *legenda* makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The feminine gender is purely due to agreement with *scriptio*.&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter who is obliged ([cf. *suus*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/10776/79)), and it doesn't even have to be specified.&#xD;&#xA;*Legendum est* is impersonal like &quot;reading must happen&quot;, although the latter is not very idiomatic English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no specific object, go with the singular neuter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10819" RevisionGUID="9d34cf2d-71c0-44d4-af30-c59f486209d1" CreationDate="2019-05-21T04:59:10.227" UserId="406" Text="Originally, the word _necromantīa_ referred to a sort of divination using ghosts, like what Odysseus did on his journey home: he made an offering and summoned the shade of Tiresias, in order to ask him questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays, of course, &quot;necromancy&quot; generally refers to manipulating death in other, less savory ways, such as reanimating armies of corpses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sort of dark magic is definitely mentioned in Roman literature, such as Lucan's _Pharsalia_ VI:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …Tunc omnis palpitat artus,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; tenduntur nerui; nec se tellure cadauer  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; paulatim per membra leuat, terraque repulsum est  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; erectumque semel. Distento lumina rictu  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; nudantur. Nondum facies uiuentis in illo,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; iam morientis erat: remanet pallorque rigorque,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et stupet inlatus mundo. Sed murmure nullo  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ora astricta sonant: uox illi linguaque tantum  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; responsura datur…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(My translation:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Every limb twitched and shuddered, tendons strained, and the corpse rose up from the ground—not slowly or bit by bit, but standing up all at once, forced out by the earth. Its mouth hung gaping and its eyes were held open: it didn't seem properly alive, more like a person dying. Its deathly pallor and stiffness remained, and it looked dazed from being brought back into the world. But no sound came from its twisted mouth: it had been given a voice and a tongue only to respond[, not to speak for itself].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Lucan makes it very clear that this sort of corpse-defiling is a dark, unclean sort of magic, *not* the sort of thing you'd associate with Odysseus and Aeneas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: what would a Roman call this type of magic (the dreadful reanimation of corpses, as opposed to Aeneas's civilized *catabasis*)? Was there ever a specific term used for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31678" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10819" RevisionGUID="9d34cf2d-71c0-44d4-af30-c59f486209d1" CreationDate="2019-05-21T04:59:10.227" UserId="406" Text="What would a Roman call modern necromancy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31679" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10819" RevisionGUID="9d34cf2d-71c0-44d4-af30-c59f486209d1" CreationDate="2019-05-21T04:59:10.227" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="32fba4c6-5298-452e-bac8-80a88fa22122" CreationDate="2019-05-21T09:51:39.423" UserId="1982" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="The gerundive, again, makes indirect speech look like paradise! Here: &quot;mihi legenda est&quot; giving &quot;by me it-ought-to-be-read&quot;. A gerundive with a part of sum is the gerundive-of-obligation. The person upon whom the obligation falls goes into the dative; here, &quot;mihi&quot;; but, the gender of the gerundive refers to the &quot;it&quot; in &quot;it-ought-to-be...&quot;, not to the gender of the person upon whom the obligation is falling!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The neuter form, without a noun, provides an impersonal expression e.g. faciendum est = it-ought-to-be-done.&#xD;&#xA;North &amp; Hillard Ex. 210: Blosius refuses to condemn his late friend, Gracchus, before the Senate; thereby, inviting his own execution. &quot;si moriendum erit, moriar amicis fidelis.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;If I am to die (if it-ought-to-be-death), let me die loyal to my friends.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10820" RevisionGUID="f77f551b-1996-49fe-a310-e1091b67dd6f" CreationDate="2019-05-21T10:42:31.137" UserId="1459" Text="According to L&amp;S, the etymology of _oppido_ ([adverb](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oppido#Adverb)) is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adv. etym. dub.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where I imagine &quot;dub&quot; stands for something like &quot;dubious&quot;. In any case, what can we speculate about the etymology of this word? In particular, is it in any way related to _oppidum_ ([noun](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oppidum#Latin))? The two meanings are too apart for this to be the case, but languages oftentimes are surprising. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31682" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10820" RevisionGUID="f77f551b-1996-49fe-a310-e1091b67dd6f" CreationDate="2019-05-21T10:42:31.137" UserId="1459" Text="Is &quot;oppido&quot; (adverb) related to &quot;oppidum&quot;(noun)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31683" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10820" RevisionGUID="f77f551b-1996-49fe-a310-e1091b67dd6f" CreationDate="2019-05-21T10:42:31.137" UserId="1459" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10821" RevisionGUID="ff45ae72-a903-450c-8d73-b55c7e7db95a" CreationDate="2019-05-21T13:40:29.057" UserId="1987" Text="Is there a semantic difference between **&quot;Etiam si omnes, ego non&quot;** and **&quot;Et si omnes ego non&quot;**? &#xA;&#xA;I know Latin is loose when it comes to word order, and it seems to me the answer is no, but the way this sentence is worded [in this Wikipedia article][1] has me wondering if the uncommon &quot;Et si omnes&quot; changes the meaning in any way:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A variant is Et si omnes ego non, as written on the door of Philipp von Boeselager's home, **highlighting the necessity of maintaining one's own opinion and moral judgment, even in the face of a differing view held by the majority** (in particular, it refers to von Boeselager's dissent and resistance against Hitler during the Nazi dictatorship). &#xA;&#xA;The original, common &quot;Etiam si omnes, ego non&quot; also **highlights the necessity of maintaining one's own opinion and moral judgment, even in the face of a differing view held by the majority**. Any difference, or poor wording?&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiam_si_omnes,_ego_non" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31685" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10821" RevisionGUID="ff45ae72-a903-450c-8d73-b55c7e7db95a" CreationDate="2019-05-21T13:40:29.057" UserId="1987" Text="Etiam si omnes and Et si omnes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31686" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10821" RevisionGUID="ff45ae72-a903-450c-8d73-b55c7e7db95a" CreationDate="2019-05-21T13:40:29.057" UserId="1987" Text="|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31687" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10822" RevisionGUID="a63e005c-502f-4228-bbc3-d28240520b81" CreationDate="2019-05-21T16:30:39.913" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://german.stackexchange.com/questions/52284/can-anyone-translate-this-old-german-headstone" />
  <row Id="31688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10822" RevisionGUID="8c160e6e-0a12-406c-a715-0755049e7f2c" CreationDate="2019-05-20T07:22:37.047" UserDisplayName="SeaFoam" Text="This is the text that I can see..Hopefully you will be able to view the image if I can add it....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried various translation sites but nothings really working. I could makes guesses but I'm very curious exactly what it says and means.  V's could be U's and this headstone is located in Memmingen, Stadtkreis Memmingen, Bavaria (Bayern), Germany.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    MORTALITI SVA MEMOR &#xD;&#xA;    REIP MEMMING SENATI&#xD;&#xA;    ET&#xD;&#xA;    PHARMACOP&#xD;&#xA;    BIPONT NAT&#xD;&#xA;    MDCCVI DIE XXIV APRS (April 24 1706?)&#xD;&#xA;    MONVMENT HOC SEPVLCRALE&#xD;&#xA;    PARAVIT&#xD;&#xA;    SIBI POSTERISQVE SVIS&#xD;&#xA;    MDCCLXXII (1772?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to the image: [images.findagrave.com/photos/2015/345/UNCEM_1449859976765.jpg][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://images.findagrave.com/photos/2015/345/UNCEM_1449859976765.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31689" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10822" RevisionGUID="8c160e6e-0a12-406c-a715-0755049e7f2c" CreationDate="2019-05-20T07:22:37.047" UserDisplayName="SeaFoam" Text="Can anyone translate this old German headstone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31690" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10822" RevisionGUID="8c160e6e-0a12-406c-a715-0755049e7f2c" CreationDate="2019-05-20T07:22:37.047" UserDisplayName="SeaFoam" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10823" RevisionGUID="f67de49d-a641-4b3a-9e4c-0a7c3db1fac7" CreationDate="2019-05-21T16:52:10.447" UserId="45" Text="This headstone is in Latin. Your transcription is quite good, but the text includes several abbreviations, which I've filled in below with brackets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; D[EO] O[PTIMO] M[AXIMO]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MORTALIT[ATIS] SUAE MEMOR  &#xD;&#xA;ANDREAS SEYLER  &#xD;&#xA;REIP[UBLICAE] MEMMING[EN] SENAT[OR]  &#xD;&#xA;ET  &#xD;&#xA;PHARMACOP[OLA]  &#xD;&#xA;BIPONT[I] NAT[US]  &#xD;&#xA;MDCCVI DIE XXIV APR[ILIS]  &#xD;&#xA;MONUMENT[UM] HOC SEPULCRALE  &#xD;&#xA;PARAVIT  &#xD;&#xA;SIBI POSTERISQUE SUIS  &#xD;&#xA;MDCCLXXII&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a literal translation that (mostly) preserves line order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To God, most good, most great&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mindful of his mortality, Andreas Seyler, a senator of the republic of Memmingen and a pharmacist, born at Bipontum [=Zweibrücken] on April 24, 1706, prepared this funerary monument for himself and for his descendents, in 1772." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10823" RevisionGUID="220912d2-21ff-4769-bea7-cd5852aa97d5" CreationDate="2019-05-21T16:58:57.460" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body" Text="This headstone is in Latin. Your transcription is quite good, but the text includes several abbreviations, which I've filled in below with brackets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; D[EO] O[PTIMO] M[AXIMO]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MORTALIT[ATIS] SUAE MEMOR  &#xD;&#xA;ANDREAS SEYLER  &#xD;&#xA;REIP[UBLICAE] MEMMING[EN] SENAT[OR]  &#xD;&#xA;ET  &#xD;&#xA;PHARMACOP[OLA]  &#xD;&#xA;BIPONT[I] NAT[US]  &#xD;&#xA;MDCCVI DIE XXIV APR[ILIS]  &#xD;&#xA;MONUMENT[UM] HOC SEPULCRALE  &#xD;&#xA;PARAVIT  &#xD;&#xA;SIBI POSTERISQUE SUIS  &#xD;&#xA;MDCCLXXII&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To God, most good, most great&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mindful of his mortality, Andreas Seyler, a senator of the republic of Memmingen and a pharmacist, born at Bipontum [=Zweibrücken] on April 24, 1706, prepared this funerary monument for himself and for his descendents, in 1772." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10822" RevisionGUID="2d5dc016-814e-4a1d-af1a-3b4adf1c59a0" CreationDate="2019-05-21T17:05:49.773" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="This is the text that I can see. Hopefully you will be able to view the image if I can add it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried various translation sites but nothing is really working. I could makes guesses but I'm very curious exactly what it says and means.  V's could be U's and this headstone is located in Memmingen, Stadtkreis Memmingen, Bavaria (Bayern), Germany.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    MORTALITI SVA MEMOR &#xD;&#xA;    REIP MEMMING SENATI&#xD;&#xA;    ET&#xD;&#xA;    PHARMACOP&#xD;&#xA;    BIPONT NAT&#xD;&#xA;    MDCCVI DIE XXIV APRS (April 24 1706?)&#xD;&#xA;    MONVMENT HOC SEPVLCRALE&#xD;&#xA;    PARAVIT&#xD;&#xA;    SIBI POSTERISQVE SVIS&#xD;&#xA;    MDCCLXXII (1772?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to the image: [images.findagrave.com/photos/2015/345/UNCEM_1449859976765.jpg][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://images.findagrave.com/photos/2015/345/UNCEM_1449859976765.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31694" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10822" RevisionGUID="2d5dc016-814e-4a1d-af1a-3b4adf1c59a0" CreationDate="2019-05-21T17:05:49.773" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Can anyone translate this old headstone from Germany?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10824" RevisionGUID="b9511ca0-5e3b-4337-90d7-7187869b3713" CreationDate="2019-05-21T19:09:24.920" UserId="406" Text="Lucan offers a few poetic descriptions, earlier in _Pharsalia_ VI:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …siquid tacitum sed fas erat. ille supernis  &#xD;&#xA;detestanda deis saevorum arcana magorum  &#xD;&#xA;noverat et tristis sacris feralibus aras,  &#xD;&#xA;umbrarum Ditisque fidem, miseroque liquebat  &#xD;&#xA;scire parum superos…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Trans. mine:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Sextus rejected] whatever [practices] were secret but still fell within the laws of the gods. Instead, he sought the secrets of savage mages, denounced by the gods above, and the mournful altars of deathly sacraments; he placed his faith in Dis and the shades of the dead, and it seemed to the poor man that those in the heavens knew too little…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He also refers to these necromancers as _Haemonidae_ and _Thessalidae_ (both declined in the Greek style), and _canentes arcanum ferale magos_ (&quot;wizards chanting a deathly secret&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Haemonidae_ and _Thessalidae_ clearly refer to the location rather than the practices: Thessaly was apparently famous for dark magic, which is referenced by e.g. Aristophanes (in the _Clouds_):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Γυναῖκα φαρμακίδ' εἰ πριάμενος Θετταλὴν  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; καθέλοιμι νύκτωρ τὴν σελήνην…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Trans. mine:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What if I hired one of those Thessalian women who makes poisons, and then at night, sent the moon crashing down out of the sky…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems like Lucan's best adjective for the practice itself is ***fērālis***, &quot;deathly&quot;, sometimes coupled with *saevus*, &quot;savage&quot;, or *nefas*, &quot;counter to divine law&quot;. Noun-wise, magical knowledge is *arcāna* (neuter plural, &quot;secrets&quot;), a magic-user is a *magus*, and a spell is a *carmen*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I'd go with ***arcāna fērālia***, &quot;deathly secrets&quot;. It seems like this on its own has a negative connotation, not like what Odysseus and Aeneas did; if you need to specify further, add ***saeva*** or ***nefas***. An individual rite, likewise, would be a ***carmen fērāle***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10825" RevisionGUID="35a00827-e5a3-4815-b23c-fa814020ae89" CreationDate="2019-05-21T19:48:24.733" UserId="2363" Text="The common phrase is *etiam si* (even if), but *et* can be used as a shorthand for *etiam*, which would be the only reasonable way of reading it in that sentence. So, there is no significant difference between the two." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="ded4f47b-a33a-4441-854f-ac96b7fe07df" CreationDate="2019-05-21T23:08:34.197" UserId="145" Text="Why is the Latin phrase: *horror vacui* commonly interpreted as: *nature abhors a vacuum*?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may well be Aristotle's intended message, [given the context][1], but it seems like a bit of a jump. Doesn't it? I'm sure I must be wrong; Aristotle was famously well spoken and well educated, and modern academics and well educated people seem to accept this translation/interpretation. I just can't see how or why, so I invite you to correct me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case the reasons for my confusion aren't obvious; trying to reconcile it, my inner monologue went something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. It's just two words: *horror* (*fear*?) &amp; *void* (*vacuum*?). &#xD;&#xA;  - *fear void* / *horror void*?&#xD;&#xA;  - *fear vacuum* / *horror vacuum*?  &#xD;&#xA;  - maybe you could even stretch it as far as *[fear of emptiness][2]*, *[fear of open space][3]*, *fear the void*, *fear nothing*, *fear is empty*, *fear is a vacuum*, *the vacuum of fear*, *horrors of the void*, or something like that.&#xD;&#xA; 2. There's no mention of *nature*, *natura*, *naturae*, etc.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Why *horror*? Wouldn't *timor* or *metu* be more appropriate when talking about *fears* or *phobias*?&#xD;&#xA; 4. Why *vacui*? Isn't *vacuum* a Latin noun already?  &#xD;&#xA; 5. Wouldn't it be more along the lines of something like: &#xD;&#xA;  - *naturae abhorreos vacui*, or &#xD;&#xA;  - *natura abhorret vacuum*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/physics/book4.html#section32&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4648/145&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/kenophobia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31698" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="ded4f47b-a33a-4441-854f-ac96b7fe07df" CreationDate="2019-05-21T23:08:34.197" UserId="145" Text="Why is the phrase &quot;horror vacui&quot; commonly interpreted as &quot;nature abhors a vacuum&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31699" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="ded4f47b-a33a-4441-854f-ac96b7fe07df" CreationDate="2019-05-21T23:08:34.197" UserId="145" Text="|vocabulary|idiom|word-comparison|aristotle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10594" RevisionGUID="7bf3895f-8de0-4eab-80db-45c04f99519f" CreationDate="2019-05-22T01:19:52.470" UserId="79" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="My impression is that &quot;Latin name&quot; here means &quot;scientific name (of a species)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Many people seem to conflate scientific names and Latin names, although [the two are different concepts](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/371/79).&#xD;&#xA;The way I see it, **the claim is that *cola* is the best-known scientific name of a species in taxonomy**.&#xD;&#xA;This claim is not unreasonable, but I will not comment on whether it is true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scientific names are formally in Latin, but they use elements from various languages.&#xD;&#xA;Some scientific names are proper Latin, but not very many.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the claim isn't really about the Latin language at all, although it is worded as if it were.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone wants to figure out the best known scientific name, I recommend taking it to a separate question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10827" RevisionGUID="063f1f2d-e5e6-404a-b02e-e4a71b562a3f" CreationDate="2019-05-22T01:22:53.567" UserId="406" Text="_Horror vacuī_ literally means &quot;the fear of the void&quot;; the *-ī* ending is &quot;genitive case&quot;, and is usually translated as &quot;of&quot; in English. It was originally a term used in art criticism: some artists dislike leaving any space empty, and want to fill every inch of the canvas with some sort of detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aristotle never actually said &quot;nature abhors a vacuum&quot; (or its Greek equivalent); his _Physica_ IV.8 goes into detail on why vacuums are impossible in his theory, but he never summarized the results into a single sentence like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The common modern phrasing comes from Rabelais in the sixteenth century; he summarized Aristotle's idea as _natura abhorret vacuum_. This was translated extremely literally to give the English &quot;nature abhors a vacuum&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea was never universally accepted (e.g. Lucretius argued against it), and it was pretty much disproven in 1643, when Torricelli created a vacuum in the process of inventing the barometer. But prominent scientists continued to take Aristotle's side up until the mid-1800s, including René Descartes and James Clerk Maxwell (as in Maxwell's Equations)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10827" RevisionGUID="1148455b-8118-4201-809e-d2460ef83b5e" CreationDate="2019-05-22T01:43:59.380" UserId="406" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="_Horror vacuī_ literally means &quot;the fear of the void&quot;; the *-ī* ending is &quot;genitive case&quot;, and is usually translated as &quot;of&quot; in English. It was originally a term used in art criticism: some artists dislike leaving any space empty, and want to fill every inch of the canvas with some sort of detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aristotle never actually said &quot;nature abhors a vacuum&quot; (or its Greek equivalent); his _Physica_ IV.8 goes into detail on why vacuums are impossible in his theory, but he never summarized the results into a single sentence like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The common modern phrasing comes from Rabelais in the sixteenth century; he summarized Aristotle's idea as _natura abhorret vacuum_. This was translated extremely literally to give the English &quot;nature abhors a vacuum&quot;; other writers co-opted the art term in order to have a convenient noun phrase for their idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea was never universally accepted (e.g. Lucretius argued against it), and it was pretty much disproven in 1643, when Torricelli created a vacuum in the process of inventing the barometer. But prominent scientists continued to take Aristotle's side up until the mid-1800s, including René Descartes and James Clerk Maxwell (as in Maxwell's Equations)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10821" RevisionGUID="2ed45366-cad4-47ed-aaf7-e51027b1a8e8" CreationDate="2019-05-22T02:43:38.293" UserId="1987" Comment="added 168 characters in body; added 12 characters in body; added 59 characters in body" Text="Is there a semantic difference between **&quot;Etiam si omnes, ego non&quot;** and **&quot;Et si omnes ego non&quot;**? &#xA;&#xA;I know Latin is loose when it comes to word order, and it seems to me the answer is no, but the way this sentence is worded [in this Wikipedia article][1] has me wondering if the uncommon &quot;Et si omnes&quot; changes the meaning in any way:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A variant is Et si omnes ego non, as written on the door of Philipp von Boeselager's home, **highlighting the necessity of maintaining one's own opinion and moral judgment, even in the face of a differing view held by the majority** (in particular, it refers to von Boeselager's dissent and resistance against Hitler during the Nazi dictatorship). &#xA;&#xA;The original, common &quot;Etiam si omnes, ego non&quot; also **highlights the necessity of maintaining one's own opinion and moral judgment, even in the face of a differing view held by the majority**. Any difference, or poor wording?&#xA;&#xA;*[Note: I am not asking if there is a big difference in the meanings, which there is not, but if there is a very fine, nuanced difference in the semantic stress of the sentence, created by the very fine, nuanced difference in the Latin]*&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiam_si_omnes,_ego_non" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10822" RevisionGUID="60b4e768-efba-4f60-8f74-e3a501513b27" CreationDate="2019-05-22T07:28:36.013" UserId="1459" Comment="minor changes" Text="This is the text that I can see. Hopefully you will be able to view the image if I can add it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried various translation sites but nothing is really working. I could makes guesses but I'm very curious exactly what it says and means.  V's could be U's and this headstone is located in Memmingen, Stadtkreis Memmingen, Bavaria (Bayern), Germany.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    MORTALITI SVA MEMOR &#xD;&#xA;    REIP MEMMING SENATI&#xD;&#xA;    ET&#xD;&#xA;    PHARMACOP&#xD;&#xA;    BIPONT NAT&#xD;&#xA;    MDCCVI DIE XXIV APRS (April 24 1706?)&#xD;&#xA;    MONVMENT HOC SEPVLCRALE&#xD;&#xA;    PARAVIT&#xD;&#xA;    SIBI POSTERISQVE SVIS&#xD;&#xA;    MDCCLXXII (1772?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](http://images.findagrave.com/photos/2015/345/UNCEM_1449859976765.jpg) is a link to the image." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31705" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10822" RevisionGUID="60b4e768-efba-4f60-8f74-e3a501513b27" CreationDate="2019-05-22T07:28:36.013" UserId="1459" Comment="minor changes" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6075" RevisionGUID="06e3d49a-8c92-4e2e-8db0-00c7a347149e" CreationDate="2019-05-22T07:32:31.627" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I'm in university and in creative writing they asked us to write a short story. I chose a mystery story and composed this sentence for it: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Omni usurpant optimes sapientes virtutes acceptum verum vitam. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried hard to make it look like the decoded message from the Shugborough statue. I know it is not syntactically correct, but does it make any sense? And what should I change to make it grammatically better? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10828" RevisionGUID="68996f0a-3a6a-4225-81ca-4a95bcf17f52" CreationDate="2019-05-22T13:18:45.847" UserId="4731" Text="To back him up it should also be notes that the original Greek of John 1:1 goes like:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ **Λόγος**, καὶ ὁ **Λόγος** ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ **λόγος.**&lt;br&gt;*En arche en ho* ***logos***, *kai ho* ***logos*** *pros ton Theon, kai Theos en ho* ***Logos**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and 1 Tim 6:15 goes like:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἣν καιροῖς ἰδίοις δείξει ὁ μακάριος καὶ μόνος δυνάστης, &#xD;&#xA;ὁ **βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων** καὶ κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων, &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*hen kairois idiois deixei ho Makarios kai monos dunastes, ho* ***basileus ton basileuonton*** *kai kurios ton kurieuonton,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These words in their original (here boldened) language clearly have no relation. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10821" RevisionGUID="5e5f84e6-7899-4dbc-8d84-3508f89105ab" CreationDate="2019-05-22T17:01:29.340" UserId="1459" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is there a semantic difference between **&quot;Etiam si omnes, ego non&quot;** and **&quot;Et si omnes ego non&quot;**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know Latin is loose when it comes to word order, and it seems to me the answer is no, but the way this sentence is worded [in this Wikipedia article][1] has me wondering if the uncommon &quot;Et si omnes&quot; changes the meaning in any way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A variant is Et si omnes ego non, as written on the door of Philipp von Boeselager's home, **highlighting the necessity of maintaining one's own opinion and moral judgment, even in the face of a differing view held by the majority** (in particular, it refers to von Boeselager's dissent and resistance against Hitler during the Nazi dictatorship). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original, common &quot;Etiam si omnes, ego non&quot; also **highlights the necessity of maintaining one's own opinion and moral judgment, even in the face of a differing view held by the majority**. Any difference, or poor wording?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Note: I am not asking if there is a big difference in the meanings, which there is not, but if there is a very fine, nuanced difference in the semantic stress of the sentence, created by the very fine, nuanced difference in the Latin]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiam_si_omnes,_ego_non" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31710" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10821" RevisionGUID="5e5f84e6-7899-4dbc-8d84-3508f89105ab" CreationDate="2019-05-22T17:01:29.340" UserId="1459" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;Etiam si omnes&quot; and &quot;Et si omnes&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10615" RevisionGUID="c12c859a-d11a-46ef-8c91-e6b494669107" CreationDate="2019-05-22T17:29:36.137" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="First of all, it's worth noting that the words _rēx_ and _rēs_ are unrelated: _rēx_ goes back to PIE `*h₃reǵs` &quot;king&quot; from `*h₃r-ǵ-` &quot;just&quot; (compare *rectus*, *rogō*, *rēgula*), while _rēs_ goes back to PIE `*reh₁is` &quot;goods&quot; from `*r-h₁y-` (compare Sanskrit *raí* &quot;property&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Rēs* is a very general-purpose word, so I wouldn't be surprised to hear it applied to speech. Its basic meaning is &quot;thing&quot; but it's also applied to everything from a system of government to a historical narrative to the current state of reality. In an expression like _dixit rem hoc_ &quot;she said this thing&quot; it would clearly mean a statement or utterance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also often translate _rēs_ into Greek as _lógos_, literally &quot;word&quot;, which is the same word used in the Gospel of John. However, in the phrase _rēspublica_ it's definitely **not** referring to an act of speaking: there it has the meaning of &quot;political system&quot;, same as in _rēs nova_ &quot;revolution&quot;. _Rēs_ itself never reached Polish on its own (_rēspublica_ was borrowed as a single unit), so if its descendant means &quot;speech&quot; in Polish it's a coincidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Rēx_, on the other hand, seems to have no meanings that don't pertain to rulership. It means &quot;king&quot; all the way back as far as we can reconstruct into PIE, never with any meaning related to speech. King, tyrant, (metaphorically) high priest, ruling over something, master, lord, but never &quot;one who speaks&quot; or anything like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. All of this is concerned with Classical Latin rather than Church Latin; in Christianity, words like _verbum_ are almost always used instead of _rēs_ to refer to speech. Similarly, _rēx_ in Christianity always has the literal meaning of &quot;king&quot;: see 1 Timothy 6:15's _rēx rēgum_, &quot;king of kings&quot;. So it's safe to say the Bible had little to no impact on either of these words referring to speaking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10828" RevisionGUID="a0209c5e-3d53-4417-ab68-6ecbe7523a26" CreationDate="2019-05-22T19:06:01.833" UserId="4731" Comment="corrected &quot;notes&quot; to &quot;noted&quot;; Capitalized &quot;Logos&quot;" Text="To back him up it should also be noted that the original Greek of John 1:1 goes like:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ **Λόγος**, καὶ ὁ **Λόγος** ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ **λόγος.**&lt;br&gt;*En arche en ho* ***Logos***, *kai ho* ***Logos*** *pros ton Theon, kai Theos en ho* ***Logos**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and 1 Tim 6:15 goes like:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἣν καιροῖς ἰδίοις δείξει ὁ μακάριος καὶ μόνος δυνάστης, &#xD;&#xA;ὁ **βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων** καὶ κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων, &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*hen kairois idiois deixei ho Makarios kai monos dunastes, ho* ***basileus ton basileuonton*** *kai kurios ton kurieuonton,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These words in their original (here boldened) language clearly have no relation. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10828" RevisionGUID="45930985-8500-4f2e-9697-81afe2763e8e" CreationDate="2019-05-22T19:17:15.810" UserId="4731" Comment="corrected &quot;notes&quot; to &quot;noted&quot;; Capitalized &quot;Logos&quot;, added macrons over most &quot;o&quot;s corresponding with &quot;ο&quot; and &quot;e&quot;s corresponding with &quot;η&quot;, added comma after up." Text="To back him up, it should also be noted that the original Greek of John 1:1 goes like:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ **Λόγος**, καὶ ὁ **Λόγος** ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ **λόγος.**&lt;br&gt;*En arche ēn hō* ***Lōgōs***, *kai hō* ***Lōgōs*** *ēn prōs tōn Theōn, kai Theōs ēn hō* ***Lōgōs**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and 1 Tim 6:15 goes like:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἣν καιροῖς ἰδίοις δείξει ὁ μακάριος καὶ μόνος δυνάστης, &#xD;&#xA;ὁ **βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων** καὶ κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων, &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*hēn kairois idiois deixei hō Makariōs kai mōnōs dunastēs, hō* ***basileus ton basileuonton*** *kai kuriōs ton kurieuōnton,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These words in their original (here boldened) language clearly have no relation. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10829" RevisionGUID="cc363e89-fd79-416d-b461-e94ea3a837a1" CreationDate="2019-05-22T19:37:19.590" UserId="4731" Text="I would try &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Scientia astruit scientiam.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to put it literally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10811" RevisionGUID="5ed2d03a-056a-4815-ae4b-aeee5944b7bd" CreationDate="2019-05-23T08:55:59.307" UserId="1982" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="If &quot;bibendum&quot; is a gerundive, it seems to be accepted as such, then &quot;bibendum est&quot; is neuter, impersonal (no noun): &quot;it-ought-to-be-drunk&quot;; &quot;it&quot;, presumably, any liquid that appeals to the speaker, and his pals; giving: &quot;it (e.g. the wine)-ought-to-be-drunk&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10830" RevisionGUID="5e0c1f16-c40b-4acc-9127-b3d0d6195008" CreationDate="2019-05-23T09:45:16.470" UserId="1982" Text="North &amp; Hillard p.157: Footnote (1): &quot;Moreover in Impossible Conditions, if the verb of the apodosis is possum, debeo, oportet, or a gerundive (or any verb expressing obligation or possibility), it is regularly put in the Indicative.&#xD;&#xA;e.g. si patriam perdedisset, interfeciendus erat.&#xD;&#xA;If he had betrayed his country, he should have been put to death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the heat generated, recently, over the gerundive, the second clause might be gently massaged into: &quot;it (he)-ought-to-have-been-killed (executed)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Returning to the point: what exactly does &quot;it is regularly put in the indicative&quot; mean, here--is it mandatory; or, may the student ignore the advice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is called into question because when the indicative is deployed, in such circumstances, it is read as a subjunctive; consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ex. 203, Q3: &quot;If the river were not so deep, we might have crossed it on foot.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;giving: &quot;nisi flumen tam altum esset potuimus id pedibus transire.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Impossible conditions, in the past; and, crossing the river is not a continuous action, in the past; therefore, normally the pluperfect subjunctive is required in both clauses. N &amp; H gave &quot;might&quot; in 2nd clause suggesting imperfect subjunctive, which it cannot be? For me it is &quot;we would have crossed the river&quot;; but the choice of subj. is not the problem. Past-perfect &quot;potuimus&quot; is read as a subjunctive; therefore, what is the purpose of this ruling? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31717" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10830" RevisionGUID="5e0c1f16-c40b-4acc-9127-b3d0d6195008" CreationDate="2019-05-23T09:45:16.470" UserId="1982" Text="Imposing Conditions On The Conditional" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31718" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10830" RevisionGUID="5e0c1f16-c40b-4acc-9127-b3d0d6195008" CreationDate="2019-05-23T09:45:16.470" UserId="1982" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10831" RevisionGUID="94678ff4-79c8-4e69-b9e8-ff7b2f64844f" CreationDate="2019-05-23T12:09:20.003" UserId="2363" Text="There are a couple issues to sort out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the past tense of certain verbs such as *debeo*, *possum*, *oportet*, etc., can carry counterfactual force, even when in the indicative. This can occur in independent clauses with no expressed protasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bonus vátes poteras esse, nam quae sunt futura dicis. (Plautus,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Miles* 911)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You would have made a good prophet (but you aren't one), since you say what will happen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, conditional sentences are merely one instance where this linguistic feature applies. There is a full treatment of the indicative in counterfactual conditions in [A&amp;G 517][1]. But to give a short answer, the indicative is not mandatory. Both moods are found. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, for the specific example sentence you raise (203.3), the English wording is rather confusing. I believe the sentence is trying to communicate *continuous state*. That is, the river both was and is too deep, with the result that we could not and still cannot cross. If this understanding of the English is correct, the imperfect is called for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nisi flumen tam altum esset, transire poteramus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/particular-conditions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10831" RevisionGUID="5e84af6d-dfdd-4c2d-b5cf-3709a966c260" CreationDate="2019-05-23T13:38:47.980" UserId="2363" Comment="added 505 characters in body" Text="There are a couple issues to sort out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the past tense of certain verbs such as *debeo*, *possum*, *oportet*, etc., can carry counterfactual force, even when in the indicative. This can occur in independent clauses with no expressed protasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bonus vátes poteras esse, nam quae sunt futura dicis. (Plautus,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Miles* 911)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You would have made a good prophet (but you aren't one), since you say what will happen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, conditional sentences are merely one instance where this linguistic feature applies. There is a full treatment of the indicative in counterfactual conditions in [A&amp;G 517][1]. But to give a short answer, the indicative is not mandatory. Both moods are found. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, for the specific example sentence you raise (203.3), the English wording is rather confusing. I believe the sentence is trying to communicate *continuous state*. That is, the river both was and is too deep, with the result that we could not and still cannot cross. If this understanding of the English is correct, the imperfect is called for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nisi flumen tam altum esset, transire poteramus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Note: Many languages evidence interchange between the past tense and subjunctive of certain verbs that communicate potentiality or obligation. Greek is similar to Latin; ἐχρῆν, ἔδει, ὤφελον, etc. Modern languages often do this with modal auxiliaries. In English, &quot;could&quot; can be past tense (In high school, I could dunk a basketball) or subjunctive (I could dunk a basketball right now if I wanted to). English inherits this feature from German, in which *könnten* has the same range of possibilities.] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/particular-conditions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10831" RevisionGUID="2833ef5f-0698-4e84-9863-45b77b18aac4" CreationDate="2019-05-23T14:09:39.980" UserId="2363" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="There are a couple issues to sort out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the past tense of certain verbs such as *debeo*, *possum*, *oportet*, etc., can carry counterfactual force, even when in the indicative. This can occur in independent clauses with no expressed protasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bonus vátes poteras esse, nam quae sunt futura dicis. (Plautus,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Miles* 911)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You would have made a good prophet (but you aren't one), since you say what will happen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, conditional sentences are merely one instance where this linguistic feature applies. There is a full treatment of the indicative in counterfactual conditions in [A&amp;G 517][1]. But to give a short answer, the indicative is not mandatory. Both moods are found. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, for the specific example sentence you raise (203.3), the English wording is rather confusing. I believe the sentence is trying to communicate *continuous state*. That is, the river both was and is too deep, with the result that we could not and still cannot cross. If this understanding of the English is correct, the imperfect is called for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nisi flumen tam altum esset, pedibus transire poteramus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Note: Many languages evidence interchange between the past tense and subjunctive of certain verbs that communicate potentiality or obligation. Greek is similar to Latin; ἐχρῆν, ἔδει, ὤφελον, etc. Modern languages often do this with modal auxiliaries. In English, &quot;could&quot; can be past tense (In high school, I could dunk a basketball) or subjunctive (I could dunk a basketball right now if I wanted to). English inherits this feature from German, in which *könnten* has the same range of possibilities.] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/particular-conditions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10831" RevisionGUID="b5da0d6b-f3c0-440a-a057-a59f9a2fe14f" CreationDate="2019-05-23T15:15:55.537" UserId="2363" Comment="deleted 99 characters in body" Text="There are a couple issues to sort out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the past tense of certain verbs such as *debeo*, *possum*, *oportet*, etc., can carry counterfactual force, even when in the indicative. This can occur in independent clauses with no expressed protasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bonus vátes poteras esse, nam quae sunt futura dicis. (Plautus,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Miles* 911)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You would have made a good prophet (but you aren't one), since you say what will happen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, conditional sentences are merely one instance where this linguistic feature applies. There is a full treatment of the indicative in counterfactual conditions in [A&amp;G 517][1]. But to give a short answer, the indicative is not mandatory. Both moods are found. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, for the specific example sentence you raise (203.3), the English wording is rather confusing. I believe the sentence is trying to communicate *continuous state*. That is, the river both was and is too deep, with the result that we could not and still cannot cross. If this understanding of the English is correct, the imperfect is called for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nisi flumen tam altum esset, pedibus transire poteramus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Note: Many languages evidence interchange between the past tense and subjunctive of certain verbs that communicate potentiality or obligation. Greek is similar to Latin; ἐχρῆν, ἔδει, ὤφελον, etc. Modern languages often do this with modal auxiliaries. In English, &quot;could&quot; can be past tense (In high school, I could dunk a basketball) or subjunctive (I could dunk a basketball right now if I wanted to).] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/particular-conditions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10832" RevisionGUID="28d6d1fb-ed67-4c8e-9632-d00a9f0a518b" CreationDate="2019-05-23T15:56:52.107" UserId="4811" Text="I'm trying to find how to say &quot;Putting many ducks into space&quot;  in the most proper way, but I have very little experience in Latin and so the different forms of words are somewhat confusing to me. What would be the best way to translate that phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31724" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10832" RevisionGUID="28d6d1fb-ed67-4c8e-9632-d00a9f0a518b" CreationDate="2019-05-23T15:56:52.107" UserId="4811" Text="How do I translate this phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31725" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10832" RevisionGUID="28d6d1fb-ed67-4c8e-9632-d00a9f0a518b" CreationDate="2019-05-23T15:56:52.107" UserId="4811" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10833" RevisionGUID="09167b15-34d3-4670-84a1-42faa2c803d2" CreationDate="2019-05-23T16:48:18.960" UserId="1459" Text="One option is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Mittens multas anates in caelum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tricky bit is &quot;space&quot; as in the place outside the atmosphere. I'm not sure there is a precise way to say it. Above, I use &quot;sky&quot;. So the phrase would be &quot;sending many ducks into the sky&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative could be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Mittens multas anates ultra atmosphaeram&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is, &quot;sending many ducks beyond the atmoshpere&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10832" RevisionGUID="88eddf71-2aef-4b88-8be9-3bef0beae67a" CreationDate="2019-05-23T16:52:18.460" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="I'm trying to find how to say &quot;Putting many ducks into space&quot; in the most proper way, but I have very little experience in Latin and so the different forms of words are somewhat confusing to me. What would be the best way to translate that phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31728" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10832" RevisionGUID="88eddf71-2aef-4b88-8be9-3bef0beae67a" CreationDate="2019-05-23T16:52:18.460" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="How do I translate &quot;Putting many ducks into space&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10833" RevisionGUID="aabe07ad-ca24-42be-b227-d5159aa22d11" CreationDate="2019-05-23T16:53:49.637" UserId="1459" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="One option is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Mittens multas anates in caelum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tricky bit is &quot;space&quot; as in the place outside the atmosphere. I'm not sure there is a precise way to say it. Above, I use &quot;sky&quot;. So the phrase would be &quot;sending many ducks into the sky&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative could be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Mittens multas anates ultra atmosphaeram&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is, &quot;sending many ducks beyond the atmoshpere&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS [this discussion](http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/outer-space.22223/) might be on interest regarding &quot;space&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10834" RevisionGUID="7f5e5af2-8f7b-4743-ab41-6eb837102920" CreationDate="2019-05-23T17:43:54.960" UserId="3404" Text="Can somebody please tell me if my translation for the sentence: &quot;It seems that the slave is carrying a letter.&quot; is correct? &#xA;&#xA;&gt;Videtur servus epistulam portare.&#xA;&#xA;videtur - 3rd person present passive &#xA;&#xA;servus - nominative &#xA;&#xA;epistulam - accusative&#xA;&#xA;portare -present infinitive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31731" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10834" RevisionGUID="7f5e5af2-8f7b-4743-ab41-6eb837102920" CreationDate="2019-05-23T17:43:54.960" UserId="3404" Text="Nominativus cum infinitivo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31732" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10834" RevisionGUID="7f5e5af2-8f7b-4743-ab41-6eb837102920" CreationDate="2019-05-23T17:43:54.960" UserId="3404" Text="|grammar-choice|infinitive|case|nominativus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31733" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10834" RevisionGUID="c38f077b-2e7c-4512-9054-5c0b56d34bbc" CreationDate="2019-05-23T17:48:10.423" UserId="1459" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation-check|infinitive|nominativus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10835" RevisionGUID="62e238c8-28c3-4490-a618-159312556351" CreationDate="2019-05-23T18:48:51.730" UserId="522" Text="Yes; when the nominative *servus* **can** be construed as the subject of *videtur,* (or *dicitur, cognoscitur* )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The slave seems to be carrying a letter.  &#xD;&#xA;The slave is seen to be carrying the letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then   &#xD;&#xA;'It seems that the slave is carrying the letter.' is Nominative and infinitive.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10836" RevisionGUID="3e82dba1-0493-487c-b28d-cb1e318142cb" CreationDate="2019-05-23T22:31:35.487" UserId="406" Text="Based on the context you've provided in the comments, I'd rephrase it a little bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anates [Multae] in Vacuum Jaciendae [Sunt]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This literally means &quot;[Many] Ducks Must be Launched Into the Void&quot;. It's phrased more as a universal truth: yes, ducks must always be launched, it is a fact of life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can include *multae* or leave it out; it literally means &quot;many&quot;. But imo including it weakens the statement in Latin. So personally, I'd leave it out. Similarly, *sunt* can be included or left out; it's pedantically correct, but I and all Latin-speakers I can think of would leave it off. Finally, *jaciendae* can be spelled with an *i* or with a *j* at the beginning; the meaning is exactly the same, so choose whichever looks better to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luchonacho's translation is more like &quot;[someone is] sending many ducks into the heavens&quot;. Also entirely correct, but it doesn't quite read as a motto." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10837" RevisionGUID="08b25f75-2957-48bf-bfb3-2267f3336eba" CreationDate="2019-05-23T23:05:34.613" UserId="406" Text="To the Romans, if I understand right, the word *caelum* &quot;sky&quot; incorporated everything above the earth: the atmosphere, the space beyond it, and even the thrones of the gods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But nowadays we divide things up a bit more precisely. There's a difference between &quot;sky&quot; (what we see looking upward), &quot;space&quot; (the void outside our atmosphere), and &quot;heaven&quot; (the metaphysical home of God or gods). I've seen *caelum* used for the first and the last, but it feels strange to use it for &quot;outer space&quot; as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: if I want to refer specifically to &quot;space&quot;, as opposed to &quot;the sky&quot; or &quot;heaven&quot;, how would I do that? *Vacuum* &quot;void&quot;, *chaos* &quot;void, but in Greek&quot;, and *spatium* &quot;[extent of] space&quot; come to mind, but I'd like to follow precedent if there is one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31737" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10837" RevisionGUID="08b25f75-2957-48bf-bfb3-2267f3336eba" CreationDate="2019-05-23T23:05:34.613" UserId="406" Text="What should we call the space beyond the world?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31738" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10837" RevisionGUID="08b25f75-2957-48bf-bfb3-2267f3336eba" CreationDate="2019-05-23T23:05:34.613" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|word-request|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10838" RevisionGUID="9c260928-dffc-4f1a-a579-508509788d4f" CreationDate="2019-05-24T01:35:31.610" UserId="522" Text="&gt; *Sperae secundum fratrem J. de Pech'm*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Spheres according to brother John Pecham&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the title of a one-page summary in [BL Arundel 83 f117r][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pecham draws heavily on Cicero's '[Dream of Scipio.][2]' Confusingly, Cicero uses ***[sphaerae][3]*** for the concentric spheres in which each planet is held, but also for some of the larger celestial bodies where *globus* is usual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero's astronomy was developed from Plato's *Timaeus.* Perhaps the spheres come from Babylon via Egypt along with the character of the Seven *errantes.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case I suggest ***Sphaerae*** (1st f. pl.) as a general term covering all the regions between Earth and Empyreon, which is beyond the outer stars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=arundel_ms_83_f117r&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/544#lf0041-03_label_172&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/getobject.pl?c.17:2877.LewisShort18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10838" RevisionGUID="f8290262-80a7-4cc4-8f72-540ddd08d6b6" CreationDate="2019-05-24T01:40:46.770" UserId="522" Comment="link" Text="&gt; *Sperae secundum fratrem J. de Pech'm*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Spheres according to brother John Pecham&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the title of a one-page summary in [BL Arundel 83 f123r][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pecham draws heavily on Cicero's '[Dream of Scipio.][2]' Confusingly, Cicero uses ***[sphaerae][3]*** for the concentric spheres in which each planet is held, but also for some of the larger celestial bodies where *globus* is usual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero's astronomy was developed from Plato's *Timaeus.* Perhaps the spheres come from Babylon via Egypt along with the character of the Seven *errantes.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case I suggest ***Sphaerae*** (1st f. pl.) as a general term covering all the regions between Earth and Empyreon, which is beyond the outer stars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=arundel_ms_83_f117r&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/544#lf0041-03_label_172&#xD;&#xA;  [3]:http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/search3t?dbname=lewisandshort&amp;dgdivhead=sphaera&amp;matchtype=sameold&amp;word=&amp;CONJUNCT=PHRASE &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="64bec40b-dccc-4b7c-8502-e45035956fdd" CreationDate="2019-05-24T02:33:47.547" UserId="2954" Text="I am reading Novuum Lumen Chemicum with the help of Waite’s English translation. (https://www.sacred-texts.com/alc/hm2/hm204.htm) The following passage I cannot understand clearly.&#xD;&#xA;I would appreciate any help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31742" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="64bec40b-dccc-4b7c-8502-e45035956fdd" CreationDate="2019-05-24T02:33:47.547" UserId="2954" Text="Can you please translate these paragraphs ( from an alchemical text Novuum Lumen Chemicum)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31743" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="64bec40b-dccc-4b7c-8502-e45035956fdd" CreationDate="2019-05-24T02:33:47.547" UserId="2954" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31744" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="90bf8301-7cd7-49c8-875c-948369349478" CreationDate="2019-05-24T02:37:56.677" UserId="2954" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2954,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ryohei Irie&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31745" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="3f4f2ffa-bd60-43b9-a985-3ebcc07bf56f" CreationDate="2019-05-24T02:38:06.777" UserId="2954" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2954,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ryohei Irie&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="fc46a71f-6891-4d91-bb99-d4032fb32d53" CreationDate="2019-05-24T02:40:51.847" UserId="2954" Comment="added 988 characters in body" Text="I am reading Novuum Lumen Chemicum with the help of Waite’s English translation. (https://www.sacred-texts.com/alc/hm2/hm204.htm) The following passage I cannot understand clearly. It seems that Waite had skipped this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nos dum illam quaerimus alia invenimus: &amp; nisi ita usitata esset procreatio humana, &amp; natura in eo suum jus teneret, jam vix non deviaremus. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentences before and after this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Si hoc revivisceret ipse Philosophorum pater Hermes, &amp; subtilis ingenii Geber, cum profundissimo RAYMUNDO LULLIO, non pro Philosophis, sed potius pro discipulis a nostris Chemistis haberentur: Nescirent tot hodie usitatas destilationes, tot circulationes, tot calcinationes, &amp; tot alia innumerabilia alia Artistarum opera, quae ex illorum scriptis hujus saeculi homines invenerunt &amp; excogitarunt. Unicum tantum nobis deest, ut id sciamus quod ipsi fecerunt, lapidem videlicet Philosophorum seu Tincturam Physicam. Nos dum illam quaerimus alia invenimus: &amp; nisi ita usitata esset procreatio humana, &amp; natura in eo suum jus teneret, jam vix non deviaremus. Sed, ut revertar ad propositum, promisi in hoc primo tractatu Naturam explicare; ne nos a simplici via vera, vana deflectat imaginatio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would appreciate any help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10838" RevisionGUID="9d48ef46-b697-4996-85e0-815eea71b5b3" CreationDate="2019-05-24T02:43:57.510" UserId="522" Comment="Found a Latin 'Dream of S.' Major rewrite." Text="&gt; *Sperae secundum fratrem J. de Pech'm*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Spheres according to brother John Pecham&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the title of a one-page summary in [BL Arundel 83 f123r][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pecham draws heavily on Cicero's '[Dream of Scipio.][2]' where the the planets each inhabit their own *orbs* or rather *globus* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Novem tibi orbibus vel potius globis connexa sunt omnia, quorum unus est caelestis, extimus, qui reliquos omnes complectitur, summus ipse deus, arcens et continens ceteros, in quo sunt infixi illi qui volvuntur stellarum cursus sempitemi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Cicero elsewhere calls them ***[sphaerae][3]*** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *habent suam sphaeram stellae inerrantes.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero's astronomy was developed from Plato's *Timaeus.* Perhaps the spheres come from Babylon via Egypt along with the character of the Seven *errantes.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case I suggest ***Sphaerae*** (1st f. pl.) as a general term covering all the regions between Earth and Empyreon, which is beyond the outer stars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=arundel_ms_83_f117r&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/544#lf0041-03_label_172&#xD;&#xA;  [3]:http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/search3t?dbname=lewisandshort&amp;dgdivhead=sphaera&amp;matchtype=sameold&amp;word=&amp;CONJUNCT=PHRASE &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="34ebcaba-b0b2-4a61-8710-9f311f960f90" CreationDate="2019-05-24T02:48:44.993" UserId="2954" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="I am reading Novuum Lumen Chemicum with the help of Waite’s English translation. (https://www.sacred-texts.com/alc/hm2/hm204.htm) The following passage I cannot understand clearly. It seems that Waite had skipped this.(org.: Musaeum Hermeticum, Frankfurt, 1677, p.545 – page number misprinted as 454)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nos dum illam quaerimus alia invenimus: &amp; nisi ita usitata esset procreatio humana, &amp; natura in eo suum jus teneret, jam vix non deviaremus. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentences before and after this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Si hoc revivisceret ipse Philosophorum pater Hermes, &amp; subtilis ingenii Geber, cum profundissimo RAYMUNDO LULLIO, non pro Philosophis, sed potius pro discipulis a nostris Chemistis haberentur: Nescirent tot hodie usitatas destilationes, tot circulationes, tot calcinationes, &amp; tot alia innumerabilia alia Artistarum opera, quae ex illorum scriptis hujus saeculi homines invenerunt &amp; excogitarunt. Unicum tantum nobis deest, ut id sciamus quod ipsi fecerunt, lapidem videlicet Philosophorum seu Tincturam Physicam. Nos dum illam quaerimus alia invenimus: &amp; nisi ita usitata esset procreatio humana, &amp; natura in eo suum jus teneret, jam vix non deviaremus. Sed, ut revertar ad propositum, promisi in hoc primo tractatu Naturam explicare; ne nos a simplici via vera, vana deflectat imaginatio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would appreciate any help.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31749" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="34ebcaba-b0b2-4a61-8710-9f311f960f90" CreationDate="2019-05-24T02:48:44.993" UserId="2954" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="Can you please help me understand passages from an alchemical text?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10838" RevisionGUID="fa23cb4e-b459-44c2-b1fd-92d5911cde69" CreationDate="2019-05-24T02:52:25.457" UserId="522" Comment="Found a Latin 'Dream of S.' Major rewrite." Text="&gt; *Sperae secundum fratrem J. de Pech'm*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Spheres according to brother John Pecham&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the title of a one-page summary in [BL Arundel 83 f123r][1] There is no direct link; use the page list to get from f117 to f123v. Picture of Spheres.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pecham draws heavily on Cicero's '[Dream of Scipio.][2]' where the the planets each inhabit their own *orbs* or rather *globus* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Novem tibi **orbibus** vel potius **globis** connexa sunt omnia, quorum unus est caelestis, extimus, qui reliquos omnes complectitur, summus ipse deus, arcens et continens ceteros, in quo sunt infixi illi qui volvuntur stellarum cursus sempitemi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Cicero elsewhere calls them ***[sphaerae][3]*** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *habent suam sphaeram stellae inerrantes.* L&amp;S &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero's astronomy was developed from Plato's *Timaeus.* Perhaps the spheres come from Babylon via Egypt along with the character of the Seven *errantes.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case I suggest ***Sphaerae*** (1st f. pl.) as a general term covering all the regions between Earth and Empyreon, which is beyond the outer stars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=arundel_ms_83_f117r&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/544#lf0041-03_label_172&#xD;&#xA;  [3]:http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/search3t?dbname=lewisandshort&amp;dgdivhead=sphaera&amp;matchtype=sameold&amp;word=&amp;CONJUNCT=PHRASE &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10840" RevisionGUID="edb92be4-aa98-46cb-b6d8-01d3e6557fb7" CreationDate="2019-05-24T04:46:27.063" UserId="406" Text="Here's my translation of that whole section:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Si hoc revivisceret ipse Philosophorum pater Hermes,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If Hermes himself, father of philosophers, were to come back to life,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp; subtilis ingenii Geber,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; along with subtle-natured Jabir,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *cum profundissimo RAYMUNDO LULLIO,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; along with the most profound RAYMUND LULLY,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *non pro Philosophis,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; not for the Philosophers,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sed potius pro discipulis a nostris Chemistis haberentur:*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; but rather for the students that our Chemists would have:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nescirent tot hodie usitatas destilationes, tot circulationes, tot calcinationes,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; they wouldn't recognize all the distillations we use today, all the circulations, all the calcinations,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp; tot alia innumerabilia alia Artistarum opera,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and all the myriad other works of our Artists,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quae ex illorum scriptis hujus saeculi homines invenerunt &amp; excogitarunt.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; which the people of this century have discovered and derived from their [the alchemists'] writings.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Unicum tantum nobis deest, ut id sciamus quod ipsi fecerunt,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; We're missing only one single thing, which we know that those alchemists made:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *lapidem videlicet Philosophorum seu Tincturam Physicam.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; namely, the Philosopher's Stone aka the Elixir of Life.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nos dum illam quaerimus alia invenimus:*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; While we seek the Elixir, we find other things:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp; nisi ita usitata esset procreatio humana,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and so unless human reproduction can be applied in this way,   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp; natura in eo suum jus teneret,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and nature can bind up its own law inside the Stone,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *jam vix non deviaremus.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; then we've strayed more than a little bit from the path by now.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sed, ut revertar ad propositum, promisi in hoc primo tractatu Naturam explicare;*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But, to return to the proposition, I promised in this first chapter to explain Nature;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ne nos a simplici via vera, vana deflectat imaginatio.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; we must not let empty imaginings turn us away from the simple, true path.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence you've highlighted is basically the author saying that modern alchemists have strayed from the path, as I understand it, which is why we can no longer make the Philosopher's Stone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31752" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="10840" RevisionGUID="b1a2d7a8-3138-44a8-9b98-19266b71427e" CreationDate="2019-05-24T04:48:33.237" UserId="406" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:406,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Draconis&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10840" RevisionGUID="2cd6cd0a-70be-4647-ae15-62708cd2e930" CreationDate="2019-05-24T04:56:30.737" UserId="406" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="Here's my translation of that whole section:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Si hoc revivisceret ipse Philosophorum pater Hermes,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If Hermes himself, father of philosophers, were to come back to life,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp; subtilis ingenii Geber,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and subtle-witted Jabir,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *cum profundissimo RAYMUNDO LULLIO,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; along with the most profound RAYMUND LULLY,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *non pro Philosophis, sed potius pro discipulis a nostris Chemistis haberentur:*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; our Chemists would take them not for Philosophers, but rather for students:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nescirent tot hodie usitatas destilationes, tot circulationes, tot calcinationes,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; those [ancients] wouldn't recognize all the distillations we use today, all the circulations, all the calcinations,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp; tot alia innumerabilia alia Artistarum opera,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and all the myriad other works of our Artists,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quae ex illorum scriptis hujus saeculi homines invenerunt &amp; excogitarunt.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; which the people of this century have discovered and derived from their [the old alchemists'] writings.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Unicum tantum nobis deest, ut id sciamus quod ipsi fecerunt,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; We're missing only one single thing, which we know that those [alchemists] made:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *lapidem videlicet Philosophorum seu Tincturam Physicam.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; namely, the Philosopher's Stone aka the Elixir of Life.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nos dum illam quaerimus alia invenimus:*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; While we seek the Elixir, we find other things:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp; nisi ita usitata esset procreatio humana,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and so unless human creations were useful to the same extent,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp; natura in eo suum jus teneret,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and nature kept following its own law where the Stone was concerned,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *jam vix non deviaremus.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; then we can hardly **not** go astray.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sed, ut revertar ad propositum,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But, to return to the original point,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *promisi in hoc primo tractatu Naturam explicare;*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I promised in this first chapter to explain Nature;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ne nos a simplici via vera, vana deflectat imaginatio.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; we must not let empty imaginings turn us away from the simple, true path.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence you've highlighted is basically the author saying that modern alchemists have strayed from the path, which is why they can't make the Philosopher's Stone any more: and it's understandable that they've strayed, because the laws of Nature stop applying where the Stone is concerned, and Nature is so much more interesting to study than the Stone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31754" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="10840" RevisionGUID="3791d82d-d56d-4fc9-af4a-19c805598208" CreationDate="2019-05-24T04:56:34.797" UserId="406" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:406,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Draconis&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10841" RevisionGUID="2378e4d3-8fcf-4dc0-8b9b-814374b35dd6" CreationDate="2019-05-24T05:15:33.340" UserId="406" Text="[This question][1] quotes an alchemical text by Sendivogius, which mentions the *Tinctura Physica* as equivalent to the *Lapis Philosophorum*, i.e. the Philosopher's Stone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what exactly *was* the Tinctura Physica? Google brings up plenty of results for the phrase (in the titles and texts of various alchemical works), but I'm unclear on what the phrase itself is supposed to mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, of course, it means &quot;Physical Tincture&quot;, where a &quot;tincture&quot; is a dye of some sort that you can paint objects with. But this doesn't sound like any sort of a *lapis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/10839/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31756" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10841" RevisionGUID="2378e4d3-8fcf-4dc0-8b9b-814374b35dd6" CreationDate="2019-05-24T05:15:33.340" UserId="406" Text="What is the Tinctura Physica?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31757" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10841" RevisionGUID="2378e4d3-8fcf-4dc0-8b9b-814374b35dd6" CreationDate="2019-05-24T05:15:33.340" UserId="406" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|medieval-latin|alchemy|sendivogius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31758" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="93610f63-e0fd-4542-81af-8e43a5c32ad2" CreationDate="2019-05-24T05:15:47.417" UserId="406" Comment="edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|sendivogius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10840" RevisionGUID="31fbc997-9a7b-45e4-be7f-bdf5a154ef4e" CreationDate="2019-05-24T05:17:09.233" UserId="406" Comment="added 270 characters in body" Text="Here's my translation of that whole section:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Si hoc revivisceret ipse Philosophorum pater Hermes,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If Hermes himself, father of philosophers, were to come back to life,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp; subtilis ingenii Geber,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and subtle-witted Jabir,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *cum profundissimo RAYMUNDO LULLIO,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; along with the most profound RAYMUND LULLY,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *non pro Philosophis, sed potius pro discipulis a nostris Chemistis haberentur:*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; our Chemists would take them not for Philosophers, but rather for students:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nescirent tot hodie usitatas destilationes, tot circulationes, tot calcinationes,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; those [ancients] wouldn't recognize all the distillations we use today, all the circulations, all the calcinations,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp; tot alia innumerabilia alia Artistarum opera,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and all the myriad other works of our Artists,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quae ex illorum scriptis hujus saeculi homines invenerunt &amp; excogitarunt.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; which the people of this century have discovered and derived from their [the old alchemists'] writings.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Unicum tantum nobis deest, ut id sciamus quod ipsi fecerunt,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; We're missing only one single thing, which we know that those [alchemists] made:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *lapidem videlicet Philosophorum seu Tincturam Physicam.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; namely, the Philosopher's Stone aka the Elixir of Life.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nos dum illam quaerimus alia invenimus:*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; While we seek the Elixir, we find other things:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp; nisi ita usitata esset procreatio humana,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and so unless human creations were useful to the same extent,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp; natura in eo suum jus teneret,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and nature kept following its own law where the Stone was concerned,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *jam vix non deviaremus.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; then we can hardly **not** go astray.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sed, ut revertar ad propositum,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But, to return to the original point,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *promisi in hoc primo tractatu Naturam explicare;*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I promised in this first chapter to explain Nature;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ne nos a simplici via vera, vana deflectat imaginatio.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; we must not let empty imaginings turn us away from the simple, true path.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence you've highlighted is basically the author saying that modern alchemists have strayed from the path, which is why they can't make the Philosopher's Stone any more: and it's understandable that they've strayed, because the laws of Nature stop applying where the Stone is concerned, and Nature is so much more interesting to study than the Stone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm also not quite sure what *tinctura physica* is supposed to mean; I translated it tentatively as &quot;Elixir of Life&quot; here, since it's linked to the Philosopher's Stone, and [asked a new question about it][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/10841/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10842" RevisionGUID="473ccc62-2f19-4339-9d7d-6699f1997725" CreationDate="2019-05-24T10:01:19.860" UserId="645" Text="I believe that a confusion of names and purposes (not really your own) leads to your question. Seekers of the so-called Elixir of Life (sometimes Water of Life) and of the Philosopher's Stone each had one or both of these objectives. The latter had to be ingested in order to achieve immortality — an effect 'proved' only with difficulty and the passage of time — but either needed only to touch the base metal to turn it into gold on the spot. Any investigation of immortality was always going to be problematical, which is probably why transmutation was more eagerly sought, for everyone could easily accept that gold made you rich. I think it very doubtful that anyone claiming to practise alchemy was anything but a charlatan, but there are one or two exceptions — principally that of Isaac Newton, whose willingness to pursue alchemy, in apparently violent contrast to his mathematical and scientific contributions, is excused for its supposed objectivity by his apologists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's almost as if the alchemist sought simply to be rich and immortal, though the prospect of consequent power (or, at least, profit from trickery) must have driven some, rather than enlightenment. The name that you gave to the means was not really material: either would do the job. The task of discovering the means was known as the *magnum opus* (understandably enough, though I'd have thought something as ambitious as that was worth a superlative!), whether you were looking for the Lapis Philosphi or the Tinctura Physica/Aqua Vitae." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10840" RevisionGUID="7df2036b-a667-4b67-ba67-7e3df03bc964" CreationDate="2019-05-24T15:44:50.950" UserId="406" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="Here's my translation of that whole section:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Si hoc revivisceret ipse Philosophorum pater Hermes,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If Hermes himself, father of philosophers, were to come back to life,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp; subtilis ingenii Geber,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and subtle-witted Jabir,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *cum profundissimo RAYMUNDO LULLIO,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; along with the most profound RAYMUND LULLY,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *non pro Philosophis, sed potius pro discipulis a nostris Chemistis haberentur:*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; our Chemists would take them not for Philosophers, but rather for students:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nescirent tot hodie usitatas destilationes, tot circulationes, tot calcinationes,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; those [ancients] wouldn't recognize all the distillations we use today, all the circulations, all the calcinations,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp; tot alia innumerabilia alia Artistarum opera,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and all the myriad other works of our Artists,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quae ex illorum scriptis hujus saeculi homines invenerunt &amp; excogitarunt.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; which the people of this century have discovered and derived from their [the old alchemists'] writings.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Unicum tantum nobis deest, ut id sciamus quod ipsi fecerunt,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; We're missing only one single important thing, in order to know what those [alchemists] created:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *lapidem videlicet Philosophorum seu Tincturam Physicam.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; namely, the Philosopher's Stone aka the Elixir of Life.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nos dum illam quaerimus alia invenimus:*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; While we seek the Elixir, we find other things:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp; nisi ita usitata esset procreatio humana,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and so unless human creations were useful to the same extent (?),  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp; natura in eo suum jus teneret,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and nature kept following its own law where the Stone was concerned,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *jam vix non deviaremus.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; then we could hardly **not** go astray.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sed, ut revertar ad propositum,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But, to return to the original point,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *promisi in hoc primo tractatu Naturam explicare;*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I promised in this first chapter to explain Nature;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ne nos a simplici via vera, vana deflectat imaginatio.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; we must not let empty imaginings turn us away from the simple, true path.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence you've highlighted is basically the author saying that modern alchemists have strayed from the path, which is why they can't make the Philosopher's Stone any more: and it's understandable that they've strayed, because the laws of Nature stop applying where the Stone is concerned, and Nature is so much more interesting to study than the Stone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm also not quite sure what *tinctura physica* is supposed to mean; I translated it tentatively as &quot;Elixir of Life&quot; here, since it's linked to the Philosopher's Stone, and [asked a new question about it][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/10841/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10843" RevisionGUID="ebedaa29-8593-4cda-a73c-b00b70250181" CreationDate="2019-05-24T15:58:01.213" UserId="406" Text="To supplement, I've located [a different published (i.e. professional) English translation][1]: that of a Dr John French, published in 1674. Here's what he has to say [for this section][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If *Hermes* himfelf, the Father of Philosophers, should now be alive, and subtil-witted *Geber*, together with most profound *Raimundus Lullius*, they would not be accounted by our Chymists for Philosophers, but rather for Scholars: They would be ignorant of those so many Distillations, so many Circulations, so many Calcinations, and so many other innumerable Operations of Artists now adays used, which men of this age devised, and found out of their Writings. There is one only thing wanting to us, that is, to know that which they effected, *viz.* the Philosophers Stone, or Physical Tincture **we whilst we seek that, find out other things: and unless the Procreation of Man were so usual as it is, and Nature did in that thing still observe her own Law, and Rules we should scarce not but err.** But to return to what I intended; I promised in this first Treatise to explain Nature, lest every idle fancy should turn us aside from the true and plain way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Errors as in the original.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid I'm not sure what &quot;unless the Procreation of Man were so usual as it is&quot; is supposed to mean: it's a very literal translation of the Latin, but doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/alchymytakenouto00sedz&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/alchymytakenouto00sedz/page/2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10840" RevisionGUID="3a2b4b6b-91af-4385-8253-e7c08f742c95" CreationDate="2019-05-24T15:59:00.367" UserId="406" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Here's my translation of that whole section:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Si hoc revivisceret ipse Philosophorum pater Hermes,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If Hermes himself, father of philosophers, were to come back to life,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp; subtilis ingenii Geber,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and subtle-witted Jabir,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *cum profundissimo RAYMUNDO LULLIO,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; along with the most profound RAYMUND LULLY,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *non pro Philosophis, sed potius pro discipulis a nostris Chemistis haberentur:*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; our Chemists would take them not for Philosophers, but rather for students:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nescirent tot hodie usitatas destilationes, tot circulationes, tot calcinationes,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; those [ancients] wouldn't recognize all the distillations we use today, all the circulations, all the calcinations,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp; tot alia innumerabilia alia Artistarum opera,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and all the myriad other works of our Artists,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quae ex illorum scriptis hujus saeculi homines invenerunt &amp; excogitarunt.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; which the people of this century have discovered and derived from their [the old alchemists'] writings.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Unicum tantum nobis deest, ut id sciamus quod ipsi fecerunt,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; We're missing only one single important thing, that would let us understand what those [alchemists] created:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *lapidem videlicet Philosophorum seu Tincturam Physicam.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; namely, the Philosopher's Stone aka the Elixir of Life.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nos dum illam quaerimus alia invenimus:*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; While we seek the Elixir, we find other things:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp; nisi ita usitata esset procreatio humana,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and so unless human creations were useful to the same extent (?),  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&amp; natura in eo suum jus teneret,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and nature kept following its own law where the Stone was concerned,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *jam vix non deviaremus.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; then we could hardly **not** go astray.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sed, ut revertar ad propositum,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But, to return to the original point,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *promisi in hoc primo tractatu Naturam explicare;*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I promised in this first chapter to explain Nature;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ne nos a simplici via vera, vana deflectat imaginatio.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; we must not let empty imaginings turn us away from the simple, true path.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence you've highlighted is basically the author saying that modern alchemists have strayed from the path, which is why they can't make the Philosopher's Stone any more: and it's understandable that they've strayed, because the laws of Nature stop applying where the Stone is concerned, and Nature is so much more interesting to study than the Stone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm also not quite sure what *tinctura physica* is supposed to mean; I translated it tentatively as &quot;Elixir of Life&quot; here, since it's linked to the Philosopher's Stone, and [asked a new question about it][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/10841/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10844" RevisionGUID="ea834aa3-8397-49b2-936e-b39ca013c662" CreationDate="2019-05-25T10:32:53.743" UserId="1982" Text="What about &quot;sodes&quot;, a contraction of &quot;si audes&quot; giving the somewhat misleading &quot;if you dare&quot;; but Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict. (2001) gives &quot;if you do not mind, please&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10844" RevisionGUID="c07d6ae1-40c0-4081-8c8b-fb9c45d02792" CreationDate="2019-05-25T10:38:36.503" UserId="1982" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="What about &quot;sodes&quot;, a contraction of &quot;si audes&quot; giving the somewhat misleading &quot;if you dare&quot;; but Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict. (2001) gives &quot;if you do not mind, please&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiki gives &quot;audes&quot; as the gentler &quot;if you intend&quot; and synonyms for &quot;sodes&quot;--vis &amp; si vis, seen in brianpck's answer above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31767" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9475" RevisionGUID="d82bc7b9-5c54-44c5-bf86-45deb74844b9" CreationDate="2019-05-25T11:02:45.340" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10845" RevisionGUID="08797ca6-7632-424f-aa28-59f2aaa24364" CreationDate="2019-05-25T14:01:27.270" UserId="3029" Text="I'm looking for any pair of texts (Ancient Greek, Latin), meeting the following criteria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Both texts may be very brief.&#xD;&#xA;* The Latin text should be a translation very close to the Greek text.&#xD;&#xA;* The Greek text should have been written between the fifth and third centuries BC.&#xD;&#xA;* The Latin text should have been written by Plautus or by Terence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help would be appreciated !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31769" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10845" RevisionGUID="08797ca6-7632-424f-aa28-59f2aaa24364" CreationDate="2019-05-25T14:01:27.270" UserId="3029" Text="looking for a pair of texts in a Greek/Latin comedy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31770" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10845" RevisionGUID="08797ca6-7632-424f-aa28-59f2aaa24364" CreationDate="2019-05-25T14:01:27.270" UserId="3029" Text="|classical-latin|greek|text-corpus|greek-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10849" RevisionGUID="5692e80f-011d-4ee8-b32d-c6ed2017df1d" CreationDate="2019-05-25T22:18:04.987" UserId="3645" Text="In Spinoza's Ethics we see:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;nihil in natura clarius quam quod unumquodque ens sub aliquo attributo debeat concipi&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know meaning of the sentence. My question is about **debeat**. Why  is this verb subjunctive? I can somehow justify it's mood for myself but I want to know that a subjunctive verb in this structure exactly belongs to which class of using subjunctive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10849" RevisionGUID="5692e80f-011d-4ee8-b32d-c6ed2017df1d" CreationDate="2019-05-25T22:18:04.987" UserId="3645" Text="Subjunctive mood in comparison" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10849" RevisionGUID="5692e80f-011d-4ee8-b32d-c6ed2017df1d" CreationDate="2019-05-25T22:18:04.987" UserId="3645" Text="|conjunctive|grammarians|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10850" RevisionGUID="870517e7-bb74-4d77-a9a9-22725fb1aa88" CreationDate="2019-05-25T23:02:40.493" UserId="406" Text="(First of all, here's how I'm interpreting the text: comment if this is significantly different from yours.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nihil in natura clarius quam quod unumquodque ens sub aliquo attributo debeat concipi*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nothing in nature is clearer than the fact that every individual essence should be imagined as underlying some attribute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The explanation is actually surprisingly simple! In mediaeval Latin, ***quod* often takes the subjunctive**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question][1] quotes Harrington and Pucci:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek ὅτι is followed by the indicative. Quia and quod may be followed by either the indicative or the subjunctive; quod tends to take the subjunctive, quia the indicative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though [this answer][2] to that question notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I believe the generic medieval Latin primer advice that *quia* takes the indicative and *quod* takes the subjunctive is misleading if taken as a general prescription. This is **not a hard and steadfast rule**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While *quod* + subjunctive isn't universal, it definitely happens quite a lot in later Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're looking for a fancy grammatical term, this is sometimes called the **subjunctive of indirect discourse** (even though &quot;indirect discourse&quot; in Latin usually means the accusative-cum-infinitive construction—this construction here is what mostly replaced A-c-I in postclassical times).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1179/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1352/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10832" RevisionGUID="bd6fa8c9-2ef6-40ba-a4f7-d152d028b2e7" CreationDate="2019-05-25T23:05:53.473" UserId="79" Comment="Added the context from the comment to the question." Text="I'm trying to find how to say &quot;Putting many ducks into space&quot; in the most proper way, but I have very little experience in Latin and so the different forms of words are somewhat confusing to me. What would be the best way to translate that phrase?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal is myself, the speaker, to send them into space and by space I mean outside of our earth's atmosphere. The direct context is this; some person says &quot;you know, no duck can go into space alone.&quot; To which I reply &quot;I'm well aware, that is why my personal motto is '[Latin for &quot;putting/sending many ducks into/to space&quot;]'!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31785" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10832" RevisionGUID="bd6fa8c9-2ef6-40ba-a4f7-d152d028b2e7" CreationDate="2019-05-25T23:05:53.473" UserId="79" Comment="Added the context from the comment to the question." Text="|english-to-latin-translation|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31787" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6075" RevisionGUID="32b21e1b-3a17-46c3-b917-669d35c1f887" CreationDate="2019-05-25T23:11:16.693" UserId="79" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1459,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;luchonacho&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:406,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Draconis&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10850" RevisionGUID="2c8736cd-639c-405f-80f8-8f28cfba1bc5" CreationDate="2019-05-26T01:14:07.720" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 199 characters in body" Text="(First of all, here's how I'm interpreting the text: comment if this is significantly different from yours.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nihil in natura clarius quam quod unumquodque ens sub aliquo attributo debeat concipi*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nothing in nature is clearer than the fact that every individual essence should be imagined as underlying some attribute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The explanation is actually surprisingly simple! In mediaeval Latin, ***quod* often takes the subjunctive**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question][1] quotes Harrington and Pucci:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek ὅτι is followed by the indicative. Quia and quod may be followed by either the indicative or the subjunctive; quod tends to take the subjunctive, quia the indicative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though [this answer][2] to that question notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I believe the generic medieval Latin primer advice that *quia* takes the indicative and *quod* takes the subjunctive is misleading if taken as a general prescription. This is **not a hard and steadfast rule**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While *quod* + subjunctive isn't universal, it definitely happens quite a lot in later Latin. It tends to be used in place of the older accusative-cum-infinitive construction in later Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1179/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1352/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31790" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10815" RevisionGUID="fd097ccd-e0e1-4d60-b23a-8a131d1c3ee1" CreationDate="2019-05-26T01:18:34.717" UserId="522" Comment="edited tags" Text="|translation|homonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10851" RevisionGUID="5501e3ba-5202-4ff9-bec7-37392c33b87c" CreationDate="2019-05-26T04:18:34.933" UserId="406" Text="Both articles are correct: Homeric Greek had injunctive forms that looked different from the &quot;normal&quot; past tenses, but they didn't mean anything different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In late Proto-Indo-European, or at least some branches of it, the pure aspect system had started to turn into the mixed tense-aspect system we see in Greek and Latin. In what would become Greek (and also what would become Sanskrit, and potentially some others), the usual past-tense marker was an &quot;augment&quot; vowel stuck onto the beginning of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;injunctive&quot;, then, remained a pure-aspect form. It had no tense and no mood at all: all it had was aspect and person/number marking. This is how it shows up in early (Vedic) Sanskrit. The &quot;injunctive&quot; forms in Vedic can take on any tense and mood, based on the context, and even fill in for some gaps in the imperative paradigm (where Greek uses *μὴ* + imperative and Latin uses *nolī* + infinitive, Vedic uses *mā* + injunctive—this is how it got its name).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek, it wasn't nearly as widespread. Its original tense-less meaning was pretty much lost: by Homer's time it was mainly used for the past tense, seldom the present or future. In form, it looked exactly like the imperfect (for the imperfective injunctive) or aorist (for the aoristic injunctive) missing its augment. That is, it was both redundant, and made an awkward irregularity in the rule of &quot;all past-tense forms get an augment&quot;—and so it was unceremoniously disposed of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays, the use of the term &quot;injunctive&quot; in Ancient Greek is really just for historical reasons. There's no special meaning to those forms, not even in Epic dialect, and they could just as well be called &quot;unaugmented past&quot;; the name &quot;injunctive&quot; just comes from their PIE ancestor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Main source: [Kiparsky 2005][1], plus a large number of abstracts I couldn't find full-text for.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://web.stanford.edu/~kiparsky/Papers/injunctive.article.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10852" RevisionGUID="b5f5064c-b575-4ef4-bf34-f4cefd02683f" CreationDate="2019-05-26T04:35:02.077" UserId="406" Text="Plautus, _Bacchides_, lines 816-7:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quem di diligunt / adulescens moritur  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *He whom the gods love / dies young*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Menander, _Dis Exapatōn_ (fourth century BCE), fragment quoted in Stobaeus (KT 111):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὃν οἱ θεοὶ φιλοῦσιν, ἀποθνῄσκει νέος.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *He whom the gods love, dies young.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither _Dis Exapatōn_ nor _Bacchides_ survives completely, but the fragments we have confirm that Plautus based a significant amount of his plot on Menander's work. This line would seem to be a direct quotation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10852" RevisionGUID="5e5920c2-07d7-416f-8fe3-1698b73417a3" CreationDate="2019-05-26T04:41:59.470" UserId="406" Comment="added 400 characters in body" Text="Plautus, _Bacchides_, lines 816-7:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quem di diligunt / adulescens moritur  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *He whom the gods love / dies young*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Menander, _Dis Exapatōn_ (fourth century BCE), fragment quoted in Stobaeus (KT 111):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὃν οἱ θεοὶ φιλοῦσιν, ἀποθνῄσκει νέος.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *He whom the gods love, dies young.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither _Dis Exapatōn_ nor _Bacchides_ survives completely, but the fragments we have confirm that Plautus's work is directly based off Menander's. This line would seem to be a direct quotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proverb is famous now in kind of a romantic way, but in context (in both plays) the meaning is the opposite: the clever slave is making a snarky comment about a gullible old man he's just defrauded, implying that his old age means the gods *don't* love him. Either way, it seems to be one of the more famous things Menander ever wrote, which is probably why Plautus translated it so directly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31795" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10849" RevisionGUID="1746c745-20bd-431f-9585-8b8f49a9cfdc" CreationDate="2019-05-26T06:25:41.687" />
  <row Id="31796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="7f41df99-6369-44a5-a766-50199e91c2e8" CreationDate="2019-05-26T09:11:18.277" UserId="1982" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The gerundive, again, makes indirect speech look like paradise! Here: &quot;mihi legenda est&quot; giving &quot;by me it-ought-to-be-read&quot;. A gerundive with a part of sum is the gerundive-of-obligation. The person upon whom the obligation falls goes into the dative; here, &quot;mihi&quot;; but, the gender of the gerundive refers to the &quot;it&quot; in &quot;it-ought-to-be...&quot;, not to the gender of the person upon whom the obligation is falling!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The neuter form, without a noun, provides an impersonal expression e.g. faciendum est = it-ought-to-be-done.&#xD;&#xA;North &amp; Hillard Ex. 210: Blosius refuses to condemn his late friend, Gracchus, before the Senate; thereby, inviting his own execution. &quot;si moriendum erit, moriar amicis fidelis.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;If I am to die (if it-will-have-to-be-death), let me die loyal to my friends.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9542" RevisionGUID="86653c05-1eb9-4a17-ae8a-156d07ff2dc9" CreationDate="2019-05-26T19:55:39.327" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="One example of derivation pushing first conjugation verbs to the third conjugation is given by prefixed versions of *dare*.&#xD;&#xA;The short *a* is weakened and one ends up with verbs like *addere* which behave according to the third conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second example arises in derivation of verbs from adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;You can derive *ruber &gt; rubere* and *albus &gt; albere* and many others.&#xD;&#xA;These second conjugation verbs describe state rather than action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are willing to stretch the definition of &quot;newly-coined verb&quot;, one example is adding prefixes to just about any verb and another one is deriving new verbs from *facere/fieri* by adding something like *cale-*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10853" RevisionGUID="5153bdd9-25d2-4849-8954-479b851e9dd9" CreationDate="2019-05-26T22:15:30.130" UserId="406" Text="I know that [the Romans appreciated wordplay][1]. But there's a rare and specific type of pun that I'm curious about now: a pun based on words sounding similar between languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Have you heard the French Navy's new motto? Something like: &quot;to the water, it is time!&quot;. Of course, it sounds a lot better in French: *a l'eau, c'est l'heur*. (Pronounced like the English phrase &quot;hello sailor&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did the Romans ever indulge in this sort of humor? Given how widespread Greek was in Classical times, there must have been quite a lot of potential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Answers from non-Greek languages are appreciated as well: if there's an attested pun with Gallic, for example, that would be even better. I've added one example of my own, using Punic, but more answers are more than welcome!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2012/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31799" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10853" RevisionGUID="5153bdd9-25d2-4849-8954-479b851e9dd9" CreationDate="2019-05-26T22:15:30.130" UserId="406" Text="Did the Romans make bilingual puns?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31800" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10853" RevisionGUID="5153bdd9-25d2-4849-8954-479b851e9dd9" CreationDate="2019-05-26T22:15:30.130" UserId="406" Text="|greek|example-request|word-play|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10854" RevisionGUID="0ffbc095-cf8f-4110-baaf-65fbd298314b" CreationDate="2019-05-26T22:15:30.130" UserId="406" Text="Plautus, as it happens, uses Punic (the Phoenician dialect spoken in Carthage) for some extremely bad bilingual puns in Act V, Scene 2 of his _Patruus_ aka _Poenulus_. Agorastacles (born in Carthage but raised elsewhere) and his slave Milphio have just run into Hanno, an older obviously-Carthaginian man, and they try to communicate with him in Punic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the following, anything in bold is Punic, anything not in bold is Latin, and I've left out some lines for brevity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: Should I talk to him in Punic?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: You know Punic?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: No Punic can be more Punic than me, nowadays!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: Okay, go ask what he wants, why he's come here, who he is, where he's from, what country…don't hold back on the questions!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M, turning to address the stranger: Um, yes. **Hello!**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H: **Hello, sir.** (*Avo, donni.*)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: He, uh…wants to give you something! He wants to give you, um, I don't know what…but you can hear it, right? (Latin *donī*, &quot;gifts&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: Good. Greet him in Punic for me?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: **Hello, sir**, he says, those are his words.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H: **Is he a friend of yours?** (*Mechar, bocca?*)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: Uh, better you than me, I guess? He's saying that his mouth hurts. Maybe he thinks we're doctors? (Latin *bucca*, &quot;mouth&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H: **There is no doctor here, you absolute idiot.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: Ask if he needs something?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: Hey, you, the one with the silly clothes! Why did you come to this city? What are you looking for?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H: **Excuse me?!**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: What's he saying?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H: **Who's going to answer the stranger?** (*Mi uulech ianna?*)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: Why did he come here?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: What, are you not hearing him? He says he wants to donate some African mice for the parade before the aediles' games. (Latin *mus Africāna*, &quot;African mouse&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H: **Go screw yourself.** (*Lech lachannani limini chot.*)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: He says he's imported, um…spoons, little pipes…and nuts! (Latin *ligulas, canalis meī, nuces*, &quot;my spoons, little pipes, nuts&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H: **He's lying.** (*Assam.*)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: Yes, roasted nuts, roasted in oil. (Latin *assam*, &quot;roasted [nut]&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H: **You are an imbecile.** (*Palu umer gad etha.*)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: He says he's been given…shovels…and pitchforks…to sell? I think, unless you have a better idea. (Latin *pāla* &quot;shovel&quot;, *mergās* &quot;pitchforks&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H, realizing something: **These people aren't actually Phoenician…** (*Mu Phonnim si corathi…*)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: Oh, look out! Don't do what he said just now!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: …what did he just say, or ask? Explain.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: That you should order someone to put him under a basket, and then put a whole lot of stones on top, in order to kill him! (Latin *pōnī sub cratim*, &quot;put him under a basket&quot; (*))  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H: **By the grace of the Lord of Heaven, he needs to shut up.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: …yeah, I have no idea about that one.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H: For your sake, I'm going to start speaking Latin now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) A *cratis* was a basket used in executions, according to L&amp;S: the criminal would be put under the basket, and then heavy rocks would be thrown on top to crush them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10855" RevisionGUID="071018d2-b8c3-4fcd-9eef-6794e4477892" CreationDate="2019-05-27T09:30:52.343" UserId="4816" Text="Could someone help me translate &quot;***Do it for her***&quot; into Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context:&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;it&quot; refers to keep working, fighting, striving, while &quot;her&quot; actually refers to two persons; sometimes individually (so I'd like it in singular personal pronoun).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background:&#xD;&#xA;I'm bipolar, and I try to surround myself with motivational phrases for when I have my lows.&#xD;&#xA;For a long time, I've had &quot;Do it for her!&quot; (inspired by this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3njZSDjW7Q4) taped above my monitor, and it's by far the most effective one. It's in reference to the daughter I lost and my GF who suffers from both mental and physical issues.&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to upgrade it to a tattoo, but at the same time keep it somewhat private (as in not blatantly clear to someone who sees it) - hence the Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help would be much appreciated!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31803" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10855" RevisionGUID="071018d2-b8c3-4fcd-9eef-6794e4477892" CreationDate="2019-05-27T09:30:52.343" UserId="4816" Text="Translation of &quot;Do it for her&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31804" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10855" RevisionGUID="071018d2-b8c3-4fcd-9eef-6794e4477892" CreationDate="2019-05-27T09:30:52.343" UserId="4816" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10854" RevisionGUID="8867f6d2-ac5a-484f-92f6-641f32407ce3" CreationDate="2019-05-27T16:24:57.380" UserId="406" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="Plautus, as it happens, uses Punic (the Phoenician dialect spoken in Carthage) for some extremely bad bilingual puns in Act V, Scene 2 of his _Patruus_ aka _Poenulus_. Agorastacles (born in Carthage but raised elsewhere) and his slave Milphio have just run into Hanno, an older obviously-Carthaginian man, and they try to communicate with him in Punic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the following, anything in bold is Punic, anything not in bold is Latin, and I've left out some lines for brevity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: Should I talk to him in Punic?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: You know Punic?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: No Punic can be more Punic than me, nowadays!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: Okay, go ask what he wants, why he's come here, who he is, where he's from, what country…don't hold back on the questions!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M, turning to address the stranger: Um, yes. **Hello!**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H: **Hello, sir.** (*Avo, donni.*)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: He, uh…wants to give you something! He wants to give you, um, I don't know what…but you can hear it, right? (Latin *donī*, &quot;gifts&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: Good. Greet him in Punic for me?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: **Hello, sir**, he says, those are his words.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H: **Is he a friend of yours?** (*Mechar, bocca?*)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: Uh, better you than me, I guess? He's saying that his mouth hurts. Maybe he thinks we're doctors? (Latin *bucca*, &quot;mouth&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H: **There is no doctor here, you absolute idiot.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: Ask if he needs something?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: Hey, you, the one with the silly clothes! Why did you come to this city? What are you looking for?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H: **Excuse me?!**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: What's he saying?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H: **Who's going to answer the stranger?** (*Mi uulech ianna?*)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: Why did he come here?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: What, are you not hearing him? He says he wants to donate some African mice for the parade before the aediles' games. (Latin *mus Africāna*, &quot;African mouse&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H: **Go screw yourself.** (*Lech lachannani limini chot.*)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: He says he's imported, um…spoons, little pipes…and nuts! (Latin *ligulas, canalis meī, nuces*, &quot;my spoons, little pipes, nuts&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H: **He's lying.** (*Assam.*)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: Yes, roasted nuts, roasted in oil. (Latin *assam*, &quot;roasted [nut]&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H: **You are an imbecile.** (*Palu umer gad etha.*)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: He says he's been given…shovels…and pitchforks…to sell? I think, unless you have a better idea. (Latin *pāla* &quot;shovel&quot;, *mergās* &quot;pitchforks&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H, realizing something: **These people aren't actually Phoenician…** (*Mu Phonnim si corathi…*)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: Oh, look out! Don't do what he said just now!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: …what did he just say, or ask? Explain.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: That you should order someone to put him under a basket, and then put a whole lot of stones on top, in order to kill him! (Latin *pōnī sub cratim*, &quot;put him under a basket&quot; (*))  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H: **By the grace of the Lord of Heaven, he needs to shut up.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: …yeah, I have no idea about that one.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; H: For your sake, I'm going to start speaking Latin now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) A *cratis* was a basket used in executions, according to L&amp;S: the criminal would be put under the basket, and then heavy rocks would be thrown on top to crush them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The Latin translations are my own; the Punic translations are based on Wolfgang de Milo's appendix to LCL 260.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10856" RevisionGUID="b49fbdc4-6500-4661-a199-6191d2fa73bb" CreationDate="2019-05-27T16:55:53.590" UserId="4818" Text="I have the following sentence from Seneca, epistula 1, §2:&#xD;&#xA;_&quot;Cum placuerit fieri, toto illum pectore admitte; tam audaciter cum illo loquere quam tecum.&quot;_&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm not sure what the _&quot;tam audaciter cum illo quam tecum&quot;_-part is? An adverbial adjunct? &#xD;&#xA;Likewise, this sentence: _&quot;Sed si aliquem amicum existimas cui non tantundem credis quantum tibi, vehementer erras et non satis nosti vim verae amicitiae.&quot;_ What is _&quot;tantundem quantum tibi&quot;_?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31807" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10856" RevisionGUID="b49fbdc4-6500-4661-a199-6191d2fa73bb" CreationDate="2019-05-27T16:55:53.590" UserId="4818" Text="Grammatical analysis of comparative parts (i.e. &quot;tam … quam&quot;, etc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31808" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10856" RevisionGUID="b49fbdc4-6500-4661-a199-6191d2fa73bb" CreationDate="2019-05-27T16:55:53.590" UserId="4818" Text="|adverb|comparative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10857" RevisionGUID="df1ae1ed-4cc3-421a-b176-f6d1ba041176" CreationDate="2019-05-27T17:05:03.580" UserId="30" Text="It's adverbial in both cases. The demonstrative adjective-modifier(?) *tam* modifies the adverb *audaciter*, which is the core of the adverbial phrase expressing how you should talk with people; and *quam...* is another—parallel—adverbial phrase, an adverbial subordinate clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Tantundem* is an adverb to *credis*, expressing the extent of your trusting someone, and the *quantum...* clause is parallel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that *tecum* and *tibi* are inside the subordinate *quam* and *quantum* clauses, respectively, so they have direct conexion to the main clauses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10858" RevisionGUID="e490dd0f-5a13-4df5-aa3c-7cd107cac80d" CreationDate="2019-05-27T17:06:38.727" UserId="4818" Text="_Face id huic_, I'd say where &quot;id&quot; is general." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10859" RevisionGUID="b6507f97-7a3f-4372-841b-456fee9e6421" CreationDate="2019-05-27T17:18:38.193" UserId="40" Text="There are a lot of ways of translating any given phrase into Latin, so you may get a variety of suggestions. I'd go with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pro ea facito&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Facito* is a so-called &quot;future imperative&quot;, which is a form that can be used for commands about the future or ones that are temporally non-specific. I chose it partly because the context you describe seems to suit an imperative that's not about a single specific occasion, but also because the regular (present) imperative of the verb &quot;do&quot; is *fac*, which happens to sound like a common English expletive so may not be something you want permanently inscribed on your body (though who knows).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;For her&quot; can be expressed in a number of ways, but not all of them are gender-specific: e.g. *huic* can mean &quot;for her&quot; or &quot;for him&quot;. *Pro ea* is specifically feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've left out &quot;it&quot;, which is common in Latin -- pronouns that aren't emphasized or whose referents are clear from context are usually omitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of word order, placing the &quot;for her&quot; part first gives it some extra emphasis, of the kind that you'd express in English by intonational stress: &quot;do it for HER&quot; rather than &quot;DO IT for her&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="668" RevisionGUID="bf4d49aa-1582-49d1-8d13-c7eada204b9f" CreationDate="2019-05-27T20:14:06.183" UserId="78" Comment="typo" Text="Yes. We know that Caesar was famous for using a cipher, which is still named for him:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Some letters of his to the senate are also preserved, and he seems to have been the first to reduce such documents to pages and the form of a note-book, whereas previously consuls and generals sent their reports written right across the sheet. There are also letters of his to Cicero, as well as to his intimates on private affairs, and in the latter, if he had anything confidential to say, he wrote it in cipher, that is, by so changing the order of the letters of the alphabet, that not a word could be made out. If anyone wishes to decipher these, and get at their meaning, he must substitute the fourth letter of the alphabet, namely D, for A, and so with the others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Suet. *Div. Jul.* 56.6&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10860" RevisionGUID="350c376f-7328-4fc9-9b85-64031fea5037" CreationDate="2019-05-27T20:54:56.997" UserId="4796" Text="I'm a novice trying to learn Latin, and I hope this question is appropriate to this forum (please let me know if it is not the case). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to read this section from De Brevitate Vitae ([text here][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nec huic publico, ut opinantur, malo turba tantum et imprudens uulgus ingemuit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even after reading a possible translation, I still could not make sense of this sentence grammatically. several problems for me here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) &quot;huic publico&quot; - that is clearly the dative case(?) but I could not find dative to what.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2) &quot;ingemuit&quot; - is singular verb, so I suppose it only related to the &quot;imprudens vulgus&quot;. so I don't understand the &quot;et&quot; before. The translation seem to include both: &quot;masses and the unthinking crowd ...&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) &quot;opinantur&quot; - does not the substance is implicit here? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/De_brevitate_vitae" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31814" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10860" RevisionGUID="350c376f-7328-4fc9-9b85-64031fea5037" CreationDate="2019-05-27T20:54:56.997" UserId="4796" Text="Grammar of &quot;Nec huic publico, ut opinantur, malo turba tantum et imprudens uulgus ingemuit&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31815" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10860" RevisionGUID="350c376f-7328-4fc9-9b85-64031fea5037" CreationDate="2019-05-27T20:54:56.997" UserId="4796" Text="|grammar-choice|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10860" RevisionGUID="c79f78c6-9329-4497-a057-a079520ce5c6" CreationDate="2019-05-27T21:24:16.920" UserId="30" Comment="added 314 characters in body" Text="I'm a novice trying to learn Latin, and I hope this question is appropriate to this forum (please let me know if it is not the case). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to read this section from De Brevitate Vitae ([text here][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Maior pars mortalium, Pauline, de naturae malignitate conqueritur, quod in exiguum aeui gignimur, quod haec tam uelociter, tam rapide dati nobis temporis spatia decurrant, adeo ut exceptis admodum paucis ceteros in ipso uitae apparatu uita destituat. **Nec huic publico, ut opinantur, malo turba tantum et imprudens uulgus ingemuit**; clarorum quoque uirorum hic affectus querellas euocauit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even after reading a possible translation, I still could not make sense of this sentence grammatically. several problems for me here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) &quot;huic publico&quot; - that is clearly the dative case(?) but I could not find dative to what.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2) &quot;ingemuit&quot; - is singular verb, so I suppose it only related to the &quot;imprudens vulgus&quot;. so I don't understand the &quot;et&quot; before. The translation seem to include both: &quot;masses and the unthinking crowd ...&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) &quot;opinantur&quot; - does not the substance is implicit here? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/De_brevitate_vitae" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10861" RevisionGUID="b21e28aa-9dae-4e92-ba20-354a363468e7" CreationDate="2019-05-27T21:38:34.733" UserId="9" Text="I looked up a translation also. For clarity, here is what I found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nor is it merely the common herd and the unthinking crowd that bemoan what is, as men deem it, an universal ill; the same feeling has called forth complaint also from men who were famous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[On the shortness of life](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_shortness_of_life/Chapter_I)&quot;, translation by John W. Basore, Wikisource)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am also only a beginner, so I can't answer all of your questions. Here is what I understand about the grammar of this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I think that the verb *ingemo* takes a dative complement in this sentence. [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dingemo) says that that is possible: the entry includes a section &quot;II. *Neutr., to mourn, groan, wail, lament:* [...] —With dat.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I think the dative noun phrase is &quot;huic publico, ut opinantur, malo&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Huic&quot; and &quot;publico&quot; seem to be adjectives to the neuter noun *malo.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I think you are right about the subject of *opinantur* being implied rather than explicit. I think it could be understood as &quot;homines opinantur&quot;. Zumpt 1845 says that in a certain sentence, &quot;quibus vulgus opinantur&quot; means &quot;in quibus eos esse vulgo **homines** opinantur&quot;([*A Grammar of the Latin Language,* p. 523](https://books.google.com/books?id=RmgPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA523&amp;lpg=PA523&amp;dq=opinantur)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I also found a reader that comments on the meaning of the word *opinantur* in the sentence &quot;Et praetextum quidem illi civilium armorum hoc fuit; causas autem alias fuisse opinantur&quot;, from *[De Vita Caesarum* by Suetonius](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; the subject is indefinite, &quot;people&quot;; Eng. might use the impersonal pass., &quot;it is believed&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (*[Aeneas to Augustus: A Beginning Latin Reader for College Students](https://books.google.com/books?id=cctNa7hmuLkC&amp;pg=PA143&amp;lpg=PA143&amp;dq=opinantur)*, by Mason Hammond and Anne Amory, 2nd ed., p. 143)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10860" RevisionGUID="0e2c81f0-9e71-4d71-83cb-e7efb07b04bb" CreationDate="2019-05-27T22:16:53.777" UserId="4796" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="I'm a novice trying to learn Latin, and I hope this question is appropriate to this forum (please let me know if it is not the case). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to read this section from De Brevitate Vitae ([text here][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Maior pars mortalium, Pauline, de naturae malignitate conqueritur, quod in exiguum aeui gignimur, quod haec tam uelociter, tam rapide dati nobis temporis spatia decurrant, adeo ut exceptis admodum paucis ceteros in ipso uitae apparatu uita destituat. **Nec huic publico, ut opinantur, malo turba tantum et imprudens uulgus ingemuit**; clarorum quoque uirorum hic affectus querellas euocauit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even after reading a possible translation, I still could not make sense of this sentence grammatically. several problems for me here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) &quot;huic publico&quot; - that is clearly the dative case(?) but I could not find dative to what.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2) &quot;ingemuit&quot; - is singular verb, so I suppose it only related to the &quot;imprudens vulgus&quot;. so I don't understand the &quot;et&quot; before. The translation seem to include both: &quot;masses and the unthinking crowd ...&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) &quot;opinantur&quot; - does the substance implicit here? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/De_brevitate_vitae" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10860" RevisionGUID="556784dd-e06f-4fc6-aef3-74aeeae024bd" CreationDate="2019-05-27T22:23:20.223" UserId="4796" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I'm a novice trying to learn Latin, and I hope this question is appropriate to this forum (please let me know if it is not the case). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to read this section from De Brevitate Vitae ([text here][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Maior pars mortalium, Pauline, de naturae malignitate conqueritur, quod in exiguum aeui gignimur, quod haec tam uelociter, tam rapide dati nobis temporis spatia decurrant, adeo ut exceptis admodum paucis ceteros in ipso uitae apparatu uita destituat. **Nec huic publico, ut opinantur, malo turba tantum et imprudens uulgus ingemuit**; clarorum quoque uirorum hic affectus querellas euocauit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even after reading a possible translation, I still could not make sense of this sentence grammatically. several problems for me here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) &quot;huic publico&quot; - that is clearly the dative case(?) but I could not find dative to what.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2) &quot;ingemuit&quot; - is singular verb, so I suppose it only related to the &quot;imprudens vulgus&quot;. so I don't understand the &quot;et&quot; before. The translation seem to include both: &quot;masses and the unthinking crowd ...&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) &quot;opinantur&quot; - is the substance implicit here? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/De_brevitate_vitae" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10615" RevisionGUID="5d4754ea-54c9-4fbd-a523-aeede8ff23ca" CreationDate="2019-05-28T00:05:46.857" UserId="406" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="First of all, it's worth noting that the words _rēx_ and _rēs_ are unrelated: _rēx_ goes back to PIE `*h₃reǵs` &quot;king&quot; from `*h₃r-ǵ-` &quot;just&quot; (compare *rectus*, *rogō*, *rēgula*), while _rēs_ goes back to PIE `*reh₁is` &quot;goods&quot; from `*r-h₁y-` (compare Sanskrit *raí* &quot;property&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Rēs* is a very general-purpose word, so I wouldn't be surprised to hear it applied to speech. Its basic meaning is &quot;thing&quot; but it's also applied to everything from a system of government to a historical narrative to the current state of reality. In an expression like _rem hanc dixit_ &quot;she said this thing&quot; it would clearly mean a statement or utterance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also often translate _rēs_ into Greek as _lógos_, literally &quot;word&quot;, which is the same word used in the Gospel of John. However, in the phrase _rēspublica_ it's definitely **not** referring to an act of speaking: there it has the meaning of &quot;political system&quot;, same as in _rēs nova_ &quot;revolution&quot;. _Rēs_ itself never reached Polish on its own (_rēspublica_ was borrowed as a single unit), so if its descendant means &quot;speech&quot; in Polish it's a coincidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Rēx_, on the other hand, seems to have no meanings that don't pertain to rulership. It means &quot;king&quot; all the way back as far as we can reconstruct into PIE, never with any meaning related to speech. King, tyrant, (metaphorically) high priest, ruling over something, master, lord, but never &quot;one who speaks&quot; or anything like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. All of this is concerned with Classical Latin rather than Church Latin; in Christianity, words like _verbum_ are almost always used instead of _rēs_ to refer to speech. Similarly, _rēx_ in Christianity always has the literal meaning of &quot;king&quot;: see 1 Timothy 6:15's _rēx rēgum_, &quot;king of kings&quot;. So it's safe to say the Bible had little to no impact on either of these words referring to speaking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31821" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10860" RevisionGUID="201b10b8-f180-4897-a630-c2930f75971d" CreationDate="2019-05-28T04:58:38.887" />
  <row Id="31822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10862" RevisionGUID="b202bb4d-8202-4c2c-b767-6f809af5901b" CreationDate="2019-05-28T06:35:15.263" UserId="4821" Text="According to the Wikipedia page of the Socratic paradox 'I know that I know nothing', Latin version of the same is - 'Scio me nescire' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Google Translate says that English translation of 'Scio me nescire' is 'I know I know'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is their a difference between the info of the 2 sources and which one is right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31823" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10862" RevisionGUID="b202bb4d-8202-4c2c-b767-6f809af5901b" CreationDate="2019-05-28T06:35:15.263" UserId="4821" Text="Socratic Paradox" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31824" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10862" RevisionGUID="b202bb4d-8202-4c2c-b767-6f809af5901b" CreationDate="2019-05-28T06:35:15.263" UserId="4821" Text="|idiom|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10863" RevisionGUID="8ef9d027-dc5d-4ff8-82e8-cebc586bdd94" CreationDate="2019-05-28T10:36:20.613" UserId="2767" Text="Because Google Translate is wrong. It does not, (or not only) use the dictionary meaning of words, but learns phrases in context. In many cases this can help create a natural translation but (especially for short phrases out of context) it can lead to nonsense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Nescire_ means &quot;to not know&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Scio me nescire_ is literally &quot;I know myself to not know&quot; - this is the normal way in Latin of expressing &quot;I know that ...&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a faithful translation into normal English is &quot;I know that I do not know&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31826" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10862" RevisionGUID="16ee24e8-8e19-49de-8a1d-24bf44298ada" CreationDate="2019-05-28T14:44:14.973" />
  <row Id="31827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10863" RevisionGUID="2db57ac2-ee8e-4297-a798-79621363bbb5" CreationDate="2019-05-28T16:13:01.830" UserId="2767" Comment="Added &quot;ne scire&quot;" Text="Because Google Translate is wrong. It does not, (or not only) use the dictionary meaning of words, but learns phrases in context. In many cases this can help create a natural translation but (especially for short phrases out of context) it can lead to nonsense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Nescire_ (&quot;ne scire&quot;) means &quot;to not know&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Scio me nescire_ is literally &quot;I know myself to not know&quot; - this is the normal way in Latin of expressing &quot;I know that ...&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a faithful translation into normal English is &quot;I know that I do not know&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10828" RevisionGUID="8a09a4b0-f104-43ef-bd19-c84deb9c6908" CreationDate="2019-05-28T19:14:25.217" UserId="4731" Comment="removed macrons" Text="To back him up, it should also be noted that the original Greek of John 1:1 goes like:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ **Λόγος**, καὶ ὁ **Λόγος** ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ **λόγος.**&lt;br&gt;*En arche en ho* ***Logos***, *kai ho* ***Logos*** *en pros ton Theōn, kai Theos en ho* ***Logos**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and 1 Tim 6:15 goes like:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἣν καιροῖς ἰδίοις δείξει ὁ μακάριος καὶ μόνος δυνάστης, &#xD;&#xA;ὁ **βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων** καὶ κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων, &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*hen kairois idiois deixei ho Makarios kai monos dunastos, ho* ***basileus ton basileuonton*** *kai kurios ton kurieuonton,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These words in their original (here boldened) language clearly have no relation. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10864" RevisionGUID="4df1a3b1-591f-4f47-bbb6-79a95b1a2ced" CreationDate="2019-05-28T23:16:44.623" UserId="4826" Text="It's more likeky that écarter comes from *quartare. I fact, carta&lt; greek &#xD;&#xA;charta  would have given &quot;charte&quot; like in old french. Carte is a renaissance word from the same root. Comme on a écarter et non écharter, l'origine du mot est romane, et on doit &quot;écarter&quot; le mot carte.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10864" RevisionGUID="b250c31f-60d6-40b1-8d04-279712595396" CreationDate="2019-05-29T00:28:41.417" UserId="30" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="It's more likely that *écarter* comes from *\*quartare*. I fact, *carta* &lt; Greek *charta*  would have given *charte* like in old french. *Carte* is a Renaissance word from the same root. Comme on a *écarter* et non *écharter*, l'origine du mot est romane, et on doit &quot;écarter&quot; le mot *carte*.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10865" RevisionGUID="ad82bb92-8368-4650-b383-4d3cffb93dc0" CreationDate="2019-05-29T04:03:23.783" UserId="4827" Text="I was given to hear the word/s, 'Nostrum', as in, 'I am Nostrum', during a Shaktipat Intensive, (spiritual retreat and kundalini awakening initiation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A vision came along with the words, that were heard (as a clairaudient) from behind me to the right.  The vision entailed greco-roman, maybe egyptian looking pillars that formed the word, 'Nostrum', and then the voice boomed repeatedly that short phrase above.  This mystical experience affected me profoundly when I finally got around to discovering the earliest definition online, being: &#xD;&#xA;&quot; A secret elixir, ingredients being secret and only known by the Maker, and it is a cure-all to mankind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Intersting because I was on my path to Enlightenment, and was a student of energy and divine healing of several lineages, and was also a practicing clinical pharmacist..so...knew all about 'elixirs', ironically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took it as my last name in order to never forget, and to one day discover the true meaning and source of the message, and my part to play.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas or clues would be appreciated and helpful!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;~ Devi Nostrum." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31832" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10865" RevisionGUID="ad82bb92-8368-4650-b383-4d3cffb93dc0" CreationDate="2019-05-29T04:03:23.783" UserId="4827" Text="What is the original, most earliest meaning of 'Nostrum'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31833" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10865" RevisionGUID="ad82bb92-8368-4650-b383-4d3cffb93dc0" CreationDate="2019-05-29T04:03:23.783" UserId="4827" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10866" RevisionGUID="ffe4e971-df45-4d04-b828-08ad2c2f8666" CreationDate="2019-05-29T04:52:31.867" UserId="406" Text="In Latin, _nostrum_ is a first person partitive plural pronoun (specifically a partitive one), or a first person plural neuter singular possessive. In normal-person language, its English equivalent would be &quot;of us&quot;, as in &quot;one of us&quot;, or &quot;ours&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, the stem is from a Proto-Indo-European &quot;enclitic&quot; pronoun: a pronoun form that can't stand on its own and joins onto the word before it (like how *'s* isn't a word on its own in English, it has to attach to something, like *cat's*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As best we can tell, the Proto-Indo-European enclitic word for &quot;us&quot; (first person plural accusative) looked something like \*_nōs_, and this is also what we see in Latin. This was then augmented with a possessive suffix \*_-tero-_(\*) to give a form \*_nōs-tero-s_. This evolved into the Classical Latin adjective _noster, nostra, nostrum_ &quot;our&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) This prefix fossilized before Classical times in Italic, but we can see its remnants in AGrk _hēméteros_ &quot;our&quot;, AGrk _hyméteros_ &quot;your (pl)&quot;, Lat _uter_ &quot;either&quot;, Lat _neuter_ &quot;neither&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Classical times, genitive forms of the adjective then got borrowed for the pronoun: _nostrī_ (from the genitive singular, &quot;of our thing&quot;) is used when it's acting like an object, as in &quot;force of will&quot;, and _nostrum_ (from the genitive plural, &quot;of our things&quot;) is used when you're talking about a part of something, as in &quot;fragments of sentences&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the &quot;oldest&quot; meaning—as in, the first meaning of the form *nostrum*—was **&quot;our [thing]&quot;**, which then led to **&quot;of us&quot;**. The first meaning we can reconstruct for any individual part was *nōs*, **&quot;us&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning &quot;our [thing]&quot; is what led to the modern English usage (&quot;something that makes you feel better but has no real effect; placebo, snake oil&quot;). The idea was a contrast between &quot;our thing&quot; (the thing we common folk do) and &quot;their thing&quot; (the thing the doctors tell us to do); nowadays, it's mainly a pejorative word (=indicates a bad quality). For example, cutting taxes is often called a conservative *nostrum*, in the political sphere: it's an easy talking point that makes the public happy, but on its own it doesn't actually fix the underlying problems (the budget that needs reworking).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources: Klein, _Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistis_; Beekes, _Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10867" RevisionGUID="1c22a133-8ea5-4da7-81bf-2c082a87adff" CreationDate="2019-05-29T05:18:06.753" UserId="4828" Text="In an exam a teacher has put the following example to fill in the gap:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Amici Rufi ____ noscebant.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the docent, if the right word has been selected, the translation in English should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The friends of Rufus knew him.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in my opinion the only possible option for filling the gap would be ***EUM*** since it corresponds to the function of *him* in the transaltion. An accusative, third person, singular, masculine pronoun. &#xD;&#xA;Could there be another option than this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31836" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10867" RevisionGUID="1c22a133-8ea5-4da7-81bf-2c082a87adff" CreationDate="2019-05-29T05:18:06.753" UserId="4828" Text="Is EUM the only possible translation for HIM as direct object?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31837" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10867" RevisionGUID="1c22a133-8ea5-4da7-81bf-2c082a87adff" CreationDate="2019-05-29T05:18:06.753" UserId="4828" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|latin-to-english-translation|demonstrative-pronoun|personal-pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10858" RevisionGUID="20975046-77d2-4655-be9f-4b9d74589fa2" CreationDate="2019-05-29T06:00:01.380" UserId="79" Comment="Fixed the spelling of the imperative." Text="_Fac id huic_, I'd say where &quot;id&quot; is general." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9407" RevisionGUID="88d59c7b-c826-443c-9bbd-679178b1e639" CreationDate="2019-05-29T07:08:04.037" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="If this question has an answer, the most likely answer is &quot;No, they don't&quot;. But in my opinion, the question is not really meaningful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;No&quot; from a traditional perspective. As far as I know, things like [ej] in words like &quot;ejus&quot; were not traditionally categorized as diphthongs.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- &quot;No&quot; from at least one modern perspective. If anything is a diphthong in Latin, &quot;au&quot; in words like *cautus* is. &quot;Au&quot; in this position was traditionally classified as a diphthong, and even though there are some indications of potential monophthongization to a long mid back vowel (e.g. *cauda* &gt; *coda*) that change did not run to completion in the ancestor of all the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; But some sources such as [Cser 2016](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) say that even &quot;au&quot; in pre-consonantal position was not a diphthong, but rather the same vowel + consonant sequence /aw/ that can be found before a vowel in forms like *c**ăv**eo* (p. 35). Cser analyzes Latin as having no phonemic diphthongs of any type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some etymological arguments for thinking that Latin [jː] was a geminate consonant /j.j/ (with the first &quot;part&quot; occupying the coda of the preceding syllable, the second &quot;part&quot; occupying the onset of the following syllable, and no part in the nucleus of any syllable). In Italian, the regular reflex seems to be the long consonant /ʤ.ʤ/ (note: phonetically, there is only one release, so something like [dːʒ], but the phonological representation seems to be generally thought of as geminate /ʤ/). The Latin sequence /j.j/ sometimes represented an older sequence of some other consonant + /j/: e.g. in *major,* /j.j/ comes from *gj." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9407" RevisionGUID="07760f23-d519-4a8b-b4a8-990e5656b203" CreationDate="2019-05-29T07:14:45.777" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="If this question has an answer, the most likely answer is &quot;No, they don't&quot;. But in my opinion, the question is not really meaningful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;No&quot; from a traditional perspective. As far as I know, things like the [ej] in &quot;ejus&quot; were not traditionally categorized as diphthongs.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- &quot;No&quot; from at least one modern perspective. If anything is a diphthong in Latin, &quot;au&quot; in words like *cautus* is. &quot;Au&quot; in this position was traditionally classified as a diphthong, and even though there are some indications of potential monophthongization to a long mid back vowel (e.g. *cauda* &gt; *coda*) that change did not run to completion in the ancestor of all the Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; But some sources such as [Cser 2016](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) say that even &quot;au&quot; in pre-consonantal position was not a diphthong, but rather the same vowel + consonant sequence /aw/ that can be found before a vowel in forms like *c**ăv**eo* (p. 35). Cser analyzes Latin as having no phonemic diphthongs of any type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you disagree with Cser and think of *au, ae* and *oe* as single vowel phonemes /a͡u/, /a͡e/ and /o͡e/ that constitute a nucleus (analogous to long vowel phonemes like /aː/, /iː/, /uː/), there are some etymological arguments for thinking that [jː] in words like *major, cujus* and *ejus* was a geminate consonant /j.j/ (with the first &quot;part&quot; occupying the coda of the preceding syllable, the second &quot;part&quot; occupying the onset of the following syllable, and no part in the nucleus of any syllable). In Italian, the regular reflex seems to be the long consonant /ʤ.ʤ/ (note: phonetically, there is only one release, so something like [dːʒ], but the phonological representation seems to be generally thought of as geminate /ʤ/). The Latin sequence /j.j/ sometimes represented an older sequence of some other consonant + /j/: e.g. in *major,* /j.j/ comes from *gj. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31841" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10856" RevisionGUID="440ca7ef-0a84-4b71-9399-faabce682415" CreationDate="2019-05-29T09:33:42.107" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|grammar-identification|adverb|comparative|seneca-iunior|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10867" RevisionGUID="8d68db08-44f9-48c2-b7db-e8b82554d457" CreationDate="2019-05-29T09:34:52.230" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In an exam a teacher has put the following example to fill in the gap:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Amici Rufi ____ noscebant.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the docent, if the right word has been selected, the translation in English should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The friends of Rufus knew him.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in my opinion the only possible option for filling the gap would be ***EUM*** since it corresponds to the function of *him* in the transaltion. An accusative, third person, singular, masculine pronoun. &#xD;&#xA;Could there be another option than this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31843" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10867" RevisionGUID="8d68db08-44f9-48c2-b7db-e8b82554d457" CreationDate="2019-05-29T09:34:52.230" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|demonstrative-pronoun|personal-pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10868" RevisionGUID="e5891474-b0bf-4a10-ab5a-724a79480533" CreationDate="2019-05-29T09:37:08.587" UserId="79" Text="Your suggestion *eum* would indeed be the standard one.&#xD;&#xA;There are options, based on the fact that the English &quot;he&quot; does not correspond to a single Latin pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;Instead of *is* you could use *ille* and sometimes *qui* or *iste*.&#xD;&#xA;Without further context (and there usually isn't further context for an exercise like that), I would say that the two most correct answers are *eum* and *illum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10862" RevisionGUID="0a64c6e3-ec48-4ff8-8dd6-a564211a4a49" CreationDate="2019-05-29T09:39:40.463" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="According to the Wikipedia page of the Socratic paradox 'I know that I know nothing', Latin version of the same is &amp;mdash; 'Scio me nescire' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Google Translate says that English translation of 'Scio me nescire' is 'I know I know'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is their a difference between the info of the 2 sources and which one is right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31846" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10862" RevisionGUID="0a64c6e3-ec48-4ff8-8dd6-a564211a4a49" CreationDate="2019-05-29T09:39:40.463" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|idiom|translation-check|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10869" RevisionGUID="dde6312c-13a3-4959-8914-c57030eab3af" CreationDate="2019-05-29T12:15:42.707" UserId="522" Text="**Him** (meaning 'this man,' 'that man.')&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *hanc, illum, istum,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(also (derogatory) *ollum* Cicero, but this usage decried by Quintilian)  &#xD;&#xA;also *ollus, a, um,* old form for *ille,* q. v. [Lewis and Short perseus][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Him** (meaning 'this very person' or 'the self-same person)   &#xD;&#xA; See **II Esp.** A By way of eminence, ipse is used to indicate the chief person, host, master, teacher, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ipsum*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ipsum praesto video,* Terence *And.* 2, 5, 3: &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short ***Ipse*** &#xD;&#xA;http://perseus.uchicago.edu/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Him** (meaning 'the same person ') even more emphatic than ipse.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *eundem.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/getobject.pl?c.13:952.LewisShort18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10869" RevisionGUID="f6103f62-5dae-48c7-b698-73f72deb603b" CreationDate="2019-05-29T13:12:34.190" UserId="30" Comment="edited body" Text="**Him** (meaning 'this man,' 'that man.')&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *hunc, illum, istum,*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(also (derogatory) *ollum* Cicero, but this usage decried by Quintilian)  &#xD;&#xA;also *ollus, a, um,* old form for *ille,* q. v. [Lewis and Short perseus][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Him** (meaning 'this very person' or 'the self-same person)   &#xD;&#xA; See **II Esp.** A By way of eminence, ipse is used to indicate the chief person, host, master, teacher, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ipsum*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ipsum praesto video,* Terence *And.* 2, 5, 3: &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short ***Ipse*** &#xD;&#xA;http://perseus.uchicago.edu/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Him** (meaning 'the same person ') even more emphatic than ipse.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *eundem.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/getobject.pl?c.13:952.LewisShort18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10870" RevisionGUID="c1ca4886-99ba-4359-8112-7f3ac0c38a8e" CreationDate="2019-05-29T13:16:51.003" UserId="3645" Text="In Ethics, De Dei, Proposition 11, Second demonstration we read: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Cujuscunque  rei** assignari  debet causa seu ratio tam  cur existit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quam cur non existit&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**cujuscunque  rei** is *genitive*, but because of **assignari** I expect it to be *dative*. What's the point?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31850" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10870" RevisionGUID="c1ca4886-99ba-4359-8112-7f3ac0c38a8e" CreationDate="2019-05-29T13:16:51.003" UserId="3645" Text="Genitive with assigno" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31851" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10870" RevisionGUID="c1ca4886-99ba-4359-8112-7f3ac0c38a8e" CreationDate="2019-05-29T13:16:51.003" UserId="3645" Text="|genitive|dative|spinoza|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10868" RevisionGUID="1353d754-6d6b-4e5d-a02f-7ce965da0a8a" CreationDate="2019-05-29T13:30:58.910" UserId="79" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="Your suggestion *eum* would indeed be the standard one.&#xD;&#xA;There are options, based on the fact that the English &quot;he&quot; does not correspond to a single Latin pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;Instead of *is* you could use *ille* and sometimes *qui* or *iste* or *ipse* or *idem*, and sometimes you can drop the pronoun altogether.&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without further context (and there usually isn't further context for an exercise like that), I would say that the two most correct answers are *eum* and *illum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31853" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10867" RevisionGUID="a6596bf4-71e2-48ef-ba9b-008b632d93a8" CreationDate="2019-05-29T13:31:01.917" />
  <row Id="31854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10850" RevisionGUID="f6bd741e-2956-4fd0-bde3-e078dbbba254" CreationDate="2019-05-29T15:49:53.270" UserId="406" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="(First of all, here's how I'm interpreting the text: comment if this is significantly different from yours.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nihil in natura clarius quam quod unumquodque ens sub aliquo attributo debeat concipi*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nothing in nature is clearer than the fact that every individual essence should be imagined as underlying some attribute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The explanation is actually surprisingly simple! In mediaeval Latin, ***quod* often takes the subjunctive**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question][1] quotes Harrington and Pucci:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greek ὅτι is followed by the indicative. Quia and quod may be followed by either the indicative or the subjunctive; quod tends to take the subjunctive, quia the indicative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though [this answer][2] to that question notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I believe the generic medieval Latin primer advice that *quia* takes the indicative and *quod* takes the subjunctive is misleading if taken as a general prescription. This is **not a hard and steadfast rule**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While *quod* + subjunctive isn't universal, it definitely happens quite a lot in later Latin. It tends to be used in place of the older accusative-cum-infinitive construction in later Latin. In the Romance languages it's pretty much won out entirely, so I'm guessing it was part of Vulgar Latin all the way back to Classical times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1179/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1352/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10871" RevisionGUID="fb2bc126-1cdb-4ee2-b3f0-b4035bdbd29a" CreationDate="2019-05-29T16:14:35.327" UserId="406" Text="I would take _cujuscunque rei causa_ to be a single noun phrase: &quot;a cause for/of every individual thing&quot;. That is, _assignari_ has a subject, but the object is left implied; if it were made explicit, it would be something like _illi_ &quot;…to that thing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A cause of every individual thing must be assigned *[to that thing]*: either a reason why it exists, or a reason why it doesn't exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10866" RevisionGUID="4a2dbc41-ed06-4fbe-9dcb-38c610355ce2" CreationDate="2019-05-29T16:24:03.883" UserId="30" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="In Latin, _nostrum_ is a first person partitive plural pronoun (specifically a partitive one), or a first person plural neuter singular possessive. In normal-person language, its English equivalent would be &quot;of us&quot;, as in &quot;one of us&quot;, or &quot;ours&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, the stem is from a Proto-Indo-European &quot;enclitic&quot; pronoun: a pronoun form that can't stand on its own and joins onto the word before it (like how *'s* isn't a word on its own in English, it has to attach to something, like *cat's*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As best we can tell, the Proto-Indo-European enclitic word for &quot;us&quot; (first person plural accusative) looked something like *\*nōs*, and this is also what we see in Latin. This was then augmented with a possessive suffix *\*-tero-*¹ to give a form *\*nōs-tero-s*. This evolved into the Classical Latin adjective _noster, nostra, nostrum_ &quot;our&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(¹) This prefix fossilized before Classical times in Italic, but we can see its remnants in Ancient Greek _hēméteros_ &quot;our&quot;, Ancient Greek _hyméteros_ &quot;your (pl)&quot;, Lat _uter_ &quot;either&quot;, Lat _neuter_ &quot;neither&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Classical times, genitive forms of the adjective then got borrowed for the pronoun: _nostrī_ (from the genitive singular, &quot;of our thing&quot;) is used when it's acting like an object, as in &quot;force of will&quot;, and _nostrum_ (from the genitive plural, &quot;of our things&quot;) is used when you're talking about a part of something, as in &quot;fragments of sentences&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the &quot;oldest&quot; meaning—as in, the first meaning of the form *nostrum*—was **&quot;our [thing]&quot;**, which then led to **&quot;of us&quot;**. The first meaning we can reconstruct for any individual part was *nōs*, **&quot;us&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning &quot;our [thing]&quot; is what led to the modern English usage (&quot;something that makes you feel better but has no real effect; placebo, snake oil&quot;). The idea was a contrast between &quot;our thing&quot; (the thing we common folk do) and &quot;their thing&quot; (the thing the doctors tell us to do); nowadays, it's mainly a pejorative word (=indicates a bad quality). For example, cutting taxes is often called a conservative *nostrum*, in the political sphere: it's an easy talking point that makes the public happy, but on its own it doesn't actually fix the underlying problems (the budget that needs reworking).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources: Klein, _Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistis_; Beekes, _Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10872" RevisionGUID="5db9cb8a-ed93-443c-b006-af2ff70863cf" CreationDate="2019-05-29T17:31:33.437" UserId="522" Text="The difference is not great between &quot;The cause and reason ought to be assigned to each thing why or why not...&quot; and &quot;The cause and reason of each thing why or why not... ought to be assigned...&quot;  Though the Genitive after *causa* is more literal.  &#xD;&#xA;I think the most significant reason for choosing the Genitive rather than the dative is **continuity.**  The formula **&quot;each one of the...ought&quot;** helps the reader to see how the argument develops:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PROPOSITIO X: *Unumquodque unius substantiæ attributum...debet.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'each several attribute of a single substance...ought.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is followed (in the middle of Proposition XI) with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *... infinitis attributis quorum unumquodque...necessario...*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'with infinite attributes each one of which...by necessity...'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in the first horn of the dilemma&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ALITER: *Cujuscunque rei assignari debet causa seu ratio*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'IN THE ONE CASE:  The *causa* or *ratio* of each *res* ought to be attributed...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10865" RevisionGUID="31200754-9ea7-4597-98ae-236f5da27100" CreationDate="2019-05-29T17:51:08.690" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 827 characters in body" Text="I found the following definition of &quot;nostrum&quot; online:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A secret elixir, ingredients being secret and only known by the Maker, and it is a cure-all to mankind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to discover the true meaning of this word. Any ideas would be appreciated and helpful!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10866" RevisionGUID="37f80b0b-1f0f-4add-88f8-a0b09e9b5234" CreationDate="2019-05-29T18:09:07.613" UserId="30" Comment="edited body" Text="In Latin, _nostrum_ is a first person partitive plural pronoun (specifically a partitive one), or a first person plural neuter singular possessive. In normal-person language, its English equivalent would be &quot;of us&quot;, as in &quot;one of us&quot;, or &quot;ours&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, the stem is from a Proto-Indo-European &quot;enclitic&quot; pronoun: a pronoun form that can't stand on its own and joins onto the word before it (like how *'s* isn't a word on its own in English, it has to attach to something, like *cat's*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As best we can tell, the Proto-Indo-European enclitic word for &quot;us&quot; (first person plural accusative) looked something like *\*nōs*, and this is also what we see in Latin. This was then augmented with a possessive suffix *\*-tero-*¹ to give a form \**nōs-tero-s*. This evolved into the Classical Latin adjective _noster, nostra, nostrum_ &quot;our&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(¹) This prefix fossilized before Classical times in Italic, but we can see its remnants in Ancient Greek _hēméteros_ &quot;our&quot;, Ancient Greek _hyméteros_ &quot;your (pl)&quot;, Lat _uter_ &quot;either&quot;, Lat _neuter_ &quot;neither&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Classical times, genitive forms of the adjective then got borrowed for the pronoun: _nostrī_ (from the genitive singular, &quot;of our thing&quot;) is used when it's acting like an object, as in &quot;force of will&quot;, and _nostrum_ (from the genitive plural, &quot;of our things&quot;) is used when you're talking about a part of something, as in &quot;fragments of sentences&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the &quot;oldest&quot; meaning—as in, the first meaning of the form *nostrum*—was **&quot;our [thing]&quot;**, which then led to **&quot;of us&quot;**. The first meaning we can reconstruct for any individual part was *nōs*, **&quot;us&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning &quot;our [thing]&quot; is what led to the modern English usage (&quot;something that makes you feel better but has no real effect; placebo, snake oil&quot;). The idea was a contrast between &quot;our thing&quot; (the thing we common folk do) and &quot;their thing&quot; (the thing the doctors tell us to do); nowadays, it's mainly a pejorative word (=indicates a bad quality). For example, cutting taxes is often called a conservative *nostrum*, in the political sphere: it's an easy talking point that makes the public happy, but on its own it doesn't actually fix the underlying problems (the budget that needs reworking).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources: Klein, _Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistis_; Beekes, _Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10866" RevisionGUID="2124f2ad-07a4-4740-8a54-5b1bd96aeec1" CreationDate="2019-05-29T19:07:54.700" UserId="406" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="In Latin, _nostrum_ is a first person partitive plural pronoun (specifically a partitive one), or a first person plural neuter singular possessive. In normal-person language, its English equivalent would be &quot;of us&quot;, as in &quot;one of us&quot;, or &quot;ours&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, the stem is from a Proto-Indo-European &quot;enclitic&quot; pronoun: a pronoun form that can't stand on its own and joins onto the word before it (like how *'s* isn't a word on its own in English, it has to attach to something, like *cat's*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As best we can tell, the Proto-Indo-European enclitic word for &quot;us&quot; (first person plural accusative) looked something like *\*nōs*, and this is also what we see in Latin. This was then augmented with a possessive suffix *\*-tero-*¹ to give a form \**nōs-tero-s*. This evolved into the Classical Latin adjective _noster, nostra, nostrum_ &quot;our&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(¹) This prefix fossilized before Classical times in Italic, but we can see its remnants in Ancient Greek _hēméteros_ &quot;our&quot;, Ancient Greek _hyméteros_ &quot;your (pl)&quot;, Latin _uter_ &quot;either&quot;, Latin _neuter_ &quot;neither&quot;, English &quot;whether&quot;, etc. It's related to the comparative suffix in adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Classical times, genitive forms of the adjective then got borrowed for the pronoun: _nostrī_ (from the genitive singular, &quot;of our thing&quot;) is used when it's acting like an object, as in &quot;force of will&quot;, and _nostrum_ (from the genitive plural, &quot;of our things&quot;) is used when you're talking about a part of something, as in &quot;fragments of sentences&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the &quot;oldest&quot; meaning—as in, the first meaning of the form *nostrum*—was **&quot;our [thing]&quot;**, which then led to **&quot;of us&quot;**. The first meaning we can reconstruct for any individual part was *nōs*, **&quot;us&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning &quot;our [thing]&quot; is what led to the modern English usage (&quot;something that makes you feel better but has no real effect; placebo, snake oil&quot;). The idea was a contrast between &quot;our thing&quot; (the thing we common folk do) and &quot;their thing&quot; (the thing the doctors tell us to do); nowadays, it's mainly a pejorative word (=indicates a bad quality). For example, cutting taxes is often called a conservative *nostrum*, in the political sphere: it's an easy talking point that makes the public happy, but on its own it doesn't actually fix the underlying problems (the budget that needs reworking).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources: Klein, _Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics_; Beekes, _Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10875" RevisionGUID="11faa70b-cbfc-4242-ba90-8f8b3a7b762b" CreationDate="2019-05-30T20:43:03.520" UserId="4832" Text="What is the correct translation for &quot;The story is not over&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Story&quot; here refers to the metaphorical story of our lives (so rather fabula than historia). &quot;Not over&quot; means that's not completed and that it continues. I'm struggling with the grammar and I'm too insecure about my own translation to go forward with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31868" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10875" RevisionGUID="11faa70b-cbfc-4242-ba90-8f8b3a7b762b" CreationDate="2019-05-30T20:43:03.520" UserId="4832" Text="What is the correct translation for &quot;The story is not over&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31869" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10875" RevisionGUID="11faa70b-cbfc-4242-ba90-8f8b3a7b762b" CreationDate="2019-05-30T20:43:03.520" UserId="4832" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|articles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10876" RevisionGUID="e57afe2f-f4aa-45a3-8ace-625fc24ab812" CreationDate="2019-05-30T21:29:54.143" UserId="406" Text="The last words of Augustus are commonly cited as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ācta est fābula. Plaudite!_  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The story is finished. Applaud!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suetonius disagrees, and quotes a similar sentiment in Greek instead. But the objective historical accuracy of Suetonius is debatable too, so, leaving that aside…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a present perfective form in Latin, indicating that the action was performed, ended, and its aftereffects are now relevant (i.e. the audience applauding because the play is done). It looks the same as the simple past tense, but acts like a present in some complicated grammatical ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We could quite easily negate this sentence, and add _jam_ for &quot;not yet&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ācta non jam fābula._  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The story is not yet finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But while this specifies that the story isn't finished, it doesn't specify that it's ongoing, either. It might never have been started in the first place. If someone is familiar with the phrase above, they'll recognize it as &quot;the story isn't over yet&quot;, but someone who doesn't know the phrase could also translate it as &quot;the story hasn't been told yet&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So another option is to change the verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Fābula non jam dēsiniit._  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The story has not ended yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this phrasing the meaning is unmistakable, but the callback to Augustus isn't as clear. It's your choice which you prefer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10876" RevisionGUID="cca9bdd0-0199-487b-94d8-6b7f0e9d099a" CreationDate="2019-05-30T22:05:25.173" UserId="406" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="The last words of Augustus are commonly cited as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ācta est fābula. Plaudite!_  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The story is finished. Applaud!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suetonius disagrees, and quotes a similar sentiment in Greek instead. But the objective historical accuracy of Suetonius is debatable too, so, leaving that aside…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a present perfective form in Latin, indicating that the action was performed, ended, and its aftereffects are now relevant (i.e. the audience is applauding in the present because the play finished in the past). It looks the same as the simple past tense, but acts like a present in some complicated grammatical ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We could quite easily negate this sentence, and add _jam_ for &quot;not yet&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ācta non jam fābula._  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The story is not yet finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But while this specifies that the story isn't finished, it doesn't specify that it's ongoing, either. It might never have been started in the first place. If someone is familiar with the phrase above, they'll recognize it as &quot;the story isn't over yet&quot;, but someone who doesn't know the phrase could also translate it as &quot;the story hasn't been told yet&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So another option is to change the verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Fābula non jam dēsiniit._  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The story has not ended yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this phrasing the meaning is unmistakable, but the callback to Augustus isn't as clear. It's your choice which you prefer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10876" RevisionGUID="ff4e9671-2a63-45a5-97ca-49c638d8741e" CreationDate="2019-05-30T22:07:11.653" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The last words of Augustus are commonly cited as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ācta est fābula. Plaudite!_  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The story is finished. Applaud!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suetonius disagrees, and quotes a similar sentiment in Greek instead. But the objective historical accuracy of Suetonius is debatable too, so, leaving that aside…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a present perfective form in Latin, indicating that the action was performed, ended, and its aftereffects are now relevant (i.e. the audience is applauding in the present because the play finished in the past). It looks the same as the simple past tense, but acts like a present in some complicated grammatical ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We could quite easily negate this sentence, and add _jam_ for &quot;not yet&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ācta non jam fābula._  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The story is not yet finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But while this specifies that the story isn't finished, it doesn't specify that it's ongoing, either. It might never have been started in the first place. If someone is familiar with the phrase above, they'll recognize it as &quot;the story isn't over yet&quot;, but someone who doesn't know the phrase could also translate it as &quot;the story hasn't been told yet&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So another option is to change the verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Fābula non jam dēsiit._  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The story has not ended yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this phrasing the meaning is unmistakable, but the callback to Augustus isn't as clear. It's your choice which you prefer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10877" RevisionGUID="4f757dd1-7bd8-441b-8379-0c2c10819000" CreationDate="2019-05-30T22:27:12.247" UserId="406" Text="By the power of modern linguistics, quite a lot is known about the early history of Latin: for quite a while it coexisted with close relatives like Oscan, Umbrian, and Faliscan, as well as the unrelated Etruscan. Several Classical Latin words show evidence of mutual influence: Oscan/Umbrian *lupus* &quot;wolf&quot; displaced native Latin *_lucus_, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, Varro, Gellius, Suetonius, et al, were clearly familiar with the Etruscans and their language, whether or not they actually spoke any of it. But I can't think of any mentions of other Italic languages in Latin literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: **do any Latin authors, of any period, talk about Oscan, Umbrian, Faliscan, or any other Italic languages apart from Latin?** For example, does any grammarian mention that some &quot;dialects&quot; use *p* where a true Roman would use *q*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31874" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10877" RevisionGUID="4f757dd1-7bd8-441b-8379-0c2c10819000" CreationDate="2019-05-30T22:27:12.247" UserId="406" Text="Do any Latin authors mention other Italic languages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31875" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10877" RevisionGUID="4f757dd1-7bd8-441b-8379-0c2c10819000" CreationDate="2019-05-30T22:27:12.247" UserId="406" Text="|passage-request|oscan|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10879" RevisionGUID="b6852b7d-38db-41f8-8015-5b7a1a58f326" CreationDate="2019-05-31T08:43:05.247" UserId="307" Text="I still remember `quod erat demonstrandum`, but ...`that which was to have been made` (actually `generated`)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would I best say that? I am thinking `quod erat factum`, but am unsure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31880" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10879" RevisionGUID="b6852b7d-38db-41f8-8015-5b7a1a58f326" CreationDate="2019-05-31T08:43:05.247" UserId="307" Text="Translation: that which was to have been made" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31881" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10879" RevisionGUID="b6852b7d-38db-41f8-8015-5b7a1a58f326" CreationDate="2019-05-31T08:43:05.247" UserId="307" Text="|translate|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10880" RevisionGUID="c6810b52-5204-4e8a-9b25-5fcebc0efc6e" CreationDate="2019-05-31T09:14:31.400" UserId="2698" Text="Just like your `Quod erat demonstrandum` example suggests, you definitely need a [gerundive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerundive) form here : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod erat faciendum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the context, you might want to consider `facienda` (n. pl, &quot;that which is to be made&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31883" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10879" RevisionGUID="ea4aec5d-2511-4afe-87a8-e63fbc5f7c27" CreationDate="2019-05-31T09:41:50.390" UserId="2698" Comment="add gerundivum tag" Text="|gerundive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31884" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10879" RevisionGUID="ea4aec5d-2511-4afe-87a8-e63fbc5f7c27" CreationDate="2019-05-31T09:41:50.390" Comment="Proposed by 2698 approved by 307 edit id of 315" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10881" RevisionGUID="58dde1b4-0e31-4f95-89df-111a63c04658" CreationDate="2019-05-31T09:52:48.600" UserId="1982" Text="Think mcadorel has provided the translation for &quot;faciendum est&quot;; not quite the same. Try &quot;hoc (or quod) faciendum erat&quot; giving: &quot;this-ought-to-have-been-done/ made&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10882" RevisionGUID="b8227a60-599c-4a85-81b2-48e3d8e0a59c" CreationDate="2019-05-31T12:43:32.490" UserId="4834" Text="In galileo's dialog of two chief world systems he reffer to an axiom &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;eandem esse rationem totius et partium&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't quite make out what that means, and nor can i find the axiom anywhere else, so i was hoping someone could tell me what it meant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31887" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10882" RevisionGUID="b8227a60-599c-4a85-81b2-48e3d8e0a59c" CreationDate="2019-05-31T12:43:32.490" UserId="4834" Text="&quot;eandem esse rationem totius et partium&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31888" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10882" RevisionGUID="b8227a60-599c-4a85-81b2-48e3d8e0a59c" CreationDate="2019-05-31T12:43:32.490" UserId="4834" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10883" RevisionGUID="bb5d931e-0e61-4707-b44d-5f50681efd16" CreationDate="2019-05-31T13:57:33.907" UserId="522" Text="Out of context it could be &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;that the proportion of the whole and of its parts is the same.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That may not fit:&#xD;&#xA;***Ratio*** has so many possible meanings: Ratio, proportion; Reason, principle, rationale; a reckoning, account, calculation, computation.&#xD;&#xA;Link to [Perseus **Lewis &amp; Short**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you  provide a link to your text, please, if it's on-line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/getobject.pl?c.16:139.LewisShort18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10885" RevisionGUID="b14f2c9e-bbab-44db-a26c-542a6e38450f" CreationDate="2019-06-01T20:31:46.533" UserId="4718" Text="While interested in the etymology of 'recalcitrant', most sources (OED, M-W, etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/word/recalcitrant) ) give something like the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1823, from French récalcitrant, literally &quot;kicking back&quot; (17c.-18c.), past participle of recalcitrare &quot;to kick back; be inaccessible,&quot; from re- &quot;back&quot; (see re-) + Latin __calcitrare__ &quot;to kick,&quot; from calx (genitive calcis) &quot;heel&quot; (see calcaneus). Used from 1797 as a French word in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the next step, my Latin etymological dictionary (named interestingly enough 'Etymological Dictionary of Latin' by T.G. Tucker, Ares Publishers.) doesn't have 'calcitrare' but has in the entry for '__calx__ (gen. calcis)', mentions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... calcitare (to kick) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an additional meaningful morpheme in there, '-it-' or '-itr-', or is just a natural phonetic way in Latin for extending a noun to a verb? If a morpheme, dies it have something to do with 'iter', 'itare', (for going or to go) or something similar?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31895" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10885" RevisionGUID="b14f2c9e-bbab-44db-a26c-542a6e38450f" CreationDate="2019-06-01T20:31:46.533" UserId="4718" Text="Etymology of 'calcitare'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31896" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10885" RevisionGUID="b14f2c9e-bbab-44db-a26c-542a6e38450f" CreationDate="2019-06-01T20:31:46.533" UserId="4718" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10886" RevisionGUID="100313a4-7670-47f8-8f33-eca520e8ecbf" CreationDate="2019-06-01T20:49:22.313" UserId="406" Text="There is in fact an *-it-* morpheme, and you probably already know it! It's the same one found in *aud**it**us* &quot;heard&quot; and *hab**it**us* &quot;had&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Longer version: in Latin, one could make a verb *frequentitive* (denoting an action repeated over and over) by putting first-conjugation endings *-ō, -āre, -āvī, -ātus* onto the supine stem (the fourth principal part) of any other verb. For example, *dicō, dicere, dīxī, **dict**us* &quot;to speak&quot; → ***dict**ō, dictāre, dictāvī, dictātus* &quot;to say something over and over&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this *isn't* the morpheme that led to &quot;recalcitrant&quot;. I'm not sure where the *-itr-* came from (unlike *-it-*, it's *not* a morpheme I've seen before), but [L&amp;S][1] and others are clear on the word being *calcitrō*, not *\*calcitō*. (The first part, as you mentioned, is from *calc-* &quot;heel&quot;.) So I would chalk that up to a typo in your dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcalcitro1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10887" RevisionGUID="0ad6ac12-2c18-4acc-90ac-fb63d4dcbfd5" CreationDate="2019-06-02T02:20:58.327" UserId="4840" Text="The first standard latin script which consisted of both majuscule and minuscule letters (lowercase and uppercase, or small and capital letters) in one word is Carolingian minuscule. It is a fact. But what is unknown to me (and as far as I know is unknown to all scholars) is the first purpose or first use of capital letters. Does anybody know any clear evidence that reveals the first application of capital letters. Was it used, for the first time, to distinguish the word and the names of God? Is it a biblical and christian effect? Or was it used to apply clarity for dividing sentences and paragraphs? Or the first use of capital was to highlight all proper names? Which of these applications was the first one?&#xD;&#xA;And I know that the capital letters came first, and at the beginning there was only CAPITAL. So from Carolingian minuscule, they used firstly capital for which purpose and use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31900" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10887" RevisionGUID="0ad6ac12-2c18-4acc-90ac-fb63d4dcbfd5" CreationDate="2019-06-02T02:20:58.327" UserId="4840" Text="First use of capital letters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31901" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10887" RevisionGUID="0ad6ac12-2c18-4acc-90ac-fb63d4dcbfd5" CreationDate="2019-06-02T02:20:58.327" UserId="4840" Text="|orthography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10885" RevisionGUID="baa5c532-4996-42a5-953e-d32ca5f7df95" CreationDate="2019-06-02T02:47:56.827" UserId="4839" Comment="Fixed the link and a typo" Text="While interested in the etymology of 'recalcitrant', most sources, namely [OED, M-W, etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/word/recalcitrant)  give something like the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1823, from French récalcitrant, literally &quot;kicking back&quot; (17c.-18c.), past participle of recalcitrare &quot;to kick back; be inaccessible,&quot; from re- &quot;back&quot; (see re-) + Latin __calcitrare__ &quot;to kick,&quot; from calx (genitive calcis) &quot;heel&quot; (see calcaneus). Used from 1797 as a French word in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the next step, my Latin etymological dictionary (named interestingly enough 'Etymological Dictionary of Latin' by T.G. Tucker, Ares Publishers.) doesn't have 'calcitrare' but has in the entry for '__calx__ (gen. calcis)', mentions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... calcitare (to kick) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an additional meaningful morpheme in there, '-it-' or '-itr-', or is just a natural phonetic way in Latin for extending a noun to a verb? If a morpheme, does it have something to do with 'iter', 'itare', (for going or to go) or something similar?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31903" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10885" RevisionGUID="baa5c532-4996-42a5-953e-d32ca5f7df95" CreationDate="2019-06-02T02:47:56.827" Comment="Proposed by 4839 approved by 4718 edit id of 316" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10888" RevisionGUID="463ba2eb-6f63-4219-ab5c-4c4cc314e5d5" CreationDate="2019-06-02T03:38:38.403" UserId="522" Text="The Harley Gospel in the British Library (shelf number Harley MS 1775) &#xD;&#xA;&quot;4th quarter of the 6th century,&quot; has distinct Capitals for the first letter of new Chapters (Capita) and at the end of Matthew two lines of Capitals in the EXPLICIT.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the [linked page][1] there are three Capitals larger and with emphasised serifs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On other pages, capital U becomes V; and the capital P has no descender. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet I cannot find special treatment for Names of any sort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another book which pre-dates Charlemagne is the Cuthbert Gospel (Stoneyhurst Gospel) which is also in the BL. Again, these is a separate design for Upper Case, which is not used for every sentence, but marks paragraphs and chapters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/the-harley-gospels" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10888" RevisionGUID="093e239d-bdb6-40d1-b5d5-52154ed71894" CreationDate="2019-06-02T03:56:07.010" UserId="522" Comment="sp. and link " Text="The Harley Gospel in the British Library (shelf number Harley MS 1775) &#xD;&#xA;&quot;4th quarter of the 6th century,&quot; has distinct Capitals for the first letter of new Chapters (Capita) and at the end of Matthew two lines of Capitals in the EXPLICIT.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the [linked page][1] there are three Capitals larger and with emphasised serifs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On other pages, capital U becomes V; and the capital P has no descender. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet I cannot find special treatment for Names of any sort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another book which pre-dates Charlemagne is the [Cuthbert Gospel][2] (Stonyhurst Gospel) ?730, which is also in the BL. Again, there is a separate design for Upper Case, which is not used for every sentence, but marks paragraphs and chapters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/the-harley-gospels&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Cuthbert_Gospel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10885" RevisionGUID="9f9401fd-6cb4-48e6-9aed-34cdecbb1752" CreationDate="2019-06-02T04:32:53.150" UserId="9" Comment="adjusted link so that it only is attached to the word etymonline" Text="While interested in the etymology of 'recalcitrant', most sources, namely OED, M-W, [etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/word/recalcitrant))  give something like the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1823, from French récalcitrant, literally &quot;kicking back&quot; (17c.-18c.), past participle of recalcitrare &quot;to kick back; be inaccessible,&quot; from re- &quot;back&quot; (see re-) + Latin __calcitrare__ &quot;to kick,&quot; from calx (genitive calcis) &quot;heel&quot; (see calcaneus). Used from 1797 as a French word in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the next step, my Latin etymological dictionary (named interestingly enough 'Etymological Dictionary of Latin' by T.G. Tucker, Ares Publishers.) doesn't have 'calcitrare' but has in the entry for '__calx__ (gen. calcis)', mentions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... calcitare (to kick) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an additional meaningful morpheme in there, '-it-' or '-itr-', or is just a natural phonetic way in Latin for extending a noun to a verb? If a morpheme, does it have something to do with 'iter', 'itare', (for going or to go) or something similar?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31907" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10885" RevisionGUID="9f9401fd-6cb4-48e6-9aed-34cdecbb1752" CreationDate="2019-06-02T04:32:53.150" UserId="9" Comment="adjusted link so that it only is attached to the word etymonline" Text="Etymology of 'calcit(r)are'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31908" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10885" RevisionGUID="63fd0e72-448d-4dfe-9729-4ef2ce947f11" CreationDate="2019-06-02T04:37:19.007" />
  <row Id="31910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10889" RevisionGUID="948121c2-52ac-402e-a8e7-ef590bdf46d3" CreationDate="2019-06-02T15:12:55.613" UserId="4841" Text="I'm new to Latin (in the first semester), and recently found myself tripped up when reading a text from another student in my class, which was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ille liber mihi nunc bonum est&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether it was lack of context on their part or knowledge on mine, I found myself scratching my head at 'liber'. Is it 'free', 'child', or 'book'? I later discovered they meant 'book', but it left me wondering if there was a general rule for this sort of thing? How do you know which meaning is being conveyed in a context-free environment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard of other students having similar problems with various other words as well so I figured it's best to know now!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance all!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31911" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10889" RevisionGUID="948121c2-52ac-402e-a8e7-ef590bdf46d3" CreationDate="2019-06-02T15:12:55.613" UserId="4841" Text="Translating 'Liber'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31912" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10889" RevisionGUID="948121c2-52ac-402e-a8e7-ef590bdf46d3" CreationDate="2019-06-02T15:12:55.613" UserId="4841" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10890" RevisionGUID="5c6140c8-a159-4c45-9c8b-50640cc43421" CreationDate="2019-06-02T16:45:17.050" UserId="2724" Text="Draconis's answer is very educational, I had not known that about mediaeval Latin. Many thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I have to wonder whether there is an answer that Plautus would have understood, namely whether there is an indirect question hidden or understood in this statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q. Quid in natura clarissimum est? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. Unumquodque ens sub aliquo attributo debet concipi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility is that Spinoza is maintaining a certain contemplative distance from the statement, and not necessarily asserting it as a fact yet. (Cf. Woodcock #179)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without reading the Spinoza with some care, I can't really say whether either of my guesses are relevant. What do you think, Ali Nikzad?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10891" RevisionGUID="40ede2f5-3f07-4f88-8ffe-3083a0036cbb" CreationDate="2019-06-02T16:55:16.877" UserId="406" Text="Unfortunately, there's only one good way to know, and your teacher isn't giving it to you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All vowels in Classical Latin are either &quot;long&quot; or &quot;short&quot;. Long vowels were quite literally pronounced for longer, and also with a slightly different quality: long *i* was pronounced roughly like in English &quot;beat&quot;, while short *i* was more like English &quot;bit&quot;. Most instructional books will mark the long vowels with a line above them (*ā ē ī ō ū ȳ*) and the short vowels with the absence of that line (*a e i o u y*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a fairly important distinction, since it distinguishes e.g. &quot;old woman&quot; (*ānus*) from &quot;anus&quot; (*anus*), or &quot;circle&quot; (*circus*) from &quot;of the circle&quot; (*circūs*), or &quot;here&quot; (*hīc*) from &quot;this&quot; (*hic*), or &quot;mouth&quot; (*ōs*) from &quot;bone&quot; (*os*), and so on. It's also crucial for poetic meter, and for getting the accent right. If your instructor hasn't mentioned it, I'd suggest bringing it up, and/or reading a bit about it on your own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case, *l**i**ber* means &quot;book&quot;, while *l**ī**ber* means &quot;free&quot;. You can also tell them apart in other cases, because &quot;book&quot; uses the stem *libr-*, while &quot;free&quot; uses the stem *līber-*: for example, &quot;of the book&quot; is *librī*, while &quot;of the free person&quot; is *līb**e**rī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Telling the difference between &quot;free&quot; and &quot;children&quot; is harder; the word for &quot;children&quot; comes from &quot;free&quot;, so they look exactly the same. But &quot;children&quot; is **only ever used in the masculine plural**, so it always looks different from &quot;books&quot;: &quot;books&quot; are *librī*, while &quot;children&quot; or &quot;free men&quot; are *līb**e**rī*. And if you're ever in doubt, that form almost always means &quot;children&quot;; if it's meant to be &quot;free men&quot;, the context will make it clear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10891" RevisionGUID="08731d7c-0533-4a22-836f-1fda3bb12ecf" CreationDate="2019-06-02T19:45:08.563" UserId="406" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately, there's only one good way to know, and your teacher isn't giving it to you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All vowels in Classical Latin are either &quot;long&quot; or &quot;short&quot;. Long vowels were quite literally pronounced for longer, and also with a slightly different quality: long *i* was pronounced roughly like in English &quot;beat&quot;, while short *i* was more like English &quot;bit&quot;. Most instructional books will mark the long vowels with a line above them (*ā ē ī ō ū ȳ*) and the short vowels with the absence of that line (*a e i o u y*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a fairly important distinction, since it distinguishes e.g. &quot;old woman&quot; (*ānus*) from &quot;anus&quot; (*anus*), or &quot;one circle&quot; (*circus*) from &quot;multiple circles&quot; (*circūs*), or &quot;here&quot; (*hīc*) from &quot;this&quot; (*hic*), or &quot;mouth&quot; (*ōs*) from &quot;bone&quot; (*os*), and so on. It's also crucial for poetic meter, and for getting the accent right. If your instructor hasn't mentioned it, I'd suggest bringing it up, and/or reading a bit about it on your own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case, *l**i**ber* means &quot;book&quot;, while *l**ī**ber* means &quot;free&quot;. You can also tell them apart in other cases, because &quot;book&quot; uses the stem *libr-*, while &quot;free&quot; uses the stem *līber-*: for example, &quot;of the book&quot; is *librī*, while &quot;of the free person&quot; is *līb**e**rī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Telling the difference between &quot;free&quot; and &quot;children&quot; is harder; the word for &quot;children&quot; comes from &quot;free&quot;, so they look exactly the same. But &quot;children&quot; is **only ever used in the masculine plural**, so it always looks different from &quot;books&quot;: &quot;books&quot; are *librī*, while &quot;children&quot; or &quot;free men&quot; are *līb**e**rī*. And if you're ever in doubt, that form almost always means &quot;children&quot;; if it's meant to be &quot;free men&quot;, the context will make it clear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10892" RevisionGUID="aef7dfe4-1793-40ee-b62a-33d7ce675899" CreationDate="2019-06-02T20:52:37.343" UserId="30" Text="Ernout–Meillet (Paris 2001, André ed.) say *calcitro* is &quot;doubtless&quot; from a non-attested noun *calcitrum* 'heel strike', analogous with *talitrum* 'knuckle rap', probably from *talus* 'knuckle, ankle, heel':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means the *-tr-* may be from the nominal suffix *-trum*, denoting (according to the Oxford Latin Dictionary) an instrument or similar, cf. *aratrum, feretrum, monstrum*, related to Greek *-tron*. Alternatively, it may be from the adjectival suffix *-ter*, neuter *-t(e)rum*; in fact, those suffixes may all be one and the same morpheme. It is also possible that the *-t-* in those suffixes as the same as that of the supine suffix *-t-* as used in past participles, but that is my own speculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *-i-* between stem and suffix is then a 'filler' vowel, added because Latin usually doesn't like suffixes attached directly to consonant stems (cf. *pet-o* &quot;I ask&quot; → *pet-i-tus* &quot;asked&quot;, from supine suffix *-tus* → English *petition*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If E–M should be wrong, then you might go with Draconis's suggestion of filler vowel *-i-* with supine *-t-*, but then the *-r-* would be a mystery, which is not very satisfying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, *calx* and *falx* may be of Etruscan origin, and also *arx, merx* (English *falcon, commerce*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bTbwW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5Jvmw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10892" RevisionGUID="c5041ab8-80c7-4090-a343-1d5fadcb5b8b" CreationDate="2019-06-02T21:03:02.800" UserId="30" Comment="added 309 characters in body" Text="Ernout–Meillet (Paris 2001, André ed.) say *calcitro* is &quot;doubtless&quot; from a non-attested noun *calcitrum* 'heel strike', analogous with *talitrum* 'knuckle rap', probably from *talus* 'knuckle, ankle, heel':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means the *-tr-* may be from the nominal suffix *-trum*, denoting (according to the Oxford Latin Dictionary) an instrument or similar, cf. *aratrum, feretrum, monstrum*, related to Greek *-tron*. Alternatively, it may be from the adjectival suffix *-ter*, neuter *-t(e)rum*; in fact, those suffixes may all be one and the same morpheme. It is also possible that the *-t-* in those suffixes as the same as that of the supine suffix *-t-* as used in past participles, but that is my own speculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *-i-* between stem and suffix is then a 'filler' vowel, added because Latin usually doesn't like suffixes attached directly to consonant stems (cf. *pet-o* &quot;I ask&quot; → *pet-i-tus* &quot;asked&quot;, from supine suffix *-tus* → English *petition*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If E–M should be wrong, then you might go with Draconis's suggestion of filler vowel *-i-* with supine *-t-*, but then the *-r-* would be a mystery, which is not very satisfying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At any rate, any conexion with the chief root of *iter* would seem unlikely; it just so happens that the stem of *ire* &quot;go&quot; is *i-*, and you will find many i's in Latin. The suffix *-ter* in *iter* is probably unrelated, also because the genitive is generally *itineris*, about which I dare not speculate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, *calx* and *falx* may be of Etruscan origin, and also *arx, merx* (English *falcon, commerce*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bTbwW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5Jvmw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31918" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10889" RevisionGUID="e6d4d08a-730e-48cf-ae22-dccdbcade06a" CreationDate="2019-06-02T23:23:26.117" />
  <row Id="31919" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10889" RevisionGUID="2b3ae8b7-f204-4fb5-9b91-9b595483d690" CreationDate="2019-06-03T00:15:51.797" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|translation|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31920" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10889" RevisionGUID="a4799fbb-835c-4646-ace1-c1c0b1574feb" CreationDate="2019-06-03T00:29:50.727" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31921" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10608" RevisionGUID="b98fc4d7-352e-48e6-adf6-225cc74888cc" CreationDate="2019-06-03T01:02:37.737" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10811" RevisionGUID="edc53cb9-8ba1-4016-95cf-46f8cc5ac43c" CreationDate="2019-06-03T11:02:30.940" UserId="1982" Comment="added 1753 characters in body" Text="If &quot;bibendum&quot; is a gerundive, it seems to be accepted as such, then &quot;bibendum est&quot; is neuter, impersonal (no noun): &quot;it-ought-to-be-drunk&quot;; &quot;it&quot;, presumably, any liquid that appeals to the speaker, and his pals; giving: &quot;it (e.g. the wine)-ought-to-be-drunk&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;the-(drink)-it-ought-to-be-drunk&quot;; literally correct; though it includes a near-subject, &quot;drink&quot;--the noun; thus violating the rules (which clearly were not rigidly enforced in Classical Latin) on the impersonal (Priscianus &amp; Sanctius).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, this is not good English. Blosius: &quot;si moriendum erit, moriar amicis fidelis.&quot; So &quot;If I must die, let me die loyal to my friends.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The neuter, impersonal, gerundive construction: &quot;(si) moriendum erit&quot; giving: &quot;(If) I must die&quot;; &quot;(if) it-will-have-to-be-death&quot; (literal); &quot;(If) ONE-WILL-HAVE-TO-DIE&quot;; which is more acceptable English; the English impersonal pronoun, &quot;one&quot; (is there a Spanish equivalent) links to the Latin impersonal gerundive; here, moriendum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Returning to our favourite expression: &quot;nunc est Bibendum&quot;; giving: &quot;NOW ONE MUST DRINK&quot;; which must be the best, most apposite translation of this, from the myriad of offers over two millenia!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Analysis: it is impersonal (&quot;one&quot;) with no trace, or need of a subject; it carries the sense-of-obligation given by a gerundive (&quot;must&quot;); it conveys the-spirit-of-the-age (&quot;drink&quot;--the verb), as Horace was anticipating wild celebrations, in Rome, after the fall of Cleopatra (&amp; Antonius).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only element missing is the passive nature of the gerundive; but, English translators seem to render such passive constructions, in an active sense; otherwise it would require a return to &quot;it-ought-to-be...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first sight, didn't rate this translation. In the North of England the impersonal pronoun &quot;one&quot; is rarely used, except by the most highly-educated; people would look askance in a &quot;who-do-you-think-you-are&quot; way (Spanish equivalent?). But it all appears to fit (almost). So, does yourself now have satisfaction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10890" RevisionGUID="4278c969-c522-4291-90d2-bc584911ce95" CreationDate="2019-06-03T11:14:22.677" UserId="2724" Comment="added 197 characters in body" Text="Draconis's answer is very educational, I had not known that about mediaeval Latin. Many thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I have to wonder whether there is an answer that Plautus would have understood, namely whether there is an indirect question hidden or understood in this statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q. Estne quod unumquodque ens sub aliquo attributo debeat concipi?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. Nihil in natura clarius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect questions usually take the subjunctive in classical Latin, and they are especially hidden in statements of knowledge, perception, or realization. This statement might fit the bill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility is that Spinoza is maintaining a certain contemplative distance from the statement, and not necessarily asserting it as a fact yet. (Cf. Woodcock #179)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without reading the Spinoza with some care, I can't really say whether either of my guesses are relevant. What do you think, Ali Nikzad?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9023" RevisionGUID="87357078-0284-4779-9093-604fc06cb177" CreationDate="2019-06-03T19:52:25.423" UserId="9" Comment="Added citation for the &quot;correption&quot; bullet" Text="Latin does not have any monosyllabic words that end in a short vowel when pronounced in isolation. This is my formulation of a fact given by Diana Apoussidou and Paul Boersma in &quot;[The Learnability of Latin Stress](http://fonsg3.hum.uva.nl/paul/papers/ApousBoers_IFA25.pdf)&quot;, p. 115.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Monosyllabic words in Latin may scan as light syllables when followed by another word in certain contexts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The most commonly encountered example is words ending in V̆C (such as *in, ad, sed*), which regularly scan as light syllables before vowel-initial words. In this context, the word-final consonant was apparently resyllabified into the onset of the first syllable of the next word. This resyllabification clearly occurred in poetry, and is believed to have also occurred in the ordinary spoken language, at least within a phonological phrase. Resyllabification of consonants before vowel-initial words also affected the weight of final syllables in words of more than one syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Less frequently, you may encounter a monosyllabic word that in isolation ends with a long vowel scanned as a light syllable before another vowel. For example, you can find *ŏ* or *quĭ* scanned as short syllables before a vowel. This phenomenon seems to have a few names that aren't entirely synonymous: the term that I am familiar with is &quot;correption&quot;. Correption of word-final long vowels seems to be described as a Greek-based practice in general, but for monosyllables it may have been usual in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Correption or &quot;prosodic hiatus&quot; of monosyllables is a special case, not confined to Graecizing contexts. It probably reflects actual *pronunciation. It is regular in drama, e.g. Plaut. *Merc.* 744 *nam qui amat, quod amat si habet, id habet pro cibo.* It occurs occasionally in Lucretius, Catullus, Virgil, and Horace's *Satires.* The non-elision of monosyllables ending in *-m* occurs with a similar distribution and should probably be counted in this category [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (&quot;hiatus&quot;, *[The Oxford Classical Dictionary][hiatus],* edited by Simon Hornblower, Antony Spawforth, and Esther Eidinow. This entry cites the following references: &quot;M Leumann, J. B. Hoffmann, and A Szantyr, *Lateinische Grammatik* (1977), 1. 122-3; H Drexler, *Einführung in die römische Metrik* (1967); W. Lindsay, *Early Latin Verse* (1922), ch. 3; D. S. Raven, *Latin Metre* (1965)&quot;; the contributor is given as Jonathan G. F. Powell.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are monosyllabic **enclitics** (not independent words) that (usually) end in a short vowel and scan light when followed by a consonant-initial word: *-que, -ne, -ve.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some words have phonologically clitic contracted forms that are non-syllabic: for example, *est* has the contracted form *'st,* which is phonologically dependent on the previous word. (For more details on the contraction of forms of *esse,* see *Terence and the Verb 'to Be' in Latin,* by Giuseppe Pezzini, 2015.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[hiatus]: https://books.google.com/books?id=bVWcAQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA682&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9023" RevisionGUID="b2f3f2dc-91e7-44f7-93e4-f94be36c9152" CreationDate="2019-06-03T22:41:42.070" UserId="9" Comment="added 484 characters in body" Text="Latin does not have any monosyllabic words that end in a short vowel when pronounced in isolation. This is my formulation of a fact given by Diana Apoussidou and Paul Boersma in &quot;[The Learnability of Latin Stress](http://fonsg3.hum.uva.nl/paul/papers/ApousBoers_IFA25.pdf)&quot;, p. 115.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Monosyllabic words in Latin may scan as light syllables when followed by another word in certain contexts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The most commonly encountered example is words ending in V̆C (such as *in, ad, sed*), which regularly scan as light syllables before vowel-initial words. In this context, the word-final consonant was apparently resyllabified into the onset of the first syllable of the next word. This resyllabification clearly occurred in poetry, and is believed to have also occurred in the ordinary spoken language, at least within a phonological phrase. Resyllabification of consonants before vowel-initial words also affected the weight of final syllables in words of more than one syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Less frequently, you may encounter a monosyllabic word that in isolation ends with a long vowel scanned as a light syllable before another vowel. For example, you can find *ŏ* or *quĭ* scanned as short syllables before a vowel. This phenomenon seems to have a few names that aren't entirely synonymous: the term that I am familiar with is &quot;correption&quot;. Correption of word-final long vowels seems to be described as a Greek-based practice in general, but for monosyllables it may have been normal in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Correption or &quot;prosodic hiatus&quot; of monosyllables is a special case, not confined to Graecizing contexts. It probably reflects actual *pronunciation. It is regular in drama, e.g. Plaut. *Merc.* 744 *nam qui amat, quod amat si habet, id habet pro cibo.* It occurs occasionally in Lucretius, Catullus, Virgil, and Horace's *Satires.* The non-elision of monosyllables ending in *-m* occurs with a similar distribution and should probably be counted in this category [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (&quot;hiatus&quot;, *[The Oxford Classical Dictionary][hiatus],* edited by Simon Hornblower, Antony Spawforth, and Esther Eidinow. This entry cites the following references: &quot;M Leumann, J. B. Hoffmann, and A Szantyr, *Lateinische Grammatik* (1977), 1. 122-3; H Drexler, *Einführung in die römische Metrik* (1967); W. Lindsay, *Early Latin Verse* (1922), ch. 3; D. S. Raven, *Latin Metre* (1965)&quot;; the contributor is given as Jonathan G. F. Powell.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Elision of the long vowel (resulting in a reduction in the number of syllables) is an alternative possibility even for monosyllables, though. You can see more examples and discussion of conditioning factors for elision vs. correption in the article &quot;[Elision and prosodic hiatus between monosyllabic words in Plautus and Terence](https://www.academia.edu/36315543/Elision_and_prosodic_hiatus_between_monosyllabic_words_in_Plautus_and_Terence_2016_)&quot;, by Kanehiro Nishimura	(2016).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are monosyllabic **enclitics** (not independent words) that (usually) end in a short vowel and scan light when followed by a consonant-initial word: *-que, -ne, -ve.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some words have phonologically clitic contracted forms that are non-syllabic: for example, *est* has the contracted form *'st,* which is phonologically dependent on the previous word. (For more details on the contraction of forms of *esse,* see *Terence and the Verb 'to Be' in Latin,* by Giuseppe Pezzini, 2015.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[hiatus]: https://books.google.com/books?id=bVWcAQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA682&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10893" RevisionGUID="d2031b0c-e6b1-4eae-8eaf-5f04873ff337" CreationDate="2019-06-04T00:54:44.190" UserId="9" Text="I found the following brief footnote on two suggested etymologies for *-aster* in *The Alphabet of Galen: Pharmacy from Antiquity to the Middle Ages,* A Critical Edition of the Latin Text with English Translation and Commentary by Nicholas Everett, which says that &quot;there are different theories on [the suffix's] linguistic origins&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Seck and Schnorr von Carolsfeld 1884 suggested adaptation from substantives in *-os* + *tro* (e.g. *flustrum,* from *flovostrom*) to other nominal stems; Lindsay and Stolz saw it as an extension of the comparative *-tero-,* derived from *-atus* formations: Bolling 1897 suggested that the botanical terms derived from the qualifying adjectives *sylvestris* and *agrestris*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([p. 97](https://books.google.com/books?id=R2DXb3tF7zwC&amp;pg=PA97))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10894" RevisionGUID="627e95e3-9290-4c62-98e3-df0280131783" CreationDate="2019-06-04T01:58:23.833" UserId="9" Text="The article *Elision and Hiatus in Latin Prose,* by Andrew M. Riggsby (Classical Antiquity, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Oct., 1991), pp. 328-343) refers to E. A. Sturtevant and R. G. Kent's &quot;'Elision and Hiatus in Latin Prose and Verse', TAPA 46 (1915) 129-55&quot; as a source for dating elision in different periods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not read Sturtevant and Kent's full paper, but I was able to read an [abstract that was published in *The Classical Journal*](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3287750?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents) (Vol. 12, No. 1 (Oct., 1916), pp. 34-43) and that is currently available from JSTOR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the conclusions on the last page of the abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Elision in Latin verse decreased suddenly and violently about 30 B.C., but increased again in most of the Silver Poets, and declined again still later to a very low point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10894" RevisionGUID="f2acc5ec-2406-4f86-ba02-08d5b977c579" CreationDate="2019-06-04T02:04:23.067" UserId="9" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="(Partial answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to have been a long process, but apparently there was was a trend towards using less elision that started before the end of Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article *Elision and Hiatus in Latin Prose,* by Andrew M. Riggsby (Classical Antiquity, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Oct., 1991), pp. 328-343) refers to E. A. Sturtevant and R. G. Kent's &quot;'Elision and Hiatus in Latin Prose and Verse', TAPA 46 (1915) 129-55&quot; as a source for dating elision in different periods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not read Sturtevant and Kent's full paper, but I was able to read an [abstract that was published in *The Classical Journal*](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3287750?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents) (Vol. 12, No. 1 (Oct., 1916), pp. 34-43) and that is currently available from JSTOR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the conclusions on the last page of the abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Elision in Latin verse decreased suddenly and violently about 30 B.C., but increased again in most of the Silver Poets, and declined again still later to a very low point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10895" RevisionGUID="fd5937e0-31d0-441a-a033-8af6cb172ddf" CreationDate="2019-06-04T10:05:28.240" UserId="4843" Text="Como en español tenemos «mano» por «hermano», y la forma apocopada «manito», cuando el hermano es muy menor que uno, en latín quizá se pueda, como en italiano, apocopar «frater» en «fra». Ahora, la cuestión es ¿cómo diminuir «fra»? Por supuesto existe «fraterculus», pero eso es diminutivo de «frater». Tendría que ser um diminutivo de «fra». ¿Tal vez «fraolus»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31932" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10895" RevisionGUID="fd5937e0-31d0-441a-a033-8af6cb172ddf" CreationDate="2019-06-04T10:05:28.240" UserId="4843" Text="Diminutivo para una apócope de «hermano»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31933" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10895" RevisionGUID="fd5937e0-31d0-441a-a033-8af6cb172ddf" CreationDate="2019-06-04T10:05:28.240" UserId="4843" Text="|diminutive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31934" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10895" RevisionGUID="5216f6a9-7b53-494d-8520-64f703adf444" CreationDate="2019-06-04T11:34:59.087" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|spanish|diminutive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10896" RevisionGUID="168e4cb8-3e46-4bee-94d7-e0c974e11505" CreationDate="2019-06-04T11:36:57.407" UserId="4844" Text="I am trying to tease out the etymological difference between &quot;intend&quot; and &quot;attend.&quot;  Both &quot;in&quot; or &quot;en&quot; as a Latin prefix and &quot;ad&quot; translate as &quot;toward&quot;.  So the etymological sense of both words is &quot;to stretch toward.&quot;  But we use the words *intend* and *attend* so differently in English that I am wondering if there is a nuance of difference in the root preposition.  Does anyone know? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31936" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10896" RevisionGUID="168e4cb8-3e46-4bee-94d7-e0c974e11505" CreationDate="2019-06-04T11:36:57.407" UserId="4844" Text="nuance of difference in etymology" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31937" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10896" RevisionGUID="168e4cb8-3e46-4bee-94d7-e0c974e11505" CreationDate="2019-06-04T11:36:57.407" UserId="4844" Text="|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10892" RevisionGUID="c28853bc-f60f-4d07-844b-3923d46f9ea2" CreationDate="2019-06-04T16:15:55.797" UserId="30" Comment="edited body" Text="Ernout–Meillet (Paris 2001, André ed.) say *calcitro* is &quot;doubtless&quot; from a non-attested noun *calcitrum* 'heel strike', analogous with *talitrum* 'knuckle rap', probably from *talus* 'knuckle, ankle, heel':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means the *-tr-* may be from the nominal suffix *-trum*, denoting (according to the Oxford Latin Dictionary) an instrument or similar, cf. *aratrum, feretrum, monstrum*, related to Greek *-tron*. Alternatively, it may be from the adjectival suffix *-ter*, neuter *-t(e)rum*; in fact, those suffixes may all be one and the same morpheme. It is also possible that the *-t-* in those suffixes is the same as that of the supine suffix *-t-* as used in past participles, but that is my own speculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *-i-* between stem and suffix is then a 'filler' vowel, added because Latin usually doesn't like suffixes attached directly to consonant stems (cf. *pet-o* &quot;I ask&quot; → *pet-i-tus* &quot;asked&quot;, from supine suffix *-tus* → English *petition*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If E–M should be wrong, then you might go with Draconis's suggestion of filler vowel *-i-* with supine *-t-*, but then the *-r-* would be a mystery, which is not very satisfying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At any rate, any conexion with the chief root of *iter* would seem unlikely; it just so happens that the stem of *ire* &quot;go&quot; is *i-*, and you will find many i's in Latin. The suffix *-ter* in *iter* is probably unrelated, also because the genitive is generally *itineris*, about which I dare not speculate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, *calx* and *falx* may be of Etruscan origin, and also *arx, merx* (English *falcon, commerce*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bTbwW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5Jvmw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10897" RevisionGUID="4d7fc340-d1bf-4629-a8ac-d62c37ec2233" CreationDate="2019-06-04T18:58:37.773" UserId="30" Text="*In-* can indeed mean &quot;in, into, towards&quot;. But *ad-* can mean &quot;at&quot; as well (in addition to &quot;to, towards&quot;). In fact, Germanic *at-* and Latin *ad-* are related via Proto-Indo-European.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even so, the Latin verb *attendo* already had the meaning &quot;to stretch or turn towards&quot;, so it was indeed the &quot;to(wards)&quot; sense used in this verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Intendo* had a similar meaning. And both could be used with *animum*, &quot;to direct one's attention to&quot;, and also without *animum*, with the same meaning. So I doubt whether you'll find the origin of the difference between the English verbs in their Latin praecursors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the English senses of both words are not so far removed from the general senses of their Latin forebears, so they aren't very surprising; but their praecise development is perhaps better traced in English, or in French, from which English took both words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10895" RevisionGUID="2ec3d665-4395-4868-87a9-ec4b07c6c30f" CreationDate="2019-06-04T20:56:11.297" UserId="30" Comment="added 159 characters in body; edited title" Text="Como en español tenemos «mano» por «hermano», y la forma apocopada «manito», cuando el hermano es muy menor que uno, en latín quizá se pueda, como en italiano, apocopar «frater» en «fra». Ahora, la cuestión es ¿cómo diminuir «fra»? Por supuesto existe «fraterculus», pero eso es diminutivo de «frater». Tendría que ser um diminutivo de «fra». ¿Tal vez «fraolus»?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Summary: is it possible to truncate *frater*, like *fra* in Italian? If so, can a diminutive of this truncated form be constructed, as in Spanish?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31948" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10895" RevisionGUID="2ec3d665-4395-4868-87a9-ec4b07c6c30f" CreationDate="2019-06-04T20:56:11.297" UserId="30" Comment="added 159 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can one create a diminutive of an truncated form of &quot;frater&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10898" RevisionGUID="988f2201-5482-47de-8bbf-ae9f4258381f" CreationDate="2019-06-04T20:58:50.073" UserId="30" Text="I'm afraid *\*fra* is not possible in Latin. Truncating words like that is probably very rare in Latin—of course excluding abbreviations in inscriptions and the like: those would be pronounced in full when read. So what you suggest seems impossible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10895" RevisionGUID="65454c5f-52ce-4b73-b8c2-a7dff3827897" CreationDate="2019-06-04T22:01:23.570" UserId="406" Comment="Translated into English" Text="In Spanish we have the word *mano* for *hermano* (&quot;brother&quot;), and that form can give the diminutive *manito*, when the brother is very small (less than one). In Latin, like in Italian, it might be possible to shorten *frater* to *fra*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the question is: how can we make *fra* diminutive? Of course, there exists *fraterculus*, but that's the diminutive of *frater*. This would need to be a diminutive of *fra*. Perhaps *fraolus*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary: is it possible to truncate *frater*, like *fra* in Italian? If so, can a diminutive of this truncated form be constructed, as in Spanish?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10899" RevisionGUID="702926d5-098c-4a2c-a13c-f754318b5321" CreationDate="2019-06-04T23:14:53.690" UserId="406" Text="In English, it's common for words to be clipped down to their first couple syllables: &quot;brother&quot; becomes &quot;bro&quot;, &quot;university&quot; becomes &quot;uni&quot;, &quot;doctor&quot; becomes &quot;doc&quot;, &quot;veteran&quot; becomes &quot;vet&quot;, and so on. [This question][1] mentions the similar Italian *frater* &gt; *fra*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there evidence of this happening in Latin? It seems like a very common linguistic process, and while Vergil and Cicero may not have put it down in writing, it might plausibly show up in graffiti or leave traces in Romance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/10895/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31952" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10899" RevisionGUID="702926d5-098c-4a2c-a13c-f754318b5321" CreationDate="2019-06-04T23:14:53.690" UserId="406" Text="Do we have evidence of clipped words in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31953" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10899" RevisionGUID="702926d5-098c-4a2c-a13c-f754318b5321" CreationDate="2019-06-04T23:14:53.690" UserId="406" Text="|example-request|vulgar-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31954" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10895" RevisionGUID="d8e7a028-37bf-4792-8d22-9791ba601c8b" CreationDate="2019-06-05T01:52:02.563" UserId="30" Comment="edited title" Text="Can one create a diminutive of a truncated form of &quot;frater&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10900" RevisionGUID="d510aa5a-f209-4704-ae19-4f8333d62f4d" CreationDate="2019-06-05T04:58:37.810" UserId="9" Text="I think that there are definitely mentions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't located any ancient sources that identify sound correspondences between Italic languages, but using Google Books, I found a passage that gives a list of words that were identified as Sabine or Oscan vocabulary by Latin authors: [pp. 74-86], *Varronianus: A Critical and Historical Introduction to the Philological Study of the Latin Language,* by John William Donaldson, 1844.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin authors also seem to have discussed the &quot;Fabulae Atellanae&quot; which seem to have had some connection to the Oscan language. Donaldson calls the *Atellanae* &quot;the only branch of Oscan literature of which we know any thing&quot; ([p. 97]), but also says that &quot;We may be sure that the Oscan language was not used in these farces when that language ceased to be intelligible to the Romans. The language of the fragments which have come down to us is pure Latin, and Tacitus describes the Atellana as 'Oscum *quondam* ludicrum'&quot; ([pp. 99-100]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this respect, Donaldson's description seems to disagree with the description I found in *A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities,* edited by William Smith, 1857, which says in its entry on the *Atellanae Fabulae* that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Atellane plays were a species of farce or comedy, so called from Atella, a town of the Osci, in Campania. From this circumstance, and **from being written in the Oscan dialect**, they were also called *Ludi Osci.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([p. 118](https://books.google.com/books?id=aCRXAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA118))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later on, this entry cites Macrobius's *Saturnalia,* but I haven't looked at the cited passage to see exactly what it says.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[pp. 74-86]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zecDAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA74&#xD;&#xA;[p. 97]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zecDAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA97&#xD;&#xA;[pp. 99-100]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zecDAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA99" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10900" RevisionGUID="ba33ca20-2c83-40b6-a44c-5882ea322274" CreationDate="2019-06-05T05:07:02.883" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 104 characters in body" Text="I think that there are definitely mentions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using Google Books, I found a passage that gives a list of words that were identified as Sabine or Oscan vocabulary by Latin authors: [pp. 74-86], *Varronianus: A Critical and Historical Introduction to the Philological Study of the Latin Language,* by John William Donaldson, 1844.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the correspondences identified there (by Varro) is Sabine *f* : Latin *h*, as in *fasena* : *(h)arena* ([p. 78]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin authors also seem to have discussed the &quot;Fabulae Atellanae&quot; which seem to have had some connection to the Oscan language. Donaldson calls the *Atellanae* &quot;the only branch of Oscan literature of which we know any thing&quot; ([p. 97]), but also says that &quot;We may be sure that the Oscan language was not used in these farces when that language ceased to be intelligible to the Romans. The language of the fragments which have come down to us is pure Latin, and Tacitus describes the Atellana as 'Oscum *quondam* ludicrum'&quot; ([pp. 99-100]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this respect, Donaldson's description seems to disagree with the description I found in *A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities,* edited by William Smith, 1857, which says in its entry on the *Atellanae Fabulae* that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Atellane plays were a species of farce or comedy, so called from Atella, a town of the Osci, in Campania. From this circumstance, and **from being written in the Oscan dialect**, they were also called *Ludi Osci.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([p. 118](https://books.google.com/books?id=aCRXAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA118))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later on, this entry cites Macrobius's *Saturnalia,* but I haven't looked at the cited passage to see exactly what it says.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[pp. 74-86]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zecDAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA74&#xD;&#xA;[p. 78]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zecDAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA78&#xD;&#xA;[p. 97]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zecDAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA97&#xD;&#xA;[pp. 99-100]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zecDAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA99" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10900" RevisionGUID="bdcfa331-14cd-47ae-85a6-6534912c8b14" CreationDate="2019-06-05T05:50:34.920" UserId="9" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="I think that there are definitely mentions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using Google Books, I found a passage that gives a list of words that were identified as Sabine or Oscan vocabulary by Latin authors: [pp. 74-86], *Varronianus: A Critical and Historical Introduction to the Philological Study of the Latin Language,* by John William Donaldson, 1844.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the correspondences identified there (by Varro) is Sabine *f* : Latin *h*, as in *fasena* : *(h)arena* ([p. 78]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin authors also seem to have discussed the &quot;Fabulae Atellanae&quot; which seem to have had some connection to the Oscan language. Donaldson calls the *Atellanae* &quot;the only branch of Oscan literature of which we know any thing&quot; ([p. 97]), but also says that &quot;We may be sure that the Oscan language was not used in these farces when that language ceased to be intelligible to the Romans. The language of the fragments which have come down to us is pure Latin, and Tacitus describes the Atellana as 'Oscum *quondam* ludicrum'&quot; ([pp. 99-100]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this respect, Donaldson's description seems to disagree with the description I found in *A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities,* edited by William Smith, 1857, which says in its entry on the *Atellanae Fabulae* that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Atellane plays were a species of farce or comedy, so called from Atella, a town of the Osci, in Campania. From this circumstance, and **from being written in the Oscan dialect**, they were also called *Ludi Osci.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([p. 118](https://books.google.com/books?id=aCRXAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA118))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later on, this entry cites Macrobius's *Saturnalia,* but I haven't looked at the cited passage to see exactly what it says.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[pp. 74-86]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zecDAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA74&#xD;&#xA;[p. 78]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zecDAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA78&#xD;&#xA;[p. 97]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zecDAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA97&#xD;&#xA;[pp. 99-100]: https://books.google.com/books?id=zecDAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA99" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10901" RevisionGUID="772424e4-ea03-4eb1-ae93-5dae9cd871ba" CreationDate="2019-06-05T05:52:25.870" UserId="522" Text="There are two words in Latin from the Greek for stretch, τείνω.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tendo (tenno ), tĕtendi, tentum and tensum*, 3, reach, stretch from Gr. τείνω.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tĕnĕo , tĕnŭi, tentum,* 2 hold, grasp from Gr. τάνυμαι, τείνω&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;both words have enormous entries, and their meanings include::  tend, tense, tensile, put up a tent, tempt, (tentative), (tenterhooks). So, the range of meaning is already present in the simple verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both intend and attend come from stretching a bow; aiming at a target. Attend is simply another way of showing close attention to your aim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***in-tendo** , di, tum* and *-sum,* 3, v. a.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; II C. Absol., to turn one's attention to, exert one's self for, to purpose, endeavor, intend:&#xD;&#xA;II E. *Intendere animo,* **to purpose in one's mind,** to intend: “si C. Antonius, quod animo intenderat, perficere potuisset,” Cic. Phil. 10, 4, 9.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***attendo*** (adt- , Dietsch), *tendi, tentum*, 3, v. a., orig.&#xD;&#xA;1.to stretch something (e. g. the bow) toward something;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A. *Animum or animos attendere,* or absol. *attendere,* also *animo attendere,* to direct the attention, **apply the mind to something,** to &#xD;&#xA;attend to, consider, mind, give heed to (cf.: *advertere animum,* and *animadvertere;* freq. and class.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9367" RevisionGUID="145b5766-0c81-415d-8c97-be082e6eb798" CreationDate="2019-06-05T06:01:25.123" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 1112 characters in body" Text="Evidence from the Romance languages provides fairly good evidence for distinct qualities, [ɛ] vs. [eː], for ĕ and ē in stressed syllables when followed by a consonant. Likewise for ŏ and ō as [ɔ] vs. [oː]. For ĭ vs. ī, the reflexes before a consonant are expected to be different not only in stressed syllables, but also in unstressed syllables for Western Romance (as *e vs. *i, reconstructed as going back to Latin [ɪ] vs. [iː]—although apparently there are some further complications in pre-tonic position for some languages, such as Italian, according to [Unbrutual_Russian's comment on this Reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/95yxez/vowel_pronunciation_beyond_allens_vox_latina/e3xdt0t?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=web2x)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But before a vowel in unstressed syllables, ĕ and ĭ often develop to palatal glides or coalesce with the preceding consonant to form a palatal(ized) consonant. This has been interpreted as evidence that the short vowels ĕ ĭ ŭ may have had closer pronunciations [e i u] that were used before other vowels (vs. the opener [ɛ ɪ ʊ] that are supposed to have been used, in unstressed as well as in stressed syllables, before consonants). There is also some evidence related to the reflexes of prevocalic ĕ ĭ ŭ in stressed syllables, e.g. in disyllabic words like *via* or *meus,* but that seems a bit more complicated so I won't try to summarize it here. The pronunciation of words like that is not the subject of this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm wondering about instead is what is thought to have been the quality of short ĕ ĭ ŏ in word-final position. (I'm not asking about ŭ because there don't seem to be any words where final -ŭ is firmly established; Cser 2016 says it could conceivably have occurred in the nom/acc sing of neuters ending in *-u,* but he presumes that these had *-ū* (p 127)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that word-final short vowels occur in several phonological contexts: they might be phrase-final, or they might be followed by a consonant, or they might be followed by vowel. Elision was a definite possibility when a vowel followed, and it may even have been quite strongly favored (it was certainly frequent in poetry) but I have the impression that hiatus was not absolutely ruled out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a speaker of American English, I'm somewhat biased against word-final [ɛ ɪ ɔ]; [e i o] are more comfortable for me. My feelings have little relevance to the question of what Latin speakers did. But there are also other reasons why closer qualities for ĕ ĭ ŏ in word-final position seem plausible to me. As a rule, word-final i o are expected to be long. Final short ĭ ŏ seem to derive mainly from processes like *brevis brevians* and for some words, both a short and a long pronunciation exist (e.g. *tibi, sibi, ibi,* and too many words to list in *-o*). Final short ĕ is sometimes derived from ē (as in *bene*), but usually it isn't. However, it does often derive from lowering of word-final ĭ (e.g. in the nominative/accusative singular forms of i-stem neuters); it seems like this would necessarily have passed through a close-mid position [e] on the way to an open-mid position [ɛ], and I'm wondering whether we have any strong reasons for supposing that the vowel actually was lowered all the way to open-mid [ɛ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't recall seeing a discussion of the quality of ĕ ĭ ŏ in this context in any grammars or pedagogical texts that I have read. Allen's *Vox Latina* doesn't seem to address it (which presumably means Allen would give word-final ĕ ĭ ŏ the pronunciations [ɛ ɪ ɔ]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###For the purposes of this question, assume more than 5 vowel qualities existed &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that some sources disagree with Allen's description and instead say that Classical Latin, or Latin in certain periods during/around the Classical era, had only 5 phonetic vowel qualities corresponding to the 5 phonemic vowel qualities (e.g. Andrea Calabrese's proposal of [ɑ ɛ i ɔ u], mentioned in the Reddit thread I linked to in the first paragraph). My question would obviously have a trivial answer in a 5-qualities system, so I'm only interested in answers that accept the hypothesis that we can meaningfully speak of more than 5 phonetic vowel qualities for Classical Latin vowels." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10902" RevisionGUID="f3a67220-84e7-464e-b098-1c61ee4ad66a" CreationDate="2019-06-05T06:04:02.727" UserId="9" Text="###Evidence I've found for an opened quality for word-final ĭ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, my own research has uncovered the following piece of evidence for word-final ĭ having the quality [ɪ] rather than [i]: Italian has *(d)[ove](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ove#Etymology)* from Latin *(de) ubi.* I don't find this especially convincing as evidence for the pronunciation of ĕ and ŏ, though, because it seems to me that high vowel phonemes might have behaved differently from mid vowel phonemes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be somewhat indirect evidence against word-final ĕ being [e], in that if word-final ĭ and ĕ were [ɪ] and [e] respectively, they would be extremely similar in quality, and we might expect them to be conflated in spelling more often than they actually are (I don't actually know what the evidence from E vs. I spellings is, though: an *e* spelling does seem to be attested for *ubi,* but I'm not sure whether *i* spellings are attested for words ending in -ĕ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I guess ŏ is the vowel for which it seems most plausible to me that the quality would be closer in word-final position than in word-internal position.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10901" RevisionGUID="127814d0-9d49-49ec-9f06-b0cae8e2111f" CreationDate="2019-06-05T06:08:16.980" UserId="522" Comment="added 436 characters in body" Text="There are two words in Latin from the Greek for stretch, τείνω. Dictionary **[Lewis&amp;Short][1]** perseus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tendo (tenno ), tĕtendi, tentum and tensum*, 3, reach, stretch from Gr. τείνω.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tĕnĕo , tĕnŭi, tentum,* 2 hold, grasp from Gr. τάνυμαι, τείνω&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;both words have enormous entries, and their meanings include::  tend, tense, tensile, put up a tent, tempt, (tentative), (tenterhooks). So, the range of meaning is already present in the simple verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both intend and attend come from stretching a bow; aiming at a target. Attend is simply another way of showing close attention to your aim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***in-tendo** , di, tum* and *-sum,* 3, v. a.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; II C. Absol., to turn one's attention to, exert one's self for, to purpose, endeavor, intend:&#xD;&#xA;II E. *Intendere animo,* **to purpose in one's mind,** to intend: “si C. Antonius, quod animo intenderat, perficere potuisset,” Cic. Phil. 10, 4, 9.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***attendo*** (adt- , Dietsch), *tendi, tentum*, 3, v. a., orig.&#xD;&#xA;1.to stretch something (e. g. the bow) toward something;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A. *Animum or animos attendere,* or absol. *attendere,* also *animo attendere,* to direct the attention, **apply the mind to something,** to &#xD;&#xA;attend to, consider, mind, give heed to (cf.: *advertere animum,* and *animadvertere;* freq. and class.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The differences do not arrive even in French until 14th C.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Old French atendre &quot;to expect, wait for, pay attention&quot; (12c., Modern French attendre)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Old French entendre, intendre &quot;to direct one's attention&quot; (from [Etymonline][2] &quot;intend&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dattendo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.etymonline.com/wor%20%20d/intend" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10901" RevisionGUID="af812f6d-bccd-4f86-803d-6176572161ec" CreationDate="2019-06-05T06:21:15.460" UserId="522" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="There are two words in Latin from the Greek for stretch, τείνω. Dictionary **[Lewis&amp;Short][1]** perseus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tendo (tenno ), tĕtendi, tentum and tensum*, 3, reach, stretch; Gr. τείνω.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tĕnĕo , tĕnŭi, tentum,* 2 hold, grasp; Gr. τάνυμαι, τείνω&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;both words have enormous entries, and their meanings include::  tend, tense, tensile, put up a tent, tempt, (tentative), (tenterhooks). So, the range of meaning is already present in the simple verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both intend and attend come from stretching a bow; aiming at a target. Attend is simply another way of showing close attention to your aim. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***in-tendo** , di, tum* and *-sum,* 3, v. a.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; II C. Absol., to turn one's attention to, exert one's self for, to purpose, endeavor, intend:&#xD;&#xA;II E. *Intendere animo,* **to purpose in one's mind,** to intend: “si C. Antonius, quod animo intenderat, perficere potuisset,” Cic. Phil. 10, 4, 9.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***attendo*** (adt- , Dietsch), *tendi, tentum*, 3, v. a., orig.&#xD;&#xA;1.to stretch something (e. g. the bow) toward something;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A. *Animum or animos attendere,* or absol. *attendere,* also *animo attendere,* to direct the attention, **apply the mind to something,** to &#xD;&#xA;attend to, consider, mind, give heed to (cf.: *advertere animum,* and *animadvertere;* freq. and class.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The differences do not arrive even in French until 14th C.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Old French atendre &quot;to expect, wait for, pay attention&quot; (12c., Modern French attendre)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Old French entendre, intendre &quot;to direct one's attention&quot; (from [Etymonline][2] &quot;intend&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dattendo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.etymonline.com/wor%20%20d/intend" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10903" RevisionGUID="00af4cb2-6fca-4385-9371-d4fb4f08018c" CreationDate="2019-06-05T21:57:27.307" UserId="9" Text="A while ago, I wrote an [answer summarizing my understanding of the rule that a vowel is long in Classical Latin before *ns* or *nf*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5174/9).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, this rule applied very regularly. But I'm not sure whether there are any specific words known to have been an exception to this rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By &quot;specific words&quot;, I mean that I'm thinking of a word where it would have been generally agreed by educated speakers of Classical Latin that a short vowel was correct: not just a word where we have evidence that the regular long-vowel pronunciation was usual at some point, but a short-vowel pronunciation also existed because of the support of analogy. (E.g. in words prefixed with *in-,* we have evidence from Romance of pronunciations with *ǐn-* before S or F, as in French *enfant* from Latin *infans,* but the classical pronunciation of the Latin word is still thought to have a long vowel in the first syllable.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Contexts where I'm less sure that the rule applied&#xD;&#xA;###Loan words&#xD;&#xA;One situation where I'm a bit uncertain is loans from Greek. There don't seem to be any firmly established words from Greek that contain a vowel followed by *ns,* but I did find the word *[metensomatosis](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmetensomatosis)* (from μετενσωμάτωσις) which apparently was used in Ecclesiastical Latin, and I wondered whether we can say anything about whether a Classical Latin speaker would have used a short vowel before the *ns* in this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Perfect and past participle forms with &quot;ns&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another situation where I'm not entirely sure is perfect forms and past participles containing *ns.* My understanding is that there are fewer sources that mention vowel length before *ns* in this context compared to other contexts. Allen's *Vox Latina* cites a passage from Cicero that talks about lengthening in prefixed words that start with *ins, inf, cons, conf*, and a passage from Probus that talks about words ending in *-ns,* but mentions only &quot;sporadic references to the length of the vowel before *ns* and *nf* in other contexts&quot; ([p. 66](https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA66)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have always thought that participles like *mansus* and perfects like *mansi* must have contained long vowels before the *ns* in accordance with the lengthening rule, but it seems like some sources suggest a short vowel might be possible in this kind of context. For example, Bennett mentions a source that indicates a short vowel, although he treats it as unreliable: &quot;Priscian lends the weight of his authority to such forms as *trăxī, mănsī, dŭxī,* which certainly had a long vowel in the best period&quot; ([p. 62](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA62)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that most linguists share Bennett's disregard for Priscian's description of a short vowel in this context, but I'm not entirely sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31964" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10903" RevisionGUID="00af4cb2-6fca-4385-9371-d4fb4f08018c" CreationDate="2019-06-05T21:57:27.307" UserId="9" Text="Are there specific exceptions to the rule of lengthening a vowel before &quot;ns&quot; or &quot;nf&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31965" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10903" RevisionGUID="00af4cb2-6fca-4385-9371-d4fb4f08018c" CreationDate="2019-06-05T21:57:27.307" UserId="9" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10903" RevisionGUID="c655f2cf-10b3-4a6c-bd71-5b4fb1618ece" CreationDate="2019-06-05T22:09:57.150" UserId="9" Comment="added 614 characters in body" Text="A while ago, I wrote an [answer summarizing my understanding of the rule that a vowel is long in Classical Latin before *ns* or *nf*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5174/9).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, this rule applied very regularly. But I'm not sure whether there are any specific words known to have been an exception to this rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By &quot;specific words&quot;, I mean that I'm thinking of a word where it would have been generally agreed by educated speakers of Classical Latin that a short vowel was correct: not just a word where we have evidence that the regular long-vowel pronunciation was usual at some point, but a short-vowel pronunciation also existed because of the support of analogy. (E.g. in words prefixed with *in-,* we have evidence from Romance of pronunciations with *ǐn-* before S or F, as in French *enfant* from Latin *infans,* but the classical pronunciation of the Latin word is still thought to have a long vowel in the first syllable.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Contexts where I'm less sure that the rule applied&#xD;&#xA;###Loan words&#xD;&#xA;One situation where I'm a bit uncertain is loans from Greek. There don't seem to be any firmly established words from Greek that contain a vowel followed by *ns,* but I did find the word *[metensomatosis](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmetensomatosis)* (from μετενσωμάτωσις) which apparently was used in Ecclesiastical Latin, and I wondered whether we can say anything about whether a Classical Latin speaker would have used a short vowel before the *ns* in this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Perfect and past participle forms with &quot;ns&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another situation where I'm not entirely sure is perfect forms and past participles containing *ns.* My understanding is that there are fewer sources that mention vowel length before *ns* in this context compared to other contexts. Allen's *Vox Latina* cites a passage from Cicero that talks about lengthening in prefixed words that start with *ins, inf, cons, conf*, and a passage from Probus that talks about words ending in *-ns,* but mentions only &quot;sporadic references to the length of the vowel before *ns* and *nf* in other contexts&quot; ([p. 66](https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA66)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have always thought that participles like *mansus* and perfects like *mansi* must have contained long vowels before the *ns* in accordance with the lengthening rule, but it seems like some sources suggest a short vowel might be possible in this kind of context. For example, Bennett mentions a source that indicates a short vowel, although he treats it as unreliable: &quot;Priscian lends the weight of his authority to such forms as *trăxī, mănsī, dŭxī,* which certainly had a long vowel in the best period&quot; ([p. 62](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA62)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that most linguists share Bennett's disregard for Priscian's description of a short vowel in this context, but I'm not entirely sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Between words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last question is a little different, but it's related enough that I think it makes sense to include it in this post. I think that the rule of vowel lengthening before *ns* or *nf* never applied across word boundaries to lengthen a vowel in the last syllable of a word ending in N, but I'm not completely sure. My understanding is that words like *pecten, crimen* and *in* are thought to have ended in a consonant [n] (unlike words ending in *-m*, which are thought to have ended in nasalized vowels) and that while this [n] might have become assimilated across word boundaries to the place of a following consonant, it isn't thought to have been lost or vocalized before a word starting with S or F." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10903" RevisionGUID="bbead0ee-66de-429d-8a62-2b346454ab25" CreationDate="2019-06-05T22:27:41.793" UserId="9" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="A while ago, I wrote an [answer summarizing my understanding of the rule that a vowel is long in Classical Latin before *ns* or *nf*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5174/9).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, this rule applied very regularly. But I'm not sure whether there are any specific words known to have been an exception to this rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By &quot;specific words&quot;, I mean that I'm thinking of a word where it would have been generally agreed by educated speakers of Classical Latin that a short vowel was correct: not just a word where we have evidence that the regular long-vowel pronunciation was usual at some point, but a short-vowel pronunciation also existed because of the support of analogy. (E.g. in words prefixed with *in-,* we have evidence from Romance of pronunciations with *ǐn-* before S or F, as in French *enfant* from Latin *infans,* but the classical pronunciation of the Latin word is still thought to have a long vowel in the first syllable.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Contexts where I'm less sure that the rule applied&#xD;&#xA;###Loan words&#xD;&#xA;One situation where I'm a bit uncertain is loans from Greek. I haven't found any Greek word containing a short vowel followed by *ns* that became a firmly established Latin word during the classical period, but I did find the word *[metensomatosis](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmetensomatosis)* (from μετενσωμάτωσις) which apparently was used in Ecclesiastical Latin, and I wondered whether we can say anything about whether a Classical Latin speaker would have used a short vowel before the *ns* in this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Perfect and past participle forms with &quot;ns&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another situation where I'm not entirely sure is perfect forms and past participles containing *ns.* My understanding is that there are fewer sources that mention vowel length before *ns* in this context compared to other contexts. Allen's *Vox Latina* cites a passage from Cicero that talks about lengthening in prefixed words that start with *ins, inf, cons, conf*, and a passage from Probus that talks about words ending in *-ns,* but mentions only &quot;sporadic references to the length of the vowel before *ns* and *nf* in other contexts&quot; ([p. 66](https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA66)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have always thought that participles like *mansus* and perfects like *mansi* must have contained long vowels before the *ns* in accordance with the lengthening rule, but it seems like some sources suggest a short vowel might be possible in this kind of context. For example, Bennett mentions a source that indicates a short vowel, although he treats it as unreliable: &quot;Priscian lends the weight of his authority to such forms as *trăxī, mănsī, dŭxī,* which certainly had a long vowel in the best period&quot; ([p. 62](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA62)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that most linguists share Bennett's disregard for Priscian's description of a short vowel in this context, but I'm not entirely sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Between words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last question is a little different, but it's related enough that I think it makes sense to include it in this post. I think that the rule of vowel lengthening before *ns* or *nf* never applied across word boundaries to lengthen a vowel in the last syllable of a word ending in N, but I'm not completely sure. My understanding is that words like *pecten, crimen* and *in* are thought to have ended in a consonant [n] (unlike words ending in *-m*, which are thought to have ended in nasalized vowels) and that while this [n] might have become assimilated across word boundaries to the place of a following consonant, it isn't thought to have been lost or vocalized before a word starting with S or F." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10903" RevisionGUID="da8bf21f-cd35-4c87-9fda-bb657f6ccf67" CreationDate="2019-06-06T00:21:35.230" UserId="9" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="A while ago, I wrote an [answer summarizing my understanding of the rule that a vowel is long in Classical Latin before *ns* or *nf*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5174/9).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, this rule applied very regularly. But I'm not sure whether there are any specific words known to have been an exception to this rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By &quot;specific words&quot;, I mean that I'm thinking of a word where it would have been generally agreed by educated speakers of Classical Latin that a short vowel was correct: not just a word where we have evidence that the regular long-vowel pronunciation was usual at some point, but a short-vowel pronunciation also existed because of the support of analogy. (E.g. in words prefixed with *in-,* we have evidence from Romance of pronunciations with *ǐn-* before S or F, as in French *enfant* from Latin *infans,* but the classical pronunciation of the Latin word is still thought to have a long vowel in the first syllable. I'm not looking for examples like that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Contexts where I'm less sure that the rule applied&#xD;&#xA;###Loan words&#xD;&#xA;One situation where I'm a bit uncertain is loans from Greek. I haven't found any Greek word containing a short vowel followed by *ns* that became a firmly established Latin word during the classical period, but I did find the word *[metensomatosis](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmetensomatosis)* (from μετενσωμάτωσις) which apparently was used in Ecclesiastical Latin, and I wondered whether we can say anything about whether a Classical Latin speaker would have used a short vowel before the *ns* in this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Perfect and past participle forms with &quot;ns&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another situation where I'm not entirely sure is perfect forms and past participles containing *ns.* My understanding is that there are fewer sources that mention vowel length before *ns* in this context compared to other contexts. Allen's *Vox Latina* cites a passage from Cicero that talks about lengthening in prefixed words that start with *ins, inf, cons, conf*, and a passage from Probus that talks about words ending in *-ns,* but mentions only &quot;sporadic references to the length of the vowel before *ns* and *nf* in other contexts&quot; ([p. 66](https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA66)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have always thought that participles like *mansus* and perfects like *mansi* must have contained long vowels before the *ns* in accordance with the lengthening rule, but it seems like some sources suggest a short vowel might be possible in this kind of context. For example, Bennett mentions a source that indicates a short vowel, although he treats it as unreliable: &quot;Priscian lends the weight of his authority to such forms as *trăxī, mănsī, dŭxī,* which certainly had a long vowel in the best period&quot; ([p. 62](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA62)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that most linguists share Bennett's disregard for Priscian's description of a short vowel in this context, but I'm not entirely sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Between words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last question is a little different, but it's related enough that I think it makes sense to include it in this post. I think that the rule of vowel lengthening before *ns* or *nf* never applied across word boundaries to lengthen a vowel in the last syllable of a word ending in N, but I'm not completely sure. My understanding is that words like *pecten, crimen* and *in* are thought to have ended in a consonant [n] (unlike words ending in *-m*, which are thought to have ended in nasalized vowels) and that while this [n] might have become assimilated across word boundaries to the place of a following consonant, it isn't thought to have been lost or vocalized before a word starting with S or F." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10903" RevisionGUID="820139d8-5668-4f43-ad5c-d663ce901514" CreationDate="2019-06-06T01:02:49.667" UserId="9" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="A while ago, I wrote an [answer summarizing my understanding of the rule that a vowel is long in Classical Latin before *ns* or *nf*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5174/9).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, this rule applied very regularly. But I'm not sure whether there are any specific words known to have been an exception to this rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By &quot;specific words&quot;, I mean that I'm thinking of a word where it would have been generally agreed by educated speakers of Classical Latin that a short vowel was correct: not just a word where we have evidence that the regular long-vowel pronunciation was usual at some point, but a short-vowel pronunciation also existed because of the support of analogy. (E.g. in words prefixed with *in-,* we have evidence from Romance of pronunciations with *ǐn-* before S or F, as in French *enfant* from Latin *infans,* but the classical pronunciation of the Latin word is still thought to have a long vowel in the first syllable. I'm not looking for examples like that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Contexts where I'm less sure that the rule applied&#xD;&#xA;###Loan words&#xD;&#xA;One situation where I'm a bit uncertain is loans from Greek. I haven't found any Greek word containing a short vowel followed by *ns* that became a firmly established Latin word during the classical period, but I did find the word *[metensomatosis](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmetensomatosis)* (from μετενσωμάτωσις) which apparently was used in Ecclesiastical Latin, and I wondered whether we can say anything about whether a Classical Latin speaker would have used a short vowel before the *ns* in this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Perfect and past participle forms with &quot;ns&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another situation where I'm not entirely sure is perfect forms and past participles containing *ns.* My understanding is that there are fewer sources that mention vowel length before *ns* in this context compared to other contexts. Allen's *Vox Latina* cites a passage from Cicero that talks about lengthening in prefixed words that start with *ins, inf, cons, conf*, and a passage from Probus that talks about words ending in *-ns,* but mentions only &quot;sporadic references to the length of the vowel before *ns* and *nf* in other contexts&quot; ([p. 66](https://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=PA66)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have always thought that participles like *mansus* and perfects like *mansi* must have contained long vowels before the *ns* in accordance with the lengthening rule, but it seems like some sources suggest a short vowel might be possible in this kind of context. For example, Bennett mentions a source that indicates a short vowel, although he treats it as unreliable: &quot;Priscian lends the weight of his authority to such forms as *trăxī, mănsī, dŭxī,* which certainly had a long vowel in the best period&quot; ([p. 62](https://books.google.com/books?id=Nj56evL5Vg0C&amp;pg=PA62)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that most linguists share Bennett's disregard for Priscian's description of a short vowel in this context, but I'm not entirely sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Between words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last question is a little different, but it's related enough that I think it makes sense to include it in this post. I think that the rule of vowel lengthening before *ns* or *nf* never applied across word boundaries to lengthen a vowel in the last syllable of a word ending in N, but I'm not completely sure. My understanding is that words like *pecten, crimen* and *in* are thought to have ended in a consonant [n] (unlike words ending in *-m*, which are thought to have ended in nasalized vowels except for when they were followed by a closely connected word starting with a plosive or nasal) and that while this [n] might have become assimilated across word boundaries to the place of a following consonant, it isn't thought to have been lost or vocalized before a word starting with S or F." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31970" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10896" RevisionGUID="08d3bcdf-373c-479f-8988-eb8f4440be0b" CreationDate="2019-06-06T01:10:45.933" UserId="9" Comment="Added the specific words of interest to the title" Text="nuance of difference in etymology of &quot;intend&quot; and &quot;attend&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10904" RevisionGUID="579d2ddb-53f1-4ab4-9851-c6da83c34d78" CreationDate="2019-06-06T06:16:18.853" UserId="4848" Text="If Ad Astra means to the stars, and Atlas means a collection of maps, would Atlas Ad Astra convey the meaning that a collection of map?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, what is the grammatical way of saying it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31972" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10904" RevisionGUID="579d2ddb-53f1-4ab4-9851-c6da83c34d78" CreationDate="2019-06-06T06:16:18.853" UserId="4848" Text="Could Atlas Ad Astra mean &quot;A collection of maps to the stars&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31973" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10904" RevisionGUID="579d2ddb-53f1-4ab4-9851-c6da83c34d78" CreationDate="2019-06-06T06:16:18.853" UserId="4848" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10904" RevisionGUID="32bd35dc-13cf-454f-955c-2ffe6285941d" CreationDate="2019-06-06T07:22:57.960" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="If *Ad Astra* means to the stars, and *Atlas* means a collection of maps, would *Atlas Ad Astra* convey the meaning that a collection of map?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, what is the grammatical way of saying it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31975" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10904" RevisionGUID="32bd35dc-13cf-454f-955c-2ffe6285941d" CreationDate="2019-06-06T07:22:57.960" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10905" RevisionGUID="0ae368c1-aab1-4084-a5bb-573a7b5c2329" CreationDate="2019-06-06T07:41:54.840" UserId="79" Text="The word *Atlas* is originally the name of [the titan who ended up holding up the sky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_(mythology)).&#xD;&#xA;The [use in cartography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas) originates from Mercator's 1595 book *Atlas Sive Cosmographicae Meditationes de Fabrica Mundi et Fabricati Figura*.&#xD;&#xA;Atlases existed before that but they were called something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to use the word *Atlas* for a collection of maps in Latin, but I would advise against it.&#xD;&#xA;In the context of Latin the word is mainly understood to refer to the titan.&#xD;&#xA;You should use another word for a map, but that is a little tricky, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many possible words; at least *mappa*, *charta*, and *tabula* come to mind.&#xD;&#xA;They actually all refer to the underlying medium (piece of cloth, paper, tablet) rather than the content of a map.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore they are all prone to misunderstanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To move from a word for &quot;map&quot;, like *charta*, to &quot;atlas&quot;, you can derive a word like *chartarium*.&#xD;&#xA;This word means an archive and therefore clarification is needed &amp;mdash; recall that *charta* is closer to &quot;paper&quot; than &quot;map&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;My best suggestion for &quot;atlas&quot; is ***chartarium geographicum***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore a collection of maps to the stars could be ***chartarium geographicum ad astra***.&#xD;&#xA;This might feel clumsy, but if you go any simpler, it no longer unambiguously means what you want to it mean.&#xD;&#xA;(Unless I'm missing something, of course!)&#xD;&#xA;Depending on context, there might be something simpler that conveys the right idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10905" RevisionGUID="018f5407-f983-403c-9214-d6e2ada66d58" CreationDate="2019-06-06T10:20:07.490" UserId="79" Comment="added 203 characters in body" Text="The word *Atlas* is originally the name of [the titan who ended up holding up the sky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_(mythology)).&#xD;&#xA;The [use in cartography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas) originates from Mercator's 1595 book *Atlas Sive Cosmographicae Meditationes de Fabrica Mundi et Fabricati Figura*.&#xD;&#xA;Atlases existed before that but they were called something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to use the word *Atlas* for a collection of maps in Latin, but I would advise against it.&#xD;&#xA;In the context of Latin the word is mainly understood to refer to the titan.&#xD;&#xA;You should use another word for a map, but that is a little tricky, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many possible words; at least *mappa*, *charta*, and *tabula* come to mind.&#xD;&#xA;They actually all refer to the underlying medium (piece of cloth, paper, tablet) rather than the content of a map.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore they are all prone to misunderstanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To move from a word for &quot;map&quot;, like *charta*, to &quot;atlas&quot;, you can derive a word like *chartarium*.&#xD;&#xA;This word means an archive and therefore clarification is needed &amp;mdash; recall that *charta* is closer to &quot;paper&quot; than &quot;map&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;My best suggestion for &quot;atlas&quot; is ***chartarium geographicum***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ad astra* is indeed &quot;to the stars&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is not &quot;of the stars&quot;, so you are getting maps for a journey to the stars, not a map of the stars.&#xD;&#xA;Whether this is a good choice of words depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore a collection of maps to the stars could be ***chartarium geographicum ad astra***.&#xD;&#xA;This might feel clumsy, but if you go any simpler, it no longer unambiguously means what you want to it mean.&#xD;&#xA;(Unless I'm missing something, of course!)&#xD;&#xA;Depending on context, there might be something simpler that conveys the right idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10906" RevisionGUID="fa2a9127-958c-4d79-9bdd-ff8d77d2a057" CreationDate="2019-06-06T15:56:54.160" UserId="2363" Text="Instead of *atlas*, I recommend the word *itinerarium*. In later Latin, it became a common word to describe the course of a journey. For instance, St. Bonaventure's *Itinerarium Mentis in Deum* means *The Soul's Journey to God*, and the book contains instructions for making the journey. In the early modern period, travelers would write itineraries of their journeys, listing all the stops they made, and often the distances between them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you could also use the term *tabulae*, which becomes the most common term for &quot;maps.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10906" RevisionGUID="082d41e7-8e85-4cc5-958d-37c455cc536a" CreationDate="2019-06-06T16:03:00.657" UserId="2363" Comment="added 140 characters in body" Text="Instead of *atlas*, I recommend the word *itinerarium*. In later Latin, it became a common word to describe the course of a journey. For instance, St. Bonaventure's *Itinerarium Mentis in Deum* means *The Soul's Journey to God*, and the book contains instructions for making the journey. In the early modern period, travelers would write itineraries of their journeys, listing all the stops they made, and often the distances between them. This seems the most appropriate to me, since *ad astra* implies that you're giving someone directions, not just describing an area. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you could also use the term *tabulae* or even *mappae*, which are common terms for &quot;maps.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10908" RevisionGUID="84181f07-fa0c-4dc9-b12b-233603801f11" CreationDate="2019-06-06T20:14:14.233" UserId="522" Text="You're not the first person to have this problem. Here are some earlier names for a star atlas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1588  Tycho Brahe ***Planispharium***  &#xD;&#xA; ...[1602], Tycho Brahe ***De Mundi Aetherei Liber***  &#xD;&#xA;1603 Johann Bayer ***Uranometria***  &#xD;&#xA;1690 Hevelius – ***Uranographia***  &#xD;&#xA;1729 John Flamsteed  ***Atlas Coelestis***,  &#xD;&#xA;1950 Skalnate Pleso ***Atlas Coeli***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10909" RevisionGUID="e06aa593-b0ad-4ad9-a1ea-a6f88258fdf4" CreationDate="2019-06-06T22:43:26.490" UserId="406" Text="There's a passage I've seen quoted in several books on self-help and spiritualism:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Look what the goddess does when she is sad: she takes up a tambourine, made of taut skin and rimmed with castanets of brass, and she begins to dance. The sound of flutes blares out wildly, reaching even to the depths of the underworld, so loud, so clamorous is it. Look what the goddess does when she is sad: she finds the wildness in herself, and as she does, she finds that there is joy there too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's always attributed to Euripides, the famous tragedian, but never to a particular work or fragment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was this actually written by Euripides? If so, where is it from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31984" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10909" RevisionGUID="e06aa593-b0ad-4ad9-a1ea-a6f88258fdf4" CreationDate="2019-06-06T22:43:26.490" UserId="406" Text="Is this an actual quote from Euripides?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31985" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10909" RevisionGUID="e06aa593-b0ad-4ad9-a1ea-a6f88258fdf4" CreationDate="2019-06-06T22:43:26.490" UserId="406" Text="|greek|passage-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10910" RevisionGUID="e0cb0b46-b98d-494b-ba42-59bd8545383d" CreationDate="2019-06-07T06:09:24.277" UserId="9" Text="In Latin, it is thought (as far as I know) that within a single word, /ns/ and /nf/ were always preceded by a long vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a somewhat complicated result of a hypothesized sound change in words containing /ns/ or /nf/. The original sound change is supposed to have turned Vns and Vnf sequences to [Vːs] and [Vːf] sequences (or possibly [Ṽːs] and [Ṽːf] sequences; the exact realization and occurrence of nasality as a contrastive element for Latin vowels is somewhat debatable). According to Allen 1978, consonantal [n] was later re-inserted before the fricative in the pronunciation of Classical Latin while the vowel remained long, resulting in [Vːns] sequences (*Vox Latina* 2nd edition, p. 29-30). In Classical Latin, long vowels occurred even in prefixed words that started with *in-* or *con-* followed by *s* or *f.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek, the cluster /ns/ apparently was similarly unstable, but it doesn't seem to have become strictly eliminated by sound changes, and as far as I can tell Ancient Attic Greek differs from Latin in having a fair number of words where this cluster comes after a short vowel. My basis for the preceding statement is the spelling in words with epsilon-nu-sigma; I'm asking this question to learn whether the spelling is misleading, and whether we know the length of alpha, iota and upsilon in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the prefix ἐν- seems to occur fairly freely before σ or ζ. As far as I can tell, this prefix doesn't have an alternative spelling like εἰ- in this context, even though it does have alternative spellings ἐγ, ἐμ to represent place assimilation to following velar or bilabial consonants and ἐλ, ἐρ to represent full assimilation to a following liquid consonant. I would think that this indicates that Attic Greek words starting with *ἐν-σ-* or *ἐν-ζ-* were in fact pronounced with a short vowel [e] followed by a nasal consonant [n]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm not certain, because Ancient Greek orthography seems to have indicated assimilations or sound changes only sometimes, not always. For one word spelled with νσ—the proper noun *[Τίρυνς](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%A4%CE%AF%CF%81%CF%85%CE%BD%CF%82#Ancient_Greek)*—Wiktionary suggests that the accentuation implies that &quot;the standard Classical Attic pronunciation&quot; was actually &quot;Τίρῡς&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the general distribution of νσ in Attic Greek, and what do we know about its pronunciation and the pronunciation of preceding vowels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31987" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10910" RevisionGUID="e0cb0b46-b98d-494b-ba42-59bd8545383d" CreationDate="2019-06-07T06:09:24.277" UserId="9" Text="In ancient Attic Greek, how (un)stable were &quot;ΝΣ&quot;/&quot;ΝΖ&quot; and preceding vowels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31988" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10910" RevisionGUID="e0cb0b46-b98d-494b-ba42-59bd8545383d" CreationDate="2019-06-07T06:09:24.277" UserId="9" Text="|greek|pronunciation|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10910" RevisionGUID="28353366-8036-4805-a17d-65ddb598d323" CreationDate="2019-06-07T06:16:42.053" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="In Latin, it is thought (as far as I know) that within a single word, /ns/ and /nf/ were always preceded by a long vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a somewhat complicated result of a hypothesized sound change in words containing /ns/ or /nf/. The original sound change is supposed to have turned Vns and Vnf sequences to [Vːs] and [Vːf] sequences (or possibly [Ṽːs] and [Ṽːf] sequences; the exact realization and occurrence of nasality as a contrastive element for Latin vowels is somewhat debatable). According to Allen 1978, consonantal [n] was later re-inserted before the fricative in the pronunciation of Classical Latin while the vowel remained long, resulting in [Vːns] sequences (*Vox Latina* 2nd edition, p. 29-30). In Classical Latin, long vowels occurred even in prefixed words that started with *in-* or *con-* followed by *s* or *f.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek, the cluster /ns/ apparently was similarly unstable, but it doesn't seem to have become strictly eliminated by sound changes, and as far as I can tell Ancient Attic Greek differs from Latin in having a fair number of words where this cluster comes after a short vowel. My basis for the preceding statement is the spelling in words with epsilon-nu-sigma; I'm asking this question to learn whether the spelling is misleading, and whether we know the length of alpha, iota and upsilon in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the prefix ἐν- seems to occur fairly freely before σ or ζ. As far as I can tell, this prefix doesn't have an alternative spelling like εἰ- in this context, even though it does have alternative spellings ἐγ, ἐμ to represent place assimilation to following velar or bilabial consonants and ἐλ, ἐρ to represent full assimilation to a following liquid consonant. I would think that this indicates that Attic Greek words starting with *ἐν-σ-* or *ἐν-ζ-* were in fact pronounced with a short vowel [e] followed by a nasal consonant [n]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm not certain, because Ancient Greek orthography seems to have indicated assimilations or sound changes only sometimes, not always. For one word spelled with ΝΣ—the proper noun *[Τίρυνς](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%A4%CE%AF%CF%81%CF%85%CE%BD%CF%82#Ancient_Greek)*—Wiktionary suggests that the accentuation implies that &quot;the standard Classical Attic pronunciation&quot; was actually &quot;Τίρῡς&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the general distribution of ΝΣ in Attic Greek, and what do we know about its pronunciation and the pronunciation of preceding vowels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10912" RevisionGUID="75155cab-c996-4d5f-8478-058287814f75" CreationDate="2019-06-07T15:35:21.067" UserId="4853" Text="I got several different answers from different sources. &#xD;&#xA;prō meīs nihil nōn patiar&#xD;&#xA;prō dīlēctīs nihil nōn patiar&#xD;&#xA;Iillis quos amo deserviam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31995" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10912" RevisionGUID="75155cab-c996-4d5f-8478-058287814f75" CreationDate="2019-06-07T15:35:21.067" UserId="4853" Text="What is the translation for: &quot;for those I love I will sacrifice&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31996" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10912" RevisionGUID="75155cab-c996-4d5f-8478-058287814f75" CreationDate="2019-06-07T15:35:21.067" UserId="4853" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10914" RevisionGUID="e06ebb2e-df47-4627-9fb1-d2d08b95cd50" CreationDate="2019-06-07T17:39:35.883" UserId="3627" Text="When people are adding macrons to text, how do they know where the macrons should be? Is there a list somewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    insula -&gt; īnsula or īnsulā&#xD;&#xA;    maxima -&gt; maxima or māxima&#xD;&#xA;etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to write a program to take a text and output a macronized version.&#xD;&#xA;Does one already exist?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32001" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10914" RevisionGUID="e06ebb2e-df47-4627-9fb1-d2d08b95cd50" CreationDate="2019-06-07T17:39:35.883" UserId="3627" Text="Where can I get a reliable list of words with macrons on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32002" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10914" RevisionGUID="e06ebb2e-df47-4627-9fb1-d2d08b95cd50" CreationDate="2019-06-07T17:39:35.883" UserId="3627" Text="|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10915" RevisionGUID="475b2ae9-f53e-44be-948e-54a96694dfdf" CreationDate="2019-06-07T18:04:15.717" UserId="406" Text="Unfortunately, [you can't always do it automatically][1]. In Classical Latin, *a* and *ā* are distinct vowels just as much as *a* and *i* are, and they have to be learned as part of the word. Without context and human-level understanding, there's no way to know whether &quot;levis&quot; is meant to be *lēvis* &quot;smooth&quot; or *lĕvis* &quot;light&quot;, for example, of if &quot;senatus&quot; is *senātus* &quot;senate&quot; or *senātūs* &quot;senates/of the senate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the plus side—morphemes being distinguished solely by macrons aren't too common, and I can only think of a handful off the top of my head. If you have a way of breaking the words down into their morphemes (like Perseus's word study tool), you can then look up the morphemes in a database to figure out their vowel lengths, asking the user to clarify if there's ambiguity (&quot;from context, does this word mean *ali-* 'other' or *āli-* 'garlic'?&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For making such a database, stems can be extracted from [Lewis and Short's famous dictionary][2], which marks long vowels in headwords when possible. There are few enough noun endings that they can be listed out by hand, and [verb endings are more predictable than they seem][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wish you luck with this project! I for one would appreciate an automatic macron-adder to check my scansion when writing metered poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1497/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://github.com/telemachus/plaintext-lewis-short&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4335/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10912" RevisionGUID="60ecb41e-ea81-4c74-a5ea-be606cdfd1e6" CreationDate="2019-06-07T18:17:41.257" UserId="79" Comment="added 74 characters in body; edited tags" Text="How can I translate &quot;for those I love I will sacrifice&quot; to Latin?&#xD;&#xA;I got several different answers from different sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- prō meīs nihil nōn patiar&#xD;&#xA;- prō dīlēctīs nihil nōn patiar&#xD;&#xA;- Iillis quos amo deserviam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32006" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10912" RevisionGUID="60ecb41e-ea81-4c74-a5ea-be606cdfd1e6" CreationDate="2019-06-07T18:17:41.257" UserId="79" Comment="added 74 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10916" RevisionGUID="48be4661-70ca-46c1-855f-e2cb69b949ff" CreationDate="2019-06-07T18:31:46.187" UserId="406" Text="Here are what those sentences literally mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *prō meīs nihil nōn patiar*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;For the sake of mine and my own, there's nothing I won't endure.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *prō dīlēctīs nihil nōn patiar*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;For the sake of the beloved ones [i.e. the ones I love], there's nothing I won't endure&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Iillis quos amo deserviam*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I will protect those whom I love.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The last one I'm the least sure on; *deserviam* isn't a form I've ever seen before (I'm translating it as though it were *servābō*), and I suspect it would take the accusative, not the dative.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the three, I like the first one best. It's elegantly-put and has a very nice rhythm to it; I certainly couldn't do better than that myself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10917" RevisionGUID="86304853-de5f-4d1c-b1ea-961d0205c18d" CreationDate="2019-06-07T20:23:44.153" UserId="522" Text="Long ago, on this site, someone gave a link to a short book, downloadable, on quantity and stress. I haven't found it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While searching I found this  &#xD;&#xA;A: What is L&amp;S not good for?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this:  &#xD;&#xA;Vowel Quantity: Where your Dictionary is Wrong  Johan Winge&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10917" RevisionGUID="85b9ab36-eeae-44cc-80e4-f7ab0f624632" CreationDate="2019-06-07T20:30:12.650" UserId="522" Comment="links" Text="Long ago, on this site, someone gave a link to a short book, downloadable, on quantity and stress. I haven't found it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While searching I found this  &#xD;&#xA;[A: What is L&amp;S not good for?][1]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and this:  &#xD;&#xA;[Vowel Quantity: Where your Dictionary is Wrong][2]  Johan Winge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https:///questions/6688/what-is-ls-not-good-for/6691?r=SearchResults&amp;s=24%7C6.2137#6691&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://alatius.com/latin/quantity.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10916" RevisionGUID="1a4b235f-26b8-4352-80f4-75678f3dc5d3" CreationDate="2019-06-07T20:59:00.950" UserId="406" Comment="Replaced servare with servire" Text="Here are what those sentences literally mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *prō meīs nihil nōn patiar*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;For the sake of mine and my own, there's nothing I won't endure.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *prō dīlēctīs nihil nōn patiar*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;For the sake of the beloved ones [i.e. the ones I love], there's nothing I won't endure&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Iillis quos amo deserviam*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I will be utterly devoted to the people whom I love.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the three, I like the first one best. It's elegantly-put and has a very nice rhythm to it; I certainly couldn't do better than that myself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10918" RevisionGUID="22e710e5-b88b-44f6-8421-dad3c44d1991" CreationDate="2019-06-08T00:03:26.463" UserId="406" Text="Given that this question has gone unanswered for over a year, I'll provide what partial evidence I can. Here's what Macrobius had to say about the gender of Venus (*Sat* III.8.2 onward):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; signum etiam eius est Cypri barbatum, corpore et veste muliebri, cum sceptro ac natura virili et putant eandem marem ac feminam esse. Aristophanes eam Ἀφρόδιτον appellat. Laevius etiam sic ait,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Venerem igitur almum adorans,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; sive femina sive mas est,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; ita uti alma Noctiluca est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rough translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's even a bearded image of them [ambiguous] on Cyprus, with feminine body and clothing, but also a sceptre and male genitalia, and they think of her [feminine] as both male and female. Aristophanes calls her [feminine] *Aphroditus* [masculine], and Laevius says the following:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Thus adoring the nourishing god [masculine] Venus,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; whether they [ambiguous] are female or male,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; just as nourishing [feminine] as Noctiluca.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which seems like solid evidence that poets and prose authors alike have no qualms about mixing grammatical genders: Macrobius combines *Aphroditus* (masculine) with *eam* (feminine), and *Venus* (feminine) with *almum* (masculine), without issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10919" RevisionGUID="1a84c3bd-1560-4a78-b158-991386bfded5" CreationDate="2019-06-08T00:42:57.223" UserId="9" Text="I don’t have any relevant experience in the context of Latin, so this is just a partial answer. However, I have talked to and seen things written by some non-binary people online in English and this answer is partly based on my understanding derived from that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would recommend asking the individual, rather than just following some general policy. Different nonbinary people have different preferences about how to refer to them, and people who are out as nonbinary are probably comfortable with communicating further information about their preferences for how people should refer to them. Some nonbinary people are OK with being referred to with masculine or feminine pronouns in English, and they might similarly be OK with masculine or feminine gender in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The option for avoiding gender that first comes to my mind in Latin is abbreviations; e.g. perhaps magister/magistra could be replaced with “magistr.” " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10919" RevisionGUID="d3e80487-af6d-40a5-8bf8-6602ae253233" CreationDate="2019-06-08T01:12:42.833" UserId="9" Comment="added 253 characters in body" Text="I don’t have any relevant experience in the context of Latin, so this is just a partial answer. However, I have talked to and seen things written by some non-binary people online in English and this answer is partly based on my understanding derived from that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would recommend asking the individual, rather than just following some general policy. Different nonbinary people have different preferences about how to refer to them, and people who are out as nonbinary are probably comfortable with communicating further information about their preferences for how people should refer to them. Some nonbinary people are OK with being referred to with masculine or feminine pronouns in English, and they might similarly be OK with masculine or feminine gender in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The option for avoiding gender that first comes to my mind in Latin is abbreviations; e.g. perhaps magister/magistra could be replaced with “magistr.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For nouns and adjectives that have different masculine and feminine forms, I would not recommend using either the masculine or the feminine form to refer to a nonbinary individual who has not specifically indicated being comfortable with that usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="449" RevisionGUID="b38ec55b-9ced-455c-9d39-0fe1e07b91ce" CreationDate="2019-06-08T02:10:40.913" UserId="213" Comment="Noted a correction from a comment." Text="# Ancient and late antique scripts&#xD;&#xA;**Roman cursive** was sometimes mixed indiscriminately with Roman square capitals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There was no difference in meaning between upper case and lower case letters. The differences in the shapes of the letters were simply the result of the handwriting of the individual writer.([Source][1] — not the best, nor I have not found an example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roman cursive from the 1st century AD ([source][2]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Roman cursive.][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Insular and uncial scripts** (4th-8th centuries) sometimes made use of large decorative initials, such as in the Cathach of St. Columba ([source][4]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Carolingian minuscule (from c. 800)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt;The Carolingian was the first truly bicameral script.&lt;/s&gt; (EDIT: See the comment by Cerberus below, on earlier capitals in Merovingian script.) Leila Avrin *Scribes, Script, and Books* (2010) p. 190 ([via Google Books][6]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **This [the Carolingian] system was the origin of our tradition of initial-word and proper-name capitalization**, and shows us why large and small letters are a permanent feature of modern European scripts but are lacking in Semitic scripts, which did not undergo the same medieval scribal development. By the eleventh century, capitalization of initial and important words began; it became more common in the thirteenth century and was ﬁxed in the sixteenth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these Carolingian-script capital letters were distinct from Roman square capitals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A hierarchy of scripts was established to distinguish different levels of text. At the top of the hierarchy were square capitals, which were used for book headings, and rustic capitals, used for the explicit (the last line of a book). Uncials signaled chapter headings, the table of contents, and the first line of text; half uncials were sometimes used for preface and the second text line; and Carolingian minuscules were used for the main text. Carefully drawn and coloured large Roman square capitals were used as major paragraph initials. This period marks the first time multiple writing styles were used both to decorate the text and to delineate categories of content. ([Source][7])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Carolingian script with Roman capitals][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carolingian minuscule was largely replaced by Gothic scripts until early humanists [such as Petrarch][9] (1304-1374) revived its use. I have not read anywhere that Petrarch changed the use of capital letters, but it appears that he uses at least some Roman capitals as we do, as in this sample of his handwriting ([source][9]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Petrarch's handwriting][10]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Italic script (from c. 1400)&#xD;&#xA;Niccolò de' Niccoli (1363-1437, Florence) adapted the Carolingian minuscule popular among humanists, using Roman square capitals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An influential teacher of the Humanist rounded letterform, Niccoli combined classical Roman capitals with the Carolingian minuscule to form a dual alphabet. He adapted the Carolingian script for faster everyday writing by sloping the letters a little (the result of holding the pen at a more comfortable angle), and allowing some of them to join up. His script ... as that of Bartolomeo Sanvito, was a forerunner of the italic type metal type for follow. ([Source][11])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Niccolò de' Niccoli's Italic cursive ([source][12]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Niccolò de' Niccoli's Italic cursive][13]][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The first Italic type**, developed by Francesco Griffo (1450-1518, Venice) for the printer Aldus Manutius,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was used in the cheaper writing shops. Using this style produced faster results because it did not need the carefully formed lettering like its rival lettera antica. The huge pro for Italic type during this time was its cost. It was inexpensive to print, saved time and space. ([Source][14])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Francesco Griffo's Italic type][15]][15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Summary&#xD;&#xA;Initial-word and proper-name capitalization was first used in Carolingian minuscule (from c. 800), but the use of Roman square capitals for these purposes (which has continued to our time) was not fully developed until the 15th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://davidscommonplacebook.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/carolingian-miniscule/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:I_littera_in_manuscripto.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/u2kvB.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.saintsandstones.net/saints-cathachcolumba-journey.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/klpGC.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=4q1MHDoFVwkC&amp;pg=190&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.britannica.com/art/calligraphy/Latin-alphabet-handwriting#toc53212&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/39uVw.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_minuscule#Petrarchan_reform&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9iQ01.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.designhistory.org/Handwriting_pages/Humanist.html&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Niccolo_de_Niccoli_italic_handwriting.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O8pim.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://blogs.baruch.cuny.edu/art3050s2013/2013/02/14/hw-2-4/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/m4aLv.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10919" RevisionGUID="d8f23991-49cd-46f1-bd24-029457082727" CreationDate="2019-06-08T04:57:04.663" UserId="9" Comment="added 627 characters in body" Text="I don’t have any relevant experience in the context of Latin, so this is just a partial answer. However, I have talked to and seen things written by some non-binary people online in English and this answer is partly based on my understanding derived from that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My main recommendation would be to ask for each person's preference individually, rather than just following some uniform, general policy for all nonbinary people.** Different nonbinary people have different preferences about how to refer to them, and people who are out as nonbinary are probably comfortable with communicating further information about their preferences for how people should refer to them. Some nonbinary people are OK with being referred to with masculine or feminine pronouns in English, and they might similarly be OK with masculine or feminine gender in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, for nouns and adjectives that have different masculine and feminine forms, I would not recommend using either the masculine or the feminine form to refer to a nonbinary individual who has not specifically indicated being comfortable with that usage. I would also not recommend using neuter forms unless asked by the person to do so, as that seems similar to using the pronoun *it* in English: something that can cause offense because it can seem dehumanizing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The option for avoiding gender that first comes to my mind in Latin is abbreviations; e.g. perhaps magister/magistra could be replaced with “magistr.&quot; (and similarly, &quot;candidat.&quot;, &quot;licentiat.&quot;, &quot;doct.&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;This kind of abbreviation does not have a clear pronunciation, but I don't know how much of a problem that is. In some situations, abbreviations might seem unclear, but in the context of a formulaic text like a diploma, I don't think omitting gender and case endings would make the text unreadable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10919" RevisionGUID="b168eacc-8189-4680-805d-4d753a6d8c57" CreationDate="2019-06-08T05:04:57.973" UserId="9" Comment="added 627 characters in body" Text="I don’t have any relevant experience in the context of Latin, so this is just a partial answer. However, I have talked to and seen things written by some non-binary people online in English and this answer is partly based on my understanding derived from that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My main recommendation would be to ask for each person's preference individually, rather than just following some uniform, general policy for all nonbinary people.** Different nonbinary people have different preferences about how to refer to them, and people who are out as nonbinary are probably comfortable with communicating further information about their preferences for how people should refer to them. Some nonbinary people are OK with being referred to with masculine or feminine pronouns in English, and they might similarly be OK with masculine or feminine gender in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, for nouns and adjectives that have different masculine and feminine forms, I would not recommend using either the masculine or the feminine form to refer to a nonbinary individual who has not specifically indicated being comfortable with that usage. I would also not recommend using neuter forms unless asked by the person to do so, as that seems similar to using the pronoun *it* in English: something that can cause offense because it can seem dehumanizing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first option that comes to my mind for avoiding reference to a person's natural gender in Latin is abbreviations; e.g. perhaps magister/magistra could be replaced with “magistr.&quot; (and similarly, &quot;candidat.&quot;, &quot;licentiat.&quot;, &quot;doct.&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;This kind of abbreviation does not have a clear pronunciation, but I don't know how much of a problem that is. In some situations, abbreviations might seem unclear, but in the context of a formulaic text like a diploma, I don't think omitting gender and case endings would make the text unreadable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is precedent in Latin for using abbreviated forms of words in formulaic expressions. I'm not sure whether there's precedent for the exact type of abbreviation I mention in the preceding paragraph, but I cite a source in [this answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6148/9) that mentions that on curse tablets written in Latin, &quot;quem peperit&quot; and &quot;quam peperit&quot; were both commonly abbreviated to &quot;q p&quot; (&quot;Notes from Carthage&quot;, by David R. Jordan, aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 111 (1996) 115–123). Some Latin phrases or terms are commonly used in abbreviated form in modern academia, such as *Ph.D., e.g., et al., etc.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10920" RevisionGUID="1deddf33-88d3-470a-a5eb-acb3c680379e" CreationDate="2019-06-08T07:51:28.457" UserId="9" Text="I think there probably are Roman deities that the Romans thought were worshipped by Etruscans. I'm less sure about the &quot;specifically&quot; Etruscan part. So far, I haven't seen a primary source that says anything clearly along the lines of &quot;the Etruscans worshipped this god before the Romans did&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of this stuff seems to be unclear, so this is just a provisional answer to get some possible starting points for later confirmation or disconfirmation. I may edit later to add primary sources. I wouldn't recommend accepting this post in its current state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best candidate I have found so far is [Vertumnus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertumnus):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Varro was convinced that Vortumnus was Etruscan, and a major god.&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  6. Varro, *De lingua latina* V.46: &quot;*Ab eis [the Etruscans] dictus Vicus Tuscus, et ideo ibi Vortumnum stare, quod is deus Etruriae princeps*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Wikipedia)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A less clear candidate is [Summanus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summanus):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Pliny thought that he was of Etruscan origin, and one of the nine gods of thunder.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Varro, however, lists Summanus among gods he considers of Sabine origin,&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (Wikipedia)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Footnote 3 cites Natural History 2.53. At first glance, I don't see how the cited passage confirms that Pliny thought that Summanus was of &quot;Etruscan origin&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia article for [Volturnus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volturnus) says that he was &quot;originally an Etruscan god&quot;. I haven't checked the citations, so I don't know whether this is based on anything ancient, or on modern theories based on stuff like the form of the name." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10921" RevisionGUID="becd05df-4ce5-4e1d-b0a7-37476b53aae6" CreationDate="2019-06-08T07:55:59.497" UserId="9" Text="This is just a partial answer, since the question has sat unanswered for months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any examples of this kind of optional assimilation between the last consonant in a prefix and the first consonant of the base making a difference in the meaning of a word in Latin. Cerberus also left a comment saying&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In my experience, it does not affect semantics. But, who knows, perhaps an exception can be found!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10922" RevisionGUID="647ccc67-04b6-49e0-ad41-4ea61246cbd5" CreationDate="2019-06-08T08:05:03.793" UserId="9" Text="No, *mesnomer* is not a Latin word. The quotations only say that it is a Old French word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10923" RevisionGUID="2b506849-1009-454f-8d8f-bd3aea8ecbc0" CreationDate="2019-06-08T08:23:34.767" UserId="9" Text="The entry for this word in the *Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic languages* (2008), by Michiel de Vaan, may provide some illumination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan says that *mensa* has an Umbrian cognate *mefa* that is supposed to have the meaning &quot;a certain sacrificial object, maybe cake&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Rafael said in a comment, the derivation from the verb meaning 'measure', *met(ior),* is supposed to have occurred via a participle form. A sacrifice of food could be described fairly literally as &quot;a thing measured out&quot;. De Vaan suggests that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Latin, the meaning then shifted from the offering itself to the object on which the offerings were placed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32022" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8839" RevisionGUID="9c24a93c-4ed7-4d33-8d46-2ac2ff9879a3" CreationDate="2019-06-08T22:03:05.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9364" RevisionGUID="fe52900c-538b-42bb-abf5-c30dc20ba052" CreationDate="2019-06-08T23:21:33.267" UserId="9" Comment="Added mention of violations of the rule" Text="###V can be lost when it acts as a perfect &quot;suffix&quot; (not found in the present stem)&#xD;&#xA;[Cser 2016](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) gives the rule that *-v-* cannot be lost when it is &quot;part of the lexical makeup of the verb&quot; (&quot;Aspects of the Phonology and Morphology of Classical Latin&quot;, p. 117), agreeing with [TKR's suggestion in the comments](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/779/can-i-contract-with-an-irregular-perfect-stem-in-v#comment1565_779). In other words, *-v-* usually isn't lost when it is found in the present stem as well as in the perfect stem of the word, which means that *lavisti* and *adiuvisti* would not be expected to have *v*-less  variant forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When *-v-* appears as a &quot;suffix&quot; marking the perfect stem, it might or might not be able to be deleted: this isn't completely predictable based on the form, it also seems to depend on the lexical identity of the verb.  Cser says that *cerno* has *v*-less variants alongside the forms built on *crēv-,* but *sperno* has only *sprēv-* perfect forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*V*-deletion is possible not only for some verbs with *-ēvī/-īvī/-āvī* perfects, but also for some verbs with *-ōvī* perfects; Cser gives the example of *nōsco* with the forms *nōvērunt*~*nōrunt* and *nōvisse~nōsse.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Violations of this rule apparently exist, but seem fairly marginal &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule that Cser gives is sometimes violated for verbs with *-ōvī* perfects: *moveo, mōvī* and apparently also *voveō, vōvī* can lose the *v* at the end of the perfect stem, even though *v* is also found at the end of the present stems of these verbs. The *v*-less forms of these perfect stems don't seem to be common, though. Cser says that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  For *nōv-* with -*is*-class affixes, the ratio of deleted forms in the corpus I used is 96.3%, for *mōv-*&#xD;&#xA;(including prefixed forms) only 3.6%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 117)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found mention of contracted forms of the perfect stem of *voveo* (specifically, *dēvōrō* for *dēvōverō* in the future perfect) in the first page of &quot;[Philological Notes](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/classical-review/article/philological-notes/F2C0579448B85BE1CD1B6E973B0B6418)&quot; in *The Classical Review,*  Volume 3, Issue 6 June 1889 , pp. 243-246, by Fred. W. Walker. Unfortunately, I can't access any more pages there. I would assume that the specific forms given there are accurate, but I'm not sure how accurate the article as a whole is, given that it seems to argue that *amavisti* had a long vowel in the penultimate syllable and that the short forms of the perfect were older than the long forms, neither of which I think has become a mainstream position.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9364" RevisionGUID="acf347e3-65fb-4589-a45c-dbe79dd1fa44" CreationDate="2019-06-08T23:28:08.127" UserId="9" Comment="Added mention of violations of the rule" Text="###V can be lost when it acts as a perfect &quot;suffix&quot; (not found in the present stem)&#xD;&#xA;[Cser 2016](http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf) gives the rule that *-v-* cannot be lost when it is &quot;part of the lexical makeup of the verb&quot; (&quot;Aspects of the Phonology and Morphology of Classical Latin&quot;, p. 117), agreeing with [TKR's suggestion in the comments](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/779/can-i-contract-with-an-irregular-perfect-stem-in-v#comment1565_779). In other words, *-v-* usually isn't lost when it is found in the present stem as well as in the perfect stem of the word, which means that *lavisti* and *adiuvisti* would not be expected to have *v*-less  variant forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When *-v-* appears as a &quot;suffix&quot;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; marking the perfect stem, it might or might not be able to be deleted: this isn't completely predictable based on the form, it also seems to depend on the lexical identity of the verb.  Cser says that *cerno* has *v*-less variants alongside the forms built on *crēv-,* but *sperno* has only *sprēv-* perfect forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*V*-deletion is possible not only for some verbs with *-ēvī/-īvī/-āvī* perfects, but also for some verbs with *-ōvī* perfects; Cser gives the example of *nōsco* with the forms *nōvērunt*~*nōrunt* and *nōvisse~nōsse.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Violations of this rule apparently exist, but seem fairly marginal &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule that Cser gives is sometimes violated for verbs with *-ōvī* perfects: *moveo, mōvī* and apparently also *voveō, vōvī* can lose the *v* at the end of the perfect stem, even though *v* is also found at the end of the present stems of these verbs. The *v*-less forms of these perfect stems don't seem to be common, though. Cser says that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  For *nōv-* with -*is*-class affixes, the ratio of deleted forms in the corpus I used is 96.3%, for *mōv-*&#xD;&#xA;(including prefixed forms) only 3.6%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 117)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found mention of contracted forms of the perfect stem of *voveo* (specifically, *dēvōrō* for *dēvōverō* in the future perfect) in the first page of &quot;[Philological Notes](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/classical-review/article/philological-notes/F2C0579448B85BE1CD1B6E973B0B6418)&quot; in *The Classical Review,*  Volume 3, Issue 6 June 1889 , pp. 243-246, by Fred. W. Walker. Unfortunately, I can't access any more pages there. I would assume that the specific forms given there are accurate, but I'm not sure how accurate the article as a whole is, given that it seems to argue that *amavisti* had a long vowel in the penultimate syllable and that the short forms of the perfect were older than the long forms, neither of which I think has become a mainstream position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I put &quot;suffix&quot; in quotation marks just because the morphological structure of Latin perfect forms can be analyzed in different ways, and it's not always easy to divide a perfect form into parts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10924" RevisionGUID="79e685d7-10d2-4c99-bb8c-f8f55e8fc645" CreationDate="2019-06-08T23:45:42.597" UserId="9" Text="The Oxford English Dictionary entry for the English word *comment* says that Isidore's *Etymologies* (c. 600) uses *commentum* in the sense &quot;a comment or interpretation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's necessary to distinguish between the word *commentum* and the word *commentarium*/*commentarius* when discussing the meaning and how it changed over time. I can't find any indication that *[commentarius](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcommentarius)* in Classical Latin had any implication of deliberate falsehood or fiction: it seems to have just referred to a notebook or notes, as in Caesar's *Commentarii de Bello Gallico.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would guess that the usage of *commentum* in later texts like Isidore's was influenced by the meaning of *commentarium* and the verb *[commento(r)](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcommentor1).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32026" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8756" RevisionGUID="f733a4d6-7871-4f98-a8d4-b87f42bf5322" CreationDate="2019-06-09T03:04:30.733" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10925" RevisionGUID="0bc8416b-0ee5-4d78-bd7d-7bfac7718d9a" CreationDate="2019-06-09T13:05:55.790" UserId="2389" Text="**&quot;To explain oneself&quot;**, as an official-sounding idiomatic expression for providing plausible reasons for one's statements or behaviour, can be expressed with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[prōloquī](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=proloqui)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quid istuc est? Quid flēs? Quid lacrimās largitus? **Prōloquere**! [(Afran. ap. Non. 514, 31)](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/404/1/0/10592-10603#0)  &#xD;&#xA;What is this? What's with the weeping? Why the copious crying? Come on, **tell me**!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ratiōnem](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=rationem) reddere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Tibi ego **ratiōnem reddam**, stimulōrum seges?! [(Pl. Aul. 45)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/plautus-pot_gold/2011/pb_LCL060.265.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;I should **be accountable** to you, you crop of cattle-prods?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[satisfactiō](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=satisfactio), in certain contexts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Hīc tū mē etiam īnsimulās nec **satisfactiōnem meam** accipis? [(Cic. Fam. 7, 13, 1)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-letters_friends/2001/pb_LCL205.211.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;And now do you still persist in making false charges against me and refuse to accept **my explanation**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the verb [satisfacere](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=satis) (ctrl+F to &quot;facio&quot;), but it seems to me to sound more grave and explicitly recognise guilt by making amends:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Accēperam jam ante Caesaris litterās ut **mihi satis fierī** paterer a tē... [(Cic. Phil. 2, 20, 49)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-philippic_2/2010/pb_LCL189.103.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;I had previously received a letter from Caesar asking me to **accept your apologies**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it must be understood that unlike &quot;Explain yourself!&quot; none of these can be used on their own as a single idiomatic interjection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;To explain oneself well&quot;**, meaning &quot;to successfully explain one's thoughts/meaning/the matter at hand&quot;, can be expressed in quite a few ways (examples mine unless noted):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Vereror nē rem minus **praeclārē explicārim**  &#xD;&#xA;I fear I didn't explain the matter all too well&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Putō mē nōn sānē **rēctē dīxisse**  &#xD;&#xA;I think I didn't say that quite right&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Sciō mē ista nēquāquam tam **apertē nec plānē explicāsse**  &#xD;&#xA;I know I explained that by no means plainly nor intelligibly&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Videor mihi parum **dīlūcidē** {dīcere, rem expōnere, narrāre, etc.}  &#xD;&#xA;I suspect I'm not expressing myself/explaining this in the most obvious terms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This are obviously all quite literal. If you want a shorter, more interjecton-like reply, equivalent to &quot;you don't understand&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* {Minus, haud rēctē, perperam} intelligis  &#xD;&#xA;You don't undersatnd/you misunderstand etc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Haud rem tenēs  &#xD;&#xA;No, not that/that's not what I mean&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ista omnīnō perperam interpretāstī  &#xD;&#xA;You've got it completely wrong/that's absolutely not what I meant&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* PA: Nōn opīnor, Dāve. DA: &quot;Opīnor&quot; narrās? **Nōn rēctē accipis**: certa rēs est! [(Ter. Andr. 367)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/terence-woman_andros/2001/pb_LCL022.89.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;PA: I don't think so, Davus. DA: Pfft, think? **You don't get it**: it’s a certainty!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully this will give you some options to work with :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10925" RevisionGUID="e89f6d6d-a585-429f-a616-ccec6fd61b8f" CreationDate="2019-06-09T14:19:01.340" UserId="2389" Comment="added 1470 characters in body" Text="**&quot;To explain oneself&quot;**, as an official-sounding idiomatic expression for providing plausible reasons or explanation for one's statements or behaviour, can be expressed with (examples mine unless cited, translations variously mine or lifted from the Loebs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[quid sibi vult?](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=volo) (ctrl+F &quot;sibi vult&quot;) is perhaps the shortest and most idiomatic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quid istuc est? Aut **quid istic sibi vult** sermō? Māter, dēlicā. [(Titinius Tog. 102 R)](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/137/1/0/5500-5509#0)  &#xD;&#xA;What is this? Or rather, what's the meaning of this speech? Do explain, mother.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* **Quid volt sibī**, Syre, haec ōrātio? [(Ter. Heaut. 616)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/terence-self_tormentor/2001/pb_LCL022.245.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;**What does she mean** by that remark, Syrus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar is the interrogative adverb [quōrsum](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=quorsum):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quōrsum haec?  &#xD;&#xA;Where are you heading with this? What's the purpose/intended meaning of this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[prōloquī](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=proloqui)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quid istuc est? Quid flēs? Quid lacrimās largitus? **Prōloquere**! [(Afran. ap. Non. 514, 31)](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/404/1/0/10592-10603#0)  &#xD;&#xA;What is this? What's with the weeping? Why the copious crying? Come on, **tell me**!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ratiōnem](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=rationem) reddere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Tibi ego **ratiōnem reddam**, stimulōrum seges?! [(Pl. Aul. 45)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/plautus-pot_gold/2011/pb_LCL060.265.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;I should **be accountable** to you, you crop of cattle-prods?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[satisfactiō](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=satisfactio), in certain contexts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Hīc tū mē etiam īnsimulās nec **satisfactiōnem meam** accipis? [(Cic. Fam. 7, 13, 1)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-letters_friends/2001/pb_LCL205.211.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;And now do you still persist in making false charges against me and refuse to accept **my explanation**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the verb [satisfacere](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=satis) (ctrl+F to &quot;facio&quot;), but it seems to me to sound more grave and explicitly recognise guilt by making amends:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Accēperam jam ante Caesaris litterās ut **mihi satis fierī** paterer a tē... [(Cic. Phil. 2, 20, 49)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-philippic_2/2010/pb_LCL189.103.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;I had previously received a letter from Caesar asking me to **accept your apologies**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[excūsātiō](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=excusatio) and [sē excūsāre] can also be used to acknowledge being in the wrong, and by extension ironically to request an explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quid dīcis/affers/offers in excūsātiōnem (tuī)?  &#xD;&#xA;What do you say/offer/present in your defence?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quōmodo mē **excūsābō** reī pūblicae, cui duōs abstulī? [(SenRhet. ConExc. 4 , 3, 1)](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1014/2/26/513-521#26)  &#xD;&#xA;How do I **excuse myself** before the republic, having deprived it of two of its citizens?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it must be understood that unlike &quot;Explain yourself!&quot; none of these safe for the first one can be used on their own as a single idiomatic interjection - you have to explicitly state what you're asking an explanation for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;To explain oneself well&quot;**, meaning &quot;to successfully explain one's thoughts/meaning/the matter at hand&quot;, can be expressed in quite a few ways (examples mine unless noted):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Vereror nē rem minus **praeclārē explicārim**.  &#xD;&#xA;I fear I didn't explain the matter all too well.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Putō mē nōn sānē **rēctē dīxisse**.  &#xD;&#xA;I think I didn't say that quite right.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Sciō mē ista nēquāquam tam **apertē nec plānē explicāsse**.  &#xD;&#xA;I know I explained that by no means plainly nor intelligibly.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Videor mihi parum **dīlūcidē** {dīcere, rem expōnere, narrāre, etc}.  &#xD;&#xA;I suspect I'm not expressing myself/explaining this in the most obvious terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This are obviously all quite literal. If you want a shorter, more interjecton-like reply, equivalent to &quot;you don't understand&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* {Minus, haud rēctē, perperam} intelligis.  &#xD;&#xA;You don't undersatnd/you misunderstand etc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Haud rem tenēs.  &#xD;&#xA;No, not that/that's not what I mean.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ista omnīnō perperam interpretāstī.  &#xD;&#xA;You've got it completely wrong/that's absolutely not what I meant.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* PA: Nōn opīnor, Dāve. DA: &quot;Opīnor&quot; narrās? **Nōn rēctē accipis**: certa rēs est! [(Ter. Andr. 367)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/terence-woman_andros/2001/pb_LCL022.89.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;PA: I don't think so, Davus. DA: Pfft, think? **You don't get it**: it’s a certainty!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully this will give you some options to work with :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10925" RevisionGUID="dbd7753d-5906-422d-969f-81a6e1b70fb8" CreationDate="2019-06-09T14:24:24.107" UserId="2389" Comment="added 1470 characters in body" Text="**&quot;To explain oneself&quot;**, as an official-sounding idiomatic expression for providing plausible reasons or explanation for one's statements or behaviour, can be expressed with (examples mine unless cited, translations variously mine or lifted from the Loebs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[quid sibi vult?](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=volo) (ctrl+F &quot;sibi vult&quot;) is perhaps the shortest and most idiomatic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quid istuc est? Aut **quid istic sibi vult** sermō? Māter, dēlicā. [(Titinius Tog. 102 R)](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/137/1/0/5500-5509#0)  &#xD;&#xA;What is this? Or rather, what's the meaning of this speech? Do explain, mother.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* **Quid volt sibī**, Syre, haec ōrātio? [(Ter. Heaut. 616)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/terence-self_tormentor/2001/pb_LCL022.245.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;**What does she mean** by that remark, Syrus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar is the interrogative adverb [quōrsum](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=quorsum):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quōrsum haec?  &#xD;&#xA;Where are you heading with this? What's the purpose/intended meaning of this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[prōloquī](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=proloqui)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quid istuc est? Quid flēs? Quid lacrimās largitus? **Prōloquere**! [(Afran. ap. Non. 514, 31)](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/404/1/0/10592-10603#0)  &#xD;&#xA;What is this? What's with the weeping? Why the copious crying? Come on, **tell me**!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ratiōnem](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=rationem) reddere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Tibi ego **ratiōnem reddam**, stimulōrum seges?! [(Pl. Aul. 45)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/plautus-pot_gold/2011/pb_LCL060.265.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;I should **be accountable** to you, you crop of cattle-prods?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[satisfactiō](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=satisfactio), in certain contexts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Hīc tū mē etiam īnsimulās nec **satisfactiōnem meam** accipis? [(Cic. Fam. 7, 13, 1)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-letters_friends/2001/pb_LCL205.211.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;And now do you still persist in making false charges against me and refuse to accept **my explanation**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the verb [satisfacere](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=satis) (ctrl+F to &quot;facio&quot;), but it seems to me to sound more grave and explicitly recognise guilt by making amends:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Accēperam jam ante Caesaris litterās ut **mihi satis fierī** paterer a tē... [(Cic. Phil. 2, 20, 49)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-philippic_2/2010/pb_LCL189.103.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;I had previously received a letter from Caesar asking me to **accept your apologies**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[excūsātiō](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=excusatio) and [sē excūsāre](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=excuso) can also be used to acknowledge being in the wrong, and by extension ironically to request an explanation. However, I don't think that *excūsā tē!*, proposed in another reply, is any more appropriate than the English &quot;excuse yourself!&quot;, i.e. &quot;do come up with excuses to yourself if you want&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quid dīcis/affers/offers **in excūsātiōnem** (tuī)?  &#xD;&#xA;What do you say/offer/present **in your defence**?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quōmodo mē **excūsābō** reī pūblicae, cui duōs abstulī? [(SenRhet. ConExc. 4 , 3, 1)](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1014/2/26/513-521#26)  &#xD;&#xA;How do I **excuse myself** before the republic, having deprived it of two of its citizens?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it must be understood that unlike &quot;Explain yourself!&quot; none of these safe for the first one can be used on their own as a single idiomatic interjection - you have to explicitly state what you're asking an explanation for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;To explain oneself well&quot;**, meaning &quot;to successfully explain one's thoughts/meaning/the matter at hand&quot;, can be expressed in quite a few ways (examples mine unless noted):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Vereror nē rem minus **praeclārē explicārim**.  &#xD;&#xA;I fear I didn't explain the matter all too well.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Putō mē nōn sānē **rēctē dīxisse**.  &#xD;&#xA;I think I didn't say that quite right.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Sciō mē ista nēquāquam tam **apertē nec plānē explicāsse**.  &#xD;&#xA;I know I explained that by no means plainly nor intelligibly.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Videor mihi parum **dīlūcidē** {dīcere, rem expōnere, narrāre, etc}.  &#xD;&#xA;I suspect I'm not expressing myself/explaining this in the most obvious terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This are obviously all quite literal. If you want a shorter, more interjecton-like reply, equivalent to &quot;you don't understand&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* {Minus, haud rēctē, perperam} intelligis.  &#xD;&#xA;You don't undersatnd/you misunderstand etc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Haud rem tenēs.  &#xD;&#xA;No, not that/that's not what I mean.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ista omnīnō perperam interpretāstī.  &#xD;&#xA;You've got it completely wrong/that's absolutely not what I meant.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* PA: Nōn opīnor, Dāve. DA: &quot;Opīnor&quot; narrās? **Nōn rēctē accipis**: certa rēs est! [(Ter. Andr. 367)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/terence-woman_andros/2001/pb_LCL022.89.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;PA: I don't think so, Davus. DA: Pfft, think? **You don't get it**: it’s a certainty!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully this will give you some options to work with :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10925" RevisionGUID="47083964-994a-4785-b55b-a549f25ee886" CreationDate="2019-06-09T14:38:06.770" UserId="2389" Comment="added 1470 characters in body" Text="**&quot;To explain oneself&quot;**, as an official-sounding idiomatic expression for providing plausible reasons or explanation for one's statements or behaviour, can be expressed with (examples mine unless cited, translations variously mine or lifted from the Loebs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[quid sibi vult?](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=volo) (ctrl+F &quot;sibi vult&quot;) is perhaps the shortest and most idiomatic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quid istuc est? Aut **quid istic sibi vult** sermō? Māter, dēlicā. [(Titinius Tog. 102 R)](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/137/1/0/5500-5509#0)  &#xD;&#xA;What is this? Or rather, what's the meaning of this speech? Do explain, mother.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* **Quid volt sibī**, Syre, haec ōrātio? [(Ter. Heaut. 616)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/terence-self_tormentor/2001/pb_LCL022.245.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;**What does she mean** by that remark, Syrus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar is the interrogative adverb [quōrsum](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=quorsum):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quōrsum haec?  &#xD;&#xA;Where are you heading with this? What's the purpose/intended meaning of this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[prōloquī](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=proloqui)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quid istuc est? Quid flēs? Quid lacrimās largitus? **Prōloquere**! [(Afran. ap. Non. 514, 31)](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/404/1/0/10592-10603#0)  &#xD;&#xA;What is this? What's with the weeping? Why the copious crying? Come on, **tell me**!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ratiōnem](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=rationem) reddere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Tibi ego **ratiōnem reddam**, stimulōrum seges?! [(Pl. Aul. 45)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/plautus-pot_gold/2011/pb_LCL060.265.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;I should **be accountable** to you, you crop of cattle-prods?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[satisfactiō](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=satisfactio), in certain contexts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Hīc tū mē etiam īnsimulās nec **satisfactiōnem meam** accipis? [(Cic. Fam. 7, 13, 1)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-letters_friends/2001/pb_LCL205.211.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;And now do you still persist in making false charges against me and refuse to accept **my explanation**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the verb [satisfacere](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=satis) (ctrl+F to &quot;facio&quot;), but it seems to me to sound more grave and explicitly recognise guilt by making amends:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Accēperam jam ante Caesaris litterās ut **mihi satis fierī** paterer a tē... [(Cic. Phil. 2, 20, 49)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-philippic_2/2010/pb_LCL189.103.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;I had previously received a letter from Caesar asking me to **accept your apologies**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[excūsātiō](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=excusatio) and [sē excūsāre](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=excuso) can also be used to acknowledge being in the wrong, and by extension ironically to request an explanation. However, I don't think that *excūsā tē!*, proposed in another reply, is any more appropriate than the English &quot;excuse yourself!&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quid dīcis/affers/offers **in excūsātiōnem** (tuī)?  &#xD;&#xA;What do you say/offer/present **in your defence**?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quōmodo mē **excūsābō** reī pūblicae, cui duōs abstulī? [(SenRhet. ConExc. 4 , 3, 1)](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1014/2/26/513-521#26)  &#xD;&#xA;How do I **excuse myself** before the republic, having deprived it of two of its citizens?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it must be understood that none of these are unambiguous idiomatic interjections like &quot;Explain yourself!&quot;, and most of the time you have to explicitly state what it is you're asking an explanation for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also verbs like **obtendere**, **praetendere**, **causārī**, **ad aliquid confugere** which all can be used to mean &quot;provide as an excuse, justification, cause&quot;. I'll leave it to the reader to look up their usage in the dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;To explain oneself well&quot;**, meaning &quot;to successfully explain one's thoughts/meaning/the matter at hand&quot;, can be expressed in quite a few ways (examples mine unless noted):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Vereor nē rem minus **praeclārē explicārim**.  &#xD;&#xA;I fear I didn't explain the matter all too well.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Putō mē nōn sānē **rēctē dīxisse**.  &#xD;&#xA;I think I didn't say that quite right.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Sciō mē ista nēquāquam tam **apertē nec plānē explicāsse**.  &#xD;&#xA;I know I explained that by no means plainly nor intelligibly.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Videor mihi parum **dīlūcidē** {dīcere, rem expōnere, narrāre, etc}.  &#xD;&#xA;I suspect I'm not expressing myself/explaining this in the most obvious terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This are obviously all quite literal. If you want a shorter, more interjecton-like reply, equivalent to &quot;you don't understand&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* {Minus, haud rēctē, perperam} intelligis.  &#xD;&#xA;You don't undersatnd/you misunderstand etc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Haud rem tenēs.  &#xD;&#xA;No, not that/That's not what I mean.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ista omnīnō perperam interpretāstī.  &#xD;&#xA;You've got it completely wrong/that's absolutely not what I meant.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* PA: Nōn opīnor, Dāve. DA: &quot;Opīnor&quot; narrās? **Nōn rēctē accipis**: certa rēs est! [(Ter. Andr. 367)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/terence-woman_andros/2001/pb_LCL022.89.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;PA: I don't think so, Davus. DA: Pfft, think? **You don't get it**: it’s a certainty!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully this will give you some options to work with :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10925" RevisionGUID="08d945e9-4e4e-46ca-ab60-35f148704eca" CreationDate="2019-06-09T14:45:54.283" UserId="2389" Comment="added 1470 characters in body" Text="**&quot;To explain oneself&quot;**, as an official-sounding idiomatic expression for providing plausible reasons or explanation for one's statements or behaviour, can be expressed with (examples mine unless cited, translations variously mine or lifted from the Loebs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[quid sibi vult?](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=volo) (ctrl+F &quot;sibi vult&quot;) is perhaps the shortest and most idiomatic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quid istuc est? Aut **quid istic sibi vult** sermō? Māter, dēlicā. [(Titinius Tog. 102 R)](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/137/1/0/5500-5509#0)  &#xD;&#xA;What is this? Or rather, what's the meaning of this speech? Do explain, mother.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* **Quid volt sibī**, Syre, haec ōrātio? [(Ter. Heaut. 616)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/terence-self_tormentor/2001/pb_LCL022.245.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;**What does she mean** by that remark, Syrus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar is the interrogative adverb [quōrsum](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=quorsum):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quōrsum haec?  &#xD;&#xA;Where are you heading with this? What's the purpose/intended meaning of this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[prōloquī](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=proloqui)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quid istuc est? Quid flēs? Quid lacrimās largitus? **Prōloquere**! [(Afran. ap. Non. 514, 31)](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/404/1/0/10592-10603#0)  &#xD;&#xA;What is this? What's with the weeping? Why the copious crying? Come on, **tell me**!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ratiōnem](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=rationem) reddere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Tibi ego **ratiōnem reddam**, stimulōrum seges?! [(Pl. Aul. 45)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/plautus-pot_gold/2011/pb_LCL060.265.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;I should **be accountable** to you, you crop of cattle-prods?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[satisfactiō](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=satisfactio), in certain contexts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Hīc tū mē etiam īnsimulās nec **satisfactiōnem meam** accipis? [(Cic. Fam. 7, 13, 1)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-letters_friends/2001/pb_LCL205.211.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;And now do you still persist in making false charges against me and refuse to accept **my explanation**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the verb [satisfacere](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=satis) (ctrl+F to &quot;facio&quot;), but it seems to me to sound too grave and explicitly recognise guilt by making amends:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Accēperam jam ante Caesaris litterās ut **mihi satis fierī** paterer a tē... [(Cic. Phil. 2, 20, 49)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-philippic_2/2010/pb_LCL189.103.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;I had previously received a letter from Caesar asking me to **accept your apologies**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[excūsātiō](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=excusatio) and [sē excūsāre](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=excuso) can also be used to acknowledge being in the wrong, and by extension ironically to request an explanation. However, I don't think that *excūsā tē!,* proposed in another reply, is any more appropriate than the English &quot;excuse yourself!&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quid dīcis/affers/offers **in excūsātiōnem** (tuī)?  &#xD;&#xA;What do you say/offer/present **in your defence**?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quōmodo mē **excūsābō** reī pūblicae, cui duōs abstulī? [(SenRhet. ConExc. 4 , 3, 1)](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1014/2/26/513-521#26)  &#xD;&#xA;How do I **excuse myself** before the republic, having deprived it of two of its citizens?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it must be understood that none of these are unambiguous idiomatic interjections like &quot;Explain yourself!&quot;, and most of the time you have to explicitly state what it is you're asking an explanation for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also verbs like **causārī**, **obtendere**, **praetendere**, **praetexere**, **ad aliquid confugere** which all can be used to mean &quot;provide as a cause, excuse, justification&quot;. I'll leave it to the reader to look up their usage in the dictionaries - they're welcome to edit this answer with their findings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;To explain oneself well&quot;**, meaning &quot;to successfully explain one's thoughts/meaning/the matter at hand&quot;, can be expressed in quite a few ways (examples mine unless noted):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Vereor nē rem minus **praeclārē explicārim**.  &#xD;&#xA;I fear I didn't explain the matter all too well.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Putō mē nōn sānē **rēctē dīxisse**.  &#xD;&#xA;I think I didn't say that quite right.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Sciō mē ista nēquāquam tam **apertē nec plānē explicāsse**.  &#xD;&#xA;I know I explained that by no means plainly nor intelligibly.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Videor mihi parum **dīlūcidē** {dīcere, rem expōnere, narrāre, etc}.  &#xD;&#xA;I suspect I'm not expressing myself/explaining this in the most obvious terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This are obviously all quite literal. If you want a shorter, more interjecton-like reply, equivalent to &quot;you don't understand&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* {Minus, haud rēctē, perperam} intelligis.  &#xD;&#xA;You don't undersatnd/you misunderstand etc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Haud rem tenēs.  &#xD;&#xA;No, not that/That's not what I mean.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ista omnīnō perperam interpretāstī.  &#xD;&#xA;You've got it completely wrong/that's absolutely not what I meant.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* PA: Nōn opīnor, Dāve. DA: &quot;Opīnor&quot; narrās? **Nōn rēctē accipis**: certa rēs est! [(Ter. Andr. 367)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/terence-woman_andros/2001/pb_LCL022.89.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;PA: I don't think so, Davus. DA: Pfft, think? **You don't get it**: it’s a certainty!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully this will give you some options to work with :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10925" RevisionGUID="0dac057f-7d8f-4bc8-b0bd-a81d9a5fa166" CreationDate="2019-06-09T14:55:59.107" UserId="2389" Comment="added 1470 characters in body" Text="**&quot;To explain oneself&quot;**, as an official-sounding idiomatic expression for providing plausible reasons or explanation for one's statements or behaviour, can be expressed with (examples mine unless cited, translations variously mine or lifted from the Loebs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[quid sibi vult?](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=volo) (ctrl+F &quot;sibi vult&quot;) is perhaps the shortest and most idiomatic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quid istuc est? Aut **quid istic sibi vult** sermō? Māter, dēlicā. [(Titinius Tog. 102 R)](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/137/1/0/5500-5509#0)  &#xD;&#xA;What is this? Or rather, what's the meaning of this speech? Do explain, mother.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* **Quid volt sibī**, Syre, haec ōrātio? [(Ter. Heaut. 616)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/terence-self_tormentor/2001/pb_LCL022.245.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;**What does she mean** by that remark, Syrus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar is the interrogative adverb [quōrsum](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=quorsum):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quōrsum haec?  &#xD;&#xA;Where are you heading with this? What's the purpose/intended meaning of this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[prōloquī](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=proloqui)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quid istuc est? Quid flēs? Quid lacrimās largitus? **Prōloquere**! [(Afran. ap. Non. 514, 31)](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/404/1/0/10592-10603#0)  &#xD;&#xA;What is this? What's with the weeping? Why the copious crying? Come on, **tell me**!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ratiōnem](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=rationem) reddere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Tibi ego **ratiōnem reddam**, stimulōrum seges?! [(Pl. Aul. 45)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/plautus-pot_gold/2011/pb_LCL060.265.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;I should **be accountable** to you, you crop of cattle-prods?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[satisfactiō](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=satisfactio), in certain contexts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Hīc tū mē etiam īnsimulās nec **satisfactiōnem meam** accipis? [(Cic. Fam. 7, 13, 1)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-letters_friends/2001/pb_LCL205.211.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;And now do you still persist in making false charges against me and refuse to accept **my explanation**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the verb [satisfacere](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=satis) (ctrl+F to &quot;facio&quot;), but it seems to me to sound too grave and explicitly recognise guilt by making amends:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Accēperam jam ante Caesaris litterās ut **mihi satis fierī** paterer a tē... [(Cic. Phil. 2, 20, 49)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-philippic_2/2010/pb_LCL189.103.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;I had previously received a letter from Caesar asking me to **accept your apologies**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[excūsātiō](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=excusatio) and [sē excūsāre](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=excuso) can also be used to acknowledge being in the wrong, and by extension ironically to request an explanation. However, I don't think that *excūsā tē!,* proposed in another reply, is any more appropriate than the English &quot;excuse yourself!&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quid dīcis/affers/offers **in excūsātiōnem** (tuī)?  &#xD;&#xA;What do you say/offer/present **in your defence**?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quōmodo mē **excūsābō** reī pūblicae, cui duōs abstulī? [(SenRhet. ConExc. 4 , 3, 1)](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1014/2/26/513-521#26)  &#xD;&#xA;How do I **excuse myself** before the republic, having deprived it of two of its citizens?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it must be understood that none of these are unambiguous idiomatic interjections like &quot;Explain yourself!&quot;, and most of the time you have to explicitly state what it is you're asking an explanation for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also verbs like **causārī**, **obtendere**, **praetendere**, **praetexere**, **ad aliquid confugere** which all can be used to mean &quot;provide as a cause, excuse, justification&quot;. I'll leave it to the reader to look up their usage in the dictionaries - they're welcome to edit this answer with their findings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;To explain oneself well&quot;**, meaning &quot;to successfully explain one's thoughts/meaning/the matter at hand&quot;, can be expressed in quite a few ways (examples mine unless noted):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Vereor nē rem minus **praeclārē explicārim**.  &#xD;&#xA;I fear I didn't explain the matter all too well.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Putō mē nōn sānē **rēctē dīxisse**.  &#xD;&#xA;I think I didn't say that quite right.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Sciō mē ista nēquāquam tam **apertē nec plānē explicāsse**.  &#xD;&#xA;I know I explained that by no means plainly nor intelligibly.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Videor mihi parum {dīlūcidē, perspicuē, ēnōdātē} {dīcere, rem expōnere, narrāre, etc}.  &#xD;&#xA;I guess I'm not expressing myself/explaining/presenting this in the most obvious terms/accessible way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are obviously all quite literal. If you want a shorter, more interjecton-like reply, equivalent to &quot;you don't understand&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* {Minus, haud rēctē, perperam} intelligis.  &#xD;&#xA;You don't understand/you misunderstand etc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Haud rem tenēs.  &#xD;&#xA;No, not that/That's not what I mean.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ista omnīnō perperam interpretāstī.  &#xD;&#xA;You've got it completely wrong/that's absolutely not what I meant.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* PA: Nōn opīnor, Dāve. DA: &quot;Opīnor&quot; narrās? **Nōn rēctē accipis**: certa rēs est! [(Ter. Andr. 367)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/terence-woman_andros/2001/pb_LCL022.89.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;PA: I don't think so, Davus. DA: Pfft, think? **You don't get it**: it’s a certainty!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully this will give you some options to work with :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10925" RevisionGUID="3ae8e6e6-9446-40aa-8366-8383659b98a2" CreationDate="2019-06-09T15:57:20.963" UserId="2389" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="**&quot;To explain oneself&quot;**, as an official-sounding idiomatic expression for providing plausible reasons or explanation for one's statements or behaviour, can be expressed with (examples mine unless noted, translations variously mine or lifted from the Loebs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[quid sibi vult?](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=volo) (ctrl+F &quot;sibi vult&quot;) is perhaps the shortest and most idiomatic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quid istuc est? Aut **quid istic sibi vult** sermō? Māter, dēlicā. [(Titinius Tog. 102 R)](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/137/1/0/5500-5509#0)  &#xD;&#xA;What's that? Or rather, what's the meaning of this speech? Do explain, mother.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* **Quid volt sibī**, Syre, haec ōrātio? [(Ter. Heaut. 616)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/terence-self_tormentor/2001/pb_LCL022.245.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;**What does she mean** by that remark, Syrus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar is the interrogative adverb [quōrsum](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=quorsum):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quōrsum haec (Ø, tendent, pertinent, spectant)?  &#xD;&#xA;Where are you heading with this? What's the purpose/intended meaning of this? What is this in relation to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[prōloquī](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=proloqui)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quid istuc est? Quid flēs? Quid lacrimās largitus? **Prōloquere**! [(Afran. ap. Non. 514, 31)](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/404/1/0/10592-10603#0)  &#xD;&#xA;What is this? What's with the weeping? Why the copious crying? Come on, **tell me**!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ratiōnem](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=rationem) reddere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Tibi ego **ratiōnem reddam**, stimulōrum seges?! [(Pl. Aul. 45)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/plautus-pot_gold/2011/pb_LCL060.265.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;I should **be accountable** to you, you crop of cattle-prods?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[satisfactiō](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=satisfactio), in certain contexts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Hīc tū mē etiam īnsimulās nec **satisfactiōnem meam** accipis? [(Cic. Fam. 7, 13, 1)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-letters_friends/2001/pb_LCL205.211.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;And now do you still persist in making false charges against me and refuse to accept **my explanation**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the verb [satisfacere](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=satis) (ctrl+F to &quot;facio&quot;), but it seems to me to sound too grave and explicitly recognise guilt by making amends:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Accēperam jam ante Caesaris litterās ut **mihi satis fierī** paterer a tē... [(Cic. Phil. 2, 20, 49)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-philippic_2/2010/pb_LCL189.103.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;I had previously received a letter from Caesar asking me to **accept your apologies**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[excūsātiō](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=excusatio) and [sē excūsāre](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=excuso) can also be used to acknowledge potentially being in the wrong, and by extension ironically to request an explanation. However, I don't think that *excūsā tē!,* proposed in another reply, is any more appropriate than the English &quot;excuse yourself!&quot;, &quot;present your excuses!&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quid dīcis/affers/offers **in excūsātiōnem** (tuī)?  &#xD;&#xA;What do you say/offer/present **in your defence**?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quōmodo mē **excūsābō** reī pūblicae, cui duōs abstulī? [(SenRhet. ConExc. 4 , 3, 1)](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1014/2/26/513-521#26)  &#xD;&#xA;How do I **excuse myself** before the republic, having deprived it of two of its citizens?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it must be understood that none of these are unambiguous idiomatic interjections like &quot;Explain yourself!&quot;, and most of the time you have to explicitly state what it is you're asking an explanation for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also verbs like **causārī**, **obtendere**, **praetendere**, **praetexere**, **ad aliquid confugere** which all can be used to mean &quot;provide as a cause, excuse, justification&quot;. I'll leave it to the reader to look up their usage in the dictionaries - they're welcome to edit this answer with their findings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;To explain oneself well&quot;**, meaning &quot;to successfully explain one's thoughts/meaning/the matter at hand&quot;, can be expressed in quite a few ways (examples mine unless noted):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Vereor nē rem minus **praeclārē explicārim**.  &#xD;&#xA;I fear I haven't explained the matter all too well.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Putō mē nōn sānē **rēctē dīxisse**.  &#xD;&#xA;I think I didn't say that quite right.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Sciō mē ista nēquāquam tam **apertē nec plānē explicāsse**.  &#xD;&#xA;I know I explained that by no means plainly or intelligibly.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Videor mihi parum {dīlūcidē, perspicuē, ēnōdātē} {dīcere, rem expōnere, narrāre, etc}.  &#xD;&#xA;I guess I'm not expressing myself/explaining/presenting this in the most obvious terms/accessible way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are obviously all somewhat verbose. If you want a shorter, more interjecton-like reply, equivalent to &quot;you don't understand&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* {Minus, haud rēctē, perperam} intelligis.  &#xD;&#xA;You don't understand/You misunderstand etc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Haud rem tenēs.  &#xD;&#xA;No, it's not like that/That's not what I mean.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ista omnīnō perperam interpretāstī.  &#xD;&#xA;You've got it completely wrong/That's absolutely not what I meant.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* PA: Nōn opīnor, Dāve. DA: &quot;Opīnor&quot; narrās? **Nōn rēctē accipis**: certa rēs est! [(Ter. Andr. 367)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/terence-woman_andros/2001/pb_LCL022.89.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;PA: I don't think so, Davus. DA: Pfft, think? **You don't get it**: it’s a certainty!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully this will give you some options to work with :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32034" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4428" RevisionGUID="15f1338c-a81b-49c7-a9c8-3852441b243f" CreationDate="2019-06-09T18:21:14.040" UserId="79" Comment="115" />
  <row Id="32035" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="10584" RevisionGUID="8bd9bb20-9a0b-43c6-883a-b049634f3c4a" CreationDate="2019-06-09T18:25:41.993" UserId="79" Comment="116" />
  <row Id="32036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10926" RevisionGUID="0dbe1571-52aa-4ceb-a908-42511f066c27" CreationDate="2019-06-09T20:29:49.567" UserId="3248" Text="It can be useful to consult the relevant commentary made by A. J. Woodman (2018). _The Annals of Tacitus (Book IV)_. Series: _Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries_ (vol. 58). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the relevant quote on **page 87**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It is unclear whether _paelici_ is dative of agent (cf. 2.50.3n) or dative of the person concerned (as in _alicui suspectus esse_); either way, the use of the verb to mean 'to suspect, be suspicious of' seems to have been introduced by Tacitus (see _OLD 2_)&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Woodman, notice then that TWO interpretations should be possible here, whereby the two translations provided by Cerberus (cf. _lest he should be suspected by his mistress / be suspect to his mistress_) correspond to TWO different (descriptive) linguistic analyses: i.e., according to Woodman, only the former translation corresponds to the dative of agent reading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression _ne paelici suspicaretur_ is also more briefly commented on in the following book: Garrett G. Fagan &amp; Paul Murgatroyd (2010). _From Augustus to Nero: An Intermediate Latin Reader_. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the relevant quote on page **60**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_paelici_ is dative of agent. Sejanus did not want his mistress Livilla to have suspicions about his feelings for her, so he got rid of his wife&quot;.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10925" RevisionGUID="384e59d4-c039-45cb-813f-28059e2929f7" CreationDate="2019-06-09T20:55:01.707" UserId="2389" Comment="edited body" Text="**&quot;To explain oneself&quot;**, as an official-sounding idiomatic expression for providing plausible reasons or explanation for one's statements or behaviour, can be expressed with (examples mine unless noted, translations variously mine or lifted from the Loebs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[quid sibi vult?](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=volo) (ctrl+F &quot;sibi vult&quot;) is perhaps the shortest and most idiomatic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quid istuc est? Aut **quid istic sibi vult** sermō? Māter, dēlicā. [(Titinius Tog. 102 R)](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/137/1/0/5500-5509#0)  &#xD;&#xA;What's that? Or rather, what's the meaning of this speech? Do explain, mother.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* **Quid volt sibī**, Syre, haec ōrātio? [(Ter. Heaut. 616)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/terence-self_tormentor/2001/pb_LCL022.245.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;**What does she mean** by that remark, Syrus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar is the interrogative adverb [quōrsum](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=quorsum):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quōrsum haec (Ø, tendunt, pertinent, spectant)?  &#xD;&#xA;Where are you heading with this? What's the purpose/intended meaning of this? What is this in relation to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[prōloquī](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=proloqui)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quid istuc est? Quid flēs? Quid lacrimās largitus? **Prōloquere**! [(Afran. ap. Non. 514, 31)](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/404/1/0/10592-10603#0)  &#xD;&#xA;What is this? What's with the weeping? Why the copious crying? Come on, **tell me**!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ratiōnem](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=rationem) reddere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Tibi ego **ratiōnem reddam**, stimulōrum seges?! [(Pl. Aul. 45)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/plautus-pot_gold/2011/pb_LCL060.265.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;I should **be accountable** to you, you crop of cattle-prods?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[satisfactiō](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=satisfactio), in certain contexts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Hīc tū mē etiam īnsimulās nec **satisfactiōnem meam** accipis? [(Cic. Fam. 7, 13, 1)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-letters_friends/2001/pb_LCL205.211.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;And now do you still persist in making false charges against me and refuse to accept **my explanation**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the verb [satisfacere](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=satis) (ctrl+F to &quot;facio&quot;), but it seems to me to sound too grave and explicitly recognise guilt by making amends:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Accēperam jam ante Caesaris litterās ut **mihi satis fierī** paterer a tē... [(Cic. Phil. 2, 20, 49)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-philippic_2/2010/pb_LCL189.103.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;I had previously received a letter from Caesar asking me to **accept your apologies**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[excūsātiō](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=excusatio) and [sē excūsāre](http://alatius.com/ls/index.php?l=excuso) can also be used to acknowledge potentially being in the wrong, and by extension ironically to request an explanation. However, I don't think that *excūsā tē!,* proposed in another reply, is any more appropriate than the English &quot;excuse yourself!&quot;, &quot;present your excuses!&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quid dīcis/affers/offers **in excūsātiōnem** (tuī)?  &#xD;&#xA;What do you say/offer/present **in your defence**?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quōmodo mē **excūsābō** reī pūblicae, cui duōs abstulī? [(SenRhet. ConExc. 4 , 3, 1)](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1014/2/26/513-521#26)  &#xD;&#xA;How do I **excuse myself** before the republic, having deprived it of two of its citizens?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it must be understood that none of these are unambiguous idiomatic interjections like &quot;Explain yourself!&quot;, and most of the time you have to explicitly state what it is you're asking an explanation for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also verbs like **causārī**, **obtendere**, **praetendere**, **praetexere**, **ad aliquid confugere** which all can be used to mean &quot;provide as a cause, excuse, justification&quot;. I'll leave it to the reader to look up their usage in the dictionaries - they're welcome to edit this answer with their findings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;To explain oneself well&quot;**, meaning &quot;to successfully explain one's thoughts/meaning/the matter at hand&quot;, can be expressed in quite a few ways (examples mine unless noted):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Vereor nē rem minus **praeclārē explicārim**.  &#xD;&#xA;I fear I haven't explained the matter all too well.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Putō mē nōn sānē **rēctē dīxisse**.  &#xD;&#xA;I think I didn't say that quite right.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Sciō mē ista nēquāquam tam **apertē nec plānē explicāsse**.  &#xD;&#xA;I know I explained that by no means plainly or intelligibly.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Videor mihi parum {dīlūcidē, perspicuē, ēnōdātē} {dīcere, rem expōnere, narrāre, etc}.  &#xD;&#xA;I guess I'm not expressing myself/explaining/presenting this in the most obvious terms/accessible way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are obviously all somewhat verbose. If you want a shorter, more interjecton-like reply, equivalent to &quot;you don't understand&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* {Minus, haud rēctē, perperam} intelligis.  &#xD;&#xA;You don't understand/You misunderstand etc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Haud rem tenēs.  &#xD;&#xA;No, it's not like that/That's not what I mean.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ista omnīnō perperam interpretāstī.  &#xD;&#xA;You've got it completely wrong/That's absolutely not what I meant.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* PA: Nōn opīnor, Dāve. DA: &quot;Opīnor&quot; narrās? **Nōn rēctē accipis**: certa rēs est! [(Ter. Andr. 367)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/terence-woman_andros/2001/pb_LCL022.89.xml)  &#xD;&#xA;PA: I don't think so, Davus. DA: Pfft, think? **You don't get it**: it’s a certainty!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully this will give you some options to work with :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10926" RevisionGUID="e9315431-aade-438e-8c60-e34fb81d6e8e" CreationDate="2019-06-09T22:27:41.053" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar" Text="It can be useful to consult the relevant commentary made by A. J. Woodman (2018). _The Annals of Tacitus (Book IV)_. Series: _Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries_ (vol. 58). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the relevant quote on **page 87**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It is unclear whether _paelici_ is dative of agent (cf. 2.50.3n) or dative of the person concerned (as in _alicui suspectus esse_); either way, the use of the verb to mean 'to suspect, be suspicious of' seems to have been introduced by Tacitus (see _OLD 2_)&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Woodman, notice then that TWO interpretations are possible here, whereby the two translations provided by Cerberus (cf. _lest he should be suspected by his mistress / be suspect to his mistress_) correspond to TWO different (descriptive) linguistic analyses: i.e., according to Woodman, only the former translation corresponds to the dative of agent reading. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression _ne paelici suspectaretur_ is also briefly commented on in the following book: Garrett G. Fagan &amp; Paul Murgatroyd (2010). _From Augustus to Nero: An Intermediate Latin Reader_. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the relevant quote on page **60**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_paelici_ is dative of agent. Sejanus did not want his mistress Livilla to have suspicions about his feelings for her, so he got rid of his wife&quot;.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10927" RevisionGUID="b537d6b0-ba39-483b-b22f-e163471501c6" CreationDate="2019-06-10T03:47:34.377" UserId="1694" Text="Some time has passed without an answer to this question.  I don't have a real answer, but will submit what I *think* may be the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, no, I don't think Euripides wrote that, but it might be vaguely based on something that Euripides *did* write.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I did a Google search on the passage, I found it repeated, word for word, in several books (as you say &quot;on self-help and spiritualism&quot;).  I think the key may be in this particular [citation](https://sarahllaxtell.wordpress.com/tag/intuition/) which cites a source:  &quot;_quoted in The Goddess Companion by Pat Moynihan_&quot;.  Doing a Google search on &quot;The Goddess Companion&quot; yields a book by &quot;Patricia Monaghan&quot;, so I'm guessing the source of *all* these citations is in the latter work.  (Unfortunately, I can't look up the citation in the latter book without buying the book, which I have no desire to do.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what I think the citation might be ultimately based on is the following passage from _Helen_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὧν οὐ θέμις &lt;σ᾽&gt; οὔθ᾽ ὁσία  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ᾽πύρωσας ἐν &lt;θεῶν&gt; θαλάμοις,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [1355] μῆνιν δ᾽ ἔσχες μεγάλας  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ματρός, ὦ παῖ, θυσίας  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; οὐ σεβίζουσα θεᾶς.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   μέγα τοι δύναται νεβρῶν  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   παμποίκιλοι στολίδες  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [1360] κισσοῦ τε στεφθεῖσα χλόα  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; νάρθηκας εἰς ἱερούς,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ῥόμβου θ᾽ εἱλισσομένα  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; κύκλιος ἔνοσις αἰθερία,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; βακχεύουσά τ᾽ ἔθειρα Βρομί-  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [1365] ῳ καὶ παννυχίδες θεᾶς.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; † εὖ δέ νιν ἄμασιν  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὑπέρβαλε σελάνα †  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; μορφᾷ μόνον ηὔχεις.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English translations available on-line seem to be variants of an older translation by &#xD;&#xA;E. P. Coleridge.  Here's one version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thou hast wedded as thou never shouldst have done in defiance of all right, and thou hast incurred, my daughter, the wrath of the great mother by disregarding her sacrifices. Oh! mighty is the virtue in dress of dappled fawn-skin, in ivy green that twineth round a sacred thyrsus, in whirling tambourines struck as they revolve in air in tresses wildly streaming for the revelry of Bromius, and likewise in the sleepless vigils of the goddess, when the moon looks down and sheds her radiance o'er the scene. Thou wert confident in thy charms alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's pretty clear that the passage from _Helen_ does not match the spirit of the passage quoted in various books, but it won't be the first time that Classical quotations have gotten somewhat mangled.  Anyway, that's my best guess at the origin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10928" RevisionGUID="68b37b1b-a667-48c6-9dae-fb16766baa0f" CreationDate="2019-06-10T04:08:04.467" UserId="406" Text="The other answers explain the &quot;what&quot; very well; I wanted to add a bit on the &quot;why&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Brent Vine (in Klein's *Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These [forms] have their sources in phonological reductions (thus *audīstī* and the like **with regular glide loss and contraction for `/u̯/` between like vowels**), but then **induce analogical behavior in other contexts**, thus *amāstī* etc. for *amāvistī* etc. (where glide loss should not have occurred).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Emphasis mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the original phonological development was something like &quot;VwV → V when the two vowels are the same&quot;, which happened in the fourth conjugation. This then spread by analogy to the first conjugation. (It's worth noting that the ending *-ērunt* was originally *-is-ont*, with the same *-is-* as in *-is-tis* and the like. Rhotacism turned this into *-er-ont*; the long vowel was a later development.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it was already an analogical development, it makes sense that it spread to other &quot;irregular&quot; forms as well, such as Cerberus's *consuēstī* and Sumelic's *nōrunt*. But it was never truly universal or predictable outside the fourth conjugation, where Quintilian calls *-ivisse* [annoyingly pedantic][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/9187/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10929" RevisionGUID="56c8c39a-0254-4357-ba31-442f24409cc8" CreationDate="2019-06-10T07:48:04.323" UserId="4857" Text="Phrase 1 : Life is in the doing.&#xD;&#xA;Phrase 2 : The wood belongs to the families who have their roots in it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32042" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10929" RevisionGUID="56c8c39a-0254-4357-ba31-442f24409cc8" CreationDate="2019-06-10T07:48:04.323" UserId="4857" Text="I need help translating two sentences into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32043" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10929" RevisionGUID="56c8c39a-0254-4357-ba31-442f24409cc8" CreationDate="2019-06-10T07:48:04.323" UserId="4857" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32044" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10929" RevisionGUID="7dee6568-6072-470a-9747-b28ae88f12bc" CreationDate="2019-06-10T08:12:04.403" UserId="79" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10930" RevisionGUID="5c3e9034-ec81-4bd5-a39e-91e61f9be94e" CreationDate="2019-06-10T12:42:50.080" UserId="324" Text="To follow up on Varro’s answer: I do not think there is any real connection between the passage in Helena and the English so-called quotation, either in wording or in content. The only link is that both the “quotation” and the English version of the passage in Helena use at one point or another the word “tambourine”. In Euripides this translates ῥόμβος, one of the meanings of which is indeed “tambourine”, although L&amp;S cite this very passage for the sense “bull-roarer, instrument whirled round on the end of a string, used in the mysteries”. This leaves us actually with nothing.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10932" RevisionGUID="aa9089ab-04d7-409b-a639-187596ef728e" CreationDate="2019-06-11T03:13:51.383" UserId="9" Text="I found a blog post that discusses some of the history, although not the pronunciation, of words spelled with ΝΣ: &quot;[Greek etymology: *hádrynsis*](https://rdmr.eu/2018/hadrynsis/)&quot;, by Bas Clercx.  Published 10 July 2018. I also found a online handout by Roberto Batisti that summarizes some of the relevant sound changes: [Compensatory Lengthening in Ancient Greek. Phonetics, Phonology, Dialectology.](https://www.academia.edu/4491397/Compensatory_Lengthening_in_Ancient_Greek._Phonetics_Phonology_Dialectology)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, [ns] was lost multiple times in Greek, with different results. Original *ns (with *s* from Proto-European *s) retained the nasal and lost the fricative; apparently, the development was similar to that of intervocalic or word-initial original *s. These words seem to have developed differently in different dialects, but in Attic the vowel before the *n was subject to &quot;compensatory lengthening&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, the secondary *ns resulting from palatalization of *t to *s regularly lost the nasal and retained the fricative. Compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel occurred in these words also in Attic (it seems it could be diphthongized instead in other dialects).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that Buck (1955) discusses the history of these clusters, but I haven't read that work yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The word-final context (nominative singular forms)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nominative singular forms ending in ΝΣ, such as Τίρυνς, are exceptional and extremely uncommon. The only others that I know of are the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [ἕλμινς][helmins], ἕλμινθος. The LSJ entry says &quot;also nom. ἕλμις&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [πείρινς](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpei%2Frins), πείρινθος, although I'm not sure how many examples there are of the nominative singular in ancient sources. The LSJ entry says &quot;πείρινθος cited as nom. by Hsch., EM668.21&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LSJ also gives [ἀέρσι-πονς][aersipons], but I wonder whether that is a typo for ἀέρσι-πους. It seems to be derived from πούς, so I don't see where an Ν would come from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, nouns with stems ending in *-nt-* or *-n-* usually have nominative singular forms ending in *n* or *s* depending on certain conditions discussed in the following paper: Synchronic and Diachronic Derivation of Greek&#xD;&#xA;*n*- and *nt*-stem Nominative Singular Formations&quot;, by [Ian Hollenbaugh](https://www.academia.edu/37356445/Synchronic_and_Diachronic_Derivation_of_Greek_n-_and_nt-stem_Nominative_Singular_Formations).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The rarity of words ending in ΝΣ is a specific example of a more general rarity of resonants before Σ, and particularly before word-final Σ. The only Ancient Attic Greek word ending in ΛΣ is apparently *ἅλς*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[helmins]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De(%2Flmins&#xD;&#xA;[aersipons]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da)e%2Frsipons&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10932" RevisionGUID="e4a1ce14-36ad-4e73-84e7-0445f621febc" CreationDate="2019-06-11T03:19:17.290" UserId="9" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="I found a blog post that discusses some of the history, although not the pronunciation, of words spelled with ΝΣ: &quot;[Greek etymology: *hádrynsis*](https://rdmr.eu/2018/hadrynsis/)&quot;, by Bas Clercx.  Published 10 July 2018. I also found a online handout by Roberto Batisti that summarizes some of the relevant sound changes: [Compensatory Lengthening in Ancient Greek. Phonetics, Phonology, Dialectology.](https://www.academia.edu/4491397/Compensatory_Lengthening_in_Ancient_Greek._Phonetics_Phonology_Dialectology)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, [ns] was lost multiple times in Greek, with different results. Original *ns (with *s* from Proto-European *s) retained the nasal and lost the fricative; apparently, the development was similar to that of intervocalic or word-initial original *s. These words seem to have developed differently in different dialects, but in Attic the vowel before the *n was subject to &quot;compensatory lengthening&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, the secondary *ns resulting from palatalization of *t to *s regularly lost the nasal and retained the fricative. Compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel occurred in these words also in Attic (it seems it could be diphthongized instead in other dialects).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that Carl Darling Buck wrote about the history of these clusters in works published in 1933 and 1955, but I haven't read what he says yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The word-final context (nominative singular forms)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nominative singular forms ending in ΝΣ, such as Τίρυνς, are exceptional and extremely uncommon. The only others that I know of are the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [ἕλμινς][helmins], ἕλμινθος. The LSJ entry says &quot;also nom. ἕλμις&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [πείρινς](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpei%2Frins), πείρινθος, although I'm not sure how many examples there are of the nominative singular in ancient sources. The LSJ entry says &quot;πείρινθος cited as nom. by Hsch., EM668.21&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LSJ also gives [ἀέρσι-πονς][aersipons], but I wonder whether that is a typo for ἀέρσι-πους. It seems to be derived from πούς, so I don't see where an Ν would come from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, nouns with stems ending in *-nt-* or *-n-* usually have nominative singular forms ending in *n* or *s* depending on certain conditions discussed in the following paper: Synchronic and Diachronic Derivation of Greek&#xD;&#xA;*n*- and *nt*-stem Nominative Singular Formations&quot;, by [Ian Hollenbaugh](https://www.academia.edu/37356445/Synchronic_and_Diachronic_Derivation_of_Greek_n-_and_nt-stem_Nominative_Singular_Formations).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The rarity of words ending in ΝΣ is a specific example of a more general rarity of resonants before Σ, and particularly before word-final Σ. The only Ancient Attic Greek word ending in ΛΣ is apparently *ἅλς*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[helmins]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De(%2Flmins&#xD;&#xA;[aersipons]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da)e%2Frsipons&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10932" RevisionGUID="33e42873-0045-4f4c-8b1a-66102e6cc021" CreationDate="2019-06-11T03:25:50.957" UserId="9" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="###History and Distribution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a blog post that discusses some of the history, although not the pronunciation, of words spelled with ΝΣ: &quot;[Greek etymology: *hádrynsis*](https://rdmr.eu/2018/hadrynsis/)&quot;, by Bas Clercx.  Published 10 July 2018. I also found a online handout by Roberto Batisti that summarizes some of the relevant sound changes: [Compensatory Lengthening in Ancient Greek. Phonetics, Phonology, Dialectology.](https://www.academia.edu/4491397/Compensatory_Lengthening_in_Ancient_Greek._Phonetics_Phonology_Dialectology)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, [ns] was lost multiple times in Greek, with different results. Original *ns (with *s* from Proto-European *s) retained the nasal and lost the fricative; apparently, the development was similar to that of intervocalic or word-initial original *s. These words seem to have developed differently in different dialects, but in Attic the vowel before the *n was subject to &quot;compensatory lengthening&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, the secondary *ns resulting from palatalization of *t to *s regularly lost the nasal and retained the fricative. Compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel occurred in these words also in Attic (it seems it could be diphthongized instead in other dialects).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that Carl Darling Buck wrote about the history of these clusters in works published in 1933 and 1955, but I haven't read what he says yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The word-final context (nominative singular forms)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nominative singular forms ending in ΝΣ, such as Τίρυνς, are exceptional and extremely uncommon. The only others that I know of are the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [ἕλμινς][helmins], ἕλμινθος. The LSJ entry says &quot;also nom. ἕλμις&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [πείρινς](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpei%2Frins), πείρινθος, although I'm not sure how many examples there are of the nominative singular in ancient sources. The LSJ entry says &quot;πείρινθος cited as nom. by Hsch., EM668.21&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LSJ also gives [ἀέρσι-πονς][aersipons], but I wonder whether that is a typo for ἀέρσι-πους. It seems to be derived from πούς, so I don't see where an Ν would come from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, nouns with stems ending in *-nt-* or *-n-* usually have nominative singular forms ending in *n* or *s* depending on certain conditions discussed in the following paper: Synchronic and Diachronic Derivation of Greek&#xD;&#xA;*n*- and *nt*-stem Nominative Singular Formations&quot;, by [Ian Hollenbaugh](https://www.academia.edu/37356445/Synchronic_and_Diachronic_Derivation_of_Greek_n-_and_nt-stem_Nominative_Singular_Formations).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The rarity of words ending in ΝΣ is a specific example of a more general rarity of resonants before Σ, and particularly before word-final Σ. The only Ancient Attic Greek word ending in ΛΣ is apparently *ἅλς*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The pronunciation is still unclear to me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a Wiktionary page &quot;[Ancient Greek transliteration](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Ancient_Greek_transliteration)&quot; that says that the clusters νσ~νς and νζ are &quot;Not viable in Classical Attic, where the spelling is rare, and the ν is silent and audibly lengthens the preceding vowel instead&quot;, but I don't know how to tell whether this is accurate as a general rule, or whether it is an overly absolute description that is only based on the historical sound changes (and the single example of *Τίρυνς,* where there seems to be specific evidence for a pronunciation with a long vowel) without taking into account the possibility of exceptions to the sound changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm kind of skeptical that the usual distinction in Attic orthography between short ε and long ει would be lost in this context, since I don't know of any other situations in Attic where ε was regularly used to represent a long vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[helmins]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De(%2Flmins&#xD;&#xA;[aersipons]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da)e%2Frsipons&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10932" RevisionGUID="2791a0b5-0e25-4e48-ab5b-8df41d977add" CreationDate="2019-06-11T03:31:51.000" UserId="9" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="###History and Distribution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a blog post that discusses some of the history, although not the pronunciation, of words spelled with ΝΣ: &quot;[Greek etymology: *hádrynsis*](https://rdmr.eu/2018/hadrynsis/)&quot;, by Bas Clercx.  Published 10 July 2018. I also found a online handout by Roberto Batisti that summarizes some of the relevant sound changes: [Compensatory Lengthening in Ancient Greek. Phonetics, Phonology, Dialectology.](https://www.academia.edu/4491397/Compensatory_Lengthening_in_Ancient_Greek._Phonetics_Phonology_Dialectology)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, [ns] was lost multiple times in Greek, with different results. Original *ns (with *s* from Proto-European *s) retained the nasal and lost the fricative; apparently, the development was similar to that of intervocalic or word-initial original *s. These words seem to have developed differently in different dialects, but in Attic the vowel before the *n was subject to &quot;compensatory lengthening&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, the secondary *ns resulting from palatalization of *t to *s regularly lost the nasal and retained the fricative. Compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel occurred in these words also in Attic (in other dialects, the preceding vowel was diphthongized instead).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that Carl Darling Buck wrote about the history of these clusters in works published in 1933 and 1955, but I haven't read what he says yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The word-final context (nominative singular forms)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nominative singular forms ending in ΝΣ, such as Τίρυνς, are exceptional and extremely uncommon. The only others that I know of are the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [ἕλμινς][helmins], ἕλμινθος. The LSJ entry says &quot;also nom. ἕλμις&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [πείρινς](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpei%2Frins), πείρινθος, although I'm not sure how many examples there are of the nominative singular in ancient sources. The LSJ entry says &quot;πείρινθος cited as nom. by Hsch., EM668.21&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LSJ also gives [ἀέρσι-πονς][aersipons], but I wonder whether that is a typo for ἀέρσι-πους. It seems to be derived from πούς, so I don't see where an Ν would come from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, nouns with stems ending in *-nt-* or *-n-* usually have nominative singular forms ending in *n* or *s* depending on certain conditions discussed in the following paper: &quot;[Synchronic and Diachronic Derivation of Greek&#xD;&#xA;*n*- and *nt*-stem Nominative Singular Formations](https://www.academia.edu/37356445/Synchronic_and_Diachronic_Derivation_of_Greek_n-_and_nt-stem_Nominative_Singular_Formations)&quot;, by Ian Hollenbaugh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rarity of words ending in ΝΣ is a specific example of a more general rarity of resonants before Σ, and particularly before word-final Σ. The only Ancient Attic Greek word ending in ΛΣ is apparently *ἅλς*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The pronunciation is still unclear to me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a Wiktionary page &quot;[Ancient Greek transliteration](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Ancient_Greek_transliteration)&quot; that says that the clusters νσ~νς and νζ are &quot;Not viable in Classical Attic, where the spelling is rare, and the ν is silent and audibly lengthens the preceding vowel instead&quot;, but I don't know how to tell whether this is accurate as a general rule, or whether it is an overly absolute description that is only based on the historical sound changes (and the single example of *Τίρυνς,* where there seems to be specific evidence for a pronunciation with a long vowel) without taking into account the possibility of exceptions to the sound changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm kind of skeptical that the usual distinction in Attic orthography between short ε and long ει would be lost in this context, since I don't know of any other situations in Attic where ε was regularly used to represent a long vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[helmins]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De(%2Flmins&#xD;&#xA;[aersipons]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da)e%2Frsipons&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10933" RevisionGUID="9ebaf899-09f3-4977-bbba-23ae8bd09106" CreationDate="2019-06-11T12:03:43.460" UserId="2389" Text="I do not find *futūrum est* modified by a manner adjunct, probably not least because *futūrum* is also a noun &quot;the future&quot;, and such a usage would be an infelicitous mix of the form's two grammatical functions - I would read it as a single noun *benefutūrum* &quot;the good-things-to-come&quot; by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure about *Omnia bene erunt* because, as far as I see, it (along with similar adverbs) occurs either impersonally in reference to subjective perception:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ubi tū **lepidē** volēs **esse tibi**, ‘mea rosa,’ mihi dīcitō... (‘When you want to have a lovely time, say to me, “my rose,”...’ Pl. Bac. 83)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Jūrat **bene** sōlīs **esse** marītīs. ('He swears that only the married are well&#xD;&#xA; off.' [Hor. Ep. 1.1.89)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/horace-epistles/1926/pb_LCL194.259.xml)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...or as a subject compliment to animate nouns with seemingly the same meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Minōre nūsquam **bene fuī** dispendiō. (‘I’ve never had a good time at lower cost.’ Pl. Men. 485)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quīn ergō īmus atque obsonium cūrāmus, **pulchrē ut sīmus**?&#xD;&#xA;(‘Why don’t we go then and sort out the food in order to have a lovely time?’ Pl. Mer. 582–3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the impersonal interjection *Bene habet*, equivalent to *Bene est* (&quot;Fine&quot;, &quot;All right&quot;, &quot;That's good&quot;), but I don't see it used in any tense other than the present in the classical corpus. There are a couple of examples of *bene **sē** habēbit*, one referring to *rēs* and another to a person, and a third one to *ossa* in a medical treatise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to my own suggestions. The last examples leads me to think that **rēs sē bene habēbunt** should work, but ultimately I think the problem is the choice of adverb rather than tense. While *bene* refers to subjective state, objectively &quot;fine&quot; is best expressed with **rēctē**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ūnī nīmīrum **rēctē** tibi semper **erunt rēs**... (‘For you alone, of course, things will always go well...’ Hor. S. 2.2.106)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ego puto tē bellissimē, si **rēctē erit**, cum quaestōre Mesciniō dēcursūrum. ('I think it would be very nice, if all goes well, for you to sail home with Quaestor Mescinius.' [Cic. Fam. 16.4.3.4](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-letters_friends/2001/pb_LCL216.29.xml))&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* **Rēctēne omnia**, quod jam prīdem epistulae tuae cessant? ('Is everything all right? Because I haven't recieved any letters from you for a while now. [PlinIun.Ep.3.17.1.1](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1318/1/60/86-99#60))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among other expressions I can suggest **salvae rēs erunt**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Salva rēs est! ('The affair is all right/All is well/We're safe in regard to this')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Tūtō erimus__:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ut **tūtō sim** quod labōrās, id mihi nunc facillimum est... (‘As to your anxiety for my personal safety, that is now the easiest thing in the world for me...’ Cic. Fam. 14.3.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seeing as these don't seem to be idiomatic interjection-like phrases in their own right, I suggest to join them with the usual idiomatic replies used to comfort someone:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Sine cūrā sīs, **salvae rēs erunt**! ('Don't worry, things will turn out good!')&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Aliud cūrā, **omnia rēctē erunt**! ('Don't worry about it, everything will be all right!')&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Nōlī tē cruciāre, **tūtō erimus**! ('Don't torture yourself about it, we'll be safe!')" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10933" RevisionGUID="7f0f093a-291d-4277-a5ee-a8c916be9f8f" CreationDate="2019-06-11T12:10:25.153" UserId="2389" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="I do not find *futūrum est* modified by a manner adjunct, probably not least because *futūrum* is also a noun &quot;the future&quot;, and such a usage would be an infelicitous mixture of the form's two grammatical functions - I would read it as a single noun *benefutūrum* &quot;the good-things-to-come&quot; by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure about *Omnia bene erunt* because, as far as I see, it (along with similar adverbs) occurs either impersonally in reference to subjective perception:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ubi tū **lepidē** volēs **esse tibi**, ‘mea rosa,’ mihi dīcitō... (‘When you want to have a lovely time, say to me, “my rose,”...’ Pl. Bac. 83)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Jūrat **bene** sōlīs **esse** marītīs. ('He swears that only the married are well&#xD;&#xA; off.' [Hor. Ep. 1.1.89)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/horace-epistles/1926/pb_LCL194.259.xml)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...or as a subject compliment to animate nouns with seemingly the same meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Minōre nūsquam **bene fuī** dispendiō. (‘I’ve never had a good time at lower cost.’ Pl. Men. 485)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quīn ergō īmus atque obsonium cūrāmus, **pulchrē ut sīmus**?&#xD;&#xA;(‘Why don’t we go then and sort out the food in order to have a lovely time?’ Pl. Mer. 582–3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the impersonal interjection *Bene habet*, equivalent to *Bene est* (&quot;Fine&quot;, &quot;All right&quot;, &quot;That's good&quot;), but I don't see it used in any tense other than the present in the classical corpus. There are a couple of examples of **bene sē habēbit**, one referring to *rēs* and another to a person, and a third one to *ossa* in a medical treatise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to my own suggestions. The last example suggests that **rēs sē bene habēbunt** should work, but ultimately I think the problem is the choice of adverb rather than construction or tense. While *bene* refers to subjective state, objectively &quot;fine&quot; is expressed with **rēctē**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ūnī nīmīrum **rēctē** tibi semper **erunt rēs**... (‘For you alone, of course, things will always go well...’ Hor. S. 2.2.106)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ego puto tē bellissimē, si **rēctē erit**, cum quaestōre Mesciniō dēcursūrum. ('I think it would be very nice, if all goes well, for you to sail home with Quaestor Mescinius.' [Cic. Fam. 16.4.3.4](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-letters_friends/2001/pb_LCL216.29.xml))&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* **Rēctēne omnia**, quod jam prīdem epistulae tuae cessant? ('Is everything all right? Because I haven't recieved any letters from you for a while now. [PlinIun.Ep.3.17.1.1](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1318/1/60/86-99#60))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among other expressions I can suggest **salvae rēs erunt**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Salva rēs est! ('The affair is all right/All is well/We're safe in regard to this')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As well as __tūtō erimus__:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ut **tūtō sim** quod labōrās, id mihi nunc facillimum est... (‘As to your anxiety for my personal safety, that is now the easiest thing in the world for me...’ Cic. Fam. 14.3.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, seeing as these don't seem to be idiomatic interjection-like phrases in their own right, I suggest to join them with the usual idiomatic replies used to comfort someone:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Sine cūrā sīs, **salvae rēs erunt**! ('Don't worry, things will turn out good!')&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Aliud cūrā, **omnia rēctē erunt**! ('Don't worry about it, everything will be all right!')&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Nōlī tē cruciāre, **tūtō erimus**! ('Don't torture yourself about it, we'll be safe!')" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10933" RevisionGUID="2c3ac822-0f07-4494-bbdb-56bfc96a665e" CreationDate="2019-06-11T12:27:15.627" UserId="2389" Comment="added 345 characters in body" Text="I do not find *futūrum est* modified by a manner adjunct, probably not least because *futūrum* is also a noun &quot;the future&quot;, and such a usage would be an infelicitous mixture of the form's two grammatical functions - I would read it as a single noun *benefutūrum* &quot;the good-things-to-come&quot; by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure about *Omnia bene erunt* because, as far as I see, it (along with similar adverbs) occurs either impersonally in reference to subjective perception:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ubi tū **lepidē** volēs **esse tibi**, ‘mea rosa,’ mihi dīcitō... (‘When you want to have a lovely time, say to me, “my rose,”...’ Pl. Bac. 83)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Jūrat **bene** sōlīs **esse** marītīs. ('He swears that only the married are well&#xD;&#xA; off.' [Hor. Ep. 1.1.89)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/horace-epistles/1926/pb_LCL194.259.xml)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...or as a subject compliment to animate nouns with seemingly the same meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Minōre nūsquam **bene fuī** dispendiō. (‘I’ve never had a good time at lower cost.’ Pl. Men. 485)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quīn ergō īmus atque obsonium cūrāmus, **pulchrē ut sīmus**?&#xD;&#xA;(‘Why don’t we go then and sort out the food in order to have a lovely time?’ Pl. Mer. 582–3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the impersonal interjection *Bene habet*, equivalent to *Bene est* (&quot;Fine&quot;, &quot;All right&quot;, &quot;That's good&quot;), but I don't see it used in any tense other than the present in the classical corpus. There are a couple of examples of **bene sē habēbit**, one referring to *rēs* and another to a person, and a third one to *ossa* in a medical treatise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to my own suggestions. The last example suggests that **rēs sē bene habēbunt** should work, but ultimately I think the problem is the choice of adverb rather than construction or tense. While *bene* refers to subjective state, objectively &quot;fine&quot; is expressed with **rēctē**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ūnī nīmīrum **rēctē** tibi semper **erunt rēs**... (‘For you alone, of course, things will always go well...’ Hor. S. 2.2.106)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ego puto tē bellissimē, si **rēctē erit**, cum quaestōre Mesciniō dēcursūrum. ('I think it would be very nice, if all goes well, for you to sail home with Quaestor Mescinius.' [Cic. Fam. 16.4.3.4](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-letters_friends/2001/pb_LCL216.29.xml))&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* **Rēctēne omnia**, quod jam prīdem epistulae tuae cessant? ('Is everything all right? Because I haven't recieved any letters from you for a while now. [PlinIun.Ep.3.17.1.1](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1318/1/60/86-99#60))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among other expressions I can suggest **salvae rēs erunt**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Salva rēs est! ('The affair is all right/All is well/We're safe in regard to this')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As well as __tūtō erimus__:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ut **tūtō sim** quod labōrās, id mihi nunc facillimum est... (‘As to your anxiety for my personal safety, that is now the easiest thing in the world for me...’ Cic. Fam. 14.3.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, seeing as these don't seem to be idiomatic interjection-like phrases in their own right, I suggest to join them with the usual idiomatic replies used to comfort someone:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Sine cūrā sīs, **salvae rēs erunt**! ('Don't worry, things will turn out good!')&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Aliud cūrā, **omnia rēctē erunt**! ('Don't worry about it, everything will be all right!')&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Nōlī tē cruciāre, **tūtō erimus**! ('Don't torture yourself about it, we'll be safe!')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you need to underline a happy issue of some definite situation, you can phrase this using the verbs of happening. **Rēs bene cadent/cāsūrae sunt** from another reply is a good option, and [other suggestions from S&amp;H](https://www.latinitium.com/smithhall?s=turn+out) include **prosperē/fēlīciter ēvenīre, bene cēdere, prosperē prōcēdere**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10933" RevisionGUID="93d275f7-158e-47ec-9e9e-835488b23ebc" CreationDate="2019-06-11T12:33:36.853" UserId="2389" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I do not find *futūrum est* modified by a manner adjunct, probably not least because *futūrum* is also a noun &quot;the future&quot;, and such a usage would be an infelicitous mixture of the form's two grammatical functions - I would read it as a single noun *benefutūrum* &quot;the good-things-to-come&quot; by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure about *Omnia bene erunt* because, as far as I see, it (along with similar adverbs) occurs either impersonally in reference to subjective perception:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ubi tū **lepidē** volēs **esse tibi**, ‘mea rosa,’ mihi dīcitō... (‘When you want to have a lovely time, say to me, “my rose,”...’ Pl. Bac. 83)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Jūrat **bene** sōlīs **esse** marītīs. ('He swears that only the married are well&#xD;&#xA; off.' [Hor. Ep. 1.1.89)](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/horace-epistles/1926/pb_LCL194.259.xml)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...or as a subject compliment to animate nouns with seemingly the same meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Minōre nūsquam **bene fuī** dispendiō. (‘I’ve never had a good time at lower cost.’ Pl. Men. 485)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Quīn ergō īmus atque obsonium cūrāmus, **pulchrē ut sīmus**?&#xD;&#xA;(‘Why don’t we go then and sort out the food in order to have a lovely time?’ Pl. Mer. 582–3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the impersonal interjection *Bene habet*, equivalent to *Bene est* (&quot;Fine&quot;, &quot;All right&quot;, &quot;That's good&quot;), but I don't see it used in any tense other than the present in the classical corpus. There are a couple of examples of **bene sē habēbit**, one referring to *rēs* and another to a person, and a third one to *ossa* in a medical treatise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what are my own suggestions, then? Judging by the last example, **rēs sē bene habēbunt** should work, but ultimately I think the problem is the choice of adverb rather than construction or tense. While *bene* refers to subjective state, objectively &quot;fine&quot; is expressed with **rēctē**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ūnī nīmīrum **rēctē** tibi semper **erunt rēs**... (‘For you alone, of course, things will always go well...’ Hor. S. 2.2.106)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ego puto tē bellissimē, si **rēctē erit**, cum quaestōre Mesciniō dēcursūrum. ('I think it would be very nice, if all goes well, for you to sail home with Quaestor Mescinius.' [Cic. Fam. 16.4.3.4](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-letters_friends/2001/pb_LCL216.29.xml))&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* **Rēctēne omnia**, quod jam prīdem epistulae tuae cessant? ('Is everything all right? Because I haven't recieved any letters from you for a while now. [PlinIun.Ep.3.17.1.1](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1318/1/60/86-99#60))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among other expressions I can suggest **salvae rēs erunt**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Salva rēs est! ('The affair is all right/All is well/We're safe in regard to this')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As well as __tūtō erimus__:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Ut **tūtō sim** quod labōrās, id mihi nunc facillimum est... (‘As to your anxiety for my personal safety, that is now the easiest thing in the world for me...’ Cic. Fam. 14.3.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, seeing as these don't seem to be idiomatic interjection-like phrases in their own right, I suggest joining them with some idiomatic reply used to comfort someone:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Sine cūrā sīs, **salvae rēs erunt**! ('Don't worry, things will turn out good!')&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Aliud cūrā, **omnia rēctē erunt**! ('Don't worry about it, everything will be all right!')&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* Nōlī tē cruciāre, **tūtō erimus**! ('Don't torture yourself about it, we'll be safe!')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you need to underline a happy issue of some definite situation, you can phrase this using the verbs of happening. **Rēs bene cadent/cāsūrae sunt** from another reply is a good option, and [other suggestions from S&amp;H](https://www.latinitium.com/smithhall?s=turn+out) include **prosperē/fēlīciter ēvenīre, bene cēdere, prosperē prōcēdere**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5313" RevisionGUID="b8682379-62ca-43f3-afe6-309b7a5159c7" CreationDate="2019-06-11T19:43:44.077" UserId="79" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="The guess *nescio quam* is indeed a good one.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cicero, *Epistulae ad Atticum* [13.19.3.4](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/474/57/335/842-853#335): *nescio quam bene*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was the only such use of *nescio quam bene/longe/vetus/...* I could find that was not an indirect question.&#xD;&#xA;Of course there are examples like this, *nescio* is the predicate, not a side remark:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Quintilianus, *Declamationes Maiores* [4.23.7](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/1002/3/3/31150-31161#3): *nescio quam longe*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most [occurrences of *nescio quam*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=nescio+quam) the *quam* is in fact a feminine accusative of *quis*.&#xD;&#xA;Examples (there were several):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cicero, *Pro Quinctio* [37.7](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/474/1/8/1079-1090@1#8): *istam nescio quam innumerabilem pecuniam*&#xD;&#xA;- Cicero, *Pro Cluentio* [74.8](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/474/10/15/907-918@1#15): *causam nescio quam apud iudicem defendebat*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other cases and genders are of course possible as well; see [the corpus search for *nescio qu-*](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=nescio+qu&amp;first=11).&#xD;&#xA;Based on these examples and the single attestation from Cicero, the suggested use of *nescio quam* in the question looks like idiomatic classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly, it might mean &quot;I don't know how much&quot; more literally than the question intends, but it is the best hit I could find." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32062" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="1201" RevisionGUID="0082efd5-5ed6-4d50-8388-73055ffe6dbf" CreationDate="2019-06-11T21:01:56.357" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10934" RevisionGUID="4cfb1b91-b6f5-4551-8973-86e16973bd18" CreationDate="2019-06-11T21:43:10.113" UserId="324" Text="The world's best expert on Latin pronunciation is Alex Foreman. Listen to these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://blogicarian.blogspot.com/2019/06/readings-of-latin-verse.html?fbclid=IwAR0zA4_GH5ce8Vw22HyO9Emud09Ovi7fYJsEZfDrayfN33QEWH8ux3Lf6o4&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10935" RevisionGUID="7772f3ae-dedc-451d-b5c0-c5727b9bea9c" CreationDate="2019-06-12T09:49:51.197" UserId="4796" Text="In Sixto-Clementine Vulgate we find in Genesis this verse: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; poenituit eum quod **hominum** fecisset in terra (Genesis 6:6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;hominum&quot; is in the genetive case which I find strange. I try searching for the instances where genetive case would be used after verb, and it seems to be related mainly to remember/forgetting verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I wonder if that's a general practice or I'm missing something in my analysis of the verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(by the way, other translations indeed use the accusative case (sometime in singular) in this verse). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32065" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10935" RevisionGUID="7772f3ae-dedc-451d-b5c0-c5727b9bea9c" CreationDate="2019-06-12T09:49:51.197" UserId="4796" Text="The instances where verbs might take the genitive case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32066" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10935" RevisionGUID="7772f3ae-dedc-451d-b5c0-c5727b9bea9c" CreationDate="2019-06-12T09:49:51.197" UserId="4796" Text="|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10936" RevisionGUID="96ddaa29-eb55-418c-86d8-c9d9cea54281" CreationDate="2019-06-12T10:51:45.903" UserId="324" Text="hominum is a post-classical (or if you prefer: erroneous) spelling for hominem (acc. sing.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32068" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10935" RevisionGUID="a9ad0074-91a9-4678-95d9-3e8589cb73e4" CreationDate="2019-06-12T12:42:50.983" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|genitive|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32069" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9433" RevisionGUID="5dee1c98-b028-4897-b1e9-7ec6d0497f14" CreationDate="2019-06-12T15:02:20.187" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10937" RevisionGUID="5d5ca50e-998e-45a6-af29-ab6706d9fd0c" CreationDate="2019-06-12T15:28:05.993" UserDisplayName="user4863" Text="Does &quot;aurea&quot; have the second meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;trecenta quoque scuta **aurea** trecentorum aureorum, quibus tegebantur singula scuta&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32071" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10937" RevisionGUID="5d5ca50e-998e-45a6-af29-ab6706d9fd0c" CreationDate="2019-06-12T15:28:05.993" UserDisplayName="user4863" Text="aurea obsolete meaning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32072" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10937" RevisionGUID="5d5ca50e-998e-45a6-af29-ab6706d9fd0c" CreationDate="2019-06-12T15:28:05.993" UserDisplayName="user4863" Text="|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32073" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="10937" RevisionGUID="37b70e45-9747-4d6a-8778-0d2476cb0d71" CreationDate="2019-06-12T15:33:06.050" UserDisplayName="user4863" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4863,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matt Bartlett&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32074" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="10937" RevisionGUID="9049b734-7d87-4173-a911-6aa8d49c8fc9" CreationDate="2019-06-12T15:35:30.857" UserDisplayName="user4863" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4863,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matt Bartlett&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10937" RevisionGUID="cd3cccd6-4367-4ebf-ab57-28d3b866b94a" CreationDate="2019-06-12T15:50:55.657" UserDisplayName="user4863" Comment="added 140 characters in body; edited title" Text="Does &quot;aurea&quot; have the second meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=aurea&amp;la=la#lexicon aurea doesn't mean &quot;the bridle of a horse&quot; in the following context in my opinion: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;trecenta quoque scuta **aurea** trecentorum aureorum, quibus tegebantur singula scuta&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32076" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10937" RevisionGUID="cd3cccd6-4367-4ebf-ab57-28d3b866b94a" CreationDate="2019-06-12T15:50:55.657" UserDisplayName="user4863" Comment="added 140 characters in body; edited title" Text="Does &quot;aurea&quot; have the second meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10938" RevisionGUID="a87ddcf6-2ea9-4cc3-8832-e5c251280054" CreationDate="2019-06-12T16:14:50.603" UserId="406" Text="In this case the word isn't [*aurea*][1] but [*aureus*][2], an adjective meaning &quot;golden, of gold&quot;—in the feminine singular and neuter plural it looks just like *aurea* &quot;bridle&quot;, but the &quot;golden&quot; meaning is much more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *trecenta quoque scuta aurea trecentorum aureorum, quibus tegebantur singula scuta*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And also three hundred golden shields [made] out of three hundred golden [shekels] (with which each individual shield was covered).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The grammar here is kind of awkward, but the point is that Solomon had so much gold he could use nine hundred thousand shekels of it to make shields.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DA%3Aentry%20group%3D91%3Aentry%3Daurea&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daureus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10939" RevisionGUID="0ef1993f-771d-418c-9f24-790f5223b991" CreationDate="2019-06-12T16:20:28.957" UserId="183" Text="It is a well known fact of Latin grammar, that trees follow *natural gender* and are always feminine, even when the word form would suggest masculine gender, as in *populus* &quot;poplar&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does motivate this kind of gender assignment? Is there an accepted explanation of that fact?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32079" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10939" RevisionGUID="0ef1993f-771d-418c-9f24-790f5223b991" CreationDate="2019-06-12T16:20:28.957" UserId="183" Text="What is known about the feminine natural gender for trees in classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32080" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10939" RevisionGUID="0ef1993f-771d-418c-9f24-790f5223b991" CreationDate="2019-06-12T16:20:28.957" UserId="183" Text="|noun|gender|mythology|religio|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10940" RevisionGUID="c4817b84-f673-4546-9d56-cd3870c59c7f" CreationDate="2019-06-12T16:27:59.853" UserId="406" Text="*Rēs gestae*, literally &quot;things accomplished&quot;, is the term for a record of an emperor's life achievements. Most famously, the funerary inscription of Augustus is called the *Rēs Gestae Dīvī Augustī*, the &quot;Things-Accomplished of the Divine Augustus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you want to use an explicit noun for &quot;things&quot;, I would use the verb *gerō*, in reference to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quās rēs igitur gerēs?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; What things are you going to accomplish, then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I find it more idiomatic to leave out *rēs* altogether. In that case, I'd use the verb *agō*, a very general-purpose word for &quot;do&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quod igitur agēs?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; So what are you going to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use *faciō* for &quot;do&quot; if you prefer; the differences aren't huge:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quod igitur faciēs?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; So what are you going to do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10941" RevisionGUID="52688aba-9ba4-47e2-95a0-05b65acf478f" CreationDate="2019-06-12T17:16:50.427" UserId="79" Text="As a scientist, I frequently find myself submitting a manuscript to a journal for peer review and hopefully publication.&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good Latin verb for this sense of &quot;submit&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;It could also be a longer phrase akin to &quot;submit for review&quot; or similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an obvious candidate verb *submittere*, which evidently is where the English verb comes from.&#xD;&#xA;But that is no proof that the verb can actually be used to mean what the English verb means.&#xD;&#xA;And even if the intended one was indeed one of the meanings, there could be another one leading to a dangerously different interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=summitto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) gives several meanings for the verb.&#xD;&#xA;A basic meaning, evident from the constituents, is &quot;to put under&quot;, which could be a sensible choice if an implicit noun like &quot;review&quot; is supplied and putting under scrutiny is idiomatic enough in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;It also means &quot;send&quot; or &quot;send secretly&quot;, which are not wholly inappropriate either.&#xD;&#xA;It may be a reasonable word, but it certainly does not strike me as a perfect fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how would you express the submission of a manuscript in Latin and why?&#xD;&#xA;While I see value in classical precedent, I would like something that works in today's use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32083" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10941" RevisionGUID="52688aba-9ba4-47e2-95a0-05b65acf478f" CreationDate="2019-06-12T17:16:50.427" UserId="79" Text="Can I submit a manuscript with 'submittere'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32084" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10941" RevisionGUID="52688aba-9ba4-47e2-95a0-05b65acf478f" CreationDate="2019-06-12T17:16:50.427" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10942" RevisionGUID="b2355b64-52c3-4452-ba7b-237d6961696a" CreationDate="2019-06-12T17:51:10.890" UserId="522" Text="The important quotation is &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the bridle of a horse: *aureas dicebant frenos, quibus equorum aures religantur,* Paul. ex Fest. p. 27 Müll.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;They call the reins ***aureas,*** with which the ears of horses are bound up.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the third section of Ainsworth's lexicon, ***Index Vocum*** (Dialects) *'aureas'* is explained as **both** a dialect adjective meaning 'of the ears,'  a head-stall, **and hence** by synecdoche 'the bridle itself.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He adds  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ *qu.* orea, frequens enim est commutatio *o* in *au,* ap. ant. quod fit  in *oro equi,* ...]  and then gives an example from Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally he mentions Aureax [ *cf* auriger] a carter. But these are all late or dialect forms.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32086" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10935" RevisionGUID="d66da4d3-bd34-4ab3-ac9c-4c14199024aa" CreationDate="2019-06-12T17:55:45.837" />
  <row Id="32087" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10941" RevisionGUID="d06b8da4-e193-4e95-af19-2f864c991887" CreationDate="2019-06-12T18:48:13.853" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|word-choice|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10943" RevisionGUID="5ca977a0-8847-46f6-b183-c708b720ae27" CreationDate="2019-06-12T18:48:17.040" UserId="522" Text="Since I was looking at Ainsworth (previous question) I followed his proposal:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *permitto*  submit for approval,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S thinks *submitto* and *permitto* are both rather submissively inhibited. Try instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[Commendo][1]* com-mendo (conm- ), āvi, ātum, 1, v. a. 1. mando,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. **Prop.**   &#xD;&#xA;A. Lit., implying a physical delivery, to deposit with, intrust to; constr. aliquem or aliquid alicui,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=commendo&amp;la=la#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10941" RevisionGUID="2eff7af5-d3d6-4fba-af9c-41479e9e3325" CreationDate="2019-06-12T19:55:01.803" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="As a scientist, I frequently find myself submitting a manuscript to a journal for peer review and hopefully publication.&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good Latin verb for this sense of &quot;submit&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;It could also be a longer phrase akin to &quot;submit for review&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is the obvious candidate verb *submittere*, which evidently is where the English verb comes from.&#xD;&#xA;But that is no proof that the verb can actually be used to mean what the English verb means.&#xD;&#xA;And even if the intended one was indeed one of the meanings, there could be another one leading to a dangerously different interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=summitto&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) gives several meanings for the verb.&#xD;&#xA;A basic meaning, evident from the constituents, is &quot;to put under&quot;, which could be a sensible choice if an implicit noun like &quot;review&quot; is supplied and putting under scrutiny is idiomatic enough in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;It also means &quot;send&quot; or &quot;send secretly&quot;, which are not wholly inappropriate either.&#xD;&#xA;It may be a reasonable word, but it certainly does not strike me as a perfect fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how would you express the submission of a manuscript in Latin and why?&#xD;&#xA;While I see value in classical precedent, I would like something that works in today's use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10944" RevisionGUID="53d056b5-712a-489d-9fd5-3ddf743f1366" CreationDate="2019-06-12T20:03:13.003" UserDisplayName="user4863" Text="Does Latin &quot;pingo&quot; to paint relate to &quot;pix&quot; tar by analogy with  &quot;pango&quot; to agree and &quot;pax&quot; peace?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32091" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10944" RevisionGUID="53d056b5-712a-489d-9fd5-3ddf743f1366" CreationDate="2019-06-12T20:03:13.003" UserDisplayName="user4863" Text="Does Latin &quot;pingo&quot; relate to &quot;pix&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32092" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10944" RevisionGUID="53d056b5-712a-489d-9fd5-3ddf743f1366" CreationDate="2019-06-12T20:03:13.003" UserDisplayName="user4863" Text="|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10945" RevisionGUID="66fa639d-1436-4a49-861a-484277146876" CreationDate="2019-06-12T21:02:55.337" UserId="469" Text="Disclaimer: *I'm not even close to be an expert in Proto-Indo-European, so maybe I'm missing something important*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Apparently not.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this][1] database:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [pingo][2] comes from PIE root *peik'-&#xD;&#xA; - [pix][3] comes from PIE root *pik-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The source, according to the site is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Walde-Pokorny's dictionary [possibly the [Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch][4], compiled by S. L. Nikolayev&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... which is a pity, because it was fun to think that the verb *to paint* and *pitch/tar* were etymologically related in Latin. (and makes *some* sense).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/main.cgi?root=config&amp;morpho=0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&amp;morpho=0&amp;basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cpiet&amp;first=1&amp;off=germ%2Bbalt%2Bslav%2Bgreek%2Biran%2Bavest%2Bind%2Btokh%2Bhitt%2Bmeaning%2Bproto%2Bprnum%2Barm%2Bital%2Bcelt%2Balb%2Brusmean%2Brefer%2Bcomment&amp;text_proto=&amp;method_proto=substring&amp;ic_proto=on&amp;text_meaning=&amp;method_meaning=substring&amp;ic_meaning=on&amp;text_hitt=&amp;method_hitt=substring&amp;ic_hitt=on&amp;text_tokh=&amp;method_tokh=substring&amp;ic_tokh=on&amp;text_ind=&amp;method_ind=substring&amp;ic_ind=on&amp;text_avest=&amp;method_avest=substring&amp;ic_avest=on&amp;text_iran=&amp;method_iran=substring&amp;ic_iran=on&amp;text_arm=&amp;method_arm=substring&amp;ic_arm=on&amp;text_greek=&amp;method_greek=substring&amp;ic_greek=on&amp;text_slav=&amp;method_slav=substring&amp;ic_slav=on&amp;text_balt=&amp;method_balt=substring&amp;ic_balt=on&amp;text_germ=&amp;method_germ=substring&amp;ic_germ=on&amp;text_lat=ping%C5%8D&amp;method_lat=substring&amp;ic_lat=on&amp;text_ital=&amp;method_ital=substring&amp;ic_ital=on&amp;text_celt=&amp;method_celt=substring&amp;ic_celt=on&amp;text_alb=&amp;method_alb=substring&amp;ic_alb=on&amp;text_rusmean=&amp;method_rusmean=substring&amp;ic_rusmean=on&amp;text_refer=&amp;method_refer=substring&amp;ic_refer=on&amp;text_comment=&amp;method_comment=substring&amp;ic_comment=on&amp;text_any=&amp;method_any=substring&amp;sort=proto&amp;ic_any=on&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&amp;morpho=0&amp;basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cpiet&amp;first=1&amp;off=&amp;text_proto=&amp;method_proto=substring&amp;ic_proto=on&amp;text_meaning=&amp;method_meaning=substring&amp;ic_meaning=on&amp;text_hitt=&amp;method_hitt=substring&amp;ic_hitt=on&amp;text_tokh=&amp;method_tokh=substring&amp;ic_tokh=on&amp;text_ind=&amp;method_ind=substring&amp;ic_ind=on&amp;text_avest=&amp;method_avest=substring&amp;ic_avest=on&amp;text_iran=&amp;method_iran=substring&amp;ic_iran=on&amp;text_arm=&amp;method_arm=substring&amp;ic_arm=on&amp;text_greek=&amp;method_greek=substring&amp;ic_greek=on&amp;text_slav=&amp;method_slav=substring&amp;ic_slav=on&amp;text_balt=&amp;method_balt=substring&amp;ic_balt=on&amp;text_germ=&amp;method_germ=substring&amp;ic_germ=on&amp;text_lat=pix&amp;method_lat=substring&amp;ic_lat=on&amp;text_ital=&amp;method_ital=substring&amp;ic_ital=on&amp;text_celt=&amp;method_celt=substring&amp;ic_celt=on&amp;text_alb=&amp;method_alb=substring&amp;ic_alb=on&amp;text_rusmean=&amp;method_rusmean=substring&amp;ic_rusmean=on&amp;text_refer=&amp;method_refer=substring&amp;ic_refer=on&amp;text_comment=&amp;method_comment=substring&amp;ic_comment=on&amp;text_any=&amp;method_any=substring&amp;sort=proto&amp;ic_any=on&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indogermanisches_etymologisches_W%C3%B6rterbuch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10945" RevisionGUID="db0a9d32-912e-4e0c-80a1-1e0f7e5665fd" CreationDate="2019-06-12T23:09:45.580" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Disclaimer: *I'm not even close to expert in Proto-Indo-European, so maybe I'm missing something important*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Apparently not.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this][1] database:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [pingo][2] comes from PIE root *peik'-&#xD;&#xA; - [pix][3] comes from PIE root *pik-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The source, according to the site is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Walde-Pokorny's dictionary [possibly the [Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch][4]], compiled by S. L. Nikolayev&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... which is a pity, because it was fun to think that the verb *to paint* and *pitch/tar* were etymologically related in Latin. (and makes *some* sense).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/main.cgi?root=config&amp;morpho=0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&amp;morpho=0&amp;basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cpiet&amp;first=1&amp;off=germ%2Bbalt%2Bslav%2Bgreek%2Biran%2Bavest%2Bind%2Btokh%2Bhitt%2Bmeaning%2Bproto%2Bprnum%2Barm%2Bital%2Bcelt%2Balb%2Brusmean%2Brefer%2Bcomment&amp;text_proto=&amp;method_proto=substring&amp;ic_proto=on&amp;text_meaning=&amp;method_meaning=substring&amp;ic_meaning=on&amp;text_hitt=&amp;method_hitt=substring&amp;ic_hitt=on&amp;text_tokh=&amp;method_tokh=substring&amp;ic_tokh=on&amp;text_ind=&amp;method_ind=substring&amp;ic_ind=on&amp;text_avest=&amp;method_avest=substring&amp;ic_avest=on&amp;text_iran=&amp;method_iran=substring&amp;ic_iran=on&amp;text_arm=&amp;method_arm=substring&amp;ic_arm=on&amp;text_greek=&amp;method_greek=substring&amp;ic_greek=on&amp;text_slav=&amp;method_slav=substring&amp;ic_slav=on&amp;text_balt=&amp;method_balt=substring&amp;ic_balt=on&amp;text_germ=&amp;method_germ=substring&amp;ic_germ=on&amp;text_lat=ping%C5%8D&amp;method_lat=substring&amp;ic_lat=on&amp;text_ital=&amp;method_ital=substring&amp;ic_ital=on&amp;text_celt=&amp;method_celt=substring&amp;ic_celt=on&amp;text_alb=&amp;method_alb=substring&amp;ic_alb=on&amp;text_rusmean=&amp;method_rusmean=substring&amp;ic_rusmean=on&amp;text_refer=&amp;method_refer=substring&amp;ic_refer=on&amp;text_comment=&amp;method_comment=substring&amp;ic_comment=on&amp;text_any=&amp;method_any=substring&amp;sort=proto&amp;ic_any=on&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&amp;morpho=0&amp;basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cpiet&amp;first=1&amp;off=&amp;text_proto=&amp;method_proto=substring&amp;ic_proto=on&amp;text_meaning=&amp;method_meaning=substring&amp;ic_meaning=on&amp;text_hitt=&amp;method_hitt=substring&amp;ic_hitt=on&amp;text_tokh=&amp;method_tokh=substring&amp;ic_tokh=on&amp;text_ind=&amp;method_ind=substring&amp;ic_ind=on&amp;text_avest=&amp;method_avest=substring&amp;ic_avest=on&amp;text_iran=&amp;method_iran=substring&amp;ic_iran=on&amp;text_arm=&amp;method_arm=substring&amp;ic_arm=on&amp;text_greek=&amp;method_greek=substring&amp;ic_greek=on&amp;text_slav=&amp;method_slav=substring&amp;ic_slav=on&amp;text_balt=&amp;method_balt=substring&amp;ic_balt=on&amp;text_germ=&amp;method_germ=substring&amp;ic_germ=on&amp;text_lat=pix&amp;method_lat=substring&amp;ic_lat=on&amp;text_ital=&amp;method_ital=substring&amp;ic_ital=on&amp;text_celt=&amp;method_celt=substring&amp;ic_celt=on&amp;text_alb=&amp;method_alb=substring&amp;ic_alb=on&amp;text_rusmean=&amp;method_rusmean=substring&amp;ic_rusmean=on&amp;text_refer=&amp;method_refer=substring&amp;ic_refer=on&amp;text_comment=&amp;method_comment=substring&amp;ic_comment=on&amp;text_any=&amp;method_any=substring&amp;sort=proto&amp;ic_any=on&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indogermanisches_etymologisches_W%C3%B6rterbuch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32095" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10937" RevisionGUID="c253331b-7de9-4b99-888c-4c85ba532e0b" CreationDate="2019-06-12T23:41:11.443" />
  <row Id="32097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10939" RevisionGUID="8b9c4a6c-79bc-4c5c-815a-cb977a546da2" CreationDate="2019-06-13T10:33:28.667" UserId="183" Comment="see EDIT:" Text="It is a well known fact of Latin grammar, that trees follow *natural gender* and are always feminine, even when the word form would suggest masculine gender, as in *populus* &quot;poplar&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does motivate this kind of gender assignment? Is there an accepted explanation of that fact?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: fdb brought up [this forum thread][1] and the main information is that the gender assignment of trees was instable in the development of modern Romance languages, with Portuguese and Sardinian being the most conservative ones in this respect. There is a hint, the the predominance of the feminine gender might be inherited from Proto-Indogermanic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/gendering-trees.3361383/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10939" RevisionGUID="b52f7fac-70ea-4cdb-980a-860e67e1c63f" CreationDate="2019-06-13T11:43:07.883" UserId="183" Comment="sp." Text="It is a well known fact of Latin grammar, that trees follow *natural gender* and are always feminine, even when the word form would suggest masculine gender, as in *populus* &quot;poplar&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does motivate this kind of gender assignment? Is there an accepted explanation of that fact?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: fdb brought up [this forum thread][1] and the main information is that the gender assignment of trees was instable in the development of modern Romance languages, with Portuguese and Sardinian being the most conservative ones in this respect. There is a hint, that the predominance of the feminine gender might be inherited from Proto-Indogermanic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/gendering-trees.3361383/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10946" RevisionGUID="4e4454f9-06cf-4077-9edb-c19520d9266d" CreationDate="2019-06-13T13:19:08.130" UserId="25" Text="It seems difficult to find a diminutive form of the word **frater** in actual usage in Latin. The closest I can find is in the Italian **fra** as in [**Fra Angelico**][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a traditional Benedictine monastery near where I live and the priests are often referred to as Pater (P. Placidus) and those studying for the priesthood are are called frater (Fr. Augustinus). Affectionately, they are called the fraters, but not Fra(s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fra_Angelico" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10938" RevisionGUID="201e7120-3dd8-4098-be95-ce296ce6d81b" CreationDate="2019-06-13T16:38:56.440" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="In this case the word isn't [*aurea*][1] but [*aureus*][2], an adjective meaning &quot;golden, of gold&quot;—in the feminine singular and neuter plural it looks just like *aurea* &quot;bridle&quot;, but the &quot;golden&quot; meaning is much more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *trecenta quoque scuta aurea trecentorum aureorum, quibus tegebantur singula scuta*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And also three hundred golden shields [made] out of three hundred golden [shekels] (with which each individual shield was covered).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The grammar here is kind of awkward, but the point is that Solomon had so much gold he could use ninety thousand shekels of it to make shields.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DA%3Aentry%20group%3D91%3Aentry%3Daurea&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Daureus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32101" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10937" RevisionGUID="0075df31-ea22-4f16-8361-823d58cce44f" CreationDate="2019-06-13T17:54:52.093" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32102" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10944" RevisionGUID="32cf75cb-7e8e-4854-aa2a-fa283d52d012" CreationDate="2019-06-13T17:55:36.653" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|etymology|proto-indo-european|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10944" RevisionGUID="24447a65-9eaa-4959-ae65-1d0e223ee2f0" CreationDate="2019-06-13T18:57:27.693" UserDisplayName="user4863" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="Does Latin &quot;pingo&quot; to paint relate to &quot;pix&quot; tar by analogy with  &quot;pango&quot; to agree and &quot;pax&quot; peace, &quot;ningo&quot; to snow and &quot;nix&quot; snow?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10944" RevisionGUID="6ff57322-d40c-49f9-8c17-14ccf611d19d" CreationDate="2019-06-13T19:39:02.773" UserDisplayName="user4863" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body" Text="Does Latin &quot;pingo&quot; to paint relate to &quot;pix&quot; tar by analogy with  &quot;pango&quot; to agree and &quot;pax&quot; peace?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10948" RevisionGUID="75bc6c6b-8551-4c6e-b4d7-77310ba0fd4b" CreationDate="2019-06-13T20:22:59.447" UserId="406" Text="Oscan was an Italic language related to Latin, which died out somewhere in the early centuries CE. It's notable [for being used in the _Fabulae Atellanae_][1] and for being the source of various loans into Latin, such as *lupus* &quot;wolf&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To the best of my understanding (based on [Buck's grammar][2]), nine of the ten Proto-Italic vowels are distinguished in the Oscan orthography:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `ī i ē e a  ā  o  ō u  ū`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `         `&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In other words, *ō* merged with *ū*, and the rest were distinct.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interesting part, though, is how this shows the different vowel qualities. It seems like *ē* was closer in quality to *i* than either was to *e* or *ī*, for example, foreshadowing later developments in Romance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm curious: **were there any more vowel qualities than the six letters could show?** For example, did transcriptions into the Greek alphabet (which had more letters available) distinguish the reflexes of *ō* from *ū*, or were they truly identical?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/10900/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/grammarofoscanum00buckuoft/page/22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32110" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10948" RevisionGUID="75bc6c6b-8551-4c6e-b4d7-77310ba0fd4b" CreationDate="2019-06-13T20:22:59.447" UserId="406" Text="How many vowel qualities did Oscan have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32111" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10948" RevisionGUID="75bc6c6b-8551-4c6e-b4d7-77310ba0fd4b" CreationDate="2019-06-13T20:22:59.447" UserId="406" Text="|vowel-quantity|alphabet|phonology|oscan|italic-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32112" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="10944" RevisionGUID="b346b731-3575-4df5-965b-6dce08baa705" CreationDate="2019-06-13T21:49:07.063" UserId="30" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:30,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Cerberus&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32113" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="10944" RevisionGUID="df44007e-c3fc-4d95-a2e2-f475695b4fe9" CreationDate="2019-06-13T21:49:07.063" UserId="30" Comment="117" />
  <row Id="32114" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10944" RevisionGUID="09cfc2f5-e151-42d6-92f6-f8f64d1d72b3" CreationDate="2019-06-13T21:53:14.813" UserId="30" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:30,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Cerberus&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32115" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="10944" RevisionGUID="936ae8d5-110a-41b5-8592-665349d8d0f3" CreationDate="2019-06-13T21:56:26.510" UserId="30" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:30,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Cerberus&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32116" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="10944" RevisionGUID="714ba209-f64c-4637-905f-057a9a493f26" CreationDate="2019-06-13T21:56:26.510" UserId="30" Comment="117" />
  <row Id="32119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10949" RevisionGUID="b6620144-927e-42f9-bfac-95a21de74e4c" CreationDate="2019-06-14T10:45:46.813" UserId="4866" Text="*Liber de coquina* describes the making of a pastillus by forming a small, circular dough, placing chaff on top, sealing this with more dough, baking under a terra cotta cover, then making a small hole on the bottom of the roll so formed to extract the chaff, thus forming a cavity into which various savory bits could be inserted.  A general meaning might be something like 'roll'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10949" RevisionGUID="6e38e7c4-a326-4e1b-9fd4-487b4c59d0e9" CreationDate="2019-06-14T10:51:27.220" UserId="79" Comment="added 263 characters in body" Text="*Liber de coquina* describes the making of a pastillus by forming a small, circular dough, placing chaff on top, sealing this with more dough, baking under a terra cotta cover, then making a small hole on the bottom of the roll so formed to extract the chaff, thus forming a cavity into which various savory bits could be inserted.  A general meaning might be something like 'roll'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific recipe mentioned has small, live, wild birds placed in the cavity and the hole sealed with dough so that when the dish is served to the lords, they will break into the pastry and receive a real surprise! The original 'four and twenty blackbirds'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10948" RevisionGUID="d04f917b-5de3-44a7-bcac-cc49fc964036" CreationDate="2019-06-14T16:15:49.783" UserId="406" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="Oscan was an Italic language related to Latin, which died out somewhere in the early centuries CE. It's notable [for being used in the _Fabulae Atellanae_][1] and for being the source of various loans into Latin, such as *lupus* &quot;wolf&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To the best of my understanding (based on [Buck's grammar][2]), nine of the ten Proto-Italic vowels are distinguished in the Oscan orthography:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `ī i ē e  a ā  o  ō u  ū`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `         `&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In other words, *ō* merged with *ū*, and the rest were distinct, in the idealized perfect writing system where all long vowels are marked and no errors are made.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interesting part, though, is how this shows the different vowel qualities. It seems like *ē* was closer in quality to *i* than either was to *e* or *ī*, for example, foreshadowing later developments in Romance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm curious: **were there any more vowel qualities than the six letters could show?** For example, did transcriptions into the Greek alphabet (which had more letters available) distinguish the reflexes of *ō* from *ū*, or were they truly identical?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/10900/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/grammarofoscanum00buckuoft/page/22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10951" RevisionGUID="6fa084e5-0b11-43e2-8154-82cece3a9a91" CreationDate="2019-06-14T17:04:07.843" UserId="4867" Text="I want to say 'the City of God is established by the existence of (aggresive) pagans. What would be the grammatical and elegant (in the style of St. Augustine) way of saying this in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32126" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10951" RevisionGUID="6fa084e5-0b11-43e2-8154-82cece3a9a91" CreationDate="2019-06-14T17:04:07.843" UserId="4867" Text="Pro paganos civitate est civitate dei" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32127" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10951" RevisionGUID="6fa084e5-0b11-43e2-8154-82cece3a9a91" CreationDate="2019-06-14T17:04:07.843" UserId="4867" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10952" RevisionGUID="f100ec18-7af0-442d-b5c8-daf2111d8070" CreationDate="2019-06-14T20:10:39.867" UserId="406" Text="As you know, Augustine's most famous work is titled:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dē cīvitāte Deī contrā pāgānōs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, &quot;regarding the city of God; against the pagans&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting a title with _dē_ (&quot;regarding&quot;) was a long-standing tradition, and we still see its remnants nowadays in works like _**On** the Origin of Species_; back before titles were really a thing, it was a way of saying what a text was about. The noun following _dē_ is then in the ablative case: *cīvitāte* instead of *cīvitas*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you're going for a title, you'd start with the same *Dē cīvitāte Deī*. The change would come after that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it concisely, I'd use a passive participle next: *…aedificātā ā pāgānīs* &quot;…established by [the existence of] the pagans&quot;. The verb here is a standard one for &quot;to establish&quot;: it's the same one used in 1 Corinthians 8:1 and 14:4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All together, that would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dē cīvitāte Deī aedificātā ā pāgānīs  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Regarding the city of God, established by the pagans*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32129" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8890" RevisionGUID="7792ba3f-cc85-463c-91b6-7c7ba3a75fa4" CreationDate="2019-06-15T05:01:45.177" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10953" RevisionGUID="b0703035-80ce-47f9-bb74-6b4771ad4f93" CreationDate="2019-06-15T10:20:11.750" UserId="1982" Text="The most famous Latin suffix (possibly), a case-ending, &quot;-bus&quot;. For public-transport vehicles, in many countries, &quot;-bus&quot; appears somewhere in the word, even in Russia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10954" RevisionGUID="b7e37660-59d0-439f-9e4a-d0134b796baa" CreationDate="2019-06-15T20:19:55.583" UserId="3248" Text="Is there any diachronic reason whereby synthetic perfective passive forms like _*amavitur_ (and similar ones) are not possible and analytic forms like _amatus est_ (and similar ones) are selected instead? Since passive and perfect can each appear on their own (e.g., cf. _amatur_ and _amavit_, respectively), why can't they be combined and give a form like _amavitur_ and/or why should the analytic form like _amatus est_ be used instead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32132" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10954" RevisionGUID="b7e37660-59d0-439f-9e4a-d0134b796baa" CreationDate="2019-06-15T20:19:55.583" UserId="3248" Text="Why &quot;amatus est&quot; instead of &quot;*amavitur&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32133" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10954" RevisionGUID="b7e37660-59d0-439f-9e4a-d0134b796baa" CreationDate="2019-06-15T20:19:55.583" UserId="3248" Text="|morphology|conjugation|perfect-tense|passive-voice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10954" RevisionGUID="335e187c-f27a-4097-9199-0283b74494d2" CreationDate="2019-06-15T20:59:16.023" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar" Text="Is there any diachronic reason whereby synthetic perfective passive forms like _*amavitur_ (and similar ones) are not possible and analytic forms like _amatus est_ (and similar ones) are selected instead? Since passive and perfect can each appear on their own (e.g., cf. _amatur_ and _amavit_, respectively), why can't they be combined and give a form like _amavitur_ and/or why should an analytic form like _amatus est_ be used instead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10955" RevisionGUID="1aebfc75-7b59-4ff7-a23d-9860da22985f" CreationDate="2019-06-15T21:06:30.700" UserId="406" Text="Good question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Proto-Indo-European, there were multiple complete sets of person-number markings, used for different tenses of the same verb. You can see the relics of this most clearly in Ancient Greek, where the present tense conjugates *-ō -eis -ei*, the aorist tense conjugates *-a -as -en*, and the imperfect tense conjugates *-on -es -en*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, one set of endings was used for the present tense, and a different set for the perfect. The cognates for these are the Greek present and aorist endings, respectively, though evolution has made them hard to recognize: the cognate to Greek's first-person singular aorist *-a* has been augmented with a particle *-i* and the *-a-i* then contracted to *-ī*, for example, to give Latin *amav**ī***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ancient Greek has mediopassive equivalents to all the endings I listed, and it seems that PIE did too. But in Latin (and actually Italic in general), for whatever reason, the passive equivalents to the perfect endings didn't survive. Since those endings were fundamentally different from the present ones, though, it didn't make sense just to apply the present's passive forms. So they made do with the periphrasis you mention. We don't see *_amāvitur_ for the same reason we don't see *_amistī_ for &quot;you love&quot;: even though the two sets of endings have some similarities, they're fundamentally different, and weren't seen as interchangeable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10951" RevisionGUID="a5b62b3d-1619-4096-bb15-acbe01e6ae0f" CreationDate="2019-06-15T21:13:11.567" UserId="4867" Comment="added 211 characters in body" Text="I want to say 'the City of God is established by the existence of (aggresive) pagans. What would be the grammatical and elegant (in the style of St. Augustine) way of saying this in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am editing this to clarify that I want to say 'The pro pagan City is the City of God' in Latin, hopefully using words similar to the title of St. Augustine's 'De Civitate dei contra pagonos'.&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10956" RevisionGUID="83b7d760-cdc1-4734-8fd0-7e01219b71f4" CreationDate="2019-06-16T00:14:02.800" UserId="522" Text="&gt; *Civitatem Dei ξ firmant pagani saevi.*  (ξ =caesura)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or alternatively,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cívitátem Dei pagáni sævi fírmant.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***firmant*** is the word used for God establishing the world; found, create, establish.   &#xD;&#xA;***sævus*** cruel, describing wild beasts and savage tribes (from the Roman point of view).  &#xD;&#xA;I have tried to keep the trochaic rhythm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Cruel pagans are-the-foundation-of the City of God.&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10956" RevisionGUID="e039294d-ce6d-49bf-8eec-18ad36397779" CreationDate="2019-06-16T00:26:11.600" UserId="522" Comment="alternative verse" Text="&gt; *Civitatem Dei ξ firmant pagani saevi.*  (ξ =caesura)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or alternatively,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cívitátem Dei pagáni sævi fírmant.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***firmant*** is the word used for God establishing the world; found, create, establish.   &#xD;&#xA;***sævus*** cruel, describing wild beasts and savage tribes (from the Roman point of view).  &#xD;&#xA;I have tried to keep the trochaic rhythm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Cruel pagans are-the-foundation-of the City of God.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a more abstract form. &quot;From cruel pagans, the City of God's foundation.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *E paganis saevis, Dei Civitatis firmitas.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10956" RevisionGUID="b9be9399-a339-4288-91f8-1f04eb1bf76d" CreationDate="2019-06-16T03:55:12.860" UserId="522" Comment="links" Text="&gt; *Civitatem Dei ξ firmant pagani saevi.*  (ξ =caesura)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or alternatively,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cívitátem Dei pagáni sævi fírmant.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***firmant*** is the word used for God establishing the world; found, create, establish.   &#xD;&#xA;***[sævus][1]*** cruel, describing wild beasts and savage tribes (from the Roman point of view).  &#xD;&#xA;I have tried to keep the trochaic rhythm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Cruel pagans are-the-foundation-of the City of God.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a more abstract form. &quot;From cruel pagans, the City of God's foundation.&quot; ( [firmitas][1] in Perseus/Lewis&amp;Short)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *E paganis saevis, Dei Civitatis firmitas.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *E paganis saevis, firmitas Civitatis Dei.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=saevus&amp;la=la&amp;can=saevus0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32140" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10954" RevisionGUID="09bff591-0e8f-41ec-b51f-994ab078756b" CreationDate="2019-06-16T04:31:14.603" />
  <row Id="32141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10957" RevisionGUID="efc68578-daae-4540-b646-714232c89a9d" CreationDate="2019-06-16T05:10:01.930" UserId="2099" Text="What is the meaning of the obscure verb *belgicare* or *belgico*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Notker Balbulus of St. Gall][1] (c. 840 to 912) writes this verb in a letter/epistle to a certain Lantbert, wherein Notker defines for him each of the famous **Romanine letters**: letters of the alphabet superscribed onto the early musical notation of Gregorian chant, in order to annotate the melody with reminders of its shape, in an age before the advent of [diastematic notation][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are five lines from the letter, to give you a sense of Notker's word usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A ut **altius** elevetur admonet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B, secundum litteras quibus adjungitur, ut **bene** id est multum extollatur vel gravetur sive teneatur belgicat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; C ut **cito** vel **celeriter** dicatur certificat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; D ut **deprimatur** demonstrat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; E ut **equaliter** sonetur eloquitur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sources: [Gerbert's *Scriptores*][3], [Migne's Patrologia Latina][4], [Froger's 1962 critical edition][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Notker had written this in English, it might have read something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A admonishes that it [the melody] be elevated **aloft** (i.e. a high note).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B begs that it be raised, lowered, or lengthened **bountifully** (*bene* = well), i.e., very much, according to the letters to which it is adjoined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; C certifies that it be said **concisely** or with **celerity** (i.e. a short note duration).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; D demands that it be **down-pressed** (i.e. a low note).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; E expresses that it be sounded **equally** (i.e. on the same pitch as the note before it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But my question does not concern the musical meaning or signification of these five letters in Gregorian chant.  Rather it concerns *the verbs* Notker uses, apparently to reinforce Lantbert's memory by also starting with the same letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A admonet&quot;, &quot;C certificat&quot;, &quot;I insinuat&quot;, &quot;N notificat&quot;, &quot;O ordinat&quot; &quot;P predicat&quot;, etc.  Or, in English, &quot;A announces&quot; its meaning, &quot;T tells&quot; its meaning, &quot;S signifies&quot; its meaning, &quot;N notifies&quot;, &quot;R reminds&quot; and so forth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But B?  B 'belgicates' its meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Question&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the heck does 'belgicare' mean, and whence does that word hail?  Any translator could say &quot;B begs that the note be ...&quot; and be done with it.  But I want to know the origin of this word '*belgicat*', found in no Latin dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B ... ut bene id est multum extollatur vel gravetur sive teneatur belgicat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the books I've seen, and available online information, and citations or quotations by authors commenting on this passage by Notker, admit that the word is of obscure origin.  Although I've not examined either Froger's critical edition or the writings of Joseph Smits van Waesberghe on the Romanine letters, I haven't otherwise yet found anyone who has dared to explore the etymology of this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Could it be a mutation of or a neologism based on some other similar word in Latin?&#xD;&#xA; - Is it even a Latin word?  Perhaps a Latinization of a foreign word, such as from whatever Notker's contemporary native language was? (He was late 9th-century Alemanni.) Or perhaps related to the Germanic root [belganą][6]?&#xD;&#xA; - Or might it be of some obscure continental Medieval Latin colloquialism that indeed had something to do with the Belgian people?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to ask the Latin network first.  If we are confident here that this word has no legitimate Latin ancestry, then I may turn to the Linguistics network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notker_the_Stammerer&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staff_(music)&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.chmtl.indiana.edu/tml/9th-11th/NOTDEM&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.chmtl.indiana.edu/tml/9th-11th/NOTDEMU&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.chmtl.indiana.edu/tml/9th-11th/NOTLET&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/belgan%C4%85#Descendants" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32142" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10957" RevisionGUID="efc68578-daae-4540-b646-714232c89a9d" CreationDate="2019-06-16T05:10:01.930" UserId="2099" Text="The meaning of 'belgicare' in Notker Balbulus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32143" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10957" RevisionGUID="efc68578-daae-4540-b646-714232c89a9d" CreationDate="2019-06-16T05:10:01.930" UserId="2099" Text="|vocabulary|medieval-latin|germanic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32144" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="10584" RevisionGUID="b544d6ef-7b91-4e5b-ae5c-c5a0f6ab5009" CreationDate="2019-06-16T11:10:46.620" UserId="79" Comment="116" />
  <row Id="32145" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4428" RevisionGUID="56d57c44-84c7-4972-ac6c-1c7bc0238145" CreationDate="2019-06-16T11:11:02.980" UserId="79" Comment="115" />
  <row Id="32146" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10782" RevisionGUID="ade3a206-5aa0-41cf-b9af-4b2e4f2e58bf" CreationDate="2019-06-16T13:03:10.807" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5553" RevisionGUID="39f98f01-3755-4c75-8a55-864a61c9da58" CreationDate="2019-06-16T13:25:10.847" UserId="2099" Comment="Updated an aside sentence on the document's dating" Text="The quote below is from the [*Instituta Patrum de modo psallendi*][1], an anonymous Carolingian or more likely High Medieval document on singing psalms in Gregorian chant.  (I've seen one author date it to the 12th century, because of identical wording found in documents of Bernard of Clairvaux.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the fourth paragraph beginning &quot;Ammonemus&quot;, the author admonishes cantors to stay in synch with each other.  He enumerates a list of 'sins', the last two of which trouble me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Nullus** ante alios aut post, incipere in Versu vel cantu, verba cantata&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reiterare, vel nimis discorditer festinare, praesumptiori vel altiori,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; remissiori an graviori, id est, sursum vel iusum, tardiori vel&#xD;&#xA;&gt; velociori voce, **aut post alios diutius protrahere, vel punctum tenere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; praesumat**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't tell if the phrases &quot;post alius&quot; and &quot;diutius&quot; apply to both verbs &quot;protrahere&quot; and &quot;tenere&quot;, or to only the first one.  If they both apply to &quot;protrahere&quot; only:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No one may presume ... to protract (the notes) longer after the others, or to hold the cadence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then the second 'sin' doesn't make sense to me, because &quot;holding the cadence&quot; (&quot;punctum tenere&quot;) isn't bad in itself ... at least how I am reading it.  So then am I misunderstanding the meaning of &quot;tenere&quot; in this musical context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, if they both apply to &quot;protrahere&quot; and &quot;punctum tenere&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No one may presume ... to protract (the notes) or hold the cadence longer after the others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then the translation makes sense to me, and the comma between the two Latin phrases is a mistake on the part of the editor.  And so my questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Do both &quot;post alios&quot; and &quot;diutius&quot; apply to both verbs or to only the first?&#xD;&#xA; 2. In general, how to tell whether an adverb phrase applies to one or both disjoined verbs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I noticed a few sentences later, the author says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si morose cantamus, longior pausa fiat;  si propere, brevior:  semper in Psalmodia punctus et pausa **teneantur**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it could also be that &quot;tenere punctum&quot; is a musical figure of speech I'm not yet acquainted with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://[here][2]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="1593e256-9b81-46ab-81fc-16c4ec507390" CreationDate="2019-06-16T17:13:27.260" UserId="4874" Text="I am looking for more or less the 'proper' (or any good approximation) way to translate a &quot;Traveler's Writ,&quot; as in a certificate or license given to a traveler that allows him legal access to an area. My problem is that there seems to be so many options for the concept of the 'writ' that I am not sure which way to go with this. Horrible old Goggle Translate gave me 'Charta viator est scriptor' but I feel that's terribly clunky. The era I am going for is 1500's Roman Catholic Latin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32150" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="1593e256-9b81-46ab-81fc-16c4ec507390" CreationDate="2019-06-16T17:13:27.260" UserId="4874" Text="Proper way to say &quot;Traveler's Writ/Liscence/Certificate&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32151" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="1593e256-9b81-46ab-81fc-16c4ec507390" CreationDate="2019-06-16T17:13:27.260" UserId="4874" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5754" RevisionGUID="e3c2fad9-ec79-408e-990f-034e5375ac47" CreationDate="2019-06-16T19:33:48.877" UserId="9" Comment="Added text and name of the linked source" Text="The classical Latin word is vinnulus “delightful, sweet”. vinnolus is a misspelling. This is perhaps of interest, especially the footnote: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;22. *vinnulus* means delightful, tender, ingratiating: *vinnus* is unattested&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(III.20.13, &quot;Harmonics&quot;, *[Isidore of Seville's Etymologies][1],* translated from the Latin by Priscilla Throop, Volume One.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=igxC93_A-fIC&amp;pg=PR132&amp;lpg=PR132&amp;dq=vinnola%20music&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=k0P30hQ2Pw&amp;sig=nXt_U7I44bPPC8zTdrjES3GdMIk&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiI1OOdnp7YAhUCD8AKHaDwBVQ4ChDoAQg6MAg#v=onepage&amp;q=vinnola%20music&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10960" RevisionGUID="02d8b064-e823-41da-b262-c829ca70eaa2" CreationDate="2019-06-16T22:23:57.000" UserId="406" Text="Inspired by a recent meta question, which I had to write in English for lack of appropriate Latin vocabulary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;sockpuppet&quot;, on the internet, is an alternate identity someone creates for nefarious purposes. These identities might be used to avoid bans, to affect voting, or to make it look like the &quot;puppetmaster&quot; has more people backing them than they actually do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Romans didn't have the internet, of course, but it's easy to imagine a corrupt politician paying a dozen people off the street to give pre-written speeches at a trial. If someone tried this, what would those &quot;proxies&quot; be called?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32155" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10960" RevisionGUID="02d8b064-e823-41da-b262-c829ca70eaa2" CreationDate="2019-06-16T22:23:57.000" UserId="406" Text="What is a &quot;sockpuppet&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32156" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10960" RevisionGUID="02d8b064-e823-41da-b262-c829ca70eaa2" CreationDate="2019-06-16T22:23:57.000" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10961" RevisionGUID="e72aec15-abaf-4666-b855-f4da64a3a8e3" CreationDate="2019-06-17T01:04:40.450" UserId="4871" Text="How about &quot;O&quot;, as in &quot;O tempora, o mores!&quot;  It still means the same today in English (and probably many other languages) that it meant in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10962" RevisionGUID="bc9bbe34-a96a-4c87-ad1f-849ced6dda0b" CreationDate="2019-06-17T04:35:36.597" UserId="4875" Text="I've looked around some forums and the translation I've got so far is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ne Obliviscaris, Semper Commemoras&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm still not sure if this is correct. The context of the phrase that I wish to get the translation of, is like telling someone, or ourselves to never forget always remember. It's with a 'calm' tonality, not as 'energetic' as an imperative phrase. If that made sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did I get it correct? I'm open for other suggestions. It's for a tattoo design, and I wish to have the phrase to sound *great*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32159" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10962" RevisionGUID="bc9bbe34-a96a-4c87-ad1f-849ced6dda0b" CreationDate="2019-06-17T04:35:36.597" UserId="4875" Text="&quot;Never/do not forget, always remember&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32160" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10962" RevisionGUID="bc9bbe34-a96a-4c87-ad1f-849ced6dda0b" CreationDate="2019-06-17T04:35:36.597" UserId="4875" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10963" RevisionGUID="fcbd6ba5-70dd-4db1-8ddb-0287640867e4" CreationDate="2019-06-17T10:21:27.030" UserId="79" Text="It is not fully correct, but it is very close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to make the instruction softer than imperative, then present conjunctive (also called subjunctive) is a good way to go.&#xD;&#xA;It is more like &quot;may you remember&quot; than &quot;remember!&quot;, and interpret that that is what you are after.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;do not forget&quot; your translation *ne obliviscaris* is excellent.&#xD;&#xA;The form of *commemoras* is indicative, whereas the conjunctive would be *commemores*.&#xD;&#xA;The bigger question is whether his is the verb you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have [a list of free online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;For the ones that have English to Latin translation, you can check out options, and any of them will do for checking whether a verb has the tone you want it to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *commemorare*: call to mind, be mindful of, keep in mind, remember, recall, relate, mention&#xD;&#xA;- *memorari*: remember, be mindful of&#xD;&#xA;- *recordari*: think over, bethink one's self of, be mindful of, call to mind, remember, recollect, think of, meditate, ponder  &#xD;&#xA;(This one comes from *cor*, &quot;heart&quot;, if that matters.)&#xD;&#xA;- *scire*: know, understand, perceive, remember&#xD;&#xA;- *fovere*: keep warm, cherish, foster&#xD;&#xA;- *meminisse*: remember, bear in mind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just some that came to mind.&#xD;&#xA;Once you have found the verb you like, update your question (or leave a comment) and we can give the relevant form.&#xD;&#xA;*Commemorare* is a good choice, but it is up to you to decide whether there are better ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Semper* is a good translation for &quot;always&quot;, and it makes sense to balance the two sides of the whole phrase so that both have a verb and smaller word of some kind.&#xD;&#xA;To better mirror *semper*, you could also use *numquam* (&quot;never&quot;) instead of *ne* (&quot;do not&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also play with word order.&#xD;&#xA;Chiasm &amp;mdash; inverting the word orders in the opposing parts of the phrase &amp;mdash; is my suggestion, but not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, one option would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Numquam obliviscaris, commemores semper.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [May you] never forger, [may you] remember always." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10962" RevisionGUID="cdef8aac-8c82-402d-ab7a-a94b95b59b0f" CreationDate="2019-06-17T10:26:30.020" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I've looked around some forums and the translation I've got so far is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ne Obliviscaris, Semper Commemoras&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm still not sure if this is correct. The context of the phrase that I wish to get the translation of, is like telling someone, or ourselves to never forget always remember. It's with a 'calm' tonality, not as 'energetic' as an imperative phrase. If that made sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did I get it correct? I'm open for other suggestions. It's for a tattoo design, and I wish to have the phrase to sound *great*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32163" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10962" RevisionGUID="cdef8aac-8c82-402d-ab7a-a94b95b59b0f" CreationDate="2019-06-17T10:26:30.020" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|grammar-choice|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10964" RevisionGUID="4b212d98-70dc-49ca-9ed2-0e015efbf3d8" CreationDate="2019-06-17T11:07:01.990" UserId="324" Text="To find the exact Latin equivalent (deus solus scit) we have to look beyond Classical to Christian Latin, for example this in a Latin translation of John Chrysostom (note also the Greek version in the parallel column).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MeHRAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=RA5-PA290&amp;lpg=RA5-PA290&amp;dq=deus+solus+scit&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=nvrU_jS2GO&amp;sig=ACfU3U3lsBs8rutb8kMHR4wi0MikVhCfOw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwi23Jn3rfDiAhWBUxUIHViKDdcQ6AEwDXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=deus%20solus%20scit&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10963" RevisionGUID="850ea9e5-9571-4a8f-9a81-ae77d9836ba6" CreationDate="2019-06-17T12:12:32.053" UserId="79" Comment="added 428 characters in body" Text="It is not fully correct, but it is very close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to make the instruction softer than imperative, then present conjunctive (also called subjunctive) is a good way to go.&#xD;&#xA;It is more like &quot;may you remember&quot; than &quot;remember!&quot;, if that is what you are after.&#xD;&#xA;In idiomatic English you wouldn't usually use &quot;may you&quot; &amp;mdash; the Latin conjunctive is far less heavy.&#xD;&#xA;See [this question about the difference between these two moods](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/349/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;do not forget&quot; your translation *ne obliviscaris* is excellent if you go with conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;The form of *commemoras* is indicative, whereas the conjunctive would be *commemores*.&#xD;&#xA;The indicative means a factual statement &quot;you remember&quot;, which is not a guidance or an order, so that is out of the picture.&#xD;&#xA;The bigger question is whether his is the verb you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have [a list of free online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;For the ones that have English to Latin translation, you can check out options, and any of them will do for checking whether a verb has the tone you want it to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *commemorare*: call to mind, be mindful of, keep in mind, remember, recall, relate, mention&#xD;&#xA;- *memorari*: remember, be mindful of&#xD;&#xA;- *recordari*: think over, bethink one's self of, be mindful of, call to mind, remember, recollect, think of, meditate, ponder  &#xD;&#xA;(This one comes from *cor*, &quot;heart&quot;, if that matters.)&#xD;&#xA;- *scire*: know, understand, perceive, remember&#xD;&#xA;- *fovere*: keep warm, cherish, foster&#xD;&#xA;- *meminisse*: remember, bear in mind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just some that came to mind.&#xD;&#xA;*Commemorare* is a good choice, but it is up to you to decide whether there are better ones.&#xD;&#xA;You told in a comment that it is the most suitable one for you, but a future reader looking for a similar motto might prefer something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Semper* is a good translation for &quot;always&quot;, and it makes sense to balance the two sides of the whole phrase so that both have a verb and smaller word of some kind.&#xD;&#xA;To better mirror *semper*, you could also use *numquam* (&quot;never&quot;) instead of *ne* (&quot;do not&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also play with word order.&#xD;&#xA;Chiasm &amp;mdash; inverting the word orders in the opposing parts of the phrase &amp;mdash; is my suggestion, but not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, one option with conjunctive would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Numquam obliviscaris, commemores semper.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [May you] never forger, [may you] remember always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inclusion of &quot;may you&quot; is optional.&#xD;&#xA;I just wanted to describe the tone by that translation option.&#xD;&#xA;If you want imperatives, use *obliviscere* or *commemora* instead.&#xD;&#xA;So, to make it more of a recommendation than a wish, you could choose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Numquam obliviscere, commemora semper.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Never forger, remember always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the comments, I think this is the best offer I have.&#xD;&#xA;But please wait for others to weigh in before making a final decision." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10965" RevisionGUID="f59e3bff-c4ea-473a-9ec4-f92b744572f8" CreationDate="2019-06-17T13:05:57.113" UserId="1982" Text="Try: &quot;omnia bona erunt&quot; giving: &quot;all (things) will be good&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32167" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10962" RevisionGUID="3e638710-f3c4-4d00-86d8-ee3774166dac" CreationDate="2019-06-17T14:33:33.143" />
  <row Id="32168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10963" RevisionGUID="11fea003-7d13-42c5-ac0b-e7522ab013a1" CreationDate="2019-06-17T15:08:17.203" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="It is not fully correct, but it is very close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to make the instruction softer than imperative, then present conjunctive (also called subjunctive) is a good way to go.&#xD;&#xA;It is more like &quot;may you remember&quot; than &quot;remember!&quot;, if that is what you are after.&#xD;&#xA;In idiomatic English you wouldn't usually use &quot;may you&quot; &amp;mdash; the Latin conjunctive is far less heavy.&#xD;&#xA;See [this question about the difference between these two moods](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/349/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;do not forget&quot; your translation *ne obliviscaris* is excellent if you go with conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;The form of *commemoras* is indicative, whereas the conjunctive would be *commemores*.&#xD;&#xA;The indicative means a factual statement &quot;you remember&quot;, which is not a guidance or an order, so that is out of the picture.&#xD;&#xA;The bigger question is whether his is the verb you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have [a list of free online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;For the ones that have English to Latin translation, you can check out options, and any of them will do for checking whether a verb has the tone you want it to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *commemorare*: call to mind, be mindful of, keep in mind, remember, recall, relate, mention&#xD;&#xA;- *memorari*: remember, be mindful of&#xD;&#xA;- *recordari*: think over, bethink one's self of, be mindful of, call to mind, remember, recollect, think of, meditate, ponder  &#xD;&#xA;(This one comes from *cor*, &quot;heart&quot;, if that matters.)&#xD;&#xA;- *scire*: know, understand, perceive, remember&#xD;&#xA;- *fovere*: keep warm, cherish, foster&#xD;&#xA;- *meminisse*: remember, bear in mind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just some that came to mind.&#xD;&#xA;*Commemorare* is a good choice, but it is up to you to decide whether there are better ones.&#xD;&#xA;You told in a comment that it is the most suitable one for you, but a future reader looking for a similar motto might prefer something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Semper* is a good translation for &quot;always&quot;, and it makes sense to balance the two sides of the whole phrase so that both have a verb and smaller word of some kind.&#xD;&#xA;To better mirror *semper*, you could also use *numquam* (&quot;never&quot;) instead of *ne* (&quot;do not&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also play with word order.&#xD;&#xA;Chiasm &amp;mdash; inverting the word orders in the opposing parts of the phrase &amp;mdash; is my suggestion, but not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, one option with conjunctive would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Numquam obliviscaris, commemores semper.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [May you] never forget, [may you] remember always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inclusion of &quot;may you&quot; is optional.&#xD;&#xA;I just wanted to describe the tone by that translation option.&#xD;&#xA;If you want imperatives, use *obliviscere* or *commemora* instead.&#xD;&#xA;So, to make it more of a recommendation than a wish, you could choose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Numquam obliviscere, commemora semper.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Never forget, remember always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the comments, I think this is the best offer I have.&#xD;&#xA;But please wait for others to weigh in before making a final decision." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10966" RevisionGUID="d43d7c3f-4f68-4f19-9df7-0b7eee41688d" CreationDate="2019-06-17T15:19:02.987" UserId="79" Text="In Carmina 1, poem 5, Horace writes about an untrustworthy and seducing lady.&#xD;&#xA;He ends the poem in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (...) Me tabula sacer  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; votiva paries indicat uvida  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; suspendisse potenti  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; vestimenta maris deo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unscrambling the word order and translating, I read this as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Paries sacer tabula votiva indicat me suspendisse vestimenta uvida maris deo potenti.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The holy wall indicates by votive tablet that I have hung wet clothes to the powerful god of the sea.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this mean?&#xD;&#xA;It sounds to me as if the writer made a customary sacrifice after surviving a shipwreck and surviving a shipwreck is getting away from that woman.&#xD;&#xA;But this is fully guesswork on my part, as I am not familiar with any relevant sacrificial traditions.&#xD;&#xA;It is just the only thing that came to mind that made some sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this how the message is usually read?&#xD;&#xA;Am I missing something or reading too much into it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link: [Horatius, Carmina 1.](http://thelatinlibrary.com/horace/carm1.shtml#5)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32170" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10966" RevisionGUID="d43d7c3f-4f68-4f19-9df7-0b7eee41688d" CreationDate="2019-06-17T15:19:02.987" UserId="79" Text="Understanding a sacrifice in Horace's carmen 1.5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32171" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10966" RevisionGUID="d43d7c3f-4f68-4f19-9df7-0b7eee41688d" CreationDate="2019-06-17T15:19:02.987" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|poetry|roman-culture|horatius|religio|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10967" RevisionGUID="e83e3aa9-3d24-4246-9eb6-7f69898bd9a0" CreationDate="2019-06-17T16:50:27.797" UserId="79" Text="I would suggest ***pupula fallax***.&#xD;&#xA;*Pupulus* and *pupula* mean a puppet, and *fallax* (&quot;deceptive&quot;, &quot;deceitful&quot;) captures the nature of puppetry quite well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English word does not literally refer to anything nefarious.&#xD;&#xA;As I am not aware of a Latin word that carries a suitable connotation, some amount of explanation is in order.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I added *fallax*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Choosing *pupula* over *pupulus* was based on it sounding better.&#xD;&#xA;That might have to do with the feminine one fitting hexametric rhythm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure what political proxies were called, but I think a puppet is a good term for the online phenomenon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10968" RevisionGUID="2253438b-8411-4d21-883e-7d2a2e9f390a" CreationDate="2019-06-17T20:02:15.600" UserId="4877" Text="What does this mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Plantarunt vivi divino lumine coelos. Coelos nunc habitant. Ossa favilla fovet.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's from a 1683 epitaph for two Danish priests." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32174" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10968" RevisionGUID="2253438b-8411-4d21-883e-7d2a2e9f390a" CreationDate="2019-06-17T20:02:15.600" UserId="4877" Text="Latin sentences from 1683 epitaph" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32175" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10968" RevisionGUID="2253438b-8411-4d21-883e-7d2a2e9f390a" CreationDate="2019-06-17T20:02:15.600" UserId="4877" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10969" RevisionGUID="3ddd4257-1005-4925-82f3-f45d4a206cc8" CreationDate="2019-06-17T20:21:06.413" UserId="406" Text="This is, not surprisingly, Church Latin rather than Classical; _coel-_ with the &quot;O&quot; makes that clear (Classical would be _cael-_ with an &quot;A&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Plantarunt vivi divino lumine coelos.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; These living [men] filled the heavens with divine light.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Coelos nunc habitant.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; They now dwell in the heavens.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ossa favilla fovet.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ashes warm their bones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10969" RevisionGUID="3263df5b-d201-482f-9ffd-2ea016fa0758" CreationDate="2019-06-17T20:32:26.030" UserId="406" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="This is, not surprisingly, Church Latin rather than Classical; _coel-_ with the &quot;O&quot; makes that clear (Classical would be _cael-_ with an &quot;A&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Plantarunt vivi divino lumine coelos.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; These living [men] filled the heavens with divine light.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Coelos nunc habitant.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; They now dwell in the heavens.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ossa favilla fovet.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The stars warm their bones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm tentatively translating _favilla_ as &quot;stars&quot;; literally it means &quot;ashes, cinders, sparks&quot; but it doesn't really seem to make sense any other way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10969" RevisionGUID="e880983a-b2e5-4e59-9edf-1c9e5a76a06c" CreationDate="2019-06-17T21:20:52.980" UserId="406" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="This is, not surprisingly, Church Latin rather than Classical; _coel-_ with the &quot;O&quot; makes that clear (Classical would be _cael-_ with an &quot;A&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Plantarunt vivi divino lumine coelos.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; While alive, [these] men filled the heavens with divine light.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Coelos nunc habitant.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; They now dwell in the heavens.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ossa favilla fovet.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The stars warm their bones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm tentatively translating _favilla_ as &quot;stars&quot;; literally it means &quot;ashes, cinders, sparks&quot; but it doesn't really seem to make sense any other way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10962" RevisionGUID="e41abc62-0c23-47f4-af73-685e25afd39a" CreationDate="2019-06-18T00:02:26.523" UserId="4875" Comment="added 427 characters in body" Text="I've looked around some forums and the translation I've got so far is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ne Obliviscaris, Semper Commemoras&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm still not sure if this is correct. The context of the phrase that I wish to get the translation of, is like telling someone, or ourselves to never forget always remember. It's with a 'calm' tonality, not as 'energetic' as an imperative phrase. If that made sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did I get it correct? I'm open for other suggestions. It's for a tattoo design, and I wish to have the phrase to sound *great*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Received a generous input from Joonas Limavirta. The desired translation I inquire would be in a *soft* imperative tone. Something like you want to say to yourself, &quot;hey, never forget. And always remember,&quot; to the mirror.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Numquam obliviscere, commemora semper.&#xD;&#xA;Never forget, remember always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus far, I am quite satisfied with this translation but still open for any kind of other suggestions and inputs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10969" RevisionGUID="44fadf56-f0e5-4b4c-aa53-73ca30c2f549" CreationDate="2019-06-18T04:12:58.277" UserId="406" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="This is, not surprisingly, Church Latin rather than Classical; _coel-_ with the &quot;O&quot; makes that clear (Classical would be _cael-_ with an &quot;A&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Plantarunt vivi divino lumine coelos.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; While alive in the light of God, [these] men cultivated the Heavens.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Coelos nunc habitant.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; They now dwell in the heavens.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ossa favilla fovet.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ashes keep their bones safe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10970" RevisionGUID="6cf89704-f6a2-42fc-a8ef-3b01f1859489" CreationDate="2019-06-18T04:28:55.153" UserId="831" Text="This *is* how it is read. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But as for the “sacrificial” tradition, it is not a sacrifice but a votive offering in a tradition still practised in many parts of the Latin-speaking world. You promise God or a saint to make an offering to get you out of a sticky spot. The offering is of apposite form and nature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For health troubles it might be an eye or an ear or a foot or whatever, made of silver perhaps. There are, here and there, chapels full of them. With surviving a storm it may be a model (ideally, made by you) of the ship that saved you. For shipwreck, a piece of the flotsam you came ashore on. Uvid vestments would be pushing it a bit, since they would take up a lot of room and soon go mouldy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tradition has not really changed since the time of Horace. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10965" RevisionGUID="541b9789-cd7a-4012-86b7-eecb47e56427" CreationDate="2019-06-18T10:59:54.023" UserId="1982" Comment="added 286 characters in body" Text="Try: &quot;omnia bona erunt&quot; giving: &quot;all (things) will be good&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the wake of the contribution from Unbrutal_Russian, it is clear that this simplistic solution is not the best solution. Similarly, &quot;omnia bene erunt&quot; widely quoted around the net, is also unsuitable (above). But let these stimulate debate and provide guidance of where not to go." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10971" RevisionGUID="6fc097b0-1ffc-4567-9258-0346430e6b14" CreationDate="2019-06-18T14:25:00.543" UserId="645" Text="I suggest, primarily, *corruptor*,  which Smith's translates as  'undoer, misleader, corrupter, seducer, briber', any of which seems to bear the right kind of coonotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also possible is *testis falsus* or *testis corruptus*, 'false witness', each of which is listed in Pyper's 'Gradus'. The first of these occurs in the Vulgate (Proverbs 19:5),  *testis falsus non erit inpunitus et qui mendacia loquitur non effugiet* and is also found in the Ten Commandments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a pinch, (and again according to Smith's) one might use *allector*, 'one who entices or allures'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="d168342e-e693-4ebf-abe2-58b2cff72061" CreationDate="2019-06-18T15:01:52.053" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am looking for more or less the 'proper' (or any good approximation) way to translate a &quot;Traveler's Writ,&quot; as in a certificate or license given to a traveler that allows him legal access to an area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My problem is that there seems to be so many options for the concept of the 'writ' that I am not sure which way to go with this. Horrible old Goggle Translate gave me 'Charta viator est scriptor' but I feel that's terribly clunky. The era I am going for is 1500's Roman Catholic Latin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32185" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="d168342e-e693-4ebf-abe2-58b2cff72061" CreationDate="2019-06-18T15:01:52.053" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|new-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7692" RevisionGUID="420e51ef-5d56-4a95-8935-5664f7f79de7" CreationDate="2019-06-18T18:17:11.130" UserId="2605" Comment="added 261 characters in body" Text="Some names were indeed adapted to the meter. For example, in Homer, Achilles' name can be spelled with one or two λ depending on whether a heavy or light syllable is necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first line of the Iliad spells the name as Ἀχιλῆος (genitive of Ἀχιλεύς) in order to fit a meter of  `uu--`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few lines later (Iliad 1.7), Achilles gains a lambda and becomes Ἀχιλλεύς:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ἀτρεΐδης τε ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν καὶ δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two more names that might be examples of this are Ναυσικάα and Ναυσίθοος from the Odyssey (6.7,17). Both have uncontracted άα and οο (normally contracted as ᾶ, ου respectively). The reason might be because Ναυσικᾶ and Ναυσίθους can't fit into dactylic hexameter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what rules are used in alternating names, so I don't know how Σωκράτης might be adapted for hexameter (some other declensions of his name do seem to fit dactylic hexameter). But if Achilles's name (which fits the meter) can be changed, I would imagine that some of the names which wouldn't have otherwise fit might have been subject to prosodic license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different spellings for metrical purposes aren't limited to names. One example from a common noun: καρδία  `-u-` can't fit into hexameter, unless followed by a word beginning with a vowel, and so Homer almost always spells it κραδίη `uu-` (alternating from Ionic καρδίη), except for one case (Iliad 2.452, reference from [LSJ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kradia&amp;la=greek#Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=kardi/a-contents)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A search](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/LSJ.html) (on terms dact*, metr*) turns up with many more words which could manipulate the length of their vowels for metrical reasons (such as αἰθρία, ἀκάματος, ἰχθύδιον, κυάνεος). More to the point, it also gives two more proper names: Σικελία and Ὑδατοσύδνη both had their first syllable lengthened in dactylic hexameter in order to avoid a sequence of three consecutive short vowels. The sources quoted (Moschus and Callimachus respectively) are both Hellenistic-era poets." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10972" RevisionGUID="eea06de7-906d-4b9b-95d1-9a00a09328e6" CreationDate="2019-06-18T19:17:33.997" UserId="79" Text="The answer to [this visa question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7565/79) gives several options for a document like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *commeatus*&#xD;&#xA;- *commeatus diploma*&#xD;&#xA;- *commeatus syngraphus*&#xD;&#xA;- *visa*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of these is quoted as having a relation to your preferred era.&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if any of these would be the official word, but I am pretty sure that these, especially *commeatus diploma*, would be understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the gibberish from Google Translate, I would translate *Charta viator est scriptor* as &quot;paper traveller is writer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This makes no sense &amp;mdash; or if it does, I have hard time imagining it could be legitimately used to mean what you are after.&#xD;&#xA;[Google Translate is not to be trusted with Latin.](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32188" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="672ede1b-e4c1-4db2-bb0d-ecacb9570bc7" CreationDate="2019-06-18T19:17:58.220" UserId="79" Comment="Fixed a typo in the title." Text="Proper way to say &quot;Traveler's Writ/Licence/Certificate&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10973" RevisionGUID="a8132b3c-798c-4118-a399-93c71b724a78" CreationDate="2019-06-18T19:56:42.283" UserId="522" Text="Wonderful alphabet; thanks for introducing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing conclusive; and if you've thought of &#xD;&#xA;all this before, apologies. In case it prompts thoughts from others with sharper insights,  I offer three thoughts ***A,B,C.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***A: belgicat,*** as you say does not appear in the &#xD;&#xA;dictionaries, but *belgicas* and *gallicas* are found &#xD;&#xA;and they look as if they could come from *gallico* to &#xD;&#xA;'frenchify,' and *belgico,* to 'belgicise,' along with &#xD;&#xA;*belgicam* ?'let me belgicate'/?'I shall belgicate.' &#xD;&#xA;(You can find the same sort of terms used disparagingly of *foreign* styles of singing by [Charles Burney][1] in 1800, even 'bleating like goat;' although I can't remember which country's singing that described.) (source Rees Cyclopedia, 1813 which co-opted Burney as music critic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***B:*** In the ABC, the first few are straightforward (though by **G** it is getting pretty silly) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **G.** *Ut in gutture gradatim garruletur, genuine gratulatur.*  &#xD;&#xA;(to gradually growl in the gullet, genuine con-gratulations)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, among the sensible ones at the beginning, &#xD;&#xA;**B** is the odd one out. .1. it is twice as long; .2. it is twice as complicated; A,C,D are simple instructions but B is &quot;sustained or emphasised or attenuated,&quot; and .3. (in case any reader missed it) there's much the same in the special mention of B at the end of the alphabet, 'extremely so,'&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quam de B. dixi* &quot;as I said about **B&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And B also stands for 'Balbulus,' the descriptive name of Notker, referring to something odd about his voice. Not necessarily a stammer; did he warble or yodel? Was he exaggeratedly emphatic or did he mumble? Balbulus,  according to his name, created Babel. Was he implying *'balbulat,'* but never quite explicitly? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***C:*** Notker (circa 900) is a real scholar. Even if he had not read 'Etymologies' by Isidore of Seville (circa 600), he would have shared the common prejudices on which it was based:  that all people of Gaul are very pale, and the area is mountainous.           [Pliny also 4: 31: 17][2] &#xD;&#xA;mentions Belgica &quot; From the Scaldis to the Sequana&quot; i.e. From the Scheldt to the Seine. He says the Gauls are called &quot;comata&quot; meaning 'noted for their hair-styles') &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The whole of Gaul, that is comprehended under the one general name of Comata, is divided into three races of people,..&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this evidence 'belgicate' could mean 'to make tripartite' (and there are three terms in the **B** entry) or 'mountainously' up and down, or 'extreme,' the furthest part of Gaul.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.interlude.hk/front/musicians-artists-burney-reynolds/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D4%3Achapter%3D31" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32191" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2785" RevisionGUID="28b4a358-944b-4b43-a064-1ab8db1d9dfd" CreationDate="2019-06-19T09:04:30.867" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|greek|greek-translation|plato|reflexive-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32192" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2702" RevisionGUID="1aa1ec30-fb55-415e-9dd4-e49933296b31" CreationDate="2019-06-19T09:05:51.427" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|greek|verbs|translation-explanation|greek-translation|plato|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32193" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2723" RevisionGUID="82b69c68-3be6-4ac5-bde1-dea12f85a14b" CreationDate="2019-06-19T09:06:54.517" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|vocabulary|greek|plato|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10975" RevisionGUID="3d321a6b-1f97-45b5-bbdc-0465ba12e808" CreationDate="2019-06-19T14:59:29.637" UserId="79" Text="The military force of a country is often divided in branches such as an army, a navy, and an air force.&#xD;&#xA;There are many other branches out there, but the point is that I am looking for a division of military power at such a high level.&#xD;&#xA;Are there passages from classical(ish) Latin literature that illustrate the structures of the Roman military, especially a division to branches?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One might imagine that the Roman military had an army and a navy.&#xD;&#xA;How were those branches called and how were they related?&#xD;&#xA;Did the Romans make a clear division in a way similar to what we do today?&#xD;&#xA;For example, I don't know whether naval forces were always subordinate to a land unit or an independent entity.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a passage that would illustrate such structures clearly enough.&#xD;&#xA;I am not looking for vocabulary in isolation, but passages that show relations between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer may depend on the specific era, but any insight is welcome.&#xD;&#xA;If there are several, then something with a distinction as clear as possible between army and navy would be great.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps there was a time when one consul had the army and the other one had the navy, making for a clear equal-level division?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32195" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10975" RevisionGUID="3d321a6b-1f97-45b5-bbdc-0465ba12e808" CreationDate="2019-06-19T14:59:29.637" UserId="79" Text="Branches of Roman military in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32196" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10975" RevisionGUID="3d321a6b-1f97-45b5-bbdc-0465ba12e808" CreationDate="2019-06-19T14:59:29.637" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|passage-request|military|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4448" RevisionGUID="92eefa70-2647-4676-a247-a16fd671d8a9" CreationDate="2019-06-19T17:43:47.383" UserId="79" Comment="added 869 characters in body" Text="I found some attestations for *omne futurum* as &quot;all things to come&quot; ([Seneca](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/1017/12/123/60-65,65-72@1#123) and [Statius](http://latin.packhum.org/loc/1020/1/7/8463-8468,8468-8475@1#7)).&#xD;&#xA;You could say *omne bene futurum* for &quot;everything will be good&quot; (not *omnium*, though, since it's a plural genitive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another simple expression, and a one I would suggest, is *omnia bene erunt*, &quot;all (things) will be well&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is good Latin and difficult to misinterpret; *omne bene futurum* can also be understood as &quot;everything that will be good&quot;, leading to a rather different tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please leave a comment and tell how these match your needs, so I (or someone else) can suggest other alternatives or know that you got what you need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I suggested may or may not be idiomatic Latin; see the comments for some details.&#xD;&#xA;My answer was based mostly on intuition and partly on quick look into a corpus &amp;mdash; this is not a thoroughly researched and cited answer.&#xD;&#xA;However, the OP did not ask for classical Latin nor do I think that every turn of phrase must be attested before being allowed to use.&#xD;&#xA;I am open to other ideas, and if my answer gives rise to a more refined way of putting it, by all means give a new answer.&#xD;&#xA;My answer is not conclusive (which is not unusual for questions like this) and may give rise to follow-up questions.&#xD;&#xA;As settling those new questions are beyond my reach in this answer, I request that they be explored separately if there is interest.&#xD;&#xA;At any rate, I do believe my suggestions are understandable and okay Latin whether they are fully idiomatic or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10976" RevisionGUID="0c33e4ae-0497-47e1-b4b5-09d4362faa61" CreationDate="2019-06-19T18:10:21.160" UserId="3153" Text="I like the most simple translation: omnia valebunt. &quot;All things will be well.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10977" RevisionGUID="9057841e-787e-4abc-9304-61a57f88d0bf" CreationDate="2019-06-19T18:13:38.267" UserId="4877" Text="This is a pretty complex mishmash of Danish, latin, and greek. With help from friends I have it almost fully translated, but two latin phrases have eluded me and block a full translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context is the bishop writing to the provost about a problematic priest in the provost's juridiction (dated Nov 6, 1787). He finishes the letter like so (images at the end, partial translations below):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; snart er jeg færdig at sige som Paulus: ίδε, πηλίκοις γραμμασιν εγραψα&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τῇ εμῇ χειρί! men han skrev om vigtige Ting, og jeg som oftest, i&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ligning derimod, de lana caprina. Begge vi, kjære gode Hr. Provst,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maae lade os befalde διακονεῖν τραπέζαις, τόν λόγον του Θεου&#xD;&#xA;&gt; καταλείψαντας, istud vero profecto ȣη ἀρεστόν εςιν — sic autem infatis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; erat. Dog! jeg havde nær blevet mismodig, — ogsaa dette hører til&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εργον της διακονίας ἥμων, — og dermed trøstede, ville vi alle atter&#xD;&#xA;&gt; være glade og færdige til alt. Gud velsigne og bevare D.V.V., min&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aarvaagne og brave συνεργὸν [etc.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the Danish parts translated to English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am almost ready to say like Paulus: ίδε, πηλίκοις γραμμασιν εγραψα&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τῇ εμῇ χειρί! but he wrote about important things, where as I, in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comparison, de lana caprina. Both of us, dear Mr. Provost,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; must let us command διακονεῖν τραπέζαις, τόν λόγον του Θεου&#xD;&#xA;&gt; καταλείψαντας, istud vero profecto ȣη ἀρεστόν εςιν — sic autem infatis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; erat. And yet! I almost became dispirited, — this also belongs to our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εργον της διακονίας ἥμων, — and thus comforted, should we all be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; happy and ready for everything. God bless and keep [honorific style], my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vigilant and brave συνεργὸν [etc.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The first greek passage is [Galatians 6:11](https://biblehub.com/text/galatians/6-11.htm) (See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand) with the first word changed from 2nd person plural to singular, ie addressing the provost. I read this as the bishop's frustration.&#xD;&#xA;* de lana caprina = the goat's wool, ie. a trifle.&#xD;&#xA;* Now comes parts of [Acts 6:2](https://biblehub.com/text/acts/6-2.htm) with its subphrases in practically reverse order (word # from link in parantheses), and interjected latin:&#xD;&#xA;  * (Both of us, dear Mr. Provost, must let us command)&#xD;&#xA;  * διακονεῖν τραπέζαις (#19-20) =  to attend tables&#xD;&#xA;  * τόν λόγον του Θεου (#15-18) = the word of God&#xD;&#xA;  * καταλείψαντας (#14) = having neglected&#xD;&#xA;  * **istud vero profecto = ???**&#xD;&#xA;  * ȣη ἀρεστόν εςιν (#10-12) = not desirable it is&#xD;&#xA;  * **sic autem infatis erat = ???**&#xD;&#xA;* εργον της διακονίας ἥμων = the work of our ministry&#xD;&#xA;* συνεργὸν = colleague&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![page 1][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![page 2][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/z7530.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eQ0Gb.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32201" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10977" RevisionGUID="9057841e-787e-4abc-9304-61a57f88d0bf" CreationDate="2019-06-19T18:13:38.267" UserId="4877" Text="Latin phrases in 1787 letter from Danish bishop" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32202" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10977" RevisionGUID="9057841e-787e-4abc-9304-61a57f88d0bf" CreationDate="2019-06-19T18:13:38.267" UserId="4877" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|christianity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10978" RevisionGUID="7ca62245-68a1-4a76-86c7-12376ab2fff4" CreationDate="2019-06-19T19:13:27.413" UserId="2363" Text="istud vero profecto = but this in fact &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sic autem in fatis est = but/now as fate would have it // but/now it was fated that // but such was my fate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10979" RevisionGUID="9b86daae-8a09-4568-88bd-956d793ec89b" CreationDate="2019-06-19T20:49:50.113" UserId="645" Text="That's an enormous question, which I suspect will get no proper answer. Outside of Wikipedia I've yet to come across any work thgoroughly devoted to the Roman navy (in contrast so many about the army), so I can only give a rough-and-ready outline, and hope you can expand from it for yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The navy first came into existence for action against Carthage in the First Punic War, which they began with a small fleet of triremes that they had to expand (according to Polybius, they built 100 quinqueremes in just sixty days, including the time to fell the timber). The fleets were commanded by consuls with varying success. Thenceforward the navy was always important, with sea battles figuring large during Rome's expansion and consolidation — think of Pompey suppressing piracy, or Marcus Agrippa, who commanded in the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra at Actium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were certainly properly constituted positions at the head of naval affairs, appointments 'to the fleet' or 'to the ships', *praefectus* (later *praepositus*) *classis* or *classi*, usually translated into the English word 'admiral'. Julius Caesar who, if you think about it, must have known a thing or two about the use and construction of transport ships at the very least, refers to various appointments, as do other authors. Livy refers to something like the Board of Admiralty of the Royal Navy, *duumviri navales classis ornandae reficiendaeque causa*, probably indicating the existence of an overall policy. Naval bases were certainly established, for example at Misenum for the home fleet and elsewhere, so there was presumably some kind of formal organisation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What seems to be missing is any structure in the ranks of either officers or men, except for the on-board distinction between fighting men (*milites nautici* or *classici*) and the sailing crews (*socii navales* or *nauta gubernatoresque*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I regret that this will not seem a very satisfactory answer: it may be that this is one of those areas of Roman history which has for no good reason drifted out of sight, which in itself may just reflect the perceived, relative unimportance of the navy, as oppsed to the land forces. I should be fascinated to see if any other answer can provide information more solid.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10980" RevisionGUID="d8758b80-2099-4a1d-b661-9bcfbddc0174" CreationDate="2019-06-19T21:54:36.217" UserId="4879" Text="As to digamma it would seem easier for a &quot;w&quot;to disappear than a &quot;v&quot;. Based on my extensive  Hebrew studies, it is virtually universally acknowledged that the Hebrew &quot;vav&quot; or&quot;waw&quot; was originally &quot;w&quot;.A few Hebrew ethnic traditions preserve it. The majority of European Jews, who used Hebrew only for prayers and for textual study- not speech- pronounced it &quot;v&quot;, presumably because their vernacular (first and ordinarily spoken language) did not contain /w/. Witness the attempt of someone learning English as a second language. They typically have great difficulty in pronouncing /w/ and it often is realized as/v/. Even when European Jews migrated to English speaking countries, they stuck with the tradition of /v/. Modern (Israeli) Hebrew, established by Europeans who had no /w/, retained /v/ for &quot;vav&quot; notwithstanding their attempt to establish a &quot;sephardic&quot; (non-European) Hebrew pronunciation which they did superficially. Thus the /v/ realization for /vav/ has remained standard in popular descriptions and transcriptions of Hebrew." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10981" RevisionGUID="ccb01535-f117-4bf5-941c-ffc25dbe9c04" CreationDate="2019-06-19T23:56:40.277" UserId="2389" Text="Here's the only classical-age birthday wish I've been able to find:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; C. Plinius Traijānō imperātōrī  &#xD;&#xA;Optō, domine, et hunc nātālem et plūrimōs aliōs quam fēlīcissimōs agās... ('I wish, Sir, that this birthday, as well as many others to come, bring you much happiness...' [Plin.Sec. Ep. 10.88.1](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1318/1/337/106-113))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect there exist more in the ancient Latin corpus, but I haven't looked for them. This formula - *fēlīcem nātālem agās* - looks to me to be a safe and idiomatic bet, but if you want some variety, there's also the word **nātālicius** (*diēs*), as well as **grātulārī**, which can be used as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **grātulārī**: alicuj **dē** victōriā/**in** hōc/**prō** ingeniō tālī/victōri**ae** tu**ae**/**cum** aliquid factum est/**quod** aliquid factum est/aliquid factum **esse**/eam **rem**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10981" RevisionGUID="2c14d469-f2c8-4f95-a1b3-4dc24324c858" CreationDate="2019-06-20T00:03:35.297" UserId="2389" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="Here's the only classical-age birthday wish I've been able to find on PHI:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; C. Plinius Traijānō imperātōrī  &#xD;&#xA;Optō, domine, et hunc nātālem et plūrimōs aliōs quam fēlīcissimōs agās... ('I wish, Sir, that this birthday, as well as many others to come, bring you much happiness...' [Plin.Sec. Ep. 10.88.1](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1318/1/337/106-113))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect there exist more in the wider corpus of pre-carolingian Latin, but I haven't looked for them. This formula - *fēlīcem nātālem agās* - looks to me to be a safe and idiomatic bet, but if you want some variety, there's also the word **nātālicius** (*diēs*), as well as **grātulārī**, which can be used as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **grātulārī**: alicuj **dē** victōriā/**in** hōc/**prō** ingeniō tālī/victōri**ae** tu**ae**/**cum** aliquid factum est/**quod** aliquid factum est/aliquid factum **esse**/eam **rem**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10979" RevisionGUID="aa542602-3d6d-4322-9612-bc2865554cd2" CreationDate="2019-06-20T05:00:38.437" UserId="645" Comment="Sp. corr." Text="That's an enormous question, which I suspect will get no proper answer. Outside of Wikipedia I've yet to come across any work thoroughly devoted to the Roman navy (in contrast so many about the army), so I can only give a rough-and-ready outline, and hope you can expand from it for yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The navy first came into existence for action against Carthage in the First Punic War, which they began with a small fleet of triremes that they had to expand (according to Polybius, they built 100 quinqueremes in just sixty days, including the time to fell the timber). The fleets were commanded by consuls with varying success. Thenceforward the navy was always important, with sea battles figuring large during Rome's expansion and consolidation — think of Pompey suppressing piracy, or Marcus Agrippa, who commanded in the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra at Actium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were certainly properly constituted positions at the head of naval affairs, appointments 'to the fleet' or 'to the ships', *praefectus* (later *praepositus*) *classis* or *classi*, usually translated into the English word 'admiral'. Julius Caesar who, if you think about it, must have known a thing or two about the use and construction of transport ships at the very least, refers to various appointments, as do other authors. Livy refers to something like the Board of Admiralty of the Royal Navy, *duumviri navales classis ornandae reficiendaeque causa*, probably indicating the existence of an overall policy. Naval bases were certainly established, for example at Misenum for the home fleet and elsewhere, so there was presumably some kind of formal organisation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What seems to be missing is any structure in the ranks of either officers or men, except for the on-board distinction between fighting men (*milites nautici* or *classici*) and the sailing crews (*socii navales* or *nautae gubernatoresque*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I regret that this will not seem a very satisfactory answer: it may be that this is one of those areas of Roman history which has for no good reason drifted out of sight, which in itself may just reflect the perceived, relative unimportance of the navy, as opposed to the land forces. I should be fascinated to see if any other answer can provide information more solid.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10822" RevisionGUID="120c1315-db53-4298-bc9d-995e0060d693" CreationDate="2019-06-20T06:15:20.507" UserId="49" Comment="Do not use code formatting for anything other than code." Text="This is the text that I can see. Hopefully you will be able to view the image if I can add it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried various translation sites but nothing is really working. I could makes guesses but I'm very curious exactly what it says and means.  V's could be U's and this headstone is located in Memmingen, Stadtkreis Memmingen, Bavaria (Bayern), Germany.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MORTALITI SVA MEMOR   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; REIP MEMMING SENATI  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ET  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; PHARMACOP  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; BIPONT NAT  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; MDCCVI DIE XXIV APRS (April 24 1706?)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; MONVMENT HOC SEPVLCRALE  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; PARAVIT  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; SIBI POSTERISQVE SVIS  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; MDCCLXXII (1772?)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](http://images.findagrave.com/photos/2015/345/UNCEM_1449859976765.jpg) is a link to the image." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32210" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10822" RevisionGUID="120c1315-db53-4298-bc9d-995e0060d693" CreationDate="2019-06-20T06:15:20.507" Comment="Proposed by 49 approved by 79 edit id of 317" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5283" RevisionGUID="1e4a9fb4-dd42-4f2a-8412-bba655f64617" CreationDate="2019-06-20T06:39:11.777" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="The closest phrase I could come up with is *in fuga*, which is quite literally &quot;on the run&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There are [a number of classical attestations of this phrase](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=in+fuga%23).&#xD;&#xA;Another good choice is the participle *fugiens*, possibly with a prefix *ef-* or *pro-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no Latin phrase that behaves exactly like &quot;on the run&quot;, so you have to judge each context separately.&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;the prisoner is on the run&quot; I would simply say *captivus profugit*.&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;while on the run, the prisoner slaughtered a dog&quot;, I would choose either *captivus profugiens canem necavit*, *captivus in fuga canem necavit*, or use two personal verbs like *captivus profugiebat et canem necavit*.&#xD;&#xA;The choice is a matter of style and fluency." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32212" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2705" RevisionGUID="5512e206-5618-4f13-8d05-d789ba7ec779" CreationDate="2019-06-20T06:45:05.097" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|greek|grammar-identification|greek-translation|plato|relative-pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32213" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2714" RevisionGUID="60e403b3-defe-4c36-9632-4284c7ad3448" CreationDate="2019-06-20T06:45:54.950" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|greek|translation-check|participle|greek-translation|plato|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32214" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2608" RevisionGUID="7c7a018d-1f84-4724-a68a-abebfb3ff0ab" CreationDate="2019-06-20T06:48:41.817" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|greek|conjunctive|tenses|future-tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10975" RevisionGUID="fb68062f-2674-46b7-882b-cc699c8d2882" CreationDate="2019-06-20T08:59:19.837" UserId="79" Comment="added 140 characters in body" Text="The military force of a country is often divided in branches such as an army, a navy, and an air force.&#xD;&#xA;There are many other branches out there, but the point is that I am looking for a division of military power at such a high level.&#xD;&#xA;Are there passages from classical(ish) Latin literature that illustrate the structures of the Roman military, especially a division to branches?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One might imagine that the Roman military had an army and a navy.&#xD;&#xA;How were those branches called and how were they related?&#xD;&#xA;Did the Romans make a clear division in a way similar to what we do today?&#xD;&#xA;For example, I don't know whether naval forces were always subordinate to a land unit or an independent entity.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a passage that would illustrate such structures clearly enough.&#xD;&#xA;I am not looking for vocabulary in isolation, but passages that show relations between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer may depend on the specific era, but any insight is welcome.&#xD;&#xA;If there are several, then something with a distinction as clear as possible between army and navy would be great.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps there was a time when one consul had the army and the other one had the navy, making for a clear equal-level division?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not looking for a description of all of the Roman military, but for vocabulary (used in context) having to do with branch division." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10982" RevisionGUID="92049ef9-8ca2-4017-bf7a-8237a99586ea" CreationDate="2019-06-20T08:59:58.167" UserId="1825" Text="I saw this quote in someone's forum sig file (signature): &quot;Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.&quot; - Lucretius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Curious, I consulted _Google Translate_, which my professional translator brother cautions against. I think he knows of what he speaks, as [*Google Translate* renders the quote][1] as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;religion in persuading bad &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This result even has their &quot;Translation verified by Translation Community&quot; icon! I was not convinced. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I therefore searched about and discovered several (similar, but not identical) translations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An [article on NewEpicurean.com][2] translates the Latin as: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So much does religion have the power to persuade to evil deeds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary][3] offers three translations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under *Etymology*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Literally &quot;To such heights of evil has religion been able to drive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; men.&quot; From Lucretius' *De Rerum Natura*, Book I, 101.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under *Proverb*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The practice of religion leads people to practise evil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And under *quotations*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c. 99 BCE – 55 BCE, Lucretius, *De rerum natura* 1.101:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; So potent was religion in persuading to evil deeds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Monica Gale translates the Latin as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; how powerfully religion directs towards evil&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Monica Gale, &quot;Lucretius and Previous Poetic Traditions&quot;, in *The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius*, eds. Stuart Gillespie and Philip Hardie (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 67.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reid Barbour translates it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; such evils could religion incite&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Reid Barbour, &quot;Moral and Political Philosophy: Readings of Lucretius from Virgil to Voltaire&quot;, in *The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius*, eds. Stuart Gillespie and Philip Hardie (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 155.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;R. Allen Shoaf translates the saying as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; so great are the evils religion can make men commit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Richard Allen Shoaf, *Lucretius and Shakespeare on the Nature of Things* (Newcastle upon Tyne, England, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014), 25.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My Question**: Would it be accurate to conclude that there is not a &quot;perfect&quot; translation, and that the above Latin-to-English translations (other than *Google Translate's*) are reasonably correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://translate.google.com/#view=home&amp;op=translate&amp;sl=la&amp;tl=en&amp;text=tantum%20religio%20potuit%20suadere%20malorum&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://newepicurean.com/tantum-religio-potuit-suadere-malorum/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tantum_religio_potuit_suadere_malorum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32217" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10982" RevisionGUID="92049ef9-8ca2-4017-bf7a-8237a99586ea" CreationDate="2019-06-20T08:59:58.167" UserId="1825" Text="Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum - Lucretius" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32218" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10982" RevisionGUID="92049ef9-8ca2-4017-bf7a-8237a99586ea" CreationDate="2019-06-20T08:59:58.167" UserId="1825" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|lucretius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32219" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10982" RevisionGUID="ff86f616-3b7e-4c6c-a07c-0acf50c119a5" CreationDate="2019-06-20T09:05:14.987" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum – Lucretius" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32220" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10982" RevisionGUID="ff86f616-3b7e-4c6c-a07c-0acf50c119a5" CreationDate="2019-06-20T09:05:14.987" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|classical-latin|translation-check|latin-to-english-translation|lucretius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10983" RevisionGUID="49df08d4-db42-4626-aef2-bd67afedfcd1" CreationDate="2019-06-20T09:49:23.560" UserId="79" Text="It is great that you looked up so many proposed translations!&#xD;&#xA;The many routes taken reflect the difficulty of translating well and the necessity to choose goals for the translation.&#xD;&#xA;[Google Translate is unreliable with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79); for detailed analysis and mockery, see the linked question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original quote is a line from a poem written in dactylic hexameter.&#xD;&#xA;Some translators chose to go with a poetic form as well, and the rhythmic constraints impose limitations on the message delivered.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Perseus library has both [the Latin original](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0130%3Abook%3D1%3Acard%3D80) and [a translation by William Ellery Leonard](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0131%3Abook%3D1%3Acard%3D80).&#xD;&#xA;He renders it in a iambic meter as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Such are the crimes to which Religion leads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A choice close to using a poetic form is to aim for something grandiose in style.&#xD;&#xA;These are good options if you want something artistically similar to the original, but you will probably lose in accuracy.&#xD;&#xA;It should be remembered that metric constraints restricted Lucretius as well; he may not have had access to the perfect words to put his thought because of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will offer a technical translation that aims to describe the meaning of the Latin sentence accurately.&#xD;&#xA;It may fail at several artistic levels, but one cannot achieve everything.&#xD;&#xA;There is no perfect translation, and what is best depends on your goal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also good to look at the context.&#xD;&#xA;Lucretius describes a scenario before the onset of the Trojan war:&#xD;&#xA;The Greeks are ready to go, but the wrath of Artemis keeps them from sailing.&#xD;&#xA;To calm the goddess, king Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter Iphigenia.&#xD;&#xA;This is the crime caused by religion that Lucretius condemns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us go word by word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Tantum* is &quot;so much&quot; or &quot;so many&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It comes with *malorum*, which appears to be a partitive genitive &quot;of bad [things]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;*Tantum malorum* is &quot;so many bad things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The adjective [*malus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=malus1&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) has quite a number of possible translations.&#xD;&#xA;The most basic one would be &quot;bad&quot;, but the linked entry lists also: evil, wicked, injurious, destructive, mischievous, hurtful, ill-looking, ugly, deformed, evil, unlucky, and more.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps &quot;evil&quot; or &quot;wicked&quot; is most appropriate in the context of the story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Using a neuter plural *mala* (of which the genitive is eventually taken) is idiomatic in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;While it can be translated as &quot;wicked things&quot;, I feel that the same message is conveyed more clearly with &quot;wickedness&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Therefore, these two words could be taken as &quot;so much wickedness&quot; or &quot;so much evil&quot; or more literally &quot;so many bad things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The word [*religio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=religio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is not far from the English &quot;religion&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It means many kinds of piety, religious thought and observance, relation to gods, holiness, and similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In this context, it could well be translated simply as &quot;religion&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps also &quot;religious scrupulousness&quot; would do, as the point is to say that observing religion has gone too far in this instance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Potuit* is straightforward, &quot;was able to&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The remaining word is [*suadere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suadeo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), meaning things like &quot;advice&quot;, &quot;recommend&quot;, &quot;persuade&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;As it is about religion pushing things too far, perhaps &quot;persuade&quot; is most accurate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There are words that could be supplied (for idiomatic English phrasing or otherwise) but weren't mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;In the context, the ones being persuaded are the Greeks or perhaps Agamemnon or Calchas.&#xD;&#xA;No pronoun is used in Latin, but supplying one is reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in conclusion, one possible translation is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Religious scrupulousness was able to persuade them into so much wickedness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this conveys the message with good accuracy in the context of the story Lucretius is telling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to turn this from a sentence in context into a slogan, things change.&#xD;&#xA;Lucretius made a moral statement about specific events and their causes.&#xD;&#xA;Turning this into a blanket statement like &quot;The practice of religion leads people to practise evil&quot; is taking him out of context and seriously misquoting.&#xD;&#xA;It might be a thought based on what Lucretius wrote, but it is not what he wrote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the translation suggestions you provide land somewhere between an exaggerated generalization and a precise translation fitting the context.&#xD;&#xA;It is up to you to decide which translation is best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope I was able to give you an idea of what the sentence means.&#xD;&#xA;To me that is primary; to phrase that into a coherent English sentence is secondary.&#xD;&#xA;I think many of the translations you posted come close my suggestion in meaning, although the wording is clearly different." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10983" RevisionGUID="b464a08a-dd72-490c-a163-8408cce1ae51" CreationDate="2019-06-20T14:22:24.400" UserId="79" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="It is great that you looked up so many proposed translations!&#xD;&#xA;The many routes taken reflect the difficulty of translating well and the necessity to choose goals for the translation.&#xD;&#xA;[Google Translate is unreliable with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79); for detailed analysis and mockery, see the linked question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original quote is a line from a poem written in dactylic hexameter.&#xD;&#xA;Some translators chose to go with a poetic form as well, and the rhythmic constraints impose limitations on the message delivered.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Perseus library has both [the Latin original](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0130%3Abook%3D1%3Acard%3D80) and [a translation by William Ellery Leonard](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0131%3Abook%3D1%3Acard%3D80).&#xD;&#xA;He renders it in a iambic meter as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Such are the crimes to which Religion leads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A choice close to using a poetic form is to aim for something grandiose in style.&#xD;&#xA;These are good options if you want something artistically similar to the original, but you will probably lose in accuracy.&#xD;&#xA;It should be remembered that metric constraints restricted Lucretius as well; he may not have had access to the perfect words to put his thought because of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will offer a technical translation that aims to describe the meaning of the Latin sentence accurately.&#xD;&#xA;It may fail at several artistic levels, but one cannot achieve everything.&#xD;&#xA;There is no perfect translation, and what is best depends on your goal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also good to look at the context.&#xD;&#xA;Lucretius describes a scenario before the onset of the Trojan war:&#xD;&#xA;The Greeks are ready to go, but the wrath of Artemis keeps them from sailing.&#xD;&#xA;To calm the goddess, king Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter Iphigenia.&#xD;&#xA;This is the crime caused by religion that Lucretius condemns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us go word by word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Tantum* is &quot;so much&quot; or &quot;so many&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It comes with *malorum*, which appears to be a partitive genitive &quot;of bad [things]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;*Tantum malorum* is &quot;so many bad things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The adjective [*malus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=malus1&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) has quite a number of possible translations.&#xD;&#xA;The most basic one would be &quot;bad&quot;, but the linked entry lists also: evil, wicked, injurious, destructive, mischievous, hurtful, ill-looking, ugly, deformed, evil, unlucky, and more.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps &quot;evil&quot; or &quot;wicked&quot; is most appropriate in the context of the story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Using a neuter plural *mala* (of which the genitive is eventually taken) is idiomatic in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;While it can be translated as &quot;wicked things&quot;, I feel that the same message is conveyed more clearly with &quot;wickedness&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Therefore, these two words could be taken as &quot;so much wickedness&quot; or &quot;so much evil&quot; or more literally &quot;so many bad things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The word [*religio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=religio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is not far from the English &quot;religion&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It means many kinds of piety, religious thought and observance, relation to gods, holiness, and similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In this context, it could well be translated simply as &quot;religion&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps also &quot;religious scrupulousness&quot; would do, as the point is to say that observing religion has gone too far in this instance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Potuit* is straightforward, &quot;was able to&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The remaining word is [*suadere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suadeo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), meaning things like &quot;advice&quot;, &quot;recommend&quot;, &quot;persuade&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;As it is about religion pushing things too far, perhaps &quot;persuade&quot; is most accurate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There are words that could be supplied (for idiomatic English phrasing or otherwise) but were not mentioned explicitly.&#xD;&#xA;In the context, the ones being persuaded are the Greeks or perhaps Agamemnon or Calchas.&#xD;&#xA;No pronoun is used in Latin, but supplying one is reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;The point is to understand the thought from the Latin and re-express it in English, not to translate word by word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in conclusion, one possible translation is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Religious scrupulousness was able to persuade them into so much wickedness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this conveys the message with good accuracy in the context of the story Lucretius is telling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to turn this from a sentence in context into a slogan, things change.&#xD;&#xA;Lucretius made a moral statement about specific events and their causes.&#xD;&#xA;Turning this into a blanket statement like &quot;The practice of religion leads people to practise evil&quot; is taking him out of context and seriously misquoting.&#xD;&#xA;It might be a thought based on what Lucretius wrote, but it is not what he wrote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the translation suggestions you provide land somewhere between an exaggerated generalization and a precise translation fitting the context.&#xD;&#xA;It is up to you to decide which translation is best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope I was able to give you an idea of what the sentence means.&#xD;&#xA;To me that is primary; phrasing that into a coherent English sentence is secondary.&#xD;&#xA;I think many of the translations you posted come close my suggestion in meaning, although the wording is clearly different." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10963" RevisionGUID="8f043706-9f19-48ba-9c4c-b7d456b09bf6" CreationDate="2019-06-20T15:55:36.093" UserId="79" Comment="added 249 characters in body" Text="It is not fully correct, but it is very close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to make the instruction softer than imperative, then present conjunctive (also called subjunctive) is a good way to go.&#xD;&#xA;It is more like &quot;may you remember&quot; than &quot;remember!&quot;, if that is what you are after.&#xD;&#xA;In idiomatic English you wouldn't usually use &quot;may you&quot; &amp;mdash; the Latin conjunctive is far less heavy.&#xD;&#xA;See [this question about the difference between these two moods](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/349/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;do not forget&quot; your translation *ne obliviscaris* is excellent if you go with conjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;The form of *commemoras* is indicative, whereas the conjunctive would be *commemores*.&#xD;&#xA;The indicative means a factual statement &quot;you remember&quot;, which is not a guidance or an order, so that is out of the picture.&#xD;&#xA;The bigger question is whether his is the verb you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have [a list of free online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;For the ones that have English to Latin translation, you can check out options, and any of them will do for checking whether a verb has the tone you want it to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *commemorare*: call to mind, be mindful of, keep in mind, remember, recall, relate, mention&#xD;&#xA;- *memorari*: remember, be mindful of&#xD;&#xA;- *recordari*: think over, bethink one's self of, be mindful of, call to mind, remember, recollect, think of, meditate, ponder  &#xD;&#xA;(This one comes from *cor*, &quot;heart&quot;, if that matters.)&#xD;&#xA;- *scire*: know, understand, perceive, remember&#xD;&#xA;- *fovere*: keep warm, cherish, foster&#xD;&#xA;- *meminisse*: remember, bear in mind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just some that came to mind.&#xD;&#xA;*Commemorare* is a good choice, but it is up to you to decide whether there are better ones.&#xD;&#xA;You told in a comment that it is the most suitable one for you, but a future reader looking for a similar motto might prefer something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Semper* is a good translation for &quot;always&quot;, and it makes sense to balance the two sides of the whole phrase so that both have a verb and smaller word of some kind.&#xD;&#xA;To better mirror *semper*, you could also use *numquam* (&quot;never&quot;) instead of *ne* (&quot;do not&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also play with word order.&#xD;&#xA;Chiasm &amp;mdash; inverting the word orders in the opposing parts of the phrase &amp;mdash; is my suggestion, but not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;The only crucial part in the word order is to have *numquam* and *obliviscere* together and also *semper* and *commemora* together.&#xD;&#xA;Within these word pairs you can do as you like.&#xD;&#xA;To keep the two pairs separate, a comma or a row break will help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, one option with conjunctive would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Numquam obliviscaris, commemores semper.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [May you] never forget, [may you] remember always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inclusion of &quot;may you&quot; is optional.&#xD;&#xA;I just wanted to describe the tone by that translation option.&#xD;&#xA;If you want imperatives, use *obliviscere* or *commemora* instead.&#xD;&#xA;So, to make it more of a recommendation than a wish, you could choose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Numquam obliviscere, commemora semper.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Never forget, remember always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the comments, I think this is the best offer I have.&#xD;&#xA;But please wait for others to weigh in before making a final decision." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32224" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10982" RevisionGUID="c990d944-cfe0-4e2a-a9e8-0bcdb11f0f20" CreationDate="2019-06-20T17:09:05.913" />
  <row Id="32225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10983" RevisionGUID="ab72cb96-fb2d-4fa3-8959-70f79f2c9c5f" CreationDate="2019-06-20T18:17:18.633" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="It is great that you looked up so many proposed translations!&#xD;&#xA;The many routes taken reflect the difficulty of translating well and the necessity to choose goals for the translation.&#xD;&#xA;[Google Translate is unreliable with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79); for detailed analysis and mockery, see the linked question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original quote is a line from a poem written in dactylic hexameter.&#xD;&#xA;Some translators chose to go with a poetic form as well, and the rhythmic constraints impose limitations on the message delivered.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the Perseus library has both [the Latin original](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0130%3Abook%3D1%3Acard%3D80) and [a translation by William Ellery Leonard](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0131%3Abook%3D1%3Acard%3D80).&#xD;&#xA;He renders it in a iambic meter as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Such are the crimes to which Religion leads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A choice close to using a poetic form is to aim for something grandiose in style.&#xD;&#xA;These are good options if you want something artistically similar to the original, but you will probably lose in accuracy.&#xD;&#xA;It should be remembered that metric constraints restricted Lucretius as well; he may not have had access to the perfect words to put his thought because of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will offer a technical translation that aims to describe the meaning of the Latin sentence accurately.&#xD;&#xA;It may fail at several artistic levels, but one cannot achieve everything.&#xD;&#xA;There is no perfect translation, and what is best depends on your goal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also good to look at the context.&#xD;&#xA;Lucretius describes a scenario before the onset of the Trojan war:&#xD;&#xA;The Greeks are ready to go, but the wrath of Artemis keeps them from sailing.&#xD;&#xA;To calm the goddess, king Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter Iphigenia.&#xD;&#xA;This is the crime caused by religion that Lucretius condemns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us go word by word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Tantum* is &quot;so much&quot; or &quot;so many&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It comes with *malorum*, which appears to be a partitive genitive &quot;of bad [things]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;*Tantum malorum* is &quot;so many bad things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The adjective [*malus*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=malus1&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) has quite a number of possible translations.&#xD;&#xA;The most basic one would be &quot;bad&quot;, but the linked entry lists also: evil, wicked, injurious, destructive, mischievous, hurtful, ill-looking, ugly, deformed, unlucky, and more.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps &quot;evil&quot; or &quot;wicked&quot; is most appropriate in the context of the story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Using a neuter plural *mala* (of which the genitive is eventually taken) is idiomatic in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;While it can be translated as &quot;wicked things&quot;, I feel that the same message is conveyed more clearly with &quot;wickedness&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Therefore, these two words could be taken as &quot;so much wickedness&quot; or &quot;so much evil&quot; or more literally &quot;so many bad things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The word [*religio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=religio&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) is not far from the English &quot;religion&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It means many kinds of piety, religious thought and observance, relation to gods, holiness, and similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In this context, it could well be translated simply as &quot;religion&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps also &quot;religious scrupulousness&quot; would do, as the point is to say that observing religion has gone too far in this instance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Potuit* is straightforward, &quot;was able to&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The remaining word is [*suadere*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suadeo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), meaning things like &quot;advice&quot;, &quot;recommend&quot;, &quot;persuade&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;As it is about religion pushing things too far, perhaps &quot;persuade&quot; is most accurate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There are words that could be supplied (for idiomatic English phrasing or otherwise) but were not mentioned explicitly.&#xD;&#xA;In the context, the ones being persuaded are the Greeks or perhaps Agamemnon or Calchas.&#xD;&#xA;No pronoun is used in Latin, but supplying one is reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;The point is to understand the thought from the Latin and re-express it in English, not to translate word by word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in conclusion, one possible translation is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Religious scrupulousness was able to persuade them into so much wickedness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this conveys the message with good accuracy in the context of the story Lucretius is telling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to turn this from a sentence in context into a slogan, things change.&#xD;&#xA;Lucretius made a moral statement about specific events and their causes.&#xD;&#xA;Turning this into a blanket statement like &quot;The practice of religion leads people to practise evil&quot; is taking him out of context and seriously misquoting.&#xD;&#xA;It might be a thought based on what Lucretius wrote, but it is not what he wrote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the translation suggestions you provide land somewhere between an exaggerated generalization and a precise translation fitting the context.&#xD;&#xA;It is up to you to decide which translation is best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope I was able to give you an idea of what the sentence means.&#xD;&#xA;To me that is primary; phrasing that into a coherent English sentence is secondary.&#xD;&#xA;I think many of the translations you posted come close my suggestion in meaning, although the wording is clearly different." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32226" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10819" RevisionGUID="fed97818-d6db-472f-91b8-cd2c3ca7d22b" CreationDate="2019-06-20T20:01:50.293" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10984" RevisionGUID="16bb5071-6c9e-4d71-bcf3-dbae51fd3e7e" CreationDate="2019-06-20T22:23:22.410" UserId="2789" Text="In classical Greek, the only consonant digraphs that have corresponding letters in the alphabet are ks(Ξ), ps(Ψ), and zd(Ζ, though this one's debated) -- why aren't other consonant digraphs (e.g. ts, kp, kth, sz) identified with distinctive letters? I thought it might had something to do their frequency of use, but I am not certain. It'd be very helpful if there are some sort of frequency statistics of all consonant digraphs available." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32229" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10984" RevisionGUID="16bb5071-6c9e-4d71-bcf3-dbae51fd3e7e" CreationDate="2019-06-20T22:23:22.410" UserId="2789" Text="Why aren't there more letters representing consonant digraphs in Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32230" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10984" RevisionGUID="16bb5071-6c9e-4d71-bcf3-dbae51fd3e7e" CreationDate="2019-06-20T22:23:22.410" UserId="2789" Text="|greek|alphabet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10984" RevisionGUID="aedbd5e0-72a3-4254-8396-6e14907e9a56" CreationDate="2019-06-20T22:39:13.317" UserId="2789" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="In classical Greek, the only consonant digraphs that have corresponding letters in the alphabet are ks(Ξ), ps(Ψ), and zd(Ζ, though this one's debated) -- why aren't other consonant digraphs (e.g. ts, kp, kth, sz) identified with distinctive letters? I thought it might had something to do with their frequency of use, but I am not certain. It'd be very helpful if there are some sort of frequency statistics of all consonant digraphs available." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10985" RevisionGUID="3e0875a3-bb3d-4ab6-954b-8d9982ad3a56" CreationDate="2019-06-21T08:16:50.003" UserId="831" Text="My feeling is that the &quot;doubleness&quot; is a bit of an illusion, conflating letters which seem &quot;double&quot; for different reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ζ is a perfectly respectable single letter, a cognate of the Hebrew *zayin*. If the Greeks happen to find themselves dissimilating it in pronunciation, that is a secondary phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ξ is, similarly, a single letter, a cognate of *samech*, which is one of those Daffy Duck-style sibilant consonants which Semitic languages like and Greek doesn't. That a &quot;splashy s&quot; becomes a &quot;ks&quot; is not unparalleled. The letter &quot;x&quot;, for instance, in parts of Iberia and also in Mexico (even in the *word* &quot;Mexico&quot; itself), is used for various kinds of &quot;sh&quot; sound. Again, this is a single letter for which Greek happened to find a double-consonant pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letters φ and χ (which you didn't mention) are clearly late additions because they come after the end of the alphabet. They had to come into existence because (a) aspirated π and aspirated κ mean something different from their unaspirated versions and so need to be distinguished in writing and (b) after quite a lot of vacillation Η turned out to be more useful as &quot;long Ε&quot; rather than as &quot;aspirate&quot;. (That, again, is not unheard-of. In some accents in French the final vowel in *oui* has a definite &quot;h&quot; sound.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the digraphs you mention, κπ, κθ, κφ are not true consonants, just the collision of a κ at the end of one syllable with another letter at the start of the next. But there are better examples. κτ, πτ and σθ, for instance, are genuine consonant clusters that can occur at the beginnings of words. The first two of these, at least, have a chance of being genuine &quot;consonants-in-themselves&quot;, hybrids of their components and not just one sound after the other. Compare the &quot;gb&quot; in &quot;Igbo&quot; which is not two sounds but a single sound articulated in two places at once. If one were evolving a &quot;rational Greek alphabet&quot; those would be good choices for being made a single letter; but it didn't happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this doesn't answer your question so much as sharpen it. Why, out of all the conceivable consonant clusters, did it become desirable to write ΦΣ as Ψ *and to make no other change*? I say Φ rather than Π because I think that inscriptions used to use ΦΣ rather than ΠΣ. The resemblance between Φ and Ψ also makes me think that this new letter followed a general rule for adding letters to an alphabet, which is *not* to add new and unprecedented shapes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was it, perhaps, something to do with the special character of the S sound, making it, like the H sound, feel more like a modifier of its preceding consonant rather than a consonant in its own right? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32233" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9418" RevisionGUID="a1d04cfd-be70-47a6-a01e-7d10e9766d31" CreationDate="2019-06-21T20:03:30.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10986" RevisionGUID="eda7ea46-397a-4a11-8d8c-25f67a7cc42a" CreationDate="2019-06-22T11:37:59.517" UserId="1982" Text="Studies of the Vindolanda Tablets (No# 291) indicate a linkage between &quot;dies natalis&quot; and &quot;sollemnis&quot; (solemn, ceremonial; traditional, customary). A letter to Sulpicia Lepidina, from Claudia Severa, wife of Aelius Brocchus, inviting Lepidina to visit for Severa's birthday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Claudia Severa Lepidinae suae salutem, III Idus Septembres soror ad diem sollemnem natalem meum rogo, libenter facias ut venias ad nos iucundiorem mihi.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Claudia Severa to her Lepidina, greetings. On 11th September, sister, for the day of the celebration of my birthday. I give you a warm invitation to make sure that you come to us.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Supported by refs: Fronto ad.Ant.imp 1.2: &quot;...te mihi ab dis die tibi sollemnissimo natali meo precatum.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...you, having prayed to the gods, for me, on this my birthday, on this most traditional day, for you.&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Horace Od. 4.11:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;iure sollemnis mihi sanctiorque,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;paene natali proprio,&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Deservedly almost a (day) of reverence for me with my own birthday.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10987" RevisionGUID="3c43b944-e0d5-4b35-964a-6a371452c60b" CreationDate="2019-06-23T18:11:03.660" UserId="1051" Text="Is there any monospaced font with Greek where the diacritics are distinctly legible around 10 points?  I'm now using DejaVu Sans Mono, but  to be sure, especially about spiritus, I have to increase the font size." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32236" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10987" RevisionGUID="3c43b944-e0d5-4b35-964a-6a371452c60b" CreationDate="2019-06-23T18:11:03.660" UserId="1051" Text="Greek font with legible diacritics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32237" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10987" RevisionGUID="3c43b944-e0d5-4b35-964a-6a371452c60b" CreationDate="2019-06-23T18:11:03.660" UserId="1051" Text="|greek|technologia|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10988" RevisionGUID="644e1e24-a19f-4b77-bf6f-c26698ab8d14" CreationDate="2019-06-23T19:10:30.020" UserId="79" Text="There is a lot of Latin grammars out there, but here I am looking for a specific kind: a descriptive modern Latin grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By modern Latin I mean the Latin of our own era.&#xD;&#xA;I would like it to be as recent as possible &amp;mdash; not in terms of publication date, but in terms of the language described.&#xD;&#xA;By descriptive I mean that it describes the actual use of the language, not how it should be used.&#xD;&#xA;Many Latinists today strive to follow classical grammar, but they have varying rates of success.&#xD;&#xA;Idiosyncrasies are transferred from their native languages and modern life might require things for which the classical language is now well suited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I am looking for is a description of the Latin language as the living language of today.&#xD;&#xA;It can well be a comparison to classical Latin instead of a description of the modern variant(s) in and of itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question is somehow senseless or impossible, arguing that would make a good answer.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps today's Latin is not uniform enough for such a description.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps we follow classical Latin so well that there is no discernible difference.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the matter has not been studied much or the findings have not been written up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32239" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10988" RevisionGUID="644e1e24-a19f-4b77-bf6f-c26698ab8d14" CreationDate="2019-06-23T19:10:30.020" UserId="79" Text="Is there a descriptive modern Latin grammar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32240" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10988" RevisionGUID="644e1e24-a19f-4b77-bf6f-c26698ab8d14" CreationDate="2019-06-23T19:10:30.020" UserId="79" Text="|contemporary-latin|new-latin|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10960" RevisionGUID="41bb406c-cdab-49e1-92e2-daac43183ce6" CreationDate="2019-06-23T19:18:45.200" UserId="79" Comment="Added a link to the meta question. Feel free to roll back if you prefer no link." Text="Inspired by [a recent meta question](https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/408/79), which I had to write in English for lack of appropriate Latin vocabulary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;sockpuppet&quot;, on the internet, is an alternate identity someone creates for nefarious purposes. These identities might be used to avoid bans, to affect voting, or to make it look like the &quot;puppetmaster&quot; has more people backing them than they actually do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Romans didn't have the internet, of course, but it's easy to imagine a corrupt politician paying a dozen people off the street to give pre-written speeches at a trial. If someone tried this, what would those &quot;proxies&quot; be called?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10989" RevisionGUID="9af5a638-7fce-4a8f-ae48-b5e8de700303" CreationDate="2019-06-24T03:35:29.107" UserId="406" Text="Varro's answer is excellent (and entirely correct), but it's worth noting that we see the same sort of alternation in the same word in Latin: *Juppiter* and *diēs* both come from the same root! Just like in Greek, the initial *_d_ mutated before *_j/y_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Borrowing some explanation from [this answer][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Proto-Indo-European form behind *Zeus* is reconstructed as *_dyēw-s_, with the oblique stem *_diw-_ used for all forms except nominative, accusative, and vocative. This sort of alternation between *_yē_ and *_i_ is common in PIE: look up &quot;ablaut&quot; for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Proto-Greek, the last common ancestor of the Greek dialects, this turned into something like *_dzéus_: dentals before `/j/` palatalized into affricates. It's not entirely clear what the affricate sounded like, but Mycenaean (the oldest attested Greek dialect) uses the sign  for earlier *_dye_ and the sign  for earlier *_de_, so there was definitely a difference there. The oblique stem was still *_diw-_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finally, in Ancient Greek, the *_dz_ was written with the letter zeta; different dialects pronounced it differently, but the Romans just borrowed the letter zeta to represent it, and modern transcriptions do the same: &quot;Z&quot;. This is how we get the forms _Zeus, Zēn, Zeu_ alongside the oblique forms _Diós, Día_ (previously _Diwós, Díwa_ before most dialects lost `/w/`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similarly, Latin *Juppiter* comes from a vocative form combined with the word for &quot;father&quot;; compare the Christian formula &quot;Heavenly Father&quot;. The PIE vocative form is reconstructed as *_dyew_, which became Proto-Italic *_djou_ (aka *_dyow_, different ways of writing the same thing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unlike in Ancient Greek, the *_dj_ didn't survive as a special palatalized consonant: it simplified into `/j/` by Latin times. Then *_Jou-patēr_ became _Jū-piter_ by sound change, and then sometimes became _Juppiter_ due to something called the &quot;littera rule&quot;; the two forms were in free variation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The oblique forms on *_diw-_ also survived into Latin, creating the noun *_djow-_ &gt; _Jov-is_ (where Classical Latin *v* represents `/w/`). This had normal third-declension (consonant-stem) forms: *Jov-is*, *Jov-ī*, *Jov-em*, and so on. Through suppletion, the special form *Juppiter* with &quot;father&quot; glommed on took over the nominative and vocative, while the regular *Jov-* was used for all other cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The *accusative* form of the root, *_dyēm_ (cf AGrk _Zēn_), *also* survived in Latin, in the form *_diēm_ &gt; _diem_. Uniquely, the *dy* here didn't become *_dj_ &gt; *j*; some scholars suggest that it evolved in a different Italic language/dialect, which didn't have the palatalization rules, then got borrowed back into Latin. When it did come back to Latin, though, it was with a new meaning of &quot;day&quot; (instead of &quot;sky/sky god&quot;), and it was extrapolated into a whole paradigm on the stem *di-*, and forced into the fifth declension where it didn't really fit (*di-ēs*, *di-ēī*, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/31744/10559" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10990" RevisionGUID="7a5210af-6b0e-4527-89d7-d03a105ef0fa" CreationDate="2019-06-24T04:03:30.857" UserId="406" Text="While posting an answer to [this question][1], I looked back at [an answer I'd written on another site][2], which mentions the strange case of Latin *diēs* &lt; PIt *_diēm_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The *accusative* form of [the Proto-Indo-European root behind *Zeús* and *Juppiter*], *_dyēm_ (cf AGrk _Zēn_), *also* survived in Latin, in the form *_diēm_ &gt; _diem_. Uniquely, the *dy* here didn't become *_dj_ &gt; *j*; some scholars suggest that it evolved in a different Italic language/dialect, which didn't have the palatalization rules, then got borrowed back into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, to my shame, I can't seem to figure out who these &quot;some scholars&quot; I cited actually are: I recently lost my web history, and with it all records of which particular articles I'd been reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so I'm asking here: how did *_diēm_ avoid the palatalization that created _Jovis_? I was under the impression that this palatalization happened back in Proto-Italic times, before Latin had split off; was there actually some Italic language that avoided the process entirely, from which Latin could have borrowed an unpalatalized *_diēm_? And if not, where could this [notorious exception][3] have come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5815/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/31744/10559&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/2526/how-does-the-initial-consonant-in-jupiter-and-zeus-come-from-the-d-in-pie/31744#comment6765_2526" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32244" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10990" RevisionGUID="7a5210af-6b0e-4527-89d7-d03a105ef0fa" CreationDate="2019-06-24T04:03:30.857" UserId="406" Text="How did &quot;djēm&quot; avoid palatalization?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32245" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10990" RevisionGUID="7a5210af-6b0e-4527-89d7-d03a105ef0fa" CreationDate="2019-06-24T04:03:30.857" UserId="406" Text="|language-evolution|phonology|proto-italic|italic-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10988" RevisionGUID="c77b0ca7-136f-4d88-8ea1-40d4898208c9" CreationDate="2019-06-24T08:56:01.950" UserId="79" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="There is a lot of Latin grammars out there, but here I am looking for a specific kind: a descriptive modern Latin grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By modern Latin I mean the Latin of our own era.&#xD;&#xA;I would like it to be as recent as possible &amp;mdash; not in terms of publication date, but in terms of the language described.&#xD;&#xA;By descriptive I mean that it describes the actual use of the language, not how it should be used.&#xD;&#xA;Many Latinists today strive to follow classical grammar, but they have varying rates of success.&#xD;&#xA;Idiosyncrasies are transferred from their native languages and modern life might require things for which the classical language is now well suited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I am looking for is a description of the Latin language as the living language of today.&#xD;&#xA;It can well be a comparison to classical Latin instead of a description of the modern variant(s) in and of itself.&#xD;&#xA;The study or grammar can be restricted to some subset, such as a specific Latin newscast or the language of a specific living Latin community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question is somehow senseless or impossible, arguing that would make a good answer.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps today's Latin is not uniform enough for such a description.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps we follow classical Latin so well that there is no discernible difference.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the matter has not been studied much or the findings have not been written up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10991" RevisionGUID="aaa10856-cb10-41c6-abe4-94009bf21741" CreationDate="2019-06-24T10:43:32.603" UserId="645" Text="It looks as if you are hoping for a latter-day Quintilian, but the modern works from which he might draw examples hardly form a body which could be thought of as homogeneous to anything near the degree seen in the literature to which Quintilian had access. [That said, the website http://ephemeris.alcuinus.net/ is an engaging source of modern Latin, with many contributors displaying a wide variety of abilities and interests.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A surprising number of people are prepared not only to attempt Latin, but also to risk adverse criticism by publishing the results. As one of this number, I can say that the critical response is extremely variable and that most of it is no more than (what you could call) anonymous exhibitionism and thus of little value. My own response to the efforts of others in the field is to evaluate them for my own purposes, which is often a useful exercise, but doing so does indicate what a tremendous task it would be to extract from them the 'description of the Latin language as the living language of today' that you are looking for, let alone to compare the product to classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The teaching of Latin at all, let alone of prose or verse composition in it, is becoming in the UK ever rarer. In this situation, it isn't very likely that anyone here would attempt a serious study along the lines that you suggest, even if hoping for a PhD at the end of it. Regretfully, I have to conclude that your quest is impossible: would that it were otherwise!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10988" RevisionGUID="3fc67379-a790-4164-9dae-05519a75539e" CreationDate="2019-06-24T10:56:27.037" UserId="79" Comment="added 845 characters in body" Text="There is a lot of Latin grammars out there, but here I am looking for a specific kind: a descriptive modern Latin grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By modern Latin I mean the Latin of our own era.&#xD;&#xA;I would like it to be as recent as possible &amp;mdash; not in terms of publication date, but in terms of the language described.&#xD;&#xA;By descriptive I mean that it describes the actual use of the language, not how it should be used.&#xD;&#xA;Many Latinists today strive to follow classical grammar, but they have varying rates of success.&#xD;&#xA;Idiosyncrasies are transferred from their native languages and modern life might require things for which the classical language is now well suited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I am looking for is a description of the Latin language as the living language of today.&#xD;&#xA;It can well be a comparison to classical Latin instead of a description of the modern variant(s) in and of itself.&#xD;&#xA;The study or grammar can be restricted to some subset, such as a specific Latin newscast or the language of a specific living Latin community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin is used actively by a number of people in today's world.&#xD;&#xA;There are online and offline communities where it is used for communication, there are Latin newscasts, Latin texts are composed for festive occasions, and probably something else that I forget.&#xD;&#xA;I call all of this use of living Latin &quot;modern Latin&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(Suggestions for better terminology are welcome!)&#xD;&#xA;The tradition to use Latin for communication has never &amp;mdash; as far as I can tell &amp;mdash; stopped after the Roman era, but it has changed form.&#xD;&#xA;In terms of active everyday use, most of Latin evolved into Romance languages, but Latin itself has survived through the ages as well.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I do occasionally write an email or [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm) or write a speech in Latin, and my Latin is certainly not exactly like Cicero's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question is somehow senseless or impossible, arguing that would make a good answer.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps today's Latin is not uniform enough for such a description.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps we follow classical Latin so well that there is no discernible difference.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the matter has not been studied much or the findings have not been written up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10992" RevisionGUID="c308ad26-03a8-462d-91dc-d389476a3eed" CreationDate="2019-06-24T18:06:21.090" UserId="40" Text="*Diem* seems to be due not to borrowing, but to Lindeman's Law. This is a reconstructed rule of PIE whereby monosyllabic words beginning with a stop+sonorant cluster (CR-) could optionally insert the vowel equivalent of the sonorant between C and R.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in this case, a monosyllable *di̯ēm would have two alternative forms: *di̯ēm and *dii̯ēm, where the second is the &quot;Lindeman variant&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now in Latin, *di̯- became *j*-, but *di- stayed intact. So *diem* can be explained as the reflex of the Lindeman variant, while *Jovis* etc. come from the *di̯- forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10993" RevisionGUID="301d1431-d2ca-4d16-a3a4-07aa6d343d9f" CreationDate="2019-06-24T18:53:12.697" UserId="831" Text="Latin as a living language is found in the documents of the Catholic Church. For example, the *Institutio general is de Liturgia Horarum* is almost 100 pages long and is a mixture of exposition and detailed prescription. All major Church documents, including all papal encyclicals, exhortations etc are also published in Latin first and translated from there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject matter is admittedly limited - no engineering or chemistry here - but it is not as limited as you think. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is, however, intentionally functional rather than literary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typing in a phone I can’t give you links, but the Vatican web site is a good place to start. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: There are, or were, resources to help the intending Latinizing bureaucrat, though these are unlikely to amount to a comprehensive grammar as such. Search for Fagher Reginald Foster. He retired as Latin Secretary in 2009 but is, I think, still active. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10994" RevisionGUID="c8c44cf1-a08c-4f1b-88af-b736c05a0d44" CreationDate="2019-06-24T19:32:18.637" UserId="4886" Text="How would I translate this sentence into Latin? I've done some digging on my own and I know that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Temet nosce&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means know thyself and that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;somnium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means dream. I don't know enough Latin to form these separate words and phrases into a sentence however. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way the sentence would be spoken would be like a mantra that one repeats to themself in times of need, or something that a loving parent would say to their child. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help is appreciated. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32252" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10994" RevisionGUID="c8c44cf1-a08c-4f1b-88af-b736c05a0d44" CreationDate="2019-06-24T19:32:18.637" UserId="4886" Text="How do I say &quot;Remember to dream, to know thyself, and to keep above as below.&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32253" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10994" RevisionGUID="c8c44cf1-a08c-4f1b-88af-b736c05a0d44" CreationDate="2019-06-24T19:32:18.637" UserId="4886" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10995" RevisionGUID="2d8dc620-0684-4530-9dbb-2dab04604427" CreationDate="2019-06-24T20:04:27.743" UserId="406" Text="I'll go through the phrase piece by piece.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remember…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin has a few different ways to give a command; the most fancy/formal of these is the so-called *imperative II*. This is what's used in the famous phrase *mementō morī*: literally, &quot;remember to die&quot;. I'd use the same here: ***mementō***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …to dream…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin has a few different verbs for this. *Ālūcinārī* is probably the fancier/more poetic one, but it's also a bit less positive, with implications of nonsense or foolishness. The more positive word, used for fantasies and prophecies, is ***somniāre***. It's also more prosaic, coming straightforwardly from the word for &quot;sleep&quot;, but I think it's what you want here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …to know thyself…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially with the &quot;thy&quot;, it seems like you're quoting the famous Oracle at Delphi. The classic form of the saying is *gnôthe sautón*, which is Greek rather than Latin—but later authors liked the saying too, and it's often quoted in Latin. The verb is generally either *scitō* or *nōsce*, while &quot;thyself&quot; is *temet* or *tē ipsum*; I like *nōsce tē ipsum* best, and that form was used by Hobbes and Linnaeus among others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This form, of course, is a command, while you want an infinitive (&quot;to…&quot;). That form would be ***nōscere tē ipsum***. (If you want to be really fancy you can use a poetic passive infinitive, ***nōscier tibi*** &quot;to be known to thyself&quot;, which is more poetic and archaic—sort of like your use of &quot;thyself&quot; in English.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …and…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two main ways to say &quot;and&quot; in Latin are *-qve* and *et*. Here I'd use ***et***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …to keep above as below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds like a reference to Hermeticism; the famous Latin version of the *Emerald Tablet* contains this line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quod est inferius est sicut quod est superius. Et quod est superius est sicut quod est inferius, ad perpetranda miracula Rei Unius.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; That which is below, is like unto that which is above. And that which is above, is like unto that which is below, in order to carry out the miracles of the One Essence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The translation is my own, so the &quot;like unto&quot; is just me being deliberately archaic. But when you're translating the words of Hermes the Thrice-Great, a bit of archaicism seems appropriate.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;To keep&quot; doesn't really have a straightforward Latin translation, so I'd use the general-purpose verb *faciō*, which is literally &quot;make&quot; but has dozens of meanings sort of like English &quot;do&quot;. All together, this would be ***facere superius sīcut inferius***. (The Tablet uses the singular; if you want it plural for whatever reason, that would be ***facere superiōra sīcut inferiōra***.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All together now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remember to dream, to know thyself, and to keep above as below.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Mementō somniāre, tibi nōscier, et facere superius sīcut inferius.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Remember to have dreams, to be known to thyself, and to make that above like unto that below.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10996" RevisionGUID="7f182906-2fde-40a2-a1b6-52e8a2a52737" CreationDate="2019-06-24T23:24:35.583" UserId="1329" Text="addiditque sermo mihi est ad te cui ait loquere et ille&#xD;&#xA;1 Kings 2:14&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm attempting to use it as a formal Latin epigraph for a poem and want to know, if I were to translate it as a footnote or something, would this be an accurate way to phrase this translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;He added, “Let me tell you something,”&#xD;&#xA;to which she replied to him, “Do tell.”&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32256" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10996" RevisionGUID="7f182906-2fde-40a2-a1b6-52e8a2a52737" CreationDate="2019-06-24T23:24:35.583" UserId="1329" Text="Is this an accurate way to translate &quot;addiditque sermo mihi est ad te cui ait loquere et ille&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32257" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10996" RevisionGUID="7f182906-2fde-40a2-a1b6-52e8a2a52737" CreationDate="2019-06-24T23:24:35.583" UserId="1329" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|poetry|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10997" RevisionGUID="8a5f5fdc-196c-4fe7-a6f3-3ef3c540f3c6" CreationDate="2019-06-25T01:31:47.437" UserId="406" Text="With modern punctuation, here's how I'd render that line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Addiditque, &quot;sermo mihi est ad te.&quot; Cui ait, &quot;loquere.&quot; Et ille,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very literally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And he added, &quot;I have something to say, in your direction.&quot; To him, she said, &quot;speak.&quot; And he,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The &quot;in your direction&quot; part is clunky in English; I'm trying to convey that the Latin uses a very emphatic _ad tē_ instead of the more natural _tibi_ &quot;to you&quot;. This might be for emphasis, or might be to avoid ambiguity with two datives in the same phrase, or might very well be a literal translation of the Hebrew, since Hebrew also has the _sermō mihi est_ construction. I'm not sure which is the case here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a nice English translation, you should probably cut off the _et ille_ at the end, which is literally just &quot;and he: it's the start of a new sentence that will only be finished in the next verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you've removed that part, though, your English translation seems solid. &quot;I have something to tell you&quot; or &quot;I have something to say to you&quot; would be a bit more true to the text than &quot;let me tell you something&quot;, but the meaning behind them is the same, and that's what really matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll finish with how I'd translate this if I were going for nice English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Addiditque, &quot;sermo mihi est ad te.&quot; Cui ait, &quot;loquere.&quot;*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [After a moment,] he added, &quot;I have something to tell you.&quot; &quot;Go on,&quot; she replied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned above, I'd leave the *et ille* for the next part:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Et ille, / &quot;tu,&quot; inquit, &quot;nosti, quia meum erat regnum…&quot;*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;You know,&quot; he said, &quot;that the kingdom was mine…&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. The verb tenses in this section are also kind of a mess, switching between past and present on a whim. This just comes down to style; Latin allows the &quot;historical present&quot; tense when narrating past events, so there's no real difference in meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10998" RevisionGUID="185dedbc-4f10-4355-bd57-31884c83061b" CreationDate="2019-06-25T04:37:27.850" UserId="406" Text="Note: this answer is pure speculation (or original research, if you're feeling generous), not backed up by any scholarly references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither Varro nor I marked vowel length in our Hebrew and Aramaic transcriptions. But what if we go back and add that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - מְשִׁיחַ‎ *məšīaħ* → *messias*&#xD;&#xA; - יֵשׁוּעַ *jēšūaʕ* → *iēsūs*&#xD;&#xA; - אַבְשָׁלוֹם *'abəšālōm* → *abessalōm*&#xD;&#xA; - הוֹשֵׁעַ *hōšēaʕ* → *ōsēe*&#xD;&#xA; - אֱלִישָׁע *'əlīšāʕ* → *elisaie*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a few more examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - בָּשְׂמַת *bāsəmath* → *basemath*&#xD;&#xA; - אֱלִישֶׁבַע *'əlīšebhaʕ* → *elisabet*&#xD;&#xA; - עֵשָׂו *ʕēsāw* → *ēsau*&#xD;&#xA; - יְהוֹשָׁפָט‬ *jəhōšāphāṭ* → *iōsaphat*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pattern seems clear: **a double sigma is used after a short vowel, a single sigma after a long one**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A single sigma is also used word-initially and after a consonant, but that's less interesting, since no native Greek word has a double sigma in either of those environments.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10768" RevisionGUID="85216308-b80e-447e-9089-1a0d1f687331" CreationDate="2019-06-25T04:39:26.017" UserId="406" Comment="added century markings" Text="According to Alkire and Rosen (_Romance Languages: a Historical Introduction_), a perfective construction with _habeō_ wasn't uncommon in Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Caput cinctum habēbant filō.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *They had their heads encircled with cord.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Varro 5.15, first century BCE, translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over time, this got extended to intransitive verbs. In other words, _habeō_ became an auxiliary; the subject didn't necessarily &quot;have&quot; any specific noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dē eā rē supra scriptum habēmus.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *We've written about this above.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Vitruvius 9.1.4, first century BCE, translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, _habēmus_ has no direct object: it's just supporting *scriptum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This turned out to be a very useful construction! Latin (like all Italo-Celtic languages) had [combined its present perfective and past aoristic tense-aspect combinations][1], but being able to distinguish those two meanings was really nice. [So this new _habeō_-perfect generally took over the present perfective][2], leaving the original &quot;perfect&quot; to handle the past aoristic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first, when _habeō_ had a direct object, the participle would agree with it. But when it didn't, the neuter singular was used by default. And over time, the neuter singular took over everywhere: the agreement didn't really add anything meaningful, and it only appeared half the time anyway. This was a slow and inconsistent process:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Metuō enim nē **vōs** ibi habeam **fatigātōs**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *But I'm afraid I might have exhausted you here.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Augustine _Sermones_ 37.27, fourth century CE, translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Haec **omnia probātum** habēmus.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *We've already tried all these things.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Oribasius 7.48.189f, fourth century CE, translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of these examples are from educated, formal writings in the same time period: Augustine was a prolific philosopher, and Oribasius was an imperial physician. So it seems both forms were perfectly acceptable at that point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over time, the &quot;always neuter singular&quot; form won out (unless the noun comes immediately before *habēre*, as pointed out in the comments—then it still acts like a direct object). And this is what we see in all the modern Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. A bit of searching has turned up people calling this the &quot;composite perfect&quot;, &quot;_habeō_-perfect&quot;, &quot;Romance perfect&quot;, or &quot;true perfect&quot; (since it actually has a perfective meaning). I think all of those names would be understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7179/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/10769/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10999" RevisionGUID="c7898fba-7331-40a1-80d0-e47565ce0c73" CreationDate="2019-06-25T04:45:39.960" UserId="406" Text="[I recently noticed a pattern in loans from Hebrew into Greek][1]: the letter *šin* (or *sin*, or *łin* if you're really archaic) is transcribed *σσ* after a short vowel, *σ* elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My knowledge of Classical Hebrew and Aramaic is weak, so this gemination might be a feature of those languages for all I know. But off the top of my head, I also can't think of any Greek word with a doubled consonant after a long vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does any such word exist? Metrical evidence won't do us any good here, since the doubled consonant would make the syllable long by position—but *η* and *ω* have their length shown clearly in writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/10998/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32262" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10999" RevisionGUID="c7898fba-7331-40a1-80d0-e47565ce0c73" CreationDate="2019-06-25T04:45:39.960" UserId="406" Text="Does any Greek word have a geminate consonant after a long vowel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32263" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10999" RevisionGUID="c7898fba-7331-40a1-80d0-e47565ce0c73" CreationDate="2019-06-25T04:45:39.960" UserId="406" Text="|vowel-quantity|phonology|hebrew|loanwords|transcription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10998" RevisionGUID="be6c5ab1-d9b9-4661-a8b6-89278b94f3bd" CreationDate="2019-06-25T04:49:17.217" UserId="406" Comment="added 201 characters in body" Text="Note: this answer is pure speculation (or original research, if you're feeling generous), not backed up by any scholarly references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither Varro nor I marked vowel length in our Hebrew and Aramaic transcriptions. But what if we go back and add that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - מְשִׁיחַ‎ *məšīaħ* → *messias*&#xD;&#xA; - יֵשׁוּעַ *jēšūaʕ* → *iēsūs*&#xD;&#xA; - אַבְשָׁלוֹם *'abəšālōm* → *abessalōm*&#xD;&#xA; - הוֹשֵׁעַ *hōšēaʕ* → *ōsēe*&#xD;&#xA; - אֱלִישָׁע *'əlīšāʕ* → *elisaie*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a few more examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - בָּשְׂמַת *bāsəmath* → *basemath*&#xD;&#xA; - אֱלִישֶׁבַע *'əlīšebhaʕ* → *elisabet*&#xD;&#xA; - עֵשָׂו *ʕēsāw* → *ēsau*&#xD;&#xA; - יְהוֹשָׁפָט‬ *jəhōšāphāṭ* → *iōsaphat*&#xD;&#xA; - בַשָׂמ *basām* → *balsamon* (\*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pattern seems clear: **a double sigma is used after a short vowel, a single sigma after a long one**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A single sigma is also used word-initially and after a consonant, but that's less interesting, since no native Greek word has a double sigma in either of those environments.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(\*) This loan presumably happened earlier, before `/ɬ/` merged into `/s/`. But it still shows a double consonant after a short vowel in the Greek transcription." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11000" RevisionGUID="b2b54eaf-6868-434d-afbd-811e917dc638" CreationDate="2019-06-25T05:50:35.450" UserId="79" Text="There is the word *γλῶσσα* and a great number of other words derived from it.&#xD;&#xA;[Here](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=substring&amp;lookup=wss&amp;lang=greek) is a list of words containing *-&amp;omega;&amp;sigma;&amp;sigma;-*, giving more examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32266" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10999" RevisionGUID="18fcbc6d-a99c-4a08-bcc0-9108dcff637e" CreationDate="2019-06-25T16:34:01.463" />
  <row Id="32267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11001" RevisionGUID="60d32c14-8568-4969-9ad0-6e33343febc0" CreationDate="2019-06-25T16:35:40.427" UserId="40" Text="There are quite a few, actually. Just to add some more examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ἥττων &quot;less&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;πράττω &quot;do&quot; (impv. πρᾶττε shows the length)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;πλήττω &quot;strike&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;μᾶλλον &quot;more&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ἤλλαγμαι, pf. m./p. of ἀλλάττω &quot;exchange&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ἡλλόμην, impf. of ἅλλομαι &quot;jump&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32268" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="10939" RevisionGUID="17ab99dc-b4c6-4307-bd49-f3e6e23cea7b" CreationDate="2019-06-25T16:35:48.837" UserId="183" Comment="118" />
  <row Id="32270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10998" RevisionGUID="9efa0b60-86d0-43ff-a77b-e661774d8baf" CreationDate="2019-06-25T16:46:52.373" UserId="406" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Note: this answer is pure speculation (or original research, if you're feeling generous), not backed up by any scholarly references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither Varro nor I marked vowel length in our Hebrew and Aramaic transcriptions. But what if we go back and add that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - מְשִׁיחַ‎ *məšīaħ* → *messias*&#xD;&#xA; - יֵשׁוּעַ *jēšūaʕ* → *iēsūs*&#xD;&#xA; - אַבְשָׁלוֹם *'abəšālōm* → *abessalōm*&#xD;&#xA; - הוֹשֵׁעַ *hōšēaʕ* → *hōsēe*&#xD;&#xA; - אֱלִישָׁע *'əlīšāʕ* → *elisaie*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a few more examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - בָּשְׂמַת *bāsəmath* → *basemath*&#xD;&#xA; - אֱלִישֶׁבַע *'əlīšebhaʕ* → *elisabet*&#xD;&#xA; - עֵשָׂו *ʕēsāw* → *ēsau*&#xD;&#xA; - יְהוֹשָׁפָט‬ *jəhōšāphāṭ* → *iōsaphat*&#xD;&#xA; - בַשָׂמ *basām* → *balsamon* (\*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pattern seems clear: **a double sigma is used after a short vowel, a single sigma after a long one**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A single sigma is also used word-initially and after a consonant, but that's less interesting, since no native Greek word has a double sigma in either of those environments.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(\*) This loan presumably happened earlier, before `/ɬ/` merged into `/s/`. But it still shows a double consonant after a short vowel in the Greek transcription." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7346" RevisionGUID="6b4aada7-d3a1-4390-bde1-a1c5db6e6566" CreationDate="2019-06-25T17:41:16.457" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="The motto for Concordia University Saint Paul (MN) reads: &#xD;&#xA;&quot;In litteris proficere volo, malo diligere Jesum.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The CSP website, magazine (Spring 2009), and various internet sources offer these translations—some literal and some interpretive: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I wish to be proficient in academics, but even more I wish to know Jesus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It is good to pursue knowledge, better to know Jesus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Will Prosper in Academics and Be Diligent in Christ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And even this interesting adaptation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Lord, give us joy in education especially knowing the love of Christ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having a hard time fitting &quot;malo&quot; into this, because everything I've found or learned relates it to bad or evil. I've tried my Cassell's, and the [Latin Dictionary][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a comparative or superlative at work (or play) here, that I am not comprehending?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any insight would be much appreciated! Thank you in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/adjective:malus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32272" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7346" RevisionGUID="6b4aada7-d3a1-4390-bde1-a1c5db6e6566" CreationDate="2019-06-25T17:41:16.457" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|motto|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7349" RevisionGUID="88c100cb-7eaa-4ae6-b9c1-7989b1e5664d" CreationDate="2019-06-25T17:42:17.463" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 72 characters in body" Text="*Malo* here is the first-person singular active indicative form of *malle*, which means “I prefer”. It has nothing to do with either *malus* “bad” (or, for that matter, *malum* “apple”). [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=malo) says that the verb is a contraction of *magis* “more” and *velle* “to want”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32274" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="7349" RevisionGUID="ce5f8848-1730-4cac-bbd1-f3986579feb7" CreationDate="2019-06-25T18:03:26.303" UserId="517" Comment="Rollback to [cf53c650-0369-44c0-85bd-990d31b7ea5d] - Reverted @Joonas Ilmavirta's edits. I want my answer to stand exactly as I had it." Text="*malo* here is the first-person singular active indicative form of *malle*, which means “I prefer”. It has nothing to do with either *malus* “bad” (or, for that matter, *malum* “apple”). I believe that the verb is a contraction of *maius* “better” and *velle* “to want”. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: [Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=malo) says that it's actually from *magis* &quot;more&quot; + *velle*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11002" RevisionGUID="a174393c-97ae-4a00-b0e1-a69a20fb14b2" CreationDate="2019-06-26T02:25:48.880" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&gt;#[exert (v.)](https://www.etymonline.com/word/exert#etymonline_v_14050)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1660s, &quot;thrust forth, push out,&quot; from Latin *exertus/exsertus*, past participle of *exerere/exserere* &quot;thrust out, put forth,&quot; from ***ex*** &quot;out, from within&quot; (see [ex-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/ex-?ref=etymonline_crossreference)) \+ ***serere*** &quot;attach, join; arrange, line up&quot; (from PIE root [*ser-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*ser-?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_52708) (2) &quot;to line up&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[OED](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/66113?rskey=mN3GMj&amp;result=2&amp;isAdvanced=false): ... The formation is `probably` due to antithesis with inserĕre ([to insert v.](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/96769)) ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did  ***ex-*** + ***serere*** compound to mean the modern meaning above of &quot;thrust forth, push out&quot;? How does it make sense to &quot;attach/join out&quot; something? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32276" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11002" RevisionGUID="a174393c-97ae-4a00-b0e1-a69a20fb14b2" CreationDate="2019-06-26T02:25:48.880" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="'exert' : How can you 'attach or join out' something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32277" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11002" RevisionGUID="a174393c-97ae-4a00-b0e1-a69a20fb14b2" CreationDate="2019-06-26T02:25:48.880" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11003" RevisionGUID="505a53d9-34c7-4e8d-b0cf-33ef89c3d9d0" CreationDate="2019-06-26T02:31:27.237" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="[&quot;exert, v.&quot;](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/66113) *OED Online*. Accessed 26 June 2019.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aQD9X.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone please expound the sentence underlined in green? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32279" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11003" RevisionGUID="505a53d9-34c7-4e8d-b0cf-33ef89c3d9d0" CreationDate="2019-06-26T02:31:27.237" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How's the etymology 'exert' &quot;probably due to antithesis with inserĕre&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32280" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11003" RevisionGUID="505a53d9-34c7-4e8d-b0cf-33ef89c3d9d0" CreationDate="2019-06-26T02:31:27.237" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11004" RevisionGUID="23e4bdc0-1ea3-49bc-94a2-88950ecd4a03" CreationDate="2019-06-26T03:03:32.927" UserId="406" Text="Attaching *ex* &quot;out&quot; to *serere* &quot;to bind&quot; isn't really an obvious formation: what does it mean to &quot;bind something out&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So more likely, what happened is: *in-serere* &quot;to bind in&quot; became common, becoming the ancestor of modern English &quot;insert&quot; and taking on that meaning. And then when people needed an opposite for &quot;insert&quot;, replacing *in-* with *ex-* was an obvious choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *ex-serere* arose, meaning &quot;to bring out&quot;, as in the opposite of &quot;insert&quot;. Over time this evolved into the modern meaning of &quot;exert&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11005" RevisionGUID="27b8ca16-aef6-407c-8869-f128f3a62a1d" CreationDate="2019-06-26T03:05:21.207" UserId="406" Text="It doesn't really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Insert&quot; (or rather its ancestor *in-serere*) arose naturally, meaning &quot;to bind into&quot; and later &quot;to insert&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, when people wanted an opposite for &quot;insert&quot; (something like &quot;to pull out&quot;), it made sense to swap *in-* for *ex-*, its opposite." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11006" RevisionGUID="827bc0c7-8aa4-4855-b75f-267e36d70a2a" CreationDate="2019-06-26T10:36:49.150" UserId="4889" Text="&quot;Luck is for the unprepared&quot; is my personal motto.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have tried to translate it but I'm not confident that it has not been translated as &quot;Luck is a gift to the unprepared&quot; whereas I am looking for &quot;Luck is all the unprepared have and the prepared don't need it&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32284" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11006" RevisionGUID="827bc0c7-8aa4-4855-b75f-267e36d70a2a" CreationDate="2019-06-26T10:36:49.150" UserId="4889" Text="all that remains rather than a gift translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32285" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11006" RevisionGUID="827bc0c7-8aa4-4855-b75f-267e36d70a2a" CreationDate="2019-06-26T10:36:49.150" UserId="4889" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11007" RevisionGUID="b0f68a05-a8a6-41df-96a8-970a85befff7" CreationDate="2019-06-26T11:09:42.510" UserId="1982" Text="Try &quot;fortuna est imparatis, parati non eam requirunt.&quot;, giving: &quot;luck is for the unprepared, the prepared do not need it.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero disagrees with yourself: &quot;fortuna, non sapienta, vitam regit&quot;. Looking at some of our celebrities, maybe C was right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Romans, generally, thought: &quot;contra lucem, vix deus vires habet.&quot; Against a lucky man, even a god scarcely has power.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11007" RevisionGUID="2a508371-4ee5-4d46-9ddd-a250fef8b1a9" CreationDate="2019-06-26T11:18:41.913" UserId="1982" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body" Text="Try &quot;fortuna est imparatis, parati non eam requirunt.&quot;, giving: &quot;luck is for the unprepared, the prepared do not need it.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero disagrees with yourself: &quot;fortuna, non sapienta, vitam regit&quot; = &quot;Luck, not brains, rules life.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Romans, generally, thought: &quot;contra lucem, vix deus vires habet.&quot; Against a lucky man, even a god scarcely has power.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32288" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11006" RevisionGUID="7c390a8d-ca49-49d2-a268-fe159030f8c9" CreationDate="2019-06-26T11:47:11.817" UserId="4889" Comment="retitle" Text="&quot;Luck is for the unprepared&quot; translation problems" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11006" RevisionGUID="9733f062-8711-404b-b1ec-70505bc1ff7a" CreationDate="2019-06-26T11:54:25.037" UserId="4889" Comment="my attempt" Text="&quot;Luck is for the unprepared&quot; is my personal motto.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have tried to translate it but I'm not confident that it has not been translated as &quot;Luck is a gift to the unprepared&quot;, whereas I am looking for a translation that says, &quot;Luck is all the unprepared have&quot; or &quot;Luck is only required by the unprepared&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first try was &quot;Fortuna ad imparatis est&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11007" RevisionGUID="b1d1951b-67b6-492f-ac43-05b1e403fa04" CreationDate="2019-06-26T14:02:48.260" UserId="1982" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Try &quot;fortuna est imparatis, parati non eam requirunt.&quot;, giving: &quot;luck is for the unprepared, the prepared do not need it.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero disagrees with yourself: &quot;fortuna, non sapientia, vitam regit&quot; = &quot;Luck, not brains, rules life.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Romans, generally, thought: &quot;contra lucem, vix deus vires habet.&quot; Against a lucky man, even a god scarcely has power.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11008" RevisionGUID="ea973e12-af22-4d0c-a865-4fc5bf1008bf" CreationDate="2019-06-26T14:51:15.143" UserId="79" Text="The vocabulary is spot-on.&#xD;&#xA;*Imparatus* is &quot;unprepared&quot; and *fortuna* is &quot;luck&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There are certainly other options, but these are very good and I see no reason to change them.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to got a more nuanced descriptions of these words or find more candidates, I suggest taking a look at some of [the various free online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preposition *ad* and the dative case have a similar &amp;mdash; but not identical &amp;mdash; meaning.&#xD;&#xA;They cannot be used together: it is either a plain dative or the preposition *ad* together with the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the two grammatical options starting from your attempt are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Fortuna imparatis est*&#xD;&#xA;2. *Fortuna ad imparatos est*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dative is more suitable here, as it corresponds roughly to English words like &quot;for&quot;, &quot;for the benefit of&quot;, &quot;to&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The preposition *ad* is more in the spirit of &quot;towards&quot; and &quot;to&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore option 1 is better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the Latin dative can also be used for possession, so option 1 can be read as &quot;the unprepared have luck&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If this reading option is not an issue, then I suggest 1.&#xD;&#xA;One similar possibility is to use the genitive to say &quot;luck is of the unprepared&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. *Fortuna imparatorum est*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to avoid the interpretation that the unprepared have luck &amp;mdash; as opposed to needing it &amp;mdash; then a different kind of wording will be clearer.&#xD;&#xA;I will propose one.&#xD;&#xA;The genitive together with an infinitive can be used to say that something is for someone or characteristic of someone.&#xD;&#xA;(This is mentioned in Pekkanen's *Ars Grammatica* §77.1. If anyone can find this discussed in an online Latin grammar, I would be glad to link to it.)&#xD;&#xA;Whether you want to make the luck explicit is optional:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. *Imparatorum est [fortunam] sperare*  &#xD;&#xA;Hoping [for luck] is for the unprepared&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether adding *fortunam* makes the expression too long or leaving it out makes it too weak &amp;mdash; or both &amp;mdash; is for you to decide.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is to use option 4 or a variant thereof, as it strikes me as more idiomatic Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32292" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11006" RevisionGUID="a5033b8e-d4c5-4c0c-acd3-12776318d974" CreationDate="2019-06-26T14:52:12.007" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&quot;Luck is for the unprepared&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32293" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11006" RevisionGUID="a5033b8e-d4c5-4c0c-acd3-12776318d974" CreationDate="2019-06-26T14:52:12.007" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11009" RevisionGUID="25267804-cae2-4601-a975-2020d6a1e17b" CreationDate="2019-06-26T15:07:42.987" UserId="79" Text="Answering [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11006/79), I recalled a somewhat rare construction used to express that an action is characteristic of someone.&#xD;&#xA;Pekkanen's Ars Grammatica (§77.1) gives two examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis est in errore perseverare.*&#xD;&#xA;2. *Adulescentis est maiores natu revereri.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried looking this up in online Latin grammars to provide a reference, but I failed to find anything.&#xD;&#xA;**Can someone find an online Latin grammar that discusses this use of genitive and infinitive?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of a specific name for this, so it is hard to search.&#xD;&#xA;Pekkanen lists it as a subclass of *genetivus possessivus*, but such classification is a somewhat arbitrary choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32295" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11009" RevisionGUID="25267804-cae2-4601-a975-2020d6a1e17b" CreationDate="2019-06-26T15:07:42.987" UserId="79" Text="Using genitive and infinitive to describe characteristics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32296" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11009" RevisionGUID="25267804-cae2-4601-a975-2020d6a1e17b" CreationDate="2019-06-26T15:07:42.987" UserId="79" Text="|grammar-identification|genitive|reference-request|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11010" RevisionGUID="f04ff73c-3d25-46a4-b8e7-66792395c29b" CreationDate="2019-06-26T16:50:41.847" UserId="1982" Text="Is this predicative genitive + esse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;est boni imperatoris bene ducere&quot; = &quot;It is of a good general to lead well.&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;est digni civis patriae cogitare&quot; = &quot;it is of a worthy citizen to think about his country.&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;est honesti regis regere sapienter&quot; = &quot;It is of an honest king to rule wisely.&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;est canis feles agitare&quot; = &quot;It is of a dog to chase cats.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11008" RevisionGUID="2da1a6eb-95cf-4e85-a058-2d556f46ac14" CreationDate="2019-06-26T17:31:35.097" UserId="79" Comment="added 597 characters in body" Text="The vocabulary is spot-on.&#xD;&#xA;*Imparatus* is &quot;unprepared&quot; and *fortuna* is &quot;luck&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There are certainly other options, but these are very good and I see no reason to change them.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to got a more nuanced descriptions of these words or find more candidates, I suggest taking a look at some of [the various free online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preposition *ad* and the dative case have a similar &amp;mdash; but not identical &amp;mdash; meaning.&#xD;&#xA;They cannot be used together: it is either a plain dative or the preposition *ad* together with the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the two grammatical options starting from your attempt are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Fortuna imparatis est*&#xD;&#xA;2. *Fortuna ad imparatos est*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dative is more suitable here, as it corresponds roughly to English words like &quot;for&quot;, &quot;for the benefit of&quot;, &quot;to&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The preposition *ad* is more in the spirit of &quot;towards&quot; and &quot;to&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore option 1 is better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the Latin dative can also be used for possession, so option 1 can be read as &quot;the unprepared have luck&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If this reading option is not an issue, then I suggest 1.&#xD;&#xA;One similar possibility is to use the genitive to say &quot;luck is of the unprepared&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. *Fortuna imparatorum est*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to avoid the interpretation that the unprepared have luck &amp;mdash; as opposed to needing it &amp;mdash; then a different kind of wording will be clearer.&#xD;&#xA;The genitive together with an infinitive can be used to say that something is for someone or characteristic of someone.&#xD;&#xA;(This is mentioned in Pekkanen's *Ars Grammatica* §77.1. If anyone can find this discussed in an online Latin grammar, I would be glad to link to it.)&#xD;&#xA;Whether you want to make the luck explicit is optional:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. *Imparatorum est [fortunam] sperare*  &#xD;&#xA;Hoping [for luck] is for the unprepared&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether adding *fortunam* makes the expression too long or leaving it out makes it too weak &amp;mdash; or both &amp;mdash; is for you to decide.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is to use option 4 or a variant thereof, as it strikes me as more idiomatic Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without adding an explicit word like &quot;have&quot; or &quot;need&quot;, you can say &quot;the unprepared have luck&quot; but not &quot;the unprepared need luck&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is unlike English, where &quot;luck is for the unprepared&quot; implies need more than possession.&#xD;&#xA;If you want emphasis on the need for luck, you could go with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. *Fortuna [solis] imparatis necessis (est).*  &#xD;&#xA;Luck is necessary [only] for the unprepared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this conveys your message very accurately, but it does feel more verbose than the English original.&#xD;&#xA;That appears to be inevitable if you want accuracy.&#xD;&#xA;Leaving *est* out is common in a motto and possible in general." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11011" RevisionGUID="7bb79b16-9680-4d34-b5ba-e8b581461526" CreationDate="2019-06-26T17:32:26.520" UserId="45" Text="[Allen &amp; Greenough &amp;sect;343](http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-343.html) also lists it as a type of possessive genitive, giving a few examples. Note that this use of the genitive in the predicate is used with infinitives and with clauses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c. An infinitive or a clause, when used as a noun, is often limited by a genitive in the predicate:—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; **neque suī iūdicī [erat] discernere (B. C. 1.35)**, nor was it for his judgment to decide (nor did it belong to his judgment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; **cûiusvīs hominis est errāre (Phil. 12.5)**, it is any man's [liability] to err.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; **negāvit mōris esse Graecōrum, ut in convīviō virōrum accumberent mulierēs (Verr. 2.1.66)**, he said it was not the custom of the Greeks for women to appear as guests (recline) at the banquets of men.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; **sed timidī est optāre necem (Ov. M. 4.115)**, but't is the coward's part to wish for death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; **stultī erat spērāre, suādēre impudentis (Phil. 2.23)**, it was folly (the part of a fool) to hope, effrontery to urge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; **sapientis est pauca loquī**, it is wise (the part of a wise man) to say little. [Not sapiēns (neuter) est, etc.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note 1— This construction is regular with adjectives of the third declension instead of the neuter nominative (see the last two examples).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note 2— A derivative or possessive adjective may be used for the genitive in this construction, and must be used for the genitive of a personal pronoun:—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; **mentīrī nōn est meum [not meī]**, it is not for me to lie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; **hūmānum [for hominis] est errāre**, it is man's nature to err (to err is human)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11012" RevisionGUID="d3a3dc3f-145f-45de-a046-0a71c234c16b" CreationDate="2019-06-26T19:44:20.233" UserId="4892" Text="The title sums it up, but I think this could be a tricky question. I first stumbled upon this expression through a song by the German band Haggard, called &quot;Per Aspera ad Astra&quot; (from an album inspired by the life and works of Galileo Galilei, which I highly recommend!). However, whenever I search for references to this phrase, I always find it written as &quot;Ad Astra per Aspera&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are both semantically equivalent? Which one makes more sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32301" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11012" RevisionGUID="d3a3dc3f-145f-45de-a046-0a71c234c16b" CreationDate="2019-06-26T19:44:20.233" UserId="4892" Text="&quot;Per aspera ad astra&quot; or &quot;Ad astra per aspera&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32302" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11012" RevisionGUID="d3a3dc3f-145f-45de-a046-0a71c234c16b" CreationDate="2019-06-26T19:44:20.233" UserId="4892" Text="|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11013" RevisionGUID="f9f1a386-7710-4dc9-ad18-9a78a9c2d47b" CreationDate="2019-06-26T20:21:31.013" UserId="406" Text="In Ancient Greek, diminutives are almost always neuter, regardless of the original noun's gender. This leads to words like *paidíon*, &quot;small child&quot; (from *país* &quot;child&quot;), which are neuter even though they refer to people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern German, the same thing happens: *Mädchen* &quot;girl&quot; (from *Magd* &quot;young woman&quot;) is neuter rather than feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in Latin, I can't think of any word for a human that's not masculine (*puer*), feminine (*femina*), epicene(*) (*homo*), or common(*) (*ruricola*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does any such noun exist? That is, is there any noun that unambiguously refers to a human being, but is grammatically neuter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) [As Alex B puts it][1], epicene nouns are fixed as grammatically masculine or feminine, but can refer to a male or female person: a good person, man or woman, is a *homo bonus*. Common nouns are masculine when referring to a male person and feminine when referring to a female person: a good country-dweller is a *ruricola bonus* **or** a *ruricola bona*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2616/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32304" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11013" RevisionGUID="f9f1a386-7710-4dc9-ad18-9a78a9c2d47b" CreationDate="2019-06-26T20:21:31.013" UserId="406" Text="Does Latin have any neuter words for humans?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32305" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11013" RevisionGUID="f9f1a386-7710-4dc9-ad18-9a78a9c2d47b" CreationDate="2019-06-26T20:21:31.013" UserId="406" Text="|example-request|gender|neuter|diminutive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11014" RevisionGUID="6840420b-ef57-4f14-82c1-fdbff3b6fb18" CreationDate="2019-06-26T20:58:38.287" UserId="406" Text="The two are functionally equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first means &quot;through difficulties, to the stars&quot;, while the latter means &quot;to the stars, through difficulties&quot;. In general, Latin word order is extremely fluid (especially in poetry); the functional differences between the two are even more minor than in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32307" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11012" RevisionGUID="9d277cba-6304-40cf-8b18-c09b31d932d2" CreationDate="2019-06-26T21:07:23.330" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|motto|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11013" RevisionGUID="cec749ea-ee78-492f-8521-ba074a491722" CreationDate="2019-06-26T21:38:59.160" UserId="406" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="In Ancient Greek, diminutives are almost always neuter, regardless of the original noun's gender. This leads to words like *paidíon*, &quot;small child&quot; (from *país* &quot;child&quot;), which are neuter even though they refer to people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern German, the same thing happens: *Mädchen* &quot;girl&quot; (from *Magd* &quot;young woman&quot;) is neuter rather than feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in Latin, I can't think of any word for an individual human that's not masculine (*puer*), feminine (*femina*), epicene(*) (*homo*), or common(*) (*ruricola*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does any such noun exist? That is, is there any noun that unambiguously refers to an individual human being, but is grammatically neuter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) [As Alex B puts it][1], epicene nouns are fixed as grammatically masculine or feminine, but can refer to a male or female person: a good person, man or woman, is a *homo bonus*. Common nouns are masculine when referring to a male person and feminine when referring to a female person: a good country-dweller is a *ruricola bonus* **or** a *ruricola bona*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2616/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11015" RevisionGUID="e466cf42-ca44-41f4-bbb2-fc1695e25e1c" CreationDate="2019-06-26T22:30:48.843" UserId="9" Text="Yes, but not many. I actually looked into this a little while back!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the ones I know of. Many of these words had other, non-animate meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [**mancipium**][1]: a slave (compare *[servitium][2]/servitia,* which I think was only used as a collective noun for slaves, rather than to refer to an individual slave)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **delicium**: apparently, this word was used as an affectionate term for a slave child. The exact meaning and usage are  I think a bit tricky to understand, since I don't think we have that many examples of its use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **[scortum][3]**: a prostitute. Literally &quot;skin&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **[prostibulum][4]**: a prostitute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **[acroama][5], -matis**:   performer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other cases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so few neuter words referring to humans in Latin that I thought I would discuss a few more types that don't directly fit your criteria. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you asked specifically about words that could be used to refer to individual human beings, I don't think *auxilia* &quot;troops&quot; would count, since my understanding is that it (and also *servitia* mentioned above) is a plural collective noun for a group of human beings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure whether the singular neuter noun *animal* counts, since its meaning is obviously broader than humanity, although it can be used to refer to a human.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another class of neuter words that I feel a bit unsure about how to explain is affectionate nicknames like *mel* &quot;honey&quot; and *meum cor(culum)* &quot;my heart&quot;. I found some of these when I was searching for [vocative neuter nouns](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9332/9), although I'm not actually sure whether these kinds of terms of endearment were used in the vocative case since it's formally identical to the nominative/accusative case for neuter nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmancipium&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dservitium&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dscortum&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dprostibulum&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dacroama" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11015" RevisionGUID="47e10e16-a33c-47b9-99cc-0c20a3e85619" CreationDate="2019-06-26T22:38:33.140" UserId="9" Comment="added 661 characters in body" Text="Yes, but not many. I actually looked into this a little while back! Several grammars have lists of nouns like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the ones I know of. Many of these words had other, non-animate meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [**mancipium**][1]: a slave (compare *[servitium][2]/servitia,* which I think was only used as a collective noun for slaves, rather than to refer to an individual slave). Could also be used for other possessions/property.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **delicium**: apparently, this word was used as an affectionate term for a slave child. The exact meaning and usage are  I think a bit tricky to understand, since I don't think we have that many examples of its use. It's related to the non-neuter word *[deliciae][3].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **[scortum][4]**: a prostitute. Literally &quot;skin&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **[prostibulum][5]**: a prostitute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **[acroama][6], -matis**:   performer. It could also be used to refer to aural entertainment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other cases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so few neuter words referring to humans in Latin that I thought I would discuss a few more types that don't directly fit your criteria. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you asked specifically about words that could be used to refer to individual human beings, I don't think *auxilia* &quot;troops&quot; would count, since my understanding is that it (and also *servitia* mentioned above) is a plural collective noun for a group of human beings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure whether the singular neuter noun *animal* counts, since its meaning is obviously broader than humanity, although it can be used to refer to a human.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another class of neuter words that I feel a bit unsure about how to explain is affectionate nicknames like *mel* &quot;honey&quot; and *meum cor(culum)* &quot;my heart&quot;. I found some of these when I was searching for [vocative neuter nouns](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9332/9), although I'm not actually sure whether these kinds of terms of endearment were used in the vocative case since it's formally identical to the nominative/accusative case for neuter nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Sources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Andrews, Ethan Allen, 1857, [*Grammar of the Latin Language,* p. 22](https://books.google.com/books?id=IIwAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA22#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Roby, Henry John, 1876, [*A Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius,* 3rd Ed., p. 107](https://books.google.com/books?id=F4sNAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA107#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmancipium&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dservitium&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddeliciae&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dscortum&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dprostibulum&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dacroama" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11015" RevisionGUID="af3951f1-734b-44ce-99ab-fdae6607e2c1" CreationDate="2019-06-26T22:47:54.777" UserId="9" Comment="added 661 characters in body" Text="It depends on what you mean by &quot;unambiguously refers to an individual human being&quot;: several grammars have lists of neuter nouns that seems to have been fairly regularly used to refer to human beings, but it seems like most of these words did also have other, non-animate meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the ones I know of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [**mancipium**][1]: a slave (compare *[servitium][2]/servitia,* which I think was only used as a collective noun for slaves, rather than to refer to an individual slave). Could also be used for other possessions/property.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **delicium**: apparently, this word was used as an affectionate or neutral term for a slave child. The exact meaning and usage are  I think a bit tricky to understand, since I don't think we have that many examples of its use. It's related to the non-neuter word *[deliciae][3].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The word *delicium* shows up in Plautus. I found a discussion of the meaning in &quot;Tyndarus' Past: the name Paegnium in Plautus' *Captivi*&quot;, by Katerina Philippides (you can read it in this [academia.edu pdf](https://www.academia.edu/9924478/_%CE%9F%CE%BE%CF%85%CF%84%CF%8C%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD_%CE%B3%CF%8C%CF%89%CE%BD_goos_and_performance_in_classical_Athens_Classica_et_Mediaevalia_62_2011_15-32)), pages 107-108, which cites Nielsen 1990: 85 and  Dixon 2001: 13.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **[scortum][4]**: a prostitute. Literally &quot;skin, hide&quot;, but apparently rarely used with that meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **[prostibulum][5]**: a prostitute. Apparently, Isidore used it to refer to a brothel instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **[acroama][6], -matis**:   performer. It could also be used to refer to aural entertainment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other cases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so few neuter words referring to humans in Latin that I thought I would discuss a few more types that don't directly fit your criteria. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you asked specifically about words that could be used to refer to individual human beings, I don't think *auxilia* &quot;troops&quot; would count, since my understanding is that it (and also *servitia* mentioned above) is a plural collective noun for a group of human beings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure whether the singular neuter noun *animal* counts, since its meaning is obviously broader than humanity, although it can be used to refer to a human.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another class of neuter words that I feel a bit unsure about how to explain is affectionate nicknames like *mel* &quot;honey&quot; and *meum cor(culum)* &quot;my heart&quot;. I found some of these when I was searching for [vocative neuter nouns](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9332/9), although I'm not actually sure whether these kinds of terms of endearment were used in the vocative case since it's formally identical to the nominative/accusative case for neuter nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Sources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Andrews, Ethan Allen, 1857, [*Grammar of the Latin Language,* p. 22](https://books.google.com/books?id=IIwAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA22#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Roby, Henry John, 1876, [*A Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius,* 3rd Ed., p. 107](https://books.google.com/books?id=F4sNAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA107#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmancipium&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dservitium&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddeliciae&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dscortum&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dprostibulum&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dacroama" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11015" RevisionGUID="13a3f15d-3abd-496e-94ee-451b7f9940e9" CreationDate="2019-06-26T22:56:19.090" UserId="9" Comment="added 117 characters in body" Text="It depends on how much emphasis you put on &quot;*unambiguously* refers to an individual human being&quot;. I don't know of any examples that are just like  *παιδίον* or *Mädchen.* Several Latin grammars that I have looked at include short lists of neuter nouns that seem to have been used fairly regularly to refer to human beings, but it seems like most of these words did also have other, non-animate meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the neuter nouns I know of that were used to refer to individual human beings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [**mancipium**][1]: a slave (compare *[servitium][2]/servitia,* which I think was only used as a collective noun for slaves, rather than to refer to an individual slave). Could also be used for other possessions/property.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **delicium**: apparently, this word was used as an affectionate or neutral term for a slave child. The exact meaning and usage are  I think a bit tricky to understand, since I don't think we have that many examples of its use. It's related to the non-neuter word *[deliciae][3].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The word *delicium* shows up in Plautus. I found a discussion of the meaning in &quot;Tyndarus' Past: the name Paegnium in Plautus' *Captivi*&quot;, by Katerina Philippides (you can read it in this [academia.edu pdf](https://www.academia.edu/9924478/_%CE%9F%CE%BE%CF%85%CF%84%CF%8C%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD_%CE%B3%CF%8C%CF%89%CE%BD_goos_and_performance_in_classical_Athens_Classica_et_Mediaevalia_62_2011_15-32)), pages 107-108, which cites Nielsen 1990: 85 and  Dixon 2001: 13.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **[scortum][4]**: a prostitute. Literally &quot;skin, hide&quot;, but apparently rarely used with that meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **[prostibulum][5]**: a prostitute. Apparently, Isidore used it to refer to a brothel instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **[acroama][6], -matis**:   performer. It could also be used to refer to aural entertainment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other cases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so few neuter words referring to humans in Latin that I thought I would discuss a few more types that don't directly fit your criteria. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you asked specifically about words that could be used to refer to individual human beings, I don't think *auxilia* &quot;troops&quot; would count, since my understanding is that it (and also *servitia* mentioned above) is a plural collective noun for a group of human beings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure whether the singular neuter noun *animal* counts, since its meaning is obviously broader than humanity, although it can be used to refer to a human.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another class of neuter words that I feel a bit unsure about how to explain is affectionate nicknames like *mel* &quot;honey&quot; and *meum cor(culum)* &quot;my heart&quot;. I found some of these when I was searching for [vocative neuter nouns](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9332/9), although I'm not actually sure whether these kinds of terms of endearment were used in the vocative case since it's formally identical to the nominative/accusative case for neuter nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Sources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Andrews, Ethan Allen, 1857, [*Grammar of the Latin Language,* p. 22](https://books.google.com/books?id=IIwAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA22#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Roby, Henry John, 1876, [*A Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius,* 3rd Ed., p. 107](https://books.google.com/books?id=F4sNAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA107#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmancipium&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dservitium&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddeliciae&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dscortum&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dprostibulum&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dacroama" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11015" RevisionGUID="ad61f136-ac15-4804-8151-72fcab6066c9" CreationDate="2019-06-26T23:06:16.337" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="It depends on how much emphasis you put on &quot;*unambiguously* refers to an individual human being&quot;. I don't know of any examples that are just like  *παιδίον* or *Mädchen.* Several Latin grammars that I have looked at include short lists of neuter nouns that seem to have been used fairly regularly to refer to human beings, but it seems like most of these words did also have other, non-animate meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the neuter nouns I know of that were used to refer to individual human beings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [**mancipium**][1]: a slave (compare *[servitium][2]/servitia,* which I think was only used as a collective noun for slaves, rather than to refer to an individual slave). Could also be used for other possessions/property.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **delicium**: apparently, this word was used as an affectionate or neutral term for a slave child. The exact meaning and usage are  I think a bit tricky to understand, since I don't think we have that many examples of its use. It's related to the non-neuter word *[deliciae][3].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The word *delicium* shows up in Plautus. I found a discussion of the meaning in &quot;Tyndarus' Past: the name Paegnium in Plautus' *Captivi*&quot;, by Katerina Philippides (you can read it in this [academia.edu pdf](https://www.academia.edu/9924478/_%CE%9F%CE%BE%CF%85%CF%84%CF%8C%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD_%CE%B3%CF%8C%CF%89%CE%BD_goos_and_performance_in_classical_Athens_Classica_et_Mediaevalia_62_2011_15-32)), pages 107-108, which cites Nielsen 1990: 85 and  Dixon 2001: 13.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **[scortum][4]**: a prostitute. Literally &quot;skin, hide&quot;, but apparently rarely used with that meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **[prostibulum][5]**: a prostitute. Apparently, Isidore used it to refer to a brothel instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **[acroama][6], -matis**: a performer. It could also be used to refer to aural entertainment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other cases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so few neuter words referring to humans in Latin that I thought I would discuss a few more types that almost certainly don't fit your criteria. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you asked specifically about words that could be used to refer to individual human beings, I don't think *auxilia* &quot;troops&quot; would count, since my understanding is that it (and also *servitia* mentioned above) is a plural collective noun for a group of human beings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure whether the singular neuter noun *animal* counts, since its meaning is obviously broader than humanity, although it can be used to refer to a human.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another class of neuter words that I feel a bit unsure about how to explain is affectionate nicknames like *mel* &quot;honey&quot; and *meum cor(culum)* &quot;my heart&quot;. I found some of these when I was searching for [vocative neuter nouns](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9332/9), although I'm not actually sure whether these kinds of terms of endearment were used in the vocative case since it's formally identical to the nominative/accusative case for neuter nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Sources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Andrews, Ethan Allen, 1857, [*Grammar of the Latin Language,* p. 22](https://books.google.com/books?id=IIwAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA22#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Madvig, Johan Nikolai, 1859, [*A Latin Grammar for the Use of Schools,* p. 20](https://books.google.com/books?id=HGlJAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA20#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Roby, Henry John, 1876, [*A Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius,* 3rd Ed., p. 107](https://books.google.com/books?id=F4sNAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA107#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmancipium&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dservitium&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddeliciae&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dscortum&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dprostibulum&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dacroama" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11016" RevisionGUID="6508eceb-0bb2-4e22-8359-3a58f131677c" CreationDate="2019-06-26T23:21:24.317" UserId="3248" Text="Both orders make sense. In my opinion, the former (_Per aspera ad astra_) would represent the unmarked neuter order, i.e., the one that iconically, so to speak, obeys the conceptual logic of spatial relations: 1) (elliptical SOURCE) - 2) VIA (_per aspera_) - 3) GOAL (_ad astra_). The latter (_Ad astra per aspera_) would represent a marked order in the sense that the final goal (_ad astra_) becomes more prominent in the first syntactic position. That's why this second order would break the abovementioned iconicity. In information structure terms, assuming that _ad astra_ is left-dislocated, I would also interpret the second order (_Ad astra per aspera_) as follows: _ad astra_ as Topic/Theme and _per aspera_ as Comment/Rheme. At least this would be my interpretation, which could, of course, be wrong, since I'm not a native speaker of Latin.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11016" RevisionGUID="ba8f6b19-8a22-4f6a-9e90-4f5a23b97432" CreationDate="2019-06-27T00:10:55.497" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="Both orders make sense. In my opinion, the former (_Per aspera ad astra_) would represent the unmarked neuter order: first VIA (_per aspera_) and then GOAL (_ad astra_). The latter (_Ad astra per aspera_) would represent a marked order: to put it in information structure terms, assuming that _ad astra_ is left-dislocated, I would interpret this second order (_Ad astra per aspera_) as follows: _ad astra_ as Topic/Theme and _per aspera_ as Comment/Rheme. At least this would be my interpretation, which could, of course, be wrong, since I'm not a native speaker of Latin.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11016" RevisionGUID="2772fa54-2360-42e5-a4d7-4b220f188441" CreationDate="2019-06-27T01:11:20.860" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; clarification" Text="Both orders make sense. First of all, it should be noted that _Per aspera ad astra_ can form a complex path and as such its unmarked neuter order is: first VIA (_per aspera_) and then GOAL (_ad astra_). Next, if we take so-called &quot;information structure&quot; into account (vid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_structure ), two possible interpretations can be relevant: given the order _Ad astra per aspera_,  one can assume that _ad astra_ is a left-dislocated or topicalized constituent, whereby its interpretation is as follows: _ad astra_ is Topic/Theme and _per aspera_ is Comment/Rheme. Conversely, given the order _Per aspera ad astra_, the PP _per aspera_ can be assumed to be left-dislocated, whereby _per aspera_ is Topic/Theme, whereas _ad astra_ is Comment/Rheme. Essentially, this would be my interpretation of their different information structures, which could, of course, be wrong, since I'm not a native speaker of Latin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11016" RevisionGUID="0011ad0f-1fb3-43aa-b21d-86002c875963" CreationDate="2019-06-27T01:17:42.993" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; clarification" Text="Both orders make sense. First of all, it should be noted that _Per aspera ad astra_ can form a complex path and as such its unmarked neuter order is: first VIA (_per aspera_) and then GOAL (_ad astra_). Next, if we take so-called &quot;information structure&quot; into account (vid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_structure ), two possible interpretations can additionally be relevant: given the order _Ad astra per aspera_, one can assume that _ad astra_ is a topicalized constituent, whereby its interpretation is as follows: _ad astra_ is Topic/Theme and _per aspera_ is Comment/Rheme. Conversely, given the order _Per aspera ad astra_, the PP _per aspera_ can be assumed to be topicalized, whereby _per aspera_ is Topic/Theme and _ad astra_ is Comment/Rheme. Essentially, this would be my interpretation of their different information structures, which could, of course, be wrong, since I'm not a native speaker of Latin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11017" RevisionGUID="e6c5d14c-c489-4b56-9280-e15cc1f063ec" CreationDate="2019-06-27T01:27:23.493" UserId="406" Text="In honor of the last broadcast of the *Nuntiī Latinī*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nuntii Latini Radiophoniae Finnicae Generalis, qui inde ab anno millesimo nongentesimo undenonagesimo (1989) iam triginta annos septimanatim emittuntur, post hanc emissionem finiuntur et decreto moderatorum radiophonicorum post ferias aestivas non continuabuntur. Auscultatoribus, quorum grex ad omnes orbis continentes amplificatus est, propter fidelitatem gratias quam maximas agimus et valedicimus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt at a literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin Announcements on the General Finnish Radio, which ever since the year 1989 has been broadcast weekly for thirty years now, after this transmission, will be be ended, and, by the decree of the radio regulators, it will not be continued after the summer holidays. To our [???], the group of whom has grown to [cover] all the continents of the world, we send the greatest possible thanks for your faithfulness, and wish you farewell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or more idiomatically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin Announcements on the General Finnish Radio, which has been broadcast weekly for thirty years since 1989, will be ending after this transmission—and the regulators have decided not to continue it after this summer. To our [???], who are now spread across every continent in the world, we send our most heartfelt thanks—and wish you farewell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct? And more specifically, what are these *auscultatoribus* who are being thanked? From context, it seems like they're &quot;listeners&quot; or &quot;followers&quot;, but I can't even begin to parse the Latin word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm also unsure about *moderatores* being &quot;regulators&quot;, but it's the closest I could think of based on [this question][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2149/what-does-a-moderator-do" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32319" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11017" RevisionGUID="e6c5d14c-c489-4b56-9280-e15cc1f063ec" CreationDate="2019-06-27T01:27:23.493" UserId="406" Text="What are auscultatores?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32320" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11017" RevisionGUID="e6c5d14c-c489-4b56-9280-e15cc1f063ec" CreationDate="2019-06-27T01:27:23.493" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|latin-to-english-translation|modern-life|nuntii-latini|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11018" RevisionGUID="4bfcccdd-57ec-4810-8709-7dd740c25166" CreationDate="2019-06-27T01:46:31.930" UserId="2363" Text="Listeners. It's an agent noun made from ausculto. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11016" RevisionGUID="116710e2-acb1-4d72-a0ba-507abbee59b8" CreationDate="2019-06-27T01:46:43.617" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar" Text="Both orders make sense. First of all, it should be noted that _Per aspera ad astra_ can form a complex path and as such its unmarked neuter order is: first VIA (_per aspera_) and then GOAL (_ad astra_). Next, if we take so-called &quot;information structure&quot; into account (vid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_structure ), at least two possible interpretations can additionally be relevant: given the order _Ad astra per aspera_, one can assume that _ad astra_ is a topicalized constituent, whereby its interpretation is as follows: _ad astra_ is Topic/Theme and _per aspera_ is Comment/Rheme. Conversely, given the order _Per aspera ad astra_, the PP _per aspera_ can be assumed to be topicalized, whereby _per aspera_ is now Topic/Theme and _ad astra_ is Comment/Rheme. Essentially, this would be my interpretation of their different information structures, which could, of course, be wrong, since I'm not a native speaker of Latin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11016" RevisionGUID="4ec4c49b-4d61-485f-ab32-6b1f6178f7bd" CreationDate="2019-06-27T02:06:29.310" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="Both orders make sense. First of all, it should be noted that _Per aspera ad astra_ can form a complex path and as such its unmarked neuter order is quite natural: first VIA (_per aspera_) and then GOAL (_ad astra_). Next, if we take so-called &quot;information structure&quot; into account (vid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_structure ), at least two possible interpretations can additionally be relevant: given the order _Ad astra per aspera_, one can assume that _ad astra_ is a topicalized constituent, whereby its interpretation is as follows: _ad astra_ is Topic/Theme and _per aspera_ is Comment/Rheme. Conversely, given the order _Per aspera ad astra_, the PP _per aspera_ could also be assumed to be topicalized (this reading would be quite marginal, in my view. As noted above, _Per aspera ad astra_ is naturally interpreted as involving a complex path with no PP topicalized), whereby _per aspera_ would now be Topic/Theme and _ad astra_ would be Comment/Rheme. Essentially, this would be my interpretation of their different information structures, which could, of course, be wrong, since I'm not a native speaker of Latin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11016" RevisionGUID="0ae6203c-6544-4361-8857-e73a4d776b0e" CreationDate="2019-06-27T02:54:34.100" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar and clarification" Text="Both orders make sense. First of all, it should be noted that _Per aspera ad astra_ can form a complex path and as such its associated unmarked neuter order is indeed quite natural: first VIA (_per aspera_) and then GOAL (_ad astra_). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, if we take so-called &quot;information structure&quot; into account (vid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_structure), at least two interpretations can additionally be relevant: as for the order _Ad astra per aspera_, one can assume that _ad astra_ is a topicalized constituent, whereby _ad astra_ is pragmatically interpreted as Topic/Theme and _per aspera_ as Comment/Rheme. Conversely, given the order _Per aspera ad astra_, the PP _per aspera_ could also be assumed to be topicalized (this reading would be marginal, in my view. As noted above, _Per aspera ad astra_ is better interpreted as involving a complex path with no PP topicalized), whereby _per aspera_ would be Topic/Theme and _ad astra_ would be Comment/Rheme. Essentially, this would be my interpretation of their different information structures, which could, of course, be wrong, since I'm not a native speaker of Latin.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32328" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="1612eac8-e584-45f9-97c0-18ab5e8ab64d" CreationDate="2019-06-27T03:20:55.660" UserId="406" Comment="edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|sendivogius|alchemy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32329" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11013" RevisionGUID="7a28956e-8bd5-4e39-87f4-ed23f6b864c7" CreationDate="2019-06-27T04:22:30.297" />
  <row Id="32333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11010" RevisionGUID="760eaf7c-7e32-4947-a994-8a5049931749" CreationDate="2019-06-27T08:28:58.753" UserId="1982" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Is this predicative genitive + esse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;est boni imperatoris bene ducere&quot; = &quot;It is of a good general to lead well.&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;est digni civis patriae cogitare&quot; = &quot;it is of a worthy citizen to think about his country.&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;est honesti regis regere sapienter&quot; = &quot;It is of an honourable king to rule wisely.&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;est canis feles agitare&quot; = &quot;It is of a dog to chase cats.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32334" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="10976" RevisionGUID="9dd0490f-c8ad-4fe6-a40e-7256a78d2ba5" CreationDate="2019-06-27T08:32:07.327" UserId="79" Comment="119" />
  <row Id="32335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11008" RevisionGUID="6e15bd0d-8261-4582-ad7a-80add22e5100" CreationDate="2019-06-27T09:13:07.467" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 51 characters in body" Text="The vocabulary is spot-on.&#xD;&#xA;*Imparatus* is &quot;unprepared&quot; and *fortuna* is &quot;luck&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There are certainly other options, but these are very good and I see no reason to change them.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to got a more nuanced descriptions of these words or find more candidates, I suggest taking a look at some of [the various free online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preposition *ad* and the dative case have a similar &amp;mdash; but not identical &amp;mdash; meaning.&#xD;&#xA;They cannot be used together: it is either a plain dative or the preposition *ad* together with the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the two grammatical options starting from your attempt are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Fortuna imparatis est*&#xD;&#xA;2. *Fortuna ad imparatos est*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dative is more suitable here, as it corresponds roughly to English words like &quot;for&quot;, &quot;for the benefit of&quot;, &quot;to&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The preposition *ad* is more in the spirit of &quot;towards&quot; and &quot;to&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore option 1 is better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the Latin dative can also be used for possession, so option 1 can be read as &quot;the unprepared have luck&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If this reading option is not an issue, then I suggest 1.&#xD;&#xA;One similar possibility is to use the genitive to say &quot;luck is of the unprepared&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. *Fortuna imparatorum est*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to avoid the interpretation that the unprepared have luck &amp;mdash; as opposed to needing it &amp;mdash; then a different kind of wording will be clearer.&#xD;&#xA;The genitive together with an infinitive can be used to say that something is for someone or characteristic of someone.&#xD;&#xA;(See [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11009/79) for details on this construction.)&#xD;&#xA;Whether you want to make the luck explicit is optional:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. *Imparatorum est [fortunam] sperare*  &#xD;&#xA;Hoping [for luck] is for the unprepared&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether adding *fortunam* makes the expression too long or leaving it out makes it too weak &amp;mdash; or both &amp;mdash; is for you to decide.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is to use option 4 or a variant thereof, as it strikes me as more idiomatic Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without adding an explicit word like &quot;have&quot; or &quot;need&quot;, you can say &quot;the unprepared have luck&quot; but not &quot;the unprepared need luck&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is unlike English, where &quot;luck is for the unprepared&quot; implies need more than possession.&#xD;&#xA;If you want emphasis on the need for luck, you could go with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. *Fortuna [solis] imparatis necessis (est).*  &#xD;&#xA;Luck is necessary [only] for the unprepared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this conveys your message very accurately, but it does feel more verbose than the English original.&#xD;&#xA;That appears to be inevitable if you want accuracy.&#xD;&#xA;Leaving *est* out is common in a motto and possible in general." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11021" RevisionGUID="6d771c07-ce2a-4c21-82b5-a3add84060c0" CreationDate="2019-06-27T10:02:50.673" UserId="2046" Text="The wikipedia page on the Sator Square (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sator_Square) says that the sentence &quot;SATOR AREPO TENET OPERA ROTAS&quot; is a grammatical sentence and translates it as &quot;The farmer Arepo uses a plough as a form of work&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;However, I don't really get how they obtained the translation. The word Arepo is probably the name of the sower (even though it could have a different meaning), but that is not the main issue.  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Tenere&quot; means &quot;to hold&quot; and &quot;opera&quot; is the accusative plural of &quot;opus&quot;, that is &quot;work&quot;. Also, &quot;rotas&quot; is the accusative plural of &quot;rota&quot;, or &quot;wheel&quot;. But I don't really know, which word relates to which. &quot;Tenere&quot; takes an accusative object, but there are 2 in the sentence. Could someone explain, or offer a better translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32337" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11021" RevisionGUID="6d771c07-ce2a-4c21-82b5-a3add84060c0" CreationDate="2019-06-27T10:02:50.673" UserId="2046" Text="Translation of the Sator Square" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32338" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11021" RevisionGUID="6d771c07-ce2a-4c21-82b5-a3add84060c0" CreationDate="2019-06-27T10:02:50.673" UserId="2046" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11021" RevisionGUID="1ffa5d01-4430-45d5-86e7-8f9e1676645e" CreationDate="2019-06-27T11:08:09.280" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The wikipedia page on the Sator Square (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sator_Square) says that the sentence &quot;SATOR AREPO TENET OPERA ROTAS&quot; is a grammatical sentence and translates it as &quot;The farmer Arepo uses a plough as a form of work&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;However, I don't really get how they obtained the translation. The word &quot;Arepo&quot; is probably the name of the sower (even though it could have a different meaning), but that is not the main issue.  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Tenere&quot; means &quot;to hold&quot; and &quot;opera&quot; is the accusative plural of &quot;opus&quot;, that is &quot;work&quot;. Also, &quot;rotas&quot; is the accusative plural of &quot;rota&quot;, or &quot;wheel&quot;. But I don't really know, which word relates to which. &quot;Tenere&quot; takes an accusative object, but there are 2 in the sentence. Could someone explain, or offer a better translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32340" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11021" RevisionGUID="1ffa5d01-4430-45d5-86e7-8f9e1676645e" CreationDate="2019-06-27T11:08:09.280" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11022" RevisionGUID="36a5aabc-d94e-46fc-8571-04a689ba54e6" CreationDate="2019-06-27T11:12:00.483" UserId="1982" Text="The farmer Arepo possesses (tenet) the wheels (accusative-plural of &quot;rota&quot; =&quot;rotas&quot; [presumably a plough]) as the works (his job; noun &quot;opus&quot;) opera (acc. pl.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be that in order to make the square work a word was missed out e.g. &quot;pro&quot; = &quot;for&quot;, as in &quot;for (his) work&quot;, giving &quot;pro opere&quot;; which would have compromised the square. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11023" RevisionGUID="cdced946-5103-471e-93c1-268f8b7df04e" CreationDate="2019-06-27T11:14:19.277" UserId="79" Text="I think the intention is that *opera* is a singular ablative of the feminine noun *opera*, not a form of *opus*.&#xD;&#xA;Among other things, *opera* means &quot;work&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting with the other words, *Sator Arepo tenet rotas* means &quot;the sower Arepo has wheels&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Adding an ablative to describe circumstances, we get something like &quot;the sower Arepo has wheels for the purpose of work&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The translation &quot;as a form of work&quot; makes sense, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interpreting a sower as a farmer is reasonable, but taking wheels to stand for a plough seems to be a farther fetch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation is a little forced; the restriction of making the words go nicely in a square is too much for fluent language unless one has extraordinary luck.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore one might have to be a little flexible or creative with grammar to make it work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The square looks nice, though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;S A T O R  &#xD;&#xA;A R E P O  &#xD;&#xA;T E N E T  &#xD;&#xA;O P E R A  &#xD;&#xA;R O T A S" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11024" RevisionGUID="608a00dc-b1eb-451c-8a1f-0d0c63e9dbaa" CreationDate="2019-06-27T11:58:22.643" UserId="79" Text="In an answer to [this question on *Ζεύς*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5815/79) Draconis mentions (quoting his own post on another site):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The *accusative* form of the root, *_dyēm_ (cf AGrk _Zēn_), *also* survived in Latin, in the form *_diēm_ &gt; _diem_. Uniquely, the *dy* here didn't become *_dj_ &gt; *j*; some scholars suggest that it evolved in a different Italic language/dialect, which didn't have the palatalization rules, then got borrowed back into Latin. When it did come back to Latin, though, it was with a new meaning of &quot;day&quot; (instead of &quot;sky/sky god&quot;), and it was extrapolated into a whole paradigm on the stem *di-*, and forced into the fifth declension where it didn't really fit (*di-ēs*, *di-ēī*, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The very last mention caught my attention: *dies* was forced into the fifth declension where it didn't really fit.&#xD;&#xA;What does this mean exactly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What was the original declension of *dies* in Latin like?&#xD;&#xA;How does it compare to third and fifth declensions at the time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. What kinds of words were in the original fifth declension?&#xD;&#xA;How does their declension differ from that expected for *dies*?&#xD;&#xA;The whole declension cannot be modeled after *dies* if it is an outlier of some kind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Do we know why *dies* ended up in the fifth declension?&#xD;&#xA;Do we know of a mechanism that would do so or are there forms that scream fifth declension?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This all is of course under the assumption that the statement by Draconis is reasonably accurate.&#xD;&#xA;If it is not, then arguing to the contrary would make a fine answer here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32346" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11024" RevisionGUID="608a00dc-b1eb-451c-8a1f-0d0c63e9dbaa" CreationDate="2019-06-27T11:58:22.643" UserId="79" Text="Dies and the fifth declension" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32347" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11024" RevisionGUID="608a00dc-b1eb-451c-8a1f-0d0c63e9dbaa" CreationDate="2019-06-27T11:58:22.643" UserId="79" Text="|language-evolution|morphology|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11025" RevisionGUID="43fce043-abbc-4b22-9f56-0e5fd3fefd6b" CreationDate="2019-06-27T17:03:34.993" UserId="4896" Text="I want to find a prefix for morphism to get the meaning &quot;relevance of the form of an entity to given criteria&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it make sense to derive the verb pono into a prefix for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32349" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11025" RevisionGUID="43fce043-abbc-4b22-9f56-0e5fd3fefd6b" CreationDate="2019-06-27T17:03:34.993" UserId="4896" Text="Pono- as a prefix for morphism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32350" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11025" RevisionGUID="43fce043-abbc-4b22-9f56-0e5fd3fefd6b" CreationDate="2019-06-27T17:03:34.993" UserId="4896" Text="|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11025" RevisionGUID="7521c23d-04cb-4a86-b8c8-0a95c37126ed" CreationDate="2019-06-27T17:12:14.087" UserId="4896" Comment="added 197 characters in body; edited title" Text="I want to find a prefix for morphism to get the meaning &quot;relevance of the form of an entity to given criteria&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it make sense to derive the verb pono into a prefix for this? Co- also makes sense but the word &quot;comorphism&quot; does not sound exactly right e.g. &quot;correlation of forms given circumstances&quot; and also has an established use in mathematics with the latter meaning. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32352" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11025" RevisionGUID="7521c23d-04cb-4a86-b8c8-0a95c37126ed" CreationDate="2019-06-27T17:12:14.087" UserId="4896" Comment="added 197 characters in body; edited title" Text="Pono- or co- as a prefix for morphism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32353" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11025" RevisionGUID="912a313c-80e9-4d2b-9f67-014365d134b0" CreationDate="2019-06-27T17:20:01.617" UserId="4896" Comment="edited title" Text="Pono- instead of co- as a prefix for morphism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11025" RevisionGUID="bcb1ba2d-f4df-4940-bad8-ea2ebe28e3f9" CreationDate="2019-06-27T17:28:00.417" UserId="4896" Comment="pono- has an established meaning" Text="I want to find a prefix for morphism to get the meaning &quot;relevance of the form of an entity to given criteria&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it make sense to derive the verb ad into a prefix for this? Co- also makes sense but the word &quot;comorphism&quot; does not sound exactly right e.g. &quot;correlation of forms given circumstances&quot; and also has an established use in mathematics with the latter meaning. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32355" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11025" RevisionGUID="bcb1ba2d-f4df-4940-bad8-ea2ebe28e3f9" CreationDate="2019-06-27T17:28:00.417" UserId="4896" Comment="pono- has an established meaning" Text="Ad- instead of co- as a prefix for morphism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11026" RevisionGUID="5d1cb9d7-d38e-4f6e-a8a0-f18960a9fedc" CreationDate="2019-06-27T17:39:00.263" UserId="406" Text="If the word for &quot;day&quot; had developed perfectly regularly, we'd actually expect to see it in the *fourth* declension, as it comes from a PIE *u*-stem! A few traces of this hypothetical fourth-declension are attested, such as the locative *diū* (which survives Classically in *diū* &quot;all day&quot;) and the nominative *dius* (which survives Classically in *nunc dius* &gt; *nūdius* &quot;it is now the day&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The early Italic declension looked something like this (somewhere in between Proto-Italic and Old Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    nom  *dious&#xD;&#xA;    gen  *diovos/diovis&#xD;&#xA;    dat  *diovej&#xD;&#xA;    acc  *diēm&#xD;&#xA;    abl   ???&#xD;&#xA;    voc  *diou&#xD;&#xA;    loc  *dieu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The genitive and dative should look familiar: the forms with a consonantal *j* instead of a vocalic *i* became *Jōvis* and *Jōvī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this had continued to evolve regularly, under the same analogical pressures that regularized the other *u*-stems, it might have turned into something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    nom   dius&#xD;&#xA;    gen  *diūs&#xD;&#xA;    dat  *diuī&#xD;&#xA;    acc   diēm&#xD;&#xA;    abl  *diū&#xD;&#xA;    voc  *diū&#xD;&#xA;    loc   diū&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form *diēm* sticks out, and doesn't fit in with the fourth declension at all. This oddity goes back to Proto-Indo-European (Stang's Law), and in most other words it got smoothed out by analogy: we see *bovem* &quot;cow&quot; instead of *_bōm_, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for whatever reason, *diēm* had more staying power than *dius* did. The word got rebuilt around this one form as an &quot;*e*-stem&quot;: early *_diūs_ became *diēs*, early *diūī* became *diēī*, and so on. This wasn't a particularly clean or regular process: the genitive singular is attested as *diēs* (cf the Greek first declension), *diēī*, *diēi*, and *dieī*, for example, with no clear consensus reached until post-Classical times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, the &quot;fifth declension&quot; was slowly forming by analogy. *Rēs* was originally an irregular word that didn't fit into any declension pattern—and in the Sabellic languages (Oscan, Umbrian, etc), it's the only &quot;*e*-stem&quot; that's definitely attested. But in Latin and Faliscan, other irregular nouns slowly gravitated to its paradigm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The details of this part are unclear and disputed, but eventually a regular declension pattern appeared on the model of *rēs*, with the productive suffix *-ia* gaining a variant *-iēs* to make new fifth-declension nouns (cf *luxuria~luxuriēs*, *aciēs*, *maciēs*, etc). This part never happened in Sabellic, which implies it was a purely post-Italic development without a precedent in PIE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And once that declension pattern arose, *diēs*, with its very similar *-ēs* ending, was forced into it: the genitive became *-eī*, the accusative became *-em*, the ablative became *-ē*. Older forms like *dius* and *diū* died out, or were reanalyzed as separate words: *diū* was rebracketed as *di-* plus a suffix *-ū* &quot;during&quot;, for example, which led to *noct-ū* &quot;during the night&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the process, *diēs* did leave its mark on the declension, too: the genitive singular of the whole fifth declension vacillates between *diēs*'s *-ēī* and *res*'s *-eī*. I don't think one or the other ever became truly universal until vowel length vanished and made it irrelevant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11025" RevisionGUID="1def4e93-967e-4ea8-89ec-4ff88851035e" CreationDate="2019-06-27T18:11:33.970" UserId="4896" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body" Text="I want to find a prefix for morphism to get the meaning &quot;relevance of the form of an entity to given criteria&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it make sense to use ad- for this? Co- also makes sense but the word &quot;comorphism&quot; does not sound exactly right e.g. &quot;correlation of forms given circumstances&quot; and also has an established use in mathematics with the latter meaning. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11023" RevisionGUID="636c4673-1cf0-42c6-b0ef-455b8abaa938" CreationDate="2019-06-27T18:19:45.650" UserId="79" Comment="added 269 characters in body" Text="I think the intention is that *opera* is a singular ablative of the feminine noun *opera*, not a form of *opus*.&#xD;&#xA;Among other things, *opera* means &quot;work&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting with the other words, *Sator Arepo tenet rotas* means &quot;the sower Arepo has/holds wheels&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Adding an ablative to describe circumstances, we get something like &quot;the sower Arepo has/holds wheels for (the purpose of) work&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The translation &quot;as a form of work&quot; makes sense, too.&#xD;&#xA;It is not more specific than &quot;there is a work-related reason that the sower Arepo holds wheels&quot;, but that feels clumsy as a translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interpreting a sower as a farmer is reasonable, but taking wheels to stand for a plough seems to be a farther fetch.&#xD;&#xA;Having specifically a plough seems to come more from *sator* (what tools could one use in such work?) than *rotas*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation is a little forced; the restriction of making the words go nicely in a square is too much for fluent language unless one has extraordinary luck.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore one might have to be a little flexible or creative with grammar to make it work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The square looks nice, though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;S A T O R  &#xD;&#xA;A R E P O  &#xD;&#xA;T E N E T  &#xD;&#xA;O P E R A  &#xD;&#xA;R O T A S" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32359" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11021" RevisionGUID="0fc02a90-16fe-4f39-9b95-ea8f82951036" CreationDate="2019-06-27T18:23:26.050" />
  <row Id="32360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11027" RevisionGUID="b848e796-6e59-47a9-9e4a-0e166a3d80ee" CreationDate="2019-06-27T20:04:12.773" UserId="522" Text="Just trying out words which use the Greek root MORPH some don't fit, they would be wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; KATA contrary  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ANA upstream,  against the flow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some would fit your meaning but are already taken,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;META change adaptation against  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; PARA alongside&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; metamorphic and paramorphic are geological terms for historically changed rock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; EPI with respect to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Epimorphic** - literal meaning: with respect to the form; up against the form combines both the idea of 'adaptation,' and the central concept of 'form.' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Epimorph is the instance of adaptation; epimorphic describes such instances; epimorphism is the process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11028" RevisionGUID="09f28636-7d73-4771-9338-9e842948c3b1" CreationDate="2019-06-28T06:42:33.347" UserId="1955" Text="Vale,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have this sentence (written by Ulpianus in Digest 9.2.5) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed et si quemcumque alium ferro se petentem quis occiderit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if someone (quis) killed anyone else (quemcumque alium) when assaulting with a sword (ferro). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I don't understand the word `se` here. It's not reflective as one person kills another. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone explain the `se ` ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gratias vobis ago," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32362" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11028" RevisionGUID="09f28636-7d73-4771-9338-9e842948c3b1" CreationDate="2019-06-28T06:42:33.347" UserId="1955" Text="ferro se petentem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32363" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11028" RevisionGUID="09f28636-7d73-4771-9338-9e842948c3b1" CreationDate="2019-06-28T06:42:33.347" UserId="1955" Text="|classical-latin|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11028" RevisionGUID="c22bf918-2843-4ccd-bf3a-7e8883d1ed61" CreationDate="2019-06-28T09:19:11.763" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Valete,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have this sentence (written by Ulpianus in Digest 9.2.5) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed et si quemcumque alium ferro se petentem quis occiderit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if someone (quis) killed anyone else (quemcumque alium) when assaulting with a sword (ferro). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I don't understand the word *se* here. It's not reflective as one person kills another. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone explain the *se*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gratias vobis ago." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32365" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11028" RevisionGUID="c22bf918-2843-4ccd-bf3a-7e8883d1ed61" CreationDate="2019-06-28T09:19:11.763" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="&quot;ferro se petentem&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11029" RevisionGUID="a7312ad4-a656-4f5e-a650-18ef304ec232" CreationDate="2019-06-28T09:27:11.667" UserId="79" Text="The *se* refers to the subject of the main verb *occiderit*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, *se* can refer to the subject of the verb whose object it is, or a verb dominating that verb.&#xD;&#xA;When reading a subordinate clause or anything similar, bear in mind that *suus* or *se* can refer to subjects further away.&#xD;&#xA;Grammar does allow you to read it so that someone pursued himself with a sword, but that reading makes far less sense than the alternative.&#xD;&#xA;(For some reason that reminds me of a dog chasing its own tail, but fortunately they do so unarmed.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a simplification that should make the structure clearer in case someone has trouble parsing the whole thing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Aliquis virum se ferro petentem occidit.*  &#xD;&#xA;Someone slayed a man pursuing him with a sword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here *se* refers to *aliquis*, not *virum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11030" RevisionGUID="0a1fbbc9-4eeb-4870-9f24-5e81d3bdf97d" CreationDate="2019-06-28T11:30:08.423" UserId="1982" Text="In the Q, adding &quot;him&quot;: &quot;...when assaulting him &quot;se&quot; (&quot;him&quot; being the first person, referred to by &quot;quis&quot;, which explains why the reflexive pronoun is used, in an indirect statement).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative translation: &quot;But even if anyone kills another, who is attacking him, with a sword...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the attacker brandished his sword at a third party; then, a demonstrative pronoun would be used: &quot;...ferro eum petentem quis occiderit…&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A further example: The Romans said that they (i.e. they themselves) would come = Romani dixerunt se venturos esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, however, the Romans said that they (i.e. some other people) would come:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Romani dixerunt eos venturos esse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11031" RevisionGUID="d342ff73-d0bf-43a6-96c9-6cbefa9fdcf2" CreationDate="2019-06-28T11:30:32.070" UserId="3627" Text="There's already a program that does this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.alatius.com/macronizer/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does pretty much exactly what the program I was going to write does, only better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11032" RevisionGUID="0352f5db-aa1d-4e23-80c7-9d3049923e53" CreationDate="2019-06-28T13:56:57.920" UserId="4898" Text=" I have a l prayer I say every morning. It includes the word ulcantur. can't find a translation. I think it is a subjunctive for ultus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32370" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11032" RevisionGUID="0352f5db-aa1d-4e23-80c7-9d3049923e53" CreationDate="2019-06-28T13:56:57.920" UserId="4898" Text="Is ulcantur a subjunctive of ultus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32371" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11032" RevisionGUID="0352f5db-aa1d-4e23-80c7-9d3049923e53" CreationDate="2019-06-28T13:56:57.920" UserId="4898" Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11032" RevisionGUID="85975323-c6fb-4061-a49b-489c3bd86f12" CreationDate="2019-06-28T13:59:42.497" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have a prayer I say every morning. It includes the word *ulcantur*. I can't find a translation. I think it is a subjunctive for *ultus*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32373" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11032" RevisionGUID="85975323-c6fb-4061-a49b-489c3bd86f12" CreationDate="2019-06-28T13:59:42.497" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|translation-check|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11032" RevisionGUID="eeefd839-cedb-47b0-a1dd-ea79cca20891" CreationDate="2019-06-28T16:03:26.093" UserId="4898" Comment="added 579 characters in body" Text="I have a prayer I say every morning. It includes the word *ulcantur*. I can't find a translation. I think it is a subjunctive for *ultus*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O Piisima Virgo Maria, quæ caput serpentis contrivisti, protege nos a&#xD;&#xA;vindicta mali. Offerimus tibi dolores, bona, operaque ut ea purifices,&#xD;&#xA;sanctifices et largiaris Filio tuo sicut oblationem perfectam. Hæc oblatio fit&#xD;&#xA;ne dæmonia qui afficere membra Auxilii Christianorum petunt cognoscant&#xD;&#xA;originem expulsionis et cæcitatis suae. Cæca eos ne nostra opera bonacognoscant. Cæca eos ne cognoscant quos ulcantur. Cæca eos ut sententiam&#xD;&#xA;iustam operum suorum suscipiant. Operi nos sanguine pretioso Filii tui ut&#xD;&#xA;protectione quæ ab Passione Morteque ejus fluit fruamur. Amen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11033" RevisionGUID="c538dd22-6fd7-485b-8fbe-12ff1d7ea516" CreationDate="2019-06-28T17:00:54.910" UserId="522" Text="*Part of this prayer is a request that the Demons may not understand the Redemption.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hæc oblatio fit ne ... dæmonia cognoscant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Let this oblation be so that ... the demons *do not find out*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...ne dæmonia qui afficere membra Auxilii Christianorum petunt cognoscant originem expulsionis et cæcitatis suae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...so that the demons who seek to affect the limbs of the Helper of Christians do not find out the origin of their expulsion and their blindness. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cæca eos ne nostra opera bona cognoscant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blind them so that they do not recognise our good works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cæca eos ne cognoscant quo sulcantur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Blind them  so that they do not know by whom they are being harassed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***sulcantur*** precisely means 'they are being furrowed by a plough.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11033" RevisionGUID="81201e4e-548e-48ab-ae4a-70dda749575c" CreationDate="2019-06-28T17:07:55.430" UserId="522" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="*Part of this prayer is a request that the Demons may not understand the Redemption.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hæc oblatio fit ne ... dæmonia cognoscant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Let this oblation be so that ... the demons *do not find out*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...ne dæmonia qui afficere membra Auxilii Christianorum petunt cognoscant originem expulsionis et cæcitatis suae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...so that the demons who seek to affect the limbs of the Helper of Christians do not find out the origin of their expulsion and their blindness. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cæca eos ne nostra opera bona cognoscant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blind them so that they do not recognise our good works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cæca eos ne cognoscant quo sulcantur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Blind them  so that they do not know by whom they are being harassed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***[sulcantur][1]*** precisely means 'they are being furrowed by a plough.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/getobject.pl?c.17:4412.LewisShort18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11034" RevisionGUID="b97fa116-a5aa-4442-9674-fc8638472c1f" CreationDate="2019-06-28T18:13:32.153" UserId="406" Text="[This prayer seems to come from the _Auxilium Christianōrum_][1], which can either mean &quot;Aid for Christians&quot; or &quot;Reinforcements/Backup Troops of Christians&quot;. They're an organization specifically dedicated to fighting and exorcizing demons. I've made only one correction to your text (adding a missing space) to bring it in line with the _Auxilium_'s version [(bottom right of the first page)][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *O Piisima Virgo Maria, quæ caput serpentis contrivisti,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; O Most Blessed Virgin Maria, you who crushed the head of the serpent,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *protege nos a vindicta mali.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; protect us from the vengeance of the evil one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Offerimus tibi dolores, bona, operaque ut ea purifices, sanctifices*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; We offer you our sorrows, o good one, and our works, so that you can purify them and make them holy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et largiaris Filio tuo sicut oblationem perfectam.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and that you might be imparted on us by your Son, just like the perfect sacrifice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hæc oblatio fit ne dæmonia qui afficere membra Auxilii Christianorum petunt*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let this offering be so that the demons which seek to affect the members of the _Auxilium Christianōrum_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *cognoscant originem expulsionis et cæcitatis suae.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; may not understand the source of their expulsion and their blindness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cæca eos ne nostra opera **bona cognoscant**.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Blind them so that **they may** not **understand** our **good** works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cæca eos ne cognoscant quos **ulcantur**.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Blind them so that they may not understand whom **they might avenge**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cæca eos ut sententiam iustam operum suorum suscipiant.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Blind them so that they might receive a fair sentence for their actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Operi nos sanguine pretioso Filii tui*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Conceal us [from them], with the blood of your precious Son&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ut protectione quæ ab Passione Morteque ejus fluit fruamur.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; so that we might enjoy the protection that flows forth from his Passion and his Death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Amen.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Amen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hugh suggests that *quos ulcantur* should be *quo sulcantur*, which makes some sense. *Sulcāre* literally means &quot;to make furrows in&quot;, from *sulcus*, &quot;furrow&quot;. It usually refers to farmland getting plowed, or metaphorically, to some space being traversed. But when applied to a human (or, presumably, to a demon), it means &quot;to whip&quot; or &quot;to strike with a lash&quot; (i.e. making furrows on their skin). So the line would be: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cæca eos ne cognoscant **quo sulcantur**.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; blind them so they may not understand **who is striking them with the lash**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the &quot;lashing&quot; meaning of *sulcāre* is fairly obscure, and I don't think I've ever seen it in Christian usage: there are other, more obvious, words for lashing or beating someone (such as *verberāre*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other option, which I've taken, is be to postulate *_ulci_ as a variant of _ulcisci_, &quot;to avenge&quot;, without its extra *-sc-* suffix. This lines up with the mention of vengeance up in line two (*vindicta malī*), and it seems simpler not to assume errors in an official publication. Basically, reading it as equivalent to ***ulciscantur*** &quot;they might avenge&quot;, with its direct object being ***quōs*** &quot;whom (pl)&quot;. In other words, you're asking Maria to blind the demons so that they forget who they're working for and why they're fighting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://auxiliumchristianorum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Latincleris.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11034" RevisionGUID="cd9b20b1-9c24-4abf-b96c-2ee85329fa6b" CreationDate="2019-06-28T18:20:35.473" UserId="406" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="This prayer seems to come from the [_Auxilium Christianōrum_][1], which can either mean &quot;Aid for Christians&quot; or &quot;Reinforcements/Backup Troops of Christians&quot;. They're an organization specifically dedicated to fighting and exorcizing demons. I've made only one correction to your text (adding a missing space) to bring it in line with the _Auxilium_'s version [(bottom right of the first page)][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *O Piisima Virgo Maria, quæ caput serpentis contrivisti,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; O Most Blessed Virgin Maria, you who crushed the head of the serpent,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *protege nos a vindicta mali.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; protect us from the vengeance of the evil one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Offerimus tibi dolores, bona, operaque ut ea purifices, sanctifices*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; We offer you our sorrows, o good one, and our works, so that you can purify them and make them holy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et largiaris Filio tuo sicut oblationem perfectam.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; and that you might be imparted on us by your Son, just like the perfect sacrifice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hæc oblatio fit ne dæmonia qui afficere membra Auxilii Christianorum petunt*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let this offering be so that the demons which seek to affect the members of the _Auxilium Christianōrum_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *cognoscant originem expulsionis et cæcitatis suae.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; may not understand the source of their expulsion and their blindness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cæca eos ne nostra opera **bona cognoscant**.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Blind them so that **they may** not **understand** our **good** works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cæca eos ne cognoscant quos **ulcantur**.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Blind them so that they may not understand whom **they would take vengeance on**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cæca eos ut sententiam iustam operum suorum suscipiant.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Blind them so that they might receive a fair sentence for their actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Operi nos sanguine pretioso Filii tui*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Conceal us [from them], with the blood of your precious Son&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ut protectione quæ ab Passione Morteque ejus fluit fruamur.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; so that we might enjoy the protection that flows forth from his Passion and his Death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Amen.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Amen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hugh suggests that *quos ulcantur* should be *quo sulcantur*, which makes some sense. *Sulcāre* literally means &quot;to make furrows in&quot;, from *sulcus*, &quot;furrow&quot;. It usually refers to farmland getting plowed, or metaphorically, to some space being traversed. But when applied to a human (or, presumably, to a demon), it means &quot;to whip&quot; or &quot;to strike with a lash&quot; (i.e. making furrows on their skin). So the line would be: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cæca eos ne cognoscant **quo sulcantur**.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; blind them so they may not understand **who is striking them with the lash**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the &quot;lashing&quot; meaning of *sulcāre* is fairly obscure, and I don't think I've ever seen it in Christian usage: there are other, more obvious, words for lashing or beating someone (such as *verberāre*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other option, which I've taken, is be to postulate *_ulci_ as a variant of _ulcisci_, &quot;to take vengeance on&quot;, without its extra *-sc-* suffix. This lines up with the mention of vengeance up in line two (*vindicta malī*), and it seems simpler not to assume errors in an official publication. Basically, reading it as equivalent to ***ulciscantur*** &quot;they would take vengeance on&quot;, with its direct object being ***quōs*** &quot;whom (pl)&quot;. In other words, you're asking Maria to blind the demons so that they forget who they're supposed to be attacking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://auxiliumchristianorum.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://auxiliumchristianorum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Latincleris.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11035" RevisionGUID="2cded64a-27e9-47fe-ab7e-ea65c525e37e" CreationDate="2019-06-29T18:03:06.200" UserId="406" Text="Traditionally, the Greek and Roman god of the dead is associated with gold and silver, since he controls everything under the earth: he has epithets like *Plūtōn* &quot;the [god] of riches&quot; and *Dīs Pater* &quot;the wealthy father&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But does this extend to other metals? In particular, does any classical author specifically associate Hades with iron, bronze, or other useful (rather than ornamental) metals? Or are those the dominion of a different god? Greek and Latin answers are both acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This question is inspired by the recent Broadway musical _Hadestown_, which calls the lord of the underworld &quot;king of iron, king of steel&quot;.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32380" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11035" RevisionGUID="2cded64a-27e9-47fe-ab7e-ea65c525e37e" CreationDate="2019-06-29T18:03:06.200" UserId="406" Text="Is Hades ever associated with iron?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32381" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11035" RevisionGUID="2cded64a-27e9-47fe-ab7e-ea65c525e37e" CreationDate="2019-06-29T18:03:06.200" UserId="406" Text="|greek|passage-request|mythology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11037" RevisionGUID="9f8a5c48-bb1e-4ce2-86a9-60fdfcccdb2a" CreationDate="2019-06-30T07:55:24.370" UserId="1495" Text="Sometimes I will run across sentences that have no verb, but there is an ablative and I am not sure about the right approach to assuming a verb. For example, in this 16th century sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Erat inter eos &amp; Reginaldinos vetus odium, saepe multis utriusque&#xD;&#xA;&gt; partis cladibus nobilitatum;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence begins &quot;There was among those and the Reginalds an old hatred, often the nobility of many parts of both ...&quot;. Then there is just the word cladibus &quot;in/at the breaking&quot; which I guess could be ablative or dative. Is the reader supposed to assume a missing *erant*. So, it would be &quot;were at the breaking (point)&quot; as though it said &quot;in cladibus erant&quot; or something like that? How do you handle sentences like this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32388" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11037" RevisionGUID="9f8a5c48-bb1e-4ce2-86a9-60fdfcccdb2a" CreationDate="2019-06-30T07:55:24.370" UserId="1495" Text="Sentences with no verb, but an ablative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32389" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11037" RevisionGUID="9f8a5c48-bb1e-4ce2-86a9-60fdfcccdb2a" CreationDate="2019-06-30T07:55:24.370" UserId="1495" Text="|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11038" RevisionGUID="7cdb2848-4e09-4ab8-9984-f7e7dcdf5b64" CreationDate="2019-06-30T12:11:59.153" UserId="3248" Text="_Saepe multis utriusque partis cladibus nobilitatum_ is an Ablative Absolute construction whose predicate is the adjectival phrase _saepe multis_ and its subject is the nominal phrase _utriusque partis cladibus nobilitatum_. The head of the former is _multis_, whereas the head of the latter is _cladibus_. Lit. 'with the injuries of both parts of their nobilities often being many'. I don't know about the context. So I hope you'll be able to provide a better translation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11038" RevisionGUID="44874cea-5155-40d3-bbd8-b299c4a6b250" CreationDate="2019-06-30T12:17:48.017" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar" Text="_Saepe multis utriusque partis cladibus nobilitatum_ can be interpreted as an Ablative Absolute construction whose predicate is the adjectival phrase _saepe multis_ and its subject is the nominal phrase _utriusque partis cladibus nobilitatum_. The head of the former is _multis_, whereas the head of the latter is _cladibus_. Lit. 'with the injuries of both parts of their nobilities often being many'. I don't know about the context. So I hope you'll be able to provide a better translation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11038" RevisionGUID="cbc1719b-0709-4920-9143-a870f5938f33" CreationDate="2019-06-30T12:30:19.463" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar " Text="_Saepe multis utriusque partis cladibus nobilitatum_ can be interpreted as an Ablative Absolute construction whose predicate is the adjectival phrase _saepe multis_ and its subject is the nominal phrase _utriusque partis cladibus nobilitatum_. The head of the former is _multis_, whereas the head of the latter is _cladibus_. Lit. 'with the injuries of both parts of their nobilities often being many'. I don't know about the context. So I hope you'll be able to provide a better translation. &#xD;&#xA;I agree with you that this construction can be given a sentential interpretation (in this reading, the Ablative Absolute construction is possible; no verb is needed) but notice that it could also be interpreted as merely involving a so-called Ablative of attendant circumstances (i.e., lit. 'often with many injuries of both parts of their nobilities').  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32393" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11037" RevisionGUID="e158869f-31ad-47da-88f3-79927243096c" CreationDate="2019-06-30T12:33:40.737" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11038" RevisionGUID="57cd5481-0184-47b0-a7cf-f4a25ed8bb41" CreationDate="2019-06-30T13:19:44.780" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar" Text="_Saepe multis utriusque partis cladibus nobilitatum_ can be interpreted as an Ablative Absolute construction whose predicate is the adjectival phrase _saepe multis_ and its subject is the nominal phrase _utriusque partis cladibus nobilitatum_. The head of the former is _multis_, whereas the head of the latter is _cladibus_. Lit. 'with the injuries of both parts of their nobilities often being many'. I don't know about the context. So I hope you'll be able to provide a better translation. &#xD;&#xA;I agree with you that this construction can be given a sentential interpretation (in this reading, the Ablative Absolute construction is possible; no verb is needed) but, this said, notice that it can also be interpreted as merely involving a so-called Ablative of attendant circumstances (i.e., lit. 'often with many injuries of both parts of their nobilities'). In fact, this second interpretation seems quite natural here.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11039" RevisionGUID="b0a37400-85d9-4c87-8392-b6f88dc3b440" CreationDate="2019-06-30T14:03:43.663" UserId="522" Text="The main clause, with a verb is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Erat  vetus odium, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This ancient hatred is described by an adjective phrase, which tells you the participants,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inter eos &amp; Reginaldinos &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and another longer phrase explaining to some extent how (adverb) it was an *ancient* hatred; i.e. 'with many clashes'&#xD;&#xA;&gt; multis cladibus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;these 'many clashes' (within the adverb phrase) more precisely described (with an adjective phrase) as being clashes 'of the nobility of each side.'&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11039" RevisionGUID="63b70a19-40ef-4757-aa52-eb5491e92fd7" CreationDate="2019-06-30T14:24:26.773" UserId="522" Comment="saepe" Text="The main clause, with a verb is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Erat  vetus odium, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This ancient hatred is described by an adjective phrase, which tells you the participants,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inter eos &amp; Reginaldinos &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and another longer phrase explaining to some extent how (adverb) it was an *ancient* hatred; i.e. 'often with many clashes'&#xD;&#xA;&gt; saepe multis cladibus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;these 'clashes' (within the compound adverb phrase) more precisely described (with an adjective phrase) as being clashes 'of the nobility of each side.'&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11040" RevisionGUID="d035248b-c281-4d10-88fc-6920ff946932" CreationDate="2019-06-30T15:03:08.667" UserId="9" Text="For Classical Latin, I have never seen any pronunciation given for &amp;lt;NG&gt; aside from **a nasal consonant followed by a voiced plosive**.  I would assume the reason /ŋ:/ is used in Finland is simply because that's how &quot;ng&quot; is pronounced in Finnish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, a word like *pango* has the reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation [ˈpaŋɡoː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Classical Latin did not have a phonemic distinction between velar and palatal plosives. Words like *gingiva* are analyzed as containing the phoneme /g/, but it's likely that in this kind of context, the voiced plosive transcribed as /g/ was phonetically fronter than the /g/ in a word like *pango.* So it's possible that the phonetic form of a word like *gingiva* might have been something like [g̟iŋ̟ˈg̟iːwa] or [ɟiɲˈɟiːwa]. However, allophonic fronting of velar plosive phonemes next to front vowels is often not transcribed even in phonetic transcriptions, because to speakers of languages like English and French the front quality of a plosive in this context is not perceptually salient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Classical Latin is also usually analyzed as lacking a velar nasal phoneme, so strictly speaking there is no /ŋ/ here or in any Latin word. In this context, sounds like [ŋ], [ŋ̟] and [ɲ] did not contrast with [n], so the usual phonemic analysis of the cluster is /ng/. Some phonological analyses make use of entities known as an &quot;archiphonemes&quot; to account for lack of contrast in certain specific contexts; if we use the symbol |N| to represent a nasal &quot;archiphoneme&quot; in Latin, we might instead say that the phonological form of the cluster is |Ng|.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###the case of &quot;-ngu-&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The situation is basically the same for non-syllabic &amp;lt;NGU&gt; in words like *lingua*, although there are some arguments about the phonemic analysis of non-syllabic &amp;lt;GU&gt; and the allophony may have worked a bit differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, we could analyze such words as containing a unitary phoneme /gʷ/. Allen (*Vox Latina*) hesistantly endorses such an analysis, by analogy with voiceless /kʷ/, for which it is somewhat easier to make a case for a single-phoneme analysis (p. 25). However, I believe most linguists prefer to analyze Latin non-syllabic &amp;lt;GU&gt; as a cluster /gw/, on the grounds that a phoneme /gʷ/ would have an unusually highly restricted distribution (when not preceded by &amp;lt;N&gt;, &amp;lt;GU&gt; is always syllabic /gu/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allophonic palatalization may also have worked a bit differently for words with &amp;lt;NGU&gt;. Allen cites a passage in Priscian in support of the proposition that the labial element represented by &amp;lt;U&gt; in &amp;lt;QU&gt; and &amp;lt;NGU&gt; may have had a front articulation before a front vowel (p. 17)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11040" RevisionGUID="a30fa103-a664-4d7d-86e8-df6494011ce3" CreationDate="2019-06-30T15:10:15.770" UserId="9" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="For Classical Latin, I have never seen any pronunciation given for &amp;lt;NG&gt; aside from **a nasal consonant followed by a voiced plosive**.  I would assume the reason /ŋ:/ is used in Finland is simply because that's how &quot;ng&quot; is pronounced in Finnish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, a word like *pango* has the reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation [ˈpaŋɡoː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Classical Latin did not have a phonemic distinction between velar and palatal plosives. Words like *gingiva* are analyzed as containing the phoneme /g/, but it's likely that in this kind of context, the voiced plosive transcribed as /g/ was phonetically fronter than the /g/ in a word like *pango.* So it's possible that the phonetic form of a word like *gingiva* might have been something like [g̟iŋ̟ˈg̟iːwa] or [ɟiɲˈɟiːwa]. However, allophonic fronting of velar plosive phonemes next to front vowels is often not transcribed even in phonetic transcriptions, because to speakers of languages like English and French the front quality of a plosive in this context is not perceptually salient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Classical Latin is also usually analyzed as lacking a velar nasal phoneme, so strictly speaking there is no /ŋ/ here or in any Latin word. In this context, sounds like [ŋ], [ŋ̟] and [ɲ] did not contrast with [n], so the usual phonemic analysis of the cluster is /ng/. Some phonological analyses make use of entities known as an &quot;archiphonemes&quot; to account for lack of contrast in certain specific contexts; if we use the symbol |N| to represent a nasal &quot;archiphoneme&quot; in Latin, we might instead say that the phonological form of the cluster is |Ng|.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###the case of &quot;-ngu-&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The situation is basically the same for non-syllabic &amp;lt;NGU&gt; in words like *lingua*, although there are some arguments about the phonemic analysis of non-syllabic &amp;lt;GU&gt; and the allophony may have worked a bit differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, we could analyze such words as containing a unitary phoneme /gʷ/. Allen (*Vox Latina*) somewhat hesitantly endorses such an analysis, by analogy with voiceless /kʷ/, for which it is easier to make a case for a single-phoneme analysis (p. 25). However, I believe most linguists prefer to analyze Latin non-syllabic &amp;lt;GU&gt; as a cluster /gw/, on the grounds that a phoneme /gʷ/ would have an unusually highly restricted distribution (when not preceded by &amp;lt;N&gt;, &amp;lt;GU&gt; is always syllabic /gu/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allophonic palatalization may also have worked a bit differently for words with &amp;lt;NGU&gt;. Allen cites a passage in Priscian in support of the proposition that the labial element represented by &amp;lt;U&gt; in &amp;lt;QU&gt; and &amp;lt;NGU&gt; may have had a front articulation before a front vowel (p. 17)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32399" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11037" RevisionGUID="be035c64-7b02-4632-8853-97b293ae6ebd" CreationDate="2019-06-30T15:58:01.653" />
  <row Id="32400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11041" RevisionGUID="15b2dbbf-1a27-40f8-9499-4b246ad72749" CreationDate="2019-07-01T08:56:29.327" UserId="2646" Text="In current Spanish when we have to abbreviate the days of the week using only one character, in most places (but not everywhere) to tell apart *martes* (Tuesday) from *miércoles* (Wednesday) we use 'M' and 'X', respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read several stories about the origin of the 'X' abbreviation. One of them states that as *miércoles* originates from *\[dies\] [Mercurii][1]*, and as this word comes from *[merx][2]*, we can tell apart *Mars* (that originated *martes*) from *merx* using the last 'X'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if this story is true, this abbreviation could have been used already in the times of the Roman Empire. So my question is: how did the Romans abbreviate the names of the days of the week? Did them by any chance use the X for *dies Mercurii* to tell it apart from *dies Martis*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=mercurius&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=merx&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32401" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11041" RevisionGUID="15b2dbbf-1a27-40f8-9499-4b246ad72749" CreationDate="2019-07-01T08:56:29.327" UserId="2646" Text="Did the Romans abbreviate the days of the wek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32402" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11041" RevisionGUID="15b2dbbf-1a27-40f8-9499-4b246ad72749" CreationDate="2019-07-01T08:56:29.327" UserId="2646" Text="|classical-latin|roman-culture|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32403" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11041" RevisionGUID="4367a41c-f8a7-4681-bfc8-72f31f381d8e" CreationDate="2019-07-01T09:32:18.047" UserId="2646" Comment="edited title" Text="Did the Romans abbreviate the days of the week?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11042" RevisionGUID="7f85c254-d5e3-4f5d-9fbd-a7874b610914" CreationDate="2019-07-01T09:42:53.910" UserId="2646" Text="As a prequel to [this other question][1], as suggested by Joonas Ilmavirta I would like to know how did the Romans call the days of the week (if they had names at all) in the different systems they had.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the Roman Empire used an 8-day week system called the [nundinal cycle][2] and that the days of the week were simply marked using letter A to H in calendars. Among the first centuries of the common era this system was changed to the 7-day system, still marking the days just with letters A to G. I know that this 7-day week ended up having names such as *dies Lunis*, *dies Martis* which originated the current week-day names in several Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But along the time when the Roman Empire existed, what were the *official* names of the days of the week along the several week systems they had?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11041/2646&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nundinae" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32405" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11042" RevisionGUID="7f85c254-d5e3-4f5d-9fbd-a7874b610914" CreationDate="2019-07-01T09:42:53.910" UserId="2646" Text="How did the Romans call the days of the week?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32406" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11042" RevisionGUID="7f85c254-d5e3-4f5d-9fbd-a7874b610914" CreationDate="2019-07-01T09:42:53.910" UserId="2646" Text="|classical-latin|calendarium|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11043" RevisionGUID="33b35296-06b7-4bde-b954-60dc85983ed9" CreationDate="2019-07-01T16:44:03.633" UserId="79" Text="I occasionally want to say something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Did you see the sign? **It says**: beware of the dog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I phrase &quot;it says&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English one can say &quot;it says&quot; or &quot;it reads&quot;, and the direct translation of the Finnish phrasing would be &quot;there reads&quot; (&quot;siinä lukee&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer to have something equally light.&#xD;&#xA;Something like &quot;it is written there&quot; sounds too heavy and clumsy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could always say *ibi scriptum est*, but I am not sure if this is the best choice.&#xD;&#xA;Is this the idiomatic choice?&#xD;&#xA;Is there anything lighter?&#xD;&#xA;Does such a concise phrase appear somewhere in Latin literature?&#xD;&#xA;I would guess Satyricon is a good place to look, but I am not familiar enough with the book to be able to say where." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32408" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11043" RevisionGUID="33b35296-06b7-4bde-b954-60dc85983ed9" CreationDate="2019-07-01T16:44:03.633" UserId="79" Text="Phrasing &quot;it says&quot; or &quot;it reads&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32409" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11043" RevisionGUID="33b35296-06b7-4bde-b954-60dc85983ed9" CreationDate="2019-07-01T16:44:03.633" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11044" RevisionGUID="15f02dc6-bbb2-4777-897e-5676743160ec" CreationDate="2019-07-01T17:02:47.310" UserId="645" Text="I should think that as one says *dicitur* for 'they say', 'it's said' etc. you might also use *scribo* impersonally, as in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*scribitur cave canem*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11045" RevisionGUID="2db14822-4afb-4274-9a76-7aa2ace4dfdc" CreationDate="2019-07-01T17:19:13.313" UserId="406" Text="I would say *ait* (literally &quot;it says&quot;), based on legal usage in the _Digesta_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dabit autem, ut ait Lex [Julia], quod ad eum pervenit. Pervenisse accipimus, sive iam exegit sive exigere potest, quia actio ei delata est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And he shall give up, **as the [Julian] Law says**, whatever &quot;falls to him&quot;. We take &quot;falls to him&quot; to mean &quot;he either extracts or is able to extract, because a writ of permission has been provided to him&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Digesta* 24.3.64.6, translation mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is from a summary of the *Lex Julia et Papia*, which uses the phrase *ut ait Lex* whenever it cites some literal phrasing. If the *Lex Julia* can *ait* its wording, I'd think a sign could too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11046" RevisionGUID="7282adc4-ad03-4e93-ab44-0b5d29669479" CreationDate="2019-07-01T17:34:48.027" UserId="40" Text="The Satyricon actually contains your exact &quot;Beware of the dog&quot; example, in [chapter 29][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ad sinistram enim intrantibus non longe ab ostiarii cella canis ingens, catena vinctus, in pariete erat pictus superque quadrata littera scriptum &quot;Cave canem&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *On the left hand as you came in, not far from the porter's room, a huge dog bound with a chain was painted on the wall, and above it in capital letters was written &quot;Beware of the dog&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it looks like *scriptum est* is at least one idiomatic way of phrasing this. (I'm more doubtful about *scribitur* -- that seems to suggest &quot;it is being written now&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another relevant passage appears a few sentences earlier in the same chapter, but the phrasing is less &quot;light&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sequimur nos admiratione iam saturi et cum Agamemnone ad ianuam pervenimus, in cuius poste libellus erat cum hac inscriptione fixus: Quisquis servus sine dominico iussu foras exierit, accipiet plagas centum.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*We followed, full of admiration, and came with Agamemnon to the door, on the post of which was fixed a sign with this legend: &quot;Any slave who goes out without the master's orders will receive a hundred strokes&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=LatinAugust2012&amp;query=Petron.%20Satyricon.29&amp;getid=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11045" RevisionGUID="432680b8-9332-4071-8c25-b8f2c44c378c" CreationDate="2019-07-01T20:50:06.153" UserId="406" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I would say *ait* (literally &quot;it says&quot;), based on legal usage in the _Digesta_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dabit autem, **ut ait Lex [Julia]**, quod ad eum pervenit. Pervenisse accipimus, sive iam exegit sive exigere potest, quia actio ei delata est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And he shall give up, **as the [Julian] Law says**, whatever &quot;falls to him&quot;. We take &quot;falls to him&quot; to mean &quot;he either extracts or is able to extract, because a writ of permission has been provided to him&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Digesta* 24.3.64.6, translation mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is from a summary of the *Lex Julia et Papia*, which uses the phrase *ut ait Lex* whenever it cites some literal phrasing. If the *Lex Julia* can *ait* its wording, I'd think a sign could too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11047" RevisionGUID="8435e042-4749-4d82-9345-4005d6765492" CreationDate="2019-07-01T22:09:29.777" UserId="4904" Text="I tried to translate it a few times but I am still not sure if I am right. The best translation I can come up with is, &quot;Est melior loqui aut mori?&quot; Please help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32415" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11047" RevisionGUID="8435e042-4749-4d82-9345-4005d6765492" CreationDate="2019-07-01T22:09:29.777" UserId="4904" Text="How do you say &quot;Is it better to speak or to die?&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32416" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11047" RevisionGUID="8435e042-4749-4d82-9345-4005d6765492" CreationDate="2019-07-01T22:09:29.777" UserId="4904" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11048" RevisionGUID="fc09fefa-cb00-4ef9-a558-8c0b1f222fb7" CreationDate="2019-07-01T22:14:31.087" UserId="4904" Text="dies Solis = Sunday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;dies Lunae = Monday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;dies Martis = Tuesday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;dies Mercurii = Wednesday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;dies Iovis = Thursday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;dies Veneris = Friday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;dies Saturni = Saturday" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32418" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11043" RevisionGUID="2cf5b144-0665-4622-90c8-885a4b4e71e4" CreationDate="2019-07-02T00:44:55.010" />
  <row Id="32419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11049" RevisionGUID="ffba77f3-a1e6-4f5f-bbee-ce95a038079f" CreationDate="2019-07-02T05:06:24.897" UserId="406" Text="As fdb mentioned in a comment on another question, Tibullus references the planetary days in the first century BCE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Aut ego sum causatus aves aut omina dira,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;*Saturni sacram me tenuisse diem.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I made excuses [not to leave]: birds, or dire omens, or that I held Saturday sacred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I.3.15, translation mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So even in late Republican times, it seems the seven-day week had caught on. Early mentions tend to associate it with Judaism (such as Tibullus refusing to travel on shabbath), but the Jewish system numbered the days, rather than naming them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then where did the names come from? Cassius Dio associates them with astrology rather than the Jewish shabbath; he traces it back to Egypt, but more likely this came from the Babylonian four-cycles-of-seven-days within each lunar month (since the Babylonians originated the division of twenty-four hours).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *τὰς ὥρας τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ τῆς νυκτὸς ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης ἀρξάμενος ἀριθμεῖν, καὶ ἐκείνην μὲν τῷ Κρόνῳ διδούς, τὴν δὲ ἔπειτα τῷ Διί, καὶ τρίτην Ἄρει, τετάρτην ἡλίῳ, πέμπτην Ἀφροδίτῃ, ἕκτην Ἑρμῇ, καὶ ἑβδόμην σελήνῃ,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you start enumerating the hours of the day and night, starting from the first one, and assign the first one to Cronus, the second to Zeus, the third to Ares, the fourth to Helios, the fifth to Aphrodite, the sixth to Hermes, and the seventh to Selene,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *κατὰ τὴν τάξιν τῶν κύκλων καθ᾿ ἣν οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι αὐτὴν νομίζουσι, καὶ τοῦτο καὶ αὖθις ποιήσας, πάσας τε οὕτω τὰς τέσσαρας καὶ εἴκοσιν ὥρας περιελθών, εὑρήσεις τὴν πρώτην τῆς ἐπιούσης ἡμέρας ὥραν ἐς τὸν ἥλιον ἀφικνουμένην.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; according to the order of the cycles that were developed by the Egyptians, and if you do all this again, going through the full twenty-four hours, you'll discover that the first hour of the second day is assigned to Helios.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *καὶ τοῦτο καὶ ἐπ᾿ ἐκείνων τῶν τεσσάρων καὶ εἴκοσιν ὡρῶν κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τοῖς πρόσθε λόγον πράξας, τῇ σελήνῃ τὴν πρώτην τῆς τρίτης ἡμέρας ὥραν ἀναθήσεις, κἂν οὕτω καὶ διὰ τῶν λοιπῶν πορεύῃ, τὸν προσήκοντα ἑαυτῇ θεὸν ἑκάστη ἡμέρα λήψεται.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And if you do all that again in just the same way for the next twenty-four hours, then the first hour of the third day will be given to Selene, and if you keep going through the remaining days, each and every day will be assigned its respective god.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ταῦτα μὲν οὕτω παραδέδοται.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, that is the traditional way of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(XXXVII.19, translation mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the astrological order of the planets was Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sol, Venus, Mercury, Luna—in descending order of distance from earth. Each hour is assigned to one of the planets, following this pattern; since 24 ≅ 3 mod 7, each day starts three places further around the cycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, if you assign each day to a planet based on its first hour, you get the traditional order we all know today: Saturn, Sol, Luna, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus. The day names were just *diēs* plus the planet's name in the genitive: *diēs Saturnī, diēs Sōlis, diēs Lūnae, diēs Martis, diēs Mercuriī, diēs Jovis, diēs Veneris*. (In English: Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dio also provides evidence that the system was really a repeating pattern of seven days, not strictly tied to the lunar month as the Babylonian system had been.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *οὕτω μὲν τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ τοῦ Κρόνου ἡμέρᾳ, ἣν μάλιστα ἔτι καὶ νῦν Ἰουδαῖοι σέβουσιν, ἐξώλετο.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And so Jerusalem was destroyed right on the day of Cronus, which even now the Jews mark as holy above all other days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Epitome of LXV, 7.2, translation mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Jewish shabbath still lines up with our Saturday, which implies there haven't been any extra days added to follow the lunar month (since it's known that the Jewish week has always been seven days without adjustments).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were these names &quot;official&quot;? Probably not—as in, the government wasn't regulating them. Rather, they were de facto names invented by the astrologers, and some celestial pattern or other kept them in sync across the world. For comparison, people nowadays generally know what zodiac sign they were born under, even though no government or standards organization legislates that: they're just determined by the positions of the stars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *official* system, then, remained the Nundinal cycle up until the time of Constantine (who made the seven-day cycle official, renamed *diēs Sōlis* to *diēs Dominī*, and put it at the beginning, with the Jewish shabbath at the end).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the names in this system were far less exciting. The eighth day of every cycle was the *Nundinae*, always plural, and that was the only day with a specific name; other days were marked relative to them, like with the *Nones*, *Ides*, and *Kalendae*. (That is, the day after the *Nundinae* had no special name apart from *postridiē Nundinās*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the Nundinal cycle was official up until Constantine's edict, it doesn't seem to come up much in post-Republican literature. Cicero complains about people not respecting the *Nundinae* like they're supposed to, but after the Julio-Claudian period, I've only found passing references in histories. For all practical intents and purposes, the seven-day planetary cycle had caught on, and was the de facto standard for anything that required weekdays—the Nundinal cycle, meanwhile, died a quiet and unremarkable death." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11049" RevisionGUID="dde759ef-f0d4-45e1-b8c3-3b20dc65319e" CreationDate="2019-07-02T05:16:08.527" UserId="406" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="As fdb mentioned in a comment on another question, Tibullus references the planetary days in the first century BCE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Aut ego sum causatus aves aut omina dira,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;*Saturni sacram me tenuisse diem.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I made excuses [not to leave]: birds, or dire omens, or that I held Saturday sacred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I.3.15, translation mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So even in late Republican times, it seems the seven-day week had caught on. Early mentions tend to associate it with Judaism (such as Tibullus refusing to travel on shabbath), but the Jewish system numbered the days, rather than naming them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then where did the names come from? Cassius Dio associates them with astrology rather than the Jewish shabbath; he traces it back to Egypt, but more likely this came from the Babylonian four-cycles-of-seven-days within each lunar month (since the Babylonians originated the division of twenty-four hours).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *τὰς ὥρας τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ τῆς νυκτὸς ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης ἀρξάμενος ἀριθμεῖν, καὶ ἐκείνην μὲν τῷ Κρόνῳ διδούς, τὴν δὲ ἔπειτα τῷ Διί, καὶ τρίτην Ἄρει, τετάρτην ἡλίῳ, πέμπτην Ἀφροδίτῃ, ἕκτην Ἑρμῇ, καὶ ἑβδόμην σελήνῃ,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you start enumerating the hours of the day and night, starting from the first one, and assign the first one to Cronus, the second to Zeus, the third to Ares, the fourth to Helios, the fifth to Aphrodite, the sixth to Hermes, and the seventh to Selene,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *κατὰ τὴν τάξιν τῶν κύκλων καθ᾿ ἣν οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι αὐτὴν νομίζουσι, καὶ τοῦτο καὶ αὖθις ποιήσας, πάσας τε οὕτω τὰς τέσσαρας καὶ εἴκοσιν ὥρας περιελθών, εὑρήσεις τὴν πρώτην τῆς ἐπιούσης ἡμέρας ὥραν ἐς τὸν ἥλιον ἀφικνουμένην.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; according to the order of the cycles that were developed by the Egyptians, and if you do all this again, going through the full twenty-four hours, you'll discover that the first hour of the second day is assigned to Helios.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *καὶ τοῦτο καὶ ἐπ᾿ ἐκείνων τῶν τεσσάρων καὶ εἴκοσιν ὡρῶν κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τοῖς πρόσθε λόγον πράξας, τῇ σελήνῃ τὴν πρώτην τῆς τρίτης ἡμέρας ὥραν ἀναθήσεις, κἂν οὕτω καὶ διὰ τῶν λοιπῶν πορεύῃ, τὸν προσήκοντα ἑαυτῇ θεὸν ἑκάστη ἡμέρα λήψεται.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And if you do all that again in just the same way for the next twenty-four hours, then the first hour of the third day will be given to Selene, and if you keep going through the remaining days, each and every day will be assigned its respective god.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ταῦτα μὲν οὕτω παραδέδοται.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, that is the traditional way of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(XXXVII.19, translation mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the astrological order of the planets was Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sol, Venus, Mercury, Luna—in descending order of distance from earth (in their model). Each hour is assigned to one of the planets, following this pattern; since 24 ≅ 3 mod 7, each day starts three places further around the cycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, if you assign each day to a planet based on its first hour, you get the traditional order we all know today: Saturn, Sol, Luna, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus. The day names were just *diēs* plus the planet's name in the genitive: *diēs Saturnī, diēs Sōlis, diēs Lūnae, diēs Martis, diēs Mercuriī, diēs Jovis, diēs Veneris*. (In English: Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dio also provides evidence that the system was really a repeating pattern of seven days, not strictly tied to the lunar month as the Babylonian system had been.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *οὕτω μὲν τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ τοῦ Κρόνου ἡμέρᾳ, ἣν μάλιστα ἔτι καὶ νῦν Ἰουδαῖοι σέβουσιν, ἐξώλετο.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And so Jerusalem was destroyed right on the day of Cronus, which even now the Jews mark as holy above all other days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Epitome of LXV, 7.2, translation mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Jewish shabbath still lines up with our Saturday, which implies there haven't been any extra days added to follow the lunar month (since it's known that the Jewish week has always been seven days without adjustments).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were these names &quot;official&quot;? Probably not—as in, the government wasn't regulating them. Rather, they were de facto names invented by the astrologers, and some celestial pattern or other kept them in sync across the world. For comparison, people nowadays generally know what zodiac sign they were born under, even though no government or standards organization legislates that: they're just determined by the positions of the stars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *official* system, then, remained the Nundinal cycle up until the time of Constantine (who made the seven-day cycle official, renamed *diēs Sōlis* to *diēs Dominī*, and put it at the beginning, with the Jewish shabbath at the end).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the names in this system were far less exciting. The eighth day of every cycle was the *Nundinae*, always plural, and that was the only day with a specific name; other days were marked relative to them, like with the *Nones*, *Ides*, and *Kalendae*. (That is, the day after the *Nundinae* had no special name apart from *postridiē Nundinās*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the Nundinal cycle was official up until Constantine's edict, it doesn't seem to come up much in post-Republican literature. Cicero complains about people not respecting the *Nundinae* like they're supposed to, but after the Julio-Claudian period, I've only found passing references in histories. For all practical intents and purposes, the seven-day planetary cycle had caught on, and was the de facto standard for anything that required weekdays—the Nundinal cycle, meanwhile, died a quiet and unremarkable death." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11050" RevisionGUID="be7a2070-898b-47b9-8570-7f72c3d5b16a" CreationDate="2019-07-02T17:04:31.193" UserId="1982" Text="If two things are directly compared, an ablative-of-comparison may be used (without &quot;quam&quot;); the second noun taking the ablative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;est sermo melior morte?&quot;; giving &quot;Is speech better than death?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11051" RevisionGUID="fb9e4c23-124c-4fe7-9fad-53941f26c954" CreationDate="2019-07-02T18:20:56.740" UserId="406" Text="[In a separate answer][1], I was trying to use *ait* in an English sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the Lex Julia can *ait* its wording…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;…but I ran into a problem. Even ignoring my bastard mixture of English and Latin, &quot;can *ait*&quot; sounds deeply wrong to me, just like *_potest ait_; an infinitive would be better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ait*, however, **doesn't seem to have any sort of infinitive**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I do in cases like this, where an infinitive is grammatically needed? For example, *possum negāre* = &quot;I am able to deny this&quot;; how would I say the opposite, &quot;I am able to *affirm* this&quot;, in natural-sounding Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/11045/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32424" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11051" RevisionGUID="fb9e4c23-124c-4fe7-9fad-53941f26c954" CreationDate="2019-07-02T18:20:56.740" UserId="406" Text="What do I do when &quot;ait&quot; fails me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32425" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11051" RevisionGUID="fb9e4c23-124c-4fe7-9fad-53941f26c954" CreationDate="2019-07-02T18:20:56.740" UserId="406" Text="|conjugation|infinitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11052" RevisionGUID="2682e321-55bb-48b9-94ae-2717fcbca0c7" CreationDate="2019-07-02T19:30:01.860" UserId="985" Text="You're not far off. You just need to make a few changes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Change the masculine/feminine adjective *melior* to neuter *melius*.&#xD;&#xA;- Because this is an alternative question – you want to know which of the two courses is better – you need to change *aut* to *an* to signal the second alternative. (If you use *aut*, the question is just a simple 'yes'/'no' question, which doesn't make much sense in this case.)&#xD;&#xA;- You can optionally add *utrum* at the beginning of the sentence or attach *-ne* to the end of the first word to signal the first alternative.&#xD;&#xA;- You can optionally tinker with the word order. In some arrangements, you may be able to omit the explicit finite verb (*est*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; utrum loqui melius (est) an mori?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; estne melius loqui an mori?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; loqui melius est an mori?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11052" RevisionGUID="7fa8568b-c390-4f99-84ed-3548aa65862c" CreationDate="2019-07-02T21:08:47.477" UserId="985" Comment="Add parentheses to last example" Text="You're not far off. You just need to make a few changes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Change the masculine/feminine adjective *melior* to neuter *melius*.&#xD;&#xA;- Because this is an alternative question – you want to know which of the two courses is better – you need to change *aut* to *an* to signal the second alternative. (If you use *aut*, the question is just a simple 'yes'/'no' question, which doesn't make much sense in this case.)&#xD;&#xA;- You can optionally add *utrum* at the beginning of the sentence or attach *-ne* to the end of the first word to signal the first alternative.&#xD;&#xA;- You can optionally tinker with the word order. In some arrangements, you may be able to omit the explicit finite verb (*est*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; utrum loqui melius (est) an mori?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; estne melius loqui an mori?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; loqui melius (est) an mori?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10946" RevisionGUID="e3b6c4ab-8827-490a-ad61-e33cf150bcff" CreationDate="2019-07-02T23:22:27.827" UserId="25" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="It seems difficult to find a diminutive form of the word **frater** in actual usage in Latin. The closest I can find is in the Italian **fra** as in [**Fra Angelico**][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a traditional Benedictine monastery near where I live and the priests are often referred to as Pater (P. Placidus) and those studying for the priesthood are are called frater (Fr. Augustinus). Affectionately, they are called the fraters, but not Fra(s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this same community, the lay brothers are called brothers (in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fra_Angelico" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32429" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5039" RevisionGUID="b05031b6-dfe0-4d30-bf89-6d305de2bcd1" CreationDate="2019-07-02T23:34:49.497" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="120" />
  <row Id="32430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11052" RevisionGUID="1015a907-f646-4cd7-a015-481cceb2b464" CreationDate="2019-07-02T23:49:54.060" UserId="985" Comment="Expanded" Text="You're not far off. You just need to make a few changes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Change the masculine/feminine adjective *melior* to neuter *melius*.&#xD;&#xA;- Because this is an alternative question – you want to know which of the two courses is better – you need to change *aut* to *an* to signal the second alternative. (If you use *aut*, the question is just a simple 'yes'/'no' question\*.)&#xD;&#xA;- You can optionally add *utrum* at the beginning of the sentence or attach *-ne* to the end of the first word to signal the first alternative.&#xD;&#xA;- You can optionally tinker with the word order. In some arrangements, you may be able to omit the explicit finite verb (*est*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; utrum loqui melius (est) an mori?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; estne melius loqui an mori?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; loqui melius (est) an mori?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* It's hard to make a good example that works for the English that we're starting with, but imagine that one person says to you, 'Speak or die!' and another says 'Stay silent and be saved!' In this case, you might ask yourself, *Estne melius loqui aut mori?* 'Is it better to speak or die?' Here, what would be left unexpressed is '...than to stay silent and be saved,' and the expected answer is 'yes' or 'no.' However, once *an* is used, the question is offering alternatives, and the expected answer will be one or the other of those alternatives, not a simple 'yes'/'no' – even when *-ne*, which normally forms 'yes'/'no' questions, is attached to the first word. At least this is the rule that the grammar books give (see, for example, Allen and Greenough, *New Latin grammar*, section 335 – which I actually have bookmarked, because I have to look up this rule anew every single time)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11053" RevisionGUID="8ddf1b60-53a0-44b8-a746-02cae58793ca" CreationDate="2019-07-03T00:57:24.780" UserId="406" Text="The key to the meaning is *ipse*; all the rest is just intensifiers glommed onto that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Classical Latin, *ipse* meant &quot;self&quot;—not as a reflexive, but as an intensive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Barack Obaman **ipsum** apud tabernam vīdī!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I saw Barack Obama **himself** at the store!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This eventually took on a meaning of &quot;same&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Barack Obaman vīdistī? Praesidentem emeritum?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *You saw Barack Obama? The former President?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ita, **Obaman ipsum**!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Yes, **the very same Obama**!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The implication, of course, being &quot;the very same person that you're talking about&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in Vulgar Latin, *ipse* weakened over time. The Latin demonstratives were worn away until their force was lost and they became nothing but articles; *ipse* then lost its intensity and became a normal demonstrative. We see it now in forms like Spanish *ése*, &quot;that&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when speakers wanted the actual &quot;same&quot; meaning, they had to bring back the intensity. Sometimes they added superlative endings, as in Petronius's *ipsimus*; other times they added the intensive *-met* suffix onto the beginning, from rebracketing *tēmet ipse* &quot;you, you yourself&quot; as *_tē metipse_. Eventually they had to combine both to get the proper intensity back, ending up with *_metipsimus_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the form that survived into Romance, giving us words like Italian *medesimo* and French *même* &lt; *meïsme*, which can either mean &quot;same&quot; or be a raw intensifier (&quot;very&quot; or &quot;even&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11050" RevisionGUID="9c7c6802-43d7-4b8b-b405-ce265269b884" CreationDate="2019-07-03T10:17:31.740" UserId="1982" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="If two things are directly compared, an ablative-of-comparison may be used (without &quot;quam&quot;); the second noun taking the ablative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;estne sermo melior morte?&quot;; giving &quot;Is speech better than death?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11054" RevisionGUID="ceda210a-5e2f-4aeb-aeed-3d987d1de941" CreationDate="2019-07-03T12:51:56.380" UserId="1982" Text="Following on from Q: &quot;Using Genitive &amp; Infinitive To Describe Characteristics&quot;; Joonas (26/6/19): &quot;adulescentis est maiores natu revereri.&quot; = &quot;It is of a young person to respect his/ her elders/ ancestors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the purpose of &quot;natu&quot; given that &quot;maiores&quot; means &quot;elders/ ancestors&quot;, without any help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At fist sight &quot;natu&quot; = &quot;by birth&quot;; but, that does not fit here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking around the net: &quot;natu salu&quot; = &quot;health leaders&quot;. Think salu should be &quot;salutes&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;My Memory&quot; site: &quot;a Mileto autem mittens Ephesum vocavit maiores natu ecclesia.&quot; = &quot;And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders from the church.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;nec corripuit eum pater suus aliquando dicens quare hoc fecisti erat autem et ipse pulcher valde, secundus natu post Absalo (Absolem).&quot; = &quot;And his father had not displeased him, at any time, saying: &quot;Why did you do this?&quot; And he, himself, was a lovely man; and his mother bore him after Absolom.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where is the ref. to &quot;mother&quot; here? Is it &quot;secundus&quot;; then &quot;secunda&quot;--the-secondary-one; or, the-following-one; wife being seen as a chattel (assumption)?&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps &quot;secunda natu&quot; = his wife, by (gave) birth...? (My confidence is low.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;venit Moses et convocatis maioribus natu populi exposuit omnes sermones quos mandaverat Dominus.&quot; = &quot;And Moses came, with the Elders of the people, having been called and laid before them all the words which the Lord had commanded.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts on &quot;natu&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32434" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11054" RevisionGUID="ceda210a-5e2f-4aeb-aeed-3d987d1de941" CreationDate="2019-07-03T12:51:56.380" UserId="1982" Text="The Purpose of &quot;Natu&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32435" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11054" RevisionGUID="ceda210a-5e2f-4aeb-aeed-3d987d1de941" CreationDate="2019-07-03T12:51:56.380" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11055" RevisionGUID="4c6d97ff-247a-41da-909c-ff3009bddd19" CreationDate="2019-07-03T14:07:21.767" UserId="469" Text="According to L&amp;S, this is idiomatic. It is a [defective male noun][1], used only in abl. sing., meaning *birth, age, years*, hence **maiores natu**&amp;mdash;*older in age*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnatus2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jr0v3.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11054" RevisionGUID="8d1e723d-f7ea-491c-ba12-b46443f21de0" CreationDate="2019-07-03T15:00:58.010" UserId="79" Comment="Added a link and retagged." Text="Following on from [the question &quot;Using Genitive &amp; Infinitive To Describe Characteristics&quot;; Joonas (26/6/19)](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11009/79): &quot;adulescentis est maiores natu revereri.&quot; = &quot;It is of a young person to respect his/ her elders/ ancestors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the purpose of &quot;natu&quot; given that &quot;maiores&quot; means &quot;elders/ ancestors&quot;, without any help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At fist sight &quot;natu&quot; = &quot;by birth&quot;; but, that does not fit here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking around the net: &quot;natu salu&quot; = &quot;health leaders&quot;. Think salu should be &quot;salutes&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;My Memory&quot; site: &quot;a Mileto autem mittens Ephesum vocavit maiores natu ecclesia.&quot; = &quot;And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders from the church.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;nec corripuit eum pater suus aliquando dicens quare hoc fecisti erat autem et ipse pulcher valde, secundus natu post Absalo (Absolem).&quot; = &quot;And his father had not displeased him, at any time, saying: &quot;Why did you do this?&quot; And he, himself, was a lovely man; and his mother bore him after Absolom.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where is the ref. to &quot;mother&quot; here? Is it &quot;secundus&quot;; then &quot;secunda&quot;--the-secondary-one; or, the-following-one; wife being seen as a chattel (assumption)?&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps &quot;secunda natu&quot; = his wife, by (gave) birth...? (My confidence is low.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;venit Moses et convocatis maioribus natu populi exposuit omnes sermones quos mandaverat Dominus.&quot; = &quot;And Moses came, with the Elders of the people, having been called and laid before them all the words which the Lord had commanded.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts on &quot;natu&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32438" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11054" RevisionGUID="8d1e723d-f7ea-491c-ba12-b46443f21de0" CreationDate="2019-07-03T15:00:58.010" UserId="79" Comment="Added a link and retagged." Text="|latin-to-english-translation|syntax|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11056" RevisionGUID="9f6c71c4-00f7-4316-a007-04b36ebecb7a" CreationDate="2019-07-03T15:10:04.613" UserId="79" Text="The noun *natus* you encountered can mean &quot;birth&quot; or &quot;age&quot; or similar things as the dictionary entry quoted in Rafael's answer points out.&#xD;&#xA;The ablative *natu* is often an ablative of respect, explaining in which sense someone is *maior* than someone else:&#xD;&#xA;*maior natu* = &quot;greater with respect to age&quot; = &quot;of greater age&quot; = &quot;older&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *maior(es)* can be used on its own, but adding *natu* makes it clearer that the reference is to age or some other kind of seniority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same reasoning goes with *secundus natu*: it is &quot;second with respect to birth&quot;, meaning a child born after another one.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin sentence you mention phrases the birth order of the siblings using *natu*, English uses being borne by the mother.&#xD;&#xA;It is the same message, but delivered in different words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also point out that the participle *natus* means literally &quot;born&quot;, but is far more flexible than the English counterpart.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *viginti annos natus* is &quot;twenty years old&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The conflation of birth and age is very similar in the participle *natus* and the (defective) noun *natus*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11009" RevisionGUID="ba2d4a77-b59f-473a-90b0-2706b5e9019e" CreationDate="2019-07-03T15:11:23.463" UserId="79" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="Answering [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11006/79), I recalled a somewhat rare construction used to express that an action is characteristic of someone.&#xD;&#xA;Pekkanen's Ars Grammatica (§77.1) gives two examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis est in errore perseverare.*&#xD;&#xA;2. *Adulescentis est maiores natu revereri.*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried looking this up in online Latin grammars to provide a reference, but I failed to find anything.&#xD;&#xA;**Can someone find an online Latin grammar that discusses this use of genitive and infinitive?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of a specific name for this, so it is hard to search.&#xD;&#xA;Pekkanen lists it as a subclass of *genetivus possessivus*, but such classification is a somewhat arbitrary choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If you are puzzled by the word *natu*, see [this follow-up question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11054/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32441" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="10939" RevisionGUID="c41abe2e-0309-4e10-a561-a2ac604ef010" CreationDate="2019-07-03T18:03:00.357" UserId="-1" Comment="118" />
  <row Id="32442" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11054" RevisionGUID="2e6ba580-b961-4177-92f4-398b76fe375a" CreationDate="2019-07-03T21:03:44.087" />
  <row Id="32443" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9365" RevisionGUID="0eecb934-4c2c-44bd-8350-c70d8e9cb63e" CreationDate="2019-07-04T01:01:40.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11057" RevisionGUID="5a8e23a8-7558-450e-946b-67c8469e475a" CreationDate="2019-07-04T02:08:31.260" UserId="9" Text="Here is a partial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what forms you'll find in historical (e.g. medieval) documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin texts that have been published in the present day by academic sources, you're unlikely to find ligatures of any kind. It's currently preferred to write &quot;oe&quot; (or &quot;ae&quot;) as a digraph composed of two separate characters. As in English, only the first letter of a vowel digraph is capitalized. The texts that do use the ligature &quot;œ&quot; capitalize it as &quot;Œ&quot;, just as in English typography." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11057" RevisionGUID="599b4fe0-e807-48f8-b022-fedd88c370b6" CreationDate="2019-07-04T02:14:01.427" UserId="9" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="Here is a partial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what kind of forms you can find in historical (e.g. medieval) documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##In normal current typographic practice, no&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin texts that have been published in the present day by academic sources, you're unlikely to find ligatures of any kind. It's currently preferred to write &quot;oe&quot; (or &quot;ae&quot;) as a digraph composed of two separate characters. As in English, when a word starting with a vowel digraph is capitalized, only the first letter is put in its upper-case form (e.g. &quot;Aeneas&quot;, not &quot;AEneas&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The texts that do use the ligature &quot;œ&quot; capitalize it as &quot;Œ&quot;, just as in English typography." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11058" RevisionGUID="d0ca8e7c-42ab-4964-9bfb-fd9deac6cbc0" CreationDate="2019-07-04T02:57:21.243" UserId="9" Text="This is only a partial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most obvious area of influence is vocabulary. There are a fair number of words that were loaned into Latin from Greek. There are also some terms that were &quot;calqued&quot; from Greek. You can see explanations and examples in this paper: &quot;[An Overview of Latin Morphological Calques on Greek Technical Terms: Formation and Success][1]&quot;, by Eleanor Detreville, 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that there was fairly little influence in pronunciation. Loanwords from Greek could use a few sounds that didn't originally occur in Latin, but from what I recall none of the foreign sounds borrowed from Greek into Classical Latin left a lasting mark on the sound inventories of the languages that developed from Latin. (For example, French *rythme,* from Latin *rhythmus,* is pronounced [ʁitm], the same as if it were spelled *\*ritme.* Greek *th* and *y* aren't associated with unique sounds in French, nor in any other Romance language that I know of.) It is thought that even in the time period of Classical Latin, some speakers may have replaced foreign sounds in Greek words with a similar Latin sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many meters used in Latin poetry, such as [dactylic hexameter][2], were taken from Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/detreville_eleanor_201505_ma.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dactylic_hexameter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11059" RevisionGUID="7e48eaa3-a25b-4c17-947b-f2a3b65650cf" CreationDate="2019-07-04T06:54:33.500" UserId="1955" Text="Reading the Digest (6th century, copy of 9th century), I find this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;```Sed si plures servum percusserint, utrum omnes quasi occiderint teneantur videamus.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One author who establised the text (Mommsen in 1890 approx) transcribed it as an affirmation, then meaning :&#xD;&#xA;```But if several people hit the slave, then we consider that each of them is to be held liable for killing him.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other author (Hulot, 1804) transcribed :&#xD;&#xA;```Sed si plures servum percusserint, utrum omnes quasi occiderint teneantur videamus ?```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making it a questions meaning:&#xD;&#xA;```But if several people hit the slave, should we consider that each must be held liable for killing him?```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see no reason why a questionmark was added and I understand the sentence as an affirmation, not as a question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts on this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gratias vobis ago,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32448" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11059" RevisionGUID="7e48eaa3-a25b-4c17-947b-f2a3b65650cf" CreationDate="2019-07-04T06:54:33.500" UserId="1955" Text="is this a question of an affirmation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32449" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11059" RevisionGUID="7e48eaa3-a25b-4c17-947b-f2a3b65650cf" CreationDate="2019-07-04T06:54:33.500" UserId="1955" Text="|interrogative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11060" RevisionGUID="98b7a83e-ea79-42cf-bf12-e9d37aea5057" CreationDate="2019-07-04T07:15:04.237" UserId="831" Text="Wait for someone expert to give you an expert answer, but as someone whose Latin dates from the last millennium I’d say that both *utrum* and the subjunctive would push me towards an interrogative interpretation. There certainly ought to be a sense of “whether” in there somewhere. Not necessarily going as far as Hulot and putting an explicit question mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the basis of the isolated sentence you quoted, my inclination would be that we should not be considering **that** each of them killed the slave (Mommsen). Rather, we should be considering **whether** all of them killed him. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end it all depends on the general style of the work you are quoting from. Legal texts, like liturgical ones, are usually highly repetitive in terms of structure and syntax, so that a wider context is the key to understanding. For instance, I don’t know if this is one of a series of bullet points or a heading that introduces a passage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you could bear to make the effort, editing your question to give a wider context could be a help to the real experts on here. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11059" RevisionGUID="694cae9c-4ffd-4ffb-a808-837ae9c44f99" CreationDate="2019-07-04T08:40:41.120" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Reading the Digest (6th century, copy of 9th century), I find this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sed si plures servum percusserint, utrum omnes quasi occiderint teneantur videamus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One author who established the text (Mommsen in 1890 approx) transcribed it as an affirmation, then meaning :&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But if several people hit the slave, then we consider that each of them is to be held liable for killing him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other author (Hulot, 1804) transcribed :&#xD;&#xA;```Sed si plures servum percusserint, utrum omnes quasi occiderint teneantur videamus ?```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making it a questions meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But if several people hit the slave, should we consider that each must be held liable for killing him?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see no reason why a question mark was added and I understand the sentence as an affirmation, not as a question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts on this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gratias vobis ago." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32452" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11059" RevisionGUID="694cae9c-4ffd-4ffb-a808-837ae9c44f99" CreationDate="2019-07-04T08:40:41.120" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|sentence-translation|syntax|interrogative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11061" RevisionGUID="4f4da319-1bb3-47ec-9b1c-0f497f7a17f2" CreationDate="2019-07-04T09:14:44.630" UserId="1982" Text="When in doubt translate literally: &quot;....whether (utrum; would normally expect &quot;necne&quot; = &quot;whether-or-not&quot;) we may consider (videamus) as if (quasi) all (omnes) are to be included (teneantur: alt: are-to-be-held [responsible])--they definitely killed (him).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of perfect subjunctive, &quot;occiderint&quot; means that it definitely happened. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This strikes me as an indirect question; if so, that explains why it is not completed with a question-mark. Therefore, it could be argued that it is both a question and a statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Law, such an action (more than one person) may be considered a conspiracy. This takes any crime to a much higher level of seriousness. Would that colour the translation; am not qualified to comment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11059" RevisionGUID="edf0d5c8-df04-4cb5-8ae7-7d2413e63c7f" CreationDate="2019-07-04T09:58:31.837" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Reading the Digest (6th century, copy of 9th century), I find this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sed si plures servum percusserint, utrum omnes quasi occiderint teneantur videamus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One author who established the text (Mommsen in 1890 approx) transcribed it as an affirmation, then meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But if several people hit the slave, then we consider that each of them is to be held liable for killing him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other author (Hulot, 1804) transcribed:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sed si plures servum percusserint, utrum omnes quasi occiderint teneantur videamus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making it a questions meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But if several people hit the slave, should we consider that each must be held liable for killing him?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see no reason why a question mark was added and I understand the sentence as an affirmation, not as a question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts on this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gratias vobis ago." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11062" RevisionGUID="4f2a7b91-f245-4cde-b052-a5453ea3a499" CreationDate="2019-07-04T10:11:10.420" UserId="79" Text="I read the second half of the passage like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;*utrum omnes quasi occiderint teneantur videamus*  &#xD;&#xA; =  &#xD;&#xA;*videamus, utrum omnes teneantur quasi [servum] occiderint*  &#xD;&#xA; =  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;let us see, whether everyone should be held as if they killed the slave&quot;  &#xD;&#xA; =  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;we will consider whether everyone is liable for killing him&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is somewhere between the two translations you quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *utrum* strongly suggests that there is an indirect question.&#xD;&#xA;The way I parsed it, the main structure is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *videamus, utrum omnes teneantur*  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;let us see whether everyone is held&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then this *teneantur* is further explained with *quasi* and *occiderint*.&#xD;&#xA;You could say that *occiderint* is subordinate to *teneantur* which is subordinate to *videamus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules of *consecutio temporum* for subordinate conjunctives are followed:&#xD;&#xA;The present *videamus* is not subordinate, but more of an optative &quot;let us see&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *tenere* is subordinate to a present thing (*videamus*) and is contemporary to it, so present conjunctive is just the right thing.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *occidere* is then subordinate to it (or *videamus*; it doesn't matter which way you see it) but prior, so perfect conjunctive is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first quoted translation appears to be mistaken.&#xD;&#xA;It says that we consider everyone to be liable, whereas the original says that we consider **whether** everyone is liable.&#xD;&#xA;It turns an indirect question to a statement &amp;mdash; an unknown matter to a known one.&#xD;&#xA;The original text does not comment whether they are all liable, just that it should be looked into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second quoted translation cuts a corner short.&#xD;&#xA;It replaces &quot;let us see whether they are liable&quot; with &quot;are they liable?&quot;, and this simplification makes sense to me.&#xD;&#xA;I would consider this reasonable streamlining, but it depends on the surrounding context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32456" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11059" RevisionGUID="a1ce24f1-c0d5-4760-9614-380e1f00337c" CreationDate="2019-07-04T12:49:35.970" UserId="469" Comment="edited title" Text="is this a question or an affirmation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5553" RevisionGUID="038d0a14-9a11-4c47-9dd8-dbe069217b20" CreationDate="2019-07-04T13:14:16.473" UserId="2099" Comment="clarified the parenthetical with a change of word" Text="The quote below is from the [*Instituta Patrum de modo psallendi*][1], an anonymous Carolingian or more likely High Medieval document on singing psalms in Gregorian chant.  (I've seen one commenter on this document date it to the 12th century, because of identical wording found in documents of Bernard of Clairvaux.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the fourth paragraph beginning &quot;Ammonemus&quot;, the author admonishes cantors to stay in synch with each other.  He enumerates a list of 'sins', the last two of which trouble me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Nullus** ante alios aut post, incipere in Versu vel cantu, verba cantata&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reiterare, vel nimis discorditer festinare, praesumptiori vel altiori,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; remissiori an graviori, id est, sursum vel iusum, tardiori vel&#xD;&#xA;&gt; velociori voce, **aut post alios diutius protrahere, vel punctum tenere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; praesumat**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't tell if the phrases &quot;post alius&quot; and &quot;diutius&quot; apply to both verbs &quot;protrahere&quot; and &quot;tenere&quot;, or to only the first one.  If they both apply to &quot;protrahere&quot; only:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No one may presume ... to protract (the notes) longer after the others, or to hold the cadence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then the second 'sin' doesn't make sense to me, because &quot;holding the cadence&quot; (&quot;punctum tenere&quot;) isn't bad in itself ... at least how I am reading it.  So then am I misunderstanding the meaning of &quot;tenere&quot; in this musical context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, if they both apply to &quot;protrahere&quot; and &quot;punctum tenere&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No one may presume ... to protract (the notes) or hold the cadence longer after the others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then the translation makes sense to me, and the comma between the two Latin phrases is a mistake on the part of the editor.  And so my questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Do both &quot;post alios&quot; and &quot;diutius&quot; apply to both verbs or to only the first?&#xD;&#xA; 2. In general, how to tell whether an adverb phrase applies to one or both disjoined verbs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I noticed a few sentences later, the author says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si morose cantamus, longior pausa fiat;  si propere, brevior:  semper in Psalmodia punctus et pausa **teneantur**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it could also be that &quot;tenere punctum&quot; is a musical figure of speech I'm not yet acquainted with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://[here][2]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32458" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5416" RevisionGUID="fc1613b4-f969-4884-a464-344f3d78ba49" CreationDate="2019-07-04T13:24:39.500" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|conjunction|particle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32459" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5369" RevisionGUID="6aec1718-e980-420c-8423-c4e535e4ca48" CreationDate="2019-07-04T13:25:50.077" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|idiom|modern-life|politeness|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10957" RevisionGUID="22818113-e6a8-446c-b28a-b87a8cfb3f43" CreationDate="2019-07-04T14:13:40.083" UserId="2099" Comment="Added 3 paragraphs to clarify" Text="What is the meaning of the obscure verb *belgicare* or *belgico*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Notker Balbulus of St. Gall][1] (c. 840 to 912) writes this verb in a letter/epistle to a certain Lantbert, wherein Notker defines for him each of the famous **Romanine letters**: letters of the alphabet superscribed onto the early musical notation of Gregorian chant, in order to annotate the melody with reminders of its shape, in an age before the advent of [diastematic notation][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are five lines from the letter, to give you a sense of Notker's word usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A ut **altius** elevetur admonet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B, secundum litteras quibus adjungitur, ut **bene** id est multum extollatur vel gravetur sive teneatur belgicat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; C ut **cito** vel **celeriter** dicatur certificat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; D ut **deprimatur** demonstrat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; E ut **equaliter** sonetur eloquitur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sources: [Gerbert's *Scriptores*][3], [Migne's Patrologia Latina][4], [Froger's 1962 critical edition][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Notker had written this in English, it might have read something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A admonishes that it [the melody] be elevated **aloft** (i.e. a high note).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B begs that it be raised, lowered, or lengthened **bountifully** (*bene* = well), i.e., very much, according to the letters to which it is adjoined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; C certifies that it be said **concisely** or with **celerity** (i.e. a short note duration).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; D demands that it be **down-pressed** (i.e. a low note).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; E expresses that it be sounded **equally** (i.e. on the same pitch as the note before it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But my question does not concern the musical meaning or signification of these five letters in Gregorian chant.  Rather it concerns *the verbs* Notker uses, apparently to reinforce Lantbert's memory by also starting with the same letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A admonet&quot;, &quot;C certificat&quot;, &quot;I insinuat&quot;, &quot;N notificat&quot;, &quot;O ordinat&quot; &quot;P predicat&quot;, etc.  Or, in English, &quot;A announces&quot; its meaning, &quot;T tells&quot; its meaning, &quot;S signifies&quot; its meaning, &quot;N notifies&quot;, &quot;R reminds&quot; and so forth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But B?  B 'belgicates' its meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Question&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the heck does 'belgicare' mean, and whence does that word hail?  Any translator could say &quot;B begs that the note be ...&quot; and be done with it.  But I want to know the origin of this word '*belgicat*', found in no Latin dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B, secundum litteras quibus adiungitur, ut bene id est multum extollatur vel gravetur sive teneatur **belgicat**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B, after (or according to) the letters to which it is adjoined, '**belgicates**' that it [the musical note] be raised, lowered, or held [lengthened] bountifully [lit.: well, that is, much].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The musical matter is not dubious. The music has combos of TB, AB, etc. meaning &quot;raise or lengthen the note *well*&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the books I've seen, and available online information, and citations or quotations by authors commenting on this passage by Notker, admit that the word &quot;belgicat&quot; is of obscure origin.  Although I've not examined either Froger's critical edition or the writings of Joseph Smits van Waesberghe on the Romanine letters, I haven't otherwise yet found anyone who has dared to explore the etymology of this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Could it be a mutation of or a neologism based on some other similar word in Latin?&#xD;&#xA; - Is it even a Latin word?  Perhaps a Latinization of a foreign word, such as from whatever Notker's contemporary native language was? (He was late 9th-century Alemanni.) Or perhaps related to the Germanic root [belganą][6]?&#xD;&#xA; - Or might it be of some obscure continental Medieval Latin colloquialism that indeed had something to do with the Belgian people?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to ask the Latin network first.  If we are confident here that this word has no legitimate Latin ancestry, then I may turn to the Linguistics network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addendum&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify, when compared to the verbs in the other sentences, it is clear Notker chose &quot;belgicat&quot; over another word like &quot;significat&quot; for no other reason than that it begins with a B. It could have alternately been rendered as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B ut ... belgicat.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; B ut ... bucinat.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B ut ... balat.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; B begs that it be ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B bellows that it be ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B beseeches that it be ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet it's hard to find Latin verbs beginning with B that could substitute for &quot;it means&quot; or &quot;it signifies&quot;, aside from onomatopoetic animal sounds.  Maybe that was a factor in his choice of this word &quot;belgicare&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notker_the_Stammerer&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staff_(music)&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.chmtl.indiana.edu/tml/9th-11th/NOTDEM&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.chmtl.indiana.edu/tml/9th-11th/NOTDEMU&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.chmtl.indiana.edu/tml/9th-11th/NOTLET&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/belgan%C4%85#Descendants" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32461" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11059" RevisionGUID="ec3f277b-ffcf-4cf2-ba96-270f7cb35683" CreationDate="2019-07-04T15:04:49.177" />
  <row Id="32462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11063" RevisionGUID="658458ba-4716-43a7-a071-e681d439e5d4" CreationDate="2019-07-04T16:46:04.323" UserId="3645" Text="Spinoza writes in the last passage of Ethics:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cum contra sapiens, quatenus ut talis consideratur, vix animo movetur, sed sui et Dei et rerum aeterna quadam necessitate **conscius** nunquam esse desinit, sed semper verâ animi acquiescentia potitur&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And White translates:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On the other hand, the wise man, insofar as he is considered as such, suﬀers scarcely any disturbance of spirit, but **being conscious**, by virtue of a certain eternal necessity, of himself, of God and of things, never ceases to be, but always possesses true spiritual contentment&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is about **conscius**. It is translated **being conscious**, but I expect such a translation for a adjective in *ablative* case rather than *nominative*. What is the function of *nominative* case in this example and in which resource can I learn more about it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32463" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11063" RevisionGUID="658458ba-4716-43a7-a071-e681d439e5d4" CreationDate="2019-07-04T16:46:04.323" UserId="3645" Text="The Nominative Case Uses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32464" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11063" RevisionGUID="658458ba-4716-43a7-a071-e681d439e5d4" CreationDate="2019-07-04T16:46:04.323" UserId="3645" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|ablative|nominativus|spinoza|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11063" RevisionGUID="29659fa6-74ec-4ff1-aa11-83dccac0a333" CreationDate="2019-07-04T16:48:59.840" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Spinoza writes in the last passage of Ethics:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cum contra sapiens, quatenus ut talis consideratur, vix animo movetur, sed sui et Dei et rerum aeterna quadam necessitate **conscius** nunquam esse desinit, sed semper verâ animi acquiescentia potitur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And White translates:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On the other hand, the wise man, insofar as he is considered as such, suﬀers scarcely any disturbance of spirit, but **being conscious**, by virtue of a certain eternal necessity, of himself, of God and of things, never ceases to be, but always possesses true spiritual contentment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is about **conscius**. It is translated **being conscious**, but I expect such a translation for a adjective in *ablative* case rather than *nominative*. What is the function of *nominative* case in this example and in which resource can I learn more about it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32466" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11063" RevisionGUID="29659fa6-74ec-4ff1-aa11-83dccac0a333" CreationDate="2019-07-04T16:48:59.840" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|translation-explanation|ablative|nominativus|spinoza|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11064" RevisionGUID="b326079e-012e-45e4-a742-daf25862f034" CreationDate="2019-07-04T17:02:46.157" UserId="79" Text="A Latin adjective can sometimes be read either as a mere attribute or more broadly.&#xD;&#xA;For example, consider these two translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Homo conscius intelligit.*  &#xD;&#xA;1. A conscious man understands.  &#xD;&#xA;2. A man, being conscious, understands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first translation *conscius* is a mere attribute, describing what kind of a man is in question.&#xD;&#xA;In the second one there is more than a description, it gives a reason.&#xD;&#xA;If you want, you can read the first one as an attribute and the second one as an apposition.&#xD;&#xA;The second translation does resemble absolute ablatives in a way, but one cannot construct *ablativus absolutus* with a single ablative adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this Spinoza passage the positioning of *conscius* does make me think of the second kind of interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;In prose one would expect an attribute to be somewhat close to the referent.&#xD;&#xA;The adjective appears to have a place in the flow of the argument, which suggests that it has more weight than an attribute.&#xD;&#xA;(I am not familiar with Spinoza's style, so someone more used to him can judge better whether this judgement is sound.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would also be possible to read the passage in the first way, which gives something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On the other hand, the conscious wise man, insofar as he is considered as such, suﬀers scarcely any disturbance of spirit, but, by virtue of a certain eternal necessity, of himself, of God and of things, never ceases to be, but always possesses true spiritual contentment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a possible interpretation, but I think White's choice makes more sense.&#xD;&#xA;To me this a question of emphasis on *conscius*, and my variation does not have enough of it to my taste in comparison to the original." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11065" RevisionGUID="0fdf2606-2989-458a-a951-b2f82297c046" CreationDate="2019-07-05T04:28:33.753" UserId="4911" Text="Salvete! &#xD;&#xA;How would one say, “We are triumphant while our enemy sleeps.”? Gratias vobis ago! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32469" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11065" RevisionGUID="0fdf2606-2989-458a-a951-b2f82297c046" CreationDate="2019-07-05T04:28:33.753" UserId="4911" Text="Translation of a phrase from English" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32470" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11065" RevisionGUID="0fdf2606-2989-458a-a951-b2f82297c046" CreationDate="2019-07-05T04:28:33.753" UserId="4911" Text="|translation|motto|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11066" RevisionGUID="c441ad8c-b17a-494b-85e4-b591cd8efd0b" CreationDate="2019-07-05T06:37:07.893" UserId="4913" Text="The *Misal rico de Cisneros*, produced by archbishop Cisneros, the archbishop of Toledo, Spain, in the early sixteenth century, is a Latin Catholic missal also known as the *[Missale secundum consuetudinem almae ecclesiae Toletanae](http://bdh.bne.es/bnesearch/detalle/bdh0000012826)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been making it into a font. I want to make the font highly useful to medievalists, and plan to implement any MUFI ligature and codepoint found in the missal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One question I have that I've not been able to find in any guide of medieval Latin scribal abbreviation is why the missal uses the word &amp;laquo;Qiſſa&amp;raquo; (&amp;laquo;Qissa&amp;raquo;) in its table of contents&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![miisal](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-nNEVXUYAAsBRr?format=jpg&amp;name=4096x4096)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be seen in the third line on the first page. Why the *Q*? It seems *M* is what is meant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32472" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11066" RevisionGUID="c441ad8c-b17a-494b-85e4-b591cd8efd0b" CreationDate="2019-07-05T06:37:07.893" UserId="4913" Text="Why does the Misal rico de Cisneros uses the word &quot;Qiſſa&quot;, and what is it supposed to mean? Why not &quot;Miſſa&quot; (Missa)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32473" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11066" RevisionGUID="c441ad8c-b17a-494b-85e4-b591cd8efd0b" CreationDate="2019-07-05T06:37:07.893" UserId="4913" Text="|medieval-latin|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11059" RevisionGUID="281a5fd0-4939-4af8-a729-28e0a50d6f8a" CreationDate="2019-07-05T06:50:21.907" UserId="2852" Comment="Copy edited. Removed meta information (this belongs in comments)." Text="Reading the Digest (6th century, copy of 9th century), I find this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed si plures servum percusserint, utrum omnes quasi occiderint teneantur videamus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One author who established the text (Mommsen in 1890 approx) transcribed it as an affirmation, then meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But if several people hit the slave, then we consider that each of them is to be held liable for killing him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other author (Hulot, 1804) transcribed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed si plures servum percusserint, utrum omnes quasi occiderint teneantur videamus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making it a questions meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But if several people hit the slave, should we consider that each must be held liable for killing him?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see no reason why a question mark was added and I understand the sentence as an affirmation, not as a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32475" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11059" RevisionGUID="281a5fd0-4939-4af8-a729-28e0a50d6f8a" CreationDate="2019-07-05T06:50:21.907" UserId="2852" Comment="Copy edited. Removed meta information (this belongs in comments)." Text="Is this a question or an affirmation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32476" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11059" RevisionGUID="281a5fd0-4939-4af8-a729-28e0a50d6f8a" CreationDate="2019-07-05T06:50:21.907" Comment="Proposed by 2852 approved by 79 edit id of 319" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11065" RevisionGUID="d5cc933e-40de-4127-beb9-db7d8987a65f" CreationDate="2019-07-05T06:51:25.267" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Salvete! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would one say, “We are triumphant while our enemy sleeps.”? Gratias vobis ago! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32478" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11065" RevisionGUID="d5cc933e-40de-4127-beb9-db7d8987a65f" CreationDate="2019-07-05T06:51:25.267" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="“We are triumphant while our enemy sleeps” in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32479" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11065" RevisionGUID="d5cc933e-40de-4127-beb9-db7d8987a65f" CreationDate="2019-07-05T06:51:25.267" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11066" RevisionGUID="c381517d-4717-4b36-85cd-c62f3cc91e4b" CreationDate="2019-07-05T07:19:41.357" UserId="4913" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="The *Misal rico de Cisneros*, produced by archbishop Cisneros, the archbishop of Toledo, Spain, in the early sixteenth century, is a Latin Catholic missal also known as the *[Missale secundum consuetudinem almae ecclesiae Toletanae](http://bdh.bne.es/bnesearch/detalle/bdh0000012826)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been making it into a font. I want to make the font highly useful to medievalists, and plan to implement any MUFI ligature and codepoint found in the missal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One question I have that I've not been able to find in any guide of medieval Latin scribal abbreviation is why the missal uses the word &amp;laquo;Qiſſa&amp;raquo; (&amp;laquo;Qissa&amp;raquo;) in its table of contents&amp;hellip;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![miisal](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-nNEVXUYAAsBRr?format=jpg&amp;name=4096x4096)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be seen in the third line on the first page. Why the *Q*? It seems *M* is what is meant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y90x5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11067" RevisionGUID="91152708-a4be-4760-92c2-861400fae7a9" CreationDate="2019-07-05T08:27:04.760" UserId="79" Text="Here is a simple suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Inimicis [nostris] dormientibus triumphamus.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; We triumph while/when/because [our] enemies sleep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a good Latin verb for being triumphant: *triumphare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A clause like &quot;while the enemies sleep&quot; can be nicely phrased with an absolute ablative.&#xD;&#xA;The construction has many possible interpretations as indicated in the translation, but there is no real danger of misinterpreting the message here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would personally leave the word *nostris* out; it is quite clear that if we triumph, then the mentioned enemies are ours.&#xD;&#xA;There are couple of different words for an enemy.&#xD;&#xA;I went with *inimicus*, but *hostis*, *adversarius*, *perduellis*, or maybe something else would also work.&#xD;&#xA;To see the differences between these words, please consult [an online Latin dictionary of your choice](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11068" RevisionGUID="b050c493-b3fe-4854-a3d0-dc38616ccde7" CreationDate="2019-07-05T09:51:10.950" UserId="1982" Text="The implication is that &quot;we&quot; can only win, provided that the enemy, conveniently, falls asleep. Let's depend on luck. In Latin &quot;provided that&quot;/ &quot;if only&quot; is given by dum (or dummodo) plus subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;This may have to go into the future tense, because, presumably, &quot;we&quot; are waiting for the enemy to (conveniently) fall asleep; then, and only then, will we attack. (You may already know that, in Latin, the present tense cannot be used to mean the future, as it can, in English.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;vicerimus dum hostes (commode) dormiant&quot; = &quot;We shall triumph provided that the enemy (conveniently) sleeps.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11067" RevisionGUID="363d4cd2-20a7-4284-b28b-5860571c5cdc" CreationDate="2019-07-05T10:14:14.840" UserId="79" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="Here is a simple suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Inimicis [nostris] dormientibus triumphamus.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; We triumph while/when/because [our] enemies sleep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a good Latin verb for being triumphant: *triumphare*.&#xD;&#xA;I chose the present tense to make this a general fact.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to change to future tense (&quot;we will triumph&quot; instead of &quot;we triumph&quot;), use *triumphabimus* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A clause like &quot;while the enemies sleep&quot; can be nicely phrased with an absolute ablative.&#xD;&#xA;The construction has many possible interpretations as indicated in the translation, but there is no real danger of misinterpreting the message here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would personally leave the word *nostris* out; it is quite clear that if we triumph, then the mentioned enemies are ours.&#xD;&#xA;There are couple of different words for an enemy.&#xD;&#xA;I went with *inimicus*, but *hostis*, *adversarius*, *perduellis*, or maybe something else would also work.&#xD;&#xA;To see the differences between these words, please consult [an online Latin dictionary of your choice](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11067" RevisionGUID="94247047-0442-4545-990e-2f15baed3e68" CreationDate="2019-07-05T12:56:59.540" UserId="79" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="Here is a simple suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Inimicis [nostris] dormientibus triumphamus.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; We triumph while/when/because [our] enemies sleep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a good Latin verb for being triumphant: *triumphare*.&#xD;&#xA;It means celebrating victory rather than winning, but I find that appropriate in this context.&#xD;&#xA;If you want something closer to winning, please edit the question to add more details.&#xD;&#xA;I chose the present tense to make this a general fact.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to change to future tense (&quot;we will triumph&quot; instead of &quot;we triumph&quot;), use *triumphabimus* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A clause like &quot;while the enemies sleep&quot; can be nicely phrased with an absolute ablative.&#xD;&#xA;The construction has many possible interpretations as indicated in the translation, but there is no real danger of misinterpreting the message here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would personally leave the word *nostris* out; it is quite clear that if we triumph, then the mentioned enemies are ours.&#xD;&#xA;There are couple of different words for an enemy.&#xD;&#xA;I went with *inimicus*, but *hostis*, *adversarius*, *perduellis*, or maybe something else would also work.&#xD;&#xA;To see the differences between these words, please consult [an online Latin dictionary of your choice](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11069" RevisionGUID="35992dbb-8d57-496b-9d3f-2cab41ffa8d7" CreationDate="2019-07-05T14:53:47.917" UserId="9" Text="I agree with brianpck's comment: I don't understand why you're reading this glyph as a Q. In isolation, it might look like a Q, but considering the context, it appears to be a variant of M (it's not that unusual I think for capital M to have a closed bottom in certain handwriting styles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you ever seen this glyph used for Q in this text? The symbol I see used for Q is different. See page 62, which has Quotiens spelled like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quid, page 64:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several words, page 10:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the left side looks the same as the capital M used in Missa. The tail of the Q is straight rather than curling up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DMdfw.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YjRKW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ltx0f.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11069" RevisionGUID="b0c9a1b1-34f5-4283-98d7-fea31a2468e8" CreationDate="2019-07-05T15:01:37.090" UserId="9" Comment="added 273 characters in body" Text="I agree with brianpck's comment: I don't understand why you're reading this glyph as a Q. In isolation, it might look like a Q, but considering the context, it appears to be a variant of M (it's not that unusual I think for capital M to have a closed bottom in certain handwriting styles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you ever seen this glyph used for Q in this text? The symbol I see used for Q is different. See page 62, which has Quotiens spelled like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quid, page 64:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several words, page 10:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the left side of these Qs looks the same as the capital M used in Missa. The tail of the Q is straight rather than curling up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other variants for capital M, but that seems to be a common situation in this text. I also see multiple variants for lowercase d (one with a vertical ascender, as in the words *munditia* and *repellendas,* and one that curves, as in *defensione* and *deuota*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DMdfw.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YjRKW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ltx0f.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32487" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11066" RevisionGUID="b3ce4857-7ad9-4735-a448-26ed9b5952e3" CreationDate="2019-07-05T15:21:43.620" />
  <row Id="32489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11070" RevisionGUID="970b5b5f-2dd2-4afb-968c-f7ecb37501cd" CreationDate="2019-07-05T16:24:31.023" UserId="1051" Text="I've heard that there is no known verb for purring (of a cat) in Greek.  Is that true?  Any qualified guess as to what verb a Greek might have used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32490" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11070" RevisionGUID="970b5b5f-2dd2-4afb-968c-f7ecb37501cd" CreationDate="2019-07-05T16:24:31.023" UserId="1051" Text="Is there a Greek word meaning to purr?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32491" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11070" RevisionGUID="970b5b5f-2dd2-4afb-968c-f7ecb37501cd" CreationDate="2019-07-05T16:24:31.023" UserId="1051" Text="|vocabulary|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32492" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11070" RevisionGUID="9b20559a-2249-4ac6-8436-db2f04d7bc4e" CreationDate="2019-07-05T17:33:21.997" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|greek|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11071" RevisionGUID="0a7220fb-710e-4036-a926-85041e6685a9" CreationDate="2019-07-06T00:19:49.723" UserId="406" Text="Indeed, I cannot find any hits for &quot;purr&quot; in the LSJ, nor any verbs containing the words &quot;cat&quot; or &quot;cats&quot; in their entries! Quite a shame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are several onomatopoeic verbs for making a low growling sound, such as ἀρῥάζω (*arrházō*), &quot;to go *arrha*&quot;. *Arrha*, with a long, extended trill, sounds fairly close to a purr.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a usage example, here's Aelian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τὸ μὲν γὰρ βρυχᾶται, μυκᾶται δὲ ἄλλο, καὶ χρεμέτισμα ἄλλου καὶ ὄγκησις [ἄλλου], ἄλλου βληχηθμός τε καὶ μηκασμός, καί τισι μὲν ὠρυγμός, τισὶ δὲ ὑλαγμὸς φίλον, καὶ ἄλλῳ ἀρράζειν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So one type of animal roars, another bellows, some make whinnying sounds, others make braying sounds, others go *bleh* and *meh*, some like howling, some like barking, and still others like to go *arrha*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*DNA* V.51, translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the sort of thing you just don't get in modern biology textbooks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11072" RevisionGUID="04e94a8d-f73a-4d36-a529-a0e4c9e7331a" CreationDate="2019-07-06T14:24:18.073" UserId="4916" Text="I have this proverb I use quite commonly. I was wondering what it would be in latin. Can you help me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;In high enough pressure even shit becomes a diamond.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32497" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11072" RevisionGUID="04e94a8d-f73a-4d36-a529-a0e4c9e7331a" CreationDate="2019-07-06T14:24:18.073" UserId="4916" Text="In high enough pressure shit becomes a diamond" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32498" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11072" RevisionGUID="04e94a8d-f73a-4d36-a529-a0e4c9e7331a" CreationDate="2019-07-06T14:24:18.073" UserId="4916" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11069" RevisionGUID="9e874a4c-1b13-4bfd-8d7b-dc1dae4e5c02" CreationDate="2019-07-06T20:02:43.877" UserId="9" Comment="added 243 characters in body" Text="I agree with brianpck's comment: I don't understand why you're reading this glyph as a Q. In isolation, it might look like a Q, but considering the context, it appears to be a variant of M (it's not that unusual I think for capital M to have a closed bottom in certain handwriting styles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you ever seen this glyph used for Q in this text? The symbol I see used for Q is different. See page 62, which has Quotiens spelled like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quid, page 64:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several words, page 10:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the left side of these Qs looks the same as the capital M used in Missa. The tail of the Q is straight rather than curling up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other variants for capital M, but that seems to be a common situation in this text. I also see multiple variants for lowercase d (one with a vertical ascender, as in the words *munditia* and *repellendas,* and one that curves, as in *defensione* and *deuota*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The variant of capital P with a pointy top that is used on the fourth-to-bottom line of the first page in your picture also seems relevant, as it's another example of a rounded stroke being used interchangeably with a pointy-topped stroke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DMdfw.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YjRKW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ltx0f.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11073" RevisionGUID="dd48058c-1fc7-4e92-9890-b7e8d783d267" CreationDate="2019-07-06T20:21:38.147" UserId="985" Text="&gt; *pressura satis magna coactum fit stercus adamas.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (If) Compressed by sufficiently great pressure, shit becomes a diamond.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*pressura*: The *Oxford Latin dictionary* defines this as 'The action or fact of pressing, pressure'; it's used of the force of water and the crush of a crowd. It's also used to describe pressing things such as grapes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*coactum*: A form of the verb *cogere*, which has as one definition, 'To compress; to form into by compression; also, to bring (to a new condition) by pressure.' Pliny the Elder uses it in the context of gemstones in *Naturalis historia* 37.1, where he speaks of the 'grandeur of the universe densely compressed' (*in artum coacta rerum naturae maiestas*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want something slightly pithier, you could omit *coactum* without impairing the meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11074" RevisionGUID="d045d959-8136-4280-8b62-529dd76137d7" CreationDate="2019-07-06T22:44:57.630" UserId="4918" Text="When did the classical period of Latin end?I found that it is different in various books.  &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia:75 BC to AD 3rd century.  &#xD;&#xA;Oxford Latin Dictionary:BC.?-A.D.200.  &#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short:unknown.  &#xD;&#xA;Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar(page.8):BC.80-A.D.14.  &#xD;&#xA;Cambridge's Revised Latin Primer(page.2):BC.80-BC.120.  &#xD;&#xA;Why is there no consensus when Classical Latin is recognized as the standard&#xD;&#xA;form of the Latin language?I feel confused." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32502" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11074" RevisionGUID="d045d959-8136-4280-8b62-529dd76137d7" CreationDate="2019-07-06T22:44:57.630" UserId="4918" Text="When did the classical period of Latin end?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32503" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11074" RevisionGUID="d045d959-8136-4280-8b62-529dd76137d7" CreationDate="2019-07-06T22:44:57.630" UserId="4918" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11074" RevisionGUID="e6196925-6f42-429f-bce3-d33d1e976a30" CreationDate="2019-07-06T22:50:16.877" UserId="4918" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="When did the classical period of Latin end?I found that it is different in various books.  &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia:75 BC to AD 3rd century.  &#xD;&#xA;Oxford Latin Dictionary:BC.?-A.D.200.  &#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short:unknown.  &#xD;&#xA;Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar(page.8):BC.80-A.D.14.  &#xD;&#xA;Cambridge's Revised Latin Primer(page.2):BC.80-BC.120.  &#xD;&#xA;Why is there no consensus when Classical Latin is recognized as the standard&#xD;&#xA;form of Latin language?I feel confused." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11074" RevisionGUID="f3a7239f-86a1-4148-bea5-8e153f4c7a42" CreationDate="2019-07-06T23:04:42.707" UserId="4918" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="When did the classical period of Latin end?I found that it is different in various books.  &#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia:75 BC to AD 3rd century.  &#xD;&#xA;Oxford Latin Dictionary:BC.?-A.D.200.  &#xD;&#xA;Lewis and Short:unknown.  &#xD;&#xA;Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar(page.8):BC.80-A.D.14.  &#xD;&#xA;Cambridge's Revised Latin Primer(page.2):BC.80-BC.120.  &#xD;&#xA;Why is there no consensus when Classical Latin is recognized as the standard&#xD;&#xA;form of Latin language?I feel confused.And on what principle we should consider Tacitus(A.D.56-A.D.120) and Pliny the Elder(A.D.23-A.D.79) as non-classical authors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11075" RevisionGUID="b2b3f445-0a9e-415c-b142-550186d5c5ff" CreationDate="2019-07-07T08:20:27.720" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Is [fissiparous - Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fissiparous) below correct? Why's the analogy &quot;mistaken&quot;? The compounding makes sense to me? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###Etymology&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; An adaptation of the [New Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Latin &quot;w:New Latin&quot;) _[fissiparus](https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=fissiparus&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1 &quot;fissiparus (page does not exist)&quot;)_, from _[fissus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fissus#Latin &quot;fissus&quot;)_ (“split”, “cleft”) \+ _[pariō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pario#Latin &quot;pario&quot;)_ (“I bring forth”) by mistaken analogy with _[vīviparus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/viviparus#Latin &quot;viviparus&quot;)_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32507" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11075" RevisionGUID="b2b3f445-0a9e-415c-b142-550186d5c5ff" CreationDate="2019-07-07T08:20:27.720" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How was 'fissiparus' mistakenly analogized with 'vīviparus'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32508" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11075" RevisionGUID="b2b3f445-0a9e-415c-b142-550186d5c5ff" CreationDate="2019-07-07T08:20:27.720" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11075" RevisionGUID="97fe1daa-47ae-40cc-a39d-bc9940495fdc" CreationDate="2019-07-07T15:47:39.970" UserId="79" Comment="added 13 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Is [the Wiktionary entry on *fissiparous*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fissiparous) below correct? Why's the analogy &quot;mistaken&quot;? The compounding makes sense to me? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###Etymology&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; An adaptation of the [New Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Latin &quot;w:New Latin&quot;) _[fissiparus](https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=fissiparus&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1 &quot;fissiparus (page does not exist)&quot;)_, from _[fissus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fissus#Latin &quot;fissus&quot;)_ (“split”, “cleft”) \+ _[pariō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pario#Latin &quot;pario&quot;)_ (“I bring forth”) by mistaken analogy with _[vīviparus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/viviparus#Latin &quot;viviparus&quot;)_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32510" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11075" RevisionGUID="97fe1daa-47ae-40cc-a39d-bc9940495fdc" CreationDate="2019-07-07T15:47:39.970" UserId="79" Comment="added 13 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|etymology|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11076" RevisionGUID="238713b6-70e5-4af9-9418-a02b6213e1ae" CreationDate="2019-07-07T15:57:27.460" UserId="79" Text="*Viviparus* comes from *vivus* (&quot;alive&quot;) and *parere* (&quot;to give birth&quot;), and it makes sense that it means something that gives birth to living offspring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Wiktionary tells, *fissus* means &quot;split&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *fissiparus* should refer to something that gives birth to split offspring.&#xD;&#xA;The word *fissiparus* or the English variant appears to mean something that has a tendency to split.&#xD;&#xA;The component *fissi-* makes sense, but *-parus* does not.&#xD;&#xA;No giving birth is involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the *-parus* of *viviparus* was analyzed as &quot;related&quot;, and then &quot;related to being alive&quot; was converted to &quot;related to splitting&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But this analogy is indeed mistaken, as *-parus* has a much more specific meaning than just &quot;related&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An obvious follow-up question presents itself:&#xD;&#xA;What would then be a good Latin word with a meaning suitable for what *fissiparus* is used for?&#xD;&#xA;I suggest taking that to a separate question if you are interested." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11074" RevisionGUID="98326f73-0fdc-41ac-9134-c1205aaef821" CreationDate="2019-07-07T16:24:17.540" UserId="2025" Comment="Improved formatting" Text="When did the classical period of Latin end? I found that it is different in various books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Wikipedia:* 75 BC–AD 3rd century&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Oxford Latin Dictionary:* ? BC–AD 200&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Lewis and Short:* unknown&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Allen and Greenough’s Latin Grammar (page 8):* 80 BC–AD 14&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Cambridge's Revised Latin Primer (page 2):* 80 BC–120 BC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is there no consensus when Classical Latin is recognized as the standard&#xD;&#xA;form of Latin language? I feel confused. And on what principle should we consider Tacitus (AD 56–AD 120) and Pliny the Elder (AD 23–AD 79) as non-classical authors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32513" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11074" RevisionGUID="98326f73-0fdc-41ac-9134-c1205aaef821" CreationDate="2019-07-07T16:24:17.540" Comment="Proposed by 2025 approved by 79 edit id of 320" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32514" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11075" RevisionGUID="50b076fd-52dc-4a38-92fd-f2609552e17a" CreationDate="2019-07-07T19:39:35.940" />
  <row Id="32515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11077" RevisionGUID="782e840e-424a-46c5-9377-51536beffb01" CreationDate="2019-07-07T20:55:00.050" UserId="4919" Text="Sorry I know this is Latin. but I was hoping to find some dual classicists on here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anyone provide me with a classical Greek translation of the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;You came home to our hearts with your shield.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was hoping to get there myself, I have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ἐπανῆλθες εἰς τὴν οἰκείαν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;you came home&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &quot;άμα σῇ ᾰ̓σπῐ́δῐ&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For with your shield, but the complexity is now defeating me - I would be very glad is someone could help me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Once again sorry to trouble the Latin site.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32516" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11077" RevisionGUID="782e840e-424a-46c5-9377-51536beffb01" CreationDate="2019-07-07T20:55:00.050" UserId="4919" Text="Classical Greek for 'You came home to our hearts with your shield'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32517" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11077" RevisionGUID="782e840e-424a-46c5-9377-51536beffb01" CreationDate="2019-07-07T20:55:00.050" UserId="4919" Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11078" RevisionGUID="c942adb3-63b7-4b10-8ced-954140c7b595" CreationDate="2019-07-07T21:08:40.180" UserId="235" Text="I'm looking for a Koine Greek word that means &quot;translation&quot;. When I say &quot;translation&quot;, I'm referring to a translation of a text in a foreign language. So the context would be the translation of a Koine Greek text into English. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What Koine Greek word denotes such a translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32519" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11078" RevisionGUID="c942adb3-63b7-4b10-8ced-954140c7b595" CreationDate="2019-07-07T21:08:40.180" UserId="235" Text="How do you say &quot;translation&quot; in Koine Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32520" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11078" RevisionGUID="c942adb3-63b7-4b10-8ced-954140c7b595" CreationDate="2019-07-07T21:08:40.180" UserId="235" Text="|greek|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11079" RevisionGUID="1d44675c-a50d-4893-9796-668637cb67d6" CreationDate="2019-07-07T21:50:43.380" UserId="406" Text="&gt; &quot;You came home…&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would use *ἥκεις* for this; it's technically a present-tense verb, but it generally has a perfect meaning, &quot;you have come back&quot;. If you want to be emphatic, add *πάλιν*, &quot;…back again&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;…to our hearts…&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd leave off &quot;our&quot; and just go with *εἰς τὰς καρδίας*; the definite article can give that sense on its own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;…with your shield.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nice and straightforward, *σὺν τῇ ασπίδι*. Once again, leaving off the non-emphatic &quot;your&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11080" RevisionGUID="3de70963-787c-4f66-91e3-31a716c27cbb" CreationDate="2019-07-07T22:58:45.767" UserId="235" Text="I'm translating the 15th verse of John 1, and I'm curious to know the nuances of translating the phrase ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, and especially the word γέγονεν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below is the NA28 text and my translation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15 Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων· οὗτος ἦν ὃν εἶπον·&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; John bears witness about Him and has cried out, saying, &quot;This was He&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of whom I said, 'He who comes after me was made before me, because He&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was before me.'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel uncomfortable with my translation of γέγονεν. I think I chose a fairly literal meaning of the word, but it doesn't seem to make sense in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you translate the word γέγονεν in this verse, and what is your rationale for doing so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the meaning that you choose common, and literal, or is it less common, and less literal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11080" RevisionGUID="3de70963-787c-4f66-91e3-31a716c27cbb" CreationDate="2019-07-07T22:58:45.767" UserId="235" Text="How would you translate γέγονεν in John 1:15?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11080" RevisionGUID="3de70963-787c-4f66-91e3-31a716c27cbb" CreationDate="2019-07-07T22:58:45.767" UserId="235" Text="|vocabulary|greek|translation|meaning|new-testament|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11079" RevisionGUID="6e771de4-0813-4d09-9c07-885901bce7bf" CreationDate="2019-07-08T00:59:46.743" UserId="406" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="&gt; &quot;You came home…&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would use *ἥκεις* for this; it's technically a present-tense verb, but it generally has a perfect meaning, &quot;you have come back&quot;. If you want to be emphatic, add *πάλιν*, &quot;…back again&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Brianpck in the comments suggested an even better verb, *νοστήσας*, &quot;you came back home&quot;. I'd recommend this one instead of my original suggestion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;…to our hearts…&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd leave off &quot;our&quot; and just go with *εἰς τὰς καρδίας*; the definite article can give that sense on its own. If you want to include the &quot;our&quot;, that's *ἐις τὰς **ἡμετέρας** καρδίας*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;…with your shield.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nice and straightforward, *σὺν τῇ ασπίδι*. Once again, leaving off the non-emphatic &quot;your&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11081" RevisionGUID="dac3d977-5049-46aa-b771-aac1e7bffb84" CreationDate="2019-07-08T01:04:02.450" UserId="40" Text="ἑρμηνεία can have this meaning. The [LSJ entry][1] has some Koine-relevant attestations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. translation, Aristeas 3, Ph.2.141; “ἑ. τῶν Π̔ωμαϊκῶν” POxy.1201.12 (iii A.D.); ἑ. ἔχειν to mean when translated, Ph.1.232, Porph.Plot.17.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De(rmhnei%2Fa" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11079" RevisionGUID="0cc0e0d5-4b46-4d7c-af52-bf1d3e492041" CreationDate="2019-07-08T01:04:50.643" UserId="406" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="&gt; &quot;You came home…&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt;I would use *ἥκεις* for this; it's technically a present-tense verb, but it generally has a perfect meaning, &quot;you have come back&quot;. If you want to be emphatic, add *πάλιν*, &quot;…back again&quot;.&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Brianpck in the comments suggested an even better verb, *νοστήσας*, &quot;you came back home&quot;. I'd recommend this one instead of my original suggestion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;…to our hearts…&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd leave off &quot;our&quot; and just go with *εἰς τὰς καρδίας*; the definite article can give that sense on its own. If you want to include the &quot;our&quot;, that's *ἐις τὰς **ἡμετέρας** καρδίας*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;…with your shield.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nice and straightforward, *σὺν τῇ ασπίδι*. Once again, leaving off the non-emphatic &quot;your&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11079" RevisionGUID="dad81a2f-035d-4469-b1e3-5f6f65e39885" CreationDate="2019-07-08T01:06:36.320" UserId="406" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; &quot;You came home…&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt;I would use *ἥκεις* for this; it's technically a present-tense verb, but it generally has a perfect meaning, &quot;you have come back&quot;. If you want to be emphatic, add *πάλιν*, &quot;…back again&quot;.&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Brianpck in the comments suggested an even better verb, *ἐνοστήσας*, &quot;you came back home&quot;. I'd recommend this one instead of my original suggestion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;…to our hearts…&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd leave off &quot;our&quot; and just go with *εἰς τὰς καρδίας*; the definite article can give that sense on its own. If you want to include the &quot;our&quot;, that's *ἐις τὰς **ἡμετέρας** καρδίας*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;…with your shield.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nice and straightforward, *σὺν τῇ ασπίδι*. Once again, leaving off the non-emphatic &quot;your&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11079" RevisionGUID="47e3157d-b4fe-4f1e-b10b-78013770a8c4" CreationDate="2019-07-08T01:14:23.443" UserId="406" Comment="added 290 characters in body" Text="&gt; &quot;You came home…&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt;I would use *ἥκεις* for this; it's technically a present-tense verb, but it generally has a perfect meaning, &quot;you have come back&quot;. If you want to be emphatic, add *πάλιν*, &quot;…back again&quot;.&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Brianpck in the comments suggested an even better verb, *ἐνοστήσας*, &quot;you came back home&quot;. I'd recommend this one instead of my original suggestion. It comes from the word *νόστος* &quot;journey home&quot;, as made famous in the *Odyssey*, and the root of &quot;nostalgia&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;…to our hearts…&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd leave off &quot;our&quot; and just go with *εἰς τὰς καρδίας*; the definite article can give that sense on its own. If you want to include the &quot;our&quot;, that's *ἐις τὰς **ἡμετέρας** καρδίας*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;…with your shield.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nice and straightforward, *σὺν τῇ ασπίδι*. Once again, leaving off the non-emphatic &quot;your&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I'm not entirely certain about using *σύν* like this. I might instead use a participle, something like &quot;…holding your shield&quot;. But that's somewhat of a change in meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11082" RevisionGUID="6c72cfe3-cdbd-4494-8960-45a2a06b17cc" CreationDate="2019-07-08T01:22:52.030" UserId="985" Text="I understand 'we are triumphant' to mean simply 'we are victorious' or 'we prevail.' Therefore, I'd use *vincimus* (*superamus* would also work). Although *triumphamus*, suggested by Joonas in another answer, would seem the logical choice, this verb most often refers, as Martin Kochanski has pointed out in a comment, to something very specific: the celebration of a triumphal procession, which is awarded (or not) to a general after a decisive victory. This is something quite special and is also quite distinct from the mere occurrence of such a victory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it, 'while (our enemy) sleeps' describes just a temporal relationship: during the time that the enemy is asleep, we take advantage of the situation and effect our victory. Therefore, *dum dormiunt* will work.\*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For 'enemy,' there are a couple of options. The best option depends on how/in what context you plan to use the motto.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Hostes* are *external* enemies (or pernicious, conspiratorial citizens whom one wishes to paint as enemies *of the state*). This is probably the best choice if you plan to use your motto in a military context – or if you'll use it in some other context, but you want strong martial overtones.&#xD;&#xA;- If you mean 'personal enemies' specifically – people that you have a *private* feud with or grudge against – *inimici*, as suggested by Joonas, will work.&#xD;&#xA;- For something more all-purpose, try *adversarii* (also spelled *advorsarii*). It's used for personal, political, athletic, and martial opponents. In the *Civil war*, Caesar typically uses this word to refer to his fellow-citizens who are fighting on the other side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I take your motto to refer to a general, timeless truth; therefore, I'd use simple present tense for the verbs *vincimus* (or *superamus*) and *dormiunt*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, putting it all together:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *dum hostes* [or *inimici* or *adversarii*] *dormiunt vincimus* [or *superamus*].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also play with the word order somewhat. Here are two other possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dum dormiunt hostes vincimus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vincimus dum hostes dormiunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* If you have in mind a more complex relationship, encompassing not only time ('while'), but also causality ('because') or contingency ('if'), Joonas's *inimicis dormientibus* is an excellent alternative. In that case, though, if you want to use a different word for 'enemy,' you would replace *inimicis* with *hostibus* or *adversariis*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11083" RevisionGUID="6972b68e-e212-4da3-9b9e-7b10b5e2a17c" CreationDate="2019-07-08T04:37:14.440" UserId="118" Text="Are Latin verbs of motion [satellite-framed, verb-framed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb_framing), both, or neither?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Native English verbs of motion are said to be **satellite-framed**: the verb usually indicates the manner of motion and a &quot;satellite&quot; or particle word indicates the direction. For example, &quot;He walked into the room,&quot; &quot;She ran out of the room,&quot; &quot;They floated into the room.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verbs of motion in Romance languages are said to be **verb-framed**: the verb usually indicates the direction of motion and some complementary word, typically a gerund or participle, indicates the manner. For example, &quot;Entró caminando en la sala,&quot; &quot;Salió corriendo de la sala,&quot; &quot;Entraron flotando en la sala.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I expected Latin verbs of motion to work like those of the Romance languages, but so far in my occasional studies I haven't seen it. In fact, I've come across no shortage of verbs with a prefix indicating direction stuck on a verb indicating manner: [_incurro_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/incurro#Latin), [_emergo_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/emergo#Latin), etc. This pattern extends far beyond verbs of motion, of course. And I think one normally would say _Daedalus cum filio e labyrintho [evolavit](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evolo#Latin),_ not _…exiit volans._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, in Latin I've also come across constructs like _respondit dicens …_ where in English we would just say &quot;He answered …&quot;. And Latin seems to make much heavier use of participles where English would more likely make another construct, such as an adverbial phrase, a relative clause, or a separate sentence, e.g. _Nonne rex Minos Theseum cum Ariadna fugientem persecutus est?_ vs. &quot;When Theseus and Ariadna fled, didn't King Minos chase them?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32532" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11083" RevisionGUID="6972b68e-e212-4da3-9b9e-7b10b5e2a17c" CreationDate="2019-07-08T04:37:14.440" UserId="118" Text="Are Latin verbs of motion satellite-framed or verb-framed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32533" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11083" RevisionGUID="6972b68e-e212-4da3-9b9e-7b10b5e2a17c" CreationDate="2019-07-08T04:37:14.440" UserId="118" Text="|verbs|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11083" RevisionGUID="471a0ff0-96e6-44ea-b071-88d02cd684b7" CreationDate="2019-07-08T04:42:27.890" UserId="118" Comment="added 222 characters in body" Text="Are Latin verbs of motion [satellite-framed, verb-framed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb_framing), both, or neither?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Native English verbs of motion are said to be **satellite-framed**: the verb usually indicates the manner of motion and a &quot;satellite&quot; or particle word indicates the direction. For example, &quot;He walked into the room,&quot; &quot;She ran out of the room,&quot; &quot;They floated into the room.&quot; The preposition need not take an object: &quot;He walked in&quot;, &quot;They floated out.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verbs of motion in Romance languages are said to be **verb-framed**: the verb usually indicates the direction of motion and some complementary word, typically a gerund or participle, indicates the manner. For example, &quot;Entró caminando en la sala,&quot; &quot;Salió corriendo de la sala,&quot; &quot;Entraron flotando en la sala.&quot; Native speakers of Romance languages often find the English use of prepositions without an object (&quot;particles&quot;) jarring, as in &quot;She walked out.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I expected Latin verbs of motion to work like those of the Romance languages, but so far in my occasional studies I haven't seen it. In fact, I've come across no shortage of verbs with a prefix indicating direction stuck on a verb indicating manner: [_incurro_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/incurro#Latin), [_emergo_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/emergo#Latin), etc. This pattern extends far beyond verbs of motion, of course. And I think one normally would say _Daedalus cum filio e labyrintho [evolavit](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evolo#Latin),_ not _…exiit volans._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, in Latin I've also come across constructs like _respondit dicens …_ where in English we would just say &quot;He answered …&quot;. And Latin seems to make much heavier use of participles where English would more likely make another construct, such as an adverbial phrase, a relative clause, or a separate sentence, e.g. _Nonne rex Minos Theseum cum Ariadna fugientem persecutus est?_ vs. &quot;When Theseus and Ariadna fled, didn't King Minos chase them?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32535" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11077" RevisionGUID="de3ede99-cdb2-4837-8188-5da65b32a880" CreationDate="2019-07-08T04:55:13.670" />
  <row Id="32536" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11078" RevisionGUID="e76cba09-8afe-451f-8f0b-77c3ff258dd3" CreationDate="2019-07-08T05:10:15.787" />
  <row Id="32537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11084" RevisionGUID="fcc279d3-0f0e-4580-82e2-4f905f4049bf" CreationDate="2019-07-08T08:40:30.500" UserId="4920" Text="Being Greek I may be also able to help. Ερμηνεία is a very formal way to denote 'translation'. I would say that in common (Κοινά) Greek, the word translation would be μετάφραση." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11085" RevisionGUID="ac178bfd-2296-4e62-afab-cb13cb6f1bec" CreationDate="2019-07-08T08:54:59.380" UserId="4913" Text="I can't seem to find this in any books about medieval scribal abbreviations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manuscript: http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=12826&amp;page=246&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;page 223/1613&#xD;&#xA;[![2][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![1][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They can be found all throughout the manuscript.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/edkf9.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6atjc.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32539" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11085" RevisionGUID="ac178bfd-2296-4e62-afab-cb13cb6f1bec" CreationDate="2019-07-08T08:54:59.380" UserId="4913" Text="What do three diagonal dots above a letter mean in the &quot;Misal rico de Cisneros&quot; (Spain, 1518)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32540" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11085" RevisionGUID="ac178bfd-2296-4e62-afab-cb13cb6f1bec" CreationDate="2019-07-08T08:54:59.380" UserId="4913" Text="|medieval-latin|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11085" RevisionGUID="c4f8d115-dd8c-40d7-8626-f1cba540b523" CreationDate="2019-07-08T09:01:41.940" UserId="4913" Comment="added 318 characters in body" Text="I can't seem to find this in any books about medieval scribal abbreviations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manuscript: http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=12826&amp;page=246&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;page 223/1613&#xD;&#xA;[![2][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![1][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They can be found all throughout the manuscript. As stated in [my other question][3], I've been making the manuscript into a font, so want to know if there's a MUFI codepoint for these three diagonal dots &amp; what they mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6atjc.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/edkf9.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11066/why-does-the-misal-rico-de-cisneros-uses-the-word-qi%C5%BF%C5%BFa-and-what-is-it-suppos" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11086" RevisionGUID="d97c6881-ba45-4d7c-8a4d-da854282191b" CreationDate="2019-07-08T13:27:27.367" UserId="45" Text="These triple dots appear to be serving two separate purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **The passive -ur ending:** In your first image, the word intended is *perficient**ur***, and the same triple dot is used on page 224 for *cognoscent**ur***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **An interrogative sign:** The first triple dot in your first image, and the succession of triple dots in your second, all seem to indicate that the preceding is a question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Et unde hoc michi: ut veniat mater domini mei ad me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; And your second image:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Quid existis in desertum videre? Arundinem vento agitatam? Sed quid existis videre? Hominem mollibus vestitum?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have only limited experience with paleography, but I've not seen triple dots used in this way before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11087" RevisionGUID="7f835b86-2e2a-4054-96e0-30886f4e457f" CreationDate="2019-07-08T13:30:39.050" UserId="645" Text="Most (if not all) languages change continually. There's no reason why Latin should be an exception but, if you want to define a period and give it a special name, it's necessary to look at a few facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Early Latin — before the first century BC — is quite scarce. There are fragments of the early poets Naevius and Ennius, and the plays of Plautus and Terence which date from about 260-160 BC. There is a good deal from other sources but, taken all together, they don't really amount to a homogeneous, or even an identifiable style of Latin. In poetry, things look up with the *De Rerum Natura* of Lucretius, who lived from about 95-55 BC, but the best was still to be written, beginning in the middle part of the century by such as Cicero and Caesar, both great and acknowledged stylists. Catullus is the best-known poet of the period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that period literature blossoms with the advent of the whole clutch of writers whose style is conventionally called 'Classical' — Virgil, Livy, Horace, Propertius are among the more celebrated, flourishing around the beginning of the Principate of Augustus. You might decide that the Classical period began at roughly the time of Cicero's consulship in 63 BC, but others might prefer to choose a rather later date, when our sources come into full flow introducing the style known broadly as Golden Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the accession of Tiberius in AD 14, the flow begins to tail off, and there is, or used to be, a body of opinion that the Classical Period should be conveniently taken to coincide with the end of the first principate. The peculiar, indeed alarming, years under the Julio-Claudians that followed have produced very little that is extant, though there are plenty of indications that writing remained in fashion, certainly of history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the turbulence of the 'Year of the Four Emperors' comes another surge, though it was prudent for writers to be cautious in expressing themselves. This applied less to the Elder Pliny and the histories of one kind or another such as those by Tacitus and Suetonius than to the more celebrated poets Martial and Juvenal. This is the age of Silver Latin, which was agreed by contemporaries to be of a lesser quality than that of a century earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others may argue for something differing from what I have suggested. To extend the Classical Period as far as AD 200 is, in my own opinion, a bit extreme; but if you really *must* define the Classical Period, you could do worse than pick out the reign of Augustus, and leave it at that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32548" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11085" RevisionGUID="b92c7e0b-552c-4aef-a341-e10298751a43" CreationDate="2019-07-08T16:56:14.177" />
  <row Id="32549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11087" RevisionGUID="22a87b0e-0a68-444b-bfb1-5ecc8f04b6fe" CreationDate="2019-07-08T16:56:21.690" UserId="645" Comment="words inserted for clarification" Text="Most (if not all) languages change continually. There's no reason why Latin should be an exception but, if you want to define a period and give it a special name, it's necessary to look at a few facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Early Latin — before the first century BC — is quite scarce. There are fragments of the early poets Naevius and Ennius, and the plays of Plautus and Terence which date from about 260-160 BC. There is a good deal from other sources but, taken all together, they don't really amount to a homogeneous, or even an identifiable style of Latin. In poetry, things look up with the *De Rerum Natura* of Lucretius, who lived from about 95-55 BC, but the best was still to be written, beginning in the middle part of the century by such as Cicero and Caesar, both great and acknowledged stylists. Catullus is the best-known poet of the period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that period literature blossoms with the advent of the whole clutch of writers whose style is conventionally called 'Classical' — Virgil, Livy, Horace, Propertius are among the more celebrated, flourishing around the beginning of the Principate of Augustus. You might decide that the Classical period began at roughly the time of Cicero's consulship in 63 BC, but others might prefer to choose a rather later date, when our sources come into full flow introducing the style known broadly as Golden Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the accession of Tiberius in AD 14, the flow begins to tail off, and there is, or used to be, a body of opinion that the end of the Classical Period should be conveniently taken to coincide with the end of the first principate. The peculiar, indeed alarming, years under the Julio-Claudians that followed have produced very little that is extant, though there are plenty of indications that writing remained in fashion, certainly of history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the turbulence of the 'Year of the Four Emperors' comes another surge, though it was prudent for writers to be cautious in expressing themselves. This applied less to the Elder Pliny and the histories of one kind or another such as those by Tacitus and Suetonius than to the more celebrated poets Martial and Juvenal. This is the age of Silver Latin, which was agreed by contemporaries to be of a lesser quality than that of a century earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others may argue for something differing from what I have suggested. To extend the Classical Period as far as AD 200 is, in my own opinion, a bit extreme; but if you really *must* define the Classical Period, you could do worse than pick out the reign of Augustus, and leave it at that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11079" RevisionGUID="fccc7b43-5563-4b7d-9990-b009e50c6c55" CreationDate="2019-07-08T17:38:58.870" UserId="406" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="&gt; &quot;You came home…&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt;I would use *ἥκεις* for this; it's technically a present-tense verb, but it generally has a perfect meaning, &quot;you have come back&quot;. If you want to be emphatic, add *πάλιν*, &quot;…back again&quot;.&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Brianpck in the comments suggested an even better verb, *ἐνοστήσας*, &quot;you came back home&quot;. I'd recommend this one instead of my original suggestion. It comes from the word *νόστος* &quot;journey home&quot;, as made famous in the *Odyssey*, and the root of &quot;nostalgia&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;…to our hearts…&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd leave off &quot;our&quot; and just go with *εἰς τὰς καρδίας*; the definite article can give that sense on its own. If you want to include the &quot;our&quot;, that's *ἐις τὰς **ἡμετέρας** καρδίας*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;…with your shield.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nice and straightforward, *σὺν τῇ ασπίδι*. Once again, leaving off the non-emphatic &quot;your&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, ***ἐνοστήσας σὺν τῇ ασπίδι ἐις τὰς ἡμετέρας καρδίας***. You can reorder the words pretty freely in order to get the effect you want, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I'm not entirely certain about using *σύν* like this. I might instead use a participle, something like &quot;…holding your shield&quot;. But that's somewhat of a change in meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32555" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="11089" RevisionGUID="c0d85e2c-b748-42ee-860f-3b32464fd700" CreationDate="2019-07-09T03:37:32.460" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/31885/how-would-marcus-aurelius-have-pronounced-his-latin" />
  <row Id="32556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11089" RevisionGUID="55ae5fa9-6504-461f-902e-7e672089c451" CreationDate="2019-07-08T15:10:52.240" UserId="43" Text="It is my understanding that Julius Caesar, Cicero, Octavian (Augustus) would have pronounced Latin in a manner that is decidedly Classical, characterised by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * &quot;v&quot; as /w/&#xD;&#xA; * &quot;c&quot; and &quot;g&quot; always hard (i.e., /k/ and /g/)&#xD;&#xA; * both long and short vowels&#xD;&#xA; * &quot;ae&quot; diphthong as /ae̯/&#xD;&#xA; * consonantal &quot;i&quot; as /j/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(all these points distinguishing it from Vulgar and Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also understand that Vulgar Latin pronunciation started to develop around the first century BC as well, but took a long time to become the standard for the upper classes. I have heard it was standard even among the patricians and senators by the early 5th century, but quite possibly earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question relates to Marcus Aurelius (121-180), and how he and others of the higher echelons of Roman society would have spoken Latin. Of course, Marcus Aurelius grew up in room, so he would most likely have had a very orthodox pronunciation/accent for the time, despite his provincial heritage (from southern Hispania). Would his pronunciation likely have been totally classical, like that of Caesar or Augustus, or would it already be showing signs of &quot;vulgarisation&quot;? How late did this &quot;correct&quot; Classical pronunciation persist amongst the highest classes during the Imperial period?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Incidentally, I presume that Marcus Aurelius' usage of grammar and vocabulary – and probably spelling too – would all have been very much Classical/Ciceronian in any case.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32557" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11089" RevisionGUID="55ae5fa9-6504-461f-902e-7e672089c451" CreationDate="2019-07-08T15:10:52.240" UserId="43" Text="How would Marcus Aurelius have pronounced his Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32558" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11089" RevisionGUID="55ae5fa9-6504-461f-902e-7e672089c451" CreationDate="2019-07-08T15:10:52.240" UserId="43" Text="|pronunciation|classical-latin|vulgar-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="e30fa436-8e0b-4a6e-be25-05e602c472d4" CreationDate="2019-07-09T07:59:21.450" UserId="2532" Text="The pronunciation of the stops b, d, g / p, t, k is—it seems—unstable. In German, the voiced stops are unvoiced at the end of words, such as in _lieb mir_, _das Lied_, _Guten Tag_ (/liːp mi:r, das liːt, guːt(ə)n taːk/); in Korean, they are unvoiced word-initially, such as in 보 (bo: /po/), 단군 (Dan-gun: /tangun/), 관 (gwan: /kwan/); in Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and English, a -p- is voiced e.g. post initial s before a vowel, such as in _spade_ (no: /²sbaːde/; en: /sbeɪd/). Without going to deeply into linguistics territory: It is a well-established phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin, it would seem, has the same phenomenon represented from older times, with the etruscan C serving both as /k/ and /g/; hence ‘C.’ is short for Gaius. Gian Biagio Conte writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  What is left shows the existence of a melting pot of peoples and languages. Only gradually does the use of Latin and the Latin alphabet assert itself. The Latin alphabet itself, in fact, gives clear testimony of the situation in early Rome. In substance, it is derived from a particular West Greek alphabet, the one used in the powerful Campanian city of Cumae, but it is also somewhat influenced by Etruria. (This explains, for example, how the letter _C_ serves as the abbreviation for the name _Gaius_: Etruscan had a single sign for the two velar consonants, voiceless and voiced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read this and similar explanations many places, but it seems no-one entertains the notion that the early speakers might have had a devoicing of initial /g/ to /k/. My question, thus, is _did the early Latin speakers devoice initial stops?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a final note, it is probably worthy of note to mention the perhaps unstable spelling of words with an initial /k/: If borrowed from greek and followed by α, it might get the spelling _ka_, such as in _kalenda_ (e.g. ‘Martis Romani festae uenere kalendae | —exoriens nostris hic fuit annus auis—’ Tib.3.1); if followed by consonants or the vowels a, e, i, it is always _c_; but if followed by _v_—pronounced /uː/, /ʊ/ or /w/—it is spelt either _q_ or _c_. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32560" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="e30fa436-8e0b-4a6e-be25-05e602c472d4" CreationDate="2019-07-09T07:59:21.450" UserId="2532" Text="Were initial voiced stops voiceless in early Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32561" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="e30fa436-8e0b-4a6e-be25-05e602c472d4" CreationDate="2019-07-09T07:59:21.450" UserId="2532" Text="|pronunciation|early-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="e493b841-28ac-462a-b8df-0f29f35780d6" CreationDate="2019-07-09T08:18:56.693" UserId="2532" Comment="Added note" Text="The pronunciation of the stops b, d, g / p, t, k is—it seems—unstable. In German, the voiced stops are unvoiced at the end of words, such as in _lieb mir_, _das Lied_, _Guten Tag_ (/liːp mi:r, das liːt, guːt(ə)n taːk/); in Korean, they are unvoiced word-initially, such as in 보 (bo: /po/), 단군 (Dan-gun: /tangun/), 관 (gwan: /kwan/); in Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and English, a -p- is voiced e.g. post initial s before a vowel, such as in _spade_ (no: /²sbaːde/; en: /sbeɪd/).¹ Without going to deeply into linguistics territory: It is a well-established phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin, it would seem, has the same phenomenon represented from older times, with the etruscan C serving both as /k/ and /g/; hence ‘C.’ is short for Gaius. Gian Biagio Conte writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  What is left shows the existence of a melting pot of peoples and languages. Only gradually does the use of Latin and the Latin alphabet assert itself. The Latin alphabet itself, in fact, gives clear testimony of the situation in early Rome. In substance, it is derived from a particular West Greek alphabet, the one used in the powerful Campanian city of Cumae, but it is also somewhat influenced by Etruria. (This explains, for example, how the letter _C_ serves as the abbreviation for the name _Gaius_: Etruscan had a single sign for the two velar consonants, voiceless and voiced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read this and similar explanations many places, but it seems no-one entertains the notion that the early speakers might have had a devoicing of initial /g/ to /k/. My question, thus, is _did the early Latin speakers devoice initial stops?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a final note, it is probably worthy of note to mention the perhaps unstable spelling of words with an initial /k/: If borrowed from greek and followed by α, it might get the spelling _ka_, such as in _kalenda_ (e.g. ‘Martis Romani festae uenere kalendae | —exoriens nostris hic fuit annus auis—’ Tib.3.1); if followed by consonants or the vowels a, e, i, it is always _c_; but if followed by _v_—pronounced /uː/, /ʊ/ or /w/—it is spelt either _q_ or _c_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Notes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¹ Though this might be contended. Is it merely an unaspiration?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="5548d932-3cc0-4590-846d-f25fa8946b37" CreationDate="2019-07-09T08:43:42.213" UserId="2532" Comment="Added link to article on qu, gu." Text="The pronunciation of the stops b, d, g / p, t, k is—it seems—unstable. In German, the voiced stops are unvoiced at the end of words, such as in _lieb mir_, _das Lied_, _Guten Tag_ (/liːp mi:r, das liːt, guːt(ə)n taːk/); in Korean, they are unvoiced word-initially, such as in 보 (bo: /po/), 단군 (Dan-gun: /tangun/), 관 (gwan: /kwan/); in Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and English, a -p- is voiced e.g. post initial s before a vowel, such as in _spade_ (no: /²sbaːde/; en: /sbeɪd/).¹ Without going to deeply into linguistics territory: It is a well-established phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin, it would seem, has the same phenomenon represented from older times, with the etruscan C serving both as /k/ and /g/; hence ‘C.’ is short for Gaius. Gian Biagio Conte writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  What is left shows the existence of a melting pot of peoples and languages. Only gradually does the use of Latin and the Latin alphabet assert itself. The Latin alphabet itself, in fact, gives clear testimony of the situation in early Rome. In substance, it is derived from a particular West Greek alphabet, the one used in the powerful Campanian city of Cumae, but it is also somewhat influenced by Etruria. (This explains, for example, how the letter _C_ serves as the abbreviation for the name _Gaius_: Etruscan had a single sign for the two velar consonants, voiceless and voiced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read this and similar explanations many places, but it seems no-one entertains the notion that the early speakers might have had a devoicing of initial /g/ to /k/. My question, thus, is _did the early Latin speakers devoice initial stops?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a final note, it is probably worthy of note to mention the perhaps unstable spelling of words with an initial /k/: If borrowed from greek and followed by α, it might get the spelling _ka_, such as in _kalenda_ (e.g. ‘Martis Romani festae uenere kalendae | —exoriens nostris hic fuit annus auis—’ Tib.3.1); if followed by consonants or the vowels a, e, i, it is always _c_; but if followed by _v_—pronounced /uː/, /ʊ/ or /w/—it is spelt either _q_ or _c_. [This article by Sturtevant][1] provides a useful comment on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Notes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¹ Though this might be contended. Is it merely an unaspiration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/409104" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="82451486-d7b6-419b-8ab0-835cf4609fa3" CreationDate="2019-07-09T09:30:41.257" UserId="2532" Comment="Corrected erroneous spelling _kalenda_; corrected typo." Text="The pronunciation of the stops b, d, g / p, t, k is—it seems—unstable. In German, the voiced stops are unvoiced at the end of words, such as in _lieb mir_, _das Lied_, _Guten Tag_ (/liːp mi:r, das liːt, guːt(ə)n taːk/); in Korean, they are unvoiced word-initially, such as in 보 (bo: /po/), 단군 (Dan-gun: /tangun/), 관 (gwan: /kwan/); in Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and English, a -p- is voiced e.g. post initial s before a vowel, such as in _spade_ (no: /²sbaːde/; en: /sbeɪd/).¹ Without going to deeply into linguistics territory: It is a well-established phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin, it would seem, has the same phenomenon represented from older times, with the etruscan C serving both as /k/ and /g/; hence ‘C.’ is short for Gaius. Gian Biagio Conte writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  What is left shows the existence of a melting pot of peoples and languages. Only gradually does the use of Latin and the Latin alphabet assert itself. The Latin alphabet itself, in fact, gives clear testimony of the situation in early Rome. In substance, it is derived from a particular West Greek alphabet, the one used in the powerful Campanian city of Cumae, but it is also somewhat influenced by Etruria. (This explains, for example, how the letter _C_ serves as the abbreviation for the name _Gaius_: Etruscan had a single sign for the two velar consonants, voiceless and voiced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read this and similar explanations many places, but it seems no-one entertains the notion that the early speakers might have had a devoicing of initial /g/ to /k/. My question, thus, is _did the early Latin speakers devoice initial stops?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a final note, it is probably worthy of note to mention the perhaps unstable spelling of words with an initial /k/: If borrowed from Greek and followed by α, it might get the spelling _ka_, such as in _kalendae_ (e.g. ‘Martis Romani festae uenere kalendae | —exoriens nostris hic fuit annus auis—’ Tib.3.1); if followed by consonants or the vowels a, e, i, it is always _c_; but if followed by _v_—pronounced /uː/, /ʊ/ or /w/—it is spelt either _q_ or _c_. [This article by Sturtevant][1] provides a useful comment on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Notes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¹ Though this might be contended. Is it merely an unaspiration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/409104" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11091" RevisionGUID="486de10f-f203-4a1d-a71f-0065fd61314f" CreationDate="2019-07-09T10:08:11.830" UserId="183" Text="Some of the phenomena are in fact an inference of Etruscan: As far as we know, the [Etruscan language][1] made no phonemic distinction between voiced and voiceless stops. Because the Romans adapted the Latin alphabet from Etruscan, some pecularities of the Etruscan alphabet carried over to early Latin writing: Three different letters for the sound /k/: K before A, Q before U, C otherwise, no letter at all for /g/—it was introduced later (ca. 230 BCE) and placed in the alphabet at the place of the than abolished letter Z that was added again later to write loan words from Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These pecularities have nothing to do with the pronunciation of Latin, it always maintained a contrast between voice and voiceless stops, as it can be seen by comparison with Proto-Indogermanic and other Indogermanic languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11091" RevisionGUID="87609514-7d12-4717-8b59-285e53c5405b" CreationDate="2019-07-09T10:15:00.710" UserId="183" Comment="sp." Text="Some of the phenomena are in fact an interference of Etruscan: As far as we know, the [Etruscan language][1] made no phonemic distinction between voiced and voiceless stops. Because the Romans adapted the Latin alphabet from Etruscan, some pecularities of the Etruscan alphabet carried over to early Latin writing: Three different letters for the sound /k/: K before A, Q before U, C otherwise, no letter at all for /g/—it was introduced later (ca. 230 BCE) and placed in the alphabet at the place of the than abolished letter Z that was added again later to write loan words from Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These pecularities have nothing to do with the pronunciation of Latin, it always maintained a contrast between voice and voiceless stops, as it can be seen by comparison with Proto-Indogermanic and other Indogermanic languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11091" RevisionGUID="fbe50431-8b3d-4720-b637-75a492e237b2" CreationDate="2019-07-09T11:56:36.520" UserId="183" Comment="sp." Text="Some of the phenomena are in fact an interference of Etruscan: As far as we know, the [Etruscan language][1] made no phonemic distinction between voiced and voiceless stops. Because the Romans adapted the Latin alphabet from Etruscan, some pecularities of the Etruscan alphabet carried over to early Latin writing: Three different letters for the sound /k/: K before A, Q before U, C otherwise, no letter at all for /g/—it was introduced later (ca. 230 BCE) and placed in the alphabet at the place of the than abolished letter Z that was added again later to write loan words from Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These pecularities have nothing to do with the pronunciation of Latin, it always maintained a contrast between voiced and voiceless stops, as it can be seen by comparison with Proto-Indogermanic and other Indogermanic languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="153" RevisionGUID="17f892fb-fdd8-44d1-ae4b-95b28de873c1" CreationDate="2019-07-09T12:42:55.933" UserId="2532" Comment="Formatted headings" Text="#Introduction and Definition#&#xD;&#xA;Why questions in linguistics are the hardest because we can only speculate. That being said, there is plenty of evidence to make an educated guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lundquist 2016 defines rhotacism as “the replacement of a non [r] sound with [r].”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Evidence#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inervocalic s (a letter, not a sound!) is found “only on the very earliest inscriptions” (Weiss 2009/2011),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;e.g. IOVE**S**AT, VALE**S**IO**S**IO, E**S**ED (all circa 500 BCE); NUMA**S**IOI (700 BCE?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't know for sure how intervocalic s was pronounced in Old Latin but there is good reason to believe it was a voiced fricative, [z], cf. Sihler 1995, who writes that rhotacism in Latin was “doubtless through the medium of [z].”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, we reconstruct the change as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*s &gt; *z &gt; r&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Dating#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not everyone agrees on whether it happened in Proto-Italic or just affected the Latino-Faliscan branch only. Weiss 2009/2011 argues it was &quot;an areal feature that affected Latin, Faliscan, and Umbrian&quot; (Umbrian belongs to the Sabellic branch).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, ancient grammarians were aware of this change too - Varro is the most cited example. e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In multis verbis in quo antiqui dicebant S, postea dicunt R (L.7.27).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for dating, most evidence comes from texts. For example, Cicero talks about princeps L. Papirius Mugillanus &quot;qui censor cum L. Sempronio Atratino fuit&quot; and we learn about him that he &quot;*primum Papisius est vocari desitus*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example: in 312 BC &quot;*Idem Appius Claudius... R litteram invenit, ut pro Valesiis Valerii essent, et pro Fusiis Furii*.&quot; [Weiss 2010][1] interprets this passage the following way, &quot;in redacting the senatorial roll in his capacity as censor in 312 BCE Claudius rewrote these nomina, formerly spelled with s, with the letter r.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking such evidence into consideration, we assume that rhotacism must have happened before the middle of the fourth century BC,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. **Niederman 1906** “Or, si nous considérons que, de tous les mots d’une langue, ce sont les noms propres qui se transforment le plus lentement […], nous ne risquerons guère de nous tromper en affirmant que, dans les noms communs, **le rhotacisme était un fait accompli des l’année 350 av. J.-C. environ**” (p. 74). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Phonetic explanation#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, scholars have always wanted to explain rhotacism phonetically (why does it happen?). As **Garrett and Johnson 2011** astutely observe that historical linguistics textbook classify sound changes rather superficially, arguing that “an explanatory classification of surface patterns should reflect a typology of causes” (i.e it should be articulatory or acoustically oriented). They **explain rhotacism with the help of aerodynamic constraints** (a bias against voiced fricatives); in other words, voiced fricatives tend to become glides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. Solé 1992, who argues that z &gt; r is due to “hardware constraints which are built into the physical system used for speech” or Painter 2012, who concludes that “rhotacism is the result of the listener reanalyzing phonetic realizations of a target /z/ in the speech signal as belonging to /r/.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Environment#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, rhotacism didn't happen simultaneously in all contexts - that is why there are numerous exceptions - below is my summary of exceptions, based on Baldi 2002: 285-290; Leumann 1977 and Sihler 1995, §172-173.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Exceptions##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Leveling, e.g. arbor;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Borrowings (they were borrowed either later or from non-rhotacizing donor languages), e.g. basis, casa, Musa, rosa etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Words that originally had ss: causa, formosa, quaeso, visus, usus etc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Next syllable begins with r, e.g. Caesar, miser (but: soror, aurora) etc;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Derivationally transparent compounds: e.g. desino, nisi etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Why are there so many exceptions?##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pretty common view to rhotacism is to treat it a **multi-stage, diachronic process** (starting with Touratier 1975; also see Baldi 1994). The best description of rhotacism I'm aware of is [Roberts 2012][2]. His model has five stages, starting with stage 0 - he calls his a *phonetic tendency* - when &quot;co-articulatory pressures cause intervocalic voiceless consonants to tend to be realised as voiced&quot; and concluding with stage L, when rhotacism became &quot;a systematic property of the lexicon, subject to extension by analogy&quot; and when rhotacism was &quot;no longer productive over new VsV sequences, such as in&#xD;&#xA;loans or those created by the degemination of ss.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Rhotacism crosslinguistically#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sihler 1995 observes that rhotacism may seem “extreme” phonetically but it is attested in many languages: in West Germanic languages and in Old Norse (Ringer and Taylor 2014, pp. 82-88), in some Greek dialects (Elean, Euboean, Eretrian etc.; Lundquist 2016) or in some Spanish dialects (Solé 1992).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#References#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baldi, Philip. 1994. Some Thoughts on Latin Rhotacism. *General Linguistics* 34: 209-216.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Baldi, Philip. 2002.][3] *The Foundations of Lat*in. Berlin: De Gruyter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Garrett, Andrew, and Keith Johnson. 2011.][4] *Phonetic bias in sound change*. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lundquist, Jesse. 2016. &quot;Rhotacism.&quot; [Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics.][5] Brill Online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann, Manu. 1977. *Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre*. München: C.H. Bech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Niedermann, Max. 1906.][6] *Précis de phonétique historique du lati*n. Paris: C. Klincksieck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Painter, Robert Kenneth. 2012.][7] *Acoustic and perceptual explanations for rhotacism in Latin and Germanic*. Doctoral dissertation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ringe, Donald A., and Ann Taylor. 2014. *The development of Old English*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Roberts, Philip J. 2012.][2] Latin Rhotacism: A Case Study in the Life cycle of Phonological Processes. *Transactions of the Philological Society*, 110(1): 80–93.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. *New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin*. Oxford: Oxford University Press. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solé, M.J. 1992. Experimental Phonology: the case of rhotacism. In W. U. Dressler, H.C. Luschützky, O. E. Pfeiffer &amp; J. R. Rennison (eds.), *Phonologica 1988*, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 259-271.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Touratier, C. 1975.][8] Rhotacisme synchronique du latin classique et rhotacisme diachronique. *Glotta* 53.246-281. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss, Michael L. 2009/2011. *Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin*. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ohcgl.blogspot.com/2010/01/papirius-and-appius-claudius.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2012.01285.x/full&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.degruyter.com/viewbooktoc/product/47839&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=10&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiki6al2JbLAhVSz2MKHfh5CCkQFghTMAk&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Flinguistics.berkeley.edu%2Fphonlab%2Fannual_report%2Fdocuments%2F2011%2FGarrett_Johnson_2011.pdf&amp;usg=AFQjCNGmbcquKALZAFg9LhikTNV6aBnGOg&amp;sig2=Ygbc6qibn4cPJlNPeFiREQ&amp;bvm=bv.115339255,d.cGc&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=Fg1LAAAAIAAJ&amp;dq=Phon%C3%A9tique%20historique%20du%20latin&amp;pg=PP7#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/925793250.html?FMT=ABS&amp;pubnum=3495217&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40266333" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32570" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="153" RevisionGUID="17f892fb-fdd8-44d1-ae4b-95b28de873c1" CreationDate="2019-07-09T12:42:55.933" Comment="Proposed by 2532 approved by 39 edit id of 322" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11089" RevisionGUID="d053d3b7-4eea-47bf-8f38-10aff79af650" CreationDate="2019-07-09T14:38:52.897" UserId="2532" Comment="typos corrected" Text="It is my understanding that Julius Caesar, Cicero, Octavian (Augustus) would have pronounced Latin in a manner that is decidedly Classical, characterised by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * &quot;v&quot; as /w/&#xD;&#xA; * &quot;c&quot; and &quot;g&quot; always hard (i.e., /k/ and /g/)&#xD;&#xA; * both long and short vowels&#xD;&#xA; * &quot;ae&quot; diphthong as /ae̯/&#xD;&#xA; * consonantal &quot;i&quot; as /j/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(All these points distinguishing it from Vulgar and Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also understand that Vulgar Latin pronunciation started to develop around the first century BC as well, but took a long time to become the standard for the upper classes. I have heard it was standard even among the patricians and senators by the early 5th century, but quite possibly earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question relates to Marcus Aurelius (121–180), and how he and others of the higher echelons of Roman society would have spoken Latin. Of course, Marcus Aurelius grew up in Rome, so he would most likely have had a very orthodox pronunciation/accent for the time, despite his provincial heritage (from southern Hispania). Would his pronunciation likely have been totally Classical, like that of Caesar or Augustus, or would it already be showing signs of &quot;vulgarisation&quot;? How late did this &quot;correct&quot; Classical pronunciation persist amongst the highest classes during the Imperial period?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Incidentally, I presume that Marcus Aurelius' usage of grammar and vocabulary – and probably spelling too – would all have been very much Classical/Ciceronian in any case.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32572" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11089" RevisionGUID="d053d3b7-4eea-47bf-8f38-10aff79af650" CreationDate="2019-07-09T14:38:52.897" Comment="Proposed by 2532 approved by 183, 79 edit id of 321" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32573" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="84c729b5-0113-4d85-bed9-5ea9027177ab" CreationDate="2019-07-09T16:13:03.660" />
  <row Id="32574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11092" RevisionGUID="789ca374-f413-4c6d-bc68-bca5597efb01" CreationDate="2019-07-09T18:57:21.620" UserId="406" Text="To elaborate on jknappen's excellent answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Etruscan language, originally spoken across Tuscany, had no voicing distinctions. They had an aspiration distinction, with `/tʰ/` and `/t/` contrasting, but no contrastive `/d/`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the Etruscans borrowed an early form of the Greek alphabet, then, they found a whole lot of letters they didn't need. Theta and tau were used for `/tʰ/` and `/t/`, for example, but delta was unnecessary. So somewhere around the sixth century BCE, they started purging the unneeded letters: delta, beta, omicron, and xi were unceremoniously disposed of (as Etruscan had no `/d/`, `/b/`, or `/o/`, and used chi to write `/ks/`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But by that time, a strange convention had arisen around `/k/`. The early Greek alphabet had two separate letters for `/k/`, named kappa and qoppa; the latter was originally something like `/q/` or `/kʼ/` in Phoenician, but no dialect of Greek had either of these sounds, so it became just &quot;kappa 2&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually the Greeks got rid of qoppa, but the Etruscans didn't. Since they didn't have a `/g/`, gamma became *another* redundant version of `/k/`. And since there were already &quot;spare&quot; letters for `/k/`, why not keep one more? Eventually, the convention became: use kappa before `/a/`, qoppa before `/u/`, and gamma before `/i/` and `/e/`. Presumably there were some phonetic differences here, with qoppa being a bit farther back and gamma a bit farther forward, but there isn't enough evidence to say for certain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the Latins then borrowed the alphabet from the Etruscans, and applied it to their own language, they ran into a problem: they *did* have voicing distinctions, and needed some way to represent `/b d g/`. For `/b/` and `/d/` they re-borrowed beta and delta from Greek—but gamma was already being used for something different. So a *new* convention arose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Qoppa was used for `/k/` before `/u/` and `/w/`; `/kʷ/` is written as if it were `/kw/`&#xD;&#xA; - Kappa was used for `/k/` before `/a/`&#xD;&#xA; - Gamma was used for `/k/` anywhere else, or for `/g/` anywhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In time, this got simplified somewhat, to better fit Latin phonology:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - QU was used for `/kʷ/`&#xD;&#xA; - K was pretty much never used&#xD;&#xA; - C was used for `/k/` or `/g/`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And eventually, someone had the bright idea to stick an extra line on the side of C (possibly inspired by Q), to clarify its voicing; at the same time, they threw away the letter Z, since `/z/` had merged with `/r/`, so they had an empty spot in the alphabet to put their new letter into:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - QU was used for `/kʷ/` (*)&#xD;&#xA; - K was pretty much never used&#xD;&#xA; - C was used for `/k/`&#xD;&#xA; - G was used for `/g/`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this is the version of the alphabet used up through the Classical period. The only relics of the earlier version are a few words with kappa-alpha that stuck (like *Kalendae*), and the abbreviations *C* and *Cn* for *Gaius* and *Gnaeus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there's solid evidence that the voicing *itself* never went away. As soon as the letter G was invented to write the voiced `/g/`, we see it used in some words but not others, in a consistent way; this usage lines up pretty much exactly with what we'd expect from other Indo-European languages. If the distinction between `/g/` and `/k/` were actually lost at the beginnings of words, we wouldn't expect to see it come back unaltered like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) In a few places, like the word *equus*, we also see QU used for plain `/k/`. [But that's just force of analogy.][1] In general, QU can be taken consistently as `/kʷ/`, and CU as `/ku/`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4929/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11092" RevisionGUID="543d6dd3-5d5d-490d-bfb1-feed330be55e" CreationDate="2019-07-09T19:03:06.940" UserId="406" Comment="added 541 characters in body" Text="To elaborate on jknappen's excellent answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Etruscan language, originally spoken across Tuscany, had no voicing distinctions. They had an aspiration distinction, with `/tʰ/` and `/t/` contrasting, but no contrastive `/d/`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the Etruscans borrowed an early form of the Greek alphabet, then, they found a whole lot of letters they didn't need. Theta and tau were used for `/tʰ/` and `/t/`, for example, but delta was unnecessary. So somewhere around the sixth century BCE, they started purging the unneeded letters: delta, beta, omicron, and xi were unceremoniously disposed of (as Etruscan had no `/d/`, `/b/`, or `/o/`, and used chi to write `/ks/`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But by that time, a strange convention had arisen around `/k/`. The early Greek alphabet had two separate letters for `/k/`, named kappa and qoppa; the latter was originally something like `/q/` or `/kʼ/` in Phoenician, but no dialect of Greek had either of these sounds, so it became just &quot;kappa 2&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually the Greeks got rid of qoppa, but the Etruscans didn't. Since they didn't have a `/g/`, gamma became *another* redundant version of `/k/`. And since there were already &quot;spare&quot; letters for `/k/`, why not keep one more? Eventually, the convention became: use kappa before `/a/`, qoppa before `/u/`, and gamma before `/i/` and `/e/`. Presumably there were some phonetic differences here, with qoppa being a bit farther back and gamma a bit farther forward, but there isn't enough evidence to say for certain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the Latins then borrowed the alphabet from the Etruscans, and applied it to their own language, they ran into a problem: they *did* have voicing distinctions, and needed some way to represent `/b d g/`. For `/b/` and `/d/` they re-borrowed beta and delta from Greek—but gamma was already being used for something different. So a *new* convention arose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Qoppa was used for `/k/` before `/u/` and `/w/`; `/kʷ/` is written as if it were `/kw/`&#xD;&#xA; - Kappa was used for `/k/` before `/a/`&#xD;&#xA; - Gamma was used for `/k/` anywhere else, or for `/g/` anywhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In time, this got simplified somewhat, to better fit Latin phonology:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - QU was used for `/kʷ/`&#xD;&#xA; - K was pretty much never used&#xD;&#xA; - C was used for `/k/` or `/g/`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And eventually, someone had the bright idea to stick an extra line on the side of C (possibly inspired by Q), to clarify its voicing; at the same time, they threw away the letter Z, since `/z/` had merged with `/r/`, so they had an empty spot in the alphabet to put their new letter into:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - QU was used for `/kʷ/` (*)&#xD;&#xA; - K was pretty much never used&#xD;&#xA; - C was used for `/k/`&#xD;&#xA; - G was used for `/g/`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this is the version of the alphabet used up through the Classical period. The only relics of the earlier version are a few words with kappa-alpha that stuck (like *Kalendae*), and the abbreviations *C* and *Cn* for *Gaius* and *Gnaeus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there's solid evidence that the voicing *itself* never went away. As soon as the letter G was invented to write the voiced `/g/`, we see it used in some words but not others, in a consistent way; this usage lines up pretty much exactly with what we'd expect from other Indo-European languages (**). If the distinction between `/g/` and `/k/` were actually lost at the beginnings of words, we wouldn't expect to see it come back unaltered like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) In a few places, like the word *equus*, we also see QU used for plain `/k/`. [But that's just force of analogy.][1] In general, QU can be taken consistently as `/kʷ/`, and CU as `/ku/`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(**) For example, initial `/g/` in Latin consistently corresponds to initial `/k/` in Germanic, while initial `/k/` in Latin consistently corresponds to initial `/h/` in Germanic: *gelū* ~ *cold*, but *canis* ~ *hound*. If Latin had actually lost the distinction between word-initial `/g/` and `/k/`, we'd expect this pattern to be totally lost, since the last contact between Italic and Germanic was many centuries earlier. For the pattern to have survived through the G-less years, the voicing distinction must also have survived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4929/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11092" RevisionGUID="00a49bc3-4382-4111-b79a-cef5ce57ed0a" CreationDate="2019-07-09T22:43:14.387" UserId="406" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="To elaborate on jknappen's excellent answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Etruscan language, originally spoken across Tuscany, had no voicing distinctions. They had an aspiration distinction, with `/tʰ/` and `/t/` contrasting, but no contrastive `/d/`. (The phonetics are unknown, but it may have actually been quite close to American English `/t/ [tʰ]` and `/d/ [t]`; all we really have to go from is their spelling.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the Etruscans borrowed an early form of the Greek alphabet, then, they found a whole lot of letters they didn't need. Theta and tau were used for `/tʰ/` and `/t/`, for example, but delta was unnecessary. So somewhere around the sixth century BCE, they started purging the unneeded letters: delta, beta, omicron, and xi were unceremoniously disposed of (as Etruscan had no `/d/`, `/b/`, or `/o/`, and used chi to write `/ks/`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But by that time, a strange convention had arisen around `/k/`. The early Greek alphabet had two separate letters for `/k/`, named kappa and qoppa; the latter was originally something like `/q/` or `/kʼ/` in Phoenician, but no dialect of Greek had either of these sounds, so it became just &quot;kappa 2, in case we get tired of the first one&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually the Greeks got rid of qoppa, but the Etruscans didn't. Since they didn't have a `/g/`, gamma became *another* redundant version of `/k/`. And since there were already &quot;spare&quot; letters for `/k/`, why not keep one more? Eventually, the convention became: use kappa before `/a/`, qoppa before `/u/`, and gamma before `/i/` and `/e/`. Presumably there were some phonetic differences here, with qoppa being a bit farther back and gamma a bit farther forward, but there isn't enough evidence to say for certain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the Latins then borrowed the alphabet from the Etruscans, and applied it to their own language, they ran into a problem: they *did* have voicing distinctions, and needed some way to represent `/b d g/`. For `/b/` and `/d/` they re-borrowed beta and delta from Greek—but gamma was already being used for something different. So a *new* convention arose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Qoppa was used for `/k/` before `/u/` and `/w/`; `/kʷ/` is written as if it were `/kw/`&#xD;&#xA; - Kappa was used for `/k/` before `/a/`&#xD;&#xA; - Gamma was used for `/k/` anywhere else, or for `/g/` anywhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In time, this got simplified somewhat, to better fit Latin phonology:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - QU was used for `/kʷ/`&#xD;&#xA; - K was pretty much never used&#xD;&#xA; - C was used for `/k/` or `/g/`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And eventually, someone had the bright idea to stick an extra line on the side of C (possibly inspired by Q), to clarify its voicing; at the same time, they threw away the letter Z, since `/z/` had merged with `/r/`, so they had an empty spot in the alphabet to put their new letter into:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - QU was used for `/kʷ/` (*)&#xD;&#xA; - K was pretty much never used&#xD;&#xA; - C was used for `/k/`&#xD;&#xA; - G was used for `/g/`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this is the version of the alphabet used up through the Classical period. The only relics of the earlier version are a few words with kappa-alpha that stuck (like *Kalendae*), and the abbreviations *C* and *Cn* for *Gaius* and *Gnaeus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there's solid evidence that the voicing *itself* never went away. As soon as the letter G was invented to write the voiced `/g/`, we see it used in some words but not others, in a consistent way; this usage lines up pretty much exactly with what we'd expect from other Indo-European languages (**). If the distinction between `/g/` and `/k/` were actually lost at the beginnings of words, we wouldn't expect to see it come back unaltered like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) In a few places, like the word *equus*, we also see QU used for plain `/k/`. [But that's just force of analogy.][1] In general, QU can be taken consistently as `/kʷ/`, and CU as `/ku/`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(**) For example, initial `/g/` in Latin consistently corresponds to initial `/k/` in Germanic, while initial `/k/` in Latin consistently corresponds to initial `/h/` in Germanic: *gelū* ~ *cold*, but *canis* ~ *hound*. If Latin had actually lost the distinction between word-initial `/g/` and `/k/`, we'd expect this pattern to be totally lost, since the last contact between Italic and Germanic was many centuries earlier. For the pattern to have survived through the G-less years, the voicing distinction must also have survived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4929/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11093" RevisionGUID="62e6ed30-638c-427f-acee-c6e8fceefc2a" CreationDate="2019-07-10T02:11:24.267" UserId="4930" Text="Does &quot;Nucis vado&quot; mean going nuts? I go of a nut?&#xD;&#xA;Some folks want to use it as a motto and I would like to make sure it is proper.&#xD;&#xA;If not, what would &quot;Going Nuts&quot; be, properly translated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any advice!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32578" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11093" RevisionGUID="62e6ed30-638c-427f-acee-c6e8fceefc2a" CreationDate="2019-07-10T02:11:24.267" UserId="4930" Text="&quot;Nucis vado&quot;? Going nuts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32579" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11093" RevisionGUID="62e6ed30-638c-427f-acee-c6e8fceefc2a" CreationDate="2019-07-10T02:11:24.267" UserId="4930" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="6347f162-7964-4d41-9d34-c3eb87d99a47" CreationDate="2019-07-10T04:27:26.173" UserId="118" Text="[This Reddit comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/3y949z/sol_oritur_occasus_nesciuslyrics_in_comments/cybjulf/) points out that there is a [zeugma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeugma_and_syllepsis) on a genitive noun in this sentence from the motet &quot;Sol oritur occasus nescius&quot; in the _Hortus Deliciarum_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et **filiæ** fit pater filius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd never heard of such a thing: the single word **filiæ** modifies both the subject of the verb and the subject complement! Is this a poetic use of grammar, emphasizing what an odd thing it is for the deity to become His own son?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then it occurred to me that you can do the same in English and the grammar doesn't seem remarkable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the father **of the daughter** becomes the son.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is the zeugma on a genitive extraordinary in Latin? Are there other instances of it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is it not a zeugma at all? Does **filiæ** modify only one of the nouns, as if it were written _Et pater filiæ fit filius_? Even the English &quot;zeugma&quot; could be read that way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32581" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="6347f162-7964-4d41-9d34-c3eb87d99a47" CreationDate="2019-07-10T04:27:26.173" UserId="118" Text="Zeugma on a genitive noun: extraordinary or prosaic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32582" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="6347f162-7964-4d41-9d34-c3eb87d99a47" CreationDate="2019-07-10T04:27:26.173" UserId="118" Text="|genitive|figurae-sermonis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="1b62b9d7-69ee-40de-9936-1fc6a6b1e5d1" CreationDate="2019-07-10T04:41:48.130" UserId="118" Comment="added 244 characters in body" Text="[This Reddit comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/3y949z/sol_oritur_occasus_nesciuslyrics_in_comments/cybjulf/) points out that there is a [zeugma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeugma_and_syllepsis) on a genitive noun in this sentence from the motet &quot;[Sol oritur occasus nescius](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUx4-Eb7y6k)&quot;* in the _Hortus Deliciarum_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et **filiæ** fit pater filius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd never heard of such a thing: the single word **filiæ** modifies both the subject of the verb and the subject complement! Is this a poetic use of grammar, emphasizing what an odd thing it is for the deity to become His own son?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then it occurred to me that you can do the same in English and the grammar doesn't seem remarkable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the father **of the daughter** becomes the son.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is the zeugma on a genitive extraordinary in Latin? Are there other instances of it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is it not a zeugma at all? Does **filiæ** modify only one of the nouns, as if it were written _Et pater filiæ fit filius_? Even the English &quot;zeugma&quot; could be read that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt;Tangentially, there's a great [false relation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_relation) (I think) in that performance a couple lines later, on the _O_ in _O pro populo._&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11095" RevisionGUID="e61d914e-2b3f-48b1-8f95-883422d0f00e" CreationDate="2019-07-10T05:00:16.657" UserId="118" Text="Figures of speech, such as the [zeugma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeugma_and_syllepsis), [chiasmus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiasmus), and [hendiadys](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendiadys)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32585" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11095" RevisionGUID="e61d914e-2b3f-48b1-8f95-883422d0f00e" CreationDate="2019-07-10T05:00:16.657" UserId="118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11096" RevisionGUID="758f0012-74ff-4ed0-8615-d8fb9232b43f" CreationDate="2019-07-10T05:00:16.657" UserId="118" Text="Figures of speech, such as the zeugma, chiasmus, and hendiadys." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32587" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11096" RevisionGUID="758f0012-74ff-4ed0-8615-d8fb9232b43f" CreationDate="2019-07-10T05:00:16.657" UserId="118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11097" RevisionGUID="0aa25625-56de-48da-886f-00efa273189d" CreationDate="2019-07-10T05:18:27.983" UserId="406" Text="Literally, yes, &quot;I go of a nut&quot;. It's basically nonsense in Latin; &quot;go nuts&quot; is an English idiom that means nothing in other languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a term for going mad/crazy, the first source I think of immediately is Aeneid IV, which has some good descriptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ardet amans Dido traxitque per ossa furorem*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dido is burning with love, and her madness has been drawn deep into her bones&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(IV.101, trans. mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This suggests the noun *furor* or the verb *furere*. If you want a participle, &quot;raving&quot; or &quot;being insane&quot;, that would be *furens*; this is used in the title of a Seneca play, *Herculēs Furens* (&quot;Hercules the Mad&quot;), where he's driven into a rage by Lyssa and murders his family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a more prophetic madness, here's Lucan describing the Oracle at Delphi:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *bacchatur demens aliena per antrum / colla ferens*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Out of her mind, she raves through the cavern, a strange force gripping her neck&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(V.169-70, trans. mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This suggests *demens*, &quot;out of [your] mind&quot;, or *bacchans*, &quot;raving, wanton&quot;. The latter evokes the Bacchants, priestesses of Bacchus who would throw themselves into ecstatic frenzies for religious reasons; the former is very literally &quot;out of one's mind&quot; (*de* + *mens*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the three, I think *bacchans* is probably closest to your intended meaning, since it brings to mind parties and revels; if someone is using it as their motto, that's probably the type of madness they have in mind. (Though the Bacchants could sometimes be just as murderous as Hercules in their frenzies: they're the ones who killed and dismembered Orpheus when he refused to sing for them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. *Bacchans* is specifically a singular form: if multiple people are going mad, they're *bacchantes*. This holds for the other suggestions, too: just replace the final *-s* with *-tes* to make it plural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="285732f2-199b-4339-8e66-edd9d7922c3e" CreationDate="2019-07-10T05:25:17.030" UserId="118" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="[This Reddit comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/3y949z/sol_oritur_occasus_nesciuslyrics_in_comments/cybjulf/) points out that there is a [zeugma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeugma_and_syllepsis) on a genitive noun in this sentence from the [_conductus_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conductus) &quot;Sol oritur occasus nescius&quot;* in the _Hortus Deliciarum_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et **filiæ** fit pater filius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd never heard of such a thing: the single word **filiæ** modifies both the subject of the verb and the subject complement! Is this a poetic use of grammar, emphasizing what an odd thing it is for the deity to become His own son?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then it occurred to me that you can do the same in English and the grammar doesn't seem remarkable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the father **of the daughter** becomes the son.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is the zeugma on a genitive extraordinary in Latin? Are there other instances of it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is it not a zeugma at all? Does **filiæ** modify only one of the nouns, as if it were written _Et pater filiæ fit filius_? Even the English &quot;zeugma&quot; could be read that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt;Tangentially, there's a great [false relation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_relation) (I think) in [this performance](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUx4-Eb7y6k) a couple lines later, on the _O_ in _O pro populo._&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11098" RevisionGUID="46e483b6-1ad6-4c2d-a438-c9571b485434" CreationDate="2019-07-10T08:15:24.953" UserId="4828" Text="In De Bello Gallico, book 1, chapter 1, it starts as follows: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam **qui** ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur. Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se differunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My doubt is concerning the object of reference of the relative pronoun ***qui***. I can certainly understand the sentence and translate ***qui*** as *those*, but in my opinion this a case of relative pronoun and yet I cannot find its object of reference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any srategy to find the object of reference of a relative pronoun? Certainly there are cases where it is quite evident like in the case of quarum in this extract (*partes tres*), but it seems that in other cases it is not so clear. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32592" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11098" RevisionGUID="46e483b6-1ad6-4c2d-a438-c9571b485434" CreationDate="2019-07-10T08:15:24.953" UserId="4828" Text="How to find the object of reference of a latin relative pronoun?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32593" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11098" RevisionGUID="46e483b6-1ad6-4c2d-a438-c9571b485434" CreationDate="2019-07-10T08:15:24.953" UserId="4828" Text="|demonstrative-pronoun|relative-pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11098" RevisionGUID="bc506ebd-9c11-48a8-b634-0876ac3cc00c" CreationDate="2019-07-10T08:22:08.450" UserId="4828" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="In De Bello Gallico, book 1, chapter 1, it starts as follows: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aliam Aquitani, tertiam **qui** ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli&#xD;&#xA;&gt; appellantur. Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se differunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My doubt is concerning the object of reference of the relative pronoun ***qui***. I can certainly understand the sentence and translate ***qui*** as *those*, but in my opinion this a case of relative pronoun and yet I cannot find its object of reference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any srategy to find the object of reference of a relative pronoun? Certainly there are cases where it is quite evident like in the case of quarum in this extract (*partes tres*), but it seems that in other cases it is not so clear. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11099" RevisionGUID="786f49c1-a4f0-4285-8e28-d271fdab28bb" CreationDate="2019-07-10T11:31:23.303" UserId="2646" Text="According to the Royal Spanish Academy dictionary, the word *[tocar][1]* 'touch' has its origin in the *toc toc* onomatopoeia. Something similar is registered in Etymonline for the English verb *[touch][2]*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from Old French *tochier* &quot;to touch, hit, knock; mention, deal with&quot; (11c., Modern French *toucher*), from Vulgar Latin *\*toccare* &quot;to knock, strike&quot; as a bell (source also of Spanish *tocar*, Italian *toccare*), perhaps of imitative origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This source refers to a hypotetical verb *toccare* that existed in Vulgar Latin, that supposedly was the origin of our modern words. But I see that the word *touch* is translated into Classical Latin as *[palpo][3]* 'touch softly' (current Spanish: *palpar*) or *[tango][4]* 'touch' (origin of current Spanish *tacto* and *tañer*). So between these words and Old French *tochier* (11h century) or Spanish *tocar* (12th century) there must be a word that originated them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So did the word *toccare* exist in Vulgar Latin as the origin of our current words for *touch*? If not, what could be transition from the Classical Latin words to the current ones?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://dle.rae.es/?id=Zw9dWu5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.etymonline.com/word/touch#etymonline_v_15414&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DP%3Aentry%20group%3D6%3Aentry%3Dpalpo1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=tango&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32596" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11099" RevisionGUID="786f49c1-a4f0-4285-8e28-d271fdab28bb" CreationDate="2019-07-10T11:31:23.303" UserId="2646" Text="Did the Vulgar Latin verb &quot;toccare&quot; exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32597" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11099" RevisionGUID="786f49c1-a4f0-4285-8e28-d271fdab28bb" CreationDate="2019-07-10T11:31:23.303" UserId="2646" Text="|verbs|vulgar-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32598" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11099" RevisionGUID="1f09418f-b91d-4db2-8400-61539844f6e1" CreationDate="2019-07-10T12:47:29.460" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|verbs|spanish|vulgar-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11100" RevisionGUID="21a722c5-0f48-4858-a9c2-af667f53861e" CreationDate="2019-07-10T13:13:46.470" UserId="183" Text="The [wiktionary entry][1] on the Italian verb *toccare* is somewhat more explicit, saying&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Probably from a Vulgar Latin root *toccare, of Germanic or onomatopoetic origin. Compare French toucher, Friulian tocjâ, Portuguese tocar, Romanian toca, Romansh tutgar, Sicilian tuccari, Sardinian toccai, Spanish tocar, Venetian tocar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The existence of descendants in such many languages and the application of sound laws in the French descendant make us really confident that the verb *toccare* goes back to Vulgar Latin, but the asterisk before it tells us that it is a reconstruction and not attested in the corpus of preserved Vulgar Latin. How it entered Vulgar Latin is an open question, as far as I can see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/toccare#Italian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11101" RevisionGUID="39312a34-3113-45b5-ac75-57ddc562ca19" CreationDate="2019-07-10T13:20:55.960" UserId="469" Text="As your question implies, the * in ***toccare** means that the word is *unattested*, i.e., there is no written witness that the verb actually existed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not mean that there is a good argument against its existence: vulgar Latin/Proto-Romance was the language of illiterate people. It doesn't mean either that there is no good argument *for* its existence. The very fact that there are dictionary entries mentioning it means that at least some experts consider it likely enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Digging a bit deeper on the evidence for the existence of *toccare, the story goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (PIE) `*dewk-` (*to draw, pull*) &gt; (PIE) `*dukn-` &gt; (Proto-Germanic) [`*tukkōną`][1] (*to pull, touch*) &gt; (Frankish) [`*tukkōn/tokkōn*`][2] (*to touch*) &gt; (Latin) `*tocco/-are`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the (extant, attested) evidence in which this *genealogy* is based is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (PIE) `*dewk-`: Latin *dux*, Spanish *conducir* (etc.)&#xD;&#xA;* (Proto-Germanic) `*tukkōną`: English *tuck*, German *zucken*&#xD;&#xA;* (Frankish) `*tukkōn/tokkōn*`: Dutch *tokkelen*&#xD;&#xA;* (Latin) well, you already said it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/tukk%C5%8Dn%C4%85&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Frankish/tukk%C5%8Dn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11101" RevisionGUID="37508c2c-43a6-42d9-80c3-b131d66832a1" CreationDate="2019-07-10T14:27:49.397" UserId="469" Comment="added 433 characters in body" Text="As your question implies, the * in ***toccare** means that the word is *unattested*, i.e., there is no written witness that the verb actually existed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not mean that there is a good argument against its existence: vulgar Latin/Proto-Romance was the language of illiterate people. It doesn't mean either that there is no good argument *for* its existence. The very fact that there are dictionary entries mentioning it means that at least some experts consider it likely enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Digging a bit deeper on the evidence for the existence of *toccare, the story goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (PIE) `*dewk-` (*to draw, pull*) &gt; (PIE) `*dukn-` &gt; (Proto-Germanic) [`*tukkōną`][1] (*to pull, touch*) &gt; (Frankish) [`*tukkōn/tokkōn*`][2] (*to touch*) &gt; (Latin) `*tocco/-are`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the (extant, attested) evidence in which this *genealogy* is based is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (PIE) `*dewk-`: Latin *dux*, Spanish *conducir* (etc.)&#xD;&#xA;* (Proto-Germanic) `*tukkōną`: English *tuck*, German *zucken*&#xD;&#xA;* (Frankish) `*tukkōn/tokkōn*`: Dutch *tokkelen*&#xD;&#xA;* (Latin) well, you already said it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These reconstructions are based on the presence of the same root in one or several descendant languages. Moreover, the exact form of the unattested *ancestor* word is obtained by reversely applying the known sound changes that took place in the descendant language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number of Romance languages with forms derived from *toccare is overwhelming, hence the evidence for its existence is, IMHO, **difficult to argue against**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/tukk%C5%8Dn%C4%85&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Frankish/tukk%C5%8Dn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11101" RevisionGUID="c90f823d-49b4-4fda-85ef-2867dd95d29b" CreationDate="2019-07-10T14:39:12.240" UserId="469" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="As your question implies, the * in ***toccare** means that the word is *unattested*, i.e., there is no written witness that the verb actually existed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not mean that there is a good argument against its existence: vulgar Latin/Proto-Romance was the language of illiterate people. It doesn't mean either that there is no good argument *for* its existence. The very fact that there are dictionary entries mentioning it means that at least some experts consider it likely enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Digging a bit deeper on the evidence for the existence of *toccare, the story goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (PIE) `*dewk-` (*to draw, pull*) &gt; (PIE) `*dukn-` &gt; (Proto-Germanic) [`*tukkōną`][1] (*to pull, touch*) &gt; (Frankish) [`*tukkōn/tokkōn*`][2] (*to touch*) &gt; (Latin) `*tocco/-are`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the (extant, attested) evidence in which this *genealogy* is based is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (PIE) `*dewk-`: Latin *dux*, Spanish *conducir* (etc.)&#xD;&#xA;* (Proto-Germanic) `*tukkōną`: English *tuck*, German *zucken*&#xD;&#xA;* (Frankish) `*tukkōn/tokkōn*`: Dutch *tokkelen*&#xD;&#xA;* (Latin) well, you already said it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These reconstructions are based on the presence of the same root in one or several descendant languages. Moreover, the exact form of the unattested *ancestor* word is obtained by reversely applying the known sound changes that took place in the descendant language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number of Romance languages with forms derived from *toccare is overwhelming, and all off them seem to point back at this form, hence the evidence for its existence is, IMHO, **difficult to argue against**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/tukk%C5%8Dn%C4%85&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Frankish/tukk%C5%8Dn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11101" RevisionGUID="a452fe1c-7afb-443c-9806-2aa0cc0d304c" CreationDate="2019-07-10T14:49:39.037" UserId="469" Comment="edited body" Text="As your question implies, the * in ***toccare** means that the word is *unattested*, i.e., there is no written witness that the verb actually existed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not mean that there is a good argument against its existence: vulgar Latin/Proto-Romance was the language of illiterate people. It doesn't mean either that there is no good argument *for* its existence. The very fact that there are dictionary entries mentioning it means that at least some experts consider it likely enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Digging a bit deeper on the evidence for the existence of *toccare, the story goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (PIE) `*dewk-` (*to draw, pull*) &gt; (PIE) `*dukn-` &gt; (Proto-Germanic) [`*tukkōną`][1] (*to pull, touch*) &gt; (Frankish) [`*tukkōn/tokkōn*`][2] (*to touch*) &gt; (Latin) `*tocco/-are`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the (extant, attested) evidence in which this *genealogy* is based is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (PIE) `*dewk-`: Latin *dux*, Spanish *conducir* (etc.)&#xD;&#xA;* (Proto-Germanic) `*tukkōną`: English *tuck*, German *zucken*&#xD;&#xA;* (Frankish) `*tukkōn/*tokkōn`: Dutch *tokkelen*&#xD;&#xA;* (Latin) well, you already said it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These reconstructions are based on the presence of the same root in one or several descendant languages. Moreover, the exact form of the unattested *ancestor* word is obtained by reversely applying the known sound changes that took place in the descendant language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number of Romance languages with forms derived from *toccare is overwhelming, and all off them seem to point back at this particular form, hence the evidence for its existence is, IMHO, **difficult to argue against**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/tukk%C5%8Dn%C4%85&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Frankish/tukk%C5%8Dn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11102" RevisionGUID="56fa1b41-3101-4718-a65b-79dce24b9c9b" CreationDate="2019-07-10T15:39:15.733" UserId="3248" Text="Descriptively speaking, relative clauses can be classified into **two types** depending on having an external antecedent or not (e.g., please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_clause ): so-called &quot;bound relative clauses&quot; and so-called &quot;free relative clauses&quot;, respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former are the &quot;typical&quot; ones, which, as you point out, **have an antecedent** in the main clause (e.g., (_in **partes tres**) quarum unam incolunt Belgae_). The latter, the ones that seem to bother you, are the ones that **lack an explicit antecedent** external to itself (e.g., _(tertiam incolunt) qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur_).   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11102" RevisionGUID="c6c2d381-fd9e-4fb1-a7a7-1743389d0558" CreationDate="2019-07-10T15:48:00.687" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes (grammar)" Text="Descriptively speaking, relative clauses can be classified into **two types** depending on having an external antecedent or not (e.g., please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_clause ): cf. so-called &quot;bound relative clauses&quot; and so-called &quot;free relative clauses&quot;, respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former are the &quot;typical&quot; ones, which, as you point out, **have an antecedent** in the main clause (e.g., (... _in **partes tres**) quarum unam incolunt Belgae_). The latter, the ones that seem to bother you, **lack an explicit antecedent** external to itself (e.g., _(tertiam incolunt) qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur_).   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32606" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="11103" RevisionGUID="45c0dbb8-e22b-47e7-88c6-77be3d401d8b" CreationDate="2019-07-10T15:58:49.663" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/31892/bronze-and-brass-in-greek" />
  <row Id="32607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11103" RevisionGUID="62c94ccc-8eb6-4b0a-9a9b-1569a3cd21a1" CreationDate="2019-07-09T13:58:51.417" UserId="321" Text="Bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, has this English Wikipedia page:  &#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which links to this page on the Greek Wikipedia:  &#xD;&#xA;https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Κρατέρωμα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I assume that &quot;Bronze&quot; is &quot;Κρατέρωμα&quot; in Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, the copper and zinc alloy &quot;Brass&quot; might be &quot;Ορείχαλκος&quot; in Greek.  &#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass  &#xD;&#xA;https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ορείχαλκος&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why, then, is the Bronze Age called &quot;Εποχή του Ορείχαλκου&quot; in the Greek Wikipedia? Due note that Bronze and Brass are rather dissimilar metals, are produced differently, were discovered at different times, and were used for different purposes in the ancient world." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32608" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11103" RevisionGUID="62c94ccc-8eb6-4b0a-9a9b-1569a3cd21a1" CreationDate="2019-07-09T13:58:51.417" UserId="321" Text="Bronze and Brass in Greek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32609" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11103" RevisionGUID="62c94ccc-8eb6-4b0a-9a9b-1569a3cd21a1" CreationDate="2019-07-09T13:58:51.417" UserId="321" Text="|etymology|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11102" RevisionGUID="09e96c1e-6d7d-4743-a020-c151704eb577" CreationDate="2019-07-10T16:02:14.150" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes " Text="Descriptively speaking, relative clauses can be classified into **two types** depending on having an external antecedent or not (e.g., please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_clause ): cf. so-called &quot;bound relative clauses&quot; and so-called &quot;free relative clauses&quot;, respectively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former are the &quot;typical&quot; ones, which, as you point out, **have an antecedent** in the main clause (e.g., (... _in **partes tres**) quarum unam incolunt Belgae_). The latter, the ones that seem to bother you, **lack an explicit antecedent** external to itself (e.g., _(tertiam incolunt **Ø**) qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur_).  &#xD;&#xA;NB: **Ø** is the empty slot that could be filled by the null nominative demonstrative **_ei_**.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11101" RevisionGUID="dd380cbc-2398-4ce7-aec0-3b5f0f6c2135" CreationDate="2019-07-10T16:02:19.937" UserId="469" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="As your question implies, the * in ***toccare** means that the word is *unattested*, i.e., there is no written witness that the verb actually existed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not mean that there is a good argument against its existence: vulgar Latin/Proto-Romance was the language of illiterate people. It doesn't mean either that there is no good argument *for* its existence. The very fact that there are dictionary entries mentioning it means that at least some experts consider it likely enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Digging a bit deeper on the evidence for the existence of *toccare, the story goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (PIE) `*dewk-` (*to draw, pull*) &gt; (PIE) `*dukn-` &gt; (Proto-Germanic) [`*tukkōną`][1] (*to pull, touch*) &gt; (Frankish) [`*tukkōn/tokkōn*`][2] (*to touch*) &gt; (Latin) `*tocco/-are`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the (extant, attested) evidence in which this *genealogy* is based is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (PIE) `*dewk-`: Latin *dux*, Spanish *conducir* (etc.)&#xD;&#xA;* (Proto-Germanic) `*tukkōną`: English *tuck*, German *zucken*&#xD;&#xA;* (Frankish) `*tukkōn/ *tokkōn`: Dutch *tokkelen*&#xD;&#xA;* (Latin) well, you already said it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These reconstructions are based on the presence of the same root in one or several descendant languages. Moreover, the exact form of the unattested *ancestor* word is obtained by reversely applying the known sound changes that took place in the descendant language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number of Romance languages with forms derived from *toccare is overwhelming, and all off them seem to point back at this particular form, hence the evidence for its existence is, IMHO, **difficult to argue against**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/tukk%C5%8Dn%C4%85&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Frankish/tukk%C5%8Dn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11104" RevisionGUID="eef4eb17-23c6-426d-a6b0-47adb23f2133" CreationDate="2019-07-10T16:28:39.290" UserId="406" Text="There seems to be solid evidence that [Latin letter names were indeclinable][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in Greek, several letters' names *do* fit into standard declension patterns: *sigma*, for instance, [might actually be a *-ma* noun from *sizō* &quot;to hiss&quot;][2]. And *gamma* and *digamma* **look** like *-ma* nouns, even if they historically aren't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: do we ever find *sigmata* or *gammata*? Or, less obviously, *alphai* and *betai*? Or are all letter names indeclinable in Greek?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7294/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/10781/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32613" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11104" RevisionGUID="eef4eb17-23c6-426d-a6b0-47adb23f2133" CreationDate="2019-07-10T16:28:39.290" UserId="406" Text="Can Greek letter names be declined?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32614" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11104" RevisionGUID="eef4eb17-23c6-426d-a6b0-47adb23f2133" CreationDate="2019-07-10T16:28:39.290" UserId="406" Text="|greek|declension|alphabet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11105" RevisionGUID="e70c5b0e-681b-4f03-bc60-96150167a21f" CreationDate="2019-07-10T16:43:36.037" UserId="3248" Text="_Nucis vado_ is ungrammatical in Latin. There are some adverbal uses of Genitive, a typical adnominal case, but your example is not a possible case: clearly, _nucis_ cannot express the result of a verbal change predicate like _vado_. There are many ways of translating _to go nuts_ or _to go crazy_ into Latin: e.g., by using the deadjectival verb _īnsānīre_ (derived from the adjective _insanus_) or the denominal verb _bacchārī_ (derived from the noun _Bacchus_). Interestingly (from a linguistic point of view), the English analytic expression _to go nuts_ or _to go crazy_ typically corresponds to a synthetic expression in Latin: cf. the abovementioned deadjectival and denominal verbs.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32616" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="5039" RevisionGUID="cb87861a-81ab-4235-a136-31244507fc8d" CreationDate="2019-07-10T18:13:16.047" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="120" />
  <row Id="32617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11106" RevisionGUID="b6b62bc7-76c2-4778-8da3-4614c210a32f" CreationDate="2019-07-10T18:25:59.987" UserId="3248" Text="As a follow-up of the previous interesting question (https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11099/did-the-vulgar-latin-verb-toccare-exist ), could the vulgar Vulgar Latin verb _toccari_ (in the sense of the deponent verb _masturbari_) have existed or should it have directly been created as reflexive like in Romance languages (e.g., _toccarsi_ in Italian)? For example, just for an illustrious exemplification, cf. the famous dialogue between the priest (Don Balosa) and the boy (Titta) from Fellini's extraordinary Italian film &quot;Amarcord&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don Balosa: “Commetti atti impuri? Ti tocchi? Lo sai che San Luigi piange quando ti tocchi?” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Titta: “Ma perché, tu non ti tocchi? Ma come si fa a non toccarsi quando vedi la tabaccaia con tótta quella ròba lì davanti, o la professoressa di matematica, che sembra un leone? Come si fa a non toccarsi quando ti guarda in quel modo? E allora come faccio a dirgli di no quando la Volpina mi ha chiesto di gonfiargli la bicicletta? Io non sapevo che si davano i baci così. Lei lo sapeva? Con tutta la lingua che gira...” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don Balosa: “Sono io che faccio le domande!”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exactly, “sono io che faccio le domande!”: Could the vulgar Vulgar Latin verb &quot;toccari&quot; have existed  or  should it have directly been created as reflexive like in Romance languages (e.g., _toccarsi_ in Italian)? More generally, could anyone provide me with references on the progressive absence of deponent verbs from Vulgar Latin? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32618" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11106" RevisionGUID="b6b62bc7-76c2-4778-8da3-4614c210a32f" CreationDate="2019-07-10T18:25:59.987" UserId="3248" Text="Could the vulgar verb &quot;toccari&quot; have existed in Vulgar Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32619" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11106" RevisionGUID="b6b62bc7-76c2-4778-8da3-4614c210a32f" CreationDate="2019-07-10T18:25:59.987" UserId="3248" Text="|vulgar-latin|deponent-verbs|reflexive-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2033" RevisionGUID="8d7ace0d-731f-4a17-a534-18dadb1f5e97" CreationDate="2019-07-10T18:27:54.607" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 90 characters in body; edited title" Text="&gt;[impute (v.):](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=impute&amp;searchmode=none)       &#xD;&#xA;early 15c., from Old French *imputer* (14c.)     &#xD;&#xA;and directly from Latin *imputare* &quot;to reckon, make account of, charge, ascribe,&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;from assimilated form of ***in-*** &quot;in, into&quot; (see [in-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=in-&amp;allowed_in_frame=0) (2)) +      &#xD;&#xA;***putare*** &quot;reckon, clear up, trim, prune, settle&quot;  from PIE _*puto-_ &quot;cut, struck,&quot; suffixed form of root _*pau-_ (2) &quot;to cut, strike, stamp&quot; (see [*pave*](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pave&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary:](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imputo#Latin0)   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Etymology[:]   &#xD;&#xA;From [in-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in-#Latin-in) +‎ [putō](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/puto#Latin) ‎(“esteem, consider”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. I reckon, charge, enter into the account.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. (*figuratively*) I attribute, credit to; I impute&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This answer on Linguistics SE](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/12417/5306) helpfully expounds the  Semantic Field of *putare*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. What are the semantic meaning and role of the prefix '*in-*' in *imputare*?    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Please see the titled question.    &#xD;&#xA;How did *in-* augment the semantic field of *putare*, to enable the semantic shift from 1 to 2?   &#xD;&#xA; What semantic notions underlie 1 and 2? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. 2 overhead contains 'to' in 'attribute, credit to'. So shouldn't *ad-* have been the prefix? I'm assuming that *in-* can't signify 'to'. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32621" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2033" RevisionGUID="8d7ace0d-731f-4a17-a534-18dadb1f5e97" CreationDate="2019-07-10T18:27:54.607" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 90 characters in body; edited title" Text="How did 'in-' + 'putare' compound to mean 'to attribute, credit to, impute'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32622" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2033" RevisionGUID="37eb5584-393a-410b-b711-97dcd383530d" CreationDate="2019-07-10T18:28:00.613" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="121" />
  <row Id="32623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11107" RevisionGUID="eed4ade7-6c4c-4f52-aa01-67f9a411202f" CreationDate="2019-07-10T18:40:19.287" UserId="118" Text="Two ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. By agreement in gender and number—but not case, since the pronoun's case in the subordinate clause [may differ](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/213/118) from that of its antecedent in the parent clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. By sense—that is, by what interpretation makes sense in context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're running into trouble, though, because _qui_ in that sentence has no antecedent. It refers to the as yet unnamed inhabitants of the third part of Gaul. It might help to see another sentence that works this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Qui** desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. (Vegetius, [Epitoma Rei Militaris, III](http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/vegetius3.html))&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Who** desires peace should prepare for war.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English has this construct, too, though today it sounds old-fashioned to use &quot;who&quot; in this way, without being preceded by another pronoun, like &quot;one&quot;, to serve as an antecedent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronoun together with its subordinate clause serves as a noun in the parent clause. The same principle is at work in the phrase &quot;To whom it may concern&quot;. The whole clause &quot;whom it may concern&quot; is the object of &quot;to&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are another couple examples from the same book by Vegetius (ch. 25, on what to do if you've been partially or wholly defeated):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Innumerabilibus hoc accidit bellis, et pro superioribus sunt habiti **qui minime desperarunt**. Nam in simili condicione fortior creditur **quem aduersa non frangunt**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This [a comeback after suffering losses] has happened in innumerable wars, and [those] **who least despaired** were found victorious. For in like conditions [of partial defeat], **whom adversities don't break** is believed stronger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an example well known in both Latin and English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Quem Iuppiter vult perdere**, dementat prius.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Whom Jupiter wishes to destroy** he first makes mad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen this construct often used to introduce new terminology, as in your sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32625" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11099" RevisionGUID="9ce84e9d-d572-4e94-aab2-7444e8a00541" CreationDate="2019-07-10T19:44:39.880" />
  <row Id="32626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11101" RevisionGUID="5a5614c7-f865-423d-b529-2596b778938e" CreationDate="2019-07-10T19:50:18.367" UserId="469" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="As your question implies, the * in ***toccare** means that the word is *unattested*, i.e., there is no written witness that the verb actually existed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not mean that there is a good argument against its existence: vulgar Latin/Proto-Romance was the language of (mostly) illiterate people. It doesn't mean either that there is no good argument *for* its existence. The very fact that there are dictionary entries mentioning it means that at least some experts consider it likely enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Digging a bit deeper on the evidence for the existence of *toccare, the story goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (PIE&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;) `*dewk-` (*to draw, pull*) &gt; (PIE) `*dukn-` &gt; (Proto-Germanic) [`*tukkōną`][1] (*to pull, touch*) &gt; (Frankish) [`*tukkōn/tokkōn*`][2] (*to touch*) &gt; (Latin) `*tocco/-are`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the (extant, attested) evidence in which this *genealogy* is based is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (PIE) `*dewk-`: Latin *dux*, Spanish *conducir* (etc.)&#xD;&#xA;* (Proto-Germanic) `*tukkōną`: English *tuck*, German *zucken*&#xD;&#xA;* (Frankish) `*tukkōn/ *tokkōn`: Dutch *tokkelen*&#xD;&#xA;* (Latin) well, you already said it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These reconstructions are based on the presence of the same root in one or several descendant languages. Moreover, the exact form of the unattested *ancestor* word is obtained by reversely applying the known sound changes that took place in the descendant language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number of Romance languages with forms derived from *toccare is overwhelming, and all off them seem to point back at this particular form, hence the evidence for its existence is, IMHO, **difficult to argue against**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Proto Indo-European language, from which all Indo-European family languages are hypothesized to come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/tukk%C5%8Dn%C4%85&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Frankish/tukk%C5%8Dn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11108" RevisionGUID="1f7f4439-bbf0-4029-b6ab-d5044e650b5c" CreationDate="2019-07-10T20:07:46.027" UserId="406" Text="Good question! The short answer is, the Ancient Greeks didn't have quite the same distinction we now have between &quot;brass&quot; and &quot;bronze&quot;. There were several words for copper alloys, but most contained some tin, some zinc, and some of other things as well. This rule still seems to hold in Modern Greek, according to the Wikipedia page you linked, with the different words being used based on color instead of composition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Crateroma* is often confused with *oreichalcos*, which is fundamentally an alloy of copper and zinc. This confusion, coming from the indiscriminate use of the word &quot;*mproutzos*&quot; to refer to both *crateroma* and *oreichalcos*, doesn't only exist in Greek: in English, for example, *crateroma* is called &quot;bronze&quot;, and *oreichalcos* is called &quot;brass&quot;. This is because, in practice, the distinctions are made based on color: in the language of commerce, &quot;*mproutzos*&quot; and &quot;*crateroma*&quot; are used for the copper alloys with the brownest colors, while the alloys with the most golden colors are called &quot;*oreichalcos*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is my translation, and may have errors in it, because I'm not very good at Modern Greek; an actual Modern Greek-speaker should feel free to correct it!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, for the most famous alloy in all of history:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ὀρείχαλκος* literally means &quot;mountain copper&quot;, and authors disagree on what exactly it is or was. Plato suggests that it was mined directly in Atlantis and was almost as valuable as gold, while other authors say it was an especially shiny copper alloy; it's not clear what this alloy *was*, although some authors have different ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the Romans heard the term, they interpreted it as ***auri**chalcum* instead of ***ori**chalcum*—that is, &quot;gold copper&quot; instead of &quot;mountain copper&quot;—and they applied the word specifically to gold-colored copper alloys, including zinc brass, but also copper-gold alloys used for coins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English and other languages, nowadays, you most often find &quot;orichalcum&quot; in the same places you find &quot;Atlantis&quot; (i.e. fantasy literature and games). The ancient authors seem to agree that **true** orichalcum no longer exists: it was used long ago and is now gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, here's Pseudo-Aristotle, explaining the origin of its shininess:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Φασὶ τὸν Μοσσύνοικον χαλκὸν λαμπρότατον καὶ λευκότατον εἶναι, οὐ παραμιγνυμένου αὐτῷ κασσιτέρου, ἀλλὰ γῆς τινὸς αὐτοῦ γινομένης καὶ συνεψομένης αὐτῷ. λέγουσι δὲ τὸν εὑρόντα τὴν κρᾶσιν μηδένα διδάξαι· διὸ τὰ προγεγονότα ἐν τοῖς τόποις χαλκώματα διάφορα, τὰ δ᾿ ἐπιγιγνόμενα οὐκέτι.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They say that this Mossynoecian copper is the most brilliantly shiny and purest white of all, not because it's mixed with tin, but because it's smelted and alloyed with some sort of earth. They say that the inventor of this mixture didn't teach it to anyone, so the copper products that were made there long ago are special, but the modern ones aren't any more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Regarding Marvelous Things Heard* 62, translation mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from *oreichalcos*, though, most of the words for copper alloys were more specialized. For example, *craterōma* was a particularly strong alloy (it comes from the word for &quot;strength&quot;, while *pyrōpos* was a particularly red one (the name means &quot;fire-eyed&quot;). These could even be considered marketing terms, by modern standards!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But most of all, the word used for bronze was simply ***χαλκός***—that is, &quot;copper&quot;. The distinction between copper and bronze simply wasn't a very useful one to make in everyday conversation: if you were making weapons out of it, for example, there would obviously have to be some tin mixed in, while if you were making a mirror, there wouldn't. About 90% of the references to bronze simply call it &quot;copper&quot; like this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32628" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11098" RevisionGUID="b39e66f6-3991-4afe-9342-1ffeed44be57" CreationDate="2019-07-10T20:29:42.657" />
  <row Id="32629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11104" RevisionGUID="84498c19-74f5-4f96-8346-e9ac2a1aeed0" CreationDate="2019-07-10T21:34:45.700" UserId="406" Comment="added 174 characters in body" Text="There seems to be solid evidence that [Latin letter names were indeclinable][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in Greek, several letters' names *do* fit into standard declension patterns: *sigma*, for instance, [might actually be a *-ma* noun from *sizō* &quot;to hiss&quot;][2]. And *gamma* and *digamma* **look** like *-ma* nouns, even if they historically aren't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: do we ever find *sigmata* or *gammata*? Or, less obviously, *alphai* and *betai*? Or are all letter names indeclinable in Greek?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I'd also be interested in cases of *omicra* and *epsila*, even though those names are later. But first and foremost I'm curious about usage in the classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7294/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/10781/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11108" RevisionGUID="c30c71de-6788-4172-920c-458d24bf1ac8" CreationDate="2019-07-10T21:47:23.717" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Good question! The short answer is, the Ancient Greeks didn't have quite the same distinction we now have between &quot;brass&quot; and &quot;bronze&quot;. There were several words for copper alloys, but most contained some tin, some zinc, and some other things as well. This rule still seems to hold in Modern Greek, according to the Wikipedia page you linked, with the different words being used based on color instead of composition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Crateroma* is often confused with *oreichalcos*, which is fundamentally an alloy of copper and zinc. This confusion, coming from the indiscriminate use of the word &quot;*mproutzos*&quot; to refer to both *crateroma* and *oreichalcos*, doesn't only exist in Greek: in English, for example, *crateroma* is called &quot;bronze&quot;, and *oreichalcos* is called &quot;brass&quot;. This is because, in practice, the distinctions are made based on color: in the language of commerce, &quot;*mproutzos*&quot; and &quot;*crateroma*&quot; are used for the copper alloys with the brownest colors, while the alloys with the most golden colors are called &quot;*oreichalcos*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is my translation, and may have errors in it, because I'm not very good at Modern Greek; an actual Modern Greek-speaker should feel free to correct it!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, for the most famous alloy in all of history:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ὀρείχαλκος* literally means &quot;mountain copper&quot;, and authors disagree on what exactly it is or was. Plato suggests that it was mined directly in Atlantis and was almost as valuable as gold, while other authors say it was an especially shiny copper alloy; it's not clear what this alloy *was*, although some authors have different ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the Romans heard the term, they interpreted it as ***auri**chalcum* instead of ***ori**chalcum*—that is, &quot;gold copper&quot; instead of &quot;mountain copper&quot;—and they applied the word specifically to gold-colored copper alloys, including zinc brass, but also copper-gold alloys used for coins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English and other languages, nowadays, you most often find &quot;orichalcum&quot; in the same places you find &quot;Atlantis&quot; (i.e. fantasy literature and games). The ancient authors seem to agree that **true** orichalcum no longer exists: it was used long ago and is now gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, here's Pseudo-Aristotle, explaining the origin of its shininess:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Φασὶ τὸν Μοσσύνοικον χαλκὸν λαμπρότατον καὶ λευκότατον εἶναι, οὐ παραμιγνυμένου αὐτῷ κασσιτέρου, ἀλλὰ γῆς τινὸς αὐτοῦ γινομένης καὶ συνεψομένης αὐτῷ. λέγουσι δὲ τὸν εὑρόντα τὴν κρᾶσιν μηδένα διδάξαι· διὸ τὰ προγεγονότα ἐν τοῖς τόποις χαλκώματα διάφορα, τὰ δ᾿ ἐπιγιγνόμενα οὐκέτι.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They say that this Mossynoecian copper is the most brilliantly shiny and purest white of all, not because it's mixed with tin, but because it's smelted and alloyed with some sort of earth. They say that the inventor of this mixture didn't teach it to anyone, so the copper products that were made there long ago are special, but the modern ones aren't any more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Regarding Marvelous Things Heard* 62, translation mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from *oreichalcos*, though, most of the words for copper alloys were more specialized. For example, *craterōma* was a particularly strong alloy (it comes from the word for &quot;strength&quot;, while *pyrōpos* was a particularly red one (the name means &quot;fire-eyed&quot;). These could even be considered marketing terms, by modern standards!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But most of all, the word used for bronze was simply ***χαλκός***—that is, &quot;copper&quot;. The distinction between copper and bronze simply wasn't a very useful one to make in everyday conversation: if you were making weapons out of it, for example, there would obviously have to be some tin mixed in, while if you were making a mirror, there wouldn't. About 90% of the references to bronze simply call it &quot;copper&quot; like this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7468" RevisionGUID="1db3a2ef-0388-4813-8410-f8e85e1e40ee" CreationDate="2019-07-10T22:27:11.107" UserId="9" Comment="added 322 characters in body" Text="The negative prefix typically attaches to an adjective, while the prepositional prefix typically attaches to a verb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The distribution is complicated by the existence of adjectives derived from verbs (or at least, participle forms that look very similar to adjectives) and nouns derived from adjectives or from verbs. But if you're looking at a finite verb form such as &quot;īnsum&quot;, you can be fairly confident that the prefix *in-* does not express negation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Prefix Derivation in Latin][1]&quot;, by Dana DINU, says that the negative prefix *in-* &quot;does not apply to verbs&quot;. In addition, here is a quote discussing the (non-)use of *in-* to negate verbal *participles* specifically in Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in Classical Latin the synchronic negative of e.g. *patiens* ‘enduring’&#xD;&#xA;is *non patiens*, whereas participles with a negative prefix are synchronically non-participial adjectives, e.g. *impatiens* ‘impatient’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30, &quot;[Negated Participles in Rgvedic Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European](http://users.ox.ac.uk/~shug1472/IIJ_054_01_1075-Lowe_print-1.pdf),&quot; by John J. Lowe, *Indo-Iranian Journal* 54 (2011) 19-38)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, you can never determine which prefix is present in a word just from its phonetic form. The vowel would be long before *ns* or *nf* for either prefix. In contrast, I don't think that an allomorph with a long vowel is used for the word *in* in prepositional phrases, where a space is written after it: my understanding is that e.g. *in sacello* = [ɪn saˈkɛlloː], with a short vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cis01.central.ucv.ro/revista_scol/site_ro/2012/lexicologie/dinu.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11109" RevisionGUID="fe141c7c-69fc-41c0-b361-5de1af44c8b5" CreationDate="2019-07-10T22:33:38.753" UserId="40" Text="LSJ on [Σ][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B the name σίγμα ( σῖγμα) was usu. indeclinable, τοῦ σῖγμα Pl. l.c., Cra.402e, 427a, Ath.10.455c, Lyd.Mens.1.21 (v.l. σίγματος) ; τῷ σῖγμα Gal.UP2.14, al.; τῶν σῖγμα Pl.Com.30; τὰ σίγμα τὰ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀσπίδων X.HG4.4.10, cf. Hellad. ap. Phot.Bibl.p.532 B.; **later declined, τοῦ σίγματος Eust.1389.15; σίγμασιν Id.905.7.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.67:1.LSJ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11110" RevisionGUID="64dac204-1652-4990-9c61-e757d98a8043" CreationDate="2019-07-11T01:21:39.960" UserId="3248" Text="In the specialized literature (see below) Early and Classical Latin have been classified within the set of &quot;satellite-framed&quot; languages (see below for the different/transitory status of Late Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some references on the topic in case you're interested to take a look at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acedo-Matellán, Víctor (2016). _The Morphosyntax of Transitions. A Case Study in Latin and Other Languages_. Oxford &amp; New York: Oxford University Press.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733287.001.0001/acprof-9780198733287&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[NB: in particular, take a look at chapters 4 ('Latin as a satellite-framed language') and 5 ('Weak satellite-framed languages'). Latin and Slavic languages are classified as &quot;weak satellite-framed languages&quot;: i.e., as languages where Path/Result is prefixed (e.g., cf. Lat. _Serpentes putamina **ex**tussiunt_ and Engl. _The snakes cough the egg shells **out**_). Latin and Slavic languages have a lot of prefixed motion verbs (e.g., Lat. _incurro_, _decurro_, _excurro_, _percurro_, etc) but, interestingly, lack complex resultative constructions of the English kind like _to wipe clean_, _to hammer flat_, etc. E.g., see my previous post: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8809/why-can-t-we-wipe-the-slate-clean-in-latin . Similarly, weak-satellite framed languages like Latin and Slavic languages tend to be different from strong satellite-framed languages like English in that the former tend to lack examples involving a complex series of path PPs like Tolkien's example &quot;He still wandered on, out of the little high valley, over its edge, and down the slopes beyond&quot; (e.g., see my previous post: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8821/how-complex-a-motion-event-can-be-in-classical-latin ). &#xD;&#xA;NB: Acedo-Matellán's OUP book is a revised version of his Phd dissertation (downloadable at http://filcat.uab.cat/clt/publicacions/tesis/pdf/AcedoMatellan2010PhDDissertation.pdf ).  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Acedo-Matellán, Víctor &amp; Jaume Mateu (2013). “Satellite-framed Latin vs. verb-framed Romance: A syntactic approach”. _Probus. International Journal of Romance Linguistics_ 25: 227-265.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/prbs.2013.25.issue-2/probus-2013-0008/probus-2013-0008.xml &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stolova, Natalya (2006). “From satellite-framed Latin to verb-framed Romance: Late Latin as an intermediate stage”. In R. Wright (ed.). _Latin vulgaire, latin Tardif_ VIII, Hil-desheim: G. Olms. 253-262.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stolova, Natalya (2015). _Cognitive Linguistics and Lexical Change: Motion Verbs from Latin to Ro-mance_. Amsterdam &amp; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the satellite- vs. verb-framed distinction, originally formulated by the cognitivist linguist Leonard Talmy, provides a nice example for distinguishing genetic from typological classification. It is also interesting to point out that Ancient Greek has been claimed to be &quot;satellite-framed&quot; but Modern Greek is &quot;verb-framed&quot;. Conversely, Old Chinese was verb-framed but contemporary Mandarin Chinese is satellite-framed (e.g., see chapter 2 of the following work: https://repositorio.uam.es/bitstream/handle/10486/661950/fan_sheng_yang.pdf;sequence=1 ). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11110" RevisionGUID="86d67ba7-c4d8-446f-8a3c-9590ae56faa1" CreationDate="2019-07-11T01:43:24.197" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="In the specialized literature (see below) Early and Classical Latin have been classified within the set of satellite-framed languages (see below for the transitory status of Late Latin, i.e., towards the verb-framed type of Romance languages). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is just a (personal) selection of some references on the topic in case you're interested to take a look at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acedo-Matellán, Víctor (2016). _The Morphosyntax of Transitions. A Case Study in Latin and Other Languages_. Oxford &amp; New York: Oxford University Press.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733287.001.0001/acprof-9780198733287&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, take a look at chapters 4 ('Latin as a satellite-framed language') and 5 ('Weak satellite-framed languages'). Latin and Slavic languages are classified within the set of &quot;weak satellite-framed languages&quot;: i.e., as languages where Path/Result is prefixed (e.g., cf. Lat. _Serpentes putamina **ex**tussiunt_ and Engl. _The snakes cough the egg shells **out**_). Latin and Slavic languages have a lot of prefixed motion verbs (e.g., Lat. _incurro_, _decurro_, _excurro_, _percurro_, etc) but, interestingly, both lack complex resultative constructions of the English kind like _to wipe clean_, _to hammer flat_, etc. E.g., see my previous post: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8809/why-can-t-we-wipe-the-slate-clean-in-latin . Similarly, weak satellite-framed languages like Latin and Slavic languages tend to be different from strong satellite-framed languages like English in that the former tend to lack examples involving a complex series/accumulation of path PPs with only one verb like Tolkien's example &quot;He still wandered on, out of the little high valley, over its edge, and down the slopes beyond&quot; (e.g., see my previous post: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8821/how-complex-a-motion-event-can-be-in-classical-latin ). &#xD;&#xA;NB: Acedo-Matellán's (2016) OUP book is a revised version of his (2010) Phd dissertation, which is downloadable at http://filcat.uab.cat/clt/publicacions/tesis/pdf/AcedoMatellan2010PhDDissertation.pdf .  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Acedo-Matellán, Víctor &amp; Jaume Mateu (2013). “Satellite-framed Latin vs. verb-framed Romance: A syntactic approach”. _Probus. International Journal of Romance Linguistics_ 25: 227-265.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/prbs.2013.25.issue-2/probus-2013-0008/probus-2013-0008.xml &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stolova, Natalya (2006). “From satellite-framed Latin to verb-framed Romance: Late Latin as an intermediate stage”. In R. Wright (ed.). _Latin vulgaire, latin Tardif_ VIII, Hil-desheim: G. Olms. 253-262.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stolova, Natalya (2015). _Cognitive Linguistics and Lexical Change: Motion Verbs from Latin to Ro-mance_. Amsterdam &amp; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the satellite- vs. verb-framed distinction, originally formulated by the cognitivist linguist Leonard Talmy, is interesting for linguists because it provides a nice example for distinguishing &quot;genetic&quot; from &quot;typological&quot; classification. It is also interesting to point out that Ancient Greek has been claimed to be &quot;satellite-framed&quot; but Modern Greek is &quot;verb-framed&quot; (e.g., see https://books.google.es/books?id=RRowDwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA113&amp;lpg=PA113&amp;dq=Papafragou+et+al.+(2006)+for+Modern+Greek,&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=an3LWb-r1h&amp;sig=ACfU3U28iDrYNqRubAD9RHLocrWzUxvgwA&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiK7PO53qvjAhUQa8AKHa-CBvEQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=Papafragou%20et%20al.%20(2006)%20for%20Modern%20Greek%2C&amp;f=false ).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conversely, Old Chinese was verb-framed but contemporary Mandarin Chinese is satellite-framed (e.g., see chapter 2 of the following work: https://repositorio.uam.es/bitstream/handle/10486/661950/fan_sheng_yang.pdf;sequence=1 ). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11101" RevisionGUID="b2b816e8-26de-42f1-9fb1-3fd42349ba3d" CreationDate="2019-07-11T01:44:17.007" UserId="469" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="As your question implies, the * in ***toccare** means that the word is *unattested*, i.e., there is no direct written evidence that the verb actually existed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not mean that there is a good argument against its existence: vulgar Latin/Proto-Romance was the language of (mostly) illiterate people. It doesn't mean either that there is no good argument *for* its existence. The very fact that there are dictionary entries mentioning it means that at least some experts consider it likely enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Digging a bit deeper on the evidence for the existence of *toccare, the story goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (PIE&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;) `*dewk-` (*to draw, pull*) &gt; (PIE) `*dukn-` &gt; (Proto-Germanic) [`*tukkōną`][1] (*to pull, touch*) &gt; (Frankish) [`*tukkōn/tokkōn*`][2] (*to touch*) &gt; (Latin) `*tocco/-are`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the (extant, attested) evidence in which this *genealogy* is based is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (PIE) `*dewk-`: Latin *dux*, Spanish *conducir* (etc.)&#xD;&#xA;* (Proto-Germanic) `*tukkōną`: English *tuck*, German *zucken*&#xD;&#xA;* (Frankish) `*tukkōn/ *tokkōn`: Dutch *tokkelen*&#xD;&#xA;* (Latin) well, you already mentioned it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These reconstructions are based on the presence of the same root in one or several descendant languages. Moreover, the exact form of the unattested *ancestor* word is obtained by reversely applying the known sound changes that took place during the development of the descendant language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number of Romance languages with forms derived from *toccare is overwhelming, and all of them seem to point back at this particular form, hence the evidence for its existence is, IMHO, **difficult to argue against**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Proto Indo-European language, from which all Indo-European family languages are hypothesized to come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/tukk%C5%8Dn%C4%85&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Frankish/tukk%C5%8Dn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11111" RevisionGUID="21d04215-f641-4ee6-8976-ec68edf74c1a" CreationDate="2019-07-11T07:36:03.483" UserId="2646" Text="There's a Spanish webcomic called *[¡Eh, tío!][1]*, an expression that can be translated into English as *hey, man* or maybe as *hey, bro*. The webcomic had some time ago a story arc set in an alternate universe where the Roman Empire still rules the world nowadays. In order the keep the meaning of the original webcomic title, the author decided to title that story arc ***Ave, vire***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, according to the Lewis &amp; Short dictionary, *[vĭr, vĭri][2]* means &quot;a male person, a man&quot;. Nonetheless, it may not be the most suitable translation, as *[tío][3]* has the same connotations as English *[bro][4]*. It can be used colloquially to refer to a person whose name you don't know, or just as an informal way to refer to a friend. *Vĭr* just seems a bit formal for that purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is &quot;ave, vire&quot; the best way to translate &quot;hey, bro&quot;? Or is there another word that could be used in Latin to colloquially refer to a friend or to someone you just don't know their name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ehtio.es/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DV%3Aentry%20group%3D20%3Aentry%3Dvir&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://dle.rae.es/?id=ZoWtFfy&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/es/diccionario/ingles/bro" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32637" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11111" RevisionGUID="21d04215-f641-4ee6-8976-ec68edf74c1a" CreationDate="2019-07-11T07:36:03.483" UserId="2646" Text="Can &quot;ave, vire&quot; be used colloquially as &quot;hey, bro&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32638" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11111" RevisionGUID="21d04215-f641-4ee6-8976-ec68edf74c1a" CreationDate="2019-07-11T07:36:03.483" UserId="2646" Text="|classical-latin|noun|vulgar-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11110" RevisionGUID="cce56a71-768f-4d8d-bc1b-fc77934406d6" CreationDate="2019-07-11T12:30:32.307" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar and clarification" Text="Here is a descriptive answer (see below for a long, more specialized answer): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is important for a language to be classified as &quot;satellite-framed&quot; is the fact that Path (i.e., directionality) is **not** conflated with the verb root (e.g., in the Romance verb &quot;entrar&quot; Path **is** conflated with the verbal root, i.e., you cannot distinguish Path and Motion as two differentiated morphemes in &quot;entrar&quot;). The notion of &quot;satellite&quot; involves lack of conflation of Path with a verbal **root**. So Path, in satellite-framed languages, can be a preverb (e.g., Lat. _incurrere_) or a particle (e.g., Eng. _run in_). In short, verb-framed languages are &quot;enter-running&quot; languages and satellite-framed ones are &quot;{run in/in-run}&quot; languages (NB: for the distinction between &quot;run in&quot; languages (e.g., English) and &quot;in-run&quot; languages (e.g., Latin or Russian), see below). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So watch out for the admittedly confusing Talmy's terminology: Latin is **not** a verb-framed language in spite of having directional preverbs attached to the verb. As noted above, Latin is satellite-framed because Path/directionality is not conflated with the verbal **root**.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the specialized literature (see below) Early and Classical Latin have been classified within the set of satellite-framed languages (see below for the transitory status of Late Latin, i.e., towards the verb-framed type of Romance languages). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is just a (personal) selection of some references on the topic in case you're interested to take a look at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acedo-Matellán, Víctor (2016). _The Morphosyntax of Transitions. A Case Study in Latin and Other Languages_. Oxford &amp; New York: Oxford University Press.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733287.001.0001/acprof-9780198733287&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, take a look at chapters 4 ('Latin as a satellite-framed language') and 5 ('Weak satellite-framed languages'). Latin and Slavic languages are classified within the set of &quot;weak satellite-framed languages&quot;: i.e., as languages where Path/Result is prefixed (e.g., cf. Lat. _Serpentes putamina **ex**tussiunt_ and Engl. _The snakes cough the egg shells **out**_). Latin and Slavic languages have a lot of prefixed motion verbs (e.g., Lat. _incurro_, _decurro_, _excurro_, _percurro_, etc) but, interestingly, both lack complex resultative constructions of the English kind like _to wipe clean_, _to hammer flat_, etc. E.g., see my previous post: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8809/why-can-t-we-wipe-the-slate-clean-in-latin . Similarly, weak satellite-framed languages like Latin and Slavic languages tend to be different from strong satellite-framed languages like English in that the former tend to lack examples involving a complex series/accumulation of path PPs with only one verb like Tolkien's example &quot;He still wandered on, out of the little high valley, over its edge, and down the slopes beyond&quot; (e.g., see my previous post: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8821/how-complex-a-motion-event-can-be-in-classical-latin ). &#xD;&#xA;NB: Acedo-Matellán's (2016) OUP book is a revised version of his (2010) Phd dissertation, which is downloadable at http://filcat.uab.cat/clt/publicacions/tesis/pdf/AcedoMatellan2010PhDDissertation.pdf .  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Acedo-Matellán, Víctor &amp; Jaume Mateu (2013). “Satellite-framed Latin vs. verb-framed Romance: A syntactic approach”. _Probus. International Journal of Romance Linguistics_ 25: 227-265.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/prbs.2013.25.issue-2/probus-2013-0008/probus-2013-0008.xml &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stolova, Natalya (2006). “From satellite-framed Latin to verb-framed Romance: Late Latin as an intermediate stage”. In R. Wright (ed.). _Latin vulgaire, latin Tardif_ VIII, Hil-desheim: G. Olms. 253-262.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stolova, Natalya (2015). _Cognitive Linguistics and Lexical Change: Motion Verbs from Latin to Romance_. Amsterdam &amp; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the satellite- vs. verb-framed distinction, originally formulated by the cognitivist linguist Leonard Talmy, is interesting for linguists because it provides a nice example for distinguishing &quot;genetic&quot; from &quot;typological&quot; classification. It is also interesting to point out that Ancient Greek has been claimed to be &quot;satellite-framed&quot; but Modern Greek is &quot;verb-framed&quot; (e.g., see https://books.google.es/books?id=RRowDwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA113&amp;lpg=PA113&amp;dq=Papafragou+et+al.+(2006)+for+Modern+Greek,&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=an3LWb-r1h&amp;sig=ACfU3U28iDrYNqRubAD9RHLocrWzUxvgwA&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiK7PO53qvjAhUQa8AKHa-CBvEQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=Papafragou%20et%20al.%20(2006)%20for%20Modern%20Greek%2C&amp;f=false ).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conversely, Old Chinese was verb-framed but contemporary Mandarin Chinese is satellite-framed (e.g., see chapter 2 of the following work: https://repositorio.uam.es/bitstream/handle/10486/661950/fan_sheng_yang.pdf;sequence=1 ). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11110" RevisionGUID="2b2c1e6d-0c76-49c6-93fc-e84b44dcb89e" CreationDate="2019-07-11T13:12:34.087" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="Here is a descriptive answer (see below for a long, more specialized answer): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So-called verb-framed languages are &quot;enter running&quot; languages and so-called satellite-framed ones are &quot;{run in/in-run}&quot; languages (NB: for the distinction between &quot;run in&quot; languages (e.g., English) and &quot;in-run&quot; languages (e.g., Latin or Russian), see below). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is important for a language to be classified as &quot;satellite-framed&quot; is the fact that Path (i.e., directionality) is **not** conflated with the verb root (e.g., in the Romance verb &quot;entrar&quot; Path **is** conflated with the verbal root, i.e., you cannot distinguish Path and Motion as two differentiated morphemes in &quot;entrar&quot;). The notion of &quot;satellite&quot; involves lack of conflation of Path with a verbal **root**. So Path, in satellite-framed languages, can be a preverb (e.g., Lat. _incurrere_) or a particle (e.g., Eng. _run in_). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So watch out for the admittedly confusing Talmy's terminology: Latin is **not** a verb-framed language in spite of having directional preverbs attached to the verb. As noted above, Latin is satellite-framed because Path/directionality is not conflated with the verbal **root**.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the specialized literature (see below) Early and Classical Latin have been classified within the set of satellite-framed languages (see below for the transitory status of Late Latin, i.e., towards the verb-framed type of Romance languages). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is just a (personal) selection of some references on the topic in case you're interested to take a look at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acedo-Matellán, Víctor (2016). _The Morphosyntax of Transitions. A Case Study in Latin and Other Languages_. Oxford &amp; New York: Oxford University Press.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733287.001.0001/acprof-9780198733287&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, take a look at chapters 4 ('Latin as a satellite-framed language') and 5 ('Weak satellite-framed languages'). Latin and Slavic languages are classified within the set of &quot;weak satellite-framed languages&quot;: i.e., as languages where Path/Result is prefixed (e.g., cf. Lat. _Serpentes putamina **ex**tussiunt_ and Engl. _The snakes cough the egg shells **out**_). Latin and Slavic languages have a lot of prefixed motion verbs (e.g., Lat. _incurro_, _decurro_, _excurro_, _percurro_, etc) but, interestingly, both lack complex resultative constructions of the English kind like _to wipe clean_, _to hammer flat_, etc. E.g., see my previous post: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8809/why-can-t-we-wipe-the-slate-clean-in-latin . Similarly, weak satellite-framed languages like Latin and Slavic languages tend to be different from strong satellite-framed languages like English in that the former tend to lack examples involving a complex series/accumulation of path PPs with only one verb like Tolkien's example &quot;He still wandered on, out of the little high valley, over its edge, and down the slopes beyond&quot; (e.g., see my previous post: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8821/how-complex-a-motion-event-can-be-in-classical-latin ). &#xD;&#xA;NB: Acedo-Matellán's (2016) OUP book is a revised version of his (2010) Phd dissertation, which is downloadable at http://filcat.uab.cat/clt/publicacions/tesis/pdf/AcedoMatellan2010PhDDissertation.pdf .  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Acedo-Matellán, Víctor &amp; Jaume Mateu (2013). “Satellite-framed Latin vs. verb-framed Romance: A syntactic approach”. _Probus. International Journal of Romance Linguistics_ 25: 227-265.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/prbs.2013.25.issue-2/probus-2013-0008/probus-2013-0008.xml &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stolova, Natalya (2006). “From satellite-framed Latin to verb-framed Romance: Late Latin as an intermediate stage”. In R. Wright (ed.). _Latin vulgaire, latin Tardif_ VIII, Hil-desheim: G. Olms. 253-262.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stolova, Natalya (2015). _Cognitive Linguistics and Lexical Change: Motion Verbs from Latin to Romance_. Amsterdam &amp; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the satellite- vs. verb-framed distinction, originally formulated by the cognitivist linguist Leonard Talmy, is interesting for linguists because it provides a nice example for distinguishing &quot;genetic&quot; from &quot;typological&quot; classification. It is also interesting to point out that Ancient Greek has been claimed to be &quot;satellite-framed&quot; but Modern Greek is &quot;verb-framed&quot; (e.g., see https://books.google.es/books?id=RRowDwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA113&amp;lpg=PA113&amp;dq=Papafragou+et+al.+(2006)+for+Modern+Greek,&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=an3LWb-r1h&amp;sig=ACfU3U28iDrYNqRubAD9RHLocrWzUxvgwA&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiK7PO53qvjAhUQa8AKHa-CBvEQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=Papafragou%20et%20al.%20(2006)%20for%20Modern%20Greek%2C&amp;f=false ).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conversely, Old Chinese was verb-framed but contemporary Mandarin Chinese is satellite-framed (e.g., see chapter 2 of the following work: https://repositorio.uam.es/bitstream/handle/10486/661950/fan_sheng_yang.pdf;sequence=1 ). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11106" RevisionGUID="c3546855-05b7-4f0c-b9d7-15c21951388c" CreationDate="2019-07-11T13:15:29.303" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar and clarification" Text="As a follow-up of the previous interesting question (https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11099/did-the-vulgar-latin-verb-toccare-exist ), could the vulgar Vulgar Latin verb _toccari_ (in the sense of the deponent verb _masturbari_) have existed or should it have directly been created as reflexive like in Romance languages (e.g., _toccarsi_ in Italian)? Just for an illustrious exemplification, cf. the famous dialogue between the priest (Don Balosa) and the boy (Titta) from Fellini's extraordinary Italian film &quot;Amarcord&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don Balosa: “Commetti atti impuri? Ti tocchi? Lo sai che San Luigi piange quando ti tocchi?” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Titta: “Ma perché, tu non ti tocchi? Ma come si fa a non toccarsi quando vedi la tabaccaia con tótta quella ròba lì davanti, o la professoressa di matematica, che sembra un leone? Come si fa a non toccarsi quando ti guarda in quel modo? E allora come faccio a dirgli di no quando la Volpina mi ha chiesto di gonfiargli la bicicletta? Io non sapevo che si davano i baci così. Lei lo sapeva? Con tutta la lingua che gira...” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don Balosa: “Sono io che faccio le domande!”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exactly, “sono io che faccio le domande!”: Could the vulgar Vulgar Latin verb &quot;toccari&quot; have existed  or  should it have directly been created as reflexive like in Romance languages (e.g., _toccarsi_ in Italian)? More generally, could anyone provide me with references on the progressive absence of deponent verbs from Vulgar Latin? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11112" RevisionGUID="263eb2e2-e697-4059-9119-1fb523c63e94" CreationDate="2019-07-11T18:37:24.577" UserId="406" Text="TL;DR: No; I wouldn't, at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Hey&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ave* seems like a very good word for this. It's conventionally translated as &quot;hail&quot;, but at this point that just sounds archaic; the Latin word can also be a casual &quot;hi!&quot; or &quot;hey!&quot; to a friend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There's also *eja* or *heja*, cognate to English &quot;hey&quot;, but that's more like &quot;ah!&quot; to my mind, less of a greeting.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Bro&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, while it's certain that the Romans had plenty of slang and colloquial words like &quot;bro&quot;, not many of them have survived (since they weren't used in the lofty, well-preserved works of Cicero and Vergil).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest I can think of is *homō*, literally &quot;man&quot; or &quot;person&quot;, which characters in Plautus use casually for the people they're talking to. ([It's also gender-neutral][1]: *homō* means &quot;man&quot; as in &quot;mankind&quot;, while *vir* means &quot;man&quot; as in &quot;manliness&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my recommendation would be ***ave, homō!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##&quot;Vire&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an attempt to put a vocative ending on the word *vir*, which does mean &quot;man&quot;. The vocative is used when you're addressing someone directly, so that makes sense. But in Latin, **special vocative endings are only used for words ending in *-as* or *-us***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The actual rules are a bit more specific than that, and there are many words ending in *-us* that don't take special vocative endings—that is, ending in *-as* or *-us* is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one. But since *vir* doesn't end in either of those two ways, we can say immediately that it has no special vocative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On top of that, *vir* usually means &quot;man&quot; as in &quot;not a woman&quot;, &quot;not a boy&quot;, &quot;a soldier&quot;, or &quot;married to a woman&quot;. I don't think any of those four really fit your use case; you're looking for &quot;man&quot; as in &quot;generic human being&quot;, which is *homō*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2597/examples-of-homo-used-for-a-woman" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32644" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9078" RevisionGUID="7b0811a8-e910-46b8-9163-f4bf75d26195" CreationDate="2019-07-12T03:03:15.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11113" RevisionGUID="522cd851-9ccb-4be3-a66e-9831f9d91d63" CreationDate="2019-07-12T03:35:49.647" UserId="406" Text="In legal Latin, &quot;criminal intent&quot; is *mens rea*, literally &quot;a guilty mind&quot;. This is separate from *actus reus*, the &quot;guilty action&quot; (i.e. a crime actually committed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if it's the *intent* as opposed to the *result* that's important, I would extend JobRozemond's answer, and say that &quot;curative intent&quot; is a *mens ad sānandum*—&quot;a mind dedicated to curing&quot;. If you want to say you're doing something &quot;**with** curative intent&quot;, that would be the ablative: *mente ad sanandum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11114" RevisionGUID="c87bd34d-ecbc-40b2-a81c-9946e97d3a5e" CreationDate="2019-07-12T09:55:13.303" UserId="324" Text="As Draconis has said, the vocative of &quot;vir&quot; is &quot;vir&quot;, not the non-existant &quot;vire&quot;. “Ave vir“ is fine. “Salve vir” is also good. “Ave homo” does not work (I suggest) in a comic, for obvious reasons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11115" RevisionGUID="ccc1cca4-4357-4916-9525-4d31928e9895" CreationDate="2019-07-12T14:29:58.677" UserId="1955" Text="How would one translate &quot;any thoughts ?&quot; into latin (elipse for &quot;does anyone have any thoughts?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would think `ullas cogitationes? ` for `Aliquis ullas cogitationes habet?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32648" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11115" RevisionGUID="ccc1cca4-4357-4916-9525-4d31928e9895" CreationDate="2019-07-12T14:29:58.677" UserId="1955" Text="any thoughts - translation into latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32649" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11115" RevisionGUID="ccc1cca4-4357-4916-9525-4d31928e9895" CreationDate="2019-07-12T14:29:58.677" UserId="1955" Text="|interrogative|indefined|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32650" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9433" RevisionGUID="f77a5bdf-4ee4-4db3-bfaf-bebf60073283" CreationDate="2019-07-12T17:02:35.293" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11116" RevisionGUID="19792262-3f22-4605-acb5-2046b9de2458" CreationDate="2019-07-12T17:24:32.457" UserId="79" Text="If you want a noun for this purpose, I suggest *sententia*.&#xD;&#xA;It means things like thought, judgement, opinion, decision, and wish.&#xD;&#xA;You could just ask &quot;sententiae?&quot; or maybe add a verb and go &quot;habe(ti)sne sententias?&quot; to stay close to the English original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a more idiomatic choice would be to use *quid* with a verb, similarly to &quot;what do you think?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;My first instinct is to go with *censere*, but *putare* or others can work too.&#xD;&#xA;My choice in a situation like that would probably be &quot;quid cense(ti)s?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This looks like a case where you could well use *numquid* instead of *quid*.&#xD;&#xA;This makes the question more &quot;do you have any thoughts&quot; than &quot;what do you think&quot;, and this is the desired direction here.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore my best suggestion is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Numquid cense(ti)s?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11115" RevisionGUID="2a11fd9f-49ef-446d-b811-1d6c6d6904ad" CreationDate="2019-07-12T17:26:14.023" UserId="79" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How would one translate &quot;any thoughts?&quot; into Latin?&#xD;&#xA;It is an ellipse for &quot;does anyone have any thoughts?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would think &quot;ullas cogitationes?&quot; for &quot;Aliquis ullas cogitationes habet?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32653" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11115" RevisionGUID="2a11fd9f-49ef-446d-b811-1d6c6d6904ad" CreationDate="2019-07-12T17:26:14.023" UserId="79" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&quot;Any thoughts&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32654" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11115" RevisionGUID="2a11fd9f-49ef-446d-b811-1d6c6d6904ad" CreationDate="2019-07-12T17:26:14.023" UserId="79" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|idiom|word-choice|interrogative|conversational|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11083" RevisionGUID="7f1f99ce-6c4a-4cac-966b-ba41e05c4fdb" CreationDate="2019-07-12T19:07:47.970" UserId="118" Comment="added 186 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Are Latin verbs of motion [satellite-framed, verb-framed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb_framing), both, or neither?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Native English verbs of motion are said to be **satellite-framed**: the verb usually indicates the manner of motion and a &quot;satellite&quot; or particle word indicates the direction. For example, &quot;He walked into the room,&quot; &quot;She ran out of the room,&quot; &quot;They floated into the room.&quot; The preposition need not take an object: &quot;He walked in&quot;, &quot;They floated out.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verbs of motion in Romance languages are said to be **verb-framed**: the verb usually indicates the direction of motion and some complementary word, typically a gerund or participle, indicates the manner. For example, &quot;Entró caminando en la sala,&quot; &quot;Salió corriendo de la sala,&quot; &quot;Entraron flotando en la sala.&quot; Native speakers of Romance languages often find the English use of prepositions without an object (&quot;particles&quot;) jarring, as in &quot;She walked out.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I expected Latin verbs of motion to work like those of the Romance languages, but so far in my occasional studies I haven't seen it. In fact, I've come across no shortage of verbs with a prefix indicating direction stuck on a verb indicating manner: [_incurro_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/incurro#Latin), [_emergo_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/emergo#Latin), etc. This pattern extends far beyond verbs of motion, of course. And I think one normally would say _Daedalus cum filio e labyrintho [evolavit](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evolo#Latin),_ not _…exiit volans._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, in Latin I've also come across constructs like _respondit dicens …_ where in English we would just say &quot;He answered …&quot;. And Latin seems to make much heavier use of participles where English would more likely make another construct, such as an adverbial phrase, a relative clause, or a separate sentence, e.g. _Nonne rex Minos Theseum cum Ariadna fugientem persecutus est?_ vs. &quot;When Theseus and Ariadna fled, didn't King Minos chase them?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;The Latin examples above are from [_Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_%C3%98rberg#Lingua_Latina_Per_Se_Illustrata) by Hans Ørberg.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32656" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11083" RevisionGUID="7f1f99ce-6c4a-4cac-966b-ba41e05c4fdb" CreationDate="2019-07-12T19:07:47.970" UserId="118" Comment="added 186 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|verbs|prefix|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11117" RevisionGUID="34085a82-967e-479b-aaaa-d47f6016f3c5" CreationDate="2019-07-12T19:09:05.167" UserId="4934" Text="I hope this is the correct place to ask, I have 0 experience with latin but need this one phrase translated. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;A killed B&quot; as in &quot;Tom killed John&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what i understand, for my context the best verb is &quot;occido&quot; but how would you use this verb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google offers several options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;A occisus B&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;A occisus est B&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 3. &quot;A occidit B&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 4. &quot;A occidi B&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the second option will be translated more like &quot;A was killed by B&quot;, so for my purposes I should go with option 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32658" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11117" RevisionGUID="34085a82-967e-479b-aaaa-d47f6016f3c5" CreationDate="2019-07-12T19:09:05.167" UserId="4934" Text="&quot;A killed B&quot; translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32659" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11117" RevisionGUID="34085a82-967e-479b-aaaa-d47f6016f3c5" CreationDate="2019-07-12T19:09:05.167" UserId="4934" Text="|idiom|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5113" RevisionGUID="0b05498c-17f4-41ab-9226-194c9fea5d95" CreationDate="2019-07-12T19:59:28.740" UserId="118" Comment="added 3070 characters in body" Text="[_Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_%C3%98rberg#Lingua_Latina_Per_Se_Illustrata) (&quot;The Latin Language Illustrated by Itself&quot;) is a two-volume Latin primer by Hans Ørberg written entirely in Latin. The student never uses his or her native language and thus never translates. Instead, the student infers Latin vocabulary and grammar entirely from context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first volume, _Familia Romana,_ begins with the sentence &quot;Rōma in Italiā est,&quot; accompanied by a map of Europe, which depicts what that sentence means. The first chapter uses only the verbs _est_ and _sunt_ and nouns only in the nominative and ablative cases. Most of the book consists of comical stories about a wealthy Roman family set in about 150 A.D. Each chapter introduces new vocabulary and a new element of grammar, the meaning of which is usually self-evident from the story or from a picture, often supplemented by a brief marginal note—written in Latin, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You learn numbers from a chapter describing a day at school where the children are taught by a strict Greek _magister._ Along the way, you learn about beatings for disobedience, the Roman custom of hiring Greek teachers and how they were paid, the many jobs of slaves and what happens when one runs away, the clash between Christian and Pagan religion complete with easy passages from the [_Vetus Latina_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetus_Latina), and you read bedtime stories that are actually simplified versions of myths from Ovid's [_Metamorphoses_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphoses).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the end of each chapter are an explanation of the newly introduced grammar, written in Latin of course, and three _pensa_: sets of exercises, including one where the student answers questions about the chapter in Latin. The penultimate chapter is a dinner party with poetry readings, introducing scansion of hexameter and elegiac couplets with the most famous examples. The last chapter, _Capitulum XXXV,_ is an excerpt from Donatus's [_Ars Grammatica_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_grammatica), in which a teacher grills a student on all the elements of grammar covered in the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second volume, _Roma Aeterna,_ consists of excerpts from some of the most well known ancient Roman writings and authors: Virgil, Livy, Cicero, etc. Early chapters are simplified rewrites and present poetry _solutis versibus_—in prose form, which makes the grammar much easier for a beginner to follow. By the end of the book, the student is reading excerpts from classical authors in their original form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The series thus leads the student gently, almost effortlessly, to a _feel_ for Latin style, grammar, and vocabulary. Looking ahead a few chapters, the text seems to get much more difficult, but by the time you reach it, understanding it is fairly easy. The student enters the Latin tradition by learning from the same writings and material that everyone who learned Latin from the early mediæval period to modern times was expected to know. Both volumes include macrons in all text." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11117" RevisionGUID="501e46dc-6842-4516-8602-03bfb957d175" CreationDate="2019-07-12T20:39:28.900" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="I hope this is the correct place to ask, I have 0 experience with Latin but need this one phrase translated. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;A killed B&quot; as in &quot;Tom killed John&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I understand, for my context the best verb is &quot;occido&quot; but how would you use this verb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google offers several options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;A occisus B&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;A occisus est B&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 3. &quot;A occidit B&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 4. &quot;A occidi B&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the second option will be translated more like &quot;A was killed by B&quot;, so for my purposes I should go with option 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32662" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11117" RevisionGUID="501e46dc-6842-4516-8602-03bfb957d175" CreationDate="2019-07-12T20:39:28.900" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11118" RevisionGUID="3f64f1dd-53d2-4f62-94f3-dc1d0bf86f0b" CreationDate="2019-07-12T20:49:37.440" UserId="3248" Text="As a follow-up of an interesting question on a typological classification of Latin (https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11083/are-latin-verbs-of-motion-satellite-framed-or-verb-framed ), I was wondering if Latin has (semi)idiomatic expressions like the following ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English (satellite-framed language):&#xD;&#xA;_Ben worked his guts out // Ben cried his eyes out // Ben laughed his butt off // Ben laughed his head off // ..._  (meaning: 'Ben Verb-ed a lot').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spanish (verb-framed language):&#xD;&#xA;_Ben echó los higadillos (de tanto trabajar) // A Ben se le salieron los ojos de tanto llorar // Ben se petó de risa //..._  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: as you can see, the important satellite- vs. verb-framed typology goes beyond motion verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that these idiomatic constructions can be found in Latin, the expected pattern should be the following one, with Path/Result prefixed onto the verb, i.e., something like _outwork_, _outcry_, etc.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, so far I've been unable to find idiomatic expressions like _He cried his eyes out_ in Latin. Interestingly, this class of idioms is not productive in Slavic languages (which, like Latin, are also &quot;weak satellite-framed languages&quot;; see my answer to the post above) as it is in Germanic languages, but some examples can be found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a. Jan schodził sobie nogi             (Polish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Jan out-walked refl-dat feet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ‘John walked his feet off.’  (meaning 'he walked a lot')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b. Džon vyplakal svoi glaza            (Russian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; John out-cried  poss. eyes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ‘John cried his eyes out.’   (meaning 'he cried a lot'). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32664" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11118" RevisionGUID="3f64f1dd-53d2-4f62-94f3-dc1d0bf86f0b" CreationDate="2019-07-12T20:49:37.440" UserId="3248" Text="&quot;Laughing our heads off&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32665" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11118" RevisionGUID="3f64f1dd-53d2-4f62-94f3-dc1d0bf86f0b" CreationDate="2019-07-12T20:49:37.440" UserId="3248" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11119" RevisionGUID="bd8c49ac-dee4-48d2-accb-d13064442912" CreationDate="2019-07-12T20:49:47.793" UserId="118" Text="In the first line of [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/3y949z/sol_oritur_occasus_nesciuslyrics_in_comments/cybjulf/) 12th-century [conductus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conductus):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sol oritur occasus nescius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;what does [_nescius_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=nescius) refer to? Maybe diagramming the sentence is all I need, because I don't follow the grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the idea is that the Sun rises not knowing when or whether it will set, then I'd expect the sentence should be _Sol oritur occasum nesciens._ If the idea is that when the Sun rises, no one knows when or whether it will set, then I'd expect _Sol oritur occaso nescio_ (although I think first of _nescio_ as the verb &quot;I don't know&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the word is _occasus,_ which could be a noun or an adjective. If a noun, that would tend to put it into a different case, as above. So maybe it's an adjective modifying _Sol._ But then what does the sentence mean—The Sun rises, having already set, without knowing how it rises? That _could_ make sense, given that the rest of the poem runs through religious paradoxes involving a single thing appearing in two forms that somehow interact with each other. I don't know the idioms and grammar well enough to say." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32667" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11119" RevisionGUID="bd8c49ac-dee4-48d2-accb-d13064442912" CreationDate="2019-07-12T20:49:47.793" UserId="118" Text="Occasus nescius" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32668" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11119" RevisionGUID="bd8c49ac-dee4-48d2-accb-d13064442912" CreationDate="2019-07-12T20:49:47.793" UserId="118" Text="|medieval-latin|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="eb27cb3e-c91a-4570-bd38-5acd0bb3d122" CreationDate="2019-07-12T20:56:59.237" UserId="118" Comment="added 49 characters in body; edited tags" Text="[This Reddit comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/3y949z/sol_oritur_occasus_nesciuslyrics_in_comments/cybjulf/) points out that there is a [zeugma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeugma_and_syllepsis) on a genitive noun in this sentence from the [conductus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conductus) &quot;Sol oritur occasus nescius&quot;* in the [_Hortus Deliciarum_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hortus_deliciarum):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et **filiæ** fit pater filius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd never heard of such a thing: the single word **filiæ** modifies both the subject of the verb and the subject complement! Is this a poetic use of grammar, emphasizing what an odd thing it is for the deity to become His own son?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then it occurred to me that you can do the same in English and the grammar doesn't seem remarkable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And the father **of the daughter** becomes the son.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is the zeugma on a genitive extraordinary in Latin? Are there other instances of it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is it not a zeugma at all? Does **filiæ** modify only one of the nouns, as if it were written _Et pater filiæ fit filius_? Even the English &quot;zeugma&quot; could be read that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt;Tangentially, there's a great [false relation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_relation) (I think) in [this performance](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUx4-Eb7y6k) a couple lines later, on the _O_ in _O pro populo._&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32670" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="eb27cb3e-c91a-4570-bd38-5acd0bb3d122" CreationDate="2019-07-12T20:56:59.237" UserId="118" Comment="added 49 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|medieval-latin|genitive|figurae-sermonis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11120" RevisionGUID="a3ad10cf-4398-4db5-86e8-bace9a2a536b" CreationDate="2019-07-12T21:02:18.133" UserId="79" Text="There are many words for killing, but *occidere* is a good one.&#xD;&#xA;The form *occidit* means &quot;he/she/it kills/killed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For this particular verb the present and perfect tense forms for third person singular look alike, and these forms are also agnostic of gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The A and B in &quot;A killed B&quot; are more complicated than you might expect.&#xD;&#xA;If you have any such sentence, you cannot replace A and B with any names and expect it to work.&#xD;&#xA;Latin is far more concerned with the form of A and B than their order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate this, let me replace A with Arrius and B with Baebius.&#xD;&#xA;Here are some valid ways to say &quot;Arrius killed Baebius&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;1. *Arrius Baebium occidit.*&#xD;&#xA;2. *Baebium Arrius occidit.*&#xD;&#xA;3. *Arrius occidit Baebium.*&#xD;&#xA;4. *Baebium occidit Arrius.*&#xD;&#xA;5. *Baebius ab Arrio occisus est.*&#xD;&#xA;6. *ab Arrio Baebius occisus est.*&#xD;&#xA;7. *Baebius occisus est ab Arrio.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list is not exhaustive.&#xD;&#xA;Who killed whom is not decided by the order of the words &amp;mdash; you can shuffle the words freely in a sentence like *Arrius Baebium occidit* without changing meaning &amp;mdash; but by their forms.&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted to swap the roles, you can change it to *Arrium Baebius occidit*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first item on my list would be the typical way to phrase it.&#xD;&#xA;But if you just say &quot;A B occidit&quot;, I would have hard time parsing it.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps &quot;A B&quot; is a person?&#xD;&#xA;The least ambiguous way would be &quot;A occidit B&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is your option 3.&#xD;&#xA;The others do not mean what you want.&#xD;&#xA;[Google Translate is horrible with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79)&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin works best if the words can be declined.&#xD;&#xA;Foreign names or placeholders like &quot;A&quot; make it a little awkward.&#xD;&#xA;The best way to say &quot;A killed B&quot; in Latin is *A[nom.] B[acc.] occidit*, where A is in the nominative and B in the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;There is no easy general format the way you have in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11121" RevisionGUID="32ae0052-46b9-4522-a602-a26e48a87c08" CreationDate="2019-07-12T21:04:52.493" UserId="3248" Text="Here the predicative adjective _nescius_ is taken as governing **genitive** (_occasus_) rather than accusative (_occasum_). In fact, this is also found in Classical Latin (e.g., _nesciens sui_, Apul. _Apol_ 42).  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11116" RevisionGUID="6b1b6b5d-fb7f-4ce9-831e-467e735d87f3" CreationDate="2019-07-12T21:05:38.007" UserId="79" Comment="added 276 characters in body" Text="If you want a noun for this purpose, I suggest *sententia*.&#xD;&#xA;It means things like thought, judgement, opinion, decision, and wish.&#xD;&#xA;You could just ask &quot;sententiae?&quot; or maybe add a verb and go &quot;habe(ti)sne sententias?&quot; to stay close to the English original.&#xD;&#xA;Whether you should use the nominative *sententiae* or the accusative *sententias* in the standalone option depends on the implied verb.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Are there] any thoughts?&quot; would take the nominative, &quot;[Do you have] any thoughts?&quot; the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a more idiomatic choice would be to use *quid* with a verb, similarly to &quot;what do you think?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;My first instinct is to go with *censere*, but *putare* or others can work too.&#xD;&#xA;A decent choice in a situation like that would be &quot;quid cense(ti)s?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This looks like a case where you could well use *numquid* instead of *quid*.&#xD;&#xA;This makes the question more &quot;do you have any thoughts&quot; than &quot;what do you think&quot;, and this is the desired direction here.&#xD;&#xA;This feels like the most idiomatic choice to me.&#xD;&#xA;My best suggestion is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Numquid cense(ti)s?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11121" RevisionGUID="7d86a0e7-a8d5-463f-80dd-079429a4bf4a" CreationDate="2019-07-12T21:13:23.333" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="Here the predicative adjective _nescius_ is taken as governing **genitive** (_occasus_) rather than accusative (_occasum_). In fact, this is also found in Classical Latin: cf. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=nescius&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11121" RevisionGUID="3970f39a-71a5-4017-8dec-ab60d3f26ef5" CreationDate="2019-07-12T21:18:39.413" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="Here the predicative adjective _nescius_ is taken as governing **genitive** (_occasus_) rather than accusative (_occasum_). In fact, this is also found in Classical Latin: e.g., _nescia mens hominum fati sortisque futurae_ (Verg. _Aen._ 10, 501). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11121" RevisionGUID="195231e8-8aac-4300-a8be-2d7efcf2c701" CreationDate="2019-07-12T21:33:25.323" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="Here the predicative adjective _nescius_ is taken as governing **genitive** (_occasus_) rather than accusative (_occasum_). In fact, this is also found in Classical Latin: e.g., _nescia mens hominum fati sortisque futurae_ (Verg. _Aen._ 10, 501). So notice that in your example _occasus_ is to be analyzed as an **objective genitive** (in parallel with _fati sortisque futurae_, which is also objective genitive with _nescia_. NB: _hominum_ is subjective genitive with _mens_ in Vergil's example). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11120" RevisionGUID="25122c14-661c-4dc5-a6c6-b44cea94a9a9" CreationDate="2019-07-12T21:41:24.903" UserId="79" Comment="added 559 characters in body" Text="There are many words for killing, but *occidere* is a good one.&#xD;&#xA;The form *occidit* means &quot;he/she/it kills/killed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For this particular verb the present and perfect tense forms for third person singular look alike, and these forms are also agnostic of gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The A and B in &quot;A killed B&quot; are more complicated than you might expect.&#xD;&#xA;If you have any such sentence, you cannot replace A and B with any names and expect it to work.&#xD;&#xA;Latin is far more concerned with the form of A and B than their order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate this, let me replace A with Arrius and B with Baebius.&#xD;&#xA;Here are some valid ways to say &quot;Arrius killed Baebius&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;1. *Arrius Baebium occidit.*&#xD;&#xA;2. *Baebium Arrius occidit.*&#xD;&#xA;3. *Arrius occidit Baebium.*&#xD;&#xA;4. *Baebium occidit Arrius.*&#xD;&#xA;5. *Baebius ab Arrio occisus est.*&#xD;&#xA;6. *ab Arrio Baebius occisus est.*&#xD;&#xA;7. *Baebius occisus est ab Arrio.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list is not exhaustive, and options 5&amp;ndash;7 are only valid because Baebius is a man.&#xD;&#xA;Who killed whom is not decided by the order of the words &amp;mdash; you can shuffle the words freely in a sentence like *Arrius Baebium occidit* without changing meaning &amp;mdash; but by their forms.&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted to swap the roles, you can change it to *Arrium Baebius occidit*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first item on my list would be the typical way to phrase it.&#xD;&#xA;But if you just say &quot;A B occidit&quot;, I would have hard time parsing it.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps &quot;A B&quot; is a person?&#xD;&#xA;The least ambiguous way would be &quot;A occidit B&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is your option 3.&#xD;&#xA;The others do not mean what you want.&#xD;&#xA;[Google Translate is horrible with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin works best if the words can be declined.&#xD;&#xA;Foreign names or placeholders like &quot;A&quot; make it a little awkward.&#xD;&#xA;The best way to say &quot;A killed B&quot; in Latin is *A[nom.] B[acc.] occidit*, where A is in the nominative and B in the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;There is no easy general format the way you have in English.&#xD;&#xA;The required endings are different for different words, and figuring out how all that works is a key element of learning Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the specific case &quot;Ludwig kills/killed Maria&quot;, you should choose &quot;Ludwig Mariam occidit&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The name Maria is used as such in Latin, so the different forms are very natural.&#xD;&#xA;There is a Latin version of Ludwig (Ludovicus), but that is not needed to make it all work.&#xD;&#xA;The important thing is that Maria is marked as the unambiguous object with the accusative case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11122" RevisionGUID="581bfb9e-cc9a-4f13-9d40-af997f0ea630" CreationDate="2019-07-12T21:58:19.887" UserId="406" Text="To add a bit to Mitomino's excellent (and correct) answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowel length, so unhelpfully ignored in most Mediaeval manuscripts, is the key here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sōl oritur occās**ū**s nescius*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, this is the genitive singular, not the nominative!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nescius*, like some other words referring to knowledge and memory, can take its topic in the genitive. That's what's happening here. The sun rises, ignorant **of its own setting**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11123" RevisionGUID="ac262e83-2616-4285-8dfe-79791f30ca70" CreationDate="2019-07-12T22:07:40.983" UserId="118" Text="The verb&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some choices suitable for killing by sword in a battle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thomas Johannem [occidit](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/occido#Etymology_2).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Tom cut John down, or Tom &quot;felled&quot; John—a very common way to express this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thomas Johannem [interfecit](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/interficio#Latin).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Tom did John in—a common, generic way to say &quot;killed&quot; in Latin, regardless of how.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thomas Johannem [obtruncavit](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/obtrunco#Latin).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Tom killed John by cutting him apart.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thomas Johannem [deiecit](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deicio#Latin).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Tom brought John down with a mortal wound.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thomas Johannem [percussit](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/percutio#Latin).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Tom killed John by thrusting a weapon through him; suggests great force, enough to get through armor.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thomas Johannem [peregit](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/perago#Latin).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Tom ran John through—thrust through, piercing, not implying great force.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anyone wanting more options, [this blog post by Carla Hurt](https://foundinantiquity.com/2013/07/20/far-too-many-latin-words-for-kill/) lists a total of 33 Latin verbs for &quot;kill&quot;, with details about each. A common one is [_neco_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/neco#Latin), the root of the English word &quot;[internecine](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/internecine#English)&quot;, but _neco_ suggests killing without a weapon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who killed whom&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Indicating who killed whom works differently in Latin than in English. Latin indicates this not by word order but by the &quot;case&quot; of the nouns—exactly like &quot;who&quot; and &quot;whom&quot; in English, but Latin does this on nearly all nouns. The nominative case indicates the killer, and the accusative case indicates who was killed. If John killed Tom, then you have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Johannes](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Iohannes#Latin) [Thoman](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Thomas#Latin) occidit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've added links to web pages that show all the cases of each name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike English, Latin lets you rearrange the words in any order without changing the meaning. The word order creates different emphasis, which we usually indicate in English with intonation or additional words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thoman Johannes occidit.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Regarding Tom, John killed him.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thoman occidit Johannes.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Regarding Tom, the one who killed him was John.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Occidit Thoman Johannes.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (The one who killed Tom was John.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Occidit Johannes Thoman.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (The one whom John killed was Tom.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to deal with noun cases, you can stick with the prosaic word order of &quot;Killer killee verb&quot;, as in all the examples in the first section above. Latin has to resort to this word order when dealing with foreign surnames that have no case-endings in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11122" RevisionGUID="e9298807-92c2-4bd7-ac0b-c4257377df13" CreationDate="2019-07-12T22:29:18.477" UserId="118" Comment="One more long vowel." Text="To add a bit to Mitomino's excellent (and correct) answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowel length, so unhelpfully ignored in most Mediaeval manuscripts, is the key here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sōl orītur occās**ū**s nescius*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, this is the genitive singular, not the nominative!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nescius*, like some other words referring to knowledge and memory, can take its topic in the genitive. That's what's happening here. The sun rises, ignorant **of its own setting**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11122" RevisionGUID="d1e0164a-5946-4b63-a633-01f90d67ad15" CreationDate="2019-07-12T22:37:39.790" UserId="406" Comment="added 270 characters in body" Text="To add a bit to Mitomino's excellent (and correct) answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowel length, so unhelpfully ignored in most Mediaeval manuscripts, is the key here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Sōl orītur occās**ū**s nescius*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, this is the genitive singular, not the nominative!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nescius*, like some other words referring to knowledge and memory, can take its topic in the genitive. That's what's happening here. The sun rises, ignorant **of its own setting**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT to add: it's not always clear whether an *-us* noun is second or fourth declension, especially one you haven't seen before. But when a noun is formed by putting *-us* on the supine stem, meaning &quot;act of \_\_\_ing&quot;, the result is always in the fourth declension." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11123" RevisionGUID="ef890c35-da47-4f71-92ea-99d77b6f1a42" CreationDate="2019-07-12T22:43:20.593" UserId="118" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="The verb&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some choices suitable for killing by sword in a battle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thomas Johannem [occidit](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/occido#Etymology_2).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Tom cut John down, or Tom &quot;felled&quot; John—a very common way to express this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thomas Johannem [interfecit](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/interficio#Latin).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Tom did John in—a common, generic way to say &quot;killed&quot; in Latin, regardless of how.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thomas Johannem [obtruncavit](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/obtrunco#Latin).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Tom killed John by cutting him apart.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thomas Johannem [deiecit](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deicio#Latin).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Tom brought John down with a mortal wound.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thomas Johannem [percussit](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/percutio#Latin).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Tom killed John by thrusting a weapon through him; suggests great force, enough to get through armor. Suitable for an arrow as well as a sword.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thomas Johannem [peregit](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/perago#Latin).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Tom ran John through—thrust through, piercing, not implying great force.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anyone wanting more options, [this blog post by Carla Hurt](https://foundinantiquity.com/2013/07/20/far-too-many-latin-words-for-kill/) lists a total of 33 Latin verbs for &quot;kill&quot;, with details about each. A common one is [_neco_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/neco#Latin), the root of the English word &quot;[internecine](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/internecine#English)&quot;, but _neco_ suggests killing without a weapon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who killed whom&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Indicating who killed whom works differently in Latin than in English. Latin indicates this not by word order but by the &quot;case&quot; of the nouns—exactly like &quot;who&quot; and &quot;whom&quot; in English, but Latin does this on nearly all nouns. The nominative case indicates the killer, and the accusative case indicates who was killed. If John killed Tom, then you say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Johannes](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Iohannes#Latin) [Thoman](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Thomas#Latin) occidit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've added links to web pages that show all the cases of each name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike English, Latin lets you rearrange the words in any order without changing the meaning. The word order creates different emphasis, which we usually indicate in English with intonation or additional words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thoman Johannes occidit.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Regarding Tom, John killed him.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thoman occidit Johannes.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Regarding Tom, the one who killed him was John.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Johannes occidit Thoman.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (John killed someone—Tom.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Occidit Thoman Johannes.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (The one who killed Tom was John.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Occidit Johannes Thoman.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (The one whom John killed was Tom.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to deal with noun cases, you can stick with the prosaic word order of &quot;Killer killee verb&quot;, as in all the examples in the first section above. Latin has to resort to this word order when dealing with foreign surnames that have no case-endings in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11124" RevisionGUID="0459566e-4707-4528-91ea-33c6a62de432" CreationDate="2019-07-12T23:27:00.623" UserId="406" Text="Ancient Greek had two (*) different types of accent on long vowels: the &quot;circumflex&quot; accent indicates high tone on the first mora, and the &quot;acute&quot; accent indicates high tone on the second. (Short vowels only have one mora, so they don't have this distinction.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any words that are distinguished solely by these two accents? In other words, is there a valid, attested Greek word, that changes into a different valid, attested Greek word, if an acute is swapped out for a circumflex (or vice versa)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) I'm ignoring the grave, since to my understanding it indicates the *lack* of an accent, not the presence of one. It's also a predictable &quot;allophone&quot; (allotone?) of the acute." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32684" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11124" RevisionGUID="0459566e-4707-4528-91ea-33c6a62de432" CreationDate="2019-07-12T23:27:00.623" UserId="406" Text="Are there minimal pairs between the acute and circumflex accent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32685" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11124" RevisionGUID="0459566e-4707-4528-91ea-33c6a62de432" CreationDate="2019-07-12T23:27:00.623" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|greek|pronunciation|accentuation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11125" RevisionGUID="34f22d38-8d76-4d8e-9b84-2fd98614f349" CreationDate="2019-07-13T00:42:51.763" UserId="4935" Text="I am having problem identifying the unicode for the last character in the following Greek phrase (using the Greek TTL font):&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I am trying to convert a document using Greek TTL to Unicode. I have consulted Greek Unicode tables on the Internet but have failed to convert the said character.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.imgur.com/Yu4k65p.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32687" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11125" RevisionGUID="34f22d38-8d76-4d8e-9b84-2fd98614f349" CreationDate="2019-07-13T00:42:51.763" UserId="4935" Text="Unable to identify unicode of Greek letter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32688" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11125" RevisionGUID="34f22d38-8d76-4d8e-9b84-2fd98614f349" CreationDate="2019-07-13T00:42:51.763" UserId="4935" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11126" RevisionGUID="206d78d7-6345-467b-84c8-fa4698c9505d" CreationDate="2019-07-13T01:22:03.143" UserId="406" Text="This is the letter `ῦ`, aka `GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH PERISPOMENI`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *perispōmenē/perispomeni* accent, literally &quot;circumflex&quot;, has two different forms in Greek depending on the font. Some fonts render it like a Latin circumflex, `û`. Others render it like a Latin tilde, `ũ`. But the meaning is the same either way, and Unicode doesn't distinguish the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is *βίοι Ἰησοῦ*, literally &quot;lives of Jesus&quot;. You seem to have picked up an extra accent mark, too, which is overlapping with the beta at the beginning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32690" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11117" RevisionGUID="80d55e1f-d829-41b3-bbfb-d34931350b3e" CreationDate="2019-07-13T03:19:12.283" />
  <row Id="32691" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11119" RevisionGUID="280824b8-aa8e-4770-b83d-d15d67cb5d9f" CreationDate="2019-07-13T05:04:19.730" />
  <row Id="32692" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11125" RevisionGUID="feb3b01f-91b2-4ccf-984a-0fdc1677035a" CreationDate="2019-07-13T08:49:32.817" />
  <row Id="32693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11127" RevisionGUID="462a66d7-3d8d-4f55-842a-8f71a7b91d05" CreationDate="2019-07-13T10:00:42.687" UserId="1982" Text="Continuing with Q: &quot;We Triumph While Our Enemy Sleeps&quot;;  SELDOM SCENE (5/7/2019): was astonished that soldiers would enjoy the luxury of sleep while an enemy army approaches; effectively, co-operating in their own rout. Perhaps such circumstances should be, at least, alluded to in the translation, giving: &quot;vicerimus dum hostes (commode) dormiant&quot; = &quot;We shall triumph provided that the enemy (conveniently) sleeps.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was pointed out by cnread that this means: &quot;...provided that the enemy sleeps comfortably.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps they may sleep comfortably; prior a rude-awakening? Joking apart: unconvinced, asked Joonas for assistance. He felt it was a case of either/ both; agreed, but neither of us was 100% certain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts? (num quid censetis?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A safer alternative, the more long-winded: &quot;vicerimus dum hostes dormiant, itaque adiuvabunt cladem facere.&quot;; or &quot;.....adiuvabunt ut cladem faciant.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11127" RevisionGUID="462a66d7-3d8d-4f55-842a-8f71a7b91d05" CreationDate="2019-07-13T10:00:42.687" UserId="1982" Text="A Convenient Co-operation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11127" RevisionGUID="462a66d7-3d8d-4f55-842a-8f71a7b91d05" CreationDate="2019-07-13T10:00:42.687" UserId="1982" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11127" RevisionGUID="35822f80-c2a7-448a-9ae9-a3fb5f1fd5f2" CreationDate="2019-07-13T10:17:36.143" UserId="1982" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="Continuing with Q: &quot;We Triumph While Our Enemy Sleeps&quot;;  SELDOM SCENE (5/7/2019): was astonished that soldiers would enjoy the luxury of sleep while an enemy army approaches; effectively, co-operating in their own rout. Perhaps such circumstances should be, at least, alluded to in the translation, giving: &quot;vicerimus dum hostes (commode) dormiant&quot; = &quot;We shall triumph provided that the enemy (conveniently) sleeps.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was pointed out by cnread that this means: &quot;...provided that the enemy sleeps comfortably.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps they may sleep comfortably; prior a rude-awakening? Joking apart: unconvinced, asked Joonas (who had already contributed, astutely as ever) for assistance. He felt it was a case of either/ both; agreed, but neither of us was 100% certain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts? (num quid censetis?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A safer alternative, the more long-winded: &quot;vicerimus dum hostes dormiant, itaque adiuvabunt cladem facere.&quot;; or &quot;.....adiuvabunt ut cladem faciant.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11128" RevisionGUID="f74b61d7-9a36-4dd4-a5f1-d1a157ecdfbd" CreationDate="2019-07-13T11:04:48.503" UserId="831" Text="Bravely trying to scrape the rust of millennia off my Greek (it was last millennium when I learned it) I am faced at the outset with the question of accents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At school we had a lenient régime which let us write without accents, so that we ended up with just a reading knowledge of as much accentuation as was necessary to distinguish the meaning of a few identically-spelt short (indeed, sometimes one-letter) words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking now at Dickey's *An Introduction to the Composition and Analysis of Greek Prose* I find that even before Chapter 1 she insists on going into detail about accentuation. This is an odd thing to find in this lax age.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, therefore: should I begin, this time round, by learning my way round accents as a writer as well as a reader?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Yes**, because otherwise I am doing things by halves.&#xD;&#xA;- **No**, because (a) Plato wouldn't have known what an accent was, anyway, the whole thing being a conspiracy by later schoolmasters; and (b) the sooner I get to grips with Homer and Plato directly, without a lot of Hellenistic pedantry, the better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32698" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11128" RevisionGUID="f74b61d7-9a36-4dd4-a5f1-d1a157ecdfbd" CreationDate="2019-07-13T11:04:48.503" UserId="831" Text="To accent or not to accent in Greek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32699" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11128" RevisionGUID="f74b61d7-9a36-4dd4-a5f1-d1a157ecdfbd" CreationDate="2019-07-13T11:04:48.503" UserId="831" Text="|greek|study-strategies|accentuation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11129" RevisionGUID="7c29cb5e-7fd0-4421-9297-67197c80bcaa" CreationDate="2019-07-13T14:48:10.787" UserId="645" Text="I'd be very much inclined to rephrase the whole thing, to 'Let the enemy sleep, as long as we triumph'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Dormiant dum vincamus*, with an echo of the well-known *Oderint dum metuant* (by Caligula, but with other attributions) seems to fit the bill quite neatly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11130" RevisionGUID="6aa9863b-e206-49ae-98d1-25f3820b6ded" CreationDate="2019-07-13T16:35:33.397" UserId="406" Text="Personally, I think that you should, in that accent marks are helpful. But:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Plato wouldn't have known what an accent was, anyway, the whole thing being a conspiracy by later schoolmasters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is true—but the &quot;conspiracy&quot; was just to write down the way things were already being pronounced. The accent marks were meant to be descriptive rather than prescriptive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) the sooner I get to grips with Homer and Plato directly, without a lot of Hellenistic pedantry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homer similarly wouldn't have known what an &quot;alpha&quot; or an &quot;epsilon&quot; was: all of his poetry was spoken aloud, not written down until centuries later, but it's a lot easier to follow his work nowadays if we use the alphabet. Socrates similarly was a major opponent of writing and didn't approve of Plato taking notes on everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, the accent marks help make your pronunciation more accurate—but most likely you aren't going to be conversing with many ancient Athenians. So most classicists aren't too worried about a historically-accurate pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, I see it as equivalent to pronouncing the difference between omicron and omega. Lots of people don't, including the vast majority of modern residents of Greece.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you make the omicron/omega difference part of your mental model of Greek, it'll be easier to remember which one is used in a particular word, and it'll help you can write out accurate Greek as well as read it, without having to check a dictionary for each word. Suppose you've learned the word *moros*, for instance, without distinguishing omicron from omega—every time you see it, or want to write it down, you'll have to check a dictionary to determine if it means &quot;fate&quot; (second letter is omicron) or &quot;idiot&quot; (second letter is omega).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accents are similarly just something that has to be memorized along with each word (*), but the same holds true in English: it's how we know to say *giráffe* but *pánda* in loanwords, just pure memorization. I personally find the tradeoff worth it; your mileage may vary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, though, pick a system that works for you, and just stay consistent with it! Sticking to a single pronunciation system, whatever it is, will help your memorization more than switching horses mid-stream. Erasmian pronunciation, Modern pronunciation, Reconstructed pronunciation are all viable and all have their adherents; as long as it works for you, and helps you read the language, that's what's most important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*) In fact, in some words (notably finite verbs) it's totally predictable and doesn't have to be memorized! So I'm overstating the difficulty a little bit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11131" RevisionGUID="9966f2ea-fc3e-4abd-81c6-eb4cb7410197" CreationDate="2019-07-13T20:34:51.867" UserId="2605" Text="Two examples come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;λῦσαι (aorist masculine imperative 2nd person singular, or aorist active infinitive, of λύω) contrasts with λύσαι (aorist active optative 3rd person singular of the same verb). ([Smyth's grammar](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Asmythp%3D427))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this minimal pair isn't strictly between two different words (since γαλήν᾽ is an apocope of γαλήνα), but it's worth mentioning the [oft-quoted](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sannyrion) mistake by an actor playing Euripides' *Orestes* (279).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The line goes, ἐκ κυμάτων γὰρ αὖθις αὖ **γαλήν᾽** ὁρῶ, &quot;After the storm I see calm waters.&quot; The actor mistakenly changed the accent to γαλῆν ὁρῶ, &quot;I see a weasel.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32703" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11128" RevisionGUID="cff060ce-cbc2-4f5f-b345-0b27b8e38946" CreationDate="2019-07-13T22:35:43.590" />
  <row Id="32704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11132" RevisionGUID="d6eeb2f5-cc92-4f9a-b9a1-098b2994fd4c" CreationDate="2019-07-13T23:12:03.870" UserId="406" Text="In Classical Greek, to my understanding, there are three types of accents: acute and circumflex both indicate a high tone (just in slightly different ways only applicable to long vowels), while grave indicates where an accent has disappeared and is not pronounced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These accents have survived into Modern Greek, but the distinctions between them are gone: acute, circumflex, and grave all turned into the simple &quot;tonos&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the acute/circumflex distinction lasted up until the Hellenistic period, I'd assume it vanished alongside vowel lengths—without long vowels, the distinction becomes meaningless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for the acute/grave distinction, there doesn't seem to be such an obvious &quot;turning point&quot;—I can't think of any other phonological changes that would bring back an accent where one had previously disappeared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know when the grave accent merged into the acute? In particular, was it before or after long vowels (and the circumflex) vanished? And what, if anything, prompted this change?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32705" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11132" RevisionGUID="d6eeb2f5-cc92-4f9a-b9a1-098b2994fd4c" CreationDate="2019-07-13T23:12:03.870" UserId="406" Text="When did the difference between acute and grave disappear?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32706" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11132" RevisionGUID="d6eeb2f5-cc92-4f9a-b9a1-098b2994fd4c" CreationDate="2019-07-13T23:12:03.870" UserId="406" Text="|greek|language-evolution|accentuation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11134" RevisionGUID="dd50ff83-fc99-49e9-99d3-8c29335f52c0" CreationDate="2019-07-14T07:32:32.097" UserId="4913" Text="What do the red `v.` mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manuscript:&#xD;&#xA;http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=12826&amp;page=246 page 675&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As stated in [my other question][3], I've been making the manuscript into a font.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gkleX.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11066/why-does-the-misal-rico-de-cisneros-uses-the-word-qi%C5%BF%C5%BFa-and-what-is-it-suppos" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32713" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11134" RevisionGUID="dd50ff83-fc99-49e9-99d3-8c29335f52c0" CreationDate="2019-07-14T07:32:32.097" UserId="4913" Text="What does a red v with a dot above mean in the Misal rico de Cisneros (Spain, 1518)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32714" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11134" RevisionGUID="dd50ff83-fc99-49e9-99d3-8c29335f52c0" CreationDate="2019-07-14T07:32:32.097" UserId="4913" Text="|medieval-latin|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11129" RevisionGUID="dec3c8a2-b28f-4b56-a067-b3deda89527b" CreationDate="2019-07-14T10:45:07.833" UserId="645" Comment="inserted hostes" Text="I'd be very much inclined to rephrase the whole thing, to 'Let the enemy sleep, as long as we triumph'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Dormiant hostes dum vincamus*, with an echo of the well-known *Oderint dum metuant* (by Caligula, but with other attributions) seems to fit the bill quite neatly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11135" RevisionGUID="5fc3d92a-1a95-4893-a3d8-6cffb81ef567" CreationDate="2019-07-14T11:46:25.210" UserId="831" Text="This is the &quot;Versicle&quot; character, Unicode 2123, &quot;Versiculus&quot;, ℣ if your screen can display it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also possible that you may come across the &quot;Response&quot; character, U+211F, &quot;Responsum&quot;, ℟, although this is much more common in the Liturgy of the Hours than in the Mass. (You will note that you have the word on your sample page, only slightly abbreviated)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32717" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="1201" RevisionGUID="b3f2708a-4468-46f6-8be6-ac328b36084a" CreationDate="2019-07-14T13:01:06.590" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32718" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11134" RevisionGUID="49bcadaa-fe82-4ab1-975b-54146b207bc0" CreationDate="2019-07-14T15:36:43.863" />
  <row Id="32719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11126" RevisionGUID="73e1fe0a-390f-4703-87cc-807e84790ecb" CreationDate="2019-07-14T16:55:05.020" UserId="831" Comment="Added the Unicode numeric value to the Unicode name, for the convenience of future readers." Text="This is the letter `ῦ`, aka `GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH PERISPOMENI, U+1FE6`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *perispōmenē/perispomeni* accent, literally &quot;circumflex&quot;, has two different forms in Greek depending on the font. Some fonts render it like a Latin circumflex, `û`. Others render it like a Latin tilde, `ũ`. But the meaning is the same either way, and Unicode doesn't distinguish the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is *βίοι Ἰησοῦ*, literally &quot;lives of Jesus&quot;. You seem to have picked up an extra accent mark, too, which is overlapping with the beta at the beginning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32720" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11126" RevisionGUID="73e1fe0a-390f-4703-87cc-807e84790ecb" CreationDate="2019-07-14T16:55:05.020" Comment="Proposed by 831 approved by 406 edit id of 323" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11136" RevisionGUID="96f81d90-7943-48e1-a6a8-c2ac0cb338a6" CreationDate="2019-07-14T17:23:07.613" UserId="79" Text="I recently visited the museum of the main monastery of [the Chartusian order](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthusians) near Grenoble.&#xD;&#xA;I saw this in an open book on display in a former chamber of a monk:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![The lyrics of a song][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What took me by surprise is the variation in word-final *m*.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes it is spelled as a tilde on top of the last vowel, sometimes as a proper *m*.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the third line has both *saltem* and *vitã*.&#xD;&#xA;The tilde only appears in the first stanza in this sample.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads me to a more general question:&#xD;&#xA;When both variants of word-final *m* are available, when are the two options used?&#xD;&#xA;Is one preferred over the other in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;Or is it completely free variation depending on chance and availability of space?&#xD;&#xA;Is there any division of roles between the two when they appear in the same text?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yJl4j.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32723" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11136" RevisionGUID="96f81d90-7943-48e1-a6a8-c2ac0cb338a6" CreationDate="2019-07-14T17:23:07.613" UserId="79" Text="Variation in the spelling of word-final M" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32724" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11136" RevisionGUID="96f81d90-7943-48e1-a6a8-c2ac0cb338a6" CreationDate="2019-07-14T17:23:07.613" UserId="79" Text="|medieval-latin|new-latin|orthography|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11116" RevisionGUID="3095071e-681f-4fe0-855b-a58d4d3bce09" CreationDate="2019-07-14T18:25:47.387" UserId="79" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="If you want a noun for this purpose, I suggest *sententia*.&#xD;&#xA;It means things like thought, judgement, opinion, decision, and wish.&#xD;&#xA;You could just ask &quot;sententiae?&quot; or maybe add a verb and go &quot;habe(ti)sne sententias?&quot; to stay close to the English original.&#xD;&#xA;Whether you should use the nominative *sententiae* or the accusative *sententias* in the standalone option depends on the implied verb.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Are there] any thoughts?&quot; would take the nominative, &quot;[Do you have] any thoughts?&quot; the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a more idiomatic choice would be to use *quid* with a verb, similarly to &quot;what do you think?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;My first instinct is to go with *censere*, but *putare* or others can work too.&#xD;&#xA;A decent choice in a situation like that would be &quot;quid cense(ti)s?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This looks like a case where you could well use *numquid* instead of *quid*.&#xD;&#xA;This makes the question more &quot;do you have any thoughts&quot; than &quot;what do you think&quot;, and this is the desired direction here.&#xD;&#xA;This feels like the most idiomatic choice to me.&#xD;&#xA;My best suggestion is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Numquid censetis?* (when addressing several people)  &#xD;&#xA;*Numquid censes?* (when addressing one person)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11137" RevisionGUID="d0136047-f361-4b9d-8ad2-83077d717bfb" CreationDate="2019-07-14T18:28:28.983" UserId="406" Text="I'm afraid my answer is the boring one: **free variation, based on the amount of space available**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tilde originally arose purely as an abbreviation: instead of writing an *n* or *m* in line with the text, it could be written above the vowel instead, saving a bit of space. Eventually its form got simplified into the tiny squiggle we use nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the meaning was always simply an orthographic one: &quot;there should be an *n* or *m* after this letter&quot;. It didn't necessarily indicate anything about the pronunciation, or about the grammar: it could be used in prefixes or roots just as well as suffixes. For example, the following shows *ĩperpetuũ* (i.e. *imperpetuum*), with two nasals removed in different places: [![manuscript fragment image][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in instances like this, the choice of whether to use a letter or a tilde comes down purely to how much space is available. On the second line, writing *civium* would have compressed the other words in an unpleasant way; on the third line, using both *saltem* and *vitam* would have led to too much compression, while both *saltẽ* and *vitã* would have left too much empty space. So *saltem* was written out in full, and *vitã* abbreviated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If possible, such as when there's all the space in the world available, final letters are generally **included**: you can see that there are no abbreviations in the other verses, where there was more freedom to adjust the kerning and spacing (since it didn't have to line up with the notes). But in manuscript documents, where scribal effort and space are at a premium, abbreviations will often be used wherever the scribe can get away with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(P.S. The tilde's use eventually expanded to cover other removed letters, apart from *n* and *m*. But nasals were always one of the more popular uses for the symbol.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4vooY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11136" RevisionGUID="8b285361-692d-42cf-9caf-d39fb8a01747" CreationDate="2019-07-14T20:13:37.147" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="I recently visited the museum of the main monastery of [the Carthusian order](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthusians) near Grenoble.&#xD;&#xA;I saw this in an open book on display in a former chamber of a monk:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![The lyrics of a song][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What took me by surprise is the variation in word-final *m*.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes it is spelled as a tilde on top of the last vowel, sometimes as a proper *m*.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the third line has both *saltem* and *vitã*.&#xD;&#xA;The tilde only appears in the first stanza in this sample.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads me to a more general question:&#xD;&#xA;When both variants of word-final *m* are available, when are the two options used?&#xD;&#xA;Is one preferred over the other in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;Or is it completely free variation depending on chance and availability of space?&#xD;&#xA;Is there any division of roles between the two when they appear in the same text?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yJl4j.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11138" RevisionGUID="22a22264-6178-4b8a-b848-544f36b9eaa1" CreationDate="2019-07-14T21:09:38.063" UserId="4938" Text="I came across the quotation &quot;Nunc scio quid sit amor&quot; (Virgil, Ecl. VIII.43), and I’d like to know why the subjunctive &quot;sit&quot; is used instead of &quot;est&quot; here. Since it means &quot;Now I know what love is&quot; and not &quot;Now I know what love might be&quot;, why wouldn’t &quot;is&quot; be indicative in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32730" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11138" RevisionGUID="22a22264-6178-4b8a-b848-544f36b9eaa1" CreationDate="2019-07-14T21:09:38.063" UserId="4938" Text="Use of &quot;sit&quot; instead of &quot;est&quot; in Virgil" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32731" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11138" RevisionGUID="22a22264-6178-4b8a-b848-544f36b9eaa1" CreationDate="2019-07-14T21:09:38.063" UserId="4938" Text="|conjunctive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11139" RevisionGUID="ba000fbb-257c-4770-a7f7-d9d812b469ff" CreationDate="2019-07-14T21:50:05.023" UserId="985" Text="The direct question 'What is love?' has been embedded into another sentence, forming an indirect question. In Latin, the verb in indirect questions is subjunctive, not indicative. However, they are often translated as though the verb were indicative; the use of the subjunctive really just shows subordination." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11139" RevisionGUID="7d96be30-dbb2-4cab-90a7-d8e115acfce6" CreationDate="2019-07-14T21:56:07.140" UserId="985" Comment="added 176 characters in body" Text="The direct question 'What is love?' has been embedded into another sentence, forming an indirect question. An indirect question 'gives the substance of the question, adapted to the form of the sentence in which it is quoted' (Allen &amp; Greenough, *New Latin grammar*, §330.2). In Latin, the verb in indirect questions is usually subjunctive, not indicative. However, they are often translated as though the verb were indicative; the use of the subjunctive really just shows subordination." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32734" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11138" RevisionGUID="ee871af2-035c-4fd3-a48b-684e08cfadb6" CreationDate="2019-07-14T22:42:00.980" UserId="522" Comment="edited tags" Text="|conjunctive|indirect-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11140" RevisionGUID="189ba6fa-cfa7-478d-bd5d-5323e9923189" CreationDate="2019-07-14T23:31:53.947" UserId="2099" Text="Where does *belgicare* come from?&#xD;&#xA;=================================&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit of research turned up this proposed etymology, which, though uncertain, is not unlikely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin *bēlgicāre*, from Greek *βήλγει* (*bēlgei*) = to &quot;bleat&quot;, from *βῆ λέγειν* (*bē legein*), to say &quot;baa&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This onomatopoetic origin is suggested by Charles Dufresne DuCange, in his 1840 edition, [*Glossarium mediae et infirmae latinitatis*, volume 1, page 640][1] (translation below is mine):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; BELGICAT.  Vide *B. Littera*.  Fortasse ex imitatione vocis ovium confictum verbum.  Vide H. Stephan. Thesaur. Ling. Gr. voce *Βήλγω*, edit. Didot. vol. 2. col. 228.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; BELGICAT.  See *B, Letter*.  **Perhaps a made-up word from imitation of the voice of sheep**.  See H. Stephanus, *Thesaurus Linguae Graecae*, word ***Βήλγω***, publ. Didot, volume 2, col. 228.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notker's &quot;*bēlgicāre*&quot; is thus linked to a well-studied Greek word &quot;*βήλγω*&quot; (&quot;*bēlgō*&quot;).  This word is probably an abbreviated or syncopated variant of &quot;*βὴλέγω*&quot; (&quot;*bēlegō*&quot;) (more on this in a moment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Definition of *Βήλγει* or *βὴλέγει*&#xD;&#xA;================================&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Hesychius of Alexandria][2]'s [Lexicon][3] (5th or 6th century AD) has [this entry][4], derived from a fragment of Aristophanes which we will see in a moment (transliteration is mine):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **βὴλέγει** [ **bēlegei** ] = *βληχᾶται, ἦ θύειται*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first definition, &quot;*βληχᾶται*&quot;, a verb from the Ancient Greek &quot;*βληχή*&quot;, shares a [Proto-Indo-European ancestor][5] with English &quot;bleat&quot;, and likewise, in its various forms, signifies the **bleating of sheep** (translation is mine):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **βληχά** = *φωνὴ προβάτων* = the sound/cry of sheep&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **βληχᾶται** = *φωνεῖ* = to sound/utter/cry&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **βλήχημα** = *μωρός*, *προβατώδης* = slow, sheeplike(?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **βληχήματα** = *βοαὶ προβατώδεις* = sheeplike(?) cries&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **βληχήσασθαι** = *ὡς πρόβατα βοῆσαι* = to cry out, as sheep&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Etymology of βὴλέγει&#xD;&#xA;====================&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the actual morphology of &quot;*βήλγει*&quot; (*bēlgei*) or &quot;*βὴλέγει*&quot; (*bēlegei*), see this entry by the 1830-1865 Didot publication of Henricus Stephanus' (Henri Estienne's) [*Thesaurus Musicae Graecae*][6], Volume 2, [page 228][7], which is referenced above by DuCange in his connection with Latin &quot;*bēlgicāre*&quot; (translation is mine):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Βήλγει* ac *Βηλήσσει*, quod Hesych. exp. *βληχᾶται*, ab ead. profectum esse origine (a *Βὴ*) existimo : quemadmodum ipsum quoque *βληχᾶσθαι* et *Balare* ap. Latinos videntur ead. vocis *μιμήσει* ficta esse.  Unde etiam colligi potest quae vera fuerit *τοῦ η* pronuntiatio, medium nimirum sonum habens inter *α* clarum et *ε*, proxime accedentem ad *αι*.  *Βήλγειν* forsan per sync. dictum pro *βὴ λέγειν*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*Βήλγει*&quot; and &quot;*Βηλήσσει*&quot;, which Hesychius defines as &quot;*βληχᾶται*&quot;, I estimate to be developed from the same origin (from &quot;[*Βὴ*][8]&quot;):  in like manner this too, &quot;*βληχᾶσθαι*&quot;, and also &quot;[*balare*][9]&quot; among the Latins, are seen to be likewise formed for a **mimicking (*μίμησις*) of the voice**.  Hence it can also be gathered what the true pronunciation of the '*η*' would be, undoubtedly having a middle sound between a clear '*α*' and '*ε*', nearly approaching '*αι*'.  &quot;*Βήλγειν*&quot; is perhaps so-called for &quot;***βὴ λέγειν***&quot; [= to say &quot;baa&quot;], via [syncope][10].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so this sense of 'baaing' or 'bleating' might conceivably have been usable **in the more general sense of 'uttering' or 'crying'**, as we saw from Hesychius above. Following are some other places where &quot;*βὴ λέγειν*&quot; appears not as one word (translations taken from [this blog][11]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Cratinus][12], 519 – 422 BC (Source: Cratinus fragment 43 in [Theodor Kock's *Comicorum atticorum fragmenta*][13]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ὁ δ᾿ ἠλίθιος ὧσπερ πρόβατον **βῆ βῆ λέγων** βαδίζει.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The last one walks forward saying &quot;baa baa&quot; like a sheep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Aristophanes][14], c. 446 – 386 BC (not to be confused with [Aristophanes of Byzantium][15], who authored a [*Lexicon*][16]), has the following in one of his fragments (Source: Aristophanes fragment 642 in [Kock][17]; and also [here][18]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; θύειν με μέλλει καὶ κελεύει **βῆ λέγειν**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He is about to sacrifice me and is commanding [me] to say &quot;baa&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the [*Suda*][19], a well-known 10th-century compilation from a variety of earlier sources, containing words and definitions from Greek lexicons going back through prior centuries, including those by writers nearly contemporary with Notker, such as [Saint Photius the Great][20] and the chronicler [George Hamartolus][21].  [This blog article][11], which I linked earlier, quotes from the *Suda*, s.v. *Βή* (beta, 240):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Βή τὸ μιμητικὸν τῆς τῶν προβάτων φωνῆς, οὐχὶ βαὶ λέγουσιν Ἀττικοί. Κρατῖνος Διονυσαλεξάνδρῳ: ὁ δὴ λοίσθιος ὥσπερ πρόβατον βὴ βὴ λέγων βαδίζει.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bē: the mimicking of the voice of sheep, since the Attics do not say &quot;bai&quot;. Cratinus in the *Dionysalexandros*: &quot;The last one walks forward saying &quot;baa baa&quot; like a sheep.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Possible sense of pleading?&#xD;&#xA;===========================&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above quotes by Cratinus and Aristophanes touch on the sacrifice of sheep, which bleat before their slaughter.  For Notker, perhaps the notion of begging or *bleating* for one's life is comprehensible enough to justify describing the significative letters of Early Medieval Gregorian chant notation as ***pleading* or *bleating* for the singer to heed the meaning of the notation**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Employing a word of such meaning would not be uncharacteristic of Notker, who employed a word of similar meaning &quot;[*mendicando*][22]&quot; in his entry on the letter M.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect this proposed sense of pleading might be somehow related to the meaning of Hesychius' other definition for &quot;*βὴλέγει*&quot;:  &quot;*θύειται*&quot;, which we saw above.  This word looks and sounds related to &quot;*θύειν*&quot;, the word we saw in Aristophanes above, meaning **to sacrifice**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I hesitate to speculate any further.  I leave these entries to be deciphered by those who know Ancient Greek better than I do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **θύει** = *μαίνεται*; *ἀπάρχεται*, *ἐνθουσιᾷ*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; +**θύειται** = *ἐνθύνει*, *εὐφραίνεται*, *θύηται*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Spelling of *βῆ λέγειν*, *bēlgicāre* with a long *ē*&#xD;&#xA;=================================================&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the spelling of the &quot;baa&quot; itself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There is a short blurb on whether the vowel eta (*η*) should have a cirmflex (&quot;*βῆ*&quot;) or not (&quot;*βὴ*&quot;), in Stefano Valente's 2015 [critical edition of the Antiatticist][23], Section 15, #41, the footnote commentary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There is also speculative discussion on why eta was chosen for the vowel in the Attic dialect, in Vernon Kooy's paper on Academia, [*Thomas Jefferson's argument concerning the pronunciation of Ancient Greek*][24], in the section &quot;The Erasmian System&quot; under &quot;Eta (Η η)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, eta (*η*) translates through convention into a Latin long *ē*.  Although the macron would be superfluous in Early Medieval times, it still helps to reveal this proposed lineage of &quot;*bēlgicāre*&quot; from &quot;*βήλγειν*&quot; (&quot;*bēlgein*&quot;), ultimately from &quot;*βῆ λέγειν*&quot; (&quot;*bē legein*&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Meaning of &quot;bēlgicāre&quot;, in light of all the above&#xD;&#xA;=================================================&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If DuCange's etymology is justified, linking 'belgication' to the crying of sheep, then Notker's quote can be understood thus (I have rearranged the words, and omitted some, to make the sense more clear):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B ut bene extollatur vel gravetur sive teneatur *belgicat*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B '*belgicates*' that [the sound] be extolled, gravened, or held well [*bene*].&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B '*bleats*' that [the sound] be extolled, gravened, or held well [*bene*].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence I find &quot;beg&quot; to be a suitable English translation, considering the connotations of the sheep bleating in the face of certain death, as discussed above. On the other hand, 'belgication' is quite catchy in English, if you ask me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Why did Notker choose this word?&#xD;&#xA;================================&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my speculative answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is certain is the paucity of alternative Latin verbs available to him for the letter B, as I said in the &quot;Addendum&quot; in my original post.  In English we could say the letter B &quot;bespeaks&quot;, &quot;beseeches&quot;, &quot;begs&quot;, &quot;badgers&quot;, or &quot;bellows&quot;.  But in Latin see how few verbs of similar meaning are at one's disposal ([source][25]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [balbūtīre][26] = to babble, stutter&#xD;&#xA;- [balitāre][27] = to bleat&#xD;&#xA;- [bālāre, bēlāre][9] = to baa, talk foolishly&#xD;&#xA;- [barrire][28] = to trumpet, like an elephant&#xD;&#xA;- [baubārī][29] = to bark, howl&#xD;&#xA;- [bēbāre][30] = to shout, cry (from bleat)&#xD;&#xA;- [blacterāre][31] = to bleat (confer βληχᾶται, above)&#xD;&#xA;- [blaterāre][32], [blatire][33], [blattāre][34] = to babble, blather&#xD;&#xA;- [boāre, bovāre][35] = to cry, bellow, bray&#xD;&#xA;- [bubere][36] = to boom like a [bittern][37]&#xD;&#xA;- [būbulāre][38] = to screech, like an owl&#xD;&#xA;- [būcināre, buccinare][39] = to blow a trumpet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other B verbs exist, but they would not meet Notker's criterion for verbs whose meanings connote *to call for* something (e.g., &quot;*benedicere*&quot; = &quot;to bless&quot;, &quot;*bellare*&quot; = &quot;to wage war&quot;).  As for the B verbs above, almost all of them connote various noises and sound imitative.  By comparison, the verbs for the other letters in Notker's list (&quot;*admonet*&quot; = &quot;admonishes&quot;, &quot;*eloquitur*&quot; = &quot;speaks&quot;, &quot;*expetit*&quot; = &quot;petitions&quot;, &quot;*ordinat*&quot; = &quot;orders&quot;) seem to have a bit more 'class'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems **Notker had not many good B verbs to choose from**.  We can see him stretching his diction in other letters too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; L ut levare **laetat**. [= L **elates** (or enthuses) to lift up.]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; S susum vel sursum scandere **sibilat**. [= S **sibilates** (hisses) to scale upwards.]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Y nihil apud Latinos **ymnizat**. [= Y **hymnizes** (sings) nothing among the Latins.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;***Bēlgicāre***&quot;, on the other hand, is found *nowhere else* in the entire transmission of the Latin language (as far as I can tell).  It is likely, then, that Notker **borrowed the word straight out of Greek**, and gave it a Latin formation.  (I suppose &quot;*bēlgere*&quot; might have sufficed as well.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why then a foreign word?  **Perhaps because the word's foreignness takes off any edge that the more native words might carry.**  Maybe Notker's rationale for coining this word was simply to mitigate a potential awkwardness of &quot;*bēbāre*&quot; and an arguable excess of &quot;*boāre*&quot; or &quot;*būcināre*&quot;, by choosing a foreign root instead.  Compare, in English, the awkwardness of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B **baas**/**babbles**/**blathers** that the sound be lifted, lowered, or lengthened *well* ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the following, where the use of a foreign word, despite its animalistic meaning, is more likely to come across as poetic and philological:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B **belgicates** that the sound be lifted, lowered, or lengthened *well* ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For another example of this cognitive phenomenon, compare a translation of &quot;Y hymnizat&quot; with a native English Y verb to that with a simple Anglicization from the original verb's [Greek root][40]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Y **yodels**/**yells** nothing among the Latins.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Y **hymnizes** nothing among the Latins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former diction is vulgar and jarring.  The latter, albeit strange, is understandable and acceptable because of its familiar root and its technopoetic Greek morphology in the context of the whole letter.  &quot;***B belgicat***&quot;, although it may lack a root familiar to Latin speakers, is nevertheless acceptable to a reader of Notker's letter, **because it is [Tolkienesque][41] wordplay**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I don't know Notker's *vita*, whether he was learned in Greek, or if he was a linguist or philologist.  &quot;*Belgicat*&quot;, after all, is a farther stretch of diction than &quot;*hymnizat*&quot;, whose Greek root was at least recognizable to first-millennium Latins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, in defense of my hypothesis, I posit these two facts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Notker's whole letter is wordplay. From A to Z, each line is an attempt to define a letter's signification in the notation of Gregorian chant with nouns, verbs, and adjectives that begin with that letter, in order to mnemonically reinforce the significative meanings in the mind of his reader.&#xD;&#xA;- One might also consider Notker's profound role in the establishment of the [sequence hymn][42] in Latin liturgics:  a form of hymn that was quite unusually constructed, by fitting new lyrics, one note per syllable, to the notes of a pre-existing melisma in Gregorian chant, such that the text accent corresponded to rhythmic downbeats and high neighboring notes, and the word boundaries to the neum divisions in the melisma's musical notation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it should be no surprise to us, then, if Notker was perhaps indeed creative enough to have intentionally formed such a word in the manner I traced above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;==========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Confidence in this hypothesis might come from a better knowledge of Notker's life, as well as of his experience of language as manifested in his works.  For now, we can summarize the hypothesis as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*bēlgicāre*&quot; = to 'belgicate', to cry out = Latinized from Greek &quot;*βῆ λέγειν*&quot; = to bleat, to say &quot;baa&quot;;  may have a connotation of begging or pleading.  Coined perhaps for the scarcity of appropriate Latin verbs beginning with B that mean &quot;to signify&quot; or &quot;to call for&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hereby also propose a new word for the English language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/glossariummediae01duca/page/640&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesychius_of_Alexandria&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=R-zVabafOucC&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/details/hesychiialexand00schmgoog/page/n175&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/b%CA%B0leh%E2%82%81-&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://archive.org/details/ThesaurusGraecaeLinguae-Didot-Prospectus&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://archive.org/stream/ThesaurusGraecaeLinguae-Didot-Prospectus/TGL_Didot_2#page/n113&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B2%E1%BF%86#Ancient_Greek&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncope_(phonology)&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://sententiaeantiquae.com/2017/09/16/zooglossia-4-sheep-go-baa-and-an-absurd-etymology&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cratinus&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://archive.org/details/comicorumatticor01kockuoft/page/25&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristophanes&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristophanes_of_Byzantium&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://archive.org/details/lexiconaristopha00sanx/page/37&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://archive.org/details/comicorumatticor01kockuoft/page/550&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://www.poesialatina.it/_ns/Greek/testi/Aristophanes/Fragmenta02.html&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suda&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photios_I_of_Constantinople&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hamartolos&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mendico#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Antiatticist.html?id=V9RaCwAAQBAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: https://www.academia.edu/3893174/Thomas_Jefferson_s_argument_concerning_the_pronunciation_of_Ancient_Greek&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.latin-dictionary.net/list/letter/b&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balbutio#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/6042/balito-balitare-balitavi-balitatus&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/6155/barrio-barrire&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/baubor#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bebo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/6666/blactero-blacterare-blacteravi-blacteratus&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/blatero#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [33]: http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/6708/blatio-blatire&#xD;&#xA;  [34]: http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/6720/blatto-blattare-blattavi-blattatus&#xD;&#xA;  [35]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/boo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [36]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bubo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [37]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bittern&#xD;&#xA;  [38]: http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/7022/bubulo-bubulare-bubulavi-bubulatus&#xD;&#xA;  [39]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bucino#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [40]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BD%95%CE%BC%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%82#Ancient_Greek&#xD;&#xA;  [41]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien&#xD;&#xA;  [42]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_(musical_form)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32736" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10957" RevisionGUID="23d70d23-54cf-44ca-8a6d-e53643fa7d0b" CreationDate="2019-07-14T23:32:58.170" UserId="2099" Comment="Added Greek tag for one of the answers" Text="|vocabulary|greek|medieval-latin|germanic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11141" RevisionGUID="9f20e46d-e7fe-4ddb-adc3-fd1e762b2d6b" CreationDate="2019-07-14T23:45:15.913" UserId="406" Text="When I come across a word I don't recognize, or I need to check the conjugation pattern for a verb, I usually default to Lewis and Short. [Perseus's lookup tool][1] provides a nice means to locate any entry you need…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;…usually. Sometimes it fails for no obvious reason, such as [not recognizing the word *vir*][2], or [any of its inflected forms][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given these flaws, is there another convenient way to search through Lewis and Short, short of going to the library for a physical copy? For example, is there any other online interface where I can type in *vir* and be taken directly to L&amp;S's entry on the word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This question arose when I wanted to check whether [*vire*][4] was ever attested.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=vir&amp;la=la&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=viri&amp;la=la&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11111/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32738" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11141" RevisionGUID="9f20e46d-e7fe-4ddb-adc3-fd1e762b2d6b" CreationDate="2019-07-14T23:45:15.913" UserId="406" Text="What's the easiest way to find an entry in Lewis and Short?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32739" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11141" RevisionGUID="9f20e46d-e7fe-4ddb-adc3-fd1e762b2d6b" CreationDate="2019-07-14T23:45:15.913" UserId="406" Text="|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11142" RevisionGUID="5da07d2d-f7ba-4422-bf96-354b2f0dad1a" CreationDate="2019-07-15T01:19:03.520" UserId="406" Text="In later Latin, as *ipse* started to lose its force, Petronius uses *ipsimus* for emphasis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Tamen ad delicias **ipsimi** [domini] annos quattuordecim fui. Nec turpe est, quod dominus iubet. Ego tamen et **ipsimae** [dominae] satis faciebam. Scitis, quid dicam: taceo, quia non sum de gloriosis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Well, I was **my very own** [master]'s beloved at age fourteen. It's not shameful, whatever your master orders. And, well, I also used to do enough for **my very own** [mistress], too. You all know what I mean—I won't say any more, because I'm not the boastful type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Translation mine—this is from the mouth of Trimalchio, who uses intentionally bad Latin at times.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much more recently, Aleister Crowley uses a form *ipsissimus* in his esoteric writings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And this is the Opening of the Grade of **Ipsissimus**, and by the Buddhists it is called the trance Nerodha-Samapatti.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both seem like standard superlative forms from *ipse*, treating it like a normal adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But are either of these good Classical style? Is there a &quot;correct&quot; superlative form attested in non-Vulgar Latin? And if so, which is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32741" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11142" RevisionGUID="5da07d2d-f7ba-4422-bf96-354b2f0dad1a" CreationDate="2019-07-15T01:19:03.520" UserId="406" Text="What is the superlative of ipse?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32742" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11142" RevisionGUID="5da07d2d-f7ba-4422-bf96-354b2f0dad1a" CreationDate="2019-07-15T01:19:03.520" UserId="406" Text="|new-latin|word-choice|vulgar-latin|superlatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32743" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11136" RevisionGUID="d5647fbc-d2ce-456c-a8e0-24e6a01772ed" CreationDate="2019-07-15T01:37:16.560" />
  <row Id="32744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11143" RevisionGUID="5f8a7be6-c1da-4318-b791-44f0b5c86be6" CreationDate="2019-07-15T02:20:46.897" UserId="9" Text="The linked page goes to Perseus's &quot;Word Study Tool&quot; (URLs for this kind of search contain &quot;morph?&quot; followed by search-specific information). I don't use that regularly, so I don't have any tips on how to use it (for example, I don't know whether there's a trick to getting it to find the form *vir*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I usually use to find an entry in Tuft's Perseus Digital Library is the &quot;Dictionary Headword Search&quot; (URLs for this kind of search contain &quot;resolveform?&quot; followed by search-specific information). This finds &quot;[vir][1]&quot; without any problems. You can search for an exact form, or for headwords that start with, end with, or contain a certain sequence of letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=exact&amp;lookup=vir&amp;lang=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11143" RevisionGUID="5f24c9f7-046c-4351-a0fe-2c8622d3a000" CreationDate="2019-07-15T02:27:11.047" UserId="9" Comment="added 249 characters in body" Text="The linked page goes to Perseus's &quot;Word Study Tool&quot; (URLs for this kind of search contain &quot;morph?&quot; followed by search-specific information). I don't use that regularly, so I don't have any tips on how to use it (for example, I don't know whether there's a trick to getting it to find the form *vir*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I usually use to find an L&amp;S entry using Tuft's Perseus Digital Library is the &quot;Dictionary Headword Search&quot; (URLs for this kind of search contain &quot;resolveform?&quot; followed by search-specific information; you can perform a search of this type by going to the &quot;[General Search Tools](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/search)&quot; page and opening the third box down, labeled &quot;Dictionary Entry Lookup&quot;). This finds &quot;[vir][1]&quot; without any problems. You can search for an exact form, or for headwords that start with, end with, or contain a certain sequence of letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the name implies, this only searches headwords.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=exact&amp;lookup=vir&amp;lang=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11143" RevisionGUID="8dc7c855-dad7-4280-942a-d825e82b76a1" CreationDate="2019-07-15T02:33:37.590" UserId="9" Comment="added 249 characters in body" Text="The linked page goes to Perseus's &quot;Word Study Tool&quot; (URLs for this kind of search contain &quot;morph?&quot; followed by search-specific information). I don't use that regularly, so I don't have any tips on how to use it (for example, I don't know whether there's a trick to getting it to find the form *vir*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I usually use to find an L&amp;S entry using Tuft's Perseus Digital Library is the &quot;Dictionary Headword Search&quot; (URLs for this kind of search contain &quot;resolveform?&quot; followed by search-specific information; you can perform a search of this type by going to the &quot;[General Search Tools](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/search)&quot; page and opening the third box down, labeled &quot;Dictionary Entry Lookup&quot;). This finds &quot;[vir][1]&quot; without any problems. You can search for an exact form, or for headwords that start with, end with, or contain a certain sequence of letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the name implies, this only searches headwords. If you know the lemma form of the word you're interested in (as in this case) you can just look at the entry and see what it has to say. It turns out that the L&amp;S entry for &quot;vir&quot; doesn't contain any mention of a form &quot;vire&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=exact&amp;lookup=vir&amp;lang=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11144" RevisionGUID="67994c05-6c06-4440-92e0-6f6c1b035374" CreationDate="2019-07-15T02:38:56.633" UserId="79" Text="Classical corpus searches suggest that [*ipsimus*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23Ipsim) is only attested in Satyricon and [*ipsissimus*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23Ipsiss) is used once by Plautus and once by Afranius.&#xA;There are not enough attestations to decide which is correct, or whether both superlatives should be dismissed as improper classical Latin.&#xA;Since nothing is found in the best classical authors, I would say that in good classical style the superlative does not exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11143" RevisionGUID="4d894895-957f-4600-a5ec-d298cdb13c3e" CreationDate="2019-07-15T02:42:06.150" UserId="9" Comment="added 249 characters in body" Text="###Dictionary Headword Search&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I usually use to find an L&amp;S entry using Tuft's Perseus Digital Library is the &quot;Dictionary Headword Search&quot; (URLs for this kind of search contain &quot;resolveform?&quot; followed by search-specific information; you can perform a search of this type by going to the &quot;[General Search Tools](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/search)&quot; page and opening the third box down, labeled &quot;Dictionary Entry Lookup&quot;). This finds &quot;[vir][1]&quot; without any problems. You can search for an exact form, or for headwords that start with, end with, or contain a certain sequence of letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;Word Study Tool&quot; is a different kind of search&#xD;&#xA;The page you linked to in the question goes instead to Perseus's &quot;Word Study Tool&quot; (URLs for this kind of search contain &quot;morph?&quot; followed by search-specific information). I don't use that regularly, so I don't have any tips on how to use it (for example, I don't know whether there's a trick to getting it to find the form *vir*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Getting information on non-headword forms&#xD;&#xA;As the name implies, this only searches headwords. If you know the lemma form of the word you're interested in (as in this case) you can just look at the entry and see what it has to say. It turns out that the L&amp;S entry for &quot;vir&quot; doesn't contain any mention of a form &quot;vire&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I actually haven't found L&amp;S to be extraordinarily helpful with non-lemma forms. To figure out whether a form is attested, my usual first step is to search the PHI corpus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=exact&amp;lookup=vir&amp;lang=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11145" RevisionGUID="d8720dd5-b9ed-43ed-8230-95292d67825b" CreationDate="2019-07-15T03:28:24.000" UserId="9" Text="&gt; Does anybody know how normal Latin dialog sounded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't know enough about the historical pronunciation of Latin to make an audio file that we could confidently say would have the same feeling as listening to the normal speech of a historical Latin speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We know with a high degree of certainty the basic sound system of Latin (the phonology); we also have a pretty good idea of certain special *phonetic* aspects of pronunciation, such as the use of a light and dark allophone of L.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for any language, there are many phonetic details about how it sounds that cannot all be deduced from the kind of written and circumstantial evidence that we have about Latin pronunciation. When people learn a second language, they often have an accent based on their first language(s), even after being able to listen extensively to native speakers of their second language. No one living today has the option to listen to even one example of a native speaker of ancient Latin, so it's pretty ambitious to think that somebody could perfectly acquire the accent of a ancient Latin speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are there any audio files that you recommend&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, but I haven't looked for any. An audio file would give you the speaker's best effort at producing the pronunciation that the speaker thinks was used historically. So the value of the audio file as a source of information will be based on the speaker's knowledge of evidence about ancient Latin pronunciation, the speaker's evaluation of that evidence, and the speaker's skill at producing language sounds accurately, and your skill at perceiving language sounds accurately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a single audio file would not be able to represent the range of normal pronunciation. No language has uniform pronunciation, so we can probably say that there was more than one &quot;Latin accent&quot; (even if we can't say exactly how the accents differed, or how they were distributed or changed over time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin audio files definitely can be helpful in some ways–for example, I think that it's been found that listening helps people become more fluent in a foreign language. And listening to audio files might help you learn to avoid some pronunciation habits from your native language that we don't think existed in Latin. (For example, English speakers tend to automatically reduce vowels in unstressed syllables to a schwa sound, but we don't think that this was a feature of Latin pronunciation in classical times.) But I think it's unlikely that you'll be able to learn what a &quot;normal&quot;  Latin accent in ancient times would have sounded like by listening to an audio file." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11145" RevisionGUID="cb0944ca-c1ee-4fcc-a321-7ee60431f001" CreationDate="2019-07-15T03:35:11.397" UserId="9" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="&gt; Does anybody know how normal Latin dialog sounded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't know enough about the historical pronunciation of Latin to make an audio file that we could confidently say would have the same feeling as listening to the normal speech of a Latin speaker during the time of the Roman Republic or Roman Empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We know with a high degree of certainty the basic sound system (phonology) of Latin in classical times; we also have a pretty good idea of certain special *phonetic* aspects of pronunciation; for example, the use of a &quot;light&quot; and &quot;dark&quot; allophone of L.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for any language, there are many phonetic details about how it sounds that cannot all be deduced from the kind of written and circumstantial evidence that we have about pre-modern Latin pronunciation. When people learn a second language, they often have an accent based on their first language(s), even after being able to listen extensively to native speakers of their second language. No one living today has the option to listen to even one example of a native speaker of pre-modern Latin, so it's pretty ambitious to think that somebody could perfectly acquire the accent of a pre-modern Latin speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are there any audio files that you recommend&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, but I haven't looked for any. An audio file would give you the speaker's best effort at producing the pronunciation that the speaker thinks was used historically. So the value of the audio file as a source of information will be based on the speaker's knowledge of evidence about how Latin was historically pronounced, the speaker's evaluation of that evidence, and the speaker's skill at producing language sounds accurately, and your skill at perceiving language sounds accurately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a single audio file would not be able to represent the range of normal pronunciation. No language has uniform pronunciation, so we can probably say that there was more than one &quot;Latin accent&quot; (even if we can't say exactly how the accents differed, or how they were distributed or changed over time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin audio files definitely can be helpful in some ways–for example, I think that it's been found that listening helps people become more fluent in a foreign language. And listening to audio files might help you learn to avoid some pronunciation habits from your native language that we don't think existed in Latin. (For example, English speakers tend to automatically reduce vowels in unstressed syllables to a schwa sound, but we don't think that this was a feature of Latin pronunciation in classical times.) But I think it's unlikely that you'll be able to get an accurate impression of what a &quot;normal&quot; Latin accent in ancient times would have sounded like by listening to an audio file." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11143" RevisionGUID="e99ecb44-6b36-4756-a176-472d60502891" CreationDate="2019-07-15T03:38:20.387" UserId="9" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="###Dictionary Headword Search&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I usually use to find an L&amp;S entry using Tuft's Perseus Digital Library is the &quot;Dictionary Headword Search&quot; (URLs for this kind of search contain &quot;resolveform?&quot; followed by search-specific information; you can perform a search of this type by going to the &quot;[General Search Tools](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/search)&quot; page and opening the third box down, labeled &quot;Dictionary Entry Lookup&quot;). This finds &quot;[vir][1]&quot; without any problems. You can search for an exact form, or for headwords that start with, end with, or contain a certain sequence of letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;Word Study Tool&quot; is a different kind of search (that I find less useful)&#xD;&#xA;The page you linked to in the question goes instead to Perseus's &quot;Word Study Tool&quot; (URLs for this kind of search contain &quot;morph?&quot; followed by search-specific information). I don't use that regularly, so I don't have any tips on how to use it (for example, I don't know whether there's a trick to getting it to find the form *vir*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Getting information on non-headword forms&#xD;&#xA;As the name implies, this only searches headwords. If you know the lemma form of the word you're interested in (as in this case) you can just look at the entry and see what it has to say. It turns out that the L&amp;S entry for &quot;vir&quot; doesn't contain any mention of a form &quot;vire&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I actually haven't found L&amp;S to be extraordinarily helpful with non-lemma forms. To figure out whether a form is attested, my usual first step is to search the PHI corpus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=exact&amp;lookup=vir&amp;lang=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11145" RevisionGUID="3c052df9-4474-4d8d-87e3-42169debfa24" CreationDate="2019-07-15T05:03:01.560" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="&gt; Does anybody know how normal Latin dialog sounded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't know enough about the historical pronunciation of Latin to make an audio file that we could confidently say would have the same feeling as listening to the normal speech of a Latin speaker during the time of the Roman Republic or Roman Empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We know with a high degree of certainty the basic sound system (phonology) of Latin in classical times. We also have a pretty good idea of certain special *phonetic* aspects of pronunciation—for example, the use of a &quot;light&quot; and &quot;dark&quot; allophone of L.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for any language, there are many phonetic details about how it sounds that cannot all be deduced from the kind of written and circumstantial evidence that we have about pre-modern Latin pronunciation. When people learn a second language, they often have an accent based on their first language(s), even after being able to listen extensively to native speakers of their second language. No one living today has the option to listen to even one example of a native speaker of pre-modern Latin, so it's pretty ambitious to think that somebody could perfectly acquire the accent of a pre-modern Latin speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are there any audio files that you recommend&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, but I haven't looked for any. An audio file would give you the speaker's best effort at producing the pronunciation that the speaker thinks was used historically. So the value of the audio file as a source of information will be based on the speaker's knowledge of evidence about how Latin was historically pronounced, the speaker's evaluation of that evidence, the speaker's skill at producing language sounds accurately, and your skill at perceiving language sounds accurately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a single audio file would not be able to represent the range of normal pronunciation. No language has uniform pronunciation, so we can probably say that there was more than one &quot;Latin accent&quot; (even if we can't say exactly how the accents differed, or how they were distributed or changed over time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin audio files definitely can be helpful in some ways–for example, I think that it's been found that listening helps people become more fluent in a foreign language. And listening to audio files might help you learn to avoid some pronunciation habits from your native language that we don't think existed in Latin. (For example, English speakers tend to automatically reduce vowels in unstressed syllables to a schwa sound, but we don't think that this was a feature of Latin pronunciation in classical times.) But I think it's unlikely that you'll be able to get an accurate impression of what a &quot;normal&quot; Latin accent in ancient times would have sounded like by listening to an audio file." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32753" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11138" RevisionGUID="94888857-0513-4872-8d0e-d325b08b0e13" CreationDate="2019-07-15T05:22:26.857" />
  <row Id="32754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11146" RevisionGUID="7fa1454b-1a94-49f2-9b8f-4c1ce02bcffe" CreationDate="2019-07-15T13:15:28.083" UserId="1304" Text="Joonas is correct: those forms don’t belong in good classical style. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peter Stotz’s [_Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters_](https://books.google.it/books?id=-cMAurDgc0MC&amp;pg=PA308&amp;lpg=PA308&amp;dq=%22egomet+ipsimus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=SrHdCDbUlm&amp;sig=ACfU3U2D_AG9dpCFstQ4hqXPveWzq79OeA&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjuvNOk97bjAhWI26QKHQ2_DmkQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22egomet%20ipsimus%22&amp;f=false) mentions that Donatus explicitly forbade comparatives and superlatives from pronouns (note 180 in the linked page) &#xD;&#xA;but I could not find the citation online. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same source says that Plautus’ _ipsissimus_ was “certainly” _(gewiß)_ modeled after Greek αὐτότατος.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my knowledge there are no reflexes of _ipsissimus_ in Romance languages, while the origin of Italian _medesimo,_ French _même,_ Spansih _mismo,_ Sardinian _matessi,_ etc. can be traced back to _egomet ipsimus_ “I myself in person”, reanalysed as _ego *metipsimus,_ so maybe _ipsimus_ was the form used in spoken Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11146" RevisionGUID="e7596037-024c-4b32-88ae-baf6ca31b83e" CreationDate="2019-07-15T13:20:54.403" UserId="1304" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Joonas is correct: those forms don’t belong in good classical style. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peter Stotz’s [_Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters_](https://books.google.it/books?id=-cMAurDgc0MC&amp;pg=PA308&amp;lpg=PA308&amp;dq=%22egomet+ipsimus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=SrHdCDbUlm&amp;sig=ACfU3U2D_AG9dpCFstQ4hqXPveWzq79OeA&amp;hl=it&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjuvNOk97bjAhWI26QKHQ2_DmkQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22egomet%20ipsimus%22&amp;f=false) mentions that Donatus explicitly forbade comparatives and superlatives from pronouns (note 180 in the linked page) &#xD;&#xA;but I could not find the citation online. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same source says that Plautus’ _ipsissimus_ was “certainly” _(gewiß)_ modeled after Greek αὐτότατος.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my knowledge there are no reflexes of _ipsissimus_ in Romance languages, while the origin of Italian _medesimo,_ French _même,_ Spanish _mismo,_ Sardinian _matessi,_ etc. can be traced back to _egomet ipsimus_ “I myself in person”, reanalysed as _ego *metipsimus,_ so maybe _ipsimus_ had some currency in colloquial Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32756" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11142" RevisionGUID="aa9fe22b-28d7-407e-bf66-99fa25045ede" CreationDate="2019-07-15T14:07:56.203" />
  <row Id="32759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11061" RevisionGUID="b461e28e-b96e-4b86-92bc-78f464b84346" CreationDate="2019-07-15T17:54:21.563" UserId="1982" Comment="deleted 84 characters in body" Text="When in doubt translate literally: &quot;....whether (utrum; would normally expect &quot;necne&quot; = &quot;whether-or-not&quot;) we may consider (videamus) as if (quasi) all (omnes) are to be included (teneantur: alt: are-to-be-held [responsible])--they definitely killed (him).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This strikes me as an indirect question; if so, that explains why it is not completed with a question-mark. Therefore, it could be argued that it is both a question and a statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Law, such an action (more than one person) may be considered a conspiracy. This takes any crime to a much higher level of seriousness. Would that colour the translation; am not qualified to comment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11147" RevisionGUID="ff09d307-bebd-407d-b6dd-c22712ff4dc7" CreationDate="2019-07-15T22:02:52.987" UserId="406" Text="I recently came across a strange and probably long-superseded theory that deserves mention here. [B. L. Ullman][1], back in 1927, suggests that the Etruscan letter names were identical to the Latin ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to his theory, those names actually arose in the *Greek* alphabet: specifically, in the &quot;red&quot; Western Greek variant (with Χ for `/ks/` and Ψ for `/kh/`). He suggests that the Phoenician-derived names died out in this variant, being replaced with a simpler system. Vowels and continuants were named with their pronunciation (so Α was named `/a/` and Σ was named `/s/`), while Κ Ϙ were `/ka ku/`, and other stops were named with a following -εῖ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This system would then have been inherited by the Etruscans, and later the Romans; the renaming of fricatives as `/es/`, `/ef/`, and so on was a purely Roman development. But the use of -εῖ for naming stops persisted when some innovated letters were accepted back into the &quot;standard&quot; alphabet, such as φεῖ, χεῖ, and ψεῖ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would assume modern scholarship has overturned this theory by now—and if nothing else, there's not very much evidence to support it, apart from raw speculation. But it's an interesting possible explanation for where the well-attested Latin names came from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/262978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11148" RevisionGUID="1da19ad4-5f4f-409d-8717-2ef6924a303b" CreationDate="2019-07-16T23:52:07.817" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="I was reading the etymology of French [*ébahir*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%A9bahir), when I lighted on this etymon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Etymology](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bayer#French)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [of *bayer*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From [Medieval Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Latin &quot;w:Medieval Latin&quot;) _[*batare](https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Reconstruction:Latin/batare&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1 &quot;Reconstruction:Latin/batare (page does not exist)&quot;)_ (“to gape”), probably of imitative origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't understand how _*batare_ imitates gaping? I included pictures of gaping, just to affirm that we all agree the meaning of gaping. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/i4Mwv.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11148" RevisionGUID="1da19ad4-5f4f-409d-8717-2ef6924a303b" CreationDate="2019-07-16T23:52:07.817" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How might've *batare originated imitatively?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32764" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11148" RevisionGUID="1da19ad4-5f4f-409d-8717-2ef6924a303b" CreationDate="2019-07-16T23:52:07.817" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|french|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32766" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5073" RevisionGUID="59d3aefd-34aa-4217-8b4c-705662ff9042" CreationDate="2019-07-17T07:28:13.173" UserId="9" Comment="122" />
  <row Id="32767" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="11089" RevisionGUID="116c54d9-6ef8-4bbc-9615-9d43ecd38e02" CreationDate="2019-07-17T10:14:52.170" UserId="183" Comment="123" />
  <row Id="32768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11144" RevisionGUID="6d0a2d93-f4d6-40b7-9b11-3ea6a9ec4722" CreationDate="2019-07-17T10:48:29.797" UserId="79" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="Classical corpus searches suggest that [*ipsimus*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23Ipsim) is only attested in Satyricon and [*ipsissimus*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23Ipsiss) is used once by Plautus and once by Afranius.&#xD;&#xA;There are not enough attestations to decide which is correct, or whether both superlatives should be dismissed as improper classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since nothing is found in the best classical authors, I would say that in good classical style the superlative does not exist.&#xD;&#xA;I think a superlative of *ipse* would be something Cicero would have most certainly found use for, but his abstinence from this word signals that he did probably not consider it proper Latin.&#xD;&#xA;This is a matter of taste of course, but we should at least agree that the word is very rare in classical Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11149" RevisionGUID="bae6f19d-be31-4039-8393-a301258589e3" CreationDate="2019-07-17T16:53:53.793" UserId="1304" Text="I don’t think there is any attestation of a direct prohibition of the __no smoking__ type for the classical period. The closest I could find is CIL VI, 2357, from Rome, but it is not a prohibition, it is a kind request:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; HOSPES AD HUNC TUMULUM NI MEIAS OSSA PRECANTUR&#xD;&#xA;&gt; TECTA HOMINIS SET SI GRATUS HOMO ES MISCE BIBE DA MI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_NI=ne, SET=sed, MI=mihi_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Passerby, the buried bones of a man ask you not to piss on this tomb, but if you are a good-mannered man, pour, drink, and give me (wine)._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interesting fact is that the very same text from _HOSPES_ to _PRECANTUR_ is repeated in CIL IV, 8899, from Pompeii, followed by obscene jokes: it might be a direct reference to this specific inscription, but that wording might also be some kind of well known set phrase. In this case, we would have an idiomatic way to express a specific prohibition.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11149" RevisionGUID="41c72720-8396-4960-bc1d-ac9846939d4b" CreationDate="2019-07-17T16:59:42.900" UserId="1304" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="I don’t think there is any attestation of a direct prohibition of the __no smoking__ type for the classical period. The closest I could find is CIL VI, 2357, from Rome, but it is not a prohibition, it is a kind request:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; HOSPES AD HUNC TUMULUM NI MEIAS OSSA PRECANTUR&#xD;&#xA;&gt; TECTA HOMINIS SET SI GRATUS HOMO ES MISCE BIBE DA MI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_NI=ne, SET=sed, MI=mihi_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Passerby, the buried bones of a man ask you not to piss on this tomb, but if you are a good-mannered man, pour, drink, and give me (wine)._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interesting fact is that the very same text from _HOSPES_ to _PRECANTUR_ is repeated in CIL IV, 8899, from Pompeii, followed by obscene jokes: it might be a direct reference to this specific inscription, but it might also be some kind of well known set phrase. In this case, we would have an idiomatic way to express a specific prohibition.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11150" RevisionGUID="697f1d95-32ab-4790-8edd-20996be8f8d3" CreationDate="2019-07-17T17:15:51.383" UserId="4941" Text="Essentially, I want to say something like: &#xD;&#xA;&quot;If you read this, your will will be mine&quot;. (In a teasing way like, Who Reads This Is Stupid).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I 'distilled' it as much as possible to &quot;reader beware: your will is mine&quot;. Which I (probably falsely) remember to initiate with &quot;Cavea t, Lector...&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But forums and google translate show me different words, leading me to compile a steaming hot pile of **** like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'cave lectorem tuus anima mea'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;partial translations I find online refer me to &quot;your soul will be sorrowful&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone may please assist, with any verbs, tips, help or pointing me to the correct dictionaries/grammar: I will greatly appreciate every bit of input." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32772" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11150" RevisionGUID="697f1d95-32ab-4790-8edd-20996be8f8d3" CreationDate="2019-07-17T17:15:51.383" UserId="4941" Text="Does this sentence I constructed with my junior high school latin work? I write online advertising and want to come off as snobby as possible" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32773" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11150" RevisionGUID="697f1d95-32ab-4790-8edd-20996be8f8d3" CreationDate="2019-07-17T17:15:51.383" UserId="4941" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11151" RevisionGUID="a5a34386-b236-4fdd-9831-c3faf7ce32ea" CreationDate="2019-07-17T18:00:57.490" UserId="2767" Text="The closest I can come is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cave lector, anima tua mea erit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means &quot;Beware reader, your mind (or spirit, or soul) will be mine&quot;. I don't quite see how that adds up to &quot;Who reads this is stupid&quot;, but maybe you can. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11150" RevisionGUID="70dbcca5-c709-4269-b42a-1111fd27ebf9" CreationDate="2019-07-17T18:15:38.617" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Essentially, I want to say something like: &#xD;&#xA;&quot;If you read this, your will will be mine&quot;. (In a teasing way like, Who Reads This Is Stupid).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I 'distilled' it as much as possible to &quot;reader beware: your will is mine&quot;. Which I (probably falsely) remember to initiate with &quot;Cavea t, Lector...&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But forums and Google Translate show me different words, leading me to compile nonsense like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'cave lectorem tuus anima mea'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Partial translations I find online refer me to &quot;your soul will be sorrowful&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone may please assist, with any verbs, tips, help or pointing me to the correct dictionaries/grammar: I will greatly appreciate every bit of input." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32776" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11150" RevisionGUID="70dbcca5-c709-4269-b42a-1111fd27ebf9" CreationDate="2019-07-17T18:15:38.617" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11152" RevisionGUID="18cc42f5-6d3e-4ea6-aa5c-6f8882d164f1" CreationDate="2019-07-17T18:30:47.670" UserId="406" Text="&gt; 'cave lectorem tuus anima mea'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty close! Just some case and agreement issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Cave* means &quot;beware!&quot; as a command to someone; *caveat* means &quot;may [he/she] beware&quot;. So if you use *cave* you're talking to the person directly (*cave canem* &quot;watch out for the dog!&quot;), and if you use *caveat* you're talking *about* them (*caveat emptor* &quot;the buyer should be wary&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want someone to avoid an action, the usual phrasing is *cave ne* plus a verb in the subjunctive. (Formally, this is called a &quot;clause of fearing&quot;.) If you want them to fear a thing, the thing goes in the accusative. Here, it seems like you want neither: just a general &quot;you should be afraid&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Lector* (&quot;reader&quot;) should be in the vocative if you're addressing them directly, or in the nominative if you're talking about them. Conveniently, the two forms look exactly the same for this word!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Your soul&quot; would be *anima tua*; &quot;their soul&quot; (if you decide to use *caveat*) would be *anima ejus*. The second word can be left off if it's clear from context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Will be mine&quot; is literally *mea erit*; you might also use *ad me veniet*, &quot;will come to me&quot; = &quot;will be mine&quot;. (I most likely got this phrasing from the Requiem mass: *ad te omnis caro veniet* = &quot;to thee all flesh shall come&quot;.) If you want the subjunctive, that's *veniat*, with an *a*, or *sit* for *erit*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, my recommendation would be ***caveat lector ne anima [ejus] mea sit***. &quot;The reader should be wary, lest their soul be mine.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11149" RevisionGUID="3538c6ce-4e9e-44b1-b8af-f4870c71ccbe" CreationDate="2019-07-17T18:36:49.693" UserId="1304" Comment="edited body" Text="I don’t think there is any attestation of a direct prohibition of the __no smoking__ type for the classical period. The closest I could find is CIL VI, 2357, from Rome, but it is not a prohibition, it is a kind request:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; HOSPES AD HUNC TUMULUM NI MEIAS OSSA PRECANTUR&#xD;&#xA;&gt; TECTA HOMINIS SET SI GRATUS HOMO ES MISCE BIBE DA MI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_NI=ne, SET=sed, MI=mihi_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Passerby, the buried bones of a man ask you not to piss on this tomb, but if you are a well-mannered man, pour, drink, and give me (wine)._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interesting fact is that the very same text from _HOSPES_ to _PRECANTUR_ is repeated in CIL IV, 8899, from Pompeii, followed by obscene jokes: it might be a direct reference to this specific inscription, but it might also be some kind of well known set phrase. In this case, we would have an idiomatic way to express a specific prohibition.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11153" RevisionGUID="4cc83521-ff97-49ab-a81d-07b2f281c5d1" CreationDate="2019-07-17T19:25:35.707" UserId="522" Text="What is ***batare*** doing here anyway? It appears to be modern (i.e. 1100) Latin derived from a Gallic verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *batare* ME Latin, Dufresne DuCange vol.1 p620   from Gallic battre: *Percutere, verberare;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dufresne DuCange then  quotes the only occurrence of *batare.* &#xD;&#xA;Here is the hapaxlegomenon from which the meaning has to be conjectured.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The aforementioned William Correarius citizen of Lugdunum, *impegit* ( =impinged) on the aforementioned Stephen of Aigueneus, *Batavit violenter, et verberavit pro libito voluntatis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  The dictionary continues with reference to three linguists on the meaning of  the Gallic  word **&quot;batant.&quot;**  It might mean 'thumping,'  which would be a very good match for 'épatant' the sort of thing which leaves you open-mouthed,  or possibly it means 'on the side of the head,' the temple; or simply, 'Suddenly, rapidly, the post has arrived.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has there been some major discovery since Dufresne DuCange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to return to 'ébahir;' &#xD;&#xA;I think the etymologist quoted on **ébahir** has changed horses in mid-stream. There's a *patet* route;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;*patet* stands open, lies open,  and in Greek (esp, Delphic) almost identical. [Perseus L&amp;H][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there's a *'hio'* route&#xD;&#xA;*hĭo, āvi, ātum* &#xD;&#xA;B 2 (Acc. to I. A. 2.) To gape, with longing, wonder, or curiosity; to be eager, to long for any thing; to be amazed.&#xD;&#xA;And @Laure has provided an explanation for the éba- prefix, an imitative nonsence syllable indicating a mouth gaping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.14:823.lewisandshort" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11153" RevisionGUID="13a31365-72fd-42e5-b702-9cb3b63209d4" CreationDate="2019-07-18T01:26:05.223" UserId="522" Comment="emphasis" Text="What is ***batare*** doing here anyway? It appears to be modern (i.e. 1100) Latin derived from a Gallic verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *batare* ME Latin, Dufresne DuCange vol.1 p620   from Gallic battre: *Percutere, verberare;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dufresne DuCange then  quotes the only occurrence of *batare.* &#xD;&#xA;Here is the hapaxlegomenon from which the meaning has to be conjectured.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The aforementioned William Correarius citizen of Lugdunum, *impegit* ( =impinged) on the aforementioned Stephen of Aigueneus, *Batavit violenter, et verberavit pro libito voluntatis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  The dictionary continues with reference to three linguists on the meaning of  the Gallic  word **&quot;batant.&quot;**  It might mean 'thumping,'  which would be a very good match for 'épatant' the sort of thing which leaves you open-mouthed,  or possibly it means 'on the side of the head,' the temple; or simply, 'Suddenly, rapidly, the post has arrived.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has there been some major discovery since Dufresne DuCange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to return to 'ébahir;' &#xD;&#xA;I think the etymologist quoted on **ébahir** has changed horses in mid-stream. There's a *patet* route;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;***p**atere* stands open, lies open,  and in Greek (esp, Delphic) almost identical. [Perseus L&amp;H][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there's a *'hio'* route&#xD;&#xA;*hĭo, āvi, ātum* &#xD;&#xA;B 2 (Acc. to I. A. 2.) To gape, with longing, wonder, or curiosity; to be eager, to long for any thing; to be amazed.&#xD;&#xA;And @Laure has provided an explanation for the éba- prefix, an imitative nonsence syllable indicating a mouth gaping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.14:823.lewisandshort" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32781" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11150" RevisionGUID="7222b346-ad5c-49a1-b385-1ac3fcfdbb1d" CreationDate="2019-07-18T01:27:06.417" />
  <row Id="32782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11153" RevisionGUID="4a87c6ac-26ff-4698-93d9-42ba33694c49" CreationDate="2019-07-18T01:39:44.163" UserId="522" Comment="link" Text="What is ***batare*** doing here anyway? It appears to be modern (i.e. 1100) Latin derived from a Gallic verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *batare* ME Latin, [Dufresne DuCange vol.1 p620][1]   from Gallic battre: *Percutere, verberare;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dufresne DuCange then  quotes the only occurrence of *batare.* &#xD;&#xA;Here is the hapaxlegomenon from which the meaning has to be conjectured.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The aforementioned William Correarius citizen of Lugdunum, *impegit* ( =impinged) on the aforementioned Stephen of Aigueneus, *Batavit violenter, et verberavit pro libito voluntatis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  The dictionary continues with reference to three linguists on the meaning of  the Gallic  word **&quot;batant.&quot;**  It might mean 'thumping,'  which would be a very good match for 'épatant' the sort of thing which leaves you open-mouthed,  or possibly it means 'on the side of the head,' the temple; or simply, 'Suddenly, rapidly, the post has arrived.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has there been some major discovery since Dufresne DuCange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to return to 'ébahir;' &#xD;&#xA;I think the etymologist quoted on **ébahir** has changed horses in mid-stream. There's a *patet* route;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;***p**atere* stands open, lies open,  and in Greek (esp, Delphic) almost identical. [Perseus L&amp;H][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there's a *'hio'* route&#xD;&#xA;*hĭo, āvi, ātum* &#xD;&#xA;B 2 (Acc. to I. A. 2.) To gape, with longing, wonder, or curiosity; to be eager, to long for any thing; to be amazed.&#xD;&#xA;And @Laure has provided an explanation for the éba- prefix, an imitative nonsence syllable indicating a mouth gaping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/glossariummediae01duca/page/620&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.14:823.lewisandshort" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7556" RevisionGUID="7a1d1111-fd36-49f8-ab57-4de8415ebf80" CreationDate="2019-07-18T08:49:39.363" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="I asked a [question][1] earlier. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some time now, it's occured to me that a pattern is forming: All my questions about the Latin language are basically the same. The subjects change, but the underlying theme - what I really want to know, persists. It's just, I find to difficult to articulate the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like etymology. It's probably the reason for my fascination with Latin in the first place. I'm good at identifying and recalling the roots and key elements of words, so when I hear/read Latin phrases, I can often understand/interpret/translate/make some sense of it relatively easily. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when I try to reverse translate English→Latin... I kind of just smash root words together and hope they fit. I feel like I'm constantly trying new recipes, putting all the correct, raw ingredients together in a blender, then wondering why I keep getting soup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main thing is, there are so many different variants and modifiers for each word: *tempus, tempore, temporis, temporali, temporalis; proxima, proximus, proximitas, proximitatus*, and so on. But what's the difference? Is there a rule or a formula, or some way to figure it out which variant or prefix/suffix applies in which circumstances?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7554" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32785" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7556" RevisionGUID="7a1d1111-fd36-49f8-ab57-4de8415ebf80" CreationDate="2019-07-18T08:49:39.363" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|vocabulary|word-comparison|morphology|derivation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7478" RevisionGUID="eef3afe9-afb0-4636-83a1-50976c29b012" CreationDate="2019-07-18T08:51:28.093" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="&gt; Priusquam digressus est, Aeneas a rege Heleno quaesivit quae pericula&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sibi vitanda essent. Ille Aenean ad Phoebi templum manu duxit, deinde&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dixit: &quot;Nate dea! Pauca tibi dicam, nam cetera fari vetat Iuno....Ubi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ventus ad oram Siculam te advexerit, laevam pete! Nam illud fretum duo&#xD;&#xA;&gt; monstra horrenda tenent. ...Praestat totam Siciliam longo cursu circum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ire.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is passage is part of chapter Andromache et Helenus in Lingva Latina of Pars II Roma Aeterna by Hans H.Orberg. I was only able to translate the first sentence that Aeneas met king Heleno who asked him about what difficulties Aeneas would need to avoid. (correct me if I am wrong). However, I really don't understand the any lines after that. I am just a second year Latin student who randomly got put into a higher class, and my Latin skill is very lacking. I am sorry that I am just asking people for help without giving the necessary context. This is the first time I am using this website, and I just want to get help in Latin. Any help would me much appreciated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if what is the subject of *tenent*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32787" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7478" RevisionGUID="eef3afe9-afb0-4636-83a1-50976c29b012" CreationDate="2019-07-18T08:51:28.093" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="Can someone help me translate the following passage in Latin into English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32788" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7478" RevisionGUID="eef3afe9-afb0-4636-83a1-50976c29b012" CreationDate="2019-07-18T08:51:28.093" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32789" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7210" RevisionGUID="53eca53d-717d-4290-846b-c1bcffb0be9e" CreationDate="2019-07-18T08:55:50.310" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|latin-to-english-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11154" RevisionGUID="530da913-33d2-4334-bc33-331801303008" CreationDate="2019-07-18T15:36:22.307" UserId="324" Text="A famous Greek example: Plato supposedly put a sign over the door to his school reading&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀγεωμέτρητος &#xD;&#xA;&gt; μηδεὶς εἰσίτω,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “May no one ignorant of geometry enter here” &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Geometriae ignarus nullus ingrediatur”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The story is apparently apocryphal  (see: https://www.persee.fr/doc/reg_0035-2039_1968_num_81_384_1013). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11155" RevisionGUID="7f8dcfa4-50e4-4c1c-98d9-3b98709a714b" CreationDate="2019-07-18T15:58:04.083" UserId="1141" Text="You might even consider something like *Hoc lecto tua voluntas mea fiet*, using an ablative absolute. Note I'm using *voluntas* rather than *anima*, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps even just *Hoc lecto meus fies*, to be more compact and not as Englishy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11156" RevisionGUID="fe71e48b-0d1a-4c56-9ac7-8212af67fc98" CreationDate="2019-07-18T16:18:49.583" UserId="4944" Text="I compared the Latin Gloria with the Greek Doxa: Greek language has much more vocative forms than Latin. In the Doxa series of vocatives alternate with series of nominatives, mostly with the article &quot;'o&quot; (absent in Latin); like: &quot;kyrie 'o theos, 'o amnos tou theou, 'o yios tou patros&quot; (Latin &quot;Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, Filius Patris&quot;). Nominative serves not only subjects, but also predicates, with omitted words &quot;tu es&quot; or &quot;qui es&quot;. So I would translate &quot;O Lord, thou art God, thou art the Lamb of God, thou art the Son of God&quot;. Similar alternation higher up &quot;kyrie basileu, epouranie, thee patêr pantokratôr&quot; (Latin &quot;Domine (Deus) rex caelestis, Deus pater omnipotens&quot;). &quot;Thee&quot; is vocative; &quot;patêr pantokratôr&quot; with etas and omegas = nominative, while vocative &quot;pater pantokrator&quot; would have epsilon and omikron. My translation: &quot;O Lord King in heaven, o God, thou art Father All-ruler&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;The prayer and song &quot;Agnus Dei&quot; seems copied from the Gloria; I could translate it: &quot;Thou who art Lamb of God, who carrieth away the sins of the world, have pity on us&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Sanctus&quot; is different: this nominative shows a predicate adjective (with omitted &quot;est&quot;): &quot;Holy, holy, holy is the Lord...&quot;; likewise further on &quot;Benedictus (est) qui venit...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There; that sums up my analysis. Carlo VAN GESTEL." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32793" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2033" RevisionGUID="f790bbae-f679-4b4e-9938-5fe8624c1fab" CreationDate="2019-07-18T20:02:00.240" UserId="-1" Comment="121" />
  <row Id="32794" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="250458fa-e283-48aa-bb6e-34d0770a475a" CreationDate="2019-07-18T20:02:00.240" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32798" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2033" RevisionGUID="7dd3c96f-4c92-4cf7-b3a5-6e881ace93ad" CreationDate="2019-07-18T23:29:55.827" UserDisplayName="user3136" Comment="124" />
  <row Id="32802" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6390" RevisionGUID="494328cb-4a13-446d-826b-d7e52b730d59" CreationDate="2019-07-19T04:04:55.503" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11158" RevisionGUID="e777001e-5c05-4b33-a670-930d897d6e65" CreationDate="2019-07-19T04:47:11.073" UserId="4947" Text="If you'd like to say &quot;If you read this, you will be mine&quot; as literally as possible, this is probably as close as you will get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Si hoc legis, mihi futurus eris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Esse+Dat.` means to belong to somebody by the means that you are somebody's property. Moreover, using a conditional clause shows that if you don't read it, you won't belong to the writer, but that as you've now read it, you don't stand a chance and there is no point at being careful about it, which is why I prefer this solution over something with `cavere`. As pointed out by @MPW, using the ablative absolute is also an alternative you could think of - especially if you want to stress that now that the reader has read the text, he ***is*** already your property." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11160" RevisionGUID="85af0479-f94c-4991-a21d-076f19585648" CreationDate="2019-07-19T05:20:44.563" UserId="4947" Text="If you intend to use it as an order similar to `noli(te)`, the conjunctive perfect is probably the best way to go. To the best of my knowledge, there is no difference between the present and the perfect version as the time is just a formal one rather than an actually a content-related one in this case. Moreover, the time does not have any influence on whether the sentence is meant as a request or as an order since a request would start with `utinam` and then a perfect would indicate that the chance of performing the request is already over. &#xD;&#xA;Nonetheless, the perfect is more common in your use case and - as you've said yourself - what is teached in schools. In fact, I have never seen a `ne+Konj.Präs.` other than the negative form of the conjunction `ut` whatsoever. Therefore, it should be more safe to choose the perfect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11161" RevisionGUID="2c0227c6-5140-4d8a-a4fe-63f50c085fdf" CreationDate="2019-07-19T05:36:33.783" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Of the two noun homonyms 'pledge', I'm asking merely about that derived from Latin.    For the other homonym  from Proto-Germanic , please see [this](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/12196/5306). [Etymonline for 'plight (n.1)'](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=plight&amp;searchmode=none) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**condition or state** (usually bad),&quot; late 12c., &quot;danger, harm, strife,&quot;    &#xD;&#xA;from Anglo-French *plit, pleit*, Old French *pleit, ploit* &quot;condition&quot; (13c.), originally **&quot;way of folding,&quot;**    &#xD;&#xA;from Vulgar Latin *plictum*,     &#xD;&#xA;from Latin *plicitum*, neuter past participle of Latin *plicare **&quot;to fold, lay&quot;**,   &#xD;&#xA; from PIE root [*plek-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*plek-) &quot;to plait&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Originally in neutral sense (as in modern French *en bon plit* &quot;in good condition&quot;),    &#xD;&#xA;sense of &quot;harmful state&quot; (and current spelling) probably is from convergence and confusion with [*plight* (n.2)](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=plight&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)    via notion of &quot;entangling risk, pledge or promise with great risk to the pledger.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Please see the titled question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. How did a **'way of folding'** (which looks limited to folding clothes) generalise to mean '&quot;**condition or state** (usually bad)'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32809" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11161" RevisionGUID="2c0227c6-5140-4d8a-a4fe-63f50c085fdf" CreationDate="2019-07-19T05:36:33.783" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What semantic notions underlie 'fold' with 'plight; predicament'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32810" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11161" RevisionGUID="2c0227c6-5140-4d8a-a4fe-63f50c085fdf" CreationDate="2019-07-19T05:36:33.783" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|english|french|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11162" RevisionGUID="9d14ab58-0f1b-4903-948f-8799bb9df86a" CreationDate="2019-07-19T05:37:44.840" UserId="4947" Text="Even though a non-diminuitive version of `credulus` does not exist, it kind of has this &quot;smallness&quot; connotation. If somebody is `credulus`, he is childish in some way, so you call at least some part of his brain little developed. This naivity comes with a childish innocence and also dinkiness. Furthermore, this is meant derogatively, so there are some fulfilled aspects of a diminuitive which surely caused this ending. However, gramatically it is still no diminuitive as it does not have an non-diminuitive origin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11163" RevisionGUID="68db09e0-711e-4dc5-9e3a-2b1af3e86a74" CreationDate="2019-07-19T05:48:06.313" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="I was researching the etymology of 'legacy' when I saw that *lex* was imputed to PIE _*leg-_.  Why? How does law or contracts relate to collecting and gathering?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##[legacy (n.)](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=legacy&amp;searchmode=none)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;late 14c., &quot;body of persons sent on a mission,&quot;       &#xD;&#xA;from Old French *legatie* &quot;legate's office,&quot;    &#xD;&#xA;from Medieval Latin *legatia*,  &#xD;&#xA;from Latin *legatus* &quot;ambassador, envoy,&quot; noun use of past participle of *legare* &quot;appoint by a last will, send as a legate&quot; (see [legate](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=legate&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sense of &quot;property left by will&quot; appeared in Scottish mid-15c. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#[legate (n.)](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=legate&amp;allowed_in_frame=0)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;mid-12c., &quot;authorized representative of the Pope,&quot; from Old French *legat* and directly from Latin *legatus* &quot;ambassador, envoy,&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;originally &quot;provided with a commission,&quot; past participle of *legare* &quot;send as a deputy, send with a commission, charge, bequeath,&quot; possibly literally &quot;engage by contract&quot; and related to *lex* (genitive *legis*) &quot;contract, law,&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;from PIE root [*leg-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*leg-?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_52572) (1) &quot;to collect, gather.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;General sense of &quot;ambassador, delegate, messenger of a state or authority&quot; is from late 14c. in English.&#xD;&#xA;[*leg- | Origin and meaning of root *leg- by Online Etymology Dictionary](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*leg-?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_52572)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##*leg- (1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proto-Indo-European root meaning &quot;to collect, gather,&quot; with derivatives meaning &quot;to speak&quot; on the notion of &quot;to gather words, to pick out words.&quot; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32813" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11163" RevisionGUID="68db09e0-711e-4dc5-9e3a-2b1af3e86a74" CreationDate="2019-07-19T05:48:06.313" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What semantic notions underlie lex (contract, law) and PIE *leg- 'to collect, gather'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32814" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11163" RevisionGUID="68db09e0-711e-4dc5-9e3a-2b1af3e86a74" CreationDate="2019-07-19T05:48:06.313" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|proto-indo-european|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2741" RevisionGUID="d296c8ee-6dfa-4f60-9fde-5b221b3d2890" CreationDate="2019-07-19T07:27:53.457" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2987 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What exactly is the difference between *extendere* and *intendere* in Latin? The difference does not seem to match that of the prefixes *ex-* and *in-*. How do the two prefixes produce the difference in meaning in these compound verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32816" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2741" RevisionGUID="d296c8ee-6dfa-4f60-9fde-5b221b3d2890" CreationDate="2019-07-19T07:27:53.457" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2987 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Understanding the difference between extendere and intendere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32817" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2741" RevisionGUID="d296c8ee-6dfa-4f60-9fde-5b221b3d2890" CreationDate="2019-07-19T07:27:53.457" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2987 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11163" RevisionGUID="fd886a63-700a-4d0c-8257-c7f5cc8c1045" CreationDate="2019-07-19T07:35:25.790" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1387 characters in body; edited title" Text="I was researching the etymology of '[legacy](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=legacy&amp;searchmode=none)' when I saw that *lex* was imputed to PIE _*leg-_.  Why? How does law or contracts relate to collecting and gathering?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymonline (see link above) mentions that _*leg-_ is a Proto-Indo-European root meaning &quot;to collect, gather.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32819" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11163" RevisionGUID="fd886a63-700a-4d0c-8257-c7f5cc8c1045" CreationDate="2019-07-19T07:35:25.790" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1387 characters in body; edited title" Text="What connects lex (contract, law) and PIE *leg- 'to collect, gather'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11164" RevisionGUID="dfbef6e1-fbc5-4b3e-a759-c6ea5e91d24a" CreationDate="2019-07-19T07:48:50.530" UserId="79" Text="Lewis and Short connect [*lex*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=lex&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) to [*ligo*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=ligo1&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) instead of [*lego*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DL%3Aentry+group%3D15%3Aentry%3Dlego2).&#xD;&#xA;Either way, the word *lex* seems to have no visible connection to collecting or binding or anything like that.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps a law was originally considered to be a collection of edicts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How a word like *lex* evolved to mean what it means is a good question, but can be too difficult to answer.&#xD;&#xA;The entry in L&amp;S makes no mention of any meanings that would be closer to an &quot;underlying meaning&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be yet another word that has cut its ties to its own etymology: its history does not dictate what it is but it has started an independent life of its own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11165" RevisionGUID="0a759d63-0bdd-4b4d-99a9-0ee7e63004cd" CreationDate="2019-07-19T08:15:08.703" UserId="831" Text="According to Gildersleeve and Lodge, §182.1, `‑ulus` is a regular former of adjectives from verbs. This particular formation indicates repeated action. They cite *querulus* and I could add *bibulus*. `‑bundus` is *un*repeated action (*cunctabundus*, *nauseabundus*). `‑bilis` (*amabilis*, *bibibilis*, *vendibilis*) is passive action, as also, I suspect, is `‑ulis` (*edulis*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole section is well worth reading. I used to envy Sanskrit for its systematic approach to verbal adjectives, but Latin, though more chaotic, has nothing to be ashamed of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, the phonetic coincidence with diminutives can give an &quot;atmosphere&quot; to certain `‑ulus` adjectives – a certain air of condescension – but no more than that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11164" RevisionGUID="793339fe-1c6f-4d27-aaa8-62fb3e6d0374" CreationDate="2019-07-19T08:19:18.050" UserId="79" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="Lewis and Short connect [*lex*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=lex&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) to [*ligo*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=ligo1&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) instead of [*lego*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DL%3Aentry+group%3D15%3Aentry%3Dlego2).&#xD;&#xA;Either way, the word *lex* seems to have no visible connection to collecting or binding or anything like that.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps a law was originally considered to be a collection of edicts or something that binds people?&#xD;&#xA;Either verb makes some sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How a word like *lex* evolved to mean what it means is a good question, but can be too difficult to answer.&#xD;&#xA;The entry in L&amp;S makes no mention of any meanings that would be closer to an &quot;underlying meaning&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be yet another word that has cut its ties to its own etymology: its history does not dictate what it is but it has started an independent life of its own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11167" RevisionGUID="442c3c79-0c4c-4925-a3e4-92e87e06d7f2" CreationDate="2019-07-19T08:54:08.597" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Please see the side-by-side definitions of [extendo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extendo#Latin) and [*intendo*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intendo#Latin) below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **in/ex-tension** obviously share the same root. Did the difference in prefixes engender and explain the differences in their meanings?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. How? To wit, how does *ex-* befit meanings 2-3 for *extendo*? Why couldn't *in-* have been used? What makes 'INcrease' (in 3) more *ex-* than *in-*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. How does *in-*  befit meanings 2-4 for *intendo*? What makes 'turning my attention to, aim, intend) more *in-* than *ex-*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/u12kV.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32827" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11167" RevisionGUID="442c3c79-0c4c-4925-a3e4-92e87e06d7f2" CreationDate="2019-07-19T08:54:08.597" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="'in-' vs 'ex-' in intendo vs extendō" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32828" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11167" RevisionGUID="442c3c79-0c4c-4925-a3e4-92e87e06d7f2" CreationDate="2019-07-19T08:54:08.597" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2741" RevisionGUID="436d6b0e-8484-4db1-a71a-f82b08dcbd7e" CreationDate="2019-07-19T09:02:10.853" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 82 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="1. How did 'ex/in-tēnsiō'  semantically specialize to mean the logical meanings below?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. 'ex/in-tēnsiō'  obviously share the same root, and differ merely in prefixes. Does the difference in prefix explain their meanings? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Does the difference in prefix explain why  'ex/in-tēnsiō' didn't mean the opposite? Why didn't 'ex/in-tēnsiō'  mean «in/ex-tēnsiō» respectively?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. To wit, why doesn't EXtension signify 'qualities or attributes that the term *connotes*'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Why doesn't INtension signify 'members of the class that the term *denotes*'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: Hurley, P. *A Concise Introduction to Logic* (2014 12 ed, but ∃ [2017 13 ed](https://www.amazon.com/Concise-Introduction-Logic-Patrick-Hurley/dp/1305958098/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1488002035&amp;sr=1-2)). p. 92 Middle. &lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  The previous section of this chapter explored the cognitive meaning of language in&#xD;&#xA;general. The cognitive meaning of terms comprises two kinds: intensional and extensional. The **intensional meaning**, or **intension**, consists of the qualities or attributes&#xD;&#xA;that the term *connotes*, and the **extensional meaning**, or **extension**, consists of the&#xD;&#xA;members of the class that the term *denotes*. For example, the intensional meaning of&#xD;&#xA;the term “cat” consists of the attributes of being furry, of having four legs, of moving&#xD;&#xA;in a certain way, of emitting certain sounds, and so on, while the extensional meaning&#xD;&#xA;consists of cats themselves—all the cats in the universe. The term connotes the attributes and denotes the cats.   &#xD;&#xA;  The intensional meaning of a term is otherwise known as the **connotation**, and the&#xD;&#xA;extensional meaning is known as the **denotation**. *Intension* and *extension* are roughly&#xD;&#xA;equivalent to the more modern terms *sense* and *reference*, respectively. Also, note that&#xD;&#xA;logic uses the terms *connotation* and *denotation* differently from the way they are used&#xD;&#xA;in grammar. In grammar, *connotation* refers to the subtle nuances of a word, whereas&#xD;&#xA;*denotation* refers to the word’s direct and specific meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Etymonline on 'intension (n.)'](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=intension) :     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;c. 1600, &quot;action of stretching;  increase of degree or force,&quot;      &#xD;&#xA;from Latin *intensionem/intentionem* (nominative *intensio/intentio*) &quot;a stretching, straining,&quot; figuratively &quot;exertion, effort,&quot; noun of action     &#xD;&#xA;from past participle stem of *intendere* in its literal sense of &quot;stretch out, strain&quot; (see [intend](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=intend&amp;allowed_in_frame=0), and compare [intention](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=intention&amp;allowed_in_frame=0), which has the figurative sense). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ [OED](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/97473?redirectedFrom=intension#eid) : ]        **Etymology:** &lt; Latin *intensiōn-em* stretching, straining, noun of action from *intendĕre* to stretch: see [intend n.](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/97441#eid220110), [intense adj.](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/97466#eid224758), and compare [intention n.](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/97492#eid229279), which is etymologically a doublet of this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32830" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2741" RevisionGUID="436d6b0e-8484-4db1-a71a-f82b08dcbd7e" CreationDate="2019-07-19T09:02:10.853" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 82 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What semantic notions underlie 'ex/in-tēnsiō' with the logical meanings of 'ex/in-tension'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32831" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2741" RevisionGUID="436d6b0e-8484-4db1-a71a-f82b08dcbd7e" CreationDate="2019-07-19T09:02:10.853" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 82 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|etymology|philosophy-terms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32832" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="2741" RevisionGUID="d4ceb93a-6cc7-406d-b624-96e5e7c84c1d" CreationDate="2019-07-19T09:09:05.617" UserId="79" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:37,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Greek - Area 51 Proposal&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11168" RevisionGUID="b938a8db-5e37-453c-aa78-a7650051ce1f" CreationDate="2019-07-19T12:28:59.853" UserId="1304" Text="In English, events _unfold._ In Italian, ___gli eventi prendono una piega,___ i.e. they _get a fold_ (usually ___una brutta piega,___ _a bad one,_ but that’s how the world goes...) The same thing is referenced by two opposite metaphors. &#xD;&#xA;Note that for specific persons or processes we have an almost exact English equivalent: ___ha preso una brutta piega___ is a possible traslation of _he/she/it took a bad turn._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not necessary to posit a convergence of the Germanic and the Romance roots. If vulgar Latin used the same metaphor as present-day Italian, the _plic(i)tum,_ just like its Italian cognate _piega,_ was the fold the events got, and so, by extension, a condition or state. This last step didn’t happen in Italian: we __cannot__ say ___*È in una brutta piega,___ but it happened in French (_en bon plit_ is mentioned by your source) and this is enough to explain the English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I’m afraid that the only way your question and my answer can be considered on-topic in this SE is under the title “what can be guessed about late vulgar Latin from Romance etymologies?”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32834" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11161" RevisionGUID="6d94f344-7e94-4eac-97e8-38d74d76b3a3" CreationDate="2019-07-19T12:35:16.463" UserId="1304" Comment="edited tags" Text="|etymology|english|vulgar-latin|french|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11168" RevisionGUID="7a8f5086-e1ed-4c8a-b5f6-72d1c8efb7ff" CreationDate="2019-07-19T12:36:19.360" UserId="1304" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="In English, events _unfold._ In Italian, ___gli eventi prendono una piega,___ i.e. they _get a fold_ (usually ___una brutta piega,___ _a bad one,_ but that’s how the world goes...) The same thing is referenced by two opposite metaphors. &#xD;&#xA;Note that for specific persons or processes we have an almost exact English equivalent: ___ha preso una brutta piega___ is a possible traslation of _he/she/it took a bad turn._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not necessary to posit a convergence of the Germanic and the Romance roots. If vulgar Latin used the same metaphor as present-day Italian, the _plic(i)tum,_ just like its Italian cognate _piega,_ was the fold the events got, and so, by extension, a condition or state. This last step didn’t happen in Italian: we __cannot__ say ___*È in una brutta piega,___ but it happened in French (_en bon plit_ is mentioned by your source) and this is enough to explain the English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I’m afraid that the only way your question and my answer can be considered on-topic in this SE is under the title “what can be guessed about late vulgar Latin from Romance etymologies?”. Therefore, I’ve added the `vulgar-latin` tag to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11169" RevisionGUID="fee444ca-22af-42e9-8818-f92631ec5906" CreationDate="2019-07-19T18:31:03.893" UserId="3248" Text="How is the gerundive construction to be analyzed in the following example? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotae cum ficis **certandum** habent_. (Plin. _Ep._ 1,8) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Dates have to fight with figs'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you provide me with some similar examples of &quot;(in)transitive&quot; HAVE constructions in (especially, not Late but Early and Classical) Latin? (NB: I write &quot;(in)transitive&quot; because there is no explicit NP object there. But see below). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is well-known, there is an important parallelism between transitive _habere_ + accusative and intransitive _esse_ + dative constructions, which holds in different domains of Latin grammar. E.g., cf. _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ (Caes. _Bell. Gall._ 1,15) with _Caesari equitatus coactus erat_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the abovementioned parallelism, the nominative subject _cariotae_ can also be converted into the so-called &quot;_dativus auctoris_&quot; or &quot;dative of agent&quot;: _cariotis_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotis cum ficis certandum est_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This second construction is clearly impersonal (cf. the typical impersonal passive construction _Pugnatum est acriter_; see the previous post: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10809/nunc-est-bibendum-gerund-or-gerundive ) but what about the object of the transitive verb _habent_ in the first example from Pliny? Assuming that _certandum_ is gerundive (and hence a verbal adjective), how should one analyze the (null) object of transitive _habent_ in Pliny's example?. Basically, we do have &quot;(null) expletive subjects&quot; (e.g., http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Expletive_noun_phrase ) but do we have &quot;(null) expletive **objects**&quot; as well? If so, syntactically speaking, Latin would be quite original in this sense. How is the grammatical construction _certandum habent_ above to be analyzed? I do know what it means but I do not know how to analyze it properly. My first analysis is that in Pliny's example above there is a null expletive object pronoun involved (which would be the counterpart of the null expletive subject pronoun in the impersonal construction with _certandum est_) and _certandum_ is then predicated of this null object pronoun in Pliny's example. In contrast, notice that the analysis of _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ is very transparent: i.e., the passive participle _coactum_ is predicatively applied to the direct object of the transitive verb _habebat_, namely, _equitatum_.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB I: the Latin construction at issue developed into a **grammaticalized** verbal periphrasis of obligation, which is, for example, formed in Catalan with '**haver**' de' + infinitive (cf. also Engl. above: _Dates **have** to fight with figs_). Given this, one could claim that in Latin the very same happens (i.e., the construction in Latin is fully grammaticalized like in Romance and English) but I don't think so. My intuition is that the verb _habere_ in the Latin construction above is **not** as (strongly) grammaticalized as in Romance and English. So a different analysis is involved.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB II: as for so-called &quot;expletive pronouns&quot;, here is a very brief summary/exemplification. E.g., the pronoun _it_ in the following example from English is a typical example of &quot;expletive subject&quot;: _It seems that John is ill._ In so-called non-pro-drop languages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-drop_language ), the expletive subject is **null**: e.g., Cat. _Sembla que en Joan està malalt_. Latin is like Catalan, Italian or Spanish, and is unlike English or French, where the syntactic position for the subject must be typically filled even if it is meaningless: e.g., cf. _*(It) is raining_/ Fr. _*(Il) pleut_ with Lat. _Pluit_ / Cat. _Plou_ / It. _Piove_ / Sp. _Llueve_.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11169" RevisionGUID="fee444ca-22af-42e9-8818-f92631ec5906" CreationDate="2019-07-19T18:31:03.893" UserId="3248" Text="Expletive objects in Latin? Cariotae cum ficis certandum habent (Plin. Ep. 1,8)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32838" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11169" RevisionGUID="fee444ca-22af-42e9-8818-f92631ec5906" CreationDate="2019-07-19T18:31:03.893" UserId="3248" Text="|classical-latin|syntax|early-latin|gerundive|impersonal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11169" RevisionGUID="d7cdbb7f-f0c3-404d-b2fc-04320ef21b92" CreationDate="2019-07-19T18:46:06.447" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar &amp; format" Text="How is the gerundive construction to be analyzed in the following example? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotae cum ficis **certandum** habent_. (Plin. _Ep._ 1,8) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Dates have to fight with figs'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please provide me with some similar examples of &quot;(in)transitive&quot; HAVE constructions in (especially, not Late but Early and Classical) Latin? (NB: I write &quot;(in)transitive&quot; because there is no explicit NP object there. But see below). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is well-known, there is an important parallelism between transitive _habere_ + accusative and intransitive _esse_ + dative constructions, which holds in different domains of Latin grammar. E.g., cf. _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ (Caes. _Bell. Gall._ 1,15) with _Caesari equitatus coactus erat_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the abovementioned parallelism, the nominative subject _cariotae_ can also be converted into the so-called &quot;_dativus auctoris_&quot; or &quot;dative of agent&quot;: _cariotis_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotis cum ficis certandum est_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This second construction is clearly impersonal (cf. the typical impersonal passive construction _Pugnatum est acriter_; see the previous post: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10809/nunc-est-bibendum-gerund-or-gerundive ) but what about the object of the transitive verb _habent_ in the first example from Pliny? Assuming that _certandum_ is gerundive (and hence a verbal adjective), how should one analyze the (null) object of transitive _habent_ in Pliny's example?. Basically, we do have &quot;(null) expletive subjects&quot; (e.g., http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Expletive_noun_phrase ) but do we have &quot;(null) expletive **objects**&quot; as well? If so, syntactically speaking, Latin would be quite original in this sense. How is the grammatical construction _certandum habent_ above to be analyzed? I know what Pliny's example means but I do not know how to analyze it properly. My preliminary analysis is that in this example there is a null expletive object pronoun involved (which would be the counterpart of the null expletive subject pronoun in the impersonal construction with _certandum est_) and _certandum_ is then predicated of this null object pronoun in Pliny's example. In contrast, notice that the analysis of _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ is very transparent: i.e., the passive participle _coactum_ is predicatively applied to the direct object of the transitive verb _habebat_, namely, _equitatum_.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB I: the Latin construction at issue developed into a **grammaticalized** verbal periphrasis of obligation, which is, for example, formed in Catalan with '**haver**' de' + infinitive (cf. also Engl. above: _Dates **have** to fight with figs_). Given this, one could simply claim that in Latin the very same happens (i.e., the construction in Latin is fully grammaticalized like in Romance and English) but I don't think so. My intuition is that the verb _habere_ in the Latin construction above is **not** as (strongly) grammaticalized as in Romance and English. So a different analysis is involved.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB II: as for so-called &quot;expletive pronouns&quot;, here is a very brief summary/exemplification. E.g., the pronoun _it_ in the following example from English is a typical example of &quot;expletive subject&quot;: _It seems that John is ill._ In so-called null subject languages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-drop_language ), the expletive subject is **null**: e.g., Cat. _Sembla que en Joan està malalt_. Latin is like Catalan, Italian or Spanish, and is unlike English or French, where the syntactic position for the subject must be typically filled even if it is meaningless: e.g., cf. _*(It) is raining_/ Fr. _*(Il) pleut_ with Lat. _Pluit_ / Cat. _Plou_ / It. _Piove_ / Sp. _Llueve_.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32840" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11169" RevisionGUID="d7cdbb7f-f0c3-404d-b2fc-04320ef21b92" CreationDate="2019-07-19T18:46:06.447" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar &amp; format" Text="Expletive objects in Latin? &quot;Cariotae cum ficis certandum habent&quot; (Plin. Ep. 1,8)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11169" RevisionGUID="03a7f0d9-a11e-4eee-95da-74231be8a02c" CreationDate="2019-07-19T19:06:07.263" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar and clarification" Text="How is the gerundive construction to be analyzed in the following example? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotae cum ficis **certandum** habent_. (Plin. _Ep._ 1,8) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Dates have to fight with figs'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please provide me with some similar examples of &quot;(in)transitive&quot; HAVE constructions in (especially, not Late but Early and Classical) Latin? (NB: I write &quot;(in)transitive&quot; because there is no explicit NP object there. But see below). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is well-known, there is an important parallelism between transitive _habere_ + accusative and intransitive _esse_ + dative constructions, which holds in different domains of Latin grammar. E.g., cf. _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ (Caes. _Bell. Gall._ 1,15) with _Caesari equitatus coactus erat_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the abovementioned parallelism, the nominative subject _cariotae_ can also be converted into the so-called &quot;_dativus auctoris_&quot; or &quot;dative of agent&quot;: _cariotis_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotis cum ficis certandum est_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This second construction is clearly impersonal (cf. the typical impersonal passive construction _Pugnatum est acriter_; see the previous post: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10809/nunc-est-bibendum-gerund-or-gerundive ) but what about the object of the transitive verb _habent_ in the first example from Pliny? Assuming that _certandum_ is gerundive (and hence a verbal adjective), how should one analyze the (null) object of transitive _habent_ in Pliny's example?. Basically, we do have &quot;null expletive subjects&quot; in Latin (e.g., cf. Lat. _Pluit_ vs. Engl. _*(It) is raining_. Vid.  http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Expletive_noun_phrase ) but do we have &quot;null expletive **objects**&quot; as well? How is the grammatical construction _certandum habent_ above to be analyzed? I know what Pliny's example means but I do not know how to analyze it properly. My preliminary analysis is that in this example there is a null expletive object pronoun involved (which would be the counterpart of the null expletive subject pronoun in the impersonal construction above with _certandum est_) and _certandum_ is then predicated of this null object pronoun in Pliny's example. But I'm not entirely convinced by this analysis because positing a null expletive object pronoun here could be said to be too stipulative: in which other constructions should one posit such a null expletive object pronoun?. In striking contrast to that, notice that the analysis of _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ is very transparent: i.e., the passive participle _coactum_ is predicatively applied to the direct object of the transitive verb _habebat_, namely, _equitatum_.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB I: the Latin construction at issue developed into a **grammaticalized** verbal periphrasis of obligation, which is, for example, formed in Catalan with '**haver**' de' + infinitive (cf. also Engl. above: _Dates **have** to fight with figs_). Given this, one could simply claim that in Latin the very same happens (i.e., the construction in Latin is fully grammaticalized like in Romance and English) but I don't think so. My intuition is that the verb _habere_ in the Latin construction above is **not** as (strongly) grammaticalized as in Romance and English. So a different analysis is involved.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB II: as for so-called &quot;expletive pronouns&quot;, here is a very brief summary/exemplification. E.g., the pronoun _it_ in the following example from English is a typical example of &quot;expletive subject&quot;: _**It** seems that John is ill._ In so-called &quot;null subject languages&quot; (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-drop_language ), the expletive subject is **null**: e.g., Cat. _Sembla que en Joan està malalt_. Latin is like Catalan, Italian or Spanish, and is unlike English or French, where the syntactic position for the subject must be typically filled even if it is meaningless: e.g., cf. _*(It) is raining_/ Fr. _*(Il) pleut_ with Lat. _Pluit_ / Cat. _Plou_ / It. _Piove_ / Sp. _Llueve_.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11170" RevisionGUID="9aad7852-2db8-4d59-a78f-de363f0d41a6" CreationDate="2019-07-19T19:15:48.883" UserId="79" Text="This is a partial answer, providing more examples of similar uses of *habere*.&#xD;&#xA;Similar constructions are found in a number of places, but I had never seen them before.&#xD;&#xA;The use is often transitive, but there are also intransitive attestations.&#xD;&#xA;Here are some picks from a corpus search:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Terentius, Phormio 361&amp;ndash;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *nam iam adulescenti nil est quod suscenseam,	 &#xD;&#xA;sĭ ĭllum minu' norat; quippe homo iam grandior,	 &#xD;&#xA;pauper, quoĭ opera vita erat, ruri fere	 &#xD;&#xA;se continebat; ibi **agrum** de nostro patre  	&#xD;&#xA;**colendum habebat**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The presence of *agrum* makes this different from your Pliny example, but I still find this a worthwhile instance for comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Caesar, Bellum Civile 3.57, 3.84&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &amp;hellip; *ut praeter auctoritatem vires quoque **ad coercendum haberet***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &amp;hellip; *quidnam Pompeius propositi aut voluntatis **ad dimicandum haberet***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; These are crucially different due to the preposition *ad* with the gerund.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of construction is quite common, but I would consider it a distraction and will not list more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Columella, De Re Rustica 1.4, 2.9, 2.14, 12.3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *in uniuersum tamen quasi **testificandum** atque saepius **praedicandum habeo**, quod&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ***Illud** deinceps **praecipiendum habeo**, ut demessis segetibus iam in area futuro semini consulamus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ***illud** quoque **praecipiendum habeo**, stercus omne, quod&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ***Illud** uero etiam in perpetuum **custodiendum habebit***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This piece of literature seems to be full of this construction, at least in comparison to most other books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Pomponius Mela, De Chorographia 2.29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *sed ea magis **id memorandum habet**, quod&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; By this point it is clear that this construction is pretty widespread.&#xD;&#xA;Not all authors make use of it, but many do.&#xD;&#xA;However, I found far fewer examples of a gerund(ive) with *habere* without an object.&#xD;&#xA;The remaining examples shall be those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Plinius, Naturalis Historia 10.154, 31.35&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Caesare ex Nerone gravida, cum parere virilem sexum admodum cuperet, hoc usa est puellari augurio, ovum in sinu fovendo atque, cum **deponendum haberet**, nutrici per sinum tradendo, ne intermitteretur tepor; nec falso augurata proditur.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Item **confitendum habent** nec statim amnium utilissimas esse, sicuti nec torrentium ullius, lacusque plurimos salubres.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It appears that Pliny is more fond of this construction than many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Quintilianus, Declamationes Minores 368&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Cum patre nimirum **mendicandum habet**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is very similar to your example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Seneca, Controversiae 2.7, 10.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Post tantos inpudicitiae quaestus si tacere possum, **confitendum habeo** hac me causa afuisse, ut in accessionem patrimoni peregrinando cum uxore certarem*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ***Pugnandum habebam** non imperatori tantum sed patri.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In the first example the ACI *me afuisse* is a kind of an object, but a different kind than encountered previously.&#xD;&#xA;The second one is a very clear case with no object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. Frontinus, Strategemata 1.4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Idem, tenentibus angustias Thebanis, **per quas transeundum habebat**&amp;hellip;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11169" RevisionGUID="5c05cb14-0ed5-4414-84d8-2d1336333f84" CreationDate="2019-07-19T19:17:20.170" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar and clarification" Text="How is the gerundive construction to be analyzed in the following example? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotae cum ficis **certandum** habent_. (Plin. _Ep._ 1,8) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Dates have to fight with figs'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please provide me with some similar examples of &quot;(in)transitive&quot; HAVE constructions in (especially, not Late but Early and Classical) Latin? (NB: I write &quot;(in)transitive&quot; because there is no explicit NP object there. But see below). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is well-known, there is an important parallelism between transitive _habere_ + accusative and intransitive _esse_ + dative constructions, which holds in different domains of Latin grammar. E.g., cf. _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ (Caes. _Bell. Gall._ 1,15) with _Caesari equitatus coactus erat_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the abovementioned parallelism, the nominative subject _cariotae_ can also be converted into the so-called &quot;_dativus auctoris_&quot; or &quot;dative of agent&quot;: _cariotis_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotis cum ficis certandum est_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This second construction is clearly impersonal (cf. the typical impersonal passive construction _Pugnatum est acriter_; see the previous post: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10809/nunc-est-bibendum-gerund-or-gerundive ) but what about the object of the transitive verb _habent_ in the first example above from Pliny? Assuming that _certandum_ is gerundive (and hence a verbal adjective), how should one analyze the (null) object of transitive _habent_ in Pliny's example? Basically, we do have &quot;null expletive subjects&quot; in Latin (e.g., cf. Lat. _Pluit_ vs. Engl. _*(It) is raining_. Vid.  http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Expletive_noun_phrase // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_pronoun ) but do we have &quot;null expletive **objects**&quot; as well? How is the grammatical construction _certandum habent_ above to be analyzed? I know what Pliny's example means but I do not know how to analyze it properly. My preliminary analysis would be that in this example there is a null expletive object pronoun involved (which would be the counterpart of the null expletive subject pronoun in the impersonal construction above with _certandum est_) and the verbal adjective _certandum_ is then predicated of this null object pronoun in Pliny's example. But I'm not entirely convinced by this analysis because positing a null expletive object pronoun here can be said to be too stipulative: in which other constructions should one posit such a null expletive object pronoun?. In striking contrast to that, notice that the analysis of _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ is very transparent: i.e., the passive participle _coactum_ is predicatively applied to the direct object of the transitive verb _habebat_, namely, _equitatum_.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: the Latin construction at issue developed into a **grammaticalized** verbal periphrasis of obligation, which is, for example, formed in Catalan with '**haver**' de' + infinitive (cf. also Engl. above: _Dates **have** to fight with figs_). Given this, one could simply claim that in Latin the very same happens (i.e., the construction in Latin is fully grammaticalized like in Romance and English) but I don't think so. My intuition is that the verb _habere_ in the Latin construction above is **not** as (strongly) grammaticalized as in Romance and English. So a different analysis is involved.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11169" RevisionGUID="938927a8-c5b6-4275-bce4-32c32f0b9ad1" CreationDate="2019-07-19T20:20:09.143" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="How is the gerundive construction to be analyzed in the following example? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotae cum ficis **certandum** habent_. (Plin. _Ep._ 1,8) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Dates have to fight with figs'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please provide me with some similar examples of &quot;(in)transitive&quot; HAVE constructions in (especially, not Late but Early and Classical) Latin? (NB I: I write &quot;(in)transitive&quot; because there is no explicit NP object there. But see below). NB II: these (in)transitive examples are different from the typical ones, the clearly transitive ones where there is an explicit object: e.g., see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9370/how-many-types-of-so-called-predicative-gerundives-can-be-differentiated-in-la  Importantly, as pointed out by Joonas below, the transitive examples are by far more frequent than the (in)transitive examples at issue here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is well-known, there is an important parallelism between transitive _habere_ + accusative and intransitive _esse_ + dative constructions, which holds in different domains of Latin grammar. E.g., cf. _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ (Caes. _Bell. Gall._ 1,15) with _Caesari equitatus coactus erat_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the abovementioned parallelism, the nominative subject _cariotae_ can also be converted into the so-called &quot;_dativus auctoris_&quot; or &quot;dative of agent&quot;: _cariotis_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotis cum ficis certandum est_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This second construction is clearly impersonal (cf. the typical impersonal passive construction _Pugnatum est acriter_; see the previous post: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10809/nunc-est-bibendum-gerund-or-gerundive ) but what about the object of the transitive verb _habent_ in the first example above from Pliny? Assuming that _certandum_ is gerundive (and hence a verbal adjective), how should one analyze the (null) object of transitive _habent_ in Pliny's example? Basically, we do have &quot;null expletive subjects&quot; in Latin (e.g., cf. Lat. _Pluit_ vs. Engl. _*(It) is raining_. Vid.  http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Expletive_noun_phrase // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_pronoun ) but do we have &quot;null expletive **objects**&quot; as well? How is the grammatical construction _certandum habent_ above to be analyzed? I know what Pliny's example means but I do not know how to analyze it properly. My preliminary analysis would be that in this example there is a null expletive object pronoun involved (which would be the counterpart of the null expletive subject pronoun in the impersonal construction above with _certandum est_) and the verbal adjective _certandum_ is then predicated of this null object pronoun in Pliny's example. But I'm not entirely convinced by this analysis because positing a null expletive object pronoun here can be said to be too stipulative: in which other constructions should one posit such a null expletive object pronoun?. In striking contrast to that, notice that the analysis of _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ is very transparent: i.e., the passive participle _coactum_ is predicatively applied to the direct object of the transitive verb _habebat_, namely, _equitatum_.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: the Latin construction at issue developed into a **grammaticalized** verbal periphrasis of obligation, which is, for example, formed in Catalan with '**haver**' de' + infinitive (cf. also Engl. above: _Dates **have** to fight with figs_). Given this, one could simply claim that in Latin the very same happens (i.e., the construction in Latin is fully grammaticalized like in Romance and English) but I don't think so. My intuition is that the verb _habere_ in the Latin construction above is **not** as (strongly) grammaticalized as in Romance and English. So a different analysis is involved.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11169" RevisionGUID="82f21a16-8a74-4693-9e9a-35752df3c156" CreationDate="2019-07-19T20:34:04.993" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar and clarification" Text="How is the gerundive construction to be analyzed in the following example? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotae cum ficis **certandum** habent_. (Plin. _Ep._ 1,8) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Dates have to fight with figs'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please provide me with some similar examples of &quot;(in)transitive&quot; **HAVE** constructions in (especially, not Late but Early and Classical) Latin? (NB I: I write &quot;(in)transitive&quot; because there is **no** explicit NP object there. NB II: these &quot;(in)transitive&quot; examples are different from the typical ones, the clearly transitive ones where there is an explicit object: e.g., see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9370/how-many-types-of-so-called-predicative-gerundives-can-be-differentiated-in-la  Importantly, as pointed out by Joonas below, the transitive examples are by far more frequent than the &quot;(in)transitive&quot; ones at issue here).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is well-known, there is an important parallelism between transitive _habere_ + accusative and intransitive _esse_ + dative constructions, which holds in different domains of Latin grammar. E.g., cf. _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ (Caes. _Bell. Gall._ 1,15) with _Caesari equitatus coactus erat_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the abovementioned parallelism, the nominative subject _cariotae_ can also be converted into the so-called &quot;_dativus auctoris_&quot; or &quot;dative of agent&quot;: _cariotis_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotis cum ficis certandum est_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This second construction is clearly impersonal (cf. the typical impersonal passive construction _Pugnatum est acriter_; see the previous post: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10809/nunc-est-bibendum-gerund-or-gerundive ) but what about the object of the transitive verb _habent_ in the first example above from Pliny? Assuming that _certandum_ is gerundive (and hence a verbal adjective), how should one analyze the (null) object of transitive _habent_ in Pliny's example? Basically, we do have &quot;null expletive subjects&quot; in Latin (e.g., cf. Lat. _Pluit_ vs. Engl. _*(It) is raining_. Vid.  http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Expletive_noun_phrase // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_pronoun ) but do we have &quot;null expletive **objects**&quot; as well? How is the grammatical construction _certandum habent_ above to be analyzed? I know what Pliny's example means but I do not know how to analyze it properly. My preliminary analysis would be that in this example there is a null expletive object pronoun involved (which would be the counterpart of the null expletive subject pronoun in the impersonal construction above with _certandum est_) and the verbal adjective _certandum_ is then predicated of this null object pronoun in Pliny's example. But I'm not entirely convinced by this analysis because positing a null expletive object pronoun here can be said to be too stipulative: in which other constructions should one posit such a null expletive object pronoun? In striking contrast to that, notice that the analysis of _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ is indeed very transparent: i.e., the passive participle _coactum_ is predicatively applied to the direct object of the transitive verb _habebat_, namely, _equitatum_.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: the Latin construction at issue developed into a **grammaticalized** verbal periphrasis of obligation, which is, for example, formed in Catalan with '**haver**' de' + infinitive (cf. also Engl. above: _Dates **have** to fight with figs_). Given this, one could simply claim that in Latin the very same happens (i.e., the construction in Latin is fully grammaticalized like in Romance and English) but I don't think so. My intuition is that the verb _habere_ in the Latin construction above is **not** as (strongly) grammaticalized as in Romance and English. So a different analysis is involved.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11169" RevisionGUID="108e0911-9056-4c8c-bc6d-ce775a70034f" CreationDate="2019-07-19T21:16:54.083" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="How is the gerundive construction to be analyzed in the following example? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotae cum ficis **certandum** habent_. (Plin. _Ep._ 1,8) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Dates have to fight with figs'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please provide me with some similar examples of &quot;(in)transitive&quot; **HAVE** constructions in (especially, not Late but Early and Classical) Latin? (NB I: I write &quot;(in)transitive&quot; because there is **no** explicit NP object there. NB II: these &quot;(in)transitive&quot; examples are different from the typical ones, the clearly transitive ones where there is an explicit object: e.g., see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9370/how-many-types-of-so-called-predicative-gerundives-can-be-differentiated-in-la  Importantly, as pointed out by Joonas below, the transitive examples are by far more frequent than the &quot;(in)transitive&quot; ones at issue here).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is well-known, there is an important parallelism between transitive _habere_ + accusative and intransitive _esse_ + dative constructions, which holds in different domains of Latin grammar. E.g., cf. _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ (Caes. _Bell. Gall._ 1,15) with _Caesari equitatus coactus erat_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the abovementioned parallelism, the nominative subject _cariotae_ can also be converted into the so-called &quot;_dativus auctoris_&quot; or &quot;dative of agent&quot;: _cariotis_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotis cum ficis certandum est_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This second construction is clearly impersonal (cf. the typical impersonal passive construction _Pugnatum est acriter_; see the previous post: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10809/nunc-est-bibendum-gerund-or-gerundive ) but what about the object of the transitive verb _habent_ in the first example above from Pliny? Assuming that _certandum_ is gerundive (and hence a verbal adjective), how should one analyze the (null) object of transitive _habent_ in Pliny's example? Basically, we do have &quot;null expletive subjects&quot; in Latin (e.g., cf. Lat. _Pluit_ and Engl. _*(It) is raining_ or cf. Lat. _Pugnatum est acriter_ and _*(It) must be fought fiercely_  Vid.  http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Expletive_noun_phrase // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_pronoun ) but do we have &quot;null expletive **objects**&quot; as well? How is the grammatical construction _certandum habent_ above to be analyzed? I know what Pliny's example means but I do not know how to analyze it properly. My preliminary analysis would be that in this example there is a null expletive object pronoun involved (which would be the counterpart of the null expletive subject pronoun in the impersonal construction above with _certandum est_) and the verbal adjective _certandum_ is then predicated of this null object pronoun in Pliny's example. But I'm not entirely convinced by this analysis because positing a null expletive object pronoun here can be said to be too stipulative: in which other constructions should one posit such a null expletive object pronoun? In striking contrast to that, notice that the analysis of _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ is indeed very transparent: i.e., the passive participle _coactum_ is predicatively applied to the direct object of the transitive verb _habebat_, namely, _equitatum_.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: the Latin construction at issue developed into a **grammaticalized** verbal periphrasis of obligation, which is, for example, formed in Catalan with '**haver**' de' + infinitive (cf. also Engl. above: _Dates **have** to fight with figs_). Given this, one could simply claim that in Latin the very same happens (i.e., the construction in Latin is fully grammaticalized like in Romance and English) but I don't think so. My intuition is that the verb _habere_ in the Latin construction above is **not** as (strongly) grammaticalized as in Romance and English. So a different analysis is involved.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32847" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11169" RevisionGUID="108e0911-9056-4c8c-bc6d-ce775a70034f" CreationDate="2019-07-19T21:16:54.083" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="Null expletive objects in Latin? &quot;Cariotae cum ficis certandum habent&quot; (Plin. Ep. 1,8)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11169" RevisionGUID="8bccf21d-d946-4c93-82fd-d3f4c83727cd" CreationDate="2019-07-19T21:27:57.507" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar" Text="How is the gerundive construction to be analyzed in the following example? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotae cum ficis **certandum** habent_. (Plin. _Ep._ 1,8) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Dates have to fight with figs'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please provide me with some similar examples of &quot;(in)transitive&quot; **HAVE** constructions in (especially, not Late but Early and Classical) Latin? (NB I: I write &quot;(in)transitive&quot; because there is **no** explicit NP object there. NB II: these &quot;(in)transitive&quot; examples are different from the typical ones, the clearly transitive ones where there is an explicit object: e.g., see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9370/how-many-types-of-so-called-predicative-gerundives-can-be-differentiated-in-la  Importantly, as pointed out by Joonas below, the transitive examples are by far more frequent than the &quot;(in)transitive&quot; ones at issue here).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is well-known, there is an important parallelism between transitive _habere_ + accusative and intransitive _esse_ + dative constructions, which holds in different domains of Latin grammar. E.g., cf. _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ (Caes. _Bell. Gall._ 1,15) with _Caesari equitatus coactus erat_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the abovementioned parallelism, the nominative subject _cariotae_ can also be converted into the so-called &quot;_dativus auctoris_&quot; or &quot;dative of agent&quot;: _cariotis_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotis cum ficis certandum est_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This second construction is clearly impersonal (cf. the typical impersonal passive construction _Pugnatum est acriter_; see the previous post: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10809/nunc-est-bibendum-gerund-or-gerundive ) but what about the object of the transitive verb _habent_ in the first example above from Pliny? Assuming that _certandum_ is gerundive (and hence a verbal adjective), how should one analyze the (null) object of transitive _habent_ in Pliny's example? Basically, we do have &quot;null expletive subjects&quot; in Latin (e.g., cf. Lat. _Pluit_ and Engl. _*(It) is raining_ or cf. Lat. _Pugnatum est acriter_ and _*(It) was fought fiercely_  Vid.  http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Expletive_noun_phrase // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_pronoun ) but do we have &quot;null expletive **objects**&quot; as well? How is the grammatical construction _certandum habent_ above to be analyzed? I know what Pliny's example means but I do not know how to analyze it properly. My preliminary analysis would be that in this example there is a null expletive object pronoun involved (which would be the counterpart of the null expletive subject pronoun in the impersonal construction above with _certandum est_) and the verbal adjective _certandum_ is then predicated of this null object pronoun in Pliny's example. But I'm not entirely convinced by this analysis because positing a null expletive object pronoun here can be said to be too stipulative: in which other constructions should one posit such a null expletive object pronoun? In striking contrast to that, notice that the analysis of _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ is indeed very transparent: i.e., the passive participle _coactum_ is predicatively applied to the direct object of the transitive verb _habebat_, namely, _equitatum_.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: the Latin construction at issue developed into a **grammaticalized** verbal periphrasis of obligation, which is, for example, formed in Catalan with '**haver**' de' + infinitive (cf. also Engl. above: _Dates **have** to fight with figs_). Given this, one could simply claim that in Latin the very same happens (i.e., the construction in Latin is fully grammaticalized like in Romance and English) but I don't think so. My intuition is that the verb _habere_ in the Latin construction above is **not** as (strongly) grammaticalized as in Romance and English. So a different analysis is involved.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11169" RevisionGUID="9c763102-5eba-4e45-b68c-cc9dabe8ba70" CreationDate="2019-07-19T21:46:39.497" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="How is the gerundive construction to be analyzed in the following example? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotae cum ficis **certandum** habent_. (Plin. _Ep._ 1,8) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Dates have to fight with figs'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please provide me with some similar examples of &quot;(in)transitive&quot; **HAVE** constructions in Latin? Here I write &quot;(in)transitive&quot; because there is **no** explicit NP object. NB: these &quot;(in)transitive&quot; examples are different from the typical (and, indeed, expected!) ones, namely, the clearly transitive ones where there is an explicit object: e.g., see the following example, included in a previous related question (https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9370/how-many-types-of-so-called-predicative-gerundives-can-be-differentiated-in-la ): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ibi **agrum** de nostro patre **colendum** habebat._ (Ter. _Phorm._ 305)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;‘He had there a piece of land from my father to farm’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importantly, as pointed out by Joonas below, these transitive examples of predicative gerundive  are by far more frequent than the &quot;(in)transitive&quot; ones at issue here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is well-known, there is an important parallelism between transitive _habere_ + accusative and intransitive _esse_ + dative constructions, which holds in different domains of Latin grammar. E.g., cf. _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ (Caes. _Bell. Gall._ 1,15) with _Caesari equitatus coactus erat_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the abovementioned parallelism, the nominative subject _cariotae_ can also be converted into the so-called &quot;_dativus auctoris_&quot; or &quot;dative of agent&quot;: _cariotis_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotis cum ficis certandum est_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This second construction is clearly impersonal (cf. the typical impersonal passive construction _Pugnatum est acriter_; see the previous post: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10809/nunc-est-bibendum-gerund-or-gerundive ) but what about the object of the transitive verb _habent_ in the first example above from Pliny? Assuming that _certandum_ is gerundive (and hence a verbal adjective), how should one analyze the (null) object of transitive _habent_ in Pliny's example? Basically, we do have &quot;null expletive subjects&quot; in Latin (e.g., cf. Lat. _Pluit_ and Engl. _*(It) is raining_ or cf. Lat. _Pugnatum est acriter_ and _*(It) was fought fiercely_  Vid.  http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Expletive_noun_phrase // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_pronoun ) but do we have &quot;null expletive **objects**&quot; as well? How is the grammatical construction _certandum habent_ above to be analyzed? I know what Pliny's example means but I do not know how to analyze it properly. My preliminary analysis would be that in this example there is a null expletive object pronoun involved (which would be the counterpart of the null expletive subject pronoun in the impersonal construction above with _certandum est_) and the verbal adjective _certandum_ is then predicated of this null object pronoun in Pliny's example. But I'm not entirely convinced by this analysis because positing a null expletive object pronoun here can be said to be too stipulative: in which other constructions should one posit such a null expletive object pronoun? In striking contrast to that, notice that the analysis of _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ is indeed very transparent: i.e., the passive participle _coactum_ is predicatively applied to the direct object of the transitive verb _habebat_, namely, _equitatum_.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: the Latin construction at issue developed into a **grammaticalized** verbal periphrasis of obligation, which is, for example, formed in Catalan with '**haver**' de' + infinitive (cf. also Engl. above: _Dates **have** to fight with figs_). Given this, one could simply claim that in Latin the very same happens (i.e., the construction in Latin is fully grammaticalized like in Romance and English) but I don't think so. My intuition is that the verb _habere_ in the Latin construction above is **not** as (strongly) grammaticalized as in Romance and English. So a different analysis is involved.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11169" RevisionGUID="40e488da-2736-40b1-8c35-6538306574a3" CreationDate="2019-07-19T22:05:53.977" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar and clarification" Text="How is the gerundive construction to be analyzed in the following example? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotae cum ficis **certandum** habent_. (Plin. _Ep._ 1,8) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Dates have to fight with figs'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please provide me with some similar examples of &quot;(in)transitive&quot; **HAVE** constructions in Latin? Here I write &quot;(in)transitive&quot; because there is **no** explicit NP object. NB: these &quot;(in)transitive&quot; examples are different from the typical (and, indeed, expected!) ones, namely, the clearly transitive ones where there is an explicit object: e.g., see the following example, included in a previous related question (https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9370/how-many-types-of-so-called-predicative-gerundives-can-be-differentiated-in-la ): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ibi **agrum** de nostro patre **colendum** habebat._ (Ter. _Phorm._ 364-365)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;‘He had there a piece of land from my father to farm’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importantly, as pointed out by Joonas below, these transitive examples of predicative gerundive  are by far more frequent than the &quot;(in)transitive&quot; ones at issue here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is well-known, there is an important parallelism between transitive _habere_ + accusative and intransitive _esse_ + dative constructions, which holds in different domains of Latin grammar. E.g., cf. _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ (Caes. _Bell. Gall._ 1,15) with _Caesari equitatus coactus erat_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the abovementioned parallelism, the nominative subject _cariotae_ can also be converted into the so-called &quot;_dativus auctoris_&quot; or &quot;dative of agent&quot;: _cariotis_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotis cum ficis certandum est_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This second construction is clearly impersonal (cf. the typical impersonal passive construction _Pugnatum est acriter_; see the previous post: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10809/nunc-est-bibendum-gerund-or-gerundive ) but what about the object of the transitive verb _habent_ in the first example above from Pliny? Assuming that _certandum_ is gerundive (and hence a verbal adjective), how should one analyze the (null) object of transitive _habent_ in Pliny's example? Basically, we do have &quot;null expletive subjects&quot; in Latin (e.g., cf. Lat. _Pluit_ and Engl. _*(It) is raining_ or cf. Lat. _Pugnatum est acriter_ and _*(It) was fought fiercely_  Vid.  http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Expletive_noun_phrase // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_pronoun ) but do we have &quot;null expletive **objects**&quot; as well? How is the grammatical construction _certandum habent_ above to be analyzed? I know what Pliny's example means but I do not know how to analyze it properly. My preliminary analysis would be that in this example there is a null expletive object pronoun involved (which would be the counterpart of the null expletive subject pronoun in the impersonal construction above with _certandum est_) and the verbal adjective _certandum_ is then predicated of this null object pronoun in Pliny's example. But I'm not entirely convinced by this analysis because positing a null expletive object pronoun here can be said to be too stipulative: in which other constructions should one posit such a null expletive object pronoun? In striking contrast to that, notice that the analysis of _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ is indeed very transparent: i.e., the passive participle _coactum_ is predicatively applied to the direct object of the transitive verb _habebat_, namely, _equitatum_. Exactly the same with Terence's example above.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: the Latin construction at issue developed into a **grammaticalized** verbal periphrasis of obligation, which is, for example, formed in Catalan with '**haver**' de' + infinitive (cf. also Engl. above: _Dates **have** to fight with figs_). Given this, one could simply claim that in Latin the very same happens (i.e., the construction in Latin is fully grammaticalized like in Romance and English) but I don't think so. My intuition is that the verb _habere_ in the Latin construction above is **not** as (strongly) grammaticalized as in Romance and English. So a different analysis is involved.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11169" RevisionGUID="c81175ae-b90f-4770-a3aa-2db73a7494ce" CreationDate="2019-07-19T22:43:24.563" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="How is the gerundive construction to be analyzed in the following example? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotae cum ficis **certandum** habent_. (Plin. _Ep._ 1,8) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Dates have to fight with figs'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please provide me with some similar examples of &quot;(in)transitive&quot; **HAVE** constructions in Latin? Here I write &quot;(in)transitive&quot; because there is **no** explicit NP object. NB: these &quot;(in)transitive&quot; examples are different from the typical (and, indeed, expected!) ones, namely, the clearly transitive ones where there is an explicit object: e.g., see the following example, which is also included in a previous related question (https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9370/how-many-types-of-so-called-predicative-gerundives-can-be-differentiated-in-la ): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ibi **agrum** de nostro patre **colendum** habebat._ (Ter. _Phorm._ 364-365)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;‘He had there a piece of land from my father to farm’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importantly, as pointed out below by Joonas, these transitive examples of predicative gerundive  are by far more frequent than the &quot;(in)transitive&quot; ones at issue here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is well-known, there is an important parallelism between transitive _habere_ + accusative and intransitive _esse_ + dative constructions, which holds in different domains of Latin grammar. E.g., cf. _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ (Caes. _Bell. Gall._ 1,15) with _Caesari equitatus coactus erat_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the abovementioned parallelism, the nominative subject _cariotae_ can also be converted into the so-called &quot;_dativus auctoris_&quot; or &quot;dative of agent&quot;: _cariotis_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotis cum ficis certandum est_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This second construction is clearly impersonal, i.e., with no personal subject (cf. the typical impersonal passive construction _Pugnatum est acriter_; see also the previous post for the impersonal construction _Nunc est bibendum_: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10809/nunc-est-bibendum-gerund-or-gerundive ) but what about the object of the allegedly **transitive** verb _habent_ in the first example above from Pliny? Assuming that _certandum_ is gerundive (and hence a verbal adjective), how should one analyze the (null) object of transitive _habent_ in Pliny's example? Basically, we do have &quot;null expletive subjects&quot; in Latin (e.g., cf. Lat. _Pluit_ and Engl. _*(It) is raining_ or cf. Lat. _Pugnatum est acriter_ and Engl. _*(It) was fought fiercely_  Vid.  http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Expletive_noun_phrase // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_pronoun ) but do we have &quot;null expletive **objects**&quot; in Latin as well? How is the grammatical construction _certandum habent_ above to be analyzed? I know what Pliny's example means but I do not know how to analyze it properly. My preliminary analysis would be that in this example there is a null expletive object pronoun involved (which would be the counterpart of the null expletive subject pronoun in the impersonal construction above with _certandum est_) and the verbal adjective _certandum_ is then predicated of this null object pronoun in Pliny's example. But I'm not entirely convinced by this analysis because positing a null expletive object pronoun here can be said to be too stipulative: after all, in which other constructions should one posit such a null expletive object pronoun? In striking contrast to that, notice that the analysis of _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ is indeed very transparent: i.e., the passive participle _coactum_ is predicatively applied to the direct object of the transitive verb _habebat_, namely, _equitatum_. Exactly the same with Terence's example above.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: the Latin construction at issue developed into a **grammaticalized** verbal periphrasis of obligation, which is, for example, formed in Catalan with '**haver**' de' + infinitive (cf. also Engl. above: _Dates **have** to fight with figs_). Given this, one could simply claim that in Latin the very same happens (i.e., the construction in Latin is fully grammaticalized like in Romance and English) but I don't think so. My intuition is that the verb _habere_ in the Latin construction above is **not** as (strongly) grammaticalized as in Romance and English. So a different analysis is involved.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11169" RevisionGUID="0957fd7b-35bf-4d4d-a082-59676607b261" CreationDate="2019-07-20T01:26:51.973" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="How is the gerundive construction to be analyzed in the following example? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotae cum ficis **certandum** habent_. (Plin. _Ep._ 1,8) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Dates have to fight with figs'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please provide me with some similar examples of &quot;(in)transitive&quot; **HAVE** constructions in Latin? Here I write &quot;(in)transitive&quot; because there is **no** explicit NP object. NB: these &quot;(in)transitive&quot; examples are different from the typical (and, indeed, expected!) ones, namely, the clearly transitive ones where there is an explicit object: e.g., see the following example from Joonas's answer below, which is also included in a previous related question (https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9370/how-many-types-of-so-called-predicative-gerundives-can-be-differentiated-in-la ): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Ibi **agrum** de nostro patre **colendum** habebat._ (Ter. _Phorm._ 364-365)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;‘He had there a piece of land from my father to farm’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Importantly, as pointed out below by Joonas, these transitive examples of predicative gerundive  are by far more frequent than the &quot;(in)transitive&quot; ones at issue here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is well-known, there is an important parallelism between transitive _habere_ + accusative and intransitive _esse_ + dative constructions, which holds in different domains of Latin grammar. E.g., cf. _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ (Caes. _Bell. Gall._ 1,15) with _Caesari equitatus coactus erat_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the abovementioned parallelism, the nominative subject _cariotae_ can also be converted into the so-called &quot;_dativus auctoris_&quot; or &quot;dative of agent&quot;: _cariotis_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Cariotis cum ficis certandum est_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This second construction is clearly impersonal, i.e., with no personal subject (cf. the typical impersonal passive construction _Pugnatum est acriter_; see also the previous post for the impersonal construction _Nunc est bibendum_: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10809/nunc-est-bibendum-gerund-or-gerundive ) but what about the object of the allegedly **transitive** verb _habent_ in the first example above from Pliny? Assuming that _certandum_ is gerundive (and hence a verbal adjective), how should one analyze the (null) object of transitive _habent_ in Pliny's example? Basically, we do have &quot;null expletive subjects&quot; in Latin (e.g., cf. Lat. _Pluit_ and Engl. _*(It) is raining_ or cf. Lat. _Pugnatum est acriter_ and Engl. _*(It) was fought fiercely_  Vid.  http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Expletive_noun_phrase // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_pronoun ) but do we have &quot;null expletive **objects**&quot; in Latin as well? How is the grammatical construction _certandum habent_ above to be analyzed? I know what Pliny's example means but I do not know how to analyze it properly. My preliminary analysis would be that in this example there is a null expletive object pronoun involved (which would be the counterpart of the null expletive subject pronoun in the impersonal construction above with _certandum est_) and the verbal adjective _certandum_ is then predicated of this null object pronoun in Pliny's example. But I'm not entirely convinced by this analysis because positing a null expletive object pronoun here can be said to be too stipulative: after all, in which other constructions should one posit such a null expletive object pronoun? In striking contrast to that, notice that the analysis of _Caesar equitatum coactum habebat_ is indeed very transparent: i.e., the passive participle _coactum_ is predicatively applied to the direct object of the transitive verb _habebat_, namely, _equitatum_. Exactly the same with Terence's example above.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: the Latin construction at issue developed into a **grammaticalized** verbal periphrasis of obligation, which is, for example, formed in Catalan with _'**haver**' de_ + infinitive (cf. also Engl. above: _Dates **have** to fight with figs_). Given this, one could simply claim that in Latin the very same happens (i.e., the construction in Latin is fully grammaticalized like in Romance and English) but I don't think so. My intuition is that the verb _habere_ in the Latin construction above is **not** as (strongly) grammaticalized as in Romance and English. So a different analysis is involved.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32853" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11169" RevisionGUID="0957fd7b-35bf-4d4d-a082-59676607b261" CreationDate="2019-07-20T01:26:51.973" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="|syntax|passive-voice|gerundive|impersonal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32854" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11169" RevisionGUID="9f8d67c8-2149-49c9-b1c4-89ac1dad6544" CreationDate="2019-07-20T02:45:28.347" />
  <row Id="32855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11171" RevisionGUID="29b2d96b-410b-4eca-bed6-15fc6c8c128e" CreationDate="2019-07-20T02:54:20.463" UserId="867" Text="I would be interested in people's considered opinions of the utility of interlinear texts* in learning to read Latin (or any other language)?  Do they help or hinder?  Are they a pedagogical resource or are they merely a crutch?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question was prompted, in part, by this article: [&quot;The New Old Way of Learning Languages&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*such as [this][2] one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://theamericanscholar.org/the-new-old-way-of-learning-languages/#.XTJ2AegzZaQ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/InterlinearTranslationOfSallustiusCrispusByJamesHamilton1860/page/n13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32856" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11171" RevisionGUID="29b2d96b-410b-4eca-bed6-15fc6c8c128e" CreationDate="2019-07-20T02:54:20.463" UserId="867" Text="Interlinear texts for reading fluency in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32857" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11171" RevisionGUID="29b2d96b-410b-4eca-bed6-15fc6c8c128e" CreationDate="2019-07-20T02:54:20.463" UserId="867" Text="|study-strategies|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11170" RevisionGUID="af1442a9-de51-4a88-a5ae-50be72cf4d99" CreationDate="2019-07-20T17:46:29.323" UserId="79" Comment="added 664 characters in body" Text="Here is one possible way to parse this kind of constructions.&#xD;&#xA;(The instance you quote is not unique as the examples below indicate.)&#xD;&#xA;Recall that there are two ways to indicate possession: *domum habeo* and *mihi domus est* are more or less equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;The usual way to express obligation is *mihi currendum est*.&#xD;&#xA;If one analyses this as a dative of possession, then the other way to express possession opens up: *currendum habeo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having thought about the matter for a while, this is indeed how I would interpret this:&#xD;&#xA;This construction arises by analogy to the usual obligation with dative and gerundive and the possibility to express possession with either dative or *habere*.&#xD;&#xA;Just like the usual obligation with dative can have or not have an object, the option with *habere* also has this freedom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below are more examples of similar uses of *habere*.&#xD;&#xA;Similar constructions are found in a number of places, but I had never seen them before.&#xD;&#xA;The use is often transitive, but there are also intransitive attestations.&#xD;&#xA;Here are some picks from a corpus search:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Terentius, Phormio 361&amp;ndash;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *nam iam adulescenti nil est quod suscenseam,	 &#xD;&#xA;sĭ ĭllum minu' norat; quippe homo iam grandior,	 &#xD;&#xA;pauper, quoĭ opera vita erat, ruri fere	 &#xD;&#xA;se continebat; ibi **agrum** de nostro patre  	&#xD;&#xA;**colendum habebat**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The presence of *agrum* makes this different from your Pliny example, but I still find this a worthwhile instance for comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Caesar, Bellum Civile 3.57, 3.84&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &amp;hellip; *ut praeter auctoritatem vires quoque **ad coercendum haberet***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &amp;hellip; *quidnam Pompeius propositi aut voluntatis **ad dimicandum haberet***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; These are crucially different due to the preposition *ad* with the gerund.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of construction is quite common, but I would consider it a distraction and will not list more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Columella, De Re Rustica 1.4, 2.9, 2.14, 12.3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *in uniuersum tamen quasi **testificandum** atque saepius **praedicandum habeo**, quod&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ***Illud** deinceps **praecipiendum habeo**, ut demessis segetibus iam in area futuro semini consulamus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ***illud** quoque **praecipiendum habeo**, stercus omne, quod&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ***Illud** uero etiam in perpetuum **custodiendum habebit***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This piece of literature seems to be full of this construction, at least in comparison to most other books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Pomponius Mela, De Chorographia 2.29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *sed ea magis **id memorandum habet**, quod&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; By this point it is clear that this construction is pretty widespread.&#xD;&#xA;Not all authors make use of it, but many do.&#xD;&#xA;However, I found far fewer examples of a gerund(ive) with *habere* without an object.&#xD;&#xA;The remaining examples shall be those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Plinius, Naturalis Historia 10.154, 31.35&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Caesare ex Nerone gravida, cum parere virilem sexum admodum cuperet, hoc usa est puellari augurio, ovum in sinu fovendo atque, cum **deponendum haberet**, nutrici per sinum tradendo, ne intermitteretur tepor; nec falso augurata proditur.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Item **confitendum habent** nec statim amnium utilissimas esse, sicuti nec torrentium ullius, lacusque plurimos salubres.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It appears that Pliny is more fond of this construction than many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Quintilianus, Declamationes Minores 368&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Cum patre nimirum **mendicandum habet**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is very similar to your example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Seneca, Controversiae 2.7, 10.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Post tantos inpudicitiae quaestus si tacere possum, **confitendum habeo** hac me causa afuisse, ut in accessionem patrimoni peregrinando cum uxore certarem*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ***Pugnandum habebam** non imperatori tantum sed patri.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In the first example the ACI *me afuisse* is a kind of an object, but a different kind than encountered previously.&#xD;&#xA;The second one is a very clear case with no object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. Frontinus, Strategemata 1.4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Idem, tenentibus angustias Thebanis, **per quas transeundum habebat**&amp;hellip;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11172" RevisionGUID="ff4311cf-2e5c-48ad-b6e1-a0d424c443e9" CreationDate="2019-07-21T11:36:32.743" UserId="4950" Text="Socrates famously said, &quot;Wonder begets wisdom.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where is this passage from and what is the full text translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be some great missing context..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32861" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11172" RevisionGUID="ff4311cf-2e5c-48ad-b6e1-a0d424c443e9" CreationDate="2019-07-21T11:36:32.743" UserId="4950" Text="What is the origin of &quot;Wonder begets wisdom?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32862" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11172" RevisionGUID="ff4311cf-2e5c-48ad-b6e1-a0d424c443e9" CreationDate="2019-07-21T11:36:32.743" UserId="4950" Text="|origin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11173" RevisionGUID="c39ac843-87a4-4652-8dea-9acdd6d2f70a" CreationDate="2019-07-21T12:34:34.740" UserId="4950" Text="I'd like to translate the phrase &quot;always learning&quot; into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it would be something like SEMPER DISCENS, but am not sure...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the proper translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32864" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11173" RevisionGUID="c39ac843-87a4-4652-8dea-9acdd6d2f70a" CreationDate="2019-07-21T12:34:34.740" UserId="4950" Text="How would one say &quot;always learning in Latin?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32865" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11173" RevisionGUID="c39ac843-87a4-4652-8dea-9acdd6d2f70a" CreationDate="2019-07-21T12:34:34.740" UserId="4950" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11174" RevisionGUID="153f2d71-a912-42ae-ad91-68b71b319a7e" CreationDate="2019-07-21T14:23:03.223" UserId="45" Text="The most famous passage where Plato treats of this is in the *Theaetetus*, 155c-d, which is a dialog about the nature of knowledge. At one point, we have the following interchange between Socrates and Theaetetus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Θεαίτητος**  &#xD;&#xA;καὶ νὴ τοὺς θεούς γε, ὦ Σώκρατες, ὑπερφυῶς ὡς θαυμάζω τί ποτ᾽ ἐστὶ ταῦτα, καὶ ἐνίοτε ὡς ἀληθῶς βλέπων εἰς αὐτὰ σκοτοδινιῶ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Σωκράτης**  &#xD;&#xA;Θεόδωρος γάρ, ὦ φίλε, φαίνεται οὐ κακῶς τοπάζειν περὶ τῆς φύσεώς σου. **μάλα γὰρ φιλοσόφου τοῦτο τὸ πάθος, τὸ θαυμάζειν: οὐ γὰρ ἄλλη ἀρχὴ φιλοσοφίας ἢ αὕτη, καὶ ἔοικεν ὁ τὴν Ἶριν Θαύμαντος ἔκγονον φήσας οὐ κακῶς γενεαλογεῖν.** ἀλλὰ πότερον μανθάνεις ἤδη δι᾽ ὃ ταῦτα τοιαῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐξ ὧν τὸν Πρωταγόραν φαμὲν λέγειν, ἢ οὔπω;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is [Jowett's translation](http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/theatu.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Theaet. Yes, Socrates, and I am amazed when I think of them; by the Gods I am! and I want to know what on earth they mean; and there are times when my head quite swims with the contemplation of them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Soc. I see, my dear Theaetetus, that Theodorus had a true insight into your nature when he said that you were a philosopher, **for wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder. He was not a bad genealogist who said that Iris (the messenger of heaven) is the child of Thaumas (wonder).** But do you begin to see what is the explanation of this perplexity on the hypothesis which we attribute to Protagoras? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(My quibble with this translation: Jowett translates Theaetetus' &quot;θαυμάζω&quot; as &quot;amazed,&quot; even though it's the same word that he later translates as &quot;wonder.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aristotle, Plato's best student, echoes this statement almost exactly in *Metaphysics* A.2 (982b):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **διὰ γὰρ τὸ θαυμάζειν οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ νῦν καὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἤρξαντο φιλοσοφεῖν**, ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὲν τὰ πρόχειρα τῶν ἀτόπων θαυμάσαντες, εἶτα κατὰ μικρὸν οὕτω προϊόντες καὶ περὶ τῶν μειζόνων διαπορήσαντες, οἷον περί τε τῶν τῆς σελήνης παθημάτων καὶ τῶν περὶ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ ἄστρα καὶ περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς γενέσεως. **ὁ δ᾽ ἀπορῶν καὶ θαυμάζων οἴεται ἀγνοεῖν （διὸ καὶ ὁ φιλόμυθος φιλόσοφός πώς ἐστιν: ὁ γὰρ μῦθος σύγκειται ἐκ θαυμασίων）**: ὥστ᾽ εἴπερ διὰ τὸ φεύγειν τὴν ἄγνοιαν ἐφιλοσόφησαν, φανερὸν ὅτι διὰ τὸ εἰδέναι τὸ ἐπίστασθαι ἐδίωκον καὶ οὐ χρήσεώς τινος ἕνεκεν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ross's translation](http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.1.i.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **For it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin and at first began to philosophize**; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e.g. about the phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and of the stars, and about the genesis of the universe. **And a man who is puzzled and wonders thinks himself ignorant (whence even the lover of myth is in a sense a lover of Wisdom, for the myth is composed of wonders)**; therefore since they philosophized order to escape from ignorance, evidently they were pursuing science in order to know, and not for any utilitarian end." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11174" RevisionGUID="ba9730db-a2f9-43c6-8204-7ae0a153356d" CreationDate="2019-07-21T14:42:00.347" UserId="45" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The most famous passage where Plato treats of this is in the *Theaetetus*, 155c-d, which is a dialog about the nature of knowledge. At one point, we have the following interchange between Socrates and Theaetetus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Θεαίτητος**  &#xD;&#xA;καὶ νὴ τοὺς θεούς γε, ὦ Σώκρατες, ὑπερφυῶς ὡς θαυμάζω τί ποτ᾽ ἐστὶ ταῦτα, καὶ ἐνίοτε ὡς ἀληθῶς βλέπων εἰς αὐτὰ σκοτοδινιῶ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Σωκράτης**  &#xD;&#xA;Θεόδωρος γάρ, ὦ φίλε, φαίνεται οὐ κακῶς τοπάζειν περὶ τῆς φύσεώς σου. **μάλα γὰρ φιλοσόφου τοῦτο τὸ πάθος, τὸ θαυμάζειν: οὐ γὰρ ἄλλη ἀρχὴ φιλοσοφίας ἢ αὕτη, καὶ ἔοικεν ὁ τὴν Ἶριν Θαύμαντος ἔκγονον φήσας οὐ κακῶς γενεαλογεῖν.** ἀλλὰ πότερον μανθάνεις ἤδη δι᾽ ὃ ταῦτα τοιαῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐξ ὧν τὸν Πρωταγόραν φαμὲν λέγειν, ἢ οὔπω;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is [Jowett's translation](http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/theatu.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Theaet. Yes, Socrates, and I am amazed when I think of them; by the Gods I am! and I want to know what on earth they mean; and there are times when my head quite swims with the contemplation of them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Soc. I see, my dear Theaetetus, that Theodorus had a true insight into your nature when he said that you were a philosopher, **for wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder. He was not a bad genealogist who said that Iris (the messenger of heaven) is the child of Thaumas (wonder).** But do you begin to see what is the explanation of this perplexity on the hypothesis which we attribute to Protagoras? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(My quibble with this translation: Jowett translates Theaetetus' &quot;θαυμάζω&quot; as &quot;amazed,&quot; even though it's the same word that he later translates as &quot;wonder.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aristotle, Plato's best student, echoes this statement almost exactly in *Metaphysics* A.2 (982b):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **διὰ γὰρ τὸ θαυμάζειν οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ νῦν καὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἤρξαντο φιλοσοφεῖν**, ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὲν τὰ πρόχειρα τῶν ἀτόπων θαυμάσαντες, εἶτα κατὰ μικρὸν οὕτω προϊόντες καὶ περὶ τῶν μειζόνων διαπορήσαντες, οἷον περί τε τῶν τῆς σελήνης παθημάτων καὶ τῶν περὶ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ ἄστρα καὶ περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς γενέσεως. **ὁ δ᾽ ἀπορῶν καὶ θαυμάζων οἴεται ἀγνοεῖν （διὸ καὶ ὁ φιλόμυθος φιλόσοφός πώς ἐστιν: ὁ γὰρ μῦθος σύγκειται ἐκ θαυμασίων）**: ὥστ᾽ εἴπερ διὰ τὸ φεύγειν τὴν ἄγνοιαν ἐφιλοσόφησαν, φανερὸν ὅτι διὰ τὸ εἰδέναι τὸ ἐπίστασθαι ἐδίωκον καὶ οὐ χρήσεώς τινος ἕνεκεν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ross's translation](http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.1.i.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **For it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin and at first began to philosophize**; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e.g. about the phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and of the stars, and about the genesis of the universe. **And a man who is puzzled and wonders thinks himself ignorant (whence even the lover of myth is in a sense a lover of Wisdom, for the myth is composed of wonders)**; therefore since they philosophized in order to escape from ignorance, evidently they were pursuing science in order to know, and not for any utilitarian end." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32868" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11172" RevisionGUID="9936fbf8-8f85-4cf0-8603-831891b86b4f" CreationDate="2019-07-21T15:43:06.387" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|passage-request|origin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32871" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11172" RevisionGUID="60aa44a5-8d4c-4cdf-b6a8-0e8048ab312f" CreationDate="2019-07-21T19:48:14.267" />
  <row Id="32872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11175" RevisionGUID="db12c041-021b-4734-8664-228ed6a4cf3c" CreationDate="2019-07-21T20:53:45.593" UserId="4947" Text="Semper discens ist totally right. If you want to express that *you* are always learning, it might make sense to add ‚sum‘. To my mind, a translation using a participle is probably the best way to say it as it gives you the attribute that you are always learning, which is indeed something like a character trait. If you just said ‚Semper disco‘, it does not really clearify that this sentence is meant as a leitmotif - just like you would not say „I always learn“ in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11176" RevisionGUID="7e5a839a-231c-4b1a-9b44-492f8eb736d9" CreationDate="2019-07-21T21:43:33.187" UserId="4951" Text="How do we say &quot; Love and intellect will prevail&quot; in Latin? Thank you very much for your time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32874" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11176" RevisionGUID="7e5a839a-231c-4b1a-9b44-492f8eb736d9" CreationDate="2019-07-21T21:43:33.187" UserId="4951" Text="What is the best Latin translation for &quot;Love and intellect will prevail&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32875" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11176" RevisionGUID="7e5a839a-231c-4b1a-9b44-492f8eb736d9" CreationDate="2019-07-21T21:43:33.187" UserId="4951" Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32876" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="5073" RevisionGUID="17df7f3f-f31b-458e-9fc8-94a9a5d34cb9" CreationDate="2019-07-21T22:14:01.713" UserId="9" Comment="122" />
  <row Id="32877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11171" RevisionGUID="53650d8a-0d74-45f2-b0f4-46d3a1f13000" CreationDate="2019-07-22T00:56:09.397" UserId="30" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="I would be interested in people's considered opinions of the utility of interlinear texts* in learning to read Latin (or any other language)?  Do they help or hinder?  Are they a pedagogical resource or are they merely a crutch?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question was prompted, in part, by this article: [&quot;The New Old Way of Learning Languages&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*such as [this][2] one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://theamericanscholar.org/the-new-old-way-of-learning-languages/#.XTJ2AegzZaQ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/InterlinearTranslationOfSallustiusCrispusByJamesHamilton1860/page/n13&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5mwXC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11177" RevisionGUID="5d78d343-aaed-4030-afb3-560c8c064b2c" CreationDate="2019-07-22T14:09:03.800" UserId="522" Text="**'Vincent amor ratioque.'**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means (word by word) *vincent* -they will conquer; *amor* -love; *ratio-que* - and-rationality, and-reason, and-good sense. ( *-que* is 'and').  &#xD;&#xA;'Love and reason will prevail.'&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11178" RevisionGUID="cf535b7a-ac79-4133-8227-c869d195d36c" CreationDate="2019-07-22T19:18:29.840" UserId="4871" Text="&quot;Ama ut ratio vincat.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, that's if &quot;Love&quot; was a verb in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32880" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9152" RevisionGUID="4e1ec66b-b633-4319-913b-7547940c1c3e" CreationDate="2019-07-22T22:03:05.507" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11178" RevisionGUID="2b674b3e-260c-466a-befa-8ed19647704d" CreationDate="2019-07-23T00:15:06.390" UserId="4871" Comment="added 305 characters in body" Text="&quot;Ama ut ratio vincat.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, that's if &quot;Love&quot; was a verb in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also possible, &quot;Ama et tunc intellectus vincet&quot;, but it feels weird to coordinate an indicative with an imperative, and it does feel like &quot;conquer&quot; is logically subordinate.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Intellectus&quot; may be the best noun, rather than &quot;ratio&quot;.  For example, compare &quot;intellectus agens&quot; as a technical phrase. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11180" RevisionGUID="43c5de1d-bd30-4837-ae59-79b961e3a54f" CreationDate="2019-07-23T13:49:56.720" UserId="79" Text="There is speculation that prior to the republic Roman calendar there was an earlier calendar instated by Romulus and consisting of ten months.&#xD;&#xA;I do not want to discuss here whether Romulus existed and whether, if he did exist, set up the calendar.&#xD;&#xA;I want to understand whether the calendar itself existed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the years, I have seen sources claiming it as a fact that there was a pre-republican calendar from March to December and other sources claiming that there is no real evidence in its support.&#xD;&#xA;So, what written evidence is there in support of the alleged existence of a ten-month calendar starting in March?&#xD;&#xA;The text can be fragmentary old calendars, mentions in other literature, or something else.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to exclude the numbering of the names of the months Quintilis through December as indirect evidence and focus on remains or mentions of actual calendars." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32887" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11180" RevisionGUID="43c5de1d-bd30-4837-ae59-79b961e3a54f" CreationDate="2019-07-23T13:49:56.720" UserId="79" Text="Written evidence of a ten-month calendar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32888" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11180" RevisionGUID="43c5de1d-bd30-4837-ae59-79b961e3a54f" CreationDate="2019-07-23T13:49:56.720" UserId="79" Text="|history|passage-request|calendarium|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11181" RevisionGUID="9c851c60-e49b-4ab5-9f91-8471e8a79d4d" CreationDate="2019-07-23T17:54:09.157" UserId="1459" Text="This phrase can be found in [Tobit 5:6](http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/17005.htm), in the Vulgata:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Et ignorans quod angelus Dei esset, salutavit eum, et dixit : Unde te habemus, bone juvenis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The accompanying English translation reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And not knowing that he was an angel of God, he saluted him, and said: From whence art thou, good young man?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me the English translation conveys the same intended meaning, and it is perhaps simpler. But would the literal translation of _Unde te habemus_ be &quot;From where do we have you?&quot; Is this use of _habeo_ common? Or is it purely a Vulgata thing? Actually, this is the first time I recall encountering such expression." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32890" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11181" RevisionGUID="9c851c60-e49b-4ab5-9f91-8471e8a79d4d" CreationDate="2019-07-23T17:54:09.157" UserId="1459" Text="Unde habemus te, bone juvenis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32891" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11181" RevisionGUID="9c851c60-e49b-4ab5-9f91-8471e8a79d4d" CreationDate="2019-07-23T17:54:09.157" UserId="1459" Text="|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11182" RevisionGUID="9e9f2c50-efff-4611-9b5f-8fca77bc41b7" CreationDate="2019-07-23T18:26:44.090" UserId="406" Text="As you mention, probably the oldest phrase for this would be *[name] mē fēcit*: literally, &quot;[name] made me&quot;. (In each of the examples below, the first line is a direct transcription of the original, the second line is a translation/adaptation into standard Classical Latin, and the third is an English translation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The oldest attestation for this phrase is on the Praenestine Fibula, from the early seventh century BCE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Image of the Fibula][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MANIOS MED FHEFHAKED NVMASIOI  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Manius mē fēcit Numasiō  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Manius made me, for Numasius*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This remained popular all the way through the High Middle Ages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Image of an inscription][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is from the south portal of the Church of Santa María la Real, in Sangüesa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MARIA MATER ΧΡΙ[ΣΤΟΥ] / LEODEGARIVS ME FECIT  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Marīa, Mater Christī / Leodegarius mē fēcit  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Maria, Mother of Christ / Leodegarius made me*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the inscription was varied or elaborated further, with forms like *[name] artifex mē fēcit*, or *[name] fēcit hoc*. But *fēcit* seems to be the verb form of choice. [This page][3] lists some more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/r1jTm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tILta.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.magistricataloniae.org/en/indexmceng/terms/item/fecit.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11183" RevisionGUID="9ea9b492-58a1-4dbc-8646-47f06a9c7ac8" CreationDate="2019-07-23T19:12:15.093" UserId="324" Text="I do not know any parallel to this expression. I have the impression that the author/translator is mimicking the way that people talk to children: &quot;How are we today?&quot;. &quot;Are we being a good boy?&quot;. The use of the first person plural is decidedly patronising." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11184" RevisionGUID="f6699f16-d9da-4c10-8fa6-ab6ae81f43e4" CreationDate="2019-07-23T20:26:08.327" UserId="469" Text="The WP article on the **[Roman Calendar][1]**, section [Republican Calendar][2], apparently synthesizes all what is known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The strongest evidence for a 10-month calendar seems to be the names of the months Quntilis (July) through December.&#xD;&#xA;* The first known attestation that there was a 10-month calendar prior to the Republican Calendar created by Romulus, seems to date to c. 400 AD:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Non igitur mirum in hac varietate Romanos quoque olim auctore Romulo annum suum decem habuisse mensibus ordinatum, qui annus incipiebat a Martio et conficiebatur diebus trecentis quattuor (Macrobius, [*Saturnalia* 1.XII.3][3],)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; which is kind of frustrating, since it doesn't sound very trustworthy (the Saturnalia itself is written in the form of dialogues, and mixes mythology with history, making difficult to tell what to believe). Modern scholars disagree on whether to give credit to it or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A number of authors from the I Century BC and the I Century AD offer contradicting versions about the origin of January and February as the first two months of the year, dating it from as early as the VI to the II Century BC. At least one XX-Century author believes these were still the last two months of the year for priests during the republic.&#xD;&#xA;* Theodor Mommsen (1864), [p.214][4] in his History of Rome argues that the decimal was the preferred system among Indo/Germanic peoples in general and the Italic in particular, and cites the 10-month calendar (which he assumes true) as an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [![Mommsen et al (1864), p.214][5]][5] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar#Republican_calendar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Macrobius/Saturnalia/1%2A.html#12.3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/details/historyrome00dickgoog/page/n240&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OfFDh.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11184" RevisionGUID="3b8fe506-31bd-42df-86ed-e5c4b6bd822f" CreationDate="2019-07-23T20:39:23.277" UserId="469" Comment="added 453 characters in body" Text="The WP article on the **[Roman Calendar][1]**, section [Republican Calendar][2], apparently synthesizes all what is known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Unfortunately, the strongest evidence for a 10-month calendar seems to be what you have excluded, i.e., the names of the months Quntilis (July) through December.&#xD;&#xA;* The first known attestation that there was a 10-month calendar prior to the Republican Calendar, and created by Romulus, seems to date to c. 400 AD:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Non igitur mirum in hac varietate Romanos quoque olim auctore Romulo annum suum decem habuisse mensibus ordinatum, qui annus incipiebat a Martio et conficiebatur diebus trecentis quattuor (Macrobius, [*Saturnalia* 1.XII.3][3],)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; which is kind of frustrating, since it doesn't sound very trustworthy (the Saturnalia itself is written in the form of dialogues, and mixes mythology with history, making difficult to tell what to believe). Modern scholars disagree on whether to give credit to this evidence or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A number of authors from the I Century BC and the I Century AD offer contradicting versions about the origin of January and February as the first two months of the year, dating it from as early as the VI to as late as the II Century BC. At least one XX-Century author believes these were still the last two months of the year for priests during the Republic. They seem to agree that before this change there was a 12-month calendar with March as the fisrt month.&#xD;&#xA;* Theodor Mommsen (1864) in his History of Rome, [p.214][4], argues that the decimal was the preferred system among Indo/Germanic peoples in general and the Italic in particular, and cites the 10-month calendar (which he assumes true) as an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [![Mommsen et al (1864), p.214][5]][5] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Anyway, among those who favor the hypothesis of a 10-month year, some argue that there were a number of additional days belonging to no month in particular, or that there were two or three additional intercalary months (note that it is common among [lunisolar calendars][6] to have *leap months* instead of leap days).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar#Republican_calendar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Macrobius/Saturnalia/1%2A.html#12.3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/details/historyrome00dickgoog/page/n240&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OfFDh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunisolar_calendar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11184" RevisionGUID="a8e8e51d-6b98-467c-9ea3-61f7b65f1bd2" CreationDate="2019-07-23T20:51:55.833" UserId="79" Comment="Transcribed the text. Feel free to fix any errors!" Text="The WP article on the **[Roman Calendar][1]**, section [Republican Calendar][2], apparently synthesizes all what is known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Unfortunately, the strongest evidence for a 10-month calendar seems to be what you have excluded, i.e., the names of the months Quntilis (July) through December.&#xD;&#xA;* The first known attestation that there was a 10-month calendar prior to the Republican Calendar, and created by Romulus, seems to date to c. 400 AD:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Non igitur mirum in hac varietate Romanos quoque olim auctore Romulo annum suum decem habuisse mensibus ordinatum, qui annus incipiebat a Martio et conficiebatur diebus trecentis quattuor (Macrobius, [*Saturnalia* 1.XII.3][3],)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; which is kind of frustrating, since it doesn't sound very trustworthy (the Saturnalia itself is written in the form of dialogues, and mixes mythology with history, making difficult to tell what to believe). Modern scholars disagree on whether to give credit to this evidence or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A number of authors from the I Century BC and the I Century AD offer contradicting versions about the origin of January and February as the first two months of the year, dating it from as early as the VI to as late as the II Century BC. At least one XX-Century author believes these were still the last two months of the year for priests during the Republic. They seem to agree that before this change there was a 12-month calendar with March as the fisrt month.&#xD;&#xA;* Theodor Mommsen (1864) in his History of Rome, [p.214][4], argues that the decimal was the preferred system among Indo/Germanic peoples in general and the Italic in particular, and cites the 10-month calendar (which he assumes true) as an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; The most distinct evidence of the antiquity and original exclusive use of the decimal system among the Indo-Germanic lanuagesis furnished by the well-known agreement of all Indo-Germanic languges in respect to the numerals as far as a hundred inclusive (P. 18). In the case of Italy the decimal system pervaded the earliest arrangements: it may be sufficient to mention the occurrence of the number ten so commonly in the case of witnesses, securities, ambassadors, and magistrates, the legal equivalence of one ox and ten sheep, the partition of canton into ten curies and the pervading application generally of the decurial system, the *limitatio*, the tenth in offerings and in agriculture, decimation, and the praenomen *Decimus*. Among the applications of this most ancient decimal system in the sphere of measuring and of writing, the remarkable Italian ciphers claim a primary place. When the Greeks and Italians separated, there were still, evidently, no conventional signs of number. On the other hand, we find the three oldest and most indispensable numerals, one, five, and ten, represented by three signs&amp;mdash;I, V or &amp;Lambda;, X, manifestly imitations of the outstretched finger, and the open hand single and double&amp;mdash;which have not been derived either from the Hellenes or the Phoenicians, but are common to the Romans, Sabellians, and Etruscans. They are the first steps towards the formation of a national Italian writing, and at the same time evidences of the liveliness of that earlier inland intercourse among the Italians which preceded their transmarine commerce (P. 203). Which of the Italian stocks invented, and which of them borrowed these signs, can of course no longer be ascertained. Other traces of the pure decimal system occur but sparingly in this field; among them are the *vorsus*, the Sabellian measure of surface of 100  square feet (P. 22), and the Roman year of ten months.&#xD;&#xA;([Mommsen et al (1864), p.214][5])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Anyway, among those who favor the hypothesis of a 10-month year, some argue that there were a number of additional days belonging to no month in particular, or that there were two or three additional intercalary months (note that it is common among [lunisolar calendars][6] to have *leap months* instead of leap days).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar#Republican_calendar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Macrobius/Saturnalia/1%2A.html#12.3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/details/historyrome00dickgoog/page/n240&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OfFDh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunisolar_calendar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11184" RevisionGUID="bbf341dc-954e-4e4a-aa46-f5f8fa784f44" CreationDate="2019-07-23T20:59:40.320" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 292 characters in body" Text="The WP article on the **[Roman Calendar][1]**, section [Republican Calendar][2], apparently synthesizes all what is known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Unfortunately, the strongest evidence for a 10-month calendar seems to be what you have excluded, i.e., the names of the months Quntilis (July) through December.&#xD;&#xA;* The first known attestation that there was a 10-month calendar prior to the Republican Calendar, and created by Romulus, seems to date to c. 400 AD:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Non igitur mirum in hac varietate Romanos quoque olim auctore Romulo annum suum decem habuisse mensibus ordinatum, qui annus incipiebat a Martio et conficiebatur diebus trecentis quattuor (Macrobius, [*Saturnalia* 1.XII.3][3],)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; which is kind of frustrating, since it doesn't sound very trustworthy (the Saturnalia itself is written in the form of dialogues, and mixes mythology with history, making difficult to tell what to believe). Modern scholars disagree on whether to give credit to this evidence or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A number of authors from the I Century BC and the I Century AD offer contradicting versions about the origin of January and February as the first two months of the year, dating it from as early as the VI to as late as the II Century BC. At least one XX-Century author believes these were still the last two months of the year for priests during the Republic. They seem to agree that before this change there was a 12-month calendar with March as the fisrt month.&#xD;&#xA;* Theodor Mommsen (1864), *History of Rome*, [p.214][4], argues that the decimal was the preferred system among Indo/Germanic peoples in general and the Italic in particular, and cites the 10-month calendar (which he assumes true) as an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; (...) In the case of Italy the decimal system pervaded the earliest arrangements: it may be sufficient to mention the occurrence of the number ten so commonly in the case of witnesses, securities, ambassadors, and magistrates, the legal equivalence of one ox and ten sheep, the partition of canton into ten curies and the pervading application generally of the decurial system, the *limitatio*, the tenth in offerings and in agriculture, decimation, and the praenomen *Decimus*. Among the applications of this most ancient decimal system in the sphere of measuring and of writing, the remarkable Italian ciphers claim a primary place. When the Greeks and Italians separated, there were still, evidently, no conventional signs of number. On the other hand, we find the three oldest and most indispensable numerals, one, five, and ten, represented by three signs&amp;mdash;I, V or &amp;Lambda;, X, manifestly imitations of the outstretched finger, and the open hand single and double&amp;mdash;which have not been derived either from the Hellenes or the Phoenicians, but are common to the Romans, Sabellians, and Etruscans. They are the first steps towards the formation of a national Italian writing, and at the same time evidences of the liveliness of that earlier inland intercourse among the Italians which preceded their transmarine commerce (P. 203). Which of the Italian stocks invented, and which of them borrowed these signs, can of course no longer be ascertained. Other traces of the pure decimal system occur but sparingly in this field; among them are the *vorsus*, the Sabellian measure of surface of 100  square feet (P. 22), and **the Roman year of ten months.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Anyway, among those who favor the hypothesis of a 10-month year, some argue that there were a number of additional days belonging to no month in particular, or that there were two or three additional intercalary months (note that it is common among [lunisolar calendars][6] to have *leap months* instead of leap days).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar#Republican_calendar&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Macrobius/Saturnalia/1%2A.html#12.3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/details/historyrome00dickgoog/page/n240&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OfFDh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunisolar_calendar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11185" RevisionGUID="e62399c7-a782-477f-9d82-07ae24e55d1c" CreationDate="2019-07-24T07:56:48.560" UserId="79" Text="The Roman historians seem happy to mix history with myth with no discussion on the reliability of one's sources &amp;mdash; or even a mention of the sources in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to imagine that the Romans did not believe all myths told to them as such, and I am looking for doubts expressed by the Romans to support this thought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there instances in Roman literature where a writer doubts the historicity of a specific event or person?&#xD;&#xA;I am not looking for a general &quot;myth an history are mixed and we cannot know what is really true&quot; but something specific like &quot;I don't think Aeneas ever existed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you think such mentions are entirely absent, that would be quite interesting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32899" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11185" RevisionGUID="e62399c7-a782-477f-9d82-07ae24e55d1c" CreationDate="2019-07-24T07:56:48.560" UserId="79" Text="Historicity doubted by Romans" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32900" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11185" RevisionGUID="e62399c7-a782-477f-9d82-07ae24e55d1c" CreationDate="2019-07-24T07:56:48.560" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|history|passage-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11186" RevisionGUID="4dd8681a-0fdf-4331-9554-d5c0036e2105" CreationDate="2019-07-24T15:48:24.857" UserId="1304" Text="Titus Livius, an excellent scholar even by modern standards, was very conscious of the problem of source reliability:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cosider the beginning of Liv. 26 49:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;tum obsides ciuitatium Hispaniae uocari iussit; quorum quantus numerus fuerit piget scribere, quippe ubi alibi trecentos ferme, alibi tria milia septingentos uiginti quattuor fuisse inueniam.—aeque et alia inter auctores discrepant. [2] praesidium Punicum alius decem, alius septem, alius haud plus quam duum milium fuisse scribit. capta alibi decem milia capitum, alibi supra quinque et uiginti inuenias. [3] scorpiones maiores minoresque ad sexaginta captos scripserim, si auctorem Graecum sequar Silenum; si Ualerium Antiatem, maiorum scorpionum sex milia, minorum tredecim milia; adeo nullus mentiendi modus est. [4] ne de ducibus quidem conuenit. plerique Laelium praefuisse classi, sunt qui M. Iunium Silanum dicant; [5] Arinen praefuisse Punico praesidio deditumque Romanis Antias Ualerius, Magonem alii scriptores tradunt. [6] non de numero nauium captarum, non de pondere auri atque argenti et redacta pecunia conuenit; si aliquis adsentiri necesse est, media simillima ueri sunt. (Livy, _Ab urbe condita._ Robert Seymour Conway. Stephen Keymer Johnson. Oxford. Oxford University Press. 1935. 4.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the English translation from Livy, _Books XXVI-XXVII With An English Translation,_ Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1943 (ed. Frank Gardener Moore, Professor Emeritus in Columbia University):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;then he ordered the hostages of the states of Spain to be summoned. how great was their number I dislike to state, since in one source I find that they were about three hundred, in another three thousand seven hundred and twenty —four. [2] there is no less disagreement on other matters also between the authorities. one writes that the Carthaginian garrison consisted of ten thousand men, another of seven thousand, another of not more than two thousand. as for the captives, in one writer i find ten thousand persons, in another above twenty —five thousand. [3] i should set down about sixty larger and smaller scorpions as captured, if I were to follow a Greek authority, Silenus, if Valerius Antias, then six thousand of the larger scorpions, thirteen thousand of the smaller; so lacking is any limit to his mendacity. [4] even as to the generals there is no agreement. most say that Laelius commanded the fleet, there are some who say it was Marcus Iunius Silanus. [5] Valerius Antias relates that Arines was in command of the Carthaginian garrison and surrendered to the Romans, other writers that it was Mago. [6] there is no agreement as to the number of ships captured, none as to the weight of gold and silver and of money brought in. if one must agree with some authorities, moderate figures are the most probable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I beg to disagree with this translation. I would write _average figures_ instead of _moderate figures,_ but it’s OT here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From many specific examples I quote just a couple, both involving Valerius Antias: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Liv. 30 19.11:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[11] idem consul cum Hannibale in agro Crotoniensi acie conflixit. obscura eius pugnae fama est. Ualerius Antias quinque milia hostium caesa ait, quae tanta res est ut aut impudenter ficta sit aut neglegenter praetermissa. [12] nihil certe ultra rei in Italia ab Hannibale gestum…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(_res impudenter ficta,_ a good translation for _fake news?_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translated:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[11] The same consul engaged in battle with Hannibal in the territory of Croton. The story of that battle is not clear. Valerius Antias says five thousand of the enemy were slain&amp;mdash;a victory on such a scale as to have been either shamelessly fabricated or else carelessly passed over. [12] What is certain is that nothing further was accomplished by Hannibal in Italy…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or Liv. 36 38.6:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[6] duodetriginta milia hostium occisa Antias Valerius scribit, capta tria milia et quadringentos, signa militaria centum viginti quattuor, equos mille ducentos triginta, carpenta ducenta quadraginta septem; ex victoribus mille quadringentos octoginta quattuor cecidisse. [7] ubi ut in numero scriptori parum fidei sit, quia in augendo eo non alius intemperantior est, magnam tamen victoriam uisse apparet…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traslated:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[6] Valerius Antias states that 28,000 of the enemy were slain and 3400 made prisoners, and that the spoils included 124 standards, 1230 horses and 247 wagons, whilst in the victorious army 1484 men fell. [7] Though we can place little confidence in this writer so far as numbers are concerned, for no one is more reckless in exaggerating them, it was evidently a great victory… &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(All quotations, Latin and English, copied and pasted from texts found at [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?q=Livius))&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11186" RevisionGUID="0c105faf-82ac-4c35-a577-47da60a8f125" CreationDate="2019-07-24T15:54:47.163" UserId="1304" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Titus Livius, an excellent scholar even by modern standards, was very conscious of the problem of source reliability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the beginning of Liv. 26 49:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;tum obsides ciuitatium Hispaniae uocari iussit; quorum quantus numerus fuerit piget scribere, quippe ubi alibi trecentos ferme, alibi tria milia septingentos uiginti quattuor fuisse inueniam.—aeque et alia inter auctores discrepant. [2] praesidium Punicum alius decem, alius septem, alius haud plus quam duum milium fuisse scribit. capta alibi decem milia capitum, alibi supra quinque et uiginti inuenias. [3] scorpiones maiores minoresque ad sexaginta captos scripserim, si auctorem Graecum sequar Silenum; si Ualerium Antiatem, maiorum scorpionum sex milia, minorum tredecim milia; adeo nullus mentiendi modus est. [4] ne de ducibus quidem conuenit. plerique Laelium praefuisse classi, sunt qui M. Iunium Silanum dicant; [5] Arinen praefuisse Punico praesidio deditumque Romanis Antias Ualerius, Magonem alii scriptores tradunt. [6] non de numero nauium captarum, non de pondere auri atque argenti et redacta pecunia conuenit; si aliquis adsentiri necesse est, media simillima ueri sunt. (Livy, _Ab urbe condita._ Robert Seymour Conway. Stephen Keymer Johnson. Oxford. Oxford University Press. 1935. 4.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the English translation from Livy, _Books XXVI-XXVII With An English Translation,_ Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1943 (ed. Frank Gardener Moore, Professor Emeritus in Columbia University):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;then he ordered the hostages of the states of Spain to be summoned. how great was their number I dislike to state, since in one source I find that they were about three hundred, in another three thousand seven hundred and twenty —four. [2] there is no less disagreement on other matters also between the authorities. one writes that the Carthaginian garrison consisted of ten thousand men, another of seven thousand, another of not more than two thousand. as for the captives, in one writer i find ten thousand persons, in another above twenty —five thousand. [3] i should set down about sixty larger and smaller scorpions as captured, if I were to follow a Greek authority, Silenus, if Valerius Antias, then six thousand of the larger scorpions, thirteen thousand of the smaller; so lacking is any limit to his mendacity. [4] even as to the generals there is no agreement. most say that Laelius commanded the fleet, there are some who say it was Marcus Iunius Silanus. [5] Valerius Antias relates that Arines was in command of the Carthaginian garrison and surrendered to the Romans, other writers that it was Mago. [6] there is no agreement as to the number of ships captured, none as to the weight of gold and silver and of money brought in. if one must agree with some authorities, moderate figures are the most probable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I beg to disagree with this translation. I would write _average figures_ instead of _moderate figures,_ but it’s OT here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From many specific examples I quote just a couple, both involving Valerius Antias: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Liv. 30 19.11:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[11] idem consul cum Hannibale in agro Crotoniensi acie conflixit. obscura eius pugnae fama est. Ualerius Antias quinque milia hostium caesa ait, quae tanta res est ut aut impudenter ficta sit aut neglegenter praetermissa. [12] nihil certe ultra rei in Italia ab Hannibale gestum…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(_res impudenter ficta,_ a good translation for _fake news?_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translated:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[11] The same consul engaged in battle with Hannibal in the territory of Croton. The story of that battle is not clear. Valerius Antias says five thousand of the enemy were slain&amp;mdash;a victory on such a scale as to have been either shamelessly fabricated or else carelessly passed over. [12] What is certain is that nothing further was accomplished by Hannibal in Italy…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or Liv. 36 38.6:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[6] duodetriginta milia hostium occisa Antias Valerius scribit, capta tria milia et quadringentos, signa militaria centum viginti quattuor, equos mille ducentos triginta, carpenta ducenta quadraginta septem; ex victoribus mille quadringentos octoginta quattuor cecidisse. [7] ubi ut in numero scriptori parum fidei sit, quia in augendo eo non alius intemperantior est, magnam tamen victoriam uisse apparet…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traslated:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[6] Valerius Antias states that 28,000 of the enemy were slain and 3400 made prisoners, and that the spoils included 124 standards, 1230 horses and 247 wagons, whilst in the victorious army 1484 men fell. [7] Though we can place little confidence in this writer so far as numbers are concerned, for no one is more reckless in exaggerating them, it was evidently a great victory… &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(All quotations, Latin and English, copied and pasted from texts found at [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?q=Livius))&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32903" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11185" RevisionGUID="9aa1b48c-0761-48b7-bbd3-26a73b8d6c57" CreationDate="2019-07-24T16:07:38.203" />
  <row Id="32905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11187" RevisionGUID="8cfa738c-5b70-4abe-b17e-c1a8c6c8758f" CreationDate="2019-07-24T18:45:39.413" UserId="406" Text="Lucian of Samosata, a satirist writing in the second century CE, never had much regard for historians. His most famous work, the *Alēthē Diēgēmata* (&quot;True Histories&quot;), specifically mocks the sort of ridiculous stories that historians liked to recount as true. Here's how he puts it in the introduction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …τῶν ἱστορουμένων ἕκαστον οὐκ ἀκωμῳδήτως ᾔνικται πρός τινας τῶν παλαιῶν ποιητῶν τε καὶ συγγραφέων καὶ φιλοσόφων πολλὰ τεράστια καὶ μυθώδη συγγεγραφότων, οὓς καὶ ὀνομαστὶ ἂν ἔγραφον, εἰ μὴ καὶ αὐτῷ σοι ἐκ τῆς ἀναγνώσεως φανεῖσθαι ἔμελλον…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …each of the stories I tell hints, not without humor, at one of those ancient poets, historians, and philosophers, who have written down quite a lot of myths and legends as &quot;history&quot;. I would mention them by name, if not for the fact that they're likely to be made clear by your reading…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a short lacuna in the text after this point, but Lucian does indeed go on to single out a few historians for particular ridicule, and then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀρχηγὸς δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ διδάσκαλος τῆς τοιαύτης βωμολοχίας ὁ τοῦ Ὁμήρου Ὀδυσσεύς, τοῖς περὶ τὸν Ἀλκίνουν διηγούμενος ἀνέμων τε δουλείαν καὶ μονοφθάλμους καὶ ὠμοφάγους καὶ ἀγρίους τινὰς ἀνθρώπους, ἔτι δὲ πολυκέφαλα ζῷα καὶ τὰς ὑπὸ φαρμάκων τῶν ἑταίρων μεταβολάς, οἷα πολλὰ ἐκεῖνος πρὸς ἰδιώτας ἀνθρώπους τοὺς Φαίακας ἐτερατεύσατο.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The founder and teacher of this whole school of charlatanism is Homer's Odysseus, who told Alcinous's court about winds being enslaved, one-eyed men, cannibals, savage men, animals with too many heads, and sailors transformed [into pigs] with magic drugs—this nonsense, and plenty more, was how he tricked the gullible Phaeacians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, he doesn't blame *Homer* for passing myths off as truth, but blames *Odysseus*; the frame narrative of the Trojan War and all that might well have happened, but the stories Odysseus tells within that frame were clearly nonsense he made up to get sympathy from the king of Phaeacia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; τούτοις οὖν ἐντυχὼν ἅπασιν, τοῦ ψεύσασθαι μὲν οὐ σφόδρα τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐμεμψάμην, ὁρῶν ἤδη σύνηθες ὂν τοῦτο καὶ τοῖς φιλοσοφεῖν ὑπισχνουμένοις.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Well, reading through all of these, I couldn't really blame the authors *too* much for their lies, seeing as this was the standard, even for the ones who claim to be philosophers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to one scholiast, this is a not-particularly-subtle jab at Plato's dialogues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἐκεῖνο δὲ αὐτῶν ἐθαύμασα, εἰ ἐνόμιζον λήσειν οὐκ ἀληθῆ συγγράφοντες. διόπερ καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπὸ κενοδοξίας ἀπολιπεῖν τι σπουδάσας τοῖς μεθ᾿ ἡμᾶς, ἵνα μὴ μόνος ἄμοιρος ὦ τῆς ἐν τῷ μυθολογεῖν ἐλευθερίας, ἐπεὶ μηδὲν ἀληθὲς ἱστορεῖν εἶχον—οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐπεπόνθειν ἀξιόλογον—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But, I was somewhat amazed that they thought they could write these falsehoods and not have anyone call them on it. Driven by my vanity, I was eager to pass something down to future generations, so that I wouldn't be the only one left out of the mythological record. Except—I had nothing true to write down, since I'd never done anything worth writing about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is probably a jab at another writer, but I'm not sure which one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἐπὶ τὸ ψεῦδος ἐτραπόμην πολὺ τῶν ἄλλων εὐγνωμονέστερον· κἂν ἓν γὰρ δὴ τοῦτο ἀληθεύσω λέγων ὅτι ψεύδομαι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, I turned to lying, but in a much more honest way than the others—because, see, I will tell you this one thing truly, that I'm making it all up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He then goes on to write what some people consider the world's first science fiction novel, in which he launches a ship to the moon, gets involved in a space war, meets gay plant-based aliens, accidentally arrives in Elysium, discusses literary criticism with Homer's ghost, finds an island made of cheese, and eventually discovers an entire ecosystem built inside a giant sea-monster's stomach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some parts that are definitely mocking Herodotus specifically, and I'm sure some lesser-known authors too (though I probably missed most of those references). But overall, it seems clear that Lucian had very little respect for most of the ancient writers of history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(All Greek text is from the LCL; all translations are mine.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11188" RevisionGUID="8bddee11-690e-4f19-a198-d9f2ffdb4ab3" CreationDate="2019-07-25T00:38:20.833" UserId="1304" Text="From the 2nd century BC to the 20th century AD, Greek spelling used three different accent marks, but there has always been only one phonological accent, which nowadays surfaces as an intensity-based stress, but was undoubtedly pitch-based in ancient Greek, even if some details aren’t completely clear. The location of that accent has been stable for millennia. Even such details as doubly-accented proparoxytona before enclytics have been preserved: modern Greeks has (in the single-accent orthography adopted in 1982) η πρόσκλησή μου _(my invitation),_ with stresses on the same vowels as in ancient Greek ἡ πρόσκλησίς μου _(my subpoena:_ the meaning did change... _)_ The exceptions (e.g. έλευθερία becoming λευτεριά) need not bother us here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a trivial fact that, in probably all languages of the world past and present, words in connected speech are pronounced differently than their citation forms. So, the final mora of ancient Greek oxytones was realised before other accented words with a lower pitch, probably but not surely the same low pitch of a non-accented mora. However you call it (accent suppression might be a good term), it was an entirely predictable phenomenon, and an integral part of the realisation rules of the ancient Greek pitch accent. An abstract phonological representation of the system might even ignore the difference. My __first__ answer is therefore “There was no phonological difference, the point is moot”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the ancient grammarians were no modern linguists and had a musical ear: they decided that what was happening was noteworthy enough to use a special accent for it, the grave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there is more. In modern Greek, you cannot have two consecutive stressed syllables. So, even if the modern orthography obscures this fact, e.g. the last vowel of γιατί _(why)_ is fully stressed in δεν ξέρω γιατί _(I don’t know why)_ and practically unstressed in δεν ξέρω γιατί κάνεις αυτά _(I don’t know why you’re doing this)._ My __second__ answer is therefore “The change from pitch to stress changed the conditions, but accent suppression has never gone away and is still there”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In their article from 1985 [“Stress in Greek”,](https://www.jstor.org/stable/284193) A.M. Devine and Laurence D. Stephens debunk Sidney Allen’s theory that ancient Greek had a “non-accentual stress” in addition to the pitch accent talked about so far. Then, they try to determine how and when the modern stress accent developed. They analyze spelling errors through the centuries and conclude that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;These results lend some support to the view that a stress accent developed before the loss of quantity contrasts and conditioned that loss&lt;sup&gt;89&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;89&lt;/sup&gt; False quantities begin to appear with some frequency in Christian and popular verse during the third century A.D. At this date they may not be motivated by contextually limited phonological factors such as accentuation, but merely reflect imperfect mastery of an artificial literary register by speakers who have lost all traces of quantity distinctions in all environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also like to cite another, more recent article from 2011. I don’t know how well it was received and if it is still controversial, but I found it fascinating:&#xD;&#xA;Mindaugas Strockis (Vilnius University), [_A New Interpretation of the Syllable Tones in Doric Greek_](http://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/baltistica/article/download/39/21). It is well known that in many cases the moras marked as accented in Doric occurred _after_ the corresponding Attic ones: compare Doric φρᾱτήρ with Attic φράτηρ, Doric Ποτιδάν with Attic Ποσειδῶν, Doric σκώρ with Attic σκῶρ, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Strockis, this doesn’t mean that the Doric phonological accent was displaced with respect to Attic: it was at the same place, but it was realised as a pitch _fall_ instead of a pitch _rise:_ the acutes and circumflexes would then mark a pitch rise after that fall, effectively marking a post-tonic mora. If he is right, the purely musical meaning of the ancient notation would be confirmed, and our understanding of the whole matter would be considerably deeper. I add a fact not mentioned by Strockis, but perfectly in line with his theory: Tsakonic, the modern dialect derived directly from Doric, has its stress accents exactly where they are in the dialects derived from Attic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I hope that it is not too off-topic to mention that in recent times the grave was considered nothing more than a typographical habit, of the kind of σ vs. ς: it was the first mark to go away, well before 1982. You can find a lot of 20th-century publications with circumflexes, spirits and all, but no graves: acutes are used instead. [Some traditionalists](http://www.estianews.gr) use this “simplified polytonic” system to this day.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11188" RevisionGUID="c0da32f2-8c74-4b58-a7b3-9950c25f1fd4" CreationDate="2019-07-25T00:45:08.457" UserId="1304" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="From the 2nd century BC to the 20th century AD, Greek spelling used three different accent marks, but there has always been only one phonological accent, which nowadays surfaces as an intensity-based stress, but was undoubtedly pitch-based in ancient Greek, even if some details aren’t completely clear. The location of that accent has been stable for millennia. Even such details as doubly-accented proparoxytona before enclytics have been preserved: modern Greek has (in the single-accent orthography adopted in 1982) η πρόσκλησή μου _(my invitation),_ with stresses on the same vowels as in ancient Greek ἡ πρόσκλησίς μου _(my subpoena:_ the meaning did change... _)_ The exceptions (e.g. έλευθερία becoming λευτεριά) need not bother us here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a trivial fact that, in probably all languages of the world past and present, words in connected speech are pronounced differently than their citation forms. So, the final mora of ancient Greek oxytones was realised before other accented words with a lower pitch, probably but not surely the same low pitch of a non-accented mora. However you call it (accent suppression might be a good term), it was an entirely predictable phenomenon, and an integral part of the realisation rules of the ancient Greek pitch accent. An abstract phonological representation of the system might even ignore the difference. My __first__ answer is therefore “There was no phonological difference, the point is moot”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the ancient grammarians were no modern linguists and had a musical ear: they decided that what was happening was noteworthy enough to use a special accent for it, the grave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there is more. In modern Greek, you cannot have two consecutive stressed syllables. So, even if the modern orthography obscures this fact, e.g. the last vowel of γιατί _(why)_ is fully stressed in δεν ξέρω γιατί _(I don’t know why)_ and practically unstressed in δεν ξέρω γιατί κάνεις αυτά _(I don’t know why you’re doing this)._ My __second__ answer is therefore “The change from pitch to stress changed the conditions, but accent suppression has never gone away and is still there”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In their article from 1985 [“Stress in Greek?”,](https://www.jstor.org/stable/284193) A.M. Devine and Laurence D. Stephens debunk Sidney Allen’s theory that ancient Greek had a “non-accentual stress” in addition to the pitch accent talked about so far. Then, they try to determine how and when the modern stress accent developed. They analyze spelling errors through the centuries and conclude that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;These results lend some support to the view that a stress accent developed before the loss of quantity contrasts and conditioned that loss&lt;sup&gt;89&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;89&lt;/sup&gt; False quantities begin to appear with some frequency in Christian and popular verse during the third century A.D. At this date they may not be motivated by contextually limited phonological factors such as accentuation, but merely reflect imperfect mastery of an artificial literary register by speakers who have lost all traces of quantity distinctions in all environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also like to cite another, more recent article from 2011. I don’t know how well it was received and if it is still controversial, but I found it fascinating:&#xD;&#xA;Mindaugas Strockis (Vilnius University), [_A New Interpretation of the Syllable Tones in Doric Greek_](http://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/baltistica/article/download/39/21). It is well known that in many cases the moras marked as accented in Doric occurred _after_ the corresponding Attic ones: compare Doric φρᾱτήρ with Attic φράτηρ, Doric Ποτιδάν with Attic Ποσειδῶν, Doric σκώρ with Attic σκῶρ, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Strockis, this doesn’t mean that the Doric phonological accent was displaced with respect to Attic: it was at the same place, but it was realised as a pitch _fall_ instead of a pitch _rise:_ the acutes and circumflexes would then mark a pitch rise after that fall, effectively marking a post-tonic mora. If he is right, the purely musical meaning of the ancient notation would be confirmed, and our understanding of the whole matter would be considerably deeper. I add a fact not mentioned by Strockis, but perfectly in line with his theory: Tsakonic, the modern dialect derived directly from Doric, has its stress accents exactly where they are in the dialects derived from Attic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I hope that it is not too off-topic to mention that in recent times the grave was considered nothing more than a typographical habit, of the kind of σ vs. ς: it was the first mark to go away, well before 1982. You can find a lot of 20th-century publications with circumflexes, spirits and all, but no graves: acutes are used instead. [Some traditionalists](http://www.estianews.gr) use this “simplified polytonic” system to this day.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11188" RevisionGUID="c1eddd51-baa6-428a-ad0d-5cc184926e74" CreationDate="2019-07-25T01:19:00.503" UserId="1304" Comment="edited body" Text="From the 2nd century BC to the 20th century AD, Greek spelling used three different accent marks, but there has always been only one phonological accent, which nowadays surfaces as an intensity-based stress, but was undoubtedly pitch-based in ancient Greek, even if some details aren’t completely clear. The location of that accent has been stable for millennia. Even such details as doubly-accented proparoxytona before enclytics have been preserved: modern Greek has (in the single-accent orthography adopted in 1982) η πρόσκλησή μου _(my invitation),_ with stresses on the same vowels as in ancient Greek ἡ πρόσκλησίς μου _(my subpoena:_ the meaning did change... _)_ The exceptions (e.g. ἐλευθερία becoming λευτεριά) need not bother us here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a trivial fact that, in probably all languages of the world past and present, words in connected speech are pronounced differently than their citation forms. So, the final mora of ancient Greek oxytones was realised before other accented words with a lower pitch, probably but not surely the same low pitch of a non-accented mora. However you call it (accent suppression might be a good term), it was an entirely predictable phenomenon, and an integral part of the realisation rules of the ancient Greek pitch accent. An abstract phonological representation of the system might even ignore the difference. My __first__ answer is therefore “There was no phonological difference, the point is moot”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the ancient grammarians were no modern linguists and had a musical ear: they decided that what was happening was noteworthy enough to use a special accent for it, the grave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there is more. In modern Greek, you cannot have two consecutive stressed syllables. So, even if the modern orthography obscures this fact, e.g. the last vowel of γιατί _(why)_ is fully stressed in δεν ξέρω γιατί _(I don’t know why)_ and practically unstressed in δεν ξέρω γιατί κάνεις αυτά _(I don’t know why you’re doing this)._ My __second__ answer is therefore “The change from pitch to stress changed the conditions, but accent suppression has never gone away and is still there”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In their article from 1985 [“Stress in Greek?”,](https://www.jstor.org/stable/284193) A.M. Devine and Laurence D. Stephens debunk Sidney Allen’s theory that ancient Greek had a “non-accentual stress” in addition to the pitch accent talked about so far. Then, they try to determine how and when the modern stress accent developed. They analyze spelling errors through the centuries and conclude that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;These results lend some support to the view that a stress accent developed before the loss of quantity contrasts and conditioned that loss&lt;sup&gt;89&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;89&lt;/sup&gt; False quantities begin to appear with some frequency in Christian and popular verse during the third century A.D. At this date they may not be motivated by contextually limited phonological factors such as accentuation, but merely reflect imperfect mastery of an artificial literary register by speakers who have lost all traces of quantity distinctions in all environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also like to cite another, more recent article from 2011. I don’t know how well it was received and if it is still controversial, but I found it fascinating:&#xD;&#xA;Mindaugas Strockis (Vilnius University), [_A New Interpretation of the Syllable Tones in Doric Greek_](http://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/baltistica/article/download/39/21). It is well known that in many cases the moras marked as accented in Doric occurred _after_ the corresponding Attic ones: compare Doric φρᾱτήρ with Attic φράτηρ, Doric Ποτιδάν with Attic Ποσειδῶν, Doric σκώρ with Attic σκῶρ, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Strockis, this doesn’t mean that the Doric phonological accent was displaced with respect to Attic: it was at the same place, but it was realised as a pitch _fall_ instead of a pitch _rise:_ the acutes and circumflexes would then mark a pitch rise after that fall, effectively marking a post-tonic mora. If he is right, the purely musical meaning of the ancient notation would be confirmed, and our understanding of the whole matter would be considerably deeper. I add a fact not mentioned by Strockis, but perfectly in line with his theory: Tsakonic, the modern dialect derived directly from Doric, has its stress accents exactly where they are in the dialects derived from Attic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I hope that it is not too off-topic to mention that in recent times the grave was considered nothing more than a typographical habit, of the kind of σ vs. ς: it was the first mark to go away, well before 1982. You can find a lot of 20th-century publications with circumflexes, spirits and all, but no graves: acutes are used instead. [Some traditionalists](http://www.estianews.gr) use this “simplified polytonic” system to this day.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32913" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="11089" RevisionGUID="cacc949a-0528-49ef-a665-a78e01453e5c" CreationDate="2019-07-25T12:02:00.217" UserId="-1" Comment="123" />
  <row Id="32914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11170" RevisionGUID="1086e905-566f-408f-b6b4-d4fcbb1bf760" CreationDate="2019-07-25T18:09:22.870" UserId="79" Comment="added 639 characters in body" Text="Here is one possible way to parse this kind of constructions.&#xD;&#xA;(The instance you quote is not unique as the examples below indicate.)&#xD;&#xA;Recall that there are two ways to indicate possession: *domum habeo* and *mihi domus est* are more or less equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;The usual way to express obligation is *mihi currendum est*.&#xD;&#xA;If one analyses this as a dative of possession, then the other way to express possession opens up: *currendum habeo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having thought about the matter for a while, this is indeed how I would interpret this:&#xD;&#xA;This construction arises by analogy to the usual obligation with dative and gerundive and the possibility to express possession with either dative or *habere*.&#xD;&#xA;Just like the usual obligation with dative can have or not have an object, the option with *habere* also has this freedom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I imagine the dative of obligation is far more common, there are good reasons to occasionally prefer *habere* instead.&#xD;&#xA;The syntax is different, and so the pronouns can align more naturally with the surrounding sentence.&#xD;&#xA;After all, a form of *habere* indicates the person (to some extent at least), whereas with *esse* you would need to add a separate pronoun to have such indication.&#xD;&#xA;And if there are other datives around already, using *habere* can reduce ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below are more examples of similar uses of *habere*.&#xD;&#xA;Similar constructions are found in a number of places, but I had never seen them before.&#xD;&#xA;The use is often transitive, but there are also intransitive attestations.&#xD;&#xA;Here are some picks from a corpus search:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Terentius, Phormio 361&amp;ndash;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *nam iam adulescenti nil est quod suscenseam,	 &#xD;&#xA;sĭ ĭllum minu' norat; quippe homo iam grandior,	 &#xD;&#xA;pauper, quoĭ opera vita erat, ruri fere	 &#xD;&#xA;se continebat; ibi **agrum** de nostro patre  	&#xD;&#xA;**colendum habebat**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The presence of *agrum* makes this different from your Pliny example, but I still find this a worthwhile instance for comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Caesar, Bellum Civile 3.57, 3.84&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &amp;hellip; *ut praeter auctoritatem vires quoque **ad coercendum haberet***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &amp;hellip; *quidnam Pompeius propositi aut voluntatis **ad dimicandum haberet***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; These are crucially different due to the preposition *ad* with the gerund.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of construction is quite common, but I would consider it a distraction and will not list more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Columella, De Re Rustica 1.4, 2.9, 2.14, 12.3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *in uniuersum tamen quasi **testificandum** atque saepius **praedicandum habeo**, quod&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ***Illud** deinceps **praecipiendum habeo**, ut demessis segetibus iam in area futuro semini consulamus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ***illud** quoque **praecipiendum habeo**, stercus omne, quod&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ***Illud** uero etiam in perpetuum **custodiendum habebit***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This piece of literature seems to be full of this construction, at least in comparison to most other books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Pomponius Mela, De Chorographia 2.29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *sed ea magis **id memorandum habet**, quod&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; By this point it is clear that this construction is pretty widespread.&#xD;&#xA;Not all authors make use of it, but many do.&#xD;&#xA;However, I found far fewer examples of a gerund(ive) with *habere* without an object.&#xD;&#xA;The remaining examples shall be those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Plinius, Naturalis Historia 10.154, 31.35&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Caesare ex Nerone gravida, cum parere virilem sexum admodum cuperet, hoc usa est puellari augurio, ovum in sinu fovendo atque, cum **deponendum haberet**, nutrici per sinum tradendo, ne intermitteretur tepor; nec falso augurata proditur.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Item **confitendum habent** nec statim amnium utilissimas esse, sicuti nec torrentium ullius, lacusque plurimos salubres.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It appears that Pliny is more fond of this construction than many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Quintilianus, Declamationes Minores 368&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Cum patre nimirum **mendicandum habet**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is very similar to your example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Seneca, Controversiae 2.7, 10.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Post tantos inpudicitiae quaestus si tacere possum, **confitendum habeo** hac me causa afuisse, ut in accessionem patrimoni peregrinando cum uxore certarem*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ***Pugnandum habebam** non imperatori tantum sed patri.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In the first example the ACI *me afuisse* is a kind of an object, but a different kind than encountered previously.&#xD;&#xA;The second one is a very clear case with no object.&#xD;&#xA;It also has plenty of other datives, making it reasonable to use this construction over the usual dative of obligation as I mentioned before the examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. Frontinus, Strategemata 1.4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Idem, tenentibus angustias Thebanis, **per quas transeundum habebat**&amp;hellip;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11190" RevisionGUID="57e74a3c-9ddf-40b0-90d5-54d959815704" CreationDate="2019-07-25T20:48:03.783" UserId="79" Text="The concept of passwords predates computers:&#xD;&#xA;To gain access to, say, some heavily guarded premises, one may need to be able to say a secret phrase to the guards.&#xD;&#xA;I would imagine this concept was not unheard of in antiquity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would a password like this be called in classical Latin?&#xD;&#xA;My instinct is to use *signum* with a clarifying genitive like *admissus* or *accessus* or perhaps and adjective like *abditum*.&#xD;&#xA;Was there a set expression for a password, or should one just explain the concept similarly to what I thought of?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32916" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11190" RevisionGUID="57e74a3c-9ddf-40b0-90d5-54d959815704" CreationDate="2019-07-25T20:48:03.783" UserId="79" Text="What is &quot;password&quot; in classical Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32917" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11190" RevisionGUID="57e74a3c-9ddf-40b0-90d5-54d959815704" CreationDate="2019-07-25T20:48:03.783" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11191" RevisionGUID="ef9ec4a2-5b50-4ad0-9f7f-db58c2d91396" CreationDate="2019-07-25T20:48:41.443" UserId="3248" Text="What is the grammatical &quot;logic&quot; of the impersonal construction with psychological verbs like _pudet, piget, paenitet, taedet, miseret_? (for a short descriptive characterization of so-called “psych verbs” (in English), see https://www.thoughtco.com/psych-verb-definition-1691550 )? A couple of typical examples follow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  _Me non solum piget stultitiae meae sed etiam pudet_. (Cic. _De Dom._ 29)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Sunt homines quos libidinis infamiaeque suae neque pudeat neque taedeat_. (Cic. _Verr._ I, 1, 35) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is the experiencer object marked with accusative rather than with dative? (e.g., cf. Italian: _A me mi importa solo di questo_ Gloss: 'To me (dative!) matters only of this'. Translation: ‘Only this matters to me’). As for the genitive case, I guess that such an unexpected marking could be related to that of other mental verbs like _memini_. Many years ago I read (unfortunately, now I can’t remember the reference) that psychological verbs in Indo-European were basically denominal (i.e., derived from nouns), which in fact makes sense (e.g., in some languages something like “I fear ghosts” is expressed by means of a locative construction with the psych emotion being expressed with a noun: “the fear towards ghosts is (placed) in me”. Irish is an example of these languages). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Assuming that the Latin psychological verbs at issue are denominal, I was wondering if the genitive case could be explained by claiming that it is actually modifying the noun incorporated in the verb. But what about the accusative case of the experiencer object? In principle, it is a bit surprising since accusative marking of the object would typically require having a semantic/meaningful (i.e., non-expletive) subject in the sentence: e.g., cf. so-called ‘Burzio’s Generalization’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzio%27s_generalization ). Notice that the Latin examples at issue (unlike examples like _Hoc mihi licet_ or _Hoc me delectat_) can be regarded as involving an intriguing violation of this linguistic generalization: in this impersonal construction the verb does not assign a semantic function to its subject but it does assign accusative case to its object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another curious fact of these verbs is that the construction is not impersonal if the subject is a pronoun (e.g., _Non te haec pudent?_ Ter. _Adelph._, 754) or a clause or an infinitive (e.g., _Me, mi Pomponi, valde paenitet vivere_. Cic. _Att_. 3,4). As for the latter example, I was wondering why a gerund in genitive case could not instead be used here: e.g.,  _Me paenitet vivendi_.     &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32919" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11191" RevisionGUID="ef9ec4a2-5b50-4ad0-9f7f-db58c2d91396" CreationDate="2019-07-25T20:48:41.443" UserId="3248" Text="What is the grammatical &quot;logic&quot; of impersonal constructions like &quot;Me non solum piget stultitiae meae sed etiam pudet&quot; (Cic. De Dom. 29)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32920" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11191" RevisionGUID="ef9ec4a2-5b50-4ad0-9f7f-db58c2d91396" CreationDate="2019-07-25T20:48:41.443" UserId="3248" Text="|verbs|syntax|impersonal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11191" RevisionGUID="df3a1e8b-2b5e-45fa-9ccc-2f8eb0d0c7a9" CreationDate="2019-07-25T20:56:48.977" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar " Text="What is the grammatical &quot;logic&quot; of the impersonal construction with psychological verbs like _pudet, piget, paenitet, taedet, miseret_? (for a short descriptive characterization of so-called “psych verbs” (in English), see https://www.thoughtco.com/psych-verb-definition-1691550 )? A couple of typical examples follow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  _Me non solum piget stultitiae meae sed etiam pudet_. (Cic. _De Dom._ 29)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Sunt homines quos libidinis infamiaeque suae neque pudeat neque taedeat_. (Cic. _Verr._ I, 1, 35) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is the experiencer object marked with accusative rather than with dative? (e.g., cf. Italian: _A me mi importa solo di questo_. Gloss: 'To me (dative!) matters only of this'. Translation: ‘Only this matters to me’). As for the genitive case, I guess that such an unexpected marking could be related to that of other mental verbs like _memini_. Many years ago I read (unfortunately, now I can’t remember the reference) that psychological verbs in Indo-European were basically denominal (i.e., derived from nouns), which in fact makes sense (e.g., in some languages something like “I fear ghosts” is expressed by means of a locative construction with the psych emotion being expressed with a noun: “the fear towards ghosts is (placed) in me”. Irish is an example of these languages). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Assuming that the Latin psychological verbs at issue are denominal, I was wondering if the genitive case could be explained by claiming that it is actually modifying the noun incorporated in the verb. But what about the accusative case of the experiencer object? In principle, it is a bit surprising since accusative marking of the object would typically require having a semantic/meaningful (i.e., non-expletive) subject in the sentence: e.g., cf. so-called ‘Burzio’s Generalization’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzio%27s_generalization ). Notice that the Latin examples at issue (unlike examples with dative experiencer like _Hoc mihi placet_ or with accusative experiencer like _Hoc me delectat_) can be regarded as involving an intriguing violation of this linguistic generalization. In this impersonal construction the verb does not assign a semantic function to its subject but it does assign accusative case to its object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another curious well-known fact of these verbs is that the construction is not impersonal if the subject is a pronoun (e.g., _Non te haec pudent?_ Ter. _Adelph._, 754) or a clause or an infinitive (e.g., _Me, mi Pomponi, valde paenitet vivere_. Cic. _Att_. 3,4). As for the latter example, I was wondering why a gerund in genitive case could not instead be used here: e.g.,  _Me paenitet vivendi_.     &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11167" RevisionGUID="56c2deb1-6b26-4b3b-b35a-1ff4236785f9" CreationDate="2019-07-25T21:01:50.687" UserId="30" Comment="added 134 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Both *intendo* and *extendo* can mean &quot;stretch out&quot;. Considering how very different, or even opposite, the meanings of the prefixes *ex-* and *in-* often are, how can we explain that both verbs are used in this sense? Is there a way to make sense of it, or is it best regarded as an arbitrary development?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an extra question, can the other senses of *extendo* and *intendo* be explained based on the meanings of their prefixes? I am especially wondering about *extendo* &quot;extend, increase&quot;, and *intendo* &quot;turn one's intention to, aim, intend&quot;. It is not evident, for instance, why *aim* is expressed by *intendo* rather than *extendo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I have used the definitions of [extendo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extendo#Latin) and [*intendo*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intendo#Latin) from Wiktionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32923" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11167" RevisionGUID="56c2deb1-6b26-4b3b-b35a-1ff4236785f9" CreationDate="2019-07-25T21:01:50.687" UserId="30" Comment="added 134 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Difference between 'in-tendo' and 'ex-tendo': why can they both mean &quot;stretch out&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32924" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11167" RevisionGUID="56c2deb1-6b26-4b3b-b35a-1ff4236785f9" CreationDate="2019-07-25T21:01:50.687" UserId="30" Comment="added 134 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|etymology|verbs|prefix|compound-verb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11192" RevisionGUID="517c3e8b-bbb6-47e0-b4ce-ed7d13d66141" CreationDate="2019-07-25T21:44:18.327" UserId="79" Text="Let us look at the verbs behaving like this and some corresponding nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *pudere; pudor*&#xD;&#xA;2. *paenitere; paenitia, paenitudo*&#xD;&#xA;3. *taedere; taedium*&#xD;&#xA;4. *pigere; ?*&#xD;&#xA;5. *miserere; miseria*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list of related nouns is probably not exhaustive, but I could not come up with more.&#xD;&#xA;In cases 1&amp;ndash;3 all the nouns appear to be derived from the verb rather than the other way around.&#xD;&#xA;I found nothing related to *pigere*.&#xD;&#xA;In case 5 both the verb and the noun appear to come from the adjective *miser*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Above is a list of five common verbs with the peculiar behaviour you describe, but none of them appears to be derived from a noun which survives in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Of course, earlier nouns cannot be ruled out, but that sounds rather unlikely.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I am tempted to dismiss the theory of denominal origins for verbs of this kind unless some proof is produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth noting that all these verbs are of the second conjugation, and verbs in that conjugation tend to be semantically different from others.&#xD;&#xA;They often describe state rather than action.&#xD;&#xA;Some of these verbs are derived from adjectives, like *ruber &gt; rubere* and *albus &gt; albere*.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore one might want to analyze 4 and 5 above as *miser &gt; miserere* and *piger &gt; pigere*.&#xD;&#xA;But this doesn't quite work; the meanings are off and the roles of the accusative and the genitive are too different.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I cannot see these kinds of verbs as state verbs derived from adjectives either.&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, these verbs do describe state rather than action as is common in their conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not convinced there is a grammatical logic that can be justified by the origins.&#xD;&#xA;There is a grammatical logic that I use to make sense of these verbs to myself, and I have no evidence for it beyond its making sense to me.&#xD;&#xA;I would be glad to hear of other approaches than the one I will describe next.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These verbs are impersonal.&#xD;&#xA;Just like with *pluere*, there is no subject.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *pudere* means &quot;to make ashamed&quot;, &quot;to excite/cause shame&quot;, or similar.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore *me pudet* is &quot;[it] makes me ashamed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Such wording is unnatural in many languages (not Finnish!), so it is often best translated in a different way.&#xD;&#xA;Better English would be &quot;I am ashamed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The cause of this emotion is expressed as a cause, not as a subject.&#xD;&#xA;A cause is typically expressed with ablative, not genitive.&#xD;&#xA;This can be circumvented by inserting an ablative like *causa*.&#xD;&#xA;This turns *me pudet stultitiae [causa]* into &quot;[it] makes me ashamed because of stupidity&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There is also [a question about *miserere mei*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/987/79).)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11191" RevisionGUID="f3b1f32f-d328-4db9-9b1f-ad39cdcf9ee1" CreationDate="2019-07-25T21:47:09.290" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="What is the grammatical &quot;logic&quot; of the impersonal construction with psychological verbs like _pudet, piget, paenitet, taedet, miseret_? ([here](https://www.thoughtco.com/psych-verb-definition-1691550) is a short descriptive characterization of so-called “psych verbs” (in English))? A couple of typical examples follow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  _Me non solum piget stultitiae meae sed etiam pudet_. (Cic. _De Dom._ 29)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Sunt homines quos libidinis infamiaeque suae neque pudeat neque taedeat_. (Cic. _Verr._ I, 1, 35) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is the experiencer object marked with accusative rather than with dative? (e.g., cf. Italian: _A me mi importa solo di questo_. Gloss: 'To me (dative!) matters only of this'. Translation: ‘Only this matters to me’). As for the genitive case, I guess that such an unexpected marking could be related to that of other mental verbs like _memini_. Many years ago I read (unfortunately, now I can’t remember the reference) that psychological verbs in Indo-European were basically denominal (i.e., derived from nouns), which in fact makes sense (e.g., in some languages something like “I fear ghosts” is expressed by means of a locative construction with the psych emotion being expressed with a noun: “the fear towards ghosts is (placed) in me”. Irish is an example of these languages). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Assuming that the Latin psychological verbs at issue are denominal, I was wondering if the genitive case could be explained by claiming that it is actually modifying the noun incorporated in the verb. But what about the accusative case of the experiencer object? In principle, it is a bit surprising since accusative marking of the object would typically require having a semantic/meaningful (i.e., non-expletive) subject in the sentence: e.g., cf. so-called [‘Burzio’s Generalization’](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzio%27s_generalization). Notice that the Latin examples at issue (unlike examples with dative experiencer like _Hoc mihi placet_ or with accusative experiencer like _Hoc me delectat_) can be regarded as involving an intriguing violation of this linguistic generalization. In this impersonal construction the verb does not assign a semantic function to its subject but it does assign accusative case to its object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another curious well-known fact of these verbs is that the construction is not impersonal if the subject is a pronoun (e.g., _Non te haec pudent?_ Ter. _Adelph._, 754) or a clause or an infinitive (e.g., _Me, mi Pomponi, valde paenitet vivere_. Cic. _Att_. 3,4). As for the latter example, I was wondering why a gerund in genitive case could not instead be used here: e.g.,  _Me paenitet vivendi_.     &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32927" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11191" RevisionGUID="f3b1f32f-d328-4db9-9b1f-ad39cdcf9ee1" CreationDate="2019-07-25T21:47:09.290" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|verbs|syntax|impersonal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11193" RevisionGUID="a0b961dd-0d78-4d66-b4e9-287a827c469d" CreationDate="2019-07-25T22:30:22.477" UserId="406" Text="The word itself was typically a *signum*, a sign, as in Plautus's _Miles Gloriosus_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M: cedo **signum**, si harunc Baccharum es.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; P: amat mulier quaedam quendam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *M: Give the **password**, if you're one of these Bacchants.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *P: A certain woman loves a certain man.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in military contexts, a nightly password was usually written on a little piece of material (*tessera*). So by metonymy, the password could be called a *tessera* too, as in Frontinus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bello civili, cum Ategua urbs in Hispania Pompeianarum partium obsideretur, Maurus inter noctem tamquam Caesarianus tribuni cornicularius vigiles quosdam excitavit; ex quibus cum **tesseram** accepisset, alios excitans constantia fallaciae suae per medias Caesaris copias praesidium Pompei transduxit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *During the Civil War, when the city of Ategua in Spain (belonging to the Pompeians) was under seige, in the middle of the night, a certain Moor, [pretending to be] a tribute's adjutant, woke up some of the sentries, and after he had acquired **the password** from them [by pretending to check if they knew it], he woke up others, and by continuing this deceit, he managed to bring reinforcements for Pompey right through the middle of Caesar's troops.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(WIP unfinished)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32929" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="11167" RevisionGUID="bbac8610-a642-4aab-ab16-8965fdb6bf51" CreationDate="2019-07-26T01:23:39.543" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="Rollback to [442c3c79-0c4c-4925-a3e4-92e87e06d7f2]" Text="Please see the side-by-side definitions of [extendo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extendo#Latin) and [*intendo*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intendo#Latin) below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **in/ex-tension** obviously share the same root. Did the difference in prefixes engender and explain the differences in their meanings?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. How? To wit, how does *ex-* befit meanings 2-3 for *extendo*? Why couldn't *in-* have been used? What makes 'INcrease' (in 3) more *ex-* than *in-*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. How does *in-*  befit meanings 2-4 for *intendo*? What makes 'turning my attention to, aim, intend) more *in-* than *ex-*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/u12kV.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32930" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="11167" RevisionGUID="bbac8610-a642-4aab-ab16-8965fdb6bf51" CreationDate="2019-07-26T01:23:39.543" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="Rollback to [442c3c79-0c4c-4925-a3e4-92e87e06d7f2]" Text="'in-' vs 'ex-' in intendo vs extendō" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32931" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="11167" RevisionGUID="bbac8610-a642-4aab-ab16-8965fdb6bf51" CreationDate="2019-07-26T01:23:39.543" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="Rollback to [442c3c79-0c4c-4925-a3e4-92e87e06d7f2]" Text="|etymology|prefix|" />
  <row Id="32932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11167" RevisionGUID="aade49f6-669e-4666-9535-d4aa96659915" CreationDate="2019-07-26T01:25:22.993" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="added 456 characters in body" Text="Please see the side-by-side definitions of [*extendo*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extendo#Latin) and [*intendo*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intendo#Latin) below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **in/ex-tension** obviously share the same root. Did the difference in prefixes engender and explain the differences in their meanings? Can the other senses of *extendo* and *intendo* be explained based on the meanings of their prefixes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. How? To wit, how does *ex-* befit meanings 2-3 for *extendo*? Why couldn't *in-* have been used? What makes 'INcrease' (in 3) more *ex-* than *in-*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. How does *in-*  befit meanings 2-4 for *intendo*?  I'm baffled by *extendo* &quot;extend, increase&quot;, and *intendo* &quot;turn one's intention to, aim, intend&quot;. Why's &quot;aim&quot; expressed by *intendo* rather than *extendo*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Both *intendo* and *extendo* can mean &quot;stretch out&quot;. The meanings of the prefixes *ex-* and *in-* often differ. So how can we explain that both verbs are used in this sense? Is there a way to make sense of it, or is it best regarded as an arbitrary development?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/u12kV.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="f8d3d051-34f4-48a7-848e-543ff911f63e" CreationDate="2019-07-26T01:32:12.627" UserId="3248" Text="As a follow-up of a previous question on psychological verbs in Latin ([here][1] ), I was wondering if you could give your translation/interpretation of the verbal phrase in bold type in relation to _Odi et amo_ in the following very famous poem by Catullus (LXXXV):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Odi et amo. Quare **id faciam** fortasse requiris. / Nescio sed fieri sentio et excrucior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a typical triple classification of so-called “psychological verbs” according to the syntactic function of the experiencer argument: (i) subject (_timere_-verbs), (ii) direct object (_terrere_-verbs) and (iii) indirect object (_placere_-verbs). Typically, first and third classes are semantically analyzed as lacking an event, i.e., they are **stative** predicates (e.g., cf. the famous Vendlerian aspectual classes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_aspect ; e.g., see Filip's (1996: 3) claim &quot;Psychological predicates of the _fear_ type are stative&quot;: [_timere_-class][2]). Here is then the reason of my question above: in many languages it is often the case that stative verbs cannot be reassumed by the non-stative verb _facere_. For example, the following Spanish and Catalan translations sound quite odd: Sp. “Odio y amo. ¿Por qué **lo hago**? (tal vez me preguntes…)” // Cat. “Odio i estimo. Per què **ho faig** (tal vegada em preguntis…)”. Could you please let me know if the same happens in your native language? Cf. also the fact that _faciam_ and _requiris_ are agentive predicates, compared to the verbs of the second verse, which are all non-agentive: _nescio_, _fieri_, _sentio_, and _excrucior_ (cf. the following contrastive pairs forming a beatiful chiasma (_odi-et-amo/excrucior_ and _requiris/nescio_), which also provide the physical limits of the poem, leaving the contrast _faciam/fieri_(_sentio_) in the middle. So I was wondering if there is a coercion/reason here for considering _odi_ and _amo_ as involving &quot;something&quot; more than mere states. Hopefully, this &quot;something else&quot; could also explain the use of _faciam id_ in relation to _odi et amo_. Any thoughts/interpretations or helpful references?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, could you please give your (favorite) translations of this poem in English and/or in your native language? Thanks in advance!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11191/what-is-the-grammatical-logic-of-impersonal-constructions-like-me-non-solum-p&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://user.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~filip/Filip.Psychverbs.1996.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32934" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="f8d3d051-34f4-48a7-848e-543ff911f63e" CreationDate="2019-07-26T01:32:12.627" UserId="3248" Text="Odi et amo. Quare id faciam... States as Actions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32935" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="f8d3d051-34f4-48a7-848e-543ff911f63e" CreationDate="2019-07-26T01:32:12.627" UserId="3248" Text="|verbs|translation|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="8e7da832-47d4-47ac-be8f-3f4e845cd617" CreationDate="2019-07-26T01:42:55.220" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar &amp; format" Text="As a follow-up of a previous question on psychological verbs in Latin ([here][1] ), I was wondering if you could give your translation/interpretation of the verbal phrase in bold type in relation to _Odi et amo_ in the following very famous poem by Catullus (LXXXV):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Odi et amo. Quare **id faciam** fortasse requiris. / Nescio sed fieri sentio et excrucior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a typical triple classification of so-called “psychological verbs” according to the syntactic function of the experiencer argument: (i) subject (_timere_-verbs), (ii) direct object (_terrere_-verbs) and (iii) indirect object (_placere_-verbs). Typically, first and third classes are semantically analyzed as lacking an event, i.e., they are **stative** predicates (e.g., cf. the famous Vendlerian aspectual classes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_aspect ; e.g., see Filip's (1996: 3) claim &quot;Psychological predicates of the _fear_ type are stative&quot;: [_timere_-class][2]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is then the reason of my question above: in many languages it is often the case that stative verbs cannot be reassumed by the non-stative verb _facere_. For example, the following Spanish and Catalan translations sound quite odd: Sp. “Odio y amo. ¿Por qué **lo hago**? (tal vez me preguntes…)” // Cat. “Odio i estimo. Per què **ho faig** (tal vegada em preguntis…)”. Could you please let me know if the same happens in your native language? Notice also that _faciam_ and _requiris_ are agentive predicates, compared to the verbs of the second verse, which are all non-agentive: _nescio_, _fieri_, _sentio_, and _excrucior_ . Cf. the following contrastive pairs forming a beatiful chiasma: _odi-et-amo/excrucior_ and _requiris/nescio_, which also provide the physical limits of the poem, leaving the contrast _faciam/fieri_(_sentio_) in the middle. So I was wondering if there is a coercion/reason here for considering _odi_ and _amo_ as involving &quot;something&quot; more than mere states. Hopefully, this &quot;something else&quot; could also explain the use of _faciam id_ in relation to _odi et amo_. Any thoughts/interpretations or helpful references?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, could you please give your (favorite) translations of this poem in English and/or in your native language? Thanks in advance!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11191/what-is-the-grammatical-logic-of-impersonal-constructions-like-me-non-solum-p&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://user.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~filip/Filip.Psychverbs.1996.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32937" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="8e7da832-47d4-47ac-be8f-3f4e845cd617" CreationDate="2019-07-26T01:42:55.220" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar &amp; format" Text="&quot;Odi et amo. Quare id faciam...&quot; States as Actions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="ba28e775-794b-469e-a3b0-f37e4be12e9c" CreationDate="2019-07-26T02:43:08.350" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar and clarification" Text="As a follow-up of a previous question on psychological verbs in Latin ([here][1] ), I was wondering if you could give your translation/interpretation of the verbal phrase in bold type in relation to _Odi et amo_ in the following very famous poem by Catullus (LXXXV):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Odi et amo. Quare **id faciam** fortasse requiris. / Nescio sed fieri sentio et excrucior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a typical tripartite classification of so-called “psychological verbs” according to the syntactic function of the experiencer argument: (i) subject (_timere_-verbs), (ii) direct object (_terrere_-verbs) and (iii) indirect object (_placere_-verbs). Typically, first and third classes are semantically analyzed as lacking an event, i.e., they are **stative** predicates (e.g., cf. the famous Vendlerian aspectual classes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_aspect ; e.g., see Filip's (1996: page 3) claim &quot;Psychological predicates of the _fear_ type are stative&quot;: [_timere_-class][2]) NB: _amare_ and _odisse_ are also of the _timere_-type/class, the 1st class in Belletti &amp; Rizzi's (1998) tripartite classification of psychological verbs: [B&amp;B 1988][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is then the reason of my question above: in many languages it is often the case that stative verbs cannot be reassumed by the non-stative verbal expression _facere id_. This is in fact quite expected due to an aktionsart clash. For example, the following Spanish and Catalan translations sound quite odd: Sp. “Odio y amo. ¿Por qué **lo hago**? (tal vez me preguntes…)” // Cat. “Odio i estimo. Per què **ho faig** (tal vegada em preguntis…)”. Could you please let me know if the same happens in your native language? Notice also that _faciam_ and _requiris_ are agentive predicates, compared to the verbs of the second verse, which are all non-agentive: _nescio_, _fieri_, _sentio_, and _excrucior_ . Cf. the following contrastive pairs forming a beautiful chiasma: _odi-et-amo/excrucior_ and _requiris/nescio_, which also provide the physical limits of the poem, leaving the contrast _faciam/fieri_(_sentio_) in the middle. So I was wondering if there is a reason here for considering _odi_ and _amo_ as involving something else than mere states. Hopefully, this &quot;something else&quot; could also explain the use of _faciam id_ in relation to _odi et amo_. Any thoughts/interpretations or helpful references?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, could you please give your (favorite) translations of this poem in English and/or in your native language? Thanks in advance!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11191/what-is-the-grammatical-logic-of-impersonal-constructions-like-me-non-solum-p&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://user.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~filip/Filip.Psychverbs.1996.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4047649?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="234e1d5e-ab63-4617-95bd-70a51e2bea8c" CreationDate="2019-07-26T03:28:49.347" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar and clarification" Text="As a follow-up of a previous question on psychological verbs in Latin ([here][1] ), I was wondering if you could give your translation/interpretation of the verbal phrase in bold type in relation to _Odi et amo_ in the following very famous poem by Catullus (LXXXV):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Odi et amo. Quare **id faciam** fortasse requiris. / Nescio sed fieri sentio et excrucior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a typical tripartite classification of so-called “psychological verbs” according to the syntactic function of the experiencer argument: (i) subject (_timere_-verbs), (ii) direct object (_terrere_-verbs) and (iii) indirect object (_placere_-verbs). Typically, first and third classes are semantically analyzed as lacking an event, i.e., they are **stative** predicates (e.g., cf. the famous Vendlerian aspectual classes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_aspect ; e.g., see Filip's (1996: page 3) claim &quot;Psychological predicates of the _fear_ type are stative&quot;: [_timere_-class][2]) NB: _amare_ and _odisse_ are also of the _timere_-type/class, the 1st class in Belletti &amp; Rizzi's (1998) tripartite classification of psychological verbs: [B&amp;B 1988][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is then the reason of my question above: in many languages it is often the case that stative verbs cannot be reassumed by the non-stative verbal expression _facere id_. This is in fact quite expected due to an aktionsart clash. For example, the following Spanish and Catalan translations sound quite odd: Sp. “Odio y amo. ¿Por qué **lo hago**? (tal vez me preguntes…)” // Cat. “Odio i estimo. Per què **ho faig** (tal vegada em preguntis…)”. Could you please let me know if the same happens in your native language? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice also that _faciam_ and _requiris_ are agentive predicates, compared to the verbs of the second verse, which are all non-agentive: _nescio_, _fieri_, _sentio_, and _excrucior_ . Cf. the following contrastive pairs forming a beautiful chiasma: _odi-et-amo/excrucior_ and _requiris/nescio_, which also provide the physical limits of the poem, leaving the contrast _faciam/fieri_(_sentio_) in the middle. So I was wondering if there is any reason here for considering _odi_ and _amo_ as involving something else than mere states. Hopefully, this &quot;something else&quot; could also explain the use of _faciam id_ in relation to _odi et amo_. Any thoughts/interpretations or helpful references? One I've just found is [THE MEANING OF ‘ODI ET AMO’ IN CATULLUS 85][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, could you please give your (favorite) translations of this poem into your native language? Thanks in advance!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11191/what-is-the-grammatical-logic-of-impersonal-constructions-like-me-non-solum-p&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://user.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~filip/Filip.Psychverbs.1996.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4047649?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2041-5370.2011.00015.x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="5129f875-1369-428a-ae0c-a0a253604abf" CreationDate="2019-07-26T03:44:42.953" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar" Text="As a follow-up of a previous question on psychological verbs in Latin ([here][1] ), I was wondering if you could give your translation/interpretation of the verbal phrase in bold type in relation to _Odi et amo_ in the following very famous poem by Catullus (LXXXV):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Odi et amo. Quare **id faciam** fortasse requiris. / Nescio sed fieri sentio et excrucior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a typical tripartite classification of so-called “psychological verbs” according to the syntactic function of the experiencer argument: (i) subject (_timere_-verbs), (ii) direct object (_terrere_-verbs) and (iii) indirect object (_placere_-verbs). Typically, first and third classes are semantically analyzed as lacking an event, i.e., they are **stative** predicates (e.g., cf. the famous Vendlerian aspectual classes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_aspect ; e.g., see Filip's (1996: page 3) claim &quot;Psychological predicates of the _fear_ type are stative&quot;: [_timere_-class][2]) NB: _amare_ and _odisse_ are also of the _timere_-type/class, the 1st class in Belletti &amp; Rizzi's (1998) tripartite classification of psychological verbs: [B&amp;B 1988][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is then the reason of my question above: in many languages it is often the case that stative verbs cannot be reassumed by the non-stative verbal expression _facere id_ 'to do it' (which is not the same as 'to do so'). This is in fact quite expected due to an aktionsart clash. For example, the following Spanish and Catalan translations sound odd: Sp. “Odio y amo. ¿Por qué **lo hago**? (tal vez me preguntes…)” // Cat. “Odio i estimo. Per què **ho faig** (tal vegada em preguntis…)”. Could you please let me know if the same happens in your native language? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice also that _faciam_ and _requiris_ are agentive predicates, compared to the verbs of the second verse, which are all non-agentive: _nescio_, _fieri_, _sentio_, and _excrucior_ . Cf. the following contrastive pairs forming a beautiful chiasma: _odi-et-amo/excrucior_ and _requiris/nescio_, which also provide the physical limits of the poem, leaving the contrast _faciam/fieri_(_sentio_) in the middle. So I was wondering if there is any reason here for considering _odi_ and _amo_ as involving something else than mere states. Hopefully, this &quot;something else&quot; could also explain the use of _faciam id_ in relation to _odi et amo_. Any thoughts/interpretations or helpful references? One I've just found is [THE MEANING OF ‘ODI ET AMO’ IN CATULLUS 85][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, could you please give your (favorite) translations of this poem into your native language? Thanks in advance!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11191/what-is-the-grammatical-logic-of-impersonal-constructions-like-me-non-solum-p&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://user.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~filip/Filip.Psychverbs.1996.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4047649?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2041-5370.2011.00015.x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="ad489191-f341-4b5a-a825-39fd24e15dd2" CreationDate="2019-07-26T04:01:36.263" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="As a follow-up of a previous question on psychological verbs in Latin ([here][1] ), I was wondering if you could give your translation/interpretation of the verbal phrase in bold type in relation to _Odi et amo_ in the following very famous poem by Catullus (LXXXV):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Odi et amo. Quare **id faciam** fortasse requiris. / Nescio sed fieri sentio et excrucior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a typical tripartite classification of so-called “psychological verbs” according to the syntactic function of the experiencer argument: (i) subject (_timere_-verbs), (ii) direct object (_terrere_-verbs) and (iii) indirect object (_placere_-verbs). Typically, the first class is semantically analyzed as lacking an event, i.e., they are **stative** predicates (e.g., see Filip's (1996: **page 3**) claim that &quot;Psychological predicates of the _fear_ type are stative&quot;: [_timere_-class][2]) NB: _amare_ and _odisse_ are also of the _timere_-type/class. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is then the reason of my question above: in many languages it is often the case that stative verbs cannot be reassumed by the non-stative verbal expression _facere id_ 'to do it' (which is not exactly the same as 'to do so'). This is in fact quite expected due to an aktionsart clash. For example, the following Spanish and Catalan translations sound odd: Sp. “Odio y amo. ¿Por qué **lo hago**? (tal vez me preguntas…)” // Cat. “Odio i estimo. Per què **ho faig** (tal vegada em preguntes…)”. Could you please let me know if the same happens in your native language? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice also that _faciam_ and _requiris_ are agentive predicates, compared to the verbs of the second verse, which are all non-agentive: _nescio_, _fieri_, _sentio_, and _excrucior_ . Cf. the following contrastive pairs forming a beautiful chiasma: _odi-et-amo/excrucior_ and _requiris/nescio_, which also provide the physical limits of the poem, leaving the contrast _faciam/fieri_(_sentio_) in the middle. So I was wondering if there is any reason here for considering _odi_ and _amo_ as involving something more &quot;active&quot; than being mere states. Hopefully, this &quot;something else&quot; could also explain the use of _faciam id_ in relation to _odi et amo_. Any thoughts/interpretations or helpful references? One I've just found is [THE MEANING OF ‘ODI ET AMO’ IN CATULLUS 85][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, could you please give your (favorite) translations of this poem into your native language? Thanks in advance!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11191/what-is-the-grammatical-logic-of-impersonal-constructions-like-me-non-solum-p&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://user.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~filip/Filip.Psychverbs.1996.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4047649?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2041-5370.2011.00015.x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11195" RevisionGUID="b399f8fe-c335-43b1-9bc9-7b23cfb88f6e" CreationDate="2019-07-26T10:47:55.093" UserId="831" Text="In English any verb which syntactically takes a subject can be reassumed by “do”. “I hate cod but she doesn’t” is perfectly natural even though no actual *doing* is involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed one of the puzzles of modern Latin languages is that they cannot easily resume verbs. Either they just omit the verb altogether (pero ella no?) or they have to change construction. Come to think of it, Polish also resumes by omission (a ona nie).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is whether the modern Latin re-division of the landscape, which you describe, was already present in Latin (perhaps depending on register) or whether, like the addition of definite and indefinite articles, the aorist-perfect distinction and the need for an active past participle, it was added later. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11196" RevisionGUID="be902de0-717a-4e2e-bea4-8ae72138c888" CreationDate="2019-07-26T13:21:39.603" UserId="4952" Text="Is it necessary to memorize verb's perfect form? like, &#xD;&#xA;paro, parare, paravi ? &#xD;&#xA;or can i predict verb's perfect if i remember the rules? the rules that the perfect stem is formed. like,&#xD;&#xA;The suffix -v/iv or -u is added to the stem&#xD;&#xA;The vowel of the present stem is lengthened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remembered these rules, but varely perdict verb's perfect stem.... Please help me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32944" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11196" RevisionGUID="be902de0-717a-4e2e-bea4-8ae72138c888" CreationDate="2019-07-26T13:21:39.603" UserId="4952" Text="Is it better to memorize verb's 1st person perfect tense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32945" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11196" RevisionGUID="be902de0-717a-4e2e-bea4-8ae72138c888" CreationDate="2019-07-26T13:21:39.603" UserId="4952" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11196" RevisionGUID="a853f7a7-1b69-4f17-b918-ab632a2cfaef" CreationDate="2019-07-26T13:32:46.743" UserId="79" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Is it necessary to memorize verb's perfect form like *paro, parare, paravi*? &#xD;&#xA;Or can I predict a verb's perfect forms if I remember the rules by which perfect stems are formed. Like, the suffix -v/iv or -u is added to the stem and the vowel of the present stem is lengthened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remembered these rules, but can very rarely predict a verb's perfect stem... Please help me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32947" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11196" RevisionGUID="a853f7a7-1b69-4f17-b918-ab632a2cfaef" CreationDate="2019-07-26T13:32:46.743" UserId="79" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|morphology|conjugation|perfect-tense|study-strategies|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11197" RevisionGUID="a0b67b51-6e63-4744-a59b-9d67200d392c" CreationDate="2019-07-26T13:39:31.487" UserId="79" Text="Unfortunately you do need to memorize the perfect stem for each verb you learn.&#xD;&#xA;Many verbs are similar, and it helps a lot that many first conjugation verbs have the *-v-* in perfect forms.&#xD;&#xA;But not all are, and I can't think of a reliable way to tell when a first conjugation verb is going to have an irregular perfect stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially when it comes to the third conjugation, there is no way to guess the perfect stem.&#xD;&#xA;Or more precisely, there are rules, but you can't predict which rule applies to a specific verb.&#xD;&#xA;Is there reduplication?&#xD;&#xA;Is there a nasal augment in the present stem?&#xD;&#xA;Does a vowel get longer?&#xD;&#xA;Knowledge of such phenomena helps memorize the perfect forms once you know quite a few of them, but I would consider it a bad study strategy to try to find rules for each one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But do remember the other side of things:&#xD;&#xA;You only need to remember the perfect stem or any single form formed from it.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin (active) perfect is completely regular: once you know the perfect first person singular, you know all forms in perfect, pluperfect and future perfect tenses.&#xD;&#xA;And this regularity goes beyond the perfect stem, as apart from a small amount of irregular verbs, it suffices to remember just a couple of forms of each Latin verb to reproduce all forms.&#xD;&#xA;Not all languages are so easy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11198" RevisionGUID="c03c5bb7-410c-4e9f-b212-ca0aa78217bc" CreationDate="2019-07-26T15:21:42.777" UserId="324" Text="Plutarch wrote a famous treatise on &quot;the malice of Herodotus&quot; (Περὶ τῆς Ἡροδότου κακοηθείας) in which he accused the Father of History of having spread malicious lies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11197" RevisionGUID="9290a5eb-44ea-42fb-9f5d-12d644df86c4" CreationDate="2019-07-26T17:22:46.757" UserId="79" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately you do need to memorize the perfect stem for each verb you learn.&#xD;&#xA;Many verbs are similar, and it helps a lot that many first conjugation verbs have the *-v-* in perfect forms.&#xD;&#xA;But not all have, and I can't think of a reliable way to tell when a first conjugation verb is going to have an irregular perfect stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially when it comes to the third conjugation, there is no way to guess the perfect stem.&#xD;&#xA;Or more precisely, there are rules but you can't predict which rule applies to a specific verb.&#xD;&#xA;Is there reduplication?&#xD;&#xA;Is there a nasal augment in the present stem?&#xD;&#xA;Does a vowel get longer?&#xD;&#xA;Knowledge of such phenomena helps memorize the perfect forms once you know quite a few of them, but I would consider it a bad study strategy to try to find rules for each one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But do remember the other side of things:&#xD;&#xA;You only need to remember the perfect stem or any single form formed from it.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin (active) perfect is completely regular and identical for all verbs: once you know the perfect first person singular, you know all forms in perfect, pluperfect and future perfect tenses.&#xD;&#xA;And this regularity goes beyond the perfect stem (albeit a little less nicely), as apart from a small amount of irregular verbs it suffices to remember just a couple of forms of each Latin verb to reproduce all forms.&#xD;&#xA;Not all languages are so easy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32951" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11196" RevisionGUID="40e2347b-0685-426d-bb8e-e30d0f776b50" CreationDate="2019-07-26T21:26:29.513" />
  <row Id="32952" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2033" RevisionGUID="72846200-6368-4dc0-b706-1e22023364d6" CreationDate="2019-07-27T01:02:10.223" UserId="-1" Comment="124" />
  <row Id="32953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11199" RevisionGUID="12ddadb1-e42c-4456-9c74-cc8edc1166f0" CreationDate="2019-07-27T03:33:46.983" UserId="4963" Text="I’m founding an early music group dedicated to donating to climate change action, and I’d love to name the group, “Heal the World”, but in Latin, rather than English. I’d be very grateful for translation help, as my junior high Latin courses were many moons ago. Thanks, all.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32954" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11199" RevisionGUID="12ddadb1-e42c-4456-9c74-cc8edc1166f0" CreationDate="2019-07-27T03:33:46.983" UserId="4963" Text="Name for a new music group - translation of “Heal the World”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32955" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11199" RevisionGUID="12ddadb1-e42c-4456-9c74-cc8edc1166f0" CreationDate="2019-07-27T03:33:46.983" UserId="4963" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11200" RevisionGUID="176ff4ae-85a1-4f42-a74a-56855b1bfbe2" CreationDate="2019-07-27T03:54:40.237" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="To wit, I'm seeking a French equivalent of [*Wheelock's Latin*](https://redd.it/248jm0). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not asking about [natural approaches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_approach) like [*Lingua Latina*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_%C3%98rberg). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32957" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11200" RevisionGUID="176ff4ae-85a1-4f42-a74a-56855b1bfbe2" CreationDate="2019-07-27T03:54:40.237" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="What trustworthy books in French introduce Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32958" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11200" RevisionGUID="176ff4ae-85a1-4f42-a74a-56855b1bfbe2" CreationDate="2019-07-27T03:54:40.237" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11200" RevisionGUID="5df6833d-23aa-46be-a497-4430d84eda2c" CreationDate="2019-07-27T04:01:03.590" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="edited body" Text="To wit, I'm seeking a French equivalent of [*Wheelock's Latin*](https://redd.it/4dzybs). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not asking about [natural approaches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_approach) like [*Lingua Latina*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_%C3%98rberg). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11201" RevisionGUID="b666b1d9-8aa6-4aa8-95ff-995a54e8af88" CreationDate="2019-07-27T04:10:58.093" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="[Like this Reddit post 'submitted on 15 Sep 2011'](https://redd.it/kgoxh), let's assume that the reader has  at least an undergraduate degree in Linguistics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I don't know if this commenter had known of the [2006 edn of *Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar*](https://www.amazon.com/Allen-Greenoughs-New-Latin-Grammar/dp/0486448061/ref=pd_sim_14_12?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_i=0486448061&amp;pd_rd_r=500dda6f-c8b6-45e4-8a7b-17ae40a59484&amp;pd_rd_w=qCqyi&amp;pd_rd_wg=VXt0z&amp;pf_rd_p=29a85b27-a36a-4f8d-94ca-61aa962c5f39&amp;pf_rd_r=2NA578GFHCNNWAJV8560&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=2NA578GFHCNNWAJV8560) when (s)he wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Allen and Grenough is the standard traditional grammar, but like most Classics grammars, it was written well before the advent of modern linguistic theory, and thus is burdened with a fairly outdated grammatical apparatus. Most of the accidence is fine, excepting some of the historical material, but the book's syntactic description is less reliable, IMO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I don't know why that post doesn't critique [*Essential Latin Grammar: Bennett's Grammar Revised*](https://www.amazon.com/Essential-Latin-Grammar-Bennetts-Revised/dp/158510244X/ref=pd_sim_14_7?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_i=158510244X&amp;pd_rd_r=42233296-161b-42a6-85b0-907f94e89cb2&amp;pd_rd_w=iIRo3&amp;pd_rd_wg=O74eA&amp;pf_rd_p=29a85b27-a36a-4f8d-94ca-61aa962c5f39&amp;pf_rd_r=K8750VA5EHH2VMSP7462&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=K8750VA5EHH2VMSP7462) (Mar 1 2007)? &#xD;&#xA;3. That post propounds no other recommendation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Unfortunately, there isn't one single modern grammar that can replace A&amp;G. _Latin Grammar_ by Dirk Panhuis is a decent attempt at applying modern linguistics to Latin grammar, but the book is not thorough enough to be a full reference grammar (plus, some of Panhuis' analyses are questionable). Panhuis seems to employ a largely Functionalist model (via Simon Dik), so he includes a large chapter on pragmatics, which is worth a look, as well. Overall, Panhuis is a good supplement to A&amp;G." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32961" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11201" RevisionGUID="b666b1d9-8aa6-4aa8-95ff-995a54e8af88" CreationDate="2019-07-27T04:10:58.093" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Please recommend Referene Grammar for someone with an undergraduate degree in Linguistics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32962" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11201" RevisionGUID="b666b1d9-8aa6-4aa8-95ff-995a54e8af88" CreationDate="2019-07-27T04:10:58.093" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11202" RevisionGUID="e27599f6-e689-4601-a079-d511efcea2d0" CreationDate="2019-07-27T05:21:35.713" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="[subjunctive, adj. and n. : OED Third Edition, June 2012](https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/192731))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Post-classical Latin _subiunctivus_  is a translation equivalent of Hellenistic Greek _ὑποτακτικός_ , which as a grammatical term was used variously with the meaning ‘subjoined’. With _subjunctive mood_  (see sense [A. 1a](https://www-oed-com.ezproxy.torontopubliclibrary.ca/view/Entry/192731?redirectedFrom=subjunctive#eid20064701); compare sense [B. 1](https://www-oed-com.ezproxy.torontopubliclibrary.ca/view/Entry/192731?redirectedFrom=subjunctive#eid20064845)) compare post-classical Latin _modus subiunctivus_  (3rd cent.), Hellenistic Greek _ὑποτακτικὴ ἔγκλισις_ . **[1.] The subjunctive mood was so called because it was regarded as specially appropriate to ‘subjoined’ or subordinate clauses. [I bolded.]** In the Latin grammarians the more common term for subjunctive was post-classical Latin _coniunctivus_ [conjunctive adj.](https://www-oed-com.ezproxy.torontopubliclibrary.ca/view/Entry/39283#eid8549886); _subiunctivus_  is the term favoured by Priscian (5th-6th cent.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[subjunctive | Search Online Etymology Dictionary](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=subjunctive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;mood employed to denote an action or state as conceived and not as a fact,&quot; 1620s,   &#xD;&#xA;from earlier adjectival use of subjunctive (1520s),     &#xD;&#xA;from Late Latin *subiunctivus* &quot;serving to join, connecting,&quot;    &#xD;&#xA;from *subiunct-*, past participle stem of Latin *subiungere* &quot;to append, add at the end, place under,&quot;   &#xD;&#xA;from *sub* &quot;under&quot; (see [sub-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/sub-)) \+ *iungere* &quot;to join together&quot;    &#xD;&#xA;(from nasalized form of PIE root [*yeug-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*yeug-) &quot;to join&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Latin *modus subiunctivus* probably is a loan-translation by the grammarians of Greek *hypotaktike enklisis* &quot;subordinated,&quot; **[2.] so called because the Greek subjunctive mood is used almost exclusively in subordinate clauses**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Can someone please expound and enlarge on this sentence? Why was the subjunctive mood 'regarded as specially appropriate to ‘subjoined’ or subordinate clauses'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Why was the Greek subjunctive mood 'used almost exclusively in subordinate clauses'? Couldn't it have been used almost exclusively in independent clauses? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32964" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11202" RevisionGUID="e27599f6-e689-4601-a079-d511efcea2d0" CreationDate="2019-07-27T05:21:35.713" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Why was the subjunctive mood 'so called because the Greek subjunctive mood is used almost exclusively in subordinate clauses'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32965" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11202" RevisionGUID="e27599f6-e689-4601-a079-d511efcea2d0" CreationDate="2019-07-27T05:21:35.713" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|conjunctive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32966" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="11167" RevisionGUID="8890cc8f-c525-4268-97ff-6c9943d038db" CreationDate="2019-07-27T05:37:11.260" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="125" />
  <row Id="32968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11203" RevisionGUID="ca77459b-5b22-44c4-b764-c2ee84a4c8dd" CreationDate="2019-07-27T05:45:54.233" UserId="4964" Text="I'm looking for someone that can help me produce a correct, coherent Latin phrase for a school project to be used as a motto, similar to the Marine Corps motto *Semper Fidelis*, etc. I would like the phrase to say &quot;God is highest&quot; or &quot;God is supreme.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have used Google translate, which produced *Deus est summum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I have a couple of questions. First, is there already a phrase with this meaning in existence as a motto in Latin? Second, what are the rules for capitalization in Latin when a phrase is used as a motto? Are all caps acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for the help from a Latin-illiterate friend." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32969" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11203" RevisionGUID="ca77459b-5b22-44c4-b764-c2ee84a4c8dd" CreationDate="2019-07-27T05:45:54.233" UserId="4964" Text="Request for a Latin phrase as motto" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32970" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11203" RevisionGUID="ca77459b-5b22-44c4-b764-c2ee84a4c8dd" CreationDate="2019-07-27T05:45:54.233" UserId="4964" Text="|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11203" RevisionGUID="26bf52b2-b75d-44df-ab6a-4cdb052f598f" CreationDate="2019-07-27T05:51:26.903" UserId="4964" Comment="edited title" Text="I'm looking for someone that can help me produce a correct, coherent Latin phrase for a school project to be used as a motto, similar to the Marine Corps motto *Semper Fidelis*, etc. I would like the phrase to say &quot;God is highest&quot; or &quot;God is supreme.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have used Google translate, which produced *Deus est summum*​ or *Deus summum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I have a couple of questions. First, is there already a phrase with this meaning in existence as a motto in Latin? Second, what are the rules for capitalization in Latin when a phrase is used as a motto? Are all caps acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for the help from a Latin-illiterate friend." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32972" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11203" RevisionGUID="26bf52b2-b75d-44df-ab6a-4cdb052f598f" CreationDate="2019-07-27T05:51:26.903" UserId="4964" Comment="edited title" Text="Request for a Latin phrase as motto &quot;God is highest/supreme&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11204" RevisionGUID="015257af-4223-48c6-be83-ad9c3b66aeeb" CreationDate="2019-07-27T09:07:24.920" UserId="831" Text="The best phrase would be *Deus optimus maximus*, literally “God [is] best and greatest”. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only is the meaning right but it has an ancient lineage which makes it perfect for this use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Iuppiter optimus maximus* is a standard pagan formula for Jupiter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Christianity took this phrase over and the dedication *Deo optimo maximo*, “**To** God, best and greatest”, has very wide use throughout the ages. You will often see it abbreviated to D • O • M on monuments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deo_optimo_maximo is quite good. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your use, since you want to say “God is greatest” rather than “To God, the greatest”, the nominative form *Deus optimus maximus* will be the right one. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11205" RevisionGUID="9e422a7e-de50-4c5b-b39a-6d78876a91d8" CreationDate="2019-07-27T09:19:47.187" UserId="79" Text="&gt; Can someone please expound and enlarge on this sentence? Why was the subjunctive mood 'regarded as specially appropriate to ‘subjoined’ or subordinate clauses'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you are looking at it the wrong way around.&#xD;&#xA;Language happens to be what it is and we describe it, but our descriptions have little or no effect on the language.&#xD;&#xA;If we declare subjunctive mood inappropriate for subordinate clauses, people would still speak the way they do.&#xD;&#xA;This mood was used long before grammarians started giving it names.&#xD;&#xA;The point is that &quot;specially appropriate for subordinate clauses&quot; means &quot;found most commonly in subordinate clauses&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It would have been clearer if worded that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;subjunctive&quot; comes from the participle *subiunctus* (&quot;subjugated&quot;, &quot;subjoined&quot;, and similar).&#xD;&#xA;The passage you quote suggests that the name for this form mood is due to its frequent appearance in subordinate clauses.&#xD;&#xA;Even if it has other uses as well, subordination requiring this mood makes &quot;subjunctive&quot; a good name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why was the Greek subjunctive mood 'used almost exclusively in subordinate clauses'? Couldn't it have been used almost exclusively in independent clauses?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why was genitive used for possession?&#xD;&#xA;What was perfect tense used for past events?&#xD;&#xA;Why was subjunctive used for subordinate clauses?&#xD;&#xA;That's just the way it happens to be.&#xD;&#xA;Grammar questions with &quot;why&quot; don't often have very meaningful answers, and I don't think this one has either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this text, this Greek mood happens to be used in subordinate clauses almost exclusively.&#xD;&#xA;It is similar in Latin, although &quot;almost exclusively&quot; might be a little too strong.&#xD;&#xA;Many kinds of subordination (like indirect questions) automatically require this mood in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there is a satisfying answer to &quot;why&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;**Grammar isn't a theory where you can logically conclude things from others.&#xD;&#xA;It is primarily a description of how a language is actually used.**&#xD;&#xA;And this description here is: &quot;this mood is found mainly in subordinate clauses and we call it 'subjunctive' for that reason&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11202" RevisionGUID="f4b63283-5748-41bb-a926-025937b91024" CreationDate="2019-07-27T09:24:44.693" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 503 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Concerning the adjective &quot;subjunctive&quot;, [OED (3rd ed., 2012)](https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/192731) mentions (emphasis mine):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Post-classical Latin _subiunctivus_  is a translation equivalent of Hellenistic Greek _ὑποτακτικός_ , which as a grammatical term was used variously with the meaning ‘subjoined’. With _subjunctive mood_  (see sense [A. 1a](https://www-oed-com.ezproxy.torontopubliclibrary.ca/view/Entry/192731?redirectedFrom=subjunctive#eid20064701); compare sense [B. 1](https://www-oed-com.ezproxy.torontopubliclibrary.ca/view/Entry/192731?redirectedFrom=subjunctive#eid20064845)) compare post-classical Latin _modus subiunctivus_  (3rd cent.), Hellenistic Greek _ὑποτακτικὴ ἔγκλισις_ . **[1.] The subjunctive mood was so called because it was regarded as specially appropriate to ‘subjoined’ or subordinate clauses.** In the Latin grammarians the more common term for subjunctive was post-classical Latin _coniunctivus_ [conjunctive adj.](https://www-oed-com.ezproxy.torontopubliclibrary.ca/view/Entry/39283#eid8549886); _subiunctivus_  is the term favoured by Priscian (5th-6th cent.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=subjunctive) describes the etymology of the word and also mentions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Latin *modus subiunctivus* probably is a loan-translation by the grammarians of Greek *hypotaktike enklisis* &quot;subordinated,&quot; **[2.] so called because the Greek subjunctive mood is used almost exclusively in subordinate clauses**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone please expound and enlarge on this sentence? Why was the subjunctive mood 'regarded as specially appropriate to ‘subjoined’ or subordinate clauses'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why was the Greek subjunctive mood 'used almost exclusively in subordinate clauses'? Couldn't it have been used almost exclusively in independent clauses? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32976" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11202" RevisionGUID="f4b63283-5748-41bb-a926-025937b91024" CreationDate="2019-07-27T09:24:44.693" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 503 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|conjunctive|terminology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11206" RevisionGUID="e47f66aa-fb7d-4ee4-a787-e43f7c0f179e" CreationDate="2019-07-27T10:41:17.393" UserId="1982" Text="A summary, before the comments are deleted: the gerundive plus habere (referred to, here, as &quot;habere plus accusative&quot; was a little-used, colloquial equivalent of the better-known, more widely used &quot;gerundive-of-obligation&quot; with a form of esse and the person, upon whom the obligation falls, is put into the dative; this construction, referred to here as &quot;esse plus dative&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;These two constructions are related: consider: mihi tempus est = for me there is time; equivalent to: tempus habeo = I have time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Analogously: mihi currendum est = it-ought-to-be-run by me; equivalent to: currendum habeo = it-ought-to-be-run I-have/ must (I-am-obliged)--this lacks credibility, for me, but appears to be the linguistic reality that is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contrasting the intransitive: &quot;pugnandum habebam non imperatori tantum sed patri&quot; (it-ought-to-be-fought not only for the Emperor but for the father) with &quot;pugnandum erat mihi non imperatori tantum sed patri&quot; the point made that the latter involves too many datives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This point is valid because, with awkward constructs e.g. gerundive genitives, established rules are relaxed; therefore, the gerundive is allowed to govern a direct object, in order to avoid clumsy-sounding jingles ending -orum -orum or -aram -aram e.g. &quot;ars oppidorum oppugnandorum&quot; becomes &quot;ars oppugnandi oppida&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This summary distilled from the work of Mitomino, Joonas and (my) questions in attempting to get to the bottom of things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11170" RevisionGUID="b3ef9f3e-32df-4f53-b0a2-ef21f8374d63" CreationDate="2019-07-27T10:46:26.990" UserId="79" Comment="added 402 characters in body" Text="Here is one possible way to parse this kind of constructions.&#xD;&#xA;(The instance you quote is not unique as the examples below indicate.)&#xD;&#xA;Recall that there are two ways to indicate possession: *domum habeo* and *mihi domus est* are more or less equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;The usual way to express obligation is *mihi currendum est*.&#xD;&#xA;If one analyses this as a dative of possession, then the other way to express possession opens up: *currendum habeo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having thought about the matter for a while, this is indeed how I would interpret this:&#xD;&#xA;This construction arises by analogy to the usual obligation with dative and gerundive and the possibility to express possession with either dative or *habere*.&#xD;&#xA;Just like the usual obligation with dative can have or not have an object, the option with *habere* also has this freedom.&#xD;&#xA;That is, *mihi tempus est &gt; tempus habeo* is like *mihi currendum est &gt; currendum habeo*.&#xD;&#xA;The semantics of the gerundive work the same way whether it's *esse* or *habere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I imagine the dative of obligation is far more common, there are good reasons to occasionally prefer *habere* instead.&#xD;&#xA;The syntax is different, and so the pronouns can align more naturally with the surrounding sentence.&#xD;&#xA;After all, a form of *habere* indicates the person (to some extent at least), whereas with *esse* you would need to add a separate pronoun to have such indication.&#xD;&#xA;And if there are other datives around already, using *habere* can reduce ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below are more examples of similar uses of *habere*.&#xD;&#xA;Similar constructions are found in a number of places, but I had never seen them before.&#xD;&#xA;The use is often transitive, but there are also intransitive attestations.&#xD;&#xA;Here are some picks from a corpus search:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Terentius, Phormio 361&amp;ndash;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *nam iam adulescenti nil est quod suscenseam,	 &#xD;&#xA;sĭ ĭllum minu' norat; quippe homo iam grandior,	 &#xD;&#xA;pauper, quoĭ opera vita erat, ruri fere	 &#xD;&#xA;se continebat; ibi **agrum** de nostro patre  	&#xD;&#xA;**colendum habebat**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The presence of *agrum* makes this different from your Pliny example, but I still find this a worthwhile instance for comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Caesar, Bellum Civile 3.57, 3.84&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &amp;hellip; *ut praeter auctoritatem vires quoque **ad coercendum haberet***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &amp;hellip; *quidnam Pompeius propositi aut voluntatis **ad dimicandum haberet***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; These are crucially different due to the preposition *ad* with the gerund.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of construction is quite common, but I would consider it a distraction and will not list more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Columella, De Re Rustica 1.4, 2.9, 2.14, 12.3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *in uniuersum tamen quasi **testificandum** atque saepius **praedicandum habeo**, quod&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ***Illud** deinceps **praecipiendum habeo**, ut demessis segetibus iam in area futuro semini consulamus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ***illud** quoque **praecipiendum habeo**, stercus omne, quod&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ***Illud** uero etiam in perpetuum **custodiendum habebit***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This piece of literature seems to be full of this construction, at least in comparison to most other books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Pomponius Mela, De Chorographia 2.29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *sed ea magis **id memorandum habet**, quod&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; By this point it is clear that this construction is pretty widespread.&#xD;&#xA;Not all authors make use of it, but many do.&#xD;&#xA;However, I found far fewer examples of a gerund(ive)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; with *habere* without an object.&#xD;&#xA;The remaining examples shall be those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Plinius, Naturalis Historia 10.154, 31.35&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Caesare ex Nerone gravida, cum parere virilem sexum admodum cuperet, hoc usa est puellari augurio, ovum in sinu fovendo atque, cum **deponendum haberet**, nutrici per sinum tradendo, ne intermitteretur tepor; nec falso augurata proditur.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Item **confitendum habent** nec statim amnium utilissimas esse, sicuti nec torrentium ullius, lacusque plurimos salubres.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It appears that Pliny is more fond of this construction than many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Quintilianus, Declamationes Minores 368&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Cum patre nimirum **mendicandum habet**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is very similar to your example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Seneca, Controversiae 2.7, 10.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Post tantos inpudicitiae quaestus si tacere possum, **confitendum habeo** hac me causa afuisse, ut in accessionem patrimoni peregrinando cum uxore certarem*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ***Pugnandum habebam** non imperatori tantum sed patri.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In the first example the ACI *me afuisse* is a kind of an object, but a different kind than encountered previously.&#xD;&#xA;The second one is a very clear case with no object.&#xD;&#xA;It also has plenty of other datives, making it reasonable to use this construction over the usual dative of obligation as I mentioned before the examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. Frontinus, Strategemata 1.4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Idem, tenentibus angustias Thebanis, **per quas transeundum habebat**&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding gerundives and gerunds, you may want to take a look at&#xD;&#xA;[When and how did the distinction between the gerund and the gerundive develop?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4799/79),&#xD;&#xA;[Is the nominative gerund attested?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6710/79), and&#xD;&#xA;[Nunc est bibendum: gerund or gerundive?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/10809/79).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32979" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11200" RevisionGUID="d5491794-d70b-4650-a9e8-c4bd591d5208" CreationDate="2019-07-27T12:47:57.680" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|resource-request|study-strategies|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11207" RevisionGUID="c7e71e9f-d19e-4ca8-bd69-b79836fc5793" CreationDate="2019-07-27T15:02:41.323" UserId="13" Text="[This Italian Sappho anthology](https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/11675/1/Saffo_frammenti_2015.pdf), on p. 57-58, has a fusion of several Lobel-Page fragments (cfr [this question of mine](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10685/tracing-mysterious-line-ends-in-a-combination-of-sappho-fragments-found-in-an-it)), among which is 67(a). In l. 3 of that fragment, which is l. 16 of the fusion, the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;δ]αίμων ὀλοφ . [&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is completed to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;δ]αίμων ὀλόφω[ι&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last word, ὀλόφῳ, is untraceable for me. It would seem to be a dative form from *ὄλοφος, but that doesn't seem to exist (Wiktionary and Perseus and my big Rocci dictionary all fail to report it), and Perseus doesn't find it as an inflected form either. The following part of the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κ]αὶ τοῦτ' ἐπίκει̣[ρε &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ] θέλ' ὦν τ' ἄπαισαν&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δ]αίμων ὀλόφ[ωι &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; τέ]λ̣εσον νόημμα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would seem to correspond to the following part of the translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;e anche questo (mio male) tu voglia (eliminare); perciò tu, che fra tutte (sei) la dea dai pensieri più astuti, dai compimento al mio pensiero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which in English reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and this (pain of mine) may you also want to (eliminate); thus you, who (are) the goddess of the most astute thoughts among all [goddesses], give fulfilment to my thought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;And this … also&quot; matches καὶ τοῦτ'. &quot;may you … want&quot; might match θέλ(ε), if that is what we take that word to be elided from. &quot;(pain of mine)&quot; goes into the lacuna, hence the brackets. We have to assume &quot;(eliminate)&quot; matches ἐπίκει[ρε, perhaps mis-accented and meant to be ἐπικεί[ρην, an infinitive. &quot;thus you&quot;  matches ὦν τ(υ). &quot;among all [goddesses]&quot; would seem to match ἄπαισαν, which however, if genitive plural, should be ἀπαίσαν. δαίμων matches &quot;goddess&quot;. &quot;give fulfilment to my thought&quot; is τέλεσον νόημμα. We have left to match &quot;of the most astute thoughts&quot; and the mystery word. Um, problem: the English is too long. I mean, that word can't be a superlative, right? This word would then have to match either &quot;thoughts&quot; or &quot;astute&quot;. However, neither give me anything close to this in Woodhouse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is this word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11207" RevisionGUID="c7e71e9f-d19e-4ca8-bd69-b79836fc5793" CreationDate="2019-07-27T15:02:41.323" UserId="13" Text="About supplemented word ὀλόφῳ in a fusion of Lobel-Page fragments from an Italian Sappho anthology" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11207" RevisionGUID="c7e71e9f-d19e-4ca8-bd69-b79836fc5793" CreationDate="2019-07-27T15:02:41.323" UserId="13" Text="|vocabulary|greek|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11208" RevisionGUID="5e5b047e-8f3d-4aa1-b535-a66a710aa026" CreationDate="2019-07-27T18:39:43.110" UserId="1304" Text="While in classical Latin _summus_ might have been the best word, the Christian tradition uses _altissimus_ to translate both the Hebrew and the Aramaic words found in the Old Testament for the concept of “highest God”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See e.g. Daniel, chap. 5, v. 18 (as in the Clementine Vulgate)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O rex, __Deus altissimus__ regnum et magnificentiam, gloriam et honorem dedit Nabuchodonosor patri tuo. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means, according to King James' Version&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O thou king, the __most high God__ gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Deus Altissimus__ is the traditional expression." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11208" RevisionGUID="9d84dc92-d1e1-43c5-8b9c-739a0a5fa21f" CreationDate="2019-07-27T19:00:14.947" UserId="1304" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="While in classical Latin _summus_ might have been the best word, the Christian tradition uses _altissimus_ to translate both the Hebrew and the Aramaic words found in the Old Testament for the concept of “highest God”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See e.g. Daniel, chap. 5, v. 18 (as in the Clementine Vulgate)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O rex, __Deus altissimus__ regnum et magnificentiam, gloriam et honorem dedit Nabuchodonosor patri tuo. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means, according to King James' Version&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O thou king, the __most high God__ gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Deus Altissimus__ is the traditional expression. You can use it in isolation, but if for any reason you want to use the verb _est_ (is) as well, you can write __Deus est altissimus,__ in medieval style." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32985" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11203" RevisionGUID="bc7fc21b-8202-4ea9-b705-b59ea89416d1" CreationDate="2019-07-27T19:12:42.217" />
  <row Id="32986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11208" RevisionGUID="c27b58e5-7c8d-4f7f-8030-27544f3f64d9" CreationDate="2019-07-27T19:15:10.320" UserId="1304" Comment="added 163 characters in body" Text="While in classical Latin _summus_ might have been the best word, the Christian tradition uses _altissimus_ to translate both the Hebrew and the Aramaic words found in the Old Testament for the concept of “highest God”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See e.g. Daniel, chap. 5, v. 18 (as in the Clementine Vulgate)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O rex, __Deus altissimus__ regnum et magnificentiam, gloriam et honorem dedit Nabuchodonosor patri tuo. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means, according to King James' Version&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O thou king, the __most high God__ gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Deus Altissimus__ is the traditional expression. You can use it in isolation, but if for any reason you want to use the verb _est_ (is) as well, you can write __Deus est altissimus,__ in medieval style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During Latin's long history, many capitalization rules have been applied at different times. Don't worry and do whatever you find appropriate for your context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11199" RevisionGUID="12027902-9e5a-4c29-8349-4bb470876bdd" CreationDate="2019-07-27T20:01:05.063" UserId="79" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="I’m founding an early music group dedicated to donating to climate change action, and I’d love to name the group, “Heal the World”, but in Latin, rather than English. I’d be very grateful for translation help, as my junior high Latin courses were many moons ago. I want the order to be addressed to many, not a person at a time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11209" RevisionGUID="33da6929-2d83-4ecb-8c65-e88ee8509186" CreationDate="2019-07-27T20:04:34.210" UserId="79" Text="I suggest using the word *mundus* for &quot;world&quot; and *sanare* for &quot;heal&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There are also other options like *orbis* and *curare*.&#xD;&#xA;You can check and compare the words &amp;mdash; and find new ones &amp;mdash; in any of [the many online Latin dictionaries](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;(The verbs are often listed as *sano* and *curo* instead of *sanare* and *curare*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With these words, the order would be ***Mundum sanate***, &quot;heal the world&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Either word order is fine, so *Sanate mundum* works as well if it sounds better to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11207" RevisionGUID="b27214c8-b517-496b-9a76-5169e4452d3b" CreationDate="2019-07-27T20:25:13.833" UserId="13" Comment="added UPDATE" Text="[This Italian Sappho anthology](https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/11675/1/Saffo_frammenti_2015.pdf), on p. 57-58, has a fusion of several Lobel-Page fragments (cfr [this question of mine](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10685/tracing-mysterious-line-ends-in-a-combination-of-sappho-fragments-found-in-an-it)), among which is 67(a). In l. 3 of that fragment, which is l. 16 of the fusion, the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;δ]αίμων ὀλοφ . [&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is completed to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;δ]αίμων ὀλόφω[ι&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last word, ὀλόφῳ, is untraceable for me. It would seem to be a dative form from *ὄλοφος, but that doesn't seem to exist (Wiktionary and Perseus and my big Rocci dictionary all fail to report it), and Perseus doesn't find it as an inflected form either. The following part of the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κ]αὶ τοῦτ' ἐπίκει̣[ρε &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ] θέλ' ὦν τ' ἄπαισαν&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δ]αίμων ὀλόφ[ωι &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; τέ]λ̣εσον νόημμα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would seem to correspond to the following part of the translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;e anche questo (mio male) tu voglia (eliminare); perciò tu, che fra tutte (sei) la dea dai pensieri più astuti, dai compimento al mio pensiero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which in English reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and this (pain of mine) may you also want to (eliminate); thus you, who (are) the goddess of the most astute thoughts among all [goddesses], give fulfilment to my thought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;And this … also&quot; matches καὶ τοῦτ'. &quot;may you … want&quot; might match θέλ(ε), if that is what we take that word to be elided from. &quot;(pain of mine)&quot; goes into the lacuna, hence the brackets. We have to assume &quot;(eliminate)&quot; matches ἐπίκει[ρε, perhaps mis-accented and meant to be ἐπικεί[ρην, an infinitive. &quot;thus you&quot;  matches ὦν τ(υ). &quot;among all [goddesses]&quot; would seem to match ἄπαισαν, which however, if genitive plural, should be ἀπαίσαν. δαίμων matches &quot;goddess&quot;. &quot;give fulfilment to my thought&quot; is τέλεσον νόημμα. We have left to match &quot;of the most astute thoughts&quot; and the mystery word. Um, problem: the English is too long. I mean, that word can't be a superlative, right? This word would then have to match either &quot;thoughts&quot; or &quot;astute&quot;. However, neither give me anything close to this in Woodhouse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is this word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After thinking it might be a verb, I googled ὀλοφόω, and landed on [this](https://books.google.it/books?id=4ztEAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA172&amp;lpg=PA172&amp;dq=%E1%BD%80%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%86%CF%8C%CF%89&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=fUJ8BQmhan&amp;sig=ACfU3U1VPY4pf1KfihutLiqWrOwtRnahzg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjbreHV89XjAhXOGewKHfaeCFkQ6AEwAXoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%E1%BD%80%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%86%CF%8C%CF%89&amp;f=false), where on p. 172 we find the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me try to copy those screenshots:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ὀλοφώϊος, ὁ, ἡ, s.v.a. ὀλοὸς, bey Nicander σίνη ὀλοφώϊα θηρῶν, verderblich, tüdlich; bey Homer sind ὀλοφώϊα δήνεα Κίρκης, 10, 289, ὀλοφώϊα εἰδὼς, 17, 248. statt ὀλοφώϊος ὤν. Von ὄλω, ὄλλω, ὀλλύω, ὄλλυμι, kommt auch ὀλόω (ὀλοὸς), ὀλόπω, ὀλόπτω, ὀλόφω, ὀλοφόω, wie von ἐλέπω, ἔλπω, ἐλὶς, ἐλέφω, ἐλεφάω, ἐλεφαίρω. S. auch ὀλοφύρομαι. Andere leiten es von ὄλω u. φὼς ab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of all the verbs mentioned with ὀλοφόω, whence my supplement could stem from, I only find ὀλόπτω on [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=oloptw&amp;la=greek#Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=o)lo/ptw-contents):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But does όει contract to ῳ? And assuming it does, how does &quot;pluck out, tear out&quot; fit in that translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/drq8y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2jjBK.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZtuKq.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11207" RevisionGUID="25eebb46-f3f6-4df7-a2eb-6d54ec6ccb3f" CreationDate="2019-07-27T20:46:14.347" UserId="13" Comment="added update 2" Text="[This Italian Sappho anthology](https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/11675/1/Saffo_frammenti_2015.pdf), on p. 57-58, has a fusion of several Lobel-Page fragments (cfr [this question of mine](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10685/tracing-mysterious-line-ends-in-a-combination-of-sappho-fragments-found-in-an-it)), among which is 67(a). In l. 3 of that fragment, which is l. 16 of the fusion, the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;δ]αίμων ὀλοφ . [&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is completed to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;δ]αίμων ὀλόφω[ι&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last word, ὀλόφῳ, is untraceable for me. It would seem to be a dative form from *ὄλοφος, but that doesn't seem to exist (Wiktionary and Perseus and my big Rocci dictionary all fail to report it), and Perseus doesn't find it as an inflected form either. The following part of the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κ]αὶ τοῦτ' ἐπίκει̣[ρε &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ] θέλ' ὦν τ' ἄπαισαν&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δ]αίμων ὀλόφ[ωι &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; τέ]λ̣εσον νόημμα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would seem to correspond to the following part of the translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;e anche questo (mio male) tu voglia (eliminare); perciò tu, che fra tutte (sei) la dea dai pensieri più astuti, dai compimento al mio pensiero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which in English reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and this (pain of mine) may you also want to (eliminate); thus you, who (are) the goddess of the most astute thoughts among all [goddesses], give fulfilment to my thought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;And this … also&quot; matches καὶ τοῦτ'. &quot;may you … want&quot; might match θέλ(ε), if that is what we take that word to be elided from. &quot;(pain of mine)&quot; goes into the lacuna, hence the brackets. We have to assume &quot;(eliminate)&quot; matches ἐπίκει[ρε, perhaps mis-accented and meant to be ἐπικεί[ρην, an infinitive. &quot;thus you&quot;  matches ὦν τ(υ). &quot;among all [goddesses]&quot; would seem to match ἄπαισαν, which however, if genitive plural, should be ἀπαίσαν. δαίμων matches &quot;goddess&quot;. &quot;give fulfilment to my thought&quot; is τέλεσον νόημμα. We have left to match &quot;of the most astute thoughts&quot; and the mystery word. Um, problem: the English is too long. I mean, that word can't be a superlative, right? This word would then have to match either &quot;thoughts&quot; or &quot;astute&quot;. However, neither give me anything close to this in Woodhouse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is this word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After thinking it might be a verb, I googled ὀλοφόω, and landed on [this](https://books.google.it/books?id=4ztEAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA172&amp;lpg=PA172&amp;dq=%E1%BD%80%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%86%CF%8C%CF%89&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=fUJ8BQmhan&amp;sig=ACfU3U1VPY4pf1KfihutLiqWrOwtRnahzg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjbreHV89XjAhXOGewKHfaeCFkQ6AEwAXoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%E1%BD%80%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%86%CF%8C%CF%89&amp;f=false), where on p. 172 we find the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me try to copy those screenshots:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ὀλοφώϊος, ὁ, ἡ, s.v.a. ὀλοὸς, bey Nicander σίνη ὀλοφώϊα θηρῶν, verderblich, tüdlich; bey Homer sind ὀλοφώϊα δήνεα Κίρκης, 10, 289, ὀλοφώϊα εἰδὼς, 17, 248. statt ὀλοφώϊος ὤν. Von ὄλω, ὄλλω, ὀλλύω, ὄλλυμι, kommt auch ὀλόω (ὀλοὸς), ὀλόπω, ὀλόπτω, ὀλόφω, ὀλοφόω, wie von ἐλέπω, ἔλπω, ἐλὶς, ἐλέφω, ἐλεφάω, ἐλεφαίρω. S. auch ὀλοφύρομαι. Andere leiten es von ὄλω u. φὼς ab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of all the verbs mentioned with ὀλοφόω, whence my supplement could stem from, I only find ὀλόπτω on [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=oloptw&amp;la=greek#Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=o)lo/ptw-contents):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But does όει contract to ῳ? And assuming it does, how does &quot;pluck out, tear out&quot; fit in that translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just realized I didn't even look in the anthology's notes. Now, footnote 425 on that page refers to l. 14, footnote 427 is about τέλεσον νόημμα, so the only footnote which could be about this supplement is 426:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Integrazione di E. Puglia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So at least we have a name to our mystery. One could think 427 is about both, but it says &quot;Integrazione di Hunt&quot;, and Campbell tells me Hunt suggested ὀλοφ[ώϊος there. Moreover, [this thing](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gennaro_Tedeschi/publication/258993476_Saffo_Biografia_e_antologia_di_versi/links/00b7d5298c746c81c2000000/Saffo-Biografia-e-antologia-di-versi.pdf) has the exact same combination + translation, and the matching note is referred to &quot;(eliminare)&quot;. Ummm… Scouring through the biblio of that thing, we find two E. Puglia references:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. E. Puglia, Per la ricomposizione del quarto libro dei canti di Saffo (POxy 1787), «SemRom»  X (2007), pp. 17-39 &#xD;&#xA; 2. E. Puglia, P. Oxy. 2294 e la tradizione delle odi di Saffo, «ZPE»  166 (2008), pp.1-8 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will now look at those, if I find them, and if one of them contains the answer, I will self-answer. Before I leave you, however, let me remark how the biblio is ordered randomly instead of alphabetically: big boos to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/drq8y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2jjBK.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZtuKq.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11210" RevisionGUID="5ccf8bc9-04c8-4133-b99c-901e03eb17ee" CreationDate="2019-07-27T21:04:23.853" UserId="469" Text="I offer here a different alternative, which is very motto-prone, but quite a free translation of your original phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Quis ut Deus?**][1] *Who is like God?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is the meaning of the name Michael (Hebrew מִיכָאֵל). The phrase in its popular Latin form is not literally attested in the Bible, but is present in the Church Fathers (e.g. St. Gregory the Great, [Hom. 34.9][2], c. 600&amp;nbsp;AD) and is a paraphrase of several Biblical passages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it is not a literal translation of your original sentence, it is quite popular and has been used before as a motto ([examples][3], and [one example][4] of someone not called Michael).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_ut_Deus%3F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.monumenta.ch/latein/a.php?tabelle=Gregorius_Magnus&amp;s=37107&amp;sectio=9&amp;id=Gregorius%20Magnus,%20Homiliae%20in%20Evangelia,%202,%20%20%2034,%20%20%209&amp;string=&amp;apparat=%C2%AC_first_frame=&amp;nummer=&amp;domain=&amp;lang=0&amp;target=&amp;inframe=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.heraldry-wiki.com/heraldrywiki/index.php?title=Quis_ut_deus_%3F&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Kondrusiewicz_(bishop)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11210" RevisionGUID="4c5e3424-3704-46c3-8436-c9d5f0e965e5" CreationDate="2019-07-27T21:12:39.197" UserId="469" Comment="added 179 characters in body" Text="I offer here a different alternative, which is very motto-prone, but quite a free translation of your original phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Quis ut Deus?**][1] *Who is like God?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is the meaning of the name Michael (Hebrew מִיכָאֵל). The phrase in its popular Latin form is not literally attested in the Bible, but is present in the Church Fathers (e.g. St. Gregory the Great, [Hom. 34.9][2], c. 600&amp;nbsp;AD) and is a paraphrase of several Biblical passages. You can find it as an inscription in a [huge][3] variety of places, from Canada to Germany to France to Portugal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it is not a literal translation of your original sentence, it is quite popular and has been used before as a motto ([examples][4], and [one example][5] of someone not called Michael).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_ut_Deus%3F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.monumenta.ch/latein/a.php?tabelle=Gregorius_Magnus&amp;s=37107&amp;sectio=9&amp;id=Gregorius%20Magnus,%20Homiliae%20in%20Evangelia,%202,%20%20%2034,%20%20%209&amp;string=&amp;apparat=%C2%AC_first_frame=&amp;nummer=&amp;domain=&amp;lang=0&amp;target=&amp;inframe=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Quis_Ut_Deus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.heraldry-wiki.com/heraldrywiki/index.php?title=Quis_ut_deus_%3F&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Kondrusiewicz_(bishop)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="48fc0a60-04c1-44ef-bcd9-d749550c5948" CreationDate="2019-07-27T21:14:50.430" UserId="3248" Comment="some relevant changes added to obtain a more precise question" Text="On the basis of literary arguments, Arkins (2011) [THE MEANING OF ‘ODI ET AMO’ IN CATULLUS 85][1] came to the interesting conclusion that _Odi et amo_ in the following very famous poem by Catullus (LXXXV) cannot be translated as &quot;I hate and I love&quot; but rather as &quot;I loathe her, I lust for her&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Odi et amo. Quare id faciam fortasse requiris. / Nescio sed fieri sentio et excrucior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My specific **linguistic** question here is the following one: is it normal to find allegedly stative verbs like _odisse_ and _amare_ as reassumed by the agentive verbal phrase _facere id_? I'm asking this since in many languages it is often the case that stative verbs cannot be reassumed by the non-stative verbal expression _facere id_ 'to do it' (which is not exactly the same as 'to do so'). For example, the following Spanish and Catalan translations sound a bit odd or at least a bit contrived: Sp. “Odio y amo. ¿Por qué **lo hago**? (tal vez me preguntas…)” // Cat. “Odio i estimo. Per què **ho faig** (tal vegada em preguntes…)”. Could you please let me know if the same happens in your native language? For example, TKR, in his comment below, also points out a similar semantic clash in Hebrew. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some linguistic background on so-called &quot;psychological verbs&quot;. There is a typical tripartite classification of these verbs according to the syntactic function of the experiencer argument: (I) subject (_timere_-verbs), (II) direct object (_terrere_-verbs) and (III) indirect object (_placere_-verbs). Typically, the first class is semantically analyzed as lacking an event, i.e., they are **stative** predicates. For example, see page 3 of Filip's (1996) work where you'll find the following statement: &quot;Psychological predicates of the _fear_ type are stative&quot; ([Filip 1996][2]) NB: _amare_/'to love' and _odisse_/'to hate' are also assumed to belong to the _timere_/'to fear'-type/class, the verbs where the experiencer argument is the subject.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Following TKR's suggestion below, it would be interesting to find other similar contexts where psycological predicates of the 1st class above are reassumed by _facere id_. Could you provide us with some attested examples of this linguistic phenomenon?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice also that _faciam_ and _requiris_ are agentive predicates, compared to the verbs of the second verse, which are ALL non-agentive: _nescio_, _fieri_, _sentio_, and _excrucior_ . Cf. the following contrastive pairs forming a beautiful chiasma: _odi-et-amo/excrucior_ and _requiris/nescio_, which also provide the physical limits of the poem, leaving the contrast _faciam/fieri_(_sentio_) in the middle. So, in line with this distribution of agentive vs. non-agentive verbs in 1st and 2nd verses, respectively, I was wondering if the use of _faciam id_ to reassume _odi_ and _amo_ could be taken as a linguistic argument for revising the alleged (or at least, unmarked) stative semantics of _odisse_ and _amare_ (e.g., see Filip's work above, _inter alia_). &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2041-5370.2011.00015.x&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://user.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~filip/Filip.Psychverbs.1996.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32995" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="48fc0a60-04c1-44ef-bcd9-d749550c5948" CreationDate="2019-07-27T21:14:50.430" UserId="3248" Comment="some relevant changes added to obtain a more precise question" Text="Are there linguistic arguments for the claim that &quot;Odi et amo&quot; in Catullus (LXXXV) cannot be translated as 'I hate and I love'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11210" RevisionGUID="a97b8805-0e4c-411d-89d0-e2ee7eebbf0a" CreationDate="2019-07-27T21:20:19.173" UserId="469" Comment="added 179 characters in body" Text="I offer here a different alternative, which is very motto-prone, but quite a free translation of your original phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Quis ut Deus?**][1] *Who is like God?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is the meaning of the name Michael (Hebrew מִיכָאֵל). The phrase in its popular Latin form is not literally attested in the Bible, but is present in the Church Fathers (e.g. St. Gregory the Great, [Hom. 34.9][2], c. 600&amp;nbsp;AD) and is a paraphrase of several Biblical passages. You can find it as an inscription in a [huge][3] variety of places, from Canada to Germany to France to Portugal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it is not a literal translation of your original sentence, it is quite popular and has been used before as a motto ([examples][4], and [one example][5] of someone not called Michael).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: your side questions,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there already a phrase with this meaning in existence as a motto in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe that's why I thought of this phrase in specific&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Second, what are the rules for capitalization in Latin when a phrase is used as a motto? Are all caps acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All caps are absolutely acceptable. Lowercase letters developed during the history of Latin as a living language. All caps is possibly the most common choice for [inscriptions][3], but you can find different options throughout Latin history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_ut_Deus%3F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.monumenta.ch/latein/a.php?tabelle=Gregorius_Magnus&amp;s=37107&amp;sectio=9&amp;id=Gregorius%20Magnus,%20Homiliae%20in%20Evangelia,%202,%20%20%2034,%20%20%209&amp;string=&amp;apparat=%C2%AC_first_frame=&amp;nummer=&amp;domain=&amp;lang=0&amp;target=&amp;inframe=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Quis_Ut_Deus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.heraldry-wiki.com/heraldrywiki/index.php?title=Quis_ut_deus_%3F&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Kondrusiewicz_(bishop)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11210" RevisionGUID="7879884c-a2cb-4793-b2a3-876108146bf0" CreationDate="2019-07-27T21:33:33.733" UserId="469" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I offer here a different alternative, which is very motto-prone, but quite a free translation of your original sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Quis ut Deus?**][1] *Who is like God?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is the meaning of the name Michael (Hebrew מִיכָאֵל). The phrase in its popular Latin form is not literally attested in the Bible, but is present in the Church Fathers (e.g. St. Gregory the Great, [Hom. 34.9][2], c.&amp;nbsp;593&amp;nbsp;AD) and is a paraphrase of several Biblical passages. You can find it as an inscription in a [huge][3] variety of places, from Canada to Germany to France to Portugal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it is not a literal translation of your original sentence, it is quite popular and has been used before as a motto ([examples][4], and [one example][5] of someone not called Michael).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: your side questions,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there already a phrase with this meaning in existence as a motto in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe that's why I thought of this phrase in specific&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Second, what are the rules for capitalization in Latin when a phrase is used as a motto? Are all caps acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All caps are absolutely acceptable. Lowercase letters developed during the history of Latin as a living language. All caps is possibly the most common choice for [inscriptions][3], but you can find different options throughout Latin history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_ut_Deus%3F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.monumenta.ch/latein/a.php?tabelle=Gregorius_Magnus&amp;s=37107&amp;sectio=9&amp;id=Gregorius%20Magnus,%20Homiliae%20in%20Evangelia,%202,%20%20%2034,%20%20%209&amp;string=&amp;apparat=%C2%AC_first_frame=&amp;nummer=&amp;domain=&amp;lang=0&amp;target=&amp;inframe=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Quis_Ut_Deus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.heraldry-wiki.com/heraldrywiki/index.php?title=Quis_ut_deus_%3F&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Kondrusiewicz_(bishop)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11210" RevisionGUID="dea47510-8c90-4c46-8d33-2ebf64e926e7" CreationDate="2019-07-27T21:39:36.387" UserId="469" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I offer here a different alternative, which is very motto-prone, but a rather free translation of your original sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Quis ut Deus?**][1] *Who is like God?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is the meaning of the name Michael (Hebrew מִיכָאֵל). The phrase in its popular Latin form is not literally attested in the Bible, but is present in the Church Fathers (e.g. St. Gregory the Great, [Hom. 34.9][2], c.&amp;nbsp;593&amp;nbsp;AD) and is a paraphrase of several Biblical passages. You can find it as an inscription in a [huge][3] variety of places, from Canada to Germany to France to Portugal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it is not a literal translation of your original sentence, it is quite popular and has been used before as a motto ([examples][4], and [one example][5] of someone not called Michael). As [this site][6] puts it, &quot;this is a rhetorical question, implying no person is like God&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: your side questions,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there already a phrase with this meaning in existence as a motto in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe that's why I thought of this option in specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Second, what are the rules for capitalization in Latin when a phrase is used as a motto? Are all caps acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All caps are absolutely acceptable. Lowercase letters developed during the history of Latin as a living language. All caps is possibly the most common choice for [inscriptions][3], but you can find different sets of capitalization rules throughout Latin history. If you want to give it an ancient taste you can even replace the u's by v's: **QVIS&amp;nbsp;VT&amp;nbsp;DEVS** (note that both [letter U][7] and [the question mark][8] are Medieval Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_ut_Deus%3F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.monumenta.ch/latein/a.php?tabelle=Gregorius_Magnus&amp;s=37107&amp;sectio=9&amp;id=Gregorius%20Magnus,%20Homiliae%20in%20Evangelia,%202,%20%20%2034,%20%20%209&amp;string=&amp;apparat=%C2%AC_first_frame=&amp;nummer=&amp;domain=&amp;lang=0&amp;target=&amp;inframe=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Quis_Ut_Deus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.heraldry-wiki.com/heraldrywiki/index.php?title=Quis_ut_deus_%3F&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Kondrusiewicz_(bishop)&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.behindthename.com/name/michael&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U#History&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2770/did-the-romans-have-a-question-mark" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="e6ddf527-6dea-4118-82e6-0d5a405cd774" CreationDate="2019-07-27T21:42:13.703" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="On the basis of literary arguments, Arkins (2011) [THE MEANING OF ‘ODI ET AMO’ IN CATULLUS 85][1] came to the interesting conclusion that _Odi et amo_ in the following very famous poem by Catullus (LXXXV) cannot be translated as &quot;I hate and I love&quot; but rather as &quot;I loathe her, I lust for her&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Odi et amo. Quare id faciam fortasse requiris. / Nescio sed fieri sentio et excrucior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My specific **linguistic** question here is the following one: is it normal to find allegedly stative verbs like _odisse_ and _amare_ as reassumed by the agentive verbal phrase _facere id_? I'm asking this since in many languages it is often the case that stative verbs cannot be reassumed by the non-stative verbal expression _facere id_ 'to do it' (which is not exactly the same as 'to do so'). For example, the following Spanish and Catalan translations sound odd or at least contrived: Sp. “Odio y amo. ¿Por qué **lo hago**? (tal vez me preguntas…)” // Cat. “Odio i estimo. Per què **ho faig** (tal vegada em preguntes…)”. Could you please let me know if the same happens in your native language? For example, TKR, in his comment below, also points out a similar semantic clash in Hebrew. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some linguistic background on so-called &quot;psychological verbs&quot;. There is a typical tripartite classification of these verbs according to the syntactic function of the experiencer argument: (I) subject (_timere_-verbs), (II) direct object (_terrere_-verbs) and (III) indirect object (_placere_-verbs). Typically, the first class is semantically analyzed as lacking an event, i.e., they are **stative** predicates. For example, see page 3 of Filip's (1996) work where you'll find the following statement: &quot;Psychological predicates of the _fear_ type are stative&quot; ([Filip 1996][2]) NB: _amare_/'to love' and _odisse_/'to hate' are also assumed to belong to the _timere_/'to fear'-type/class, the verbs where the experiencer argument is the subject.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Following TKR's suggestion below, it would be interesting to find other similar contexts where psychological predicates of the 1st class above are reassumed by _facere id_. Could you provide us with some attested examples of this linguistic phenomenon?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice also that _faciam_ and _requiris_ are agentive predicates, compared to the verbs of the second verse, which are ALL non-agentive: _nescio_, _fieri_, _sentio_, and _excrucior_ . Cf. the following contrastive pairs forming a beautiful chiasma: _odi-et-amo/excrucior_ and _requiris/nescio_, which also provide the physical limits of the poem, leaving the contrast _faciam/fieri_(_sentio_) in the middle. So, in line with this distribution of agentive vs. non-agentive verbs in 1st and 2nd verses, respectively, I was wondering if the use of _faciam id_ to reassume _odi_ and _amo_ could be taken as a linguistic argument for revising the alleged (or at least, unmarked) stative semantics of _odisse_ and _amare_ as verbal predicates of the 1st clas (e.g., see Filip's work above, _inter alia_). It that were the case, it could also be taken as a non-subjective argument for Arkins's conclusion above.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2041-5370.2011.00015.x&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://user.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~filip/Filip.Psychverbs.1996.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11210" RevisionGUID="59cd7386-f4a4-477c-bc2b-0a671fefc94e" CreationDate="2019-07-27T21:45:14.990" UserId="469" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="I offer here a different alternative, which is very motto-prone, but a rather free translation of your original sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Quis ut Deus?**][1] *Who is like God?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is the meaning of the name Michael (Hebrew מִיכָאֵל). The phrase in its popular Latin form is not literally attested in the Bible, but is present in the Church Fathers (e.g. St. Gregory the Great, [Hom. 34.9][2], c.&amp;nbsp;593&amp;nbsp;AD) and is a paraphrase of several Biblical passages. You can find it as an inscription in a [huge][3] variety of places, from Canada to Germany to France to Portugal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it is not a literal translation of your original sentence, it is quite popular and has been used before as a motto ([more examples][4], and [yet one more example][5] of someone not called Michael). As [this site][6] puts it, &quot;this is a rhetorical question, implying no person is like God&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re: your side questions,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there already a phrase with this meaning in existence as a motto in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe that's why I thought of this option in specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Second, what are the rules for capitalization in Latin when a phrase is used as a motto? Are all caps acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All caps are absolutely acceptable. Lowercase letters developed during the history of Latin as a living language. All caps is possibly the most common choice for [inscriptions][3], but you can find different sets of capitalization rules throughout Latin history. If you want to give it an ancient taste you can even replace the u's by v's: **QVIS&amp;nbsp;VT&amp;nbsp;DEVS** (note that both [letter U][7] and [the question mark][8] are Medieval Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_ut_Deus%3F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.monumenta.ch/latein/a.php?tabelle=Gregorius_Magnus&amp;s=37107&amp;sectio=9&amp;id=Gregorius%20Magnus,%20Homiliae%20in%20Evangelia,%202,%20%20%2034,%20%20%209&amp;string=&amp;apparat=%C2%AC_first_frame=&amp;nummer=&amp;domain=&amp;lang=0&amp;target=&amp;inframe=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Quis_Ut_Deus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.heraldry-wiki.com/heraldrywiki/index.php?title=Quis_ut_deus_%3F&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Kondrusiewicz_(bishop)&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.behindthename.com/name/michael&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U#History&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2770/did-the-romans-have-a-question-mark" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="c9bb93fc-98b7-4ab7-9166-89fc11280760" CreationDate="2019-07-27T21:47:45.097" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="On the basis of literary arguments, Arkins (2011) [THE MEANING OF ‘ODI ET AMO’ IN CATULLUS 85][1] came to the interesting conclusion that _Odi et amo_ in the following very famous poem by Catullus (LXXXV) cannot be translated as &quot;I hate and I love&quot; but rather as &quot;I loathe her, I lust for her&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Odi et amo. Quare id faciam fortasse requiris. / Nescio sed fieri sentio et excrucior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My specific **linguistic** question here is the following one: is it normal to find allegedly stative verbs like _odisse_ and _amare_ as reassumed by the agentive verbal phrase _facere id_? I'm asking this since in many languages it is often the case that stative verbs cannot be reassumed by the non-stative verbal expression _facere id_ 'to do it' (which is not exactly the same as 'to do so'). For example, the following Spanish and Catalan translations sound odd or at least contrived: Sp. “Odio y amo. ¿Por qué **lo hago**? (tal vez me preguntas…)” // Cat. “Odio i estimo. Per què **ho faig** (tal vegada em preguntes…)”. Could you please let me know if the same happens in your native language? For example, TKR, in his comment below, also points out a similar semantic clash in Hebrew. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some linguistic background on so-called &quot;psychological verbs&quot;. There is a typical tripartite classification of these verbs according to the syntactic function of the experiencer argument: (I) subject (_timere_-verbs), (II) direct object (_terrere_-verbs) and (III) indirect object (_placere_-verbs). Typically, the first class is semantically analyzed as lacking an event, i.e., they are **stative** predicates. For example, see page 3 of Filip's (1996) work where you'll find the following statement: &quot;Psychological predicates of the _fear_ type are stative&quot; ([Filip 1996][2]) NB: _amare_/'to love' and _odisse_/'to hate' are also assumed to belong to the _timere_/'to fear'-type/class, the verbs where the experiencer argument is the subject.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Following TKR's suggestion below, it would be interesting to find other similar contexts where psychological predicates of the 1st class above are reassumed by _facere id_. Could you provide us with some attested examples of this linguistic phenomenon?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice also that _faciam_ and _requiris_ are agentive predicates, compared to the verbs of the second verse, which are ALL non-agentive: _nescio_, _fieri_, _sentio_, and _excrucior_ . Cf. the following contrastive pairs forming a beautiful chiasma: _odi-et-amo/excrucior_ and _requiris/nescio_, which also provide the physical limits of the poem, leaving the contrast _faciam/fieri_(_sentio_) in the middle. So, in line with this distribution of agentive vs. non-agentive verbs in 1st and 2nd verses, respectively, I was wondering if the use of _faciam id_ to reassume _odi_ and _amo_ could be taken as a linguistic argument for revising the alleged (or at least, unmarked) stative semantics of _odisse_ and _amare_ as verbal predicates of the 1st class (e.g., see Filip's work above, _inter alia_). It that were the case, it could also be taken as a non-subjective argument for Arkins's conclusion above.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2041-5370.2011.00015.x&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://user.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~filip/Filip.Psychverbs.1996.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33002" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11203" RevisionGUID="0996a178-c415-4b4d-b437-8aa95b122647" CreationDate="2019-07-27T21:48:05.900" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="43765c8a-21c0-4344-87e4-71c8e028ec58" CreationDate="2019-07-27T22:06:53.617" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="On the basis of literary arguments, Arkins (2011) [THE MEANING OF ‘ODI ET AMO’ IN CATULLUS 85][1] came to the interesting conclusion that _Odi et amo_ in the following very famous poem by Catullus (LXXXV) cannot be translated as &quot;I hate and I love&quot; but rather as &quot;I loathe her, I lust for her&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Odi et amo. Quare id faciam fortasse requiris. / Nescio sed fieri sentio et excrucior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My specific **linguistic** question here is the following one: is it normal to find allegedly stative verbs like _odisse_ and _amare_ as reassumed by the agentive verbal phrase _facere id_? I'm asking this since in many languages it is often the case that stative verbs cannot be reassumed by the non-stative verbal expression _facere id_ 'to do it' (which is not exactly the same as 'to do so'). For example, the following Spanish and Catalan translations sound odd or at least contrived: Sp. “Odio y amo. ¿Por qué **lo hago**? (tal vez me preguntas…)” // Cat. “Odio i estimo. Per què **ho faig** (tal vegada em preguntes…)”. Could you please let me know if the same happens in your native language? For example, TKR, in his comment below, also points out a similar semantic clash in Hebrew. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some linguistic background on so-called &quot;psychological verbs&quot;. There is a typical tripartite classification of these verbs according to the syntactic function of the experiencer argument: (I) subject (_timere_-verbs), (II) direct object (_terrere_-verbs) and (III) indirect object (_placere_-verbs). Typically, the first class is semantically analyzed as lacking an event, i.e., they are **stative** predicates. For example, see page 3 of Filip's (1996) work where you'll find the following statement: &quot;Psychological predicates of the _fear_ type are stative&quot; ([Filip 1996][2]) NB: _amare_/'to love' and _odisse_/'to hate' are also assumed to belong to the _timere_/'to fear'-type/class, the verbs where the experiencer argument is the subject.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Following TKR's suggestion below, it would be interesting to find other similar contexts where psychological predicates of the 1st class above are reassumed by _facere id_. Could you provide us with some attested examples of this linguistic phenomenon?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice also that _faciam_ and _requiris_ are agentive predicates, compared to the verbs of the second verse, which are ALL non-agentive: _nescio_, _fieri_, _sentio_, and _excrucior_ . Cf. the following contrastive pairs forming a beautiful chiasma: _odi-et-amo/excrucior_ and _requiris/nescio_, which also provide the physical limits of the poem, leaving the contrast _faciam/fieri_(_sentio_) in the middle. So, in line with this distribution of agentive vs. non-agentive verbs in 1st and 2nd verses, respectively, I was wondering if the use of _faciam id_ to reassume _odi_ and _amo_ could be taken as a linguistic argument for extending the allegedly only stative semantics of _odisse_ and _amare_ as verbs of the 1st class of psychological predicates (e.g., see Filip's work above, _inter alia_). It that were the case, it could also be taken as a non-subjective argument for Arkins's conclusion above.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2041-5370.2011.00015.x&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://user.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~filip/Filip.Psychverbs.1996.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="ec2988df-94e4-49f7-b8d6-634b6417057f" CreationDate="2019-07-27T22:45:10.087" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="On the basis of literary arguments, Arkins (2011) [THE MEANING OF ‘ODI ET AMO’ IN CATULLUS 85][1] came to the interesting conclusion that _Odi et amo_ in the following very famous poem by Catullus (LXXXV) cannot be translated as &quot;I hate and I love&quot; but rather as &quot;I loathe her, I lust for her&quot;. His conclusion is indeed quite original and provocative if one considers the typical translations of this verse (e.g., cf. the following link for a selection of different translations: [ODI ET AMO: A BRIEF HISTORY IN TRANSLATION][2] ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Odi et amo. Quare id faciam fortasse requiris. / Nescio sed fieri sentio et excrucior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My specific **linguistic** question here is the following one: is it exceptional to find allegedly stative verbs like _odisse_ and _amare_ as reassumed by the agentive verbal phrase _facere id_? I'm asking this since in many languages it is often the case that stative verbs cannot be reassumed by the non-stative verbal expression _facere id_ 'to do it' (which is not exactly the same as 'to do so'). For example, the following Spanish and Catalan translations sound odd or at least contrived: Sp. “Odio y amo. ¿Por qué **lo hago**? (tal vez me preguntas…)” // Cat. “Odio i estimo. Per què **ho faig** (tal vegada em preguntes…)”. Could you please let me know if the same happens in your native language? For example, TKR, in his comment below, also points out a similar semantic clash in Hebrew. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some linguistic background on so-called &quot;psychological verbs&quot;. There is a typical tripartite classification of these verbs according to the syntactic function of the experiencer argument: (I) subject (_timere_-verbs), (II) direct object (_terrere_-verbs) and (III) indirect object (_placere_-verbs). Typically, the first class is semantically analyzed as lacking an event, i.e., they are **stative** predicates. For example, see page 3 of Filip's (1996) work where you'll find the following statement: &quot;Psychological predicates of the _fear_ type are stative&quot; ([Filip 1996][3]) NB: _amare_/'to love' and _odisse_/'to hate' are also assumed to belong to the _timere_/'to fear'-type/class, the verbs where the experiencer argument is the subject.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Following TKR's suggestion below, it would be interesting to find other similar contexts where psychological predicates of the 1st class above (verbs whose experiencer argument is the subject of the clause) are reassumed by _facere id_. Could you provide us with some attested examples of this linguistic phenomenon?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice also that _faciam_ and _requiris_ are agentive predicates, compared to the verbs of the second verse, which are ALL non-agentive: _nescio_, _fieri_, _sentio_, and _excrucior_. So, in line with this distribution of agentive vs. non-agentive verbs in 1st and 2nd verses, respectively, I was wondering if the use of _faciam id_ to reassume _odi_ and _amo_ could be taken as a linguistic argument for extending the allegedly only stative semantics of _odisse_ and _amare_ as verbs of the 1st class of psychological predicates. If that were the case, it could also be taken as a non-subjective argument for Arkins's conclusion above in the sense that the translations of _odi_ and _amo_ should ideally have a more agentive component than the one expressed by 'I hate' and 'I love', respectively.    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2041-5370.2011.00015.x&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.academia.edu/35988545/ODI_ET_AMO_A_BRIEF_HISTORY_IN_TRANSLATION&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://user.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~filip/Filip.Psychverbs.1996.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11211" RevisionGUID="9937705c-f91c-4652-a87e-24c52ca7543c" CreationDate="2019-07-27T23:01:50.643" UserId="4966" Text="As a musician my first thought goes to [in excelsis Deo][1].&#xA;&#xA;[Excelsis][2] seems to have been translated in a multitude of ways. Some interesting thoughts on this and also on usage of in excelsis/altissimus are offered in [this question][3].&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_in_excelsis_Deo&#xA;  [2]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in%20excelsis&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4752/deep-meaning-of-gloria-in-excelsis-deo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="ea1be105-4232-43e5-8dcc-f1907f6d6556" CreationDate="2019-07-27T23:08:02.160" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="On the basis of literary arguments, Arkins (2011) [THE MEANING OF ‘ODI ET AMO’ IN CATULLUS 85][1] came to the interesting conclusion that _Odi et amo_ in the following very famous poem by Catullus (LXXXV) cannot be translated as &quot;I hate and I love&quot; but rather as &quot;I loathe her, I lust for her&quot;. His conclusion is indeed quite original and provocative if one considers the typical translations of this verse (e.g., cf. the following link for a selection of different translations: [ODI ET AMO: A BRIEF HISTORY IN TRANSLATION][2] ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Odi et amo. Quare id faciam fortasse requiris. / Nescio sed fieri sentio et excrucior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My specific **linguistic** question here is the following one: is it exceptional to find allegedly stative verbs like _odisse_ and _amare_ as reassumed by the agentive verbal phrase _facere id_? I'm asking this since in many languages it is often the case that stative verbs cannot be reassumed by the non-stative verbal expression _facere id_ 'to do it' (which is not exactly the same as 'to do so'). For example, the following Spanish and Catalan translations sound odd or at least contrived: Sp. “Odio y amo. ¿Por qué **lo hago**? (tal vez me preguntas…)” // Cat. “Odio i estimo. Per què **ho faig** (tal vegada em preguntes…)”. Could you please let me know if the same happens in your native language? For example, TKR, in his comment below, also points out a similar semantic clash in Hebrew. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some linguistic background on so-called &quot;psychological verbs&quot;. There is a typical tripartite classification of these verbs according to the syntactic function of the experiencer argument: (I) subject (_timere_-verbs), (II) direct object (_terrere_-verbs) and (III) indirect object (_placere_-verbs). Typically, the first class is semantically analyzed as lacking an event, i.e., they are **stative** predicates. For example, see page 3 of Filip's (1996) work where you'll find the following statement: &quot;Psychological predicates of the _fear_ type are stative&quot; ([Filip 1996][3]) NB: _amare_/'to love' and _odisse_/'to hate' are also assumed to belong to the _timere_/'to fear'-type/class, the verbs where the experiencer argument is the subject.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Following TKR's suggestion below, it would be interesting to find other similar contexts where psychological predicates of the 1st class above (verbs whose experiencer argument is the subject of the clause) are reassumed by _facere id_. Could you provide us with some attested examples of this linguistic phenomenon?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice also that _faciam_ and _requiris_ are agentive predicates, compared to the verbs of the second verse, which are ALL non-agentive: _nescio_, _fieri_, _sentio_, and _excrucior_. So, in line with this distribution of agentive vs. non-agentive verbs in 1st and 2nd verses, respectively, I was wondering if the use of _faciam id_ to reassume _odi_ and _amo_ could be taken as a linguistic argument for extending the allegedly only stative semantics of _odisse_ and _amare_ as verbs of the 1st class of psychological predicates. If that were the case, it could also be taken as a non-subjective argument for Arkins's conclusion above in the sense that the translations of _odi_ and _amo_ in this poem should ideally incorporate a more agentive component than the one expressed by 'I hate' and 'I love', respectively. Notice then that this agentivity would in turn relate more with the &quot;physical&quot; component argued for by Arkins and less with the mere psychological meaning of these verbs.    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2041-5370.2011.00015.x&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.academia.edu/35988545/ODI_ET_AMO_A_BRIEF_HISTORY_IN_TRANSLATION&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://user.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~filip/Filip.Psychverbs.1996.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="746963a5-4434-459a-bc81-056e861f7e4c" CreationDate="2019-07-27T23:23:53.247" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="On the basis of literary arguments, Arkins (2011) [THE MEANING OF ‘ODI ET AMO’ IN CATULLUS 85][1] came to the interesting conclusion that _Odi et amo_ in the following very famous poem by Catullus (LXXXV) cannot be translated as &quot;I hate and I love&quot; but rather as &quot;I loathe her, I lust for her&quot;. His conclusion is indeed quite original and provocative if one considers the typical translations of this poem (e.g., for a selection of different translations, see [ODI ET AMO: A BRIEF HISTORY IN TRANSLATION][2] ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Odi et amo. Quare id faciam fortasse requiris. / Nescio sed fieri sentio et excrucior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My specific **linguistic** question here is the following one: is it exceptional to find allegedly stative verbs like _odisse_ and _amare_ as reassumed by the agentive verbal phrase _facere id_? I'm asking this since in many languages it is often the case that stative verbs cannot be reassumed by the non-stative verbal expression _facere id_ 'to do it' (which is not exactly the same as 'to do so'). For example, the following Spanish and Catalan translations sound quite odd: Sp. “Odio y amo. ¿Por qué **lo hago**? (tal vez me preguntas…)” // Cat. “Odio i estimo. Per què **ho faig** (tal vegada em preguntes…)”. Could you please let me know if the same happens in your native language? For example, TKR, in his comment below, also points out a similar semantic clash in Hebrew. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some linguistic background on so-called &quot;psychological verbs&quot;. There is a typical tripartite classification of these verbs according to the syntactic function of the experiencer argument: (I) subject (_timere_-verbs), (II) direct object (_terrere_-verbs) and (III) indirect object (_placere_-verbs). Typically, the first class is semantically analyzed as lacking an event, i.e., they are **stative** predicates. For example, see page 3 of Filip's (1996) work where you'll find the following statement: &quot;Psychological predicates of the _fear_ type are stative&quot; ([Filip 1996][3]) NB: _amare_/'to love' and _odisse_/'to hate' are also assumed to belong to the _timere_/'to fear'-type/class, the verbs where the experiencer argument is the subject.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Following TKR's suggestion below, it would be interesting to find other similar contexts where psychological predicates of the 1st class above (verbs whose experiencer argument is the subject of the clause) are reassumed by _facere id_. Could you provide us with some attested examples of this linguistic phenomenon?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice also that _faciam_ and _requiris_ are agentive predicates, compared to the verbs of the second verse, which are ALL non-agentive: _nescio_, _fieri_, _sentio_, and _excrucior_. So, in line with this distribution of agentive vs. non-agentive verbs in 1st and 2nd verses, respectively, I was wondering if the use of _faciam id_ to reassume _odi_ and _amo_ could be taken as a linguistic argument for extending the allegedly only stative semantics of _odisse_ and _amare_ as verbs of the 1st class of psychological predicates. If that were the case, this could also be taken as a non-subjective argument for Arkins's conclusion above in the sense that the translations of _odi_ and _amo_ in this poem should ideally incorporate a more agentive component than the one expressed by 'I hate' and 'I love', respectively. Notice then that such an agentivity would in turn relate more with the &quot;physical&quot; component argued for by Arkins (see the first link above) and less with the mere psychological meaning of these verbs.    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2041-5370.2011.00015.x&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.academia.edu/35988545/ODI_ET_AMO_A_BRIEF_HISTORY_IN_TRANSLATION&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://user.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~filip/Filip.Psychverbs.1996.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="1f53323e-9651-4b54-8888-5dbac6214847" CreationDate="2019-07-28T01:44:41.093" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="On the basis of literary arguments, Arkins (2011) [THE MEANING OF ‘ODI ET AMO’ IN CATULLUS 85][1] came to the interesting conclusion that _Odi et amo_ in the following famous poem by Catullus (LXXXV) cannot be translated as &quot;I hate and I love&quot; but rather as &quot;I loathe her, I lust for her&quot;. His conclusion is indeed quite original and provocative if one considers the typical translations of this poem (e.g., for a selection of different translations, see [ODI ET AMO: A BRIEF HISTORY IN TRANSLATION][2] ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Odi et amo. Quare id faciam fortasse requiris. / Nescio sed fieri sentio et excrucior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My specific **linguistic** question here is the following one: is it exceptional to find allegedly stative verbs like _odisse_ and _amare_ as reassumed by the agentive verbal phrase _facere id_? I'm asking this since in many languages it is often the case that stative verbs cannot be reassumed by the non-stative agentive verbal expression _facere id_ 'to do it' (which is not exactly the same as 'to do so'). For example, the following Spanish and Catalan translations sound quite odd: Sp. “Odio y amo. ¿Por qué **lo hago**? (tal vez me preguntas…)” // Cat. “Odio i estimo. Per què **ho faig** (tal vegada em preguntes…)”. Could you please let me know if the same happens in your native language? For example, TKR, in his comment below, also points out a similar semantic clash in Hebrew. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some very sketchy linguistic background on so-called &quot;psychological verbs&quot;. There is a typical tripartite classification of these verbs according to the syntactic function of the experiencer argument: (I) subject (_timere_-verbs), (II) direct object (_terrere_-verbs) and (III) indirect object (_placere_-verbs). Typically, the first class is semantically analyzed as lacking an event, i.e., they are **stative** predicates. For example, see page 3 of Filip's (1996) work where you'll find the following statement: &quot;Psychological predicates of the _fear_ type are stative&quot; ([Filip 1996][3]) NB: _amare_/'to love' and _odisse_/'to hate' are also assumed to belong to the _timere_/'to fear'-type/class, the verbs whose experiencer argument is the subject.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Following TKR's suggestion below, it would be interesting to find other similar contexts where psychological predicates of the 1st class above (verbs whose experiencer argument is the subject of the clause: e.g., _amare_, _odisse_, _timere_, _laetari_, _angi_, etc.) are reassumed by _facere id_. Could you provide us with some attested examples of this linguistic phenomenon?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice also that _faciam_ and _requiris_ are agentive predicates, compared to the verbs of the second verse, which are ALL non-agentive: _nescio_, _fieri_, _sentio_, and _excrucior_. So, in line with this distribution of agentive vs. non-agentive verbs in 1st and 2nd verses, respectively, I was wondering if the use of _faciam id_ to reassume _odi_ and _amo_ could be taken as a linguistic argument for extending the allegedly only stative semantics of _odisse_ and _amare_ as verbs of the 1st class of psychological predicates. If that were the case, this could also be taken as a non-subjective argument for Arkins's conclusion above in the sense that the translations of _odi_ and _amo_ in this poem should ideally incorporate a more agentive-like component that is typically missing in 'I hate' and 'I love', respectively. Notice then that such an ingredient of agentivity would in turn relate more with the **physical** component argued for by Arkins (see the first link above) and less with the **mere** psychological meaning of these verbs.    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2041-5370.2011.00015.x&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.academia.edu/35988545/ODI_ET_AMO_A_BRIEF_HISTORY_IN_TRANSLATION&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://user.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~filip/Filip.Psychverbs.1996.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="b35bb7ff-ed20-41ac-bbc3-cbdd40ad35ba" CreationDate="2019-07-28T01:51:58.510" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="On the basis of literary arguments, Arkins (2011) [THE MEANING OF ‘ODI ET AMO’ IN CATULLUS 85][1] came to the interesting conclusion that _Odi et amo_ in the following famous poem by Catullus (LXXXV) cannot be translated as &quot;I hate and I love&quot; but rather as &quot;I loathe her, I lust for her&quot;. His conclusion is indeed quite original and provocative if one considers the typical translations of this poem (e.g., for a selection of different translations, see [ODI ET AMO: A BRIEF HISTORY IN TRANSLATION][2] ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Odi et amo. Quare id faciam fortasse requiris. / Nescio sed fieri sentio et excrucior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My specific **linguistic** question here is the following one: is it exceptional to find allegedly stative verbs like _odisse_ and _amare_ as reassumed by the agentive verbal phrase _facere id_? I'm asking this since in many languages it is often the case that stative verbs cannot be reassumed by the non-stative agentive verbal expression _facere id_ 'to do it' (which is not exactly the same as 'to do so'). For example, the following Spanish and Catalan translations sound quite odd: Sp. “Odio y amo. ¿Por qué **lo hago**? (tal vez me preguntas…)” // Cat. “Odio i estimo. Per què **ho faig** (tal vegada em preguntes…)”. Could you please let me know if the same happens in your native language? For example, TKR, in his comment below, also points out a similar semantic clash in Hebrew. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some very sketchy linguistic background on so-called &quot;psychological verbs&quot;. There is a typical tripartite classification of these verbs according to the syntactic function of the experiencer argument: (I) subject (_timere_-verbs), (II) direct object (_terrere_-verbs) and (III) indirect object (_placere_-verbs). Typically, the first class is semantically analyzed as lacking an event, i.e., they are **stative** predicates. For example, see page 3 of Filip's (1996) work where you'll find the following statement: &quot;Psychological predicates of the _fear_ type are stative&quot; ([Filip 1996][3]) NB: _amare_/'to love' and _odisse_/'to hate' are also assumed to belong to the _timere_/'to fear'-type/class, the verbs whose experiencer argument is the subject.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Following TKR's suggestion below, it would be interesting to find other similar contexts where psychological predicates of the 1st class above (verbs whose experiencer argument is the subject of the clause: e.g., _amare_, _odisse_, _timere_, etc.) are reassumed by _facere id_. Could you provide us with some attested examples of this linguistic phenomenon?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice also that _faciam_ and _requiris_ are agentive predicates, compared to the verbs of the second verse, which are ALL non-agentive: _nescio_, _fieri_, _sentio_, and _excrucior_. So, in line with this distribution of agentive vs. non-agentive verbs in 1st and 2nd verses, respectively, I was wondering if the use of _faciam id_ to reassume _odi_ and _amo_ could be taken as a linguistic argument for extending the allegedly only stative semantics of _odisse_ and _amare_ as verbs of the 1st class of psychological predicates. If that were the case, this could also be taken as a non-subjective argument for Arkins's conclusion above in the sense that the translations of _odi_ and _amo_ in this poem should ideally incorporate a more agentive-like component, which is typically missing in 'I hate' and 'I love', respectively. Notice then that such an ingredient of agentivity would in turn relate more with the **physical** component argued for by Arkins (see the first link above) and less with the **mere** psychological meaning of these verbs.    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2041-5370.2011.00015.x&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.academia.edu/35988545/ODI_ET_AMO_A_BRIEF_HISTORY_IN_TRANSLATION&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://user.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~filip/Filip.Psychverbs.1996.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="04fc5e98-dd4e-4d2c-8159-5eefb1565139" CreationDate="2019-07-28T02:01:44.957" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="On the basis of literary arguments, Arkins (2011) [THE MEANING OF ‘ODI ET AMO’ IN CATULLUS 85][1] came to the interesting conclusion that _Odi et amo_ in the following famous poem by Catullus (LXXXV) cannot be translated as &quot;I hate and I love&quot; but rather as &quot;I loathe her, I lust for her&quot;. His conclusion is indeed quite original and provocative if one considers the typical translations of this poem (e.g., for a selection of different translations, see [ODI ET AMO: A BRIEF HISTORY IN TRANSLATION][2] ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Odi et amo. Quare id faciam fortasse requiris. / Nescio sed fieri sentio et excrucior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My specific **linguistic** question here is the following one: is it exceptional to find allegedly stative verbs like _odisse_ and _amare_ as reassumed by the agentive verbal phrase _facere id_? I'm asking this since in many languages it is often the case that stative verbs cannot be reassumed by the non-stative agentive verbal expression _facere id_ 'to do it' (which is not exactly the same as 'to do so'). For example, the following Spanish and Catalan translations sound quite odd: Sp. “Odio y amo. ¿Por qué **lo hago**? (tal vez me preguntas…)” // Cat. “Odio i estimo. Per què **ho faig** (tal vegada em preguntes…)”. Could you please let me know if the same happens in your native language? For example, TKR, in his comment below, also points out a similar semantic clash in Hebrew. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some very sketchy linguistic background on so-called &quot;psychological verbs&quot;. There is a typical tripartite classification of these verbs according to the syntactic function of the experiencer argument: (I) subject (_timere_-verbs), (II) direct object (_terrere_-verbs) and (III) indirect object (_placere_-verbs). Typically, the first class is semantically analyzed as lacking an event, i.e., they are **stative** predicates. For example, see page 3 of Filip's (1996) work where you'll find the following statement: &quot;Psychological predicates of the _fear_ type are stative&quot; ([Filip 1996][3]) NB: _amare_/'to love' and _odisse_/'to hate' are also assumed to belong to the _timere_/'to fear'-type/class, the verbs whose experiencer argument is the subject.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Following TKR's suggestion below, it would be interesting to find other similar contexts where psychological predicates of the 1st class above (verbs whose experiencer argument is the subject of the clause: e.g., _amare_, _odisse_, _timere_, etc.) are reassumed by _facere id_. Could you provide us with some attested examples of this linguistic phenomenon?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice also that _faciam_ and _requiris_ are agentive predicates, compared to the verbs of the second verse, which are ALL non-agentive: _nescio_, _fieri_, _sentio_, and _excrucior_. So, in line with this distribution of agentive vs. non-agentive verbs in 1st and 2nd verses, respectively, I was wondering if the use of _faciam id_ to reassume _odi_ and _amo_ could be taken as a linguistic argument for extending the allegedly only stative semantics of _odisse_ and _amare_ as verbs of the 1st class of psychological predicates. If that were the case, this could also be taken as a non-subjective argument for Arkins's conclusion above in the sense that the translations of _odi_ and _amo_ in this poem should ideally incorporate a more agentive-like component, which is typically missing in 'I hate' and 'I love', respectively. Notice then that such an ingredient of agentivity would in turn nicely correspond more with the **physical** component argued for by Arkins (see the first link above) and less with the **merely psychological** meaning of these verbs.    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2041-5370.2011.00015.x&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.academia.edu/35988545/ODI_ET_AMO_A_BRIEF_HISTORY_IN_TRANSLATION&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://user.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~filip/Filip.Psychverbs.1996.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11212" RevisionGUID="9c9b09c2-6b4e-499f-99a7-be55b32236c3" CreationDate="2019-07-28T04:01:18.167" UserId="4967" Text="I am trying to translate &quot;*plan [in order] to achieve*&quot; into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From the dictionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consequor#Conjugation) it looks like both &quot;*meditator ut consequaris*&quot; and &quot;*meditator ut consequare*&quot; are grammatically correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are they, and if they are, what's the difference? Was the alternative form more popular in some geographic region or historical period?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11212" RevisionGUID="9c9b09c2-6b4e-499f-99a7-be55b32236c3" CreationDate="2019-07-28T04:01:18.167" UserId="4967" Text="Alternative forms in second-person singular present active subjunctive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11212" RevisionGUID="9c9b09c2-6b4e-499f-99a7-be55b32236c3" CreationDate="2019-07-28T04:01:18.167" UserId="4967" Text="|grammar-choice|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11213" RevisionGUID="5074f666-43e0-43f9-bc97-dd45472f7090" CreationDate="2019-07-28T13:36:12.530" UserId="13" Text="As I go over in [this blog post](https://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-rest-of-sappho.html) (2.D.xxxiii), the text of LP 99a given by [this Italian anthology](https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/11675/1/Saffo_frammenti_2015.pdf) has a few words I can't explain. Here is the glossary portion of the note to the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the text is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;… shortly after … the Polyanactid … … to the Samean (?) women … make to resonate on the strings … which the plactra receive banqueting friendlily with such people and lovably the harp vibrates, and the sound (penetrates) through the bones and, when it's inside, runs [through] the medulla.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: what is each and every word of l. 5? Or more specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Where is περκαθθώμενος from?&#xD;&#xA; 2. What kind of word is δόκοισι, what does it mean, and what is its dictionary form?&#xD;&#xA; 3. What form of ὄλισβος should be read here? A singular to go with that participle in item 1, or a plural to translate as such as the translation does?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bb0eO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CQXoJ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33015" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11213" RevisionGUID="5074f666-43e0-43f9-bc97-dd45472f7090" CreationDate="2019-07-28T13:36:12.530" UserId="13" Text="Help figuring out origins of some words in a passage as reconstructed by an Italian Sappho anthology" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33016" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11213" RevisionGUID="5074f666-43e0-43f9-bc97-dd45472f7090" CreationDate="2019-07-28T13:36:12.530" UserId="13" Text="|greek|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11211" RevisionGUID="7e753298-aeba-4eeb-937d-915c7a456ddf" CreationDate="2019-07-28T16:40:48.050" UserId="4966" Comment="added 522 characters in body" Text="As a musician my first thought goes to [in excelsis Deo][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Excelsis][2] seems to have been translated in a multitude of ways. Some interesting thoughts on this and also on usage of in excelsis/altissimus are offered in [this question][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*EDIT*&#xD;&#xA;In a comment Joonas Ilmavirta kindly pointed out a grammatical error in my answer. For searchability I will simply copy the comment in here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Because of the dative form in excelsis Deo means &quot;to the God in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; highest&quot;. If you want to say &quot;the God is in highest&quot;, you need to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; switch Deo to Deus. You can also add an explicit est (&quot;is&quot;) before it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apologies for my poor skills, I have not maintained what little I learned in school 35 years ago but was nevertheless left with a love for the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_in_excelsis_Deo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in%20excelsis&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4752/deep-meaning-of-gloria-in-excelsis-deo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11205" RevisionGUID="7cef08d8-f192-485e-aa49-31a8ca4c9817" CreationDate="2019-07-28T20:34:20.117" UserId="79" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="&gt; Can someone please expound and enlarge on this sentence? Why was the subjunctive mood 'regarded as specially appropriate to ‘subjoined’ or subordinate clauses'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you are looking at it the wrong way around.&#xD;&#xA;Language happens to be what it is and we describe it, but our descriptions have little or no effect on the language.&#xD;&#xA;If we declared subjunctive mood inappropriate for subordinate clauses, people would still speak the way they do.&#xD;&#xA;This mood was used long before grammarians started giving it names.&#xD;&#xA;The point is that &quot;specially appropriate for subordinate clauses&quot; means &quot;found most commonly in subordinate clauses&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It would have been clearer if worded that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;subjunctive&quot; comes from the participle *subiunctus* (&quot;subjugated&quot;, &quot;subjoined&quot;, and similar).&#xD;&#xA;The passage you quote suggests that the name for this form mood is due to its frequent appearance in subordinate clauses.&#xD;&#xA;Even if it has other uses as well, subordination requiring this mood makes &quot;subjunctive&quot; a good name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why was the Greek subjunctive mood 'used almost exclusively in subordinate clauses'? Couldn't it have been used almost exclusively in independent clauses?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why was genitive used for possession?&#xD;&#xA;What was perfect tense used for past events?&#xD;&#xA;Why was subjunctive used for subordinate clauses?&#xD;&#xA;That's just the way it happens to be.&#xD;&#xA;Grammar questions with &quot;why&quot; don't often have very meaningful answers, and I don't think this one has either.&#xD;&#xA;But since the use of moods, cases, and others is so consistent, we can be sure that the rules do exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this text, this Greek mood happens to be used in subordinate clauses almost exclusively.&#xD;&#xA;It is similar in Latin, although &quot;almost exclusively&quot; might be a little too strong.&#xD;&#xA;Many kinds of subordination (like indirect questions) automatically require this mood in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there is a satisfying answer to &quot;why&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;**Grammar isn't a theory where you can logically deduce things from others.&#xD;&#xA;It is primarily a description of how a language is actually used.**&#xD;&#xA;And this description here is: &quot;this mood is found mainly in subordinate clauses and we call it 'subjunctive' for that reason&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11214" RevisionGUID="f6f06926-dd45-457a-8951-ab6abf697094" CreationDate="2019-07-28T20:45:54.407" UserId="4969" Text="Hello I’m in need of some help with a translation from English to Latin &#xD;&#xA;I’m in the middle of designing a tattoo and the client wants the sentence&#xD;&#xA; ‘A moment in my arms, a lifetime in my heart’ &#xD;&#xA;to be written in Latin and has sent over the sentence&#xD;&#xA; ‘momento in arma mea vita, meum cor’ &#xD;&#xA;but has used google translate to swap the English to Latin (and we all know how google translate likes to Butcher translations) I would greatly appreciate any help on the matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33020" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11214" RevisionGUID="f6f06926-dd45-457a-8951-ab6abf697094" CreationDate="2019-07-28T20:45:54.407" UserId="4969" Text="Help with translation!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33021" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11214" RevisionGUID="f6f06926-dd45-457a-8951-ab6abf697094" CreationDate="2019-07-28T20:45:54.407" UserId="4969" Text="|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33022" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11214" RevisionGUID="eab2f73b-de54-43b2-8310-6cae3b10f620" CreationDate="2019-07-28T21:04:28.187" UserId="4969" Comment="edited title" Text="Help with translation for tattoo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11215" RevisionGUID="d676ce15-986f-40ec-a5ab-e43ac77dc5dd" CreationDate="2019-07-28T23:49:54.527" UserId="406" Text="As Joonas quite aptly put it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't think there is a satisfying answer to &quot;why&quot;. Grammar isn't a theory where you can logically deduce things from others. It is primarily a description of how a language is actually used. And this description here is: &quot;this mood is found mainly in subordinate clauses and we call it 'subjunctive' for that reason&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is absolutely true and correct. But to come at your question from a different angle…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin subjunctive/conjunctive mood was used in all sorts of different environments. It was used for suggestions, for hopes, for less-vivid conditionals, and various other independent uses, along with subordinate clauses. For example, 2 Timothy 1:16:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Det** misericordiam Dominus Onesiphori domui*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; May the Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Greek, most of these roles are filled by the *optative* instead, a mood that Classical Latin lacks. (Optative = *optātivus* = &quot;for wishing&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Δῴη** ἔλεος ὁ κύριος τῷ Ὀνησιφόρου οἴκῳ*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; May the Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphoros&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the Greek subjunctive appears in independent clauses significantly less than the Latin one does, since a Latin subjunctive main verb often translates to an optative in Greek. Subjunctive main verbs do still appear sometimes, like for hortatory sentences (&quot;let's \_\_\_!&quot;), but they're not a common sight." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11216" RevisionGUID="ebb3324c-bf28-48ac-8995-f47dee95665c" CreationDate="2019-07-29T02:36:48.720" UserId="4970" Text="I am a web application developer. I am working on a platform similar to Kickstarter or GoFundMe to support individuals or teams who want to start or transition to a Classical Christian School. I see these individuals as advocates for this philosophy of education. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered Suasoria, but the domain is taken. Would Suasori work? I am also considering Patronum." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33025" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11216" RevisionGUID="ebb3324c-bf28-48ac-8995-f47dee95665c" CreationDate="2019-07-29T02:36:48.720" UserId="4970" Text="Would Patronum be an appropriate name for a Classical Christian School Kickstarter platform?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33026" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11216" RevisionGUID="ebb3324c-bf28-48ac-8995-f47dee95665c" CreationDate="2019-07-29T02:36:48.720" UserId="4970" Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11214" RevisionGUID="a36de58a-476d-4530-a6a4-526796b21be4" CreationDate="2019-07-29T02:47:44.307" UserId="9" Comment="Added the sentence to be translated to the title to make it more specific; adjusted punctuation and capitalization in body of question" Text="I’m in need of some help with a translation from English to Latin. &#xD;&#xA;I’m in the middle of designing a tattoo and the client wants the sentence&#xD;&#xA; ‘A moment in my arms, a lifetime in my heart’ &#xD;&#xA;to be written in Latin and has sent over the sentence&#xD;&#xA; ‘momento in arma mea vita, meum cor’ &#xD;&#xA;but has used Google Translate to swap the English to Latin (and we all know how Google Translate likes to butcher translations). I would greatly appreciate any help on the matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33028" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11214" RevisionGUID="a36de58a-476d-4530-a6a4-526796b21be4" CreationDate="2019-07-29T02:47:44.307" UserId="9" Comment="Added the sentence to be translated to the title to make it more specific; adjusted punctuation and capitalization in body of question" Text="How to translate &quot;A moment in my arms, a lifetime in my heart&quot; for a tattoo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11217" RevisionGUID="27b0c5d1-36d7-41e5-9766-3d366c5f1234" CreationDate="2019-07-29T05:16:13.697" UserId="406" Text="You're quite right not to trust Google Translate! The sentence it gave you is nonsense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;moment&quot; in Latin is either a *punctum* or a *momentum*; out of the two, I like *punctum* better. (*Punctum* comes from the word for pricking something with a pin, while *momentum* comes from a word for movement and motion, if that affects anything.) It's often found in the slightly longer phrase *punctum temporis* &quot;moment of time&quot;, but in context it could be understood without that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;lifetime&quot;, as in a long span of time, would be a *saeculum* rather than a *vita*. (A *vita* is literally a &quot;life&quot;, but it's more like a biography or a living soul than a span of time.) This can mean literally a human lifetime, or figuratively a generation, or figuratively a hundred years (which the Romans considered something like the maximum possible lifetime).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One standard word for &quot;arms&quot; is *bracchia*; Vergil and Ovid use this word when talking about embraces, so it seems good for your purpose. And &quot;heart&quot; is straightforwardly *cor*, both literally and metaphorically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting it all together, with appropriate endings on the words: *punctum in bracchiis [meis], saeculum in corde [meo]*. You can swap in *momentum* if you like it better without changing the overall meaning. The *meis* and *meo* literally mean &quot;my&quot;, but can be left off here where the context makes the meaning clear; leaving them off makes it a bit shorter and cleaner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11219" RevisionGUID="cf0041bb-8008-4521-b54d-26d2c69024e8" CreationDate="2019-07-29T12:38:27.413" UserId="4972" Text="dicunt somnia, sed oblivisci malorum sunt somnia nimis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this translate to : &#xD;&#xA;they say dreams come true, but forget that nightmares are dreams too" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33033" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11219" RevisionGUID="cf0041bb-8008-4521-b54d-26d2c69024e8" CreationDate="2019-07-29T12:38:27.413" UserId="4972" Text="Is this correct? dicunt somnia, sed oblivisci malorum sunt somnia nimis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33034" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11219" RevisionGUID="cf0041bb-8008-4521-b54d-26d2c69024e8" CreationDate="2019-07-29T12:38:27.413" UserId="4972" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33036" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11219" RevisionGUID="d7596e59-8aaf-4d42-825b-42656e239483" CreationDate="2019-07-29T17:08:43.697" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11220" RevisionGUID="170a5f6f-cfdf-48da-9d37-ff33ddc652eb" CreationDate="2019-07-29T17:14:03.147" UserId="3248" Text="Assuming that ablative case is always a meaningful case (see the typical lists of associated meanings in Latin grammars), I was wondering if Latin speakers could still assign a synchronic interpretation to this ablative phrase, which indicates the person to whom the thing is important (e.g., _tua PARTE_?). As is well-known, this appears in ablative singular feminine of the possessives _mea, tua, sua, nostra, vestra_. Otherwise, it is expressed in genitive case. The thing concerned can also be expressed by _ad_ plus accusative, as shown in the fourth example. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; _**Tua** et **mea** maxime interest te  valere_ (Cic. _Fam_. 16.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Interest **omnium** recte facere_ (Cic. _Fin_. 2.72)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Magis **nullius** interest quam **tua**, Tite Otacili, non imponi cervicibus tuis onus_ (Liv. 24, 8, 17)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Magni **ad honorem nostrum** interest me venire_ (Cic. _Fam_. 16,1, 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something similar happens with the verb _refert_. Cf. the diachronic explanation that relates _tua_ to the prefix of this verb: _tua res fert &gt; tuā refert_. E.g., vid. Woodcock (1959: 171): &quot;By the apocope of final _s_ in early Latin, this came to be pronounced _rēfert_. The first syllable was then thought to represent an ablative, and the last syllable of &lt;_tua_&gt; was lenghtened to agree with it&quot;; _A New Latin Syntax_, London: Methuen. I don't know how plausible and accepted this explanation is and I was also wondering if there is an alternative explanation for the ablative case in these examples.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  _Quid id refert **tua**_?  (Pl. _Cas._ 330)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Faciundum aliquid quod **illorum** magis quam **sua** retulisse videretur_ (Sal. _Jug_. 111, 1) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33038" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11220" RevisionGUID="170a5f6f-cfdf-48da-9d37-ff33ddc652eb" CreationDate="2019-07-29T17:14:03.147" UserId="3248" Text="What is the grammatical &quot;logic&quot; of ablative case in «Tuā et meā māximē interest tē ualēre» (Cic. Fam. 16.4)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33039" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11220" RevisionGUID="170a5f6f-cfdf-48da-9d37-ff33ddc652eb" CreationDate="2019-07-29T17:14:03.147" UserId="3248" Text="|verbs|syntax|case|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11220" RevisionGUID="6d974178-ec11-4c81-b364-ec35233a7159" CreationDate="2019-07-29T17:19:11.313" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="Assuming that ablative case is always a meaningful case (see the typical lists of its associated meanings in Latin grammars), I was wondering if Latin speakers could still assign a synchronic interpretation to this ablative phrase at issue, which indicates the person to whom the thing is important (e.g., _tua PARTE_?). As is well-known, this appears in ablative singular feminine of the possessives _mea, tua, sua, nostra, vestra_. Otherwise, it is expressed in genitive case. The thing concerned can also be expressed by _ad_ plus accusative, as shown in the fourth example. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; _**Tua** et **mea** maxime interest te  valere_ (Cic. _Fam_. 16.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Interest **omnium** recte facere_ (Cic. _Fin_. 2.72)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Magis **nullius** interest quam **tua**, Tite Otacili, non imponi cervicibus tuis onus_ (Liv. 24, 8, 17)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Magni **ad honorem nostrum** interest me venire_ (Cic. _Fam_. 16,1, 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something similar happens with the verb _refert_. Cf. the diachronic explanation that relates _tua_ to the prefix of this verb: _tua res fert &gt; tuā refert_. E.g., vid. Woodcock (1959: 171): &quot;By the apocope of final _s_ in early Latin, this came to be pronounced _rēfert_. The first syllable was then thought to represent an ablative, and the last syllable of &lt;_tua_&gt; was lenghtened to agree with it&quot;; _A New Latin Syntax_, London: Methuen. However, I don't know how plausible and accepted this explanation is and I was wondering if there is an alternative explanation for the ablative case in these examples.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  _Quid id refert **tua**_?  (Pl. _Cas._ 330)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Faciundum aliquid quod **illorum** magis quam **sua** retulisse videretur_ (Sal. _Jug_. 111, 1) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33041" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11220" RevisionGUID="6d974178-ec11-4c81-b364-ec35233a7159" CreationDate="2019-07-29T17:19:11.313" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="What is the grammatical &quot;logic&quot; of ablative case in «Tuā et meā māximē interest tē ualēre» (Cic. Fam. 16.4)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11220" RevisionGUID="c2c1145f-774d-4930-9ffe-5d8ae94c3828" CreationDate="2019-07-29T17:49:51.070" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="Assuming that ablative case is always a meaningful case (see the typical lists of its associated meanings in Latin grammars), I was wondering if Latin speakers could still assign a synchronic interpretation to the ablative phrase of the verb _interest_, which indicates the person to whom the thing is important (e.g., _tua PARTE_?). As is well-known, this appears in ablative singular feminine of the possessives _mea, tua, sua, nostra, vestra_. Otherwise, it is expressed in genitive case (e.g., _omnium_ and _nullius_ below). The thing concerned can also be expressed by _ad_ plus accusative, as shown in the fourth example. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; _**Tua** et **mea** maxime interest te  valere_ (Cic. _Fam_. 16.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Interest **omnium** recte facere_ (Cic. _Fin_. 2.72)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Magis **nullius** interest quam **tua**, Tite Otacili, non imponi cervicibus tuis onus_ (Liv. 24, 8, 17)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Magni **ad honorem nostrum** interest me venire_ (Cic. _Fam_. 16,1, 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something similar happens with the verb _refert_. Cf. the diachronic explanation that relates _tua_ to the prefix of this verb: _tua res fert &gt; tuā refert_. E.g., vid. Woodcock (1959: 171): &quot;By the apocope of final _s_ in early Latin, this came to be pronounced _rēfert_. The first syllable was then thought to represent an ablative, and the last syllable of &lt;_tua_&gt; was lenghtened to agree with it&quot;; _A New Latin Syntax_, London: Methuen. However, I don't know how plausible and accepted this explanation is and I was wondering if there is an alternative explanation for the ablative case in these examples.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  _Quid id refert **tua**_?  (Pl. _Cas._ 330)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Faciundum aliquid quod **illorum** magis quam **sua** retulisse videretur_ (Sal. _Jug_. 111, 1) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11221" RevisionGUID="451ebb9d-c9cc-415b-8e3a-74fbd78e8276" CreationDate="2019-07-29T17:58:29.990" UserId="4967" Text="I am trying to translate &quot;*plan [in order] to achieve*&quot; into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it more appropriate to use second (&quot;*meditator ut consequaris*&quot;) or third person (&quot;*meditator ut consequatur*&quot;) in future imperative here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If both are acceptable, which one sounds more natural for a general rule or maxim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33044" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11221" RevisionGUID="451ebb9d-c9cc-415b-8e3a-74fbd78e8276" CreationDate="2019-07-29T17:58:29.990" UserId="4967" Text="Second vs. third person in future imperative for a general rule or maxim" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33045" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11221" RevisionGUID="451ebb9d-c9cc-415b-8e3a-74fbd78e8276" CreationDate="2019-07-29T17:58:29.990" UserId="4967" Text="|grammar-choice|translation-check|english-to-latin-translation|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11222" RevisionGUID="9ea3b001-0b9c-4a20-a133-4cf49f54c0c5" CreationDate="2019-07-29T18:11:13.697" UserId="406" Text="_Suāsōria_ means &quot;intended to persuade&quot;, as an adjective, or &quot;a speech intended to persuade&quot;, as a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Suāsor_ is a noun meaning &quot;someone who persuades or advises&quot;; _suāsōrī_ is the dative singular, meaning &quot;to/for someone who persuades&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Pātrōnus_ is a noun meaning &quot;defender&quot; or &quot;patron&quot;; _pātrōnum_ is the accusative singular, used as the direct object of a verb. It can also mean &quot;advocate&quot; in a legal context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of any specifically Christian context for _suāsor_ or _suāsōria_, but _pātrōnum_ (as I imagine you're aware) shows up in the Diēs Īrae:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid sum, miser, tunc dictūrus?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quem **pātrōnum** rogātūrus?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cum vix justus sit secūrus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[When the day of judgement comes…]*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *What is this poor wretch then supposed to say?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *What **advocate** should I call upon,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *when even the righteous can scarcely be sure [of salvation]?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form here is *pātrōnum* instead of *pātrōnus* because it's the object of the verb &quot;call upon&quot; (*rogō*), indicating the person who is being called.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, I would recommend *pātrōnus* instead of *pātrōnum*, since it's in the nominative or &quot;default&quot; case. But that's liable to be taken too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Might I suggest ***pātrōcinium*** or ***pātrōcinia***? This is an abstract noun formed from *pātrōnus*, changing the meaning from &quot;advocate&quot; to &quot;advocacy&quot; or &quot;protection&quot;. (The former is singular, the latter is plural, but that distinction doesn't matter too much with this word.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11223" RevisionGUID="aa7d8a2c-b8c6-4d75-b516-e784d50a8249" CreationDate="2019-07-29T19:19:08.703" UserId="3576" Text="Following a [thread on german.SE](https://german.stackexchange.com/questions/53524/ohne-von-gott-in-der-lutherbibel) I wondered why ει μη is translated as German &quot;außer&quot; (*other than, except*; translated as &quot;unless&quot; in one of the links) Epistle to the Romans (13, 1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The wiktionary tells me for the individual elements that &quot;μή is the negative of thought or wish&quot; and that ει is a kind of relative conjunction. That is, it would be relative-pronoun-like in spirit of the etymology. This synthesyzing is probably my main problem, but I am also troubled because there are no direct cognates in Germanic, as far as I am aware. The naive dictionary translation &quot;if not&quot; matches the translation at hand, but I wonder how biased this is by attempts to fit non-Greek grammars. The element of &quot;thought or wish&quot; at least is missing completely. It doesn't help that etymologies of particles are often *so* convoluted as it seems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW: *ei me apo* is then translated as *except of* (Ger &quot;von&quot;), but *apo* well corresponds to *off* (Ger *ab* often combined with *von*, think *get off of that horse*). Whether &quot;ohne von&quot; was a set phrase or a new coinage by Luther, now modernized (or corrected) to *außer von* is obviously not in question here, but a notable tangent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't help but notice that *ei me* somewhat rhymes with *eime* &quot;to be&quot;. Since the etymology of *me* is uncertain, could the verse be a formulaic archaism? Could it have become corrupted? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33048" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11223" RevisionGUID="aa7d8a2c-b8c6-4d75-b516-e784d50a8249" CreationDate="2019-07-29T19:19:08.703" UserId="3576" Text="Translation of ει μη" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33049" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11223" RevisionGUID="aa7d8a2c-b8c6-4d75-b516-e784d50a8249" CreationDate="2019-07-29T19:19:08.703" UserId="3576" Text="|greek|etymology|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11222" RevisionGUID="37a3f9ca-e062-4c36-8060-78d8b154f3af" CreationDate="2019-07-29T19:57:26.050" UserId="406" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="_Suāsōria_ means &quot;intended to persuade&quot;, as an adjective, or &quot;a speech intended to persuade&quot;, as a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Suāsor_ is a noun meaning &quot;someone who persuades or advises&quot;; _suāsōrī_ is the dative singular, meaning &quot;to/for someone who persuades&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Pātrōnus_ is a noun meaning &quot;defender&quot; or &quot;patron&quot;; _pātrōnum_ is the accusative singular, used as the direct object of a verb. It can also mean &quot;advocate&quot; in a legal context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of any specifically Christian context for _suāsor_ or _suāsōria_, but _pātrōnum_ (as I imagine you're aware) shows up in the Diēs Īrae:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid sum, miser, tunc dictūrus?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quem **pātrōnum** rogātūrus?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cum vix justus sit secūrus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[When the day of judgement comes…]*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *What is this poor wretch then supposed to say?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *What **advocate** should I call upon,*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *when even the righteous can scarcely be sure [of salvation]?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form here is *pātrōnum* instead of *pātrōnus* because it's the object of the verb &quot;call upon&quot; (*rogō*), indicating the person who is being called.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, I would recommend *pātrōnus* instead of *pātrōnum*, since it's in the nominative or &quot;default&quot; case. But that's liable to be taken too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Might I suggest ***pātrōcinium*** or ***pātrōcinia***? This is an abstract noun formed from *pātrōnus*, changing the meaning from &quot;advocate&quot; to &quot;advocacy&quot; or &quot;protection&quot;. (The former is singular, the latter is plural, but that distinction doesn't matter too much with this word.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. The lines over certain vowels can be included or left off, whichever you prefer; they indicate a difference in pronunciation that disappeared in later Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11220" RevisionGUID="b8255010-9e6f-41d1-bd31-ed8fb2198c5b" CreationDate="2019-07-29T20:17:02.113" UserId="3248" Comment="minor change" Text="Assuming that ablative case is always a semantic case (see the typical lists of its associated meanings in Latin grammars), I was wondering if Latin speakers could still assign a synchronic interpretation to the ablative phrase of the verb _interest_, which indicates the person to whom the thing is important (e.g., _tua PARTE_?). As is well-known, this appears in ablative singular feminine of the possessives _mea, tua, sua, nostra, vestra_. Otherwise, it is expressed in genitive case (e.g., _omnium_ and _nullius_ below). The thing concerned can also be expressed by _ad_ plus accusative, as shown in the fourth example.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; _**Tua** et **mea** maxime interest te  valere_ (Cic. _Fam_. 16.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Interest **omnium** recte facere_ (Cic. _Fin_. 2.72)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Magis **nullius** interest quam **tua**, Tite Otacili, non imponi cervicibus tuis onus_ (Liv. 24, 8, 17)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Magni **ad honorem nostrum** interest me venire_ (Cic. _Fam_. 16,1, 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something similar happens with the verb _refert_. Cf. the diachronic explanation that relates _tua_ to the prefix of this verb: _tua res fert &gt; tuā refert_. E.g., vid. Woodcock (1959: 171): &quot;By the apocope of final _s_ in early Latin, this came to be pronounced _rēfert_. The first syllable was then thought to represent an ablative, and the last syllable of &lt;_tua_&gt; was lenghtened to agree with it&quot;; _A New Latin Syntax_, London: Methuen. However, I don't know how plausible and accepted this explanation is and I was wondering if there is an alternative explanation for the ablative case in these examples.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  _Quid id refert **tua**_?  (Pl. _Cas._ 330)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Faciundum aliquid quod **illorum** magis quam **sua** retulisse videretur_ (Sal. _Jug_. 111, 1) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11220" RevisionGUID="15d783d7-f8c0-4968-8c77-6f83ce2235c1" CreationDate="2019-07-29T22:45:12.510" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="Assuming that ablative case is always a semantic case (see the typical lists of its associated meanings in Latin grammars), I was wondering if Latin speakers could still assign a synchronic more or less &quot;compositional&quot; interpretation to the ablative phrase of the verb _interest_, which indicates the person to whom the thing is important (e.g., _tua PARTE_?). As is well-known, this appears in ablative singular feminine of the possessives _mea, tua, sua, nostra, vestra_. Otherwise, it is expressed in genitive case (e.g., _omnium_ and _nullius_ below). The thing concerned can also be expressed by _ad_ plus accusative, as shown in the fourth example.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; _**Tua** et **mea** maxime interest te  valere_ (Cic. _Fam_. 16.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Interest **omnium** recte facere_ (Cic. _Fin_. 2.72)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Magis **nullius** interest quam **tua**, Tite Otacili, non imponi cervicibus tuis onus_ (Liv. 24, 8, 17)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Magni **ad honorem nostrum** interest me venire_ (Cic. _Fam_. 16,1, 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something similar happens with the verb _refert_. Cf. the diachronic explanation that relates _tua_ to the prefix of this verb: _tua res fert &gt; tuā refert_. E.g., vid. Woodcock (1959: 171): &quot;By the apocope of final _s_ in early Latin, this came to be pronounced _rēfert_. The first syllable was then thought to represent an ablative, and the last syllable of &lt;_tua_&gt; was lenghtened to agree with it&quot;: _A New Latin Syntax_, London: Methuen. However, I don't know how plausible this explanation (along with its alleged analogical extension to _interest_) is. So I was wondering if there is an alternative explanation for the ablative case in these examples.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  _Quid id refert **tua**_?  (Pl. _Cas._ 330)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Faciundum aliquid quod **illorum** magis quam **sua** retulisse videretur_ (Sal. _Jug_. 111, 1) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11225" RevisionGUID="30941bec-65a9-40a4-abd2-1f6123fcd12e" CreationDate="2019-07-29T22:52:01.630" UserId="406" Text="&gt; The wiktionary tells me for the individual elements that &quot;μή is the negative of thought or wish&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pretty much. It's one of the two common negative elements in Ancient Greek; *οὐ(κ)* is generally used with indicative verbs, while *μή* is used with subjunctives and optatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and that ει is a kind of relative conjunction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically true, but a bit misleading. The more relevant translation for your purposes is simply **&quot;if&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, *εἰ μή* means literally &quot;if not&quot; or &quot;unless&quot;. This combination can also be translated as &quot;except&quot; without really changing the meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία **εἰ μὴ** ὑπὸ θεοῦ*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For no power exists **unless** [it comes] from God  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For no power exists **except** [that which comes] from God&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Following your tangent a bit, for the following word, some manuscripts say *ὑπὸ*, others say *ἀπὸ*. In this context, I like *ὑπὸ* more; both words fundamentally mean &quot;from&quot;, but *ὑπὸ* can also mean &quot;under the authority of&quot;, which seems right here. (On the other hand, *ἀπὸ* can mean &quot;originating from&quot;, specifying the fundamental source, which also makes sense.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.P.S. Be careful with your transcriptions! The negative is *μή*, with an eta, while &quot;I am&quot; is *εἰμί*, with a iota. The two letters are pronounced the same in Modern Greek, but were very different in ancient times, as we can see from transcriptions into other languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11225" RevisionGUID="410146d8-499c-453d-89f9-83e2823b356d" CreationDate="2019-07-29T22:57:38.753" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt; The wiktionary tells me for the individual elements that &quot;μή is the negative of thought or wish&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pretty much. It's one of the two common negative elements in Ancient Greek; *οὐ(κ)* is generally used with indicative verbs, while *μή* is used with subjunctives and optatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and that ει is a kind of relative conjunction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically true, but a bit misleading. The more relevant translation for your purposes is simply **&quot;if&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, *εἰ μή* means literally &quot;if not&quot; or &quot;unless&quot;. This combination can also be translated as &quot;except&quot; without really changing the meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία **εἰ μὴ** ὑπὸ θεοῦ*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For no power exists **unless** [it comes] from God  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For no power exists **except** [that which comes] from God&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Following your tangent a bit, for the following word, some manuscripts say *ὑπὸ*, others say *ἀπὸ*. In this context, I like *ὑπὸ* more; both words fundamentally mean &quot;from&quot;, but *ὑπὸ* can also mean &quot;under the authority of&quot;, which seems right here. (On the other hand, *ἀπὸ* can mean &quot;originating from&quot;, specifying the fundamental source, which also makes sense.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.P.S. Be careful with your transcriptions! &quot;Unless&quot; is *εἰ μή*, with an eta, while &quot;I am&quot; is *εἰμί*, with a iota. The two letters are pronounced the same in Modern Greek, but were very different in ancient times, as we can see from transcriptions into other languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11225" RevisionGUID="dd4b96c5-c007-436d-90ee-25e1b351a4b6" CreationDate="2019-07-29T23:18:23.733" UserId="406" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="&gt; The wiktionary tells me for the individual elements that &quot;μή is the negative of thought or wish&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pretty much. It's one of the two common negative elements in Ancient Greek; *οὐ(κ)* is generally used with indicative verbs, while *μή* is used with subjunctives and optatives. *Μή* is also extremely common in conditionals, which will imminently be relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and that ει is a kind of relative conjunction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically true, but a bit misleading. The more relevant translation for your purposes is simply **&quot;if&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, *εἰ μή* means literally &quot;if not&quot; or &quot;unless&quot;. This combination can also be translated as &quot;except&quot; without really changing the meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία **εἰ μὴ** ὑπὸ θεοῦ*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For no power exists **unless** [it comes] from God  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For no power exists **except** [that which comes] from God&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Following your tangent a bit, for the following word, some manuscripts say *ὑπὸ*, others say *ἀπὸ*. In this context, I like *ὑπὸ* more; both words fundamentally mean &quot;from&quot;, but *ὑπὸ* can also mean &quot;under the authority of&quot;, which seems right here. (On the other hand, *ἀπὸ* can mean &quot;originating from&quot;, specifying the fundamental source, which also makes sense.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.P.S. Be careful with your transcriptions! &quot;Unless&quot; is *εἰ μή*, with an eta, while &quot;I am&quot; is *εἰμί*, with a iota. The two letters are pronounced the same in Modern Greek, but were very different in ancient times, as we can see from transcriptions into other languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11226" RevisionGUID="bcbf0a71-cd52-4671-8868-5b05c07cfc27" CreationDate="2019-07-29T23:32:54.127" UserId="406" Text="The basic idea behind the translation is right, but unfortunately the execution is a bit lacking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They say…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The standard way to introduce something that &quot;they say&quot; (i.e. talking about something that's common knowledge, rather than something that a particular group of people are saying right now) is *inquiunt*. Some writers also use the singular for this, *inquit*, with the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …dreams come true…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When using a form of *inquam*, the thing being said usually gets switched into the accusative-plus-infinitive construction (AcI). This is the same construction used sometimes in poetic or archaic English: *search your feelings, you know **it to be** true*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So literally, you want &quot;…dreams to come true…&quot;, as weird as that sounds in English. Cicero expresses this in *On Divination* 2.LIX.121:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et miramur aliquando id, quod somniarimus, evadere?*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And are we amazed if sometimes our dreams come true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gives us some good material to rephrase. &lt;s&gt;Because what Latin prose writer *doesn't* want to imitate Cicero in every aspect?&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …but forget…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Oblīvīscor* is a good verb, but I'd go with an adjective here, *immemor* (&quot;not thinking about&quot;). If you used the plural verb earlier, add *-ēs* to the end here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …that nightmares are dreams too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of a Latin word for &quot;nightmare&quot; in the modern sense (&quot;any bad dream&quot;); everything I can find relates to the older sense, of a spirit that causes sleep paralysis, and the modern Romance languages have generally coined their own expressions for the phenomenon (often incorporating Germanic roots in the process).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to use the word for the spirit for this. The pure-Latin word is *incubus* or *incubō*; the Greek-influenced one is *ephīaltēs*. Either way, you'd want the genitive plural to represent the thing being forgotten, *incubōrum*, *incubōnum*, or *ephīaltārum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All together:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Somniāta, [inquit|inquiunt], evadere, [immemor|immemorēs] [incubōrum|incubōnum|ephīaltārum].  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *They say that dreams come true—forgetting about the nightmares.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the first two bracketed parts, either take the first word from both, or the last word from both. For the last bracketed part, take whichever sounds best to you. (And feel free to leave off the lines over certain vowels; they represent a difference in pronunciation that disappeared in later Latin.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33058" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="11212" RevisionGUID="a0f6799e-d18d-4b06-8576-7f91c436b8b5" CreationDate="2019-07-30T00:50:19.573" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2921],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;sumelic&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1304,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dario&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="33059" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11223" RevisionGUID="61e803e9-d74c-43c3-86af-931c66965312" CreationDate="2019-07-30T04:46:11.633" />
  <row Id="33060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11227" RevisionGUID="50c587e7-30d8-4907-a11b-a82490ab3b7d" CreationDate="2019-07-30T07:13:24.160" UserDisplayName="user37" Text=" According to [Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/word/repatriate) and [OED](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/162689) (below), Latin had *repatriare*, but English ['patriate'](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/patriate) wasn't allegedly coined by [Lester B. Pearson until 1966](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=patriate). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. This tardive coining suggests a lack of a [denominal verb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denominal_verb) directly from *patria*. Am I correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If so, why? Why wasn't there _*patriare_? It feels unnatural, outlandish (pun intended), and incomplete to have &#xD;&#xA;*re + patriare* but not _*patriare_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/V7Gt9.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33061" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11227" RevisionGUID="50c587e7-30d8-4907-a11b-a82490ab3b7d" CreationDate="2019-07-30T07:13:24.160" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Did Latin lack a denominal verb directly from 'patria'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33062" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11227" RevisionGUID="50c587e7-30d8-4907-a11b-a82490ab3b7d" CreationDate="2019-07-30T07:13:24.160" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11229" RevisionGUID="f9131718-9c8f-4069-ad3d-b5c0bc64b776" CreationDate="2019-07-30T16:00:53.763" UserId="3248" Text="1. Yes, I think you're correct. There is no denominal verb _patriare_ that is directly formed from _patria_. That is to say, the later verb _patriare_ was probably coined from _repatriare_ via a backformation process. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;2. Why is there no originally unprefixed denominal verb like *_patriare_? Well, probably, for the same reason there is no denominal verb like, for example, *_dentare_ (cf. _edentare_). That is, the reasons involved are probably **not** linguistic but encyclopaedic (for example, having _patriam_ or _dentes_ is what is naturally unmarked, so to speak). **Linguistically** speaking, there is no reason why one could not form unprefixed denominal locative verbs like _patriare_ and _dentare_ with the expected meanings &quot;provide X with _patria_&quot; and &quot;provide X with teeth&quot;, respectively. Cf. the existing unprefixed locative denominal verbs: _animare_ ('to provide X with _anima_'), _humare_ ('to provide/cover X with earth'), etc. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11229" RevisionGUID="80222ac3-dff8-4632-a411-dbf60f7cbf84" CreationDate="2019-07-30T16:26:31.813" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="1. Yes, I think you're correct. There is no denominal verb _patriare_ that is directly formed from _patria_. That is to say, the later verb _patriare_ was probably coined from _repatriare_ via a backformation process. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;2. Why is there no originally unprefixed denominal verb like *_patriare_? Well, probably, for the same reason there is no denominal verb like, for example, *_dentare_ (cf. _edentare_). That is, the reasons involved are probably **not** linguistic but encyclopaedic (for example, having _patriam_ or _dentes_ is what is naturally unmarked, so to speak). **Linguistically** speaking, there is no reason why one could not form unprefixed denominal locative verbs like _patriare_ and _dentare_ with the expected meanings &quot;provide X with _patria_&quot; and &quot;provide X with teeth&quot;, respectively. Cf. the existing unprefixed locative denominal verbs: _humare_ ('to provide/cover X with earth'), _marginare_ ('to provide X with a border'), _terminare_ ('to provide X with bounds', i.e., 'set bounds'), etc. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11229" RevisionGUID="033655f5-c9cc-4863-be27-92fd13805119" CreationDate="2019-07-30T16:31:35.047" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="1. Yes, I think you're correct. There is no denominal verb _patriare_ that is directly formed from _patria_. That is to say, the later verb _patriare_ was probably coined from _repatriare_ via a backformation process. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;2. Why is there no originally unprefixed denominal verb like *_patriare_? Well, probably, for the same reason there is no denominal verb like, for example, *_dentare_ (cf. _edentare_). That is, the reasons involved are probably **not** linguistic but encyclopaedic (for example, having _patriam_ or _dentes_ is what is naturally unmarked, so to speak). **Linguistically** speaking, there is no reason why one could not form unprefixed denominal locative verbs like _patriare_ and _dentare_ with the expected/corresponding meanings &quot;provide X with _patria_&quot; and &quot;provide X with teeth&quot;, respectively. Cf. the existing unprefixed locative denominal verbs: _humare_ ('to provide/cover X with earth'), _marginare_ ('to provide X with a border'), _terminare_ ('to provide X with bounds', i.e., 'set bounds'), etc. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11229" RevisionGUID="09e0eb7f-1a0b-4f99-8efd-ba731770fa54" CreationDate="2019-07-30T18:04:52.770" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="1. Yes, I think you're correct. There is no Lat. denominal verb _patriare_ that is directly formed from _patria_. As for the Engl. late verb _patriate_, it was coined from _repatriate_ via a backformation process. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;2. Why is there no originally unprefixed denominal verb like *_patriare_? Well, probably, for the same reason there is no denominal verb like, for example, *_dentare_ (cf. _edentare_). That is, the reasons involved are probably **not** linguistic but encyclopaedic (for example, having _patriam_ or _dentes_ is what is naturally unmarked, so to speak). **Linguistically** speaking, there is no reason why one could not form unprefixed denominal locative verbs like _patriare_ and _dentare_ with the expected/corresponding meanings &quot;provide X with _patria_&quot; and &quot;provide X with teeth&quot;, respectively. Cf. the existing unprefixed locative denominal verbs: _humare_ ('to provide/cover X with earth'), _marginare_ ('to provide X with a border'), _terminare_ ('to provide X with bounds', i.e., 'set bounds'), etc. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11230" RevisionGUID="c429c69a-8082-4f35-ba72-07993374e413" CreationDate="2019-07-30T19:04:49.607" UserId="4967" Text="I reached out to the community of [discord.gg/latin](https://discord.gg/latin) for help with translating this motto, and received three possible translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;*meditator ut consequaris*&quot;,&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;*si vis consequi, meditare*&quot;, and&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;*consilio assequeris*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of them the last one, &quot;*consilio assequeris*&quot; was recommended as the most appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11231" RevisionGUID="9eaba455-26ad-49ee-8631-0bfe485861ba" CreationDate="2019-07-30T20:01:57.317" UserId="406" Text="I've seen this meme circulating lately, pointing out one of the many valid reasons to learn to speak dead languages properly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Meme][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first thought was, &quot;this is why we need to mark long vowels!&quot; But I realized, to my shame, I don't know how to express this extremely important sentiment in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the idiomatic equivalent of the English &quot;this is why…&quot;? All I can think of is a roundabout construction, &quot;it is because of this reason that…&quot;, and that just feels awkward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rxw5Q.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33075" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11231" RevisionGUID="9eaba455-26ad-49ee-8631-0bfe485861ba" CreationDate="2019-07-30T20:01:57.317" UserId="406" Text="How do I say &quot;this is why…&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33076" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11231" RevisionGUID="9eaba455-26ad-49ee-8631-0bfe485861ba" CreationDate="2019-07-30T20:01:57.317" UserId="406" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11232" RevisionGUID="730447e9-c124-47e6-85e0-f17c5a0e35bb" CreationDate="2019-07-30T21:27:52.220" UserId="45" Text="The first word that comes to my mind is [*quapropter*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquapropter). Lewis &amp; Short gives it the clunky translation of &quot;wherefore&quot; or &quot;on which account,&quot; but it can be much less stuffy than that. Here's a good example from Terence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ridiculumst istuc me admonere, Clitipho,	 &#xD;&#xA;quasi ĭstic minor mea res agatur quam tua.	 &#xD;&#xA;hic siquid nobis forte advorsi evenerit,   &#xD;&#xA;tibi erunt parata verba, huic homini verbera:	  &#xD;&#xA;**quapropter** haec res ne utiquam neglectust mihi. (*Clitophon*, Act II)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My (loose) translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's ridiculous for you to tell me this, Clitiphon,  &#xD;&#xA;as if this didn't concern both of us!  &#xD;&#xA;If anything happened to go wrong for us,  &#xD;&#xA;You'll get words--I'll get wounds!   &#xD;&#xA;This is why I won't ever be negligent in this matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11233" RevisionGUID="0dc114f1-8c77-4850-adac-4a27606a11ff" CreationDate="2019-07-31T01:24:32.537" UserId="3248" Text="Preliminary note: Here is a personal selection of two textbooks for someone with an **undergraduate degree in Linguistics** (i.e., not necessarily, as I understand from your question, in Classics. In case the student is more familiarized with Latin, please let me know since I can also recommend you other more advanced grammars). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Panhuis, Dirk (2006). _Latin Grammar_: University of Michigan Press (vid. table of contents in: [Panhuis 2006][1]). For example, his chapter on word order is wonderful. When I was an undergraduate student, I remember that nobody told me about the VERY important role of so-called &quot;information structure&quot; when dealing with word order in Latin (NB: by the way, Panhuis wrote a doctoral dissertation on Latin word order). The theoretical perspective adopted in this textbook is a functionalist one but it is quite light, i.e., &#xD;&#xA;no familiarity with this theoretical framework is required in order to read his wonderful textbook. You point out &quot;some of Panhuis' analyses are questionable&quot;. Well, perhaps, but this should not be taken as a problem, at least in my opinion. _Ditto_ for the following textbook by Oniga.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Oniga, Renato (2014). _Latin. A Linguistic Introduction_. Oxford: Oxford University Press [Oniga 2014][2] (NB: it is the English translation (by N. Schifano) and lightly updated version of Oniga's (2007) Italian textbook _Il latino_). In my opinion, it is an excellent introduction to Latin linguistics from a generative perspective. In spite of assuming a formal framework, no real familiarity with it is assumed since all technical concepts are nicely explained by the author.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This said, let me point out that my preferred reference grammar for undergraduate students of Latin is the following one by the Belgian eminent latinist Marius Lavency. Unfortunately, as far as I know, there is no English translation of it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lavency, Marius (1985/1997, 2nd ed.). _VSVS: Grammaire latine: Description du latin classique en vue de la lecture des auteurs_. Leuven: Peeters Publishers. [Lavency 1997][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.es/books?id=mM9A9S9KDFoC&amp;pg=PR4&amp;lpg=PR4&amp;dq=Panhuis,%20Dirk%20(2006).%20Latin%20Grammar.&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=YMOsg_3yaq&amp;sig=ACfU3U1Ay2wpEx_2_G0PfcLxDbNG5ss4MA&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiwwpPD8d3jAhXm0eAKHQdCAsYQ6AEwEnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=Panhuis%2C%20Dirk%20(2006).%20Latin%20Grammar.&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/latin-a-linguistic-introduction-9780198702863?cc=es&amp;lang=en&amp;#&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.es/books?id=zDN0Gj3P5u8C&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=Marius%20Lavency&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiK-uSM-d3jAhVBSxoKHYJiBCUQ6wEIPDAC#v=onepage&amp;q=Marius%20Lavency&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11234" RevisionGUID="369a9212-2de4-4fef-85c2-207e18306c12" CreationDate="2019-07-31T01:57:24.493" UserId="985" Text="Where English uses relative constructions such as 'It is for this reason that...', 'This is (the reason) why...', and so on, to add emphasis, Latin tends to dispense with the relative clause and rely on word placement instead.\*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I would just use a word like *propterea* – or a phrase such as *hac*(*ce*) *ex causa*, *hanc ob causam*, or the like –, emphatically placed at the beginning of the sentence. In initial position, all of these could, by themselves, have the force of, 'It's for this reason that....' or 'This is (the reason) why....'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* See, for example J. Mountford, *'Bradley's Arnold Latin prose composition* §82 (cf. §156):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An emphatic order of words often expresses in Latin what English can express only by a relative clause following a main sentence which begins with the impersonal *it*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Agricolam laudat iuris legumque peritus.* It is the farmer whom the lawyer praises.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33080" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11201" RevisionGUID="6dd086ac-3e0c-4009-8e47-8decebc878fb" CreationDate="2019-07-31T02:19:53.303" UserId="-1" Comment="A couple of typos fixed" Text="Please recommend Reference Grammar for someone with an undergraduate degree in Linguistics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33081" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11201" RevisionGUID="6dd086ac-3e0c-4009-8e47-8decebc878fb" CreationDate="2019-07-31T02:19:53.303" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 3248, 37 edit id of 325" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33082" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11231" RevisionGUID="57e5a462-da2e-49d8-a66a-fa7496dfed92" CreationDate="2019-07-31T04:08:29.577" />
  <row Id="33086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11235" RevisionGUID="98c66ce5-a98b-4a0b-9114-3b11e1202c92" CreationDate="2019-07-31T06:56:13.133" UserId="79" Text="In my opinion the passive imperative suffers from similarity to the agent noun derived from the verb.&#xD;&#xA;This usually happens in the first conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;That is, the imperative *meditator* (&quot;plan!&quot;) looks like the noun *meditator* (&quot;planner&quot;), and vowel lengths match as well.&#xD;&#xA;My first reaction to this word is that it's a noun.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore my starting point to choose a phrasing that makes this reading less likely or less harmful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My immediate reading of *meditator ut consequatur* is &quot;so that a planner would achieve&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The imperative reading might not occur to me at all unless there is a clear person being ordered.&#xD;&#xA;For a motto it sounds weird to say &quot;may he plan so that he achieves&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Who's he?&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I don't quite like the third person option, although it is grammatically perfectly valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a motto with an order works better when aimed to the reader.&#xD;&#xA;The second person motto *meditator ut consequaris* can still be misread as &quot;so that you would achieve as a planner&quot;, but that is less likely than with the third person.&#xD;&#xA;And that alternative reading isn't all that bad; giving two legitimate but different readings with essentially the same message is a nice play with words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer the second person option.&#xD;&#xA;Just because the future imperative is ambiguous, I would consider changing it to the usual imperative: *meditare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I may suggest an alternative wording using these words, I think a more natural choice is to use a gerund to express the means.&#xD;&#xA;This makes the roles of the two verbs abundantly clear, and it sounds somehow more Latin to me in style:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Meditando consequeris.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You will achieve by planning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to whether *meditari* and *consequi* are the best verbs for your purpose, I will have to point you to [an online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;Whichever verbs you end up picking, my recommended structure is this last one with a gerund and a future tense.&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the ablative gerund can be replaced with the ablative form of a noun if the means can be described well with a noun.&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind, though, that a gerund will make it more active.&#xD;&#xA;To me *meditando* gives the impression that you actually have to plan yourself, whereas *consilio* just gives the circumstances and makes me think you are working on someone else's recommendation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11236" RevisionGUID="d7bfb7b2-2bfa-45c8-a414-0cb60b91ebda" CreationDate="2019-07-31T08:07:14.650" UserId="1304" Text="A __purely synchronical__ description of the whole picture in the first Century BC would be as follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronouns of the first and second person, as well as reflexives, don't have a single form in the genitive. In most contexts, possessive adjectives are used instead. Otherwise,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* For partitives and adpositions with _omnium,_ ___nostrum, vestrum___ are used.&#xD;&#xA;* For objects of such verbs as _memini, misereor_ etc., and as objective genitives after nouns, ___mei, tui, sui, nostri, vestri.___&#xD;&#xA;*  With _interest_ and _refert,_ ___mea, tua, sua, nostra, vestra.___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it quacks like a genitive, it is a genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No grammar I know presents the facts in this way. Grammars usually cover a longer timespan in which still other forms are attested, and, basically, they are interested in the diachronical development.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Woodcock's theory _tua res fert &gt; tua refert_ does not convince me either. Maybe someone could find an allegedly implied astute construction, involving a feminine substantive in the ablative to agree with _mea, tua, sua,_ somehow connected with another substantive in the genitive to go with _interest,_ but it would be purely speculative, unattested, and actually unprovable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11237" RevisionGUID="b3c5b11b-7d20-4ad4-bb97-a4c6daf7ea54" CreationDate="2019-07-31T20:00:33.073" UserId="406" Text="Nowadays, most classicists seem to teach a reconstructed Ancient Greek pronunciation, imitating how an Athenian would have spoken in the fifth century BCE. On top of that, there's solid evidence for [how other dialects sounded][1], and for [sound changes after the fifth century][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about *before* the fifth century? How far back can pronunciation be reconstructed with any certainty? Is it possible to reconstruct a proper Homeric pronunciation for the _Iliad_, for example? And if not, how close can we get?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9046/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/650/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33090" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11237" RevisionGUID="b3c5b11b-7d20-4ad4-bb97-a4c6daf7ea54" CreationDate="2019-07-31T20:00:33.073" UserId="406" Text="What do we know about Homer's pronunciation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33091" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11237" RevisionGUID="b3c5b11b-7d20-4ad4-bb97-a4c6daf7ea54" CreationDate="2019-07-31T20:00:33.073" UserId="406" Text="|greek|pronunciation|phonology|homer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11238" RevisionGUID="015672c9-9484-4d96-8ef2-0ad1a8a657f3" CreationDate="2019-08-01T11:06:00.910" UserId="645" Text="I wouldn't disagree with the answers of either brianpck or cnread, but what is wrong with *hoc est, cur …*? It's simple, short, easily understood and, if you google the three words, you will find plenty of attestations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11239" RevisionGUID="62a66dcf-f084-4280-98b8-7761ff5a6d19" CreationDate="2019-08-01T16:11:56.823" UserId="3248" Text="I've just read a Latin translation of the famous &quot;Tears in rain&quot; speech in the Blade Runner film (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_in_rain_monologue ). See its source in: [I've seen things...][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Vidi res quas fieri posse haud scio an nemo vestrum credat,&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;bellicas naves inflammatas iuxta Orionis umerum,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;conspexi C radios in tenebris fulgere propter Tanhûseri portam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quae omnia procedente peribunt tempore &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;tamquam lacrimae in pluvia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Tempus est mori.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, the last sentence caught my attention. What about _Nunc est moriendum_ on the basis of Horatius: [Nunc est bibendum][2]? Could you please give your opinion on this sentence and on the rest of the Latin translation above as well? Alternative translations are welcome! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://forum.unilang.org/viewtopic.php?f=11&amp;t=41341&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10809/nunc-est-bibendum-gerund-or-gerundive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33094" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11239" RevisionGUID="62a66dcf-f084-4280-98b8-7761ff5a6d19" CreationDate="2019-08-01T16:11:56.823" UserId="3248" Text="&quot;Tears in rain&quot; monologue in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33095" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11239" RevisionGUID="62a66dcf-f084-4280-98b8-7761ff5a6d19" CreationDate="2019-08-01T16:11:56.823" UserId="3248" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11239" RevisionGUID="e4260c0b-5f2d-4c24-906c-c7f9678252c9" CreationDate="2019-08-01T20:23:52.370" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I've just read a Latin translation of the famous [&quot;Tears in rain&quot; speech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_in_rain_monologue) in the Blade Runner film. See its source in: [I've seen things...][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Vidi res quas fieri posse haud scio an nemo vestrum credat,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;bellicas naves inflammatas iuxta Orionis umerum,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;conspexi C radios in tenebris fulgere propter Tanhûseri portam.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quae omnia procedente peribunt tempore  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;tamquam lacrimae in pluvia.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Tempus est mori.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, the last sentence caught my attention. What about _Nunc est moriendum_ on the basis of Horatius: [Nunc est bibendum][2]? Could you please give your opinion on this sentence and on the rest of the Latin translation above as well? Alternative translations are welcome! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://forum.unilang.org/viewtopic.php?f=11&amp;t=41341&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10809/nunc-est-bibendum-gerund-or-gerundive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33097" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11239" RevisionGUID="e4260c0b-5f2d-4c24-906c-c7f9678252c9" CreationDate="2019-08-01T20:23:52.370" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11240" RevisionGUID="90ec08ad-9708-4fd3-ba41-807ad60412da" CreationDate="2019-08-02T08:17:40.907" UserId="985" Text="My suggestion is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vera evenire ferunt quae per somnia cernantur, immemores somniari et mala.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'People say that the things that are seen amid dreams turn out true, unmindful that bad things too are dreamed.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The verb *evadere*, used by Draconis, is a nice alternative to *vera evenire*. And, as is very often the case, some rearrangement of the Latin words is possible.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Analysis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translation draws on/is cobbled together from various passages from Latin literature where dreams and their fulfillment are discussed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- One way of expressing the idea of 'nightmare' in Latin is *mala somnia* ('bad dream,' which, of course, is also an English phrase) – as, for example, in Tibullus, *Elegiae*, book 2, poem 6, line 37:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; illius ut verbis, sis mihi lenta, veto,  &#xD;&#xA;**ne tibi neglecti mittant mala somnia Manes,**  &#xD;&#xA;maestaque sopitae stet soror ante torum,  &#xD;&#xA;qualis ab excelsa praeceps delapsa fenestra  &#xD;&#xA;venit ad infernos sanguinolenta lacus.&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; '...lest the spirits of the departed, neglected, send you bad dreams,...'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As for talking about dreams coming true, in Plautus, *Miles gloriosus* lines 380-381, the character Philocomasium uses the verb *evenire* ('to turn out') and the phrase *hau falsum* ('hardly false'), which is essentially equivalent (by litotes) to *verum* ('true'):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; PALAESTRIO. pergin, sceleste, intendere hanc arguere? PHILOCOMASIUM. **ecastor ergo  &#xD;&#xA;mi hau falsum evenit somnium, quod noctu hac somniavi.**&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; 'Well then, by Castor, the dream that I dreamed this night turned out (to be) by no means false.' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- And Ovid, *Heroides* poem 19 (Hero to Leander), lines 196-197 talks about true dreams being seen by using the adjective *verus* and the verb *cernere* ('to see/perceive/discern'):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; namque **sub aurora**, iam dormitante lucerna,  &#xD;&#xA;**somnia quo cerni tempore vera solent,**  &#xD;&#xA;stamina de digitis cecidere sopore remissis,  &#xD;&#xA;collaque pulvino nostra ferenda dedi.&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; '...just before dawn, at the time when true dreams are typically seen,...'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The verb *cernere* is also used to talk about the images that are seen in dreams in Pliny the younger, *Epistulae* book 7, letter 27, section 12:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; is uisus est sibi cernere quendam in toro residentem, admouentemque capiti suo cultros, atque etiam ex ipso uertice amputantem capillos.&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; 'He thought he saw someone sitting on his bed, bringing clippers to his head and even snipping the hair from the very top of it.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- And finally, another way of talking about dreams is to describe them as things seen *per somnium* or *per somnia* ('in/through/amid a dream/dreams'), as in Apuleius, *Metamorphoses* book 1, section 18:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; ad haec ille subridens: 'At tu' inquit 'non sanguine sed lotio perfusus es. **verum tamen et ipse per somnium iugulari uisus sum mihi**, nam et iugulum istum dolui et cor ipsum mihi auelli putaui, et nunc etiam spiritu deficior et genua quatior et gradu titubo et aliquid cibatus refouendo spiritu desidero.'&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; '...But still, I myself also saw myself having my throat slit in a dream...' " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11240" RevisionGUID="01e471e7-d47e-4277-9009-2a07cb94bb79" CreationDate="2019-08-03T04:39:13.500" UserId="985" Comment="Tweaked Latin translation, removed attestation from Ovid's Heroides that didn't add very much, made other small changes" Text="My suggestion is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quae per somnia cernantur ferunt vera evenire, immemores somniari et mala.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'People say that the things that are seen amid dreams turn out true, unmindful that bad things too are dreamed.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The verb *evadere*, used by Draconis, is a nice alternative to *vera evenire*. The verb *ferunt* could also be replaced with *dicunt*. And, as is very often the case, some rearrangement of the Latin words is possible.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Analysis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translation draws on/is cobbled together from various passages from Latin literature where dreams and their fulfillment are discussed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- One way of expressing the idea of 'nightmare' in Latin is *mala somnia* ('bad dream,' which, of course, is also an English phrase) – as, for example, in Tibullus, *Elegiae*, book 2, poem 6, line 37:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; illius ut verbis, sis mihi lenta, veto,  &#xD;&#xA;**ne tibi neglecti mittant mala somnia Manes,**  &#xD;&#xA;maestaque sopitae stet soror ante torum,  &#xD;&#xA;qualis ab excelsa praeceps delapsa fenestra  &#xD;&#xA;venit ad infernos sanguinolenta lacus.&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; '...lest the spirits of the departed, neglected, send you bad dreams,...'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As for talking about dreams coming true, in Plautus, *Miles gloriosus* lines 380-381, the character Philocomasium uses the verb *evenire* ('to turn out') and the phrase *hau falsum* ('hardly false'), which is essentially equivalent (by litotes) to *verum* ('true'):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; [Palaestrio] pergin, sceleste, intendere hanc arguere? [Philocomasium] **ecastor ergo  &#xD;&#xA;mi hau falsum evenit somnium, quod noctu hac somniavi.**&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; 'Well then, by Castor, the dream that I dreamed this night turned out (to be) by no means false.' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In Pliny the younger, *Epistulae* book 7, letter 27, section 12, the verb *cernere* ('to see, perceive, or discern') is used to talk about the images that are seen in dreams:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; is uisus est sibi cernere quendam in toro residentem, admouentemque capiti suo cultros, atque etiam ex ipso uertice amputantem capillos.&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; 'He thought he saw someone sitting on his bed, bringing clippers to his head and even snipping the hair from the very top of it.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- And finally, another way of talking about dreams is to describe them as things seen *per somnium* or *per somnia* ('in, through, amid a dream/dreams'), as in Apuleius, *Metamorphoses* book 1, section 18:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; ad haec ille subridens: 'At tu' inquit 'non sanguine sed lotio perfusus es. **verum tamen et ipse per somnium iugulari uisus sum mihi**, nam et iugulum istum dolui et cor ipsum mihi auelli putaui, et nunc etiam spiritu deficior et genua quatior et gradu titubo et aliquid cibatus refouendo spiritu desidero.'&#xD;&#xA;    &gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; '...But still, I myself also saw myself having my throat slit in a dream...' " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11241" RevisionGUID="2eccbbd0-63bd-469b-afdb-545b5662d955" CreationDate="2019-08-03T05:29:39.513" UserId="406" Text="I've heard it said before that Classical Latin `/gn/` between vowels (as in *magnus*) was probably realized as `[ŋn]` (as in &quot;hangnail&quot;). This is supported by Romance descendants and the spelling of certain prefixes, such as *con* + *gnoscō* → *cognoscō* rather than *_co**n**gnoscō_ (while *con* + *_gruō_ → *co**n**gruō*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But did this also apply at the beginning of a word? For example, was *gnoscō* &quot;I know&quot; pronounced with an initial `[ŋn]`? If not, how was it pronounced? (`[gn]`? `[n]`?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11241" RevisionGUID="2eccbbd0-63bd-469b-afdb-545b5662d955" CreationDate="2019-08-03T05:29:39.513" UserId="406" Text="How was &quot;gnosco&quot; pronounced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11241" RevisionGUID="2eccbbd0-63bd-469b-afdb-545b5662d955" CreationDate="2019-08-03T05:29:39.513" UserId="406" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|phonology|phonetics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11242" RevisionGUID="baddfa07-5f6d-4c33-af7a-181eb5fa90ee" CreationDate="2019-08-03T06:21:41.953" UserId="4985" Text="The text I need help translating is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In hoc loco, quia catena actum divinorum sibi mutuo succedentium in procuratione salutis hominum nectitur talis, que ab absoluto decreto originem ducere videtur, hinc est quod eo veluti triario milite &amp; principali ac nervoso, prout loquuntur, loco, vti solent ad hanc suam Thesini stabiliendum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does the phrase, &quot;hinc est quod eo veluti&quot; mean? And also, what is Thesini? I have no idea what that means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks so much!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33105" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11242" RevisionGUID="baddfa07-5f6d-4c33-af7a-181eb5fa90ee" CreationDate="2019-08-03T06:21:41.953" UserId="4985" Text="Please help me translate this!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33106" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11242" RevisionGUID="baddfa07-5f6d-4c33-af7a-181eb5fa90ee" CreationDate="2019-08-03T06:21:41.953" UserId="4985" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11243" RevisionGUID="72cef1b8-dc7e-4dd4-87d9-803db6ad4b16" CreationDate="2019-08-03T09:50:12.530" UserId="79" Text="It was spelled almost exclusively *nosco* instead of *gnosco*, so it appears likely that the pronunciation was a mere [n].&#xD;&#xA;It sounds unlikely that a word spelled with *n-* would be pronounced with anything heavier, and this is corroborated by the scansion of Aeneis 12.876:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obscenae uolucres: alarum uerbera nosco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The syllable before *nosco* must be short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I admit that I don't know how much of an effect later editorial preferences have on the matter, but do take a look at the corpus searches for [*gnosc-*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23gnosc) and [*nosc-*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23nosc) anyway.&#xD;&#xA;The first spelling is extremely rare.&#xD;&#xA;Both Plautus and Cicero use *gnoscere* once (after a vowel), but both of them use *noscere* otherwise (after both vowels and consonants)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11244" RevisionGUID="8cc8bad7-40f8-40b0-8dc4-b9d77a7dacee" CreationDate="2019-08-03T10:21:36.993" UserId="1982" Text="The Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict. gives alternative form, &quot;nosco&quot;, only; which may answer the Q for yourself. Placing a &quot;g&quot; in front of a consonant creates a jerky, clumsy pronunciation; the kind of thing which softens with time; perhaps pronounced &quot;gernosco&quot;; eventually falling out of use, altogether--&quot;nosco&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a boy, reading about WWII, thought that the name of the  German battleship &quot;Gneisanau&quot; was pronounced &quot;neisanau&quot;; but it wasn't &amp; isn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, in Turkish, there is &quot;yamusak&quot; (soft) &quot;g&quot;--with a circumflex. It always comes after a vowel and turns that vowel into a long sound. Therefore, by definition, no words can begin with this letter. The President is called &quot;Erdo An&quot;; not, &quot;Erdo Gan&quot;--BBC journalists seem to have, finally, got the message. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this relevant? Probably not; but, the old letter &quot;g&quot; gets itself around, working its magic. How things were pronounced, millenia ago, is a tall order to answer: customs, mores, evolution, convenience: we humans are bedevilled by our own inclination to laziness--if it's easy/ comfortable to soften/ drop a jerky pronunciation, that's exactly what will happen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11244" RevisionGUID="dbc2e8bb-75c5-4357-97a0-cb3ab67f816f" CreationDate="2019-08-03T10:29:28.427" UserId="1982" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="The Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict. gives alternative form, &quot;nosco&quot;, only; which may answer the Q for yourself. Placing a &quot;g&quot; in front of a consonant creates a jerky, clumsy pronunciation; the kind of thing which softens with time; perhaps pronounced &quot;gernosco&quot;; eventually falling out of use, altogether--&quot;nosco&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a boy, reading about WWII, thought that the name of the  German battleship &quot;Gneisanau&quot; was pronounced &quot;neisanau&quot;; but it wasn't &amp; isn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, in Turkish, there is &quot;yamusak&quot; (soft) &quot;g&quot;--with a circumflex. It always comes after a vowel and turns that vowel into a long sound; but, is itself not pronounced. Therefore, by definition, no words can begin with this letter. The President is called &quot;Erdo An&quot;; not, &quot;Erdo Gan&quot;--BBC journalists seem to have, finally, got the message. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this relevant? Probably not; but, the old letter &quot;g&quot; gets itself around, working its magic. How things were pronounced, millenia ago, is a tall order to answer: customs, mores, evolution, convenience: we humans are bedevilled by our own inclination to laziness--if it's easy/ comfortable to soften/ drop a jerky pronunciation, that's exactly what will happen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11244" RevisionGUID="6bb3c917-83d4-4f96-92ea-b9131bf37566" CreationDate="2019-08-03T13:51:48.707" UserId="1982" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="The Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict. gives alternative form, &quot;nosco&quot;, only; which may answer the Q for yourself. Placing a &quot;g&quot; in front of a consonant creates a jerky, clumsy pronunciation; the kind of thing which softens with time; perhaps pronounced &quot;gernosco&quot;; eventually falling out of use, altogether--&quot;nosco&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a boy, reading about WWII, thought that the name of the  German battleship &quot;Gneisanau&quot; was pronounced &quot;neisanau&quot;; but it wasn't &amp; isn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, in Turkish, there is &quot;yamusak&quot; (soft) &quot;g&quot; (pronounced &quot;yamuSHak&quot;)--with a circumflex. It always comes after a vowel and turns that vowel into a long sound; but, is itself not pronounced. Therefore, by definition, no words can begin with this letter. The President, Erdogan; it's pronounced, &quot;erdo An&quot;; not, &quot;erdo Gan&quot;--BBC journalists seem to have, finally, got the message. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this relevant? Probably not; but, the old letter &quot;g&quot; gets itself around, working its magic. How things were pronounced, millenia ago, is a tall order to answer: customs, mores, evolution, convenience: we humans are bedevilled by our own inclination to laziness--if it's easy/ comfortable to soften/ drop a jerky pronunciation, that's exactly what will happen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11213" RevisionGUID="3d2462b8-419f-4efc-ada5-8b22c4014f5a" CreationDate="2019-08-03T14:54:18.153" UserId="13" Comment="added update" Text="As I go over in [this blog post](https://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-rest-of-sappho.html) (2.D.xxxiii), the text of LP 99a given by [this Italian anthology](https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/11675/1/Saffo_frammenti_2015.pdf) has a few words I can't explain. Here is the glossary portion of the note to the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the text is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;… shortly after … the Polyanactid … … to the Samean (?) women … make to resonate on the strings … which the plactra receive banqueting friendlily with such people and lovably the harp vibrates, and the sound (penetrates) through the bones and, when it's inside, runs [through] the medulla.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: what is each and every word of l. 5? Or more specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Where is περκαθθώμενος from?&#xD;&#xA; 2. What kind of word is δόκοισι, what does it mean, and what is its dictionary form?&#xD;&#xA; 3. What form of ὄλισβος should be read here? A singular to go with that participle in item 1, or a plural to translate as such as the translation does?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This paper](https://www.academia.edu/7465992/Olisboi_e_Polianattidi_Sapph._fr._99_L.-P._Alc._fr._303A_V._Eikasm%C3%B3s_XXIV_2013_11-28?auto=download) indicates I was reading two words where there was only ὀλισβοδόκοισι, which I presume is from ὄλισβος and δέκεσθαι via some ablaut. This then means &quot;which receive the plectrum&quot; (since that is the meaning suggested by the paper in this context, though ὄλισβος otherwise always means dildo). So the correct reading to get the translation would be ὀ̣λ̣ι̣σ̣β̣&lt;u&gt;ο&lt;/u&gt;δόκο̣ι̣σ̣‹ι›, where, as is my custom, I use underlining to denote a guess at an unreadable letter. In fact, depending on the raw transcription of the rest of the word, I might need more underlines. Ah no, the paper says otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly, the paper doesn't comment on περκαθθώμενος, which is why this is an UPDATE and not an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bb0eO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CQXoJ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11242" RevisionGUID="311db845-3a56-4d3a-9b81-d5ff3d9289df" CreationDate="2019-08-03T15:12:36.770" UserId="45" Comment="added 139 characters in body; edited title" Text="The text I need help translating is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In hoc loco, quia catena actuum divinorum sibi mutuo succedentium in procuratione salutis hominum nectitur talis, quae ab absoluto decreto originem ducere videtur, hinc est, quod eo veluti triario milite &amp; principali ac nervoso, prout loquuntur, loco, vti solent ad hanc suam Thesini stabiliendum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([Full text available here](https://books.google.com/books?id=7Kw7vHwzTKsC&amp;pg=RA1-PA192&amp;lpg=RA1-PA192))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What does the phrase, &quot;hinc est quod eo veluti&quot; mean? &#xD;&#xA;- Also, what is &quot;Thesini&quot;? I have no idea what that means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks so much!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33113" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11242" RevisionGUID="311db845-3a56-4d3a-9b81-d5ff3d9289df" CreationDate="2019-08-03T15:12:36.770" UserId="45" Comment="added 139 characters in body; edited title" Text="What do &quot;hinc est quod eo veluti&quot; and &quot;Thesini&quot; mean in this passage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11213" RevisionGUID="91e74dbb-9ad6-4cab-a610-7e70d9da2a1f" CreationDate="2019-08-03T17:57:36.540" UserId="13" Comment="fixed underlining problem switching to code markup and added last paragraph (&quot;This means that&quot;) in UPDATE" Text="As I go over in [this blog post](https://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-rest-of-sappho.html) (2.D.xxxiii), the text of LP 99a given by [this Italian anthology](https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/11675/1/Saffo_frammenti_2015.pdf) has a few words I can't explain. Here is the glossary portion of the note to the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the text is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;… shortly after … the Polyanactid … … to the Samean (?) women … make to resonate on the strings … which the plactra receive banqueting friendlily with such people and lovably the harp vibrates, and the sound (penetrates) through the bones and, when it's inside, runs [through] the medulla.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: what is each and every word of l. 5? Or more specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Where is περκαθθώμενος from?&#xD;&#xA; 2. What kind of word is δόκοισι, what does it mean, and what is its dictionary form?&#xD;&#xA; 3. What form of ὄλισβος should be read here? A singular to go with that participle in item 1, or a plural to translate as such as the translation does?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This paper](https://www.academia.edu/7465992/Olisboi_e_Polianattidi_Sapph._fr._99_L.-P._Alc._fr._303A_V._Eikasm%C3%B3s_XXIV_2013_11-28?auto=download) indicates I was reading two words where there was only ὀλισβοδόκοισι, which I presume is from ὄλισβος and δέκεσθαι via some ablaut. This then means &quot;which receive the plectrum&quot; (since that is the meaning suggested by the paper in this context, though ὄλισβος otherwise always means dildo). So the correct reading to get the translation would be ὀ̣λ̣ι̣σ̣β̣`ο`δόκο̣ι̣σ̣‹ι›, where, to fit my custom, I should use underlining to denote a guess at an unreadable letter, but that doesn't work here, so I used code markup instead. In fact, depending on the raw transcription of the rest of the word, I might need more underlines. Ah no, the paper says otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly, the paper doesn't comment on περκαθθώμενος, which is why this is an UPDATE and not an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that &quot;which the plectra receive&quot; is a stroke of genius where, in a fragmentary thing, you start a piece with a relative that subverts the SVO order to have the object before the verb, and there should be a comma after that, and after that ὀλισβοδόκοισι.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bb0eO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CQXoJ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11245" RevisionGUID="302186b6-3055-4b53-8350-b356a1c58c42" CreationDate="2019-08-04T01:01:36.477" UserId="4987" Text="My understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that in koine greek passive &amp; middle voice are declined the same, so there is no visible difference, it is up to the reader to correctly interpret authorial intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should the reader / interpreter look for beyond internal coherence of thought?  Are there particular words or other clues that usually indicate one or the other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The digital apparatus I'm using indicates one or the other but that's their interpretation, and while I'm assuming they know what they're doing, I also what to understand why they're suggesting on interpretation or the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33117" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11245" RevisionGUID="302186b6-3055-4b53-8350-b356a1c58c42" CreationDate="2019-08-04T01:01:36.477" UserId="4987" Text="Koine greek: how to distinguish Middle &amp; Passive voice" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33118" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11245" RevisionGUID="302186b6-3055-4b53-8350-b356a1c58c42" CreationDate="2019-08-04T01:01:36.477" UserId="4987" Text="|greek|greek-translation|voice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33121" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="11167" RevisionGUID="dc793fb3-7e7b-4188-bcdd-3039f7358996" CreationDate="2019-08-04T07:01:50.213" UserId="-1" Comment="125" />
  <row Id="33122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11246" RevisionGUID="d4a20b0d-68a1-476c-8df0-9c678dcdf1ad" CreationDate="2019-08-04T09:38:41.710" UserId="645" Text="After looking at the context, this is obviously part of a much wider explanation. It begins *in hoc loco*, referring to the particular biblical quotation (from Romans 9, *vv*. x, xi), though the connection is a bit hazy to my mind. The sense is somewhat obscured by the unnecessarily flowery language, but is something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'In this (verse), since such a series of divinely inspired actions following one after another, apparently based on an absolute promise, is connected with managing the wellbeing of men; hence, because in that (verse), just like they say, just as they are accustomed to use a third-rank soldier as [if he were] both a first ranker and a keen one, [it is suitable] for supporting this, their own proposition.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase *hinc est quod eo veluti* indicates a justification for what follows. *Thesis* (a feminine noun) is, as @brianpck says, a borrowing from Greek to mean something like 'proposition'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11247" RevisionGUID="73e011c7-1e8b-4752-b5e6-f678505623ca" CreationDate="2019-08-04T14:08:59.977" UserId="9" Text="###&quot;Nosco&quot;, not &quot;gnosco&quot;, was the usual form, because of a pre-Classical sound change of word-initial *gn-* to *n-*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Joonas Ilmavirta♦'s answer indicates, *gnosco* was an &quot;old form&quot; ([Lewis &amp; Short][1]), not the usual form in Classical Latin. [Lindsay (1894)][2] says &quot;Initial Latin *gn* became at the beginning of the second cent. B.C. *n* (as in Engl. 'gnat'), e.g. *nōsco,* older *gnōsco*&quot; (p. 294, §119, *The Latin Language: An Historical Account of Latin Sounds, Stems and Flexions*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Words that were spelled with word-initial &quot;gn&quot; in Classical Latin may have been pronounced with either [gn] or [n]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of that sound change, it was not regular for *gn-* to appear at the start of a Latin word in the Classical period. Word-initial *gn-* appears as an apparently archaizing or conservative spelling in a few native words or names, and also in loans from Greek, where γν- had  remained intact in word-initial position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation isn't clear. As far as I know, there's no explicit evidence for Latin *gn* being pronounced as [ŋn]. That pronunciation is thought to have been used word-internally because of certain indirect evidence, much of which doesn't apply to word-initial *gn-*. (As I mention in my answer to &quot;[How do we know how gn was pronounced in Classical Latin?][3]&quot;, there is some uncertainty about whether *gn* might have been pronounced as [gn] even in word-internal position.) It doesn't seem impossible to me that word-initial [ŋn] existed at some point either in Old Latin (as a step in the historical sound change from *gn-* to [n]) or in Classical Latin (as as an allophonic realization of *gn* in this position, like as in word-internal position), but I don't know how we could ever know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (1978)'s section on *gn* indicates that the name *Gnaeus* was probably pronounced with either [gn] or [n]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in initial position Terentianus Maurus seems to suggest the normal [g] value in the name *Gnaeus* when, referring to the spelling of the name with *Cn.*, he says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *g* tamen sonabit illic quando *Gnaeum* enuntio&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(K. vi, 351).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But in fact by this time any pronunciation of the initial **G** must have been artificial; as Varro already observes (fr. 330 Funaioli), ‘qui G littera in hoc praenomine utuntur, antiquitatem sequi uidentur’. Varro also notes a spelling *Naeum* (and Ναιος is common in Greek).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 24, *Vox Latina,* second edition)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Light scansion of a preceding vowel is probably not sufficient evidence to conclude that a word was pronounced with [n]&#xD;&#xA;A preceding short vowel would most likely have scanned as light before either [n] or [gn], so metrical evidence of light syllables being used before *(g)nosco* is probably not relevant. The scansion of Latin consonant clusters is problematic because of apparent influence in this area from Greek. Here is a passage with relevant information from Seppo Heikkinen's &quot;[The Christianisation of Latin Metre: A Study of Bede’s *De arte metrica*][4]&quot; (apologies for the huge block quote; I didn't have time to figure out how to communicate the important bits in a shorter way):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; word-initial “mutes with liquids” hardly ever lengthen the final syllable of the previous word in Latin poetry. The few exceptions to this rule in the classics are probably due to the emulation of Greek models&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt; [...] this is one of the examples of pre-Christian prosodic “negligence” that came under Bede’s attack in his chapter on the prosodic differences between pagan and Christian poets.&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Especially in Greek metre, the nasals *m* and *n* are usually classified together with the liquids proper, because [...] the combination of plosive and nasal either may or may not create a position after a short vowel. In Greek verse, the rules, as in the case of proper liquids, are considerably more flexible than in Latin, but usually a word-initial combination of plosive and nasal (as in *tmesis, pneuma* etc.) does not create a position after a short vowel.&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt; In Latin verse, the rules governing Greek loans with plosives with nasals are essentially the same as those governing plosives with liquids. The only “native” consonant-nasal compound of any relevance in this context is *gn*, which creates a position word-internally but never word-initially; in reality, the g may have, already in classical Latin, been pronounced as a velar nasal (as in English ha*ng*nail), except at the beginning of a word, where it was possibly silent.&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Bede discusses both word-internal and word-initial *gn* at the end of his chapter on common syllables. He mentions the compound in conjunction with the letter *x*, their common feature being the fact that they only create a position word-internally but not word- initially. Bede accepts the classification of *n* as a liquid,&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt; because initial *gn* is analogous to initial plosive and liquid, but emphasises that, unlike plosives with “other” liquids, it does not make a true common syllable. Bede implies that this observation is his own, and demonstrates this with an appropriately uplifting quotation from Prosper:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *N* quoque littera pari ratione, ni fallor, cum in medio verbo consonanti alteri fuerit subiecta, praecedentem syllabam sive natura seu positione semper longam habet, ut ‘regna’, ‘calumnia’. Cum vero in primordio verbi fuerit alii subiecta consonanti, ut ‘Gneus’, ‘gnarus’, profecto ultimam syllabam verbi prioris, si in brevem desierit vocalem, brevem hanc, ut fuerat, remanere permittit, neque ullam producendi habet potestatem, Prospero teste, qui ait:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Nec tamen hos toto depellit foedere gnarus,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;naturam errantum dividere a vitiis (Prosp. epigr. 67, 3-4).&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;Raven 1965, 25; e.g. “lappaequē tribolique” (Verg. georg. 1, 153); “per impotentiā freta” (Catull. 4, 18).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt; *DAM* 16; Orchard 1994, 75-76. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt; Raven 1968&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, 23.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt; Allen 1978&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, 23-25 [...]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;  In accordance with traditional terminology, Bede classifies nasals as liquids already in his chapter on the letter (*De litter*a), see DAM 1, 56-60.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;*DAM* 3, 127-136.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 27-28)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnosco&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=o8oqAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA294#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/152&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265059046_The_Christianisation_of_Latin_Metre_a_Study_of_Bede's_De_arte_metrica" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11247" RevisionGUID="52e1fedb-1602-4603-aaf4-b990b9f341fe" CreationDate="2019-08-04T15:24:01.920" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="###&quot;Nosco&quot;, not &quot;gnosco&quot;, was the usual form, because of a pre-Classical sound change of word-initial *gn-* to *n-*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Joonas Ilmavirta♦'s answer indicates, *gnosco* was an &quot;old form&quot; ([Lewis &amp; Short][1]), not the usual form in Classical Latin. [Lindsay (1894)][2] says &quot;Initial Latin *gn* became at the beginning of the second cent. B.C. *n* (as in Engl. 'gnat'), e.g. *nōsco,* older *gnōsco*&quot; (p. 294, §119, *The Latin Language: An Historical Account of Latin Sounds, Stems and Flexions*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Words that were spelled with word-initial &quot;gn&quot; in Classical Latin may have been pronounced with either [gn] or [n]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of that sound change, it was not regular for *gn-* to appear at the start of a Latin word in the Classical period. Word-initial *gn-* appears as an apparently archaizing or conservative spelling in a few native words or names, and also in loans from Greek, where γν- had  remained intact in word-initial position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation isn't clear. As far as I know, there's no explicit evidence for Latin *gn* being pronounced as [ŋn]. That pronunciation is thought to have been used word-internally because of certain indirect evidence, much of which doesn't apply to word-initial *gn-*. (As I mention in my answer to &quot;[How do we know how gn was pronounced in Classical Latin?][3]&quot;, there is some uncertainty about whether *gn* might have been pronounced as [gn] even in word-internal position.) It doesn't seem impossible to me that word-initial [ŋn] existed at some point either in Old Latin (as a step in the historical sound change from *gn-* to [n]) or in Classical Latin (as an allophonic realization of *gn* in this position, as in word-internal position), but I don't know how we could ever know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (1978)'s section on *gn* indicates that the name *Gnaeus* was probably pronounced with either [gn] or [n]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in initial position Terentianus Maurus seems to suggest the normal [g] value in the name *Gnaeus* when, referring to the spelling of the name with *Cn.*, he says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *g* tamen sonabit illic quando *Gnaeum* enuntio&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(K. vi, 351).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But in fact by this time any pronunciation of the initial **G** must have been artificial; as Varro already observes (fr. 330 Funaioli), ‘qui G littera in hoc praenomine utuntur, antiquitatem sequi uidentur’. Varro also notes a spelling *Naeum* (and Ναιος is common in Greek).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 24, *Vox Latina,* second edition)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Light scansion of a preceding vowel is probably not sufficient evidence to conclude that a word was pronounced with [n]&#xD;&#xA;A preceding short vowel would most likely have scanned as light before either [n] or [gn], so metrical evidence of light syllables being used before *(g)nosco* is probably not relevant. The scansion of Latin consonant clusters is problematic because of apparent influence in this area from Greek. Here is a passage with relevant information from Seppo Heikkinen's &quot;[The Christianisation of Latin Metre: A Study of Bede’s *De arte metrica*][4]&quot; (apologies for the huge block quote; I didn't have time to figure out how to communicate the important bits in a shorter way):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; word-initial “mutes with liquids” hardly ever lengthen the final syllable of the previous word in Latin poetry. The few exceptions to this rule in the classics are probably due to the emulation of Greek models&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt; [...] this is one of the examples of pre-Christian prosodic “negligence” that came under Bede’s attack in his chapter on the prosodic differences between pagan and Christian poets.&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Especially in Greek metre, the nasals *m* and *n* are usually classified together with the liquids proper, because [...] the combination of plosive and nasal either may or may not create a position after a short vowel. In Greek verse, the rules, as in the case of proper liquids, are considerably more flexible than in Latin, but usually a word-initial combination of plosive and nasal (as in *tmesis, pneuma* etc.) does not create a position after a short vowel.&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt; In Latin verse, the rules governing Greek loans with plosives with nasals are essentially the same as those governing plosives with liquids. The only “native” consonant-nasal compound of any relevance in this context is *gn*, which creates a position word-internally but never word-initially; in reality, the g may have, already in classical Latin, been pronounced as a velar nasal (as in English ha*ng*nail), except at the beginning of a word, where it was possibly silent.&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Bede discusses both word-internal and word-initial *gn* at the end of his chapter on common syllables. He mentions the compound in conjunction with the letter *x*, their common feature being the fact that they only create a position word-internally but not word-initially. Bede accepts the classification of *n* as a liquid,&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt; because initial *gn* is analogous to initial plosive and liquid, but emphasises that, unlike plosives with “other” liquids, it does not make a true common syllable. Bede implies that this observation is his own, and demonstrates this with an appropriately uplifting quotation from Prosper:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *N* quoque littera pari ratione, ni fallor, cum in medio verbo consonanti alteri fuerit subiecta, praecedentem syllabam sive natura seu positione semper longam habet, ut ‘regna’, ‘calumnia’. Cum vero in primordio verbi fuerit alii subiecta consonanti, ut ‘Gneus’, ‘gnarus’, profecto ultimam syllabam verbi prioris, si in brevem desierit vocalem, brevem hanc, ut fuerat, remanere permittit, neque ullam producendi habet potestatem, Prospero teste, qui ait:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt;Nec tamen hos toto depellit foedere gnarus,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;naturam errantum dividere a vitiis (Prosp. epigr. 67, 3-4).&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;Raven 1965, 25; e.g. “lappaequē tribolique” (Verg. georg. 1, 153); “per impotentiā freta” (Catull. 4, 18).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt; *DAM* 16; Orchard 1994, 75-76. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt; Raven 1968&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, 23.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt; Allen 1978&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, 23-25 [...]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;  In accordance with traditional terminology, Bede classifies nasals as liquids already in his chapter on the letter (*De littera*), see DAM 1, 56-60.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;*DAM* 3, 127-136.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 27-28)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnosco&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=o8oqAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA294#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/152&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265059046_The_Christianisation_of_Latin_Metre_a_Study_of_Bede's_De_arte_metrica" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="04ddb005-a5ca-4864-96b2-a184b2e1af04" CreationDate="2019-08-04T17:30:05.410" UserId="9" Comment="Added a few more sources, adjusted sections" Text="We don't know for sure how **-gn-** was pronounced in Classical Latin. There are a few arguments for reconstructing the pronunciation of **-&amp;#8288;gn-** as [ŋn], or more specifically [ŋ.n], with a syllable break between the two consonants. (This syllabification would explain why the preceding syllable is always metrically &quot;heavy&quot;—or in the misleading old-fashioned way of putting it, the preceding vowel is &quot;long by position&quot;. The idea that vowels before **-gn-** were always &quot;long by nature&quot; is probably erroneous; see Nathaniel's answer to [Are vowels long before “gn”?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/786/are-vowels-long-before-gn))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are also some complications with this reconstruction, and possible reasons to prefer reconstructing the pronunciation of **-gn-** as [g.n] (with a voiced oral velar plosive) for at least some time periods or some speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As usual, a good place to start for questions about Classical Latin pronunciation is W. Sidney Allen's *Vox Latina.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Several pieces of evidence point towards a pronunciation [ŋn] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (p. 23) describes several reasons for thinking that **-gn-** was pronounced as [ŋn] in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###ĕ &gt; ĭ before [ŋ] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A vowel change of etymological short **e** to short **i** is seen before the clusters **ng**, **nc,** and **gn**; we can unify the description of these environments as &quot;before [ŋ]&quot; if we assume that **gn** represented [ŋn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sound change does not seem to have applied to **ĕ** before **-gm-**.   Allen says that this is commonly viewed as a sign that **-gm-** was not pronounced with [ŋ] (which is perhaps surprising from a theoretical point of view, as both M and N are nasal consonants, and they would generally be expected to have similar effects on the pronunciation of preceding consonants).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is generally assumed that *g* did not have a nasal pronunciation before *m*, as in *tegmen, segmentum,* since the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* does not occur in these words. However, since original *gm* seems to have given *mm* (e.g. *flamma* from *flag-ma*, cf. *flagro*), all examples of *gm* may have arisen later, e.g. by syncope, after the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* was operative (cf. the unsyncopated forms *tegimen, integumentum*). The possibility of a pronunciation of *g* as [ŋ] here is therefore not entirely excluded-though it cannot be safely recommended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Allen 1978, p. 25) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sound change seems to be one of the strongest pieces of evidence for reconstructing the pronunciation of *-gn-* as [ŋn]. I believe there are some exceptions to the sound change, but I don't know what they are (and I don't know how many good examples of the sound change we have).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Prefixing *in-* or *con-* to *gn-* gives *ign-* or *cogn-*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words like *cognatus* and *ignobilis* contain the prefixes *con-* and *in-,* which typically end in a nasal consonant that assimilates in place to a following plosive or nasal (as in *co**m**pugno, i**m**possibilis, co**m**mitto, i**m**mortalis*). If word-medial **gn** in Latin was pronounced as [ŋn], then the use of **gn** in these words can be explained as the result of the usual assimilation of /n/ &gt; [ŋ] before /g/, followed by a simplification of the tautosyllabic onset cluster /gn/ to /n/, with a heterosyllabic cluster [ŋ.n] as the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If **gn** was just pronounced as [gn], it would mean that the nasal consonant from the end of the prefixes was dropped entirely in these words. That seems a bit implausible to me, but I guess it's not impossible. In fact, I did find a source from the 19th century that argues for that interpretation of prefixed words containing **gn**, and rejects the [ŋ.n] interpretation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Had the Romans retained the **n** of the prepositions before **gn**, they would have felt bound to pronounce **ing-gnotus, cong-gnatus,** but would practically have pronounced **ing-notus, cong-natus.** But they did not retain the **n** and write **ingnotus, congnatus**, but **ignotus, cognatus**. What is the explanation ? Does this represent a pronunciation **ing-notus, cong-natus**, or **inyotus, conyatus**? Mr Munro (and I agree with him) holds that it does not. I account for it by supposing the Romans to have reduced the mass of consonants, the whole of which they were unable to pronounce, by omitting as usual (§ 31) the former **n**, that of the preposition, rather than the later and radical **n**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (Roby 1887, p. lxxxi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I am aware of a somewhat similar phenomenon to what Roby suggests (loss of a coda nasal because of phonotactic constraints) in the allomorphy of the Cypriot Greek definite article. According to Ringen and Vago (2011):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; In Cypriot Greek the definite articles *ton* (masculine) and *tin* (feminine) lose their final nasal consonant if the next word begins either with a consonant cluster or a geminate., motivated by a *CCC constraint. The facts are as in (11) (Muller 2001).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA; (11) Cypriot Greek definite article allomorphy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a. Final nasal stays before V or C&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;br&gt;ton ápparon 'the horse'&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;br&gt;ton tixon 'the wall'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;b. Final nasal deletes before CC&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ti psačín 'the poison'&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to flókkon 'the mop'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;c. Final nasal deletes before G&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to pparán 'the money'&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to ttaván 'the stew'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*kn seems to have turned into *gn,* which might make more sense if *gn* = [ŋn]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Internal reconstruction and etymological comparison with other languages show that in some cases, Classical Latin **gn** seems to have originated from some kind of partial assimilation of *\*k* to a following *\*n*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *dignus*: from Proto-Indo-European *deḱ-, according to [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dignus) and Sihler 1995 (§220).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *nītor*: from Proto-Indo-European *kneygʷʰ-, according to [Wiktionary][1] and Sihler 1995 (§220). The related word *nixus* (=*nīxus*) is supposed to have an old spelling *gnixus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *īlignus* 'oaken': from the same root as *īlex, īlicis* 'holm-oak', according to Sihler 1995 (§220).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The apparent replacement of *kn- with *gn-* would be somewhat surprising if *gn* were pronounced as [gn] with oral [g]. In general, we expect languages that have words that start with [gn] to also have words that start with [kn]: this is discussed in Sen (2015), which says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On the basis of a typological assessment of attested initial sequences, Stephens (1978) comes to [the conclusion that] initial &amp;lt;gn&gt; in Latin was pronounced [ŋn], since the data examined by Greenberg (1965) point to an implicational universal whereby languages which have initial [gn] also have initial [kn]; as early Latin shows no evidence for [kn], the sequence written &#xD;&#xA;&amp;lt;gn&gt; cannot have been [gn] and therefore must have had its word-internal value of [ŋn].&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;Cser (2011: 70-71, 78), however, points out that initial [ŋn] would be the only onset cluster containing (i) a nasal and (ii) two sonorant consonants, and concludes that in the intermediate stage between very early initial [gn] and eventual simple [n] (when, he argues, the lexical representations of these words contained a stem-initial floating C-Place node), the pronunciation 'must have involved a degree of variation [between [gn] and [n]] whose details are no longer fully recoverable'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 183)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in word-internal position, it's difficult for me to think of languages that have had a sound change of /k/ to oral [g] before /n/. In my accent of English, there may be a single isolated example of historical /kn/ to [gn] in the word &quot;acknowledge&quot; (I made an ELU post about it [here](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/469859/is-the-first-syllable-of-acknowledge-pronounced-with-g-by-any-notable-amount)), but that's not a regular sound change (and I have [kn] in many other words.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can only think of a few things that seem like they might be comparable in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The word *segmentum* is said to be etymologically related to *secō*: this looks like an example of ***k** voicing to oral [g] before **m** in Latin. Sen (2015) gives a somewhat complicated explanation for the use of [g] rather than [ŋ] here: he attributes it to differences in the timing of the pronunciation of /n/ and /m/. Apparently, /n/ is articulated more quickly than /m/, which is supposed to have caused more overlap with the preceding /g/, resulting in greater perception of [ŋ] which eventually led to phonologization of [ŋ] as a conditioned nasal allophone of /g/ before /n/, but not before /m/ (pp. 183-184). Sen suggests that the existence of variation between word-forms with /gm/ and /gVm/ in Latin provides some additional evidence for a longer transition between /g/ and /m/ than between /g/ and /n/: the specific examples are *drachma~drac(h)uma* and *tegmen~tegimen~tegumen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There may be an example of coda /k/ assimilating to become voiced, but non-nasal **g** before the resonant /l/:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Sen (2011a) argues that the sonorants /r, l, m, n/ were phonologically specified as [+voice] ... in syllable-initial position ... Hence, we see regressive voice assimilation triggered by a syllable-initial sonorant in *\*nek̲-l̲egoː* &gt; *neg̲l̲egoː* ‘I neglect’, *\*sek̲m̲entom* &gt; *seg̲m̲entum* ‘piece’ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (Sen 2012, p. 38)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  However, I'm not sure that the explanation that Sen gives here for the presence of /g/ in *neglego* is correct, because we also find *neg-* before vowels in the word *negotium,* and perhaps in *nego.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Hackstein (2017) says that *nego* may be derived from *nec* &gt; *neg,* and offers two alternative explanations of the voicing: either it could have been conditioned by the word-final position of the plosive, as in *ab* &lt; PIE \**apo,* or it could have originally been the result of assimilation in voicedness to a following voiced plosive (&quot;*\*nekwe deikō* &gt; *\*neg dīcō* like *\*apo-doukō* &gt; *abdūcō* (cf. Sommer 1948:275)&quot;) with the form *neg* later generalized for some reason before sounds other than voiced plosives (and then eventually lost again in favor of *nec,* except for in old compounds) (pp. 2-3). I'm left with the impression that we don't actually know exactly how *neg-* came to be used in words like *neglego.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Nasalization from regressive partial assimilation occurred in other Latin consonant clusters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparison with other clusters in Latin and their history suggests that *kn, *gn &gt; [ŋn] is a plausible sound change. Allen gives as an example the change of original *\*-pn-* to **-mn-** in Latin words such as *somnus.* Although *abn-,* with the letter B rather than M, occurred at the start of Latin words prefixed with *ab-,* Allen says that *a**mn**egauerit* actually exists as an inscriptional variant of *a**bn**egauerit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Assimilation of plosives to nasals before nasal consonants is known to be a sound change that has occurred in other languages; for example, in [Korean][2], coda plosives like **p t k** were nasalized to **m n ŋ** before nasal consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###There were spelling variants with -NGN- instead of -GN-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, the spelling &amp;lt;NGN&gt; is sometimes used instead of &amp;lt;GN&gt;. Ward (1944) gives a couple of examples: &quot;On inscriptions, even late ones, we find some spellings with *ngn,* as *singnifer, dingnissimē*&quot; (p. 73).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does seem natural to interpret &amp;lt;NGN&gt; as indicating that the preceding vowel was followed immediately by a nasal consonant, rather than by an oral plosive. However, I'm not sure how common or how significant this variant spelling is. Uncommon variant spellings aren't always closer to the standard pronunciation of a word than the standard spelling: for example, &quot;renpent&quot; exists as a rare misspelling of the English word &quot;repent&quot;, even though the typical pronunciation of this word contains no corresponding nasal consonant sound before the /p/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lindsay (1894) says &quot;*Singifer,* on a soldier's grave (C.I.L. vi. 3637)&quot; (§69, p. 70) is best explained as an example of more general variation in inscriptions in the use of the letters N and M before consonants: &quot;Occasionally a nasal is wrongly inserted in plebeian and late inscriptions, *m* before Labials, *n* before Dentals and Gutterals, e.g. *semptem, signifer*&quot; (§64, p. 66).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###However, Romance reflexes are often thought to point to [gn] rather than [ŋn]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see above, there are various pieces of evidence that support the reconstruction [ŋn]. But on the other hand, Allen says (p. 24) that some Romance words, such as French *lein* or Southern Italian *liunu* from Latin *lignum,* show the same development of coda *g* to a semivowel that occurs in non-nasal environments. This has been seen as evidence that the pronunciation [gn] may have been used after Classical times, possibly due to influence from the spelling. ([Maiden (1995)][3] also suggests this is a piece of evidence against reconstructing [ŋn] in Proto-Romance.) I'm a bit confused by this argument, though, because I'm not sure why [ŋ] is thought to be less likely than [g] to vocalize to [j] or [w]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen does say that the Sardinian reflex of *-nn-* makes sense as a development from [ŋn]. And Sihler (1995) views the Romance evidence as pointing towards a Latin pronunciation with [ŋn]: he treats the Romanian outcome of *-mn-* as a particularly strong piece of evidence in favor of [ŋn], but he also says that Italian [ɲː], as in *legno,* is &quot;easiest to understand if traced to an original [ŋn]&quot;, although &quot;it admits of other explanations&quot; (§220a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No Latin grammarians seem to mention a pronunciation of **-gn-** as [ŋn]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the supposed problems with explaining how the Romance reflexes of **-gn-** could have developed from [ŋn], Allen notes that Latin grammarians &quot;are strangely silent about any nasal pronunciation of *g*&quot; (p. 24). In contrast, there are descriptions of the pronunciation of *n* as [ŋ] before **g** or **c**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Linguistic sources do tend to classify -gn- as containing the *phoneme* /g/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, all of the discussion in the previous sections is about the phonetic realization of **gn**. As far as I know, from a phonemic perspective it's standard to analyze **gn** as /gn/, and it seems to behave this way in contexts like the formation of diminutives: for example, the nouns *signum, tignum* correspond to the diminutive forms *sigillum, tigillum* where the **g** would have been pronounced as [g]—a voiced velar plosive, not a nasal. (I don't know how old these diminutive formations are thought to be.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2017. Hackstein, Olav. &quot;[Latin *negō* \*‘not I’](http://linguistics.cornell.edu/sites/linguistics/files/ECIEC%20Handouts.pdf).&quot; The 36th East Coast Indo-European Conference. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2015. Sen, Ranjan. *[Syllable and Segment in Latin](https://books.google.com/books?id=1VTCBwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA183&amp;lpg=PA183&amp;dq=Latin+ŋn).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2012. Sen, Ranjan. &quot;Reconstructing Phonological Change: Duration and Syllable Structure in Latin Vowel Reduction&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2011. Ringen, Catherine O. and Vago, Robert M. &quot;Geminates: Heavy or Long?&quot; *Handbook of the Syllable,* edited by Charles Cairns, Eric Raimy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1995. Maiden, Martin. *A Linguistic History of Italian.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1995. Sihler, Andrew L. *New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1978. Allen, W. Sidney. *Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin.* Second Edition.  (First edition published 1965)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1944. Ward, Ralph L. &quot;Afterthoughts on g as ŋ in Latin and Greek.&quot; *Language,* Vol. 20, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1944), pp. 73-77.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1894. Lindsay, W. M. *[The Latin Language: An Historical Account of Latin Sounds, Stems and Flexions](https://books.google.com/books?id=o8oqAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA70#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1887. Roby, Henry John. *[A grammar of the Latin language from Plautus to Suetonius](https://archive.org/details/grammaroflatinla00robyuoft/page/n85).*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nitor&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NN-yIdLOkCoC&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qK_8eXcCnu&amp;sig=u4MEiVBbuxhdzAg_rkkNX3D6RbY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiuvsbyo5HLAhXJsIMKHfWIA8UQ6AEIUzAH#v=onepage&amp;q=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=DwTKAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT127&amp;lpg=PT127&amp;dq=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1yMQKpnTe6&amp;sig=0k2p71mE_-YTdkZtyU9t3lvDnyI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNsZS2xITZAhWCzlkKHbbjAvM4ChDoAQhCMAU#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11247" RevisionGUID="dfa334fb-a83c-41c1-aee3-1dd707acceab" CreationDate="2019-08-04T17:41:41.487" UserId="9" Comment="added 566 characters in body" Text="###&quot;Nosco&quot;, not &quot;gnosco&quot;, was the usual form, because of a pre-Classical sound change of word-initial *gn-* to *n-*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Joonas Ilmavirta♦'s answer indicates, *gnosco* was an &quot;old form&quot; ([Lewis &amp; Short][1]), not the usual form in Classical Latin. [Lindsay (1894)][2] says &quot;Initial Latin *gn* became at the beginning of the second cent. B.C. *n* (as in Engl. 'gnat'), e.g. *nōsco,* older *gnōsco*&quot; (p. 294, §119, *The Latin Language: An Historical Account of Latin Sounds, Stems and Flexions*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Words that were spelled with word-initial &quot;gn&quot; in Classical Latin may have been pronounced with either [gn] or [n]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of that sound change, it was not regular for *gn-* to appear at the start of a Latin word in the Classical period. Word-initial *gn-* appears as an apparently archaizing or conservative spelling in a few native words or names, and also in loans from Greek, where γν- had  remained intact in word-initial position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation isn't clear. As far as I know, there's no explicit evidence for Latin *gn* being pronounced as [ŋn]. That pronunciation is thought to have been used word-internally because of certain indirect evidence. (As I mention in my answer to &quot;[How do we know how gn was pronounced in Classical Latin?][3]&quot;, there is some uncertainty about whether *gn* might have been pronounced as [gn] even in word-internal position.) It doesn't seem impossible to me that word-initial [ŋn] existed at some point either in Old Latin (as a step in the historical sound change from *gn-* to [n]) or in Classical Latin (as an allophonic realization of *gn* in this position, as in word-internal position), but I don't know how we could ever know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (1978)'s section on *gn* indicates that the name *Gnaeus* was probably pronounced with either [gn] or [n]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in initial position Terentianus Maurus seems to suggest the normal [g] value in the name *Gnaeus* when, referring to the spelling of the name with *Cn.*, he says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *g* tamen sonabit illic quando *Gnaeum* enuntio&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(K. vi, 351).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But in fact by this time any pronunciation of the initial **G** must have been artificial; as Varro already observes (fr. 330 Funaioli), ‘qui G littera in hoc praenomine utuntur, antiquitatem sequi uidentur’. Varro also notes a spelling *Naeum* (and Ναιος is common in Greek).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 24, *Vox Latina,* second edition)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old Latin apparently didn't have any words with initial [kn] (clusters like *kn in inherited vocabulary seem to have developed to &amp;lt;gn&gt;, merging with etymological *gn). Because of this, there is an argument based on typological &#xD;&#xA;grounds that in Old Latin, words spelled with initial &amp;lt;gn&gt; were pronounced with [ŋn] instead of [gn] (Ranjan Sen, 2015, *Syllable and Segment in Latin,* p. 183). But even if that argument is valid, it doesn't say much about the usage in Classical Latin, since Allen indicates that any pronunciation other than [n] would have to be regarded as &quot;artificial&quot; in that time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Light scansion of a preceding vowel is probably not sufficient evidence to conclude that a word was pronounced with [n]&#xD;&#xA;A preceding short vowel would most likely have scanned as light before either [n] or [gn], so metrical evidence of light syllables being used before *(g)nosco* is probably not relevant. The scansion of Latin consonant clusters is problematic because of apparent influence in this area from Greek. Here is a passage with relevant information from Seppo Heikkinen's &quot;[The Christianisation of Latin Metre: A Study of Bede’s *De arte metrica*][4]&quot; (apologies for the huge block quote; I didn't have time to figure out how to communicate the important bits in a shorter way):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; word-initial “mutes with liquids” hardly ever lengthen the final syllable of the previous word in Latin poetry. The few exceptions to this rule in the classics are probably due to the emulation of Greek models&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt; [...] this is one of the examples of pre-Christian prosodic “negligence” that came under Bede’s attack in his chapter on the prosodic differences between pagan and Christian poets.&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Especially in Greek metre, the nasals *m* and *n* are usually classified together with the liquids proper, because [...] the combination of plosive and nasal either may or may not create a position after a short vowel. In Greek verse, the rules, as in the case of proper liquids, are considerably more flexible than in Latin, but usually a word-initial combination of plosive and nasal (as in *tmesis, pneuma* etc.) does not create a position after a short vowel.&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt; In Latin verse, the rules governing Greek loans with plosives with nasals are essentially the same as those governing plosives with liquids. The only “native” consonant-nasal compound of any relevance in this context is *gn*, which creates a position word-internally but never word-initially; in reality, the g may have, already in classical Latin, been pronounced as a velar nasal (as in English ha*ng*nail), except at the beginning of a word, where it was possibly silent.&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Bede discusses both word-internal and word-initial *gn* at the end of his chapter on common syllables. He mentions the compound in conjunction with the letter *x*, their common feature being the fact that they only create a position word-internally but not word-initially. Bede accepts the classification of *n* as a liquid,&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt; because initial *gn* is analogous to initial plosive and liquid, but emphasises that, unlike plosives with “other” liquids, it does not make a true common syllable. Bede implies that this observation is his own, and demonstrates this with an appropriately uplifting quotation from Prosper:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *N* quoque littera pari ratione, ni fallor, cum in medio verbo consonanti alteri fuerit subiecta, praecedentem syllabam sive natura seu positione semper longam habet, ut ‘regna’, ‘calumnia’. Cum vero in primordio verbi fuerit alii subiecta consonanti, ut ‘Gneus’, ‘gnarus’, profecto ultimam syllabam verbi prioris, si in brevem desierit vocalem, brevem hanc, ut fuerat, remanere permittit, neque ullam producendi habet potestatem, Prospero teste, qui ait:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt;Nec tamen hos toto depellit foedere gnarus,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;naturam errantum dividere a vitiis (Prosp. epigr. 67, 3-4).&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;Raven 1965, 25; e.g. “lappaequē tribolique” (Verg. georg. 1, 153); “per impotentiā freta” (Catull. 4, 18).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt; *DAM* 16; Orchard 1994, 75-76. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt; Raven 1968&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, 23.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt; Allen 1978&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, 23-25 [...]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;  In accordance with traditional terminology, Bede classifies nasals as liquids already in his chapter on the letter (*De littera*), see DAM 1, 56-60.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;*DAM* 3, 127-136.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 27-28)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnosco&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=o8oqAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA294#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/152&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265059046_The_Christianisation_of_Latin_Metre_a_Study_of_Bede's_De_arte_metrica" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11247" RevisionGUID="f1139f1d-a596-44af-ba0c-a4e1014b2e7d" CreationDate="2019-08-04T18:10:26.473" UserId="9" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="###&quot;Nosco&quot;, not &quot;gnosco&quot;, was the usual form, because of a pre-Classical sound change of word-initial *gn-* to *n-*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Joonas Ilmavirta♦'s answer indicates, *gnosco* was an &quot;old form&quot; ([Lewis &amp; Short][1]), not the usual form in Classical Latin. [Lindsay (1894)][2] says &quot;Initial Latin *gn* became at the beginning of the second cent. B.C. *n* (as in Engl. 'gnat'), e.g. *nōsco,* older *gnōsco*&quot; (p. 294, §119, *The Latin Language: An Historical Account of Latin Sounds, Stems and Flexions*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Words that were spelled with word-initial &quot;gn&quot; in Classical Latin may have been pronounced with either [gn] or [n]; [ŋn] might have been used in Old Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of that sound change, it was not regular for *gn-* to appear at the start of a Latin word in the Classical period. Word-initial *gn-* appears as an apparently archaizing or conservative spelling in a few native words or names, and also in loans from Greek, where γν- had  remained intact in word-initial position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation isn't clear. As far as I know, there's no explicit evidence for Latin *gn* being pronounced as [ŋn]. That pronunciation is thought to have been used word-internally because of certain indirect evidence. (As I mention in my answer to &quot;[How do we know how gn was pronounced in Classical Latin?][3]&quot;, there is some uncertainty about whether *gn* might have been pronounced as [gn] even in word-internal position.) It doesn't seem impossible to me that word-initial [ŋn] existed at some point either in Old Latin (as a step in the historical sound change from *gn-* to [n]) or in Classical Latin (as an allophonic realization of *gn* in this position, as in word-internal position), but I don't know how we could ever know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (1978)'s section on *gn* indicates that the name *Gnaeus* was probably pronounced with either [gn] or [n]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in initial position Terentianus Maurus seems to suggest the normal [g] value in the name *Gnaeus* when, referring to the spelling of the name with *Cn.*, he says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *g* tamen sonabit illic quando *Gnaeum* enuntio&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;(K. vi, 351).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But in fact by this time any pronunciation of the initial **G** must have been artificial; as Varro already observes (fr. 330 Funaioli), ‘qui G littera in hoc praenomine utuntur, antiquitatem sequi uidentur’. Varro also notes a spelling *Naeum* (and Ναιος is common in Greek).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 24, *Vox Latina,* second edition)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old Latin apparently didn't have any words with initial [kn] (clusters like *kn in inherited vocabulary seem to have developed to &amp;lt;gn&gt;, merging with etymological *gn). Because of this, there is an argument based on typological &#xD;&#xA;grounds that in Old Latin, words spelled with initial &amp;lt;gn&gt; were pronounced with [ŋn] instead of [gn] (Ranjan Sen, 2015, *Syllable and Segment in Latin,* p. 183). But even if that argument is valid, it doesn't say much about the usage in Classical Latin, since Allen indicates that any pronunciation other than [n] would have to be regarded as &quot;artificial&quot; in that time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Light scansion of a preceding vowel is probably not sufficient evidence to conclude that a word was pronounced with [n]&#xD;&#xA;A preceding short vowel would most likely have scanned as light before either [n] or [gn], so metrical evidence of light syllables being used before *(g)nosco* is probably not relevant. The scansion of Latin consonant clusters is problematic because of apparent influence in this area from Greek. Here is a passage with relevant information from Seppo Heikkinen's &quot;[The Christianisation of Latin Metre: A Study of Bede’s *De arte metrica*][4]&quot; (apologies for the huge block quote; I didn't have time to figure out how to communicate the important bits in a shorter way):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; word-initial “mutes with liquids” hardly ever lengthen the final syllable of the previous word in Latin poetry. The few exceptions to this rule in the classics are probably due to the emulation of Greek models&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt; [...] this is one of the examples of pre-Christian prosodic “negligence” that came under Bede’s attack in his chapter on the prosodic differences between pagan and Christian poets.&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Especially in Greek metre, the nasals *m* and *n* are usually classified together with the liquids proper, because [...] the combination of plosive and nasal either may or may not create a position after a short vowel. In Greek verse, the rules, as in the case of proper liquids, are considerably more flexible than in Latin, but usually a word-initial combination of plosive and nasal (as in *tmesis, pneuma* etc.) does not create a position after a short vowel.&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt; In Latin verse, the rules governing Greek loans with plosives with nasals are essentially the same as those governing plosives with liquids. The only “native” consonant-nasal compound of any relevance in this context is *gn*, which creates a position word-internally but never word-initially; in reality, the g may have, already in classical Latin, been pronounced as a velar nasal (as in English ha*ng*nail), except at the beginning of a word, where it was possibly silent.&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Bede discusses both word-internal and word-initial *gn* at the end of his chapter on common syllables. He mentions the compound in conjunction with the letter *x*, their common feature being the fact that they only create a position word-internally but not word-initially. Bede accepts the classification of *n* as a liquid,&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt; because initial *gn* is analogous to initial plosive and liquid, but emphasises that, unlike plosives with “other” liquids, it does not make a true common syllable. Bede implies that this observation is his own, and demonstrates this with an appropriately uplifting quotation from Prosper:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *N* quoque littera pari ratione, ni fallor, cum in medio verbo consonanti alteri fuerit subiecta, praecedentem syllabam sive natura seu positione semper longam habet, ut ‘regna’, ‘calumnia’. Cum vero in primordio verbi fuerit alii subiecta consonanti, ut ‘Gneus’, ‘gnarus’, profecto ultimam syllabam verbi prioris, si in brevem desierit vocalem, brevem hanc, ut fuerat, remanere permittit, neque ullam producendi habet potestatem, Prospero teste, qui ait:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&gt;Nec tamen hos toto depellit foedere gnarus,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;naturam errantum dividere a vitiis (Prosp. epigr. 67, 3-4).&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;Raven 1965, 25; e.g. “lappaequē tribolique” (Verg. georg. 1, 153); “per impotentiā freta” (Catull. 4, 18).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt; *DAM* 16; Orchard 1994, 75-76. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt; Raven 1968&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, 23.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt; Allen 1978&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, 23-25 [...]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;  In accordance with traditional terminology, Bede classifies nasals as liquids already in his chapter on the letter (*De littera*), see DAM 1, 56-60.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;*DAM* 3, 127-136.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pp. 27-28)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnosco&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=o8oqAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA294#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/152&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265059046_The_Christianisation_of_Latin_Metre_a_Study_of_Bede's_De_arte_metrica" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="02a5efa4-222a-4739-ad9d-02496c3f39d3" CreationDate="2019-08-04T18:40:04.143" UserId="9" Comment="added 334 characters in body" Text="We don't know for sure how **-gn-** was pronounced in Classical Latin. There are a few arguments for reconstructing the pronunciation of **-&amp;#8288;gn-** as [ŋn], or more specifically [ŋ.n], with a syllable break between the two consonants. (This syllabification would explain why the preceding syllable is always metrically &quot;heavy&quot;—or in the misleading old-fashioned way of putting it, the preceding vowel is &quot;long by position&quot;. The idea that vowels before **-gn-** were always &quot;long by nature&quot; is probably erroneous; see Nathaniel's answer to [Are vowels long before “gn”?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/786/are-vowels-long-before-gn))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are also some complications with this reconstruction, and possible reasons to prefer reconstructing the pronunciation of **-gn-** as [g.n] (with a voiced oral velar plosive) for at least some time periods or some speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As usual, a good place to start for questions about Classical Latin pronunciation is W. Sidney Allen's *Vox Latina.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Several pieces of evidence point towards a pronunciation [ŋn] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (p. 23) describes several reasons for thinking that **-gn-** was pronounced as [ŋn] in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###ĕ &gt; ĭ before [ŋ] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A vowel change of etymological short **e** to short **i** is seen before the clusters **ng**, **nc,** and **gn**; we can unify the description of these environments as &quot;before [ŋ]&quot; if we assume that **gn** represented [ŋn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sound change does not seem to have applied to **ĕ** before **-gm-**.   Allen says that this is commonly viewed as a sign that **-gm-** was not pronounced with [ŋ] (which is perhaps surprising from a theoretical point of view, as both M and N are nasal consonants, and they would generally be expected to have similar effects on the pronunciation of preceding consonants).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is generally assumed that *g* did not have a nasal pronunciation before *m*, as in *tegmen, segmentum,* since the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* does not occur in these words. However, since original *gm* seems to have given *mm* (e.g. *flamma* from *flag-ma*, cf. *flagro*), all examples of *gm* may have arisen later, e.g. by syncope, after the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* was operative (cf. the unsyncopated forms *tegimen, integumentum*). The possibility of a pronunciation of *g* as [ŋ] here is therefore not entirely excluded-though it cannot be safely recommended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Allen 1978, p. 25) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sound change seems to be one of the strongest pieces of evidence for reconstructing the pronunciation of *-gn-* as [ŋn]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples: *d**i**gnus, il**i**gnus, l**i**gnum, s**i**gnum* (etymologies given below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Prefixing *in-* or *con-* to *gn-* gives *ign-* or *cogn-*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words like *cognatus* and *ignobilis* contain the prefixes *con-* and *in-,* which typically end in a nasal consonant that assimilates in place to a following plosive or nasal (as in *co**m**pugno, i**m**possibilis, co**m**mitto, i**m**mortalis*). If word-medial **gn** in Latin was pronounced as [ŋn], then the use of **gn** in these words can be explained as the result of the usual assimilation of /n/ &gt; [ŋ] before /g/, followed by a simplification of the tautosyllabic onset cluster /gn/ to /n/, with a heterosyllabic cluster [ŋ.n] as the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If **gn** was just pronounced as [gn], it would mean that the nasal consonant from the end of the prefixes was dropped entirely in these words. That seems a bit implausible to me, but I guess it's not impossible. In fact, I did find a source from the 19th century that argues for that interpretation of prefixed words containing **gn**, and rejects the [ŋ.n] interpretation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Had the Romans retained the **n** of the prepositions before **gn**, they would have felt bound to pronounce **ing-gnotus, cong-gnatus,** but would practically have pronounced **ing-notus, cong-natus.** But they did not retain the **n** and write **ingnotus, congnatus**, but **ignotus, cognatus**. What is the explanation ? Does this represent a pronunciation **ing-notus, cong-natus**, or **inyotus, conyatus**? Mr Munro (and I agree with him) holds that it does not. I account for it by supposing the Romans to have reduced the mass of consonants, the whole of which they were unable to pronounce, by omitting as usual (§ 31) the former **n**, that of the preposition, rather than the later and radical **n**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (Roby 1887, p. lxxxi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I am aware of a somewhat similar phenomenon to what Roby suggests (loss of a coda nasal because of phonotactic constraints) in the allomorphy of the Cypriot Greek definite article. According to Ringen and Vago (2011):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; In Cypriot Greek the definite articles *ton* (masculine) and *tin* (feminine) lose their final nasal consonant if the next word begins either with a consonant cluster or a geminate., motivated by a *CCC constraint. The facts are as in (11) (Muller 2001).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA; (11) Cypriot Greek definite article allomorphy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a. Final nasal stays before V or C&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;br&gt;ton ápparon 'the horse'&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;br&gt;ton tixon 'the wall'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;b. Final nasal deletes before CC&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ti psačín 'the poison'&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to flókkon 'the mop'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;c. Final nasal deletes before G&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to pparán 'the money'&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to ttaván 'the stew'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*kn seems to have turned into *gn,* which might make more sense if *gn* = [ŋn]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Internal reconstruction and etymological comparison with other languages show that in some cases, Classical Latin **gn** seems to have originated from some kind of partial assimilation of *\*k* to a following *\*n*. Examples: *di**gn**us, īli**gn**us,* and ***gn**ixus,* an old spelling of *nīxus,* which is related to *nītor* (etymologies given below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The apparent replacement of *kn- with *gn-* would be somewhat surprising if *gn* were pronounced as [gn] with oral [g]. In general, we expect languages that have words that start with [gn] to also have words that start with [kn]: this is discussed in Sen (2015), which says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On the basis of a typological assessment of attested initial sequences, Stephens (1978) comes to [the conclusion that] initial &amp;lt;gn&gt; in Latin was pronounced [ŋn], since the data examined by Greenberg (1965) point to an implicational universal whereby languages which have initial [gn] also have initial [kn]; as early Latin shows no evidence for [kn], the sequence written &#xD;&#xA;&amp;lt;gn&gt; cannot have been [gn] and therefore must have had its word-internal value of [ŋn].&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;Cser (2011: 70-71, 78), however, points out that initial [ŋn] would be the only onset cluster containing (i) a nasal and (ii) two sonorant consonants, and concludes that in the intermediate stage between very early initial [gn] and eventual simple [n] (when, he argues, the lexical representations of these words contained a stem-initial floating C-Place node), the pronunciation 'must have involved a degree of variation [between [gn] and [n]] whose details are no longer fully recoverable'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 183)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in word-internal position, it's difficult for me to think of languages that have had a sound change of /k/ to oral [g] before /n/. In my accent of English, there may be a single isolated example of historical /kn/ to [gn] in the word &quot;acknowledge&quot; (I made an ELU post about it [here](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/469859/is-the-first-syllable-of-acknowledge-pronounced-with-g-by-any-notable-amount)), but that's not a regular sound change (and I have [kn] in many other words.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can only think of a few things that seem like they might be comparable in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The word *segmentum* is said to be etymologically related to *secō*: this looks like an example of ***k** voicing to oral [g] before **m** in Latin. Sen (2015) gives a somewhat complicated explanation for the use of [g] rather than [ŋ] here: he attributes it to differences in the timing of the pronunciation of /n/ and /m/. Apparently, /n/ is articulated more quickly than /m/, which is supposed to have caused more overlap with the preceding /g/, resulting in greater perception of [ŋ] which eventually led to phonologization of [ŋ] as a conditioned nasal allophone of /g/ before /n/, but not before /m/ (pp. 183-184). Sen suggests that the existence of variation between word-forms with /gm/ and /gVm/ in Latin provides some additional evidence for a longer transition between /g/ and /m/ than between /g/ and /n/: the specific examples are *drachma~drac(h)uma* and *tegmen~tegimen~tegumen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There may be an example of coda /k/ assimilating to become voiced, but non-nasal **g** before the resonant /l/:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Sen (2011a) argues that the sonorants /r, l, m, n/ were phonologically specified as [+voice] ... in syllable-initial position ... Hence, we see regressive voice assimilation triggered by a syllable-initial sonorant in *\*nek̲-l̲egoː* &gt; *neg̲l̲egoː* ‘I neglect’, *\*sek̲m̲entom* &gt; *seg̲m̲entum* ‘piece’ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (Sen 2012, p. 38)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  However, I'm not sure that the explanation that Sen gives here for the presence of /g/ in *neglego* is correct, because we also find *neg-* before vowels in the word *negotium,* and perhaps in *nego.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Hackstein (2017) says that *nego* may be derived from *nec* &gt; *neg,* and offers two alternative explanations of the voicing: either it could have been conditioned by the word-final position of the plosive, as in *ab* &lt; PIE \**apo,* or it could have originally been the result of assimilation in voicedness to a following voiced plosive (&quot;*\*nekwe deikō* &gt; *\*neg dīcō* like *\*apo-doukō* &gt; *abdūcō* (cf. Sommer 1948:275)&quot;) with the form *neg* later generalized for some reason before sounds other than voiced plosives (and then eventually lost again in favor of *nec,* except for in old compounds) (pp. 2-3). I'm left with the impression that we don't actually know exactly how *neg-* came to be used in words like *neglego.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Nasalization from regressive partial assimilation occurred in other Latin consonant clusters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparison with other clusters in Latin and their history suggests that *kn, *gn &gt; [ŋn] is a plausible sound change. Allen gives as an example the change of original *\*-pn-* to **-mn-** in Latin words such as *somnus.* Although *abn-,* with the letter B rather than M, occurred at the start of Latin words prefixed with *ab-,* Allen says that *a**mn**egauerit* actually exists as an inscriptional variant of *a**bn**egauerit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Assimilation of plosives to nasals before nasal consonants is known to be a sound change that has occurred in other languages; for example, in [Korean][2], coda plosives like **p t k** were nasalized to **m n ŋ** before nasal consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###There were spelling variants with -NGN- instead of -GN-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, the spelling &amp;lt;NGN&gt; is sometimes used instead of &amp;lt;GN&gt;. Ward (1944) gives a couple of examples: &quot;On inscriptions, even late ones, we find some spellings with *ngn,* as *singnifer, dingnissimē*&quot; (p. 73).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does seem natural to interpret &amp;lt;NGN&gt; as indicating that the preceding vowel was followed immediately by a nasal consonant, rather than by an oral plosive. However, I'm not sure how common or how significant this variant spelling is. Uncommon variant spellings aren't always closer to the standard pronunciation of a word than the standard spelling: for example, &quot;renpent&quot; exists as a rare misspelling of the English word &quot;repent&quot;, even though the typical pronunciation of this word contains no corresponding nasal consonant sound before the /p/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lindsay (1894) says &quot;*Singifer,* on a soldier's grave (C.I.L. vi. 3637)&quot; (§69, p. 70) is best explained as an example of more general variation in inscriptions in the use of the letters N and M before consonants: &quot;Occasionally a nasal is wrongly inserted in plebeian and late inscriptions, *m* before Labials, *n* before Dentals and Gutterals, e.g. *semptem, signifer*&quot; (§64, p. 66).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###However, Romance reflexes are often thought to point to [gn] rather than [ŋn]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see above, there are various pieces of evidence that support the reconstruction [ŋn]. But on the other hand, Allen says (p. 24) that some Romance words, such as French *lein* or Southern Italian *liunu* from Latin *lignum,* show the same development of coda *g* to a semivowel that occurs in non-nasal environments. This has been seen as evidence that the pronunciation [gn] may have been used after Classical times, possibly due to influence from the spelling. ([Maiden (1995)][3] also suggests this is a piece of evidence against reconstructing [ŋn] in Proto-Romance.) I'm a bit confused by this argument, though, because I'm not sure why [ŋ] is thought to be less likely than [g] to vocalize to [j] or [w]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen does say that the Sardinian reflex of *-nn-* makes sense as a development from [ŋn]. And Sihler (1995) views the Romance evidence as pointing towards a Latin pronunciation with [ŋn]: he treats the Romanian outcome of *-mn-* as a particularly strong piece of evidence in favor of [ŋn], but he also says that Italian [ɲː], as in *legno,* is &quot;easiest to understand if traced to an original [ŋn]&quot;, although &quot;it admits of other explanations&quot; (§220a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No Latin grammarians seem to mention a pronunciation of **-gn-** as [ŋn]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the supposed problems with explaining how the Romance reflexes of **-gn-** could have developed from [ŋn], Allen notes that Latin grammarians &quot;are strangely silent about any nasal pronunciation of *g*&quot; (p. 24). In contrast, there are descriptions of the pronunciation of *n* as [ŋ] before **g** or **c**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Linguistic sources do tend to classify -gn- as containing the *phoneme* /g/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, all of the discussion in the previous sections is about the phonetic realization of **gn**. As far as I know, from a phonemic perspective it's standard to analyze **gn** as /gn/, and it seems to behave this way in contexts like the formation of diminutives: for example, the nouns *signum, tignum* correspond to the diminutive forms *sigillum, tigillum* where the **g** would have been pronounced as [g]—a voiced velar plosive, not a nasal. (I don't know how old these diminutive formations are thought to be.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Relevant etymologies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *dignus*: from Proto-Indo-European *deḱ-, according to [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dignus) and Sihler 1995 (§220).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *īlignus* 'oaken': from the same root as *īlex, īlicis* 'holm-oak', according to Sihler 1995 (§220).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *lignum*: from Proto-Indo-European *leǵ-no-, according to [Wiktionary][4]&#xD;&#xA;- *nītor*: from Proto-Indo-European *kneygʷʰ-, according to [Wiktionary][1] and Sihler 1995 (§220). The related word *nixus* (=*nīxus*) is supposed to have an old spelling *gnixus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *signum*: from PIt. *seknom, according to [Wiktionary][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2017. Hackstein, Olav. &quot;[Latin *negō* \*‘not I’](http://linguistics.cornell.edu/sites/linguistics/files/ECIEC%20Handouts.pdf).&quot; The 36th East Coast Indo-European Conference. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2015. Sen, Ranjan. *[Syllable and Segment in Latin](https://books.google.com/books?id=1VTCBwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA183&amp;lpg=PA183&amp;dq=Latin+ŋn).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2012. Sen, Ranjan. &quot;Reconstructing Phonological Change: Duration and Syllable Structure in Latin Vowel Reduction&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2011. Ringen, Catherine O. and Vago, Robert M. &quot;Geminates: Heavy or Long?&quot; *Handbook of the Syllable,* edited by Charles Cairns, Eric Raimy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1995. Maiden, Martin. *A Linguistic History of Italian.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1995. Sihler, Andrew L. *New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1978. Allen, W. Sidney. *Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin.* Second Edition.  (First edition published 1965)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1944. Ward, Ralph L. &quot;Afterthoughts on g as ŋ in Latin and Greek.&quot; *Language,* Vol. 20, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1944), pp. 73-77.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1894. Lindsay, W. M. *[The Latin Language: An Historical Account of Latin Sounds, Stems and Flexions](https://books.google.com/books?id=o8oqAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA70#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1887. Roby, Henry John. *[A grammar of the Latin language from Plautus to Suetonius](https://archive.org/details/grammaroflatinla00robyuoft/page/n85).*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nitor&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NN-yIdLOkCoC&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qK_8eXcCnu&amp;sig=u4MEiVBbuxhdzAg_rkkNX3D6RbY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiuvsbyo5HLAhXJsIMKHfWIA8UQ6AEIUzAH#v=onepage&amp;q=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=DwTKAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT127&amp;lpg=PT127&amp;dq=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1yMQKpnTe6&amp;sig=0k2p71mE_-YTdkZtyU9t3lvDnyI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNsZS2xITZAhWCzlkKHbbjAvM4ChDoAQhCMAU#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lignum&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/signum#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11248" RevisionGUID="2df20114-3687-4417-8ca1-ae7a24006ed6" CreationDate="2019-08-04T18:40:05.943" UserId="2439" Text="This question is about translating the phrase in the title, which is problem 8 of Drill IV of Unit 1 in Hansen and Quinn’s *Greek: An Intensive Course* (on Attic Greek).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the phrase literally reads “the soul (acc.) of Homer (gen.).” But page 29 of the text discusses three ways a noun modifier can be in “attributive position”: by being interposed between the article of the noun and the noun itself (την του ´Ομερου ψυχην); by appearing after the noun, but with a repetition of the noun’s article (την ψυχην την του ´Ομερου); or the same as the second case, but without the first instance of the noun’s article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase I am asking about has none of these forms, so — according to these rules — the genitive is not in attributive position. The text does say, “The genitive showing possession usually appears in the attributive position but may appear outside of it.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am left wondering, though, whether there is a notable stylistic difference when the genitive of possession is *not* in attributive position. Does it convey a different emphasis or tone that could be captured in English translation? Is it more colloquial, say, than the more formal attributive uses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33130" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11248" RevisionGUID="2df20114-3687-4417-8ca1-ae7a24006ed6" CreationDate="2019-08-04T18:40:05.943" UserId="2439" Text="Greek: How to translate “την ψυχην του ‘Ομηρου” where the genitive isn’t attributive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33131" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11248" RevisionGUID="2df20114-3687-4417-8ca1-ae7a24006ed6" CreationDate="2019-08-04T18:40:05.943" UserId="2439" Text="|greek|greek-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11243" RevisionGUID="3886311c-ca0f-43ad-a950-82b4dcbfb3e2" CreationDate="2019-08-04T20:28:28.803" UserId="79" Comment="added 345 characters in body" Text="It was spelled almost exclusively *nosco* instead of *gnosco*, so it appears likely that the pronunciation was a mere [n].&#xD;&#xA;It sounds unlikely that a word spelled with *n-* would be pronounced with anything heavier, and this is corroborated by the scansion of Aeneis 12.876:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obscenae uolucres: alarum uerbera nosco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The syllable before *nosco* must be short.&#xD;&#xA;However, if *gn-* does not make the preceding syllable long by position (by analyzing it as stop with liquid), the metric argument is insufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I admit that I don't know how much of an effect later editorial preferences have on the matter, but do take a look at the corpus searches for [*gnosc-*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23gnosc) and [*nosc-*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23nosc) anyway.&#xD;&#xA;The first spelling is extremely rare.&#xD;&#xA;Both Plautus and Cicero use *gnoscere* once (after a vowel), but both of them use *noscere* otherwise (after both vowels and consonants).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would expect that an earlier *gnoscere* has simplified to *noscere*.&#xD;&#xA;The evidence for an earlier *gnoscere* is strong from compounds and Greek.&#xD;&#xA;The spelling *gnoscere* is probably an archaic variant or perhaps hypercorrection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11249" RevisionGUID="7975ecb7-3bc0-4b3e-9b8e-2a7ec3077ef3" CreationDate="2019-08-05T01:21:52.250" UserId="2363" Text="Look for a construction that is incompatible with middle or passive voice. If the verb has a direct object, by definition it cannot be passive. If the sentence has an agent expressed through 'upo, that's a clear sign of a passive construction. Those should disambiguate the majority of cases. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="3a3470fc-9523-4aee-a7eb-c9eea55d4c4a" CreationDate="2019-08-05T03:43:49.660" UserId="9" Comment="Added mention of similar sound change of ls to ll" Text="It's often difficult to say &quot;why&quot; a sound change happened, so I'll focus on your other questions. Rhotacism in Latin happened via a series of sound changes. It only affected inherited *\*s* in specific environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The reconstructed steps of rhotacism, and their conditions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first step towards rhotacism is believed to have been voicing of single &quot;s&quot; to the sound [z] in certain contexts: generally, between vowels. Phonologically, this change can be seen as an assimilation of the consonant to the surrounding voiced segments. This kind of voicing assimilation is common historically; for example, it also occured between Classical Latin and many Romance languages. Double *ss* remained unvoiced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some related languages, such as Oscan, /z/ remained as such between vowels and did not undergo rhotacism. We know this because we have Oscan inscriptions written in the Latin alphabet that use the letter Z for this sound (Buck 1904). (However, my understanding is that we don't have evidence of the letter Z being used this way in Latin inscriptions: see the related question https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/34/why-are-there-no-native-latin-words-with-a-z?lq=1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next step of rhotacism (z &gt; r) is a little less common across languages, but we do have some other examples. The process also applied historically in Germanic; one place where you can see the result in English is *forlo**r**n,* which is historically related to the verb *lo**s**e*. Rhotacism is thought to have occured in Old Latin, and to have been complete by the 4th century BCE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result of these changes, original intervocalic *\*s* ultimately became *r* in Classical Latin. In the ancestor of Latin, *\*s* seems to have also been voiced to [z] after the voiced resonant /r/, so another related sound change is original *\*rs* to Classical Latin *rr.* One word that shows this change is [*terra*][1] &quot;earth,&quot; from Proto-Indo-European *\*ters*- ‎(“dry”). The cluster *rs* that occurs in Classical Latin is a simplification of earlier *\*rtt* or *\*rts*; this is why most words with *rs* also have *rt* in some forms or in related words (such as [*ars*][2] &quot;art,&quot; genitive *artis*). There also seems to have been voicing of *\*s* after the voiced lateral resonant /l/, but the end outcome of that cluster in Classical Latin was geminate *ll.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two environments (between vowels and after *r*) are the main cases where Latin *r* regularly came from earlier *\*s.* There are also some words with r followed by a consonant where the *r* was originally intervocalic *\*s*, but the following vowel was lost (as in [*veternus*][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there also seem to be some words where *\*s* developed into *z* and then *r* directly before a voiced consonant; in fact, the voicing in these words seems to have occurred earlier than the intervocalic voicing. For example, Proto-Indo-European *-*sg*- seems to be the ancestor of *rg* in *[mergo][4]* &quot;to immerse, engulf&quot; and probably in *[virga][5]* &quot;twig, switch, rod&quot; (de Melo). This also applied before the semivowel *v* [w]; thanks to TKR for pointing this out in a [comment][6]. A strange example that does seem to have undergone rhotacization between Old and Classical Latin is the word *carmen,* which Lewis and Short say used to be *casmen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##In Classical Latin, the distribution of *r* and *s* often didn't conform to the conditions of rhotacism, which indicates that it was no longer an active sound change by that time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the sound *r* became established in certain words, their derivatives might come to have it in other environments. For example, as Joonas Ilmavirta mentions, some words such as *honor* developed final *r* instead of *s* after a vowel; it's believed this is due to the presence of *r* in other related forms (like *honoris*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Single intervocalic *s* did exist in Classical Latin; we believe it was pronounced [s]. In many words, it corresponds to inherited *\*ss* which seems to have become shortened in some environments. Other words with intervocalic *s* have been explained as borrowings from other languages, such as Greek or Italic languages such as Oscan that did not undergo rhotacism. Whatever the reason, their presence indicates that rhotacism was not active as an automatic sound change in the Classical era (Gorman).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peck summarizes the change as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Latin rhotacism is a regular law, for though there are many&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparent exceptions to it, examination shows that in most of these&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cases the s was not originally intervocalic or else that the word is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of (a) foreign or (b) late origin. [...] &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The unvoiced s first passes into the voiced s (z) and thence to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lingual r, for the position of the vocal organs in pronouncing z is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substantially the same as that required for r.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Buck, Carl Darling. 1904. [*A grammar of Oscan and Umbrian : with a collection of inscriptions and a glossary*][7]&#xD;&#xA;- de Melo, W. D. C. &quot;[Faliscan: Phonology Part 2][8]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Gorman, Kyle. &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real][9]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Peck, Harry Thurston. 1898. [*Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities*][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terra#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ars#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/veternus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mergo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/virga#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/136/rhotacism-why#comment237_146&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://archive.org/stream/grammarofoscanum00buckuoft#page/74/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://wolfgang.demelo.de/faliscan/5_phonology.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0062%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DR%3Aentry%20group%3D4%3Aentry%3Drhotacism-harpers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="722d2b02-74ae-43a1-b4cd-f350436e100d" CreationDate="2019-08-05T03:56:38.223" UserId="9" Comment="Added mention of similar sound change of ls to ll" Text="It's often difficult to say &quot;why&quot; a sound change happened, so I'll focus on your other questions. Rhotacism in Latin happened via a series of sound changes. It only affected inherited *\*s* in specific environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The reconstructed steps of rhotacism, and their conditions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first step towards rhotacism is believed to have been voicing of single &quot;s&quot; to the sound [z] in certain contexts: generally, between vowels. Phonologically, this change can be seen as an assimilation of the consonant to the surrounding voiced segments. This kind of voicing assimilation is common historically; for example, it also occured between Classical Latin and many Romance languages. Double *ss* remained unvoiced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some related languages, such as Oscan, /z/ remained as such between vowels and did not undergo rhotacism. We know this because we have Oscan inscriptions written in the Latin alphabet that use the letter Z for this sound (Buck 1904). (However, my understanding is that we don't have evidence of the letter Z being used this way in Latin inscriptions: see the related question https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/34/why-are-there-no-native-latin-words-with-a-z?lq=1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next step of rhotacism (z &gt; r) is a little less common across languages, but we do have some other examples. The process also applied historically in Germanic; one place where you can see the result in English is *forlo**r**n,* which is historically related to the verb *lo**s**e*. Rhotacism is thought to have occured in Old Latin, and to have been complete by the 4th century BCE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result of these changes, original intervocalic *\*s* ultimately became *r* in Classical Latin. In the ancestor of Latin, *\*s* seems to have also been voiced to [z] after the voiced resonant /r/, so another related sound change is original *\*rs* to Classical Latin *rr.* One word that shows this change is [*terra*][1] &quot;earth,&quot; from Proto-Indo-European *\*ters*- ‎(“dry”). The cluster *rs* that occurs in Classical Latin is a simplification of earlier *\*rtt* or *\*rts*; this is why most words with *rs* also have *rt* in some forms or in related words (such as [*ars*][2] &quot;art,&quot; genitive *artis*). There also seems to have been voicing of *\*s* after the voiced lateral resonant /l/, but the end outcome of that cluster in Classical Latin was geminate *ll.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two environments (between vowels and after *r*) are the main cases where Latin *r* regularly came from earlier *\*s.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other, less typical contexts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be some words with r followed by a consonant where the *r* was originally intervocalic *\*s*, but the following vowel was lost (as in [*veternus*][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There also seem to be some words where *\*s* developed into *z* and then *r* directly before a voiced consonant; in fact, the voicing in these words seems to have occurred earlier than the intervocalic voicing. For example, Proto-Indo-European *-*sg*- seems to be the ancestor of *rg* in *[mergo][4]* &quot;to immerse, engulf&quot; and probably in *[virga][5]* &quot;twig, switch, rod&quot; (de Melo). This also applied before the semivowel *v* [w]; thanks to TKR for pointing this out in a [comment][6]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A strange example that looks like it underwent rhotacization between Old and Classical Latin is the word *carmen,* which Lewis and Short say used to be *casmen.* This is odd because my understanding is that before a nasal like *m*, *s* usually did not undergo rhotacism, but was dropped instead, lengthening a preceding vowel if there was one. De Vaan (2008) says that the *r* in the form *carmen* is not derived from a change of *-sn-* to *-rn-,* but instead from dissimilation of *-nm-* to *-rm-* in a hypothetical form *\*canmen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##In Classical Latin, the distribution of *r* and *s* often didn't conform to the conditions of rhotacism, which indicates that it was no longer an active sound change by that time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the sound *r* became established in certain words, their derivatives might come to have it in other environments. For example, as Joonas Ilmavirta mentions, some words such as *honor* developed final *r* instead of *s* after a vowel; it's believed this is due to the presence of *r* in other related forms (like *honoris*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Single intervocalic *s* did exist in Classical Latin; we believe it was pronounced [s]. In many words, it corresponds to inherited *\*ss* which seems to have become shortened in some environments. Other words with intervocalic *s* have been explained as borrowings from other languages, such as Greek or Italic languages such as Oscan that did not undergo rhotacism. Whatever the reason, their presence indicates that rhotacism was not active as an automatic sound change in the Classical era (Gorman).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peck summarizes the change as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Latin rhotacism is a regular law, for though there are many&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparent exceptions to it, examination shows that in most of these&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cases the s was not originally intervocalic or else that the word is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of (a) foreign or (b) late origin. [...] &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The unvoiced s first passes into the voiced s (z) and thence to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lingual r, for the position of the vocal organs in pronouncing z is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substantially the same as that required for r.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Buck, Carl Darling. 1904. [*A grammar of Oscan and Umbrian : with a collection of inscriptions and a glossary*][7]&#xD;&#xA;- de Melo, W. D. C. &quot;[Faliscan: Phonology Part 2][8]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- de Vaan, Michiel. 2008. *Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages.*&#xD;&#xA;- Gorman, Kyle. &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real][9]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Peck, Harry Thurston. 1898. [*Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities*][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terra#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ars#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/veternus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mergo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/virga#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/136/rhotacism-why#comment237_146&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://archive.org/stream/grammarofoscanum00buckuoft#page/74/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://wolfgang.demelo.de/faliscan/5_phonology.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0062%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DR%3Aentry%20group%3D4%3Aentry%3Drhotacism-harpers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="4e3b9f21-df99-4bf4-bfa0-875b6f790804" CreationDate="2019-08-05T04:04:50.783" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="It's often difficult to say &quot;why&quot; a sound change happened, so I'll focus on your other questions. Rhotacism in Latin happened via a series of sound changes. It only affected inherited *\*s* in specific environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The reconstructed steps of rhotacism, and their conditions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first step towards rhotacism is believed to have been voicing of single &quot;s&quot; to the sound [z] in certain contexts: generally, between vowels. Phonologically, this change can be seen as an assimilation of the consonant to the surrounding voiced segments. This kind of voicing assimilation is common historically; for example, it also occured between Classical Latin and many Romance languages. Double *ss* remained unvoiced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some related languages, such as Oscan, /z/ remained as such between vowels and did not undergo rhotacism. We know this because we have Oscan inscriptions written in the Latin alphabet that use the letter Z for this sound (Buck 1904). (However, my understanding is that we don't have evidence of the letter Z being used this way in Latin inscriptions: see the related question https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/34/why-are-there-no-native-latin-words-with-a-z?lq=1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next step of rhotacism (z &gt; r) is a little less common across languages, but we do have some other examples. The process also applied historically in Germanic; one place where you can see the result in English is *forlo**r**n,* which is historically related to the verb *lo**s**e*. Rhotacism is thought to have occured in Old Latin, and to have been complete by the 4th century BCE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result of these changes, original intervocalic *\*s* ultimately became *r* in Classical Latin. In the ancestor of Latin, *\*s* seems to have also been voiced to [z] after the voiced resonant /r/, so another related sound change is original *\*rs* to Classical Latin *rr.* One word that shows this change is [*terra*][1] &quot;earth,&quot; from Proto-Indo-European *\*ters*- ‎(“dry”). The cluster *rs* that occurs in Classical Latin is a simplification of earlier *\*rtt* or *\*rts*; this is why most words with *rs* also have *rt* in some forms or in related words (such as [*ars*][2] &quot;art,&quot; genitive *artis*). There also seems to have been voicing of *\*s* after the voiced lateral resonant /l/, but the end outcome of that cluster in Classical Latin was geminate *ll.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two environments (between vowels and after *r*) are the main cases where Latin *r* regularly came from earlier *\*s.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other, less typical contexts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be some words with r followed by a consonant where the *r* was originally intervocalic *\*s*, but the following vowel was lost (as in [*veternus*][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There also seem to be some words where *\*s* developed into *z* and then *r* directly before a voiced consonant; in fact, the voicing in these words seems to have occurred earlier than the intervocalic voicing. For example, Proto-Indo-European *-*sg*- seems to be the ancestor of *rg* in *[mergo][4]* &quot;to immerse, engulf&quot; and probably in *[virga][5]* &quot;twig, switch, rod&quot; (de Melo). This also applied before the semivowel *v* [w]; thanks to TKR for pointing this out in a [comment][6]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A strange example that looks like it underwent rhotacization between Old and Classical Latin is the word *carmen,* which Lewis and Short say used to be *casmen.* This is odd because my understanding is that before a nasal like *m*, *s* usually did not undergo rhotacism, but was dropped instead, lengthening a preceding vowel if there was one. De Vaan (2008) says that the *r* in the form *carmen* is not derived from a change of *-sn-* to *-rn-,* but instead from dissimilation of *-nm-* to *-rm-* in a hypothetical form *\*canmen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##In Classical Latin, the distribution of *r* and *s* often didn't conform to the conditions of rhotacism, which indicates that it was no longer an active sound change by that time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the sound *r* became established in certain words, their derivatives might come to have it in other environments. For example, as Joonas Ilmavirta mentions, some words such as *honor* developed final *r* instead of *s* after a vowel; it's believed this is due to the presence of *r* in other related forms (like *honoris*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Single intervocalic *s* did exist in Classical Latin; we believe it was pronounced [s]. In many words, it corresponds to inherited *\*ss*, which was regularly shortened in some environments (for example, [after a diphthong or long vowel][7]). Other words with intervocalic *s* have been explained as borrowings from other languages, such as Greek or Italic languages such as Oscan that did not undergo rhotacism. Whatever the reason, their presence indicates that rhotacism was not active as an automatic sound change in the Classical era (Gorman).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peck summarizes the change as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Latin rhotacism is a regular law, for though there are many&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apparent exceptions to it, examination shows that in most of these&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cases the s was not originally intervocalic or else that the word is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of (a) foreign or (b) late origin. [...] &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The unvoiced s first passes into the voiced s (z) and thence to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lingual r, for the position of the vocal organs in pronouncing z is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substantially the same as that required for r.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Buck, Carl Darling. 1904. [*A grammar of Oscan and Umbrian : with a collection of inscriptions and a glossary*][8]&#xD;&#xA;- de Melo, W. D. C. &quot;[Faliscan: Phonology Part 2][9]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- de Vaan, Michiel. 2008. *Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages.*&#xD;&#xA;- Gorman, Kyle. &quot;[Latin Rhotacism for Real][10]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Peck, Harry Thurston. 1898. [*Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities*][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terra#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ars#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/veternus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mergo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/virga#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/136/rhotacism-why#comment237_146&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/2917/9&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://archive.org/stream/grammarofoscanum00buckuoft#page/74/mode/2up&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://wolfgang.demelo.de/faliscan/5_phonology.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.225.8217&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0062%3Aalphabetic%20letter%3DR%3Aentry%20group%3D4%3Aentry%3Drhotacism-harpers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11250" RevisionGUID="dc70c000-dea6-4d2f-93a0-5def136cef20" CreationDate="2019-08-05T07:00:58.060" UserId="4796" Text="Recently I encountered the phrase &quot;mihi cordi est&quot;, after googling it I saw it is quite common phrase that seem to mean &quot;it pleases me&quot;. for example: &quot;vita horrida, arida, atque dura, mihi cordi est&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I find the grammar strange here, if the literal translation of the phrase is &quot;to my heart&quot;, wouldn't it be more natural to see &quot;meo cordi&quot;. So my question is basically whether we can use this form &quot;dative(pronoun) + dative&quot; instead of &quot;meo/tuo/etc.. + dative&quot;, or this form is unique for specific idioms? are there any other instances that we find this form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gratias vobis. &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33139" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11250" RevisionGUID="dc70c000-dea6-4d2f-93a0-5def136cef20" CreationDate="2019-08-05T07:00:58.060" UserId="4796" Text="The grammar of the expression &quot;mihi cordi est&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33140" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11250" RevisionGUID="dc70c000-dea6-4d2f-93a0-5def136cef20" CreationDate="2019-08-05T07:00:58.060" UserId="4796" Text="|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11250" RevisionGUID="61791826-53df-4287-8cb5-6b9cd05b27b9" CreationDate="2019-08-05T08:08:12.810" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Recently I encountered the phrase &quot;mihi cordi est&quot;, after googling it I saw it is quite common phrase that seem to mean &quot;it pleases me&quot;. For example: &quot;vita horrida, arida, atque dura, mihi cordi est&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I find the grammar strange here, if the literal translation of the phrase is &quot;to my heart&quot;, wouldn't it be more natural to see &quot;meo cordi&quot;. So my question is basically whether we can use this form &quot;dative(pronoun) + dative&quot; instead of &quot;meo/tuo/etc.. + dative&quot;, or this form is unique for specific idioms? Are there any other instances that we find this form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gratias vobis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33142" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11250" RevisionGUID="61791826-53df-4287-8cb5-6b9cd05b27b9" CreationDate="2019-08-05T08:08:12.810" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11251" RevisionGUID="699d2ff1-6db7-4a46-b20e-8323b9930c19" CreationDate="2019-08-05T08:15:10.677" UserId="4952" Text="In my Oxford Latin Course 2 chapter 21 there is a sentence 'paucis post diebus ubi Orbilius pueros dimisit'. Why is it not 'paucos post dies'? I remember that the preposition 'post' + accusative, doesnt it? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33144" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11251" RevisionGUID="699d2ff1-6db7-4a46-b20e-8323b9930c19" CreationDate="2019-08-05T08:15:10.677" UserId="4952" Text="Why is it to say 'paucis post diebus'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33145" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11251" RevisionGUID="699d2ff1-6db7-4a46-b20e-8323b9930c19" CreationDate="2019-08-05T08:15:10.677" UserId="4952" Text="|grammarians|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11252" RevisionGUID="4ade4cf5-b69d-4bc3-8ed3-95c7114aff32" CreationDate="2019-08-05T08:44:20.567" UserId="79" Text="The literal translation is not &quot;to my heart&quot; but &quot;to me to heart&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is unnatural English but natural Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I would say that grammatically the datives *mihi* and *cordi* are not linked (the way *meo cordi* would be); I would rather analyze the core of the sentence as *cordi est* and *mihi* as an added mention of the beneficiary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone who benefits or suffers from an action can be indicated by dative in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;E.g. *Potesne mihi auxiliari?* &quot;Can you help me?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;One can translate &quot;to be helpful&quot; as *auxilio esse*, so &quot;he was helpful to me&quot; would be *mihi auxilio fuit*.&#xD;&#xA;This is the same kind of double dative as you encountered, and the most common ones I can think of are *cordi* and *auxilio*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is quite typical to express the beneficiary rather than the owner in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I would translate &quot;I washed your car&quot; as *tibi currum lavi*, meaning literally &quot;I washed the car for you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;When the owner has something to gain or lose, I would prefer dative (irrespective of the case of the object being useful/washed/whatever).&#xD;&#xA;But when there is no such benefit, a genitive (or a possessive pronoun in the correct case) is more natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are unsure, a genitive is safer, but there are indeed cases where the dative is more idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of dative is common with some verbs (e.g. *deesse, auxiliari*) and expressions (e.g. *cordi est*), and it might be simplest to learn them that way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33147" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11250" RevisionGUID="d2a40523-bb9a-4de5-b1ea-9c6bb293e34e" CreationDate="2019-08-05T08:44:29.707" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|grammar-choice|grammar-identification|dative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11253" RevisionGUID="b70b7ed0-8bdc-48fc-b0ec-0e6c25be04c0" CreationDate="2019-08-05T08:58:21.230" UserId="985" Text="In this case, *post* is being used as an adverb, not a preposition; essentially, it's being treated as a comparative adverb\*, and the ablative *paucis diebus* is expressing the 'degree of difference,' as it can do also with other comparative adverbs and adjectives\*\*. So literally, the phrase means 'after by a few days.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, *paucos post dies*, where *post* is a preposition patterning with an accusative, also works and has equivalent meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* Just as the English word 'after' is, in origin, a comparative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\*\* For example, *multo felicior*, 'much happier' (literally, 'happier by much')." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11255" RevisionGUID="44ffad6e-beb8-4dbe-8f6e-193ca62de4c8" CreationDate="2019-08-05T10:39:19.077" UserId="1982" Text="Confusion between accusative/ ablative can occur with other expressions of time. The duration of a period of time, i.e. &quot;how long&quot; it lasted, requires the accusative. Occasionally the preposition, per, is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for two years = duos annos;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for many days = (per) multos dies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for &quot;how long ago&quot; something happened, you use the adverb, abhinc, normally with the accusative; but, it can also be used with the ablative, though this is less common:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;two years ago = abhinc duos annos;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;three days ago = tribus abhinc diebus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you are already aware that the adverb comes after at least one of the relevant words, in the ablative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11256" RevisionGUID="c7392ba3-1a4a-42da-bc33-94d8edb53ed3" CreationDate="2019-08-05T12:41:05.977" UserId="324" Text="First of all, it is not correct that middle and passive voice have completely the same forms. In the Koine, as in classical Attic, the middle and passive have distinct forms in the aorist and future tenses. In the other tenses the forms are the same, so the meaning has to be deduced from the context, bearing in mind that there is often a potential ambiguity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33152" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11251" RevisionGUID="3e87588a-191a-4f87-a108-430b89f51ac0" CreationDate="2019-08-05T16:16:55.483" />
  <row Id="33153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11257" RevisionGUID="962a71d9-b0b3-4238-a5f7-75d161ec3eb5" CreationDate="2019-08-05T17:25:59.740" UserId="406" Text="As fdb says, the middle and passive voice aren't *completely* identical: in two specific tenses (the future and aorist), they're distinct. For example, &quot;I will be released&quot; is *λυθήσομαι*, while &quot;I will release myself&quot; is *λύσομαι*; &quot;I was released&quot; is *ἐλύθην*, while &quot;I released myself&quot; is *ἐλυσάμην*. In these specific instances, a theta before the ending tells you that it's passive, and the lack of a theta tells you that it's middle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most tenses, though, the two are completely identical, and you have to rely on context to tell which is which.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the *passive*, you'll often see an agent marked—&quot;I was released *by the guards*&quot;. In Greek, this is represented by *ὑπο* plus the genitive. If you see that, you can be confident it's a passive construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the *middle*, you'll sometimes see a direct object in the accusative (when the meaning is closer to &quot;I did this for my own benefit&quot; than &quot;I did this to myself&quot;). Passive verbs in Greek can never take direct objects, so if you see this, you can be confident it's a middle construction. However, quite a lot of middle-voice verbs won't have objects, so this is a sufficient but not necessary condition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If neither of those holds true, and there's not a good reason to assume passive, **assume the middle voice as a default**. In places where English and Latin use the passive, Ancient Greek often uses the middle voice instead. It's an order of magnitude more common than the passive, and I'd imagine a native Athenian in the fifth century BCE would make the same assumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11252" RevisionGUID="1518115e-13cb-480d-ae78-46a16e2b59b3" CreationDate="2019-08-05T17:29:45.260" UserId="79" Comment="added 457 characters in body" Text="The literal translation is not &quot;to my heart&quot; but &quot;to me to heart&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is unnatural English but natural Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I would say that grammatically the datives *mihi* and *cordi* are not linked (the way *meo cordi* would be); I would rather analyze the core of the sentence as *cordi est* and *mihi* as an added mention of the beneficiary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone who benefits or suffers from an action can be indicated by dative in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;E.g. *Potesne mihi auxiliari?* &quot;Can you help me?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;One can translate &quot;to be helpful&quot; as *auxilio esse*, so &quot;he was helpful to me&quot; would be *mihi auxilio fuit*.&#xD;&#xA;This is the same kind of double dative as you encountered, and the most common ones I can think of are *cordi* and *auxilio*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is quite typical to express the beneficiary rather than the owner in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I would translate &quot;I washed your car&quot; as *tibi currum lavi*, meaning literally &quot;I washed the car for you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(As pointed out by fdb in a comment, this is more common for body parts. The genitive would work here as well, but would give a different emphasis.)&#xD;&#xA;When the owner has something to gain or lose, I would prefer dative (irrespective of the case of the object being useful/washed/whatever).&#xD;&#xA;But when there is no such benefit, a genitive (or a possessive pronoun in the correct case) is more natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are unsure, a genitive is safer, but there are indeed cases where the dative is more idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of dative is common with some verbs (e.g. *deesse, auxiliari*) and expressions (e.g. *cordi est*), and it might be simplest to learn them that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of dative has multiple names.&#xD;&#xA;These include *dativus commodi*, *dativus incommodi* (for negative effects), *dativus ethicus*, dative of purpose, and dative of service.&#xD;&#xA;There are also discussions of the double dative constructions in Latin grammars, as double datives are indeed quite common." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11258" RevisionGUID="25e8d72b-18b8-4821-81bc-b48e4f6ef032" CreationDate="2019-08-05T18:00:37.467" UserId="406" Text="In Ancient Greek, verbs often take a &quot;middle voice&quot;, neither active nor passive. [The forms usually look identical to the passive on the surface, but can take direct objects and cannot take an agent (unlike true passives).][1] Some verbs only ever occur in the middle voice, with no active forms at all!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To a Latin-speaker, this should sound somewhat familiar: verbs which look passive on the surface, but can take direct objects, can't take agents, and have no active forms? That fits the deponent verbs (_sequor_, _hortor_, _arbitror_, etc) perfectly. In other words, the deponent verbs seem to act like the Greek middle voice, rather than the Latin active or passive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in Ancient Greek, pretty much _any_ verb can be put into the middle voice, not just the deponents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was this true in any attested stage of Latin? That is, do we ever see non-deponent verbs with passive morphology, but able to take accusative direct objects and not able to take ablative agents?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/11257/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33156" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11258" RevisionGUID="25e8d72b-18b8-4821-81bc-b48e4f6ef032" CreationDate="2019-08-05T18:00:37.467" UserId="406" Text="Do non-deponent Latin verbs ever have a &quot;middle voice&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33157" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11258" RevisionGUID="25e8d72b-18b8-4821-81bc-b48e4f6ef032" CreationDate="2019-08-05T18:00:37.467" UserId="406" Text="|example-request|passive-voice|deponent-verbs|voice|middle-voice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11207" RevisionGUID="dd1df303-73d7-4f73-a441-6f3df3d707cc" CreationDate="2019-08-05T21:16:07.367" UserId="13" Comment="Fixed two typos in transcription of screenshots and added translation thereof; expanded contraction question" Text="[This Italian Sappho anthology](https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/11675/1/Saffo_frammenti_2015.pdf), on p. 57-58, has a fusion of several Lobel-Page fragments (cfr [this question of mine](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10685/tracing-mysterious-line-ends-in-a-combination-of-sappho-fragments-found-in-an-it)), among which is 67(a). In l. 3 of that fragment, which is l. 16 of the fusion, the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;δ]αίμων ὀλοφ . [&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is completed to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;δ]αίμων ὀλόφω[ι&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last word, ὀλόφῳ, is untraceable for me. It would seem to be a dative form from *ὄλοφος, but that doesn't seem to exist (Wiktionary and Perseus and my big Rocci dictionary all fail to report it), and Perseus doesn't find it as an inflected form either. The following part of the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κ]αὶ τοῦτ' ἐπίκει̣[ρε &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ] θέλ' ὦν τ' ἄπαισαν&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δ]αίμων ὀλόφ[ωι &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; τέ]λ̣εσον νόημμα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would seem to correspond to the following part of the translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;e anche questo (mio male) tu voglia (eliminare); perciò tu, che fra tutte (sei) la dea dai pensieri più astuti, dai compimento al mio pensiero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which in English reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and this (pain of mine) may you also want to (eliminate); thus you, who (are) the goddess of the most astute thoughts among all [goddesses], give fulfilment to my thought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;And this … also&quot; matches καὶ τοῦτ'. &quot;may you … want&quot; might match θέλ(ε), if that is what we take that word to be elided from. &quot;(pain of mine)&quot; goes into the lacuna, hence the brackets. We have to assume &quot;(eliminate)&quot; matches ἐπίκει[ρε, perhaps mis-accented and meant to be ἐπικεί[ρην, an infinitive. &quot;thus you&quot;  matches ὦν τ(υ). &quot;among all [goddesses]&quot; would seem to match ἄπαισαν, which however, if genitive plural, should be ἀπαίσαν. δαίμων matches &quot;goddess&quot;. &quot;give fulfilment to my thought&quot; is τέλεσον νόημμα. We have left to match &quot;of the most astute thoughts&quot; and the mystery word. Um, problem: the English is too long. I mean, that word can't be a superlative, right? This word would then have to match either &quot;thoughts&quot; or &quot;astute&quot;. However, neither give me anything close to this in Woodhouse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is this word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After thinking it might be a verb, I googled ὀλοφόω, and landed on [this](https://books.google.it/books?id=4ztEAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA172&amp;lpg=PA172&amp;dq=%E1%BD%80%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%86%CF%8C%CF%89&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=fUJ8BQmhan&amp;sig=ACfU3U1VPY4pf1KfihutLiqWrOwtRnahzg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjbreHV89XjAhXOGewKHfaeCFkQ6AEwAXoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%E1%BD%80%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%86%CF%8C%CF%89&amp;f=false), where on p. 172 we find the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me try to copy those screenshots:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ὀλοφώϊος, ὁ, ἡ, s.v.a. ὀλοὸς, bey Nicander σίνη ὀλοφώϊα θηρῶν, verderblich, tödlich; bey Homer sind ὀλοφώϊα δήνεα Κίρκης, 10, 289, ὀλοφώϊα εἰδὼς, 17, 248. statt ὀλοφώϊος ὤν. Von ὄλω, ὄλλω, ὀλλύω, ὄλλυμι, kommt auch ὀλόω (ὀλοὸς), ὀλόπω, ὀλόπτω, ὀλόφω, ὀλοφόω, wie von ἐλέπω, ἔλπω, ἐλπὶς, ἐλέφω, ἐλεφάω, ἐλεφαίρω. S. auch ὀλοφύρομαι. Andere leiten es von ὄλω u. φὼς ab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With my shaky German, this should mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ὀλοφώϊος, ὁ, ἡ, (s.v.a.=?) ὀλοὸς, _apud_ Nicander σίνη ὀλοφώϊα θηρῶν, pernicious, deadly; _apud_ Homer there are ὀλοφώϊα δήνεα Κίρκης, 10, 289, ὀλοφώϊα εἰδὼς, 17, 248. instead of ὀλοφώϊος ὤν. From ὄλω, ὄλλω, ὀλλύω, ὄλλυμι, comes also ὀλόω (ὀλοὸς), ὀλόπω, ὀλόπτω, ὀλόφω, ὀλοφόω, like from ἐλέπω, ἔλπω, ἐλπὶς, ἐλέφω, ἐλεφάω, ἐλεφαίρω. See also ὀλοφύρομαι. Others derive it from ὄλω and φὼς.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of all the verbs mentioned with ὀλοφόω, whence my supplement could stem from, I only find ὀλόπτω on [Perseus][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But does όει contract to ῳ, so that ὀλοφόω gives ὀλοφόει&gt;ὀλοφῷ which barytonizes to ὀλόφῳ in Aeolic? And assuming it does, how does &quot;pluck out, tear out&quot; fit in that translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just realized I didn't even look in the anthology's notes. Now, footnote 425 on that page refers to l. 14, footnote 427 is about τέλεσον νόημμα, so the only footnote which could be about this supplement is 426:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Integrazione di E. Puglia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So at least we have a name to our mystery. One could think 427 is about both, but it says &quot;Integrazione di Hunt&quot;, and Campbell tells me Hunt suggested ὀλοφ[ώϊος there. Moreover, [this thing](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gennaro_Tedeschi/publication/258993476_Saffo_Biografia_e_antologia_di_versi/links/00b7d5298c746c81c2000000/Saffo-Biografia-e-antologia-di-versi.pdf) has the exact same combination + translation, and the matching note is referred to &quot;(eliminare)&quot;. Ummm… Scouring through the biblio of that thing, we find two E. Puglia references:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. E. Puglia, Per la ricomposizione del quarto libro dei canti di Saffo (POxy 1787), «SemRom»  X (2007), pp. 17-39 &#xD;&#xA; 2. E. Puglia, P. Oxy. 2294 e la tradizione delle odi di Saffo, «ZPE»  166 (2008), pp.1-8 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will now look at those, if I find them, and if one of them contains the answer, I will self-answer. Before I leave you, however, let me remark how the biblio is ordered randomly instead of alphabetically: big boos to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/drq8y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2jjBK.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZtuKq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=oloptw&amp;la=greek#Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=o)lo/ptw-contents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11259" RevisionGUID="72677e2b-f128-4292-a3f8-9f5bc683cf48" CreationDate="2019-08-06T01:00:40.187" UserId="3248" Text="Thinking about your very interesting question (&quot;That is, do we ever see non-deponent verbs with passive morphology, but able to take accusative direct objects and not able to take ablative agents?&quot;), here is an example that could be argued (at least, claimed!) to satisfy your grammatical conditions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  _flava caput **nectentur** oliva_ (Verg. _Aen_. 5, 309)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'They shall have their head(s) crowned with yellow olive' [Source of Engl. transl.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i) there is an accusative direct object. NB: _caput_ is often regarded as an &quot;accusative of relation&quot; (aka &quot;**Greek** accusative&quot;, which, by the way, nicely relates to your present question) but HERE it can ALSO be claimed to occupy the **direct internal argument** slot of the verbal predicate. Accordingly, it can be claimed to be more properly regarded as a &quot;**retained** accusative of specification&quot; in the sense that it can be analyzed as the corresponding direct object of an active sense (_caput nectent_; please see this link for the notion of &quot;**retained** accusative of specification&quot;: [_perfudit umeros_][2]).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) no ablative agent is possible here due to its &quot;middle&quot; meaning, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(iii) the verb has passive morphology but it is not a deponent verb (NB: nor a prototypical one nor a &quot;peripheric&quot; one like the semideponent use of _pudet/**puduit_** in my comment above). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.es/books?id=kCZICgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA55&amp;lpg=PA55&amp;dq=flava%20oliva%20nectentur&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=L2Glt9DQUH&amp;sig=ACfU3U2mL9UjOxUiayEoVjNUnM4IzgDZiA&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwia8a3Jg-3jAhUE2-AKHRRfALUQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=flava%20oliva%20nectentur&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.es/books?id=kCZICgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;lpg=PA39&amp;dq=%22perfudit%20umeros%22%20135&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=L2Glt9DLNN&amp;sig=ACfU3U0Ct3YWZsCrw55s9JT0vBpuGJEpog&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwja98y8ge3jAhUKi1wKHYxSC5AQ6AEwAHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22perfudit%20umeros%22%20135&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11259" RevisionGUID="43f3a50d-4489-42f7-992f-d774e5ed472f" CreationDate="2019-08-06T01:26:56.787" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar &amp; format" Text="Thinking about your very interesting question (&quot;That is, do we ever see non-deponent verbs with passive morphology, but able to take accusative direct objects and not able to take ablative agents?&quot;), here is an example that could be argued (at least, claimed!) to satisfy your grammatical conditions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  _flava caput **nectentur** oliva_ (Verg. _Aen_. 5, 309)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'They shall have their head(s) crowned with yellow olive' [Source of Engl. transl.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i) there is an accusative direct object. NB: _caput_ is often regarded as an &quot;accusative of relation&quot; (aka &quot;**Greek** accusative&quot;, which, by the way, nicely relates to your present question) but HERE, in this use, it can also be claimed to occupy the **direct internal argument** slot of the verbal predicate. Accordingly, it can be claimed to be more properly regarded as a &quot;**retained** accusative of specification&quot; in the sense that it can be analyzed as the corresponding direct object of an active sense (_caput nectent_; please see this link for the notion of [&quot;**retained** accusative of specification&quot;][2]).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) no ablative agent is possible here due to its &quot;middle&quot; meaning, and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(iii) the verb has passive morphology but it is not a deponent verb (NB: nor a prototypical one nor a &quot;peripheric&quot; one like the semideponent use of _pudet/**puduit_** in my comment above). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.es/books?id=kCZICgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA55&amp;lpg=PA55&amp;dq=flava%20oliva%20nectentur&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=L2Glt9DQUH&amp;sig=ACfU3U2mL9UjOxUiayEoVjNUnM4IzgDZiA&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwia8a3Jg-3jAhUE2-AKHRRfALUQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=flava%20oliva%20nectentur&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.es/books?id=kCZICgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA39&amp;lpg=PA39&amp;dq=%22perfudit%20umeros%22%20135&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=L2Glt9DLNN&amp;sig=ACfU3U0Ct3YWZsCrw55s9JT0vBpuGJEpog&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwja98y8ge3jAhUKi1wKHYxSC5AQ6AEwAHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22perfudit%20umeros%22%20135&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11260" RevisionGUID="d0d1bedd-2962-4a67-8c8b-423163376eaa" CreationDate="2019-08-06T08:29:29.927" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="I don't understand the imagery in [the quote below](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/catholic-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means_b_1978768) that I bolded:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The centerpiece of his research is the etymology or origin of the word “catholic.” While we do commonly use it to mean “universal,” Ong points out that the Latin or Roman Church (as distinct from the Orthodox or Eastern Church) had a word for universal in Latin — _universalis_. Ong asked:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; If “universal” is the adequate meaning of “catholic,” why did the Latin church, which in its vernacular language had the word _universalis_, not use this word but rather borrowed from Greek the term _katholikos_ instead, speaking of the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church (to put it into English) instead of the “one, holy, universal and apostolic church”?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Great question!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ong explains that it has a theological and practical significance. The origin of “universal” in Latin likely comes from the two root-words _unum_ (meaning “one”) and _vertere_ (meaning “turn”). **The image it evokes is something like an architect’s compass, which is used to make a circle around “one” central point.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=universe) avers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Latin *universum* &quot;all things, everybody, all people, the whole world,&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;noun use of neuter of adjective *universus* &quot;all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all,&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;literally &quot;**turned into one**,&quot; from *unus* &quot;one&quot; (from PIE root [*oi-no-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*oi-no-) &quot;one, unique&quot;) + *versus*,   &#xD;&#xA;past participle of *vertere* &quot;to turn, turn back, be turned; convert, transform, translate; be changed&quot;   &#xD;&#xA;(from PIE root [*wer-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*wer-) (2) &quot;to turn, bend&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what exactly does a compass 'turn around one central point'? It feels humdrum to turn an area of previously blank space on a paper around one central point?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33162" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11260" RevisionGUID="d0d1bedd-2962-4a67-8c8b-423163376eaa" CreationDate="2019-08-06T08:29:29.927" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How does drawing circles with a compass explain the etymology of 'universe'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33163" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11260" RevisionGUID="d0d1bedd-2962-4a67-8c8b-423163376eaa" CreationDate="2019-08-06T08:29:29.927" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11252" RevisionGUID="c0a17e83-da41-4110-a579-e055cdc48475" CreationDate="2019-08-06T08:45:14.320" UserId="79" Comment="added 527 characters in body" Text="The literal translation is not &quot;to my heart&quot; but &quot;to me to heart&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This is unnatural English but natural Latin.&#xD;&#xA;I would say that grammatically the datives *mihi* and *cordi* are not linked (the way *meo cordi* would be); I would rather analyze the core of the sentence as *cordi est* and *mihi* as an added mention of the beneficiary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone who benefits or suffers from an action can be indicated by dative in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;E.g. *Potesne mihi auxiliari?* &quot;Can you help me?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;One can translate &quot;to be helpful&quot; as *auxilio esse*, so &quot;he was helpful to me&quot; would be *mihi auxilio fuit*.&#xD;&#xA;This is the same kind of double dative as you encountered, and the most common ones I can think of are *cordi* and *auxilio*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is quite typical to express the beneficiary rather than the owner in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;For example, I would translate &quot;I washed your car&quot; as *tibi currum lavi*, meaning literally &quot;I washed the car for you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(As pointed out by fdb in a comment, this is more common for body parts. The genitive would work here as well, but would give a different emphasis.)&#xD;&#xA;When the owner has something to gain or lose, I would prefer dative (irrespective of the case of the object being useful/washed/whatever).&#xD;&#xA;But when there is no such benefit, a genitive (or a possessive pronoun in the correct case) is more natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are unsure, a genitive is safer, but there are indeed cases where the dative is more idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of dative is common with some verbs (e.g. *deesse, auxiliari*) and expressions (e.g. *cordi est*), and it might be simplest to learn them that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also remind you that the two datives *mihi* and *cordi* are unrelated.&#xD;&#xA;You could also say *mihi cor uritur*, &quot;my heart burns&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The key to understanding this structure is, in my opinion, to see the datives separately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The kind of dative that *mihi* is here has multiple names.&#xD;&#xA;These include *dativus commodi*, *dativus incommodi* (for negative effects), *dativus ethicus*, and dative of service.&#xD;&#xA;The other dative *cordi* is of different kind, and could perhaps be called a dative of purpose or analyzed as a dative of possession.&#xD;&#xA;There are also discussions of the double dative constructions in Latin grammars, as double datives are indeed quite common.&#xD;&#xA;To me the exact nomenclature is not all that important; there is no need to classify everything in neat categories, as long as you understand what is going on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11261" RevisionGUID="203f9027-0af2-432d-8955-df4f94d8bcf6" CreationDate="2019-08-06T08:45:53.320" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="I don't understand the bolded phrase [from HuffPost](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/catholic-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means_b_1978768) beneath. How isn't the notion of “throughout-the-whole” identical to 'universal''s 'certain sense of inclusivity' that 'necessarily implies exclusion'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine that you must color the whole of a sheet of paper with a crayon, without coloring the desk on which it lies! Then  your coloring will be bounded by, and demarcate, that sheet's four 'boundary or lines drawn that demarcate those who are “in” and those who are “out.”' This coloring obviously 'bear[s] a certain sense of inclusivity', and 'necessarily implies exclusion for whatever and whoever falls outside'  the paper's four edges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The centerpiece of his research is the etymology or origin of the word “catholic.” While we do commonly use it to mean “universal,” Ong points out that the Latin or Roman Church (as distinct from the Orthodox or Eastern Church) had a word for universal in Latin — _universalis_. Ong asked:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; If “universal” is the adequate meaning of “catholic,” why did the Latin church, which in its vernacular language had the word _universalis_, not use this word but rather borrowed from Greek the term _katholikos_ instead, speaking of the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church (to put it into English) instead of the “one, holy, universal and apostolic church”?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Great question!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ong explains that it has a theological and practical significance. The origin of “universal” in Latin likely comes from the two root-words _unum_ (meaning “one”) and _vertere_ (meaning “turn”). The image it evokes is something like an architect’s compass, which is used to make a circle around “one” central point.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Universal does bear a certain sense of inclusivity, for it gathers everything and everyone that is within the boundary of that line drawn around the circle. Yet, by virtue of the boundary or circle, it necessarily implies _exclusion_ for whatever and whoever falls _outside_ of the “universal” line.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; By contrast, _katholikos_ comes from two Greek words: _kata_ or _kath_ (meaning “through” or “throughout”) and _holos_ (meaning “whole”). **This notion of “throughout-the-whole” carries no notion of boundary or lines drawn that demarcate those who are “in” and those who are “out.”**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The point, Ong suggests, is that the life, ministry and preaching of Jesus of Nazareth also supports this notion of _katholikos_ — “Catholic” — rather than a more exclusive notion of the church as “universal.” He points to Jesus’s very short parable of “the yeast” found in Matthew 13:33 (and Luke 13:21), in which Jesus likens the Kingdom or Reign of God to a woman who makes bread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33166" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11261" RevisionGUID="203f9027-0af2-432d-8955-df4f94d8bcf6" CreationDate="2019-08-06T08:45:53.320" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How doesn't katholikos connote any boundary or inclusivity or exclusivity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33167" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11261" RevisionGUID="203f9027-0af2-432d-8955-df4f94d8bcf6" CreationDate="2019-08-06T08:45:53.320" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11262" RevisionGUID="a987080b-c0fb-4f59-a392-8327d27e8bdc" CreationDate="2019-08-06T09:04:05.513" UserId="79" Text="First, let me make sure that there is no confusion of terminology.&#xD;&#xA;When they write &quot;an architect’s compass&quot;, they do not mean this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![A compass][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, the mean this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Another compass][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, here &quot;compass&quot; means a tool for drawing circles, not one for finding directions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The image it evokes is something like an architect’s compass, which is used to make a circle around “one” central point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does not evoke that image in me.&#xD;&#xA;The image I get is separate entities being converted into a single large entity, much like in the US motto *e pluribus unum*.&#xD;&#xA;This image of drawing circles is a case analysis taken too far from what is actually supported.&#xD;&#xA;The circle drawing thing can be a helpful mental image in describing the meaning, but one should be careful not to treat it as **the** meaning of *universum* or words derived thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RNkQx.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kBRd8.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11263" RevisionGUID="e298ef1f-56f5-4934-9639-c8ef56e12a49" CreationDate="2019-08-06T11:07:34.343" UserId="4980" Text="I am a newbie to this language so I don't know where to start. I am ready to take a lot of effort and would really like to know how to master this language. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33170" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11263" RevisionGUID="e298ef1f-56f5-4934-9639-c8ef56e12a49" CreationDate="2019-08-06T11:07:34.343" UserId="4980" Text="How to start learning Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33171" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11263" RevisionGUID="e298ef1f-56f5-4934-9639-c8ef56e12a49" CreationDate="2019-08-06T11:07:34.343" UserId="4980" Text="|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11262" RevisionGUID="72ddec9a-6994-4e2d-ab03-ac98d2fd48ec" CreationDate="2019-08-06T11:32:18.967" UserId="79" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="First, let me make sure that there is no confusion of terminology.&#xD;&#xA;When they write &quot;an architect’s compass&quot;, they do not mean this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![A compass][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, the mean this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Another compass][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, here &quot;compass&quot; means a tool for drawing circles, not one for finding directions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The image it evokes is something like an architect’s compass, which is used to make a circle around “one” central point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does not evoke that image in me.&#xD;&#xA;The image I get is separate entities being converted into a single large entity, much like in the US motto *e pluribus unum*.&#xD;&#xA;This image of drawing circles is a case of analysis taken too far from what is actually supported.&#xD;&#xA;The circle drawing thing can be a helpful mental image in describing the meaning, but one should be careful not to treat it as **the** meaning of *universum* or words derived thereof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RNkQx.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kBRd8.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11264" RevisionGUID="601b6ad3-c27e-476d-a853-2521d1fd9f2e" CreationDate="2019-08-06T12:54:26.117" UserId="4993" Text="A question was asked on French stackexchange about *ausculter* as a medical term and when it started being used in that sense.  The meaning seems to go back to the early 19th century and Laennec, the inventor of the stethoscope.  This has led to a little research on Latin *ausculto* and its reflexes in Romance languages.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OLD has :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ausculto &lt; aus-clutare (cf.  AVRIS, CLVEO)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should the compound be interpreted?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33174" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11264" RevisionGUID="601b6ad3-c27e-476d-a853-2521d1fd9f2e" CreationDate="2019-08-06T12:54:26.117" UserId="4993" Text="auscultare &lt; aus - clutare" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33175" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11264" RevisionGUID="601b6ad3-c27e-476d-a853-2521d1fd9f2e" CreationDate="2019-08-06T12:54:26.117" UserId="4993" Text="|etymology|romance-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11207" RevisionGUID="f3407424-0148-4c78-ae41-2b7a4da8d09e" CreationDate="2019-08-06T13:29:56.527" UserId="13" Comment="added disabbreviation of E. Puglia to UPDATE 2" Text="[This Italian Sappho anthology](https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/11675/1/Saffo_frammenti_2015.pdf), on p. 57-58, has a fusion of several Lobel-Page fragments (cfr [this question of mine](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10685/tracing-mysterious-line-ends-in-a-combination-of-sappho-fragments-found-in-an-it)), among which is 67(a). In l. 3 of that fragment, which is l. 16 of the fusion, the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;δ]αίμων ὀλοφ . [&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is completed to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;δ]αίμων ὀλόφω[ι&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last word, ὀλόφῳ, is untraceable for me. It would seem to be a dative form from *ὄλοφος, but that doesn't seem to exist (Wiktionary and Perseus and my big Rocci dictionary all fail to report it), and Perseus doesn't find it as an inflected form either. The following part of the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κ]αὶ τοῦτ' ἐπίκει̣[ρε &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ] θέλ' ὦν τ' ἄπαισαν&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δ]αίμων ὀλόφ[ωι &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; τέ]λ̣εσον νόημμα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would seem to correspond to the following part of the translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;e anche questo (mio male) tu voglia (eliminare); perciò tu, che fra tutte (sei) la dea dai pensieri più astuti, dai compimento al mio pensiero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which in English reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and this (pain of mine) may you also want to (eliminate); thus you, who (are) the goddess of the most astute thoughts among all [goddesses], give fulfilment to my thought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;And this … also&quot; matches καὶ τοῦτ'. &quot;may you … want&quot; might match θέλ(ε), if that is what we take that word to be elided from. &quot;(pain of mine)&quot; goes into the lacuna, hence the brackets. We have to assume &quot;(eliminate)&quot; matches ἐπίκει[ρε, perhaps mis-accented and meant to be ἐπικεί[ρην, an infinitive. &quot;thus you&quot;  matches ὦν τ(υ). &quot;among all [goddesses]&quot; would seem to match ἄπαισαν, which however, if genitive plural, should be ἀπαίσαν. δαίμων matches &quot;goddess&quot;. &quot;give fulfilment to my thought&quot; is τέλεσον νόημμα. We have left to match &quot;of the most astute thoughts&quot; and the mystery word. Um, problem: the English is too long. I mean, that word can't be a superlative, right? This word would then have to match either &quot;thoughts&quot; or &quot;astute&quot;. However, neither give me anything close to this in Woodhouse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is this word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After thinking it might be a verb, I googled ὀλοφόω, and landed on [this](https://books.google.it/books?id=4ztEAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA172&amp;lpg=PA172&amp;dq=%E1%BD%80%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%86%CF%8C%CF%89&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=fUJ8BQmhan&amp;sig=ACfU3U1VPY4pf1KfihutLiqWrOwtRnahzg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjbreHV89XjAhXOGewKHfaeCFkQ6AEwAXoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%E1%BD%80%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%86%CF%8C%CF%89&amp;f=false), where on p. 172 we find the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me try to copy those screenshots:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ὀλοφώϊος, ὁ, ἡ, s.v.a. ὀλοὸς, bey Nicander σίνη ὀλοφώϊα θηρῶν, verderblich, tödlich; bey Homer sind ὀλοφώϊα δήνεα Κίρκης, 10, 289, ὀλοφώϊα εἰδὼς, 17, 248. statt ὀλοφώϊος ὤν. Von ὄλω, ὄλλω, ὀλλύω, ὄλλυμι, kommt auch ὀλόω (ὀλοὸς), ὀλόπω, ὀλόπτω, ὀλόφω, ὀλοφόω, wie von ἐλέπω, ἔλπω, ἐλπὶς, ἐλέφω, ἐλεφάω, ἐλεφαίρω. S. auch ὀλοφύρομαι. Andere leiten es von ὄλω u. φὼς ab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With my shaky German, this should mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ὀλοφώϊος, ὁ, ἡ, (s.v.a.=?) ὀλοὸς, _apud_ Nicander σίνη ὀλοφώϊα θηρῶν, pernicious, deadly; _apud_ Homer there are ὀλοφώϊα δήνεα Κίρκης, 10, 289, ὀλοφώϊα εἰδὼς, 17, 248. instead of ὀλοφώϊος ὤν. From ὄλω, ὄλλω, ὀλλύω, ὄλλυμι, comes also ὀλόω (ὀλοὸς), ὀλόπω, ὀλόπτω, ὀλόφω, ὀλοφόω, like from ἐλέπω, ἔλπω, ἐλπὶς, ἐλέφω, ἐλεφάω, ἐλεφαίρω. See also ὀλοφύρομαι. Others derive it from ὄλω and φὼς.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of all the verbs mentioned with ὀλοφόω, whence my supplement could stem from, I only find ὀλόπτω on [Perseus][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But does όει contract to ῳ, so that ὀλοφόω gives ὀλοφόει&gt;ὀλοφῷ which barytonizes to ὀλόφῳ in Aeolic? And assuming it does, how does &quot;pluck out, tear out&quot; fit in that translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just realized I didn't even look in the anthology's notes. Now, footnote 425 on that page refers to l. 14, footnote 427 is about τέλεσον νόημμα, so the only footnote which could be about this supplement is 426:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Integrazione di E. Puglia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So at least we have a name to our mystery: Enzo Puglia suggested that mysterious supplement. One could think 427 is about both, but it says &quot;Integrazione di Hunt&quot;, and Campbell tells me Hunt suggested ὀλοφ[ώϊος there. Moreover, [this thing](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gennaro_Tedeschi/publication/258993476_Saffo_Biografia_e_antologia_di_versi/links/00b7d5298c746c81c2000000/Saffo-Biografia-e-antologia-di-versi.pdf) has the exact same combination + translation, and the matching note is referred to &quot;(eliminare)&quot;. Ummm… Scouring through the biblio of that thing, we find two E. Puglia references:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. E. Puglia, Per la ricomposizione del quarto libro dei canti di Saffo (POxy 1787), «SemRom»  X (2007), pp. 17-39 &#xD;&#xA; 2. E. Puglia, P. Oxy. 2294 e la tradizione delle odi di Saffo, «ZPE»  166 (2008), pp.1-8 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will now look at those, if I find them, and if one of them contains the answer, I will self-answer. Before I leave you, however, let me remark how the biblio is ordered randomly instead of alphabetically: big boos to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/drq8y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2jjBK.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZtuKq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=oloptw&amp;la=greek#Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=o)lo/ptw-contents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11265" RevisionGUID="611d98fe-3cd9-4871-889a-47163132e1d2" CreationDate="2019-08-06T14:04:06.450" UserId="4991" Text="Could someone translate the following into Koine Greek (or Testament Greek, if there were juicy differences.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We won’t tell Helen why we could leave her at the beach without company. &#xD;&#xA; The older man we were talking about last night had come to our store to ask us if we knew Charikleia. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it might be too much to also ask for a similar translation into Homeric Greek.   I did the Attic translation, execrably, but I might not be as helpless there..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33178" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11265" RevisionGUID="611d98fe-3cd9-4871-889a-47163132e1d2" CreationDate="2019-08-06T14:04:06.450" UserId="4991" Text="Translation into Koine (perhaps Testament?) Greek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33179" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11265" RevisionGUID="611d98fe-3cd9-4871-889a-47163132e1d2" CreationDate="2019-08-06T14:04:06.450" UserId="4991" Text="|greek|greek-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11266" RevisionGUID="2d4e4f30-4053-4a5c-b779-60e0b2ad2230" CreationDate="2019-08-06T16:28:50.610" UserId="4991" Text="I am non-expert, but you are almost certainly mis-parsing the ending. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take the standard  word for &quot;hook&quot;, [ἄγκιστρον](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%84%CE%B3%CE%BA%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%BD), so the Greek ending is [-τρον](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-%CF%84%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%BD#Ancient_Greek), from IE [-trom](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/-trom), for insturment.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So they (IEs) all had it, including the Latin -trum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ***ασ***(-τρον) you hook on comes from the stem, which might often be a verb such as -άζειν, etc.... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33181" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11260" RevisionGUID="b827a803-3a54-4aec-9499-4989f945eea2" CreationDate="2019-08-06T16:38:04.560" />
  <row Id="33182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11263" RevisionGUID="1ab90f4c-356d-48fd-aee6-704e3db50197" CreationDate="2019-08-06T16:43:39.700" UserId="79" Comment="added 42 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am a newbie to this language so I don't know where to start. I am ready to take a lot of effort and would really like to know how to master this language. How can I get started with learning Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33183" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11263" RevisionGUID="1ab90f4c-356d-48fd-aee6-704e3db50197" CreationDate="2019-08-06T16:43:39.700" UserId="79" Comment="added 42 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|resource-request|study-strategies|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11267" RevisionGUID="938af8de-af73-44df-90f8-6e41661d0187" CreationDate="2019-08-06T17:01:44.430" UserId="645" Text="I'd suggest a bit of background reading before you take the plunge. 'A Natural History of Latin' by Tore Jansen would be a good place to start: it is  an excellent survey of Latin and its history, demonstrating very gently how to approach it while introducing the accidence and syntax in a general, but very positive, way. If nothing else gives you an appetite for Latin, this certainly will.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck. Latin repays all the effort you can put into it!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11265" RevisionGUID="7da1696b-b10a-463a-bf55-71e9a2aa1ba9" CreationDate="2019-08-06T17:04:46.397" UserId="79" Comment="added 258 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Could someone translate the following into Koine Greek (or Testament Greek, if there were juicy differences.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We won’t tell Helen why we could leave her at the beach without company. &#xD;&#xA; The older man we were talking about last night had come to our store to ask us if we knew Charikleia. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it might be too much to also ask for a similar translation into Homeric Greek. I did the Attic translation, execrably, but I might not be as helpless there... Here is my (attempted) Attic translation, in case it helps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Οὔ φήσωμεν Ἑλένῃ πρός τί οἵοὶ τ᾽ἦμεν τήν καταλείπειν αἰγιαλῷ ἄνευ κοινωνίας. Ὁ πρεσβύτης περὶ οὗ διελεγόμεθα τῇ προτεραίᾳ ἑσπέρᾳ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ ἐμπορίῳ ἐληλύθει ἐρέσθαι ἡμᾶς εἰ Χαρίκλειαν γνωρίζειν." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33186" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11265" RevisionGUID="7da1696b-b10a-463a-bf55-71e9a2aa1ba9" CreationDate="2019-08-06T17:04:46.397" UserId="79" Comment="added 258 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|greek|greek-translation|koine-greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11268" RevisionGUID="124da510-cd17-4d9b-a634-1bd2af383d2a" CreationDate="2019-08-06T17:29:04.193" UserId="79" Text="If I want to describe the dimensions of my office, I might say that it is about two by four meters.&#xD;&#xA;How do I phrase this size, &quot;two by four meters&quot;, in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't just want to say that the area is eight square meters, and I was hoping there to be something lighter than *latitudinem duorum et longitudinem quattuor metrorum habet*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to just multiplication of numbers, &quot;two times four&quot; would be *bis quaterna*.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps this could be worked into something viable?&#xD;&#xA;*Bis quaterna metra quadrata habet*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if anything like this is attested classically, so I don't mind getting more recent suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;I struggle to find a nice way to put this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33188" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11268" RevisionGUID="124da510-cd17-4d9b-a634-1bd2af383d2a" CreationDate="2019-08-06T17:29:04.193" UserId="79" Text="Two by four meters in size" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33189" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11268" RevisionGUID="124da510-cd17-4d9b-a634-1bd2af383d2a" CreationDate="2019-08-06T17:29:04.193" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|numbers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11269" RevisionGUID="29dd71c7-0b69-430b-a278-26d45ceb24f1" CreationDate="2019-08-06T20:35:23.553" UserId="985" Text="Caesar's a great source for stuff like this. In a passage of the *Civil war* that I was recently rereading, he uses the following expressions that involve an accusative of extent of space (I suppose, if we want to give it a label):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **storias** autem ex funibus ancoriariis tres in longitudinem parietum turris **latas IIII pedes** fecerunt… (BC 2.9.5)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'mats 4 feet wide'/'four-foot-wide mats'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ubi ex ea turri quae circum essent opera tueri se posse sunt confisi **musculum pedes LX longum** ex materia bipedali quem a turri latericia ad hostium turrim murumque perducerent facere instituerant. (BC 2.10.1)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'a shelter 60 feet long'/a 60-foot-long shelter'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you could say something *cubiculum metra II latum ac (metra) IV longum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not exactly as pithy as '2 by 4 meters,' but it's somewhat lighter than *latitudinem duorum et longitudinem quattuor metrorum habet*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your office were 8 meters square (as opposed to 8 square meters), you could adapt this bit from BC 2.8.2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **patebat** haec **quoquo versus pedes XXX**, sed parietum crassitudo pedes V.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It extends 30 feet on each side&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="07bde318-bc84-4bdc-9bf3-881be202d2b7" CreationDate="2019-08-06T23:36:16.920" UserId="9" Comment="fixed an error in my transcription of the Lindsay quote" Text="We don't know for sure how **-gn-** was pronounced in Classical Latin. There are a few arguments for reconstructing the pronunciation of **-&amp;#8288;gn-** as [ŋn], or more specifically [ŋ.n], with a syllable break between the two consonants. (This syllabification would explain why the preceding syllable is always metrically &quot;heavy&quot;—or in the misleading old-fashioned way of putting it, the preceding vowel is &quot;long by position&quot;. The idea that vowels before **-gn-** were always &quot;long by nature&quot; is probably erroneous; see Nathaniel's answer to [Are vowels long before “gn”?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/786/are-vowels-long-before-gn))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are also some complications with this reconstruction, and possible reasons to prefer reconstructing the pronunciation of **-gn-** as [g.n] (with a voiced oral velar plosive) for at least some time periods or some speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As usual, a good place to start for questions about Classical Latin pronunciation is W. Sidney Allen's *Vox Latina.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Several pieces of evidence point towards a pronunciation [ŋn] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen (p. 23) describes several reasons for thinking that **-gn-** was pronounced as [ŋn] in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###ĕ &gt; ĭ before [ŋ] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A vowel change of etymological short **e** to short **i** is seen before the clusters **ng**, **nc,** and **gn**; we can unify the description of these environments as &quot;before [ŋ]&quot; if we assume that **gn** represented [ŋn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sound change does not seem to have applied to **ĕ** before **-gm-**.   Allen says that this is commonly viewed as a sign that **-gm-** was not pronounced with [ŋ] (which is perhaps surprising from a theoretical point of view, as both M and N are nasal consonants, and they would generally be expected to have similar effects on the pronunciation of preceding consonants).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is generally assumed that *g* did not have a nasal pronunciation before *m*, as in *tegmen, segmentum,* since the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* does not occur in these words. However, since original *gm* seems to have given *mm* (e.g. *flamma* from *flag-ma*, cf. *flagro*), all examples of *gm* may have arisen later, e.g. by syncope, after the change of *ĕ* to *ĭ* was operative (cf. the unsyncopated forms *tegimen, integumentum*). The possibility of a pronunciation of *g* as [ŋ] here is therefore not entirely excluded-though it cannot be safely recommended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Allen 1978, p. 25) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sound change seems to be one of the strongest pieces of evidence for reconstructing the pronunciation of *-gn-* as [ŋn]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples: *d**i**gnus, il**i**gnus, l**i**gnum, s**i**gnum* (etymologies given below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Prefixing *in-* or *con-* to *gn-* gives *ign-* or *cogn-*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words like *cognatus* and *ignobilis* contain the prefixes *con-* and *in-,* which typically end in a nasal consonant that assimilates in place to a following plosive or nasal (as in *co**m**pugno, i**m**possibilis, co**m**mitto, i**m**mortalis*). If word-medial **gn** in Latin was pronounced as [ŋn], then the use of **gn** in these words can be explained as the result of the usual assimilation of /n/ &gt; [ŋ] before /g/, followed by a simplification of the tautosyllabic onset cluster /gn/ to /n/, with a heterosyllabic cluster [ŋ.n] as the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If **gn** was just pronounced as [gn], it would mean that the nasal consonant from the end of the prefixes was dropped entirely in these words. That seems a bit implausible to me, but I guess it's not impossible. In fact, I did find a source from the 19th century that argues for that interpretation of prefixed words containing **gn**, and rejects the [ŋ.n] interpretation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Had the Romans retained the **n** of the prepositions before **gn**, they would have felt bound to pronounce **ing-gnotus, cong-gnatus,** but would practically have pronounced **ing-notus, cong-natus.** But they did not retain the **n** and write **ingnotus, congnatus**, but **ignotus, cognatus**. What is the explanation ? Does this represent a pronunciation **ing-notus, cong-natus**, or **inyotus, conyatus**? Mr Munro (and I agree with him) holds that it does not. I account for it by supposing the Romans to have reduced the mass of consonants, the whole of which they were unable to pronounce, by omitting as usual (§ 31) the former **n**, that of the preposition, rather than the later and radical **n**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (Roby 1887, p. lxxxi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I am aware of a somewhat similar phenomenon to what Roby suggests (loss of a coda nasal because of phonotactic constraints) in the allomorphy of the Cypriot Greek definite article. According to Ringen and Vago (2011):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; In Cypriot Greek the definite articles *ton* (masculine) and *tin* (feminine) lose their final nasal consonant if the next word begins either with a consonant cluster or a geminate., motivated by a *CCC constraint. The facts are as in (11) (Muller 2001).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA; (11) Cypriot Greek definite article allomorphy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a. Final nasal stays before V or C&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;br&gt;ton ápparon 'the horse'&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;br&gt;ton tixon 'the wall'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;b. Final nasal deletes before CC&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ti psačín 'the poison'&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to flókkon 'the mop'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;c. Final nasal deletes before G&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to pparán 'the money'&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;to ttaván 'the stew'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*kn seems to have turned into *gn,* which might make more sense if *gn* = [ŋn]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Internal reconstruction and etymological comparison with other languages show that in some cases, Classical Latin **gn** seems to have originated from some kind of partial assimilation of *\*k* to a following *\*n*. Examples: *di**gn**us, īli**gn**us,* and ***gn**ixus,* an old spelling of *nīxus,* which is related to *nītor* (etymologies given below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The apparent replacement of *kn- with *gn-* would be somewhat surprising if *gn* were pronounced as [gn] with oral [g]. In general, we expect languages that have words that start with [gn] to also have words that start with [kn]: this is discussed in Sen (2015), which says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On the basis of a typological assessment of attested initial sequences, Stephens (1978) comes to [the conclusion that] initial &amp;lt;gn&gt; in Latin was pronounced [ŋn], since the data examined by Greenberg (1965) point to an implicational universal whereby languages which have initial [gn] also have initial [kn]; as early Latin shows no evidence for [kn], the sequence written &#xD;&#xA;&amp;lt;gn&gt; cannot have been [gn] and therefore must have had its word-internal value of [ŋn].&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;Cser (2011: 70-71, 78), however, points out that initial [ŋn] would be the only onset cluster containing (i) a nasal and (ii) two sonorant consonants, and concludes that in the intermediate stage between very early initial [gn] and eventual simple [n] (when, he argues, the lexical representations of these words contained a stem-initial floating C-Place node), the pronunciation 'must have involved a degree of variation [between [gn] and [n]] whose details are no longer fully recoverable'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 183)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in word-internal position, it's difficult for me to think of languages that have had a sound change of /k/ to oral [g] before /n/. In my accent of English, there may be a single isolated example of historical /kn/ to [gn] in the word &quot;acknowledge&quot; (I made an ELU post about it [here](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/469859/is-the-first-syllable-of-acknowledge-pronounced-with-g-by-any-notable-amount)), but that's not a regular sound change (and I have [kn] in many other words.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can only think of a few things that seem like they might be comparable in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The word *segmentum* is said to be etymologically related to *secō*: this looks like an example of ***k** voicing to oral [g] before **m** in Latin. Sen (2015) gives a somewhat complicated explanation for the use of [g] rather than [ŋ] here: he attributes it to differences in the timing of the pronunciation of /n/ and /m/. Apparently, /n/ is articulated more quickly than /m/, which is supposed to have caused more overlap with the preceding /g/, resulting in greater perception of [ŋ] which eventually led to phonologization of [ŋ] as a conditioned nasal allophone of /g/ before /n/, but not before /m/ (pp. 183-184). Sen suggests that the existence of variation between word-forms with /gm/ and /gVm/ in Latin provides some additional evidence for a longer transition between /g/ and /m/ than between /g/ and /n/: the specific examples are *drachma~drac(h)uma* and *tegmen~tegimen~tegumen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There may be an example of coda /k/ assimilating to become voiced, but non-nasal **g** before the resonant /l/:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Sen (2011a) argues that the sonorants /r, l, m, n/ were phonologically specified as [+voice] ... in syllable-initial position ... Hence, we see regressive voice assimilation triggered by a syllable-initial sonorant in *\*nek̲-l̲egoː* &gt; *neg̲l̲egoː* ‘I neglect’, *\*sek̲m̲entom* &gt; *seg̲m̲entum* ‘piece’ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (Sen 2012, p. 38)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  However, I'm not sure that the explanation that Sen gives here for the presence of /g/ in *neglego* is correct, because we also find *neg-* before vowels in the word *negotium,* and perhaps in *nego.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Hackstein (2017) says that *nego* may be derived from *nec* &gt; *neg,* and offers two alternative explanations of the voicing: either it could have been conditioned by the word-final position of the plosive, as in *ab* &lt; PIE \**apo,* or it could have originally been the result of assimilation in voicedness to a following voiced plosive (&quot;*\*nekwe deikō* &gt; *\*neg dīcō* like *\*apo-doukō* &gt; *abdūcō* (cf. Sommer 1948:275)&quot;) with the form *neg* later generalized for some reason before sounds other than voiced plosives (and then eventually lost again in favor of *nec,* except for in old compounds) (pp. 2-3). I'm left with the impression that we don't actually know exactly how *neg-* came to be used in words like *neglego.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Nasalization from regressive partial assimilation occurred in other Latin consonant clusters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparison with other clusters in Latin and their history suggests that *kn, *gn &gt; [ŋn] is a plausible sound change. Allen gives as an example the change of original *\*-pn-* to **-mn-** in Latin words such as *somnus.* Although *abn-,* with the letter B rather than M, occurred at the start of Latin words prefixed with *ab-,* Allen says that *a**mn**egauerit* actually exists as an inscriptional variant of *a**bn**egauerit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Assimilation of plosives to nasals before nasal consonants is known to be a sound change that has occurred in other languages; for example, in [Korean][2], coda plosives like **p t k** were nasalized to **m n ŋ** before nasal consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###There were spelling variants with -NGN- instead of -GN-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, the spelling &amp;lt;NGN&gt; is sometimes used instead of &amp;lt;GN&gt;. Ward (1944) gives a couple of examples: &quot;On inscriptions, even late ones, we find some spellings with *ngn,* as *singnifer, dingnissimē*&quot; (p. 73).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does seem natural to interpret &amp;lt;NGN&gt; as indicating that the preceding vowel was followed immediately by a nasal consonant, rather than by an oral plosive. However, I'm not sure how common or how significant this variant spelling is. Uncommon variant spellings aren't always closer to the standard pronunciation of a word than the standard spelling: for example, &quot;renpent&quot; exists as a rare misspelling of the English word &quot;repent&quot;, even though the typical pronunciation of this word contains no corresponding nasal consonant sound before the /p/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lindsay (1894) says &quot;*Singnifer,* on a soldier's grave (*C.I.L.* vi. 3637)&quot; (§69, p. 70) is best explained as an example of more general variation in inscriptions in the use of the letters N and M before consonants: &quot;Occasionally a nasal is wrongly inserted in plebeian and late inscriptions, *m* before Labials, *n* before Dentals and Gutterals, e.g. *semptem, singnifer*&quot; (§64, p. 66).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###However, Romance reflexes are often thought to point to [gn] rather than [ŋn]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see above, there are various pieces of evidence that support the reconstruction [ŋn]. But on the other hand, Allen says (p. 24) that some Romance words, such as French *lein* or Southern Italian *liunu* from Latin *lignum,* show the same development of coda *g* to a semivowel that occurs in non-nasal environments. This has been seen as evidence that the pronunciation [gn] may have been used after Classical times, possibly due to influence from the spelling. ([Maiden (1995)][3] also suggests this is a piece of evidence against reconstructing [ŋn] in Proto-Romance.) I'm a bit confused by this argument, though, because I'm not sure why [ŋ] is thought to be less likely than [g] to vocalize to [j] or [w]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen does say that the Sardinian reflex of *-nn-* makes sense as a development from [ŋn]. And Sihler (1995) views the Romance evidence as pointing towards a Latin pronunciation with [ŋn]: he treats the Romanian outcome of *-mn-* as a particularly strong piece of evidence in favor of [ŋn], but he also says that Italian [ɲː], as in *legno,* is &quot;easiest to understand if traced to an original [ŋn]&quot;, although &quot;it admits of other explanations&quot; (§220a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No Latin grammarians seem to mention a pronunciation of **-gn-** as [ŋn]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the supposed problems with explaining how the Romance reflexes of **-gn-** could have developed from [ŋn], Allen notes that Latin grammarians &quot;are strangely silent about any nasal pronunciation of *g*&quot; (p. 24). In contrast, there are descriptions of the pronunciation of *n* as [ŋ] before **g** or **c**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Linguistic sources do tend to classify -gn- as containing the *phoneme* /g/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, all of the discussion in the previous sections is about the phonetic realization of **gn**. As far as I know, from a phonemic perspective it's standard to analyze **gn** as /gn/, and it seems to behave this way in contexts like the formation of diminutives: for example, the nouns *signum, tignum* correspond to the diminutive forms *sigillum, tigillum* where the **g** would have been pronounced as [g]—a voiced velar plosive, not a nasal. (I don't know how old these diminutive formations are thought to be.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Relevant etymologies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *dignus*: from Proto-Indo-European *deḱ-, according to [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dignus) and Sihler 1995 (§220).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *īlignus* 'oaken': from the same root as *īlex, īlicis* 'holm-oak', according to Sihler 1995 (§220).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *lignum*: from Proto-Indo-European *leǵ-no-, according to [Wiktionary][4]&#xD;&#xA;- *nītor*: from Proto-Indo-European *kneygʷʰ-, according to [Wiktionary][1] and Sihler 1995 (§220). The related word *nixus* (=*nīxus*) is supposed to have an old spelling *gnixus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *signum*: from PIt. *seknom, according to [Wiktionary][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2017. Hackstein, Olav. &quot;[Latin *negō* \*‘not I’](http://linguistics.cornell.edu/sites/linguistics/files/ECIEC%20Handouts.pdf).&quot; The 36th East Coast Indo-European Conference. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2015. Sen, Ranjan. *[Syllable and Segment in Latin](https://books.google.com/books?id=1VTCBwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA183&amp;lpg=PA183&amp;dq=Latin+ŋn).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2012. Sen, Ranjan. &quot;Reconstructing Phonological Change: Duration and Syllable Structure in Latin Vowel Reduction&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;2011. Ringen, Catherine O. and Vago, Robert M. &quot;Geminates: Heavy or Long?&quot; *Handbook of the Syllable,* edited by Charles Cairns, Eric Raimy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1995. Maiden, Martin. *A Linguistic History of Italian.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1995. Sihler, Andrew L. *New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1978. Allen, W. Sidney. *Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin.* Second Edition.  (First edition published 1965)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1944. Ward, Ralph L. &quot;Afterthoughts on g as ŋ in Latin and Greek.&quot; *Language,* Vol. 20, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1944), pp. 73-77.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1894. Lindsay, W. M. *[The Latin Language: An Historical Account of Latin Sounds, Stems and Flexions](https://books.google.com/books?id=o8oqAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA70#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;a&gt;1887. Roby, Henry John. *[A grammar of the Latin language from Plautus to Suetonius](https://archive.org/details/grammaroflatinla00robyuoft/page/n85).*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nitor&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NN-yIdLOkCoC&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qK_8eXcCnu&amp;sig=u4MEiVBbuxhdzAg_rkkNX3D6RbY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiuvsbyo5HLAhXJsIMKHfWIA8UQ6AEIUzAH#v=onepage&amp;q=korean%20nasal%20assimilation&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=DwTKAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT127&amp;lpg=PT127&amp;dq=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=1yMQKpnTe6&amp;sig=0k2p71mE_-YTdkZtyU9t3lvDnyI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNsZS2xITZAhWCzlkKHbbjAvM4ChDoAQhCMAU#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20%C5%8B%20gn&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lignum&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/signum#Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10684" RevisionGUID="cb1895c3-9e91-4d8a-8143-fce744b6dd83" CreationDate="2019-08-07T01:06:49.547" UserId="9" Comment="Added citation for not assibilating at the start of a word" Text="There is no single standard for Latin pronunciation. The main division is between reconstructed pronunciation (based on our idea of what Classical Latin sounded like) vs. everything else. As Draconis mentioned, in reconstructed pronunciation &amp;lt;ti&gt; is just pronounced as a sequence of the T sound [t] followed by one of the two I sounds, **ĭ** [i~ɪ] or **ī** [iː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most other pronunciation systems, &amp;lt;ti&gt; has a special pronunciation where the T is &quot;assibilated&quot; in certain contexts. This phenomenon is based on a sound change that is thought to have occurred naturally in the development of the spoken language; however, I think that the &quot;rules&quot; or &quot;standards&quot; connecting the use of this pronunciation in modern speech to particular written contexts may be partly artificial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's thought that the original sound of the assibilated T was an affricate [t͡s]; in some languages such as French and English, this underwent further developments (to [s] or in English often to [ʃ] (the sound of &quot;sh&quot; in &quot;fish&quot;; for example, the English word *nation* is pronounced with [ʃ]). I don't know of any tradition of Latin pronunciation that uses an elongated sound in this context: in fact, I've heard that Ecclesiastical Latin has specifically **short** [t͡s] in words like *natio,* in contrast to the **long** [tt͡s] sound that many Italian speakers use in Italian words like *spazzi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, Latin *di* also developed an assibilated pronunciation [d͡z] (or in vulgar Latin, we often see an alternative development of *-di-* between vowels to a *j* or &quot;soft g&quot; sound), but I think that in modern spoken Latin *di* is typically not assibilated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the conditions that I know of for using the assibilated pronunciation of T in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##First, two clear conditions for not assibilating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ###Don't assibilate unless the I comes before another vowel&#xD;&#xA;The assibilated pronunciation of T in the sequence &amp;lt;ti&gt; developed only when the I was followed by another vowel. (The original conditioning factor for the assibilation may have been a change of I to a glide [j].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ###Don't assibilate after the sound [s] (whether spelled S or X)&#xD;&#xA;The assibilated pronunciation of T did not develop after the sound [s]. There are numerous examples with the spelling &amp;lt;sti&gt;; there aren't so many with the spelling &amp;lt;xti&gt;, but *mixtio* seems to be given by a number of sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (In English, the [tj] of words spelled with &amp;lt;sti&gt; and &amp;lt;xti&gt; developed for many speakers via palatalization to the affricate [t͡ʃ], as in the words *bestial* and *question.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Next, some unclear conditions for not assibilating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following conditions are either less clear, or more marginal in scope (or both).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. ###At the start of a word&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I would not assibilate the T in a word starting with &amp;lt;ti&gt; followed by a vowel. The only word I know of where this exception is relevant is the word *tiara*. I'm used to pronouncing [t] in the English word, and Italian also seems to have [t] rather than [t͡s] in *[tiara](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/tiara).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Lindsay 1894 cites Servius as saying that *-ti-* and *-di-* are subject to assibilation before a vowel in word-medial position, but not at the start of words: the examples given for non-assibilated *di-* and *ti-* are *dies* and *tiaras* (*[The Latin Language: An Historical Account of Latin Sounds, Stems and Flexions][1],* p 83, §90).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. ###After another T&#xD;&#xA;Supposedly, the assibilated pronunciation of T is not used in words spelled with &amp;lt;tti&gt;. There are very few examples of &amp;lt;tti&gt; followed by a vowel in Latin, so I asked a separate question to try to determine the evidence for this rule: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8824&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Despite the non-obviousness of this rule to me, sources seem to be fairly consistent in saying not to assibilate in this context, so I would recommend following that practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. ###In (some) words from Greek (maybe also applies to TY)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I've seen a few sources that say that T was not or should not be assibilated in words from Greek. According to Blair (1873), &quot;in Greek words (as *Aegyptius*), as the I is not consonantal, the T cannot be hissed&quot; (*[Latin Pronunciation: An Inquiry Into the Proper Sound of the Latin Language during the Classical Period](https://books.google.com/books?id=s3NXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA118),* p. 118). I have the impression that the actual pronunciation used with words of this sort is sporadic and might vary between different time periods. Despite what Blair says, I wouldn't recommend making a special exception for words like *Aegyptius.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. ###In certain forms of passive or deponent verbs with infinitives ending in *-ti*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In the infinitive *pati,* the I is not followed by a vowel, so it's regular to not assibilate the T. A number of sources say that the archaic infinitive forms ending in *-ier* like *patier* also have non-assibilated T, and so were exceptions to the rule (Blair gives *nitier* and *quatier* as examples, p. 118).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I found another source that seems to apply this exception also to finite forms such as *patior* (&quot;[The Correct Pronunciation of Latin According to Roman Usage](http://www.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/12/07/05/19-20-13_0.pdf)&quot;, by Michael de Angelis, p. 20). But I'm a bit doubtful that this is actually an observed as opposed to a theoretical exception. There seems to be a spelling variant *[pacior](https://books.google.com/books?id=OQYhDpaDH2MC&amp;pg=PA52&amp;lpg=PA52&amp;dq=%22pacior%22+%22pati%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pacior%22%20%22pati%22&amp;f=false),* which implies that at least some speakers at some point in time assibilated the T in this word (in some varieties of spoken Latin, assibilated T sounded the same as &quot;soft C&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. ###When the I is long and/or stressed (very uncertain to me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Blair (1873) says that the T in *totius* did not undergo the sound change of assibilation because the I was long (*tōtīus*) (p. 118). As Draconis mentioned, contrastive vowel length *per se* is lost in Ecclesiastical Latin, but it is not irrelevant in all cases to pronunciation: the position of stress in Ecclesiastical Latin corresponds to the stress of Classical Latin, which was assigned by a length-based rule. For example, *termĭnus* is stressed on the third-to-last syllable in both Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin, and *bovīnus* is stressed on the second-to-last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A complication in the case of *totius* is that an alternative scansion *tōtĭus* was used sometimes in poetry. I don't know whether this led to the development of an Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation *ˈto[t͡s]ius* with initial stress. If a pronunciation of *totius* with stress on the second syllable is/was used in Ecclesiastical Latin, I'm not entirely sure whether it would be more regular for it to be *to*ˈ[tsi]*us* or *to*[ˈti]*us*. This online &quot;[Guide to Latin Pronunciation](http://www.olrl.org/pray/gtolatin.shtml)&quot; does give *totius* (without marking of the stress) as an example of a word where *t* is pronounced as [t͡s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Long vowels rarely occur before other vowels in Latin. Aside from the small class of words with *-īus* genitives, such as *tōtīus,* *ī* followed by a vowel mainly shows up in words taken from Greek (which I mentioned above as a possible doubtful case for assibilation of T). Specifically, there are a fair number of words that end in *-tīa* (or at least, that are expected to based on the Greek form), such as *[necromantīa](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnecromantia)* and *goētīa.* I don't know whether these have any single established pronunciation in Ecclesiastical Latin, or whether there is variation between pronunciations like *necroˈman*[ts]*ia, necroman*ˈ[ts]*ia* and *necroman*ˈ[t]*ia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The English form *necromancy,* with [s], is ultimately descended from some form with assibilation, but I don't know the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Italian seems to have [ˈtsia] in the word *[negromanzia](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/negromanzia),* and also in some words from Greek *-τία* nouns like *[democrazia](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/democrazia)* (from δημοκρατία). (Note: even though Greek *-ία* actually has a short vowel, the I ended up being stressed in languages like Italian.) &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Italian does have nouns spelled with *-tia* and pronounced with [ˈtia], but all of the ones that I can find actually represent *-thia* (e.g. [simpatia][2]), so they don't seem directly relevant to the issue of pronouncing words that end in *-tia* in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Summary&#xD;&#xA;All in all, when speaking in Latin with an Ecclesiastical-style pronunciation, I wouldn't try to make any exceptions to the assibilation of T based on stress, historical vowel length, or language of origin (even though, as you can see, some sources suggest that there are exceptions related to these things). I would just stick with the simple rules about not assibilating after S, X, T, or at the very start of a word, and of course, not assibilating unless the T comes before an I followed by another vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=o8oqAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA83#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wordreference.com/iten/simpatia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11269" RevisionGUID="f25bdaa5-d2de-4774-94ad-15af7a45f528" CreationDate="2019-08-07T01:24:02.100" UserId="985" Comment="tweaks" Text="Caesar's a great source for stuff like this. In a passage of the *Civil war* that I was recently rereading, he uses the following expressions that involve an accusative of extent of space (I suppose, if we want to give it a label):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **storias** autem ex funibus ancoriariis tres in longitudinem parietum turris **latas IIII pedes** fecerunt… [*BC* 2.9.5]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'mats 4 feet wide'/'four-foot-wide mats'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ubi ex ea turri quae circum essent opera tueri se posse sunt confisi **musculum pedes LX longum** ex materia bipedali quem a turri latericia ad hostium turrim murumque perducerent facere instituerant. [*BC* 2.10.1]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'a shelter 60 feet long'/a 60-foot-long shelter'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you could say something like *cubiculum metra II latum ac* (*metra*) *IV longum* (*est*)*.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't quite as pithy as '2 by 4 meters,' but it's somewhat lighter than *cubiculum latitudinem duorum et longitudinem quattuor metrorum habet*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your office were 8 meters square (as opposed to 8 square meters), you could adapt this bit from *BC* 2.8.2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **patebat** haec **quoquo versus pedes XXX**, sed parietum crassitudo pedes V.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'It extends 30 feet on each side'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33194" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1903" RevisionGUID="a16a9e14-a4ad-41fe-b3f7-2cbd36f6be74" CreationDate="2019-08-07T01:28:12.290" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="|pronunciation|phonology|consonants|phonetics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11270" RevisionGUID="7a89447d-2091-468b-9ad8-600caaf0c395" CreationDate="2019-08-07T02:41:30.190" UserId="3248" Text="It is often said that one has an excellent command of a language when one is able to use it in an idiomatic way, which typically involves making use of [Idioms][1] and [Collocations][2], i.a. There are many collections of [Latin proverbs][3] available but I'd be interested in taking a look at materials containing Latin idioms and collocations. Are there any published materials, dictionaries, etc. available? Do you know of any present or future project of elaborating a dictionary of Latin idioms? I cannot imagine the immense satisfaction of many of us if we could have access to online dictionaries of Latin Idioms and/or bilingual dictionaries of idioms (e.g., Latin-English/English-Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More particularly, I'd be interested in knowing about idioms that involve **body parts** (NB: this type is quite widespread cross-linguistically/cross-culturally). For example, here is an example from Plautus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_nec caput nec pes sermoni apparet_ (Plaut., _Asin_. 729)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘what he says has neither head nor food’ // Cf. the Engl. idiomatic expression &quot;can’t make head nor tail&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This class of idioms involving body parts is typical of **colloquial** usage in many languages (e.g., cf. also [&quot;to cry one's eyes out&quot;][4]). So I'd expect that similar idioms could be found in Plautus's comedies or in Cicero's letters, for example. Any other suggestion where I could find them?           &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collocation&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Latin_proverbs&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11118/laughing-our-heads-off-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33196" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11270" RevisionGUID="7a89447d-2091-468b-9ad8-600caaf0c395" CreationDate="2019-08-07T02:41:30.190" UserId="3248" Text="Is there any database on idiomatic expressions in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33197" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11270" RevisionGUID="7a89447d-2091-468b-9ad8-600caaf0c395" CreationDate="2019-08-07T02:41:30.190" UserId="3248" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|latin-to-english-translation|roman-culture|dictionary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11260" RevisionGUID="4f9aed42-2d2b-42eb-bcd1-8e7e0ec73997" CreationDate="2019-08-07T03:58:00.523" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="I don't understand the imagery in [the quote below](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/catholic-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means_b_1978768) that I bolded:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The centerpiece of his research is the etymology or origin of the word “catholic.” While we do commonly use it to mean “universal,” Ong points out that the Latin or Roman Church (as distinct from the Orthodox or Eastern Church) had a word for universal in Latin — _universalis_. Ong asked:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; If “universal” is the adequate meaning of “catholic,” why did the Latin church, which in its vernacular language had the word _universalis_, not use this word but rather borrowed from Greek the term _katholikos_ instead, speaking of the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church (to put it into English) instead of the “one, holy, universal and apostolic church”?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Great question!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ong explains that it has a theological and practical significance. The origin of “universal” in Latin likely comes from the two root-words _unum_ (meaning “one”) and _vertere_ (meaning “turn”). **The image it evokes is something like an architect’s compass, which is used to make a circle around “one” central point.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=universe) avers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Latin *universum* &quot;all things, everybody, all people, the whole world,&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;noun use of neuter of adjective *universus* &quot;all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all,&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;literally &quot;**turned into one**,&quot; from *unus* &quot;one&quot; (from PIE root [*oi-no-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*oi-no-) &quot;one, unique&quot;) + *versus*,   &#xD;&#xA;past participle of *vertere* &quot;to turn, turn back, be turned; convert, transform, translate; be changed&quot;   &#xD;&#xA;(from PIE root [*wer-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*wer-) (2) &quot;to turn, bend&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what exactly does [a pair of compasses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass_(drawing_tool)) 'turn around one central point'? It feels humdrum to turn an area of previously blank space on a paper around one central point?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11271" RevisionGUID="7d8102a3-83e5-450a-9231-5cc5137d693e" CreationDate="2019-08-07T04:18:46.450" UserId="406" Text="It's important to remember that *vertere* doesn't only mean a literal rotation: the Romans used the word to mean &quot;change&quot;, too, just like English-speakers talk about something &quot;turning bad&quot;, or &quot;turning into&quot; something else. In fact, the Latin word is at the root of English &quot;convert&quot;, &quot;subvert&quot;, and &quot;revert&quot;, all of which derive from the metaphorical meaning instead of the literal one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in this case, I think the metaphor of a compass makes sense (you rotate a compass to draw a circle)—but it's not particularly relevant to the meaning of *universus*. Instead, I would think about a large collection of disparate objects, which have been turned (*versus*) into a single collective entity (*unus*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11270" RevisionGUID="ecf716a7-433a-43d1-98c1-7ca75ec2b360" CreationDate="2019-08-07T06:12:04.950" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="It is often said that one has an excellent command of a language when one is able to use it in an idiomatic way, which typically involves making use of [Idioms][1] and [Collocations][2], i.a. There are many collections of [Latin proverbs][3] available but I'd be interested in taking a look at materials containing Latin idioms and collocations. Are there any published materials, dictionaries, etc. available? Do you know of any present or future project of elaborating a dictionary of Latin idioms? I cannot imagine the immense satisfaction of many of us if we could have access to online dictionaries of Latin Idioms and/or bilingual dictionaries of idioms (e.g., Latin-English/English-Latin). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More particularly, I'd be interested in knowing about idioms that involve **body parts** (NB: this type is quite widespread cross-linguistically/cross-culturally). For example, here is an example from Plautus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_nec caput nec pes sermoni apparet_ (Plaut., _Asin_. 729)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘what he says has neither head nor foot’ // Cf. the Engl. idiomatic expression &quot;can’t make head nor tail&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This class of idioms involving body parts is typical of **colloquial** usage in many languages (e.g., cf. also [&quot;to cry one's eyes out&quot;][4]). So I'd expect that similar idioms could be found in Plautus's comedies or in Cicero's letters, for example. Any other suggestion where I could find them?           &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collocation&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Latin_proverbs&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11118/laughing-our-heads-off-in-latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11272" RevisionGUID="d2048b50-d01e-46c3-a0d2-0ed2e11aa314" CreationDate="2019-08-07T08:17:32.577" UserId="3095" Text="In their [&quot;Open Loop University&quot; concept vision](http://www.stanford2025.com/open-loop-university/), Stanford introduces &quot;populi&quot; as the next conceptual step after &quot;alumni&quot;. Examples of usage follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...we now have a populi of 215,000 ongoing students...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Populi could earn C3 by teaching master classes...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this bad Latin? &quot;Populus&quot; does not mean &quot;person as a part of a population/nation&quot;, it refers to the population/nation itself, so populus-populi is not similar to alumnus-alumni. Am I missing something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, what would be a better usage for the second example? Perhaps it would help to use a word whose singular actually means a person, e.g. socius, amicus, civis even?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33202" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11272" RevisionGUID="d2048b50-d01e-46c3-a0d2-0ed2e11aa314" CreationDate="2019-08-07T08:17:32.577" UserId="3095" Text="Is &quot;Stanford populi&quot; bad Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33203" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11272" RevisionGUID="d2048b50-d01e-46c3-a0d2-0ed2e11aa314" CreationDate="2019-08-07T08:17:32.577" UserId="3095" Text="|english|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11273" RevisionGUID="f3fbc64a-5cfb-4c83-8a61-76c21fd7bc51" CreationDate="2019-08-07T08:41:58.843" UserId="324" Text="You are right, this is terrible Latin. They could have said: &quot;we now have a **populus** of 215,000 ongoing students&quot;. If it really has to be Latin, that is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33205" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11251" RevisionGUID="22b8a26e-2295-4a42-a883-17fd3c45c430" CreationDate="2019-08-07T13:12:25.823" UserId="31" Comment="Improve tags" Text="|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33206" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11251" RevisionGUID="22b8a26e-2295-4a42-a883-17fd3c45c430" CreationDate="2019-08-07T13:12:25.823" Comment="Proposed by 31 approved by 9, 79 edit id of 326" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11274" RevisionGUID="d02ff21f-ee73-4747-aa84-bd917d6e41fc" CreationDate="2019-08-07T17:25:28.587" UserId="2922" Text="&lt;p&gt;The difference between &quot;vero&quot; and &quot;verum&quot; as adversative conjunctions is that &quot;vero&quot;, usually at the second place in a clause, indicates smooth transition to something different, contrasting or mildly contrary, &lt;i&gt;without interrupting the narration&lt;/i&gt;: it connects rather than separates. Whereas &quot;verum&quot;, usually starting a clause, makes a break that finishes the preceding clause and sets the coming clause against it. &quot;Verum&quot; is similar to &quot;sed&quot; in this regard, while &quot;vero&quot; is much like &quot;autem. The &quot;verum&quot;/&quot;vero&quot; pair adds to the &quot;sed&quot;/&quot;autem&quot; pair a sense of assurance or affirmation (due to their primary meaning &quot;in truth&quot;). It is like saying &quot;but forget what I just said and focus on this: ...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The explanation in Zumpt seems to me pretty helpful (§348):&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.logicmuseum.com/latin/conjunctions.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.logicmuseum.com/latin/conjunctions.htm&lt;/a&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11269" RevisionGUID="5b242fdc-133b-45d0-89cf-44663bc4a85b" CreationDate="2019-08-07T20:57:37.397" UserId="985" Comment="Slightly expanded in some parts, tweaked a bit in others" Text="Caesar's a great source for stuff like this. Near the beginning of book 2 of the *Civil war*, there's a detailed description of a novel type of tower and moveable shelter that some of his soldiers devised at Massilia. Here, Caesar uses the adjectives *longus* and *latus*, and then puts the measurement in the accusative (an accusative of extent of space, I suppose):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **storias** autem ex funibus ancoriariis tres in longitudinem parietum turris **latas IIII pedes** fecerunt… [*BC* 2.9.5]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'mats 4 feet wide'/'four-foot-wide mats' (lit., 'mats wide to an extent of 4 feet')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ubi ex ea turri quae circum essent opera tueri se posse sunt confisi **musculum pedes LX longum** ex materia bipedali quem a turri latericia ad hostium turrim murumque perducerent facere instituerant. [*BC* 2.10.1]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'a shelter 60 feet long'/a 60-foot-long shelter' (lit., 'a shelter long to an extent of 60 feet')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, you can say something like *cubiculum metra II latum ac* (*metra*) *IV longum* (*est*), or the office can be described as *metra II latum ac IV longum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't quite as pithy as '2 by 4 meters,' but it's somewhat lighter than *cubiculum latitudinem duorum et longitudinem quattuor metrorum habet*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the length and width of the office are equal, you can adapt this bit from earlier in the same passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **patebat** haec **quoquo versus pedes XXX**, sed parietum crassitudo pedes V. [*BC* 2.8.2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'It extends 30 feet on each side'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: *quoquo versus* can also be written as a single word, and *versum* and *vorsum* are sometimes found instead of *versus*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, for an office that is 8 meters square (as opposed to 8 square meters), you can say *cubiculum patet quoquoversum metra VIII*, or the office can be described as *metra VIII quoquoversum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11276" RevisionGUID="eb9f14b2-d265-42cc-b189-c6339e9026e4" CreationDate="2019-08-08T08:30:21.430" UserId="3645" Text="Is perfect participle, in spite of the general notion, used both as perfect passive participle and perfect **active** participle?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Spinoza, Ethics, De Dei, Propositio 15, Scholium:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;nam omnes qui naturam divinam aliquo modo **contemplati** sunt, negant Deum esse corporeum&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;White translates it:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;for all men who **have** in any way **looked** into the divine nature deny that God is corporeal&#xD;&#xA;&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33215" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11276" RevisionGUID="eb9f14b2-d265-42cc-b189-c6339e9026e4" CreationDate="2019-08-08T08:30:21.430" UserId="3645" Text="Using perfect participle as perfect active participle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33216" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11276" RevisionGUID="eb9f14b2-d265-42cc-b189-c6339e9026e4" CreationDate="2019-08-08T08:30:21.430" UserId="3645" Text="|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11276" RevisionGUID="2d894e60-bf76-40d6-a4b6-060e8cd10c1f" CreationDate="2019-08-08T09:25:24.500" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Is perfect participle, in spite of the general notion, used both as perfect passive participle and perfect **active** participle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spinoza, Ethics, De Dei, Propositio 15, Scholium:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;nam omnes qui naturam divinam aliquo modo **contemplati** sunt, negant Deum esse corporeum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;White translates it:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;for all men who **have** in any way **looked** into the divine nature deny that God is corporeal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33218" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11276" RevisionGUID="2d894e60-bf76-40d6-a4b6-060e8cd10c1f" CreationDate="2019-08-08T09:25:24.500" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|translation-explanation|participle|spinoza|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11277" RevisionGUID="7703de43-0571-4eb7-bc7a-25b6484be9e8" CreationDate="2019-08-08T09:28:31.357" UserId="79" Text="This is a deponent verb.&#xD;&#xA;Both the normal *contemplare* and the deponent *contemplari* exist and mean roughly the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;I have the impression that the deponent one is more common, but the details surely depends on the era and author.&#xD;&#xA;The deponent verb has passive forms but active meaning, and therefore the passive perfect participle has active meaning too.&#xD;&#xA;The active counterpart of *contemplati sunt* would be *contemplaverunt*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11278" RevisionGUID="e1805866-5c12-4e3f-a695-117b00864d54" CreationDate="2019-08-08T09:29:51.160" UserId="2646" Text="In Spanish, the word *[cuesta][1]* is nowadays used as *slope*. Nonetheless, the etymology of the word indicates that it comes fom Latin *[costa, ae][2]* meaning &quot;a side&quot; but also &quot;a rib&quot;. In fact, an old meaning for the Spanish word *cuesta* is &quot;costilla&quot; (Spanish for &quot;rib&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This said, there's this Spanish expression, *llevar algo a cuestas* (&quot;to carry something on one's back&quot;). I have looked for the origin of the expression but it goes as *back* as the 12th century. It appears on the first preserved manuscript of *Cantar de Myo Çid*, so it probably originated before. Given the etymology of *cuesta* as &quot;rib&quot;, the sense of the expression would be that of &quot;carrying something over one's ribs&quot;. And given that the expression is very old, I wonder:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did the Latin language have a similar expression, using the word *costa*, to convey the meaning of &quot;carrying something on one's back&quot;, either on the classical or medieval periods?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://dle.rae.es/?id=BaxmI1N&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=costa&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33221" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11278" RevisionGUID="e1805866-5c12-4e3f-a695-117b00864d54" CreationDate="2019-08-08T09:29:51.160" UserId="2646" Text="Latin expression for &quot;carrying something on one's back&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33222" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11278" RevisionGUID="e1805866-5c12-4e3f-a695-117b00864d54" CreationDate="2019-08-08T09:29:51.160" UserId="2646" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|medieval-latin|spanish|vulgar-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11277" RevisionGUID="4a205b19-b5a5-4db7-9204-81586d122d42" CreationDate="2019-08-08T09:49:54.410" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="This is a deponent verb.&#xD;&#xA;Both the normal *contemplare* and the deponent *contemplari* exist and mean roughly the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;I have the impression that the deponent one is more common, but the details surely depend on the era and author.&#xD;&#xA;The deponent verb has passive forms but active meaning, and therefore the passive perfect participle has active meaning too.&#xD;&#xA;The active counterpart of *contemplati sunt* would be *contemplaverunt*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11279" RevisionGUID="444667a9-e45e-450c-8540-88344588abbf" CreationDate="2019-08-08T11:42:17.577" UserId="79" Text="The words &quot;I want&quot; and &quot;I fly&quot; are both *vol&amp;omacr;*.&#xD;&#xA;Was there ever any difference in pronunciation in the classical era or later?&#xD;&#xA;I expect such differences to be more likely in vulgar Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question arises from Italian, where the two forms are *voglio* and *volo*.&#xD;&#xA;This *-gli-* instead of *-l-* may well be due to interference with other forms of the irregular verb, but it could also be a reflex of a difference that developed within Latin.&#xD;&#xA;If there is no such difference, then the distinction must be a Romance or Italian invention.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any differences in pronunciation between the two *vol&amp;omacr;*'s, but I've been surprised before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33225" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11279" RevisionGUID="444667a9-e45e-450c-8540-88344588abbf" CreationDate="2019-08-08T11:42:17.577" UserId="79" Text="Was there ever a difference between 'volo' and 'volo'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33226" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11279" RevisionGUID="444667a9-e45e-450c-8540-88344588abbf" CreationDate="2019-08-08T11:42:17.577" UserId="79" Text="|verbs|pronunciation|language-evolution|vulgar-latin|italian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11280" RevisionGUID="4b04f70b-d1e8-4e64-b4bb-4d2738e21737" CreationDate="2019-08-08T11:43:38.557" UserId="9" Text="[Lewis and Short][1] has an entry for a noun *tŭdes,* with the genitive singular given as &quot;is (ĭtis, acc. to Fest. p. 253 Müll.)&quot;. It is defined as &quot;a hammer, mallet&quot;. The two citations in the entry show the forms *tudites* and *tudibus*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  “tudites malleos appellant antiqui a tundendo,” Fest. p. 352 sq. Müll.: fabriles operae tudibus contundere massas Festinant, Auct. Aetnae, 659.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the first quote to be saying that *tudites* is an old word for *malleos,* so I'm unsure whether the word was even really in use in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main thing I'm wondering is where the nominative *tudes* and genitive *tudis* are attested. I tried to search for them in the PHI Latin Texts corpus, but nothing came up. Also, the [Wiktionary entry][2] and a [blog post][3] I found indicate the existence of an i-stem genitive plural *tudium,* but I likewise cannot figure out where this is attested. What kinds of Latin texts used the word *tudes*? Can anyone provide quotes that use the other forms aside from the accusative plural *tudites* and ablative plural *tudibus*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=tudes&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tudes&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latinforaddicts.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/i-stems-mixed-i-stems-58/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33228" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11280" RevisionGUID="4b04f70b-d1e8-4e64-b4bb-4d2738e21737" CreationDate="2019-08-08T11:43:38.557" UserId="9" Text="Where does the word &quot;tudes&quot; 'hammer' show up in texts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33229" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11280" RevisionGUID="4b04f70b-d1e8-4e64-b4bb-4d2738e21737" CreationDate="2019-08-08T11:43:38.557" UserId="9" Text="|vocabulary|declension|noun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11281" RevisionGUID="4e0d1f7e-31c6-475d-b929-637c7adda612" CreationDate="2019-08-08T12:14:27.033" UserId="9" Text="The Wiktionary article on Italian *[volere][1]* says that, as the infinitive suggests, the verb was moved to the second conjugation in Vulgar Latin, so it traces it to a &quot;Vulgar Latin *volēre&quot;. The *-gli-* in the first person singular would come from *-le-* before a vowel, as in *paglia* from *palea.* I don't see any indication that the form *volō* &quot;want&quot; and *volō* &quot;fly&quot; ever had distinct pronunciations in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/volere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11281" RevisionGUID="c60b003f-a4c1-4f4e-a497-4f1deac5b478" CreationDate="2019-08-08T12:19:45.660" UserId="9" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="The Wiktionary article on Italian *[volere][1]* says that, as the infinitive suggests, the verb was moved to the second conjugation in Vulgar Latin, so it traces it to a &quot;Vulgar Latin *volēre&quot;. The *-gli-* in the first person singular would come from *-le-* before a vowel, as in Italian *paglia* from Latin *palea.* I don't see any indication that the form *volō* &quot;want&quot; ever had a distinct pronunciation from the form *volō* &quot;fly&quot;  in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/volere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11281" RevisionGUID="95beb857-f10c-48ff-955e-d02f8515c7bc" CreationDate="2019-08-08T12:35:46.717" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="The Wiktionary article on Italian *[volere][1]* says that, as the infinitive suggests, the verb was moved to the second conjugation in Vulgar Latin, so it traces it to a &quot;Vulgar Latin *volēre&quot;. The *-gli-* in *voglio* would come from *-le-* before a vowel (through steps something like [le] &gt; [lj] &gt; [ʎː]), as in Italian *paglia* from Latin *palea.* I don't see any indication that the form *volō* &quot;want&quot; ever had a distinct pronunciation from the form *volō* &quot;fly&quot;  in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/volere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11282" RevisionGUID="ea0be5c1-d9c0-4af7-bd1d-6524dcd77100" CreationDate="2019-08-08T12:52:10.663" UserId="324" Text="volō can indeed mean either “I want” or “I fly”, but the other forms of the two words are different (e.g. infinitive velle vs volāre), so they were definitely perceived as different words and this difference is expanded in Romance. Like Italian, French also has vouloir &lt; *volēre and voler &lt; volāre. The infinitive *volēre is not attested as such, but it is implied by the Vulgar Latin gerundive volendi (Augustine no less). Much information here: https://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/vouloir at the end of the article." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11281" RevisionGUID="e445dd3e-f950-439f-98da-5751907e8907" CreationDate="2019-08-08T13:38:58.213" UserId="9" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The Wiktionary article on Italian *[volere][1]* says that, as the infinitive suggests, the verb was moved to the second conjugation in Vulgar Latin, so it traces it to a &quot;Vulgar Latin *volēre&quot;. The *-gli-* in *voglio* would come from *-le-* before a vowel (through steps something like [le] &gt; [lj] &gt; [ʎː]), as in Italian *paglia* from Latin *palea.* I don't see any indication that the form *volō* &quot;I want&quot; ever had a distinct pronunciation from the form *volō* &quot;I fly&quot; in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/volere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11283" RevisionGUID="ecaa44dd-f30d-4bcb-b8d8-60ef8abe1981" CreationDate="2019-08-08T13:58:38.403" UserId="324" Text="The &quot;declension&quot; table in Wiktionary is purely hypothetical; it does not prove that any of these forms actually occur in any text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The attested abl. pl. tudibus implies nom. sing. tudis or tudes. It is normal lexicographic practice to lemmatize all nouns under a (real or hypothetical) nom. sing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33236" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11276" RevisionGUID="f9bbbdff-b240-43a7-bc78-85c3d292614f" CreationDate="2019-08-08T16:56:18.507" />
  <row Id="33237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11207" RevisionGUID="7e5366ff-9bcc-4e01-8010-d6292eab0342" CreationDate="2019-08-08T17:17:52.623" UserId="13" Comment="added update 3" Text="[This Italian Sappho anthology](https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/11675/1/Saffo_frammenti_2015.pdf), on p. 57-58, has a fusion of several Lobel-Page fragments (cfr [this question of mine](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10685/tracing-mysterious-line-ends-in-a-combination-of-sappho-fragments-found-in-an-it)), among which is 67(a). In l. 3 of that fragment, which is l. 16 of the fusion, the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;δ]αίμων ὀλοφ . [&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is completed to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;δ]αίμων ὀλόφω[ι&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last word, ὀλόφῳ, is untraceable for me. It would seem to be a dative form from *ὄλοφος, but that doesn't seem to exist (Wiktionary and Perseus and my big Rocci dictionary all fail to report it), and Perseus doesn't find it as an inflected form either. The following part of the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κ]αὶ τοῦτ' ἐπίκει̣[ρε &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ] θέλ' ὦν τ' ἄπαισαν&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δ]αίμων ὀλόφ[ωι &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; τέ]λ̣εσον νόημμα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would seem to correspond to the following part of the translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;e anche questo (mio male) tu voglia (eliminare); perciò tu, che fra tutte (sei) la dea dai pensieri più astuti, dai compimento al mio pensiero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which in English reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and this (pain of mine) may you also want to (eliminate); thus you, who (are) the goddess of the most astute thoughts among all [goddesses], give fulfilment to my thought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;And this … also&quot; matches καὶ τοῦτ'. &quot;may you … want&quot; might match θέλ(ε), if that is what we take that word to be elided from. &quot;(pain of mine)&quot; goes into the lacuna, hence the brackets. We have to assume &quot;(eliminate)&quot; matches ἐπίκει[ρε, perhaps mis-accented and meant to be ἐπικεί[ρην, an infinitive. &quot;thus you&quot;  matches ὦν τ(υ). &quot;among all [goddesses]&quot; would seem to match ἄπαισαν, which however, if genitive plural, should be ἀπαίσαν. δαίμων matches &quot;goddess&quot;. &quot;give fulfilment to my thought&quot; is τέλεσον νόημμα. We have left to match &quot;of the most astute thoughts&quot; and the mystery word. Um, problem: the English is too long. I mean, that word can't be a superlative, right? This word would then have to match either &quot;thoughts&quot; or &quot;astute&quot;. However, neither give me anything close to this in Woodhouse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is this word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After thinking it might be a verb, I googled ὀλοφόω, and landed on [this](https://books.google.it/books?id=4ztEAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA172&amp;lpg=PA172&amp;dq=%E1%BD%80%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%86%CF%8C%CF%89&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=fUJ8BQmhan&amp;sig=ACfU3U1VPY4pf1KfihutLiqWrOwtRnahzg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjbreHV89XjAhXOGewKHfaeCFkQ6AEwAXoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%E1%BD%80%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%86%CF%8C%CF%89&amp;f=false), where on p. 172 we find the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me try to copy those screenshots:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ὀλοφώϊος, ὁ, ἡ, s.v.a. ὀλοὸς, bey Nicander σίνη ὀλοφώϊα θηρῶν, verderblich, tödlich; bey Homer sind ὀλοφώϊα δήνεα Κίρκης, 10, 289, ὀλοφώϊα εἰδὼς, 17, 248. statt ὀλοφώϊος ὤν. Von ὄλω, ὄλλω, ὀλλύω, ὄλλυμι, kommt auch ὀλόω (ὀλοὸς), ὀλόπω, ὀλόπτω, ὀλόφω, ὀλοφόω, wie von ἐλέπω, ἔλπω, ἐλπὶς, ἐλέφω, ἐλεφάω, ἐλεφαίρω. S. auch ὀλοφύρομαι. Andere leiten es von ὄλω u. φὼς ab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With my shaky German, this should mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ὀλοφώϊος, ὁ, ἡ, (s.v.a.=?) ὀλοὸς, _apud_ Nicander σίνη ὀλοφώϊα θηρῶν, pernicious, deadly; _apud_ Homer there are ὀλοφώϊα δήνεα Κίρκης, 10, 289, ὀλοφώϊα εἰδὼς, 17, 248. instead of ὀλοφώϊος ὤν. From ὄλω, ὄλλω, ὀλλύω, ὄλλυμι, comes also ὀλόω (ὀλοὸς), ὀλόπω, ὀλόπτω, ὀλόφω, ὀλοφόω, like from ἐλέπω, ἔλπω, ἐλπὶς, ἐλέφω, ἐλεφάω, ἐλεφαίρω. See also ὀλοφύρομαι. Others derive it from ὄλω and φὼς.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of all the verbs mentioned with ὀλοφόω, whence my supplement could stem from, I only find ὀλόπτω on [Perseus][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But does όει contract to ῳ, so that ὀλοφόω gives ὀλοφόει&gt;ὀλοφῷ which barytonizes to ὀλόφῳ in Aeolic? And assuming it does, how does &quot;pluck out, tear out&quot; fit in that translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just realized I didn't even look in the anthology's notes. Now, footnote 425 on that page refers to l. 14, footnote 427 is about τέλεσον νόημμα, so the only footnote which could be about this supplement is 426:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Integrazione di E. Puglia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So at least we have a name to our mystery: Enzo Puglia suggested that mysterious supplement. One could think 427 is about both, but it says &quot;Integrazione di Hunt&quot;, and Campbell tells me Hunt suggested ὀλοφ[ώϊος there. Moreover, [this thing](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gennaro_Tedeschi/publication/258993476_Saffo_Biografia_e_antologia_di_versi/links/00b7d5298c746c81c2000000/Saffo-Biografia-e-antologia-di-versi.pdf) has the exact same combination + translation, and the matching note is referred to &quot;(eliminare)&quot;. Ummm… Scouring through the biblio of that thing, we find two E. Puglia references:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. E. Puglia, Per la ricomposizione del quarto libro dei canti di Saffo (POxy 1787), «SemRom»  X (2007), pp. 17-39 &#xD;&#xA; 2. E. Puglia, P. Oxy. 2294 e la tradizione delle odi di Saffo, «ZPE»  166 (2008), pp.1-8 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will now look at those, if I find them, and if one of them contains the answer, I will self-answer. Before I leave you, however, let me remark how the biblio is ordered randomly instead of alphabetically: big boos to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE 3**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the sake of completeness, here is the full text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][5]][5][![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... dagli dèi beati avendo ottenuto&lt;sup&gt;425&lt;/sup&gt;... e anche questo (mio male) tu voglia (eliminare)&lt;sup&gt;426&lt;/sup&gt;; perciò tu, che fra tutte (sei) la dea dai pensieri più astuti, dai compimento al mio pensiero&lt;sup&gt;427&lt;/sup&gt;. Tu certo mi amavi ed eri solita (appagare ogni) mia invocazione; per (realizzarla) adesso (aiutami) secondo l'animo (mio&lt;sup&gt;428&lt;/sup&gt;).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(La dea mi rispondeva così):&lt;sup&gt;429&lt;/sup&gt; &quot;Per te non è (disdicevole) questo motivo e quello che tu vuoi&lt;sup&gt;430&lt;/sup&gt; (ottenere non) è affatto eccessivo (da avere ... infatti combattere con me&lt;sup&gt;431&lt;/sup&gt; (non può)&lt;sup&gt;432&lt;/sup&gt; neppure Andromeda&lt;sup&gt;433&lt;/sup&gt;, (ma per  ciò  che  ha  fatto)&lt;sup&gt;434&lt;/sup&gt;  confidando  in  una  (vita)  voluttuosa  (non)  potrà  sfuggire&lt;sup&gt;435&lt;/sup&gt;  (agli  immortali&lt;sup&gt;436&lt;/sup&gt;);  tu infatti sai bene&lt;sup&gt;437&lt;/sup&gt; che Nemesi (colpisce chi medita infamie e)&lt;sup&gt;438&lt;/sup&gt; prevale su tutti.&quot; O Saffo, poiché ti ama&lt;sup&gt;439&lt;/sup&gt; (applicò al carro) le ruote e (per te)la veneranda sovrana&lt;sup&gt;440&lt;/sup&gt; di Cipro (andò a supplicare Zeus e il Cronide le)  accordò  (di  concederti)  un  grande  dono:&lt;sup&gt;441&lt;/sup&gt;  che  tutti  quanti  il  (Sole)  splendente  (circonda  con  i  suoi raggi)&lt;sup&gt;442&lt;/sup&gt;... ovunque siano raggiunti dalla (tua nobile)fama&lt;sup&gt;443&lt;/sup&gt;... e che tu sulle (rive) di Acheronte&lt;sup&gt;444&lt;/sup&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Line 14 corrisponds perfectly with «dagli dèi beati avendo ottenuto» (having obtained from the blissful gods);&#xD;&#xA; - The part we discussed above seems to have to match with the part of the translation I mentioned above, since then «dai compimento al mio pensiero» (give fulfilment to my thought) obviously matches τέλεσον νόημμα;&#xD;&#xA; - That famous footnote 426 &quot;Integrazione di E. Puglia&quot; actually refers to &quot;eliminare&quot;, which would seem to match ἐπικεῖρε as per above; however, since Puglia combined (I believe) the fragments, that article might still give clues to the mystery supplement;&#xD;&#xA; - «Tu certo mi amavi» (You certainly loved me) matches σὺ μὰν ἐφίλης plus an implied μ(ε);&#xD;&#xA; - «ed eri solita (appagare ogni) mia invocazione» seems to match virtually nothing, since all we have is ]έτων κάλημμι, and then we end up in the next item;&#xD;&#xA; - «per (realizzarla) adesso (aiutami) secondo l'animo (mio)» (to (realize it) now (help me) according to (my) soul) matches the last line of the first pic, with πεδὰ θῦμον αἶψα = «secondo l'animo (mio) [subito]» (αἶψα was somehow ignored), and νῦν δ' ἔννεκα = «per (realizzarla) adesso»;&#xD;&#xA; - «(La dea mi rispondeva così)» is a very intricate translation for ἔφα, &quot;(the goddess) said&quot;;&#xD;&#xA; - «Per te non è (disdicevole) questo motivo e quello che tu vuoi (ottenere non) è affatto eccessivo (da avere» (fixing a few blatant bracketing errors, &quot;(For you) this reason is not unseemly, and what you want to get (is) not at all excessive (to have)&quot;) matches the ἔφα line and the following οὔδεν πόλυ; their reason for adding &quot;for you&quot; is mysterious, but whatever;&#xD;&#xA; - «infatti combattere con me» (indeed fight with me) matches γὰρ ἔμοι μάχεσθαι;&#xD;&#xA; - «(non può)&lt;sup&gt;432&lt;/sup&gt; neppure Andromeda, (ma per  ciò&#xD;&#xA;   che  ha  fatto)» (even Andromeda (can't, but for what she has done)) would seem to match δεῖ σ', Ἀνδρομέδαν, though the &quot;even&quot; is not there and &quot;δεῖ σ'&quot; is ignored, and the lacuna, with its mere two syllables, can hardly contain all that stuff;&#xD;&#xA; - Note 432 reads «οὐ supplemento di Ferrari, γάρ è integrazione di Hunt»; γὰρ I can see, but the only οὐ is in the next line, so the note is misplaced, or it's BS;&#xD;&#xA; - «confidando  in  una  (vita)     voluttuosa» (confiding in a voluptuous (life)) perfectly matches διαίτᾳ χλιδάνᾳ πίθεισα;  &#xD;&#xA; - «(non)  potrà     sfuggire  (agli    &#xD;&#xA;   immortali);» (will (not) be able to escape (the immortals)) matches οὐ λελάθην ἀθανάτοις ἔστι, literally «it is not possible that the immortals have forgotten (sc. Andromeda)»;&#xD;&#xA; - Isn't that line inmetrical? It looks like –u– –uuu– –uu–u–u… anaclasis, perhaps? But it's a one-off thing due to supplements… very unconvincing; waith though, it's λελᾰ́θειν, not λελᾱ́θειν, so if the privative alpha were long we'd be OK; and it seems it is, so nothing to see here;&#xD;&#xA; - «tu    infatti sai bene» = σὺ δ' εὖ γὰρ οἶσθα;&#xD;&#xA; - «che      Nemesi (colpisce chi    medita    infamie e)&#xD;&#xA;   prevale su       tutti» is exactly l. 23, and ends the response of the goddess;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest, I leave uncommented. So we have more than just one translation problem here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/drq8y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2jjBK.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=oloptw&amp;la=greek#Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=o)lo/ptw-contents&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZtuKq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cu4su.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/B5wPa.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11279" RevisionGUID="34d06765-381a-4880-9276-9939fe8e4e0c" CreationDate="2019-08-08T19:39:21.997" UserId="79" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="The words &quot;I want&quot; and &quot;I fly&quot; are both *vol&amp;omacr;*.&#xD;&#xA;Was there ever any difference in pronunciation in the classical era or later?&#xD;&#xA;I expect such differences to be more likely in vulgar Latin.&#xD;&#xA;The rest of the forms of these two words differ, so the question only concerns this particular form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question arises from Italian, where the two forms are *voglio* and *volo*.&#xD;&#xA;This *-gli-* instead of *-l-* may well be due to interference with other forms of the irregular verb, but it could also be a reflex of a difference that developed within Latin.&#xD;&#xA;If there is no such difference, then the distinction must be a Romance or Italian invention.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any differences in pronunciation between the two *vol&amp;omacr;*'s, but I've been surprised before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33244" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11279" RevisionGUID="1d5d9026-0e91-49d1-9a8e-a031a4ec2459" CreationDate="2019-08-08T19:56:43.310" />
  <row Id="33245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11285" RevisionGUID="71f9b7b8-5690-4e69-982e-42694148fac6" CreationDate="2019-08-09T00:59:44.977" UserId="3248" Text="The (Early, Classical, and Late) Latin **synthetic** expression corresponding to Sp. &quot;llevar a cuestas&quot; is _bāiulāre_ (see below). As for **analytic** variants formed by a verb of motion plus a body part (the ones you appear to be more interested in), I've been unable to find any relevant verb with _costa_ understood as a body part but there are quite a few with _dorsum_ 'back': e.g., cf. _dorso graviora arma portare_ (Curt. V, 13, 8), _pleraque utensilia reportare dorso_ (Col. 7, 1, 3), _cum (asellus) gravius dorso subiit onus_ (Hor. _Sat_ I, 9, 21), etc. Cf. also similar constructions with _humerus_ 'shoulder': e.g., _humeris rem publicam sustinere_ (Cic. _Flac._ 94).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;So to the extent that this analytic construction was productive, it seems reasonable that it could be analogically extended to other parts of the body like _costa_ 'rib'. After all the Sp. denominal verb [_acostar_][1] can be analyzed as being originally formed from an analytic structure like _*ad COSTA(S/M) PORTARE_, with the nominal root _cost(a)_ being incorporated into an abstract verb of motion (for other similar so-called &quot;parasynthetic verbs&quot;, see _adgregare_ (cf. _ad gregem portare_), *_ad-ripare_ (cf. _ad ripam portare_), etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]  (source: Gaffiot (1934))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acostar#Spanish&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NebdN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11285" RevisionGUID="a672cd08-d6fc-4633-9eeb-d9bd6a9ab41a" CreationDate="2019-08-09T01:06:08.970" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="The (Early, Classical, and Late) Latin **synthetic** expression corresponding to Sp. &quot;llevar a cuestas&quot; is _bāiulāre_ (see below). As for **analytic** variants formed by a verb of motion plus a body part (the ones you appear to be more interested in), I've been unable to find any relevant verb with _costa_ understood as a body part but there are quite a few with _dorsum_ 'back': e.g., cf. _dorso graviora arma portare_ (Curt. V, 13, 8), _pleraque utensilia reportare dorso_ (Col. 7, 1, 3), _cum (asellus) gravius dorso subiit onus_ (Hor. _Sat_ I, 9, 21), etc. Cf. also similar constructions with _humerus_ 'shoulder': e.g., _humeris rem publicam sustinere_ (Cic. _Flac._ 94).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;So to the extent that this analytic construction (e.g., _aliquid {dorso/humeris/collo/...] portare_) was productive, it seems reasonable that it could be analogically extended to other parts of the body like _costa_ 'rib'. After all the Sp. denominal verb [_acostar_][1] can also be analyzed as being originally formed from an analytic structure like _*ad COSTA(S/M) PORTARE_, with the nominal root _cost(a)_ being incorporated into an abstract verb of motion (for other similar so-called &quot;parasynthetic verbs&quot;, see _adgregare_ (cf. _ad gregem portare_), *_ad-ripare_ (cf. _ad ripam portare_), etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]  (source: Gaffiot (1934))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acostar#Spanish&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NebdN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11285" RevisionGUID="16066902-1ca8-45c0-bd2b-46206543853d" CreationDate="2019-08-09T01:30:34.163" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="The (Early, Classical, and Late) Latin **synthetic** expression corresponding to Sp. &quot;llevar a cuestas&quot; is _bāiulāre_ (see below). As for **analytic** variants formed by a verb of motion plus a body part (the ones you appear to be more interested in), I've been unable to find any relevant verb with _costa_ 'rib' but there are quite a few with _dorsum_ 'back': e.g., cf. _dorso graviora arma portare_ (Curt. V, 13, 8), _pleraque utensilia reportare dorso_ (Col. 7, 1, 3), _cum (asellus) gravius dorso subiit onus_ (Hor. _Sat_ I, 9, 21), etc. Cf. also similar constructions with _humerus_ 'shoulder': e.g., _humeris rem publicam sustinere_ (Cic. _Flac._ 94).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Since the analytic construction _aliquid {dorso/humeris/collo/...} portare_ was productive, it seems reasonable that it could be applied to your _costa_ 'rib' as well. After all notice that the Sp. denominal verb [_acostar_][1] can also be analyzed as being originally formed from an analytic structure like _*AD COSTA(S/M) MOVERE_, with the nominal root _cost(a)_ being incorporated into an abstract verb of motion (for other similar so-called &quot;parasynthetic verbs&quot;, see _adgregare_ (cf. _ad gregem ducere/portare_), *_ad-ripare_ (cf. _ad ripam movere_), etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To conclude, an allegedly unattested analytic/syntactic construction *_aliquid costis {movere/ducere/portare}_ can be claimed to have the same status as the unattested synthetic/morphologically denominal verb *_adripare_. Such a conclusion is quite expected in the light of recent syntactic approaches to morphology (e.g., the central claim of [Distributed Morphology][2] is that there is no divide between the construction of words and sentences).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]  (source: Gaffiot (1934))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acostar#Spanish&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_morphology&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NebdN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11286" RevisionGUID="5135d999-fb21-48a8-a5e4-1ce2877e71c2" CreationDate="2019-08-09T01:38:52.870" UserId="406" Text="In [this answer][1], fdb mentions the Classical verb *volō, velle* transforming into *_voleō, volēre_ in Vulgar Latin. The main evidence for this is a form _volendi_ in Augustine and reflexes like _voglio, volere_ in modern Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how do we know that the verb was *_voleō, volēre_ and not *_voliō, volere_? To my understanding, both would allow for both a gerund _volendi_ and the Romance descendants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/11282/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33249" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11286" RevisionGUID="5135d999-fb21-48a8-a5e4-1ce2877e71c2" CreationDate="2019-08-09T01:38:52.870" UserId="406" Text="What evidence is there for volēre over volere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33250" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11286" RevisionGUID="5135d999-fb21-48a8-a5e4-1ce2877e71c2" CreationDate="2019-08-09T01:38:52.870" UserId="406" Text="|example-request|conjugation|vulgar-latin|romance-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11285" RevisionGUID="d5a06f7d-e47c-42db-82cf-f8fd03a26f31" CreationDate="2019-08-09T03:10:00.263" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar and clarification" Text="An (Early, Classical, and Late) Latin **synthetic** expression corresponding to Sp. &quot;llevar a cuestas&quot; is the denominal verb _bāiulāre_ (see the image below). As for **analytic** variants formed by a verb of motion plus a body part (the ones you appear to be more interested in), I've been unable to find any relevant verb with _costa_ 'rib' but, for example, there are quite a few with _dorsum_ 'back': e.g., cf. _dorso graviora arma portare_ (Curt. V, 13, 8), _pleraque utensilia reportare dorso_ (Col. 7, 1, 3), _si dorso libeat cornipedis vehi_ (Sen. _Phaed._ 809),  _cum (asellus) gravius dorso subiit onus_ (Hor. _Sat_ I, 9, 21), etc. Cf. also similar constructions with _humerus_ 'shoulder': e.g., _humeris rem publicam sustinere_ (Cic. _Flac._ 94).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there are quite a few examples of an analytic construction like _aliquid (onus) {dorso/humeris/collo/...} {portare/vehere/subire/...}_, it seems reasonable that it could be applied to your _costa_ 'rib' as well. After all notice that the existing Sp. denominal verb [_acostar_][1] can also be analyzed as being originally formed from an analytic structure like _*AD COSTA(S/M) MOVERE_, with the nominal root _cost(a)_ being incorporated into an abstract verb of motion. NB: in fact, a similar analysis has already been posited for other so-called &quot;parasynthetic verbs&quot; like _adgregare_ (cf. _ad gregem ducere/portare_), *_ad-ripare_ (cf. _ad ripam movere_; cf. Engl. 'to arrive'), etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]  (source: Gaffiot (1934))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acostar#Spanish&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_morphology&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NebdN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11285" RevisionGUID="844cad06-9603-41ae-836b-74e587c21266" CreationDate="2019-08-09T03:18:15.897" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar and clarification" Text="An (Early, Classical, and Late) Latin **synthetic** expression corresponding to Sp. &quot;llevar a cuestas&quot; is the denominal verb _bāiulāre_ (see the image below). As for **analytic** variants formed by a verb of motion plus a body part (the ones you appear to be more interested in), I've been unable to find any relevant verb with _costa_ 'rib' but, for example, there are quite a few with _dorsum_ 'back': e.g., cf. _dorso graviora arma portare_ (Curt. V, 13, 8), _pleraque utensilia reportare dorso_ (Col. 7, 1, 3), _si dorso libeat cornipedis vehi_ (Sen. _Phaed._ 809),  _cum (asellus) gravius dorso subiit onus_ (Hor. _Sat_ I, 9, 21), etc. Cf. also similar constructions with _humerus_ 'shoulder': e.g., _humeris rem publicam sustinere_ (Cic. _Flac._ 94).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there are quite a few examples of an analytic construction like _aliquid (onus) {dorso/humeris/collo/...} {portare/vehere/subire/...}_, it seems reasonable that it could be applied to your _costa_ 'rib' as well. After all notice that the existing Sp. denominal verb [_acostar_][1] can also be analyzed as being originally formed from an analytic structure like _*AD COSTA(S/M) MOVERE_, with the nominal root _cost(a)_ being incorporated into an abstract verb of motion. NB: in fact, a similar analysis has already been posited for other so-called &quot;parasynthetic verbs&quot; like _adgregare_ (cf. _ad gregem ducere/portare_), *_ad-ripare_ (cf. _ad ripam venire_), etc. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]  (source: Gaffiot (1934))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acostar#Spanish&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_morphology&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NebdN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11285" RevisionGUID="c049da8e-eb35-421c-be21-839d0a978ae7" CreationDate="2019-08-09T03:24:40.113" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar and clarification" Text="An (Early, Classical, and Late) Latin **synthetic** expression corresponding to Sp. &quot;llevar a cuestas&quot; is the denominal verb _bāiulāre_ (see the image below). As for **analytic** variants formed by a verb of motion plus a body part (the ones you appear to be more interested in), I've been unable to find any relevant verb with _costa_ 'rib' but, for example, there are quite a few with _dorsum_ 'back': e.g., cf. _dorso graviora arma portare_ (Curt. V, 13, 8), _pleraque utensilia reportare dorso_ (Col. 7, 1, 3), _si dorso libeat cornipedis vehi_ (Sen. _Phaed._ 809),  _cum (asellus) gravius dorso subiit onus_ (Hor. _Sat_ I, 9, 21), etc. Cf. also similar constructions with _humerus_ 'shoulder': e.g., _humeris rem publicam sustinere_ (Cic. _Flac._ 94).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there are quite a few examples of an analytic construction like _aliquid (onus) {dorso/humeris/collo/...} {portare/vehere/subire/...}_, it seems reasonable that it could be applied to your _costa_ 'rib' as well. After all notice that the existing Sp. denominal verb [_acostar_][1] can also be argued to be analyzed as being originally formed from an analytic structure like _AD COSTA(S/M) MOVERE_, with the nominal root _cost(a)_ being incorporated into an abstract verb of motion. NB: in fact, a similar analysis has already been posited for other so-called &quot;parasynthetic verbs&quot; like _adgregare_ (cf. _ad gregem ducere/portare_), *_ad-ripare_ (cf. _ad ripam venire_), etc. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]  (source: Gaffiot (1934))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acostar#Spanish&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_morphology&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NebdN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11285" RevisionGUID="44fa466f-f89f-4aa3-9105-38be8875a314" CreationDate="2019-08-09T04:12:59.343" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="An (Early, Classical, and Late) Latin **synthetic** expression corresponding to Sp. &quot;llevar a cuestas&quot; is the denominal verb _bāiulāre_ (see the image below). As for **analytic** variants formed by a verb of motion plus a body part (the ones you appear to be more interested in), I've been unable to find any relevant verb with _costa_ 'rib' but, for example, there are quite a few with _dorsum_ 'back': e.g., cf. _dorso graviora arma portare_ (Curt. V, 13, 8), _pleraque utensilia reportare dorso_ (Col. 7, 1, 3), _si dorso libeat cornipedis vehi_ (Sen. _Phaed._ 809),  _cum (asellus) gravius dorso subiit onus_ (Hor. _Sat_ I, 9, 21), etc. Cf. also similar constructions with _humerus_ 'shoulder': e.g., _humeris rem publicam sustinere_ (Cic. _Flac._ 94).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there are many examples of an analytic construction like _aliquid (onus) {dorso/humeris/collo/...} {portare/vehere/subire/...}_, it seems reasonable that such a general constructional pattern could also be applied to the specific analytic correlate in Latin of your Sp. &quot;llevar algo a cuestas&quot;, lit. 'to carry something over one's ribs'. There is in fact indirect evidence for the analytic pattern you're searching for with your _costa_ 'rib': i.e., '**X moves Y over one's ribs**'. For example, notice that the existing Sp. denominal verb [_acostar_][1] can also be argued to be analyzed as being originally formed from a similar analytic structure like _AD COSTA(S/M) MOVERE_, with the nominal root _cost(a)_ being incorporated into an abstract verb of motion. NB: in fact, a similar analysis has already been posited for other so-called &quot;parasynthetic verbs&quot; like _adgregare_ (cf. _ad gregem ducere/portare_), *_ad-ripare_ (cf. _ad ripam venire_), etc. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]  (source: Gaffiot (1934))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acostar#Spanish&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_morphology&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NebdN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11285" RevisionGUID="5abe6a33-5d26-4595-ae8f-f1d422097172" CreationDate="2019-08-09T04:46:15.567" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="An (Early, Classical, and Late) Latin **synthetic** expression corresponding to Sp. &quot;llevar a cuestas&quot; is the denominal verb _bāiulāre_ (see the image below). As for **analytic** variants formed by a verb of motion plus a body part (the ones you appear to be more interested in), I've been unable to find any relevant verb with _costa_ 'rib' but, for example, there are quite a few with _dorsum_ 'back': e.g., cf. _dorso graviora arma portare_ (Curt. V, 13, 8), _pleraque utensilia reportare dorso_ (Col. 7, 1, 3), _si dorso libeat cornipedis vehi_ (Sen. _Phaed._ 809),  _cum (asellus) gravius dorso subiit onus_ (Hor. _Sat_ I, 9, 21), etc. Cf. also similar constructions with _humerus_ 'shoulder': e.g., _humeris rem publicam sustinere_ (Cic. _Flac._ 94).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there are many examples of an analytic construction like _aliquid (onus) {dorso/humeris/collo/...} {portare/vehere/subire/...}_, it seems reasonable that such a general constructional pattern could also be applied to the specific analytic correlate in Latin of your Sp. &quot;llevar algo a cuestas&quot;, lit. 'to carry something over one's ribs'. There is in fact indirect evidence for the analytic pattern you're searching for with your _costa_ 'rib': i.e., '**X moves Y over one's ribs**'. For example, notice that the existing Sp. denominal verb [_acostar_][1] can also be argued to be analyzed as being originally formed from a similar analytic structure like _AD COSTA(S/M) MOVERE_, with the nominal root _cost(a)_ being incorporated into an abstract verb of motion. NB: in fact, a similar analysis has already been posited for other so-called &quot;parasynthetic verbs&quot; like _adgregare_ (cf. _ad gregem ducere/portare_), *_ad-ripare_ (cf. _ad ripam venire_), etc. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]  (source: Gaffiot (1934))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://etiblogia.blogspot.com/2018/07/palabras-con-origen-curioso.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_morphology&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NebdN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11285" RevisionGUID="6e1924c6-b538-4a62-9886-c56581dedeef" CreationDate="2019-08-09T04:55:42.597" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar" Text="An (Early, Classical, and Late) Latin **synthetic** expression corresponding to Sp. &quot;llevar a cuestas&quot; is the denominal verb _bāiulāre_ (see the image below). As for **analytic** variants formed by a verb of motion plus a body part (the ones you appear to be more interested in), I've been unable to find any relevant verb with _costa_ 'rib' but, for example, there are quite a few with _dorsum_ 'back': e.g., cf. _dorso graviora arma portare_ (Curt. V, 13, 8), _pleraque utensilia reportare dorso_ (Col. 7, 1, 3), _si dorso libeat cornipedis vehi_ (Sen. _Phaed._ 809),  _cum (asellus) gravius dorso subiit onus_ (Hor. _Sat_ I, 9, 21), etc. Cf. also similar constructions with _humerus_ 'shoulder': e.g., _humeris rem publicam sustinere_ (Cic. _Flac._ 94).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there are many examples of an analytic construction like _aliquid (onus) {dorso/humeris/collo/...} {portare/vehere/subire/...}_, it seems reasonable that such a general constructional pattern could also be applied to the specific analytic correlate in Latin of your Sp. &quot;llevar algo a cuestas&quot;, lit. 'to carry something over one's ribs'. There is in fact indirect evidence for the analytic pattern you're searching for with your _costa_ 'rib': i.e., '**X moves Y over one's ribs**'. For example, notice that the existing Spanish denominal verb [_acostar(se)_][1] can also be argued to be analyzed as being originally formed from a similar analytic structure like _AD COSTA(S/M) MOVERE_, with the nominal root _cost(a)_ 'rib' being incorporated into an abstract verb of motion. NB: in fact, a similar analysis has already been posited for other so-called &quot;parasynthetic verbs&quot; like _adgregare_ (cf. _ad gregem ducere/portare_), *_ad-ripare_ (cf. _ad ripam venire_), etc. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]  (source: Gaffiot (1934))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://etiblogia.blogspot.com/2018/07/palabras-con-origen-curioso.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_morphology&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NebdN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11285" RevisionGUID="05d6fec7-ed8e-4d30-84b4-06b0d0210130" CreationDate="2019-08-09T05:17:00.757" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="An Early, Classical, and Late Latin **synthetic** expression corresponding to Sp. &quot;llevar a cuestas&quot; is the denominal verb _bāiulāre_ (see the image below). As for **analytic** variants formed by a verb of motion plus a body part (the ones you appear to be more interested in), I've been unable to find any relevant verb with _costa_ 'rib' but, for example, there are quite a few with _dorsum_ 'back': e.g., cf. _dorso graviora arma portare_ (Curt. V, 13, 8), _pleraque utensilia reportare dorso_ (Col. 7, 1, 3), _si dorso libeat cornipedis vehi_ (Sen. _Phaed._ 809),  _cum (asellus) gravius dorso subiit onus_ (Hor. _Sat_ I, 9, 21), etc. Cf. also similar constructions with _humerus_ 'shoulder': e.g., _humeris rem publicam sustinere_ (Cic. _Flac._ 94).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there are many examples of an analytic construction like _aliquid (onus) {dorso/humeris/collo/...} {portare/vehere/subire/...}_, it seems reasonable that such a general constructional pattern could also be applied to the specific analytic correlate in Latin of your Sp. &quot;llevar algo a cuestas&quot;, lit. 'to carry something over one's ribs'. There is in fact indirect evidence for the analytic pattern you're searching for with your _costa_ 'rib': i.e., '**X moves Y over one's ribs**'. For example, notice that the existing Spanish denominal verb [_acostar(se)_][1] can also be argued to be analyzed as being originally formed from a similar analytic structure like _AD COSTA(S/M) MOVERE_, with the nominal root _cost(a)_ 'rib' being incorporated into an abstract verb of motion (i.e., the original meaning of Sp. &quot;acostar(se)&quot; is 'X moves X(se) or Y AD (i.e, toward) {X/Y}'s ribs'). NB: a similar analytic origin has already been posited for other so-called &quot;parasynthetic verbs&quot; like _adgregare_ (cf. _ad gregem ducere/portare_), *_ad-ripare_ (cf. _ad ripam venire_), etc. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]  (source: Gaffiot (1934))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://etiblogia.blogspot.com/2018/07/palabras-con-origen-curioso.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_morphology&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NebdN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11285" RevisionGUID="8a123684-c2ab-4a96-a126-14bd24cfa2a4" CreationDate="2019-08-09T05:26:45.600" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar" Text="An Early, Classical, and Late Latin **synthetic** expression corresponding to Sp. &quot;llevar a cuestas&quot; is the denominal verb _bāiulāre_ (see the image below). As for **analytic** variants formed by a verb of motion plus a body part (the ones you appear to be more interested in), I've been unable to find any relevant verb with _costa_ 'rib' but, for example, there are quite a few with _dorsum_ 'back': e.g., cf. _dorso graviora arma portare_ (Curt. V, 13, 8), _pleraque utensilia reportare dorso_ (Col. 7, 1, 3), _si dorso libeat cornipedis vehi_ (Sen. _Phaed._ 809),  _cum (asellus) gravius dorso subiit onus_ (Hor. _Sat_ I, 9, 21), etc. Cf. also similar constructions with _humerus_ 'shoulder': e.g., _humeris rem publicam sustinere_ (Cic. _Flac._ 94).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there are many examples of an analytic construction like _aliquid (onus) {dorso/humeris/collo/...} {portare/vehere/subire/...}_, it seems reasonable that such a general constructional pattern could also be applied to the specific analytic correlate in Latin of your Sp. &quot;llevar algo a cuestas&quot;, lit. 'to carry something over one's ribs'. There is in fact indirect evidence for the analytic pattern you're searching for with your _costa_ 'rib': i.e., '**X moves Y over X's ribs**'. For example, notice that the existing Spanish denominal verb [_acostar(se)_][1] can also be argued to be analyzed as being originally formed from a similar analytic structure like _AD COSTA(S/M) MOVERE_, with the nominal root _cost(a)_ 'rib' being incorporated into an abstract verb of motion (i.e., the original meaning of Sp. &quot;acostar(se)&quot; is 'X moves X(se) or Y AD (i.e, toward) {X/Y}'s ribs'). NB: a similar analytic origin has already been posited for other so-called &quot;parasynthetic verbs&quot; like _adgregare_ (cf. _ad gregem ducere_), *_ad-ripare_ (cf. _ad ripam venire_), etc. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]  (source: Gaffiot (1934))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://etiblogia.blogspot.com/2018/07/palabras-con-origen-curioso.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_morphology&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NebdN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11285" RevisionGUID="749e499a-2d73-4e16-b80b-3e274952ff6d" CreationDate="2019-08-09T05:43:58.377" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="An Early, Classical, and Late Latin **synthetic** expression corresponding to Sp. &quot;llevar a cuestas&quot; is the denominal verb _bāiulāre_ (see the image below). As for **analytic** variants formed by a verb of motion plus a body part (the ones you appear to be more interested in), I've been unable to find any relevant verb with _costa_ 'rib' but, for example, there are quite a few with _dorsum_ 'back': e.g., cf. _dorso graviora arma portare_ (Curt. V, 13, 8), _pleraque utensilia reportare dorso_ (Col. 7, 1, 3), _si dorso libeat cornipedis vehi_ (Sen. _Phaed._ 809),  _cum (asellus) gravius dorso subiit onus_ (Hor. _Sat_ I, 9, 21), etc. Cf. also similar constructions with _humerus_ 'shoulder': e.g., _humeris rem publicam sustinere_ (Cic. _Flac._ 94).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there are many examples of an analytic construction like _aliquid (onus) {dorso/humeris/collo/...} {portare/vehere/subire/...}_, it seems reasonable that such a general constructional pattern could also be applied to the specific analytic correlate in Latin of your Sp. &quot;llevar algo a cuestas&quot;, lit. 'to carry something over one's ribs'. There is in fact indirect evidence for the analytic pattern you're searching for with your _costa_ 'rib': i.e., '**X moves Y over X's ribs**'. For example, notice that the existing Spanish denominal verb [_acostar(se)_][1] can also be argued to be analyzed as being originally formed from a similar analytic structure like _[**AD COSTAM**][2] MOVERE_, with the nominal root _cost(a)_ 'rib' being incorporated into an abstract verb of motion (i.e., the original meaning of Sp. &quot;acostar(se)&quot; is 'X moves X(se) or Y **_AD_** (i.e, toward) {X/Y}'s ribs'). NB: a similar analytic origin has already been posited for other so-called &quot;parasynthetic verbs&quot; like _adgregare_ (cf. _ad gregem ducere_), *_ad-ripare_ (cf. _ad ripam venire_), etc. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]  (source: Gaffiot (1934))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://etiblogia.blogspot.com/2018/07/palabras-con-origen-curioso.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.es/books?id=5h7L2fuFQkQC&amp;pg=PA204&amp;lpg=PA204&amp;dq=%22AD%20COSTAM%22%20acostar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=n_zYIppQvi&amp;sig=ACfU3U0a7Ri1teEnj-k8I_fZ3ySB5WuX5Q&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwissIrzifXjAhUxSEEAHe1aAlQQ6AEwCnoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22AD%20COSTAM%22%20acostar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NebdN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11287" RevisionGUID="498e6974-c7d1-48b1-8dd3-15d724271887" CreationDate="2019-08-09T06:58:45.363" UserId="9" Text="A Latin form *\*volĕre* would have been stressed on the first syllable. Italian *volere* is stressed on the penultimate syllable, like a Latin form *\*volēre.* There could have been a Vulgar Latin form *\*volĕre* that was later replaced with *voˈl[e]re,* but it seems more parsimonious to just give *\*volēre* as the ancestor of the Italian and French forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[The Destiny Of Latin Second Conjugation Infinitives In Romance][2]&quot;, by S. Davis and Donna Jo Napoli, goes through the etymology of the Italian verbs whose infinitives end in *-ere* with penultimate stress. According to Davis and Napoli, there are only 22 such verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 18 are from verbs with attested Latin infinitive forms in *-ēre.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 2 are from verbs with attested Latin infinitive forms in *-ĕre*: *saˈpere* vs. Latin *sapĕre* and *caˈdere* vs. Latin *cadĕre.*  *Sapio* is an *-io* verb in Latin, but *cado* isn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 2 are from verbs with highly irregular infinitives in Latin: *poˈtere* vs. *possum, posse* and *voˈlere* vs. *volo, velle*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root *vol-* does fit the phonological criteria that Davis and Napoli identify as relevant for the shift of *cadere* and *sapere* from the root-stressed to the theme-stressed category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/73341667.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11287" RevisionGUID="c7dee46a-3d5e-4452-8308-c23a62bb65e7" CreationDate="2019-08-09T07:09:02.723" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="A Latin form *\*volĕre* would have been stressed on the first syllable. Italian *volere* is stressed on the penultimate syllable, like a Latin form *\*volēre.* There could have been a Vulgar Latin form *\*volĕre* that was later replaced with *voˈl[e]re,* but it seems more parsimonious to just give *\*volēre* as the ancestor of the Italian and French forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[The Destiny Of Latin Second Conjugation Infinitives In Romance][2]&quot;, by S. Davis and Donna Jo Napoli, goes through the etymology of the Italian verbs whose infinitives end in *-ere* with penultimate stress. According to Davis and Napoli, there are only 22 such verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 18 are from verbs with attested Latin infinitive forms in *-ēre.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 2 are from verbs with attested Latin infinitive forms in *-ĕre*: *saˈpere* vs. Latin *sapĕre* and *caˈdere* vs. Latin *cadĕre.*  *Sapio* is an *-io* verb in Latin, but *cado* isn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 2 are from verbs with Latin infinitives not ending in *-re*: *poˈtere* vs. Latin *posse* and *voˈlere* vs. Latin *velle*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root *vol-* does fit the phonological criteria that Davis and Napoli identify as relevant for the shift of *cadere* and *sapere* from the root-stressed to the theme-stressed category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/73341667.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11288" RevisionGUID="b073de84-c789-4d93-96bb-c5f706e69e2c" CreationDate="2019-08-09T07:48:55.557" UserId="79" Text="The English word &quot;fit&quot; has a number of different uses, and that makes searching difficult.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a verb or phrase to be used in a sentence like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The souvenir does not fit in my bag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, I want to refer to having enough space, not the being suitable in any other way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33263" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11288" RevisionGUID="b073de84-c789-4d93-96bb-c5f706e69e2c" CreationDate="2019-08-09T07:48:55.557" UserId="79" Text="How to say &quot;fit&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33264" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11288" RevisionGUID="b073de84-c789-4d93-96bb-c5f706e69e2c" CreationDate="2019-08-09T07:48:55.557" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11289" RevisionGUID="d8f17f3a-3ebb-470a-b3f6-71d55f3ea198" CreationDate="2019-08-09T09:24:36.547" UserId="645" Text="I don't think that Latin has a word to correspond well to this usage of the English 'fit'. The nearest thing is probably *convenire*, but I think you need a rather narrower meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some easy solutions. Why not simply say 'my bag is [too small/not big enough] to [contain, carry] the souvenir'? Or 'the souvenir is too big to be put into my bag'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps *sacculus minor quo difficilius rem ferat*, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11290" RevisionGUID="c71ef7e7-6ab9-469e-8f37-dd3f69e5da69" CreationDate="2019-08-09T13:06:54.627" UserId="45" Text="My immediate instinct is to switch subject and object. Though I'd be happy to learn that there is a Latin way of saying &quot;X fits in Y,&quot; there are definitely natural ways to say &quot;Y holds X.&quot; My suggestion for &quot;The souvenir does not fit in my bag&quot; is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Sacculus non capit monumentum.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks to Tony in the comments and Tom Cotton's answer for their suggestions on how to translate &quot;bag&quot; and &quot;souvenir.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a similar example from Seneca the Younger:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nam magna	non capit exigua mens. (*Controversiae*, 2.1.13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For a small mind can't hold big [ideas].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Big [ideas] don't fit in a small mind.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11291" RevisionGUID="ea0bb2cd-c546-4caa-a995-8efcc6b4d611" CreationDate="2019-08-09T13:30:27.383" UserId="1982" Text="As comments-section grows, this is not so much an answer as an interpretation of Mitomino's &quot;flava caput nectentur oliva&quot;: the assertion that &quot;caput&quot; is an accusative; not a nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expressions like &quot;accusative-of-relation&quot; &amp; &quot;retained-accusative-of-specification&quot; can be baffling to those who have not studied linguistics. Extra study is required: &quot;accusative-of-relation&quot; denotes the thing or person (caput) referred to by the action (nectentur) rather than the object proper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek: a retained accusative is based on the supposition that such constructions are converted from active to passive verb-forms and that the accusative is retained from the active construction.&#xD;&#xA;At this point it may be appropriate to study Joonas's earlier Q. Here, Brianpck adapted &quot;te rem doceo&quot; = &quot;I teach you something&quot; to give &quot;rem a me doceris&quot; = &quot;you (subject) are taught (passive) something (retained accusative) by me (agent).&#xD;&#xA;In the passive construction, the accusative-of-the-person becomes the subject; the accusative-of-the-thing is retained. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the OP's original Q., a &quot;middle-voice&quot; verb is not to take an agent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hebrew: Psalm 3:8  &quot;For you have stricken all of my enemies with respect to the cheek&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;here, &quot;cheek&quot; is an indefinite primary-noun (no specific or named owner: &quot;his&quot;, &quot;John's&quot;) and functions as an &quot;accusative-of-specification&quot;--it specifies/ clarifies the verb--the striking is limited to the cheeks, of the enemies. &#xD;&#xA;Alternative translations identified &quot;adverbial-accusatives&quot; (just to add to the &quot;accusative&quot; confusion) &quot;on the cheek&quot; &amp; &quot;upon the cheekbone&quot;; how the striking was done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, this is not a retained &quot;accusative-of-specification&quot;; but, it helps to explain arcane terminology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applying to the Latin: the crowning will be limited to the heads, suppose it would be, by definition! Hence, the thing or person (the heads) referred to by the action (the crowning). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conclusion: &quot;caput&quot; in &quot;flava caput nectentur oliva&quot; is an accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Have not studied Greek, or Hebrew, but they involve similar concepts, on this topic.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11291" RevisionGUID="43837482-03b3-468d-aa9b-7438ebf02050" CreationDate="2019-08-09T13:37:27.963" UserId="1982" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="As comments-section grows, this is not so much an answer as an interpretation of Mitomino's &quot;flava caput nectentur oliva&quot;: the assertion that &quot;caput&quot; is an accusative; not a nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expressions like &quot;accusative-of-relation&quot; &amp; &quot;retained-accusative-of-specification&quot; can be baffling to those who have not studied linguistics. Extra study is required: &quot;accusative-of-relation&quot; denotes the thing or person (caput) referred to by the action (nectentur) rather than the object proper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek: a retained accusative is based on the supposition that such constructions are converted from active to passive verb-forms and that the accusative is retained from the active construction.&#xD;&#xA;At this point it may be appropriate to study Joonas's earlier Q. Here, Brianpck adapted &quot;te rem doceo&quot; = &quot;I teach you something&quot; to give &quot;rem a me doceris&quot; = &quot;you (subject) are taught (passive) something (retained accusative) by me (agent).&#xD;&#xA;In the passive construction, the accusative-of-the-person becomes the subject; the accusative-of-the-thing is retained. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the OP's original Q., a &quot;middle-voice&quot; verb is not to take an agent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hebrew: Psalm 3:8  &quot;For you have stricken all of my enemies with respect to the cheek&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;here, &quot;cheek&quot; is an indefinite primary-noun (no specific or named owner: &quot;his&quot;, &quot;John's&quot;) and functions as an &quot;accusative-of-specification&quot;--it specifies/ clarifies the verb--the striking is limited to the cheeks, of the enemies. &#xD;&#xA;Alternative translations identified &quot;adverbial-accusatives&quot; (just to add to the &quot;accusative&quot; confusion) &quot;on the cheek&quot; &amp; &quot;upon the cheekbone&quot;; how the striking was done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, this is not a retained &quot;accusative-of-specification&quot;; but, it helps to explain arcane terminology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applying to the Latin: the crowning will be limited to the heads, suppose it would be, by definition! Hence, the thing or person (the heads) referred to by the action (the crowning). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conclusion: &quot;caput&quot; in &quot;flava caput nectentur oliva&quot; is an accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Have not studied Greek, or Hebrew, but they seem to  involve similar concepts, on this topic.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33270" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11288" RevisionGUID="e22234e4-ae13-437f-96bb-1edf8250f469" CreationDate="2019-08-09T15:57:50.340" />
  <row Id="33271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11199" RevisionGUID="e7be0608-4a24-443f-a23b-881dd010f614" CreationDate="2019-08-09T18:07:38.030" UserId="4963" Comment="Added requests and further questions " Text="I’m founding an early music group dedicated to donating to climate change action, and I’d love to name the group, “Heal the World”, but in Latin, rather than English. I’d be very grateful for translation help, as my junior high Latin courses were many moons ago. I want the order to be addressed to many, not a person at a time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than Sanate Mundum, what about Solvitur Mundum? Medeor Mundum? Salvificem Mundum? The latter meaning, “save the world”, I presume? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these conjugated correctly and is the vocabulary appropriate? I’m hesitant to use “sanate” just because it’s a cognate to “sanitize” in English, which sounds a bit unpleasant for the name of an ensemble. Thanks! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11199" RevisionGUID="50acd3fc-04f2-4cdf-90a4-812ffeec20f7" CreationDate="2019-08-09T18:16:16.313" UserId="4963" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I’m founding an early music group dedicated to donating to climate change action, and I’d love to name the group, “Heal the World”, but in Latin, rather than English. I’d be very grateful for translation help, as my junior high Latin courses were many moons ago. I want the order to be addressed to many, not a person at a time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than Sanate Mundum, what about  Recurare Mundum? Medeor Mundum? Salvificem Mundum? The latter meaning, “save the world”, I presume? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these conjugated correctly and is the vocabulary appropriate? I’m hesitant to use “sanate” just because it’s a cognate to “sanitize” in English, which sounds a bit unpleasant for the name of an ensemble. Thanks! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33273" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11292" RevisionGUID="a94c46db-aa42-42e2-b2b8-dccd181f31a2" CreationDate="2019-08-09T10:53:35.803" UserDisplayName="Sajuuk" Text="|numbers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33274" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11292" RevisionGUID="a94c46db-aa42-42e2-b2b8-dccd181f31a2" CreationDate="2019-08-09T10:53:35.803" UserDisplayName="Sajuuk" Text="Why is largest number in Roman Numerals not represented as &quot;MMMIM&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11292" RevisionGUID="a94c46db-aa42-42e2-b2b8-dccd181f31a2" CreationDate="2019-08-09T10:53:35.803" UserDisplayName="Sajuuk" Text="according to wikipedia, the largest number Roman Numeral system can represent is represented like following: (answer below has much bigger number represented)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    MMMCMXCIX&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;why can't it be represented like following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    MMMIM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33276" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="11292" RevisionGUID="20ae5e72-1ced-4422-81b6-110144eb83dc" CreationDate="2019-08-10T01:00:41.327" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/32128/why-is-largest-number-in-roman-numerals-not-represented-as-mmmim" />
  <row Id="33277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11294" RevisionGUID="a49cb0bf-7365-4fb6-901c-57ccff75834b" CreationDate="2019-08-09T11:46:45.627" UserId="1577" Text="It's because of the grammar of the Roman numerals (It's not the same as natural language grammar, but it's still grammar). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`I` does not combine with all characters. `I` combines on the left of `V` or `X` to mean `-1`. (Just like `X` combines on the left of `L` or `C` to mean `-10`, but combinations like `XM` does not work).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the problem with `MMMIM` is that `IM` is invalid and cannot mean `999`. To subtract anything from `M`, you can use `C`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33278" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="11293" RevisionGUID="785994c6-f278-42db-89af-b3e2c52d5b3f" CreationDate="2019-08-10T01:00:41.327" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/32128/why-is-largest-number-in-roman-numerals-not-represented-as-mmmim/32129#32129" />
  <row Id="33279" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="11294" RevisionGUID="c9f13da9-9c63-48e4-bef6-517e12cd373d" CreationDate="2019-08-10T01:00:41.327" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/32128/why-is-largest-number-in-roman-numerals-not-represented-as-mmmim/32130#32130" />
  <row Id="33280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11293" RevisionGUID="5e5fd937-e2b6-4472-ab55-1944bda5bc9a" CreationDate="2019-08-09T11:42:42.703" UserId="1410" Text="Maybe because you cannot skip so many slots, mind that 49 is XLIX, not IL, and 99 is XCIX, not IC. Anyhow, you can write much bigger numbers than that MMMCMXCIX (3999). By putting a horizontal line, called [_vinculum_ or _overline_][1] above a Roman numeral, you multiply it by 1,000, so M with an _overline_ is 1,000,000 that is one million. Using the _overline_, the biggest number that can be written is 3,999,999 (see the image).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, that the _overline_ is a medieval feature.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#Vinculum&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0GTy6.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11295" RevisionGUID="eaa8442b-1da1-4c2b-8af6-afbc55d335ad" CreationDate="2019-08-10T02:09:42.737" UserId="1484" Text="As a part-time computer scientist, I've tried to come up with different ways of analyzing the Roman numeral system so that the rules can be formulated in as general a way as possible, with no special cases per glyph. The one that satisifes me the most, for the time being, is one in which we analyze the seven glyphs as four sets that each have a multiplier — similar to how each column has a place-value multiplier in the Arabic numeral system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These sets are `I V X` ; `X L C` ; `C D M` ; `M` (the Romans did not leave us perfectly symmetrical sets). You can only subtract the first glpyh in each set from the second or third **in the same set**. This precludes `IM`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see this analysis in action, read [**this simple handout**][1]. It includes exercises to practice with and an online tool to verify your answers. For the sake of perpetual Stack Exchange availability, I'll copy a screenshot of the first page here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Roman numeral handout first page][2]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QB3EN0pJ5YKaJ8cUdqpj1KFdMsfl6Wn03ptMEXceXOY/edit?usp=sharing&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZU1VW.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11296" RevisionGUID="27bc3c42-caf0-440d-a268-108c0923969f" CreationDate="2019-08-10T07:27:56.720" UserId="5002" Text="For educated Latin, a simple rule applies:&#xD;&#xA;**non-initial ti + vowel = tsi + vowel**, unless:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is already an S before that T (even if it is written as X = CS);&#xD;&#xA; - The I is long.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;All the apparent inconsistencies may be due to uneducated speech that turned into Romance. At the time that the assibilation of **ti** as **tsi** became a standard, the uneducated language had already begun to lose vowel length distinction.The ī of Greek words like Goetīa, necromantīa must have been shortened in Romance (I guess they were not very common words in everyday speech and people would get confused about the length of I), and that is probably why in Spanish the accent is at the previous syllable: nigro**man**cia and Go**e**cia. Then, Portuguese (like Italian) may have moved the accent later to the second syllable because it was saw as the proper way to do it in Latin or Greek, and that may be why we have democra**ci**a and nigroman**ci**a in Portuguese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While commoners, farmers and soldiers would be confused about correct vowel length, educated speakers (that often new Greek) would know it and follow the rule. **Tōtīus**, then, must be to**ti**us, and **tōtius** must be **to**tsius, that is, the pronunciation varies depending on the length of I." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11296" RevisionGUID="3b3a9056-414b-4b3e-8c80-7ec1f6a6e0ca" CreationDate="2019-08-10T07:37:11.847" UserId="5002" Comment="added information" Text="For educated Latin, a simple rule applies:&#xD;&#xA;**non-initial ti + vowel = tsi + vowel**, unless:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is already an S before that T (even if it is written as X = CS);&#xD;&#xA; - The I is long or the T is doubled.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;All the apparent inconsistencies may be due to uneducated speech that turned into Romance. At the time that the assibilation of **ti** as **tsi** became a standard, the uneducated language had already begun to lose vowel length distinction.The ī of Greek words like Goetīa, necromantīa must have been shortened in Romance (I guess they were not very common words in everyday speech and people would get confused about the length of I), and that is probably why in Spanish the accent is at the previous syllable: nigro**man**cia and Go**e**cia. Then, Portuguese (like Italian) may have moved the accent later to the second syllable because it was saw as the proper way to do it in Latin or Greek, and that may be why we have democra**ci**a and nigroman**ci**a in Portuguese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While commoners, farmers and soldiers would be confused about correct vowel length, educated speakers (that often new Greek) would know it and follow the rule. **Tōtīus**, then, must be to**ti**us, and **tōtius** must be **to**tsius, that is, the pronunciation varies depending on the length of I." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10684" RevisionGUID="c6f46012-866f-46e2-a9af-00a8f173e680" CreationDate="2019-08-10T08:35:39.853" UserId="9" Comment="Minor reorganization, a little more info on the development of the sound change, fixed some punctuation" Text="There is no single standard for Latin pronunciation. The main division is between reconstructed pronunciation (based on our idea of what Classical Latin sounded like) vs. everything else. As Draconis mentioned, in reconstructed pronunciation &amp;lt;ti&gt; is just pronounced as a sequence of the T sound [t] followed by one of the two I sounds, **ĭ** [i~ɪ] or **ī** [iː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The development of assibilated pronunciations of &amp;lt;ti&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In most other pronunciation systems, &amp;lt;ti&gt; has a special pronunciation where the T is &quot;assibilated&quot; in certain contexts. This phenomenon is based on a sound change that is thought to have occurred naturally in the development of the spoken language; however, I think that the &quot;rules&quot; or &quot;standards&quot; connecting the use of this pronunciation in modern speech to particular written contexts may be partly artificial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The hypothesis that I have seen about the origin of this pronunciation is that the /i/ in &amp;lt;ti&gt; came to be realized as a non-syllabic glide/semivowel/approximant [j] before a vowel. Then the resulting sequence [tj] turned into [t͡sj], with a voiceless affricate [t͡s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some languages such as French and English, the affricate [t͡s] underwent further developments. French turned the affricate [t͡s] into a fricative [s]. In English, we usually see a change to [ʃ] (the sound of &quot;sh&quot; in &quot;fish&quot;) and loss of the following [j] sound; for example, the English word *nation* is pronounced with [ʃ]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any tradition of Latin pronunciation that uses any kind of *elongated* sound in the pronunciation of &amp;lt;ti&gt;: in fact, I've heard that Ecclesiastical Latin has specifically **short** [t͡s] in words like *natio,* in contrast to the **long** [tt͡s] sound that many Italian speakers use in Italian words like *spazzi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I described the sound change as turning [tj] into [t͡sj], in modern speech the pronunciation [t͡si], with a syllabic [i] in hiatus with the following vowel, can also be heard for Latin &amp;lt;ti&gt; followed by a vowel. Interchange between syllabic [i u] and non-syllabic [j w] is common in the history of Latin and its descendants; I'm not sure about the exact history of variation between [i] and [j] in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Vulgar Latin also had sound changes affecting the pronunciation of *-di-*&#xD;&#xA;Historically, Latin *-di-* also developed an assibilated pronunciation [d͡z] (in vulgar Latin, *-di-* between vowels often showed an alternative development to a *j* or &quot;soft g&quot; sound), but I think that in modern spoken Latin *di* is typically not assibilated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The main conditions for not assibilating &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the conditions that I know of for using the assibilated pronunciation of T in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ###Don't assibilate unless the I comes before another vowel&#xD;&#xA;The assibilated pronunciation of T in the sequence &amp;lt;ti&gt; developed only when the I was followed by another vowel. (As I mentioned above, the original conditioning factor for the assibilation may have been a change of I to a glide [j], which was only possible before a vowel.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ###Don't assibilate after the sound [s] (whether spelled S or X)&#xD;&#xA;The assibilated pronunciation of T did not develop after the sound [s]. There are numerous examples with the spelling &amp;lt;sti&gt;; there aren't so many with the spelling &amp;lt;xti&gt;, but *mixtio* seems to be given by a number of sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (In English, the [tj] of words spelled with &amp;lt;sti&gt; and &amp;lt;xti&gt; developed for many speakers via palatalization to the affricate [t͡ʃ], as in the words *bestial* and *question.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Minor or unclear conditions for not assibilating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following conditions are either less clear, or more marginal in scope (or both).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. ###At the start of a word&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I would not assibilate the T in a word starting with &amp;lt;ti&gt; followed by a vowel. The only word I know of where this exception is relevant is the word *tiara*. I'm used to pronouncing [t] in the English word, and Italian also seems to have [t] rather than [t͡s] in *[tiara](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/tiara).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Lindsay 1894 cites Servius as saying that *-ti-* and *-di-* are subject to assibilation before a vowel in word-medial position, but not at the start of words: the examples given for non-assibilated *di-* and *ti-* are *dies* and *tiaras* (*[The Latin Language: An Historical Account of Latin Sounds, Stems and Flexions][1],* p 83, §90).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. ###After another T&#xD;&#xA;Supposedly, the assibilated pronunciation of T is not used in words spelled with &amp;lt;tti&gt;. There are very few examples of &amp;lt;tti&gt; followed by a vowel in Latin, so I asked a separate question to try to determine the evidence for this rule: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8824&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Despite the non-obviousness of this rule to me, sources seem to be fairly consistent in saying not to assibilate in this context, so I would recommend following that practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. ###In (some) words from Greek (maybe also applies to TY)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I've seen a few sources that say that T was not or should not be assibilated in words from Greek. According to Blair (1873), &quot;in Greek words (as *Aegyptius*), as the I is not consonantal, the T cannot be hissed&quot; (*[Latin Pronunciation: An Inquiry Into the Proper Sound of the Latin Language during the Classical Period](https://books.google.com/books?id=s3NXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA118),* p. 118). I have the impression that the actual pronunciation used with words of this sort is sporadic and might vary between different time periods. Despite what Blair says, I wouldn't recommend making a special exception for words like *Aegyptius.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. ###In certain forms of passive or deponent verbs with infinitives ending in *-ti*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In the infinitive *pati,* the I is not followed by a vowel, so it's regular to not assibilate the T. A number of sources say that the archaic infinitive forms ending in *-ier* like *patier* also have non-assibilated T, and so were exceptions to the rule (Blair gives *nitier* and *quatier* as examples, p. 118).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I found another source that seems to apply this exception also to finite forms such as *patior* (&quot;[The Correct Pronunciation of Latin According to Roman Usage](http://www.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/12/07/05/19-20-13_0.pdf)&quot;, by Michael de Angelis, p. 20). But I'm a bit doubtful that this is actually an observed as opposed to a theoretical exception. There seems to be a spelling variant *[pacior](https://books.google.com/books?id=OQYhDpaDH2MC&amp;pg=PA52&amp;lpg=PA52&amp;dq=%22pacior%22+%22pati%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pacior%22%20%22pati%22&amp;f=false),* which implies that at least some speakers at some point in time assibilated the T in this word (in some varieties of spoken Latin, assibilated T sounded the same as &quot;soft C&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. ###When the I is long and/or stressed (very uncertain to me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Blair (1873) says that the T in *totius* did not undergo the sound change of assibilation because the I was long (*tōtīus*) (p. 118). As Draconis mentioned, contrastive vowel length *per se* is lost in Ecclesiastical Latin, but it is not irrelevant in all cases to pronunciation: the position of stress in Ecclesiastical Latin corresponds to the stress of Classical Latin, which was assigned by a length-based rule. For example, *termĭnus* is stressed on the third-to-last syllable in both Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin, and *bovīnus* is stressed on the second-to-last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A complication in the case of *totius* is that an alternative scansion *tōtĭus* was used sometimes in poetry. I don't know whether this led to the development of an Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation *ˈto[t͡s]ius* with initial stress. If a pronunciation of *totius* with stress on the second syllable is/was used in Ecclesiastical Latin, I'm not entirely sure whether it would be more regular for it to be *to*ˈ[tsi]*us* or *to*[ˈti]*us*. This online &quot;[Guide to Latin Pronunciation](http://www.olrl.org/pray/gtolatin.shtml)&quot; does give *totius* (without marking of the stress) as an example of a word where *t* is pronounced as [t͡s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Long vowels rarely occur before other vowels in Latin. Aside from the small class of words with *-īus* genitives, such as *tōtīus,* *ī* followed by a vowel mainly shows up in words taken from Greek (which I mentioned above as a possible doubtful case for assibilation of T). Specifically, there are a fair number of words that end in *-tīa* (or at least, that are expected to based on the Greek form), such as *[necromantīa](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnecromantia)* and *goētīa.* I don't know whether these have any single established pronunciation in Ecclesiastical Latin, or whether there is variation between pronunciations like *necroˈman*[ts]*ia, necroman*ˈ[ts]*ia* and *necroman*ˈ[t]*ia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The English form *necromancy,* with [s], is ultimately descended from some form with assibilation, but I don't know the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Italian seems to have [ˈtsia] in the word *[negromanzia](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/negromanzia),* and also in some words from Greek *-τία* nouns like *[democrazia](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/democrazia)* (from δημοκρατία). (Note: even though Greek *-ία* actually has a short vowel, the I ended up being stressed in languages like Italian.) &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Italian does have nouns spelled with *-tia* and pronounced with [ˈtia], but all of the ones that I can find actually represent *-thia* (e.g. [simpatia][2]), so they don't seem directly relevant to the issue of pronouncing words that end in *-tia* in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Summary&#xD;&#xA;All in all, when speaking in Latin with an Ecclesiastical-style pronunciation, I wouldn't try to make any exceptions to the assibilation of T based on stress, historical vowel length, or language of origin (even though, as you can see, some sources suggest that there are exceptions related to these things). I would just stick with the simple rules about assibilating TI before a vowel, except for after S, X, T, or at the very start of a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=o8oqAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA83#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wordreference.com/iten/simpatia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10684" RevisionGUID="c82f7e1c-2cb1-41c1-b9ba-6839ca5779c0" CreationDate="2019-08-10T08:42:29.780" UserId="9" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="There is no single standard for Latin pronunciation. The main division is between reconstructed pronunciation (based on our idea of what Classical Latin sounded like) vs. everything else. As Draconis mentioned, in reconstructed pronunciation &amp;lt;ti&gt; is just pronounced as a sequence of the T sound [t] followed by one of the two I sounds, **ĭ** [i~ɪ] or **ī** [iː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The development of assibilated pronunciations of &amp;lt;ti&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In most other pronunciation systems, &amp;lt;ti&gt; has a special pronunciation where the T is &quot;assibilated&quot; in certain contexts. This pronunciation is based on a sound change that is thought to have occurred naturally in the development of the spoken language; however, I suspect that the &quot;rules&quot; that books give about when to use this pronunciation in modern speech may be partly artificial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The hypothesis that I have seen about the origin of this pronunciation is that the /i/ in &amp;lt;ti&gt; came to be realized as a non-syllabic glide/semivowel/approximant [j] before a vowel. Then the resulting sequence [tj] turned into [t͡sj], with a voiceless affricate [t͡s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some languages such as French and English, the affricate [t͡s] underwent further developments. French turned the affricate [t͡s] into a fricative [s]. In English, we usually see a change to [ʃ] (the sound of &quot;sh&quot; in &quot;fish&quot;) and loss of the following [j] sound; for example, the English word *nation* is pronounced with [ʃ]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any tradition of Latin pronunciation that uses an *elongated* sound in the pronunciation of &amp;lt;ti&gt;. In fact, I've heard that Ecclesiastical Latin has specifically **short** [t͡s] in words like *natio,* in contrast to the **long** [tt͡s] sound that many Italian speakers use in Italian words like *spazzi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I described the sound change as turning [tj] into [t͡sj], in modern speech the pronunciation [t͡si], with a syllabic [i] in hiatus with the following vowel, can also be heard for Latin &amp;lt;ti&gt; followed by a vowel. Interchange between syllabic [i u] and non-syllabic [j w] is common in the history of Latin and its descendants; I'm not sure about the exact history of variation between [i] and [j] in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Vulgar Latin also had sound changes affecting the pronunciation of *-di-*&#xD;&#xA;Historically, Latin *-di-* also developed an assibilated pronunciation [d͡z] (in vulgar Latin, *-di-* between vowels often showed an alternative development to a *j* or &quot;soft g&quot; sound), but I think that in modern spoken Latin *di* is typically not assibilated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The main conditions for not assibilating &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the conditions that I know of for using the assibilated pronunciation of T in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ###Don't assibilate unless the I comes before another vowel&#xD;&#xA;The assibilated pronunciation of T in the sequence &amp;lt;ti&gt; developed only when the I was followed by another vowel. (As I mentioned above, the original conditioning factor for the assibilation may have been a change of I to a glide [j], which was only possible before a vowel.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ###Don't assibilate after the sound [s] (whether spelled S or X)&#xD;&#xA;The assibilated pronunciation of T did not develop after the sound [s]. There are numerous examples with the spelling &amp;lt;sti&gt;; there aren't so many with the spelling &amp;lt;xti&gt;, but *mixtio* seems to be given by a number of sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (In English, the [tj] of words spelled with &amp;lt;sti&gt; and &amp;lt;xti&gt; developed for many speakers via palatalization to the affricate [t͡ʃ], as in the words *bestial* and *question.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Minor or unclear conditions for not assibilating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following conditions are either less clear, or more marginal in scope (or both).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. ###At the start of a word&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I would not assibilate the T in a word starting with &amp;lt;ti&gt; followed by a vowel. The only word I know of where this exception is relevant is the word *tiara*. I'm used to pronouncing [t] in the English word, and Italian also seems to have [t] rather than [t͡s] in *[tiara](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/tiara).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Lindsay 1894 cites Servius as saying that *-ti-* and *-di-* are subject to assibilation before a vowel in word-medial position, but not at the start of words: the examples given for non-assibilated *di-* and *ti-* are *dies* and *tiaras* (*[The Latin Language: An Historical Account of Latin Sounds, Stems and Flexions][1],* p 83, §90).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. ###After another T&#xD;&#xA;Supposedly, the assibilated pronunciation of T is not used in words spelled with &amp;lt;tti&gt;. There are very few examples of &amp;lt;tti&gt; followed by a vowel in Latin, so I asked a separate question to try to determine the evidence for this rule: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8824&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Despite the non-obviousness of this rule to me, sources seem to be fairly consistent in saying not to assibilate in this context, so I would recommend following that practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. ###In (some) words from Greek (maybe also applies to TY)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I've seen a few sources that say that T was not or should not be assibilated in words from Greek. According to Blair (1873), &quot;in Greek words (as *Aegyptius*), as the I is not consonantal, the T cannot be hissed&quot; (*[Latin Pronunciation: An Inquiry Into the Proper Sound of the Latin Language during the Classical Period](https://books.google.com/books?id=s3NXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA118),* p. 118). I have the impression that the actual pronunciation used with words of this sort is sporadic and might vary between different time periods. Despite what Blair says, I wouldn't recommend making a special exception for words like *Aegyptius.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. ###In certain forms of passive or deponent verbs with infinitives ending in *-ti*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In the infinitive *pati,* the I is not followed by a vowel, so it's regular to not assibilate the T. A number of sources say that the archaic infinitive forms ending in *-ier* like *patier* also have non-assibilated T, and so were exceptions to the rule (Blair gives *nitier* and *quatier* as examples, p. 118).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I found another source that seems to apply this exception also to finite forms such as *patior* (&quot;[The Correct Pronunciation of Latin According to Roman Usage](http://www.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/12/07/05/19-20-13_0.pdf)&quot;, by Michael de Angelis, p. 20). But I'm a bit doubtful that this is actually an observed as opposed to a theoretical exception. There seems to be a spelling variant *[pacior](https://books.google.com/books?id=OQYhDpaDH2MC&amp;pg=PA52&amp;lpg=PA52&amp;dq=%22pacior%22+%22pati%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pacior%22%20%22pati%22&amp;f=false),* which implies that at least some speakers at some point in time assibilated the T in this word (in some varieties of spoken Latin, assibilated T sounded the same as &quot;soft C&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. ###When the I is long and/or stressed (very uncertain to me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Blair (1873) says that the T in *totius* did not undergo the sound change of assibilation because the I was long (*tōtīus*) (p. 118). As Draconis mentioned, contrastive vowel length *per se* is lost in Ecclesiastical Latin, but it is not irrelevant in all cases to pronunciation: the position of stress in Ecclesiastical Latin corresponds to the stress of Classical Latin, which was assigned by a length-based rule. For example, *termĭnus* is stressed on the third-to-last syllable in both Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin, and *bovīnus* is stressed on the second-to-last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A complication in the case of *totius* is that an alternative scansion *tōtĭus* was used sometimes in poetry. I don't know whether this led to the development of an Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation *ˈto[t͡s]ius* with initial stress. If a pronunciation of *totius* with stress on the second syllable is/was used in Ecclesiastical Latin, I'm not entirely sure whether it would be more regular for it to be *to*ˈ[tsi]*us* or *to*[ˈti]*us*. This online &quot;[Guide to Latin Pronunciation](http://www.olrl.org/pray/gtolatin.shtml)&quot; does give *totius* (without marking of the stress) as an example of a word where *t* is pronounced as [t͡s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Long vowels rarely occur before other vowels in Latin. Aside from the small class of words with *-īus* genitives, such as *tōtīus,* *ī* followed by a vowel mainly shows up in words taken from Greek (which I mentioned above as a possible doubtful case for assibilation of T). Specifically, there are a fair number of words that end in *-tīa* (or at least, that are expected to based on the Greek form), such as *[necromantīa](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnecromantia)* and *goētīa.* I don't know whether these have any single established pronunciation in Ecclesiastical Latin, or whether there is variation between pronunciations like *necroˈman*[ts]*ia, necroman*ˈ[ts]*ia* and *necroman*ˈ[t]*ia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The English form *necromancy,* with [s], is ultimately descended from some form with assibilation, but I don't know the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Italian seems to have [ˈtsia] in the word *[negromanzia](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/negromanzia),* and also in some words from Greek *-τία* nouns like *[democrazia](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/democrazia)* (from δημοκρατία). (Note: even though Greek *-ία* actually has a short vowel, the I ended up being stressed in languages like Italian.) &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Italian does have nouns spelled with *-tia* and pronounced with [ˈtia], but all of the ones that I can find actually represent *-thia* (e.g. [simpatia][2]), so they don't seem directly relevant to the issue of pronouncing words that end in *-tia* in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Summary&#xD;&#xA;All in all, when speaking in Latin according to the &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; (Italian) style of pronunciation, I wouldn't try to make any exceptions to the assibilation of T based on stress, historical vowel length, or language of origin (even though, as you can see, some sources suggest that there are exceptions related to these things). I would just stick with the simple rules about assibilating TI before a vowel, except for after S, X, T, or at the very start of a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=o8oqAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA83#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wordreference.com/iten/simpatia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10684" RevisionGUID="4232bb9a-5c96-4e06-8735-e29aafcff085" CreationDate="2019-08-10T09:01:04.407" UserId="9" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="There is no single standard for Latin pronunciation. The main division is between reconstructed pronunciation (based on our idea of what Classical Latin sounded like) vs. everything else. As Draconis mentioned, in reconstructed pronunciation &amp;lt;ti&gt; is just pronounced as a sequence of the T sound [t] followed by one of the two I sounds, **ĭ** [i~ɪ] or **ī** [iː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The development of assibilated pronunciations of &amp;lt;ti&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In most other pronunciation systems, &amp;lt;ti&gt; has a special pronunciation where the T is &quot;assibilated&quot; in certain contexts. This pronunciation is based on a sound change that is thought to have occurred naturally in the development of the spoken language; however, I suspect that the &quot;rules&quot; that books give about when to use this pronunciation in modern speech may be partly artificial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The hypothesis that I have seen about the origin of this pronunciation is that the /i/ in &amp;lt;ti&gt; came to be realized as a non-syllabic glide/semivowel/approximant [j] before a vowel. Then the resulting sequence [tj] turned into [t͡sj], with a voiceless affricate [t͡s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some languages such as French and English, the affricate [t͡s] underwent further developments. French turned the affricate [t͡s] into a fricative [s]. In English, we usually see a change to [ʃ] (the sound of &quot;sh&quot; in &quot;fish&quot;) and loss of the following [j] sound; for example, the English word *nation* is pronounced with [ʃ]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any tradition of Latin pronunciation that uses an *elongated* sound in the pronunciation of &amp;lt;ti&gt;. In fact, I've heard that Ecclesiastical Latin has specifically **short** [t͡s] in words like *natio,* in contrast to the **long** [tt͡s] sound that many Italian speakers use in Italian words like *spazzi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I described the sound change as turning [tj] into [t͡sj], in modern speech the pronunciation [t͡si], with a syllabic [i] in hiatus with the following vowel, can also be heard from some speakers for Latin &amp;lt;ti&gt; followed by a vowel. Interchange between syllabic [i u] and non-syllabic [j w] is common in the history of Latin and its descendants; I'm not sure about the exact history of variation between [i] and [j] in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Vulgar Latin also had sound changes affecting the pronunciation of *-di-*&#xD;&#xA;Historically, Latin *-di-* also developed an assibilated pronunciation [d͡z] (in vulgar Latin, *-di-* between vowels often showed an alternative development to a *j* or &quot;soft g&quot; sound), but I think that in modern spoken Latin *di* is typically not assibilated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The main conditions for not assibilating &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the conditions that I know of for using the assibilated pronunciation of T in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ###Don't assibilate unless the I comes before another vowel&#xD;&#xA;The assibilated pronunciation of T in the sequence &amp;lt;ti&gt; developed only when the I was followed by another vowel. (As I mentioned above, the original conditioning factor for the assibilation may have been a change of I to a glide [j], which was only possible before a vowel.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ###Don't assibilate after the sound [s] (whether spelled S or X)&#xD;&#xA;The assibilated pronunciation of T did not develop after the sound [s]. There are numerous examples with the spelling &amp;lt;sti&gt;; there aren't so many with the spelling &amp;lt;xti&gt;, but *mixtio* seems to be given by a number of sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (In English, the [tj] of words spelled with &amp;lt;sti&gt; and &amp;lt;xti&gt; developed for many speakers via palatalization to the affricate [t͡ʃ], as in the words *bestial* and *question.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Minor or unclear conditions for not assibilating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following conditions are either less clear, or more marginal in scope (or both).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. ###At the start of a word&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I would not assibilate the T in a word starting with &amp;lt;ti&gt; followed by a vowel. The only word I know of where this exception is relevant is the word *tiara*. I'm used to pronouncing [t] in the English word, and Italian also seems to have [t] rather than [t͡s] in *[tiara](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/tiara).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Lindsay 1894 cites Servius as saying that *-ti-* and *-di-* are subject to assibilation before a vowel in word-medial position, but not at the start of words: the examples given for non-assibilated *di-* and *ti-* are *dies* and *tiaras* (*[The Latin Language: An Historical Account of Latin Sounds, Stems and Flexions][1],* p 83, §90).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. ###After another T&#xD;&#xA;Supposedly, the assibilated pronunciation of T is not used in words spelled with &amp;lt;tti&gt;. There are very few examples of &amp;lt;tti&gt; followed by a vowel in Latin, so I asked a separate question to try to determine the evidence for this rule: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8824&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Despite the non-obviousness of this rule to me, sources seem to be fairly consistent in saying not to assibilate in this context, so I would recommend following that practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. ###In (some) words from Greek (maybe also applies to TY)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I've seen a few sources that say that T was not or should not be assibilated in words from Greek. According to Blair (1873), &quot;in Greek words (as *Aegyptius*), as the I is not consonantal, the T cannot be hissed&quot; (*[Latin Pronunciation: An Inquiry Into the Proper Sound of the Latin Language during the Classical Period](https://books.google.com/books?id=s3NXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA118),* p. 118). I have the impression that the actual pronunciation used with words of this sort is sporadic and might vary between different time periods. Despite what Blair says, I wouldn't recommend making a special exception for words like *Aegyptius.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. ###In certain forms of passive or deponent verbs with infinitives ending in *-ti*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In the infinitive *pati,* the I is not followed by a vowel, so it's regular to not assibilate the T. A number of sources say that the archaic infinitive forms ending in *-ier* like *patier* also have non-assibilated T, and so were exceptions to the rule (Blair gives *nitier* and *quatier* as examples, p. 118).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I found another source that seems to apply this exception also to finite forms such as *patior* (&quot;[The Correct Pronunciation of Latin According to Roman Usage](http://www.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/12/07/05/19-20-13_0.pdf)&quot;, by Michael de Angelis, p. 20). But I'm a bit doubtful that this is actually an observed as opposed to a theoretical exception. There seems to be a spelling variant *[pacior](https://books.google.com/books?id=OQYhDpaDH2MC&amp;pg=PA52&amp;lpg=PA52&amp;dq=%22pacior%22+%22pati%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pacior%22%20%22pati%22&amp;f=false),* which implies that at least some speakers at some point in time assibilated the T in this word (in some varieties of spoken Latin, assibilated T sounded the same as &quot;soft C&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. ###When the I is long and/or stressed (very uncertain to me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Blair (1873) says that the T in *totius* did not undergo the sound change of assibilation because the I was long (*tōtīus*) (p. 118). As Draconis mentioned, contrastive vowel length *per se* is lost in Ecclesiastical Latin, but it is not irrelevant in all cases to pronunciation: the position of stress in Ecclesiastical Latin corresponds to the stress of Classical Latin, which was assigned by a length-based rule. For example, *termĭnus* is stressed on the third-to-last syllable in both Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin, and *bovīnus* is stressed on the second-to-last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A complication in the case of *totius* is that an alternative scansion *tōtĭus* was used sometimes in poetry. I don't know whether this led to the development of an Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation *ˈto[t͡s]ius* with initial stress. If a pronunciation of *totius* with stress on the second syllable is/was used in Ecclesiastical Latin, I'm not entirely sure whether it would be more regular for it to be *to*ˈ[tsi]*us* or *to*[ˈti]*us*. This online &quot;[Guide to Latin Pronunciation](http://www.olrl.org/pray/gtolatin.shtml)&quot; does give *totius* (without marking of the stress) as an example of a word where *t* is pronounced as [t͡s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Long vowels rarely occur before other vowels in Latin. Aside from the small class of words with *-īus* genitives, such as *tōtīus,* *ī* followed by a vowel mainly shows up in words taken from Greek (which I mentioned above as a possible doubtful case for assibilation of T). Specifically, there are a fair number of words that end in *-tīa* (or at least, that are expected to based on the Greek form), such as *[necromantīa](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnecromantia)* and *goētīa.* I don't know whether these have any single established pronunciation in Ecclesiastical Latin, or whether there is variation between pronunciations like *necroˈman*[ts]*ia, necroman*ˈ[ts]*ia* and *necroman*ˈ[t]*ia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The English form *necromancy,* with [s], is ultimately descended from some form with assibilation, but I don't know the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Italian seems to have [ˈtsia] in the word *[negromanzia](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/negromanzia),* and also in some words from Greek *-τία* nouns like *[democrazia](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/democrazia)* (from δημοκρατία). (Note: even though Greek *-ία* actually has a short vowel, the I ended up being stressed in languages like Italian.) &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Italian does have nouns spelled with *-tia* and pronounced with [ˈtia], but all of the ones that I can find actually represent *-thia* (e.g. [simpatia][2]), so they don't seem directly relevant to the issue of pronouncing words that end in *-tia* in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Summary&#xD;&#xA;All in all, when speaking in Latin according to the &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; (Italian) style of pronunciation, I wouldn't try to make any exceptions to the assibilation of T based on stress, historical vowel length, or language of origin (even though, as you can see, some sources suggest that there are exceptions related to these things). I would just stick with the simple rules about assibilating TI before a vowel, except for after S, X, T, or at the very start of a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=o8oqAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA83#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wordreference.com/iten/simpatia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11296" RevisionGUID="e4481dc8-4a15-4ccd-b2bb-993120fecb38" CreationDate="2019-08-10T09:55:53.883" UserId="5002" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="For educated Latin, a simple rule applies:&#xD;&#xA;**non-initial ti + vowel = tsi + vowel**, unless:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is already an S before that T (even if it is written as X = CS);&#xD;&#xA; - The I is long or the T is doubled.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;All the apparent inconsistencies may be due to uneducated speech that turned into Romance. At the time that the assibilation of **ti** as **tsi** became a standard, the uneducated language had already begun to lose vowel length distinction.The ī of Greek words like Goetīa, necromantīa must have been shortened in Romance (I guess they were not very common words in everyday speech and people would get confused about the length of I), and that is probably why in Spanish the accent is at the previous syllable: nigro**man**cia and Go**e**cia. Then, Portuguese (like Italian) may have moved the accent later to the second syllable because it was seen as the proper way to do it in Latin or Greek, and that may be why we have democra**ci**a and nigroman**ci**a in Portuguese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While commoners, farmers and soldiers would be confused about correct vowel length, educated speakers (that often new Greek) would know it and follow the rule. **Tōtīus**, then, must be to**ti**us, and **tōtius** must be **to**tsius, that is, the pronunciation varies depending on the length of I." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11207" RevisionGUID="6976f93e-db07-4572-b2c4-e6c950e7ff09" CreationDate="2019-08-10T10:16:07.567" UserId="13" Comment="added UPDATE 4" Text="[This Italian Sappho anthology](https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/11675/1/Saffo_frammenti_2015.pdf), on p. 57-58, has a fusion of several Lobel-Page fragments (cfr [this question of mine](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10685/tracing-mysterious-line-ends-in-a-combination-of-sappho-fragments-found-in-an-it)), among which is 67(a). In l. 3 of that fragment, which is l. 16 of the fusion, the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;δ]αίμων ὀλοφ . [&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is completed to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;δ]αίμων ὀλόφω[ι&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last word, ὀλόφῳ, is untraceable for me. It would seem to be a dative form from *ὄλοφος, but that doesn't seem to exist (Wiktionary and Perseus and my big Rocci dictionary all fail to report it), and Perseus doesn't find it as an inflected form either. The following part of the text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κ]αὶ τοῦτ' ἐπίκει̣[ρε &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ] θέλ' ὦν τ' ἄπαισαν&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δ]αίμων ὀλόφ[ωι &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; τέ]λ̣εσον νόημμα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would seem to correspond to the following part of the translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;e anche questo (mio male) tu voglia (eliminare); perciò tu, che fra tutte (sei) la dea dai pensieri più astuti, dai compimento al mio pensiero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which in English reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and this (pain of mine) may you also want to (eliminate); thus you, who (are) the goddess of the most astute thoughts among all [goddesses], give fulfilment to my thought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;And this … also&quot; matches καὶ τοῦτ'. &quot;may you … want&quot; might match θέλ(ε), if that is what we take that word to be elided from. &quot;(pain of mine)&quot; goes into the lacuna, hence the brackets. We have to assume &quot;(eliminate)&quot; matches ἐπίκει[ρε, perhaps mis-accented and meant to be ἐπικεί[ρην, an infinitive. &quot;thus you&quot;  matches ὦν τ(υ). &quot;among all [goddesses]&quot; would seem to match ἄπαισαν, which however, if genitive plural, should be ἀπαίσαν. δαίμων matches &quot;goddess&quot;. &quot;give fulfilment to my thought&quot; is τέλεσον νόημμα. We have left to match &quot;of the most astute thoughts&quot; and the mystery word. Um, problem: the English is too long. I mean, that word can't be a superlative, right? This word would then have to match either &quot;thoughts&quot; or &quot;astute&quot;. However, neither give me anything close to this in Woodhouse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is this word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After thinking it might be a verb, I googled ὀλοφόω, and landed on [this](https://books.google.it/books?id=4ztEAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA172&amp;lpg=PA172&amp;dq=%E1%BD%80%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%86%CF%8C%CF%89&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=fUJ8BQmhan&amp;sig=ACfU3U1VPY4pf1KfihutLiqWrOwtRnahzg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjbreHV89XjAhXOGewKHfaeCFkQ6AEwAXoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%E1%BD%80%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%86%CF%8C%CF%89&amp;f=false), where on p. 172 we find the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me try to copy those screenshots:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ὀλοφώϊος, ὁ, ἡ, s.v.a. ὀλοὸς, bey Nicander σίνη ὀλοφώϊα θηρῶν, verderblich, tödlich; bey Homer sind ὀλοφώϊα δήνεα Κίρκης, 10, 289, ὀλοφώϊα εἰδὼς, 17, 248. statt ὀλοφώϊος ὤν. Von ὄλω, ὄλλω, ὀλλύω, ὄλλυμι, kommt auch ὀλόω (ὀλοὸς), ὀλόπω, ὀλόπτω, ὀλόφω, ὀλοφόω, wie von ἐλέπω, ἔλπω, ἐλπὶς, ἐλέφω, ἐλεφάω, ἐλεφαίρω. S. auch ὀλοφύρομαι. Andere leiten es von ὄλω u. φὼς ab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With my shaky German, this should mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ὀλοφώϊος, ὁ, ἡ, (s.v.a.=?) ὀλοὸς, _apud_ Nicander σίνη ὀλοφώϊα θηρῶν, pernicious, deadly; _apud_ Homer there are ὀλοφώϊα δήνεα Κίρκης, 10, 289, ὀλοφώϊα εἰδὼς, 17, 248. instead of ὀλοφώϊος ὤν. From ὄλω, ὄλλω, ὀλλύω, ὄλλυμι, comes also ὀλόω (ὀλοὸς), ὀλόπω, ὀλόπτω, ὀλόφω, ὀλοφόω, like from ἐλέπω, ἔλπω, ἐλπὶς, ἐλέφω, ἐλεφάω, ἐλεφαίρω. See also ὀλοφύρομαι. Others derive it from ὄλω and φὼς.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of all the verbs mentioned with ὀλοφόω, whence my supplement could stem from, I only find ὀλόπτω on [Perseus][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But does όει contract to ῳ, so that ὀλοφόω gives ὀλοφόει&gt;ὀλοφῷ which barytonizes to ὀλόφῳ in Aeolic? And assuming it does, how does &quot;pluck out, tear out&quot; fit in that translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just realized I didn't even look in the anthology's notes. Now, footnote 425 on that page refers to l. 14, footnote 427 is about τέλεσον νόημμα, so the only footnote which could be about this supplement is 426:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Integrazione di E. Puglia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So at least we have a name to our mystery: Enzo Puglia suggested that mysterious supplement. One could think 427 is about both, but it says &quot;Integrazione di Hunt&quot;, and Campbell tells me Hunt suggested ὀλοφ[ώϊος there. Moreover, [this thing](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gennaro_Tedeschi/publication/258993476_Saffo_Biografia_e_antologia_di_versi/links/00b7d5298c746c81c2000000/Saffo-Biografia-e-antologia-di-versi.pdf) has the exact same combination + translation, and the matching note is referred to &quot;(eliminare)&quot;. Ummm… Scouring through the biblio of that thing, we find two E. Puglia references:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. E. Puglia, Per la ricomposizione del quarto libro dei canti di Saffo (POxy 1787), «SemRom»  X (2007), pp. 17-39 &#xD;&#xA; 2. E. Puglia, P. Oxy. 2294 e la tradizione delle odi di Saffo, «ZPE»  166 (2008), pp.1-8 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will now look at those, if I find them, and if one of them contains the answer, I will self-answer. Before I leave you, however, let me remark how the biblio is ordered randomly instead of alphabetically: big boos to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE 3**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the sake of completeness, here is the full text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][5]][5][![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... dagli dèi beati avendo ottenuto&lt;sup&gt;425&lt;/sup&gt;... e anche questo (mio male) tu voglia (eliminare)&lt;sup&gt;426&lt;/sup&gt;; perciò tu, che fra tutte (sei) la dea dai pensieri più astuti, dai compimento al mio pensiero&lt;sup&gt;427&lt;/sup&gt;. Tu certo mi amavi ed eri solita (appagare ogni) mia invocazione; per (realizzarla) adesso (aiutami) secondo l'animo (mio&lt;sup&gt;428&lt;/sup&gt;).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(La dea mi rispondeva così):&lt;sup&gt;429&lt;/sup&gt; &quot;Per te non è (disdicevole) questo motivo e quello che tu vuoi&lt;sup&gt;430&lt;/sup&gt; (ottenere non) è affatto eccessivo (da avere ... infatti combattere con me&lt;sup&gt;431&lt;/sup&gt; (non può)&lt;sup&gt;432&lt;/sup&gt; neppure Andromeda&lt;sup&gt;433&lt;/sup&gt;, (ma per  ciò  che  ha  fatto)&lt;sup&gt;434&lt;/sup&gt;  confidando  in  una  (vita)  voluttuosa  (non)  potrà  sfuggire&lt;sup&gt;435&lt;/sup&gt;  (agli  immortali&lt;sup&gt;436&lt;/sup&gt;);  tu infatti sai bene&lt;sup&gt;437&lt;/sup&gt; che Nemesi (colpisce chi medita infamie e)&lt;sup&gt;438&lt;/sup&gt; prevale su tutti.&quot; O Saffo, poiché ti ama&lt;sup&gt;439&lt;/sup&gt; (applicò al carro) le ruote e (per te)la veneranda sovrana&lt;sup&gt;440&lt;/sup&gt; di Cipro (andò a supplicare Zeus e il Cronide le)  accordò  (di  concederti)  un  grande  dono:&lt;sup&gt;441&lt;/sup&gt;  che  tutti  quanti  il  (Sole)  splendente  (circonda  con  i  suoi raggi)&lt;sup&gt;442&lt;/sup&gt;... ovunque siano raggiunti dalla (tua nobile)fama&lt;sup&gt;443&lt;/sup&gt;... e che tu sulle (rive) di Acheronte&lt;sup&gt;444&lt;/sup&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Line 14 corrisponds perfectly with «dagli dèi beati avendo ottenuto» (having obtained from the blissful gods);&#xD;&#xA; - The part we discussed above seems to have to match with the part of the translation I mentioned above, since then «dai compimento al mio pensiero» (give fulfilment to my thought) obviously matches τέλεσον νόημμα;&#xD;&#xA; - That famous footnote 426 &quot;Integrazione di E. Puglia&quot; actually refers to &quot;eliminare&quot;, which would seem to match ἐπικεῖρε as per above; however, since Puglia combined (I believe) the fragments, that article might still give clues to the mystery supplement;&#xD;&#xA; - «Tu certo mi amavi» (You certainly loved me) matches σὺ μὰν ἐφίλης plus an implied μ(ε);&#xD;&#xA; - «ed eri solita (appagare ogni) mia invocazione» seems to match virtually nothing, since all we have is ]έτων κάλημμι, and then we end up in the next item;&#xD;&#xA; - «per (realizzarla) adesso (aiutami) secondo l'animo (mio)» (to (realize it) now (help me) according to (my) soul) matches the last line of the first pic, with πεδὰ θῦμον αἶψα = «secondo l'animo (mio) [subito]» (αἶψα was somehow ignored), and νῦν δ' ἔννεκα = «per (realizzarla) adesso»;&#xD;&#xA; - «(La dea mi rispondeva così)» is a very intricate translation for ἔφα, &quot;(the goddess) said&quot;;&#xD;&#xA; - «Per te non è (disdicevole) questo motivo e quello che tu vuoi (ottenere non) è affatto eccessivo (da avere» (fixing a few blatant bracketing errors, &quot;(For you) this reason is not unseemly, and what you want to get (is) not at all excessive (to have)&quot;) matches the ἔφα line and the following οὔδεν πόλυ; their reason for adding &quot;for you&quot; is mysterious, but whatever;&#xD;&#xA; - «infatti combattere con me» (indeed fight with me) matches γὰρ ἔμοι μάχεσθαι;&#xD;&#xA; - «(non può)&lt;sup&gt;432&lt;/sup&gt; neppure Andromeda, (ma per  ciò&#xD;&#xA;   che  ha  fatto)» (even Andromeda (can't, but for what she has done)) would seem to match δεῖ σ', Ἀνδρομέδαν, though the &quot;even&quot; is not there and &quot;δεῖ σ'&quot; is ignored, and the lacuna, with its mere two syllables, can hardly contain all that stuff;&#xD;&#xA; - Note 432 reads «οὐ supplemento di Ferrari, γάρ è integrazione di Hunt»; γὰρ I can see, but the only οὐ is in the next line, so the note is misplaced, or it's BS;&#xD;&#xA; - «confidando  in  una  (vita)     voluttuosa» (confiding in a voluptuous (life)) perfectly matches διαίτᾳ χλιδάνᾳ πίθεισα;  &#xD;&#xA; - «(non)  potrà     sfuggire  (agli    &#xD;&#xA;   immortali);» (will (not) be able to escape (the immortals)) matches οὐ λελάθην ἀθανάτοις ἔστι, literally «it is not possible that the immortals have forgotten (sc. Andromeda)»;&#xD;&#xA; - Isn't that line inmetrical? It looks like –u– –uuu– –uu–u–u… anaclasis, perhaps? But it's a one-off thing due to supplements… very unconvincing; waith though, it's λελᾰ́θειν, not λελᾱ́θειν, so if the privative alpha were long we'd be OK; and it seems it is, so nothing to see here;&#xD;&#xA; - «tu    infatti sai bene» = σὺ δ' εὖ γὰρ οἶσθα;&#xD;&#xA; - «che      Nemesi (colpisce chi    medita    infamie e)&#xD;&#xA;   prevale su       tutti» is exactly l. 23, and ends the response of the goddess;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest, I leave uncommented. So we have more than just one translation problem here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE 4**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading further into [this](https://www.academia.edu/8829793/Due_sequenze_saffiche_in_P.Oxy._1787_Esili_e_i_tre_carmi_dellultima_colonna_ms._in_SemRom_10_2007_), I found a mention of [this article](https://www.jstor.org/stable/40236270?read-now=1&amp;seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents), which is the beginning of the fusion we're looking at. However, the mystery supplement are from a fragment that isn't yet combined in that article, but appears to be in the text of this poem given in _Una mitra per Kleis. Saffo e il suo pubblico_, by F. Ferrari, published 2007. Unfortunately, I cannot find it online. Can someone get ahold of a copy of that book and see what is found in it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/drq8y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2jjBK.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=oloptw&amp;la=greek#Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=o)lo/ptw-contents&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZtuKq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cu4su.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/B5wPa.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11291" RevisionGUID="174d8f64-92d5-40f0-9f35-77c2dcd48c24" CreationDate="2019-08-10T12:48:09.657" UserId="1982" Comment="added 294 characters in body" Text="As comments-section grows, this is not so much an answer as an interpretation of Mitomino's &quot;flava caput nectentur oliva&quot;: the assertion that &quot;caput&quot; is an accusative; not a nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expressions like &quot;accusative-of-relation&quot; &amp; &quot;retained-accusative-of-specification&quot; can be baffling to those who have not studied linguistics. Extra study is required: &quot;accusative-of-relation&quot; denotes the thing or person (caput) referred to by the action (nectentur) rather than the object proper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek: a retained accusative is based on the supposition that such constructions are converted from active to passive verb-forms and that the accusative is retained from the active construction.&#xD;&#xA;At this point it may be appropriate to study Joonas's earlier Q. Here, Brianpck adapted &quot;te rem doceo&quot; = &quot;I teach you something&quot; to give &quot;rem a me doceris&quot; = &quot;you (subject) are taught (passive) something (retained accusative) by me (agent).&#xD;&#xA;In the passive construction, the accusative-of-the-person becomes the subject; the accusative-of-the-thing is retained. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the OP's original Q., a &quot;middle-voice&quot; verb is not to take an agent. If the person doing the crowning had been identified, that soul would have been the agent (ablative): &quot;flava caput nectentur oliva, a puella&quot;; presumably, the use of an (ablative) agent restricts the verb to passive-use only; therefore, disqualifying its elevation to the &quot;middle-voice&quot; genre?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hebrew: Psalm 3:8  &quot;For you have stricken all of my enemies with respect to the cheek&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;here, &quot;cheek&quot; is an indefinite primary-noun (no specific or named owner: &quot;his&quot;, &quot;John's&quot;) and functions as an &quot;accusative-of-specification&quot;--it specifies/ clarifies the verb--the striking is limited to the cheeks, of the enemies. &#xD;&#xA;Alternative translations identified &quot;adverbial-accusatives&quot; (just to add to the &quot;accusative&quot; confusion) &quot;on the cheek&quot; &amp; &quot;upon the cheekbone&quot;; how the striking was done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, this is not a retained &quot;accusative-of-specification&quot;; but, it helps to explain arcane terminology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applying to the Latin: the crowning will be limited to the heads, suppose it would be, by definition! Hence, the thing or person (the heads) referred to by the action (the crowning). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conclusion: &quot;caput&quot; in &quot;flava caput nectentur oliva&quot; is an accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Have not studied Greek, or Hebrew, but they seem to  involve similar concepts, on this topic.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10684" RevisionGUID="3a3280da-adbb-4274-a86e-171bc9db7c2f" CreationDate="2019-08-10T12:57:30.787" UserId="9" Comment="Added link to related question about palatalization of D" Text="There is no single standard for Latin pronunciation. The main division is between reconstructed pronunciation (based on our idea of what Classical Latin sounded like) vs. everything else. As Draconis mentioned, in reconstructed pronunciation &amp;lt;ti&gt; is just pronounced as a sequence of the T sound [t] followed by one of the two I sounds, **ĭ** [i~ɪ] or **ī** [iː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The development of assibilated pronunciations of &amp;lt;ti&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In most other pronunciation systems, &amp;lt;ti&gt; has a special pronunciation where the T is &quot;assibilated&quot; in certain contexts. This pronunciation is based on a sound change that is thought to have occurred naturally in the development of the spoken language; however, I suspect that the &quot;rules&quot; that books give about when to use this pronunciation in modern speech may be partly artificial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The hypothesis that I have seen about the origin of this pronunciation is that the /i/ in &amp;lt;ti&gt; came to be realized as a non-syllabic glide/semivowel/approximant [j] before a vowel. Then the resulting sequence [tj] turned into [t͡sj], with a voiceless affricate [t͡s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some languages such as French and English, the affricate [t͡s] underwent further developments. French turned the affricate [t͡s] into a fricative [s]. In English, we usually see a change to [ʃ] (the sound of &quot;sh&quot; in &quot;fish&quot;) and loss of the following [j] sound; for example, the English word *nation* is pronounced with [ʃ]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any tradition of Latin pronunciation that uses an *elongated* sound in the pronunciation of &amp;lt;ti&gt;. In fact, I've heard that Ecclesiastical Latin has specifically **short** [t͡s] in words like *natio,* in contrast to the **long** [tt͡s] sound that many Italian speakers use in Italian words like *spazzi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I described the sound change as turning [tj] into [t͡sj], in modern speech the pronunciation [t͡si], with a syllabic [i] in hiatus with the following vowel, can also be heard from some speakers for Latin &amp;lt;ti&gt; followed by a vowel. Interchange between syllabic [i u] and non-syllabic [j w] is common in the history of Latin and its descendants; I'm not sure about the exact history of variation between [i] and [j] in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Vulgar Latin also had sound changes affecting the pronunciation of *-di-*&#xD;&#xA;Historically, Latin *-di-* also developed an assibilated pronunciation [d͡z] (and in vulgar Latin, *-di-* between vowels often showed an alternative development to a *j* or &quot;soft g&quot; sound [d͡ʒ], discussed in [Alex B.'s answer here][1]). But I think that in modern spoken Latin *di* is typically not assibilated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The main conditions for not assibilating &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the conditions that I know of for using the assibilated pronunciation of T in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ###Don't assibilate unless the I comes before another vowel&#xD;&#xA;The assibilated pronunciation of T in the sequence &amp;lt;ti&gt; developed only when the I was followed by another vowel. (As I mentioned above, the original conditioning factor for the assibilation may have been a change of I to a glide [j], which was only possible before a vowel.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ###Don't assibilate after the sound [s] (whether spelled S or X)&#xD;&#xA;The assibilated pronunciation of T did not develop after the sound [s]. There are numerous examples with the spelling &amp;lt;sti&gt;; there aren't so many with the spelling &amp;lt;xti&gt;, but *mixtio* seems to be given by a number of sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (In English, the [tj] of words spelled with &amp;lt;sti&gt; and &amp;lt;xti&gt; developed for many speakers via palatalization to the affricate [t͡ʃ], as in the words *bestial* and *question.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Minor or unclear conditions for not assibilating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following conditions are either less clear, or more marginal in scope (or both).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. ###At the start of a word&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I would not assibilate the T in a word starting with &amp;lt;ti&gt; followed by a vowel. The only word I know of where this exception is relevant is the word *tiara*. I'm used to pronouncing [t] in the English word, and Italian also seems to have [t] rather than [t͡s] in *[tiara](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/tiara).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Lindsay 1894 cites Servius as saying that *-ti-* and *-di-* are subject to assibilation before a vowel in word-medial position, but not at the start of words: the examples given for non-assibilated *di-* and *ti-* are *dies* and *tiaras* (*[The Latin Language: An Historical Account of Latin Sounds, Stems and Flexions][2],* p 83, §90).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. ###After another T&#xD;&#xA;Supposedly, the assibilated pronunciation of T is not used in words spelled with &amp;lt;tti&gt;. There are very few examples of &amp;lt;tti&gt; followed by a vowel in Latin, so I asked a separate question to try to determine the evidence for this rule: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8824&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Despite the non-obviousness of this rule to me, sources seem to be fairly consistent in saying not to assibilate in this context, so I would recommend following that practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. ###In (some) words from Greek (maybe also applies to TY)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I've seen a few sources that say that T was not or should not be assibilated in words from Greek. According to Blair (1873), &quot;in Greek words (as *Aegyptius*), as the I is not consonantal, the T cannot be hissed&quot; (*[Latin Pronunciation: An Inquiry Into the Proper Sound of the Latin Language during the Classical Period](https://books.google.com/books?id=s3NXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA118),* p. 118). I have the impression that the actual pronunciation used with words of this sort is sporadic and might vary between different time periods. Despite what Blair says, I wouldn't recommend making a special exception for words like *Aegyptius.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. ###In certain forms of passive or deponent verbs with infinitives ending in *-ti*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In the infinitive *pati,* the I is not followed by a vowel, so it's regular to not assibilate the T. A number of sources say that the archaic infinitive forms ending in *-ier* like *patier* also have non-assibilated T, and so were exceptions to the rule (Blair gives *nitier* and *quatier* as examples, p. 118).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I found another source that seems to apply this exception also to finite forms such as *patior* (&quot;[The Correct Pronunciation of Latin According to Roman Usage](http://www.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/12/07/05/19-20-13_0.pdf)&quot;, by Michael de Angelis, p. 20). But I'm a bit doubtful that this is actually an observed as opposed to a theoretical exception. There seems to be a spelling variant *[pacior](https://books.google.com/books?id=OQYhDpaDH2MC&amp;pg=PA52&amp;lpg=PA52&amp;dq=%22pacior%22+%22pati%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pacior%22%20%22pati%22&amp;f=false),* which implies that at least some speakers at some point in time assibilated the T in this word (in some varieties of spoken Latin, assibilated T sounded the same as &quot;soft C&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. ###When the I is long and/or stressed (very uncertain to me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Blair (1873) says that the T in *totius* did not undergo the sound change of assibilation because the I was long (*tōtīus*) (p. 118). As Draconis mentioned, contrastive vowel length *per se* is lost in Ecclesiastical Latin, but it is not irrelevant in all cases to pronunciation: the position of stress in Ecclesiastical Latin corresponds to the stress of Classical Latin, which was assigned by a length-based rule. For example, *termĭnus* is stressed on the third-to-last syllable in both Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin, and *bovīnus* is stressed on the second-to-last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A complication in the case of *totius* is that an alternative scansion *tōtĭus* was used sometimes in poetry. I don't know whether this led to the development of an Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation *ˈto[t͡s]ius* with initial stress. If a pronunciation of *totius* with stress on the second syllable is/was used in Ecclesiastical Latin, I'm not entirely sure whether it would be more regular for it to be *to*&amp;#8288;ˈ&amp;#8288;[tsi]*us* or *to*&amp;#8288;[ˈti]&amp;#8288;*us*. This online &quot;[Guide to Latin Pronunciation](http://www.olrl.org/pray/gtolatin.shtml)&quot; does give *totius* (without marking of the stress) as an example of a word where *t* is pronounced as [t͡s].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Long vowels rarely occur before other vowels in Latin. Aside from the small class of words with *-īus* genitives, such as *tōtīus,* *ī* followed by a vowel mainly shows up in words taken from Greek (which I mentioned above as a possible doubtful case for assibilation of T). Specifically, there are a fair number of words that end in *-tīa* (or at least, that are expected to based on the Greek form), such as *[necromantīa](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dnecromantia)* and *goētīa.* I don't know whether these have any single established pronunciation in Ecclesiastical Latin, or whether there is variation between pronunciations like *necroˈman*[ts]*ia, necroman*ˈ[ts]*ia* and *necroman*ˈ[t]*ia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The English form *necromancy,* with [s], is ultimately descended from some form with assibilation, but I don't know the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Italian seems to have [ˈtsia] in the word *[negromanzia](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/negromanzia),* and also in some words from Greek *-τία* nouns like *[democrazia](http://www.wordreference.com/iten/democrazia)* (from δημοκρατία). (Note: even though Greek *-ία* actually has a short vowel, the I ended up being stressed in languages like Italian.) &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Italian does have nouns spelled with *-tia* and pronounced with [ˈtia], but all of the ones that I can find actually represent *-thia* (e.g. [simpatia][3]), so they don't seem directly relevant to the issue of pronouncing words that end in *-tia* in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Summary&#xD;&#xA;All in all, when speaking in Latin according to the &quot;Ecclesiastical&quot; (Italian) style of pronunciation, I wouldn't try to make any exceptions to the assibilation of T based on stress, historical vowel length, or language of origin (even though, as you can see, some sources suggest that there are exceptions related to these things). I would just stick with the simple rules about assibilating TI before a vowel, except for after S, X, T, or at the very start of a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7412/9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=o8oqAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA83#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.wordreference.com/iten/simpatia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11291" RevisionGUID="7a335b54-2373-4ffd-ba1d-7e8da502b763" CreationDate="2019-08-10T13:14:47.903" UserId="1982" Comment="added 294 characters in body" Text="As comments-section grows, this is not so much an answer as an interpretation of Mitomino's &quot;flava caput nectentur oliva&quot;: the assertion that &quot;caput&quot; is an accusative; not a nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expressions like &quot;accusative-of-relation&quot; &amp; &quot;retained-accusative-of-specification&quot; can be baffling to those who have not studied linguistics. Extra study is required: &quot;accusative-of-relation&quot; denotes the thing or person (caput) referred to by the action (nectentur) rather than the object proper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek: a retained accusative is based on the supposition that such constructions are converted from active to passive verb-forms and that the accusative is retained from the active construction.&#xD;&#xA;At this point it may be appropriate to study Joonas's earlier Q. Here, Brianpck adapted &quot;te rem doceo&quot; = &quot;I teach you something&quot; to give &quot;rem a me doceris&quot; = &quot;you (subject) are taught (passive) something (retained accusative) by me (agent).&#xD;&#xA;In the passive construction, the accusative-of-the-person becomes the subject; the accusative-of-the-thing is retained. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the OP's original Q., a &quot;middle-voice&quot; verb is not to take an agent. If the person doing the crowning had been identified, that soul would have been the agent (ablative): &quot;flava caput nectentur oliva, a puella&quot;; presumably, the use of an (ablative) agent restricts the verb to passive-use only; therefore, disqualifying its elevation to the &quot;middle-voice&quot; genre?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This links into &quot;caput&quot; being a &quot;direct internal argument&quot; of &quot;the verbal predicate&quot;. The internal argument of a verb has to be realised inside the maximal projection of that verb. The one closest to the verb (here, &quot;caput&quot;) is the &quot;direct internal argument&quot;; the other/s--&quot;indirect internal argument&quot; (here, &quot;flava oliva&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The argument-structure of English transitive verb, &quot;open&quot;, has an EXternal argument (the Agent) and two internal arguments (theme &amp; instrument) e.g. &quot;Tom opened the door with his key&quot;, where &quot;door&quot; is the &quot;direct internal argument&quot; (closest to the verb, &quot;open&quot;) &amp; &quot;with his key&quot;,  the INdirect internal argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hebrew: Psalm 3:8  &quot;For you have stricken all of my enemies with respect to the cheek&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;here, &quot;cheek&quot; is an indefinite primary-noun (no specific or named owner: &quot;his&quot;, &quot;John's&quot;) and functions as an &quot;accusative-of-specification&quot;--it specifies/ clarifies the verb--the striking is limited to the cheeks, of the enemies. &#xD;&#xA;Alternative translations identified &quot;adverbial-accusatives&quot; (just to add to the &quot;accusative&quot; confusion) &quot;on the cheek&quot; &amp; &quot;upon the cheekbone&quot;; how the striking was done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, this is not a retained &quot;accusative-of-specification&quot;; but, it helps to explain arcane terminology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applying to the Latin: the crowning will be limited to the heads, suppose it would be, by definition! Hence, the thing or person (the heads) referred to by the action (the crowning). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conclusion: &quot;caput&quot; in &quot;flava caput nectentur oliva&quot; is an accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Have not studied Greek, or Hebrew, but they seem to  involve similar concepts, on this topic.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11297" RevisionGUID="9c737a12-798e-4f65-8f6f-4993a9c717d7" CreationDate="2019-08-10T14:08:51.173" UserId="2704" Text="I'm assuming Hanlon's Razor: that they've mangled Hunt's ὀλοφώ[ιος, by removing the inflection, because they didn't want to commit to a case (ὀλοφώ[ι-), and then going back and reaccenting the word, because noone told the proofreader that ὀλοφώ[ι was not a complete word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the meaning &quot;astute&quot;, LSJ notes that ὀλοφώϊος in Homer may mean not &quot;destructive&quot; but &quot;deceptive, tricky&quot;, derived not from ὀλόπτω but from ἐλεφαίρω. If you ameliorate &quot;tricky&quot; yet further, you get &quot;astute&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought of ὁλο-φαος, but I think it impossible that φαος there would contract into φως in Aeolic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11295" RevisionGUID="d76256b0-79c8-4dda-a7c6-2a3818ce279a" CreationDate="2019-08-10T14:38:57.437" UserId="1484" Comment="edited body" Text="As a part-time computer scientist, I've tried to come up with different ways of analyzing the Roman numeral system so that the rules can be formulated in as general a way as possible, with no special cases per glyph. The one that satisifes me the most, for the time being, is one in which we analyze the seven glyphs as four sets that each have a multiplier — similar to how each column has a place-value multiplier in the Arabic numeral system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These sets are `I V X` ; `X L C` ; `C D M` ; `M` (the Romans did not leave us perfectly symmetrical sets). You can only subtract the first glpyh in each set from the second or third **in the same set**. This precludes `IM`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see this analysis in action, read [**this simple handout**][1]. It includes exercises to practice with and [an online tool to verify your answers][2]. For the sake of perpetual Stack Exchange availability, I'll copy a screenshot of the first page here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Roman numeral handout first page][3]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QB3EN0pJ5YKaJ8cUdqpj1KFdMsfl6Wn03ptMEXceXOY/edit?usp=sharing&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://tools.unfamiliarplace.com/roman/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/d4ZSP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11298" RevisionGUID="5c07d24d-d738-42ef-8f4b-e36ceaf87974" CreationDate="2019-08-10T19:23:13.513" UserId="13" Text="Just to avoid leaving this unanswered, @NickNicholas has traced the word at hand to the Doric (and Aeolic?) verb thôsthai, to banquet, thanks to a translation of &quot;Una mitra per Cleis: Saffo e il suo pubblico&quot;, by F. Ferrari, which gives two uses of that verb as comparanda. The word is a hapax, in fact, the first attestation of this verb, which would be pĕrkatthôsthai (double theta or tau-theta as you please since, as @draconis commented, the choice was purely stylistical. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11299" RevisionGUID="04ba49c2-35c9-48c6-b5f1-a0c832fa3053" CreationDate="2019-08-10T19:53:18.213" UserId="3248" Text="Third time lucky! Here is a third proposal. Consider the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Namque umeris de more habilem suspenderat arcum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;venatrix dederatque comam diffundere ventis,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nuda genu nodoque sinus **collecta** fluentis.     &#xD;&#xA;                                 &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Verg. _Aen_ I, 318-320)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the &quot;Draconian&quot; conditions are fulfilled without apparent further provisos: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i) there is an accusative direct object (_sinus fluentis_),  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) no ablative agent is possible here due to its &quot;middle&quot; sense, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(iii) _collecta_ has passive morphology but it is not a deponent verb.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that there are two ways of analyzing _sinus fluentis_: (A) it is the true direct object of _collecta_, which behaves like a Greek middle participle and (B) it is an &quot;accusative of relation&quot;, in tune/symmetry with _genu_ in the previous Adjectival Phrase _nuda genu_. In case you think (as I do) that HERE both possibilities (A and B) can be conflated into only one, I can conflate the present answer into my previous one (for the time being, I'll leave them as two different (but related) possibilites of answering the present question). So far what seems clear (at least to me!) is that Draconis's question can only be answered with examples that, unsurprisingly, turn out to be clearly influenced by Greek. So, to the extent we can put Greek aside (we can't, I know, I know...), my answer to Draconis's question is **negative**.       " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11299" RevisionGUID="c75167bb-c0ec-497d-af87-ec15ded610b1" CreationDate="2019-08-10T19:59:08.173" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar and clarification" Text="Third time lucky! Here is a third proposal. Consider the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Namque umeris de more habilem suspenderat arcum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;venatrix dederatque comam diffundere ventis,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nuda genu nodoque sinus **collecta** fluentis.     &#xD;&#xA;                                 &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Verg. _Aen_ I, 318-320)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the &quot;Draconian&quot; conditions are fulfilled without apparent further provisos: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i) there is an accusative direct object (_sinus fluentis_),  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) no ablative agent is possible here due to its &quot;middle&quot; sense, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(iii) _collecta_ has passive morphology but it is not a deponent verb.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that there are two ways of analyzing _sinus fluentis_: (A) it is the true direct object of _collecta_, which behaves like a Greek middle participle and (B) it is an &quot;accusative of relation&quot;, in tune/symmetry with _genu_ in the previous Adjectival Phrase _nuda genu_. In case you think (as I do) that HERE both possibilities (A and B) can be conflated into only one, I can conflate the present answer into my previous one (for the time being, I'll leave them as two different (but related) possibilites of answering the present question). So far what seems clear (at least to me!) is that Draconis's question can only be answered with examples that, unsurprisingly, turn out to be clearly influenced by Greek. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11300" RevisionGUID="ac268ca6-ac58-43ef-a4ab-9595eb303b7a" CreationDate="2019-08-10T21:32:25.840" UserId="3248" Text="Answering a recent question, I've realized that I don't know how to say the following idiomatic expression in Latin (cf. Spanish: &quot;A la tercera va la vencida&quot;). Any suggestions? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Third time lucky&quot; or &quot;(the) third time’s the charm&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33298" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11300" RevisionGUID="ac268ca6-ac58-43ef-a4ab-9595eb303b7a" CreationDate="2019-08-10T21:32:25.840" UserId="3248" Text="How to say &quot;Third time lucky&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33299" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11300" RevisionGUID="ac268ca6-ac58-43ef-a4ab-9595eb303b7a" CreationDate="2019-08-10T21:32:25.840" UserId="3248" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33300" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="11265" RevisionGUID="ddd47ae1-d3aa-4327-ab0c-306fab4de79a" CreationDate="2019-08-10T22:38:10.203" UserId="4991" Comment="128" />
  <row Id="33301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11301" RevisionGUID="403558e9-7599-4a22-b0ab-3a741efdfafe" CreationDate="2019-08-10T23:04:00.657" UserId="5003" Text="**&quot;Ad triarios ventum est&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;En los tiempos de Roma antigua, los soldados se dividían en filas de acuerdo a su capacitación y preparación. De este modo, los de la primera fila, llamados “pilati” o “velites” eran los bisoños y por lo tanto menos preparados. En la segunda, iban los “bastati” que tenían más valor y mérito que los anteriores. Mientras que en la tercera, estaban los “triarios” que eran los veteranos más valerosos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Según el Padre Esteban de Terreros, de esa división provino el adagio latino “ad triarium ventum est” que significa justamente “a la tercera va la vencida." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11299" RevisionGUID="f2e1027e-a05f-4a57-aff7-8c247d6ed098" CreationDate="2019-08-11T03:02:48.430" UserId="3248" Comment="sources added" Text="Third time lucky! Here is then my third try in answering Draconis's intriguing question (&quot;do we ever see non-deponent verbs with passive morphology, but able to take accusative direct objects and not able to take ablative agents?&quot;). Consider the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Namque umeris de more habilem suspenderat arcum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;venatrix dederatque comam diffundere ventis,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nuda genu nodoque sinus **collecta** fluentis.     &#xD;&#xA;                                 &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Verg. _Aen_ I, 318-320)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice how the &quot;Draconian&quot; conditions are fulfilled: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i) there is an accusative direct object (_sinus fluentis_),  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) no ablative agent is possible here due to its &quot;middle&quot; sense, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(iii) _collecta_ has passive morphology but it is not a deponent verb.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that there are two ways of analyzing the nominal phrase _sinus fluentis_: (A) it is the true direct object of _collecta_, which behaves like a Greek middle participle ([see this philological comment on verse 320] [1] // see also [Allen and Greenough: 247][2]) and (B) it is an &quot;accusative of relation&quot; ([see second alternative on verse 320][3]), perhaps in nice symmetry with _genu_ in the previous Adjectival Phrase _nuda genu_. See also the very interesting comment on verse 320 made by the eminent classical scholar [Robert Seymour Conway][4].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you think (as I do, not without some hesitation) that HERE the two abovementioned possibilities (A and B) can be conflated into only one, I can conflate the present answer into my previous one (for the time being, I'll leave them as two different (but related) possibilites of answering the present question). So far what seems clear (at least to me!) is that Draconis's very interesting question can only be answered with examples that, unsurprisingly, turn out to be clearly influenced by Greek. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.es/books?id=JKBIrIOR4PcC&amp;pg=PA120&amp;lpg=PA120&amp;dq=sinus%20collecta%20fluentis%20middle&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=y1x8NqSB0f&amp;sig=ACfU3U2OhZD_hPV1Ce6g1c5yrngNVyuPwQ&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjf-saC2vnjAhVNTsAKHZDYDCMQ6AEwCnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=sinus%20collecta%20fluentis%20middle&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.es/books?id=gVmMCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA247&amp;lpg=PA247&amp;dq=sinus%20collecta%20fluentis%20middle&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=w0O5uy_KPE&amp;sig=ACfU3U2kLtE3LL2AwcjDUT1x1mAfRD_ucw&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjf-saC2vnjAhVNTsAKHZDYDCMQ6AEwD3oECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=sinus%20collecta%20fluentis%20middle&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.es/books?id=mfGycd-8lx0C&amp;pg=PA46&amp;lpg=PA46&amp;dq=sinus%20collecta%20fluentis%20middle&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=y81WIIWg6U&amp;sig=ACfU3U31x-8lvu9YaqB3mA2yiMRpl9jmng&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjf-saC2vnjAhVNTsAKHZDYDCMQ6AEwEHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=sinus%20collecta%20fluentis%20middle&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.es/books?id=EVpkAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA71&amp;lpg=PA71&amp;dq=sinus%20collecta%20middle%20greek&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=uf1vimoXZ0&amp;sig=ACfU3U28mY6vBeXpi1khjj0-YgN-qqrEfA&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjBkdKk5PnjAhVZhlwKHdy9ClgQ6AEwDXoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=sinus%20collecta%20middle%20greek&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11299" RevisionGUID="ddab8f9d-df25-43ba-80ba-9f1a29341de4" CreationDate="2019-08-11T03:21:34.500" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="Third time lucky! Here is then my third try in answering Draconis's intriguing question (&quot;do we ever see non-deponent verbs with passive morphology, but able to take accusative direct objects and not able to take ablative agents?&quot;). Consider the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Namque umeris de more habilem suspenderat arcum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;venatrix dederatque comam diffundere ventis,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nuda genu nodoque sinus **collecta** fluentis.     &#xD;&#xA;                                 &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Verg. _Aen_ I, 318-320)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice how the &quot;Draconian&quot; conditions above are fulfilled: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i) _collecta_ has passive morphology but is not a deponent verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) there is an accusative direct object (_sinus fluentis_), and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(iii) no ablative agent is possible here due to its &quot;middle&quot; sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that there are two ways of analyzing the nominal phrase _sinus fluentis_: (A) it is the true direct object of _collecta_, which behaves like a Greek middle participle ([see this philological comment on verse 320] [1] // see also [Allen and Greenough: 247][2]) and (B) it is an &quot;accusative of relation&quot; ([see second alternative on verse 320][3]), perhaps in nice symmetry with _genu_ in the previous Adjectival Phrase _nuda genu_. See also the very interesting comment on verse 320 made by the eminent classical scholar [Robert Seymour Conway][4].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you think (as I do, not without some hesitation) that HERE the two abovementioned possibilities (A and B) can be conflated into only one, I can conflate the present answer into my previous one (for the time being, I'll leave them as two different (but related) possibilites of answering the present question). So far what seems clear (at least to me!) is that Draconis's very interesting question can only be answered with examples that, unsurprisingly, turn out to be clearly influenced by Greek. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.es/books?id=JKBIrIOR4PcC&amp;pg=PA120&amp;lpg=PA120&amp;dq=sinus%20collecta%20fluentis%20middle&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=y1x8NqSB0f&amp;sig=ACfU3U2OhZD_hPV1Ce6g1c5yrngNVyuPwQ&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjf-saC2vnjAhVNTsAKHZDYDCMQ6AEwCnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=sinus%20collecta%20fluentis%20middle&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.es/books?id=gVmMCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA247&amp;lpg=PA247&amp;dq=sinus%20collecta%20fluentis%20middle&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=w0O5uy_KPE&amp;sig=ACfU3U2kLtE3LL2AwcjDUT1x1mAfRD_ucw&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjf-saC2vnjAhVNTsAKHZDYDCMQ6AEwD3oECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=sinus%20collecta%20fluentis%20middle&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.es/books?id=mfGycd-8lx0C&amp;pg=PA46&amp;lpg=PA46&amp;dq=sinus%20collecta%20fluentis%20middle&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=y81WIIWg6U&amp;sig=ACfU3U31x-8lvu9YaqB3mA2yiMRpl9jmng&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjf-saC2vnjAhVNTsAKHZDYDCMQ6AEwEHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=sinus%20collecta%20fluentis%20middle&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.es/books?id=EVpkAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA71&amp;lpg=PA71&amp;dq=sinus%20collecta%20middle%20greek&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=uf1vimoXZ0&amp;sig=ACfU3U28mY6vBeXpi1khjj0-YgN-qqrEfA&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjBkdKk5PnjAhVZhlwKHdy9ClgQ6AEwDXoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=sinus%20collecta%20middle%20greek&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11302" RevisionGUID="fd8f7230-6ff6-4edd-a494-d5123c54fa2b" CreationDate="2019-08-11T03:39:10.337" UserId="406" Text="The surviving Koine Greek corpus contains quite a lot of transcribed Semitic words, borrowed from Hebrew, Aramaic, and maybe others. (For example, the LXX is full of Hebrew names.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Were there standard conventions for these transcriptions, either documented at the time, or derived from later analysis? For example, is there a consistent mapping between the three Hebrew dental stops (daleth, t'eth, and taw) and the three Greek dental stops (delta, theta, and tau)? Or is the transcription more ad-hoc, with e.g. some transcribers using theta and some using tau for the same Hebrew phoneme?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33305" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11302" RevisionGUID="fd8f7230-6ff6-4edd-a494-d5123c54fa2b" CreationDate="2019-08-11T03:39:10.337" UserId="406" Text="What are the conventions for transcribing Semitic languages into Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33306" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11302" RevisionGUID="fd8f7230-6ff6-4edd-a494-d5123c54fa2b" CreationDate="2019-08-11T03:39:10.337" UserId="406" Text="|greek|loanwords|hebrew|transcription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33310" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11300" RevisionGUID="ac91c425-f79a-452f-addf-d1b496c8f839" CreationDate="2019-08-11T05:44:47.177" />
  <row Id="33311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11304" RevisionGUID="51f26caa-6529-4a0e-91b3-b2176f51f2ba" CreationDate="2019-08-11T08:29:07.433" UserId="324" Text="In the oldest stratum of loan words Semitic t and k are generally represented by τ and κ, while the emphatic stops ṭ and q are represented by θ and χ. Witness the names of the letters tau and theta. In later loan words Semitic t and k are generally represented by aspirated θ and χ, while ṭ and q are represented by unaspirated τ and κ. This probably has to do with a sound shift in NW Semitic, where the plain stops became aspirates (and later fricatives in post-vocalic position), while the emphatic stops remained unaspirated.&#xD;&#xA;But there are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference: E. Masson, Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec, Paris 1967.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11304" RevisionGUID="f6c341d3-f700-4e65-9cdb-92842fa223d8" CreationDate="2019-08-11T08:46:39.257" UserId="324" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In the oldest stratum of loan words Semitic t and k are generally represented by τ and κ, while the emphatic stops ṭ and q are represented by θ and χ. Witness the names of the letters tau and theta. In later loan words Semitic t and k are generally represented by aspirated θ and χ, while ṭ and q are represented by unaspirated τ and κ. This probably has to do with a sound shift in NW Semitic, whereby the plain stops became aspirates (and later fricatives in post-vocalic position), while the emphatic stops remained unaspirated.&#xD;&#xA;But there are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference: E. Masson, Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec, Paris 1967.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11304" RevisionGUID="6743045b-f481-4f60-a105-bb7f62ff5662" CreationDate="2019-08-11T08:55:29.513" UserId="324" Comment="added 229 characters in body" Text="In the oldest stratum of loan words Semitic t and k are generally represented by τ and κ, while the emphatic stops ṭ and q are represented by θ and χ. Witness the names of the letters tau and theta. In later loan words Semitic t and k are generally represented by aspirated θ and χ, while ṭ and q are represented by unaspirated τ and κ. This probably has to do with a sound shift in NW Semitic, whereby the plain stops became aspirates (and later fricatives in post-vocalic position), while the emphatic stops remained unaspirated.&#xD;&#xA;But there are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference: E. Masson, Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec, Paris 1967.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33314" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11302" RevisionGUID="3ea12626-9130-40fb-a84f-c855c7971984" CreationDate="2019-08-11T13:00:19.517" />
  <row Id="33315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11305" RevisionGUID="0d985b35-b429-4363-a82d-b673f6144035" CreationDate="2019-08-11T13:40:49.013" UserId="5006" Text="Desideratum means &quot;something that is desired&quot;, and quite often is used in philosophy to refer to the subject of a philosophical investigation. ([Wiktionary][1], [Merriam-Webster][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want another word, preferably Latin, that means &quot;*something not [specifically] wished for*.&quot; For instance, a theory is answering some questions (which can be interesting in and of itself) while the questions have not been asked in the first place. Not that the answer is toxic/hated, but it simply doesn't interest the listener.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only things I've already found (like [here][3]) suggests opposites with very negative meaning, like anathema or abhorrent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/desideratum&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/desideratum&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lonelyplanet.com/thorntree/forums/speaking-in-tongues/topics/what-is-the-opposite-of-a-desideratum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33316" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11305" RevisionGUID="0d985b35-b429-4363-a82d-b673f6144035" CreationDate="2019-08-11T13:40:49.013" UserId="5006" Text="Opposite for desideratum to mean &quot;something not wished for&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33317" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11305" RevisionGUID="0d985b35-b429-4363-a82d-b673f6144035" CreationDate="2019-08-11T13:40:49.013" UserId="5006" Text="|philosophy-terms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11306" RevisionGUID="2fd9f981-563d-4706-876e-a699a382146a" CreationDate="2019-08-11T15:09:18.340" UserId="645" Text="If you find something not wished for (*desideratum*), then surely it is irrelevant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word for this, then, is *alienus*, whuch used substantively becomes *alienum*. Otherwise, a phrase such as *nihil ad rem*, roughly 'not to the point' should serve." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7335" RevisionGUID="03005357-f58a-495b-8ad4-97bcfd91faa7" CreationDate="2019-08-11T16:25:08.913" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="added 220 characters in body" Text="What semantics notions underlie the original meaning as stated by [Etymonline&#xD;&#xA;](https://www.etymonline.com/word/interest#etymonline_v_9399)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;literally &quot;to be between,&quot; from *inter* &quot;between&quot; (see [inter-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/inter-?ref=etymonline_crossreference)) + *esse* &quot;to be&quot; (from PIE root [\*es-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*es-?ref=etymonline_crossreference) &quot;to be&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*interest* &quot;it is of importance, it makes a difference,&quot; third person singular present of *interresse* &quot;to concern, make a difference, be of importance,&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I scanned [*Oxford Latin Dictionary* (2012 2 ed)](https://www.amazon.ca/Oxford-Latin-Dictionary-Dictionaries/dp/0199580316):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x2drQ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9521" RevisionGUID="521b4143-6092-4d81-ad85-20b92c88257a" CreationDate="2019-08-11T16:26:42.087" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="This quote hails from the liner notes to [this CD](https://www.earbox.com/john-adams-violin-concerto-leila-josefowicz-david-robertson-st-louis-symphony-orchestra/): John Adams's Violin Concerto performed by Leila Josefowicz, David Robertson of St. Louis Symphony Orchestra. Alice Miller Cotter has a [BA in Music (Berkeley), PhD in Musicology (Princeton)](https://www.linkedin.com/in/alice-miller-cotter-26b5438/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ipse#Latin)  and p 1060 on [*Oxford Latin Dictionary* (2012 2 ed)](https://www.amazon.ca/Oxford-Latin-Dictionary-Dictionaries/dp/0199580316) avouch nothing on 'change'.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![image of a book mentioning that idem indicates sameness and idem indicates change][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JubRa.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33321" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2741" RevisionGUID="93114e69-6a02-49ce-91ca-80621d32a879" CreationDate="2019-08-11T16:39:38.020" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="edited title" Text="What semantic notions underlie ex/in-tēnsiō with the logical meanings of ex/in-tension?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11307" RevisionGUID="ac8db975-2198-4d7a-99b4-b76793d4a720" CreationDate="2019-08-11T18:57:47.397" UserId="3248" Text="As for the reason involved in this meaning shift, I'm not sure if you're looking for an intuitive one or for a conceptually deeper one. As for the former, I'm just happy with the one given, for example, by Woodcock (1959: 171) in his &quot;A New Latin Syntax&quot; (Methuen, London): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Interest_, to begin with, meant 'there is between', i.e., 'there is a difference between (e.g., whether you do this or that)'. **So** _interest_ came to mean 'it makes a difference', 'it is important', and thus becoming synonymous with _refert_, it borrowed _mea_, _tua_, etc., from the latter (...)&quot;. (bold type is mine: Mitomino)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the curious/idiomatic/... syntax of _interest_, see also a recent question &amp; answer on [crazy interest][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the the semantic/conceptual reason involved in the meaning shift you're interested in, what I can tell you is that these polysemous shifts typically involve one from a **physical** domain to an **abstract** domain (and not the other way around!). [CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR ][2] is the &quot;tool&quot; that is often appealed to by many (cognitive) linguists. Simplifying a bit, conceptual metaphor typically refers to the understanding of a physical idea in terms of a more abstract one. So conceptual metaphors involve two different cognitive domains: SOURCE domain and TARGET domain. Conceptual metaphors are usually expressed this way: **A (target domain) is B (source domain)**. The idea is that in our conceptual reasonings we go from the source domain to the target domain. For example, a typical conceptual metaphor is [LOVE IS A JOURNEY][3], whereby the abstract concept of love (target domain) is conceptually understood in terms of the physical concept of a journey/path (source domain). Typically, the concept of the target domain receives its basic structure (i.e., the so-called &quot;image-schema&quot;) from the concept of a source domain: the former is more abstract and more amorphous than the latter, whose perceptual structure is clearer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, assuming the theory of conceptual metaphors put foward by Lakoff &amp; Johnson (see the references in the link above, especially their famous fundational work &quot;Metaphors we live by&quot;), the conceptual metaphor involved in your meaning shift should relate the source domain of &quot;being between&quot; with a target domain of &quot;being important&quot;. As a preliminary try (it's just a suggestion), I recommend you to take a look at how Lakoff (1987) (see the reference in the link above) develops the following metaphor, which I think can be involved in the polysemous shift you're interested in. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**IMPORTANT IS CENTRAL** (and **UNIMPORTANT IS PERIPHERAL**) &#xD;&#xA;According to Lakoff, being in a central position allows maximum access to, control over, causal effect on surrounding objects. According to the &quot;center-periphery&quot; image-schema, something in the center is more important than something in the periphery. And so forth. Please see Lakoff (1987) for a more detailed discussion of this conceptual metaphor and related ones associated to the concept of **IMPORTANCE**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After this, take also a look at this recent work on [Embodiment in Latin Semantics][4]. So good luck with your journey into Latin conceptual metaphors! &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11220/what-is-the-grammatical-logic-of-ablative-case-in-tu%C4%81-et-me%C4%81-m%C4%81xim%C4%93-interest&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_metaphor&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/architecture/4-580-inquiry-into-computation-and-design-fall-2006/lecture-notes/lect1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.es/books?id=m0YiDAAAQBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;hl=ca&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11307" RevisionGUID="5c64d3f5-03e3-4648-aef1-e10270305921" CreationDate="2019-08-11T19:24:10.517" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="As for the reason involved in this meaning shift, I'm not sure if you're looking for an intuitive one or for a conceptually deeper one. As for the former, I'm just happy with the one given, for example, by Woodcock (1959: 171) in his &quot;A New Latin Syntax&quot; (Methuen, London): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Interest_, to begin with, meant 'there is between', i.e., 'there is a difference between (e.g., whether you do this or that)'. **So** _interest_ came to mean 'it makes a difference', 'it is important', and thus becoming synonymous with _refert_, it borrowed _mea_, _tua_, etc., from the latter (...)&quot;. (bold type is mine: Mitomino)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the curious/idiomatic/... syntax of _interest_, see also a recent question &amp; answer on [crazy interest][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the semantic/conceptual reason involved in the meaning shift you're interested in, what I can tell you is that these polysemous shifts typically involve one from a **physical** domain to an **abstract** domain (and not the other way around!). [CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR ][2] is a &quot;tool&quot; that is often appealed to by many (cognitive) linguists to account for these polysemous shifts. Simplifying a bit, conceptual metaphor typically refers to the understanding of a physical idea in terms of a more abstract one. So conceptual metaphors involve two different cognitive domains: SOURCE domain and TARGET domain. Conceptual metaphors are usually expressed this way: **A (target domain) is B (source domain)**. The idea is that in our conceptual reasonings we go from the source domain to the target domain. For instance, a typical example of conceptual metaphor is [LOVE IS A JOURNEY][3], whereby the abstract concept of love (target domain) is conceptually understood in terms of the physical concept of a journey/path (source domain). Typically, the concept of the target domain receives its basic structure (i.e., the so-called &quot;image-schema&quot;) from the concept of a source domain: the former is more abstract and more amorphous than the latter, whose perceptual structure is clearer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, assuming the theory of conceptual metaphors put foward by Lakoff &amp; Johnson (see the references in the link above, especially their famous foundational work &quot;Metaphors we live by&quot;), the conceptual metaphor involved in your meaning shift should relate the source domain of &quot;being between&quot; with a target domain of &quot;being important&quot;. As a preliminary try (it's just a suggestion), I recommend you to take a look at how Lakoff (1987) (see the reference in the link above) develops the following conceptual metaphor, which I think can be involved in the polysemous shift you're interested in: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**IMPORTANT IS CENTRAL** (and **UNIMPORTANT IS PERIPHERAL**) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Lakoff, being in a central position allows maximum access to, control over, causal effect on surrounding objects. As for the &quot;center-periphery&quot; image-schema, something in the center is more important than something in the periphery. And so forth. Please see Lakoff (1987) for a more detailed discussion of this conceptual metaphor and related ones associated to the target concept of **IMPORTANCE**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After this, take also a look at this recent work on [Embodiment in Latin Semantics][4]. So good luck with your &quot;journey&quot; into Latin conceptual metaphors! &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11220/what-is-the-grammatical-logic-of-ablative-case-in-tu%C4%81-et-me%C4%81-m%C4%81xim%C4%93-interest&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_metaphor&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/architecture/4-580-inquiry-into-computation-and-design-fall-2006/lecture-notes/lect1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.es/books?id=m0YiDAAAQBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;hl=ca&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33324" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11305" RevisionGUID="47311cc2-d48a-4083-8902-3743c0b8678a" CreationDate="2019-08-11T22:01:07.197" />
  <row Id="33327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11295" RevisionGUID="be3714c3-3495-4ceb-9352-0b6934d01cb6" CreationDate="2019-08-12T03:05:35.790" UserId="1484" Comment="edited body" Text="As a part-time computer scientist, I've tried to come up with different ways of analyzing the Roman numeral system so that the rules can be formulated in as general a way as possible, with no special cases per glyph. The one that satisifes me the most, for the time being, is one in which we analyze the seven glyphs as four sets that each have a multiplier — similar to how each column has a place-value multiplier in the Arabic numeral system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These sets are `I V X` ; `X L C` ; `C D M` ; `M` (the Romans did not leave us perfectly symmetrical sets). You can only subtract the first glyph in each set from the second or third **in the same set**. This precludes `IM`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see this analysis in action, read [**this simple handout**][1]. It includes exercises to practice with and [an online tool to verify your answers][2]. For the sake of perpetual Stack Exchange availability, I'll copy a screenshot of the first page here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Roman numeral handout first page][3]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QB3EN0pJ5YKaJ8cUdqpj1KFdMsfl6Wn03ptMEXceXOY/edit?usp=sharing&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://tools.unfamiliarplace.com/roman/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/d4ZSP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11301" RevisionGUID="1bfec75b-5f4f-4289-b561-c051e3e4c03b" CreationDate="2019-08-12T03:23:10.937" UserId="5003" Comment="link to book" Text="**&quot;Ad triarios ventum est&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;En los tiempos de Roma Antigua, los soldados se dividían en filas de acuerdo a su capacitación y preparación. De este modo, los de la primera fila, llamados “pilati” o “velites” eran los bisoños y por lo tanto menos preparados. En la segunda, iban los “bastati” que tenían más valor y mérito que los anteriores. Mientras que en la tercera, estaban los “triarios” que eran los veteranos más valerosos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Según el [diccionario][1] del Padre Esteban de Terreros, de esa división provino el adagio latino “ad triarios ventum est” que significa justamente “a la tercera va la vencida&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.es/books?id=psZLAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA702&amp;dq=ad%20triarios%20ventum%20est&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj96I-AxPnjAhVXPcAKHRH2DuUQ6AEIODAC#v=onepage&amp;q=ad%20triarios%20ventum%20est&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11308" RevisionGUID="590fc857-9558-480c-a5f1-3bc605c0a525" CreationDate="2019-08-12T04:13:26.513" UserId="406" Text="[(Inspired by this question)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin definitely had contact with Semitic languages over the course of its existence, most notably Punic. When words and names from these languages were transcribed into Latin, were there consistent conventions for handling the non-Latin sounds?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11302/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33330" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11308" RevisionGUID="590fc857-9558-480c-a5f1-3bc605c0a525" CreationDate="2019-08-12T04:13:26.513" UserId="406" Text="What are the conventions for transcribing Semitic languages into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33331" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11308" RevisionGUID="590fc857-9558-480c-a5f1-3bc605c0a525" CreationDate="2019-08-12T04:13:26.513" UserId="406" Text="|loanwords|transcription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11309" RevisionGUID="9faeee1f-a4cd-40ae-bf67-5a1b4e1de8e9" CreationDate="2019-08-12T10:09:21.200" UserId="3645" Text="Spinoza, Ethics, De Dei, Propositio 15, Scholium:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ego saltem satis clare **meo** quidem **judicio** demonstravi ... &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**meo judicio** is *dative* or *ablative*? I cant recognize that it is *Ablative of Specification* or *Dative of Reference*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33333" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11309" RevisionGUID="9faeee1f-a4cd-40ae-bf67-5a1b4e1de8e9" CreationDate="2019-08-12T10:09:21.200" UserId="3645" Text="Ablative of Specification or Dative of Reference" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33334" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11309" RevisionGUID="9faeee1f-a4cd-40ae-bf67-5a1b4e1de8e9" CreationDate="2019-08-12T10:09:21.200" UserId="3645" Text="|ablative|dative|ablativus-respectus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11309" RevisionGUID="c7aa87cf-2be3-441f-afab-482118e275d3" CreationDate="2019-08-12T11:13:11.890" UserId="3645" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="Spinoza, Ethics, De Dei, Propositio 15, Scholium:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ego saltem satis clare **meo** quidem **judicio** demonstravi ... &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**meo judicio** is *dative* or *ablative*? I cant recognize that it is *Ablative of Specification* or *Dative of Reference*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondary question:&#xD;&#xA;Likely both **saltem** and **quidem** mean **at least**. How can I translate them? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11310" RevisionGUID="d6b014d9-be61-4bb0-9670-7049e12390b7" CreationDate="2019-08-12T15:49:15.050" UserId="3248" Text="1st question: _meo judicio_ is clearly ablative (cf. also _meā sententiā_). And, yes, you're right: this use is often referred to in Latin grammars as [&quot;Ablative of specification&quot;][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2nd question: _saltem_ means 'at least' but _quidem_ doesn't. Note that _quidem_ means 'in fact' or 'indeed'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/ablative-specification" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11311" RevisionGUID="40542fa2-1af1-41be-9042-87598cd94241" CreationDate="2019-08-12T18:17:20.900" UserId="406" Text="The vast majority of Semitic words transcribed in Latin come directly from Punic; Krahmalkov provides a summary of the conventions in his _Phoenician-Punic Grammar_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *'Aleph* and *`ayin* were completely ignored in transcription, and went silent at some point in Punic history&#xD;&#xA; - `b` was transcribed as *b*; later, as *f* before a consonant and *b* otherwise&#xD;&#xA; - `g`, `d`, `l`, `m`, `n`, `r` were transcribed as *g*, *d*, *l*, *m*, *n*, *r*&#xD;&#xA; - `w`, `y` were transcribed as *u*, *i* (later normalized to *v*, *j*)&#xD;&#xA; - `h`, `ħ` (`ḥ`) were transcribed as *h*; later, they disappeared entirely (because either Latin, or Punic, or both, lost their `/h/`)&#xD;&#xA; - `s`, `š` were transcribed as *s* (having merged rather early on)&#xD;&#xA; - `z` was earlier transcribed as *ss* or *sd*, with an epenthetic *e* before it if it came at the start of a word; later, it merged with `s`, and was written the same way&#xD;&#xA; - `p` was earlier transcribed as *p*, later as *f*&#xD;&#xA; - `ṣ` is variously transcribed *ts*, *st*, *tz*, *s*, *z*, and *$* (the last being a ligature of *s* and *t* that isn't in Unicode), with no strong consensus; later, it merged with`s`, and was written the same way&#xD;&#xA; - `t`, `k` were transcribed *th*, *ch*&#xD;&#xA; - `ṭ`, `q` were transcribed *t*, *q*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowels are written as one might expect (with quantity not represented), with one curious exception: `i` and `ī` are transcribed variously as *y*, *i*, and *e*, for no clear reason. *Y* in particular is unexpected, and might imply a rounded vowel, but there's not enough evidence to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, an epenthetic *e* is added before any word-initial consonant clusters; at some point this vowel was pronounced in Punic as well, though it's not clear when that development happened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11311" RevisionGUID="9fa4fbd3-0afe-4d50-95f1-bdf90e8ce980" CreationDate="2019-08-12T18:39:41.037" UserId="406" Comment="edited body" Text="The vast majority of Semitic words transcribed in Latin come directly from Punic; Krahmalkov provides a summary of the conventions in his _Phoenician-Punic Grammar_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *'Aleph* and *`ayin* were completely ignored in transcription, and went silent at some point in Punic history&#xD;&#xA; - `b` was transcribed as *b*; later, as *f* before a consonant and *b* otherwise&#xD;&#xA; - `g`, `d`, `l`, `m`, `n`, `r` were transcribed as *g*, *d*, *l*, *m*, *n*, *r*&#xD;&#xA; - `w`, `y` were transcribed as *u*, *i* (later normalized to *v*, *j*)&#xD;&#xA; - `h`, `ħ` (`ḥ`) were transcribed as *h*; later, they disappeared entirely (because either Latin, or Punic, or both, lost their `/h/`)&#xD;&#xA; - `s`, `š` were transcribed as *s* (having merged rather early on)&#xD;&#xA; - `z` was earlier transcribed as *ss* or *sd*, with an epenthetic *e* before it if it came at the start of a word; later, it merged with `s`, and was written the same way&#xD;&#xA; - `p` was earlier transcribed as *p*, later as *f*&#xD;&#xA; - `ṣ` is variously transcribed *ts*, *st*, *tz*, *s*, *z*, and *$* (the last being a ligature of *s* and *t* that isn't in Unicode), with no strong consensus; later, it merged with`s`, and was written the same way&#xD;&#xA; - `t`, `k` were transcribed *th*, *ch*&#xD;&#xA; - `ṭ`, `q` were transcribed *t*, *c*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowels are written as one might expect (with quantity not represented), with one curious exception: `i` and `ī` are transcribed variously as *y*, *i*, and *e*, for no clear reason. *Y* in particular is unexpected, and might imply a rounded vowel, but there's not enough evidence to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, an epenthetic *e* is added before any word-initial consonant clusters; at some point this vowel was pronounced in Punic as well, though it's not clear when that development happened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11311" RevisionGUID="8bef58a3-91a5-4adc-83eb-561e954fe678" CreationDate="2019-08-12T18:56:56.627" UserId="406" Comment="edited body" Text="The vast majority of Semitic words transcribed in Latin come directly from Punic; Krahmalkov provides a summary of the conventions in his _Phoenician-Punic Grammar_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `g`, `d`, `l`, `m`, `n`, `r` were transcribed as *g*, *d*, *l*, *m*, *n*, *r*&#xD;&#xA; - *'Aleph* and *`ayin* were completely ignored in transcription, and went silent at some point in Punic history&#xD;&#xA; - `b` was transcribed as *b*; later, as *f* before a consonant and *b* otherwise&#xD;&#xA; - `p` was earlier transcribed as *p*, later as *f*&#xD;&#xA; - `w`, `y` were transcribed as *u*, *i* (later normalized to *v*, *j*)&#xD;&#xA; - `h`, `ħ` (`ḥ`) were transcribed as *h*; later, they disappeared entirely (because either Latin, or Punic, or both, lost their `/h/`)&#xD;&#xA; - `s`, `š` were transcribed as *s* (having merged rather early on)&#xD;&#xA; - `z` was earlier transcribed as *ss* or *sd*, with an epenthetic *e* before it if it came at the start of a word; later, it merged with `s`, and was written the same way&#xD;&#xA; - `ṣ` is variously transcribed *ts*, *st*, *tz*, *s*, *z*, and *$* (the last being a ligature of *s* and *t* that isn't in Unicode), with no strong consensus; later, it merged with`s`, and was written the same way&#xD;&#xA; - `t`, `k` were transcribed *th*, *ch*&#xD;&#xA; - `ṭ`, `q` were transcribed *t*, *c*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowels are written as one might expect (with quantity not represented), with one curious exception: `i` and `ī` are transcribed variously as *y*, *i*, and *e*, for no clear reason. *Y* in particular is unexpected, and might imply a rounded vowel, but there's not enough evidence to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, an epenthetic *e* is added before any word-initial consonant clusters; at some point this vowel was pronounced in Punic as well, though it's not clear when that development happened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11312" RevisionGUID="572a9340-1765-4886-bfdf-ffb53b1cfd89" CreationDate="2019-08-12T20:03:58.637" UserId="9" Text="It's a little easier to explain some of the changes in the Latin &gt; Greek direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The use of Greek &amp;lt;ν&gt; for Latin &amp;lt;m&gt; in word-final position was probably related to Greek phonotactics, and possibly to phonetic details about the pronunciation of Latin word-final *-m*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phoneme /m/ (&amp;lt;μ&gt;) does not occur in word-final position in any Greek words. Furthermore, it is thought that Latin words ending in &amp;lt;m&gt; may not even have been pronounced with [m], but instead with either nasalization of the preceding vowel, or some kind of nasalized offglide like [w̃]. And as mentioned in the comments, Greek final /n/ is cognate to Latin final *m.* Given all that, it makes sense that Greek speakers would have adapted Latin words ending in *m* with Greek /n/ (&amp;lt;ν&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Latin short ŭ had a somewhat similar sound to Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt;, and there are transcriptions that equate them in other positions as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might not be quite true to say that Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; was phonetically closer to and corresponded to Greek &amp;lt;ου&gt; in all other cases. Attic Greek &amp;lt;ου&gt; originally represented a long back vowel, which came to have a high value something like [uː] (thought to have developed from earlier [oː]). Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; had two values, short and long. The long value [uː] was certainly best represented in Attic Greek by &amp;lt;ου&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the short value of Latin &amp;lt;u&gt;, aside from differing from &amp;lt;ου&gt; in length, most likely also differed in having a lower quality: [ʊ]. The quality of [ʊ] is either as close to [o] as it is to [u], or possibly even closer to [o]. Since Attic &amp;lt;ο&gt; is thought to have been pronounced as [o], the sound of Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; would probably have been a reasonably good match for the sound of Latin ŭ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; for Latin short ŭ &#xD;&#xA;In fact, Latin ŭ was not only transcribed with Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; in non-final syllables: this transcription of ŭ can also be seen in other positions in some Greek transcriptions, although the frequency of its use relative to &amp;lt;ου&gt; seems to have varied between different times and places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Notes on the inscriptions of Delos: the Greek transliteration of Latin names][1]&quot;, by Francesco Rovai (2015) explores this topic. Here is a quote from a relevant section:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If, from the beginning of 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; c. AD,  when the sons of the Roman aristocrats were regularly sent to Athens, both Latin ŭ and ū are transcribed as ‹ου›&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;, this comes as no surprise. At this date and in this setting, the Athenian draftsmen encountered a definitely standardised variety of urban Latin, in which ŭ = [u ~ ʊ] (Allen, 1978: 49-50)&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;. On the contrary, if in the 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; and 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; c. BC, the Latin ŭ produced in Delos by non-aristocrat *negotiatores* of both urban and non-urban provenance, is instead transliterated with ‹ο›, this can be assumed as a genuine clue of its [o]-like pronunciation. At least, it was a (mid-)high vowel open enough to be perceived by the Greek drafters as more similar to their native /o/ (= ‹ο›) than to their native /u/ (= ‹ου›).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;Cf. Ιούλιος, Λουκίλιος, and Ῥοῦφος, with ū, and Σουμπτουάριος, Πουδέντα, and ἀννώρουμ, with ŭ; these and other examples can be drawn from Threatte (1980: 220-223).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;This corresponds to a higher level of standardisation also in the script, because, in this way, the Latin graphemic identity between short and long vowels is restored also in Greek. Only when followed by a consonant cluster, some examples of Latin ‹u› transliterated into Greek as ‹ο› are maintained alongside the normal spelling ‹ου›, but they all cease about 100-110 AD (Threatte, 1980: 220-221)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Studi e Saggi Linguistici,* Special Issue: Ancient Languages Between Variation and Norm, edited by Giovanna Marotta - Francesco Rovai, pp. 177-178)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is followed by a table (&quot;Table 2. Greek spellings of Latin back high vowels&quot;) that shows Latin ŭ to be transcribed with Greek &lt;ο&gt; in all 22 of its occurrences in the Delian inscriptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Καλπόρνιος (1), Κλούιος (1), Δεκόμιος (2),Φολούιος (7),Ποστόμιος (6), Σπόριος (1), Οὐετόριος (1), Οὐολόσιος (3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 178)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; for Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how many examples there are of Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; being used to transcribe Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; outside of grammatical endings like *-us* and *-um,* but Allen (1978) says that there are some. His examples are *purpura, gummi,* and *empurium* for Greek *πορφύρα, κόμμι* and *ἐμπόριον.* These three examples don't give as much of an impression of systematicity to me as the Delos inscriptions that Rovai talks about: for example, *gummi* has the additional oddity of using &amp;lt;g&gt; for &amp;lt;κ&gt; (which some, including Allen, suggest could be explained by Latin /k/ being somewhat more aspirated than Greek /k/, but which regardless is not a usual correspondence), and the spelling *emporium* also exists (which Allen attributes to the influence of Greek spelling) (*Vox Latina,* 2nd Ed., p. 49). Allen's coverage of this topic is relatively brief, and there might well be a paper that goes into more detail and that could provide more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/34864257/Notes_on_the_inscriptions_of_Delos_the_Greek_transliteration_of_Latin_names" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11312" RevisionGUID="3555b018-7d64-46a6-85bd-b19542153478" CreationDate="2019-08-12T20:25:59.297" UserId="9" Comment="added 203 characters in body" Text="It's a little easier to explain some of the changes in the Latin &gt; Greek direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The use of Greek &amp;lt;ν&gt; for Latin &amp;lt;m&gt; in word-final position was probably related to Greek phonotactics, and possibly to phonetic details about the pronunciation of Latin word-final *-m*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phoneme /m/ (&amp;lt;μ&gt;) does not occur in word-final position in any Greek words. Furthermore, it is thought that Latin words ending in &amp;lt;m&gt; were not pronounced with [m] in most contexts, but instead with either nasalization of the preceding vowel, or some kind of nasalized offglide like [w̃]. Latin final *-&amp;#8288;m* is thought to have been phonetically realized as a nasal consonant only before a following plosive or nasal: [m] before [p, b, m]; [n] before [t, d, n]; and [ŋ] before [k, g]. And as mentioned in the comments, Greek final /n/ is cognate to Latin final *m.* Given all that, it makes sense that Greek speakers would have adapted Latin words ending in *m* with Greek /n/ (&amp;lt;ν&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Latin short ŭ had a somewhat similar sound to Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt;, and there are transcriptions that equate them in other positions as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might not be quite true to say that Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; was phonetically closer to and corresponded to Greek &amp;lt;ου&gt; in all other cases. Attic Greek &amp;lt;ου&gt; originally represented a long back vowel, which came to have a high value something like [uː] (thought to have developed from earlier [oː]). Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; had two values, short and long. The long value [uː] was certainly best represented in Attic Greek by &amp;lt;ου&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the short value of Latin &amp;lt;u&gt;, aside from differing from &amp;lt;ου&gt; in length, most likely also differed in having a lower quality: [ʊ]. The quality of [ʊ] is either as close to [o] as it is to [u], or possibly even closer to [o]. Since Attic &amp;lt;ο&gt; is thought to have been pronounced as [o], the sound of Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; would probably have been a reasonably good match for the sound of Latin ŭ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; for Latin short ŭ &#xD;&#xA;In fact, Latin ŭ was not only transcribed with Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; in non-final syllables: this transcription of ŭ can also be seen in other positions in some Greek transcriptions, although the frequency of its use relative to &amp;lt;ου&gt; seems to have varied between different times and places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Notes on the inscriptions of Delos: the Greek transliteration of Latin names][1]&quot;, by Francesco Rovai (2015) explores this topic. Here is a quote from a relevant section:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If, from the beginning of 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; c. AD,  when the sons of the Roman aristocrats were regularly sent to Athens, both Latin ŭ and ū are transcribed as ‹ου›&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;, this comes as no surprise. At this date and in this setting, the Athenian draftsmen encountered a definitely standardised variety of urban Latin, in which ŭ = [u ~ ʊ] (Allen, 1978: 49-50)&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;. On the contrary, if in the 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; and 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; c. BC, the Latin ŭ produced in Delos by non-aristocrat *negotiatores* of both urban and non-urban provenance, is instead transliterated with ‹ο›, this can be assumed as a genuine clue of its [o]-like pronunciation. At least, it was a (mid-)high vowel open enough to be perceived by the Greek drafters as more similar to their native /o/ (= ‹ο›) than to their native /u/ (= ‹ου›).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;Cf. Ιούλιος, Λουκίλιος, and Ῥοῦφος, with ū, and Σουμπτουάριος, Πουδέντα, and ἀννώρουμ, with ŭ; these and other examples can be drawn from Threatte (1980: 220-223).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;This corresponds to a higher level of standardisation also in the script, because, in this way, the Latin graphemic identity between short and long vowels is restored also in Greek. Only when followed by a consonant cluster, some examples of Latin ‹u› transliterated into Greek as ‹ο› are maintained alongside the normal spelling ‹ου›, but they all cease about 100-110 AD (Threatte, 1980: 220-221)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Studi e Saggi Linguistici,* Special Issue: Ancient Languages Between Variation and Norm, edited by Giovanna Marotta - Francesco Rovai, pp. 177-178)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is followed by a table (&quot;Table 2. Greek spellings of Latin back high vowels&quot;) that shows Latin ŭ to be transcribed with Greek &lt;ο&gt; in all 22 of its occurrences in the Delian inscriptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Καλπόρνιος (1), Κλούιος (1), Δεκόμιος (2),Φολούιος (7),Ποστόμιος (6), Σπόριος (1), Οὐετόριος (1), Οὐολόσιος (3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 178)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; for Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how many examples there are of Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; being used to transcribe Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; outside of grammatical endings like *-us* and *-um,* but Allen (1978) says that there are some. His examples are *purpura, gummi,* and *empurium* for Greek *πορφύρα, κόμμι* and *ἐμπόριον.* These three examples don't give as much of an impression of systematicity to me as the Delos inscriptions that Rovai talks about: for example, *gummi* has the additional oddity of using &amp;lt;g&gt; for &amp;lt;κ&gt; (which some, including Allen, suggest could be explained by Latin /k/ being somewhat more aspirated than Greek /k/, but which regardless is not a usual correspondence), and the spelling *emporium* also exists (which Allen attributes to the influence of Greek spelling) (*Vox Latina,* 2nd Ed., p. 49). Allen's coverage of this topic is relatively brief, and there might well be a paper that goes into more detail and that could provide more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/34864257/Notes_on_the_inscriptions_of_Delos_the_Greek_transliteration_of_Latin_names" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11312" RevisionGUID="8164f2fd-7191-4097-9ee8-b0e8e35a0bf0" CreationDate="2019-08-12T20:35:15.267" UserId="9" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="It's a little easier to explain some of the changes in the Latin &gt; Greek direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The use of Greek &amp;lt;ν&gt; for Latin &amp;lt;m&gt; in word-final position was probably related to Greek phonotactics, and possibly to phonetic details about the pronunciation of Latin word-final *-m*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phoneme /m/ (&amp;lt;μ&gt;) does not occur in word-final position in any Greek words. Furthermore, it is thought that Latin words ending in &amp;lt;m&gt; were not pronounced with [m] in most contexts, but instead with either nasalization of the preceding vowel, or some kind of nasalized offglide like [w̃]. Latin final *-&amp;#8288;m* is thought to have been phonetically realized as a nasal consonant only before a following plosive or nasal: [m] before [p, b, m]; [n] before [t, d, n]; and [ŋ] before [k, g]. Ancient Greek final /n/ most likely showed the same kind of place assimilation to a following consonant across word boundaries. And as mentioned in the comments, Greek final /n/ is cognate to Latin final *m.* Given all that, it makes sense that Greek speakers would have adapted Latin words ending in *m* with Greek /n/ (&amp;lt;ν&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Latin short ŭ had a somewhat similar sound to Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt;, and there are transcriptions that equate them in other positions as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might not be quite true to say that Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; was phonetically closer to and corresponded to Greek &amp;lt;ου&gt; in all other cases. Attic Greek &amp;lt;ου&gt; originally represented a long back vowel, which came to have a high value something like [uː] (thought to have developed from earlier [oː]). Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; had two values, short and long. The long value [uː] was certainly best represented in Attic Greek by &amp;lt;ου&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the short value of Latin &amp;lt;u&gt;, aside from differing from &amp;lt;ου&gt; in length, most likely also differed in having a lower quality: [ʊ]. The quality of [ʊ] is either as close to [o] as it is to [u], or possibly even closer to [o]. Since Attic &amp;lt;ο&gt; is thought to have been pronounced as [o], the sound of Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; would probably have been a reasonably good match for the sound of Latin ŭ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; for Latin short ŭ &#xD;&#xA;In fact, Latin ŭ was not only transcribed with Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; in non-final syllables: this transcription of ŭ can also be seen in other positions in some Greek transcriptions, although the frequency of its use relative to &amp;lt;ου&gt; seems to have varied between different times and places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Notes on the inscriptions of Delos: the Greek transliteration of Latin names][1]&quot;, by Francesco Rovai (2015) explores this topic. Here is a quote from a relevant section:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If, from the beginning of 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; c. AD,  when the sons of the Roman aristocrats were regularly sent to Athens, both Latin ŭ and ū are transcribed as ‹ου›&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;, this comes as no surprise. At this date and in this setting, the Athenian draftsmen encountered a definitely standardised variety of urban Latin, in which ŭ = [u ~ ʊ] (Allen, 1978: 49-50)&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;. On the contrary, if in the 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; and 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; c. BC, the Latin ŭ produced in Delos by non-aristocrat *negotiatores* of both urban and non-urban provenance, is instead transliterated with ‹ο›, this can be assumed as a genuine clue of its [o]-like pronunciation. At least, it was a (mid-)high vowel open enough to be perceived by the Greek drafters as more similar to their native /o/ (= ‹ο›) than to their native /u/ (= ‹ου›).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;Cf. Ιούλιος, Λουκίλιος, and Ῥοῦφος, with ū, and Σουμπτουάριος, Πουδέντα, and ἀννώρουμ, with ŭ; these and other examples can be drawn from Threatte (1980: 220-223).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;This corresponds to a higher level of standardisation also in the script, because, in this way, the Latin graphemic identity between short and long vowels is restored also in Greek. Only when followed by a consonant cluster, some examples of Latin ‹u› transliterated into Greek as ‹ο› are maintained alongside the normal spelling ‹ου›, but they all cease about 100-110 AD (Threatte, 1980: 220-221)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Studi e Saggi Linguistici,* Special Issue: Ancient Languages Between Variation and Norm, edited by Giovanna Marotta - Francesco Rovai, pp. 177-178)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is followed by a table (&quot;Table 2. Greek spellings of Latin back high vowels&quot;) that shows Latin ŭ to be transcribed with Greek &lt;ο&gt; in all 22 of its occurrences in the Delian inscriptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Καλπόρνιος (1), Κλούιος (1), Δεκόμιος (2),Φολούιος (7),Ποστόμιος (6), Σπόριος (1), Οὐετόριος (1), Οὐολόσιος (3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 178)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; for Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how many examples there are of Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; being used to transcribe Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; outside of grammatical endings like *-us* and *-um,* but Allen (1978) says that there are some. His examples are *purpura, gummi,* and *empurium* for Greek *πορφύρα, κόμμι* and *ἐμπόριον.* These three examples don't give as much of an impression of systematicity to me as the Delos inscriptions that Rovai talks about: for example, *gummi* has the additional oddity of using &amp;lt;g&gt; for &amp;lt;κ&gt; (which some, including Allen, suggest could be explained by Latin /k/ being somewhat more aspirated than Greek /k/, but which regardless is not a usual correspondence), and the spelling *emporium* also exists (which Allen attributes to the influence of Greek spelling) (*Vox Latina,* 2nd Ed., p. 49). Allen's coverage of this topic is relatively brief, and there might well be a paper that goes into more detail and that could provide more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/34864257/Notes_on_the_inscriptions_of_Delos_the_Greek_transliteration_of_Latin_names" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11310" RevisionGUID="11efe5fa-7f32-431a-be4e-92fbce1c4716" CreationDate="2019-08-12T20:43:53.473" UserId="3248" Comment="changes &amp; qualification based on comments" Text="As for your 1st question, _meo judicio_ is clearly ablative (cf. also _meā sententiā_). And, yes, you're right: this use is often referred to in Latin grammars as [&quot;Ablative of specification&quot;][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your 2nd question on the particle _quidem_, which has recently been analyzed as a marker of [**emphatic affirmative polarity**][2], the issue seems to be more complex than I expected (e.g., see the interesting comment by cnread below). It also seems to be case that _meo quidem iudicio_ can be put in parallel with _meo quidem animo_, where _quidem_ also **stresses** that the uttered state of affairs should not be interpreted as a fact, but as the speaker’s opinion, leaving room for disagreement. For example, I've just seen that _meo quidem animo_ is translated as ['to my mind **at any rate**'][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/ablative-specification&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gist.ugent.be/file/341&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.es/books?id=efa7DAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA145&amp;lpg=PA145&amp;dq=%22meo%20quidem%20animo%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Dmmr8jVcQ6&amp;sig=ACfU3U0vnLwwq4YeXA__EeOyRg6cyZFkmA&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjNz-Wnkv7jAhUi4YUKHXhEAd4Q6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22meo%20quidem%20animo%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11310" RevisionGUID="5bde05f1-6c7c-4c90-bafd-846cca055cf3" CreationDate="2019-08-12T21:11:37.977" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="As for your 1st question, _meo judicio_ is clearly ablative (cf. also _meā sententiā_). And, yes, you're right: this use is often referred to in Latin grammars as [&quot;Ablative of specification&quot;][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your 2nd question on the particle _quidem_, which has recently been analyzed as a marker of [**emphatic affirmative polarity**][2], the issue seems to be more complex than I expected (e.g., see the interesting comment by cnread below). It also seems to be case that _meo quidem iudicio_ can be put in parallel with _meo quidem animo_, where _quidem_ also **stresses** that the uttered state of affairs should not be interpreted as a fact, but as the speaker’s opinion, leaving room for disagreement. For example, I've just seen that _meo quidem animo_ is translated as ['to my mind **at any rate**'][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with cnread's remark below that &quot;the difference from _saltem_ may be that _saltem_ limits the whole clause, whereas _quidem_ limits _meo_ specifically (as word order also suggests)&quot;. I also buy cnread's translation:  &quot;At any rate, in _my_ judgment, I have shown clearly enough...&quot;. Note that the emphasis on &quot;my&quot; captures the emphatic affirmative meaning of _quidem_ (cf. the stilted transl. &quot;At any rate, at least in my judgment, I have shown...&quot;).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/ablative-specification&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gist.ugent.be/file/341&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.es/books?id=efa7DAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA145&amp;lpg=PA145&amp;dq=%22meo%20quidem%20animo%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Dmmr8jVcQ6&amp;sig=ACfU3U0vnLwwq4YeXA__EeOyRg6cyZFkmA&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjNz-Wnkv7jAhUi4YUKHXhEAd4Q6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22meo%20quidem%20animo%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11310" RevisionGUID="09645db5-eea2-4c3b-ba9d-770990cdd18b" CreationDate="2019-08-12T21:22:35.013" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="As for your 1st question, _meo judicio_ is clearly ablative (cf. also _meā sententiā_). And, yes, you're right: this use is often referred to in Latin grammars as [&quot;Ablative of specification&quot;][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your 2nd question, the particle _quidem_ has recently been analyzed as a marker of [**emphatic affirmative polarity**][2]. This issue seems to be more complex than I expected (e.g., see the interesting comment by cnread below). It also seems to be case that _meo quidem iudicio_ can be put in parallel with _meo quidem animo_, where _quidem_ also **stresses** that the uttered state of affairs should not be interpreted as a fact, but as the speaker’s opinion, leaving room for disagreement. For example, I've just seen that _meo quidem animo_ is translated as ['to my mind **at any rate**'][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with cnread's remark below that &quot;the difference from _saltem_ may be that _saltem_ limits the whole clause, whereas _quidem_ limits _meo_ specifically (as word order also suggests)&quot;. I also buy cnread's translation:  &quot;At any rate, in _my_ judgment, I have shown clearly enough...&quot;. Note that the emphasis on &quot;my&quot; already captures the emphatic affirmative meaning of _quidem_, whereby it is not necessary to translate it  (cf. the stilted transl. &quot;At any rate, at least in my judgment, I have shown...&quot;).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/ablative-specification&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gist.ugent.be/file/341&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.es/books?id=efa7DAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA145&amp;lpg=PA145&amp;dq=%22meo%20quidem%20animo%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Dmmr8jVcQ6&amp;sig=ACfU3U0vnLwwq4YeXA__EeOyRg6cyZFkmA&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjNz-Wnkv7jAhUi4YUKHXhEAd4Q6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22meo%20quidem%20animo%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11312" RevisionGUID="633a1d47-31d9-44cb-a001-12ae19eb54ef" CreationDate="2019-08-12T21:24:59.467" UserId="9" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="It's a little easier to explain some of the changes in the Latin &gt; Greek direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The use of Greek &amp;lt;ν&gt; for Latin &amp;lt;m&gt; in word-final position was probably related to Greek phonotactics, and possibly to phonetic details about the pronunciation of Latin word-final *-m*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phoneme /m/ (&amp;lt;μ&gt;) does not occur in word-final position in any Greek words. Furthermore, it is thought that Latin words ending in &amp;lt;m&gt; were not pronounced with [m] in most contexts, but instead with either a word-final nasalized vowel, or with a vowel followed by some kind of nasalized offglide like [w̃]. Latin final *-&amp;#8288;m* is thought to have been phonetically realized as a nasal consonant only before a following plosive or nasal: [m] before [p, b, m]; [n] before [t, d, n]; and [ŋ] before [k, g]. Ancient Greek final /n/ most likely showed the same kind of place assimilation to a following consonant across word boundaries. And as mentioned in the comments, Greek final /n/ is cognate to Latin final *m.* Given all that, it makes sense that Greek speakers would have adapted Latin words ending in *m* with Greek /n/ (&amp;lt;ν&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Latin short ŭ had a somewhat similar sound to Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt;, and there are transcriptions that equate them in other positions as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might not be quite true to say that Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; was phonetically closer to and corresponded to Greek &amp;lt;ου&gt; in all other cases. Attic Greek &amp;lt;ου&gt; originally represented a long back vowel, which came to have a high value something like [uː] (thought to have developed from earlier [oː]). Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; had two values, short and long. The long value [uː] was certainly best represented in Attic Greek by &amp;lt;ου&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the short value of Latin &amp;lt;u&gt;, aside from differing from &amp;lt;ου&gt; in length, most likely also differed in having a lower quality: [ʊ]. The quality of [ʊ] is either as close to [o] as it is to [u], or possibly even closer to [o]. Since Attic &amp;lt;ο&gt; is thought to have been pronounced as [o], the sound of Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; would probably have been a reasonably good match for the sound of Latin ŭ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; for Latin short ŭ &#xD;&#xA;In fact, Latin ŭ was not only transcribed with Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; in non-final syllables: this transcription of ŭ can also be seen in other positions in some Greek transcriptions, although the frequency of its use relative to &amp;lt;ου&gt; seems to have varied between different times and places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Notes on the inscriptions of Delos: the Greek transliteration of Latin names][1]&quot;, by Francesco Rovai (2015) explores this topic. Here is a quote from a relevant section:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If, from the beginning of 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; c. AD,  when the sons of the Roman aristocrats were regularly sent to Athens, both Latin ŭ and ū are transcribed as ‹ου›&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;, this comes as no surprise. At this date and in this setting, the Athenian draftsmen encountered a definitely standardised variety of urban Latin, in which ŭ = [u ~ ʊ] (Allen, 1978: 49-50)&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;. On the contrary, if in the 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; and 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; c. BC, the Latin ŭ produced in Delos by non-aristocrat *negotiatores* of both urban and non-urban provenance, is instead transliterated with ‹ο›, this can be assumed as a genuine clue of its [o]-like pronunciation. At least, it was a (mid-)high vowel open enough to be perceived by the Greek drafters as more similar to their native /o/ (= ‹ο›) than to their native /u/ (= ‹ου›).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;Cf. Ιούλιος, Λουκίλιος, and Ῥοῦφος, with ū, and Σουμπτουάριος, Πουδέντα, and ἀννώρουμ, with ŭ; these and other examples can be drawn from Threatte (1980: 220-223).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;This corresponds to a higher level of standardisation also in the script, because, in this way, the Latin graphemic identity between short and long vowels is restored also in Greek. Only when followed by a consonant cluster, some examples of Latin ‹u› transliterated into Greek as ‹ο› are maintained alongside the normal spelling ‹ου›, but they all cease about 100-110 AD (Threatte, 1980: 220-221)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Studi e Saggi Linguistici,* Special Issue: Ancient Languages Between Variation and Norm, edited by Giovanna Marotta - Francesco Rovai, pp. 177-178)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is followed by a table (&quot;Table 2. Greek spellings of Latin back high vowels&quot;) that shows Latin ŭ to be transcribed with Greek &lt;ο&gt; in all 22 of its occurrences in the Delian inscriptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Καλπόρνιος (1), Κλούιος (1), Δεκόμιος (2),Φολούιος (7),Ποστόμιος (6), Σπόριος (1), Οὐετόριος (1), Οὐολόσιος (3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 178)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; for Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how many examples there are of Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; being used to transcribe Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; outside of grammatical endings like *-us* and *-um,* but Allen (1978) says that there are some. His examples are *purpura, gummi,* and *empurium* for Greek *πορφύρα, κόμμι* and *ἐμπόριον.* These three examples don't give as much of an impression of systematicity to me as the Delos inscriptions that Rovai talks about: for example, *gummi* has the additional oddity of using &amp;lt;g&gt; for &amp;lt;κ&gt; (which some, including Allen, suggest could be explained by Latin /k/ being somewhat more aspirated than Greek /k/, but which regardless is not a usual correspondence), and the spelling *emporium* also exists (which Allen attributes to the influence of Greek spelling) (*Vox Latina,* 2nd Ed., p. 49). Allen's coverage of this topic is relatively brief, and there might well be a paper that goes into more detail and that could provide more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/34864257/Notes_on_the_inscriptions_of_Delos_the_Greek_transliteration_of_Latin_names" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11265" RevisionGUID="6296b9db-ff66-4c7f-95dd-49a24d897952" CreationDate="2019-08-12T22:47:40.173" UserId="4991" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Could someone translate the following into Koine Greek (or Testament Greek, if there were juicy differences.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We won’t tell Helen why we could leave her at the beach without company. &#xD;&#xA; The older man we were talking about last night had come to our store to ask us if we knew Charikleia. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it might be too much to also ask for a similar translation into Homeric Greek. I did the Attic translation, execrably, but I might not be as helpless there... Here is my (attempted) Attic translation, in case it helps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Οὐ φήσωμεν τῇ Ἑλένῃ πρὸς τὶ οἵοὶ τ᾽ἦμεν τὴν καταλείπειν αἰγιαλῷ ἄνευ κοινωνίας. Ὁ πρεσβύτης περὶ οὗ διελεγόμεθα τῇ προτεραίᾳ ἑσπέρᾳ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ ἐμπορίῳ ἐληλύθει ἐρέσθαι ἡμᾶς εἰ τὴν Χαρίκλειαν γνωρίζειν." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11312" RevisionGUID="ae5183d8-2dc2-46ad-9614-b89ab6c0b39c" CreationDate="2019-08-12T23:00:48.910" UserId="9" Comment="added 250 characters in body" Text="As has been mentioned already in the comments and in user786's answer, the Greek second-declension terminations -ον, -ος are etymologically and morphologically equivalent to the Latin second-declension terminations -um, -us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of phonetics, it's a little easier to explain some of the changes in the Latin &gt; Greek direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The use of Greek &amp;lt;ν&gt; for Latin &amp;lt;m&gt; in word-final position was probably related to Greek phonotactics, and possibly to phonetic details about the pronunciation of Latin word-final *-m*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phoneme /m/ (&amp;lt;μ&gt;) does not occur in word-final position in any Greek words. Furthermore, it is thought that Latin words ending in &amp;lt;m&gt; were not pronounced with [m] in most contexts, but instead with either a word-final nasalized vowel, or with a vowel followed by some kind of nasalized offglide like [w̃]. Latin final *-&amp;#8288;m* is thought to have been phonetically realized as a nasal consonant only before a following plosive or nasal: [m] before [p, b, m]; [n] before [t, d, n]; and [ŋ] before [k, g]. Ancient Greek final /n/ most likely showed the same kind of place assimilation to a following consonant across word boundaries. And as mentioned in the comments, Greek final /n/ is cognate to Latin final *m.* Given all that, it makes sense that Greek speakers would have adapted Latin words ending in *m* with Greek /n/ (&amp;lt;ν&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Latin short ŭ had a somewhat similar sound to Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt;, and there are transcriptions that equate them in other positions as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might not be quite true to say that Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; was phonetically closer to and corresponded to Greek &amp;lt;ου&gt; in all other cases. Attic Greek &amp;lt;ου&gt; originally represented a long back vowel, which came to have a high value something like [uː] (thought to have developed from earlier [oː]). Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; had two values, short and long. The long value [uː] was certainly best represented in Attic Greek by &amp;lt;ου&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the short value of Latin &amp;lt;u&gt;, aside from differing from &amp;lt;ου&gt; in length, most likely also differed in having a lower quality: [ʊ]. The quality of [ʊ] is either as close to [o] as it is to [u], or possibly even closer to [o]. Since Attic &amp;lt;ο&gt; is thought to have been pronounced as [o], the sound of Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; would probably have been a reasonably good match for the sound of Latin ŭ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; for Latin short ŭ &#xD;&#xA;In fact, Latin ŭ was not only transcribed with Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; in non-final syllables: this transcription of ŭ can also be seen in other positions in some Greek transcriptions, although the frequency of its use relative to &amp;lt;ου&gt; seems to have varied between different times and places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Notes on the inscriptions of Delos: the Greek transliteration of Latin names][1]&quot;, by Francesco Rovai (2015) explores this topic. Here is a quote from a relevant section:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If, from the beginning of 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; c. AD,  when the sons of the Roman aristocrats were regularly sent to Athens, both Latin ŭ and ū are transcribed as ‹ου›&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;, this comes as no surprise. At this date and in this setting, the Athenian draftsmen encountered a definitely standardised variety of urban Latin, in which ŭ = [u ~ ʊ] (Allen, 1978: 49-50)&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;. On the contrary, if in the 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; and 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; c. BC, the Latin ŭ produced in Delos by non-aristocrat *negotiatores* of both urban and non-urban provenance, is instead transliterated with ‹ο›, this can be assumed as a genuine clue of its [o]-like pronunciation. At least, it was a (mid-)high vowel open enough to be perceived by the Greek drafters as more similar to their native /o/ (= ‹ο›) than to their native /u/ (= ‹ου›).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;Cf. Ιούλιος, Λουκίλιος, and Ῥοῦφος, with ū, and Σουμπτουάριος, Πουδέντα, and ἀννώρουμ, with ŭ; these and other examples can be drawn from Threatte (1980: 220-223).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;This corresponds to a higher level of standardisation also in the script, because, in this way, the Latin graphemic identity between short and long vowels is restored also in Greek. Only when followed by a consonant cluster, some examples of Latin ‹u› transliterated into Greek as ‹ο› are maintained alongside the normal spelling ‹ου›, but they all cease about 100-110 AD (Threatte, 1980: 220-221)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Studi e Saggi Linguistici,* Special Issue: Ancient Languages Between Variation and Norm, edited by Giovanna Marotta - Francesco Rovai, pp. 177-178)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is followed by a table (&quot;Table 2. Greek spellings of Latin back high vowels&quot;) that shows Latin ŭ to be transcribed with Greek &lt;ο&gt; in all 22 of its occurrences in the Delian inscriptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Καλπόρνιος (1), Κλούιος (1), Δεκόμιος (2),Φολούιος (7),Ποστόμιος (6), Σπόριος (1), Οὐετόριος (1), Οὐολόσιος (3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 178)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; for Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how many examples there are of Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; being used to transcribe Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; outside of grammatical endings like *-us* and *-um,* but Allen (1978) says that there are some. His examples are *purpura, gummi,* and *empurium* for Greek *πορφύρα, κόμμι* and *ἐμπόριον.* These three examples don't give as much of an impression of systematicity to me as the Delos inscriptions that Rovai talks about: for example, *gummi* has the additional oddity of using &amp;lt;g&gt; for &amp;lt;κ&gt; (which some, including Allen, suggest could be explained by Latin /k/ being somewhat more aspirated than Greek /k/, but which regardless is not a usual correspondence), and the spelling *emporium* also exists (which Allen attributes to the influence of Greek spelling) (*Vox Latina,* 2nd Ed., p. 49). Allen's coverage of this topic is relatively brief, and there might well be a paper that goes into more detail and that could provide more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/34864257/Notes_on_the_inscriptions_of_Delos_the_Greek_transliteration_of_Latin_names" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11313" RevisionGUID="a5cbe168-29aa-487b-b38b-53f5c756d392" CreationDate="2019-08-13T00:00:54.017" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[constitute](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/39844?rskey=ITr3He&amp;result=2&amp;isAdvanced=false#eid8392974) {verb}     Etymology : [..]  ***con-*** intensive + *statuĕre* to set up, place: [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6\. To make (a person or thing) something; to establish or set up as. (With obj. and compl.) Cf. [2](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/39844?rskey=ITr3He&amp;result=2&amp;isAdvanced=false#eid8392974).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8\. To make up, form, compose; to be the elements or material of which the thing spoken of consists. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[compose {verb}](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/37781?rskey=UYWvpy&amp;result=2&amp;isAdvanced=false#eid)      Etymology : [...] ***com-*** together + *poser* to place, put down [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I. To put together, make up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abbreviate any 'Inanimate Subject(s)' to IS, and 'direct object' as DO. &#xD;&#xA;The OED links above comprise example sentences of the following syntax: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. IS composes/constitutes DO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I paraphrased  'constitute' and 'compose' in terms of their Latin etymons. Then 1 can be paraphrased as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2\. IS 'sets up/places/puts [down] + together' DO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But 2 doesn't make sense, as being inanimate, IS can't 'set up/place/put' a DO. 2 makes sense only if 2's verbs are interpreted causatively, as in 3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3\. IS *causes to be* 'placed, put down + [together]' DO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So does 3 prove that *com*- is a causative prefix? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33350" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11313" RevisionGUID="a5cbe168-29aa-487b-b38b-53f5c756d392" CreationDate="2019-08-13T00:00:54.017" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Has 'com-' been a causative prefix?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33351" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11313" RevisionGUID="a5cbe168-29aa-487b-b38b-53f5c756d392" CreationDate="2019-08-13T00:00:54.017" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|prefix|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11314" RevisionGUID="48397f8d-ac61-4d80-bf2b-80c23558bf7a" CreationDate="2019-08-13T01:16:50.447" UserId="406" Text="No, *com-* isn't causative in Latin. (I'm going to assume you're talking about Latin *compōnō*, even though the question only mentions the French and English descendants.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original meaning of *compōnō* was exactly what you'd expect from *com-* + *pōnō*—that is, &quot;to put things (*pōnō*) together (*com-*)&quot;. This meaning is still used in English nowadays: when someone *composes* a symphony, they're taking a bunch of disparate pieces and elements and working them together into a unified whole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over time, though, a metaphorical meaning arose: instead of the subject of the verb being the person doing the composing, the subject could also be the pieces being put together. This is how we get English &quot;component&quot; (from the present participle): a component is something that acts as a part of a larger whole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when we say &quot;this window is composed of fifty panes of glass&quot;, we're using this second, metaphorical meaning; when we say &quot;Vivaldi composed this concerto&quot;, we're using the first, literal meaning. The metaphor is well enough established by now that neither meaning is seen as more fundamental than the other; they coexist peacefully, using context (and occasionally prepositions) to distinguish them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11316" RevisionGUID="36aafb1e-4d2c-4872-9e70-0ae2c18300ba" CreationDate="2019-08-13T10:24:28.590" UserId="1982" Text="North &amp; Hillard Ex. 198 begins: &quot;It was already dawning when the general gave the signal, promising a great reward to the first man who climbed the walls.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation: &quot;iam illucescebat cum dux signum dedit, magnum praemium ei pollicitus qui primus moenia ascenderet.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N &amp; H gave a footnote for this section: &quot;In such phrases the superlative must be transferred to the relative clause--&quot;the man who first (qui primus)…&quot; So for &quot;he sent the most faithful slave he had,&quot; the Latin idiom is, &quot;he sent the slave whom he had the most faithful.&quot; Also &quot;the only man who&quot; = &quot;the man who alone (qui solus).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly: why must the superlative be included in the relative clause, in &quot;De Bello Gallico&quot; (5.44.1): &quot;erant in ea legione fortissimi viri, centuriones, qui primis ordinibus appropinquarent..&quot;, superlative, &quot;fortissimi&quot;, is not so included?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly: N &amp; H did not offer the translations to the footnote phrases. Have added the two (easy) ones, the longer one is trickier: &quot;he sent the slave whom he had the most faithful&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Tried: &quot;servum misit, qui fidissimus esset eius (omnium servorum).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Here, though,&quot;eius&quot; would link to &quot;qui&quot;, in the relative clause; not, to the antecedent (the slave-owner who did the sending). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then: &quot;servum misit, qui fidissimus esset quos possidebat (omnium servorum).&quot; = &quot;he sent the slave, who was the most faithful, of all the slaves, whom he owned.&quot; Here, &quot;possidebat&quot; is indicative because it refers to the antecedent, not the-most-faithful-slave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of two relative, &quot;qui&quot;, clauses calls this into question. The simplest things, at first sight, can tie the student up in knots!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts, please?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33359" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11316" RevisionGUID="36aafb1e-4d2c-4872-9e70-0ae2c18300ba" CreationDate="2019-08-13T10:24:28.590" UserId="1982" Text="Superlatives In Subordinate Clauses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33360" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11316" RevisionGUID="36aafb1e-4d2c-4872-9e70-0ae2c18300ba" CreationDate="2019-08-13T10:24:28.590" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11317" RevisionGUID="7cfaa0b9-b8a6-4c2e-9c48-21d81e771845" CreationDate="2019-08-13T16:14:45.953" UserId="831" Text="Their “superlative” here is just a convenient way of saying “the word *primus*”. Or, you might well think, an unnecessarily elegant way of saying it. It is not the superlativeness of the word which causes its transfer. It is the fact that this adjective, considered purely as an attribute of the man, is meaningless. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No man can be first. He can only be first *in respect to something* - in this case (and in many cases), an action. Not “the first man” but “the first man who”. He is not first *full stop*, he is first to perform the action. To put *primus* before the *qui* would be to imply that there is such a thing as firstness, which there isn’t. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although *primus* is grammatically an adjective, its vacuity unless an action is specified leads it to be placed syntactically as if it were an adverb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4092" RevisionGUID="9084d0ac-e736-4d2a-84da-d2de623c952f" CreationDate="2019-08-13T16:39:06.463" UserId="118" Comment="added 489 characters in body" Text="What would be a good way to coin an English word for &quot;to make hill-shaped&quot;, so it conforms to our traditions for drawing upon classical roots?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possibility is &quot;collify&quot;, with &quot;collification&quot; for the noun, from an imaginary Latin word _collificare._ I don't think &quot;collify&quot; suggests its meaning, though. Does the Latin word **collis** appear in any English words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility is to draw upon **tumulus**, which echoes in English &quot;tumescence&quot; and &quot;tumor&quot;. There is also an English word [&quot;tumulus&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumulus), meaning a burial mound. Hmm, tumuli have [exactly the shape](https://www.google.com/search?q=tumuli&amp;client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwim9-eouaTTAhXJ64MKHZfDBS8Q_AUICCgB&amp;biw=899&amp;bih=708) I want to suggest. How, in Latin, would one make a verb for &quot;to make tumulus-like&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intended context for this word is to describe modification of fitness landscapes in genetic/evolutionary algorithms to make them smoother and thus (mathematically, heuristically) easier to &quot;climb&quot;. Fitness landscapes that are very un-hill-shaped are commonly called &quot;rough&quot;, so another possible Latin root to draw upon is **lēvis**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no Latin root works, I may have to go with Greek or else the ugly hybrid &quot;hillify&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Update&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The paper with the neologism has been published! Thanks to all for the suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kovitz, B., Bender, D., &amp; Poffald, M. (2019, July). [Acclivation of Virtual Fitness Landscapes](https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1162/isal_a_00190). In _The 2019 Conference on Artificial Life: A Hybrid of the European Conference on Artificial Life (ECAL) and the International Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems (ALIFE)_ (pp. 380-387)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11318" RevisionGUID="041f4137-95e8-45ed-b93f-556590c36758" CreationDate="2019-08-13T22:32:53.807" UserId="4871" Text="Mark Antony used &quot;arrigare&quot; for &quot;tumesce&quot; in his letter to Octavian.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11318" RevisionGUID="fc738ab4-800a-47a7-a63b-a2bff6c7a21f" CreationDate="2019-08-14T12:45:46.890" UserId="4871" Comment="added 455 characters in body" Text="Mark Antony used &quot;arrigare&quot; for &quot;tumesce&quot; in his letter to Octavian.  (As quoted in Suetonius's _Life of Augustus_ &quot;An refert, ubi et in qua tu arrigas?&quot;  at the conclusion of Antony's response to Octavian's accusation that he is having an affair with a foreign queen, he defends himself by saying that that woman is his wife and Octavian *cheats* on his wife all the time and that doesn't seem to matter.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an interesting verb, since it's not easy to translate into English with a single word (though &quot;tumesce&quot; would work literally).  So maybe it could be the basis for coining an English word, though admittedly I initially misread the question, assuming that the asker was looking for a Latin word.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11319" RevisionGUID="fe6cd5b9-0eb6-4b79-86f2-2495ba272bad" CreationDate="2019-08-14T12:51:14.340" UserId="13" Text="This morning I inspected the English version of _Una Mitra per Cleis_, the book by F. Ferrari which contains this text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First off, @NickNicholas was right: the supplement of the question is actually ὀλόφ[ῳ(), with ὀλόφ[ῳα suggested in the app. crit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I answer here because I want to address the translation. The Italian antholog mangled not only that supplement, but also l. 21, which is supposed to start ο]ὐδ' Ἀ̣[νδ]ρομέ[δα, the ἐπικεῖ[ρε in l. 15, which was supposed to be ἐπίκει[ρ() with the epsilon being supplemented by Puglia and not acceptable as far as the translation goes, and the translation. Here is the translation in the book:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and be willing to take away also this [misfortune ...] then, you&#xD;&#xA;who of all&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[are] the goddess [who has thoughts the most] astute, fulfill&#xD;&#xA;my wish.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You surely were accustomed [to satisfy me in everything] for&#xD;&#xA;which I invoked you,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and now for this [purpose come to aid] straightway as my&#xD;&#xA;heart desires.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;“This reason, [you said,] is surely not [shameful, and] what&#xD;&#xA;you wish to obtain&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;is truly not excessive [to have ... in truth cannot] contend&#xD;&#xA;with me&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;even Andromeda, [but what she has done] trusting in a&#xD;&#xA;luxurious&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[lifestyle cannot] have escaped [the immortals], and you,&#xD;&#xA;since you know well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, I came up with a few more supplements. Here is the text with those supplements added:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κ]αὶ τοῦτ΄ ἐπικεί̣[ρην, ἄγ΄, ἔμον πῆμα] θέλ' ὦν τ', ἀπαίσαν&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δ]αίμων ολοφ[ῴᾱ φρένας· ὦμοι] τέλ̣εσον νόημμα·&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;σ̣ὺ μὰν ἐφίλης [–uu––u]έτων κάλη&lt;μ&gt;μι,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;νῦν δ' ἔννεκα [––uu– μοι] πεδὰ θῦμον αἲψα'.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;'τόδ' αἴτιον οὔ τ' [αἶσχρον', ἔφα, 'κὤ]σ̣σα τύχην θελήσῃς&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;οὐδὲν πόλυ̣ π̣ά̣[σασθαι, ἀλάθως γὰ]ρ ἔμοι μάχεσθαι&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ο]ὐδ΄ Ἀ̣[νδ]ρομέ[δ' οἲ', ὄσσα διαίτᾳ χ]λιδάνᾳ πίθεισα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δράσ΄, οὐ] λ̣ελάθ̣[ην ἀθανάτοις ἔστ]ι, σὺ δ', εὖ γὰρ οἶσθα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I translate as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Thus, [prithee,] be willing to eliminate also this [misfortune of mine], you of all&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The astute goddess [w.r.t. thoughts; oh], give fulfilment to [my] wish:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Verily you liked […] I invoke(d),&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Now because of […] straightaway as [my] heart desires&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;This reason is not [shameful] for you, [she said,] and what you wish to obtain&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Is not at all too much [to have; for in truth] contend with me&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Even Andromeda [can] not, [what she] trusting in a luxurious [lifestyle&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Has done, cannot] escape [the immortals;] and you, for well you know&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;οἶ' = οἶα, since I found οἶος εἶναι means &quot;can&quot;, and δράσ(ε) is an augmentless form of ἔδρασε, matching &quot;has done&quot;. ἀλάθως = ἀληθῶς, ὦμοι = ὦ ἔμοι. πάσασθαι, in the elided form πάσασθ', seems to be Ferrari's idea, as it is reported as «20 πά[σασθ'?» in the app. crit. Oh, and θέλ' ὦν τ' = θέλε ὦν τὺ = θέλε οὖν σὺ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone has some brilliant ideas to supplement the unsupplemented lines so that they match the translation, please comment. I was unable to come up with anything. Except for πάντα γ]ε, τῶν κάλημμι, which probably is against the accent on the epsilon, and ἔννεκα [τούτω, but no verb for &quot;aid&quot; I found on Woodhouse would fit the meter there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;σ̣ὺ μὰν ἐφίλης [προσδόμεναι πάντα γ]ε, τῶν κάλη&lt;μ&gt;μι,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or πάντ' ἔμε, the accent being justified as the scribe forgetting that it was ἔμε rather than ἐμέ? Scratch the last idea, we'd need ἔμοι instead. What about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;σ̣ὺ μὰν ἐφίλης [μοι παρέχην πάντα γ]ε, τῶν κάλη&lt;μ&gt;μι,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;aside from that accent on the epsilon that gets lost? I'm out of ideas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11318" RevisionGUID="8b0f2b99-2072-4009-bfc0-ba4ff24d1fa8" CreationDate="2019-08-14T12:57:34.133" UserId="4871" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Mark Antony used &quot;arrigare&quot; for &quot;tumesce&quot; in his letter to Octavian.  (As quoted in Suetonius's _Life of Augustus_ &quot;An refert, ubi et in qua tu arrigas?&quot;  at the conclusion of Antony's response to Octavian's accusation that he is having an affair with a foreign queen, he defends himself by saying that that woman is his wife and Octavian *cheats* on *his* wife all the time and that doesn't seem to matter.  Yes, the interplay between politics and sexual morality hasn't changed a ton in 2000 years.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an interesting verb, since it's not easy to translate into English with a single word (though &quot;tumesce&quot; would work literally).  So maybe it could be the basis for coining an English word, though admittedly I initially misread the question, assuming that the asker was looking for a Latin word.  Although as I think about it, maybe it's not even that good a lead since what makes it difficult to translate is that it's intransitive.  English already has a cognate transitive verb, which is what the asker is looking for.  But, if you need to coin an intransitive one, maybe look here for a loan word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10685" RevisionGUID="384d3086-6c9f-47da-a56e-7959264d385a" CreationDate="2019-08-14T15:12:35.503" UserId="13" Comment="added UPDATE" Text="Somewhat recently, I stumbled upon [this Italian Sappho anthology](https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/11675/1/Saffo_frammenti_2015.pdf), where, among other combinations, the following is found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First off, they are not listing all the fragments joined into this combination. Besides LP 86, LP 60, and LP 65, there are also LP 66(c) and LP 67(a) in here. I tried to trace all I saw here, and mostly succeeded, except for ll. 12-13, which seem to have come from nowhere. I color-coded LP 60 black, LP 67(a) blue, LP 65 red, LP 66(c) green, the unidentified end-of-lines pink, and LP 86 purple, and, with minimal adjustments to the text (including reinstating a completely ignored line of 67(a) which gives the very beginning of l. 21 and fixing the inmetrical ἀμφιβιβάσκει in l. 27 to ἀμφιβάσκει, hopefully without altering the meaning too much - and the translation &quot;circonda&quot;, &quot;surrounds&quot;, makes me optimist since I know ἀμφιβάσκει means &quot;surrounds&quot; from an Edmonds restoration reading μυρίαν ἄμμω]ν ῤύτιν ἀμφιβάσκει), I got the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the supplements are usually left black, unless they are somehow &quot;called for&quot; by a papyrus fragment, in which case they take the color of that fragment. Note also that this is a preview of a blog post due next Saturday, hence the green background. Finally, note that I introduced the notation of underlined letters for those letters that, in a raw transcription, would be simple &quot;.&quot;s, but are guessed based on surrounding words/letters or on accent marks above them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a couple guesses as to the origin of those pink letters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. They come from lines in P.Halle 3 (source of the black part of my collage) which for some reason weren't included in the Lobel-Page text. Which would clearly beg the question: why did LP not include those lines? And why did this anthology do it? Then again, P.Halle 3 was republished as P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 44, and the volume of &quot;The Oxyrhynchus Papyri&quot; containing P.Oxy. 1787 (vol. XV) doesn't have those lines, so I guess we can exclude this.&#xD;&#xA; 2. They come from another LP fragment, in which case they'd somehow have to come from LP 87(15), the only one from P.Oxy. 1787 vaguely matching those things. Which would beg the question: where is l. 1 of that fragment, and where are the vestige in «.ν» and the uncertain alpha in the following line come from, since LP didn't have them in the text of 87(15)?&#xD;&#xA; 3. They come from another P.Oxy. 1787 fragment which was relocated among another author's works, e.g. one of the hundred-odd that Lobel decided were Pindar (cfr. [this older question of mine](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7061/about-p-oxy-1787-fr-9)). Which begs the questions: (a) Was it just two lines? (b) If so, why was it relocated? (c) If not, where is the rest of it in this joining? Looking at _The Oxyrhynchus Papyri_ vol. XV, I realized 87(15) was not P.Oxy. 1787, but P.Oxy 2166(d), so those may have to be searched too. The Oxyrhynchus volume doesn't give any fragments that could be the source of those pink lines, and LP has all 2166(d) fragments from 1 to 13, so either it's 2166(d) fr. 5 (aka LP 87(15)), or it's a 2166(d) fragment with number not between 1 and 13, or I'm missing something.&#xD;&#xA; 4. They come from a very recent fragment I have never heard about, found after Lobel-Page. Which obviously makes me curious to know more about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you help me trace those to their source?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Una Mitra per Cleis_, where Ferrari published the fusion's text (or almost - cfr. [this other question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11207/about-supplemented-word-%e1%bd%80%ce%bb%cf%8c%cf%86%e1%bf%b3-in-a-fusion-of-lobel-page-fragments-from-an-italia/) and [my answer there](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11207/about-supplemented-word-%e1%bd%80%ce%bb%cf%8c%cf%86%e1%bf%b3-in-a-fusion-of-lobel-page-fragments-from-an-italia/11319#11319)), has those line endings just pop up out of nowhere, as if they were from one of the fragments joined into this. So the mystery thickens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/L9seT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JVtvS.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xZbaq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gHlu6l.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11320" RevisionGUID="76b8d045-ca07-451b-856d-b4baf698d1ec" CreationDate="2019-08-14T16:28:26.843" UserId="13" Text="I see on [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%84%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B9) that ἄελλα is related to ἄημι, which comes from the PIE root [*h₂weh₁-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%82weh%E2%82%81-), meaning &quot;to blow&quot;. This explains ἄε, but not the rest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prompted by the weird Alcaeus word αυεουλλαι glossed by Hesychius as ἄελλαι παρὰ ἄκλ&lt;sup&gt;ω&lt;/sup&gt; (Ἀλκαίῳ?), I looked further, and found the root [*welH-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/welH-), meaning &quot;to turn, to wind&quot; (as in &quot;winding road&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ἄελλα is supposed to mean &quot;whirlwind&quot;, which is something that blows (*h₂weh₁-) and turns (*welH-), so it sounds sensible that PIE could have stuck the two above roots together into *h₂weh₁-welH-, &quot;blowy-turn&quot; = &quot;whirlwind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Evolving it into Greek, that would seem to produce *αϝεϝελλ-, which as a first-declension noun would give *ἀϝέϝελλα. If such a word existed, corruption of its plural into αυεουλλαι doesn't seem too implausible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine then that one ϝε had just dropped off, for whatever reason, and the stress had shifted back. That would explain ἄελλα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question 1**: Is the above etymology plausible? Otherwise, where do the two lambdas come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While on the subject, here is what happens to the Hesychius gloss:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;vulgo&quot;, as LP puts it, correct to αὔελλαι, which seems like it's basically ἄϝελλαι with the digamma vocalized.&#xD;&#xA; - Edmonds corrects it into αὔϝολλαι, citing other examples of υϝ which I discuss [here](https://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-rest-of-sappho.html) at the item for the gloss (3.xxv). &#xD;&#xA; - LP states &quot;vulgo&quot; is acting _contra litteratum ordinem_, and should have gone for ἄυελλαι, _ubi υ pro ϝ accipi poterat_, and, while that edition doesn't produce an amendment outside the app. crit., Campbell takes up the ἄϝελλαι amendment for his own.&#xD;&#xA; - Voigt omits this gloss, refusing to deal with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question 2**: Can someone help me figure out what logic Edmonds is following in his suggestion? Every υϝ has a different etymology!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question 3**: How is &quot;vulgo&quot;'s correction against the order of the letters and LP's not, when the difference is literally shifting the stress back? What corruption pathway can one imagine to get from ἄϝελλα to αυεουλλα?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33371" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11320" RevisionGUID="76b8d045-ca07-451b-856d-b4baf698d1ec" CreationDate="2019-08-14T16:28:26.843" UserId="13" Text="On the etymology of Greek ἄελλα, and the mysterious Hesychius gloss for αυεουλλαι" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33372" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11320" RevisionGUID="76b8d045-ca07-451b-856d-b4baf698d1ec" CreationDate="2019-08-14T16:28:26.843" UserId="13" Text="|greek|etymology|aeolic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11321" RevisionGUID="c03353e3-55fc-4109-8233-6fc38f7ab5c8" CreationDate="2019-08-14T17:17:16.120" UserId="118" Text="What is an appropriate Latin word for a **knob** that controls something else, such as a volume control knob, a light dimmer, the tuning control on a radio, the temperature control knob on a space heater, etc.?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't need to be Classical Latin, of course. I figure there must be some precedent in New Latin. Or coin a word in Latin style if you need to. (I _suspect_ that control knobs were in use in Ancient Greece and even earlier, but I don't know.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://www.okwenclosures.com/en/Combination-Knobs/collet-knobs-selection_TitleImageSwap500x408.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33374" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11321" RevisionGUID="c03353e3-55fc-4109-8233-6fc38f7ab5c8" CreationDate="2019-08-14T17:17:16.120" UserId="118" Text="Latin for a &quot;control knob&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33375" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11321" RevisionGUID="c03353e3-55fc-4109-8233-6fc38f7ab5c8" CreationDate="2019-08-14T17:17:16.120" UserId="118" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|contemporary-latin|neologism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11320" RevisionGUID="79ff3ae1-b366-4d1a-b9d1-80d3494f9362" CreationDate="2019-08-14T17:20:49.023" UserId="13" Comment="added note" Text="I see on [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%84%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B9) that ἄελλα is related to ἄημι, which comes from the PIE root [*h₂weh₁-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%82weh%E2%82%81-), meaning &quot;to blow&quot;. This explains ἄε, but not the rest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prompted by the weird Alcaeus word αυεουλλαι glossed by Hesychius as ἄελλαι παρὰ ἄκλ&lt;sup&gt;ω&lt;/sup&gt; (Ἀλκαίῳ?), I looked further, and found the root [*welH-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/welH-), meaning &quot;to turn, to wind&quot; (as in &quot;winding road&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ἄελλα is supposed to mean &quot;whirlwind&quot;, which is something that blows (*h₂weh₁-) and turns (*welH-), so it sounds sensible that PIE could have stuck the two above roots together into *h₂weh₁-welH-, &quot;blowy-turn&quot; = &quot;whirlwind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Evolving it into Greek, that would seem to produce *αϝεϝελλ-, which as a first-declension noun would give *ἀϝέϝελλα. If such a word existed, corruption of its plural into αυεουλλαι doesn't seem too implausible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine then that one ϝε had just dropped off, for whatever reason, and the stress had shifted back. That would explain ἄελλα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question 1**: Is the above etymology plausible? Otherwise, where do the two lambdas come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While on the subject, here is what happens to the Hesychius gloss:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;vulgo&quot;, as LP puts it, correct to αὔελλαι, which seems like it's basically ἄϝελλαι with the digamma vocalized.&#xD;&#xA; - Edmonds corrects it into αὔϝολλαι, citing other examples of υϝ which I discuss [here](https://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-rest-of-sappho.html) at the item for the gloss (3.xxv). &#xD;&#xA; - LP states &quot;vulgo&quot; is acting _contra litteratum ordinem_, and should have gone for ἄυελλαι, _ubi υ pro ϝ accipi poterat_, and, while that edition doesn't produce an amendment outside the app. crit., Campbell takes up the ἄϝελλαι amendment for his own.&#xD;&#xA; - Voigt omits this gloss, refusing to deal with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question 2**: Can someone help me figure out what logic Edmonds is following in his suggestion? Every υϝ has a different etymology!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question 3**: How is &quot;vulgo&quot;'s correction against the order of the letters and LP's not, when the difference is literally shifting the stress back? What corruption pathway can one imagine to get from ἄϝελλα to αυεουλλα?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOTE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case anyone sees this who has seen [this Quora question of mine](https://www.quora.com/unanswered/How-plausible-is-it-that-%E1%BC%84%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%BB%CE%B1-evolved-from-h%E2%82%82weh%E2%82%81-welH-awewell-which-then-lost-one-of-its-wes-Otherwise-known-as-where-do-the-two-lambdas-in), yes, this is sorta-kinda a repost, but etymology questions and Sappho/Alcaeus questions there tend to not fare too well, and since it's been six days since I asked, I decided it was time to ask here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11322" RevisionGUID="c16dd74d-a893-4499-a7a7-5c5c8de2c79f" CreationDate="2019-08-14T18:10:27.240" UserId="40" Text="(Partial answer on question 1 only.) Here's Beekes on ἄελλα:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Chantraine s.v. ἄημι:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the connection ἄελλα - ἄημι isn't straightforward, since it requires a somewhat arbitrary derivational morpheme *-el-. But there's at least one pretty close parallel for this: θύελλα &quot;hurricane&quot; from [θύω][4] &quot;rage, seethe, storm&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main problem with your suggestion of *h₂weh₁-welH- is simply that PIE didn't compound verbal roots in this way, as far as I know. But note that *h₂weh₁-welH- should give ἀϝηϝελ-, not ἀϝεϝελλ-; maybe you could get the double lambda from *h₂weh₁-welH-ya, but I'm not sure what the regular reflex of a sequence like *-elHya should be in Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rAfQj.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0ZkPC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/p3i2g.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dqu%2Fw2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11323" RevisionGUID="d9b36606-033f-416d-bfb5-7a4acae0caf2" CreationDate="2019-08-14T18:42:16.867" UserId="406" Text="There seem to be certain words in Latin which start with an underlying `/gn/`, such as *noscō* `/gnosko:/` `[nɔsko:]`—this &quot;hidden&quot; `/g/` appears when prefixes are added, as in *cognoscō* `/congnosko:/` `[cɔŋnɔsko:]` (with the prefix *con-*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we see a word that starts with *ign-*, is that a sure sign of such an &quot;invisible&quot; `/g/`? For example, can we say with confidence that *ignāvus*, *ignōbilis*, and *ignōrō* have an underlying `/g/` in their stems?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33379" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11323" RevisionGUID="d9b36606-033f-416d-bfb5-7a4acae0caf2" CreationDate="2019-08-14T18:42:16.867" UserId="406" Text="Does an ig- prefix mean there's an underlying g in the root?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33380" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11323" RevisionGUID="d9b36606-033f-416d-bfb5-7a4acae0caf2" CreationDate="2019-08-14T18:42:16.867" UserId="406" Text="|morphology|prefix|phonology|phonetics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11323" RevisionGUID="4c0c6af5-056e-4c8c-a2e3-e674329d1429" CreationDate="2019-08-14T19:06:44.990" UserId="406" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="There seem to be certain words in Latin which start with an underlying `/gn/`, such as *noscō* `/gnosko:/` `[nɔsko:]`—this &quot;hidden&quot; `/g/` appears when prefixes are added, as in *cognoscō* `/congnosko:/` `[cɔŋnɔsko:]` (with the prefix *con-*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we see a word that starts with *ign-*, is that a sure sign of such an &quot;invisible&quot; `/g/`? For example, can we say with confidence that *ignāvus*, *ignōbilis*, and *ignōrō* have an underlying `/g/` in their stems?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I'm particularly interested in words that show clear prefixing—*ignis*, for example, doesn't count." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11324" RevisionGUID="d3cb39ad-c52b-4756-a364-924fab78bd8e" CreationDate="2019-08-14T19:09:06.050" UserId="9" Text="&gt; There seem to be certain words in Latin which start with an underlying /gn/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't put it this way. Words like *nosco* (I think the *o* in the first syllable is long /o:/, although I don't know what evidence there is of that) **historically** started with a velar consonant. It's much less obvious that an &quot;underlying&quot; /g/ continued to be present at the start of words like *nosco* after they came to be pronounced with initial [n], and spelled with initial &amp;lt;N&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nomen* is a well-known example of a word that did not historically start with a velar consonant but that has a velar in some related prefixed words: *agnomen, cognomen, ignominia* (but not *praenomen* or *pronomen*). This is thought to be the result of analogy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This topic is covered extensively in *[Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin][1],* by András Cser (2016). See Chapter 11, &quot;The issue of〈gn〉-initial stems&quot; (pp. 194-205).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser suggests a phonological development from a form with **gn**, to a form with a dorsal &quot;floating C-Place node&quot; before **n**, to a form with initial **n**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  it is clear that the literary period saw the gradual disappearance of the floating C-Place node and the lexical split of words in which it occurred. The unprefixed forms were relexicalised with a single initial [n], whereas the prefixed forms were relexicalised with a fully specified [ŋn] sequence which was no different from the [ŋn] sequence found internally in the *regnum* and&#xD;&#xA;*ignis*-type words, and from this point on the relation between these unprefixed&#xD;&#xA;and prefixed forms was no longer motivated phonologically. This made it possible&#xD;&#xA;for other prefixes to attach to 〈gn〉-initial (now phonologically [n]-initial) stems, hence the novel formations like *renatus* ’born again’, *praenoscere* ‘know in advance’, *pernobilis* ‘most noble’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 202)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11325" RevisionGUID="2ebb987e-fc6a-49e5-b075-e4b5d4f295d7" CreationDate="2019-08-14T23:29:30.627" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="[Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=abscissa) avouches that *abscissa* originally signified 'cut off', but what's 'cut off' about an x-coordinate? X-coordinates are merely numbers, not lines. What semantic notions underlie x-coordinate and 'cut off'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1798 in Latin form, earlier Englished as abscisse (1690s),     &#xD;&#xA;from Latin *abscissa*, short for *abscissa (linea)* &quot;(a line) cut off,&quot; or (*recta ex diametro*) *abscissa* &quot;(a line) cut off (from the diameter),&quot; fem. of abscissus &quot;cut off,&quot; past participle of *abscindere* &quot;to cut off, divide, part, separate,&quot; from *ab* &quot;off, away from&quot; (see ab-) \+ *scindere* &quot;to cut, rend, tear asunder, split; split up, part, divide, separate,&quot; from PIE *skind-, from root [*skei-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*skei-) &quot;to cut, split.&quot; The Latin word translates Greek *apolambanomene*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscissa_and_ordinate#Etymology) doesn't expound this semantic shift. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rgAU2.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33384" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11325" RevisionGUID="2ebb987e-fc6a-49e5-b075-e4b5d4f295d7" CreationDate="2019-08-14T23:29:30.627" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How did 'abscissa' semantically shift to signify x-coordinate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33385" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11325" RevisionGUID="2ebb987e-fc6a-49e5-b075-e4b5d4f295d7" CreationDate="2019-08-14T23:29:30.627" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33386" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="11325" RevisionGUID="806987e7-5410-4f3e-b8f2-ea84657dcd1b" CreationDate="2019-08-14T23:31:04.970" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:37,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Greek - Area 51 Proposal&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11324" RevisionGUID="b6732800-bb26-46eb-80ec-9903e7990eb7" CreationDate="2019-08-15T02:27:42.953" UserId="9" Comment="Rearranged order to more directly answer the question" Text="The short answer would be no. *Nomen* is a well-known example of a word that did not historically start with a velar consonant but that has a velar in some related prefixed words: *agnomen, cognomen, ignominia* (but not in *praenomen* or *pronomen*). This is thought to be the result of analogy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There seem to be certain words in Latin which start with an underlying /gn/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't put it this way. Words like *nosco*\* **historically** started with a velar consonant. It's much less obvious that an &quot;underlying&quot; /g/ continued to be present at the start of words like *nosco* after they came to be pronounced with initial [n], and spelled with initial &amp;lt;N&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This topic is covered extensively in *[Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin][1],* by András Cser (2016). See Chapter 11, &quot;The issue of〈gn〉-initial stems&quot; (pp. 194-205).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser suggests a phonological development from a form with **gn**, to a form with a dorsal &quot;floating C-Place node&quot; before **n**, to a form with initial **n**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  it is clear that the literary period saw the gradual disappearance of the floating C-Place node and the lexical split of words in which it occurred. The unprefixed forms were relexicalised with a single initial [n], whereas the prefixed forms were relexicalised with a fully specified [ŋn] sequence which was no different from the [ŋn] sequence found internally in the *regnum* and&#xD;&#xA;*ignis*-type words, and from this point on the relation between these unprefixed&#xD;&#xA;and prefixed forms was no longer motivated phonologically. This made it possible&#xD;&#xA;for other prefixes to attach to 〈gn〉-initial (now phonologically [n]-initial) stems, hence the novel formations like *renatus* ’born again’, *praenoscere* ‘know in advance’, *pernobilis* ‘most noble’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 202)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I think the *o* in the first syllable is long /o:/—thought to come in this word from a vowel + *h₃ sequence, according to de Vaan—although I don't know what direct evidence there is of the length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33389" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11323" RevisionGUID="fed78ac0-4625-4362-859d-1f8e649eb841" CreationDate="2019-08-15T02:51:14.847" />
  <row Id="33390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11319" RevisionGUID="a7e7a496-9c0c-47c6-8e99-68372b9c3410" CreationDate="2019-08-15T09:22:22.173" UserId="13" Comment="added UPDATE" Text="This morning I inspected the English version of _Una Mitra per Cleis_, the book by F. Ferrari which contains this text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First off, @NickNicholas was right: the supplement of the question is actually ὀλόφ[ῳ(), with ὀλόφ[ῳα suggested in the app. crit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I answer here because I want to address the translation. The Italian antholog mangled not only that supplement, but also l. 21, which is supposed to start ο]ὐδ' Ἀ̣[νδ]ρομέ[δα, the ἐπικεῖ[ρε in l. 15, which was supposed to be ἐπίκει[ρ() with the epsilon being supplemented by Puglia and not acceptable as far as the translation goes, and the translation. Here is the translation in the book:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and be willing to take away also this [misfortune ...] then, you&#xD;&#xA;who of all&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[are] the goddess [who has thoughts the most] astute, fulfill&#xD;&#xA;my wish.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You surely were accustomed [to satisfy me in everything] for&#xD;&#xA;which I invoked you,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and now for this [purpose come to aid] straightway as my&#xD;&#xA;heart desires.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;“This reason, [you said,] is surely not [shameful, and] what&#xD;&#xA;you wish to obtain&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;is truly not excessive [to have ... in truth cannot] contend&#xD;&#xA;with me&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;even Andromeda, [but what she has done] trusting in a&#xD;&#xA;luxurious&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[lifestyle cannot] have escaped [the immortals], and you,&#xD;&#xA;since you know well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, I came up with a few more supplements. Here is the text with those supplements added:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κ]αὶ τοῦτ΄ ἐπικεί̣[ρην, ἄγ΄, ἔμον πῆμα] θέλ' ὦν τ', ἀπαίσαν&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δ]αίμων ολοφ[ῴᾱ φρένας· ὦμοι] τέλ̣εσον νόημμα·&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;σ̣ὺ μὰν ἐφίλης [–uu––u]έτων κάλη&lt;μ&gt;μι,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;νῦν δ' ἔννεκα [––uu– μοι] πεδὰ θῦμον αἲψα'.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;'τόδ' αἴτιον οὔ τ' [αἶσχρον', ἔφα, 'κὤ]σ̣σα τύχην θελήσῃς&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;οὐδὲν πόλυ̣ π̣ά̣[σασθαι, ἀλάθως γὰ]ρ ἔμοι μάχεσθαι&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ο]ὐδ΄ Ἀ̣[νδ]ρομέ[δ' οἲ', ὄσσα διαίτᾳ χ]λιδάνᾳ πίθεισα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δράσ΄, οὐ] λ̣ελάθ̣[ην ἀθανάτοις ἔστ]ι, σὺ δ', εὖ γὰρ οἶσθα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I translate as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Thus, [prithee,] be willing to eliminate also this [misfortune of mine], you of all&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The astute goddess [w.r.t. thoughts; oh], give fulfilment to [my] wish:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Verily you liked […] I invoke(d),&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Now because of […] straightaway as [my] heart desires&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;This reason is not [shameful] for you, [she said,] and what you wish to obtain&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Is not at all too much [to have; for in truth] contend with me&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Even Andromeda [can] not, [what she] trusting in a luxurious [lifestyle&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Has done, cannot] escape [the immortals;] and you, for well you know&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;οἶ' = οἶα, since I found οἶος εἶναι means &quot;can&quot;, and δράσ(ε) is an augmentless form of ἔδρασε, matching &quot;has done&quot;. ἀλάθως = ἀληθῶς, ὦμοι = ὦ ἔμοι. πάσασθαι, in the elided form πάσασθ', seems to be Ferrari's idea, as it is reported as «20 πά[σασθ'?» in the app. crit. Oh, and θέλ' ὦν τ' = θέλε ὦν τὺ = θέλε οὖν σὺ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone has some brilliant ideas to supplement the unsupplemented lines so that they match the translation, please comment. I was unable to come up with anything. Except for πάντα γ]ε, τῶν κάλημμι, which probably is against the accent on the epsilon, and ἔννεκα [τούτω, but no verb for &quot;aid&quot; I found on Woodhouse would fit the meter there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;σ̣ὺ μὰν ἐφίλης [προσδόμεναι πάντα γ]ε, τῶν κάλη&lt;μ&gt;μι,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or πάντ' ἔμε, the accent being justified as the scribe forgetting that it was ἔμε rather than ἐμέ? Scratch the last idea, we'd need ἔμοι instead. What about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;σ̣ὺ μὰν ἐφίλης [μοι παρέχην πάντα γ]ε, τῶν κάλη&lt;μ&gt;μι,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;aside from that accent on the epsilon that gets lost? I'm out of ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the edition's text and Ferrari's text, it looks like Ferrari forgot 4 letters in l. 20. To address this issue, I tried combining the two images of the fragments. I tried to make sure they were resized by the same factor. This was the result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What this looks like is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Up to πόλ, it's all on one fragment;&#xD;&#xA; - The upsilon of πόλυ is split between the two fragments, the joint being quite nice, if missing a small portion of the vertical leg;&#xD;&#xA; - What follows definitely seems to be the two legs of a pi, with a portion of the top, the rest of which is lost to the small gap between the fragments;&#xD;&#xA; - Then, we seem to have part of an alpha at the bottom, and an acute accent or circumflex accent at the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the transcription should be `ΟΥΔ€ΝΠΟΛΥΠÁ[`, or at most `ΟΥΔ€ΝΠΟΛΥΠÂ[`. I'm taking number 1, and the πάσασθαι supplement is vindicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even with just the bottom fragment, the πυφα was hardly vindicated, given we have three vertical legs and part of an alpha, which could at most give ΥΠΑ – as we have seen above, btw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2csap.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4101" RevisionGUID="92c6eabf-3d0f-4d40-baf9-1e3d2a8b377c" CreationDate="2019-08-15T11:29:26.830" UserId="867" Comment="corrected spelling mistake" Text="My vote is for *automatocide* for the following reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) *automatos / αυτοματος* (sg), *automata / αυτοματα* (pl) is attested in ancient literature as referring to self-acting, autonomous, mechanical beings.  Some examples include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The self-opening gates of Olympus (*αυτομαται πυλαι*) in Homer, Iliad,&#xD;&#xA;   5.749 &#xD;&#xA; - The self-moving tripods Hephaestus made, referred to as *οι αυτοματοι* / the autonomous ones, in Homer, Iliad, 18.376  &#xD;&#xA; - A reference to “miraculous automatic puppets” (*τα αυτοματα των θαυματων*) in&#xD;&#xA;   Aristotle, Generation of Animals, 734b11&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the nominalised adjective *automata* is broad enough to encompass a variety of mechanical, autonomous beings (in response to Rafael’s comment about &quot;classicide&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) as an example of its use in a compound form, we have *automatopoiika / αυτοματοποιικα* from [Philo of Byzantium's][1] (fl. ca. 250 BC) engineering manual on how to build *automata*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) I know you asked for a Latin prefix but as Rafael established, the *gen-* of genocide has a Greek root so using *automato-* seems legitimate.  Also, I’m not aware of any Roman writings on robots whereas the Greeks wrote about robot-like beings quite frequently, hence the ready-made term *automata*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT (4) *automatum* does appear in Latin works, although very rarely.  In Petronius, it does seem to refer to an automaton or at least a clockwork toy of some sort:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *ne per parietem automatum aliquod exiret* / lest some automaton leap out of the wall (*Satyricon*, 54)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Suetonius, however, it seems to be more of an ordinary mechanical device, not intended to look or act like a human:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *si automatum ... parum cessisset* / if a device ... had worked insufficiently (*Lives of the Caesars: Claudius*, 5.34)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Admittedly weaker] alternatives from classical literature could include (note: these are my own neologisms, based on the literature):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Mechanicide*: from the story in Polybius’ *Histories* of the robot tax-collector’s wife who crushed and pierced recalcitrant tax payers to death.  She is referred to as a machine / *μηχανη* (13.7).  Of course, this could so easily be misunderstood as killing of mechanics, so perhaps not that useful!  On the plus side, however, this is the same &quot;machine&quot; of *deus ex machina* (a Latin calque of the Greek *απο μηκανης θεος*), which post-Matrix/Ex Machina/various sci-fi and anime movies/video games, and philosopher [Gilbert Ryle's][2] “ghost in the machine”, is used as a reference to AI.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;*Chalkicide* (pronounced kalkicide): from the story of Talos, the robot who guarded Crete, in Apollonius’ *Argonautica* (4.1638-1686).  Talos is referred to as a bronze man / *χαλκειος* (4.1638).  Hence my offering of *chalkicide*.  This is clearly flawed as it looks like death to chalk!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Talicide*: in honour of poor Talos / *Ταλως* who was tragically killed in the line of duty by the witch Medea.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If I were to read *roboticide* in a book, I would know exactly what it meant and, to that end, it works.  However, *pace Pons Wörterbuch des neuen Lateins*, I don’t think *robotum* is real Latin but rather a Latinisation of the Czech word [*robotnik*][3] / a slave, itself from *robota* / slave workforce, from the verb *robtotiti* / to work.  This is from Old Slavic and doesn’t seem to have any roots in either Greek or Latin.  English adopted the word robot from the Czech author Karel Capek’s play *R.U.R. Rossum's Universal Robots*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.encyclopedia.com/science/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/philo-byzantium&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_machine&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=robot" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11326" RevisionGUID="efe4cb4c-4e81-4eae-a1dd-fca9d123d16b" CreationDate="2019-08-15T12:19:53.120" UserId="45" Text="One option is [*bulla*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dbulla), which can be used to refer to a door-knob, as in the below quote from Plautus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; jussine in splendorem dari bullas has foribus nostris? Plautus, As., 2:4:20&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has a range of other, quite different meanings, like &quot;bubble&quot; and even &quot;amulet,&quot; but with proper context it should do the trick!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11327" RevisionGUID="017668cc-a4c5-4a87-a907-bdbe17b28fee" CreationDate="2019-08-15T14:46:46.430" UserId="5010" Text="Any latin, my tags aren't a mistake. The more variations the better thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33394" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11327" RevisionGUID="017668cc-a4c5-4a87-a907-bdbe17b28fee" CreationDate="2019-08-15T14:46:46.430" UserId="5010" Text="Which word best translates spark as in a spark of energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33395" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11327" RevisionGUID="017668cc-a4c5-4a87-a907-bdbe17b28fee" CreationDate="2019-08-15T14:46:46.430" UserId="5010" Text="|classical-latin|medieval-latin|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11328" RevisionGUID="aa352f11-d835-4223-a367-5cfb5da94a9b" CreationDate="2019-08-15T16:31:18.367" UserId="645" Text="In any sense, the word to use is *scintilla*, 'spark' (possibly *scintillula*, though it would probably then be better translated as 'gleam').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero in *de Republica* 2, 21 has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*qui cum famulorum &lt;in&gt; numero educatus ad epulas regis adsisteret, non latuit **scintilla ingenii** quae iam tum elucebat in puero*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11329" RevisionGUID="baa9b7f8-25db-4da1-ba86-7e00d53bde9d" CreationDate="2019-08-15T18:42:52.773" UserId="9" Text="I've read in various sources that the verb *nosco* 'know' had a long vowel in the first syllable in Classical Latin pronunciation: *nōscō* [noːskoː]. This agrees with a rule of thumb that I remember learning about using a long vowel in the penult of verbs ending in *-sco,* but I'm wondering what the linguistic evidence is for the vowel being long before *-sc-* in this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most direct type of evidence would probably be a statement from a Classical author: do any of them talk about the length of this vowel? The next most direct type of evidence that I can think of would be the quality of the vowel in Romance descendants, but I'm not sure that I know all of the relevant sound changes. Italian has close o in *coˈn*[o]*scere,* which seems to support the long vowel reconstruction (based on the correspondence Latin ō = Italian close [o], Latin ŏ = Italian open [ɔ] or [wɔ]), but I know that Italian vowel qualities sometimes went through more complicated changes. Old French *conoistre* &gt; French *connaȋtre* is possibly also evidence for Latin *ō,* since if I'm reading this [Wikipedia table][1] right, the word should have developed to *connuitre* instead if it had had short ŏ in Latin. Is this an accurate summary of what these two forms tell us about the Latin word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comparative or etymological evidence is even harder for me to understand. De Vaan says that in Proto-Indo-European, the present would have been a zero-grade form *ǵnh₃-sḱé-, which would have developed in Latin to *\*gnāscō*. The actual form *gnōscō* is explained by de Vaan as resulting from the introduction of a full-grade vocalism *ǵneh₃-sḱé-, taken from either the aorist or the perfect. That makes sense, but it's still a bit unclear to me when this substitution is supposed to have taken place (did it any other Indo-European languages, or just Latin?), and whether it is an isolated case of this kind of substitution or an example of a more generally applicable process of analogy that affected the present-tense forms of other verbs.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_history_of_French#Table_of_vowel_outcomes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33401" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11329" RevisionGUID="baa9b7f8-25db-4da1-ba86-7e00d53bde9d" CreationDate="2019-08-15T18:42:52.773" UserId="9" Text="What evidence points to a long ō in the first syllable of nōscō's present-tense form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33402" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11329" RevisionGUID="baa9b7f8-25db-4da1-ba86-7e00d53bde9d" CreationDate="2019-08-15T18:42:52.773" UserId="9" Text="|pronunciation|conjugation|vowel-quantity|proto-indo-european|romance-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11329" RevisionGUID="b9d8a8f1-00fb-4298-a3f7-be3486818187" CreationDate="2019-08-15T18:52:48.483" UserId="9" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="I've read in various sources that the verb *nosco* 'know' had a long vowel in the first syllable in Classical Latin pronunciation: *nōscō* [noːskoː]. This agrees with a rule of thumb that I remember learning about using a long vowel in the penult of verbs ending in *-sco,* but I'm wondering what the linguistic evidence is for the vowel being long before *-sc-* in this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most direct type of evidence would probably be a statement from a Classical author: do any of them talk about the length of this vowel? The next most direct type of evidence that I can think of would be the quality of the vowel in Romance descendants, but I'm not sure that I know all of the relevant sound changes. Italian has close o in *coˈn*[o]*scere,* which seems to support the long vowel reconstruction (based on the correspondence Latin ō = Italian close [o], Latin ŏ = Italian open [ɔ] or [wɔ]), but I know that Italian vowel qualities sometimes went through more complicated changes. Old French *conoistre* &gt; French *connaȋtre* is possibly also evidence for Latin *ō,* since if I'm reading this [Wikipedia table][1] right, the word should have developed to *connuitre* instead if it had had short ŏ in Latin. Is this an accurate summary of what these two forms tell us about the Latin word? Do these reflexes, or those in any other Romance language, suffice to establish the length of the vowel in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comparative or etymological evidence is even harder for me to understand. De Vaan says that in Proto-Indo-European, the present would have been a zero-grade form *ǵnh₃-sḱé-, which would have developed in Latin to *\*gnāscō*. The actual form *gnōscō* is explained by de Vaan as resulting from the introduction of a full-grade vocalism *ǵneh₃-sḱé-, taken from either the aorist or the perfect. That makes sense, but it's still a bit unclear to me when this substitution is supposed to have taken place (did it affect any other Indo-European languages, or just Latin?), and whether it is an isolated case of substitution or an example of some more generally applicable process of analogy that affected the present-tense forms of other verbs.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_history_of_French#Table_of_vowel_outcomes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11330" RevisionGUID="0edf46a6-d23a-4ca7-92cc-52eaf0151d2f" CreationDate="2019-08-15T19:51:43.047" UserId="39" Text="Weiss 2009/2011:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A sequence of a syllabic liquid or nasal followed by a laryngeal becomes the non-syllabic variant of the liquid or nasal **followed by a long vowel** corresponding in quality to the coloring effects of the laryngeal&quot; (p. 52; emphasis mine - Alex B.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11330" RevisionGUID="2453d4b0-f09f-4ab6-8d9f-2b51fcea8a24" CreationDate="2019-08-15T19:58:29.350" UserId="39" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="&gt;**PIE** *nH &gt; **Sanskrit** ā, **Avestan** ā, **Latin** nā, **Tocharian** nā etc. but **Greek** nē/a/ō (Beekes 2011: 151).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the relevant IE cognates are Greek γιγν**ώ**σκω, OPers. xšnāsāhiy, and Sanskrit jānā́ti; however, only PIE *nh3 &gt; Greek nō.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009/2011:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A sequence of a syllabic liquid or nasal followed by a laryngeal becomes the non-syllabic variant of the liquid or nasal **followed by a long vowel** corresponding in quality to the coloring effects of the laryngeal&quot; (p. 52; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The zero grade in the present: it's because of the suffix -sk-, which, as Beekes 2011 writes, &quot;always had thematic inflection and the zero grade of the root&quot; (p. 257)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11330" RevisionGUID="3cfd1f83-70ca-4b56-9166-8bc4efc4e857" CreationDate="2019-08-15T20:03:40.577" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="&gt;**PIE** *nH &gt; **Sanskrit** ā, **Avestan** ā, **Latin** nā, etc. but **Greek** nē/a/ō (Beekes 2011: 151).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the relevant IE cognates are Greek γιγν**ώ**σκω, OPers. xšnāsāhiy, and Sanskrit jānā́ti; however, only PIE *nh3 &gt; Greek nō.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009/2011:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re:Greek: &quot;A sequence of a syllabic liquid or nasal followed by a laryngeal becomes the non-syllabic variant of the liquid or nasal **followed by a long vowel** corresponding in quality to the coloring effects of the laryngeal&quot; (p. 52; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The zero grade in the present: it's because of the suffix -sk-, which, as Beekes 2011 writes, &quot;always had thematic inflection and the zero grade of the root&quot; (p. 257)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11330" RevisionGUID="bb74d737-a1ce-4f87-885e-56a00f98575b" CreationDate="2019-08-15T20:11:34.763" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="&gt;**PIE** *nH &gt; **Sanskrit** ā, **Avestan** ā, **Latin** nā, etc. but **Greek** nē/ā/ō (Beekes 2011: 151).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the relevant IE cognates are Greek γιγν**ώ**σκω, OPers. xšnāsāhiy, and Sanskrit jānā́ti; however, only PIE *nh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; &gt; Greek nō.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009/2011:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Greek: *CRh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;C &gt; CRώC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A sequence of a syllabic liquid or nasal followed by a laryngeal becomes the non-syllabic variant of the liquid or nasal **followed by a long vowel** corresponding in quality to the coloring effects of the laryngeal&quot; (p. 52; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Italic and Celtic: CRHC &gt; CRāC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The zero grade in the present: it's because of the suffix -sk-, which, as Beekes 2011 writes, &quot;always had thematic inflection and the zero grade of the root&quot; (p. 257)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11330" RevisionGUID="00d047be-74b0-428f-89f8-5bcb823b641c" CreationDate="2019-08-15T20:15:05.317" UserId="39" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&gt;**PIE** *nH &gt; **Sanskrit** ā, **Avestan** ā, **Latin** nā, etc. but **Greek** nē/ā/ō (Beekes 2011: 151).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the relevant IE cognates are Greek γιγν**ώ**σκω, OPers. xšnāsāhiy, and Sanskrit jānā́ti; however, only PIE *nh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; &gt; Greek nō.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009/2011: **PIE *R̥H&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;C &gt; *RĒ&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;C**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Greek: *CR̥h&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;C &gt; CRώC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A sequence of a syllabic liquid or nasal followed by a laryngeal becomes the non-syllabic variant of the liquid or nasal **followed by a long vowel** corresponding in quality to the coloring effects of the laryngeal&quot; (p. 52; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Italic and Celtic: CR̥HC &gt; CRāC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The zero grade in the present: it's because of the suffix -sk-, which, as Beekes 2011 writes, &quot;always had thematic inflection and the zero grade of the root&quot; (p. 257)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11324" RevisionGUID="ce1deb9c-0618-4580-9fa6-97748cdc14ca" CreationDate="2019-08-15T20:19:20.387" UserId="9" Comment="Edited in link to question about nosco vowel length" Text="The short answer would be no. *Nōmen* is a well-known example of a word that did not historically start with a velar consonant but that has a velar in some related prefixed words: *agnōmen, cognōmen, ignōminia* (but not in *praenōmen* or *prōnōmen*). This is thought to be the result of analogy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There seem to be certain words in Latin which start with an underlying /gn/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't put it this way. Words like *nōscō*\* **historically** started with a velar consonant. It's much less obvious that an &quot;underlying&quot; /g/ continued to be present at the start of words like *nōscō* after they came to be pronounced with initial [n], and spelled with initial &amp;lt;N&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This topic is covered extensively in *[Aspects of the Phonology and&#xD;&#xA;Morphology of Classical Latin][1],* by András Cser (2016). See Chapter 11, &quot;The issue of〈gn〉-initial stems&quot; (pp. 194-205).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cser suggests a phonological development from a form with **gn**, to a form with a dorsal &quot;floating C-Place node&quot; before **n**, to a form with initial **n**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  it is clear that the literary period saw the gradual disappearance of the floating C-Place node and the lexical split of words in which it occurred. The unprefixed forms were relexicalised with a single initial [n], whereas the prefixed forms were relexicalised with a fully specified [ŋn] sequence which was no different from the [ŋn] sequence found internally in the *regnum* and&#xD;&#xA;*ignis*-type words, and from this point on the relation between these unprefixed&#xD;&#xA;and prefixed forms was no longer motivated phonologically. This made it possible&#xD;&#xA;for other prefixes to attach to 〈gn〉-initial (now phonologically [n]-initial) stems, hence the novel formations like *renatus* ’born again’, *praenoscere* ‘know in advance’, *pernobilis* ‘most noble’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 202)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*My understanding is that &amp;lt;nosco&gt; was pronounced with a long ō in the first syllable: [noːskoː]. I've asked a [separate question about that topic][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11329/what-evidence-points-to-a-long-%C5%8D-in-the-first-syllable-of-n%C5%8Dsc%C5%8Ds-present-tense" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11330" RevisionGUID="d09de07a-17f7-4cde-8fc9-370a1162e18e" CreationDate="2019-08-15T20:23:18.583" UserId="39" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&gt;**PIE** *nH &gt; **Sanskrit** ā, **Avestan** ā, **Latin** nā, etc. but **Greek** nē/ā/ō (Beekes 2011: 151).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the relevant IE cognates are Greek γιγν**ώ**σκω, OPers. xšnāsāhiy, and Sanskrit jānā́ti; however, only PIE *nh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; &gt; Greek nō.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009/2011: **PIE *R̥H&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;C &gt; *RĒ&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;C**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Greek: *CR̥h&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;C &gt; CRώC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. PIE *ǵnh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-ské - Greek γιγν**ώ**σκω&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A sequence of a syllabic liquid or nasal followed by a laryngeal becomes the non-syllabic variant of the liquid or nasal **followed by a long vowel** corresponding in quality to the coloring effects of the laryngeal&quot; (p. 52; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Italic and Celtic: CR̥HC &gt; CRāC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. PIE *ǵnh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-ské - Latin *gnāsco (the predicted form that got replaced by gnōsco), which would be homonymous with Latin nāsco, nātus and this is how de Vaan explains gnosco.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The zero grade in the present: it's because of the suffix -sk-, which, as Beekes 2011 writes, &quot;always had thematic inflection and the zero grade of the root&quot; (p. 257)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11330" RevisionGUID="36167ab9-9bbc-4ade-b129-f06a0a1ee491" CreationDate="2019-08-15T20:28:26.800" UserId="39" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&gt;**PIE** *nH &gt; **Sanskrit** ā, **Avestan** ā, **Latin** nā, etc. but **Greek** nē/ā/ō (Beekes 2011: 151).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the relevant IE cognates are Greek γιγν**ώ**σκω, OPers. xšnāsāhiy, and Sanskrit jānā́ti; however, only PIE *nh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; &gt; Greek nō.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009/2011: **PIE *R̥H&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;C &gt; *RĒ&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;C**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Greek: *CR̥h&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;C &gt; CRώC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. PIE *ǵnh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-ské - Greek γιγν**ώ**σκω&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A sequence of a syllabic liquid or nasal followed by a laryngeal becomes the non-syllabic variant of the liquid or nasal **followed by a long vowel** corresponding in quality to the coloring effects of the laryngeal&quot; (p. 52; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Italic and Celtic: CR̥HC &gt; CRāC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. PIE *ǵnh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-ské - Latin *gnāsco (the predicted form that got replaced by gnōsco), which would be homonymous with Latin nāsco, nātus and this is how de Vaan explains (g)nōsco, *ad hoc*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The zero grade in the present: it's because of the suffix -sk-, which, as Beekes 2011 writes, &quot;always had thematic inflection and the zero grade of the root&quot; (p. 257)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11330" RevisionGUID="c484a66c-82f7-4dce-a412-9526b97a5956" CreationDate="2019-08-15T20:35:17.843" UserId="39" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt;**PIE** *nH &gt; **Sanskrit** ā, **Avestan** ā, **Latin** nā, etc. but **Greek** nē/ā/ō (Beekes 2011: 151).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the relevant IE cognates are Greek γιγν**ώ**σκω, OPers. xšnāsāhiy, and Sanskrit jānā́ti; however, only PIE *nh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; &gt; Greek nō.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009/2011: **PIE *R̥H&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;C &gt; *RĒ&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;C**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Greek: *CR̥h&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;C &gt; CRώC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. PIE *ǵnh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-sk̂é- Greek γιγν**ώ**σκω&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A sequence of a syllabic liquid or nasal followed by a laryngeal becomes the non-syllabic variant of the liquid or nasal **followed by a long vowel** corresponding in quality to the coloring effects of the laryngeal&quot; (p. 52; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Italic and Celtic: CR̥HC &gt; CRāC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. PIE *ǵnh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-ské - Latin *gnāsco (the predicted form that got replaced by gnōsco), which would be homonymous with Latin nāsco, nātus and this is how de Vaan explains (g)nōsco, *ad hoc* - analogical leveling from either the perfect or the aorist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The zero grade in the present: it's because of the suffix -sk-, which, as Beekes 2011 writes, &quot;always had thematic inflection and the zero grade of the root&quot; (p. 257)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11330" RevisionGUID="53a4f092-bb3f-4797-b212-c07da6b82194" CreationDate="2019-08-15T20:41:37.827" UserId="39" Comment="added 259 characters in body" Text="A note re: evidence from IE comparanda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**PIE** *nH &gt; **Sanskrit** ā, **Avestan** ā, **Latin** nā, etc. but **Greek** nē/ā/ō (Beekes 2011: 151).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the relevant IE cognates are Greek γιγν**ώ**σκω, OPers. xšnāsāhiy, and Sanskrit jānā́ti; however, only PIE *nh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; &gt; Greek nō.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009/2011: **PIE *R̥H&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;C &gt; *RĒ&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;C**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Greek: *CR̥h&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;C &gt; CRώC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. PIE *ǵnh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-sk̂é- Greek γιγν**ώ**σκω&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A sequence of a syllabic liquid or nasal followed by a laryngeal becomes the non-syllabic variant of the liquid or nasal **followed by a long vowel** corresponding in quality to the coloring effects of the laryngeal&quot; (p. 52; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Italic and Celtic: CR̥HC &gt; CRāC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. PIE *ǵnh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-ské - Latin *gnāsco (the predicted form that got replaced by gnōsco), which would be homonymous with Latin nāsco, nātus and this is how de Vaan explains (g)nōsco, *ad hoc* - analogical leveling from either the perfect or the aorist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The zero grade in the present: it's because of the suffix -sk-, which, as Beekes 2011 writes, &quot;always had thematic inflection and the zero grade of the root&quot; (p. 257)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of the specific details how/why the full grade was used instead of the expected zero-grade in the sk̂é-present in Latin for this particular verb, the fact stands - the root vowel was long, and that's what your OP is about, in its current form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11330" RevisionGUID="a4fbcc4b-c34d-4e67-8cfe-f0b6923c9aad" CreationDate="2019-08-15T20:55:14.523" UserId="39" Comment="added 242 characters in body" Text="A note re: evidence from IE comparanda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**PIE** *nH &gt; **Sanskrit** ā, **Avestan** ā, **Latin** nā, etc. but **Greek** nē/ā/ō (Beekes 2011: 151).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the relevant IE cognates are Greek γιγν**ώ**σκω, OPers. xšnāsāhiy, and Sanskrit jānā́ti; however, only PIE *nh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; &gt; Greek nō.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009/2011: **PIE *R̥H&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;C &gt; *RĒ&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;C**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Greek: *CR̥h&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;C &gt; CRώC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. PIE *ǵnh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-sk̂é- Greek γιγν**ώ**σκω&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A sequence of a syllabic liquid or nasal followed by a laryngeal becomes the non-syllabic variant of the liquid or nasal **followed by a long vowel** corresponding in quality to the coloring effects of the laryngeal&quot; (p. 52; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Italic and Celtic: CR̥HC &gt; CRāC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. PIE *ǵnh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-ské - Latin *gnāsco (the predicted form that got replaced by gnōsco), which would be homonymous with Latin nāsco, nātus and this is how de Vaan - in our case - explains (g)nōsco, *ad hoc* - analogical leveling from either the perfect or the aorist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this explanation is rather standard now, cf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LIV, p. 170, endnote 14: &quot;Mit R(e), die zur Differenzierung von nāscor 'werde geboren' (s. *ĝenh&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;) dient, vgl. Klingenschmitt 68&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;; Rix, l.c.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The zero grade in the present: it's because of the suffix -sk-, which, as Beekes 2011 writes, &quot;always had thematic inflection and the zero grade of the root&quot; (p. 257)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of the specific details how/why the full grade was used instead of the expected zero-grade in the sk̂é-present in Latin for this particular verb, the fact stands - the root vowel was long, and that's what your OP is about, in its current form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11330" RevisionGUID="c1888b0f-b94f-4100-9e40-67abef60ca50" CreationDate="2019-08-15T20:57:05.983" UserId="39" Comment="added 199 characters in body" Text="A note re: evidence from IE comparanda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**PIE** *nH &gt; **Sanskrit** ā, **Avestan** ā, **Latin** nā, etc. but **Greek** nē/ā/ō (Beekes 2011: 151).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the relevant IE cognates are Greek γιγν**ώ**σκω, OPers. xšnāsāhiy, and Sanskrit jānā́ti; however, only PIE *nh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; &gt; Greek nō.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009/2011: **PIE *R̥H&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;C &gt; *RĒ&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;C**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Greek: *CR̥h&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;C &gt; CRώC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. PIE *ǵnh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-sk̂é- Greek γιγν**ώ**σκω&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A sequence of a syllabic liquid or nasal followed by a laryngeal becomes the non-syllabic variant of the liquid or nasal **followed by a long vowel** corresponding in quality to the coloring effects of the laryngeal&quot; (p. 52; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Italic and Celtic: CR̥HC &gt; CRāC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. PIE *ǵnh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-ské - Latin *gnāsco (the predicted form that got replaced by gnōsco), which would be homonymous with Latin nāsco, nātus and this is how de Vaan - in our case - explains (g)nōsco, *ad hoc* - analogical leveling from either the perfect or the aorist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this explanation is rather standard now, cf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[LIV][1], p. 170, endnote 14: &quot;Mit R(e), die zur Differenzierung von nāscor 'werde geboren' (s. *ĝenh&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;) dient, vgl. Klingenschmitt 68&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;; Rix, l.c.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The zero grade in the present: it's because of the suffix -sk-, which, as Beekes 2011 writes, &quot;always had thematic inflection and the zero grade of the root&quot; (p. 257)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of the specific details how/why the full grade was used instead of the expected zero-grade in the sk̂é-present in Latin for this particular verb, the fact stands - the root vowel was long, and that's what your OP is about, in its current form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://reichert-verlag.de/fachgebiete/sprachwissenschaft/sprachwissenschaft_allgemeine_und_vergleichende_sprachwissenschaft/9783895002199_lexikon_der_indogermanischen_verben-detail" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11330" RevisionGUID="554eff3f-0ef0-4ca0-82cb-1c56131e88a6" CreationDate="2019-08-15T21:25:28.290" UserId="39" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="A note re: evidence from IE comparanda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**PIE** *nH &gt; **Sanskrit** ā, **Avestan** ā, **Latin** nā, etc. but **Greek** nē/ā/ō (Beekes 2011: 151).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the relevant IE cognates are Greek γιγν**ώ**σκω, OPers. xšnāsāhiy, and Sanskrit jānā́ti; however, only PIE *nh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; &gt; Greek nō.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009/2011: **PIE *R̥H&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;C &gt; *RĒ&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;C**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Greek: *CR̥h&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;C &gt; CRώC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. PIE *ǵnh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-sk̂é- Greek γιγν**ώ**σκω&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A sequence of a syllabic liquid or nasal followed by a laryngeal becomes the non-syllabic variant of the liquid or nasal **followed by a long vowel** corresponding in quality to the coloring effects of the laryngeal&quot; (p. 52; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Italic and Celtic: CR̥HC &gt; CRāC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. PIE *ǵnh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-ské - Latin *gnāsco (the predicted form that got replaced by gnōsco), which would be homonymous with Latin nāsco, nātus and this is how de Vaan - in our case - explains (g)nōsco, *ad hoc* - analogical leveling from either the perfect *ǵnéh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;- or the aorist *ǵe-ǵnóh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: PIE eh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; &gt; Latin ō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this explanation is rather standard now, cf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[LIV][1], p. 170, endnote 14: &quot;Mit R(e), die zur Differenzierung von nāscor 'werde geboren' (s. *ĝenh&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;) dient, vgl. Klingenschmitt 68&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;; Rix, l.c.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The zero grade in the present: it's because of the suffix -sk-, which, as Beekes 2011 writes, &quot;always had thematic inflection and the zero grade of the root&quot; (p. 257)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of the specific details how/why the full grade was used instead of the expected zero-grade in the sk̂é-present in Latin for this particular verb, the fact stands - the root vowel was long, and that's what your OP is about, in its current form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://reichert-verlag.de/fachgebiete/sprachwissenschaft/sprachwissenschaft_allgemeine_und_vergleichende_sprachwissenschaft/9783895002199_lexikon_der_indogermanischen_verben-detail" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11330" RevisionGUID="cbea75fa-d81b-4ece-b0ea-582f822b6bdf" CreationDate="2019-08-15T21:51:40.030" UserId="39" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="A note re: evidence from IE comparanda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**PIE** *nH &gt; **Sanskrit** ā, **Avestan** ā, **Latin** nā, etc. but **Greek** nē/ā/ō (Beekes 2011: 151).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the relevant IE cognates are Greek γιγν**ώ**σκω, OPers. xšnāsāhiy, and Sanskrit jānā́ti; however, only PIE *nh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; &gt; Greek nō.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009/2011: **PIE *R̥H&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;C &gt; *RĒ&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;C**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Greek: *CR̥h&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;C &gt; CRώC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. PIE *ǵnh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-sk̂é- Greek γιγν**ώ**σκω&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A sequence of a syllabic liquid or nasal followed by a laryngeal becomes the non-syllabic variant of the liquid or nasal **followed by a long vowel** corresponding in quality to the coloring effects of the laryngeal&quot; (p. 52; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Italic and Celtic: CR̥HC &gt; CRāC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. PIE *ǵnh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-ské - Latin *gnāsco (the predicted form that got replaced by gnōsco), which would be homonymous with Latin nāsco, nātus and this is how de Vaan - in our case - explains (g)nōsco, *ad hoc* - analogical leveling from either the perfect *ǵnéh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;- or the aorist *ǵe-ǵnóh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NB:** PIE eh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; &gt; Latin ō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this explanation is rather standard now, cf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[LIV][1], p. 170, endnote 14: &quot;Mit R(e), die zur Differenzierung von nāscor 'werde geboren' (s. *ĝenh&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;) dient, vgl. Klingenschmitt 68&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;; Rix, l.c.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The zero grade in the present: it's because of the suffix -sk-, which, as Beekes 2011 writes, &quot;always had thematic inflection and the zero grade of the root&quot; (p. 257)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of the specific details how/why the full grade was used instead of the expected zero-grade in the sk̂é-present in Latin for this particular verb, the fact stands - the root vowel was long, and that's what your OP is about, in its current form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://reichert-verlag.de/fachgebiete/sprachwissenschaft/sprachwissenschaft_allgemeine_und_vergleichende_sprachwissenschaft/9783895002199_lexikon_der_indogermanischen_verben-detail" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11331" RevisionGUID="492bbaee-507b-43e0-9bbf-ad18df2bfffc" CreationDate="2019-08-15T22:28:43.727" UserId="9" Text="Since posting the question, I was able to consult Peter Schrijver's &quot;The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin&quot; (1991) (cited by de Vaan), which, along with Alex B.'s answer, has helped me to understand better the etymological arguments in favor of long ō in Latin *nōscō*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like de Vaan 2008 and Beekes 2011 (cited in Alex B.'s answer), Schrijver notes that the present tense would have been expected to be zero grade; various possible origins are proposed for the development of a full-grade vocalism in the present tense. Schrijver says that the Greek forms γνωτός and γιγνώσκω prove that this root should be reconstructed with the laryngeal *\*h₃* (p. 147).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that unlike in Greek, *h₃ by itself did not have a reflex of *o* in Latin. But it did &quot;color&quot; an adjacent *e, *o, *ē or *ō, giving it the quality of o. A laryngeal also lengthened a preceding vowel, so a summary of the outcomes of h₃ next to these vowels would be *{e/o/ē/ō}h₃ &gt; Lat. ō, *h₃{ē/ō} &gt; Lat. ō, *h₃{e/o} &gt; Lat. ŏ. Most of these yield long ō; only the last two yield a short vowel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that *h₃{e/o} is not a plausible candidate for the source of the *o* in the first syllable of Latin &amp;lt;nosco&gt;: I'm not entirely sure why, but here's what I've gathered from Schrijver. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schrijver indicates that a *CnHV sequence (or any *CRHV sequence) would show vocalized (syllabic) n as a rule (p. 198). He explains the *gnĭt-* sequence in *cognĭtus* as developing from earlier *-genot-* (&lt; *ǵnh₃et-), with vocalization that was later reversed by syncope of medial unstressed *e* (p. 202). But that kind of syncope would not be regular word-initially, and so couldn't be used to explain *nosco* (even if there were some explanation of where an *-o/e-* between the h₃ and s could have come from).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schrijver does mention a few cases where word-initial *CRH appears to have yielded Latin CR- clusters, but he suggests that this was the result of early loss of laryngeals that only occurred in this context before a lengthened grade vowel: this condition is used to explain *ǵlōs* from *glh₂-ōu-s (p. 199) and perfects of the form *gnōvī, plēvī, strāvī, flāvī, nēvī,* if it is assumed that they derived from the forms *ǵnh₃-ēu-, *plh₁-ēu-, *strh₃-ēu-, *bʰlh₁-ēu-, *snh₁-ēu- (p. 131).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my current understanding is that there is no vocalism of PIE gnh₃ that would yield Latin word-initial nŏ-, which implies that &amp;lt;nosco&gt; had a long vowel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11329" RevisionGUID="2af606a8-81e6-460c-b13d-6992119d364b" CreationDate="2019-08-15T22:32:37.697" UserId="9" Comment="added date of citation" Text="I've read in various sources that the verb *nosco* 'know' had a long vowel in the first syllable in Classical Latin pronunciation: *nōscō* [noːskoː]. This agrees with a rule of thumb that I remember learning about using a long vowel in the penult of verbs ending in *-sco,* but I'm wondering what the linguistic evidence is for the vowel being long before *-sc-* in this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most direct type of evidence would probably be a statement from a Classical author: do any of them talk about the length of this vowel? The next most direct type of evidence that I can think of would be the quality of the vowel in Romance descendants, but I'm not sure that I know all of the relevant sound changes. Italian has close o in *coˈn*[o]*scere,* which seems to support the long vowel reconstruction (based on the correspondence Latin ō = Italian close [o], Latin ŏ = Italian open [ɔ] or [wɔ]), but I know that Italian vowel qualities sometimes went through more complicated changes. Old French *conoistre* &gt; French *connaȋtre* is possibly also evidence for Latin *ō,* since if I'm reading this [Wikipedia table][1] right, the word should have developed to *connuitre* instead if it had had short ŏ in Latin. Is this an accurate summary of what these two forms tell us about the Latin word? Do these reflexes, or those in any other Romance language, suffice to establish the length of the vowel in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comparative or etymological evidence is even harder for me to understand. De Vaan says that in Proto-Indo-European, the present would have been a zero-grade form *ǵnh₃-sḱé-, which would have developed in Latin to *\*gnāscō*. The actual form *gnōscō* is explained by de Vaan 2008 as resulting from the introduction of a full-grade vocalism *ǵneh₃-sḱé-, taken from either the aorist or the perfect. That makes sense, but it's still a bit unclear to me when this substitution is supposed to have taken place (did it affect any other Indo-European languages, or just Latin?), and whether it is an isolated case of substitution or an example of some more generally applicable process of analogy that affected the present-tense forms of other verbs.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_history_of_French#Table_of_vowel_outcomes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11331" RevisionGUID="970fd3c2-1c1d-4969-b634-cb289d8d86f6" CreationDate="2019-08-15T22:46:23.437" UserId="9" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="Since posting the question, I was able to consult Peter Schrijver's &quot;The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin&quot; (1991) (cited by de Vaan), which, along with Alex B.'s answer, has helped me to understand better the etymological arguments in favor of long ō in Latin *nōscō*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like de Vaan 2008 and Beekes 2011 (cited in Alex B.'s answer), Schrijver notes that the present tense would have been expected to be zero grade; various possible origins are proposed for the development of a full-grade vocalism in the present tense. Schrijver says that the Greek forms γνωτός and γιγνώσκω prove that this root should be reconstructed with the laryngeal *\*h₃* (p. 147). Greek γνω is the regular reflex of PIE zero-grade *ǵnh₃.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that unlike in Greek, *h₃ by itself did not have a reflex of *o* in Latin. But it did &quot;color&quot; an adjacent *e, *o, *ē or *ō, giving it the quality of o. A laryngeal also lengthened a preceding vowel, so a summary of the outcomes of h₃ next to these vowels would be *{e/o/ē/ō}h₃ &gt; Lat. ō, *h₃{ē/ō} &gt; Lat. ō, *h₃{e/o} &gt; Lat. ŏ. Most of these yield long ō; only the last two yield a short vowel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that *h₃{e/o} is not a plausible candidate for the source of the *o* in the first syllable of Latin &amp;lt;nosco&gt;: I'm not entirely sure why, but here's what I've gathered from Schrijver. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schrijver indicates that a *CnHV sequence (or any *CRHV sequence) would show vocalized (syllabic) n as a rule (p. 198). He explains the *gnĭt-* sequence in *cognĭtus* as developing from earlier *-genot-* (&lt; *ǵnh₃et-), with vocalization that was later reversed by syncope of medial unstressed *e* (p. 202). But that kind of syncope would not be regular word-initially, and so couldn't be used to explain *nosco* (even if there were some explanation of where an *-o/e-* between the h₃ and s could have come from).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schrijver does mention a few cases where word-initial *CRH appears to have yielded Latin CR- clusters, but he suggests that this was the result of early loss of laryngeals that only occurred in this context before a lengthened grade vowel: this condition is used to explain *ǵlōs* from *glh₂-ōu-s (p. 199) and perfects of the form *gnōvī, plēvī, strāvī, flāvī, nēvī,* if it is assumed that they derived from the forms *ǵnh₃-ēu-, *plh₁-ēu-, *strh₃-ēu-, *bʰlh₁-ēu-, *snh₁-ēu- (p. 131).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my current understanding is that there is no vocalism of PIE gnh₃ that would yield Latin word-initial nŏ-, which implies that &amp;lt;nosco&gt; had a long vowel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11329" RevisionGUID="dbfb0cca-0cd1-471b-b6be-e45e024f5f09" CreationDate="2019-08-15T23:08:36.500" UserId="9" Comment="The &quot;rule of thumb&quot; I remember learning isn't actually valid; &quot;posco&quot; is an exception" Text="I've read in various sources that the verb *nosco* 'know' had a long vowel in the first syllable in Classical Latin pronunciation: *nōscō* [noːskoː]. I'm wondering what the linguistic evidence is for the vowel being long before *-sc-* in this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most direct type of evidence would probably be a statement from a Classical author: do any of them talk about the length of this vowel? The next most direct type of evidence that I can think of would be the quality of the vowel in Romance descendants, but I'm not sure that I know all of the relevant sound changes. Italian has close o in *coˈn*[o]*scere,* which seems to support the long vowel reconstruction (based on the correspondence Latin ō = Italian close [o], Latin ŏ = Italian open [ɔ] or [wɔ]), but I know that Italian vowel qualities sometimes went through more complicated changes. Old French *conoistre* &gt; French *connaȋtre* is possibly also evidence for Latin *ō,* since if I'm reading this [Wikipedia table][1] right, the word should have developed to *connuitre* instead if it had had short ŏ in Latin. Is this an accurate summary of what these two forms tell us about the Latin word? Do these reflexes, or those in any other Romance language, suffice to establish the length of the vowel in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comparative or etymological evidence is even harder for me to understand. De Vaan says that in Proto-Indo-European, the present would have been a zero-grade form *ǵnh₃-sḱé-, which would have developed in Latin to *\*gnāscō*. The actual form *gnōscō* is explained by de Vaan 2008 as resulting from the introduction of a full-grade vocalism *ǵneh₃-sḱé-, taken from either the aorist or the perfect. That makes sense, but it's still a bit unclear to me when this substitution is supposed to have taken place (did it affect any other Indo-European languages, or just Latin?), and whether it is an isolated case of substitution or an example of some more generally applicable process of analogy that affected the present-tense forms of other verbs.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_history_of_French#Table_of_vowel_outcomes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11331" RevisionGUID="d74796e9-c6f1-4a73-aa1b-fd2e1f0b0644" CreationDate="2019-08-16T00:08:00.627" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 27 characters in body" Text="Since posting the question, I was able to consult Peter Schrijver's &quot;The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin&quot; (1991) (cited by de Vaan), which, along with Alex B.'s answer, has helped me to understand better the etymological arguments in favor of long ō in Latin *nōscō*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like de Vaan 2008 and Beekes 2011 (cited in Alex B.'s answer), Schrijver notes that the present tense would have been expected to be zero grade; various possible origins are proposed for the development of a full-grade vocalism in the present tense. Schrijver says that the Greek forms γνωτός and γιγνώσκω prove that this root should be reconstructed with the laryngeal *\*h₃* (p. 147). Greek γνω is the regular reflex of PIE zero-grade *ǵnh₃.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that unlike in Greek, *h₃ by itself did not have a reflex of *o* in Latin. But it did &quot;color&quot; an adjacent *e, giving it the quality of o. A laryngeal also lengthened a preceding vowel. Since eh₃ or oh₃ became Latin long ō, a word from a root with h₃ could only wind up with short ŏ in Latin if it developed from a form with a vowel after rather than before the laryngeal: *h₃{e/o}.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that *h₃{e/o} is not a plausible candidate for the source of the *o* in the first syllable of Latin &amp;lt;nosco&gt;: I'm not entirely sure why, but here's what I've gathered from Schrijver. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schrijver indicates that a *CnHV sequence (or any *CRHV sequence) would show vocalized (syllabic) n as a rule (p. 198). He explains the *gnĭt-* sequence in *cognĭtus* as developing from earlier *-genot-* (&lt; *ǵnh₃et-), with vocalization that was later reversed by syncope of medial unstressed *e* (p. 202). But that kind of syncope would not be regular word-initially, and so couldn't be used to explain *nosco* (even if there were some explanation of where an *-o/e-* between the h₃ and s could have come from).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Schrijver does mention a few cases where word-initial *CRH appears to have yielded Latin CR- clusters, but he suggests that this was the result of early loss of laryngeals that only occurred in this context before a lengthened grade vowel: this condition is used to explain *ǵlōs* from *glh₂-ōu-s (p. 199) and perfects of the form *gnōvī, plēvī, strāvī, flāvī, nēvī,* if it is assumed that they derived from the forms *ǵnh₃-ēu-, *plh₁-ēu-, *strh₃-ēu-, *bʰlh₁-ēu-, *snh₁-ēu- (p. 131).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my current understanding is that there is no vocalism of PIE gnh₃ that would yield Latin word-initial nŏ-, which implies that &amp;lt;nosco&gt; had a long vowel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33423" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11329" RevisionGUID="b341b26a-a164-4a74-8d8e-247a96401ca9" CreationDate="2019-08-16T02:52:46.310" />
  <row Id="33424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11332" RevisionGUID="46565a03-b14a-467a-97d5-c7b7c2385240" CreationDate="2019-08-16T12:22:49.617" UserId="1982" Text="This Q. was not answered; but, now I know! It's to do with &quot;dum + historic present&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When &quot;dum&quot; is followed by a historic present where it refers to a period of time, during the course of which, something else happens:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. while we were walking, we found a horse = dum ambulamus, equum invenimus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if &quot;dum&quot; refers to a period of time which is &quot;coterminous with the thing happening&quot;, then an imperfect is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. while we were walking, we were singing = dum ambulabamus, cantabamus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this example, all the time we were walking we were singing, thus the two activities were coterminous. In Q3, above, while provisions were holding out, they were resisting: coterminous circumstances, requiring the imperfect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11333" RevisionGUID="6dab4f83-1a8d-4a24-85a0-9b9c9be00821" CreationDate="2019-08-16T15:25:55.600" UserId="79" Text="From the point of view of the dominant clause, *omnibus oppugnationibus resistebant*, the subordinate clause describes continuous circumstances instead of one-off events.&#xD;&#xA;Such continuous continuous circumstances are indicated with the imperfect tense.&#xD;&#xA;Whether the events are completed now at the time of narration is less relevant for a subordinate clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also irrelevant whether the circumstance came to an end when the main event began.&#xD;&#xA;The point is that the imperfect sets the stage where something else happens.&#xD;&#xA;For example, in &quot;I was sitting when the fire alarm went off&quot; the sitting would be indicated with an imperfect tense, despite the sitting surely coming to an abrupt stop upon the alarm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether the resisting should be perfect or imperfect depends on point of view or details.&#xD;&#xA;If you would consider it a single battle, then perhaps the perfect tense is suitable.&#xD;&#xA;But if it was extended siege warfare, then the continued nature of the imperfect is better.&#xD;&#xA;Both positions are defensible, but I find the imperfect more natural here: there was a long-lasting achievement (resisting attacks) while a long-lasting circumstance (enough supplies) was valid.&#xD;&#xA;Imperfect is the typical choice when you want to give more focus on repetition than completion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11334" RevisionGUID="146be607-cd15-4424-9069-f0db58a7d1ac" CreationDate="2019-08-16T22:30:12.060" UserId="79" Text="This question arose the other day in our [chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36130/conloqvivm):&#xD;&#xA;What is a laptop in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several possible ways to approach this.&#xD;&#xA;It feels most reasonable to me to take a word for &quot;computer&quot; and combine it with a suitable adjective.&#xD;&#xA;In suitable context the noun can be dropped.&#xD;&#xA;I find *computatrum* to be a very good word for a computer.&#xD;&#xA;The adjectives that first come to mind are *mobile, portabile, sinuale*.&#xD;&#xA;(I don't think *sinuale* is attested classically, but it strikes me as a perfectly reasonable word by analogy to other adjectives in *-alis* and other words derived from *sinus*.)&#xD;&#xA;I might be missing other approaches or perhaps reasons not to use some of these options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would you suggest as a Latin translation for &quot;laptop [computer]&quot; and why?&#xD;&#xA;The natural criteria ease of understanding and difficulty of misunderstanding.&#xD;&#xA;Brevity or analogy with other languages is a bonus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33427" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11334" RevisionGUID="146be607-cd15-4424-9069-f0db58a7d1ac" CreationDate="2019-08-16T22:30:12.060" UserId="79" Text="What should we call a laptop?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33428" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11334" RevisionGUID="146be607-cd15-4424-9069-f0db58a7d1ac" CreationDate="2019-08-16T22:30:12.060" UserId="79" Text="|modern-life|technology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11335" RevisionGUID="c0a4ad89-0f05-439a-8094-590ee2bd4e29" CreationDate="2019-08-17T01:07:01.310" UserId="3248" Text="&quot;Appendix V&quot; of this book [Conversational latin for oral proficiency][2] contains three pages on computer terms (vid. infra _computatrulum_  _portabile_ for &quot;laptop&quot;). I've just read that [computatrum gestabile][3] is also another option. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computatrum, ordinatrum (computer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**computatrulum portabile** (laptop)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compactus discus opticus (CDROM)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex rete prehendere (download)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pagina domestica (home page)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; partes programmationis (software)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plagiarius electronicus, effractarius electronicus (hacker)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tela Totius Terrae (WWW) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?t=824&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip073/2006034010.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computatrum_gestabile" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11335" RevisionGUID="10ccb780-9cbb-4a5c-a471-311f396bb522" CreationDate="2019-08-17T01:12:18.237" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="&quot;Appendix V&quot; of this book [Conversational latin for oral proficiency][2] contains three pages on computer terms (vid. infra a selection of them: e.g., _computatrulum_  _portabile_ for &quot;laptop&quot;). I've just read that [computatrum gestabile][3] is also another option. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computatrum, ordinatrum (computer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**computatrulum portabile** (laptop)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compactus discus opticus (CDROM)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex rete prehendere (download)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pagina domestica (home page)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; partes programmationis (software)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plagiarius electronicus, effractarius electronicus (hacker)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tela Totius Terrae (WWW) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?t=824&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip073/2006034010.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computatrum_gestabile" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11335" RevisionGUID="f4035c98-a65b-421d-a363-89bdd9b364ca" CreationDate="2019-08-17T01:33:53.123" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar" Text="&quot;Appendix V&quot; of the book [Conversational latin for oral proficiency][2] contains three pages of computer terms (vid. infra a selection of them: e.g., _computatrulum_  _portabile_ for &quot;laptop&quot;). I've just read that [computatrum gestabile][3] is also another option. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computatrum, ordinatrum (&quot;computer&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**computatrulum portabile** (&quot;laptop&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compactus discus opticus (&quot;CDROM&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex rete prehendere (&quot;download&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pagina domestica (&quot;home page&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; partes programmationis (&quot;software&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effractarius electronicus (&quot;hacker&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tela Totius Terrae (&quot;WWW&quot;) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?t=824&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip073/2006034010.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computatrum_gestabile" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11335" RevisionGUID="dbf191dd-c416-419e-8c2c-265f57ea6916" CreationDate="2019-08-17T01:39:17.603" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar" Text="&quot;Appendix V&quot; of the book [Conversational latin for oral proficiency][2] contains three pages of computer terms (vid. infra a selection of them: e.g., _computatrulum_  _portabile_ for &quot;laptop&quot;). I've just found out that [computatrum gestabile][3] is another option. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computatrum, ordinatrum (&quot;computer&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**computatrulum portabile** (&quot;laptop&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compactus discus opticus (&quot;CDROM&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex rete prehendere (&quot;download&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pagina domestica (&quot;home page&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; partes programmationis (&quot;software&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effractarius electronicus (&quot;hacker&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tela Totius Terrae (&quot;WWW&quot;) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?t=824&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip073/2006034010.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computatrum_gestabile" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11335" RevisionGUID="babe9b0d-463f-4680-80ab-f5f0d2058848" CreationDate="2019-08-17T01:49:44.837" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="&quot;Appendix V&quot; of the book [Conversational latin for oral proficiency][2] contains three pages of computer terms (vid. infra a selection of them: e.g., _computatrulum_  _portabile_ for &quot;laptop&quot;. NB: I've just googled for a while and it seems that the more frequent term is _computatrum portabile_, i.e., without any diminutive suffix). [Computatrum gestabile][3] is another option. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; computatrum, ordinatrum (&quot;computer&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**computatrulum portabile** (&quot;laptop&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compactus discus opticus (&quot;CDROM&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex rete prehendere (&quot;download&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pagina domestica (&quot;home page&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; partes programmationis (&quot;software&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effractarius electronicus (&quot;hacker&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tela Totius Terrae (&quot;WWW&quot;) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?t=824&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip073/2006034010.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computatrum_gestabile" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11336" RevisionGUID="14216887-f325-4bdc-91e1-17cda5eb12a7" CreationDate="2019-08-17T02:58:54.147" UserId="1987" Text="Would &quot;Non Lapsus&quot; be a good way of writing &quot;Not Fallen&quot; in Latin?&#xA;&#xA;(Lapsus chosen because it refers to the Biblical Fall of Man)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33435" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11336" RevisionGUID="14216887-f325-4bdc-91e1-17cda5eb12a7" CreationDate="2019-08-17T02:58:54.147" UserId="1987" Text="Not fallen in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33436" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11336" RevisionGUID="14216887-f325-4bdc-91e1-17cda5eb12a7" CreationDate="2019-08-17T02:58:54.147" UserId="1987" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11330" RevisionGUID="7a2ca986-c745-4413-ae51-14f35c624dbb" CreationDate="2019-08-17T03:30:34.137" UserId="39" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="A note re: evidence from IE comparanda&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**PIE** *nH &gt; **Sanskrit** ā, **Avestan** ā, **Latin** nā, etc. but **Greek** nē/ā/ō ([Beekes 2011][1]: 151).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the relevant IE cognates are Greek γιγν**ώ**σκω, OPers. xšnāsāhiy, and Sanskrit jānā́ti; however, only PIE *nh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; &gt; Greek nō.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss 2009/2011: **PIE *R̥H&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;C &gt; *RĒ&lt;sub&gt;i&lt;/sub&gt;C**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Greek: *CR̥h&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;C &gt; CRώC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. PIE *ǵnh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-sk̂é- Greek γιγν**ώ**σκω&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A sequence of a syllabic liquid or nasal followed by a laryngeal becomes the non-syllabic variant of the liquid or nasal **followed by a long vowel** corresponding in quality to the coloring effects of the laryngeal&quot; (p. 52; emphasis mine - Alex B.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In Italic and Celtic: CR̥HC &gt; CRāC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. PIE *ǵnh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-ské - Latin *gnāsco (the predicted form that got replaced by gnōsco), which would be homonymous with Latin nāsco, nātus and this is how de Vaan - in our case - explains (g)nōsco, *ad hoc* - analogical leveling from either the perfect *ǵnéh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;- or the aorist *ǵe-ǵnóh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NB:** PIE eh&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; &gt; Latin ō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this explanation is rather standard now, cf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[LIV][2], p. 170, endnote 14: &quot;Mit R(e), die zur Differenzierung von nāscor 'werde geboren' (s. *ĝenh&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;) dient, vgl. Klingenschmitt 68&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;; Rix, l.c.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The zero grade in the present: it's because of the suffix -sk-, which, as Beekes 2011 writes, &quot;always had thematic inflection and the zero grade of the root&quot; (p. 257)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of the specific details how/why the full grade was used instead of the expected zero-grade in the sk̂é-present in Latin for this particular verb, the fact stands - the root vowel was long, and that's what your OP is about, in its current form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027285003-11&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://reichert-verlag.de/fachgebiete/sprachwissenschaft/sprachwissenschaft_allgemeine_und_vergleichende_sprachwissenschaft/9783895002199_lexikon_der_indogermanischen_verben-detail" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11337" RevisionGUID="7073940c-fe4f-42d0-b04f-118fc9a7e366" CreationDate="2019-08-17T04:17:28.663" UserId="406" Text="[_Lapsus_ seems like a good translation for &quot;fallen&quot;][1]; it just needs to be declined for the right gender and number (one man is *lapsus*, one woman is *lapsa*, and so on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The obvious way to invert an participle in Latin is the *in-* prefix; unfortunately, in this case, [*illapsus* has its own meaning already][2]. So your *non lapsus* is the best alternative I can think of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7184/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dillabor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11338" RevisionGUID="97a71db0-c8be-4038-914b-49435a7c0f14" CreationDate="2019-08-17T10:21:51.920" UserId="1982" Text="Romans would have been so astonished by any kind of computing device (&quot;ancient&quot;, 1960s' adding-mackhines; 1970s' pocket-calculators; Charles-Babbages' (C19th) manful attempt (sympathy for him: he knew the technology of his time was not up to where his ideas were: &quot;Oh to live for one day, 500-years from now!!&quot;) that they might have said: &quot;deus ex machina!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well-known = god from a machine; a (Greek) theatrical device, adopted by the Romans; an intractable circumstance suddenly resolved by a &quot;miraculous&quot; event; beyond coincidence, therefore, somehow contrived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, they would have been shocked &amp; stupefied; but, as the novelty faded, a laptop would have been seen as just another machine; brilliant, advanced, centuries ahead of its time, perhaps; but, just another machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine friends of Julius Caeser, or Cicero, &quot;I'll just go on my &quot;deus&quot;, contact Latin Stack, to ask for an interpretation of what Cicero has just said to me?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11339" RevisionGUID="da708402-5cae-4913-8c22-4d11d0db4d59" CreationDate="2019-08-17T10:49:56.033" UserId="2973" Text="In the text that I am reading now, the Greek word μονάδαι is used to indicate &quot;units&quot;. I have understood it as a plural form of μονάς, however, I could only find μονᾰ́δε in the dual form and μονᾰ́δες in the plural form in the dictionary(Attic). Is the word μονάδαι another dialect of μονᾰ́δες? Or is it just mistaken in the text? Or is μονάδαι a form of another word than μονάς? Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33441" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11339" RevisionGUID="da708402-5cae-4913-8c22-4d11d0db4d59" CreationDate="2019-08-17T10:49:56.033" UserId="2973" Text="μονάδαι as plural form of μονάς" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33442" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11339" RevisionGUID="da708402-5cae-4913-8c22-4d11d0db4d59" CreationDate="2019-08-17T10:49:56.033" UserId="2973" Text="|vocabulary|plural|dialects|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33443" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11339" RevisionGUID="34e14ae0-9a0a-42cf-9060-547d23c1a8e7" CreationDate="2019-08-17T10:51:12.160" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|greek|plural|dialects|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11340" RevisionGUID="5c1e03f5-81ea-4063-bcd5-4dbd711923d6" CreationDate="2019-08-17T10:51:42.070" UserId="1982" Text="&quot;The Fall of Man&quot;? Well, if yourself is seeking doom-laden imagery, how about &quot;(non) occasus&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This masculine noun (gen. occasus), verb: occido, occidi, occasum [3], as well as &quot;falling&quot; incorporates the &quot;setting-sun&quot;--used by writers to project endings (good or bad); &quot;end&quot; in its own right; and, of course, &quot;death&quot;!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also means &quot;west&quot;. Given the state of the Western-World, at the moment (Brexit to the rise of fascism) there's plenty of (potential) &quot;doom&quot; in the air. But, guessing that contemporary politics is beyond the remit of your Q?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember Private Fraser in &quot;Dad's Army&quot;? &quot;We're doomed!&quot; Let's hope not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11341" RevisionGUID="95c1d4c0-a62a-4b3d-a1af-66b18fdc866b" CreationDate="2019-08-17T11:03:09.157" UserId="645" Text="I agree that *computatrum* is good for 'computer' (and so, incidentally, did the Pope's Latin Secretary — thirty or so years ago, though he also advocated *computatorium*). But the main thing here is surely to convey the idea of portability, leading me to suggest *computatrum portandum*; in the proper context, just as 'laptop computer' is shortened to a single word,  so would *portandum* alone be easily understood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11342" RevisionGUID="a87b64d2-1642-441d-b0f8-feadee70677a" CreationDate="2019-08-17T12:06:02.577" UserId="324" Text="μονάδα, plural -αι, is Modern Greek. The classical word for &quot;monad&quot; is μονάς, plural μονάδες." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11342" RevisionGUID="952c69a1-c587-432b-b406-6dd21bb4a672" CreationDate="2019-08-17T12:16:48.523" UserId="324" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="The classical word for &quot;monad&quot; is μονάς, plural μονάδες. μονάδα, plural -ες, is Modern Greek. μονάδαι looks like a pseudo-classical plural of the MG word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33448" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11336" RevisionGUID="7e37165b-03db-41c8-bf5c-805546881d03" CreationDate="2019-08-17T12:24:44.357" />
  <row Id="33449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11342" RevisionGUID="4be3110d-a1f2-48da-a0c3-700bdde7e6ca" CreationDate="2019-08-17T12:33:41.473" UserId="324" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="The classical word for &quot;monad&quot; is μονάς, plural μονάδες. μονάδα, plural -ες, is Modern Greek. μονάδαι looks like a pseudo-classical plural of the MG word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where did you find it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11343" RevisionGUID="e56c4ffe-a9a2-49be-b22b-3b307b2fe841" CreationDate="2019-08-17T13:51:03.723" UserId="79" Text="The way I see it, there is no middle voice in Latin, but there can certainly be traces of it.&#xD;&#xA;The situation is similar to the dual number.&#xD;&#xA;That said, looking for such traces is interesting.&#xD;&#xA;Here is one candidate worth considering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dictionaries tend to list [*contemplare*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=contemplo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) and [*contemplari*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=contemplor&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) as separate entries.&#xD;&#xA;However, if we analyze them as the same forms, something resembling a middle voice arises.&#xD;&#xA;The passive forms are not passive in nature, and they can take accusative objects as mentioned in the linked L&amp;S entry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The slight difference in meaning sounds suitable for a middle reading.&#xD;&#xA;Namely, *contemplo* is roughly &quot;I observe&quot; whereas *contemplor* is more &quot;I consider&quot; which could be seen as &quot;I observe for myself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For practical purposes the verbs are essentially synonymous, but one can contemplate whether the deponent verb arose from something middle.&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S mentions that the active forms are ante- and post-classical.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the passive forms took over and there was no need to use the active forms in parallel if the distinction was minor or non-existent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus appears to be the only writer to use both active and passive forms to any significant extent, so it is worthwhile to take a look at [his 15 uses of *contempl-*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23contempl+%5Bpl%5D).&#xD;&#xA;Upon a quick inspection, I get the feeling that the active forms are more &quot;look&quot; and the passive ones &quot;think&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This gives some support to the idea of a middle.&#xD;&#xA;(But I won't stretch the analysis too far with just these data points or claim that it is absolutely so.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So, perhaps the deponent verb *contemplari* could be seen as the middle voice of *contemplare*.**&#xD;&#xA;This is not the only verb which has normal and deponent versions.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps analyzing more such pairs could reveal more solid evidence for middle, if these kinds of cases count as middle for you.&#xD;&#xA;I happened to be reminded of this particular pair in [a recent question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11276/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11344" RevisionGUID="8d51d06f-7a2f-4be0-b556-76bca70784b7" CreationDate="2019-08-17T15:19:20.643" UserId="45" Text="I recently came across the word &quot;deigena&quot; while reading [c. 2, lectio 4 of Aquinas's *Commentary on the Divine Names of [Pseudo-]Dionysius*](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/cdn01.html). This led me to discover what seems to be a productive suffix from *gigno*: *-gena*. Here is a [list of words (with some false positives) of adjectives ending in this suffix](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&amp;lookup=gena&amp;lang=la).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a few questions about this word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There seem to be two, almost opposite, meanings: X-bearing and X-born. Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;- How should I use this productive suffix? The examples in the list above seem to compound it with the genitive. Could I, for instance, write &quot;librigena&quot; for &quot;book-bearing&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;- Is there a name for this kind of productive suffix?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33452" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11344" RevisionGUID="8d51d06f-7a2f-4be0-b556-76bca70784b7" CreationDate="2019-08-17T15:19:20.643" UserId="45" Text="Opposing meanings of the suffix -gena" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33453" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11344" RevisionGUID="8d51d06f-7a2f-4be0-b556-76bca70784b7" CreationDate="2019-08-17T15:19:20.643" UserId="45" Text="|vocabulary|suffixes|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11337" RevisionGUID="38f1163b-f49c-4b83-8854-0010f13a6cb1" CreationDate="2019-08-17T16:08:44.220" UserId="406" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="[_Lapsus_ seems like a good translation for &quot;fallen&quot;][1]; it just needs to be declined for the right gender and number (one man is *lapsus*, one woman is *lapsa*, and so on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The obvious way to invert an participial adjective in Latin is the *in-* prefix; unfortunately, in this case, [*illapsus* has its own meaning already][2]. So your *non lapsus* is the best alternative I can think of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7184/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dillabor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33455" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="11325" RevisionGUID="2e413564-e379-489d-a541-3061245cfe35" CreationDate="2019-08-17T17:05:16.423" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:37,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Greek - Area 51 Proposal&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33459" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11339" RevisionGUID="0fa46508-0992-456f-a205-f674aaf98cae" CreationDate="2019-08-17T19:25:20.643" />
  <row Id="33460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11346" RevisionGUID="083e59db-72fb-4612-92ff-58875afaf23f" CreationDate="2019-08-18T07:50:21.070" UserId="5012" Text="John Walker in his work &quot;A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek, Latin, and Scripture Proper Names&quot; suggests pronouncing it as Ebóracum. Are there any other sources of this word's pronunciation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33461" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11346" RevisionGUID="083e59db-72fb-4612-92ff-58875afaf23f" CreationDate="2019-08-18T07:50:21.070" UserId="5012" Text="How is the word &quot;Eboracum&quot; stressed in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33462" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11346" RevisionGUID="083e59db-72fb-4612-92ff-58875afaf23f" CreationDate="2019-08-18T07:50:21.070" UserId="5012" Text="|pronunciation|stress|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11346" RevisionGUID="22b23ac6-68cf-466c-94ae-d05f9a786fcd" CreationDate="2019-08-18T08:17:38.570" UserId="5012" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="John Walker in his work [&quot;A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek, Latin, and Scripture Proper Names&quot;][1] suggests pronouncing it as Ebóracum. Are there any other sources of this word's pronunciation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Yocel.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=91Zve0-8wBwC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;hl=uk#v=onepage&amp;q=Eboracum&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11346" RevisionGUID="828492c8-efe6-4912-95c8-5a360d70e75f" CreationDate="2019-08-18T08:23:07.173" UserId="5012" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="John Walker in his work [A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek, Latin, and Scripture Proper Names][1] suggests pronouncing it as &quot;Ebóracum&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![John Walker. A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek, Latin, and Scripture Proper Names.](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Yocel.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other sources of this word's pronunciation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=91Zve0-8wBwC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;hl=uk#v=onepage&amp;q=Eboracum&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11338" RevisionGUID="ffeb8a99-1ffd-499f-8c6a-fae97b3f8a78" CreationDate="2019-08-18T10:40:08.730" UserId="1982" Comment="added 895 characters in body" Text="Romans would have been so astonished by any kind of computing device (&quot;ancient&quot;, 1960s' adding-mackhines; 1970s' pocket-calculators; Charles-Babbages' (C19th) manful attempt (sympathy for him: he knew the technology of his time was not up to where his ideas were: &quot;Oh to live for one day, 500-years from now!!&quot;) that they might have said: &quot;deus ex machina!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well-known = god from a machine; a (Greek) theatrical device, adopted by the Romans; an intractable circumstance suddenly resolved by a &quot;miraculous&quot; event; beyond coincidence, therefore, somehow contrived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, they would have been shocked &amp; stupefied; but, as the novelty faded, a laptop would have been seen as just another machine; brilliant, advanced, centuries ahead of its time, perhaps; but, just another machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine friends of Julius Caeser, or Cicero, &quot;I'll just go on my &quot;deus&quot;, contact Latin Stack, to ask for an interpretation of what Cicero has just said to me?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given Joonas's dissatisfaction it is incumbent, upon me, to improve the answer!&#xD;&#xA;Other colleagues have deployed computeresque-terms so cannot copy these. What about &quot;machina visus et somni&quot; = &quot;machine of vision &amp; sound&quot;; or, even &quot;machina visus&quot;. This may sound more like a TV; but, then, laptops are used to watch TV-progs.&#xD;&#xA;As Tom Cotton indicates, these things tend to be truncated into one-word terms, &quot;visus&quot; = the vision. We Brits speak of wathching &quot;tele&quot;; never, &quot;the television&quot; (In Finnish?). Of course, the Latin, &quot;visus&quot;, has a supernatural angle &quot;The Vision!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;This concept could take us into the realms of superstition; religious-zealotry; a possible execution for dabbling in &quot;witchcraft&quot;, if you can handle that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suspect that this joke is not appreciated (humour does not travel); but, if you could take your laptop back in time, what do you really think would happen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11347" RevisionGUID="d58bfaa0-2ce0-40ed-9e59-a86b3b3d22ba" CreationDate="2019-08-18T10:54:42.747" UserId="324" Text="If the underlying Celtic form was in fact Eburākon, then one would expect it to have been borrowed into Latin with a long ā and hence pronounced with the accent on the paenultima.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11244" RevisionGUID="d447b1cb-e111-4b9a-bf2b-decaff6f3a79" CreationDate="2019-08-18T11:43:05.143" UserId="1982" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict. gives alternative form, &quot;nosco&quot;, only; which may answer the Q for yourself. Placing a &quot;g&quot; in front of a consonant creates a jerky, clumsy pronunciation; the kind of thing which softens with time; perhaps pronounced &quot;gernosco&quot;; eventually falling out of use, altogether--&quot;nosco&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a boy, reading about WWII, thought that the name of the  German battleship &quot;Gneisanau&quot; was pronounced &quot;neisanau&quot;; but it wasn't &amp; isn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, in Turkish, there is &quot;yamusak&quot; (soft) &quot;g&quot; (pronounced &quot;yamuSHak&quot;)--with a circumflex. It always comes after a vowel and turns that vowel into a long sound; but, is itself not pronounced. Therefore, by definition, no words can begin with this letter. The President, Erdogan; it's pronounced, &quot;erdo An&quot;; not, &quot;erdo Gan&quot;--BBC journalists seem to have, finally, got the message. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this relevant? Probably not; but, the old letter &quot;g&quot; gets itself around, working its magic. How things were pronounced, millenia ago, is a tall order to answer: customs, mores, evolution, convenience: we humans are bedevilled by our own inclination to laziness--if it's easy/ comfortable to soften/ drop a jerky pronunciation, that's exactly what will happen....." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11244" RevisionGUID="5540c0ee-ff3c-49f3-a439-0e451eabcb54" CreationDate="2019-08-18T12:10:45.503" UserId="1982" Comment="added 482 characters in body" Text="The Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict. gives alternative form, &quot;nosco&quot;, only; which may answer the Q for yourself. Placing a &quot;g&quot; in front of a consonant creates a jerky, clumsy pronunciation; the kind of thing which softens with time; perhaps pronounced &quot;gernosco&quot;; eventually falling out of use, altogether--&quot;nosco&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a boy, reading about WWII, thought that the name of the  German battleship &quot;Gneisanau&quot; was pronounced &quot;neisanau&quot;; but it wasn't &amp; isn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, in Turkish, there is &quot;yamusak&quot; (soft) &quot;g&quot; (pronounced &quot;yamuSHak&quot;)--with a circumflex. It always comes after a vowel and turns that vowel into a long sound; but, is itself not pronounced. Therefore, by definition, no words can begin with this letter. The President, Erdogan; it's pronounced, &quot;erdo An&quot;; not, &quot;erdo Gan&quot;--BBC journalists seem to have, finally, got the message. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this relevant? Probably not; but, the old letter &quot;g&quot; gets itself around, working its magic. How things were pronounced, millenia ago, is a tall order to answer: customs, mores, evolution, convenience: we humans are bedevilled by our own inclination to laziness--if it's easy/ comfortable to soften/ drop a jerky pronunciation, that's exactly what will happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having thought that this Q was difficult to answer, it seems that a solution may be found in the work of Andras Cser (Thanks to sumelic.) (Q: &quot;Does an ig- prefix mean there's an underlying g in the root?&quot;). He opined that, in the history of Latin, there was a &quot;floating C-Place node&quot; in pronunciation. This fell out of use before the days of &quot;Classical Latin&quot;; but, affected words beginning -&quot;ig&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, it might account for &quot;gnosco&quot; falling out of use/ evolving into &quot;nosco&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11348" RevisionGUID="3ab76ffc-b648-47df-8048-37a79b2f2219" CreationDate="2019-08-18T13:00:50.843" UserId="79" Text="The prefix *in-* can mean &quot;in&quot; or &quot;into&quot; or similar, as in *inire*.&#xD;&#xA;It can also mean &quot;non-&quot; or &quot;un-&quot;, as in *infelix*.&#xD;&#xA;Both meanings of the prefix are attested, but I am not familiar with any case where both readings of *in-* are possible.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a word with which both meanings are attested (or otherwise reasonably defensible)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question arises from [this earlier one](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11336/79) and especially comments to the answer by Draconis.&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for something like *illapsus* meaning both &quot;in-fallen&quot; and &quot;non-fallen&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I imagine participles, especially those that have become adjectives in their own right are a potential source of such ambiguous prefixes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33470" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11348" RevisionGUID="3ab76ffc-b648-47df-8048-37a79b2f2219" CreationDate="2019-08-18T13:00:50.843" UserId="79" Text="Can 'in-' mean both 'in' and 'no'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33471" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11348" RevisionGUID="3ab76ffc-b648-47df-8048-37a79b2f2219" CreationDate="2019-08-18T13:00:50.843" UserId="79" Text="|example-request|prefix|ambiguity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11349" RevisionGUID="a962982b-3b6a-40e4-babb-d6795dcf308c" CreationDate="2019-08-18T14:46:25.467" UserId="645" Text="I'm inclined to agree that participles are a likely source, as you suggest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example that springs to mind is *innatus*. As the perfect participle of *innascor* it means 'having been born in', etc. A little surprisingly, as that of *innato* it would mean something like 'having been floated upon' (perhaps, for instance, *hydrargyrum innatum est ferro*, though I can't find a proper attestation, and Latin might better express this the other way round).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand there is *innatus*, used adjectivally by Tertullian — *Innatus deus; an non et innata et materia?* (Lib. adv. Hermogenem) — which appears to mean 'not born'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine that a search for further (and maybe more convincing) instances could be tedious, but this may suffice to indicate that the two-readings possibility exists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11349" RevisionGUID="3724c2c1-2306-4860-9162-1e51bc2b67fe" CreationDate="2019-08-18T14:56:51.917" UserId="645" Comment="added second ex." Text="I'm inclined to agree that participles are a likely source, as you suggest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example that springs to mind is *innatus*. As the perfect participle of *innascor* it means 'having been born in', etc. A little surprisingly, as that of *innato* it would mean something like 'having been floated upon' (perhaps, for instance, *hydrargyrum innatum est ferro*, though I can't find a proper attestation, and Latin might better express this the other way round).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand there is *innatus*, used adjectivally by Tertullian — *Innatus deus; an non et innata et materia?* (Lib. adv. Hermogenem) — which appears to mean 'not born'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the pair *intego, intectum*, 'cover over' and *intectus*, used adjectivally for 'not covered'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine that a search for further (and maybe more convincing) instances could be tedious, but these may suffice to indicate that the two-readings possibility exists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11350" RevisionGUID="9419541b-7604-4116-9a21-06b732b914ca" CreationDate="2019-08-18T20:18:50.737" UserId="9" Text="The verb *ignōscō,* with the meaning &quot;pardon, forgive&quot;, is explained in some sources as coming from the negative prefix and *(g)nōscō.* For example, [Lewis and Short][1] says &quot;lit., not to wish to know, not to search into; hence, with esp. reference to a fault or crime, *to pardon*&quot;. [Page 6 of this handout][2] also explains it this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But [the negative prefix *in-* is usually not applied to finite verbs][3]. I found a passage by C. Knapp from 1917 that addresses this topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there are extremely few *finite verb-forms* which show the negative prefix *in.* One finds it hard to recall any example save *indecet.* The difficulty set up by this fact of Latin word-formation is so great that various more or less complicated explanations of the etymology of *ignosco* have been suggested. However, there is a tendency at present to return to the explanation that the word was made up of the negative prefix *in* and *(g)nosco.* It is pointed out that as an intermediary to such a form as *indecet* lies the adjective *indecens* [...] Back of *ignosco* may lie *ignotus,* as the intermediary form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;[The Teaching of Vergil in Secondary Schools][4]&quot;, October 8 1917, in *The Classical Weekly,* Volume XI, New York, 1917-1918, p. 12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone tell me about more recent scholarship on this topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dignosco&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.usu.edu/markdamen/Latin1000/Presentation/transcriptions/35T.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7468/9&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=RpQNAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA12&amp;lpg=PA12&amp;dq=%22ignosco%22AcQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33475" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11350" RevisionGUID="9419541b-7604-4116-9a21-06b732b914ca" CreationDate="2019-08-18T20:18:50.737" UserId="9" Text="What is the correct etymology of ignōscō &quot;pardon&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33476" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11350" RevisionGUID="9419541b-7604-4116-9a21-06b732b914ca" CreationDate="2019-08-18T20:18:50.737" UserId="9" Text="|etymology|verbs|prefix|negation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7468" RevisionGUID="1bf16bc3-9471-462d-ba37-69e2e024a6ae" CreationDate="2019-08-18T20:21:35.520" UserId="9" Comment="added 1238 characters in body" Text="The negative prefix typically attaches to an adjective, while the prepositional prefix typically attaches to a verb. The distribution is complicated by the existence of adjectives derived from verbs (or at least, participle forms that look very similar to adjectives) and nouns derived from adjectives or from verbs. But if you're looking at a finite verb form such as &quot;īnsum&quot;, you can be fairly confident that the prefix *in-* does not express negation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, you can never determine which prefix is present in a word just from its phonetic form. The vowel would be long before *ns* or *nf* for either prefix. In contrast, I don't think that an allomorph with a long vowel is used for the word *in* in prepositional phrases, where a space is written after it: my understanding is that e.g. *in sacello* = [ɪn saˈkɛlloː], with a short vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Finite verbs are never or  very rarely negated with *in-*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Prefix Derivation in Latin][1]&quot;, by Dana DINU, says that the negative prefix *in-* &quot;does not apply to verbs&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, I've found two possible exceptions mentioned in some sources. The verb *ignōscō,* with the meaning &quot;pardon, forgive&quot;, is explained in some sources as coming from the negative prefix and *(g)nōscō.* For example, [Lewis and Short][2] says &quot;lit., not to wish to know, not to search into; hence, with esp. reference to a fault or crime, *to pardon*&quot;. I have asked a separate [question about *ignōscō*][3] to try to determine the explanation for this unusual case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Knapp (1917), when discussing *ignosco,* mentions *indecet* as another example, but that verb seems to be extremely rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Participle forms are negated with *in-* more often, but possibly only when they are actually participial adjectives&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a quote I found that indicates that in Classical Latin, *non* was used to negate verbal participles, while *in-* appears as a negative prefix for participial adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in Classical Latin the synchronic negative of e.g. *patiens* ‘enduring’&#xD;&#xA;is *non patiens*, whereas participles with a negative prefix are synchronically non-participial adjectives, e.g. *impatiens* ‘impatient’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30, &quot;[Negated Participles in Rgvedic Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European](http://users.ox.ac.uk/~shug1472/IIJ_054_01_1075-Lowe_print-1.pdf),&quot; by John J. Lowe, *Indo-Iranian Journal* 54 (2011) 19-38)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this rule is true, it would make the distribution of *non* and *in-* negation in Latin closely analogous to the distribution of *not* and *un-* negation in English for participial forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cis01.central.ucv.ro/revista_scol/site_ro/2012/lexicologie/dinu.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dignosco&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11350/what-is-the-correct-etymology-of-ign%C5%8Dsc%C5%8D-pardon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7468" RevisionGUID="3cec9a09-8292-4356-9fb5-70b68656cee1" CreationDate="2019-08-18T20:28:45.917" UserId="9" Comment="added 303 characters in body" Text="The negative prefix typically attaches to an adjective, while the prepositional prefix typically attaches to a verb. The distribution is complicated by the existence of adjectives derived from verbs (or at least, participle forms that look very similar to adjectives) and nouns derived from adjectives or from verbs. But if you're looking at a finite verb form such as &quot;īnsum&quot;, you can be fairly confident that the prefix *in-* does not express negation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, you can never determine which prefix is present in a word just from its phonetic form. The vowel would be long before *ns* or *nf* for either prefix. In contrast, I don't think that an allomorph with a long vowel is used for the word *in* in prepositional phrases, where a space is written after it: my understanding is that e.g. *in sacello* = [ɪn saˈkɛlloː], with a short vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Finite verbs are never or  very rarely negated with *in-*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Prefix Derivation in Latin][1]&quot;, by Dana DINU, says that the negative prefix *in-* &quot;does not apply to verbs&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, I've found two possible exceptions mentioned in some sources. The verb *ignōscō,* with the meaning &quot;pardon, forgive&quot;, is explained in some sources as coming from the negative prefix and *(g)nōscō.* For example, [Lewis and Short][2] says &quot;lit., not to wish to know, not to search into; hence, with esp. reference to a fault or crime, *to pardon*&quot;. I have asked a separate [question about *ignōscō*][3] to try to determine the explanation for this unusual case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Knapp (1917), when discussing *ignosco,* mentions *indecet* as another example, but that verb seems to be extremely rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Participle forms are negated with *in-* more often, but possibly only when they are actually participial adjectives&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a quote I found that indicates that in Classical Latin, *non* was used to negate verbal participles, while *in-* appears as a negative prefix for participial adjectives. (If you don't understand what those terms mean, it might help to look at my question about [how these two categories of participial forms were distinguished in Latin][4].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in Classical Latin the synchronic negative of e.g. *patiens* ‘enduring’&#xD;&#xA;is *non patiens*, whereas participles with a negative prefix are synchronically non-participial adjectives, e.g. *impatiens* ‘impatient’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 30, &quot;[Negated Participles in Rgvedic Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European](http://users.ox.ac.uk/~shug1472/IIJ_054_01_1075-Lowe_print-1.pdf),&quot; by John J. Lowe, *Indo-Iranian Journal* 54 (2011) 19-38)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this rule is true, it would make the distribution of *non* and *in-* negation in Latin closely analogous to the distribution of *not* and *un-* negation in English for participial forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cis01.central.ucv.ro/revista_scol/site_ro/2012/lexicologie/dinu.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dignosco&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11350/what-is-the-correct-etymology-of-ign%C5%8Dsc%C5%8D-pardon&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6462/how-can-participles-inflected-forms-be-distinguished-from-deverbal-adjectives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11350" RevisionGUID="a892dad1-3738-4caa-b4d7-9be1d5f101a3" CreationDate="2019-08-18T20:29:46.500" UserId="9" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="The verb *ignōscō,* with the meaning &quot;pardon, forgive&quot;, is explained in some sources as coming from the negative prefix *in-* and *(g)nōscō.* For example, [Lewis and Short][1] says &quot;lit., not to wish to know, not to search into; hence, with esp. reference to a fault or crime, *to pardon*&quot;. [Page 6 of this handout][2] also explains it this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But [the negative prefix *in-* is not usually applied to finite verbs][3]. I found a passage by C. Knapp from 1917 that addresses this topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there are extremely few *finite verb-forms* which show the negative prefix *in.* One finds it hard to recall any example save *indecet.* The difficulty set up by this fact of Latin word-formation is so great that various more or less complicated explanations of the etymology of *ignosco* have been suggested. However, there is a tendency at present to return to the explanation that the word was made up of the negative prefix *in* and *(g)nosco.* It is pointed out that as an intermediary to such a form as *indecet* lies the adjective *indecens* [...] Back of *ignosco* may lie *ignotus,* as the intermediary form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;[The Teaching of Vergil in Secondary Schools][4]&quot;, October 8 1917, in *The Classical Weekly,* Volume XI, New York, 1917-1918, p. 12)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone tell me about more recent scholarship on this topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dignosco&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.usu.edu/markdamen/Latin1000/Presentation/transcriptions/35T.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7468/9&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=RpQNAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA12&amp;lpg=PA12&amp;dq=%22ignosco%22AcQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11351" RevisionGUID="05fc857f-c59e-40fe-a1b3-a02ebf7ed87b" CreationDate="2019-08-18T21:01:04.880" UserId="3248" Text="It is worth pointing out that native speakers of Latin were well aware of the ambiguity referred to by Joonas in his question. For example, consider the ambiguity of _invocatus_ ('called upon' and 'not called upon') exploited by Plautus in the following text (Pl. _Capt._ 1, 69ff.):  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuventus nomen indidit Scorto mihi,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; eo quia **invocatus** soleo esse in convivio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scio absurde dictum hoc derisores dicere,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at ego aio recte. Nam scortum in convivio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sibi amator, talos quom iacit, scortum **invocat**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Estne **invocatum** an non est? est planissume;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verum hercle vero nos parasiti planius,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quos numquam quisquam neque vocat neque **invocat**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quasi mures semper edimus alienum cibum;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For relevant discussion of the ambiguity of _invocatus_, please read note 1 contained in the English translation ([Thornton][1]). Here is the relevant observation: &quot;The word _invocatus_ means both 'called upon' and 'not called upon'. Ergasilus here quibbles upon it; for, though at entertainments he attends, as it is the common character of Parasites to do, without invitation, that is 'not called upon'; and as mistresses are 'called upon' that their names so invoked may make their lovers throw the dice with success; still, according to the double sense of the word, they may be compared to each other, as they are both, according to the Latin idiom, _invocati_.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I think it is also interesting to point out that in Latin there are VERY few examples of co-appearance of the negative prefix _IN-_ with the directional/locative _IN-_. For example, the three ones found in [Baldi (1989: 6)][2] are: _ininventibilis_, _ininvestigabilis_, and _ininvicem_. Cf. this [link][3] for a fuller list. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0034%3Aact%3D1%3Ascene%3D1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.persee.fr/doc/igram_0222-9838_1989_num_43_1_1971&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/navigate.pl?lewisandshort.8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33481" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11348" RevisionGUID="5c3f5bc7-ec31-4aeb-8f05-0dba9cc1ba29" CreationDate="2019-08-18T21:11:51.530" />
  <row Id="33482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11352" RevisionGUID="098dd710-98d5-441e-974b-336d8c7b2890" CreationDate="2019-08-18T21:35:36.863" UserId="985" Text="The example that comes most immediately to my mind is *invisus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the perfect passive participle of the verb *invideo*, it means 'looked at askance' (i.e., looked upon, but in a bad way), and it's regularly used, by extension, as an adjective meaning 'hateful' or 'unpopular.' Use of this adjective/participle is very common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the negative of perfect passive participle *visus*, from the verb *video*, it means 'unseen.' This is somewhat rarer, but *OLD* cites examples from such sources as Cato, *De agricultura* 141.2, Cicero, *De haruspicum responso* 57, and  Apuleius *Metamorphoses* 5.3." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11353" RevisionGUID="6202d440-465a-463a-8896-9ef0124a7a13" CreationDate="2019-08-18T23:00:24.950" UserId="9" Text="The Greek word χριστός, used as a translation of Hebrew משיח &quot;messiah&quot;, and meaning something like &quot;anointed&quot; ([Liddell and Scott][1]), apparently has a long vowel in the first syllable. The quantity of the vowel would be expected to be the same in the Latinized form *Chrīstus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of a long vowel in *Chrīstus* was brought up in a discussion on the Latin D forum: &quot;[long vs short vowel in specific words][2]&quot;, but not much evidence was mentioned (only the pronunciation of English &quot;Christ&quot;, which could have other explanations). **How is the length of the iota in this word known?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know enough about Greek to be able to figure out if the length of the vowel can be inferred from the construction of the word. If this does allow us to rule out a pronunciation with a short vowel, please explain. I know that the related noun [χρῖσμα][3] is spelled with a circumflex, which implies that the vowel is long. (The L&amp;S entry mentions the existence of a spelling χρίσμα that it says is misaccented.) Likewise, the verb [χρίω][4] has some forms where the vowel is circumflexed, such as χρῖον. But I'm not sure that the presence of a long vowel in these forms guarantees that the vowel in χριστός is also long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Data that I know of but that seem inconclusive or irrelevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that there seems to have been a variant spelling with eta, χρηστός (and of the adjective, [χρηστιανοι][5]). This looks like an iotacistic spelling variant, so I'm not sure that it has any relevance to the issue of vowel length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;French has E in the word *chrétien* (and also in *chrême,* from χρῖσμα) which is not the normal outcome for Latin ī, but I think I remember reading that long vowels in closed syllables were often unstable and prone to special shortening changes in Romance languages, so the French forms don't seem to disprove the original existence of a long vowel in the Latin form. French *Christ,* as well as various other Romance forms, has [i], which is the normal outcome for Latin ī, but that's not conclusive because it's also what would be expected in a learned form (a form borrowed from Latin) regardless of the length of the Latin vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=xristo/s&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/long-vs-short-vowel-in-specific-words.30564/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dxri%3Dsma&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dxri%2Fw&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?id=91xfCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT1087&amp;lpg=PT1087&amp;dq=%CF%87%CF%81%CE%B7%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33484" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11353" RevisionGUID="6202d440-465a-463a-8896-9ef0124a7a13" CreationDate="2019-08-18T23:00:24.950" UserId="9" Text="Vowel length in χριστός and Christus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33485" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11353" RevisionGUID="6202d440-465a-463a-8896-9ef0124a7a13" CreationDate="2019-08-18T23:00:24.950" UserId="9" Text="|greek|pronunciation|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33486" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11353" RevisionGUID="f91ca9c0-401e-4ef9-8adb-6c637e7335cc" CreationDate="2019-08-18T23:11:49.607" UserId="9" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the evidence for a long vowel in χριστός and Christus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11351" RevisionGUID="acc50e11-351c-4bce-a5da-20a9f34a10dc" CreationDate="2019-08-18T23:51:36.680" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; format" Text="It is worth pointing out that native speakers of Latin were well aware of the ambiguity referred to by Joonas in his question (directional prefix _IN_- vs. negative prefix _IN_-). For example, consider the ambiguity of _invocatus_ ('called upon' and 'not called upon') that is comically exploited by Plautus in the following text (Pl. _Capt._ 1, 69ff.):  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuventus nomen indidit Scorto mihi,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; eo quia **invocatus** soleo esse in convivio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scio absurde dictum hoc derisores dicere,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at ego aio recte. Nam scortum in convivio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sibi amator, talos quom iacit, scortum **invocat**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Estne **invocatum** an non est? est planissume;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verum hercle vero nos parasiti planius,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quos numquam quisquam neque vocat neque **invocat**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quasi mures semper edimus alienum cibum;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For relevant discussion of the ambiguity of _invocatus_ involved in 'called upon' (directional IN- + _vocatus_) and 'not called upon' (negative IN- + _vocatus_), please read the following **note 1** contained in this [English translation][1] (_The Comedies of Plautus_. Henry Thomas Riley. London: G. Bell and Sons, 1912). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Thornton][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB I: Other similar examples of ambiguity like the ones commented on by Tom Cotton and cnread are: _oratio inscripta est_ ((I) 'the speech is unwritten' and (II) 'the speech was inscribed/signed' (e.g., with the author's name)) &amp; _inauratus_ ((I) 'not ornamented with gold' or (II) p.p. participle of _inaurare_ 'to cover with gold').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB II: I think it is also interesting to point out that in Latin there are very few examples of co-appearance of the negative prefix _IN-_ with the directional/locative _IN-_. For example, the three ones found in [Baldi (1989: 6)][3] are: _ininventibilis_, _ininvestigabilis_, and _ininvicem_. Cf. this [link][4] for a more complete list. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:phi,0119,005:1:1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DVhU5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.persee.fr/doc/igram_0222-9838_1989_num_43_1_1971&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/navigate.pl?lewisandshort.8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11351" RevisionGUID="a3ad5ef2-fd89-4352-81cc-0f5c42b91060" CreationDate="2019-08-18T23:56:51.043" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; format" Text="It is worth pointing out that native speakers of Latin were well aware of the ambiguity referred to by Joonas in his question (directional/locative prefix _IN_- vs. negative prefix _IN_-). For example, consider the ambiguity of _invocatus_ ('called upon' and 'not called upon') that is comically exploited by Plautus in the following text (Pl. _Capt._ 1, 69ff.):  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuventus nomen indidit Scorto mihi,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; eo quia **invocatus** soleo esse in convivio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scio absurde dictum hoc derisores dicere,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at ego aio recte. Nam scortum in convivio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sibi amator, talos quom iacit, scortum **invocat**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Estne **invocatum** an non est? est planissume;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verum hercle vero nos parasiti planius,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quos numquam quisquam neque vocat neque **invocat**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quasi mures semper edimus alienum cibum;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For relevant discussion of the ambiguity of _invocatus_ involved in 'called upon' (directional IN- + _vocatus_) and 'not called upon' (negative IN- + _vocatus_), please read the following **note 1** contained in this [English translation][1] (_The Comedies of Plautus_. Henry Thomas Riley. London: G. Bell and Sons, 1912). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Thornton][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB I: Other similar examples of ambiguity like the ones commented on by Tom Cotton and cnread are: _oratio inscripta est_ ((I) 'the speech is unwritten' and (II) 'the speech was inscribed/signed' (e.g., with the author's name)) &amp; _inauratus_ ((I) 'not ornamented with gold' or (II) p.p. participle of _inaurare_ 'to cover with gold').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB II: I think it is also interesting to point out that in Latin there are very few examples of co-appearance of the negative prefix _IN-_ with the directional/locative _IN-_. For example, the three ones found in [Baldi (1989: 6)][3] are: _ininventibilis_, _ininvestigabilis_, and _ininvicem_. Cf. this [link][4] for a more complete list. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:phi,0119,005:1:1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DVhU5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.persee.fr/doc/igram_0222-9838_1989_num_43_1_1971&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/navigate.pl?lewisandshort.8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33489" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="11265" RevisionGUID="380fb7b8-3729-4865-ab6f-9aa7c23dfdfd" CreationDate="2019-08-19T00:03:05.397" UserId="-1" Comment="128" />
  <row Id="33490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11351" RevisionGUID="c37fd06f-a13f-420f-9c85-8ac7b7b74817" CreationDate="2019-08-19T04:44:59.280" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="It is worth pointing out that native speakers of Latin were well aware of the ambiguity referred to by Joonas in his question (directional/locative prefix _IN_- vs. negative prefix _IN_-). For example, consider the ambiguity of _invocatus_ ('called upon' and 'not called upon') that is comically exploited by Plautus in the following text (Pl. _Capt._ 1, 69ff.):  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuventus nomen indidit Scorto mihi,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; eo quia **invocatus** soleo esse in convivio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scio absurde dictum hoc derisores dicere,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at ego aio recte. Nam scortum in convivio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sibi amator, talos quom iacit, scortum **invocat**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Estne **invocatum** an non est? est planissume;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verum hercle vero nos parasiti planius,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quos numquam quisquam neque vocat neque **invocat**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quasi mures semper edimus alienum cibum;     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For relevant discussion of the ambiguity of _invocatus_ involved in 'called upon' (directional IN- + _vocatus_) and 'not called upon' (negative IN- + _vocatus_), please read the following **note 1** contained in this [English translation][1] (_The Comedies of Plautus_. Henry Thomas Riley. London: G. Bell and Sons, 1912). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Thornton][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB I: A couple of ambiguous words like the ones commented on by Tom Cotton and cnread are: _oratio inscripta est_ ((I) NEG _in_-: 'the speech is unwritten' and (II) DIR/LOC _in_-: 'the speech was inscribed/signed' (e.g., with the author's name)) &amp; _inauratus_ ((I) NEG _in-_: 'not ornamented with gold' or (II) DIR/LOC _in-_: perf. pass. participle of _inaurare_ 'to cover with gold').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB II: I think it is also interesting to point out that in Latin there are very few examples of co-appearance of the negative prefix _IN-_ with the directional/locative _IN-_. For example, the three ones found in [Baldi (1989: 6)][3] are: _ininventibilis_, _ininvestigabilis_, and _ininvicem_. Cf. this [link][4] for a more complete list. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:phi,0119,005:1:1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DVhU5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.persee.fr/doc/igram_0222-9838_1989_num_43_1_1971&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/navigate.pl?lewisandshort.8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11343" RevisionGUID="8e500320-64e0-4702-b88a-4f311e98fab9" CreationDate="2019-08-19T05:08:09.343" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The way I see it, there is no middle voice in Latin, but there can certainly be traces of it.&#xD;&#xA;The situation is similar to the dual number.&#xD;&#xA;That said, looking for such traces is interesting.&#xD;&#xA;Here is one candidate worth considering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dictionaries tend to list [*contemplare*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=contemplo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) and [*contemplari*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=contemplor&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) as separate entries.&#xD;&#xA;However, if we analyze them as the same word, something resembling a middle voice arises.&#xD;&#xA;The passive forms are not passive in nature, and they can take accusative objects as mentioned in the linked L&amp;S entry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The slight difference in meaning sounds suitable for a middle reading.&#xD;&#xA;Namely, *contemplo* is roughly &quot;I observe&quot; whereas *contemplor* is more &quot;I consider&quot; which could be seen as &quot;I observe for myself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For practical purposes the verbs are essentially synonymous, but one can contemplate whether the deponent verb arose from something middle.&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S mentions that the active forms are ante- and post-classical.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the passive forms took over and there was no need to use the active forms in parallel if the distinction was minor or non-existent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plautus appears to be the only writer to use both active and passive forms to any significant extent, so it is worthwhile to take a look at [his 15 uses of *contempl-*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23contempl+%5Bpl%5D).&#xD;&#xA;Upon a quick inspection, I get the feeling that the active forms are more &quot;look&quot; and the passive ones &quot;think&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This gives some support to the idea of a middle.&#xD;&#xA;(But I won't stretch the analysis too far with just these data points or claim that it is absolutely so.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So, perhaps the deponent verb *contemplari* could be seen as the middle voice of *contemplare*.**&#xD;&#xA;This is not the only verb which has normal and deponent versions.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps analyzing more such pairs could reveal more solid evidence for middle, if these kinds of cases count as middle for you.&#xD;&#xA;I happened to be reminded of this particular pair in [a recent question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11276/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11351" RevisionGUID="394ace5f-b40d-42d7-9bf1-6a2934406cb8" CreationDate="2019-08-19T05:25:34.557" UserId="79" Comment="Line spacing: To break a row without changing a paragraph, end a line with a double space." Text="It is worth pointing out that native speakers of Latin were well aware of the ambiguity referred to by Joonas in his question (directional/locative prefix _IN_- vs. negative prefix _IN_-). For example, consider the ambiguity of _invocatus_ ('called upon' and 'not called upon') that is comically exploited by Plautus in the following text (Pl. _Capt._ 1, 69ff.):  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuventus nomen indidit Scorto mihi,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; eo quia **invocatus** soleo esse in convivio.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scio absurde dictum hoc derisores dicere,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; at ego aio recte. Nam scortum in convivio  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; sibi amator, talos quom iacit, scortum **invocat**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Estne **invocatum** an non est? est planissume;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; verum hercle vero nos parasiti planius,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; quos numquam quisquam neque vocat neque **invocat**,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; quasi mures semper edimus alienum cibum;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For relevant discussion of the ambiguity of _invocatus_ involved in 'called upon' (directional IN- + _vocatus_) and 'not called upon' (negative IN- + _vocatus_), please read the following **note 1** contained in this [English translation][1] (_The Comedies of Plautus_. Henry Thomas Riley. London: G. Bell and Sons, 1912). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Thornton][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB I: A couple of ambiguous words like the ones commented on by Tom Cotton and cnread are: _oratio inscripta est_ ((I) NEG _in_-: 'the speech is unwritten' and (II) DIR/LOC _in_-: 'the speech was inscribed/signed' (e.g., with the author's name)) &amp; _inauratus_ ((I) NEG _in-_: 'not ornamented with gold' or (II) DIR/LOC _in-_: perf. pass. participle of _inaurare_ 'to cover with gold').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB II: I think it is also interesting to point out that in Latin there are very few examples of co-appearance of the negative prefix _IN-_ with the directional/locative _IN-_. For example, the three ones found in [Baldi (1989: 6)][3] are: _ininventibilis_, _ininvestigabilis_, and _ininvicem_. Cf. this [link][4] for a more complete list. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:phi,0119,005:1:1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DVhU5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.persee.fr/doc/igram_0222-9838_1989_num_43_1_1971&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/navigate.pl?lewisandshort.8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11299" RevisionGUID="936d10c9-fefa-4ee7-943d-098ab5a7818d" CreationDate="2019-08-19T05:26:56.770" UserId="79" Comment="Line spacing: To break a row without changing a paragraph, end a line with a double space." Text="Third time lucky! Here is then my third try in answering Draconis's intriguing question (&quot;do we ever see non-deponent verbs with passive morphology, but able to take accusative direct objects and not able to take ablative agents?&quot;). Consider the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Namque umeris de more habilem suspenderat arcum  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;venatrix dederatque comam diffundere ventis,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; nuda genu nodoque sinus **collecta** fluentis.     &#xD;&#xA;                                 &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Verg. _Aen_ I, 318&amp;ndash;320)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice how the &quot;Draconian&quot; conditions above are fulfilled: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i) _collecta_ has passive morphology but is not a deponent verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) there is an accusative direct object (_sinus fluentis_), and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(iii) no ablative agent is possible here due to its &quot;middle&quot; sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that there are two ways of analyzing the nominal phrase _sinus fluentis_: (A) it is the true direct object of _collecta_, which behaves like a Greek middle participle ([see this philological comment on verse 320] [1] // see also [Allen and Greenough: 247][2]) and (B) it is an &quot;accusative of relation&quot; ([see second alternative on verse 320][3]), perhaps in nice symmetry with _genu_ in the previous Adjectival Phrase _nuda genu_. See also the very interesting comment on verse 320 made by the eminent classical scholar [Robert Seymour Conway][4].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you think (as I do, not without some hesitation) that HERE the two abovementioned possibilities (A and B) can be conflated into only one, I can conflate the present answer into my previous one (for the time being, I'll leave them as two different (but related) possibilites of answering the present question). So far what seems clear (at least to me!) is that Draconis's very interesting question can only be answered with examples that, unsurprisingly, turn out to be clearly influenced by Greek. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.es/books?id=JKBIrIOR4PcC&amp;pg=PA120&amp;lpg=PA120&amp;dq=sinus%20collecta%20fluentis%20middle&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=y1x8NqSB0f&amp;sig=ACfU3U2OhZD_hPV1Ce6g1c5yrngNVyuPwQ&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjf-saC2vnjAhVNTsAKHZDYDCMQ6AEwCnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=sinus%20collecta%20fluentis%20middle&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.es/books?id=gVmMCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA247&amp;lpg=PA247&amp;dq=sinus%20collecta%20fluentis%20middle&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=w0O5uy_KPE&amp;sig=ACfU3U2kLtE3LL2AwcjDUT1x1mAfRD_ucw&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjf-saC2vnjAhVNTsAKHZDYDCMQ6AEwD3oECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=sinus%20collecta%20fluentis%20middle&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.es/books?id=mfGycd-8lx0C&amp;pg=PA46&amp;lpg=PA46&amp;dq=sinus%20collecta%20fluentis%20middle&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=y81WIIWg6U&amp;sig=ACfU3U31x-8lvu9YaqB3mA2yiMRpl9jmng&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjf-saC2vnjAhVNTsAKHZDYDCMQ6AEwEHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=sinus%20collecta%20fluentis%20middle&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.es/books?id=EVpkAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA71&amp;lpg=PA71&amp;dq=sinus%20collecta%20middle%20greek&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=uf1vimoXZ0&amp;sig=ACfU3U28mY6vBeXpi1khjj0-YgN-qqrEfA&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjBkdKk5PnjAhVZhlwKHdy9ClgQ6AEwDXoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=sinus%20collecta%20middle%20greek&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11351" RevisionGUID="16ceaff8-72f6-42d6-932a-438a539b7b5c" CreationDate="2019-08-19T07:36:31.423" UserId="9" Comment="Replaced image with quote block for better accessibility and searchability" Text="It is worth pointing out that native speakers of Latin were well aware of the ambiguity referred to by Joonas in his question (directional/locative prefix _IN_- vs. negative prefix _IN_-). For example, consider the ambiguity of _invocatus_ ('called upon' and 'not called upon') that is comically exploited by Plautus in the following text (Pl. _Capt._ 1, 69ff.):  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iuventus nomen indidit Scorto mihi,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; eo quia **invocatus** soleo esse in convivio.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scio absurde dictum hoc derisores dicere,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; at ego aio recte. Nam scortum in convivio  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; sibi amator, talos quom iacit, scortum **invocat**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Estne **invocatum** an non est? est planissume;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; verum hercle vero nos parasiti planius,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; quos numquam quisquam neque vocat neque **invocat**,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; quasi mures semper edimus alienum cibum;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For relevant discussion of the ambiguity of _invocatus_ involved in 'called upon' (directional IN- + _vocatus_) and 'not called upon' (negative IN- + _vocatus_), please read the following **note 1** contained in this [English translation][1] (_The Comedies of Plautus_. Henry Thomas Riley. London: G. Bell and Sons, 1912). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 **Because invocated**: &quot;Invocatus.&quot; The following Note is extracted from Thornton's Translation of this Play:--&quot;The reader's indulgence for the coinage of a new term (and perhaps not quite so much out of character from the mouth of a Parasite) is here requested in the use of the word 'invocated' in a sense, which it is owned, there is no authority for, but without it no way occurs to explain the poet's meaning--which, such as it is, and involved in such a pun, is all that can be aimed at. The word 'invocatus' means both 'called upon' and 'not called upon.' Ergasilus here quibbles upon it; for, though at entertainments he attends, as it is the common character of Parasites to do, without invitation, that is 'not called upon;' and as mistresses are 'called upon' that their names so invoked may make their lovers throw the dice with success; still, according to the double sense of the word, they may be compared to each other, as they are both, according to the Latin idiom, 'invocati.'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB I: A couple of ambiguous words like the ones commented on by Tom Cotton and cnread are: _oratio inscripta est_ ((I) NEG _in_-: 'the speech is unwritten' and (II) DIR/LOC _in_-: 'the speech was inscribed/signed' (e.g., with the author's name)) &amp; _inauratus_ ((I) NEG _in-_: 'not ornamented with gold' or (II) DIR/LOC _in-_: perf. pass. participle of _inaurare_ 'to cover with gold').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB II: I think it is also interesting to point out that in Latin there are very few examples of co-appearance of the negative prefix _IN-_ with the directional/locative _IN-_. For example, the three ones found in [Baldi (1989: 6)][3] are: _ininventibilis_, _ininvestigabilis_, and _ininvicem_. Cf. this [link][4] for a more complete list. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:phi,0119,005:1:1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DVhU5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.persee.fr/doc/igram_0222-9838_1989_num_43_1_1971&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/navigate.pl?lewisandshort.8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11354" RevisionGUID="a4c6bca9-3bcb-443f-bf62-cb02f6320a0e" CreationDate="2019-08-19T09:26:53.430" UserId="324" Text="The first vowel in χρίω is definitely long, and one would expect the long vowel to have been retained in all derivatives, including χριστός “anointed”. The variant χρηστός, ostensibly “the useful one”, was used by the Marcionites for a specific theological reason: Marcion taught that Jesus was not the Messiah expected by the Jews, but an emissary from an alien god." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11355" RevisionGUID="cb9bd916-fbec-4c37-9115-d08779eba248" CreationDate="2019-08-19T10:52:42.383" UserId="79" Text="The answer by cnread is excellent, but I think the ideas there can be developed a little further.&#xD;&#xA;A good way to give a single measure is *patere* with an accusative of measure:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cella mea duo metra patet.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two directions can simply be given by giving two measures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Cella mea duo et quattuor metra patet.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Used in context, perhaps supported with a suitable hand gesture, this is pretty hard to misinterpret.&#xD;&#xA;I doubt a lot of people would understand *duo et quattuor* as the number six &amp;mdash; I would have said six if I meant six! &amp;mdash; instead of two different measures.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of anything better than *et* for &quot;by&quot; in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this comes pretty close to &quot;My office is two by four meters.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, even the English phrase is technically ambiguous, and one could interpret that my office is eight (i.e. two times four) meters tall, but such ambiguity will be quickly dissolved in practice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11356" RevisionGUID="0a7cee41-4ecb-4ea6-9679-9d63d4fa29f3" CreationDate="2019-08-19T11:13:30.337" UserId="5014" Text="*decimātiō* was a Roman term for a military punishment where a group was reduced by a tenth. But in modern English, *decimation* is used generically to mean 'greatly reduced or damaged', often in quantities far greater than a tenth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did the Romans ever use *decimātiō* in the same way to refer to a great reduction? Or was it always a technical term?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33498" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11356" RevisionGUID="0a7cee41-4ecb-4ea6-9679-9d63d4fa29f3" CreationDate="2019-08-19T11:13:30.337" UserId="5014" Text="Did the Romans ever use 'decimatio' in a generalized sense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33499" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11356" RevisionGUID="0a7cee41-4ecb-4ea6-9679-9d63d4fa29f3" CreationDate="2019-08-19T11:13:30.337" UserId="5014" Text="|etymology|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11357" RevisionGUID="0076dfe2-6fa8-4799-b95a-478274e56b51" CreationDate="2019-08-19T11:42:14.157" UserId="324" Text="Decimo and decimatio always refer to one tenth in Latin. Careful English stylists also use &quot;decimate&quot; in this sense only." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11358" RevisionGUID="28c04ffd-6edb-44a7-bff8-daebab1f8b05" CreationDate="2019-08-19T13:08:39.133" UserId="79" Text="This is a question that is well answered by looking at [an online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;The noun [*decimatio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DD%3Aentry+group%3D5%3Aentry%3Ddecimatio) is listed as meaning &quot;the taking of a tenth&quot;, including the punishment you refer to.&#xD;&#xA;This noun is derived from the verb [*decimare*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=decimo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), &quot;to take the tenth&quot; or &quot;to decimate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;See the linked entries for more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This verb appears to come from the ordinal *decimus*, &quot;tenth&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The link to this and even *decem* (&quot;ten&quot;) is so clear that the Romans are constantly reminded of the relation to this number.&#xD;&#xA;In English this link has deteriorated, as the word no longer immediately reminds us of the words &quot;ten&quot; or &quot;tenth&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore it is not all that surprising that the linked dictionary entries of *decimatio* and *decimare* only mention things that are directly related to a tenth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it should be born in mind that the people composing a dictionary might have been biased or even misguided by etymology.&#xD;&#xA;It's sometimes hard to say what a text means exactly if there is nothing else about the matter than that text.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps there was indeed an instance where *decimare* meant &quot;to reduce by a fraction&quot; where the fraction was not 1/10, but due to lack of clear hints it was analyzed as meaning 1/10 anyway.&#xD;&#xA;To figure out whether this has happened would require a far more detailed study.&#xD;&#xA;While mistakes can and do happen, major misunderstandings are rare.&#xD;&#xA;Generalized meanings are not rare in Latin and the dictionary I linked to offer mentions them, so it is telling that no such mention is found in these specific entries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, a more careful answer might be:&#xD;&#xA;There appears to be no evidence that the word *decimatio* was used for other reductions than by one tenth.&#xD;&#xA;Such use would not be unreasonable, as such generalizations are commonplace in language.&#xD;&#xA;What I have seen so far strongly points towards *decimatio* referring strictly to one tenth in classical Latin, but this is of course subject to change if I see more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11356" RevisionGUID="b48508ca-093b-4278-a43c-7cd6902fa64d" CreationDate="2019-08-19T13:09:23.257" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="*Decimātiō* was a Roman term for a military punishment where a group was reduced by a tenth. But in modern English, *decimation* is used generically to mean 'greatly reduced or damaged', often in quantities far greater than a tenth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did the Romans ever use *decimātiō* in the same way to refer to a great reduction? Or was it always a technical term?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33503" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11356" RevisionGUID="b48508ca-093b-4278-a43c-7cd6902fa64d" CreationDate="2019-08-19T13:09:23.257" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|etymology|meaning|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11359" RevisionGUID="99f48bf1-cccf-47b7-adc1-8a7b792fce14" CreationDate="2019-08-19T13:39:24.030" UserId="79" Text="The regular perfect them form for &quot;he went&quot; is *iit*.&#xD;&#xA;In an answer to [this question about two short versus one long vowel](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2155/79), TKR mentions that this form can be contracted to *īt*.&#xD;&#xA;In a text without macrons it looks exactly like the present form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there attestations of *it* in classical Latin where either&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. it is clearly perfect tense instead of present, or&#xD;&#xA;2. the vowel is necessarily long, or&#xD;&#xA;3. perhaps even both?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the present tense can be used for past events in Latin, the first point requires using the context.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps verbs in similar position on both sides are in unambiguous perfect form, so it is reasonable to assume *it* perfect by analogy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way I can see to argue the second option is scansion.&#xD;&#xA;There is a remote chance that the *t* could be long instead of the *i* as [is the case with *hoc*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6719/79), but I find that unlikely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone wants to approach with brute force, [here](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23it%23) is a list of attestations of *it*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33505" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11359" RevisionGUID="99f48bf1-cccf-47b7-adc1-8a7b792fce14" CreationDate="2019-08-19T13:39:24.030" UserId="79" Text="An unambiguous example of 'īt'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33506" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11359" RevisionGUID="99f48bf1-cccf-47b7-adc1-8a7b792fce14" CreationDate="2019-08-19T13:39:24.030" UserId="79" Text="|example-request|vowel-quantity|perfect-tense|contraction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11360" RevisionGUID="0ec20f2f-e5c5-4cc7-9756-00c53807d662" CreationDate="2019-08-19T19:24:20.557" UserId="406" Text="Linguistically, &quot;clicks&quot; are a type of sound found in certain African languages, mostly Khoisan and Southern Bantu. The English word is also used for various other sharp, high-pitched noises (like clicking your fingers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I wanted a technical term for how click sounds arise in languages (along the lines of &quot;somethingogenesis&quot;), is there an appropriate Greek or Latin root for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that I'm interested in clicks as in the type of sound, not as in the action of pressing a button on a mouse.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33508" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11360" RevisionGUID="0ec20f2f-e5c5-4cc7-9756-00c53807d662" CreationDate="2019-08-19T19:24:20.557" UserId="406" Text="What is a &quot;click&quot; in Greek or Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33509" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11360" RevisionGUID="0ec20f2f-e5c5-4cc7-9756-00c53807d662" CreationDate="2019-08-19T19:24:20.557" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11361" RevisionGUID="b6d1802a-bb23-4f35-bf67-4d2a3aa0c2ab" CreationDate="2019-08-19T20:18:40.460" UserId="985" Text="OLD defines the noun *crepitus* as 'A short sharp sound or a succession of such sounds, a creaking, cracking, crashing, clashing, etc.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This noun and related words are used to cover a fairly wide range of phenomena, such as the rattling of arrows in a quiver, the chattering of teeth, the fall of hail of a roof, the clicking of a bird's bill, the crackling of flames, the snapping of fingers, farts, the creaking of hinges, whip lashes, cymbals, the clapping of hands, and a child's rattle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11363" RevisionGUID="0f1f8adc-4f30-44b3-a226-3b659365858e" CreationDate="2019-08-19T21:38:11.247" UserId="79" Text="There are a couple of Finnish words for a click in the phonetic sense, one of them having a Latin origin.&#xD;&#xA;One of the words we use is *avulsiivi*, which would correspond to *avulsive* in English but such a term does not seem to exist in this meaning in English.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin word *avulsio* refers to the tearing out of a branch of a tree, and the Finnish phonetic term must refer to the corresponding snapping sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure whether other languages use a similar term, but it would be surprising to hear this to be a completely Finnish invention.&#xD;&#xA;This and the other Finnish words are recorded in [a well-curated scientific terminology database](http://tieteentermipankki.fi/wiki/Kielitiede:avulsiivi).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, perhaps *avulsio* or something else derived from *avellere* could work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11364" RevisionGUID="f4c91af1-d2b7-4f68-a0d2-e86fe0f5be86" CreationDate="2019-08-19T23:28:11.067" UserId="406" Text="While Etymonline isn't particularly reliable (and has a strong aversion to citing any sources), this line *almost* has it right:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latin word translates Greek apolambanomene.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a calqued Greek word, though not the one Etymonline claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can determine, Apollonius of Perga is the one who first introduced the term, in his enormous treatise on conic sections. He uses the word *ἀποτεμνομένη* (&quot;amount-being-cut-off&quot;) for what we might now call an &quot;X-coordinate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, here's Proposition 20 from Book 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![All Greek to me][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If someone knows where there's a nice, computer-readable version of the *Conics* online, btw, it would be much appreciated…reading this handwriting is exhausting.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern language, this proposition is something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you take any parabola, and drop two straight lines from the parabola to its diameter [the Y-coordinates], then make a square on each of those lines [the Y-coordinates squared], the ratio of the area of the squares will be the same as the ratio of **the sections of the diameter that their corresponding lines mark off** [the X-coordinates].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The &quot;diameter&quot; of a parabola is the line parallel to the directrix passing through the vertex.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, he's figured out the equation of a parabola: nowadays, we'd put this more simply as &quot;y=ax², for a constant a&quot;. What we might now call a &quot;Y-coordinate&quot;, he calls the length of a perpendicular dropped from a point to the diameter. And what we might now call an &quot;X-coordinate&quot;, he calls an *ἀποτεμνομένη*, an &quot;amount-being-cut-off&quot;—because to him, the X-coordinate is **how much of the diameter we've marked off** by dropping that perpendicular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, to put it another way: Apollonius is marking a point on the parabola, then dropping a perpendicular from that point to the X-axis. This effectively slices the X-axis apart; the sliced-off bit that lies between the origin and our perpendicular is the *ἀποτεμνομένη*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When Apollonius's works were translated into Latin, *ἀποτέμνω* was calqued to *abscindō*, &quot;to cut off&quot;. But Latin doesn't have a present passive participle like Greek does. So some translators used a finite verb form, like this one (from *Apollonii Pergæi Conicorum libri octo, et Sereni Antissensis De sectione cylindri &amp; coni libri duo*, Oxford, 1710):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Not Greek to me][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And others used a *perfect* passive participle, giving the now-familiar ***abscissa***: the &quot;amount that has been cut off&quot;. This one could be used as a noun, unlike the finite verb version, so it's the one that stuck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/w9tPf.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z8vCu.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11365" RevisionGUID="cf79000e-4710-47b2-98c3-bd33ee2e45bc" CreationDate="2019-08-20T00:37:37.420" UserId="9" Text="In a comment, Alex B. referred to the 2001 *Dictionnaire Étymologique De La Langue Latine* by Ernout et Meillet, which contains the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Les grammairiens latins voyaient dans *ignōscere* un composé avec le préfixe privatif *in-*; cf. la glose *ignoscere : non noscere,* Loewe, *Prodromus* 409, et Thes. gloss. emend. s. u. *ignōscō.* Mais la négation *in-* ne s'emploie pas devant un verbe, cf. plus loin sous *in-*, et c'est arbitrairement que l'on suppose (encore récemmant Immisch, Glotta, 19, 16-24) que *ignōscō* aurait été créé sur *ignōscēns* (*sīs, fuās*) ; l'exemple de *indecet* formé sur *indecēns* n'est pas probant, car *indecet* est rare et d'apparaît pas avant Pline le Jeune, tandis que *ignōscō* est ancient et usuel. D'autre part, le participe présent n'est pas d'un usage tellement fréquent ; et, sémantiquement, il marque un état qui dure. *Ignōscēns sīs* ne saurait donc se dire dans le sens de « pardonne » : quand Térence dit *animus ignoscentior,* Heaut. 635, il l'emploie comme adjectif pour marquer une disposition de l'esprit avec le sens de « porté au pardon ». Le grec a également avec le même sens un autre préverbe : συγγιγνώσκω, συγγνώμη; &#xD;&#xA;ceci suggère un développement de sens tel que « s'accorder avec, sympathiser ». Wackernagel, Mél. Danielsson, p. 383 sqq., a rapproché avec ingéniosité *ignosco* de skr. *anujñā* « permettre ». *Ignōscō* renfermerait un préverbe *in-* comparable au skr. *anu-,* que M. Leumann propose de voir aussi dans *inueniō, inuidiō* ; mais l'existence de ce préverbe dans ces mots est des plus douteuses, et le passage de *\*enu* a *in-* malaisé à admettre. On a proposé *\*in-gnōscō,* mais le sens n'est pas expliqué par là.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([p. 308][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latin grammarians saw in *ignōscere* a compound with the privative prefix *in-*; cf. the gloss *ignoscere : non noscere,* Loewe, *Prodromus* 409, and Thes. gloss. emend. s. u. *ignōscō.* But the negation *in-* is not used before a verb, cf. below under *in-,* and it is arbitrary to suppose (as recently as Immisch, Glotta, 19, 16-24) that *ignōscō* would have been created based on *ignōscēns (sīs, fuās)* ; the example of *indecet* formed based on *indecēns* is not compelling, because *indecet* is rare and does not appear before Pliny the Younger, while *ignōscō* is old and usual. Furthermore, the usage of the present participle is not so frequent, and semantically, it marks a continuing state. *Ignōscēns sīs* cannot therefore mean &quot;pardon&quot;: when Terence says *animus ignoscentior,* Heaut. 635, he uses it as an adjective to mark a disposition of the spirit with the sense of &quot;porté au pardon&quot; [**I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to mean**]. The Greek has likewise with the same sense another prefix:  συγγιγνώσκω, συγγνώμη; which suggests a development of sense such as &quot;agree with, sympathize&quot;. Wackernagel, Mél. Danielsson, p. 383 sqq., ingeniously compared *ignōscō* and Sanskrit *anujñā* &quot;permit&quot;. *Ignōscō* would contain a prefix *in-* comparable to the Sanskrit *anu-,* that M. Leumann proposes can be seen also in *inueniō, inuidiō* ; but the existence of this prefix in these words is of the greatest doubt, and the passage from *\*enu* to *in-* not easy to admit. *\*In-gnōscō* has been proposed, but this does not explain the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/DictionnaireEtymologiqueDeLaLangueLatine/page/n161" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33515" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="11365" RevisionGUID="acfa5bd2-3746-4cac-9a59-ec615c205903" CreationDate="2019-08-20T00:37:37.420" UserId="9" />
  <row Id="33516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11365" RevisionGUID="8a18641d-60e6-4b16-bfce-bb6847a085f4" CreationDate="2019-08-20T00:42:54.393" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="In a comment, Alex B. referred to the 2001 *Dictionnaire Étymologique De La Langue Latine* by Ernout et Meillet, which contains the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Les grammairiens latins voyaient dans *ignōscere* un composé avec le préfixe privatif *in-*; cf. la glose *ignoscere : non noscere,* Loewe, *Prodromus* 409, et Thes. gloss. emend. s. u. *ignōscō.* Mais la négation *in-* ne s'emploie pas devant un verbe, cf. plus loin sous *in-*, et c'est arbitrairement que l'on suppose (encore récemmant Immisch, Glotta, 19, 16-24) que *ignōscō* aurait été créé sur *ignōscēns* (*sīs, fuās*) ; l'exemple de *indecet* formé sur *indecēns* n'est pas probant, car *indecet* est rare et d'apparaît pas avant Pline le Jeune, tandis que *ignōscō* est ancient et usuel. D'autre part, le participe présent n'est pas d'un usage tellement fréquent ; et, sémantiquement, il marque un état qui dure. *Ignōscēns sīs* ne saurait donc se dire dans le sens de « pardonne » : quand Térence dit *animus ignoscentior,* Heaut. 635, il l'emploie comme adjectif pour marquer une disposition de l'esprit avec le sens de « porté au pardon ». Le grec a également avec le même sens un autre préverbe : συγγιγνώσκω, συγγνώμη; &#xD;&#xA;ceci suggère un développement de sens tel que « s'accorder avec, sympathiser ». Wackernagel, Mél. Danielsson, p. 383 sqq., a rapproché avec ingéniosité *ignosco* de skr. *anujñā* « permettre ». *Ignōscō* renfermerait un préverbe *in-* comparable au skr. *anu-,* que M. Leumann propose de voir aussi dans *inueniō, inuidiō* ; mais l'existence de ce préverbe dans ces mots est des plus douteuses, et le passage de *\*enu* a *in-* malaisé à admettre. On a proposé *\*in-gnōscō,* mais le sens n'est pas expliqué par là.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([p. 308][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latin grammarians saw in *ignōscere* a compound with the privative prefix *in-*; cf. the gloss *ignoscere : non noscere,* Loewe, *Prodromus* 409, and Thes. gloss. emend. s. u. *ignōscō.* But the negation *in-* is not used before a verb, cf. below under *in-,* and it is arbitrary to suppose (as recently as Immisch, Glotta, 19, 16-24) that *ignōscō* would have been created based on *ignōscēns (sīs, fuās)* ; the example of *indecet* formed based on *indecēns* is not compelling, because *indecet* is rare and does not appear before Pliny the Younger, while *ignōscō* is old and usual. Furthermore, the usage of the present participle is not so frequent, and semantically, it marks a continuing state. *Ignōscēns sīs* cannot therefore mean &quot;pardon&quot;: when Terence says *animus ignoscentior,* Heaut. 635, he uses it as an adjective to mark a disposition of the spirit with the sense of &quot;porté au pardon&quot; [**I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to mean**]. Greek has likewise with the same sense another prefix:  συγγιγνώσκω, συγγνώμη; which suggests a development of sense such as &quot;agree with, sympathize&quot;. Wackernagel, Mél. Danielsson, p. 383 sqq., ingeniously compared *ignōscō* and Sanskrit *anujñā* &quot;permit&quot;. *Ignōscō* would contain a prefix *in-* comparable to the Sanskrit *anu-,* that M. Leumann proposes can be seen also in *inueniō, inuidiō* ; but the existence of this prefix in these words is of the greatest doubt, and the passage from *\*enu* to *in-* not easy to admit. *\*In-gnōscō* has been proposed, but this does not explain the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/DictionnaireEtymologiqueDeLaLangueLatine/page/n161" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11365" RevisionGUID="38c6f765-8184-409b-a4f3-e0afc91edeeb" CreationDate="2019-08-20T02:28:34.653" UserId="39" Comment="added a link" Text="In a comment, Alex B. referred to the 2001 *Dictionnaire Étymologique De La Langue Latine* by Ernout et Meillet, which contains the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Les grammairiens latins voyaient dans *ignōscere* un composé avec le préfixe privatif *in-*; cf. la glose *ignoscere : non noscere,* [Loewe, *Prodromus* 409][1], et Thes. gloss. emend. s. u. *ignōscō.* Mais la négation *in-* ne s'emploie pas devant un verbe, cf. plus loin sous *in-*, et c'est arbitrairement que l'on suppose (encore récemmant [Immisch, Glotta, 19, 16-24][2]) que *ignōscō* aurait été créé sur *ignōscēns* (*sīs, fuās*) ; l'exemple de *indecet* formé sur *indecēns* n'est pas probant, car *indecet* est rare et d'apparaît pas avant Pline le Jeune, tandis que *ignōscō* est ancient et usuel. D'autre part, le participe présent n'est pas d'un usage tellement fréquent ; et, sémantiquement, il marque un état qui dure. *Ignōscēns sīs* ne saurait donc se dire dans le sens de « pardonne » : quand Térence dit *animus ignoscentior,* Heaut. 635, il l'emploie comme adjectif pour marquer une disposition de l'esprit avec le sens de « porté au pardon ». Le grec a également avec le même sens un autre préverbe : συγγιγνώσκω, συγγνώμη; &#xD;&#xA;ceci suggère un développement de sens tel que « s'accorder avec, sympathiser ». Wackernagel, Mél. Danielsson, p. 383 sqq., a rapproché avec ingéniosité *ignosco* de skr. *anujñā* « permettre ». *Ignōscō* renfermerait un préverbe *in-* comparable au skr. *anu-,* que M. Leumann propose de voir aussi dans *inueniō, inuidiō* ; mais l'existence de ce préverbe dans ces mots est des plus douteuses, et le passage de *\*enu* a *in-* malaisé à admettre. On a proposé *\*in-gnōscō,* mais le sens n'est pas expliqué par là.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([p. 308][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latin grammarians saw in *ignōscere* a compound with the privative prefix *in-*; cf. the gloss *ignoscere : non noscere,* [Loewe, *Prodromus* 409][1], and Thes. gloss. emend. s. u. *ignōscō.* But the negation *in-* is not used before a verb, cf. below under *in-,* and it is arbitrary to suppose (as recently as [Immisch, Glotta, 19, 16-24][2]) that *ignōscō* would have been created based on *ignōscēns (sīs, fuās)* ; the example of *indecet* formed based on *indecēns* is not compelling, because *indecet* is rare and does not appear before Pliny the Younger, while *ignōscō* is old and usual. Furthermore, the usage of the present participle is not so frequent, and semantically, it marks a continuing state. *Ignōscēns sīs* cannot therefore mean &quot;pardon&quot;: when Terence says *animus ignoscentior,* Heaut. 635, he uses it as an adjective to mark a disposition of the spirit with the sense of &quot;porté au pardon&quot; [**I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to mean**]. Greek has likewise with the same sense another prefix:  συγγιγνώσκω, συγγνώμη; which suggests a development of sense such as &quot;agree with, sympathize&quot;. Wackernagel, Mél. Danielsson, p. 383 sqq., ingeniously compared *ignōscō* and Sanskrit *anujñā* &quot;permit&quot;. *Ignōscō* would contain a prefix *in-* comparable to the Sanskrit *anu-,* that M. Leumann proposes can be seen also in *inueniō, inuidiō* ; but the existence of this prefix in these words is of the greatest doubt, and the passage from *\*enu* to *in-* not easy to admit. *\*In-gnōscō* has been proposed, but this does not explain the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/ProdromusCorporisGlossariorumLatinorum/page/n431&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40265285&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/DictionnaireEtymologiqueDeLaLangueLatine/page/n161" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11365" RevisionGUID="d2abc643-f221-4000-8a85-fb044395c69a" CreationDate="2019-08-20T02:38:47.860" UserId="39" Comment="added a link" Text="In a comment, Alex B. referred to the 2001 *Dictionnaire Étymologique De La Langue Latine* by Ernout et Meillet, which contains the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Les grammairiens latins voyaient dans *ignōscere* un composé avec le préfixe privatif *in-*; cf. la glose *ignoscere : non noscere,* [Loewe, *Prodromus* 409][1], et [Thes. gloss. emend. s. u. *ignōscō][2].* Mais la négation *in-* ne s'emploie pas devant un verbe, cf. plus loin sous *in-*, et c'est arbitrairement que l'on suppose (encore récemmant [Immisch, Glotta, 19, 16-24][3]) que *ignōscō* aurait été créé sur *ignōscēns* (*sīs, fuās*) ; l'exemple de *indecet* formé sur *indecēns* n'est pas probant, car *indecet* est rare et d'apparaît pas avant Pline le Jeune, tandis que *ignōscō* est ancient et usuel. D'autre part, le participe présent n'est pas d'un usage tellement fréquent ; et, sémantiquement, il marque un état qui dure. *Ignōscēns sīs* ne saurait donc se dire dans le sens de « pardonne » : quand Térence dit *animus ignoscentior,* Heaut. 635, il l'emploie comme adjectif pour marquer une disposition de l'esprit avec le sens de « porté au pardon ». Le grec a également avec le même sens un autre préverbe : συγγιγνώσκω, συγγνώμη; &#xD;&#xA;ceci suggère un développement de sens tel que « s'accorder avec, sympathiser ». Wackernagel, Mél. Danielsson, p. 383 sqq., a rapproché avec ingéniosité *ignosco* de skr. *anujñā* « permettre ». *Ignōscō* renfermerait un préverbe *in-* comparable au skr. *anu-,* que M. Leumann propose de voir aussi dans *inueniō, inuidiō* ; mais l'existence de ce préverbe dans ces mots est des plus douteuses, et le passage de *\*enu* a *in-* malaisé à admettre. On a proposé *\*in-gnōscō,* mais le sens n'est pas expliqué par là.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([p. 308][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latin grammarians saw in *ignōscere* a compound with the privative prefix *in-*; cf. the gloss *ignoscere : non noscere,* [Loewe, *Prodromus* 409][1], and [Thes. gloss. emend. s. u. *ignōscō][2].* But the negation *in-* is not used before a verb, cf. below under *in-,* and it is arbitrary to suppose (as recently as [Immisch, Glotta, 19, 16-24][3]) that *ignōscō* would have been created based on *ignōscēns (sīs, fuās)* ; the example of *indecet* formed based on *indecēns* is not compelling, because *indecet* is rare and does not appear before Pliny the Younger, while *ignōscō* is old and usual. Furthermore, the usage of the present participle is not so frequent, and semantically, it marks a continuing state. *Ignōscēns sīs* cannot therefore mean &quot;pardon&quot;: when Terence says *animus ignoscentior,* Heaut. 635, he uses it as an adjective to mark a disposition of the spirit with the sense of &quot;porté au pardon&quot; [**I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to mean**]. Greek has likewise with the same sense another prefix:  συγγιγνώσκω, συγγνώμη; which suggests a development of sense such as &quot;agree with, sympathize&quot;. Wackernagel, Mél. Danielsson, p. 383 sqq., ingeniously compared *ignōscō* and Sanskrit *anujñā* &quot;permit&quot;. *Ignōscō* would contain a prefix *in-* comparable to the Sanskrit *anu-,* that M. Leumann proposes can be seen also in *inueniō, inuidiō* ; but the existence of this prefix in these words is of the greatest doubt, and the passage from *\*enu* to *in-* not easy to admit. *\*In-gnōscō* has been proposed, but this does not explain the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/ProdromusCorporisGlossariorumLatinorum/page/n431&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/corpusglossarior06linduoft/page/538&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40265285&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/details/DictionnaireEtymologiqueDeLaLangueLatine/page/n161" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33519" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11360" RevisionGUID="331c74c2-efc6-44ec-b18c-759aaac8d8ee" CreationDate="2019-08-20T03:28:25.780" />
  <row Id="33520" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="11167" RevisionGUID="85358930-e900-4426-9d17-52e35ee4cf14" CreationDate="2019-08-20T06:31:31.047" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="130" />
  <row Id="33521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11366" RevisionGUID="5716ebc9-6741-44ad-ad1f-33f806dd9b98" CreationDate="2019-08-20T07:58:49.133" UserId="5018" Text="I was looking through a feature in some Romance languages, Spanish and French, where nouns in Spanish change depending on gender. I was wondering if Latin had a few of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing contrived such as canis, canis, m/f meaning one is a male dog and the other is female.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;nemo, neminis, m/f and dies, diei, m/f are nouns of ambiguous gender which is a different situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33522" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11366" RevisionGUID="5716ebc9-6741-44ad-ad1f-33f806dd9b98" CreationDate="2019-08-20T07:58:49.133" UserId="5018" Text="are there nouns that change meaning based on gender?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33523" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11366" RevisionGUID="5716ebc9-6741-44ad-ad1f-33f806dd9b98" CreationDate="2019-08-20T07:58:49.133" UserId="5018" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11363" RevisionGUID="bca5db42-9c57-4bc7-9a92-8c9efad47561" CreationDate="2019-08-20T08:35:53.523" UserId="79" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="There are a couple of Finnish words for a click in the phonetic sense, one of them having a Latin origin.&#xD;&#xA;One of the words we use is *avulsiivi*, which would correspond to *avulsive* in English but such a term does not seem to exist in this meaning in English.&#xD;&#xA;The Latin word *avulsio* refers to the tearing out of a branch of a tree, and the Finnish phonetic term must refer to the corresponding snapping sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure whether other languages use a similar term, but it would be surprising to hear this to be a completely Finnish invention.&#xD;&#xA;This and the other Finnish words are recorded in [a well-curated scientific terminology database](http://tieteentermipankki.fi/wiki/Kielitiede:avulsiivi).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, perhaps *avulsio* or *[sonus] avulsivus* or something else derived from *avellere* could work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11366" RevisionGUID="b5ac4320-f244-4210-b7d5-ffd899da9020" CreationDate="2019-08-20T08:37:46.910" UserId="5018" Comment="added 200 characters in body" Text="I was looking through a feature in some Romance languages, Spanish and French, where nouns in Spanish change depending on gender. I was wondering if Latin had a few of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Examples in Spanish][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Examples in French][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Particular examples are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **el consonante:** rhyme, **la consonante:** the consonant (Spanish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **le bal:** dance, **la balle:** ball (French)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing contrived such as canis, canis, m/f meaning one is a male dog and the other is female.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;nemo, neminis, m/f and dies, diei, m/f are nouns of ambiguous gender which is a different situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.thoughtco.com/doubly-gendered-basics-3079264&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.thoughtco.com/french-nouns-with-two-genders-1371193" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11358" RevisionGUID="d60fab8c-290c-4888-868a-dc5a6f7fccbd" CreationDate="2019-08-20T10:22:38.857" UserId="79" Comment="added 309 characters in body" Text="This is a question that is well answered by looking at [an online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79).&#xD;&#xA;The noun [*decimatio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DD%3Aentry+group%3D5%3Aentry%3Ddecimatio) is listed as meaning &quot;the taking of a tenth&quot;, including the punishment you refer to.&#xD;&#xA;This noun is derived from the verb [*decimare*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=decimo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), &quot;to take the tenth&quot; or &quot;to decimate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;See the linked entries for more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This verb appears to come from the ordinal *decimus*, &quot;tenth&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The link to this and even *decem* (&quot;ten&quot;) is so clear that the Romans are constantly reminded of the relation to this number.&#xD;&#xA;In English this link has deteriorated, as the word no longer immediately reminds us of the words &quot;ten&quot; or &quot;tenth&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore it is not all that surprising that the linked dictionary entries of *decimatio* and *decimare* only mention things that are directly related to a tenth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it should be born in mind that the people composing a dictionary might have been biased or even misguided by etymology.&#xD;&#xA;It's sometimes hard to say what a text means exactly if there is nothing else about the matter than that text.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps there was indeed an instance where *decimare* meant &quot;to reduce by a fraction&quot; where the fraction was not 1/10, but due to lack of clear hints it was analyzed as meaning 1/10 anyway.&#xD;&#xA;To figure out whether this has happened would require a far more detailed study.&#xD;&#xA;While mistakes can and do happen, major misunderstandings are rare.&#xD;&#xA;Generalized meanings are not rare in Latin and the dictionary I linked to offer mentions them, so it is telling that no such mention is found in these specific entries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, a more careful answer might be:&#xD;&#xA;There appears to be no evidence that the word *decimatio* was used for other reductions than by one tenth.&#xD;&#xA;Such use would not be unreasonable, as such generalizations are commonplace in language.&#xD;&#xA;The generalization with descendants of *decimatio* is pretty common in other languages, but it does not imply that it must have also occurred within classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;(I assume that by Romans you mean the people living in republic or imperial Rome, which is roughly the same as speakers of classical Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;What I have seen so far strongly points towards *decimatio* referring strictly to one tenth in classical Latin, but this is of course subject to change if I see more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11367" RevisionGUID="f987ad1e-2dd1-4b2d-8a87-1ae13752f1e6" CreationDate="2019-08-20T11:06:58.393" UserId="1982" Text="In the made-for-TV re-make of &quot;Ben Hur&quot;, Hugh Bonneville played Pontius Pilate. At one point &quot;Pilate&quot; said: &quot;Chariot-racing is not a sport for amateurs. And to compete and to lose would be worse than not to compete at all!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The psychology-of-fear, which helped to hold the Empire together, required that all things Roman had to (at least appear) to be invincible. A multi-national chariot-race was not just a chariot race.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The myth of Roman invincibility could/ should have been shattered by the catastrophic defeat in the Teutoburg Forest, in AD 9. The spreading news could have foundered the Empire. An assumption is that poor communications hindered any potential co-ordination of simultaneous uprisings, over such an area. Whatever the reason, no empire can afford too many setbacks, irrespective of the military implications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Returning to the Q: a possible translation, of Pilate, could be: &quot;contendere cum curribus non est ludus rudibus, et si contenderis ut perdas peior quam omnino non contendere sit.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33528" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11367" RevisionGUID="f987ad1e-2dd1-4b2d-8a87-1ae13752f1e6" CreationDate="2019-08-20T11:06:58.393" UserId="1982" Text="Imperial Chariot Racing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33529" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11367" RevisionGUID="f987ad1e-2dd1-4b2d-8a87-1ae13752f1e6" CreationDate="2019-08-20T11:06:58.393" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11368" RevisionGUID="da075344-ffaf-437e-821d-55c8d9118a06" CreationDate="2019-08-20T13:33:16.493" UserId="79" Text="The feeling I get from your translation is that it is technically correct but not very idiomatic for the first half.&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I can't really put a finger on what it means for the first part of the sentence, but I'll give a suggestion below for you to compare to.&#xD;&#xA;I purposely chose something different to give you new ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The structure of the second half is unclear to me.&#xD;&#xA;I read it thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Si contenderis ut perdas peior quam omnino non contendere sit.*  &#xD;&#xA;If you race so that you lose is worse than to not race at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Distilling to the core structure, this seems to become:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Si contenderis peior sit quam contendere.*  &#xD;&#xA;If you race it is worse than to race.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This might sound logically silly, but that's irrelevant. Focus on syntax now.)&#xD;&#xA;I don't think a conditional clause can function as a subject.&#xD;&#xA;The subject of the main verb *sit* should rather be a noun, a pronoun, or an infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, if the subject is something like an infinitive, it is treated as a neuter and the adjective should be *peius* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To fix this core structure, just use an infinitive for the subject:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Contendere peius sit quam contendere.*  &#xD;&#xA;To race is worse than to race.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then for the subordinate clause.&#xD;&#xA;You can have a clause subordinate to an infinitive, so that's no issue.&#xD;&#xA;To me it seems that you have a final clause *ut perdas*, &quot;so that you lose&quot; or &quot;for the purpose that you lose&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The final *ut* clause expresses a goal, not a result.&#xD;&#xA;I think this would work better with two infinitives like in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would take a somewhat different approach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, to say that some action is characteristic of someone, you can say *hominum est currere* or similar.&#xD;&#xA;I would consider using something like this for an idiomatic way to phrase the first part.&#xD;&#xA;And even if you have a noun instead of an infinitive, I feel that a genitive is better for expressing a characteristic than a dative but both work.&#xD;&#xA;(I'd be happy to hear whether others agree with this view.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then we need suitable words.&#xD;&#xA;*Circus* is a good word for a race track.&#xD;&#xA;For racing or sport I would use *certamen* here.&#xD;&#xA;Latin likes adjectives when adding details, so I think *certamen circense* is an idiomatic way to say &quot;chariot-racing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I'd leave the word &quot;sport&quot; out completely, as I don't think *ludus* or any other added word would add much clarity.&#xD;&#xA;While *rudis* is certainly possible, I find myself considering *tiro* somehow more idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With these ingredients, I'd put the first half like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Certamen circense haud tironum est.*  &#xD;&#xA;Chariot-racing is not a sport for amateurs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me *certare* sounds more like a competition against others, whereas *contendere* more like a time trial, where you are trying to make the course as fast as you can.&#xD;&#xA;You are not just stretching for the goal in the message you want to convey (context matters!), but fighting others for the first place.&#xD;&#xA;But do bear in mind that I may have gotten some of the nuances wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the second part I would use infinitives, putting the structure close to the English original.&#xD;&#xA;I'd also make the statement unreal, so as to underline the impossibility of losing.&#xD;&#xA;Of course there is a chance to lose, but we're talking about confidence in invincibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Certare et perdere peius esset quam non certare!*  &#xD;&#xA;And to compete and to lose would be worse than not to compete at all!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another aspect that I like with this whole is that *certamen* and two *certare*s frame and structure the whole thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11367" RevisionGUID="4b86c958-116b-491f-82b6-dea9efadcc1b" CreationDate="2019-08-20T13:33:58.493" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="In the made-for-TV re-make of &quot;Ben Hur&quot;, Hugh Bonneville played Pontius Pilate. At one point &quot;Pilate&quot; said: &quot;Chariot-racing is not a sport for amateurs. And to compete and to lose would be worse than not to compete at all!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The psychology-of-fear, which helped to hold the Empire together, required that all things Roman had to (at least appear) to be invincible. A multi-national chariot-race was not just a chariot race.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The myth of Roman invincibility could/ should have been shattered by the catastrophic defeat in the Teutoburg Forest, in AD 9. The spreading news could have foundered the Empire. An assumption is that poor communications hindered any potential co-ordination of simultaneous uprisings, over such an area. Whatever the reason, no empire can afford too many setbacks, irrespective of the military implications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Returning to the Q: a possible translation, of Pilate, could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Contendere cum curribus non est ludus rudibus, et si contenderis ut perdas peior quam omnino non contendere sit.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33532" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11367" RevisionGUID="4b86c958-116b-491f-82b6-dea9efadcc1b" CreationDate="2019-08-20T13:33:58.493" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11369" RevisionGUID="a6ee1a05-29ed-432c-b5a7-21413540ff02" CreationDate="2019-08-20T16:18:20.273" UserId="932" Text="If I got it right, you are asking if there are homophones in Latin. Unsurprisingly, as (I suppose) in any language, there are plenty of them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you can find a non-exhaustive list on the [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Latin_terms_with_homophones)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11364" RevisionGUID="e7ff4610-0c11-486c-9ef8-3dfc5c78c86d" CreationDate="2019-08-20T16:23:07.833" UserId="406" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="While Etymonline isn't particularly reliable (and has a strong aversion to citing any sources), this line *almost* has it right:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latin word translates Greek apolambanomene.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a calqued Greek word, though not the one Etymonline claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can determine, Apollonius of Perga is the one who first introduced the term, in his enormous treatise on conic sections. He uses the word *ἀποτεμνομένη* (&quot;amount-being-cut-off&quot;) for what we might now call an &quot;X-coordinate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, here's Proposition 20 from Book 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![All Greek to me][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If someone knows where there's a nice, computer-readable version of the *Conics* online, btw, it would be much appreciated…reading this [ed: Byzantine-style typeface] is exhausting.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern language, this proposition is something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you take any parabola, and drop two straight lines from the parabola to its diameter [the Y-coordinates], then make a square on each of those lines [the Y-coordinates squared], the ratio of the area of the squares will be the same as the ratio of **the sections of the diameter that their corresponding lines mark off** [the X-coordinates].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The &quot;diameter&quot; of a parabola is the line parallel to the directrix passing through the vertex.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, he's figured out the equation of a parabola: nowadays, we'd put this more simply as &quot;y=ax², for a constant a&quot;. What we might now call a &quot;Y-coordinate&quot;, he calls the length of a perpendicular dropped from a point to the diameter. And what we might now call an &quot;X-coordinate&quot;, he calls an *ἀποτεμνομένη*, an &quot;amount-being-cut-off&quot;—because to him, the X-coordinate is **how much of the diameter we've marked off** by dropping that perpendicular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, to put it another way: Apollonius is marking a point on the parabola, then dropping a perpendicular from that point to the X-axis. This effectively slices the X-axis apart; the sliced-off bit that lies between the origin and our perpendicular is the *ἀποτεμνομένη*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When Apollonius's works were translated into Latin, *ἀποτέμνω* was calqued to *abscindō*, &quot;to cut off&quot;. But Latin doesn't have a present passive participle like Greek does. So some translators used a finite verb form, like this one (from *Apollonii Pergæi Conicorum libri octo, et Sereni Antissensis De sectione cylindri &amp; coni libri duo*, Oxford, 1710):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Not Greek to me][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And others used a *perfect* passive participle, giving the now-familiar ***abscissa***: the &quot;amount that has been cut off&quot;. This one could be used as a noun, unlike the finite verb version, so it's the one that stuck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/w9tPf.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z8vCu.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11370" RevisionGUID="2815c7e6-a096-44e9-9246-cee8539a85bc" CreationDate="2019-08-20T16:34:15.377" UserId="79" Text="In fact, *dies* does have a slightly different meaning in the two genders.&#xD;&#xA;The masculine is the more general meaning, but for specific meanings like an appointed special day or day as a deity you need the feminine.&#xD;&#xA;This division probably has to do with the word being originally masculine but being leveled to feminine gender to conform with the rest of the fifth declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another common example is the plural of *locus*.&#xD;&#xA;The masculine plural *loci* refers to individual places, whereas *loca* refers to connected places.&#xD;&#xA;This has to do with the collective meaning of the neuter plural.&#xD;&#xA;The two plurals look a little different, but this is similar to the French example you mention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more details, check the related questions on [*dies*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/333/79) and [*loci/loca*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2132/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an example related to *canis*, consider *lupus* and *lupa*.&#xD;&#xA;While they primarily mean &quot;he-wolf&quot; and &quot;she-wolf&quot;, the feminine version has the additional meaning of a prostitute but the masculine one does not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For yet another example, there are the nouns *gallus* (a rooster) and *galla* (a nut or bad wine) in addition to the adjective *gallus* (Gallic)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11371" RevisionGUID="1b0d99e1-f62e-4f1e-b5df-7a43ee57888f" CreationDate="2019-08-20T17:00:51.790" UserId="985" Text="The masculine noun *flamen* denotes a type of priest. The neuter noun *flamen* means 'a blast, gust (of wind)' or 'an exhalation, breath.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, generally, the words for various fruit trees and the fruits that they produce differ only in gender. Examples include *cerasus* (f.), 'cherry tree' vs. *cerasum* (n.), 'cherry'; *malus* (f.), 'apple tree' vs. *malum* (n.), 'apple'; or *prunus* (f.), 'plum tree' vs. *prunum*, 'plum'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33537" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11366" RevisionGUID="7da66b2d-9279-42ad-964e-c967078645e3" CreationDate="2019-08-20T17:29:08.703" />
  <row Id="33539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11372" RevisionGUID="60e2e951-0a38-44fb-8e44-f37ed84c6503" CreationDate="2019-08-20T18:13:56.483" UserId="3248" Text="As for more recent scholarship on this topic, I recommend you to take a look at the following monograph by G. Haverling, who is THE expert on _-sco_ verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HAVERLING, Gerd (2000). _On sco-Verbs, Prefixes and Semantic Functions. A Study in the Development of Prefixed and Unprefixed Verbs from Early to Late Latin_. Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, 64.  Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly (or perhaps I should rather say &quot;Quite surprisingly&quot;), this scholar appears to claim that the prefix of _ignosco_ is not the negative prefix _IN-_ (as has traditionally been assumed) but rather the lative prefix _IN-_. This opinion is shared by Prof. Benjamín García-Hernández (another important Latinist scholar who has worked on the topic of Latin preverbs quite extensively: e.g., [García-Hernández 1989][1]). However, as pointed out in [his review of Haverling's (2000) book/**page 131**][2], he is not convinced by Haverling's proposal of deriving the meaning of _forgiving_ from the ingressive meaning of _beginning to get to know_. Unfortunately, he does not offer any alternative proposal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pending a convincing explanation, I'd buy Knapp's point quoted in your post. After all, if the stative verb **_ignoro_** is formed from the prefixed adjective **_ignarus_** (&lt;_in+gnarus_), why shouldn't we assume that an analogical process could derive the verb _ignosco_ from _ignotus_ (along with the polysemous change you point out above taken from Lewis and Short: &quot;lit., not to wish to know, not to search into; hence, with esp. reference to a fault or crime, _to pardon_&quot;)?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/7174291/Les_pr%C3%A9verbes_latins&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://adw-goe.de/fileadmin/dokumente/forschungsprojekte/ortsnamen_rhein_elbe/Publikationen_Udolph_PDF/2001-2005/316._Udolph_Rez._zu_Anreiter._Kratylos.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11372" RevisionGUID="345adec0-0670-4b83-beff-e23c24c5706e" CreationDate="2019-08-20T18:29:38.153" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="As for more recent scholarship on this topic, I recommend you to take a look at the following monograph by G. Haverling, who is THE expert on _-sco_ verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HAVERLING, Gerd (2000). _On sco-Verbs, Prefixes and Semantic Functions. A Study in the Development of Prefixed and Unprefixed Verbs from Early to Late Latin_. Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, 64.  Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly (or perhaps I should rather say &quot;Quite surprisingly&quot;), this scholar appears to claim that the prefix of _ignosco_ is not the negative prefix _IN-_ (as has traditionally been assumed) but rather the lative prefix _IN-_. This opinion is shared by Prof. Benjamín García-Hernández (another important Latinist scholar who has worked on the topic of Latin preverbs quite extensively: e.g., [García-Hernández 1989][1]). However, as pointed out in [his review of Haverling's (2000) book/**page 131**][2], he is not convinced by Haverling's proposal of deriving the meaning of _forgiving_ from the ingressive meaning of _beginning to get to know_. Unfortunately, he does not offer any alternative proposal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pending a convincing explanation, I'd buy Knapp's point quoted in your post. After all, on the basis that the stative verb **_ignoro_** is formed from the prefixed adjective **_ignarus_** (&lt;_in+gnarus_), why not to assume that an analogical process could derive the verb **_ignosco_** from **_ignotus_** via **backformation** (along with the polysemous change above taken from Lewis and Short: &quot;lit., not to wish to know, not to search into; hence, with esp. reference to a fault or crime, _to pardon_&quot;)?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/7174291/Les_pr%C3%A9verbes_latins&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://adw-goe.de/fileadmin/dokumente/forschungsprojekte/ortsnamen_rhein_elbe/Publikationen_Udolph_PDF/2001-2005/316._Udolph_Rez._zu_Anreiter._Kratylos.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11365" RevisionGUID="a87480b2-ffee-4e3d-9c0e-3746cca6514d" CreationDate="2019-08-20T19:21:20.067" UserId="9" Comment="made guillemets have non-breaking spaces" Text="In a comment, Alex B. referred to the 2001 *Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine* by Alfred Ernout and Antoine Meillet, which contains the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Les grammairiens latins voyaient dans *ignōscere* un composé avec le préfixe privatif *in-*; cf. la glose *ignoscere : non noscere,* [Loewe, *Prodromus* 409][1], et [Thes. gloss. emend. s. u. *ignōscō][2].* Mais la négation *in-* ne s'emploie pas devant un verbe, cf. plus loin sous *in-*, et c'est arbitrairement que l'on suppose (encore récemmant [Immisch, Glotta, 19, 16-24][3]) que *ignōscō* aurait été créé sur *ignōscēns* (*sīs, fuās*) ; l'exemple de *indecet* formé sur *indecēns* n'est pas probant, car *indecet* est rare et d'apparaît pas avant Pline le Jeune, tandis que *ignōscō* est ancient et usuel. D'autre part, le participe présent n'est pas d'un usage tellement fréquent ; et, sémantiquement, il marque un état qui dure. *Ignōscēns sīs* ne saurait donc se dire dans le sens de «&amp;#8239;pardonne&amp;#8239;» : quand Térence dit *animus ignoscentior,* Heaut. 635, il l'emploie comme adjectif pour marquer une disposition de l'esprit avec le sens de «&amp;#8239;porté au pardon&amp;#8239;». Le grec a également avec le même sens un autre préverbe : συγγιγνώσκω, συγγνώμη; &#xD;&#xA;ceci suggère un développement de sens tel que «&amp;#8239;s'accorder avec, sympathiser&amp;#8239;». Wackernagel, Mél. Danielsson, p. 383 sqq., a rapproché avec ingéniosité *ignosco* de skr. *anujñā* « permettre ». *Ignōscō* renfermerait un préverbe *in-* comparable au skr. *anu-,* que M. Leumann propose de voir aussi dans *inueniō, inuidiō* ; mais l'existence de ce préverbe dans ces mots est des plus douteuses, et le passage de *\*enu* a *in-* malaisé à admettre. On a proposé *\*in-gnōscō,* mais le sens n'est pas expliqué par là.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([p. 308][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latin grammarians saw in *ignōscere* a compound with the privative prefix *in-*; cf. the gloss *ignoscere : non noscere,* [Loewe, *Prodromus* 409][1], and [Thes. gloss. emend. s. u. *ignōscō][2].* But the negation *in-* is not used before a verb, cf. below under *in-,* and it is arbitrary to suppose (as recently as [Immisch, Glotta, 19, 16-24][3]) that *ignōscō* would have been created based on *ignōscēns (sīs, fuās)* ; the example of *indecet* formed based on *indecēns* is not compelling, because *indecet* is rare and does not appear before Pliny the Younger, while *ignōscō* is old and usual. Furthermore, the usage of the present participle is not so frequent, and semantically, it marks a continuing state. *Ignōscēns sīs* cannot therefore mean &quot;pardon&quot;: when Terence says *animus ignoscentior,* Heaut. 635, he uses it as an adjective to mark a disposition of the spirit with the sense of &quot;porté au pardon&quot; [**I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to mean**]. Greek has likewise with the same sense another prefix:  συγγιγνώσκω, συγγνώμη; which suggests a development of sense such as &quot;agree with, sympathize&quot;. Wackernagel, Mél. Danielsson, p. 383 sqq., ingeniously compared *ignōscō* and Sanskrit *anujñā* &quot;permit&quot;. *Ignōscō* would contain a prefix *in-* comparable to the Sanskrit *anu-,* that M. Leumann proposes can be seen also in *inueniō, inuidiō* ; but the existence of this prefix in these words is of the greatest doubt, and the passage from *\*enu* to *in-* not easy to admit. *\*In-gnōscō* has been proposed, but this does not explain the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/ProdromusCorporisGlossariorumLatinorum/page/n431&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/corpusglossarior06linduoft/page/538&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40265285&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/details/DictionnaireEtymologiqueDeLaLangueLatine/page/n161" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11355" RevisionGUID="44094c5e-87f7-4ffb-8d35-e0cc1cf28512" CreationDate="2019-08-20T19:29:32.593" UserId="79" Comment="added 340 characters in body" Text="The answer by cnread is excellent, but I think the ideas there can be developed a little further.&#xD;&#xA;A good way to give a single measure is *patere* with an accusative of measure:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cella mea duo metra patet.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two directions can simply be given by giving two measures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Cella mea duo et quattuor metra patet.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Used in context, perhaps supported with a suitable hand gesture, this is pretty hard to misinterpret.&#xD;&#xA;I doubt a lot of people would understand *duo et quattuor* as the number six &amp;mdash; I would have said six if I meant six! &amp;mdash; instead of two different measures.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of anything better than *et* for &quot;by&quot; in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this comes pretty close to &quot;My office is two by four meters.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, even the English phrase is technically ambiguous, and one could interpret that my office is eight (i.e. two times four) meters tall, but such ambiguity will be quickly dissolved in practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want more clarity &amp;mdash; which is particularly important if you only have text without sufficiently clear context &amp;mdash; you could indicate the two directions with little direction words as cnread suggests in a comment.&#xD;&#xA;*Hac* and *illac* make a good pair.&#xD;&#xA;So perhaps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Cella mea duo metra hac [et] quattuor illac patet.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11368" RevisionGUID="f33b63ca-b50f-4beb-a5fd-d63065b064b6" CreationDate="2019-08-20T19:35:12.510" UserId="79" Comment="added 657 characters in body" Text="The feeling I get from your translation is that it is technically correct but not very idiomatic for the first half.&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I can't really put a finger on what it means for the first part of the sentence, but I'll give a suggestion below for you to compare to.&#xD;&#xA;I purposely chose something different to give you new ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The structure of the second half is unclear to me.&#xD;&#xA;I read it thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Si contenderis ut perdas peior quam omnino non contendere sit.*  &#xD;&#xA;If you race so that you lose is worse than to not race at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Distilling to the core structure, this seems to become:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Si contenderis peior sit quam contendere.*  &#xD;&#xA;If you race it is worse than to race.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This might sound logically silly, but that's irrelevant. Focus on syntax now.)&#xD;&#xA;I don't think a conditional clause can function as a subject.&#xD;&#xA;The subject of the main verb *sit* should rather be a noun, a pronoun, or an infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, if the subject is something like an infinitive, it is treated as a neuter and the adjective should be *peius* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To fix this core structure, just use an infinitive for the subject:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Contendere peius sit quam contendere.*  &#xD;&#xA;To race is worse than to race.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then for the subordinate clause.&#xD;&#xA;You can have a clause subordinate to an infinitive, so that's no issue.&#xD;&#xA;To me it seems that you have a final clause *ut perdas*, &quot;so that you lose&quot; or &quot;for the purpose that you lose&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The final *ut* clause expresses a goal, not a result.&#xD;&#xA;I think this would work better with two infinitives like in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say &quot;to race so that you lose&quot; without infinitives (and without the final clause which means something else), you could make use of gerunds or participles.&#xD;&#xA;This leads to options like *contendere et perdere*, *contendere perdens/perdendo*, and *perdere contendens/contendendo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would take a somewhat different approach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, to say that some action is characteristic of someone, you can say *hominum est currere* or similar.&#xD;&#xA;I would consider using something like this for an idiomatic way to phrase the first part.&#xD;&#xA;And even if you have a noun instead of an infinitive, I feel that a genitive is better for expressing a characteristic than a dative but both work.&#xD;&#xA;(I'd be happy to hear whether others agree with this view.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then we need suitable words.&#xD;&#xA;*Circus* is a good word for a race track.&#xD;&#xA;For racing or sport I would use *certamen* here.&#xD;&#xA;Latin likes adjectives when adding details, so I think *certamen circense* is an idiomatic way to say &quot;chariot-racing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I'd leave the word &quot;sport&quot; out completely, as I don't think *ludus* or any other added word would add much clarity.&#xD;&#xA;While *rudis* is certainly possible, I find myself considering *tiro* somehow more idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With these ingredients, I'd put the first half like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Certamen circense haud tironum est.*  &#xD;&#xA;Chariot-racing is not a sport for amateurs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me *certare* sounds more like a competition against others, whereas *contendere* more like a time trial, where you are trying to make the course as fast as you can.&#xD;&#xA;You are not just stretching for the goal in the message you want to convey (context matters!), but fighting others for the first place.&#xD;&#xA;But do bear in mind that I may have gotten some of the nuances wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the second part I would use infinitives, putting the structure close to the English original.&#xD;&#xA;I'd also make the statement unreal, so as to underline the impossibility of losing.&#xD;&#xA;Of course there is a chance to lose, but we're talking about confidence in invincibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Certare et perdere peius esset quam non certare!*  &#xD;&#xA;And to compete and to lose would be worse than not to compete at all!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or if this feels like too many infinitives and you don't want *certare* twice, you could go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Perdere certans peius esset quam non certare!*  &#xD;&#xA;And to lose when competing would be worse than not to compete at all!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another aspect that I like with this whole is that *certamen* and two *certare*s frame and structure the whole thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My final and complete suggestion is therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Certamen circense haud tironum est. Perdere certans peius esset quam non certare!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11366" RevisionGUID="14679af2-7e87-43ba-b591-c91385f6ab08" CreationDate="2019-08-20T19:38:29.897" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I was looking through a feature in some Romance languages, Spanish and French, where nouns in Spanish change depending on gender. I was wondering if Latin had a few of these.&#xD;&#xA;Here are [examples in Spanish][1] and [in French][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Particular examples are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **el consonante:** rhyme, **la consonante:** the consonant (Spanish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **le bal:** dance, **la balle:** ball (French)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing contrived such as *canis, canis*, m/f meaning one is a male dog and the other is female.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nemo, neminis*, m/f and *dies, diei*, m/f are nouns of ambiguous gender which is a different situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.thoughtco.com/doubly-gendered-basics-3079264&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.thoughtco.com/french-nouns-with-two-genders-1371193" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33545" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11366" RevisionGUID="14679af2-7e87-43ba-b591-c91385f6ab08" CreationDate="2019-08-20T19:38:29.897" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Are there nouns that change meaning based on gender?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33546" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11366" RevisionGUID="14679af2-7e87-43ba-b591-c91385f6ab08" CreationDate="2019-08-20T19:38:29.897" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|vocabulary|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11353" RevisionGUID="f9a857e2-8397-4ff5-82b0-8cd00e49ad28" CreationDate="2019-08-20T20:09:30.343" UserId="9" Comment="added 278 characters in body" Text="The Greek word χριστός, used as a translation of Hebrew משיח &quot;messiah&quot;, and meaning something like &quot;anointed&quot; ([Liddell and Scott][1]), apparently has a long vowel in the first syllable. The quantity of the vowel would be expected to be the same in the Latinized form *Chrīstus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of a long vowel in *Chrīstus* was brought up in a discussion on the Latin D forum: &quot;[long vs short vowel in specific words][2]&quot;, but not much evidence was mentioned (only the pronunciation of English &quot;Christ&quot;, which could have other explanations). **How is the length of the iota in this word known?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know enough about Greek to be able to figure out if the length of the vowel can be inferred from the construction of the word. If this does allow us to rule out a pronunciation with a short vowel, please explain. I know that the related noun [χρῖσμα][3] is spelled with a circumflex, which implies that the vowel is long. (The L&amp;S entry mentions the existence of a spelling χρίσμα that it says is misaccented.) Likewise, the verb [χρίω][4] has some forms where the vowel is circumflexed, such as χρῖον. But I'm not sure that the presence of a long vowel in these forms guarantees that the vowel in χριστός is also long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an example of vowel length changing between related words, Wiktionary says that the verb *[λύω][5]* has a long vowel in Attic in the first-person present form, but that the derivative *λύσις* has a short vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Data that I know of but that seem inconclusive or irrelevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that there seems to have been a variant spelling with eta, χρηστός (and of the adjective, [χρηστιανοι][6]). This looks like an iotacistic spelling variant, so I'm not sure that it has any relevance to the issue of vowel length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;French has E in the word *chrétien* (and also in *chrême,* from χρῖσμα) which is not the normal outcome for Latin ī, but I think I remember reading that long vowels in closed syllables were often unstable and prone to special shortening changes in Romance languages, so the French forms don't seem to disprove the original existence of a long vowel in the Latin form. French *Christ,* as well as various other Romance forms, has [i], which is the normal outcome for Latin ī, but that's not conclusive because it's also what would be expected in a learned form (a form borrowed from Latin) regardless of the length of the Latin vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=xristo/s&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/long-vs-short-vowel-in-specific-words.30564/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dxri%3Dsma&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dxri%2Fw&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BB%CF%8D%CF%89&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=91xfCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT1087&amp;lpg=PT1087&amp;dq=%CF%87%CF%81%CE%B7%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11365" RevisionGUID="a9f1c38e-2cff-49c1-aceb-5c14affab40b" CreationDate="2019-08-20T20:18:21.297" UserId="9" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="In a comment, Alex B. referred to the 2001 *Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine* by Alfred Ernout and Antoine Meillet, which contains the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Les grammairiens latins voyaient dans *ignōscere* un composé avec le préfixe privatif *in-*; cf. la glose *ignoscere : non noscere,* [Loewe, *Prodromus* 409][1], et [Thes. gloss. emend. s. u. *ignōscō][2].* Mais la négation *in-* ne s'emploie pas devant un verbe, cf. plus loin sous *in-*, et c'est arbitrairement que l'on suppose (encore récemmant [Immisch, Glotta, 19, 16-24][3]) que *ignōscō* aurait été créé sur *ignōscēns* (*sīs, fuās*) ; l'exemple de *indecet* formé sur *indecēns* n'est pas probant, car *indecet* est rare et d'apparaît pas avant Pline le Jeune, tandis que *ignōscō* est ancient et usuel. D'autre part, le participe présent n'est pas d'un usage tellement fréquent ; et, sémantiquement, il marque un état qui dure. *Ignōscēns sīs* ne saurait donc se dire dans le sens de «&amp;#8239;pardonne&amp;#8239;» : quand Térence dit *animus ignoscentior,* Heaut. 635, il l'emploie comme adjectif pour marquer une disposition de l'esprit avec le sens de «&amp;#8239;porté au pardon&amp;#8239;». Le grec a également avec le même sens un autre préverbe : συγγιγνώσκω, συγγνώμη; &#xD;&#xA;ceci suggère un développement de sens tel que «&amp;#8239;s'accorder avec, sympathiser&amp;#8239;». Wackernagel, Mél. Danielsson, p. 383 sqq., a rapproché avec ingéniosité *ignosco* de skr. *anujñā* « permettre ». *Ignōscō* renfermerait un préverbe *in-* comparable au skr. *anu-,* que M. Leumann propose de voir aussi dans *inueniō, inuidiō* ; mais l'existence de ce préverbe dans ces mots est des plus douteuses, et le passage de *\*enu* a *in-* malaisé à admettre. On a proposé *\*in-gnōscō,* mais le sens n'est pas expliqué par là.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([p. 308][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation (with [help from jlliagre on French SE for the translation of « porté au pardon »][5]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latin grammarians saw in *ignōscere* a compound with the privative prefix *in-*; cf. the gloss *ignoscere : non noscere,* [Loewe, *Prodromus* 409][1], and [Thes. gloss. emend. s. u. *ignōscō][2].* But the negation *in-* is not used before a verb, cf. below under *in-,* and it is arbitrary to suppose (as recently as [Immisch, Glotta, 19, 16-24][3]) that *ignōscō* would have been created based on *ignōscēns (sīs, fuās)* ; the example of *indecet* formed based on *indecēns* is not compelling, because *indecet* is rare and does not appear before Pliny the Younger, while *ignōscō* is old and usual. Furthermore, the usage of the present participle is not so frequent, and semantically, it marks a continuing state. *Ignōscēns sīs* cannot therefore mean &quot;pardon&quot;: when Terence says *animus ignoscentior,* Heaut. 635, he uses it as an adjective to mark a disposition of the spirit with the sense of &quot;inclined to give pardon&quot;. Greek has likewise with the same sense another prefix:  συγγιγνώσκω, συγγνώμη; which suggests a development of sense such as &quot;agree with, sympathize&quot;. Wackernagel, Mél. Danielsson, p. 383 sqq., ingeniously compared *ignōscō* and Sanskrit *anujñā* &quot;permit&quot;. *Ignōscō* would contain a prefix *in-* comparable to the Sanskrit *anu-,* that M. Leumann proposes can be seen also in *inueniō, inuidiō* ; but the existence of this prefix in these words is of the greatest doubt, and the passage from *\*enu* to *in-* not easy to admit. *\*In-gnōscō* has been proposed, but this does not explain the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/ProdromusCorporisGlossariorumLatinorum/page/n431&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://archive.org/details/corpusglossarior06linduoft/page/538&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40265285&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://archive.org/details/DictionnaireEtymologiqueDeLaLangueLatine/page/n161&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://french.stackexchange.com/a/38083/6881" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11269" RevisionGUID="9c5e8cf2-21f8-40a9-8ec6-e43df1633039" CreationDate="2019-08-20T20:21:26.267" UserId="985" Comment="Formatting" Text="Caesar's a great source for stuff like this. Near the beginning of book 2 of the *Civil war*, there's a detailed description of a novel type of tower and moveable shelter that some of his soldiers devised at Massilia. Here, Caesar uses the adjectives *longus* and *latus*, and then puts the measurement in the accusative (an accusative of extent of space, I suppose):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***storias** autem ex funibus ancoriariis tres in longitudinem parietum turris **latas IIII pedes** fecerunt…* [*BC* 2.9.5]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'mats 4 feet wide'/'four-foot-wide mats' (lit., 'mats wide to an extent of 4 feet')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ubi ex ea turri quae circum essent opera tueri se posse sunt confisi **musculum pedes LX longum** ex materia bipedali quem a turri latericia ad hostium turrim murumque perducerent facere instituerant.* [*BC* 2.10.1]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'a shelter 60 feet long'/a 60-foot-long shelter' (lit., 'a shelter long to an extent of 60 feet')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, you can say something like ***cubiculum metra II latum ac* (*metra*) *IV longum est***, or the office can be described as ***metra II latum ac IV longum***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't quite as pithy as '2 by 4 meters,' but it's somewhat lighter than *cubiculum latitudinem duorum et longitudinem quattuor metrorum habet*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the length and width of the office are equal, you can adapt this bit from earlier in the same passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***patebat** haec **quoquo versus pedes XXX**, sed parietum crassitudo pedes V.* [*BC* 2.8.2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'It extends 30 feet on each side'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: *quoquo versus* can also be written as a single word, and *versum* and *vorsum* are sometimes found instead of *versus*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, for an office that is 8 meters square (as opposed to 8 square meters), you can say ***cubiculum patet quoquoversum metra VIII***, or the office can be described as ***metra VIII quoquoversum***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11364" RevisionGUID="63a92811-6dbf-43a7-b253-8d7c63fb30d1" CreationDate="2019-08-20T20:49:05.900" UserId="406" Comment="added 1742 characters in body" Text="While Etymonline isn't particularly reliable (and has a strong aversion to citing any sources), this line *almost* has it right:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Latin word translates Greek apolambanomene.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a calqued Greek word, though not the one Etymonline claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can determine, Apollonius of Perga is the one who first introduced the term, in his enormous treatise on conic sections. He uses the word *ἀποτεμνομένη* (&quot;amount-being-cut-off&quot;) for what we might now call an &quot;X-coordinate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, here's Proposition 20 from Book 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![All Greek to me][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, in a more legible typeface:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ἐὰν ἑν παραβολῇ ἀπὸ τῆς τομῆς καταχθῶσι δύο εὑθεῖαι ἐπὶ τὴν διάμετρον τεταγμένως, ἔσται ὡς τὰ ἀπ' αὐτῶν τςτράγωνα πρὸς ἄλληλα, οὕτως αἱ **ἀποτεμνόμεναι** ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἀπὸ τῆς διαμέτρου πρὸς τῇ κορυφῇ τῆς τομῆς.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If, in a parabola, two straight lines are dropped perpendicular, from the cut [i.e. the curve of the parabola] to the diameter, then squares built on them [on these straight lines] will be to each other, just as the **parts sliced off** from the diameter by this cutting, from them [the lines] to the vertex.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, to modernize it a little bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you take any parabola, and mark two points on it, then the ratio of the squares of the vertical distances of those points to the diameter, is equal to the ratio of the horizontal distances of those points from the vertex (along the diameter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The &quot;diameter&quot; of a parabola is a bit of an archaic term: it's the line parallel to the directrix passing through the vertex. For the parabola y=ax², the &quot;diameter&quot; is the X-axis.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, he's figured out the equation of a parabola: nowadays, we'd put this more simply as &quot;y=ax², for a constant a&quot;. What we might now call a &quot;Y-coordinate&quot;, he calls the length of a perpendicular dropped from a point to the diameter. And what we might now call an &quot;X-coordinate&quot;, he calls an *ἀποτεμνομένη*, an &quot;amount-being-cut-off&quot;—because to him, the X-coordinate is **how much of the diameter we've marked off** by dropping that perpendicular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, to put it another way: Apollonius is marking a point on the parabola, then dropping a perpendicular from that point to the X-axis. This effectively slices the X-axis apart; the sliced-off bit that lies between the origin (in this case the vertex) and our perpendicular is the *ἀποτεμνομένη*. Earlier, he uses the word *τομή* &quot;cut&quot; for the curve of the parabola itself: you might imagine all these lines and marks being engraved into a piece of material, so that every line we draw is indeed a &quot;cut&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When Apollonius's works were translated into Latin, *ἀποτέμνω* was calqued to *abscindō*, &quot;to cut off&quot;. But Latin doesn't have a present passive participle like Greek does. So some translators used a finite verb form, like this one (from *Apollonii Pergæi Conicorum libri octo, et Sereni Antissensis De sectione cylindri &amp; coni libri duo*, Oxford, 1710):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Not Greek to me][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Si in parabola duæ rectæ à sectione ad diametrum ordinatim applicentur: ut eorum quadrata inter sese, ita erunt et rectæ, quæ ab ipsis ex diametro ad verticem **abscinduntur**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If two straight lines are drawn in a parabola, going from the cut [the curve of the parabola] perpendicularly down to the diameter, then just as is the ratio of their squares, so will be the ratio of the straight lines which **are cut away** from the diameter, running from them [the vertical lines] to the vertex.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And others used a *perfect* passive participle, like this one (from [*Apollonii Pergaei quae graece exstant cum commentariis antiquis: Praefatio. Conicorum lib. I-III*][3], translated by I.L. Heiberg):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Also not Greek][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Si in parabola a sectione duae rectae ad diametrum ordinate ducuntur, erunt, ut quadrata earum inter se, ita rectae ab iis e diametro ad verticem sectionis **abscisae** [sic].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If, in a parabola, two straight lines are led [i.e. drawn] from the cut to the diameter, then it shall be: just as their squares, thus the straight lines from them to the vertex, **cut** from the diameter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giving us the now-familiar ***abscissa***: the &quot;amount that has been cut off&quot;. This one could be used as a noun, unlike the finite verb version, so it's the one that stuck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/w9tPf.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z8vCu.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=UXa4AAAAIAAJ&amp;rdid=book-UXa4AAAAIAAJ&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5yYqf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11325" RevisionGUID="fb6bb2d2-3e97-419f-981b-38d0c59a57e1" CreationDate="2019-08-20T21:01:59.360" UserId="406" Comment="Cleaned up terminology to make it a bit more readable" Text="[Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=abscissa) claims that *abscissa* originally meant 'cut off', but what's 'cut off' about an x-coordinate? X-coordinates are merely numbers, not lines. **How did a word for 'cut off' come to be used for x-coordinates?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1798 in Latin form, earlier Englished as abscisse (1690s),     &#xD;&#xA;from Latin *abscissa*, short for *abscissa (linea)* &quot;(a line) cut off,&quot; or (*recta ex diametro*) *abscissa* &quot;(a line) cut off (from the diameter),&quot; fem. of abscissus &quot;cut off,&quot; past participle of *abscindere* &quot;to cut off, divide, part, separate,&quot; from *ab* &quot;off, away from&quot; (see ab-) \+ *scindere* &quot;to cut, rend, tear asunder, split; split up, part, divide, separate,&quot; from PIE *skind-, from root [*skei-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*skei-) &quot;to cut, split.&quot; The Latin word translates Greek *apolambanomene*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscissa_and_ordinate#Etymology) doesn't explain the connection here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rgAU2.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33552" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11325" RevisionGUID="fb6bb2d2-3e97-419f-981b-38d0c59a57e1" CreationDate="2019-08-20T21:01:59.360" UserId="406" Comment="Cleaned up terminology to make it a bit more readable" Text="What is the relationship between &quot;cut off&quot; and &quot;X-coordinate&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11353" RevisionGUID="9a7d9f5f-2550-4187-9bac-e7b3e747887e" CreationDate="2019-08-20T21:18:34.477" UserId="9" Comment="added 651 characters in body; edited title" Text="The Greek word χριστός, used as a translation of Hebrew משיח &quot;messiah&quot;, and meaning something like &quot;anointed&quot; ([Liddell and Scott][1]), apparently has a long vowel in the first syllable. The quantity of the vowel would be expected to be the same in the Latinized form *Chrīstus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of a long vowel in *Chrīstus* was brought up in a discussion on the Latin D forum: &quot;[long vs short vowel in specific words][2]&quot;, but not much evidence was mentioned (only the pronunciation of English &quot;Christ&quot;, which could have other explanations). **How is the length of the iota in this word known?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know enough about Greek to be able to figure out if the length of the vowel can be inferred from the construction of the word. If this does allow us to rule out a pronunciation with a short vowel, please explain. I know that the related noun [χρῖσμα][3] is spelled with a circumflex, which implies that the vowel is long. (The L&amp;S entry mentions the existence of a spelling χρίσμα that it says is misaccented.) Likewise, the verb [χρίω][4] has some forms where the vowel is circumflexed, such as χρῖον. But I'm not sure that the presence of a long vowel in these forms guarantees that the vowel in χριστός is also long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an example of vowel length changing between related words, Wiktionary says that the verb *[λύω][5]* has a long vowel in Attic in the first-person present form, but that the derivative *λύσις* has a short vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Data that I know of but that seem inconclusive or irrelevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Spelling variation in Greek&#xD;&#xA;I know that there seems to have been a variant spelling with eta, χρηστός (and of the adjective, [χρηστιανοι][6]). This looks like an iotacistic spelling variant, so I'm not sure that it has any relevance to the issue of vowel length. (**Edit:** fdb's answer indicates that there were actually semantic reasons for the use of the variant χρηστός. This is interesting, but it makes it seem less likely that χρηστός is useful as a source of information on the pronunciation of the form χριστός. I found a [blog post that says a third variant spelled with &quot;ei&quot; is used][7] in some texts from the 3rd to 5th centuries CE, but those also don't seem to me like conclusive evidence of a long vowel in the &quot;anointed&quot; word.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Romance words that are related to *Christus*&#xD;&#xA;French has E in the word *chrétien* (and also in *chrême,* from χρῖσμα) which is not the normal outcome for Latin ī. However, I think I remember reading that long vowels in closed syllables were often unstable and prone to special shortening changes in Romance languages, so the French forms don't seem to disprove the original existence of a long vowel in the Latin form. French *Christ,* as well as various other Romance forms, has [i], which is the normal outcome for Latin ī, but that's not conclusive because it's also what would be expected in a learned form (a form borrowed from Latin) regardless of the length of the Latin vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=xristo/s&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/long-vs-short-vowel-in-specific-words.30564/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dxri%3Dsma&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dxri%2Fw&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BB%CF%8D%CF%89&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://books.google.com/books?id=91xfCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT1087&amp;lpg=PT1087&amp;dq=%CF%87%CF%81%CE%B7%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://notesfromtheninthcircle.blogspot.com/2015/09/chrestos-not-christos.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33554" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11353" RevisionGUID="9a7d9f5f-2550-4187-9bac-e7b3e747887e" CreationDate="2019-08-20T21:18:34.477" UserId="9" Comment="added 651 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the evidence for a long vowel in χριστός &quot;anointed&quot; and Latin Christus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11312" RevisionGUID="cb4ff40c-c9f7-4e41-b242-6974ff24c775" CreationDate="2019-08-20T21:53:33.707" UserId="9" Comment="Added more context and info on word-final μ" Text="I agree with the the emphasis on morphology in the comments and in user786's answer. The Greek second-declension terminations -ον, -ος are etymologically and morphologically equivalent to the Latin second-declension terminations -um, -us, which surely contributed greatly to their interchange in loaned words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to post about some phonetic factors that may have also been relevant. Some of the changes in the Latin &gt; Greek direction especially seem to be fairly natural from a phonetic viewpoint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, when researching this topic, I came across some information about variation in transcription practices that I thought was interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The use of Greek &amp;lt;ν&gt; for Latin &amp;lt;m&gt; in word-final position was probably related to Greek phonotactics, and possibly to phonetic details about the pronunciation of Latin word-final *-m*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phoneme /m/ (&amp;lt;μ&gt;) does not occur in word-final position in any Greek words. As mentioned in the comments, Latin final *m* is cognate to Greek final /n/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, it is thought that Latin words ending in &amp;lt;m&gt; were not pronounced with [m] in most contexts, but instead with either a word-final nasalized vowel, or with a vowel followed by some kind of nasalized offglide like [w̃]. Latin final *-&amp;#8288;m* is thought to have been phonetically realized as a nasal consonant only before a following plosive or nasal: [m] before [p, b, m]; [n] before [t, d, n]; and [ŋ] before [k, g]. Ancient Greek final /n/ most likely showed the same kind of place assimilation to a following consonant across word boundaries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given all that, it makes sense that Greek speakers would have adapted Latin words ending in *m* with Greek /n/ (&amp;lt;ν&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###However, there are some inscriptions with word-final &amp;lt;μ&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There do in fact seem to be inscriptions of Latin in the Greek alphabet that use word-final &amp;lt;μ&gt;. My guess is that spellings like these were based on the Latin spelling, rather than being based on how Greek speakers perceived the pronunciation of Latin words ending in &amp;lt;m&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Greek/Latin Bilingualism&quot;, by Luca Lorenzetti, mentions three examples of &amp;lt;ουµ&gt;, from Latin *-um,* being used as a spelling of the genitive plural termination: *αννωρουµ, µησουµ, διου[µ]* (IGVR 1040), which are described as evidence for &quot;the existence of a Greek-Latin diasystem, a sort of gradient of bilingual varieties based on an extensive network of phonological, morphological and lexical conversions from one language to another&quot; (p. 148, *[Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics][1],* Vol. 2, G-O).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Latin short ŭ had a somewhat similar sound to Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt;, and there are transcriptions that equate them in other positions as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might not be quite true to say that Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; was phonetically closer to and corresponded to Greek &amp;lt;ου&gt; in all other cases. Attic Greek &amp;lt;ου&gt; originally represented a long back vowel, which came to have a high value something like [uː] (thought to have developed from earlier [oː]). Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; had two values, short and long. The long value [uː] was certainly best represented in Attic Greek by &amp;lt;ου&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the short value of Latin &amp;lt;u&gt;, aside from differing from &amp;lt;ου&gt; in length, most likely also differed in having a lower quality: [ʊ]. The quality of [ʊ] is either as close to [o] as it is to [u], or possibly even closer to [o]. Since Attic &amp;lt;ο&gt; is thought to have been pronounced as [o], the sound of Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; would probably have been a reasonably good match for the sound of Latin ŭ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; for Latin short ŭ &#xD;&#xA;In fact, Latin ŭ was not only transcribed with Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; in non-final syllables: this transcription of ŭ can also be seen in other positions in some Greek transcriptions, although the frequency of its use relative to &amp;lt;ου&gt; seems to have varied between different times and places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Notes on the inscriptions of Delos: the Greek transliteration of Latin names][2]&quot;, by Francesco Rovai (2015) explores this topic. Here is a quote from a relevant section:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If, from the beginning of 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; c. AD,  when the sons of the Roman aristocrats were regularly sent to Athens, both Latin ŭ and ū are transcribed as ‹ου›&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;, this comes as no surprise. At this date and in this setting, the Athenian draftsmen encountered a definitely standardised variety of urban Latin, in which ŭ = [u ~ ʊ] (Allen, 1978: 49-50)&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;. On the contrary, if in the 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; and 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; c. BC, the Latin ŭ produced in Delos by non-aristocrat *negotiatores* of both urban and non-urban provenance, is instead transliterated with ‹ο›, this can be assumed as a genuine clue of its [o]-like pronunciation. At least, it was a (mid-)high vowel open enough to be perceived by the Greek drafters as more similar to their native /o/ (= ‹ο›) than to their native /u/ (= ‹ου›).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;Cf. Ιούλιος, Λουκίλιος, and Ῥοῦφος, with ū, and Σουμπτουάριος, Πουδέντα, and ἀννώρουμ, with ŭ; these and other examples can be drawn from Threatte (1980: 220-223).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;This corresponds to a higher level of standardisation also in the script, because, in this way, the Latin graphemic identity between short and long vowels is restored also in Greek. Only when followed by a consonant cluster, some examples of Latin ‹u› transliterated into Greek as ‹ο› are maintained alongside the normal spelling ‹ου›, but they all cease about 100-110 AD (Threatte, 1980: 220-221)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Studi e Saggi Linguistici,* Special Issue: Ancient Languages Between Variation and Norm, edited by Giovanna Marotta - Francesco Rovai, pp. 177-178)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is followed by a table (&quot;Table 2. Greek spellings of Latin back high vowels&quot;) that shows Latin ŭ to be transcribed with Greek &lt;ο&gt; in all 22 of its occurrences in the Delian inscriptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Καλπόρνιος (1), Κλούιος (1), Δεκόμιος (2),Φολούιος (7),Ποστόμιος (6), Σπόριος (1), Οὐετόριος (1), Οὐολόσιος (3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 178)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; for Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how many examples there are of Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; being used to transcribe Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; outside of grammatical endings like *-us* and *-um,* but Allen (1978) says that there are some. His examples are *purpura, gummi,* and *empurium* for Greek *πορφύρα, κόμμι* and *ἐμπόριον.* These three examples don't give as much of an impression of systematicity to me as the Delos inscriptions that Rovai talks about: for example, *gummi* has the additional oddity of using &amp;lt;g&gt; for &amp;lt;κ&gt; (which some, including Allen, suggest could be explained by Latin /k/ being somewhat more aspirated than Greek /k/, but which regardless is not a usual correspondence), and the spelling *emporium* also exists (which Allen attributes to the influence of Greek spelling) (*Vox Latina,* 2nd Ed., p. 49). Allen's coverage of this topic is relatively brief, and there might well be a paper that goes into more detail and that could provide more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/8943706/Grounding_of_Information&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.academia.edu/34864257/Notes_on_the_inscriptions_of_Delos_the_Greek_transliteration_of_Latin_names" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11312" RevisionGUID="07019f30-a85b-4d04-ac60-c89b79da396d" CreationDate="2019-08-20T22:00:05.530" UserId="9" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="I agree with the emphasis on morphology in the comments and in user786's answer. The Greek second-declension terminations -ον, -ος are etymologically and morphologically equivalent to the Latin second-declension terminations -um, -us, which surely contributed greatly to their interchange in loaned words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I wanted to post about some phonetic and phonological factors that may have also been relevant. Some of the changes in the Latin &gt; Greek direction especially seem to be fairly natural from a phonetic viewpoint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, when researching this topic, I came across some information about variation in transcription practices that I thought was interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The use of Greek &amp;lt;ν&gt; for Latin &amp;lt;m&gt; in word-final position was probably related to Greek phonotactics, and possibly to phonetic details about the pronunciation of Latin word-final *-m*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phoneme /m/ (&amp;lt;μ&gt;) does not occur in word-final position in any Greek words. As mentioned in the comments, Latin final *m* is cognate to Greek final /n/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, it is thought that Latin words ending in &amp;lt;m&gt; were not pronounced with [m] in most contexts, but instead with either a word-final nasalized vowel, or with a vowel followed by some kind of nasalized offglide like [w̃]. Latin final *-&amp;#8288;m* is thought to have been phonetically realized as a nasal consonant only before a following plosive or nasal: [m] before [p, b, m]; [n] before [t, d, n]; and [ŋ] before [k, g]. Ancient Greek final /n/ most likely showed the same kind of place assimilation to a following consonant across word boundaries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given all that, it makes sense that Greek speakers would have adapted Latin words ending in *m* with Greek /n/ (&amp;lt;ν&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###However, there are some inscriptions with word-final &amp;lt;μ&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There do in fact seem to be inscriptions of Latin in the Greek alphabet that use word-final &amp;lt;μ&gt;. My guess is that spellings like these were based on the Latin spelling, rather than being based on how Greek speakers perceived the pronunciation of Latin words ending in &amp;lt;m&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Greek/Latin Bilingualism&quot;, by Luca Lorenzetti, mentions three examples of &amp;lt;ουµ&gt;, from Latin *-um,* being used as a spelling of the genitive plural termination: *αννωρουµ, µησουµ, διου[µ]* (IGVR 1040), which are described as evidence for &quot;the existence of a Greek-Latin diasystem, a sort of gradient of bilingual varieties based on an extensive network of phonological, morphological and lexical conversions from one language to another&quot; (p. 148, *[Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics][1],* Vol. 2, G-O).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Latin short ŭ had a somewhat similar sound to Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt;, and there are transcriptions that equate them in other positions as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might not be quite true to say that Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; was phonetically closer to and corresponded to Greek &amp;lt;ου&gt; in all other cases. Attic Greek &amp;lt;ου&gt; originally represented a long back vowel, which came to have a high value something like [uː] (thought to have developed from earlier [oː]). Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; had two values, short and long. The long value [uː] was certainly best represented in Attic Greek by &amp;lt;ου&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the short value of Latin &amp;lt;u&gt;, aside from differing from &amp;lt;ου&gt; in length, most likely also differed in having a lower quality: [ʊ]. The quality of [ʊ] is either as close to [o] as it is to [u], or possibly even closer to [o]. Since Attic &amp;lt;ο&gt; is thought to have been pronounced as [o], the sound of Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; would probably have been a reasonably good match for the sound of Latin ŭ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; for Latin short ŭ &#xD;&#xA;In fact, Latin ŭ was not only transcribed with Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; in non-final syllables: this transcription of ŭ can also be seen in other positions in some Greek transcriptions, although the frequency of its use relative to &amp;lt;ου&gt; seems to have varied between different times and places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Notes on the inscriptions of Delos: the Greek transliteration of Latin names][2]&quot;, by Francesco Rovai (2015) explores this topic. Here is a quote from a relevant section:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If, from the beginning of 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; c. AD,  when the sons of the Roman aristocrats were regularly sent to Athens, both Latin ŭ and ū are transcribed as ‹ου›&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;, this comes as no surprise. At this date and in this setting, the Athenian draftsmen encountered a definitely standardised variety of urban Latin, in which ŭ = [u ~ ʊ] (Allen, 1978: 49-50)&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;. On the contrary, if in the 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; and 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; c. BC, the Latin ŭ produced in Delos by non-aristocrat *negotiatores* of both urban and non-urban provenance, is instead transliterated with ‹ο›, this can be assumed as a genuine clue of its [o]-like pronunciation. At least, it was a (mid-)high vowel open enough to be perceived by the Greek drafters as more similar to their native /o/ (= ‹ο›) than to their native /u/ (= ‹ου›).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;Cf. Ιούλιος, Λουκίλιος, and Ῥοῦφος, with ū, and Σουμπτουάριος, Πουδέντα, and ἀννώρουμ, with ŭ; these and other examples can be drawn from Threatte (1980: 220-223).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;This corresponds to a higher level of standardisation also in the script, because, in this way, the Latin graphemic identity between short and long vowels is restored also in Greek. Only when followed by a consonant cluster, some examples of Latin ‹u› transliterated into Greek as ‹ο› are maintained alongside the normal spelling ‹ου›, but they all cease about 100-110 AD (Threatte, 1980: 220-221)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Studi e Saggi Linguistici,* Special Issue: Ancient Languages Between Variation and Norm, edited by Giovanna Marotta - Francesco Rovai, pp. 177-178)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage is followed by a table (&quot;Table 2. Greek spellings of Latin back high vowels&quot;) that shows Latin ŭ to be transcribed with Greek &lt;ο&gt; in all 22 of its occurrences in the Delian inscriptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Καλπόρνιος (1), Κλούιος (1), Δεκόμιος (2),Φολούιος (7),Ποστόμιος (6), Σπόριος (1), Οὐετόριος (1), Οὐολόσιος (3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 178)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; for Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how many examples there are of Latin &amp;lt;u&gt; being used to transcribe Greek &amp;lt;ο&gt; outside of grammatical endings like *-us* and *-um,* but Allen (1978) says that there are some. His examples are *purpura, gummi,* and *empurium* for Greek *πορφύρα, κόμμι* and *ἐμπόριον.* These three examples don't give as much of an impression of systematicity to me as the Delos inscriptions that Rovai talks about: for example, *gummi* has the additional oddity of using &amp;lt;g&gt; for &amp;lt;κ&gt; (which some, including Allen, suggest could be explained by Latin /k/ being somewhat more aspirated than Greek /k/, but which regardless is not a usual correspondence), and the spelling *emporium* also exists (which Allen attributes to the influence of Greek spelling) (*Vox Latina,* 2nd Ed., p. 49). Allen's coverage of this topic is relatively brief, and there might well be a paper that goes into more detail and that could provide more examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/8943706/Grounding_of_Information&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.academia.edu/34864257/Notes_on_the_inscriptions_of_Delos_the_Greek_transliteration_of_Latin_names" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11373" RevisionGUID="7348eb33-f2c2-4675-9b95-c064d9c8da3c" CreationDate="2019-08-20T22:20:30.117" UserId="406" Text="Two of the most common words for &quot;because&quot; in Latin are *quod* and *quia*, both of which began as neuter forms of *quī* &quot;who&quot;. (At some point *quia* got replaced with the feminine plural *quae*, though I don't know the reason for that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this seems like a somewhat strange change. A shift from &quot;because of which&quot; to &quot;because of what follows&quot; makes sense, but to the best of my knowledge, reasons aren't generally given as bare accusatives in Latin: I can't say *_eum feriī **hoc**_ to mean &quot;I hit him **because of this**&quot;, I would need to add *propter* or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: is it known how *quod* and *quia* turned into words for &quot;because&quot;? Were bare accusative reasons common in earlier Latin, for example, before dying out? Or is this a mystery lost to time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33558" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11373" RevisionGUID="7348eb33-f2c2-4675-9b95-c064d9c8da3c" CreationDate="2019-08-20T22:20:30.117" UserId="406" Text="How did &quot;what&quot; become &quot;because&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33559" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11373" RevisionGUID="7348eb33-f2c2-4675-9b95-c064d9c8da3c" CreationDate="2019-08-20T22:20:30.117" UserId="406" Text="|semantics|relative-pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11374" RevisionGUID="4db8c53f-9e02-446f-93fd-40e3152eb70e" CreationDate="2019-08-21T01:33:44.783" UserId="9" Text="I can't say whether it's trustworthy or not, and it is quite old, but one French book that aims to introduce its reader to Latin is *Nouvelle Méthode Pour Apprendre Facilement La Langue Latine: Contenant Les Regles Des Genres, Des Déclinaisons, Des Préterits, de la Syntaxe, de la Quantité, &amp; des Accens Latins, mises en françois avec un ordre très-clair &amp; très-abregé.* You can view the [1761 edition][1] for free via Google Books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found it of use when I was looking for information about [the declension of the noun *Pascha](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/10678/9).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=22MSAAAAIAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11375" RevisionGUID="18365425-4f8c-4b2b-a4df-d10e54cdc3fb" CreationDate="2019-08-21T04:54:32.543" UserId="985" Text="You suggested in the second sentence of [your answer to the related question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11065/we-are-triumphant-while-our-enemy-sleeps-in-latin/11068#11068), which spawned this question, that you're using 'conveniently' to talk about a lucky break, so that it really means something like 'if we're lucky,' 'as luck would have it,' or 'if things go our way.' Unfortunately, although English 'conveniently' may be able to be used like this, Latin *commode* can't, and this isn't what, e.g., *Oxford Latin dictionary* means when it gives 'conveniently' as one of the definitions (as examination of the various attestations that are provided will make clear).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are other ways of talking about things that come to one as a result of luck or good fortune. In a comment, Tom Cotton suggested adverbs such as *forte*, and there's also the ablative noun *casu* – in fact, the two Plinys use both of these together: *forte casuque*. Another way is to use the verb *contingere*. Here are two examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Seneca the younger, *Epistulae morales ad Lucilium* 30.12:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; ***iam vero si cui contigit ut illum senectus leviter emitteret**, non repente avulsum vitae sed minutatim subductum, o ne ille agere gratias diis omnibus debet quod satiatus ad requiem homini necessariam, lasso gratam perductus est.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; '**But if it falls to anyone's lot/good fortune that old age releases him gently**, not suddenly torn from life but gradually removed, truly that man ought to thank all the gods because, after getting his fill, he has been led to the rest that's necessary for a human, welcome to one who's worn out.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Livy, *Ab urbe condita* 28.41.4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; *nisi aut Hamilcar Hannibali dux est praeferendus aut illud bellum huic, aut uictoria illa maior clariorque quam haec – **modo contingat ut te consule uincamus** – futura est?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; 'Unless Hamilcar is to be rated more highly as a general than Hannibal or that war more highly than this one, or unless that victory was more significant and more famous than this one is destined to be (**provided that we're lucky/fortunate enough to win while you're consul**)?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a use of *contingere* would give this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *vincemus dum* (*nobis*) *contingat ut hostes dormiant.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'We shall triumph, provided that it is falls to our lot/good fortune that our enemies are sleeping'/'...provided that we're lucky/fortunate enough for our enemies to be sleeping.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(**Note:** I don't think the future perfect that you've used is required – or even desirable; so I'm using a simple future instead.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the related verb *obtingere*, which can be used in a similar way; but since it's quite often used in situations that involve drawing lots for something, it may convey a somewhat stronger sense that luck is involved. Therefore, you can replace *contingat* with *obtingat*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the notion of the enemies' own complicity, which you've said you're also interested in, isn't particularly strong here (it's merely an implication). To highlight that notion, one possibility is something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *vincemus dum hostes dormientes/per somnum* [or even *dormiendo*] (*se*) *in exitium ruant.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'We shall triumph provided that our enemies, as they sleep [or 'by sleeping'], plunge/cause themselves to fall/rush blindly into destruction.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the verb *ruere* can be used either reflexively or non-reflexively (intransitively), and the meaning is similar, the reflexive may be desirable here to underscore the fact that the disaster is something that the enemies are bringing on themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some example of this use of (*se*) *ruere*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Aulus Gellius, *Noctes atticae* 7.2.8:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; *sin uero sunt aspera et inscita et rudia nullisque artium bonarum adminiculis fulta, etiamsi paruo siue nullo fatalis incommodi conflictu urgeantur, **sua tamen scaeuitate et uoluntario impetu in assidua delicta et in errores se ruunt**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; But if they are rough, ignorant, crude, and without any support from education, **through their own perversity and voluntary impulse they plunge into continual faults and sin**, even though the assault of some inconvenience due to fate be slight or non-existent. [Trans. J.C. Rolfe]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Tacitus, *Historiae* 1.84 (Otho speaking):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; *si Vitellio et satellitibus eius eligendi facultas detur, quem nobis animum, quas mentis imprecentur, quid aliud quam seditionem et discordiam optabunt? ne miles centurioni, ne centurio tribuno obsequatur, **ut confusi pedites equitesque in exitium ruamus**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; 'If Vitellius and his gang could put upon us any sort of spell they chose, surely the very attitude of mind they would pray for would be mutiny and dissension, that the private should disobey his centurion and the centurion his tribune, **that in an inextricable chaos of infantry and cavalry we should rush blindy to our destruction**.' [Trans. Kenneth Wellesley]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to bring out the notions of both 'convenience' (luck) and complicity, I suppose you could combine the 2 approaches by using both *contingere/obtingere* and *se ruere* – for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *vincemus dum contingat ut hostes dormiendo se in exitium ruant.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, this seems like overkill to me. In fact, I think the **very best translation** is, as it so often is, the simplest: just *vincemus dum hostes dormiant*, 'We shall triumph provided that our enemies are sleeping.' (Tom Cotton's answer also deserves serious consideration.) It's clear enough that the enemies' being asleep would be a convenient stroke of luck for us, since it would, against all usual expectations, fulfill the condition (proviso) that allows us to be victorious. It's also likely to be perfectly clear that the enemies would have only themselves to blame for defeat (that is, they would be 'cooperating' in it) if they all fell asleep without at least posting a couple of men to keep watch." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7096" RevisionGUID="9e8c2ceb-afce-4265-addb-12d4d8d3c5df" CreationDate="2019-08-21T11:10:20.883" UserId="13" Comment="added 474 characters in body" Text="I'm back with another question like [this one](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7089/identifying-corrupted-sappho-fragment-or-mention-of-sappho-found-in-now-no-longe), to which I leave the background part. So among the sources I found while researching Sappho back in the days is [The Complete Poems of Sappho](inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/), which I am currently comparing with my other sources. I just scrolled to the end and found this curious mishmash of stuff:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Αεριων επεων αρχομαι αλλ’ονατων [ε] γω το καλλος επιτ[μεζον]…&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;οφθαλμοις δε μελαις&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;νυκτος αωρος και ποθηω και μαομαι ουκ οιδ&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;οττι θεω διχα μοι τα νοηματα κατ’ εμον σταλαχμον&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ου τι μοι υμμες ας θελετε υμμες [ο] ττινας&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;γαρ ευ θεω κηνοι με μαλιστα παντων σινοντα[ι]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;εγω δ’εμ’[αυται τουτο συ]νοιδα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;μη κινη χεραδος ου γαρ θεμις εν μοισοπολων οικιαι&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;θρηνων εμμεν&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ου κ’αμμι ταδε πρεποι&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ignoring the semi-random line breaking, this is what I see in this mess:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Sappho Edmonds 1a, which I think is actually part of the preface to an edition of Sappho where the edition is made to speak, and reads Ἀερίων ἐπέων ἄρχομαι ἀλλ' ὀνάτων, or in Edmonds' translation &quot;The words I begin are words of air, but, for all that, good to hear&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The object of the question.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Sappho Edmonds 141A, which Edmonds adds a χύτο into to get ὀφθάλμοις δὲ μέλαις χύτο νύκτος ἄωρος.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Sappho Edmonds 23, καὶ ποθήω καὶ μάομαι.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Sappho Edmonds 52, Οὐκ οἶδ' ὄττι θέω· δύο μοι τὰ νοήματα, or with δίχα instead of δύο as is found here and in Lobel-Page.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Sappho Edmonds 17, κὰτ' ἔμον στάλαγμον (or στέλεγμον as in Edmonds, and I think στάλαχμον is also seen somewhere else than here, hopefully not just in that horrid Spanish edition of the linked post).&#xD;&#xA; 7. Sappho Edmonds 59, οὔ τί μοι ὔμμες (Edmonds elides μοι).&#xD;&#xA; 8. Sappho Edmonds 50, ἆς θέλετ' ὔμμες.&#xD;&#xA; 9. Sappho Edmonds 13, ὄττινας γὰρ εὖ θέω, κῆνοί με μάλιστα σίνονται (Edmonds σίννονται).&#xD;&#xA; 10. Sappho Edmonds 15, ἔγω δ' ἔμ' αὔτᾳ τοῦτο σύνοιδα (Edmonds takes it from P.Oxy. and adds ]λαν· at the start).&#xD;&#xA; 11. Sappho Edmonds 78, μὴ κίνη χέραδος (Edmonds χέραδας).&#xD;&#xA; 12. Sappho Edmonds 108, Οὐ γὰρ θέμις ἐν μοισοπόλων οἰκίᾳ θρῆνον ἔμμεν οὔ κ' ἄμμι τάδε πρέποι, where the mishmash has something closer to the manuscript version than Edmonds' emendation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what in the world is number 2? This time, having learnt the lesson from the previous question, I googled it, and this mishmash is all that came up. I found [this](http://nicholasjv.blogspot.com/2010_07_25_archive.html), which suggests those are the lyrics of the group Avaton's rendition of &quot;one of Sappho's poetic fragments&quot;, and gives the following translation to the mishmash, only vaguely matching it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I start my song with ethereal soft words. In my life I served beauty.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Along the night, when dark sleep captures my eyes and desire burns me and excites my body,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I know not what to do: my mind is divided drop after drop the pain within me…&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;No, it’s not you who for me, as much you want it,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For they whom I benefit injure me most...&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I have placed this deep in my mind and I know it.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Leave the pebbles and don’t mix them up. Lamentations are not be heard into poets’ homes.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Such things are not appropriate for us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, the line breaking in this thing's &quot;lyrics&quot; is different from the above mishmash. Then you listen to the video, and it doesn't correspond at all! Of all the mess up there, all you can hear in the video is Ἀερίων ἐπέων ἄρχομαι, and then there are a couple more Sappho fragments to be identified, none of which are in the above mishmash!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all that, does any of you guys recognize this corrupted fragment, which seems to read as follows?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[ἔ]γω τὸ κάλλος ἐπιτ[μέζον]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or can you even just recognize what the last word(s) may be, with `ἐπιτ[μέζον]` apparently supposed to translate to &quot;served in my life&quot; or a subset thereof?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Extras**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what I actually hear in the lyrics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ζαελεξάμαν ὄναρ Κυπρογένηα (twice, Edmonds 123)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἄγι χέλυ δῖα φωνάεσσα (twice, part of Edmonds 80)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ζαελεξάμαν ὄναρ Κυπρογένηα (twice, Edmonds 123)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἄγι χέλυ δῖα φωνάεσσα (twice, part of Edmonds 80)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;α! [some scat singing]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ἀερίων ἐπέων ἄρχομαι (number 1 above, twice)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἄγι χέλυ δῖα φωνάεσσα ἄγι χέλυ δῖα (twice, part of Edmonds 80 with a repetition)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[some scat singing]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[more scat singing]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;α!&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[second scat singing bit]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[scat singing again]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Perhaps ναί (modern Greek for &quot;yes&quot;) over and over?]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[More scat]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Still more scat]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Guess what? Scat]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Um, guess]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[And more!]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yeah, three unrelated fragments, mishmashed together randomly with one being randomly cut, a lot of scat and a lot of instrumental parts. Nothing to write home about, _au contraire_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Complete Poems of Sappho](http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/) gives this as Wharton 12 and Cox 12. [Wharton](https://ia802704.us.archive.org/22/items/sapphomemoirtex00bunngoog/sapphomemoirtex00bunngoog.pdf) 12 is actually just Edmonds 13 (ὄττινας γὰρ) without the πάντων δηὖτε from the mistaken integration of that quotation into P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 16, which TCPOS reports right after the mishmash with that integration. I don't have Cox so I cannot verify if Cox 12 has anything to do with the mishmash. UPDATE Assuming [this](http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/sappho/index.htm) is Cox digitized, Cox 12 would be the same as Wharton 12, found in this weird pseudoromanization:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... O?'ttinas ga`r&#xD;&#xA;eu?^ ðe'w kh^noi' me ma'lista ci'nnontai&#xD;&#xA;..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11376" RevisionGUID="8ed835d8-4145-4ea9-a2f7-17e006ff3836" CreationDate="2019-08-21T12:53:57.057" UserId="5022" Text="I am looking for a new name for my engineering company. I want to translate the english phrase'Forward engineering' in Latin language. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33565" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11376" RevisionGUID="8ed835d8-4145-4ea9-a2f7-17e006ff3836" CreationDate="2019-08-21T12:53:57.057" UserId="5022" Text="English translation to Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33566" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11376" RevisionGUID="8ed835d8-4145-4ea9-a2f7-17e006ff3836" CreationDate="2019-08-21T12:53:57.057" UserId="5022" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7100" RevisionGUID="c660ccb8-199d-4077-a2c2-defa3becde4d" CreationDate="2019-08-21T14:42:16.537" UserId="13" Comment="added UPDATE 3" Text="Campbell has been given, let me give Lobel-Page now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OiUOI.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Counting from the coronis in col. iii, the fragment is lurking at ll. 6-7. Apparatus Criticus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/rgXtz.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let me just point out how nonsens the numbering of the fragments is. From this page, we fully expect an image of this to contain two papyrus fragments, which we are not too sure how to assign the numbers 1(a) and 1(b). Image coming:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sfD7v.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are actually talking about the two fragments on the far left, which apparently are both 1(a) and must be joined with the one below being on the top-right of the other one, and the biggest of the other fragments, which is 1(b) and joins with the bottom left of the top one a few lines below the bottom one. WTH is up with that numbering?! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This came back to my mind recently, and I did some more research. First of all, the &quot;in my life&quot; may come from completing l. 1 as ἐπὶ τ[ὸν βίον μου, though getting &quot;served&quot; from μέζον seems difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the provenance of the mishmash, I googled the [ε] γω το καλλος επιτ[μεζον] part, and wherever that came up, it was either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [Palmer's site](http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/) or one of its numerous embedded-pdf-like renditions around the web;&#xD;&#xA; 2. [This blog](https://nicholasjv.blogspot.com/2010/07/sappho-and-avaton.html?showComment=1539987265330#c2298543224960571344), where the mishmash is alleged to be the lyrics of the song αερίων επέων άρχομαι by the modern Greek group Avaton, whereas (as the video in the question shows) that is completely wrong, and that video is yet another mishmash of Sappho;&#xD;&#xA; 3. [This Greek forum](https://rembetiko.gr/t/%CF%83%CF%84%CE%AF%CF%87%CE%BF%CE%B9-%CE%B1%CF%80%CF%8C-%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%82-%CE%B4%CE%AF%CF%83%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%82-%CF%84%CF%89%CE%BD-%CE%B1%CE%B2%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BD-%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9-daemonia-nymphe/9240), with the same allegation, which links to Palmer's site, meaning the poster may have pulled the mishmash off Palmer's, being fooled by the title of the song to think those were the actual lyrics;&#xD;&#xA; 4. [This site](http://www.elwaseet-brokers.com/forums/showthread.php), which gives a Bad Gateway;&#xD;&#xA; 5. A site that couldn't load that is now gone from the Google search results – it vanished in the course of about 16hrs;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Or [my blog](http://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2018/09/sappho-comparative-numbering-table.html), where the Comparative Numbering Table has the text of this put in there for completeness and marked as included in LP 90 and similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I commented on both 2 and 3 asking where the wrong lyrics came from, and am waiting for an answer. I guess that is all I can do for now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The curator of [item 2](https://nicholasjv.blogspot.com/2010/07/sappho-and-avaton.html?showComment=1539987265330#c2298543224960571344) commented to [this blog post of mine](https://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2017/06/catullus-and-sappho-ode-to-anactoria.html?showComment=1540164123420#c3081274306465585147) saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The lyrics and translation are from the group's own notes accompanying their work. I see your point that for a purist the mish-mash and translation may be anathema, however, given artistic licence I can see where Avaton has trie dto go with this. They have taken Sappho's intriguing fragments, trying to stutch them together to form something of a complete whole. There are multiple tracks on the CD, hence what is being sung may not be what I set down on the blog post. I was more interested in the &quot;mood&quot; created.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have a culprit: the group Avaton, who mishmashed fragments two different ways to produce the video's track and the mishmash at hand, and even provided a translation for the mishmash, whence the &quot;In my life I served beauty&quot; for the fragment the question focuses on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE 3**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On [this Italian anthology](https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/11675/1/Saffo_frammenti_2015.pdf), I found the idea that the fragment should mean &quot;I never blamed beauty&quot; or something like that, and I restored it (as [here](https://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-rest-of-sappho.html)) as οὐ γὰρ] ἔγω τὸ κάλλος &lt;x–&gt; ἐπετ[ίμαν ποτα. Maybe &quot;I served&quot; is a stretch of the other sense of ἐπιτιμᾶν, &quot;to show honor to&quot;. Since there is plenty of invention in that translation anyways, &quot;in my life&quot; could be part of it. Or really all of the translation that seems to match that part could be invented, outside &quot;I&quot; and &quot;beauty&quot;. Avaton should answer about that, since it appears this mishmash comes straight from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea might have gotten into the anthology from Una Mitra per Cleis, aka Sappho's Gift: The Poet and Her Community, available on Academia.edu, where the same suggestion is found, with no supplements in the text, and no app. crit. to explain this translation. Here's a copypaste of his commentary on the fragment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We do not know what occasion inspired this poem, commented upon by the anonymous scholar of our commentary. That the subject, as one scholar has suggested,25 is a propemptikon due to the reference to Zephyr and the winds more generally is anything but certain, considering how frequently the winds appear in Greek poetry to denote the instability of the human condition.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly the poem, as the commentator explicitly states, was composed against Andromeda and the case of Gyrinno—the girl whom we met as “deli- cate Gyrinno” in F 82a in the context of a confrontation with Mnasidika and who was to be herself involved in a case of abandonment—provided the cue for an attack on arrogant and privileged26 women who had accused Sappho of devaluing physical beauty.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;From the commentator’s paraphrase we can deduce that the poet must have replied to an accusation by maintaining that she did love beauty, and indeed she did not recognize any greater value provided that beauty included part of virtue (cf. line 19). What followed then was the wish of good for herself and ill for her rival: to me may Zephyr’s breath (the wind tied to spring and to the reopening of the seas to marine traffic) bring joy and serenity, to you waves (?) raised from stormy squalls bring turbulence and ruin!&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;That Atthis, so loved until puberty, is assigned an adjective that brands her as an evil sort of lady like Andromeda seems the sign, after the desertion, of a condemnation without appeal, a break that cannot be repaired." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11376" RevisionGUID="0d8d16a8-92ad-40d9-b7da-190ba6b84a1a" CreationDate="2019-08-21T18:15:34.807" UserId="118" Comment="I made the title more distinctive." Text="I am looking for a new name for my engineering company. I want to translate the English phrase 'Forward engineering' in Latin language. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33569" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11376" RevisionGUID="0d8d16a8-92ad-40d9-b7da-190ba6b84a1a" CreationDate="2019-08-21T18:15:34.807" UserId="118" Comment="I made the title more distinctive." Text="English translation to Latin: &quot;Forward engineering&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11371" RevisionGUID="61226aa1-9376-43f7-8c30-2c489f7e7839" CreationDate="2019-08-21T22:21:59.523" UserId="985" Comment="Added other examples" Text="The masculine noun *flamen* denotes a type of priest. The neuter noun *flamen* means 'a blast, gust (of wind)' or 'an exhalation, breath.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, generally, the words for various fruit trees and the fruits that they produce differ only in gender. Examples include *cerasus* (f.), 'cherry tree,' vs. *cerasum* (n.), 'cherry'; *malus* (f.), 'apple tree,' vs. *malum* (n.), 'apple'\*; *prunus* (f.), 'plum tree,' vs. *prunum*, 'plum'; and *cornus* (f.), 'cornelian cherry tree,' vs. *cornum* (n), 'cornelian cherry.'\*\*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* As a masculine noun, *malus* can also mean 'pole' or 'mast.' I'm excluding forms of the adjective *malus* from this discussion because the *a* is short in that word but long in these three.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\*\* There's also the neuter noun *cornu*, 'knee,' which may overlap in some forms with *cornus* and *cornum*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33572" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="11377" RevisionGUID="3b47208e-f85c-40d6-aace-db45ec0622a1" CreationDate="2019-08-22T21:58:55.567" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/54182/why-do-numbered-months-in-the-ancient-roman-calendar-have-different-suffixes" />
  <row Id="33573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11377" RevisionGUID="f27bc2f9-f2dc-4976-a4ce-c7307108c6a0" CreationDate="2019-08-18T04:41:34.990" UserDisplayName="Daniel R. Collins" Text="[Wikipedia][1] and other sites detail the (possibly legendary) ancient Roman &quot;Calendar of Romulus&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Calendar of Romulus][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious about the suffixes to the &quot;numbered&quot; months, the fifth through tenth. The names of the fifth and sixth months (the ones that were later renamed to honor Roman emperors) end in &quot;-ilis&quot;. But the the seventh through tenth months (the ones that we still use today) instead end in &quot;-ber&quot;. Is there a known linguistic reason for such a difference? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is related but different from [this one][3], which asks why months one through four were named after gods. The current question is only interested in different suffixes in the numerical fifth through tenth months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar#Legendary_10_month_calendar&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/02Ntq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/47076/why-did-the-romans-only-name-some-months-and-number-others" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33574" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11377" RevisionGUID="f27bc2f9-f2dc-4976-a4ce-c7307108c6a0" CreationDate="2019-08-18T04:41:34.990" UserDisplayName="Daniel R. Collins" Text="Why do numbered months in the ancient Roman calendar have different suffixes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33575" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11377" RevisionGUID="f27bc2f9-f2dc-4976-a4ce-c7307108c6a0" CreationDate="2019-08-18T04:41:34.990" UserDisplayName="Daniel R. Collins" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11378" RevisionGUID="23fa7c08-6ec0-499a-8ce4-a4ca4e8dee0b" CreationDate="2019-08-22T23:22:15.167" UserId="406" Text="This is going to be an unsatisfying answer, but I'll post what I've found anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usual best source for Latin etymologies is De Vaan. Unfortunately, he only covers developments from Proto-Indo-European to the start of Latin; since *september* was derived within Latin itself, he mentions it only in passing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tucker's (significantly less modern) etymological dictionary does go into a bit more detail, though. He brings up two different hypotheses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is that it was originally something like *_septem-mens-ris_, with the latter morphemes being from *mens-is* &quot;month&quot; and the adjective-forming *-iris/-ilis*. Assimilation and epenthesis turned this into *_septem-membris_, and haplogy turned that into *_septembris_, which evolved into *september*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this hypothesis, the same happened to *_novem-mens-ris_ &gt; *november*, and *_decem-mens-ris_ &gt; *december*. *October* was then formed by analogy with these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other hypothesis is that there was no *_-mens-_ at all, and that there was either an element *_-mr-_, or just the ending _-iris_. The *b* would then be epenthetic, both in *september* and *october*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither of these, unfortunately, explains why we don't see the straightforward _quint-ilis_, _sext-ilis_, *_septim-ilis_, *_octav-ilis_, *_nōn-ilis_, *_decim-ilis_. But it's worth noting that we see the English &quot;quartile&quot;, &quot;quintile&quot;, &quot;sextile&quot; (from French from Vulgar Latin) from the ordinals, and then &quot;septile&quot;, &quot;octile&quot; from the cardinals. It's possible that Latin only used *-ilis* on numbers less than seven, for whatever reason, which is why the extra morpheme was added to *september* and up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11379" RevisionGUID="e3b44c32-5ae7-4ed5-b022-fe46518fafb1" CreationDate="2019-08-23T01:13:37.190" UserId="406" Text="In English, imperative verbs have &quot;invisible subjects&quot;: syntactically, they act like there's an invisible pronoun in the subject position. This is why we see *look closely at **yourself*** instead of *_look closely at **you**_, even though there's no other &quot;you&quot; in the sentence to trigger the reflexive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the same true in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Most instances of imperatives I can think of are in the second person, and Latin doesn't mark the second-person reflexive—but third-person pronouns do exist, and it seems plausible that some grammarian might have specified whether they should be followed by *sē* or *eum*.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33578" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11379" RevisionGUID="e3b44c32-5ae7-4ed5-b022-fe46518fafb1" CreationDate="2019-08-23T01:13:37.190" UserId="406" Text="Do imperatives trigger reflexive pronouns in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33579" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11379" RevisionGUID="e3b44c32-5ae7-4ed5-b022-fe46518fafb1" CreationDate="2019-08-23T01:13:37.190" UserId="406" Text="|word-choice|pronouns|imperative|reflexive-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11380" RevisionGUID="ba5100d2-4701-417f-afb6-b01b76ddfd1c" CreationDate="2019-08-23T10:09:01.547" UserId="1459" Text="For many words, the dative and ablative take the same form. Two examples are _nos_ and _vos_ (_nobis_ and _vobis_, respectively). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine you want to say something like &quot;from us to you [plural]&quot; (where &quot;from&quot; indicates ablative and &quot;to&quot; dative). Since the order is usually uninformative in Latin, _nobis vobis_ is not precise enough. Would something like _a nobis vobis_ be enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, say you want to say &quot;from us to us&quot;. Is _nobis nobis_ enough, or would _a nobis nobis_ be more accurate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, how would one disambiguate these cases where dative and ablative go together? Is it making one of the prepositions explicit, as above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33581" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11380" RevisionGUID="ba5100d2-4701-417f-afb6-b01b76ddfd1c" CreationDate="2019-08-23T10:09:01.547" UserId="1459" Text="Disambiguation of &quot;nobis vobis&quot; and &quot;nobis nobis&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33582" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11380" RevisionGUID="ba5100d2-4701-417f-afb6-b01b76ddfd1c" CreationDate="2019-08-23T10:09:01.547" UserId="1459" Text="|ablative|ambiguity|dative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11381" RevisionGUID="7aedd5e2-8db3-436b-bd78-8e867db682b1" CreationDate="2019-08-23T10:19:55.777" UserId="1459" Text="What about something like _perge ars ingeniaria_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Perge_ is the imperative singular of _[pergo](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pergo)_, which in the intransitive (without a verb, as in this case) means to &quot;go on, proceed, hasten, press on&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Ars ingeniaria_ is the nominative Latin of engineering, [according to Wikipedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_ingeniaria). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see [this post](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5258/what-is-the-latin-equivalent-of-ever-forward-as-a-motto)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33584" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11377" RevisionGUID="ffd90e92-5c3d-4aae-980c-4b0a3b386491" CreationDate="2019-08-23T10:26:27.843" UserId="183" Comment="tagged it" Text="|derivation|suffixes|calendarium|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11382" RevisionGUID="347e5c00-ba88-4e72-87d5-1e9ba22ad743" CreationDate="2019-08-23T10:30:01.703" UserId="324" Text="Despite its name, the Latin “ablative” is not normally used on its own for motion from a place or person. (Often, as in nobis and vobis, the “ablative” is historically not an ablative at all, but an old instrumental). I would stick with “a nobis vobis”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11383" RevisionGUID="6dbacdf4-9652-411c-902c-cc29a00a22b6" CreationDate="2019-08-23T12:55:50.453" UserId="79" Text="As luchonacho suggests, *ars ingeniaria* is good for &quot;engineering&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;To express the direction, I would add the adjective *prorsus*, meaning &quot;straightforward, straight, direct&quot; and giving rise to the concept of prose.&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I'd suggest ***ars ingeniaria prorsa***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11384" RevisionGUID="a3ae2156-69f9-4917-a820-ba25e1eaaa77" CreationDate="2019-08-23T13:54:19.363" UserId="79" Text="Ambiguity like this is commonplace in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;we have to help you&quot; can be *nobis vobis auxiliandum est*, where the two datives happily mix the two roles.&#xD;&#xA;(In this specific case one of the datives can be replaced by an agent *a nobis*, but sometimes ambiguity is inevitable.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though Latin word order is flexible, it does contain information.&#xD;&#xA;Especially with ambiguities word order can suggest what is meant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your suggestions *a nobis vobis* and *a nobis nobis* work fine.&#xD;&#xA;In the second case I might add an *ipsis* for clarity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, if you end up with something ambiguity and want to disambiguate, I suggest trying to restructure the entire thought.&#xD;&#xA;Maybe switching between active and passive helps.&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you can turn a personal verb into an absolute ablative.&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you can put the ambiguous entities in two separate sentences.&#xD;&#xA;I have no general magic tool; it all depends on context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11385" RevisionGUID="578770fa-78ba-4025-8756-83dae18b0f73" CreationDate="2019-08-23T14:34:52.797" UserId="45" Text="I agree with the other answers: though ambiguity sometimes is inevitable, the ablative wouldn't be used alone in this context. Here is an example from Plautus that almost exactly parallels your case (with some previous lines added for context):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gel. [...] Quid igitur me volt?  &#xD;&#xA;Croc. Tritici modios decem rogare, opinor [te volt].  &#xD;&#xA;Gel. Mene, ut ab sese petam?	 &#xD;&#xA;Croc. Immo ut **a vobis** mutuom **nobis** dares. (*Stichus*, I.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gel. So what does she want me for?  &#xD;&#xA;Croc. I think she wants you to ask for ten pecks of wheat.  &#xD;&#xA;Gel. She wants *me* to ask her for it?  &#xD;&#xA;Corc. No, she wants you to give a loan, **from you to us**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11386" RevisionGUID="4cdda19d-9af0-4b1e-ba63-7f83e9b18d09" CreationDate="2019-08-23T17:22:23.657" UserId="3248" Text="Let me make some remarks on what you say above: &quot;Imagine you want to say something like &quot;from us to you [plural]&quot; (where &quot;from&quot; indicates ablative and &quot;to&quot; dative). Since the order is usually uninformative in Latin, _nobis vobis_ is not precise enough. Would something like _a nobis vobis_ be enough?&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As pointed out by Joonas, context is important here. For example, if the verb _dare_ is involved, the example from Plautus given by brianpck is indeed very natural. If the verb is _transire_, the most adequate construction would be another one: e.g., cf. August. _Bapt._ 1.10.13: _qui transeunt **a** nobis **ad** vos_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, please let me make a more general remark on what you say above: &quot;the order is usually uninformative in Latin&quot;. This is often said in some (traditional) Latin grammars but it is **not** correct. Quite the opposite! Despite appearances, word order is usually informative in Latin. For those of you who are interested in word order in Latin, three important recent works are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Devine, Andrew M. &amp; Laurence D. Stephens (2006). _Latin Word Order. Structured Meaning and Information_. New York: Oxford University Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Devine, Andrew M. &amp; Laurence D. Stephens (2019). _Pragmatics for Latin. From Syntax to Information Structure_. New York: Oxford University Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spevak, Olga (2010). _Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose_. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11386" RevisionGUID="f9e689e6-99fa-402a-8cd4-30ec23bbb047" CreationDate="2019-08-23T17:30:34.430" UserId="1459" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt;Let me make some remarks on what you say above: &quot;Imagine you want to say something like &quot;from us to you [plural]&quot; (where &quot;from&quot; indicates ablative and &quot;to&quot; dative). Since the order is usually uninformative in Latin, _nobis vobis_ is not precise enough. Would something like _a nobis vobis_ be enough?&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As pointed out by Joonas, context is important here. For example, if the verb _dare_ is involved, the example from Plautus given by brianpck is indeed very natural. If the verb is _transire_, the most adequate construction would be another one: e.g., cf. August. _Bapt._ 1.10.13: _qui transeunt **a** nobis **ad** vos_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, please let me make a more general remark on what you say above: &quot;the order is usually uninformative in Latin&quot;. This is often said in some (traditional) Latin grammars but it is **not** correct. Quite the opposite! Despite appearances, word order is usually informative in Latin. For those of you who are interested in word order in Latin, three important recent works are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Devine, Andrew M. &amp; Laurence D. Stephens (2006). _Latin Word Order. Structured Meaning and Information_. New York: Oxford University Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Devine, Andrew M. &amp; Laurence D. Stephens (2019). _Pragmatics for Latin. From Syntax to Information Structure_. New York: Oxford University Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spevak, Olga (2010). _Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose_. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33591" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11380" RevisionGUID="b4fa86e4-2995-4c52-98a7-08f8e3b36ecb" CreationDate="2019-08-23T18:19:13.397" />
  <row Id="33592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11387" RevisionGUID="177b77ff-4c69-423c-8df3-f2baade02245" CreationDate="2019-08-23T18:31:43.083" UserId="9" Text="One more example that I have come across is *infectus,* which can be either the [negative of *factus*][1] (with the meaning &quot;undone, not done, unfinished; impossible&quot;) or the [perfect passive participle of *inficio*][2] (with the meaning &quot;stained, dyed, (dis)colored&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dinfectus1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dinfectus2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11387" RevisionGUID="7a340d93-8ad0-4a6b-baf8-ab68d42b8a9f" CreationDate="2019-08-23T18:52:12.357" UserId="9" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="One more example that I have come across is *infectus, -a, -um,* which can be either the [negative of *factus*][1] (with the meaning &quot;undone, not done, unfinished; impossible&quot;) or the [perfect passive participle of *inficio*][2] (with the meaning &quot;stained, dyed, (dis)colored&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dinfectus1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dinfectus2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11384" RevisionGUID="91398a59-70e2-4083-88aa-1ad0514924e4" CreationDate="2019-08-23T19:20:34.030" UserId="79" Comment="added 199 characters in body" Text="Ambiguity like this is commonplace in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;we have to help you&quot; can be *nobis vobis auxiliandum est*, where the two datives happily mix the two roles.&#xD;&#xA;(In this specific case one of the datives can be replaced by an agent *a nobis*, but sometimes ambiguity is inevitable.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though Latin word order is flexible, it does contain information.&#xD;&#xA;Especially with ambiguities word order can suggest what is meant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your suggestions *a nobis vobis* and *a nobis nobis* work fine.&#xD;&#xA;In the second case I might add an *ipsis* for clarity.&#xD;&#xA;This would only clarify that the same party plays both roles and the repetition of the pronoun is no accident.&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to disambiguate the two roles, something more elaborate is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, if you end up with something ambiguity and want to disambiguate, I suggest trying to restructure the entire thought.&#xD;&#xA;Maybe switching between active and passive helps.&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you can turn a personal verb into an absolute ablative.&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you can put the ambiguous entities in two separate sentences.&#xD;&#xA;I have no general magic tool; it all depends on context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11383" RevisionGUID="26457eab-b21e-4fe1-8fa0-f3a971b07e65" CreationDate="2019-08-23T19:23:15.270" UserId="79" Comment="added 399 characters in body" Text="As luchonacho suggests, *ars ingeniaria* is good for &quot;engineering&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;To express the direction, I would add the adjective *prorsus*, meaning &quot;straightforward, straight, direct&quot; and giving rise to the concept of prose.&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I'd suggest ***ars ingeniaria prorsa***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Prorsus* is more common as an adverb, but [it is also an adjective](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dprorsus2).&#xD;&#xA;The kind of use of this adjective I proposed appears to be post-classical, but I did not consider that an issue as you did not specify an era.&#xD;&#xA;I cannot think of an equally appropriate adjective that, say, Cicero would have used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11388" RevisionGUID="03a9a32d-a10e-47ca-8cd2-fba426686c1c" CreationDate="2019-08-23T19:57:02.453" UserId="406" Text="In statistics, a point that separates out (a multiple of) 25% of the data set is called a &quot;quartile&quot;. Similarly, if it separates out 20% of the data, it's a &quot;quintile&quot;, 1% a &quot;percentile&quot;, and in general a &quot;quantile&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first of these seems to come transparently from *quartus* + *-ilis*, and the &quot;-ile&quot; ending in English usually comes through French. However, I've never seen such a formation in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would normally have attributed this to a later development—except that [in the early calendar, the fifth and sixth months were called *quintilis* and *sextilis*][1]. This makes me wonder whether there were other adjectives like *_quartilis_, which were just obscure and/or regularly-formed enough not to appear in L&amp;S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: **Are adjectives from ordinal + *-ilis* attested? If so, what did they mean?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11377/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33597" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11388" RevisionGUID="03a9a32d-a10e-47ca-8cd2-fba426686c1c" CreationDate="2019-08-23T19:57:02.453" UserId="406" Text="Did &quot;quartilis&quot; exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33598" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11388" RevisionGUID="03a9a32d-a10e-47ca-8cd2-fba426686c1c" CreationDate="2019-08-23T19:57:02.453" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|adjective|numbers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11376" RevisionGUID="290d2ed7-0de3-4c3f-b8db-7046845b8e3f" CreationDate="2019-08-23T19:59:17.447" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I am looking for a new name for my engineering company. I want to translate the English phrase 'Forward engineering' into Latin language. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33600" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11376" RevisionGUID="290d2ed7-0de3-4c3f-b8db-7046845b8e3f" CreationDate="2019-08-23T19:59:17.447" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Translation to Latin: &quot;Forward engineering&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33601" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11376" RevisionGUID="290d2ed7-0de3-4c3f-b8db-7046845b8e3f" CreationDate="2019-08-23T19:59:17.447" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|technology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11389" RevisionGUID="9faab9fb-bf81-4825-b274-c8a4362efd8a" CreationDate="2019-08-24T01:26:47.430" UserId="406" Text="When looking at prefixed verbs like this, it's sometimes helpful to look at the prefixes as separate prepositions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Intendō_ is prefixed with _in_, which here indicates a destination or target. Cicero talks about weapons being extended toward Rome as a threat, for example: _tela intenta in patriam_ (D.P.C. 9, line 23 in the Loeb edition). This is how it gained the meaning &quot;focus on&quot;, and from that the wide variety of Mediaeval meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Extendō_ is prefixed with _ex_, which usually means &quot;out of&quot;. But that doesn't make much sense here. So what gives?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, remember, there's always another option for prefixed verbs in Latin: whatever the prefix is, it might just be an intensifier, rather than changing the verb's semantics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is how both _extendō_ and _intendō_ can mean &quot;stretch out&quot;: they're just intensified forms of _tendō_ &quot;stretch&quot;, with no major semantic differences. Similarly, it's not hard to see how _extendō_ could be generalized from &quot;stretch out&quot; to &quot;make larger&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11390" RevisionGUID="9e92ef51-e2e5-461b-b4cd-ff1029f85035" CreationDate="2019-08-24T06:22:38.583" UserId="3248" Text="Before answering your question(s), please let me make a couple of general remarks, which I hope can also be useful for other questions you've raised on Latin prefixes/preverbs (I've just seen you raised MANY of them in this site!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I)	It is important to understand Latin preverbs by considering them as forming a SYSTEM (for a nice overview of the system of Latin preverbs, I recommend you to take a look at the following work by [Prof. Benjamín García-Hernández (1989)][1]). In a nutshell, you will see that Latin preverbs can be classified into different levels of analysis, providing different **spatial**, **aspectual**, or **intensive** meanings. So  any particular or specific case you turn out to be interested in must be analyzed in relation to this system. Of course, there are many IDIOSYNCRASIES involved but it is advisable to try to analyze them in relation to the (previous) system (i.e., it is not the case that anything goes. Despite appearances, the Latin system of preverbs is **not** chaotic!). NB: in fact, something (very) similar happens in other so-called [satellite-framed languages][2]: e.g., cf. English phrasal verbs and Russian prefixes. For example, notice that English particles (the so-called “satellites” in [Talmy's typology][3]) also have spatial meanings  (“He went **out**”), aspectual meanings (“It turns **out** to be the case…”) and intensive meanings (“He cried his eyes **out**”: i.e., ‘he cried a lot’). And, of course, many idiosyncrasies are also involved in English phrasal verbs.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(II)	Don’t try to understand particular cases or examples of Latin preverbs **ONLY** by considering how they are translated into another languages (e.g., English). Translations are just translations, which do not always capture all the nuances nor even basic properties of the system (as in the present case). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With these general remarks in mind, let me address your specific question(s). You point out the curious fact that the first &quot;meaning&quot; (English translation!) of both _intendere_ and _extendere_ is “to stretch out”. So, **apparently**, by looking at the English translations, it could seem that, for example, _bracchia intendere_ and _bracchia extendere_ are fully synonymous since both can be translated as ‘to stretch out their arms’ (e.g., cf. _intentaque bracchia remis_ (Verg. _Aen._ 5, 136) and _extento bracchio_  (Cic. _De orat._ 242)). However, as noted above, one should not conflate meanings with translations: i.e., ‘to stretch out’ is just a &quot;good&quot; non-nuanced translation of both _intendere_ and _extendere_ but it does not capture the important difference between the **illative** meaning of IN- and the **elative** meaning of EX-. In the former we focus on the initial direction of _tendere_ (e.g., cf. the more appropriate French translation of _intendere_ given by Gaffiot as ‘tendre **dans** une direction’). In contrast, in the latter (_extendere_) it is the final part of the action of TEND- what is foregrounded. Notice that this contrast gives you an explanation to another question of yours above (cf. “(...) _intendo_ ‘turn one's intention to, aim, intend'. Why's &quot;aim&quot; expressed by _intendo_ rather than _extendo_?”). Notice that these meanings (&quot;aim&quot;, “direct”, “turn one’s intention to”, etc.) are precisely more coherent with the INITIAL part of the action expressed by IN- rather than with the final/egressive part expressed by EX-. Similarly, notice that in Latin you can say _lineam extendere_ 'to draw/create a line' (Plin. 9, 182) but not _lineam intendere_ with the same meaning. The former involves focus on the creation, i.e., on the final/resultative part of the action (similarly, cf. Engl.'to make a cheque **OUT**'). Cf. also the initial/aspectual meaning of prefix **IN-** in the example _primis se **in**tendentibus tenebris_ (Liv. 1, 57, 8), nicely translated into French by Gaffiot as 'les ténèbres **commençant** à s'étendre' (i.e., lit. &quot;with the darkness (pl.) beginning to expand').    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To conclude, please notice that the previous analysis of some meaningful cases of your question can only be carried out on the basis of having the general remarks above in mind. And remember Alec Marantz’s words (a distinguished morphologist): “it’s very difficult to argue anything from idiosyncrasies –one argues from systematic differences”. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/7174291/Les_pr%C3%A9verbes_latins&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11083/are-latin-verbs-of-motion-satellite-framed-or-verb-framed&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://elies.rediris.es/elies11/cap2.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11391" RevisionGUID="e0b86c37-e0f1-46fe-9a9f-54d04d08380d" CreationDate="2019-08-24T10:15:21.850" UserId="5002" Text="We can judge some features of educated Late Latin from the Appendix Probi (probably from the 3rd or 4th century). It is a list of corrected errors. There are can see that learned speech was different from the popular usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So at that time we already see indications that standard Late Latin had the same qualities for long and short vowels (&quot;turma non torma&quot;), pronounced classical nasal N and M like consonants (&quot;ansa non asa&quot;, &quot;idem non ide&quot;), kept the Hs (&quot;hostiae non ostiae&quot;), avoid the merger between b and v (&quot;bravium non brabium&quot;) and tried to keep the vowels that were disappearing in common speech (&quot;oculus non oclus&quot;). More than that, we already have evidence that PH was pronounced as F (&quot;amfora non ampora&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Appendix Probi is not the only document were the Late Latin speakers talked about what was considered correct pronunciation. In fact, we have the words of Agustine of Hippo in his Confessions (chapter XVIII) stating that educated speakers used to care so much about the letter H that &quot;if he who practices or teaches the established rules of pronunciation should speak without aspirating the first syllable of 'hominem', he will offend men more than if he, a human being, were to hate another human being contrary to thy (God's) commandments&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assibilated pronunciation of C and G (that is /tʃ/ and /dʒ/)  probably didn't exist until the 5th or 6th century, but from my point of view there was already some kind of palatization (maybe /c/ and /ɟ/, and that might explain how G got confused with J in Proto-Romance). The palatization of T (as /ts/) and D (as /dz/) before /j/ was already considered standard by grammarians like Pompeius in the 5th century." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11392" RevisionGUID="1f42d8c0-6649-44b4-8c22-66ec2a320516" CreationDate="2019-08-24T14:40:07.910" UserId="5029" Text="How would you say of persons (plural) deceased;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Always loved, always remembered, always in our hearts&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33609" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11392" RevisionGUID="1f42d8c0-6649-44b4-8c22-66ec2a320516" CreationDate="2019-08-24T14:40:07.910" UserId="5029" Text="Translation into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33610" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11392" RevisionGUID="1f42d8c0-6649-44b4-8c22-66ec2a320516" CreationDate="2019-08-24T14:40:07.910" UserId="5029" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11393" RevisionGUID="5a7b8587-f2e1-459c-a519-2435dd48e2c8" CreationDate="2019-08-24T17:03:04.593" UserId="5030" Text="If I have a verb in ancient greek, how can I find its root?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, if I have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    λείπω&#xD;&#xA;    νέω&#xD;&#xA;    ἔμαθον&#xD;&#xA;    μανθάνω&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;how can I do to know that, respectively, these verbs have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     λιπ-/λειπ-/λοιπ-&#xD;&#xA;     νευ- (&lt;*νεϜ-)&#xD;&#xA;     μαθ-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as roots? Do have I study by heart all verbs with their roots?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My grammar explains to me how to form the present theme, but not how can I have roots. For example, it explains to me that βλέπω has its verbal root equal to its present theme, but, I suppose, if I find a verb I do not know, how do I know that its verbal theme is equal to its verbal root?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For polythematic verbs, like λέγω (= I say) and ὁράω, I know it is necessary to study their paradigms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I can look for all my verbs in a good dictionary, but I would like to understand if it is possible to go back to the first person (-ω or -μι) with a logical reasoning and not going by trial and error.&#xD;&#xA;    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33612" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11393" RevisionGUID="5a7b8587-f2e1-459c-a519-2435dd48e2c8" CreationDate="2019-08-24T17:03:04.593" UserId="5030" Text="How can I find a verb root in ancient greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33613" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11393" RevisionGUID="5a7b8587-f2e1-459c-a519-2435dd48e2c8" CreationDate="2019-08-24T17:03:04.593" UserId="5030" Text="|verbs|koine-greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33614" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11393" RevisionGUID="72807ac5-344a-443b-b605-66ff34823e84" CreationDate="2019-08-24T21:21:59.127" UserId="40" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|verbs|morphology|koine-greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11394" RevisionGUID="2b0cb584-329e-4e88-95ed-63494fe89931" CreationDate="2019-08-24T23:37:43.983" UserId="406" Text="The primary meaning I associate with _virgo, virginis_ is &quot;young woman&quot;, perhaps a bit older than a _puella_ but not yet a _mulier_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the descendants of this word (in English and the Romance languages) tend to have a specifically sexual meaning: a &quot;virgin&quot; is someone (of either gender) who's never had sex with anyone. And L&amp;S mention the word being used in Ecclesiastical Latin for various church fathers, who certainly were not young women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So—when did this shift take place? In other words, until what point in history could I use _virgo_ to mean a young woman without sexual implications? And did this differ at all in Classical versus Vulgar Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33616" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11394" RevisionGUID="2b0cb584-329e-4e88-95ed-63494fe89931" CreationDate="2019-08-24T23:37:43.983" UserId="406" Text="When did &quot;virgo&quot; gain its sexual meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33617" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11394" RevisionGUID="2b0cb584-329e-4e88-95ed-63494fe89931" CreationDate="2019-08-24T23:37:43.983" UserId="406" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|language-evolution|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11379" RevisionGUID="e6d195e8-6375-4280-8126-495fe6caff6c" CreationDate="2019-08-24T23:44:52.343" UserId="40" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="In English, imperative verbs have &quot;invisible subjects&quot;: syntactically, they act like there's an invisible pronoun in the subject position. This is why we see *look closely at **yourself*** instead of *_look closely at **you**_, even though there's no other &quot;you&quot; in the sentence to trigger the reflexive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the same true in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Most instances of imperatives I can think of are in the second person, and Latin doesn't mark the second-person reflexive—but third-person imperatives do exist, and it seems plausible that some grammarian might have specified whether they should be followed by *sē* or *eum*.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11391" RevisionGUID="97805985-0e64-4e14-81b3-f97c62ce7888" CreationDate="2019-08-25T00:17:25.663" UserId="5002" Comment="edited body" Text="We can judge some features of educated Late Latin from the Appendix Probi (probably from the 3rd or 4th century). It is a list of corrected errors. There are can see that learned speech was different from the popular usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So at that time we already see indications that standard Late Latin had the same qualities for long and short vowels (&quot;turma non torma&quot;), pronounced classical nasal N and M like consonants (&quot;ansa non asa&quot;, &quot;idem non ide&quot;), kept the Hs (&quot;hostiae non ostiae&quot;), avoid the merger between B and V (&quot;bravium non brabium&quot;) and tried to keep the vowels that were disappearing in common speech (&quot;oculus non oclus&quot;). More than that, we already have evidence that PH was pronounced as F (&quot;amfora non ampora&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Appendix Probi is not the only document were the Late Latin speakers talked about what was considered correct pronunciation. In fact, we have the words of Agustine of Hippo in his Confessions (chapter XVIII) stating that educated speakers used to care so much about the letter H that &quot;if he who practices or teaches the established rules of pronunciation should speak without aspirating the first syllable of 'hominem', he will offend men more than if he, a human being, were to hate another human being contrary to thy (God's) commandments&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assibilated pronunciation of C and G (that is /tʃ/ and /dʒ/)  probably didn't exist until the 5th or 6th century, but from my point of view there was already some kind of palatization (maybe /c/ and /ɟ/, and that might explain how G got confused with J in Proto-Romance). The palatization of T (as /ts/) and D (as /dz/) before /j/ was already considered standard by grammarians like Pompeius in the 5th century." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11395" RevisionGUID="df3e23e3-68d7-428d-b686-0e9da8ac9b86" CreationDate="2019-08-25T09:39:05.817" UserId="3404" Text="I found the following quote at the beginning of a book on Indo-European linguistics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Opusculum hoc, quamdiu vixero, doctioribus emendandum offero.&quot; (Iunius, Observationes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to figure out what it means. For starters, I wanted to at least find the meaning of all the individual words: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; opusculum = a little work (nominative/accusative/vocative singular)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; hoc = for this reason, hither, to this place, &lt; hic = this (nominative/accusative neuter, ablative masculine/neuter singular)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; quamdiu = how long, as long as, until, during&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; vixero &lt; vivo = live (first-person singular future perfect active&#xD;&#xA;&gt; indicative)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; doctioribus &lt; doctior = wiser (ablative masculine/&#xD;&#xA;&gt; feminine/neuter plural)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; emendandum &lt; emendandus  = which is to be corrected (nominative/accusative/vocative neuter singular, accusative masculine singular)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; offero = bring before, bring to, present, offer, show...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I still have difficulties finding the meaning of the whole sentence since I'm not really on good terms with Latin syntax. &#xD;&#xA;Can someone translate this sentence if it's not too much trouble? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33621" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11395" RevisionGUID="df3e23e3-68d7-428d-b686-0e9da8ac9b86" CreationDate="2019-08-25T09:39:05.817" UserId="3404" Text="&quot;Opusculum hoc, quamdiu vixero, doctioribus emendandum offero.&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33622" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11395" RevisionGUID="df3e23e3-68d7-428d-b686-0e9da8ac9b86" CreationDate="2019-08-25T09:39:05.817" UserId="3404" Text="|translation|sentence-translation|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11396" RevisionGUID="3d0d4c51-e37d-4961-b13c-b0734973b6e6" CreationDate="2019-08-25T16:57:10.880" UserId="522" Text="**Hoc** (here *hoc* is simply 'this.') **opusculum** This little work,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**, quamdiu vixero,** for as long as I shall live,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**doctioribus** (here dative after *offero*) to those more learned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**emendandum offero** I offer for [their] correction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What a generous dedication. Can it possibly be recent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33624" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11395" RevisionGUID="dee6b9ef-4ed4-4f9f-a1e9-1bdcd195594a" CreationDate="2019-08-25T17:52:10.140" />
  <row Id="33625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11397" RevisionGUID="32298b3f-4976-4a8d-a56a-73f0c49a89d8" CreationDate="2019-08-25T19:20:09.843" UserId="4871" Text="Semper amati, semper recordati, semper in cordibus nostris." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11397" RevisionGUID="d894888d-7022-457c-a12c-9c6c1fda779a" CreationDate="2019-08-25T21:09:42.923" UserId="4871" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="Semper amati, semper recordati, semper in cordibus nostris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would have used a form of memini rather than of recordo, but memini is defective and doesn't have the required participle as far as I know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11398" RevisionGUID="0e089169-4615-434d-a505-05e05846f6e3" CreationDate="2019-08-25T21:26:16.577" UserId="645" Text="As far as I can see, your basic premise is doubtful, inasmuch as classical sources appear to have defined *virgo* in the same way as has been done down to modern times. Certainly, the word was then applied to girls, young women and various males, but generally implying maidenhood, *sc.* an absence of sexual experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are plenty of examples. Cicero has a particularly striking demonstration, *quinta Pallantis, quae patrem dicitur interemisse virginitatem suam violare conantem, cui pinnarum talaria adfigunt*, (*de Natura Deorum* iii, 59); Pliny Maior, *xxviii, passim*, has a good deal to say on the subject; and of course the Vestal Virgins were young women who might be severely punished for sexual transgression, chosen before puberty and not discharged from their vows until the age of forty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33628" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11392" RevisionGUID="33243169-e1bd-43ea-becb-21b6c063cb9c" CreationDate="2019-08-25T22:00:10.290" UserId="9" Comment="made title more specific" Text="Translation of &quot;Always loved, always remembered, always in our hearts&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33629" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11392" RevisionGUID="33243169-e1bd-43ea-becb-21b6c063cb9c" CreationDate="2019-08-25T22:00:10.290" UserId="9" Comment="made title more specific" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11397" RevisionGUID="18fa9d07-c72b-44f8-8318-90560f10053b" CreationDate="2019-08-26T10:26:41.273" UserId="4871" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="Semper amati, semper recordati, semper in cordibus nostris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: Semper amati, semper memorati, semper in cordibus nostris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would have used a form of memini rather than of recordo(r) or memoro, but memini is defective and doesn't have the required participle as far as I know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11399" RevisionGUID="3a8f8f31-a4a9-4fa8-bedd-a0840d159b9a" CreationDate="2019-08-26T16:14:44.997" UserId="1459" Text="[This 2000's document](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20001205_liturgia_horarum_lt.html) by the Vatican, clarifying some issues relative to the [Liturgy of the Hours](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy_of_the_Hours) (or Divine Office), states (original in Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;c) per se Laudes recitari debent horis matutinis, Vesperae autem horis vespertinis prout ipsa nomina denotant;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions is whether _ipsa nomina denotant_ refers only to the _horis Vesperae_ or also to _Laudes_. Already in Classical Latin _vesper_ denotes the evening. But the etymology of &quot;Lauds&quot; does not seem to refer to a particular moment of the day. The name of this liturgical hour seems to come from some psalms. As [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauds#Name) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The name is derived from the three last psalms of the psalter (148, 149, 150), the Laudate psalms, which in former versions of the Lauds of the Roman Rite occurred every day, and in all of which the word _laudate_ is repeated frequently. At first, the word &quot;Lauds&quot; designated only the end, that is to say, these three psalms. Little by little the title Lauds was applied to the whole office, and supplanted the name of Matins, which in turn was reserved to the night office and replaced the name &quot;Vigil&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it might seem that the phrase _ipsa nomina denotant_ refers only to the Vespers. However, the [Spanish translation](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20001205_liturgia_horarum_sp.html) of the above document states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;c) De suyo los Laudes deben recitarse en las horas de la mañana y la Vísperas en las horas del atardecer, como lo indican **los nombres de estas partes** del Oficio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find another official translation, but there is an [English translation](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/what-should-be-prayed-in-the-liturgy-of-the-hours-4666), made by a [seemingly non native Spanish-speaker] priest and academic, with the same result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Morning Prayer (Lauds) should be recited during the morning hours and Evening Prayer (Vespers) during the evening hours, as the names of **these parts** of the Office indicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The emphasis in both translations is to remark that the plural is referring to both hours. So, are these translations wrong? Or does perhaps _laudate_ imply morning hours? (Or maybe translations are right and the Vatican document is wrong?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33632" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11399" RevisionGUID="3a8f8f31-a4a9-4fa8-bedd-a0840d159b9a" CreationDate="2019-08-26T16:14:44.997" UserId="1459" Text="Does &quot;laudate&quot; imply the morning part the day? (or are these translations wrong?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33633" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11399" RevisionGUID="3a8f8f31-a4a9-4fa8-bedd-a0840d159b9a" CreationDate="2019-08-26T16:14:44.997" UserId="1459" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11399" RevisionGUID="802babf4-e6d2-4d52-a1e0-df6711f4aeec" CreationDate="2019-08-26T16:20:01.930" UserId="1459" Comment="edited body" Text="[This 2000's document](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20001205_liturgia_horarum_lt.html) by the Vatican, clarifying some issues relative to the [Liturgy of the Hours](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy_of_the_Hours) (or Divine Office), states (original in Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;c) per se Laudes recitari debent horis matutinis, Vesperae autem horis vespertinis prout ipsa nomina denotant;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions is whether _ipsa nomina denotant_ refers only to the _horis Vesperae_ or also to _Laudes_. Already in Classical Latin _vesper_ denotes the evening. But the etymology of &quot;Lauds&quot; (_[laudate](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=laudo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059)_) does not seem to refer to a particular moment of the day. The name of this liturgical hour seems to come from some psalms. As [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauds#Name) states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The name is derived from the three last psalms of the psalter (148, 149, 150), the Laudate psalms, which in former versions of the Lauds of the Roman Rite occurred every day, and in all of which the word _laudate_ is repeated frequently. At first, the word &quot;Lauds&quot; designated only the end, that is to say, these three psalms. Little by little the title Lauds was applied to the whole office, and supplanted the name of Matins, which in turn was reserved to the night office and replaced the name &quot;Vigil&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it might seem that the phrase _ipsa nomina denotant_ refers only to the Vespers. However, the [Spanish translation](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20001205_liturgia_horarum_sp.html) of the above document states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;c) De suyo los Laudes deben recitarse en las horas de la mañana y la Vísperas en las horas del atardecer, como lo indican **los nombres de estas partes** del Oficio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find another official translation, but there is an [English translation](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/what-should-be-prayed-in-the-liturgy-of-the-hours-4666), made by a [seemingly non native Spanish-speaker] priest and academic, with the same result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Morning Prayer (Lauds) should be recited during the morning hours and Evening Prayer (Vespers) during the evening hours, as the **names of these parts** of the Office indicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The emphasis in both translations is to remark that the plural is referring to both hours. So, are these translations wrong? Or does perhaps _laudate_ imply morning hours? (Or maybe translations are right and the Vatican document is wrong?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11401" RevisionGUID="422497fc-1791-4e48-acc9-b888d2489819" CreationDate="2019-08-26T22:42:13.217" UserId="30" Text="Welcome to the site! I'm afraid there isn't exactly one way to rule them all. But there are various phonological rules by which you can cover a significant number of verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   For example, *-sk* and *-an* are common present suffixes, so cut them&#xD;&#xA;   off if you want to find the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   Gemination of the final consonant is often due to a&#xD;&#xA;   present suffix (invisible *-y*), too.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;-  And *-n-* (which can be rendered as mu or gamma as well by&#xD;&#xA;   assimilation with the consonant after it) is a common present infix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   Reduplication (semi-repetition of the first syllable) is common&#xD;&#xA;   present praefix. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etc. So **removing all affixes** is often a good thing to try in case you want to go from present stem to root/aorist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is the phaenomenon of ***Ablaut***: in Proto-Indo-European, which is also Greek's ancestor, many roots had three potential manifestations, 1.) a &quot;zero grade&quot; where nothing is added to the root, e.g. *lip*, 2.) an &quot;e grade&quot;, e.g. *leip*, and 3.) an o grade, e.g. *loip*. So you can try removing an e or o when present, or adding one when not present in case you're going from root to present stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure there are other rules of thumb that apply to some other verbs. But there will be many where you probably can't find a rule that would apply, alas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11401" RevisionGUID="b13da2d2-2cd0-4b32-af4b-8d62882b6a3f" CreationDate="2019-08-26T22:47:33.647" UserId="30" Comment="added 243 characters in body" Text="Welcome to the site! I'm afraid there isn't exactly one way to rule them all. But there are various phonological rules by which you can cover a significant number of verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   For example, *-sk* and *-an* are common present suffixes, so cut them&#xD;&#xA;   off if you want to find the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   Gemination of the final consonant is often due to a&#xD;&#xA;   present suffix (invisible *-y*), too.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;-  And *-n-* (which can be rendered as mu or gamma as well by&#xD;&#xA;   assimilation with the consonant after it) is a common present infix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   Reduplication (semi-repetition of the first syllable) is common&#xD;&#xA;   present praefix. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etc. So **removing all affixes** is often a good thing to try in case you want to go from present stem to root/aorist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is the phaenomenon of ***Ablaut***: in Proto-Indo-European, which is also Greek's ancestor, many roots had three potential manifestations, 1.) a &quot;zero grade&quot; where nothing is added to the root, e.g. *lip*, 2.) an &quot;e grade&quot;, e.g. *leip*, and 3.) an o grade, e.g. *loip*. So you can try removing an e or o when present, or adding one when not present in case you're going from root to present stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure there are other rules of thumb that apply to some other verbs. But there will be many where you probably can't find a rule that would apply, alas. So you will need to learn all verbs by heart, in theory; but you can save yourself a lot of work by trying these rules of thumb; they are never guaranteed, but I believe they will provide you with a high chance of success for quite few verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11402" RevisionGUID="1f9dede7-19d2-4099-b3dc-cc8782abae30" CreationDate="2019-08-27T03:21:33.123" UserId="3248" Text="I was wondering if anyone could provide me with references on any online material (pdf, links,  etc.) of Latin Grammar which can contain exercises based on so-called &quot;inverse analysis&quot; and &quot;minimal pairs&quot;. Typically, the former consist in stating the grammatical conditions that the example(s) to be discovered by the student should obey (e.g.,cf. [&quot;give an example of a non-deponent verb with passive morphology, but able to take accusative direct object and not able to take ablative agent&quot;][1]), whereas the latter consist in comparing two (or more) constructions that involve a (more or less) minimal grammatical modification but an often subtle difference in meaning (e.g., cf. the verbal passive **_Hoc a me deliberatum est_** vs. the adjectival passive **_Hoc mihi deliberatum est_**). Ideally, as in textbooks of other languages, the exercises should be sequenced according to the background/level of students (e.g., the two examples given above belong to a proficiency level, esp. the first one based on a question raised by Draconis (see link above)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This type of grammatical exercises are currently regarded by experts on pedagogical {grammar/linguistics} as **more creative** (among other advantages, these are claimed to make the inquisitive nature of students burst) than the typical **more passive** exercises where the student limits herself/himself to identifying/labeling the grammatical construction at issue (e.g., this is an Ablative Absolute, this is a dominant participle or _ab urbe condita_ construction, this is a double dative construction, etc.). Of course, this traditional typology of exercises is also useful for acquiring a **taxonomic** grammar but has been said to provide a wrong view of what grammar really is as a **scientific** object. In fact, many people confound &quot;to provide a grammatical analysis&quot; with &quot;to give the name of the phenomenon&quot;. As emphasized by different experts on grammatical analysis, to analyze a grammatical construction cannot consist in providing a label. In short, one should not confound &quot;grammatical **analysis**&quot; with &quot;grammatical **taxonomy**&quot;. It is indeed important to classify objects (in this case: grammatical objects) but it is more important (and indeed more creative) for students to develop their inquisitive nature, as is done in other scientific areas of their curriculum (e.g., maths, chemistry, physics, etc.). NB: the debate between &quot;taxonomic grammar&quot; and &quot;scientific grammar&quot; is at least as old as the one we can find in the Renaissance period where there were two tendencies in writing grammars of Classical Latin. E.g., cf. (I) the &quot;taxonomic&quot;/&quot;normative&quot; one by the Italian humanist [Lorenzo Valla][2] (_Elegantiae Linguae Latinae_, 1444) or the Spanish [Antonio de Nebrija][3] (_Introductiones latinae_, 1481), centered on normative usage and style with (II) the &quot;scientific&quot;/&quot;rational&quot; one by the Italian humanist [Scaliger][4] (_De Causis Linguae Latinae_, 1540) or the Spanish one [El Brocense][5] (_Minerva_, 1587), centered on searching for the &quot;causes&quot; of grammar.        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm only familiar with work on the modern scientific perspective of teaching grammar in other languages (e.g., cf. the Spanish work by my colleague Prof. Ángel J. Gallego: https://scielo.conicyt.cl/pdf/rla/v54n2/art_04.pdf  and a twitter account of his association &quot;GrOC&quot; devoted to this new scientific perspective of teaching grammar: https://twitter.com/paresminimos?lang=ca ) but I do not know anything about whether similar work {has been/is being} carried out in Latin grammar.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11258/do-non-deponent-latin-verbs-ever-have-a-middle-voice&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_Valla&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_de_Nebrija&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar_Scaliger&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_S%C3%A1nchez_de_las_Brozas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33640" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11402" RevisionGUID="1f9dede7-19d2-4099-b3dc-cc8782abae30" CreationDate="2019-08-27T03:21:33.123" UserId="3248" Text="Any material on so-called &quot;inverse analysis&quot; and &quot;minimal pairs&quot; to practice Latin grammar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33641" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11402" RevisionGUID="1f9dede7-19d2-4099-b3dc-cc8782abae30" CreationDate="2019-08-27T03:21:33.123" UserId="3248" Text="|classical-latin|syntax|grammar-identification|teaching-method|pedagogy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11403" RevisionGUID="23141b2f-70d6-4dd1-9bd8-f6ac4340b754" CreationDate="2019-08-27T07:33:03.643" UserId="831" Text="The full name of Lauds is *laudes matutinæ*. In the Latin you quote, *prout ipsa nomina* can be taken either as referring to the vespertinity of Vespers only (*Vesperæ* being plural), or as referring also to Lauds under its full name rather than its abbreviated one. The Spanish translation is wrong unless it is making the same implicit one-word reference to the two-word name. The English translation, by including the condescending name &quot;Morning Prayer&quot;, makes its own plural correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give a definite source for the &quot;laudes matutinæ&quot; name, see, for example, the *Institutio generalis de Liturgia Horarum* (I thought there was an electronic version online but I cannot see one at the moment; you will find it in vol.1 of the printed Breviary). When first introducing the different Hours of the day, at §37, it has the heading DE LAUDIBUS MATUTINIS ET VESPERIS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11319" RevisionGUID="f2360c2c-647e-4fa4-9362-5e7f704fbc7d" CreationDate="2019-08-27T11:34:04.053" UserId="13" Comment="added UPDATE" Text="This morning I inspected the English version of _Una Mitra per Cleis_, the book by F. Ferrari which contains this text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First off, @NickNicholas was right: the supplement of the question is actually ὀλόφ[ῳ(), with ὀλόφ[ῳα suggested in the app. crit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I answer here because I want to address the translation. The Italian antholog mangled not only that supplement, but also l. 21, which is supposed to start ο]ὐδ' Ἀ̣[νδ]ρομέ[δα, the ἐπικεῖ[ρε in l. 15, which was supposed to be ἐπίκει[ρ() with the epsilon being supplemented by Puglia and not acceptable as far as the translation goes, and the translation. Here is the translation in the book:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;and be willing to take away also this [misfortune ...] then, you&#xD;&#xA;who of all&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[are] the goddess [who has thoughts the most] astute, fulfill&#xD;&#xA;my wish.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You surely were accustomed [to satisfy me in everything] for&#xD;&#xA;which I invoked you,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and now for this [purpose come to aid] straightway as my&#xD;&#xA;heart desires.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;“This reason, [you said,] is surely not [shameful, and] what&#xD;&#xA;you wish to obtain&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;is truly not excessive [to have ... in truth cannot] contend&#xD;&#xA;with me&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;even Andromeda, [but what she has done] trusting in a&#xD;&#xA;luxurious&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[lifestyle cannot] have escaped [the immortals], and you,&#xD;&#xA;since you know well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, I came up with a few more supplements. Here is the text with those supplements added:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;κ]αὶ τοῦτ΄ ἐπικεί̣[ρην, ἄγ΄, ἔμον πῆμα] θέλ' ὦν τ', ἀπαίσαν&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δ]αίμων ολοφ[ῴᾱ φρένας· ὦμοι] τέλ̣εσον νόημμα·&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;σ̣ὺ μὰν ἐφίλης [–uu––u]έτων κάλη&lt;μ&gt;μι,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;νῦν δ' ἔννεκα [––uu– μοι] πεδὰ θῦμον αἲψα'.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;'τόδ' αἴτιον οὔ τ' [αἶσχρον', ἔφα, 'κὤ]σ̣σα τύχην θελήσῃς&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;οὐδὲν πόλυ̣ π̣ά̣[σασθαι, ἀλάθως γὰ]ρ ἔμοι μάχεσθαι&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ο]ὐδ΄ Ἀ̣[νδ]ρομέ[δ' οἲ', ὄσσα διαίτᾳ χ]λιδάνᾳ πίθεισα&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δράσ΄, οὐ] λ̣ελάθ̣[ην ἀθανάτοις ἔστ]ι, σὺ δ', εὖ γὰρ οἶσθα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I translate as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Thus, [prithee,] be willing to eliminate also this [misfortune of mine], you of all&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The astute goddess [w.r.t. thoughts; oh], give fulfilment to [my] wish:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Verily you liked […] I invoke(d),&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Now because of […] straightaway as [my] heart desires&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;This reason is not [shameful] for you, [she said,] and what you wish to obtain&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Is not at all too much [to have; for in truth] contend with me&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Even Andromeda [can] not, [what she] trusting in a luxurious [lifestyle&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Has done, cannot] escape [the immortals;] and you, for well you know&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;οἶ' = οἶα, since I found οἶος εἶναι means &quot;can&quot;, and δράσ(ε) is an augmentless form of ἔδρασε, matching &quot;has done&quot;. ἀλάθως = ἀληθῶς, ὦμοι = ὦ ἔμοι. πάσασθαι, in the elided form πάσασθ', seems to be Ferrari's idea, as it is reported as «20 πά[σασθ'?» in the app. crit. Oh, and θέλ' ὦν τ' = θέλε ὦν τὺ = θέλε οὖν σὺ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone has some brilliant ideas to supplement the unsupplemented lines so that they match the translation, please comment. I was unable to come up with anything. Except for πάντα γ]ε, τῶν κάλημμι, which probably is against the accent on the epsilon, and ἔννεκα [τούτω, but no verb for &quot;aid&quot; I found on Woodhouse would fit the meter there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;σ̣ὺ μὰν ἐφίλης [προσδόμεναι πάντα γ]ε, τῶν κάλη&lt;μ&gt;μι,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or πάντ' ἔμε, the accent being justified as the scribe forgetting that it was ἔμε rather than ἐμέ? Scratch the last idea, we'd need ἔμοι instead. What about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;σ̣ὺ μὰν ἐφίλης [μοι παρέχην πάντα γ]ε, τῶν κάλη&lt;μ&gt;μι,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;aside from that accent on the epsilon that gets lost? I'm out of ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the edition's text and Ferrari's text, it looks like Ferrari forgot 4 letters in l. 20. To address this issue, I tried combining the two images of the fragments. I tried to make sure they were resized by the same factor. This was the result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What this looks like is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Up to πόλ, it's all on one fragment;&#xD;&#xA; - The upsilon of πόλυ is split between the two fragments, the joint being quite nice, if missing a small portion of the vertical leg;&#xD;&#xA; - What follows definitely seems to be the two legs of a pi, with a portion of the top, the rest of which is lost to the small gap between the fragments;&#xD;&#xA; - Then, we seem to have part of an alpha at the bottom, and an acute accent or circumflex accent at the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the transcription should be `ΟΥΔ€ΝΠΟΛΥΠÁ[`, or at most `ΟΥΔ€ΝΠΟΛΥΠÂ[`. I'm taking number 1, and the πάσασθαι supplement is vindicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even with just the bottom fragment, the πυφα was hardly vindicated, given we have three vertical legs and part of an alpha, which could at most give ΥΠΑ – as we have seen above, btw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The raw transcription of P.Halle 3 given in the XV volume of Ox.Pap. doesn't have the accent on the epsilon, so the supplement I gave isn't contra papyrum. However, the construction isn't reported in the dictionary. I'd need a διὰ or similar to govern the genitive τῶν. Metrically, putting ζὰ just before it would work, however, it would supplant the epsilon with its alpha.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also gave the uncompleted line some thought. ἀρκέω with dative means &quot;assist&quot;, so something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νῦν δ' ἔννεκα [τούτ' ἄρκεσον ὦμοι] πεδὰ θῦμον αἶψα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;could work, although that ὦ in mid-sentence is kind of unjustified. I was trying to conjugate an imperative aorist for *ἄρκημι, formed from the stem ἀρκε- by adding the athematic verbs' suffix, as Aeolic is wont to do, but I'm not sure what it would be. Based on τίθημι-θές, I'd expect the following to be right:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;νῦν δ' ἔννεκα [τούτ' ἔλθ', ἔμοι ἄρκες] πεδὰ θῦμον αἶψα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ἄρκημι-ἀρκές/ἄρκες, but I'm not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2csap.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11404" RevisionGUID="6ee51eb3-0518-4d44-937a-989e169dbd97" CreationDate="2019-08-27T20:52:08.007" UserId="2605" Text="Greek verbs have [six principal parts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_verbs#Formation_of_the_tenses), meaning that to be able to conjugate a verb in all of its tenses, you need to know all six different roots with their conjugations. Sometimes the roots used in each principal part are identical (e.g. with λύω), sometimes similar (e.g. λείπω), and sometimes (as you already acknowledge) entirely different (e.g. λέγω). Here are some rules that can help with the middle category of similar, but modified, roots, to determine which parts of the present root of the verb are absent in the aorist root (this is essentially an expansion of [Cerberus'](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/11401/2605) point about removing affixes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certain sounds at the end (i.e. before the first person suffix -ω) or middle of the present tense are deleted in the aorist. I take these from Wikipedia's article on [Ancient Greek present progressive markers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_present_progressive_markers), which goes into more detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Roots ending with the various reflexes of consonant + *y: -ζ- (derived from a root of τ,δ,θ + y), -σσ- (from κ,γ,χ + y; Attic reflex is -ττ-), -πτ- (from β,π,φ,ψ + y), -ιν- (from ν + y), -ιρ- (from ρ + y)&#xD;&#xA; * Examples: θαυμάζω (aorist ἐ**θαύμα**σα), πράσσω (aor. ἔπραξα = ἔ-**πραγ**-σα), χαίρω	(aor. ἐ**χάρ**ην)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Ending with -σκ-&#xD;&#xA; * Examples: εὑρίσκω (aor. ηὗρον = ἔ-**ευρ**-ον), πάσχω (&gt; *παθσκω, aor. ἔ**παθ**ον)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Ending with -ν-, -νέ-; or of the pattern with two nasals -NCάν-, where C is a consonant and N the corresponding nasal (μ, ν, γ)&#xD;&#xA; * Examples: δάκνω	(aor. ἔ**δακ**ον), λαμβάνω (aor. ἔ**λαβ**ον)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Ending with -έ-, or containing -ε- before a vowel earlier in the root&#xD;&#xA; * Examples: λείπω (aor. ἔ**λιπ**ον), δοκέω	(aor. ἔδοξα = ἔ-**δοκ**-σα)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Starting with a reduplication of the first consonant&#xD;&#xA; * Examples: μιμνήσκω (aor. ἔ**μνη**σα), βιβρώσκω (aor. ἔβρων = ἔ-**βρω**-ον) (both also ending in -σκ-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside of the domain of present progressive markers are irregularities due to other sound changes. Your example of νέω, for instance, is irregular due to a regular sound rule (namely, deletion of ϝ). ἔχω has an irregular aorist (ἔσχον) for more specific historical reasons. Neither are predictable from the root itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the rules also have exceptions. For example: διδάσκω is reduplicated, but doesn't lose the reduplication in the aorist (ἐδίδαξα) as most reduplicated verbs do. There is no algorithm that guarantees a way to correctly guess the aorist from the present root (hence why they are different principal parts), but being able to recognize the patterns can help you memorize when irregular conjugations usually occur." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11401" RevisionGUID="fad51982-d3db-4b13-a700-ff2507b5c44b" CreationDate="2019-08-27T21:11:50.960" UserId="30" Comment="added 564 characters in body" Text="Welcome to the site! I'm afraid there isn't exactly one way to rule them all. But there are various phonological rules by which you can cover a significant number of verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   For example, *-(i)sk*, *-nu*, and *-an* are common present suffixes, so cut them off if you want to find the root. The *-an-* suffix is in the present *manthanô* (root *math-*); *-nu* is in *deiknumi* (root *deik-* or *dek-* or *dok-*); *-sk-* is in *heuriskô* (root *heur-*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   Gemination of the final consonant is often due to a&#xD;&#xA;   present suffix (invisible *-y*), too. Cf. *ballô* (&lt; bal-y-ô), root *bal-*.  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;-  The infix *-n-*  is a common in present stems as well. It can be rendered as mu (perhaps also as gamma) due to assimilation with the consonant after it: it is a mu before labials, gamma before velars, I believe. Examples are *manthanô*, root *math-*, and *lambanô*, root *lab-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   Reduplication (semi-repetition of the first syllable) can be a present praefix, and is often a perfect suffix. E.g. present *didômi*, root *do-*, perfect *leluka*, root *lu-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etc. So **removing all affixes** is often a good thing to try in case you want to go from present stem to root/aorist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is the phaenomenon of ***Ablaut***: in Proto-Indo-European, which is also Greek's ancestor, many roots had three potential manifestations, 1.) a &quot;zero grade&quot; where nothing is added to the root, e.g. *lip*, 2.) an &quot;e grade&quot;, e.g. *leip*, and 3.) an o grade, e.g. *loip*. So you can try removing an e or o when present, or adding one when not present in case you're going from root to present stem. Other examples are *peithô*, root *pith-*, and *pet-o-mai*, root *pt-* (aorist *e-pt-o-mên*, perfect *pe-pot-ê-mai*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure there are other rules of thumb that apply to some other verbs. But there will be many where you probably can't find a rule that would apply, alas. So you will need to learn all verbs by heart, in theory; but you can save yourself a lot of work by trying these rules of thumb; they are never guaranteed, but I believe they will provide you with a high chance of success for quite few verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11401" RevisionGUID="fee53ea6-4baa-4423-8fcd-92966f5b8657" CreationDate="2019-08-27T21:24:29.960" UserId="30" Comment="added 358 characters in body" Text="Welcome to the site! I'm afraid there isn't exactly one way to rule them all. But there are various phonological rules by which you can guess the roots of a significant number of verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   For example, *-(i)sk*, *-nu*, and *-an* are common present suffixes, so cut them off if you want to find the root. The *-an-* suffix is in the present *manthanô* (root *math-*); *-nu* is in *deiknumi* (root *deik-* or *dek-* or *dok-*); *-sk-* is in *heuriskô* (root *heur-*). There are various other suffix that aren't part of the root, like the common *-eu-* and other vowel clusters in *pisteuô, dêloô*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   Gemination of the final consonant is often due to a&#xD;&#xA;   present suffix (invisible *-y*), too. Cf. *ballô* (&lt; bal-y-ô), root *bal-*.  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;-  The infix *-n-*  is a common in present stems as well. It can be rendered as mu (perhaps also as gamma) due to assimilation with the consonant after it: it is a mu before labials, gamma before velars, I believe. Examples are *manthanô*, root *math-*, and *lambanô*, root *lab-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   Reduplication (semi-repetition of the first syllable) can be a present praefix, and is often a perfect suffix. E.g. present *didômi*, root *do-*, perfect *leluka*, root *lu-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etc. So **removing all affixes** is often a good thing to try in case you want to go from present stem to root/aorist. Some affixes are used in all classical forms of the verb but not in nouns or other words from the same root, so you'll only see the true root there. Of course the converse is also possible (nominal affixes not present in verbs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is the phaenomenon of ***Ablaut***: in Proto-Indo-European, which is also Greek's ancestor, many roots had three potential manifestations, 1.) a &quot;zero grade&quot; where nothing is added to the root, e.g. *lip*, 2.) an &quot;e grade&quot;, e.g. *leip*, and 3.) an o grade, e.g. *loip*. So you can try removing an e or o when present, or adding one when not present in case you're going from root to present stem. Other examples are *peithô*, root *pith-*, and *pet-o-mai*, root *pt-* (aorist *e-pt-o-mên*, perfect *pe-pot-ê-mai*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure there are other rules of thumb that apply to some other verbs. But there will be many where you probably can't find a rule that would apply, alas. So you will need to learn all verbs by heart, in theory; but you can save yourself a lot of work by trying these rules of thumb; they are never guaranteed, but I believe they will provide you with a high chance of success for quite few verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11401" RevisionGUID="bd433ace-0d94-4827-83d0-dd61c85a8e29" CreationDate="2019-08-27T21:38:41.147" UserId="30" Comment="added 358 characters in body" Text="Welcome to the site! I'm afraid there isn't exactly one way to rule them all. But there are various phonological rules by which you can guess the roots of a significant number of verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   For example, *-(i)sk*, *-nu*, and *-an* are common present suffixes, so cut them off if you want to find the root. The *-an-* suffix is in the present *manthanô* (root *math-*); *-nu* is in *deiknumi* (root *deik-* or *dek-* or *dok-*); *-sk-* is in *heuriskô* (root *heur-*). There are various other suffix that aren't part of the root, like the common *-eu-* and other vowel clusters in *pisteuô, dêloô*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   Gemination of the final consonant is often due to a present suffix (invisible *-y*), too. Cf. *ballô* (&lt; bal-y-ô), root *bal-*.  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;-  The infix *-n-*  is a common in present stems as well. It can be rendered as mu (perhaps also as gamma) due to assimilation with the consonant after it: it is a mu before labials, gamma before velars, I believe. Examples are *manthanô*, root *math-*, and *lambanô*, root *lab-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   Reduplication (semi-repetition of the first syllable) can be a present praefix, and is often a perfect suffix. E.g. present *didômi*, root *do-*, perfect *leluka*, root *lu-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etc. So **removing all affixes** is often a good thing to try in case you want to go from present stem to root/aorist. Some affixes are used in all classical forms of the verb but not in nouns or other words from the same root, so you might only see the true root outside verbs. Of course the converse is also possible (nominal affixes not present in verbs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is the phaenomenon of ***Ablaut***: in Proto-Indo-European, which is also Greek's ancestor, many roots had three potential manifestations, 1.) a &quot;zero grade&quot; where nothing is added to the root, e.g. *lip*, 2.) an &quot;e grade&quot;, e.g. *leip*, and 3.) an o grade, e.g. *loip*. So you can try removing an e or o when present, or adding one when not present in case you're going from root to present stem. Other examples are *peithô*, root *pith-*, and *pet-o-mai*, root *pt-* (aorist *e-pt-o-mên*, perfect *pe-pot-ê-mai*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A nice **example** is *ker-an-nu-mi* &quot;knead&quot; (as in English *ceramic*). It has *-nu*, and it has *-an-*—or is that really only *-n-*, since many other forms of the verb have the *a* without the *n* (aorist *e-kera-sa*)? The verb seems to show Ablaut, too, as we have perfect *ke-kra-mai*. Liquids (m, l, n, r) surrounded by too many consonants are often vocalised (turn into or acquire a vowel sound) in Greek; in Attic-Ionic dialects, this is usually *a*, so that might be where the *a* came from in the perfect, which was then perhaps generalised and also used in places where it wasn't 'necessary', as it often happens in language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure there are other rules of thumb that apply to some other verbs. But there will be many where you probably can't find a rule that would apply, alas. So you will need to learn all verbs by heart, in theory; but you can save yourself a lot of work by trying these rules of thumb; they are never guaranteed, but I believe they will provide you with a high chance of success for quite few verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33650" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="11167" RevisionGUID="4d3de996-874f-4481-9488-20fda9ae28b5" CreationDate="2019-08-28T03:31:08.227" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="130" />
  <row Id="33651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11403" RevisionGUID="ff2f0c74-4fa3-4624-81e6-5942dea68b7d" CreationDate="2019-08-28T07:30:40.680" UserId="831" Comment="Clarified the wording." Text="The full name of Lauds is *laudes matutinæ*. In the Latin you quote, *prout ipsa nomina* can be taken either as referring to the vespertinity of Vespers only (*Vesperæ* being plural), or as referring also to Lauds under its full name &quot;Laudes matutinæ&quot; rather than its abbreviated one. Probably the latter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Spanish translation must be making the same implicit one-word reference to the two-word name. The English translation, by including the condescending name &quot;Morning Prayer&quot;, makes its own plural correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give a definite source for the &quot;laudes matutinæ&quot; name, see, for example, the *Institutio generalis de Liturgia Horarum* (I thought there was an electronic version online but I cannot see one at the moment; you will find it in vol.1 of the printed Breviary). When first introducing the different Hours of the day, at §37, it has the heading DE LAUDIBUS MATUTINIS ET VESPERIS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11405" RevisionGUID="8273b039-3b19-47c7-9aa1-26780dafd220" CreationDate="2019-08-28T20:24:15.997" UserId="469" Text="I agree with Martin's answer, but perhaps with a different nuance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Are these translations wrong?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Or does perhaps laudate imply morning hours?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Or maybe translations are right and the Vatican document is wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm inclined to explore the *there's no actual contradiction* alternative in this case. Plus, it is always good that someone plays the devil's advocate to reach firmer conclusions. So my answers to your questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I don't think the translations are wrong, nor the Vatican document is wrong.** I think the key to make everything else fit is in the *it's complicated* answer to your second question. **The relation between laudes and morning hours is complicated**, as has been already pointed out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* On one hand, the primary meaning of the word *laus* in both Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin can be said related to praise and not to the early hours of the day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* On the other hand, **Laudes** (specifically in plural) *is* the short version of the official name for the first of the canonical *hours*, before dawn (the complete name being Laudes Matutinae).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The term *hour* in *[canonical hours][1]* has a lot of implications beyond that of the common meaning we give to the word, but is there for a reason. As was commented, since the very beginning *prayer was designated by the hour at which it was said* (Act 3:1). In fact, most (all?) of the names of canonical hours match the names of hours (third, sixth), or times of the day in a broader sense (vespers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Now, rubrics sometimes ask that something be done/said at specific times of the day, e.g. *vespere*, *post I Vesperas*, *ad vesperas*. Here, *ad* + (time acc.) means *at* that point in time (see [L&amp;S][2], meaning I.B.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Ad laudes* and *ad laudes matutinas* seem to be used interchangeably in the rubrics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My argument is that the name *laudes* (in pl.), being one of the liturgical *hours* and even treated (arguably) as a time of the day by rubrics, is by itself strongly *associated with the early morning* (as Draconis put it), either by itself, or&amp;mdash;if you wish&amp;mdash;by association with the full name (*laudes matutinae*), even to the point that it can be asserted that *the name Laudes* in its current usage *indicates* that *they should be recited during the morning hours*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07500b.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dad" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11406" RevisionGUID="33f7d8b1-9310-4e4c-a914-44d1c087920a" CreationDate="2019-08-29T15:41:08.260" UserId="406" Text="Just to add on to Alex B's answer, though I can't offer as authoritative of sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Would it be appropriate to occasionally make the replacement in any context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the late Republican period, the answer seems to be **yes, but it sounds a bit archaic**. I'd compare it to putting the object before the verb in English (&quot;speaking with the object the verb preceding&quot;): people will understand it readily, and it's perfectly acceptable for poetic purposes, but it's not how people actually speak in day to day life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, based on corpus searches:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Plautus and Terence tend to prefer *-und-* over *-end-*, though they use both&#xD;&#xA; - Cato tends to prefer *-end-* over *-und-*, though he uses both&#xD;&#xA; - Both Sallust and Lucretius chose to use *-und-* almost universally as a stylistic choice, and were both considered deliberately archaicizing—but not difficult to understand&#xD;&#xA; - Caesar uses *-und-* very rarely, heavily preferring *-end-*&#xD;&#xA; - Cicero uses *-end-* (almost?) exclusively&#xD;&#xA; - Vergil never uses *-und-* as far as I can tell, except in fossilized *secundum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in the famous authors at least, it's clear that *-und-* was steadily dying out in the second century BCE, and was considered somewhat archaic during the first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that, during Imperial times, it was presumably still understood, but I haven't been able to find it used with any sort of frequency. I assume it was treated more like the verb endings *-est* and *-eth* in English: people will still unambiguously understand &quot;whither goest thou?&quot;, but even in poetry it's considered extremely archaic, and is a stylistic affectation more than anything else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11407" RevisionGUID="a2c7f0f9-687f-488e-89a3-8e4e0f6ff0dc" CreationDate="2019-08-29T16:04:24.287" UserId="406" Text="After talking to another classicist, I can offer some thoughts, though sadly without definitive sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems **unlikely** that the two are related, for various reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Contracted perfects are extremely rare with the syncopated ending: *amārunt* and *amāvere* are both possible for the third person plural perfect, but *_amāre_ generally isn't. Historically, the contracted perfect originated from a sound change *ivi* &gt; *ī*, and was extended by analogy to other forms; since *-erunt* lacks an *i* to trigger this change, it was never the most popular form to contract (all instances were by analogy).&#xD;&#xA; - Historical infinitives never seem to alternate with perfect forms: if one phrase uses a historical infinitive, the phrases around it generally will, too, regardless of person and number. You'll almost never see a single historical infinitive on its own within a larger text.&#xD;&#xA; - Historical infinitives are restricted to certain contexts, and are mainly only used by historians (hence the name), not by other authors. Perfect forms on the other hand appear everywhere.&#xD;&#xA; - Historical infinitives generally denote repeated, habitual, or ongoing action—in other words, they have **imperfect** semantics, not perfect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11407" RevisionGUID="358b5d40-3545-4b56-9cc8-a55f10214473" CreationDate="2019-08-29T16:41:19.060" UserId="406" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="After talking to another classicist, I can offer some thoughts, though sadly without definitive sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems **unlikely** that the two are related, for various reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Contracted perfects are extremely rare with the syncopated ending: *amārunt* and *amāvere* are both possible for the third person plural perfect, but *_amāre_ generally isn't. Historically, the contracted perfect originated from a sound change *ivi* &gt; *ī*, and was extended by analogy to other forms; since *-erunt* lacks an *i* to trigger this change, it was never the most popular form to contract (all instances were by analogy).&#xD;&#xA; - Historical infinitives never seem to alternate with perfect forms: if one phrase uses a historical infinitive, the phrases around it generally will, too, regardless of person and number. You'll (almost?) never see a single historical infinitive on its own within a larger text.&#xD;&#xA; - Historical infinitives are restricted to certain contexts, and are mainly only used by historians (hence the name), not by other authors. Perfect forms on the other hand appear everywhere.&#xD;&#xA; - Historical infinitives generally denote repeated, habitual, or ongoing action—in other words, they have **imperfect** semantics, not perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, it seems to be a coincidence. Perhaps a very unlikely one, but a coincidence nevertheless." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11405" RevisionGUID="9eb48502-d707-4997-b736-d4f8b499cc67" CreationDate="2019-08-29T17:01:01.137" UserId="469" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I agree with Martin's answer, but perhaps with a different nuance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Are these translations wrong?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Or does perhaps laudate imply morning hours?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Or maybe translations are right and the Vatican document is wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm inclined to explore the *there's no actual contradiction* alternative in this case. Plus, it is always good that someone plays the devil's advocate to reach firmer conclusions. So my answers to your questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I don't think the translations are wrong, nor the Vatican document is wrong.** I think the key to make everything else fit is in the *it's complicated* answer to your second question. **The relation between laudes and morning hours is complicated**, as has been already pointed out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* On one hand, the primary meaning of the word *laus* in both Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin can be said related to praise and not to the early hours of the day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* On the other hand, **Laudes** (specifically in plural) *is* the short version of the official name for the first of the canonical *hours*, before dawn (the complete name being Laudes Matutinae).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The term *hour* in *[canonical hours][1]* has a lot of implications beyond that of the common meaning we give to the word, but is there for a reason. As was commented, since the very beginning *prayer was designated by the hour at which it was said* (Act 3:1). In fact, most (all?) of the names of canonical hours match the names of hours (third, sixth), or times of the day in a broader sense (vespers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Now, rubrics sometimes ask that something be done/said at specific times of the day, e.g. *vespere*, *post I Vesperas*, *ad vesperas*. Here, *ad* + (time acc.) means *at* that point in time (see [L&amp;S][2], meaning I.B.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Ad laudes* and *ad laudes matutinas* seem to be used interchangeably in the rubrics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My argument is that the name *laudes* (in pl.), being one of the liturgical *hours* and even treated (arguably) as a time of the day by rubrics, is by itself strongly *associated with the early morning* (as Draconis put it), either by itself, or&amp;mdash;if you wish&amp;mdash;*through* association with the full name (*laudes matutinae*), even to the point that it can be asserted that *the name Laudes* in its current usage *indicates* that *they should be recited during the morning hours*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07500b.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dad" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11392" RevisionGUID="c4bb8699-c574-48a6-9d15-8a41bf5f068f" CreationDate="2019-08-29T21:08:47.847" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body" Text="How would you say of persons (plural) deceased;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Always loved, always remembered, always in our hearts&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11409" RevisionGUID="206ef8fd-2f2b-4cdc-96b1-ea128f89daaf" CreationDate="2019-08-29T22:53:07.230" UserDisplayName="user2840" Text="I'm taking a 4th semester Latin class in which we are jumping right into Vergil's Aeneid, said to be quite difficult. We were discussing the relatively recent phenomenon of 'novellas' being written in Latin, somewhat easier to read, and occasionally being  written with an aim of developing a particular facet of Latin comprehension. The question arose: Has any such novella been written specifically as an intermediary - perhaps essentially an abridged and simplified Aeneid, nevertheless in Latin - for students embarking on reading The Aeneid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33662" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11409" RevisionGUID="206ef8fd-2f2b-4cdc-96b1-ea128f89daaf" CreationDate="2019-08-29T22:53:07.230" UserDisplayName="user2840" Text="Do Latin novella's exist to help develop vocabulary for reading Vergil's Aeneid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33663" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11409" RevisionGUID="206ef8fd-2f2b-4cdc-96b1-ea128f89daaf" CreationDate="2019-08-29T22:53:07.230" UserDisplayName="user2840" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11409" RevisionGUID="3bc38de2-379f-405a-a8c2-b322570a173f" CreationDate="2019-08-30T01:22:38.520" UserId="9" Comment="minor formatting/punctuation edits" Text="I'm taking a 4th semester Latin class in which we are jumping right into Vergil's *Aeneid,* said to be quite difficult. We were discussing the relatively recent phenomenon of 'novellas' being written in Latin, somewhat easier to read, and occasionally being  written with an aim of developing a particular facet of Latin comprehension. The question arose: Has any such novella been written specifically as an intermediary - perhaps essentially an abridged and simplified *Aeneid,* nevertheless in Latin - for students embarking on reading the *Aeneid*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33665" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11409" RevisionGUID="3bc38de2-379f-405a-a8c2-b322570a173f" CreationDate="2019-08-30T01:22:38.520" UserId="9" Comment="minor formatting/punctuation edits" Text="Do Latin novellas exist to help develop vocabulary for reading Vergil's Aeneid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11410" RevisionGUID="506d1bcf-9784-4867-8c07-2999c40f73ca" CreationDate="2019-08-30T05:06:05.147" UserId="5042" Text="Im not sure about the usage of the &quot;per&quot; preposition, but this translation seems to be pretty straight forward. Is this correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33667" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11410" RevisionGUID="506d1bcf-9784-4867-8c07-2999c40f73ca" CreationDate="2019-08-30T05:06:05.147" UserId="5042" Text="Is &quot;iudicatus per historia&quot; a correct translation for &quot;judged by history&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33668" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11410" RevisionGUID="506d1bcf-9784-4867-8c07-2999c40f73ca" CreationDate="2019-08-30T05:06:05.147" UserId="5042" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11411" RevisionGUID="0e1d031d-b104-41fb-955d-5a044c978cdf" CreationDate="2019-08-30T06:20:18.680" UserId="118" Text="Some of the early chapters in _Roma Aeterna,_ Book 2 of Hans Ørberg's _Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata,_ contain simplified prose versions of sections of the Aeneid. This provides a great way to ease into Virgil." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11411" RevisionGUID="d9b63c23-3ade-4f27-9fee-10d347fa6e92" CreationDate="2019-08-30T06:37:20.207" UserId="118" Comment="added 865 characters in body" Text="Some of the early chapters in _Roma Aeterna,_ Book II of Hans Ørberg's _Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata,_ contain simplified prose versions of sections of the Aeneid. They're part of Ørberg's method of gradually introducing vocabulary and grammar entirely in Latin, with no translation to your native language, so you pick everything up from context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I happen to be reading the first of these chapters right now. Here are a couple sentences, to give you an idea of the style and level of difficulty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Paulō post animī Trōiānōrum rē horrendā turbātī sunt: Dum Lāocoōn ad āram taurum immolat, subitō duo anguēs ingentēs ab īnsulā Tenedō per mare tranquillum ad lītus natant. Cum terram attigissent, capitibus ērēctīs oculīsque ārdentibus Trōiānōs perterritōs prōspiciunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the margin, there is a picture of an *anguis*, and these notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immolāre = sacrificii causā occīdere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at-tingere -tigisse -tāctum ( &lt; ad+tangere) = tangere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ē-rigere -rēxisse -rēctum = tollere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those marginal notes are typical, and show how the book uses Latin to explain Latin.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11411" RevisionGUID="cf5bd869-b1e0-49bd-a387-00812aad1aa4" CreationDate="2019-08-30T06:45:25.883" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="Some of the early chapters in _Roma Aeterna,_ Book II of Hans Ørberg's _Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata,_ contain simplified prose versions of sections of the Aeneid. They're part of Ørberg's method of gradually introducing vocabulary and grammar entirely in Latin, with no translation to your native language, so you pick everything up from context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I happen to be reading the first of these chapters right now. Here are a couple sentences, to give you an idea of the style and level of difficulty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Paulō post animī Trōiānōrum rē horrendā turbātī sunt: Dum Lāocoōn ad āram taurum immolat, subitō duo anguēs ingentēs ab īnsulā Tenedō per mare tranquillum ad lītus natant. Cum terram attigissent, capitibus ērēctīs oculīsque ārdentibus Trōiānōs perterritōs prōspiciunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the margin, there is a picture of an *anguis*, and these notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; immolāre = sacrificiī causā occīdere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at-tingere -tigisse -tāctum ( &lt; ad+tangere) = tangere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ē-rigere -rēxisse -rēctum = tollere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those marginal notes are typical, and show how the book uses Latin to explain Latin.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9366" RevisionGUID="1e2e2a79-93bd-4250-9a9d-2c25a68318bc" CreationDate="2019-08-30T07:49:27.087" UserId="9" Comment="added 1987 characters in body" Text="I haven't read any linguist's comments on this matter, so my post is just a collection of guesses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Perhaps for grammatical reasons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Elision frequently deletes vowels that are part of grammatical endings, or sometimes part of highly grammaticalized monosyllabic words such as *est* (with &quot;prodelision&quot;). Grammatical endings often have a certain amount of redundancy, and they also are frequently changed between different forms of a word: e.g. the *a* at the end of *nauta* is not present in the inflected form *nautīs,* and the *um* at the end of *medium* is replaced with *ō* in the inflected form *mediōrum.* So elision often leaves unchanged the pronunciation of the most recognizable part of a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the context, synizesis might not do that (I'm not sure about that though, so this isn't a complete answer at all.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Perhaps the combinations of vowels involved are also relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The set of vowel sequences that are subject to elision between word boundaries and the set of vowel sequences that can be found in hiatus within a word in Latin are not exactly the same, although there is some overlap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the most frequent word-final vowels in Latin are not found in hiatus in native Latin vocabulary. At minimum, *a, ā, o, ō* would fall into this category. ([Cser (2016)][Cser link] proposes [a synchronic morphological rule of deletion for *a* and *o*][contraction post] inside of Latin words when followed by another vowel in derived environments; e.g., in inflected verb forms like first-person singular *laudō,* which can be analyzed as derived from *laudā-* plus an inflectional suffix *-ō,* or inflected noun or adjective forms like neuter plural *magna,* which can be analyzed as derived from *magno-* plus an inflectional suffix *-a.* (p. 96-98))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on whether you treat the endings written with a vowel letter plus M as vowel-nasal sequences or as unitary nasalized vowels, *um em im* might also count as vowels that don't occur in hiatus inside of Latin words (with a few rare and dubious possible exceptions like *[circumeo][circumeo post]*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only three vowels are commonly found before other vowels inside of Latin words: *e, u, i.* These regularly scan short in hiatus (a rule that has certain exceptions), although I'm not sure about the relevance of vowel length and syllable weight to your question. Right now, I can't give an explanation for why we see hiatus with these vowels inside of words, but not usually across word boundaries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[circumeo post]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9396/9&#xD;&#xA;[Cser link]: http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf&#xD;&#xA;[contraction post]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9244/9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9366" RevisionGUID="3f7c58ec-88eb-4d05-8e93-35eb124587f3" CreationDate="2019-08-30T07:54:34.660" UserId="9" Comment="added 1987 characters in body" Text="I haven't read any linguist's comments on this matter, so my post is just a collection of guesses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Perhaps for grammatical reasons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Elision frequently deletes vowels that are part of grammatical endings, or sometimes part of highly grammaticalized monosyllabic words such as *est* (with &quot;prodelision&quot;). Grammatical endings often have a certain amount of redundancy, and they also are frequently changed between different forms of a word: e.g. the *a* at the end of *nauta* is not present in the inflected form *nautīs,* and the *um* at the end of *medium* is replaced with *ō* in the inflected form *mediōrum.* So elision often leaves unchanged the pronunciation of the most recognizable part of a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the context, synizesis might not do that (I'm not sure about that though, so this isn't a complete answer at all.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Perhaps the combinations of vowels involved are also relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The set of vowel sequences that are subject to elision between word boundaries and the set of vowel sequences that can be found in hiatus within a word in Latin are not exactly the same, although there is some overlap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the most frequent word-final vowels in Latin are not found in hiatus in native Latin vocabulary. At minimum, *a, ā, o, ō* would fall into this category. ([Cser (2016)][Cser link] proposes [a synchronic morphological rule of deletion for *a* and *o*][contraction post] inside of Latin words when followed by another vowel in derived environments; e.g., in inflected verb forms like first-person singular *laudō,* which can be analyzed as derived from *laudā-* plus an inflectional suffix *-ō,* or inflected noun or adjective forms like neuter plural *magna,* which can be analyzed as derived from *magno-* plus an inflectional suffix *-a.* (p. 96-98))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on whether you treat the endings written with a vowel letter plus M as vowel-nasal sequences or as unitary nasalized vowels, *um em im* might also count as vowels that don't occur in hiatus inside of Latin words (with a few rare and dubious possible exceptions like *[circumeo][circumeo post]*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only three vowels are commonly found before other vowels inside of Latin words: *e, u, i.* These regularly scan short in hiatus (a rule that has certain exceptions), although I'm not sure about the relevance of vowel length and syllable weight to your question. Right now, I can't give a good phonological explanation for why we see hiatus with these vowels inside of words, but not usually across word boundaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[circumeo post]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9396/9&#xD;&#xA;[Cser link]: http://real-d.mtak.hu/896/7/dc_1106_15_doktori_mu.pdf&#xD;&#xA;[contraction post]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/9244/9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11412" RevisionGUID="c33a6020-f924-4962-89ba-9c64fbbd372c" CreationDate="2019-08-30T09:05:45.417" UserId="9" Text="There doesn't seem to be any attestation of *\*quartilis* being used in ancient times. I'd imagine you've already checked the PHI Latin Texts corpus and seen that it gives no results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Logeion, a Latin dictionary and resource lookup tool, has results for *[tertilis](https://logeion.uchicago.edu/tertilis)* and *[quartilis](https://logeion.uchicago.edu/quartilis),* but only from the DMLBS: *The Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources.* The entry for each word has a single citation in an astronomical context in a postclassical British source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found female names ending in *-illa,* like *Quartilla* and *Secundilla,* but I don't think these are related to adjectives ending in *-ilis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a bit of an aside, but I found an interesting blog post that says that the praenomina *Quintus* and *Sextus* may have originally been related to the month-names *Quintilis* and *Sextilis.* It seems that Varro suggested this hypothesis, but it was not an actual custom in his time to name children based on their month of birth, so it's hard for me to evaluate the plausibility of this idea. (&quot;[Why are there no Romans named ‘Quartus’?](http://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2018/04/why-no-romans-named-quartus.html)&quot;, by Peter Gainsford, 2018 April 16, *Kiwi Hellenist*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11413" RevisionGUID="5789c8bc-f2a1-47f3-b097-423821d0bac3" CreationDate="2019-08-30T13:08:52.767" UserId="469" Text="On August 28&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, 2019 [Duolingo][1] [announced][2] its [Latin course for English speakers][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of curiosity, I subscribed, but I'm just starting to peek into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is (if anyone has tried it in depth already), what can be objectively said about it? Is it good for learning Latin? What are the ups and downs? Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** *the course is&amp;mdash;as of the time I'm writing, still in August, 2019&amp;mdash;in beta, and maybe the answer will change with time.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;: by chance or not, feast day and anniversary of the death of [St. Augustine of Hippo][4], a relevant author of late Latin literature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duolingo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://making.duolingo.com/latin-alive-and-ready-to-be-learned&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.duolingo.com/course/la/en/Learn-Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33676" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11413" RevisionGUID="5789c8bc-f2a1-47f3-b097-423821d0bac3" CreationDate="2019-08-30T13:08:52.767" UserId="469" Text="Is duolingo good for Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33677" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11413" RevisionGUID="5789c8bc-f2a1-47f3-b097-423821d0bac3" CreationDate="2019-08-30T13:08:52.767" UserId="469" Text="|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33678" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11413" RevisionGUID="40866eaf-0720-4922-87c7-c5b0ac1eda29" CreationDate="2019-08-30T13:21:03.660" UserId="469" Comment="edited title" Text="Is duolingo good for Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11367" RevisionGUID="a2c31f2b-5caa-4439-8258-8a1cbfdc2dda" CreationDate="2019-08-30T15:38:10.727" UserId="1982" Comment="edited body" Text="In the made-for-TV re-make of &quot;Ben Hur&quot;, Hugh Bonneville played Pontius Pilate. At one point &quot;Pilate&quot; said: &quot;Chariot-racing is not a sport for amateurs. And to compete and to lose would be worse than not to compete at all!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The psychology-of-fear, which helped to hold the Empire together, required that all things Roman had to, at least appear to, be invincible. A multi-national chariot-race was not just a chariot race.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The myth of Roman invincibility could/ should have been shattered by the catastrophic defeat in the Teutoburg Forest, in AD 9. The spreading news could have foundered the Empire. An assumption is that poor communications hindered any potential co-ordination of simultaneous uprisings, over such an area. Whatever the reason, no empire can afford too many setbacks, irrespective of the military implications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Returning to the Q: a possible translation, of Pilate, could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Contendere cum curribus non est ludus rudibus, et si contenderis ut perdas peior quam omnino non contendere sit.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11414" RevisionGUID="84df47f8-77d6-41e9-9fd0-b32a8a9f523e" CreationDate="2019-08-31T14:35:18.270" UserId="1982" Text="The rise of right-wing (fascist) parties, in too many parts of Europe, is as concerning as it is disturbing. Totalitarianism, with its seductive promise of simplistic solutions, always seems to have its adherents. This, despite bitter lessons from the C20th., on what these &quot;simplistic solutions&quot; actually involve. The term &quot;totalitarianism&quot; is relatively new, in historical time, a century or so; but, the primary motivation--the creation of &quot;order&quot;-- has probably been around for as long as politics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When confronted with the temptations both Benedict Arnold &amp; Thomas Jefferson have been credited with the same chilling observation; irrespective of the progenitor it can be summarised as: &quot;If you give up a little more freedom, for a little more law-and-order, you deserve neither and you'll lose both.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;si libertatem paulatim cedetis, salutem paulatim ad causa pariundum, neque merebitis utrasque perdetis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33682" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11414" RevisionGUID="84df47f8-77d6-41e9-9fd0-b32a8a9f523e" CreationDate="2019-08-31T14:35:18.270" UserId="1982" Text="Advice From History" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33683" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11414" RevisionGUID="84df47f8-77d6-41e9-9fd0-b32a8a9f523e" CreationDate="2019-08-31T14:35:18.270" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11414" RevisionGUID="f6f53a92-e02b-4244-92cd-69cf47267c7f" CreationDate="2019-08-31T14:44:43.047" UserId="1982" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="The rise of right-wing (fascist) parties, in too many parts of Europe, is as concerning as it is disturbing. Totalitarianism, with its seductive promise of simplistic solutions, always seems to have its adherents. This, despite bitter lessons from the C20th., on what these &quot;simplistic solutions&quot; actually involve. The term &quot;totalitarianism&quot; is relatively new, in historical time, a century or so; but, the primary motivation--the creation of &quot;order&quot;-- has probably been around for as long as politics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When confronted with the temptations both Benedict Arnold &amp; Thomas Jefferson have been credited with the same chilling observation; irrespective of the progenitor it can be summarised as: &quot;If you give up a little more freedom, for a little more law-and-order, you deserve neither and you'll lose both.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;si libertatem paulatim cedetis, salutem paulatim ad pariundum, neque merebitis utrasque perdetis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11414" RevisionGUID="6182ae37-fd9a-4ac9-b028-7d102c09b84e" CreationDate="2019-08-31T16:44:45.990" UserId="9" Comment="replaced &quot;translation&quot; tag with the more specific &quot;english-to-latin-translation&quot;" Text="The rise of right-wing (fascist) parties, in too many parts of Europe, is as concerning as it is disturbing. Totalitarianism, with its seductive promise of simplistic solutions, always seems to have its adherents. This, despite bitter lessons from the C20th., on what these &quot;simplistic solutions&quot; actually involve. The term &quot;totalitarianism&quot; is relatively new, in historical time, a century or so; but, the primary motivation—the creation of &quot;order&quot;—has probably been around for as long as politics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When confronted with the temptations both Benedict Arnold &amp; Thomas Jefferson have been credited with the same chilling observation; irrespective of the progenitor it can be summarised as: &quot;If you give up a little more freedom, for a little more law-and-order, you deserve neither and you'll lose both.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;si libertatem paulatim cedetis, salutem paulatim ad pariundum, neque merebitis utrasque perdetis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33686" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11414" RevisionGUID="6182ae37-fd9a-4ac9-b028-7d102c09b84e" CreationDate="2019-08-31T16:44:45.990" UserId="9" Comment="replaced &quot;translation&quot; tag with the more specific &quot;english-to-latin-translation&quot;" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11415" RevisionGUID="2fcc2b3f-edbc-4092-8fcb-ce68f2c48b54" CreationDate="2019-08-31T20:44:09.027" UserId="79" Text="If you want to use *per*, the noun *historia* needs to be in the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;You can say *iudicatus per historiam*, but it means &quot;judged through history&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There are contexts where that can make sense, but it is not a good translation for &quot;judged by history&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you want is an agent.&#xD;&#xA;The agent is always in the ablative (which for *historia* is *historia* but with a long final *a*).&#xD;&#xA;Whether you need a preposition with the agent depends on, well, agency.&#xD;&#xA;If it is acting willfully, then you need the preposition *a/ab*.&#xD;&#xA;If the agent is a mere tool, you do not.&#xD;&#xA;This is sometimes simplified by saying that human agents take the preposition and others do not, but [there is more to it](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/840/79).&#xD;&#xA;In this case I would leave the preposition out, but perhaps in some context you could put it in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you the thing being judged is an unspecified thing, you need a neuter *iudicatum*.&#xD;&#xA;For an unspecified person the masculine *iudicatus* is best.&#xD;&#xA;The form depends on the number and gender of the judged entity.&#xD;&#xA;If it happens to be neuter plural or feminine singular, there is potential for misinterpretation of the participle as an attribute of *historia*.&#xD;&#xA;That can be helped with word order and a preposition.&#xD;&#xA;Again, context matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume you are talking about a general entity.&#xD;&#xA;I would invert the word order and say ***historia iudicatum***.&#xD;&#xA;Whether this works for you depends on the specific context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11416" RevisionGUID="5081be8f-f6a7-4985-8eb4-ba2e41f1f4af" CreationDate="2019-08-31T21:12:36.850" UserId="79" Text="I have used Duolingo for other languages, and I've now briefly tested it for Latin.&#xD;&#xA;There is a major issue:&#xD;&#xA;It goes way too fast.&#xD;&#xA;If the course has to be short for practical reasons, I would much rather have it stop early than go fast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the second lesson you encounter the first three conjugations, datives, vocatives, ablatives, several pronouns, and more.&#xD;&#xA;I don't think you're given enough time to understand the structures before new ones are thrown at you.&#xD;&#xA;You don't necessarily need full theoretical understanding to move forward, sure, but the pace feels counterproductive to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Errors in spelling will probably vanish in time.&#xD;&#xA;What can be much harder to cure is the acceptance algorithm.&#xD;&#xA;There can be many ways to interpret a phrase, and the program can force a narrow and possibly unnatural wording.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen this with other languages, but I already got the feeling that it will be worse with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *Quid agit Marcus?* had to be translated as &quot;How is Marcus?&quot; whereas &quot;What does Marcus do?&quot; was wrong.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, *Me male habeo* is allegedly &quot;I feel poorly&quot; but not &quot;I feel unwell&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the Duolingo can support studying Latin, but it seems to make a bad only teacher.&#xD;&#xA;I will update this if I change my mind after getting further through the course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11416" RevisionGUID="75633014-ecb7-44a2-8e2d-847cc6b583be" CreationDate="2019-08-31T21:41:34.417" UserId="79" Comment="added 538 characters in body" Text="I have used Duolingo for other languages, and I've now briefly tested it for Latin.&#xD;&#xA;There are two major issues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It goes way too fast.&#xD;&#xA;If the course has to be short for practical reasons, I would much rather have it stop early than go fast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The system is too inflexible at accepting translations in both directions.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if you can even reasonably enumerate all possible phrasings of a complicated sentence.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if Duolingo has the capacity to understand structures more flexibly.&#xD;&#xA;(This feels similar to the issues with [Google Translate](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the second lesson you encounter the first three conjugations, datives, vocatives, ablatives, several pronouns, and more.&#xD;&#xA;I don't think you're given enough time to understand the structures before new ones are thrown at you.&#xD;&#xA;You don't necessarily need full theoretical understanding to move forward, sure, but the pace feels counterproductive to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Errors in spelling and minor details will probably vanish in time.&#xD;&#xA;What can be much harder to cure is the acceptance algorithm.&#xD;&#xA;There can be many ways to interpret a phrase, and the program can force a narrow and possibly unnatural wording.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen this with other languages, but I already got the feeling that it will be worse with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *Quid agit Marcus?* had to be translated as &quot;How is Marcus?&quot; whereas &quot;What does Marcus do?&quot; was wrong.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, *Me male habeo* is allegedly &quot;I feel poorly&quot; but not &quot;I feel unwell&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;And as cnread comments below, the system can force a word order in Latin when it is free and the forced one might not even be very natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the Duolingo can support studying Latin, but it seems to make a bad only teacher.&#xD;&#xA;I will update this if I change my mind after getting further through the course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4124" RevisionGUID="52b804c5-6a32-4b13-b8b6-c126ac0048e5" CreationDate="2019-08-31T21:47:44.100" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="The word for 'skeleton' in Petronius' *Satyricon* is indeed *larva*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Potantibus ergo nobis et accuratissime lautitias mirantibus **larvam argenteam** attulit **servus sic aptatam, ut articuli eius vertebraeque luxatae in omnem partem flecterentur**. Hanc cum super mensam semel iterumque abiecisset, et catenatio mobilis aliquot figuras exprimeret, Trimalchio adiecit:  &#xD;&#xA;Eheu nos miseros, quam totus homuncio nil est.  &#xD;&#xA;Sic erimus cuncti, postquam nos auferet Orcus.  &#xD;&#xA;Ergo vivamus, dum licet esse bene.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As we drank and admired each luxury in detail, a slave brought in **a silver skeleton, made so that its limbs and spine could be moved and bent in every direction**. He put it down once or twice on the table so that the supple joints showed several attitudes, and Trimalchio said appropriately: &quot;Alas for us poor mortals, all that poor man is is nothing. So we shall all be, after the world below takes us away. Let us live then while it goes well with us.&quot; (trans. Heseltine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the word typically means &quot;ghost&quot; or even &quot;goblin,&quot; as Lewis and Short define it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *a ghost, spectre*: “larvae stimulant virum,” Plaut. Capt. 3, 4, 66: “amator qui me et uxorem ludificatust larva,” id. Cas. 3, 4, 2; id. Aul. 4, 4, 15: cum mortuis non nisi larvas luctari, Plin. praef. H. N. § 31. — As a term of reproach, *hobgoblin, scarecrow*: “etiam loquere larŭa?” Plaut. Merc. 5, 4, 20: “nam haec quidem edepol larvarum plenast,” possessed, id. Am. 2, 2, 145.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, here it has to mean skeleton, model skeleton even. He's describing a put together skeleton (made of silver) that can move. To mean &quot;evil spirit&quot; here wouldn't make any sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11414" RevisionGUID="769708e2-cefc-4d21-842c-31966a643038" CreationDate="2019-08-31T23:14:16.737" UserId="1982" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The rise of right-wing (fascist) parties, in too many parts of Europe, is as concerning as it is disturbing. Totalitarianism, with its seductive promise of simplistic solutions, always seems to have its adherents. This, despite bitter lessons from the C20th., on what these &quot;simplistic solutions&quot; actually involve. The term &quot;totalitarianism&quot; is relatively new, in historical time, a century or so; but, the primary motivation—the creation of &quot;order&quot;—has probably been around for as long as politics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When confronted with the temptations both Benjamin Franklin &amp; Thomas Jefferson have been credited with the same chilling observation; irrespective of the progenitor it can be summarised as: &quot;If you give up a little more freedom, for a little more law-and-order, you deserve neither and you'll lose both.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;si libertatem paulatim cedetis, salutem paulatim ad pariundum, neque merebitis utrasque perdetis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11413" RevisionGUID="87941e5f-4029-49c5-9802-278996e13f40" CreationDate="2019-08-31T23:30:21.623" UserId="469" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="On August 28&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;, 2019 [Duolingo][1] [announced][2] its [Latin course for English speakers][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of curiosity, I subscribed, but I'm just starting to peek into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is (if anyone has tried it in depth already), what can be objectively said about it? Is it good for learning Latin? What are the ups and downs? Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** *the course is&amp;mdash;as of the time I'm writing, still in August, 2019&amp;mdash;in beta, and maybe the answer will change with time.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;: by chance or not, feast day and anniversary of the death of [St. Augustine of Hippo][4], a relevant author of late Latin literature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duolingo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://making.duolingo.com/latin-alive-and-ready-to-be-learned&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.duolingo.com/course/la/en/Learn-Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33694" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11413" RevisionGUID="87941e5f-4029-49c5-9802-278996e13f40" CreationDate="2019-08-31T23:30:21.623" UserId="469" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|resource-request|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11418" RevisionGUID="04fbb0ba-b9b9-476c-978e-9c330eab1cbb" CreationDate="2019-09-01T10:54:13.000" UserId="645" Text="It's quite difficult to find a really good Latin equivalent here. Belatedly, I offer  &#xD;&#xA;**colendo partem habeas**  &#xD;&#xA;— a rough formulation, but right, I think, in spirit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11414" RevisionGUID="46edad04-fe70-409f-8421-def3a185dfe6" CreationDate="2019-09-01T11:22:44.347" UserId="1982" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The rise of right-wing (fascist) parties, in too many parts of Europe, is as concerning as it is disturbing. Totalitarianism, with its seductive promise of simplistic solutions, always seems to have its adherents. This, despite bitter lessons from the C20th., on what these &quot;simplistic solutions&quot; actually involve. The term &quot;totalitarianism&quot; is relatively new, in historical time, a century or so; but, the primary motivation—the creation of &quot;order&quot;—has probably been around for as long as politics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When confronted with the temptations both Benjamin Franklin &amp; Thomas Jefferson have been credited with the same chilling observation; irrespective of the progenitor it can be summarised as: &quot;If you give up a little more freedom, for a little more law-and-order, you deserve neither and you'll lose both.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;si libertatem paulatim cedetis, salutem paulatim ad pariundum, neque merebitis et utrasque perdetis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11419" RevisionGUID="8149ed11-5d51-4bc8-bd37-d20b37dad2d7" CreationDate="2019-09-01T13:49:05.163" UserId="4871" Text="Depending on the shades of meaning you intend, &quot;dare amare&quot; might be the most succinct translation..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11420" RevisionGUID="9cb2f174-e0c1-4440-ae84-c96f29b48296" CreationDate="2019-09-01T14:01:01.903" UserId="79" Text="&gt; *Si libertatem paulatim cedetis, salutem paulatim ad pariundum, neque merebitis et utrasque perdetis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not quite right, but mostly understandable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On vocabulary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you want to say &quot;each&quot;, you should say *utramque*.&#xD;&#xA;This means &quot;both in turn&quot;, whereas *ambas* would be more &quot;both together&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I can only imagine rare situations where a plural of *uterque* would be needed, and I can't remember seeing it in use.&#xD;&#xA;A separate question exploring the plural of *uterque* would be in order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I recommend *utramque*.&#xD;&#xA;Somehow it makes the tone a little more chilling to my ear than *ambas*.&#xD;&#xA;A bit like &quot;you will lose each and every one of your privileges&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Paulatim* or *paullatim* means &quot;little by little&quot; or &quot;in small increments&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It refers to gradual change, not a single small change.&#xD;&#xA;The adverbs ending in *-tim* tend to describe a repeated action.&#xD;&#xA;For another example, consider *viritim*, &quot;one man at a time&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I think the intention here is that you give a little bit of freedom one single time.&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;a little bit of freedom&quot; you could use *paullulum libertatis*.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to keep the comparative of the original, maybe *paulo plus libertatis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The same issue with *paulatim* appears twice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Cedere* is a verb of many meanings, and the meaning &quot;to give up&quot; would not come first to my mind when encountering it.&#xD;&#xA;I recommend something with a stronger message of giving away.&#xD;&#xA;I'd go with *dedere*, referring to giving away, surrendering, and similar.&#xD;&#xA;You can tone the message with choosing something like *abicere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Parere* works.&#xD;&#xA;Consider also *parare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Salus* is good for &quot;health&quot; or &quot;welfare&quot;, but does not quite convey &quot;law and order&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I can't think of a great translation here.&#xD;&#xA;Some ideas come to mind, and maybe you can build something corresponding to &quot;law and order&quot; out of these: *fas*, *lex*, *securitas*, *ius*, *mos*, *civitas*, *iustitia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Remember to update the gender of the pronouns in the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Neque* is &quot;and not&quot;, not &quot;neither&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The word *neuter* is great and contrasts well with *uterque*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On grammar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is the &quot;you&quot; in the original singular or plural?&#xD;&#xA;English doesn't make the distinction, but we have to make the decision when translating.&#xD;&#xA;If the address is to the nation as a whole, the plural as you chose is a good way to go.&#xD;&#xA;If it is directed to an individual (even if every single individual at the same time), then you need plural.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to make it a matter of personal choice, switch to singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; You could also read the &quot;you&quot; as impersonal (not an address to anyone) and translate the whole thing in passive or something similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; There is no single right choice here, but I just want you to look into the option and make the choice consciously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You used future tense, and that works.&#xD;&#xA;You could also make it so that the condition is present and the conclusion is future.&#xD;&#xA;The future depending on your current choices is very much in the right spirit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The *et* between the two conclusions is indeed good to have.&#xD;&#xA;You can't add *-que* to *uterque* without confusion or sounding weird.&#xD;&#xA;The particle *-que* shouldn't be used with *uter* and *quis* and similar words that have a wholly different meaning with *-que* added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In my experience the deponent (or passive or even [middle](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11258/79)) form *mereri* is somewhat more common.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of a difference in meaning, but my instinct seems to favor passive here.&#xD;&#xA;There's nothing wrong with the active, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Ad pariundum* is not a clause and I would not separate it with a comma, but I guess this is a matter of style.&#xD;&#xA;An option to consider is to use a final *ut* clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Yet another approach would be to start from something like &quot;exchange liberty for safety&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;That would need some restructuring, but I think that would be faithful to the original message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a possible rewrite based on these thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Si paululum libertatis dedis, ut paululum iustitiae securitatisque pares, neutrum mereberis et utrumque perdes.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11414" RevisionGUID="432a74d5-d5e8-4dbc-b6a0-a0d384477340" CreationDate="2019-09-01T14:01:47.653" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="The rise of right-wing (fascist) parties, in too many parts of Europe, is as concerning as it is disturbing. Totalitarianism, with its seductive promise of simplistic solutions, always seems to have its adherents. This, despite bitter lessons from the 20th century, on what these &quot;simplistic solutions&quot; actually involve. The term &quot;totalitarianism&quot; is relatively new, in historical time, a century or so; but, the primary motivation—the creation of &quot;order&quot;—has probably been around for as long as politics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When confronted with the temptations both Benjamin Franklin &amp; Thomas Jefferson have been credited with the same chilling observation; irrespective of the progenitor it can be summarised as: &quot;If you give up a little more freedom, for a little more law-and-order, you deserve neither and you'll lose both.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Si libertatem paulatim cedetis, salutem paulatim ad pariundum, neque merebitis et utrasque perdetis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33702" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="11419" RevisionGUID="e4f6cfc0-6371-459e-a5c0-874e34dc790f" CreationDate="2019-09-01T18:46:13.090" UserId="79" Comment="131" />
  <row Id="33703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11392" RevisionGUID="542ef58c-d11d-4ce1-8456-687a8c266172" CreationDate="2019-09-01T18:51:41.513" UserId="79" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="How would you say of persons (plural) deceased;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Always loved, always remembered, always in our hearts&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is to be use as an epitaph on a gravestone for my parents.&#xD;&#xA;It is therefore important to get it right especially with respect to conveying the correct emotional tone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11421" RevisionGUID="2fe98191-a190-44e0-8c58-a431c3b28a56" CreationDate="2019-09-01T19:07:20.623" UserId="79" Text="In English one uses the word &quot;heart&quot; in a variety of ways to express deep emotion, as in &quot;She will always be in our hearts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a corresponding &quot;emotional organ&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;How should I go about translating heart-related phrases into Latin in general?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is of course *cor*, but I'm not sure if it's really used the way &quot;heart&quot; is.&#xD;&#xA;I am not interested in the actual physical organ that pumps blood but the emotions attached to it in English.&#xD;&#xA;My instinct suggests that *pectus* might be more suitable.&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;from the bottom of our hearts&quot; could well be *pectore ab imo*.&#xD;&#xA;But is *pectus* a good general substitute or should I be using *cor* as well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer classical Latin here, but insight from any era is welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33706" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11421" RevisionGUID="2fe98191-a190-44e0-8c58-a431c3b28a56" CreationDate="2019-09-01T19:07:20.623" UserId="79" Text="What is &quot;heart&quot; as the emotional organ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33707" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11421" RevisionGUID="2fe98191-a190-44e0-8c58-a431c3b28a56" CreationDate="2019-09-01T19:07:20.623" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|word-request|word-choice|nuance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11414" RevisionGUID="53e8b8fa-d39f-4868-9cab-c9c4b1307dd4" CreationDate="2019-09-02T10:56:18.837" UserId="1982" Comment="added 216 characters in body" Text="The rise of right-wing (fascist) parties, in too many parts of Europe, is as concerning as it is disturbing. Totalitarianism, with its seductive promise of simplistic solutions, always seems to have its adherents. This, despite bitter lessons from the 20th century, on what these &quot;simplistic solutions&quot; actually involve. The term &quot;totalitarianism&quot; is relatively new, in historical time, a century or so; but, the primary motivation—the creation of &quot;order&quot;—has probably been around for as long as politics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When confronted with the temptations both Benjamin Franklin &amp; Thomas Jefferson have been credited with the same chilling observation; irrespective of the progenitor it can be summarised as: &quot;If you give up a little more freedom, for a little more law-and-order, you deserve neither and you'll lose both.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks to C Monsour who has pointed out that the progenitor was, in fact, Benjamin Franklin. There are sources which credit Thomas Jefferson. He, TJ, said much about democracy; and, its potential perversion.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Si libertatem paulatim cedetis, salutem paulatim ad pariundum, neque merebitis et utrasque perdetis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11423" RevisionGUID="2c021dde-da03-4e54-90f7-6155f20e77e4" CreationDate="2019-09-02T11:38:07.827" UserId="645" Text="Smith &amp; Hall give a fairly clear and thorough explanation in 'A Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary', under the headword 'Heart' (page 307), section III, which begins as follows :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Heart *as the seat of the emotions:*  &#xD;&#xA;1. pectus, -oris, *n*. : *to love one's friend with the whole h.,* amicum toto p. [ut dicitur] amare, Cic. Leg. I, 18, 49 : Virg. : *it is the h. that makes eloquent,* p. est quod disertos facit, Quint. 10, 7, 15 : *a h. to friendship true,*, fidae p. amicitiae, Mart. 9, 14.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*animus* is also put forward as 'the soul, especially as the emotional part'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use of the word *cor* is considered infrequent in the sense that you are looking for, although *corda* is used for 'the wits', and the authors also claim that 'cordi esse' denotes simply that a thing *is agreeable to one's wishes*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the basis of the whole article, it seems that the usages of both *cor* and *pectus* shade into each other in much the same way as in English idiom , where we can take things to heart, hold emotions in our breasts — or secrets, as the Pope is said to hold the names of chosen cardinals, — have heart-felt conversations and so on; but in cases of doubt, *pectus* looks to be the best bet for what you are wanting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I don't use Lewis &amp; Short very often, but I should think, because it was based on Smith, that it is in agreement, with a possibly larger number of examples.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11420" RevisionGUID="17118390-729f-4eb9-8eab-f9c29bf16b42" CreationDate="2019-09-02T12:06:54.270" UserId="79" Comment="added 653 characters in body" Text="&gt; *Si libertatem paulatim cedetis, salutem paulatim ad pariundum, neque merebitis et utrasque perdetis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not quite right, but mostly understandable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On vocabulary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you want to say &quot;each&quot;, you should say *utramque*.&#xD;&#xA;This means &quot;both in turn&quot;, whereas *ambas* would be more &quot;both together&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I can only imagine rare situations where a plural of *uterque* would be needed, and I can't remember seeing it in use.&#xD;&#xA;A separate question exploring the plural of *uterque* would be in order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I recommend *utramque*.&#xD;&#xA;Somehow it makes the tone a little more chilling to my ear than *ambas*.&#xD;&#xA;A bit like &quot;you will lose each and every one of your privileges&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Paulatim* or *paullatim* means &quot;little by little&quot; or &quot;in small increments&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It refers to gradual change, not a single small change.&#xD;&#xA;The adverbs ending in *-tim* tend to describe a repeated action.&#xD;&#xA;For another example, consider *viritim*, &quot;one man at a time&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I think the intention here is that you give a little bit of freedom one single time.&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;a little bit of freedom&quot; you could use *paullulum libertatis*.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to keep the comparative of the original, maybe *paulo plus libertatis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The same issue with *paulatim* appears twice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The statement makes sense with &quot;little by little&quot; and then *paulatim* is the way to go.&#xD;&#xA;I always read it as &quot;a little bit right now&quot; instead.&#xD;&#xA;I'm happy as long as you're aware of your choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Cedere* is a verb of many meanings, and the meaning &quot;to give up&quot; would not come first to my mind when encountering it.&#xD;&#xA;I recommend something with a stronger message of giving away.&#xD;&#xA;I'd go with *dedere*, referring to giving away, surrendering, and similar.&#xD;&#xA;You can tone the message with choosing something like *abicere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Parere* works for gaining (law and order).&#xD;&#xA;Consider also *parare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Salus* is good for &quot;health&quot; or &quot;welfare&quot;, but does not quite convey &quot;law and order&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I can't think of a great translation here.&#xD;&#xA;Some ideas come to mind, and maybe you can build something corresponding to &quot;law and order&quot; out of these: *fas*, *lex*, *securitas*, *ius*, *mos*, *civitas*, *iustitia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Remember to update the gender of the pronouns in the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Neque* is &quot;and not&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The English &quot;neither&quot; has two uses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;Neither do I.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;Here it means &quot;and not&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;Neither of them can fly.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;Here it means &quot;not a single one from a set of two&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two meanings are expressed with different words in many languages, including Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Translation word for word can easily run to just this kind of issues.&#xD;&#xA;The word *neque* is for the first meaning, but here you need the second one.&#xD;&#xA;The word *neuter* is great for the second meaning and contrasts well with *uterque*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On grammar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is the &quot;you&quot; in the original singular or plural?&#xD;&#xA;English doesn't make the distinction, but we have to make the decision when translating.&#xD;&#xA;If the address is to the nation as a whole, the plural as you chose is a good way to go.&#xD;&#xA;If it is directed to an individual (even if every single individual at the same time), then you need plural.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to make it a matter of personal choice, switch to singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; You could also read the &quot;you&quot; as impersonal (not an address to anyone) and translate the whole thing in passive or something similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; There is no single right choice here, but I just want you to look into the option and make the choice consciously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You used future tense, and that works.&#xD;&#xA;You could also make it so that the condition is present and the conclusion is future.&#xD;&#xA;The future depending on your current choices is very much in the right spirit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The *et* between the two conclusions is indeed good to have.&#xD;&#xA;You can't add *-que* to *uterque* without confusion or sounding weird.&#xD;&#xA;The particle *-que* shouldn't be used with *uter* and *quis* and similar words that have a wholly different meaning with *-que* added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In my experience the deponent (or passive or even [middle](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11258/79)) form *mereri* is somewhat more common.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of a difference in meaning, but my instinct seems to favor passive here.&#xD;&#xA;There's nothing wrong with the active, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Ad pariundum* is not a clause and I would not separate it with a comma, but I guess this is a matter of style.&#xD;&#xA;An option to consider is to use a final *ut* clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Yet another approach would be to start from something like &quot;exchange liberty for safety&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;That would need some restructuring, but I think that would be faithful to the original message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a possible rewrite based on these thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Si paululum libertatis dedis, ut paululum iustitiae securitatisque pares, neutrum mereberis et utrumque perdes.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11424" RevisionGUID="ed6065dc-d5da-4fe8-8059-5e593038ad6d" CreationDate="2019-09-02T13:12:42.703" UserId="5048" Text="Muscles and bones have Latin names as can be found on [wikipedia][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need to name muscles and bones with their Latin name and I also need to specify if it's the left or the right muscle in the human body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where is the correct position for the Latin words for left (sinistra) and right (dextra) for a muscle or bone name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a general rule where to position this word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the form of the left and right words depend on the case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [`musculus latissimus dorsi`][2] exists on the humans back on the left and right side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the correct naming if I explicitly want to point to the left muscle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. `musculus latissimus dorsi sinistra`&#xD;&#xA; 2. `musculus latissimus sinistra dorsi`&#xD;&#xA; 3. `musculus sinistra latissimus dorsi`&#xD;&#xA; 4. `sinistra musculus latissimus dorsi`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_skeletal_muscles_of_the_human_body&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latissimus_dorsi_muscle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33714" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11424" RevisionGUID="ed6065dc-d5da-4fe8-8059-5e593038ad6d" CreationDate="2019-09-02T13:12:42.703" UserId="5048" Text="Where is the correct position to set right or left of muscle names for anatomical names?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33715" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11424" RevisionGUID="ed6065dc-d5da-4fe8-8059-5e593038ad6d" CreationDate="2019-09-02T13:12:42.703" UserId="5048" Text="|grammar-choice|syntax|grammar-identification|anatomia|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11425" RevisionGUID="6181649a-8200-4d34-b3ed-416063943b49" CreationDate="2019-09-02T13:47:52.773" UserId="79" Text="The suggestion by C Monsour is good, but not the only option.&#xD;&#xA;While the heart is anatomically *cor*, it is not always the best translation in a setting like this.&#xD;&#xA;See [this separate question for translating &quot;heart&quot; in a figurative sense](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11421/79).&#xD;&#xA;There are many kinds of Latin, and the idiomatic choice depends somewhat on the chosen style.&#xD;&#xA;In classical Latin *pectus* appears to be more idiomatic than *cor* although it literally means &quot;chest&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last part could be *semper in pectoribus*, &quot;always in [the] hearts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In English you need either an article or a possessive pronoun, but in Latin neither is needed.&#xD;&#xA;I think it is clear enough from context what is meant, and you might even like the idea of not specifying all the hearts that remember them.&#xD;&#xA;It is certainly not wrong to add *nostris* if you want to specify &quot;our&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original English triplet is not symmetric.&#xD;&#xA;The first two have a participle (loved, remembered) while the third one has a prepositional phrase (in hearts).&#xD;&#xA;Therefore it is reasonable to take the liberty to move these statements between these two types to find a fluent translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I bring this up because &quot;always remembered&quot; could be nicely rendered as *semper in memoria*, literally &quot;always in memory&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This word should be familiar to many from the phrase *in memoriam*, and is therefore likely to evoke a fitting reaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we are talking about memories and hearts, it makes sense to have them in a similar form.&#xD;&#xA;Either several memories and several hearts or a single memory and a single heart.&#xD;&#xA;This harmony is not necessary, especially if the two are not next to each other, but something to consider.&#xD;&#xA;The singular would focus more on the individual experience of anyone who reads the inscription, whereas the plural would be more collective.&#xD;&#xA;I would vote for plural, but the choice is of course yours.&#xD;&#xA;The singulars would be *memoria, pectore* and the plurals *memoriis, pectoribus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first part &quot;always loved&quot; is very naturally *semper amati*.&#xD;&#xA;The masculine plural *amati* is the right choice for a group of people that contains a male.&#xD;&#xA;I tried to find a way to phrase it also as &quot;always in [something]&quot;, but found nothing suitable.&#xD;&#xA;The asymmetry of the original remains but is slightly changed.&#xD;&#xA;You can try changing the order of the three elements to see if it sounds better.&#xD;&#xA;Swapping the first two works to my ear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my suggestion would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Semper amati, semper in memoriis, semper in pectoribus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin inscriptions are often made with capital letters and U written as a V.&#xD;&#xA;In this style, it would look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SEMPER AMATI, SEMPER IN MEMORIIS, SEMPER IN PECTORIBVS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My personal favorite among the options arising seems to be inscribing something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;SEMPER IN MEMORIA  &#xD;&#xA;SEMPER AMATI  &#xD;&#xA;SEMPER IN PECTORIBVS." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11426" RevisionGUID="d5655633-ce77-4673-8f18-478fc3f43185" CreationDate="2019-09-02T13:50:50.540" UserId="1459" Text="Consider this usual example of Latin+English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_memoriam#Latin) states, _in memoriam_ literally means &quot;into memory&quot; (_memoriam_ is in accusative case). However, as Wiktionary (above) and [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Memoriam) state, the phrase is used to mean &quot;in [the] memory [of]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On that note, would a more appropriate use of Latin be the ablative, _in memoria_? The latter could also be understood as &quot;to the memory of&quot;, which also makes sense in this context, I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, did genuine Latin speakers (e.g. Roman, mediaeval period, Church)  used &quot;_in memoriam_&quot; for graves? When it comes to inscriptions fully in Latin, I've usually seen the formula _[memoriae sacrum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(M))_ (M.S.), which means &quot;Sacred to the memory [of]&quot;. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is thus _in memoriam_ a misuse of Latin by not native-Latin speakers? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xgln2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/H8wYU.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33718" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11426" RevisionGUID="d5655633-ce77-4673-8f18-478fc3f43185" CreationDate="2019-09-02T13:50:50.540" UserId="1459" Text="In memoriam: why not &quot;in memoria&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33719" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11426" RevisionGUID="d5655633-ce77-4673-8f18-478fc3f43185" CreationDate="2019-09-02T13:50:50.540" UserId="1459" Text="|vocabulary|inscription|ablative|accusative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11426" RevisionGUID="35624c9e-7455-4f41-971a-c5a2a474afc0" CreationDate="2019-09-02T13:54:35.683" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Consider this usual example of Latin+English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_memoriam#Latin) states, _in memoriam_ literally means &quot;into memory&quot; (_memoriam_ is in accusative case). However, as Wiktionary (above) and [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Memoriam) state, the phrase is used to mean &quot;in [the] memory [of]&quot;. In effect, it seems odd to say &quot;Into the memory, John F. Kennedy, ...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On that note, would a more appropriate use of Latin be the ablative, _in memoria_? The latter could also be understood as &quot;to the memory of&quot;, which also makes sense in this context, I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, did genuine Latin speakers (e.g. Roman, mediaeval period, Church)  use &quot;_in memoriam_&quot; for graves? When it comes to inscriptions fully in Latin, I've usually seen the formula _[memoriae sacrum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(M))_ (M.S.), which means &quot;Sacred to the memory [of]&quot;. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is thus _in memoriam_ a misuse of Latin by not native-Latin speakers? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xgln2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/H8wYU.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11424" RevisionGUID="88562242-bd07-4800-baca-15839b7d38c3" CreationDate="2019-09-02T14:00:52.720" UserId="5048" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Muscles and bones have Latin names as can be found on [wikipedia][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need to name muscles and bones with their Latin name and I also need to specify if it's the left or the right muscle in the human body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where is the correct position for the Latin words for left (sinistra) and right (dextra) for a muscle or bone name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a general rule where to position this word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the form of the left and right also depend on the case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [`musculus latissimus dorsi`][2] exists on the humans back on the left and right side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the correct naming if I explicitly want to point to the left muscle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. `musculus latissimus dorsi sinistra`&#xD;&#xA; 2. `musculus latissimus sinistra dorsi`&#xD;&#xA; 3. `musculus sinistra latissimus dorsi`&#xD;&#xA; 4. `sinistra musculus latissimus dorsi`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_skeletal_muscles_of_the_human_body&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latissimus_dorsi_muscle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11427" RevisionGUID="b3ab2297-2a4e-4115-b42a-1d0fbfe4039d" CreationDate="2019-09-02T14:29:26.443" UserId="1459" Text="It seems usage of Latin name for muscles many times does not specify the side of the body **in Latin**. Instead, they use English (or other languages), e.g. &quot;left/right _latissimus dorsi_&quot; (e.g. left [here](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&amp;as_sdt=0%2C5&amp;q=left+latissimus+dorsi+&amp;btnG=)). However, the Latin for right and left are still used in some cases. For example, from [this book](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=du1qDwAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=RA1-PA16&amp;ots=ArIc-60IWX&amp;dq=dextri%20latissimus%20dorsi&amp;pg=RA1-PA18#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples are in [this book](https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-642-58193-9), which lists some body parts and in parenthesis has _Dextri et Sinistri_. So it seems the terms are _dextri_ and _sinistri_, as Joonas stated in his comment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice in Latin the order of words is sometimes irrelevant but if you want to follow some of the medical uses referred above, you would prefer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;musculus latissimus dorsi sinistri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NbX5L.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4197" RevisionGUID="66e7e4a6-fa27-444f-a647-97a56cbfa419" CreationDate="2019-09-02T14:34:47.193" UserId="30" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Here is the stub of an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were many, many Greeks in Rome around the turn of the millennium. Many of them were educated slaves, 'imported' to teach Greek to Roman children of the middle and upper classes. The language was considered an essential part of the education of an educated Roman child. It may be compared to the position of Latin in Europe and in its (former) colonies until ca. 1800. As far as we know, Caesar most probably did not say *et tu, Brute* to Brutus upon his death, but possibly *καὶ σὺ, τέκνον;* although Suetonius argues against this then common story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of an actual Greek ghetto: I think the Greeks lived all over the city. So you could probably hear some Greek in the streets. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first Greek colonies near Naples may have appeared in the second millennium BC, before the mythical date of the foundation of Rome in 753 BC. In the 8th century, there was a a wave of Greek colonisation all along the coasts of southern Italy, Sicily, southern France, and many other places around the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, e.g. Cumae and Ischia near the later Naples. The Greek colonies in Italy and Sicily are known collectively as *Magna Graecia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was much contact between Etruscans, Romans, and Greeks in Italy when Rome was still a smallish city-state. Major Greek towns like Naples and Cumae are about 200 km south of Rome, or 10 hours (by trireme) to 25 hours (merchant ship) away. The Etruscans also conquered some Greek colonies and used an adaptation of the Greek alphabet before Rome, too, adopted (another) variant of the Greek alphabet. By the fourth century BC, Rome had acquired so many territories that it practically bordered on Greece near Neapolis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Contact between the Romans and the [Greek] Cumaeans is recorded during the reign of Aristodemus [of Cumae, c. 550 – c. 490 BC]. Livy states that immediately prior to the war between Rome and Clusium, the Roman senate sent agents to Cumae to purchase grain in anticipation of a siege of Rome.[8] Also Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, the last legendary King of Rome, lived his life in exile with Aristodemus at Cumae after the Battle of Lake Regillus and died there in 495 BC.[9]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the fourth century, Rome ruled over some Greek cities, such as Cumae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even now there are speakers of Greek in southern Italy. It took millennia for Greek to (almost) disappear from there, see this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Why is it that Latin was more “successful” in the western part of the Empire than in the eastern part?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the Roman Republic, many complained about Greek influence on literary Latin style, as can be read in contemporary Roman literature. The Greek style of sculpture was also imported to Rome. From what I recall, traditional Romans even objected during the late Republic to the naked and idealised, muscular statues. Traditional Romans also inveighed against other Greek influences, amongst which they sometimes placed the influence of rich merchants: a good Roman was a farmer and a soldier, not a merchant. Even now, the upper classes around the world generally look down on people who have become rich through trade or business. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kaNKq.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/734/why-is-it-that-latin-was-more-successful-in-the-western-part-of-the-empire-tha" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11427" RevisionGUID="e5fe63c2-9554-49ab-b5ba-8d7e3c579bf2" CreationDate="2019-09-02T14:38:51.743" UserId="1459" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="It seems usage of Latin name for muscles many times does not specify the side of the body **in Latin**. Instead, they use English (or other languages), e.g. &quot;left/right _latissimus dorsi_&quot; (e.g. left [here](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&amp;as_sdt=0%2C5&amp;q=left+latissimus+dorsi+&amp;btnG=)). However, the Latin for right and left are still used in some cases. For example, from [this book](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=du1qDwAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=RA1-PA16&amp;ots=ArIc-60IWX&amp;dq=dextri%20latissimus%20dorsi&amp;pg=RA1-PA18#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples are in [this book](https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-642-58193-9), which lists some body parts and in parenthesis has _Dextri et Sinistri_. So it seems the terms are _dextri_ and _sinistri_, as Joonas stated in his comment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the order of words, [in Latin this is sometimes irrelevant](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5377/word-order-in-latin). Still, if you want to follow some of the medical uses referred above, I would prefer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;musculus latissimus dorsi sinistri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I would not advice to use _musculus latissimus sinistri dorsi_, since you are breaking the muscle name apart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NbX5L.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11428" RevisionGUID="920436b8-423f-4f0a-bea4-eac3c37ccda7" CreationDate="2019-09-02T15:17:43.387" UserId="469" Text="Besides the two issues found by Joonas, I'd add two _features_ not necessarily bad, but worth knowing in advance, for those willing to try the course:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pronunciation is consistently **reconstructed**.&#xD;&#xA;* The examples are somewhat **US-centered**. Like *[Novum Eboracum][1] est urbs Americana*. Judging from [other examples by the same collaborators][2], this apparently means America = United States, which IMHO is an idiom that should not necessarily be universal in Latin, just as it is not in some Romance languages like Spanish and Portuguese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Eboracum_(urbs)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.paideiainstitute.org/lectio_prima" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33726" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="11428" RevisionGUID="76598686-07a7-4f5a-9544-d1c40aa2301d" CreationDate="2019-09-02T15:17:43.387" UserId="469" />
  <row Id="33727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11427" RevisionGUID="b1cd23c9-deed-4b29-955b-5a1856bad41a" CreationDate="2019-09-02T15:40:42.037" UserId="1459" Comment="added 909 characters in body" Text="It seems usage of Latin name for muscles many times does not specify the side of the body **in Latin**. Instead, they use English (or other languages), e.g. &quot;left/right _latissimus dorsi_&quot; (e.g. left [here](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&amp;as_sdt=0%2C5&amp;q=left+latissimus+dorsi+&amp;btnG=)). However, the Latin for right and left are still used in some cases. For example, from [this book](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=du1qDwAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=RA1-PA16&amp;ots=ArIc-60IWX&amp;dq=dextri%20latissimus%20dorsi&amp;pg=RA1-PA18#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples are in [this book](https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-642-58193-9), which lists some body parts and in parenthesis has _Dextri et Sinistri_. So it seems the terms often used are _dextri_ and _sinistri_. The addition of _lateris_ seems not compulsory, as it is self-evident &quot;of the right&quot; refers to &quot;of the right side&quot; (and it might be eliminated for brevity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said this, there are instances where the side is used in the nominative case, and not in the genitive (e.g. [here](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&amp;as_sdt=0%2C5&amp;q=ductus+lymphaticus+dexter&amp;btnG=)). This is to be understood as &quot;the right [side] muscle X&quot;, instead of &quot;the muscle X of the right [side]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, regarding the order of words, [in Latin this is sometimes irrelevant](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5377/word-order-in-latin). Still, if you want to follow some of the medical uses referred above, I would prefer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;musculus latissimus dorsi sinistri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I would not advice to use _musculus latissimus sinistri dorsi_, since you are breaking the muscle name apart [pun intended].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: I'm not an expert on anatomy or medicine, nor I am acquainted with the &quot;official&quot; terminology used. I did not carry a statistical analysis of which term is most popular or common. So take my advice with care. I went for the genitive just because it's the one used in some handbooks, as linked above. For further reference on anatomical terms of location, please see [this link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomical_terms_of_location).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NbX5L.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11425" RevisionGUID="06f4db46-8a19-4e15-aadb-5ee0ed2fca0a" CreationDate="2019-09-02T19:01:04.413" UserId="79" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="The suggestion by C Monsour is good, but not the only option.&#xD;&#xA;While the heart is anatomically *cor*, it is not always the best translation in a setting like this.&#xD;&#xA;See [this separate question for translating &quot;heart&quot; in a figurative sense](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11421/79).&#xD;&#xA;There are many kinds of Latin, and the idiomatic choice depends somewhat on the chosen style.&#xD;&#xA;In classical Latin *pectus* appears to be more idiomatic than *cor* although it literally means &quot;chest&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you want the style to be more Christian than classical, then *cor* works better than *pectus*.&#xD;&#xA;This is a style choice you have to make.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last part could be *semper in pectoribus*, &quot;always in [the] hearts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In English you need either an article or a possessive pronoun, but in Latin neither is needed.&#xD;&#xA;I think it is clear enough from context what is meant, and you might even like the idea of not specifying all the hearts that remember them.&#xD;&#xA;It is certainly not wrong to add *nostris* if you want to specify &quot;our&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original English triplet is not symmetric.&#xD;&#xA;The first two have a participle (loved, remembered) while the third one has a prepositional phrase (in hearts).&#xD;&#xA;Therefore it is reasonable to take the liberty to move these statements between these two types to find a fluent translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I bring this up because &quot;always remembered&quot; could be nicely rendered as *semper in memoria*, literally &quot;always in memory&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This word should be familiar to many from the phrase *in memoriam*, and is therefore likely to evoke a fitting reaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we are talking about memories and hearts, it makes sense to have them in a similar form.&#xD;&#xA;Either several memories and several hearts or a single memory and a single heart.&#xD;&#xA;This harmony is not necessary, especially if the two are not next to each other, but something to consider.&#xD;&#xA;The singular would focus more on the individual experience of anyone who reads the inscription, whereas the plural would be more collective.&#xD;&#xA;I would vote for plural, but the choice is of course yours.&#xD;&#xA;The singulars would be *memoria, pectore* and the plurals *memoriis, pectoribus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first part &quot;always loved&quot; is very naturally *semper amati*.&#xD;&#xA;The masculine plural *amati* is the right choice for a group of people that contains a male.&#xD;&#xA;I tried to find a way to phrase it also as &quot;always in [something]&quot;, but found nothing suitable.&#xD;&#xA;The asymmetry of the original remains but is slightly changed.&#xD;&#xA;You can try changing the order of the three elements to see if it sounds better.&#xD;&#xA;Swapping the first two works to my ear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my suggestion would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Semper amati, semper in memoriis, semper in pectoribus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin inscriptions are often made with capital letters and U written as a V.&#xD;&#xA;In this style, it would look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SEMPER AMATI, SEMPER IN MEMORIIS, SEMPER IN PECTORIBVS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My personal favorite among the options arising seems to be inscribing something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;SEMPER IN MEMORIA  &#xD;&#xA;SEMPER AMATI  &#xD;&#xA;SEMPER IN PECTORIBVS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33732" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11424" RevisionGUID="71a043f1-a954-4541-a389-c8c4150bd04c" CreationDate="2019-09-02T21:20:00.707" />
  <row Id="33733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11430" RevisionGUID="030c4930-8452-4ced-9b35-19c739e8956c" CreationDate="2019-09-03T06:47:51.910" UserId="867" Text="**Where is the correct position for the Latin words for left and right for a muscle or bone name and is there a general rule where to position this word?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern (English) usage, the Latin for left and right is not commonly used.  Nevertheless, I think we can deduce a general rule by (1) looking at early anatomy books and (2) extrapolating from the use of other adjectives in anatomical works, both early and modern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, in [Vesalius][1] (1514-1564), we see the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ramus **dexter*** and *ramus **sinister*** [masc. sing. nom.]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *vena gastroomentalis **dextra*** and *vena gastroomentalis **sinistra*** [fem. sing. nom.]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ostium atrioventriculare **dextrum*** [neut. sing. nom]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this, I think we can deduce that (a) the case, number, and gender of *dexter* and *sinister* agrees with the anatomical part under consideration (in these examples, *ramus*, *vena*, and *ostium* respectively); (b) the case is always in the nominative; and (c) *dexter* and *sinister* comes at the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we look at other adjectives, we can see the same pattern.  Again, in Vesalius:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *vena mesenterica **superior*** and *vena mesenterica **inferior***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *venae gastricae **breves***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *aorta carotis **interna***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References to muscles follow the same pattern; for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *musculus flexor pollicis **brevis*** and *musculus abductor pollicis **longus***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This pattern is still used in modern editions of anatomy books (I have used Moore &amp; Dalley, 4th ed., *Clinically Oriented Anatomy* and Williams, Warwick, Dyson &amp; Bannister, *Gray's Anatomy*, 37th ed.):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *abductor pollicis **longus*** and *extensor pollicis **brevis***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *gluteus **medius***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *obturator **internus***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *adductor **magnus***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, we can see a pattern like this:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a muscle/vein/bone etc. in the nominative case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *plus* the part of the body to which is belongs (typically in the genitive)&#xD;&#xA; - *plus* an adjective describing its location/position, especially when relative to another similar structure and/or an imagined mid-line of&#xD;&#xA;   the body (inferior and superior; internal and external; right and&#xD;&#xA;   left), in the nominative case, agreeing with the first part&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your particular question contains a superlative (*latissimus)* which none of my examples include.  However, I think we can make a case for it to stay with *musculus* as it describes the muscle, rather than locates it, in the same way *abductor* or *flexor* does in the examples above.  Thus, I would write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *musculus latissimus dorsi sinister* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;the widest muscle [masc. sing. nom.] of the back [gen.] left side&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [specifying location, masc. sing. nom. agreeing with *musculus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; latissimus* &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vesaliusfabrica.com/en/new-fabrica/art-of-the-new-fabrica/sample-pages.html#page/3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11430" RevisionGUID="a534f720-792f-4042-9c38-68bfefbde026" CreationDate="2019-09-03T06:59:17.133" UserId="867" Comment="edited body" Text="**Where is the correct position for the Latin words for left and right for a muscle or bone name and is there a general rule where to position this word?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern (English) usage, the Latin for left and right is not commonly used.  Nevertheless, I think we can deduce a general rule by (1) looking at early anatomy books and (2) extrapolating from the use of other adjectives in anatomical works, both early and modern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, in [Vesalius][1] (1514-1564), we see the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ramus **dexter*** and *ramus **sinister*** [masc. sing. nom.]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *vena gastroomentalis **dextra*** and *vena gastroomentalis **sinistra*** [fem. sing. nom.]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ostium atrioventriculare **dextrum*** [neut. sing. nom]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this, I think we can deduce that (a) the case, number, and gender of *dexter* and *sinister* agrees with the anatomical part under consideration (in these examples, *ramus*, *vena*, and *ostium* respectively); (b) the case is always in the nominative; and (c) *dexter* and *sinister* comes at the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we look at other adjectives, we can see the same pattern.  Again, in Vesalius:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *vena mesenterica **superior*** and *vena mesenterica **inferior***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *venae gastricae **breves***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *aorta carotis **interna***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References to muscles follow the same pattern; for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *musculus flexor pollicis **brevis*** and *musculus abductor pollicis **longus***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This pattern is still used in modern editions of anatomy books (I have used Moore &amp; Dalley, 4th ed., *Clinically Oriented Anatomy* and Williams, Warwick, Dyson &amp; Bannister, *Gray's Anatomy*, 37th ed.):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *abductor pollicis **longus*** and *extensor pollicis **brevis***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *gluteus **medius***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *obturator **internus***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *adductor **magnus***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, we can see a pattern like this:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a muscle/vein/bone etc. in the nominative case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *plus* the part of the body to which it belongs (typically in the genitive)&#xD;&#xA; - *plus* an adjective describing its location/position, especially when relative to another similar structure and/or an imagined mid-line of&#xD;&#xA;   the body (inferior and superior; internal and external; right and&#xD;&#xA;   left), in the nominative case, agreeing with the first part&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your particular question contains a superlative (*latissimus)* which none of my examples include.  However, I think we can make a case for it to stay with *musculus* as it describes the muscle, rather than locates it, in the same way *abductor* or *flexor* does in the examples above.  Thus, I would write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *musculus latissimus dorsi sinister* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;the widest muscle [masc. sing. nom.] of the back [gen.] left side&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [specifying location, masc. sing. nom. agreeing with *musculus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; latissimus* &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vesaliusfabrica.com/en/new-fabrica/art-of-the-new-fabrica/sample-pages.html#page/3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11430" RevisionGUID="df88290f-c7ca-4ef8-b9d8-d7f62caba5fd" CreationDate="2019-09-03T07:04:20.950" UserId="867" Comment="edited body" Text="**Where is the correct position for the Latin words for left and right for a muscle or bone name and is there a general rule where to position this word?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern (English) usage, the Latin for left and right is not commonly used.  Nevertheless, I think we can deduce a general rule by (1) looking at early anatomy books and (2) extrapolating from the use of other adjectives in anatomical works, both early and modern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, in [Vesalius][1] (1514-1564), we see the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ramus **dexter*** and *ramus **sinister*** [masc. sing. nom.]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *vena gastroomentalis **dextra*** and *vena gastroomentalis **sinistra*** [fem. sing. nom.]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ostium atrioventriculare **dextrum*** [neut. sing. nom]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this, I think we can deduce that (a) the case, number, and gender of *dexter* and *sinister* agrees with the anatomical part under consideration (in these examples, *ramus*, *vena*, and *ostium* respectively); (b) the case is always in the nominative; and (c) *dexter* and *sinister* comes at the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we look at other adjectives, we can see the same pattern.  Again, in Vesalius:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *vena mesenterica **superior*** and *vena mesenterica **inferior***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *venae gastricae **breves***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *aorta carotis **interna***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References to muscles follow the same pattern; for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *musculus flexor pollicis **brevis*** and *musculus abductor pollicis **longus***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This pattern is still used in modern editions of anatomy books (I have used Moore &amp; Dalley, 4th ed., *Clinically Oriented Anatomy* and Williams, Warwick, Dyson &amp; Bannister, *Gray's Anatomy*, 37th ed.):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *abductor pollicis **longus*** and *extensor pollicis **brevis***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *gluteus **medius***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *obturator **internus***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *adductor **magnus***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, we can see a pattern like this:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a muscle/vein/bone etc. in the nominative case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *plus* the part of the body to which it belongs (typically in the genitive)&#xD;&#xA; - *plus* an adjective describing its location/position, especially when relative to another similar structure and/or an imagined mid-line of&#xD;&#xA;   the body (inferior and superior; internal and external; right and&#xD;&#xA;   left), in the nominative case, agreeing with the first part&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your particular question contains a superlative (*latissimus)* which none of my examples include.  However, I think we can make a case for it to stay with *musculus* as it describes the muscle, rather than locates it, in the same way *abductor* or *flexor* does in the examples above.  Thus, I would write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *musculus latissimus dorsi sinister* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;the widest muscle [masc. sing. nom.] of the back [gen.] left side&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [specifying location, masc. sing. nom. agreeing with *musculus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; latissimus* &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;ADDIT: if you have more than one adjective giving location, it seems both should go at the end but *dexter* and *sinister* still always seem to be last, as in the following examples (from Vesalius):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *arteria carotis **interna dextra***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nervus laryngeus **recurrens dexter***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vesaliusfabrica.com/en/new-fabrica/art-of-the-new-fabrica/sample-pages.html#page/3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11431" RevisionGUID="ce409ac5-a8c3-4fad-950f-84973b1c857a" CreationDate="2019-09-03T08:06:10.443" UserId="867" Text="I have used &quot;Cornélie, ou le latin sans pleurs&quot;, by Salomon Reinach (1912), and liked it.  This may be older than you were looking for.  But if I remember Wheelock rightly, I think Reinach has a similar jaunty, chatty tone and an emphasis on reading short, typically edifying, passages.  It's available online through the [Bibliothèque nationale de France][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He wrote a similar book for Greek - &quot;Eulalie, ou le grec sans larmes&quot; (1911) - also available via the BnF site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k2053962.image" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11427" RevisionGUID="f22ac631-ec9c-47dd-a738-233863178c9c" CreationDate="2019-09-03T08:27:47.513" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 199 characters in body" Text="It seems usage of Latin name for muscles many times does not specify the side of the body **in Latin**. Instead, they use English (or other languages), e.g. &quot;left/right _latissimus dorsi_&quot; (e.g. left [here](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&amp;as_sdt=0%2C5&amp;q=left+latissimus+dorsi+&amp;btnG=)). However, the Latin for right and left are still used in some cases. Most of the cases I could find (without attempting to provide an exhaustive statistical analysis) seem to use the nominative case (&quot;the right muscle X&quot;), with a few using the genitive form (&quot;the muscle X of the right&quot;).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, from [this book](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=du1qDwAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=RA1-PA16&amp;ots=ArIc-60IWX&amp;dq=dextri%20latissimus%20dorsi&amp;pg=RA1-PA18#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above uses the nominative (as cnread noted, these are in plural). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples are in [this book](https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-642-58193-9), which lists some body parts and in parenthesis has _Dextri et Sinistri_ (also plural). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples with singular use of nominative (dexter) can be seen [here](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&amp;as_sdt=0%2C5&amp;q=ductus+lymphaticus+dexter&amp;btnG=) and [here](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&amp;as_sdt=0%2C5&amp;q=ductus+lymphaticus+sinister&amp;btnG=). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This nominative case is also suggested in [this Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomical_terms_of_location) entry about anatomical terms of location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, regarding the order of words, [in Latin this is sometimes irrelevant](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5377/word-order-in-latin). Still, if you want to follow some of the medical uses referred above, a common choice seems to be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;musculus latissimus dorsi sinister&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i.e the side at the end). In any case, I would not advice to use _musculus latissimus sinistri dorsi_, since you are breaking the muscle name apart [pun intended].&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NbX5L.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11427" RevisionGUID="c01372c0-d585-485d-867e-2ff55a52068a" CreationDate="2019-09-03T08:50:09.070" UserId="9" Comment="Added names of two book sources, added alt text to image, moved some links to text that was more specific" Text="It seems usage of Latin name for muscles many times does not specify the side of the body **in Latin**. Instead, they use English (or other languages), e.g. &quot;left/right _latissimus dorsi_&quot; (e.g. left [here](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&amp;as_sdt=0%2C5&amp;q=left+latissimus+dorsi+&amp;btnG=)). However, the Latin for right and left are still used in some cases. Most of the cases I could find (without attempting to provide an exhaustive statistical analysis) seem to use the nominative case (&quot;the right muscle X&quot;), with a few using the genitive form (&quot;the muscle X of the right&quot;).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, from this book:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![photo of book page showing the following muscle names: Nodi lymphoidei colici dextri, Nodi lymphoidei colici medii, Nodi lymphoidei colici sinistri][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[Atlas of Human Anatomy: Latin Terminology, 7th edition](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=du1qDwAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=RA1-PA16&amp;ots=ArIc-60IWX&amp;dq=dextri%20latissimus%20dorsi&amp;pg=RA1-PA18#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false),* by Frank H. Netter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above uses the nominative (as cnread noted, these are in plural). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples are in this book, which lists some body parts and in parenthesis has _Dextri et Sinistri_ (also plural) (*[Normal Lymph Node Topography](https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-642-58193-9),* by Eckart Richter and Thomas Feyerabend).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples with singular use of nominative (dexter) can be seen [here](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&amp;as_sdt=0%2C5&amp;q=ductus+lymphaticus+dexter&amp;btnG=) and [here](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&amp;as_sdt=0%2C5&amp;q=ductus+lymphaticus+sinister&amp;btnG=). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This nominative case is also suggested in the Wikipedia entry about [anatomical terms of location](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomical_terms_of_location).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, regarding the order of words, [in Latin this is sometimes irrelevant](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5377/word-order-in-latin). Still, if you want to follow some of the medical uses referred above, a common choice seems to be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;musculus latissimus dorsi sinister&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i.e the side at the end). In any case, I would not advice to use _musculus latissimus sinistri dorsi_, since you are breaking the muscle name apart [pun intended].&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NbX5L.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11432" RevisionGUID="0dd14e57-a04c-40a1-a8b2-9146197c69b4" CreationDate="2019-09-03T09:01:06.100" UserId="1459" Text="The ancient Christian prayer _Ave Maria_ derives mostly from texts found in the Gospel of Luke. In particular, in Luke 1:28 ([Vulgata](https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/luk001.htm#028)), we find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit: Ave gratia plena: Dominus tecum: benedicta tu in mulieribus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us focus on the first part of the salute, _Ave gratia plena_. The [original (?) Greek](https://biblehub.com/text/luke/1-28.htm) uses the words _Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη_ which seem to mean &quot;Greetings, [you] favored with grace&quot;. This is consistent with the Latin, as well as with the English version of the _Ave Maria_ (the latter being &quot;Hail Mary, full of grace&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when it comes to Spanish, things look different. The greeting is instead &quot;Dios te salve María, llena eres de gracia&quot;. So, instead of using an equivalent to _ave_ or &quot;hail&quot;, it uses &quot;Dios te salve&quot;, which translates as _Salvet te Deus_, or &quot;May God save you&quot;. This looks so different from the &quot;original Greek/Latin&quot;. Moreover, the &quot;[official](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ESL0506/__PVJ.HTM)&quot; (Vatican) translation of the Gospel of Luke for such verse doesn't greatly differ from the Greek/Latin and English versions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;El Angel entró en su casa y la saludó, diciendo: «¡Alégrate!, llena de gracia, el Señor está contigo».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Alégrate_ means &quot;rejoice&quot;. In any case, it doesn't have anything like &quot;may God save you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can explain the difference between the Spanish translation and all the other versions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: It might be interesting to notice that the [Portuguese](https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ave_Maria) and [Italian](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ave_Maria) versions use _ave_, whereas the [French](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Je_vous_salue_Marie) uses an entirely different formula to all of the above, namely &quot;Je vous salue Marie&quot; (I salute you, Mary). It would be interesting to compare with more languages, but my knowledge stops there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33741" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11432" RevisionGUID="0dd14e57-a04c-40a1-a8b2-9146197c69b4" CreationDate="2019-09-03T09:01:06.100" UserId="1459" Text="&quot;Ave Maria&quot; versus &quot;Dios te salve María&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33742" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11432" RevisionGUID="0dd14e57-a04c-40a1-a8b2-9146197c69b4" CreationDate="2019-09-03T09:01:06.100" UserId="1459" Text="|spanish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11432" RevisionGUID="6aad12ef-68e1-4133-bb44-b2638e7a6ee5" CreationDate="2019-09-03T09:06:23.797" UserId="1459" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The ancient Christian prayer _Ave Maria_ derives mostly from texts found in the Gospel of Luke. In particular, in Luke 1:28 ([Vulgata](https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/luk001.htm#028)), we find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit: Ave gratia plena: Dominus tecum: benedicta tu in mulieribus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us focus on the first part of the salute, _Ave gratia plena_. The [original (?) Greek](https://biblehub.com/text/luke/1-28.htm) uses the words _Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη_ which seem to mean &quot;Greetings, [you] favored with grace&quot;. This is consistent with the Latin, as well as with the English version of the _Ave Maria_ (the latter being &quot;Hail Mary, full of grace&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when it comes to Spanish, things look different. The greeting is instead &quot;Dios te salve María, llena eres de gracia&quot;. So, instead of using an equivalent to _ave_ or &quot;hail&quot;, it uses &quot;Dios te salve&quot;, which translates as _Salvet te Deus_, or &quot;May God save you&quot;. This looks so different from the &quot;original Greek/Latin&quot;. Moreover, the &quot;[official](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ESL0506/__PVJ.HTM)&quot; (Vatican) Spanish translation of the Gospel of Luke for such verse doesn't greatly differ from the Greek/Latin and English versions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;El Angel entró en su casa y la saludó, diciendo: «¡Alégrate!, llena de gracia, el Señor está contigo».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Alégrate_ means &quot;rejoice&quot;. In any case, it doesn't have anything like &quot;may God save you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can explain the difference between the Spanish translation and the Greek/Latin versions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: It might be interesting to notice that the [Portuguese](https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ave_Maria) and [Italian](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ave_Maria) versions use _ave_, whereas the [French](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Je_vous_salue_Marie) uses an entirely different formula to all of the above, namely &quot;Je vous salue Marie&quot; (I salute you, Mary). It would be interesting to compare with more languages, but my knowledge stops there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33744" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11432" RevisionGUID="6aad12ef-68e1-4133-bb44-b2638e7a6ee5" CreationDate="2019-09-03T09:06:23.797" UserId="1459" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|christianity|spanish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11433" RevisionGUID="ebb91057-0cdf-4c37-b7ba-fe3315f7219e" CreationDate="2019-09-03T12:40:45.227" UserId="5048" Text="As we can see  [wikipedia][1] lists the lumbricals muscle and tells us that the muscle contains four parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need to name all four individual parts of the muscle and their respective side in the body. I already asked a [similar question here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again I looked up the English words `first`, `second`, `third` and `fourth` in Latin and found those words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. primis&#xD;&#xA; 2. secundus&#xD;&#xA; 3. tertium&#xD;&#xA; 4. quartus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I name muscles or bones which have a numeration in their name as the `lumbricals` muscle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And are the Latin word for first, second, third and fourth used correct here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt is to just add the numeration at the end of the name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. `musculus lumbricalis pedis primis sinister` --&gt; `first lumbrical muscle of the left foot`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://%20https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumbricals_of_the_foot&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11424" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33747" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11433" RevisionGUID="ebb91057-0cdf-4c37-b7ba-fe3315f7219e" CreationDate="2019-09-03T12:40:45.227" UserId="5048" Text="How do I name the individual parts of the lumbricals muscle of the foot in latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33748" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11433" RevisionGUID="ebb91057-0cdf-4c37-b7ba-fe3315f7219e" CreationDate="2019-09-03T12:40:45.227" UserId="5048" Text="|grammar-choice|syntax|grammar-identification|anatomia|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11433" RevisionGUID="f2921966-939a-45c8-9b6e-318cd2e8e391" CreationDate="2019-09-03T14:02:21.253" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="As we can see  [wikipedia][1] lists the lumbricals muscle and tells us that the muscle contains four parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need to name all four individual parts of the muscle and their respective side in the body. I already asked a [similar question here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again I looked up the English words `first`, `second`, `third` and `fourth` in Latin and found those words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. primis&#xD;&#xA; 2. secundus&#xD;&#xA; 3. tertium&#xD;&#xA; 4. quartus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I name muscles or bones which have a numeration in their name as the `lumbricals` muscle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And are the Latin word for first, second, third and fourth used correct here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt is to just add the numeration at the end of the name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. `musculus lumbricalis pedis primis sinister` --&gt; `first lumbrical muscle of the left foot`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumbricals_of_the_foot&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11424" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11434" RevisionGUID="9c6a770b-cc67-4d4f-bd39-97720e018b0e" CreationDate="2019-09-03T14:18:45.837" UserId="1459" Text="Other muscles with several enumerated parts seem to use _primus, secundus, tertius, ..._, this is, the nominative of [ordinal numbers](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Latin_ordinal_numbers). This is consistent with the answers in your other question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of such use are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _[extensor pollicis](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Fn9IAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA333&amp;ots=nC-9giu_Bv&amp;dq=extensor%20primus%20pollicis&amp;pg=PA333#v=onepage&amp;q=extensor%20primus%20pollicis&amp;f=false)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [_adductor_](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4zYAAAAAQAAJ&amp;dq=primus%20secundus%20tertius%20muscle%20anatomy&amp;pg=PA343#v=onepage&amp;q=primus%20secundus%20tertius%20muscle%20anatomy&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [_trochanter_]():&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _peronaeus_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(the latter two taken from [here](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=loE_AAAAYAAJ&amp;q=Practical+Anatomy+of+the+Rabbit:+An+Elementary+Laboratory+Textbook+in+Mammalian+Anatomy&amp;dq=Practical+Anatomy+of+the+Rabbit:+An+Elementary+Laboratory+Textbook+in+Mammalian+Anatomy&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi9lYG_67TkAhWBoFwKHZwkCVsQ6AEIMDAB))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given this, the answer to your question is just to add the nominative to the phrase. Recall word order is not so relevant. Some references above have the number in the middle, with others at the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ezXv4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11433" RevisionGUID="e17495c9-718d-486b-ab63-1e1cf1a0afd3" CreationDate="2019-09-03T14:24:28.150" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="As we can see, [Wikipedia][1] lists the lumbricals muscle and tells us that the muscle contains four parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need to name all four individual parts of the muscle and their respective side in the body. I already asked a [similar question here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again I looked up the English words `first`, `second`, `third` and `fourth` in Latin and found those words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. primis&#xD;&#xA; 2. secundus&#xD;&#xA; 3. tertium&#xD;&#xA; 4. quartus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I name muscles or bones which have a numeration in their name as the `lumbricals` muscle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And are the Latin word for first, second, third and fourth used correct here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt is to just add the numeration at the end of the name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_musculus lumbricalis pedis primis sinister_ --&gt; first lumbrical muscle of the left foot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumbricals_of_the_foot&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11424" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11434" RevisionGUID="baad02a8-6617-4d1b-90a9-249ee8e45ee6" CreationDate="2019-09-03T14:26:16.110" UserId="1459" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="Other muscles with several enumerated parts seem to use _primus, secundus, tertius, ..._, this is, the **masculine** nominative of [ordinal numbers](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Latin_ordinal_numbers) (masculine because _musculus_ is masculine). This is consistent with the answers in your other question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of such use are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _[extensor pollicis](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Fn9IAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA333&amp;ots=nC-9giu_Bv&amp;dq=extensor%20primus%20pollicis&amp;pg=PA333#v=onepage&amp;q=extensor%20primus%20pollicis&amp;f=false)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [_adductor_](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4zYAAAAAQAAJ&amp;dq=primus%20secundus%20tertius%20muscle%20anatomy&amp;pg=PA343#v=onepage&amp;q=primus%20secundus%20tertius%20muscle%20anatomy&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [_trochanter_]():&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _peronaeus_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(the latter two taken from [here](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=loE_AAAAYAAJ&amp;q=Practical+Anatomy+of+the+Rabbit:+An+Elementary+Laboratory+Textbook+in+Mammalian+Anatomy&amp;dq=Practical+Anatomy+of+the+Rabbit:+An+Elementary+Laboratory+Textbook+in+Mammalian+Anatomy&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi9lYG_67TkAhWBoFwKHZwkCVsQ6AEIMDAB))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given this, the answer to your question is just to add the nominative to the phrase. Recall word order is not so relevant. Some references above have the number in the middle, with others at the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: your list of Latin numbers is odd, since it includes different cases and genders. _Secundus_ and _quartus_ are nominative masculine (as in the suggested solution). However, _primis_ is dative or ablative (and any gender) whereas _tertium_ is nominative neuter (instead of masculine). You want to use a consistent case and gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ezXv4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11435" RevisionGUID="9b6b146d-630c-400b-91df-71f983545931" CreationDate="2019-09-03T19:26:34.363" UserId="5053" Text="I’m trying to find a translation for what would become something like a Friday patch. It’s a fun way to poke. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“We fixed it.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“You’re welcome.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I’ve found so far it would be something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Emendavi” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Nihil Est”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don’t know how to conjugate the first word though so it makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help would be appreciated thank you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33754" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11435" RevisionGUID="9b6b146d-630c-400b-91df-71f983545931" CreationDate="2019-09-03T19:26:34.363" UserId="5053" Text="Translation question: We fixed it; you’re welcome" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33755" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11435" RevisionGUID="9b6b146d-630c-400b-91df-71f983545931" CreationDate="2019-09-03T19:26:34.363" UserId="5053" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33756" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11433" RevisionGUID="77004cb6-8ea8-4678-ad5d-3d25b0afc9a7" CreationDate="2019-09-03T20:51:50.523" />
  <row Id="33757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11433" RevisionGUID="dd094ad2-b076-49ce-8bbd-01cf607d78db" CreationDate="2019-09-04T06:05:03.037" UserId="5048" Comment="added ordinal numbers" Text="As we can see, [Wikipedia][1] lists the lumbricals muscle and tells us that the muscle contains four parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need to name all four individual parts of the muscle and their respective side in the body. I already asked a [similar question here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again I looked up the English words `first`, `second`, `third` and `fourth` in Latin and found those words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. primis&#xD;&#xA; 2. secundus&#xD;&#xA; 3. tertium&#xD;&#xA; 4. quartus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I name muscles or bones which have a numeration in their name as the `lumbricals` muscle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And are the Latin word for first, second, third and fourth used correct here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt is to just add the numeration at the end of the name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_musculus lumbricalis pedis primis sinister_ --&gt; first lumbrical muscle of the left foot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for the first twelve ordinal numbers. According to the [provided wikipedia][3] link they are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. primus&#xD;&#xA; 2. secundus&#xD;&#xA; 3. tertius&#xD;&#xA; 4. quartus&#xD;&#xA; 5. quintus&#xD;&#xA; 6. sextus&#xD;&#xA; 7. septimus&#xD;&#xA; 8. octavus&#xD;&#xA; 9. nonus&#xD;&#xA; 10. decimus&#xD;&#xA; 11. undecimus&#xD;&#xA; 12. duodecimus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumbricals_of_the_foot&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11424&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Latin_ordinal_numbers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11424" RevisionGUID="a7f40283-20d3-4afd-a492-fb8bd625ed84" CreationDate="2019-09-04T07:21:37.240" UserId="5048" Comment="edit" Text="Muscles and bones have Latin names as can be found on [wikipedia][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need to name muscles and bones with their Latin name and I also need to specify if it's the left or the right muscle in the human body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where is the correct position for the Latin words for left (sinistra) and right (dextra) for a muscle or bone name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a general rule where to position this word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the form of the left and right also depend on the case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [`musculus latissimus dorsi`][2] exists on the humans back on the left and right side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the correct naming if I explicitly want to point to the left muscle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. `musculus latissimus dorsi sinistra`&#xD;&#xA; 2. `musculus latissimus sinistra dorsi`&#xD;&#xA; 3. `musculus sinistra latissimus dorsi`&#xD;&#xA; 4. `sinistra musculus latissimus dorsi`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I also need the plural forms of left and right in Latin for muscles which are described as groups I think I need to use those:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Singular&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * sinister sinistra sinistrum&#xD;&#xA; * dexter dextra dextrum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * sinistrī sinistrae sinistra&#xD;&#xA; * dextrī dextrae dextra&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [Wikipedia sinister][3], [Wikipedia dexter][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_skeletal_muscles_of_the_human_body&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latissimus_dorsi_muscle&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sinister&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dexter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11436" RevisionGUID="ac964372-ab48-4ded-b7e2-19fcfe5518b1" CreationDate="2019-09-04T07:43:04.227" UserId="1459" Text="I would say a more appropriate word for repair in your context is _reficio_, rather than _emendo_. For what I can see in [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=emendo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), the latter seem to be used more abstractly, or for non-physical things. Conversely, _reficio_ seem to refer to physical things, including examples like walls, gates, weapons, and so on. [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=reficio) also gives it the translation &quot;repair&quot;, which _emendo_ does not have. Another option could be _resarcio_, which is used with clothes, and can be translated as &quot;to patch&quot;, which is perhaps more analog to what a software update is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for _reficio_, the conjugation in your example would be _[refecimus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/refecimus#Latin)_. For _resarcio_, it would be _[resarsimus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/resarsimus#Latin)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, &quot;You are welcome&quot; is an expression, so translation is more complex. There is already [a dedicated post](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4371/how-to-say-you-are-welcome) on this site about it, suggesting there is not a native equivalent, but _nihil est_ might be a decent modern compromise. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11435" RevisionGUID="9a2abc11-87c0-4d28-a980-0f4ba51910e7" CreationDate="2019-09-04T07:43:29.940" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 42 characters in body" Text="I’m trying to find a translation for what would become something like a Friday patch. It’s a fun way to poke. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“We fixed it.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“You’re welcome.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I’ve found so far it would be something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“Emendavi” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“Nihil Est”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don’t know how to conjugate the first word though so it makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11437" RevisionGUID="1c369d62-7280-44f0-af10-ab8b8e30e7c9" CreationDate="2019-09-04T08:08:32.710" UserId="867" Text="When a Greek word is borrowed by Latin, does it keep the same gender that it had in Greek?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, a question arose about the word *platysma*, a muscle in the neck.  It undoubtedly comes from [πλάτυσμα][1], which is neuter in Greek.  Would you treat this as neuter in Latin too?  I'm not so much interested in declining it as in just understanding what happened to gender when a Greek word was borrowed in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel like this is probably very simple and yet I can't find a definitive answer.  Does anyone have evidence of a rule and/or counter-examples?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=platusma&amp;la=greek#lexicon&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11437" RevisionGUID="1c369d62-7280-44f0-af10-ab8b8e30e7c9" CreationDate="2019-09-04T08:08:32.710" UserId="867" Text="When a Greek word is borrowed by Latin, does it keep the same gender?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33764" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11437" RevisionGUID="1c369d62-7280-44f0-af10-ab8b8e30e7c9" CreationDate="2019-09-04T08:08:32.710" UserId="867" Text="|etymology|grammar-choice|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11438" RevisionGUID="ae50279f-f5f3-4d5c-bf2c-5ef3d831d1d9" CreationDate="2019-09-04T10:44:35.217" UserId="9" Text="I need to research this matter more, so this is a tentative answer. My first response would be &quot;yes, the gender is the same as in Greek&quot;, but exceptions are not impossible. I wouldn't say that the general topic is very simple: I think that although there is a straightforward equivalence for large categories of words, the words that show change or variation in gender are somewhat complicated to explain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One exception that I know of is the neuter noun *[orichalcum](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=orichalcum)* which L&amp;S says is from Greek *ὀρείχαλκος.* My understanding is that as a general rule, the names of metals were neuter in Latin (I first learned about this while researching an [answer to an ELU question about element names ending in *-um* and *-ium*](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/338837/77227)), so this may be the reason why the word was not borrowed as *orichalcus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ending of *orichalcum* in Latin is also changed to *-um* match the neuter gender. Although you said that you're not interested in declension for its own sake, I'd say that declension patterns are relevant to your question, in that certain declension patterns in Latin are associated with certain genders. For example, the first declension is very strongly correlated with feminine gender, and even more strongly anticorrelated with the neuter gender. I know of only one neuter first-declension noun in Latin: *[Pascha, Paschae](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10646/was-pascha-ever-used-as-a-neuter-first-declension-noun)* (from Greek πάσχα, which was used as an indeclinable neuter); it has both an alternative first-declension feminine set of forms (with accusative singular *Pascham,* nominative plural *Paschae* and accusative plural *Paschas,* etc.) and an alternative third-declension neuter set of forms (with genitive singular *Paschatis,* nominative/accusative plural *Paschata,* etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would say that for a form like *platysma,* if it came to be used as a first-declension noun, it is very likely that it would also be used as a feminine rather than as a neuter or masculine noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in contrast, I know of no non-neuter third declension noun with a nominative singular ending in *-a,* so I think it is very unlikely that someone would use *platysma, platysmatis* as anything but a neuter noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11438" RevisionGUID="8bfdd7bb-39a6-4f75-b6ae-303bdde2eac2" CreationDate="2019-09-04T10:50:11.057" UserId="9" Comment="added 237 characters in body" Text="I need to research this matter more, so this is a tentative answer. My first response would be &quot;yes, the gender is the same as in Greek&quot;, but exceptions are not impossible. I wouldn't say that the general topic is very simple: I think that although there is a straightforward equivalence for large categories of words, the words that show change or variation in gender are somewhat complicated to explain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One exception that I know of is the neuter noun *[orichalcum](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=orichalcum)* which L&amp;S says is from Greek *ὀρείχαλκος.* My understanding is that as a general rule, the names of metals were neuter in Latin (I first learned about this while researching an [answer to an ELU question about element names ending in *-um* and *-ium*](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/338837/77227)), so this may be the reason why the word was not borrowed as *orichalcus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ending of *orichalcum* in Latin is also changed to *-um* match the neuter gender. Although you said that you're not interested in declension for its own sake, I'd say that declension patterns are relevant to your question, in that certain declension patterns in Latin are associated with certain genders. For example, the first declension is very strongly correlated with feminine gender, and even more strongly anticorrelated with the neuter gender. I know of only one neuter first-declension noun in Latin: *[Pascha, Paschae](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10646/was-pascha-ever-used-as-a-neuter-first-declension-noun)* (from Greek πάσχα, which was used as an indeclinable neuter); it has both an alternative first-declension feminine set of forms (with accusative singular *Pascham,* nominative plural *Paschae* and accusative plural *Paschas,* etc.) and an alternative third-declension neuter set of forms (with genitive singular *Paschatis,* nominative/accusative plural *Paschata,* etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would say that for a form like *platysma,* if it came to be used as a first-declension noun, it is very likely that it would also be used as a feminine rather than as a neuter or masculine noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in contrast, I know of no non-neuter third declension noun with a nominative singular ending in *-a,* so I think it is very unlikely that someone would use *platysma, platysmatis* as anything but a neuter noun. (The category of neuter third declension nouns with a nominative singular ending in *-a* is as far as I know exclusively used for Greek loans, but there are a fair number of these words in Latin, almost all from Greek nouns with the suffix *-μα*.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11439" RevisionGUID="a1fd5236-e512-44d2-95aa-c8c7065e0593" CreationDate="2019-09-04T11:03:22.610" UserId="5055" Text="Is the phrase &quot;ARS GRATIA PHYSICAE&quot; correct? What does it mean? Could it mean &quot;Art for physics' sake&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33768" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11439" RevisionGUID="a1fd5236-e512-44d2-95aa-c8c7065e0593" CreationDate="2019-09-04T11:03:22.610" UserId="5055" Text="Is the phrase &quot;ARS GRATIA PHYSICAE&quot; correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33769" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11439" RevisionGUID="a1fd5236-e512-44d2-95aa-c8c7065e0593" CreationDate="2019-09-04T11:03:22.610" UserId="5055" Text="|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11438" RevisionGUID="347c9ca1-1fca-4bfd-8736-543e9df7883a" CreationDate="2019-09-04T11:05:34.347" UserId="9" Comment="added 544 characters in body" Text="My first response would be &quot;yes, the gender is the same as in Greek&quot;, but that rule definitely has exceptions. I wouldn't say that the general topic is very simple: I think that although there is a straightforward equivalence for many words, the words that show change or variation in gender are somewhat complicated to explain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One exception that I know of is the neuter noun *[orichalcum](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=orichalcum)* which L&amp;S says is from Greek *ὀρείχαλκος.* My understanding is that as a general rule, the names of metals were neuter in Latin (I first learned about this while researching an [answer to an ELU question about element names ending in *-um* and *-ium*](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/338837/77227)), so this may be the reason why the word was not borrowed as *orichalcus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ending of *orichalcum* in Latin is also changed to *-um* match the neuter gender. Although you said that you're not interested in declension for its own sake, I'd say that declension patterns are relevant to your question, in that certain declension patterns in Latin are associated with certain genders. For example, the first declension is very strongly correlated with feminine gender, and even more strongly anticorrelated with the neuter gender. I know of only one neuter first-declension noun in Latin: *[Pascha, Paschae](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10646/was-pascha-ever-used-as-a-neuter-first-declension-noun)* (from Greek πάσχα, which was used as an indeclinable neuter); it has both an alternative first-declension feminine set of forms (with accusative singular *Pascham,* nominative plural *Paschae* and accusative plural *Paschas,* etc.) and an alternative third-declension neuter set of forms (with genitive singular *Paschatis,* nominative/accusative plural *Paschata,* etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would say that for a form like *platysma,* if it came to be used as a first-declension noun, it is very likely that it would also be used as a feminine rather than as a neuter or masculine noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in contrast, I know of no non-neuter third declension noun with a nominative singular ending in *-a,* so I think it is very unlikely that someone would use *platysma, platysmatis* as anything but a neuter noun. (The category of neuter third declension nouns with a nominative singular ending in *-a* is as far as I know exclusively used for Greek loans, but there are a fair number of these words in Latin, almost all from Greek nouns with the suffix *-μα*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from *orichalcum,* the book *Dynamics of Morphological Productivity: The Evolution of Noun Classes from Latin to Italian,* by Francesco Gardani, mentions Latin *cerasus* f. from Greek κερασός m. and *bracchium* n. from Greek *βρᾰχῑ́ων* m. Gardani says that for nouns that have multiple forms and genders in Latin, &quot;The coexistence of two gender values proves, on the one hand, the normative tendency to follow Greek use in literature and among bilinguals, but on the other hand, a tension towards normalization and morphological integration&quot; ([p. 358](https://books.google.com/books?id=x_hsr0lXFpsC&amp;pg=PA358)). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11440" RevisionGUID="6dfe7b82-ae86-445b-89a2-eb3f4b91019b" CreationDate="2019-09-04T11:05:53.680" UserId="1982" Text="Following on from Q:&quot;Uter vs Uterque&quot; (Michael) 13/2/2019; it is clear that &quot;'uterque' can be translated as 'both [of two]' but it might be better to think of it as 'each [of two]'. The reason is that 'uterque', like 'each' is singular.&quot; (Joonas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asked about the plural &quot;utrique&quot; = &quot;both&quot;. The advice was that &quot;utrique&quot; should be read as &quot;each group&quot; as in &quot;ille et meae et tuae familiae canit. utrisque delectat.&quot; = &quot;He sings for both my family and yours. He pleases each group.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this could be translated as: &quot;He pleases both (families)&quot;, could it not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are two further examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Tacitus &quot;Annals&quot; Book 1.71)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;data utrique venia, facile Segimero, cunctantius filio, quia Quintilii Vari corpus inlusisse dicebatur.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Both were pardoned, Segimerus, the son, with some hesitation, because it was said that he had insulted the corpse of Quintillius Varus.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Caeser &quot;De Bello Civili&quot; 3.50)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;in novo genere belli novae ab utrisque bellandi rationes reperibantur.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In this new kind of war, new methods of managing it, were invented by both (generals).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both examples there are two sets of individuals, not groups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Q: &quot;Advice From History&quot;, attempted to say: &quot;...and you'll lose both (freedom/ law-and-order)&quot; = &quot;...et utrasque perdetis.&quot;, using feminine accusative plural of &quot;uterque&quot; for &quot;libertas&quot; &amp; &quot;salus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joonas, naturally, discussed the merits of &quot;utramque&quot; (feminine accusative singular) in the sense of &quot;you will lose each and every one of your priveliges ie both-in-turn.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;He revised &quot;et utrasque perdetis&quot; to the neuter form &quot;et utrumque perdes&quot;; (singular/ plural forms of &quot;you&quot; are not relevant to this discussion) the latter, I have no doubt is correct; but, could the former be used just as appropriately?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33772" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11440" RevisionGUID="6dfe7b82-ae86-445b-89a2-eb3f4b91019b" CreationDate="2019-09-04T11:05:53.680" UserId="1982" Text="The Plural Forms of &quot;Uterque&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33773" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11440" RevisionGUID="6dfe7b82-ae86-445b-89a2-eb3f4b91019b" CreationDate="2019-09-04T11:05:53.680" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11439" RevisionGUID="fed7b8ec-81ea-4a0b-a738-a5d1bd8268b2" CreationDate="2019-09-04T11:06:29.843" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="Is the phrase &quot;ars gratia physicae&quot; correct? What does it mean? Could it mean &quot;Art for physics' sake&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33775" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11439" RevisionGUID="fed7b8ec-81ea-4a0b-a738-a5d1bd8268b2" CreationDate="2019-09-04T11:06:29.843" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11441" RevisionGUID="e0f7d449-b9ea-4be7-8960-6e1fb407047c" CreationDate="2019-09-04T11:09:15.323" UserId="79" Text="It is indeed correct.&#xD;&#xA;*X[nom] gratia Y[gen]* is a common way to say &quot;X for the sake of Y&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;X has to be in nominative and Y in genitive.&#xD;&#xA;For *ars* and *physica* they are *ars* and *physicae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also use the Greek variant *physice* for physics, and the genitive would be *physices*.&#xD;&#xA;The standard Latin variant *physicae* is easier to understand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11414" RevisionGUID="4bf65646-02b3-4f08-b15f-3016d72bc84a" CreationDate="2019-09-04T11:09:35.497" UserId="1982" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="The rise of right-wing (fascist) parties, in too many parts of Europe, is as concerning as it is disturbing. Totalitarianism, with its seductive promise of simplistic solutions, always seems to have its adherents. This, despite bitter lessons from the 20th century, on what these &quot;simplistic solutions&quot; actually involve. The term &quot;totalitarianism&quot; is relatively new, in historical time, a century or so; but, the primary motivation—the creation of &quot;order&quot;—has probably been around for as long as politics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When confronted with the temptations both Benjamin Franklin &amp; Thomas Jefferson have been credited with the same chilling observation; irrespective of the progenitor it can be summarised as: &quot;If you give up a little more freedom, for a little more law-and-order, you deserve neither and you'll lose both.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks to C Monsour who has pointed out that the original progenitor was, in fact, Benjamin Franklin. There are sources which credit Thomas Jefferson. He, TJ, said much about democracy; and, its potential perversion.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Si libertatem paulatim cedetis, salutem paulatim ad pariundum, neque merebitis et utrasque perdetis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11436" RevisionGUID="abd10bb0-690b-4aa0-a4c9-6c80bfd3b4cd" CreationDate="2019-09-04T11:35:37.710" UserId="1459" Comment="added 191 characters in body" Text="I would say a more appropriate word for repair in your context is _reficio_, rather than _emendo_. For what I can see in [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=emendo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059), the latter seem to be used more abstractly, or for non-physical things. Conversely, _reficio_ seem to refer to physical things, including examples like walls, gates, weapons, and so on. [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=reficio) also gives it the translation &quot;repair&quot;, which _emendo_ does not have. Another option could be _resarcio_, which is used with clothes, and can be translated as &quot;to patch&quot;, which is perhaps more analog to what a software update is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for _reficio_, the conjugation in your example would be _[refecimus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/refecimus#Latin)_. For _resarcio_, it would be _[resarsimus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/resarsimus#Latin)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, &quot;You are welcome&quot; is an expression, so translation is more complex. There is already [a dedicated post](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4371/how-to-say-you-are-welcome) on this site about it, suggesting there is not a native equivalent, but _nihil est_ might be a decent modern compromise. Now, _nihil est_ means &quot;it is nothing&quot;. So in the context of a finished past action (it was fixed and the problem is no more, hopefully), it is better to use the perfect tense: _Nihil fuit_. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11439" RevisionGUID="67cd1fc9-1a87-4987-ae23-2e606502b3a2" CreationDate="2019-09-04T11:37:13.263" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is the phrase &quot;_ars gratia physicae_&quot; correct? What does it mean? Could it mean &quot;Art for physics' sake&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33780" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11439" RevisionGUID="67cd1fc9-1a87-4987-ae23-2e606502b3a2" CreationDate="2019-09-04T11:37:13.263" UserId="1459" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is the phrase &quot;Ars gratia physicae&quot; correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11442" RevisionGUID="ce932b2e-27ba-4dd3-afdb-a8ec4883d842" CreationDate="2019-09-04T11:50:40.007" UserId="522" Text="There is one case where Cicero says *&quot;gaudeo&quot;* 'I am happy (to have helped).'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that's OTT there are three milder terms for &quot;Fine!&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;*licet,* 'That's OK.'  &#xD;&#xA;*placet,* lit. 'It pleases.'(I think that's what Her Majesty says when she approves a law)  &#xD;&#xA;*lucet,* lit. 'It's bright.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As they are impersonal verbs there is no need to alter the endings: suits all occasions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11443" RevisionGUID="be8f4590-0751-4008-9d8d-f4babf4f82ad" CreationDate="2019-09-04T11:50:56.657" UserId="5055" Text="Google Translate translates &quot;physicae artis&quot; as &quot;Physics&quot;. Is that correct? What would be the reasoning of it? Why isn't it &quot;nature of the art&quot; or &quot;physics of the art&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33783" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11443" RevisionGUID="be8f4590-0751-4008-9d8d-f4babf4f82ad" CreationDate="2019-09-04T11:50:56.657" UserId="5055" Text="Does &quot;physicae artis&quot; mean &quot;physics&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33784" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11443" RevisionGUID="be8f4590-0751-4008-9d8d-f4babf4f82ad" CreationDate="2019-09-04T11:50:56.657" UserId="5055" Text="|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11444" RevisionGUID="0cd9dd29-4fc7-4f60-9d3b-8a52d01eccb2" CreationDate="2019-09-04T12:15:42.893" UserId="5002" Text="None of the &quot;standard&quot; contemporary pronunciations of Latin pronounce /kwe/ as /ke/. Maybe it was pronounced that way in Late Latin or in some medieval regional pronunciation, I can't say for sure, there was a lot of variety until the 19th century or so, but the fact is that both the classical pronunciation (used by ancient Romans and by modern academicists) and the ecclesiastical pronunciation (used by choirs and churches) pronounce it as /kwe/ (further details like a low mid × high mid realization of &quot;e&quot; are debatable), and these two are basically the pronunciation schemes you are going to hear nowadays." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11442" RevisionGUID="dd34c591-b46a-4083-8250-fda34e4e0cff" CreationDate="2019-09-04T12:20:50.043" UserId="522" Comment="added 174 characters in body" Text="There is one case where Cicero says *&quot;gaudeo&quot;* 'I am happy (to have helped).'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that's OTT there are three milder terms for &quot;Fine!&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;*licet,* 'That's OK.'  &#xD;&#xA;*placet,* lit. 'It pleases.'(I think that's what Her Majesty says when she approves a law)  &#xD;&#xA;*lubet,* lit. 'I'm glad.' also *libenter* 'gladly' (used both colloquially (Pautus, Terence), and formally (Cicero)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[lucet, in an earlier post was apparently a misprint for *lubet* in the dictionary]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As they are impersonal verbs there is no need to alter the endings: suits all occasions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11442" RevisionGUID="2ea47fd7-2897-491d-a88e-1ccea60af11f" CreationDate="2019-09-04T12:27:21.147" UserId="522" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="There is one case where Cicero says *&quot;gaudeo&quot;* 'I am happy (to have helped).'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that's OTT there are three milder terms for &quot;Fine!&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;*licet,* 'That's OK.'  &#xD;&#xA;*placet,* lit. 'It pleases.'(I think that's what Her Majesty says when she approves a law)  &#xD;&#xA;*[lubet,][1]* lit. 'I'm glad.' also *libenter* 'gladly' (used both colloquially (Pautus, Terence), and formally (Cicero)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[lucet, in an earlier post was apparently a misprint for *lubet* in the dictionary]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As they are impersonal verbs there is no need to alter the endings: suits all occasions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.10:1030.lewisandshort" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11443" RevisionGUID="db9aad97-5b05-4fae-92d2-25f38a3c3c7d" CreationDate="2019-09-04T12:56:29.550" UserId="79" Comment="added 119 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Google Translate translates &quot;physicae artis&quot; as &quot;Physics&quot;. Is that correct? What would be the reasoning of it? Why isn't it &quot;nature of the art&quot; or &quot;physics of the art&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is related to [the previous question about &quot;ars gratia physicae&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11439/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33789" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11443" RevisionGUID="db9aad97-5b05-4fae-92d2-25f38a3c3c7d" CreationDate="2019-09-04T12:56:29.550" UserId="79" Comment="added 119 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11445" RevisionGUID="3467c4d4-02b2-43ec-b7dc-82014b540ce4" CreationDate="2019-09-04T13:08:07.000" UserId="79" Text="###*Ars physica* as &quot;physics&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics is primarily *ars physica* in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Literally, this means &quot;the physical art&quot;, so *physica* is an adjective here.&#xD;&#xA;The word order is quite flexible, so *physica ars* works as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *ars* is very broad, and &quot;art&quot; might not do it full justice.&#xD;&#xA;In this use I might translate it as &quot;field&quot;, so that *ars physica* is &quot;the field of physics&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of fields that come with an *ars* in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Often the *ars* is left out and the adjective alone can refer to the field.&#xD;&#xA;Since *ars* is feminine, the adjective is in feminine form: *physica, chemica, musica&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am less familiar with Greek, but I've understood that *τέχνη* behaves very similarly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*Physicae artis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Physicae artis* is *physica ars* in its genitive form.&#xD;&#xA;If *physica ars* is translated as &quot;physics&quot;, then *physicae artis* is &quot;of physics&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The genitive has many uses in Latin, and the literal translation with &quot;of&quot; is not always good.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the word *gratia* requires a genitive, as was mentioned in my answer to [your previous question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11439/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a pair consisting of a noun and an adjective is declined to different forms, both words are declined.&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;physics of the art&quot; only the arty part is in genitive.&#xD;&#xA;If we translate &quot;physics&quot; as *physica*, then &quot;physics of the art&quot; is *physica artis*.&#xD;&#xA;Observe the difference: the first word is *physica*, not *physicae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you translate &quot;physics&quot; with the full *ars physica*, then &quot;physics of the art&quot; would be *ars physica artis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What Google Translate gave you is otherwise correct, but it did not mention that you got a genitive.&#xD;&#xA;In general, [Google Translate is very untrustworthy with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79), so take anything it offers with a truckload of salt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11446" RevisionGUID="d842bf9d-cb7c-480e-b55f-7cdf1f5e0829" CreationDate="2019-09-04T16:09:06.297" UserId="5056" Text="I am translating the phrase &quot;In my hands, creation&quot; to Latin and came up with his: in manus meas creatio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate changes translates it so the possessor is &quot;creation&quot;, rather than myself (in the hands of my creation) if I include a comma after meas, and if I remove it then it translate it as the creation of my hands... haha.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33792" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11446" RevisionGUID="d842bf9d-cb7c-480e-b55f-7cdf1f5e0829" CreationDate="2019-09-04T16:09:06.297" UserId="5056" Text="Check my translation, I also don't trust Google Translate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33793" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11446" RevisionGUID="d842bf9d-cb7c-480e-b55f-7cdf1f5e0829" CreationDate="2019-09-04T16:09:06.297" UserId="5056" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11447" RevisionGUID="2efa3f34-dec7-444c-86ee-a89c577e11a1" CreationDate="2019-09-04T17:01:01.003" UserId="985" Text="In the Tacitus passage that you provided, *utrique* is dative singular, not plural, and therefore not relevant: 'Pardon was granted to each of the 2 men/both men.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context of the Caesar passage makes it pretty clear that C. means 'both groups'/'both sides' here, because the next sentence starts with *illi*, 'those men' (which is how C. generally refers to the Pompeians) and therefore focuses in on an example of how one of the 2 sides found a novel strategy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: Yes, the singular means 'each (one of 2)' or 'both', and the plural means 'each group (of two)' or 'both groups.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11440" RevisionGUID="40bb83ea-4dc6-4894-9b54-c5a909d535a7" CreationDate="2019-09-04T17:34:55.350" UserId="79" Comment="added 67 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Following on from [&quot;Uter vs Uterque&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/9113/79); it is clear that &quot;'uterque' can be translated as 'both [of two]' but it might be better to think of it as 'each [of two]'. The reason is that 'uterque', like 'each' is singular.&quot; (Joonas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked about the plural &quot;utrique&quot; = &quot;both&quot;. The advice was that &quot;utrique&quot; should be read as &quot;each group&quot; as in &quot;ille et meae et tuae familiae canit. utrisque delectat.&quot; = &quot;He sings for both my family and yours. He pleases each group.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this could be translated as: &quot;He pleases both (families)&quot;, could it not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are two further examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &gt; &quot;data utrique venia, facile Segimero, cunctantius filio, quia Quintilii Vari corpus inlusisse dicebatur.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;(Tacitus &quot;Annals&quot; Book 1.71)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &quot;Both were pardoned, Segimerus, the son, with some hesitation, because it was said that he had insulted the corpse of Quintillius Varus.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &gt; &quot;in novo genere belli novae ab utrisque bellandi rationes reperibantur.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;(Caesar &quot;De Bello Civili&quot; 3.50)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &quot;In this new kind of war, new methods of managing it, were invented by both (generals).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both examples there are two sets of individuals, not groups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [&quot;Advice From History&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11414/79), I attempted to say: &quot;...and you'll lose both (freedom/ law-and-order)&quot; = &quot;...et utrasque perdetis.&quot;, using feminine accusative plural of &quot;uterque&quot; for &quot;libertas&quot; &amp; &quot;salus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joonas, naturally, discussed the merits of &quot;utramque&quot; (feminine accusative singular) in the sense of &quot;you will lose each and every one of your privileges i.e. both-in-turn.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;He revised &quot;et utrasque perdetis&quot; to the neuter form &quot;et utrumque perdes&quot;; (singular/ plural forms of &quot;you&quot; are not relevant to this discussion) the latter, I have no doubt is correct; but, could the former be used just as appropriately?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33796" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11440" RevisionGUID="40bb83ea-4dc6-4894-9b54-c5a909d535a7" CreationDate="2019-09-04T17:34:55.350" UserId="79" Comment="added 67 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|pronouns|plural|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11420" RevisionGUID="7d155334-d915-443e-90e6-43962fb1d1a1" CreationDate="2019-09-04T17:40:53.630" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; *Si libertatem paulatim cedetis, salutem paulatim ad pariundum, neque merebitis et utrasque perdetis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not quite right, but mostly understandable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On vocabulary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you want to say &quot;each&quot;, you should say *utramque*.&#xD;&#xA;This means &quot;both in turn&quot;, whereas *ambas* would be more &quot;both together&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I can only imagine rare situations where a plural of *uterque* would be needed, and I can't remember seeing it in use.&#xD;&#xA;A separate question exploring the plural of *uterque* would be in order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I recommend *utramque*.&#xD;&#xA;Somehow it makes the tone a little more chilling to my ear than *ambas*.&#xD;&#xA;A bit like &quot;you will lose each and every one of your privileges&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Paulatim* or *paullatim* means &quot;little by little&quot; or &quot;in small increments&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It refers to gradual change, not a single small change.&#xD;&#xA;The adverbs ending in *-tim* tend to describe a repeated action.&#xD;&#xA;For another example, consider *viritim*, &quot;one man at a time&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I think the intention here is that you give a little bit of freedom one single time.&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;a little bit of freedom&quot; you could use *paullulum libertatis*.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to keep the comparative of the original, maybe *paulo plus libertatis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The same issue with *paulatim* appears twice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The statement makes sense with &quot;little by little&quot; and then *paulatim* is the way to go.&#xD;&#xA;I always read it as &quot;a little bit right now&quot; instead.&#xD;&#xA;I'm happy as long as you're aware of your choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Cedere* is a verb of many meanings, and the meaning &quot;to give up&quot; would not come first to my mind when encountering it.&#xD;&#xA;I recommend something with a stronger message of giving away.&#xD;&#xA;I'd go with *dedere*, referring to giving away, surrendering, and similar.&#xD;&#xA;You can tone the message with choosing something like *abicere*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Parere* works for gaining (law and order).&#xD;&#xA;Consider also *parare*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Salus* is good for &quot;health&quot; or &quot;welfare&quot;, but does not quite convey &quot;law and order&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I can't think of a great translation here.&#xD;&#xA;Some ideas come to mind, and maybe you can build something corresponding to &quot;law and order&quot; out of these: *fas*, *lex*, *securitas*, *ius*, *mos*, *civitas*, *iustitia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Remember to update the gender of the pronouns in the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Neque* is &quot;and not&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The English &quot;neither&quot; has two uses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;Neither do I.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;Here it means &quot;and not&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;Neither of them can fly.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;Here it means &quot;not a single one from a set of two&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; These two meanings are expressed with different words in many languages, including Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Translation word for word can easily run to just this kind of issues.&#xD;&#xA;The word *neque* is for the first meaning, but here you need the second one.&#xD;&#xA;The word *neuter* is great for the second meaning and contrasts well with *uterque*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On grammar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is the &quot;you&quot; in the original singular or plural?&#xD;&#xA;English doesn't make the distinction, but we have to make the decision when translating.&#xD;&#xA;If the address is to the nation as a whole, the plural as you chose is a good way to go.&#xD;&#xA;If it is directed to an individual (even if every single individual at the same time), then you need plural.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to make it a matter of personal choice, switch to singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; You could also read the &quot;you&quot; as impersonal (not an address to anyone) and translate the whole thing in passive or something similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; There is no single right choice here, but I just want you to look into the option and make the choice consciously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You used future tense, and that works.&#xD;&#xA;You could also make it so that the condition is present and the conclusion is future.&#xD;&#xA;The future depending on your current choices is very much in the right spirit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The *et* between the two conclusions is indeed good to have.&#xD;&#xA;You can't add *-que* to *uterque* without confusion or sounding weird.&#xD;&#xA;The particle *-que* shouldn't be used with *uter* and *quis* and similar words that have a wholly different meaning with *-que* added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In my experience the deponent (or passive or even [middle](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11258/79)) form *mereri* is somewhat more common.&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of a difference in meaning, but my instinct seems to favor passive here.&#xD;&#xA;There's nothing wrong with the active, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Ad pariundum* is not a clause and I would not separate it with a comma, but I guess this is a matter of style.&#xD;&#xA;An option to consider is to use a final *ut* clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Yet another approach would be to start from something like &quot;exchange liberty for safety&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;That would need some restructuring, but I think that would be faithful to the original message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a possible rewrite based on these thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Si paululum libertatis dedis, ut paululum iustitiae securitatisque pares, neutrum mereberis et utrumque perdes.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11442" RevisionGUID="beb6e992-f7dc-4186-9c0d-8ceb00aca3f8" CreationDate="2019-09-04T19:37:36.187" UserId="522" Comment="Plautus for Pautus; I could'nt spell Joonas earlier either, sorry!" Text="There is one case where Cicero says *&quot;gaudeo&quot;* 'I am happy (to have helped).'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that's OTT there are three milder terms for &quot;Fine!&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;*licet,* 'That's OK.'  &#xD;&#xA;*placet,* lit. 'It pleases.'(I think that's what Her Majesty says when she approves a law)  &#xD;&#xA;*[lubet,][1]* lit. 'I'm glad.' also *libenter* 'gladly' (used both colloquially (Plautus, Terence), and formally (Cicero)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[lucet, in an earlier post was apparently a misprint for *lubet* in the dictionary]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As they are impersonal verbs there is no need to alter the endings: suits all occasions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.10:1030.lewisandshort" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33799" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11443" RevisionGUID="c2c6d3ba-402a-4447-8867-6487e3c0b014" CreationDate="2019-09-04T19:53:28.627" />
  <row Id="33800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11448" RevisionGUID="b779715d-97c0-4144-b827-c6b54fbb0084" CreationDate="2019-09-04T20:23:10.693" UserId="469" Text="The proposed translation is almost right. The main issue is that you should use the *plural ablative*&amp;mdash;**manibus meis**&amp;mdash;instead of *manus meas* for *my hands* (when following the preposition *in* implying a motionless location.) Hence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **In manibus meis, creatio**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is a right, word-by-word, translation. You can also play with word order and the elision of the verb without loss of meaning: **creatio in manibus meis**, **in manibus meis creatio est**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Creatio* works for both the Universe and a piece of art, but if you want to be more specific you may want to use other words: For example, **mundum** or **mundum universum** for the former, **ars fabricandi** for the latter (though I'm not sure how clumsy this sounds.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11447" RevisionGUID="e351b909-ed5f-462b-a3a6-1e175e8fce35" CreationDate="2019-09-04T21:00:22.443" UserId="985" Comment="added 545 characters in body" Text="The singular forms of *uterque* mean either 'each *x* (out of 2),' which is also singular concept in English, or 'both *x*s,' which is a plural concept in English. The plural forms mean either 'each group of *x*s (out of 2 groups),' which is a singular concept in English, or 'both groups of *x*s,' which is also a plural concept in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Tacitus passage that you provided, *utrique* is dative singular, not plural, and therefore refers to 2 individuals: 'Pardon was granted to each of the 2 men/both men.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context of the Caesar passage makes it pretty clear that C. is talking about 2 sides in a conflict (the Caesarians and Pompeians), not 2 individual men (Caesar and Pompey), because the next sentence starts with *illi*, 'those men' (which is how C. generally refers to the Pompeians), and therefore provides an example of how one of the 2 sides in the conflict found a novel strategy (in this case, locating Caesar's soldiers at night, based on the location of their fire, and raining arrows down on them in guerilla-style hit-and-run attacks). Therefore, *ab utrisque* means 'by each of the 2 sides'/'both sides.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11441" RevisionGUID="e1c5816d-7316-4e0a-8dc8-bd1b0a9f309d" CreationDate="2019-09-04T21:08:14.053" UserId="79" Comment="added 295 characters in body" Text="It is indeed correct.&#xD;&#xA;*X[nom] gratia Y[gen]* is a common way to say &quot;X for the sake of Y&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;X has to be in nominative and Y in genitive.&#xD;&#xA;For *ars* and *physica* they are *ars* and *physicae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also use the Greek variant *physice* for physics, and the genitive would be *physices*.&#xD;&#xA;The standard Latin variant *physicae* is easier to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *gratia* often comes after the genitive it works with.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase at hand is modeled after *ars gratia artis* or a variant thereof, and the analogy is kept strongest by keeping the original structure.&#xD;&#xA;A more typical way to put it in classical Latin would be *ars physicae gratia*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11428" RevisionGUID="8ad79f26-7939-4601-9b69-d7d58ac65cfe" CreationDate="2019-09-05T00:48:19.177" UserId="469" Comment="added 301 characters in body" Text="Besides the two issues found by Joonas, I'd add a few _features_ not necessarily bad, but worth knowing in advance, for those willing to try the course:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pronunciation is consistently **reconstructed**.&#xD;&#xA;* The examples are somewhat **US-centered**. Like *[Novum Eboracum][1] est urbs Americana*. Judging from [other examples by the same collaborators][2], this apparently means America = United States, which IMHO is an idiom that should not necessarily be universal in Latin, just as it is not in some Romance languages like Spanish and Portuguese.&#xD;&#xA;* The choice of subjects and vocabulary is weird. For example, 1) for some reason parrots (**psittaci**) appear very frequently, and 2) **studeo** means consistently *to study* (which according to L&amp;S is post-Augustan)&#xD;&#xA;* Recordings could be improved (some include unnecessary noises, for example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Eboracum_(urbs)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.paideiainstitute.org/lectio_prima" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11057" RevisionGUID="dc0178fe-2045-4311-8c82-2793cace5313" CreationDate="2019-09-05T01:48:32.210" UserId="9" Comment="added example of OE/œ usage" Text="Here is a partial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what kind of forms you can find in historical (e.g. medieval) documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##In normal current typographic practice, no&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin texts that have been published in the present day by academic sources, you're unlikely to find ligatures of any kind. It's currently preferred to write &quot;oe&quot; (or &quot;ae&quot;) as a digraph composed of two separate characters.  As in English, when a word starting with a vowel digraph is capitalized, only the first letter is put in its upper-case form (e.g. &quot;Aeneas&quot;, not &quot;AEneas&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The texts that do use the ligature &quot;œ&quot; capitalize it as &quot;Œ&quot;, just as in English typography.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some variant usages that I have seen in historical typography&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen the usage &quot;œnopolis&quot;, &quot;OEnopolis&quot;, where the uncapitalized form is spelled with a ligature but the capitalized form is spelled with two separate capital letters, in a book printed in 1693: *Des. Erasmi Roterdami Colloquia, Cum notis selectis Variorum, Addito Indice novo. Accurante Corn. Schrevelio.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![page showing both lowercase &quot;œnopolis&quot;, and uppercase &quot;OEnopolis&quot;][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(p. 36)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same text does use the ligature Æ as a capitalized form of æ, so I'm inclined to think that the typographers viewed OE as a single letter that happened to be written when capitalized with unconnected glyphs (similar to the treatment of Dutch IJ in print that Cerberus mentioned in a comment). I'm not sure whether the different treatment of Æ and OE in this text was based on some graphical principle (e.g. the lack of a straight stroke on the right side of O comparable to the right stroke of a capital A), or whether a special ligature for &quot;Œ&quot; was omitted simply because of its much lower frequency compared to Æ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EVAIT.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10678" RevisionGUID="c9790151-4a63-4f67-887b-822caa9585f2" CreationDate="2019-09-05T06:08:07.483" UserId="9" Comment="Added brief notes on -gena adjectives" Text="I just found that *Nouvelle méthode pour apprendre facilement la langue latine,*  by Claude Lancelot (? et al?), which I quoted in my previous question about *Pascha,* includes this word in a list of &quot;those nouns which, as grammarians say, are not used in the plural, though we sometimes meet with examples to the contrary&quot; ([p. 150, *A New Method of Learning with Facility the Latin Tongue,*](https://books.google.com/books?id=hpTix6yVjrIC&amp;pg=PA150) translated from the French by T. Nugent, 1791).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nugent's translation says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pascha, is ranked in this number [of nouns found only in the singular] by Aldus and by Verep [I think this is [Simon Verep(a)eus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Verepaeus)/Verrept]. Yet Vossius thinks we may say *tria Pascha,* or *tres Paschas Christus celebravit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([p. 155](https://books.google.com/books?id=hpTix6yVjrIC&amp;pg=PA155); here is a link to the original French passage, [p. 180](https://books.google.com/books?id=22MSAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA180))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume *tres Paschas* would be feminine, rather than masculine, so that part doesn't really teach me anything new (since I already knew that some authors use *Pascha* as a feminine noun of the first declension). But *tria Pascha* is evidence that Vossius at least preferred to use a plural form identical to the singular when the word is neuter (and not given the stem *Paschat-*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###There are neuter plural forms ending in -*gena* (although I don't know whether they are first or second declension forms)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a bit hard for me to figure out the situation with first-declension adjectives because many of them seem to have had alternative second-declension forms used for the masculine and neuter, such as *[indigenus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=indigenus)* and *alienigenus.* Unfortunately, neuter nominative/accusative forms ending in *-a* are morphologically ambiguous: while they might be the first-declension forms that I speculated could exist in my original post, they might also just be second-declension forms. So the following evidence does not establish the existence of a specifically first-declension neuter plural ending *-a* for adjectives of this type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Latin Lexicon/Numen entry for *aliēnigenus, aliēnigena, aliēnigenum*](https://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2002239&amp;p2=a) mentions two examples of the form *aliēnigena* being used by Valerius Maximus to modify a neuter plural noun. Here are the relevant sentences as given by the PHI Latin Texts corpus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt;Adici nostris duo eiusdem generis **alienigena exempla** non absurde possunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (*Facta et Dicta Memorabilia* 1.5(ext).1.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; quas Athenas, quam scholam, quae **alienigena studia** huic domesticae disciplinae praetulerim? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (*Facta et Dicta Memorabilia* 2.1.10.8)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33806" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4619" RevisionGUID="addf5843-8f24-45a5-b953-82c510be91e9" CreationDate="2019-09-05T06:09:29.887" UserId="9" Comment="the tag &quot;case&quot; is about grammatical case" Text="|orthography|alphabet|typography|ligatures|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11446" RevisionGUID="33122809-81a6-415a-95a4-b404d7498086" CreationDate="2019-09-05T09:47:41.743" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am translating the phrase &quot;In my hands, creation&quot; to Latin and came up with this: _in manus meas creatio_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate changes translates it so the possessor is &quot;creation&quot;, rather than myself (in the hands of my creation) if I include a comma after _meas_, and if I remove it then it translate it as the creation of my hands!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33808" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11446" RevisionGUID="33122809-81a6-415a-95a4-b404d7498086" CreationDate="2019-09-05T09:47:41.743" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="Translating &quot;In my hands, creation&quot; into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11449" RevisionGUID="0d14c3f9-d2dc-4676-95bf-e810fdfc9c6d" CreationDate="2019-09-05T20:04:06.543" UserId="2389" Text="No dictionary I've checked lists such a usage. The closest to what I'm looking for is [DMLBS](https://logeion.uchicago.edu/Latinus) listing a meaning &quot;**2.b** (w. ellipsis of *lingua*)&quot;, but the two examples it gives display ordinary (in effect mandatory) syntactic ellipsis to avoid repetition - the adjective is not substantive, but unambiguously headed. It also gives **2.c** &quot;(w. ellipsis of litterae)&quot;, with the beautiful example *&quot;solempnem in ~is fuit sermonem&quot;* (unfortunate that I can't find the source). Thus it doesn't seem like they've been able to find an example even in Medieval British Latin. Though, [apparently](http://www.koeblergerhard.de/Mittellatein-HP/mittellatein-l.doc), Old Norse had a feminine &quot;latīna&quot; referring to the Latin language: &quot;W.[=Weiterleben].: an.[=altnordisch] latīna, F., Latein, lateinische Sprache&quot;, and Celtic languages [also appear](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Latina#Descendants) to have it in the feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The three things that come to my mind when I see a standalone *Latīna* in a sentence are: 1. a Latin woman; 2. *vīa Latīna*; 3. *porta Latīna*; and, as a bonus, 4. the modern Italian city of Latina. As a Neut.Pl., it would mean &quot;Latin things&quot;. Gaffiot lists a contextual meaning *&quot;pl. Latina Cic. Arch. 23, les œuvres en latin&quot;*, which to me seems like a simple switch-up of the written *versūs* and the unwritten *carmina* (that's what my brain told me, and it took me several reads to make sure there was in fact no *carmina*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, to the best of my knowledge, Latin simply doesn't use Fem.Sg. or Neut.Pl. substantive adjectives as language names. When there's a need of conveying this with a single adjective, Neut.Sg. adjectives are found instead: *vertere ex **Graecō** in **Latīnum***. Granted, I've yet to see an example of one used as a subject (***\*Latīnum** mē dēlectat* for ***Latīnitās...***), but this seems accidental. The latter usage looks to be continued in all modern Romance languages without syntactic limitations (*Italiano, Español,  Français, Sardu*) apart from Daco-Romanian (*Română*) and perhaps any related dialects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, I'd like to find any examples of this usage in anything that can reasonably be called fluent Latin - even if distinctly... Medieval - this side of the 20th century. I haven't been able to, and so am all but certain that this usage is confined to the Latin of 20/21st century English speakers, specifically propagated by the book &quot;Wheelock's Latin&quot; (where it's found in a sentence as hair-raising as the rest of that book). My intention is for this question to serve as a reference for people who feel that this usage is in fact grammatical, or that such a meaning is lexicalised in any sort of Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33810" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11449" RevisionGUID="0d14c3f9-d2dc-4676-95bf-e810fdfc9c6d" CreationDate="2019-09-05T20:04:06.543" UserId="2389" Text="Substantive adjective *Latīna* as the name of the language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33811" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11449" RevisionGUID="0d14c3f9-d2dc-4676-95bf-e810fdfc9c6d" CreationDate="2019-09-05T20:04:06.543" UserId="2389" Text="|vocabulary|medieval-latin|example-request|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11449" RevisionGUID="ba2bfb49-ebd6-4968-9b16-b6edd6152dfb" CreationDate="2019-09-05T20:10:34.167" UserId="2389" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="No dictionary I've checked lists such a usage. The closest to what I'm looking for is [DMLBS](https://logeion.uchicago.edu/Latinus) listing a meaning &quot;**2.b** (w. ellipsis of *lingua*)&quot;, but the two examples it gives display ordinary (in effect mandatory) syntactic ellipsis to avoid repetition - the adjective is not substantive, but unambiguously headed. It also gives **2.c** &quot;(w. ellipsis of litterae)&quot;, with the beautiful example *&quot;solempnem in ~is fuit sermonem&quot;* (unfortunate that I can't find the source). Thus it doesn't seem like they've been able to find an example even in Medieval British Latin. Though, [apparently](http://www.koeblergerhard.de/Mittellatein-HP/mittellatein-l.doc), Old Norse had a feminine &quot;latīna&quot; referring to the Latin language: &quot;W.[=Weiterleben].: an.[=altnordisch] latīna, F., Latein, lateinische Sprache&quot;, and Celtic languages [also appear](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Latina#Descendants) to have it in the feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The three things that come to my mind when I see a standalone *Latīna* in a sentence are: 1. a Latin woman; 2. *vīa Latīna*; 3. *porta Latīna*. And as a bonus, 4. the modern Italian city of Latina. As a Neut.Pl., it would mean &quot;Latin things&quot;. Gaffiot lists a contextual meaning *&quot;pl. Latina Cic. Arch. 23, les œuvres en latin&quot;*, which to me seems like a simple switch-up of the written *versūs* and the unwritten *carmina* (that's what my brain told me, and it took me several reads to make sure there was in fact no *carmina* in that sentence).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, to the best of my knowledge, Latin simply doesn't use Fem.Sg. or Neut.Pl. substantive adjectives as language names. When there's a need of conveying this with a single adjective, Neut.Sg. adjectives are found instead: *vertere ex **Graecō** in **Latīnum***. Granted, I've yet to see an example of one used as a subject (***\*Latīnum** mē dēlectat* for ***Latīnitās...***), but this seems accidental. The latter usage looks to be continued in all modern Romance languages without syntactic limitations (*Italiano, Español,  Français, Sardu*) apart from Daco-Romanian (*Română*) and perhaps any related dialects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, I'd like to find any examples of this usage in anything that can reasonably be called fluent Latin, even if distinctly... medieval, this side of the 20th century. I haven't been able to, and so am all but certain that this usage is confined to the Latin of 20/21st century English speakers, in particular those who have been exposed to &quot;Wheelock's Latin&quot; where it's found in a sentence as hair-raising as the rest of that book. My intention is for this question to serve as a reference for people who feel that this usage is in fact grammatical, or that such a meaning is lexicalised in any sort of Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11449" RevisionGUID="69556f10-88db-40c2-9540-e13e2e66572b" CreationDate="2019-09-05T20:19:50.007" UserId="2389" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="No dictionary I've checked lists such a usage. The closest to what I'm looking for is [DMLBS](https://logeion.uchicago.edu/Latinus) listing a meaning &quot;**2.b** (w. ellipsis of *lingua*)&quot;, but the two examples it gives display ordinary (in effect mandatory) syntactic ellipsis to avoid repetition - the adjective is not substantive, but unambiguously headed. It also gives **2.c** &quot;(w. ellipsis of *litterae*)&quot;, with the beautiful example *&quot;solempnem in ~is fuit sermonem&quot;* (unfortunate that I can't find the source). Thus it doesn't seem like they've been able to find an example even in Medieval British Latin. Though, [apparently](http://www.koeblergerhard.de/Mittellatein-HP/mittellatein-l.doc), Old Norse has a feminine *latīna* referring to the Latin language: &quot;W.[=Weiterleben].: an.[=altnordisch] latīna, F., Latein, lateinische Sprache&quot;, and in Celtic languages [it's also](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Latina#Descendants) feminine - but so appear to be all other language names in Irish Gaelic, Welsh and Manx.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The three things that come to my mind when I see a standalone *Latīna* in a sentence are: 1. a Latin woman; 2. *via Latīna*; 3. *porta Latīna*. And as a bonus, 4. the modern Italian city of Latina. As a Neut.Pl., it would mean &quot;Latin things&quot;. Gaffiot lists a contextual meaning *&quot;pl. Latina Cic. Arch. 23, les œuvres en latin&quot;*, which to me seems like a simple switch-up of the written *versūs* and the unwritten *carmina* (that's what my brain told me, and it took me several reads to make sure there was in fact no *carmina* in that sentence).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, to the best of my knowledge, Latin simply doesn't use Fem.Sg. or Neut.Pl. substantive adjectives as language names. When there's a need of conveying this with a single adjective, Neut.Sg. adjectives are found instead: *vertere ex **Graecō** in **Latīnum***. Granted, I've yet to see an example of one used as a subject (***\*Latīnum** mē dēlectat* for ***Latīnitās...***), but this seems accidental. This looks to be continued in all modern Romance languages without syntactic limitations (*Italiano, Español,  Français, Sardu*) apart from Daco-Romanian (*Română*) and perhaps any related dialects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, I'd like to find any example of this usage in anything that can reasonably be called fluent Latin, even if distinctly... medieval, this side of the 20th century. I haven't been able to, and so am all but certain that this usage is confined to the Latin of 20/21st century English speakers, in particular those who have been exposed to &quot;Wheelock's Latin&quot; where it's found in a sentence as hair-raising as the rest of that book. My intention is for this question to serve as a reference for people who feel that this usage is in fact grammatical, or that such a meaning is lexicalised in any sort of Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11450" RevisionGUID="6e41bd51-88fd-4a48-8cbe-388cc77c74c1" CreationDate="2019-09-06T00:00:03.980" UserId="9" Text="When trying to answer a previous [question about the patronymic derived from Asclepius](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/9157/9), I came across the following quotation from Beekes in the Wikipedia entry on [*Asclepius*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The name is typical for Pre-Greek words; apart from minor variations (β for π, αλ(α) for λα) we find α/αι (a well known variation; Fur. 335–339) followed by -γλαπ- or -σκλαπ-/-σχλαπ/β-, i.e. a voiced velar (without -σ-) or a voiceless velar (or an aspirated one: we know that there was no distinction between the three in the substr. language) with a -σ-. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to know more about the α/αι variation. Which words is it seen in? It is only seen in certain phonological contexts? I'm also interested in knowing whether this alternation implies anything about the length of the vowel in the variant with the monophthong α. I guessed in my answer to the linked post that *Ἀσκληπιός* would have a short vowel, but recently I came across the Latin word *crāpula,* which has a long vowel and seems to be related to Greek *κραιπάλη,* with *αι.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33815" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11450" RevisionGUID="6e41bd51-88fd-4a48-8cbe-388cc77c74c1" CreationDate="2019-09-06T00:00:03.980" UserId="9" Text="What is the nature of variation between αι and α in (Pre-)Greek words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33816" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11450" RevisionGUID="6e41bd51-88fd-4a48-8cbe-388cc77c74c1" CreationDate="2019-09-06T00:00:03.980" UserId="9" Text="|greek|etymology|vowel-quantity|vowel|diphthong|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11450" RevisionGUID="7bbb3594-3f20-4c9f-aed3-d8e77df8c261" CreationDate="2019-09-06T00:07:17.320" UserId="9" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="When trying to answer a previous [question about the patronymic derived from Asclepius](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/9157/9), I came across the following quotation from Beekes in the Wikipedia entry on [*Asclepius*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The name is typical for Pre-Greek words; apart from minor variations (β for π, αλ(α) for λα) we find α/αι (a well known variation; Fur. 335–339) followed by -γλαπ- or -σκλαπ-/-σχλαπ/β-, i.e. a voiced velar (without -σ-) or a voiceless velar (or an aspirated one: we know that there was no distinction between the three in the substr. language) with a -σ-. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to know more about the α/αι variation. Which words is it seen in? It is only seen in certain phonological contexts? I'm also interested in knowing whether this alternation implies anything about the length of the vowel in the variant with the monophthong α. I guessed in my answer to the linked post that *Ἀσκληπιός* would have a short vowel, but recently I came across the Latin word *crāpula,* which has a long vowel and seems to be derived from a variant form of Greek *κραιπάλη,* which has *αι.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11451" RevisionGUID="0b68494b-2d65-4864-a871-a6cfe5df6af8" CreationDate="2019-09-06T11:09:36.500" UserId="1459" Text="I read in [Wikipedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotum) the word _robotum_ and _robotor_. Also, there is _[automaton](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automaton)_, and _[androides](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androides)_. I don't see such a word in the [short online version of the] [Lexicon Recentis Latinatis](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/rc_latinitas_20040601_lexicon_it.html) by the Vatican (which is, after all, the only State where Latin is the official language).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a debate about what is a robot. I guess I am particularly asking about mobile machines, even if they don't have a human shape:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key question is: what's the closest word Classical Latin (Greek?) would have used for them? We can then move forward and ask about mediaeval Latin and then to neo-Latin. Sure the answers are different between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6sNEg.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IV5ev.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33819" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11451" RevisionGUID="0b68494b-2d65-4864-a871-a6cfe5df6af8" CreationDate="2019-09-06T11:09:36.500" UserId="1459" Text="What is a &quot;robot&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33820" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11451" RevisionGUID="0b68494b-2d65-4864-a871-a6cfe5df6af8" CreationDate="2019-09-06T11:09:36.500" UserId="1459" Text="|classical-latin|medieval-latin|technology|neologism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33821" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11449" RevisionGUID="d8e5a47c-70b2-42a3-850b-c0c33447b50e" CreationDate="2019-09-06T11:22:46.750" UserId="1459" Comment="edited title" Text="Substantive adjective &quot;Latīna&quot; as the name of the language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11448" RevisionGUID="ce84510c-3239-4c7a-956c-b93258c86178" CreationDate="2019-09-06T15:34:46.893" UserId="469" Comment="added 402 characters in body" Text="The proposed translation is almost right. The main issue is that you should use the *plural ablative*&amp;mdash;**manibus meis**&amp;mdash;instead of *manus meas* for *my hands* (when following the preposition *in* implying a motionless location.) Hence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **In manibus meis**[**,**] **creatio**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is a right, word-by-word, translation. You can also play with word order and the elision of the verb without loss of meaning: **creatio in manibus meis**, **in manibus meis creatio est**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** As underscored by Joonas and Adam, the comma is not needed and might, in fact, make it sound less classical. Thinking it twice, I'd actually prefer the version without the comma, but I don't directly advise *against* it, since I think it adds a bit of readability for a less experienced, present-day eye, and you didn't specify that you wanted the translation to be classical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Creatio* works for both the Universe and a piece of art, but if you want to be more specific you may want to use other words: For example, **mundum** or **mundum universum** for the former, **ars fabricandi** for the latter (though I'm not sure how clumsy this sounds.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11452" RevisionGUID="7ca6b4bb-1d15-4e89-8026-6b0c5dfcc504" CreationDate="2019-09-06T16:56:07.587" UserId="645" Text="The word was invented by Karel Capek's brother in 1920 and used in his novel (in Czech), of which the title is translated into English as 'Rossum's Universal Robots'. It suggests (forced) labour *robota* and related words in Slavic languages (e.g. Russian *robotnik*, 'worker').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Romans adopted plenty of foreign words quite without shame, for simple expediency, not just from Greek, but from other and quite different languages, and you could justifiably do the same here. Why not avoid all argument about a suitable classical root, and acknowledge its origin by simply adopting the word directly into Latin? I suggest as a 3rd declension neuter, but you might like to give it a more typical ending, perhaps as *robotal*, and decline it like *animal*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11453" RevisionGUID="351a7dd9-fdbf-426b-bd5d-b3dcd2cfb97e" CreationDate="2019-09-06T18:33:25.390" UserId="13" Text="That same Ferrari book, had I checked further, would have yielded the following note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In comparison with the reconstruction given in Ferrari 2005b, the text as given here takes into account two contributions of Puglia: a) the combination of F 60 (= P.Halle 3) with fr. 3, hence the necessity of postulating a five-line lacuna between F 86 and F 60 and of considering F 86.1, not F 86.2, as the initial line of the poem; b) the location of F 67 at the left and on line with F 60.1. On this see Puglia 2007: 22–28.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Ferrari 2005b_ is [this article](https://www.academia.edu/8448783/Contro_Andromeda_recupero_di_unode_di_Saffo_ms._in_MD_55_2005_pp._13-30), where the blue and pink parts in the collaged text above are missing, and the lacuna is not postulated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Puglia 2007_ is «Puglia, E. “Per la ricomposizione del quarto libro dei canti di Saffo (POxy. 1787).” SemRom 10 (2007): 17–39», which I can't seem to find online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is: what is &quot;fr. 3&quot;? P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3? But that wasn't joined into here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - LP 60, the black part, is from P. Halle 3;&#xD;&#xA; - LP 65, the red part, is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 4;&#xD;&#xA; - LP 86, the purple part, is from P.Oxy. 2166(d) fr. 1;&#xD;&#xA; - LP 66(c), the green part, was published as fr. 7A(c) in Lobel's Σαπφοῦς μέλη book 4;&#xD;&#xA; - LP 67(a), the blue part, comes from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3 is the source of LP 61-63, none of which was joined into here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wait though. P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3 has a scanty first column, the poems I mentioned coming from col. ii. And on col. i, there is a line-final Ν halfway through the papyrus. Below it, a faint trace of quite possibly an alpha. So I think we have our source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After dinner, I'll come back to see if I can explain this lacuna length." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11453" RevisionGUID="91363662-b173-4a59-a29a-3c69a9e76d56" CreationDate="2019-09-06T20:05:39.007" UserId="13" Comment="added 1517 characters in body" Text="That same Ferrari book, had I checked further, would have yielded the following note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In comparison with the reconstruction given in Ferrari 2005b, the text as given here takes into account two contributions of Puglia: a) the combination of F 60 (= P.Halle 3) with fr. 3, hence the necessity of postulating a five-line lacuna between F 86 and F 60 and of considering F 86.1, not F 86.2, as the initial line of the poem; b) the location of F 67 at the left and on line with F 60.1. On this see Puglia 2007: 22–28.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Ferrari 2005b_ is [this article](https://www.academia.edu/8448783/Contro_Andromeda_recupero_di_unode_di_Saffo_ms._in_MD_55_2005_pp._13-30), where the blue and pink parts in the collaged text above are missing, and the lacuna is not postulated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Puglia 2007_ is «Puglia, E. “Per la ricomposizione del quarto libro dei canti di Saffo (POxy. 1787).” SemRom 10 (2007): 17–39», which I can't seem to find online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is: what is &quot;fr. 3&quot;? P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3? But that wasn't joined into here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - LP 60, the black part, is from P. Halle 3;&#xD;&#xA; - LP 65, the red part, is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 4;&#xD;&#xA; - LP 86, the purple part, is from P.Oxy. 2166(d) fr. 1;&#xD;&#xA; - LP 66(c), the green part, was published as fr. 7A(c) in Lobel's Σαπφοῦς μέλη book 4;&#xD;&#xA; - LP 67(a), the blue part, comes from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3 is the source of LP 61-63, none of which was joined into here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wait though. P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3 has a scanty first column, the poems I mentioned coming from col. ii. And on col. i, there is a line-final Ν halfway through the papyrus. Below it, a faint trace of quite possibly an alpha. So I think we have our source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried juxtaposing P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3 and the purple part, both of which I have an image of, and it seems there is a kinda snug fit between the two. If that is correct, the last line of the purple joins with the first line in the following image:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the pink line ending in nu would match with τέαυτ in fr. 3 col. ii. But I see no nu to the left of that. Yeah well, dumb me, the purple lines are middle, they can't join with blank ends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, here's the original transcription for fr. 3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nu I thought I saw before is where they read &quot;. I&quot;. The &quot;.&quot; is potentially the top of a vertical leg, which would mean II or N or M. It could be argued that this is &quot;. N&quot;, but the right half of such a nu would be so faint I can hardly support it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would actually look like the ΗϹ line in col. i should join with l. 6 of P.Halle, where the book by Ferrari ends with θελήσηις while the anthology's text didn't get the memo and still ends in θελήση[ς. This would mean the vestige in the next line is treated as an iota, which can be supported, and the two vestiges in the line after that are dismissed. This is kind of not really supportable IMO. Treating the vestige before the HC line as a high dot, perfect. Problem: this makes P.Halle join perfectly with fr. 3, leaving no lines above it. So… where are these lines from again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hmm, I guess this isn't really an answer… this origin isn't convincing at all.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WVHp8.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZD4JB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11454" RevisionGUID="ba82cbda-d43e-4337-ac03-267cb5d924a8" CreationDate="2019-09-06T20:08:41.370" UserId="3163" Text="I don't speak Latin and I can't think of a non-dumb way to ask this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But my understanding is that *capita* is the plural form of *caput*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm wondering how &quot;per capita&quot; makes any sense, then. Seems like a contradiction in terms to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did Latin itself even have this term at all? Or was this a much later invention by someone who didn't know better and was just trying to be fancy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33827" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11454" RevisionGUID="ba82cbda-d43e-4337-ac03-267cb5d924a8" CreationDate="2019-09-06T20:08:41.370" UserId="3163" Text="Why &quot;per capita&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33828" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11454" RevisionGUID="ba82cbda-d43e-4337-ac03-267cb5d924a8" CreationDate="2019-09-06T20:08:41.370" UserId="3163" Text="|noun|plural|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11454" RevisionGUID="53eb467c-ef64-4a37-a880-45aa40c53b34" CreationDate="2019-09-06T20:11:25.627" UserId="30" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="I don't speak Latin and I can't think of a non-dumb way to ask this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But my understanding is that *capita* is the plural form of *caput*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm wondering how &quot;per capita&quot; makes any sense, then, as it means &quot;per head&quot;, not &quot;per heads&quot;. Seems like a contradiction in terms to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did Latin itself even have this term at all? Or was this a much later invention by someone who didn't know better and was just trying to be fancy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11419" RevisionGUID="53c9d1e0-e5e7-45dc-a9f1-386e2537b746" CreationDate="2019-09-06T20:21:42.560" UserId="30" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="&quot;Sharing&quot; and &quot;caring&quot; are ambiguous in English.  If the context is encouraging people to give to a religious charity for the poor, then I think &quot;dare amare&quot; is a great translation: &quot;giving [is] loving&quot;.  In other contexts, you probably want something else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33831" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="11419" RevisionGUID="89b9a533-5d72-491b-b036-ca6efdadde6f" CreationDate="2019-09-06T20:22:00.090" UserId="30" Comment="131" />
  <row Id="33834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11453" RevisionGUID="3ebd9369-f4fa-4332-b0d8-926a8c327437" CreationDate="2019-09-06T20:57:21.523" UserId="13" Comment="Added all but the first sentence of the last paragraph" Text="That same Ferrari book, had I checked further, would have yielded the following note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In comparison with the reconstruction given in Ferrari 2005b, the text as given here takes into account two contributions of Puglia: a) the combination of F 60 (= P.Halle 3) with fr. 3, hence the necessity of postulating a five-line lacuna between F 86 and F 60 and of considering F 86.1, not F 86.2, as the initial line of the poem; b) the location of F 67 at the left and on line with F 60.1. On this see Puglia 2007: 22–28.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Ferrari 2005b_ is [this article](https://www.academia.edu/8448783/Contro_Andromeda_recupero_di_unode_di_Saffo_ms._in_MD_55_2005_pp._13-30), where the blue and pink parts in the collaged text above are missing, and the lacuna is not postulated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Puglia 2007_ is «Puglia, E. “Per la ricomposizione del quarto libro dei canti di Saffo (POxy. 1787).” SemRom 10 (2007): 17–39», which I can't seem to find online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is: what is &quot;fr. 3&quot;? P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3? But that wasn't joined into here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - LP 60, the black part, is from P. Halle 3;&#xD;&#xA; - LP 65, the red part, is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 4;&#xD;&#xA; - LP 86, the purple part, is from P.Oxy. 2166(d) fr. 1;&#xD;&#xA; - LP 66(c), the green part, was published as fr. 7A(c) in Lobel's Σαπφοῦς μέλη book 4;&#xD;&#xA; - LP 67(a), the blue part, comes from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3 is the source of LP 61-63, none of which was joined into here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wait though. P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3 has a scanty first column, the poems I mentioned coming from col. ii. And on col. i, there is a line-final Ν halfway through the papyrus. Below it, a faint trace of quite possibly an alpha. So I think we have our source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried juxtaposing P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3 and the purple part, both of which I have an image of, and it seems there is a kinda snug fit between the two. If that is correct, the last line of the purple joins with the first line in the following image:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the pink line ending in nu would match with τέαυτ in fr. 3 col. ii. But I see no nu to the left of that. Yeah well, dumb me, the purple lines are middle, they can't join with blank ends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, here's the original transcription for fr. 3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nu I thought I saw before is where they read &quot;. I&quot;. The &quot;.&quot; is potentially the top of a vertical leg, which would mean II or N or M. It could be argued that this is &quot;. N&quot;, but the right half of such a nu would be so faint I can hardly support it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would actually look like the ΗϹ line in col. i should join with l. 6 of P.Halle, where the book by Ferrari ends with θελήσηις while the anthology's text didn't get the memo and still ends in θελήση[ς. This would mean the vestige in the next line is treated as an iota, which can be supported, and the two vestiges in the line after that are dismissed. This is kind of not really supportable IMO. Treating the vestige before the HC line as a high dot, perfect. Problem: this makes P.Halle join perfectly with fr. 3, leaving no lines above it. So… where are these lines from again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hmm, I guess this isn't really an answer… this origin isn't convincing at all. Basically, the only convincing joint eliminates any trace of those pink lines because, while fr. 3 extends 2.5 lines higher than its first transcribed line, those lines don't show any trace of ink to my eyes. Plus, the length of the lacuna is completely unjustified.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WVHp8.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZD4JB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11455" RevisionGUID="6ea7cdf1-3b10-4933-aeb0-bc5b40c44cae" CreationDate="2019-09-07T05:07:00.067" UserId="4871" Text="Apparently [an early usage][1] was in inheritance law, in contrast with &quot;per stirpes&quot;.  Suppose A has children B and C, and B has child D, while C has children E and F.  If A outlives his children but not his grandchildren, then with a *per capita* rule, D, E, and F each get 1/3 of the estate, but under a *per stirpes* rule, D gets 1/2 and E and F get 1/4 each.  In that usage, the plural makes sense--one really does mean something like &quot;by heads&quot; as opposed to &quot;by lineages&quot;.  The phrase probably then got pulled into other contexts where the plural is incorrect without people really thinking about it....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11455" RevisionGUID="e3a17510-e46b-4fdc-a6a5-72e040336121" CreationDate="2019-09-07T05:39:22.407" UserId="4871" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="Apparently [an early usage][1] was in inheritance law, in contrast with &quot;per stirpes&quot;.  Suppose A has children B and C, and B has child D, while C has children E and F.  If A outlives his children but not his grandchildren, then with a *per capita* rule, D, E, and F each get 1/3 of the estate, but under a *per stirpes* rule, D gets 1/2 and E and F get 1/4 each.  In that usage, the plural makes sense--one really does mean something like a division of property &quot;by heads&quot; as opposed to &quot;by lineages&quot;.  The phrase probably then got pulled into other contexts (like expressing the units of the denominator of a ratio) where the plural is incorrect without people really thinking about it....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11456" RevisionGUID="5da6255d-06f2-4421-a2dc-2743162b6783" CreationDate="2019-09-07T08:39:47.440" UserId="867" Text="**What's the closest word Classical Latin (Greek?) would have used for mobile machines, even if they don't have a human shape?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(NB: this answer is adapted slightly from another answer I gave [here][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think perhaps *automaton* or *automatum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’m not aware of any Roman writings on robots as such, whereas the Greeks wrote surprisingly frequently about robot-like beings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, we have *automatos* / αυτοματος (sg), *automata* / αυτοματα (pl) attested in ancient Greek literature as referring to self-acting, autonomous, mechanical beings. Some examples include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The self-opening gates of Olympus (αυτομαται πυλαι) in Homer, *Iliad*, 5.749&#xD;&#xA; - The self-moving tripods Hephaestus made, referred to as οι αυτοματοι&#xD;&#xA;   / the autonomous ones, in Homer, *Iliad*, 18.376&#xD;&#xA; - A reference to “miraculous automatic puppets” (τα αυτοματα των&#xD;&#xA;   θαυματων) in Aristotle, *Generation of Animals*, 734b11&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of its use in a compound form is αὐτοματοποιητικά / *automatopoietika* - the title of a section of Philo of Byzantium's (also known as Philo Mechanicus, fl. ca. 250 BC) engineering manual, dealing with the construction of mechanical toys and diversions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I think the nominalised Greek adjective *automata* is broad enough to encompass a variety of mechanical &quot;mobile machines&quot;, human-shaped or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly adopted from Greek, *automatum* does actually appear in Latin works, although very rarely. In Petronius, it does seem to refer to an automaton or at least a clockwork toy of some sort:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ne per parietem automatum aliquod exiret* / lest some automaton leap&#xD;&#xA;&gt; out of the wall (*Satyricon*, 54)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Suetonius, however, it seems to be more of an ordinary mechanical device, not intended to look or act like a human but nevertheless to work under its own power:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *si automatum ... parum cessisset* / if a device ... had worked&#xD;&#xA;&gt; insufficiently (*Lives of the Caesars: Claudius*, 5.34)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4072/latin-prefix-to-describe-the-wiping-out-of-robots?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11441" RevisionGUID="3ab320ed-472b-4003-8e80-6e8e479999fa" CreationDate="2019-09-07T10:29:54.033" UserId="79" Comment="added 486 characters in body" Text="It is indeed correct.&#xD;&#xA;*X[nom] gratia Y[gen]* is a common way to say &quot;X for the sake of Y&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;X has to be in nominative and Y in genitive.&#xD;&#xA;For *ars* and *physica* they are *ars* and *physicae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also use the Greek variant *physice* for physics, and the genitive would be *physices*.&#xD;&#xA;The standard Latin variant *physicae* is easier to understand.&#xD;&#xA;(The way this works is as follows: The word *physica* is an adjective used here without a noun. See [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11443/79) for details. An adjective is always treated as a fully Latin word, so the Greek style declension is out of the question. However, the same happens in Greek, where the adjective *φυσική* alone can mean &quot;physics&quot;. The Greek variant would be a direct borrowing of that substantivized Greek adjective, not of a plain adjective.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *gratia* often comes after the genitive it works with.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase at hand is modeled after *ars gratia artis* or a variant thereof, and the analogy is kept strongest by keeping the original structure.&#xD;&#xA;A more typical way to put it in classical Latin would be *ars physicae gratia*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11445" RevisionGUID="03381ee8-9828-426f-aee4-0b6c96a51a93" CreationDate="2019-09-07T10:31:45.570" UserId="79" Comment="added 197 characters in body" Text="###*Ars physica* as &quot;physics&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physics is primarily *ars physica* in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Literally, this means &quot;the physical art&quot;, so *physica* is an adjective here.&#xD;&#xA;The word order is quite flexible, so *physica ars* works as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *ars* is very broad, and &quot;art&quot; might not do it full justice.&#xD;&#xA;In this use I might translate it as &quot;field&quot;, so that *ars physica* is &quot;the field of physics&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of fields that come with an *ars* in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Often the *ars* is left out and the adjective alone can refer to the field.&#xD;&#xA;Since *ars* is feminine, the adjective is in feminine form: *physica, chemica, musica&amp;hellip;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am less familiar with Greek, but I've understood that *τέχνη* behaves very similarly to *ars*.&#xD;&#xA;In the specific case of physics, also the words *ἀκρόασις* and *ἐπιστήμη* are relevant.&#xD;&#xA;But if you want more details on Greek, do ask a separate question; this remark is only a pointer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###*Physicae artis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Physicae artis* is *physica ars* in its genitive form.&#xD;&#xA;If *physica ars* is translated as &quot;physics&quot;, then *physicae artis* is &quot;of physics&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The genitive has many uses in Latin, and the literal translation with &quot;of&quot; is not always good.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the word *gratia* requires a genitive, as was mentioned in my answer to [your previous question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11439/79).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a pair consisting of a noun and an adjective is declined to different forms, both words are declined.&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;physics of the art&quot; only the arty part is in genitive.&#xD;&#xA;If we translate &quot;physics&quot; as *physica*, then &quot;physics of the art&quot; is *physica artis*.&#xD;&#xA;Observe the difference: the first word is *physica*, not *physicae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you translate &quot;physics&quot; with the full *ars physica*, then &quot;physics of the art&quot; would be *ars physica artis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What Google Translate gave you is otherwise correct, but it did not mention that you got a genitive.&#xD;&#xA;In general, [Google Translate is very untrustworthy with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79), so take anything it offers with a truckload of salt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11457" RevisionGUID="7980ad08-d25d-46e4-8525-3717533aa33d" CreationDate="2019-09-07T10:55:46.883" UserId="13" Text="As some of you will definitely know, I have been grappling with Sappho for a long time. Lately, I have come to an impasse in a couple places, where I have said all I can without a specific reference I don't have access too. I don't know why I thought asking for those references in a question was inappropriate, but anyways I asked in CONLOQVIVM. The second request I posted yesterday, and JI encouraged me to post a question… so here I am.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will give background for both requests. Feel free to skip to the list at the end of the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Number 1#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related questions are [1](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10685/tracing-mysterious-line-ends-in-a-combination-of-sappho-fragments-found-in-an-it) and [2](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11207/about-supplemented-word-%e1%bd%80%ce%bb%cf%8c%cf%86%e1%bf%b3-in-a-fusion-of-lobel-page-fragments-from-an-italia). A little backstory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - At some point, I googled my way to [this Italian Sappho anthology](https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/11675/1/Saffo_frammenti_2015.pdf), where I first found the text in questions 1 and 2 linked above;&#xD;&#xA; - As I am wont to do, I tried to retrace every letter in the text back to an LP fragment, and identified LP 86 60 65 66(c) and 67(a) as the sources. However, that left out two line endings;&#xD;&#xA; - I asked about those in question 1, and the question stayed unanswered;&#xD;&#xA; - I somehow (perhaps via the anthology's biblio) found [this article](https://www.jstor.org/stable/40236270?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) which starts the combination. I think this was also uploaded to Academia.edu recently;&#xD;&#xA; - Thanks to question 2 or its Quora analog, I got an Academia.edu link for _Una Mitra per Cleis_ in English translation from @NickNicholas, and I found the complete text, realizing, in bits, how much the text had been mangled by the anthology (see below for more);&#xD;&#xA; - Again in _Una Mitra per Cleis_, I was referenced to the Enzo Puglia 2007 article I'm requesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so here's how this combination went.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Eduard Fraenkel suggested LP 86 and LP 60 should be joined, because they produce a development of the song that parallels many Greek prayers including Sappho's own _Hymn to Aphrodite_ (LP 1);&#xD;&#xA; - Lobel-Page and Voigt said &quot;Nah, not buying that&quot;;&#xD;&#xA; - Campbell said &quot;Welp, I'm following those two editions, so those two fragments stay split&quot;;&#xD;&#xA; - Ferrari said &quot;Guys, guys! The joining is very likely, and there is another fragment, LP 65, with the _frustulum_ that is LP 66(c) already basically joined to it, that joins nicely into the combo, and strengthens the parallel! L. 1 of LP 86 may be from another poem, because, if we supposed there was no lacuna between it and LP 60, the paragraphoi make the line count such that that would be an odd line&quot;;&#xD;&#xA; - Puglia, in _Per la ricomposizione del quarto libro dei canti di Saffo (POxy. 1787)_, published in 2007 at an event in Rome, said &quot;Yeah, good job Ferrari… but did you notice that LP 67(a) also fits in nicely? Oh and by the way, remember P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3, whose second column gave us LP 61-63? Well, P.Halle 3, the source of LP 60, joins in nicely with that, which implies there are 5 lines between LP 86 and LP 60, thus making that famous first line definitely part of our combo… unless we want to exclude the following line as well, but that fits in with the parallel. Oh, and joining LP 67(a) with LP 65 means l. 1 if the latter and the penultimate line of the former have letters split between them, with a combined reading of οὐδὲν πόλυ . . [, the two vestiges possibly giving πά[σασθ'&quot;;&#xD;&#xA; - Ferrari, _Una Mitra per Cleis_, agreed wholeheartedly, and printed that combined text with perhaps some extra supplements, and ideas for supplements in the translation;&#xD;&#xA; - The anthology didn't get the combined reading memo, eliminated the last line of LP 67(a) and completed the resulting hole as they pleased, didn't get the fr. 3 col. i joining memo outside the line endings, and mangled not just the supplement that's the object of question 2, but also another one in the line before, and turned ἀμφιβάσκει near the end into the unmetrical ἀμφιβιβάσκει, plus bracketing errors both in the Greek and in the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to figure out how the combination with fr. 3 col. i gave the lacuna's length, and the likely joint explained in [my answer to question 1](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/11453/13) implies that yes, a couple lines of LP 60 were completed, as appears in Ferrari/'s book but not in the anthology, but doesn't produce the line ends or the lacuna's length as far as I can tell. So the only way to figure that out would be to read the article by Puglia, hence my first request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Number 2#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my Sappho work, I tried to be as complete as possible on everything, including testimonia. That is where I found P.Oxy. 2506. These are a bunch of fragments (over 50) all deemed part (I think) of a single scroll of commentaries on lives of poets. I have [a bunch of images](http://163.1.169.40/cgi-bin/library?e=d-000-00---0POxy--00-0-0--0prompt-10---4------0-1l--1-en-50---20-help---00031-001-1-0utf-00&amp;a=d&amp;c=POxy&amp;cl=CL2.3&amp;d=HASH1463d734f61a3db15b7735) at my disposal, but what I'd like to know is a) WTF is up with all those fragments numbered with letters instead of numbers in the first image, and b) Why each fragment was or wasn't assigned to Sappho. I have found some articles that give partial answers, and I can see why each of those assigned to Sappho was assigned to Sappho, but I would like to know more. I believe at least part of the answers would probably be in the volume that published the papyri, which is vol. XIX of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Sadly, the online volumes stop at XV (which is why I had to have scans posted [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5732/13) from vol. XXI about P.Oxy. 2166(a). So here's request 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Request list#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Enzo Puglia, _Per la ricomposizione del quarto libro dei canti di Saffo (POxy. 1787)_, 2007;&#xD;&#xA; 2. _The Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, vol. XIX, don't know by whom, possibly Lobel; I know vol. X was by Grenfell and Hunt, and I believe XV was by Lobel, hence why I suspect XIX may be by Lobel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus question: Can anyone find an article by Lobel or otherwise which explains why the missing P.Oxy. 1787 fragments (fr. 8 and 9, and fr. 45 with what seemed to be a book 4 colophon) were dropped from Sappho, or why [the missing P.Oxy. 1231 fragments](https://www.quora.com/unanswered/P-Oxy-1231-is-as-far-as-I-know-supposed-to-be-a-single-roll-with-Sappho-book-1-yet-some-of-its-fragments-are-not-considered-in-Lobel-Page-Were-they-reattributed-and-republished-as-happened-to-P-Oxy-1787-fragments-8) were?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33842" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11457" RevisionGUID="7980ad08-d25d-46e4-8525-3717533aa33d" CreationDate="2019-09-07T10:55:46.883" UserId="13" Text="Two Sappho-related reference requests" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33843" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11457" RevisionGUID="7980ad08-d25d-46e4-8525-3717533aa33d" CreationDate="2019-09-07T10:55:46.883" UserId="13" Text="|greek|sappho|text-corpus|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33844" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11280" RevisionGUID="a50df5aa-77a7-494c-8598-8eb5fc572b75" CreationDate="2019-09-07T14:01:25.167" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="33845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11458" RevisionGUID="630f46be-21db-4705-8351-cd05c9c237b1" CreationDate="2019-09-07T18:36:45.720" UserId="406" Text="I wouldn't take Wiktionary's declension tables too seriously. They're algorithmically generated, and don't necessarily imply that any particular form is attested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, I haven't been able to find any attested forms apart from the _tuditēs_ and _tudibus_ you cited. So any singular forms would have to be back-derived from there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The genitive singular is nice and easy to predict: we can cut off the plural endings to get the stems _tudit-_ and _tud-_, then add the third-declension _-is_, to get *_tuditis_ and *_tudis_. This is what L&amp;S have done. All plural forms and most singular forms are built off the same &quot;apparent stem&quot;, whether or not it's the same as the underlying stem, since all those endings &quot;react&quot; the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nominative singular is a bit more difficult. On the face of it, we would expect to just put the third-declension ending _-s_ on the end of the stem, then apply regular sound-change laws: *_tudit-s_ &gt; *_tudīs_ &gt; *_tudis_ (cf *lapid-s* &gt; *lapīs* &gt; *lapis* &quot;stone&quot;, nom pl _lapidēs_), or *_tud-s_ &gt; *_tūs_ (cf *ped-s* &gt; *pēs* &quot;foot&quot;, dat pl _pedibus_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, due to vowel reduction, *we can't actually be certain of the vowel in the stem*: it's also possible the original stem was *_tudet-_, which would give a nominative singular *_tudēs_ &gt; *_tudes_, but the same plural *_tudet-ēs_ &gt; _tuditēs_ (cf _milet-s_ &gt; _milēs_ &gt; _miles_ &quot;soldier&quot;, nom pl _militēs_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Or*, instead of ending in a consonant, this word could have been an *i*-stem *_tudi-_, in which case the nominative would be either *_tudis_ or *_tudes_, but have the same plural *_tudi-ibus_ &gt; _tudibus_ (cf _vāti-s_ &gt; _vātis_/_vātes_ &quot;bard&quot;, dat pl _vātibus_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S seem to have considered the form *_tudes_ the most reasonable, and chosen it as their reconstruction. Which makes sense to me: nouns declining like _vātes_ and _miles_ are significantly more common in Latin than nouns declining like _pēs_ or _lapis_. Moreover, it would explain how we see both _tuditēs_ and _tudibus_: it was presumably an obscure word, so people seeing the nominative *_tudes_ would have to guess whether it acts like _vātes_ (&gt; _tudibus_) or like _miles_ (&gt; _tuditēs_). Some guessed one way, some guessed the other, and it ended up with two different declension patterns. (However, I'd still have marked it with a star, personally.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the short _ŭ_ in the stem, I'm guessing that's for etymological reasons. Compare *tut**ŭ**dī* &quot;I have hit&quot;, *st**ŭ**deō* &quot;I dedicate myself to&quot;. This noun seems to have come from the same root, and would be expected to have the same vowel quantity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11459" RevisionGUID="f9a420d3-61e4-4be1-8e56-c1300261dcb9" CreationDate="2019-09-07T23:04:22.957" UserId="406" Text="To my understanding, *vātēs* &quot;bard&quot; started out as an *i*-stem noun, built on the stem *vāti-* (probably from something like *_weh₂t-i-_). So I would expect the nominative to look something like *_vāti-s_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we don't see *_vātis_—we see _vātēs_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where does this come from? I'm not familiar with any Latin sound changes that would turn short *i* into long *ē* in an unstressed syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Inspired by [Sumelic's comment][1] on another answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11280/where-does-the-word-tudes-hammer-show-up-in-texts/11458#comment21341_11458" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33847" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11459" RevisionGUID="f9a420d3-61e4-4be1-8e56-c1300261dcb9" CreationDate="2019-09-07T23:04:22.957" UserId="406" Text="How did vāti-s become vātēs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33848" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11459" RevisionGUID="f9a420d3-61e4-4be1-8e56-c1300261dcb9" CreationDate="2019-09-07T23:04:22.957" UserId="406" Text="|declension|noun|third-declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11460" RevisionGUID="a8bd93ff-f18e-4d5f-bb2f-084248bca540" CreationDate="2019-09-07T23:17:08.457" UserId="39" Text="It's not just vatēs - see Weiss pp 243-244 for details. He mentions 30 i-stem nouns that has -is ending in nom.sg., for example: aedēs, caedēs, cautēs , cladēs etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss says it's either &quot;a regular outcome of * *ēi+s* or it may be analogical after acc.sg. *ei-m &gt; *eiem &gt; *-ēm &gt; -em&quot; (p. 243)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11460" RevisionGUID="ab97df8a-2e95-4246-918d-29a8f7c478e4" CreationDate="2019-09-07T23:42:54.697" UserId="39" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="It's not just vatēs - see Weiss pp 243-244 for details. He mentions 30 i-stem nouns that has -ēs ending in nom.sg. (instead of the expected -is), for example: aedēs, caedēs, cautēs , cladēs etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss says it's either &quot;a regular outcome of * *ēi+s* or it may be analogical after acc.sg. *ei̯-m̥ &gt; *ei̯em &gt; *-ēm &gt; -em&quot; (p. 243)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11460" RevisionGUID="6b2f03ec-83f3-491b-8a41-422a17acbe76" CreationDate="2019-09-08T02:44:32.073" UserId="39" Comment="added 430 characters in body" Text="It's not just vatēs - see Weiss pp 243-244 for details. He mentions 30 i-stem hysterokinetic nouns that have -ēs ending in nom.sg. (instead of the expected -is), for example: aedēs, caedēs, cautēs , cladēs etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the communis opininio is that nom.sg. -ēs is due to analogical leveling after acc.sg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Meiser 1998/2010 &quot;Die Nom.-Endung -ēs bei Substantiven wie *aedēs sēdēs vulpēs vatēs* u.a. ist statt ererbtem *-ē(i̯) =&gt; *-ēi̯s &gt; *-ei̯s &gt; †-īs analogisch zur Akk.-Endung -ēm gebildet worden&quot; (p. 142) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or Weiss &quot;it may be analogical after acc.sg. *ei̯-m̥ &gt; *ei̯em &gt; *-ēm &gt; -em&quot; (p. 243).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss says it could also be &quot;a regular outcome of * *ēi+s*&quot; (p. 243). I'm not sure why how he explains -ēs with &quot;a regular outcome&quot; of * *ēi+s* (shouldn't it be ī?)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11460" RevisionGUID="d7774cd3-b614-42e6-b83f-210f613e0724" CreationDate="2019-09-08T03:04:38.493" UserId="39" Comment="added 267 characters in body" Text="It's not just vatēs - see Weiss pp 243-244 for details. He mentions 30 i-stem hysterokinetic nouns that have -ēs ending in nom.sg. (instead of the expected -is), for example: aedēs, caedēs, cautēs , cladēs etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it is usually explained now that nom.sg. -ēs is due to analogical leveling after acc.sg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Meiser 1998/2010 &quot;Die Nom.-Endung -ēs bei Substantiven wie *aedēs sēdēs vulpēs vatēs* u.a. ist statt ererbtem *-ē(i̯) =&gt; *-ēi̯s &gt; *-ei̯s &gt; †-īs analogisch zur Akk.-Endung -ēm gebildet worden&quot; (p. 142) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or Weiss &quot;it may be analogical after acc.sg. *ei̯-m̥ &gt; *ei̯em &gt; *-ēm &gt; -em&quot; (p. 243).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss says it could also be &quot;a regular outcome of * *ēi+s*&quot; (p. 243). I'm not sure why how he explains -ēs with &quot;a regular outcome&quot; of * *ēi+s* (shouldn't it be ī?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read earlier literature (i.e. before the theory of the accent-ablaut classes gained its popularity/acceptance), e.g. Leumann 1977 (pp. 343-344) or Tronskii 1960 (p. 157), they used to say that the grouping of such nouns as well as its origin was unclear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33853" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11459" RevisionGUID="054662ab-cf7d-4446-afa0-6a7f96818e7c" CreationDate="2019-09-08T07:13:59.787" />
  <row Id="33854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11461" RevisionGUID="e9704e26-84ed-4fab-9dfa-b96fbf164373" CreationDate="2019-09-08T08:14:39.300" UserId="79" Text="The Duolingo Latin course mentions New York a lot.&#xD;&#xA;(I'd rather have it focused in the geography of ancient Italy than modern US, but that's beside the point now.)&#xD;&#xA;The locative comes up regularly: *Novi Eboraci* is &quot;in New York&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But did the Romans really use locatives in the usual way when the city name consisted of several part, like a noun and an adjective?&#xD;&#xA;Such names might not have been all that common, but at least *Carthago Nova* comes to mind.&#xD;&#xA;If such city names do not exist at all or in sufficient numbers to draw any conclusions, I will be satisfied with that answer too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, the locative is impossible when the city comes with an attribute (e.g. *Caesar in magna Roma vixit*), but here I am looking for cases where the adjective is an integral part of the city name itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11461" RevisionGUID="e9704e26-84ed-4fab-9dfa-b96fbf164373" CreationDate="2019-09-08T08:14:39.300" UserId="79" Text="Is the locative used with multi-part city names?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11461" RevisionGUID="e9704e26-84ed-4fab-9dfa-b96fbf164373" CreationDate="2019-09-08T08:14:39.300" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|adjective|place-names|locative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11457" RevisionGUID="7d71f61b-57bf-433b-91b2-58dfd04b959b" CreationDate="2019-09-08T12:57:31.353" UserId="13" Comment="Fixed XIX to XXIX and added Note at end" Text="As some of you will definitely know, I have been grappling with Sappho for a long time. Lately, I have come to an impasse in a couple places, where I have said all I can without a specific reference I don't have access too. I don't know why I thought asking for those references in a question was inappropriate, but anyways I asked in CONLOQVIVM. The second request I posted yesterday, and JI encouraged me to post a question… so here I am.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will give background for both requests. Feel free to skip to the list at the end of the post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Number 1#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related questions are [1](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10685/tracing-mysterious-line-ends-in-a-combination-of-sappho-fragments-found-in-an-it) and [2](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11207/about-supplemented-word-%e1%bd%80%ce%bb%cf%8c%cf%86%e1%bf%b3-in-a-fusion-of-lobel-page-fragments-from-an-italia). A little backstory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - At some point, I googled my way to [this Italian Sappho anthology](https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/11675/1/Saffo_frammenti_2015.pdf), where I first found the text in questions 1 and 2 linked above;&#xD;&#xA; - As I am wont to do, I tried to retrace every letter in the text back to an LP fragment, and identified LP 86 60 65 66(c) and 67(a) as the sources. However, that left out two line endings;&#xD;&#xA; - I asked about those in question 1, and the question stayed unanswered;&#xD;&#xA; - I somehow (perhaps via the anthology's biblio) found [this article](https://www.jstor.org/stable/40236270?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) which starts the combination. I think this was also uploaded to Academia.edu recently;&#xD;&#xA; - Thanks to question 2 or its Quora analog, I got an Academia.edu link for _Una Mitra per Cleis_ in English translation from @NickNicholas, and I found the complete text, realizing, in bits, how much the text had been mangled by the anthology (see below for more);&#xD;&#xA; - Again in _Una Mitra per Cleis_, I was referenced to the Enzo Puglia 2007 article I'm requesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so here's how this combination went.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Eduard Fraenkel suggested LP 86 and LP 60 should be joined, because they produce a development of the song that parallels many Greek prayers including Sappho's own _Hymn to Aphrodite_ (LP 1);&#xD;&#xA; - Lobel-Page and Voigt said &quot;Nah, not buying that&quot;;&#xD;&#xA; - Campbell said &quot;Welp, I'm following those two editions, so those two fragments stay split&quot;;&#xD;&#xA; - Ferrari said &quot;Guys, guys! The joining is very likely, and there is another fragment, LP 65, with the _frustulum_ that is LP 66(c) already basically joined to it, that joins nicely into the combo, and strengthens the parallel! L. 1 of LP 86 may be from another poem, because, if we supposed there was no lacuna between it and LP 60, the paragraphoi make the line count such that that would be an odd line&quot;;&#xD;&#xA; - Puglia, in _Per la ricomposizione del quarto libro dei canti di Saffo (POxy. 1787)_, published in 2007 at an event in Rome, said &quot;Yeah, good job Ferrari… but did you notice that LP 67(a) also fits in nicely? Oh and by the way, remember P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3, whose second column gave us LP 61-63? Well, P.Halle 3, the source of LP 60, joins in nicely with that, which implies there are 5 lines between LP 86 and LP 60, thus making that famous first line definitely part of our combo… unless we want to exclude the following line as well, but that fits in with the parallel. Oh, and joining LP 67(a) with LP 65 means l. 1 if the latter and the penultimate line of the former have letters split between them, with a combined reading of οὐδὲν πόλυ . . [, the two vestiges possibly giving πά[σασθ'&quot;;&#xD;&#xA; - Ferrari, _Una Mitra per Cleis_, agreed wholeheartedly, and printed that combined text with perhaps some extra supplements, and ideas for supplements in the translation;&#xD;&#xA; - The anthology didn't get the combined reading memo, eliminated the last line of LP 67(a) and completed the resulting hole as they pleased, didn't get the fr. 3 col. i joining memo outside the line endings, and mangled not just the supplement that's the object of question 2, but also another one in the line before, and turned ἀμφιβάσκει near the end into the unmetrical ἀμφιβιβάσκει, plus bracketing errors both in the Greek and in the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to figure out how the combination with fr. 3 col. i gave the lacuna's length, and the likely joint explained in [my answer to question 1](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/11453/13) implies that yes, a couple lines of LP 60 were completed, as appears in Ferrari/'s book but not in the anthology, but doesn't produce the line ends or the lacuna's length as far as I can tell. So the only way to figure that out would be to read the article by Puglia, hence my first request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Number 2#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my Sappho work, I tried to be as complete as possible on everything, including testimonia. That is where I found P.Oxy. 2506. These are a bunch of fragments (over 50) all deemed part (I think) of a single scroll of commentaries on lives of poets. I have [a bunch of images](http://163.1.169.40/cgi-bin/library?e=d-000-00---0POxy--00-0-0--0prompt-10---4------0-1l--1-en-50---20-help---00031-001-1-0utf-00&amp;a=d&amp;c=POxy&amp;cl=CL2.3&amp;d=HASH1463d734f61a3db15b7735) at my disposal, but what I'd like to know is a) WTF is up with all those fragments numbered with letters instead of numbers in the first image, and b) Why each fragment was or wasn't assigned to Sappho. I have found some articles that give partial answers, and I can see why each of those assigned to Sappho was assigned to Sappho, but I would like to know more. I believe at least part of the answers would probably be in the volume that published the papyri, which is vol. XXIX of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Sadly, the online volumes stop at XV (which is why I had to have scans posted [here](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5732/13) from vol. XXI about P.Oxy. 2166(a). So here's request 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Request list#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Enzo Puglia, _Per la ricomposizione del quarto libro dei canti di Saffo (POxy. 1787)_, 2007;&#xD;&#xA; 2. _The Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, vol. XXIX, don't know by whom, possibly Lobel; I know vol. X was by Grenfell and Hunt, and I believe XV was by Lobel, hence why I suspect XXIX may be by Lobel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus question: Can anyone find an article by Lobel or otherwise which explains why the missing P.Oxy. 1787 fragments (fr. 8 and 9, and fr. 45 with what seemed to be a book 4 colophon) were dropped from Sappho, or why [the missing P.Oxy. 1231 fragments](https://www.quora.com/unanswered/P-Oxy-1231-is-as-far-as-I-know-supposed-to-be-a-single-roll-with-Sappho-book-1-yet-some-of-its-fragments-are-not-considered-in-Lobel-Page-Were-they-reattributed-and-republished-as-happened-to-P-Oxy-1787-fragments-8) were?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I formerly wrote vol. XIX, then realised it was actually XXIX. Oops. XIX was indeed edited by Lobel, commented @Draconis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11461" RevisionGUID="46395d41-e625-4f50-9bfe-139ae896c35b" CreationDate="2019-09-08T15:49:48.840" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The Duolingo Latin course mentions New York a lot.&#xD;&#xA;(I'd rather have it focused on the geography of ancient Italy than the modern US, but that's beside the point now.)&#xD;&#xA;The locative comes up regularly: *Novi Eboraci* is &quot;in New York&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But did the Romans really use locatives in the usual way when the city name consisted of several part, like a noun and an adjective?&#xD;&#xA;Such names might not have been all that common, but at least *Carthago Nova* comes to mind.&#xD;&#xA;If such city names do not exist at all or in sufficient numbers to draw any conclusions, I will be satisfied with that answer too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, the locative is impossible when the city comes with an attribute (e.g. *Caesar in magna Roma vixit*), but here I am looking for cases where the adjective is an integral part of the city name itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11460" RevisionGUID="76a11bef-37f0-44ae-a869-a8c961fe073a" CreationDate="2019-09-08T16:37:08.877" UserId="39" Comment="added 313 characters in body" Text="It's not just vatēs - see Weiss pp 243-244 for details. He mentions 30 i-stem hysterokinetic nouns that have -ēs ending in nom.sg. (instead of the expected -is), for example: aedēs, caedēs, cautēs , cladēs etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it is usually explained now that nom.sg. -ēs is due to analogical leveling after acc.sg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Meiser 1998/2010 &quot;Die Nom.-Endung -ēs bei Substantiven wie *aedēs sēdēs vulpēs vatēs* u.a. ist statt ererbtem *-ē(i̯) =&gt; *-ēi̯s &gt; *-ei̯s &gt; †-īs analogisch zur Akk.-Endung -ēm gebildet worden&quot; (p. 142) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or Weiss &quot;it may be analogical after acc.sg. *ei̯-m̥ &gt; *ei̯em &gt; *-ēm &gt; -em&quot; (p. 243).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss says it could also be &quot;a regular outcome of * *ēi+s*&quot; (p. 243). I'm not sure why how he explains -ēs with &quot;a regular outcome&quot; of * *ēi+s* (shouldn't it be ī?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read earlier literature (i.e. before the theory of the accent-ablaut classes gained its popularity/acceptance), e.g. Leumann 1977 (pp. 343-344) or Tronskii 1960 (p. 157), they used to say that the grouping of such nouns as well as its origin was unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OLD mentions two occurrences of nom.sg. vatis: *bonus vatis* (Plautus, Mil. 911), although the 2011 Loeb edition (by Wolfgang de Melo) has *uates*, and Cicero Div. 2.12, cf. the 1923 Loeb conjecture (by W. A. Falconer) &quot;Num igitur aut, quae tempestas impendeat, **vates** melius coniciet quam gubernator?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11421" RevisionGUID="700ef303-da72-498f-843c-eac4be9a6c7b" CreationDate="2019-09-08T18:54:19.653" UserId="79" Comment="added 160 characters in body" Text="In English one uses the word &quot;heart&quot; in a variety of ways to express deep emotion, as in &quot;She will always be in our hearts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a corresponding &quot;emotional organ&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;How should I go about translating heart-related phrases into Latin in general?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is of course *cor*, but I'm not sure if it's really used the way &quot;heart&quot; is.&#xD;&#xA;I am not interested in the actual physical organ that pumps blood but the emotions attached to it in English.&#xD;&#xA;My instinct suggests that *pectus* might be more suitable.&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;from the bottom of our hearts&quot; could well be *pectore ab imo*.&#xD;&#xA;But is *pectus* a good general substitute or should I be using *cor* as well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are certainly other options too, like *iecur*.&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps some non-organs should be considered as viable alternatives for the same role, as *animus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer classical Latin here, but insight from any era is welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11460" RevisionGUID="733b8a19-812a-4756-a80f-0fe29dc53ced" CreationDate="2019-09-08T19:15:36.553" UserId="39" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="It's not just vatēs - see Weiss pp 243-244 for details. He mentions 30 i-stem hysterokinetic nouns that have -ēs ending in nom.sg. (instead of the expected -is), for example: aedēs, caedēs, cautēs , cladēs etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it is usually explained now that nom.sg. -ēs is due to analogical leveling after acc.sg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Meiser 1998/2010 &quot;Die Nom.-Endung -ēs bei Substantiven wie *aedēs sēdēs vulpēs vatēs* u.a. ist statt ererbtem *-ē(i̯) =&gt; *-ēi̯s &gt; *-ei̯s &gt; †-īs analogisch zur Akk.-Endung -ēm gebildet worden&quot; (p. 142) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or Weiss &quot;it may be analogical after acc.sg. *ei̯-m̥ &gt; *ei̯em &gt; *-ēm &gt; -em&quot; (p. 243).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss says it could also be &quot;a regular outcome of * *ēi+s*&quot; (p. 243). I'm not sure why how he explains -ēs with &quot;a regular outcome&quot; of * *ēi+s* (shouldn't it be ī?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: Sihler 1995 writes &quot;The history of these nouns is unknown' (p. 316), cf. §322b on page 334.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read earlier literature (i.e. before the theory of the accent-ablaut classes gained its popularity/acceptance), e.g. Leumann 1977 (pp. 343-344) or Tronskii 1960 (p. 157), they used to say that the grouping of such nouns as well as its origin was unclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OLD mentions two occurrences of nom.sg. vatis: *bonus vatis* (Plautus, Mil. 911), although the 2011 Loeb edition (by Wolfgang de Melo) has *uates*, and Cicero Div. 2.12, cf. the 1923 Loeb conjecture (by W. A. Falconer) &quot;Num igitur aut, quae tempestas impendeat, **vates** melius coniciet quam gubernator?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11460" RevisionGUID="714aeb75-d9c0-47e4-aca2-d174a6f7e95e" CreationDate="2019-09-08T19:21:41.623" UserId="39" Comment="added 120 characters in body" Text="It's not just vatēs - see Weiss pp 243-244 for details. He mentions 30 i-stem hysterokinetic nouns that have -ēs ending in nom.sg. (instead of the expected -is), for example: aedēs, caedēs, cautēs , cladēs etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it is usually explained now that nom.sg. -ēs is due to analogical leveling after acc.sg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Meiser 1998/2010 &quot;Die Nom.-Endung -ēs bei Substantiven wie *aedēs sēdēs vulpēs vatēs* u.a. ist statt ererbtem *-ē(i̯) =&gt; *-ēi̯s &gt; *-ei̯s &gt; †-īs analogisch zur Akk.-Endung -ēm gebildet worden&quot; (p. 142) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or Weiss &quot;it may be analogical after acc.sg. *ei̯-m̥ &gt; *ei̯em &gt; *-ēm &gt; -em&quot; (p. 243).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss says it could also be &quot;a regular outcome of * *ēi+s*&quot; (p. 243). I'm not sure why how he explains -ēs with &quot;a regular outcome&quot; of * *ēi+s* (shouldn't it be ī?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: Sihler 1995 writes &quot;The history of these nouns is unknown' (p. 316), cf. §322b on page 334.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read earlier literature (i.e. before the theory of the accent-ablaut classes gained its popularity/acceptance), e.g. Leumann 1977 (pp. 343-344) or Tronskii 1960 (p. 157), they used to say that the grouping of such nouns as well as its origin was unclear, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Ernout 1952 (2014) &quot;l'origine de cette finale n'est pas exactement connue, mais elle semble ancienne&quot;  (p. 47).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OLD mentions two occurrences of nom.sg. vatis: *bonus vatis* (Plautus, Mil. 911), although the 2011 Loeb edition (by Wolfgang de Melo) has *uates*, and Cicero Div. 2.12, cf. the 1923 Loeb conjecture (by W. A. Falconer) &quot;Num igitur aut, quae tempestas impendeat, **vates** melius coniciet quam gubernator?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11460" RevisionGUID="d5ffcaf3-97de-4dfb-82f0-47df5b491447" CreationDate="2019-09-08T19:42:21.257" UserId="39" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="It's not just vatēs - see Weiss pp 243-244 for details. He mentions 30 i-stem hysterokinetic nouns that have -ēs ending in nom.sg. (instead of the expected -is), for example: aedēs, caedēs, cautēs , cladēs etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it is usually explained now that nom.sg. -ēs is due to analogical leveling after acc.sg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Meiser 1998/2010 &quot;Die Nom.-Endung -ēs bei Substantiven wie *aedēs sēdēs vulpēs vatēs* u.a. ist statt ererbtem *-ē(i̯) =&gt; *-ēi̯s &gt; *-ei̯s &gt; †-īs analogisch zur Akk.-Endung -ēm gebildet worden&quot; (p. 142) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or Weiss &quot;it may be analogical after acc.sg. *ei̯-m̥ &gt; *ei̯em &gt; *-ēm &gt; -em&quot; (p. 243).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss says it could also be a regular outcome of PIE [? - Alex B.] *ēi+s (p. 243), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;cf. [Vine 2017][1]: &quot;some 3rd declension nouns in nom.sg. -ēs may derive from PIE hysterokinetic forms in nom. sg. -ḗi̯ or -ḗn (&gt; pre-Lat. *-ē) (p. 758).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read earlier literature (i.e. before the theory of the accent-ablaut classes gained its popularity/acceptance), e.g. Leumann 1977 (pp. 343-344) or Tronskii 1960 (p. 157), they used to say that the grouping of such nouns as well as its origin was unclear, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Ernout 1952 (2014) &quot;l'origine de cette finale n'est pas exactement connue, mais elle semble ancienne&quot;  (p. 47) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or even Sihler 1995 writes &quot;The history of these nouns is unknown&quot; (p. 316), cf. §322b on page 334.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OLD mentions two occurrences of nom.sg. vatis: *bonus vatis* (Plautus, Mil. 911), although the 2011 Loeb edition (by Wolfgang de Melo) has *uates*, and Cicero Div. 2.12, cf. the 1923 Loeb conjecture (by W. A. Falconer) &quot;Num igitur aut, quae tempestas impendeat, **vates** melius coniciet quam gubernator?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110523874/9783110523874-003/9783110523874-003.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11460" RevisionGUID="3baf3cf6-96d9-465d-81b9-a2c963776e3b" CreationDate="2019-09-08T19:48:43.097" UserId="39" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="It's not just vatēs - see Weiss pp 243-244 for details. He mentions 30 i-stem hysterokinetic nouns that have -ēs ending in nom.sg. (instead of the expected -is), for example: aedēs, caedēs, cautēs , cladēs etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of two proposals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Analogical leveling in Latin**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some researchers have claimed that nom.sg. -ēs is due to analogical leveling after acc.sg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. Meiser 1998/2010 &quot;Die Nom.-Endung -ēs bei Substantiven wie *aedēs sēdēs vulpēs vatēs* u.a. ist statt ererbtem *-ē(i̯) =&gt; *-ēi̯s &gt; *-ei̯s &gt; †-īs analogisch zur Akk.-Endung -ēm gebildet worden&quot; (p. 142) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or Weiss &quot;it may be analogical after acc.sg. *ei̯-m̥ &gt; *ei̯em &gt; *-ēm &gt; -em&quot; (p. 243).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Accent-ablaut classes in PIE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss says it could also be a regular outcome of PIE [? - Alex B.] *ēi+s (p. 243), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;cf. [Vine 2017][1]: &quot;some 3rd declension nouns in nom.sg. -ēs may derive from PIE hysterokinetic forms in nom. sg. -ḗi̯ or -ḗn (&gt; pre-Lat. *-ē) (p. 758).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read earlier literature (i.e. before the theory of the accent-ablaut classes gained its popularity/acceptance), e.g. Leumann 1977 (pp. 343-344) or Tronskii 1960 (p. 157), they used to say that the grouping of such nouns as well as its origin was unclear, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Ernout 1952 (2014) &quot;l'origine de cette finale n'est pas exactement connue, mais elle semble ancienne&quot;  (p. 47) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or even Sihler 1995 writes &quot;The history of these nouns is unknown&quot; (p. 316), cf. §322b on page 334.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OLD mentions two occurrences of nom.sg. vatis: *bonus vatis* (Plautus, Mil. 911), although the 2011 Loeb edition (by Wolfgang de Melo) has *uates*, and Cicero Div. 2.12, cf. the 1923 Loeb conjecture (by W. A. Falconer) &quot;Num igitur aut, quae tempestas impendeat, **vates** melius coniciet quam gubernator?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110523874/9783110523874-003/9783110523874-003.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11460" RevisionGUID="92126898-1af9-4fa5-97e8-ee0871b0fde1" CreationDate="2019-09-08T20:20:04.360" UserId="39" Comment="added 549 characters in body" Text="It's not just vatēs - see Weiss pp 243-244 for details. He mentions 30 i-stem hysterokinetic nouns that have -ēs ending in nom.sg. (instead of the expected -is), for example: aedēs, caedēs, cautēs , cladēs etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of two proposals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Analogical leveling in Latin**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some researchers have claimed that nom.sg. -ēs is due to analogical leveling after acc.sg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. Meiser 1998/2010 &quot;Die Nom.-Endung -ēs bei Substantiven wie *aedēs sēdēs vulpēs vatēs* u.a. ist statt ererbtem *-ē(i̯) =&gt; *-ēi̯s &gt; *-ei̯s &gt; †-īs analogisch zur Akk.-Endung -ēm gebildet worden&quot; (p. 142) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or Weiss &quot;it may be analogical after acc.sg. *ei̯-m̥ &gt; *ei̯em &gt; *-ēm &gt; -em&quot; (p. 243).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Accent-ablaut classes in PIE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weiss says it could also be a regular outcome of PIE [? - Alex B.] *ēi+s (p. 243), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;cf. [Vine 2017][1]: &quot;some 3rd declension nouns in nom.sg. -ēs may derive from PIE hysterokinetic forms in nom. sg. -ḗi̯ or -ḗn (&gt; pre-Lat. *-ē) (p. 758)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or Klingenschmitt &quot;Der Nominativ Singular, welcher im Urindogermanischen auf *-é &lt;*-ḗi̯ ausging (vgl. av. a. kauuā, j. kauua &lt; *kou̯h&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;é), wurde in einer Vorperiode  des Italischen durch Anfügung der für den Nominativ Singular eines Großteils der nicht-neutrischen Stämme charakteristischen Endung *-s zu *-ēs verdeutlich. Dieses Paradigma hat in einem Vorstadium des Lateinischen offensichtlich auch Wörter aufgenommen, die - von Haus aus zu einer anderen Stammklasse gehörig - im Nominativ Singular auf *-ēs auslauteten&quot; (p. 114).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read earlier literature (i.e. before the theory of the accent-ablaut classes gained its popularity/acceptance), e.g. Leumann 1977 (pp. 343-344) or Tronskii 1960 (p. 157), they used to say that the grouping of such nouns as well as its origin was unclear, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. Ernout 1952 (2014) &quot;l'origine de cette finale n'est pas exactement connue, mais elle semble ancienne&quot;  (p. 47) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or even Sihler 1995 writes &quot;The history of these nouns is unknown&quot; (p. 316), cf. §322b on page 334.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The OLD mentions two occurrences of nom.sg. vatis: *bonus vatis* (Plautus, Mil. 911), although the 2011 Loeb edition (by Wolfgang de Melo) has *uates*, and Cicero Div. 2.12, cf. the 1923 Loeb conjecture (by W. A. Falconer) &quot;Num igitur aut, quae tempestas impendeat, **vates** melius coniciet quam gubernator?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110523874/9783110523874-003/9783110523874-003.xml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11462" RevisionGUID="c22bd5e9-3c9f-4522-a889-d203806b7f9c" CreationDate="2019-09-08T22:32:37.243" UserId="5056" Text="In his book, Hans Ørberg uses macrons to show longer vowel sounds, but it's not clear to me if this is reconstructed, ecclesiastical, something else, or if there are even differences between those vowels in each style of pronunciation. An example from chapter two is the name Iulia: Iūlia / Iūliī." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11462" RevisionGUID="c22bd5e9-3c9f-4522-a889-d203806b7f9c" CreationDate="2019-09-08T22:32:37.243" UserId="5056" Text="Pronunciation style used in Hans Ørberg's Lingua Latina" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11462" RevisionGUID="c22bd5e9-3c9f-4522-a889-d203806b7f9c" CreationDate="2019-09-08T22:32:37.243" UserId="5056" Text="|pronunciation|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11463" RevisionGUID="1ff7f09e-a4fc-493e-a076-f6ccfffb4690" CreationDate="2019-09-09T00:38:49.277" UserId="406" Text="Strictly speaking, LLPSI doesn't require any particular pronunciation style: you're free to read the text in Reconstructed Classical, Ecclesiastical, Traditional English, or whichever you prefer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the vowel length markings are generally associated with Reconstructed Classical pronunciation. In Classical times, the long vowels (*ā ē ī ō ū ȳ*) were literally pronounced for longer than the short ones (*a e i o u y*); there was *probably* also a difference in sound (though whether this was acceptable in high-class oratory or considered a Vulgar trait it unknown). In the Romance languages, the length difference eventually disappeared entirely, and the set of twelve monophthongs was reduced to seven.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when mediaeval writers went back and tried to imitate the Classical style, they didn't really bother with the vowel lengths (since they weren't a familiar part of everyday speech). For the most part, *a* and *ā* were pronounced exactly the same, and the difference was only marked in writing when absolutely necessary (like to separate *Rōma* from *Rōmā*; the latter was often written &quot;*Româ*&quot;, with a circumflex).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, linguists and classicists looked back at the evidence, and came to the conclusion that vowel length was important and deserved to be studied. To the Romans, it was an important distinction, and it separated various near-homophones (like *alium* &quot;another&quot;, *ālium* &quot;garlic&quot;, or *anus* &quot;ring&quot;, *ānus* &quot;old woman&quot;). So vowel length has had a resurgence of popularity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Ecclesiastical pronunciation, and most of the regional pronunciations like Traditional English, were codified long before that. They're less concerned with how the ancient Romans spoke and more concerned with how people have been speaking in more recent years. So (except for a few exceptions involving *e* and *o*) those pronunciations don't care about vowel lengths. If you're using one of those, you can safely ignore the long marks when reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. For an extremely brief and simplified summary of vowels in Reconstructed Classical pronunciation, *ī i ē e ā a o ō u ū y ȳ* were something like `/iː ɪ eː ɛ aː a ɔ oː ʊ uː ʏ yː/`. If you're interested in digging into this further, feel free to ask another question!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11464" RevisionGUID="f37cb51c-7c4b-4a56-8c14-142148757969" CreationDate="2019-09-09T05:04:08.033" UserId="406" Text="In the comments, Alex B added another example: *φώς* &quot;man&quot;, but *φῶς* &quot;light&quot; (that is, *φάος* with Attic contraction). As he put it, &quot;this shows btw the importance of morae for stress placement&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33871" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11462" RevisionGUID="db2ecc64-b6dd-4f3b-a9f5-37904bab3957" CreationDate="2019-09-09T06:45:42.087" />
  <row Id="33872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11465" RevisionGUID="4bc20c1b-b103-4825-96b0-6cb6232e212d" CreationDate="2019-09-09T16:48:30.963" UserId="5056" Text="I couldn't find any city names in specific, though this Wikipedia article on [Rapidum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapidum) mentions a road named _Nova Praetentura_ that had the name in the first century C.E. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Constantine also [named](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Rome) Constantinople _Nova Roma_, although this was the 4th century and Constantine, so I'm not sure if you could consider it Roman in the classic sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, this question is interesting to me personally because it relates to a personal project I'm working on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11466" RevisionGUID="396c0471-4146-48c8-adeb-8d0e153607f6" CreationDate="2019-09-09T16:54:20.157" UserId="13" Text="_As announced in his comment, AlexB got ahold of Puglia 2007, sent it to the mods, and our tricipitous mod forwarded it to me. I read it, and I can now answer that part of this question._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, with a lot of pretty solid arguments, the article proposes the following collage of P.Oxy. 1787 fragments (where 87(13) and 87(14) have swapped numbers):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this, we can see the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The famous mysterious line endings are actually from P.Halle, the leftmost fragment in the pic, and were missed by all previous transcribers;&#xD;&#xA; 2. The joining of P.Halle with P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3 is exactly as I guessed in my answer to the question of this question's body;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Thanks to the topmost fragments, P.Halle must have lost three lines at its top, whence 5 lines reside between τύχοισα and the other fragment; or rather, _at least_ 5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last missing bit is: &quot;Why exactly five, and not, say, six?&quot;. Well, let's look at the other fragment that goes before this collage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See that little protrusion at the bottom-right? It's _empty_. This means the last line of the fragment was the last of its column.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, we may say, &quot;Why should we assume this fragment went immediately before the P.Halle lines?&quot;. Well, we have good reasons (cfr. history in the question body) to place it before said lines, and if we suppose a full other column between the two, the result is that we have a single poem that is _way too long_ compared to the two whose lines are all partially preserved on fr. 3 and its ends 87(13)+87(14) – and we know those have no extra lines because they are between coronides. Therefore, the lacuna length is settled.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jhAYm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JexZW.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11453" RevisionGUID="0e540bc0-7f4d-45bc-a365-84692082fa0f" CreationDate="2019-09-09T16:55:01.137" UserId="13" Comment="added UPDATE" Text="That same Ferrari book, had I checked further, would have yielded the following note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In comparison with the reconstruction given in Ferrari 2005b, the text as given here takes into account two contributions of Puglia: a) the combination of F 60 (= P.Halle 3) with fr. 3, hence the necessity of postulating a five-line lacuna between F 86 and F 60 and of considering F 86.1, not F 86.2, as the initial line of the poem; b) the location of F 67 at the left and on line with F 60.1. On this see Puglia 2007: 22–28.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Ferrari 2005b_ is [this article](https://www.academia.edu/8448783/Contro_Andromeda_recupero_di_unode_di_Saffo_ms._in_MD_55_2005_pp._13-30), where the blue and pink parts in the collaged text above are missing, and the lacuna is not postulated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Puglia 2007_ is «Puglia, E. “Per la ricomposizione del quarto libro dei canti di Saffo (POxy. 1787).” SemRom 10 (2007): 17–39», which I can't seem to find online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is: what is &quot;fr. 3&quot;? P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3? But that wasn't joined into here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - LP 60, the black part, is from P. Halle 3;&#xD;&#xA; - LP 65, the red part, is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 4;&#xD;&#xA; - LP 86, the purple part, is from P.Oxy. 2166(d) fr. 1;&#xD;&#xA; - LP 66(c), the green part, was published as fr. 7A(c) in Lobel's Σαπφοῦς μέλη book 4;&#xD;&#xA; - LP 67(a), the blue part, comes from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3 is the source of LP 61-63, none of which was joined into here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wait though. P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3 has a scanty first column, the poems I mentioned coming from col. ii. And on col. i, there is a line-final Ν halfway through the papyrus. Below it, a faint trace of quite possibly an alpha. So I think we have our source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried juxtaposing P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3 and the purple part, both of which I have an image of, and it seems there is a kinda snug fit between the two. If that is correct, the last line of the purple joins with the first line in the following image:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the pink line ending in nu would match with τέαυτ in fr. 3 col. ii. But I see no nu to the left of that. Yeah well, dumb me, the purple lines are middle, they can't join with blank ends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, here's the original transcription for fr. 3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nu I thought I saw before is where they read &quot;. I&quot;. The &quot;.&quot; is potentially the top of a vertical leg, which would mean II or N or M. It could be argued that this is &quot;. N&quot;, but the right half of such a nu would be so faint I can hardly support it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would actually look like the ΗϹ line in col. i should join with l. 6 of P.Halle, where the book by Ferrari ends with θελήσηις while the anthology's text didn't get the memo and still ends in θελήση[ς. This would mean the vestige in the next line is treated as an iota, which can be supported, and the two vestiges in the line after that are dismissed. This is kind of not really supportable IMO. Treating the vestige before the HC line as a high dot, perfect. Problem: this makes P.Halle join perfectly with fr. 3, leaving no lines above it. So… where are these lines from again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hmm, I guess this isn't really an answer… this origin isn't convincing at all. Basically, the only convincing joint eliminates any trace of those pink lines because, while fr. 3 extends 2.5 lines higher than its first transcribed line, those lines don't show any trace of ink to my eyes. Plus, the length of the lacuna is completely unjustified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is presented in [this other answer of mine](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11457/two-sappho-related-reference-requests/11466#11466).&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WVHp8.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZD4JB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11465" RevisionGUID="bf034aa7-26c2-4bb3-a4c2-473cabab1e63" CreationDate="2019-09-09T16:56:15.320" UserId="5056" Comment="Extra clarification on Nova Roma." Text="I couldn't find any city names in specific, though this Wikipedia article on [Rapidum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapidum) mentions a road named _Nova Praetentura_ that had the name in the first century C.E. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Constantine also [named](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Rome) Constantinople _Nova Roma_, although this was the 4th century and Constantine, so I'm not sure if you could consider it Roman in the classic sense. It also wasn't ever officially named that, but I suppose it still shows this kind of usage either way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, this question is interesting to me personally because it relates to a personal project I'm working on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11466" RevisionGUID="3545ec7b-7180-44fb-b929-075f3081dfd4" CreationDate="2019-09-09T17:10:43.343" UserId="13" Comment="added last paragraph" Text="_As announced in his comment, AlexB got ahold of Puglia 2007, sent it to the mods, and our tricipitous mod forwarded it to me. I read it, and I can now answer that part of this question._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, with a lot of pretty solid arguments, the article proposes the following collage of P.Oxy. 1787 fragments (where 87(13) and 87(14) have swapped numbers):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this, we can see the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The famous mysterious line endings are actually from P.Halle, the leftmost fragment in the pic, and were missed by all previous transcribers;&#xD;&#xA; 2. The joining of P.Halle with P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3 is exactly as I guessed in my answer to the question of this question's body;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Thanks to the topmost fragments, P.Halle must have lost three lines at its top, whence 5 lines reside between τύχοισα and the other fragment; or rather, _at least_ 5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last missing bit is: &quot;Why exactly five, and not, say, six?&quot;. Well, let's look at the other fragment that goes before this collage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See that little protrusion at the bottom-right? It's _empty_. This means the last line of the fragment was the last of its column.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, we may say, &quot;Why should we assume this fragment went immediately before the P.Halle lines?&quot;. Well, we have good reasons (cfr. history in the question body) to place it before said lines, and if we suppose a full other column between the two, the result is that we have a single poem that is _way too long_ compared to the two whose lines are all partially preserved on fr. 3 and its ends 87(13)+87(14) – and we know those have no extra lines because they are between coronides. Therefore, the lacuna length is settled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, we can also say that, after the last line of the collage 6.A.vi [here](https://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-rest-of-sappho.html), there were 6 lost lines, the line ending in ]ΗΡΟϹ on fr. 3, and then collage 6.A.v. Who knows where the poems split from each other…&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jhAYm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JexZW.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11467" RevisionGUID="4ade18d7-31e4-458c-916b-4dfb28a84919" CreationDate="2019-09-09T22:39:51.613" UserId="5062" Text="I'm struggling, particularly, with determining the correct case for some of the words in the following expressions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *Natura est semper invicta*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, is the word &quot;invicta&quot; in Ablative or Nominative case, and for what reason does it qualify for whichever is the correct classification?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. *Absolutum dominium*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are both of these words in Nominative case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  3. *Quod homines tot sententiae*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I correct in believing that &quot;homines&quot; and &quot;sententiae&quot; are each Nominative here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance for any guidance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33878" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11467" RevisionGUID="4ade18d7-31e4-458c-916b-4dfb28a84919" CreationDate="2019-09-09T22:39:51.613" UserId="5062" Text="Declension uncertainty regarding Ablative / Nominative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33879" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11467" RevisionGUID="4ade18d7-31e4-458c-916b-4dfb28a84919" CreationDate="2019-09-09T22:39:51.613" UserId="5062" Text="|declension|ablative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33880" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="11426" RevisionGUID="f790de5a-2a21-49aa-bd56-c16d72e449a7" CreationDate="2019-09-10T01:50:15.203" UserId="9" Comment="132" />
  <row Id="33881" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11426" RevisionGUID="0095e1c0-fd60-4f22-86ce-b4fff95c44fc" CreationDate="2019-09-10T02:26:52.317" UserId="9" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|preposition|inscription|ablative|accusative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11468" RevisionGUID="f8822b40-ecf0-4b3d-af7a-8396c6da8a7d" CreationDate="2019-09-10T03:16:22.750" UserId="406" Text="As L&amp;S put it, in their classic textwall style (entry for *in*, II.C.2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of the object or end in view, regarded also as the motive of action or effect: “non te in me illiberalem, sed me in se neglegentem putabit,” Cic. Fam. 13, 1, 16: “neglegentior in patrem,” Just. 32, 3, 1: “in quem omnes intenderat curas,” Curt. 3, 1, 21: “quos ardere in proelia vidi,” Verg. A. 2, 347: “in bellum ardentes,” Manil. 4, 220: “nutante in fugam exercitu,” Flor. 3, 10, 4: “in hanc tam opimam mercedem agite ( = ut eam vobis paretis, Weissenb. ad loc.),” Liv. 21, 43, 7: “certa praemia, in quorum spem pugnarent,” id. 21, 45, 4: “in id sors dejecta,” id. 21, 42, 2: “in id fide accepta,” id. 28, 17, 9: “in spem pacis solutis animis,” id. 6, 11, 5 et saep.: “ingrata misero vita ducenda est in hoc, ut, etc.,” Hor. Epod. 17, 63: “nec in hoc adhibetur, ut, etc.,” Sen. Ep. 16, 3: “alius non in hoc, ut offenderet, facit, id. de Ira, 2, 26, 3: in quod tum missi?” Just. 38, 3, 4.—So, like ad, with words expressing affections or inclination of the mind: “in obsequium plus aequo pronus,” Hor. Ep. 1, 18, 10: “paratus in res novas,” Tac. H. 4, 32: “in utrumque paratus,” Verg. A. 2, 61.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, *in* + accusative can indicate **the purpose or goal of an action**, when that purpose or goal is a single noun (as opposed to a whole phrase, which takes *ut*). In this case, the goal is remembrance (*memoria*) of the deceased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This construction is used to similar effect in one of the most famous Bible passages, Luke 22:19 (emphasis mine):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Et accepto pane gratias egit, et fregit, et dedit eis, dicens: Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur: hoc facite **in meam commemorationem**.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And when Jesus had taken the bread, he gave thanks, and broke it, and gave it to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you: do this **in remembrance of me**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same construction is found in the Greek here, using *εἰς* (&quot;into&quot;) with the accusative to indicate purpose or goal. I'm not sure if the Greek usage influenced the Latin one or not, though that might make an excellent question of its own!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11467" RevisionGUID="0e17db96-d1d2-4d93-9b69-3b34bc0c0f0e" CreationDate="2019-09-10T06:15:14.223" UserId="5062" Comment="Modified spelling of the first word of item (3), changing &quot;Quod&quot; to &quot;Quot&quot;" Text="I'm struggling, particularly, with determining the correct case for some of the words in the following expressions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *Natura est semper invicta*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, is the word &quot;invicta&quot; in Ablative or Nominative case, and for what reason does it qualify for whichever is the correct classification?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. *Absolutum dominium*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are both of these words in Nominative case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  3. *Quot homines tot sententiae*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I correct in believing that &quot;homines&quot; and &quot;sententiae&quot; are each Nominative here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance for any guidance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11469" RevisionGUID="1056c23e-ff18-4430-bc12-17c748e5f204" CreationDate="2019-09-10T06:28:29.517" UserId="79" Text="One can split up the process of finding the case to three steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Find all possible cases a word could possibly be. Also bear in mind that there might be several options, like *supplici* coming from either *supplex* or *supplicium*. Check the declension tables if you don't remember them by heart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Analyze the grammatical context. Does the word go together with something else? How can you group things together? Go through all options from the previous step and see if they are at all possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Analyze the semantic context. What actually makes sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me apply these to your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Natura est semper invicta*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Both *natura* and *invicta* could be feminine singular nominative or ablative. In addition, the adjective *invicta* could be neuter plural nominative or accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The only possible reading &amp;mdash; unless there is some weird context &amp;mdash; seems to be &quot;something is something&quot;, and both somethings need to be in nominative. If one of the words is the feminine noun *natura*, the adjective is almost surely in the same form. Thus they must both be nominatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Nature is always invincible&quot; makes sense as a statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Absolutum dominium*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The noun *dominium* is a neuter, so the form could be singular nominative or accusative. (Or perhaps a very rare plural genitive, but I will not entertain that option here.) The adjective or participle *absolutum* could be in these same forms or a masculine singular accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The two words seem to go together, so the adjective is neuter. They are both nominative or both accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is no broader context to judge from, so the two options remain. But ablative was impossible already by the first test.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. *Quot homines tot sententiae*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Homines* could be plural nominative or accusative, *sententiae* singular dative or ablative or plural nominative. No ablative forms are possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The structure suggest nominatives; it appears to be &quot;there are as many X as there are Y&quot;. However, as there is no explicit verb, this could in principle be a sentence fragment with a wholly different purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Without further context, the reading with two nominatives makes by far the most sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11467" RevisionGUID="e5677550-2a2d-45ce-a153-fa93717e615d" CreationDate="2019-09-10T06:29:10.287" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="I'm struggling, particularly, with determining the correct case for some of the words in the following expressions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *Natura est semper invicta*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, is the word &quot;invicta&quot; in Ablative or Nominative case, and for what reason does it qualify for whichever is the correct classification?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. *Absolutum dominium*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are both of these words in Nominative case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  3. *Quot homines tot sententiae*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I correct in believing that *homines* and *sententiae* are each Nominative here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance for any guidance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33886" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11467" RevisionGUID="e5677550-2a2d-45ce-a153-fa93717e615d" CreationDate="2019-09-10T06:29:10.287" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|declension|ablative|nominativus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11469" RevisionGUID="bc14e776-47db-4f63-99b2-642a1bf5a254" CreationDate="2019-09-10T16:43:33.877" UserId="79" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="One can split up the process of finding the case to three steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Find all possible cases a word could possibly be. Also bear in mind that there might be several options for the base word, like *supplici* coming from either *supplex* or *supplicium*. Check the declension tables if you don't remember them by heart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Analyze the grammatical context. Does the word go together with something else? How can you group things together? Go through all options from the previous step and see if they are at all possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Analyze the semantic context. What actually makes sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me apply these to your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Natura est semper invicta*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Both *natura* and *invicta* could be feminine singular nominative or ablative. In addition, the adjective *invicta* could be neuter plural nominative or accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The only possible reading &amp;mdash; unless there is some weird context &amp;mdash; seems to be &quot;something is something&quot;, and both somethings need to be in nominative. If one of the words is the feminine noun *natura*, the adjective is almost surely in the same form. Thus they must both be nominatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Nature is always invincible&quot; makes sense as a statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Absolutum dominium*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The noun *dominium* is a neuter, so the form could be singular nominative or accusative. (Or perhaps a very rare plural genitive, but I will not entertain that option here.) The adjective or participle *absolutum* could be in these same forms or a masculine singular accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The two words seem to go together, so the adjective is neuter. They are both nominative or both accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is no broader context to judge from, so the two options remain. But ablative was impossible already by the first test.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. *Quot homines tot sententiae*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Homines* could be plural nominative or accusative, *sententiae* singular dative or ablative or plural nominative. No ablative forms are possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The structure suggest nominatives; it appears to be &quot;there are as many X as there are Y&quot;. However, as there is no explicit verb, this could in principle be a sentence fragment with a wholly different purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Without further context, the reading with two nominatives makes by far the most sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11470" RevisionGUID="2fe4ff34-3520-4823-ab19-fae1f87ac21f" CreationDate="2019-09-10T23:57:50.227" UserId="5064" Text="E.g Is the legal term negotii essentialia correct use of the grammar(declension, agreement, word order) rules or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it not be esentialium negotiorum so that the case, the number and the gender agree? Since Aspects are Plural I expect to use Plural and not Singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Negotium is a Masculine noun Negotii is the Genitive Singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentialia is the Neuter Nominative or Accusative or Vocative Plurar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33890" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11470" RevisionGUID="2fe4ff34-3520-4823-ab19-fae1f87ac21f" CreationDate="2019-09-10T23:57:50.227" UserId="5064" Text="Is the adjective in latin put after the noun or before?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33891" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11470" RevisionGUID="2fe4ff34-3520-4823-ab19-fae1f87ac21f" CreationDate="2019-09-10T23:57:50.227" UserId="5064" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|grammar-choice|meaning|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11471" RevisionGUID="2d44c9b1-aae9-4519-8b12-283be5d3b7f9" CreationDate="2019-09-11T00:01:11.313" UserId="118" Text="Several dictionaries' etymologies of English &quot;renegade&quot; trace it to Medieval Latin _renegatus,_ an apostate, one who has denied his religion and gone back to another. _Renegatus_ in turn is the perfect participle of _re-nego._ But _nego_ is not a deponent verb, so its perfect participle is passive, as in _Jesus ter a Petro negatus._ But _renegatus_ seems to be meant actively: one who has renounced, not one who has been renounced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick search turned up just a couple medieval writings containing _renegatus,_ and indeed they use it in an active sense. One example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quarta fructus [partialitatum] est fidei abnegatio et proditio contra Christum. Conclusio est: quod omnes partiales Christiani sunt **renegati** et proditores contra Christum, et per consequens proditores Christianorum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I take to mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The fourth fruit [of factions within the Church] is the denial of faith and treason against Christ. The conclusion is: that all Christian participants in factions are **renouncers** and traitors against Christ, and consequently betrayers of Christians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [_De Impiis Partialitatibus_](https://books.google.com/books?id=pc3J_oghDSwC&amp;pg=PR53&amp;dq=Bernardinus+Senensis+-+Quadragesimale+de+christiana+religione&amp;hl=la&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi1vrmXoMfkAhUEnKwKHcrPBWsQuwUIMDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=renegati&amp;f=false), Bernardino of Siena (1380–1444)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: grammatically, what is happening with _renegatus?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is treating a non-deponent perfect participle in an active sense a normal but perhaps rare grammatical move in Latin (as in English)? If so, what are some other examples? Is it something peculiar to Medieval Latin? Should _-atus_ be understood here as forming not a participle but a related noun, like _primatus_ (primacy) or _viratus_ (manly)?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33893" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11471" RevisionGUID="2d44c9b1-aae9-4519-8b12-283be5d3b7f9" CreationDate="2019-09-11T00:01:11.313" UserId="118" Text="&quot;Renegatus&quot;: an active perfect participle from a non-deponent verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33894" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11471" RevisionGUID="2d44c9b1-aae9-4519-8b12-283be5d3b7f9" CreationDate="2019-09-11T00:01:11.313" UserId="118" Text="|etymology|grammar-identification|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11471" RevisionGUID="895997ed-9745-4604-a0f5-4f31f1a5e598" CreationDate="2019-09-11T00:11:28.470" UserId="118" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="Several dictionaries' etymologies of English &quot;renegade&quot; trace it to Medieval Latin _renegatus,_ an apostate, one who has denied his religion and gone back to another. _Renegatus_ in turn is the perfect participle of _re-nego._ But _nego_ is not a deponent verb, so its perfect participle is passive, as in _Jesus ter a Petro negatus._ But _renegatus_ seems to be meant actively: one who has renounced, not one who has been renounced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick search turned up just a couple medieval writings containing _renegatus,_ and indeed they use it in an active sense. One example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quarta fructus [partialitatum] est fidei abnegatio et proditio contra Christum. Conclusio est: quod omnes partiales Christiani sunt **renegati** et proditores contra Christum, et per consequens proditores Christianorum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I take to mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The fourth fruit [of factions within the Church] is the denial of faith and treason against Christ. The conclusion is: that all Christian participants in factions are **renouncers** and traitors against Christ, and consequently betrayers of Christians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [_De Impiis Partialitatibus_](https://books.google.com/books?id=pc3J_oghDSwC&amp;pg=PR53&amp;dq=Bernardinus+Senensis+-+Quadragesimale+de+christiana+religione&amp;hl=la&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi1vrmXoMfkAhUEnKwKHcrPBWsQuwUIMDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=renegati&amp;f=false), Bernardino of Siena (1380–1444)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: grammatically, what is happening with _renegatus?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is treating a non-deponent perfect participle in an active sense a normal but perhaps rare grammatical move in Latin (as in English)? If so, what are some other examples? Is it something peculiar to Medieval Latin? Should _-atus_ be understood here as forming not a participle but a related noun, like _primatus_ (primacy) or _triumviratus_ (the office held by a triumvir, or the three men collectively)?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11472" RevisionGUID="4337899d-43a3-4a82-b14d-3745a02470a9" CreationDate="2019-09-11T00:54:56.593" UserId="406" Text="To answer the question from the title, after is somewhat more common than before, but both are perfectly acceptable. Most authors choose the order based on what sounds better, or what they want to emphasize. (Putting the adjective first puts more emphasis on it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer the question from the body, though: syntactically, **there are no adjectives in this phrase**!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Essentialia* here is a &quot;substantive&quot;, an adjective used as if it were a noun. (Compare English &quot;the good, the bad, and the ugly&quot;: three adjectives treated like nouns.) As you mention, it's in the nominative neuter plural: &quot;essential things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Negotii* is then a genitive of possession: the essential bits *of* the transaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like with adjectives, genitives in Latin can come before or after the nouns they modify. After is a bit more common, but before isn't incorrect; in this case, it just emphasizes the &quot;of the transaction&quot; more than the &quot;essential things&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11470" RevisionGUID="d5bf7787-e12b-4a08-9df1-1c9cb9c796fd" CreationDate="2019-09-11T01:57:41.990" UserId="5064" Comment="Clarifying" Text="E.g Is the legal term essentialia negotii correct use of the grammar(declension, agreement, word order) rules or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it not be negotiorum essentialium so that the case, the number and the gender agree? Since Aspects are Plural I expect to use Plural and not Singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Negotium is a Masculine noun Negotii is the Genitive Singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentialia is the Neuter adjective Nominative or Accusative or Vocative Plurar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12471" RevisionGUID="89bf7ab8-34c7-4041-92fd-d9d80a5b5a4f" CreationDate="2019-09-11T02:46:44.790" UserId="118" Text="The prosaic word order in Latin—that is, the ordinary, normal, unremarkable word order—goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      noun modifier&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun comes first, and the modifier comes right after. The modifier can be any of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* an adjective, as in **canis ruber** (a red dog);&#xD;&#xA;* a noun in the genitive case, as in **canis Georgii** (George's dog);&#xD;&#xA;* (rarely) a noun in the same case, as in **canis amicus** (the dog that is also a friend)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you remember species names in biology, they follow exactly this pattern: a noun (for the genus) followed by a modifier (indicating a characteristic that distinguishes the species from others of the same genus). Three species names corresponding to the above are: [_Canis aureus_](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Canis_aureus) (the golden dog), [_Canis hallstromi_](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Canis_hallstromi) (Hallstrom's dog, i.e. the dog species discovered by Hallstrom), and [_Canis lupus_](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus) (the wolf-dog, i.e. the wolf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following that pattern, your example should be **essentialia negotii** (the essentials of a contract) since _essentialia_ here is the noun, modified by the genitive noun _negotii._ In Latin, it's not unusual to use an adjectively &quot;substantively&quot;, i.e. as a noun itself, without providing a noun for it to modify. We do this sometimes in English, too. In fact, the word &quot;essential&quot; works the same way in English: it's primarily an adjective, but we also use it as a noun, as in &quot;essentials&quot;. An adjective used substantively modifies an implied noun of &quot;things&quot;, &quot;stuff&quot;, &quot;people&quot;, or the like—not important or interesting, hence omitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HOWEVER, Latin grammar is extremely flexible regarding word order. You can put the modifier first, or even separate the two words by a long distance in the sentence, and the result is still grammatically correct. Different word orders change the emphasis or make clear what the listener is supposed to already know and what is new information, or indicate what is being referred to and what is being asserted about it. A few modifiers, like _hic_ (this), come prosaically before the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should come as no surprise, then, that Google turns up hits for both **essentialia negotii** and **negotii essentialia**, but far more hits for the former. [This book](https://books.google.com/books?id=uBBEAAAAcAAJ&amp;lpg=PA13&amp;dq=%22negotii%20essentialia%22&amp;pg=PA13#v=onepage&amp;q=%22negotii%20essentialia%22&amp;f=false) has both on the same page, one in the main text and one in a footnote, which nicely illustrate the flexibility of the word order and its uses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Essentialia** fere omnis **negotii** spectant ad personam contrahentium, ad rem et ad formam (5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) Hoc loco quae ad singula juris **negotii essentialia** spectant enumerare non possum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; --&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The **essentials** of almost every **contract** pertain to the character of those contracting, the matter, and the form (5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) In this place, I am not able to enumerate, down to each each individual point, what, in the law of **contract**, the &quot;**essentials**&quot; pertain to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12471" RevisionGUID="8f0c68a5-8e52-4485-9ecb-4e8b5663f5b3" CreationDate="2019-09-11T02:52:28.633" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The prosaic word order in Latin—that is, the ordinary, normal, unremarkable word order—goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      noun modifier&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun comes first, and the modifier comes right after. The modifier can be any of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* an adjective, as in **canis ruber** (a red dog);&#xD;&#xA;* a noun in the genitive case, as in **canis Georgii** (George's dog);&#xD;&#xA;* (rarely) a noun in the same case, as in **canis amicus** (the dog that is also a friend)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you remember species names in biology, they follow exactly this pattern: a noun (for the genus) followed by a modifier (indicating a characteristic that distinguishes the species from others of the same genus). Three species names corresponding to the above are: [_Canis aureus_](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Canis_aureus) (the golden dog), [_Canis hallstromi_](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Canis_hallstromi) (Hallstrom's dog, i.e. the dog species discovered by Hallstrom), and [_Canis lupus_](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus) (the wolf-dog, i.e. the wolf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following that pattern, your example should be **essentialia negotii** (the essentials of a contract) since _essentialia_ here is the noun, modified by the genitive noun _negotii._ In Latin, it's not unusual to use an adjectively &quot;substantively&quot;, i.e. as a noun itself, without providing a noun for it to modify. We do this sometimes in English, too. In fact, the word &quot;essential&quot; works the same way in English: it's primarily an adjective, but we also use it as a noun, as in &quot;essentials&quot;. An adjective used substantively modifies an implied noun of &quot;things&quot;, &quot;stuff&quot;, &quot;people&quot;, or the like—not important or interesting, hence omitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HOWEVER, Latin grammar is extremely flexible regarding word order. You can put the modifier first, or even separate the two words by a long distance in the sentence, and the result is still grammatically correct. Different word orders change the emphasis or make clear what the listener is supposed to already know and what is new information, or indicate what is being referred to and what is being asserted about it. A few modifiers, like _hic_ (this), come prosaically before the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should come as no surprise, then, that Google turns up hits for both **essentialia negotii** and **negotii essentialia**, but far more hits for the former. [This book](https://books.google.com/books?id=uBBEAAAAcAAJ&amp;lpg=PA13&amp;dq=%22negotii%20essentialia%22&amp;pg=PA13#v=onepage&amp;q=%22negotii%20essentialia%22&amp;f=false) has both on the same page, one in the main text and one in a footnote, which nicely illustrate the flexibility of the word order and its uses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Essentialia** fere omnis **negotii** spectant ad personam contrahentium, ad rem et ad formam (5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) Hoc loco quae ad singula juris **negotii essentialia** spectant enumerare non possum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; --&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The **essentials** of almost every **contract** pertain to the character of those contracting, the matter, and the form (5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) In this place, I am not able to enumerate, down to each each individual point, what the &quot;**essentials**&quot; of the law of **contract** pertain to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12471" RevisionGUID="9b31496f-637a-44ce-bea7-1b8d6c7f9f54" CreationDate="2019-09-11T03:03:03.837" UserId="118" Comment="added 177 characters in body" Text="The prosaic word order in Latin—that is, the ordinary, normal, unremarkable word order—goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      noun modifier&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun comes first, and the modifier comes right after. The modifier can be any of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* an adjective, as in **canis ruber** (a red dog);&#xD;&#xA;* a noun in the genitive case, as in **canis Georgii** (George's dog);&#xD;&#xA;* (rarely) a noun in the same case, as in **canis amicus** (the dog that is also a friend)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you remember species names in biology, they follow exactly this pattern: a noun (for the genus) followed by a modifier (indicating a characteristic that distinguishes the species from others of the same genus). Three species names corresponding to the above are: [_Canis aureus_](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Canis_aureus) (the golden dog), [_Canis hallstromi_](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Canis_hallstromi) (Hallstrom's dog, i.e. the dog species discovered by Hallstrom), and [_Canis lupus_](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus) (the wolf-dog, i.e. the wolf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following that pattern, your example should be **essentialia negotii** (the essentials of a contract) since _essentialia_ here is the noun, modified by the genitive noun _negotii._ In Latin, it's not unusual to use an adjectively &quot;substantively&quot;, i.e. as a noun itself, without providing a noun for it to modify. We do this sometimes in English, too. In fact, the word &quot;essential&quot; works the same way in English: it's primarily an adjective, but we also use it as a noun, as in &quot;essentials&quot;. An adjective used substantively modifies an implied noun of &quot;things&quot;, &quot;stuff&quot;, &quot;people&quot;, or the like—not important or interesting, hence omitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HOWEVER, Latin grammar is extremely flexible regarding word order. You can put the modifier first, or even separate the two words by a long distance in the sentence, and the result is still grammatically correct. Different word orders change the emphasis or make clear what the listener is supposed to already know and what is new information, or indicate what is being referred to and what is being asserted about it. A few modifiers, like _hic_ (this), come prosaically before the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should come as no surprise, then, that Google turns up hits for both **essentialia negotii** and **negotii essentialia**, but far more hits for the former. [This book](https://books.google.com/books?id=uBBEAAAAcAAJ&amp;lpg=PA13&amp;dq=%22negotii%20essentialia%22&amp;pg=PA13#v=onepage&amp;q=%22negotii%20essentialia%22&amp;f=false) has both on the same page, one in the main text and one in a footnote, which nicely illustrate the flexibility of the word order and its uses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Essentialia** fere omnis **negotii** spectant ad personam contrahentium, ad rem et ad formam (5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) Hoc loco quae ad singula juris **negotii essentialia** spectant enumerare non possum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; --&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The **essentials** of almost every **contract** pertain to the character of those contracting, the matter, and the form (5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) In this place, I am not able to enumerate, down to each each individual point, what the &quot;**essentials**&quot; of the law of **contract** pertain to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, in the last sentence, we would make emphasis comparable to that of the Latin by wording it like this: &quot;…what, in the law of contract, the essentials pertain to.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12471" RevisionGUID="e98dcb4d-94ab-4f8a-bffb-38bb9ad3d386" CreationDate="2019-09-11T03:16:30.553" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The prosaic word order in Latin—that is, the ordinary, normal, unremarkable word order—goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      noun modifier&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun comes first, and the modifier comes right after. The modifier can be any of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* an adjective, as in **canis ruber** (a red dog);&#xD;&#xA;* a noun in the genitive case, as in **canis Georgii** (George's dog);&#xD;&#xA;* (rarely) a noun in the same case, as in **canis amicus** (the dog that is also a friend)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you remember species names in biology, they follow exactly this pattern: a noun (for the genus) followed by a modifier (indicating a characteristic that distinguishes the species from others of the same genus). Three species names corresponding to the above are: [_Canis aureus_](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Canis_aureus) (the golden dog), [_Canis hallstromi_](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Canis_hallstromi) (Hallstrom's dog, i.e. the dog species discovered by Hallstrom), and [_Canis lupus_](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus) (the wolf-dog, i.e. the wolf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following that pattern, your example should be **essentialia negotii** (the essentials of a contract) since _essentialia_ here is the noun, modified by the genitive noun _negotii._ In Latin, it's not unusual to use an adjective &quot;substantively&quot;, i.e. as a noun itself, without providing a noun for it to modify. We do this sometimes in English, too. In fact, the word &quot;essential&quot; works the same way in English: it's primarily an adjective, but we also use it as a noun, as in &quot;essentials&quot;. An adjective used substantively modifies an implied noun of &quot;things&quot;, &quot;stuff&quot;, &quot;people&quot;, or the like—not important or interesting, hence omitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HOWEVER, Latin grammar is extremely flexible regarding word order. You can put the modifier first, or even separate the two words by a long distance in the sentence, and the result is still grammatically correct. Different word orders change the emphasis or make clear what the listener is supposed to already know and what is new information, or indicate what is being referred to and what is being asserted about it. A few modifiers, like _hic_ (this), come prosaically before the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should come as no surprise, then, that Google turns up hits for both **essentialia negotii** and **negotii essentialia**, but far more hits for the former. [This book](https://books.google.com/books?id=uBBEAAAAcAAJ&amp;lpg=PA13&amp;dq=%22negotii%20essentialia%22&amp;pg=PA13#v=onepage&amp;q=%22negotii%20essentialia%22&amp;f=false) has both on the same page, one in the main text and one in a footnote, which nicely illustrate the flexibility of the word order and its uses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Essentialia** fere omnis **negotii** spectant ad personam contrahentium, ad rem et ad formam (5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) Hoc loco quae ad singula juris **negotii essentialia** spectant enumerare non possum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; --&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The **essentials** of almost every **contract** pertain to the character of those contracting, the matter, and the form (5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) In this place, I am not able to enumerate, down to each each individual point, what the &quot;**essentials**&quot; of the law of **contract** pertain to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, in the last sentence, we would make emphasis comparable to that of the Latin by wording it like this: &quot;…what, in the law of contract, the essentials pertain to.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12472" RevisionGUID="75c9b6ed-f1d0-4fd1-b948-a77011add5ae" CreationDate="2019-09-11T05:20:39.783" UserId="118" Text="Punctuation and macrons might help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Respondēns autem Petrus dīxit, &quot;Domine, sī tū es, iubē mē venīre ad tē super aquās.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [29] At ipse ait, &quot;Veni!&quot; Et Petrus dē nāviculā **ambulābat** super aquam ut venīret ad Iēsum.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [30] Vidēns vērō ventum validum timuit et cum coepisset mergī clāmāvit dīcēns, &quot;Domine, salvum mē fac!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Answering, Peter said, &quot;Lord, if you are, order me to come to you over the waters.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [29] But he [Jesus] said, &quot;Come!&quot; And down from the little ship, Peter **was walking** across the water in order to come to Jesus.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [30] But seeing a strong wind, he became fearful, and as he began to sink, he cried out, saying, &quot;Lord, save me!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly **ambulabat** is in the imperfect tense to indicate that Peter didn't finish walking: fear overcame him before he got all the way across the water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12471" RevisionGUID="c78a02ab-4bc2-4211-9919-697cb7c8abb6" CreationDate="2019-09-11T05:24:59.803" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="The prosaic word order in Latin—that is, the ordinary, normal, unremarkable word order—goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      noun modifier&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun comes first, and the modifier comes right after. The modifier can be any of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* an adjective, as in **canis ruber** (a red dog);&#xD;&#xA;* a noun in the genitive case, as in **canis Georgii** (George's dog);&#xD;&#xA;* (rarely) a noun in the same case, as in **canis amicus** (the dog that is also a friend)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you remember species names in biology, they follow exactly this pattern: a noun (for the genus) followed by a modifier (indicating a characteristic that distinguishes the species from others of the same genus). Three species names corresponding to the above are: [_Canis aureus_](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Canis_aureus) (the golden dog), [_Canis hallstromi_](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Canis_hallstromi) (Hallstrom's dog, i.e. the dog species discovered by Hallstrom), and [_Canis lupus_](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus) (the wolf-dog, i.e. the wolf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following that pattern, your example should be **essentialia negotii** (the essentials of a contract) since _essentialia_ here is the main noun, modified by the genitive noun _negotii._ In Latin, it's not unusual to use an adjective &quot;substantively&quot;, i.e. as a noun itself, without providing a noun for it to modify. We do this sometimes in English, too. In fact, the word &quot;essential&quot; works the same way in English: it's primarily an adjective, but we also use it as a noun, as in &quot;essentials&quot;. An adjective used substantively modifies an implied noun of &quot;things&quot;, &quot;stuff&quot;, &quot;people&quot;, or the like—not important or interesting, hence omitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HOWEVER, Latin grammar is extremely flexible regarding word order. You can put the modifier first, or even separate the two words by a long distance in the sentence, and the result is still grammatically correct. Different word orders change the emphasis or make clear what the listener is supposed to already know and what is new information, or indicate what is being referred to and what is being asserted about it. A few modifiers, like _hic_ (this), come prosaically before the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should come as no surprise, then, that Google turns up hits for both **essentialia negotii** and **negotii essentialia**, but far more hits for the former. [This book](https://books.google.com/books?id=uBBEAAAAcAAJ&amp;lpg=PA13&amp;dq=%22negotii%20essentialia%22&amp;pg=PA13#v=onepage&amp;q=%22negotii%20essentialia%22&amp;f=false) has both on the same page, one in the main text and one in a footnote, which nicely illustrate the flexibility of the word order and its uses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Essentialia** fere omnis **negotii** spectant ad personam contrahentium, ad rem et ad formam (5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) Hoc loco quae ad singula juris **negotii essentialia** spectant enumerare non possum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; --&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The **essentials** of almost every **contract** pertain to the character of those contracting, the matter, and the form (5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) In this place, I am not able to enumerate, down to each each individual point, what the &quot;**essentials**&quot; of the law of **contract** pertain to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, in the last sentence, we would make emphasis comparable to that of the Latin by wording it like this: &quot;…what, in contract law, the essentials pertain to.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12472" RevisionGUID="3724fa61-8f1a-45a5-9626-1c45537e62b7" CreationDate="2019-09-11T05:32:02.780" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="Punctuation and macrons might help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Respondēns autem Petrus dīxit, &quot;Domine, sī tū es, iubē mē venīre ad tē super aquās.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [29] At ipse ait, &quot;Venī!&quot; Et Petrus dē nāviculā **ambulābat** super aquam ut venīret ad Iēsum.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [30] Vidēns vērō ventum validum timuit et cum coepisset mergī clāmāvit dīcēns, &quot;Domine, salvum mē fac!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Answering, Peter said, &quot;Lord, if you are, order me to come to you over the waters.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [29] But he [Jesus] said, &quot;Come!&quot; And down from the little ship, Peter **was walking** across the water in order to come to Jesus.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [30] But seeing a strong wind, he became fearful, and as he began to sink, he cried out, saying, &quot;Lord, save me!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly **ambulabat** is in the imperfect tense to indicate that Peter didn't finish walking: fear overcame him before he got all the way across the water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12472" RevisionGUID="20e13f45-1a2d-4ecb-997d-1509b7796412" CreationDate="2019-09-11T05:53:08.060" UserId="118" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Punctuation and macrons might help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Respondēns autem Petrus dīxit, &quot;Domine, sī tū es, iubē mē venīre ad tē super aquās.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [29] At ipse ait, &quot;Venī!&quot; Et Petrus dē nāviculā **ambulābat** super aquam ut venīret ad Iēsum.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [30] Vidēns vērō ventum validum timuit et cum coepisset mergī clāmāvit dīcēns, &quot;Domine, salvum mē fac!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Answering, Peter said, &quot;Lord, if you are, order me to come to you over the waters.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [29] But he [Jesus] said, &quot;Come!&quot; And down from the little ship, Peter **was walking** across the water in order to come to Jesus.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [30] Seeing a strong wind, though, he became fearful, and as he began to sink, he cried out, saying, &quot;Lord, save me!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly **ambulabat** is in the imperfect tense to indicate that Peter didn't finish walking: fear overcame him before he got all the way across the water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12472" RevisionGUID="5625f3fc-bf2e-465b-8540-cbb85e7941b4" CreationDate="2019-09-11T06:22:52.167" UserId="118" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Punctuation and macrons might help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Respondēns autem Petrus dīxit, &quot;Domine, sī tū es, iubē mē venīre ad tē super aquās.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [29] At ipse ait, &quot;Venī!&quot; Et dēscendēns Petrus dē nāviculā **ambulābat** super aquam ut venīret ad Iēsum.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [30] Vidēns vērō ventum validum timuit et cum coepisset mergī clāmāvit dīcēns, &quot;Domine, salvum mē fac!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Answering, Peter said, &quot;Lord, if you are, order me to come to you over the waters.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [29] But he [Jesus] said, &quot;Come!&quot; And climbing down from the little ship, Peter **was walking** across the water in order to come to Jesus.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [30] Seeing a strong wind, though, he became fearful, and as he began to sink, he cried out, saying, &quot;Lord, save me!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly **ambulabat** is in the imperfect tense to indicate that Peter didn't finish walking: fear overcame him before he got all the way across the water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12471" RevisionGUID="337146eb-bbca-4460-9295-9891d7b5fc46" CreationDate="2019-09-11T08:52:11.277" UserId="118" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The prosaic word order in Latin—that is, the ordinary, normal, unremarkable word order—goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      noun modifier&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun comes first, and the modifier comes right after. The modifier can be any of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* an adjective, as in **canis ruber** (a red dog);&#xD;&#xA;* a noun in the genitive case, as in **canis Georgii** (George's dog);&#xD;&#xA;* (rarely) a noun in the same case, as in **canis amicus** (the dog that is also a friend)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you remember species names in biology, they follow exactly this pattern: a noun (for the genus) followed by a modifier (indicating a characteristic that distinguishes the species from others of the same genus). Three species names corresponding to the above are: [_Canis aureus_](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Canis_aureus) (the golden dog), [_Canis hallstromi_](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Canis_hallstromi) (Hallstrom's dog, i.e. the dog species discovered by Hallstrom), and [_Canis lupus_](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus) (the wolf-dog, i.e. the wolf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following that pattern, your example should be **essentialia negotii** (the essentials of a contract) since _essentialia_ here is the main noun, modified by the genitive noun _negotii._ In Latin, it's not unusual to use an adjective &quot;substantively&quot;, i.e. as a noun itself, without providing a noun for it to modify. We do this sometimes in English, too. In fact, the word &quot;essential&quot; works the same way in English: it's primarily an adjective, but we also use it as a noun, as in &quot;essentials&quot;. An adjective used substantively modifies an implied noun of &quot;things&quot;, &quot;stuff&quot;, &quot;people&quot;, or the like—not important or interesting, hence omitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HOWEVER, Latin grammar is extremely flexible regarding word order. You can put the modifier first, or even separate the two words by a long distance in the sentence, and the result is still grammatically correct. Different word orders change the emphasis or make clear what the listener is supposed to already know and what is new information, or indicate what is being referred to and what is being asserted about it. A few modifiers, like _hic_ (this), come prosaically before the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should come as no surprise, then, that Google turns up hits for both **essentialia negotii** and **negotii essentialia**, but far more hits for the former. [This book](https://books.google.com/books?id=uBBEAAAAcAAJ&amp;lpg=PA13&amp;dq=%22negotii%20essentialia%22&amp;pg=PA13#v=onepage&amp;q=%22negotii%20essentialia%22&amp;f=false) has both on the same page, one in the main text and one in a footnote, which nicely illustrate the flexibility of the word order and its uses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Essentialia** fere omnis **negotii** spectant ad personam contrahentium, ad rem et ad formam (5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) Hoc loco quae ad singula juris **negotii essentialia** spectant enumerare non possum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; --&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The **essentials** of almost every **contract** pertain to the character of those contracting, the matter, and the form (5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) In this place, I am not able to enumerate, down to each each individual point, what the &quot;**essentials**&quot; of the law of **contract** pertain to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, in the last sentence, we would make emphasis comparable to that of the Latin by wording it like this: &quot;…what, in contract law, are considered the essentials.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34902" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11470" RevisionGUID="2e26c8d1-15cf-444e-8195-2d0811f2238f" CreationDate="2019-09-11T09:04:54.643" />
  <row Id="34903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12471" RevisionGUID="ee3d3b8d-7b61-4066-8f69-792294c88680" CreationDate="2019-09-11T09:47:18.637" UserId="118" Comment="added 325 characters in body" Text="The prosaic word order in Latin—that is, the ordinary, normal, unremarkable word order—goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      noun modifier&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun comes first, and the modifier comes right after. The modifier can be any of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* an adjective, as in **canis ruber** (a red dog);&#xD;&#xA;* a noun in the genitive case, as in **canis Georgii** (George's dog);&#xD;&#xA;* (rarely) a noun in the same case, as in **canis amicus** (the dog that is also a friend)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the modifier is an adjective, it must agree in gender, number, and case with the noun it modifies. When the modifier is a genitive noun, it need not agree in any way with the modified noun. And when the modifier is a noun in apposition, it must agree in case with the modified noun, but it has its own gender and number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Species names in biology follow exactly this pattern: a noun (for the genus) followed by a modifier (indicating a characteristic that distinguishes the species from others of the same genus). Three species names corresponding to the above are: [_Canis aureus_](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Canis_aureus) (the golden dog), [_Canis hallstromi_](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Canis_hallstromi) (Hallstrom's dog, i.e. the dog species discovered by Hallstrom), and [_Canis lupus_](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus) (the wolf-dog, i.e. the wolf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following that pattern, your example should be **essentialia negotii** (the essentials of a contract) since _essentialia_ here is the main noun, modified by the genitive noun _negotii._ In Latin, it's not unusual to use an adjective &quot;substantively&quot;, i.e. as a noun itself, without providing a noun for it to modify. We do this sometimes in English, too. In fact, the word &quot;essential&quot; works the same way in English: it's primarily an adjective, but we also use it as a noun, as in &quot;essentials&quot;. An adjective used substantively modifies an implied noun of &quot;things&quot;, &quot;stuff&quot;, &quot;people&quot;, or the like—not important or interesting, hence omitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HOWEVER, Latin grammar is extremely flexible regarding word order. You can put the modifier first, or even separate the two words by a long distance in the sentence, and the result is still grammatically correct. Different word orders change the emphasis or make clear what the listener is supposed to already know and what is new information, or indicate what is being referred to and what is being asserted about it. A few modifiers, like _hic_ (this), come prosaically before the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should come as no surprise, then, that Google turns up hits for both **essentialia negotii** and **negotii essentialia**, but far more hits for the former. [This book](https://books.google.com/books?id=uBBEAAAAcAAJ&amp;lpg=PA13&amp;dq=%22negotii%20essentialia%22&amp;pg=PA13#v=onepage&amp;q=%22negotii%20essentialia%22&amp;f=false) has both on the same page, one in the main text and one in a footnote, which nicely illustrate the flexibility of the word order and its uses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Essentialia** fere omnis **negotii** spectant ad personam contrahentium, ad rem et ad formam (5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) Hoc loco quae ad singula juris **negotii essentialia** spectant enumerare non possum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; --&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The **essentials** of almost every **contract** pertain to the character of those contracting, the matter, and the form (5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) In this place, I am not able to enumerate, down to each each individual point, what the &quot;**essentials**&quot; of the law of **contract** pertain to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, in the last sentence, we would make emphasis comparable to that of the Latin by wording it like this: &quot;…what, in contract law, are considered the essentials.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12473" RevisionGUID="53040e6b-79c9-47e4-a2e9-6717828215cd" CreationDate="2019-09-11T09:51:01.327" UserId="13" Text="A combination of LP fragments, found at 5.A.i [here](https://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-rest-of-sappho.html), has the following first two lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἐπτάξατε̣ [μέν, παῖδες, ὐπ' ἔρνη] δροσ[ό]εσσα[ν ἄγνας]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δάφνας ὄτα̣ [                  ] . αι&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Italian anthology](https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/11675/1/Saffo_frammenti_2015.pdf) I first found this in supplements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἐπτάξατε̣ [μέν, παῖδες, ὐπ' ἔρνη] δροσ[ό]εσσα[ν ἄγνας]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δάφνας ὄτα̣ [                  ] . αι&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;translating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You cowered, [oh children, under the] dewy [branches] of a [holy]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Laurel when …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, &quot;dewy branches&quot; doesn't seem to work grammatically, because ἔρνη&lt;ἔρνος is neuter plural while δροσόεσσαν&lt;δροσόεις is feminine singular. The feminine dewy is from a papyrus, so we can't change it to neuter plural δροσόεντα. I believe we can't put &quot;dewy&quot; with the laurel, because doing so would give δροσοέσσᾱς, where the long alpha is inmetrical. So how does this translation match the original? And how does the grammar of that original work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34905" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12473" RevisionGUID="53040e6b-79c9-47e4-a2e9-6717828215cd" CreationDate="2019-09-11T09:51:01.327" UserId="13" Text="Puzzling grammar in a Sappho line" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34906" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12473" RevisionGUID="53040e6b-79c9-47e4-a2e9-6717828215cd" CreationDate="2019-09-11T09:51:01.327" UserId="13" Text="|greek|translation|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12474" RevisionGUID="6b68aa43-8228-4c3a-bdec-4b8fde993226" CreationDate="2019-09-11T11:45:24.077" UserId="13" Text="LP 68(b) and 69 [have been combined](https://www.academia.edu/8829793/Due_sequenze_saffiche_in_P.Oxy._1787_Esili_e_i_tre_carmi_dellultima_colonna_ms._in_SemRom_10_2007_) into a single text by the impression that they were «ex eadem parte papyri» and by the one letter split between the two. The resulting text, found in 6.A.iv [here](https://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-rest-of-sappho.html), has been supplemented to contain the word (ἐ)θύραμεν (prodelided), supposedly meaning «ci dilettammo» (we delighted). I have not been able to find the base word for this verb form. θυράω, θυρῶ, θυρέω, θυράιω don't exist according to Perseus, and θυράζω means &quot;thrust out of doors&quot;, not at all similar to &quot;delighted&quot;. So what verb is this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34908" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12474" RevisionGUID="6b68aa43-8228-4c3a-bdec-4b8fde993226" CreationDate="2019-09-11T11:45:24.077" UserId="13" Text="Untraceable word in a combination of LP fragments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34909" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12474" RevisionGUID="6b68aa43-8228-4c3a-bdec-4b8fde993226" CreationDate="2019-09-11T11:45:24.077" UserId="13" Text="|vocabulary|greek|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12474" RevisionGUID="2bdff4d7-cfad-4ef9-b2a9-1beda40cc9ff" CreationDate="2019-09-11T11:53:02.967" UserId="13" Comment="added More translations at end" Text="LP 68(b) and 69 [have been combined](https://www.academia.edu/8829793/Due_sequenze_saffiche_in_P.Oxy._1787_Esili_e_i_tre_carmi_dellultima_colonna_ms._in_SemRom_10_2007_) into a single text by the impression that they were «ex eadem parte papyri» and by the one letter split between the two. The resulting text, found in 6.A.iv [here](https://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-rest-of-sappho.html), has been supplemented to contain the word (ἐ)θύραμεν (prodelided), supposedly meaning «ci dilettammo» (we delighted). I have not been able to find the base word for this verb form. θυράω, θυρῶ, θυρέω, θυράιω don't exist according to Perseus, and θυράζω means &quot;thrust out of doors&quot;, not at all similar to &quot;delighted&quot;. So what verb is this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More translations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Gennaro Tedeschi's anthology](https://arts.units.it/retrieve/handle/11368/2846729/50615/Saffo%202015%20EUT.pdf), translating the fragment, gives &quot;scherzavamo&quot;, &quot;we joked&quot;. [Ferrari's _Una Mitra per Cleis_](https://www.academia.edu/7893820/Sapphos_Gift._The_Poet_and_Her_Community_bozze_Ann_Arbor_2010), in English translation, has &quot;we took pleasure&quot;, which is probably the translated version of &quot;ci dilettammo&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11458" RevisionGUID="c47de867-2013-4684-a547-9ba787b3676b" CreationDate="2019-09-11T19:17:35.637" UserId="406" Comment="added 180 characters in body" Text="I wouldn't take Wiktionary's declension tables too seriously. They're algorithmically generated, and don't necessarily imply that any particular form is attested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, I haven't been able to find any attested forms apart from the _tuditēs_ and _tudibus_ you cited. So any singular forms would have to be back-derived from there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The genitive singular is nice and easy to predict: we can cut off the plural endings to get the stems _tudit-_ and _tud-_, then add the third-declension _-is_, to get *_tuditis_ and *_tudis_. This is what L&amp;S have done. All plural forms and most singular forms are built off the same &quot;apparent stem&quot;, whether or not it's the same as the underlying stem, since all those endings &quot;react&quot; the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nominative singular is a bit more difficult. On the face of it, we would expect to just put the third-declension ending _-s_ on the end of the stem, then apply regular sound-change laws: *_tudit-s_ &gt; *_tudīs_ &gt; *_tudis_ (cf *lapid-s* &gt; *lapīs* &gt; *lapis* &quot;stone&quot;, nom pl _lapidēs_), or *_tud-s_ &gt; *_tūs_ (cf *ped-s* &gt; *pēs* &quot;foot&quot;, dat pl _pedibus_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, due to vowel reduction, *we can't actually be certain of the vowel in the stem*: it's also possible the original stem was *_tudet-_, which would give a nominative singular *_tudēs_ &gt; *_tudes_, but the same plural *_tudet-ēs_ &gt; _tuditēs_ (cf _milet-s_ &gt; _milēs_ &gt; _miles_ &quot;soldier&quot;, nom pl _militēs_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Or*, instead of ending in a consonant, this word could have been an *i*-stem *_tudi-_, in which case the nominative would be either *_tudis_ or *_tudēs_, but have the same plural *_tudi-ibus_ &gt; _tudibus_ (cf _vāti-s_ &gt; _vātis_/_vātēs_ &quot;bard&quot;, dat pl _vātibus_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S seem to have considered the form *_tudes_ and/or *_tudēs_ the most reasonable (conveniently leaving off the vowel length), and chosen it as their reconstruction. Which makes sense to me: nouns declining like _vātēs_ and _miles_ are significantly more common in Latin than nouns declining like _pēs_ or _lapis_. Moreover, it would explain how we see both _tuditēs_ and _tudibus_: it was presumably an obscure word, so an alternation between *_tudes_ and *_tudēs_ isn't too far-fetched (especially since we see this sort of vowel alternation in better-attested third-declension nouns too). Some people used it one way and ended up with _tuditēs_, some used the other way and ended up with _tudibus_, and the word as a whole ended up with two different declension patterns. (However, I'd still have marked it with a star, personally.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the short _ŭ_ in the stem, I'm guessing that's for etymological reasons. Compare *tut**ŭ**dī* &quot;I have hit&quot;, *st**ŭ**deō* &quot;I dedicate myself to&quot;. This noun seems to have come from the same root, and would be expected to have the same vowel quantity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12473" RevisionGUID="eaac92cb-cc66-4983-8a39-8af745a8638c" CreationDate="2019-09-11T20:06:11.570" UserId="13" Comment="Fixed typo" Text="A combination of LP fragments, found at 6.A.i [here](https://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-rest-of-sappho.html), has the following first two lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἐπτάξατε̣ [μέν, παῖδες, ὐπ' ἔρνη] δροσ[ό]εσσα[ν ἄγνας]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δάφνας ὄτα̣ [                  ] . αι&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Italian anthology](https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/11675/1/Saffo_frammenti_2015.pdf) I first found this in supplements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἐπτάξατε̣ [μέν, παῖδες, ὐπ' ἔρνη] δροσ[ό]εσσα[ν ἄγνας]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δάφνας ὄτα̣ [                  ] . αι&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;translating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You cowered, [oh children, under the] dewy [branches] of a [holy]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Laurel when …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, &quot;dewy branches&quot; doesn't seem to work grammatically, because ἔρνη&lt;ἔρνος is neuter plural while δροσόεσσαν&lt;δροσόεις is feminine singular. The feminine dewy is from a papyrus, so we can't change it to neuter plural δροσόεντα. I believe we can't put &quot;dewy&quot; with the laurel, because doing so would give δροσοέσσᾱς, where the long alpha is inmetrical. So how does this translation match the original? And how does the grammar of that original work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12475" RevisionGUID="61049561-f60a-4f68-bc3b-00b79bcdfc5e" CreationDate="2019-09-11T22:09:00.727" UserId="6064" Text="Help!&#xD;&#xA;There are the well-known terms sub specie dei, sub specie aeternitatis (Spinoza?).&#xD;&#xA;I want to know: how would one correctly write super specie nihil, meaning not &quot;below&quot;, from the (above) view of God/eternity, but above &quot;nothingness&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am with small Greek and less Latin, so I may not be worthy of substantial reply. But, I want to know what would be the contrary/contrasting idea in Latin to sub specie dei, sub specie aeternitatis?&#xD;&#xA;Can someone help me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34914" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12475" RevisionGUID="61049561-f60a-4f68-bc3b-00b79bcdfc5e" CreationDate="2019-09-11T22:09:00.727" UserId="6064" Text="Super specie nihil?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34915" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12475" RevisionGUID="61049561-f60a-4f68-bc3b-00b79bcdfc5e" CreationDate="2019-09-11T22:09:00.727" UserId="6064" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12476" RevisionGUID="c9e5173d-b6c3-4632-ae61-a70f0451de48" CreationDate="2019-09-12T00:18:00.197" UserId="5064" Text="How is the genitive formulated(is it not optionally accompanied by an article)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In greek we use for a definite article&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Του ανθρώπου&#xD;&#xA;Των ανθρώπων&#xD;&#xA;Της κατοικίας&#xD;&#xA;Των κατοικιών&#xD;&#xA;Tou σπιτιού&#xD;&#xA;Των σπιτιών&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or for an indefinite article&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ενός ανθρώπου&#xD;&#xA;Κάποιων ανθρώπων&#xD;&#xA;Μιας κατοικίας&#xD;&#xA;Κάποιων κατοικιών&#xD;&#xA;Ενός σπιτιού&#xD;&#xA;Κάποιων σπιτιών&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We usually omit it when allowed sometimes it is unidiomatic not to omit it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In portuguese we use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De(of) or De + este/elle(this or that)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34919" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12476" RevisionGUID="c9e5173d-b6c3-4632-ae61-a70f0451de48" CreationDate="2019-09-12T00:18:00.197" UserId="5064" Text="Formulation/Wording of the Genitive Case in the Latin Language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34920" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12476" RevisionGUID="c9e5173d-b6c3-4632-ae61-a70f0451de48" CreationDate="2019-09-12T00:18:00.197" UserId="5064" Text="|classical-latin|greek|grammar-choice|meaning|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12477" RevisionGUID="c104ef17-745d-409c-9ced-ac0ad82eabcb" CreationDate="2019-09-12T00:43:25.620" UserId="406" Text="The genitive in (Classical) Latin is, in fact, _never_ accompanied by an article—because Latin has no articles at all!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like in (Ancient) Greek, the Latin genitive is marked by a special ending on nouns and adjectives. This ending varies by declension—different words inflect in different ways—but is almost always one of *-ae*, *-ī*, *-ius*, *-is*, *-ūs*, or *-eī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin also has the preposition *dē*, but it's not used to express possession (it's more like &quot;down from&quot; or &quot;concerning&quot; than &quot;of&quot;). In the Vulgar Latin/Romance that would later become Portuguese, the various genitive endings fell out of fashion, and the meaning of *dē* expanded to take their place; that's where Portuguese *de* comes from." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12476" RevisionGUID="07caf08d-b79b-4b2d-beea-a9f7a963b512" CreationDate="2019-09-12T00:43:41.463" UserId="5064" Comment="Changing the question if permitted now it sunk in that Latin does not have definite or indefinite articles." Text="So essentialia negotii is transaction's essentials. How would one say The transaction's essential things, transactions' essential things, essential things of the transaction and essential things of the transactions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;negōtia essentiālia trānsāctiōnis for transaction's essential things(or aspects)&#xD;&#xA;negōtia essentiālia trānsāctiōnum for transactions' essential things&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are we failing to refer to ALL transactions by using plural instead of singular?&#xD;&#xA;To each their own, each transaction needs its own essential things but all need theirs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34923" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12476" RevisionGUID="07caf08d-b79b-4b2d-beea-a9f7a963b512" CreationDate="2019-09-12T00:43:41.463" UserId="5064" Comment="Changing the question if permitted now it sunk in that Latin does not have definite or indefinite articles." Text="Essentialia negotii transaction's essentials" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34924" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12476" RevisionGUID="07caf08d-b79b-4b2d-beea-a9f7a963b512" CreationDate="2019-09-12T00:43:41.463" UserId="5064" Comment="Changing the question if permitted now it sunk in that Latin does not have definite or indefinite articles." Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|grammar-choice|meaning|declension|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12477" RevisionGUID="bdb69516-3139-4885-84b6-88625323970d" CreationDate="2019-09-12T01:29:44.140" UserId="406" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="*EDIT: Note that this answer applies to an earlier version of the question; see the revision history for details.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The genitive in (Classical) Latin is, in fact, _never_ accompanied by an article—because Latin has no articles at all!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like in (Ancient) Greek, the Latin genitive is marked by a special ending on nouns and adjectives. This ending varies by declension—different words inflect in different ways—but is almost always one of *-ae*, *-ī*, *-ius*, *-is*, *-ūs*, or *-eī*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin also has the preposition *dē*, but it's not used to express possession (it's more like &quot;down from&quot; or &quot;concerning&quot; than &quot;of&quot;). In the Vulgar Latin/Romance that would later become Portuguese, the various genitive endings fell out of fashion, and the meaning of *dē* expanded to take their place; that's where Portuguese *de* comes from." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12478" RevisionGUID="a58b48e7-0438-410e-83ac-e1e9eb7c88b3" CreationDate="2019-09-12T03:12:41.793" UserId="9" Text="Just making a post to hold a few more things I found out since asking the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###This noun is likely related to *touiller* (Fr.), *tudiculare,* and *tudicula*&#xD;&#xA;There is a French verb *touiller* 'toss', whose *ou* points to Latin short *ŭ,* which is thought to be derived from a Latin first-conjugation verb *tŭdĭculō, tŭdĭcŭlāre.* The Latin verb is thought to be derived from a feminine noun *[tŭdĭcŭla](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=tudicula), -ae* 'a small machine for bruising olives' (L&amp;S). *Tudicula* seems to be used only once in the PHI classical corpus, in the line cited by L&amp;S from Columella's *De Re Rustica* 12.52.7.2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; est et organum erectae tribulae simile, quod **tudicula** uocatur, idque non incommode opus efficit, nisi quod frequenter uitiatur et, si bacae plusculum ingesseris, inpeditur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L&amp;S explain *tudicula* as a diminutive of *tudes,* although that violates the general rule saying that diminutives of masculine nouns are masculine (and take *-ulus* rather than *-ula* unless the original noun was a first-declension noun). The document &quot;[Oscilaciones entre género masculino y femenino documentadas en latín medieval](https://eprints.ucm.es/3370/1/T20471.pdf)&quot;, by Francisco González Luis, mentions that the non-feminine forms *tudiculum* and *tudiculi* were also used at some point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this still seems to me like fairly scanty evidence about the form (*)*tudes* itself, it supports the reconstruction of a short vowel, which was something that I expressed doubt about in the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Tuditanus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name *[Tuditanus](http://dml.cmnh.org/2014Dec/msg00108.html)* has been supposed to be connected to the noun meaning 'hammer'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The nominative singular form *tudes* is definitely attested in post-classical sources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form *Tudes* itself seems to have been used as an epithet for the individual also known as *Carolus Martellus,* or in French *Charles Martel,* whose life spanned the 7th and 8th centuries. I don't know what the earliest attestation of this is; I found two examples from the 17th century, in books from 1656 (*[Thuani Enucleati Pars IV.](https://books.google.com/books?id=cplAAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA58&amp;lpg=PA58&amp;dq=carolus+tudes),* p. 58: &quot;Carolus Tudes sive Martellus&quot;) and 1651 (*[Almagesti novi pars posterior tomi primi](https://books.google.com/books?id=XY8yK6eW4sQC&amp;pg=PR3&amp;lpg=PR3&amp;dq=charles+martel+tudes+carolus+Carolus+Martellus),* page iii: &quot;Carolus verò Martellus, seu Tudes,&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 1822, a species of fish was given the scientific name *Zygaena tudes* by Valenciennes (but the [taxonomy seems to have been revised since then](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalleye_hammerhead#Taxonomy_and_phylogeny)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11459" RevisionGUID="acdfd34f-de6b-4282-ba7f-3ed15c04dde4" CreationDate="2019-09-12T03:34:11.123" UserId="9" Comment="Adjusted link. When cleaning up my recent comments, I deleted the linked comment, so it no longer makes sense to reference it" Text="To my understanding, *vātēs* &quot;bard&quot; started out as an *i*-stem noun, built on the stem *vāti-* (probably from something like *_weh₂t-i-_). So I would expect the nominative to look something like *_vāti-s_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we don't see *_vātis_—we see _vātēs_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where does this come from? I'm not familiar with any Latin sound changes that would turn short *i* into long *ē* in an unstressed syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Inspired by Sumelic's comment on [another answer][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/11458/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12473" RevisionGUID="bb198cad-e4b9-4ae5-bd03-24312e93ee9a" CreationDate="2019-09-12T09:54:20.810" UserId="13" Comment="Eliminated unobvious supplements from first version " Text="A combination of LP fragments, found at 6.A.i [here](https://michelegorini.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-rest-of-sappho.html), has the following first two lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἐπτάξατε̣ [ &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ] δροσ[ό]εσσα[- &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δάφνας ὄτα̣ [ &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ] . αι&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Italian anthology](https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/11675/1/Saffo_frammenti_2015.pdf) I first found this in supplements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ἐπτάξατε̣ [μέν, παῖδες, ὐπ' ἔρνη] δροσ[ό]εσσα[ν ἄγνας]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;δάφνας ὄτα̣ [ &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ] . αι&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;translating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You cowered, [oh children, under the] dewy [branches] of a [holy]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Laurel when …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, &quot;dewy branches&quot; doesn't seem to work grammatically, because ἔρνη&lt;ἔρνος is neuter plural while δροσόεσσαν&lt;δροσόεις is feminine singular. The feminine dewy is from a papyrus, so we can't change it to neuter plural δροσόεντα. I believe we can't put &quot;dewy&quot; with the laurel, because doing so would give δροσοέσσᾱς, where the long alpha is inmetrical. So how does this translation match the original? And how does the grammar of that original work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12479" RevisionGUID="27d6b3f7-0e31-4948-a2c8-c0acac0651e0" CreationDate="2019-09-12T13:22:22.413" UserId="6067" Text="Trying to come up with magical 'schools' for a game, and my goal is to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Use Ancient Greek, Koine if absolutely necessary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Have words of generally the same length and number of syllables (not like, seven four-letter words and one fourteen-letter word)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Have a Romanized form that is somewhat intuitive to pronounce (not like the Latin 'uu')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Be categories of the same 'thing' at the same level of specificity. (Not 'air, water, diamond, fire' or 'mind, soul, feet')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that said, my attempt is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hule - Matter&#xD;&#xA; - Kinesis - Force&#xD;&#xA; - Chronos - Time&#xD;&#xA; - Topos - Space&#xD;&#xA; - Nous - Mind&#xD;&#xA; - Pneuma - Spirit&#xD;&#xA; - Pathos - Emotion&#xD;&#xA; - Telos - Purpose&#xD;&#xA; - Moira - Fate&#xD;&#xA; - Dunamis - Potential&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do these 'go' together in tense/theme/level of specificity? If not, can you suggest better words/conjugations that fit the above goals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34930" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12479" RevisionGUID="27d6b3f7-0e31-4948-a2c8-c0acac0651e0" CreationDate="2019-09-12T13:22:22.413" UserId="6067" Text="Thematic, genred infinitives in Ancient Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34931" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12479" RevisionGUID="27d6b3f7-0e31-4948-a2c8-c0acac0651e0" CreationDate="2019-09-12T13:22:22.413" UserId="6067" Text="|vocabulary|greek|pronunciation|infinitivus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34932" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12479" RevisionGUID="e62c4d77-c069-430f-af1c-c91c4be042de" CreationDate="2019-09-12T13:27:51.710" UserId="6067" Comment="These are nouns, there are no infinitives." Text="Thematic, genred concepts in Ancient Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34933" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12479" RevisionGUID="e62c4d77-c069-430f-af1c-c91c4be042de" CreationDate="2019-09-12T13:27:51.710" UserId="6067" Comment="These are nouns, there are no infinitives." Text="|vocabulary|greek|pronunciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12480" RevisionGUID="0e8aacfc-2758-490e-9154-cfb708d58d94" CreationDate="2019-09-12T15:11:09.870" UserId="406" Text="All of your translations look good to me! Some of these words have other common meanings, like _hylē_ meaning &quot;forest&quot;, but these are reasonable technical terms that I wouldn't be surprised to find in Aristotle or the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you're going for the Ancient Greek aesthetic, I'd use the letter *y* instead of *u* for hypsilon. At the height of the classical period, hypsilon was pronounced `/y/` (a front rounded vowel), so the Romans borrowed the symbol *Y* to represent it, and the convention stuck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, I'd borrow a trick from J.R.R. Tolkien, who observed that English-speakers always mispronounce foreign words ending in an *e*. So whenever a non-English name ended in *e*, he would write it with a diaeresis *ë*. This didn't really mean anything linguistically, but it made English-speakers much more likely to pronounce the final vowel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12480" RevisionGUID="613486c3-9dc7-4af4-a41a-600fd8ce01b6" CreationDate="2019-09-12T16:52:45.190" UserId="406" Comment="added 218 characters in body" Text="All of your translations look good to me! Some of these words have other common meanings, like _hylē_ meaning &quot;forest&quot;, but these are reasonable technical terms that I wouldn't be surprised to find in Aristotle or the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you're going for the Ancient Greek aesthetic, I'd use the letter *y* instead of *u* for hypsilon when it's not part of a diphthong. At the height of the classical period, hypsilon was pronounced `/y/` (a front rounded vowel), so the Romans borrowed the symbol *Y* to represent it, and the convention stuck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, I'd borrow a trick from J.R.R. Tolkien, who observed that English-speakers always mispronounce foreign words ending in an *e*. So whenever a non-English name ended in *e*, he would write it with a diaeresis *ë*. This didn't really mean anything linguistically, but it made English-speakers much more likely to pronounce the final vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Another option is to write ēta as *ē* and ōmega as *ō* everywhere, which for your purposes will only affect *hylē* and *kinēsis*. But that's a bit harder to type for most people.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12480" RevisionGUID="39642a11-2bfc-4941-83ed-58247bdebc52" CreationDate="2019-09-12T17:54:00.977" UserId="406" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="All of your translations look good to me! Some of these words have other common meanings, like _hylē_ meaning &quot;forest&quot;, but these are reasonable technical terms that I wouldn't be surprised to find in Aristotle or the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you're going for the Ancient Greek aesthetic, I'd use the letter *y* instead of *u* for hypsilon when it's not part of a diphthong. At the height of the classical period, hypsilon on its own was pronounced `/y/` (a front rounded vowel), so the Romans borrowed the symbol *Y* to represent it, and the convention stuck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, I'd borrow a trick from J.R.R. Tolkien, who observed that English-speakers always mispronounce foreign words ending in an *e*. So whenever a non-English name ended in *e*, he would write it with a diaeresis *ë*. This didn't really mean anything linguistically, but it made English-speakers much more likely to pronounce the final vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Another option is to write ēta as *ē* and ōmega as *ō* everywhere, which for your purposes will only affect *hylē* and *kinēsis*. But that's a bit harder to type for most people.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12481" RevisionGUID="114a7173-74ad-41d1-bf27-c477084e3cd4" CreationDate="2019-09-12T18:25:46.087" UserId="406" Text="&gt; The transaction's essential things&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Essentiālia negōtiī*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transactions' essential things&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Essentiālia negōtiōrum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; essential things of the transaction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Essentiālia negōtiī*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; essential things of the transactions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Essentiālia negōtiōrum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *negōtia essentiālia trānsāctiōnis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Essential affairs of the transaction&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *negōtia essentiālia trānsāctiōnum*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Essential affairs of the transactions&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter two are switching the meaning of *negōtium*, which can mean &quot;transaction&quot; but can also mean &quot;affair&quot; or &quot;topic&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are we failing to refer to ALL transactions by using plural instead of singular?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you're talking about _essentiālia negōtiī_, you presumably have a particular transaction in mind. If you want to talk about all essential things, you don't need to specify _negōtiī_ at all; you could just say something like _essentiālia omnia_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12482" RevisionGUID="04d987ef-da04-4a78-9efa-9e4e44123955" CreationDate="2019-09-12T21:18:23.950" UserId="5056" Text="What would be the correct translation of the song title &quot;New Moon on Monday&quot; to Latin? Word for word with the same structure as English seems like it would be something like &quot;Nova Luna in [dies Lunae](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_days_of_the_week#Greco-Roman_tradition)&quot;, although I don't know if I'm using the right gender and case, etc. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34939" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12482" RevisionGUID="04d987ef-da04-4a78-9efa-9e4e44123955" CreationDate="2019-09-12T21:18:23.950" UserId="5056" Text="Translate &quot;New Moon on Monday&quot; to Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34940" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12482" RevisionGUID="04d987ef-da04-4a78-9efa-9e4e44123955" CreationDate="2019-09-12T21:18:23.950" UserId="5056" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34941" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12479" RevisionGUID="5f32b029-e0dd-417c-bfcb-378259f8f029" CreationDate="2019-09-12T21:23:09.720" />
  <row Id="34942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12483" RevisionGUID="a70a9cc7-1777-45ae-8f5e-e6f5e294a50a" CreationDate="2019-09-13T07:10:16.817" UserId="79" Text="A new moon would be *luna nova* or *nova luna*.&#xD;&#xA;Latin typically puts the adjective last, but it is not a hard rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Monday is *dies lunae*, literally &quot;day of the moon&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;When you decline this, you only change *dies* (&quot;day&quot;) and leave *lunae* (&quot;of the moon&quot;) untouched.&#xD;&#xA;A time is usually expressed in Latin with a plain ablative without any prepositions, and that would be the only grammatical choice here.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore &quot;on Monday&quot; would be *die lunae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most direct and prosaic way to say &quot;new moon on Monday&quot; is ***luna nova die lunae***.&#xD;&#xA;This also looks nice as the moons frame the rest of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;You can also put the moons next to each other: ***die lunae luna nova***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="a0c75924-64a9-447b-929c-6c4fd449f274" CreationDate="2019-09-13T11:36:51.700" UserId="9" Comment="Added torques, vehes" Text="#The definition of &quot;I-stems&quot; is relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*) and dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I-stems and consonant-stems almost always take the same endings in the nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*); it is uncommon and unetymological for an i-stem noun to take *-īs* in the nominative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms, athough they seem to have originated as consonant-stem forms, are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period. But it seems consonant-stem nouns never take *-im* in the accusative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Because of the somewhat complicated formation of Latin nominative singular forms in the third declension, it can be difficult to analyze the nominative singular form in terms of a root + suffix. We can often figure out the origin of the form from comparative linguistics or internal reconstruction, but the etymological analysis may not always be the one that makes the most sense from a synchronic perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that **the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being at least partially an i-stem.** This raises the issue of whether nouns that show mixed behavior should be analyzed as having multiple stems, with one stem ending in a consonant and another stem ending in *-i.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Most consonants can occur at the end of a noun stem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A noun stem can end in almost any consonant. It's easier to list the consonants that *don't* appear at the end of noun stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##No genitive plural is built on a noun stem ending in /h/ or /j/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say the clearest gaps that I know of are /h/ (H) and /j/ (consonantal I). Both of these sounds have particularly restricted distributions in Classical Latin, and I think it's also unlikely that stems ending in these consonants would show up in any pre-modern Latin word of foreign origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###H ends the stem of no noun, except maybe *vehēs,* if it has a stem *veh-*###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, /h/ is rare outside of morpheme-initial position. H doesn't act like a consonant for the purposes of certain phonological rules: in V̆ChV sequences (between words or produced by combining a prefix ending in V̆C with a base starting with hV) the first syllable scans as short (as in V̆CV sequences), and in VhV sequences the first vowel is regularly short (as in VV sequences) and there is sometimes the possibility of contraction to one syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin might have one noun stem ending in /h/, depending on how you view nouns that are at least partially i-stems. The noun *[vehēs](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvehes)/vehis* has an /h/ followed by *-ēs* or *-is.* Nouns with these endings are thought to etymologically derive from i-stem nouns, and are traditionally categorized as such, but many nouns in this category can actually take consonant-stem endings like *-e* or *-um.* I didn't find any examples of either *vehium* or *vehum* in the PHI Latin corpus, but ***vehum*** is used for the genitive plural in the *[Codex Theodosianus](https://books.google.com/books?id=gIkEm5RJIpwC&amp;pg=PA1393&amp;lpg=PA1393&amp;dq=&quot;vehum&quot;)* (mentioned in [Roby 1881, p. 141](https://books.google.com/books?id=7O4IAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA141&amp;lpg=PA141&amp;dq=&quot;vehes&quot;+&quot;vehis&quot;+&quot;vehum&quot;); however, he still categorizes the noun as having a stem ending in -ehi, not in -eh). I haven't found an example of ablative singular *vehe* in any source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, Greek has no stems ending in /h/. (&quot;Interaspiration&quot; in Greek seems to only be attested in the word [ταὧς](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7106/9), and possibly in [compounds/prefixed words](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4523/9).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###J ends the stem of no noun that I know of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, /j/ is mostly restricted to two positions: word-initially (also in prefixed or compound words built from a word starting with /j/), or as part of an intervocalic geminate /j.j/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally, &quot;ae&quot; and &quot;oe&quot; are analyzed as diphthongs, but even if you analyze them as VC sequences /aj/, oj/, I don't know of any noun with a stem ending in &quot;ae&quot; or &quot;oe&quot;. Ancient Greek seems to have some nouns with stems that (from an etymological perspective at least) end in -οι- (Wikipedia gives the example *[ἠχώ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_nouns#Stems_in_oi)*), but the /j/ is lost through contraction in all forms except for the vocative singular, so it seems impossible for Greek to be a source of Latin nouns with stems ending in /j/.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##No commonly encountered noun stem ends in Z or F. This seems to be a predictable result of historical processes, but not necessarily an active restriction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are clearly no noun stems ending in Z or F in native Latin vocabulary, but there do seem to be very marginal examples of stems ending in these sounds in words of foreign origin (see the section below on &quot;Stems ending in unusual consonants&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Z** is absent in general from native Latin words (as Joonas mentioned), so the Z gap is not really something specific to stem-final position. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **F** in native Latin words is almost completely confined to the start of morphemes as the result of certain historical sound changes, so the gap in F at the end of noun stems can also be seen as just a specific case of a more general pattern to the distribution of this consonant sound. The existence of morpheme-medial F in non-native Latin words like *rūfus* and *būfō* shows that this pattern doesn't represent any absolute synchronic constraint that was active in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, it could be argued that Latin wouldn't tolerate Z or F in word-final position or pre-consonantal position as easily as it tolerated them in intervocalic position. But if there was a phonological restriction like that, it would only be relevant to the nominative singular form of third-declension words. And a masculine or feminine Z- or F-stem noun that took one of the &quot;historically i-stem&quot; nominative singular endings *-is* or *-ēs* would not violate any phonological rule against word-final or pre-consonantal Z or F.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No noun stem ends in a consonant spelled with the letter K, but it doesn't really correspond to a distinct consonant sound of its own&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that the letter K seems to never be used to spell a stem-final consonant, but I wouldn't consider this to be a true gap, as K was just a variant spelling for the /k/ sound that was usually represented by the letter C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Q might have one example in *torquēs/torquis* (but it's a historical i-stem)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If QV is analyzed as a replacement spelling for a CV /kw/ cluster, then it wouldn't count as a consonant of its own, so we wouldn't have to be concerned with whether any stem ends in it. But QV is sometimes analyzed as a consonant of its own (/kʷ/), so I'll cover it as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, I agreed with Joonas about the lack of stems ending in Q(V), but then I found the example of *torquēs/[torquis](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtorquis)* 'necklace, ring'. The linked L&amp;S entry shows the use of *torque* as an ablative singular: &quot;“avis **torque** miniato in cervice distincta,” Plin. 10, 42, 58, § 117&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like *vehēs,* *torquēs* seems to have no genitive plural attested in the PHI corpus. I found one postclassical and non-native example of *torquum*: the article &quot;Anglo-Norman Historiography and Henry of Huntingdon's Translation of 'The Battle of Brunanburh'&quot;, by Kenneth Tiller (2012), cites a translation into Latin from Old English made ca 1123–54 by Henry of Huntingdon as using the wording &quot;nobilibus **torquum** dator&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Examples for the rest of the consonant sounds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, N, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: in the genitive plural, *apis* can take either the consonant-stem form *apum* or the i-stem form *apium.* The form ***apum**,* which is clearly built on a stem ending in P, does seem to be more common ([Zumpt 1836, p. 28](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA28)). Another example would be *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1),* which forms *opum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B**: *plēbs* takes the i-stem form *plēbium*. There are certainly many nouns that take *-bem* in the accusative singular and *-be* in the ablative singular; I had some trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum,* but I think *Arabs* (from Greek *Ἄραψ*) may count as an example, since it seems to have as its genitive plural the form *Arabum.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural ***ossa***, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: As I mentioned above, I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns. If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H.  PH-, CH- or TH-stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: see below for possible examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Stems ending in unusual consonants (mostly from Greek):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Aspirated plosives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **PH**: *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem. I don't think the genitive plural form can be used as a criterion because it's not clear what it is: Zumpt 1836 says that the genitive plural of *gryps* &quot;does not occur&quot; ([p. 29](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA29)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **CH**: *[sardonyx](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsardonyx),* from Greek *σαρδόνυξ*, seems to decline as a CH-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **TH**: *Tiryns, Tirynthis,* from Greek *Τίρυνς*, seems to decline as a TH-stem ([Zumpt 1836, p. 21](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA21#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)). Since it is a proper noun, I don't think any attested genitive plural form exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **F**: If you include Ecclesiastical Latin, than the word *scinifes/[cinifes](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcinifes)* might count, as it apparently has a genitive plural form *(s)cinifum.* A variant spelling with *ph* also seems to exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Z**: If you include proper nouns and don't worry about the issue of i-stems vs. consonant-stems, the name *Gōtarzēs* (from Greek *Γωτάρζης*) would probably count. It seems that in Latin, it has a third-declension genitive form *Gōtarzis* that could be seen as being built on the stem *Gōtarz-.* (I asked a separate question about [the declension of masculine nouns like this from Greek nouns ending in *-ης*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9283/how-are-arsaces-and-gotarzes-declined-and-why).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zumpt, C.G. 1836. *[Grammar of the Latin Language](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="6ed46280-ade5-4347-9eca-d3684117e4af" CreationDate="2019-09-13T11:43:09.333" UserId="9" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="#The definition of &quot;I-stems&quot; is relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*) and dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I-stems and consonant-stems almost always take the same endings in the nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*); it is uncommon and unetymological for an i-stem noun to take *-īs* in the nominative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms, athough they seem to have originated as consonant-stem forms, are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period. But it seems consonant-stem nouns never take *-im* in the accusative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Because of the somewhat complicated formation of Latin nominative singular forms in the third declension, it can be difficult to analyze the nominative singular form in terms of a root + suffix. We can often figure out the origin of the form from comparative linguistics or internal reconstruction, but the etymological analysis may not always be the one that makes the most sense from a synchronic perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that **the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being at least partially an i-stem.** This raises the issue of whether nouns that show mixed behavior should be analyzed as having multiple stems, with one stem ending in a consonant and another stem ending in *-i.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Most consonants can occur at the end of a noun stem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A noun stem can end in almost any consonant. It's easier to list the consonants that *don't* appear at the end of noun stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##No genitive plural is built on a noun stem ending in /h/ or /j/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say the clearest gaps that I know of are /h/ (H) and /j/ (consonantal I). Both of these sounds have particularly restricted distributions in Classical Latin, and I think it's also unlikely that stems ending in these consonants would show up in any pre-modern Latin word of foreign origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###H ends the stem of no noun, except maybe *vehēs,* if it has a stem *veh-*###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, /h/ is rare outside of morpheme-initial position. H doesn't act like a consonant for the purposes of certain phonological rules: in V̆ChV sequences (between words or produced by combining a prefix ending in V̆C with a base starting with hV) the first syllable scans as short (as in V̆CV sequences), and in VhV sequences the first vowel is regularly short (as in VV sequences) and there is sometimes the possibility of contraction to one syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin might have one noun stem ending in /h/, depending on how you view nouns that are at least partially i-stems. The noun *[vehēs](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvehes)/vehis* has an /h/ followed by *-ēs* or *-is.* Nouns with these endings are thought to etymologically derive from i-stem nouns, and are traditionally categorized as such, but many nouns in this category can actually take consonant-stem endings like *-e* or *-um.* I didn't find any examples of either *vehium* or *vehum* in the PHI Latin corpus, but ***vehum*** is used for the genitive plural in the *[Codex Theodosianus](https://books.google.com/books?id=gIkEm5RJIpwC&amp;pg=PA1393&amp;lpg=PA1393&amp;dq=&quot;vehum&quot;)* (mentioned in [Roby 1881, p. 141](https://books.google.com/books?id=7O4IAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA141&amp;lpg=PA141&amp;dq=&quot;vehes&quot;+&quot;vehis&quot;+&quot;vehum&quot;); however, he still categorizes the noun as having a stem ending in -ehi, not in -eh). I haven't found an example of ablative singular *vehe* in any source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, Greek has no stems ending in /h/. (&quot;Interaspiration&quot; in Greek seems to only be attested in the word [ταὧς](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7106/9), and possibly in [compounds/prefixed words](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4523/9).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###J ends the stem of no noun that I know of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, /j/ is mostly restricted to two positions: word-initially (also in prefixed or compound words built from a word starting with /j/), or as part of an intervocalic geminate /j.j/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally, &quot;ae&quot; and &quot;oe&quot; are analyzed as diphthongs, but even if you analyze them as VC sequences /aj/, oj/, I don't know of any noun with a stem ending in &quot;ae&quot; or &quot;oe&quot;. Ancient Greek seems to have some nouns with stems that (from an etymological perspective at least) end in -οι- (Wikipedia gives the example *[ἠχώ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_nouns#Stems_in_oi)*), but the /j/ is lost through contraction in all forms except for the vocative singular, so it seems impossible for Greek to be a source of Latin nouns with stems ending in /j/.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##No commonly encountered noun stem ends in Z or F. This seems to be a predictable result of historical processes, but not necessarily an active restriction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are clearly no noun stems ending in Z or F in native Latin vocabulary, but there do seem to be very marginal examples of stems ending in these sounds in words of foreign origin (see the section below on &quot;Stems ending in unusual consonants&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Z** is absent in general from native Latin words (as Joonas mentioned), so the Z gap is not really something specific to stem-final position. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **F** in native Latin words is almost completely confined to the start of morphemes as the result of certain historical sound changes, so the gap in F at the end of noun stems can also be seen as just a specific case of a more general pattern to the distribution of this consonant sound. The existence of morpheme-medial F in non-native Latin words like *rūfus* and *būfō* shows that this pattern doesn't represent any absolute synchronic constraint that was active in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, it could be argued that Latin wouldn't tolerate Z or F in word-final position or pre-consonantal position as easily as it tolerated them in intervocalic position. But if there was a phonological restriction like that, it would only be relevant to the nominative singular form of third-declension words. And a masculine or feminine Z- or F-stem noun that took one of the &quot;historically i-stem&quot; nominative singular endings *-is* or *-ēs* would not violate any phonological rule against word-final or pre-consonantal Z or F.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No noun stem ends in a consonant spelled with the letter K, but it doesn't really correspond to a distinct consonant sound of its own&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that the letter K seems to never be used to spell a stem-final consonant, but I wouldn't consider this to be a true gap, as K was just a variant spelling for the /k/ sound that was usually represented by the letter C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Q might have one example in *torquēs/torquis* (but it's a historical i-stem)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If QV is analyzed as a replacement spelling for a CV /kw/ cluster, then it wouldn't count as a consonant of its own, so we wouldn't have to be concerned with whether any stem ends in it. But QV is sometimes analyzed as a consonant of its own (/kʷ/), so I'll cover it as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, I agreed with Joonas about the lack of stems ending in Q(V), but then I found the example of *torquēs/[torquis](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtorquis)* 'necklace, ring'. The linked L&amp;S entry shows the use of *torque* as an ablative singular: &quot;“avis **torque** miniato in cervice distincta,” Plin. 10, 42, 58, § 117&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like *vehēs,* *torquēs* seems to have no genitive plural attested in the PHI corpus. I found one postclassical and non-native example of *torquum*: the article &quot;Anglo-Norman Historiography and Henry of Huntingdon's Translation of 'The Battle of Brunanburh'&quot;, by Kenneth Tiller (2012), cites a translation into Latin from Old English made ca 1123–54 by Henry of Huntingdon as using the wording &quot;nobilibus **torquum** dator&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the i-stem genitive plural *[torquium](https://books.google.com/books?id=o-dVAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA26&amp;lpg=RA1-PA26&amp;dq=&quot;torquium&quot;+&quot;torquum&quot;)* is also attested in post-classical sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Examples for the rest of the consonant sounds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, N, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: in the genitive plural, *apis* can take either the consonant-stem form *apum* or the i-stem form *apium.* The form ***apum**,* which is clearly built on a stem ending in P, does seem to be more common ([Zumpt 1836, p. 28](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA28)). Another example would be *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1),* which forms *opum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B**: *plēbs* takes the i-stem form *plēbium*. There are certainly many nouns that take *-bem* in the accusative singular and *-be* in the ablative singular; I had some trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum,* but I think *Arabs* (from Greek *Ἄραψ*) may count as an example, since it seems to have as its genitive plural the form *Arabum.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural ***ossa***, so it's not a bad example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: As I mentioned above, I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns, except for (possibly) *vehēs.* If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H.  PH-, CH- or TH-stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: see below for possible examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Stems ending in unusual consonants (mostly from Greek):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Aspirated plosives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **PH**: *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem. I don't think the genitive plural form can be used as a criterion because it's not clear what it is: Zumpt 1836 says that the genitive plural of *gryps* &quot;does not occur&quot; ([p. 29](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA29)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **CH**: *[sardonyx](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsardonyx),* from Greek *σαρδόνυξ*, seems to decline as a CH-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **TH**: *Tiryns, Tirynthis,* from Greek *Τίρυνς*, seems to decline as a TH-stem ([Zumpt 1836, p. 21](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA21#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)). Since it is a proper noun, I don't think any attested genitive plural form exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **F**: If you include Ecclesiastical Latin, than the word *scinifes/[cinifes](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcinifes)* might count, as it apparently has a genitive plural form *(s)cinifum.* A variant spelling with *ph* also seems to exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Z**: If you include proper nouns and don't worry about the issue of i-stems vs. consonant-stems, the name *Gōtarzēs* (from Greek *Γωτάρζης*) would probably count. It seems that in Latin, it has a third-declension genitive form *Gōtarzis* that could be seen as being built on the stem *Gōtarz-.* (I asked a separate question about [the declension of masculine nouns like this from Greek nouns ending in *-ης*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9283/how-are-arsaces-and-gotarzes-declined-and-why).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zumpt, C.G. 1836. *[Grammar of the Latin Language](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12484" RevisionGUID="3fbdc75e-ed56-428e-93af-4de1337c0d04" CreationDate="2019-09-13T12:52:42.967" UserId="5064" Text="With the term explanatory I am translating [ερμηνευτικό][1]. A dictionary which defines words comprehensively and clearly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one considers Oxford University to be the authority on the English language which university is the authority on the Latin language? Oxford English dictionary is Oxford University Press' &quot;[best][2]&quot; explanatory english dictionary(or so I have been told in the hyperlink I provided; I bought Oxford Advanced Learners' Dictionary and Cambridge Advanced Learners' Dictionary 10 years ago but I use Lexico or Cambridge online dictionaries) which dictionary is that(the authority on the Latin language) university's best dictionary?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/modern_greek/tools/lexica/triantafyllides/search.html?lq=%22%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%BC%CE%B7%CE%BD%CE%B5%CF%85%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C%CF%82%20-%CE%AE%20-%CF%8C%22&amp;dq=&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/51633958#51633958" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34946" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12484" RevisionGUID="3fbdc75e-ed56-428e-93af-4de1337c0d04" CreationDate="2019-09-13T12:52:42.967" UserId="5064" Text="Explanatory and Etymological dictionary of the Latin Language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34947" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12484" RevisionGUID="3fbdc75e-ed56-428e-93af-4de1337c0d04" CreationDate="2019-09-13T12:52:42.967" UserId="5064" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|etymology|meaning|dictionary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12485" RevisionGUID="06ee3394-26ee-4a1b-83f0-628bfc00f430" CreationDate="2019-09-13T13:49:52.920" UserId="79" Text="The Duolingo Latin course uses *sanus* as &quot;healthy&quot; in connection with meals.&#xD;&#xA;A healthy lunch would be *prandium sanum* according to the course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I always thought that *sanus* is only refers to the health of a person or some such entity.&#xD;&#xA;I can see how a lunch can help me come *sanus* but not how it could be *sanus* itself.&#xD;&#xA;The Duolingo course appears to be mistaken or at least somewhat unnatural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the very least *sanus* appears to mean more &quot;in a healthy state&quot; than &quot;health-inducing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But is the second meaning &amp;mdash; the only one used by Duolingo &amp;mdash; correct too?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34949" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12485" RevisionGUID="06ee3394-26ee-4a1b-83f0-628bfc00f430" CreationDate="2019-09-13T13:49:52.920" UserId="79" Text="Cibus sanus — healthy food?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34950" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12485" RevisionGUID="06ee3394-26ee-4a1b-83f0-628bfc00f430" CreationDate="2019-09-13T13:49:52.920" UserId="79" Text="|vocabulary|meaning|adjective|cibus|duolingo|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34951" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11413" RevisionGUID="1377df3b-9af7-435f-b7ac-da9355377171" CreationDate="2019-09-13T13:52:26.773" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Is Duolingo good for Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34952" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11413" RevisionGUID="1377df3b-9af7-435f-b7ac-da9355377171" CreationDate="2019-09-13T13:52:26.773" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|vocabulary|resource-request|word-order|duolingo|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34953" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11461" RevisionGUID="bf78b39c-be0d-4316-a143-d9562a82c05d" CreationDate="2019-09-13T13:52:39.367" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|adjective|place-names|locative|duolingo|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12486" RevisionGUID="45f5543b-3249-434e-9f58-a93f08d7a1db" CreationDate="2019-09-13T19:27:06.303" UserId="645" Text="I think the first problem here is that there are far more references to gourmandising in the classical sources than to the effects of food on health. Think, for example, of Horace Sat. II, iv *passim*, and the alleged habit of the Emperor Vitellius of self-induced vomiting to make room for more!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More simply, though they possibly had what we commonly call 'food fads', they don't seem to have cared about much beyond an actual pleasure in food. I can't be sure, of course, but I suspect that vegetarian, and more certainly vegan diets were seldom chosen deliberately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My reaction was to consult the article on *cibus* in the *Gradus ad Parnassum* [1]. None of the actual epithets noted (but none with a source given) — *sapidus, dulcis, gratus, laetus, regius, solennis, opimus, utilis, parcus, vilis, mendicatus* — particularly suggests healthy eating. The quoted phrases, *corpora sustentans, instaurans vires, animique vigorem* etc. give no help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the case is that the ancients just weren't 'into' dietary terms, such as 'healthy eating' in a fashion compatible with our modern ideas. On the other hand, if there isn't an exact epithet to match the 'healthy' that we apply to food, I see no reason not to use *cibus sanus* metonymically if the context is clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] The *Gradus* was published in 1813, but it is still considered authoritative, not necessarily as comprehensive as a modern compilation would be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12487" RevisionGUID="84791ba4-52e0-4f28-9c55-5207b862c5e7" CreationDate="2019-09-13T20:10:50.443" UserId="9" Text="The closest thing to a Latin dictionary along the lines of the OED that I know of is the *Thesaurus Linguae Latinae.* But it is not finished yet, and not likely to be finished for quite some time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12488" RevisionGUID="14cf777c-ebdb-4719-be51-27a1f75bff7f" CreationDate="2019-09-13T22:35:16.383" UserId="5056" Text="Just based on the meaning of the word, [salutaris](https://logeion.uchicago.edu/salutaris) might be a better choice. I'm not sure if it was ever used that way but it seems to make more sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34957" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12485" RevisionGUID="837c3621-3ec0-4ab1-94be-d2327aafd29d" CreationDate="2019-09-13T23:25:00.520" />
  <row Id="34958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12483" RevisionGUID="9bcbba78-893f-499e-ad2d-708740f28270" CreationDate="2019-09-13T23:26:29.223" UserId="79" Comment="added 362 characters in body" Text="Your suggestion *nova luna in dies lunae* is &quot;new moon into Mondays&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is grammatically valid, but does not mean what you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A new moon would be *luna nova* or *nova luna*.&#xD;&#xA;Latin typically puts the adjective last, but it is not a hard rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Monday is *dies lunae*, literally &quot;day of the moon&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;When you decline this, you only change *dies* (&quot;day&quot;) and leave *lunae* (&quot;of the moon&quot;) untouched.&#xD;&#xA;A time is usually expressed in Latin with a plain ablative without any prepositions, and that would be the only grammatical choice here.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore &quot;on Monday&quot; would be *die lunae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most direct and prosaic way to say &quot;new moon on Monday&quot; is ***luna nova die lunae***.&#xD;&#xA;This also looks nice as the moons frame the rest of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;You can also put the moons next to each other: ***die lunae luna nova***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use *interlunium* for new moon instead, it just replaces *luna nova* in the expression.&#xD;&#xA;While *interlunium* is classically preferable, it might be less clear a concept in modern use for most readers than *luna nova*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12489" RevisionGUID="d7b4f5b8-4243-4840-8e20-ada6b98ecad8" CreationDate="2019-09-14T00:02:16.447" UserId="13" Text="In [this Italian anthology](https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/11675/1/Saffo_frammenti_2015.pdf), LP 21 l. 2 (the first line where the papyrus has letters) is read as containing `επαβολησ` (and perhaps vestigia around it). The first word in the translation is &quot;esperta&quot;, which I know not to match the following line's ολοφυν, known to mean &quot;lament&quot; from a Hesychius gloss. So it is l. 2 that must give us &quot;esperta&quot;. How though? No Greek word for that on Woodhouse even comes close to επαβολησ. The footnotes pointed me to the Hesychius gloss, but &quot;esperta&quot; has no footnote, so it would seem I'm missing something obvious. Is it so? Otherwise, where is the &quot;esperta&quot; in our επαβολησ? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34960" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12489" RevisionGUID="d7b4f5b8-4243-4840-8e20-ada6b98ecad8" CreationDate="2019-09-14T00:02:16.447" UserId="13" Text="Mysterious word for &quot;expert&quot; in an Italian anthology's version of Sappho LP 21" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34961" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12489" RevisionGUID="d7b4f5b8-4243-4840-8e20-ada6b98ecad8" CreationDate="2019-09-14T00:02:16.447" UserId="13" Text="|vocabulary|greek|sappho|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12490" RevisionGUID="b31180bc-a6c6-4bd9-bf32-71d717dbb6b3" CreationDate="2019-09-14T02:03:37.933" UserId="118" Text="I just read on Wiktionary that the Late/Vulgar verb [_mensuro_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mensuro#Latin) (I measure) comes from [_mensura_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mensura#Latin) (a measure or measurement), which comes from the Classical [_mensus_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mensus#Latin), the perfect participle of the deponent verb [_metior_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metior#Latin) (I measure). This provides a way to express the meaning of _metior_ in a passive sense: _mensurari_ (to be measured).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other non-deponent verbs formed from perfect participles of deponent verbs like this? Is it a normal, reasonable way to make a verb? If so, it might provide a secondary answer to [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4658/118), about how to give a passive meaning to a deponent verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried deriving such a verb: _sequor_ &gt; _secutus_ &gt; _secuturo,_ but a quick search turns that up only as the dative/ablative of the future participle [_secuturus_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/secuturus#Latin)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34963" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12490" RevisionGUID="b31180bc-a6c6-4bd9-bf32-71d717dbb6b3" CreationDate="2019-09-14T02:03:37.933" UserId="118" Text="More verbs like &quot;mensuro&quot;, active verb derived from deponent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34964" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12490" RevisionGUID="b31180bc-a6c6-4bd9-bf32-71d717dbb6b3" CreationDate="2019-09-14T02:03:37.933" UserId="118" Text="|participle|deponent-verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12490" RevisionGUID="2325660c-0ff6-4c5d-9cd9-8ec88a40beef" CreationDate="2019-09-14T02:19:06.453" UserId="118" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="I just read on Wiktionary that the Late/Vulgar verb [_mensuro_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mensuro#Latin) (I measure) comes from [_mensura_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mensura#Latin) (a measure or measurement), which comes from the Classical [_mensus_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mensus#Latin), the perfect participle of the deponent verb [_metior_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metior#Latin) (I measure). This provides a way to express the meaning of _metior_ in a passive sense: _mensurari_ (to be measured).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other non-deponent verbs formed from perfect participles of deponent verbs like this? Is it a normal, reasonable way to make a verb? If so, it might provide a secondary answer to [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4658/118), about how to give a passive meaning to a deponent verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried deriving such a verb: _sequor_ &gt; _secutus_ &gt; _secuturo,_ but a quick search turns that up only as the dative/ablative of the future participle [_secuturus_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/secuturus#Latin), and no _secuturare_ (which does sound very clumsy to my ear)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12490" RevisionGUID="abadaeaf-58ce-4601-872b-39b7c4c37ae0" CreationDate="2019-09-14T02:32:13.160" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I just read on Wiktionary that the Late/Vulgar verb [_mensuro_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mensuro#Latin) (I measure) comes from Classical [_mensura_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mensura#Latin) (a measure or measurement), which comes from [_mensus_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mensus#Latin), the perfect participle of the deponent verb [_metior_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metior#Latin) (I measure). This provides a way to express the meaning of _metior_ in a passive sense: _mensurari_ (to be measured).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other non-deponent verbs formed from perfect participles of deponent verbs like this? Is it a normal, reasonable way to make a verb? If so, it might provide a secondary answer to [this question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4658/118), about how to give a passive meaning to a deponent verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried deriving such a verb: _sequor_ &gt; _secutus_ &gt; _secuturo,_ but a quick search turns that up only as the dative/ablative of the future participle [_secuturus_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/secuturus#Latin), and no _secuturare_ (which does sound very clumsy to my ear)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4658" RevisionGUID="1963e678-a048-4fff-9131-592a8ce069f2" CreationDate="2019-09-14T02:38:08.003" UserId="118" Comment="I changed &quot;translate&quot; to &quot;make&quot;, to avoid the suggestion that the question is about translating from Latin to another language." Text="I was thinking about the verb _sequi_, a deponent which means _to follow_. I was wondering, how do you put the deponent into a passive form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is it possible to translate the following sentences into Latin with the verb _sequi_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _I'm being followed_&#xD;&#xA;- _I had been followed_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34968" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4658" RevisionGUID="1963e678-a048-4fff-9131-592a8ce069f2" CreationDate="2019-09-14T02:38:08.003" UserId="118" Comment="I changed &quot;translate&quot; to &quot;make&quot;, to avoid the suggestion that the question is about translating from Latin to another language." Text="How to make a deponent passive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34969" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4658" RevisionGUID="3cc3f2ba-eba3-415d-80f9-da475d327c37" CreationDate="2019-09-14T03:48:10.707" UserId="118" Comment="edited title" Text="How to make a deponent passive in meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12491" RevisionGUID="2739245c-9a51-4748-962b-91a03988ca67" CreationDate="2019-09-14T19:58:25.660" UserDisplayName="user2840" Text="I have a 1662 version of the Aeneid, with Latin and French on facing pages, with the French having been translated by M. de Marolles, Abbé de Villeloin, [additional book info continues: À Paris, Chez Gvillavme De Lvyne, Libraire - Iuré au Palais, en la Gallerie des Morciers, à la Iustice, M. DC. LXII.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are four lines preceding the normal line 1 (the normal line 1 being 'Arma virumque cano...', which is line 5 in Marolles' version).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ille ego, qui quondam gracili modulatus auena  &#xD;&#xA;Carmen; &amp; egressus syluis, vicina coëgi,  &#xD;&#xA;Vt quamuis auido parerent arua colono;  &#xD;&#xA;Gratum opus agricolis: at nunc horrentia Martis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arma virumque cano...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no mention of these lines having been a later insertion (including in the notes where Marolles refers to them as having been written by Vergil), but I am told by my Latin teacher that they must be an insertion, and that line 1 as written by Vergil is 'Arma virumque cano...'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thought I'd ask who knows anything about these lines?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34972" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12491" RevisionGUID="2739245c-9a51-4748-962b-91a03988ca67" CreationDate="2019-09-14T19:58:25.660" UserDisplayName="user2840" Text="Extra initial Aeneid lines in 1662 M. de Marolles version" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34973" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12491" RevisionGUID="2739245c-9a51-4748-962b-91a03988ca67" CreationDate="2019-09-14T19:58:25.660" UserDisplayName="user2840" Text="|history|vergilius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12492" RevisionGUID="9150f224-090c-464e-8467-7f6f3b9fdb6e" CreationDate="2019-09-14T20:06:23.973" UserId="6072" Text="As a newcomer to this site, I share the following translation of the poem *Gute Nacht* (first published 1823; revised 1824) by Wilhelm Mueller of Dessau. In this text, &quot;Good night&quot; is translated in two different ways, once as &quot;Quiesce molliter!&quot;, then again as &quot;Sit fausta nox&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;The 1823 version of the Winterreise cycle was set to music by Schubert as the first song in his own *Winterreise*. The minor changes made in 1824 do not affect the translation. The German text and various translations are easy to find on internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOX FAUSTA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alienus immigravi,&#xD;&#xA;alienus emigro.&#xD;&#xA;Multas rosas ligavi&#xD;&#xA;favente mi Maio.&#xD;&#xA;Amo! canebat virgo,&#xD;&#xA;Nubes ei! parens.&#xD;&#xA;Nunc nubila universa&#xD;&#xA;velatque nix viam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non est mihi potestas&#xD;&#xA;hoc differendi iter.&#xD;&#xA;Callis mihi calcandast&#xD;&#xA;hac nocte fortiter.&#xD;&#xA;Mecum una it umbra lunae&#xD;&#xA;velut comes viae&#xD;&#xA;albisque pratis quaero&#xD;&#xA;vestigium ferae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Canis, ulules vesanus&#xD;&#xA;eri prae aedibus!&#xD;&#xA;Molestus hic manerem,&#xD;&#xA;fugaret iste erus.&#xD;&#xA;Avet Venus vagari -&#xD;&#xA;sic filia ut pater -&#xD;&#xA;ab uno ad alterum ire -&#xD;&#xA;Quiesce molliter!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Te somnio turbare&#xD;&#xA;bellissimo nolim!&#xD;&#xA;Ne strepitus audiatur,&#xD;&#xA;claudam fores sensim!&#xD;&#xA;SIT FAUSTA NOX! Inquires,&#xD;&#xA;cur haec ceciderim&#xD;&#xA;intellegesque quanti&#xD;&#xA;tete aestimaverim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note on the rhyming-scheme: The original is cross-rhymed. Only the first two couplets of the translation are cross-rhymed. This is to maximise the contrast with the unrhymed second half of the couplet. The contrast illustrates that between the summer's hopes and the winter's disappointment. In the rest of the poem the last word of one couplet rhymes with the last word of the next. In the last stanza, in which the speaker overcomes his anger sufficiently to wish his former fiancee well, all four couplets share the same rhyme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am preparing a translation of the whole cycle. I have not yet found a publisher. I am open to advice, both as to publication and as to improving my translation. Before posting further numbers, I shall await the fruits of sharing this, the longest. By the way, it can be sung to Schubert's setting, though his rhythms have to be adapted to the quantitative iambics of the Latin and the occasional triplet (canis, ulules in st. 3 and ne strepitus audiatur in st. 4).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In st. 3 the German has: Die Liebe liebt das Wandern - Gott hat sie so gemacht. In translating into classical Latin, I have had to guess what a pagan might have said. It seemed to me that the female personification of love had to be Venus. She was created by Jupiter, in the sense that he was her father. Like father, like daughter: she inherited his promiscuity, a vice of which the angry young man does not accuse his former fiancee, though he does reproach her indirectly (bellissimo is surely ironical) for agreeing to a socially more advantageous marriage, when she was already committed to their love-match, which her mother had supported at one time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second half of st. 2 is enigmatic. One thing only is certain: the young man's journey has not yet begun. He is still in the house. That means the present tense can only describe a vision he has of the journey which is yet to come. But what he means by &quot;a shadow of the moon&quot; (ein Mondschatten) is intentionally obscure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation reverses the order of the first two couplets in st. 3, which is in any case unsettled and disjointed. I have also &quot;overtranslated&quot; the words: Was soll ich laenger weilen? This is because I am convinced the poet intended a pun on Langeweile &quot;boredom&quot;, which is represented in my translation by &quot;molestus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Andrew Palmer, Zwijndrecht, South Holland.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34975" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12491" RevisionGUID="93433d2f-5b39-4b14-bfee-2346eb4a7bda" CreationDate="2019-09-14T20:07:33.007" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|history|vergilius|aeneis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12493" RevisionGUID="44145714-d98b-49f4-b97d-bf71e6a6b85f" CreationDate="2019-09-14T20:26:00.080" UserId="406" Text="Fascinating question! I've found some editions of the _Aeneid_ with these extra lines included, and some (most) without.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that they aren't found in any of the oldest manuscripts of the Aeneid (except where one commentator scribbled them in the margin much later). Instead, they're first mentioned by the grammarian Aelius Donatus, who wrote in his [_Vita Vergiliana_][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nisus grammaticus audisse se a senioribus aiebat, Varium duorum librorum ordinem commutasse, et qui tunc secundus erat in tertium locum transtulisse, etiam primi libri correxisse principium, his versibus demptis: **Ille ego, qui…***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nisus the Grammarian said that he'd heard from his predecessors that Varius had swapped the order of two books, and that he'd moved the one that used to be second to become the third, and that he'd even cleaned up the beginning of the first book by removing these verses: *Ille ego, qui…*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't bother copying them all out, but Donatus goes on to quote exactly those four lines that you found. This seems to be the oldest source to include them. According to the legend, Vergil on his deathbed asked Varius to burn the manuscript because he didn't want his masterpiece to go out into the world unfinished; Varius refused, and (according to Donatus) went on to clean things up a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But [Patrick Finglass][2] doesn't consider this story likely. Vergil was clearly emulating Homer's style, and Homeric epics start with a brief summary of the story, not with a note about the author. The incipit _arma virumque_ was also tremendously famous, and was used by various other contemporary poets and writers to refer to the Aeneid—everyone from Ovid to an anonymous graffitist in Pompeii; if these &quot;deleted&quot; lines were actually well-known enough for Donatus to have found them uncorrupted in the mid-fourth century, it's hard to imagine Ovid and Martial not knowing about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/donatus_vita.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.oxfordscholarlyeditions.com/newsitem/113/a-false-start-to-virgils-aeneid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12494" RevisionGUID="2cea0215-94ed-4a97-9f83-6b6c91738bc7" CreationDate="2019-09-14T23:51:42.427" UserId="13" Text="One possibility is Hesychius again, more specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;ἐπάβολος&gt;· ἐπιτυχών&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the word would mean more like &quot;successful&quot; than &quot;expert&quot;, but maybe as a stretch… though seriously, if that is how this came about, the stretch is totally unwarranted in that tatter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, at that point one might supplement ἐπαβόλ' ἦσ[θα. It must needs be ἐπαβόλ'/ἐπάβολ', for Aeolic wouldn't give ἐπαβόλη in the feminine. I'd guess it's ἐπαβόλα, given the feminine singular in the translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12494" RevisionGUID="a04cf349-4653-41b2-8955-3db54670c7e7" CreationDate="2019-09-14T23:59:12.797" UserId="13" Comment="added part with second Hesychius gloss" Text="One possibility is Hesychius again, more specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;ἐπάβολος&gt;· ἐπιτυχών&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the word would mean more like &quot;successful&quot; than &quot;expert&quot;, but maybe as a stretch… though seriously, if that is how this came about, the stretch is totally unwarranted in that tatter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, at that point one might supplement ἐπαβόλ' ἦσ[θα. It must needs be ἐπαβόλ'/ἐπάβολ', for Aeolic wouldn't give ἐπαβόλη in the feminine. I'd guess it's ἐπαβόλα, given the feminine singular in the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;ἐπήβολος&gt;· *ἔμπειρος AS ἐπιστάτης. δεσπότης A. μέτοχος. ἐπιβολὴν ἔχων. δεσπόζων (β 319)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus &quot;experienced, chief/governor, master, member, having the imposition(?), being lord&quot;, the first meaning being taken for a hypothised Aeolic form ἐπάβολος. The first sense seems to match LSJ's sense &quot;most dexterous at&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12495" RevisionGUID="efd19811-7b3c-4340-a5c9-b785082e01a1" CreationDate="2019-09-15T00:55:32.060" UserId="9" Text="I'm not aware of an example, but I've just started researching the topic because of your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One note: apparently certain special types of modified nouns can appear in the locative case. I have found sources that mention the use of locative case for nouns modified by either genitive nouns or possessive adjectives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 489. The locative **domi** may be modified only by a possessive adjective or by a noun in the genitive; when it would be otherwise modified, the ablative with **in** is used instead.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; ***domī* meae,** *at my house*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&lt;br&gt;**Caesaris *domī,*** *at Caesar's house*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&lt;br&gt;*in* **Mārcī splendidā *domō***, *at the fine home of  Marcus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[Concise Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=PuFEAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA215),* by Benjamin Leonard D'Ooge, 1921, p. 215)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the existence of the &quot;domi meae&quot; construction, I don't know of an *a priori* reason to rule out the two-part use of the locative case in *Novi Eboraci* as completely impossible. But as mentioned, I haven't found precedent for this usage yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The ablative could possibly be used in this context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is precedent for the use of the ablative for the city name *Longa Alba/Alba Longa*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Ablative for the Locative.—Instead of the Locative in names of towns the Ablative is used, with or without a preposition—&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;1) When the proper noun is qualified by an adjective or adjective pronoun: In ipsā Alexandrīā, *in Alexandria itself.* Cic. *Longā Albā,* *at Alba Longa.* Verg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=36QAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA228&amp;lpg=PA228),* by Albert Harkness, revised edition of 1881)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12495" RevisionGUID="d9541f60-bd3c-4a76-bd34-5928691a8156" CreationDate="2019-09-15T01:01:10.847" UserId="9" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I'm not aware of an example, but I've just started researching the topic because of your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One note: apparently certain special types of modified nouns can appear in the locative case. I have found sources that mention the use of locative case for nouns modified by either genitive nouns or possessive adjectives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 489. The locative **domi** may be modified only by a possessive adjective or by a noun in the genitive; when it would be otherwise modified, the ablative with **in** is used instead.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; ***domī* meae,** *at my house*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&lt;br&gt;**Caesaris *domī,*** *at Caesar's house*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&lt;br&gt;*in* **Mārcī splendidā *domō***, *at the fine home of  Marcus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[Concise Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=PuFEAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA215),* by Benjamin Leonard D'Ooge, 1921, p. 215)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the existence of the &quot;domi meae&quot; construction, I don't know of an *a priori* reason to rule out the two-part use of the locative case in *Novi Eboraci* as completely impossible. But as mentioned, I haven't found precedent for this usage yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The ablative could possibly be used in this context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is precedent for the use of the ablative form for the city name *Longa Alba/Alba Longa*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Ablative for the Locative.—Instead of the Locative in names of towns the Ablative is used, with or without a preposition—&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;1) When the proper noun is qualified by an adjective or adjective pronoun: In ipsā Alexandrīā, *in Alexandria itself.* Cic. *Longā Albā,* *at Alba Longa.* Verg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=36QAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA228&amp;lpg=PA228),* by Albert Harkness, revised edition of 1881)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12495" RevisionGUID="8dc06969-c8d1-4a11-8a5e-e11c58efc2f8" CreationDate="2019-09-15T01:14:04.120" UserId="9" Comment="added 748 characters in body" Text="I've just started researching the topic because of your question, so this post is very much a work in progress and should not be treated as a definite answer, just a collection of information that I've come across that I think may be relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression so far is that examples exist, but not enough to make clear generalizations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The locative case can sometimes mark both parts of a two-word phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently certain special types of modified nouns can appear in the locative case. I have found sources that mention the use of locative case for nouns modified by either genitive nouns or possessive adjectives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 489. The locative **domi** may be modified only by a possessive adjective or by a noun in the genitive; when it would be otherwise modified, the ablative with **in** is used instead.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; ***domī* meae,** *at my house*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&lt;br&gt;**Caesaris *domī,*** *at Caesar's house*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&lt;br&gt;*in* **Mārcī splendidā *domō***, *at the fine home of  Marcus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[Concise Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=PuFEAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA215),* by Benjamin Leonard D'Ooge, 1921, p. 215)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the existence of the &quot;domi meae&quot; construction, I don't know of an *a priori* reason to rule out the two-part use of the locative case in *Novi Eboraci* as completely impossible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###There might be some examples of city names containing adjectives taking locative inflection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There doesn't seem to be great attestation of historical usage, but some examples are mentioned in the following Textkit Greek and Latin Forums&#xD;&#xA;thread: [novo eboraco?](https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=8451), by `metrodorus`, Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:19 pm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first post says that metrodorus asked Dexter Hoyos about this usage, and received a reply that cited a mixture of usages: &quot;Teani Apuli&quot;, &quot;Suessae Auruncae natum&quot;, and &quot;Carthagini Novae&quot; but also &quot;Carthagine Nova&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The ablative could possibly be used in this context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is precedent for the use of the ablative form for the city name *Longa Alba/Alba Longa*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Ablative for the Locative.—Instead of the Locative in names of towns the Ablative is used, with or without a preposition—&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;1) When the proper noun is qualified by an adjective or adjective pronoun: In ipsā Alexandrīā, *in Alexandria itself.* Cic. *Longā Albā,* *at Alba Longa.* Verg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=36QAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA228&amp;lpg=PA228),* by Albert Harkness, revised edition of 1881)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12495" RevisionGUID="7f167623-b152-471c-a473-d4069be10150" CreationDate="2019-09-15T01:31:18.137" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="I've just started researching the topic because of your question, so this post is very much a work in progress and should not be treated as a definite answer, just a collection of information that I've come across that I think may be relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression so far is that examples exist, but not enough to make clear generalizations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A two-word phrase can sometimes take locative inflection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently certain special types of modified nouns can appear in the locative case. I have found sources that mention the use of locative case for nouns modified by either genitive nouns or possessive adjectives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 489. The locative **domi** may be modified only by a possessive adjective or by a noun in the genitive; when it would be otherwise modified, the ablative with **in** is used instead.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; ***domī* meae,** *at my house*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&lt;br&gt;**Caesaris *domī,*** *at Caesar's house*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&lt;br&gt;*in* **Mārcī splendidā *domō***, *at the fine home of  Marcus*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[Concise Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=PuFEAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA215),* by Benjamin Leonard D'Ooge, 1921, p. 215)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the existence of the &quot;domi meae&quot; construction, I don't know of an *a priori* reason to rule out the two-part use of the locative case in *Novi Eboraci* as completely impossible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###There might be some examples of city names containing adjectives taking locative inflection&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There doesn't seem to be great attestation of historical usage, but some examples are mentioned in the following Textkit Greek and Latin Forums&#xD;&#xA;thread: [novo eboraco?](https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=8451), by `metrodorus`, Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:19 pm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first post says that metrodorus asked Dexter Hoyos about this usage, and received a reply that cited a mixture of usages: &quot;Teani Apuli&quot;, &quot;Suessae Auruncae natum&quot;, and &quot;Carthagini Novae&quot; but also &quot;Carthagine Nova&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The ablative could possibly be used in this context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is precedent for the use of the ablative form for the city name *Longa Alba/Alba Longa*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Ablative for the Locative.—Instead of the Locative in names of towns the Ablative is used, with or without a preposition—&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;1) When the proper noun is qualified by an adjective or adjective pronoun: In ipsā Alexandrīā, *in Alexandria itself.* Cic. *Longā Albā,* *at Alba Longa.* Verg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*[Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=36QAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA228&amp;lpg=PA228),* by Albert Harkness, revised edition of 1881)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34984" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12491" RevisionGUID="db883791-a35c-4574-8c6e-7ed6cc13581b" CreationDate="2019-09-15T04:12:06.650" />
  <row Id="34985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12496" RevisionGUID="0561acff-3deb-4635-9743-e1563df25299" CreationDate="2019-09-15T07:54:26.523" UserId="235" Text="I know this is a simple question, and I could look it up, but I think our philosophy here is that all questions are welcome and appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that Evangelii means good news, from the Greek euangelos. But how do you parse the word Nuntiandi? Wikipedia says the entire phrase means &quot;in proclaiming the Gospel&quot;, but grammatically that doesn't make sense to me, since I believe Nuntiandi is a gerund.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you translate these words individually, and the phrase as a whole? How do you parse Nuntiandi and make sense of it grammatically?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, what is the standard translation of the phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34986" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12496" RevisionGUID="0561acff-3deb-4635-9743-e1563df25299" CreationDate="2019-09-15T07:54:26.523" UserId="235" Text="How would you translate Evangelii Nuntiandi?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34987" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12496" RevisionGUID="0561acff-3deb-4635-9743-e1563df25299" CreationDate="2019-09-15T07:54:26.523" UserId="235" Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12497" RevisionGUID="8ee890b2-8ce3-44ec-850a-55430cbd1d3f" CreationDate="2019-09-15T07:58:07.690" UserId="235" Text="Pope Francis's coat of arms has the phrase miserando atque eligendo. My knowledge of Latin grammar has faded, but if I recall correctly, this phrase uses two gerunds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think one translation is &quot;by having mercy and by choosing&quot;. I like this translation. What I would like to know, though, is what exactly is a gerund, what are the different ways of translating these gerunds, and what are the different ways of translating this motto?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect someone may complain that these topics are easily searchable, but beggars can't be choosers, and we on Latin Stack Exchange are beggars when it comes to questions :) So please forgive me for not searching this on Google. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34989" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12497" RevisionGUID="8ee890b2-8ce3-44ec-850a-55430cbd1d3f" CreationDate="2019-09-15T07:58:07.690" UserId="235" Text="How do you understand the gerunds in miserando atque eligendo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34990" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12497" RevisionGUID="8ee890b2-8ce3-44ec-850a-55430cbd1d3f" CreationDate="2019-09-15T07:58:07.690" UserId="235" Text="|ecclesiastical-latin|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12498" RevisionGUID="d247ae80-6d88-48bd-8764-a5e35b56dcae" CreationDate="2019-09-15T10:45:09.503" UserId="5029" Text="Would &quot;semper in animi&quot; be a reasonable translation of always in our minds as in always remembered in a fond, personal sense when thinking about your parents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34992" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12498" RevisionGUID="d247ae80-6d88-48bd-8764-a5e35b56dcae" CreationDate="2019-09-15T10:45:09.503" UserId="5029" Text="Is &quot;semper in animi&quot; be a reasonable translation of always in our minds" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34993" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12498" RevisionGUID="d247ae80-6d88-48bd-8764-a5e35b56dcae" CreationDate="2019-09-15T10:45:09.503" UserId="5029" Text="|grammar-choice|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="329" RevisionGUID="7e7a7b27-90af-45a3-ab22-7a2cfac07d42" CreationDate="2019-09-15T11:06:14.150" UserId="1912" Comment="Added link for dictionary" Text="For all things English to Latin, the best place to go is [*Smith's Copious and Critical English - Latin Dictionary*][1]. To get the phrase, you'd have to look under **night**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *to have a good night*, bene quiescere, Plin. Ep. 3, 16, 4 : as an exclamation, *good night!* bene valeas et quiescas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tibullus *Elegiae* 2.4.49 includes *placide* with it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et 'bene' discedens dicet 'placideque quiescas.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And leaving he will say, 'May you rest well and peacefully.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That must have been somewhat common, because Fronto has it, but it cannot quite mean 'good night' in the English sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sed post diem natalem	tuum, si me amas, nox quae sequitur fac iam placide quiescas sine ullius instantis officii cogitatione. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Loeb translates it thus: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But if you love me, pass the coming night in peace and quiet without &#xD;&#xA;attending to any business however pressing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oddly, the Loeb skips out *post...tuum*, which means 'after your birthday.' The *placide quiescas* doesn't quite mean 'have a good night', but perhaps 'may you sleep soundly' isn't so far off, and the meaning of it could be altered slightly with *fac* thrown in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For wishing someone off to sleep as they depart from you, *vale* simply suffices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also introduce some variation of *adv/adj + dormire*. The Priapea (62.1a) preserves these lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; securi dormite, canes: custodiet hortum / cum sibi dilecta Sirius Erigone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Securi dormite* means &quot;sleep soundly.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/copiouscriticale00smit/page/n8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34995" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="329" RevisionGUID="7e7a7b27-90af-45a3-ab22-7a2cfac07d42" CreationDate="2019-09-15T11:06:14.150" Comment="Proposed by 1912 approved by 79 edit id of 327" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12492" RevisionGUID="87aae64d-053e-48dc-86d2-883d24844285" CreationDate="2019-09-15T11:07:53.740" UserId="79" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="As a newcomer to this site, I share the following translation of the poem *Gute Nacht* (first published 1823; revised 1824) by Wilhelm Mueller of Dessau. In this text, &quot;Good night&quot; is translated in two different ways, once as &quot;Quiesce molliter!&quot;, then again as &quot;Sit fausta nox&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;The 1823 version of the Winterreise cycle was set to music by Schubert as the first song in his own *Winterreise*. The minor changes made in 1824 do not affect the translation. The German text and various translations are easy to find on internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; NOX FAUSTA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Alienus immigravi,  &#xD;&#xA;alienus emigro.  &#xD;&#xA;Multas rosas ligavi  &#xD;&#xA;favente mi Maio.  &#xD;&#xA;Amo! canebat virgo,  &#xD;&#xA;Nubes ei! parens.  &#xD;&#xA;Nunc nubila universa  &#xD;&#xA;velatque nix viam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non est mihi potestas  &#xD;&#xA;hoc differendi iter.  &#xD;&#xA;Callis mihi calcandast  &#xD;&#xA;hac nocte fortiter.  &#xD;&#xA;Mecum una it umbra lunae  &#xD;&#xA;velut comes viae  &#xD;&#xA;albisque pratis quaero  &#xD;&#xA;vestigium ferae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Canis, ulules vesanus  &#xD;&#xA;eri prae aedibus!  &#xD;&#xA;Molestus hic manerem,  &#xD;&#xA;fugaret iste erus.  &#xD;&#xA;Avet Venus vagari –  &#xD;&#xA;sic filia ut pater –  &#xD;&#xA;ab uno ad alterum ire –  &#xD;&#xA;Quiesce molliter!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Te somnio turbare  &#xD;&#xA;bellissimo nolim!  &#xD;&#xA;Ne strepitus audiatur,  &#xD;&#xA;claudam fores sensim!  &#xD;&#xA;SIT FAUSTA NOX! Inquires,  &#xD;&#xA;cur haec ceciderim  &#xD;&#xA;intellegesque quanti  &#xD;&#xA;tete aestimaverim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note on the rhyming-scheme: The original is cross-rhymed. Only the first two couplets of the translation are cross-rhymed. This is to maximise the contrast with the unrhymed second half of the couplet. The contrast illustrates that between the summer's hopes and the winter's disappointment. In the rest of the poem the last word of one couplet rhymes with the last word of the next. In the last stanza, in which the speaker overcomes his anger sufficiently to wish his former fiancee well, all four couplets share the same rhyme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am preparing a translation of the whole cycle. I have not yet found a publisher. I am open to advice, both as to publication and as to improving my translation. Before posting further numbers, I shall await the fruits of sharing this, the longest. By the way, it can be sung to Schubert's setting, though his rhythms have to be adapted to the quantitative iambics of the Latin and the occasional triplet (canis, ulules in st. 3 and ne strepitus audiatur in st. 4).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In st. 3 the German has: Die Liebe liebt das Wandern - Gott hat sie so gemacht. In translating into classical Latin, I have had to guess what a pagan might have said. It seemed to me that the female personification of love had to be Venus. She was created by Jupiter, in the sense that he was her father. Like father, like daughter: she inherited his promiscuity, a vice of which the angry young man does not accuse his former fiancee, though he does reproach her indirectly (bellissimo is surely ironical) for agreeing to a socially more advantageous marriage, when she was already committed to their love-match, which her mother had supported at one time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second half of st. 2 is enigmatic. One thing only is certain: the young man's journey has not yet begun. He is still in the house. That means the present tense can only describe a vision he has of the journey which is yet to come. But what he means by &quot;a shadow of the moon&quot; (ein Mondschatten) is intentionally obscure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation reverses the order of the first two couplets in st. 3, which is in any case unsettled and disjointed. I have also &quot;overtranslated&quot; the words: Was soll ich laenger weilen? This is because I am convinced the poet intended a pun on Langeweile &quot;boredom&quot;, which is represented in my translation by &quot;molestus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Andrew Palmer, Zwijndrecht, South Holland.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12499" RevisionGUID="5b674e22-9db5-412e-828e-bab9224a65e5" CreationDate="2019-09-15T13:19:06.933" UserId="79" Text="The translation depends on context, and I'm not convinced we can give a good all-round translation.&#xD;&#xA;First, let us agree that *evangelium* is &quot;the Gospel&quot; and *nuntiare* is &quot;to proclaim&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Changes in vocabulary are irrelevant for the grammatical considerations here, so you can replace these with the words of your preference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun modified by the gerundive, *evangelium nuntiandum*, can be seen as &quot;the Gospel to be proclaimed&quot; or &quot;proclaiming the Gospel&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of semantic flexibility of gerundives is typical in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;If you were to add *est*, you would get &quot;the Gospel must be proclaimed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have the genitive.&#xD;&#xA;The translation depends on how it is used.&#xD;&#xA;The closest thing to a standard is &quot;of proclaiming the Gospel&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *evangelii nuntiandi causa*  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;for the sake of proclaiming the Gospel&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *gaudium evangelii nuntiandi*  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;the joy of proclaiming the Gospel&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *evangelii nuntiandi cupidus*  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;willing to proclaim the Gospel&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="d7cf5107-4a21-45ce-9776-d3c4c7e80cc8" CreationDate="2019-09-15T13:20:11.270" UserId="79" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="The verb used in Luke 10:18 is (not surprisingly) ***cadere***: *Videbam Satanam sicut fulgor de cælo cadentem*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly Gal. 5:4: *a gratia excidistis* &quot;ye are fallen from grace&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="34999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12476" RevisionGUID="449ff07d-3ee2-4e9f-aba6-2636dc386a0e" CreationDate="2019-09-15T13:27:33.020" UserId="79" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="So essentialia negotii is transaction's essentials. How would one say The transaction's essential things, transactions' essential things, essential things of the transaction and essential things of the transactions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *negōtia essentiālia trānsāctiōnis* for &quot;transaction's essential things(or aspects)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *negōtia essentiālia trānsāctiōnum* for &quot;transactions' essential things&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are we failing to refer to ALL transactions by using plural instead of singular?&#xD;&#xA;To each their own, each transaction needs its own essential things but all need theirs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12499" RevisionGUID="309862db-d5c9-42a8-b7dc-4d0464752e31" CreationDate="2019-09-15T17:55:06.187" UserId="79" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="The translation depends on context, and I'm not convinced we can give a good all-round translation.&#xD;&#xA;First, let us agree that *evangelium* is &quot;the Gospel&quot; and *nuntiare* is &quot;to proclaim&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Changes in vocabulary are irrelevant for the grammatical considerations here, so you can replace these with the words of your preference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun modified by the gerundive, *evangelium nuntiandum*, can be seen as &quot;the Gospel to be proclaimed&quot; or &quot;proclaiming the Gospel&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This kind of semantic flexibility of gerundives is typical in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;If you were to add *est*, you would get &quot;the Gospel must be proclaimed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have the genitive.&#xD;&#xA;The translation depends on how it is used.&#xD;&#xA;The closest thing to a standard is &quot;of proclaiming the Gospel&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Also &quot;of the Gospel to be proclaimed&quot; is possible, but it tends to be a less common way to phrase things in English.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *evangelii nuntiandi causa*  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;for the sake of proclaiming the Gospel&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *gaudium evangelii nuntiandi*  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;the joy of proclaiming the Gospel&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *evangelii nuntiandi cupidus*  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;willing to proclaim the Gospel&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12500" RevisionGUID="7cad2b67-9614-43a3-a490-151dc08cf0e9" CreationDate="2019-09-15T18:23:10.697" UserId="469" Text="It is difficult to surpass Joonas's comprehensive answer in explaining the general grammatical and semantic aspects of the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the context, I can make my humble contribution (some of you may already know it). A (most) likely context is that of an [Apostolic Exhortation][1] by pope St. [Paul VI][2] that goes by the exact name **Evangelii Nuntiandi** ([official Latin text][3], official [English translation][4]), dated 8 december, 1975.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Papal documents are usually named after the first two (seldom, three) words of their main Latin text (after the title and introductory greetings). In this case the text starts like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Evangelii nuntiandi** studium nostrae aetatis hominibus, spei plenis, sed timore etiam et angore saepe vexatis, procul dubio officium habendum est, quod non solum christianae communitati, sed universae quoque hominum consortioni praestatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this specific context (if it is the right one, indeed), there's no need for conjectures, since there is an official translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is no doubt that the *effort* **to proclaim the Gospel** to the people of today, who are buoyed up by hope but at the same time often oppressed by fear and distress, is a service rendered to the Christian community and also to the whole of humanity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_exhortation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Paul_VI&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/la/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_p-vi_exh_19751208_evangelii-nuntiandi.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_p-vi_exh_19751208_evangelii-nuntiandi.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35003" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12496" RevisionGUID="1efc44cd-3f50-4038-89f4-72b80ac8a0cb" CreationDate="2019-09-15T18:28:00.890" />
  <row Id="35004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12500" RevisionGUID="d1f18260-f2f5-41ba-ac78-a4978ef26c01" CreationDate="2019-09-15T19:05:24.960" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="It is difficult to surpass Joonas's comprehensive answer in explaining the general grammatical and semantic aspects of the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the context, I can make my humble contribution (some of you may already know it). A (most) likely context is that of an [Apostolic Exhortation][1] by pope St. [Paul VI][2] that goes by the exact name **Evangelii Nuntiandi** ([official Latin text][3], official [English translation][4]), dated 8 december, 1975.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Papal documents are usually named after the first two (seldom, three) words of their main Latin text (after the title and introductory greetings). In this case the text starts like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Evangelii nuntiandi studium** nostrae aetatis hominibus, spei plenis, sed timore etiam et angore saepe vexatis, procul dubio officium habendum est, quod non solum christianae communitati, sed universae quoque hominum consortioni praestatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this specific context (if it is the right one, indeed), there's no need for conjectures, since there is an official translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is no doubt that **the effort to proclaim the Gospel** to the people of today, who are buoyed up by hope but at the same time often oppressed by fear and distress, is a service rendered to the Christian community and also to the whole of humanity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_exhortation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Paul_VI&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/la/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_p-vi_exh_19751208_evangelii-nuntiandi.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_p-vi_exh_19751208_evangelii-nuntiandi.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35005" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12497" RevisionGUID="1f94ac58-645c-4b8f-9f77-c4fdbafc26a5" CreationDate="2019-09-15T20:30:20.070" UserId="79" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[448],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:118,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ben Kovitz&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11416" RevisionGUID="2d427965-7b79-40bd-9c4d-fa038c9a7681" CreationDate="2019-09-15T20:38:12.633" UserId="79" Comment="added 687 characters in body" Text="I have used Duolingo for other languages, and I've now briefly tested it for Latin.&#xD;&#xA;There are two major issues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It goes way too fast.&#xD;&#xA;If the course has to be short for practical reasons, I would much rather have it stop early than go fast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The system is too inflexible at accepting translations in both directions.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if you can even reasonably enumerate all possible phrasings of a complicated sentence.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if Duolingo has the capacity to understand structures more flexibly.&#xD;&#xA;(This feels similar to the issues with [Google Translate](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the second lesson you encounter the first three conjugations, datives, vocatives, ablatives, several pronouns, and more.&#xD;&#xA;I don't think you're given enough time to understand the structures before new ones are thrown at you.&#xD;&#xA;You don't necessarily need full theoretical understanding to move forward, sure, but the pace feels counterproductive to me.&#xD;&#xA;First handling basic structures with care would be great; I would be happy to see only first declension feminines for the first two lessons.&#xD;&#xA;It appears that the rate at which new grammatical ideas are introduced is very high at first but then declines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Errors in spelling and minor details will probably vanish in time.&#xD;&#xA;What can be much harder to cure is the acceptance algorithm.&#xD;&#xA;There can be many ways to interpret a phrase, and the program can force a narrow and possibly unnatural wording.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen this with other languages, but I already got the feeling that it will be worse with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *Quid agit Marcus?* had to be translated as &quot;How is Marcus?&quot; whereas &quot;What does Marcus do?&quot; was wrong.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, *Me male habeo* is allegedly &quot;I feel poorly&quot; but not &quot;I feel unwell&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(This changed after my feedback. To improve the system, flag your good answers that should have been accepted.)&#xD;&#xA;And as cnread comments below, the system can force a word order in Latin when it is free and the forced one might not even be very natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the Duolingo can support studying Latin, but it seems to make a bad only teacher.&#xD;&#xA;I just completed the entire course (I wrote the first version of this answer after a couple of lessons), and I must say I am quite unhappy.&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the two major issues I discussed, I dislike the focus.&#xD;&#xA;The vocabulary is weird and often unnaturally translated, and the focus on modern United States feels very artificial.&#xD;&#xA;The sheer amount of poop and drunken parrots shows bad taste to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11428" RevisionGUID="2095b992-27db-4ef3-8dda-9f1a4da49fff" CreationDate="2019-09-15T22:00:46.607" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Besides the issues found by Joonas, I'd add a few _features_ not necessarily bad, but worth knowing in advance, for those willing to try the course:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pronunciation is consistently **reconstructed**.&#xD;&#xA;* The examples are somewhat **US-centered**. Like *[Novum Eboracum][1] est urbs Americana*. Judging from [other examples by the same collaborators][2], this apparently means America = United States, which IMHO is an idiom that should not necessarily be universal in Latin, just as it is not in some Romance languages like Spanish and Portuguese.&#xD;&#xA;* The choice of subjects and vocabulary is weird. For example, 1) for some reason parrots (**psittaci**) appear very frequently, and 2) **studeo** means consistently *to study* (which according to L&amp;S is post-Augustan)&#xD;&#xA;* Recordings could be improved (some include unnecessary noises, for example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Eboracum_(urbs)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.paideiainstitute.org/lectio_prima" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="5cdca728-76f6-4b8e-8b60-6552f885b37a" CreationDate="2019-09-16T06:55:18.987" UserId="9" Comment="added 3298 characters in body" Text="#The definition of &quot;I-stems&quot; is relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*) and dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I-stems and consonant-stems almost always take the same endings in the nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*); it is uncommon and unetymological for an i-stem noun to take *-īs* in the nominative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms, athough they seem to have originated as consonant-stem forms, are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period. But it seems consonant-stem nouns never take *-im* in the accusative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Because of the somewhat complicated formation of Latin nominative singular forms in the third declension, it can be difficult to analyze the nominative singular form in terms of a root + suffix. We can often figure out the origin of the form from comparative linguistics or internal reconstruction, but the etymological analysis may not always be the one that makes the most sense from a synchronic perspective. A big issue is that a great many nouns that are clearly i-stems in terms of etymology show syncope of the original stem-final vowel in the nominative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that **the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being at least partially an i-stem.** This raises the issue of whether nouns that show mixed behavior should be analyzed as having multiple stems, with one stem ending in a consonant and another stem ending in *-i.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Most consonants can occur at the end of a noun stem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible for a noun stem to end in almost any consonant. It's easier to list the consonants that *don't* appear at the end of noun stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The least likely consonants in this position are /j/ (consonantal I), /h/ (H), /z/, and /f/. All of these sounds have particularly restricted distributions in Classical Latin, and it's even a bit dubious to categorize some of them as part of the inventory of normal Latin consonant sounds: /h/ doesn't act like a consonant for purposes of syllable weight or vowel shortening in hiatus, and /z/ only occurs in borrowed words from Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No genitive plural is built on a noun stem ending in /j/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know of no noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-jum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gap in nouns with stems ending in /j/ is fairly easy to explain in terms of historical sound changes. In Latin, the consonant /j/ is mostly restricted to two positions: word-initially (also in prefixed or compound words built from a word starting with /j/), or in an intervocalic geminate /j.j/. A sound change is thought to have regularly eliminated original singleton /j/ between vowels (as in *trēs* from PIE *tréyes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally, &quot;ae&quot; and &quot;oe&quot; are analyzed as diphthongs, but even if you analyze them as VC sequences /aj/, oj/, I don't know of any noun with a stem ending in &quot;ae&quot; or &quot;oe&quot;. (There are nouns with stems ending in *-aea-* /ajja/ or *-aeo* /ajjo/, but those belong to the first and second declensions respectively.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there are any likely sources for a borrowed j-stem noun either. Ancient Greek seems to have some nouns with stems that (from an etymological perspective at least) end in -οι- (Wikipedia gives the example *[ἠχώ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_nouns#Stems_in_oi)*), but the /j/ is lost through contraction in all forms except for the vocative singular, so it seems impossible for Greek to be a source of Latin nouns with stems ending in /j/.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###There are no H-stem nouns, except maybe *vehēs,* whose stem could be *vehi-* instead###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, /h/ is rare outside of morpheme-initial position. It did occur medially as a reflex of PIE *g(j)h* in some words, but the list seems to be short (the WordReference discussion &quot;[PIE *gh &gt; latin [h] word initially and [g] word internally but why veho:, traho: and incoho: with h?](https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/pie-gh-latin-h-word-initially-and-g-word-internally-but-why-veho-traho-and-incoho-with-h.3229031/)&quot; mentions the following words only: *mihi, vehō/vehis, cohum, trahō*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;H doesn't act like a consonant for the purposes of certain phonological rules: in V̆ChV sequences (between words or produced by combining a prefix ending in V̆C with a base starting with hV) the first syllable scans as short (as in V̆CV sequences), and in VhV sequences the first vowel is regularly short (as in VV sequences) and there is sometimes the possibility of contraction to one syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin might have one noun stem ending in /h/, depending on how you view nouns that are at least partially i-stems. The noun *[vehēs](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvehes)/vehis* has an /h/ followed by *-ēs* or *-is.* Nouns with these endings are thought to etymologically derive from i-stem nouns, and are traditionally categorized as such, but many nouns in this category can actually take consonant-stem endings like ablative singular *-e* or even genitive plural *-um.* I didn't find any examples of either *vehium* or *vehum* in the PHI Latin corpus, but ***vehum*** is used for the genitive plural in the *[Codex Theodosianus](https://books.google.com/books?id=gIkEm5RJIpwC&amp;pg=PA1393&amp;lpg=PA1393&amp;dq=&quot;vehum&quot;)* (mentioned in [Roby 1881, p. 141](https://books.google.com/books?id=7O4IAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA141&amp;lpg=PA141&amp;dq=&quot;vehes&quot;+&quot;vehis&quot;+&quot;vehum&quot;); however, he still categorizes the noun as having a stem ending in -ehi, not in -eh). I haven't found an example of ablative singular *vehe* in any source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, Greek has no stems ending in /h/. (&quot;Interaspiration&quot; in Greek seems to only be attested in the word [ταὧς](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7106/9), and possibly in [compounds/prefixed words](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4523/9).) Greek has stems ending in φ, θ, χ, but these are certainly best analyzed as consonants of their own, rather than as clusters ending in /h/. The proper analysis of &quot;ph&quot;, &quot;th&quot;, &quot;ch&quot; in Classical Latin is a bit less obvious, but for the purposes of this answer I will also treat Latin &quot;ph&quot;, &quot;th&quot;, &quot;ch&quot; as single consonants (with digraph spellings), rather than as sequences ending in /h/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No commonly encountered noun stem ends in F. But a third-declension *-fēs* or *-fis* noun seems possible in theory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gap in /f/-stem nouns seems to be a predictable result of historical processes, but not necessarily an active restriction in Latin morphophonology. I think borrowed words would most likely be able to have a stem ending in /f/, although the formation of the nominative singular specifically would raise a phonological problem. The consonant cluster /fs/ is unprecedented in Latin words, and I think it's very unlikely a borrowed word would be given a form ending in the cluster /fs/ in the nominative singular. However, as mentioned above, the &quot;historically i-stem&quot; nominative singular endings *-is* or *-ēs* sometimes appear on the nominative singular of masculine or feminine nouns that otherwise inflect with consonant-stem forms, and constructing the nominative singular this way would  get around any phonological restriction against word-final or pre-consonantal /f/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After *ph* merged with *f,* examples of borrowed Greek *ph* stems could possibly be used as examples of a marginal category of Latin /f/-stem nouns; those kinds of borrowed words show *-ps* in the nominative singular, and &amp;lt;ph&gt; or &amp;lt;f&gt; /f/ before a vowel. (For specific examples, see the section below on &quot;Stems ending in unusual consonants&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gap in /f/-stems, like the gap in /j/-stems, is pretty well explained by the history of Latin sound changes. **F** in native Latin words is almost completely confined to the start of morphemes as the result of certain historical sound changes, so the gap in F at the end of noun stems can also be seen as just a specific case of a more general pattern to the distribution of this consonant sound. The existence of morpheme-medial F in non-native Latin words like *rūfus* and *būfō* shows that the paucity of F in non-morpheme-initial position is not enforced by any absolute synchronic constraint that was active in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No commonly encountered noun stem ends in Z. But a third-declension *-zēs* or *-zis* noun seems possible in theory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Z** is absent in general from native Latin words (as Joonas mentioned), so the Z gap is not really something specific to stem-final position. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with /f/, there would be a phonological problem with just adding the suffix /s/ to form the nominative singular of a masculine or feminine noun: /zs/ would be a very bad ending for a Latin word. But as with /f/, this could be avoided by using the nominative singular ending *-ēs* or *-is,* as long as you don't view these endings as being exclusively characteristic of i-stem nouns during the time of Classical Latin. There do seem to be examples of third-declension nouns with a nominative singular ending in *-zēs* in words of foreign origin (see the section below on &quot;Stems ending in unusual consonants&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing you didn't intend to include invariable nouns or names in your question. The Vulgate does provide examples of invariable borrowed names ending in /z/, such as *Achaz* 'Ahaz'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No noun stem ends in a consonant spelled with the letter K, but it doesn't really correspond to a distinct consonant sound of its own&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that the letter K seems to never be used to spell a stem-final consonant, but I wouldn't consider this to be a true gap, as K was just a variant spelling for the /k/ sound that was usually represented by the letter C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###QU might have one example in *torquēs/torquis* (but it's a historical i-stem)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If QV is analyzed as a replacement spelling for a CV /kw/ cluster, then it wouldn't count as a consonant of its own, so we wouldn't have to be concerned with whether any stem ends in it. But QV is sometimes analyzed as a consonant of its own (/kʷ/), so I'll cover it as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, I agreed with Joonas about the lack of stems ending in Q(V), but then I found the example of *torquēs/[torquis](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtorquis)* 'necklace, ring'. The linked L&amp;S entry shows the use of *torque* as an ablative singular: &quot;“avis **torque** miniato in cervice distincta,” Plin. 10, 42, 58, § 117&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like *vehēs,* *torquēs* seems to have no genitive plural attested in the PHI corpus. I found one postclassical and non-native example of *torquum*: the article &quot;Anglo-Norman Historiography and Henry of Huntingdon's Translation of 'The Battle of Brunanburh'&quot;, by Kenneth Tiller (2012), cites a translation into Latin from Old English made ca 1123–54 by Henry of Huntingdon as using the wording &quot;nobilibus **torquum** dator&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the i-stem genitive plural *[torquium](https://books.google.com/books?id=o-dVAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA26&amp;lpg=RA1-PA26&amp;dq=&quot;torquium&quot;+&quot;torquum&quot;)* is also attested in post-classical sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples for the rest of the consonant sounds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, N, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: in the genitive plural, *apis* can take either the consonant-stem form *apum* or the i-stem form *apium.* The form ***apum**,* which is clearly built on a stem ending in P, does seem to be more common ([Zumpt 1836, p. 28](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA28)). Another example would be *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1),* which forms *opum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B**: *plēbs* takes the i-stem form *plēbium*. There are certainly many nouns that take *-bem* in the accusative singular and *-be* in the ablative singular; I had some trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum,* but I think *Arabs* (from Greek *Ἄραψ*) may count as an example, since it seems to have as its genitive plural the form *Arabum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural ***ossa***, so it's not a bad example. The noun *as, assis* usually takes the i-stem genitive plural form *assium,* but a consonant-stem form ***assum*** is also supposed to be attested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: As I mentioned above, I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns, except for (possibly) *vehēs.* If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H.  PH-, CH- or TH-stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: see below for possible examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Stems ending in unusual consonants (mostly from Greek):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Aspirated plosives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **PH**: *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem. I don't think the genitive plural form can be used as a criterion because it's not clear what it is: Zumpt 1836 says that the genitive plural of *gryps* &quot;does not occur&quot; ([p. 29](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA29)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **CH**: *[sardonyx](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsardonyx),* from Greek *σαρδόνυξ*, seems to decline as a CH-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **TH**: *Tiryns, Tirynthis,* from Greek *Τίρυνς*, seems to decline as a TH-stem ([Zumpt 1836, p. 21](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA21#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)). Since it is a proper noun, I don't think any attested genitive plural form exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **F**: If you include Ecclesiastical Latin, than the word *scinifes/[cinifes](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcinifes)* might count, as it apparently has a genitive plural form *(s)cinifum.* A variant spelling with *ph* also seems to exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Z**: If you include proper nouns and don't worry about the issue of i-stems vs. consonant-stems, the name *Gōtarzēs* (from Greek *Γωτάρζης*) would probably count. It seems that in Latin, it has a third-declension genitive form *Gōtarzis* that could be seen as being built on the stem *Gōtarz-.* (I asked a separate question about [the declension of masculine nouns like this from Greek nouns ending in *-ης*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9283/how-are-arsaces-and-gotarzes-declined-and-why).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zumpt, C.G. 1836. *[Grammar of the Latin Language](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="1f15d341-fd1d-4768-8fcf-f1e0e19b7304" CreationDate="2019-09-16T07:02:44.247" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="#The definition of &quot;I-stems&quot; is relevant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the question said to ignore i-stems, I think it's actually necessary to discuss them, because many Latin nouns of the third declension have a mix of i-stem and consonant-stem forms (to the extent that the division of nouns into these two categories is fairly problematic). And i-stem nouns, as the name implies, can be thought of as having a stem ending in I, which is not a consonant. So to answer this question, it's necessary to resolve the issue of which nouns should be thought of as having stems ending in I.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- I-stems and consonant-stems always take the same endings in the dative singular (*-ī*) and dative/ablative plural (*-ibus*), so those forms can't be used to distinguish i-stem nouns from consonant-stem nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I-stems and consonant-stems almost always take the same endings in the nominative masculine/feminine plural (*-ēs*); it is uncommon and unetymological for an i-stem noun to take *-īs* in the nominative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative singular *-em* and ablative singular *-e* forms, athough they seem to have originated as consonant-stem forms, are so commonly found with nouns that are otherwise i-stems that I think that these endings are not considered to be unique to consonant-stem nouns in the Classical Latin time period. But it seems consonant-stem nouns never take *-im* in the accusative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Because of the somewhat complicated formation of Latin nominative singular forms in the third declension, it can be difficult to analyze the nominative singular form in terms of a root + suffix. We can often figure out the origin of the form from comparative linguistics or internal reconstruction, but the etymological analysis may not always be the one that makes the most sense from a synchronic perspective. A big issue is that a great many nouns that are clearly i-stems in terms of etymology show syncope of the original stem-final vowel in the nominative singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A fair amount of third-declension nouns take the i-stem ending *-ium* in the genitive plural. My understanding is that **the presence of *-ium* in the genitive plural is enough to categorize a noun as being at least partially an i-stem.** This raises the issue of whether nouns that show mixed behavior should be analyzed as having multiple stems, with one stem ending in a consonant and another stem ending in *-i.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this post, I will take the most conservative interpretation of your question and only include nouns that have attested -C-um genitive plural forms. (Or when those are exceptionally difficult to find, I may resort to a neuter nominative/accusative plural in *-a* as an example of a form that is clearly built on a consonant stem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Most consonants can occur at the end of a noun stem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible for a noun stem to end in almost any consonant. It's easier to list the consonants that *don't* appear at the end of noun stems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The least likely consonants in this position are /j/ (consonantal I), /h/ (H), /z/, and /f/. All of these sounds have particularly restricted distributions in Classical Latin, and it's even a bit dubious to categorize some of them as part of the inventory of normal Latin consonant sounds: /h/ doesn't act like a consonant for purposes of syllable weight or vowel shortening in hiatus, and /z/ only occurs in borrowed words from Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No genitive plural is built on a noun stem ending in /j/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know of no noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-jum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gap in nouns with stems ending in /j/ is fairly easy to explain in terms of historical sound changes. In Latin, the consonant /j/ is mostly restricted to two positions: word-initially (also in prefixed or compound words built from a word starting with /j/), or in an intervocalic geminate /j.j/. A sound change is thought to have regularly eliminated original singleton /j/ between vowels (as in *trēs* from PIE *tréyes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally, &quot;ae&quot; and &quot;oe&quot; are analyzed as diphthongs, but even if you analyze them as VC sequences /aj/, oj/, I don't know of any noun with a stem ending in &quot;ae&quot; or &quot;oe&quot;. (There are nouns with stems ending in *-aea-* /ajja/ or *-aeo* /ajjo/, but those belong to the first and second declensions respectively.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there are any likely sources for a borrowed j-stem noun either. Ancient Greek seems to have some nouns with stems that (from an etymological perspective at least) end in -οι- (Wikipedia gives the example *[ἠχώ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_nouns#Stems_in_oi)*), but the /j/ is lost through contraction in all forms except for the vocative singular, so it seems impossible for Greek to be a source of Latin nouns with stems ending in /j/.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###There are no H-stem nouns, except maybe *vehēs,* whose stem could be *vehi-* instead###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, /h/ is rare outside of morpheme-initial position. It did occur medially as a reflex of PIE *g(j)h* in some words, but the list seems to be short (the WordReference discussion &quot;[PIE *gh &gt; latin [h] word initially and [g] word internally but why veho:, traho: and incoho: with h?](https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/pie-gh-latin-h-word-initially-and-g-word-internally-but-why-veho-traho-and-incoho-with-h.3229031/)&quot; mentions the following words only: *mihi, vehō/vehis, cohum, trahō*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;H doesn't act like a consonant for the purposes of certain phonological rules: in V̆ChV sequences (between words or produced by combining a prefix ending in V̆C with a base starting with hV) the first syllable scans as short (as in V̆CV sequences), and in VhV sequences the first vowel is regularly short (as in VV sequences) and there is sometimes the possibility of contraction to one syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin might have one noun stem ending in /h/, depending on how you view nouns that are at least partially i-stems. The noun *[vehēs](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dvehes)/vehis* has an /h/ followed by *-ēs* or *-is.* Nouns with these endings are thought to etymologically derive from i-stem nouns, and are traditionally categorized as such, but many nouns in this category can actually take consonant-stem endings like ablative singular *-e* or even genitive plural *-um.* I didn't find any examples of either *vehium* or *vehum* in the PHI Latin corpus, but ***vehum*** is used for the genitive plural in the *[Codex Theodosianus](https://books.google.com/books?id=gIkEm5RJIpwC&amp;pg=PA1393&amp;lpg=PA1393&amp;dq=&quot;vehum&quot;)* (mentioned in [Roby 1881, p. 141](https://books.google.com/books?id=7O4IAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA141&amp;lpg=PA141&amp;dq=&quot;vehes&quot;+&quot;vehis&quot;+&quot;vehum&quot;); however, he still categorizes the noun as having a stem ending in -ehi, not in -eh). I haven't found an example of ablative singular *vehe* in any source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, Greek has no stems ending in /h/. (&quot;Interaspiration&quot; in Greek seems to only be attested in the word [ταὧς](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7106/9), and possibly in [compounds/prefixed words](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/4523/9).) Greek has stems ending in φ, θ, χ, but these are certainly best analyzed as consonants of their own, rather than as clusters ending in /h/. The proper analysis of &quot;ph&quot;, &quot;th&quot;, &quot;ch&quot; in Classical Latin is a bit less obvious, but for the purposes of this answer I will also treat Latin &quot;ph&quot;, &quot;th&quot;, &quot;ch&quot; as single consonants (with digraph spellings), rather than as sequences ending in /h/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No commonly encountered noun stem ends in F. But a third-declension *-fēs* or *-fis* noun seems possible in theory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gap in /f/-stem nouns seems to be a predictable result of historical processes, but not necessarily an active restriction in Latin morphophonology. I think borrowed words would most likely be able to have a stem ending in /f/, although the formation of the nominative singular specifically would raise a phonological problem. The consonant cluster /fs/ is unprecedented in Latin words, and I think it's very unlikely a borrowed word would be given a form ending in the cluster /fs/ in the nominative singular. However, as mentioned above, the &quot;historically i-stem&quot; nominative singular endings *-is* or *-ēs* sometimes appear on the nominative singular of masculine or feminine nouns that otherwise inflect with consonant-stem forms, and constructing the nominative singular this way would  get around any phonological restriction against word-final or pre-consonantal /f/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After *ph* merged with *f,* examples of borrowed Greek *ph* stems could possibly be used as examples of a marginal category of Latin /f/-stem nouns; those kinds of borrowed words show *-ps* in the nominative singular, and &amp;lt;ph&gt; or &amp;lt;f&gt; /f/ before a vowel. (For specific examples, see the section below on &quot;Stems ending in unusual consonants&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gap in /f/-stems, like the gap in /j/-stems, is pretty well explained by the history of Latin sound changes. **F** in native Latin words is almost completely confined to the start of morphemes as the result of certain historical sound changes, so the gap in F at the end of noun stems can also be seen as just a specific case of a more general pattern to the distribution of this consonant sound. The existence of morpheme-medial F in non-native Latin words like *rūfus* and *būfō* shows that the paucity of F in non-morpheme-initial position is not enforced by any absolute synchronic constraint that was active in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No commonly encountered noun stem ends in Z. But a third-declension *-zēs* or *-zis* noun seems possible in theory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Z** is absent in general from native Latin words (as Joonas mentioned), so the Z gap is not really something specific to stem-final position. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with /f/, there would be a phonological problem with just adding the suffix /s/ to form the nominative singular of a masculine or feminine noun: /zs/ would be a very bad ending for a Latin word. But as with /f/, this could be avoided by using the nominative singular ending *-ēs* or *-is,* as long as you don't view these endings as being exclusively characteristic of i-stem nouns during the time of Classical Latin. There do seem to be examples of names taken from Greek with a nominative singular ending in *-zēs* and a genitive singular ending in *-zis* (see the section below on &quot;Stems ending in unusual consonants&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing you didn't intend to include invariable nouns or names in your question. The Vulgate does provide examples of invariable borrowed names ending in /z/, such as *Achaz* 'Ahaz'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###No noun stem ends in a consonant spelled with the letter K, but it doesn't really correspond to a distinct consonant sound of its own&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Joonas that the letter K seems to never be used to spell a stem-final consonant, but I wouldn't consider this to be a true gap, as K was just a variant spelling for the /k/ sound that was usually represented by the letter C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###QU might have one example in *torquēs/torquis* (but it's a historical i-stem)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If QV is analyzed as a replacement spelling for a CV /kw/ cluster, then it wouldn't count as a consonant of its own, so we wouldn't have to be concerned with whether any stem ends in it. But QV is sometimes analyzed as a consonant of its own (/kʷ/), so I'll cover it as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, I agreed with Joonas about the lack of stems ending in Q(V), but then I found the example of *torquēs/[torquis](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dtorquis)* 'necklace, ring'. The linked L&amp;S entry shows the use of *torque* as an ablative singular: &quot;“avis **torque** miniato in cervice distincta,” Plin. 10, 42, 58, § 117&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like *vehēs,* *torquēs* seems to have no genitive plural attested in the PHI corpus. I found one postclassical and non-native example of *torquum*: the article &quot;Anglo-Norman Historiography and Henry of Huntingdon's Translation of 'The Battle of Brunanburh'&quot;, by Kenneth Tiller (2012), cites a translation into Latin from Old English made ca 1123–54 by Henry of Huntingdon as using the wording &quot;nobilibus **torquum** dator&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the i-stem genitive plural *[torquium](https://books.google.com/books?id=o-dVAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA26&amp;lpg=RA1-PA26&amp;dq=&quot;torquium&quot;+&quot;torquum&quot;)* is also attested in post-classical sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples for the rest of the consonant sounds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples for **C, D, G, L, M, N, R, T, V** in Joonas's answer all work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **P**: in the genitive plural, *apis* can take either the consonant-stem form *apum* or the i-stem form *apium.* The form ***apum**,* which is clearly built on a stem ending in P, does seem to be more common ([Zumpt 1836, p. 28](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA28)). Another example would be *\*[ops](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dops1),* which forms *opum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **B**: *plēbs* takes the i-stem form *plēbium*. There are certainly many nouns that take *-bem* in the accusative singular and *-be* in the ablative singular; I had some trouble finding a third-declension noun with a genitive plural form ending in *-bum,* but I think *Arabs* (from Greek *Ἄραψ*) may count as an example, since it seems to have as its genitive plural the form *Arabum.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **S**: For S, it's hard to find a good example because original s-stem nouns generally turned into r-stems in Classical Latin because of rhotacism. Despite having *ossium* as the usual genitive plural form, *os* does clearly show a consonant-stem form in the nominative/accusative plural ***ossa***, so it's not a bad example. The noun *as, assis* usually takes the i-stem genitive plural form *assium,* but a consonant-stem form ***assum*** is also supposed to be attested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **X**: I don't know of any pure consonant-stem third-declension nouns with a stem ending in X. That said, X is just a replacement spelling for CS or GS, so I wouldn't necessarily treat X as a distinct consonant: it's a cluster ending in S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **H**: As I mentioned above, I would say that Latin has no H-stem nouns, except for (possibly) *vehēs.* If we distinguish PH, CH, and TH from P, C and T, I would consider each to be a single consonant of its own that does not contain the consonant phoneme H.  PH-, CH- or TH-stem nouns would probably only be possible as loans from Greek: see below for possible examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Stems ending in unusual consonants (mostly from Greek):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Aspirated plosives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **PH**: *Gryps*, from Greek *γρύψ*, might count as a PH-stem. I don't think the genitive plural form can be used as a criterion because it's not clear what it is: Zumpt 1836 says that the genitive plural of *gryps* &quot;does not occur&quot; ([p. 29](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA29)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **CH**: *[sardonyx](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsardonyx),* from Greek *σαρδόνυξ*, seems to decline as a CH-stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **TH**: *Tiryns, Tirynthis,* from Greek *Τίρυνς*, seems to decline as a TH-stem ([Zumpt 1836, p. 21](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;pg=PA21#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)). Since it is a proper noun, I don't think any attested genitive plural form exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **F**: If you include Ecclesiastical Latin, than the word *scinifes/[cinifes](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcinifes)* might count, as it apparently has a genitive plural form *(s)cinifum.* A variant spelling with *ph* also seems to exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Z**: If you include proper nouns and don't worry about the issue of i-stems vs. consonant-stems, the name *Gōtarzēs* (from Greek *Γωτάρζης*) would probably count. It seems that in Latin, it has a third-declension genitive form *Gōtarzis* that could be seen as being built on the stem *Gōtarz-.* (I asked a separate question about [the declension of masculine nouns like this from Greek nouns ending in *-ης*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9283/how-are-arsaces-and-gotarzes-declined-and-why).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Works cited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zumpt, C.G. 1836. *[Grammar of the Latin Language](https://books.google.com/books?id=-SB0JZzDHD4C&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12500" RevisionGUID="0c08e512-dc8f-4163-8245-82fb7142e4de" CreationDate="2019-09-16T10:43:53.587" UserId="469" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="It is difficult to surpass Joonas's comprehensive answer in explaining the general grammatical and semantic aspects of the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the context, I can make my humble contribution (some of you may already know it). A most likely context is that of an [Apostolic Exhortation][1] by pope St. [Paul VI][2] that goes by the exact name **Evangelii Nuntiandi** ([official Latin text][3], official [English translation][4]), dated 8 december, 1975.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Papal documents are usually named after the first two (occasionally, three) words of their main Latin text (after the title and introductory greetings). In this case the text starts like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Evangelii nuntiandi studium** nostrae aetatis hominibus, spei plenis, sed timore etiam et angore saepe vexatis, procul dubio officium habendum est, quod non solum christianae communitati, sed universae quoque hominum consortioni praestatur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this specific context (if it is the right one, indeed), there's no need for conjectures, since there is an official translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is no doubt that **the effort to proclaim the Gospel** to the people of today, who are buoyed up by hope but at the same time often oppressed by fear and distress, is a service rendered to the Christian community and also to the whole of humanity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_exhortation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Paul_VI&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/la/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_p-vi_exh_19751208_evangelii-nuntiandi.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_p-vi_exh_19751208_evangelii-nuntiandi.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12501" RevisionGUID="485da8d6-9be4-4bfa-849e-d1156c8f99e9" CreationDate="2019-09-16T22:41:59.887" UserId="6078" Text="I have been listening a song in Latin called seraphin and was wondering if anyone could get me the Latin lyrics so I can finally know what they are saying in the song.&#xD;&#xA;the link to the song is https://youtu.be/a32JN3PIN-c and I would be ever so grateful if someone could help me out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12501" RevisionGUID="485da8d6-9be4-4bfa-849e-d1156c8f99e9" CreationDate="2019-09-16T22:41:59.887" UserId="6078" Text="Seraphin song lyrics help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12501" RevisionGUID="485da8d6-9be4-4bfa-849e-d1156c8f99e9" CreationDate="2019-09-16T22:41:59.887" UserId="6078" Text="|song-lyrics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35014" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="11426" RevisionGUID="6af3b949-dd1e-4434-bdec-c6b72451565c" CreationDate="2019-09-17T01:02:10.050" UserId="9" Comment="132" />
  <row Id="35015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12502" RevisionGUID="a2315222-a0bb-498f-9948-3233cd78be93" CreationDate="2019-09-17T02:09:33.557" UserId="867" Text="***Salubris*** is often used to describe those things which bestow health.  Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Climate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ex **saluberrimis** Galliae et Hispaniae*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; after the very healthy [climate]* of Gaul and Spain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caesar, *Civil War*, III.2 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*climate is implied because the contrast is with the bad climate of Apulia and Brundisium which is making the troops ill&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Locale:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *eaque remoto, **salubri**, amoeno loco*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [a house and land of your own] and that in a remote, healthy, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pleasant locality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Letters to Friends*, 333 (VII.20), Cicero to Trebatius, Velia, 20 July 44&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Spa towns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ut scribis, **salubres** repente factae sunt&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [the resort town of Baiae], as you write, has suddenly become a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; healthy spot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Letters to Friend*s, 263 (IX.12), Cicero to Dolabella, December 45&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The waters of said spa town:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *“Non haec, ut fama est, unda **salubris** erat”*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Those waters [of Baiae] were not, as rumour has it, healthy&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid, *Ars Amatoria*, 258&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Plants/medicine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *chelidoniam visui **saluberrimam** hirundines monstravere  …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; celandine was shown to be very healthy for the sight by swallows …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny the Elder, *Natural History*, VIII.XLI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - And, finally, food and drink:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ceu non **saluberrimum** ad potus aquae liquorem natura dederit, quo&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cetera omnia animantia utuntur*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [speaking of water] as if nature had not given us the most healthy of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; beverages to drink, which all other animals make use of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny the Elder, *Natural History*, XIV.XXVIII&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tostum **salubrius** habetur*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [chickpea] is healthier roasted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny the Elder, *Natural History*, XXII.LXXII&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12502" RevisionGUID="c38fa139-283c-4044-b180-f97d86b67f14" CreationDate="2019-09-17T02:19:19.333" UserId="867" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="I think you are right that *sanus* more correctly describes a healthy state, whereas ***salubrius*** seems to be preferred to describe those things which bestow health.  Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Climate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ex **saluberrimis** Galliae et Hispaniae*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; after the very healthy [climate]* of Gaul and Spain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caesar, *Civil War*, III.2 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*climate is implied because the contrast is with the bad climate of Apulia and Brundisium which is making the troops ill&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Locale:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *eaque remoto, **salubri**, amoeno loco*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [a house and land of your own] and that in a remote, healthy, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pleasant locality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Letters to Friends*, 333 (VII.20), Cicero to Trebatius, Velia, 20 July 44&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Spa towns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ut scribis, **salubres** repente factae sunt&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [the resort town of Baiae], as you write, has suddenly become a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; healthy spot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Letters to Friend*s, 263 (IX.12), Cicero to Dolabella, December 45&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The waters of said spa town:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *“Non haec, ut fama est, unda **salubris** erat”*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Those waters [of Baiae] were not, as rumour has it, healthy&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid, *Ars Amatoria*, 258&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Plants/medicine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *chelidoniam visui **saluberrimam** hirundines monstravere  …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; celandine was shown to be very healthy for the sight by swallows …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny the Elder, *Natural History*, VIII.XLI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - And, finally, food and drink:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ceu non **saluberrimum** ad potus aquae liquorem natura dederit, quo&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cetera omnia animantia utuntur*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [speaking of water] as if nature had not given us the most healthy of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; beverages to drink, which all other animals make use of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny the Elder, *Natural History*, XIV.XXVIII&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tostum **salubrius** habetur*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [chickpea] is healthier roasted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny the Elder, *Natural History*, XXII.LXXII&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12502" RevisionGUID="f21c0b7d-c655-4f63-9090-eefe86bf5d63" CreationDate="2019-09-17T02:25:44.447" UserId="867" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I think you are right that *sanus* more correctly describes a healthy state, whereas ***saluber/salubris*** seems to be preferred to describe those things which bestow health.  Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Climate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ex **saluberrimis** Galliae et Hispaniae*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; after the very healthy [climate]* of Gaul and Spain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caesar, *Civil War*, III.2 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*climate is implied because the contrast is with the bad climate of Apulia and Brundisium which is making the troops ill&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Locale:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *eaque remoto, **salubri**, amoeno loco*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [a house and land of your own] and that in a remote, healthy, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pleasant locality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Letters to Friends*, 333 (VII.20), Cicero to Trebatius, Velia, 20 July 44&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Spa towns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ut scribis, **salubres** repente factae sunt&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [the resort town of Baiae], as you write, has suddenly become a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; healthy spot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Letters to Friend*s, 263 (IX.12), Cicero to Dolabella, December 45&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The waters of said spa town:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *“Non haec, ut fama est, unda **salubris** erat”*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Those waters [of Baiae] were not, as rumour has it, healthy&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovid, *Ars Amatoria*, 258&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Plants/medicine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *chelidoniam visui **saluberrimam** hirundines monstravere  …*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; celandine was shown to be very healthy for the sight by swallows …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny the Elder, *Natural History*, VIII.XLI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - And, finally, food and drink:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ceu non **saluberrimum** ad potus aquae liquorem natura dederit, quo&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cetera omnia animantia utuntur*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [speaking of water] as if nature had not given us the most healthy of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; beverages to drink, which all other animals make use of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny the Elder, *Natural History*, XIV.XXVIII&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tostum **salubrius** habetur*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [chickpea] is healthier roasted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pliny the Elder, *Natural History*, XXII.LXXII&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12503" RevisionGUID="3abb3993-57b1-4361-b6e5-f9b40e5f4cfa" CreationDate="2019-09-17T02:39:09.633" UserId="522" Text="One of the fans wrote this down &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; timebam me te invenire  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; oculis tuis me perlegentem  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et quid viri sim  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; timebam me de te perire amore&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  eum primum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can add that the  second verse is a repeat. That the third verse contains the word *semper,* (always). It means, roughly,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I was afraid that I would find you  reading me  thoroughly me with your eyes, and what sort of man I am. I was afraid to die from love of you.&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12503" RevisionGUID="78330988-eb19-4698-a43f-71fd3a388204" CreationDate="2019-09-17T03:23:40.167" UserId="522" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="One of the fans wrote this down &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; timebam me te invenire  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; oculis tuis me perlegentem  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; et quid viri sim  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; timebam me de te perire amore&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  eum primum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can add that the  second verse is a repeat. That the third verse contains the word *semper,* (always). It means, roughly,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I was afraid that I would find you  reading me  thoroughly with your eyes, and what sort of man I am. I was afraid to die from love of you.&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12504" RevisionGUID="498dfd07-2be3-435b-b284-836cf3caef8f" CreationDate="2019-09-17T13:45:11.920" UserId="6079" Text="I am trying to say &quot;last wednesday&quot; in Latin; as in &quot;Last Wednesday I went to the store.&quot; I think it might be something along the lines of Praeterita hebdomas, but want to double check this. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35021" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12504" RevisionGUID="498dfd07-2be3-435b-b284-836cf3caef8f" CreationDate="2019-09-17T13:45:11.920" UserId="6079" Text="How to say 'last wednesday'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35022" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12504" RevisionGUID="498dfd07-2be3-435b-b284-836cf3caef8f" CreationDate="2019-09-17T13:45:11.920" UserId="6079" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="a4afb423-5d88-4e1c-93e6-d35092f0c6c7" CreationDate="2019-09-17T14:27:21.283" UserId="1459" Text="The verb [audire](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/audio#Latin) is many times (if not most of the times) found with an accusative. For example, in the Vulgata, [4 Regum, 22:11](http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&amp;bk=12&amp;ch=22&amp;l=11-#x) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;et audisset rex **verba** libri legis Domini, scidit vestimenta sua.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, sometimes it appears with a dative. For example, [4 Regum, 22:19](http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&amp;bk=12&amp;ch=22&amp;l=19-#x):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;et perterritum est cor tuum, et humiliatus es coram Domino, auditis **sermonibus** contra locum istum, et habitatores ejus, quod videlicet fierent in stuporem et in maledictum ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, _audire_ can mean &quot;to hear&quot; or &quot;to listen to&quot;. Is this distinction between accusative and dative used to stress precisely the meaning of the verb, as we would do in English by using either &quot;to hear [someone/something]&quot; or &quot;to listen to [someone/something]&quot;? Is there some profound distinction between the two forms of the verb? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By my superficial research, it seems there is no major distinction. For instance, [L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=audio) state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;C. _To hear, to listen to, to obey, heed_; orig. and class. only with acc., but also with dat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this the case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35024" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="a4afb423-5d88-4e1c-93e6-d35092f0c6c7" CreationDate="2019-09-17T14:27:21.283" UserId="1459" Text="Audire, with accusative or dative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35025" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="a4afb423-5d88-4e1c-93e6-d35092f0c6c7" CreationDate="2019-09-17T14:27:21.283" UserId="1459" Text="|accusative|dative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12506" RevisionGUID="3fb6873d-0955-4df9-a48f-0aa066fc6ced" CreationDate="2019-09-17T14:36:49.960" UserId="1459" Text="It seems an appropriate word is _[proximus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=proximus)_. Thus, &quot;Last Wednesday I went to ...&quot; would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Proximus dies Mercurii adii ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice _proximus_ is also used to indicate &quot;next&quot;, but I think the verb alone indicates it is the past and so it is &quot;last Wednesday&quot; rather than &quot;next Wednesday&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: I omitted &quot;shop&quot; because I couldn't find a specific word for it. There seems to be specific words for particular type of shops (books, wine, shoes, [etc](https://www.latinitium.com/smithhall?s=shop))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12507" RevisionGUID="b75236ad-95ea-41c1-8660-7fcade04cd57" CreationDate="2019-09-17T14:42:55.647" UserId="45" Text="Actually, your quote from the Vulgate *isn't* an example of *audire* + dative! Though *auditis* is spelled the same as the present 2nd person plural (&quot;You [pl.] hear), it is actually an ablative perfect participle. A clue to this is that there would be an explained shift from *tu* to *vos*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your sentence, *auditis sermonibus* is an ablative absolute forming a distinct unit. The sentence can be roughly translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And your heart was terrified, and you were brought low before the Lord, once you heard the words (literally: &quot;with the speeches having been heard&quot;) against this place and its inhabitants, namely that they would become stricken and accursed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By a strange coincidence, though, there *are* cases where *audire* can take the dative, though (as the referenced L&amp;S entry makes clear) these aren't common. Based on the examples supplied in L&amp;S, it appears that this dative object is only used when *audire* means &quot;obey&quot; or &quot;pay heed to&quot; (not simply: &quot;hear&quot;). Though I don't have a corpus search available, the vast majority of examples seem to employ the idiom &quot;dicto audiens esse&quot; (= &quot;to be true to one's word&quot;). Since there appears to be disputed manuscript evidence in the Cicero quote, and the only other reference that *doesn't* use this idiom is from Appuleius (2nd c. AD), I would be comfortable saying that you should avoid any usage of the dative besides that idiom." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12506" RevisionGUID="3236052f-b323-423a-86fd-bd1ed264111c" CreationDate="2019-09-17T16:44:10.213" UserId="1459" Comment="added 209 characters in body" Text="It seems an appropriate word is _[proximus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=proximus)_. Thus, &quot;Last Wednesday I went to ...&quot; would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Proximo die Mercurii adii ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(where, as noted by Joonas, _proximo die_ are in the ablative case, meaning a more literal translation would be something like &quot;I went [to X] on last Wednesday&quot;, but in English the &quot;on&quot; is usually omitted). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice _proximus_ is also used to indicate &quot;next&quot;, but I think the verb alone indicates it is the past and so it is &quot;last Wednesday&quot; rather than &quot;next Wednesday&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: I omitted &quot;shop&quot; because I couldn't find a specific word for it. There seems to be specific words for particular type of shops (books, wine, shoes, [etc](https://www.latinitium.com/smithhall?s=shop))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12507" RevisionGUID="ca42f4e4-b68f-44b0-9d03-f4efb63ba853" CreationDate="2019-09-17T16:49:55.010" UserId="45" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Actually, your quote from the Vulgate *isn't* an example of *audire* + dative! Though *auditis* is spelled the same as the present 2nd person plural (&quot;You [pl.] hear&quot;), it is actually an ablative perfect participle. A clue to this is that there would be an unexplained shift from *tu* to *vos*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your sentence, *auditis sermonibus* is an ablative absolute forming a distinct unit. The sentence can be roughly translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And your heart was terrified, and you were brought low before the Lord, once you heard the words (literally: &quot;with the speeches having been heard&quot;) against this place and its inhabitants, namely that they would become stricken and accursed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By a strange coincidence, though, there *are* cases where *audire* can take the dative, though (as the referenced L&amp;S entry makes clear) these aren't common. Based on the examples supplied in L&amp;S, it appears that this dative object is only used when *audire* means &quot;obey&quot; or &quot;pay heed to&quot; (not simply: &quot;hear&quot;). Though I don't have a corpus search available, the vast majority of examples seem to employ the idiom &quot;dicto audiens esse&quot; (= &quot;to be true to one's word&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there appears to be disputed manuscript evidence in the Cicero quote, and the only other reference that *doesn't* use this idiom is from Appuleius (2nd c. AD), I would be comfortable saying that you should avoid any usage of the dative besides that idiom." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11416" RevisionGUID="7964c853-33a4-48ab-b962-8b48e4e11fb0" CreationDate="2019-09-17T17:11:51.147" UserId="79" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="I have used Duolingo for other languages, and I've now briefly tested it for Latin.&#xD;&#xA;There are two major issues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It goes way too fast.&#xD;&#xA;If the course has to be short for practical reasons, I would much rather have it stop early than go fast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The system is too inflexible at accepting translations in both directions.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if you can even reasonably enumerate all possible phrasings of a complicated sentence.&#xD;&#xA;As VladimirF mentions in a comment, Duolingo does not have the capacity to understand structures more flexibly.&#xD;&#xA;(This feels similar to the issues with [Google Translate](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79) which appears to have no structural understanding.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the second lesson you encounter the first three conjugations, datives, vocatives, ablatives, several pronouns, and more.&#xD;&#xA;I don't think you're given enough time to understand the structures before new ones are thrown at you.&#xD;&#xA;You don't necessarily need full theoretical understanding to move forward, sure, but the pace feels counterproductive to me.&#xD;&#xA;First handling basic structures with care would be great; I would be happy to see only first declension feminines for the first two lessons.&#xD;&#xA;It appears that the rate at which new grammatical ideas are introduced is very high at first but then declines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Errors in spelling and minor details will probably vanish in time.&#xD;&#xA;What can be much harder to cure is the acceptance algorithm.&#xD;&#xA;There can be many ways to interpret a phrase, and the program can force a narrow and possibly unnatural wording.&#xD;&#xA;I have seen this with other languages, but I already got the feeling that it will be worse with Latin.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *Quid agit Marcus?* had to be translated as &quot;How is Marcus?&quot; whereas &quot;What does Marcus do?&quot; was wrong.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, *Me male habeo* is allegedly &quot;I feel poorly&quot; but not &quot;I feel unwell&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(This changed after my feedback. To improve the system, flag your good answers that should have been accepted.)&#xD;&#xA;And as cnread comments below, the system can force a word order in Latin when it is free and the forced one might not even be very natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the Duolingo can support studying Latin, but it seems to make a bad only teacher.&#xD;&#xA;I just completed the entire course (I wrote the first version of this answer after a couple of lessons), and I must say I am quite unhappy.&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the two major issues I discussed, I dislike the focus.&#xD;&#xA;The vocabulary is weird and often unnaturally translated, and the focus on modern United States feels very artificial.&#xD;&#xA;The sheer amount of poop and drunken parrots shows bad taste to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35031" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="de0a098d-5211-4b5b-ab30-5ba45f88cedd" CreationDate="2019-09-17T22:32:47.813" />
  <row Id="35032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12508" RevisionGUID="5f97cfb1-5529-40b2-9c71-3029f7944a36" CreationDate="2019-09-18T00:04:55.447" UserId="6080" Text="I am a language teacher, but an avid Latin fan for many years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could give you a lot of talk one way or another, but I will just give a suggestion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest thing to an epicene pronoun of any sort is the animate interrogative quis?, as it has only an animate/inanimate distinction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would offer «isquis» based on 'quisquis' the relative/interrogative pronoun, but with some kitbashing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SINGULAR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOM_____GEN_____DAT_____ACC_____ABL_____VOC              &#xD;&#xA;isquis__iscujus_____iscui_____emquem___iscui____isquis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PLURAL&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOM_____GEN_______DAT_______ACC________ABL________VOC              &#xD;&#xA;esques___umquum_____isquibus_____esques___isquibus____esques&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:&#xD;&#xA;*icui  (Orig. DAT.SG cuicui) will do duty for both DAT.SG and ABL.SG .&#xD;&#xA;**esques (Orig. ACC.PL *quesques) will do duty for both NOM.PL &amp; ACC.PL .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, just by way of suggestion. And 3rd decl. ADJs and PRS.PTCPs would match pretty easily in the M/F non distinction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have no idea what to do with 3-termination ADJs like bonus/a/um, or PFT.PASS.PTCPs, GRDVs…(?¿)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Maybe fall back on the default masculine gender in those cases? Maybe use synonyms from 3rd decl. ADJs instead (¿?)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Just some thoughts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12509" RevisionGUID="25594ec7-5c64-4234-bf90-cd06347966dd" CreationDate="2019-09-18T05:29:57.207" UserId="9" Text="I am trying to find more information about the formation and pronunciation of the Greek noun  Ἁμαδρυάς, taken into Latin as *[Hamadryas](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DHamadryas).* L&amp;S transcribes the second *a* of the Latin form with a macron: *Hămādryas , ădis.* However, I'm suspicious about whether this means the vowel is long*, or whether it just marks a long syllable before the cluster *dr,* which in poetry could freely be syllabified as *d.r* after a short vowel if necessary for the meter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Attic, long alpha is somewhat rare because of a historical change of **aː** to **ɛː** when not preceded by **e**, **i** or **r**. The α in the second syllable of Ἁμαδρυάς is not preceded by one of those sounds, so I'm not sure how it could be long. It would help to know more about the word's etymology, but I found little on this topic when I searched online. The English Wiktionary article for *hamadryad,* as well as the OED entry, explain the formation of the Greek word as from ἅμα 'together' and *δρῦς* 'tree'. Unfortunately, the length of the final alpha in ἅμα seems to be complicated: there is a Doric form *ἁμᾶ* that has a long vowel, as shown by the circumflex on the ultimate syllable, but as far as I can tell the Attic form had a short vowel, or at least could sometimes. This etymology, if correct, doesn't make me feel much more confident about the length of the second vowel in Ἁμαδρυάς.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone tell me about more information that is relevant to the etymology and/or pronunciation of this word? Is there anything that clearly points to a pronunciation with a long vowel **aː** as opposed to one with a heterosyllabic cluster **d.r**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Lewis and Short does not use the macron exclusively for long vowels: it is used to mark a short vowel in the nucleus of a heavy syllable in various cases where the spelling doesn't clearly show that the syllable is closed, e.g. in *mājor* (= [majjor], not [maːjor]) or *[cē̆dris](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcedris)* (= [ked.ris]~[ke.dris], from Greek κεδρίς)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35035" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12509" RevisionGUID="25594ec7-5c64-4234-bf90-cd06347966dd" CreationDate="2019-09-18T05:29:57.207" UserId="9" Text="What is the etymology of Ἁμαδρυάς (Hamadryas)? Is the second alpha actually long?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35036" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12509" RevisionGUID="25594ec7-5c64-4234-bf90-cd06347966dd" CreationDate="2019-09-18T05:29:57.207" UserId="9" Text="|greek|etymology|vowel-quantity|scansion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12509" RevisionGUID="4c9b969b-e821-4f62-9e3a-b45c42e67989" CreationDate="2019-09-18T05:37:45.747" UserId="9" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="I am trying to find more information about the formation and pronunciation of the Greek noun  Ἁμαδρυάς, taken into Latin as *[Hamadryas](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DHamadryas).* L&amp;S transcribes the second *a* of the Latin form with a macron: *Hămādryas , ădis.* However, I'm suspicious about whether this means the vowel is long*, or whether it just marks a long syllable before the cluster *dr,* which in poetry could freely be syllabified as *d.r* after a short vowel if necessary for the meter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Attic, long alpha is somewhat rare because of a historical change of **aː** to **ɛː** when not preceded by **e**, **i** or **r**. The α in the second syllable of Ἁμαδρυάς is not preceded by one of those sounds, so I'm not sure how it could be long. It would help to know more about the word's etymology, but I found little on this topic when I searched online. The English Wiktionary article for *hamadryad,* as well as the OED entry, explain the formation of the Greek word as from ἅμα 'together' and *δρῦς* 'tree'. Unfortunately, the length of the final alpha in ἅμα seems to be complicated: there is a Doric form *ἁμᾶ* that has a long vowel, as shown by the circumflex on the ultimate syllable, but as far as I can tell the Attic form had a short vowel, or at least could sometimes. This etymology, if correct, doesn't make me feel much more confident about the length of the second vowel in Ἁμαδρυάς.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone tell me about more information that is relevant to the etymology and/or pronunciation of this word? Is there anything that clearly points to a pronunciation with a long vowel **aː** as opposed to one with a heterosyllabic cluster **d.r**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Lewis and Short does not use the macron exclusively for long vowels: it is used to mark a short vowel in the nucleus of a heavy syllable in various cases where the spelling doesn't clearly show that the syllable is closed, e.g. in *mājor* (= [majjor], not [maːjor]) or *[cē̆dris](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcedris)* (= [ke.dris]~[ked.ris], not [keː.dris], from Greek κεδρίς)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12509" RevisionGUID="8dabb453-d3ff-40be-af7a-e0dfab7ebc29" CreationDate="2019-09-18T05:47:58.400" UserId="9" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="I am trying to find more information about the formation and pronunciation of the Greek noun  Ἁμαδρυάς, taken into Latin as *[Hamadryas](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DHamadryas).* L&amp;S transcribes the second *a* of the Latin form with a macron: *Hămādryas , ădis.* However, I'm suspicious about whether this means the vowel is long*, or whether it just marks a long syllable before the cluster *dr,* which in poetry could freely be syllabified as *d.r* after a short vowel if necessary for the meter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Attic dialect of Greek, long alpha is somewhat rare because of a historical change of **aː** to **ɛː** when not preceded by **e**, **i** or **r**. The α in the second syllable of Ἁμαδρυάς is not preceded by one of those sounds, so I'm not sure how it could be long. It would help to know more about the word's etymology, but I found little on this topic when I searched online. The English Wiktionary article for *hamadryad,* as well as the OED entry, explain the formation of the Greek word as from ἅμα 'together' and *δρῦς* 'tree'. Unfortunately, the length of the final alpha in ἅμα seems to be complicated: there is a Doric form *ἁμᾶ* that has a long vowel, as shown by the circumflex on the ultimate syllable, but as far as I can tell the Attic form had a short vowel, or at least could sometimes. This etymology, if correct, doesn't make me feel much more confident about the length of the second vowel in Ἁμαδρυάς.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone tell me about more information that is relevant to the etymology and/or pronunciation of this word? Is there anything that clearly points to a pronunciation with a long vowel **aː** as opposed to one with a heterosyllabic cluster **d.r**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Lewis and Short does not use the macron exclusively for long vowels: it is used to mark a short vowel in the nucleus of a heavy syllable in various cases where the spelling doesn't clearly show that the syllable is closed, e.g. in *mājor* (= [majjor], not [maːjor]) or *[cē̆dris](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcedris)* (= [ke.dris]~[ked.ris], not [keː.dris], from Greek κεδρίς)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6993" RevisionGUID="51f034cf-5350-48cc-a289-22e28b0f84fa" CreationDate="2019-09-18T19:55:43.673" UserId="1756" Comment="Improve wording and grammar" Text="Recently I've been learning about the accusative case, in/direct objects and in/transitive verbs. In light of this, consider the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Nilus fluvius est_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested in the rationale (_rationalis_?) of why the above uses _fluvius_ instead of _fluvium_. In particular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. is _fluvius_ a direct object? Since &quot;what is&quot; is _fluvius_, I would thought so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. is the verb _sum_ (beside being a copulative verb) a transitive verb? I would have thought so too, since it is a verb that _can_ take an object (I am a human; human being the object taken by the verb to be).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then why _fluvius_ and not _fluvium_? If 1 is not true, then what is the function/structure of the object (noun/adjective) next to the copulative verb &quot;to be&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I can see](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sum#Latin) that when using the verb &quot;sum&quot; (except in its &quot;to have&quot; meaning), the case for the &quot;object&quot; of the verb is in nominative. &#xD;&#xA;But I see no reference to this exception when reading about the accusative case (which is supposed to be the case of the direct object next to a transitive verb). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35042" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6993" RevisionGUID="51f034cf-5350-48cc-a289-22e28b0f84fa" CreationDate="2019-09-18T19:55:43.673" Comment="Proposed by 1756 approved by 79 edit id of 328" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12511" RevisionGUID="7e6a7f28-4198-4976-8600-9bb38164f349" CreationDate="2019-09-18T20:45:31.327" UserId="1955" Text="I run into this sentence of the Digest - D.9.2.54 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;Legis Aquiliae debitori competit actio, cum reus stipulandi ante moram promissum animal vulneraverit.&#xD;&#xA;``` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the person who has promessed (reus stipulandi) [to deliver] an animal injured it before the moment he was due to deliver it. In that case, the debtor (i.e. the buyer who owes payment of the purchase price) has the action of the lex Aquilia against the sellor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure my understanding is correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35045" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12511" RevisionGUID="7e6a7f28-4198-4976-8600-9bb38164f349" CreationDate="2019-09-18T20:45:31.327" UserId="1955" Text="reus et debitor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35046" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12511" RevisionGUID="7e6a7f28-4198-4976-8600-9bb38164f349" CreationDate="2019-09-18T20:45:31.327" UserId="1955" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12512" RevisionGUID="3a45aeeb-6219-42cd-8e33-81e3980bb73b" CreationDate="2019-09-18T22:21:15.337" UserId="2077" Text="I have just been watching an old TV series called Porterhouse Blue which is a Tom Sharpe comedy about an ultra-conservative and old fashioned university called Porterhouse. At one point there is a ceremony when the new college master arrives for the first time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the words are spoken in Latin. The question is what are they saying? Is this Latin gibberish, is it a real ceremony of some sort or is it a hidden comedic ceremony in Latin? Switching on subtitles revealed the following: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;Skullion the head Porter bangs on the college door&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Heu! Oui estis intus&#xD;&#xA;Fores aperire iubeo&#xD;&#xA;&lt;The Dean opens the door and says&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Qui nos iubet&#xD;&#xA;&lt;Skullion&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ecce magister, mister&#xD;&#xA;&lt;The Dean&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ergo. Fer patefactiat&#xD;&#xA;Et qua sit auctoriatate&#xD;&#xA;renuntiatus&#xD;&#xA;&lt;The Dean shuts door then the Master knocks the door and the Dean opens again&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;The Dean&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Quisnam nos appellant&#xD;&#xA;&lt;The Master&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Lussu regina ex auctoritate concilii&#xD;&#xA;Primorum ac pontificum&#xD;&#xA;Ab eoquem pennies est summa protestus&#xD;&#xA;Magister modo declaratus&#xD;&#xA;Hic ego adytum postulo&#xD;&#xA;&lt;The Dean&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Mandatum tecum fers?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;The Master&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Hoc signum ius meum declarant&#xD;&#xA;&lt;document handed over&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;Dean and others together&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Per Deum, per fidem reginae datam&#xD;&#xA;Nos domus porteori socii&#xD;&#xA;Te salutamus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35049" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12512" RevisionGUID="3a45aeeb-6219-42cd-8e33-81e3980bb73b" CreationDate="2019-09-18T22:21:15.337" UserId="2077" Text="Is it gibberish, a real ceremony, or a Latin joke?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35050" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12512" RevisionGUID="3a45aeeb-6219-42cd-8e33-81e3980bb73b" CreationDate="2019-09-18T22:21:15.337" UserId="2077" Text="|meaning|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12513" RevisionGUID="08982394-19ad-4de3-a788-a0fe7e492976" CreationDate="2019-09-18T22:22:54.387" UserId="406" Text="&gt; *Legis Aquiliae debitori competit actio…*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lawsuit under the Lex Aquilia is allowed to a debtor…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *…cum reus stipulandi…*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;…when the other party to an agreement…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *…promissum animal vulneraverit*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;…injures an animal which was promised [as collateral]…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *…ante moram…*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;…before the debtor defaults on their debt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Mora* has [a specialized meaning][1] in Roman law: willful delay or defaulting on a payment owed. To my understanding, this part of the Lex Aquilia comes up when a debtor offers up (say) a horse as collateral on a loan, then the lessor injures the horse and says &quot;actually this isn't in good enough condition, you'll need to offer something more&quot;. It only applies *before* the debtor goes into default; after they've defaulted, the *animal promissum* belongs to the lessor, who can do whatever they like with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/mora/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12513" RevisionGUID="dc89e455-950b-414b-bd8b-590faaeeb035" CreationDate="2019-09-18T22:30:03.920" UserId="406" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="I'm going to rearrange the parts of the sentence just slightly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *…debitori competit…*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A debtor is allowed… (lit. &quot;it is allowed to a debtor&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Legis Aquiliae…actio…*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;…a lawsuit under the Lex Aquilia…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *…cum reus stipulandi…*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;…when the other party to an agreement…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *…promissum animal vulneraverit*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;…injures an animal which was promised [as collateral]…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *…ante moram…*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;…before they default on their debt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Mora* has [a specialized meaning][1] in Roman law: willful delay or defaulting on a payment owed. To my understanding, this part of the Lex Aquilia comes up when a debtor offers up (say) a horse as collateral on a loan, then the lessor injures the horse and says &quot;actually this isn't in good enough condition, you'll need to offer something more&quot;. It only applies *before* the debtor goes into default; after they've defaulted, the *animal promissum* belongs to the lessor, who can do whatever they like with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/mora/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12514" RevisionGUID="170469ad-05a3-4b64-8a16-c5d0beebdfab" CreationDate="2019-09-18T23:54:09.260" UserId="9" Text="I cannot read Latin well enough to offer a translation of my own, but it doesn't look like gibberish to me. There are typos in that transcript: for example, &quot;oui&quot; is actually &quot;qui&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a Youtube video of the scene with another transcription and a Catalan translation in the description:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Porterhouse Blue 1987 Novus magister](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujrE4H5mpwI), `&#xD;&#xA;xmorente`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12514" RevisionGUID="e42a6c04-ebfb-4648-9fe1-8f947a7bec85" CreationDate="2019-09-19T00:00:36.650" UserId="9" Comment="added 1511 characters in body" Text="It is not gibberish, although I cannot read Latin well enough to offer a translation of my own. There are typos in that transcript: for example, &quot;oui&quot; is actually &quot;qui&quot;, and &quot;Lussu&quot; is &quot;iussu&quot;. Also, it is not a single person speaking: breaking the text into the smaller parts spoken by each character will make it easier to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a Youtube video of the scene with another transcription and a Catalan translation in the description:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Porterhouse Blue 1987 Novus magister](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujrE4H5mpwI), from `xmorente`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate gives the following translation of the Catalan (I edited it slightly to fix a typo):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here is the Latin text of the fragment: &lt;br&gt;--Eia, Qui estis intus! Fores aperire iubeo.&#xD;&#xA;(&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Eh, you are inside! I order you to open the door)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-Quis nos iubet? (Whoever ordered it?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-Ecce magister vester. (Your teacher)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-Ergo, fer patefaciat et qua sit auctoritate renuntiatus (So, that is demonstrated and announced under which authority)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-quisnam nos apellat? (Who asked for us?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;- Iussu reginae ex auctoritate concilii primorum ac pontificum ab eo quem penes est summa potestas, magister modo declaratus hic ego aditum postulo. &lt;br&gt;(By order of the queen according to the authority of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the advice of the notables and pontiffs under whom there is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maximum power, I declared recently master I request access here)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-Mandatum tecum fers? (Do you have the mandate?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-Hoc signum ius meum declarat (This stamp declares my right)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-Per Deum, per fidem reginae datam, nos domus Porteori socii te salutamus. (For God and due to the fidelity due to the queen, we,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; members of Porterhouse will greet you)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-Salutamus magistrum Dominum mirabilem celebramus celebramus splendide institutum  Celebramus celebramus in gloria collegii Bene regale, bene aequale Bene regale est praesentium (bis)  &lt;br&gt;(Saludem el maestro,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; admirable gentleman, celebrate it splendidly instituted, celebrate it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the glory of the school , real, equanimous is everyone present)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously there are some mistranslations here, but you can get the gist of the exchange from this, I think." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12514" RevisionGUID="c77405d3-79a6-4c97-b152-c47b3dd2aa44" CreationDate="2019-09-19T00:05:48.703" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="Although I cannot read Latin well enough to offer a translation of my own, I can say that it is not gibberish, and I don't see any hidden comedy or jokes in the content of the Latin text. (I think whatever comedy is in the scene is supposed to lie simply in fact that they're using Latin rather than English, and in the pompous and ritualized nature of the ceremony itself.) There are typos in that transcript: for example, &quot;oui&quot; is actually &quot;qui&quot;, and &quot;Lussu&quot; is &quot;iussu&quot;. Also, it is not a single person's speech: breaking the text into the smaller parts spoken by each character will make it easier to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a Youtube video of the scene with another transcription and a Catalan translation in the description:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Porterhouse Blue 1987 Novus magister](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujrE4H5mpwI), from `xmorente`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate gives the following translation of the Catalan (I edited it slightly to fix a typo):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here is the Latin text of the fragment: &lt;br&gt;--Eia, Qui estis intus! Fores aperire iubeo.&#xD;&#xA;(&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Eh, you are inside! I order you to open the door)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-Quis nos iubet? (Whoever ordered it?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-Ecce magister vester. (Your teacher)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-Ergo, fer patefaciat et qua sit auctoritate renuntiatus (So, that is demonstrated and announced under which authority)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-quisnam nos apellat? (Who asked for us?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;- Iussu reginae ex auctoritate concilii primorum ac pontificum ab eo quem penes est summa potestas, magister modo declaratus hic ego aditum postulo. &lt;br&gt;(By order of the queen according to the authority of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the advice of the notables and pontiffs under whom there is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maximum power, I declared recently master I request access here)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-Mandatum tecum fers? (Do you have the mandate?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-Hoc signum ius meum declarat (This stamp declares my right)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-Per Deum, per fidem reginae datam, nos domus Porteori socii te salutamus. (For God and due to the fidelity due to the queen, we,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; members of Porterhouse will greet you)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-Salutamus magistrum Dominum mirabilem celebramus celebramus splendide institutum  Celebramus celebramus in gloria collegii Bene regale, bene aequale Bene regale est praesentium (bis)  &lt;br&gt;(Saludem el maestro,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; admirable gentleman, celebrate it splendidly instituted, celebrate it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the glory of the school , real, equanimous is everyone present)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously there are some mistranslations here, but you can get the gist of the exchange from this, I think." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12514" RevisionGUID="11d133bf-0278-4e5f-8ca4-90a1369bd970" CreationDate="2019-09-19T00:12:27.033" UserId="9" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="Although I cannot read Latin well enough to offer a translation of my own, I can say that it is not gibberish, and I don't see any hidden comedy or jokes in the content of the Latin text. (I think whatever comedy is in the scene is supposed to lie simply in fact that they're using Latin rather than English, and in the pompous and ritualized nature of the ceremony itself.) There are typos in that transcript: for example, &quot;oui&quot; is actually &quot;qui&quot;, and &quot;Lussu&quot; is &quot;iussu&quot;. Also, it is not a single person's speech: breaking the text into the smaller parts spoken by each character will make it easier to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a Youtube video of the scene with another transcription and a Catalan translation in the description:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Porterhouse Blue 1987 Novus magister](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujrE4H5mpwI), from `xmorente`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate gives the following translation of the Catalan (I edited it slightly to fix a typo):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here is the Latin text of the fragment: &lt;br&gt;--Eia, Qui estis intus! Fores aperire iubeo.&#xD;&#xA;(&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Eh, you are inside! I order you to open the door)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-Quis nos iubet? (Whoever ordered it?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-Ecce magister vester. (Your teacher)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-Ergo, fer patefaciat et qua sit auctoritate renuntiatus (So, that is demonstrated and announced under which authority)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-quisnam nos apellat? (Who asked for us?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;- Iussu reginae ex auctoritate concilii primorum ac pontificum ab eo quem penes est summa potestas, magister modo declaratus hic ego aditum postulo. &lt;br&gt;(By order of the queen according to the authority of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the advice of the notables and pontiffs under whom there is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maximum power, I declared recently master I request access here)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-Mandatum tecum fers? (Do you have the mandate?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-Hoc signum ius meum declarat (This stamp declares my right)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-Per Deum, per fidem reginae datam, nos domus Porteori socii te salutamus. (For God and due to the fidelity due to the queen, we,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; members of Porterhouse will greet you)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;-Salutamus magistrum Dominum mirabilem celebramus celebramus splendide institutum  Celebramus celebramus in gloria collegii Bene regale, bene aequale Bene regale est praesentium (bis)  &lt;br&gt;(Saludem el maestro,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; admirable gentleman, celebrate it splendidly instituted, celebrate it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the glory of the school , real, equanimous is everyone present)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously there are some mistranslations here (and I'm not sure that this transcription of the Latin is 100% accurate either), but you can get the gist of the exchange from this, I think." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12515" RevisionGUID="0fd28163-5bfc-4546-8660-520ce57d059c" CreationDate="2019-09-19T00:56:47.047" UserId="406" Text="This looks like legitimate Latin, though the transcription is a bit mangled. Here's the corrected transcript Sumelic located in their answer, edited a bit for standardization, along with my translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There are a couple words I think might not be right, since they don't make a lot of sense. I've marked those with question marks; if I get a chance to watch the video myself, I'll see if those might be transcription mistakes.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eja, Qui estis intus! Fores aperire jubeo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hail, all you who are inside! I command you to open the doors!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quis nos jubet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who commands us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ecce magister vester.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Behold, your teacher/master.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ergo, fer(?) patefaciat et qua sit auctoritate renuntiatus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, let your bring(?) be revealed, and by what authority it has been conferred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisnam nos apellat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who, then, calls upon us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jussu reginae ex auctoritate concilii primorum ac pontificum ab eo quem penes(?) est summa potestas, magister modo declaratus hic ego aditum postulo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the order of the Queen, from the authority of the council of the important people and pontiffs, from which the tails(?) is supreme power, I, having been given the rank of teacher/master, request access here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mandatum tecum fers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you bring a mandate with you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc signum jus meum declarat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This symbol/seal proclaims my right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Per Deum, per fidem reginae datam, nos domus Porteori(?) socii te salutamus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By God, and by the faith given by the Queen, we welcome you to the house of the brotherhood of Porteor(?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Salutamus magistrum Dominum mirabilem celebramus celebramus splendide institutum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We welcome the master; we celebrate wonderful God; we celebrate this splendid institution.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Celebramus celebramus in gloria collegii&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We celebrate, we celebrate, to the glory of the college.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bene regale, bene aequale, bene regale est praesentium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well regal, well equal, well regal is the person at hand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12515" RevisionGUID="be089140-5627-460a-8a09-5cded37598e0" CreationDate="2019-09-19T01:08:21.807" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="This looks like legitimate Latin, though the transcription is a bit mangled. Here's the corrected transcript Sumelic located in their answer, edited a bit for standardization, along with my translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There are a couple words I think might not be right, since they don't make a lot of sense. I've marked those with question marks; if I get a chance to watch the video myself, I'll see if those might be transcription mistakes.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eja, Qui estis intus! Fores aperire jubeo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hail, all you who are inside! I command you to open the doors!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quis nos jubet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who commands us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ecce magister vester.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Behold, your teacher/master.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ergo, fer(?) patefaciat et qua sit auctoritate renuntiatus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, let your bring(?) be revealed, and by what authority it has been conferred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisnam nos apellat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who, then, calls upon us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jussu reginae ex auctoritate concilii primorum ac pontificum ab eo quem penes est summa potestas, magister modo declaratus hic ego aditum postulo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the order of the Queen, from the authority of the council of the important people and pontiffs, from which derives supreme power, I, having been given the rank of teacher/master, request access here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mandatum tecum fers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you bring a mandate with you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc signum jus meum declarat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This symbol/seal proclaims my right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Per Deum, per fidem reginae datam, nos domus Porteori(?) socii te salutamus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By God, and by the faith given by the Queen, we welcome you to the house of the brotherhood of Porterhouse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Salutamus magistrum Dominum mirabilem celebramus celebramus splendide institutum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We welcome the master; we celebrate wonderful God; we celebrate this splendid institution.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Celebramus celebramus in gloria collegii&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We celebrate, we celebrate, to the glory of the college.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bene regale, bene aequale, bene regale est praesentium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well regal, well equal, well regal is the person at hand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12515" RevisionGUID="fbe605d6-5616-4271-a680-0dae413de018" CreationDate="2019-09-19T01:08:45.547" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="This looks like legitimate Latin, though the transcription is a bit mangled. Here's the corrected transcript Sumelic located in their answer, edited a bit for standardization, along with my translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There are a couple words I think might not be right, since they don't make a lot of sense. I've marked those with question marks; if I get a chance to watch the video myself, I'll see if those might be transcription mistakes.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eja, Qui estis intus! Fores aperire jubeo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hail, all you who are inside! I command you to open the doors!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quis nos jubet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who commands us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ecce magister vester.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Behold, your teacher/master.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ergo, fer(?) patefaciat et qua sit auctoritate renuntiatus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, let your bring(?) be revealed, and by what authority it has been conferred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisnam nos apellat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who, then, calls upon us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jussu reginae ex auctoritate concilii primorum ac pontificum ab eo quem penes est summa potestas, magister modo declaratus hic ego aditum postulo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the order of the Queen, from the authority of the council of the important people and pontiffs, from which derives supreme power, I, having been given the rank of teacher/master, request access here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mandatum tecum fers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you bring a mandate with you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc signum jus meum declarat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This symbol/seal proclaims my right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Per Deum, per fidem reginae datam, nos domus Porteori socii te salutamus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By God, and by the faith given by the Queen, we welcome you to the house of the brotherhood of Porterhouse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Salutamus magistrum Dominum mirabilem celebramus celebramus splendide institutum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We welcome the master; we celebrate wonderful God; we celebrate this splendid institution.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Celebramus celebramus in gloria collegii&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We celebrate, we celebrate, to the glory of the college.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bene regale, bene aequale, bene regale est praesentium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very regal, very equal, very regal is the person at hand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12516" RevisionGUID="ad54462e-a243-4a0b-bfb1-87185bbe35fb" CreationDate="2019-09-19T01:53:55.613" UserId="4871" Text="Start by referring to the individual with a noun (like *persona*) that has a grammatical gender that does not depend on their natural gender.  (I wouldn't use *homo* because that takes natural gender at least in some eras of Latin.)  Then all pronouns you subsequently use show concordance with the grammatical gender of the noun, not the natural gender of the person, so they are gender-neutral in the sense I think you care about (i.e., unrelated to natural gender)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12517" RevisionGUID="5b9b211f-25e2-466c-bb08-609c9c00aae0" CreationDate="2019-09-19T07:45:15.707" UserId="2389" Text="I've come across the adjective **italiānus** in reference to the modern people of Italy, their culture and language in Internet Latin, and found it suspicious. I would like to know:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. whether it's correctly formed and capable of expressing the given meaning;  &#xD;&#xA;2. how it compares with adjectives formed with different suffixes, e.g. **italus** and **italicus**;  &#xD;&#xA;3. when it originated and what sort of Latin it's found in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35063" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12517" RevisionGUID="5b9b211f-25e2-466c-bb08-609c9c00aae0" CreationDate="2019-09-19T07:45:15.707" UserId="2389" Text="Italiānus &quot;native or inhabitant of Italy&quot; - Latin or Macaronicanese?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35064" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12517" RevisionGUID="5b9b211f-25e2-466c-bb08-609c9c00aae0" CreationDate="2019-09-19T07:45:15.707" UserId="2389" Text="|vocabulary|new-latin|derivation|suffixes|barbarism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12518" RevisionGUID="5953ca41-f5b7-4065-aeb7-981b44e794d9" CreationDate="2019-09-19T07:45:15.707" UserId="2389" Text="Previous installment: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11449/substantive-adjective-latīna-as-the-name-of-the-language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related Qs: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4636/deriving-adjectives-from-city-names, https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8834/someone-of-someplace&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll start by answering the questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. no and no&#xD;&#xA; 2. it specifically means &quot;non-native of Italy&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 3. it's a solecism, either intentional or due to ignorance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, the word doesn't seem to exist in dictionaries either Classical, Medieval [(Corpus Corporum)][1], [(Logeion)][2] or Modern Latin ([Del Col][3]), ([Morgan-Owens][4]). In [Koebler][5] one finds things like (note that the /ā/ is wrong and the /ī/ a poetic license):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **italiciēnsis**: an inhabitant of the ancient city of Italica in Spain and another in Italy&#xD;&#xA;* **italiciānus**: concerning Italy as a prefecture; a cognomen&#xD;&#xA;* **italius**: Italian (also found in Cassel's but not in any corpus); a cognomen&#xD;&#xA;* but no ***italiānus**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, using Perseus Hopper, [let's check][6] whether such a formation makes sense by seeing whether there are adjectives in -iānus formed from placenames in -ia: *Appiānus* and *Asiānus* are Greek, and so looks to be the hapax(?) *Indianus*; *Sardiniānus* occurs exclusively in L&amp;S and must be a corruption - and any way, it would  be Greek as all the names relating to Sardinia. And that's everything that I've spotted. The vast majority of these results are formed to gentilic names in -ius, referred to as **adoptive cognomina** in the literature, used to derive affiliated family names and those of libertines. Sure enough, Leumann 1977: *&quot;used to form personal names to indicate affiliation/belonging [..] The i comes from gentile names in -ius&quot;*, also treating the adoptive phenomenon. Already I conclude that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1.A: No, the word *italiānus* is not correctly formed to *Italia*, but backformed from its look-alikes in modern European languages: in Latin's highly-neutral terminology, it's either macaronic or a barbarism - or at best, Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found this word on Vicipaedia, where it's presented in all its unadulterated glory in the name of the article on the Italian language. I've skimmed through [the Vicipaedia discussion][7]. There it's claimed to be &quot;a modern Latin word&quot;, with such excellent authorities as the Facebook group *&quot;italianus sum, omnes latini a me alienum puto&quot; - indeed -* and a millipede. The one source of some credibility is the news website Ephemeris, where [a handful  of examples][8] can indeed be found - [against 181 hits][9] for *italicus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An anonymous contributor to Vicipaedia at the end of the section opines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ut est Afer &quot;homo in Africa natus&quot;, Africus &quot;Africae nativus&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Africanus &quot;qui non est origine Africus sed aliquid cum Africa commune&#xD;&#xA;&gt; habet&quot;; sic etiam Italus &quot;homo in Italia natus&quot;, Italicus &quot;Italiae&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nativus&quot;, Italianus &quot;qui non est origine Italicus, sed aliquid commune&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum Italia habet&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (As *Afer* means &quot;a person born in Africa&quot;, *Africus* &quot;native to Africa&quot;, and *Africanus* &quot;someone who isn't native to Africa but has something to do with it&quot;, likewise *Italus* means &quot;a person born in Italy&quot;, *Italicus* &quot;native to Italy&quot;, and *Italianus* &quot;someone who isn't native to Italy but has something to do with it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This prompted me to google a bit. An English translation of Zumpt [concurs][10]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From some of these countries, adjectives are formed with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terminations -ensis and -anus, as Graeciensis, Hispaniensis,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Siciliensis; Africanus, Gallicanus, Germanicianus, which must be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; carefully distinguished from the adjectives derived from the names of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the respective nations. Thus exercitus Hispaniensis signifies an army&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stationed in Spain, but not an army consisting of Spaniards; but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spartum Hispanicum is a plant indigenous in Spain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann 1977 for unknown reason says &quot;*Āfricānus* nach *Āfrica*, aber bezogen auf *Āfrī*&quot; - I don't know in what collocation it refers to the African people instead of Africa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the linked Qs mentions *Coriolānus*, of whom Wiktionary says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He received his toponymic cognomen &quot;Coriolanus&quot; because of his&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exceptional valor in a Roman siege of the Volscian city of Corioli.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching Google Books produces many hits of *Italianus* as a **medieval last name/cognomen**, which also accords well with the usages outlined above. I think at this point it's safe to say that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1.B: Even if it were correctly formed, it wouldn't have been capable of expressing the intended meaning, since###&#xD;&#xA;###2: Unlike *italus* or *italicus*, it doesn't refer to a native or inhabitant of Italy.###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speakers and writers from all over the world have been writing in Latin about Italic peoples as well as the Italian people for as long as the language existed, and all of them appear to have agreed on the inappropriateness of the word *italiānus* to refer to conteporary Italians or their language. When you find that your language competence directly conflicts with that of 2300+ years' worth of speakers, both native and otherwise, it seems as suitable a situation as any to accept their judgement on the matter and wait till your own competence adjusts itself to reflect linguistic reality. Thus, to answer the last question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###3: The term originates in two cases: a) whenever a latinist forgets or doesn't know the Latin word for &quot;Italian&quot;, and b) whenever they're writing in intentionally macaronic, or consciously barbaric Latin, or even - *conlangtin*.###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary justification for using *italiānus* on Vicipaedia seems to be the need to disambiguate the meanings &quot;Italic, pertaining to the pre-Roman peoples of Italy&quot; and &quot;Italian, pertaining to the post-Roman people of Italy&quot;. The term whose increased use introduces a need for disambiguation from the old one is the reference to ancient Italian peoples, and it's this term that is open to coining - luckily, this is just as easy to do as disambiguating Modern English from Old English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?w=italianus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://logeion.uchicago.edu/italianus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/DICCIONARIOAUXILIARESPANOLLATINOPARAELUSOMODERNODELLATINJOSEJUANDELCOL/page/n595&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://neolatinlexicon.org/adumbratio&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.koeblergerhard.de/Latein2/latein-a-z.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?lang=la&amp;lookup=ianus&amp;type=end&amp;page=1&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputatio:Lingua_Italiana&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/search?&amp;rls=en&amp;q=site:www.alcuinus.net%20italianus%20OR%20italiani%20OR%20italianum%20OR%20italiano%20OR%20italianorum%20OR%20italianis%20OR%20italianos%20OR%20italiana%20OR%20italianae%20OR%20italianam%20OR%20italianarum%20OR%20italianas&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.alcuinus.net%20italicus%20OR%20italici%20OR%20italicum%20OR%20italico%20OR%20italicorum%20OR%20italicis%20OR%20italicos%20OR%20italica%20OR%20italicae%20OR%20italicam%20OR%20italicarum%20OR%20italicas%20OR%20italice&amp;newwindow=1&amp;client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;ei=YAeDXZXVF-aDrwT-1JngBg&amp;start=180&amp;sa=N&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiVhbq6idzkAhXmwYsKHX5qBmw4qgEQ8tMDCI8B&amp;biw=1360&amp;bih=687&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=RmgPAAAAYAAJ&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;pg=GBS.PA219" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12518" RevisionGUID="4de6571c-b6b6-45e5-abdb-4e3b01768ca8" CreationDate="2019-09-19T07:53:01.807" UserId="2389" Comment="deleted 55 characters in body" Text="Previous installment: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11449/substantive-adjective-latīna-as-the-name-of-the-language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related Qs: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4636/deriving-adjectives-from-city-names, https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8834/someone-of-someplace&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll start by answering the questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. no and no&#xD;&#xA; 2. it specifically means &quot;non-native of Italy&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 3. it's a solecism, either intentional or due to ignorance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, the word doesn't seem to exist in dictionaries either Classical, Medieval [(Corpus Corporum)][1], [(Logeion)][2] or Modern Latin ([Del Col][3]), ([Morgan-Owens][4]). In [Koebler][5] one finds things like (note that the /ā/ is wrong and the /ī/ a poetic license):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **italiciēnsis**: an inhabitant of the ancient city of Italica in Spain and another in Italy&#xD;&#xA;* **italiciānus**: concerning Italy as a prefecture; a cognomen&#xD;&#xA;* **italius**: Italian (also found in Cassel's but not in any corpus); a cognomen&#xD;&#xA;* but no ***italiānus**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, using Perseus Hopper, [let's check][6] whether such a formation makes sense by seeing whether there are adjectives in -iānus formed from placenames in -ia: *Appiānus* and *Asiānus* are Greek, and so looks to be the hapax(?) *Indianus*; *Sardiniānus* occurs exclusively in L&amp;S and must be a corruption - and any way, it would  be Greek as all the names relating to Sardinia. And that's everything that I've spotted. The vast majority of these results are formed to gentilic names in -ius, referred to as **adoptive cognomina** in the literature, used to derive affiliated family names and those of libertines. Sure enough, Leumann 1977: *&quot;used to form personal names to indicate affiliation/belonging [..] The i comes from gentile names in -ius&quot;*, also treating the adoptive phenomenon. Already I conclude that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1.A: No, the word *italiānus* is not correctly formed to *Italia*, but backformed from its look-alikes in modern European languages: in Latin's highly-neutral terminology, it's either macaronic or a barbarism - or at best, Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found this word on Vicipaedia, where it's presented in all its unadulterated glory in the name of the article on the Italian language. I've skimmed through [the Vicipaedia discussion][7]. There it's claimed to be &quot;a modern Latin word&quot;, with such excellent authorities as the Facebook group *&quot;italianus sum, omnes latini a me alienum puto&quot;* — and a millipede. The one source of some credibility is the news website Ephemeris, where [a handful  of examples][8] can indeed be found - [against ~180 hits][9] for *italicus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An anonymous contributor to Vicipaedia at the end of the section opines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ut est Afer &quot;homo in Africa natus&quot;, Africus &quot;Africae nativus&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Africanus &quot;qui non est origine Africus sed aliquid cum Africa commune&#xD;&#xA;&gt; habet&quot;; sic etiam Italus &quot;homo in Italia natus&quot;, Italicus &quot;Italiae&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nativus&quot;, Italianus &quot;qui non est origine Italicus, sed aliquid commune&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum Italia habet&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (As *Afer* means &quot;a person born in Africa&quot;, *Africus* &quot;native to Africa&quot;, and *Africanus* &quot;someone who isn't native to Africa but has something to do with it&quot;, likewise *Italus* means &quot;a person born in Italy&quot;, *Italicus* &quot;native to Italy&quot;, and *Italianus* &quot;someone who isn't native to Italy but has something to do with it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This prompted me to google a bit. An English translation of Zumpt [concurs][10]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From some of these countries, adjectives are formed with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terminations -ensis and -anus, as Graeciensis, Hispaniensis,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Siciliensis; Africanus, Gallicanus, Germanicianus, which must be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; carefully distinguished from the adjectives derived from the names of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the respective nations. Thus exercitus Hispaniensis signifies an army&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stationed in Spain, but not an army consisting of Spaniards; but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spartum Hispanicum is a plant indigenous in Spain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann 1977 for unknown reason says &quot;*Āfricānus* nach *Āfrica*, aber bezogen auf *Āfrī*&quot; - I don't know in what collocation it refers to the African people instead of Africa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the linked Qs mentions *Coriolānus*, of whom Wiktionary says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He received his toponymic cognomen &quot;Coriolanus&quot; because of his&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exceptional valor in a Roman siege of the Volscian city of Corioli.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching Google Books produces many hits of *Italianus* as a **medieval last name/cognomen**, which also accords well with the usages outlined above. I think at this point it's safe to say that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1.B: Even if it were correctly formed, it wouldn't have been capable of expressing the intended meaning, since###&#xD;&#xA;###2: Unlike *italus* or *italicus*, it doesn't refer to a native or inhabitant of Italy.###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speakers and writers from all over the world have been writing in Latin about Italic peoples as well as the Italian people for as long as the language existed, and all of them appear to have agreed on the inappropriateness of the word *italiānus* to refer to conteporary Italians or their language. When you find that your language competence directly conflicts with that of 2300+ years' worth of speakers, both native and otherwise, it seems as suitable a situation as any to accept their judgement on the matter and wait till your own competence adjusts itself to reflect linguistic reality. Thus, to answer the last question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###3: The term originates in two cases: a) whenever a latinist forgets or doesn't know the Latin word for &quot;Italian&quot;, and b) whenever they're writing in intentionally macaronic, or consciously barbaric Latin, or even - *conlangtin*.###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary justification for using *italiānus* on Vicipaedia seems to be the need to disambiguate the meanings &quot;Italic, pertaining to the pre-Roman peoples of Italy&quot; and &quot;Italian, pertaining to the post-Roman people of Italy&quot;. The term whose increased use introduces a need for disambiguation from the old one is the reference to ancient Italian peoples, and it's this term that is open to coining - luckily, this is just as easy to do as disambiguating Modern English from Old English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?w=italianus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://logeion.uchicago.edu/italianus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/DICCIONARIOAUXILIARESPANOLLATINOPARAELUSOMODERNODELLATINJOSEJUANDELCOL/page/n595&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://neolatinlexicon.org/adumbratio&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.koeblergerhard.de/Latein2/latein-a-z.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?lang=la&amp;lookup=ianus&amp;type=end&amp;page=1&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputatio:Lingua_Italiana&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/search?&amp;rls=en&amp;q=site:www.alcuinus.net%20italianus%20OR%20italiani%20OR%20italianum%20OR%20italiano%20OR%20italianorum%20OR%20italianis%20OR%20italianos%20OR%20italiana%20OR%20italianae%20OR%20italianam%20OR%20italianarum%20OR%20italianas&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.alcuinus.net%20italicus%20OR%20italici%20OR%20italicum%20OR%20italico%20OR%20italicorum%20OR%20italicis%20OR%20italicos%20OR%20italica%20OR%20italicae%20OR%20italicam%20OR%20italicarum%20OR%20italicas%20OR%20italice&amp;newwindow=1&amp;start=180&amp;sa=N&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiVhbq6idzkAhXmwYsKHX5qBmw4qgEQ8tMDCI8B&amp;biw=1360&amp;bih=687&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=RmgPAAAAYAAJ&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;pg=GBS.PA219" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12518" RevisionGUID="0e66cf08-d5fa-482a-a979-83aee5be14a3" CreationDate="2019-09-19T08:17:18.590" UserId="2389" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Previous installment: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11449/substantive-adjective-latīna-as-the-name-of-the-language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related Qs: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4636/deriving-adjectives-from-city-names, https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8834/someone-of-someplace&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll start by answering the questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. no and no&#xD;&#xA; 2. it doesn't refer to &quot;a native of Italy&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 3. it's a solecism, either intentional or due to ignorance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, the word doesn't seem to exist in dictionaries either Classical, Medieval [(Corpus Corporum)][1], [(Logeion)][2] or Modern Latin ([Del Col][3]), ([Morgan-Owens][4]). In [Koebler][5] one finds things like (note that the /ā/ is wrong and the /ī/ a poetic license):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **italiciēnsis**: an inhabitant of the ancient city of Italica in Spain and another in Italy&#xD;&#xA;* **italiciānus**: concerning Italy as a prefecture; a cognomen&#xD;&#xA;* **italius**: Italian (also found in Cassel's but not in any corpus); a cognomen&#xD;&#xA;* but no ***italiānus**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, using Perseus Hopper, [let's check][6] whether such a formation makes sense by seeing whether there are adjectives in -iānus formed from placenames in -ia: *Appiānus* and *Asiānus* are Greek, and so looks to be the hapax(?) *Indianus*; *Sardiniānus* occurs exclusively in L&amp;S and must be a corruption - and any way, it would  be Greek as all the names relating to Sardinia. And that's everything that I've spotted. The vast majority of these results are formed to gentilic names in -ius, referred to as **adoptive cognomina** in the literature, used to derive affiliated family names and those of libertines. Sure enough, Leumann 1977: *&quot;used to form personal names to indicate affiliation/belonging [..] The i comes from gentile names in -ius&quot;*, also treating the adoptive phenomenon. Already I conclude that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1.A: No, the word *italiānus* is not correctly formed to *Italia*, but backformed from its look-alikes in modern European languages: in Latin's highly-neutral terminology, it's either macaronic or a barbarism - or at best, Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found this word on Vicipaedia, where it's presented in all its unadulterated glory in the name of the article on the Italian language. I've skimmed through [the Vicipaedia discussion][7]. There it's claimed to be &quot;a modern Latin word&quot;, with such excellent authorities as the Facebook group *&quot;italianus sum, omnes latini a me alienum puto&quot;* — and a millipede. The one source of some credibility is the news website Ephemeris, where [a handful  of examples][8] can indeed be found - [against ~180 hits][9] for *italicus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An anonymous contributor to Vicipaedia at the end of the section opines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ut est Afer &quot;homo in Africa natus&quot;, Africus &quot;Africae nativus&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Africanus &quot;qui non est origine Africus sed aliquid cum Africa commune&#xD;&#xA;&gt; habet&quot;; sic etiam Italus &quot;homo in Italia natus&quot;, Italicus &quot;Italiae&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nativus&quot;, Italianus &quot;qui non est origine Italicus, sed aliquid commune&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum Italia habet&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (As *Afer* means &quot;a person born in Africa&quot;, *Africus* &quot;native to Africa&quot;, and *Africanus* &quot;someone who isn't native to Africa but has something to do with it&quot;, likewise *Italus* means &quot;a person born in Italy&quot;, *Italicus* &quot;native to Italy&quot;, and *Italianus* &quot;someone who isn't native to Italy but has something to do with it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This prompted me to google a bit. An English translation of Zumpt [concurs][10]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From some of these countries, adjectives are formed with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terminations -ensis and -anus, as Graeciensis, Hispaniensis,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Siciliensis; Africanus, Gallicanus, Germanicianus, which must be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; carefully distinguished from the adjectives derived from the names of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the respective nations. Thus exercitus Hispaniensis signifies an army&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stationed in Spain, but not an army consisting of Spaniards; but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spartum Hispanicum is a plant indigenous in Spain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann 1977 for unknown reason says &quot;*Āfricānus* nach *Āfrica*, aber bezogen auf *Āfrī*&quot; - I don't know in what collocation it refers to the African people instead of Africa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the linked Qs mentions *Coriolānus*, of whom Wiktionary says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He received his toponymic cognomen &quot;Coriolanus&quot; because of his&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exceptional valor in a Roman siege of the Volscian city of Corioli.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching Google Books produces many hits of *Italianus* as a **medieval last name/cognomen**, which also accords well with the usages outlined above. I think at this point it's safe to say that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1.B: Even if it were correctly formed, it wouldn't have been capable of expressing the intended meaning, since###&#xD;&#xA;###2: Unlike *italus* or *italicus*, it doesn't refer to a native or inhabitant of Italy.###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speakers and writers from all over the world have been writing in Latin about Italic peoples as well as the Italian people for as long as the language existed, and all of them appear to have agreed on the inappropriateness of the word *italiānus* to refer to conteporary Italians or their language. When you find that your language competence directly conflicts with that of 2300+ years' worth of speakers, both native and otherwise, it seems as suitable a situation as any to accept their judgement on the matter and wait till your own competence adjusts itself to reflect linguistic reality. Thus, to answer the last question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###3: The term originates in two cases: a) whenever a latinist forgets or doesn't know the Latin word for &quot;Italian&quot;, and b) whenever they're writing in intentionally macaronic, or consciously barbaric Latin, or even - *conlangtin*.###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary justification for using *italiānus* on Vicipaedia seems to be the need to disambiguate the meanings &quot;Italic, pertaining to the pre-Roman peoples of Italy&quot; and &quot;Italian, pertaining to the post-Roman people of Italy&quot;. The term whose increased use introduces a need for disambiguation from the old one is the reference to ancient Italian peoples, and it's this term that is open to coining - luckily, this is just as easy to do as disambiguating Modern English from Old English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?w=italianus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://logeion.uchicago.edu/italianus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/DICCIONARIOAUXILIARESPANOLLATINOPARAELUSOMODERNODELLATINJOSEJUANDELCOL/page/n595&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://neolatinlexicon.org/adumbratio&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.koeblergerhard.de/Latein2/latein-a-z.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?lang=la&amp;lookup=ianus&amp;type=end&amp;page=1&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputatio:Lingua_Italiana&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/search?&amp;rls=en&amp;q=site:www.alcuinus.net%20italianus%20OR%20italiani%20OR%20italianum%20OR%20italiano%20OR%20italianorum%20OR%20italianis%20OR%20italianos%20OR%20italiana%20OR%20italianae%20OR%20italianam%20OR%20italianarum%20OR%20italianas&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.alcuinus.net%20italicus%20OR%20italici%20OR%20italicum%20OR%20italico%20OR%20italicorum%20OR%20italicis%20OR%20italicos%20OR%20italica%20OR%20italicae%20OR%20italicam%20OR%20italicarum%20OR%20italicas%20OR%20italice&amp;newwindow=1&amp;start=180&amp;sa=N&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiVhbq6idzkAhXmwYsKHX5qBmw4qgEQ8tMDCI8B&amp;biw=1360&amp;bih=687&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=RmgPAAAAYAAJ&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;pg=GBS.PA219" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11449" RevisionGUID="0999d7a7-a7b4-42f8-9e4f-6617f8808bee" CreationDate="2019-09-19T08:52:43.837" UserId="2389" Comment="Rework into self-answered" Text="For example, I want to say: ***Latīna** placet mihi magis quam **Graeca**, quamquam **in Graecā** multō plūra et doctiōra dē philosophiā scrīpta sunt.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen people claiming that this use is incorrect and that these adjectives, when standing alone, can only mean &quot;Latin/Greek woman&quot;, never &quot;the Latin/Greek language&quot;. Is this really the case? It's found in &quot;Wheelock's Latin&quot;, it's the name of the language on all Wikimedia projects, Vicipaedia has a map [full of such language names][1], and I've seen it elsewhere where the Latin language can be selected as an option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even supposing that these adjectives aren't lexicalised in this meaning and therefore don't appear in dictionaries, given the ease with which Latin employs ellipsis, I find it difficult to believe that shortening *lingua latīna* to just *latīna* wouldn't make sense to a Roman or a Medieval/New Latin speaker and considered ungrammatical. Why should that be? Surely we can't judge what's correct or not solely based on whether Cicero ever said it or whether it's found in a dictionary - that just seems like pretentious prescriptivism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguae_Italicae#/media/Fasciculus:Iron_Age_Italy-la.svg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35069" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11449" RevisionGUID="0999d7a7-a7b4-42f8-9e4f-6617f8808bee" CreationDate="2019-09-19T08:52:43.837" UserId="2389" Comment="Rework into self-answered" Text="Substantive adjectives &quot;Latīna, Graeca&quot; as language names" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35070" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11449" RevisionGUID="0999d7a7-a7b4-42f8-9e4f-6617f8808bee" CreationDate="2019-09-19T08:52:43.837" UserId="2389" Comment="Rework into self-answered" Text="|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|example-request|barbarism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12519" RevisionGUID="d3016dd4-3f7b-44de-b0cc-90b1f8e10a83" CreationDate="2019-09-19T09:11:46.640" UserId="2389" Text="No dictionary I've checked lists such a usage. The closest to what I'm looking for is [DMLBS](https://logeion.uchicago.edu/Latinus) listing a meaning &quot;**2.b** (w. ellipsis of *lingua*)&quot;, but the two examples it gives display ordinary (in effect mandatory) syntactic ellipsis to avoid repetition - the adjective is not substantive, but unambiguously headed. It also gives **2.c** &quot;(w. ellipsis of *litterae*)&quot;, with the beautiful example *&quot;solempnem in ~is fuit sermonem&quot;* (unfortunate that I can't find the source). Thus it doesn't seem like they've been able to find an example even in Medieval British Latin. Though, [apparently](http://www.koeblergerhard.de/Mittellatein-HP/mittellatein-l.doc), Old Norse has a feminine *latīna* referring to the Latin language: &quot;W.[=Weiterleben].: an.[=altnordisch] latīna, F., Latein, lateinische Sprache&quot;, and in Celtic languages [it's also](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Latina#Descendants) feminine - but so appear to be all other adjectival language names in Irish Gaelic, Welsh and Manx.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The three things that come to my mind when I see a standalone *Latīna* in a sentence are: 1. a Latin woman; 2. *via Latīna*; 3. *porta Latīna*. And as a bonus, 4. the modern Italian city of Latina. As a Neut.Pl., it would mean &quot;Latin things&quot;. Gaffiot lists a contextual meaning *&quot;pl. Latina Cic. Arch. 23, les œuvres en latin&quot;*, which to me seems like a simple switch-up of the written *versūs* and the unwritten *carmina* (that's what my brain told me, and it took me several reads to make sure there was in fact no *carmina* in that sentence).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, to the best of my knowledge, Latin simply doesn't use Fem.Sg. or Neut.Pl. substantive adjectives as language names. When there's a need of conveying this with a single adjective, Neut.Sg. adjectives are found instead: *vertere ex **Graecō** in **Latīnum***. Granted, I've yet to see an example of one used as a subject (***\*Latīnum** mē dēlectat*), but this seems accidental - and there are examples of non-prepositional use in DMLBS. Besides, the same form is found in the expression *[Latīnum esse][1]* &quot;to be a Latin word or turn of phrase; to be Latin&quot;. This form is what looks to be continued in all the modern Romance languages without syntactic limitations (*Italiano, Español,  Français, Sardu*) apart from Daco-Romanian (*Română*) and perhaps any related dialects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself would like to find an example of this usage in anything that can reasonably be called fluent Latin, even if distinctly... medieval, this side of the 20th century. So far I haven't been able to, which makes me conclude that this usage is not only un-Ciceronian, or by chance hasn't found its way into the dictionaries, but is **simply not Latin**. In cases like this the reasonable thing to do is to simply accept the vast majority of speakers' opinion on how something is and isn't said in the language you're learning, even if the reasons why might not be readily explicable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't believe that the unheaded usage &quot;with *lingua* implied&quot; is grammatical, nor that the use of standalone feminine adjectives to refer to language names is lexicalised in any sort of Latin. I'm all but certain that it's confined to the Latin of 20/21st century English speakers, in particular those who have been exposed to &quot;Wheelock's Latin&quot; where it's found in a sentence as hair-raising as the rest of that book - or to too much Vicipaedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=latinum%20es" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12518" RevisionGUID="5270d762-ba93-4159-a362-11119f5c1db7" CreationDate="2019-09-19T09:24:42.163" UserId="2389" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Previous installment: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11449/substantive-adjective-latīna-as-the-name-of-the-language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related Qs: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4636/deriving-adjectives-from-city-names, https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8834/someone-of-someplace&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll start by answering the questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. no and no&#xD;&#xA; 2. it doesn't refer to &quot;a native of Italy&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 3. it's a generic solecism, except pehaps in millipede Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, the word doesn't seem to exist in dictionaries either Classical, Medieval [(Corpus Corporum)][1], [(Logeion)][2] or Modern Latin ([Del Col][3]), ([Morgan-Owens][4]). In [Koebler][5] one finds things like (note that the /ā/ is wrong and the /ī/ a poetic license):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **italiciēnsis**: an inhabitant of the ancient city of Italica in Spain and another in Italy&#xD;&#xA;* **italiciānus**: concerning Italy as a prefecture; a cognomen&#xD;&#xA;* **italius**: Italian (also found in Cassel's but not in any corpus); a cognomen&#xD;&#xA;* but no ***italiānus**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, using Perseus Hopper, [let's check][6] whether such a formation makes sense by seeing whether there are adjectives in -iānus formed from placenames in -ia: *Appiānus* and *Asiānus* are Greek, and so looks to be the hapax(?) *Indianus*; *Sardiniānus* occurs exclusively in L&amp;S and must be a corruption - and any way, it would  be Greek as all the names relating to Sardinia. And that's everything that I've spotted. The vast majority of these results are formed to gentilic names in -ius, referred to as **adoptive cognomina** in the literature, used to derive affiliated family names and those of libertines. Sure enough, Leumann 1977 p.324: *&quot;used to form personal names to indicate affiliation/belonging [..] The i comes from gentile names in -ius&quot;*, also treating the adoptive phenomenon. Already I conclude that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1.A: No, the word *italiānus* is not correctly formed to *Italia*, but backformed from its look-alikes in modern European languages: in Latin's highly-neutral terminology, it's either macaronic or a barbarism - or at best, Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found this word on Vicipaedia, where it's presented in all its unadulterated glory in the name of the article on the Italian language. I've skimmed through [the Vicipaedia discussion][7]. There it's claimed to be &quot;a modern Latin word&quot;, with such excellent authorities as the Facebook group *&quot;italianus sum, omnes latini a me alienum puto&quot;* — and a millipede. The one source of some credibility is the news website Ephemeris, where [a handful  of examples][8] can indeed be found - [against ~180 hits][9] for *italicus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An anonymous contributor to Vicipaedia at the end of the section opines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ut est Afer &quot;homo in Africa natus&quot;, Africus &quot;Africae nativus&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Africanus &quot;qui non est origine Africus sed aliquid cum Africa commune&#xD;&#xA;&gt; habet&quot;; sic etiam Italus &quot;homo in Italia natus&quot;, Italicus &quot;Italiae&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nativus&quot;, Italianus &quot;qui non est origine Italicus, sed aliquid commune&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum Italia habet&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (As *Afer* means &quot;a person born in Africa&quot;, *Africus* &quot;native to Africa&quot;, and *Africanus* &quot;someone who isn't native to Africa but has something to do with it&quot;, likewise *Italus* means &quot;a person born in Italy&quot;, *Italicus* &quot;native to Italy&quot;, and *Italianus* &quot;someone who isn't native to Italy but has something to do with it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This prompted me to google a bit. An English translation of Zumpt [concurs][10]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From some of these countries, adjectives are formed with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terminations -ensis and -anus, as Graeciensis, Hispaniensis,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Siciliensis; Africanus, Gallicanus, Germanicianus, which must be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; carefully distinguished from the adjectives derived from the names of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the respective nations. Thus exercitus Hispaniensis signifies an army&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stationed in Spain, but not an army consisting of Spaniards; but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spartum Hispanicum is a plant indigenous in Spain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann 1977 p.324 for unknown reasons says &quot;*Āfricānus* nach *Āfrica*, aber bezogen auf *Āfrī*&quot; - I don't know in what collocations it refers to the African people instead of Africa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the linked Qs mentions *Coriolānus*, of whom Wikipedia says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He received his toponymic cognomen &quot;Coriolanus&quot; because of his&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exceptional valor in a Roman siege of the Volscian city of Corioli.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching Google Books produces many hits of *Italianus* as a **medieval last name/cognomen**, which also accords well with the usages outlined above. I think at this point it's safe to say that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1.B: Even if it were correctly formed, it wouldn't have been capable of expressing the intended meaning, since###&#xD;&#xA;###2: Unlike *italus* or *italicus*, it doesn't refer to a native or inhabitant of Italy.###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speakers and writers from all over the world have been writing in Latin about Italic peoples as well as the Italian people for as long as the language existed, and all of them appear to have agreed on the inappropriateness of the word *italiānus* to refer to conteporary Italians or their language. When one finds that their language competence directly conflicts with that of 2300+ years' worth of speakers, both native and otherwise, it seems as suitable a situation as any to accept their judgement on the matter and wait till one's own competence adjusts itself to reflect linguistic reality. Thus, to answer the last question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###3: The term originates in two cases: a) whenever a latinist forgets or doesn't know the Latin word for &quot;Italian&quot;, and b) whenever they're writing in intentionally macaronic, or consciously barbaric Latin, or even - *conlangtin*.###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary justification for using *italiānus* on Vicipaedia seems to be the need to disambiguate the meanings &quot;Italic, pertaining to the pre-Roman peoples of Italy&quot; and &quot;Italian, pertaining to the post-Roman people of Italy&quot;. The term whose increased use introduces a need for disambiguation from the old one is the reference to ancient Italian peoples, and it's this term that is open to coining - luckily, this is just as easy to do as disambiguating Modern English from Old English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?w=italianus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://logeion.uchicago.edu/italianus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/DICCIONARIOAUXILIARESPANOLLATINOPARAELUSOMODERNODELLATINJOSEJUANDELCOL/page/n595&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://neolatinlexicon.org/adumbratio&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.koeblergerhard.de/Latein2/latein-a-z.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?lang=la&amp;lookup=ianus&amp;type=end&amp;page=1&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputatio:Lingua_Italiana&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/search?&amp;rls=en&amp;q=site:www.alcuinus.net%20italianus%20OR%20italiani%20OR%20italianum%20OR%20italiano%20OR%20italianorum%20OR%20italianis%20OR%20italianos%20OR%20italiana%20OR%20italianae%20OR%20italianam%20OR%20italianarum%20OR%20italianas&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.alcuinus.net%20italicus%20OR%20italici%20OR%20italicum%20OR%20italico%20OR%20italicorum%20OR%20italicis%20OR%20italicos%20OR%20italica%20OR%20italicae%20OR%20italicam%20OR%20italicarum%20OR%20italicas%20OR%20italice&amp;newwindow=1&amp;start=180&amp;sa=N&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiVhbq6idzkAhXmwYsKHX5qBmw4qgEQ8tMDCI8B&amp;biw=1360&amp;bih=687&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=RmgPAAAAYAAJ&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;pg=GBS.PA219" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12518" RevisionGUID="2582f764-4572-442d-ade9-1cf430da8d0f" CreationDate="2019-09-19T13:08:48.483" UserId="2389" Comment="Examples with Hispānus" Text="Previous installment: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11449/substantive-adjective-latīna-as-the-name-of-the-language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related Qs: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4636/deriving-adjectives-from-city-names, https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8834/someone-of-someplace&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll start by answering the questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. no and no&#xD;&#xA; 2. it doesn't indicate Italian descent or culture, but a looser connection&#xD;&#xA; 3. it's a generic solecism, except pehaps in millipede Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, the word doesn't seem to exist in dictionaries either Classical, Medieval [(Corpus Corporum)][1], [(Logeion)][2] or Modern Latin ([Del Col][3]), ([Morgan-Owens][4]). In [Koebler][5] one finds things like (note that the /ā/ is wrong and the /ī/ a poetic license):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **italiciēnsis**: an inhabitant of the ancient city of Italica in Spain and another in Italy&#xD;&#xA;* **italiciānus**: concerning Italy as a prefecture; a cognomen&#xD;&#xA;* **italius**: Italian (also found in Cassel's but not in any corpus); a cognomen&#xD;&#xA;* but no ***italiānus**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, using Perseus Hopper, [let's check][6] whether such a formation makes sense by seeing whether there are adjectives in -iānus formed from placenames in -ia: *Appiānus* and *Asiānus* are Greek, and so looks to be the hapax(?) *Indianus*; *Sardiniānus* occurs exclusively in L&amp;S and must be a corruption - and any way, it would  be Greek as all the names relating to Sardinia. And that's everything that I've spotted. The vast majority of these results are formed to gentilic names in -ius, referred to as **adoptive cognomina** in the literature, used to derive affiliated family names and those of libertines. Sure enough, Leumann 1977 p.324: *&quot;used to form personal names to indicate affiliation/belonging [..] The i comes from gentile names in -ius&quot;*, also treating the adoptive phenomenon. Already I conclude that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1.A: No, the word *italiānus* is not correctly formed to *Italia*, but backformed from its look-alikes in modern European languages: in Latin's highly-neutral terminology, it's either macaronic or a barbarism - or at best, Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found this word on Vicipaedia, where it's presented in all its unadulterated glory in the name of the article on the Italian language. I've skimmed through [the Vicipaedia discussion][7]. There it's claimed to be &quot;a modern Latin word&quot;, with such excellent authorities as the Facebook group *&quot;italianus sum, omnes latini a me alienum puto&quot;* — and a millipede. The one source of some credibility is the news website Ephemeris, where [a handful  of examples][8] can indeed be found - [against ~180 hits][9] for *italicus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An anonymous contributor to Vicipaedia at the end of the section opines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ut est Afer &quot;homo in Africa natus&quot;, Africus &quot;Africae nativus&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Africanus &quot;qui non est origine Africus sed aliquid cum Africa commune&#xD;&#xA;&gt; habet&quot;; sic etiam Italus &quot;homo in Italia natus&quot;, Italicus &quot;Italiae&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nativus&quot;, Italianus &quot;qui non est origine Italicus, sed aliquid commune&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum Italia habet&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ('As *Afer* means &quot;a person born in Africa&quot;, *Africus* &quot;native to Africa&quot;, and *Africanus* &quot;someone who isn't native to Africa but has something to do with it&quot;, likewise *Italus* means &quot;a person born in Italy&quot;, *Italicus* &quot;native to Italy&quot;, and *Italianus* &quot;someone who isn't native to Italy but has something to do with it.&quot;')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This prompted me to google a bit. An English translation of Zumpt [concurs][10]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From some of these countries, adjectives are formed with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terminations -ensis and -anus, as Graeciensis, Hispaniensis,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Siciliensis; Africanus, Gallicanus, Germanicianus, which must be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; carefully distinguished from the adjectives derived from the names of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the respective nations. Thus exercitus Hispaniensis signifies an army&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stationed in Spain, but not an army consisting of Spaniards; but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spartum Hispanicum is a plant indigenous in Spain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A conjecture from Velleius Paterculus, if correct, would nicely illustrate this point (the suffix being functionally equivalent):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nōn Hispāniēnsis nātus, sed Hispānus ('not just born in Spain but an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actual Spaniard)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A precise parallel by Martial, a Spaniard himself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nē Rōmam[..]nōn Hispāniēnsem librum mittāmus, sed Hispānum ('or the book I send to Rome migh not just be from Spain, but Spanish')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann 1977 p.324 for unknown reasons says &quot;*Āfricānus* nach *Āfrica*, aber bezogen auf *Āfrī*&quot; - I don't know in what collocations it refers to the African people instead of Africa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the linked Qs mentions *Coriolānus*, of whom Wikipedia says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He received his toponymic cognomen &quot;Coriolanus&quot; because of his&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exceptional valor in a Roman siege of the Volscian city of Corioli.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching Google Books produces many hits of *Italianus* as a **medieval last name/cognomen**, which also accords well with the usages outlined above. I think at this point it's safe to say that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1.B: Even if it were correctly formed, it wouldn't have been capable of expressing the intended meaning, since###&#xD;&#xA;###2: Unlike *italus* or *italicus*, it doesn't refer to someone or something of Italian descent.###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speakers and writers from all over the world have been writing in Latin about Italic peoples as well as the Italian people for as long as the language existed, and all of them appear to have agreed on the inappropriateness of the word *italiānus* to refer to conteporary Italians or their language. When one finds that their language competence directly conflicts with that of 2300+ years' worth of speakers, both native and otherwise, it seems as suitable a situation as any to accept their judgement on the matter and wait till one's own competence adjusts itself to reflect linguistic reality. Thus, to answer the last question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###3: The term originates in two cases: a) whenever a latinist forgets or doesn't know the Latin word for &quot;Italian&quot;, and b) whenever they're writing in intentionally macaronic, or consciously barbaric Latin, or even - *conlangtin*.###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary justification for using *italiānus* on Vicipaedia seems to be the need to disambiguate the meanings &quot;Italic, pertaining to the pre-Roman peoples of Italy&quot; and &quot;Italian, pertaining to the post-Roman people of Italy&quot;. The term whose increased use introduces a need for disambiguation from the old one is the reference to ancient Italian peoples, and it's this term that is open to coining - luckily, this is just as easy to do as disambiguating Modern English from Old English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?w=italianus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://logeion.uchicago.edu/italianus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/DICCIONARIOAUXILIARESPANOLLATINOPARAELUSOMODERNODELLATINJOSEJUANDELCOL/page/n595&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://neolatinlexicon.org/adumbratio&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.koeblergerhard.de/Latein2/latein-a-z.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?lang=la&amp;lookup=ianus&amp;type=end&amp;page=1&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputatio:Lingua_Italiana&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/search?&amp;rls=en&amp;q=site:www.alcuinus.net%20italianus%20OR%20italiani%20OR%20italianum%20OR%20italiano%20OR%20italianorum%20OR%20italianis%20OR%20italianos%20OR%20italiana%20OR%20italianae%20OR%20italianam%20OR%20italianarum%20OR%20italianas&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.alcuinus.net%20italicus%20OR%20italici%20OR%20italicum%20OR%20italico%20OR%20italicorum%20OR%20italicis%20OR%20italicos%20OR%20italica%20OR%20italicae%20OR%20italicam%20OR%20italicarum%20OR%20italicas%20OR%20italice&amp;newwindow=1&amp;start=180&amp;sa=N&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiVhbq6idzkAhXmwYsKHX5qBmw4qgEQ8tMDCI8B&amp;biw=1360&amp;bih=687&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=RmgPAAAAYAAJ&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;pg=GBS.PA219" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35074" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12517" RevisionGUID="3795069a-cb2e-4c3d-a2e1-6706c486b71a" CreationDate="2019-09-19T13:09:06.077" UserId="2389" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|contemporary-latin|derivation|suffixes|barbarism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12518" RevisionGUID="55911c9a-35f0-4231-8784-256e3c8c4eef" CreationDate="2019-09-19T13:15:59.443" UserId="2389" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="Previous installment: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11449/substantive-adjective-latīna-as-the-name-of-the-language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related Qs: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4636/deriving-adjectives-from-city-names, https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/8834/someone-of-someplace&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll start by answering the questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. no and no&#xD;&#xA; 2. it doesn't indicate Italian descent or culture, but a looser connection&#xD;&#xA; 3. it's a generic solecism, except pehaps in millipede Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, the word doesn't seem to exist in dictionaries either Classical, Medieval [(Corpus Corporum)][1], [(Logeion)][2] or Modern Latin ([Del Col][3]), ([Morgan-Owens][4]). In [Koebler][5] one finds things like (note that the /ā/ is wrong and the /ī/ a poetic license):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **italiciēnsis**: an inhabitant of the ancient city of Italica in Spain and another in Italy&#xD;&#xA;* **italiciānus**: concerning Italy as a prefecture; a cognomen&#xD;&#xA;* **italius**: Italian (only also found in Cassel, probably a corruption); a cognomen&#xD;&#xA;* but no ***italiānus**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, using Perseus Hopper, [let's check][6] whether such a formation makes sense by seeing whether there are adjectives in -iānus formed from placenames in -ia: *Appiānus* and *Asiānus* are Greek, and so looks to be the hapax(?) *Indianus*; *Sardiniānus* occurs exclusively in L&amp;S and must be a corruption - and any way, it would  be Greek as all the names relating to Sardinia. And that's everything that I've spotted. The vast majority of these results are formed to gentilic names in -ius, referred to as **adoptive cognomina** in the literature, used to derive affiliated family names and those of libertines. Sure enough, Leumann 1977 p.324: *&quot;used to form personal names to indicate affiliation/belonging [..] The i comes from gentile names in -ius&quot;*, also treating the adoptive phenomenon. Already I conclude that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1.A: No, the word *italiānus* is not correctly formed to *Italia*, but backformed from its look-alikes in modern European languages: in Latin's highly-neutral terminology, it's either macaronic or a barbarism - or at best, Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found this word on Vicipaedia, where it's presented in all its unadulterated glory in the name of the article on the Italian language. I've skimmed through [the Vicipaedia discussion][7]. There it's claimed to be &quot;a modern Latin word&quot;, with such excellent authorities as the Facebook group *&quot;italianus sum, omnes latini a me alienum puto&quot;* — and a millipede. The one source of some credibility is the news website Ephemeris, where [a handful  of examples][8] can indeed be found - [against ~180 hits][9] for *italicus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An anonymous contributor to Vicipaedia at the end of the section opines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ut est Afer &quot;homo in Africa natus&quot;, Africus &quot;Africae nativus&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Africanus &quot;qui non est origine Africus sed aliquid cum Africa commune&#xD;&#xA;&gt; habet&quot;; sic etiam Italus &quot;homo in Italia natus&quot;, Italicus &quot;Italiae&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nativus&quot;, Italianus &quot;qui non est origine Italicus, sed aliquid commune&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cum Italia habet&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ('As *Afer* means &quot;a person born in Africa&quot;, *Africus* &quot;native to Africa&quot;, and *Africanus* &quot;someone who isn't native to Africa but has something to do with it&quot;, likewise *Italus* means &quot;a person born in Italy&quot;, *Italicus* &quot;native to Italy&quot;, and *Italianus* &quot;someone who isn't native to Italy but has something to do with it.&quot;')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This prompted me to google a bit. An English translation of Zumpt [concurs][10]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From some of these countries, adjectives are formed with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; terminations -ensis and -anus, as Graeciensis, Hispaniensis,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Siciliensis; Africanus, Gallicanus, Germanicianus, which must be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; carefully distinguished from the adjectives derived from the names of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the respective nations. Thus exercitus Hispaniensis signifies an army&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stationed in Spain, but not an army consisting of Spaniards; but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spartum Hispanicum is a plant indigenous in Spain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A conjecture from Velleius Paterculus, if correct, would nicely illustrate this point (the suffix being functionally equivalent):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nōn Hispāniēnsis nātus, sed Hispānus ('not just born in Spain but an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actual Spaniard)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A precise parallel by Martial, a Spaniard himself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nē Rōmam[..]nōn Hispāniēnsem librum mittāmus, sed Hispānum ('or the book I send to Rome migh not just be from Spain, but Spanish')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leumann 1977 p.324 for unknown reasons says &quot;*Āfricānus* nach *Āfrica*, aber bezogen auf *Āfrī*&quot; - I don't know in what collocations it refers to the African people instead of Africa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the linked Qs mentions *Coriolānus*, of whom Wikipedia says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He received his toponymic cognomen &quot;Coriolanus&quot; because of his&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exceptional valor in a Roman siege of the Volscian city of Corioli.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching Google Books produces many hits of *Italianus* as a **medieval last name/cognomen**, which also accords well with the usages outlined above. I think at this point it's safe to say that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###1.B: Even if it were correctly formed, it wouldn't have been capable of expressing the intended meaning, since###&#xD;&#xA;###2: Unlike *italus* or *italicus*, it doesn't refer to someone of Italian descent or something inherently Italian.###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speakers and writers from all over the world have been writing in Latin about Italic peoples as well as the Italian people for as long as the language existed, and all of them appear to have agreed on the inappropriateness of the word *italiānus* to refer to conteporary Italians or their language. When one finds that their language competence directly conflicts with that of 2300+ years' worth of speakers, both native and otherwise, it seems as suitable a situation as any to accept their judgement on the matter and wait till one's own competence adjusts itself to reflect linguistic reality. Thus, to answer the last question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###3: The term originates in two cases: a) whenever a latinist forgets or doesn't know the Latin word for &quot;Italian&quot;, and b) whenever they're writing in intentionally macaronic, or consciously barbaric Latin, or even - *conlangtin*.###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary justification for using *italiānus* on Vicipaedia seems to be the need to disambiguate the meanings &quot;Italic, pertaining to the pre-Roman peoples of Italy&quot; and &quot;Italian, pertaining to the post-Roman people of Italy&quot;. The term whose increased use introduces a need for disambiguation from the old one is the reference to ancient Italian peoples, and it's this term that is open to coining - luckily, this is just as easy to do as disambiguating Modern English from Old English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?w=italianus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://logeion.uchicago.edu/italianus&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://archive.org/details/DICCIONARIOAUXILIARESPANOLLATINOPARAELUSOMODERNODELLATINJOSEJUANDELCOL/page/n595&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://neolatinlexicon.org/adumbratio&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.koeblergerhard.de/Latein2/latein-a-z.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?lang=la&amp;lookup=ianus&amp;type=end&amp;page=1&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputatio:Lingua_Italiana&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.google.com/search?&amp;rls=en&amp;q=site:www.alcuinus.net%20italianus%20OR%20italiani%20OR%20italianum%20OR%20italiano%20OR%20italianorum%20OR%20italianis%20OR%20italianos%20OR%20italiana%20OR%20italianae%20OR%20italianam%20OR%20italianarum%20OR%20italianas&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.alcuinus.net%20italicus%20OR%20italici%20OR%20italicum%20OR%20italico%20OR%20italicorum%20OR%20italicis%20OR%20italicos%20OR%20italica%20OR%20italicae%20OR%20italicam%20OR%20italicarum%20OR%20italicas%20OR%20italice&amp;newwindow=1&amp;start=180&amp;sa=N&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiVhbq6idzkAhXmwYsKHX5qBmw4qgEQ8tMDCI8B&amp;biw=1360&amp;bih=687&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=RmgPAAAAYAAJ&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;pg=GBS.PA219" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12520" RevisionGUID="8a859eb3-8d05-4d5a-b2c3-9d6a7f59e7c4" CreationDate="2019-09-19T13:29:40.493" UserId="6084" Text="I'm trying to follow the &quot;ee&quot; sound pattern at the end of each word in the idiom &quot;veni, vidi, vici&quot; with translations of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came, I saw, I ate: *Veni, Vidi, Edi*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came, I saw, I drank: *Veni, Vidi, Bibi*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much have I butchered these words? :) I'm trying to stick to the sound patterns, but also not flagrantly violate the Latin grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any advice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35077" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12520" RevisionGUID="8a859eb3-8d05-4d5a-b2c3-9d6a7f59e7c4" CreationDate="2019-09-19T13:29:40.493" UserId="6084" Text="Idiom for &quot;I came, I saw, I ate&quot; (or drank)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35078" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12520" RevisionGUID="8a859eb3-8d05-4d5a-b2c3-9d6a7f59e7c4" CreationDate="2019-09-19T13:29:40.493" UserId="6084" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="04ce815a-f821-4e53-ad8f-f926a92a94cf" CreationDate="2019-09-19T13:59:53.800" UserId="522" Text="Your answers are fine: confirm it [here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For very enthusiastic eating and drinking you could try &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [vŏro, āvi, ātum,][2] 1, v. a. and n. Sanscr. root gar-, to swallow; Gr. root βορ- in βιβρώσκω, to devour; cf. also gramen,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to swallow whole, swallow up, eat greedily, devour (cf. absorbeo).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Veni, Vidi, Voravi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.latin-is-simple.com/en/vocabulary/verb/3543/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.20:1351.lewisandshort" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12522" RevisionGUID="f94d8de1-e8fc-43eb-9a12-12af692e9332" CreationDate="2019-09-19T14:04:48.377" UserId="645" Text="This is supposed to be the formal procedure by which a new Master (*magister*) of Porterhouse claims his right to the post, which Sharpe is trying to make pointedly ridiculous. The title 'Master' is appropriate here : it is simply that adopted for the head of this particular fictional college, where others in real life use such as 'President', 'Warden' and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole novel is written in a style deliberately pointing fun at the pomposity, self-privilege and administrative incompetence of some English colleges of ancient foundation, a kind of criticism which some would say is not entirely lacking in justification.. For 'Porterhouse' read 'Peterhouse', the oldest constituent college of Cambridge University (but not Sharpe's own alma mater, which was Pembroke), some of whose members at the time of the book's publication appeared (or tried to appear) outraged at the perceived insult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tom Sharpe was a very popular comic novelist who would probably have been delighted with the attention his Latin is getting here. This really needs an English native to appreciate his humour, so I don't think this ought to be taken too seriously.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12515" RevisionGUID="978e1791-453f-4047-a574-28561b2c55e5" CreationDate="2019-09-19T14:31:58.750" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="This looks like legitimate Latin, though the transcription is a bit mangled. Here's the corrected transcript Sumelic located in their answer, edited a bit for standardization, along with my translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There are a couple words I think might not be right, since they don't make a lot of sense. I've marked those with question marks; if I get a chance to watch the video myself, I'll see if those might be transcription mistakes.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eja, Qui estis intus! Fores aperire jubeo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hail, all you who are inside! I command you to open the doors!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quis nos jubet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who commands us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ecce magister vester.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Behold, your teacher/master.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ergo, fer(?) patefaciat et qua sit auctoritate renuntiatus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, let your bring(?) be revealed, and by what authority it has been conferred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisnam nos apellat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who, then, calls upon us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jussu reginae ex auctoritate concilii primorum ac pontificum ab eo quem penes est summa potestas, magister modo declaratus hic ego aditum postulo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the order of the Queen, from the authority of the council of the important people and pontiffs, from which derives supreme power, I, having been given the rank of teacher/master, request access here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mandatum tecum fers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you bring a mandate with you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc signum jus meum declarat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This symbol/seal proclaims my right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Per Deum, per fidem reginae datam, nos domus Porteori socii te salutamus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By God, and by the faith given by the Queen, we welcome you to the brotherhood of the House of Porter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Salutamus magistrum Dominum mirabilem celebramus celebramus splendide institutum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We welcome the master; we celebrate wonderful God; we celebrate this splendid institution.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Celebramus celebramus in gloria collegii&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We celebrate, we celebrate, to the glory of the college.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bene regale, bene aequale, bene regale est praesentium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very regal, very equal, very regal is the person at hand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12522" RevisionGUID="dc422430-d094-4c3e-9785-58a4eede4e53" CreationDate="2019-09-19T14:36:17.017" UserId="645" Comment="intro added" Text="Trying to answer the actual title question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is supposed to be the formal procedure by which a new Master (*magister*) of Porterhouse claims his right to the post, which Sharpe is trying to make pointedly ridiculous. The title 'Master' is appropriate here : it is simply that adopted for the head of this particular fictional college, where others in real life use such as 'President', 'Warden' and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole novel is written in a style deliberately pointing fun at the pomposity, self-privilege and administrative incompetence of some English colleges of ancient foundation, a kind of criticism which some would say is not entirely lacking in justification.. For 'Porterhouse' read 'Peterhouse', the oldest constituent college of Cambridge University (but not Sharpe's own alma mater, which was Pembroke), some of whose members at the time of the book's publication appeared (or tried to appear) outraged at the perceived insult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tom Sharpe was a very popular comic novelist who would probably have been delighted with the attention his Latin is getting here. This really needs an English native to appreciate his humour, so I don't think this ought to be taken too seriously.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35083" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12517" RevisionGUID="7f35fbef-522b-45e3-bae3-39a8672ec982" CreationDate="2019-09-19T15:51:24.897" />
  <row Id="35084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12515" RevisionGUID="943bb7d7-75ce-473e-bfa2-d58fdcec5746" CreationDate="2019-09-19T16:25:37.663" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="This looks like legitimate Latin, though the transcription is a bit mangled. Here's the corrected transcript Sumelic located in their answer, edited a bit for standardization, along with my translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There are a couple words I think might not be right, since they don't make a lot of sense. I've marked those with question marks; if I get a chance to watch the video myself, I'll see if those might be transcription mistakes.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eja, Qui estis intus! Fores aperire jubeo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hail, all you who are inside! I command you to open the doors!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quis nos jubet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who commands us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ecce magister vester.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Behold, your teacher/master.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ergo, fer(?) patefaciat et qua sit auctoritate renuntiatus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, let your bring(?) be revealed, and by what authority it has been conferred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisnam nos apellat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who, then, calls upon us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jussu reginae ex auctoritate concilii primorum ac pontificum ab eo quem penes est summa potestas, magister modo declaratus hic ego aditum postulo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the order of the Queen, from the authority of the council of the important people and pontiffs, from which derives supreme power, I, having been given the rank of teacher/master, request access here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mandatum tecum fers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you bring a mandate with you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc signum jus meum declarat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This symbol/seal proclaims my right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Per Deum, per fidem reginae datam, nos domus Porteori socii te salutamus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By God, and by the faith given to the Queen, we, the brotherhood of the House of Porter, welcome you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Salutamus magistrum Dominum mirabilem celebramus celebramus splendide institutum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We welcome the master; we celebrate wonderful God; we celebrate this splendid institution.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Celebramus celebramus in gloria collegii&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We celebrate, we celebrate, to the glory of the college.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bene regale, bene aequale, bene regale est praesentium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very regal, very equal, very regal is the person at hand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12515" RevisionGUID="a929c1d7-7dc5-4c12-bbf7-751b9cc0e4aa" CreationDate="2019-09-19T20:03:22.147" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="This looks like legitimate Latin, though the transcription is a bit mangled. Here's the corrected transcript Sumelic located in their answer, edited a bit for standardization, along with my translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There are a couple words I think might not be right, since they don't make a lot of sense. I've marked those with question marks; if I get a chance to watch the video myself, I'll see if those might be transcription mistakes.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eja, Qui estis intus! Fores aperire jubeo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hail, all you who are inside! I command you to open the doors!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quis nos jubet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who commands us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ecce magister vester.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Behold, your teacher/master.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ergo, fer(?) patefaciat et qua sit auctoritate renuntiatus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, let your bring(?) be revealed, and by what authority it has been conferred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quisnam nos apellat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who, then, calls upon us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jussu reginae ex auctoritate concilii primorum ac pontificum ab eo quem penes est summa potestas, magister modo declaratus hic ego aditum postulo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the order of the Queen, from the authority of the council of the important people and pontiffs, from which derives supreme power, I, having been given the rank of teacher/master, request access here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mandatum tecum fers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you bring a mandate with you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hoc signum jus meum declarat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This symbol/seal proclaims my right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Per Deum, per fidem reginae datam, nos domus Porteori socii te salutamus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By God, and by the faith given to the Queen, we, the Fellows of the House of Porter, welcome you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Salutamus magistrum Dominum mirabilem celebramus celebramus splendide institutum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We welcome the master; we celebrate the wonderful lord, splendidly established.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Celebramus celebramus in gloria collegii&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We celebrate, we celebrate, to the glory of the college.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bene regale, bene aequale, bene regale est praesentium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very regal, very equal, very regal is the person at hand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35086" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12520" RevisionGUID="aea1ac8f-a0b4-4a37-8b38-070a4fe7d91d" CreationDate="2019-09-19T21:36:48.160" />
  <row Id="35088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12523" RevisionGUID="7bd85f44-c4c4-4603-b3e4-0c08d1842cc5" CreationDate="2019-09-20T03:14:15.253" UserId="6089" Text="That Macrobius quote is interesting because before reading the Latin version I took Ἀφρόδιτον to be neuter.  Anyway, for what it is worth, I have had several gender non-binary students in my classes, and I always meet with them one-on-one to explain about how gendered the language is and discuss how they would like to be referred to.  The students (teenagers) are always excited to hear that there is a neuter gender and usually ask to go by neuter forms—even after I explain that in Latin the neuter implies an object." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12506" RevisionGUID="28c7fdc6-c78e-4389-81da-100e6536724e" CreationDate="2019-09-20T14:20:37.150" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 198 characters in body" Text="It seems an appropriate word is _[proximus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=proximus)_. Thus, &quot;Last Wednesday I went [in]to the shop&quot; would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Proximo die Mercurii adii in tabernam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(where, as noted by Joonas, _proximo die_ are in the ablative case, meaning a more literal translation would be something like &quot;I went [to X] on last Wednesday&quot;, but in English the &quot;on&quot; is usually omitted). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice _proximus_ is also used to indicate &quot;next&quot;, but I think the verb alone indicates it is the past and so it is &quot;last Wednesday&quot; rather than &quot;next Wednesday&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12512" RevisionGUID="6ea5bf89-7911-4458-97dd-ee4c6df9d251" CreationDate="2019-09-20T14:26:13.977" UserId="1459" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="I have just been watching an old TV series called Porterhouse Blue which is a Tom Sharpe comedy about an ultra-conservative and old fashioned university called Porterhouse. At one point there is a ceremony when the new college master arrives for the first time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the words are spoken in Latin. The question is what are they saying? Is this Latin gibberish, is it a real ceremony of some sort or is it a hidden comedic ceremony in Latin? Switching on subtitles revealed the following: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Skullion the head Porter bangs on the college door:  &#xD;&#xA;_Heu! Oui estis intus_  &#xD;&#xA;_Fores aperire iubeo_  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Dean opens the door and says:  &#xD;&#xA;_Qui nos iubet_  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Skullion:  &#xD;&#xA;_Ecce magister, mister_  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;The Dean:  &#xD;&#xA;_Ergo. Fer patefactiat_  &#xD;&#xA;_Et qua sit auctoriatate renuntiatus_  &#xD;&#xA;The Dean shuts door then the Master knocks the door and the Dean opens again.  &#xD;&#xA;The Dean:  &#xD;&#xA;_Quisnam nos appellant_  &#xD;&#xA;The Master:  &#xD;&#xA;_Lussu regina ex auctoritate concilii_  &#xD;&#xA;_Primorum ac pontificum_  &#xD;&#xA;_Ab eoquem pennies est summa protestus_  &#xD;&#xA;_Magister modo declaratus_  &#xD;&#xA;_Hic ego adytum postulo_  &#xD;&#xA;The Dean:  &#xD;&#xA;_Mandatum tecum fers?_  &#xD;&#xA;The Master:  &#xD;&#xA;_Hoc signum ius meum declarant_  &#xD;&#xA;Document handed over. Dean and others together:  &#xD;&#xA;_Per Deum, per fidem reginae datam_  &#xD;&#xA;_Nos domus porteori socii_  &#xD;&#xA;_Te salutamus_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12524" RevisionGUID="53f1d436-5250-452d-8f70-44ae63b7c142" CreationDate="2019-09-20T20:06:37.617" UserId="3003" Text="According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love ἀγάπη, among other things, refers to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Agape is used in ancient texts to denote feelings for one's children** and the feelings for a spouse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while στοργή is explained like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Storge means &quot;love, affection&quot; and &quot;especially of parents and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; children&quot;.[10] It is the common or natural empathy, like that felt by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parents for offspring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds very similar (other meanings of the words are different). That these words share this meaning kind of contradicts the main point of this article&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ancient Greek philosophy differentiates at least four main conceptual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forms and distinct words for the Modern English word love&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35092" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12524" RevisionGUID="53f1d436-5250-452d-8f70-44ae63b7c142" CreationDate="2019-09-20T20:06:37.617" UserId="3003" Text="What's the difference between ἀγάπη and στοργή?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35093" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12524" RevisionGUID="53f1d436-5250-452d-8f70-44ae63b7c142" CreationDate="2019-09-20T20:06:37.617" UserId="3003" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12526" RevisionGUID="59b29783-111f-4884-a8db-5f0d7d858e7d" CreationDate="2019-09-21T10:25:07.480" UserId="1982" Text="On Q &quot;We Are Triumphant While Our enemy Sleeps&quot; the comment: &quot;Remember the Schlieffen Plan? Brilliant; inspired gamble; but, it could have only have worked if the belligerent nations had conveniently co-operated--they didn't.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;consilium imperatoris mortui reminisceris? ingeniosum; ludo incenso deis belli, si hostes-patriae adiuvissent, id confecisset.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(How to say &quot;inspired gamble&quot;?!?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuing on the same theme: with war having been declared and the (ambitious) Schlieffen Plan about to be implemented, German Chancellor, Bethmann-Holweg, advised Europe: &quot;We must hack our way through!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A (succinct) translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;secabimus!&quot; = &quot;We will hack our way through!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, of course, is not quite the same thing. It lacks obligation &quot;must&quot;. Therefore, invoking instruction from Q &quot;Nunc Est Bibendum&quot; = &quot;Now one must drink&quot;, to give:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;nunc est secandum&quot; = &quot;Now one must hack-a-way-through!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure about this, is it open to improvement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35101" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12526" RevisionGUID="59b29783-111f-4884-a8db-5f0d7d858e7d" CreationDate="2019-09-21T10:25:07.480" UserId="1982" Text="World War One: Opening Moves" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35102" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12526" RevisionGUID="59b29783-111f-4884-a8db-5f0d7d858e7d" CreationDate="2019-09-21T10:25:07.480" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12526" RevisionGUID="bf9d7818-28fe-4bf8-bcb5-c00bd88377bf" CreationDate="2019-09-21T12:09:31.707" UserId="79" Comment="added 61 characters in body; edited tags" Text="On [Q &quot;We Are Triumphant While Our enemy Sleeps&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11065/79) the comment was made: &quot;Remember the Schlieffen Plan? Brilliant; inspired gamble; but, it could have only have worked if the belligerent nations had conveniently co-operated--they didn't.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;consilium imperatoris mortui reminisceris? ingeniosum; ludo incenso deis belli, si hostes-patriae adiuvissent, id confecisset.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(How to say &quot;inspired gamble&quot;?!?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuing on the same theme: with war having been declared and the (ambitious) Schlieffen Plan about to be implemented, German Chancellor, Bethmann-Holweg, advised Europe: &quot;We must hack our way through!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A (succinct) translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;secabimus!&quot; = &quot;We will hack our way through!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, of course, is not quite the same thing. It lacks obligation &quot;must&quot;. Therefore, invoking instruction from Q &quot;Nunc Est Bibendum&quot; = &quot;Now one must drink&quot;, to give:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;nunc est secandum&quot; = &quot;Now one must hack-a-way-through!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure about this, is it open to improvement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35104" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12526" RevisionGUID="bf9d7818-28fe-4bf8-bcb5-c00bd88377bf" CreationDate="2019-09-21T12:09:31.707" UserId="79" Comment="added 61 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35105" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5147" RevisionGUID="cd437958-a946-49d8-82f7-59ff15b64d91" CreationDate="2019-09-21T12:18:45.500" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|idiom|vergilius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35106" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4851" RevisionGUID="54e69107-04ef-4bd9-a04c-8f46559facc2" CreationDate="2019-09-21T12:20:07.993" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35107" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2601" RevisionGUID="d6583c02-e1f4-4b47-b5ef-307887c1897e" CreationDate="2019-09-21T12:21:14.060" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|word-order|philosophy-terms|logic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12527" RevisionGUID="de362606-9985-48aa-babe-5d245c000c0d" CreationDate="2019-09-21T15:42:25.563" UserId="6091" Text="I add another possibility to Joonas Ilmavirta's excellent answer: &quot;speed eradicates&quot;, which would be translated as *velocitas eradicat*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12528" RevisionGUID="d7e4fe7f-6f8d-4abe-91a5-a48e89a770da" CreationDate="2019-09-21T16:01:58.403" UserId="324" Text="When the linguists have had their say we can perhaps ask the poets for their opinion, famously Goethe:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gib mir statt »Der Schwanz« ein ander Wort, o Priapus,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Denn ich Deutscher, ich bin übel als Dichter geplagt.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Griechisch nennt ich dich φαλλος das klänge doch prächtig den Ohren,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Und lateinisch ist auch mentula leidlich ein Wort.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mentula käme von mens, der Schwanz ist etwas von hinten,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Und nach hinten war mir niemals ein froher Genuß.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12528" RevisionGUID="f585feaa-7175-4c76-a945-425e453f3535" CreationDate="2019-09-21T16:23:08.563" UserId="324" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="When the linguists have had their say we can perhaps ask the poets for their opinion, famously Goethe, mirroring the Graeco-Latin elegiac metre:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gib mir statt »Der Schwanz« ein ander Wort, o Priapus,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Denn ich Deutscher, ich bin übel als Dichter geplagt.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Griechisch nennt ich dich φαλλος das klänge doch prächtig den Ohren,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Und lateinisch ist auch mentula leidlich ein Wort.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mentula käme von mens, der Schwanz ist etwas von hinten,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Und nach hinten war mir niemals ein froher Genuß.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12529" RevisionGUID="9d5fd60e-e09e-456f-adee-b25efa73cff0" CreationDate="2019-09-21T18:36:27.170" UserId="3248" Text="As is well-known, intransitive deponent verbs can enter into Ablative Absolute constructions (e.g., _Cicerone mortuo_, _Cicerone nato_, etc.) and in (other) dominant participle constructions (e.g., _ante Ciceronem mortuum_, _ante Christum natum_, etc.). However, as is perhaps less known, some intransitive **non**-deponent verbs can also be found in these constructions (e.g., _sole occaso_, _ante solem occasum_, etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting transitive verbs aside (e.g., cf. _Carthagine deleta_, _post urbem conditam_, etc.), I was wondering which is the specific grammatical set/class of **intransitive** verbs that can enter into these participial constructions. As for Romance languages it seems to be the case that so-called [**&quot;unaccusative** verbs&quot;][1] can typically enter into absolute participle constructions: e.g., Cat. _Mort Ciceró_,...;  _Vingudes les pluges_...,  etc. However, Latin appears to make a different cut since unaccusative verbs like intr. _venire_ cannot form AA constructions (e.g., _*Imbribus ventis_, ...) nor other dominant participle constructions (e.g., _*post imbres ventas_). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I was wondering if there is any linguistic generalization in Latin as for **which type of *intransitive* verbs enter into Ablative Absolute constructions and into (other) dominant participle constructions**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unaccusative_verb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35112" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12529" RevisionGUID="9d5fd60e-e09e-456f-adee-b25efa73cff0" CreationDate="2019-09-21T18:36:27.170" UserId="3248" Text="Non-deponent intransitive verbs in Ablative Absolute constructions and other dominant participle constructions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35113" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12529" RevisionGUID="9d5fd60e-e09e-456f-adee-b25efa73cff0" CreationDate="2019-09-21T18:36:27.170" UserId="3248" Text="|verbs|deponent-verbs|ablative-absolute|dominant-participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12530" RevisionGUID="8cbcae5c-b361-41b5-bf86-ecab3a1fc493" CreationDate="2019-09-22T05:41:28.313" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="[Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=replication) proclaims that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*replicare* &quot;to repeat, reply,&quot; literally &quot;to fold back,&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;originates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from *re-* &quot;back, again&quot; (see [re-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/re-)) \+ *plicare* &quot;to fold&quot; (from PIE root [*plek-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*plek-) &quot;to plait&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please ensure to answer this question for 1. repeating and 2. replying. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please see the title. To wit, what semantic notions underlie folding, repeating, and replying? How did 'folding' semantically shift to mean 'repeat, reply'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35117" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12530" RevisionGUID="8cbcae5c-b361-41b5-bf86-ecab3a1fc493" CreationDate="2019-09-22T05:41:28.313" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How's folding related to repeating and replying?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35118" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12530" RevisionGUID="8cbcae5c-b361-41b5-bf86-ecab3a1fc493" CreationDate="2019-09-22T05:41:28.313" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12531" RevisionGUID="4344d290-ed6d-4a5b-b14e-74b6b43c0c16" CreationDate="2019-09-22T15:19:51.107" UserId="6093" Text="I do not understand Latin at all (though I started learing it with very slow pace due to a lack of time...), but I would like to understand a latin text.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to get it translated or to ask someone who can help translate it?&#xD;&#xA;It's some kind of church stuff from Vatican, but I cannot find an English or German version I could unerstand.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to get that document translated?&#xD;&#xA;(The Google translator just produces rubbish...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's quite some text (papal decretum) and I am not sure if it is a good idea to post it here and ask for help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best&#xD;&#xA;Tom" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35120" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12531" RevisionGUID="4344d290-ed6d-4a5b-b14e-74b6b43c0c16" CreationDate="2019-09-22T15:19:51.107" UserId="6093" Text="Translator for Latin text" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35121" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12531" RevisionGUID="4344d290-ed6d-4a5b-b14e-74b6b43c0c16" CreationDate="2019-09-22T15:19:51.107" UserId="6093" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12532" RevisionGUID="3f9224b7-37e3-4dc0-b99b-75aaf0d16246" CreationDate="2019-09-22T16:26:44.993" UserId="6094" Text="I didn't find -ula among the diminutive endings discussed on this site in the question &quot;Constructing Latin diminutives.&quot; Hadrian's famous poem &quot;Animula vagula, blandula&quot; uses these 3 diminutives plus &quot;nudula.&quot; Might this be a later form, not found in Classical texts? It also occurs in Carmina Burana, much later than Hadrian--&quot;Si puer cum puellula/moraretur in cellula.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35123" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12532" RevisionGUID="3f9224b7-37e3-4dc0-b99b-75aaf0d16246" CreationDate="2019-09-22T16:26:44.993" UserId="6094" Text="Diminutive -ula" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35124" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12532" RevisionGUID="3f9224b7-37e3-4dc0-b99b-75aaf0d16246" CreationDate="2019-09-22T16:26:44.993" UserId="6094" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12532" RevisionGUID="03e8041b-9c41-43da-abfc-66604620a1d4" CreationDate="2019-09-22T17:33:17.907" UserId="79" Comment="added 45 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I didn't find -ula among the diminutive endings discussed on this site in the question [&quot;Constructing Latin diminutives.&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2967/79) Hadrian's famous poem &quot;Animula vagula, blandula&quot; uses these 3 diminutives plus &quot;nudula.&quot; Might this be a later form, not found in Classical texts? It also occurs in Carmina Burana, much later than Hadrian--&quot;Si puer cum puellula/moraretur in cellula.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35126" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12532" RevisionGUID="03e8041b-9c41-43da-abfc-66604620a1d4" CreationDate="2019-09-22T17:33:17.907" UserId="79" Comment="added 45 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|diminutive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12533" RevisionGUID="11da4e31-8bd7-4b24-88ad-58800d395a12" CreationDate="2019-09-22T17:38:54.643" UserId="79" Text="The diminutive ending *-ula* is common in classical Latin, and arguably productive.&#xD;&#xA;The examples you found are not exceptional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The linked question does not discuss all the Latin diminutives.&#xD;&#xA;The suffixes listed in the question are all masculine, but there are corresponding feminine and neuter variants.&#xD;&#xA;So the *-ulus* there implicitly includes *-ula* (and *-ulum*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12531" RevisionGUID="9c1dcb1e-4934-474f-b078-aa9c82f16f1c" CreationDate="2019-09-22T17:40:57.753" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I do not understand Latin at all (though I started learning it with very slow pace due to a lack of time...), but I would like to understand a Latin text.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to get it translated or to ask someone who can help translate it?&#xD;&#xA;It's some kind of church stuff from Vatican, but I cannot find an English or German version I could understand.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to get that document translated?&#xD;&#xA;(The Google translator just produces rubbish...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's quite some text (papal decretum) and I am not sure if it is a good idea to post it here and ask for help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best&#xD;&#xA;Tom" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35129" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12531" RevisionGUID="9c1dcb1e-4934-474f-b078-aa9c82f16f1c" CreationDate="2019-09-22T17:40:57.753" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12529" RevisionGUID="a7801bde-5096-4a50-8626-9cacf5aa8b5b" CreationDate="2019-09-22T19:36:41.050" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="As is well-known, intransitive deponent verbs can enter into Ablative Absolute constructions (e.g., _Cicerone mortuo_, _Cicerone nato_, etc.) and in (other) dominant participle constructions (e.g., _ante Ciceronem mortuum_, _ante Christum natum_, etc.). However, some intransitive **non**-deponent verbs can also be found in these constructions (e.g., _sole occaso_, _ante solem occasum_, etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting transitive verbs aside (e.g., cf. _Carthagine deleta_, _post urbem conditam_, etc.), I was wondering which is the specific grammatical set/class of **intransitive** verbs that can enter into these participial constructions. As for Romance languages it seems to be the case that so-called [**&quot;unaccusative** verbs&quot;][1] can typically enter into absolute participle constructions: e.g., Cat. _Mort Ciceró_,...;  _Vingudes les pluges_...,  etc. However, Latin appears to make a different cut since unaccusative verbs like intr. _venire_ cannot form AA constructions (e.g., _*Imbribus ventis_, ...) nor other dominant participle constructions (e.g., _*post imbres ventas_). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I was wondering if there is any linguistic generalization in Latin as for **which type of *intransitive* verbs are allowed to enter into Ablative Absolute constructions and into (other) dominant participle constructions**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unaccusative_verb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12529" RevisionGUID="7a6652e6-dc7b-477d-b642-76b60d9992c8" CreationDate="2019-09-22T19:42:17.233" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="As is well-known, intransitive deponent verbs can enter into Ablative Absolute constructions (e.g., _Cicerone mortuo_, _Cicerone nato_, etc.) and in (other) dominant participle constructions (e.g., _ante Ciceronem mortuum_, _ante Christum natum_, etc.). However, some intransitive **non**-deponent verbs can also be found in these constructions (e.g., _sole occaso_, _ante solem occasum_, etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting transitive verbs aside (e.g., cf. _Carthagine deleta_, _post urbem conditam_, etc.), I was wondering which is the specific grammatical set/class of **intransitive** verbs that can enter into these participial constructions. As for Romance languages it seems to be the case that so-called [**&quot;unaccusative** verbs&quot;][1] can typically enter into absolute participle constructions: e.g., Cat. _Mort Ciceró_,...;  _Vingudes les pluges_..., etc. Cf. also Sp. _Muerto Cicerón_, ...; _Llegadas las lluvias_,..., etc. However, Latin appears to make a different cut since unaccusative verbs like intr. _venire_ cannot form AA constructions (e.g., _*Imbribus ventis_, ...) nor other dominant participle constructions (e.g., _*post imbres ventas_). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I was wondering if there is any linguistic generalization in Latin as for **which type of *intransitive* verbs are allowed to enter into Ablative Absolute constructions and into (other) dominant participle constructions**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unaccusative_verb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12531" RevisionGUID="a96c7604-bca1-448f-b1b3-ac90bd3628d0" CreationDate="2019-09-22T20:29:57.480" UserId="6093" Comment="added part of the Latin text" Text="I do not understand Latin at all (though I started learning it with very slow pace due to a lack of time...), but I would like to understand a Latin text.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to get it translated or to ask someone who can help translate it?&#xD;&#xA;It's some kind of church stuff from Vatican, but I cannot find an English or German version I could understand.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to get that document translated?&#xD;&#xA;(The Google translator just produces rubbish...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's quite some text (papal decretum) and I am not sure if it is a good idea to post it here and ask for help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;Ex quo Clemenx Papa XIII. festum in honorem Sanctissimi Cordis Jesu cum&#xD;&#xA;Officio et Missa nonnullis Ecclesiis celebrare permisit, ad immensam Divini &#xD;&#xA;hujus Cordis charitatem recolendam tanto ubivis ardore fideles populi se&#xD;&#xA;excitatos senserunt, ut nulla jam pene extet Dioecesis, quae privilegium &#xD;&#xA;ejusdem festi peragendi ab Apostolica Sede se non impetravisse laetetur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Id Rmi Galliarum Episcopi attendentes, ut festum fidelium animis adeo &#xD;&#xA;jucundum et in omni fere Catholico Orbe tam concordi pietate frequentatum ab &#xD;&#xA;universa prorsus Ecclesia amodo celebretur, humillima ea de re vota sua SSmo &#xD;&#xA;Domino Nostro Pio PP. IX. per subscriptum Cardinalem, cum nuper in Galliis &#xD;&#xA;Legati a Latere munere fungeretur, subjici curarunt. Occassionem namque sibi &#xD;&#xA;datam lubenti animo arripientes publicum ac solemne in persona Cardinalis &#xD;&#xA;Legati testimonium exhibendi suae erga Sedem Apostolicam venerationis, ipsum &#xD;&#xA;Parisiis commorantem ingenti numero convenerunt, intimamque ac plenissimam &#xD;&#xA;adhaesionem suam Romano Pontifici veluti Catholicae unitatis Centro et Jesu &#xD;&#xA;Cristi in terris Vicario professi, ut festum Sacratissimi Cordis Jesu ad &#xD;&#xA;universam extendere dignaretur Ecclesiam enixis precibus postulavere.&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best&#xD;&#xA;Tom" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12531" RevisionGUID="dc7ac36e-87ba-4767-9134-0b5d3aee5e21" CreationDate="2019-09-22T20:44:03.790" UserId="6093" Comment="edited body" Text="I do not understand Latin at all (though I started learning it with very slow pace due to a lack of time...), but I would like to understand a Latin text.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to get it translated or to ask someone who can help translate it?&#xD;&#xA;It's some kind of church stuff from Vatican, but I cannot find an English or German version I could understand.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to get that document translated?&#xD;&#xA;(The Google translator just produces rubbish...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's quite some text (papal decretum) and I am not sure if it is a good idea to post it here and ask for help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;Ex quo Clemens Papa XIII. festum in honorem Sanctissimi Cordis Jesu cum&#xD;&#xA;Officio et Missa nonnullis Ecclesiis celebrare permisit, ad immensam Divini &#xD;&#xA;hujus Cordis charitatem recolendam tanto ubivis ardore fideles populi se&#xD;&#xA;excitatos senserunt, ut nulla jam pene extet Dioecesis, quae privilegium &#xD;&#xA;ejusdem festi peragendi ab Apostolica Sede se non impetravisse laetetur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Id Rmi Galliarum Episcopi attendentes, ut festum fidelium animis adeo &#xD;&#xA;jucundum et in omni fere Catholico Orbe tam concordi pietate frequentatum ab &#xD;&#xA;universa prorsus Ecclesia amodo celebretur, humillima ea de re vota sua SSmo &#xD;&#xA;Domino Nostro Pio PP. IX. per subscriptum Cardinalem, cum nuper in Galliis &#xD;&#xA;Legati a Latere munere fungeretur, subjici curarunt. Occassionem namque sibi &#xD;&#xA;datam lubenti animo arripientes publicum ac solemne in persona Cardinalis &#xD;&#xA;Legati testimonium exhibendi suae erga Sedem Apostolicam venerationis, ipsum &#xD;&#xA;Parisiis commorantem ingenti numero convenerunt, intimamque ac plenissimam &#xD;&#xA;adhaesionem suam Romano Pontifici veluti Catholicae unitatis Centro et Jesu &#xD;&#xA;Cristi in terris Vicario professi, ut festum Sacratissimi Cordis Jesu ad &#xD;&#xA;universam extendere dignaretur Ecclesiam enixis precibus postulavere.&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best&#xD;&#xA;Tom" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35134" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12532" RevisionGUID="d4d3c827-4397-4330-9860-c98696bebb4d" CreationDate="2019-09-23T00:27:03.500" />
  <row Id="35135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12534" RevisionGUID="ecefcebe-ec31-4eeb-9b4f-2792bd162fce" CreationDate="2019-09-23T02:31:22.400" UserId="118" Text="I'm only an intermediate student of Latin, but I think I'll learn a lot by translating this. Hopefully someone more experienced can check my work. Here is the first paragraph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since Pope Clement XIII permitted several Churches to celebrate the Feast in&#xD;&#xA;honor of the Most Holy Heart of Jesus together with its Office and Mass, the&#xD;&#xA;faithful of the people everywhere feel themselves awakened by such ardor to&#xD;&#xA;renew their contemplation of the measureless love of this Divine Heart that&#xD;&#xA;now hardly a Diocese exists which doesn't wish it had obtained from&#xD;&#xA;the Apostolic Seat the privilege of performing the same feast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Literally, the last part is &quot;hardly a Diocese exists which is glad not to have obtained…&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll see if I can do the second paragraph later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12535" RevisionGUID="0b65652e-e942-43e0-b333-840d83883a98" CreationDate="2019-09-23T03:42:55.213" UserId="79" Text="A colleague had this problem recently:&#xD;&#xA;A degree certificate from their home university was issued in Latin, but they need it in English or Finnish for the purpose of a grant application.&#xD;&#xA;Apparently no official English translation was supplied or the copy has been lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of people capable of making such translations, but for official purposes the translator needs to be somehow certified.&#xD;&#xA;This need is more common with documents like birth certificates, but I am not aware of anyone issuing them in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;This question is not about informal translations that many users here could provide, but about ones that government officials would be happy to accept.&#xD;&#xA;I assume such translations will not be free of charge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, are there any officially recognized Latin translators?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, where can I find them and what kind of recognition are we talking about?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35137" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12535" RevisionGUID="0b65652e-e942-43e0-b333-840d83883a98" CreationDate="2019-09-23T03:42:55.213" UserId="79" Text="Are there official Latin translators?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35138" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12535" RevisionGUID="0b65652e-e942-43e0-b333-840d83883a98" CreationDate="2019-09-23T03:42:55.213" UserId="79" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|modern-life|academic-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12534" RevisionGUID="c0d4431b-4572-4490-b914-aebaa648e386" CreationDate="2019-09-23T03:51:59.703" UserId="118" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I'm only an intermediate student of Latin, but I think I'll learn a lot by translating this. Hopefully someone more experienced can check my work. Here is the first paragraph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since Pope Clement XIII permitted several Churches to celebrate the Feast in&#xD;&#xA;honor of the Most Holy Heart of Jesus together with its Office and Mass, the&#xD;&#xA;faithful of the people everywhere have felt themselves awakened by such ardor to&#xD;&#xA;renew their contemplation of the measureless love of this Divine Heart that&#xD;&#xA;now hardly a Diocese exists which doesn't wish it had obtained from&#xD;&#xA;the Apostolic Seat the privilege of performing the same feast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Literally, the last part is &quot;hardly a Diocese exists which is glad not to have obtained…&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll see if I can do the second paragraph later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12530" RevisionGUID="78e5ebf7-e974-49ba-9e0d-8a06b66b4262" CreationDate="2019-09-23T04:52:49.377" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="added 207 characters in body; edited title" Text="[Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=replication) proclaims that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*replicare* &quot;to repeat, reply,&quot; literally &quot;to fold back,&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;originates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from *re-* &quot;back, again&quot; (see [re-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/re-)) \+ *plicare* &quot;to fold&quot; (from PIE root [*plek-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*plek-) &quot;to plait&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please see the title.  Please answer this question for: 1. repeating + 2. replying. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To wit, what notions underlie folding, repeating, and replying? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;p 1785 on [*Oxford Latin Dictionary* (2012 2 ed)](https://www.amazon.ca/Oxford-Latin-Dictionary-Dictionaries/dp/0199580316) doesn't expound the semantic shift. I marked the entry with a red line. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Mb5bv.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35141" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12530" RevisionGUID="78e5ebf7-e974-49ba-9e0d-8a06b66b4262" CreationDate="2019-09-23T04:52:49.377" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="added 207 characters in body; edited title" Text="How did 'folding' semantically shift to mean 'repeat, reply'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12534" RevisionGUID="8728a4a0-dac0-4eae-9a4d-ad1092f78a3c" CreationDate="2019-09-23T07:54:27.060" UserId="118" Comment="added 1306 characters in body" Text="I'm only an intermediate student of Latin, but I think I'll learn a lot by translating this. Here's what I came up with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since Pope Clement XIII permitted several Churches to celebrate the Feast in&#xD;&#xA;honor of the Most Holy Heart of Jesus together with its Office and Mass, the&#xD;&#xA;faithful of the people everywhere have felt themselves awakened by such ardor to&#xD;&#xA;renew their contemplation of the measureless love of this Divine Heart that&#xD;&#xA;now hardly a Diocese exists which doesn't wish it had obtained from&#xD;&#xA;the Apostolic Seat the privilege of performing the same feast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Literally, the last part is &quot;hardly a Diocese exists which is glad not to have obtained…&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The bishops of the French Religious of Mary Immaculate attending to this, in&#xD;&#xA;order that a feast so agreeable to the souls of the faithful and observed in&#xD;&#xA;such like-minded piety in almost all the Catholic World should be celebrated&#xD;&#xA;straightforwardly hereafter by the whole Church, by their most humble&#xD;&#xA;vows on this matter arranged that it be submitted to our Most Holy Lord Pope&#xD;&#xA;Pius IX through the undersigned Cardinal, since he recently performed the&#xD;&#xA;duties of the [Pope's chief legate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_legate#Legatus_a_latere) among the French.&#xD;&#xA;Indeed the bishops, eagerly taking the opportunity to present public and&#xD;&#xA;solemn testimony of their veneration before the Apostolic Seat in the person&#xD;&#xA;of a Cardinal of the Legate, met him lingering in Paris a great many times,&#xD;&#xA;and having avowed to the Pope's local representative their deep and fullest&#xD;&#xA;adherence to the Roman Pontiff just as to the center of Catholic unity and of&#xD;&#xA;Jesus Christ on Earth, requested by insistent prayers that the Feast of the&#xD;&#xA;Most Sacred Heart of Jesus be deemed worthy to extend to the whole Church.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confident that I have the gist of the meaning correct, but there are several places where I'm pretty sure I got some details wrong (especially _humillima ea de re vota sua, ingenti numero,_ and _enixis precibus_). Hopefully someone more experienced will check my work and post corrections." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12531" RevisionGUID="663a9317-0278-4130-b345-cdafaa73c46f" CreationDate="2019-09-23T08:15:01.030" UserId="118" Comment="format" Text="I do not understand Latin at all (though I started learning it with very slow pace due to a lack of time...), but I would like to understand a Latin text.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to get it translated or to ask someone who can help translate it?&#xD;&#xA;It's some kind of church stuff from Vatican, but I cannot find an English or German version I could understand.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to get that document translated?&#xD;&#xA;(The Google translator just produces rubbish...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's quite some text (papal decretum) and I am not sure if it is a good idea to post it here and ask for help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ex quo Clemens Papa XIII. festum in honorem Sanctissimi Cordis Jesu cum&#xD;&#xA;Officio et Missa nonnullis Ecclesiis celebrare permisit, ad immensam Divini &#xD;&#xA;hujus Cordis charitatem recolendam tanto ubivis ardore fideles populi se&#xD;&#xA;excitatos senserunt, ut nulla jam pene extet Dioecesis, quae privilegium &#xD;&#xA;ejusdem festi peragendi ab Apostolica Sede se non impetravisse laetetur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Id Rmi Galliarum Episcopi attendentes, ut festum fidelium animis adeo &#xD;&#xA;jucundum et in omni fere Catholico Orbe tam concordi pietate frequentatum ab &#xD;&#xA;universa prorsus Ecclesia amodo celebretur, humillima ea de re vota sua SSmo &#xD;&#xA;Domino Nostro Pio PP. IX. per subscriptum Cardinalem, cum nuper in Galliis &#xD;&#xA;Legati a Latere munere fungeretur, subjici curarunt. Occassionem namque sibi &#xD;&#xA;datam lubenti animo arripientes publicum ac solemne in persona Cardinalis &#xD;&#xA;Legati testimonium exhibendi suae erga Sedem Apostolicam venerationis, ipsum &#xD;&#xA;Parisiis commorantem ingenti numero convenerunt, intimamque ac plenissimam &#xD;&#xA;adhaesionem suam Romano Pontifici veluti Catholicae unitatis Centro et Jesu &#xD;&#xA;Cristi in terris Vicario professi, ut festum Sacratissimi Cordis Jesu ad &#xD;&#xA;universam extendere dignaretur Ecclesiam enixis precibus postulavere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Tom" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12534" RevisionGUID="2014b86a-bf16-45a0-a975-db98420277fe" CreationDate="2019-09-23T08:24:33.060" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="I'm only an intermediate student of Latin, but I think I'll learn a lot by translating this. Here's what I came up with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since Pope Clement XIII permitted several Churches to celebrate the Feast in&#xD;&#xA;honor of the Most Holy Heart of Jesus together with its Office and Mass, the&#xD;&#xA;faithful of the people everywhere have felt themselves awakened by such ardor to&#xD;&#xA;renew their contemplation of the measureless love of this Divine Heart that&#xD;&#xA;now hardly a Diocese exists which doesn't wish it had obtained from&#xD;&#xA;the Apostolic Seat the privilege of performing the same feast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Literally, the last part is &quot;hardly a Diocese exists which is glad not to have obtained…&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The bishops of the French Religious of Mary Immaculate attending to this, in&#xD;&#xA;order that a feast so agreeable to the souls of the faithful and observed in&#xD;&#xA;such like-minded piety in almost all the Catholic World should be celebrated&#xD;&#xA;straightforwardly hereafter by the whole Church, by their most humble&#xD;&#xA;vows on this matter arranged that it be submitted to our Most Holy Lord Pope&#xD;&#xA;Pius IX through the undersigned Cardinal, since he recently performed the&#xD;&#xA;duties of the [Pope's chief legate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_legate#Legatus_a_latere) among the French.&#xD;&#xA;Indeed the bishops, eagerly taking the opportunity to present public and&#xD;&#xA;solemn testimony of their veneration before the Apostolic Seat in the person&#xD;&#xA;of a Cardinal of the Legate, met him lingering in Paris a great many times,&#xD;&#xA;and having avowed to the Pope's local representative their deep and fullest&#xD;&#xA;adherence to the Roman Pontiff just as to the center of Catholic unity and of&#xD;&#xA;Jesus Christ on Earth, requested by insistent prayers that the Feast of the&#xD;&#xA;Most Sacred Heart of Jesus be deemed worthy to extend to the whole Church.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confident that I have the gist of the meaning correct, but there are several places where I'm pretty sure I got some details wrong (especially _humillima ea de re vota sua, ingenti numero,_ and _enixis precibus_). Hopefully someone more experienced will check my work and post corrections." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35145" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12531" RevisionGUID="df1cdbf0-cb94-489e-883c-63c13d287ec3" CreationDate="2019-09-23T12:20:11.040" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|ecclesiastical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12536" RevisionGUID="e70ba307-7db1-41ef-8db4-669aeab36fff" CreationDate="2019-09-23T13:18:06.770" UserId="6095" Text="I am skeptical about Internet results.&#xD;&#xA;Question:So what is team in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;and cite it along with a reliable Web page. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35147" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12536" RevisionGUID="e70ba307-7db1-41ef-8db4-669aeab36fff" CreationDate="2019-09-23T13:18:06.770" UserId="6095" Text="Translation question.What is team in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35148" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12536" RevisionGUID="e70ba307-7db1-41ef-8db4-669aeab36fff" CreationDate="2019-09-23T13:18:06.770" UserId="6095" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12536" RevisionGUID="9e67cc8e-cb86-4880-ad38-361d954ca220" CreationDate="2019-09-23T14:08:54.880" UserId="45" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am skeptical about Internet results.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: So what is &quot;team&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please cite a a reliable reference page. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35150" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12536" RevisionGUID="9e67cc8e-cb86-4880-ad38-361d954ca220" CreationDate="2019-09-23T14:08:54.880" UserId="45" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is &quot;team&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12537" RevisionGUID="8ac6a021-f278-416d-a789-07b8213bf319" CreationDate="2019-09-23T15:10:20.783" UserId="5056" Text="I found this service when I searched Google:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Scholaro Translation](https://www.scholaro.com/translation/Diploma-Translation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They specifically mention translating diplomas from Latin, and are a member of the American Translators Association. I don't know whether that carries much weight in and of itself, though, since I'm not familiar with that association. They also mention their translations are accepted world wide by governments, universities, etc, although I'd be curious to see some examples of translations in Latin that were accepted to back up that statement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12538" RevisionGUID="df3103d6-f72c-4b30-943f-5f03d20a4f94" CreationDate="2019-09-23T17:39:29.320" UserId="5056" Text="I would like to translate the phrase &quot;collective unconscious&quot; [coined by Carl Jung](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious), into classical Latin. It does not need to be a literal translation as long as it conveys the same concept of a shared unconscious between all members of a species.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For context, I've been working on creating a mythology (long term pet project) and Latin is used as a &quot;high speech&quot; in the way that Stephen King has [High and Low Speech](https://www.stephenking.com/darktower/glossary.html) in his dark tower novels (which I imagine was inspired by the Romans and vulgar vs classical Latin)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35153" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12538" RevisionGUID="df3103d6-f72c-4b30-943f-5f03d20a4f94" CreationDate="2019-09-23T17:39:29.320" UserId="5056" Text="Translate &quot;collective unconscious&quot; into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35154" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12538" RevisionGUID="df3103d6-f72c-4b30-943f-5f03d20a4f94" CreationDate="2019-09-23T17:39:29.320" UserId="5056" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12539" RevisionGUID="be9f1466-563c-4e76-b237-8838d6076c93" CreationDate="2019-09-23T21:55:53.140" UserId="660" Text="The Colombian Ministry of External Relations can produce an official certificate that Colombia has *no* official translators between Latin and Spanish:  https://www.traduccionesbogota.com/la-guia-definitiva-de-traducciones-en-bogota-colombia/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12540" RevisionGUID="7f3b5609-7a8d-41e9-82e7-7264669c77d3" CreationDate="2019-09-24T00:04:53.333" UserId="867" Text="Well, a search for &quot;Vatican&quot; and &quot;Latin translator&quot; put me on to this guy, Daniel Gallagher, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;a former Catholic monsignor, he spent a decade working at the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vatican, translating official documents into the language of the Holy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; See ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;before joining the Classics faculty at Cornell.  You can read the rest of the article [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is really just to indicate that there are translators that are recognised as 'official', in the Vatican at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cornellalumnimagazine.com/living-language/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12540" RevisionGUID="1a5e412d-8357-4e23-92b0-3cf50999fc81" CreationDate="2019-09-24T00:12:17.080" UserId="867" Comment="Found a better article to link to!" Text="Well, a search for &quot;Vatican&quot; and &quot;Latin translator&quot; put me on to this guy, Daniel Gallagher, who has left the priesthood and has joined the Classics faculty at Cornell, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;[a]fter eight years at the Vatican translating the pope’s messages –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sermons, letters, even tweets – into Latin ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read the rest of the article [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is really just to indicate that there are translators that might be recognised as 'official', in the Vatican at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2017/02/renowned-vatican-latinist-joins-classics-faculty" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12534" RevisionGUID="eea9152a-0875-4c1a-980e-82aeb0d15b7d" CreationDate="2019-09-24T02:38:31.010" UserId="118" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="I'm only an intermediate student of Latin, but I think I'll learn a lot by translating this. Here's what I came up with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since Pope Clement XIII permitted several Churches to celebrate the Feast in&#xD;&#xA;honor of the Most Holy Heart of Jesus together with its Office and Mass, the&#xD;&#xA;faithful peoples everywhere have felt themselves awakened by such ardor to&#xD;&#xA;renew their contemplation of the measureless love of this Divine Heart that&#xD;&#xA;now hardly a Diocese exists which doesn't wish it had obtained from&#xD;&#xA;the Apostolic See the privilege of performing the same feast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Literally, the last part is &quot;hardly a Diocese exists which is glad not to have obtained…&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The bishops of the French Religious of Mary Immaculate attending to this, in&#xD;&#xA;order that a feast so agreeable to the souls of the faithful and observed in&#xD;&#xA;such like-minded piety in almost all the Catholic World should be celebrated&#xD;&#xA;straightforwardly hereafter by the whole Church, by their most humble&#xD;&#xA;vows on this matter arranged that it be submitted to our Most Holy Lord Pope&#xD;&#xA;Pius IX through the undersigned Cardinal, since he recently performed the&#xD;&#xA;duties of the [Pope's chief legate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_legate#Legatus_a_latere) among the French.&#xD;&#xA;Indeed the bishops, eagerly taking the opportunity to present public and&#xD;&#xA;solemn testimony of their veneration toward the Apostolic See in the person&#xD;&#xA;of the Cardinal Legate, met him lingering in Paris a great many times,&#xD;&#xA;and having avowed their deep and fullest&#xD;&#xA;adherence to the Roman Pontiff as the center of Catholic unity and&#xD;&#xA;Jesus Christ's Vicar on Earth, requested by insistent prayers that the Feast of the&#xD;&#xA;Most Sacred Heart of Jesus be deemed worthy to extend to the whole Church.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confident that I have the gist of the meaning correct, but there are several places where I'm pretty sure I got some details wrong (especially _humillima ea de re vota sua, ingenti numero,_ and _enixis precibus_). Hopefully someone more experienced will check my work and post corrections. **P.S.** Thanks to [@Rafael](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/469/rafael) for many corrections!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35159" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12531" RevisionGUID="9c34da01-3a80-41d4-a0ac-7004ea3ae853" CreationDate="2019-09-24T02:48:14.183" UserId="118" Comment="edited title" Text="Translation of papal decretum by Pius IX, &quot;festum in honore Sanctissimi Cordis Jesu&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12534" RevisionGUID="342c7457-fff3-4c10-9ef0-9edf5e96782f" CreationDate="2019-09-24T03:51:51.003" UserId="118" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I'm only an intermediate student of Latin, but I think I'll learn a lot by translating this. Here's what I came up with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since Pope Clement XIII permitted several Churches to celebrate the Feast in&#xD;&#xA;honor of the Most Holy Heart of Jesus together with its Office and Mass, the&#xD;&#xA;faithful peoples everywhere have felt themselves awakened by such ardor to&#xD;&#xA;renew their contemplation of the measureless love of this Divine Heart that&#xD;&#xA;now hardly a Diocese exists which doesn't wish it had obtained from&#xD;&#xA;the Apostolic See the privilege of performing the same feast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Literally, the last part is &quot;hardly a Diocese exists which is glad not to have obtained…&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The bishops of the French Religious of Mary Immaculate attending to this, in&#xD;&#xA;order that a feast so agreeable to the souls of the faithful and observed in&#xD;&#xA;such like-minded piety in almost all the Catholic World should be celebrated&#xD;&#xA;straightforwardly hereafter by the whole Church, have arranged that their most humble&#xD;&#xA;wishes on this matter be submitted to our Most Holy Lord Pope&#xD;&#xA;Pius IX through the undersigned Cardinal, since he recently performed the&#xD;&#xA;duties of the [Pope's chief legate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_legate#Legatus_a_latere) among the French.&#xD;&#xA;Indeed the bishops, eagerly taking the opportunity to present public and&#xD;&#xA;solemn testimony of their veneration toward the Apostolic See in the person&#xD;&#xA;of the Cardinal Legate, met him lingering in Paris a great many times,&#xD;&#xA;and having avowed their deep and fullest&#xD;&#xA;adherence to the Roman Pontiff as the center of Catholic unity and&#xD;&#xA;Jesus Christ's Vicar on Earth, requested by insistent prayers that the Feast of the&#xD;&#xA;Most Sacred Heart of Jesus be deemed worthy to extend to the whole Church.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confident that I have the gist of the meaning correct, but there are several places where I'm pretty sure I got some details wrong (especially _humillima ea de re vota sua, ingenti numero,_ and _enixis precibus_). Hopefully someone more experienced will check my work and post corrections. **P.S.** Thanks to [@Rafael](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/469/rafael) for many corrections!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12534" RevisionGUID="e0e38f5d-683d-4425-9b45-f64a5234749f" CreationDate="2019-09-24T04:02:33.983" UserId="118" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="I'm only an intermediate student of Latin, but I think I'll learn a lot by translating this. Here's what I came up with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the time since Pope Clement XIII permitted several Churches to celebrate the Feast in&#xD;&#xA;honor of the Most Holy Heart of Jesus together with its Office and Mass, the&#xD;&#xA;faithful peoples everywhere have felt themselves awakened by such ardor to&#xD;&#xA;renew their contemplation of the measureless love of this Divine Heart that&#xD;&#xA;now hardly a Diocese exists which doesn't wish it had obtained from&#xD;&#xA;the Apostolic See the privilege of performing the same feast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Literally, the last part is &quot;hardly a Diocese exists which is glad not to have obtained…&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The bishops of the French Religious of Mary Immaculate attending to this, in&#xD;&#xA;order that a feast so agreeable to the souls of the faithful and observed in&#xD;&#xA;such like-minded piety in almost all the Catholic World should be celebrated&#xD;&#xA;straightforwardly hereafter by the whole Church, have arranged that their most humble&#xD;&#xA;wishes on this matter be submitted to our Most Holy Lord Pope&#xD;&#xA;Pius IX through the undersigned Cardinal, since he recently performed the&#xD;&#xA;duties of the [Pope's chief legate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_legate#Legatus_a_latere) among the French.&#xD;&#xA;Indeed the bishops, eagerly taking the opportunity to present public and&#xD;&#xA;solemn testimony of their veneration toward the Apostolic See in the person&#xD;&#xA;of the Cardinal Legate, met him lingering in Paris a great many times,&#xD;&#xA;and having avowed their deep and fullest&#xD;&#xA;adherence to the Roman Pontiff as the center of Catholic unity and&#xD;&#xA;Jesus Christ's Vicar on Earth, requested by insistent prayers that the Feast of the&#xD;&#xA;Most Sacred Heart of Jesus be deemed worthy to extend to the whole Church.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confident that I have the gist of the meaning correct, but there are several places where I'm pretty sure I got some details wrong (especially _humillima ea de re vota sua, ingenti numero,_ and _enixis precibus_). Hopefully someone more experienced will check my work and post corrections. **P.S.** Thanks to [@Rafael](https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/469/rafael) for many corrections!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12541" RevisionGUID="c60645a1-8223-4205-a230-8f17d70fa2a7" CreationDate="2019-09-24T09:12:25.750" UserId="947" Text="In the Czech Republic there are many diplomas issued in Latin (definitely the largest Charles University does so) and hence official translation services are available. The services do include translations into English and German, because that's what Czechs need the translations for, the Latin original is normally accepted here just fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.jc-correct.com/overene-soudni-preklady-latiny (https://www.jc-correct.com/en/certified-translations)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.ilts.cz/cs/jazyky/latinsky (https://www.ilts.cz/en/languages)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and many more, they keyword to search in Czech is &quot;soudní překlady&quot; and &quot;latina&quot; or &quot;z latiny&quot; and then check if the company has also an English language website to switch to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know if they do or do not have to see the original physical copy to issue a certificate for their translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35163" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="831ad25c-550a-4fb9-94d3-82af928830a5" CreationDate="2019-09-24T12:22:23.640" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|pronunciation|ecclesiastical-latin|consonants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12542" RevisionGUID="10a0f831-e1fc-4ea2-85fb-e87213edd724" CreationDate="2019-09-24T13:22:35.640" UserId="2734" Text="Another computer tool is [Collatinus][1]. It has GUI, gives definition of the words, IPA pronunciation (classic), syllables, and marks stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://outils.biblissima.fr/en/collatinus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="b64317fa-163b-483a-bd60-8e217b4bf4f7" CreationDate="2019-09-24T15:25:02.397" UserId="183" Text="In modern linguistic terminology there are grammtical cases named *essive* and *adessive*. However, from a Latinate point of view those formations look abnormal: Usually, the ending *-ivus* is attached to the supine stem (past participle) that is missing for the Latin verb *esse*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried [this query to Perseus][1] and found some matches for words ending in *-essivus*, but non of them is derived from *esse*. Thus, the formation of *essive* is post-classical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When were the terms like *essive* were created and how are they motivated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=substring&amp;lookup=essiv&amp;lang=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35166" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="b64317fa-163b-483a-bd60-8e217b4bf4f7" CreationDate="2019-09-24T15:25:02.397" UserId="183" Text="Formation of words like &quot;essive&quot; or &quot;adessive&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35167" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="b64317fa-163b-483a-bd60-8e217b4bf4f7" CreationDate="2019-09-24T15:25:02.397" UserId="183" Text="|adjective|new-latin|derivation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12544" RevisionGUID="39eaace5-99db-4bda-b956-749ca3e48e06" CreationDate="2019-09-24T16:22:52.460" UserId="6098" Text="Would that be &quot;Dignum/Iustum est mundum reddere meliorem quam inventum/invenis&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vale!&#xD;&#xA;P" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35169" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12544" RevisionGUID="39eaace5-99db-4bda-b956-749ca3e48e06" CreationDate="2019-09-24T16:22:52.460" UserId="6098" Text="How to translate &quot;it's right to leave this world better than you found it&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35170" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12544" RevisionGUID="39eaace5-99db-4bda-b956-749ca3e48e06" CreationDate="2019-09-24T16:22:52.460" UserId="6098" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="da348cce-357f-4655-ab29-19e03e783d64" CreationDate="2019-09-24T16:57:04.653" UserId="183" Comment="sp., deleted duplicated word" Text="In modern linguistic terminology there are grammtical cases named *essive* and *adessive*. However, from a Latinate point of view those formations look abnormal: Usually, the ending *-ivus* is attached to the supine stem (past participle) that is missing for the Latin verb *esse*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried [this query to Perseus][1] and found some matches for words ending in *-essivus*, but none of them is derived from *esse*. Thus, the formation of *essive* is post-classical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When were the terms like *essive* created and how are they motivated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=substring&amp;lookup=essiv&amp;lang=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12545" RevisionGUID="2082308c-dba7-4bc3-a30b-4ff4560835a0" CreationDate="2019-09-24T17:44:24.193" UserId="406" Text="*Esse* is a wonderfully common and useful verb, but also a somewhat defective one: it's missing various forms that other verbs have. Some of these missing forms were stolen from unrelated verbs, like the whole perfect system, taken from an older verb &quot;to become&quot;. Others remained as gaps all through the Classical period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, *esse* has no present participle (&quot;being&quot;). This became a problem when translating philosophical works from Greek: the common philosophical term *οὐσία* &quot;essence&quot; was built off the Greek present participle, but Latin didn't have an equivalent form to use. So Classical translators compensated by replacing the missing form with *ess-* and continuing from there: *_ess-ent-_ &gt; *essentia*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When post-classical grammarians and linguists needed to make new case names, they ran into an equivalent problem. Names of cases are generally built off the supine stem, but all the best verbs for &quot;to be present&quot; are compounds of *esse*, which has no supine. So they used the same solution: replacing the missing participle stem with *ess-*, and going from there: *_ad-ess-iv-_ &gt; &quot;adessive&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35173" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12544" RevisionGUID="afa46028-3666-4f89-80b0-b71143550495" CreationDate="2019-09-24T18:21:10.403" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12546" RevisionGUID="c9f351c2-60fa-4ee3-af16-824a64ef49c0" CreationDate="2019-09-24T19:37:57.587" UserId="406" Text="For &quot;it is right&quot; I would use *fas est*. Literally this means &quot;it is in accordance with divine law&quot; (as opposed to human law), but in common use it just means &quot;it is right/good/proper&quot;. It's typically linked up to an infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Reddere* is not a bad choice for &quot;leave&quot;; it literally means to give something back, or give it up to someone else. In this case, you're presumably giving the world up to your descendants or humanity as a whole. Similarly, *invenīre* isn't a bad choice for &quot;find&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, all together:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Fas est mundum reddere meliorem inventō.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is right to return the world in a better state than as it was found." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="b8e8b71c-0c0d-49af-9fb6-990ad227732b" CreationDate="2019-09-24T19:39:51.260" UserId="79" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In modern linguistic terminology there are grammatical cases named *essive* and *adessive*. However, from a Latinate point of view those formations look abnormal: Usually, the ending *-ivus* is attached to the supine stem (past participle) that is missing for the Latin verb *esse*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried [this query to Perseus][1] and found some matches for words ending in *-essivus*, but none of them is derived from *esse*. Thus, the formation of *essive* is post-classical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When were the terms like *essive* created and how are they motivated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=substring&amp;lookup=essiv&amp;lang=la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12547" RevisionGUID="74cd5728-0e1b-4d4c-950a-391154fad4a6" CreationDate="2019-09-24T20:29:01.040" UserId="469" Text="I found a source suggesting the choice is the **astronomical** dawn, according to the definition you cite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [This book][1], dated 1958, (FWIW, it was granted a *nihil obstat*, but I can't find any further assessment of its authority), gives the following definition of dawn, specifically in the context of the celebration of the Eucarist:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; In canone 821.1 legitur 'Missae celebrandae initium ne fiat citius quam una hora ante auroram' (...) Aurora incipit si stellae sexti gradus seu magnitudinis non amplius videntur seu disparent (...) Hoc generaliter fit, **si sol decem et octo gradus** (**secundum alios tamen 16 vel 24**) sub horizonte est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It says it's 18° below the horizon, hence the astronomical dawn. But it adds that according to some other authors there are different definitions. This makes me think there is no sharper definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The author goes to cite a different source that also supports the 18° limit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Per auroram, seu crepusculum matutinum intellegitur (...). Qui (...) iuxta sententiam communiter receptam tunc ad nos perveniunt quando sol attingit **gradum 18mm. infra horizontem**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that the book was written by a 1950's moralist makes me think there is neither a sharper nor a more official definition. (But of course, I might be wrong.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FWIW, [this other book][2], from 1760, hesitates about the one-hour margin. It does not give a sharp definition of dawn, but cites some authors estimating varying amounts of time before sunrise meant by dawn at different times of the year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=7hqLkBX82McC&amp;lpg=PA411&amp;ots=vj3tNefs29&amp;dq=initium%20ne%20fiat%20citius%20quam%20una%20hora%20ante%20auroram&amp;pg=PA411#v=onepage&amp;q=initium%20ne%20fiat%20citius%20quam%20una%20hora%20ante%20auroram&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.cl/books?id=SiVFAAAAcAAJ&amp;lpg=PA157&amp;ots=edE9xFbCzk&amp;dq=initium%20ne%20fiat%20citius%20quam%20una%20hora%20ante%20auroram&amp;pg=PA157#v=onepage&amp;q=initium%20ne%20fiat%20citius%20quam%20una%20hora%20ante%20auroram&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12548" RevisionGUID="6f786709-2e10-4268-91c4-a3ed71638b37" CreationDate="2019-09-24T23:46:48.793" UserId="5056" Text="In Capitulum Tertia of Hans Ørberg's book [LLPSA](), he has the following conversation snippet taking place between a mother, Aemilia, and her children:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;Aemelia Quintum Interrogat: &quot;Ubi est Iulius? Cur non venit?&quot; Aemelia Iulium non videt.&#xD;&#xA;Respondet Marcus: &quot;Pater dormit.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Quintus: &quot;Mater non te, sed me interrogat!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Aemilia: &quot;St, pueri! Ubi est pater?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Quintus: &quot;Pater non hic est, sed Marcus hic est.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which I take to translate to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;Aemelia asks Quintus: &quot;Where is Iulius? Why does he not come?&quot; Aemelia doesn't see Iulius.&#xD;&#xA;Marcus Responds: &quot;Father sleeps.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Quintus: &quot;Mother didn't ask you, but she asked me!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Aemilia: &quot;Shush, boy! Where is father?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Quintus: &quot;Father is not here, but Marcus is here.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming I'm translating correctly, that last statement by Quintus is odd to me. Aemilia would be well aware that Marcus is there. Am I misunderstanding that statement, or is it more of a contrived reply just to further the goal of understanding &quot;hic&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35178" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12548" RevisionGUID="6f786709-2e10-4268-91c4-a3ed71638b37" CreationDate="2019-09-24T23:46:48.793" UserId="5056" Text="Meaning of &quot;Pater non hic est, sed Marcus hic est&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35179" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12548" RevisionGUID="6f786709-2e10-4268-91c4-a3ed71638b37" CreationDate="2019-09-24T23:46:48.793" UserId="5056" Text="|translation-check|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35180" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="6622fd76-86f1-4efc-9e43-d8f3f15bfa24" CreationDate="2019-09-25T00:30:53.653" />
  <row Id="35181" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12544" RevisionGUID="2a2d9d7d-2d5b-4e8b-b428-740ad2ad3690" CreationDate="2019-09-25T00:45:54.243" />
  <row Id="35182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12549" RevisionGUID="2bb9a04b-b2e9-4201-96ee-93ecec764303" CreationDate="2019-09-25T03:40:42.350" UserId="118" Text="_Doctor_ in Latin means &quot;teacher&quot;, with (I think) connotations of being learnèd or highly educated, as in _Philosophiæ Doctor._ How did it acquire its modern English meaning of a licensed physician?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Owen Barfield](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Barfield), in _History in English Words,_ [p. 100](https://books.google.com/books?id=YvzCBBTqyzUC&amp;lpg=PA100&amp;vq=doctor&amp;pg=PA100#v=onepage&amp;q=doctor&amp;f=false), suggests that the modern English meaning grew out of the character of Ancient Roman society, where the word for teacher naturally become specialized to &quot;a teacher of physical health.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/word/doctor#etymonline_v_13880) reports that Latin _doctor_ first came to mean one who had received the highest degree from a university, hence qualified to teach; then any professional licensed by passing exams; and then became specialized to mean one licensed to practice medicine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone provide more detail about how _doctor_ came to its present meaning? In particular, is there any truth in Barfield's suggestion that _doctor_ ever, in Latin or English, was understood as &quot;a teacher of physical health&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35183" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12549" RevisionGUID="2bb9a04b-b2e9-4201-96ee-93ecec764303" CreationDate="2019-09-25T03:40:42.350" UserId="118" Text="How did &quot;doctor&quot; come to mean &quot;physician&quot; in English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35184" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12549" RevisionGUID="2bb9a04b-b2e9-4201-96ee-93ecec764303" CreationDate="2019-09-25T03:40:42.350" UserId="118" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12548" RevisionGUID="a66eba32-b6df-47c5-a574-65a40d1b736b" CreationDate="2019-09-25T03:46:50.933" UserId="118" Comment="format" Text="In Capitulum Tertia of Hans Ørberg's book [LLPSA](), he has the following conversation snippet taking place between a mother, Aemilia, and her children:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Aemelia Quintum Interrogat: &quot;Ubi est Iulius? Cur non venit?&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Aemelia Iulium non videt.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Respondet Marcus: &quot;Pater dormit.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quintus: &quot;Mater non te, sed me interrogat!&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Aemilia: &quot;St, pueri! Ubi est pater?&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quintus: &quot;Pater non hic est, sed Marcus hic est.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which I take to translate to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Aemelia asks Quintus: &quot;Where is Iulius? Why does he not come?&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Aemelia doesn't see Iulius.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Marcus Responds: &quot;Father sleeps.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quintus: &quot;Mother didn't ask you, but she asked me!&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Aemilia: &quot;Shush, boy! Where is father?&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quintus: &quot;Father is not here, but Marcus is here.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming I'm translating correctly, that last statement by Quintus is odd to me. Aemilia would be well aware that Marcus is there. Am I misunderstanding that statement, or is it more of a contrived reply just to further the goal of understanding &quot;hic&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12550" RevisionGUID="93a0e956-8f39-4c17-b1c7-d5424187e019" CreationDate="2019-09-25T04:19:40.667" UserId="118" Text="Your translation of that sentence is perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read it mainly as simple Latin to be understood from context without use of a dictionary, enabling you to easily infer the meaning of the word _hīc_ at its first use in the book, as well as get you accustomed to the sentence pattern with _sed._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might, however, be an additional, subtle part to the meaning. Notice that Aemilia's previous line was _St, puerī!,_ the plural, not _St, puer!_ It's clear that Aemilia knows that both boys are present. So perhaps Quintus's line is an attempt to goad Aemilia into giving Marcus a beating, or maybe just relishing the fact that Marcus is not going to escape a beating (since Quintus calls for Iulius in the next line). If you read the part after _sed_ with the right intonation, you can convey this part of the meaning pretty clearly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading the Latin with the intonation suggested by the story as well as in correct rhythm provides much of the fun that I've had reading LLPSI aloud with friends. I think it also helps establish the words as means through which people influence each other—i.e. it helps build the direct mental link between each word and its meaning rather than, say, to a word in one's native language.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12550" RevisionGUID="a3be04e8-3f8b-43a3-851e-90290ccbe752" CreationDate="2019-09-25T04:30:12.177" UserId="118" Comment="added 354 characters in body" Text="Your translation of that sentence is perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read it mainly as simple Latin to be understood from context without use of a dictionary, enabling you to easily infer the meaning of the word _hīc_ at its first use in the book, as well as get you accustomed to the sentence pattern with _sed._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might, however, be an additional, subtle part to the meaning. Notice that Aemilia's previous line was _St, puerī!,_ the plural, not _St, puer!_ It's clear that Aemilia knows that both boys are present. So perhaps Quintus's line is an attempt to goad Aemilia into giving Marcus a beating, or maybe just relishing the fact that Marcus is not going to escape a beating (since Quintus calls for Iulius in the next line). If you read the part after _sed_ with the right intonation, you can convey this part of the meaning pretty clearly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading the Latin with the intonation suggested by the story as well as in correct rhythm provides much of the fun that I've had reading LLPSI aloud with friends. I think it also helps establish the words as means through which people influence each other—i.e. it helps build the direct mental link between each word and its meaning rather than, say, to a word in one's native language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. As long as we're looking at a translation (normally not recommended with LLPSI), I notice that you have &quot;Father sleeps&quot; for _Pater dormit._ More accurate would be &quot;Father is sleeping.&quot; You're learning, implicitly, that the Latin present tense carries this meaning, and even what in English would take the past tense, as in _Quis mē vocat?_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12551" RevisionGUID="ccdb5e96-7908-4d96-9f4c-97702141e038" CreationDate="2019-09-25T06:19:11.803" UserId="867" Text="Your question was not easy to answer!  The Romans seem to speak very little about working together as a team!  Of course, there are many &quot;groups&quot; of people in the literature but they tend to be groups as defined by an outside observer, whereas I think a team more properly is defined from within and by its common goal.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that said, however, here are some options that may work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***MANUS***: used typically of a group of soldiers, a sort of team after all, but not exclusively, as the third and fourth examples show:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *qui eam **manum** habebant qua Uticam diripuerant*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; who were in charge of a team [of soldiers] with which they had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plundered Utica&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caesar, *The African War*, 95&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *modica **manu** armatorum media ferme nocte Sardis concessit*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; he reached Sardis about midnight with a small group of armed men&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Livy, *History of Rome*, 37.33.44&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Erat bene magna **manus** intra Pompeianarum partium*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now inside the town there was a good large group of supporters of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pompeius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caesar, The Spanish War, 35&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tamen exposuit **manum** fuisse iuventutis duce Curione*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonetheless, he explained that a group of young men had been&#xD;&#xA;&gt; formed under Curio’s leadership&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, Letters to Atticus, 44 (II.24), Rome, August (?) 59, Cicero to Atticus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***GREX***: often used to mean a herd of animals but when speaking of people, can mean company, society, troop, or band:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *In hunc igitur **gregem** vos nunc P. Sullam, iudices, ex his qui cum hoc&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vivunt atque vixerunt honestissimorum hominum **gregibus** reicietis*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Will you then, gentlemen, now cast Publius Sulla out into that group,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; excluding him from these groups of honourable men who have associated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and still associate with him?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CICERO, Pro Sulla, 77&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***COHORS***: this is an interesting one because it primarily means an enclosed courtyard, a yard or pen, but that sense of being enclosed transferred to mean people metaphorically corralled off by a common purpose, and thus can mean a company of soldiers, a division of an army, a cohort, or a retinue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *inter vos quotiens libertorumque **cohortem***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *pugna Saguntina fervet commissa lagona*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; once battle with the Saguntine crockery starts up and rages between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; your guests and a group of freedmen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Juvenal, *Satires*, 5.28-29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12551" RevisionGUID="80f4adfb-7882-46ec-b834-f30da1a13beb" CreationDate="2019-09-25T06:24:48.330" UserId="867" Comment="formatting again, ugh" Text="Your question was not easy to answer!  The Romans seem to speak very little about working together as a team!  Of course, there are many &quot;groups&quot; of people in the literature but they tend to be groups as defined by an outside observer, whereas I think a team more properly is defined from within and by its common goal.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that said, however, here are some options that may work for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***MANUS***: used typically of a group of soldiers, a sort of team after all, but not exclusively, as the third and fourth examples show:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *qui eam **manum** habebant qua Uticam diripuerant*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; who were in charge of a team [of soldiers] with which they had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plundered Utica&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caesar, *The African War*, 95&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *modica **manu** armatorum media ferme nocte Sardis concessit*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; he reached Sardis about midnight with a small group of armed men&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Livy, *History of Rome*, 37.33.44&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Erat bene magna **manus** intra Pompeianarum partium*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now inside the town there was a good large group of supporters of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pompeius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caesar, *The Spanish War*, 35&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tamen exposuit **manum** fuisse iuventutis duce Curione*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; nonetheless, he explained that a group of young men had been&#xD;&#xA;&gt; formed under Curio’s leadership&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero, *Letters to Atticus*, 44 (II.24), Rome, August (?) 59, Cicero to Atticus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***GREX***: often used to mean a herd of animals but when speaking of people, can mean company, society, troop, or band:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *In hunc igitur **gregem** vos nunc P. Sullam, iudices, ex his qui cum hoc&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vivunt atque vixerunt honestissimorum hominum **gregibus** reicietis*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Will you then, gentlemen, now cast Publius Sulla out into that group,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; excluding him from these groups of honourable men who have associated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and still associate with him?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CICERO, *Pro Sulla*, 77&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***COHORS***: this is an interesting one because it primarily means an enclosed courtyard, a yard or pen, but that sense of being enclosed transferred to mean people metaphorically corralled off by a common purpose, and thus can mean a company of soldiers, a division of an army, a cohort, or a retinue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *inter vos quotiens libertorumque **cohortem***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *pugna Saguntina fervet commissa lagona*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; once battle with the Saguntine crockery starts up and rages between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; your guests and a group of freedmen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Juvenal, *Satires*, 5.28-29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12552" RevisionGUID="49fa2364-a59e-4ba9-a056-312262729b08" CreationDate="2019-09-25T07:12:39.507" UserId="831" Text="This isn’t an answer but (frequent excuse) it’s too long for a comment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the key indigestibilities of Aristotle, when we were absorbing him in the c13, was *precisely* the question of the collective versus the individual *intellectual* soul. The Muslim commentators seemed to be happy with the idea of “the mind of Man” as opposed to the mind of *each* man; Christians clearly were not. It took Aquinas to disentangle the problem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the course of this disentanglement a vocabulary will have been developed to talk about the distinction in Latin, and this with a small amount of realignment will probably give the most natural step towards “Jungius”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can tell I’m away from my books! But if you are interested enough to see how *essentially the same questions as Jung’s* were being handled by the mediaeval renaissance, possible ways in might be Pieper’s *Introduction to Aquinas* or either Copleston’s *History of Mediaeval Philosophy* or the relevant volume of his overall *History of Philosophy*. Thus equipped, you will be in a position to see where in Aquinas to look in order to check the precise technical vocabulary he is using. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12548" RevisionGUID="471ea0e1-6a53-4fcf-8b7d-db6cd3821f0a" CreationDate="2019-09-25T10:43:10.033" UserId="79" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="In Capitulum Tertia of Hans Ørberg's book [LLPSI](https://www.hackettpublishing.com/lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata-series), he has the following conversation snippet taking place between a mother, Aemilia, and her children:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Aemelia Quintum Interrogat: &quot;Ubi est Iulius? Cur non venit?&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Aemelia Iulium non videt.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Respondet Marcus: &quot;Pater dormit.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quintus: &quot;Mater non te, sed me interrogat!&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Aemilia: &quot;St, pueri! Ubi est pater?&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quintus: &quot;Pater non hic est, sed Marcus hic est.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which I take to translate to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Aemelia asks Quintus: &quot;Where is Iulius? Why does he not come?&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Aemelia doesn't see Iulius.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Marcus Responds: &quot;Father sleeps.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quintus: &quot;Mother didn't ask you, but she asked me!&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Aemilia: &quot;Shush, boy! Where is father?&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quintus: &quot;Father is not here, but Marcus is here.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming I'm translating correctly, that last statement by Quintus is odd to me. Aemilia would be well aware that Marcus is there. Am I misunderstanding that statement, or is it more of a contrived reply just to further the goal of understanding &quot;hic&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12553" RevisionGUID="17664c73-e918-4a72-b6c8-21baf31ec183" CreationDate="2019-09-25T12:43:03.187" UserId="183" Text="I vaguely remember that once the following happened in the European Parliament: One member of the parliament delivered a speech in Latin, and afterwards another member stood up and answered the speech in Latin, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know when this event happened and who were the involved speakers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35193" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12553" RevisionGUID="17664c73-e918-4a72-b6c8-21baf31ec183" CreationDate="2019-09-25T12:43:03.187" UserId="183" Text="Latin in the European Parliament" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35194" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12553" RevisionGUID="17664c73-e918-4a72-b6c8-21baf31ec183" CreationDate="2019-09-25T12:43:03.187" UserId="183" Text="|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12549" RevisionGUID="a3732964-e869-47b3-8893-0c697fbc57ef" CreationDate="2019-09-25T19:56:34.027" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="_Doctor_ in Latin means &quot;teacher&quot;, with (I think) connotations of being learnèd or highly educated, as in _Philosophiæ Doctor._ How did it acquire its modern English meaning of a licensed physician?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Owen Barfield](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Barfield), in _History in English Words,_ [p. 100](https://books.google.com/books?id=YvzCBBTqyzUC&amp;lpg=PA100&amp;vq=doctor&amp;pg=PA100#v=onepage&amp;q=doctor&amp;f=false), suggests that the modern English meaning grew out of the character of Ancient Roman society, where the word for teacher naturally became specialized to &quot;a teacher of physical health.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/word/doctor#etymonline_v_13880) reports that Latin _doctor_ first came to mean one who had received the highest degree from a university, hence qualified to teach; then any professional licensed by passing exams; and then became specialized to mean one licensed to practice medicine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone provide more detail about how _doctor_ came to its present meaning? In particular, is there any truth in Barfield's suggestion that _doctor_ ever, in Latin or English, was understood as &quot;a teacher of physical health&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12549" RevisionGUID="6474508f-b38d-480e-870b-b945bf5e6c53" CreationDate="2019-09-25T20:14:31.667" UserId="118" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="_Doctor_ in Latin means &quot;teacher&quot;, with (I think) connotations of being learnèd or highly educated, as in _Philosophiæ Doctor._ How did it acquire its modern English meaning of a licensed physician?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Owen Barfield](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Barfield), in _History in English Words,_ [p. 100](https://books.google.com/books?id=YvzCBBTqyzUC&amp;lpg=PA100&amp;vq=doctor&amp;pg=PA100#v=onepage&amp;q=doctor&amp;f=false), suggests that the character of Ancient Roman society, with its emphasis on physicality rather than introspection, somehow influenced the word &quot;doctor&quot; to become specialized to &quot;a teacher of physical health&quot; in modern English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/word/doctor#etymonline_v_13880), apparently summarizing the [_OED_](https://oed.com/view/Entry/56298?rskey=6yOxGi&amp;result=1#eid), reports that Latin _doctor_ first came to mean one who had received the highest degree from a university, hence qualified to teach; then any professional licensed by passing exams; and then became specialized to mean one licensed to practice medicine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone provide more detail about how _doctor_ came to its present meaning? In particular, is there any truth in Barfield's suggestion that _doctor_ ever, in Latin or English, was understood as &quot;a teacher of physical health&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12554" RevisionGUID="2b29c858-86fe-4504-a9fd-fcd47f8544d5" CreationDate="2019-09-25T22:54:42.833" UserDisplayName="user6102" Text="I wanted eliminate all acronyms from my digital copy of the Clementine Vulgate, when I came across this acronym: S.R.E, which I'm pretty sure it means Sancta Romana Ecclesia (Holy Church of Rome).&#xD;&#xA;Now, the problem is, which conjugation should I use?&#xD;&#xA;The full complete sentence in which it was wrote, reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si quis vero typographus in quibuscumque regnis, civitatibus,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provinciis, et locis tam nostræ et **S. R. E.** ditioni&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in temporalibus subjectis, quam non subjectis, hanc eamdem sacrarum&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scripturarum editionem intra decennium præ dictum quoquo modo, elapso&#xD;&#xA;&gt; autem decennio, aliter quam juxta hujusmodi exemplar, ut præfertur,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; imprimere, vendere, venales habere, aut alias edere vel evulgare: aut&#xD;&#xA;&gt; si quis bibliopola a se vel ab aliis quibusvis, post datam præsentium,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hujus editionis impressos libros, seu imprimendos a præfato restituto&#xD;&#xA;&gt; et correcto textu in aliquo discrepantes, seu ab alio, quam a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; typographo Vaticano, intra decennium excusos, pariter vendere, venales&#xD;&#xA;&gt; proponere, vel evulgare præsumpserit, ultra amissionem omnium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; librorum, et alias arbitrio nostro infligendas pœnas temporales, etiam&#xD;&#xA;&gt; majoris excommunicationis sententiam eo ipso incurrat: a qua nisi a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Romano Pontifice, præterquam in mortis articulo constitutus, absolvi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non possit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my very limited knowledge of latin, the translation of the part I'm interested in, should goes something as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If some true print-maker in whatever kingdom, city, province, and in places nonetheless ours and under the authority of the Holy Church of Rome in temporal matters, as well as non-temporal matters....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm only interested in translating the right conjugation for S. R. E., and since Sancta and Romana are both adjectives bound to Ecclesia, I'm only really interested at the conjugation of the latter, which if I'm guessing correctly should be singular genitive. So Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35198" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12554" RevisionGUID="2b29c858-86fe-4504-a9fd-fcd47f8544d5" CreationDate="2019-09-25T22:54:42.833" UserDisplayName="user6102" Text="Translating part of the preface of the Clementine Vulgate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35199" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12554" RevisionGUID="2b29c858-86fe-4504-a9fd-fcd47f8544d5" CreationDate="2019-09-25T22:54:42.833" UserDisplayName="user6102" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|vulgata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12555" RevisionGUID="476e5a9c-56e3-4add-b565-add7967877d4" CreationDate="2019-09-26T02:06:04.607" UserId="3248" Text="Probably you refer to the event that involved the speakers **Mario Capanna** and **Otto von Habsburg**. Capanna was an extreme left-wing Italian member, who made a speech in Latin in the session of **November 13th, 1979**. It seems that one of the few to understand his speech was the Euro MP Otto von Habsburg, a direct descendant of the Royal House of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and an elected member for the right-wing Catholic Party (CSU) in Bavaria. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speech given by Mario Capanna can be found in [this link][1]. Here is a copy&amp;paste of it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Amplissimi collegae, quid re vera significant regulae costitutionisque emendationes, quas Nord, vir ex amplissimis, proposuit? Huius relationis causae minimum quinque sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Primum: exceptione statim facta ante diem quartum Idus Iunias, cum ita numerus minimus constitutus est, ut factiones quae quaternas suffragiorum centesimas superassent – quod in Gallia Germaniaque factum esse vidimus – nullum legatum electum habere potuerint, nunc altera exceptio, ad eos qui priorem effugerunt&#xD;&#xA;amovendos, proponitur: numerus enim minimus legatorum, qui ad factionem constituendam postulantur, id est unus et viginti, idem valet atque quinae&#xD;&#xA;centesimae pro universis decem et quadringentis legatis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Alterum: numerus minimus ad unum et viginti augetur, at non, exempli gratia, ad quinque et viginti, ut simul et factio cuius socius sum evertatur, et legatorum Gollistarum factio maneat, qui viginti duo tantum sunt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Tertium: legatorum autem conventus, nulli parti adstrictus, quem nuper arte, ne dicam fraude, viri medium quiddam tenentes creari iusserunt, nullam decernendi habet potestatem, quippe qui ne conciliis quidem Praefecturae, quibus auctis Publicum Consilium utitur, interesse suffragium ferens possit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quartum: nemo profecto est qui non videat nos ita una cum fascistis legatis adesse cogi et commune cum iisdem minimum illud tempus dicendi habere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quintum: ex quo consequitur – quod omnibus gravissima videbitur iniuria – ut velut duo legatorum genera constituantur, optimum alterum, alterum deterius, quibus non&#xD;&#xA;aeque facultas patet sententiam proponendi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Satis superque – quod mihi saltem videtur – est, ut horreat quicumque liber nec coactus ius exerceat, horreat praecipue quicumque civium intellegat, quid re vera non modo in Europaeorum Publico Consilio, quod nuper omnium suffragio creatum est, sed etiam ex eodem – ut ita dicam – occulte subrepere incipiat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Id maximum: non est quidem Europaeorum Publicum Consilium inutile quiddam, quod publicis rebus administrandis addatur, quo, quasi in vas quoddam, bona malaque studia confluant eorum, qui novem res publicas regunt. Quin etiam longe aliud est,&#xD;&#xA;multoque maius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Publicum enim Europaeorum Consilium, ubi, post Iunii mensis suffragia, haud&#xD;&#xA;dubie qui quiddam medium tenent plurimum valent, nihil aliud est – mea sententia&#xD;&#xA;– nisi magna quaedam negotiis explendis societas, quam de industria quidam&#xD;&#xA;instituerunt, ut, si plane componere nequirent, quodam modo saltem conciliarent&#xD;&#xA;necessitates contrarias saepe oppositasque eorum qui, in novem illis congregatis civitatibus, vel divitiis, vel fabricis, vel mercaturis, imperium exercent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ne quem fallat quod de inanibus rebus ii qui in Consilio sunt leviter ac vane loquuntur; nam de gravibus rebus omnia, velut musicae artis magister quidam, regit et componit Germaniae ad Occidentem versae legatus, qui, Gallicis vestibus indutus,&#xD;&#xA;Italicis calceamentis – Populari, quae dicitur, Christianaque parte iuvante –&#xD;&#xA;utitur, nec Britannorum tunicas sumere spernit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quibus ex rebus nonnulla adhuc obscura in lucem veniunt.Ita enim plane intelligitur, curnam huic Consilio mulier praesit, quae, nisi quattuor isti Italorum fascistae legati suffragium tulissent, ad hanc dignitatem non pervenisset; curnam Collegium rerum naturae viribus perspiciendis adhibendisque creatum statuerit (quae omnia ego, huius Collegii particeps, ipsis vidi oculis) ut magis magisque congregatarum civitatum carbo effoderetur, itaque praecipue Germanis, Britannis, Gallis faveretur, minime autem Italis, quibus hic carbo multo pluris stat quam ut emere possint; curnam Collegium immutato vultu consilium accipiat centum quinquaginta fluxus ex atomis profecti diribitoria in posteros decem annos exstruendi; curnam, praeter verba, ne digitum quidem porrigat noves opes, quae etiam atque etiam renovari possint, modo et ratione promovendi causa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Longius quidem est omnia enumerare. Tamen quod diximus satis superque est, ut demonstretur vera causa,cur factionem nostram petant qui eam delendam esse censeant; nam hoc Publicum Consilium, quippe quod Europenses divitias ad paucos redactas administrare atque tueri susceperit, graviter profecto fert decem fere legatos esse, qui statutum atque deliberatum habeant una acerrime propugnare ad eos quoque defendendos, qui vetiti sunt Publico Europaeorum Consilio interesse, atque ad utilitatem tuendam Europensium opificum iuvenumque.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nam, cum hoc Publicum Consilium commodis utilitatique studeat eorum qui divitias sibi congesserunt, facere non potest quin ipsum, in primis apud se,civium libertatem coerceat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;His de causis pro populari ratione, quae in hoc Consilio coercetur atque&#xD;&#xA;conculcatur, omnibus viribus contendimus. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reply given by Otto von Habsburg can be found on page 36 of [this link][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Oratiuncula qua Otto von Habsburg respondit honorabili collegae suo Capannae:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Magno mihi gaudio fuit, quod in sententia tua referenda usus es lingua vere Europaea et matre quodammodo omnium nostrum, qua diutius carere in hoc egregio concilio vix possumus. Ita fit, ut, qui in eis, quae dixisti nullo modo assentiri tibi, quem tamen valde gratulum tibi censeam, quod ausus es loqui Latine, quod quam utile sit, nonnullis nostrae aetatis hominibus non liquet propter egestatem&#xD;&#xA;cultus atque humanitatis. Ego contra perstandum esse in isto proposito Latinitatis provehendae censeo, praecipue in scholis nostris, quod humaniores nos reddet et sapientiores magisque conciliabit inter se tot gentes, tot nationes omni respectu diversas, beneficio latinitatis tamen coniunctissimas.&#xD;&#xA;Cui proposito invigilare, cui operam nostram impendere non pigebit; quod ad effectum perducere nostri non est, sed 'maneat nostros ea cura nepotes'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.facebook.com/174247906107064/posts/lintervento-in-latino-di-mario-capanna-al-parlamento-europeoin-giorni-in-cui-son/226582074206980/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.pro-lingua-latina.de/index_htm_files/Otto_v_Habsburg.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12556" RevisionGUID="5a2a5f04-e0c2-4b29-972e-12425bbba3f1" CreationDate="2019-09-26T11:09:49.587" UserId="1982" Text="Qs have been asked about expressions-of-time, of the type: &quot;in the second year&quot; = &quot;secondo anno&quot;; &quot;within three days&quot; = &quot;tribus diebus&quot;; &quot;for two years&quot; = &quot;(per) duos annos&quot; (&quot;per&quot; is optional) which follow logical patterns of case-endings. Some are not so clear-cut.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;North &amp; Hillard Ex. 200: the following is to be translated into Latin: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;He was not the man to put his own prosperity before that of the state; and he used to say that when his countrymen needed him they would recall him; till that time should arrive he was willing to remain in exile.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;non enim is fuit qui suum commodum republicae anteponeret et affirmabat cives suos se cum opus esset, revocaturos; quod ad tempus (ad id temporis) se velle in exsilio manere.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N &amp; H have offered two expressions-of-time: firstly, &quot;ad tempus&quot; usually given as &quot;on time&quot; (ad + accusative) lit. &quot;to-the-time (appointed)&quot; (&quot;on time&quot; can be given as dative, &quot;tempori&quot;, which translates sensibly to &quot;to/ for-the-time&quot;; but, may lead to confusion as to which one to use--does it matter?). Here &quot;ad tempus&quot; clearly means &quot;temporarily&quot;; &quot;temporarily, he was content to remain in exile&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, alternative &quot;ad id temporis&quot;. In &quot;General Vocabulary&quot;, p.297, N &amp; H give this as &quot;till that time&quot;; but, lit. &quot;to that (presumably &quot;event&quot;) of-the-time&quot; (using the genitive), without adding a lot of extra words e.g. &quot;that-it (the event)-may-happen&quot; it makes little sense, in English. How does &quot;ad id temporis&quot; come to mean &quot;till that time&quot;, in Latin? This does, of course, fit the translation &quot;till that time, of his recall, he was content to remain in exile&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuing with Titus Livius (Livy XL. 4):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ad multo ante praecogitatum revoluta facinus…&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;having fallen back to a purpose that she imagined long before...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict. gives adverb &quot;multo&quot; = &quot;long (before or after)&quot;; therefore not requiring &quot;ante&quot;; alternatively, using &quot;ante&quot; as adverb, putting the period of time into the ablative, giving Livy's &quot;multo ante&quot;; but this particular type of expression is usually more clearly defined e.g. &quot;duobus ante annis&quot; = &quot;two years before&quot; (adverb must be written after at least one of the relevant words in the ablative). Nevertheless, am guessing that, here, this is ablative &quot;multo&quot; + &quot;ante&quot;, is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35202" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12556" RevisionGUID="5a2a5f04-e0c2-4b29-972e-12425bbba3f1" CreationDate="2019-09-26T11:09:49.587" UserId="1982" Text="Finer Tuning on Expressions-of-Time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35203" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12556" RevisionGUID="5a2a5f04-e0c2-4b29-972e-12425bbba3f1" CreationDate="2019-09-26T11:09:49.587" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12557" RevisionGUID="d9e5cf13-597e-481b-b145-9b24405d2d23" CreationDate="2019-09-26T13:10:04.663" UserId="183" Text="Inspired by the answers to [this question][1], I want to ask about the different present participles of *esse* over time and their fate. I am aware that *esse* is a defective verb that classically does not have a present participle. But there are frozen forms like *absens* suggesting an old form *\*sens* for a present participle, and there is *ens* calqued from Greek. The word *essentia* &quot;essence&quot;, another calque from Greek, also suggests a form like *\*essens*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12543/formation-of-words-like-essive-or-adessive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35206" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12557" RevisionGUID="d9e5cf13-597e-481b-b145-9b24405d2d23" CreationDate="2019-09-26T13:10:04.663" UserId="183" Text="Present participles of the verb esse" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35207" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12557" RevisionGUID="d9e5cf13-597e-481b-b145-9b24405d2d23" CreationDate="2019-09-26T13:10:04.663" UserId="183" Text="|vocabulary|participle|irregular-words|esse|loanwords|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12558" RevisionGUID="0217ddea-8475-483b-a74c-e81dcbec421a" CreationDate="2019-09-26T14:27:04.610" UserId="469" Text="You are right, it is **Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae**. For consistency with the current text, you might want to use ligatures instead of separate letters for the diphthong *ae*: **Sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FWIW, the technical name for the analogue of *conjugation* when applied to endings of nouns (i.e., when nouns change ending according to grammatical function) is *declension*. The parallel of *tense* (in the sense of different grammatical functions a word can take) for nouns is *case*. The case in question here is called *genitive* and is what is usually translated as *of [the]* + noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the relevant part of the text, *locis tam nostræ et S. R. E. ditioni in temporalibus subjectis* means *in places subject to our authority as well as that of the Holy Roman Church*. The pope is using the royal we (as customary) and inherently linking his authority to that of the Church.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried searching for a translation of this specific preface in five languages (to avoid basing my answer in my view only), but my search so far has been obscured by the plenty of instances of the original text available, and translations *without* these prefaces. (Perhaps someone with better Google skills can help?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35209" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12554" RevisionGUID="99e10494-a764-48b6-ab2b-eef7f9cbb3cb" CreationDate="2019-09-26T14:27:58.000" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|ecclesiastical-latin|vulgata|abbreviations|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12556" RevisionGUID="f4d20483-9a05-4379-933d-26337ecfa3b7" CreationDate="2019-09-26T15:20:11.173" UserId="469" Comment="formatting" Text="Qs have been asked about expressions-of-time, of the type: &quot;in the second year&quot; = &quot;secondo anno&quot;; &quot;within three days&quot; = &quot;tribus diebus&quot;; &quot;for two years&quot; = &quot;(per) duos annos&quot; (&quot;per&quot; is optional) which follow logical patterns of case-endings. Some are not so clear-cut.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;North &amp; Hillard Ex. 200: the following is to be translated into Latin: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He was not the man to put his own prosperity before that of the state; and he used to say that when his countrymen needed him they would recall him; till that time should arrive he was willing to remain in exile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Translation:** non enim is fuit qui suum commodum republicae anteponeret et affirmabat cives suos se cum opus esset, revocaturos; quod ad tempus (ad id temporis) se velle in exsilio manere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N &amp; H have offered two expressions-of-time: firstly, &quot;ad tempus&quot; usually given as &quot;on time&quot; (ad + accusative) lit. &quot;to-the-time (appointed)&quot; (&quot;on time&quot; can be given as dative, &quot;tempori&quot;, which translates sensibly to &quot;to/ for-the-time&quot;; but, may lead to confusion as to which one to use--does it matter?). Here &quot;ad tempus&quot; clearly means &quot;temporarily&quot;; &quot;temporarily, he was content to remain in exile&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, alternative &quot;ad id temporis&quot;. In &quot;General Vocabulary&quot;, p.297, N &amp; H give this as &quot;till that time&quot;; but, lit. &quot;to that (presumably &quot;event&quot;) of-the-time&quot; (using the genitive), without adding a lot of extra words e.g. &quot;that-it (the event)-may-happen&quot; it makes little sense, in English. How does &quot;ad id temporis&quot; come to mean &quot;till that time&quot;, in Latin? This does, of course, fit the translation &quot;till that time, of his recall, he was content to remain in exile&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuing with Titus Livius (Livy XL. 4):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ad multo ante praecogitatum revoluta facinus…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **translation:** having fallen back to a purpose that she imagined long before...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict. gives adverb &quot;multo&quot; = &quot;long (before or after)&quot;; therefore not requiring &quot;ante&quot;; alternatively, using &quot;ante&quot; as adverb, putting the period of time into the ablative, giving Livy's &quot;multo ante&quot;; but this particular type of expression is usually more clearly defined e.g. &quot;duobus ante annis&quot; = &quot;two years before&quot; (adverb must be written after at least one of the relevant words in the ablative). Nevertheless, am guessing that, here, this is ablative &quot;multo&quot; + &quot;ante&quot;, is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35211" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12556" RevisionGUID="f4d20483-9a05-4379-933d-26337ecfa3b7" CreationDate="2019-09-26T15:20:11.173" UserId="469" Comment="formatting" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12558" RevisionGUID="865af81b-8763-4b6f-b326-77d7df3fa579" CreationDate="2019-09-26T15:23:42.527" UserId="469" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="You are right, it is **Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae**. For consistency with the current text, you might want to use ligatures instead of separate letters for the diphthong *ae*: **Sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FWIW, the technical name for the analogue of *conjugation* when applied to endings of nouns (i.e., when nouns change ending according to grammatical function) is *declension*. The parallel of *tense* (in the sense of different grammatical functions a word can take) for nouns is *case*. The case in question here is called *genitive* and is what is usually translated as *of [the]* + noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the relevant part of the text, *locis tam nostræ et S. R. E. ditioni in temporalibus subjectis* means *in places subject to our authority as well as that of the Holy Roman Church*. The pope is using the *royal we* (as customary) and inherently linking his authority to that of the Church (as per Catholic doctrine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried searching for a translation of this specific preface in five languages (to avoid basing my answer in my view only), but my search so far has been obscured by the plenty of instances of the original text available, and translations *without* these prefaces. (Perhaps someone with better Google skills than mine can help?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12559" RevisionGUID="7915bc22-22fe-4fbe-8e29-7f1acd123c34" CreationDate="2019-09-26T15:24:14.217" UserId="947" Text="In medieval Latin there were  neologisms such as [ens](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ens#Etymology_3). The link also says that the original form was [sons](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sons#Latin) with the classical meaning &quot;guilty&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12556" RevisionGUID="793f6c8d-598e-4038-a6fd-7b0b9f6e12e7" CreationDate="2019-09-26T16:02:08.060" UserId="1982" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="Qs have been asked about expressions-of-time, of the type: &quot;in the second year&quot; = &quot;secondo anno&quot;; &quot;within three days&quot; = &quot;tribus diebus&quot;; &quot;for two years&quot; = &quot;(per) duos annos&quot; (&quot;per&quot; is optional) which follow logical patterns of case-endings. Some are not so clear-cut.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;North &amp; Hillard Ex. 200: the following is to be translated into Latin: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He was not the man to put his own prosperity before that of the state; and he used to say that when his countrymen needed him they would recall him; till that time should arrive he was willing to remain in exile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Translation:** non enim is fuit qui suum commodum republicae anteponeret et affirmabat cives suos se cum opus esset, revocaturos; quod ad tempus (ad id temporis) se velle in exsilio manere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N &amp; H have offered two expressions-of-time: firstly, &quot;ad tempus&quot; usually given as &quot;on time&quot; (ad + accusative) lit. &quot;to-the-time (appointed)&quot; (&quot;on time&quot; can be given as dative, &quot;tempori&quot;, which translates sensibly to &quot;to/ for-the-time&quot;; but, may lead to confusion as to which one to use--does it matter?). Here &quot;ad tempus&quot; clearly means &quot;temporarily&quot;; &quot;temporarily, he was content to remain in exile&quot;. In the dict. listings &quot;ad + acc.&quot; can mean &quot;for&quot;: &quot;ad tempus&quot; = &quot;for-the-time (being)&quot; = &quot;temporarily&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, alternative &quot;ad id temporis&quot;. In &quot;General Vocabulary&quot;, p.297, N &amp; H give this as &quot;till that time&quot;; but, lit. &quot;to that (presumably &quot;event&quot;) of-the-time&quot; (using the genitive), without adding a lot of extra words e.g. &quot;that-it (the event)-may-happen&quot; it makes little sense, in English. How does &quot;ad id temporis&quot; come to mean &quot;till that time&quot;, in Latin? This does, of course, fit the translation &quot;till that time, of his recall, he was content to remain in exile&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuing with Titus Livius (Livy XL. 4):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ad multo ante praecogitatum revoluta facinus…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **translation:** having fallen back to a purpose that she imagined long before...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict. gives adverb &quot;multo&quot; = &quot;long (before or after)&quot;; therefore not requiring &quot;ante&quot;; alternatively, using &quot;ante&quot; as adverb, putting the period of time into the ablative, giving Livy's &quot;multo ante&quot;; but this particular type of expression is usually more clearly defined e.g. &quot;duobus ante annis&quot; = &quot;two years before&quot; (adverb must be written after at least one of the relevant words in the ablative). Nevertheless, am guessing that, here, this is ablative &quot;multo&quot; + &quot;ante&quot;, is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12533" RevisionGUID="8490de1e-d07f-4ea4-9a2e-bd8a1a8496a4" CreationDate="2019-09-26T16:08:11.890" UserId="79" Comment="added 375 characters in body" Text="The diminutive ending *-ula* is common in classical Latin, and arguably productive.&#xD;&#xA;The examples you found are not exceptional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The linked question does not discuss all the Latin diminutives.&#xD;&#xA;The suffixes listed in the question are all masculine, but there are corresponding feminine and neuter variants.&#xD;&#xA;So the *-ulus* there implicitly includes *-ula* (and *-ulum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some attested pairs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *amica &gt; amicula*&#xD;&#xA;- *bucca &gt; buccula*&#xD;&#xA;- *caliga &gt; Caligula*&#xD;&#xA;- *casa &gt; casula*&#xD;&#xA;- *forma &gt; formula*&#xD;&#xA;- *lacrima &gt; lacrimula*&#xD;&#xA;- *palma &gt; palmula*&#xD;&#xA;- *ruta &gt; rutula*&#xD;&#xA;- *sica &gt; sicula*&#xD;&#xA;- *toga &gt; togula*&#xD;&#xA;- *vila &gt; villula*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also lots of diminutives where *-ula* does not simply replace *-a*, such as *mulier &gt; muliercula*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12556" RevisionGUID="79710cc5-ceab-47f9-bd2b-23364abbc2e8" CreationDate="2019-09-26T16:09:56.510" UserId="1982" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Qs have been asked about expressions-of-time, of the type: &quot;in the second year&quot; = &quot;secondo anno&quot;; &quot;within three days&quot; = &quot;tribus diebus&quot;; &quot;for two years&quot; = &quot;(per) duos annos&quot; (&quot;per&quot; is optional) which follow logical patterns of case-endings. Some are not so clear-cut.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;North &amp; Hillard Ex. 200: the following is to be translated into Latin: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He was not the man to put his own prosperity before that of the state; and he used to say that when his countrymen needed him they would recall him; till that time should arrive he was willing to remain in exile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Translation:** non enim is fuit qui suum commodum republicae anteponeret et affirmabat cives suos se cum opus esset, revocaturos; quod ad tempus (ad id temporis) se velle in exsilio manere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N &amp; H have offered two expressions-of-time: firstly, &quot;ad tempus&quot; usually given as &quot;on time&quot; (ad + accusative) lit. &quot;to-the-time (appointed)&quot; (&quot;on time&quot; can be given as dative, &quot;tempori&quot;, which translates sensibly to &quot;to/ for-the-time&quot;; but, may lead to confusion as to which one to use--does it matter?). Here &quot;ad tempus&quot; clearly means &quot;temporarily&quot;; &quot;temporarily, he was content to remain in exile&quot;. In the dict. listings &quot;ad + acc.&quot; can mean &quot;for&quot;: &quot;ad tempus&quot; = &quot;for-the-time (being)&quot; = &quot;temporarily&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, alternative &quot;ad id temporis&quot;. In &quot;General Vocabulary&quot;, p.297, N &amp; H give this as &quot;till that time&quot;; but, lit. &quot;to that (presumably &quot;event&quot;) of-the-time&quot; (using the genitive), without adding a lot of extra words e.g. &quot;that-it (the event)-may-happen&quot; it makes little sense, in English. How does &quot;ad id temporis&quot; come to mean &quot;till that time&quot;, in Latin? This does, of course, fit the translation &quot;till that time, of his recall, he was content to remain in exile&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuing with Titus Livius (Livy XL. 4):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ad multo ante praecogitatum revoluta facinus…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **translation:** having fallen back to a purpose that she imagined long before...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict. gives adverb &quot;multo&quot; = &quot;long (before or after)&quot;; therefore not requiring &quot;ante&quot;; alternatively, using &quot;ante&quot; as adverb, putting the period of time into the ablative, giving Livy's &quot;multo ante&quot;; but this particular type of expression is usually more clearly defined e.g. &quot;duobus ante annis&quot; = &quot;two years before&quot; (adverb must be written after at least one of the relevant words in the ablative). Nevertheless, am guessing that, here (Livy), this is ablative &quot;multo&quot; + &quot;ante&quot;, is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12560" RevisionGUID="d6394d18-98c7-47c0-aafc-b479931dd013" CreationDate="2019-09-26T16:40:39.347" UserId="406" Text="Good question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the beginning, way back in the far-flung times of Proto-Indo-European, the word for &quot;it is&quot; was something like *_h₁ésti_, and it had a fairly regular present participle, *_h₁sónts_. In Latin, these forms evolved into _est_ and _sōns_, respectively (vowels get lengthened before _-ns_). The latter is where we get forms like _absēns_ &gt; &quot;absent&quot; and _praesēns_ &gt; &quot;present&quot;, with vowel reduction in non-initial syllables. (This reduction evidently happened before the lengthening.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But over time, the meaning of this word started to drift. In legal language, &quot;the one who is&quot; started to mean &quot;the real one&quot;, then &quot;the actual perpetrator&quot;, then &quot;the guilty one&quot;, and eventually _sōns_ became synonymous with _reus_. So it didn't really work as a participle any more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People then made do without a present participle for quite a while, until they had to translate philosophical texts from Greek. The philosophical term _οὐσία_ &quot;essence&quot; was formed from the Greek present participle plus the noun-forming _-ία_. And while the latter had a nice equivalent in Latin (_-ia_), the former didn't. So some translators took the infinitive _esse_, built a fake participle off that (*_essens_), and attached *-ia* onto the end of that, giving _essentia_. _Essentia_ caught on (hence English &quot;essence&quot; and all its cognates), but *_essens_ didn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually, in Mediaeval Latin, people started to question the lack of a present participle (since Greek and Romance had one). The Ancient Greek one in particular was _ὤν_ (also from *_h₁sónts_; initial `/s/` tended to vanish in Greek), which coincidentally looked just like the standard participle _ending_ (as in _λύ-ων_ &quot;releasing&quot;). So by analogy, they took the ending off the Latin present participle, and started using it as a word of its own: _curr-ēns, curr-entis_ &gt; _ēns, entis_. While it's not Classical, this is probably the most popular participle you'll find, and will be the most easily understood nowadays." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35218" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12557" RevisionGUID="56ee6364-720f-4196-84d6-617f9da6b317" CreationDate="2019-09-26T21:19:38.037" />
  <row Id="35219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="a5e1d309-cff3-4c0a-858d-72302713055b" CreationDate="2019-09-27T08:29:02.483" UserId="297" Text="I am trying to understand better the etymon of the first part of the word _haruspex_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wiktionary entry](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/haruspex#Latin) and other sources mention «*haru-* (“intestines”)», but there seems to be no Latin word *_haru_ or the like (apart from derivate words such as _haruspex_, _hariolor_ etc.). Wiktionary and [Lewis-Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=haruspex) mention older roots, from Faliscan, Sanskrit, Proto-Indoeuropean etc., while [Lewis's _Elementary Latin Dictionary_](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dharuspex) tantalisingly records “HAR-”, but I can't find other references to this root as such in that book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there more modern, more complete explanation of the _haru-_ root?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35220" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="a5e1d309-cff3-4c0a-858d-72302713055b" CreationDate="2019-09-27T08:29:02.483" UserId="297" Text="Origin of “haru-” in “haruspex”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35221" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="a5e1d309-cff3-4c0a-858d-72302713055b" CreationDate="2019-09-27T08:29:02.483" UserId="297" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12562" RevisionGUID="40ef22f0-f0f5-45c4-9a86-2853ab51c11b" CreationDate="2019-09-27T08:44:12.100" UserId="947" Text="According to de Vaan, Etymological Dictionary  of  Latin  and the other Italic  Languages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIt.   *xaruspek-  'diviner',   *χαήο-.   It.  cognates:   Fal. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; harasp[ex]   ,   harisp[ex]   [noiasg.]  'haruspex'.  PIE *ǵʰrH-u- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'intestines'. IE cognates: Skt. hira- 'vein', Lith. žarna 'intestine,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hose', Oic. gǫrn 'intestines* &lt; *ghorH-nh2-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fal. is Faliscan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to wiktionary the cognates are https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zarna https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/g%C7%ABrn#Old_Norse https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/g%C7%ABrn#Old_Norse https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zorr%C3%AB#Albanian https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Garn#German" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12562" RevisionGUID="d68f0a0e-a686-47f9-9586-dd88c488c7f6" CreationDate="2019-09-27T08:50:10.693" UserId="947" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="According to de Vaan, Etymological Dictionary  of  Latin  and the other Italic  Languages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIt.   \*xaruspek-  'diviner',   *χαήο-.   It.  cognates:   Fal. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; harasp[ex]   ,   harisp[ex]   [noiasg.]  'haruspex'.  PIE \*ǵʰrH-u- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'intestines'. IE cognates: Skt. hira- 'vein', Lith. žarná 'intestine,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hose', Oic. gǫrrn 'intestines* &lt; *ghorH-nh2-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fal. is Faliscan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Wiktionary the cognates are [zarna](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zarna) [gǫrn](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/g%C7%ABrn#Old_Norse)  [zorrë](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zorr%C3%AB#Albanian) [Garn](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Garn#German) [χορδή](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%87%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%B4%CE%AE#Ancient_Greek) all originating in [\*ǵʰer-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/%C7%B5%CA%B0er-)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12562" RevisionGUID="78063515-8997-48e0-b9f6-90d1f5d507d0" CreationDate="2019-09-27T08:55:12.130" UserId="947" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="According to de Vaan, Etymological Dictionary  of  Latin  and the other Italic  Languages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIt.   \*xaruspek-  'diviner',   *χαήο-.   It.  cognates:   Fal. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; harasp[ex]   ,   harisp[ex]   [nom.sg.]  'haruspex'.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  PIE \*ǵʰrH-u- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'intestines'. IE cognates: Skt. hirā 'vein', Lith. žarná 'intestine,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hose', Oic. gǫrn 'intestines* &lt; *ǵʰorH-nh2-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fal. is Faliscan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Wiktionary the cognates are [zarna](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zarna) [gǫrn](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/g%C7%ABrn#Old_Norse)  [zorrë](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zorr%C3%AB#Albanian) [Garn](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Garn#German) [χορδή](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%87%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%B4%CE%AE#Ancient_Greek) all originating in [\*ǵʰer-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/%C7%B5%CA%B0er-)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12562" RevisionGUID="3c9b096a-6272-4b4e-adb6-2bbc04da8d91" CreationDate="2019-09-27T09:00:58.863" UserId="947" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="According to de Vaan, Etymological Dictionary  of  Latin  and the other Italic  Languages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIt.   \*xaruspek-  'diviner',   *χαήο-.   It.  cognates:   Fal. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; harasp[ex]   ,   harisp[ex]   [nom.sg.]  'haruspex'.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  PIE \*ǵʰrH-u- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'intestines'. IE cognates: Skt. hirā 'vein', Lith. žarná 'intestine,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hose', Oic. gǫrn 'intestines* &lt; *ǵʰorH-nh2-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fal. is Faliscan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Wiktionary the cognates are [zarna](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zarna) [gǫrn](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/g%C7%ABrn#Old_Norse)  [zorrë](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zorr%C3%AB#Albanian) [Garn](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Garn#German) [χορδή](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%87%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%B4%CE%AE#Ancient_Greek) all originating in [\*ǵʰer-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/%C7%B5%CA%B0er-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other related Latin words according to Wiktionary are [hīra](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hira#Latin) &quot;empty gut&quot; and [hernia](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hernia#Latin) &quot;protruded viscus&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12564" RevisionGUID="f0b002da-da77-4488-8b42-903b10670ede" CreationDate="2019-09-28T10:02:22.880" UserId="1982" Text="The nearest thing encompassing &quot;mistrust&quot; &amp; &quot;gifts&quot; would be the well-known: &quot;timeo Danaos et dona ferentes&quot; = &quot;I fear the Greeks, even when bearing gifts.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Virgil, &quot;Aeneid&quot; 2.49)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprised that no-one offered this, at the time; unless, in some way, it's completely wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12562" RevisionGUID="013b757d-4df2-462b-96f5-1322d55e97e5" CreationDate="2019-09-28T10:04:44.673" UserId="947" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="According to de Vaan, Etymological Dictionary  of  Latin  and the other Italic  Languages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIt.   \*xaruspek-  'diviner',   *χαriο-.   It.  cognates:   Fal. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; harasp[ex]   ,   harisp[ex]   [nom.sg.]  'haruspex'.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  PIE \*ǵʰrH-u- &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'intestines'. IE cognates: Skt. hirā 'vein', Lith. žarná 'intestine,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hose', Oic. gǫrn 'intestines* &lt; *ǵʰorH-nh2-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fal. is Faliscan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Wiktionary the cognates are [zarna](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zarna) [gǫrn](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/g%C7%ABrn#Old_Norse)  [zorrë](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zorr%C3%AB#Albanian) [Garn](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Garn#German) [χορδή](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%87%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%B4%CE%AE#Ancient_Greek) all originating in [\*ǵʰer-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/%C7%B5%CA%B0er-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other related Latin words according to Wiktionary are [hīra](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hira#Latin) &quot;empty gut&quot; and [hernia](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hernia#Latin) &quot;protruded viscus&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12564" RevisionGUID="d368ef47-786e-43a4-837c-72818cfac2d6" CreationDate="2019-09-28T10:51:17.547" UserId="1982" Comment="added 1078 characters in body" Text="The nearest thing encompassing &quot;mistrust&quot; &amp; &quot;gifts&quot; would be the well-known: &quot;timeo Danaos et dona ferentes&quot; = &quot;I fear the Greeks, even when bearing gifts.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Virgil, &quot;Aeneid&quot; 2.49)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprised that no-one offered this, at the time; unless, in some way, it's completely wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Romans claimed to admire the Greeks; but, they really despised them. They, the Rs, felt culturally inferior. It is possible to imagine a Roman sneering at something he distrusted as a &quot;Greek gift&quot;. Cannot offer evidence; apart from, tenuously &quot;I Claudius&quot; &amp; &quot;Claudius the God&quot; by Robert Graves (if yourself has not read these, you've just got to) which show the thinly-disguised realities. Exemplified in the &quot;I Claudius&quot; TV-series (1976): Claudius, disparagingly, to his Doctor, Xenephon, &quot;You Greeks!&quot;; loathesome, &quot;Lady&quot; Agripinilla advises her equally loathesome son, Nero: &quot;That Greek (Pallas) runs This Empire!&quot; This, after Nero had said: &quot;I don't like that Greek!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robert Graves always said that the spirit of Claudius wrote the books through himself (Graves). Yeah, right; but, what a marketing strategy! Given the intricate detail; knowledge; the powerful pro-Claudius narrative; to say nothing of incredible biographical details of &quot;sweet, young Emperor Caius&quot;...Who knows?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The TV-series was one of the best things I have ever seen on TV: well-worth it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12565" RevisionGUID="88eeef31-d234-4d9f-9a11-b6087bce7b04" CreationDate="2019-09-28T12:15:43.370" UserId="324" Text=" “noli … equi dentes inspicere donati” is cited as a “vulgare proverbium” by Jerome in the preface to his commentary on the (Pauline) Epistle to the Ephesians (not his translation of that epistle, as wrongly stated in the linked Wiktionary article). This takes it back to about 387, old enough to be (nearly) classical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12565" RevisionGUID="27378208-f3b8-4a18-a105-1a9d398bb250" CreationDate="2019-09-28T12:22:12.027" UserId="324" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text=" “noli … equi dentes inspicere donati” is cited as a “vulgare proverbium” by Jerome in the preface to his commentary on the (Pauline) Epistle to the Ephesians (not his translation of that epistle, as wrongly stated in the linked Wiktionary article). This takes it back to about 387, old enough to be (nearly) classical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is quoted in context here: https://wordhistories.net/2017/06/04/look-gift-horse-mouth/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12564" RevisionGUID="b5a1c14c-0ec1-45a5-a5a5-b6bdeb305d17" CreationDate="2019-09-28T14:16:19.867" UserId="1982" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="The nearest thing encompassing &quot;mistrust&quot; &amp; &quot;gifts&quot; would be the well-known: &quot;timeo Danaos et dona ferentes&quot; = &quot;I fear the Greeks, even when bearing gifts.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Virgil, &quot;Aeneid&quot; 2.49)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprised that no-one offered this, at the time; unless, in some way, it's completely wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Romans claimed to admire the Greeks; but, they really despised them. They, the Rs, felt culturally inferior. It is possible to imagine a Roman sneering at something he distrusted as a &quot;Greek gift&quot;. Cannot offer evidence; apart from, tenuously &quot;I Claudius&quot; &amp; &quot;Claudius the God&quot; by Robert Graves (if yourself has not read these, you've just got to) which show the thinly-disguised realities. Exemplified in the &quot;I Claudius&quot; TV-series (1976): Claudius, disparagingly, to his Doctor, Xenephon, &quot;You Greeks!&quot;; loathesome, &quot;Lady&quot; Agripinilla advises her equally loathesome son, Nero: &quot;That Greek (Pallas) runs This Empire!&quot; This, after Nero had said: &quot;I don't like that Greek!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robert Graves always said that the spirit of Claudius wrote the books through himself (Graves). Yeah, right; but, what a marketing strategy! Given the intricate detail; knowledge; the powerful pro-Claudius narrative (statesman; war-leader; historian; lawyer; judge; administrator; merciful; gentle-but-effective commander)  to say nothing of incredible biographical details of &quot;sweet, young Emperor Caius&quot;...Who knows?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I Claudius&quot; was one of the best things I have ever seen on TV-- well-worth it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12567" RevisionGUID="b3f023fe-ba9d-4ac5-b8f8-c40f930aa954" CreationDate="2019-09-28T21:13:41.653" UserDisplayName="user6114" Text="Naomi Baron. [*Words Onscreen: The Fate of Reading in a Digital World* (1 edn 2015)](https://www.amazon.com/Words-Onscreen-Reading-Digital-World/dp/0199315760). Top of p. 21. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yFmsk.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming that even in one's L1, “spaced words make it easier to decode in your head”. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why wasn’t *scriptio continua* popularized or standardized earlier? I just can't fathom how nobody became aware of the godsend of spacing words before 600 A.D.!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or did they suffer in silence all along before A.D. 600?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35242" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12567" RevisionGUID="b3f023fe-ba9d-4ac5-b8f8-c40f930aa954" CreationDate="2019-09-28T21:13:41.653" UserDisplayName="user6114" Text="Why didn't readers prefer spacing to scriptio continua before 600 A.D.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35243" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12567" RevisionGUID="b3f023fe-ba9d-4ac5-b8f8-c40f930aa954" CreationDate="2019-09-28T21:13:41.653" UserDisplayName="user6114" Text="|language-evolution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35253" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12567" RevisionGUID="02c6a222-80cd-4d48-b03b-81cb7578062f" CreationDate="2019-09-29T18:41:06.407" UserId="79" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2414],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:118,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ben Kovitz&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2476,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Vincenzo Oliva&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12570" RevisionGUID="299ce218-faa3-4966-b76e-e385dd3d5ea3" CreationDate="2019-09-29T22:02:09.010" UserId="406" Text="Nowadays, in languages which make a distinction between velar and uvular stops, it's common to use *K* for the first and *Q* for the second. This is best-known nowadays from transcriptions of Arabic names, such as *Qatar* and *Kuwait*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither Latin nor Greek had a velar-uvular distinction, but they both inherited suitable letters for it (from Phoenician, which did have that contrast). At some point, people evidently started using these letters for their &quot;original&quot; (Phoenician) purpose again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When did this &quot;original&quot; use start back up again? In other words, when was the first time that the Latin letter *Q* or the Greek letter *Ϙ* was used to distinguish a uvular sound from a velar one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35256" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12570" RevisionGUID="299ce218-faa3-4966-b76e-e385dd3d5ea3" CreationDate="2019-09-29T22:02:09.010" UserId="406" Text="When were /k/ and /q/ first distinguished in the Greek or Latin alphabet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35257" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12570" RevisionGUID="299ce218-faa3-4966-b76e-e385dd3d5ea3" CreationDate="2019-09-29T22:02:09.010" UserId="406" Text="|example-request|alphabet|phonology|transliteration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12571" RevisionGUID="c4408683-2a18-4096-bcbf-444393aa13c5" CreationDate="2019-09-30T00:17:16.690" UserId="1645" Text="Nam id facinus inprimis ego memorabile existimo sceleris atque periculi novitate. Sallust vom Catilina.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an epigram to Friedrich Schiller's &quot;die Verschvörung des Fiesco zu Genua&quot; (in Gutenberg Project ) of which I can find no translation anywhere. Can anybody give its meaning to me? (I'm too lazy to read the whole original Latin text or its translation of the War with Catiline of Sallust (Bellum Catilinae C. Sallusti Crispi))&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35259" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12571" RevisionGUID="c4408683-2a18-4096-bcbf-444393aa13c5" CreationDate="2019-09-30T00:17:16.690" UserId="1645" Text="An epigram in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35260" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12571" RevisionGUID="c4408683-2a18-4096-bcbf-444393aa13c5" CreationDate="2019-09-30T00:17:16.690" UserId="1645" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12572" RevisionGUID="554a0e46-9385-4031-a116-44cf2c0fdf70" CreationDate="2019-09-30T01:30:08.257" UserId="406" Text="(Nice timing! I just read this passage a week ago…)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is from the opening to the _War with Catiline_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Igitur de Catilinae conjuratione quam verissume potero paucis absolvam; nam id facinus inprimis ego memorabile existumo sceleris atque periculi novitate.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore, I'll give a short summary of the conspiracy of Catiline, as truthfully as possible—as I, personally, consider this issue especially relevant due to the novelty and danger of the crime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sallust's intentionally-archaic style is exhausting to read, but I've tried to be somewhat literal here. Alternately, one might render it as Ye Olde Butcher'de Englishe:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And *ergo*, regarding the Conspirasie of Catilina, I shall forthwith recount, as verily as I may be Capable, for I, myself, indeed, do believe this Crime to be so especially Heinouse, both due to its Noveltie, and due to the great Dangere it hath Prodused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might be a bit unfair to a famous historian, but I'm not sure how else to represent the use of _verissume_, _inprimis_, and _existumo_ in the first century BCE." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12573" RevisionGUID="d59fa52d-4696-4778-9271-2036c1ced53c" CreationDate="2019-09-30T03:03:47.883" UserId="1059" Text="What would be the differences in uses of &quot;senilis&quot; and &quot;senex&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know &quot;senilis&quot; is constructed with senex+illis, it should help me, but I don't get it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35263" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12573" RevisionGUID="d59fa52d-4696-4778-9271-2036c1ced53c" CreationDate="2019-09-30T03:03:47.883" UserId="1059" Text="Difference between &quot;senex &quot;and &quot;senilis&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35264" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12573" RevisionGUID="d59fa52d-4696-4778-9271-2036c1ced53c" CreationDate="2019-09-30T03:03:47.883" UserId="1059" Text="|word-comparison|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12575" RevisionGUID="24b972e5-c2c9-494e-9dc4-331cf7a6c1f5" CreationDate="2019-09-30T10:47:30.233" UserId="6117" Text="There are not many Latin-text sources for Phoenician-proper, only for its descendant/close relative Punic, the language of Carthage which was settled by Phoenician colonists from Tyre&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily there is a reasonable body of Latin-text Punic including several inscriptions from Tunisia and Libya, as well as some lines of dialogue in Plautus' play Poenulus (&quot;the little Phoenician&quot;). There is a trend for these texts to represent kap as &lt;ch&gt; and qop as &lt;c&gt; although kap is also frequently written &lt;c&gt;. This is not believed to represent frication of the kap as in Hebrew begedkefet, but rather aspiration, as Greek texts fairly consistently use chi to transcribe Phoenician kap, and kappa to transcribe Phoenician qop even in quite early transcriptions long before chi had itself become a fricative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth saying though, that most of these classical sources were not interested in precise transliteration in the way a modern linguist would be and, as orthography generally had not been standardised, these transcriptions were pretty ad hoc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12564" RevisionGUID="8078a0be-f4ce-4132-bdaf-52bbaa32a628" CreationDate="2019-09-30T11:44:53.717" UserId="1982" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="The nearest thing encompassing &quot;mistrust&quot; &amp; &quot;gifts&quot; would be the well-known: &quot;timeo Danaos et dona ferentes&quot; = &quot;I fear the Greeks, even when bearing gifts.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Virgil, &quot;Aeneid&quot; 2.49)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprised that no-one offered this, at the time; unless, in some way, it's completely wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Romans claimed to admire the Greeks; but, really, they despised them. They, the Romans, felt culturally inferior. It is possible to imagine a Roman sneering at something he distrusted as a &quot;Greek gift&quot;. Cannot offer evidence; apart from, tenuously &quot;I Claudius&quot; &amp; &quot;Claudius the God&quot; by Robert Graves (if yourself has not read these, you've just got to) which show the thinly-disguised realities. Exemplified in the &quot;I Claudius&quot; TV-series (1976): Claudius, disparagingly, to his Doctor, Xenephon, &quot;Don't you Greeks believe in anything?&quot;; loathesome, &quot;Lady&quot; Agripinilla advises her equally loathesome son, Nero: &quot;That Greek (Pallas) runs This Empire!&quot; This, after Nero had said: &quot;I don't like that Greek.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robert Graves always said that the spirit of Claudius wrote the books through himself (Graves). Yeah, right; but, what a marketing strategy. Given the intricate detail; depth of knowledge; the powerful pro-Claudius narrative (statesman; war-leader; historian; lawyer; judge; administrator; merciful; gentle-but-effective commander)  to say nothing of incredible biographical revelations about &quot;sweet, young Emperor Caius&quot;...Who knows?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I Claudius&quot; was one of the best things I have ever seen on TV-- well-worth it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12564" RevisionGUID="9eeee353-3b97-491c-9f41-1ede6f48ac05" CreationDate="2019-09-30T11:51:26.020" UserId="1982" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="The nearest thing, possibly, encompassing &quot;mistrust&quot; &amp; &quot;gifts&quot; would be the well-known: &quot;timeo Danaos et dona ferentes&quot; = &quot;I fear the Greeks, even when bearing gifts.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Virgil, &quot;Aeneid&quot; 2.49)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprised that no-one offered this, at the time; unless, in some way, it's completely wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Romans claimed to admire the Greeks; but, really, they despised them. They, the Romans, felt culturally inferior. It is possible to imagine a Roman sneering at something he distrusted as a &quot;Greek gift&quot;. Cannot offer evidence; apart from, tenuously &quot;I Claudius&quot; &amp; &quot;Claudius the God&quot; by Robert Graves (if yourself has not read these, you've just got to) which show the thinly-disguised realities. Exemplified in the &quot;I Claudius&quot; TV-series (1976): Claudius, disparagingly, to his Doctor, Xenephon, &quot;Don't you Greeks believe in anything?&quot;; loathesome, &quot;Lady&quot; Agripinilla advises her equally loathesome son, Nero: &quot;That Greek (Pallas) runs This Empire!&quot; This, after Nero had said: &quot;I don't like that Greek.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robert Graves always said that the spirit of Claudius wrote the books through himself (Graves). Yeah, right; but, what a marketing strategy. Given the intricate detail; depth of knowledge; the powerful pro-Claudius narrative (statesman; war-leader; historian; lawyer; judge; administrator; merciful; gentle-but-effective commander)  to say nothing of incredible biographical revelations about &quot;sweet, young Emperor Caius&quot;...Who knows?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I Claudius&quot; was one of the best things I have ever seen on TV-- well-worth it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12526" RevisionGUID="08a26d83-2748-45de-86cb-6ff857b47c66" CreationDate="2019-09-30T12:00:10.053" UserId="1982" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="On [Q &quot;We Are Triumphant While Our enemy Sleeps&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11065/79) the comment was made: &quot;Remember the Schlieffen Plan? Brilliant; inspired gamble; but, it could have only have worked if the belligerent nations had conveniently co-operated--they didn't.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;consilium imperatoris mortui reminisceris? ingeniosum; ludo incenso deis belli, si hostes-patriae adiuvissent, id confecisset.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(How to say &quot;inspired gamble&quot;?!?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuing on the same theme: with war having been declared and the (ambitious) Schlieffen Plan about to be implemented, German Chancellor, Bethmann-Holweg, advised Europe: &quot;We must hack our way through!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A (succinct) translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;secabimus!&quot; = &quot;We will hack our way through!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, of course, is not quite the same thing. It lacks obligation &quot;must&quot;. Therefore, invoking instruction from Qhttps://latin.stackexchange.com/q/10809/1982 &quot;Nunc Est Bibendum&quot; = &quot;Now one must drink&quot;, to give:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;nunc est secandum&quot; = &quot;Now one must hack-a-way-through!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure about this, is it open to improvement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12576" RevisionGUID="05fde926-a690-4e2f-a370-31b51c6d4a52" CreationDate="2019-09-30T14:14:03.200" UserId="1059" Text="When can I use &quot;venire ad&quot;, or &quot;venire in&quot;. (excepting the few locative cases)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What kind of buildings, place, etc, can accept the one or the other?  &#xD;&#xA;Is &quot;venire ad&quot; insists more on the move than &quot;in&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found that bother &quot;in ludum&quot; and &quot;ad ludum&quot; was possible for instance (go to school), is there a difference in the use or in the meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35272" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12576" RevisionGUID="05fde926-a690-4e2f-a370-31b51c6d4a52" CreationDate="2019-09-30T14:14:03.200" UserId="1059" Text="&quot;Venire ad&quot; or &quot;Venire in&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35273" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12576" RevisionGUID="05fde926-a690-4e2f-a370-31b51c6d4a52" CreationDate="2019-09-30T14:14:03.200" UserId="1059" Text="|word-choice|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12575" RevisionGUID="b8feca7f-7587-4b27-baa2-dea5c686e58a" CreationDate="2019-09-30T15:41:09.683" UserId="406" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="There are not many Latin-text sources for Phoenician-proper, only for its descendant/close relative Punic, the language of Carthage which was settled by Phoenician colonists from Tyre&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily there is a reasonable body of Latin-text Punic including several inscriptions from Tunisia and Libya, as well as some lines of dialogue in Plautus' play Poenulus (&quot;the little Phoenician&quot;). There is a trend for these texts to represent kap as &lt;&lt;v&gt;ch&gt; and qop as &lt;&lt;v&gt;c&gt; although kap is also frequently written &lt;&lt;v&gt;c&gt;. This is not believed to represent frication of the kap as in Hebrew begedkefet, but rather aspiration, as Greek texts fairly consistently use chi to transcribe Phoenician kap, and kappa to transcribe Phoenician qop even in quite early transcriptions long before chi had itself become a fricative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth saying though, that most of these classical sources were not interested in precise transliteration in the way a modern linguist would be and, as orthography generally had not been standardised, these transcriptions were pretty ad hoc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="446" RevisionGUID="e1c7e840-887e-4038-9fae-75071dfbfba9" CreationDate="2019-09-30T16:11:41.843" UserId="30" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The [Latin Library][1] has the following punctuation for lines 60–62 of book IV of Ovid's Metamorphoses, describing how Pyramus and Thisbe fell in love but were forbidden from marrying by their parents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tempore crevit amor; taedae quoque iure coissent,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed vetuere patres: **quod non potuere vetare**,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex aequo captis ardebant mentibus ambo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And [Perseus][2] similarly separates the *quod* clause from the preceding clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tempore crevit amor. Taedae quoque iure coissent:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; sed vetuere patres. **Quod non potuere vetare**,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex aequo captis ardebant mentibus ambo.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Ed. Hugo Magnus, 1892)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This forces the *quod* clause in bold to describe what happens in the next line, rather than what happened in the *sed* clause immediately preceding it on the same line. The translation would then be something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;...with time, their love grew. And marriage would have brought them together in law, // but their parents forbade it: and yet they could not forbid it, // both burned equally with captured hearts.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it would make much more sense to me to remove the colon or full stop and translate it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but the parents forbade what they could not forbid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That way, you don't need to connect the *quod* clause with *ardebant*, which I'd rather not do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could argue that it is *sed vetuere patres. Quod non potuere vetare, [eo]...ardebant*, &quot;but the parents forbade it. They burned...with that which [the parents] could not forbid&quot;. Then *quod* would be a relative with enclosed antecedent as a complement modifying *ardebant*. But this seems a bit far fetched to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also that you then have two ablatives, where one must be the cause of their burning (*eo, quod...*), the other an absolute ablative of circumstances. And yet [Lewis &amp; Short][3] group this quotation under &quot;without ablative [complement]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I find the paradox &quot;forbade what they could not forbid&quot; much more powerful in a single sentence. It's a perfect paradox, so I think it cannot be (literally) translated as &quot;but they tried to forbid&quot;, or it should have been an imperfect. So that makes it a strong paradox.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One translation from Perseus disagrees with me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They wished to join in marriage, but that joy  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; their fathers had forbidden them to hope;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **and yet the passion** that with equal strength  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; inflamed their minds **no parents could forbid**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Brookes More, 1922) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other, much older translation agrees with me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For love to come to that to which it afterward did growe.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And if that right had taken place they had bene man and wife,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **But still their Parents went about to let which (for their life)**   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **They could not let.** For both their heartes with equall flame did burne.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Arthur Golding, 1567) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So should the punctuation and the translation be changed to what I consider the better interpretation? What do other editions and translations say?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/ovid/ovid.met4.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0029%3Abook%3D4%3Acard%3D55&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=ardeo&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12577" RevisionGUID="44ff474e-068b-4256-b361-1d1bb5c6e83b" CreationDate="2019-09-30T16:23:15.867" UserId="79" Text="I would say that the difference is much like the one between the English &quot;in&quot; and &quot;at&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;When you are in the store, you are actually inside it.&#xD;&#xA;When you are at the store, your are probably somewhere near but not quite inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I plan to meet a friend in front of their house, I could say *ad domum tuam venio*.&#xD;&#xA;If I actually planned to go inside, I could say *in domum tuam venio*.&#xD;&#xA;(Adding an adjective or a possessive pronoun often turns locatives and other non-prepositional expressions for *domus* and cities into normal prepositional phrases.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both *in ludum* and *ad ludum* make sense with *venire* but mean different things.&#xD;&#xA;Are you going to the schoolyard or all the way into the building?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12576" RevisionGUID="f33e71b5-d4a7-4e68-aeaa-22bd7a78b044" CreationDate="2019-09-30T18:11:28.020" UserId="1059" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="When can I use &quot;venire ad&quot;, or &quot;venire in&quot;. (excepting the few locative cases)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What kind of buildings, place, etc, can accept the one or the other?  &#xD;&#xA;Is &quot;venire ad&quot; insists more on the move than &quot;in&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found that bother &quot;in ludum&quot; and &quot;ad ludum&quot; were both possible for instance (go to school), is there a difference in the use or in the meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12578" RevisionGUID="6c756134-6567-4710-a331-03172dddf6fa" CreationDate="2019-09-30T21:01:22.453" UserId="6122" Text="[Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary][1] says &quot;opere citato&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[American Heritage Dictionary, Collins and Oxford (at Lexico.com)][2] say &quot;opere citato&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Merriam Webster Dictionary][3] has an entry for &quot;opus citatum&quot; and says that it's abbreviated &quot;op cit&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia][4] says that &quot;Op. cit.&quot; is an abbreviation for &quot;opus citatum&quot;, with no mention of &quot;opere citato&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/OP+CIT&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/op.+cit.&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opus%20citatum&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op._cit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35279" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12578" RevisionGUID="6c756134-6567-4710-a331-03172dddf6fa" CreationDate="2019-09-30T21:01:22.453" UserId="6122" Text="Does &quot;Op. cit.&quot; stand for &quot;opus citatum&quot; or &quot;opere citato&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35280" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12578" RevisionGUID="6c756134-6567-4710-a331-03172dddf6fa" CreationDate="2019-09-30T21:01:22.453" UserId="6122" Text="|abbreviations|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35281" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12576" RevisionGUID="1af181c2-0a50-42c3-9057-aa4566569c5f" CreationDate="2019-09-30T22:27:34.767" />
  <row Id="35282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12579" RevisionGUID="caf48b78-0c24-4a65-82bd-85f0bfa5ec66" CreationDate="2019-10-01T00:44:02.587" UserId="406" Text="Both, or either!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Opus citātum* and *opere citātō* are different inflections of the same phrase, depending how they're used in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If something comes *from* the cited work, for example, that would be *ab opere citātō*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a reader to *look at* the cited work, on the other hand, that would be *vidē opus citātum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In isolation (or in this case as an abbreviation for a longer phrase), either would be correct; the distinction doesn't end up mattering." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12580" RevisionGUID="ee2e5f8c-d960-403e-9a4a-82c93321b611" CreationDate="2019-10-01T01:35:43.880" UserId="9" Text="Two sources that I've come across indicate a long vowel /aː/ in the first syllable of the word *vallum* 'palisade wall' (that is, *vāllum*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This form is given in *The Latin Language,* by Charles E. Bennett, 1907 (p. 31), and also in *Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata,* by Hans Ørberg,  (p. 89).  Although not especially recent, these both seem generally reliable resources to me, so I would imagine the authors had some reason for supposing the existence of a long vowel in this word. Since the length of the vowel cannot be deduced from the word's scansion or from the reflexes in any language descended from Latin, apex use seems like the only possible indication of vowel length in this context. On page 66, Bennett provides the following list of inscriptions that mark this vowel with an apex:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; VÁLLÁRI, CIL. ii. 4509; also VÁLLIVS, VÁLLIA, CIL. xix. 4039.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I haven't done any further work to check this evidence.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the more recent work *The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin,* by Peter Schrijver, 1991, gives *vallum* (which Schrijver derives from the Proto-European form *u̯h₂lso-) as having a short /a/ (pp. 170-171). Schrijver presumably has some reason aside from the etymology of the form for supposing the word to have a short vowel, since the form is cited in support of Schrijver's argument that PIE #RHC- regularly became Latin RăC-. Can anyone tell me what evidence Schrijver could have been thinking of?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35284" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12580" RevisionGUID="ee2e5f8c-d960-403e-9a4a-82c93321b611" CreationDate="2019-10-01T01:35:43.880" UserId="9" Text="What evidence is there of a short vowel in the first syllable of &quot;vallum&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35285" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12580" RevisionGUID="ee2e5f8c-d960-403e-9a4a-82c93321b611" CreationDate="2019-10-01T01:35:43.880" UserId="9" Text="|etymology|pronunciation|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12580" RevisionGUID="b10ffb92-8d34-4b02-bf60-8056c911152e" CreationDate="2019-10-01T01:47:51.363" UserId="9" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="Two sources that I've come across indicate a long vowel /aː/ in the first syllable of the word *vallum* 'palisade wall' (that is, *vāllum*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This form is given in *The Latin Language,* by Charles E. Bennett, 1907 (p. 31), and also in *Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata,* by Hans Ørberg,  (p. 89).  Although not especially recent, these both seem generally reliable resources to me, so I would imagine the authors had some fairly good reason(s) for supposing the existence of a long vowel in this word. Since the length of the vowel cannot be deduced from the word's scansion or from the reflexes in any language descended from Latin, apex use seems like the only possible indication of vowel length in this context. On page 66, Bennett provides the following list of inscriptions that mark this vowel with an apex:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; VÁLLÁRI, CIL. ii. 4509; also VÁLLIVS, VÁLLIA, CIL. xix. 4039.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I haven't done any further work to check this evidence.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the more recent work *The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin,* by Peter Schrijver, 1991, gives *vallum* (which Schrijver derives from the Proto-European form *u̯h₂lso-) as having a short /a/ (pp. 170-171). Schrijver presumably has some reason aside from the etymology of the form for supposing the word to have a short vowel, since the form is cited in support of Schrijver's argument that PIE #RHC- regularly became Latin RăC-. Can anyone tell me what evidence Schrijver could have been thinking of?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35287" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10608" RevisionGUID="d8dc9cd8-12f7-4a66-ae2a-fb2dad89f4a9" CreationDate="2019-10-01T02:01:30.187" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="35288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12581" RevisionGUID="d2f57f55-921a-4ba2-8ebd-118603bc6e44" CreationDate="2019-10-01T03:14:15.407" UserId="30" Text="It depends on context, I would say. *Opere citato* would mean &quot;from the cited work&quot; or &quot;in the cited work&quot; in the most relevant contexts. *Opus citatum* would mean &quot;the cited work&quot;, where it could be subject or object or possibly something else. *Operis citati* would mean &quot;of the cited work&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is a Latin text, the phrase would be expected to follow ordinary Latin rules of inflexion. If you see it in e.g. an English text, it would depend on the sentence; can you replace it with &quot;in the cited work&quot; or &quot;from the cited work&quot;? Then it should stand for *opere citato*. Would you rather replace it with &quot;the cited work&quot; without a preposition, when you're making it fit in the English sentence? Then it should stand for *opus citatum*. This is also the base form of the word (the nominative). And &quot;of the cited work&quot; corresponds to *operis citati*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's ultimately not extremely important: as long as it's abbreviated, they all look the same. And it's not often easy to tell which form would fit best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In a footnote: Aristotle, op. cit. [*opus citatum*, as the base form probably fits best, but I'd say *opere citato* could work as well]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is similar to a passage from chapter VII op. cit. [here *operis citati* would probably fit best, but a case can be made for *opere citato*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The theory is mentioned in op. cit. as well [since we can't have &quot;in in&quot;, nor &quot;in of&quot;, a plain *opus citatum* would make the most sense; but I suspect some people might object to this usage altogether, with the English praeposition]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Examples can be found everywhere op. cit. [*opere citato* would fit best here, but this is perhaps a bit contrived]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12582" RevisionGUID="f4d02bae-c79d-462a-a3b3-71fc7e9d5b79" CreationDate="2019-10-01T03:44:11.710" UserId="30" Text="Latin often uses a neuter singular (often adjectival) word, with the main substantive noun in the genitive, where we would use the main substantive in its normal case with the adjectival word's agreeing with the substantive. This happens especially with pronominal adjectives, like *id* and *quid*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid facinoris est in hoc amore?, &quot;what of crime is there in this love?&quot;, where we would be inclined to simply use *quod facinus*, &quot;what crime&quot;, where *quod* is used attributively to agree with *facinus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Id temporis, &quot;this [bit/moment] of time&quot; = *id tempus* &quot;this time&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Kinghorsey says in his comment, it is a partitive genitive, expressing the whole of which the non-genitive word is a part. It works like *gutta vini*, &quot;a drop of wine&quot;. In *id temporis*, the genitive is the whole (*temporis*), and *id* is the part of this whole: &quot;this part of time&quot; = &quot;this moment in time&quot; = &quot;this time&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35290" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12578" RevisionGUID="cb1c8d46-4e7b-4db1-90ca-2b7a17eeca0e" CreationDate="2019-10-01T05:12:58.217" />
  <row Id="35291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12583" RevisionGUID="8148076f-f791-4f3c-a6be-55860d808c9f" CreationDate="2019-10-01T06:58:56.203" UserId="2081" Text="As I understand it, &quot;a posteriori&quot; means &quot;from the latter,&quot; and &quot;a priori&quot; means &quot;from the former.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose there was something predating the former in the contect above. How would that be expressed in correct Latin? &quot;Ante a priori?&quot; &quot;A antepriori?&quot; &quot;A ante priori?&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35292" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12583" RevisionGUID="8148076f-f791-4f3c-a6be-55860d808c9f" CreationDate="2019-10-01T06:58:56.203" UserId="2081" Text="Is &quot;ante a priori&quot; correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35293" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12583" RevisionGUID="8148076f-f791-4f3c-a6be-55860d808c9f" CreationDate="2019-10-01T06:58:56.203" UserId="2081" Text="|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12577" RevisionGUID="c34728e1-7d6a-445b-80fc-ace742d0c0dc" CreationDate="2019-10-01T07:42:38.220" UserId="79" Comment="added 350 characters in body" Text="I would say that the difference is much like the one between the English &quot;in&quot; and &quot;at&quot; (for being somewhere) or &quot;into&quot; and &quot;to&quot; (for going somewhere).&#xD;&#xA;When you are in the store, you are actually inside it.&#xD;&#xA;When you are at the store, your are probably somewhere near but not quite inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For movement, *ad* + accusative means going near and *in* + accusative means going in.&#xD;&#xA;For location, *ad* + accusative means being near and *in* + ablative means being inside.&#xD;&#xA;It's not a question of which place requires which pronoun, but of where you are in relation to the place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I plan to meet a friend in front of their house, I could say *ad domum tuam venio*.&#xD;&#xA;If I actually planned to go inside, I could say *in domum tuam venio*.&#xD;&#xA;(Adding an adjective or a possessive pronoun often turns locatives and other non-prepositional expressions for *domus* and cities into normal prepositional phrases.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both *in ludum* and *ad ludum* make sense with *venire* but mean different things.&#xD;&#xA;Are you going to the schoolyard or all the way into the building?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12584" RevisionGUID="5df13e52-a103-4b4e-bd77-787c45545286" CreationDate="2019-10-01T09:34:48.960" UserId="1982" Text="A similar source of confusion can arise between movement (accusative) and position (ablative) with preposition &quot;sub&quot; = &quot;under&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...et omnes milites sub iugum missi sunt.&quot; = &quot;...and all the soldiers were sent under the yoke.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(To send an enemy under the yoke [a wooden collar, of long diameter, placed around the neck] was a traditional form of humiliation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Astonished to find &quot;sub&quot; taking accusative, when, at that time, had only ever encountered the ablative form. After some effort-of-study (having neglected to consult dictionary) yes, to be sent under the yoke (sub iugum mittere) involves movement; therefore, &quot;sub&quot; takes neuter accusative &quot;iugum&quot;, not ablative &quot;iugo&quot;. Confusion: a captured soldier is, presumably, standing still, at the point of a sword, when this humiliation is applied; but, the expression is &quot;to-be-sent-under&quot;--at least implying movement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12585" RevisionGUID="64afa414-9cfe-45f0-91f3-2a561d7896f0" CreationDate="2019-10-01T11:09:24.877" UserId="324" Text="We say “idem” (the same author, the same book) in the nom. sing., so we should also say “opus citatum” (the cited work) in the nom. sing. as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12585" RevisionGUID="ed501573-7ce1-4f11-a189-a2675aa329c6" CreationDate="2019-10-01T11:18:22.130" UserId="324" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="We say “idem” (the same author, the same book) in the nom. sing., so we should also say “opus citatum” (the cited work) in the nom. sing. as well, perhaps with an implied verb like &quot;dixit&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12586" RevisionGUID="055ff410-3f12-4cf2-a491-0761e20d8c93" CreationDate="2019-10-01T15:50:54.797" UserId="4991" Text=" ***στοργή***  derives from the verb [στέργω](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%83%CF%84%CE%AD%CF%81%CE%B3%CF%89#Ancient_Greek),  whose etymology&#xD;&#xA;&gt;From Proto-Indo-European *sterg- (literally “to cover, to protect”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;may well give a clue to the connotation of *protectiveness* associated with the word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, στοργή summarizes the feelings of parents to offspring, but not vice versa (unless in the declining years of the former). My sense is that ἀγάπη is quite symmetric in this setup. &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12586" RevisionGUID="feb0ea2c-1713-47b0-bf12-7324a4f9e873" CreationDate="2019-10-01T16:32:23.187" UserId="4991" Comment="added 160 characters in body" Text=" ***στοργή***  derives from the verb [στέργω](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%83%CF%84%CE%AD%CF%81%CE%B3%CF%89#Ancient_Greek),  whose etymology&#xD;&#xA;&gt;From Proto-Indo-European *sterg- (literally “to cover, to protect”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;may well give a clue to the connotation of *protectiveness* associated with the word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, στοργή summarizes the feelings of parents to offspring, but not vice versa (unless in the declining years of the former). My sense is that ἀγάπη is quite symmetric in this setup. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;στοργή  has a strong sense of familial affection. In early Christianity, the conceit of moving from ἀγάπη to στοργή suggested acquiring new quasi-family ties." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12587" RevisionGUID="5a93c581-9dac-4d06-8f09-70978ae7f774" CreationDate="2019-10-01T17:44:49.747" UserId="469" Text="1. As adjectives, the main distinction is that **senex** is said of a person, while **senilis** is said of things belonging or relative to such a person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A simple example could be ***senex** vir **seniles** cogitationes cogitat*, an old man has senile thoughts/the thoughts of an old man/thoughts typical of their age.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The best *attested* example I can find is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Quae bello est habilis, Veneri quoque convenit aetas.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Turpe **senex** miles, turpe **senilis** amor* ([Ovid, Amores 1.9][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The author contrasts the ability for love and war in both young and old people. A literal translation of the second verse could be: *[An] old soldier [is a] shameful [thing], old people's love [is also a] shameful [thing]*. The soldier is *old*, but his love is *senile*. Anyway translation of poetry is arguably better in hands of (native) poets, so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Tis shame for eld in waive or love to be (Marlowe, c. 1580)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; The old in both unserviceable prove,&#xD;&#xA;Infirm in war, and impotent in love. (Cromwell, 1855)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Other differences include **senex** being tens of times more frequent in the literature, and allowing its usage as a substantive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A possible source of confusion is the fact that both **senilis** in Latin and *senile* in English (as happens in other languages too), can be used figuratively as a synonym of **senex**/*old*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope it helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0068:text=Am.:book=1:poem=9&amp;highlight=senex%2Csenilis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12588" RevisionGUID="a2db9519-9c2c-4b42-a2d5-2df1df38d5dd" CreationDate="2019-10-01T19:23:28.690" UserId="5056" Text="I am translating &quot;iconoclast&quot; into classical Latin. It was translated into Ecclesiastical Latin as [Iconoclasta](http://www.latin-english.com/latin/iconoclasta/), but I would rather translate it from the original Byzantine Greek meaning of [image-breaker](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iconoclast) into something the Romans might have used, assuming of course that they wouldn't have simply adapted the word in the same way it was in Ecclesiastical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been toying with _Idolii Domitorum_, but I'm unsure if I'm using the correct endings or proper case. Ideally I would have a singular and plural form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35303" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12588" RevisionGUID="a2db9519-9c2c-4b42-a2d5-2df1df38d5dd" CreationDate="2019-10-01T19:23:28.690" UserId="5056" Text="Translate &quot;iconoclast&quot; to classical Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35304" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12588" RevisionGUID="a2db9519-9c2c-4b42-a2d5-2df1df38d5dd" CreationDate="2019-10-01T19:23:28.690" UserId="5056" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12589" RevisionGUID="33003bd3-0645-4e56-92e5-692410da4d0d" CreationDate="2019-10-01T20:37:06.680" UserId="985" Text="*Domitor* (without the *-um*, which is unnecessary here) would be a breaker in the sense of a breaker of wild horses. It doesn't have to do with physical breaking, which is what you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you can use a derivative of a verb such as *frangere* – e.g., *fractor*. Though this word is unattested (at least in classical Latin), it's easy enough to derive it. You probably also want a plural form of 'idol.' Though the word *idolon* is used mainly of apparitions or ghosts in classical Latin, not physical representations of persons or deities, I'm fairly certain it can have the required meaning in ecclesiastical Latin. So you could say either *idolon fractor* (using a retained Greek genitive plural ending) or *idolorum fractor* (using a Latin genitive plural ending).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can use some single-word compound modeled on *saxifragus* ('rock breaking'), such as *idolifragus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The plural of *idolon/idolorum fractor* is *idolon/idolorum fractores*, and the plural of *idolifragus* is, for a group of men or a mixed group of men and women, *idolifragi*; for a group of women, *idolifragae*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Updating to add that if you want the term to apply to images in a more general sense, not specifically to religious idols, the Latin noun *imago* can work: *imaginum fractor* or the quite ugly *imaginifragus*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12582" RevisionGUID="8f7d3ce3-2dcb-496f-a356-9b8789298d41" CreationDate="2019-10-01T22:44:14.860" UserId="30" Comment="added 795 characters in body" Text="Latin often uses a neuter singular (often adjectival) word, with the main substantive noun in the genitive, where we would use the main substantive in its normal case with the adjectival word's agreeing with the substantive. This happens especially with pronominal adjectives, like *id* and *quid*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quid facinoris est in hoc amore?, &quot;what of crime is there in this love?&quot;, where we would be inclined to simply use *quod facinus*, &quot;what crime&quot;, where *quod* is used attributively to agree with *facinus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Id temporis, &quot;this [bit/moment] of time&quot; = *id tempus* &quot;this time&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Kinghorsey says in his comment, it is a partitive genitive, expressing the whole of which the non-genitive word is a part. It works like *gutta vini*, &quot;a drop of wine&quot;. In *id temporis*, the genitive is the whole (*temporis*), and *id* is the part of this whole: &quot;this part of time&quot; = &quot;this moment in time&quot; = &quot;this time&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;As to your second question, *multo* cannot be used alone to mean &quot;long before&quot;: it only means &quot;long&quot; when accompanying a word like *ante*, so *multo ante* means &quot;long before&quot;. So your dictionary is a bit unclear about that. This ablative *multo* is used to indicate by what measure or to what degree an adverb (like *ante*) or adjective applies; it is often called the *ablativus mensurae*. From Lewis &amp; Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**multo**] 4. In specifications of time, before ante and post, *long, much*: &quot;non multo ante urbem captam&quot;, Cic. Div. 1, 45, 101: &quot;non multo ante&quot;, *not long before*, Nep. Eum. 3, 3: &quot;multo ante&quot;, Cic. Fam. 4, 1, 1: &quot;non multo post, quam, etc.&quot;, *not long after*, id. Att. 12, 49, 9: &quot;haud multo ante solis occasum&quot;, Liv. 5, 39, 2: &quot;multo ante noctem&quot;, id. 27, 42, 13.—" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12590" RevisionGUID="5365eea2-77c6-4c33-8f2e-4faa30e61c3e" CreationDate="2019-10-01T23:05:42.327" UserId="6074" Text="I would suggest &quot;specierum fractor&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35308" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12588" RevisionGUID="e7f500c8-76ce-4fc5-85d2-5e720ffc4774" CreationDate="2019-10-02T03:29:28.437" />
  <row Id="35309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12591" RevisionGUID="d6b05b07-2244-47bf-82bc-f8ec6557f459" CreationDate="2019-10-02T07:09:00.200" UserId="831" Text="*encouraged to upgrade from a comment:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the epigrammatic nature of mottoes, I wonder whether one needs to be explicit about either the fas or the world. What about simply “Redde meliorem”? It would fit better on the stone and make the viator think a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, now I think of it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**MELIOREM REDDE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;may be better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only problem I can see is that it could mean either “Give it back better [sc. than it was]” or “Give back the better one [sc. of the two]”, the latter being a bit of a red herring. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, given that mottoes *are* a genre of crossword clue, I can’t see that this is a great defect. But I would be interested to hear which word order people think sounds more fitting for the intended meaning. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12593" RevisionGUID="72d116b1-d4cf-4fa8-99c4-f4c59647aba0" CreationDate="2019-10-02T11:12:48.007" UserId="79" Text="The word *banana* and variants thereof appear in a number of languages.&#xD;&#xA;The origin appears to be the word [*banaana*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/banaana) in Wolof, if Wikipedia is to be trusted.&#xD;&#xA;This word is straightforward to adopt into Latin: *banana* fits perfectly into the first declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is less obvious for me is what to do with vowel lengths.&#xD;&#xA;Should it be&#xD;&#xA;*ba&amp;#772;na&amp;#772;na*,&#xD;&#xA;*ba&amp;#772;na&amp;#774;na*,&#xD;&#xA;*ba&amp;#774;na&amp;#772;na*, or&#xD;&#xA;*ba&amp;#774;na&amp;#774;na*?&#xD;&#xA;All four pronunciations are clearly distinct and the stress has two possible places, so it makes a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third option *ba&amp;#774;na&amp;#772;na* seems to best match the stress in many other languages with a similar word, but the connection between Latin vowel length and stress in other languages is not always that straightforward.&#xD;&#xA;Stress considerations only effect the second *a*, not the first one.&#xD;&#xA;Somehow a short first *a* sounds more natural to me, but I cannot articulate why.&#xD;&#xA;There are cases where Latin vowel length contradicts my instinct (I would expect *plu&amp;#774;s* and *mi&amp;#772;nus* as a Finn), so I cannot fully trust it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What vowel lengths would you pick and why?&#xD;&#xA;While I am also interested in the length of a banana specifically, I would like to understand the processes available for deciding these lengths.&#xD;&#xA;This question specifically concerns relatively modern borrowings from other languages to Latin, like *banana*.&#xD;&#xA;There can be room for arbitrary choices of course, but I do assume that there often are reasons to prefer some lengths over others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35313" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12593" RevisionGUID="72d116b1-d4cf-4fa8-99c4-f4c59647aba0" CreationDate="2019-10-02T11:12:48.007" UserId="79" Text="How long is a banana?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35314" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12593" RevisionGUID="72d116b1-d4cf-4fa8-99c4-f4c59647aba0" CreationDate="2019-10-02T11:12:48.007" UserId="79" Text="|contemporary-latin|vowel-quantity|cibus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12587" RevisionGUID="9b74fc5b-7723-4e05-9970-95c6d6dc3d4b" CreationDate="2019-10-02T11:36:23.730" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="1. As adjectives, the main distinction is that **senex** is said of a person, while **senilis** is said of things belonging or relative to such a person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A simple example could be ***senex** vir **seniles** cogitationes cogitat*, an old man has senile thoughts/the thoughts of an old man/thoughts typical of their age.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The best *attested* example I can find is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Quae bello est habilis, Veneri quoque convenit aetas.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Turpe **senex** miles, turpe **senilis** amor* ([Ovid, Amores 1.9][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The author contrasts the ability for love and war in both young and old people. A literal translation of the second verse could be: *[An] old soldier [is a] shameful [thing], old people's love [is also a] shameful [thing]*. The soldier is *old*, but his love is *senile*. Anyway translation of poetry is  better in the hands of (native) poets, so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Tis shame for eld in waive or love to be (Marlowe, c. 1580)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; The old in both unserviceable prove,&#xD;&#xA;Infirm in war, and impotent in love. (Cromwell, 1855)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Other differences include **senex** being tens of times more frequent in the literature, and allowing its usage as a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A possible source of confusion is the fact that both **senilis** in Latin and *senile* in English (as happens in other languages too), can be used figuratively as a synonym of **senex**/*old*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope it helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0068:text=Am.:book=1:poem=9&amp;highlight=senex%2Csenilis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12594" RevisionGUID="8e651a6b-e30d-4f50-a1b1-236ce7f4bfb6" CreationDate="2019-10-02T12:04:12.857" UserId="6127" Text="In T. Pratchett's Discworld series, Death's motto is &quot;Non Timetis Messor&quot;, meant to be a translation of &quot;Don't Fear the Reaper&quot;. But in other books he uses &quot;Timetere&quot;, and I am unsure of which would be correct, if either of these. The imperative form of &quot;Fear&quot; is the root of the whole issue here.&#xD;&#xA;This phrase is probably going to be tattooed  on my shoulder one day, so I'd quite like to have the correct translation ^^&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35317" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12594" RevisionGUID="8e651a6b-e30d-4f50-a1b1-236ce7f4bfb6" CreationDate="2019-10-02T12:04:12.857" UserId="6127" Text="How do you translate &quot;Don't Fear the Reaper&quot; into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35318" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12594" RevisionGUID="8e651a6b-e30d-4f50-a1b1-236ce7f4bfb6" CreationDate="2019-10-02T12:04:12.857" UserId="6127" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12595" RevisionGUID="82076bec-78c0-4296-9cc7-ce9690f481bf" CreationDate="2019-10-02T12:45:13.990" UserId="324" Text="This is following up on Rafael's comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Romans did not have bananas, but the name musa occurs in Latin since at least the 13th century, originally as a transcription of Arabic mawza in the Latin translation of Avicenna’s “Canon”. Later, it was adopted by Linnaeus as the (still current) botanical name for the genus that includes bananas. So why borrow a new word when an old word is available? And if you want to scan it, then as mūsa, with a heavy syllable, as in Arabic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12595" RevisionGUID="df2c2505-fd09-4049-bec6-00730c911ef8" CreationDate="2019-10-02T13:04:08.997" UserId="324" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="This is following up on Rafael's comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Romans did not have bananas, but the botanical name musa occurs in Latin since at least the 13th century, originally as a transcription of Arabic mawza in the Latin translation of Avicenna’s “Canon”. Later, it was adopted by Linnaeus as the (still current) botanical name for the genus that includes bananas. So why borrow a new word when an old word is available? And if you want to scan it, then as mūsa, with a heavy syllable, as in Arabic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12597" RevisionGUID="d8f57b8d-5646-4169-b252-59f25e3541a4" CreationDate="2019-10-02T16:08:48.637" UserId="4792" Text="This rule applies to Russian, Germanic languages, Latin and ancient Greek as far as I know. So I suspect that it's a feature of the proto-IE language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12598" RevisionGUID="90afa309-a63a-45a7-bc9b-0f0c96ad6fd8" CreationDate="2019-10-02T19:48:15.230" UserId="985" Text="Neither is correct, and *timetere* isn't a real Latin word. A correct translation depends somewhat on whether the command is directed at one person (e.g., you, the bearer of the tattoo) or the world at large (e.g., those who see the tattoo).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the former case (audience = one person), you could say **Noli messorem timere** or **Ne messorem timueris**. **Ne messorem timeas** is also OK and would tend to make the expression somewhat impersonal ('One must not fear the fear'). In all three, *messorem* could be moved so that it's the last word instead of the second word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the latter case (audience = more than one person), the corresponding translations are **Nolite messorem timere**, **Ne messorem timueritis**, and **Ne messorem timeatis**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For each audience, the three versions are interchangeable; so you can go for the version that sounds – or, since a tattoo will be involved, looks – the best to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to avoid thinking about intended audience, you can instead use a passive expression that means 'The reaper is not to be/must not be feared': **Messor non timendus est**. In Latin, this too has the force of a command. For the sake of brevity, you can omit *est*. You can also replace *non* with other negators, such as *minime* ('not at all'), *haud*, or *nullo modo* ('by no means'), if you think they will sound (or look) better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all these instances, *messor* is a solid, literal translation of 'reaper.' If you want something more evocative, perhaps, you could try *falciferum* instead of *messorem* in the first set of translations, and *falcifer* instead of *messor* in the second. This word means 'the scythe-bearing one.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12599" RevisionGUID="ae25d240-5ce6-43f1-9b88-1322e02b6ddb" CreationDate="2019-10-02T19:51:42.390" UserId="1369" Text="Death's motto makes me recall the Centurion scene in Monty Python's _The Life of Brian_. _Non timetis_ in fact &quot;don't fear&quot;, but rather &quot;(you all) don't fear&quot; in the indicative, rather than the imperative. Also &quot;Messor&quot; is in the nominative rather than the accusative. I expect that Mr Pratchett either deliberately mangled the phrase to be [facetious](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BilingualBonus) or he simply didn't care about being gramatically correct. In any case, that's what I would expect Altavista Translation would spit out when given the English phrase to translate, _circa_ 1995.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usual forms which serve as a negative imperative in Latin: the first is _noli/nolite_ + infinitive or _ne_ + present subjunctive. In both cases it will take a complement in the accusative. So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Nolite messorem timere_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Ne messorem timeatis_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12600" RevisionGUID="695f244d-d236-4d47-bb06-6939a42df248" CreationDate="2019-10-02T22:58:32.473" UserId="406" Text="When (Sir) Terry Pratchett was knighted, he chose this phrase as his heraldic motto. The official translation in that context is ***Noli Timere Messorem***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't the most natural word order (which would be *noli messorem timere*), but the meaning is the same: a command to a single person, &quot;do not fear the reaper&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35327" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12594" RevisionGUID="cf9b872c-90ba-4ea3-8508-f02880670a78" CreationDate="2019-10-02T23:16:34.703" />
  <row Id="35330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12590" RevisionGUID="c80ee3d0-00fc-4754-9000-3eec4905bb66" CreationDate="2019-10-03T13:09:08.670" UserId="6074" Comment="Added explanation" Text="I would suggest &quot;specierum fractor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Explanation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Fractor&quot; is a noun derived from &quot;frango (-is, -ĕre, -i, -actus)&quot;, meaning &quot;to break&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Specierum&quot; is Gn.Pl.F of &quot;species (-ei)&quot;, which means &quot;image, appearance, idea, impression&quot;, etc., and which was widely used in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. It is roughly equivalent to the Greek &quot;εἰκών&quot;. Here it is used as objetive Gn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;specierum fractor&quot; means &quot;breaker of images&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12593" RevisionGUID="93689f97-5569-438f-abc4-27bd28328a13" CreationDate="2019-10-03T14:08:50.000" UserId="79" Comment="added 509 characters in body" Text="The word *banana* and variants thereof appear in a number of languages.&#xD;&#xA;The origin appears to be the word [*banaana*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/banaana) in Wolof, if Wikipedia is to be trusted.&#xD;&#xA;This word is straightforward to adopt into Latin: *banana* fits perfectly into the first declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is less obvious for me is what to do with vowel lengths.&#xD;&#xA;Should it be&#xD;&#xA;*ba&amp;#772;na&amp;#772;na*,&#xD;&#xA;*ba&amp;#772;na&amp;#774;na*,&#xD;&#xA;*ba&amp;#774;na&amp;#772;na*, or&#xD;&#xA;*ba&amp;#774;na&amp;#774;na*?&#xD;&#xA;All four pronunciations are clearly distinct and the stress has two possible places, so it makes a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third option *ba&amp;#774;na&amp;#772;na* seems to best match the stress in many other languages with a similar word, but the connection between Latin vowel length and stress in other languages is not always that straightforward.&#xD;&#xA;Stress considerations only effect the second *a*, not the first one.&#xD;&#xA;Somehow a short first *a* sounds more natural to me, but I cannot articulate why.&#xD;&#xA;There are cases where Latin vowel length contradicts my instinct (I would expect *plu&amp;#774;s* and *mi&amp;#772;nus* as a Finn), so I cannot fully trust it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What vowel lengths would you pick and why?&#xD;&#xA;While I am also interested in the length of a banana specifically, I would like to understand the processes available for deciding these lengths.&#xD;&#xA;This question specifically concerns relatively modern borrowings from other languages to Latin, like *banana*.&#xD;&#xA;There can be room for arbitrary choices of course, but I do assume that there often are reasons to prefer some lengths over others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should stress that this question is about the process of choosing vowel lengths in borrowed words.&#xD;&#xA;Alternative translation suggestions for the fruit therefore miss the point, but they are interesting nevertheless.&#xD;&#xA;It is therefore irrelevant, but I would actually prefer the word *banana* with some lengths, as it most clearly and unambiguously communicates the correct ideas to most modern speakers; the alternatives suggested have sound reasoning behind them, but I find them worse for communication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12602" RevisionGUID="8f8ceb0e-7604-4f35-8721-d78ba33e4a20" CreationDate="2019-10-05T07:01:39.783" UserId="947" Text="Don't bust look at stresses, there are languages with long and short vowels. Czech uses: banán, Latvian uses: banāns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to answer: I would copy that and make the first short and the second syllable long." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12602" RevisionGUID="2ca3c2c7-3fc4-4de4-85a7-2d10ce5e8ee9" CreationDate="2019-10-05T07:09:54.583" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="Don't just look at stresses, there are languages with long and short vowels. Czech uses: banán, Latvian uses: banāns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to answer: I would copy that and make the first short and the second syllable long." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12602" RevisionGUID="7c4ac8ea-77d5-429d-96d4-b7eab9bf3db2" CreationDate="2019-10-05T10:24:48.147" UserId="947" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="Don't just look at stresses, there are languages with long and short vowels. Czech, Slovak and Hungarian uses: banán, Latvian uses: banāns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to answer: I would copy that and make the first short and the second syllable long." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12603" RevisionGUID="eb778774-8686-4e10-af6d-8a67db314d61" CreationDate="2019-10-05T11:11:19.047" UserId="1982" Text="In Q:https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/89/1982 there does not appear to be a natural conclusion. Apposite contributions appeared as comments but were not developed. Perhaps it was believed that the Q. had been answered? There still seems to be more to discuss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The well-established translations: &quot;Remember you must die&quot; &amp; &quot;Remember you are mortal&quot;: firstly, the original Latin does not include &quot;you&quot; and/or a second-person singular verb, the translations do include &quot;you&quot;, which may explain how confusion arises. Secondly, these two are essentially the same. Mortality is a susceptibility to death. If &quot;you are mortal&quot; then &quot;you must die&quot;, by definition.&#xD;&#xA;Pavel V and Cerberus gave the literal translation &quot;Remember to die&quot; (In case we forget?) which, for them, includes an implied obligation: &quot;Remember you must die&quot; (sounds familiar) a veritable cascade of congruence possibly pointing to the correct answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Implied obligation: an English equivalent could be: &quot;Remember to wash the pots.&quot; then &quot;You'd better wash the pots.&quot; therefore &quot;You must wash the pots.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;As geomars indicated there is an implied threat, here, as well as an obligation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To introduce obligation, without threat, the gerundive: nunc est moriendum = now one must die; or, mox erit moriendum = soon one must die. Alternatively, &quot;tu es mortalis, morieris&quot;; or, just &quot;tu morieris&quot; = you will die. It may be more prosaic; but, directly to the point; no equivocation; no implications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A most interesting point was made by C.M. Weimer; &quot;memento mori&quot; may be treated as indirect. This solves the problem of the inclusion of pronoun &quot;you&quot;, in the Latin. The man-in-the-chariot (interlocutor) advising our all-conquering hero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;dicit memento te mori&quot; = &quot;he (interlocutor) says remember you are dying&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;present tense accusative-infinitive construction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sanguine about death, Seneca, in his interpretation of Roman theology (&quot;Epistle 1&quot;) counselled the wise use of time (hence life) as it passes, only to be scooped-up by Death, in His unrelenting approach to the individual: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...qui intellegat se cotidie mori.&quot; = &quot;...he, who may understand that every day he is dying.&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;present tense, indirect statement with accusative reflexive pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The warning (indirect speech): &quot;Remember you are dying.&quot; appears to be compliant with a Roman mindset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concluding: either &quot;memento mori&quot; is to be translated literally, with its implied obligation, giving: &quot;Remember to die.&quot; = &quot;Remember you must die.&quot;; or, as indirect speech: &quot;(he says) remember you are dying.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35338" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12603" RevisionGUID="eb778774-8686-4e10-af6d-8a67db314d61" CreationDate="2019-10-05T11:11:19.047" UserId="1982" Text="Memento Mori--Revisited" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35339" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12603" RevisionGUID="eb778774-8686-4e10-af6d-8a67db314d61" CreationDate="2019-10-05T11:11:19.047" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12604" RevisionGUID="537aef4b-5e2d-490a-8735-6ffb267ed043" CreationDate="2019-10-05T18:41:35.357" UserId="4712" Text="So, I have heard an interesting claim about latin, and I wonder how true it is. The claim is, given that latin has declinations, you can shuffle words around and keep the sentence's meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that always the case, or is there some sentence such that the position of the words alters the meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was thinking about &quot;Non Dvcor Dvco&quot;, the motto of the city of sao paulo, that means &quot;I am not led, I lead&quot;. Would &quot;Dvcor Dvco Non&quot; mean the same? Would &quot;Non Dvco Dvcor&quot; mean the same?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry about the newbie question. I am not a student of latin, I just have this curiosity, so I expect I am glossing over way too much. Detailed explanations are most welcome, but keep in mind the depths of my ignorance :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35341" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12604" RevisionGUID="537aef4b-5e2d-490a-8735-6ffb267ed043" CreationDate="2019-10-05T18:41:35.357" UserId="4712" Text="shuffling latin sentences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35342" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12604" RevisionGUID="537aef4b-5e2d-490a-8735-6ffb267ed043" CreationDate="2019-10-05T18:41:35.357" UserId="4712" Text="|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12577" RevisionGUID="ec178258-00df-46f7-bdf5-14614135903e" CreationDate="2019-10-05T18:53:58.903" UserId="79" Comment="added 285 characters in body" Text="I would say that the difference is much like the one between the English &quot;in&quot; and &quot;at&quot; (for being somewhere) or &quot;into&quot; and &quot;to&quot; (for going somewhere).&#xD;&#xA;When you are in the store, you are actually inside it.&#xD;&#xA;When you are at the store, your are probably somewhere near but not quite inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For movement, *ad* + accusative means going near and *in* + accusative means going in.&#xD;&#xA;For location, *ad* + accusative means being near and *in* + ablative means being inside.&#xD;&#xA;It's not a question of which place requires which pronoun, but of where you are in relation to the place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I plan to meet a friend in front of their house, I could say *ad domum tuam venio*.&#xD;&#xA;If I actually planned to go inside, I could say *in domum tuam venio*.&#xD;&#xA;(Adding an adjective or a possessive pronoun often turns locatives and other non-prepositional expressions for *domus* and cities into normal prepositional phrases.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both *in ludum* and *ad ludum* make sense with *venire* but mean different things.&#xD;&#xA;Are you going to the schoolyard or all the way into the building?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is of course a simplified picture, but should give you a good overall idea of the difference.&#xD;&#xA;One cannot cover everything quite so briefly.&#xD;&#xA;I will also point out that I took the point of view of buildings, not so much places like market squares and in particular not people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12605" RevisionGUID="cd4f13d0-2434-4865-b5d5-173635294ebf" CreationDate="2019-10-05T19:07:23.550" UserId="6074" Text="&quot;Memento&quot; is a present imperative of the 2nd person singular, so I think your second, indirect speech interpretation (viz. &quot;(he says) remember you are dying&quot;) is simply not viable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Memini&quot; is a so-called &quot;verb of speech and thought&quot;, and thus can receive its direct object as an Accusative plus Infinitive clause. Here we have only the infinitive of a deponent verb, while the accusative (&quot;te&quot;) is implicit: &quot;Memento te mori&quot;, i.e.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Remember that you die.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, if you will:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Remember that you are mortal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still since the regent verb is in the imperative mood, it can also be translated as you suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Remember to die.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I prefer the former one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12583" RevisionGUID="7d288cde-e9dd-49db-ab6f-35889125cb71" CreationDate="2019-10-05T21:39:36.517" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="As I understand it, &quot;a posteriori&quot; means &quot;from the latter,&quot; and &quot;a priori&quot; means &quot;from the former.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose there was something predating the former in the context above. How would that be expressed in correct Latin? &quot;Ante a priori?&quot; &quot;A antepriori?&quot; &quot;A ante priori?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35346" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12583" RevisionGUID="7d288cde-e9dd-49db-ab6f-35889125cb71" CreationDate="2019-10-05T21:39:36.517" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|grammar-identification|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12606" RevisionGUID="621973b1-edc7-4ff3-ac3a-be06e5bdb0d0" CreationDate="2019-10-05T22:14:49.547" UserId="79" Text="*Ante a priori* is gibberish.&#xD;&#xA;Go with *ante priorem* instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The former&quot; in Latin is *prior*.&#xD;&#xA;This word can be inflected to a number of different forms depending on the situation.&#xD;&#xA;The relevant forms or cases here are the accusative *priorem* and ablative *priori* (also *priore*).&#xD;&#xA;The opposite word *posterior* has the same endings for the same forms.&#xD;&#xA;The preposition *a* (also *ab* or *abs*) requires ablative, *ante* requires accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A priori* means &quot;from the former&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;***Ante priorem*** means &quot;before the former&quot;, and this is what you need.&#xD;&#xA;You cannot combine prepositions like that; *a priori* is not a noun or an adjective in Latin, although it can function that way in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12526" RevisionGUID="672867c2-9d54-45d8-ad13-c9785690c018" CreationDate="2019-10-06T15:01:47.197" UserId="1982" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="On [Q &quot;We Are Triumphant While Our enemy Sleeps&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11065/79) the comment was made: &quot;Remember the Schlieffen Plan? Brilliant; inspired gamble; but, it could have only have worked if the belligerent nations had conveniently co-operated--they didn't.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;consilium imperatoris mortui reminisceris? ingeniosum; ludo incenso deis belli, si hostes-patriae adiuvissent, id confecisset.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(How to say &quot;inspired gamble&quot;?!?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuing on the same theme: with war having been declared and the (ambitious) Schlieffen Plan about to be implemented, German Chancellor, Bethmann-Holweg, advised Europe: &quot;We must hack our way through!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A (succinct) translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;secabimus!&quot; = &quot;We will hack our way through!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, of course, is not quite the same thing. It lacks obligation &quot;must&quot;. Therefore, invoking instruction from Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/10809/1982 = &quot;Now one must drink&quot;, to give:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;nunc est secandum&quot; = &quot;Now one must hack-a-way-through!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure about this, is it open to improvement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12603" RevisionGUID="368c57d4-b0f8-4c24-871d-5303bfc53129" CreationDate="2019-10-06T15:13:17.863" UserId="1982" Comment="added 192 characters in body" Text="In Q:https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/89/1982 there does not appear to be a natural conclusion. Apposite contributions appeared as comments but were not developed. Perhaps it was believed that the Q. had been answered? There still seems to be more to discuss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The well-established translations: &quot;Remember you must die&quot; &amp; &quot;Remember you are mortal&quot;: firstly, the original Latin does not include &quot;you&quot; and/or a second-person singular verb, the translations do include &quot;you&quot;, which may explain how confusion arises. Secondly, these two are essentially the same. Mortality is a susceptibility to death. If &quot;you are mortal&quot; then &quot;you must die&quot;, by definition.&#xD;&#xA;Pavel V and Cerberus gave the literal translation &quot;Remember to die&quot; (In case we forget?) which, for them, includes an implied obligation: &quot;Remember you must die&quot; (sounds familiar) a veritable cascade of congruence possibly pointing to the correct answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Implied obligation: an English equivalent could be: &quot;Remember to wash the pots.&quot; then &quot;You'd better wash the pots.&quot; therefore &quot;You must wash the pots.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;As geomars indicated there is an implied threat, here, as well as an obligation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To introduce obligation, without threat, the gerundive: nunc est moriendum = now one must die; or, mox erit moriendum = soon one must die. Alternatively, &quot;tu es mortalis, morieris&quot;; or, just &quot;tu morieris&quot; = you will die. It may be more prosaic; but, directly to the point; no equivocation; no implications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A most interesting point was made by C.M. Weimer; &quot;memento mori&quot; may be treated as indirect. This solves the problem of the inclusion of pronoun &quot;you&quot;, in the Latin. The man-in-the-chariot (interlocutor) advising our all-conquering hero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;dicit memento te mori&quot; = &quot;he (interlocutor) says remember you are dying&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;present tense accusative-infinitive construction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sanguine about death, Seneca, in his interpretation of Roman theology (&quot;Epistle 1&quot;) counselled the wise use of time (hence life) as it passes, only to be scooped-up by Death, in His unrelenting approach to the individual: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...qui intellegat se cotidie mori.&quot; = &quot;...he, who may understand that every day he is dying.&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;present tense, indirect statement with accusative reflexive pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The warning (indirect speech): &quot;Remember you are dying.&quot; appears to be compliant with a Roman mindset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Noteworthy, also, the second offer from Cerberus; &quot;Remember Dying&quot;; as a present participle; &quot;Remember (I see you) dying.&quot;; as a gerund; &quot;Remember the dying (of the light/ of the mortal.)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concluding: either &quot;memento mori&quot; is to be translated literally, with its implied obligation, giving: &quot;Remember to die.&quot; = &quot;Remember you must die.&quot;; or, as indirect speech: &quot;(he says) remember you are dying.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12607" RevisionGUID="4ad324fe-ae9a-4f36-9102-64af78fab16b" CreationDate="2019-10-06T18:10:24.847" UserId="406" Text="Joonas's answer is entirely correct, but to add one note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes it is possible to, apparently, combine prepositions in Latin. For example, a punishment _ex post factō_ comes from (_ex_) a law created (_factō_) after (_post_) the action itself happened, with two prepositions (_ex_ and _post_) in a row.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when this happens, it's usually (always?) because one of the prepositions is being treated as a prefix instead. In this example, the law is _postfactum_ (&quot;created-after&quot;), a single word, and so the punishment is coming _ex postfactō_, &quot;from a created-after&quot;. This is why we see _factō_ (ablative from _ex_) instead of _factum_ (accusative from _post_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, the simplest solution is _ante priorem_, &quot;before the former&quot;. But if you want to derive something **from** what happens before the former, you could potentially turn that into a single word, _anteprior_ (&quot;pre-former&quot;), and derive something _ab antepriori_ &quot;from the pre-former&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12608" RevisionGUID="dd1d9a0a-e1d7-4f06-ad5c-2a467ac189d3" CreationDate="2019-10-06T19:45:15.063" UserId="5056" Text="In a project of mine I have an event which was named &quot;everything burns&quot;, or potentially &quot;Everything burned&quot; (I am open to both tenses). What would this be in Latin? I tentatively have this as either _Omnia Urit_ or _Omnia Exurit_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35352" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12608" RevisionGUID="dd1d9a0a-e1d7-4f06-ad5c-2a467ac189d3" CreationDate="2019-10-06T19:45:15.063" UserId="5056" Text="Translate &quot;Everything burns&quot; into classical Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35353" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12608" RevisionGUID="dd1d9a0a-e1d7-4f06-ad5c-2a467ac189d3" CreationDate="2019-10-06T19:45:15.063" UserId="5056" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12609" RevisionGUID="1eea1008-d92d-4d7c-8a68-7270e01c32ac" CreationDate="2019-10-06T19:59:43.757" UserId="79" Text="Your suggestions are not quite right, and they might in fact be badly misunderstood.&#xD;&#xA;There are two things to consider here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one is simple.&#xD;&#xA;*Omnia* is plural and the verb must agree.&#xD;&#xA;*Omnia (ex)urunt* is grammatically valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second and more complicated thing is ergativity.&#xD;&#xA;Some English verbs behave ergatively, meaning that the one experiencing the action is the object when both subject and object are present but the subject when there is no object.&#xD;&#xA;For example, in &quot;I grow pumpkins&quot; and &quot;the pumpkins grow&quot; the grower is always the pumpkin, but the vegetable seems to be the object in the first version and the subject in the second.&#xD;&#xA;One of the ergatively behaving verbs in English is &quot;burn&quot;: In &quot;I burn the wood&quot; and &quot;the wood burns&quot; the same apparent switch of roles happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other English verbs behave transitively.&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;I kill the sheep&quot; and &quot;the sheep kills&quot; the roles are not switched.&#xD;&#xA;It is always the grammatical subject that does the action and always the object (whether mentioned or not) that experiences it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin verbs do not have this ergative behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, Latin verbs with an object are transitive.&#xD;&#xA;(There might be rare exceptions, but as a rule of thumb this is quite safe. And at the very least, awareness of the phenomenon will help avoid errors.)&#xD;&#xA;In particular, *urere* means &quot;to burn [something]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;That is, if everything burns (*omnia urunt*) using this verb, it means that everything is causing something else to be destroyed by flames.&#xD;&#xA;To express that everything is being burned, you need **passive voice**.&#xD;&#xA;What you need is ***omnia uruntur***, with or without *ex-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to switch it to the past, use the passive imperfect (if everything was burning) or the passive perfect (if everything has burned down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a quick summary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *uro* = I destroy with fire&#xD;&#xA;- *uror* = I am on fire" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12608" RevisionGUID="58a403ed-b7d5-448d-b46f-eb12fc96568a" CreationDate="2019-10-06T20:00:35.610" UserId="79" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In a project of mine I have an event which was named &quot;everything burns&quot;, or potentially &quot;Everything burned&quot; (I am open to both tenses). What would this be in classical Latin? I tentatively have this as either _Omnia Urit_ or _Omnia Exurit_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35356" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12608" RevisionGUID="58a403ed-b7d5-448d-b46f-eb12fc96568a" CreationDate="2019-10-06T20:00:35.610" UserId="79" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12610" RevisionGUID="c6fc165a-8615-4ebe-8bc8-54e998f8f8bb" CreationDate="2019-10-06T22:42:15.183" UserId="6142" Text="What is the pronunciation of **Formulæ** in Latin ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any difference (in pronunciation) between classical and vulgar Latin ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer can be in International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) format, or much better, as a sound file." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35358" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12610" RevisionGUID="c6fc165a-8615-4ebe-8bc8-54e998f8f8bb" CreationDate="2019-10-06T22:42:15.183" UserId="6142" Text="Pronunciation of &quot;Formulæ&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35359" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12610" RevisionGUID="c6fc165a-8615-4ebe-8bc8-54e998f8f8bb" CreationDate="2019-10-06T22:42:15.183" UserId="6142" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|vulgar-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35360" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8839" RevisionGUID="7a13b9a1-262a-4295-b0e0-12d49ccdb00e" CreationDate="2019-10-06T23:00:08.803" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="35361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12609" RevisionGUID="29793fe2-2325-4be6-913c-5fa5fffa85dc" CreationDate="2019-10-07T00:32:57.777" UserId="79" Comment="added 330 characters in body" Text="Your suggestions are not quite right, and they might in fact be badly misunderstood.&#xD;&#xA;There are two things to consider here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one is simple.&#xD;&#xA;*Omnia* is plural and the verb must agree.&#xD;&#xA;*Omnia (ex)urunt* is grammatically valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second and more complicated thing is ergativity.&#xD;&#xA;Some English verbs behave ergatively, meaning that the one experiencing the action is the object when both subject and object are present but the subject when there is no object.&#xD;&#xA;For example, in &quot;I grow pumpkins&quot; and &quot;the pumpkins grow&quot; the grower is always the pumpkin, but the vegetable seems to be the object in the first version and the subject in the second.&#xD;&#xA;One of the ergatively behaving verbs in English is &quot;burn&quot;: In &quot;I burn the wood&quot; and &quot;the wood burns&quot; the same apparent switch of roles happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other English verbs behave transitively.&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;I kill the sheep&quot; and &quot;the sheep kills&quot; the roles are not switched.&#xD;&#xA;It is always the grammatical subject that does the action and always the object (whether mentioned or not) that experiences it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin verbs do not have this ergative behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, Latin verbs with an object are transitive.&#xD;&#xA;(There might be rare exceptions, but as a rule of thumb this is quite safe. And at the very least, awareness of the phenomenon will help avoid errors.)&#xD;&#xA;In particular, *urere* means &quot;to burn [something]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;That is, if everything burns (*omnia urunt*) using this verb, it means that everything is causing something else to be destroyed by flames.&#xD;&#xA;To express that everything is being burned, you need **passive voice**.&#xD;&#xA;What you need is ***omnia uruntur***, with or without *ex-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to switch it to the past, use the passive imperfect (if everything was burning) or the passive perfect (if everything has burned down).&#xD;&#xA;These would be *omnia urebantur* and *omnia usta sunt*, where *sunt* can be left out in some contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a quick summary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *uro* = I destroy with fire&#xD;&#xA;- *uror* = I am on fire&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of verbs for burning, and they all behave this same way.&#xD;&#xA;In addition to *urere*, you can use *exurere*, *accendere*, *incendere*, and perhaps others I forget.&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks for reminding me of this, Rafael!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12609" RevisionGUID="651ab616-fdcf-4503-ad06-0c0f14eead9a" CreationDate="2019-10-07T03:37:13.837" UserId="79" Comment="added 187 characters in body" Text="Your suggestions are not quite right, and they might in fact be badly misunderstood.&#xD;&#xA;There are two things to consider here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one is simple.&#xD;&#xA;*Omnia* is plural and the verb must agree.&#xD;&#xA;*Omnia (ex)urunt* is grammatically valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second and more complicated thing is ergativity.&#xD;&#xA;Some English verbs behave ergatively, meaning that the one experiencing the action is the object when both subject and object are present but the subject when there is no object.&#xD;&#xA;For example, in &quot;I grow pumpkins&quot; and &quot;the pumpkins grow&quot; the grower is always the pumpkin, but the vegetable seems to be the object in the first version and the subject in the second.&#xD;&#xA;One of the ergatively behaving verbs in English is &quot;burn&quot;: In &quot;I burn the wood&quot; and &quot;the wood burns&quot; the same apparent switch of roles happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other English verbs behave transitively.&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;I kill the sheep&quot; and &quot;the sheep kills&quot; the roles are not switched.&#xD;&#xA;It is always the grammatical subject that does the action and always the object (whether mentioned or not) that experiences it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin verbs do not have this ergative behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, Latin verbs with an object are transitive.&#xD;&#xA;(There might be rare exceptions, but as a rule of thumb this is quite safe. And at the very least, awareness of the phenomenon will help avoid errors.)&#xD;&#xA;In particular, *urere* means &quot;to burn [something]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;That is, if everything burns (*omnia urunt*) using this verb, it means that everything is causing something else to be destroyed by flames.&#xD;&#xA;To express that everything is being burned, you need **passive voice**.&#xD;&#xA;What you need is ***omnia uruntur***, with or without *ex-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to switch it to the past, use the passive imperfect (if everything was burning) or the passive perfect (if everything has burned down).&#xD;&#xA;These would be *omnia urebantur* and *omnia usta sunt*, where *sunt* can be left out in some contexts.&#xD;&#xA;Without the *sunt* it can be read as &quot;all burnt things&quot; (a noun phrase) instead of &quot;all things have burnt&quot; (a clause); whether this is an issue should be judged on a case-by-case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a quick summary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *uro* = I destroy with fire&#xD;&#xA;- *uror* = I am on fire&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of verbs for burning, and they all behave this same way.&#xD;&#xA;In addition to *urere*, you can use *exurere*, *accendere*, *incendere*, and perhaps others I forget.&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks for reminding me of this, Rafael!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35363" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12608" RevisionGUID="3c6af372-b57d-482a-bdf5-280de8586cb4" CreationDate="2019-10-07T03:54:12.903" />
  <row Id="35364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12611" RevisionGUID="493589f5-c024-4382-a3de-8d89e3718cc1" CreationDate="2019-10-07T04:12:51.770" UserId="3153" Text="In order to capture the full feeling of your phrase, I suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vita Superat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's simple, but it means &quot;life conquers&quot; or more literally &quot;life goes above.&quot; It contains the feeling in both English translations you suggest: life wins, and life carries (aka, goes above.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12613" RevisionGUID="35b08f7f-4577-40e3-9ca8-01cea094cdbe" CreationDate="2019-10-07T11:52:46.740" UserId="6145" Text="I saw this text carved at the foot of a statue in Klagenfurt, Austria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MDfsG.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess it's in Latin and Google translate gave me a sketchy translation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't get why some letters are capitalized? Are they Roman numerals? If so, how should the numbers be read and do they have any relation to the text?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There are actually 4 sides to the statue, each with a different text but written in the same format)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35368" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12613" RevisionGUID="35b08f7f-4577-40e3-9ca8-01cea094cdbe" CreationDate="2019-10-07T11:52:46.740" UserId="6145" Text="What does this text mean with capitalized letters?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35369" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12613" RevisionGUID="35b08f7f-4577-40e3-9ca8-01cea094cdbe" CreationDate="2019-10-07T11:52:46.740" UserId="6145" Text="|numerals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12609" RevisionGUID="85d949aa-7462-4160-87c7-40e6c68cf4c7" CreationDate="2019-10-07T14:54:14.733" UserId="79" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="Your suggestions are not quite right, and they might in fact be badly misunderstood.&#xD;&#xA;There are two things to consider here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one is simple.&#xD;&#xA;*Omnia* is plural and the verb must agree.&#xD;&#xA;*Omnia (ex)urunt* is grammatically valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second and more complicated thing is ergativity.&#xD;&#xA;Some English verbs behave ergatively, meaning that the one experiencing the action is the object when both subject and object are present but the subject when there is no object.&#xD;&#xA;For example, in &quot;I grow pumpkins&quot; and &quot;the pumpkins grow&quot; the grower is always the pumpkin, but the vegetable seems to be the object in the first version and the subject in the second.&#xD;&#xA;One of the ergatively behaving verbs in English is &quot;burn&quot;: In &quot;I burn the wood&quot; and &quot;the wood burns&quot; the same apparent switch of roles happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other English verbs behave transitively.&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;I kill the sheep&quot; and &quot;the sheep kills&quot; the roles are not switched.&#xD;&#xA;It is always the grammatical subject that does the action and always the object (whether mentioned or not) that experiences it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin verbs do not have this ergative behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, Latin verbs with an object are transitive.&#xD;&#xA;(There might be rare exceptions, but as a rule of thumb this is quite safe. And at the very least, awareness of the phenomenon will help avoid errors. See this earlier [question about ergative verbs in Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7166/79) for details.)&#xD;&#xA;In particular, *urere* means &quot;to burn [something]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;That is, if everything burns (*omnia urunt*) using this verb, it means that everything is causing something else to be destroyed by flames.&#xD;&#xA;To express that everything is being burned, you need **passive voice**.&#xD;&#xA;What you need is ***omnia uruntur***, with or without *ex-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to switch it to the past, use the passive imperfect (if everything was burning) or the passive perfect (if everything has burned down).&#xD;&#xA;These would be *omnia urebantur* and *omnia usta sunt*, where *sunt* can be left out in some contexts.&#xD;&#xA;Without the *sunt* it can be read as &quot;all burnt things&quot; (a noun phrase) instead of &quot;all things have burnt&quot; (a clause); whether this is an issue should be judged on a case-by-case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a quick summary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *uro* = I destroy with fire&#xD;&#xA;- *uror* = I am on fire&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of verbs for burning, and they all behave this same way.&#xD;&#xA;In addition to *urere*, you can use *exurere*, *accendere*, *incendere*, and perhaps others I forget.&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks for reminding me of this, Rafael!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12614" RevisionGUID="6ecdc454-aee8-467c-8efe-90aefffc5e7b" CreationDate="2019-10-07T15:05:48.250" UserId="522" Text="The Letters are all ROMAN NUMERALS and inscriptions of this sort are called **[chronograms][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three **D** s, and a **C,** so the date of the monument or the event it records will be shortly after 1600. The remaining **VVIIIIIIIIII** add another twenty years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronogram" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12615" RevisionGUID="51c0acbc-3b97-4e99-949a-7c63298ce699" CreationDate="2019-10-07T16:43:35.513" UserId="406" Text="Ooh, very nice! This is a short phrase written in Latin, where all the letters that could be read as numerals also add up to a date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin is a dedication to the Trinity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *indivisae triadi*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; To the undivided Trinity,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *patri non genito*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the Father, who was not born,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *filio unigenito*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the only-begotten Son,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *spiritui abhis procedenti*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the Spirit shining forth from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numerals, rearranged, are *DDD C L VVV IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII*. *D* means 500, *C* means 100, *L* means 50, *V* means 5, and *I* means 1. (The other two you might find are *M* = 1000 and *X* = 10, but those don't show up here. Occasionally *S* means 1/2, but that's not being used here, since we're only concerned with years.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have 1500 + 100 + 50 + 15 + 16 = 1681." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12610" RevisionGUID="95b4bf6d-3c49-46de-bfa7-8dc72aac49e5" CreationDate="2019-10-07T17:49:15.647" UserId="6142" Comment="removing the sound file request" Text="What is the pronunciation of **Formulæ** in Latin ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any difference (in pronunciation) between classical and vulgar Latin ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer can be in International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) format." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12604" RevisionGUID="bde6c0dc-844f-4227-b0dd-cc8d0c2acf8a" CreationDate="2019-10-07T17:54:20.463" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="So, I have heard an interesting claim about Latin, and I wonder how true it is. The claim is, given that Latin has declensions, you can shuffle words around and keep the sentence's meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that always the case, or is there some sentence such that the position of the words alters the meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was thinking about &quot;Non Dvcor Dvco&quot;, the motto of the city of sao paulo, that means &quot;I am not led, I lead&quot;. Would &quot;Dvcor Dvco Non&quot; mean the same? Would &quot;Non Dvco Dvcor&quot; mean the same?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry about the newbie question. I am not a student of Latin, I just have this curiosity, so I expect I am glossing over way too much. Detailed explanations are most welcome, but keep in mind the depths of my ignorance :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35376" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12604" RevisionGUID="bde6c0dc-844f-4227-b0dd-cc8d0c2acf8a" CreationDate="2019-10-07T17:54:20.463" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Shuffling Latin sentences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35377" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12604" RevisionGUID="bde6c0dc-844f-4227-b0dd-cc8d0c2acf8a" CreationDate="2019-10-07T17:54:20.463" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|syntax|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12616" RevisionGUID="b32b8615-d603-4a26-a14b-b1a02605e36e" CreationDate="2019-10-07T17:59:54.003" UserId="79" Text="Latin word order is very flexible but not quite free.&#xD;&#xA;Even in inflected languages you cannot typically change the word order completely freely.&#xD;&#xA;For example, consider: &quot;I want a banana but I don't want an apple&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you swap the words &quot;banana&quot; and &quot;apple&quot; (they would be in the same form in Latin and many other languages), the meaning is inverted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The placing of words like *non* does play a role in a very similar way.&#xD;&#xA;Typically it goes before the thing being negated.&#xD;&#xA;If it's at the end, the sentence looks like gibberish.&#xD;&#xA;If you change *non ducor duco* to *non duco ducor* the message is inverted.&#xD;&#xA;You need to keep the two entities *non ducor* and *duco* separated, but their order can be changed; *duco non ducor* works well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **inflections add flexibility but do not remove all restrictions on word order**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12617" RevisionGUID="533cc9de-7708-4462-a9e9-ff7c9d05652d" CreationDate="2019-10-07T18:12:51.580" UserId="406" Text="&gt; The claim is, given that Latin has declensions, you can shuffle words around and keep the sentence's meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is, for the most part, true. Latin word order is extremely free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is that always the case, or is there some sentence such that the position of the words alters the meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you might expect, this can sometimes alter the meaning, or add ambiguity. It can certainly make it much harder to read! Look at the word order in Dido's speeches in Aeneid IV, for example; it gets progressively messier and more convoluted as the book goes on, requiring a lot of effort to figure out near the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, it's standard for *non* to come before the verb it's modifying, for a possessed noun to come before the genitive that possesses it, and for relative clauses to stick together as single units. If you break these rules, your sentences are going to get harder to understand, and might be misinterpreted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, *duco ducor non* isn't *nonsensical*, but is probably going to be met with a double-take. People will *probably* understand it as &quot;I lead, I am not led&quot;, but only after several moments of &quot;what exactly is going on here?&quot; and &quot;did this author actually know Latin?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11359" RevisionGUID="beb68603-0d0b-49cd-bf40-2e1b9d29ab00" CreationDate="2019-10-07T19:49:26.500" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="The regular perfect them form for &quot;he went&quot; is *iit*.&#xD;&#xA;In an answer to [this question about two short versus one long vowel](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2155/79), TKR mentions that this form can be contracted to *īt*.&#xD;&#xA;In a text without macrons it looks exactly like the present form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there attestations of *it* in classical Latin where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. it is clearly perfect tense instead of present, or&#xD;&#xA;2. the vowel is necessarily long, or&#xD;&#xA;3. perhaps even both?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the present tense can be used for past events in Latin, the first point requires using the context.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps verbs in similar position on both sides are in unambiguous perfect form, so it is reasonable to assume *it* perfect by analogy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way I can see to argue the second option is scansion.&#xD;&#xA;There is a remote chance that the *t* could be long instead of the *i* as [is the case with *hoc*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6719/79), but I find that unlikely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone wants to approach with brute force, [here](http://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23it%23) is a list of attestations of *it*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35382" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12613" RevisionGUID="8d3a2f15-43c6-4e8b-9b22-b813c60b821c" CreationDate="2019-10-07T19:55:33.943" />
  <row Id="35383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12618" RevisionGUID="24cb7c58-446f-470e-949b-f575fddcfa71" CreationDate="2019-10-07T19:57:26.197" UserId="584" Text="Duolingo has just released Latin as a language to learn. Here is the flag they ended up using: &#xA;[![flag for latin][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;Here how it looks in the app:&#xA;[![Screenshot from Duolingo app][2]][2]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/B6rxN.jpg&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aaa3q.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12618" RevisionGUID="961e7a84-8d9c-4a3f-af36-e2506841a3c8" CreationDate="2019-10-07T20:02:42.157" UserId="584" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; added 3 characters in body; added 2 characters in body; added 6 characters in body; added 4 characters in body; added 17 characters in body; added 5 characters in body" Text="Duolingo has just released Latin as a language to learn. Here is the flag they ended up using: &#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&#xA;[![latin flag][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Here is how it looks in the app:&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&#xA;[![Screenshot from Duolingo app][2]][2]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fbfoi.jpg&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aaa3q.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12619" RevisionGUID="183d6a93-0ae9-4d09-91fb-82792672ec68" CreationDate="2019-10-08T00:14:24.010" UserId="1906" Text="The text is from the [trinity column][1] of Klagenfurt.  &#xD;&#xA;It has been built after the pest epidemic of 1680/1681.  &#xD;&#xA;Not only one side has a **[chronogram][2]** but each one has one and each has the same value - 1681.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I decided to translate the text first to German, my native language, and then to English. On the linked site is a german translation which may be better, but I did not use it, so the translation might have some rough edges. Due to first translating from Latin to German and also from German to English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First side:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *HOC*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dies,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *GRATITUDINIS SIGNUM*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; zum Zeichen der Dankbarkeit  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; as a sign of gratidude  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ERIGI VOLVERUNT  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; wollten Sie errichten.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; they wanted to errect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second side:&#xD;&#xA;(english translation by [@Draconis][2])&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *INDIVISAE TRIADI  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Der unteilbaren Dreiheit,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; To the undivided Trinity, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *PATRI NON GENETO  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; dem ungeborenen Vater,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the Father, who was not born,  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *FILIO UNIGENETO  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; dem eingeborenen Sohn,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the only-begotten Son, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *SPIRITUI AB HIS PROCEDENTI*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; dem von diesen hervorgehenden Geist  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the Spirit shining forth from them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third side:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *OB URBIS HUIUS LARES*    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; für die barmherzige Rettung der Häuser dieser Stadt  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; for the mercyful rescue of the houses of this city&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A VENENO PESTIS*     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; vor dem Gift der Pest.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; from the poison of the pest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *MISERICORDITER SERVATOS*  &#xD;&#xA;(this has been integrated into the first fragment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fourth side:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *IN GENUA HUMILITER PROSTRATI*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Demütig auf die Knie werfend (=kniend)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Humbly groveling(?) (=kneeling)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *PROVINCIAE PROCERES, ET CIVES*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; empfangen die Adeligen dieser Provinz und die Bürger  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the noble of this province and the citizens&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ACCEPTI BENEFICII*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; deine Gnade.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; receive your grace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.kleindenkmaeler.at/detail/dreifaltigkeitssaeule_klagenfurt&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronogram&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/406/draconis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12614" RevisionGUID="933d5d69-5159-4695-85c3-1fb51e2d4ed6" CreationDate="2019-10-08T00:27:09.817" UserId="522" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="The Letters are all ROMAN NUMERALS and inscriptions of this sort are called **[chronograms][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three **D** s, a **C,** and an **L;** so the date of the monument or the event it records will be shortly after 1650. The remaining **VVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIII** add another thirty-one years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronogram" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12620" RevisionGUID="2eeb211f-0f0c-4a1e-b69c-916a75411121" CreationDate="2019-10-08T00:27:31.560" UserId="6152" Text="The statue in question is the &quot;Dreifaltigkeitssäule&quot;, the &quot;column of trinity&quot; in Klagenfurt, Austria. As others already mentioned, the capitalized letters add up to a number, in this case to the year 1681.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Around that time, there were [multiple outbreaks of the Plague](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plague_of_Vienna#Regional_outbreak) in Germany, Austria, Bohemia and neighboring areas, killing tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people. But due to a strict isolation of the city and measures of hygiene, the city of Klagenfurt was spared (or at the very least, not affected as badly). &#xD;&#xA;To give thanks, a wooden column was put up at Heiligengeistplatz (&quot;holy spirit square&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So called &quot;Pestsäulen&quot; (&quot;Plague columns&quot;) were monuments to commemorate the Plague and to give thanks that it eventually ended. Many Plague columns displayed the Holy Trinity or one of the saints that were called upon for help against the disease. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few years later, 1683, Ottoman troops [failed to conquer Vienna](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna). The people in Klagenfurt took that occasion to replace the wooden column with one made of stone which &quot;doubled&quot; as a victory column: While the base still commemorated the Plague, the top displayed an erect christian cross towering over a lying, beaten crescent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the following centuries, the column of trinity was moved twice. Since 1965 it's located at Alte Platz (&quot;old square&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources (in German, mostly):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreifaltigkeitss%C3%A4ule_(Klagenfurt_am_W%C3%B6rthersee)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.visitklagenfurt.at/en/discover-and-experience/worth-seeing/dreifaltigkeitssaeule-pestsaeule.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.kleindenkmaeler.at/detail/dreifaltigkeitssaeule_klagenfurt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pests%C3%A4ule&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12621" RevisionGUID="a4e742d8-6070-4a1e-a06c-6da35e2bb866" CreationDate="2019-10-08T07:01:37.823" UserId="6154" Text="I am studying Latin and one of the definitions in my textbook is kind of confusing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A syllable can be long in one of two ways:&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; &gt; 1. *Length by nature*. If the syllable contains a long vowel or dipthong, it is said to be long *by nature*.&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 2. *Length by position*. If the syllable contains a vowel which is followed by two consonants, it is said to be long *by position*. *x* (= *ks*) is said to be a double consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first part of this question is: How can a vowel be long by position (besides the case of *x*)? As far as I'm aware, when a vowel is followed by two or more consonants, only the first is included in the same syllable as the vowel. Am I wrong, or are there simply more special cases like *x* that I haven't learned about yet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part is: What does it actually *mean* for something to be long by position? Is the vowel pronounced as if it were marked long, even if it isn't?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35394" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12621" RevisionGUID="a4e742d8-6070-4a1e-a06c-6da35e2bb866" CreationDate="2019-10-08T07:01:37.823" UserId="6154" Text="Under what conditions can &quot;length by position&quot; occur, and what does it actually mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35395" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12621" RevisionGUID="a4e742d8-6070-4a1e-a06c-6da35e2bb866" CreationDate="2019-10-08T07:01:37.823" UserId="6154" Text="|vowel-quantity|accentuation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12622" RevisionGUID="aff6ca12-dbfc-40ee-91a7-3f18c5766444" CreationDate="2019-10-08T07:40:39.240" UserId="9" Text="The terms &quot;length by position&quot; and &quot;length by nature&quot; are often avoided in more modern work. It's better to speak of &quot;heavy syllables&quot; and &quot;light syllables&quot;. As described in the answers to a previous question, https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7198/what-makes-a-syllable-heavy-or-light, if you follow a certain system of syllabification, then a light syllable can be defined as a syllable that ends in a short vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you may have misunderstood part of the second rule in the quote. The wording &quot;If the syllable contains a vowel which is followed by two consonants&quot; may be confusing: for the purposes of this rule, the two consonants mentioned do not **both** have to belong to the same syllable as the vowel. It is sufficient for only the first consonant to belong to the same syllable as the vowel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the middle of a word, most sequences of consonants are divided between syllables in Latin, and so most sequences of consonants cause a preceding syllable to be heavy. For example, *pango, stultus, discus* all start with heavy syllables: *pan, stul, dis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only time when a consonant sequence is not always split between syllables is when the first consonant is one of P T C B D G F (PH TH CH) and the second consonant is one of L R. The syllabification of such consonant sequences in poetry is somewhat free, which can enable the poet to use a heavy or light syllable depending on the requirements of the meter, but there are certain conditions that make one or the other syllabification more likely. I'm not sure whether you want the details, but the most definite condition that I know of is that any cluster formed by adding a consonant-final prefix to a base starting with L or R is split between syllables (so a word like *oblītus* started with two heavy syllables, *ob* and *lī*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a word ending in a consonant came before a word starting with a vowel, Latin regularly moved the word-final consonant to the start of the following syllable, so the first syllable in *ad rem* is long (*ad*) but the first syllable in *ad oppidum* is short (*a*, since the phrase is divided into the syllables *a dop pi dum*). This is why traditional sources often phrase the rule of heavy  (&quot;long by position&quot;) syllables in terms of a vowel being followed by at least two consonants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12622" RevisionGUID="6ff0331d-c6e5-4801-aa77-101b4363c3b6" CreationDate="2019-10-08T07:48:55.797" UserId="9" Comment="added 742 characters in body" Text="###Any syllable that ends in a consonant (one or more) is heavy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The terms &quot;length by position&quot; and &quot;length by nature&quot; are often avoided in more modern work. It's better to speak of &quot;heavy syllables&quot; and &quot;light syllables&quot;. As described in the answers to a previous question, https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7198/what-makes-a-syllable-heavy-or-light, if you follow a certain system of syllabification, then a light syllable can be defined as a syllable that ends in a short vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you may have misunderstood part of the second rule in the quote. The wording &quot;If the syllable contains a vowel which is followed by two consonants&quot; may be confusing: for the purposes of this rule, the two consonants mentioned do not **both** have to belong to the same syllable as the vowel. It is sufficient for only the first consonant to belong to the same syllable as the vowel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the middle of a word, most sequences of consonants are divided between syllables in Latin, and so most sequences of consonants cause a preceding syllable to be heavy. For example, *pango, stultus, discus* all start with heavy (=&quot;long by position&quot;) syllables: *pan, stul, dis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only time when a consonant sequence is not always split between syllables is when the first consonant is one of P T C B D G F (PH TH CH) and the second consonant is one of L R. The syllabification of such consonant sequences in poetry is somewhat free, which can enable the poet to use a heavy or light syllable depending on the requirements of the meter, but there are certain conditions that make one or the other syllabification more likely. I'm not sure whether you want the details, but the most definite condition that I know of is that any cluster formed by adding a consonant-final prefix to a base starting with L or R is split between syllables (so a word like *oblītus* started with two heavy syllables, *ob* and *lī*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a word ending in a consonant came before a word starting with a vowel, Latin regularly moved the word-final consonant to the start of the following syllable, so the first syllable in *ad rem* is long (*ad*) but the first syllable in *ad oppidum* is short (*a*, since the phrase is divided into the syllables *a dop pi dum*). This is why traditional sources often phrase the rule of heavy  (&quot;long by position&quot;) syllables in terms of a vowel being followed by at least two consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Long vowels and short vowels still contrasted in closed syllables&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for calling heavy syllables &quot;long by position&quot; is because syllables with long vowels and syllables ending in consonants were treated the same way in Latin poetry. Latin poetry has rules for which syllables in a line should be heavy and which should be light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was still a distinction between long and short vowels in syllables that ended in a consonant. For example, the word *āctus* had a long vowel /aː/ and the word *factus* had a short vowel /a/.The distinction just didn't make a difference to the behavior of the syllable in poetic meter: *āc* and *ac* are both heavy syllables. You should not try to lengthen the vowel itself just because it occurs in a syllable ending in a consonant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12622" RevisionGUID="215e4e75-5759-4ce7-9bdd-97eaf0781ea8" CreationDate="2019-10-08T07:54:01.233" UserId="9" Comment="added 742 characters in body" Text="###Any syllable that ends in a consonant (one or more) is heavy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The terms &quot;length by position&quot; and &quot;length by nature&quot; are often avoided in more modern work. It's better to speak of &quot;heavy syllables&quot; and &quot;light syllables&quot;. As described in the answers to a previous question, https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7198/what-makes-a-syllable-heavy-or-light, if you follow a certain system of syllabification, then a light syllable can be defined as a syllable that ends in a short vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you may have misunderstood part of the second rule in the quote. The wording &quot;If the syllable contains a vowel which is followed by two consonants&quot; may be confusing: for the purposes of this rule, the two consonants mentioned do not **both** have to belong to the same syllable as the vowel. It is sufficient for only the first consonant to belong to the same syllable as the vowel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the middle of a word, most sequences of consonants are divided between syllables in Latin, and so most sequences of consonants cause a preceding syllable to be heavy. For example, *pango, stultus, discus* all start with heavy (=&quot;long by position&quot;) syllables: *pan, stul, dis.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only time when a consonant sequence is not always split between syllables is when the first consonant is one of P T C B D G F (PH TH CH) and the second consonant is one of L R. The syllabification of such consonant sequences in poetry is somewhat free, which can enable the poet to use a heavy or light syllable depending on the requirements of the meter, but there are certain conditions that make one or the other syllabification more likely. I'm not sure whether you want the details, but the most definite condition that I know of is that any cluster formed by adding a consonant-final prefix to a base starting with L or R is split between syllables (so a word like *oblītus* started with two heavy syllables, *ob* and *lī*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a word ending in a consonant came before a word starting with a vowel, Latin regularly moved the word-final consonant to the start of the following syllable, so the first syllable in *ad rem* is long (*ad*) but the first syllable in *ad oppidum* is short (*a*, since the phrase is divided into the syllables *a dop pi dum*). This is why traditional sources often phrase the rule of heavy  (&quot;long by position&quot;) syllables in terms of a vowel being followed by at least two consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Long vowels and short vowels still contrasted in closed syllables&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for calling heavy syllables &quot;long by position&quot; is because syllables with long vowels and syllables ending in consonants were treated the same way in Latin poetry. Latin poetry has rules for which syllables in a line should be heavy and which should be light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was still a distinction between long and short vowels in syllables that ended in a consonant. For example, the word *āctus* had a long vowel /aː/ and the word *factus* had a short vowel /a/.The distinction just didn't make a difference to the behavior of the syllable in poetic meter: &quot;āc&quot; and &quot;ac&quot; are both heavy syllables. You should not pronounce the vowel as a long vowel just because it occurs in a syllable ending in a consonant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12622" RevisionGUID="7f896c99-8c1a-4e21-ab92-cb2d58318d6b" CreationDate="2019-10-08T08:03:19.010" UserId="9" Comment="added 742 characters in body" Text="###Any syllable that ends in a consonant (one or more) is heavy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The terms &quot;length by position&quot; and &quot;length by nature&quot; are often avoided in more modern work. It's better to speak of &quot;heavy syllables&quot; and &quot;light syllables&quot;. As described in the answers to a previous question, https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7198/what-makes-a-syllable-heavy-or-light, if you follow a certain system of syllabification, then a light syllable can be defined as a syllable that ends in a short vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you may have misunderstood part of the second rule in the quote. The wording &quot;If the syllable contains a vowel which is followed by two consonants&quot; may be confusing: for the purposes of this rule, the two consonants mentioned do not **both** have to belong to the same syllable as the vowel. It is sufficient for only the first consonant to belong to the same syllable as the vowel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the middle of a word, most sequences of consonants are divided between syllables in Latin, and so most sequences of consonants cause a preceding syllable to be heavy. For example, *pango, stultus, discus* all start with heavy (=&quot;long by position&quot;) syllables: *pan, stul, dis.* Doubled consonant letters are also divided between syllables, as in *passus, siccus, terra,* which start with the heavy syllables *pas, sic, ter.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only consonant sequences that are not always split between syllables are two-consonant clusters where the first consonant is one of P T C B D G F (PH TH CH) and the second consonant is one of L R. The syllabification of such consonant sequences in poetry is somewhat free, which can enable the poet to use a heavy or light syllable depending on the requirements of the meter, but there are certain conditions that make one or the other syllabification more likely. I'm not sure whether you want the details, but the most definite condition that I know of is that any cluster formed by adding a consonant-final prefix to a base starting with L or R is split between syllables (so a word like *oblītus* started with two heavy syllables, *ob* and *lī*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a word ending in a consonant came before a word starting with a vowel, Latin regularly moved the word-final consonant to the start of the following syllable, so the first syllable in *ad rem* is long (*ad*) but the first syllable in *ad oppidum* is short (*a*, since the phrase is divided into the syllables *a dop pi dum*). Likewise, a single consonant in the middle of a word was grouped with the following rather than the preceding vowel. This is why traditional sources often phrase the rule of heavy  (&quot;long by position&quot;) syllables in terms of a vowel being followed by at least two consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from X, there are a few more cases where Latin spelling represents two consonant sounds with just one letter. The most important are J (also written I) and Z: these usually represent doubled consonant sounds /jj/ and /zz/, which were divided between syllables just like other doubled consonant sounds. So for example, *[major/maior,* which was really pronounced *majjor](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/91/9),* starts with the heavy syllable *maj.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Long vowels and short vowels still contrasted in closed syllables&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for calling heavy syllables &quot;long by position&quot; is because syllables with long vowels and syllables ending in consonants were treated the same way in Latin poetry. Latin poetry has rules for which syllables in a line should be heavy and which should be light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was still a distinction between long and short vowels in syllables that ended in a consonant. For example, the word *āctus* had a long vowel /aː/ and the word *factus* had a short vowel /a/.The distinction just didn't make a difference to the behavior of the syllable in poetic meter: &quot;āc&quot; and &quot;ac&quot; are both heavy syllables. You should not pronounce the vowel as a long vowel just because it occurs in a syllable ending in a consonant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12613" RevisionGUID="f55d730a-2ab8-491c-9cf2-c961d87ee85d" CreationDate="2019-10-08T08:09:15.923" UserId="6145" Comment="Added the other 3 texts of the statue" Text="I saw this text carved at the foot of a statue in Klagenfurt, Austria:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess it's in Latin and Google translate gave me a sketchy translation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't get why some letters are capitalized? Are they Roman numerals? If so, how should the numbers be read and do they have any relation to the text?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** The statue actually has 4 sides and these are the other three texts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MDfsG.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t6wOG.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8hfOU.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VAn5V.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12622" RevisionGUID="1a214a86-e6e5-4653-a655-ec4516cb54c6" CreationDate="2019-10-08T08:09:41.803" UserId="9" Comment="added 742 characters in body" Text="###Any syllable that ends in a consonant (one or more) is heavy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The terms &quot;length by position&quot; and &quot;length by nature&quot; are often avoided in more modern work. It's better to speak of &quot;heavy syllables&quot; and &quot;light syllables&quot;. As described in the answers to a previous question, https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7198/what-makes-a-syllable-heavy-or-light, if you follow a certain system of syllabification, then a light syllable can be defined as a syllable that ends in a short vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you may have misunderstood part of the second rule in the quote. The wording &quot;If the syllable contains a vowel which is followed by two consonants&quot; may be confusing: for the purposes of this rule, the two consonants mentioned do not **both** have to belong to the same syllable as the vowel. It is sufficient for only the first consonant to belong to the same syllable as the vowel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the middle of a word, most sequences of consonants are divided between syllables in Latin, and so most sequences of consonants cause a preceding syllable to be heavy. For example, *pango, stultus, discus* all start with heavy (=&quot;long by position&quot;) syllables: *pan, stul, dis.* Doubled consonant letters are also divided between syllables, as in *passus, siccus, terra,* which start with the heavy syllables *pas, sic, ter.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only consonant sequences that are not always split between syllables when followed by a vowel are two-consonant clusters where the first consonant is one of P T C B D G F (PH TH CH) and the second consonant is one of L R. It is possible for both consonants in a cluster of this form to be grouped with the following syllable, so for example the word *tenebrae* has the syllabification *te ne brae,* and also an alternative syllabification *te neb rae.* The syllabification of such consonant sequences in poetry is somewhat free, which can enable the poet to use a heavy or light syllable depending on the requirements of the meter, but there are certain restrictions, or conditions that make one or the other syllabification more likely. I'm not sure whether you want the details, but the most definite restriction that I know of is that any cluster formed by adding a consonant-final prefix to a base starting with L or R is split between syllables (so a word like *oblītus* started with two heavy syllables, *ob* and *lī*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a word ending in a consonant came before a word starting with a vowel, Latin regularly moved the word-final consonant to the start of the following syllable, so the first syllable in *ad rem* is long (*ad*) but the first syllable in *ad oppidum* is short (*a*, since the phrase is divided into the syllables *a dop pi dum*). Likewise, a single consonant in the middle of a word was grouped with the following rather than the preceding vowel. This is why traditional sources often phrase the rule of heavy  (&quot;long by position&quot;) syllables in terms of a vowel being followed by at least two consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from X, there are a few more cases where Latin spelling represents two consonant sounds with just one letter. The most important are J (also written I) and Z: these usually represent doubled consonant sounds /jj/ and /zz/, which were divided between syllables just like other doubled consonant sounds. So for example, *[major/maior,* which was really pronounced *majjor](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/91/9),* starts with the heavy syllable *maj.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Long vowels and short vowels still contrasted in closed syllables&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for calling heavy syllables &quot;long by position&quot; is because syllables with long vowels and syllables ending in consonants were treated the same way in Latin poetry. Latin poetry has rules for which syllables in a line should be heavy and which should be light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was still a distinction between long and short vowels in syllables that ended in a consonant. For example, the word *āctus* had a long vowel /aː/ and the word *factus* had a short vowel /a/.The distinction just didn't make a difference to the behavior of the syllable in poetic meter: &quot;āc&quot; and &quot;ac&quot; are both heavy syllables. You should not pronounce the vowel as a long vowel just because it occurs in a syllable ending in a consonant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12622" RevisionGUID="af1be3b1-1cf4-43c1-aa3f-43ae5eb973ea" CreationDate="2019-10-08T08:15:32.717" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="###Any syllable that ends in a consonant (one or more) is heavy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The terms &quot;length by position&quot; and &quot;length by nature&quot; are often avoided in more modern work. It's better to speak of &quot;heavy syllables&quot; and &quot;light syllables&quot;. As described in the answers to a previous question, https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7198/what-makes-a-syllable-heavy-or-light, if you follow a certain system of syllabification, then a light syllable can be defined as a syllable that ends in a short vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you may have misunderstood part of the second rule in the quote. The wording &quot;If the syllable contains a vowel which is followed by two consonants&quot; may be confusing: for the purposes of this rule, the two consonants mentioned do not **both** have to belong to the same syllable as the vowel. It is sufficient for only the first consonant to belong to the same syllable as the vowel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the middle of a word, most sequences of consonants are divided between syllables in Latin, and so most sequences of consonants cause a preceding syllable to be heavy. For example, *pango, stultus, discus* all start with heavy (=&quot;long by position&quot;) syllables: *pan, stul, dis.* Doubled consonant letters are also divided between syllables, as in *passus, siccus, terra,* which start with the heavy syllables *pas, sic, ter.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only consonant sequences that are not always split between syllables when they occur between vowels in the middle of a word are two-consonant clusters where the first consonant is one of P T C B D G F (PH TH CH) and the second consonant is one of L R. It is possible for both consonants in a cluster of this form to be grouped with the following syllable, so for example the word *tenebrae* has the syllabification *te.ne.brae,* and also an alternative syllabification *te.neb.rae.* The syllabification of such consonant sequences in poetry is somewhat free, which can enable the poet to use a heavy or light syllable depending on the requirements of the meter, but there are certain restrictions, or conditions that make one or the other syllabification more likely. I'm not sure whether you want the details, but the most definite restriction that I know of is that any cluster formed by adding a consonant-final prefix to a base starting with L or R is split between syllables (so a word like *oblītus* started with two heavy syllables, *ob* and *lī*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a word ending in a consonant came before a word starting with a vowel, Latin regularly moved the word-final consonant to the start of the following syllable, so the first syllable in *ad rem* is long (*ad*) but the first syllable in *ad oppidum* is short (*a*, since the phrase is divided into the syllables *a.dop.pi.dum*). Likewise, a single consonant in the middle of a word was grouped with the following rather than the preceding vowel. This is why traditional sources often phrase the rule of heavy  (&quot;long by position&quot;) syllables in terms of a vowel being followed by at least two consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from X, there are a few more cases where Latin spelling represents two consonant sounds with just one letter. The most important are J (also written I) and Z: when these occur between vowels in the middle of a word, they almost always represent doubled consonant sounds /jj/ and /zz/, which were divided between syllables just like other doubled consonant sounds. So for example, *[major/maior,* which was really pronounced *majjor](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/91/9),* starts with the heavy syllable *maj.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Long vowels and short vowels still contrasted in closed syllables&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for calling heavy syllables &quot;long by position&quot; is because syllables with long vowels and syllables ending in consonants were treated the same way in Latin poetry. Latin poetry has rules for which syllables in a line should be heavy and which should be light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was still a distinction between long and short vowels in syllables that ended in a consonant. For example, the word *āctus* had a long vowel /aː/ and the word *factus* had a short vowel /a/.The distinction just didn't make a difference to the behavior of the syllable in poetic meter: &quot;āc&quot; and &quot;ac&quot; are both heavy syllables. You should not pronounce the vowel as a long vowel just because it occurs in a syllable ending in a consonant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12622" RevisionGUID="4d1e87b1-c4da-4a01-8ab3-e827b267b952" CreationDate="2019-10-08T08:31:12.403" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="#Any syllable that ends in a consonant (one or more) is heavy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The terms &quot;length by position&quot; and &quot;length by nature&quot; are often avoided in more modern work. It's better to speak of &quot;heavy syllables&quot; and &quot;light syllables&quot;. As described in the answers to a previous question, https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7198/what-makes-a-syllable-heavy-or-light, if you follow a certain system of syllabification, then a light syllable can be defined as a syllable that ends in a short vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you may have misunderstood part of the second rule in the quote. The wording &quot;If the syllable contains a vowel which is followed by two consonants&quot; may be confusing: for the purposes of this rule, the two consonants mentioned do not **both** have to belong to the same syllable as the vowel. It is sufficient for only the first consonant to belong to the same syllable as the vowel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the middle of a word, most sequences of consonants are divided between syllables in Latin, and so most sequences of consonants cause a preceding syllable to be heavy. For example, *pango, stultus, discus* all start with heavy (=&quot;long by position&quot;) syllables: *pan, stul, dis.* Doubled consonant letters are also divided between syllables, as in *passus, siccus, terra,* which start with the heavy syllables *pas, sic, ter.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only consonant sequences that are not always split between syllables when they occur between vowels in the middle of a word are two-consonant clusters where the first consonant is one of P T C B D G F (PH TH CH) and the second consonant is one of L R. It is possible for both consonants in a cluster of this form to be grouped with the following syllable, so for example the word *tenebrae* has the syllabification *te.ne.brae,* and also an alternative syllabification *te.neb.rae.* The syllabification of such consonant sequences in poetry is somewhat free, which can enable the poet to use a heavy or light syllable depending on the requirements of the meter, but there are certain restrictions, or conditions that make one or the other syllabification more likely. I'm not sure whether you want the details, but the most definite restriction that I know of is that any cluster formed by adding a consonant-final prefix to a base starting with L or R is split between syllables (so a word like *oblītus* started with two heavy syllables, *ob* and *lī*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from X, there are a few more cases where Latin spelling represents two consonant sounds with just one letter. The most important are J (also written I) and Z: when these occur between vowels in the middle of a word, they almost always represent doubled consonant sounds /jj/ and /zz/, which were divided between syllables just like other doubled consonant sounds. So for example, *[major/maior,* which was really pronounced *majjor](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/91/9),* starts with the heavy syllable *maj.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Syllabification in multi-word sequences&#xD;&#xA;When a word ending in a consonant came before a word starting with a vowel, Latin regularly moved the word-final consonant to the start of the following syllable, so the first syllable in *ad rem* is long (*ad*) but the first syllable in *ad oppidum* is short (*a*, since the phrase is divided into the syllables *a.dop.pi.dum*). Likewise, a single consonant in the middle of a word was grouped with the following rather than the preceding vowel. This is why traditional sources often phrase the rule of heavy  (&quot;long by position&quot;) syllables in terms of a vowel being followed by at least two consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For consonant sequences at the start of a word, both consonants are generally grouped with the following syllable, even when the preceding word ends with a vowel, so a phrase like *sine prōle* would normally be syllabified as *si.ne.prō.le,* where the second syllable is light. But I believe I've read that the situation is less clear for word-initial consonant sequences that start with S, such as *st sp sc str.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Long vowels and short vowels still contrasted in closed syllables&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for calling heavy syllables &quot;long by position&quot; is because syllables with long vowels and syllables ending in consonants were treated the same way in Latin poetry. Latin poetry has rules for which syllables in a line should be heavy and which should be light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was still a distinction between long and short vowels in syllables that ended in a consonant. For example, the word *āctus* had a long vowel /aː/ and the word *factus* had a short vowel /a/.The distinction just didn't make a difference to the behavior of the syllable in poetic meter: &quot;āc&quot; and &quot;ac&quot; are both heavy syllables. You should not pronounce the vowel as a long vowel just because it occurs in a syllable ending in a consonant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12621" RevisionGUID="16fcfe0c-aba2-4878-b16f-95d12d8b60c8" CreationDate="2019-10-08T08:36:54.653" UserId="9" Comment="Added name of source for quote" Text="I am studying Latin and one of the definitions in my textbook is kind of confusing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A syllable can be long in one of two ways:&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; &gt; 1. *Length by nature*. If the syllable contains a long vowel or dipthong, it is said to be long *by nature*.&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 2. *Length by position*. If the syllable contains a vowel which is followed by two consonants, it is said to be long *by position*. *x* (= *ks*) is said to be a double consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;( &quot;Latin: An Intensive Course&quot; by Floyd Moreland and Rita M. Fleischer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first part of this question is: How can a vowel be long by position (besides the case of *x*)? As far as I'm aware, when a vowel is followed by two or more consonants, only the first is included in the same syllable as the vowel. Am I wrong, or are there simply more special cases like *x* that I haven't learned about yet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part is: What does it actually *mean* for something to be long by position? Is the vowel pronounced as if it were marked long, even if it isn't?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12622" RevisionGUID="db4ddced-675c-4a8c-ad67-44a5ed722d1d" CreationDate="2019-10-08T08:39:57.227" UserId="9" Comment="edited body" Text="#Any syllable that ends in a consonant (one or more) is heavy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The terms &quot;length by position&quot; and &quot;length by nature&quot; are often avoided in more modern work. It's better to speak of &quot;heavy syllables&quot; and &quot;light syllables&quot;. As described in the answers to a previous question, https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7198/what-makes-a-syllable-heavy-or-light, if you follow a certain system of syllabification, then a light syllable can be defined as a syllable that ends in a short vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you may have misunderstood part of the second rule in the quote. The wording &quot;If the syllable contains a vowel which is followed by two consonants&quot; may be confusing: for the purposes of this rule, the two consonants mentioned do not **both** have to belong to the same syllable as the vowel. It is sufficient for only the first consonant to belong to the same syllable as the vowel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the middle of a word, most sequences of consonants are divided between syllables in Latin, and so most sequences of consonants cause a preceding syllable to be heavy. For example, *pango, stultus, discus* all start with heavy (=&quot;long by position&quot;) syllables: *pan, stul, dis.* Doubled consonant letters are also divided between syllables, as in *passus, siccus, terra,* which start with the heavy syllables *pas, sic, ter.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only consonant sequences that are not always split between syllables when they occur between vowels in the middle of a word are two-consonant clusters where the first consonant is one of P T C B D G F (PH TH CH) and the second consonant is one of L R. It is possible for both consonants in a cluster of this form to be grouped with the following syllable, so for example the word *tenebrae* has the syllabification *te.ne.brae,* and also an alternative syllabification *te.neb.rae.* The syllabification of such consonant sequences in poetry is somewhat free, which can enable the poet to use a heavy or light syllable depending on the requirements of the meter, but there are certain restrictions, or conditions that make one or the other syllabification more likely. I'm not sure whether you want the details, but the most definite restriction that I know of is that any cluster formed by adding a consonant-final prefix to a base starting with L or R is split between syllables (so a word like *oblītus* started with two heavy syllables, *ob* and *lī*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from X, there are a few more cases where Latin spelling represents two consonant sounds with just one letter. The most important are J (also written I) and Z: when these occur between vowels in the middle of a word, they almost always represent doubled consonant sounds /jj/ and /zz/, which were divided between syllables just like other doubled consonant sounds. So for example, *[major/maior,* which was really pronounced *majjor](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/91/9),* starts with the heavy syllable *maj.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Syllabification in multi-word sequences&#xD;&#xA;When a word ending in a consonant came before a word starting with a vowel, Latin regularly moved the word-final consonant to the start of the following syllable, so the first syllable in *ad rem* is long (/ad/) but the first syllable in *ad oppidum* is short (/a/), since the phrase is divided into the syllables *a.dop.pi.dum*. Likewise, a single consonant in the middle of a word was grouped with the following rather than the preceding vowel. This is why traditional sources often phrase the rule of heavy  (&quot;long by position&quot;) syllables in terms of a vowel being followed by at least two consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For consonant sequences at the start of a word, both consonants are generally grouped with the following syllable, even when the preceding word ends with a vowel, so a phrase like *sine prōle* would normally be syllabified as *si.ne.prō.le,* where the second syllable is light. But I believe I've read that the situation is less clear for word-initial consonant sequences that start with S, such as *st sp sc str.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Long vowels and short vowels still contrasted in closed syllables&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for calling heavy syllables &quot;long by position&quot; is because syllables with long vowels and syllables ending in consonants were treated the same way in Latin poetry. Latin poetry has rules for which syllables in a line should be heavy and which should be light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was still a distinction between long and short vowels in syllables that ended in a consonant. For example, the word *āctus* had a long vowel /aː/ and the word *factus* had a short vowel /a/.The distinction just didn't make a difference to the behavior of the syllable in poetic meter: &quot;āc&quot; and &quot;ac&quot; are both heavy syllables. You should not pronounce the vowel as a long vowel just because it occurs in a syllable ending in a consonant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12622" RevisionGUID="42499cf6-0d38-4e03-b678-6631c0dadc34" CreationDate="2019-10-08T12:41:48.303" UserId="9" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="#Any syllable that ends in a consonant (one or more) is heavy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The terms &quot;length by position&quot; and &quot;length by nature&quot; are often avoided in more modern work. It's better to speak of &quot;heavy syllables&quot; and &quot;light syllables&quot;. As described in the answers to a previous question, https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7198/what-makes-a-syllable-heavy-or-light, if you follow a certain system of syllabification, then a light syllable can be defined as a syllable that ends in a short vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you may have misunderstood part of the second rule in the quote. The wording &quot;If the syllable contains a vowel which is followed by two consonants&quot; may be confusing: for the purposes of this rule, the two consonants mentioned do not **both** have to belong to the same syllable as the vowel. It is sufficient for only the first consonant to belong to the same syllable as the vowel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the middle of a word, most sequences of consonants are divided between syllables in Latin, and so most sequences of consonants cause a preceding syllable to be heavy. For example, *pango, stultus, discus* all start with heavy (=&quot;long by position&quot;) syllables: *pan, stul, dis.* Doubled consonant letters in Latin represent doubled (or &quot;geminate&quot;) consonant sounds, which are also divided between syllables, as in *passus, siccus, terra,* which start with the heavy syllables *pas, sic, ter.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only consonant sequences that are not always split between syllables when they occur between vowels in the middle of a word are two-consonant clusters where the first consonant is one of P T C B D G F (PH TH CH) and the second consonant is one of L R. It is possible for both consonants in a cluster of this form to be grouped with the following syllable, so for example the word *tenebrae* has the syllabification *te.ne.brae,* and also an alternative syllabification *te.neb.rae.* The syllabification of such consonant sequences in poetry is somewhat free, which can enable the poet to use a heavy or light syllable depending on the requirements of the meter, but there are certain restrictions, or conditions that make one or the other syllabification more likely. I'm not sure whether you want the details, but the most definite restriction that I know of is that any cluster formed by adding a consonant-final prefix to a base starting with L or R is split between syllables (so a word like *oblītus* started with two heavy syllables, *ob* and *lī*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside from X, there are a few more cases where Latin spelling represents two consonant sounds with just one letter. The most important are J (also written I) and Z: when these occur between vowels in the middle of a word, they almost always represent doubled consonant sounds /jj/ and /zz/, which were divided between syllables just like other doubled consonant sounds. So for example, *[major/maior,* which was really pronounced *majjor](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/91/9),* starts with the heavy syllable *maj.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Syllabification in multi-word sequences&#xD;&#xA;When a word ending in a consonant came before a word starting with a vowel, Latin speakers regularly moved the word-final consonant to the start of the following syllable, so the first syllable in *ad rem* is long (/ad/) but the first syllable in *ad oppidum* is short (/a/), since the phrase is divided into the syllables *a.dop.pi.dum*. Likewise, a single consonant in the middle of a word was grouped with the following rather than the preceding vowel. This is why traditional sources often phrase the rule of heavy  (&quot;long by position&quot;) syllables in terms of a vowel being followed by at least two consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For consonant sequences at the start of a word, both consonants are generally grouped with the following syllable, even when the preceding word ends with a vowel, so a phrase like *sine prōle* would normally be syllabified as *si.ne.prō.le,* where the second syllable is light. But I believe I've read that the situation is less clear for word-initial consonant sequences that start with S, such as *st sp sc str.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Long vowels and short vowels still contrasted in closed syllables&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for calling heavy syllables &quot;long by position&quot; is because syllables with long vowels and syllables ending in consonants were treated the same way in Latin poetry. Latin poetry has rules for which syllables in a line should be heavy and which should be light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was still a distinction between long and short vowels in syllables that ended in a consonant. For example, the word *āctus* had a long vowel /aː/ and the word *factus* had a short vowel /a/.The distinction just didn't make a difference to the behavior of the syllable in poetic meter: &quot;āc&quot; and &quot;ac&quot; are both heavy syllables. You should not pronounce a vowel as a long vowel just because it occurs in a syllable ending in a consonant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12615" RevisionGUID="43aba81c-af1d-462d-a5cf-f894b26797b3" CreationDate="2019-10-08T14:31:25.147" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Ooh, very nice! This is a short phrase written in Latin, where all the letters that could be read as numerals also add up to a date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin is a dedication to the Trinity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *indivisae triadi*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; To the undivided Trinity,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *patri non genito*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the Father, who was not born,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *filio unigenito*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the only-begotten Son,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *spiritui abhis procedenti*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the Spirit proceeding from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numerals, rearranged, are *DDD C L VVV IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII*. *D* means 500, *C* means 100, *L* means 50, *V* means 5, and *I* means 1. (The other two you might find are *M* = 1000 and *X* = 10, but those don't show up here. Occasionally *S* means 1/2, but that's not being used here, since we're only concerned with years.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have 1500 + 100 + 50 + 15 + 16 = 1681." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35408" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12621" RevisionGUID="ac040952-2e4a-407b-b7d5-34490c9ea1ce" CreationDate="2019-10-08T15:11:53.043" />
  <row Id="35409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12623" RevisionGUID="1bc1fda0-1980-40ed-80d1-94c2ce5d9c6c" CreationDate="2019-10-08T22:32:47.620" UserId="6161" Text="[![We took our son to college and this was written over one of the doors on campus.  I cannot figure out what it means!  Can anyone here help?  I assume it is latin, but...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fGmF4.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35410" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12623" RevisionGUID="1bc1fda0-1980-40ed-80d1-94c2ce5d9c6c" CreationDate="2019-10-08T22:32:47.620" UserId="6161" Text="Latin words over this door?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35411" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12623" RevisionGUID="1bc1fda0-1980-40ed-80d1-94c2ce5d9c6c" CreationDate="2019-10-08T22:32:47.620" UserId="6161" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12623" RevisionGUID="7a9cb6ff-1a61-47c4-9083-431d2457f1e3" CreationDate="2019-10-08T23:14:14.907" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="We took our son to college and this was written over one of the doors on campus.  I cannot figure out what it means!  Can anyone here help?  I assume it is latin, but...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![image][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fGmF4.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35413" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12623" RevisionGUID="7a9cb6ff-1a61-47c4-9083-431d2457f1e3" CreationDate="2019-10-08T23:14:14.907" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12624" RevisionGUID="d6058862-6d69-41db-a439-6ff7354fa4aa" CreationDate="2019-10-08T23:15:59.783" UserId="5056" Text="I believe it's something along the lines of &quot;Strength Overcomes&quot;, or &quot;Strength Conquers&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12625" RevisionGUID="f4b98fb6-13c8-4c4c-be9b-7f6ad00a1ad9" CreationDate="2019-10-08T23:16:16.880" UserId="406" Text="Literally, &quot;force wins&quot;. (Force/violence/strength/power, overcomes/overpowers/overtakes.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12626" RevisionGUID="7b232206-40f7-4621-a589-e84dc4f6aa9e" CreationDate="2019-10-09T00:27:39.733" UserId="6164" Text="How would you translate: &quot;He asked if the the city had been captured?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quaerit num civitatem captum esse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I am using an accusative (captum) plus infinitive (esse).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35417" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12626" RevisionGUID="7b232206-40f7-4621-a589-e84dc4f6aa9e" CreationDate="2019-10-09T00:27:39.733" UserId="6164" Text="indirect questions and the passive subjunctive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35418" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12626" RevisionGUID="7b232206-40f7-4621-a589-e84dc4f6aa9e" CreationDate="2019-10-09T00:27:39.733" UserId="6164" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12627" RevisionGUID="4ed8ab51-59f3-46d9-82fc-c5e5e7566b95" CreationDate="2019-10-09T00:48:21.687" UserId="6074" Text="Another possibility, as an indirect question in subjunctive: &quot;Quaerit an/utrum civitas capta sit.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12628" RevisionGUID="2d96b36d-3cb5-46f7-995f-233973ef4acb" CreationDate="2019-10-09T01:07:32.167" UserId="522" Text="***formŭla , ae***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tonal accent is on the first syllable as in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*for-* the *-r-* should be heard; *o* as in note/ Fr. nôtre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*-mŭ-*  short 'u' as in 'foot' (no intrusive *y,* or *j* )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*-lae*  *ae* as 'ai' in aisle; *[ae* becomes *e,* 'é' in mediaeval L. *]*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12628" RevisionGUID="8a78f56f-95d9-4475-a108-8c58c2ccc23f" CreationDate="2019-10-09T01:16:44.800" UserId="522" Comment="apologia" Text="***formŭla , ae***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tonal accent is on the first syllable as in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*for-* the *-r-* should be heard; *o* as in note/ Fr. nôtre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*-mŭ-*  short 'u' as in 'foot' (no intrusive *y,* or *j* )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*-lae*  *ae* as 'ai' in aisle; *[ae* becomes *e,* 'é' in mediaeval L. *]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This answer is based on a 1960 schoolbook; choirmasters, revisionists, recidivists, and historians have ruined my ear for any 'correct' pronunciation) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12623" RevisionGUID="0d18106a-de62-4cce-9b6e-86c9c7b6b414" CreationDate="2019-10-09T02:23:05.480" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="We took our son to college and this was written over one of the doors on campus.  I cannot figure out what it means!  Can anyone here help?  I assume it is Latin, but...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![image][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fGmF4.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35423" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12623" RevisionGUID="0d18106a-de62-4cce-9b6e-86c9c7b6b414" CreationDate="2019-10-09T02:23:05.480" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|motto|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12627" RevisionGUID="91cfab5a-74d7-467b-9d62-5d4295bace00" CreationDate="2019-10-09T02:49:43.670" UserId="6074" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="As an indirect question in subjunctive: &quot;Quaerit an/utrum civitas capta sit.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="91bc6ddc-b656-4246-a563-9b2af58068ee" CreationDate="2019-10-09T03:19:07.327" UserId="79" Text="An indirect question always uses subjunctive (also called conjunctive) in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;You just write the question as if it were a normal question, and then change indicative to subjunctive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An accusative with infinitive cannot be used for indirect questions.&#xD;&#xA;Unless the question contains a question word (*quis*, *quando*, or similar), an indirect question is often introduced with *an* or *utrum*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation suggested by NVaughan is great." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12626" RevisionGUID="e9c470e5-9a46-4de0-8370-46869d13d067" CreationDate="2019-10-09T03:22:57.497" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How would you translate: &quot;He asked if the the city had been captured?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quaerit num civitatem captum esse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I am using an accusative (captum) plus infinitive (esse).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35427" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12626" RevisionGUID="e9c470e5-9a46-4de0-8370-46869d13d067" CreationDate="2019-10-09T03:22:57.497" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Indirect questions and the passive subjunctive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35428" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12626" RevisionGUID="e9c470e5-9a46-4de0-8370-46869d13d067" CreationDate="2019-10-09T03:22:57.497" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|syntax|indirect-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12630" RevisionGUID="c9f2dc6b-476a-4e6e-9453-a36135e92a9f" CreationDate="2019-10-09T13:02:21.067" UserId="6170" Text="&quot;tum vero exoritur clamor ripaeque lacusque&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you do the meter for this line, if you do the elision it does not work out, having 6 feet and all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to make it work what I had to do was not do the elision so what I ended up with was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long short short, Long short short, Long long, Long long, Long short short, long long (anceps).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any reasoning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35431" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12630" RevisionGUID="c9f2dc6b-476a-4e6e-9453-a36135e92a9f" CreationDate="2019-10-09T13:02:21.067" UserId="6170" Text="Vergil Book XII, Line 756 | Meter Question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35432" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12630" RevisionGUID="c9f2dc6b-476a-4e6e-9453-a36135e92a9f" CreationDate="2019-10-09T13:02:21.067" UserId="6170" Text="|vergilius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12631" RevisionGUID="e3dc7842-7ecc-4f76-9bf9-4b5aec7499d7" CreationDate="2019-10-09T13:45:17.253" UserId="4871" Text="The first vowel in vero is long, and the first syllable of exoritur is long by position.  So it starts with a spondee, and all elisions occur." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12630" RevisionGUID="d96a2ca5-ffb1-432b-ac08-c1df78919bb6" CreationDate="2019-10-09T13:57:58.410" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="&gt; &quot;tum vero exoritur clamor ripaeque lacusque&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you do the meter for this line, if you do the elision it does not work out, having 6 feet and all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to make it work what I had to do was not do the elision so what I ended up with was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long short short, Long short short, Long long, Long long, Long short short, long long (anceps).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any reasoning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35435" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12630" RevisionGUID="d96a2ca5-ffb1-432b-ac08-c1df78919bb6" CreationDate="2019-10-09T13:57:58.410" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|poetry|vergilius|scansion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12631" RevisionGUID="63a4d36d-3e8e-4a9a-aecf-e64ae908814f" CreationDate="2019-10-09T14:02:24.097" UserId="4871" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="The first vowel in vero is long, the second vowel of vero is elided sway, and the first syllable of exoritur is long by position.  You seem to have the remainder correct.  So it starts with a spondee, and all elisions occur." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12632" RevisionGUID="492599bc-70ac-4b5f-8ebe-47a938e2992a" CreationDate="2019-10-09T14:05:30.853" UserId="79" Text="First, let us check all vowel lengths:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tu&amp;#774;m ve&amp;#772;ro&amp;#772; e&amp;#774;xo&amp;#774;ri&amp;#774;tu&amp;#774;r cla&amp;#772;mo&amp;#774;r ri&amp;#772;paeque&amp;#774; la&amp;#774;cu&amp;#772;sque&amp;#774;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A syllable with a short vowel can be long (by position).&#xD;&#xA;The standard assumption is that all possible elisions happen, and that is the case here too.&#xD;&#xA;There are two possibilities for a caesura, indicated here by apostrophe.&#xD;&#xA;The scansion looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    tŭm vēr' ĕxŏrĭtŭr clāmŏr rīpaequĕ lăcūsquĕ&#xD;&#xA;     —   — | — v v|— ' — |— ' —|—  v   v|—   v &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12631" RevisionGUID="569c2ee6-2ebd-4de1-a47a-b6204b8222de" CreationDate="2019-10-09T14:30:59.657" UserId="4871" Comment="edited body" Text="The first vowel in vero is long, the second vowel of vero is elided away, and the first syllable of exoritur is long by position.  You seem to have the remainder correct.  So it starts with a spondee, and all elisions occur." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="b2de6410-7d31-46b0-ac00-9cc9d995eb91" CreationDate="2019-10-09T18:32:41.093" UserId="406" Text="One meaning of the word _lustrum_ is a sacrifice for purification done every five years; another is a house of ill repute. I'd always figured that the two were complete homophones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, someone told me recently that the sacrifice has a long _ū_ in its stem, while the debauchery has a short _ŭ_, which would be a convenient way to tell them apart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this true? How can I check? My usual reference source is L&amp;S, which unfortunately doesn't mark vowel quantity in closed syllables (…or even consistently in open ones); Wiktionary does show different vowel lengths, but I'm not sure where it gets that information from or how reliable it is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35440" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="b2de6410-7d31-46b0-ac00-9cc9d995eb91" CreationDate="2019-10-09T18:32:41.093" UserId="406" Text="Are the two types of lustra distinguishable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35441" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="b2de6410-7d31-46b0-ac00-9cc9d995eb91" CreationDate="2019-10-09T18:32:41.093" UserId="406" Text="|word-comparison|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35445" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="4404" RevisionGUID="47f8b95a-0420-4ba6-b35d-bcf654e29b10" CreationDate="2019-10-09T18:59:24.203" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12635" RevisionGUID="439b2cc0-25b0-4b5d-b53c-e62e65b1a77b" CreationDate="2019-10-09T19:44:02.423" UserId="6175" Text="The phrase is &quot;apud milites questus fratrem sibi insidias comparare&quot;. I know all the words individually but for some reason, the sentence just is not coming together in my mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give some context, the first section of the passage I'm working on is about Antoninus, the son of the emperor Severus. Based on my translation, as a young boy, he was very compassionate and pleasant but grew into a cruel young man. After the death of his father, he despises his brother for his humbleness. The phrase directly following the one I'm asking about says that Antoninus sent men who were to kill his brother to the palace, if that helps in any way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35447" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12635" RevisionGUID="439b2cc0-25b0-4b5d-b53c-e62e65b1a77b" CreationDate="2019-10-09T19:44:02.423" UserId="6175" Text="How do I translate this phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35448" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12635" RevisionGUID="439b2cc0-25b0-4b5d-b53c-e62e65b1a77b" CreationDate="2019-10-09T19:44:02.423" UserId="6175" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12636" RevisionGUID="586036cc-d1d8-4511-a9e4-39fa94920d0b" CreationDate="2019-10-09T20:22:36.770" UserId="3153" Text="Among the soldiers, (the man) has griped that (his) brother matched the treachery to him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something like that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35450" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12630" RevisionGUID="a872f53b-c8ac-41c2-9b69-5450513e76ed" CreationDate="2019-10-09T21:13:56.590" />
  <row Id="35451" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="50c9fc95-641b-47bc-9f3c-e364913925d8" CreationDate="2019-10-09T23:32:06.703" UserId="406" Comment="edited tags" Text="|word-comparison|resource-request|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12637" RevisionGUID="e3f151b2-9610-49ca-bee3-51dc36299766" CreationDate="2019-10-10T01:28:37.070" UserId="5056" Text="Was their a generic toast that Romans would say to each other when drinking, along the lines of _Cheers_, or _Sláinte_. It doesn't need to have the meaning of those so much as have the same cultural usage: something you say to another when toasting, or even just to yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35453" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12637" RevisionGUID="e3f151b2-9610-49ca-bee3-51dc36299766" CreationDate="2019-10-10T01:28:37.070" UserId="5056" Text="Generic toast in classical Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35454" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12637" RevisionGUID="e3f151b2-9610-49ca-bee3-51dc36299766" CreationDate="2019-10-10T01:28:37.070" UserId="5056" Text="|classical-latin|roman-culture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12637" RevisionGUID="1b682308-c3f0-48ef-9b68-6a214e7ca9bc" CreationDate="2019-10-10T01:40:53.200" UserId="5056" Comment="edited body" Text="Was there a generic toast that Romans would say to each other when drinking, along the lines of _Cheers_, or _Sláinte_. It doesn't need to have the meaning of those so much as have the same cultural usage: something you say to another when toasting, or even just to yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12638" RevisionGUID="7b45885d-b25c-439a-8fa3-04f835521358" CreationDate="2019-10-10T07:27:16.407" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="I was researching the etymology for the French  *licencier*, and [Wiktionary](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/licencier) refers to Latin *licentiare*. I can't see it exhibited in [*Oxford Latin Dictionary* (2012 2 ed)](https://www.amazon.ca/Oxford-Latin-Dictionary-Dictionaries/dp/0199580316)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but [Latdict](https://latin-dictionary.net/definition/25643/licentio-licentiare-licentiavi-licentiatus) does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Please see the title.  Please answer this question for: 1. repeating + 2. replying. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. What notions underlie authorization with employment termination? Perhaps this is [auto-antonymy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change#Typology_by_Blank_(1999)), but I can't brainstorm how authorization/permission with its positive connotation would be semantically related to employment dismissal that undoubtedly disheartens the employee! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/a2f8Y.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zBBxJ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35457" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12638" RevisionGUID="7b45885d-b25c-439a-8fa3-04f835521358" CreationDate="2019-10-10T07:27:16.407" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="How did 'licentiare' semantically shift to mean employment dismissal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35458" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12638" RevisionGUID="7b45885d-b25c-439a-8fa3-04f835521358" CreationDate="2019-10-10T07:27:16.407" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12639" RevisionGUID="f553741a-b498-4923-9218-de93d6448ad3" CreationDate="2019-10-10T16:04:21.823" UserId="2116" Text="My Latin-Dutch dictionary (Muller-Renkema, 1970) lists the debauchery, without the macron, as first lemma, saying it’s related to **lŭtum**, mud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sacrifice, with the macron, is related to **lūstro**, which in itself has two meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	illuminate, derived from a reconstructed form *leuk-s-trom*&#xD;&#xA;2.	purify, derived from a reconstructed form lŏu(e)s-trom cf. ἐ-λοϜεσ-σα vid. lăvo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no way of validating these reconstructed forms, but maybe this is something to go by.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12640" RevisionGUID="61cbb8af-feb6-4931-b1b8-e04e984b7bc9" CreationDate="2019-10-10T17:21:30.320" UserId="469" Text="Here's a partial answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. prosit&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prosit** (lit. *may it be useful*) came to mind (as I commented), but I couldn't easily find it attested. The fact that it is used in languages other than German suggests a former widespread culture of using **prosit** in toasts that could perfectly come from a time when Latin was the cultured lingua franca. But it could as well be the surviving word of a longer formula that was used just in modern Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, an unsourced [WP article][1] states that there are two words for a toast in Latin, namely **prosit** and the verb **propino**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. propino&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that [**propino**][2] is well attested and means *To drink to one's health, to pledge* (apparently this *pledge* refers to the archaic meaning, i.e., *to toast*). It is even attested in the context of a toast (apparently, you judge):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **talos arripio, invoco almam meam nutricem Hérculem,  &#xD;&#xA;iacto basilicum; propino magnum poclum: ille ebibit,  &#xD;&#xA;caput deponit, condormiscit.** ([Pl. Cur. 2.3][3].79:81)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I took up the dice, and invoked Hercules as my genial patron; I threw a first-rate cast, and pledged him in a bumping cup; in return he drank it off, reclined his head, and fell fast asleep.* ([Riley, 1912][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downside is I have no proof that you can use **propino** (*I pledge*) alone as an interjection, and it is possible that you just can't. Instead, the safe way to use the verb from this example is to say 'I toast *to someone*' using the accusative (as in the example) or dative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. An attested, full sentence&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another idea comes from this passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Propino tibi salutem plenis faucibus.** ([Pl. St. 3.2][5].15) *Right heartily I wish you health* ([Riley, 1912b][6]) (lit. *I wish you health with a full mouth*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you want to use a full attested sentence as a formula for toasting (to one person) this is your way to go. Its plural form would be **propino _vobis_ salutem plenis faucibus** (to more than one person).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. salutem (?)&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, wishing health (as in the last example) is the standard Latin way to wish someone well. So I *think* **salutem** alone *could* work (it works as a greeting). It isn't attested, but the fact that nearly every romance language use the derived word to toast is consistent with it being used in some late stage of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toast_(honor)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpropino&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0037:act=2:scene=3&amp;highlight=propino&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0099%3Aact%3D2%3Ascene%3D3&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0047%3Aact%3D3%3Ascene%3D2&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0109%3Aact%3D3%3Ascene%3D2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12640" RevisionGUID="de81f761-452a-4b6d-93f7-c8394c563f6a" CreationDate="2019-10-10T17:26:34.107" UserId="469" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="Here's a partial answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. prosit&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prosit** (lit. *may it be useful*) came to mind (as I commented), but I couldn't easily find it attested. The fact that it is used in languages other than German suggests a former widespread culture of using **prosit** in toasts that could perfectly come from a time when Latin was the cultured lingua franca. But it could as well be the surviving word of a longer formula that was used just in modern Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, an unsourced [WP article][1] states that there are two words for a toast in Latin, namely **prosit** and the verb **propino**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. propino&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that [**propino**][2] is well attested and means *To drink to one's health, to pledge* (apparently this *pledge* refers to the archaic meaning, i.e., *to toast*). It is even attested in the context of a toast (apparently, you judge):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **talos arripio, invoco almam meam nutricem Hérculem,  &#xD;&#xA;iacto basilicum; propino magnum poclum: ille ebibit,  &#xD;&#xA;caput deponit, condormiscit.** ([Pl. Cur. 2.3][3].79:81)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I took up the dice, and invoked Hercules as my genial patron; I threw a first-rate cast, and pledged him in a bumping cup; in return he drank it off, reclined his head, and fell fast asleep.* ([Riley, 1912][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downside is I have no proof that you can use **propino** (*I pledge*) alone as an interjection, and it is possible that you just can't. Instead, the safe way to use the verb from this example is to say 'I toast *to someone*' using the accusative (as in the example) or dative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. An attested, full sentence&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another idea comes from this passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Propino tibi salutem plenis faucibus.** ([Pl. St. 3.2][5].15) *Right heartily I wish you health* ([Riley, 1912b][6]) (lit. *I wish you health with a full mouth*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you want to use a full attested sentence as a formula for toasting (to one person) this is your way to go. Its plural form would be **propino _vobis_ salutem plenis faucibus** (to more than one person).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. salutem (?)&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, wishing health (as in the last example) is the standard Latin way to wish someone well. So I *think* **salutem** alone *could* work (it works as a greeting). I don't expect it to be attested (and looking it up may prove frustrating), but the fact that nearly every romance language use the derived word to toast is consistent with it being used in some late stage of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toast_(honor)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpropino&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0037:act=2:scene=3&amp;highlight=propino&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0099%3Aact%3D2%3Ascene%3D3&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0047%3Aact%3D3%3Ascene%3D2&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0109%3Aact%3D3%3Ascene%3D2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35462" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12637" RevisionGUID="d535611c-7ffa-491f-a371-e7e430f409dd" CreationDate="2019-10-10T17:27:22.227" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|roman-culture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12640" RevisionGUID="fa4582d8-cbb5-4c6c-a316-cf6cca99ae0b" CreationDate="2019-10-10T17:42:48.960" UserId="469" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Here's a partial answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. prosit&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prosit** (lit. *may it be useful*) came to mind (as I commented), but I couldn't easily find it attested. The fact that it is used in languages other than German suggests a former widespread culture of using **prosit** in toasts that could perfectly come from a time when Latin was the cultured lingua franca. But it could as well be the surviving word of a longer formula that was used just in modern Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, an unsourced [WP article][1] states that there are two words for a toast in Latin, namely **prosit** and the verb **propino**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. propino&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that [**propino**][2] is well attested and means *To drink to one's health, to pledge* (apparently this *pledge* refers to the archaic meaning, i.e., *to toast*). It is even attested in the context of a toast (apparently, you judge):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **talos arripio, invoco almam meam nutricem Hérculem,  &#xD;&#xA;iacto basilicum; propino magnum poclum: ille ebibit,  &#xD;&#xA;caput deponit, condormiscit.** ([Pl. Cur. 2.3][3].79:81)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I took up the dice, and invoked Hercules as my genial patron; I threw a first-rate cast, and pledged him in a bumping cup; in return he drank it off, reclined his head, and fell fast asleep.* ([Riley, 1912][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downside is I have no proof that you can use **propino** (*I pledge*) alone as an interjection, and it is possible that you just can't. Instead, the safe way to use the verb from this example is to say 'I toast *to someone*' using the accusative (as in the example) or dative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. An attested, full sentence&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another idea comes from this passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Propino tibi salutem plenis faucibus.** ([Pl. St. 3.2][5].15) *Right heartily I wish you health* ([Riley, 1912b][6]) (lit. *I wish you health with a full mouth*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you want to use a full attested sentence as a formula for toasting (to one person) this is your way to go. Its plural form would be **propino _vobis_ salutem plenis faucibus** (to more than one person).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. salutem (?)&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, wishing health (as in the last example) is the standard Latin way to wish someone well. So I *think* **salutem** alone *could* work (it works as a greeting, anyway). I don't expect it to be attested (and looking it up may prove frustrating), but the fact that nearly every romance language use the derived word to toast is consistent with it being used in some late stage of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toast_(honor)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpropino&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0037:act=2:scene=3&amp;highlight=propino&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0099%3Aact%3D2%3Ascene%3D3&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0047%3Aact%3D3%3Ascene%3D2&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0109%3Aact%3D3%3Ascene%3D2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12631" RevisionGUID="44952bbf-6500-4914-873c-0a8f603b971b" CreationDate="2019-10-10T19:40:34.223" UserId="4871" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="The first vowel in vero is long, the second vowel of vero is elided away, and the first syllable of exoritur is long by position (because 'x' counts as two consonants since it's pronounced 'ks').  You seem to have the remainder correct.  So it starts with a spondee, and all elisions occur." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12641" RevisionGUID="eea8baa3-0989-4dfd-8b8c-acbfb8ebda84" CreationDate="2019-10-10T23:41:19.433" UserId="6074" Text="The term &quot;licentiare&quot; comes from medieval, not classical Latin. The OLD, as fine as it is, is mainly useless for medieval latin vocabulary. Better try the Dictionary of Medieval Latin Dictionary from British Sources (DMLBS), freely available at Logeion (https://logeion.uchicago.edu).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;licentiare&quot; (you must search for verbs in the infinitive, not in the 1st person present, as in most other Latin dictionaries), the DMLBS shows entries as early as 12th century. See here: https://logeion.uchicago.edu/licentiare" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12631" RevisionGUID="a02c2ab3-b3b7-447c-9f46-d8e53775854c" CreationDate="2019-10-11T01:54:41.663" UserId="4871" Comment="added 645 characters in body" Text="The first vowel in vero is long, the second vowel of vero is elided away, and the first syllable of exoritur is long by position (because 'x' counts as two consonants since it's pronounced 'ks').  You seem to have the remainder correct.  So it starts with a spondee, and all elisions occur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noting that you can deduce from the meter that the first vowel in vero is long, since otherwise the first three syllables would be long-short-long.  This sort of deduction is frequent when reading hexameter, and often saves you from having to look up vowel quantities.  (Now, if you are *writing* hexameter, you'd better know the vowel quantities in advance!)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, it would be extraordinarily rare for a mid-line elision to be suppressed.  The one situation where an elision is often (but not always!) suppressed is the situation where the last word of one line would otherwise elide with the first word of the next line." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12641" RevisionGUID="2fe1a1b6-67c4-44f1-9a34-7c737da10dbc" CreationDate="2019-10-11T16:25:26.807" UserId="6074" Comment="Continued explanation" Text="The term &quot;licentiare&quot; comes from medieval, not classical Latin. The OLD, as fine as it is, is mainly useless for medieval latin vocabulary. Better try the Dictionary of Medieval Latin Dictionary from British Sources (DMLBS), freely available at Logeion (https://logeion.uchicago.edu).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;licentiare&quot; (you must search for verbs in the infinitive, not in the 1st person present, as in most other Latin dictionaries), the DMLBS shows entries as early as 12th century. See here: https://logeion.uchicago.edu/licentiare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The DMLBS' third sense of the term is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3 to give leave (to depart), dismiss. b to send on leave, grant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; furlough, to disband (army); (~are ad propria) to send home. c to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dismiss, expel (from office, service, community, or sim.). d to remove&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or expel (from one’s land), dispossess. e to dissolve (parliament);&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cf. departire 2a.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which seems akin to the French &quot;licencier&quot;.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12640" RevisionGUID="b8bc4aed-ef33-4211-8aa3-4b5aeaf7fd16" CreationDate="2019-10-11T16:26:23.100" UserId="469" Comment="edited body" Text="Here's a partial answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. prosit&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prosit** (lit. *may it be useful*) came to mind (as I commented), but I couldn't easily find it attested. The fact that it is used in languages other than German suggests a former widespread culture of using **prosit** in toasts that could perfectly come from a time when Latin was the cultured lingua franca. But it could as well be the surviving word of a longer formula that was used just in modern Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, an unsourced [WP article][1] states that there are two words for a toast in Latin, namely **prosit** and the verb **propino**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. propino&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that [**propino**][2] is well attested and means *To drink to one's health, to pledge* (apparently this *pledge* refers to the archaic meaning, i.e., *to toast*). It is even attested in the context of a toast (apparently, you judge):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **talos arripio, invoco almam meam nutricem Hérculem,  &#xD;&#xA;iacto basilicum; propino magnum poclum: ille ebibit,  &#xD;&#xA;caput deponit, condormiscit.** ([Pl. Cur. 2.3][3].79:81)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I took up the dice, and invoked Hercules as my genial patron; I threw a first-rate cast, and pledged him in a bumping cup; in return he drank it off, reclined his head, and fell fast asleep.* ([Riley, 1912][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downside is I have no proof that you can use **propino** (*I pledge*) alone as an interjection, and it is possible that you just can't. Instead, the safe way to use the verb from this example is to say 'I toast *to someone*' using the accusative (as in the example) or dative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A full, attested sentence&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another idea comes from this passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Propino tibi salutem plenis faucibus.** ([Pl. St. 3.2][5].15) *Right heartily I wish you health* ([Riley, 1912b][6]) (lit. *I wish you health with a full mouth*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you want to use a *full* sentence, that is attested in the ancient literature as a formula for toasting (to one person) this is your way to go. Its plural form would be **propino _vobis_ salutem plenis faucibus** (to more than one person).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. salutem (?)&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, wishing health (as in the last example) is the standard Latin way to wish someone well. So I *think* **salutem** alone *could* work (it works as a greeting, anyway). I don't expect it to be attested (and looking it up may prove frustrating), but the fact that nearly every romance language use the derived word to toast is consistent with it being used in some late stage of Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toast_(honor)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpropino&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0037:act=2:scene=3&amp;highlight=propino&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0099%3Aact%3D2%3Ascene%3D3&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0047%3Aact%3D3%3Ascene%3D2&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0109%3Aact%3D3%3Ascene%3D2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12638" RevisionGUID="46186792-1ce0-421b-8711-8f5d9f34adfb" CreationDate="2019-10-11T23:31:46.337" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 60 characters in body" Text="I was researching the etymology for the French  *licencier*, and [Wiktionary](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/licencier) refers to Latin *licentiare*. I can't see it exhibited in [*Oxford Latin Dictionary* (2012 2 ed)](https://www.amazon.ca/Oxford-Latin-Dictionary-Dictionaries/dp/0199580316)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but [Latdict](https://latin-dictionary.net/definition/25643/licentio-licentiare-licentiavi-licentiatus) does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Please see the title.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. What notions underlie authorization with employment termination? Perhaps this is [auto-antonymy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change#Typology_by_Blank_(1999)), but I can't brainstorm how authorization/permission with its positive connotation would be semantically related to employment dismissal that undoubtedly disheartens the employee! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/a2f8Y.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zBBxJ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12642" RevisionGUID="4766b055-2ecb-429e-8f9c-f6a050149b4d" CreationDate="2019-10-12T03:15:11.740" UserId="6183" Text="I would like to say “you first” in Latin. &#xD;&#xA;With all the different ways to say you (tu/vos....I can’t remember it that well from school)....with the correct corresponding first....&#xD;&#xA;Thanks so much!!!! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35474" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12642" RevisionGUID="4766b055-2ecb-429e-8f9c-f6a050149b4d" CreationDate="2019-10-12T03:15:11.740" UserId="6183" Text="How do you say “you first” in Latin with all the options for saying you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35475" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12642" RevisionGUID="4766b055-2ecb-429e-8f9c-f6a050149b4d" CreationDate="2019-10-12T03:15:11.740" UserId="6183" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12643" RevisionGUID="36706d24-9eee-4bcf-abc1-ffd4ec116c4f" CreationDate="2019-10-12T07:00:37.127" UserId="9" Text="Jam inquiro nomen stellae *Antares.* Multa documenta quae &quot;ab Antares&quot; dicunt comperi. At non scio ablativi qui in *-es* terminantur. Potestne nomen &quot;Antares&quot; indeclinabile esse? Quare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exempla:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Lanx Borae ab Antares&quot;, et alia. *[Almagestum nouum astronomiam veterem nouamque...][1],* P. Ioanne Baptista, MDCLI.&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Ideo distantiam Saturni ab Antares tribus minutis breuiorem accipimus idest...&quot;, *[Ephemerides Novissimae Motuum Coelestium][2],* MDCLXII&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Pandora mathematicarum tabularum][3]*, 1684&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Video quoque &quot;ab Antare&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Historia Coelestis Britannica][4]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Philosophical Transactions][5]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=n3vI84z0AfkC&amp;pg=PA430&amp;lpg=PA430&amp;dq=%22ab%20antares%22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=g0JTAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA188&amp;lpg=PA188&amp;dq=%22ab%20antares%22&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=QBcHAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=RA6-PA354&amp;lpg=RA6-PA354&amp;dq=%22ab%20antares%22&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=LzxTAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA144&amp;lpg=RA1-PA144&amp;dq=%22ab%20antare%22&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?id=wvwSuBLY6GgC&amp;pg=PA574&amp;lpg=PA574&amp;dq=%22ab%20antare%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35477" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12643" RevisionGUID="36706d24-9eee-4bcf-abc1-ffd4ec116c4f" CreationDate="2019-10-12T07:00:37.127" UserId="9" Text="Why is the form &quot;Antares&quot; used as an ablative in some Latin texts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35478" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12643" RevisionGUID="36706d24-9eee-4bcf-abc1-ffd4ec116c4f" CreationDate="2019-10-12T07:00:37.127" UserId="9" Text="|declension|ablative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12643" RevisionGUID="13c04a33-bf50-482e-8362-1495159a718f" CreationDate="2019-10-12T07:06:59.990" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Jam inquiro nomen stellae *Antares.* Multa documenta quae &quot;ab Antares&quot; dicunt comperi. At non scio ablativi qui in &quot;es&quot; terminantur. Potestne nomen &quot;Antares&quot; indeclinabile esse? Quare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exempla:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Lanx Borae ab Antares&quot;, et alia. *[Almagestum nouum astronomiam veterem nouamque...][1],* P. Ioanne Baptista, MDCLI.&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Ideo distantiam Saturni ab Antares tribus minutis breuiorem accipimus idest...&quot;, *[Ephemerides Novissimae Motuum Coelestium][2],* MDCLXII&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Pandora mathematicarum tabularum][3]*, 1684&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Video quoque &quot;ab Antare&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Historia Coelestis Britannica][4]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Philosophical Transactions][5]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=n3vI84z0AfkC&amp;pg=PA430&amp;lpg=PA430&amp;dq=%22ab%20antares%22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=g0JTAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA188&amp;lpg=PA188&amp;dq=%22ab%20antares%22&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/books?id=QBcHAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=RA6-PA354&amp;lpg=RA6-PA354&amp;dq=%22ab%20antares%22&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/books?id=LzxTAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA144&amp;lpg=RA1-PA144&amp;dq=%22ab%20antare%22&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.com/books?id=wvwSuBLY6GgC&amp;pg=PA574&amp;lpg=PA574&amp;dq=%22ab%20antare%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12635" RevisionGUID="83b2002d-f251-43e4-a5a2-426cc75b22c4" CreationDate="2019-10-12T09:14:50.933" UserId="6175" Comment="Added information about what I have managed to piece together so far" Text="The phrase is &quot;apud milites questus fratrem sibi insidias comparare&quot;. I know all the words individually but for some reason, the sentence just is not coming together in my mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give some context, the first section of the passage I'm working on is about Antoninus, the son of the emperor Severus. Based on my translation, as a young boy, he was very compassionate and pleasant but grew into a cruel young man. After the death of his father, he despises his brother for his humbleness. The phrase directly following the one I'm asking about says that Antoninus sent men who were to kill his brother to the palace, if that helps in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can tell, Antoninus complained (&quot;questus&quot;) about something while with soldiers (&quot;apud milites&quot; - among the soldiers), possibly about obtaining (&quot;comparare&quot; - to obtain, possibly) a plot (&quot;insidias&quot;) related to getting rid of his brother (&quot;fratrem&quot;). Not sure where &quot;sibi&quot; fits in, though. I am only a Year 12 Latin student as well and A-Level translations have been beyond my comfort zone so far, so what I've said so far may be wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12644" RevisionGUID="213c8300-bbe5-4ea0-a6bf-0d9b5349b82c" CreationDate="2019-10-12T10:50:07.360" UserId="1982" Text="In Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/12603/1982  attempted to develop the idea of C.M. Wiemer that &quot;Memento Mori&quot; could be translated indirectly, giving &quot;Remember that you can die&quot;; improving, hopefully, to &quot;Remember you are dying&quot;. This, fitting the required message from the interlocutor to the receiver-of-Triumph, in the chariot. Also, incidentally, following the teachings of Seneca, who believed that everybody is dying, anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This approach was questioned by NVaughan who felt that the presence of an imperative disqualified such a treatment. An imperative cannot be indirect, of course; but, the accusative-infinitive (te mori) construction gives indirect speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it permissible, please, to treat &quot;Memento Mori&quot; as indirect speech?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35482" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12644" RevisionGUID="213c8300-bbe5-4ea0-a6bf-0d9b5349b82c" CreationDate="2019-10-12T10:50:07.360" UserId="1982" Text="Memento Mori: Indirect Speech" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35483" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12644" RevisionGUID="213c8300-bbe5-4ea0-a6bf-0d9b5349b82c" CreationDate="2019-10-12T10:50:07.360" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12644" RevisionGUID="4f2508c0-1d3e-4749-8b6a-b01fd93ca07d" CreationDate="2019-10-12T11:32:21.977" UserId="1982" Comment="edited body" Text="In Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/12603/1982  attempted to develop the idea of C.M. Weimer that &quot;Memento Mori&quot; could be translated indirectly, giving &quot;Remember that you can die&quot;; improving, hopefully, to &quot;Remember you are dying&quot;. This, fitting the required message from the interlocutor to the receiver-of-Triumph, in the chariot. Also, incidentally, following the teachings of Seneca, who believed that everybody is dying, anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This approach was questioned by NVaughan who felt that the presence of an imperative disqualified such a treatment. An imperative cannot be indirect, of course; but, the accusative-infinitive (te mori) construction gives indirect speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it permissible, please, to treat &quot;Memento Mori&quot; as indirect speech?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12644" RevisionGUID="62ce7a80-df39-4db6-8d23-412c98bbd3ed" CreationDate="2019-10-12T11:56:45.483" UserId="1982" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="In Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/12603/1982  attempted to develop the idea of C.M. Weimer that &quot;Memento Mori&quot; could be translated indirectly, giving &quot;Remember that you can die&quot;; improving, hopefully, to &quot;Remember you are dying&quot;. This, fitting the required message from the interlocutor to the receiver-of-Triumph, in the chariot. Also, incidentally, following the teachings of Seneca, who believed that everybody is dying, anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This approach was questioned by NVaughan who felt that the presence of an imperative disqualified such a treatment. An imperative cannot be indirect, of course; but, the accusative-infinitive (te mori) construction gives the indirect speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it permissible, please, to treat &quot;Memento Mori&quot; as indirect speech?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12645" RevisionGUID="c3fe5453-283f-4bda-9ea8-3ff8a6d99b4c" CreationDate="2019-10-12T18:42:15.020" UserId="79" Text="The main question is: What is indirect speech?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any use of *accusativus cum infinitivo* counts as indirect speech, then you can argue that *memento mori* is indeed indirect speech.&#xD;&#xA;After all, the literal reading &quot;remember to die&quot; makes no sense as the triumphant general is not supposed to die in the ceremony.&#xD;&#xA;Supplementing a pronoun sounds natural and makes the message reasonable: *memento te mori* is &quot;remember that you will die&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your definition of indirect speech is something like &quot;he said that she is hungry&quot; as opposed to the direct &quot;she is hungry&quot;, then *memento mori* is not indirect speech.&#xD;&#xA;This is how I see it.&#xD;&#xA;The ACI is often used for indirect speech in this sense, but not all ACI is indirect speech.&#xD;&#xA;Different people will understand and define various grammatical concepts differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I support reading a *te* between the lines so that you have an ACI.&#xD;&#xA;Whether that makes it indirect speech depends on what you mean by indirect speech.&#xD;&#xA;To me this is not indirect speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12644" RevisionGUID="2bcd5e91-394a-4e00-9e85-57c7f53d9afa" CreationDate="2019-10-12T18:44:32.107" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/12603/1982 I attempted to develop the idea of C. M. Weimer that &quot;Memento Mori&quot; could be translated indirectly, giving &quot;Remember that you can die&quot;; improving, hopefully, to &quot;Remember you are dying&quot;. This, fitting the required message from the interlocutor to the receiver-of-Triumph, in the chariot. Also, incidentally, following the teachings of Seneca, who believed that everybody is dying, anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This approach was questioned by NVaughan who felt that the presence of an imperative disqualified such a treatment. An imperative cannot be indirect, of course; but, the accusative-infinitive (te mori) construction gives the indirect speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it permissible, please, to treat &quot;Memento Mori&quot; as indirect speech?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35488" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12644" RevisionGUID="2bcd5e91-394a-4e00-9e85-57c7f53d9afa" CreationDate="2019-10-12T18:44:32.107" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|accusativus-cum-infinitivo|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12646" RevisionGUID="df8104c5-2c94-4752-97d8-8613cd0ac164" CreationDate="2019-10-12T19:39:49.807" UserId="985" Text="From your expanded question, it sounds as though your main issue isn't really *sibi* but the fact that you aren't correctly construing *fratrem* as the accusative subject of the infinitive in the indirect statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **apud milites:** prepositional phrase telling where the subject performs the main verbal idea&#xD;&#xA;- **questus (= questus est):** main verbal idea&#xD;&#xA;- **fratrem comparare:** accusative subject and infinitive verb in the indirect statement triggered by *questus*, giving the substance of the complaint&#xD;&#xA;- **insidias:** direct object of the infinitive&#xD;&#xA;- **sibi:** dative of reference/(dis)advantage, telling who was affected by the action in the indirect statement (*fratrem insidias comparare*); here, the reflexive pronoun refers to the nominative subject of the main verbal idea, not the accusative subject of the infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that, it's a matter of plugging in the meanings of the individual words, and you end up with something like 'Among the soldiers, he complained that his brother was preparing treachery/plots against him.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is confirmed by checking the original passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *post patris morem in castra praetoria pergens **apud milites conquestus est circumveniri se fratris insidiis**, atque ita fratrem in Palatio fecit occidi.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...among the soldiers he complained that he was beset by the treachery/plots of his brother...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12647" RevisionGUID="fd2bf7d0-7bf9-490d-9a0d-4968188652cf" CreationDate="2019-10-12T22:03:49.003" UserId="6184" Text="I translated &quot;illuminate my heart/soul/mind&quot; as &quot;illuminas animus meus&quot; in Latin. I know &quot;animus&quot; doesn't directly translates to heart but I want to express these 3 things in a word and it seems fit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you have any better word recommendations and is this translation correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35491" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12647" RevisionGUID="fd2bf7d0-7bf9-490d-9a0d-4968188652cf" CreationDate="2019-10-12T22:03:49.003" UserId="6184" Text="Is my translation correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35492" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12647" RevisionGUID="fd2bf7d0-7bf9-490d-9a0d-4968188652cf" CreationDate="2019-10-12T22:03:49.003" UserId="6184" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12648" RevisionGUID="aa377f5f-ee6e-4fde-ad67-1edc14499480" CreationDate="2019-10-13T04:17:02.907" UserId="6185" Text="Illuminare is a verb ending on -are. It follows the first verb conjugation, like *amare*. &#xD;&#xA;See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_conjugation#First_conjugation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to address one person, use illumina. If you want to adress multiple persons, use illuminate (the plural version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperatives come usually (not always) at the beginning of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think animus should be in the accusative case, because it is a direct object. Thus it should be animum.&#xD;&#xA;See: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/animus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meus (-a, -um) is a possessive pronoun. It is declined as a adjective of the first and second declension. So it should be meum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the translation should be: illumina animum meum." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12648" RevisionGUID="e9409114-4dc9-4fc4-8d66-cd698641eab4" CreationDate="2019-10-13T04:31:56.303" UserId="6185" Comment="added 174 characters in body" Text="Illuminare is a verb ending on -are. It follows the first verb conjugation, like *amare*. &#xD;&#xA;See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_conjugation#First_conjugation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to address one person, use illumina. If you want to adress multiple persons, use illuminate (the plural version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperatives come usually (not always) at the beginning of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think animus should be in the accusative case, because it is a direct object. Thus it should be animum.&#xD;&#xA;See: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/animus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meus (-a, -um) is a possessive pronoun. It is declined as a adjective of the first and second declension. So it should be meum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the translation should be: illumina animum meum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word choice seems right to me.&#xD;&#xA;According to my dictionary, animus (-i) can be translated as: soul, spirit, memory, will, pleasure, heart, character, mood, bravery, thorn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12648" RevisionGUID="e935e196-73d7-4404-bc14-68080bb3fc05" CreationDate="2019-10-13T05:37:14.963" UserId="6185" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Illuminare is a verb ending on -are. It follows the first verb conjugation, like *amare*. &#xD;&#xA;See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_conjugation#First_conjugation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to address one person, use illumina. If you want to address multiple persons, use illuminate (the plural version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperatives usually (not always) come at the beginning of the utterance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think animus should be in the accusative case, because it is a direct object. Thus it should be animum.&#xD;&#xA;See: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/animus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meus (-a, -um) is a possessive pronoun. It is declined as a adjective of the first and second declension. So it should be meum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the translation should be: illumina animum meum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word choice seems right to me.&#xD;&#xA;According to my dictionary, animus (-i) can be translated as: soul, spirit, memory, will, pleasure, heart, character, mood, bravery, thorn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12648" RevisionGUID="f6721d08-31b7-4f7d-88ff-3000a5da451b" CreationDate="2019-10-13T13:14:54.790" UserId="6185" Comment="Typos and link" Text="Illuminare is a verb ending on -are. It follows the first verb conjugation, like *amare*. &#xD;&#xA;See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_conjugation#First_conjugation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to address one person, use illumina. If you want to address multiple persons, use illuminate (the plural version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperatives usually (not always) come at the beginning of the utterance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think animus should be in the accusative case, because it is a direct object. Thus it should be animum.&#xD;&#xA;See: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/animus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meus (-a, -um) is a possessive pronoun. It is declined as an adjective of the first and second declension. So it should be meum.&#xD;&#xA;See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#First-_and_second-declension_adjectives&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the translation should be: illumina animum meum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word choice seems right to me.&#xD;&#xA;According to my dictionary, animus (-i) can be translated as: soul, spirit, memory, will, pleasure, heart, character, mood, bravery, thorn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12649" RevisionGUID="f6590e74-24eb-43d4-b017-06e1fe77f916" CreationDate="2019-10-13T14:11:00.317" UserId="6185" Text="I would paraphrase &quot;You first&quot; as &quot;You are the first&quot; or &quot;You must go first&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In the first case, &quot;the first&quot; is a predicate. A nominative case should be used.&#xD;&#xA;In the second case, &quot;first&quot; is an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Primus means &quot;first&quot; and is a first declension adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would go with &quot;Vos primus&quot; or &quot;Tu primus&quot;, depending on whether you mean the singular or the plural case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12650" RevisionGUID="8028b9a8-95fc-42c4-8882-43b7f74d0d54" CreationDate="2019-10-13T15:29:01.200" UserId="6185" Text="I can't come up with an exact match now, but I think Ovid would be a good candidate to start looking for. He wrote a lot about love, and he also wrote *Tristia* (&quot;Sorrows&quot;), which he write after going into exile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a book called *No Regrets: Remorse in Classical Antiquity* by Laurel Fulkerson, which could be something you are looking for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12650" RevisionGUID="140c013c-98a1-4374-a1fd-393123420460" CreationDate="2019-10-13T15:40:53.530" UserId="6185" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="I can't come up with an exact match now, but I think Ovid would be a good candidate to start looking for. He wrote a lot about love. He also wrote *Tristia* (&quot;Sorrows&quot;), which he write after going into exile, but after a brief search I didn't find something expression the &quot;no regrets, look back happy&quot; sentiment.&#xD;&#xA;Homer, Sappho and Catullus would be other candidates I would look into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a book called *No Regrets: Remorse in Classical Antiquity* by Laurel Fulkerson, which could be something you are looking for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12648" RevisionGUID="00ac0f32-56e5-41c1-b6a3-945892125726" CreationDate="2019-10-13T15:58:17.450" UserId="6185" Comment="Formatting" Text="Illuminare is a verb ending on -are. It follows the first verb conjugation, like *amare*. &#xD;&#xA;See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_conjugation#First_conjugation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to address one person, use illumina. If you want to address multiple persons, use illuminate (the plural version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperatives usually (not always) come at the beginning of the utterance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think animus should be in the accusative case, because it is a direct object. Thus it should be animum.&#xD;&#xA;See: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/animus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meus (-a, -um) is a possessive pronoun. It is declined as an adjective of the first and second declension. So it should be meum.&#xD;&#xA;See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#First-_and_second-declension_adjectives&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the translation should be: illumina animum meum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word choice seems right to me.&#xD;&#xA;According to my dictionary, animus (-i) can be translated as: soul, spirit, memory, will, pleasure, heart, character, mood, bravery, thorn." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12649" RevisionGUID="a7934744-9680-4896-9e11-1f5bb012fa3e" CreationDate="2019-10-13T16:10:58.140" UserId="6185" Comment="Formatting" Text="I would paraphrase &quot;You first&quot; as &quot;You are the first&quot; or &quot;You must go first&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In the first case, &quot;the first&quot; is a predicate. A nominative case could be used.&#xD;&#xA;In the second case, &quot;first&quot; is an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Primus means &quot;first&quot; and is a first declension adjective.&#xD;&#xA;Primum is the adverb form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If singular, the possibilities are: tu primus, tu prima.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If plural: vos primi, vos primae." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12650" RevisionGUID="318d1261-51ad-45cf-bbc8-a11bb6f385a4" CreationDate="2019-10-13T16:25:31.837" UserId="6185" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="I can't come up with an exact match now, but I think Ovid would be a good candidate to start looking for. He wrote a lot about love. He also wrote *Tristia* (&quot;Sorrows&quot;), which he write after going into exile, but after a brief search I didn't find something expression the &quot;no regrets, look back happy&quot; sentiment.&#xD;&#xA;Homer, Sappho and Catullus would be other candidates I would look into. Although, all Catullus' poems I've read after the break-up with Lesbia are more revengeful in tone or have a great deal of *pathos*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a book called *No Regrets: Remorse in Classical Antiquity* by Laurel Fulkerson, which could be something you are looking for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12651" RevisionGUID="4086e337-2093-4520-97ad-cacc6c4b6008" CreationDate="2019-10-13T16:29:38.800" UserId="6186" Text="I'm trying to help my sister. She heard this phrase that she like to have tattooed but she wanted it to be in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Now I haven't been practicing for a few years so I could use with some help.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is: &quot;If you can breath, you can stand. If you can stand, you can fight&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I roughly tried to translate it and came up with: &quot;Si fueras spiravisti, eras stabas. Si fuisti stetisi, agebas bellum&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would very much appreciate you're help on the matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35504" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12651" RevisionGUID="4086e337-2093-4520-97ad-cacc6c4b6008" CreationDate="2019-10-13T16:29:38.800" UserId="6186" Text="Help with translating a phrase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35505" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12651" RevisionGUID="4086e337-2093-4520-97ad-cacc6c4b6008" CreationDate="2019-10-13T16:29:38.800" UserId="6186" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12652" RevisionGUID="6f9a8846-3643-44f7-959b-2f4c30ed169f" CreationDate="2019-10-13T16:35:20.583" UserId="79" Text="Reference to other people's gender has become a delicate issue in today's world.&#xD;&#xA;I expect that the Romans had no controversy over it, but they must have encountered situations where they have to write or speak about someone whose gender is unknown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there example of a Roman writer &amp;mdash; or a character in a play or story or similar &amp;mdash; referring to a specific person of unknown gender?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, how do they go about it?&#xD;&#xA;I can think of several approaches, like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. using masculine,&#xD;&#xA;2. giving two options (*ille aut illa* or similar),&#xD;&#xA;3. using a noun like *persona*, or&#xD;&#xA;4. using neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the answer is the first one, but I could not think of cases that actually demonstrate that this is what they would have done.&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that a person of unspecified gender is grammatically masculine, but I would like to see actual use examples that corroborate this view &amp;mdash; or show something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that I am speaking of references to a specific person of unknown gender, not a general person.&#xD;&#xA;That is, I am looking for something like &quot;It's nice that you met someone. Are they nice?&quot; but not &quot;If anyone enters this house, they will be barked at&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Please ask for clarification if this is unclear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35507" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12652" RevisionGUID="6f9a8846-3643-44f7-959b-2f4c30ed169f" CreationDate="2019-10-13T16:35:20.583" UserId="79" Text="How did the Romans refer to people of unknown gender?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35508" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12652" RevisionGUID="6f9a8846-3643-44f7-959b-2f4c30ed169f" CreationDate="2019-10-13T16:35:20.583" UserId="79" Text="|classical-latin|example-request|gender|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35509" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12647" RevisionGUID="d674dff0-2209-49d0-9f5e-b0f6df1ca3e2" CreationDate="2019-10-13T16:37:05.297" />
  <row Id="35510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12652" RevisionGUID="f0b5a01b-857c-4fe7-a8a5-c1b22ddfd9b6" CreationDate="2019-10-13T16:42:15.110" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Reference to other people's gender has become a delicate issue in today's world.&#xD;&#xA;I expect that the Romans had no controversy over it, but they must have encountered situations where they have to write or speak about someone whose gender is unknown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there example of a Roman writer &amp;mdash; or a character in a play or story or similar &amp;mdash; referring to a specific person of unknown gender?&#xD;&#xA;If yes, how do they go about it?&#xD;&#xA;I can think of several approaches, like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. using masculine,&#xD;&#xA;2. giving two options (*ille aut illa* or similar),&#xD;&#xA;3. using a noun like *persona*, or&#xD;&#xA;4. using neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the answer is the first one, but I could not think of cases that actually demonstrate that this is what they would have done.&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that a person of unspecified gender is grammatically masculine, but I would like to see actual use examples that corroborate this view &amp;mdash; or show something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that I am speaking of references to a specific person of unknown gender, not a general person.&#xD;&#xA;That is, I am looking for something like &quot;I'm glad that you met someone. Are they nice?&quot; but not &quot;If anyone enters this house, they will be barked at&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Please ask for clarification if this is unclear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12653" RevisionGUID="068b75ad-f9d5-4159-8b44-1dcb5603aa37" CreationDate="2019-10-13T16:43:04.183" UserDisplayName="user6187" Text="Excerpt From: Frank Herbert, *Dune*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“The wisdom of seeding the known universe with a prophecy pattern for the protection of B.G. personnel has long been appreciated, but never have we seen a condition-ut-extremis with more ideal mating of person and preparation.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's referring to Lady Jessica having Paul with Duke Leto—Paul to become some sort of &quot;chosen one.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I derived a meaning from a few sources, and I am wondering if others would agree with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Derivation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- (dictionary) in extremis: in an extremely difficult situation; at the point of death&#xD;&#xA;- (dictionary) subjunctive: relating to or denoting a mood of verbs expressing what is imagined or wished possible (compare to &quot;indicative&quot;: denoting a mood of verbs expressing a simple statement of fact)&#xD;&#xA;- ([another post][1]) ut: subjunctive: &quot;in order to&quot; (purpose), &quot;to&quot; (indirect command), or  &quot;that&quot; (result/fear); indicative: &quot;(just) as&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*condition-ut-extremis*: condition created in order to survive a deadly situation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/151/why-does-ut-mean-such-different-things-when-it-has-a-subjunctive-verb-vs-an-i?newreg=1f8e73ebd3da4ebd80bec54ea87d89b0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35512" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12653" RevisionGUID="068b75ad-f9d5-4159-8b44-1dcb5603aa37" CreationDate="2019-10-13T16:43:04.183" UserDisplayName="user6187" Text="Meaning of &quot;condition-ut-extremis&quot; in Dune" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35513" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12653" RevisionGUID="068b75ad-f9d5-4159-8b44-1dcb5603aa37" CreationDate="2019-10-13T16:43:04.183" UserDisplayName="user6187" Text="|meaning|definitions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12651" RevisionGUID="1333c2ed-f0e5-4446-9ae9-4ccf665b7b5a" CreationDate="2019-10-13T16:45:30.750" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I'm trying to help my sister. She heard this phrase that she like to have tattooed but she wanted it to be in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I haven't been practicing for a few years so I could use with some help.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is: &quot;If you can breath, you can stand. If you can stand, you can fight&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I roughly tried to translate it and came up with: &quot;Si fueras spiravisti, eras stabas. Si fuisti stetisi, agebas bellum&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would very much appreciate your help on the matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35515" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12651" RevisionGUID="1333c2ed-f0e5-4446-9ae9-4ccf665b7b5a" CreationDate="2019-10-13T16:45:30.750" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&quot;If you can breath, you can stand. If you can stand, you can fight.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35516" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12651" RevisionGUID="1333c2ed-f0e5-4446-9ae9-4ccf665b7b5a" CreationDate="2019-10-13T16:45:30.750" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|sentence-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12654" RevisionGUID="2c2ced97-9162-4a03-b52c-e49c97b5ad06" CreationDate="2019-10-13T17:04:50.030" UserId="79" Text="Unfortunately your suggestion does not quite work.&#xD;&#xA;One of the issues is that there are all kinds of past tenses in there, but I think this works better in the present tense.&#xD;&#xA;But I'm glad that you asked!&#xD;&#xA;It is indeed best to check that something makes sense before tattooing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let us choose the words.&#xD;&#xA;I suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- breath = *spirare*&#xD;&#xA;- stand = *stare*&#xD;&#xA;- fight = *pugnare*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can [check any online Latin dictionary](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/867/79) for nuances and other options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see a couple of ways to phrase &quot;if you can X, you can Y&quot; in Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Si potes X[inf], potes Y[inf].*  &#xD;&#xA;This is a literal translation.&#xD;&#xA;2. *Potens X[inf] potes Y[inf].*  &#xD;&#xA;Switching the conditional clause to a participle construction makes it feel more fluent to me, but I'm not a fan of using the participle *potens*.&#xD;&#xA;3. *X[part] potes X[inf].*  &#xD;&#xA;This is a free translation, meaning &quot;when/if/because you X, you can Y&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This makes it all flow more naturally to my ear.&#xD;&#xA;4. *X[part] poteris Y[inf].*  &#xD;&#xA;This is like the third, but I switched *potes* (you can) to *poteris* (you will be able to).&#xD;&#xA;The future tense makes sense to me in an instruction like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like the fourth option best.&#xD;&#xA;If you like something else, let me know.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Spirans poteris stare. Stans poteris pugnare.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; SPIRANS POTERIS STARE. STANS POTERIS PVGNARE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second option is better if you want it to look more like an ancient inscription.&#xD;&#xA;The first one follows more modern writing standards.&#xD;&#xA;This is related to the choice of fonts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12655" RevisionGUID="a5765509-4eb2-40d2-9992-e819d19af8d5" CreationDate="2019-10-13T23:09:49.537" UserId="3248" Text="As a follow-up of two previous questions on Latin grammar, I was wondering if examples like _Memento moriendi_ (cf. [_Memento mori_][1]) and  _Me paenitet vivendi_ (cf. [_Me paenitet vivere_][2]) are also attested. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is motivated by: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i) Joonas’s insightful [comment][1], whose intuition there I tend to share: “_memento mori_ and _memento moriendi_ mean slightly different things, something like 'remember to die' and 'be mindful of the phenomenon of dying'&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) my specific question at the end of a previous [post][2]: &quot;(...) e.g., _Me, mi Pomponi, valde paenitet vivere_. (Cic. _Att._ 3,4). As for the latter example, I was wondering why a gerund in genitive case could not instead be used: e.g., _Me paenitet vivendi_&quot;.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12644/memento-mori-indirect-speech&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11191/what-is-the-grammatical-logic-of-impersonal-constructions-like-me-non-solum-p" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35519" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12655" RevisionGUID="a5765509-4eb2-40d2-9992-e819d19af8d5" CreationDate="2019-10-13T23:09:49.537" UserId="3248" Text="Gerundial arguments selected by verbs taking Genitive: e.g., &quot;Memento moriendi&quot;? &quot;Me paenitet vivendi&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35520" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12655" RevisionGUID="a5765509-4eb2-40d2-9992-e819d19af8d5" CreationDate="2019-10-13T23:09:49.537" UserId="3248" Text="|verbs|syntax|genitive|infinitive|gerund|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35521" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12651" RevisionGUID="620c29f1-4a82-4935-994d-d434e80bc8c6" CreationDate="2019-10-14T00:37:42.123" />
  <row Id="35524" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10782" RevisionGUID="6b9ee680-d75d-4c86-8fc5-b95b51c974cd" CreationDate="2019-10-14T14:00:44.110" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="35525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12657" RevisionGUID="045ff22f-cbdd-44b9-a1f1-df6970e62a57" CreationDate="2019-10-14T15:04:17.683" UserId="1982" Text="In Q. https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/12603/1982 offered gerundive (neuter impersonal) alternatives to &quot;memento mori&quot;: &quot;nunc est moriendum&quot; = &quot;now must die&quot; &amp; &quot;mox erit moriendum&quot; = &quot;soon one must die&quot;. Of course, yourself will recognise these as having been inspired by your own Q:https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/10809/1982.&#xD;&#xA;The gerundive genitive is a more complex species: &quot;memento moriendi&quot; cannot be translated as &quot;remember one must of dying&quot;. The more long-winded gerundive-of-obligation style: &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Remember it-ought-to-be-(a time)-of-dying/ of-death (&quot;a time&quot; being understood); alternatively: &quot;Remember it-ought-to-be-(a concept)-of-dying/ of-death (again, &quot;a concept&quot; is undertood). This, second one is reminiscent of what Joonas has already said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These may appeal to literal-translation purists (like me); but, they are clumsy, jerky &amp; rambling. A more succinct offer may be: &quot;miles Romanus, memento mox erit moriendum&quot; = &quot;Roman soldier (rank is now irrelevant) remember soon one must die.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The Romans were well-aware of the rapid passage of time (tempus fugit). This continues to fit with the teachings of Seneca--everyone is dying--a Roman mindset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next one: &quot;me paenitet vivendi&quot; = &quot;it makes me sorry of living&quot;, it's not a good translation; but, the grammatical rule for impersonal verb paenitet with construction (+ accusative of the person and genitive of the cause) allows for genitive of the cause of the sorrow, here, living. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12658" RevisionGUID="06a97d91-9f50-4f46-baac-8f827c72a0c5" CreationDate="2019-10-14T15:54:39.863" UserId="5056" Text="I am translating the short phrase &quot;loyal animal&quot;, or &quot;faithful animal&quot; into classical Latin. In this case, &quot;animal&quot; is intentionally very broad - I don't want to limit it to just domesticated animals or wild beasts; it can literally be any animal. My current translation is the singular _Animal Fidelis_, but I wasn't 100% positive because of the difference in gender of both words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35527" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12658" RevisionGUID="06a97d91-9f50-4f46-baac-8f827c72a0c5" CreationDate="2019-10-14T15:54:39.863" UserId="5056" Text="Translate &quot;loyal animal&quot; into classical Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35528" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12658" RevisionGUID="06a97d91-9f50-4f46-baac-8f827c72a0c5" CreationDate="2019-10-14T15:54:39.863" UserId="5056" Text="|classical-latin|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12659" RevisionGUID="91ebce76-e169-4182-b7ab-3786c5725099" CreationDate="2019-10-14T16:30:24.653" UserId="947" Text="Indeed, if you want these two words, the correct agreement is *animal fidele* for the neuter gender." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12650" RevisionGUID="2e1ff29d-b57a-4f3c-a3d0-115e5c42602e" CreationDate="2019-10-14T16:55:47.570" UserId="6185" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="I can't come up with an exact match now, but I think Ovid would be a good candidate to start looking for. He wrote a lot about love. He also wrote *Tristia* (&quot;Sorrows&quot;), which he write after going into exile, but after a brief search I didn't find something expression the &quot;no regrets, look back happy&quot; sentiment.&#xD;&#xA;Homer, Sappho and Catullus would be other candidates I would look into. &#xD;&#xA;Although, all Catullus' poems I've read after the break-up with Lesbia are more revengeful in tone or have a great deal of *pathos* (assuming the autobiographical interpretation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a book called *No Regrets: Remorse in Classical Antiquity* by Laurel Fulkerson, which could be something you are looking for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12648" RevisionGUID="0ed9d1bb-ca64-4252-94c2-7254df2aac66" CreationDate="2019-10-14T16:57:41.833" UserId="6185" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Illuminare is a verb ending on -are. It follows the first verb conjugation, like *amare*. &#xD;&#xA;See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_conjugation#First_conjugation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to address one person, use illumina. If you want to address multiple persons, use illuminate (the plural version).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperatives usually (not always) come at the beginning of the utterance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think animus should be in the accusative case, because it is a direct object. Thus it should be animum.&#xD;&#xA;See: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/animus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meus (-a, -um) is a possessive pronoun. It is declined as an adjective of the first and second declension. So it should be meum.&#xD;&#xA;See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#First-_and_second-declension_adjectives&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the translation should be: illumina animum meum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word choice seems right to me.&#xD;&#xA;According to my dictionary, animus (-i) can be translated as: soul, spirit, memory, will, pleasure, heart, character, mood, bravery, thorn." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12660" RevisionGUID="b4e53917-068a-45b0-b368-a04c83c88855" CreationDate="2019-10-14T22:22:12.330" UserId="6190" Text="I was marveling today at the word [hebdomadal](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hebdomadal), from the Greek ἑπτά for seven. But that had me wondering why words derived from seven sometimes use /bd/ and other times /pt/. I notice, for instance, that the word for seventh is ἕβδομος. (The same could be asked of ὀκτώ and ὄγδοος.) And among compound numerals, the cardinals persist in using /pt/ and /kt/, while the ordinals persist in using /bd/ and /gd/. What's going on here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consulted Smyth's _Greek Grammar_, and it distinguishes in §16 between the _order_ of stops—/p/ and /t/, as unvoiced stops, belong to the first order, while /b/ and /d/, as voiced stops, belong to the second—and per §82, a labial or palatal before a dental changes to the dental's order. Smyth lists ἑπτά as an example in §82.c. N. 1, so I think I'm on the right track. It appears the dental is changing from smooth to middle order, and the labial with it—my question is, why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35533" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12660" RevisionGUID="b4e53917-068a-45b0-b368-a04c83c88855" CreationDate="2019-10-14T22:22:12.330" UserId="6190" Text="In Ancient Greek, why ἑπτά vs. ἕβδομος?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35534" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12660" RevisionGUID="b4e53917-068a-45b0-b368-a04c83c88855" CreationDate="2019-10-14T22:22:12.330" UserId="6190" Text="|greek|morphology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35535" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12489" RevisionGUID="234d9b39-48ce-43d1-9724-ad11f5f209db" CreationDate="2019-10-15T00:02:20.347" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="35536" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12658" RevisionGUID="7d9ab717-da56-4c63-ad10-fe32732c6845" CreationDate="2019-10-15T00:09:26.797" />
  <row Id="35538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12661" RevisionGUID="d61ed4de-cf68-420d-9196-83152b240a5b" CreationDate="2019-10-15T04:27:24.440" UserId="79" Text="Years ago an old colleague showed me a poem which had a miraculous feature:&#xD;&#xA;it was perfectly valid Latin and perfectly valid Italian.&#xD;&#xA;With clever choices of words one can make that happen, but it also happened to convey a message or tell a story.&#xD;&#xA;My recollection is that the theme was Christianity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this ring a bell to someone?&#xD;&#xA;I would be glad if someone could either identify this or provide another text with the same bilingual property.&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the level of detail might be insufficient to find the exact poem (and I may or may not recognize it), but the phenomenon should be unambiguous enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35539" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12661" RevisionGUID="d61ed4de-cf68-420d-9196-83152b240a5b" CreationDate="2019-10-15T04:27:24.440" UserId="79" Text="A poem that works in both Latin and Italian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35540" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12661" RevisionGUID="d61ed4de-cf68-420d-9196-83152b240a5b" CreationDate="2019-10-15T04:27:24.440" UserId="79" Text="|poetry|passage-identification|italian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12662" RevisionGUID="996c7e36-8240-46a2-be31-abe7f3eeabde" CreationDate="2019-10-15T10:37:02.107" UserId="1059" Text="What are the superlative and comparative forms of &quot;optimus&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it also used as a simple adjective, meaning simply &quot;excellent&quot; and not a comparative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Isn't &quot;optimus&quot; a suppletive comparative for &quot;bonus&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the differences in Latin in the use of the superlative, comparative and normal adjectives? I read that Latin was more flexible than English. What does it mean concretely?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35542" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12662" RevisionGUID="996c7e36-8240-46a2-be31-abe7f3eeabde" CreationDate="2019-10-15T10:37:02.107" UserId="1059" Text="Optimus, and the comparative, superlative uses of adjectives in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35543" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12662" RevisionGUID="996c7e36-8240-46a2-be31-abe7f3eeabde" CreationDate="2019-10-15T10:37:02.107" UserId="1059" Text="|comparative|superlatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12663" RevisionGUID="0ad44889-46da-42e3-b1b1-570e59d53d27" CreationDate="2019-10-15T11:10:38.440" UserId="324" Text="The Greek word for seven, hepta, like Sanskrit sapta, Latin septem, and others, points to an Indo-European *septm. In Greek *s becomes h, and the syllabic *m becomes a. In the word for “seventh”, IE *septm-o-, the m is a consonant (non-syllalbic) and remains m in Greek, giving *heptmos, and then (with voicing of pt to bd before the voiced m) *hebdmos, and then (with insertion of a vowel to break up the cluster) hebdomos." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12663" RevisionGUID="213f933d-f36d-452c-9c19-396f8d5c9689" CreationDate="2019-10-15T11:18:30.083" UserId="324" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The Greek word for seven, hepta, like Sanskrit sapta, Latin septem, and others, points to an Indo-European *septm. In Greek *s becomes h, and the syllabic *m becomes a. In the word for “seventh”, IE *septm-o-, the m is a consonant (non-syllabic) and remains m in Greek, giving *heptmos, and then (with voicing of pt to bd before the voiced m) *hebdmos, and then (with insertion of a vowel to break up the cluster) hebdomos." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12664" RevisionGUID="4a0206e5-e1a5-4af2-ad35-4249ca9c727e" CreationDate="2019-10-15T13:56:30.993" UserId="79" Text="This is a bunch of questions, so I will give only a short answer to each.&#xD;&#xA;If you want more details, please ask a follow-up question with a narrower focus to dig deeper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What are the superlative and comparative forms of &quot;optimus&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are none, as *optimus* is a superlative already.&#xD;&#xA;It is not unique in that respect; *pessimus*, *maximus*, and *minimus* behave similarly.&#xD;&#xA;You could always form _*optimior_ and _*optimissimus_, but as far as I know they have never been used.&#xD;&#xA;And even if you can find an attestation (I couldn't in a classical text corpus), such forms are certainly not a part of standard Latin of any era.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why is it also used as a simple adjective, meaning simply &quot;excellent&quot; and not a comparative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin superlatives are often used absolutely, without comparison.&#xD;&#xA;Just like *optimus* can mean &quot;best&quot; or &quot;very good&quot;, the regular *altissimus* can mean &quot;tallest&quot; or &quot;very tall&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;English doesn't do this to the same extent, so it is often most natural to translate a superlative using &quot;very&quot; or some other form of emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;*Optimus* is not special in this respect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Isn't &quot;optimus&quot; a suppletive comparative for &quot;bonus&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What are the differences in Latin in the use of the superlative, comparative and normal adjectives? I read that Latin was more flexible than English. What does it mean concretely?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without more context, it's hard to tell what was meant; I can't give a more concrete answer without a more concrete question.&#xD;&#xA;I suppose it meant that comparative and superlative forms in Latin do not always imply comparison.&#xD;&#xA;This is rarer with the comparative than the superlative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35547" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12662" RevisionGUID="76a4f71b-d73f-486a-83cc-f19ce762b632" CreationDate="2019-10-15T14:22:24.687" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Optimus and the comparative and superlative uses of adjectives in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35548" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12662" RevisionGUID="76a4f71b-d73f-486a-83cc-f19ce762b632" CreationDate="2019-10-15T14:22:24.687" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|adjective|comparative|superlatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12665" RevisionGUID="8ebfb31d-4cf8-4bdf-be56-d62e98439278" CreationDate="2019-10-15T14:37:33.340" UserId="1059" Text="As I get it, -ne is used to play the role of a question word when there's no question word, and of course, when it's a yes-no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But is it good practice to omit it in such questions?     &#xD;&#xA;Is it a formal/unformal thing, or an hypercorrection thing?  &#xD;&#xA;In general, when is it mandatory and when is it optional to use it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35550" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12665" RevisionGUID="8ebfb31d-4cf8-4bdf-be56-d62e98439278" CreationDate="2019-10-15T14:37:33.340" UserId="1059" Text="In which cases the enclitic -ne is optional, and and in which is it mandatory?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35551" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12665" RevisionGUID="8ebfb31d-4cf8-4bdf-be56-d62e98439278" CreationDate="2019-10-15T14:37:33.340" UserId="1059" Text="|enclitic|question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35552" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12662" RevisionGUID="0a4c6ca9-0cf2-46d1-a80c-2fe3dae40186" CreationDate="2019-10-15T18:37:14.940" />
  <row Id="35553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12664" RevisionGUID="b1a39341-4f38-44be-87a3-c02714f0b86d" CreationDate="2019-10-15T21:02:40.423" UserId="79" Comment="added 117 characters in body" Text="This is a bunch of questions, so I will give only a short answer to each.&#xD;&#xA;If you want more details, please ask a follow-up question with a narrower focus to dig deeper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What are the superlative and comparative forms of &quot;optimus&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are none, as *optimus* is a superlative already.&#xD;&#xA;It is not unique in that respect; *pessimus*, *maximus*, and *minimus* behave similarly.&#xD;&#xA;You could always form _*optimior_ and _*optimissimus_, but as far as I know they have never been used.&#xD;&#xA;And even if you can find an attestation (I couldn't in a classical text corpus), such forms are certainly not a part of standard Latin of any era.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why is it also used as a simple adjective, meaning simply &quot;excellent&quot; and not a comparative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin superlatives are often used absolutely, without comparison.&#xD;&#xA;Just like *optimus* can mean &quot;best&quot; or &quot;very good&quot;, the regular *altissimus* can mean &quot;tallest&quot; or &quot;very tall&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;English doesn't do this to the same extent, so it is often most natural to translate a superlative using &quot;very&quot; or some other form of emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;*Optimus* is not special in this respect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Isn't &quot;optimus&quot; a suppletive comparative for &quot;bonus&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is the suppletive superlative of *bonus*.&#xD;&#xA;The comparative would be *melior*.&#xD;&#xA;All degrees of comparison look different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What are the differences in Latin in the use of the superlative, comparative and normal adjectives? I read that Latin was more flexible than English. What does it mean concretely?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without more context, it's hard to tell what was meant; I can't give a more concrete answer without a more concrete question.&#xD;&#xA;I suppose it meant that comparative and superlative forms in Latin do not always imply comparison.&#xD;&#xA;This is rarer with the comparative than the superlative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12666" RevisionGUID="8949dc16-fd15-4a8a-9c2c-751dfe42ca78" CreationDate="2019-10-15T21:39:05.250" UserId="6074" Text="To state a question (direct or indirect) in Classical and Medieval Latin, you always need a question marker. These can be either: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - interrogative pronouns or adjectives (e.g. *Quis venit?*, *In quae via ambulat?*, *Per quod medium probas?*, etc.), &#xD;&#xA; - interrogative adverbs (e.g. *Ubi estis?*, *Quousque tandem abutere?*, *Num venit?*, *Quaesivi ne indices*, *Quaesitum utrum Deus sit trinus*, etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - The enclitic interrogative article &quot;-nĕ&quot; (weakened from &quot;nē&quot;); also &quot;nonne&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Early Latin exhibits total interrogatives without question markers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Redis tu tandem? (Plaut.)&#xD;&#xA; - Tu id nunc refers? (Plaut.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that question marks, and punctuation in general, was a later Medieval development---historically derived from musical pneumas, rather than pragmatic cues---and cannot be understood as interrogative markers proper.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to answer your question: &quot;standard&quot; Classical Latin (what you learn in school) and Medieval Latin always require interrogative markers. Still, not all markers are identical (e.g. *Num* presupposes a negative answer, *-nĕ* doesn't presuppose any answer, *quando* requires a temporally framed answer, and so on), so you must  choose well your interrogatives. In sum, &quot;Edisti?&quot; is bad Latin. &quot;Edistine?&quot; is fine.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35555" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12665" RevisionGUID="d84bf557-66d3-4b88-a244-845ba373d9f0" CreationDate="2019-10-15T22:41:30.897" />
  <row Id="35556" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="12530" RevisionGUID="37db6402-df3c-408d-97ae-69c215e43362" CreationDate="2019-10-16T03:06:19.890" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="133" />
  <row Id="35557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12667" RevisionGUID="ebe67bad-f6e5-4e04-9006-c2f6e9aea487" CreationDate="2019-10-16T14:57:00.160" UserId="2605" Text="[This page](http://www.fmboschetto.it/religione/Salve_Regina.htm) (in Italian) has three bilingual Italian-Latin poems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Salve Regina](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salve_Regina_(Anacleto_Bendazzi))&quot; by [Anacleto Bendazzi](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacleto_Bendazzi) (1883-1982) seems to be the Christian-themed one (though I don't know either Italian or Latin well enough to translate it myself):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Salve Regina ! Te saluto, o pia,  &#xD;&#xA;nostra tutela in tenebrosa via,   &#xD;&#xA;in sinistra terrifica procella  &#xD;&#xA;benigna stella.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quando te non saluto, o nostra vita,  &#xD;&#xA;gemo in amaritudine infinita;  &#xD;&#xA;in tranquilla quiete, te invocata,   &#xD;&#xA;vivo, o beata.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Saluto te, Regina gloriosa,  &#xD;&#xA;arca divina, intemerata rosa;  &#xD;&#xA;te, bella oliva, Iris serena, pura,  &#xD;&#xA;nivea figura.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quando miser vacillo in vento infido,  &#xD;&#xA;Regina generosa, in te confido;  &#xD;&#xA;in te confido in fausta, in dura sorte,  &#xD;&#xA;in vita, in morte.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two other poems on the page are one by [Gabriello Chiabrera](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriello_Chiabrera) (1552-1638) and &quot;Elogio a Venezia&quot; by Mattia Butturini (1752-1817). In prose there are also the sentences [I vitelli dei romani sono belli](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_vitelli_dei_romani_sono_belli) and [Cane Nero magna bella Persica](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_Nero_magna_bella_Persica)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12668" RevisionGUID="0694b6f2-dbaf-4b34-ba9c-cc820a1a1e59" CreationDate="2019-10-16T16:15:12.443" UserId="30" Text="*[Plico][1]* means &quot;to fold, roll, wind&quot;. *Re-* means &quot;back, again&quot;, so *[replico][2]* means &quot;to fold back, roll back, rewind&quot;. A sense &quot;to roll over&quot; is not very different; this no doubt developed from &quot;roll back&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it often happens, that concept could be used figuratively: &quot;to roll something over in the mind&quot;. As rolling or folding an object or substance, such as a scroll, a braid, a toga, involves spending some time touching it and being able to inspect it from multiple angles, the figurative sense flows into &quot;reflect upon [an idea]&quot;. (Cf. *re-flecto* &quot;to bend back, turn back&quot;.) *Re-* suggests going over it again, so the sense of repetition lies in that praefix. When you reflect upon an idea, you think about it again and again; it's not just one simple act of thinking. Perhaps *re-* had a double effect: perhaps the step from &quot;reflect on&quot; to &quot;repeat (in the mind)&quot; was owing to the subconscious' taking the sense of repetition from *re-* into account a second time. Or perhaps it makes sense as a reinterpretation without duplicity. At any rate, the sense of *repeat* developed post-classically, so last, according to Lewis &amp; Short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to replying, that originates in late juridical Latin (Lewis &amp; Short). A reply means saying something back to the original utterance, so I think it is logical for that sense to expressed by *re-* as well. As to why folding (back) came to mean uttering (back), I imagine the figurative sense &quot;to roll something over in the mind&quot; was expanded to rolling something over in a conversation, inspecting it by talking about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=plico&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full entry on *replico* from Lewis &amp; Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **r&amp;#x0115;-pl&amp;#x012d;co**, &amp;#x0101;vi (e. g. Vulg. Gen. 4, 27; id. Jos.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8, 35 al.), &amp;#x0101;tum (collat. form, replictae tunicae, Stat. S. 4,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9, 29), 1, *v. a.*, *to fold* or *roll back*, *to bend* or *turn back*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (cf.: revolvo, reflecto). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I.**  Lit.: vel Euhemero replicato, vel Nicagor&amp;#x0101;, etc., unrolled, opened, Arn. 4, 147; cf. infra, II.: surculos in terram&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dimittito replicatoque ad vitis caput, bend back, Cato, R. R. 41, 4;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; so, labra, Quint. 11, 3, 81; cf.: replicat&amp;#x0101; cervice, Plin. 34,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8, 19,  80; and: margine intus replicato, id. 9, 33, 52,  102: ab omni&#xD;&#xA;&gt; laevitate acies radios tuos replicat, casts back, reflects, Sen. Q. N.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1, 3, 7; cf.: quia radii solis replicantur, id. ib. 2, 10, 3: jocinera&#xD;&#xA;&gt; replicata, folded inwards, Suet. Aug. 95.&amp;#x2014;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **II.**  Trop., *to unfold*, *unroll*, *turn over; to bend* or *turn back; to open*: ut ne replices annalium memoriam, unfold, turn over,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic. Sull. 9, 27; so, memoriam temporum, id. Leg. 3, 14, 41: traductio&#xD;&#xA;&gt; temporis nihil novi efficientis et primum quicque replicantis,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unrolling, unwinding, id. Div. 1, 56, 127: cujus acumen nimis tenue&#xD;&#xA;&gt; retunditur et in se saepe replicatur, is bent back, Sen. Ben. 1, 4, 1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vestigium suum, *to withdraw*, i. e. *to go back*, App. M. 4, p. 151,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15.&amp;#x2014; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **B.**  In partic. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1.**  *To turn over and over in the mind*, *to think* or *reflect upon; to go over*, *repeat* (post-class.): haec identidem mecum, App.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M. 3, p. 129: titulos, singula, Prud. στεφ. 11, 3: necem, to tell&#xD;&#xA;&gt; again, Amm. 30, 1, 3: vitam, Sid. Ep. 7, 9: lamentum, Vulg. 2 Par. 35,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 25; id. Num. 27, 23: quorum (glirium) magnitudo saepius replicata&#xD;&#xA;&gt; laudatur adsidue, Amm. 28, 4, 13: vultu adsimulato saepius replicando,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod, etc., id. 14, 11, 11. &amp;#x2014; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2.**  In jurid. and late Lat., *to make a reply* or *replication*, Dig. 2, 14, 35 *fin.*; Greg. Mag. in Job, 16 *init.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12669" RevisionGUID="31d0dd78-a8b0-43f5-a907-735f2eda3623" CreationDate="2019-10-16T18:13:17.673" UserId="2586" Text="Etymologists/Linguists posit that the prefix for gold in Proto-Indo-European was: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *aus-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which gave way to `*auzom` in Proto-Italic languages and `ausum` in Classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At some point, `ausum` morphed into `aurum`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the cause of the change from `/s/` to `/r/`, considering the phonemes are very different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35560" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12669" RevisionGUID="31d0dd78-a8b0-43f5-a907-735f2eda3623" CreationDate="2019-10-16T18:13:17.673" UserId="2586" Text="Why had the word &quot;gold&quot; morphed from &quot;ausum&quot; into &quot;aurum&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35561" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12669" RevisionGUID="31d0dd78-a8b0-43f5-a907-735f2eda3623" CreationDate="2019-10-16T18:13:17.673" UserId="2586" Text="|morphology|phoneme|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12670" RevisionGUID="befc5dc7-339e-46a4-bcab-2c21637ff778" CreationDate="2019-10-16T18:31:09.603" UserId="406" Text="This is a sound change called _rhotacism_, one of the better-attested Latin sound changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back in Old Latin times, we see a phoneme `/s/` showing up all over the place. For example, the stem for &quot;flower&quot; is _flos-_, which means its nominative is _flos-s_ (which becomes _flos_), its genitive is _flos-is_, and its accusative is _flos-em_. And the infinitive is regularly formed with a suffix _-se_ (extrapolated from an old S-stem noun), as in _es-se_, _amā-se_, _amāvis-se_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somewhere in there, this phoneme got voiced to `[z]` when it appears between two vowels and isn't geminated. This was still written with the letter *S*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then, this `[z]` got lenited to `[ɹ]`, an approximant like the *R*-sound in Midwestern American English. This was the same as the letter the Romans wrote *R* at the time, so the two merged together. Later, this merged sound turned into a trill `[r]`. (Or maybe *R* was already a trill, and `[z]` merged into it later. It's hard to tell.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now what happened to those words? Suddenly the paradigms became less regular: *flos*, but *flo**r**is*, *flo**r**em*; *esse*, *amāvisse*, but *amā**r**e*. This is presumably also what happened to *ausum*: it became *au**r**um*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, to fill in the gap left by the vanishing *S*, a double `/ss/` got shortened to `/s/` after long vowels. So now *S* can appear between vowels again, and you get the state of affairs seen in Classical times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that all phonetics given here are speculative, since we have no recordings of native speakers of Old Latin to compare against. But they're relatively confident speculations.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12668" RevisionGUID="f3c7de8f-620a-4757-b248-f9654925a0b1" CreationDate="2019-10-16T19:10:09.227" UserId="79" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="*[Plico][1]* means &quot;to fold, roll, wind&quot;. *Re-* means &quot;back, again&quot;, so *[replico][2]* means &quot;to fold back, roll back, rewind&quot;. A sense &quot;to roll over&quot; is not very different; this no doubt developed from &quot;roll back&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it often happens, that concept could be used figuratively: &quot;to roll something over in the mind&quot;. As rolling or folding an object or substance, such as a scroll, a braid, a toga, involves spending some time touching it and being able to inspect it from multiple angles, the figurative sense flows into &quot;reflect upon [an idea]&quot;. (Cf. *re-flecto* &quot;to bend back, turn back&quot;.) *Re-* suggests going over it again, so the sense of repetition lies in that praefix. When you reflect upon an idea, you think about it again and again; it's not just one simple act of thinking. Perhaps *re-* had a double effect: perhaps the step from &quot;reflect on&quot; to &quot;repeat (in the mind)&quot; was owing to the subconscious' taking the sense of repetition from *re-* into account a second time. Or perhaps it makes sense as a reinterpretation without duplicity. At any rate, the sense of *repeat* developed post-classically, so last, according to Lewis &amp; Short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to replying, that originates in late juridical Latin (Lewis &amp; Short). A reply means saying something back to the original utterance, so I think it is logical for that sense to expressed by *re-* as well. As to why folding (back) came to mean uttering (back), I imagine the figurative sense &quot;to roll something over in the mind&quot; was expanded to rolling something over in a conversation, inspecting it by talking about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=plico&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=replico&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full entry on *replico* from Lewis &amp; Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **r&amp;#x0115;-pl&amp;#x012d;co**, &amp;#x0101;vi (e. g. Vulg. Gen. 4, 27; id. Jos.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8, 35 al.), &amp;#x0101;tum (collat. form, replictae tunicae, Stat. S. 4,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9, 29), 1, *v. a.*, *to fold* or *roll back*, *to bend* or *turn back*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (cf.: revolvo, reflecto). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I.**  Lit.: vel Euhemero replicato, vel Nicagor&amp;#x0101;, etc., unrolled, opened, Arn. 4, 147; cf. infra, II.: surculos in terram&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dimittito replicatoque ad vitis caput, bend back, Cato, R. R. 41, 4;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; so, labra, Quint. 11, 3, 81; cf.: replicat&amp;#x0101; cervice, Plin. 34,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8, 19,  80; and: margine intus replicato, id. 9, 33, 52,  102: ab omni&#xD;&#xA;&gt; laevitate acies radios tuos replicat, casts back, reflects, Sen. Q. N.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1, 3, 7; cf.: quia radii solis replicantur, id. ib. 2, 10, 3: jocinera&#xD;&#xA;&gt; replicata, folded inwards, Suet. Aug. 95.&amp;#x2014;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **II.**  Trop., *to unfold*, *unroll*, *turn over; to bend* or *turn back; to open*: ut ne replices annalium memoriam, unfold, turn over,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic. Sull. 9, 27; so, memoriam temporum, id. Leg. 3, 14, 41: traductio&#xD;&#xA;&gt; temporis nihil novi efficientis et primum quicque replicantis,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unrolling, unwinding, id. Div. 1, 56, 127: cujus acumen nimis tenue&#xD;&#xA;&gt; retunditur et in se saepe replicatur, is bent back, Sen. Ben. 1, 4, 1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vestigium suum, *to withdraw*, i. e. *to go back*, App. M. 4, p. 151,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15.&amp;#x2014; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **B.**  In partic. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1.**  *To turn over and over in the mind*, *to think* or *reflect upon; to go over*, *repeat* (post-class.): haec identidem mecum, App.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M. 3, p. 129: titulos, singula, Prud. στεφ. 11, 3: necem, to tell&#xD;&#xA;&gt; again, Amm. 30, 1, 3: vitam, Sid. Ep. 7, 9: lamentum, Vulg. 2 Par. 35,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 25; id. Num. 27, 23: quorum (glirium) magnitudo saepius replicata&#xD;&#xA;&gt; laudatur adsidue, Amm. 28, 4, 13: vultu adsimulato saepius replicando,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod, etc., id. 14, 11, 11. &amp;#x2014; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2.**  In jurid. and late Lat., *to make a reply* or *replication*, Dig. 2, 14, 35 *fin.*; Greg. Mag. in Job, 16 *init.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12667" RevisionGUID="ad36fd62-6305-42d0-99dc-46eb92eeb5f3" CreationDate="2019-10-16T19:55:45.277" UserId="2476" Comment="Added translations" Text="[This page](http://www.fmboschetto.it/religione/Salve_Regina.htm) (in Italian) has three bilingual Italian-Latin poems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Salve Regina](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salve_Regina_(Anacleto_Bendazzi))&quot; by [Anacleto Bendazzi](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacleto_Bendazzi) (1883-1982) seems to be the Christian-themed one (though I don't know either Italian or Latin well enough to translate it myself):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Salve Regina ! Te saluto, o pia,  &#xD;&#xA;nostra tutela in tenebrosa via,   &#xD;&#xA;in sinistra terrifica procella  &#xD;&#xA;benigna stella.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quando te non saluto, o nostra vita,  &#xD;&#xA;gemo in amaritudine infinita;  &#xD;&#xA;in tranquilla quiete, te invocata,   &#xD;&#xA;vivo, o beata.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Saluto te, Regina gloriosa,  &#xD;&#xA;arca divina, intemerata rosa;  &#xD;&#xA;te, bella oliva, Iris serena, pura,  &#xD;&#xA;nivea figura.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quando miser vacillo in vento infido,  &#xD;&#xA;Regina generosa, in te confido;  &#xD;&#xA;in te confido in fausta, in dura sorte,  &#xD;&#xA;in vita, in morte.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hail Queen! I salute thee, o loving,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;our safeguard in a dark path,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;in a menacing and terrifying storm,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;benevolent star.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When I do not salute thee, our life,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I suffer in infinite bitterness;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;having invoked thee, &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I live in peaceful serenity,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;o blessed.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I salute thee, glorious Queen,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;divine ark, faultless rose;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;thee, beautiful olive, serene Iris, &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;pure, snow-white figure.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When I, miserable, waver in treacherous wind,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;generous Queen, in thee I trust;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;in thee I trust in auspicious, in ominous fate,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;in life, in death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two other poems on the page are one by [Gabriello Chiabrera](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriello_Chiabrera) (1552-1638) and &quot;Elogio a Venezia&quot; by Mattia Butturini (1752-1817). In prose there are also the sentences [I vitelli dei romani sono belli](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_vitelli_dei_romani_sono_belli) and [Cane Nero magna bella Persica](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_Nero_magna_bella_Persica) (in Italian (Roman dialect for the latter), respectively, _The calves of the Romans are beautiful_ and _Black cat eats nice peach_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12667" RevisionGUID="5bccdf7c-b3bb-4c72-b6bd-cab6b0727a39" CreationDate="2019-10-16T20:02:55.100" UserId="2476" Comment="edited body" Text="[This page](http://www.fmboschetto.it/religione/Salve_Regina.htm) (in Italian) has three bilingual Italian-Latin poems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Salve Regina](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salve_Regina_(Anacleto_Bendazzi))&quot; by [Anacleto Bendazzi](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacleto_Bendazzi) (1883-1982) seems to be the Christian-themed one (though I don't know either Italian or Latin well enough to translate it myself):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Salve Regina ! Te saluto, o pia,  &#xD;&#xA;nostra tutela in tenebrosa via,   &#xD;&#xA;in sinistra terrifica procella  &#xD;&#xA;benigna stella.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quando te non saluto, o nostra vita,  &#xD;&#xA;gemo in amaritudine infinita;  &#xD;&#xA;in tranquilla quiete, te invocata,   &#xD;&#xA;vivo, o beata.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Saluto te, Regina gloriosa,  &#xD;&#xA;arca divina, intemerata rosa;  &#xD;&#xA;te, bella oliva, Iris serena, pura,  &#xD;&#xA;nivea figura.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quando miser vacillo in vento infido,  &#xD;&#xA;Regina generosa, in te confido;  &#xD;&#xA;in te confido in fausta, in dura sorte,  &#xD;&#xA;in vita, in morte.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hail Queen! I salute thee, o loving,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;our safeguard in a dark path,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;in a menacing and terrifying storm,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;benevolent star.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When I do not salute thee, our life,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I suffer in infinite bitterness;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;having invoked thee, &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I live in peaceful serenity,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;o blessed.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I salute thee, glorious Queen,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;divine ark, faultless rose;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;thee, beautiful olive, serene Iris, &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;pure, snow-white figure.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When I, miserable, waver in treacherous wind,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;generous Queen, in thee I trust;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;in thee I trust in auspicious, in ominous fate,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;in life, in death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two other poems on the page are one by [Gabriello Chiabrera](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriello_Chiabrera) (1552-1638) and &quot;Elogio a Venezia&quot; by Mattia Butturini (1752-1817). In prose there are also the sentences [I vitelli dei romani sono belli](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_vitelli_dei_romani_sono_belli) and [Cane Nero magna bella Persica](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_Nero_magna_bella_Persica) (in Italian (Roman dialect for the latter), respectively, _The calves of the Romans are beautiful_ and _Black dog eats nice peach_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12671" RevisionGUID="3ba9102a-e7c0-45e1-944e-0b67236083a6" CreationDate="2019-10-17T00:14:03.993" UserId="6193" Text="How do i know when to put the latin word 'est' at the end of a sentence?&#xD;&#xA;For example: Scintilla fessa est, Scintilla est femina&#xD;&#xA;Why is 'est' in a different position in each of the above sentences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35567" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12671" RevisionGUID="3ba9102a-e7c0-45e1-944e-0b67236083a6" CreationDate="2019-10-17T00:14:03.993" UserId="6193" Text="When does est go at the end of a sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35568" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12671" RevisionGUID="3ba9102a-e7c0-45e1-944e-0b67236083a6" CreationDate="2019-10-17T00:14:03.993" UserId="6193" Text="|grammar-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12666" RevisionGUID="2c28645e-d05b-44b3-8e01-39c5c194cefa" CreationDate="2019-10-17T01:14:33.103" UserId="6074" Comment="added bibliography" Text="To state a question (direct or indirect) in Classical and Medieval Latin, you always need a question marker. These can be either: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - interrogative pronouns or adjectives (e.g. *Quis venit?*, *In quae via ambulat?*, *Per quod medium probas?*, etc.), &#xD;&#xA; - interrogative adverbs (e.g. *Ubi estis?*, *Quousque tandem abutere?*, *Num venit?*, *Quaesivi ne indices*, *Quaesitum utrum Deus sit trinus*, etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - The enclitic interrogative article &quot;-nĕ&quot; (weakened from &quot;nē&quot;); also &quot;nonne&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Early Latin exhibits total interrogatives without question markers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Redis tu tandem? (Plaut.)&#xD;&#xA; - Tu id nunc refers? (Plaut.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that question marks, and punctuation in general, was a later Medieval development---historically derived from musical pneumas, rather than pragmatic cues---and cannot be understood as interrogative markers proper.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to answer your question: &quot;standard&quot; Classical Latin (what you learn in school) and Medieval Latin always require interrogative markers. Still, not all markers are identical (e.g. *Num* presupposes a negative answer, *-nĕ* doesn't presuppose any answer, *quando* requires a temporally framed answer, and so on), so you must  choose well your interrogatives. In sum, &quot;Edisti?&quot; is bad Latin. &quot;Edistine?&quot; is fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those seeking a more &quot;authorative&quot; answer, see e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Guildersleeve's *Latin Grammar* (3rd ed., 1903), §§ 453–68, 558 (available here: https://archive.org/details/gildersleeveslat00gild)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Allen and Greenough's *New Latin Grammar* (1903), §§ 330–5 (available here: https://archive.org/details/allengreenoughsn01alle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  Bassols de Climens, *Sintaxis latina* (1971), II, §§ 32–40 (available here: https://archive.org/details/SINTAXISLATINA2MARIANOBASSOLSDECLIMENT)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - J. Schrickx, &quot;Polar Questions in Latin with and without the Enclitic Particle -ne&quot;, in *Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek*, eds. C. Denizot &amp; O. Spevac. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins(2017), pp.235–55&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12672" RevisionGUID="4fb8efaf-dd90-427d-a10c-9a9cfff7387b" CreationDate="2019-10-17T01:55:04.987" UserId="6074" Text="As a general rule, all Latin verbs go at the end of the sentence, including the verb *sum*. Having said that, verb placement can vary depending on pragmatic reasons, say if you want to emphasize a the verb at the beginning, or if you are answering a question, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Vinisti heri? # Veni hodie* (&quot;Did you come yesterday? # I came today&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other times you may wish to make explicit an attributive (rather than an existential) use of *sum*. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Magnus sol est* (&quot;The great sun exists / there is great sun&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Magnus est sol* (&quot;The sun is great.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In subordination constructions (such as Accusative + Infinitive) the main verb position can vary as well. E.g. all of these are semantically equivalent, but vary pragmatically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Vergilius dicit poetam arma virumque canisse* (&quot;Virgil says that the poet sung the arms and man&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Vergilius poetam arma virumque canisse dicit* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Dicit Vergilius poetam arma virumque canisse*, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35572" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12669" RevisionGUID="d3c8c4fe-a105-475a-bb02-c41053a08ad7" CreationDate="2019-10-17T02:13:30.113" />
  <row Id="35573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12672" RevisionGUID="30b5dad6-0dca-4bd0-a5e6-97f3fdebd9e2" CreationDate="2019-10-17T02:13:50.697" UserId="6074" Comment="introduced a clarification" Text="Latin is what linguists call an &quot;S-O-V&quot; (subject-object-verb) language. This means that, as a general rule, all Latin verbs go at the end of the sentence, including the verb *sum*. Having said that, verb placement can vary freely, mostly for pragmatic reasons---say if you want to emphasise the verb by placing it at the beginning of the sentence, or if you are answering a question, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Vinisti heri? # Veni hodie* (&quot;Did you come yesterday? # I came today&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other times you may wish to make explicit an attributive (rather than an existential) use of *sum*. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Magnus sol est* (&quot;The great sun exists / there is great sun&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Magnus est sol* (&quot;The sun is great.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In subordination constructions (such as Accusative + Infinitive) the main verb position can vary as well. E.g. all of these are semantically equivalent, but vary pragmatically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Vergilius dicit poetam arma virumque canisse* (&quot;Virgil says that the poet sung the arms and man&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Vergilius poetam arma virumque canisse dicit* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Dicit Vergilius poetam arma virumque canisse*, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12668" RevisionGUID="0c32905d-8f85-42ed-a400-65c75aed220c" CreationDate="2019-10-17T04:29:31.100" UserId="30" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="*[Plico][1]* means &quot;to fold, roll, wind&quot;. *Re-* means &quot;back, again&quot;, so *[replico][2]* means &quot;to fold back, roll back, rewind&quot;. A sense &quot;to roll over&quot; is not very different; this no doubt developed from &quot;roll back&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it often happens, that concept could be used figuratively: &quot;to roll something over in the mind&quot;. As rolling or folding an object or substance, such as a scroll, a braid, a toga, involves spending some time touching it and being able to inspect it from multiple angles, the figurative sense flows into &quot;reflect upon [an idea]&quot;. (Cf. *re-flecto* &quot;to bend back, turn back&quot;.) *Re-* suggests going over it again, so the sense of repetition lies in that praefix. When you reflect upon an idea, you think about it again and again; it's not just one simple act of thinking. Perhaps *re-* had a double effect: perhaps the step from &quot;reflect on&quot; to &quot;repeat (in the mind)&quot; was owing to the subconscious' taking the sense of repetition from *re-* into account a second time. Or perhaps it makes sense as a reinterpretation without duplicity. At any rate, the sense of *repeat* developed post-classically, so after the other senses, according to Lewis &amp; Short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to replying, that originates in late juridical Latin (Lewis &amp; Short). A reply means saying something back to the original utterance, so I think it is logical for that sense to be expressed by *re-* as well. As to why folding (back) came to mean uttering (back), I imagine the figurative sense &quot;to roll something over in the mind&quot; was expanded to rolling something over in a conversation, inspecting it by talking about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=plico&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=replico&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full entry on *replico* from Lewis &amp; Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **r&amp;#x0115;-pl&amp;#x012d;co**, &amp;#x0101;vi (e. g. Vulg. Gen. 4, 27; id. Jos.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8, 35 al.), &amp;#x0101;tum (collat. form, replictae tunicae, Stat. S. 4,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9, 29), 1, *v. a.*, *to fold* or *roll back*, *to bend* or *turn back*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (cf.: revolvo, reflecto). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I.**  Lit.: vel Euhemero replicato, vel Nicagor&amp;#x0101;, etc., unrolled, opened, Arn. 4, 147; cf. infra, II.: surculos in terram&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dimittito replicatoque ad vitis caput, bend back, Cato, R. R. 41, 4;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; so, labra, Quint. 11, 3, 81; cf.: replicat&amp;#x0101; cervice, Plin. 34,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8, 19,  80; and: margine intus replicato, id. 9, 33, 52,  102: ab omni&#xD;&#xA;&gt; laevitate acies radios tuos replicat, casts back, reflects, Sen. Q. N.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1, 3, 7; cf.: quia radii solis replicantur, id. ib. 2, 10, 3: jocinera&#xD;&#xA;&gt; replicata, folded inwards, Suet. Aug. 95.&amp;#x2014;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **II.**  Trop., *to unfold*, *unroll*, *turn over; to bend* or *turn back; to open*: ut ne replices annalium memoriam, unfold, turn over,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cic. Sull. 9, 27; so, memoriam temporum, id. Leg. 3, 14, 41: traductio&#xD;&#xA;&gt; temporis nihil novi efficientis et primum quicque replicantis,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unrolling, unwinding, id. Div. 1, 56, 127: cujus acumen nimis tenue&#xD;&#xA;&gt; retunditur et in se saepe replicatur, is bent back, Sen. Ben. 1, 4, 1:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vestigium suum, *to withdraw*, i. e. *to go back*, App. M. 4, p. 151,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15.&amp;#x2014; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **B.**  In partic. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1.**  *To turn over and over in the mind*, *to think* or *reflect upon; to go over*, *repeat* (post-class.): haec identidem mecum, App.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M. 3, p. 129: titulos, singula, Prud. στεφ. 11, 3: necem, to tell&#xD;&#xA;&gt; again, Amm. 30, 1, 3: vitam, Sid. Ep. 7, 9: lamentum, Vulg. 2 Par. 35,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 25; id. Num. 27, 23: quorum (glirium) magnitudo saepius replicata&#xD;&#xA;&gt; laudatur adsidue, Amm. 28, 4, 13: vultu adsimulato saepius replicando,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quod, etc., id. 14, 11, 11. &amp;#x2014; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2.**  In jurid. and late Lat., *to make a reply* or *replication*, Dig. 2, 14, 35 *fin.*; Greg. Mag. in Job, 16 *init.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12672" RevisionGUID="528245c4-ee26-4043-aa41-e1a1f0557363" CreationDate="2019-10-17T12:40:13.240" UserId="6074" Comment="Emmended formulation." Text="As a general rule, all Latin verbs go at the end of the sentence, including the verb *sum*. Having said that, verb placement can vary freely, mostly for pragmatic reasons---say if you want to emphasise the verb by placing it at the beginning of the sentence, or if you are answering a question, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Vinisti heri? # Veni hodie* (&quot;Did you come yesterday? # I came today&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other times you may wish to make explicit an attributive (rather than an existential) use of *sum*. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Magnus sol est* (&quot;The great sun exists / there is great sun&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Magnus est sol* (&quot;The sun is great.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In subordination constructions (such as Accusative + Infinitive) the main verb position can vary as well. E.g. all of these are semantically equivalent, but vary pragmatically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Vergilius dicit poetam arma virumque canisse* (&quot;Virgil says that the poet sung the arms and man&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Vergilius poetam arma virumque canisse dicit* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Dicit Vergilius poetam arma virumque canisse*, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12672" RevisionGUID="a1d543c6-9d6b-46a1-9a93-790d1462ed7e" CreationDate="2019-10-17T12:50:54.020" UserId="6074" Comment="clarified" Text="As a general rule, Latin verbs go at the end of the sentence, including the verb *sum*. (Traditionally, Latin has been considered a &quot;SOV&quot; (subject, object, verb) language, though scholars have recently cast doubt upon the necessity of that claim.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, verb placement can vary freely, mostly for pragmatic reasons---say if you want to emphasise the verb by placing it at the beginning of the sentence, or if you are answering a question, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Vinisti heri? # Veni hodie* (&quot;Did you come yesterday? # I came today&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other times you may wish to make explicit an attributive (rather than an existential) use of *sum*. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Magnus sol est* (&quot;The great sun exists / there is great sun&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Magnus est sol* (&quot;The sun is great.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In subordination constructions (such as Accusative + Infinitive) the main verb position can vary as well. E.g. all of these are semantically equivalent, but vary pragmatically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Vergilius dicit poetam arma virumque canisse* (&quot;Virgil says that the poet sung the arms and man&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Vergilius poetam arma virumque canisse dicit* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Dicit Vergilius poetam arma virumque canisse*, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12674" RevisionGUID="05d3caac-4e3e-4c88-a67a-e470e7b74fec" CreationDate="2019-10-17T17:41:24.907" UserId="6194" Text="Latin Wikipedia and many other modern (Classical?) Latin texts use &quot;u&quot; for the vowel /u/ and &quot;v&quot; for the consonant /w/, but &quot;i&quot; for both the vowel /i/ and the consonant /j/. This practice is more common than having both an i/j and u/v distinction. In the Middle Ages, it seems that u and j were used as a variant form of v and i based on the position in a word, irrespective of whether it was used as a vowel or consonant, so it's not as though u/v is different from i/j in that regard. Descendant Romance languages like Spanish and French use j for consonants, and even Italian which doesn't use j uses it for Latin loanwords (using it to represent /j/). Why is it common in modern Latin texts to distinguish u/v but not i/j?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35579" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12674" RevisionGUID="05d3caac-4e3e-4c88-a67a-e470e7b74fec" CreationDate="2019-10-17T17:41:24.907" UserId="6194" Text="Why distinguish u/v but not i/j?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35580" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12674" RevisionGUID="05d3caac-4e3e-4c88-a67a-e470e7b74fec" CreationDate="2019-10-17T17:41:24.907" UserId="6194" Text="|orthography|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12672" RevisionGUID="d806c0a5-91ee-4c9d-988d-38a171045c87" CreationDate="2019-10-17T17:44:19.660" UserId="2389" Comment="Correct the latin, add macrons" Text="As a general rule, Latin verbs go at the end of the sentence, including the verb *sum*. (Traditionally, Latin has been considered a &quot;SOV&quot; (subject, object, verb) language, though scholars have recently cast doubt upon the necessity of that claim.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, verb placement can vary freely, mostly for pragmatic reasons---say if you want to emphasise the verb by placing it at the beginning of the sentence, or if you are answering a question, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Vēnistī herī? # Vēnī hodiē* (&quot;Did you come yesterday? # I came today&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other times you may wish to make explicit an attributive (rather than an existential) use of *sum*. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Magnus sōl est* (&quot;The great sun exists / there is great sun&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Magnus est sōl* (&quot;The sun is great.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In subordination constructions (such as Accusative + Infinitive) the main verb position can vary as well. E.g. all of these are semantically equivalent, but vary pragmatically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Vergilius dīcit poētam arma virumque cecinisse* (&quot;Virgil says that the poet sung the arms and man&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Vergilius poētam arma virumque cecinisse dīcit* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Dīcit Vergilius poētam arma virumque cecinisse*, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35582" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12672" RevisionGUID="d806c0a5-91ee-4c9d-988d-38a171045c87" CreationDate="2019-10-17T17:44:19.660" Comment="Proposed by 2389 approved by 79 edit id of 329" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12675" RevisionGUID="2f9f294c-9530-453a-8757-61a865d5552b" CreationDate="2019-10-17T17:48:10.760" UserId="2025" Text="According to *Wiktionary* and De Vaan’s *Etymological Dictionary*, the origins of the Latin adjectives *inanis* (‘empty’; ‘worthless’) and *idoneus* (‘suitable’; ‘sufficient’) are unknown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if anybody had a theory on the origins of these two mysterious words; any ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * On the etymology of *idoneus* De Vaan says:&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &gt; The morphology can be interpreted as an adj. in *-neus* to *\*idō* (‘there’?) &#xD;&#xA;    or *\*ido-*, or as an adj. in *-eus* to *\*idōn*.&#xD;&#xA; * Could it be possible that *inanis* is composed of the prefix *in-* (‘not’) and *\*anis* (‘full’, ‘useful’?)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35584" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12675" RevisionGUID="2f9f294c-9530-453a-8757-61a865d5552b" CreationDate="2019-10-17T17:48:10.760" UserId="2025" Text="Origins of ‘inanis’ and ‘idoneus’" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35585" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12675" RevisionGUID="2f9f294c-9530-453a-8757-61a865d5552b" CreationDate="2019-10-17T17:48:10.760" UserId="2025" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12675" RevisionGUID="1429500f-bbc1-47f7-8f24-fbac5726e400" CreationDate="2019-10-17T17:57:47.137" UserId="2025" Comment="These are two separate questions; deleted 72 characters in body" Text="According to *Wiktionary* and De Vaan’s *Etymological Dictionary*, the etymology of the Latin adjective *inanis* (‘empty’; ‘worthless’) is unknown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if anybody had a theory on the origin of this mysterious word; any ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, could it be possible that *inanis* is composed of the prefix *in-* (‘not’) and *\*anis* (‘full’, ‘useful’?)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35587" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12675" RevisionGUID="1429500f-bbc1-47f7-8f24-fbac5726e400" CreationDate="2019-10-17T17:57:47.137" UserId="2025" Comment="These are two separate questions; deleted 72 characters in body" Text="Origins of the adjective ‘inanis’" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12676" RevisionGUID="663ac5fe-cc09-4f87-84f8-5cc6708c33f0" CreationDate="2019-10-17T18:23:50.523" UserId="2025" Text="All etymological dictionaries includung *Wiktionary* and De Vaan’s *Etymological Dictionary* state the ultimate origin of the Latin adjective *idoneus* (‘suitable’; ‘sufficient’) is unknown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if anybody had a theory on the origin of this word; I would be glad if someone could shed light on this problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, De Vaan says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The morphology can be interpreted as an adj. in *-neus* to *\*idō* (‘there’?) &#xD;&#xA;  or *\*ido-*, or as an adj. in *-eus* to *\*idōn*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35589" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12676" RevisionGUID="663ac5fe-cc09-4f87-84f8-5cc6708c33f0" CreationDate="2019-10-17T18:23:50.523" UserId="2025" Text="Etymology of the adjective ‘idoneus’" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35590" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12676" RevisionGUID="663ac5fe-cc09-4f87-84f8-5cc6708c33f0" CreationDate="2019-10-17T18:23:50.523" UserId="2025" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12677" RevisionGUID="85667e33-373e-4404-b1f9-dac7c45a871c" CreationDate="2019-10-17T18:43:30.670" UserId="3248" Text="I think it could be useful for you to take a look at the following [article][1] by Prof. Benjamín García-Hernández. According to him, &quot;_inanis_ has its origins in the negation of the substantive _ānus_ 'surrounding ring', so that _inānis_ has come to mean 'empty', through metonymy from 'without a ring'&quot;. See pages 9-11 of the article above (**Section 2.1**) for more discussion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;García-Hernández, Benjamín (2017). «La negación como modalidad alterna.&#xD;&#xA;El _in-_ privativo con bases nominales y el origen de _inānis_ e _ingens_», _De Lingua Latina, Revue de linguistique latine du Centre Alfred Ernout_.  http://www.parissorbonne.fr/rubrique2315, 1-16.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lettres.sorbonne-universite.fr/IMG/pdf/dll_14_b._garcia-hernandez.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12678" RevisionGUID="6759310f-bf5a-4675-9d28-535b501a15c6" CreationDate="2019-10-17T19:21:04.853" UserId="6190" Text="Though it is not about a specific person, there is a famous passage in Augustine's _City of God_ [XVI.8](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120116.htm) about intersex people:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As for the Androgyni, or Hermaphrodites, as they are called, though they are rare, yet from time to time there appears persons of sex so doubtful, that it remains uncertain from which sex they take their name; though it is customary to give them a masculine name, as the more worthy. For no one ever called them Hermaphroditesses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is [the Latin](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/augustine/civ16.shtml):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Androgyni, quos etiam Hermaphroditos nuncupant, quamuis ad modum rari sint, difficile est tamen ut temporibus desint, in quibus sic uterque sexus apparet, ut, ex quo potius debeant accipere nomen, incertum sit; a meliore tamen, hoc est a masculino, ut appellarentur, loquendi consuetudo praeualuit. Nam nemo umquam Androgynaecas aut Hermaphroditas nuncupauit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So by his account option 1 was customary. Augustine gives us no indication how old or how widespread this custom was, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12679" RevisionGUID="55955922-ec83-4d2b-94b9-aa4f49c69594" CreationDate="2019-10-17T21:40:50.227" UserId="4871" Text="I think the answer is plain: While consonant *i* is always a semi-vowel, non-classical (e.g., ecclesiastical) Latin does not treat consonant *u* as a semi-vowel.  Consequently it is really annoying to read Latin in many pronunciations if *v* is not distinguished from *u*.  There is no similar difficulty with *i*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12679" RevisionGUID="105d4a07-da50-4fb3-9933-fe9c05657d9b" CreationDate="2019-10-17T21:58:59.187" UserId="4871" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="I think the answer is plain: While consonant *i* is always a semi-vowel, non-classical (e.g., ecclesiastical) Latin does not treat consonant *u* as a semi-vowel.  Consequently it is really annoying to read Latin in many pronunciations, including those in universal use (modern scholars aside) since late antiquity, if *v* is not distinguished from *u*.  There is no similar difficulty with *i*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35596" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12675" RevisionGUID="35ab67e7-795a-4e1c-a923-a83b80e7574b" CreationDate="2019-10-18T02:00:24.590" />
  <row Id="35597" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12674" RevisionGUID="28b7aa69-fe5f-4040-b9f6-54fe46c89167" CreationDate="2019-10-18T02:45:30.197" />
  <row Id="35599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12680" RevisionGUID="8aa74aec-bd0f-4be4-a103-77a3a03736ba" CreationDate="2019-10-18T12:38:01.897" UserId="3009" Text="This may become an inscription written on a historical marker commemorating a mass grave.  Which of the following is correct:  _italic_Requiesce in Pace_italic_ or _italic_ Requiescant in Pace&lt;i&gt;?  The former was offered up by a young lady who was in my high school Latin class 50 years ago.  The second was provided by translate.google.com.  I think we are looking for third person, plural, subjunctive, present tense.  I have seen google's form on a photograph of a slate grave marker dated 1725, but, the stone didn't have almost 300 years of patina on it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35600" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12680" RevisionGUID="8aa74aec-bd0f-4be4-a103-77a3a03736ba" CreationDate="2019-10-18T12:38:01.897" UserId="3009" Text="May they rest in peace" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35601" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12680" RevisionGUID="8aa74aec-bd0f-4be4-a103-77a3a03736ba" CreationDate="2019-10-18T12:38:01.897" UserId="3009" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12679" RevisionGUID="39514117-1191-4dac-ba7e-a0117ce3b5ce" CreationDate="2019-10-18T12:47:58.490" UserId="4871" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="I think the answer is plain: While consonant *i* is always a semi-vowel, non-classical (e.g., ecclesiastical) Latin does not treat consonant *u* as a [semivowel][1].  (See also [this discussion][2].)  Consequently it is really annoying to read Latin in many pronunciations, including those in universal use (modern scholars aside) since late antiquity, if *v* is not distinguished from *u*.  There is no similar difficulty with *i*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semivowel&#xD;&#xA;[2]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approximant_consonant#Semivowels" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12680" RevisionGUID="f2fc2df4-3f00-433c-aeae-53a0e274bb19" CreationDate="2019-10-18T12:48:13.490" UserId="469" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body" Text="This may become an inscription written on a historical marker commemorating a mass grave.  Which of the following is correct:  _Requiesce in Pace_ or _Requiescant in Pace_?  The former was offered up by a young lady who was in my high school Latin class 50 years ago.  The second was provided by translate.google.com.  I think we are looking for third person, plural, subjunctive, present tense.  I have seen google's form on a photograph of a slate grave marker dated 1725, but, the stone didn't have almost 300 years of patina on it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12681" RevisionGUID="f4bb27e9-6dab-4a7e-a3cd-5e9e4c12c0f8" CreationDate="2019-10-18T12:50:56.443" UserId="469" Text="**Requiescant in pace** is what you are looking for. Just as you say, third person, plural, subjunctive, present tense form, *may they rest in peace*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Requiesce in pace*, instead, is singular, imperative mood, so the sentence is commanding someone to rest in peace, (or figuratively, wishing it.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35605" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12680" RevisionGUID="ac44e196-e657-4f98-93c2-b5a38c028755" CreationDate="2019-10-18T12:51:54.050" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|sentence-translation|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12681" RevisionGUID="051cb095-77ab-4b6a-bd64-9c02dba20491" CreationDate="2019-10-18T13:00:24.590" UserId="469" Comment="added 561 characters in body" Text="**Requiescant in pace** is what you are looking for. Just as you say, third person, plural, subjunctive, present tense form, *may they rest in peace*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Requiesce in pace*, instead, is singular, imperative mood, so the sentence is commanding someone to rest in peace, or figuratively, wishing it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both the plural and singular (**requiescat in pace**) forms have traditionally been part of Christian prayers for the dead. Here a prominent example in Catholic liturgy, the *[Requiem][1]*, which is part of the *Missa pro defunctis*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Requiem aeternam dona ei(eis), Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei(eis). Requiescat(-ant) in pace. Amen.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Eternal rest grant unto him/her (them), O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him/her (them). May he/she (they) rest in peace. Amen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Varia/Requiem.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12682" RevisionGUID="ca41db91-4f91-45f3-a231-8a10c397d5c2" CreationDate="2019-10-18T13:14:03.590" UserId="324" Text="There are in fact many scholarly editions of Latin texts that do not use “j” and “v” at all, and there is certainly a logic to this. On the other hand, even experienced Latinists can be forgiven for being taken by surprise by spellings like iuuenis or iuui and preferring the unambiguous juvenis and juvi. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12683" RevisionGUID="51603d4b-7401-4d85-ab83-2817863e7249" CreationDate="2019-10-18T14:44:35.683" UserId="6198" Text="I'm trying to translate a phrase. I'm trying to say &quot;everything is (part of) revenge&quot;, as in &quot;every action is an act of revenge against the ones that tried to break you&quot;. Sorry if it's not too clear English is not my first langauge. So far I've come up omnia ultio, but a friend (that is somewhat better at latin) said that this sounds more like &quot;everybody's revenge&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35609" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12683" RevisionGUID="51603d4b-7401-4d85-ab83-2817863e7249" CreationDate="2019-10-18T14:44:35.683" UserId="6198" Text="Translation to latin of &quot;everything is revenge&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35610" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12683" RevisionGUID="51603d4b-7401-4d85-ab83-2817863e7249" CreationDate="2019-10-18T14:44:35.683" UserId="6198" Text="|idiom|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12684" RevisionGUID="8775873d-2c99-4286-97a8-9f3d08182b08" CreationDate="2019-10-18T17:22:14.173" UserDisplayName="user3165" Text="I wonder how to translate &quot;continuum hypothesis&quot; into Latin. Indeed, &quot;continuum&quot; is an adjective in Latin (so we would have &quot;continuous hypothesis&quot; if we were trying a literal translation) and I don't see how to make it a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note:* The sentence from which this expression is extracted is &quot;THE INDEPENDANCE OF THE CONTINUUM HYPOTHESIS&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35612" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12684" RevisionGUID="8775873d-2c99-4286-97a8-9f3d08182b08" CreationDate="2019-10-18T17:22:14.173" UserDisplayName="user3165" Text="Substantiation of &quot;continuum&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35613" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12684" RevisionGUID="8775873d-2c99-4286-97a8-9f3d08182b08" CreationDate="2019-10-18T17:22:14.173" UserDisplayName="user3165" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7629" RevisionGUID="7467349f-d711-47fa-8773-fd6ca0ac2d42" CreationDate="2019-10-18T17:26:49.190" UserDisplayName="user3165" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="&quot;Annus mirabilis&quot; is an expression which refers to a wonderful year like 1905 for A. Einstein and modern physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the equivalent for a single day? Is &quot;dies mirabilis&quot; the correct form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers for weeks, months or seasons are also welcomed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12679" RevisionGUID="19d7da46-bd6d-442a-bdef-88aee13f4130" CreationDate="2019-10-18T18:37:42.783" UserId="4871" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I think the answer is plain: While consonant *i* is always a semivowel, non-classical (e.g., ecclesiastical) Latin does not treat consonant *u* as a [semivowel][1].  (See also [this discussion][2].)  Consequently it is really annoying to read Latin in many pronunciations, including those in universal use (modern scholars aside) since late antiquity, if *v* is not distinguished from *u*.  There is no similar difficulty with *i*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semivowel&#xD;&#xA;[2]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approximant_consonant#Semivowels" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12685" RevisionGUID="7a180c7c-3a65-44a2-a63b-e5a6bb54d450" CreationDate="2019-10-18T18:43:04.417" UserId="3248" Text="I guess it would be something like _hypothesis continui_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that N-N compounds like &quot;continuum hypothesis&quot; or &quot;string theory&quot; are possible in some languages (e.g., English, Mandarin Chinese, ASL, Japanese, etc). In contrast, Latin is not to be classified into the same typological set of languages with regard to the so-called [&quot;**Compounding Parameter**&quot;][1]. Typically, these N-N compounds are to be rendered into Latin (and Romance languages) differently. In Latin the typical translation involves putting the first member of the English compound in Genitive case: e.g., cf. Engl. _string theory_ = Lat. _theoria chordarum_. Same with Engl. _continuum hypothesis_ = Lat. _hypothesis continui_.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/galana/6/paper3212.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12685" RevisionGUID="fca2d172-2fca-4ba0-a273-64493d798d05" CreationDate="2019-10-18T19:08:30.963" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="I guess it would be something like _hypothesis continui_. Alternatively, it could also be rendered as _hypothesis de continuo_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that N-N compounds like &quot;continuum hypothesis&quot; or &quot;string theory&quot; are possible in some languages (e.g., English, Mandarin Chinese, ASL, Japanese, etc). In contrast, Latin is not to be classified into the same typological set of languages with regard to the so-called [&quot;**Compounding Parameter**&quot;][1]. Typically, these N-N compounds are to be rendered into Latin (and Romance languages) differently. In Latin the typical translation involves putting the first member of the English compound in Genitive case: e.g., cf. Engl. _string theory_ = Lat. _theoria chordarum_. Same with Engl. _continuum hypothesis_ = Lat. _hypothesis continui_. Alternatively, as pointed out above, the first N of the English compound can also be rendered in Latin as involving the preposition _de_ plus the substantivized adjective in Ablative case: i.e., _hypothesis de continuo_.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/galana/6/paper3212.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35618" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12684" RevisionGUID="bd4b536c-9ca8-479d-9144-a1ffecad845f" CreationDate="2019-10-18T20:37:46.273" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35619" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12680" RevisionGUID="660cb25b-934e-4475-9921-f77183871bca" CreationDate="2019-10-18T20:47:26.977" />
  <row Id="35620" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12684" RevisionGUID="880fc1b1-395d-437b-a4e8-c44223f03766" CreationDate="2019-10-18T23:07:40.493" UserId="3248" Comment="title revised" Text="Substantivation of &quot;continuum&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35621" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12684" RevisionGUID="50f415c9-6140-41b7-bd54-6c30282d93ec" CreationDate="2019-10-18T23:14:58.387" UserId="3248" Comment="title rerevised" Text="Substantivization of &quot;continuum&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35622" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12684" RevisionGUID="31beb430-ea13-4acb-958d-1a26d2426a97" CreationDate="2019-10-19T01:32:49.390" />
  <row Id="35624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2003" RevisionGUID="daf9960c-189b-4402-a4fa-99b8d105f1c3" CreationDate="2019-10-19T08:57:43.647" UserId="947" Comment="update, explanations" Text="The online version of **William Whitaker's Words** (originally an MS-DOS program, see [Wikipedia][1]) is very useful: http://archives.nd.edu/words.html &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very useful, especially translate from English to Latin or Latin English words. It can identify an inflected or derived form of a Latin words based on tables of conjugations and declensions it contains. Some forms it identifies as possible may actually be unattested or even impossible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is belonging to archives.nd.edu. That means University of Notre Dame archives. It also contains the Windows and Linux version of the original program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another online version is https://latin.ucant.org/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also mobile apps that contain William Whitaker's Words for [Android][2] and [iPhone][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Whitaker%27s_Words&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ids1024.whitakerswords&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/william-whitakers-words/id1326344586" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2003" RevisionGUID="5638b61f-e5c5-4f17-8c36-7bae4eb74ca5" CreationDate="2019-10-19T09:03:12.063" UserId="947" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="The online version of **William Whitaker's Words** (originally an MS-DOS program, see [Wikipedia][1]) is very useful: http://archives.nd.edu/words.html &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very useful, especially translate from English to Latin or Latin English words. It can identify an inflected or derived form of a Latin words based on tables of conjugations and declensions it contains. Some forms it identifies as possible may actually be unattested or even impossible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is belonging to archives.nd.edu. That means University of Notre Dame archives. It also contains the Windows and Linux version of the original program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another online version is https://latin.ucant.org/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also excellently-reviewed mobile apps that contain William Whitaker's Words for [Android][2] and [iPhone][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Whitaker%27s_Words&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ids1024.whitakerswords&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/william-whitakers-words/id1326344586" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12679" RevisionGUID="bd8cbc0b-7ecd-4e4b-9297-da71f202ab11" CreationDate="2019-10-19T11:53:41.013" UserId="4871" Comment="added 585 characters in body" Text="I think the answer is plain: While consonant *i* is always a semivowel, non-classical (e.g., ecclesiastical) Latin does not treat consonant *u* as a [semivowel][1].  (See also [this discussion][2].)  Consequently it is really annoying to read Latin in many pronunciations, including those in universal use (modern scholars aside) since late antiquity, if *v* is not distinguished from *u*.  There is no similar difficulty with *i*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To translate a bit, when these consonants are pronounced like the English *y* and *w*, they are basically just slightly modified (highly shortened) versions of the vowels, so you won't sound like a fool if you initially take them as vowels when reading.  (Think of why French *oui* is spelled the way it is.)  It's no more difficult to read semivowel *i* and *u* this way than it is to read diphthongs that don't have special symbols.  On the other hand, the English *v* sound, which is what consonant *u* began sounding like at least 1500 years ago, is a fricative and doesn't sound remotely like a highly shortened *u*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semivowel&#xD;&#xA;[2]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approximant_consonant#Semivowels" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12679" RevisionGUID="e30dfe5a-8d4b-47fd-8702-e041865d6c17" CreationDate="2019-10-19T15:12:14.050" UserId="4871" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="I think the answer is plain: While consonant *i* is always a semivowel, non-classical (e.g., ecclesiastical) Latin does not treat consonant *u* as a [semivowel][1].  (See also [this discussion][2].)  Consequently it is really annoying to read Latin in many pronunciations, including those in universal use (modern scholars aside) since late antiquity, if *v* is not distinguished from *u*.  There is no similar difficulty with *i*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To translate a bit, when these consonants are pronounced like the English *y* and *w*, they are basically just slightly modified (highly shortened) versions of the vowels, so you won't sound like a fool if you initially take them as vowels when reading.  (Think of why French *oui* is spelled the way it is.)  It's no more difficult to read semivowel *i* and *u* this way than it is to read diphthongs that don't have special symbols.  On the other hand, the English *v* sound, which is what consonant *u* began sounding like at least 1500 years ago, is a fricative and doesn't sound remotely like a shortened *u*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semivowel&#xD;&#xA;[2]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approximant_consonant#Semivowels" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12686" RevisionGUID="18a6ccbd-9b03-4c69-9c8b-676752702397" CreationDate="2019-10-19T16:19:18.480" UserId="4871" Text="In the comments on the other answer, I think we've concluded that you could use &quot;tu primum&quot;, &quot;tibi primum&quot;, or &quot;te primum&quot; depending on whether &quot;you&quot; is the subject, beneficiary, or object of the implied action, or you could say &quot;sis primus&quot; (to a man) or &quot;sis prima&quot; (to a woman).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the plural, these would be &quot;vos primum&quot;, &quot;vobis primum&quot;, &quot;vos primum&quot;, &quot;sitis primi&quot;, and &quot;sitis primae&quot;, respectively. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12686" RevisionGUID="8da13a4c-9649-4ace-86b2-63929f10f577" CreationDate="2019-10-19T16:26:24.653" UserId="4871" Comment="added 215 characters in body" Text="In the comments on the other answer, I think we've concluded that you could use &quot;tu primum&quot;, &quot;tibi primum&quot;, or &quot;te primum&quot; depending on whether &quot;you&quot; is the subject, beneficiary, or object of the implied action, or you could say &quot;sis primus&quot; (to a man) or &quot;sis prima&quot; (to a woman).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the plural, these would be &quot;vos primum&quot;, &quot;vobis primum&quot;, &quot;vos primum&quot;, &quot;sitis primi&quot;, and &quot;sitis primae&quot;, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no *tu* or *vos* with the adjective since in that case the subjunctive mood must be made explicit by including the verb, and once the verb is explicit, nominative case pronouns are redundant and omitted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35632" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9418" RevisionGUID="2c30810b-d893-460d-8537-79b24a1bd2af" CreationDate="2019-10-19T21:01:15.183" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="35633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12685" RevisionGUID="9c96744f-c879-4f4c-9350-44949d6d2e61" CreationDate="2019-10-19T22:28:34.287" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes due to commentators" Text="I guess it would be something like _hypothesis continui_. Alternatively, it could also be rendered as _hypothesis de continuo_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that N-N compounds like &quot;continuum hypothesis&quot; or &quot;string theory&quot; are possible in some languages (e.g., English, Mandarin Chinese, A(merican) S(ign) L(anguage), Japanese, etc). In contrast, Latin is not to be classified into the same typological set of languages with regard to the so-called [&quot;**Compounding Parameter**&quot;][1]. Typically, these N-N compounds are to be rendered into Latin (and Romance languages) differently. In Latin the typical translation involves putting the first member of the English compound in Genitive case: e.g., cf. Engl. _string theory_ = Lat. _theoria chordarum_. Same with Engl. _continuum hypothesis_ = Lat. _hypothesis continui_. Alternatively, as pointed out above, the first N of the English compound can also be rendered in Latin as involving the preposition _de_ plus the substantivized adjective in Ablative case: i.e., _hypothesis de continuo_. As noted below by Denis Nardin, the latter evolved into the structure found in Romance: e.g., cf. It. _ipotesi del continuo_.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/galana/6/paper3212.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12685" RevisionGUID="4326ffa3-d2a6-4411-a363-c65486eebbca" CreationDate="2019-10-20T00:58:49.020" UserId="30" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="I guess it would be something like _hypothesis continui_. Alternatively, it could also be rendered as _hypothesis de continuo_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that noun-noun compounds like &quot;continuum hypothesis&quot; or &quot;string theory&quot; are possible in some languages (e.g., English, Mandarin Chinese, A(merican) S(ign) L(anguage), Japanese, etc). In contrast, Latin is not to be classified into the same typological set of languages with regard to the so-called [&quot;**Compounding Parameter**&quot;][1]. Typically, these noun-noun compounds are to be rendered into Latin (and Romance languages) differently. In Latin the typical translation involves putting the first member of the English compound in Genitive case: e.g., cf. Engl. _string theory_ = Lat. _theoria chordarum_. Same with Engl. _continuum hypothesis_ = Lat. _hypothesis continui_. Alternatively, as pointed out above, the first noun of the English compound can also be rendered in Latin as involving the preposition _de_ plus the substantivized adjective in Ablative case: i.e., _hypothesis de continuo_. As noted below by Denis Nardin, the latter evolved into the structure found in Romance: e.g., cf. It. _ipotesi del continuo_.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/galana/6/paper3212.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12687" RevisionGUID="441a2afc-aa49-4bbe-8c37-b3ea9731c5d6" CreationDate="2019-10-20T13:52:09.280" UserId="45" Text="Here's an answer that is probably far more philosophical than you are looking for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This principle actually was formally stated by Aristotle, in the first line of the *Posterior Analytics*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Πᾶσα διδασκαλία καὶ πᾶσα μάθησις διανοητικὴ ἐκ προϋπαρχούσης γίνεται γνώσεως (71a1-2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A common Medieval Latin translation (such as that commented on by St. Thomas Aquinas) runs as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnis doctrina et omnis disciplina intellectiva ex praeexistenti cognitione fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's Barnes' translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All teaching and all learning of an intellectual kind proceed from pre-existent knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;Knowledge&quot; in this translation is meant to stand in for the generic case as well, including non-intellectual knowledge.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It certainly doesn't have the raw power of aphorism, but it is far more precise than &quot;knowledge comes from knowledge&quot;: if all knowledge comes from prior knowledge, where would the first knowledge come from? And how can we explain the fact that our intellectual knowledge seems to spring from lower kinds of cognition, e.g. sensation? Aristotle gives us a robust account that is able to meet these objections." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12688" RevisionGUID="7b8bb250-41eb-4bab-a1ba-3c2c2241414a" CreationDate="2019-10-20T14:48:33.320" UserId="6074" Text="How about: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scientia de scientia conficitur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scientia supra scientiam conficitur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that *fit*, &quot;is made&quot;, instead of *conficitur*, &quot;is built/constructed&quot;, may also do the trick).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting thing about the first one is that it exploits two senses of *de*, viz. &quot;from&quot; and &quot;about&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12688" RevisionGUID="b73928b4-4f90-4a44-b879-b8141fd76da9" CreationDate="2019-10-20T15:02:14.787" UserId="6074" Comment="added Medieval Latin versions" Text="How about: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scientia de scientia conficitur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Science is built from/about science&quot;. This rendering exploits two senses of *de*, viz. &quot;from&quot; and &quot;about&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scientia supra scientiam conficitur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Science is built upon science&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that *fit*, &quot;is made&quot;, instead of *conficitur*, &quot;is built/constructed&quot;, may also do the trick).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Medieval Latin would allow this genitive construction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scientia scientiae fit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(as in Carmina Burana, 1: *fit iuris confusio*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, if &quot;knowledge builds&quot; is read transitively, not reflexively, I would suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnia supra scientiam scientia conficit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Science builds everything upon science&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12688" RevisionGUID="8b870fcc-9296-47be-b214-4f91af83d244" CreationDate="2019-10-20T15:09:15.020" UserId="6074" Comment="made clarification" Text="If &quot;knowledge builds&quot; is understood reflexively, I could suggest: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scientia de scientiā conficitur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Science is built from/about science&quot;. This rendering exploits two senses of *de*, viz. &quot;from&quot; and &quot;about&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scientia supra scientiam conficitur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Science is built upon science&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that *fit*, &quot;is made&quot;, instead of *conficitur*, &quot;is built/constructed&quot;, may also do the trick).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Medieval Latin would allow this genitive construction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Scientia scientiae fit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(as in Carmina Burana, 1: *fit iuris confusio*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if &quot;knowledge builds&quot; is read transitively, not reflexively, I would suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Omnia supra scientiam / de scientiā scientia conficit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Science builds everything upon/from/about science&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12689" RevisionGUID="4727a7db-892a-4561-ab7a-a1d863e54497" CreationDate="2019-10-20T20:45:15.903" UserId="985" Text="A very basic, apothegmatic translation would be something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **scientia ē scientiā fit** / **ē scientiā fit scientia**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Knowledge is produced from/arises out of/is the result of knowledge.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For something extra-pithy, *fit* could be omitted and left understood:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **scientia ē scientiā** / **ē scientiā scientia**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, in a comment, tony suggested using the verb *crescere* ('to grow,' but also 'to come into existence' or 'to arise'), which should also work. This would yield, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **scientia (ā) scientiā crescit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Knowledge grows/arises from knowledge.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The *ā* is optional; or it can be replaced with *dē*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Some other possibilities**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the use that this translation will be put to, something more elaborate or poetic/less succinct or literal may be desired. Here are a couple of alternatives – though, if you really don't care about succinctness, the translation that brianpck gives in his answer is (in my opinion) best of all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the notion is one of *cumulative knowledge*, you could also, conveniently, use the verb *cumulare* ('to pile up,' 'accumulate,' and, in the passive, also 'to be made up of') – for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **scientia scientiā cumulātur** / **scientia aliā scientiā cumulātur** / **scientia alia aliā cumulātur**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Knowledge is piled up/increased with/made up of (other) knowledge.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **scientia super scientiam cumulātur** / **scientia alia super aliam cumulātur** / **alia super aliam cumulātur scientia**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Knowledge is piled on top of (other) knowledge.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison, there are (somewhat incongruously) these sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cicero, *In Catilinam* 1.14:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; *nuper cum morte superioris uxoris novis nuptiis locum vacuefecisses, **nonne etiam alio incredibili scelere hoc scelus cumulavisti?***  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; '...did you not heap up this crime with another unbelievable crime too?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Livy, *Ab urbe condita* 26.41.8: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; *aduersae pugnae in Hispania nullius in animo quam meo minus oblitterari possunt, quippe cui pater et patruus intra triginta dierum spatium **ut aliud super aliud cumularetur familiae nostrae funus** interfecti sunt;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; '...so that one death in our household was piled up on top of another...'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, you could combine *crescere* and *cumulare*, and do something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **scientiā cumulāta crescit scientia**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Knowledge grows heaped up from knowledge.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is adapted (also somewhat incongruously) from Silius Italicus, *Punica* 1.418:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *et iam corporibus cumulatus creverat agger*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'And now the rampart had grown heaped up with bodies'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, speaking of heaps, there's a lovely bit in Lucretius, *De rerum natura* (6.185–186), where the verb *ex*(*s*)*truere* is used to describe clouds heaped (literally, built) up on top of other clouds:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *scilicet hoc densis fit nubibus et simul alte  &#xD;&#xA;extructis aliis alias super impete miro.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'This [sc. lightning and thunder], you should know, happens in dense and high  &#xD;&#xA;Heaped-up clouds, heaped up one on another, a fabulous bulwark' [Trans. Anthony M. Esolen]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could be adapted to produce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **scientia exstruitur alia aliam super** / **scientia exstruitur scientiam super** / **exstruitur scientia scientiam super**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Knowledge is built up on top of other knowledge.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: *super* is the preposition, here used as a postposition. Among the other possible word arrangements would be **scientia super scientiam exstruitur**, where *super* is used in its normal function as a preposition, not as a postposition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12690" RevisionGUID="46859b6a-8d88-4d95-a06b-19cc07d3b6d1" CreationDate="2019-10-21T12:00:52.823" UserId="1982" Text="In fatuous Roman spoof, &quot;Plebs&quot; (14/10/2019) the &quot;Knights of Eros&quot; was a cadre of male prostitutes. Chief Knight, Zeno, (Christopher Biggins: he played Nero in &quot;I Claudius&quot; giving him a pedigree in such roles.) debriefs two hapless new recruits, Jason &amp; Aurelius, after their first outings. Sadly, a disgruntled and dissatisfied lady client had submitted negative feedback-forms; consequently, these would-be male Sirens were dismissed. They were unable to support the ethos of Eros.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to say &quot;feedback&quot;, in Latin? An ablative absolute e.g. &quot;opinione remitto&quot; = &quot;with the opinion having been sent back&quot;; better to use one word, a gerund, &quot;remittendum&quot; = &quot;the-sending-back-(thing)&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, &quot;ethos&quot;? The noun, norma, ae (fem.) = &quot;standard&quot;, &quot;pattern&quot;; followed by a genitive? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the cost of paper, submitting feedback on one's prostitutes, in the Roman World, was a more informal affair. In Pompeii, clients carved their opinions into the brothel walls e.g. &quot;hic bene futui&quot;; &quot;Fronto plane lingit cunnum&quot;; &quot;Murtis felatris&quot; = &quot;Murtis is an oral-sex specialist&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In the second of these, adverb &quot;plane&quot; is given as &quot;openly&quot;--this service is rendered in the street? Perhaps it means &quot;freely&quot;, in the sense of &quot;without inhibition&quot;? In Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict. it is given as &quot;plainly&quot;; &quot;utterly&quot;; &quot;clearly&quot;; &quot;plane&quot;, here then, an example street-slang (Vulgar Latin)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that prostitutes, like lawyers, charge for time (so I'm told) why would clients be allowed to spend hours, on wall carvings, when fresh customers may have been queuing-up in demand of services?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Returning to the Q: first para., sentence beginning: &quot;Sadly, a disgruntled...&quot;, a possible translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;triste, infelix, non-satisfacta cliens/clienta domina malum remittendum, de suis lupis, dedit. hi qui fierent Sirenes masculini, normas Cupidinis sustinere deliquerant ut dimitterent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In dict. &quot;cliens&quot; is given as masc., Wiki: masc./ fem. Is &quot;cliens&quot; valid for females?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the translation correct?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35641" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12690" RevisionGUID="46859b6a-8d88-4d95-a06b-19cc07d3b6d1" CreationDate="2019-10-21T12:00:52.823" UserId="1982" Text="A Client Submits Feedback On Her Prostitutes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35642" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12690" RevisionGUID="46859b6a-8d88-4d95-a06b-19cc07d3b6d1" CreationDate="2019-10-21T12:00:52.823" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12691" RevisionGUID="cb2ce9d5-db31-4a16-8286-171abdc67d83" CreationDate="2019-10-21T12:21:50.267" UserId="1059" Text="If I wanted to translate &quot;To fill a cup&quot; and &quot;To fill up a cup&quot;, are there in Latin 2 different words to translate &quot;fill&quot; and &quot;fill up&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35644" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12691" RevisionGUID="cb2ce9d5-db31-4a16-8286-171abdc67d83" CreationDate="2019-10-21T12:21:50.267" UserId="1059" Text="Fill vs fill up in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35645" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12691" RevisionGUID="cb2ce9d5-db31-4a16-8286-171abdc67d83" CreationDate="2019-10-21T12:21:50.267" UserId="1059" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12692" RevisionGUID="3db9dc1f-4b34-41cc-b6a6-a40168983121" CreationDate="2019-10-21T16:29:58.677" UserDisplayName="user3165" Text="To familiarize myself with Latin adpositions, I tried to translate the first chapter of the Universal Language Dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to find for each term the least ambiguous and most common solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    from (moving out of or away from); ab? ex?&#xD;&#xA;    to, towards, at (moving toward); ad&#xD;&#xA;    at (in the same location as); in&#xD;&#xA;    in (located inside of); intra&#xD;&#xA;    outside of, exterior to; extra&#xD;&#xA;    above, over; supra&#xD;&#xA;    under, below, beneath; infra&#xD;&#xA;    in front of, ahead of, before (spatially); &#xD;&#xA;    behind, in back of, to the rear of; pone&#xD;&#xA;    before, prior to, earlier than; ante&#xD;&#xA;    during; dum&#xD;&#xA;    after (later than; in the future of); post&#xD;&#xA;    with (accompanied by/furnished with); cum&#xD;&#xA;    without, with no; sine&#xD;&#xA;    around, encircling, surrounding; circa&#xD;&#xA;    between, among; inter&#xD;&#xA;    beyond, farther than, exceeding; ultra&#xD;&#xA;    near, close to; juxta&#xD;&#xA;    on (resting on; touching the top or other surface of); &#xD;&#xA;    across (at the other side of; to the other side of); trans&#xD;&#xA;    through; per&#xD;&#xA;    about (pertaining to; on the topic of); de&#xD;&#xA;    because of, due to; propter&#xD;&#xA;    by means of, via, per, with (using; through instrumentality of); via? per?&#xD;&#xA;    except for, apart from, excluding; nisi&#xD;&#xA;    for (to benefit; destined for; for the purpose of); ut&#xD;&#xA;    for (in exchange for); &#xD;&#xA;    instead of, rather than; &#xD;&#xA;    like, similar to; sicut&#xD;&#xA;    of (belonging to; associated with; = genitive); de&#xD;&#xA;    of (containing the measured quantity: &quot;two liters of water&quot;); de&#xD;&#xA;    than, compared to; quam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What did you think of my work? What would you have chosen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35647" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12692" RevisionGUID="3db9dc1f-4b34-41cc-b6a6-a40168983121" CreationDate="2019-10-21T16:29:58.677" UserDisplayName="user3165" Text="ULD adpositions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35648" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12692" RevisionGUID="3db9dc1f-4b34-41cc-b6a6-a40168983121" CreationDate="2019-10-21T16:29:58.677" UserDisplayName="user3165" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12693" RevisionGUID="146e5b5a-ae6e-4e3b-9e14-8ea3cc3c4716" CreationDate="2019-10-21T22:21:28.157" UserId="3248" Text="Grammatically speaking, there is a parallelism between Engl. {_fill_/_fill **up**_} and Lat. {_plere/**com**plere_}, respectively. Typically, English particles and Latin prefixes can express similar meanings. In this case, we are dealing with so-called **completive**-intensive particle and prefix, respectively, which profile the resultant state and make it especially salient. It is important to point out that their similarity is due to the fact that these two languages belong to the set of so-called &quot;**satellite**-framed languages&quot; (for general remarks on the classification of Latin within this typological set, please see my answer to a previous question on [Latin prefixes][1]. For some useful references on this topic, please see my answer to the question on [Latin as a satellite-framed language][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for frequency of usage, there is an important difference to be pointed out with regard to the particular case you're interested in. English speakers seem to use the verb _fill_ as frequently as _fill up_, whereas this is not the case in Latin since the prefixed verbs (_complere_, _implere_, etc.) are by far much more frequent than its non-prefixed variant (_plere_). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11167/in-vs-ex-in-intendo-vs-extend%C5%8D/11390#11390&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11083/are-latin-verbs-of-motion-satellite-framed-or-verb-framed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12691" RevisionGUID="62cc8054-0c51-4600-b55f-480ee2250042" CreationDate="2019-10-22T02:36:44.313" UserId="1059" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="If I wanted to translate &quot;To fill a cup&quot; and &quot;To fill up a cup&quot;, are there in Latin 2 different words to translate &quot;fill&quot; and &quot;fill up&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To fill up = to fill totally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12694" RevisionGUID="62f606b9-edaa-43b3-93bd-55f4b2cc02a8" CreationDate="2019-10-22T04:31:30.890" UserId="1059" Text="As a general rule, could an adjective be used like an adverb in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be some exceptions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35652" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12694" RevisionGUID="62f606b9-edaa-43b3-93bd-55f4b2cc02a8" CreationDate="2019-10-22T04:31:30.890" UserId="1059" Text="Could an adjective be used like an adverb in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35653" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12694" RevisionGUID="62f606b9-edaa-43b3-93bd-55f4b2cc02a8" CreationDate="2019-10-22T04:31:30.890" UserId="1059" Text="|adjective|adverb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12695" RevisionGUID="a539d28e-6a46-4ed2-9fa2-daf54847933e" CreationDate="2019-10-22T04:56:06.910" UserId="406" Text="There are three main ways to turn an adjective into an adverb in Latin. In decreasing order of popularity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Use a special adverb-forming suffix: first/second adjectives get *-ē*, while third adjectives get *-ter*. This can be done freely to pretty much any adjective (*famōsē*, *rubrē*, *calidē*, *velociter*, *prūdenter*).&#xD;&#xA; - Use the neuter accusative form. This is also quite well-attested, but less productive; it's where third comparative adverbs in *-ius* and (non-comparative) adverbs in *-e* come from (*facilius*, *facile*, *multum*).&#xD;&#xA; - Use the neuter ablative form. This one was dying out by Classical times, mostly showing up in set phrases and fossilized expressions, but it's the ancestor of the extremely common *-ē* mentioned above (*verō*, *falsō*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first at least was still productive in Classical times; I'm not aware of any adjectives which couldn't be turned into adverbs in one way or another." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12696" RevisionGUID="a03a11a5-5e5c-4bfe-97de-6c23a89f99eb" CreationDate="2019-10-22T10:52:10.887" UserId="79" Text="What is expressed by a preposition in English may or may not be expressed by a preposition in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;And the same holds for many kinds of words, not just prepositions.&#xD;&#xA;To give examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;By means of, via, per, with (using; through instrumentality of)&quot; is often best translated by the ablative case. The preposition *cum* can be used, but a plain ablative is more common in my experience.&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Because of, due to&quot; can be translated as *causa*, requiring a genitive. While you can read it as &quot;for the reason of&quot;, you could also analyze *causa* as a postposition.&#xD;&#xA;- Translating an English preposition as the Latin *in* is not quite enough. The *in* with accusative is different from the *in* with ablative, so you should specify the cases needed.&#xD;&#xA;- Many things can be expressed by cases (and confusingly many by a plain ablative).&#xD;&#xA;I think the closest counterpart to &quot;for (to benefit; destined for; for the purpose of)&quot; is the dative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't try to polish the list further, as such a list will necessarily omit many essential aspects of the language.&#xD;&#xA;Some things are expressed by certain structures instead of certain words, and that can be hard to communicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What would you have chosen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question, I would have added more details on usage and described options that are not expressed by a single word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35656" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="12661" RevisionGUID="8458f356-d4a5-4de8-bd83-8e1ebbb99333" CreationDate="2019-10-22T12:15:02.920" UserId="469" Comment="134" />
  <row Id="35657" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12694" RevisionGUID="458f7843-7a6c-4c41-9996-53b2a6571409" CreationDate="2019-10-22T12:39:12.350" />
  <row Id="35658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12690" RevisionGUID="600e850e-6efb-46ac-a464-c2543e8aa722" CreationDate="2019-10-22T13:35:56.373" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 1034 characters in body" Text="I am trying to translate the following line, inspired by a fatuous Roman spoof, &quot;Plebs&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sadly, a disgruntled and dissatisfied lady client had submitted negative feedback-forms; consequently, these would-be male Sirens were dismissed. They were unable to support the ethos of Eros.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three words cause me trouble:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How to say &quot;feedback&quot;, in Latin? An ablative absolute e.g. &quot;opinione remitto&quot; = &quot;with the opinion having been sent back&quot;; better to use one word, a gerund, &quot;remittendum&quot; = &quot;the-sending-back-(thing)&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Similarly, &quot;ethos&quot;? The noun, norma, ae (fem.) = &quot;standard&quot;, &quot;pattern&quot;; followed by a genitive? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Also, &quot;cliens&quot; is given as masculine in the dictionary. Is &quot;cliens&quot; valid for females?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my proposed translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; triste, infelix, non-satisfacta cliens/clienta domina malum remittendum, de suis lupis, dedit. hi qui fierent Sirenes masculini, normas Cupidinis sustinere deliquerant ut dimitterent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the translation correct?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12690" RevisionGUID="bd981574-f4c2-4086-b2f2-d5a27a6aed19" CreationDate="2019-10-22T15:18:49.343" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="I am trying to translate the following line, inspired by a fatuous Roman spoof, &quot;Plebs&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sadly, a disgruntled and dissatisfied lady client had submitted negative feedback-forms; consequently, these would-be male Sirens were dismissed. They were unable to support the ethos of Eros.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three words cause me trouble:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How to say &quot;feedback&quot;, in Latin? An ablative absolute e.g. &quot;opinione remitto&quot; = &quot;with the opinion having been sent back&quot;; better to use one word, a gerund, &quot;remittendum&quot; = &quot;the-sending-back-(thing)&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Similarly, &quot;ethos&quot;? The noun, norma, ae (fem.) = &quot;standard&quot;, &quot;pattern&quot;; followed by a genitive? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Also, &quot;cliens&quot; is given as masculine in the dictionary. Is &quot;cliens&quot; valid for females?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my proposed translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Triste, infelix, non-satisfacta cliens/clienta domina malum remittendum, de suis lupis, dedit. Hi qui fierent Sirenes masculini, normas Cupidinis sustinere deliquerant ut dimitterent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the translation correct?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35660" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12690" RevisionGUID="bd981574-f4c2-4086-b2f2-d5a27a6aed19" CreationDate="2019-10-22T15:18:49.343" UserId="79" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12697" RevisionGUID="03a79560-e031-4b7b-9f83-0c9ddb57aeb5" CreationDate="2019-10-22T15:46:44.553" UserId="79" Text="Here are some ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Instead of translating word by word, look for a way to put the entire phrase. For example, &quot;to submit negative feedback&quot; could be rendered as *reclamare*. For example, &quot;to cry out against someone&quot; would be *in aliquem reclamare*. This might not be literally equivalent to what you have in English, but makes for natural Latin and conveys the same idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I would have nothing against using a word like *cliens* for a female. In fact, you could see it as an adjective, as it originates from a participle. However, given that there is a separate word *clienta* for a female client, you should go with that. If there wasn't, you could supply a pronoun to help, translating &quot;a female client&quot; to *cliens quaedam*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Don't translate the whole sentence at first. Strip it down to essentials and translate them first and gradually make the translation fatter. You could simplify the first sentence to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; A lady client had submitted negative feedback(-forms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I would translate that as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Clienta quaedam reclamavit.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; You could then connect that to the next bit by *ideoque*, &quot;and therefore&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Your translation does not seem to make sense to me (which could indicate my tired state more than anything). I urge you to first extract the key structures of each sentence, even if it means just three words, and then translating that. By translating the dominating components first and subordinate ones later leads to a natural structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There are several possible ways to approach &quot;ethos&quot;. Often simplest solutions are most elegant, so I suggest considering *mos* or *mores*. Other words that come to mind are *stirps*, *indoles*, and *dignitas*. I would be happy to translate &quot;the ethos of Eros&quot; as *mos Cupidinis*. The god often goes by this Latin name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Perhaps you could use *quasi* for &quot;would-be&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With these ideas, I would suggest something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Triste clienta quaedam insatiata reclamavit. Ideoque ei quasi Sirenes masculini dimissi sunt, qui non potuissent fungi more Cupidinis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12698" RevisionGUID="7d62d1ef-76d1-433e-8694-057901b3729c" CreationDate="2019-10-22T17:18:50.090" UserId="406" Text="I've been sent the following photo of an inscription in a Unitarian church.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Low-res photo][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As best I can tell, it says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Templum hoc [re]novat[u]m  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; est […]eribus denuo et inte[g]re[?]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; regnante serenissimo dono do[…]o  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; principe Georgio Rakoci  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anno do[min]i 1640&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, this church was renovated once by ??? and again by a gift from the most serene reigning prince, George Rákóczi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm curious what the other damaged parts might mean. What was the cause of the first renovation? And what is the word starting with *D* on the third line?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NlGH9.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35663" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12698" RevisionGUID="7d62d1ef-76d1-433e-8694-057901b3729c" CreationDate="2019-10-22T17:18:50.090" UserId="406" Text="What does this damaged inscription in a church say?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35664" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12698" RevisionGUID="7d62d1ef-76d1-433e-8694-057901b3729c" CreationDate="2019-10-22T17:18:50.090" UserId="406" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|ecclesiastical-latin|inscription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12699" RevisionGUID="4aa3f4e6-9972-405c-9ae0-290294da328e" CreationDate="2019-10-22T20:04:40.467" UserId="45" Text="With some help from [this description](http://www.adatbank.ro/inchtm.php?akod=3878), which contains a few errors, here's what I think it says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Templus hoc r[e]novatum  &#xD;&#xA;est [l]ateribus denuo et integre  &#xD;&#xA;regnante serenissimo do[mi]no do[mino] no[stro]  &#xD;&#xA;principe Georgio Rakoci  &#xD;&#xA;Anno do[mini] 1640  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This temple [i.e. church] was renovated with bricks completely and afresh during the reign of the most serene lord, our lord prince [George I Rákóczi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_I_R%C3%A1k%C3%B3czi) in A.D. 1640.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that &quot;Dominus, Dominus noster&quot; (the lord, our lord...) is an idiom. Searching for [&quot;domino domino nostro&quot;](https://www.google.com/search?q=&quot;domino+domino+nostro&quot;) returns numerous examples. I'm not positive that it should be parsed out that way, instead of just a simple second &quot;domino,&quot; but the line over the &quot;n&quot; (and some superficial experience with paleography) makes me suspect that &quot;nostro&quot; is intended." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12699" RevisionGUID="a7c15f56-4699-4a16-849e-e01f3f60941a" CreationDate="2019-10-23T00:01:52.060" UserId="45" Comment="edited body" Text="With some help from [this description](http://www.adatbank.ro/inchtm.php?akod=3878), which contains a few errors, here's what I think it says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Templum hoc r[e]novatum  &#xD;&#xA;est [l]ateribus denuo et integre  &#xD;&#xA;regnante serenissimo do[mi]no do[mino] no[stro]  &#xD;&#xA;principe Georgio Rakoci  &#xD;&#xA;Anno do[mini] 1640  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This temple [i.e. church] was renovated with bricks completely and afresh during the reign of the most serene lord, our lord prince [George I Rákóczi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_I_R%C3%A1k%C3%B3czi) in A.D. 1640.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that &quot;Dominus, Dominus noster&quot; (the lord, our lord...) is an idiom. Searching for [&quot;domino domino nostro&quot;](https://www.google.com/search?q=&quot;domino+domino+nostro&quot;) returns numerous examples. I'm not positive that it should be parsed out that way, instead of just a simple second &quot;domino,&quot; but the line over the &quot;n&quot; (and some superficial experience with paleography) makes me suspect that &quot;nostro&quot; is intended." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35668" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12698" RevisionGUID="6d8d1d36-be99-4ec1-b2c4-90f1d5eed20e" CreationDate="2019-10-23T01:25:21.003" />
  <row Id="35669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12700" RevisionGUID="69d8e811-834c-470e-9bac-05e5f093e70c" CreationDate="2019-10-23T02:45:23.017" UserId="5056" Text="From what I have read of [this post](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7298/noun-adjuncts-in-latin), Latin doesn't really use nouns as adjectives in the way that English does, although that post mentions you can use a noun in genitive case to achieve this. I am translating &quot;Crater Lake&quot; as the name of a location, and came up with the following based on that advice: _Lacus Cratere_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that make sense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35670" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12700" RevisionGUID="69d8e811-834c-470e-9bac-05e5f093e70c" CreationDate="2019-10-23T02:45:23.017" UserId="5056" Text="Translate &quot;Crater Lake&quot; into classical Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35671" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12700" RevisionGUID="69d8e811-834c-470e-9bac-05e5f093e70c" CreationDate="2019-10-23T02:45:23.017" UserId="5056" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12700" RevisionGUID="ac220e38-1507-4fef-94a5-cc958e128298" CreationDate="2019-10-23T03:01:07.430" UserId="5056" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="From what I have read of [this post](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7298/noun-adjuncts-in-latin), Latin doesn't really use nouns as adjectives in the way that English does, although that post mentions you can use a noun in genitive case to achieve this. I am translating &quot;Crater Lake&quot; as the name of a location, and came up with the following based on that advice: _Lacus Crateris_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that make sense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12690" RevisionGUID="fe65b58e-62cb-4225-9481-4c12effe603f" CreationDate="2019-10-23T12:00:11.787" UserId="1982" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="I am trying to translate the following line, inspired by a fatuous Roman spoof, &quot;Plebs&quot;, in which two hapless new recruits to a cadre of male prostitutes, the &quot;Knights of Eros&quot; are being debriefed, by the Chief Knight, Zeno (Christopher Biggins):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sadly, a disgruntled and dissatisfied lady client had submitted negative feedback-forms; consequently, these would-be male Sirens were dismissed. They were unable to support the ethos of Eros.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three words cause me trouble:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How to say &quot;feedback&quot;, in Latin? An ablative absolute e.g. &quot;opinione remitto&quot; = &quot;with the opinion having been sent back&quot;; better to use one word, a gerund, &quot;remittendum&quot; = &quot;the-sending-back-(thing)&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Similarly, &quot;ethos&quot;? The noun, norma, ae (fem.) = &quot;standard&quot;, &quot;pattern&quot;; followed by a genitive? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Also, &quot;cliens&quot; is given as masculine in the dictionary. Is &quot;cliens&quot; valid for females?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my proposed translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Triste, infelix, non-satisfacta cliens/clienta domina malum remittendum, de suis lupis, dedit. Hi qui fierent Sirenes masculini, normas Cupidinis sustinere deliquerant ut dimitterent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the translation correct?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12690" RevisionGUID="a368b9c9-3669-430a-aea6-1370bb54f23b" CreationDate="2019-10-23T12:12:36.613" UserId="1982" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I am trying to translate the following line, inspired by a fatuous Roman spoof, &quot;Plebs&quot;, in which two hapless new recruits to a cadre of male prostitutes, the &quot;Knights of Eros&quot;, are being debriefed, by the Chief Knight, Zeno (Christopher Biggins):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sadly, a disgruntled and dissatisfied lady client had submitted negative feedback-forms; consequently, these would-be male Sirens were dismissed. They were unable to support the ethos of Eros.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three words cause me trouble:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How to say &quot;feedback&quot;, in Latin? An ablative absolute e.g. &quot;opinione remitto&quot; = &quot;with the opinion having been sent back&quot;; better to use one word, a gerund, &quot;remittendum&quot; = &quot;the-sending-back-(thing)&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Similarly, &quot;ethos&quot;? The noun, norma, ae (fem.) = &quot;standard&quot;, &quot;pattern&quot;; followed by a genitive? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Also, &quot;cliens&quot; is given as masculine in the dictionary. Is &quot;cliens&quot; valid for females?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my proposed translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Triste, infelix, non-satisfacta cliens/clienta domina malum remittendum, de suis lupis, dedit. Hi qui fierent Sirenes masculini, normas Cupidinis sustinere deliquerant ut dimitterent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the translation correct?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12699" RevisionGUID="da5b3411-529e-47e9-ba46-bd72b382a883" CreationDate="2019-10-23T12:17:33.407" UserId="45" Comment="added 201 characters in body" Text="With some help from [this description](http://www.adatbank.ro/inchtm.php?akod=3878), which contains a few errors, here's what I think it says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Templum hoc r[e]novatum  &#xD;&#xA;est [l]ateribus denuo et integre  &#xD;&#xA;regnante serenissimo do[mi]no do[mi]no  &#xD;&#xA;principe Georgio Rakoci  &#xD;&#xA;Anno do[mini] 1640  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This temple [i.e. church] was completely and newly renovated with bricks during the reign of the most serene lord, the lord prince [George I Rákóczi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_I_R%C3%A1k%C3%B3czi) in A.D. 1640.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;del&gt;It seems that &quot;Dominus, Dominus noster&quot; (the lord, our lord...) is an idiom. Searching for [&quot;domino domino nostro&quot;](https://www.google.com/search?q=&quot;domino+domino+nostro&quot;) returns numerous examples. I'm not positive that it should be parsed out that way, instead of just a simple second &quot;domino,&quot; but the line over the &quot;n&quot; (and some superficial experience with paleography) makes me suspect that &quot;nostro&quot; is intended.&lt;/del&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On second thought, I agree with Cerberus's comment that &quot;Domino&quot; is repeated twice, first with &quot;serenissimo&quot; and second as part of his title. Such repetition of &quot;Dominus&quot; seems to be fairly common." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12701" RevisionGUID="cd5e9b24-7b3d-4833-9ac3-7ee63633d254" CreationDate="2019-10-23T12:27:35.660" UserId="1059" Text="Sometimes, I read that &quot;quae&quot; could be used, not only as a relative word, but also as an interrogative word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes I read that it's not like that in the correct usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quote, from a fellow Latin learner, more advanced than me:    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;***In practice**, it seems that &quot;quis&quot; is right for masculine and feminine*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what are the rules, and if it's correct why some people think it's not, and vice-versa, if it's not correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35678" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12701" RevisionGUID="cd5e9b24-7b3d-4833-9ac3-7ee63633d254" CreationDate="2019-10-23T12:27:35.660" UserId="1059" Text="Confused about the use of &quot;quae&quot; as an interrogative word" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35679" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12701" RevisionGUID="cd5e9b24-7b3d-4833-9ac3-7ee63633d254" CreationDate="2019-10-23T12:27:35.660" UserId="1059" Text="|question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12702" RevisionGUID="8e0b54fb-111c-4c29-958b-c2dcffca75fb" CreationDate="2019-10-23T15:38:53.487" UserId="6203" Text="It could be &quot;dono&quot; which would mean &quot;by gift&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Donum fed into most Romance languages, and would make sense to be placed here to show the king helped out of generosity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Templum hoc r[e]novatum&#xD;&#xA;est [l]ateribus denuo et integre&#xD;&#xA;regnante serenissimo dono do[mi]no&#xD;&#xA;principe Georgio Rakoci&#xD;&#xA;Anno do[mini] 1640&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This temple was fully rebuilt with bricks&#xD;&#xA;By gift of the lord, while Georgio Rakoci reigned most peacefully&#xD;&#xA;In the year of our lord 1640&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dono might look out of place, but if serenissimo is applied to the reign instead of to the king it makes perfect sense" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12703" RevisionGUID="65be6844-2a7f-4563-88bc-c65b186bf6ea" CreationDate="2019-10-23T17:32:52.810" UserId="406" Text="*Quae* can be used as an interrogative, but *quis* is the interrogative for both masculine and feminine nominative singular. *Both statements are completely true.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subtlety lies in the inflection tables for the different words. The relative pronoun declines like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;           SINGULAR        PLURAL&#xD;&#xA;        masc fem  neut   masc   fem    neut&#xD;&#xA;    nom  quī quae quod   quī    quae   quae&#xD;&#xA;    gen   --cujus--     quōrum quārum quōrum&#xD;&#xA;    dat   ---cui---        ----quibus----&#xD;&#xA;    acc quem quam quod   quōs   quās   quae&#xD;&#xA;    abl  quō  quā  quō     ----quibus----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, *quae* can be feminine nominative singular, feminine nominative plural, or neuter nom/acc plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interrogative pronoun declines like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;           SINGULAR        PLURAL&#xD;&#xA;        masc fem  neut   masc   fem    neut&#xD;&#xA;    nom quis quis quid   quī    quae   quae&#xD;&#xA;    gen   --cujus--     quōrum quārum quōrum&#xD;&#xA;    dat   ---cui---        ----quibus----&#xD;&#xA;    acc quem quem quid   quōs   quās   quae&#xD;&#xA;    abl   ---quō---        ----quibus----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, *quae* can be feminine nominative plural, or neuter nom/acc plural, but *not* feminine nominative singular—in the singular, the masculine and feminine are identical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12701" RevisionGUID="2fe4c39e-6e7a-41f8-96b4-b75ac407a5be" CreationDate="2019-10-23T22:00:41.270" UserId="1059" Comment="added 764 characters in body" Text="Sometimes, I read that &quot;quae&quot; could be used, not only as a relative word, but also as an interrogative word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes I read that it's not like that in the correct usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quote, from a fellow Latin learner, more advanced than me:    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;***In practice**, it seems that &quot;quis&quot; is right for masculine and feminine*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what are the rules, and if it's correct why some people think it's not, and vice-versa, if it's not correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Answer Thank you for the declension table, but I know that &quot;quis&quot; and &quot;quae&quot; are question-words (as stated in my question), I just want to know why several people, more advanced in Latin, tell us to use &quot;quis&quot; for masculine and feminine (because it's the right use, &quot;in practice&quot; = the natural use, meaning: it's like this that Romans spoke.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And why for masculine and feminine if it can be declined in masculine/feminine?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why &quot;Quis est femina?&quot; and not &quot;Quae est femina?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My course teach me &quot;Quis&quot; for every gender and doesn't accept &quot;Quae&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is about &quot;correct usage&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this course teach that, if I read and heard so many people telling to use &quot;Quis&quot; with both gender and not &quot;Quae&quot; what could be the reason if the use is right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35683" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="12530" RevisionGUID="f4621391-aa22-419e-8d59-d0be1461f739" CreationDate="2019-10-24T05:00:45.263" UserId="-1" Comment="133" />
  <row Id="35685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12705" RevisionGUID="38b11075-f8b9-4e76-98fe-aabbd5db166f" CreationDate="2019-10-25T11:10:54.220" UserId="1982" Text="The same word being a singular &amp; a plural is not unusual. Consider &quot;haec&quot; = this: it can be feminine singular and neuter plural. Also, &quot;ipsa&quot; = &quot;self&quot;: it can be feminine singular and neuter plural. These are just aspects of linguistic evolution. If yourself is receiving conflicting instructions from your teachers, you need a text book, its corresponding set of &quot;model&quot; answers; then, some sweat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternative uses of &quot;quis&quot; &amp; its hybrids:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the interrogative pronoun &quot;quis?&quot; = &quot;who?&quot; may be used as a pronoun (quis venit? = who is coming?) or as an adjective (quis homo venit? = what man is coming?).&#xD;&#xA;This distinction between pronomial use and adjectival use influences all of the following pronouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;quis&quot; = &quot;anyone&quot; is used after si, nisi, num &amp; ne e.g. &quot;si quis domum redibit, interficietur&quot; = &quot;If anyone returns home he will be killed.&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;aliquis&quot; = &quot;someone&quot; e.g. &quot;fortasse aliquis regem interficiet&quot; = &quot;Perhaps someone will kill the king.&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;quisque&quot; = &quot;each one&quot; e.g. &quot;milites domum redierunt, cum sua quisque praeda&quot; = &quot;The soldiers returned home, each with his own loot.&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;quisque&quot; is often used with the superlative: e.g. &quot;optimus quisque&quot; = &quot;each best man&quot; (i.e. all the best people&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;quisquam&quot; = &quot;anyone at all&quot; (the pronoun of &quot;ullus&quot; = &quot;any&quot;) is used after a negative particle (e.g. &quot;nec&quot; or &quot;neque&quot;), a verb of denying, forbidding or preventing, in a question; or, in a si-clause where a negative is implied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;omnes regem timent neque quisquam eum amat&quot; = &quot;Everyone fears the king nor does anyone at all love him.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12707" RevisionGUID="e318a56e-7865-4395-91c6-324f4631c8c0" CreationDate="2019-10-25T15:14:54.640" UserId="6214" Text="It is really just the &quot;are too strong for you&quot; I am having trouble with. We haven't gone over how to say stuff like that in class yet. Would you use the superlative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35692" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12707" RevisionGUID="e318a56e-7865-4395-91c6-324f4631c8c0" CreationDate="2019-10-25T15:14:54.640" UserId="6214" Text="How do you translate &quot;My potions are too strong for you?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35693" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12707" RevisionGUID="e318a56e-7865-4395-91c6-324f4631c8c0" CreationDate="2019-10-25T15:14:54.640" UserId="6214" Text="|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12708" RevisionGUID="04802281-ce91-4ec3-9e1e-45ad996caef4" CreationDate="2019-10-25T15:24:34.130" UserId="1059" Text="With &quot;Ab Galia venio. or &quot;De Galia venio&quot;. (Or other sentences of the same kind)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it mean both, I come from this place, or I am originated from this place (like a nationality, or the origin of my family)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35695" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12708" RevisionGUID="04802281-ce91-4ec3-9e1e-45ad996caef4" CreationDate="2019-10-25T15:24:34.130" UserId="1059" Text="Coming from physically or originate from a place? (Ab Galia venio)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35696" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12708" RevisionGUID="04802281-ce91-4ec3-9e1e-45ad996caef4" CreationDate="2019-10-25T15:24:34.130" UserId="1059" Text="|meaning|preposition|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12709" RevisionGUID="2f62a617-da88-402b-8ecb-d883c7e77c9c" CreationDate="2019-10-25T15:40:02.307" UserId="1059" Text="Could one of them implies a physical fatigue, and the other one a psychological/emotional one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is it a matter of intensity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, give me some sentences as examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35698" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12709" RevisionGUID="2f62a617-da88-402b-8ecb-d883c7e77c9c" CreationDate="2019-10-25T15:40:02.307" UserId="1059" Text="What is the difference between fessus and lassatus in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35699" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12709" RevisionGUID="2f62a617-da88-402b-8ecb-d883c7e77c9c" CreationDate="2019-10-25T15:40:02.307" UserId="1059" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12710" RevisionGUID="30fe4824-cd63-42c7-b617-1c6f2463f853" CreationDate="2019-10-25T16:04:05.260" UserId="1059" Text="The dictionary I use tells me that Cibus, could mean &quot;food&quot;, or &quot;meals&quot; or &quot;dishes&quot;, and many other related meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I find logical, that, when you have the plural, it means rather meals/dishes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Cibos libo.*  &#xD;&#xA;Translated in the dictionary with something like &quot;I taste dishes&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;(the dictionary is not in English, so I re-translated it)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read some Latin sentences confirming that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, I also read Latin sentences implying that it could be used in the singular or in the plural to mean &quot;food&quot;. As the French language would use either la nourriture ou les aliments, a singular or a plural, to mean &quot;food&quot; in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admitto aliquid in cibos = here, it's used as food (or it could mean used as &quot;meals&quot; or &quot;lunches&quot;, but the meaning would be the same)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems difficult to distinguish sometimes when it means food, and when it means meals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, could we say that the distinctive meanings between the singular and the plural, sometimes is blurred?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is it really, usually, a &quot;rule&quot; that the plural mean rather &quot;meals&quot;, etc, rather than the food, taken as a general category?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you give me examples of sentences to demonstrate your explanation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35701" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12710" RevisionGUID="30fe4824-cd63-42c7-b617-1c6f2463f853" CreationDate="2019-10-25T16:04:05.260" UserId="1059" Text="Meanings of cibus, and cibi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35702" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12710" RevisionGUID="30fe4824-cd63-42c7-b617-1c6f2463f853" CreationDate="2019-10-25T16:04:05.260" UserId="1059" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12708" RevisionGUID="7bf73a56-378b-4952-91ff-e7e55f897021" CreationDate="2019-10-25T18:26:12.477" UserId="2476" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="With &quot;Ab Gallia venio. or &quot;De Gallia venio&quot;. (Or other sentences of the same kind)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it mean both, I come from this place, or I am originated from this place (like a nationality, or the origin of my family)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35704" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12708" RevisionGUID="b6d4e22d-aaef-4f44-83f0-2402c6edd83a" CreationDate="2019-10-25T21:12:23.717" UserId="2476" Comment="edited title" Text="Coming from physically or originate from a place? (Ab Gallia venio)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12711" RevisionGUID="f0e5dc89-f592-4505-b3c0-b93ff085a284" CreationDate="2019-10-25T21:33:44.860" UserId="6141" Text="When there is talk about the v-perfect contraction, I don't ever see first person forms used as examples, only forms like &quot;amavisti&quot; becoming &quot;amasti&quot;. So my question is whether first person singular forms like &quot;amavi&quot;, for example, can be contracted. My guess for this class of conjugation is no, but I feel like for fourth conjugation verbs like audire, &quot;audivi&quot; becoming &quot;audi&quot; (With a long i, I suppose) could work well. Are my guesses correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35706" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12711" RevisionGUID="f0e5dc89-f592-4505-b3c0-b93ff085a284" CreationDate="2019-10-25T21:33:44.860" UserId="6141" Text="Contraction of the v-perfect in the first person singular" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35707" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12711" RevisionGUID="f0e5dc89-f592-4505-b3c0-b93ff085a284" CreationDate="2019-10-25T21:33:44.860" UserId="6141" Text="|conjugation|contraction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12712" RevisionGUID="ad753d0b-e31b-481f-b114-a5330d5d0fcd" CreationDate="2019-10-26T08:32:10.320" UserId="2389" Text="**Quis** is used both as the gender-neutral animate question word, and as the masculine determiner. **Quae** is used both as the feminine question word (&quot;who? which?&quot;), as the feminine determiner (&quot;which&quot;), and the emphatic indefinite relative pronoun (&quot;some&quot;). This leads to some observations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Quis** cannot serve as a determiner to a feminine noun, but only as the subject with the feminine noun as subject compliment with a copular verb:&#xD;&#xA; - *[Quis] [est Jūlia]?* (Who's Julia? or Which one is Julia?)&#xD;&#xA; - But saying *Quis Jūlia? to mean &quot;Which Julia?&quot; is impossible, it will instead be parsed as above.&#xD;&#xA;- **Quae** cannot be used unless the gender is known beforehand:&#xD;&#xA; - *Quis venit?* (Who's coming?)&#xD;&#xA; - *Quae venit?* (Who is the woman that's coming?)&#xD;&#xA;- If the gender is known to be feminine, both **quis** and **quae** can equally well be used as the question word, with the former preferred in earlier Latin and the latter in Late Latin.&#xD;&#xA;- In the masculine, **quis** and **quī** (m) are used in questions regardless of the presence of another noun with or without a copula, **quis** being preferred before vowels and **quī** before consonants.&#xD;&#xA;- It's fair to say that **quī/quae** has more of a determinative force (&quot;which?&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;- By contrast, **quid** (the question word) and **quod** (the determiner) are strictily distinguished:&#xD;&#xA; - *Quid carminis?* (What sort of song?), *Quod carmen?* (Which song?), never *quid carmen?.&#xD;&#xA;- The indefinite relative pronoun is normally **quis/qua** (the former common gender, the latter restricting the condition to women), but **quī** and **quae** sometimes occur, ostenstibly with emphatic determinative force:&#xD;&#xA; - *sī quis homō/qua vel quae fēmina/quid (carminis)/quod carmen sit* (&quot;if some...&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;- In the plural, **quī**(m)/**quae**(f)/**quae**(n) have no competition as both question words, adeterminers and indefinites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12712" RevisionGUID="c9df7f0e-299a-4228-ab31-657e1995550f" CreationDate="2019-10-26T08:39:49.880" UserId="2389" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="**Quis** is used both as the gender-neutral animate question word, and as the masculine determiner. **Quae** is used both as the feminine question word (&quot;who? which?&quot;), as the feminine determiner (&quot;which&quot;), and the emphatic indefinite relative pronoun (&quot;some&quot;). This leads to some observations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Quis** cannot serve as a determiner to a feminine noun, but only as the subject with the feminine noun as subject compliment with a copular verb:&#xD;&#xA; - *[Quis] [est Jūlia]?* (Who's Julia? or Which one is Julia?)&#xD;&#xA; - But saying *Quis Jūlia? to mean &quot;Which Julia?&quot; is impossible, it will instead be parsed as above.&#xD;&#xA;- **Quae** cannot be used unless the gender is known beforehand:&#xD;&#xA; - *Quis venit?* (Who's coming?)&#xD;&#xA; - *Quae venit?* (Who is the woman that's coming?)&#xD;&#xA;- If the gender is known to be feminine, both **quis** and **quae** can equally well be used as the question word, with the former preferred in earlier Latin and the latter in Late Latin.&#xD;&#xA;- In the masculine, **quis** and **quī** (m) are used in questions regardless of the presence of another noun with or without a copula, **quis** being preferred before vowels and **quī** before consonants.&#xD;&#xA;- It's fair to say that **quī/quae** has more of a determinative force (&quot;which?&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;- By contrast, **quid** (the question word) and **quod** (the determiner) are strictily distinguished:&#xD;&#xA; - *Quid carminis?* (What sort of song?), *Quod carmen?* (Which song?), never *quid carmen?.&#xD;&#xA;- The indefinite relative pronoun is normally **quis/qua** (the former common gender, the latter restricting the condition to women), but **quī** and **quae** sometimes occur, ostenstibly with emphatic determinative force, perhaps also influence by whether a consonant or a vowel follows - **qua** in particular will get completely elided before a vowel:&#xD;&#xA; - *sī quis homō/quī vir/qua fēmina/quae honesta fēmina/quid (carminis)/quod carmen sit* (&quot;if some...&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;- In the plural, **quī**(m)/**quae**(f)/**quae**(n) have no competition as either question words, determiners or indefinites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12713" RevisionGUID="2c4dfb7f-bf51-480c-9d46-be8787e64485" CreationDate="2019-10-26T09:20:55.737" UserId="2389" Text="In Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *ā Galliā veniō* means &quot;I'm coming away/going away from Gaul&quot; or &quot;From Gaul I'm coming to..&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *dē Galliā veniō* means &quot;I'm arriving from Gaul&quot; or &quot;After/From Gaul I'm coming to..&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- you can also express this more naturally with *dē/ā Gallīs veniō*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of *venīre* in the sense you're after doesn't seem to be listed in OLD. Instead you can use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *ortū sum Gallus*&#xD;&#xA;- *ortus sum ā Gallīs*&#xD;&#xA;- *oriundus sum (ā) Gallīs* (acc. to Smith&amp;Hall expressing a more remote origin, e.g. of the family's descent)&#xD;&#xA;- *in Galliā nātus sum*&#xD;&#xA;- *ā/dē Gallīs, dē Galliā originem dūcō/trahō/habeō*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12713" RevisionGUID="3ab6e38c-4dfc-4faa-831a-6a6e3e18978a" CreationDate="2019-10-26T09:44:10.723" UserId="2389" Comment="edited body" Text="In Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *ā Galliā veniō* means &quot;I'm coming away/going away from Gaul&quot; or &quot;From Gaul I'm coming to..&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *dē Galliā veniō* means &quot;I'm arriving from Gaul&quot; or &quot;After/From Gaul I'm coming to..&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- you can also express this more naturally with *dē/ā Gallīs veniō*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of *venīre* in the sense you're after doesn't seem to be listed in OLD. Instead you can use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *ortū sum Gallus*&#xD;&#xA;- *ortus sum ā Gallīs*&#xD;&#xA;- *oriundus sum (ā) Gallīs* (acc. to Smith&amp;Hall expressing a more remote origin, e.g. of the family's descent)&#xD;&#xA;- *in Galliā nātus sum*&#xD;&#xA;- *ā/dē Gallīs, dē Galliā orīginem dūcō/trahō/habeō*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12712" RevisionGUID="0e503001-1752-4fbe-a509-1573884ea674" CreationDate="2019-10-26T09:50:06.530" UserId="2389" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="**Quis** is used both as the gender-neutral animate question word (i.e. when used on its own), and as the masculine determiner (i.e. modifying a masculine noun). **Quae** is used both as the feminine question word (&quot;who? which?&quot;), as the feminine determiner (&quot;which&quot;), and the emphatic indefinite pronoun (&quot;some&quot;). This leads to some observations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Quis** cannot serve as a determiner to a feminine noun, but only as the subject with the feminine noun as subject compliment with a copular verb:&#xD;&#xA; - *[Quis] [est Jūlia]?* (Who's Julia? or Which one is Julia?)&#xD;&#xA; - But saying *Quis Jūlia? to mean &quot;Which Julia?&quot; is impossible, it will instead be parsed as above.&#xD;&#xA;- **Quae** cannot be used unless the gender is known beforehand:&#xD;&#xA; - *Quis venit?* (Who's coming?)&#xD;&#xA; - *Quae venit?* (Who is the woman that's coming?)&#xD;&#xA;- If the gender is known to be feminine, both **quis** and **quae** can equally well be used as the question word, with the former preferred in earlier Latin and the latter in Late Latin.&#xD;&#xA;- In the masculine, **quis** and **quī** are used in questions regardless of the presence of another noun with or without a copula, **quis** being preferred before vowels and **quī** before consonants.&#xD;&#xA;- It's fair to say that **quī/quae** has more of a determinative force (&quot;which?&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;- By contrast, **quid** (the question word) and **quod** (the determiner) are strictily distinguished:&#xD;&#xA; - *Quid carminis?* (What sort of song?), *Quod carmen?* (Which song?), never *quid carmen?.&#xD;&#xA;- The indefinite relative (i.e. when used on its own) is normally **quis/qua** (the former common gender, the latter restricting the condition to women), and the same is used as the indefinite determiner (i.e. modifying another noun), but **quī** and **quae** sometimes occur, **quae** ostenstibly with emphatic determinative force, but perhaps, like **quī**, also influenced by whether a consonant or a vowel follows - **qua** gets completely elided before a vowel:&#xD;&#xA; - *sī quis (homō)/quī (vir)/qua (fēmina)/quae (honesta fēmina)/quid (carminis)/quod carmen sit* (&quot;if some...&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;- In the plural, **quī**(m)/**quae**(f)/**quae**(n) have no competition as either question words, determiners or indefinites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12712" RevisionGUID="1db70362-fc07-4d8e-a02a-0f2cabdffc35" CreationDate="2019-10-26T09:55:44.893" UserId="2389" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="**Quis** is used both as the gender-neutral animate question word (i.e. when used on its own), and as the masculine determiner (i.e. modifying a masculine noun). **Quae** is used both as the feminine question word (&quot;who? which?&quot;), as the feminine determiner (&quot;which&quot;), and the emphatic indefinite pronoun (&quot;some&quot;). This leads to some observations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Quis** cannot serve as a determiner to a feminine noun, but only as the subject with the feminine noun as subject compliment with a copular verb:&#xD;&#xA; - *[Quis] [est Jūlia]?* (Who's Julia? or Which one is Julia?)&#xD;&#xA; - But saying *Quis Jūlia? to mean &quot;Which Julia?&quot; is impossible, it will instead be parsed as above.&#xD;&#xA;- **Quae** cannot be used unless the gender is known beforehand:&#xD;&#xA; - *Quis venit?* (Who's coming?)&#xD;&#xA; - *Quae venit?* (Who is the woman that's coming?)&#xD;&#xA;- If the gender is known to be feminine, both **quis** and **quae** can equally well be used as the question word, with the former preferred in earlier Latin and the latter in Late Latin.&#xD;&#xA;- In the masculine, **quis** and **quī** are used in questions regardless of the presence of another noun with or without a copula, **quis** being preferred before vowels and **quī** before consonants.&#xD;&#xA;- It's fair to say that **quī/quae** has more of a determinative force (&quot;which?&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;- By contrast, **quid** (the question word) and **quod** (the determiner) are strictily distinguished:&#xD;&#xA; - *Quid carminis?* (What sort of song?), *Quod carmen?* (Which song?), never *quid carmen?.&#xD;&#xA;- The indefinite relative (i.e. when used on its own) is normally **quis/qua** (the former common gender, the latter restricting the condition to women), and the same is used as the indefinite determiner (i.e. modifying another noun), but **quī** and **quae** sometimes occur, **quae** ostenstibly with emphatic determinative force, but perhaps, like **quī**, also influenced by whether a consonant or a vowel follows, since **qua** gets completely elided before a vowel:&#xD;&#xA; - *sī quis (homō)/quī (vir)/qua (fēmina)/quae (honesta fēmina)/quid (carminis)/quod carmen sit* (&quot;if some...&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;- In the plural, **quī**(m)/**quae**(f)/**quae**(n) have no competition as either question words, determiners or indefinites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12713" RevisionGUID="5c5016f8-ab07-4bc8-b3d8-dd0f9c5a5c44" CreationDate="2019-10-26T10:08:05.870" UserId="2389" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="In Classical Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *ā Galliā veniō* means &quot;I'm coming away/going away from Gaul&quot; or &quot;From Gaul I'm coming to..&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *dē Galliā veniō* means &quot;I'm arriving from Gaul&quot; or &quot;After/From Gaul I'm coming to..&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- you can also express this more naturally with *dē/ā Gallīs veniō*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of *venīre* in the sense you're after doesn't seem to be listed in OLD. Instead you can use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *ortū sum Gallus*&#xD;&#xA;- *ortus sum ā/ē Gallīs*&#xD;&#xA;- *oriundus sum (ā/ē) Gallīs* (acc. to Smith&amp;Hall expressing a more remote origin, e.g. of the family's descent)&#xD;&#xA;- *in Galliā nātus sum*&#xD;&#xA;- *ā/dē Gallīs, dē Galliā orīginem dūcō/trahō/habeō*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12714" RevisionGUID="d411b5fa-a2d4-4513-881d-94707421233b" CreationDate="2019-10-26T10:32:15.183" UserId="6217" Text="I want to know the Latin for the phrase “public business must be done in public”. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35716" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12714" RevisionGUID="d411b5fa-a2d4-4513-881d-94707421233b" CreationDate="2019-10-26T10:32:15.183" UserId="6217" Text="What is the Latin for “public business must be done in public”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35717" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12714" RevisionGUID="d411b5fa-a2d4-4513-881d-94707421233b" CreationDate="2019-10-26T10:32:15.183" UserId="6217" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12715" RevisionGUID="f571eefb-507e-4d20-9054-3518a6f01aee" CreationDate="2019-10-26T11:27:46.710" UserId="6218" Text="I want something concise that gives an immediate idea of what the word means like Bildpunkt in German. An academic friend has suggested pixellum, with a gloss like &quot;elementum vel στοιχεῖον minimum&#xD;&#xA;imaginis electronicae”. Can the Latin ST suggest a better or briefer alternative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35719" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12715" RevisionGUID="f571eefb-507e-4d20-9054-3518a6f01aee" CreationDate="2019-10-26T11:27:46.710" UserId="6218" Text="Modern Latin for pixel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35720" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12715" RevisionGUID="f571eefb-507e-4d20-9054-3518a6f01aee" CreationDate="2019-10-26T11:27:46.710" UserId="6218" Text="|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35721" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="12661" RevisionGUID="8af6c40a-ef01-4d53-964a-f18ff4508035" CreationDate="2019-10-26T13:32:38.400" UserId="469" Comment="134" />
  <row Id="35722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12716" RevisionGUID="0a921a3f-bef0-41f9-b2a8-c5663161b8dc" CreationDate="2019-10-26T16:11:11.797" UserId="6175" Text="I noticed that nobody has answered this yet, so I decided to make an attempt myself (despite also being a student). Apologies for any mistakes, this is my first time answering a question on here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any way to specifically say &quot;are too strong&quot;, but I think the sentence below has a similar sense using *nimium*. I also used *potentiae* rather than something like *virtutes* in an attempt to make it sound more forceful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; meus potiones nimium potentiae tibi habent - *My potions have too much strength for you*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you may be able to use phrases like &quot;my potions will overpower you&quot; or *aliquantae* (considerable [amount]) to express the level of strength in a different way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12717" RevisionGUID="1b71ff52-c20a-4250-8dcd-d5b8b9477d75" CreationDate="2019-10-26T17:50:29.203" UserId="3576" Text="The semantic derivation from *hodie* &quot;today&quot; to &quot;also&quot;, &quot;even&quot; etc. does make no sense to me. The editor who added the etymology to [wiki/anca](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anca#dalmatian) and a many other languages, that share this idiom, wasn't very careful at least when editing the link to [hanc](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hanc#Latin) which would be a redirect to *hic* (with fem acc *hanc*) anyway--no *-die* anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I'm asking is, actually, Turkish *ancak* &quot;only, best; **but**&quot;, which as a conjunction reminds more of *anca*; or Persian *inja, anja* &quot;here, there&quot;. I sceptically doubt the Latin etymology, because what's broadly labled as Persian, that came to be identified with e.g. Ossetian, had been active west of the Black See. It would be nice to have *that* ruled out. But of course that has little to do with Latin or Greek, probably. Since the sound change--which might be regular--that is the lack of *h*, is present in so many languages, one has to wonder two questions: First, whether vulgar Latin had this; Second; if it was ever there in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's understandable that a word meaning *here, there, then*, etc could come to be used as conjunction, but that's a bit slim. Is it etymologically sound, as far as Latin or vulgar Latin is concerned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35724" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12717" RevisionGUID="1b71ff52-c20a-4250-8dcd-d5b8b9477d75" CreationDate="2019-10-26T17:50:29.203" UserId="3576" Text="How could Dalmatian &quot;anca&quot; derive from Latin &quot;hodie&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35725" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12717" RevisionGUID="1b71ff52-c20a-4250-8dcd-d5b8b9477d75" CreationDate="2019-10-26T17:50:29.203" UserId="3576" Text="|etymology|vulgar-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12718" RevisionGUID="cf89d31a-9839-41d5-9a8f-1b4dc3fd0924" CreationDate="2019-10-27T00:54:57.940" UserId="1059" Text="Could you give some examples of sentences showing the difference between *Opinio* and *Sentencia*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aren't both good translations for &quot;opinions?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Through&quot; and &quot;opinion&quot; seems to be translated by both: opinio, and sententia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How I understood what I found in dictionaries and books:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only &quot;opinio&quot; means &quot;idea&quot; and &quot;hypothesis&quot; (true?)   &#xD;&#xA;I know that &quot;sententia&quot; can also mean a sentence, a maxim, a concept&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but when they both mean &quot;opinion&quot; what is the difference between those 2 words, are they &quot;perfect&quot; synonyms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35727" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12718" RevisionGUID="cf89d31a-9839-41d5-9a8f-1b4dc3fd0924" CreationDate="2019-10-27T00:54:57.940" UserId="1059" Text="Difference between Sententia and Opinio?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35728" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12718" RevisionGUID="cf89d31a-9839-41d5-9a8f-1b4dc3fd0924" CreationDate="2019-10-27T00:54:57.940" UserId="1059" Text="|meaning|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35729" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12710" RevisionGUID="f5f34292-b70d-4b42-929d-722ae03d86b6" CreationDate="2019-10-27T00:55:34.467" UserId="1059" Comment="edited tags" Text="|meaning|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12719" RevisionGUID="748ff953-b1b4-4a78-b872-7f352cda9d54" CreationDate="2019-10-27T01:58:17.810" UserId="6220" Text="Looking for the English translation of two phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In his absence&quot; &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Where is God&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35731" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12719" RevisionGUID="748ff953-b1b4-4a78-b872-7f352cda9d54" CreationDate="2019-10-27T01:58:17.810" UserId="6220" Text="How to say &quot;In his absence&quot; and &quot;Where is God&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35732" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12719" RevisionGUID="748ff953-b1b4-4a78-b872-7f352cda9d54" CreationDate="2019-10-27T01:58:17.810" UserId="6220" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12717" RevisionGUID="a1b3a490-d972-4269-8820-7124b554fa7a" CreationDate="2019-10-27T09:34:19.697" UserId="3576" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="The semantic derivation from *hanc hodie* &quot;this here day&quot; to &quot;also&quot;, &quot;even&quot; etc. does make no sense to me. The editor who added the etymology to [wiki/anca](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anca#dalmatian) and a many other languages, that share this idiom, wasn't very careful at least when editing the link to [hanc](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hanc#Latin) which would be a redirect to *hic* (with fem acc *hanc*) anyway--no *-die* anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I'm asking is, actually, Turkish *ancak* &quot;only, best; **but**&quot;, which as a conjunction reminds more of *anca*; or Persian *inja, anja* &quot;here, there&quot;. I sceptically doubt the Latin etymology, because what's broadly labled as Persian, that came to be identified with e.g. Ossetian, had been active west of the Black See. It would be nice to have *that* ruled out. But of course that has little to do with Latin or Greek, probably. Since the sound change--which might be regular--that is the lack of *h*, is present in so many languages, one has to wonder two questions: First, whether vulgar Latin had this; Second; if it was ever there in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's understandable that a word meaning *here, there, then*, etc could come to be used as conjunction, but that's a bit slim. Is it etymologically sound, as far as Latin or vulgar Latin is concerned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12722" RevisionGUID="bcbbadfb-edf4-4bc2-8a6d-4125dbfce964" CreationDate="2019-10-27T10:27:28.393" UserId="324" Text="I agree with GDR. What you need is &quot;res publica&quot; in its original sense of &quot;public business&quot;. In the spirit of Roman conciseness perhaps better: Res publica publice agenda.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12719" RevisionGUID="bb8bf54f-843a-4312-b92c-0b233bed6e57" CreationDate="2019-10-27T11:10:09.643" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Looking for the English translation of two phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In his absence&quot; &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Where is God&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35740" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12719" RevisionGUID="bb8bf54f-843a-4312-b92c-0b233bed6e57" CreationDate="2019-10-27T11:10:09.643" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12723" RevisionGUID="882ee745-1788-4500-aa53-bbf4df6a9e8a" CreationDate="2019-10-27T11:36:37.180" UserId="79" Text="A good general word for business is *res*, so &quot;public business&quot; could well be translated as *res publica*.&#xD;&#xA;But bear in mind that it also means &quot;republic&quot; (which is indeed a public business but in a very specific sense), so there is a risk of misinterpretation.&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps something like *negotium* could also work for &quot;business&quot;, but that depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;Even in simple things like this, context does matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good translation for &quot;must be done&quot; is *agendum est*, where *est* can be dropped and *agendum* must be declined to match gender and number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of ways to translate &quot;in public&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is *palam*, which has translations like &quot;openly, publicly, undisguisedly, plainly&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;At least to me it gives an idea of openness that goes beyond being technically public.&#xD;&#xA;But it is certainly not the only option, as you can see in the other suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my suggestion is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Res publica palam agenda est.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35743" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12714" RevisionGUID="c552b1e2-2133-4bd2-b5c3-414fff068c9c" CreationDate="2019-10-27T11:37:05.087" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="What is the Latin for “public business must be done in public”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35744" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12714" RevisionGUID="c552b1e2-2133-4bd2-b5c3-414fff068c9c" CreationDate="2019-10-27T11:37:05.087" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12724" RevisionGUID="5b482e06-1f9d-46aa-b92e-3ced904a8f6f" CreationDate="2019-10-27T16:09:46.593" UserId="3248" Text="I was wondering if **Gerundives**, the verbal adjectives that have also been referred to as &quot;passive future participles&quot; by some grammarians, can appear **in Ablative Absolute (AA)** constructions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is well-known, the predicates of AAs can be passive perfect participles (e.g., _Cicerone occiso_), present participles (e.g., _Cicerone loquente_), nouns (e.g., _Cicerone consule_), and adjectives (_Cicerone vivo_). Interestingly, note that active future participles are also found as predicates of AAs, as in the following example from Livy: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carthaginienses, _prima luce **oppugnaturis** hostibus castra_, saxis undique congestis augent vallum. (Liv. 28, 15)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, (my {intuition/experience from reading Latin texts is that}) Gerundives, which are sometimes called &quot;passive future participles&quot;, seem to be prevented from appearing as predicates in AA's. Are there attested examples of this use? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: the present post is related to Joonas's insightful [question][1] on the (im)possibilitify of finding locative Prepositional Phrases (PPs) acting as predicates of AAs. As pointed out in my answer to his question, (my intuition/experience from reading Latin texts is that) locative/PP phrases cannot be predicates in AA's.        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5332/can-the-absolute-ablative-be-used-with-a-prepositional-phrase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35746" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12724" RevisionGUID="5b482e06-1f9d-46aa-b92e-3ced904a8f6f" CreationDate="2019-10-27T16:09:46.593" UserId="3248" Text="Gerundives in Ablative Absolute constructions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35747" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12724" RevisionGUID="5b482e06-1f9d-46aa-b92e-3ced904a8f6f" CreationDate="2019-10-27T16:09:46.593" UserId="3248" Text="|syntax|participle|ablative-absolute|gerundive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12724" RevisionGUID="77355fbd-6d37-4e3c-a1ff-6f5f7d813f21" CreationDate="2019-10-27T17:52:57.177" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar &amp; format" Text="I was wondering if **Gerundives**, the verbal adjectives referred to as &quot;passive future participles&quot; by some grammarians, can appear as predicates of **Ablative Absolute (AA)** constructions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is well-known, the predicates of AAs can be passive perfect participles (e.g., _Cicerone occiso_), present participles (e.g., _Cicerone loquente_), nouns (e.g., _Cicerone consule_), and adjectives (_Cicerone vivo_). Interestingly, note that **active** future participles are also found as predicates of AAs, as in the following example from Livy: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carthaginienses, _prima luce **oppugnaturis** hostibus castra_, saxis undique congestis augent vallum. (Liv. 28, 15)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, (my {intuition/experience from reading Latin texts} is that) Gerundives, which, as noted above, are sometimes called &quot;**passive** future participles&quot;, seem to be prevented from appearing as predicates in AA's. But perhaps I'm wrong. Are there attested examples of this use? What is your intuition/experience on this use? Many thanks in advance! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: the present post is related to Joonas's insightful [question][1] on the (im)possibilitify of finding locative Prepositional Phrases (PPs) acting as predicates of AAs. As pointed out in my answer to his intriguing question, my intuition is that locative/PP phrases cannot be predicates in AAs either.        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5332/can-the-absolute-ablative-be-used-with-a-prepositional-phrase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12724" RevisionGUID="5d3fc0d7-691d-451f-96f1-d3270f0f5883" CreationDate="2019-10-27T18:12:34.507" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar and clarification" Text="I was wondering if **Gerundives**, the verbal adjectives referred to as &quot;passive future participles&quot; by some grammarians, can appear as predicates of **Ablative Absolute (AA)** constructions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is well-known, the predicates of AAs can be passive perfect participles (e.g., _Cicerone occiso_), present participles (e.g., _Cicerone loquente_), nouns (e.g., _Cicerone consule_), and adjectives (_Cicerone vivo_). Interestingly, note that **active** future participles are also found as predicates of AAs, as in the following example from Livy: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carthaginienses, _prima luce **oppugnaturis** hostibus castra_, saxis undique congestis augent vallum. (Liv. 28, 15)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, (my {intuition/experience from reading Latin texts} is that) Gerundives, which, as noted above, are sometimes called &quot;**passive** future participles&quot;, seem to be prevented from appearing as predicates in AA's. But perhaps I'm wrong and examples like _Carthaginienses, prima luce **oppugnandis** castris, saxis augent vallum_ are found/possible. Are there attested (non-invented!) examples of this use? What is your intuition/experience on this use? Many thanks in advance! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: the present post is related to Joonas's insightful [question][1] on the (im)possibilitify of finding locative Prepositional Phrases (PPs) acting as predicates of AAs. As pointed out in my answer to his intriguing question, my intuition is that locative/PP phrases cannot be predicates in AAs either.        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5332/can-the-absolute-ablative-be-used-with-a-prepositional-phrase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12724" RevisionGUID="fa67fec3-3cab-4215-852e-a1b7f407cebf" CreationDate="2019-10-27T20:42:20.907" UserId="3248" Comment="some changes related to a qualification on what a true Ablative Absolute is." Text="I was wondering if **Gerundives**, the verbal adjectives referred to as &quot;passive future participles&quot; by some grammarians, can appear as predicates of (true) **Ablative Absolute (AA)** constructions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is well-known, the predicates of AAs can be passive perfect participles (e.g., _Cicerone occiso_), present participles (e.g., _Cicerone loquente_), nouns (e.g., _Cicerone consule_), and adjectives (_Cicerone vivo_). Interestingly, note that **active** future participles are also found as predicates of AAs, as in the following example from Livy: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carthaginienses, _prima luce **oppugnaturis** hostibus castra_, saxis undique congestis augent vallum. (Liv. 28, 15)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, Gerundives, which, as noted above, are sometimes called &quot;**passive** future participles&quot;, appear to be prevented from appearing as predicates in (true) AA's. But perhaps this prohibition is not well-grounded and examples like _Carthaginienses, prima luce **oppugnandis** castris ab hostibus, saxis augent vallum_ are found/possible. Are there attested (non-invented!) examples of this use? Many thanks in advance! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB 1: the absence of predicative Gerundives from (true) AAs can be inferred from the following statement by Vester (1990): &quot;we may argue that the gerundive construction has a lower syntactic level, directly related to the nuclear predication, **as opposed to the ablative absolute**, which functions on sentence level&quot; (Vester, E. (1990: 304). [&quot;Reflections on the gerund and gerundive&quot;][1]). Emphasis mine: Mitomino.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB 2: **true** AAs involve &quot;functioning on **sentence level**&quot;. Accordingly, apparent AAs like _**Insectandis patribus** tribunatum gessit_ (Livy 3, 65,4) 'He spent his tribunate in attacking the patricians' are not to be regarded as true AAs but rather as dominant participle constructions that involve **lower** embedding. As a result, the agent of _insectari_ must be the same as that of the main verb. Importantly, such a restriction does not necessarily apply to &quot;true&quot; AAs.          &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB 3: the present post is related to Joonas's insightful [question][2] on the (im)possibilitify of finding locative Prepositional Phrases (PPs) acting as predicates of AAs. As pointed out in my answer to his intriguing question, my intuition is that locative/PP phrases cannot be predicates in AAs either.        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://benjamins.com/catalog/slcs.21.21ves&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5332/can-the-absolute-ablative-be-used-with-a-prepositional-phrase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12724" RevisionGUID="edf9108f-0b31-4258-af95-1e596e9c7675" CreationDate="2019-10-27T20:51:22.143" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="I was wondering if **Gerundives**, the verbal adjectives referred to as &quot;passive future participles&quot; by some grammarians, can appear as predicates of (true) **Ablative Absolute (AA)** constructions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is well-known, the predicates of AAs can be passive perfect participles (e.g., _Cicerone occiso_), present participles (e.g., _Cicerone loquente_), nouns (e.g., _Cicerone consule_), and adjectives (_Cicerone vivo_). Interestingly, note that **active** future participles are also found as predicates of AAs, as in the following example from Livy: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carthaginienses, _prima luce **oppugnaturis** hostibus castra_, saxis undique congestis augent vallum. (Liv. 28, 15)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, Gerundives, which, as noted above, are sometimes called &quot;**passive** future participles&quot;, appear to be prevented from appearing as predicates in (true) AA's. But perhaps this prohibition is not well-grounded and examples like _Carthaginienses, prima luce **oppugnandis** castris ab hostibus, saxis augent vallum_ are found/possible. Are there attested (non-invented!) examples of this use? Many thanks in advance! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB 1: the absence of predicative Gerundives from (true) AAs can be inferred from the following statement by Vester (1990): &quot;we may argue that the gerundive construction has a lower syntactic level, directly related to the nuclear predication, **as opposed to the ablative absolute**, which functions on sentence level&quot; (Vester, E. (1990: 304). [&quot;Reflections on the gerund and gerundive&quot;][1]). Emphasis mine: Mitomino.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB 2: **true** AAs involve &quot;functioning on **sentence level**&quot;. Accordingly, apparent AAs like _**Insectandis patribus** tribunatum gessit_ (Livy 3, 65,4) 'He spent his tribunate in attacking the patricians' are not to be regarded as true AAs but rather as dominant participle constructions that involve **lower** embedding. As a result, the agent of _insectari_ must be the same as that of the main verb. Importantly, such a restriction does not necessarily apply to &quot;true&quot; AAs.          &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB 3: the present post is related to Joonas's insightful point on what a predicate of an AA can be: see his specific [question][2] on the (im)possibilitify of finding locative Prepositional Phrases (PPs) acting as predicates of AAs. As pointed out in my answer to his intriguing question, my intuition is that locative/PP phrases cannot be predicates in AAs either.        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://benjamins.com/catalog/slcs.21.21ves&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5332/can-the-absolute-ablative-be-used-with-a-prepositional-phrase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12724" RevisionGUID="7086af18-278c-47f8-82a3-2e21eb4b5375" CreationDate="2019-10-27T21:18:21.647" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="I was wondering if **Gerundives**, the verbal adjectives referred to as &quot;passive future participles&quot; by some grammarians, can appear as predicates of (true) **Ablative Absolute (AA)** constructions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is well-known, the predicates of AAs can be passive perfect participles (e.g., _Cicerone occiso_), present participles (e.g., _Cicerone loquente_), nouns (e.g., _Cicerone consule_), and adjectives (_Cicerone vivo_). Interestingly, note that **active** future participles are also found as predicates of AAs, as in the following example from Livy: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carthaginienses, _prima luce **oppugnaturis** hostibus castra_, saxis undique congestis augent vallum. (Liv. 28, 15)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, Gerundives, which, as noted above, are sometimes called &quot;**passive** future participles&quot;, appear to be prevented from appearing as predicates in (true) AA's. But perhaps such a prohibition is not well-grounded and examples like the following one are also found/possible. Are there attested (non-invented!) examples of this use? Many thanks in advance! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carthaginienses, _prima luce **oppugnandis** castris ab hostibus_, saxis augent vallum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB 1: the absence of predicative Gerundives from (true) AAs can be inferred from the following statement by Vester (1990): &quot;we may argue that the gerundive construction has a lower syntactic level, directly related to the nuclear predication, **as opposed to the ablative absolute**, which functions on sentence level&quot; (Vester, E. (1990: 304). [&quot;Reflections on the gerund and gerundive&quot;][1]). Emphasis mine: Mitomino.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB 2: **true** AAs involve &quot;functioning on **sentence level**&quot;. Accordingly, apparent AAs like _**Insectandis patribus** tribunatum gessit_ (Livy 3, 65,4) 'He spent his tribunate in attacking the patricians' are not to be regarded as true AAs but rather as dominant participle constructions that involve **lower** syntactic embedding (e.g., Verbal Phrase-embedding rather than sentential one). As a result, the agent of _insectari_ must be the same as that of the main verb. Importantly, such a restriction does not necessarily apply to &quot;true&quot; AAs.          &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB 3: the present post is related to Joonas's insightful point on what a predicate of an AA can be: see his specific [question][2] on the (im)possibilitify of finding locative Prepositional Phrases (PPs) acting as predicates of AAs. As pointed out in my answer to his intriguing question, my intuition is that locative/PP phrases cannot be predicates in AAs either.        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://benjamins.com/catalog/slcs.21.21ves&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5332/can-the-absolute-ablative-be-used-with-a-prepositional-phrase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35753" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12717" RevisionGUID="48aa60da-3f50-4ca5-bec0-c743a3ef48bd" CreationDate="2019-10-27T21:22:45.610" UserId="3576" Comment="edited title" Text="How could Dalmatian &quot;anca&quot; derive from Latin &quot;hanc hodie&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12717" RevisionGUID="48aa60da-3f50-4ca5-bec0-c743a3ef48bd" CreationDate="2019-10-27T21:22:45.610" UserId="3576" Comment="edited title" Text="The semantic derivation from *hanc hodie* &quot;this here day&quot; to &quot;also&quot;, &quot;even&quot; etc. does make no sense to me. The editor who added the etymology to [wiki/anca](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anca#dalmatian) and a many other languages, that share this idiom, wasn't very careful at least when editing the link to [hanc](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hanc#Latin) which would be a redirect to *hic* (with fem acc *hanc*) anyway--no *-die* anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I'm asking is, actually, Turkish *ancak* &quot;only, best; **but**&quot;, which as a conjunction reminds more of *anca*; or Persian *inja, anja* &quot;here, there&quot;. I sceptically doubt the Latin etymology, because what's broadly labled as Persian, that came to be identified with e.g. Ossetian, had been active west of the Black See. It would be nice to have *that* ruled out. But of course that has little to do with Latin or Greek, probably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the sound change--which might be regular--that is the lack of *h*, is presented, one has to wonder two questions: First, whether vulgar Latin had this; Second; if it was ever there in the first place. It would be easier to follow the root in *an-ja*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's understandable that a word meaning *here, there, then*, etc could come to be used as conjunction, but that's a bit slim. Is it etymologically sound, as far as Latin or vulgar Latin is concerned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12724" RevisionGUID="5900208f-022b-4c4a-aa52-e53d43982cf8" CreationDate="2019-10-28T01:29:45.440" UserId="3248" Comment="grammar &amp; format" Text="I was wondering if **Gerundives**, the verbal adjectives referred to as &quot;passive future participles&quot; by some grammarians, can appear as predicates of (true) **Ablative Absolute (AA)** constructions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is well-known, the predicates of AAs can be passive perfect participles (e.g., _Cicerone occiso_), present participles (e.g., _Cicerone loquente_), nouns (e.g., _Cicerone consule_), and adjectives (e.g., _Cicerone vivo_). Interestingly, **active** future participles are also found as predicates of AAs, as in the following example from Livy: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carthaginienses, _prima luce **oppugnaturis** hostibus castra_, saxis undique congestis augent vallum. (Liv. 28, 15)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, Gerundives, which, as noted above, are sometimes called &quot;**passive** future participles&quot;, seem to be prevented from appearing as predicates in (true) AAs. But perhaps such a prohibition is not well-grounded and examples similar to the following one are also found/possible. Are there examples of this use attested? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carthaginienses, _prima luce **oppugnandis** castris ab hostibus_, saxis augent vallum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB 1: the absence of predicative Gerundives from (true) AAs can be inferred from statements like the following one by Vester (1990): &quot;we may argue that the gerundive construction has a lower syntactic level, directly related to the nuclear predication, **as opposed to the ablative absolute**, which functions on sentence level&quot; (Vester, E. (1990: 304). [&quot;Reflections on the gerund and gerundive&quot;][1]). Emphasis mine: Mitomino.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB 2: **true** AAs involve &quot;functioning on **sentence level**&quot;. Accordingly, apparent AAs like _**Insectandis patribus** tribunatum gessit_ (Livy 3, 65,4) 'He spent his tribunate in attacking the patricians' are not to be regarded as true AAs but rather as dominant participle constructions that involve **lower** syntactic embedding (e.g., Verbal Phrase-embedding rather than sentential one). As a result, the agent of _insectari_ must be the same as that of the main verb. Importantly, such a restriction does not necessarily apply to &quot;true&quot; AAs.          &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB 3: the present post is related to Joonas's insightful point on what a predicate of an AA can be: see his specific [question][2] on the (im)possibilitify of finding locative Prepositional Phrases (PPs) acting as predicates of AAs. As pointed out in my answer to his intriguing question, my intuition is that locative/PP phrases cannot be predicates in AAs either.        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://benjamins.com/catalog/slcs.21.21ves&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5332/can-the-absolute-ablative-be-used-with-a-prepositional-phrase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12719" RevisionGUID="b69b4da5-c1e4-41ee-a1fe-48d4c46e768d" CreationDate="2019-10-28T11:34:16.150" UserId="867" Comment="Changed 'English' to 'Latin' as I'm sure that's what you meant! " Text="Looking for the Latin translation of two phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In his absence&quot; &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Where is God&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12725" RevisionGUID="b0d46ac3-45e9-4bd2-bee2-bdf63571b3ae" CreationDate="2019-10-28T15:33:32.670" UserId="6228" Text="can we use prepositional phrases (like &quot;de domo&quot;) linked to a gerund or &#xD;&#xA; a gerundive, can it act as an object?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35758" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12725" RevisionGUID="b0d46ac3-45e9-4bd2-bee2-bdf63571b3ae" CreationDate="2019-10-28T15:33:32.670" UserId="6228" Text="Is it possible to use a prepositional phrase with a gerundive/gerund?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35759" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12725" RevisionGUID="b0d46ac3-45e9-4bd2-bee2-bdf63571b3ae" CreationDate="2019-10-28T15:33:32.670" UserId="6228" Text="|idiom|preposition|gerund|gerundive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12726" RevisionGUID="1a5b89bf-b4a4-452f-a041-b2cbda744c4c" CreationDate="2019-10-28T19:34:44.643" UserId="406" Text="_Hanc hodie_, literally &quot;this today&quot;, is already attested in Plautus's time: the _ho-_ element in _hodie_ (originally a form of _hic_ &quot;this&quot;) had gotten semantically bleached until it was no longer emphatic, so an extra form of _hic_ was added to get proper emphasis (&quot;on **this** day!&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Loss of `/h/`, similarly, happened very early on: by the first century BCE we have poets mocking hypercorrect pronunciations that add `[h]` in the wrong places, which we wouldn't expect to see if it were still pronounced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the semantic development, I'd compare Italian _ancora_ and its relatives, originally from Latin _hanc hōram_ &quot;this hour&quot; but eventually coming to mean &quot;still, yet, again, more, even&quot;. It has various cognates across the Romance languages, including English &quot;encore&quot; (borrowed from French), implying that the shift had already happened in Vulgar Latin. Italian _anco_ (later _anche_) and Dalmatian _anca_ might come from clippings of this, or from a parallel development in _hanc hodie_; the results are the same either way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't find the proposed Turkish connection nearly as convincing. For one, the Turkish word is pronounced broadly `[and͡ʒak]`, while the Dalmatian was broadly `[aŋka]`; the Turkish also emphasizes one thing happening _in spite of_ another, while the Romance emphasizes one thing happening _along with_ another. I don't speak Farsi, nor have I been able to find any information on a Farsi word &quot;anja&quot;, so I can't comment on that one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12727" RevisionGUID="dab0d4ad-ae40-4c13-8fac-d7aa0d46e416" CreationDate="2019-10-28T19:42:23.273" UserId="406" Text="It can mean either, though I would usually say &quot;food&quot; or &quot;dish&quot; instead of &quot;meal&quot;. There's not much semantic difference between the singular and the plural; both refer to a vague quantity of &quot;food&quot; rather than a single specific item (just like your French example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick corpus search indicates that it's somewhat more common in the singular than in the plural (202 matches for _cibos_, 358 for _cibum_ in the PHI), which lines up with my intuition. But both are extremely common in the Classical period, and neither is particularly &quot;marked&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12717" RevisionGUID="773b5692-691a-4940-a544-0086e0a85eb3" CreationDate="2019-10-28T20:18:50.387" UserId="3576" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="The semantic derivation from *hanc hodie* &quot;this here day&quot; to &quot;also&quot;, &quot;even&quot; etc. does make no sense to me. The editor who added the etymology to [wiki/anca](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anca#dalmatian) and a many other languages, that share this idiom, wasn't very careful at least when editing the link to [hanc](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hanc#Latin) which would be a redirect to *hic* (with fem acc *hanc*) anyway--no *-die* anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I'm asking is, actually, Turkish *[ancak](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ancak)* &quot;only, best; **but**&quot;, which as a conjunction reminds more of *anca*; or Persian *inja, [anja](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%A2%D9%86%D8%AC%D8%A7#Persian)* &quot;here, there&quot;. I sceptically doubt the Latin etymology, because what's broadly labled as Persian, that came to be identified with e.g. Ossetian, had been active west of the Black See. It would be nice to have *that* ruled out. But of course that has little to do with Latin or Greek, probably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the sound change--which might be regular--that is the lack of *h*, is presented, one has to wonder two questions: First, whether vulgar Latin had this; Second; if it was ever there in the first place. It would be easier to follow the root in *an-ja*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's understandable that a word meaning *here, there, then*, etc could come to be used as conjunction, but that's a bit slim. Is it etymologically sound, as far as Latin or vulgar Latin is concerned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12728" RevisionGUID="28332ece-3c33-4c88-b927-aa4eec964bc3" CreationDate="2019-10-28T21:29:34.540" UserId="3576" Text="I will try to translate the reference, and hope for downvotes and corrections if I had anything wrong&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***anche, anco*** resembles a short truncation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of *prov.* [provoncial] ANCUI (*a.fr.* [ancient French] ```encui```, *dial.lomb.* [dialectal Lombardic / Lombardic dialect]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ```ancoi```) which means *quest'oggi* [&quot;today&quot;, Det.+&quot;today&quot;?], from Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; HANC-HODIE; Others want to treat it as from Latin &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (AD)HANC with HORAM implied, giving the word &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ancora*, although not without problems,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; especially from the riddance of the *partic*. [particle] AD,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which in no other instance comes to mind, just&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as much as the particle IN is not omitted in IN&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; QUESTA for example *in questa condizione* &quot;under what condition&quot;; And final-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ly, as inclined as is Diez, following Körting, to think of deriving from ADHUC: *ancora*, *inoltre* via&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the forms *AUC, AUNC, ANC, whence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possibly *rtr*. [Retoromanic] AUNC. -- Particles of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time being copula, corresponding to Ancora,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; do exist; Sometimes they are adverbs and expressing variously agreement or certainty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Original from [2004-2008 Francesco Bonomi - Vocabolario Etimologico della Lingua Italiana](http://www.etimo.it/?term=anche)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***anche, anco*** sembra ad alcuni troncato&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dal *prov.* ANCUI (*a.fr* ```encui```, *dial.lomb.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ```encoi```) che significo *quest'oggi*, dal *lat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; HANC-HODIE; altri lo tratto dal *lat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (AD)HANC sottinteso HORAM, d'onde la voce&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ancora*, sebbene faccia difficolta il tronca-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mento specialmente della *partic.* AD, della&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quale non sembra possa farsi  a meno, come&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nol si potrebbe dell' IN nella espressione IN&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; QUESTA per *in questa contingenza*; e final-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mente, come inclinerebbe a ritenere il&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Diez, riprovato dal Körting, vuolsi deri-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vato dal *lat.* ADHUC *ancora*, *inoltre* med-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iante le forme AUC, AUNC, ANC, da cui&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pure il *rtr*. AUNC. -- Particella che ora e&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; copulativa, corrrispondante ad Ancora,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exiandio; talora e avverbio e vale Molto,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Benissimo, Certamente ecc.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation does make and less sense towarda the end. From the second sentence on I am way uncertain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12728" RevisionGUID="585f613b-79de-4f69-b208-87887bb874f7" CreationDate="2019-10-28T21:35:24.560" UserId="3576" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="I will try to translate the reference, and hope for downvotes and corrections if I had anything wrong&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Original from [2004-2008 Francesco Bonomi - Vocabolario Etimologico della Lingua Italiana](http://www.etimo.it/?term=anche)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***anche, anco*** sembra ad alcuni troncato&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dal *prov.* ANCUI (*a.fr* ```encui```, *dial.lomb.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ```encoi```) che significo *quest'oggi*, dal *lat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; HANC-HODIE; altri lo tratto dal *lat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (AD)HANC sottinteso HORAM, d'onde la voce&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ancora*, sebbene faccia difficolta il tronca-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mento specialmente della *partic.* AD, della&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quale non sembra possa farsi  a meno, come&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nol si potrebbe dell' IN nella espressione IN&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; QUESTA per *in questa contingenza*; e final-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mente, come inclinerebbe a ritenere il&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Diez, riprovato dal Körting, vuolsi deri-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vato dal *lat.* ADHUC *ancora*, *inoltre* med-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iante le forme AUC, AUNC, ANC, da cui&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pure il *rtr*. AUNC. -- Particella che ora e&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; copulativa, corrrispondante ad Ancora,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exiandio; talora e avverbio e vale Molto,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Benissimo, Certamente ecc.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation does make and less sense towarda the end. From the second sentence on I am way uncertain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***anche, anco*** resembles a short truncation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of *prov.* [provoncial] ANCUI (*a.fr.* [ancient French] ```encui```, *dial.lomb.* [dialectal Lombardic / Lombardic dialect]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ```ancoi```) which means *quest'oggi* [&quot;today&quot;, Det.+&quot;today&quot;?], from Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; HANC-HODIE; Others want to treat it as from Latin &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (AD)HANC with HORAM implied, giving the word &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ancora*, although not without problems,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; especially from the riddance of the *partic*. [particle] AD,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which in no other instance comes to mind, just&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as much as the particle IN is not omitted in IN&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; QUESTA for example *in questa condizione* &quot;under what condition&quot;; And final-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ly, as inclined as is Diez, following Körting, to think of deriving from ADHUC: *ancora*, *inoltre* via&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the forms AUC, AUNC, ANC, whence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also *rtr*. [Retoromanic=Aromanian] AUNC. -- Particles of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time being copula, corresponding to Ancora,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; do exist; Sometimes they are adverbs and expressing variously agreement or certainty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12729" RevisionGUID="cbf9021b-78ac-4c10-b746-9ae5e36b397f" CreationDate="2019-10-28T21:57:14.340" UserId="1577" Text="In the olden days, before they had invented letters J and U, the way they spelled ords like `IVLIVS` always seemed to me like they could be misread a little, and if you don't know the word, you don't know where the syllable breaks are. That word is *Julius*, of course, but could also be read as *juljus, or *ivljus, or any other way. It could have as few as 2 syllables or as many as 4. At least, if we mechanically count all permutations of  I/J times U/V.&#xA;&#xA;Is Latin known to have phonotactic reasons to not allow any of those interpretations? Is there a reason why that word must be Julius, and not iuljus or ivlivs or anything like that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35766" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12729" RevisionGUID="cbf9021b-78ac-4c10-b746-9ae5e36b397f" CreationDate="2019-10-28T21:57:14.340" UserId="1577" Text="As for I and V, when are they semi semivowels and when are they vowels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35767" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12729" RevisionGUID="cbf9021b-78ac-4c10-b746-9ae5e36b397f" CreationDate="2019-10-28T21:57:14.340" UserId="1577" Text="|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12732" RevisionGUID="52824374-513f-4ea0-bc0e-6de2399196b8" CreationDate="2019-10-29T04:00:58.410" UserId="522" Text="Coram is a good word to use; it's classy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[***cōram,*** adv. and prep.][1] (Lewis and Short)    &#xD;&#xA;**I.** in the presence of, before the eyes of, in the face of, before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *coram populo,* Hor. A. P. 185 &quot;in the presence of the people.&quot;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *coram judicibus,* Suet. Aug. 56 &quot;before the judges&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2:5224.lewisandshort" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12733" RevisionGUID="d6c70eaa-19db-4eba-9072-e57c33b07dff" CreationDate="2019-10-29T04:33:07.417" UserId="6230" Text="I was trying to say to a friend of mine &quot;We need to speak in Latin through audio&quot; and I just noticed I have no idea the appropriate word for &quot;audio&quot; in Latin. And it doesn't help the fact that the word &quot;audio&quot; is Latin for &quot;I hear&quot; lol. Is there a word already invented to be used in Latin for the modern concept of &quot;audio&quot; (as in an audio file you send to someone)? If so, how does one go about saying it? Is there any dictionary of Living Latin you guys go through to find words and expressions for our modern needs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35772" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12733" RevisionGUID="d6c70eaa-19db-4eba-9072-e57c33b07dff" CreationDate="2019-10-29T04:33:07.417" UserId="6230" Text="How do you say &quot;audio (sound track)&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35773" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12733" RevisionGUID="d6c70eaa-19db-4eba-9072-e57c33b07dff" CreationDate="2019-10-29T04:33:07.417" UserId="6230" Text="|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12734" RevisionGUID="e6d86294-6c68-4fe9-ba43-19d1957fbd13" CreationDate="2019-10-29T04:45:46.957" UserId="406" Text="How about _sonus_, literally &quot;sound&quot;, or _vox_, literally &quot;voice&quot;, depending on context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, I would say &quot;we need to converse by _voice_&quot; (_voce_), or &quot;I'm sending an image file and a _sound_ file&quot; (_sonī_). The latter trick, the genitive of the noun for &quot;a sound&quot;, is often used in Modern Greek (_ιχου_), which seems like a good precedent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12735" RevisionGUID="75478db1-9b30-46f0-b95b-cef5d97bf07c" CreationDate="2019-10-29T05:18:23.247" UserId="79" Text="A good way to phrase &quot;in his absence&quot; is the absolute ablative *eo absente*.&#xD;&#xA;It can mean all kinds of things like &quot;when/because/if he is absent&quot;, much like the English phrase.&#xD;&#xA;There is a separate feminine version if you need her absence: *ea absente*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &quot;Where is X?&quot; is simple: *Ubi est X?*&#xD;&#xA;Now just put X = *Deus*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12719" RevisionGUID="63c53bb7-9b75-498f-a265-e1078b122532" CreationDate="2019-10-29T05:19:00.123" UserId="79" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I am looking for the Latin translation of two phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In his absence&quot; &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Where is God&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12736" RevisionGUID="44f6269b-a6aa-43c9-810e-5bca0d66c341" CreationDate="2019-10-29T08:05:54.187" UserId="1350" Text="Are there any known phrases that were used by Romans to celebrate or cheer for the Republic? Something like ***Ave Res Publica*** ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or maybe they'd cheer for something else, like for the Senate or for the Consuls themselves? Are there any such examples? If not, then, is ***Ave Res Publica*** grammatically acceptable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35783" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12736" RevisionGUID="44f6269b-a6aa-43c9-810e-5bca0d66c341" CreationDate="2019-10-29T08:05:54.187" UserId="1350" Text="How did the Romans salute the Republic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35784" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12736" RevisionGUID="44f6269b-a6aa-43c9-810e-5bca0d66c341" CreationDate="2019-10-29T08:05:54.187" UserId="1350" Text="|classical-latin|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35785" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="4592" RevisionGUID="d2e9cdce-1633-450a-b51d-566c79813c26" CreationDate="2019-10-29T15:50:40.810" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12734" RevisionGUID="ea781b54-7d27-4bf9-b176-edc790b08109" CreationDate="2019-10-29T16:05:11.463" UserId="406" Comment="edited body" Text="How about _sonus_, literally &quot;sound&quot;, or _vox_, literally &quot;voice&quot;, depending on context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, I would say &quot;we need to converse by _voice_&quot; (_voce_), or &quot;I'm sending an image file and a _sound_ file&quot; (_sonī_). The latter trick, the genitive of the noun for &quot;a sound&quot;, is often used in Modern Greek (_ήχου_), which seems like a good precedent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12737" RevisionGUID="b116a064-e9ee-4823-a3b4-8cf6dc5f0550" CreationDate="2019-10-30T02:08:57.747" UserId="406" Text="##The Saturnian was (probably) stress-based, not weight-based.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To borrow from [another answer of mine][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In [a question about Old Latin meters][2], an anonymous user brought&#xD;&#xA;&gt; up [Mercado's convincing argument][3] that the Saturnian was based on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accent. The idea isn't new, but Mercado backs it up with some nice&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information-theoretical analysis: basically, the accent theory passes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; some statistical tests that all the quantity theories I've seen fail&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; His idea is that a Saturnian line generally resembles one of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; following:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; '⏑'⏑|⏑'⏑ || ⏑'⏑|⏑'⏑  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; '⏑'⏑|⏑'⏑ || '⏑⏑|⏑'⏑&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; where `'` marks a stressed syllable and `⏑` an unstressed one. For&#xD;&#xA;&gt; example, the Epitaph of Naevius:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Ímmortálēs mortálēs / si fóret fas flére,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; flérent dévae Caménae / Náevium poétam:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; ítaque póstqu' est Órchi / tráditus thesáuro  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; oblítī sunt Rómae / lóquier línguā Latínā.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; *If gods could weep for mortals, the divine Muses would mourn the poet Naevius: after he was delivered to the vault of Hades, Rome&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forgot how to speak Latin.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Translation mine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, according to Mercado, the Saturnian meter didn't depend on vowel length or syllable weight at all, except insofar as they change the position of the stress within each word. The pattern involved _stressed_ versus _unstressed_ syllables, somewhat like English poetic meters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Greek-derived system, on the other hand, the pattern was built out of _heavy_ and _light_ syllables, with a syllable's &quot;weight&quot; depending on vowel quantity and coda consonants. This was much better suited for the Ancient Greek language, which had quite a lot of single-syllable particles that could be inserted anywhere into a phrase; Latin didn't have these, so the system didn't fit it nearly as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/10771/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5062/406&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2013/2013-07-30.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12738" RevisionGUID="37aa0c19-4070-4e25-8247-3493472ff376" CreationDate="2019-10-30T03:21:10.067" UserId="6234" Text="The original latin word for world was 'orbs'. &#xD;&#xA;Mundus is a late translation for the greek word 'kosmos'. This greek word conveys the idea of order and order in a greek point of view means the right measure, symetry, harmony and beauty. It was so because the world or the universe was thought in Greece to be that way: orderly constructed, harmonious and beautiful.&#xD;&#xA;Mundus is something clean and tidy. &#xD;&#xA;It doesn't offer all the meaning possibilities the greek kosmos does but it was the best translation the latin language could make." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12739" RevisionGUID="812eee2b-e9a9-4128-a646-3c15a4e37ebc" CreationDate="2019-10-30T14:19:45.233" UserId="6236" Text="[![Is this Koine Greek?][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KZUUg.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I bought a Greek bible and I’m not sure whether it is Koine or Modern Greek. Could someone please help me out? Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35792" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12739" RevisionGUID="812eee2b-e9a9-4128-a646-3c15a4e37ebc" CreationDate="2019-10-30T14:19:45.233" UserId="6236" Text="Is this Koine Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35793" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12739" RevisionGUID="812eee2b-e9a9-4128-a646-3c15a4e37ebc" CreationDate="2019-10-30T14:19:45.233" UserId="6236" Text="|koine-greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35794" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12739" RevisionGUID="2b7b8c75-a4c2-4cc1-99c9-1c73c152832b" CreationDate="2019-10-30T14:25:45.607" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Is this bible in Koine Greek?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35795" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12739" RevisionGUID="2b7b8c75-a4c2-4cc1-99c9-1c73c152832b" CreationDate="2019-10-30T14:25:45.607" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|christianity|new-testament|koine-greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12740" RevisionGUID="45b137f6-effa-4fdc-a483-5e3bb5e59fea" CreationDate="2019-10-30T14:32:28.297" UserId="79" Text="Yes, it is Koine instead of modern Greek.&#xD;&#xA;You can tell by some of the [additional marks around the letters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_diacritics):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Koine Greek has breathing marks, while modern does not. Both rough and smooth breathing marks appear on the page.&#xD;&#xA;- There are three different accents in Koine Greek, whereas modern has only one. All three variants appear on the page.&#xD;&#xA;- There are instances of the letter [iota written under the previous vowel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iota_subscript).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even with no understanding of the meaning, these typographical hints are enough to strongly suggest the idea of Koine Greek." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35797" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12739" RevisionGUID="b586d20e-5898-44a1-af13-3c22af53f8d9" CreationDate="2019-10-30T14:32:36.480" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|christianity|new-testament|koine-greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12740" RevisionGUID="1b318685-d955-487a-a9fb-fcc43520e444" CreationDate="2019-10-30T20:28:50.283" UserId="30" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Yes, it is Koine instead of modern Greek.&#xD;&#xA;You can tell by some of the [additional marks around the letters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_diacritics):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Koine Greek has breathing marks, while modern does not. Both rough and smooth breathing marks appear on the page.&#xD;&#xA;- There are three different accent marks in Koine Greek, whereas modern has only one. All three variants appear on the page.&#xD;&#xA;- There are instances of the letter [iota written under the previous vowel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iota_subscript).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even with no understanding of the meaning, these typographical hints are enough to strongly suggest the idea of Koine Greek." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35801" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12739" RevisionGUID="2ef2a1b9-d28a-4632-8619-4327c25f56a2" CreationDate="2019-10-30T22:26:06.530" />
  <row Id="35802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12741" RevisionGUID="412e8151-8e78-4a77-9614-28e7a7e74fcd" CreationDate="2019-10-31T01:06:19.237" UserDisplayName="user6238" Text="It's the standard Koine text.  The critical apparatus is of course a giveaway: that would not make sense in modern Greek.  The three accent system was still used officially until 1970 and some publishers of literary texts still refuse to publish in the modern system without breathing marks and a single accent (and no iota subscriptum).  So that's not a surefire indication.  But the text is the standard, still used in Orthodox liturgy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth pointing out that the Greek school education (at least until several decades ago) did not just include Koine texts but also classical and Homeric Greek, so the typical Greek are much better equipped to dig around in their ancient history than many other speakers of modern languages.  The downside is that they will insist to know better than comparatistic scholars how ancient (and Koine) Greek was pronounced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12742" RevisionGUID="cf51e8fb-6eef-4edf-ba67-37f9a33a87ab" CreationDate="2019-10-31T01:20:27.367" UserId="5056" Text="The usage of *eo* is somewhat confusing to me with this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Medus prope Roman est; iam muri Romani ab eo videntur et porta Capena.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first half is easy, however the second half is confusing to me because I'm not sure what *eo* is, and also because of the placement of *et porta Capena* at the end of the sentence. My initial thought was something like, &quot;and from (here) he can see the walls of Rome and the gate of Capena&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35804" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12742" RevisionGUID="cf51e8fb-6eef-4edf-ba67-37f9a33a87ab" CreationDate="2019-10-31T01:20:27.367" UserId="5056" Text="Understanding the use of 'eo' in a sentence from LLPSI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35805" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12742" RevisionGUID="cf51e8fb-6eef-4edf-ba67-37f9a33a87ab" CreationDate="2019-10-31T01:20:27.367" UserId="5056" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12743" RevisionGUID="643cead6-584f-4422-83c2-e6ee4781c86b" CreationDate="2019-10-31T02:20:05.120" UserId="30" Text="It is a somewhat confusing sentence!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hint: what other translation of *ab* do you know?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second hint: what is the ending in *videntur*, and how do you translate it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I think your *Roman* should be *Romam*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12742" RevisionGUID="7deeac67-690c-4974-a85b-a8fa3f2bfbf5" CreationDate="2019-10-31T02:24:18.540" UserId="5056" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="The usage of *eo* is somewhat confusing to me with this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Medus prope Romam est; iam muri Romani ab eo videntur et porta Capena.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first half is easy, however the second half is confusing to me because I'm not sure what *eo* is, and also because of the placement of *et porta Capena* at the end of the sentence. My initial thought was something like, &quot;and from (here) he can see the walls of Rome and the gate of Capena&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Corrected *Roman* to *Romam*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12744" RevisionGUID="12a7d176-5481-4067-8c9a-bdc0defed34a" CreationDate="2019-10-31T02:26:06.787" UserId="406" Text="_Eō_ here is the ablative singular masculine of _is, ea, id_, &quot;he/she/it&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other important thing to note is that the verb is _passive_—in other words, the subject in the nominative is the thing being seen, and the person doing the seeing *can be* in the ablative with _ā/ab_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in the nominative, the _murī Rōmānī et porta Capena_ are being seen; _ab eō_ refers back to a masculine singular noun. Depending on the context, the walls and gate might be seen _by_ Medus (a person), or seen _from_ Medus (a city); the sentence itself doesn't let you distinguish between these." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12745" RevisionGUID="31ce1d9d-d48e-41ac-b411-c1473574a4ea" CreationDate="2019-10-31T03:39:03.417" UserId="6240" Text="It's Koine Greek. Top right, second line you see the word οὗτος, it's not used in modern Greek. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=ou(=tos" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12746" RevisionGUID="40a254a5-7007-4caa-add6-e14ce5701ec9" CreationDate="2019-10-31T08:44:28.693" UserId="1059" Text="What are the conditions to make a reasonable hyperbate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reasonable, I mean, if I don't want to sound to poetical, as I know the word order is more free in poetry, the same rules for word orders don't apply the same way in prose and poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how can I know if I can split a logically linked block, like &quot;natus sum&quot;?  &#xD;&#xA;Could I say &quot;Natus Romae sum&quot;, or something with even more words inside the [Natus....sum]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35811" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12746" RevisionGUID="40a254a5-7007-4caa-add6-e14ce5701ec9" CreationDate="2019-10-31T08:44:28.693" UserId="1059" Text="Can you split &quot;natus sum&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35812" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12746" RevisionGUID="40a254a5-7007-4caa-add6-e14ce5701ec9" CreationDate="2019-10-31T08:44:28.693" UserId="1059" Text="|word-order|deponent-verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12747" RevisionGUID="95492fd2-2e40-44b2-ace6-111cbb8e727c" CreationDate="2019-10-31T09:16:25.883" UserId="79" Text="I looked into how Caesar uses past participles and *est*.&#xD;&#xA;His style is considered good and he does not aim for anything particularly convoluted or poetic, so I think he is a good choice for this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I searched for all examples of [*-tus* close to *est* in a corpus](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=tus%23+%7E+%23est%23+%5Bcaes%5D), and found the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There are many examples of a past participle and an *est* (although there are false positives as well), so you can draw some conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;- The participle and *est* are almost always next to each other. Both orders appear.&#xD;&#xA;- There are cases where two participles go with one *est*, but that is not a split in the sense of the question.&#xD;&#xA;- The only split examples I found were:&#xD;&#xA; - *est certior factus*, where *certior factus* is a solid block on its own that perhaps should not be split by *est*.&#xD;&#xA; - *finis est pugnandi factus*, which is a genuine split like you described.&#xD;&#xA; - *ad eum est honorem evocatus*&#xD;&#xA;- He never seemed to have more than one word in between, so the block was still fairly well together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only studied masculines, as I thought they would be quite frequent and might be similar enough to others.&#xD;&#xA;I doubt that feminines or neuters would behave very differently, but I did not check.&#xD;&#xA;I also only looked at singular participles ending in *-tus* so as to reduce false positives but to get a substantial number of hits in one search.&#xD;&#xA;A more thorough study would benefit from an annotated corpus where you could search for past participles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conclusion from this quick check is:&#xD;&#xA;Splitting is rare but can be done.&#xD;&#xA;Caesar does it maybe in one of twenty cases.&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that splitting can make the text much harder to parse, so communication is often most efficient if you keep the pieces together or only split by one or two words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35814" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12742" RevisionGUID="017aeae1-df54-473b-8ae9-061d46f8b1be" CreationDate="2019-10-31T09:26:47.940" />
  <row Id="35817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12747" RevisionGUID="c1c86b5d-31fe-4989-9862-0b821880ad76" CreationDate="2019-10-31T14:33:23.603" UserId="79" Comment="added 437 characters in body" Text="I looked into how Caesar uses past participles and *est*.&#xD;&#xA;His style is considered good and he does not aim for anything particularly convoluted or poetic, so I think he is a good choice for this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I searched for all examples of [*-tus* close to *est* in a corpus](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=tus%23+%7E+%23est%23+%5Bcaes%5D), and found the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There are many examples of a past participle and an *est* (although there are false positives as well), so you can draw some conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;- The participle and *est* are almost always next to each other. Both orders appear.&#xD;&#xA;- There are cases where two participles go with one *est*, but that is not a split in the sense of the question.&#xD;&#xA;- The only split examples I found were:&#xD;&#xA; - *est certior factus*, where *certior factus* is a solid block on its own that perhaps should not be split by *est*.&#xD;&#xA; - *finis est pugnandi factus*, which is a genuine split like you described.&#xD;&#xA; - *ad eum est honorem evocatus*&#xD;&#xA;- He never seemed to have more than one word in between, so the block was still fairly well together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only studied masculines, as I thought they would be quite frequent and might be similar enough to others.&#xD;&#xA;I doubt that feminines or neuters would behave very differently, but I did not check.&#xD;&#xA;I also only looked at singular participles ending in *-tus* so as to reduce false positives but to get a substantial number of hits in one search.&#xD;&#xA;A more thorough study would benefit from an annotated corpus where you could search for past participles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list of examples from Caesar includes both deponent verbs (semantically active participles) and transitive verbs (semantically passive participles).&#xD;&#xA;The literal question only concerns a specific deponent verb (*nasci &gt; natus sum*), but I think the same guidelines are applicable to all kinds of situations with *est* and a perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;There is not as much data on the specific verb, so I find it better to look broader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conclusion from this quick check is:&#xD;&#xA;Splitting is rare but can be done.&#xD;&#xA;Caesar does it maybe in one of twenty cases.&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that splitting can make the text much harder to parse, so communication is often most efficient if you keep the pieces together or only split by one or two words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12749" RevisionGUID="cc19e43b-9191-44a8-b62c-d94638507e87" CreationDate="2019-10-31T21:35:33.600" UserId="6249" Text="There are numerous sites that have the koine text, includi g biblehub, which, when you click on gr for greek, will give several koine texts. There are also youtube channels that use Scrivener's textus receptus, which is in koine.  The pronouciation is typically modern, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Frankly, the reconstructed pronunciation sounds forced and awkward.  The modern-day pronunciation is much more natural and, I think, better preserves the natural beauty of the text. I am not Greek, by the way, and came to the language late in life." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12750" RevisionGUID="ec12ab0e-a6f1-4d63-824d-cc1eb27b976b" CreationDate="2019-11-01T00:36:28.550" UserId="3281" Text="https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/33/what-punctuation-was-used-in-classical-latin was very insightful, but it doesn't go into specifics. Wikipedia said we don't have any original sources of Ovid's Metamorphoses until the 9th or 10th centuries. How did they first write down Metamorphoses at that time (9th, 10th, 11th centuries, etc.)? And how did Ovid most likely write it down? Or would it have been entirely oral?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related to this, I am wondering how it was formatted/punctuated. Did it or would it have used all capital letters? Would it use whitespace between words or interpuncts of some kind. Again, _most likely_ as we probably don't have much direct evidence, but who knows. Was it _really_ divided into lines like you find it today? Or was it just one long mass of text? Did sentences have boundaries? Were there _actually_ books, or was that a more modern invention (i.e. was it just one big block of text)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35820" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12750" RevisionGUID="ec12ab0e-a6f1-4d63-824d-cc1eb27b976b" CreationDate="2019-11-01T00:36:28.550" UserId="3281" Text="How was the original Ovid Metamorphoses formatted/punctuated most likely?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35821" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12750" RevisionGUID="ec12ab0e-a6f1-4d63-824d-cc1eb27b976b" CreationDate="2019-11-01T00:36:28.550" UserId="3281" Text="|classical-latin|text-corpus|metamorphoses|book|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12751" RevisionGUID="511c39ae-48cb-4398-bd68-08308b3006fc" CreationDate="2019-11-01T02:33:21.247" UserId="3281" Text="I am particularly interested atm in the [Edda](https://www.voluspa.org/helgakvidahundingsbana116-20.htm) where it has &quot;Foo spake:&quot; and &quot;Bar spake:&quot; before several of the stanzas. But that's Old Norse. This being a Latin site, I am interested in the [Latin Mass](http://latinliturgy.com/OrdinaryFormD20.pdf) script. There it is a bunch of &quot;actors&quot; saying things, so they have &quot;P:&quot; and &quot;C:&quot;, etc. In Greek, it could be one of the many Socrates/Plato conversations, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all these cases, I am wondering if in the _original text_, or if none persist then what we imagine would be the original text, it would contain &quot;Foo: ...&quot; and &quot;Bar: ...&quot; like these current renditions/edits are showing. If not, do they just leave it out and leave it up to figuring it out from context? I ask because, the didn't have quotation marks back then `&quot;`, so you had to figure that part out at least. So I'm wondering if really, there were no &quot;Foo: ....&quot; to say who's speaking, it was just back-n-forth-n-back-n-forth without any hints, and you had to figure it out. Is that the case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a sidenote, it might be interesting to include when we started actually writing dialogues/plays/etc. with &quot;characters&quot; explicitly written down by name before they speak/play their part. Was it with Shakespeare? (That late), or has it always been done, or somewhere in between?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35823" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12751" RevisionGUID="511c39ae-48cb-4398-bd68-08308b3006fc" CreationDate="2019-11-01T02:33:21.247" UserId="3281" Text="Are dialogues in ancient texts declared with &quot;He said: ...&quot; and &quot;She said: ...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35824" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12751" RevisionGUID="511c39ae-48cb-4398-bd68-08308b3006fc" CreationDate="2019-11-01T02:33:21.247" UserId="3281" Text="|poetry|text-corpus|philosophy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12751" RevisionGUID="5c45e982-3906-4c61-a64e-03ef8977ae72" CreationDate="2019-11-01T02:38:53.437" UserId="3281" Comment="added 688 characters in body" Text="I am particularly interested atm in the [Edda](https://www.voluspa.org/helgakvidahundingsbana116-20.htm) where it has &quot;Foo spake:&quot; and &quot;Bar spake:&quot; before several of the stanzas. But that's Old Norse. This being a Latin site, I am interested in the [Latin Mass](http://latinliturgy.com/OrdinaryFormD20.pdf) script. There it is a bunch of &quot;actors&quot; saying things, so they have &quot;P:&quot; and &quot;C:&quot;, etc. In Greek, it could be one of the many Socrates/Plato conversations, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all these cases, I am wondering if in the _original text_, or if none persist then what we imagine would be the original text, it would contain &quot;Foo: ...&quot; and &quot;Bar: ...&quot; like these current renditions/edits are showing. If not, do they just leave it out and leave it up to figuring it out from context? I ask because, the didn't have quotation marks back then `&quot;`, so you had to figure that part out at least. So I'm wondering if really, there were no &quot;Foo: ....&quot; to say who's speaking, it was just back-n-forth-n-back-n-forth without any hints, and you had to figure it out. Is that the case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a sidenote, it might be interesting to include when we started actually writing dialogues/plays/etc. with &quot;characters&quot; explicitly written down by name before they speak/play their part. Was it with Shakespeare? (That late), or has it always been done, or somewhere in between?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, I want to know what the earliest forms of the written down oral poetry look like. Do they include the character names? (Obviously they don't have the colon after them). Or not? In other questions I'm asking about formatting and punctuation of the original texts, but here, like for the Nordic runes, do they write the character names there? I haven't been able to find an example poem written with names using nordic runes, but maybe one exists. Likewise, in Cuneiform, I wonder for the epics, or with Greek. But here, since this is Latin, I wonder about the different types of dialogues that might occur it texts likely written down during the Roman or early Catholic era." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="951" RevisionGUID="386ad835-3bdd-48ae-bfa4-3dc9f6c0911b" CreationDate="2019-11-01T03:38:48.947" UserId="40" Comment="added 186 characters in body" Text="It's possible that the identity is a coincidence and that the adjective and the noun are unrelated homophones. De Vaan's etymological dictionary lists the two words as separate entries and does not draw any connection between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, it seems plausible that there is a relationship, namely that the &quot;world&quot; sense is based on a calque of the Greek word κόσμος. This has the basic meaning of &quot;order&quot;, but also means both &quot;ornament, decoration&quot; and &quot;world&quot;, just like the noun *mundus*. (The semantic connection appears to be the idea of the world as a &quot;natural order&quot;.) The concepts &quot;clean&quot; and &quot;ornament&quot; are semantically close enough that *mundus* (adj.) and *mundus* (n.) could easily be related, and then the latter would have picked up its additional meaning of &quot;world&quot; in imitation of the Greek word. The possibility of Greek influence is supported by the fact that *mundus* appears to have been a specifically philosophical word for &quot;world&quot;, as opposed to a more common term like *orbis terrarum*. (ETA: as fdb points out, there's a difference in meaning between *mundus* and *orbis terrarum*: the former, like Greek κόσμος, means &quot;the universe&quot;, while the latter means &quot;the Earth&quot;.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12740" RevisionGUID="270c454f-1549-449e-84e3-42ba4c3ac2ba" CreationDate="2019-11-01T12:27:49.980" UserId="79" Comment="added 486 characters in body" Text="Yes, it is Koine instead of modern Greek.&#xD;&#xA;You can tell by some of the [additional marks around the letters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_diacritics):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Koine Greek has breathing marks, while modern does not. Both rough and smooth breathing marks appear on the page.&#xD;&#xA;- There are three different accent marks in Koine Greek, whereas modern has only one. All three variants appear on the page.&#xD;&#xA;- There are instances of the letter [iota written under the previous vowel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iota_subscript).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even with no understanding of the meaning, these typographical hints are enough to strongly suggest the idea of Koine Greek.&#xD;&#xA;These features were part of Greek until a 1970s, but no longer today.&#xD;&#xA;That is, if the dichotomy is between today's Greek and Koine, these criteria are enough to unambiguously decide it has to be Koine, but they are not enough to rule out intermediate stages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also features of the language itself, and they are indeed a safer way to reason here, but I will let others who know Greek better to say so.&#xD;&#xA;More answers pointing out more ways to argue this are always welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12752" RevisionGUID="ee6f061c-f060-4c75-ac90-3f32ee283292" CreationDate="2019-11-01T14:08:13.853" UserId="1059" Text="So, I know that -ne is an enclitic to express a yes/no question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, the &quot;Ne&quot;, as a non-enclitic, as I understood it, could also be a word question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;Ne....annon&quot; or &quot;Ne....necne&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meaning Is it.... or no? (French &quot;Est-ce que&quot; would express it better)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is it the same &quot;ne&quot; and when you use it in conjonction with &quot;annon&quot; and &quot;necne&quot; it becomes a separated (non-enclitic) word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From what: Could I use the enclitic &quot;-ne&quot; in conjonction with &quot;annon&quot; or &quot;necne&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- And could I use the interrogative non-enclitic &quot;Ne...&quot; alone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How &quot;Ne...&quot; is different from &quot;-ne....&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(All these questions can have the same answer).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35829" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12752" RevisionGUID="ee6f061c-f060-4c75-ac90-3f32ee283292" CreationDate="2019-11-01T14:08:13.853" UserId="1059" Text="About the difference between the enclitic &quot;ne&quot; and the non-enclitic &quot;ne&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35830" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12752" RevisionGUID="ee6f061c-f060-4c75-ac90-3f32ee283292" CreationDate="2019-11-01T14:08:13.853" UserId="1059" Text="|word-comparison|enclitic|question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12753" RevisionGUID="cc0db36f-4587-45e0-acbf-74d061d8a9fe" CreationDate="2019-11-01T15:07:55.130" UserId="1059" Text="What would be the meaning for &quot;my girl&quot;, &quot;my man&quot;, &quot;my boy&quot;, &quot;my woman&quot; in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I use *filia tua*, it means you daughter, but could be used as *puella tua* to mean the same, or is there other implied meaning when using this kind of structures in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, French language use &quot;ma femme&quot; litt. &quot;my woman&quot; to say &quot;my wife&quot;, but &quot;mon garçon&quot; is not always a son, but can be an expression to express either affection or paternalism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, using &quot;my girl&quot; means my girlfriend (I think).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, in French, you would have a different meaning if you use &quot;la fille&quot; (a girl) or &quot;ma fille&quot; (my daughter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what are the possible meanings and use of such phrases?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35832" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12753" RevisionGUID="cc0db36f-4587-45e0-acbf-74d061d8a9fe" CreationDate="2019-11-01T15:07:55.130" UserId="1059" Text="My boy, my woman, my man, my girl" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35833" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12753" RevisionGUID="cc0db36f-4587-45e0-acbf-74d061d8a9fe" CreationDate="2019-11-01T15:07:55.130" UserId="1059" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12754" RevisionGUID="049db3bf-ef92-4130-8d9a-d7bbced4049d" CreationDate="2019-11-01T15:31:19.397" UserId="1059" Text="A girl (not woman. Not &quot;young woman&quot;, that's a modern concepts), in most of the ancient cultures (I don't talk about modern cultures, that's different), was a woman who were not married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a girl was married, she became a woman (it wasn't a matter of age, but a matter of status: being married = to be a woman. Quite different with the nubility.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as a non-married woman was supposed to be virgin, both &quot;girl&quot; and &quot;virgin&quot; was perfect synonym (at least in the concept, not always in reality, but it's another thing...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it's not true in some societies where the religion didn't prevent to have out of marriage relationship, or where it was not advisable to marry a virgin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's the case in the Hebrew, Greek and Roman societies, for instance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the Hebrew society, you can refer yourself to the Old Testament.  &#xD;&#xA;For the Greek society, it's mentioned in many texts, for instance, on Wikipedia, they say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A gamos, a marriage ceremony, was conducted. It started with a sacrifice, proteleia, (premarital), which was for the gods to bless the two being wed. Then the future wife would cut her hair signifying her previous virginity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the Roman society, many texts also, for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Celibacy and Fertility    &#xD;&#xA;In ancient Rome, all women had to remain celibate before marriage. Their fathers typically arranged their marriage when they were very young, and they were never given the option to date or fall in love. If a man was caught having sex out of wedlock, it was fine, but for a woman, it would be a death sentence. The age of consent was 12 for girls and 14 for boys, but many parents waited for their daughters to have an education before getting married, even if they had been promised to a man for years. They typically got married in their late teens to early 20’s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://historycollection.co/10-details-from-the-daily-life-of-vestal-young-women-in-ancient-rome/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, yes a girl, and a virgin means the same, it's not different from medieval European literature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12754" RevisionGUID="728615d3-71ee-40b7-b233-c87732ca63bc" CreationDate="2019-11-01T16:37:51.040" UserId="1059" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="A girl (not woman. Not &quot;young woman&quot;, that's a modern concepts), in most of the ancient cultures (I don't talk about modern cultures, that's different), was a woman who were not married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a girl was married, she became a woman (it wasn't a matter of age, but a matter of status: being married = to be a woman. Quite different with the nubility.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as a non-married woman was supposed to be virgin, both &quot;girl&quot; and &quot;virgin&quot; was perfect synonym (at least in the concept, not always in reality, but it's another thing...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it's not true in some societies where the religion didn't prevent to have out of marriage relationship, or where it was not advisable to marry a virgin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's the case in the Hebrew, Greek and Roman societies, for instance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the Hebrew society, you can refer yourself to the Old Testament.  &#xD;&#xA;For the Greek society, it's mentioned in many texts, for instance, on Wikipedia, they say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A gamos, a marriage ceremony, was conducted. It started with a sacrifice, proteleia, (premarital), which was for the gods to bless the two being wed. Then the future wife would cut her hair signifying her previous virginity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the Roman society, many texts also, for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Celibacy and Fertility    &#xD;&#xA;In ancient Rome, all women had to remain celibate before marriage. Their fathers typically arranged their marriage when they were very young, and they were never given the option to date or fall in love. If a man was caught having sex out of wedlock, it was fine, but for a woman, it would be a death sentence. The age of consent was 12 for girls and 14 for boys, but many parents waited for their daughters to have an education before getting married, even if they had been promised to a man for years. They typically got married in their late teens to early 20’s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://historycollection.co/10-details-from-the-daily-life-of-vestal-young-women-in-ancient-rome/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another argument, Minerva was called the &quot;virgo minerva&quot;, and it has been described that the meaning was &quot;the chaste Minerva&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, yes a girl, and a virgin means the same, it's not different from medieval European literature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12755" RevisionGUID="c74d72dd-0d0b-49dc-8bb8-13d8c7397533" CreationDate="2019-11-01T16:39:48.047" UserId="4871" Text="Well, to start with, they aren't actually the same &quot;word&quot;, as they have a different vowel.  The *e* in *-ne* is short whilst the *e* in *ne* is long.  Also, the non-enclitic *ne* is not primarily an interrogative word at all but a subordinating conjunction that introduces negative clauses that would be introduced by *ut* if not negative (though the other way around with verbs of fear).  In many situations its best English translation is *lest*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12756" RevisionGUID="55276a12-9529-4c22-bd61-36ecb452dcbb" CreationDate="2019-11-01T17:32:17.403" UserId="6252" Text="There's a phrase from the Gospel that's used in the liturgy -- &quot;sed tantum dic verbo&quot; [et sanabitur anima mea], &quot;but only say the word&quot; [and my soul shall be healed].  Why verbo (dative or ablative) and not verbum (accusative)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35838" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12756" RevisionGUID="55276a12-9529-4c22-bd61-36ecb452dcbb" CreationDate="2019-11-01T17:32:17.403" UserId="6252" Text="In this passage, why verbo instead of verbum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35839" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12756" RevisionGUID="55276a12-9529-4c22-bd61-36ecb452dcbb" CreationDate="2019-11-01T17:32:17.403" UserId="6252" Text="|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12757" RevisionGUID="6e723e7e-57e2-4541-bec8-119da87bda23" CreationDate="2019-11-01T17:38:33.887" UserId="6252" Text="Another quite possible meaning of *puer meus* or *puella mea* would be &quot;my servant (or slave)&quot;.  I don't recall ever seeing *mulier mea* used for &quot;my wife&quot;; for that *uxor* would be a lot more common." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12758" RevisionGUID="648e68d9-7d1b-4712-8267-6dfd979cdcbd" CreationDate="2019-11-01T17:56:51.903" UserId="6252" Text="For what it might be worth, I'd have no trouble at all with *Natus Romae sum*, and it wouldn't strike me as poetic or even odd.  Now if you try to pack too much in there (*natus Romae consulibus M. Vincio et Q. Lucretio sum*), it can get pretty unnatural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12724" RevisionGUID="60fd3ca7-1d2d-46f3-8ebc-c29627c8a19d" CreationDate="2019-11-01T18:22:02.670" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes due to commentator" Text="I was wondering if **Gerundives**, the verbal adjectives referred to as &quot;passive future participles&quot; by Latin grammarians, can appear as predicates of (true) **Ablative Absolute (AA)** constructions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is well-known, the predicates of AAs can be passive perfect participles (e.g., _Cicerone occiso_), present participles (e.g., _Cicerone loquente_), nouns (e.g., _Cicerone consule_), and adjectives (e.g., _Cicerone vivo_). Interestingly, **active** future participles are also found as predicates of AAs, as in the following example from Livy: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carthaginienses, _prima luce **oppugnaturis** hostibus castra_, saxis undique congestis augent vallum. (Liv. 28, 15)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, Gerundives, which, as noted above, have sometimes been referred to as &quot;**passive** future participles&quot;, seem to be prevented from appearing as predicates in (true) AAs. But perhaps such a prohibition is not well-grounded and examples similar to the following one are also found/possible. Are there examples of this use attested? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carthaginienses, _prima luce **oppugnandis** castris ab hostibus_, saxis augent vallum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB 1: the absence of predicative Gerundives from (true) AAs can be inferred from statements like the following one by Vester (1990): &quot;we may argue that the gerundive construction has a lower syntactic level, directly related to the nuclear predication, **as opposed to the ablative absolute**, which functions on sentence level&quot; (Vester, E. (1990: 304). [&quot;Reflections on the gerund and gerundive&quot;][1]). Emphasis/bold mine: Mitomino.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB 2: **true** AAs involve &quot;functioning on **sentence level**&quot;. Accordingly, apparent AAs like _**Insectandis patribus** tribunatum gessit_ (Livy 3, 65,4) 'He spent his tribunate in attacking the patricians' are not to be regarded as true AAs but rather as dominant participle-like constructions that involve **lower** syntactic embedding (e.g., in this case, Verbal Phrase (VP)-embedding rather than sentential one). As a result, the agent of _insectari_ must be the same as that of the main verb. Importantly, such a restriction does not necessarily apply to &quot;true&quot; AAs. Accordingly, true AAs are those AAs that satisfy the following two conditions: (i) they function as adverbial subordinate clauses AND (ii) they do not involve any obligatory sharing of participants/arguments with the ones of the main clause. This said, it is worth pointing out that for other people only one condition (or even other conditions) must be satisfied.       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB 3: the present post is related to Joonas's insightful point on what a predicate of an AA can be: see his specific [question][2] on the (im)possibilitify of finding locative Prepositional Phrases (PPs) acting as predicates of AAs. As pointed out in my answer to his intriguing question, my intuition is that locative/PP phrases cannot be predicates in AAs either.        &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://benjamins.com/catalog/slcs.21.21ves&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5332/can-the-absolute-ablative-be-used-with-a-prepositional-phrase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12759" RevisionGUID="ff6a7c11-092f-4496-b46a-7a5b479bae2d" CreationDate="2019-11-01T22:20:58.417" UserId="1059" Text="I don't understand the etymology of interfacio: inter + facio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How it became &quot;to kill&quot;? What is the link between &quot;to do between&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35844" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12759" RevisionGUID="ff6a7c11-092f-4496-b46a-7a5b479bae2d" CreationDate="2019-11-01T22:20:58.417" UserId="1059" Text="Origin of &quot;Interficere&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35845" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12759" RevisionGUID="ff6a7c11-092f-4496-b46a-7a5b479bae2d" CreationDate="2019-11-01T22:20:58.417" UserId="1059" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12760" RevisionGUID="cb561aeb-7988-4cb4-9e4c-17cae16e1914" CreationDate="2019-11-02T00:38:44.920" UserId="3248" Text="Complex verbs like tr. _interficere_ 'to kill' and intr. _interire_ 'to die' involve the prefix _inter_, which can in turn be decomposed into two morphemes: _in_ plus **_ter_**. The latter has been claimed to be related to the suffix ***_tero_**, which, among other meanings, can express separation (cf. Vedic [_antárdha_][1] 'to disappear'. Sandoz, Cl (1976). “Du latin _interficio_ au védique _antárdha-_”. _Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique_ LXXI: 207-219). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of _interficere_ involves two ideas: causation and separation. The causation idea involved in the verb _facere_ 'to do/to cause' is obvious (cf. the unaccusative verb _interire_, which does not express 'causation' but only 'change'). The separation idea of _interficere_ is clearly related to its privative use in Early Latin: e.g., _Salue, qui me interfecisti paene uita et lumine_ (Pl. _Truc._ 518). Hence its meaning 'to cause separation from life'. &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://spokensanskrit.org/index.php?tran_input=antardhA&amp;direct=se&amp;script=hk&amp;link=yes&amp;mode=3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12760" RevisionGUID="ab0aa01d-b3db-4b26-82a9-d4d1c0302ad2" CreationDate="2019-11-02T00:49:12.330" UserId="3248" Comment="changes of content" Text="Complex verbs like tr. _interficere_ 'to kill' and intr. _interire_ 'to die' involve the prefix _inter_, which has been claimed to be related to the suffix ***_tero_**, which, among other meanings, can express separation (cf. Vedic [_antárdha_][1] 'to disappear'. Sandoz, Cl (1976). “Du latin _interficio_ au védique _antárdha-_”. _Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique_ LXXI: 207-219). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of _interficere_ involves two ideas: causation and separation. The causation idea involved in the verb _facere_ 'to do/to cause' is obvious (cf. the unaccusative verb _interire_, which does not express 'causation' but only 'change'). The separation idea of _interficere_ is clearly related to its privative use in Early Latin: e.g., _Salue, qui me interfecisti paene uita et lumine_ (Pl. _Truc._ 518). Hence its meaning 'to cause separation from life'. &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://spokensanskrit.org/index.php?tran_input=antardhA&amp;direct=se&amp;script=hk&amp;link=yes&amp;mode=3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12760" RevisionGUID="d2d277be-f3b3-49b0-bd9b-9b6a7a0c7939" CreationDate="2019-11-02T01:04:28.840" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="Complex verbs like tr. _interficere_ 'to kill' and intr. _interire_ 'to die' involve the prefix _inter_, which has been claimed to be related to the suffix ***_tero_**, which, among other meanings, can express separation (cf. Vedic [_antárdha_][1] 'to disappear'. Sandoz, Cl (1976). “Du latin _interficio_ au védique _antárdha-_”. _Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique_ LXXI: 207-219). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of _interficere_ involves two ideas: causation and separation. The causation idea is obvious since the transitive verb _facere_ means 'to do/to cause' (cf. the intransitive-unaccusative verb _interire_, which does not express 'causation' but only 'change (of state)'). The separation idea of _interficere_ is clearly related to its privative use in Early Latin: e.g., _Salue, qui me interfecisti paene uita et lumine_ (Pl. _Truc._ 518). Hence its meaning 'to cause separation from life'. &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://spokensanskrit.org/index.php?tran_input=antardhA&amp;direct=se&amp;script=hk&amp;link=yes&amp;mode=3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12760" RevisionGUID="8aa28865-7fac-4353-a62b-45d6f5b78221" CreationDate="2019-11-02T01:38:32.557" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="Complex/prefixed verbs like tr. _interficere_ 'to kill' and intr. _interire_ 'to die' involve the prefix _inter_, which some scholars (e.g., [López Moreda (1987: 222)][1]) have claimed to be related to the suffix *_-tero_, which, among other more basic meanings, can express separation. According to López Moreda, the original meaning of _interficere_ is &quot;to put in between by separating&quot;. Cf. also Vedic [_antárdha_][2] 'to disappear'. Sandoz, Cl (1976). “Du latin _interficio_ au védique _antárdha-_”. _Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique_ LXXI: 207-219. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the meaning of _interficere_ involves two ideas: causation and separation. The causation idea is obvious since the transitive verb _facere_ means 'to do/to cause' (cf. the intransitive-unaccusative verb _interire_, which does not express 'causation' but only 'change (of state)'). The separation idea of _interficere_ is clearly related to its privative use in Early Latin: e.g., _Salue, qui me interfecisti paene uita et lumine_ (Pl. _Truc._ 518). Hence its meaning 'to cause separation from life'. &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://62.204.194.45/fez/eserv/bibliuned:Epos-CAAD79C7-C9D4-7192-F631-75E2A95FDB77/Documento.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://spokensanskrit.org/index.php?tran_input=antardhA&amp;direct=se&amp;script=hk&amp;link=yes&amp;mode=3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12760" RevisionGUID="3db15149-f4ae-4746-92e2-92007fe6ea5b" CreationDate="2019-11-02T02:20:25.140" UserId="3248" Comment="changes on Skr. verb" Text="Complex/prefixed verbs like tr. _interficere_ 'to kill' and intr. _interire_ 'to die' involve the prefix _inter_, which some scholars (e.g., [López Moreda (1987: 222)][1]) have claimed to be related to the suffix *_-tero_, which, among other more basic meanings, can express separation. According to López Moreda, the original meaning of _interficere_ is &quot;to put in between by separating&quot;. Cf. also Sanskrit _antar-dha_ ‘to kill, destroy’ (lit. ‘in the middle, between’-‘put’). See Sandoz, Cl (1976). “Du latin _interficio_ au védique _antar dha_”. _Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique_ LXXI: 207-219. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the meaning of _interficere_ involves two ideas: causation and separation. The causation idea is obvious since the transitive verb _facere_ means 'to do/to cause' (cf. the intransitive-unaccusative verb _interire_, which does not express 'causation' but only 'change (of state)'). The separation idea of _interficere_ is clearly related to its privative use in Early Latin: e.g., _Salue, qui me interfecisti paene uita et lumine_ (Pl. _Truc._ 518). Hence its meaning 'to cause separation from life'. &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://62.204.194.45/fez/eserv/bibliuned:Epos-CAAD79C7-C9D4-7192-F631-75E2A95FDB77/Documento.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://spokensanskrit.org/index.php?tran_input=antardhA&amp;direct=se&amp;script=hk&amp;link=yes&amp;mode=3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12761" RevisionGUID="0e4deb9a-3a73-4cdc-99d0-8471d70c911f" CreationDate="2019-11-02T02:26:15.943" UserId="1059" Text="I visited a webpage translating a bunch of IT words into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I know the vocabulary does exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I'm an avid language learner, sometimes I play to download apps and softwares in foreign language to train and teach myself. Sometimes I just change the interface, switching it in a different language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does a PC software or an Android app exist in Latin?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I think it has more chance to exist on Linux-based OS)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35852" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12761" RevisionGUID="0e4deb9a-3a73-4cdc-99d0-8471d70c911f" CreationDate="2019-11-02T02:26:15.943" UserId="1059" Text="A software in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35853" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12761" RevisionGUID="0e4deb9a-3a73-4cdc-99d0-8471d70c911f" CreationDate="2019-11-02T02:26:15.943" UserId="1059" Text="|resource-request|modern-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12760" RevisionGUID="f5f87996-8ce0-42c7-9bf2-a316fe65d483" CreationDate="2019-11-02T04:33:23.740" UserId="3248" Comment="changes &amp; qualification based on comments" Text="Complex/prefixed verbs like tr. _interficere_ 'to kill' and intr. _interire_ 'to die' involve the prefix _inter_, which some scholars (e.g., [López Moreda (1987: 222)][1]) have claimed to be related to the suffix *_-tero_, which, among other more basic meanings, can express separation. According to López Moreda, the original meaning of _interficere_ is &quot;to put in between by separating&quot;. [Filimonov (2019: 86)][2] also points out a parallelism with Sanskrit _antar-dha_ ‘to kill, destroy’ (lit. ‘in the middle, between’-‘put’). See also Sandoz, Cl (1976). “Du latin _interficio_ au védique _antar dha_”. _Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique_ LXXI: 207-219 [but see TKR's remark below on the alleged parallelism given by Filimonov (2019: 86)]. A further parallelism between Lat. _inter_ and Hittite [_istarna_][3] can also be pointed out to give evidence for the implied separation component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the meaning of _interficere_ involves two ideas: causation and separation. The causation idea is obvious since the transitive verb _facere_ means 'to do/to cause' (cf. the intransitive-unaccusative verb _interire_, which does not express 'causation' but only 'change (of state)'). The separation idea of _interficere_ is clearly related to its privative use in Early Latin: e.g., _Salue, qui me interfecisti paene uita et lumine_ (Pl. _Truc._ 518). Hence its meaning 'to cause separation from life'. &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://62.204.194.45/fez/eserv/bibliuned:Epos-CAAD79C7-C9D4-7192-F631-75E2A95FDB77/Documento.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://philclass.spbu.ru/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Filimonov-E.G.-Dual-Semantics-of-the-Latin-inter-.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.es/books?id=LbG8vw_pva8C&amp;pg=PA482&amp;lpg=PA482&amp;dq=separative%20interficere%20inter&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=_UHjLlU9tC&amp;sig=ACfU3U25HTYiSwBb9Xh50DrZ4pYjKTJMtg&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjDu5bOy8rlAhUiA2MBHS75DfYQ6AEwAHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=separative%20interficere%20inter&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12760" RevisionGUID="c25badde-5d80-47b7-bf77-b8bd001cfe4a" CreationDate="2019-11-02T04:49:57.947" UserId="3248" Comment="changes &amp; qualification based on comments" Text="Complex/prefixed verbs like tr. _interficere_ 'to kill' and intr. _interire_ 'to die' involve the prefix _inter_, which some scholars (e.g., [López Moreda (1987: 222)][1]) have claimed to be related to the suffix *_-tero_, which, among other more basic meanings, can express separation. According to López Moreda, the original meaning of _interficere_ is 'to put in between by separating'. [Filimonov (2019: 86)][2] also points out a parallelism with Sanskrit _antar-dha_ ‘to kill, destroy’ (lit. ‘in the middle, between’-‘put’). See also Sandoz, Cl (1976). “Du latin _interficio_ au védique _antar dha_”. _Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique_ LXXI: 207-219 [but see TKR's remark below on the alleged parallelism given by Filimonov (2019: 86)]. A further parallelism between Lat. _inter_ and Hittite [_istarna_][3] can also be pointed out to give evidence for the non-obvious separation component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming, along with López Moreda, that the original meaning of _interficere_  is 'to put in between by separating', it is also relevant to point out that the separation idea involved in this verb is clearly related to its privative use in Early Latin: e.g., _Salue, qui me interfecisti paene uita et lumine_ (Pl. _Truc._ 518). Hence its meaning 'to cause separation from life'. Finally, as for the causation idea, it is obvious that it is involved in _interficere_, since the transitive verb _facere_ means 'to do/to cause' (cf. the intransitive-unaccusative verb _interire_, which does not express 'causation' but only 'change (of state)'). &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://62.204.194.45/fez/eserv/bibliuned:Epos-CAAD79C7-C9D4-7192-F631-75E2A95FDB77/Documento.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://philclass.spbu.ru/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Filimonov-E.G.-Dual-Semantics-of-the-Latin-inter-.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.es/books?id=LbG8vw_pva8C&amp;pg=PA482&amp;lpg=PA482&amp;dq=separative%20interficere%20inter&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=_UHjLlU9tC&amp;sig=ACfU3U25HTYiSwBb9Xh50DrZ4pYjKTJMtg&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjDu5bOy8rlAhUiA2MBHS75DfYQ6AEwAHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=separative%20interficere%20inter&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12762" RevisionGUID="2585b34b-7627-40d5-9a10-80757cadc088" CreationDate="2019-11-02T05:25:03.043" UserId="6254" Text="Is there a more idiomatic translation Into Latin of the sentence “Art will save me.” than “Ars servabit me fac.”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35857" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12762" RevisionGUID="2585b34b-7627-40d5-9a10-80757cadc088" CreationDate="2019-11-02T05:25:03.043" UserId="6254" Text="Idiomatic translation of “Art will save me” to Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35858" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12762" RevisionGUID="2585b34b-7627-40d5-9a10-80757cadc088" CreationDate="2019-11-02T05:25:03.043" UserId="6254" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12760" RevisionGUID="12054abb-35d1-4b00-bbe8-db548a513396" CreationDate="2019-11-02T05:50:17.707" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="Complex verbs like tr. _interficere_ 'to kill' and intr. _interire_ 'to die' contain the prefix _inter-_, which some scholars (e.g., [López Moreda (1987: 222)][1]) have claimed is related to the suffix *_-tero_, which, among other basic meanings, can express [&quot;a **separative** function&quot; ][2] (cf. Benveniste (1948)). According to López Moreda, the original meaning of _interficere_ is 'to put in between by separating'. [Filimonov (2019: 86)][3] also points out a parallelism with Sanskrit _antar-dha_ ‘to kill, destroy’ (lit. ‘in the middle, between’-‘put’). See also Sandoz, Cl (1976). “Du latin _interficio_ au védique _antar dha_”. _Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique_ LXXI: 207-219 [but see TKR's remark below on the alleged parallelism given by Filimonov (2019: 86)]. A further parallelism between Lat. _inter_ and Hittite [_istarna_][5] can also be pointed out to give evidence for the non-obvious separative component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming, along with López Moreda, that the original meaning of _interficere_  is 'to put in between by separating', it is also relevant to point out that the separation idea involved in this verb is clearly related to its privative use in Early Latin: e.g., _Salue, qui me interfecisti paene uita et lumine_ (Pl. _Truc._ 518). Hence its meaning 'to cause separation from life'. Finally, as for the causation idea, it is obvious that it is involved in _interficere_, since the transitive verb _facere_ means 'to do/to cause' (cf. the intransitive-unaccusative verb _interire_, which does not express 'causation' but only 'change (of state)'). &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://62.204.194.45/fez/eserv/bibliuned:Epos-CAAD79C7-C9D4-7192-F631-75E2A95FDB77/Documento.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.es/books?id=Gxq540du26oC&amp;pg=PA199&amp;lpg=PA199&amp;dq=suffix%20*tero%20benveniste&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=eZ6hGCYSHn&amp;sig=ACfU3U1dK5Ls76tZDeqRHfoQrVKp1XSP0A&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjvq92b5MrlAhVDAWMBHXFJBlgQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=suffix%20*tero%20benveniste&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://philclass.spbu.ru/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Filimonov-E.G.-Dual-Semantics-of-the-Latin-inter-.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.es/books?id=LbG8vw_pva8C&amp;pg=PA482&amp;lpg=PA482&amp;dq=separative%20interficere%20inter&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=_UHjLlU9tC&amp;sig=ACfU3U25HTYiSwBb9Xh50DrZ4pYjKTJMtg&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjDu5bOy8rlAhUiA2MBHS75DfYQ6AEwAHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=separative%20interficere%20inter&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.es/books?id=LbG8vw_pva8C&amp;pg=PA482&amp;lpg=PA482&amp;dq=separation%20separately%20interficere%20inter&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=_UHjLmSawI&amp;sig=ACfU3U1u4yUHEt9Pxq5SaIGiQF05mR3yKg&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwi7_I326crlAhWTDWMBHUh1CL8Q6AEwBHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=separation%20separately%20interficere%20inter&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12760" RevisionGUID="0c4fb141-7d59-4e86-bb98-cb8b6a9a4d5e" CreationDate="2019-11-02T06:05:40.853" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="Complex verbs like tr. _interficere_ 'to kill' and intr. _interire_ 'to die' contain the prefix _inter-_, which some scholars (e.g., [López Moreda (1987: 222)][1]) have claimed is related to the suffix *_-tero_, which, among other basic meanings, can express [&quot;a **separative** function&quot;][2] (cf. Benveniste (1948)). According to López Moreda, the original meaning of _interficere_ is 'to put in between by separating'. [Filimonov (2019: 86)][4] also points out a parallelism with Sanskrit _antar-dha_ ‘to kill, destroy’ (lit. ‘in the middle, between’-‘put’). See also Sandoz, Cl (1976). “Du latin _interficio_ au védique _antar dha_”. _Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique_ LXXI: 207-219 [but see TKR's remark below on the alleged parallelism given by Filimonov (2019: 86)]. A further parallelism between Lat. _inter_ and Hittite [_istarna_][5] can also be pointed out to give evidence for the separative component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming, along with López Moreda, that the original meaning of _interficere_  is 'to put in between by separating', it is also relevant to point out that the separation idea involved in this verb is clearly related to its privative use in Early Latin: e.g., _Salue, qui me interfecisti paene uita et lumine_ (Pl. _Truc._ 518). Hence its meaning 'to cause separation from life'. Finally, as for the causation idea, it is obvious that it is involved in _interficere_, since the transitive verb _facere_ means 'to do/to cause' (cf. the intransitive-unaccusative verb _interire_, which does not express 'causation' but only 'change (of state)'). &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://62.204.194.45/fez/eserv/bibliuned:Epos-CAAD79C7-C9D4-7192-F631-75E2A95FDB77/Documento.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.es/books?id=Gxq540du26oC&amp;pg=PA199&amp;lpg=PA199&amp;dq=suffix%20*tero%20benveniste%20separative&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=eZ6hGC_WOp&amp;sig=ACfU3U1Z1AJWUdE4ztIwkpsAm--FS5jA6w&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjD9eC27crlAhULlhQKHVarBa0Q6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=suffix%20*tero%20benveniste%20separative&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.es/books?id=Gxq540du26oC&amp;pg=PA199&amp;lpg=PA199&amp;dq=suffix%20*tero%20benveniste&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=eZ6hGCYSHn&amp;sig=ACfU3U1dK5Ls76tZDeqRHfoQrVKp1XSP0A&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjvq92b5MrlAhVDAWMBHXFJBlgQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=suffix%20*tero%20benveniste&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://philclass.spbu.ru/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Filimonov-E.G.-Dual-Semantics-of-the-Latin-inter-.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.es/books?id=LbG8vw_pva8C&amp;pg=PA482&amp;lpg=PA482&amp;dq=separation%20separately%20interficere%20inter&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=_UHjLmSawI&amp;sig=ACfU3U1u4yUHEt9Pxq5SaIGiQF05mR3yKg&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwi7_I326crlAhWTDWMBHUh1CL8Q6AEwBHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=separation%20separately%20interficere%20inter&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12760" RevisionGUID="75647b48-8328-42ec-b005-4cbf21938da0" CreationDate="2019-11-02T06:10:56.780" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="Complex verbs like tr. _interficere_ 'to kill' and intr. _interire_ 'to die' contain the prefix _inter-_, which some scholars (e.g., [López Moreda (1987: 222)][1]) have claimed is related to the suffix *_-tero_, which, among other basic meanings, can express [&quot;a **separative** function&quot;][2] (cf. Benveniste (1948)). According to López Moreda, the original meaning of _interficere_ is 'to put in between by separating'. [Filimonov (2019: 86)][4] also points out a parallelism with Sanskrit _antar-dha_ ‘to kill, destroy’ (lit. ‘in the middle, between’-‘put’). See also Sandoz, Cl (1976). “Du latin _interficio_ au védique _antar dha_”. _Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique_ LXXI: 207-219 [but see TKR's remark below on the alleged parallelism given by Filimonov (2019: 86)]. A further parallelism between Lat. _inter_ and Hittite [_istarna_][5] can also be pointed out to give evidence for the separative component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming, along with López Moreda, that the original meaning of _interficere_  is 'to put in between by separating', it is also relevant to point out that the separation idea involved in this verb is clearly related to its privative use in Early Latin: e.g., _Salue, qui me interfecisti paene uita et lumine_ (Pl. _Truc._ 518). Hence its meaning '**to cause separation from life**'. Finally, as for the causation idea, it is obvious that it is involved in _interficere_, since the transitive verb _facere_ means 'to do/to cause' (cf. the intransitive-unaccusative verb _interire_, which does not express 'causation' but only 'change (of state)'). &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://62.204.194.45/fez/eserv/bibliuned:Epos-CAAD79C7-C9D4-7192-F631-75E2A95FDB77/Documento.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.es/books?id=Gxq540du26oC&amp;pg=PA199&amp;lpg=PA199&amp;dq=suffix%20*tero%20benveniste%20separative&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=eZ6hGC_WOp&amp;sig=ACfU3U1Z1AJWUdE4ztIwkpsAm--FS5jA6w&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjD9eC27crlAhULlhQKHVarBa0Q6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=suffix%20*tero%20benveniste%20separative&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.es/books?id=Gxq540du26oC&amp;pg=PA199&amp;lpg=PA199&amp;dq=suffix%20*tero%20benveniste&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=eZ6hGCYSHn&amp;sig=ACfU3U1dK5Ls76tZDeqRHfoQrVKp1XSP0A&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjvq92b5MrlAhVDAWMBHXFJBlgQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=suffix%20*tero%20benveniste&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://philclass.spbu.ru/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Filimonov-E.G.-Dual-Semantics-of-the-Latin-inter-.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.es/books?id=LbG8vw_pva8C&amp;pg=PA482&amp;lpg=PA482&amp;dq=separation%20separately%20interficere%20inter&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=_UHjLmSawI&amp;sig=ACfU3U1u4yUHEt9Pxq5SaIGiQF05mR3yKg&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwi7_I326crlAhWTDWMBHUh1CL8Q6AEwBHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=separation%20separately%20interficere%20inter&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12763" RevisionGUID="be9673c5-985b-496d-a253-d04f98fb7a71" CreationDate="2019-11-02T06:22:39.473" UserId="1059" Text="Why Romans had Cenaculum and Triclinum as dinning rooms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What was the difference, and why Cenaculum were upstairs? What was the benefit to have a dining room in the attic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know what is a triclinum, as I read articles about it. Apart form the fact to be a room and a piece of furniture allowing to eat in a lying position, it seems like a regular dinning room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the dictionaries define Cenaculum as &quot;attic&quot; or &quot;upstairs dinning room&quot;.      &#xD;&#xA;So, why upstairs? If there alreay had a triclinum, why a Cenaculum upstairs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35863" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12763" RevisionGUID="be9673c5-985b-496d-a253-d04f98fb7a71" CreationDate="2019-11-02T06:22:39.473" UserId="1059" Text="Difference in the role of Cenaculum and Triclinum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35864" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12763" RevisionGUID="be9673c5-985b-496d-a253-d04f98fb7a71" CreationDate="2019-11-02T06:22:39.473" UserId="1059" Text="|roman-culture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12763" RevisionGUID="da0f5e4b-e942-4898-a714-e8020e139538" CreationDate="2019-11-02T10:18:56.517" UserId="1059" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Why Romans had both, *Cenaculum* and *Triclinum*, as dinning rooms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What was the difference, and why Cenaculum was upstairs? What was the benefit to have a dining room in the attic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know what is a triclinum, as I read articles about it. Apart form the fact to be a room and a piece of furniture allowing to eat in a lying position, it seems like a regular dinning room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the dictionaries define Cenaculum as &quot;attic&quot; or &quot;upstairs dinning room&quot;.      &#xD;&#xA;So, why upstairs? If there alreay had a triclinum, why a Cenaculum upstairs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1087" RevisionGUID="f2cdec42-1ac1-4b3e-9a7f-f1834d486187" CreationDate="2019-11-02T10:42:58.133" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="I always use the site: https://en.glosbe.com/&#xD;&#xA;I like the site because it has got more than 15.000 words, new and old Latin. It shows: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The conjugation of the word&#xD;&#xA;- Many meanings&#xD;&#xA;- A lot of example sentences&#xD;&#xA;- You can listen to the pronunciation&#xD;&#xA;- It is based on several online dictionaries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a great site, I recommend it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12764" RevisionGUID="bf6bc865-93ac-4995-b751-95dc640369bf" CreationDate="2019-11-02T11:11:19.370" UserId="2476" Text="Here's a new opportunity with regards to Ecclesiastical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On June 8, 2019, Vatican Radio started broadcasting _Hebdomada Papae, notitiae vaticanae latine redditae_ (The Pope's week in review: Vatican news bulletin in Latin), a 5-minute weekly news bulletin airing every Saturday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The programme is curated by Alessandro De Carolis, head of Vatican Radio, and results from the collaboration between Vatican Radio journalists and the Vatican Secretariat of Latin Letters, which already draws up official documents in Latin and manages the pope's Latin language Twitter account. [See here for more info.](https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2019-06/latin-news-vatican-radio-hebdomada-papae.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching for &quot;Hebdomada Papae&quot; on the [Vatican News website](https://www.vaticannews.va/it.html) you can find all the broadcasts - plus transcriptions and translations in Italian - prior to when you're searching. Note: as of now you may not find them on versions of the website in a language other than Italian, because they haven't been uploaded there (yet?)) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35868" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="12764" RevisionGUID="142e14c8-8954-4887-b9f7-d103d5680966" CreationDate="2019-11-02T11:11:19.370" UserId="2476" />
  <row Id="35869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12764" RevisionGUID="e736b354-e523-4db6-90d8-611c2c5b9203" CreationDate="2019-11-02T15:58:21.033" UserId="2476" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Here's a new opportunity with regard to Ecclesiastical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On June 8, 2019, Vatican Radio started broadcasting _Hebdomada Papae, notitiae vaticanae latine redditae_ (The Pope's week in review: Vatican news bulletin in Latin), a 5-minute weekly news bulletin airing every Saturday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The programme is curated by Alessandro De Carolis, head of Vatican Radio, and results from the collaboration between Vatican Radio journalists and the Vatican Secretariat of Latin Letters, which already draws up official documents in Latin and manages the pope's Latin language Twitter account. [See here for more info.](https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2019-06/latin-news-vatican-radio-hebdomada-papae.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching for &quot;Hebdomada Papae&quot; on the [Vatican News website](https://www.vaticannews.va/it.html) you can find all the broadcasts - plus transcriptions and translations in Italian - prior to when you're searching. Note: as of now you may not find them on versions of the website in a language other than Italian, because they haven't been uploaded there (yet?)) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12765" RevisionGUID="9d87824a-ee0a-4f27-a534-01a8ddef4fec" CreationDate="2019-11-02T17:01:12.707" UserId="6257" Text="Is there a difference between the pair dexter/sinister (right/left) and rectus/laevus? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was only aware of the pair dexter/sinister until recently, when I learned that chiral molecules in molecular biology are labeled &quot;D&quot; and &quot;L&quot; to signify right- and left-handed versions. These letters are apparently inspired by *dexter* and *laevus*, which is perhaps extra surprising since it seems like this combines one word each from two common pairings, rather than sticking to a single pairing (e.g., &quot;D&quot; and &quot;S&quot;, or &quot;R&quot; and &quot;L&quot;.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35871" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12765" RevisionGUID="9d87824a-ee0a-4f27-a534-01a8ddef4fec" CreationDate="2019-11-02T17:01:12.707" UserId="6257" Text="Difference between dexter/sinister and rectus/laevus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35872" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12765" RevisionGUID="9d87824a-ee0a-4f27-a534-01a8ddef4fec" CreationDate="2019-11-02T17:01:12.707" UserId="6257" Text="|etymology|meaning|differences|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12766" RevisionGUID="3125c4d9-4dc5-4f73-aee5-54a385d21622" CreationDate="2019-11-02T17:58:51.530" UserId="4871" Text="Seems like a perfectly legitimate instrumental use of the ablative.  (Presumably one could also ask someone &quot;dic signo&quot;, for example, so it's not a completely empty modifier of *dic*.)  If that's the case, though, then the usual English translation is a bit off (though it's hard to see how one would do better without producing very non-idiomatic English)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12767" RevisionGUID="4328537a-cd3a-4d76-bc8a-39bb1fd59292" CreationDate="2019-11-02T19:37:27.670" UserId="324" Text="interfacere “to kill” goes with interfieri “to be destroyed” and interdicere “to ban”. Latin inter is cognate with (among others) Old High German untar, English under. This suggests that the descendants of IE *enter (or *H1enter) designate not only “in, between” but also “under, below”. In this case Latin interfacere would have a similar semantic as the English “to take down”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12767" RevisionGUID="e3b34681-9fba-49c1-b806-53a114b948e3" CreationDate="2019-11-02T19:45:45.957" UserId="324" Comment="edited body" Text="interficere “to kill” goes with interfieri “to be destroyed” and interdicere “to ban”. Latin inter is cognate with (among others) Old High German untar, English under. This suggests that the descendants of IE *enter (or *H1enter) designate not only “in, between” but also “under, below”. In this case Latin interficere would have a similar semantic as the English “to take down”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12768" RevisionGUID="a0e08241-9f54-4023-a74c-d92d8e924373" CreationDate="2019-11-02T23:27:30.917" UserId="30" Text="That sounds perfectly fine to me. You are correct about the genitive. An alternative could be *Lacus Craterae*; for both *crater* and *cratera* exist, with the same meaning, which includes the drinking-vessel and a volcanic crater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is conceivable that the Romans might have used an adjective, like *?craterius* or similar, but I have not found actual use of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. A famous crater lake is *[Lacus Avernus][1]*, where the entrance to my world is said to lie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Avernus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12760" RevisionGUID="45716086-b90c-47d5-9672-0d942c88dfca" CreationDate="2019-11-03T02:03:59.223" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="Complex verbs like tr. _interficere_ 'to kill' and intr. _interire_ 'to die' contain the prefix _inter-_, which some scholars (e.g., [López Moreda (1987: page 222)][1], among others) have claimed is related to the suffix *_-tero_, which can express [&quot;a **separative** function&quot;][2] (cf. Benveniste (1948)). According to López Moreda, i.a., the original meaning of _interficere_ is 'to put in between by separating'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Filimonov (2019: page 86)][3] also points out a parallelism with Sanskrit _antar-dha_ ‘to kill, destroy’ (lit. ‘in the middle, between’-‘put’). In this respect see also Sandoz, Cl (1976). “Du latin _interficio_ au védique _antar dha_”. _Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique_ LXXI: 207-219 [but see TKR's remark below on the alleged parallelism given by Filimonov (2019: 86)]. A further parallelism between Lat. _inter_ and Hittite [_istarna_][4] can also be pointed out to give evidence for the separative component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming, along with López Moreda et al., that the original meaning of the causative change of state verb _interficere_  is 'to put in between by separating', it is also relevant to point out that the separation idea involved in this verb is clearly related to its privative use in Early Latin: e.g., _Salue, qui me interfecisti paene uita et lumine_ (Pl. _Truc._ 518). Hence its meaning 'to cause me to be separated from life'. Cf. also the same definition provided by the Indo-Europeanist [Meier-Brügger (2003: page 187)][5]:  &quot;_interficere_: 'to separate (from life), to make disappear'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, as for the causation idea, it is obvious that it is involved in _interficere_, since the transitive verb _facere_ means 'to do/to cause' (cf. the intransitive-unaccusative verb _interire_, which does not express 'causation' but only 'change (of state)'). &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://62.204.194.45/fez/eserv/bibliuned:Epos-CAAD79C7-C9D4-7192-F631-75E2A95FDB77/Documento.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.es/books?id=Gxq540du26oC&amp;pg=PA199&amp;lpg=PA199&amp;dq=suffix%20*tero%20benveniste%20separative&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=eZ6hGC_WOp&amp;sig=ACfU3U1Z1AJWUdE4ztIwkpsAm--FS5jA6w&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjD9eC27crlAhULlhQKHVarBa0Q6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=suffix%20*tero%20benveniste%20separative&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://philclass.spbu.ru/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Filimonov-E.G.-Dual-Semantics-of-the-Latin-inter-.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.es/books?id=LbG8vw_pva8C&amp;pg=PA482&amp;lpg=PA482&amp;dq=separation%20separately%20interficere%20inter&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=_UHjLmSawI&amp;sig=ACfU3U1u4yUHEt9Pxq5SaIGiQF05mR3yKg&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwi7_I326crlAhWTDWMBHUh1CL8Q6AEwBHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=separation%20separately%20interficere%20inter&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://caio.ueberalles.net/Indo-European-Linguistics-Introduction/Indo-European_Linguistics%20-%20Michael%20Meier-Bru%CC%88gger.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12760" RevisionGUID="4f6b6b49-d9ab-4190-8c94-16c8cf4ccd1f" CreationDate="2019-11-03T02:16:09.370" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="Complex verbs like tr. _interficere_ 'to kill' and intr. _interire_ 'to die' contain the prefix _inter-_, which some scholars (e.g., [López Moreda (1987: page 222)][1], among others) have claimed is related to the suffix *_-tero_, which can express [&quot;a **separative** function&quot;][2] (cf. Benveniste (1948)). According to López Moreda, i.a., the original meaning of _interficere_ is 'to put in between by separating' [cf. also the relevant source pointed out below by AlexB on Hermann Hirt (1928) _Indogermanische Grammatik_ (volume IV, page 59)]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Filimonov (2019: page 86)][3], among others, also points out a parallelism with Sanskrit _antar-dha_ ‘to kill, destroy’ (lit. ‘in the middle, between’-‘put’). In this respect see also Sandoz, Cl (1976). “Du latin _interficio_ au védique _antar dha_”. _Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique_ LXXI: 207-219 [but see TKR's remark below on the alleged parallelism given by Filimonov (2019: 86)]. A further parallelism between Lat. _inter_ and Hittite [_istarna_][4] can also be pointed out to give evidence for the separative component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming, along with López Moreda et al., that the original meaning of the causative change of state verb _interficere_  is 'to put in between by separating', it is also relevant to point out that the separation idea involved in this verb is clearly related to its privative use in Early Latin: e.g., _Salue, qui me interfecisti paene uita et lumine_ (Pl. _Truc._ 518). Hence its meaning 'to cause me to be separated from life'. Cf. also the same definition provided by the Indo-Europeanist [Meier-Brügger (2003: page 187)][5]:  &quot;_interficere_: 'to separate (from life), to make disappear'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, as for the causation idea, it is obvious that it is involved in _interficere_, since the transitive verb _facere_ means 'to do/to cause' (cf. the intransitive-unaccusative verb _interire_, which does not express 'causation' but only 'change (of state)'). &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://62.204.194.45/fez/eserv/bibliuned:Epos-CAAD79C7-C9D4-7192-F631-75E2A95FDB77/Documento.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.es/books?id=Gxq540du26oC&amp;pg=PA199&amp;lpg=PA199&amp;dq=suffix%20*tero%20benveniste%20separative&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=eZ6hGC_WOp&amp;sig=ACfU3U1Z1AJWUdE4ztIwkpsAm--FS5jA6w&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjD9eC27crlAhULlhQKHVarBa0Q6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=suffix%20*tero%20benveniste%20separative&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://philclass.spbu.ru/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Filimonov-E.G.-Dual-Semantics-of-the-Latin-inter-.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.es/books?id=LbG8vw_pva8C&amp;pg=PA482&amp;lpg=PA482&amp;dq=separation%20separately%20interficere%20inter&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=_UHjLmSawI&amp;sig=ACfU3U1u4yUHEt9Pxq5SaIGiQF05mR3yKg&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwi7_I326crlAhWTDWMBHUh1CL8Q6AEwBHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=separation%20separately%20interficere%20inter&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://caio.ueberalles.net/Indo-European-Linguistics-Introduction/Indo-European_Linguistics%20-%20Michael%20Meier-Bru%CC%88gger.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12760" RevisionGUID="65bfe7a0-83a6-4fa0-9256-83fd967fc55f" CreationDate="2019-11-03T02:26:21.083" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="Complex verbs like tr. _interficere_ 'to kill' and intr. _interire_ 'to die' contain the prefix _inter-_, which some scholars (e.g., [López Moreda (1987: page 222)][1], among others) have claimed is related to the suffix *_-tero_, which can express [&quot;a **separative** function&quot;][2] (cf. Benveniste (1948)). According to López Moreda, i.a., the original meaning of _interficere_ is 'to put in between by separating' [cf. also the previous relevant source pointed out below by AlexB on Hermann Hirt (1928) _Indogermanische Grammatik_ (volume IV, page 59)]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Filimonov (2019: page 86)][3], among others, also points out a parallelism with Sanskrit _antar-dha_ ‘to kill, destroy’ (lit. ‘in the middle, between’-‘put’). In this respect see also the article by Sandoz, Cl (1976). “Du latin _interficio_ au védique _antar dha_”. _Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique_ LXXI: 207-219 [but see TKR's remark below on the alleged parallelism given by Filimonov (2019: 86)]. A further parallelism between Lat. _inter_ and Hittite [_istarna_][4] can also be pointed out to give evidence for the separative component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming, along with López Moreda et al., that the original meaning of the causative change of state verb _interficere_  is 'to put in between by separating', it is also relevant to point out that the separation idea involved in this verb is clearly related to its privative use in Early Latin: e.g., _Salue, qui me interfecisti paene uita et lumine_ (Pl. _Truc._ 518). Hence its meaning 'to cause me to be separated from life'. Cf. also the same definition provided by the Indo-Europeanist [Meier-Brügger (2003: page 187)][5]:  &quot;_interficere_: 'to separate (from life), to make disappear'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, as for the causation idea, it is obvious that it is involved in _interficere_, since the transitive verb _facere_ means 'to do/to cause' (cf. the intransitive-unaccusative verb _interire_, which does not express 'causation' but only 'change (of state)'). &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://62.204.194.45/fez/eserv/bibliuned:Epos-CAAD79C7-C9D4-7192-F631-75E2A95FDB77/Documento.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.es/books?id=Gxq540du26oC&amp;pg=PA199&amp;lpg=PA199&amp;dq=suffix%20*tero%20benveniste%20separative&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=eZ6hGC_WOp&amp;sig=ACfU3U1Z1AJWUdE4ztIwkpsAm--FS5jA6w&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjD9eC27crlAhULlhQKHVarBa0Q6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=suffix%20*tero%20benveniste%20separative&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://philclass.spbu.ru/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Filimonov-E.G.-Dual-Semantics-of-the-Latin-inter-.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.es/books?id=LbG8vw_pva8C&amp;pg=PA482&amp;lpg=PA482&amp;dq=separation%20separately%20interficere%20inter&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=_UHjLmSawI&amp;sig=ACfU3U1u4yUHEt9Pxq5SaIGiQF05mR3yKg&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwi7_I326crlAhWTDWMBHUh1CL8Q6AEwBHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=separation%20separately%20interficere%20inter&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://caio.ueberalles.net/Indo-European-Linguistics-Introduction/Indo-European_Linguistics%20-%20Michael%20Meier-Bru%CC%88gger.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12769" RevisionGUID="4548fb14-a5f8-48c7-8d6f-2b63d8ca26d9" CreationDate="2019-11-03T07:01:29.883" UserId="1059" Text="-Was the chiasma common in Latin? Or an uncommon figure of speech?   &#xD;&#xA;(Words in a sentence with the pattern ABBA or ABBCBBA, etc...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Where could we meet the greatest amount of chiasma? In poetry? In speech? In prose?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-How was it used? To put an emphasis or something? What was its role in stylistic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Which words were more commonly use as the &quot;C&quot; in my AB-C-BA example? A particular type of word?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35881" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12769" RevisionGUID="4548fb14-a5f8-48c7-8d6f-2b63d8ca26d9" CreationDate="2019-11-03T07:01:29.883" UserId="1059" Text="Use of the chiasmus in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35882" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12769" RevisionGUID="4548fb14-a5f8-48c7-8d6f-2b63d8ca26d9" CreationDate="2019-11-03T07:01:29.883" UserId="1059" Text="|poetry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12770" RevisionGUID="b313927e-5b2e-455e-97b8-dc036451a241" CreationDate="2019-11-03T09:47:08.843" UserId="1059" Text="When &quot;discere&quot; can be synonymous with &quot;studere&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read an old book saying that:  &#xD;&#xA; &quot;discere&quot; and &quot;studere&quot; aren't usually synonymous, but they can be in some particular contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to know in which contexts it could be the case.    &#xD;&#xA;Could you give some examples (at least 2, to be sure it can be in several contexts). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35884" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12770" RevisionGUID="b313927e-5b2e-455e-97b8-dc036451a241" CreationDate="2019-11-03T09:47:08.843" UserId="1059" Text="Discere and Studere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35885" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12770" RevisionGUID="b313927e-5b2e-455e-97b8-dc036451a241" CreationDate="2019-11-03T09:47:08.843" UserId="1059" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4927" RevisionGUID="7c97522a-3292-4499-b845-32da06f17489" CreationDate="2019-11-03T16:05:18.793" UserId="78" Comment="added 369 characters in body" Text="The question asks about Romans using dogs, and therefore I'm going to say no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Pliny the Elder (8.61):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A king of the Garamantes also was brought back from exile by two hundred dogs, which maintained the combat against all his opponents. **The people of Colophon and Castabala kept troops of dogs, for the purposes of war; and these used to fight in the front rank, and never retreat; they were the most faithful of auxiliaries, and yet required no pay.** After the defeat of the Cimbri, their dogs defended their moveable houses, which were carried upon waggons. Jason, the Lycian, having been slain, his dog refused to take food, and died of famine. A dog, to which Darius gives the name of Hyrcanus, upon the funeral pile of King Lysimachus being lighted, threw itself into the flames, and the dog of King Hiero did the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Polyaenus mentions](http://www.attalus.org/translate/polyaenus7.html#2.1) it as something Alyattes (a Lydian king) did against the Cimmerians in the eighth century BCE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others are gathered together in Forster's article &quot;Dogs in Ancient Warfare&quot; (*Greece &amp; Rome* 10, 1941: 114—117), but for Romans they seem to only be guard dogs. It's possible that they may have been used at times during war, but they certainly weren't a regular feature of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure where the idea originated, but The Zoologist, written in 1884, [only mentions](https://books.google.com/books?id=QuVGAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA401&amp;#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) that dogs were used in war by the Persians and Assyrians, though he does mention the Pliny reference. And I as I mentioned in a comment to the question, the *OCD&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;* does not mention dogs used in war, which I also would have expected it to were there good evidence for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12771" RevisionGUID="526487b9-74e3-48f2-a4cf-074223298893" CreationDate="2019-11-03T16:38:14.137" UserId="30" Text="Chiasms are mostly used in poetry and high rhetoric, for dramatic or or playful effect. What they do is emphasise the words that seem inverted, draw the reader or listener's attention. I would say the frequency and effect of chiasms were not so different from how they are used in the modern languages. I think the 'C' in ABCBA could be anything; it depends entirely on the sentence. Typically a word like *et*. I suspect ABBCBBA would be very rare; you don't happen to have an example available?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12772" RevisionGUID="d06d13a1-841f-493a-a750-1dc4c961f8c9" CreationDate="2019-11-03T18:15:18.293" UserId="39" Text="Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;consul socrum rogat ut aliquam partem aedium vacuam faceret, quo Hispala immigraret. cenaculum super aedes datum est, scalis ferentibus in publicum obseratis, aditu in aedes verso. (Livy)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Circum cavum aedium erat unius cuiusque rei utilitatis causa parietibus dissepta: ubi quid conditum esse volebant, a celando cellam appellarunt; penariam ubi penus; ubi cubabant cubiculum; ubi cenabant cenaculum vocitabant, ut etiam nunc Lanuvi apud aedem Iunonis et in cetero Latio ac Faleri&lt;i&gt;s et Cordubae dicuntur. Posteaquam in superiore parte cenitare coeperunt, superioris domus universa cenacula dicta; posteaquam ubi cenabant plura facere coeperunt, ut in castris ab hieme hiberna [..] (Varro)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12773" RevisionGUID="0fed8629-77fa-4fcc-8aea-c4017d586ae1" CreationDate="2019-11-03T19:07:51.237" UserId="30" Text="In modern books, two orders of the cases can be found: *nom, gen, dat, acc, abl*, and *nom, acc, gen, dat, abl*. Which one did the Romans use? Or did they use some entirely different order?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35890" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12773" RevisionGUID="0fed8629-77fa-4fcc-8aea-c4017d586ae1" CreationDate="2019-11-03T19:07:51.237" UserId="30" Text="What order of the cases did the Romans use when declining nouns?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35891" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12773" RevisionGUID="0fed8629-77fa-4fcc-8aea-c4017d586ae1" CreationDate="2019-11-03T19:07:51.237" UserId="30" Text="|declension|case|teaching-method|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35892" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12773" RevisionGUID="9db8b036-14cf-4243-8cef-f189504cbe5a" CreationDate="2019-11-03T19:07:58.817" UserId="30" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6915],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:30,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Cerberus&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12772" RevisionGUID="42ed9271-338f-4c4f-9fa6-d2d4b438eb25" CreationDate="2019-11-03T20:20:26.177" UserId="39" Comment="added 479 characters in body" Text="Höcker, Christoph (Kissing), “Cenaculum”, in: Brill’s New Pauly, says the following about cenaculum: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;originally the dining room on the upper floor of the Roman house. From time to time the term cenaculum includes the entire upper floor (Varro, Ling. 5,162; Fest. 54,6); the rooms described as cenacula were for accommodating guests of an inferior rank or slaves. They could also be the object of a lease; cenaculum became in this context synonymous with shabby housing.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;consul socrum rogat ut aliquam partem aedium vacuam faceret, quo Hispala immigraret. cenaculum super aedes datum est, scalis ferentibus in publicum obseratis, aditu in aedes verso. (Livy)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Circum cavum aedium erat unius cuiusque rei utilitatis causa parietibus dissepta: ubi quid conditum esse volebant, a celando cellam appellarunt; penariam ubi penus; ubi cubabant cubiculum; ubi cenabant cenaculum vocitabant, ut etiam nunc Lanuvi apud aedem Iunonis et in cetero Latio ac Faleri&lt;i&gt;s et Cordubae dicuntur. Posteaquam in superiore parte cenitare coeperunt, superioris domus universa cenacula dicta; posteaquam ubi cenabant plura facere coeperunt, ut in castris ab hieme hiberna [..] (Varro)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12774" RevisionGUID="0d650e32-042a-4cee-be3a-98f62b3eb451" CreationDate="2019-11-03T20:36:25.400" UserId="6258" Text="Is there any analogue of English *newsletter* or French *bulletin* in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35895" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12774" RevisionGUID="0d650e32-042a-4cee-be3a-98f62b3eb451" CreationDate="2019-11-03T20:36:25.400" UserId="6258" Text="Translating “newsletter” or “bulletin”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35896" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12774" RevisionGUID="0d650e32-042a-4cee-be3a-98f62b3eb451" CreationDate="2019-11-03T20:36:25.400" UserId="6258" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35897" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12774" RevisionGUID="3c838398-0d00-49de-b26d-cdb58b465cfe" CreationDate="2019-11-03T20:44:13.383" UserId="6258" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12775" RevisionGUID="4850847e-4aa5-40a1-a746-6af3855bbc0e" CreationDate="2019-11-03T20:45:10.580" UserId="406" Text="&gt; Ars servabit me fac&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means, literally, &quot;art will save me—make!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would remove the &quot;make!&quot; (_fac_), but the rest is pretty good. If you want it a bit more idiomatic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The most natural Latin word order would be _ars mē servābit_ (though no order is _wrong_, per se)&#xD;&#xA; - If you want it to sound more like a motto, you can reduce it to _ars servat_: &quot;art saves [people]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's not an exact equivalent for English &quot;art&quot; in Latin, but _ars_ works for many circumstances." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12776" RevisionGUID="de54c9be-dc8c-40c3-8941-8936637b685d" CreationDate="2019-11-03T21:00:09.620" UserId="406" Text="Before Gutenberg's printing press, the concept of a &quot;newsletter&quot; didn't really exist—producing dozens of written copies of weekly announcements just wasn't cost-effective for your average citizen. So the best option will probably be an analogy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Nūntius_ can mean either an envoy, a courier, or a message delivered by a courier. In the plural, _nūntiī_, it can also mean &quot;news&quot; or &quot;tidings&quot;; it is in fact cognate with English &quot;news&quot;. So you could refer to your newsletter as _nūntiī_: &quot;the news&quot; or &quot;the announcements&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternately, _bulla_ literally means &quot;bubble&quot;, but later came to mean a seal on a document. Important announcements and other documents were sealed with a _bulla_, and thus came to be known as _bullae_ themselves—this is how we get &quot;papal bulls&quot; in English. So you could potentially call a single newsletter a _bulla_ by analogy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, _litterae_ (almost always plural, even when referring to a single object) means &quot;letter&quot;, plain and simple. If you want to emphasize a piece of paper being sent through the mail, as opposed to a set of announcements sent out en masse, _litterae_ could work for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Between the three, I'd recommend _nūntiī_; it's more closely connected to a Classical word, while _bulla_ meaning a document is Mediaeval, so I expect _nūntiī_ to be more widely understood nowadays; and _litterae_ don't necessarily have any connection to news or announcements, which are the main point of a bulletin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12777" RevisionGUID="90cc3402-8601-4ea2-a8b7-b280e4736a6a" CreationDate="2019-11-04T04:09:12.327" UserId="78" Text="Yes! Acta Diurna!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick note from Lewis and Short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B. acta publĭca , or absol.: acta , ōrum, n., the register of public acts, records, journal. Julius Cæsar, in his consulship, ordered that the doings of the Senate (diurna acta) should be made public, Suet. Caes. 20; cf. Ernest. Exc. 1; “but Augustus again prohibited it,” Suet. Aug. 36. Still the acts of the Senate were written down, and, under the succeeding emperors. certain senators were appointed to this office (actis vel commentariis Senatūs conficiendis), Tac. A. 5, 4. They had also public registers of the transactions of the assemblies of the people, and of the different courts of justice; “also of births and deaths, marriages, divorces, etc., which were preserved as sources of future history.—Hence, diurna urbis acta,” the city journal, Tac. A. 13, 31: “acta populi,” Suet. Caes. 20: “acta publica,” Tac. A. 12, 24; Suet. Tib. 8; Plin. Ep. 7, 33: “urbana,” id. ib. 9, 15; which were all comprehended under the gen. name acta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [Smith's Dictionary](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Acta.html#5):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Acta Diurna, a gazette published daily at Rome by the authority of the government during the later times of the republic, and under the empire, corresponding in some measure to our newspapers (Tac. Ann. III.3, XIII.31, XVI.22). In addition to the title Acta Diurna, we find them referred to under the names of Diurna, Acta Publica,  p8 Acta Urbana, Acta Rerum Urbanarum, Acta Populi, and they are frequently called simply Acta. The Greek writers on Roman history call them τὰ ὐπομνήματα, τὰ δημόσια ὐπομνήματα, τὰ δημόσια γράμματα, and τὰ κοινὰ ὐπομνήματα. The nature of their contents will be best seen from the following passage of Petronius (c53) where in imitation of them is given by the actuarius of Trimalchio:— &quot;Actuarius — tamquam acta urbis recitavit: VII. Kal. Sextilis in praedio Cumano, quod est Trimalchionis, nati sunt pueri XXX, puellae XL; sublata in horreum ex area tritici millia modium quingenta; boves domiti quingenti. Eodem die Mithridates servus in crucem actus est, quia Gaii nostri genio maledixerat. Eodem die in aream relatum est, quod collocari non potuit, sestertium centies. Eodem die incendium factum est in hortis Pompeianis, ortum ex aedibus Nastae villici. Jam etiam edicta aedilium recitabantur, et saltuariorum testamenta, quibus Trimalchio cum elogio exhaeredabatur; jam nomina villicorum et repudiata a circumitore liberta in balneatoris contubernio deprehensa; atriensis Baias relegatus; jam reus factus dispensator; et judicium inter cubicularios actum.&quot; From this passage, and from the numerous passages in ancient writers, in which the Acta Diurna are quoted (references to which are given in the works of Le Clerc and Lieberkühnº cited below), it would appear that they usually contained the following matters:— 1. The number of births and deaths in the city, an account of the money paid into the treasury from the provinces, and every thing relating to the supply of corn.º These particulars would be extracted from the tabulae publicae. By an ancient regulation, ascribed to Servius Tullius (Dionys. IV.15), all births were registered in the temple of Venus, and all deaths in that of Libitina; and we know that this practice was continued under the empire, only that at a later time the temple of Saturn was substituted for that of Venus for the registration of births (Jul. Cap. M. Aurel. 9). 2. Extracts from the Acta Forensia, containing the edicts of magistrates, the testaments of distinguished men, reports of trials, with the names of those who were acquitted and condemned, and likewise a list of the magistrates who were elected. 3. Extracts from the acta senatus, especially all the decrees and acclamationes [Acclamatio] in honour of the reigning emperor. 4. A court circular, containing an account of the birth, deaths, festivals, and movements of the imperial family. 5. An account of such public affairs and foreign wars as the government thought proper to publish. 6. Curious and interesting occurrences, such as prodigies and miracles, the erection of new edifices, the conflagration of buildings, funerals, sacrifices, a list of the various games, and especially amatory tales and adventures, with the names of the parties (comp. Cic. ad Fam. II.15)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12769" RevisionGUID="440cdc1e-e09e-406e-8a7a-00c51e2814b8" CreationDate="2019-11-04T07:45:25.923" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="- Was the chiasma common in Latin? Or an uncommon figure of speech?   &#xD;&#xA;(Words in a sentence with the pattern ABBA or ABBCBBA, etc...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Where could we meet the greatest amount of chiasma? In poetry? In speech? In prose?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How was it used? To put an emphasis or something? What was its role in stylistic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Which words were more commonly use as the &quot;C&quot; in my AB-C-BA example? A particular type of word?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35904" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12769" RevisionGUID="440cdc1e-e09e-406e-8a7a-00c51e2814b8" CreationDate="2019-11-04T07:45:25.923" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|poetry|word-order|style|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35905" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12774" RevisionGUID="0f804da4-d1a5-42d8-9e7e-6088ae920b8d" CreationDate="2019-11-04T07:49:26.343" />
  <row Id="35906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12778" RevisionGUID="f10051f1-c51a-4f1e-8577-a697cb12c771" CreationDate="2019-11-05T04:18:05.587" UserId="3153" Text="Salvete, Sodales!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a student in his second year of Latin study, but my class has been slow in reading our texts and I've been bored from the beginning. I want to ask my teacher to give me more homework, particularly for extra credit. Please help with my translation; change it, improve it, or submit something different that gets the point across. Bonus points if your addition comes from an attested source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nicolas cordo sal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solum(or Unum?) desiderium quem habeo. Valeo legere litteras missas ad legendum, at plus desidero. Mittas mihi plus ut numerus punctorum alat. Opportetne factu?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is intended to mean the following (roughly translated):&#xD;&#xA;There is one desire that I have. I am able to read the literature given for reading BUT I want more. Please give me more so that I get more points. Could we do that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35907" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12778" RevisionGUID="f10051f1-c51a-4f1e-8577-a697cb12c771" CreationDate="2019-11-05T04:18:05.587" UserId="3153" Text="Asking a teacher for more (hopefully extra credit) homework" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35908" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12778" RevisionGUID="f10051f1-c51a-4f1e-8577-a697cb12c771" CreationDate="2019-11-05T04:18:05.587" UserId="3153" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|grammar-choice|syntax|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12779" RevisionGUID="1de1adc5-dbd6-4fd7-8c77-ebde3d702fe5" CreationDate="2019-11-05T06:22:35.720" UserId="6264" Text="Could someone please help to transtale &quot;Elit Scelerisque Mauris Pellentesque Pulvinar&quot; to English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks and best regards, &#xD;&#xA;Phuong" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35910" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12779" RevisionGUID="1de1adc5-dbd6-4fd7-8c77-ebde3d702fe5" CreationDate="2019-11-05T06:22:35.720" UserId="6264" Text="Elit Scelerisque Mauris Pellentesque Pulvinar - Could some one please help to translate this" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35911" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12779" RevisionGUID="1de1adc5-dbd6-4fd7-8c77-ebde3d702fe5" CreationDate="2019-11-05T06:22:35.720" UserId="6264" Text="|classical-latin|idiom|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12780" RevisionGUID="b5dec7a1-d5d5-4ba9-89ef-b0f6311d1961" CreationDate="2019-11-05T11:24:41.747" UserId="522" Text="**&quot;Lorem ipsum&quot;** is the name for a class of text used by printers and book designers to facilitate the layout of a Page. The fact that it has no meaning helps focus attention on, say, margins and the weight of the type chosen for headings and footnotes. Printers believe that it comes from a speech by Cicero; but if so it has been so hacked about and reassembled as to have no meaning and little connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular example comes, I think, from **[freeonlinetools24.com › blog › the-handy-lorem-ipsum-...**][1] but the single Transposition of &quot;Elit&quot; rescues it from plagiarism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Est ultricies integer quis auctor **elit** sed vulputate mi sit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac. Gravida arcu ac&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tortor dignissim convallis. Augue ut lectus arcu bibendum at. Commodo&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ullamcorper a lacus vestibulum sed. Vulputate eu scelerisque felis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; imperdiet proin fermentum leo vel orci. Diam maecenas sed enim ut sem.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Velit sed ullamcorper morbi tincidunt ornare. **Scelerisque mauris&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pellentesque pulvinar** pellentesque habitant morbi tristique&#xD;&#xA;&gt; senectus. Adipiscing elit pellentesque habitant morbi tristique&#xD;&#xA;&gt; senectus. Nisi quis eleifend quam adipiscing. Pretium viverra&#xD;&#xA;&gt; suspendisse potenti nullam ac tortor. A arcu cursus vitae congue&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mauris rhoncus aenean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is particularly useful when an illustration is floated into a body of text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://freeonlinetools24.com/blog/the-handy-lorem-ipsum-dolor-blind-text/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12780" RevisionGUID="8929f312-7fd0-4078-9ea6-e2f18a4a579d" CreationDate="2019-11-05T11:44:31.193" UserId="522" Comment="Link to Open Culture" Text="**&quot;Lorem ipsum&quot;** is the name for a class of text used by printers and book designers to facilitate the layout of a Page. The fact that it has no meaning helps focus attention on, say, margins and the weight of the type chosen for headings and footnotes. Printers believe that it comes from a speech by Cicero; but if so it has been so hacked about and reassembled as to have no meaning and little connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular example comes, I think, from **[freeonlinetools24.com › blog › the-handy-lorem-ipsum-...**][1] but the single Transposition of &quot;Elit&quot; rescues it from plagiarism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Est ultricies integer quis auctor **elit** sed vulputate mi sit.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac. Gravida arcu ac&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tortor dignissim convallis. Augue ut lectus arcu bibendum at. Commodo&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ullamcorper a lacus vestibulum sed. Vulputate eu scelerisque felis&#xD;&#xA;&gt; imperdiet proin fermentum leo vel orci. Diam maecenas sed enim ut sem.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Velit sed ullamcorper morbi tincidunt ornare. **Scelerisque mauris&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pellentesque pulvinar** pellentesque habitant morbi tristique&#xD;&#xA;&gt; senectus. Adipiscing elit pellentesque habitant morbi tristique&#xD;&#xA;&gt; senectus. Nisi quis eleifend quam adipiscing. Pretium viverra&#xD;&#xA;&gt; suspendisse potenti nullam ac tortor. A arcu cursus vitae congue&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mauris rhoncus aenean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is particularly useful when an illustration is floated into a body of text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Correction:** Here is a good concise piece on *Lorem ipsum* from ['Open Culture.'][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://freeonlinetools24.com/blog/the-handy-lorem-ipsum-dolor-blind-text/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.openculture.com/2015/03/the-story-of-lorem-ipsum.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12781" RevisionGUID="bc6ce442-2e10-44ef-8766-1c03ac733766" CreationDate="2019-11-05T16:49:10.097" UserId="5056" Text="I am translating the motto, &quot;The Past Shall Live&quot; into classical Latin. Currently, I have *Praeteritum Vivet*, which I think makes sense, but I'd appreciate the input of those more skilled than I." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35915" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12781" RevisionGUID="bc6ce442-2e10-44ef-8766-1c03ac733766" CreationDate="2019-11-05T16:49:10.097" UserId="5056" Text="Translation of &quot;the past shall live&quot; into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35916" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12781" RevisionGUID="bc6ce442-2e10-44ef-8766-1c03ac733766" CreationDate="2019-11-05T16:49:10.097" UserId="5056" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12782" RevisionGUID="788d61db-9af1-4c95-88bd-f307865e4697" CreationDate="2019-11-05T18:38:19.860" UserId="1982" Text="&quot;The past shall live&quot; implies that it is currently dead; awaiting, presumably, a resurrection. How about present tense, vivit, as in historia vivit = history lives. The sense, the past segues into the future at a &quot;junction&quot; called the present; therefore, both &quot;live&quot; in the present. Alternatively, there is no present, just a perpetual transition between past/ future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35919" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12769" RevisionGUID="8fc682e6-68d8-434f-b749-738942edd4f4" CreationDate="2019-11-05T22:44:34.460" UserId="118" Comment="edited tags" Text="|poetry|word-order|style|figurae-sermonis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12783" RevisionGUID="14f63592-5da2-4eb7-809b-85c3fcf379da" CreationDate="2019-11-06T10:41:17.797" UserId="118" Text="I'm only at an intermediate level of Latin, but I thought I'd make an attempt to express your request. Maybe there's something here you can use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a more prosaic version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lectiones praescriptas legere possum ultraque cupio. Dabisne mihi plures lectiones itaque plura puncta meream?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's a more histrionic version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lubenti animo omnes lectiones praescriptas adhuc voravi tamenque non satiatur appetentia mea. Opus est mihi plure materiae ad legendum, lectiones enim egeo, immo deficientibus lectionibus cotidie fame pereo. O magister, oro te, oro te, ala me, ala me!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12783" RevisionGUID="4061ef18-dd14-4842-89a8-832ed52f760d" CreationDate="2019-11-06T10:50:10.253" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="I'm only at an intermediate level of Latin, but I thought I'd make an attempt to express your request. Maybe there's something here you can use—or an error here that someone will catch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a more prosaic version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lectiones praescriptas legere potui ultraque cupio. Dabisne mihi plures lectiones itaque plura puncta meream?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's a more histrionic version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lubenti animo omnes lectiones praescriptas adhuc voravi tamenque non satiatur appetentia mea. Opus est mihi plure materiae ad legendum, lectiones enim egeo, immo deficiente lectionibus cotidie fame pereo. O magister, oro te, oro te, ala me, ala me!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12784" RevisionGUID="bd08ac13-7318-4cb6-8882-b4e05a712c7e" CreationDate="2019-11-06T15:17:56.967" UserId="52" Text="Along with the terms mentioned by [Rafael][1], there is another word: [arreptitius][2]. It [wasn't used in Classical Latin][3] and in modern Ecclesiastical Latin it seems not to be used either, but in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas it is quite frequent; in [questions][4] concerning actions of [demons][5], I found uniquely this term for possession. From the context (like [I-II, q. 80, a. 3][6], in the middle of &quot;I answer that&quot;) it's clear that the demonic possession is the primary meaning, but some ambiguity (it can mean &quot;natural&quot; madness as well) seems to be wanted here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7245/52&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldofdictionary.com/dict/latin-english/meaning/arreptitius&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin-dictionary.net/definition/4830/arreptitius-arreptitia-arreptitium&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FS/FS080.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/qdm16.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FS/FS080.html#FSQ80A3THEP1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12785" RevisionGUID="0a898ae1-40b9-4c45-9cea-d46aa78a857d" CreationDate="2019-11-06T17:29:46.253" UserId="1059" Text="I saw:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quomodo es?  &#xD;&#xA;Quid agis?  &#xD;&#xA;Quomodo te habes?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to ask &quot;How do you do?&quot; in Latin.  &#xD;&#xA;Quomodo te habes, is it common?   &#xD;&#xA;What other common greetings for the &quot;How are you?&quot; exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35924" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12785" RevisionGUID="0a898ae1-40b9-4c45-9cea-d46aa78a857d" CreationDate="2019-11-06T17:29:46.253" UserId="1059" Text="Greetings in Latin (How do you do)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35925" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12785" RevisionGUID="0a898ae1-40b9-4c45-9cea-d46aa78a857d" CreationDate="2019-11-06T17:29:46.253" UserId="1059" Text="|expressions|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12783" RevisionGUID="c4ec88b4-6be1-4e9f-9bfe-0bb2477b9fa9" CreationDate="2019-11-06T19:37:13.637" UserId="118" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="I'm only at an intermediate level of Latin, but I thought I'd make an attempt to express your request. Maybe there's something here you can use—or an error here that someone will catch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a more prosaic version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lectiones praescriptas legere potui ultraque cupio. Dabisne mihi plures lectiones itaque plura puncta meream?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's a more histrionic version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lubenti animo omnes lectiones praescriptas adhuc voravi tamenque non satiatur appetentia mea. Opus est mihi plure materiae ad legendum, lectiones enim egeo, immo deficiente lectionibus cotidie fame pereo. O magister, oro te, oro te, ala me, ala me! (Praesumo te ad gradus meum lectiones super eas pro cursu postulatas additurum esse.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12786" RevisionGUID="cf81112a-26d7-4454-9397-ce3fa8391b9d" CreationDate="2019-11-06T22:12:43.060" UserId="2693" Text="We just moved into a new house, and my cat was very quick to make herself comfortable.  I described her approach as &quot;I came, I saw, I took possession&quot; and of course that got me to wondering what that would be in Latin.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first guess would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Veni, Vidi, Habiti&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but I'm not sure that conveys exactly what I want.  Is there a better way to express this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, how would you change this to express &quot;***She*** came, ***she*** saw, ***she*** took possession&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35929" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12786" RevisionGUID="cf81112a-26d7-4454-9397-ce3fa8391b9d" CreationDate="2019-11-06T22:12:43.060" UserId="2693" Text="A variation on Caesar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35930" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12786" RevisionGUID="cf81112a-26d7-4454-9397-ce3fa8391b9d" CreationDate="2019-11-06T22:12:43.060" UserId="2693" Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12787" RevisionGUID="ea02e6d9-5b1e-4346-99cb-c1f838afe622" CreationDate="2019-11-06T22:34:13.463" UserId="5029" Text="I would like to translate the term &quot;always loved&quot; - referring to 2 parents.&#xD;&#xA;Would it be acceptable to translate this as semper carissimi rather than semper amati?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35932" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12787" RevisionGUID="ea02e6d9-5b1e-4346-99cb-c1f838afe622" CreationDate="2019-11-06T22:34:13.463" UserId="5029" Text="Translation request" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35933" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12787" RevisionGUID="ea02e6d9-5b1e-4346-99cb-c1f838afe622" CreationDate="2019-11-06T22:34:13.463" UserId="5029" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="07c7a2fc-7527-497a-a2ff-16f45f44c08c" CreationDate="2019-11-06T23:14:23.550" UserId="406" Text="For &quot;took possession&quot; in this context, I would use the verb _praesūmō_; for the past tense, this becomes _praesūmpsī_, &quot;I took possession (of something)&quot;. It's the root of the English word &quot;presumptuous&quot; and has similar connotations in Latin—which are very appropriate here, if your cat is anything like mine!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To change it to third person (&quot;she&quot; instead of &quot;I&quot;), just change the final *-ī* to *-it*: _vēnit, vīdit, praesūmpsit_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12789" RevisionGUID="ff5bf8e6-4a0b-48c4-847e-568961161836" CreationDate="2019-11-06T23:50:19.317" UserId="118" Text="&gt; Vēnī, vīdī, sūmpsī.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;literally means &quot;I came, I saw, I took possession.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Sūmpsī_ is the past tense of [_sūmō_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sumo#Latin), which primarily means &quot;I take hold of (with my hands)&quot; but is commonly extended to a wide variety of senses many of which still live in English: &quot;[assume](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svkgOsr7pUc)&quot;, &quot;presume&quot;, &quot;subsume&quot;, &quot;consume&quot;, &quot;resume&quot;, &quot;presumptuous&quot;, and even &quot;[sumptuary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sumptuary)&quot; (pertaining to showing off expensive possessions to demonstrate that you're rich). Especially in Latin, many of these senses imply a certain arrogance, taking possession or authority beyond justification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the third person, it's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vēnit, vīdit, sūmpsit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;If you'd like to follow classical pronunciation, all the vowels are long. (This is optional: Latin is an international language with [many pronunciations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_regional_pronunciation).)&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12789" RevisionGUID="73670fed-bef1-4db8-8bb0-113f64aa9d03" CreationDate="2019-11-06T23:56:35.780" UserId="118" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; Vēnī, vīdī, sūmpsī.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;literally means &quot;I came, I saw, I took possession.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Sūmpsī_ is the past tense of [_sūmō_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sumo#Latin), which primarily means &quot;I take hold of (with my hands)&quot; but is commonly extended to a wide variety of senses many of which still live in English: &quot;[assume](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svkgOsr7pUc)&quot;, &quot;presume&quot;, &quot;subsume&quot;, &quot;consume&quot;, &quot;resume&quot;, &quot;presumptuous&quot;, and even &quot;[sumptuary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sumptuary)&quot; (pertaining to commoners showing off expensive possessions to demonstrate that they're rich, thereby offending the nobility). Especially in Latin, many of these senses imply a certain arrogance or uppity attitude, taking possession or authority beyond justification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the third person, it's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vēnit, vīdit, sūmpsit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt; If you'd like to follow classical pronunciation, all the vowels are long. (This is optional: Latin is an international language with [many pronunciations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_regional_pronunciation).)&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35937" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12786" RevisionGUID="d40f9863-e7e2-4775-a2d6-1bdf348c2bd5" CreationDate="2019-11-07T06:25:53.863" />
  <row Id="35938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12785" RevisionGUID="92bae59f-a5fc-458c-9424-f14ae82a3a69" CreationDate="2019-11-07T07:45:32.150" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to ask &quot;How do you do?&quot; in Latin. &#xD;&#xA;*Quomodo te habes*, is it common?  &#xD;&#xA;What other common greetings for the &quot;How are you?&quot; exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Quomodo es?&#xD;&#xA;- Quid agis?&#xD;&#xA;- Quomodo te habes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35939" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12785" RevisionGUID="92bae59f-a5fc-458c-9424-f14ae82a3a69" CreationDate="2019-11-07T07:45:32.150" UserId="79" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;How do you do?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12790" RevisionGUID="9a315375-b283-4100-925c-88f63c734c36" CreationDate="2019-11-07T07:52:04.187" UserId="79" Text="I would not use *quomodo es*.&#xD;&#xA;It is a calque of the English phrase and does not strike me as sensible Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if someone finds attestations in reliable sources, I am ready to revert my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;Translated another way, *quomodo es?* is &quot;in what way are you?&quot;, and that should give a hint at the unnatural nature of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;Many idioms are unnatural but have become common, but the same turn of phrase is not necessarily sensible in all languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were to expand the English question &quot;how are you?&quot; to &quot;how are you feeling?&quot;, you would get better translations.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *quomodo vales?* is a good way to ask for health.&#xD;&#xA;Mind you that I would take that as an actual question, not a mere greeting.&#xD;&#xA;*Quomodo te habes?* is essentially synonymous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quid agis?* is a good question, but it's more directly &quot;what are you doing?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't use it for &quot;how do you do?&quot; or &quot;how are you?&quot; but &quot;what's up?&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12791" RevisionGUID="a9b3d036-6d43-463d-b7cf-28f5ffd3b637" CreationDate="2019-11-07T11:32:38.563" UserId="1982" Text="A simple one: &quot;veni vidi cepi&quot; = &quot;....I took; seized; captured; occupied; got; won over; made a choice of&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, some of these (Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict.) have a military/ aggressive connotation (Caeser's original meaning); but, cats are known for taking and defending territory. Did you attempt to move her?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12789" RevisionGUID="04ec4c34-0897-4163-bb87-de2fcee5c6cb" CreationDate="2019-11-07T13:08:52.957" UserId="118" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="&gt; Vēnī, vīdī, sūmpsī.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;literally means &quot;I came, I saw, I took possession.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Sūmpsī_ is the past tense of [_sūmō_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sumo#Latin), which primarily means &quot;I take hold of (with my hands)&quot; but is commonly extended to a wide variety of senses many of which still live in English: &quot;[assume](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svkgOsr7pUc)&quot;, &quot;presume&quot;, &quot;subsume&quot;, &quot;consume&quot;, &quot;consumption&quot;, &quot;presumptuous&quot;, and even &quot;[sumptuary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sumptuary)&quot; (pertaining to commoners showing off expensive possessions to demonstrate that they're rich, thereby offending the nobility). Especially in Latin, many of these senses imply a certain arrogance or uppity attitude, taking possession or asserting something beyond one's authority or without justification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the third person, it's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vēnit, vīdit, sūmpsit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt; If you'd like to follow classical pronunciation, all the vowels are long. (This is optional: Latin is an international language with [many pronunciations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_regional_pronunciation).)&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12790" RevisionGUID="f231536c-2f89-472a-ac9b-d19d75afa792" CreationDate="2019-11-07T13:20:51.613" UserId="79" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="I would not use *quomodo es*.&#xD;&#xA;It is a calque of the English phrase and does not strike me as sensible Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if someone finds attestations in reliable sources, I am ready to revert my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;Translated another way, *quomodo es?* is &quot;in what way are you?&quot;, and that should give a hint at the unnatural nature of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;Many idioms are unnatural but have become common, but the same turn of phrase is not necessarily sensible in all languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were to expand the English question &quot;how are you?&quot; to &quot;how are you feeling?&quot;, you would get better translations.&#xD;&#xA;For example, *quomodo vales?* is a good way to ask for health.&#xD;&#xA;Mind you that I would take that as an actual question, not a mere greeting.&#xD;&#xA;*Quomodo te habes?* and *ut vales?* are essentially synonymous to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quid agis?* is a good question, but it's more directly &quot;what are you doing?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't use it for &quot;how do you do?&quot; or &quot;how are you?&quot; but &quot;what's up?&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12792" RevisionGUID="77e4ad14-3c22-4e08-971b-c4089e190c4b" CreationDate="2019-11-07T15:15:52.720" UserId="522" Text="Yes, [Lewis and Short][1] supports this use. It quotes Vergil, Lucretius and Cicero describing *mater,pater; genitor, genetrix;* and *parentes* as *carissima, carissimus,* and, for both parents together ***carissimi.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=carus&amp;la=la&amp;can=carus0#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12791" RevisionGUID="e0c51bb3-c890-40f5-b8da-05f5294a4550" CreationDate="2019-11-07T15:24:20.510" UserId="1982" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="A simple one: &quot;veni vidi cepi&quot; = &quot;....I took; seized; captured; occupied; got; won over; made a choice of; selected&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, some of these (Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict.) have a military/ aggressive connotation (Caeser's original meaning); but, cats are known for taking and defending territory. Did you attempt to move her?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12793" RevisionGUID="38331712-a230-4e3c-91fb-4a32f307dfd0" CreationDate="2019-11-07T21:36:37.850" UserId="985" Text="One verb that Caesar himself often used to describe appropriating, claiming, or taking possession/control of a place is *occupare*. The *Oxford Latin dictionary* includes among the definitions of this verb 'To appropriate to oneself, seize to the exclusion of others'; 'To take possession of (for residence or cultivation), occupy'; 'To make one's own, assume (a position, title, etc.)'; and 'To take up a position at or in.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would give, in the third person, **venit, vidit, occupavit**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12792" RevisionGUID="a2fc9c3b-7a9c-4ad1-85e6-870e38726d21" CreationDate="2019-11-08T01:39:38.163" UserId="522" Comment="clarified" Text="Yes, [Lewis and Short][1] supports this use. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [most, or very] dear, precious, valued, esteemed, beloved:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Show lexicon entry in Lewis &amp; Short Elem. Lewis) (search) &#xD;&#xA;It quotes Vergil, Lucretius and Cicero describing *mater,pater; genitor, genetrix;* and *parentes* as *carissima, carissimus,* and, for both parents together ***carissimi.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=carus&amp;la=la&amp;can=carus0#lexicon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12794" RevisionGUID="1622e208-007d-4429-9a98-52597f4818cd" CreationDate="2019-11-08T08:59:12.577" UserId="79" Text="In English you can say: &quot;This job/movie/party/[anything] sucks!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;This is a concise and slightly profane way of expressing displeasure.&#xD;&#xA;Is there something similar in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding Finnish expression would literally translate to &quot;This is from the deep!&quot; which just goes to demonstrate that these idioms could be completely unrelated in different languages.&#xD;&#xA;I don't expect *haurit* or *ab imo est* to make sense in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a compact way to express displeasure with something in Latin, with a meaning similar to the English &quot;sucks&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;It can be colloquial or literal language; the exact register doesn't matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35951" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12794" RevisionGUID="1622e208-007d-4429-9a98-52597f4818cd" CreationDate="2019-11-08T08:59:12.577" UserId="79" Text="What do you say in Latin when something sucks?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35952" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12794" RevisionGUID="1622e208-007d-4429-9a98-52597f4818cd" CreationDate="2019-11-08T08:59:12.577" UserId="79" Text="|idiom|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12784" RevisionGUID="bb9b8ff8-6c0d-4a60-87e0-d3b322f4c4e3" CreationDate="2019-11-08T09:23:56.870" UserId="52" Comment="added 1008 characters in body" Text="Along with the terms mentioned by [Rafael][1], there is another word: [arreptitius][2]. It [wasn't used in Classical Latin][3] and in modern Ecclesiastical Latin it seems not to be used either, but in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas it's quite frequent; in [questions][4] concerning actions of [demons][5], I found uniquely this term for the possessed. From the context (like [I-II, q. 80, a. 3][6], in the middle of &quot;I answer that&quot;) it's clear that the demonic possession is the primary meaning, but some ambiguity (it can mean &quot;natural&quot; madness as well) seems to be wanted here. No verb for possession is mentioned there, even though the process of how a demon can control [material things][7] or [men][8] is discussed in detail. The only verb which *seems* to denote possession is &quot;[impugno][9]&quot; (to assail), but it is used as a synonym of temptation, the goal is a sin, not a possession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't read in detail Aquinas' biblical commentaries, but there is at least one use of the verb &quot;to possess&quot;. [Commentary on the Gospel of John 1811][10] corroborates [Charlie's answer][11]: the verb used is &quot;possideo&quot;. In the biblical commentaries, other words for a possessed person (mostly &quot;demoniacus&quot;) are used; Thomas clearly bases the vocabulary on the text of the Vulgate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7245/52&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://worldofdictionary.com/dict/latin-english/meaning/arreptitius&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin-dictionary.net/definition/4830/arreptitius-arreptitia-arreptitium&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FS/FS080.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/qdm16.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FS/FS080.html#FSQ80A3THEP1&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FP/FP110.html#FPQ110OUTP1&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FP/FP111.html#FPQ111OUTP1&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FP/FP114.html#FPQ114A1THEP1&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://dhspriory.org/thomas/John13.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7240/52" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12794" RevisionGUID="8ee6867e-c6f8-42e3-b4fe-0237ba647232" CreationDate="2019-11-08T12:49:07.217" UserId="79" Comment="added 238 characters in body" Text="In English you can say: &quot;This job/movie/party/[anything] sucks!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;This is a concise and slightly profane way of expressing displeasure.&#xD;&#xA;Is there something similar in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The corresponding Finnish expression would literally translate to &quot;This is from the deep!&quot; which just goes to demonstrate that these idioms could be completely unrelated in different languages.&#xD;&#xA;I don't expect *haurit* or *ab imo est* to make sense in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a compact way to express displeasure with something in Latin, with a meaning similar to the English &quot;sucks&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;It can be colloquial or literal language; the exact register doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;I would like to be able to say &quot;this movie sucks&quot;, &quot;her new job sucks&quot;, &quot;the weather here sucks&quot;, and similar.&#xD;&#xA;There is of course *malus/mala/malum est*, but I was hoping there to be something a little more colorful and maybe stronger." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12795" RevisionGUID="87509afa-3a17-4f1b-b95e-61c76de87d44" CreationDate="2019-11-08T15:29:26.677" UserId="6271" Text="For a cartoon project about a veterinary office, I need to translate below phrase into latin. The shorter, better as it’s going to be the slogan/motto.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“No virtue in being a humankind.“" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35956" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12795" RevisionGUID="87509afa-3a17-4f1b-b95e-61c76de87d44" CreationDate="2019-11-08T15:29:26.677" UserId="6271" Text="Need help translating this phrase into latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35957" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12795" RevisionGUID="87509afa-3a17-4f1b-b95e-61c76de87d44" CreationDate="2019-11-08T15:29:26.677" UserId="6271" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12796" RevisionGUID="df626154-5ed9-4516-bbaf-37434caa0e93" CreationDate="2019-11-08T15:35:51.933" UserId="6272" Text="Like Draconis stated, it's the weakening of the original word that caused it to be a demonstrative to fill the void that *ille* and *iste* left. It's similar to what happened in our language, &quot;the&quot; was originally a demonstrative as well in Old English, but weakened to merely a definite article totally in Middle English. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the addition of the meaning &quot;same&quot; was the result of *īdem* falling out of favor in colloquial speech, so *metipsimus* filled that void as well. In Spanish, &quot;mismo&quot;, it's cognate, can be used to mean both." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12797" RevisionGUID="f6de2711-1985-452c-9c90-9f9717a92382" CreationDate="2019-11-08T18:04:10.563" UserId="4999" Text="While I was reading Lingua Latina per se Illustrata - Familia Romana, I noted something: the vocabulary list has ĕius but pēius, is that by accident? Also I noted *meī* as *mēī* in line 92 of chapter 24, but that one must be a typo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that all other words have vowels noted long before /jj/ in the book, even though that's the length of the i (not of the vowel), as in *māius*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35960" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12797" RevisionGUID="f6de2711-1985-452c-9c90-9f9717a92382" CreationDate="2019-11-08T18:04:10.563" UserId="4999" Text="Found eius but pēius in the same text: is it some kind of mistake?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35961" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12797" RevisionGUID="f6de2711-1985-452c-9c90-9f9717a92382" CreationDate="2019-11-08T18:04:10.563" UserId="4999" Text="|classical-latin|vowel-quantity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12798" RevisionGUID="655d798e-8bec-499e-a889-5d75e338d632" CreationDate="2019-11-08T18:13:50.313" UserId="6230" Text="I remember once reading a phrase like &quot;Nam Iesus Christus mori fiat/fiet (not quite sure which)&quot; or something like that. I don't remember any more if it is the precise phrase and I'm not sure where I saw it. But if it is such, what would this phrase mean? My Latin is still pretty horrible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35963" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12798" RevisionGUID="655d798e-8bec-499e-a889-5d75e338d632" CreationDate="2019-11-08T18:13:50.313" UserId="6230" Text="Translate latin phrase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35964" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12798" RevisionGUID="655d798e-8bec-499e-a889-5d75e338d632" CreationDate="2019-11-08T18:13:50.313" UserId="6230" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12799" RevisionGUID="4a4eeb3d-bb80-4d63-b7c3-7ed62e4cbdc4" CreationDate="2019-11-08T19:34:18.667" UserId="3153" Text="&quot;For Jesus Christ will be made to die&quot; would be the translation with 'fiet.' It's probably fiet, because using fiat would make that outcome less certain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12800" RevisionGUID="c7fbdfad-0fcd-4866-b4d0-91a433f76524" CreationDate="2019-11-08T23:56:19.180" UserId="30" Text="Apparently, the e in *eius* could be long (normal) or short (see [Lewis &amp; Short][1]). The one in *peius* seems to be normally long as well. There can be quite a bit of irregularity in the length of vowels in Latin, especially in very common words such as pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=is&amp;filter=CUTF8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12801" RevisionGUID="d990b7ab-154d-41b6-b624-8dfdea448572" CreationDate="2019-11-09T01:38:12.263" UserId="3576" Text="I just really don't know where English [ex-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ex-), as in &quot;ex-friend&quot; exactly came from. So far I havent seen such meaning in Latin (or Greek), but I know little. It would bolster the following idea, if there were the slightest hint of such a meaning in Latin. In the majority of cases it means &quot;out, off, from&quot;, which is perhaps close enough, so I'm just asking for curiosity's sake whether &quot;ex-&quot; could mean &quot;old&quot;, not just &quot;former&quot;, specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I reason thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Indo-European s-mobile is as of yet unexplained, because it appears and disappears without a discernable pattern prefixed to various words in various Indo-European languages. One usual example is *taurus* ~ En *steer*. I entertain the idea that \*s- was one or various prefixes. I quickly found that \*(s)- sometimes corresponds to German *aus-* &quot;out, off&quot; in a couple of synonyms, and I fixated on the idea that it might be a reduction from &quot;ex-&quot;. Not to divert, it doesn't make much sense for a bull to be *out*. But it would make sense as an **ex-taur**, e.g. if a steer were a castrated or grown bull; On the one hand, a grown castrated male cattle is rather called *ox*. On the other hand, indeed, there's the adjective Ger *ausgewachsen* &quot;grown up&quot;. Also, *Jung-Bulle* is a fixed term, but *Jung-* is generally productive (linguistically; no pun intended).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the topic of age, [senex](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/senex) came to mind, and I wondered if folk etymology would be liable to split the word and deem the coda the semantic mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Goth. *sineigs* reconstructs PIE \*senikos [Kroonen], though all the remaining languages reflect \*senus. Just noting, because en.wiktionary doesn't though it seems relevant to *senex*. They have derived PIE roots from less, so either there was a reason to leave *senex* with \*senus and imply a Proto-Italic development instead or most likely they just didn't catch up with the book-keeping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* By the way: Also cp. G *sehnig* &quot;sinewy; (of meat) gnarly&quot; (which is indicative of its lived age?); synonym: *zerrig* (cf *zerren*), perhaps figuratively *störrisch* &quot;stubborn&quot; (cf PIE \*ster- &quot;stiff&quot;, G *starr, stur*) though usually said of *living* animals (for which, incidentally, DWDS gives a similar sense under v. G. *zieren*, which I likened to *tired [discussion]*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* By the way: &quot;ex-&quot; is difficult to reconstruct for PIE, giving slightly different alternative forms, and it's one of the very few roots (or paradigms) with an initial vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different derivations for an *s-* have been gleamed, and I might be way off anyway. So if the answer is negative, that's expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* By the way: cp *expectation*, Ger *Aussicht* (lit. &quot;out-sight&quot;, &quot;out-look&quot;); Should it be &quot;*ex-spect*&quot; or did German frequently produce phono-semantic calques or severe folk-etymology?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lest I be blamed for omitting the question: Is there a phrase, fixed collocation, or even a word that meaningfully compounds a) &quot;ex&quot; and &quot;taurus&quot; in any such way as outlined above, or b) about any other stem with &quot;ex&quot; in the sense &quot;mature, old&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically I was just surprised that Wiktionary gives such a terse gloss for Lat. prep. &quot;ex&quot;, because *out* turned out very polysemous. After all, however, they just need to link [[ex-#English]] directly to the Latin prefix that gives a couple more glosses, which are a better fit, for a start:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. throughout&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ē- + dormiō → ēdormiō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ē- + pōtō → ēpōtō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. (intensive) thoroughly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ē- + dūrus + -ō → ēdūrō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex- + acuō → exacuō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. denoting achievement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex- + ōrō → exōrō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex- + pugnō → expugnō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35968" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12801" RevisionGUID="d990b7ab-154d-41b6-b624-8dfdea448572" CreationDate="2019-11-09T01:38:12.263" UserId="3576" Text="Is &quot;ex-&quot; (old, past) seen in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35969" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12801" RevisionGUID="d990b7ab-154d-41b6-b624-8dfdea448572" CreationDate="2019-11-09T01:38:12.263" UserId="3576" Text="|etymology|prefix|proto-indo-european|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12801" RevisionGUID="6e917a42-48b7-49bb-a306-e36d1f0a465c" CreationDate="2019-11-09T01:44:55.283" UserId="3576" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="I just really don't know where English [ex-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ex-), as in &quot;ex-friend&quot; exactly came from. So far I havent seen such meaning in Latin (or Greek), but I know little. It would bolster the following idea, if there were the slightest hint of such a meaning in Latin. In the majority of cases it means &quot;out, off, from&quot;, which is perhaps close enough, so I'm just asking for curiosity's sake whether &quot;ex-&quot; could mean &quot;old&quot;, not just &quot;former&quot;, specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I reason thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Indo-European s-mobile is as of yet unexplained, because it appears and disappears without a discernable pattern prefixed to various words in various Indo-European languages. One usual example is *taurus* ~ En *steer*. I entertain the idea that \*s- was one or various prefixes. I quickly found that \*(s)- sometimes corresponds to German *aus-* &quot;out, off&quot; in a couple of synonyms, and I fixated on the idea that it might be a reduction from &quot;ex-&quot;. Not to divert, it doesn't make much sense for a bull to be *out*. But it would make sense as an **ex-taur**, e.g. if a steer were a castrated or grown bull; On the one hand, a grown castrated male cattle is rather called *ox*. On the other hand, indeed, there's the adjective Ger *ausgewachsen* &quot;grown up&quot;. Also, *Jung-Bulle* is a fixed term, but *Jung-* is generally productive (linguistically; no pun intended).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the topic of age, [senex](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/senex) came to mind, and I wondered if folk etymology would be liable to split the word and deem the coda the semantic mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Goth. *sineigs* reconstructs PIE \*senikos [Kroonen], though all the remaining languages reflect \*senus. Just noting, because en.wiktionary doesn't though it seems relevant to *senex*. They have derived PIE roots from less, so either there was a reason to leave *senex* with \*senus and imply a Proto-Italic development instead or most likely they just didn't catch up with the book-keeping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* By the way: Also cp. G *sehnig* &quot;sinewy; (of meat) gnarly&quot; (which is indicative of its lived age? Obviously, usually compared to *Sehne* &quot;tenon&quot;, *sine, sinus*); synonym: *zerrig* (cf *zerren*), perhaps figuratively *störrisch* &quot;stubborn&quot; (cf PIE \*ster- &quot;stiff&quot;, G *starr, stur*) though usually said of *living* animals (for which, incidentally, DWDS gives a similar sense under v. G. *zieren*, which I likened to *tired [discussion]*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* By the way: &quot;ex-&quot; is difficult to reconstruct for PIE, giving slightly different alternative forms, and it's one of the very few roots (or paradigms) with an initial vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different derivations for an *s-* have been gleamed, and I might be way off anyway. So if the answer is negative, that's expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* By the way: cp *expectation*, Ger *Aussicht* (lit. &quot;out-sight&quot;, &quot;out-look&quot;); Should it be &quot;*ex-spect*&quot; or did German frequently produce phono-semantic calques or severe folk-etymology?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lest I be blamed for omitting the question: Is there a phrase, fixed collocation, or even a word that meaningfully compounds a) &quot;ex&quot; and &quot;taurus&quot; in any such way as outlined above, or b) about any other stem with &quot;ex&quot; in the sense &quot;mature, old&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically I was just surprised that Wiktionary gives such a terse gloss for Lat. prep. &quot;ex&quot;, because *out* turned out very polysemous. After all, however, they just need to link [[ex-#English]] directly to the Latin prefix that gives a couple more glosses, which are a better fit, for a start:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. throughout&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ē- + dormiō → ēdormiō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ē- + pōtō → ēpōtō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. (intensive) thoroughly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ē- + dūrus + -ō → ēdūrō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex- + acuō → exacuō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. denoting achievement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex- + ōrō → exōrō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex- + pugnō → expugnō&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12802" RevisionGUID="02a578bf-ad2b-4a02-949c-d42747e603fb" CreationDate="2019-11-09T02:13:33.227" UserId="4999" Text="The Vulgar Latin *metipsimus*, as a contraction of older *metipsissimus*, a superlative of *metipse*, comes from a reanalysis of *egomet ipse* &quot;me myself&quot; as *ego metipse*. In Latin, **-met** was attached to pronouns, but in Vulgar Latin it was reanalyzed as part of *ipse* instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12803" RevisionGUID="94826053-89e1-4b49-8b25-3118151434c8" CreationDate="2019-11-09T05:20:35.820" UserId="6273" Text="I am writing a text where this phrase is on a big part. It will be the title, so it's important to me to got it right. Thank you. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35974" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12803" RevisionGUID="94826053-89e1-4b49-8b25-3118151434c8" CreationDate="2019-11-09T05:20:35.820" UserId="6273" Text="How do you say &quot;fruits of darkness&quot; in latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35975" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12803" RevisionGUID="94826053-89e1-4b49-8b25-3118151434c8" CreationDate="2019-11-09T05:20:35.820" UserId="6273" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12804" RevisionGUID="4767b9b3-f16d-4fda-a83e-c6ad155560c0" CreationDate="2019-11-09T05:44:42.967" UserId="3153" Text="There's a few ways to translate this. I am ignorant of the nuances, but here's my best understanding based off of minor Googling and Whitaker's Words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fructus Tenebrarum = The fruit/benefit/reward of darkness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fructus Obscuritatis = The fruit/benefit/reward of blindness/darkness/lack of understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fructus Crepesculi = The fruit/benefit/reward of twilight/darkness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to decline this properly in your work (I don't know your intentions) these are the ways you want to decline it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subject of sentence: Fructus Tenebrarum/Fructus Obscuritatis/Fructus Crepesculi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Object of sentence: Fructum Tenebrarum/Fructum Obscuritatis/Fructum Crepesculi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect Object: Fructui Tenebrarum/Fructui Obscuritatis/Fructui Crepesculi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within Prepositional Phrase: Fructu Tenebrarum/Fructu Obscuritatis/Fructu Crepesculi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35977" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12797" RevisionGUID="67d6bc85-33be-4635-a0a1-7f26a663dfeb" CreationDate="2019-11-09T08:49:54.057" UserId="118" Comment="edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|vowel-quantity|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12805" RevisionGUID="e2341be8-f7d8-4569-be4f-2e0967c893ca" CreationDate="2019-11-09T10:44:48.337" UserId="6274" Text="I have recently heard somebody (quoting Virgil) saying &quot;Timèo Danaos...&quot;. This sounds awkward to me, but I confess I have not studied Latin for ages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember that timeo is a verb like moneo, II conjugation, the infinitive is timère (the e is long). I remember also that the accent is mòneo and not monèo. Thus I would say tìmeo and not timèo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I right? Thanks in advance. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35979" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12805" RevisionGUID="e2341be8-f7d8-4569-be4f-2e0967c893ca" CreationDate="2019-11-09T10:44:48.337" UserId="6274" Text="Doubt on pronunciation of verbs (accent)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35980" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12805" RevisionGUID="e2341be8-f7d8-4569-be4f-2e0967c893ca" CreationDate="2019-11-09T10:44:48.337" UserId="6274" Text="|classical-latin|pronunciation|accentuation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12805" RevisionGUID="4c8cbc38-5a04-4ad2-9e4e-3b7dc1eb9140" CreationDate="2019-11-09T12:15:21.557" UserId="6274" Comment="added 49 characters in body; edited title" Text="I have recently heard somebody (quoting Virgil) saying &quot;Timèo Danaos...&quot;. This sounds awkward to me, but I confess I have not studied Latin for ages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember that timeo is a verb like moneo, II conjugation, the infinitive is timère (the e is long). I remember also that the accent is mòneo and not monèo. Thus I would say tìmeo and not timèo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I right? Is it true that the stressed syllable the &quot;ti-&quot;? Thanks in advance. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35982" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12805" RevisionGUID="4c8cbc38-5a04-4ad2-9e4e-3b7dc1eb9140" CreationDate="2019-11-09T12:15:21.557" UserId="6274" Comment="added 49 characters in body; edited title" Text="Doubt on pronunciation of verbs (stressing)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35983" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12803" RevisionGUID="9b97311e-d46a-4760-a54e-55584d2e4fa4" CreationDate="2019-11-09T12:43:03.383" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="How do you say &quot;fruits of darkness&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35984" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12803" RevisionGUID="9b97311e-d46a-4760-a54e-55584d2e4fa4" CreationDate="2019-11-09T12:43:03.383" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12795" RevisionGUID="f4eda887-b83d-4862-9ab2-c655fd3604a8" CreationDate="2019-11-09T12:46:09.283" UserId="79" Comment="added 191 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="For a cartoon project about a veterinary office, I need to translate below phrase into Latin. The shorter, better as it’s going to be the slogan/motto.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;No virtue in being a humankind.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It literally means humankind is no higher than other creatures.&#xD;&#xA;I found these so far: *nulla virtus in humanum* (this one so far looks the best) OR *nulla virtus in homine* OR *homines*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35986" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12795" RevisionGUID="f4eda887-b83d-4862-9ab2-c655fd3604a8" CreationDate="2019-11-09T12:46:09.283" UserId="79" Comment="added 191 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&quot;No virtue in being a humankind&quot; into Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35987" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12795" RevisionGUID="f4eda887-b83d-4862-9ab2-c655fd3604a8" CreationDate="2019-11-09T12:46:09.283" UserId="79" Comment="added 191 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12806" RevisionGUID="0e0d9010-6b23-48a9-af04-24bcc610276f" CreationDate="2019-11-09T12:52:49.127" UserId="2476" Text="I suggest _merda est!_, nicely mirroring the Romance expressions _è una merda_ (It.), _c'est la merde_ (Fr.) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following is an excerpt of Martial's Epigrams, Liber III, 17:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Circumlata diu mensis scribilita secundis&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;urebat nimio saeva calore manus; 	&#xD;&#xA;sed magis ardebat Sabidi gula: protinus ergo 	&#xD;&#xA;sufflavit buccis terque quaterque suis. 	&#xD;&#xA;Illa quidem tepuit digitosque admittere visa est,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;sed nemo potuit tangere: **merda fuit**._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A _scribilita_ [a kind of sweet focaccia] that was moved around for long during the dessert, &lt;br&gt;burnt violently the hands with too much heat; but Sabidius's gluttony was more fired: &lt;br&gt;so he immediately blew on it three and four times. It certainly got warm and seemed to be touchable, but nobody could eat it: it was [by then] shit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could object that Martials used the expression for food, and it might not make sense for something else. But I don't think so. Admittedly I couldn't find other instances of this phrase, but looking at Catullus' _Carmina_, Liber I, 36 I think it's safe to conclude the metaphor was pretty general for the Romans as it is for us moderns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Annales Volusi, cacata charta,&lt;br&gt;votum solvite pro mea puella._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Volusius' Annals, shit [literally &quot;shat&quot;] poem,&lt;br&gt;fulfill the vow for my girl." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12807" RevisionGUID="8ce444dc-8146-4f9f-ae70-e03912c58538" CreationDate="2019-11-09T12:59:00.250" UserId="79" Text="The word is *ti&amp;#774;me&amp;#774;o&amp;#772;*, so the vowels are short, short, and long.&#xD;&#xA;The stress is indeed on the first syllable according to the standard stress rules in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Thus the *e* is neither long nor stressed, so I agree that any kind of emphasis on it would be awkward." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12808" RevisionGUID="c576b8cf-e890-4407-87f6-0e8eb04dea22" CreationDate="2019-11-09T13:07:36.170" UserId="79" Text="For &quot;no virtue&quot; as in &quot;there is no virtue&quot;, the phrase *nulla virtus* is great.&#xD;&#xA;The harder decision is what to follow it with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only grammatical one of your suggestions is *in homine*, &quot;in human&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;That would amount to &quot;[there is] no virtue in a human&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If that matches your intention, you can go with that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One word worth considering is *humanitas*, meaning &quot;humanity&quot; or &quot;human nature&quot; or &quot;mankind&quot; or other similar things.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is *nulla virtus in humanitate*, &quot;[there is] no virtue in mankind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I think that captures the original idea quite well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12806" RevisionGUID="5b9028f1-3ce9-471a-8a87-531d7607b6d6" CreationDate="2019-11-09T13:17:33.607" UserId="2476" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I suggest _merda est!_, nicely mirroring the Romance expressions _è una merda_ (It.), _c'est la merde_ (Fr.) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following is an excerpt of Martial's Epigrams, Liber III, 17:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Circumlata diu mensis scribilita secundis&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;urebat nimio saeva calore manus; 	&#xD;&#xA;sed magis ardebat Sabidi gula: protinus ergo 	&#xD;&#xA;sufflavit buccis terque quaterque suis. 	&#xD;&#xA;Illa quidem tepuit digitosque admittere visa est,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;sed nemo potuit tangere: **merda fuit**._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A _scribilita_ [a kind of sweet focaccia] that was moved around for long during the dessert, &lt;br&gt;burnt violently the hands with too much heat; but Sabidius's gluttony was more fired: &lt;br&gt;so he immediately blew on it three and four times. It certainly got warm and seemed to be touchable, but nobody could eat it: it was [by then] shit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could object that Martial used the expression for food, and it might not make sense for something else. But I don't think so. Admittedly I couldn't find other instances of this phrase, but looking at Catullus' _Carmina_, Liber I, 36 I think it's safe to conclude the metaphor was pretty general for the Romans as it is for us moderns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Annales Volusi, cacata charta,&lt;br&gt;votum solvite pro mea puella._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Volusius' Annals, shit [literally &quot;shat&quot;] poem,&lt;br&gt;fulfill the vow for my girl." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12797" RevisionGUID="8a4c1d20-003d-4df0-8060-635c1998c291" CreationDate="2019-11-09T13:50:20.303" UserId="4999" Comment="edited body" Text="While I was reading Lingua Latina per se Illustrata - Familia Romana, I noted something: the vocabulary list has ĕius but pēius, is that by accident? Also I noted *meī* as *mēī* in line 92 of chapter 25, but that one must be a typo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that all other words have vowels noted long before /jj/ in the book, even though that's the length of the i (not of the vowel), as in *māius*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12809" RevisionGUID="7f870a15-8c55-4c4f-b51f-de20e0ed90e1" CreationDate="2019-11-09T16:56:37.413" UserId="3271" Text="The complete answer has already be given by Joonas Ilmavirta; here are a few words on the prosody, which however only makes sense if you say the complete verse.&#xD;&#xA;As we know, these are the last words of Laocoön's speech (and, sadly, of his whole life), trying to persuade his fellows Trojans to not receive the horse from the Greeks. The whole verse (Æneid, II, 49)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quicquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is a dactylic hexameter with a spondee at the fourth foot:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;–⏑⏑ | –⏑⏑ | –⏑⏑ | – – | –⏑⏑ | – –&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to be read with a trithemimeral (aka &quot;masculine&quot;) and an hephthemimeral cæsura: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quìcquid id èst || timeò Danaòs || et dòna ferèntis* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Thus this hexameter is exactly like this (Iliad, I, 35)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*πολλὰ δ᾽ ἔπειτ᾽ ἀπάνευθε κιὼν ἠρᾶθ᾽ ὃ γεραιὸς*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;same feet, same cæesuræ.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12809" RevisionGUID="d7132207-23b7-4a3c-9a3d-23a9eaf2cefd" CreationDate="2019-11-09T17:04:49.833" UserId="3271" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="The complete answer has already be given by Joonas Ilmavirta; here are a few words on the prosody, which however only makes sense if you say the complete verse.&#xD;&#xA;As we know, these are the last words of Laocoön's speech (and, sadly, of his whole life), trying to persuade his fellows Trojans to not receive the horse from the Greeks. The whole verse (Æneid, II, 49)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quicquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is a dactylic hexameter with a spondee at the fourth foot:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;–⏑⏑ | –⏑⏑ | –⏑⏑ | – – | –⏑⏑ | – –&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to be read with a trithemimeral (aka &quot;masculine&quot;) and an hephthemimeral cæsura: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quìcquid id èst || timeò Danaòs || et dòna ferèntis* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus this hexameter is exactly like this other one, about another old priest, yet on the other side (Iliad, I, 35)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*πολλὰ δ᾽ ἔπειτ᾽ ἀπάνευθε κιὼν ἠρᾶθ᾽ ὃ γεραιὸς*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;same feet, same cæesuræ.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12807" RevisionGUID="901887dc-7b39-4bea-b8fb-50f1317f740b" CreationDate="2019-11-09T17:06:47.560" UserId="79" Comment="added 441 characters in body" Text="The word is *ti&amp;#774;me&amp;#774;o&amp;#772;*, so the vowels are short, short, and long.&#xD;&#xA;The stress is indeed on the first syllable according to the standard stress rules in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;Thus the *e* is neither long nor stressed, so I agree that any kind of emphasis on it would be awkward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stress on the first syllable is the standard stress in prose, but in metric poetry the stress (or rather ictus) depends on the whole verse.&#xD;&#xA;Vergilius wrote this line in dactylic hexameter, and in that context the ictus would fall on the last syllable of *timeo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether you want to follow prose stress or scan the verse with the metric structure is a matter of taste.&#xD;&#xA;But either way, you would never stress the middle syllable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12809" RevisionGUID="475a70db-219b-4d4f-aaaa-9ddef28d114c" CreationDate="2019-11-09T17:20:51.303" UserId="3271" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="The complete answer has already be given by Joonas Ilmavirta; here are a few words on the prosody, which however only makes sense if you say the complete verse.&#xD;&#xA;As we know, these are the last words of Laocoön's speech (and, sadly, of his whole life), trying to persuade his fellows Trojans to not receive the horse from the Greeks. The whole verse (Æneid, II, 49)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quicquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentis*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is a dactylic hexameter with a spondee at the fourth foot:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;–⏑⏑ | –⏑⏑ | –⏑⏑ | – – | –⏑⏑ | – –&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to be read with a trithemimeral (aka &quot;masculine&quot;) and an hephthemimeral cæsura: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Quìcquid id èst || timeò Danaòs || et dòna ferèntis* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus this hexameter is exactly like this other one, about another old priest in the same war (Iliad, I, 35)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*πολλὰ δ᾽ ἔπειτ᾽ ἀπάνευθε κιὼν ἠρᾶθ᾽ ὃ γεραιὸς*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;same feet, same cæesuræ.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="35997" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9433" RevisionGUID="a1ffa496-2465-46b9-b6f5-b700372b87dd" CreationDate="2019-11-09T18:02:20.367" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="35998" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12805" RevisionGUID="59d31edc-6d5a-486b-9957-51bf1c557ac1" CreationDate="2019-11-09T18:45:29.180" />
  <row Id="35999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12810" RevisionGUID="d2908b0b-d241-4c94-91e1-577d041e93eb" CreationDate="2019-11-09T20:09:39.427" UserId="3271" Text="The principal meaning of the preposition **e / ex** is just *out of*, as the corresponding Greek preposition *ἐξ / ἐκ*. The great many other different meanings that it has, when joined with words containing specific ideas, follow from this principal one: as a result of the matching. E.g. with verbs with the idea of &quot;removing/taking off/empting&quot;, the preposition &quot;ex&quot; adds the idea of &quot;completely&quot;, like in *exhaurio, excavo, epoto* (that is, empting the cup, drinking to the last drop). But I wouldn't say this idea is already in the single preposition &quot;ex&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the sense of &quot;former&quot; it  was initially used to indicate mainly the group of origin: &quot;belonging to&quot;, without necessarily alluding to a true or definitive exit, like in *ex libris*, or *ex alumnis*, or *br*ex*it*, maybe. The consequent meaning  of &quot;former&quot; is not classic, but has become popular in modern times (to the point that &quot;ex&quot; alone today already means &quot;former partner&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to a connection with *sen**ex***: none. The desinence of a word is sort of accidental piece, and has nothing or little to do with the root of the world itself. The termination *-ex* (and *-ux, -ix, -ax* as well) is quite common in the nominative of third declension names, as it is just produced by adding an *s* to a theme ending by *c* or *g*: e.g. *culex, pontifex, rex, senex,...*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12810" RevisionGUID="8d412aef-9b92-4e35-873a-fa84434ea8b7" CreationDate="2019-11-09T20:18:56.220" UserId="3271" Comment="deleted 391 characters in body" Text="The principal meaning of the preposition **e / ex** is just *out of*, as the corresponding Greek preposition *ἐξ / ἐκ*. The great many other different meanings that it has, when joined with words containing specific ideas, follow from this principal one: as a result of the matching. E.g. with verbs with the idea of &quot;removing/taking off/empting&quot;, the preposition &quot;ex&quot; adds the idea of &quot;completely&quot;, like in *exhaurio, excavo, epoto* (that is, empting the cup, drinking to the last drop). But I wouldn't say this idea is already in the single preposition &quot;ex&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the sense of &quot;former&quot; it  was initially used to indicate mainly the group of origin: &quot;belonging to&quot;, without necessarily alluding to a true or definitive exit, like in *ex libris*, or *ex alumnis*, or *br*ex*it*, maybe. The consequent meaning  of &quot;former&quot; is not classic, but has become popular in modern times (to the point that &quot;ex&quot; alone today already means &quot;former partner&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12806" RevisionGUID="0f83ad01-fb11-44d7-86f4-ef9c807c03f0" CreationDate="2019-11-09T20:35:17.780" UserId="2476" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I suggest _merda est!_, nicely mirroring the Romance expressions _è una merda_ (It.), _c'est la merde_ (Fr.) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following is an excerpt of Martial's Epigrams, Liber III, 17:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Circumlata diu mensis scribilita secundis&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;urebat nimio saeva calore manus; 	&#xD;&#xA;sed magis ardebat Sabidi gula: protinus ergo 	&#xD;&#xA;sufflavit buccis terque quaterque suis. 	&#xD;&#xA;Illa quidem tepuit digitosque admittere visa est,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;sed nemo potuit tangere: **merda fuit**._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A _scribilita_ [a kind of sweet focaccia] that was moved around for long during the dessert, &lt;br&gt;burnt violently the hands with too much heat; but Sabidius's gluttony was more fired: &lt;br&gt;so he immediately blew on it three and four times. It certainly cooled down and seemed to be touchable, but nobody could eat it: it was [by then] shit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could object that Martial used the expression for food, and it might not make sense for something else. But I don't think so. Admittedly I couldn't find other instances of this phrase, but looking at Catullus' _Carmina_, Liber I, 36 I think it's safe to conclude the metaphor was pretty general for the Romans as it is for us moderns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Annales Volusi, cacata charta,&lt;br&gt;votum solvite pro mea puella._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Volusius' Annals, shit [literally &quot;shat&quot;] poem,&lt;br&gt;fulfill the vow for my girl." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12783" RevisionGUID="5a2fbb2a-1eab-446a-9072-340ebd94849f" CreationDate="2019-11-10T08:42:17.620" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I'm only at an intermediate level of Latin, but I thought I'd make an attempt to express your request. Maybe there's something here you can use—or an error here that someone will catch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a more prosaic version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lectiones praescriptas legere potui ultraque cupio. Dabisne mihi plures lectiones itaque plura puncta meream?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's a more histrionic version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lubenti animo omnes lectiones praescriptas adhuc voravi tamenque non satiatur appetentia mea. Opus est mihi plure materiae ad legendum, lectiones enim egeo, immo deficiente lectionibus cotidie fame pereo. O magister, oro te, oro te, ala me, ala me! (Praesumo te ad notas meas lectiones super eas pro cursu postulatas additurum esse.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7689" RevisionGUID="7789ef80-4693-42bc-aa9c-a28913ca848d" CreationDate="2019-11-10T10:52:58.723" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="A number of Greek names encountered in hexameter follow the syllable length pattern `-vv-`; consider for example *Penelope*, *Telemachos*, *Calliope*, *Terpsichore*.&#xD;&#xA;The pattern `-v--` is absent as the metric would not permit it, but I find it hard to believe that Greek names would completely avoid this pattern.&#xD;&#xA;This is not the only name pattern in hexameter, but just an example.&#xD;&#xA;There are also a number of names that do not fit, like the pattern `-v-` of *Socrates*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What did metric constraints do to names?&#xD;&#xA;How did the names in poetry end up so convenient for hexameter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of a couple of options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. There were a number of names, and only the ones fitting the pattern were used. This would lead to name changes in works like the Iliad which mention a huge number of names.&#xD;&#xA;2. The names were adapted to the metre. Perhaps the original forms of the names were incompatible with hexameter but they were massaged into a variant that fits. This could be supported by citing examples of such variants.&#xD;&#xA;3. The names were created for poetry in the first place. Then the names all come in a suitable pattern, but they cannot come from earlier non-hexametric myths.&#xD;&#xA;4. We just do not know why the names are so convenient metrically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it could be any combination of these.&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that there is no full answer out there, so any partial insights would be welcome answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12808" RevisionGUID="2a968f2d-95f8-41ba-a54b-f686a2c44ac2" CreationDate="2019-11-10T11:08:33.627" UserId="79" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="For &quot;no virtue&quot; as in &quot;there is no virtue&quot;, the phrase *nulla virtus* is great.&#xD;&#xA;The harder decision is what to follow it with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only grammatical one of your suggestions is *in homine*, &quot;in human&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;That would amount to &quot;[there is] no virtue in a human&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If that matches your intention, you can go with that.&#xD;&#xA;The options *in humanum* and *in homines* don't work.&#xD;&#xA;If you want the plural &quot;in humans&quot;, use *in hominibus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One word worth considering is *humanitas*, meaning &quot;humanity&quot; or &quot;human nature&quot; or &quot;mankind&quot; or other similar things.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is *nulla virtus in humanitate*, &quot;[there is] no virtue in mankind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I think that captures the original idea quite well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12808" RevisionGUID="72c58276-79ea-4797-922c-2da2738cea54" CreationDate="2019-11-10T11:14:44.587" UserId="79" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="For &quot;no virtue&quot; as in &quot;there is no virtue&quot;, the phrase *nulla virtus* is great.&#xD;&#xA;The harder decision is what to follow it with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only grammatical one of your suggestions is *in homine*, &quot;in human&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;That would amount to &quot;[there is] no virtue in a human&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If that matches your intention, you can go with that.&#xD;&#xA;The options *in humanum* and *in homines* don't work.&#xD;&#xA;If you want the plural &quot;in humans&quot;, use *in hominibus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One word worth considering is *humanitas*, meaning &quot;humanity&quot; or &quot;human nature&quot; or &quot;mankind&quot; or other similar things.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is *nulla virtus in humanitate*, &quot;[there is] no virtue in mankind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I think that captures the original idea quite well.&#xD;&#xA;The word *humanitas* has a wide range of meanings, some of which are more positive that you would like here, but I would not consider that an issue; the fact that there is no virtue in it puts it in suspicious light anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Do not trust Google Translate with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79).&#xD;&#xA;It is very unreliable, and often suggests nonsensical translations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12812" RevisionGUID="b472619c-6a8f-4871-a6f6-fbde7042214b" CreationDate="2019-11-10T12:44:32.823" UserId="324" Text="This is what the OED has to say on the subject:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [On the analogy of forms of expression like ex exsule consul, ‘(that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; has become) a consul from an exile’, the phrases ex consule, ex&#xD;&#xA;&gt; magistro equitum, etc. were in the Latin of the empire added as titles&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the names of men who had filled the offices of consul, master of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the horse, etc. At a later period these phrases gave rise to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compounds exconsul, exmagister, in the same manner as the compounds&#xD;&#xA;&gt; proconsul, propraetor had been developed from the older pro consule,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pro praetore. In medieval Latin this usage was greatly extended, such&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forms as ex-Augustus (‘ex-emperor’) being of frequent occurrence. Some&#xD;&#xA;&gt; words of this formation (e.g. ex-professor) passed in adapted forms&#xD;&#xA;&gt; into Italian and French, and on the analogy of these ex- was prefixed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to Romanic words. The English use, imitated from French, seems to have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first become common towards the end of the 18th cent.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/65505#eid5166397&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12810" RevisionGUID="546a550c-2260-4f75-8c4e-e3134193d4bb" CreationDate="2019-11-10T13:16:54.010" UserId="3576" Comment="added quotations" Text="The principal meaning of the preposition **e / ex** is just *out of*, as the corresponding Greek preposition *ἐξ / ἐκ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The great many other different meanings that it has, when joined with words containing specific ideas, follow from a result of the matching. E.g. with the idea of &quot;removing/taking off/empting&quot;, the preposition &quot;ex&quot; adds the idea of &quot;completely&quot;, like in *exhaurio, excavo, epoto* (that is, emptying the cup, drinking to the last drop). But I wouldn't say this idea is already in the single preposition &quot;ex&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before the sense of &quot;former&quot; it was initially used to indicate the origin, &quot;belonging to&quot;, without necessarily alluding to a true or definitive exit, like in *ex libris*, or *ex alumnis*, or *br*ex*it*, maybe. The consequent meaning  of &quot;former&quot; is not classic, but has become popular in modern times (to the point that &quot;ex&quot; alone today already means &quot;former partner&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quotes taken from the comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aspice Regulum, qui ex paupere et tenui ad tantas opes per flagitia processit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Pliny, Epistulae 2.20.13)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Consider Regulus, who, though starting as (i.e., formerly) a poor and humble man, went on to such great wealth through outrageous acts.* - @cnread&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ex amico fit inimicus, hostis ex socio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Seneca, Epistulae morales 91.5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *From a friend he became an un-friend, an enemy from an ally.* – @cnread&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36009" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12810" RevisionGUID="546a550c-2260-4f75-8c4e-e3134193d4bb" CreationDate="2019-11-10T13:16:54.010" Comment="Proposed by 3576 approved by 79 edit id of 334" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12813" RevisionGUID="f51c7237-84eb-4368-81fa-8c56a1c4f2f4" CreationDate="2019-11-10T16:25:05.860" UserId="3153" Text="If you want to say that humankind doesn't go above other creatures, a good translation would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homo omnia non superat.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Man does not conquer all things&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12814" RevisionGUID="e12a5e15-f21e-457a-8a80-711474445b86" CreationDate="2019-11-10T17:09:05.803" UserId="1059" Text="Should I say &quot;Velisne/Velitisne panem?&quot; To mean &quot;Do you want/would you like some bread?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or would I use Visne/Vultisne?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, would I use subjonctive to ask or the indicative mood?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36015" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12814" RevisionGUID="e12a5e15-f21e-457a-8a80-711474445b86" CreationDate="2019-11-10T17:09:05.803" UserId="1059" Text="Subjonctive mood in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36016" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12814" RevisionGUID="e12a5e15-f21e-457a-8a80-711474445b86" CreationDate="2019-11-10T17:09:05.803" UserId="1059" Text="|mood|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12815" RevisionGUID="662c7b54-8767-4956-90d6-7ab7251b8970" CreationDate="2019-11-10T18:30:01.917" UserId="406" Text="The subjunctive in Latin tends to indicate potential, possible, or unreal actions. To my ears, _velisne?_ means something like &quot;potentially, in the future, might you want it?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The indicative, on the other hand, indicates actual reality. _Visne?_ sounds more like &quot;do you, at present, in this actual reality, want it?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would use the indicative here. You're asking about the state of actual reality. Latin doesn't really use the subjunctive for politeness the way English does; the main place where the subjunctive is polite is for giving suggestions instead of commands, but even then, the imperative is used even in prayers to deities (so it's not particularly _rude_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36018" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12814" RevisionGUID="92374f04-51e8-4c91-82ee-6a2e590b6fa5" CreationDate="2019-11-10T18:48:16.370" UserId="469" Comment="edited tags" Text="|conjunctive|mood|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12683" RevisionGUID="851dc3c9-5675-4694-8626-d68533aa4a11" CreationDate="2019-11-10T18:54:36.130" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm trying to translate a phrase. I'm trying to say &quot;everything is (part of) revenge&quot;, as in &quot;every action is an act of revenge against the ones that tried to break you&quot;. Sorry if it's not too clear English is not my first language. So far I've come up *omnia ultio*, but a friend (that is somewhat better at Latin) said that this sounds more like &quot;everybody's revenge&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36020" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12683" RevisionGUID="851dc3c9-5675-4694-8626-d68533aa4a11" CreationDate="2019-11-10T18:54:36.130" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|idiom|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36021" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12683" RevisionGUID="851dc3c9-5675-4694-8626-d68533aa4a11" CreationDate="2019-11-10T18:54:36.130" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Translation to Latin of &quot;everything is revenge&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12816" RevisionGUID="c5065c4d-28d8-4dbd-b41e-fed7666a2aff" CreationDate="2019-11-10T18:56:15.003" UserId="79" Text="*Ultio* is indeed good for &quot;revenge&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The wordings that more literally match &quot;everything is revenge&quot; sound a little awkward to me, so I suggest instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nihil nisi ultio.*  &#xD;&#xA;Nothing but revenge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds like proper Latin and seems to get the same message across." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="1c1abeef-061e-4129-ba8e-3bc3937f601f" CreationDate="2019-11-10T21:04:36.073" UserId="985" Text="I was thinking along the same lines as Nickimite. The first sentence of Sallust's *De coniuratione Catilinae* says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **omneis homines, qui sese student praestare ceteris animalibus**, summa ope niti decet, ne vitam silentio  transeant veluti pecora, quae natura prona atque ventri oboedientia finxit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'It's fitting that **all humans who are eager to stand above all other animals** strive with all their might not to pass through life un-talked-about, like cattle, which nature has fashioned face-down and obedient to their stomach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By saying 'all *other* animals,' Sallust acknowledges that humans themselves are just animals (though we're capable of rising above the level of the rest through effort). There's also I nice contrast between standing (the root of *praestare*) and being face-down (*prona*). I suggest an adaptation of this sentence – for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **homines minume praestant ceteris animalibus.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Humans don't stand above all other animals.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other arrangements of the Latin sentence are possible – for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **minume praestant homines ceteris animalibus.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This version emphasizes the negative: 'It not at all the case that humans stand above all other animals.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ceteris animalibus minume praestant homines.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the verb *praestare* literally means 'to stand in front of,' the word order of this version helps underscore the meaning of the sentence by actually putting the rest of the animals before humans." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36024" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12814" RevisionGUID="026783c8-9e8e-4db5-acde-797643d6220e" CreationDate="2019-11-11T01:17:54.317" />
  <row Id="36025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12818" RevisionGUID="bc79f8ee-b2ca-4261-96dc-4d7b5b69344c" CreationDate="2019-11-11T02:34:30.417" UserId="30" Text="In addition to Nickimite's fine examples, there is also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **fructus caliginis** &quot;fruits of darkness&quot; (deep darkness, with a vague connotation of being in a dark nebula; gloom, blindness, calamity)&#xD;&#xA;- **fructus obscuri** &quot;fruits of darkness&quot; (the dark, with a vague connotation of darkness covering the world from one's vision; the hidden, unknown)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *obscuri* is more common than *obscuritatis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Tenebrarum* is excellent. It also has the advantage of being grammatically plural (even though it is just &quot;(the) darkness&quot; semantically), so perhaps a suggestion of powers of darkness is most easily made. It is not seldom used with ominous connotations, like the underworld.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Crepesculi* is probably uncommon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lewis &amp; Short][1] say this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *tenebrae* is stronger than *obscuritas*, and weaker than *caligo*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the form *fructus*, that can be either plural or singular (one with a final *u* pronounced long, the other short). Nickimite has given the declension of the singular. *Fructus* has a connotation of fruit one enjoys, from *fruor* &quot;to enjoy, profit from&quot;. There is also *frux* &quot;fruit&quot;, plural *fruges*, which is from the same root, but I believe it rather has a connotation of &quot;usefulness&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/dict?name=ls&amp;lang=la&amp;word=tenebrae&amp;filter=CUTF8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12819" RevisionGUID="9c1de0a5-d99d-48cc-b70d-c888bd5d668a" CreationDate="2019-11-11T08:35:36.127" UserId="6274" Text="This question originates from [this thread][1] upon suggestion of Joonas Ilmavirta. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Q.** How do we know all the vowel lengths in Latin? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be of interest to me if we manage to collect a list with *all* the rules determining the length of a vowel (hence also correct pronunciation) of a word. Quoting Joonas, &quot;books rarely explain how we know things, they just give the things as facts&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, the rule &quot;*Vocalis ante vocalem brevis est*&quot; (mentioned py P. Majer in the aformentioned topic) was unknown to me (together with the exception pointed out by Joonas: &quot;There are rare cases of long vowels before vowels, like fio&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12805/doubt-on-pronunciation-of-verbs-stressing/12807?noredirect=1#comment23171_12807" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36027" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12819" RevisionGUID="9c1de0a5-d99d-48cc-b70d-c888bd5d668a" CreationDate="2019-11-11T08:35:36.127" UserId="6274" Text="On vowel lengths in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36028" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12819" RevisionGUID="9c1de0a5-d99d-48cc-b70d-c888bd5d668a" CreationDate="2019-11-11T08:35:36.127" UserId="6274" Text="|pronunciation|vowel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12820" RevisionGUID="562934be-f5f2-488b-a3a7-a33be5257e84" CreationDate="2019-11-11T08:50:05.353" UserId="1059" Text="&gt;Latin is an Italic language which originated in the Italian peninsula, and was originally spoken in Latium and Ancient Rome located along the Mediterranean Sea. Similar to most European languages, Latin is a descendant of the ancient Proto-Indo-European language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also read it has been heavily influenced by the Etruscan language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But  do we have records of the Proto-Latin, or is it only suppositions based on the philological study of common Indo-European and the Latin words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How Proto-Latin looked like, and how it was worn?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36030" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12820" RevisionGUID="562934be-f5f2-488b-a3a7-a33be5257e84" CreationDate="2019-11-11T08:50:05.353" UserId="1059" Text="Origin of the Latin Language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36031" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12820" RevisionGUID="562934be-f5f2-488b-a3a7-a33be5257e84" CreationDate="2019-11-11T08:50:05.353" UserId="1059" Text="|history|proto-indo-european|etruscan|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12816" RevisionGUID="c0c68890-1ba8-453a-88d6-3d71049fbea7" CreationDate="2019-11-11T09:37:09.037" UserId="79" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="*Ultio* is indeed good for &quot;revenge&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The wordings that more literally match &quot;everything is revenge&quot; sound a little awkward to me, so I suggest instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nihil nisi ultio.*  &#xD;&#xA;Nothing but revenge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds like proper Latin and seems to get the same message across.&#xD;&#xA;You can also add a verb to both languages (or just English and leave it implicit in Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nihil est nisi ultio.*  &#xD;&#xA;There is nothing but revenge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12820" RevisionGUID="3d7936a2-e611-4f95-a717-e915aae51a2b" CreationDate="2019-11-11T11:27:49.387" UserId="1059" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="&gt;Latin is an Italic language which originated in the Italian peninsula, and was originally spoken in Latium and Ancient Rome located along the Mediterranean Sea. Similar to most European languages, Latin is a descendant of the ancient Proto-Indo-European language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also read it has been heavily influenced by the Etruscan language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But  do we have records of the Proto-Latin, or is it only suppositions based on the philological study of common Indo-European and the Latin words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How Proto-Latin looked like? From what Proto-Latin came?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12814" RevisionGUID="03aa2ae2-28d5-41a4-a953-c57ffe5f51d3" CreationDate="2019-11-11T13:04:14.050" UserId="1624" Comment="Fixed typo" Text="Should I say &quot;Velisne/Velitisne panem?&quot; To mean &quot;Do you want/would you like some bread?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or would I use Visne/Vultisne?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, would I use subjunctive to ask or the indicative mood?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36035" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12814" RevisionGUID="03aa2ae2-28d5-41a4-a953-c57ffe5f51d3" CreationDate="2019-11-11T13:04:14.050" UserId="1624" Comment="Fixed typo" Text="Subjunctive mood in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36036" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12814" RevisionGUID="03aa2ae2-28d5-41a4-a953-c57ffe5f51d3" CreationDate="2019-11-11T13:04:14.050" Comment="Proposed by 1624 approved by 79 edit id of 336" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12821" RevisionGUID="317164c1-9ae8-4d16-909a-a1983ede7a61" CreationDate="2019-11-11T15:42:21.387" UserId="6177" Text="The question might be better suited for [Linguistics.SE](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/). However, the general information on the history of Latin is outlined in the Wikipedia article of the [same name](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It is believed that the earliest surviving inscription is a seventh-century B.C. pin known as the [Praenestine fibula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praenestine_fibula), which reads Manios med fhefhaked Numasioi &quot;Manius made me for Numerius&quot;.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;…  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Vulgar Latin** […]&#xD;&#xA;This spoken Latin differed from the literary language of Classical Latin in its grammar and vocabulary. […] Because there are few phonetic transcriptions of the daily speech of these Latin speakers (to match, for example, the post-classical [Appendix Probi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appendix_Probi)) Vulgar Latin must be studied mainly **by indirect methods**.  &#xD;&#xA;Knowledge of Vulgar Latin comes from a variety of sources. First, the **comparative method** reconstructs items of the mother language from the attested Romance languages. Also, prescriptive grammar texts from the Late Latin period condemn some usages as errors, providing insight into how Latin was actually spoken. […]&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, not only do we **not** have any records of [Proto-Italic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic_language), the language that evolved into Latin and other [Italic languages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_languages). In fact, there are no  records of the actual Latin pre-dating the 7th century BC and thus all this knowledge is indeed based on the scientific reconstruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12822" RevisionGUID="e90aff17-dca1-47e7-9853-61037cded024" CreationDate="2019-11-11T16:50:26.593" UserId="3271" Text="I'd say the main source of our knowledge is poetry. This was true for the Greek grammarians, who invented the notion itself of vowel length, and created prosody as a scientific linguistic theory, aimed to learning how to read and compose correctly poetry (and, later on, rhetoric too). So they classified the phenomena and inferred abstract rules, together with their exceptions. When the Greek civilization reached Rome, Latin poets adopted this theory, and the various Greek verses, starting with Ennius; rules of Latin prosody are not always the same of the Greek, of course.&#xD;&#xA;And this is also how we individually learn: when we have read e.g. some hundreds of hexameters, we naturally learn the quantities of many words, and say, the difference between *pŏpŭlus* (m, people) and  *pōpŭlus* (f, poplar tree), and we naturally learn a number of empiric rules. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make a simple example: if an hexameter has 17 syllables, the maximum number allowed,  it must be composed by 5 dactyls ( – ⏑ ⏑ ) plus a closing foot, which is either a trochee ( – – ) or spondee ( – ⏑ ).&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, if it has 12 syllables, the minimum allowed number, it must be one by 5 trochees plus either one more trochee or a spondee. In either case, all lengths  are determined (but the last one, to be precise)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12822" RevisionGUID="b84cc844-15ed-47fb-84e1-4b2879855a12" CreationDate="2019-11-11T16:55:28.417" UserId="3271" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I'd say the main source of our knowledge is poetry. This was true for the Greek grammarians, who invented the notion itself of vowel length, and created prosody as a scientific linguistic theory, aimed to learning how to read and compose correctly poetry (and, later on, rhetoric too). So they classified the phenomena and inferred abstract rules, together with their exceptions. When the Greek civilization reached Rome, Latin poets adopted this theory, and the various Greek verses, starting with Ennius; rules of Latin prosody are not always the same of the Greek, of course.&#xD;&#xA;And this is also how we individually learn: when we have read e.g. some hundreds of hexameters, we naturally learn the quantities of many words, and say, the difference between *pŏpŭlus* (m, people) and  *pōpŭlus* (f, poplar tree), and we naturally learn a number of empiric rules. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make a simple example: if an hexameter has 17 syllables, the maximum number allowed,  it must be composed by 5 dactyls ( – ⏑ ⏑ ) plus a closing foot, which is either a trochee ( – – ) or spondee ( – ⏑ ).&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, if it has 12 syllables, the minimum allowed number, it must be done by 5 trochees plus either one more trochee or a spondee. In either case, all lengths  are determined (but the last one, to be precise)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12822" RevisionGUID="f838f68b-9ec8-4b94-96a4-db2f1b0f3197" CreationDate="2019-11-11T17:07:24.977" UserId="3271" Comment="m" Text="I'd say the main source of our knowledge is poetry. This was true for the Greek grammarians, who invented the notion itself of vowel length, and created prosody as a scientific linguistic theory, aimed to learn how to read and compose correctly poetry (and, later on, rhetoric too). So they classified the phenomena and inferred abstract rules, together with their exceptions. When the Greek civilization reached Rome, Latin poets adopted this theory, and the various Greek verses, starting with Ennius; rules of Latin prosody are not always the same of the Greek, of course.&#xD;&#xA;And this is also how we individually learn: when we have read e.g. some hundreds of hexameters, we naturally learn the quantities of many words, and say, the difference between *pŏpŭlus* (m, people) and  *pōpŭlus* (f, poplar tree), and we naturally learn a number of empiric rules. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make a simple example: if an hexameter has 17 syllables, the maximum number allowed,  it must be composed by 5 dactyls ( – ⏑ ⏑ ) plus a closing foot, which is either a trochee ( – – ) or spondee ( – ⏑ ).&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, if it has 12 syllables, the minimum allowed number, it must be done by 5 trochees plus either one more trochee or a spondee. In either case, all lengths  are determined (but the last one, to be precise)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12823" RevisionGUID="c978e665-9f88-4651-ac1a-a4aa482bd96a" CreationDate="2019-11-11T18:47:55.347" UserId="406" Text="In the beginning, there was…well, we're not really sure. The origins of language are lost to time. But _at some point_, there was Proto-Indo-European, the hypothetical reconstructed ancestor of all the later Indo-European languages. As the Indo-European people spread across the continent, the dialects they spoke started to diverge; one of these dialects (spoken in western Europe) became Proto-Italo-Celtic, then the southern part of that became Proto-Italo-Venetic (or &quot;Greater Proto-Italic&quot;), then the southern part of _that_ became Proto-Italic (or &quot;Lesser Proto-Italic&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But all of this, so far, is purely theoretical. Linguists have a pretty good understanding of what Proto-Italic looked like, but it's all reconstructed by comparing the daughter languages against each other—there's no actual written record of Proto-Italic. (Some linguists in fact only use the &quot;Proto-&quot; prefix for reconstructions: if we actually found some inscriptions in this language, it would be called &quot;Common Italic&quot; instead. But this convention isn't universal.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, starting around the seventh century BCE, the situation changes. The Italic-speaking peoples have picked up writing from the Etruscans and/or Greek colonists in Magna Graecia, and inscriptions start to show up! So from this point, we have a pretty clear picture of what the different languages in the vicinity of Rome looked like: Italic had split into two branches, the _Sabellic_ or _Eastern Italic_ languages (like Oscan and Umbrian) and the _Latino-Faliscan_ or _Western Italic_ languages (Latin and Faliscan). And underlying all of them was a substrate of Etruscan, a completely unrelated language that had been spoken there before the Italic-speakers had moved in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Latin of the earliest inscriptions is generally called _Old Latin_, and is the oldest stage of the language that we have direct evidence for. Anything earlier, like Proto-Italic, has been reconstructed by comparing Latin and Faliscan and Oscan and Umbrian and so on to find the core similarities between them. And Old Latin, as a blanket term, covers everything from the Praenestine Fibula (seventh century BCE) to the mid-first century BCE. The oldest parts look quite a bit different from Classical Latin, but they're much more similar to Classical than Classical is to, say, modern Italian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. You mention Etruscan influence on Latin—there was definitely some influence, but it's not as huge as one might expect. The biggest effects I can think of are initial stress/medial vowel reduction and a bunch of loaned vocabulary, but not much else. Though it's hard to say for sure, given how little we know about Etruscan in general." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12824" RevisionGUID="554e52d9-a622-49a0-9f19-f250f314f681" CreationDate="2019-11-11T22:00:09.887" UserId="6279" Text="Can somebody explain what does this Dagger Sign mean in Diogenes presenting dictionary entries from perseus word study tool?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dzICc.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36043" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12824" RevisionGUID="554e52d9-a622-49a0-9f19-f250f314f681" CreationDate="2019-11-11T22:00:09.887" UserId="6279" Text="Dagger Sign in Diogenes dictionary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36044" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12824" RevisionGUID="554e52d9-a622-49a0-9f19-f250f314f681" CreationDate="2019-11-11T22:00:09.887" UserId="6279" Text="|dictionary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36048" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12820" RevisionGUID="13a7e530-d288-455c-8bb8-713cc23efa2b" CreationDate="2019-11-12T01:04:39.963" />
  <row Id="36049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12826" RevisionGUID="531ae731-6a0d-47a2-9c9f-07426fc2d670" CreationDate="2019-11-12T01:35:16.767" UserId="6279" Text="I've found in another dictionary for two of such words marks that they are reconstructed forms (*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1JKJq.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6IEu7.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4501" RevisionGUID="fc040179-07c0-4b2a-90ee-94f324d42ee3" CreationDate="2019-11-12T02:27:51.173" UserId="118" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="This doesn't answer your question (Tom Cotton's answer does that), but it's an interesting datum and way too long for a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](https://books.google.com/books?id=6NDmAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA22&amp;dq=%22in%20perpetuam%20servitutem%22) is an (in-)famous sentence from the papal bull _Dum Diversas_ by Pope Nicholas V, issued in 1452. Good luck finding the main verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nos igitur considerantes, quod contra Catholicam fidem insurgentibus, Christianamque Religionem extinguere molientibus, ea virtute, et alia constantia a Christi fidelibus est resistendum, ut fideles ipsi fidei ardore succensi, virtutibusque pro posse succinti detestandum illorum propositum, non solum obice intentionis contraire impediant, si ex oppositione roboris iniquos conatus prohibeant, et Deo cui militant, ipsis assistente perfidorum substernant molimenta, nos, que divino amore communiti, Christianorum charitate invitati, officiique pastoralis astricti debito, et quæ fidei, pro qua Christus Deus noster sanguinem effudit, integritatem, augmentumque respiciunt, nobis fidelium animis vigorem, tuamque Regiam Magestatem in hujusmodi sanctissimo proposito confovere merito cupientes, tibi Sarracenos, et Paganos, aliosque infideles, et Christi inimicos quoscunque, et ubicunque constitutos Regna, Ducatus, Comitatus, Principatus, aliaque Dominia, Terras, Loca, Villas, **Castra**, et quæcunque alia possessiones, bona mobilia, et immobilia in quibuscumque rebus consistentia, et quocunque nomine censeatur, per eosdem Sarracenos, Paganos, infideles, et Christi inimicos detenta, et possessa, etiam cujuscunque, seu quorumcunque Regis, seu Principis, aut Regum, vel Principum Regna, Ducatus, Comitatus, Principatus, aliaque Dominia, Terræ, Loca, Villæ, **Castra**, possessiones, et bona hujusmodi fuerint, invadendi, conquerendi, expugnandi, et subjugandi, illorumque personas in perpetuam servitutem redigendi, regna quoque, Ducatus, Comitatus, Principatus, aliaque Dominia, possessiones, et bona hujusmodi, tibi et successoribus tuis Regibus Portugalliæ, perpetuo applicandi, et appropriandi, ac in tuos eorundem successorum usus, et utilitates convertendi plenam, et liberam, auctoritate Apostolica, tenore præsentium concedimus facultatem, eandemque Regiam Magestatem tuam rogamus, requirimus, et hortamur attente, quatenus virtutis gladio præcinctus, ac forti animo præmunitus, pro divini nominis augmento, fideique exaltatione, ac animæ tuæ salute conquirenda, Deum præ oculis habens, in hujusmodi negotio, potentiam virtutis tuæ extendas, ut fides Catholica, per tuam Regiam Magestatem contra inimicos Christi triumphum se reportasse censeat, tuque coronam æternæ gloriæ, pro qua militandum est in terris, quamque promisit Deus diligentibus se, nostramque, et dictæ Sedis benedictionem, et gratiam exinde valeas uberius promereri.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might be a rare case where English is more concise than Latin, since the sentence is usually translated &quot;You can enslave non-Christians.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word _castra,_ clearly intended to be understood to refer to camps (plural), appears in many other papal bulls in the same book, in similar contexts. So, I'm thinking that the Latin plural for this word, at least, is understood to mean both one and many." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12827" RevisionGUID="d9da118a-6c55-498c-a8a4-09c2a682526d" CreationDate="2019-11-12T09:42:17.987" UserId="1059" Text="To mean something that is not owned legally, not owned with the meaning of &quot;being the owner&quot;, like when I say &quot;We have a pope&quot;, could I use &quot;habere&quot; or only the dative of possession?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the meaning the same between those 2 structures? When to use the one and when to use the other one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With something I really own, unlike the pope, but like a dog or a house, is this different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doesn't &quot;habere&quot; mean to own, with the meaning of &quot;to be the master&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36052" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12827" RevisionGUID="d9da118a-6c55-498c-a8a4-09c2a682526d" CreationDate="2019-11-12T09:42:17.987" UserId="1059" Text="&quot;Habere&quot; VS dative of possession?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36053" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12827" RevisionGUID="d9da118a-6c55-498c-a8a4-09c2a682526d" CreationDate="2019-11-12T09:42:17.987" UserId="1059" Text="|grammar-choice|dative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4485" RevisionGUID="cbaa7c06-6a81-494e-936d-85c026ed1160" CreationDate="2019-11-12T11:19:56.120" UserId="118" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="When I first looked into Latin, I saw in a textbook that the dative and ablative singular are the same in the second declension:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _nom._ servus&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _acc._ servum&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _gen._ servi&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _dat._ serv**o**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _abl._ serv**o**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _voc._ serve&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in the plural, the dative and ablative are the same in all declensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought, &quot;Oh no! These have nearly opposite meanings! I need to keep this ambiguity in mind while hearing/reading a sentence until something resolves it? What if nothing does? How do people live with an ambiguity like that?&quot; Of course I know that English has similar kinds of ambiguity that must be kept in mind, but I still wondered about this. Eventually I learned that a dative noun is never the object of a preposition, which helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When reading, I've often been tripped up by the dative–ablative ambiguity, but in nearly every case (no pun intended), I've found that only one interpretation was reasonable. Amazing!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here's my question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) Why is dative–ablative ambiguity not a problem in practice? Or am I mistaken about that: are there actually common, barely noticeable conventions for preventing it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) How do people deal with the ambiguity when it's real? For example, if a ship is named &quot;Deo Data&quot;, does that mean &quot;Given by God&quot; or &quot;Given to God&quot;? How do you tell?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12828" RevisionGUID="39e6a50a-fb9a-4e6b-ab06-6c08e1280b9d" CreationDate="2019-11-12T12:07:55.607" UserId="1059" Text="Why the occurrence of &quot;bubo&quot; in the Virgilius text is an hapax?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This text is the only one listed in Lewis &amp; Short with &quot;bubo&quot; being feminine.  &#xD;&#xA;Usually, it's a masculine noun. So, it is an hapax.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why?     &#xD;&#xA;It is a mistake? The hint of a variant in the use of the word, existing among the Roman population, but not attested in other texts? Is there a logical reason for &quot;bubo&quot; having 2 possible genders? Did it have any consequences in the gender of descent languages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it common for a noun to have 2 possible genders in Latin, or exceptional?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;būbo, ōnis, masculine (**feminine only once** Vergilius A. 4, 462; cf. Serv. ad loc.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder that, because this word is listed as masculine and feminine in many dictionaries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36056" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12828" RevisionGUID="39e6a50a-fb9a-4e6b-ab06-6c08e1280b9d" CreationDate="2019-11-12T12:07:55.607" UserId="1059" Text="Why &quot;bubo&quot; can be feminine or masculine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36057" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12828" RevisionGUID="39e6a50a-fb9a-4e6b-ab06-6c08e1280b9d" CreationDate="2019-11-12T12:07:55.607" UserId="1059" Text="|gender|vergilius|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12827" RevisionGUID="c8498def-d42d-4f93-a108-ec22d25eabdd" CreationDate="2019-11-12T12:18:08.560" UserId="118" Comment="+genitive, per comments" Text="To mean something that is not owned legally, not owned with the meaning of &quot;being the owner&quot;, like when I say &quot;We have a pope&quot;, could I use &quot;habere&quot; or only the dative or genitive of possession?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the meaning the same between those 2 structures? When to use the one and when to use the other one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With something I really own, unlike the pope, but like a dog or a house, is this different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doesn't &quot;habere&quot; mean to own, with the meaning of &quot;to be the master&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36059" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12827" RevisionGUID="c8498def-d42d-4f93-a108-ec22d25eabdd" CreationDate="2019-11-12T12:18:08.560" UserId="118" Comment="+genitive, per comments" Text="&quot;Habere&quot; VS dative and genitive of possession?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36060" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12827" RevisionGUID="c8498def-d42d-4f93-a108-ec22d25eabdd" CreationDate="2019-11-12T12:18:08.560" UserId="118" Comment="+genitive, per comments" Text="|grammar-choice|genitive|dative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12829" RevisionGUID="cbd33346-35a7-4812-8b21-b23d7c576649" CreationDate="2019-11-12T13:01:12.727" UserId="79" Text="This answer only considers the nuances of *habere*, not a comparison between it and the possessive dative.&#xD;&#xA;The possessive genitive is different; it functions mostly like the English genitive and is used to express things like &quot;my dog&quot; rather than &quot;I have a dog&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example of the pope actually makes a good example for *habere*.&#xD;&#xA;The [canonical announcement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habemus_papam) upon the selection of a new pope begins:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum: habemus Papam.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have a pope, but we do not own him or rule him in any reasonable sense.&#xD;&#xA;One could try to argue that this is post-classical, but no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please take a look at [the entry for *habere* in Lewis &amp; Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=habeo&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059) for a classical view.&#xD;&#xA;It has a wide variety of uses, including clear ownership (having money) and clear lack thereof (having a brother).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *habere* is very broad, and only rarely does it have the nuance of &quot;to be the master [of]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Assigning this meaning to it in general is not justified at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12791" RevisionGUID="f5ba78ee-8cd9-4f1e-9079-bf61cc6bdc50" CreationDate="2019-11-12T13:09:59.363" UserId="1982" Comment="added 417 characters in body" Text="A simple one: &quot;veni vidi cepi&quot; = &quot;....I took; seized; captured; occupied; got; won over; made a choice of; selected&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, some of these (Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict.) have a military/ aggressive connotation (Caeser's original meaning); but, cats are known for taking and defending territory. Did you attempt to move her?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With thanks to fdb; a request for (the original) alliteration style. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly, &quot;vallo&quot;: &quot;to surround or fortify a camp with a palisaded rampart&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cat takes and surrounds his territory with urine. A &quot;rampart&quot; of foul-smelling odours; which, can be more repellent than any wall. It's pushing the barriers of translation to breaking point; but, if you want alliteration here it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;veni, vidi, vallo.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12791" RevisionGUID="7add81d6-1e69-4c90-a087-6f1403534d14" CreationDate="2019-11-12T13:34:34.990" UserId="1982" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="A simple one: &quot;veni vidi cepi&quot; = &quot;....I took; seized; captured; occupied; got; won over; made a choice of; selected&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, some of these (Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict.) have a military/ aggressive connotation (Caeser's original meaning); but, cats are known for taking and defending territory. Did you attempt to move her?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With thanks to fdb; a request for (the original) alliteration style. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly, &quot;vallo&quot;: &quot;to surround or fortify a camp with a palisaded rampart&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cat takes and surrounds his territory with urine. A &quot;rampart&quot; of foul-smelling odours; which, can be more repellent than any wall. It's pushing the barriers of translation to breaking point; but, if you want alliteration here it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;veni, vidi, vallavi.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12830" RevisionGUID="77867252-c904-430d-86a1-ec912ed22a29" CreationDate="2019-11-12T17:07:05.673" UserId="406" Text="The relevant passage is this one, from Aeneid IV.462-3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sōlaque culminibus fērālī carmine būbo  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; saepe quer' et longās in flētum dūcere vōcēs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *And the lone owl on the rooftops would cry out its mournful song, drawing out its long calls into an elegy.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see a few possible reasons why Vergil chose to make this particular _būbo_ a feminine one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Masculine wouldn't fit the meter—for these lines to scan, the second syllable has to be light, and _sōl**us**que_ would be heavy. These sorts of changes are common in poetry: note also how there's only a single owl on multiple rooftops, even though logically one owl can be on only a single rooftop at a time.&#xD;&#xA; - This whole passage is about Dido's madness, and Dido is female, so it's poetically appropriate to have the owl be female too.&#xD;&#xA; - Many names of animals in Latin have &quot;common gender&quot;, and can take either masculine or feminine adjectives: if it were a lone dog mourning on the rooftops, it could be either a _canis sōlus_ or a _canis sōla_. _Būbo_ is not one of these (it instead has &quot;epicene gender&quot;), but the idea of an animal name switching its grammatical gender based on the sex of its referent wasn't a foreign or uncommon one.&#xD;&#xA; - Many other words for owls, such as _strix_ and _ulula_, are grammatically feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any or all of these might have weighed into his decision." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12831" RevisionGUID="1c182cfc-678f-4907-9232-6b88d322f240" CreationDate="2019-11-12T17:27:43.077" UserId="6177" Text="*Since the Virgil's [passage](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0055%3Abook%3D4%3Acard%3D450) in question happens to start with 'Tum' I have to contribute something...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This is not an answer but I see no way of putting this as a comment due to formatting issues.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There appears to be no clarity on the issue, so the chances of getting a clear, authoritative answer are actually slim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The Royal Grammar, Commonly Called Lilie's Grammar, Explained ... By William WALKER (B.D., Schoolmaster of Grantham.)&quot; has the following paragraph with regards to this usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Excerpt from &quot;The Royal Grammar, Commonly Called Lilie's Grammar, Explained ... By William Walker ... The Third Edition, with Amendments&quot;][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[P. Virgilii Maronis Æneis. The Æneïd of Virgil, with Engl. notes [&amp;c.] by C. Anthon. Ed. with alterations by W. Trollope](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ohoEAAAAQAAJ&amp;lpg=PA212&amp;ots=eAVIzWFxRM&amp;dq=%22solaque%20culminibus%20ferali%20carmine%20bubo%22%20feminine&amp;pg=PA212#v=onepage&amp;q=%22solaque%20culminibus%20ferali%20carmine%20bubo%22%20feminine&amp;f=false) also mentions an opinion that 'sola bubo' is to be understood as 'sola *avis* bubo':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, for what it's worth, there is a whole article called [&quot;Dido and the Owl&quot;](https://www.academia.edu/27707560/Dido_and_the_Owl_2016_in_P._Mitsis_and_I._Ziogas_eds._Wordplay_and_Powerplay_in_Latin_Poetry._De_Gruyter_107-30) by [Emily Gowers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Gowers) that offers, what I would call, a *poetic* rather than a *scientific* interpretation (this is just an excerpt, there are a few pages dedicated to the topic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Dido and the Owl][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yGlCK.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/V7Dqt.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DwCDL.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36067" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12827" RevisionGUID="e7303459-cc4f-4362-953a-5303cb2316ce" CreationDate="2019-11-12T17:51:24.530" />
  <row Id="36068" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12828" RevisionGUID="cfc98e2a-78e7-445a-87ae-97a3e6de18ad" CreationDate="2019-11-12T20:21:37.600" />
  <row Id="36069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12832" RevisionGUID="8064eccf-8776-4768-bb2f-1cf58947cba2" CreationDate="2019-11-12T22:27:39.357" UserId="324" Text="On the other hand, it is perfectly classical Latin to use a proper noun and a common noun in apposition as in “urbs Roma”. If you want to take “Crater” as the English name of the lake you can write “lacus Crater”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12833" RevisionGUID="b008c27a-c17b-4eda-abcb-205d7ae7730c" CreationDate="2019-11-12T23:05:30.433" UserId="45" Text="The [Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG)](http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/) is a popular research tool for working on Greek texts. (Unfortunately, it's a &quot;freemium&quot; model, so you need to pay for full access or get it through a research institution.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to do something that--you'd think--is quite easy: searching for all occurrences of a given word/lemma in a given work. Specifically, I am looking for all occurrences of &quot;τέλος&quot; in Aristotle's *Politics*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The TLG offers a simple way to narrow the results to a given *author*, but I'm struggling to reduce them to a given *work* of that author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now, I can only think of two ways to do this, after reducing the results to &quot;Aristotle&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Do a lemma search, and (taking advantage of the default sorting by work) find the page where that work begins. (Not fun!)&#xD;&#xA;* In the right-hand menu (&quot;My search selection&quot;), deselect one-by-one all the works except the one you want to search. (Very time-consuming!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I missing an obvious feature that allows this kind of filtering to occur?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36071" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12833" RevisionGUID="b008c27a-c17b-4eda-abcb-205d7ae7730c" CreationDate="2019-11-12T23:05:30.433" UserId="45" Text="How do you search through one work in TLG?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36072" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12833" RevisionGUID="b008c27a-c17b-4eda-abcb-205d7ae7730c" CreationDate="2019-11-12T23:05:30.433" UserId="45" Text="|greek|research|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12834" RevisionGUID="353e6fbc-9f43-4a94-863b-1c4882435e7e" CreationDate="2019-11-12T23:59:09.060" UserId="6281" Text="I read that a good way to use LLPSI is by memorizing lists of words before going to the text. Does anyone know where these word list are?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36074" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12834" RevisionGUID="353e6fbc-9f43-4a94-863b-1c4882435e7e" CreationDate="2019-11-12T23:59:09.060" UserId="6281" Text="Lists of words to memorize before reading Lingua Latina Per Se Ilustrata classified by type: nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36075" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12834" RevisionGUID="353e6fbc-9f43-4a94-863b-1c4882435e7e" CreationDate="2019-11-12T23:59:09.060" UserId="6281" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36076" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12828" RevisionGUID="47829fb2-a714-4a7c-9285-9b006bfb3449" CreationDate="2019-11-13T00:24:30.513" UserDisplayName="user3597" Comment="add translation to title, for those of us who don't know the word" Text="Why &quot;bubo&quot; (&quot;owl&quot;) can be feminine or masculine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36077" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12828" RevisionGUID="47829fb2-a714-4a7c-9285-9b006bfb3449" CreationDate="2019-11-13T00:24:30.513" Comment="Proposed by 3597 approved by -1 edit id of 337" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36078" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12828" RevisionGUID="1fdf0057-9268-47ae-be75-8b1a3d77f944" CreationDate="2019-11-13T00:24:30.513" UserId="406" Comment="add translation to title, for those of us who don't know the word" Text="Why can &quot;bubo&quot; (&quot;owl&quot;) be feminine or masculine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12830" RevisionGUID="5ca2079b-c09e-4680-94d4-b233344f4604" CreationDate="2019-11-13T03:04:25.880" UserId="406" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="The relevant passage is this one, from Aeneid IV.462-3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sōlaque culminibus fērālī carmine būbo  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; saepe quer' et longās in flētum dūcere vōcēs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *And the lone owl on the rooftops would cry out its mournful song, drawing out its long calls into an elegy.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see a few possible reasons why Vergil chose to make this particular _būbo_ a feminine one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Masculine wouldn't fit the meter—for these lines to scan, the second syllable has to be light, and _sōl**us**que_ would be heavy. These sorts of changes are common in poetry: note also how there's only a single owl on multiple rooftops, even though logically one owl can be on only a single rooftop at a time.&#xD;&#xA; - This whole passage is about Dido's madness, and Dido is female, so it's poetically appropriate to have the owl be female too.&#xD;&#xA; - Many names of animals in Latin have &quot;common gender&quot;, and can take either masculine or feminine adjectives: if it were a lone dog mourning on the rooftops, it could be either a _canis sōlus_ or a _canis sōla_. _Būbo_ is not one of these (it instead has &quot;epicene gender&quot;), but the idea of an animal name switching its grammatical gender based on the sex of its referent wasn't a foreign or uncommon one.&#xD;&#xA; - Many other words for owls, such as _strix_, _noctua_, and _ulula_, are grammatically feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any or all of these might have weighed into his decision." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36080" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12834" RevisionGUID="17860435-2103-4051-8d3e-bae5d98036ef" CreationDate="2019-11-13T05:57:28.067" UserId="118" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12835" RevisionGUID="ac58fbf2-0a6e-41a9-b18a-fbd6e5e67a01" CreationDate="2019-11-13T06:00:03.253" UserId="118" Text="The best list to memorize before reading each chapter of _LLPSI_ is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously, the whole point of _Lingua Latin Per Se Illustrata_ is to learn each word from context. It's called &quot;the natural method&quot; because it teaches Latin the way you learn your native language (just faster and more streamlined): from context, always from context. Try it! You'll like it. It's fun, even!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to memorize word lists,* you might consider a different text, one that's designed for that approach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt; Does anyone really want to memorize word lists??&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12835" RevisionGUID="3cd81177-c753-4bb9-b261-e9c3d4209803" CreationDate="2019-11-13T06:06:29.043" UserId="118" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="The best list to memorize before reading each chapter of _LLPSI_ is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously, the whole point of _Lingua Latin Per Se Illustrata_ is to learn each word from context. It's called &quot;the natural method&quot; because it teaches Latin the way you learn your native language (just faster and more streamlined): from context, always from context. Try it! You'll like it. It's easy. It's fun, even!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to memorize word lists,* you might consider a different text, one that's designed for that approach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt; Does anyone really want to memorize word lists??&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12835" RevisionGUID="231bed7a-2619-4847-b0e8-c29ace39d2c6" CreationDate="2019-11-13T11:36:18.913" UserId="118" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="The best list to memorize before reading each chapter of _LLPSI_ is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously, the whole point of _Lingua Latin Per Se Illustrata_ is to learn each word from context. It's called &quot;the natural method&quot; because it teaches Latin the way you learn your native language (just faster and more streamlined): from context, always from context, without translating to your native language, not even in your mind. Try it! You'll like it. It's easy. It's fun, even!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to memorize word lists,* you might consider a different text, one that's designed for that approach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt; Does anyone really want to memorize word lists??&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12836" RevisionGUID="49a5728b-7f3f-446e-a6ea-4095a53698f5" CreationDate="2019-11-13T12:25:57.300" UserId="1982" Text="On the Andrew Marr TV-prog (Sunday, 10/11/2019) General Sir Nicholas Carter was interviewed. When Marr asked about the declining interest in Remembrance-Day Commemorations, the general quoted Byzantine Emperor, Maurice (late 6thC), who said: &quot;A nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;gens quae eius defensores obliviscitur, memoria ipsius amittetur.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, not as easy as it first appears; obvious and seemingly only verb for &quot;to forget, &quot;obliviscor&quot; is deponent, prohibiting its use in a passive sense. Therefore, the clumsier alternative: &quot;the memory of itself will be lost&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The court of Emperor Maurice used the Latin language, so this must be written down, somewhere. I couldn't find it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this translation correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36086" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12836" RevisionGUID="49a5728b-7f3f-446e-a6ea-4095a53698f5" CreationDate="2019-11-13T12:25:57.300" UserId="1982" Text="Gone But Not Forgotten" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36087" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12836" RevisionGUID="49a5728b-7f3f-446e-a6ea-4095a53698f5" CreationDate="2019-11-13T12:25:57.300" UserId="1982" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12835" RevisionGUID="ba2fb96a-f1c7-4409-b96d-058352e8cb54" CreationDate="2019-11-13T12:43:06.873" UserId="118" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="The best list to memorize before reading each chapter of _LLPSI_ is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously, you heard wrong. The whole point of _Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata_ is to learn each word from context. It's called &quot;[the natural method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Ørberg)&quot; because it teaches Latin the way you learn your native language (just faster and more streamlined): from context, always from context, without translating, not even in your mind. Try it! You'll like it. It's easy. It's fun, even!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to memorize word lists,* you might consider a different text, one that's designed for that approach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt; Does anyone really want to memorize word lists??&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12836" RevisionGUID="b88b5c33-0d89-4ee4-b23f-20bb1b23e430" CreationDate="2019-11-13T13:51:07.290" UserId="1982" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="On the Andrew Marr TV-prog (Sunday, 10/11/2019) General Sir Nicholas Carter was interviewed. When Marr asked about the declining interest in Remembrance-Day Commemorations, the general quoted Byzantine Emperor, Maurice (late 6thC), who said: &quot;A nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible translation could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;gens quae eius defensores obliviscitur, memoria ipsius amittetur.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, not as easy as it first appears; obvious and seemingly only verb for &quot;to forget, &quot;obliviscor&quot; is deponent, prohibiting its use in a passive sense. Therefore, the clumsier alternative: &quot;the memory of itself will be lost&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The court of Emperor Maurice used the Latin language, so this must be written down somewhere. I couldn't find it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this translation correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12791" RevisionGUID="8b068e44-5b03-4d9b-af9c-771674a146d9" CreationDate="2019-11-13T14:49:05.117" UserId="1982" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body" Text="A simple one: &quot;veni vidi cepi&quot; = &quot;....I took; seized; captured; occupied; got; won over; made a choice of; selected&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, some of these (Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict.) have a military/ aggressive connotation (Caeser's original meaning); but, cats are known for taking and defending territory. Did you attempt to move her?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With thanks to fdb; a request for (the original) alliteration style. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly, &quot;vallo&quot;: &quot;to surround or fortify a camp with a palisaded rampart&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cat takes and surrounds his territory with urine. A &quot;rampart&quot; of foul-smelling odours; which, can be more repellent than any wall. It's pushing the barriers of translation to breaking point; but, here it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;veni, vidi, vallavi.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36091" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12836" RevisionGUID="47b5e1c8-30c6-4db5-8dba-95e62434ccb8" CreationDate="2019-11-13T15:43:24.997" UserId="118" Comment="edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|passive-voice|deponent-verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36092" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12655" RevisionGUID="2732e0e1-e13e-4dda-9a70-a1af02443b40" CreationDate="2019-11-13T16:00:26.790" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="36093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12837" RevisionGUID="bcc58dec-0cf3-4483-ac02-77cba89806a3" CreationDate="2019-11-13T16:32:01.433" UserId="6282" Text="English has many examples of portmanteau words (e.g. &quot;motel&quot; is a combination of &quot;motor&quot; and &quot;hotel&quot;). Does Latin have any such phenomena?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36094" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12837" RevisionGUID="bcc58dec-0cf3-4483-ac02-77cba89806a3" CreationDate="2019-11-13T16:32:01.433" UserId="6282" Text="Does Latin have any Portmanteau words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36095" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12837" RevisionGUID="bcc58dec-0cf3-4483-ac02-77cba89806a3" CreationDate="2019-11-13T16:32:01.433" UserId="6282" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12838" RevisionGUID="5d365ec2-58cd-4a64-bcf8-1b1c366c6110" CreationDate="2019-11-13T16:38:06.197" UserId="5056" Text="This actually came up during [an answer](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/12589/5056) to a question I had asked, and the word from that answer was _saxifragus_, or &quot;rock-breaking&quot;. I'm not sure how common it was practiced as compared to languages that do it more broadly (I'm thinking of English and German as examples), but it does seem to be attested to some extent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12835" RevisionGUID="404986e9-ede1-45d7-bbfe-f7260d44723b" CreationDate="2019-11-13T16:42:59.923" UserId="118" Comment="edited body" Text="The best list to memorize before reading each chapter of _LLPSI_ is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously, you heard wrong. The whole point of _Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata_ is to learn each word from context. It's called &quot;[the natural method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Ørberg)&quot; because it teaches Latin the way you learn your native language (just faster and more streamlined): from context, always from context, without translating, not even in your mind. Try it! You'll like it. It's easy. It's fun, even.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to memorize word lists,* you might consider a different text, one that's designed for that approach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sub&gt; Does anyone really want to memorize word lists??&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1592" RevisionGUID="714289ff-5995-4c37-b5bf-741c57dda049" CreationDate="2019-11-13T22:53:00.257" UserId="1059" Comment="comma" Text="I wonder how the Romans would have said &quot;yes&quot; as in &quot;Yes, please&quot; or &quot;no&quot; as in &quot;No, thank you&quot;. I don't know if they would have said it exactly like that, but what would they have said if they had to mean something like that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36100" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="1592" RevisionGUID="3678cd43-04d0-4b11-810d-b95cab702e91" CreationDate="2019-11-14T01:07:43.170" UserId="406" Comment="Rollback to [7f3caa36-ac4d-42cc-9ece-3334fcd94070]" Text="I'm wondering how the Romans would have said &quot;yes&quot; as in &quot;yes please&quot; or &quot;no&quot; as in &quot;no thank you&quot;. I don't know if they would have said it exactly like that, but what would they have said if they had to mean something like that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12840" RevisionGUID="b24e9922-a51f-4604-96a7-4f32c93f5885" CreationDate="2019-11-14T03:41:56.283" UserId="3153" Text="Oblita populi sui gens obliscenda est.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going for minimalism, this translation means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A nation forgetful of its (own) people must/is right to/should/ought to/is right to be forgotten." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12841" RevisionGUID="11f5646b-3524-41d6-99eb-b0e64694512b" CreationDate="2019-11-15T11:05:52.333" UserId="1982" Text="With thanks to fdb; a request for (the original) alliteration style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly, &quot;vallo&quot;: to surround or fortify a camp with a palisaded rampart&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cat takes and surrounds his territory with urine. A &quot;rampart&quot; of foul-smelling odours, more repellent than any wall. It's pushing the limits of translation; but, here it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;veni vidi vallavi.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12791" RevisionGUID="4f7b4f82-f0fc-43b0-a55a-07ca4777c0b0" CreationDate="2019-11-15T11:06:34.130" UserId="1982" Comment="deleted 390 characters in body" Text="A simple one: &quot;veni vidi cepi&quot; = &quot;....I took; seized; captured; occupied; got; won over; made a choice of; selected&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, some of these (Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict.) have a military/ aggressive connotation (Caeser's original meaning); but, cats are known for taking and defending territory. Did you attempt to move her?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12841" RevisionGUID="9e94fdd7-99e5-4309-a702-50db348c085c" CreationDate="2019-11-15T11:43:10.040" UserId="1982" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="With thanks to fdb; a request for (the original) alliteration style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly, &quot;vallo&quot;: to surround or fortify a camp with a palisaded rampart&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cat takes and surrounds his territory with urine. A &quot;rampart&quot; of foul-smelling odours, more repellent than any wall. It's pushing the limits of translation; but, here it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;veni, vidi, vallavi.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12791" RevisionGUID="31f5c475-63f1-462a-ada4-81f3cacb9c76" CreationDate="2019-11-15T11:43:29.433" UserId="1982" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="A simple one: &quot;veni, vidi, cepi&quot; = &quot;....I took; seized; captured; occupied; got; won over; made a choice of; selected&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, some of these (Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict.) have a military/ aggressive connotation (Caeser's original meaning); but, cats are known for taking and defending territory. Did you attempt to move her?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12603" RevisionGUID="b9f7e812-bf8c-40ac-92f7-cbbfb12cc475" CreationDate="2019-11-15T11:55:42.710" UserId="1982" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="In Q:https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/89/1982 there does not appear to be a natural conclusion. Apposite contributions appeared as comments but were not developed. Perhaps it was believed that the Q. had been answered? There still seems to be more to discuss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The well-established translations: &quot;Remember you must die&quot; &amp; &quot;Remember you are mortal&quot;: firstly, the original Latin does not include &quot;you&quot; and/or a second-person singular verb, the translations do include &quot;you&quot;, which may explain how confusion arises. Secondly, these two are essentially the same. Mortality is a susceptibility to death. If &quot;you are mortal&quot; then &quot;you must die&quot;, by definition.&#xD;&#xA;Pavel V and Cerberus gave the literal translation &quot;Remember to die&quot; (In case we forget?) which, for them, includes an implied obligation: &quot;Remember you must die&quot; (sounds familiar) a veritable cascade of congruence possibly pointing to the correct answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Implied obligation: an English equivalent could be: &quot;Remember to wash the pots.&quot; then &quot;You'd better wash the pots.&quot; therefore &quot;You must wash the pots.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;As geomars indicated there is an implied threat, here, as well as an obligation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To introduce obligation, without threat, the gerundive (of an intransitive verb, used impersonally): nunc est moriendum = now one must die; or, mox erit moriendum = soon one must die; continuing (thanks to brianpck) &quot;moriendum est omnibus&quot; = &quot;all must die&quot;. Alternatively, &quot;tu es mortalis, morieris&quot;; or, just &quot;tu morieris&quot; = you will die. It may be more prosaic; but, directly to the point; no equivocation; no implications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A most interesting point was made by C.M. Weimer; &quot;memento mori&quot; may be treated as indirect. This solves the problem of the inclusion of pronoun &quot;you&quot;, in the Latin. The man-in-the-chariot (interlocutor) advising our all-conquering hero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;dicit memento te mori&quot; = &quot;he (interlocutor) says remember you are dying&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;present tense accusative-infinitive construction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sanguine about death, Seneca, in his interpretation of Roman theology (&quot;Epistle 1&quot;) counselled the wise use of time (hence life) as it passes, only to be scooped-up by Death, in His unrelenting approach to the individual: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...qui intellegat se cotidie mori.&quot; = &quot;...he, who may understand that every day he is dying.&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;present tense, indirect statement with accusative reflexive pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The warning (indirect speech): &quot;Remember you are dying.&quot; appears to be compliant with a Roman mindset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Noteworthy, also, the second offer from Cerberus; &quot;Remember Dying&quot;; as a present participle; &quot;Remember (I see you) dying.&quot;; as a gerund; &quot;Remember the dying (of the light/ of the mortal.)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concluding: either &quot;memento mori&quot; is to be translated literally, with its implied obligation, giving: &quot;Remember to die.&quot; = &quot;Remember you must die.&quot;; or, as indirect speech: &quot;(he says) remember you are dying.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12842" RevisionGUID="3549967d-43bb-4f99-be3e-2f5cda361253" CreationDate="2019-11-15T13:17:42.357" UserId="6284" Text="Ave, Latinstackers!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing a three-part piece in Latin for my choir, and I want a perfect, exact translation of the text into Latin, please. I strongly suspect that Google translate has not got it quite right!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the text. I would be extremely grateful to anybody who  would spend a moment to give me the exact translation of each line.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fire is coming.&#xD;&#xA;Drought is coming.&#xD;&#xA;The dust rises,&#xD;&#xA;and our sky is obscured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Floods will come.&#xD;&#xA;Frozen rivers will flow.&#xD;&#xA;The city of Venice is drowning;&#xD;&#xA;and what are we doing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will act.&#xD;&#xA;We will all change, &#xD;&#xA;and we pray that our world will recover.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance from Cantus Lupum&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36117" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12842" RevisionGUID="3549967d-43bb-4f99-be3e-2f5cda361253" CreationDate="2019-11-15T13:17:42.357" UserId="6284" Text="Composer requesting help with a perfect translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36118" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12842" RevisionGUID="3549967d-43bb-4f99-be3e-2f5cda361253" CreationDate="2019-11-15T13:17:42.357" UserId="6284" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12842" RevisionGUID="7bda660b-4fd7-4db9-ac2d-67e35283b1be" CreationDate="2019-11-15T14:46:44.137" UserId="79" Comment="added 21 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Ave, Latinstackers!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing a three-part piece in Latin for my choir, and I want a perfect, exact translation of the text into Latin, please. I strongly suspect that Google translate has not got it quite right!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the text. I would be extremely grateful to anybody who  would spend a moment to give me the exact translation of each line.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fire is coming.  &#xD;&#xA;Drought is coming.  &#xD;&#xA;The dust rises,  &#xD;&#xA;and our sky is obscured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Floods will come.  &#xD;&#xA;Frozen rivers will flow.  &#xD;&#xA;The city of Venice is drowning;  &#xD;&#xA;and what are we doing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We will act.  &#xD;&#xA;We will all change,  &#xD;&#xA;and we pray that our world will recover.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance from Cantus Lupum&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36120" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12842" RevisionGUID="7bda660b-4fd7-4db9-ac2d-67e35283b1be" CreationDate="2019-11-15T14:46:44.137" UserId="79" Comment="added 21 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|song-lyrics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12843" RevisionGUID="ddd706f0-1697-42b2-bf3e-4f495d940739" CreationDate="2019-11-15T14:59:45.083" UserId="79" Text="I apologize if this comes across as a non-answer, but I cannot help giving it.&#xD;&#xA;I have translated several songs into Latin for professional singers.&#xD;&#xA;Good translations take a lot of work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I make sure the singer is comfortable with the translation. I add or remove syllables or avoid words they find awkward for some reason.&#xD;&#xA;- I pay attention to whether it sounds good to a listener who knows no Latin.&#xD;&#xA;- I make sure there are elements that are easy to grasp, like well known Latin words or names.&#xD;&#xA;- There is no such thing as literal translation of song lyrics, so I have to decode the message and recode it in Latin. This involves not only shifting to another language but often also shifting to another cultural context.&#xD;&#xA;- I repeatedly discuss the translation options with the singer to find solutions that work well on all levels. It often takes a large number of iterations to get it right.&#xD;&#xA;- I check carefully that the text is grammatically valid.&#xD;&#xA;- I provide a detailed pronunciation guide and teach the singer until satisfied.&#xD;&#xA;- I abandon some projects as I cannot make them work in Latin in a way that meets my quality standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I do like to offer volunteer help on this site, this amount of work is too much.&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;perfect translation&quot; is possible get, but probably not something you can easily get from a professional for free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps someone can offer you a quick translation.&#xD;&#xA;But don't expect it to be fully polished and conveying exactly the intended message.&#xD;&#xA;To end on a positive note, [you are wise to doubt Google Translate](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36122" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="1b525fc9-fc31-4e5b-b2d9-8592a855d525" CreationDate="2019-11-15T21:01:10.160" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="36123" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12842" RevisionGUID="aeffb41a-81c9-42c7-aa89-2b77aadbf6d4" CreationDate="2019-11-15T21:27:53.617" />
  <row Id="36124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12844" RevisionGUID="cb214177-73d8-4912-b763-5a567f978a6a" CreationDate="2019-11-15T21:35:29.257" UserId="3248" Text="I was wondering to what extent the **syntactic** distribution of so-called “ablatives of agent” and that of “datives of agent” is different. For example, the former can be found in non-verbal constructions like the following ones (the first example is an Ablative Absolute construction and the second one is a [dominant participle construction][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a.  Commisso ab equitibus proelio, ... (Caes. _Civ_. 1.41).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; b. post civitatem a Lucio Bruto liberatam  (Cic. _Phil._ 5,17)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My question** is whether so-called “datives of agent” can also be found in these **non-verbal** contexts. My intuition is that they can’t: e.g., ??_His rebus {gestis/cognitis/deliberatis} Marco,…_ (cf. ok with Abl. Prepositional Phrase _a Marco_: _His rebus {gestis/cognitis/deliberatis} a Marco_, … ). It seems to me that the dative _Marco_ cannot be understood as an agent in this non-verbal context (cf. the typical “agent” interpretation of the dative in a verbal context like _Mihi hoc est deliberatum / cognitum /…_). Is my intuition correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same with so-called periphrastic passive including a gerundive. As is well-known, the &quot;agent&quot; is often said to be expressed by a dative (_Carthago delenda est nobis_). Some exceptions to this rule are typically “explained (away)” in Latin grammars by saying that the ablative of agent is possible to differentiate complements (e.g., _Quibus est a vobis consulendum_ (Cic. _Man_. 6)) or to maintain a syntactic parallelism (e.g., _Nec si a populo praeteritus est quem oportuit, a iudicibus condemnandus est qui praeteritus non est_ (Cic. _Pro Plan._ 3, 8)). However, it seems that this description is not enough to account for the syntactic distribution of “datives of agent”. For example, **contrary** to what one could infer from reading Latin grammars, a dative is **not** to be found in those non-verbal passive contexts where an ablative agent can be found (e.g., cf. the well-formedness of the (b) example below with the ill-formedness of *_De provinciis **iis-dat** qui obtinerent retinendis_).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;	a. De mercenariis testibus a suis civitatibus notandis… (Cic. _Ad Fam._ 3, 11, 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;	b. De provinciis ab iis qui obtinerent retinendis… (Cic. _Ad Fam_. 12, 22).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the conclusion seems to be that, as far as their **syntactic** distribution is concerned, unlike ablatives of agent, so-called “datives of agent” **always (?)** require the syntactic presence of verbal forms: (i) typically, the verb _esse_ in constructions related to &quot;possession&quot;: e.g., _Mihi hoc deliberatum est_ (cf. _Habeo hoc deliberatum_) and _Mihi currendum est_ (cf. less Classical [_Habeo  currendum_][2]) and (ii) less typically, [other verbs][3]: e.g., _neque cernitur ulli_ (Verg. _Aen_ 1, 440). Is this conclusion correct?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9412/how-obligatory-is-the-predicate-in-a-dominant-participle-construction&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11169/null-expletive-objects-in-latin-cariotae-cum-ficis-certandum-habent-plin-ep&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10584/ne-paelici-suspectaretur-tacitus/10926#10926" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36125" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12844" RevisionGUID="cb214177-73d8-4912-b763-5a567f978a6a" CreationDate="2019-11-15T21:35:29.257" UserId="3248" Text="“Datives of agent” vs. “Ablatives of agent”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36126" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12844" RevisionGUID="cb214177-73d8-4912-b763-5a567f978a6a" CreationDate="2019-11-15T21:35:29.257" UserId="3248" Text="|syntax|ablative|dative|gerundive|ablative-absolute|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12821" RevisionGUID="64891fb0-9236-404e-a72d-b3bb54b91bb9" CreationDate="2019-11-15T21:52:49.717" UserId="6177" Comment="image added" Text="The question might be better suited for [Linguistics.SE](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/). However, the general information on the history of Latin is outlined in the Wikipedia article of the [same name](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It is believed that the earliest surviving inscription is a seventh-century B.C. pin known as the [Praenestine fibula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praenestine_fibula), which reads Manios med fhefhaked Numasioi &quot;Manius made me for Numerius&quot;.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;…  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Vulgar Latin** […]&#xD;&#xA;This spoken Latin differed from the literary language of Classical Latin in its grammar and vocabulary. […] Because there are few phonetic transcriptions of the daily speech of these Latin speakers (to match, for example, the post-classical [Appendix Probi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appendix_Probi)) Vulgar Latin must be studied mainly **by indirect methods**.  &#xD;&#xA;Knowledge of Vulgar Latin comes from a variety of sources. First, the **comparative method** reconstructs items of the mother language from the attested Romance languages. Also, prescriptive grammar texts from the Late Latin period condemn some usages as errors, providing insight into how Latin was actually spoken. […]&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, not only do we **not** have any records of [Proto-Italic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic_language), the language that evolved into Latin and other [Italic languages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_languages). In fact, there are no  records of the actual Latin pre-dating the 7th century BC and thus all this knowledge is indeed based on the scientific reconstruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GwMt4.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12821" RevisionGUID="bf9d43f0-e07f-483d-a64e-569a0c31d22c" CreationDate="2019-11-15T21:58:28.690" UserId="3576" Comment="add picture of fibula" Text="The question might be better suited for [Linguistics.SE](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/). However, the general information on the history of Latin is outlined in the Wikipedia article of the [same name](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It is believed that the earliest surviving inscription is a seventh-century B.C. pin known as the [Praenestine fibula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praenestine_fibula), which reads Manios med fhefhaked Numasioi &quot;Manius made me for Numerius&quot;.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![right to left][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;…  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Vulgar Latin** […]&#xD;&#xA;This spoken Latin differed from the literary language of Classical Latin in its grammar and vocabulary. […] Because there are few phonetic transcriptions of the daily speech of these Latin speakers (to match, for example, the post-classical [Appendix Probi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appendix_Probi)) Vulgar Latin must be studied mainly **by indirect methods**.  &#xD;&#xA;Knowledge of Vulgar Latin comes from a variety of sources. First, the **comparative method** reconstructs items of the mother language from the attested Romance languages. Also, prescriptive grammar texts from the Late Latin period condemn some usages as errors, providing insight into how Latin was actually spoken. […]&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, not only do we **not** have any records of [Proto-Italic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic_language), the language that evolved into Latin and other [Italic languages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_languages). In fact, there are no  records of the actual Latin pre-dating the 7th century BC and thus all this knowledge is indeed based on the scientific reconstruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aBNWl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36129" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12821" RevisionGUID="bf9d43f0-e07f-483d-a64e-569a0c31d22c" CreationDate="2019-11-15T21:58:28.690" Comment="Proposed by 3576 approved by -1 edit id of 338" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12821" RevisionGUID="1f055dab-57fb-431b-8b76-ff8b7da6c3a7" CreationDate="2019-11-15T21:58:28.690" UserId="6177" Comment="spelling of old latin" Text="The question might be better suited for [Linguistics.SE](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/). However, the general information on the history of Latin is outlined in the Wikipedia article of the [same name](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It is believed that the earliest surviving inscription is a seventh-century B.C. pin known as the [Praenestine fibula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praenestine_fibula), which reads Manios med fhe fhaked Numasioi &quot;Manius made me for Numerius&quot;.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![right to left][1]][1]  &#xD;&#xA;*The writing above runs from right to left.*&#xD;&#xA;…  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Vulgar Latin** […]&#xD;&#xA;This spoken Latin differed from the literary language of Classical Latin in its grammar and vocabulary. […] Because there are few phonetic transcriptions of the daily speech of these Latin speakers (to match, for example, the post-classical [Appendix Probi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appendix_Probi)) Vulgar Latin must be studied mainly **by indirect methods**.  &#xD;&#xA;Knowledge of Vulgar Latin comes from a variety of sources. First, the **comparative method** reconstructs items of the mother language from the attested Romance languages. Also, prescriptive grammar texts from the Late Latin period condemn some usages as errors, providing insight into how Latin was actually spoken. […]&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, not only do we **not** have any records of [Proto-Italic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic_language), the language that evolved into Latin and other [Italic languages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_languages). In fact, there are no  records of the actual Latin pre-dating the 7th century BC and thus all this knowledge is indeed based on the scientific reconstruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aBNWl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12821" RevisionGUID="f814707f-82ca-479c-bc96-a57b868c7d2c" CreationDate="2019-11-15T22:23:56.100" UserId="6177" Comment="excerpt from &quot;The Latin Language&quot; added" Text="The question might be better suited for [Linguistics.SE](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/). However, the general information on the history of Latin is outlined in the Wikipedia article of the [same name](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It is believed that the earliest surviving inscription is a seventh-century B.C. pin known as the [Praenestine fibula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praenestine_fibula), which reads Manios med fhe fhaked Numasioi &quot;Manius made me for Numerius&quot;.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![right to left][1]][1]  &#xD;&#xA;*The writing above runs from right to left.*&#xD;&#xA;…  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Vulgar Latin** […]&#xD;&#xA;This spoken Latin differed from the literary language of Classical Latin in its grammar and vocabulary. […] Because there are few phonetic transcriptions of the daily speech of these Latin speakers (to match, for example, the post-classical [Appendix Probi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appendix_Probi)) Vulgar Latin must be studied mainly **by indirect methods**.  &#xD;&#xA;Knowledge of Vulgar Latin comes from a variety of sources. First, the **comparative method** reconstructs items of the mother language from the attested Romance languages. Also, prescriptive grammar texts from the Late Latin period condemn some usages as errors, providing insight into how Latin was actually spoken. […]&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, not only do we **not** have any records of [Proto-Italic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic_language), the language that evolved into Latin and other [Italic languages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_languages). In fact, there are no  records of the actual Latin pre-dating the 7th century BC and thus all this knowledge is indeed based on the scientific reconstruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**  &#xD;&#xA;A comment on &quot;Praenestine fibula&quot; can be found in [The Latin Language](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=O7z4Sl-SgFEC&amp;lpg=PA60&amp;ots=rNKm0w1wcw&amp;dq=Numasioi&amp;pg=PA60#v=onepage&amp;q=Numasioi&amp;f=false) by [Leonard Robert Palmer](https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwizp8m_oO3lAhWILMAKHZqAA0AQFjAAegQIARAB&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FLeonard_Robert_Palmer&amp;usg=AOvVaw2ue3SeYPzzU8Wgwb-IWR0v):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aBNWl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UeEQ0.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12844" RevisionGUID="980d4f37-e83a-4ada-9518-4031d81790e1" CreationDate="2019-11-15T22:26:12.843" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes plus links added" Text="I was wondering to what extent the **syntactic** distribution of so-called  [“ablatives of agent”][1] and that of [“datives of agent”][2] is different. For example, the former can be found in non-verbal constructions like the following ones (the first example is an Ablative Absolute construction and the second one is a [dominant participle construction][3]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a.  Commisso ab equitibus proelio, ... (Caes. _Civ_. 1.41).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; b. post civitatem a Lucio Bruto liberatam  (Cic. _Phil._ 5,17)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My question** is whether so-called “datives of agent” can also be found in these **non-verbal** contexts. My intuition is that they can’t: e.g., ??_His rebus {gestis/cognitis/deliberatis} mihi,…_ (cf. ok with Abl. Prepositional Phrase _a me_: _His rebus {gestis/cognitis/deliberatis} a me_, … ). It seems to me that the dative _mihi_ cannot be understood as an agent (but only as a beneficiary) in this non-verbal context (cf. the typical “agent” interpretation of the dative in a verbal context like _Mihi hoc est deliberatum / cognitum /…_). Is my intuition correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same with so-called periphrastic passive including a gerundive. As is well-known, the &quot;agent&quot; is often said to be expressed by a dative (_Carthago delenda est nobis_). Some exceptions to this rule are typically “explained (away)” in Latin grammars by saying that the ablative of agent is possible to differentiate complements (e.g., _Quibus est a vobis consulendum_ (Cic. _Man_. 6)) or to maintain a syntactic parallelism (e.g., _Nec, si a populo praeteritus est quem non oportuit, a iudicibus condemnandus est qui praeteritus non est_ (Cic. _Plan._ 3, 8)). However, it seems that this description is not enough to account for the syntactic distribution of “datives of agent”. For example, **contrary** to what one could infer from reading Latin grammars, a dative is **not** to be found in those non-verbal passive contexts where an ablative agent can be found (e.g., cf. the well-formedness of the (b) example below with the ill-formedness of *_De provinciis **iis-dat** qui obtinerent retinendis_).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;	a. De mercenariis testibus a suis civitatibus notandis… (Cic. _Ad Fam._ 3, 11, 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;	b. De provinciis ab iis qui obtinerent retinendis… (Cic. _Ad Fam_. 12, 22).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the conclusion seems to be that, as far as their **syntactic** distribution is concerned, unlike ablatives of agent, so-called “datives of agent” **always (?)** require the syntactic presence of verbal forms: (i) typically, the verb _esse_ in constructions related to &quot;possession&quot;: e.g., _Mihi hoc deliberatum est_ (cf. _Habeo hoc deliberatum_) and _Mihi currendum est_ (cf. less Classical [_Habeo  currendum_][4]) and (ii) less typically, [other verbs][5]: e.g., _neque cernitur ulli_ (Verg. _Aen_ 1, 440). Is this conclusion correct?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/ablative-agent&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-agent&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9412/how-obligatory-is-the-predicate-in-a-dominant-participle-construction&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11169/null-expletive-objects-in-latin-cariotae-cum-ficis-certandum-habent-plin-ep&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10584/ne-paelici-suspectaretur-tacitus/10926#10926" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12844" RevisionGUID="6ea4608f-0498-432e-8c49-f8ca1ac78f2a" CreationDate="2019-11-15T22:44:47.407" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="I was wondering to what extent the **syntactic** distribution of so-called  [“ablatives of agent”][1] and that of [“datives of agent”][2] is different. For example, the former can be found in non-verbal constructions like the following ones (the first example is an Ablative Absolute construction and the second one is a [dominant participle construction][3]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a.  Commisso ab equitibus proelio, ... (Caes. _Civ_. 1.41).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; b. post civitatem a Lucio Bruto liberatam  (Cic. _Phil._ 5,17)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My question** is whether so-called “datives of agent” can also be found in these **non-verbal** contexts. My intuition is that they can’t: i.e., in an example like _His rebus {gestis / cognitis/ deliberatis} mihi,…_ the dative _mihi_ could not be understood as an &quot;agent&quot; but only as a beneficiary (cf. ok with Abl. Prepositional Phrase _a me_: _His rebus {gestis/ cognitis/ deliberatis} a me_, … ). Cf. the second link above for the typical “agent” interpretation of the dative in a verbal context like _Mihi hoc est deliberatum / cognitum /…_).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something similar happens when dealing with so-called periphrastic passive including a gerundive. As is well-known, the &quot;agent&quot; is often said to be expressed by a dative (_Carthago delenda est nobis_). Some exceptions to this rule are typically “explained (away)” in Latin grammars by saying that the ablative of agent is possible to differentiate complements (e.g., _Quibus est a vobis consulendum_ (Cic. _Man_. 6)) or to maintain a syntactic parallelism (e.g., _Nec, si a populo praeteritus est quem non oportuit, a iudicibus condemnandus est qui praeteritus non est_ (Cic. _Plan._ 3, 8)). However, it seems that this description is not enough to account for the syntactic distribution of “datives of agent”. For example, **contrary** to what one could infer from reading Latin grammars, a dative is **not** to be found in those non-verbal passive contexts where an ablative agent can be found (e.g., cf. the well-formedness of the (b) example below with the ill-formedness of *_De provinciis **iis-dat** qui obtinerent retinendis_). Notice that the following two examples are interesting because they involve a gerundive in a clearly passive context and the alleged &quot;dative of agent&quot; is impossible!   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;	a. De mercenariis testibus a suis civitatibus notandis… (Cic. _Ad Fam._ 3, 11, 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;	b. De provinciis ab iis qui obtinerent retinendis… (Cic. _Ad Fam_. 12, 22).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the conclusion seems to be that, as far as their **syntactic** distribution is concerned, unlike ablatives of agent, so-called “datives of agent” **always (?)** require the syntactic presence of verbal forms: (i) typically, the verb _esse_ in constructions related to &quot;possession&quot;: e.g., _Mihi hoc deliberatum est_ (cf. _Habeo hoc deliberatum_) and _Mihi currendum est_ (cf. less Classical [_Habeo  currendum_][4]) and (ii) less typically, [other verbs][5]: e.g., _neque cernitur ulli_ (Verg. _Aen_ 1, 440). Is this conclusion correct?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/ablative-agent&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-agent&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9412/how-obligatory-is-the-predicate-in-a-dominant-participle-construction&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11169/null-expletive-objects-in-latin-cariotae-cum-ficis-certandum-habent-plin-ep&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10584/ne-paelici-suspectaretur-tacitus/10926#10926" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12821" RevisionGUID="38f3000b-3c33-4c7b-aed5-b63415568959" CreationDate="2019-11-15T23:21:10.080" UserId="6177" Comment="restored ..." Text="The question might be better suited for [Linguistics.SE](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/). However, the general information on the history of Latin is outlined in the Wikipedia article of the [same name](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Latin):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It is believed that the earliest surviving inscription is a seventh-century B.C. pin known as the [Praenestine fibula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praenestine_fibula), which reads Manios med fhefhaked Numasioi &quot;Manius made me for Numerius&quot;.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![right to left][1]][1]  &#xD;&#xA;*The writing above runs from right to left.*&#xD;&#xA;…  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Vulgar Latin** […]&#xD;&#xA;This spoken Latin differed from the literary language of Classical Latin in its grammar and vocabulary. […] Because there are few phonetic transcriptions of the daily speech of these Latin speakers (to match, for example, the post-classical [Appendix Probi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appendix_Probi)) Vulgar Latin must be studied mainly **by indirect methods**.  &#xD;&#xA;Knowledge of Vulgar Latin comes from a variety of sources. First, the **comparative method** reconstructs items of the mother language from the attested Romance languages. Also, prescriptive grammar texts from the Late Latin period condemn some usages as errors, providing insight into how Latin was actually spoken. […]&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, not only do we **not** have any records of [Proto-Italic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic_language), the language that evolved into Latin and other [Italic languages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_languages). In fact, there are no  records of the actual Latin pre-dating the 7th century BC and thus all this knowledge is indeed based on the scientific reconstruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**  &#xD;&#xA;A comment on &quot;Praenestine fibula&quot; can be found in [The Latin Language](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=O7z4Sl-SgFEC&amp;lpg=PA60&amp;ots=rNKm0w1wcw&amp;dq=Numasioi&amp;pg=PA60#v=onepage&amp;q=Numasioi&amp;f=false) by [Leonard Robert Palmer](https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwizp8m_oO3lAhWILMAKHZqAA0AQFjAAegQIARAB&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FLeonard_Robert_Palmer&amp;usg=AOvVaw2ue3SeYPzzU8Wgwb-IWR0v):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aBNWl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UeEQ0.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12845" RevisionGUID="9dae7549-29f9-465a-b14e-c5ca9692036f" CreationDate="2019-11-15T23:49:02.593" UserId="6274" Text="I am afraid I might be off topic here, but I do not know whom to ask otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have come across the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ᾽Αεί τι βούλου χρήσιμον προσμανϑάνειν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found it on the cover of a (nice) booklet which helps in fostering and mastering Greek vocabulary. I translated the sentence as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You always want to learn something useful/Be always willing to learn something useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Mediopassive voice, II person of singular, I am not sure if it is better imperative or indicative). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you agree with the translation? Secondly, do you have any idea for the source? Where does this sentence come from? How can I search it? A quick google research shows it might be from Sophocles, but I am not able to find exact reference. Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36136" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12845" RevisionGUID="9dae7549-29f9-465a-b14e-c5ca9692036f" CreationDate="2019-11-15T23:49:02.593" UserId="6274" Text="Looking for a reference in Greek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36137" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12845" RevisionGUID="9dae7549-29f9-465a-b14e-c5ca9692036f" CreationDate="2019-11-15T23:49:02.593" UserId="6274" Text="|greek|translation-check|greek-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12846" RevisionGUID="096eaa32-c3bf-43d8-9c8b-9d43ee5be21d" CreationDate="2019-11-16T00:51:58.753" UserId="1059" Text="How deponent (and semi-deponent) verbs appeared in Latin, and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did they evolve in descend languages? They seem extincts in descend languages (why?) but there are probably specific structured inherited of this atypical grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read in Wikipedia:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin also has some verbs that are active in form but passive in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; meaning. fit (it is made, done) was used as the passive of facit (to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; do, to make). In the perfect forms (perfect, pluperfect, and future&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perfect), this was a compound verb just like the passive voice of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regular verbs (factum est, it has been done).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why they have no name (at least the name is not mentioned in the article, and I've only heard people talking about deponent verbs.  &#xD;&#xA;Is it the same for them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36140" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12846" RevisionGUID="096eaa32-c3bf-43d8-9c8b-9d43ee5be21d" CreationDate="2019-11-16T00:51:58.753" UserId="1059" Text="What is the origin of the deponent verbs and their evolution in Romance languages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36141" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12846" RevisionGUID="096eaa32-c3bf-43d8-9c8b-9d43ee5be21d" CreationDate="2019-11-16T00:51:58.753" UserId="1059" Text="|language-evolution|deponent-verbs|romance-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12847" RevisionGUID="c18a7cdb-e47e-48ed-b616-a64bf56a40ef" CreationDate="2019-11-16T01:23:12.107" UserId="40" Text="This appears to be a fragment, or rather part of a fragment, from a lost play of Sophocles, the *Phthiotides* or *Women of Phthia*. [Here][1] is a source that gives the full three-line fragment, which runs: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Νέος πέφυκας· πολλὰ καὶ μαθεῖν σε δεῖ  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; καὶ πόλλ' ἀκοῦσαι καὶ διδάσκεσθαι μακρά.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀεί τι βούλου χρήσιμον προσμανθάνειν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A very literal translation: &quot;You are young; you must learn many things and hear many things and learn long things (= things that take a long time to learn). Always want to learn something useful in addition (προσ-).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're right that βούλου could be either indicative or imperative in form, but the latter seems to be intended here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=A-hDAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA405&amp;lpg=PA405&amp;dq=%CF%87%CF%81%CE%AE%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%BC%CE%BF%CE%BD%20%CF%80%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%83%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%BD%CF%91%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%BD&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=SeqLiK19TK&amp;sig=ACfU3U3tJLNiE3Y-MR26pTPFPSrAz6r2iA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwifqISHxu3lAhU0On0KHakuCYUQ6AEwCHoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CF%87%CF%81%CE%AE%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%BC%CE%BF%CE%BD%20%CF%80%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%83%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%BD%CF%91%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%BD&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12846" RevisionGUID="f9701b8f-2d14-487c-9c5d-e63bffd8d65c" CreationDate="2019-11-16T01:31:58.563" UserId="1059" Comment="added 312 characters in body" Text="How deponent (and semi-deponent) verbs appeared in Latin, and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did they evolve in descend languages? They seem extincts in descend languages (why?) but there are probably specific structured inherited of this atypical grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read in Wikipedia:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin also has some verbs that are active in form but passive in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; meaning. fit (it is made, done) was used as the passive of facit (to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; do, to make). In the perfect forms (perfect, pluperfect, and future&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perfect), this was a compound verb just like the passive voice of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regular verbs (factum est, it has been done).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why they have no name (at least the name is not mentioned in the article, and I've only heard people talking about deponent verbs.  &#xD;&#xA;Is it the same for them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: this question is related, and there's an explanation of the origin of deponent verb from Indo-European, but it's a bit (or much) hard to understand with my actual level of linguistic, and it let the other parts:  &#xD;&#xA; https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9064/how-accurate-is-the-typical-definition-of-a-deponent-verb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12846" RevisionGUID="1516d5c3-7c46-4411-bae1-a437554d23a8" CreationDate="2019-11-16T01:39:50.753" UserId="1059" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="How deponent (and semi-deponent) verbs appeared in Latin, and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did they evolve in descend languages? They seem extincts in descend languages (why?) but there are probably specific structured inherited of this atypical grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read in Wikipedia:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin also has some verbs that are active in form but passive in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; meaning. fit (it is made, done) was used as the passive of facit (to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; do, to make). In the perfect forms (perfect, pluperfect, and future&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perfect), this was a compound verb just like the passive voice of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regular verbs (factum est, it has been done).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why they have no name (at least the name is not mentioned in the article, and I've only heard people talking about deponent verbs.  &#xD;&#xA;Is it the same for them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically about the origin (and not the other facts), I've found these related thread, with some answers about the origin:   &#xD;&#xA; https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9064/how-accurate-is-the-typical-definition-of-a-deponent-verb (this one, too difficult to understand for me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5510/are-deponent-verbs-a-feature-of-the-latin-language-or-means-of-translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12846" RevisionGUID="42963a06-be20-4037-abf0-52221ef7f158" CreationDate="2019-11-16T02:39:54.337" UserId="1059" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="How deponent (and semi-deponent) verbs appeared in Latin, and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did they evolve in descend languages? They seem extincts in descend languages (why?) but there are probably specific structured inherited of this atypical grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read in Wikipedia:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin also has some verbs that are active in form but passive in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; meaning. fit (it is made, done) was used as the passive of facit (to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; do, to make). In the perfect forms (perfect, pluperfect, and future&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perfect), this was a compound verb just like the passive voice of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regular verbs (factum est, it has been done).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why they have no name (at least the name is not mentioned in the article, and I've only heard people talking about deponent verbs.  &#xD;&#xA;Is it the same for them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically about the origin (and not the other facts), I've found these related thread, with some answers about the origin:   &#xD;&#xA; https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9064/how-accurate-is-the-typical-definition-of-a-deponent-verb (this one, being too difficult to understand for me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5510/are-deponent-verbs-a-feature-of-the-latin-language-or-means-of-translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12848" RevisionGUID="6c4523a5-86f3-4368-8292-c0d80ebd3416" CreationDate="2019-11-16T03:14:27.850" UserId="406" Text="Most of the time, deponent verbs in Latin come from the Indo-European _middle voice_, which had [pretty much completely died out][1] by Classical Latin times. But in other Indo-European languages, such as Ancient Greek and Hittite, the middle voice is well-attested: it's a third voice next to active and passive, which usually links the subject back to itself in some way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, as opposed to those other languages, the middle voice as a distinct _thing_ died out fairly early. After that, the passive voice (descended from the PIE medio-passive) was almost always a true passive, and middle meanings were expressed by adding extra words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there were some words which were only ever commonly used in the middle voice, never in the active. For example, *_s-kʷ-_ &quot;follow&quot; seems to be this way all the way back to PIE: compare Ancient Greek _ἕπομαι_ (_hépomai_) and Old Irish _seichithir_, which never appear in the active voice. So in Latin, you end up with _sequor_, a form with passive morphology, but non-passive semantics. It can even take a direct object, which true passives can't do!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Romance, this little irregularity got smoothed out: _sequor_ gave way to *_sequiō_, a normal verb with normal active morphology. Most other deponents changed in the same way, or died out and were replaced by non-deponents. They were an irregularity in the system, and like most irregularities, the constant and unceasing process of language evolution ironed them out over the centuries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the flipside:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin also has some verbs that are active in form but passive in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, this seems just plain misleading. _Fiō_ means &quot;become&quot;, nothing passive about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Faciō_ was a *suppletive verb*, just like _ferō_, _feriō_, _sum_, and others—that is, some of its forms fell out of use, and other verbs were used in their stead. In this case, it was specifically the present-system passives: instead of *_clarus facier_, &quot;I am made famous&quot;, _clarus fiō_, &quot;I become famous&quot;. But that doesn't make _fiō_ inherently passive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11258/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12848" RevisionGUID="4e44d3c9-0c8a-4e58-b10c-c68017208f64" CreationDate="2019-11-16T04:43:16.727" UserId="406" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Most of the time, deponent verbs in Latin come from the Indo-European _middle voice_, which had [pretty much completely died out][1] by Classical Latin times. But in other Indo-European languages, such as Ancient Greek and Hittite, the middle voice is well-attested: it's a third voice next to active and passive, which usually links the subject back to itself in some way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, as opposed to those other languages, the middle voice as a distinct _thing_ died out fairly early. After that, the passive voice (descended from the PIE medio-passive) was almost always a true passive, and middle meanings were expressed by adding extra words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there were some words which were only ever commonly used in the middle voice, never in the active. For example, *_s-kʷ-_ &quot;follow&quot; seems to be this way all the way back to PIE: compare Ancient Greek _ἕπομαι_ (_hépomai_) and Old Irish _seichithir_, which never appear in the active voice. So in Latin, you end up with _sequor_, a form with passive morphology, but non-passive semantics. It can even take a direct object, which true passives can't do!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Romance, this little irregularity got smoothed out: _sequor_ gave way to *_sequiō_, a normal verb with normal active morphology. Most other deponents changed in the same way, or died out and were replaced by non-deponents. They were an irregularity in the system, and like most irregularities, the constant and unceasing process of language evolution ironed them out over the centuries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the flipside:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Latin also has some verbs that are active in form but passive in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, this seems just plain misleading. _Fiō_ means &quot;become&quot;, and it's not inherently passive any more than English &quot;become&quot; is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, _faciō_ was a *suppletive verb*, just like _ferō_, _feriō_, _sum_, and others—that is, some of its forms fell out of use, and other verbs were used in their stead. In this case, it was specifically the present-system passives: instead of *_clarus facier_, &quot;I am made famous&quot;, _clarus fiō_, &quot;I become famous&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11258/406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36148" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6390" RevisionGUID="a51c456f-a7b9-498a-a368-bc73ec450269" CreationDate="2019-11-16T05:01:50.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="36149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12849" RevisionGUID="7e4f51bb-fc38-45cd-bcb5-cbb0bc88bd57" CreationDate="2019-11-16T08:53:00.207" UserId="1148" Text="Stobaeus 2,31,16a quotes the trimeter as part of the same sequence of the first two trimeters, which come from Sophocles' *Phthiotides* (fr. *694 Radt), but it was secluded from Nauck, who assigned it to the *fragmenta adespota* (fr. 516a, see also B. Snell-R. Kannicht, *Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta* II, 1981, p. 147).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your translation with imperative form is right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this kind of imperative form is typical of the  [Delphic maxims][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphic_maxims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36150" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12845" RevisionGUID="72722138-e56f-4869-b5f7-41e68e411222" CreationDate="2019-11-16T08:58:35.610" />
  <row Id="36151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12849" RevisionGUID="ad897084-0997-49b1-bfee-68219362e404" CreationDate="2019-11-16T08:59:23.620" UserId="1148" Comment="added 365 characters in body" Text="Stobaeus 2,31,16a quotes the trimeter as part of the same sequence of the first two trimeters, which come from Sophocles' *Phthiotides* (fr. *694 Radt), but it was secluded from Nauck, who assigned it to the *fragmenta adespota* (fr. 516a, see also B. Snell – R. Kannicht, *Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta* II, 1981, p. 147).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your translation with imperative form is right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this kind of imperative form is typical of the  [Delphic maxims][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The theme of the continuous learning is also attested in Isocrates, *To Demonicus* 18: ἐὰν ᾖς φιλομαθὴς, ἔσει πολυμαθής. ἃ μὲν ἐπίστασαι, ταῦτα διαφύλαττε ταῖς μελέταις, ἃ δὲ μὴ μεμάθηκας, προσλάμβανε ταῖς ἐπιστήμαις. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also *fr. adesp.* *TrGF* 515a 3–5 Kannicht – Snell: παιδεύματα / προσλαμβάνειν δὲ δεῖ καθ’ ἡμέραν ἀεί, / ἕως ἂν ἐξῇ μανθάνειν βελτίονα.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphic_maxims" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12843" RevisionGUID="c501b79f-e839-4560-b302-745b7e4a10bd" CreationDate="2019-11-16T09:48:40.347" UserId="79" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="I apologize if this comes across as a non-answer, but I cannot help giving it.&#xD;&#xA;I have translated several songs into Latin for professional singers.&#xD;&#xA;Good translations take a lot of work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I make sure the singer is comfortable with the translation. I add or remove syllables or avoid words they find awkward for some reason.&#xD;&#xA;- I make the rhyme, alliteration, and rhythm work in a way comparable to the original.&#xD;&#xA;- I pay attention to whether it sounds good to a listener who knows no Latin.&#xD;&#xA;- I make sure there are elements that are easy to grasp, like well known Latin words or names.&#xD;&#xA;- There is no such thing as literal translation of song lyrics, so I have to decode the message and recode it in Latin. This involves not only shifting to another language but often also shifting to another cultural context.&#xD;&#xA;- I repeatedly discuss the translation options with the singer to find solutions that work well on all levels. It often takes a large number of iterations to get it right.&#xD;&#xA;- I check carefully that the text is grammatically valid.&#xD;&#xA;- I provide a detailed pronunciation guide and teach the singer until satisfied.&#xD;&#xA;- I abandon some projects as I cannot make them work in Latin in a way that meets my quality standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I do like to offer volunteer help on this site, this amount of work is too much.&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;perfect translation&quot; is possible get, but probably not something you can easily get from a professional for free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps someone can offer you a quick translation.&#xD;&#xA;But don't expect it to be fully polished and conveying exactly the intended message.&#xD;&#xA;To end on a positive note, [you are wise to doubt Google Translate](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12843" RevisionGUID="f3ded8e4-ce76-458c-9fae-780092eec65e" CreationDate="2019-11-16T11:00:45.777" UserId="79" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="I apologize if this comes across as a non-answer, but I cannot help giving it.&#xD;&#xA;I have translated several songs into Latin for professional singers.&#xD;&#xA;Good translations take a lot of work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I make sure the singer is comfortable with the translation. I add or remove syllables or avoid words they find awkward for some reason.&#xD;&#xA;- I make the rhyme, alliteration, and rhythm work in a way comparable to the original.&#xD;&#xA;- I pay attention to whether it sounds good to a listener who knows no Latin.&#xD;&#xA;- I make sure there are elements that are easy to grasp, like well known Latin words or names.&#xD;&#xA;- There is no such thing as literal translation of song lyrics, so I have to decode the message and recode it in Latin. This involves not only shifting to another language but often also shifting to another cultural context.&#xD;&#xA;- I repeatedly discuss the translation options with the singer to find solutions that work well on all levels. It often takes a large number of iterations to get it right.&#xD;&#xA;- I check carefully that the text is grammatically valid.&#xD;&#xA;- I provide a detailed pronunciation guide and teach the singer until satisfied.&#xD;&#xA;- I abandon some projects as I cannot make them work in Latin in a way that meets my quality standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I do like to offer volunteer help on this site, this amount of work is too much.&#xD;&#xA;A &quot;perfect translation&quot; is possible get, but probably not something you can easily get from a professional for free.&#xD;&#xA;I fully understand that not everyone has the will or ability to pay for such services, but quality work costs money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps someone can offer you a quick translation.&#xD;&#xA;But don't expect it to be fully polished and conveying exactly the intended message.&#xD;&#xA;To end on a positive note, [you are wise to doubt Google Translate](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12844" RevisionGUID="0b9ebf0e-9dc3-4283-8a21-0b7ec7dd46df" CreationDate="2019-11-16T18:06:31.487" UserId="3248" Comment="changes motivated by a hopefully better exposition of the problem" Text="I was wondering to what extent the **syntactic** distribution of so-called [“dative of agent”][2] and that of [“ablative of agent”][1] is different. For example, besides appearing in verbal contexts (e.g., _Proelium ab equitibus commissum est_), ablatives of agent can also be found in non-verbal constructions like the following ones (the first example is an Ablative Absolute construction and the second one is a [dominant participle construction][3]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a. Commisso **ab equitibus** proelio, ... (Caes. _Civ_. 1.41).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; b. post civitatem **a Lucio Bruto** liberatam  (Cic. _Phil._ 5,17)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is whether “datives of agent” can also be found in these **non-verbal** contexts. My intuition is that they can’t: i.e., in an example like _His rebus deliberatis **mihi**,…_ the dative _mihi_ cannot be understood as an &quot;agent&quot; but only as a beneficiary. In contrast, in a verbal context like _Mihi hoc est deliberatum_, the dative pronoun can indeed be understood as the one who has carried out the deliberation. Hence its traditional label of &quot;dative of agent&quot;.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something similar, I think, happens when dealing with non-verbal passive contexts that include a gerundive (NB: the following examples are not Ablative Absolute constructions but exemplify the same restriction above). Again my intuition, which could be wrong, of course, is that only by-phrases with Ablative case are possible in these (non-verbal) contexts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;	a. De mercenariis testibus **a suis civitatibus** notandis… (Cic. _Ad Fam._ 3, 11, 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;	b. De provinciis **ab iis** qui obtinerent retinendis… (Cic. _Ad Fam_. 12, 22).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, contrary to what one could infer from reading Latin grammars where it is asserted that the dative is the agent in periphrastic passives with gerundives, a dative is **not** to be found in those non-verbal passive contexts containing a gerundive (e.g., cf. the well-formedness of the (b) example above with the ill-formedness of *_De provinciis **iis-dat** qui obtinerent retinendis_). Notice that these two examples are interesting since they involve a gerundive in a clearly passive context and the alleged &quot;dative of agent&quot; is impossible!   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is well-known, the &quot;agent&quot; in gerundive passives is often said to be expressed by a dative (e.g., _Carthago delenda est nobis_). Some exceptions to this rule are typically “explained (away)” in Latin grammars by saying that the ablative of agent is possible to differentiate complements (e.g., _Quibus est a vobis consulendum_ (Cic. _Man_. 6)) or to maintain a syntactic parallelism (e.g., _Nec, si a populo praeteritus est quem non oportuit, a iudicibus condemnandus est qui praeteritus non est_ (Cic. _Plan._ 3, 8)). However, as evidenced by the two previous examples from Cicero's letters, it seems that this traditional description is not accurate/complete enough. One could perhaps object that an alleged example like *_De provinciis **iis** qui obtinerent retinendis_ is to be avoided for ambiguity reasons: the dative _iis_ could be interpreted as associated to the ablative _provinciis_. However, I think this functionalist explanation does not account for the structural prohibition I'm dealing with here: my intuition is that an example like _De provincia iis qui obtinerent retinenda_, where there is no such ambiguity, would also be ill-formed due to structural/syntactic reasons: i.e., so-called &quot;datives of agent&quot; cannot appear in non-verbal contexts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the relevant conclusion seems to be that, as far as their **syntactic** distribution is concerned, unlike ablatives of agent, so-called “datives of agent” **always (?)** require the syntactic presence of verbal forms: (i) typically, the verb _esse_ in constructions related to &quot;possession&quot;: e.g., _Mihi hoc deliberatum est_ (cf. _Habeo hoc deliberatum_) and _Mihi currendum est_ (cf. less Classical [_Habeo  currendum_][4]) and (ii) less typically, [other verbs][5]: e.g., _neque cernitur ulli_ (Verg. _Aen_ 1, 440). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this conclusion correct?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/ablative-agent&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-agent&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9412/how-obligatory-is-the-predicate-in-a-dominant-participle-construction&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11169/null-expletive-objects-in-latin-cariotae-cum-ficis-certandum-habent-plin-ep&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/10584/ne-paelici-suspectaretur-tacitus/10926#10926" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36156" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12844" RevisionGUID="0b9ebf0e-9dc3-4283-8a21-0b7ec7dd46df" CreationDate="2019-11-16T18:06:31.487" UserId="3248" Comment="changes motivated by a hopefully better exposition of the problem" Text="Can a &quot;dative of agent&quot; appear in an Ablative Absolute construction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12850" RevisionGUID="3cbc6e9d-f64a-4ab2-809b-c17db6473ab9" CreationDate="2019-11-16T20:08:04.023" UserId="406" Text="It's generally accepted that the oldest Latin inscription is on the Praenestine Fibula:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MANIOS MED FHE FHAKED NUMASIOI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb here seems to be an old reduplicated perfect of _faciō_, equivalent to Classical _fēcit_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know I've seen this spelling, &lt;&lt;x&gt;FH&gt; for `/f/`, before—but I can't seem to remember or find the context. So: when and where was this spelling used? Was it common in very early Latin, or in another nearby language? And when did it die out?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36159" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12850" RevisionGUID="3cbc6e9d-f64a-4ab2-809b-c17db6473ab9" CreationDate="2019-11-16T20:08:04.023" UserId="406" Text="When/where was &lt;FH&gt; used for /f/?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36160" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12850" RevisionGUID="3cbc6e9d-f64a-4ab2-809b-c17db6473ab9" CreationDate="2019-11-16T20:08:04.023" UserId="406" Text="|orthography|spelling|inscription|old-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12847" RevisionGUID="d9fb9bb8-0df9-4466-8755-06754123e9ce" CreationDate="2019-11-16T20:48:01.430" UserId="40" Comment="added 249 characters in body" Text="This appears to be a fragment, or rather part of a fragment, from a lost play of Sophocles, the *Phthiotides* or *Women of Phthia*. [Here][1] is a source that gives the full three-line fragment, which runs: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Νέος πέφυκας· πολλὰ καὶ μαθεῖν σε δεῖ  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; καὶ πόλλ' ἀκοῦσαι καὶ διδάσκεσθαι μακρά.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀεί τι βούλου χρήσιμον προσμανθάνειν.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A very literal translation: &quot;You are young; you must learn many things and hear many things and learn long things (= things that take a long time to learn). Always want to learn something useful in addition (προσ-).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're right that βούλου could be either indicative or imperative in form, but the latter is pretty clearly intended here based on the sense and context. (If indicative, it would have to be an unaugmented imperfect; augmentless forms do occur in tragedy, but mostly in choral odes rather than dialogue, which is another reason this should be read as an indicative.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=A-hDAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA405&amp;lpg=PA405&amp;dq=%CF%87%CF%81%CE%AE%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%BC%CE%BF%CE%BD%20%CF%80%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%83%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%BD%CF%91%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%BD&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=SeqLiK19TK&amp;sig=ACfU3U3tJLNiE3Y-MR26pTPFPSrAz6r2iA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwifqISHxu3lAhU0On0KHakuCYUQ6AEwCHoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%CF%87%CF%81%CE%AE%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%BC%CE%BF%CE%BD%20%CF%80%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%83%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%BD%CF%91%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%BD&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12851" RevisionGUID="b337aeca-f722-4a6a-9218-7ff94fb81ad4" CreationDate="2019-11-16T21:52:07.217" UserId="40" Text="The digraph FH was used in early Etruscan inscriptions to represent [f], though it was later replaced by a new sign, looking like the number . ([Wiki][1] has some more information on this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, FH is not known to have been used in Latin anywhere other than in the Praeneste fibula. Its use for [f] on the fibula (which has sometimes been thought to be a forgery) is actually a strong argument for its authenticity, since at the time the fibula came to light, the value of Etruscan FH as [f] was not yet known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_alphabet#Development" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12852" RevisionGUID="6db9786b-c3d9-426c-86a7-f9b9ed5ea48f" CreationDate="2019-11-17T00:00:33.490" UserId="6287" Text="I am learning Latin from [Collar and Daniell's _FIRST YEAR LATIN_](https://archive.org/details/collardaniellsfi00collrich). In _LESSON IV: THE GENITIVE CASE TO DENOTE POSSESSION_, an exercise is given (sentence translation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _Līberatne? Līberō, portāmus._ (Hopefully translates to _Is he freeing? I am freeing, we are bringing._)&#xD;&#xA;* _Fīliās incolārum līberant_ (_They are freeing the daughters of the inhabitants._)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But**, there is one sentence I do not understand:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Fīliane Galbae litterās exspectat?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea what _Fīliane_ means. I have checked it in several dictionaries, including Lewis and Short, to no avail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I have read, _fīlia_ means daughter, but it has a _-ne_ ending added to it? (To a noun? What?!)  &#xD;&#xA;My only guess is, this is a mistake and the sentence should be this instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Fīlia Galbae litterās exspectatne?_ - hopefully: _Is Galba's daughter expecting some letters?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36164" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12852" RevisionGUID="6db9786b-c3d9-426c-86a7-f9b9ed5ea48f" CreationDate="2019-11-17T00:00:33.490" UserId="6287" Text="What does &quot;Filiane&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36165" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12852" RevisionGUID="6db9786b-c3d9-426c-86a7-f9b9ed5ea48f" CreationDate="2019-11-17T00:00:33.490" UserId="6287" Text="|vocabulary|translation|genetivus|accusativus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12853" RevisionGUID="68fd67b0-8a00-449f-94af-fc5c50ce97f9" CreationDate="2019-11-17T00:11:31.120" UserId="406" Text="Your analysis is correct: this is *fīlia* &quot;daughter&quot; + *-ne* &quot;?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trick is, *-ne* can attach to **any word**, not just verbs. In fact, it usually attaches to either the *first* word, or the *most emphatic* word, whatever that might be. Since *nōn* often comes at the beginning, *nōn-ne* became common enough that you'll often see it analyzed as a word of its own, rather than a combination! Similarly, *satis-ne* is common enough that it's often contracted to *satin'*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So your translation is spot-on: &quot;is Galba's daughter expecting some letters?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12854" RevisionGUID="0f0dfd0f-3a2d-4cc8-8ed7-613c717e7c36" CreationDate="2019-11-17T03:19:48.383" UserId="6284" Text="Ignis Venturis est. - Fire is coming&#xD;&#xA;Ecce Ignis. - Here is fire&#xD;&#xA;Ad nimium venturis est. - Drought is coming&#xD;&#xA;Ecce Ossa - Here are bones&#xD;&#xA;Et pulvis resurget, - The dust rises,&#xD;&#xA;et nostras caelum obscuratur. - and our sky is obscured. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inundationes veniet. - Floods will come&#xD;&#xA;Sentire aquas. - Feel the waters&#xD;&#xA;Gelida flumina et influunt, - Frozen rivers will flow,&#xD;&#xA;et civitas venetiarum submersus est - and the city of Venice is drowning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quid agimus? - What are we doing?&#xD;&#xA;Nos agere! - We act!&#xD;&#xA;Agere debemus! - We must act!&#xD;&#xA;Nos omni mutatione oportet. - We must all change.&#xD;&#xA;Orationi instate, qui, ut noster orbis terrarum recuperat. - Pray together, people, that our world can recover.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Thanks Latinstackers.  Please highlight any glaring errors. Any kind assistance with this small private project would be received with deep gratitude.  CL.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36169" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12850" RevisionGUID="a6a83acc-f7c1-487b-86d4-dcd01c3339c6" CreationDate="2019-11-17T04:14:50.543" />
  <row Id="36170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12855" RevisionGUID="843631ba-3bcc-467f-b43c-7fe3b1eb6b32" CreationDate="2019-11-17T06:07:40.407" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="1. Is this [auto-antonymy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change#Typology_by_Blank_(1999))? I'm guessing so, as humans who love blood undeniably wouldn't want to lose it! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If not, which type of semantic shift according to [Blank's 1999 typology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change#Typology_by_Blank_(1999))?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*OED*](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/83164)&#xD;&#xA; and [haemophilia - Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/haemophilia):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;###Etymology&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; _[haemo-](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/haemo-#English &quot;haemo-&quot;)_ +‎ _[-philia](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-philia#English &quot;-philia&quot;)_, from [Ancient Greek](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek &quot;w:Ancient Greek&quot;) [αἷμα](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B1%E1%BC%B7%CE%BC%CE%B1 &quot;αἷμα&quot;) ([blood](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/blood &quot;blood&quot;)) \+ [φιλία](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%86%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%AF%CE%B1 &quot;φιλία&quot;) ([friendship](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/friendship &quot;friendship&quot;))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **haemophilia** (_[countable](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#countable &quot;Appendix:Glossary&quot;) and [uncountable](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#uncountable &quot;Appendix:Glossary&quot;)_, _plural_ **[haemophilias](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/haemophilias#English &quot;haemophilias&quot;)**)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.  ([British spelling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences &quot;w:American and British English spelling differences&quot;), [pathology](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pathology &quot;pathology&quot;)) Any of several hereditary illnesses that impair the body's ability to control bleeding, usually passed from mother to son.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yrSVY.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36171" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12855" RevisionGUID="843631ba-3bcc-467f-b43c-7fe3b1eb6b32" CreationDate="2019-11-17T06:07:40.407" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Why was 'haemophilia' created to mean 'A constitutional (usually hereditary) tendency to bleeding'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36172" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12855" RevisionGUID="843631ba-3bcc-467f-b43c-7fe3b1eb6b32" CreationDate="2019-11-17T06:07:40.407" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|etymology|medicine|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36173" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12852" RevisionGUID="8d157cce-1de9-4393-8ace-0272d2474bc9" CreationDate="2019-11-17T08:15:16.687" />
  <row Id="36174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12856" RevisionGUID="5fdc1496-1c3c-4f98-a259-3543fe2d22e9" CreationDate="2019-11-17T09:47:21.940" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36175" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12856" RevisionGUID="5fdc1496-1c3c-4f98-a259-3543fe2d22e9" CreationDate="2019-11-17T09:47:21.940" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12857" RevisionGUID="11542ec0-394b-4752-9f6c-11ca55e21506" CreationDate="2019-11-17T09:47:21.940" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36177" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12857" RevisionGUID="11542ec0-394b-4752-9f6c-11ca55e21506" CreationDate="2019-11-17T09:47:21.940" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12854" RevisionGUID="b1e35b21-b835-4a92-90f4-e6758b805407" CreationDate="2019-11-17T12:28:31.143" UserId="6284" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="Ignis Venturis est. - Fire is coming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ecce Ignis. - Here is fire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ad nimium venturis est. - Drought is coming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ecce Ossa - Here are bones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Et pulvis resurget, - The dust rises,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;et nostras caelum obscuratur. - and our sky is obscured. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inundationes veniet. - Floods will come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sentire aquas. - Feel the waters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gelida flumina et influunt, - Frozen rivers will flow,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;et civitas venetiarum submersus est - and the city of Venice is drowning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quid agimus? - What are we doing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nos agere! - We act!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Agere debemus! - We must act!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nos omni mutatione oportet. - We must all change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Orationi instate, qui, ut noster orbis terrarum recuperat. - Pray together, people, that our world can recover.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Thanks Latinstackers.  Please highlight any glaring errors. Any kind assistance with this small private project would be received with deep gratitude.  CL.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12857" RevisionGUID="e975a7d3-7cd3-4483-9002-31c621d6ba80" CreationDate="2019-11-17T12:29:42.180" UserId="79" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="Enclitic particles like -ne, -que, and -ve are attached to other words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12858" RevisionGUID="62402f10-9f7b-47fe-8c89-858d0e0b9780" CreationDate="2019-11-17T17:32:45.497" UserId="5056" Text="In Cap. VII of LLPSI, Ørberg introduces _Advenit_ with the following sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ecce Iulius ad villam advenit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's curious to me that the verb includes the preposition; why not just use venit alone rather than advenit? Is it that _advenit_ is meant to imply coming to a specific place, whereas _venit_ is more general?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36181" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12858" RevisionGUID="62402f10-9f7b-47fe-8c89-858d0e0b9780" CreationDate="2019-11-17T17:32:45.497" UserId="5056" Text="Advenit versus Venit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36182" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12858" RevisionGUID="62402f10-9f7b-47fe-8c89-858d0e0b9780" CreationDate="2019-11-17T17:32:45.497" UserId="5056" Text="|classical-latin|vocabulary|lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12859" RevisionGUID="27392160-45fa-4226-a6f7-3796d3ab127d" CreationDate="2019-11-17T19:20:25.273" UserId="2363" Text="Is this an example? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cicero: sibi enim bene gestae, mihi conservatae rei publicae dat testimonium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it can be argued that sibi and mihi are datives of reference, but &quot;agent&quot; seems most natural to me. &quot;He testifies that he performed good deeds, but that I preserved the republic.&quot; Unless a dative of reference is usual with *testimonium*, which I don't know. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12860" RevisionGUID="54f56767-cde2-435a-b6ff-eefeeb66aeb6" CreationDate="2019-11-17T19:47:18.770" UserId="406" Text="In Latin, it's fairly common to stick prepositions onto the fronts of verbs to create new shades of meaning. Sometimes the new meaning is the same as the verb plus the preposition (_advenīre_ is basically the same as _venīre ad_), sometimes it's just plain intensive (_dēplorāre_ is just _plorāre_ but stronger), and sometimes it creates a new meaning different from the sum of its parts (_interficere_ means &quot;kill&quot; or &quot;execute&quot;, not at all the same as _inter_ or _facere_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, it's the first. _Advenīre_ is basically like _venīre ad_—&quot;to arrive at&quot;. _Advenīre ad_ puts even more emphasis on the arrival." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12861" RevisionGUID="b4492ac3-199a-4584-ac0f-68ec79a00c4b" CreationDate="2019-11-17T20:47:28.973" UserId="2363" Text="I accept the proposed explanation that *memento (te) mori* means &quot;remember that you are dying.&quot; My only caveat is that in English, the present tense &quot;is/are dying&quot; usually implies that someone is currently close to death, which is clearly not the intention of the Latin phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a parallel from Plautus, where the infinitive is used without a subject accusative: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tyndarus has just said (my paraphrase) &quot;I'm doing you a big favor.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Philocrates: Scio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tyndarus: at scire memento, quando id quod uoles habebis. (But once you get what you want, remember you know.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36186" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="12837" RevisionGUID="3636932a-4ec1-44f6-acb6-5a0455b7a6ef" CreationDate="2019-11-17T21:30:26.553" UserId="3576" Comment="138" />
  <row Id="36187" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12858" RevisionGUID="1982bbba-84d9-4941-8e0d-28fa6004fab5" CreationDate="2019-11-18T01:46:59.113" />
  <row Id="36188" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2862" RevisionGUID="64e8f277-954f-4803-9f36-c2a9f0af127c" CreationDate="2019-11-18T02:03:13.597" UserId="1059" Comment="edited title" Text="Does verbum mean both: word and verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12862" RevisionGUID="fd3936a1-74f5-49cb-b4eb-759bbfe11f84" CreationDate="2019-11-18T02:24:43.373" UserId="1059" Text="Your screen capture is difficult to read, do you have the link?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Haemophilia was known to be hereditary very early, even if this disease has a complex transmission pattern, from mothers to sons. Wikipedia says it was already known from the ancient Hebrews who didn't circumcise sons of women who had this kind of &quot;tendency to bleed&quot; in their family.    &#xD;&#xA;It was called a royal disease in some country, because some royal families carried the guilty gene.   &#xD;&#xA;But the etymology doesn't say anything about the hereditary side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**There's a confusion in the etymology meaning**, very often with the &quot;*philia*&quot; part, which a lot of people learned in school to mean &quot;to like/to love&quot; (friendship as in &quot;Philippos&quot;), when there's an additional meaning &quot;a tendency to&quot;, as you've said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it explains the apparent auto-antonymy in &quot;pedophilia&quot; too, that is surely not a love for young children, but rather a pathological tendency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it's absolutely not &quot;humans who love blood undeniably wouldn't want to lose it&quot;,  &#xD;&#xA;and the etymology is logical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be fair, Haemophilia is not a pathological &quot;tendency&quot; to bleed, it's a blood disease. There is no tendency to bleed, but big difficulties to stop the bleedings, even the small ones, when they occur. Because they lack of some blood factors responsible of the blood coagulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As there is no change in the meaning, the Typology of Blank doesn't apply, there is no semantic change, only a lack of Greek teaching in schools, and people forget the etymology of words;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36190" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12855" RevisionGUID="3d3971fe-31a5-492f-91c5-b3a7fb34f8c7" CreationDate="2019-11-18T02:28:37.730" UserId="1059" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|etymology|medicine|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12862" RevisionGUID="98a8a237-9272-4dad-aa22-6225428dcb58" CreationDate="2019-11-18T02:58:01.377" UserId="1059" Comment="deleted 69 characters in body" Text="Haemophilia was known to be hereditary very early, even if this disease has a complex transmission pattern, from mothers to sons. Wikipedia says it was already known from the ancient Hebrews who didn't circumcise sons of women who had this kind of &quot;tendency to bleed&quot; in their family.    &#xD;&#xA;It was called a royal disease in some country, because some royal families carried the guilty gene.   &#xD;&#xA;But the etymology doesn't say anything about the hereditary side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**There's a confusion in the etymology meaning**, very often with the &quot;*philia*&quot; part, which a lot of people learned in school to mean &quot;to like/to love&quot; (friendship as in &quot;Philippos&quot;), when there's an additional meaning &quot;a tendency to&quot;, as you've said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it explains the apparent auto-antonymy in &quot;pedophilia&quot; too, that is surely not a love for young children, but rather a pathological tendency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it's absolutely not &quot;humans who love blood undeniably wouldn't want to lose it&quot;,  &#xD;&#xA;and the etymology is logical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be fair, Haemophilia is not a pathological &quot;tendency&quot; to bleed, it's a blood disease. There is no tendency to bleed, but big difficulties to stop the bleedings, even the small ones, when they occur. Because they lack of some blood factors responsible of the blood coagulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As there is no change in the meaning, the Typology of Blank doesn't apply, there is no semantic change, only a lack of Greek teaching in schools, and people forget the etymology of words;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36192" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2862" RevisionGUID="33116233-a78f-4b5c-a082-c89cd435e585" CreationDate="2019-11-18T06:43:09.773" UserId="79" Comment="edited title" Text="Does 'verbum' mean both word and verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12862" RevisionGUID="1de626a2-d77e-4700-9d62-ca07071a3cdc" CreationDate="2019-11-18T08:30:49.533" UserId="1059" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="Haemophilia was known to be hereditary very early, even if this disease has a complex transmission pattern, from mothers to sons. Wikipedia says it was already known from the ancient Hebrews who didn't circumcise sons of women who had this kind of &quot;tendency to bleed&quot; in their family.    &#xD;&#xA;It was called a royal disease in some country, because some royal families carried the guilty gene.   &#xD;&#xA;But the etymology doesn't say anything about the hereditary side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**There's a confusion in the etymology meaning**, very often with the &quot;*philia*&quot; part, which a lot of people learned in school to mean &quot;to like/to love&quot; (friendship as in &quot;Philippos&quot;, the horses' friend, the horses lover.), when there's an additional meaning &quot;a tendency to&quot;, as you've said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it explains the apparent auto-antonymy in &quot;pedophilia&quot; too, that is surely not a love for young children, but rather a pathological tendency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it's absolutely not &quot;humans who love blood undeniably wouldn't want to lose it&quot;,  &#xD;&#xA;and the etymology is logical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be fair, Haemophilia is not a pathological &quot;tendency&quot; to bleed, it's a blood disease. There is no tendency to bleed, but big difficulties to stop the bleedings, even the small ones, when they occur. Because they lack of some blood factors responsible of the blood coagulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As there is no change in the meaning, the Typology of Blank doesn't apply, there is no semantic change, only a lack of Greek teaching in schools, and people forget the etymology of words;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12862" RevisionGUID="52758abb-7f12-42e2-bec3-b00a23b18a29" CreationDate="2019-11-18T16:26:35.630" UserId="1059" Comment="edited body" Text="Haemophilia was known to be hereditary very early, even if this disease has a complex transmission pattern, from mothers to sons. Wikipedia says it was already known from the ancient Hebrews who didn't circumcise sons of women who had this kind of &quot;tendency to bleed&quot; in their family.    &#xD;&#xA;It was called a royal disease in some country, because some royal families carried the guilty gene.   &#xD;&#xA;But the etymology doesn't say anything about the hereditary side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**There's a confusion in the etymology meaning**, very often with the &quot;*philia*&quot; part, which a lot of people learned in school to mean &quot;to like/to love&quot; (friendship as in &quot;Philippos&quot;, the horses' friend, the horses lover.), when there's an additional meaning &quot;a tendency to&quot;, as you've said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it explains the apparent auto-antonymy in &quot;pedophilia&quot; too, that is surely not a love for young children, but rather a pathological tendency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it's absolutely not &quot;humans who love blood undeniably wouldn't want to lose it&quot;,  &#xD;&#xA;and the etymology is logical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be fair, Haemophilia is not a pathological &quot;tendency&quot; to bleed, it's a blood disease. There is no tendency to bleed, but big difficulties to stop the bleedings, even the small ones, when they occur. Because they lack of some blood factors responsible of the blood coagulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As there is no change in the meaning, the Typology of Blank doesn't apply, there is no semantic change, only a lack of Greek teaching in schools, and people forget the etymology of words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12863" RevisionGUID="fc0ba421-8b84-4dbd-b497-55fdd40a0b11" CreationDate="2019-11-18T16:46:01.430" UserId="3248" Text="It is perhaps not easy to work out the relevant meaning differences if you only compare _advenire_ and _venire_. In order to better understand the role of the prefix, it can be useful for you to consider the &quot;full&quot; picture/**system**, which involves comparing _advenire_ with other prefixed verbs like _pervenire_, _obvenire_, _evenire_, etc. You'll then discover that each prefix adds a particular directional/path nuance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the repetition of _ad_ as a preverb and as a preposition in your example, it should be noted that this phenomenon is typical of so-called &quot;weak satellite-framed languages&quot;. Latin and Slavic languages are classified into this typological (sub)set. Please take a look at [this link][1] for an answer to a related question on motion verbs.       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11083/are-latin-verbs-of-motion-satellite-framed-or-verb-framed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12864" RevisionGUID="36f3f474-afa9-42ac-bad8-1b485713e1fc" CreationDate="2019-11-18T17:22:09.697" UserId="1059" Text="I already know about the distance, but this is a difference in the meaning when they are demonstrative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the difference in connotations, and their use, when they are &quot;he&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find sentences with each of them, but my level in Latin doesn't allow me to see the shade of meanings. The dictionaries are not very loquacious about it, and it's a thing I would need to know now to progress in Latin, and to forge my own sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2128/reference-with-hic-is-and-ille?noredirect=1#comment23308_2128" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36197" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12864" RevisionGUID="36f3f474-afa9-42ac-bad8-1b485713e1fc" CreationDate="2019-11-18T17:22:09.697" UserId="1059" Text="What is the difference between is, ille, and hic when they mean &quot;he&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36198" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12864" RevisionGUID="36f3f474-afa9-42ac-bad8-1b485713e1fc" CreationDate="2019-11-18T17:22:09.697" UserId="1059" Text="|demonstrative-pronoun|differences|personal-pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12865" RevisionGUID="79b8570b-ccd4-4664-bf92-2420de445bab" CreationDate="2019-11-18T17:31:06.963" UserId="1059" Text="Is there a difference in the meaning, between &quot;appropinquare&quot; + dative,   &#xD;&#xA;and &quot;appropinquare&quot; + ad + accusative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dictionaries are not very clear about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://outils.biblissima.fr/fr/collatinus-web/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36200" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12865" RevisionGUID="79b8570b-ccd4-4664-bf92-2420de445bab" CreationDate="2019-11-18T17:31:06.963" UserId="1059" Text="Appropinquare: difference in the meaning according to the case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36201" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12865" RevisionGUID="79b8570b-ccd4-4664-bf92-2420de445bab" CreationDate="2019-11-18T17:31:06.963" UserId="1059" Text="|meaning|preposition|case|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12866" RevisionGUID="8f4567cd-5ab3-41ed-8ba1-3433c5e5103b" CreationDate="2019-11-18T18:37:25.657" UserId="79" Text="Here is one candidate for a Latin portmanteau: *hodie*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word means roughly the same as *hoc die* and is believed to come together from these parts somehow.&#xD;&#xA;We don't exactly know how; [the exact origin is unclear](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/2561/79).&#xD;&#xA;One way to interpret it is to see it as a portmanteau of *hoc* and *die* so that some of *hoc* is lost when smashed together with *die*.&#xD;&#xA;(The lost bit would the *c* and half the length of *o*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether this qualifies for an actual portmanteau is perhaps a matter of taste, but it is such a common word that comes so close that I wanted to bring it up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12867" RevisionGUID="5053b7d6-761a-4d39-9d52-585ea821facf" CreationDate="2019-11-18T19:47:59.040" UserId="3248" Text="In my view, there is a subtle difference in meaning. Crucially, note that the adjective _propinquus_, which expresses a **state**, selects a dative (e.g., [_in propinquis urbi montibus_][1] (Nep. _Han._ 5.1)). So the dative nominal associated to the verb _appropinquare_, which is derived from the adjective _propinquus_, is used to express the final position attained by the subject: i.e., at the end of the motion event the [Figure][2] subject is _propinquus_ 'near to' the [Ground][2] object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, the prepositional phrase formed by _ad_ plus an accusative noun associated to the verb _appropinquare_ involves a more **dynamic** meaning and is related to the motion + path (_ad_) event rather than to the **stative** adjective _propinquus_ incorporated in the verb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB I: hopefully, my answer above can also be regarded as a sort of up-date of what I consider an interesting intuition found in this [link][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB II: alternatively, if you don't find the explanation above convincing, you could try to explore the connection between the dative of _appropinquare_ and the so-called &quot;directional dative&quot;: e.g., _It clamor **caelo**_ (Virg. _Aen._ 5.451). The problem with this alternative is that this kind of directional dative is typically reduced to poetry. This construction is rarely found in prose, where _It clamor ad caelum_ is expected.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0136%3Alife%3Dhan.%3Achapter%3D5%3Asection%3D1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scodis.com/for-students/glossary/figure-and-ground/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.es/books?id=7DECAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA83&amp;lpg=RA1-PA83&amp;dq=Appropinquare%20dative&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=m5dkCaRZiK&amp;sig=ACfU3U2UO0xi5V3Qrcy90pYGV3oOOTgANw&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjulvCSvPTlAhUNdxoKHbUlDsA4ChDoATABegQICBAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Appropinquare%20dative&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12867" RevisionGUID="41dd1894-57ca-4243-8462-eadb6aee153b" CreationDate="2019-11-18T20:11:10.887" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="In my view, there is a subtle difference in meaning. Crucially, note that the adjective _propinquus_, which expresses a **state**, selects a dative (e.g., [_in propinquis urbi montibus_][1] (Nep. _Han._ 5.1)). So the dative nominal associated to the verb _appropinquare_, which is derived from the adjective _propinquus_, is used to express the final position attained by the subject: i.e., at the end of the motion event the nominative [Figure][2] subject is _propinquus_ 'near to' the dative [Ground][2] object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, the prepositional phrase formed by _ad_ plus an accusative noun associated to the verb _appropinquare_ involves a more **dynamic** meaning and is related to the motion + path (_ad_) event rather than to the **stative** adjective _propinquus_ incorporated in the verb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB I: hopefully, my answer above can also be regarded as a sort of up-date of what I consider an interesting intuition found in this [link][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB II: alternatively, if you don't find the explanation above convincing, you could try to explore the connection between the dative of _appropinquare_ and the so-called &quot;directional dative&quot;: e.g., _It clamor **caelo**_ (Virg. _Aen._ 5.451). The problem with this alternative is that this kind of directional dative is typically reduced to poetry. This construction is rarely found in prose, where _It clamor ad caelum_ is expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB III: perhaps a second (better) alternative would be to explore the well-known connection between prefixed verbs and datives. For a recent work and useful references therein, see this [this paper][4]. My intuition is that this second alternative applies well to cases like _ubi adequitavit portis_ (Liv. 22.42) but not to _appropinquare_, which, as pointed out above, incorporates an adjective that **already** assigns dative.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0136%3Alife%3Dhan.%3Achapter%3D5%3Asection%3D1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scodis.com/for-students/glossary/figure-and-ground/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.es/books?id=7DECAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA83&amp;lpg=RA1-PA83&amp;dq=Appropinquare%20dative&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=m5dkCaRZiK&amp;sig=ACfU3U2UO0xi5V3Qrcy90pYGV3oOOTgANw&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjulvCSvPTlAhUNdxoKHbUlDsA4ChDoATABegQICBAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Appropinquare%20dative&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/cjol/cjol_a2017v16/cjol_a2017v16p19.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12868" RevisionGUID="5493e2c6-f21f-44e2-9f84-792973b3028b" CreationDate="2019-11-18T21:03:23.117" UserId="3153" Text="Pronoun differences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my beginner-Latin courses, my instructors were fairly explicit with the differences; In classical Latin, hic was a pronoun that indicated closeness to a person either in proximity or friendship. Ille was often used for proximity as well, but it could also be a more diplomatic word for somebody you disagreed with. Iste, a common pronoun you did not list, was often used to group people together, often in a negative way: &quot;that (man) (of yours).&quot; Meanwhile, &quot;is&quot; is a word that remains neutral and independent of these connotations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Si erram (et numquam erro) me moneas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12867" RevisionGUID="957d588c-0806-4ff7-ac22-d1dd284c6c84" CreationDate="2019-11-19T00:52:08.017" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="In my view, there is a subtle difference in meaning. Crucially, note that the adjective _propinquus_, which expresses a **state**, selects a dative (e.g., [_in propinquis urbi montibus_][1] (Nep. _Han._ 5.1)). So the dative nominal associated to the verb _appropinquare_, which is derived from the adjective _propinquus_, is used to express the final position attained by the subject: i.e., at the end of the motion event encoded in _appropinquare_, the nominative [Figure][2] subject is _propinquus_ 'near to' the dative [Ground][2] object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, the prepositional phrase formed by _ad_ plus an accusative noun associated to the verb _appropinquare_ involves a more **dynamic** meaning and is related to the motion + path (_ad_) event rather than to the **stative** adjective _propinquus_ incorporated in the verb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB I: hopefully, my answer above can also be regarded as a sort of up-date of what I consider an interesting intuition found in this [link][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB II: alternatively, if you don't find the explanation above convincing, you could try to explore the connection between the dative of _appropinquare_ and the so-called &quot;directional dative&quot;: e.g., _It clamor **caelo**_ (Virg. _Aen._ 5.451). The problem with this alternative is that this kind of directional dative is typically reduced to poetry. This construction is very rarely found in prose, where _It clamor ad caelum_ is expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB III: at first sight, a second (better) alternative would be to explore the well-known connection between [prefixed verbs and datives][4]. For a recent work and useful references therein, see also this [this paper][5]. In my view, this second alternative can be claimed to apply to examples like _ubi adequitavit portis_ (Liv. 22.42) but not to _appropinquare urbi_ (Liv. 3.8.8). As pointed out above, the latter incorporates an adjective that **already** assigns dative. Furthermore, the difference between _adequitare_ and _appropinquare_ can be elucidated by the fact that the unprefixed variant of the former is incompatible with a dative (cf. the ill-formedness of *_equitare portis_), whereas the unprefixed variant of the latter is compatible with the dative (cf. the well-formedness of _domui ignis propinquat_ (Tac. _Ann._ 15, 39)). The motion event of both _appropinquare_ and _propinquare_ incorporates the stative adjective _propinquus_, which is, as claimed above, the true assigner of the dative case.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0136%3Alife%3Dhan.%3Achapter%3D5%3Asection%3D1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scodis.com/for-students/glossary/figure-and-ground/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.es/books?id=7DECAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA83&amp;lpg=RA1-PA83&amp;dq=Appropinquare%20dative&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=m5dkCaRZiK&amp;sig=ACfU3U2UO0xi5V3Qrcy90pYGV3oOOTgANw&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjulvCSvPTlAhUNdxoKHbUlDsA4ChDoATABegQICBAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Appropinquare%20dative&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-compounds&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/cjol/cjol_a2017v16/cjol_a2017v16p19.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12867" RevisionGUID="1ac490ab-44c1-49a8-b3ac-36d4864083e1" CreationDate="2019-11-19T01:04:53.930" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="In my view, there is a subtle difference in meaning. Crucially, note that the adjective _propinquus_, which expresses a **state**, selects a dative (e.g., [_in propinquis urbi montibus_][1] (Nep. _Han._ 5.1)). So the dative nominal associated to the verb _appropinquare_, which is derived from the adjective _propinquus_, is used to express the final static position attained by the subject: i.e., at the end of the motion event encoded in _appropinquare_, the nominative [Figure][2] subject is _propinquus_ 'near to' the dative [Ground][2] object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, the prepositional phrase formed by _ad_ plus an accusative noun associated with the verb _appropinquare_ involves a more **dynamic** meaning and is related to the motion + path (_ad-_) event rather than to the **stative** adjective _propinquus_ incorporated in the verb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB I: hopefully, my answer above can also be regarded as a sort of up-date of what I consider an interesting intuition found in this [link][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB II: alternatively, if you don't find the explanation above convincing, you could try to explore the connection between the dative of _appropinquare_ and the so-called &quot;directional dative&quot;: e.g., _It clamor **caelo**_ (Virg. _Aen._ 5.451). The problem with this alternative is that this kind of directional dative is typically reduced to poetry. This construction is very rarely found in prose, where _It clamor ad caelum_ is expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB III: at first sight, a second alternative would be to explore the well-known connection between [prefixed verbs and datives][4]. For a recent work and useful references therein, see also this [this paper][5]. In my view, this second alternative can be claimed to apply to examples like _ubi adequitavit portis_ (Liv. 22.42) but not to _appropinquare urbi_ (Liv. 3.8.8). As pointed out above, the latter verb incorporates an adjective that **already** assigns dative. Furthermore, the difference between _adequitare_ and _appropinquare_ can be elucidated by the fact that the unprefixed variant of the former is incompatible with a dative (cf. the ill-formedness of *_equitare portis_), whereas the unprefixed variant of the latter is compatible with the dative (cf. the well-formedness of _domui ignis propinquat_ (Tac. _Ann._ 15, 39)). The motion event of both _appropinquare_ and _propinquare_ incorporates the stative adjective _propinquus_, which is, as claimed above, the true assigner of the dative case.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0136%3Alife%3Dhan.%3Achapter%3D5%3Asection%3D1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scodis.com/for-students/glossary/figure-and-ground/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.es/books?id=7DECAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA83&amp;lpg=RA1-PA83&amp;dq=Appropinquare%20dative&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=m5dkCaRZiK&amp;sig=ACfU3U2UO0xi5V3Qrcy90pYGV3oOOTgANw&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjulvCSvPTlAhUNdxoKHbUlDsA4ChDoATABegQICBAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Appropinquare%20dative&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-compounds&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/cjol/cjol_a2017v16/cjol_a2017v16p19.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12867" RevisionGUID="db60cc63-6956-47ee-9828-e47c3f302d7f" CreationDate="2019-11-19T01:22:30.570" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="In my view, there is a subtle difference in meaning. Crucially, note that the adjective _propinquus_, which expresses a **state**, selects a dative (e.g., [_in propinquis urbi montibus_][1] (Nep. _Han._ 5.1)). So the dative nominal associated to the verb _appropinquare_, which is derived from the adjective _propinquus_, is used to express the final static position attained by the subject: i.e., at the end of the motion event encoded in _appropinquare_, the nominative [Figure][2] subject is _propinquus_ 'near to' the dative [Ground][2] object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, the prepositional phrase formed by _ad_ plus an accusative noun associated with the verb _appropinquare_ involves a more **dynamic** meaning and is related to the motion + path (_ad-_) event rather than to the **stative** adjective _propinquus_ incorporated in the verb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB I: hopefully, my answer above can also be regarded as a sort of up-date of what I consider an interesting intuition found in this [link][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB II: alternatively, if you don't find the explanation above convincing, you could try to explore the connection between the dative of _appropinquare_ and the so-called &quot;directional dative&quot;: e.g., _It clamor **caelo**_ (Virg. _Aen._ 5.451). The problem with this alternative is that this kind of directional dative is typically reduced to poetry. This construction is very rarely found in prose, where _It clamor ad caelum_ is expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB III: a second alternative would be to explore the well-known connection between [prefixed verbs and datives][4]. For a recent work and useful references therein, see also this [this paper][5]. In my view, this second alternative can be claimed to apply to examples like _ubi adequitavit portis_ (Liv. 22.42) but not to _appropinquare urbi_ (Liv. 3.8.8). As pointed out above, the latter verb incorporates an adjective that **already** assigns dative. Furthermore, the difference between _adequitare_ and _appropinquare_ can be elucidated by the fact that the unprefixed variant of the former is incompatible with a dative (cf. the ill-formedness of *_equitare portis_), whereas the unprefixed variant of the latter is compatible with the dative (cf. the well-formedness of _domui ignis propinquat_ (Tac. _Ann._ 15, 39)). The motion event of both _appropinquare_ and _propinquare_ incorporates the stative adjective _propinquus_, which is, as claimed above, the true assigner of the dative case.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0136%3Alife%3Dhan.%3Achapter%3D5%3Asection%3D1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scodis.com/for-students/glossary/figure-and-ground/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.es/books?id=7DECAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA83&amp;lpg=RA1-PA83&amp;dq=Appropinquare%20dative&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=m5dkCaRZiK&amp;sig=ACfU3U2UO0xi5V3Qrcy90pYGV3oOOTgANw&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjulvCSvPTlAhUNdxoKHbUlDsA4ChDoATABegQICBAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Appropinquare%20dative&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-compounds&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/cjol/cjol_a2017v16/cjol_a2017v16p19.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36209" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12865" RevisionGUID="53376707-2a0d-4ede-b921-80f4ff3f7714" CreationDate="2019-11-19T01:33:37.373" />
  <row Id="36210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12867" RevisionGUID="65020621-3058-48d1-99aa-9a89af36ceb7" CreationDate="2019-11-19T01:49:32.213" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes &amp; qualification" Text="In my view, there is a subtle difference in meaning. Crucially, note that the adjective _propinquus_, which expresses a **state**, selects a dative (e.g., [_in propinquis urbi montibus_][1] (Nep. _Han._ 5.1)). So the dative nominal associated to the verb _appropinquare_, which is derived from the adjective _propinquus_, is used to express the final static position attained by the subject: i.e., at the end of the motion event encoded in _appropinquare_, the nominative [Figure][2] subject is _propinquus_ 'near to' the dative [Ground][2] object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, the Prepositional Phrase formed by _ad_ plus an accusative noun is related to **dynamic** motion + path (_ad-_) event associated with the verb _appropinquare_ rather than to the inner **stative** adjective _propinquus_ incorporated in this verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB I: hopefully, my answer above can also be regarded as a sort of up-date of what I consider an interesting intuition found in this [link][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB II: alternatively, if you don't find the explanation above convincing, you could try to explore the connection between the dative of _appropinquare_ and the so-called &quot;directional dative&quot;: e.g., _It clamor **caelo**_ (Virg. _Aen._ 5.451). The problem with this alternative is that this kind of directional dative is typically reduced to poetry. This construction is very rarely found in prose, where _It clamor ad caelum_ is expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB III: a second alternative would be to explore the well-known connection between [prefixed verbs and datives][4]. For a recent work and useful references therein, see also this [this paper][5]. In my view, this second alternative can be claimed to apply to examples like _ubi adequitavit portis_ (Liv. 22.42) but not to _appropinquare urbi_ (Liv. 3.8.8). As pointed out above, the latter verb incorporates an adjective that **already** assigns dative. Furthermore, the difference between _adequitare_ and _appropinquare_ can be elucidated by the fact that the unprefixed variant of the former is incompatible with a dative (cf. the ill-formedness of *_equitare portis_), whereas the unprefixed variant of the latter is compatible with the dative (cf. the well-formedness of _domui ignis propinquat_ (Tac. _Ann._ 15, 39)). The motion event of both _appropinquare_ and _propinquare_ incorporates the stative adjective _propinquus_, which is, as claimed above, the true assigner of the dative case.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0136%3Alife%3Dhan.%3Achapter%3D5%3Asection%3D1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scodis.com/for-students/glossary/figure-and-ground/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.es/books?id=7DECAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA83&amp;lpg=RA1-PA83&amp;dq=Appropinquare%20dative&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=m5dkCaRZiK&amp;sig=ACfU3U2UO0xi5V3Qrcy90pYGV3oOOTgANw&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjulvCSvPTlAhUNdxoKHbUlDsA4ChDoATABegQICBAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Appropinquare%20dative&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-compounds&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/cjol/cjol_a2017v16/cjol_a2017v16p19.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12867" RevisionGUID="2347745a-fce1-4782-bde9-b43e32e39031" CreationDate="2019-11-19T02:15:26.190" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="In my view, there is a subtle difference in meaning. Crucially, note that the adjective _propinquus_, which expresses a **state**, selects a dative (e.g., [_in propinquis urbi montibus_][1] (Nep. _Han._ 5.1)). So the dative nominal associated to the verb _appropinquare_, which is derived from the adjective _propinquus_, is used to express the final static position attained by the subject: i.e., at the end of the motion event encoded in _appropinquare_, the nominative [Figure][2] subject is _propinquus_ 'near to' the dative [Ground][2] object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, the Prepositional Phrase formed by _ad_ plus an accusative noun is related to **dynamic** motion + path (_ad-_) event associated with the verb _appropinquare_ rather than to the inner **stative** adjective _propinquus_ incorporated in this verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB I: hopefully, my answer above can also be regarded as a sort of up-date of what I consider an interesting intuition found in this [link][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB II: alternatively, if you don't find the explanation above convincing, you could try to explore the connection between the dative of _appropinquare_ and the so-called &quot;directional dative&quot;: e.g., _It clamor **caelo**_ (Virg. _Aen._ 5.451). The problem with this alternative is that this kind of directional dative is typically reduced to poetry. This construction is very rarely found in prose, where _It clamor ad caelum_ is expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB III: a second alternative would be to explore the well-known connection between [prefixed verbs and datives][4]. For a recent work and useful references therein, see also [this paper][5]. In my view, this second alternative can be claimed to apply to examples like _ubi adequitavit portis_ (Liv. 22.42) but not to _appropinquare urbi_ (Liv. 3.8.8). As pointed out above, the latter verb incorporates an adjective that **already** assigns dative. Furthermore, the difference between _adequitare_ and _appropinquare_ can be elucidated by the fact that the unprefixed variant of the former is incompatible with a dative (cf. the ill-formedness of *_equitare portis_), whereas the unprefixed variant of the latter is compatible with the dative (cf. the well-formedness of _domui ignis propinquat_ (Tac. _Ann._ 15, 39)). The motion event of both _appropinquare_ and _propinquare_ incorporates the stative adjective _propinquus_, which is, as claimed above, the true assigner of the dative case.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0136%3Alife%3Dhan.%3Achapter%3D5%3Asection%3D1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scodis.com/for-students/glossary/figure-and-ground/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.es/books?id=7DECAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA83&amp;lpg=RA1-PA83&amp;dq=Appropinquare%20dative&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=m5dkCaRZiK&amp;sig=ACfU3U2UO0xi5V3Qrcy90pYGV3oOOTgANw&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjulvCSvPTlAhUNdxoKHbUlDsA4ChDoATABegQICBAB#v=onepage&amp;q=Appropinquare%20dative&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-compounds&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/cjol/cjol_a2017v16/cjol_a2017v16p19.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12603" RevisionGUID="0aa97de4-70c2-4340-a246-9f68dbc3f63e" CreationDate="2019-11-19T09:42:13.523" UserId="1982" Comment="edited body" Text="In Q:https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/89/1982 there does not appear to be a natural conclusion. Apposite contributions appeared as comments but were not developed. Perhaps it was believed that the Q. had been answered. There still seems to be more to discuss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The well-established translations: &quot;Remember you must die&quot; &amp; &quot;Remember you are mortal&quot;: firstly, the original Latin does not include &quot;you&quot; and/or a second-person singular verb, the translations do include &quot;you&quot;, which may explain how confusion arises. Secondly, these two are essentially the same. Mortality is a susceptibility to death. If &quot;you are mortal&quot; then &quot;you must die&quot;, by definition.&#xD;&#xA;Pavel V and Cerberus gave the literal translation &quot;Remember to die&quot; (In case we forget?) which, for them, includes an implied obligation: &quot;Remember you must die&quot; (sounds familiar) a veritable cascade of congruence possibly pointing to the correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Implied obligation: an English equivalent could be: &quot;Remember to wash the pots.&quot; then &quot;You'd better wash the pots.&quot; therefore &quot;You must wash the pots.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;As geomars indicated there is an implied threat, here, as well as an obligation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To introduce obligation, without threat, the gerundive (of an intransitive verb, used impersonally): nunc est moriendum = now one must die; or, mox erit moriendum = soon one must die; continuing (thanks to brianpck) &quot;moriendum est omnibus&quot; = &quot;all must die&quot;. Alternatively, &quot;tu es mortalis, morieris&quot;; or, just &quot;tu morieris&quot; = you will die. It may be more prosaic; but, directly to the point; no equivocation; no implications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A most interesting point was made by C.M. Weimer; &quot;memento mori&quot; may be treated as indirect. This solves the problem of the inclusion of pronoun &quot;you&quot;, in the Latin. The man-in-the-chariot (interlocutor) advising our all-conquering hero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;dicit memento te mori&quot; = &quot;he (interlocutor) says remember you are dying&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;present tense accusative-infinitive construction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sanguine about death, Seneca, in his interpretation of Roman theology (&quot;Epistle 1&quot;) counselled the wise use of time (hence life) as it passes, only to be scooped-up by Death, in His unrelenting approach to the individual: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...qui intellegat se cotidie mori.&quot; = &quot;...he, who may understand that every day he is dying.&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;present tense, indirect statement with accusative reflexive pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The warning (indirect speech): &quot;Remember you are dying.&quot; appears to be compliant with a Roman mindset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Noteworthy, also, the second offer from Cerberus; &quot;Remember Dying&quot;; as a present participle; &quot;Remember (I see you) dying.&quot;; as a gerund; &quot;Remember the dying (of the light/ of the mortal.)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concluding: either &quot;memento mori&quot; is to be translated literally, with its implied obligation, giving: &quot;Remember to die.&quot; = &quot;Remember you must die.&quot;; or, as indirect speech: &quot;(he says) remember you are dying.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12869" RevisionGUID="611ed8a4-76db-4863-883d-3d15627e5775" CreationDate="2019-11-20T00:41:08.123" UserId="118" Text="The [Loeb translation](https://archive.org/details/adluciliumepistu01seneuoft/page/272) by Richard M. Gummere of Seneca's Epistula XLI, &quot;On the God Within Us&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non sunt ad caelum elevandae manus nec exorandus aedituus ut nos ad aurem simulacri, quasi magis exaudiri possimus, admittat; prope est a te **deus**, tecum est, intus est. Ita dico, Lucili: sacer intra nos spiritus sedet, malorum bonorumque nostrorum observator et custos. Hic prout a nobis tractatus est, ita nos ipse tractat. Bonus very viro sine **deo** nemo est; an potest aliquis supra fortunam nisi ab illo adiutus exurgere? Ille dat consilia magnifica et erecta. In unoquoque virorum bonorum:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Quis **deus** incertum est, habitat **deus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;renders **deus** as &quot;God&quot; in the main text but &quot;a god&quot; in the quotation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We do not need to uplift our hands toward heaven, or to beg the keeper of a temple to let us approach his idol's ear, as if in this way our prayers were more likely to be heard.  **God** is near you, he is with you, he is within you. This is what I mean, Lucilius: a holy spirit indwells within us, one who marks our good and bad deeds, and is our guardian. As we treat this spirit, so are we treated by it. Indeed, no man can be good without the help of **God**. Can one rise superior to fortune unless **God** helps him to rise? He it is that gives noble and upright counsel. In each good man:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      **A god** doth dwell, but what **god** know we not. [Vergil, _Aeneid,_ viii.352]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the translation to &quot;God&quot; an imposition of Judeo-Christian monotheism onto the Roman pagan worldview, or is Seneca really invoking a notion of a single &quot;God&quot;, common to everyone, which he expects Lucilius to understand? Since Latin lacks definite and indefinite articles, I figure you have to refer to the cultural context, but if I'm wrong about that, please let me know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36217" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12869" RevisionGUID="611ed8a4-76db-4863-883d-3d15627e5775" CreationDate="2019-11-20T00:41:08.123" UserId="118" Text="Seneca’s Epistula XLI: &quot;God&quot; or &quot;a god&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36218" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12869" RevisionGUID="611ed8a4-76db-4863-883d-3d15627e5775" CreationDate="2019-11-20T00:41:08.123" UserId="118" Text="|classical-latin|translation-check|articles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12869" RevisionGUID="1460ea6d-e08b-4891-bcd8-3545031a95c8" CreationDate="2019-11-20T00:50:11.080" UserId="118" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The [Loeb translation](https://archive.org/details/adluciliumepistu01seneuoft/page/272) by Richard M. Gummere of Seneca's Epistula XLI, &quot;On the God Within Us&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non sunt ad caelum elevandae manus nec exorandus aedituus ut nos ad aurem simulacri, quasi magis exaudiri possimus, admittat; prope est a te **deus**, tecum est, intus est. Ita dico, Lucili: sacer intra nos spiritus sedet, malorum bonorumque nostrorum observator et custos. Hic prout a nobis tractatus est, ita nos ipse tractat. Bonus vero vir sine **deo** nemo est; an potest aliquis supra fortunam nisi ab illo adiutus exurgere? Ille dat consilia magnifica et erecta. In unoquoque virorum bonorum:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Quis **deus** incertum est, habitat **deus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;renders **deus** as &quot;God&quot; in the main text but &quot;a god&quot; in the quotation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We do not need to uplift our hands toward heaven, or to beg the keeper of a temple to let us approach his idol's ear, as if in this way our prayers were more likely to be heard.  **God** is near you, he is with you, he is within you. This is what I mean, Lucilius: a holy spirit indwells within us, one who marks our good and bad deeds, and is our guardian. As we treat this spirit, so are we treated by it. Indeed, no man can be good without the help of **God**. Can one rise superior to fortune unless **God** helps him to rise? He it is that gives noble and upright counsel. In each good man:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      **A god** doth dwell, but what **god** know we not. [Vergil, _Aeneid,_ viii.352]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the translation to &quot;God&quot; an imposition of Judeo-Christian monotheism onto the Roman pagan worldview, or is Seneca really invoking a notion of a single &quot;God&quot;, common to everyone, which he expects Lucilius to understand? Since Latin lacks definite and indefinite articles, I figure you have to refer to the cultural context, but if I'm wrong about that, please let me know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36220" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12869" RevisionGUID="c727e5a1-4e0b-4008-9eed-42dfd8c2a0a1" CreationDate="2019-11-20T01:20:19.573" UserId="118" Comment="edited title" Text="Seneca’s Epistula Moralis XLI: &quot;God&quot; or &quot;a god&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10646" RevisionGUID="06cb38cf-1a2a-4656-9afa-83bd9e7dc46e" CreationDate="2019-11-20T01:49:47.630" UserId="9" Comment="fixed misspelling in quotation" Text="Before today, I thought that there was no neuter substantive&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; noun with a nominative singular in *a* and a genitive singular in *ae*. However, I have encountered references to a possible exception: some sources indicate that the noun *pascha/Pascha*, referring to Passover or Easter, could inflect according to the first declension and at the same time be neuter in gender. I'd like to see if I can verify this surprising fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###How the word *pascha* entered Latin&#xD;&#xA;This is supposed to be explained by the background of the word: it comes from a masculine Aramaic word via Greek πάσχα, which is indeclinable and neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in Latin, the word came to be declined, but retained the neuter gender of the Greek noun. It is supposed to have also developed a consonant-stem declension by analogy with Greek *-ma* neuter nouns, gaining a stem *paschat-* with unetymological *-t-* that was used to form genitive singular *paschatis,* genitive plural *paschatum* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The first-declension forms: sometimes feminine—ever neuter?&#xD;&#xA;It's fairly easy for me to find examples of the first-declension forms: e.g. &quot;pascharum&quot; in &quot;pascharum diem&quot; seems to be a first-declension genitive plural. But it's harder to find evidence supporting the idea that these forms are ever grammatically neuter rather than grammatically feminine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, it seems that it must have been possible for *pascha* to be a feminine noun in at least some situations, because the accusative singular form *pascham* seems to exist: this could not be neuter because it would violate the rule that neuters are always identical in nominative and accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in accordance with the form *pascham*, two sources list *pascha, paschae* as a feminine noun, and not as a neuter noun (reserving the neuter gender for the paradigm of *pascha, paschatis*): [Lewis and Short](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=pascha) and [Félix Gaffiot](http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/gaffiot/pascha).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as I mentioned at the start, I have also found sources that say that the noun could be neuter when declined according to the first declension:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Nouvelle méthode pour apprendre facilement la langue latine,*  12th ed.,&#xD;&#xA;by Claude Lancelot (? et al?) (1761) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Pascha,* est du Neutre. : *Pascha próximum,* Pâque prochain; &amp; se décline de la premiere ou de la troisiéme: *Pascha, æ, Pascha, ătis*. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;les Grecs l'ont fait Neutre, parce qu'ils l'ont pris comme indéclinable [...] les Latins les ont suivis dans le Genre, **quoiqu'ils ayent décliné ce nom, ou de la premiere, ou de la troisiéme**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ([p. 49](https://books.google.com/books?id=22MSAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA49))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The bolded part says &quot;the Latins followed the Greeks [in making the gender neuter] whether they inflected the noun according to the first or third declension&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I found a text that gives an entire declension in the neuter (for the singular only), but it looks a bit suspicious. Unfortunately, I don't have full access to the text; I just saw a page through Google Books. The text is given in *Donati Graeci: Learning Greek in the Renaissance,* by Federica Ciccolella (2008); if I understand correctly, the Latin is the original, so it shouldn't have been erroneously influenced Greek grammar. Ciccolella says &quot;version *a* [...] probably originated as a simple word-for-word translation of the Latin textbook for Greeks who wanted to learn Latin. During the fifteenth century, this version, perhaps originally written in the interlinear spaces of a Latin text, became an independent grammar and was used to learn Greek; apparently, Greek Donatus *a* did not undergo the process of adaptation of Latin morphology to the &quot;target language&quot; that led to the composition of *Donati* in modern languages&quot; (p. xvi).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Nominativo hoc Pascha, genitivo huius Paschae, dativo huic Paschae, accusativo hoc Pascha, vocativo o Pascha, ablativo ab hoc Pascha, pluralia non habet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (*Donatus graecus a*, &quot;De Nomine&quot;, lines 53-55, [p. 271 in *Donati Graeci*](https://books.google.com/books?id=67P2aOn1iUYC&amp;pg=PA271))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The corresponding lines in Greek (53-55, p. 270) use the indeclinable form πάσχα, but as I mentioned above, it doesn't seem like the Greek translation could have influenced the Latin text because the Latin is supposed to be the original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The statement that plural forms do not exist seems to be false for at least some stages of the language, since as I mentioned above, the genitive plural form *Pascharum* seems to have been used sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; Perhaps there is only one instance of a neuter noun of the first declension: viz., *pascha*—the passover&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (p. 12, *[A Commentary on the Eton Latin Grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=EhhgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA12),* by Richard Haynes, 1843)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The kind of evidence that I think would work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it true that *pascha* can be a &quot;neuter noun of the first declension&quot;, or are these three sources wrong? Aside from the declension explicitly given by the quoted *Donatus,* I suppose that the only way to clearly show that it is a neuter noun is to find an example in text where it triggers neuter agreement: for example, if *Paschae* in the genitive singular were modified by an adjective ending in *-i.* Are there any such examples when the word has a clearly first-declension form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Notes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I specified &quot;substantive&quot; because I had heard of some common-gender adjectives ending in *-a* in the nominative singular that allegedly could modify neuter nouns; e.g. [*advena* (mentioned in an answer by fvogel)](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/380/9) and apparently also *verna* (see this passage in *[Beiträge zur Griechischen und Römischen Literaturgeschichte, Volume 2*](https://books.google.com/books?id=MfkUAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA220)). I'm not sure whether these unusual adjectives were defective in some cases/numbers; it seems plausible to me (although I haven't checked) that they were defective at least in the neuter nominative/accusative plural, because it seems to have been fairly common for even the more typical third-declension adjectives of a single ending to lack a neuter plural in *-a.* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12870" RevisionGUID="a25907ea-e000-4918-8d91-2e2c81b9dcba" CreationDate="2019-11-20T12:25:25.127" UserId="1982" Text="It could be that &quot;God&quot; is a reference to Jupiter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca was a proponent of Stoicism; a philosophy which urged a dutiful self-discipline; detachment from the feckless passions; steadfastness in friendship; and, fortitude in adversity. It reasoned that all men were the offspring of God and, therefore, brothers--each deserving of compassion and justice. Though pantheistic (hence Jupiter) Stoicism conjectured God as present in all things and not transcendent. It is true that Stoicism provided some of the building blocks out of which the early Christians built their religion; but, the two concepts were not the same: the one was not the progenitor of the other e.g. Stoicism made no vain promises of a life beyond the grave, though some Stoics thought it a possibility. Happiness was to be found within, in this life. Stoicism was manly, rational and temperate. Its reward was virtue--the highest good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The life of Seneca (4BC-63AD) paralleled that of Jesus. Though Seneca wrote extensively on many subjects and people, Christianity did not seem to catch his eye; despite the many Christians, punished, for the fire that ravaged Rome in 64AD&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12870" RevisionGUID="045ef8ad-7e0f-442c-98e4-b8145fec331e" CreationDate="2019-11-20T12:58:25.750" UserId="1982" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="It could be that &quot;God&quot; is a reference to Jupiter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca was a proponent of Stoicism; a philosophy which urged a dutiful self-discipline; detachment from the feckless passions; steadfastness in friendship; and, fortitude in adversity. It reasoned that all men were the offspring of God and, therefore, brothers--each deserving of compassion and justice. Though pantheistic (hence Jupiter) Stoicism conjectured God as present in all things and not transcendent (Therefore not Jupiter?). It is true that Stoicism provided some of the building blocks out of which the early Christians built their religion; but, the two concepts were not the same: the one was not the progenitor of the other e.g. Stoicism made no vain promises of a life beyond the grave, though some Stoics thought it a possibility. Happiness was to be found within, in this life. Stoicism was manly, rational and temperate. Its reward was virtue--the highest good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The life of Seneca (4BC-63AD) paralleled that of Jesus. Though Seneca wrote extensively on many subjects and people, Christianity did not seem to catch his eye; despite the many Christians, punished, for the fire that ravaged Rome in 64AD&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12871" RevisionGUID="02dbdab6-3d36-48b9-94af-1a2348f57a5b" CreationDate="2019-11-20T17:58:39.783" UserId="1459" Text="One way I use to learn Latin vocabulary is to seek for derived Spanish/English words which meaning I know. For example, consider _[gressus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gressus)_. _[Egresar](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/egresar)_ and _[ingresar](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ingresar)_ are Spanish words, derived from _gressus_, which mean to exit and to enter, and so  associated with _gressus_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this spirit, when I face a new Latin word, oftentimes I want to find Spanish/English derivatives, but I lack a systematic tool to do this. Wiktionary does offer this for some words but it is very far from systematic. The entry for _gressus_, for example, lacks this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you aware of any tool, dictionary or website that offers this information in a systematic way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36225" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12871" RevisionGUID="02dbdab6-3d36-48b9-94af-1a2348f57a5b" CreationDate="2019-11-20T17:58:39.783" UserId="1459" Text="Is there a tool/website to see which non-Latin words are derived from a given Latin word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36226" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12871" RevisionGUID="02dbdab6-3d36-48b9-94af-1a2348f57a5b" CreationDate="2019-11-20T17:58:39.783" UserId="1459" Text="|etymology|derivation|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12871" RevisionGUID="b1e9cac2-110b-4030-8403-7756601d10db" CreationDate="2019-11-20T18:20:32.483" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="One way I use to learn Latin vocabulary is to seek for derived Spanish/English words which meaning I know. For instance, _[gressus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gressus)_ derived into _[egresar](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/egresar)_ and _[ingresar](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ingresar)_, Spanish words which mean to exit (&quot;_e[x] gressus_&quot;) and to enter (&quot;_in gressus_&quot;), respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this spirit, when I face a new Latin word, oftentimes I want to find Spanish/English derivatives, but I lack a systematic tool to do this. Wiktionary does offer this for some words but it is very far from systematic. The entry for _gressus_, for example, lacks this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you aware of any tool, dictionary or website that offers this information in a systematic way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12872" RevisionGUID="7b97d425-a1a1-40b6-9e0a-45cdd6c260a0" CreationDate="2019-11-20T18:30:53.503" UserId="79" Text="The phrase *quid pro quo* means &quot;what for what&quot; in Latin, but that makes very little sense to me.&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo) hints at the original meaning having to do with substitutions.&#xD;&#xA;That makes sense, as *pro* can indeed be used when substituting something for something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how was the Latin phrase originally used?&#xD;&#xA;Was it part of a longer phrase?&#xD;&#xA;Was *pro quo* (a part of) a relative clause or a question?&#xD;&#xA;When did it appear?&#xD;&#xA;Or was the phrase ever in any real use in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Any light on the Latin usage that was borrowed into other languages would be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase [*pro quo*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=pro+quo) is, unsurprisingly, very frequent in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;But I found no *quid pro quo* in this corpus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36229" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12872" RevisionGUID="7b97d425-a1a1-40b6-9e0a-45cdd6c260a0" CreationDate="2019-11-20T18:30:53.503" UserId="79" Text="What did &quot;quid pro quo&quot; originally mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36230" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12872" RevisionGUID="7b97d425-a1a1-40b6-9e0a-45cdd6c260a0" CreationDate="2019-11-20T18:30:53.503" UserId="79" Text="|etymology|meaning|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12873" RevisionGUID="4300b08c-1db3-4747-8b08-6947b6934a50" CreationDate="2019-11-20T18:36:36.073" UserId="5056" Text="According to [Lexico](https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/quid_pro_quo) it's origin as a phrase is mid-16th century medicine, and correlates with Wikipedia hinting that it's substituting one thing for another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quid%20pro%20quo) gives a little bit more insight as well. It also gives the first known use as 1582, but doesn't provide a source for what that is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess from that is there is probably no classical usage of it like that, and the 16th century origin could explain why it's a somewhat strange phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12872" RevisionGUID="2453fb27-3128-4963-a00c-8f6f0eb1c70c" CreationDate="2019-11-20T18:45:58.490" UserId="79" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="The phrase *quid pro quo* means &quot;what for what&quot; in Latin, but that makes very little sense to me.&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo) hints at the original meaning having to do with substitutions.&#xD;&#xA;That makes sense, as *pro* can indeed be used when substituting something for something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how was the Latin phrase originally used?&#xD;&#xA;Was it part of a longer phrase?&#xD;&#xA;Was *pro quo* (a part of) a relative clause or a question?&#xD;&#xA;When did it appear?&#xD;&#xA;Or was the phrase ever in any real use in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Any light on the Latin usage that was borrowed into other languages would be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;In particular, examples of use in a Latin sentence would be great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase [*pro quo*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=pro+quo) is, unsurprisingly, very frequent in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;But I found no *quid pro quo* in this corpus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12870" RevisionGUID="aa3fe9d0-6dea-4d89-8021-2cd392a4c646" CreationDate="2019-11-20T23:06:47.993" UserId="1982" Comment="deleted 89 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca was a proponent of Stoicism; a philosophy which urged a dutiful self-discipline; detachment from the feckless passions; steadfastness in friendship; and, fortitude in adversity. It reasoned that all men were the offspring of God and, therefore, brothers--each deserving of compassion and justice. Though pantheistic, Stoicism conjectured God as present in all things and not transcendent. It is true that Stoicism provided some of the building blocks out of which the early Christians built their religion; but, the two concepts were not the same: the one was not the progenitor of the other e.g. Stoicism made no vain promises of a life beyond the grave, though some Stoics thought it a possibility. Happiness was to be found within, in this life. Stoicism was manly, rational and temperate. Its reward was virtue--the highest good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The life of Seneca (4BC-63AD) paralleled that of Jesus. Though Seneca wrote extensively on many subjects and people, Christianity did not seem to catch his eye; despite the many Christians, punished, for the fire that ravaged Rome in 64AD&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12874" RevisionGUID="64e56152-888c-4317-ae59-db1f105be618" CreationDate="2019-11-21T05:19:24.763" UserId="1059" Text="Quanti... constat? Quanti... constant?    &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Quanti&quot; is called a &quot;genitive of value&quot;.   &#xD;&#xA;(By the way, I don't understand why it's not a &quot;genitive of price&quot;, as we ask for a price here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-What would be the literal translation of &quot;*Quanti constat ille canis in fenestra?*&quot;   &#xD;&#xA;I mean an English sentence showing the role of the genitive &quot;quanti&quot;.   &#xD;&#xA;Something like &quot;What is the composition *of* the value of this dog in the window&quot;?   &#xD;&#xA;Can you improve this literal translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it is &quot;constat&quot; in the singular, and &quot;constant&quot; in the plural, I can't find a good literal translation including the agreement of this verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask for the literal translation, not the real translation, it means &quot;How does it cost?&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36235" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12874" RevisionGUID="64e56152-888c-4317-ae59-db1f105be618" CreationDate="2019-11-21T05:19:24.763" UserId="1059" Text="What's the literal translation for a genitive of value?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36236" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12874" RevisionGUID="64e56152-888c-4317-ae59-db1f105be618" CreationDate="2019-11-21T05:19:24.763" UserId="1059" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12872" RevisionGUID="bcec71c6-fc37-43d6-814c-a30513d328ed" CreationDate="2019-11-21T08:30:16.410" UserId="79" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="The phrase *quid pro quo* means &quot;what for what&quot; in Latin, but that makes very little sense to me.&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo) hints at the original meaning having to do with substitutions.&#xD;&#xA;That makes sense, as *pro* can indeed be used when substituting something for something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how was the Latin phrase originally used?&#xD;&#xA;Was it part of a longer phrase?&#xD;&#xA;Was *pro quo* (a part of) a relative clause or a question?&#xD;&#xA;When did it appear?&#xD;&#xA;Or was the phrase ever in any real use in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Any light on the Latin usage that was borrowed into other languages would be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;(Although I do assume that the meaning in Latin was different from what it means in English today.)&#xD;&#xA;In particular, examples of use in a Latin sentence would be great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase [*pro quo*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=pro+quo) is, unsurprisingly, very frequent in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;But I found no *quid pro quo* in this corpus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12875" RevisionGUID="02c2b5ee-3710-49df-a6f0-09ed1223ee43" CreationDate="2019-11-21T09:33:08.157" UserId="79" Text="##Literal translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a very literal translation, I'd offer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quanti constat ille canis in fenestra?*  &#xD;&#xA;Of how much with-stands that dog in window?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English is not idiomatic or even grammatical, but that's what you easily get if you want literal.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *constare* has a number of different meanings, so no single English verb is going to capture it.&#xD;&#xA;I therefore split it as *con-stare* and translated the halves &amp;mdash; that is a very literal reading of the verb but is not good at conveying information in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English sentence I offered above makes little sense.&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, I would say that **there is no such thing as a literal translation**.&#xD;&#xA;You always need to decode the message from one language and code it into another, and you always need some liberty.&#xD;&#xA;This process can be extremely simple if the sentence is simple or the languages are very close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Reading genitive of value&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it useful to sometimes supply additional words to make sense of some constructions.&#xD;&#xA;Here I might add an implicit *pretii*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quanti [pretii] constat canis ille?*  &#xD;&#xA;Of how great price is that dog?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could be read as a qualitative genitive.&#xD;&#xA;Compare with *canis codiculae parvae*, &quot;a small-tailed dog&quot; or &quot;a dog of small tail&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Qualitative genitives can be translated to English in a more direct way, although it does often sound old-fashioned or otherwise awkward." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12876" RevisionGUID="9c5a9338-54dd-4d23-9179-e8e5e4ac12b8" CreationDate="2019-11-21T10:06:52.730" UserId="1982" Text="Price is expressed by the ablative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He bought the book for seven denarii. = &quot;librum septem denariis emit.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;(Numerals, above three, do not decline.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The old man bought his country house for a lot of sestertii = &quot;senex villam multis sestertiis emit.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Value is expressed by the genitive case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He valued his friendship very highly = &quot;amicitiam plurimi habuit.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;(i.e &quot;He held his friendship of a very high [value].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Roman citizens valued their freedom very highly = &quot;cives Romani libertatem suam maximi habuerunt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36240" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8892" RevisionGUID="9b20f585-6c6a-4369-ae1f-003e263c8ee9" CreationDate="2019-11-21T10:58:03.567" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|greek|meaning|greek-translation|particle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36241" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8992" RevisionGUID="3210495e-af7a-4906-849b-8fd2d77437c0" CreationDate="2019-11-21T11:00:33.680" UserId="79" Comment="https://latin.meta.stackexchange.com/q/347/79" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|translation-explanation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12875" RevisionGUID="979190dc-0659-46f2-8390-4b9eb4d3b0ff" CreationDate="2019-11-21T11:31:30.590" UserId="79" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="##Literal translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a very literal translation, I'd offer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quanti constat ille canis in fenestra?*  &#xD;&#xA;Of how much with-stands that dog in window?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English is not idiomatic or even grammatical, but that's what you easily get if you want literal.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *constare* has a number of different meanings, so no single English verb is going to capture it.&#xD;&#xA;I therefore split it as *con-stare* and translated the halves &amp;mdash; that is a very literal reading of the verb but is not good at conveying information in English.&#xD;&#xA;As more complicated verbs often don't have a unique counterpart in the other language, there is no literal translation for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English sentence I offered above makes little sense.&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, I would say that **there is no such thing as a literal translation**.&#xD;&#xA;You always need to decode the message from one language and code it into another, and you always need some liberty.&#xD;&#xA;This process can be extremely simple if the sentence is simple or the languages are very close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Reading genitive of value&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it useful to sometimes supply additional words to make sense of some constructions.&#xD;&#xA;Here I might add an implicit *pretii*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quanti [pretii] constat canis ille?*  &#xD;&#xA;Of how great price is that dog?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could be read as a qualitative genitive.&#xD;&#xA;Compare with *canis codiculae parvae*, &quot;a small-tailed dog&quot; or &quot;a dog of small tail&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Qualitative genitives can be translated to English in a more direct way, although it does often sound old-fashioned or otherwise awkward." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12875" RevisionGUID="89438e79-bcca-478e-adca-80934e3388c0" CreationDate="2019-11-21T11:49:23.453" UserId="79" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="##Literal translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a very literal translation, I'd offer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quanti constat ille canis in fenestra?*  &#xD;&#xA;Of how much with-stands that dog in window?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English is not idiomatic or even grammatical, but that's what you easily get if you want literal.&#xD;&#xA;The verb *constare* has a number of different meanings, so no single English verb is going to capture it.&#xD;&#xA;I therefore split it as *con-stare* and translated the halves &amp;mdash; that is a very literal reading of the verb but is not good at conveying information in English.&#xD;&#xA;As more complicated verbs often don't have a unique counterpart in the other language, there is no literal translation for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English sentence I offered above makes little sense.&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, I would say that **there is no such thing as a literal translation**.&#xD;&#xA;You always need to decode the message from one language and code it into another, and you always need some liberty have to take some context into account.&#xD;&#xA;This process can be extremely simple if the sentence is simple or the languages are very close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Reading genitive of value&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it useful to sometimes supply additional words to make sense of some constructions.&#xD;&#xA;Here I might add an implicit *pretii*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Quanti [pretii] constat canis ille?*  &#xD;&#xA;Of how great price is that dog?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could be read as a qualitative genitive.&#xD;&#xA;Compare with *canis codiculae parvae*, &quot;a small-tailed dog&quot; or &quot;a dog of small tail&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Qualitative genitives can be translated to English in a more direct way, although it does often sound old-fashioned or otherwise awkward." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12877" RevisionGUID="9c1c4c61-3d7b-48c7-8c10-5a1daea4d898" CreationDate="2019-11-21T18:15:19.250" UserId="1459" Text="There is a superb (and very long) answer to a related question [here](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/369549/meaning-of-quid-pro-quo-why-does-it-diverge-from-its-original-latin-intention). I won't reproduce it here, but some quotes from  the post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (question) I am not a native English speaker; I am Italian. I am always puzzled when I hear the expression &quot;quid pro quo&quot; intended as &quot;you scratch my back I scratch yours&quot;. In Italy we mean it as &quot;misunderstanding&quot; (from the literal translation &quot;this for that&quot;, with &quot;for&quot; meaning &quot;in the place of&quot; rather than &quot;in exchange for&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (answer) The phrase &quot;quid pro quo&quot; has appeared in texts written otherwise mostly in English for at least 490 years. The earliest example I found was from 1528, but I would not be at all surprised if even older examples exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The earliest examples of &quot;quid pro quo&quot; in English come arise in two distinct contexts: law (no later than 1528) and medicine (no later than 1535). And critically, the sense of the phrase &quot;something for something&quot; differs in the two fields. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To my mind, the likeliest explanation for the divergence between Italian &quot;quid pro quo&quot; as misunderstanding and English &quot;quid pro quo&quot; as mutually advantageous arrangement is that Italian, like French, embraced the term through its medical/apothecary tradition whereas English ultimately abandoned that tradition of use in favor of the English common law sense of the term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And another answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The English phase is derived from European medieval latin, primarily from religious, philosophical, legal and classical rhetorical texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Italian, in contrast, developed organically directly from latin through daily use in everyday conversation so there was an opportunity for the meaning to drift from the formal written textual usage, into one that comes up in everyday life but not in the kind of formal texts that provided a basis for the borrowing of the phrase into English. So, the meanings of the phrase diverged from the common original vernacular Latin origin on two different trajectories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, it seems the phrase does not appear originally in Latin texts. According to &quot;The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(in apothecaries' language) one thing in place of another; one thing in return for another, tit for tat. XVI. — L. _quid_ something, _prō_ for, instead of, _quō_ (abl. of _quid_) something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the above, I don't understand exactly why the phrase does not &quot;make sense&quot;. Although _quis_ does mean &quot;what&quot;, it can also mean &quot;something&quot;, as the entry above states. L&amp;S [concurs](https://www.latinitium.com/latin-dictionaries?t=lsn40074,lsn40242,lsn40243), giving several examples from Classical Latin. So, although the phrase might not be used in a classical Latin content, I venture it would have made perfect sense to a Roman." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12872" RevisionGUID="17ff1cf5-0b33-4daf-b96e-021f476437bf" CreationDate="2019-11-21T20:03:46.043" UserId="79" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="The phrase *quid pro quo* means &quot;what for what&quot; in Latin, but that makes very little sense to me.&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo) hints at the original meaning having to do with substitutions.&#xD;&#xA;That makes sense, as *pro* can indeed be used when substituting something for something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how was the Latin phrase originally used within Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Was it part of a longer phrase?&#xD;&#xA;Was *pro quo* (a part of) a relative clause or a question?&#xD;&#xA;When did it appear?&#xD;&#xA;Or was the phrase ever in any real use in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;Any light on the Latin usage that was borrowed into other languages would be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;(Although I do assume that the meaning in Latin was different from what it means in English today.)&#xD;&#xA;In particular, **examples of use in a Latin sentence would be great**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase [*pro quo*](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=pro+quo) is, unsurprisingly, very frequent in classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;But I found no *quid pro quo* in this corpus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12878" RevisionGUID="78bcf2fa-bfe5-4ea6-93aa-770fba7a0304" CreationDate="2019-11-22T00:36:03.787" UserId="1087" Text="Does [this Latin book][1] state that the meaning of the Arabic word **ةلم** is '[huc][2]'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking it because it doesn't understood to me if it's the meaning or maybe the book just gives the [transliteration][3] of the adjacent Hebrew word only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.ro/books?id=BXtFAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA470&amp;dq=%D8%A9%D9%84%D9%85%20%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9D&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjw_8W4m_zlAhWCLewKHX5mCKsQ6AEILjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%D8%A9%D9%84%D9%85%20%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9D&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/huc#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/transliteration&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EpVhF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36247" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12878" RevisionGUID="78bcf2fa-bfe5-4ea6-93aa-770fba7a0304" CreationDate="2019-11-22T00:36:03.787" UserId="1087" Text="Does this Latin book state that the meaning of the Arabic word ةلم is huc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36248" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12878" RevisionGUID="78bcf2fa-bfe5-4ea6-93aa-770fba7a0304" CreationDate="2019-11-22T00:36:03.787" UserId="1087" Text="|translation-check|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12879" RevisionGUID="70fc7900-881f-4734-b909-fa2d8af308d2" CreationDate="2019-11-22T00:51:33.923" UserId="406" Text="Here's my best guess at a translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whereas the particle הֲלוֹם (*həlōm*), Arabic هَلُمَّ‎ (*halumma*), &quot;hither&quot;, &quot;to here&quot;, [pr. appactim?] appears in Genesis 16:13 and Judges 10:7. Thus also Psalms 73:10, even though the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac must be changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Həlōm* does indeed mean &quot;hither&quot; (Latin *hūc*), though _pr. appactim_ is a mystery to me; searching for it turns up [only this particular passage][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2pwcSYcRrZkC&amp;pg=PA289&amp;lpg=PA289&amp;dq=appactim&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zduSlARMZH&amp;sig=ACfU3U04HiB8tQtCwVoGXY3TnCxqGbUQAg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwir9Ijby_zlAhWxJTQIHZmpCOcQ6AEwA3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=appactim&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12878" RevisionGUID="7e96d9ee-7782-483a-878c-3bd48b429302" CreationDate="2019-11-22T01:33:48.183" UserId="1087" Comment="deleted 86 characters in body" Text="Does [this][1] Latin book ([p.471][2]) state that the meaning of the Arabic word **ةلم** is '[huc][2]'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking it because it doesn't understood to me if it's the meaning or maybe the book just gives the [transliteration][3] of the adjacent Hebrew word only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=BXtFAAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/huc#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/transliteration&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EpVhF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12878" RevisionGUID="7dc9e131-943f-4ef1-8541-ea051f1bbcbe" CreationDate="2019-11-22T01:58:21.783" UserId="1087" Comment="added 140 characters in body" Text="Does [this][1] Latin book ([p.471][2]) state that the meaning of the Arabic word **ةلم** is '[huc][3]'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking it because it doesn't understood to me if it's the meaning or maybe the book just gives the [transliteration][4] of the adjacent Hebrew word only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=BXtFAAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com.ua/books/content?id=BXtFAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA471&amp;img=1&amp;zoom=3&amp;hl=en&amp;sig=ACfU3U3vn4l_ovTspB10x0lZkgNb--nN7A&amp;w=1025&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/huc#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/transliteration&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EpVhF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36252" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12878" RevisionGUID="935fe859-b021-4a6d-8b9a-882f9c845449" CreationDate="2019-11-22T09:54:37.893" />
  <row Id="36258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12879" RevisionGUID="940cc053-e69e-4433-9fbc-bf80f2c575cc" CreationDate="2019-11-22T17:47:40.950" UserId="406" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="Here's my best guess at a translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whereas the particle הֲלוֹם (*həlōm*), Arabic هَلُمَّ‎ (*halumma*), &quot;hither&quot;, &quot;to here&quot;, [pr. appactim?] appears in Genesis 16:13 and Judges 10:7. Thus also Psalms 73:10, even though the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac must be changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Həlōm* does indeed mean &quot;hither&quot; (Latin *hūc*), and it seems *halumma* means something along the lines of &quot;come here!&quot; (thanks to other answerers for this), though _pr. appactim_ is a mystery to me; searching for it turns up [only this particular passage][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2pwcSYcRrZkC&amp;pg=PA289&amp;lpg=PA289&amp;dq=appactim&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zduSlARMZH&amp;sig=ACfU3U04HiB8tQtCwVoGXY3TnCxqGbUQAg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwir9Ijby_zlAhWxJTQIHZmpCOcQ6AEwA3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=appactim&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12883" RevisionGUID="47284efd-b184-4c6a-930a-c5d42fdf6bd7" CreationDate="2019-11-22T17:53:08.677" UserId="406" Text="[The asker of another question][1] cited a passage from a Hebrew-Latin lexicon:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At הֲלוֹם, arab. هَلُمَّ particula, _huc_, _usque huc_. pr. _appactim_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Another edition of the book][2] seems to confirm this phrasing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of it makes sense to me—according to other dictionaries, the Hebrew word does indeed mean _hūc_ (&quot;hither&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what is _appactim_? I've never seen this word before, and can't find it in any of my usual dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/12878/406&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2pwcSYcRrZkC&amp;pg=PA289&amp;lpg=PA289&amp;dq=appactim&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zduSlARMZH&amp;sig=ACfU3U04HiB8tQtCwVoGXY3TnCxqGbUQAg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwir9Ijby_zlAhWxJTQIHZmpCOcQ6AEwA3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=appactim&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36260" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12883" RevisionGUID="47284efd-b184-4c6a-930a-c5d42fdf6bd7" CreationDate="2019-11-22T17:53:08.677" UserId="406" Text="What is &quot;appactim&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36261" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12883" RevisionGUID="47284efd-b184-4c6a-930a-c5d42fdf6bd7" CreationDate="2019-11-22T17:53:08.677" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12886" RevisionGUID="e1c91cc6-2a6b-4f1e-8dec-a4c4a0e676a9" CreationDate="2019-11-22T21:52:11.910" UserId="6302" Text="Codex Sinaiticus gives the following rendition of [Isa. 29:12](http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=14&amp;chapter=29&amp;lid=en&amp;side=r&amp;verse=12&amp;zoomSlider=0):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; και δοθηϲεται το βιβλιον τουτο ειϲ **χιραϲ** ανθρωπου · μη επιϲταμενου γραμʼματα ˙ και ερι αυτω · αναγνωθι ταυτα και ερι . ουκ αιπιϲταμαι γραμʼματα&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is χιραϲ = χεῖρας?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is _χιραϲ_ used in the codex as a proper noun to mean Hira or as another part of speech to mean hands? Do codices differ on the grammar on this matter? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36268" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12886" RevisionGUID="e1c91cc6-2a6b-4f1e-8dec-a4c4a0e676a9" CreationDate="2019-11-22T21:52:11.910" UserId="6302" Text="Is the word χιραϲ used in the Codex Sinaiticus as a proper noun to mean Hira or as another part of speech to mean hands?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36269" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12886" RevisionGUID="e1c91cc6-2a6b-4f1e-8dec-a4c4a0e676a9" CreationDate="2019-11-22T21:52:11.910" UserId="6302" Text="|greek|greek-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36270" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12855" RevisionGUID="8e7b27d4-5fc0-426b-b225-faafe76e5c98" CreationDate="2019-11-22T21:55:25.517" UserId="79" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:39,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex B.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:985,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;cnread&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:406,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Draconis&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36271" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12719" RevisionGUID="9b37553b-f411-4671-9067-e2307532c083" CreationDate="2019-11-22T21:56:30.573" UserId="79" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1059,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quidam&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5056,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Adam&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36273" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12842" RevisionGUID="20a510b6-2f15-4d89-81f7-f8835dc25866" CreationDate="2019-11-22T21:57:56.047" UserId="79" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:118,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ben Kovitz&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1059,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quidam&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:79,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Joonas Ilmavirta&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36280" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="12878" RevisionGUID="21f1679e-f352-4e4b-b42b-b818b73b1249" CreationDate="2019-11-22T22:00:13.660" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12887" RevisionGUID="b36a229e-2675-4bc5-bd48-a7b507a11cf4" CreationDate="2019-11-22T22:03:24.970" UserId="406" Text="I would say &quot;hands&quot; without a doubt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;standard&quot; rendition of the first half is, very literally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; καὶ δοθήσεται τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *And this book is given*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εἰς χεῖρας ἀνθρώπου  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *into [the] hands of a person*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; μὴ ἐπισταμένου γράμματα…  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[who is] not knowing letters…*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, using more idiomatic English, &quot;and this book is placed in the hands of one who cannot read&quot;. (It's entirely reasonable Greek, it just sounds awkward when I try to keep every Greek word intact in English.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the context, *ειϲ χιραϲ ανθρωπου* has to mean &quot;into [the] *chiras* of a person&quot;. Using a proper noun here, &quot;into the Hira of a person&quot;, makes less sense than assuming a simple mistake—swapping *ι* for *ει* is an extremely common error from the Koinë period onward, since they were pronounced identically. And a proper name without a definite article is relatively uncommon in all stages of Ancient Greek." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12887" RevisionGUID="8cc5725b-731b-4cc3-99f3-553d8f144d56" CreationDate="2019-11-22T22:29:05.487" UserId="406" Comment="added 768 characters in body" Text="I would say &quot;hands&quot; without a doubt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;standard&quot; rendition of the first half is, very literally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; καὶ δοθήσεται τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *And this book will be given*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εἰς χεῖρας ἀνθρώπου  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *into [the] hands of a person*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; μὴ ἐπισταμένου γράμματα…  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[who is] not knowing letters…*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, using more idiomatic English, &quot;and this book will be placed in the hands of one who cannot read&quot;. (It's entirely reasonable Greek, it just sounds awkward when I try to keep every Greek word intact in English.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the context, *ειϲ χιραϲ ανθρωπου* has to mean &quot;into [the] *chiras* of a person&quot;. Using a proper noun here, &quot;into the Hira of a person&quot;, makes less sense than assuming a simple mistake—swapping *ι* for *ει* is an extremely common error from the Koinë period onward, since they were pronounced identically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Google has led me to a very…eccentric…theory that this passage is meant to say &quot;will be given to a man at Mount Hira&quot;. I'm guessing you've found that too, and that's where this question is coming from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm quite confident that's not the case here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Εἰς* very clearly means &quot;into&quot;, indicating a direction of motion; I've never seen a situation where it can mean &quot;at&quot; or &quot;in&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - Proper names, especially foreign ones, almost always take a definite article—which is lacking here.&#xD;&#xA; - _Ἀνθρώπου_ is very clearly in the genitive, and *εἰς* always requires an accusative.&#xD;&#xA; - The Greek letter χ isn't generally used for an H-like sound in the Septuagint: look at 2 Samuel 23:26, where the name &quot;Hira&quot; is written *Εἴρας*. Using χ where it doesn't belong could be scribal error, but if so it's not anywhere near as common as *ει* → *ι*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12888" RevisionGUID="cc5b387c-cfc0-4e49-b953-f32b9c2f8d37" CreationDate="2019-11-23T01:10:32.193" UserId="1059" Text="The question has already been answered, but I cannot write this long stuff in a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the book: &quot;*Grammaire latine complète, mise au nombre des livres classiques par le Conseil Royal de l'Instruction Publique*&quot; by Émile Lefranc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In lieu of repeating the question, it's possible to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-to express &quot;yes&quot;, using the affirmative adverbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-sane   &#xD;&#xA;-sane quidem   &#xD;&#xA;-etiam   &#xD;&#xA;-verum   &#xD;&#xA;-vero   &#xD;&#xA;-ita  &#xD;&#xA;-ita plane   &#xD;&#xA;-ita profecto   &#xD;&#xA;-ita est.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;= all meaning &quot;yes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To express the negation, using negative adverbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-non   &#xD;&#xA;-non vero   &#xD;&#xA;-non Hercle vero   &#xD;&#xA;-minime      &#xD;&#xA;-minime vero      &#xD;&#xA;-nihil vero minus      &#xD;&#xA;-nihil sane     &#xD;&#xA;-ne... quidem     &#xD;&#xA;-non ita       &#xD;&#xA;-non ita est         &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;= all meaning &quot;no&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will edit it if I find other ways, as listing them is very interesting.   &#xD;&#xA;I was surprised to find &quot;non&quot; to say &quot;no&quot;, like in French, and not negating anything.   &#xD;&#xA;Probably a short familiar form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12889" RevisionGUID="9ba67bf9-f174-48f9-84b6-b2c71b465275" CreationDate="2019-11-23T11:45:17.543" UserId="1059" Text="I've found that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Dans l'introduction, l'auteur insiste sur l'écart significatif qui existe entre les catégories chromatiques de la langue latine et celles des langues occidentales modernes. Il prend l'exemple de flauus, 'blond', viridis, 'verdoyant', et caerulus, '(bleu) profond', qui renvoient à des éléments précis dont la couleur n'est que l'une des propriétés remarquables (la chevelure, les végétaux, l'eau). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The author insist on the difference in the notion of &quot;color&quot; for ancients and moderns, and take the example of flauus, &quot;blond&quot;, viridis, &quot;greenish&quot;, and  caerulus, &quot;deep&quot; (blue), that are linked to precise elements, for which the color is only one of the remarkable properties (respectively here, the hair, the grass, the water)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010-09-17.html, by Adeline Grand-Clément.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, according to this paper, there was no &quot;brunettes&quot; or &quot;blond&quot;. And they didn't consider the color names as we do, in modern societies.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;In English, those words are from old French brune/brun/brunette, and blond, they are late words (I'll add the date they entered in the French language if you are interested), so they came in English even later. they weren't genuinely used for hair colour in old French. &quot;Brun&quot; means something that is brown, etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.etymonline.com/word/blond&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=brun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;Rufus&quot;, it's a surname, and it can mean &quot;red-haired&quot; according to Lewis &amp; Short&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;rufus quidam&quot;: redhaired, red-headed, Plaut. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, but it can mean any other red things that the man called &quot;Rufus&quot; had. Maybe he was dark-haired with a reddish beard, or had always a red mantel, or anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Colours had also probably connotations like it is in modern languages, for instance, when you say &quot;Mary the red&quot;, meaning someone who is cruel and bloody. So, it's a difficult matter. There are books about colors connotations in ancient languages, it would require us to read them to answer the question about connotations.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12889" RevisionGUID="6a50d4ea-9f71-4283-a857-da81333de6ec" CreationDate="2019-11-23T11:55:14.067" UserId="1059" Comment="grammar!" Text="I've found that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Dans l'introduction, l'auteur insiste sur l'écart significatif qui existe entre les catégories chromatiques de la langue latine et celles des langues occidentales modernes. Il prend l'exemple de flauus, 'blond', viridis, 'verdoyant', et caerulus, '(bleu) profond', qui renvoient à des éléments précis dont la couleur n'est que l'une des propriétés remarquables (la chevelure, les végétaux, l'eau). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The author insists on the difference in the notion of &quot;color&quot; for ancients and moderns, and take the example of flauus, &quot;blond&quot;, viridis, &quot;greenish&quot;, and  caerulus, &quot;deep&quot; (blue), that are linked to precise elements, for which the color is only one of the remarkable properties (respectively here, the hair, the grass, the water)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010-09-17.html, by Adeline Grand-Clément.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, according to this paper, there was no &quot;brunettes&quot; or &quot;blond&quot;. And they didn't consider the color names as we do, in modern societies.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;In English, those words are from old French brune/brun/brunette, and blond, they are late words (I'll add the date they entered in the French language if you are interested), so they came in English even later. they weren't genuinely used for hair colour in old French. &quot;Brun&quot; means something that is brown, etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.etymonline.com/word/blond&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=brun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;Rufus&quot;, it's a surname, and it can mean &quot;red-haired&quot; according to Lewis &amp; Short&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;rufus quidam&quot;: redhaired, red-headed, Plaut. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, but it can mean any other red things that the man called &quot;Rufus&quot; had. Maybe he was dark-haired with a reddish beard, or had always a red mantel, or anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Spanish dictionary Valbuena gives &quot;bermejo&quot; as one of the meanings, it means &quot;of reddish complexion&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Colours had also probably connotations like it is in modern languages, for instance, when you say &quot;Mary the red&quot;, meaning someone who is cruel and bloody. So, it's a difficult matter. There are books about colors connotations in ancient languages, it would require us to read them to answer the question about connotations.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12890" RevisionGUID="2032176a-41a9-4339-9672-2e4810c5a772" CreationDate="2019-11-23T12:00:35.783" UserId="1059" Text="For this question: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5163/are-there-latin-words-for-hair-color/12889, I had to search a little about the concept of &quot;color&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also had a debate on the French SE, with people who consider that &quot;color&quot; is only applied to the face, and was a non-existent concept, and &quot;candidus&quot; only mean &quot;bright&quot;, with no link with a given color, and that there are mistakes in Gaffiot, Lewis &amp; Short and Oxford dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In books and researches papers, they explain that, even if the Latin word &quot;color&quot; can be translated with &quot;colour&quot; (Lewis &amp; Short and Oxford give this meaning, quoting Cicero sentences for instance.), it's only one of its meaning, and the &quot;philosophy&quot; behind the word &quot;color&quot; was different = they are totally different concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the other discussion, I've found:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;The author insists on the difference in the notion of &quot;color&quot; for ancients and moderns, and take the example of flauus, &quot;blond&quot;, viridis, &quot;greenish&quot;, and caerulus, &quot;deep&quot; (blue), that are linked to precise elements, **for which the color is only one of the remarkable properties** (respectively here, the hair, the grass, the water)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.etymonline.com/word/color&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;early 13c., &quot;skin color, complexion,&quot; from Anglo-French culur, coulour, Old French color &quot;color, complexion, appearance&quot; (Modern French couleur), from Latin color &quot;color of the skin; color in general, hue; appearance,&quot; from Old Latin colos, originally &quot;a covering&quot; (akin to celare &quot;to hide, conceal&quot;), from PIE root *kel- (1) &quot;to cover, conceal, save.&quot; Old English words for &quot;color&quot; were hiw (&quot;hue&quot;), bleo. For sense evolution, compare Sanskrit varnah &quot;covering, color,&quot; which is related to vrnoti &quot;covers,&quot; and also see chroma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What was the evolution of this term, and the differences with the modern concept?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36289" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12890" RevisionGUID="2032176a-41a9-4339-9672-2e4810c5a772" CreationDate="2019-11-23T12:00:35.783" UserId="1059" Text="What was the difference in the concept of &quot;colour&quot; in Latin and modern languages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36290" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12890" RevisionGUID="2032176a-41a9-4339-9672-2e4810c5a772" CreationDate="2019-11-23T12:00:35.783" UserId="1059" Text="|meaning|language-evolution|color|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12890" RevisionGUID="27e0442d-1049-4be4-be0c-ff9c5954cf71" CreationDate="2019-11-23T12:09:19.457" UserId="1059" Comment="added 727 characters in body" Text="For this question: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5163/are-there-latin-words-for-hair-color/12889, I had to search a little about the concept of &quot;color&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also had a debate on the French SE, with people who consider that &quot;color&quot; is only applied to the face, and was a non-existent concept, and &quot;candidus&quot; only mean &quot;bright&quot;, with no link with a given color, and that there are mistakes in Gaffiot, Lewis &amp; Short and Oxford dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In books and researches papers, they explain that, even if the Latin word &quot;color&quot; can be translated with &quot;colour&quot; (Lewis &amp; Short and Oxford give this meaning, quoting Cicero sentences for instance.), it's only one of its meaning, and the &quot;philosophy&quot; behind the word &quot;color&quot; was different = they are totally different concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the other discussion, I've found:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;The author insists on the difference in the notion of &quot;color&quot; for ancients and moderns, and take the example of flauus, &quot;blond&quot;, viridis, &quot;greenish&quot;, and caerulus, &quot;deep&quot; (blue), that are linked to precise elements, **for which the color is only one of the remarkable properties** (respectively here, the hair, the grass, the water)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.etymonline.com/word/color&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;early 13c., &quot;skin color, complexion,&quot; from Anglo-French culur, coulour, Old French color &quot;color, complexion, appearance&quot; (Modern French couleur), from Latin color &quot;color of the skin; color in general, hue; appearance,&quot; from Old Latin colos, originally &quot;a covering&quot; (akin to celare &quot;to hide, conceal&quot;), from PIE root *kel- (1) &quot;to cover, conceal, save.&quot; Old English words for &quot;color&quot; were hiw (&quot;hue&quot;), bleo. For sense evolution, compare Sanskrit varnah &quot;covering, color,&quot; which is related to vrnoti &quot;covers,&quot; and also see chroma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Color in Latin (Latin-dictionary.net)   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;complexion  &#xD;&#xA;excuse/pretext   &#xD;&#xA;outward appearance/show   &#xD;&#xA;pigment   &#xD;&#xA;shade/tinge   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Color as a verb (dictionary Olivetti)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 passive form of [colo]   &#xD;&#xA;2 (liquid) to strain or to filter, to clarify   &#xD;&#xA;3 to purify   &#xD;&#xA;4 to remove solids by filter   &#xD;&#xA;5 (gold) to wash   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Color as a noun (Olivetti):    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 colour   &#xD;&#xA;2 pigment   &#xD;&#xA;3 shade, tinge   &#xD;&#xA;4 complexion    &#xD;&#xA;5 outward appearance or show    &#xD;&#xA;6 excuse or pretext    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how they sorted the meaning in those different dictionaries, as they don't give the dates. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;color, hue, tint.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;1.Coloring stuff, dyestuff:   &#xD;&#xA;2. Flowers of varied colors  &#xD;&#xA;3. Specif., the natural color of men, the complexion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What was the evolution of this term, and the differences with the modern concept?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12890" RevisionGUID="99cd9fc4-4c65-4899-a094-b779cc02e0fb" CreationDate="2019-11-23T12:17:12.763" UserId="1059" Comment="added 727 characters in body" Text="For this question: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5163/are-there-latin-words-for-hair-color/12889, I had to search a little about the concept of &quot;color&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also had a debate on another SE, with people who consider that &quot;color&quot; is only applied to the face, and was a non-existent concept, and &quot;candidus&quot; only mean &quot;bright&quot;, with no link with a given color, and that there are mistakes in Gaffiot, Lewis &amp; Short and Oxford dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In books and researches papers, they explain that, even if the Latin word &quot;color&quot; can be translated with &quot;colour&quot; (Lewis &amp; Short and Oxford give this meaning, quoting Cicero sentences for instance.), it's only one of its meaning, and the &quot;philosophy&quot; behind the word &quot;color&quot; was different = they are totally different concepts, now and in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the other discussion, I've found:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;The author insists on the difference in the notion of &quot;color&quot; for ancients and moderns, and take the example of flauus, &quot;blond&quot;, viridis, &quot;greenish&quot;, and caerulus, &quot;deep&quot; (blue), that are linked to precise elements, **for which the color is only one of the remarkable properties** (respectively here, the hair, the grass, the water)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.etymonline.com/word/color&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;early 13c., &quot;skin color, complexion,&quot; from Anglo-French culur, coulour, Old French color &quot;color, complexion, appearance&quot; (Modern French couleur), from Latin color &quot;color of the skin; color in general, hue; appearance,&quot; from Old Latin colos, originally &quot;a covering&quot; (akin to celare &quot;to hide, conceal&quot;), from PIE root *kel- (1) &quot;to cover, conceal, save.&quot; Old English words for &quot;color&quot; were hiw (&quot;hue&quot;), bleo. For sense evolution, compare Sanskrit varnah &quot;covering, color,&quot; which is related to vrnoti &quot;covers,&quot; and also see chroma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Color in Latin (Latin-dictionary.net)   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;complexion  &#xD;&#xA;excuse/pretext   &#xD;&#xA;outward appearance/show   &#xD;&#xA;pigment   &#xD;&#xA;shade/tinge   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Color as a verb (dictionary Olivetti)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 passive form of [colo]   &#xD;&#xA;2 (liquid) to strain or to filter, to clarify   &#xD;&#xA;3 to purify   &#xD;&#xA;4 to remove solids by filter   &#xD;&#xA;5 (gold) to wash   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Color as a noun (Olivetti):    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 colour   &#xD;&#xA;2 pigment   &#xD;&#xA;3 shade, tinge   &#xD;&#xA;4 complexion    &#xD;&#xA;5 outward appearance or show    &#xD;&#xA;6 excuse or pretext    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how they sorted the meaning in those different dictionaries, as they don't give the dates. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;color, hue, tint.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;1.Coloring stuff, dyestuff:   &#xD;&#xA;2. Flowers of varied colors  &#xD;&#xA;3. Specif., the natural color of men, the complexion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;*Embodiment of Latin semantics*&quot;.   &#xD;&#xA;They explain that Romans considered colors a different way than we do, (probably because we have the habits to choose our wallpaper hue on catalog of colors, there's color standard nowadays)  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;But ancient Romans were referring to colors in comparison with other colors (more reddish, or less yellowish than...) it makes sense. In this book, they call it &quot;a fuzzy set of colors&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Much of the color research carried out in (...) assumes that people have in their minds a &quot;best example&quot; of prototypical color for common color categories, and that they judge an item's membership (to a set) in the color category according to how similar they judge its color is that color prototype&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What was the evolution of this term, and the differences with the modern concept?  &#xD;&#xA;I tried to find some of them, but I'm not sure I understood all the differences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12890" RevisionGUID="9fff21c6-f274-4ec2-a005-278b26518efe" CreationDate="2019-11-23T12:24:03.567" UserId="1059" Comment="added 727 characters in body" Text="For this question: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5163/are-there-latin-words-for-hair-color/12889, I had to search a little about the concept of &quot;color&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also had a debate on another SE, with people who consider that &quot;color&quot; is only applied to the face, and was a non-existent concept, and &quot;candidus&quot; only mean &quot;bright&quot;, with no link with a given color, and that there are mistakes in Gaffiot, Lewis &amp; Short and Oxford dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In books and researches papers, they explain that, even if the Latin word &quot;color&quot; can be translated with &quot;colour&quot; (Lewis &amp; Short and Oxford give this meaning, quoting Cicero sentences for instance.), it's only one of its meaning, and the &quot;philosophy&quot; behind the word &quot;color&quot; was different = they are totally different concepts, now and in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the other discussion, I've found:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;The author insists on the difference in the notion of &quot;color&quot; for ancients and moderns, and take the example of flauus, &quot;blond&quot;, viridis, &quot;greenish&quot;, and caerulus, &quot;deep&quot; (blue), that are linked to precise elements, **for which the color is only one of the remarkable properties** (respectively here, the hair, the grass, the water)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.etymonline.com/word/color&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;early 13c., &quot;skin color, complexion,&quot; from Anglo-French culur, coulour, Old French color &quot;color, complexion, appearance&quot; (Modern French couleur), from Latin color &quot;color of the skin; color in general, hue; appearance,&quot; from Old Latin colos, originally &quot;a covering&quot; (akin to celare &quot;to hide, conceal&quot;), from PIE root *kel- (1) &quot;to cover, conceal, save.&quot; Old English words for &quot;color&quot; were hiw (&quot;hue&quot;), bleo. For sense evolution, compare Sanskrit varnah &quot;covering, color,&quot; which is related to vrnoti &quot;covers,&quot; and also see chroma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Color in Latin (Latin-dictionary.net)   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;complexion  &#xD;&#xA;excuse/pretext   &#xD;&#xA;outward appearance/show   &#xD;&#xA;pigment   &#xD;&#xA;shade/tinge   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Color as a verb (dictionary Olivetti)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 passive form of [colo]   &#xD;&#xA;2 (liquid) to strain or to filter, to clarify   &#xD;&#xA;3 to purify   &#xD;&#xA;4 to remove solids by filter   &#xD;&#xA;5 (gold) to wash   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Color as a noun (Olivetti):    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 colour   &#xD;&#xA;2 pigment   &#xD;&#xA;3 shade, tinge   &#xD;&#xA;4 complexion    &#xD;&#xA;5 outward appearance or show    &#xD;&#xA;6 excuse or pretext    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how they sorted the meaning in those different dictionaries, as they don't give the dates. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;color, hue, tint.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;1.Coloring stuff, dyestuff:   &#xD;&#xA;2. Flowers of varied colors  &#xD;&#xA;3. Specif., the natural color of men, the complexion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;*Embodiment of Latin semantics*&quot;.   &#xD;&#xA;They explain that Romans considered colors a different way than we do, (probably because we have the habits to choose our wallpaper hue on catalog of colors, there's color standard nowadays)  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;But ancient Romans were referring to colors in comparison with other colors (more reddish, or less yellowish than...) it makes sense. In this book, they call it &quot;a fuzzy set of colors&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Much of the color research carried out in (...) assumes that people have in their minds a &quot;best example&quot; of prototypical color for common color categories, and that they judge an item's membership (to a set) in the color category according to how similar they judge its color is that color prototype&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(...)&quot;The fact that we use a metaphor in English for conceptualizing color relations [I think like &quot;colour ocean&quot;] does not mean that we should expect to find the same metaphor in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And after, they quote a Pliny extract, where he uses *spatial* relationship to describe colours... Saying that this coloured impression is &quot;further&quot; from this one. So, here I guess he uses the rainbow as the standard, to mean this impression is further than this one on the rainbow scale (neighbouring colour).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a lot more about his conception of colours, but I don't have the full book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What was the evolution of this term, and the differences with the modern concept?  &#xD;&#xA;I tried to find some of them, but I'm not sure I understood all the differences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12891" RevisionGUID="c47785f7-37fe-453c-bb7e-7b6a8d78fc57" CreationDate="2019-11-23T20:05:04.177" UserId="4796" Text="I was thinking of using the verb **sumere**, but I believe that there might be better candidates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, how we will say &quot;it takes [amount of time]&quot; or in question: &quot;how much time does it take?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36295" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12891" RevisionGUID="c47785f7-37fe-453c-bb7e-7b6a8d78fc57" CreationDate="2019-11-23T20:05:04.177" UserId="4796" Text="How to say it takes time in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36296" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12891" RevisionGUID="c47785f7-37fe-453c-bb7e-7b6a8d78fc57" CreationDate="2019-11-23T20:05:04.177" UserId="4796" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12892" RevisionGUID="d9b176c2-6248-469c-8e94-4e558cb9d258" CreationDate="2019-11-23T20:56:35.430" UserId="6307" Text="For what it's worth, I know the Java edition of Minecraft has an extensive Latin translation, though it's in need of much revision." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12761" RevisionGUID="672400ad-085c-47bc-abfb-6a016887f63b" CreationDate="2019-11-23T21:17:26.293" UserId="45" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="I visited a webpage translating a bunch of IT words into Latin, so I know the vocabulary does exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I'm an avid language learner, sometimes I download apps and software in a foreign language to train and teach myself. Sometimes I just change the interface, switching it to a different language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about Latin? **Does any PC software or Android app have a Latin-language option?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I think it is more likely to exist on a Linux-based OS)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36299" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12761" RevisionGUID="672400ad-085c-47bc-abfb-6a016887f63b" CreationDate="2019-11-23T21:17:26.293" UserId="45" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="Does any software have a Latin-language option?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12893" RevisionGUID="e70ffe25-add9-453f-a0d5-e60f7f6be120" CreationDate="2019-11-23T22:16:35.493" UserId="6307" Text="If in original texts there were no means of distinguishing whether u and i were consonants or vowels, how then do we now know which ones were which?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easy ruleset I learned in high school is that it is pronounced as a consonant if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. It succeeds the letters q, g, or s and precedes another vowel&#xD;&#xA; 2. It lies between two other vowels&#xD;&#xA; 3. It lies at the beginning of a word before another vowel, except where this breaks rule 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in my further research, which largely involved manually checking all combinations in which u or v was written in a word list extracted from Whitaker's Words, I found that it is recognized as a vowel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - When u succeeds a consonant and precedes a vowel, except for the&#xD;&#xA;   consonants q, g, s, and usually l or r:&#xD;&#xA; - when l or r succeeds another consonant,&#xD;&#xA; - when l or r lies at the beginning of the word,&#xD;&#xA; - when l or r ends the 3rd principal part of a verb,&#xD;&#xA; - and in the words miluus and beluus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, it is probably a consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are likely a few holes in this description, but I think this should account for at least around 90% of cases. Back to the question, these patterns of consonants and vowels were deduced solely from the already completed work of others, so how did they know which were which?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36301" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12893" RevisionGUID="e70ffe25-add9-453f-a0d5-e60f7f6be120" CreationDate="2019-11-23T22:16:35.493" UserId="6307" Text="How were vowels u and i discerned from consonants v and j?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36302" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12893" RevisionGUID="e70ffe25-add9-453f-a0d5-e60f7f6be120" CreationDate="2019-11-23T22:16:35.493" UserId="6307" Text="|pronunciation|orthography|spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12894" RevisionGUID="88ecea03-b94b-44ed-889a-b8981f3f815d" CreationDate="2019-11-23T22:18:34.730" UserId="1459" Text="[Here](https://www.romhacking.net/?page=translations&amp;genre=&amp;platform=&amp;status=&amp;languageid=20&amp;perpage=20&amp;title=&amp;author=&amp;transsearch=Go) is a list of NES and SNES video games in Latin. ([source](https://forum.unilang.org/viewtopic.php?t=39499))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice [Ubuntu](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4318/is-there-an-operating-system-entirely-in-latin) has an option to have the system in Latin but is unfinished. The modular nature of Ubuntu means you can have some pieces software of it fully in Latin. If you follow the link, you can see there is still no package completely in Latin. It's an open-source project so help with translations are welcome!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12761" RevisionGUID="6322ce00-4bf2-4116-8b4c-dde37969285c" CreationDate="2019-11-23T23:09:19.687" UserId="1059" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body; edited title" Text="I visited a webpage translating a bunch of IT words into Latin, so I know the vocabulary does exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I'm an avid language learner, sometimes I download apps and software in a foreign language to train and teach myself. Sometimes I just change the interface, switching it to a different language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about Latin? **Does a PC software or an Android app exist in Latin?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I think it is more likely to exist on a Linux-based OS)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36305" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12761" RevisionGUID="6322ce00-4bf2-4116-8b4c-dde37969285c" CreationDate="2019-11-23T23:09:19.687" UserId="1059" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body; edited title" Text="A software in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12891" RevisionGUID="c5069b4e-33ce-457b-a35b-3b7f1f0e7104" CreationDate="2019-11-24T11:25:39.120" UserId="4796" Comment="added 398 characters in body; edited title" Text="[this question][1] suggested the verb **consumere** to represent time spent/taken. I wonder what would be the appropriate way to ask &quot;how long does something take?&quot;. &quot;quot/quotus/quam tempus hic consumit?&quot; feels wrong for me for some reason. (please tell me, if it fine to use them) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One option to avoid the 'problem' is simply by asking &quot;**when** something is going to happen?&quot; - is that the only way to handle this in Latin? or you would suggest another way to phrase that question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6849/how-to-phrase-it-took-two-hours" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36308" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12891" RevisionGUID="c5069b4e-33ce-457b-a35b-3b7f1f0e7104" CreationDate="2019-11-24T11:25:39.120" UserId="4796" Comment="added 398 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to ask &quot;how much time does it take?&quot; in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12895" RevisionGUID="e2384c12-6520-45c4-a3d8-4bec2d803561" CreationDate="2019-11-24T14:58:47.553" UserId="9" Text="The rule I learned for the pronunciation of the digram &quot;gu&quot; before a vowel in Latin was /gw/ after &quot;n&quot;, vs. g + vocalic u anywhere else. But I just discovered the exception *urgueo* /urgweoː/. This is a variant of the verb *urgeo.* A search of the PHI Latin texts corpus for #urgu shows fairly wide usage, so I think that *urgueo* was not just a marginal or late variant.* I can't figure out why *gu* is present here; can anyone explain it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form *urgueo* doesn't seem to be discussed in de Vaan 2008, and the etymology given there for *urgeo* doesn't provide any explanation for the presence of an alternative form with a labiovelar: de Vaan says urgeo is from a PIE root with ǵʰ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of third-conjugation verbs that also show variation between stem-final &quot;g&quot; and &quot;gu&quot;, but those make more sense to me because the stem-final consonant is in some inflected forms brought before a rounded vowel, which is a context where sound changes neutralizing the contrast could occur. For example, de Vaan says *stinguo* comes from a root *\*stengʷ-*, and that alternative forms with plain g like *stingo, stingere* can be explained as caused by the development of *stingunt* as a simplified form of *stinguunt.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan says that the forms *tinguo* (alongside *tingo*) and *coinquo* have non-original /w/ by analogy, but I think that this analogy would have been helped by the neutralization discussed in the preceding paragraph. I've seen other sources that say that *ungo* existed as a (non-etymological) variant of *unguo;* like the previously discussed examples, this is a third-conjugation verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De Vaan indicates that in *langueo,* the only other second-conjugation verb that I know of ending in *-gueo,* the *gu* was derived from PIE *ǵ followed by *u. That doesn't seem to help much in explaining *urgueo,* unless there is a some way that an optional *\*u* after the g could be included in this word's etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was *urgeo* close enough in meaning to *stinguo* for the latter to have influenced the form of the former, even in the absence of any phonetic factor facilitating the replacement of *g* with *gu* between *r* and *e*? That seems odd to me, but maybe it's the best explanation. Is anyone familiar with a discussion of how this variant might have arisen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;*If anyone can better inform me about the distribution of *urgeo* vs. *urgueo,* I would appreciate it. I know that scribes sometimes altered the spelling of words when copying texts, but based on what I've seen so far, I don't think *urgueo* can just be attributed to postclassical scribes. It does strike me as a little odd that the works of Cicero and Ovid contain both *g* and *gu* forms.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36310" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12895" RevisionGUID="e2384c12-6520-45c4-a3d8-4bec2d803561" CreationDate="2019-11-24T14:58:47.553" UserId="9" Text="Why does &quot;urgueo&quot; exist as a variant of &quot;urgeo&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36311" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12895" RevisionGUID="e2384c12-6520-45c4-a3d8-4bec2d803561" CreationDate="2019-11-24T14:58:47.553" UserId="9" Text="|etymology|verbs|pronunciation|phonology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12896" RevisionGUID="5c9f9003-4e01-4061-a244-c8325aebc732" CreationDate="2019-11-24T15:15:56.430" UserId="6308" Text="&quot;love makes it grow&quot; or &quot;love makes things grow&quot; or an appropriate word in Latin for &quot;grow&quot;. This is for a tattoo. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36313" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12896" RevisionGUID="5c9f9003-4e01-4061-a244-c8325aebc732" CreationDate="2019-11-24T15:15:56.430" UserId="6308" Text="Translation of &quot;Love makes it grow&quot; in Latin for my tattoo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36314" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12896" RevisionGUID="5c9f9003-4e01-4061-a244-c8325aebc732" CreationDate="2019-11-24T15:15:56.430" UserId="6308" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12897" RevisionGUID="0f726982-e23b-4ead-80a8-40b2938b9874" CreationDate="2019-11-24T18:07:05.163" UserId="3153" Text="I don't like having &quot;things&quot; in the predicate. I like one of these translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vita crescit amore.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Life grows (taller) with love&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vita per amorem nascitur.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Life is born through love&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caput vitae alet amoris fundamentum.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The beginning of life will grow the foundation of love.&quot; OR &quot;A foundation of love will grow the beginning of life&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last translation is my favorite because it utilizes an ambiguity that makes love and life paradoxically linked. Plus, it has a symmetrical structure much liked by the Romans. But, since this is a tattoo, I'd understand using the first translation because it's much shorter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="c5a59cbf-38b4-4fc1-bbcd-8a9ba4d2c5cb" CreationDate="2019-11-24T21:07:09.423" UserId="79" Text="To offer a variant to the great suggestions by Nickimite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Amore crescit.*  &#xD;&#xA;[It] grows with love.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an implicit noun or pronoun of some kind, but you don't have to spell it out and it can vary.&#xD;&#xA;It could be life, faith, love itself, a child, or anything else that could be referred to as it, he, or she.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding an explicit subject *vita* (life) as Nickimite did makes the sentence more complete, but if you are willing to leave it more open, you can." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12896" RevisionGUID="96ba99d5-053f-4429-81f7-25f36535151c" CreationDate="2019-11-24T21:07:41.657" UserId="79" Comment="added 40 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am looking for a Latin translation of &quot;love makes it grow&quot; or &quot;love makes things grow&quot; or an appropriate word in Latin for &quot;grow&quot;. This is for a tattoo. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36318" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12896" RevisionGUID="96ba99d5-053f-4429-81f7-25f36535151c" CreationDate="2019-11-24T21:07:41.657" UserId="79" Comment="added 40 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36320" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12896" RevisionGUID="80b5b0d2-d1c2-4aeb-b14e-196a3cd74329" CreationDate="2019-11-24T23:28:50.107" />
  <row Id="36321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12900" RevisionGUID="7905a0e2-91d6-4df0-8a08-1c54be6af7b7" CreationDate="2019-11-25T01:07:10.073" UserId="1459" Text="I found in a book from 2015 a box with the quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The beginning is half of every action. (Greek proverb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I googled it and there are many &quot;pop websites&quot; with the same quote. But none with a reference or source. I found [this site](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1146512-the-beginning-seems-to-be-more-than-half-of-the) citing from Aristotle's The Nicomachean Ethics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The beginning seems to be more than half of the whole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is quite different (and in any case not a real &quot;proverb&quot;). Are you aware of such Greek proverb? Maybe it is a no-classical Greek (I haven't seen an explicit assertion of the contrary, to be honest). How can we tell whether it is legit or not? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36322" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12900" RevisionGUID="7905a0e2-91d6-4df0-8a08-1c54be6af7b7" CreationDate="2019-11-25T01:07:10.073" UserId="1459" Text="Is &quot;The beginning is half of every action&quot; truly a Greek proverb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36323" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12900" RevisionGUID="7905a0e2-91d6-4df0-8a08-1c54be6af7b7" CreationDate="2019-11-25T01:07:10.073" UserId="1459" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36324" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12900" RevisionGUID="472404b4-9282-4867-8846-ef109a2f6700" CreationDate="2019-11-25T07:54:52.800" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greek|idiom|passage-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12901" RevisionGUID="f3944ebf-fac6-41c2-a943-d6d0f88286b3" CreationDate="2019-11-25T12:42:22.627" UserId="1982" Text="&quot;How much time does it take?&quot; = &quot;How long does it take?&quot; = &quot;How long is required?&quot;; for &quot;how long&quot; use &quot;quamdiu&quot;. (There are many attestations of this use: &quot;glosbe.com/la/en/quamdiu&quot;; e.g. &quot;quamdiu apud eam monisti?&quot; = &quot;How long did you spend at her place?&quot;; &quot;nescio quamdiu&quot; = &quot;I don't know how long&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giving: &quot;quamdiu desideratur?&quot; = &quot;How long is needed/ wanted/ required?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12902" RevisionGUID="b12c011a-0bc7-4d8e-9d93-cf03dcd4d2c4" CreationDate="2019-11-25T14:11:25.033" UserId="79" Text="I have a couple of suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;None of them is a perfect literal counterpart, but you should be able to navigate a lot of situations with these ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Quanti temporis est?*  &#xD;&#xA;Of how much time is it?  &#xD;&#xA;(Genitive of quality.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Quantum temporis sumet?*  &#xD;&#xA;How much time will it consume?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Quantum temporis sumam id faciens?*  &#xD;&#xA;How much time will I spend doing it?  &#xD;&#xA;(This is largely based on the question [How to phrase “it took two hours”?](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6849/79).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Quantis horis perficitur?*  &#xD;&#xA;In how many hours is it completed?  &#xD;&#xA;(The ablative of measure indicates how long something takes, but it's easier to use in an answer than a question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Quando finiemus?*  &#xD;&#xA;When will we finish?  &#xD;&#xA;(If you focus on the end as an event and not the duration of the work, phrasing can get simpler if the change of meaning is not too much.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12891" RevisionGUID="831bc2b3-9fb7-426c-b4e1-d20cd0f29684" CreationDate="2019-11-25T14:12:42.250" UserId="79" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited tags" Text="[This question][1] suggested the verb **consumere** to represent time spent/taken. I wonder what would be the appropriate way to ask &quot;how long does something take?&quot;. For some reason &quot;quot/quotus/quam tempus hic consumit?&quot; feels wrong for me. (Please tell me, if it fine to use them.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One option to avoid the 'problem' is simply by asking &quot;**when** something is going to happen?&quot; &amp;mdash; is that the only way to handle this in Latin? Or you would suggest another way to phrase that question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6849/how-to-phrase-it-took-two-hours" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36328" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12891" RevisionGUID="831bc2b3-9fb7-426c-b4e1-d20cd0f29684" CreationDate="2019-11-25T14:12:42.250" UserId="79" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|time|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="a84c31b9-2e71-4b69-959e-895bf4b80155" CreationDate="2019-11-25T14:30:02.430" UserId="79" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="To offer a variant to the great suggestions by Nickimite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Amore crescit.*  &#xD;&#xA;[It] grows with love.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an implicit noun or pronoun of some kind, but you don't have to spell it out and it can vary.&#xD;&#xA;It could be life, faith, love itself, a child, or anything else that could be referred to as it, he, or she.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding an explicit subject *vita* (life) as Nickimite did makes the sentence more complete, but if you are willing to leave it more open, you can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an alternative, you could say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Crescit amando.*  &#xD;&#xA;[It] grows by loving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice depends on whether you prefer &quot;love&quot; as a noun or a verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10692" RevisionGUID="dd66bdc7-1184-4a7e-a53e-651d27c75535" CreationDate="2019-11-25T16:14:43.433" UserId="1982" Comment="added 282 characters in body" Text="Try &quot;Completely Parsed Cicero&quot; by Maclardy. It´s on Amazon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is: &quot;Caeser Completely Parsed&quot; by James B. Finch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back in May, I couldn't find this though knew it existed. Price fluctuates between £30-94--beware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, it's on the net, for free: &quot;archive.org/details/CommentariesOnTheGallicWarCaeserCompletelyParsedBook1&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12903" RevisionGUID="7fa184aa-585b-4e69-9320-817634b662b6" CreationDate="2019-11-25T16:36:38.453" UserId="1987" Text="*Auspicium Melioris Aevi*, commonly translated to “Augur/Omen/Hope of a Better Age” serves as the motto of the [Order of Saint Michael and Saint George][1].&#xA;&#xA;Does it have any ancient origin? Or is it's originator known?&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_St_Michael_and_St_George" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36332" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12903" RevisionGUID="7fa184aa-585b-4e69-9320-817634b662b6" CreationDate="2019-11-25T16:36:38.453" UserId="1987" Text="Origin of Auspicium Melioris Aevi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36333" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12903" RevisionGUID="7fa184aa-585b-4e69-9320-817634b662b6" CreationDate="2019-11-25T16:36:38.453" UserId="1987" Text="|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12904" RevisionGUID="e1a2ef1b-fe09-4abc-9144-2b51de4a7d3c" CreationDate="2019-11-25T17:42:59.613" UserId="6236" Text="So I did well in my Latin GCSE this year  but we just learned that -o is first person, -s is second person, etc. But I had a closer look at the textbook today and it lists verbs in four conjugations types. Eg. porto is first, doceo is second, traho is third and audio is fourth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I need to learn which type a verb is? How important is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36335" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12904" RevisionGUID="e1a2ef1b-fe09-4abc-9144-2b51de4a7d3c" CreationDate="2019-11-25T17:42:59.613" UserId="6236" Text="Should I learn the four conjugations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36336" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12904" RevisionGUID="e1a2ef1b-fe09-4abc-9144-2b51de4a7d3c" CreationDate="2019-11-25T17:42:59.613" UserId="6236" Text="|conjugation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12905" RevisionGUID="07e60547-1381-42bf-bd8d-b75038548ab6" CreationDate="2019-11-25T17:51:08.257" UserId="406" Text="##Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a simple example, &quot;I will love&quot; is _amā-bō_, while &quot;I will hear&quot; is _audī-am_. Why does one take _-bō_ and the other take _-am_? It depends which conjugation they're in; 1 and 2 use _-bō_, while 3 and 4 use _-am_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you get out of the &quot;present system&quot; (present, imperfect, future), things get even more complicated. You'll want to learn the four _principal parts_ for each verb: a set of four specific forms that let you derive all the others. For &quot;run&quot;, for example, these forms are _currō, currere, cucurrī, cursus_, and there's unfortunately no reliable way to derive any of those from any other—you simply have to know all four." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36339" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="12837" RevisionGUID="0e2d1335-9c1e-4472-beb1-9c12e2d18b6f" CreationDate="2019-11-25T23:01:10.390" UserId="-1" Comment="138" />
  <row Id="36340" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12904" RevisionGUID="adc43dba-4465-470c-811f-25f1abafaa51" CreationDate="2019-11-26T01:46:10.833" />
  <row Id="36342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12906" RevisionGUID="47844f18-9d95-4e73-ae9d-bfb9bd823855" CreationDate="2019-11-26T07:22:10.407" UserId="6321" Text="For context, this is for a tattoo I'd like to get but I want to make sure it's syntactically correct as best as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the phrase is a great one, however I would very much prefer it to be something along the lines of &quot;determined&quot;, &quot;fierce&quot;, &quot;resolved&quot; (etc.) instead of &quot;lucky&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I pose a few questions here - &#xD;&#xA;Would it be syntactically correct to simply replace felicem with, for example, Certus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Any recommended words? My Latin knowledge is near enough no better than your average Joe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If this is too complex or can't be done with a high degree of certainty, any alternative phrases with a similar connotation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Also. Though I like the phrase, I can't seem to find it's origin. Anyone know?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36343" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12906" RevisionGUID="47844f18-9d95-4e73-ae9d-bfb9bd823855" CreationDate="2019-11-26T07:22:10.407" UserId="6321" Text="&quot;Contra felicem vix deus vires habet&quot; - Need advice on replacing the word &quot;Felicem&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36344" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12906" RevisionGUID="47844f18-9d95-4e73-ae9d-bfb9bd823855" CreationDate="2019-11-26T07:22:10.407" UserId="6321" Text="|syntax|word-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36345" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12906" RevisionGUID="d77a4e9d-616f-4920-85d0-46a3a426b08b" CreationDate="2019-11-26T07:32:20.283" UserId="6321" Comment="edited tags" Text="|syntax|word-request|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="97cb68d8-ef08-45c7-bb45-ae373580c21e" CreationDate="2019-11-26T08:37:38.130" UserId="79" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="To offer a variant to the great suggestions by Nickimite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Amore crescit.*  &#xD;&#xA;[It] grows with love.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an implicit noun or pronoun of some kind, but you don't have to spell it out and it can vary.&#xD;&#xA;It could be life, faith, love itself, a child, or anything else that could be referred to as it, he, or she.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding an explicit subject *vita* (life) as Nickimite did makes the sentence more complete, but if you are willing to leave it more open, you can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an alternative, you could say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Crescit amando.*  &#xD;&#xA;[It] grows by loving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice depends on whether you prefer &quot;love&quot; as a noun or a verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These suggestions are very general and work in many contexts.&#xD;&#xA;However, if you have a more specific message in mind, something else might be better.&#xD;&#xA;Context matters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36348" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12903" RevisionGUID="2e16dcde-0a5e-4833-ae09-e63c2f2117d6" CreationDate="2019-11-26T08:57:21.760" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|motto|origin|passage-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12907" RevisionGUID="7013af6b-173f-4198-9311-7db7f9f49726" CreationDate="2019-11-26T12:06:24.957" UserId="1982" Text="Adjective, &quot;felix&quot; is in the accusative case &quot;felicem&quot; (masculine/ feminine) = happy; lucky; fruitful; fortunate; successful. Here, of course, it means &quot;lucky (man)&quot;, where &quot;man&quot; is understood. (The Romans used fewer words, than we do, to convey the same meanings.) Therefore, you may substitute any adjective, in the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How about &quot;audax&quot; = bold; courageous; audacious; resolute; desperate (Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict.)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the requisite accusative case this fellow is: &quot;audacem&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck with the tattoo!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12908" RevisionGUID="72b5caa1-9a33-4ead-9903-f7cd3e5c9ee0" CreationDate="2019-11-26T12:55:27.763" UserId="6322" Text="I am looking for an accurate way to say the following phrase in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“By the power of dark light, I shall rise.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since context matters for an accurate as possible translation, I give said context by saying I plan to use the phrase in a song, as well as I kind of “catchphrase” that appears throughout my body of work (songs and writing). By “dark light,” I essentially mean using darkness as strength, darkness as a positive thing. Essentially, darkness as light. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it’s something that I plan on using regularly, I want to get it right, or as accurate as possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to any who can help and thanks for reading." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36355" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12908" RevisionGUID="72b5caa1-9a33-4ead-9903-f7cd3e5c9ee0" CreationDate="2019-11-26T12:55:27.763" UserId="6322" Text="“By the power of dark light, I shall rise.” What is the accurate way to say this in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36356" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12908" RevisionGUID="72b5caa1-9a33-4ead-9903-f7cd3e5c9ee0" CreationDate="2019-11-26T12:55:27.763" UserId="6322" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12909" RevisionGUID="7e376bc4-ca4d-4fa7-9f10-a30d2896ad80" CreationDate="2019-11-26T13:29:50.450" UserId="324" Text="You asked about its origin. It is in the Sententiae of Publilius Syrus. Here, towards the end of the section devoted to the letter &quot;C&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lsante01/Publilius/pub_sent.html#c" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12909" RevisionGUID="ac19bee0-ee61-463d-87a0-112d3ab375c8" CreationDate="2019-11-26T13:39:15.210" UserId="324" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="You asked about its origin. It is in the Sententiae of Publilius Syrus. Here, towards the end of the section devoted to the letter &quot;C&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lsante01/Publilius/pub_sent.html#c&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a verse in iambic trimeter, so if you want to replace &quot;felicem&quot; by another word it might be an idea to find one with the same metrical footprint." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12910" RevisionGUID="64c20cea-5b0f-4bd7-8f4b-338abbe185eb" CreationDate="2019-11-26T15:22:09.227" UserId="6323" Text="The motto &quot;Semper eadem&quot; appears in the seal of the printmaker Gabriele Giolito de' Ferrari, in 1552, almost a decade before the motto appears chartered by the Queen in 1561.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that Gabriele was one of the major (and last) classical publishers of the Divine Comedy, and that the Divine Comedy itself is regarded as one of the greatest (and founding) Tuscan works, you should be able to find some of the particulars researching in that direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not familiar with any of the Romance languages, though,  so I cannot confidently answer any of those questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12908" RevisionGUID="573a864c-393a-473c-9f58-bc28f312dabe" CreationDate="2019-11-26T15:45:32.493" UserId="6322" Comment="deleted 548 characters in body; edited title" Text="What would be the proper way to say the phrase “death is certain, life is not” in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36362" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12908" RevisionGUID="573a864c-393a-473c-9f58-bc28f312dabe" CreationDate="2019-11-26T15:45:32.493" UserId="6322" Comment="deleted 548 characters in body; edited title" Text="Proper way to say “Death is Certain, Life is Not” In Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36363" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="12908" RevisionGUID="af9724c6-54bf-43b5-b300-d1ea92927fb3" CreationDate="2019-11-26T16:08:53.870" UserId="45" Comment="Rollback to [72b5caa1-9a33-4ead-9903-f7cd3e5c9ee0]" Text="I am looking for an accurate way to say the following phrase in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“By the power of dark light, I shall rise.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since context matters for an accurate as possible translation, I give said context by saying I plan to use the phrase in a song, as well as I kind of “catchphrase” that appears throughout my body of work (songs and writing). By “dark light,” I essentially mean using darkness as strength, darkness as a positive thing. Essentially, darkness as light. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it’s something that I plan on using regularly, I want to get it right, or as accurate as possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to any who can help and thanks for reading." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36364" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="12908" RevisionGUID="af9724c6-54bf-43b5-b300-d1ea92927fb3" CreationDate="2019-11-26T16:08:53.870" UserId="45" Comment="Rollback to [72b5caa1-9a33-4ead-9903-f7cd3e5c9ee0]" Text="“By the power of dark light, I shall rise.” What is the accurate way to say this in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12912" RevisionGUID="0f7c1c55-43a3-4be3-90ca-616cd75fe021" CreationDate="2019-11-26T16:20:30.740" UserId="45" Text="Latin has two common words for &quot;light&quot;: [*lux*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlux) and [*lumen*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlumen). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the differences between these two words?** Are there any contexts in which one would be appropriate while the other would not? It would be particularly illuminating (pun intended) if there were a passage in which the two were used side-by-side in contrast to each other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36366" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12912" RevisionGUID="0f7c1c55-43a3-4be3-90ca-616cd75fe021" CreationDate="2019-11-26T16:20:30.740" UserId="45" Text="What is the difference between &quot;lux&quot; and &quot;lumen&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36367" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12912" RevisionGUID="0f7c1c55-43a3-4be3-90ca-616cd75fe021" CreationDate="2019-11-26T16:20:30.740" UserId="45" Text="|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12913" RevisionGUID="5bbe3b38-169a-4dd6-be49-59b424bb0960" CreationDate="2019-11-26T16:49:24.007" UserId="1059" Text="I've found that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nolo (non-volo)   &#xD;&#xA;Non vis    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Non vult   &#xD;&#xA;Nolit (non velit)   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nolim (non velim)   &#xD;&#xA;Nolis (non velis)    &#xD;&#xA;Nolumus (non volumus)   &#xD;&#xA;Nolimus (non volimus)   &#xD;&#xA;Non vultis    &#xD;&#xA;Nolitis (non velitis)    &#xD;&#xA;Nolunt (non volunt)   &#xD;&#xA;Nolint (non velint)    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Imperative forms: noli (sing.)/nolite (plur.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Source: Latin, an intensive course (De Floyd L. Moreland, Rita M. Fleischer)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this book &quot;nolo&quot;, for instance, is used for &quot;non volo&quot;, in assertive sentences, but they don't tell us whether the contraction is mandatory. (It seems to be.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the pattern, for instance &quot;**no**n ve**lint**&quot; = Nolint:      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. They removed the final &quot;n&quot; of &quot;non&quot;, to keep &quot;no&quot;.    &#xD;&#xA;2. They removed the first syllabe &quot;ve&quot; from &quot;velint&quot;.   &#xD;&#xA;3. Very short words don't contract (non vis).  &#xD;&#xA;4. Some other words don't contract, we don't know why (Non vultis, and not Notis)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it's &quot;volunt&quot;, they do the same, they remove the first syllabe &quot;vo&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if this pattern is regular, &quot;noli&quot; would be a contraction of &quot;non veli&quot;, and &quot;nolite&quot; of &quot;non velite&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12913" RevisionGUID="c939c895-bcec-4e86-8aab-5c51c6024764" CreationDate="2019-11-26T16:54:54.353" UserId="1059" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="I've found that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nolo (non-volo)   &#xD;&#xA;Non vis    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Non vult   &#xD;&#xA;Nolit (non velit)   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nolim (non velim)   &#xD;&#xA;Nolis (non velis)    &#xD;&#xA;Nolumus (non volumus)   &#xD;&#xA;Nolimus (non volimus)   &#xD;&#xA;Non vultis    &#xD;&#xA;Nolitis (non velitis)    &#xD;&#xA;Nolunt (non volunt)   &#xD;&#xA;Nolint (non velint)    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Imperative forms: noli (sing.)/nolite (plur.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Source: Latin, an intensive course (De Floyd L. Moreland, Rita M. Fleischer)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this book &quot;nolo&quot;, for instance, is used for &quot;non volo&quot;, in assertive sentences, but they don't tell us whether the contraction is mandatory. (It seems to be?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the pattern, for instance &quot;**no**n ve**lint**&quot; = Nolint:      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. They removed the final &quot;n&quot; of &quot;non&quot;, to keep &quot;no&quot;.    &#xD;&#xA;2. They removed the first syllabe &quot;ve&quot; from &quot;velint&quot;.   &#xD;&#xA;3. Very short words don't contract (non vis).  &#xD;&#xA;4. Some other words don't contract, we don't know why (Non vultis, and not Notis)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it's &quot;volunt&quot;, they do the same, they remove the first syllabe &quot;vo&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if this pattern is regular, &quot;noli&quot; would be a contraction of &quot;non veli&quot;, and &quot;nolite&quot; of &quot;non velite&quot;.    &#xD;&#xA;I've found occurrences of them in texts.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12913" RevisionGUID="6262edb1-51a8-49f2-aec5-403b6dcc0505" CreationDate="2019-11-26T17:03:41.357" UserId="1059" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="I've found that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nolo (non-volo)   &#xD;&#xA;Non vis    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Non vult   &#xD;&#xA;Nolit (non velit)   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nolim (non velim)   &#xD;&#xA;Nolis (non velis)    &#xD;&#xA;Nolumus (non volumus)   &#xD;&#xA;Nolimus (non volimus)   &#xD;&#xA;Non vultis    &#xD;&#xA;Nolitis (non velitis)    &#xD;&#xA;Nolunt (non volunt)   &#xD;&#xA;Nolint (non velint)    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Imperative forms: noli (sing.)/nolite (plur.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Source: Latin, an intensive course (De Floyd L. Moreland, Rita M. Fleischer)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this book &quot;nolo&quot;, for instance, is used for &quot;non volo&quot;, in assertive sentences, but they don't tell us whether the contraction is mandatory. (It seems to be?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the pattern, for instance &quot;**no**n ve**lint**&quot; = Nolint:      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. They removed the final &quot;n&quot; of &quot;non&quot;, to keep &quot;no&quot;.    &#xD;&#xA;2. They removed the first syllabe &quot;ve&quot; from &quot;velint&quot;.   &#xD;&#xA;3. Very short words don't contract (non vis).  &#xD;&#xA;4. Some other words don't contract, we don't know why (Non vultis, and not Notis)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it's &quot;volunt&quot;, they do the same, they remove the first syllabe &quot;vo&quot;.     &#xD;&#xA;Nolle would be Non+velle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if this pattern is regular, &quot;noli&quot; would be a contraction of &quot;non veli&quot;, and &quot;nolite&quot; of &quot;non velite&quot;.    &#xD;&#xA;I've found occurrences of them in texts.  &#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12914" RevisionGUID="6598fbeb-3b40-4079-8438-21916e864d59" CreationDate="2019-11-26T18:02:16.853" UserId="6324" Text="These are all good suggestions but how about just &quot;alma caritas&quot;, or &quot;almus amor&quot; depending on the kind of love? I prefer the former." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12915" RevisionGUID="e74790f6-eab6-4876-8645-17d65da7fe0b" CreationDate="2019-11-26T20:36:54.037" UserId="6325" Text="Can anyone provide an accurate translation for this quote? I would try to do it myself, but my Latin knowledge is limited as I am still learning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36373" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12915" RevisionGUID="e74790f6-eab6-4876-8645-17d65da7fe0b" CreationDate="2019-11-26T20:36:54.037" UserId="6325" Text="Translation of &quot;Too many people have opinions on things they know nothing about. And the more ignorant they are, the more opinions they have.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36374" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12915" RevisionGUID="e74790f6-eab6-4876-8645-17d65da7fe0b" CreationDate="2019-11-26T20:36:54.037" UserId="6325" Text="|sentence-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12916" RevisionGUID="befbcfc2-1c40-4a24-81bb-be159f7f06b9" CreationDate="2019-11-26T23:41:20.173" UserId="1059" Text="I try to learn Latin vocabulary with macrons.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But online dictionaries, either don't give the diacritic, or give them only for the nominative, have some errors, or give only macrons, and no apices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, vātēs, sometimes it's given &quot;vātēs&quot; only in singular, and &quot;vates&quot; in plural, sometimes there are no macrons at all, and sometimes both singular and plural have macrons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, macron only on the singular: https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-dictionary-flexion.php?lemma=VATES100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macron only on the plural: https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/vates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many books, it's not consistent. So, while I have Gaffiot and Lewis &amp; Short as my references for definition and usage, I didn't find a good source (online), errors-free, for apices &amp; macrons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36377" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12916" RevisionGUID="befbcfc2-1c40-4a24-81bb-be159f7f06b9" CreationDate="2019-11-26T23:41:20.173" UserId="1059" Text="A good source for macrons et apices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36378" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12916" RevisionGUID="befbcfc2-1c40-4a24-81bb-be159f7f06b9" CreationDate="2019-11-26T23:41:20.173" UserId="1059" Text="|pronunciation|resource-request|dictionary|macrons|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12917" RevisionGUID="723ba1a0-c89a-4dd5-b81a-f7a28fd1eed5" CreationDate="2019-11-27T05:41:44.293" UserId="3153" Text="Nimis multiores viri opiniones de quibus rebus nesciunt habent. Cum etiam minimos sciant, tamen opiniones habent plurimos!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Rather too many men have opinions about which things they are ignorant. When even they know the least, still they have the most opinions.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(You can remove plurimos and replace it with nimis. This would give the sense of &quot;still they have opinions exceedingly much.&quot; I don't know if nimis works, but starting with 'nimis' and ending with 'nimis' would have a lovely symmetry.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I am unsure of these words in my sentence, and that this should be considered a rough draft:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second 'nimis.' I'm not sure if works in the sense I'm thinking. Could I use an adverbial nimis here, or would it have to be inferred as an adjective modifying &quot;opiniones?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'opiniones' There might be a better word, but I intuited that sententias didn't feel right here. It seemed too certain and directed a thought. Perhaps &quot;putatos&quot; could work as an alternative? &quot;To reckon&quot; gives more the feeling I think we're looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'quibus rebus' Could I fit in a &quot;quare&quot; here, for a more idiomatic Latin sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first 'sciunt.' Should this be subjunctive for a relative clause of characteristic? I think it works both ways, but the indicative seems to emphasize the things themselves that are wrongly believed, and the subjunctive would emphasize the character of the people having opinions -- that they always think they know everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12896" RevisionGUID="f98894de-d39a-4ede-8d19-3bd2591f9958" CreationDate="2019-11-27T08:26:26.320" UserId="79" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="I am looking for a Latin translation of &quot;love makes it grow&quot; or &quot;love makes things grow&quot; or an appropriate word in Latin for &quot;grow&quot;. This is for a tattoo which will be on the outer side of the arm between elbow and wrist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have only tried automatic Google Translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36381" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="12914" RevisionGUID="d7985579-1cf8-4536-b813-6a97e9b0c534" CreationDate="2019-11-27T08:33:54.757" UserId="79" Comment="140" />
  <row Id="36382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12914" RevisionGUID="b98d9af7-9693-4aea-97b7-dfed5ab81b30" CreationDate="2019-11-27T08:43:47.627" UserId="6324" Comment="added 231 characters in body; added 2 characters in body" Text="These are all good suggestions but how about just &quot;alma caritas&quot;, or &quot;almus amor&quot; depending on the kind of love? I prefer the former.&#xA;&#xA;Almus means &quot;nurturing&quot; or &quot;nourishing&quot; as in the well-known expression &quot;alma mater&quot;. If something is nurturing then it makes things grow. &#xA;&#xA;Caritas is the kind of love you have for humankind, amor for your boyfriend or girlfriend." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36383" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="12914" RevisionGUID="baa252fc-38a4-4ace-adf1-8c38ce661aa1" CreationDate="2019-11-27T09:00:06.147" UserId="79" Comment="140" />
  <row Id="36384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12914" RevisionGUID="846b580c-833e-4c67-9d53-3b67d77d6433" CreationDate="2019-11-27T09:00:15.313" UserId="6324" Comment="added 301 characters in body" Text="These are all good suggestions but how about just &quot;alma caritas&quot;, or &quot;almus amor&quot; depending on the kind of love? I prefer the former.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almus means &quot;nurturing&quot; or &quot;nourishing&quot; as in the well-known expression &quot;alma mater&quot;. If something is nurturing then it makes things grow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caritas is the kind of love you have for humankind, amor for your boyfriend or girlfriend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &quot;alma Venus&quot; is used a few in times in Latin poetry to refer to Venus, who is actually the goddess of Love, but the usage there has more to do with the tradition that Venus was the mother of the Roman people. So on a tattoo the meaning would start to drift towards Roman patriotism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12913" RevisionGUID="2a73136a-e944-4cc0-b973-2db6837b8982" CreationDate="2019-11-27T09:04:48.613" UserId="1059" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="I've found that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nolo (non-volo)     &#xD;&#xA;Non vis (rarer nevis)   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Non vult   &#xD;&#xA;Nolit (non velit)   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nolim (non velim)   &#xD;&#xA;Nolis (non velis)    &#xD;&#xA;Nolumus (non volumus)   &#xD;&#xA;Nolimus (non volimus)   &#xD;&#xA;Non vultis    &#xD;&#xA;Nolitis (non velitis)    &#xD;&#xA;Nolunt (non volunt)   &#xD;&#xA;Nolint (non velint)    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Imperative forms: noli (sing.)/nolite (plur.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Source: Latin, an intensive course (De Floyd L. Moreland, Rita M. Fleischer)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this book &quot;nolo&quot;, for instance, is used for &quot;non volo&quot;, in assertive sentences, but they don't tell us whether the contraction is mandatory. (It seems to be?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the pattern, for instance &quot;**no**n ve**lint**&quot; = Nolint:      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. They removed the final &quot;n&quot; of &quot;non&quot;, to keep &quot;no&quot;.    &#xD;&#xA;2. They removed the first syllabe &quot;ve&quot; from &quot;velint&quot;.   &#xD;&#xA;3. Very short words don't contract (non vis).  &#xD;&#xA;4. Some other words don't contract, we don't know why (Non vultis, and not Notis)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it's &quot;volunt&quot;, they do the same, they remove the first syllabe &quot;vo&quot;.     &#xD;&#xA;Nolle would be Non+velle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if this pattern is regular, &quot;noli&quot; would be a contraction of &quot;non veli&quot;, and &quot;nolite&quot; of &quot;non velite&quot;.    &#xD;&#xA;I've found occurrences of them in texts.  &#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12918" RevisionGUID="a23c9d37-aeab-423f-801c-82938a21ca40" CreationDate="2019-11-27T09:15:14.417" UserId="3153" Text="I chose to reverse the light/darkness. The 'dark' color words in Latin often have negative connotations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Vi Tenebrarum Albarum Supero.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;I conquer/rise above by the power of white/auspicious darkness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translation seems like it might be what you're looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Circa/Apud Vim Tenebrarum Albarum Supero.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The power of white/auspicous darkness being all around, I conquer/rise above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like this translation better. It seems to capture the sense you're looking for. Dazzling darkness surrounds you, and yet you rise. Choose &quot;circa&quot; if you're emphasizing the physical space around you containing the bright darkness, choose &quot;apud&quot; if you're emphasizing the light darkness's closeness to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't take any of these translations at face value; there's context we as translators are missing, so these translations might be a little wonky when you use them in context. Many words for light exist, many words for dark exist, many words for rising exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12919" RevisionGUID="e356cc4a-73f8-4e73-93c7-e50e2a8b9744" CreationDate="2019-11-27T12:35:47.130" UserId="1982" Text="Firstly, thanks to brianpck, Joonas, cnread &amp; Quidam for their intervention and many helpful suggestions on the restructuring of this Q.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Climate change (CC)/ Global Warming (GW)--phrases that have entered the public lexicon. The Romans did not have to worry about these phenomena; they just had to survive wars, disease &amp; dental problems. How would CC have been expressed in Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps with an ablative absolute: &quot;caelo mutante&quot; = &quot;with the climate changing&quot;; using the gerund: &quot;paratus ad mutandum&quot; = &quot;prepared for the changing&quot;; &quot;operam damus mutando&quot; = &quot;we pay attention to the changing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mass-planting of trees has been posited as a (partial) solution in the improvement of air quality. How would this be expressed in as few words, of Latin, as possible? (The chemistry/ biochemistry/ political inaction are beyond the scope of the Q.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps, invoking Horace (&quot;nunc est Bibendum&quot; = &quot;now one must drink&quot;): &quot;nunc est serendum&quot; = &quot;now one must plant&quot;; &quot;mox erit spirandum&quot; = &quot;soon one must/ will breathe&quot;; the solving of the problem giving: &quot;laetitia spirandi&quot; = &quot;the joy of breathing&quot;; the nominative of the gerund (an infinitive verb): &quot;serere est spirare&quot; = &quot;planting is breathing&quot;; &quot;arboribus satis spirare potuimus.&quot; = &quot;with the trees having been planted we were able to breathe.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Global Warming&quot; can be translated in similar ways using verbs &quot;tepefacere&quot; = &quot;to warm&quot;; with reference to the polar ice-sheets; &quot;liquefacere&quot; = &quot;to melt&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts on the translations of CC/ GW?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36388" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12919" RevisionGUID="e356cc4a-73f8-4e73-93c7-e50e2a8b9744" CreationDate="2019-11-27T12:35:47.130" UserId="1982" Text="Climate Change--Revised" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36389" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12919" RevisionGUID="e356cc4a-73f8-4e73-93c7-e50e2a8b9744" CreationDate="2019-11-27T12:35:47.130" UserId="1982" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12920" RevisionGUID="165c9d74-da10-445b-acef-4512baa4ea9d" CreationDate="2019-11-27T12:49:45.667" UserId="3645" Text="Spinoza, Ethics, De Dei, Propositio 15, Scholium:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Si igitur ipsi ex suo hoc absurdo concludere tamen  volunt substantiam extensam debere esse finitam, **nihil aliud hercle faciunt quam si quis** ex eo quod finxit  circulum quadrati proprietates habere, concludit circulum non habere centrum ex quo omnes ad circumferentiam ductæ lineae sunt aequales&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the meaning of the sentence but I can not realize the literal meaning of the bolded part because of ***faciunt*** and ***si***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short Spinoza already explains that some authors conclude from an absurd proposition (A) that the extended substance must only be finite. He demonstrates absurdity of A and hence he deduced that the finiteness of the extended substance is not necessary. Here he says that if those authors persist in believing in A and conclude from it that the extended substance must be finite, they are like one who supposed a circle to have the properties of a square, and then concludes from this that the distance of the points on circumference from the centre of the circle is not equal.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36391" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12920" RevisionGUID="165c9d74-da10-445b-acef-4512baa4ea9d" CreationDate="2019-11-27T12:49:45.667" UserId="3645" Text="Ethics of Spinoza - Question about Translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36392" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12920" RevisionGUID="165c9d74-da10-445b-acef-4512baa4ea9d" CreationDate="2019-11-27T12:49:45.667" UserId="3645" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|sentence-translation|spinoza|ethica|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12922" RevisionGUID="ea57c61e-89e6-4ce9-9ca5-57a2296470a1" CreationDate="2019-11-27T16:46:29.503" UserId="6218" Text="Some ideas I have come up with are:-&#xD;&#xA;bellum est infandum  war is an abomination&#xD;&#xA;inmite est bellum war is pitiless&#xD;&#xA;res cruenta et infanda est Mars War is a blood-soaked atrocity&#xD;&#xA;Mars furit infandus War blasphemously rages out of control.&#xD;&#xA;Marte nulla pestis saevior est no instrument of destruction is more savage than war.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For 'infandus' I suppose 'nefandus' could be substituted, the difference apparently being that nefandus implies the idea of a crime which nefandus does not necessarily always do, as 'arma nefanda' = &quot;war so base that it is not to be spoken of without horror'.&#xD;&#xA;'Caesar' In De Bello Hispaniensi writes of the barbarians 'nefandum crudelissimumque facinus aunt adgressi'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36396" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12922" RevisionGUID="ea57c61e-89e6-4ce9-9ca5-57a2296470a1" CreationDate="2019-11-27T16:46:29.503" UserId="6218" Text="'War is hell' in Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36397" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12922" RevisionGUID="ea57c61e-89e6-4ce9-9ca5-57a2296470a1" CreationDate="2019-11-27T16:46:29.503" UserId="6218" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12923" RevisionGUID="26d190a1-31e5-41b7-9021-80e572f169d2" CreationDate="2019-11-27T18:48:57.870" UserId="118" Text="Non in Latinitate Antiqua invenitur, sed quidam [@Atticist](https://twitter.com/Atticist) _Gratiactio_ verbum proposuit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Anyone want to second “Gratiactio” as the Latin portmanteau for Thanksgiving?][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Nk9d7.png&#xD;&#xA;https://twitter.com/Atticist/status/1199756413133819910&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12923" RevisionGUID="4830e961-718d-4409-9971-e7872b42a6d5" CreationDate="2019-11-27T19:41:48.207" UserId="118" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="Non in Latinitate Antiqua invenitur, sed quidam [@Atticist](https://twitter.com/Atticist) _Gratiactio_ verbum abhinc minutos proposuit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Anyone want to second “Gratiactio” as the Latin portmanteau for Thanksgiving?][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Nk9d7.png&#xD;&#xA;https://twitter.com/Atticist/status/1199756413133819910&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12924" RevisionGUID="2625371d-ff07-421b-a76f-bfd359cc076c" CreationDate="2019-11-27T20:12:03.423" UserId="985" Text="Literally, '...they do nothing different than if someone... (makes the other conclusion about a circle)'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, to translate a bit more loosely, '...what they do is no different than what some other person does if he/she... (makes the other conclusion)'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or '...they act no differently than if some other person... (makes the other conclusion)'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective *alius/alia/aliud* can be treated as a comparative, and *quam* can introduce the second term in the comparison. That second term can be either a single word or phrase, or (as here) a whole clause." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12925" RevisionGUID="2f778efd-3479-42ac-bc03-00f8b942638d" CreationDate="2019-11-28T06:06:04.050" UserId="1059" Text="Some languages, like Indonesian, can drop the verb *to be* when the meaning is obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are zero-copula languages.    &#xD;&#xA;I heard that some Latin authors wrote some sentences with this feature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you have some characteristic examples and could you explain from them if there's a rule for dropping the verb (any verb) or if it's only stylistic, when the meaning is obvious?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it common, could we say that the Latin verb can be dropped, or is it only a rare figure of speech used only in poetry?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36402" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12925" RevisionGUID="2f778efd-3479-42ac-bc03-00f8b942638d" CreationDate="2019-11-28T06:06:04.050" UserId="1059" Text="Dropping &quot;to be&quot; and other verbs in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36403" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12925" RevisionGUID="2f778efd-3479-42ac-bc03-00f8b942638d" CreationDate="2019-11-28T06:06:04.050" UserId="1059" Text="|grammar-choice|verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12926" RevisionGUID="3e7f5561-5674-4ff8-92cd-d42e97e6163f" CreationDate="2019-11-28T13:31:26.690" UserId="522" Text="Here's a partial answer. Common in proverbs, and possibly epitaphs, which are not exactly poetry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Nil desperandum,'*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *'Ars longa, Vita brevis,'* The life so short, the craft so long to learn (Chaucer)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *'Ad augusta per angusta,'* Á des résultats augustes par des voies étroites. (quoted in Hernani: Victor Hugo)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas,' Plato is my friend, but truth even more my friend, (Ammonius, Life of Aristotle).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36406" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12925" RevisionGUID="63710cad-f9cf-494d-add4-7d23f84b390b" CreationDate="2019-11-28T14:51:05.187" />
  <row Id="36407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2133" RevisionGUID="af2ca62a-63b2-4e12-a4e1-48daf90a3026" CreationDate="2019-11-28T16:43:42.200" UserId="45" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="You're right that there are some tricky sections in this passage, but your translation captures the sense very well. Concerning your questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 1. What are the syntactic functions of τινι καὶ in the first clause?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;τινι and καὶ should not be construed together. We rather have two separate parts here: **παραστήτω δέ τινι** and **καὶ τόδε**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**παρίστημι**](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=parasth%2Ftw&amp;la=greek&amp;can=parasth%2Ftw0&amp;prior=]&amp;d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0199:book=6:chapter=68:section=3&amp;i=1#lexicon) + X (dat.) + Y (acc.) means &quot;I set Y before X's mind.&quot; In this case, παραστήτω is a 3rd person singular aorist imperative, and [**τις**](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dtis) is an (enclitic) indefinite pronoun that uses a special usage (II.2 in the LSJ): &quot;any one concerned, every one,&quot; like Latin *quisque*. Consider the following phrase from the *Iliad*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; εὖ μέν τις δόρυ θηξάσθω (Il.2.382) = &quot;Let **everyone** sharpen his spear well.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**παραστήτω δέ τινι** thus means &quot;Let it be present in everyone's mind.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for **καὶ τόδε**, καὶ is used adverbially to mean &quot;also.&quot; A translation of this whole part would be: &quot;Let this also be present in everyone's mind....&quot; (Of course, τόδε is not the subject in Greek, but this is a more fluid English translation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 2. How should I translate εἶναι?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you note, the subject of the infinitive is understood as the &quot;everyone&quot; to whom he is addressing himself. The prior ἡμετέρας αὐτῶν (where the genitive plural &quot;αὐτῶν&quot; is added to the possessive adjective to emphasize the fact that it is *reflexive*) justifies the choice of ἡμᾶς as the understood accusative subject, i.e. &quot;Let each of us remember that we...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 3. The function of πολύ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;πολύ is indeed an adverb: it is paired with the prepositional phrase that follows: ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμετέρας αὐτῶν, and thus means &quot;far from our own land.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A complete translation, very similar to yours and a little more literal, would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And let each man bear in mind that we are far from our own land and close to no friendly territory, unless you yourselves make it so by fighting.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12927" RevisionGUID="46768077-db5b-4889-af4a-a6d819cff707" CreationDate="2019-11-28T19:52:00.650" UserId="985" Text="It definitely isn't rare, and it definitely isn't found only in poetry. Any good Latin grammar will address this topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Gildersleeve and Lodge, *Latin grammar*, the index entry for *esse* includes a subentry for 'omitted.' The main section where this topic is treated is 209. It gives a general rule, examples, and then notes, including a note that addresses omission of verbs other than *esse*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **209.** COPULA OMITTED.—**Est** or **sunt** is often omitted in saws and proverbs, in short statements and questions, in rapid changes, in conditional clauses, and in tenses compounded with participles:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Summum iūs summa iniūria**, C., *Off.*, I. 10, 33; *the height of right (is) the height of wrong.* **Nēmo malus fēlix**, Juv., IV. 8; *no bad man (is) happy.* **Quid dulcius quam habēre quīcum omnia audeās loquī?** C. *Lael.*, 7, 22; *what sweeter than to have some one with whom you can venture to talk about everything?* **Sed haec vetera; illud vērō recēns**, C. *Ph.*, II. 11, 25. **Aliquamdiū certātum**, S. *Iug.*, 74, 3. **Cūr hostis Spartacus, sī tū cīvis?** C. *Parad.*, 4, 30.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So also **esse**, with participles and the like:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Caesar statuit exspectandam clāssem**, Caes., *B.G.*, III. 14, 1; *Caesar resolved that the fleet must be waited for.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; NOTES.—1. The omission of **esse** is not common with the Nom. and Infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2\. Popular speech omits freely; so, **mīrum nī**, **mīrum quīn**, **factum**, in Latin comedy; likewise **potis** and **pote** for forms of **posse**. To a like origin are due **mīrum quantum**, **nimium quantum**, *etc.*, found in all periods.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3\. The ellipsis of other forms of the copula is unusual. Thus Cicero occasionally omits **sit** in the Indirect Question, and Tacitus other forms of the Subjv. besides. **Fuisse** is omitted by Livy, and not infrequently by Tacitus.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4\. The Ellipsis of **esse** was sometimes due to the desire of avoiding the heaping up of Infinitives. Thus sentences like **nōn dubitō tē esse sapientem dīcere** (*to declare you to be wise*) were regularly cut down to **nōn dubitō tē sapientem dīcere** (*to declare you wise*).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5\. The ellipsis of other verbs, such as **facere**, **īre**, **venīre**, **dīcere**, *etc.*, is characteristic of popular speech; it is therefore not uncommon in Cicero's letters (*ad Att.*), in Pliny's letters, and in works involving dialogue, such as Cicero's philosophical writings. The historians avoid it, and it never occurs in Caesar and Velleius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allen and Greenough, *New Latin grammar* is, as often, less exhaustive in its treatment than Gildersleeve and Lodge. The index entry for 'Verbs, Syntax' includes an 'omitted' subentry that refers to section 319.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **319.** The verb is sometimes omitted:—&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *a.* **Dīcō**, **faciō**, **agō**, and other common verbs are often omitted in familiar phrases:—&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    quōrsum haec [spectant], *what does this aim at?*  &#xD;&#xA;ex ungue leōnem [cōgnōscēs], *you will know a lion by its claw.*  &#xD;&#xA;quid multa, *what need of many words?* (why should I say much?)  &#xD;&#xA;quid? quod, *what of this, that...?* (what shall I say of this, that...?)  &#xD;&#xA;Aeolus haec contrā (Aen. i. 76), *Æolus thus* [spoke] *in reply.*  &#xD;&#xA;tum Cotta [inquit], *then Cotta said.*  &#xD;&#xA;dī meliōra [duint]! (Cat. M. 47), *Heaven forfend* (may the gods grant better things)!  &#xD;&#xA;unde [venis] et quō [tendis]? (Hor. S. ii. 4. 1), *where from and whither bound?* [Cf. id. i. 9. 62 for the full form.]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *b.* The copula **sum** is very commonly omitted in the present indicative and present infinitive, rarely (except by late authors) in the subjunctive:—&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    tū coniūnx (Aen. iv. 113), *you* [are] *his wife.*  &#xD;&#xA;quid ergo? audācissimus ego ex omnibus (Rosc. Am. 2), *what then? am I the boldest of all?*  &#xD;&#xA;omnia praeclāea rāra (Lael. 79), *all the best things are rare.*  &#xD;&#xA;potest incidere saepe contentiō et comparātiō de duōbus honestīs utrum honestius (Off. i. 152), *there may often occur a comparison of two honorable actions, as to which is the more honorable.* [Here, if any copulawere expressed, it would be **sit**, but the direct question would be complete without any.]  &#xD;&#xA;accipe quae peragenda prius (Aen. vi. 136), *hear what is first to be accomplished.* [Direct: **quae peragenda prius?**]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12928" RevisionGUID="38d30a69-2bc9-460f-8df9-4c2dd8f54d1e" CreationDate="2019-11-28T20:30:59.657" UserId="985" Text="Here's my stab at this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quotus quisque de rebus sibi notis opinatur? quin fit plerumque ut quo magis quis ignorat, eo plures opiniones teneat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There aren't many people who express opinions on matters known to themselves. In fact, it often happens that the more ignorant someone is, the more opinions he has." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12929" RevisionGUID="3995250f-fe47-4502-ad13-f3e06e08099a" CreationDate="2019-11-28T21:33:51.153" UserId="1879" Text="I have a question regarding the translation of the Gregorian chant _OS JUSTI_, which Wikipedia claims to be used as gradual of the Commune Doctorum, and as introit I and gradual II of the Commune Confessoris non Pontificis. (I have the text from a choral piece of Anton Bruckner and did not check Bruckner's source.) The text reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; OS JUSTI MEDITABITUR SAPIENTIAM&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ET LINGUA EIUS LOQUETUR JUDICIUM&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LEX DEI EIUS IN CORDE IPSIUS&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ET NON SUPPLANTABUNTUR GRESSUS EIUS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder about the of grammar of *EIUS* in the different verses: If I see it correctly, this is Genitive Singular of *IS*. And I cannot bring this into accordance with the meaning of the verses I assume:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ET LINGUA __EIUS__ LOQUETUR JUDICIUM&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as something like *And __his__ tongue speaks right*, so EIUS means *his*. But how is this? Why is not the more direct (?) *SUUS* being used here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The analogue problems occurs at &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LEX DEI EIUS IN CORDE IPSIUS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I am not sure if this must be read as *The law of his god is in his heart* or simply as *The law of god is in his heart*, and of course also at &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ET NON SUPPLANTABUNTUR GRESSUS EIUS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I read as *And his pace will not be made stumble*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The accepted answer of https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1268/what-is-the-difference-between-suus-and-eius states, that *EIUS*, in contrary to *SUUS* is usually not referring to the subject of the main clause. But I don't think that this rule does apply here, becaus *JUSTUS* is the only person present in the whole text." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36414" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12929" RevisionGUID="3995250f-fe47-4502-ad13-f3e06e08099a" CreationDate="2019-11-28T21:33:51.153" UserId="1879" Text="Grammar and Meaning in Context of EIUS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36415" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12929" RevisionGUID="3995250f-fe47-4502-ad13-f3e06e08099a" CreationDate="2019-11-28T21:33:51.153" UserId="1879" Text="|possessive-pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12930" RevisionGUID="e0a9f5d6-0306-48f5-8d2b-077a5434e2da" CreationDate="2019-11-28T21:38:58.957" UserId="40" Text="The rule does apply -- it's a syntactic rule, not a semantic one. Since the subjects are *lingua* etc. rather than *justus*, the possessives are not reflexive, so *eius* is used rather than *suus*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12930" RevisionGUID="286aea68-776b-42db-9cfe-c1052921f507" CreationDate="2019-11-28T21:45:39.523" UserId="40" Comment="added 344 characters in body" Text="The rule does apply -- it's a syntactic rule, not a semantic one. Since the subjects are *lingua* etc. rather than *justus*, the possessives are not reflexive, so *eius* is used rather than *suus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For *os dei eius*, this does mean *the law of his god* -- there's nothing else *eius* could be doing here. Looking at the Hebrew source confirms this -- the text is taken from [Psalm 37:30-31][1], which does indeed say תּוֹרַת אֱלֹהָיו בְּלִבּוֹ *The law of his god is in his heart*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2637.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12931" RevisionGUID="4763401c-0bd9-4b5a-ac07-36948579f51c" CreationDate="2019-11-28T23:11:39.547" UserId="1879" Text="I have a choral text set to music by Anton Bruckner. (I do not know Bruckner's source.) The text _VIRGA JESSE_ reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; VIRGA JESSE FLORUIT&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; VIRGO DEUM ET HOMINEM GENUIT&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PACEM DEUS REDDIDIT&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; IN SE RECONCILIANS IMA SUMMIS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question regarding the grammar of *SUMMIS*. If I see it correctly, this is dative or ablative plural of *SUMMUM* or *SUMMUS* (syntactically, it could also be coming from *SUMMA*, but this does not make sense semantically). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is this plural? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read the last verse as *In himself reconciling the lowest with the highest* (the english language does not distinguish between plural and singular of *the highest*, so my problem is getting lost in translation into English). I do not understand why *the highest* is plural here? I would assume that it refers to God himself, who reconciles the temporal with the eternal when he becomes flesh, so I don't understand the use of plural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a sophisticated theological reason for the ocurrence of plural here? Or is *SUMMIS* just &quot;wrong&quot; grammar? Or (most probably) do I get something wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36419" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12931" RevisionGUID="4763401c-0bd9-4b5a-ac07-36948579f51c" CreationDate="2019-11-28T23:11:39.547" UserId="1879" Text="Grammar and Meaning in Context SUMMIS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36420" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12931" RevisionGUID="4763401c-0bd9-4b5a-ac07-36948579f51c" CreationDate="2019-11-28T23:11:39.547" UserId="1879" Text="|plural|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12932" RevisionGUID="f9d90753-4f2d-4b55-bea2-889a21b17e8b" CreationDate="2019-11-29T01:50:34.697" UserId="406" Text="Both _īma_ and _summīs_ are neuter plural here: &quot;the lowest things&quot; and &quot;the highest things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjectives are being used in a sort of general sense here, rather than referring to any specific objects—God is reconciling everything that is lowly with everything that is exalted, without any particular lowly and exalted things in mind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12932" RevisionGUID="21def592-aa1e-42a4-9937-b208d59737aa" CreationDate="2019-11-29T02:14:05.653" UserId="406" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Both _īma_ and _summīs_ are neuter plural in this case: &quot;the lowest things&quot; and &quot;the highest things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjectives are being used in a sort of general sense here, rather than referring to any specific objects—God is reconciling everything that is lowly with everything that is exalted, without any particular lowly and exalted things in mind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12933" RevisionGUID="e96891d6-e387-47e9-8ea7-a4a6159e76a4" CreationDate="2019-11-29T04:11:02.357" UserId="522" Text="I haven't been able to find Ancient or Classical quotations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mention &quot;Hope of a better Age.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ***Spes Melioris Aevi*** is the Motto of Rees in heraldry from the time of Richard I 'Lionheart.' And ***Spes Melioris Vitae*** 'Hope of a Better Life,' the Motto of the Broughtons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Herald of a better age&quot; &quot;Forerunner of a better Age&quot;&#xD;&#xA; occurs in an inscription recorded in [“Recueil général des inscriptions… Charles VI to Coronation of Francois I&quot;][1] (published 1745)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Coronation of Maria Theresa, in Prague, 1743, was heralded as ***Prodromae melioris Aevi,***  a “Token of Tranquility restored… **forerunner  of a better Age**, to the public joy of the people.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Auspicium melioris aevi*** is the Title of [a satirical print][2] (now in the British Museum) showing the Prime Minister, Pitt, after the debate  5 March 1787 on the Declaratory Bill. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The coloured print is lettered: 'Pubd Marh 17 1788 by S W Fores N° 3 Piccadilly.' The loss of the American Colonies was followed by trouble on the Madras coast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As  a Motto for the Order of St Michael and St George, the Prince Regent had George III's ill health and madness to worry about, but victory at Trafalgar, Quiberon Bay, and Waterloo could be read as 'Auguries of a Better Age.' George III died two years after the Order was founded. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pmFXAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA6#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://research.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=1461467&amp;page=1&amp;partId=1&amp;peoA=111325-1-9&amp;people=111325" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36424" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12929" RevisionGUID="787aa971-1952-43d9-9994-a5f6145b3aac" CreationDate="2019-11-29T05:37:06.310" />
  <row Id="36425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12934" RevisionGUID="1f6e3a21-358c-4784-8e9c-fea721b23007" CreationDate="2019-11-29T08:26:52.200" UserDisplayName="user6328" Text="The context of my question is a philosophical reflection on the concept of culture in the anthropological sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The anthrological concept of &quot; culture&quot; dates from Taylor : culture is  “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is often assserted that &quot; culture&quot; comes from &quot; cultura&quot; : first agriculture, then &quot; cultura animi&quot;, and finally all the qualities men gain from living in society, all the qualities by which men are distinguished from the savages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deriving &quot; culture&quot; from &quot; cultura&quot; leads to associate the idea of culture with the idea of progress. It tends to make of culture a normative idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also suggests that the idea of &quot; culture&quot; in the anthropological sense is a new one, a new meaning added to &quot; cultura&quot; in the 18th - 19 th century. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But couldn't it be asserted that, in fact, &quot; culture&quot; does not derive from &quot; cultura&quot; but from &quot; cultus&quot; ,  which meant &quot; way of life, &#xD;&#xA;customs of a people&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Gaffiot Latin Dictionary , I find : &quot; funera sunt pro cultu gallorum magnifica &quot; Caesar, G. , 6, 19,4. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would lead to a different idea of culture : culture is everything men ( belonging to a given society) respect, take care of, what they honor ( and first of all traditions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is : could there be, at the origin of the modern use of the term &quot; culture&quot; , a confusion between &quot; cultura&quot; and &quot; cultus&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it be a case of &quot; false etymology&quot; as when french erudites wanted to write &quot; savoir&quot; as &quot; sçavoir&quot; ( mistakenly deriving it from &quot; scire&quot;, while it comes from &quot; sapere&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36426" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12934" RevisionGUID="1f6e3a21-358c-4784-8e9c-fea721b23007" CreationDate="2019-11-29T08:26:52.200" UserDisplayName="user6328" Text="On the origin of the name &quot; culture&quot; ( possible confusion between &quot; cultura&quot; and &quot; cultus&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36427" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12934" RevisionGUID="1f6e3a21-358c-4784-8e9c-fea721b23007" CreationDate="2019-11-29T08:26:52.200" UserDisplayName="user6328" Text="|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12935" RevisionGUID="05ff47fe-8836-4183-8b32-bec1929988c6" CreationDate="2019-11-29T10:24:59.630" UserId="79" Text="Both *cultus* and *cultura* come from the verb *colere*.&#xD;&#xA;You could also derive *cultio* from the same verb, but for some reason that never became popular.&#xD;&#xA;All these three words mean essentially the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;These are all formed from the same stem (with [rare exceptions](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/1363/79)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have a separate question about [the similarity of *-us* and *-io*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/891/79).&#xD;&#xA;We don't seem to have a comparison to *-ura* yet (that would make a nice separate question!), but my experience suggests that the meaning is not substantially different.&#xD;&#xA;Yes, individual words might end up with slightly different meanings (like *cultus* and *cultura*), but I am not aware of any substantial systematic difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is:&#xD;&#xA;There is no difference in original meaning between *cultura* and *cultus*.&#xD;&#xA;They have taken slightly different nuances over time, and, more importantly, both have a wide variety of meanings.&#xD;&#xA;They are not identical, but they overlap a lot.&#xD;&#xA;From this point of view it makes no difference whether a word is derived from *cultura* or *cultus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems clear to me that the English word 'culture' comes indeed from the Latin word *cultura*.&#xD;&#xA;But as is typical with loan words, the meaning has changed a little, and keeps changing over time.&#xD;&#xA;Etymology does not imply meaning, and it is dangerous to read too much into it.&#xD;&#xA;The modern definitions of culture are inspired by the Latin word *cultura*, but it is a stretch to say that the Latin word had the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;Different people will understand the English word 'culture' slightly differently, too!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12934" RevisionGUID="dac5f382-87fe-4d3a-bb08-9238ba3ba8fd" CreationDate="2019-11-29T10:26:59.033" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body; edited title" Text="The context of my question is a philosophical reflection on the concept of culture in the anthropological sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The anthrological concept of &quot;culture&quot; dates from Taylor: culture is  “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is often assserted that &quot;culture&quot; comes from &quot;cultura&quot;: first agriculture, then &quot;cultura animi&quot;, and finally all the qualities men gain from living in society, all the qualities by which men are distinguished from the savages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deriving &quot;culture&quot; from &quot;cultura&quot; leads to associate the idea of culture with the idea of progress. It tends to make of culture a normative idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also suggests that the idea of &quot;culture&quot; in the anthropological sense is a new one, a new meaning added to &quot;cultura&quot; in the 18th&amp;ndash;19th century. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But couldn't it be asserted that, in fact, &quot;culture&quot; does not derive from &quot;cultura&quot; but from &quot;cultus&quot; ,  which meant &quot;way of life, &#xD;&#xA;customs of a people&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Gaffiot Latin Dictionary, I find: &quot;funera sunt pro cultu gallorum magnifica&quot; Caesar, G. , 6, 19,4. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would lead to a different idea of culture: culture is everything men (belonging to a given society) respect, take care of, what they honor (and first of all traditions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: could there be, at the origin of the modern use of the term &quot;culture&quot;, a confusion between &quot;cultura&quot; and &quot;cultus&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it be a case of &quot;false etymology&quot; as when french erudites wanted to write &quot;savoir&quot; as &quot; sçavoir&quot; (mistakenly deriving it from &quot;scire&quot;, while it comes from &quot;sapere&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36431" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12934" RevisionGUID="dac5f382-87fe-4d3a-bb08-9238ba3ba8fd" CreationDate="2019-11-29T10:26:59.033" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body; edited title" Text="On the origin of the name &quot;culture&quot; ( possible confusion between &quot;cultura&quot; and &quot;cultus&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12936" RevisionGUID="dbeda8f6-b43f-4be1-8a5c-ee776bf72cf0" CreationDate="2019-11-29T12:47:34.340" UserId="6330" Text="I am trying to grasp the difference between i and myself in latin.&#xD;&#xA; How would the phrase &quot;i own myself&quot; translate to latin? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36433" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12936" RevisionGUID="dbeda8f6-b43f-4be1-8a5c-ee776bf72cf0" CreationDate="2019-11-29T12:47:34.340" UserId="6330" Text="I own myself latin translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36434" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12936" RevisionGUID="dbeda8f6-b43f-4be1-8a5c-ee776bf72cf0" CreationDate="2019-11-29T12:47:34.340" UserId="6330" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12907" RevisionGUID="57c2f585-0e0b-443f-ae4a-6566cad8fb56" CreationDate="2019-11-29T12:48:30.147" UserId="1982" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="Adjective, &quot;felix&quot; is in the accusative case &quot;felicem&quot; (masculine/ feminine) = happy; lucky; fruitful; fortunate; successful. Here, of course, it means &quot;lucky (man)&quot;, where &quot;man&quot; is understood. (The Romans used fewer words, than we do, to convey the same meanings.) Therefore, you may substitute any adjective, in the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How about &quot;audax&quot; = bold; courageous; audacious; resolute; desperate (Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict.)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the requisite accusative case this fellow is: &quot;audacem&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, &quot;fortis&quot; = strong, powerful; hardy; courageous; valiant; manful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative is &quot;fortem&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck with the tattoo!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12930" RevisionGUID="ef449c53-08ed-47f8-b44e-d498472d746b" CreationDate="2019-11-29T16:14:57.620" UserId="45" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The rule does apply -- it's a syntactic rule, not a semantic one. Since the subjects are *lingua* etc. rather than *justus*, the possessives are not reflexive, so *eius* is used rather than *suus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For *lex dei eius*, this does mean *the law of his god* -- there's nothing else *eius* could be doing here. Looking at the Hebrew source confirms this -- the text is taken from [Psalm 37:30-31][1], which does indeed say תּוֹרַת אֱלֹהָיו בְּלִבּוֹ *The law of his god is in his heart*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2637.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12934" RevisionGUID="06b8c1df-b8b5-4b7f-9374-a9f01f07453c" CreationDate="2019-11-29T18:55:15.333" UserId="45" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="The context of my question is a philosophical reflection on the concept of culture in the anthropological sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The anthrological concept of &quot;culture&quot; dates from [Tylor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Burnett_Tylor): culture is  “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is often assserted that &quot;culture&quot; comes from &quot;cultura&quot;: first agriculture, then &quot;cultura animi&quot;, and finally all the qualities men gain from living in society, all the qualities by which men are distinguished from the savages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deriving &quot;culture&quot; from &quot;cultura&quot; leads to associate the idea of culture with the idea of progress. It tends to make of culture a normative idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also suggests that the idea of &quot;culture&quot; in the anthropological sense is a new one, a new meaning added to &quot;cultura&quot; in the 18th&amp;ndash;19th century. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But couldn't it be asserted that, in fact, &quot;culture&quot; does not derive from &quot;cultura&quot; but from &quot;cultus&quot; ,  which meant &quot;way of life, &#xD;&#xA;customs of a people&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Gaffiot Latin Dictionary, I find: &quot;funera sunt pro cultu gallorum magnifica&quot; Caesar, G. , 6, 19,4. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would lead to a different idea of culture: culture is everything men (belonging to a given society) respect, take care of, what they honor (and first of all traditions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: could there be, at the origin of the modern use of the term &quot;culture&quot;, a confusion between &quot;cultura&quot; and &quot;cultus&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it be a case of &quot;false etymology&quot; as when french erudites wanted to write &quot;savoir&quot; as &quot; sçavoir&quot; (mistakenly deriving it from &quot;scire&quot;, while it comes from &quot;sapere&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12928" RevisionGUID="3edff989-14c0-4485-8450-7cb938ed9dd1" CreationDate="2019-11-30T03:57:23.363" UserId="985" Comment="added 367 characters in body" Text="Here's my initial, somewhat florid, stab at this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *quotus quisque de rebus sibi notis opinatur? quin fit plerumque ut quo magis quis ignorat, eo plures opiniones teneat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are few people who express opinions on matters that are known to them. In fact, it generally happens that the more ignorant someone is, the more opinions he has.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This second version is a bit more literal and straightforward:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *nimis multi de rebus sibi ignotis opinantur; qui quo magis ignorant, eo plures opiniones tenent.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Too many people express opinions about matters that lie outside their knowledge/experience. And the more ignorant these people are, the more opinions they have.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10692" RevisionGUID="5c53b83d-6d82-4769-8f67-4c2af02c2130" CreationDate="2019-11-30T12:09:28.570" UserId="1982" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="Try &quot;Completely Parsed Cicero&quot; by Maclardy. It´s on Amazon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is: &quot;Caeser Completely Parsed&quot; by James B. Finch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back in May, I couldn't find this though knew it existed. Price fluctuates between £30-94--beware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, it's on the net, for free: &quot;archive.org/details/CommentariesOnTheGallicWarCaeserCompletelyParsedBook1&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is: &quot;Translating Pliny's Letters About Vesuvius part 3&quot; on site: &quot;quemdixerechaos.com/2012/11/28/translatingplinypt3&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12937" RevisionGUID="9674f900-53af-4125-8a66-70fcdb4090c7" CreationDate="2019-11-30T13:30:36.707" UserId="4947" Text="to my mind, you could just use `me ipsum` if you are male and `me ipsam` if you are female for `myself`, whereas for `I`, you could just use the first person singular in the predicate or, if you want to emphasize it some more, `ego`.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, you could translate your sentence thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (Ego) me ipsum/-am possido.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best regards,&#xD;&#xA;Klaus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12937" RevisionGUID="f429a273-9e72-47d6-97a6-3e3eb3cf739e" CreationDate="2019-11-30T15:37:20.227" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="to my mind, you could just use `me ipsum` if you are male and `me ipsam` if you are female for `myself`, whereas for `I`, you could just use the first person singular in the predicate or, if you want to emphasize it some more, `ego`.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, you could translate your sentence thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Ego) me ipsum/-am possideo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best regards,&#xD;&#xA;Klaus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12936" RevisionGUID="c60151be-4a50-457f-8048-ab1f93fb1bfe" CreationDate="2019-11-30T15:38:50.453" UserId="45" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am trying to grasp the difference between &quot;I&quot; and &quot;myself&quot; in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would the phrase &quot;I own myself&quot; translate to Latin? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36443" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12936" RevisionGUID="c60151be-4a50-457f-8048-ab1f93fb1bfe" CreationDate="2019-11-30T15:38:50.453" UserId="45" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="How do I say &quot;I own myself&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12938" RevisionGUID="71a6c024-4530-4efd-b2e6-90e9ac4379b4" CreationDate="2019-11-30T18:06:50.453" UserId="45" Text="Here's a more compact translation, with some inspiration from cnread's great suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plurimi nescientes opinantur. Immo quo magis nesciunt eo magis opinantur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally translated, this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Very many opine without knowing. Indeed, the more they do not know, the more they opine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12940" RevisionGUID="4a475595-d1e2-47ac-8064-a46f2d070303" CreationDate="2019-12-01T05:55:01.100" UserId="40" Text="Yes, it was proverbial by Plato's time. He quotes the saying in the *Laws* ([753e][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀρχὴ γὰρ λέγεται μὲν ἥμισυ παντὸς ἐν ταῖς παροιμίαις ἔργου  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;For it is said in proverbs that the beginning is half of every work&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aristotle, in the quotation you cite, is presumably referring to this proverb and taking it a step further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0165%3Abook%3D6%3Asection%3D753e" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12940" RevisionGUID="89a03bf4-dd19-4eca-be45-6c04b7b0b168" CreationDate="2019-12-01T06:01:13.443" UserId="40" Comment="added 267 characters in body" Text="Yes, it was proverbial by Plato's time. He quotes the saying in the *Laws* ([753e][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀρχὴ γὰρ λέγεται μὲν ἥμισυ παντὸς ἐν ταῖς παροιμίαις ἔργου  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;For it is said in proverbs that the beginning is half of every work&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was also a metrical version of the saying, ἀρχὴ δέ τοι ἥμισυ παντός, which scans as the begining of a dactylic hexameter line. This phrase is quoted by several writers, including Lucian, Demetrius of Phalerum, and Iamblichus, who attributes it to Pythagoras. &#xD;&#xA;Aristotle, in the quotation you cite, is presumably referring to this proverb and taking it a step further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0165%3Abook%3D6%3Asection%3D753e" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12934" RevisionGUID="215bccfa-af04-43ea-9a50-e6746dc9a46b" CreationDate="2019-12-01T19:10:00.027" UserDisplayName="user6328" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The context of my question is a philosophical reflection on the concept of culture in the anthropological sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The anthrological concept of &quot;culture&quot; dates from [Tylor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Burnett_Tylor): culture is  “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is often asserted that &quot;culture&quot; comes from &quot;cultura&quot;: first agriculture, then &quot;cultura animi&quot;, and finally all the qualities men gain from living in society, all the qualities by which men are distinguished from the savages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deriving &quot;culture&quot; from &quot;cultura&quot; leads to associate the idea of culture with the idea of progress. It tends to make of culture a normative idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also suggests that the idea of &quot;culture&quot; in the anthropological sense is a new one, a new meaning added to &quot;cultura&quot; in the 18th&amp;ndash;19th century. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But couldn't it be asserted that, in fact, &quot;culture&quot; does not derive from &quot;cultura&quot; but from &quot;cultus&quot; ,  which meant &quot;way of life, &#xD;&#xA;customs of a people&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Gaffiot Latin Dictionary, I find: &quot;funera sunt pro cultu gallorum magnifica&quot; Caesar, G. , 6, 19,4. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would lead to a different idea of culture: culture is everything men (belonging to a given society) respect, take care of, what they honor (and first of all traditions). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: could there be, at the origin of the modern use of the term &quot;culture&quot;, a confusion between &quot;cultura&quot; and &quot;cultus&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it be a case of &quot;false etymology&quot; as when french erudites wanted to write &quot;savoir&quot; as &quot; sçavoir&quot; (mistakenly deriving it from &quot;scire&quot;, while it comes from &quot;sapere&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12942" RevisionGUID="e16e9449-76f7-4974-bcd8-4d59c7dfa701" CreationDate="2019-12-01T19:36:18.203" UserDisplayName="user6328" Text="Originally &quot; conscius&quot; meant &quot; knowing something with someone, sharing the knowledge of something with someone&quot;. ( Ref : *Gaffiot* Dictionnaire Latin Français). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may explain why a pronoun ( &quot;sibi&quot;) was necessary to distinguish this first usage from an ulterior one , in which the word expresses the idea of &quot; intimate knowledge&quot;. I suppose that the reflective pronoun aims at indicating that, here, no relation to another person is at stake. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why is this additional pronoun in the dative case? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wouldn't have been more logical the pronoun to be in the ablative case ?  ( &quot; conscius&quot; in the *modality* of a relation to oneself, not to another person)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally: how to translate &quot; sibi conscius &quot; ? is it possible to give an equivalent that would still express the &quot; dative case&quot; idea;  I suppose that &quot; aware to oneself&quot; does not make sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36456" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12942" RevisionGUID="e16e9449-76f7-4974-bcd8-4d59c7dfa701" CreationDate="2019-12-01T19:36:18.203" UserDisplayName="user6328" Text="Why &quot; sibi &quot; in &quot; sibi conscius&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36457" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12942" RevisionGUID="e16e9449-76f7-4974-bcd8-4d59c7dfa701" CreationDate="2019-12-01T19:36:18.203" UserDisplayName="user6328" Text="|dative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12942" RevisionGUID="59b19707-63d2-4f1c-be83-d825bc2924dc" CreationDate="2019-12-01T19:41:41.610" UserDisplayName="user6328" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Originally &quot; conscius&quot; meant &quot; knowing something with someone, sharing the knowledge of something with someone&quot;. ( Ref : *Gaffiot* Dictionnaire Latin Français). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may explain why a pronoun ( &quot;sibi&quot;) was necessary to distinguish this first usage from an ulterior one , in which the word expresses the idea of &quot; intimate knowledge&quot; : &quot; ... cum sibi nullius essent conscii culpae&quot; ( Virgil, Aen., I, 604).  I suppose that the reflective pronoun aims at indicating that, here, no relation to another person is at stake. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why is this additional pronoun in the dative case? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wouldn't have been more logical the pronoun to be in the ablative case ?  ( &quot; conscius&quot; in the *modality* of a relation to oneself, not to another person)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally: how to translate &quot; sibi conscius &quot; ? is it possible to give an equivalent that would still express the &quot; dative case&quot; idea;  I suppose that &quot; aware to oneself&quot; does not make sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12943" RevisionGUID="343fd385-d6a3-42f1-9417-51f4dadac57b" CreationDate="2019-12-01T20:15:45.023" UserId="6339" Text="I was wondering how did the Greeks in the archaic or classical age were writings letters, if there were some sort of conventions for them, thus I searched for Ancient Greek letters but found nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is somebody aware of anything about it ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36460" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12943" RevisionGUID="343fd385-d6a3-42f1-9417-51f4dadac57b" CreationDate="2019-12-01T20:15:45.023" UserId="6339" Text="Is there surviving Ancient Greek letters (epistolary)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36461" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12943" RevisionGUID="343fd385-d6a3-42f1-9417-51f4dadac57b" CreationDate="2019-12-01T20:15:45.023" UserId="6339" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12944" RevisionGUID="f45cb6b4-1814-4f29-afe8-de455e253597" CreationDate="2019-12-01T21:54:15.310" UserId="324" Text="There is a collection of Plato’s letters, some, if not all, of which are generally considered to be authentic. There are also the letters of Xenophon, again of contested authenticity. But these both do give us insight into epistographic conventions of the classical period. From Hellenistic times we have a large number of genuine letters on Egyptian papyri, and of course also the epistles of Paul, of which, again, some are generally considered to be “deutero-Pauline”, that is: fake." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12940" RevisionGUID="d74c580e-60ea-4707-a2a3-2ab8ca6abbec" CreationDate="2019-12-01T21:58:09.597" UserId="40" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; added 194 characters in body" Text="Yes, it was proverbial by Plato's time. He quotes the saying in the *Laws* ([753e][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀρχὴ γὰρ λέγεται μὲν ἥμισυ παντὸς ἐν ταῖς παροιμίαις ἔργου  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;For it is said in proverbs that the beginning is half of every work&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was also a metrical version of the saying, ἀρχὴ δέ τοι ἥμισυ παντός, which scans as the end of a dactylic hexameter line. This phrase is quoted by several writers, including Lucian, Demetrius of Phalerum, and Iamblichus, who attributes it to Pythagoras. &#xD;&#xA;Aristotle, in the quotation you cite, is presumably referring to this proverb and taking it a step further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ETA: Actually, reading further in the Plato, he preempts Aristotle with the same thought: ...τὸ δ᾽ ἔστιν τε, ὡς ἐμοὶ φαίνεται, πλέον ἢ τὸ ἥμισυ &quot;but this is, it seems to me, more than half&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0165%3Abook%3D6%3Asection%3D753e" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12944" RevisionGUID="218cbd61-0682-4660-b070-a10c2f6cf33a" CreationDate="2019-12-01T22:23:07.527" UserId="324" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="There is a collection of Plato’s letters, some, if not all, of which are generally considered to be authentic. There are also the letters of Xenophon, again of contested authenticity. But these both do give us insight into epistolographic conventions of the classical period. From Hellenistic times we have a large number of genuine letters on Egyptian papyri, and of course also the epistles of Paul, of which, again, some are generally considered to be “deutero-Pauline”, that is: fake." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12945" RevisionGUID="1aa61a3b-56fa-488f-8218-b77bacb4466e" CreationDate="2019-12-01T23:54:33.123" UserId="1459" Text="There are, plenty. [This article](https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195389661/obo-9780195389661-0255.xml) contains a very comprehensive reference lists regarding Greek Epistolary research, including references to letters and collections of letters. Unfortunately, you need a subscription to see the full content. I share the key paragraph, with the mentioned references:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Texts and Commentaries**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There are two excellent selective anthologies of literary letters: Costa 2001 includes both fictive and pseudohistorical letters in the text with commentary, while Trapp 2003 offers a wide selection of free-standing and embedded letters, as well as a succinct definition of “letter.” Both books are excellent starting points for getting a sense of the sheer variety of epistolary works. The most complete collection of Greek epistolary texts, however, remains Hercher 1873, with its facing Latin translation. Some letter collections have been published in standard editions, such as those of Teubner, Budé, and Loeb—Benner and Fobes 1949 and Jones 2006 are examples of these—but coverage is spotty. The pseudonymous letters of Euripides exist in the scholarly edition Gösswein 1975; the epistolary novel Chion of Heraclea is well served in Malosse 2004 and Aristaenetus appears in Drago 2007. However other epistolary texts remain understudied and difficult to find outside Hercher 1873.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Benner, A. R., and F. H. Fobes, eds. 1949. Letters of Alciphron, Aelian, and Philostratus. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Three imperial authors of fictive letter collections published in a single Loeb volume, with Greek text, literal translations, and limited notes._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Costa, C. D. N., ed. 2001. Greek fictional letters: A selection with introduction, translation and commentary. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_A selection of fictive epistles (Aelian, Alciphron, Philostratus, Aristaenetus), and epistles allegedly by historical figures (Anacharsis, Diogenes, Crates, Socrates, Aeschines, Hippocrates, Themistocles, Euripides, Chion); includes Greek text, facing translation, and brief commentary._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Drago, A. T., ed. 2007. Aristeneto: Lettere d’amore. Lecce, Italy: Pensa Multimedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_A lengthy (70 pp.) introduction covers questions of manuscript history, and is followed by the Greek text of Aristaenetus with an Italian translation, and extensive commentary focusing on source texts and parallel passages._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Gösswein, H. -U. 1975. Die Briefe des Euripides. Meisenheim am Glan, Germany: Anton Hain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_First edition since Hercher 1873 of the five letters attributed to Euripides. The author consulted all thirty-four available manuscripts, and prints an introduction discussing Authenticity and date of composition, a critical text with a German translation, and a commentary._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hercher, R., ed. 1873. Epistolographi Graeci. Paris: A. F. Didot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_A massive (over 800 pages) work of late 19th-century scholarship, organized alphabetically by author, with critical notes, a section on Epistolary Theory, Greek text with facing Latin translation, and useful indexes. Still the most comprehensive edition of epistolary texts availble, and the source for many of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (digital library) texts._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Jones, C. P., ed. 2006. Letters of Apollonius; Ancient testimonia; Eusebius’s reply to Hierocles. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_A scholarly edition of the ninety-one letters atrributed to Apollonius, along with judicious remarks on authenticity, organization, manuscript transmission, and historical context._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Malosse, P. -L. 2004. Lettres de Chion d’Héraclée. Salerno, Italy: Helios.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Greek text and facing French translation, introduction, and notes. Investigates issues of genre, readership, and historical context. Suggests a later date (4th century CE) than previously assumed._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Trapp, M., ed. 2003. Greek and Latin letters: An anthology with translation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_An anthology of seventy-eight Greek and Latin letters, including facing translation and commentary. Opens with a succinct and now widely accepted definition of the letter. Selections are organized according to private, public/official, embedded, and Epistolary Theory, and they highlight the range of functions and forms of the letter in antiquity._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in your question, you mention about whether there is &quot;some sort of convention&quot; in letters. For this, the relevant section in the article might be the one titled &quot;Epistolary Theory&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;While most discussions of epistolary theory originated well after the development of literary letters themselves, the authors of theoretical treatises or handbooks were legislating for what counted as effective epistolary performance in a literary sense; they prescribed what characteristics should be cultivated in letter formats, and how readers should judge their effectiveness or quality. Malherbe 1988 offers a comprehensive look at original documents in Greek and English, while Poster 2007 gives highlights from a diverse group of ancient epistolary theorists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Malherbe, A. J. 1988. Ancient epistolary theorists. Atlanta: Scholars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Including a very useful introduction and summary of epistolary theory, this source book offers English Translations in facing-page format of influential Greek epistolary theorists, including Demetrius (De Elocutione); pseudo-Demetrius (Epistolary Types); and pseudo-Libanius (Epistolary Styles)._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Poster, C. 2007. A conversation halved: Epistolary theory in Greco-Roman antiquity. In Letter-writing manuals and instruction from antiquity to the present. Edited by C. Poster and L. C. Mitchell, 21–51. Columbia: Univ. of South Carolina Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_An essay on letter-writing theory, examples of model letters, and prescriptive guides to writing letters in antiquity._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12945" RevisionGUID="662f12b0-9e6c-4b1f-8644-1212f13a3b85" CreationDate="2019-12-02T00:02:46.067" UserId="1459" Comment="added 208 characters in body" Text="There are, plenty. [This article](https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195389661/obo-9780195389661-0255.xml) contains a very comprehensive reference lists regarding Greek Epistolary research, including references to letters and collections of letters. Unfortunately, you need a subscription to see the full content. I share the key paragraph, with the mentioned references:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Texts and Commentaries**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There are two excellent selective anthologies of literary letters: Costa 2001 includes both fictive and pseudohistorical letters in the text with commentary, while Trapp 2003 offers a wide selection of free-standing and embedded letters, as well as a succinct definition of “letter.” Both books are excellent starting points for getting a sense of the sheer variety of epistolary works. The most complete collection of Greek epistolary texts, however, remains Hercher 1873, with its facing Latin translation. Some letter collections have been published in standard editions, such as those of Teubner, Budé, and Loeb—Benner and Fobes 1949 and Jones 2006 are examples of these—but coverage is spotty. The pseudonymous letters of Euripides exist in the scholarly edition Gösswein 1975; the epistolary novel Chion of Heraclea is well served in Malosse 2004 and Aristaenetus appears in Drago 2007. However other epistolary texts remain understudied and difficult to find outside Hercher 1873.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Benner, A. R., and F. H. Fobes, eds. 1949. Letters of Alciphron, Aelian, and Philostratus. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Three imperial authors of fictive letter collections published in a single Loeb volume, with Greek text, literal translations, and limited notes._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Costa, C. D. N., ed. 2001. Greek fictional letters: A selection with introduction, translation and commentary. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_A selection of fictive epistles (Aelian, Alciphron, Philostratus, Aristaenetus), and epistles allegedly by historical figures (Anacharsis, Diogenes, Crates, Socrates, Aeschines, Hippocrates, Themistocles, Euripides, Chion); includes Greek text, facing translation, and brief commentary._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Drago, A. T., ed. 2007. Aristeneto: Lettere d’amore. Lecce, Italy: Pensa Multimedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_A lengthy (70 pp.) introduction covers questions of manuscript history, and is followed by the Greek text of Aristaenetus with an Italian translation, and extensive commentary focusing on source texts and parallel passages._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Gösswein, H. -U. 1975. Die Briefe des Euripides. Meisenheim am Glan, Germany: Anton Hain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_First edition since Hercher 1873 of the five letters attributed to Euripides. The author consulted all thirty-four available manuscripts, and prints an introduction discussing Authenticity and date of composition, a critical text with a German translation, and a commentary._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hercher, R., ed. 1873. Epistolographi Graeci. Paris: A. F. Didot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_A massive (over 800 pages) work of late 19th-century scholarship, organized alphabetically by author, with critical notes, a section on Epistolary Theory, Greek text with facing Latin translation, and useful indexes. Still the most comprehensive edition of epistolary texts availble, and the source for many of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (digital library) texts._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Jones, C. P., ed. 2006. Letters of Apollonius; Ancient testimonia; Eusebius’s reply to Hierocles. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_A scholarly edition of the ninety-one letters atrributed to Apollonius, along with judicious remarks on authenticity, organization, manuscript transmission, and historical context._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Malosse, P. -L. 2004. Lettres de Chion d’Héraclée. Salerno, Italy: Helios.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Greek text and facing French translation, introduction, and notes. Investigates issues of genre, readership, and historical context. Suggests a later date (4th century CE) than previously assumed._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Trapp, M., ed. 2003. Greek and Latin letters: An anthology with translation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_An anthology of seventy-eight Greek and Latin letters, including facing translation and commentary. Opens with a succinct and now widely accepted definition of the letter. Selections are organized according to private, public/official, embedded, and Epistolary Theory, and they highlight the range of functions and forms of the letter in antiquity._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As one of the description above mentions, some of these letters are included in the [Thesaurus Linguae Graecae](http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/), a massive online corpus of Greek texts (subscription based).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in your question, you mention about whether there is &quot;some sort of convention&quot; in letters. For this, the relevant section in the article might be the one titled &quot;Epistolary Theory&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;While most discussions of epistolary theory originated well after the development of literary letters themselves, the authors of theoretical treatises or handbooks were legislating for what counted as effective epistolary performance in a literary sense; they prescribed what characteristics should be cultivated in letter formats, and how readers should judge their effectiveness or quality. Malherbe 1988 offers a comprehensive look at original documents in Greek and English, while Poster 2007 gives highlights from a diverse group of ancient epistolary theorists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Malherbe, A. J. 1988. Ancient epistolary theorists. Atlanta: Scholars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Including a very useful introduction and summary of epistolary theory, this source book offers English Translations in facing-page format of influential Greek epistolary theorists, including Demetrius (De Elocutione); pseudo-Demetrius (Epistolary Types); and pseudo-Libanius (Epistolary Styles)._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Poster, C. 2007. A conversation halved: Epistolary theory in Greco-Roman antiquity. In Letter-writing manuals and instruction from antiquity to the present. Edited by C. Poster and L. C. Mitchell, 21–51. Columbia: Univ. of South Carolina Press.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_An essay on letter-writing theory, examples of model letters, and prescriptive guides to writing letters in antiquity._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12943" RevisionGUID="01a810ed-4f9c-4543-a8bc-fda42ae1c737" CreationDate="2019-12-02T01:00:19.260" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="I was wondering how did the Greeks in the archaic or classical age were writings letters, if there were some sort of conventions for them, thus I searched for Ancient Greek letters but found nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is somebody aware of anything about it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36468" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12943" RevisionGUID="01a810ed-4f9c-4543-a8bc-fda42ae1c737" CreationDate="2019-12-02T01:00:19.260" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Is there surviving Ancient Greek letters (epistolary)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12946" RevisionGUID="04052684-5c14-447f-a8e8-ce0fbfbc9138" CreationDate="2019-12-02T01:18:27.393" UserId="3248" Text="I think that the dative _sibi_ can be crucially related to the presence of the preverb _con_-. A typical use of the dative case is found with some [compound verbs][1] and adjectives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _sī **sibi** ipse cōnsentit_ (Cic. _Off._ I.5) 'if he is in accord with himself'  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So note that the the same dative you see with adjective _conscius_ also appears with the related verb _conscire_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _nil conscire **sibi**_ (Hor. _Ep._ 1, 1, 61) lit. 'to be conscious with himself of nothing', i.e., 'to be conscious of no guilt'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can also be useful for you to take a look at what is summarized in the wikipedia entry of [_consciousness_][2]. Here is a copy&amp;paste of the relevant fragment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The earliest English language uses of &quot;conscious&quot; and &quot;consciousness&quot; date back, however, to the 1500s. The English word &quot;conscious&quot; originally derived from the Latin _conscius_ (_con-_ 'together' and _scio_ 'to know'), but the Latin word did not have the same meaning as our word —it meant &quot;knowing with&quot;, in other words &quot;having joint or common knowledge with another&quot;. There were, however, many occurrences in Latin writings of the phrase _conscius sibi_, which translates literally as &quot;knowing with oneself&quot;, or in other words &quot;sharing knowledge with oneself about something&quot;. This phrase had the figurative meaning of &quot;knowing that one knows&quot;, as the modern English word &quot;conscious&quot; does. In its earliest uses in the 1500s, the English word &quot;conscious&quot; retained the meaning of the Latin conscius. For example, Thomas Hobbes in _Leviathan_ wrote: &quot;Where two, or more men, know of one and the same fact, they are said to be Conscious of it one to another.&quot; The Latin phrase _conscius sibi_, whose meaning was more closely related to the current concept of consciousness, was rendered in English as &quot;conscious to oneself&quot; or &quot;conscious unto oneself&quot;. For example, Archbishop Ussher wrote in 1613 of &quot;being so conscious unto myself of my great weakness&quot;. Locke's definition from 1690 illustrates that a gradual shift in meaning had taken place&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you're interested in philosophical issues, you can also take a look at this [link][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-compounds&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.es/books?id=UXP5AQAAQBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=dictionary%20untranslatables%20Barbara%20Cassin&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiivZbx5JXmAhWi2-AKHaViAB8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=conscius&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36470" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12943" RevisionGUID="e47efbf2-4af0-4044-9856-099ec1b1f688" CreationDate="2019-12-02T04:26:50.283" />
  <row Id="36471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12943" RevisionGUID="284eec5e-471c-4038-9193-092634a307cc" CreationDate="2019-12-02T04:58:42.917" UserId="2108" Comment="Grammar improvements" Text="I was wondering how the Greeks in the archaic or classical age wrote letters, if there was some sort of convention for them, thus I searched for Ancient Greek letters but found nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is somebody aware of anything about it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36472" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12943" RevisionGUID="284eec5e-471c-4038-9193-092634a307cc" CreationDate="2019-12-02T04:58:42.917" UserId="2108" Comment="Grammar improvements" Text="Are there any surviving Ancient Greek letters (epistolary)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36473" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12943" RevisionGUID="284eec5e-471c-4038-9193-092634a307cc" CreationDate="2019-12-02T04:58:42.917" Comment="Proposed by 2108 approved by 30 edit id of 341" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36474" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10830" RevisionGUID="014ca8e2-b6f3-4721-987d-163e1e58dd7a" CreationDate="2019-12-02T04:58:55.273" UserId="648" Comment="tags edited" Text="|conditions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36475" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10830" RevisionGUID="014ca8e2-b6f3-4721-987d-163e1e58dd7a" CreationDate="2019-12-02T04:58:55.273" Comment="Proposed by 648 approved by 30 edit id of 340" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12948" RevisionGUID="18bd70d4-3e82-495d-b486-cd083606a517" CreationDate="2019-12-02T09:49:08.037" UserId="6339" Text="From *[Poster, C. 2007. A conversation halved: Epistolary theory in Greco-Roman antiquity. In Letter-writing manuals and instruction from antiquity to the present. Edited by C. Poster and L. C. Mitchell, 21–51. Columbia: Univ. of South Carolina Press][1]* pointed by [@luchonacho][2] I have found quite a few rules that I'll sum up here for those interested:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Letters should be opened with either a **sender** (nominative) + **receiver** (dative) + **salutation/wish of welfare** (infinitive, for instance: [χαίρειν][3]) or a short truncated form indicating only **receiver** (dative). To show deference the sender's name might be placed last.&#xD;&#xA; - Formulary closings are **optional** (for instance: [ἔρρωσο][4])&#xD;&#xA; - Letters must be personal, shorter and simpler than other logoi (often Greek authors apologize for the length of their letters)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.fr/books?id=zGhKNwuFvlwC&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;pg=PA11#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/1459/luchonacho&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%87%CE%B1%CE%AF%CF%81%CF%89&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%94%CF%81%CF%81%CF%89%CF%83%CE%BF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12949" RevisionGUID="d0a1e0a6-e2b4-4739-bc7b-e3a2a18018f0" CreationDate="2019-12-02T11:50:54.917" UserId="1982" Text="This is similar to cnread's excellent answer (res bene cadent); but, better than my (original) ans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovidus Fasti 2; line 380:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...et memorem famam quod bene cessit habet,&quot; = &quot;...and he has (achieves) a lasting fame that has turned out well,&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12949" RevisionGUID="fad70137-164a-4ab0-bec0-13342a2a94d7" CreationDate="2019-12-02T12:39:36.160" UserId="1982" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="This is similar to cnread's excellent answer (res bene cadent); but, better than my (original) ans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovidus Fasti 2; line 380:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...et memorem famam quod bene cessit habet,&quot; = &quot;...and he has (achieves) an unforgetting (lasting) fame that has turned out well,&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12950" RevisionGUID="38a1ee48-41e6-4784-9ae5-8d96fa1530f1" CreationDate="2019-12-02T13:41:14.887" UserId="6342" Text="My initial try was “Homo Praeferens”. What I mean by 'preferring man' is that we can always find the most favorite from a set of alternatives, which is the finding from my behavioral study. I think it could be a universal human nature and I want to express that by the Latin phrase.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36482" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12950" RevisionGUID="38a1ee48-41e6-4784-9ae5-8d96fa1530f1" CreationDate="2019-12-02T13:41:14.887" UserId="6342" Text="How do you translate 'preferring man' into Latin as 'wise man' is translated into Homo sapiens?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36483" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12950" RevisionGUID="38a1ee48-41e6-4784-9ae5-8d96fa1530f1" CreationDate="2019-12-02T13:41:14.887" UserId="6342" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12951" RevisionGUID="2c8b4d4f-8520-459b-b74c-085a5865e361" CreationDate="2019-12-02T14:30:38.577" UserId="6343" Text="I am curious about the best way to translate this sentence into Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;If anyone asks what you are now learning tell them they are unworthy&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!&#xD;&#xA;-Sue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36485" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12951" RevisionGUID="2c8b4d4f-8520-459b-b74c-085a5865e361" CreationDate="2019-12-02T14:30:38.577" UserId="6343" Text="How to translate: &quot;If anyone asks what you are now learning tell them they are unworthy?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36486" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12951" RevisionGUID="2c8b4d4f-8520-459b-b74c-085a5865e361" CreationDate="2019-12-02T14:30:38.577" UserId="6343" Text="|vocabulary|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36487" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12950" RevisionGUID="fc47c23b-66bf-4432-a2ab-5d3115a15dea" CreationDate="2019-12-02T15:10:40.603" UserId="118" Comment="edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|neologism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12952" RevisionGUID="13f2e7c1-15c1-49c2-9ddc-491f1f94adf5" CreationDate="2019-12-02T16:36:16.573" UserId="3153" Text="1. Si aliquis quid studes roget, dic eos indignos esse.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;If anyone should ask what you study, tell them that they are unworthy.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Si aliquis quid studes rogabit, dic eos indignos esse.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;If anyone asks what you study, tell them that they are unworthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) and (2) are different in that 'rogo's mood changes; (1) subjunctive, (2) indicative. The subtlety here is whether you (1) don't expect somebody to ask you, or (2) do expect somebody to ask you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this translation may not be perfect without being given more context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12953" RevisionGUID="556f3c7b-f34e-49d7-a8ea-d97851db4195" CreationDate="2019-12-02T18:30:01.803" UserId="6344" Text="I would suggest to use the verb &quot;cernere&quot;, meaning &quot;having the ability to distinguish (and operate a choice as a consequence)&quot;. Maybe something like *Homo cernit* (man decides), or *Homo crevit* (Here I use the perfect tense with a gnomic value, as in proverbs), that stands for &quot;man has (always) choosen&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Or, if you prefer, *Homo semper crevit*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you prefer instead to use the participle to create a paronomasia, then *Homo cernens*.&#xD;&#xA;Other interesting hues are:&#xD;&#xA;*Homo diligens* (choosing, and with a certain preference and even respect, love);&#xD;&#xA;*Homo eligens* (eligere means knowing how to choose, choosing with competence, and therefore nominate, elect, even in a figurative way);&#xD;&#xA;*Homo optans* (choosing, tending or aspiring to something).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12955" RevisionGUID="971d36ed-355b-4e55-a67f-9d707a5771af" CreationDate="2019-12-03T18:52:44.970" UserId="1459" Text="According to [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mob#Etymology_1), the English term &quot;mob&quot; (as in group of people) comes from the Middle English &quot;mobile&quot;, which comes from the Latin &quot;mobile (vulgus)&quot; (a moving crowd). Is this meaning attested in Classical Latin? [here](https://www.latinitium.com/latin-dictionaries?t=sh16361) we can find other Classical Latin words for &quot;mob&quot;, like _turba, vulgus, [promiscua] multitudo_ and _globus_. But what about _mobile vulgus_, from where &quot;mob&quot; is supposed to come? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36492" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12955" RevisionGUID="971d36ed-355b-4e55-a67f-9d707a5771af" CreationDate="2019-12-03T18:52:44.970" UserId="1459" Text="Is &quot;mobile (vulgus)&quot; used to refer to a &quot;mob&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36493" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12955" RevisionGUID="971d36ed-355b-4e55-a67f-9d707a5771af" CreationDate="2019-12-03T18:52:44.970" UserId="1459" Text="|classical-latin|etymology|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12957" RevisionGUID="069bcb9a-971b-4cd5-a925-9af095a64081" CreationDate="2019-12-03T22:01:20.770" UserId="324" Text="The phrase &quot;mobile vulgus&quot; occurs in Seneca and in Statius. See here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ekJCRvHiAwwC&amp;pg=PA288&amp;lpg=PA288&amp;dq=%22mobile+vulgus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XvCwgEdFny&amp;sig=ACfU3U3R7bIMobQ70YvxdtBmvvItBxygEA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjeu-DyuprmAhXRgVwKHZoDBhc4KBDoATACegQICBAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22mobile%20vulgus%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12952" RevisionGUID="6384337c-3c23-4d9a-8ce5-34dedf2ae0ef" CreationDate="2019-12-03T23:51:23.493" UserId="3153" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="1. Si quis quid studeas roget, dic eum indignum esse.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;If anyone should ask what you study, tell them that they are unworthy.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Si quis quid studeas rogabit, dic eum indignum esse.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;If anyone asks what you study, tell them that they are unworthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) and (2) are different in that 'rogo's mood changes; (1) subjunctive, (2) indicative. The subtlety here is whether you (1) don't expect somebody to ask you, or (2) do expect somebody to ask you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this translation may not be perfect without being given more context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12949" RevisionGUID="8f4b6ac1-c09c-48fc-9ba5-972c355b56a3" CreationDate="2019-12-04T14:38:30.693" UserId="1982" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="This is similar to cnread's excellent answer (res bene cadent); but, better than my (original) ans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ovidus Fasti 2; line 380:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...et memorem famam quod bene cessit habet,&quot; = &quot;...and it (the day) has (achieves) an unforgetting (lasting) fame because it turned out well,&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12958" RevisionGUID="383573a2-6627-410a-aec8-f6d318f39609" CreationDate="2019-12-04T16:23:16.560" UserId="3153" Text="In addition to Klaus's wonderful answer, you could also use Suus-a-um. As in, &quot;Ego suum possideo.&quot; I own my own (self)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12862" RevisionGUID="8fc75cc0-e55d-4072-89cc-c03b5dc20b06" CreationDate="2019-12-04T17:30:37.550" UserId="1059" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Haemophilia was known to be hereditary very early, even if this disease has a complex transmission pattern, from mothers to sons. Wikipedia says it was already known from the ancient Hebrews who didn't circumcise sons of women who had this kind of &quot;tendency to bleed&quot; in their family.    &#xD;&#xA;It was called a royal disease in some countries, because some royal families carried the guilty gene.   &#xD;&#xA;But the etymology doesn't say anything about the hereditary side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**There's a confusion in the etymology meaning**, very often with the &quot;*philia*&quot; part, which a lot of people learned in school to mean &quot;to like/to love&quot; (friendship as in &quot;Philippos&quot;, the horses' friend, the horses lover.), when there's an additional meaning &quot;a tendency to&quot;, as you've said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it explains the apparent auto-antonymy in &quot;pedophilia&quot; too, that is surely not a love for young children, but rather a pathological tendency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it's absolutely not &quot;humans who love blood undeniably wouldn't want to lose it&quot;,  &#xD;&#xA;and the etymology is logical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be fair, Haemophilia is not a pathological &quot;tendency&quot; to bleed, it's a blood disease. There is no tendency to bleed, but big difficulties to stop the bleedings, even the small ones, when they occur. Because they lack of some blood factors responsible of the blood coagulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As there is no change in the meaning, the Typology of Blank doesn't apply, there is no semantic change, only a lack of Greek teaching in schools, and people forget the etymology of words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12960" RevisionGUID="7d2105cc-da72-41c7-a68a-48dcf8b57160" CreationDate="2019-12-04T19:08:24.260" UserId="6349" Text="I am translating a biography of Alessandro Farnese from French into English. The original source occasionally quotes a Latin phrase here and there. Most of them are known proverbs but this one comes from a letter written in the 16th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tacita decisio controversiæ quam præcedendi desiderium pepererat in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adventu.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context is in regards to hierarchical protocol observed in the presence of Royalty at a dinner. Please met me know if more contextual information is needed or would be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contributions will be noted in the acknowledgements of the completed book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36506" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12960" RevisionGUID="7d2105cc-da72-41c7-a68a-48dcf8b57160" CreationDate="2019-12-04T19:08:24.260" UserId="6349" Text="May I request a translation for &quot;Tacita decisio controversiæ quam præcedendi desiderium pepererat in adventu.&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36507" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12960" RevisionGUID="7d2105cc-da72-41c7-a68a-48dcf8b57160" CreationDate="2019-12-04T19:08:24.260" UserId="6349" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12960" RevisionGUID="4493a04c-8926-47c1-9d7b-81ddab6128d0" CreationDate="2019-12-04T19:34:45.273" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="I am translating a biography of Alessandro Farnese from French into English. The original source occasionally quotes a Latin phrase here and there. Most of them are known proverbs but this one comes from a letter written in the 16th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tacita decisio controversiæ quam præcedendi desiderium pepererat in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adventu.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context is in regards to hierarchical protocol observed in the presence of Royalty at a dinner. Please met me know if more contextual information is needed or would be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contributions will be noted in the acknowledgements of the completed book." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12896" RevisionGUID="be78420b-3e61-4d53-b496-c051201eab19" CreationDate="2019-12-04T20:13:17.850" UserId="6308" Comment="added 518 characters in body" Text="Thank you very much for all your replies. However the answers do not exactly match the meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Love makes [anything] grow.&quot; -- This anything can be anything - a person, work, condition, anything you can think of. Whatever love touches, it makes it grow. I'd prefer ambuigity and mystery for the &quot;anything&quot; part. What &quot;anything&quot; is determined by the imagination of the reader. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject is -&quot;love&quot;, the verb is &quot;make grow&quot;. Two words for an ambigious &quot;anything&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance . :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a Latin translation of &quot;love makes it grow&quot; or &quot;love makes things grow&quot; or an appropriate word in Latin for &quot;grow&quot;. This is for a tattoo which will be on the outer side of the arm between elbow and wrist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have only tried automatic Google Translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="dc395608-306b-411f-bae3-db613fa3cf6c" CreationDate="2019-12-04T21:58:46.620" UserId="9" Comment="Fixed mistaken verb given for &quot;vinciturus&quot;" Text="There seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb that is true for &quot;regular&quot; verbs. Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]* (1903) mentions this phenomenon and gives some other examples of exceptions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the usual identity of the stems for the perfect and future participles may be coincidental. In &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, Eva-Maria Remberger writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form of the FPart [...] probably represents a derivation of a supine in the form of a locative, ending in *-tū* (Leumann et al. 1963: 342); however, later it was interpreted as being derived from the stem of the PPart (cf. Ernout 1953: §320, among others). Nevertheless, these latter assumptions are contradicted by a large number of exceptions which clearly are not derived from the stem of the PPart. The following FPart forms are all derived from the stem of the present and not the PPart: [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: I have removed the list of forms mentioned, as they are included in my own list below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Moreover, there are verbal paradigms which have a FPart form without displaying a PPart form, at least in Latin, like *fugitūrus, futūrus* (cf. Leumann  et al. 1963:342).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* edited by Sascha Gaglia and  Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.* (On the other hand, I have found a few sources that indicate that &quot;partūrus&quot; was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718).) Johnson has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples of non-matching forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, *[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272), but the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin. (I asked this as a [separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6462), and it seems that the main criterion that would establish participle-hood in Latin is taking an accusative direct object, which is only relevant for transitive verbs.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples categorized by ending&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A. In *-ātūrus,* from first-conjugation verbs with past participles not ending in *-ātus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **stātūrus** from *stō, stāre, stetī, stătus.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Neue and Wagener have a long list of sources that attest to the length of the a in this future active participle ([p. 590](https://books.google.com/books?id=TJOpnoQYfJoC&amp;pg=PA590&amp;lpg=PA588&amp;dq=&quot;staturus)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **sŏnātūrus** from *[sŏno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsono), sŏnāre/sŏnĕre, sŏnŭi, sŏnĭtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;- **jŭvātūrus** from *[jŭvo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Djuvo), jŭvāre, jūvi, jūtum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, [Peter Bullions] (1867) and [Albert Harkness] (1867) say that in compounds, *jūtūrus* is also used. &#xD;&#xA;- **sĕcātūrus**  from *[sĕco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dseco), sĕcāre, sĕcuī, sectum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, Bede's *[De Orthographia][Bede]* seems to say &quot;secturus, non secaturus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **frĭcātūrus** from *[frĭco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfrico), frĭcāre, frĭcuī, frictum/(fricātum).*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;(The L&amp;S entry says that the supine is &quot;rarely&quot; *fricātum*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Emmanuelis Alvari E Societate Iesu Grammatica Sive Institutionum Linguae Latinae](https://books.google.com/books?id=eEgRotn5jmgC&amp;pg=PA152)* (1627) gives a long list including the following forms, but I haven't verified it yet, and some seem a bit doubtful: *cubaturus, domaturus, crepaturus, vetaturus, tonaturus*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*cubiturus* seems to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23cubitur)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*domiturus* seems to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23domitur)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Hoole's Terminations for nouns and verbs](https://books.google.com/books?id=cI0CAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA95&amp;lpg=PA95)* describes both *crepaturus* and *crepatum* as rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Grandgent 1907](https://books.google.com/books?id=JDQFAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA183) (&quot;An Introduction to Vulgar Latin&quot;) says that in Vulgar Latin, *-ātus* was extended to many past participles of first-conjugation verbs that formerly had past participles in *-ĭtus*: the examples given are *\*crepatus, domatus, plicatus,* *\*sonatus,* *\*tonatus, vetatus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###B. in *-uitūrus,* from verbs ending in *-uo(r)* in the present.&#xD;&#xA;You already mentioned this category. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  *ruitūrus* vs. *-rutus* (Hale and Buck).&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;*abnuitūrus* (vs. *nūtus* 'the hint')&quot; (Remberger)&#xD;&#xA;- *fruiturus* and *construiturus* (Neue and Wagener)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###C. in *-Citūrus* (C = any consonant)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nāscĭtūrus** from *nāscor, nascī, nātus*  (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*nascendus* also seems to be used, but I'm not sure whether there is a difference in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **moritūrus** from *morior, morī, mortuus.*	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **oritūrus** from *orior, orīrī, ortus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **graditūrus** from *gradior, gradī, gressus* (Neue and Wagener, p. 588).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nōscĭtūrus** from *nōsco, nōscĕre, nōvī, nōtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;Remberger mentions the prefixed form &quot;*ignoscītūrus* (vs. *ignōtus*)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **părĭtūrus** from *păriō, părĕre, pĕpĕrī, partus/părĭtus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt; Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Remberger says &quot;cf. Ernout 1953&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **vincitūrus** from *vinco, vincĕre, vīcī, victus* (Remberger). &#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;However, [*De Orthographia* by Flavius Caper](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1229/1/0/1434-1443#0) (or maybe in part by a Pseudo-Flavius Caper?) seems to give an analogical argument in favor of using *victurus* instead of *vinciturus,* which suggests that there may have been some degree of confusion during the time of the author (although I guess the regular form mentioned here could just be a hypothetical invention).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **haurītūrus** (Remberger) or **hausurus** (Johnson) from *hauriō, haurīre, hausī, haustus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **gauditūrus** from *gaudeō, gaudēre, gāvīsus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;Note: [*gavisurus* does seem to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23gavisur).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###E. In *-Citurus*, might be rare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **crēscitūrus** from *crēscō, crēscĕre, crēvī, crētus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;I'm not sure where we have examples of the form *crēscitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **adduciturus** once instead of *adducturus* from *addūco, addūcĕre, addūxī, adductum* (Johnson says the single occurrence of *adduciturus* is in Plautus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **cōnsequitūrus** from *cōnsequor, cōnsequī, cōnsecūtus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;But Neue and Wagener, who say that *consequiturus* occurs in one inscription, &quot;aus dem J. 257 n. Chr., I. Neap. 1524&quot;, suggest that it is just a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Sources for the listed participles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The books with lists of (possible) exceptions that I used to compile my list above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Hale, William Gardner and Carl Darling Buck (1903). *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- J.R. (1705). *[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Johnson, Richard (1718). [*Grammatical Commentaries*][johnson]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leonard, J Russell (written some time before 1882). *[A Latin grammar][Leonard]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Remberger, Eva-Maria. &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, *Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* (2012), edited by Sascha Gaglia and Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Neue, Christian Friedrich and Carl Wagener. 1985. *[Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache](https://books.google.com/books?id=TJOpnoQYfJoC&amp;pg=PA588&amp;lpg=PA588&amp;dq=&quot;vinciturus&quot;),* (pp. 586-590).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [remberger]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NbXsjEqOHKIC&amp;pg=PA271&amp;lpg=PA271&amp;dq=latin+participle+inflection+verbal+adjectival&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=gjEokeware&amp;sig=irBQf-FsBFMu7gegdspS-80kcpM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjyi9jgyY3cAhWUHjQIHYf6DhA4ChDoAQhNMAY#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20participle%20inflection%20verbal%20adjectival&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[hale and buck]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leonard]: &#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=EZACAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=moriturus+oriturus+pariturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-bBNdzFRHw&amp;sig=wgji1qbBOqFDyxCBhaoAiTDEE9s&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilhPa8mIXbAhVJm-AKHfWKA94Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moriturus%20oriturus%20pariturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bede]: https://books.google.com/books?id=tOQHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=%22secaturus%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22secaturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Peter Bullions]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cxoPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=juvaturus#v=onepage&amp;q=juvaturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Albert Harkness]: https://books.google.com/books?id=n4sAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=juvaturus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12963" RevisionGUID="5f408ab8-8f6a-4297-80f4-9a0f9a8fa927" CreationDate="2019-12-04T22:24:16.743" UserId="4947" Text="The (yet) unexpressed decision of the discussion aroused the desire to precede (the others) in naming it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12964" RevisionGUID="fb48e7e1-b42e-40c2-b297-b5dfe6d13104" CreationDate="2019-12-05T00:19:18.520" UserId="406" Text="From [brianpck's comment on another answer][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;qui&quot; quite often means &quot;how&quot; in Plautus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This took me by surprise, since I'd never seen that use before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In what contexts can _quī_ mean &quot;how&quot;? And where does this usage come from? (That is, does it come from the nominative masculine plural of _quis_, or from some other form?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12785/how-do-you-do/12962?noredirect=1#comment23581_12962" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36521" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12964" RevisionGUID="fb48e7e1-b42e-40c2-b297-b5dfe6d13104" CreationDate="2019-12-05T00:19:18.520" UserId="406" Text="When can &quot;qui&quot; mean &quot;how&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36522" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12964" RevisionGUID="fb48e7e1-b42e-40c2-b297-b5dfe6d13104" CreationDate="2019-12-05T00:19:18.520" UserId="406" Text="|vocabulary|word-usage|old-latin|interrogative|plautus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12965" RevisionGUID="726d0d2e-e7a6-4c67-9280-5f21ecbeafe2" CreationDate="2019-12-05T01:16:53.273" UserId="45" Text="I found an article that gives some excellent examples of this usage as well as practical tips for how to recognize it: [Thomas Nelson, &quot;The Third *Qui*, and Six Ways to Recognize It, or 'Who Happens, Maecenas?'&quot;](https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&amp;context=classicsfacpub)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nelson begins by noting that there are *three* kinds of *qui*. The first are ubiquitous, and found in the [L&amp;S entry for the first meaning of *qui*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dqui1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Relative pronoun, e.g. &quot;Qui dixit hoc mortuus est&quot; = &quot;He **who** said this has died.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. Interrogative adjective, e.g. &quot;Qui vir hoc dixit?&quot; = &quot;**Which** man said this?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third meaning--which you are asking about--is under the [second entry for *qui* in L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dqui2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Interrogative/relative adverb: &quot;in what manner? how? whereby? by what means? why?&quot; Though it is used adverbially, L&amp;S notes that it is an old ablative construction formed from *quis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at this more closely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **How rare is this form?** Caesar and Livy never use it. Cicero uses it very rarely. Among poets and playwrights, however, it is quite common. Nelson looked through several plays by Plautus and Terence, and found that anywhere from 14-21% of the *qui*'s are adverbial &quot;how?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **What are some examples of this usage?** Here are a few:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) First, the very first lines of Horace's *Satires*!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qui fit, Maecenas, ut nemo, quam sibi sortem  &#xD;&#xA;seu ratio dederit seu fors1 obiecerit, illa  &#xD;&#xA;contentus vivat, laudet diversa sequentis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The beginning &quot;qui fit&quot; means &quot;**How** comes it...?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;(2) Next, consider a rare example from Cicero's *In Verrem* 2.5.3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Vetus est quod dicam, et propter severitatem exempli nemini fortasse vestrum inauditum, L. Domitium praetorem in Sicilia, cum aper ingens ad eum adlatus esset, admiratum requisisse quis eum percussisset; cum audisset pastorem cuiusdam fuisse, eum vocari ad se iussisse; illum cupide ad praetorem quasi ad laudem atque ad praemium accucurrisse; **quaesisse Domitium qui tantam bestiam percussisset**; illum respondisse, **venabulo**; statim deinde iussu praetoris in crucem esse sublatum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this example, the praetor is not asking *who* struck the great beast: he is asking &quot;by what means?&quot; The answer, using the ablative of means, makes this clear: &quot;With a hunting spear.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) Finally, as a representative example from the *many* examples that can be found in Plautus and Terence, consider the following lines from the *Mercator*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Char. Plurimum tu scis. sed qui scis esse amicam illam meam?  &#xD;&#xA;Evt. Tute heri ipsus mihi narrasti.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Char: You know a lot. But **how** do you know that she is my girlfriend?  &#xD;&#xA;Evt: You yourself told me yesterday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **How do I recognize this usage?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nelson offers the following six practical tips:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. The whereby/how *qui* is usually interrogative.&#xD;&#xA;2. It is often marked further by being paired with a following *quia*: *qui? quia* “How . . . ? Because . . .”&#xD;&#xA;3. The most frequent associated idea is of knowing, with a form&#xD;&#xA;of *scire* or *gnoscere*: *qui scis, qui noveris?* “How do you know?”&#xD;&#xA;4. *Qui* followed immediately by an adverb or comparative is&#xD;&#xA;whereby/how/the way: *qui minus quam* . . . “How less than . . .”&#xD;&#xA;5. The obvious noun antecedent is not a person, but a tool:&#xD;&#xA;*machinas qui*, “tools to __ with” (“with which to__”).&#xD;&#xA;6. If the context is of giving or seeking, *qui* is instrumental,&#xD;&#xA;“how,” “a way,” “the means, “ e.g. *da mi qui comparem* “Give&#xD;&#xA;me the means to buy . . .” There is no antecedent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12964" RevisionGUID="4d161246-aab0-402d-8962-c7536c22c96b" CreationDate="2019-12-05T01:20:42.177" UserId="406" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="From [brianpck's comment on another answer][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;qui&quot; quite often means &quot;how&quot; in Plautus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This took me by surprise, since I'd never seen that use before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In what contexts can _quī_ mean &quot;how&quot;? And where does this usage come from? (That is, does it come from masculine nominative _quī_ &quot;who&quot;, or from some other form?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12785/how-do-you-do/12962?noredirect=1#comment23581_12962" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12965" RevisionGUID="d8256101-c3ab-4b7e-89e3-005053e12add" CreationDate="2019-12-05T01:24:05.917" UserId="45" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I found an article that gives some excellent examples of this usage as well as practical tips for how to recognize it: [Thomas Nelson, &quot;The Third *Qui*, and Six Ways to Recognize It, or 'Who Happens, Maecenas?'&quot;](https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&amp;context=classicsfacpub)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nelson begins by noting that there are *three* kinds of *qui*. The first two are ubiquitous, and found in the [L&amp;S entry for the first meaning of *qui*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dqui1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Relative pronoun, e.g. &quot;Qui dixit hoc mortuus est&quot; = &quot;He **who** said this has died.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. Interrogative adjective, e.g. &quot;Qui vir hoc dixit?&quot; = &quot;**Which** man said this?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third meaning--which you are asking about--is under the [second entry for *qui* in L&amp;S](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dqui2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Interrogative/relative adverb: &quot;in what manner? how? whereby? by what means? why?&quot; Though it is used adverbially, L&amp;S notes that it is an old ablative construction formed from *quis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at this more closely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **How rare is this form?** Caesar and Livy never use it. Cicero uses it very rarely. Among poets and playwrights, however, it is quite common. Nelson looked through several plays by Plautus and Terence, and found that anywhere from 14-21% of the *qui*'s are adverbial &quot;how?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **What are some examples of this usage?** Here are a few:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) First, the very first lines of Horace's *Satires*!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qui fit, Maecenas, ut nemo, quam sibi sortem  &#xD;&#xA;seu ratio dederit seu fors1 obiecerit, illa  &#xD;&#xA;contentus vivat, laudet diversa sequentis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The beginning &quot;qui fit&quot; means &quot;**How** comes it...?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;(2) Next, consider a rare example from Cicero's *In Verrem* 2.5.3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Vetus est quod dicam, et propter severitatem exempli nemini fortasse vestrum inauditum, L. Domitium praetorem in Sicilia, cum aper ingens ad eum adlatus esset, admiratum requisisse quis eum percussisset; cum audisset pastorem cuiusdam fuisse, eum vocari ad se iussisse; illum cupide ad praetorem quasi ad laudem atque ad praemium accucurrisse; **quaesisse Domitium qui tantam bestiam percussisset**; illum respondisse, **venabulo**; statim deinde iussu praetoris in crucem esse sublatum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this example, the praetor is not asking *who* struck the great beast: he is asking &quot;by what means?&quot; The answer, using the ablative of means, makes this clear: &quot;With a hunting spear.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) Finally, as a representative example from the *many* examples that can be found in Plautus and Terence, consider the following lines from the *Mercator*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Char. Plurimum tu scis. sed qui scis esse amicam illam meam?  &#xD;&#xA;Evt. Tute heri ipsus mihi narrasti.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Char: You know a lot. But **how** do you know that she is my girlfriend?  &#xD;&#xA;Evt: You yourself told me yesterday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **How do I recognize this usage?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nelson offers the following six practical tips:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. The whereby/how *qui* is usually interrogative.&#xD;&#xA;2. It is often marked further by being paired with a following *quia*: *qui? quia* “How . . . ? Because . . .”&#xD;&#xA;3. The most frequent associated idea is of knowing, with a form&#xD;&#xA;of *scire* or *gnoscere*: *qui scis, qui noveris?* “How do you know?”&#xD;&#xA;4. *Qui* followed immediately by an adverb or comparative is&#xD;&#xA;whereby/how/the way: *qui minus quam* . . . “How less than . . .”&#xD;&#xA;5. The obvious noun antecedent is not a person, but a tool:&#xD;&#xA;*machinas qui*, “tools to __ with” (“with which to__”).&#xD;&#xA;6. If the context is of giving or seeking, *qui* is instrumental,&#xD;&#xA;“how,” “a way,” “the means, “ e.g. *da mi qui comparem* “Give&#xD;&#xA;me the means to buy . . .” There is no antecedent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12966" RevisionGUID="604739de-5e80-44ad-8b8f-8049511a9490" CreationDate="2019-12-05T03:10:03.020" UserId="40" Text="To answer your second question (since brianpck has already given an excellent answer to the first), *quī* is etymologically an ablative. The paradigm of the interrogatives *quī, quis* is a bit odd in that it combines third-declension forms (*quis, quem*) and first-/second-declension ones (*quā, quō*). This *quī* is originally a third-declension ablative form (&quot;by means of what?&quot;), but it got specialized in meaning to &quot;how?&quot;, while the first-/second-declension forms became the standard ablative of *quī / quis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(By the way, this *quī* is also found in *nēquīquam* &quot;fruitlessly, in vain&quot;.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12967" RevisionGUID="14c2efca-32fb-4929-9d02-55f4fdce7540" CreationDate="2019-12-05T05:14:52.427" UserId="45" Text="Without knowing the context, here's my best shot at a literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The unspoken resolution of a dispute which the desire to surpass had brought about at [their] arrival.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The whole phrase is just a noun that seems to be explaining what preceded it. The only verb is the relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;*decisio controversiae* occurs a few other times that I could find and seems to mean, &quot;resolution of a dispute&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* *praecedendi* (&lt; *praecedo*) can mean either &quot;go before&quot; or &quot;surpass/excel.&quot; Perhaps context will dictate which is more apropos.&#xD;&#xA;* *pepererat* (&lt; *pario*) literally means &quot;to bear [a child],&quot; but in this context almost certainly has a less literal meaning: to &quot;devise/invent&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* I'm not quite sure what to do with *in adventu*: again, context would be important. I translated as &quot;at [their] arrival&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36528" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12964" RevisionGUID="c101c361-64e4-47bf-b1e2-be4217cefdb0" CreationDate="2019-12-05T08:32:41.103" />
  <row Id="36529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12968" RevisionGUID="c4d3e644-b746-4224-b7b8-b5ea98fdd743" CreationDate="2019-12-05T11:33:42.603" UserId="1982" Text="In Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/12906/1982; suggested that &quot;felicem&quot; be replced by &quot;audacem&quot;. Thanks to Hugh who indicated the elision requirement for the clash of vowels &quot;a&quot;, in &quot;contra-audacem&quot;, giving &quot;contr' audacem&quot;. Alternatively, one &quot;a&quot; can be bracketed: &quot;contr(a) audacem&quot;; marking that it is to be barely pronounced, if at all. Neither of these elisions would help the tattoo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asked if such circumstances would disqualify the use of &quot;audacem&quot;. Thanks to Draconis who was not sure; but, advised that a poet can use hiatus to make the meter work. This, I think, means that elision can be omitted when a word, ending in a vowel, has a special emphasis (Allen &amp; Greenough 612-615).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would &quot;audacem&quot; hold &quot;a special emphasis&quot;; or, should the word be replaced by e.g. &quot;fortem&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36530" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12968" RevisionGUID="c4d3e644-b746-4224-b7b8-b5ea98fdd743" CreationDate="2019-12-05T11:33:42.603" UserId="1982" Text="Do Crashing Vowels Disqualify Words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36531" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12968" RevisionGUID="c4d3e644-b746-4224-b7b8-b5ea98fdd743" CreationDate="2019-12-05T11:33:42.603" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12968" RevisionGUID="8b229b6d-dddb-49f5-b8dc-56c9bcc458ff" CreationDate="2019-12-05T11:43:16.577" UserId="1982" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="In Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/12906/1982; suggested that &quot;felicem&quot; be replced by &quot;audacem&quot;. Thanks to Hugh who indicated the elision requirement for the clash of vowels &quot;a&quot;, in &quot;contra-audacem&quot;, giving &quot;contr' audacem&quot;. Alternatively, one &quot;a&quot; can be bracketed: &quot;contr(a) audacem&quot;; marking that it is to be barely pronounced, if at all. Neither of these elisions would help the tattoo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asked if such circumstances would disqualify the use of &quot;audacem&quot;. Thanks to Draconis who was not sure; but, advised that a poet can use hiatus to make the meter work. This, I think, means that elision can be omitted when a word, ending in a vowel, has a special emphasis (Allen &amp; Greenough 612-615).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would &quot;contra&quot; hold &quot;a special emphasis&quot;; or, should the word &quot;audacem&quot; be replaced by e.g. &quot;fortem&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12969" RevisionGUID="41bd2ed8-602d-40c9-9412-88ef96ba9dc7" CreationDate="2019-12-05T12:16:21.627" UserId="324" Text="I need to contradict the notion of &quot;elision requirement&quot; postulated in one of the comments on the previous question. In **written** Latin there is no elision. You write quite simply &quot;contra audacem&quot;, &quot;mea anima&quot; etc. In poetry the final vowel of the first word will usually be elided (or perhaps merely shortened), or not, as required, but in any event this does not affect the spelling. In prose there is no way of knowing whether that vowel is dropped or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12970" RevisionGUID="fe7f06bd-08f3-4f94-86c9-83a0405a4a53" CreationDate="2019-12-05T16:03:54.720" UserId="6352" Text="I have a question regarding the Pelican Piety allegory.  Is it accurate to inscribe it this way: IESU PIE PELLICANE ? For lack of space on artistic scroll work is this accurate?in " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36536" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12970" RevisionGUID="fe7f06bd-08f3-4f94-86c9-83a0405a4a53" CreationDate="2019-12-05T16:03:54.720" UserId="6352" Text="The Pelican Piety, as an Allegory for Jesus Christ.Can the title &quot;Pie Pellicane, Iesu Domine&quot; be shortened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36537" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12970" RevisionGUID="fe7f06bd-08f3-4f94-86c9-83a0405a4a53" CreationDate="2019-12-05T16:03:54.720" UserId="6352" Text="|vocabulary|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12971" RevisionGUID="9b361fbd-f521-459c-98ec-1960ab39ac02" CreationDate="2019-12-05T16:21:07.253" UserId="6353" Text="If I in a philosphy paper wish to say that a statement renders itself meaningless/contradictory &quot;in utterance&quot; or &quot;by means of utterance&quot; (ie. upon being uttered), is there a way to do this? similarly to &quot;ad analysandum&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36539" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12971" RevisionGUID="9b361fbd-f521-459c-98ec-1960ab39ac02" CreationDate="2019-12-05T16:21:07.253" UserId="6353" Text="How to translate &quot;by means of utterance&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36540" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12971" RevisionGUID="9b361fbd-f521-459c-98ec-1960ab39ac02" CreationDate="2019-12-05T16:21:07.253" UserId="6353" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36544" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12968" RevisionGUID="ab1c08ba-1fe7-4c54-bdfc-cd1cb1c9f9d8" CreationDate="2019-12-05T19:48:41.777" />
  <row Id="36545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12970" RevisionGUID="73f69a6e-ae35-4e3a-90be-9b5ced2180cc" CreationDate="2019-12-05T19:55:03.867" UserId="45" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="I have a question regarding the Pelican Piety allegory.  Is it accurate to inscribe it this way: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; IESU PIE PELLICANE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For lack of space on artistic scroll work, is this accurate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36546" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12970" RevisionGUID="73f69a6e-ae35-4e3a-90be-9b5ced2180cc" CreationDate="2019-12-05T19:55:03.867" UserId="45" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can the title &quot;Pie Pellicane, Iesu Domine&quot; be shortened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12973" RevisionGUID="52fedb7a-bdc8-4dec-a583-7571ecd97e7e" CreationDate="2019-12-05T20:09:47.343" UserId="45" Text="The pelican as a symbol for Christ is extremely old, going back (at least) to the [*Physiologus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiologus), which is usually dated to the 2nd century AD (though some scholars have argued that it was composed in the 4th century). Here, the pelican is said to feed its young with its own blood: it's not hard to see why this was considered a fitting symbol of Christ's death on the cross.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was used by many authors, of which [this article](https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/the-symbolism-of-the-pelican.html) gives several representative examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reference to the pelican and its Christian meaning are found in Renaissance literature: Dante (1321) in the &quot;Paridiso&quot; of his Divine Comedy refers to Christ as &quot;our Pelican.&quot; John Lyly in his Euphues (1606) wrote, &quot;Pelicane who striketh blood out of its owne bodye to do others good.&quot; Shakespeare (1616) in Hamlet wrote, &quot;To his good friend thus wide, Ill ope my arms / And, like the kind, life-rendering pelican / Repast them with my blood.&quot; John Skelton (1529) in his Armorie of Birds, wrote, &quot;Then sayd the Pellycan: When my Byrdts be slayne / With my bloude I them revyve. Scripture doth record / The same dyd our Lord / And rose from deth to lyve.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the most famous uses of this symbol, to which your question refers, is from the Christian hymn [*Adoro te devote*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoro_te_devote), composed by St. Thomas Aquinas for the newly instituted feast of Corpus Christi, c. 1284.  The sixth verse goes as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pie Pelicane, Jesu Domine,  &#xD;&#xA;Me immundum munda tuo Sanguine  &#xD;&#xA;Cujus una stilla salvum facere  &#xD;&#xA;Totum mundum quit ab omni scelere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(N.B. It seems that the world is evenly split over whether it should be spelled &quot;pelicane&quot; or &quot;pellicane&quot; (two *l*'s).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O kind pelican, Lord Jesus  &#xD;&#xA;Clean me, who am unclean, with your blood  &#xD;&#xA;Of which one drop is able to make  &#xD;&#xA;the whole world saved from all sin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iesu Pie Pelicane&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is a perfectly correct rearrangement of the vocative beginning. It means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jesus, kind pelican&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to your question, &quot;Is it accurate?&quot; depends on what you mean by &quot;accurate&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is it what Thomas Aquinas wrote? No&#xD;&#xA;* Could the hymn be changed to this wording without a problem? No, because the rhyme and syllable count wouldn't permit this.&#xD;&#xA;* Is it good Latin that conveys the same sense? Yes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12974" RevisionGUID="2c365476-1a69-449f-bb6d-631b0f981d8f" CreationDate="2019-12-05T20:13:55.167" UserId="6175" Text="I am currently working on a translation passage adapted from Livy 43.4 by Ashley Carter, titled Hortensius at Abdera, but got stuck only a few lines into it. Here is the sentence that I am struggling to translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cives, cum tantam pecuniam non haberent, ab eo petiverunt ut sibi permitteretur ut legatos de ea re ad consulem Hostilium, qui in Graecia quoque esset, et Romam mitterent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, I have gotten:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Since they did not have money of such size, the citizens asked from him that he..._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not really sure why I'm so confused about the rest of it, as the grammar and vocab are both familiar to me already, but I hope someone can help me decipher this sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To help, here is the passage in its entirety, along with the English context sentences that are given directly before it. I have put the sentence I am asking about in bold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _The citizens of Abdera try to save the city from the greedy Roman praetor, Hortensius. Hortensius now fell into disgrace._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hortensius, praetor Romanus, qui bellum in Graecia gerebat, ad oppidum Abdera advenit. ibi, praedam quaerens, centum milia denariorum plurimumque frumentum a civibus poposcit. **cives, cum tantam pecuniam non haberent, ab eo petiverunt ut sibi permitteretur ut legatos de ea re ad consulem Hostilium, qui in Graecia quoque esset, et Romam mitterent.** qui simulatque ad consulem pervenerunt, audiverunt oppidum suum captum, principes occisos, ceteros venditos esse. tum legati Abderitae Romam ad senatum venerunt lacrimantes. querebantur oppidum suum ab Hortensio praetore sine iusta causa expugnatum ac direptum esse. haec res indigna senatoribus visa est. decreverunt Abderitas, qui iam servi essent, liberandos esse oppidumque restituendum esse. duo legati missi sunt qui haec facerent. iisdem mandatum est ut et Hostilio consuli et Hortensio praetori nuntiarent senatum decrevisse iniustum bellum contra Abderitas gestum esse; omnes cives qui adhuc vivi essent in libertatem restituendos esse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation that I have gotten so far (i.e. the first two sentences) is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hortensius, a Roman praetor, who was waging a war in Greece, arrived at the town of Abdera. There, looking for plunder, he demanded one hundred thousand denarii and very many grain from the citizens.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36549" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12974" RevisionGUID="2c365476-1a69-449f-bb6d-631b0f981d8f" CreationDate="2019-12-05T20:13:55.167" UserId="6175" Text="How would you translate this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36550" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12974" RevisionGUID="2c365476-1a69-449f-bb6d-631b0f981d8f" CreationDate="2019-12-05T20:13:55.167" UserId="6175" Text="|classical-latin|translation|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12975" RevisionGUID="674ab22a-eb74-4875-83d6-815d94575996" CreationDate="2019-12-05T22:15:52.113" UserId="6356" Text="I am trying to translate the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Si liberalitatis nostrae munere de beneficiis a deo nobis conlatis locis ecclesiasticis quiddam conferimus, id nobis procul dubio as aeternae remuneracionis praemia capessenda profuturum liquido credimus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can not quite figure out the meaning of this sentence, it looks confusingly written to me. Below I wrote down what I think this tries to express&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Si ... conferimus &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;should mean something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If by our generosity we bring together all charitable services at a certain ecclesiastical place&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the part &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;id .... credimus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We believe without a doubt that we get some reward if we do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally I can not figure out the meaning of the word &quot;remuneracionis&quot;, this is not in my dictionary and I can not find it online either. It also confuses me that conlatis (&quot;brought together&quot;) and conferimus(&quot;we bring together&quot;) is in the same sentence. Could you explain this sentence to me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36552" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12975" RevisionGUID="674ab22a-eb74-4875-83d6-815d94575996" CreationDate="2019-12-05T22:15:52.113" UserId="6356" Text="How to translate this medieval sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36553" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12975" RevisionGUID="674ab22a-eb74-4875-83d6-815d94575996" CreationDate="2019-12-05T22:15:52.113" UserId="6356" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12976" RevisionGUID="398594cb-2b56-457c-9ddf-06e0afe65c9d" CreationDate="2019-12-05T23:52:01.600" UserId="985" Text="You have the *cum* clause pretty well figured out, so I'll skip that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The citizens asked him (*ab eo petiverunt*) for something. What was that thing? Instead of supplying some noun as the direct object of *petiverunt*, Livy provides a noun clause (jussive noun clause) that gives the substance of the request, *ut sibi permitteretur*: they want something to be permitted to them. (Here, *sibi* refers to *cives*, the grammatical subject of the sentence's main verb, *petiverunt*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And what was it that they want to be permitted to them? Again, instead of supplying some noun to serve as the subject of *permitteretur*, Livy gives another noun clause, *ut legatos...miterent*: they want to send envoys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The envoys are described as *legatos de ea re*: envoys (to handle discussions, etc.) about that matter; and the citizens want to send them both to a specific person (*ad consulem Hostilium*) and to a place (*Romam*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, along the way, we get a relative clause to provide a detail about Hostilius, *qui in Graecia quoque esset*: he was in Greece too. The subjunctive form *esset* could be meant to signal that this detail was actually included in the request that the citizens made rather than being information that the narrator is supplying for our benefit; or it could be just as a sign of subordination." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12977" RevisionGUID="a7bd8587-aa4d-49d8-b602-ec67285e2e16" CreationDate="2019-12-06T03:37:14.590" UserId="45" Text="There seems to be one typo in your sentence: *as* (&quot;copper coin&quot;) almost certainly should be *ad* (&quot;to&quot;). Corrected in that way, here's a piece-by-piece breakdown of your sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;Si                                          If&#xD;&#xA;    liberalitatis nostrae munere                by the office of our generosity &#xD;&#xA;    de beneficiis &lt;a deo nobis&gt; conlatis        from the benefits conferred on us by God&#xD;&#xA;    locis ecclesiasticis                        to ecclesiastical places&#xD;&#xA;    quiddam                                     something&#xD;&#xA;    conferimus,                                 we confer&#xD;&#xA;id                                          It&#xD;&#xA;    nobis                                       to us&#xD;&#xA;    procul dubio                                beyond any doubt&#xD;&#xA;    ad &lt;aeternae remuneracionis&gt;                for the obtaining of the gifts of eternal recompense&#xD;&#xA;        praemia capessenda&#xD;&#xA;    profuturum                                  to be beneficial &#xD;&#xA;    liquido                                     clearly&#xD;&#xA;    credimus.                                   we believe.&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more fluent translation with English word order would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If, by the office of our generosity, we confer on ecclesiastical property something of the benefits conferred on us by God, we clearly believe, without any doubt, that this will help us in obtaining the rewards of eternal recompense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your last question, &quot;remuneracio&quot; is a Medieval spelling for [*remuneratio*](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dremuneratio). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12978" RevisionGUID="d64ef4ee-c06d-4573-a5be-e099e2d0b221" CreationDate="2019-12-06T07:15:32.370" UserId="4796" Text="**Quare** can be translated as &quot;This is why&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quare#Latin, they translated: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Inveniuntur enim praeter amnem mirae villae et horti, qui a regibus Franciae in XVI° saeculo structi sunt: **quare** Liger hodie saepe regale flumen vocatur&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as &quot;However, besides rivers/streams are found marvelous estates and gardens, which were constructed by kings of France during the 16th century: **which is why** the Loire today is often called a royal river&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12971" RevisionGUID="0f22ac38-c0a1-474b-a2db-25213e88cc2d" CreationDate="2019-12-06T11:35:18.587" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="If I in a philosophy paper wish to say that a statement renders itself meaningless/contradictory &quot;in utterance&quot; or &quot;by means of utterance&quot; (i.e. upon being uttered), is there a way to do this? similarly to &quot;ad analysandum&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36561" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12971" RevisionGUID="0f22ac38-c0a1-474b-a2db-25213e88cc2d" CreationDate="2019-12-06T11:35:18.587" UserId="79" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|philosophy-terms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36562" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="12963" RevisionGUID="f5e05ad4-a7ed-4fa6-8b93-33c5f2733f4c" CreationDate="2019-12-06T11:38:42.387" UserId="79" Comment="141" />
  <row Id="36563" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="12963" RevisionGUID="af452c1d-4c69-4fea-add5-35b5a4409f9c" CreationDate="2019-12-06T11:39:02.247" UserId="79" Comment="141" />
  <row Id="36564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12980" RevisionGUID="8467ba5b-9525-4840-b924-cb2e543d2db6" CreationDate="2019-12-06T14:32:26.753" UserId="299" Text="In the [Latin Vulgate, Luke 2:13][1] is translated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et subito facta est cum angelo multitudo militiæ cælestis laudantium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deum, et dicentium ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying ...&quot; ([ESV][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've been trying to understand why *laudantium* and *dicentium* are plural in number. They agree in genitive case with *militiæ cælestis*, the heavenly army. But I don't see any plural noun in the clause to agree with *laudantium* and *dicentium* in number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this be because *militia* is considered kind of plural in meaning, albeit singular in form? I didn't think that sort of meaning led to plural forms in agreeing modifiers, but maybe I'm wrong about that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Multitudo* obviously also has a possibility of being in some sense plural in meaning, but I don't think that affects the participles *laudantium* and *dicentium* since they are genitive, agreeing with *militiæ*, not with *multitudo* (nominative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are *laudantium* and *dicentium* plural in number here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://biblehub.com/vul/luke/2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://biblehub.com/esv/luke/2.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36565" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12980" RevisionGUID="8467ba5b-9525-4840-b924-cb2e543d2db6" CreationDate="2019-12-06T14:32:26.753" UserId="299" Text="Why plural &quot;laudantium&quot; with singular &quot;militiae&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36566" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12980" RevisionGUID="8467ba5b-9525-4840-b924-cb2e543d2db6" CreationDate="2019-12-06T14:32:26.753" UserId="299" Text="|participle|plural|agreement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12980" RevisionGUID="e6703bd7-fbb5-44c6-9f8e-270377273205" CreationDate="2019-12-06T16:16:37.247" UserId="299" Comment="add link to related answer" Text="In the [Latin Vulgate, Luke 2:13][1] is translated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et subito facta est cum angelo multitudo militiæ cælestis laudantium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deum, et dicentium ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying ...&quot; ([ESV][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've been trying to understand why *laudantium* and *dicentium* are plural in number. They agree in genitive case with *militiæ cælestis*, the heavenly army. But I don't see any plural noun in the clause to agree with *laudantium* and *dicentium* in number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this be because *militia* is considered kind of plural in meaning, albeit singular in form? I didn't think that sort of meaning led to plural forms in agreeing modifiers, but maybe I'm wrong about that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Multitudo* obviously also has a possibility of being in some sense plural in meaning, but I don't think that affects the participles *laudantium* and *dicentium* since they are genitive, agreeing with *militiæ*, not with *multitudo* (nominative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are *laudantium* and *dicentium* plural in number here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related: [this answer][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://biblehub.com/vul/luke/2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://biblehub.com/esv/luke/2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5770/299" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12980" RevisionGUID="b34c184c-9c65-4c77-bb7a-f725133bed76" CreationDate="2019-12-06T16:27:37.000" UserId="299" Comment="reworded part about collective nouns" Text="In the [Latin Vulgate, Luke 2:13][1] is translated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Et subito facta est cum angelo multitudo militiæ cælestis laudantium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Deum, et dicentium ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying ...&quot; ([ESV][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've been trying to understand why *laudantium* and *dicentium* are plural in number. They agree in genitive case with *militiæ cælestis*, the heavenly army. But I don't see any plural noun in the clause to agree with *laudantium* and *dicentium* in number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this because *militia* could be considered a collective noun, plural in meaning but singular in form? I didn't think that sort of meaning led to plural forms in agreeing modifiers, but maybe I'm wrong about that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Multitudo* obviously also is a collective noun, but I don't think that affects the participles *laudantium* and *dicentium* since they are genitive, agreeing with *militiæ*, not with *multitudo* (nominative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are *laudantium* and *dicentium* plural in number here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related: [Can a morphologically singular collective noun be syntactically plural?][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://biblehub.com/vul/luke/2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://biblehub.com/esv/luke/2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/5770/299" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12976" RevisionGUID="970c18a7-8ca5-4218-8845-79c5a85f97f8" CreationDate="2019-12-06T19:03:51.977" UserId="985" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="You have the *cum* clause pretty well figured out, so I'll skip that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The citizens asked him (*ab eo petiverunt*) for something. What was that thing? Instead of supplying some noun as the direct object of *petiverunt*, Livy provides a noun clause (jussive noun clause) that gives the substance of the request, *ut sibi permitteretur*: they want something to be permitted to them. (Here, *sibi* refers to *cives*, the grammatical subject of the sentence's main verb, *petiverunt*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And what was it that they want to be permitted to them? Again, instead of supplying some noun to serve as the subject of *permitteretur*, Livy gives another noun clause, *ut legatos...miterent*: they want to send envoys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The envoys are described as being sent *de ea re*: (to handle discussions, etc.) about that matter; and the citizens want to send them both to a specific person (*ad consulem Hostilium*) and to a place (*Romam*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, along the way, we get a relative clause to provide a detail about Hostilius, *qui in Graecia quoque esset*: he was in Greece too. The subjunctive form *esset* could be meant to signal that this detail was actually included in the request that the citizens made rather than being information that the narrator is supplying for our benefit; or it could be just as a sign of subordination." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12981" RevisionGUID="8d7e363f-149e-4101-8f76-b6a15bfdc057" CreationDate="2019-12-06T19:14:22.890" UserId="6339" Text="In the sentence `οὗτος λέγει ὅτι αὕτη τὸ βιβλίον γράφει` translated by &quot;He says that she is writing the book.&quot; would the meaning change if `οὗτος` was substituted by `αὐτός` thus forming the sentence `αὐτός λέγει ὅτι αὕτη τὸ βιβλίον γράφει`?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, what's the difference butween `αὐτός` and `οὗτος` and in which cases one should be chosen over the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36571" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12981" RevisionGUID="8d7e363f-149e-4101-8f76-b6a15bfdc057" CreationDate="2019-12-06T19:14:22.890" UserId="6339" Text="Difference between αὐτός and οὗτος" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36572" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12981" RevisionGUID="8d7e363f-149e-4101-8f76-b6a15bfdc057" CreationDate="2019-12-06T19:14:22.890" UserId="6339" Text="|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12982" RevisionGUID="7d4c8a6c-cf27-443b-a756-dea53eb1d68e" CreationDate="2019-12-06T20:03:47.150" UserId="40" Text="Yes, the meaning is different. αὐτός, when used in the nominative, is an emphatic pronoun meaning &quot;he himself&quot;. So your second sentence would mean &quot;He *himself* says...&quot;, with some implicit contrast such as &quot;and not anyone else&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The oblique cases of αὐτός, however, are most often unemphatic and are the most common way of expressing the third-person pronoun &quot;he, she, they&quot; when this is not in the nominative. οὗτος / αὕτη are actually demonstratives, &quot;this one&quot;; when Greek wants to say an unemphatic &quot;he, she&quot;, etc., in the nominative, it'll usually just leave out the pronoun altogether since the verb ending suffices to indicate the subject." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12981" RevisionGUID="19daf7d9-d442-44f2-944c-4f93bd67cbdd" CreationDate="2019-12-06T20:39:10.283" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In the sentence *οὗτος λέγει ὅτι αὕτη τὸ βιβλίον γράφει* translated by &quot;He says that she is writing the book.&quot; would the meaning change if *οὗτος* was substituted by *αὐτός* thus forming the sentence *αὐτός λέγει ὅτι αὕτη τὸ βιβλίον γράφει*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, what's the difference between *αὐτός* and *οὗτος* and in which cases one should be chosen over the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36575" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12981" RevisionGUID="19daf7d9-d442-44f2-944c-4f93bd67cbdd" CreationDate="2019-12-06T20:39:10.283" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|greek|word-comparison|pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36576" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12971" RevisionGUID="9eaa88e6-c493-4d0c-998a-f4322e5b3f67" CreationDate="2019-12-06T20:55:19.430" UserId="118" Comment="edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|philosophy-terms|neologism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36577" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12981" RevisionGUID="1fb56f0d-cdb1-4d42-82f9-0850d94ebc17" CreationDate="2019-12-07T03:21:27.417" />
  <row Id="36579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12983" RevisionGUID="f84cdd75-7472-445b-9a24-2c1e2a568496" CreationDate="2019-12-07T10:12:14.080" UserId="1059" Text="I read this in a random forum:    &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Words neuter in Latin become masculine in Spanish&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;(For instance &quot;vāsum&quot; = el vaso)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it be some patterns making predictable the gender from Latin to a descend language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always though it was a little random, in the sense that a word is &quot;delatinized&quot; becoming a part of a descend language, and the gender is chosen or changed by the popular use according to the sound of the ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there patterns for this, at least in some Romance languages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36580" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12983" RevisionGUID="f84cdd75-7472-445b-9a24-2c1e2a568496" CreationDate="2019-12-07T10:12:14.080" UserId="1059" Text="Can gender be kept from Latin to a descend language? Are there patterns for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36581" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12983" RevisionGUID="f84cdd75-7472-445b-9a24-2c1e2a568496" CreationDate="2019-12-07T10:12:14.080" UserId="1059" Text="|language-evolution|gender|romance-languages|linguistics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12984" RevisionGUID="e1a757cc-2c61-433d-860d-9f8e641d79c8" CreationDate="2019-12-07T10:17:48.087" UserId="324" Text="Militiae is the genitive singular of militia, which is grammatically singular, but which (like other collective nouns) designates a plurality. Laudentium and dicentium are genitive plural. They agree with militiae ad sensum, but not ad litteram. It is like when you say in English “the whole class are doing their homework”. “Class” is grammatically singular, but can be construed as if it where plural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12984" RevisionGUID="2f35c660-1912-46f1-a583-a5b7d09cdd72" CreationDate="2019-12-07T16:11:24.207" UserId="45" Comment="edited body" Text="Militiae is the genitive singular of militia, which is grammatically singular, but which (like other collective nouns) designates a plurality. Laudantium and dicentium are genitive plural. They agree with militiae ad sensum, but not ad litteram. It is like when you say in English “the whole class are doing their homework”. “Class” is grammatically singular, but can be construed as if it where plural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12973" RevisionGUID="91897c9b-5c77-41c2-bb25-c355e4ec2f95" CreationDate="2019-12-07T16:17:20.927" UserId="45" Comment="edited body" Text="The pelican as a symbol for Christ is extremely old, going back (at least) to the [*Physiologus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiologus), which is usually dated to the 2nd century AD (though some scholars have argued that it was composed in the 4th century). Here, the pelican is said to feed its young with its own blood: it's not hard to see why this was considered a fitting symbol of Christ's death on the cross.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was used by many authors, of which [this article](https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/the-symbolism-of-the-pelican.html) gives several representative examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reference to the pelican and its Christian meaning are found in Renaissance literature: Dante (1321) in the &quot;Paridiso&quot; of his Divine Comedy refers to Christ as &quot;our Pelican.&quot; John Lyly in his Euphues (1606) wrote, &quot;Pelicane who striketh blood out of its owne bodye to do others good.&quot; Shakespeare (1616) in Hamlet wrote, &quot;To his good friend thus wide, Ill ope my arms / And, like the kind, life-rendering pelican / Repast them with my blood.&quot; John Skelton (1529) in his Armorie of Birds, wrote, &quot;Then sayd the Pellycan: When my Byrdts be slayne / With my bloude I them revyve. Scripture doth record / The same dyd our Lord / And rose from deth to lyve.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the most famous uses of this symbol, to which your question refers, is from the Christian hymn [*Adoro te devote*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoro_te_devote), composed by St. Thomas Aquinas for the newly instituted feast of Corpus Christi, c. 1264.  The sixth verse goes as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pie Pelicane, Jesu Domine,  &#xD;&#xA;Me immundum munda tuo Sanguine  &#xD;&#xA;Cujus una stilla salvum facere  &#xD;&#xA;Totum mundum quit ab omni scelere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(N.B. It seems that the world is evenly split over whether it should be spelled &quot;pelicane&quot; or &quot;pellicane&quot; (two *l*'s).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; O kind pelican, Lord Jesus  &#xD;&#xA;Clean me, who am unclean, with your blood  &#xD;&#xA;Of which one drop is able to make  &#xD;&#xA;the whole world saved from all sin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Iesu Pie Pelicane&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is a perfectly correct rearrangement of the vocative beginning. It means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jesus, kind pelican&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to your question, &quot;Is it accurate?&quot; depends on what you mean by &quot;accurate&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is it what Thomas Aquinas wrote? No&#xD;&#xA;* Could the hymn be changed to this wording without a problem? No, because the rhyme and syllable count wouldn't permit this.&#xD;&#xA;* Is it good Latin that conveys the same sense? Yes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12985" RevisionGUID="ebc01142-e4dc-44e7-ab95-bcaf74c6537d" CreationDate="2019-12-08T13:31:04.603" UserId="6344" Text="It is true that this may be considered an example of *constructio ad sensum* et non *ad litteram*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless I prefer another perspective: if *laudantium* and *dicentium* are substantivized participles that indicate the composition of the *militia*, we could even translate as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...a large multitude of the heavenly militia of those who praised God...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which unfortunately is not the best translation but at least would explain the letter of the text and would  reflect the underlying grammar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12986" RevisionGUID="8b5f506a-bd08-4253-84a6-f83361de40a1" CreationDate="2019-12-08T20:42:56.847" UserId="985" Text="In my interpretation, *multitudo* is accompanied by two discrete genitive constructions: the partitive genitive *militiae caelestis* (so, not the whole heavenly host but just much of it), and then a genitive indicating the contents of the multitude, the substantives *laudantium* and *dicentium*: a multitude of the heavenly host, consisting of beings who are praising and saying. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between this interpretation and Shootforthemoon's is that *laudantium* and *dicentium* are here dependent on *multitudo* instead of *militiae*. Only the members of that portion of the host that happens to be present are praising and saying; the remaining members are off doing something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's true that, in classical Latin at least, if a single noun has two genitives of different types dependent on it, there's a tendency to put one of them before the noun and the other after. However, it's just a tendency, not a rule; and at any rate, this isn't classical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, I wouldn't insist on this interpretation. I think it's very possible that fdb's answer is correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12987" RevisionGUID="43807cb6-083e-45f6-ba76-0a40a73db1a0" CreationDate="2019-12-08T21:50:01.303" UserId="6359" Text="I know phrases like &quot;in situ&quot; which means in the current place/position, is there another phrase for the temporal equivalent which means &quot;at the moment&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36591" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12987" RevisionGUID="43807cb6-083e-45f6-ba76-0a40a73db1a0" CreationDate="2019-12-08T21:50:01.303" UserId="6359" Text="Latin phrase for “at the moment” or “immediate”, temporal equivalent for in situ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36592" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12987" RevisionGUID="43807cb6-083e-45f6-ba76-0a40a73db1a0" CreationDate="2019-12-08T21:50:01.303" UserId="6359" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12988" RevisionGUID="76d0034d-b5ac-4572-a8ff-3c8a780a7f79" CreationDate="2019-12-08T22:26:53.617" UserId="6344" Text="There are some synonyms, such as *nunc, modo, hic* (&quot;now&quot;), or *extemplo*, for &quot;immediately, instantly&quot; or &quot;at the immediate&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12989" RevisionGUID="9530c37a-f578-43ef-aa98-6153bdbac6fe" CreationDate="2019-12-09T02:43:24.093" UserId="406" Text="_In sitū_ literally means &quot;in place&quot; or &quot;in the place&quot;—it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the _current_ place, and in fact usually means the _original_ or _proper_ place for something. For example, if archaeologists photograph an artifact &quot;in situ&quot;, it's happening at the place where the artifact was found, not the museum it gets taken to later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you want a temporal equivalent, you can use a bare ablative like _tempore_. Sallust frequently uses the phrase _eā tempestāte_ for &quot;at that time&quot;, but that's a fairly archaic usage of _tempestas_; I would adjust it to the more classical _eō tempore_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12991" RevisionGUID="3bb57c74-030d-4acf-982c-937e7d3c7c79" CreationDate="2019-12-09T11:24:55.497" UserId="1982" Text="A moment of time = &quot;punctum temporis&quot;; in a moment = &quot;statim&quot; (often seen meaning &quot;immediately&quot;; &quot;at once&quot;; &quot;instantly&quot;); this moment = &quot;ad tempus&quot;; of great moment = &quot;magni ponderis&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(All definitions from Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12992" RevisionGUID="fb6810b2-116e-4aea-8840-9e98d0162ed5" CreationDate="2019-12-09T12:46:52.330" UserId="1982" Text="North &amp; Hillard Ex. 204; Q1: the following is to be translated into Latin: &quot;If he had not mocked me, I should perhaps have forgiven him.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;(Impossible conditions: past tense: pluperfect subjunctive in both clauses.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Answer Book: &quot;nisi mihi irisisset, forsitan ei ignossem.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Curious as to the deployment of &quot;mihi&quot; given that &quot;irrideo&quot; does not take dative, I arrived, by circuitous route (Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/12946/1982 and Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11250/1982) at &quot;Dative of Reference&quot; from Allen &amp; Greenough (p376-379 original; p234 reprint): &quot;The dative often depends, not on any particular word, but on the general meaning of the sentence. The dative in this construction is often called the Dative of Advantage or Disadvantage, as denoting the person or thing for whose benefit or to whose prejudice, the action is performed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This solves the above example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the same page the serendipitous discovery of an interesting piece of translation: &quot;laudavit mihi fratrem&quot; = &quot;he praised my brother, out of regard for me&quot;; A &amp; G state: &quot;laudavit fratrem meum&quot; would imply no such motive.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this is a (D of R) the &quot;out-of-regard-for-me&quot; part reads like a leap of faith. How, without context, is it determined? Would anyone, here, have translated in this way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, it appears, from the example from (N &amp; H) and this one that a (D of R) is NOT translated as a regular dative (to or for something).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding, therefore, to the confusion, the remaining examples, from A &amp; G, appear to do exactly that. Consider: &quot;meritos mactavit honores, taurum Neptuno, taurum tibi pulcher Apollo&quot; (Aen. III. 118) = &quot;he offered the sacrifices due, a bull to Neptune, a bull to you beautiful Apollo&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Datives &quot;Neptuno&quot; &amp; &quot;tibi&quot; are translated as regular datives. (Why isn't it &quot;pulchro Apollini&quot;?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is going on, here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36598" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12992" RevisionGUID="fb6810b2-116e-4aea-8840-9e98d0162ed5" CreationDate="2019-12-09T12:46:52.330" UserId="1982" Text="Dative of Reference: (D of R)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36599" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12992" RevisionGUID="fb6810b2-116e-4aea-8840-9e98d0162ed5" CreationDate="2019-12-09T12:46:52.330" UserId="1982" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12992" RevisionGUID="b2e236bd-e914-4aba-bcf9-b621b4bd0ef7" CreationDate="2019-12-09T12:52:17.947" UserId="1982" Comment="edited body" Text="North &amp; Hillard Ex. 204; Q1: the following is to be translated into Latin: &quot;If he had not mocked me, I should perhaps have forgiven him.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;(Impossible conditions: past tense: pluperfect subjunctive in both clauses.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Answer Book: &quot;nisi mihi irisisset, forsitan ei ignossem.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Curious as to the deployment of &quot;mihi&quot; given that &quot;irrideo&quot; does not take dative, I arrived, by circuitous route (Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/12946/1982 and Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11250/1982) at &quot;Dative of Reference&quot; from Allen &amp; Greenough (p376-379 original; p234 reprint): &quot;The dative often depends, not on any particular word, but on the general meaning of the sentence. The dative in this construction is often called the Dative of Advantage or Disadvantage, as denoting the person or thing for whose benefit or to whose prejudice, the action is performed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This solves the above example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the same page the serendipitous discovery of an interesting piece of translation: &quot;laudavit mihi fratrem&quot; = &quot;he praised my brother, out of regard for me&quot;; A &amp; G state: &quot;laudavit fratrem meum&quot; would imply no such motive.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this is a (D of R) the &quot;out-of-regard-for-me&quot; part reads like a leap of faith. How, without context, is it determined? Would anyone, here, have translated in this way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, it appears, from the example from (N &amp; H) and this one that a (D of R) is NOT translated as a regular dative (to or for something).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding, therefore, to the confusion, the remaining examples, from A &amp; G, appear to do the opposite. Consider: &quot;meritos mactavit honores, taurum Neptuno, taurum tibi pulcher Apollo&quot; (Aen. III. 118) = &quot;he offered the sacrifices due, a bull to Neptune, a bull to you beautiful Apollo&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Datives &quot;Neptuno&quot; &amp; &quot;tibi&quot; are translated as regular datives. (Why isn't it &quot;pulchro Apollini&quot;?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is going on, here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12993" RevisionGUID="31e14ff6-dcf1-435b-a9c0-b201d02d1f19" CreationDate="2019-12-09T16:55:41.160" UserId="3248" Text="Typically, the so-called [&quot;dative of reference&quot;][1] is not semantically selected by the predicate (linguistically speaking, it is an [adjunct][3], i.e., it is not an [argument][2]). In order to understand what **all** examples of the datives of reference that appear in the [first link][1] from A&amp;G have in common, it is crucial to realize that they are not semantically selected by the verbal predicate (i.e., they are adjuncts, whereby they are typically omissible). See also this [link][4] from Panhuis (2006) for useful discussion on which kind of &quot;arguments&quot; are typically selected by verbal predicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, according to the typical definition of &quot;dative of reference&quot; above, note that the dative that you've found to be associated to _irridere_ in your &quot;Answer Book&quot; (_nisi **mihi** irisisset, forsitan ei ignossem_) cannot be considered an example of this type, i.e., it is not a dative of reference. The dative _mihi_, if real/attested (cf. infra), is **not** an adjunct but is to be regarded as semantically selected by the prefixed verb _in-ridere_ (&gt; _irridere_), whereby this nominal has argumental status. Quite importantly, please note that the [dative associated to compound/prefixed verbs][5] has argumental status (unlike the so-called &quot;dative of reference&quot;, which, as pointed out above, is an adjunct).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, you point out that the dative of _irisisset_ is not real/attested since this verb takes accusative but not dative (a nice and intriguing point, indeed!). In any case, note that the dative _mihi_ or accusative _me_, when associated to this verb, is an argument rather than an adjunct. In my opinion, this pronoun is semantically selected by the verb _irridere_ (hence its argumental status). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your last example from Virgil, which is the fourth example in the first link above (_meritos mactavit honores, taurum Neptuno, taurum tibi, pulcher Apollo_ (Verg. _Aen._ III. 118)), note that _pulcher Apollo_ is vocative (NB: one can add an interjection like &quot;O beautiful Apollo!&quot;).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, let me make a couple of bibliographical recommendations: in my opinion, the traditional grammar by [A&amp;G][6] is indeed very useful. However, two more recent pedagogical (NB: not advanced) Latin grammars, which include very basic linguistic up-dates like the important argument-adjunct distinction above, i.a., are the following (NB: the former adopts a functionalist perspective, whereas the latter uses a generative approach). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Panhuis, Dirk (2006). [_Latin Grammar_][7]. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oniga, Renato (2014). [_Latin: A Linguistic Introduction_][8]. Oxford &amp; New York: Oxford University Press. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-reference&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_(linguistics)&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjunct_(grammar)&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.es/books?id=mM9A9S9KDFoC&amp;pg=PT8&amp;lpg=PT8&amp;dq=panhuis%20grammar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=YMPtkX7z9v&amp;sig=ACfU3U1I3ko4UgfFE8YZ-decIvUdEMDgxQ&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjMkomq9ajmAhWM2hQKHRvFAxwQ6AEwBXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=argument&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-compounds&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/credits-and-reuse&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.press.umich.edu/313409/latin_grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/latin-a-linguistic-introduction-9780198702863?cc=es&amp;lang=en&amp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12993" RevisionGUID="b9cde931-603f-4170-b9c8-69a23c9e8850" CreationDate="2019-12-09T17:00:44.183" UserId="3248" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Typically, the so-called [&quot;dative of reference&quot;][1] is not semantically selected by the predicate (linguistically speaking, it is an [adjunct][3], i.e., it is not an [argument][2]). In order to understand what **all** examples of the datives of reference that appear in the [first link][1] from A&amp;G have in common, it is crucial to realize that they are not semantically selected by the verbal predicate (i.e., they are adjuncts, whereby they are typically omissible). See also this [link][4] from Panhuis (2006) for useful discussion on which kind of &quot;arguments&quot; are typically selected by verbal predicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, according to the typical definition of &quot;dative of reference&quot; above, note that the dative that you've found to be associated to _irridere_ in your &quot;Answer Book&quot; (_nisi **mihi** irisisset, forsitan ei ignossem_) cannot be considered an example of this type, i.e., it is not a dative of reference. The dative _mihi_, if real/attested (cf. infra), is **not** an adjunct but is to be regarded as semantically selected by the prefixed verb _in-ridere_ (&gt; _irridere_), whereby this nominal has argumental status. Quite importantly, please note that the [dative associated to compound/prefixed verbs][5] has argumental status (unlike the so-called &quot;dative of reference&quot;, which, as pointed out above, is an adjunct).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, you point out that the dative of _irisisset_ is not real/attested since this verb takes accusative but not dative (a nice and intriguing point, indeed!). In any case, note that the dative _mihi_ or accusative _me_, when associated to this verb, is an argument rather than an adjunct. In my opinion, this pronoun is semantically selected by the prefixed verb _irridere_ (hence its argumental status). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your last example from Virgil, which is the fourth example in the first link above (_meritos mactavit honores, taurum Neptuno, taurum tibi, pulcher Apollo_ (Verg. _Aen._ III. 118)), note that _pulcher Apollo_ is vocative (NB: one can add an interjection like &quot;O beautiful Apollo!&quot;).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, let me make a couple of bibliographical recommendations: in my opinion, the traditional grammar by [A&amp;G][6] is indeed very useful. However, two more recent pedagogical (NB: not advanced) Latin grammars, which include very basic linguistic up-dates like the important argument-adjunct distinction above, i.a., are the following (NB: the former adopts a functionalist perspective, whereas the latter uses a generative approach). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Panhuis, Dirk (2006). [_Latin Grammar_][7]. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oniga, Renato (2014). [_Latin: A Linguistic Introduction_][8]. Oxford &amp; New York: Oxford University Press. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-reference&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_(linguistics)&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjunct_(grammar)&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.es/books?id=mM9A9S9KDFoC&amp;pg=PT8&amp;lpg=PT8&amp;dq=panhuis%20grammar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=YMPtkX7z9v&amp;sig=ACfU3U1I3ko4UgfFE8YZ-decIvUdEMDgxQ&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjMkomq9ajmAhWM2hQKHRvFAxwQ6AEwBXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=argument&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-compounds&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/credits-and-reuse&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.press.umich.edu/313409/latin_grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/latin-a-linguistic-introduction-9780198702863?cc=es&amp;lang=en&amp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12993" RevisionGUID="fa1ed317-558a-4dac-b0a1-6837d465be69" CreationDate="2019-12-09T17:31:08.817" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes " Text="Typically, the so-called [&quot;dative of reference&quot;][1] is not semantically selected by the predicate (linguistically speaking, it is an [adjunct][3], i.e., it is not an [argument][2]). In order to understand what **all** examples of the datives of reference that appear in the [first link][1] from A&amp;G have in common, it is crucial to realize that they are not semantically selected by the verbal predicate (i.e., they are adjuncts, whereby they are typically omissible). See also this [link][4] from Panhuis (2006: 91-92) for useful discussion on which kind of &quot;arguments&quot; are typically selected by verbal predicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, according to the typical definition of &quot;dative of reference&quot; above, note that the dative that you've found to be associated to _irridere_ in your &quot;Answer Book&quot; (_nisi **mihi** irrisisset, forsitan ei ignossem_) cannot be considered an example of this type, i.e., _mihi_ is not a dative of reference. The dative _mihi_, if real/attested (cf. infra), is **not** an adjunct but is to be regarded as semantically selected by the prefixed verb _in-ridere_ (&gt; _irridere_), whereby this nominal has argumental status. Quite importantly, please note that the [dative associated to compound/prefixed verbs][5] has argumental status (unlike the so-called &quot;dative of reference&quot;, which, as pointed out above, is an adjunct).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, you point out that the dative of _irrisisset_ is not real/attested since this verb takes accusative but not dative (a nice and intriguing point, indeed!). In any case, note that the dative _mihi_ or accusative _me_, when associated to this prefixed verb, is an argument rather than an adjunct. In my opinion, this pronoun is semantically selected by the prefixed verb _irridere_ (hence its argumental status). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your last example from Virgil, which is the fourth example in the first link above (_meritos mactavit honores, taurum Neptuno, taurum tibi, pulcher Apollo_ (Verg. _Aen._ III. 118)), note that _pulcher Apollo_ is vocative (NB: one can add an interjection like &quot;O beautiful Apollo!&quot;).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, let me make a couple of bibliographical recommendations: in my opinion, the traditional grammar by [A&amp;G][6] is indeed very useful. However, two more recent pedagogical (NB: not advanced) Latin grammars, which include very basic linguistic up-dates like the important argument-adjunct distinction above, i.a., are the following (NB: the former adopts a functionalist perspective, whereas the latter uses a generative approach). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Panhuis, Dirk (2006). [_Latin Grammar_][7]. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oniga, Renato (2014). [_Latin: A Linguistic Introduction_][8]. Oxford &amp; New York: Oxford University Press. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-reference&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_(linguistics)&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjunct_(grammar)&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.es/books?id=mM9A9S9KDFoC&amp;pg=PT8&amp;lpg=PT8&amp;dq=panhuis%20grammar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=YMPtkX7z9v&amp;sig=ACfU3U1I3ko4UgfFE8YZ-decIvUdEMDgxQ&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjMkomq9ajmAhWM2hQKHRvFAxwQ6AEwBXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=argument&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-compounds&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/credits-and-reuse&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.press.umich.edu/313409/latin_grammar&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/latin-a-linguistic-introduction-9780198702863?cc=es&amp;lang=en&amp;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36608" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12992" RevisionGUID="a9fdae94-f6cf-4863-bcfe-33cf1ab78053" CreationDate="2019-12-09T20:56:09.500" />
  <row Id="36611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12997" RevisionGUID="502a68dd-bcef-4ae4-b570-791add45f7ab" CreationDate="2019-12-09T21:12:08.910" UserId="406" Text="&gt; &quot;Words neuter in Latin become masculine in Spanish&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is generally correct!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin, the most common type of masculine noun and the most common type of neuter noun look almost identical. They're only distinguishable in the nominative singular and the nominative/accusative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the branch of Romance that would eventually become Spanish, the nominative case disappeared altogether—so the neuter looked exactly like the masculine in the singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's more, the neuter _plural_ looked exactly like the _feminine_, for reasons that go back to Proto-Indo-European and the origin of the feminine gender in the first place!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So because of these very regular changes, the neuter gender vanished into oblivion, with its words merged into the masculine. Occasionally you'll find Romance words that are masculine in the singular but feminine in the plural, like Italian _uovo_ &quot;egg&quot;, _uova_ &quot;eggs&quot;—these are the only surviving remnants of the Latin neuter. (In Spanish, this particular example got regularized by analogy, and is now a perfectly regular masculine: _huevo_, _huevos_.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the comments, you mention Latin _dactylus_ (m) &gt; French _datte_ (f). This sort of change happens sometimes, especially in Gallo-Romance (which doesn't have the same distinctive masculine/feminine endings that Ibero-Romance does). But it's an irregularity, and not a very common one; the majority of words kept their original gender from Latin into Romance, and the ones that didn't can usually be explained by analogy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12998" RevisionGUID="cfbc76ff-8231-48a8-9814-10be90b398f4" CreationDate="2019-12-09T21:13:50.520" UserId="6344" Text="Miltomino has alreasy analyzed in detail the other cases you proposed, so I'll only linger over this intersting example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On the same page the serendipitous discovery of an interesting piece of translation: &quot;laudavit mihi fratrem&quot; = &quot;he praised my brother, out of regard for me&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the so called *dativus ethicus* (or &quot;of interest&quot;): it indicates emotional participation by a person with respect to the action or circumstance expressed by the predicate; it is always expressed by an atonic pronoun and is not necessary for the syntactic-grammatical completeness of the sentence (Salvi 1988: 65-66). Thus, for example, in the words of Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*quid **mihi** Tulliola agit?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*tu **mihi** istius audaciam defendis?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This form of dative still remains in languages such as Italian (in the expression, since there are no grammatical cases for Italian), but also in English, where a suitable example could be &quot;My dog died on me&quot; or in Brazilian Portuguese, where the same sentence is &quot;O cachorro/cão me morreu&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12999" RevisionGUID="c14ce238-bc9e-4916-8cc6-c283590904ed" CreationDate="2019-12-09T21:26:42.743" UserId="6365" Text="The ablatives causā and grātiā (for the sake of) are used with a Genitive preceding, or with a pronoun in agreement. (Allen and Greenough, 404 c).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/ablative-cause" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12998" RevisionGUID="e0ab17ad-7491-4e7a-b0fb-83012e3a131a" CreationDate="2019-12-09T22:04:46.810" UserId="6344" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Miltomino has alreasy analyzed in detail the other cases you proposed, so I'll only linger over this intersting example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On the same page the serendipitous discovery of an interesting piece of translation: &quot;laudavit mihi fratrem&quot; = &quot;he praised my brother, out of regard for me&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the so called *dativus ethicus* (or &quot;of interest&quot;): it indicates emotional participation by a person with respect to the action or circumstance expressed by the predicate; it is always expressed by an atonic pronoun and is not necessary for the syntactic-grammatical completeness of the sentence (Salvi 1988: 65-66). Thus, for example, in the words of Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*quid **mihi** Tulliola agit?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*tu **mihi** istius audaciam defendis?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This form of dative still remains in languages such as Italian (as an expression, since there are no grammatical cases for Italian), but also in English, where a suitable example could be &quot;My dog died on me&quot; or in Brazilian Portuguese, where the same sentence is &quot;O cachorro/cão me morreu&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13000" RevisionGUID="f2297943-5885-462c-a3ba-06f20d02d6d8" CreationDate="2019-12-10T11:02:23.433" UserId="3430" Text="I did a search for lux and lumen in the Latin dictionaries at Latinitium https://www.latinitium.com/latin-dictionaries?t=lsn27193,do307&#xD;&#xA;They seem to overlap in meaning, with lux being used more often for daylight and lumen being used more often for lamps and torches. The entry for Doderlein at the bottom of the page has examples where they are used in contrasting ways, and says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lumen (λευσσόμενον) is a luminous body, like φέγγος; lux (λευκή) a streaming mass of light, like φάος. Cic. Fin. iii. 14, 45. Ut obscuratur et offunditur luce solis lumen lucernæ. Curt. viii. 2, 21. Sed aditus specus accipit lucem; interiora nisi allato lumine obscura sunt. Cic. Acad. iv. 8, 28. Si ista vera sunt, ratio omnis tollitur quasi quædam lux lumenque vitæ; that is, reason alone is in itself bright and light, and at the same time spreads brightness and light over life. Also, in a figurative sense, lumen denotes distinction, lux only clearness. Cicero (Man. 5.) calls Corinth, Græciæ totius lumen, but Rome (Catil. iv. 6.) Lucem orbis terrarum; Corinth is compared to a glimmering point of light; Rome is distinguished as that city in comparison with which all other cities lie in darkness. (ii. 66.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12998" RevisionGUID="9af7f34c-ec30-42d9-9677-395a93b96a10" CreationDate="2019-12-10T17:41:52.537" UserId="6344" Comment="edited body" Text="Miltomino has already analyzed in detail the other cases you proposed, so I'll only linger over this intersting example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On the same page the serendipitous discovery of an interesting piece of translation: &quot;laudavit mihi fratrem&quot; = &quot;he praised my brother, out of regard for me&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the so called *dativus ethicus* (or &quot;of interest&quot;): it indicates emotional participation by a person with respect to the action or circumstance expressed by the predicate; it is always expressed by an atonic pronoun and is not necessary for the syntactic-grammatical completeness of the sentence (Salvi 1988: 65-66). Thus, for example, in the words of Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*quid **mihi** Tulliola agit?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*tu **mihi** istius audaciam defendis?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This form of dative still remains in languages such as Italian (as an expression, since there are no grammatical cases for Italian), but also in English, where a suitable example could be &quot;My dog died on me&quot; or in Brazilian Portuguese, where the same sentence is &quot;O cachorro/cão me morreu&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13001" RevisionGUID="554e3103-af12-4224-8439-f037f57b93d6" CreationDate="2019-12-10T19:26:35.673" UserId="6344" Text="*Mobile vulgus* occurs sometimes in Classical Latin, and among the main authors that use this phrase are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publius Papinius Statius (1st century AD);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seneca in his *Hercules Furens* (vv.169-171): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Illum populi favor attonitum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;fluctuque magis mobile vulgus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;aura tumidum tollit inani&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also Tacitus comments on the *mobilitas vulgi* in Hist. V 8,3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But an interesting reference (my favourite) also occurs in a Latin translation of the major work of a well known Greek poet who lived in the 3rd century BC! We are speaking of Aratus, and of his *Phenomena*, &quot;appearances&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be even more interesting to dig into the Greek original text and search for the exact expression used by the author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/G07xm.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36624" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12795" RevisionGUID="bd574d66-db78-43dd-96bd-cf44da5d6c63" CreationDate="2019-12-10T22:01:35.337" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="36625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13002" RevisionGUID="0728da01-a759-4ba4-b2fb-009e34dc492c" CreationDate="2019-12-11T00:19:04.270" UserId="6368" Text="I'm trying to translate `I, who was earlier reluctant, was suddenly embarrassed and corrected.` into Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I have managed to write `Ego qui fui antea invitus, fui improviso pudet et correctus.` but I am concerned of the correctness for Google Translate is returning me some awkward feedback when I try to reverse my translation from Latin to English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My second attempt was `Ego, qui eram antea invitus sum, fui improviso pudet et correctus.` but this also isn't too much to the liking of Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I then tried using Google and couldn't help but notice most verbs were in the 3rd singular form and some adjectives and verbs were completely irrelevant, therefore I decided not to trust that translation. (`Ego, qui erat ante mora sum, et subito Pudet et corrigendos adnumerentur.`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any assistance would be highly appreciated!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36626" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13002" RevisionGUID="0728da01-a759-4ba4-b2fb-009e34dc492c" CreationDate="2019-12-11T00:19:04.270" UserId="6368" Text="Relative sentence in the past" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36627" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13002" RevisionGUID="0728da01-a759-4ba4-b2fb-009e34dc492c" CreationDate="2019-12-11T00:19:04.270" UserId="6368" Text="|perfect-tense|relative-clause|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13002" RevisionGUID="b962f99a-9bd2-4b4a-8d7e-f451987acb15" CreationDate="2019-12-11T00:37:06.860" UserId="45" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="I'm trying to translate the following phrase into Latin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I, who was earlier reluctant, was suddenly embarrassed and corrected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I have managed to write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego qui fui antea invitus, fui improviso pudet et correctus. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...but I am concerned of the correctness, for Google Translate is returning me some awkward feedback when I try to reverse my translation from Latin to English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My second attempt was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego, qui eram antea invitus sum, fui improviso pudet et correctus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...but this also isn't too much to the liking of Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I then tried using Google and couldn't help but notice most verbs were in the 3rd singular form and some adjectives and verbs were completely irrelevant, therefore I decided not to trust that translation, which was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ego, qui erat ante mora sum, et subito Pudet et corrigendos adnumerentur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any assistance would be highly appreciated!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13003" RevisionGUID="f8cc7ef7-554c-4e65-a485-9bacb62fc20d" CreationDate="2019-12-11T01:22:01.520" UserId="3153" Text="As brianpck has said, Google Translate is incredibly unreliable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my attempt at translation. If it can be improved, I welcome suggestions; learning is a permanently ongoing process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Dubitatus, corrigebar et fiebam humilis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, having been uncertain/having hesitated, was corrected and was made humble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13003" RevisionGUID="790c6d6e-087b-4790-bd70-d4fa1f1204c3" CreationDate="2019-12-11T01:54:58.760" UserId="3153" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="As brianpck has said, Google Translate is incredibly unreliable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my attempt at translation. If it can be improved, I welcome suggestions; learning is a permanently ongoing process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Dubitatus, corrigebar raptim et cito fiebam humilis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, having been uncertain/having hesitated, was corrected suddenly and was quickly made humble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13004" RevisionGUID="0fb57072-0d3b-4d53-91dd-99ca902abea1" CreationDate="2019-12-11T04:02:41.467" UserId="45" Text="Prompted by [cnread's answer to another question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/12817/45), I wanted to ask: is there any difference between [mĭnĭmē](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dminime) and [mĭnŭmē](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dminume)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The linked L&amp;S entries do not offer any obvious commentary. A quick [corpus search](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=minume) only seems to show 8 results from Sallust (7) and Pliny (1), which is a pretty poor showing compared to the 877 results for minime. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My hunch is that this is just another example of the same rule that makes Plautus write &quot;optume&quot; instead of &quot;optime&quot; and &quot;quom&quot; instead of &quot;cum,&quot; but it's puzzling in that case that Plautus seems to favor &quot;minume&quot; and that Sallust, writing in the Golden Age, *does* use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any insight on the best choice of word would be helpful!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36632" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13004" RevisionGUID="0fb57072-0d3b-4d53-91dd-99ca902abea1" CreationDate="2019-12-11T04:02:41.467" UserId="45" Text="Is there any difference between &quot;minime&quot; and &quot;minume&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36633" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13004" RevisionGUID="0fb57072-0d3b-4d53-91dd-99ca902abea1" CreationDate="2019-12-11T04:02:41.467" UserId="45" Text="|word-comparison|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2642" RevisionGUID="22ecbfb8-34cc-4e75-95c6-f1e6092f47ee" CreationDate="2019-12-11T04:21:37.177" UserId="39" Comment="added 200 characters in body" Text="And here's a visual representation of a Roman family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see the words PATER, VXOR, and F (filius).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cf. another very famous inscription - the Epitaph of Agrippina the Elder (i.e. Caligula's mother), CIL 6.886:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/THjYj.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eiKw7.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13005" RevisionGUID="fb3beac7-e018-4bb1-9af5-fb3df99abafd" CreationDate="2019-12-11T04:26:30.040" UserId="406" Text="The middle sound in _min?mē_ is sometimes called the _sonus medius_: it's the result of vowel reduction on unstressed medial short _u_, which happened before the sound change _o_ &gt; _u_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on descriptions in grammarians, it may have been pronounced `[ɨ]` in Classical times; it eventually merged into short *i*. But earlier and more archaizing writers often spelled it *u*, because that's where it came from, etymologically: Sallust is well-known for writing *optumus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, Classical writing spells this sound with *i* in all instances, _except_ before the _-ment-_ suffix (_optimus_, _lacrima_, but _documentum_, _monumentum_). But the pronunciation seems to have merged into *i* even before *-ment-*: *monimentum* and the like are increasingly attested in later periods, and Romance descendants like French *moniment* and Old Portuguese *mõimento* point to an *i*. (Forms like English &quot;monument&quot; and Spanish *monumento* are later borrowings.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13005" RevisionGUID="879d5424-69d2-40ac-a7af-814bda63b6fc" CreationDate="2019-12-11T04:33:27.410" UserId="406" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The middle sound in _min?mē_ is sometimes called the _sonus medius_: it's the result of vowel reduction on unstressed medial short _u_, which happened before the sound change _o_ &gt; _u_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on descriptions in grammarians, it may have been pronounced `[ɨ]` in Classical times; it eventually merged into short *i*. But earlier and more archaizing writers often spelled it *u*, because that's where it came from, etymologically: Sallust is well-known for his love of *optumus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, Classical writing spells this sound with *i* in all instances, _except_ before the _-ment-_ suffix (_optimus_, _lacrima_, but _documentum_, _monumentum_). But the pronunciation seems to have merged into *i* even before *-ment-*: *monimentum* and the like are increasingly attested in later periods, and Romance descendants like French *moniment* and Old Portuguese *mõimento* point to an *i*. (Forms like English &quot;monument&quot; and Spanish *monumento* are later borrowings.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12808" RevisionGUID="6616aa5b-828c-432f-a201-330d3a8ea924" CreationDate="2019-12-11T08:52:43.853" UserId="79" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="For &quot;no virtue&quot; as in &quot;there is no virtue&quot;, the phrase *nulla virtus* is great.&#xD;&#xA;The harder decision is what to follow it with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only grammatical one of your suggestions is *in homine*, &quot;in human&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;That would amount to &quot;[there is] no virtue in a human&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If that matches your intention, you can go with that.&#xD;&#xA;The options *in humanum* and *in homines* don't work.&#xD;&#xA;If you want the plural &quot;in humans&quot;, use *in hominibus*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One word worth considering is *humanitas*, meaning &quot;humanity&quot; or &quot;human nature&quot; or &quot;mankind&quot; or other similar things.&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is ***nulla virtus in humanitate***, &quot;[there is] no virtue in mankind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The word order ***in humanitate nulla virtus*** also works (thanks TKR!).&#xD;&#xA;I think that captures the original idea quite well.&#xD;&#xA;The word *humanitas* has a wide range of meanings, some of which are more positive that you would like here, but I would not consider that an issue; the fact that there is no virtue in it puts it in suspicious light anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Do not trust Google Translate with Latin](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/4349/79).&#xD;&#xA;It is very unreliable, and often suggests nonsensical translations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="5c062711-d0fc-4e66-a1b1-16784e049822" CreationDate="2019-12-11T09:43:09.173" UserId="4796" Text="in *Confessions* we read: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; magnus es, domine, et laudabilis valde. magna virtus tua et **sapientiae tuae non est numerus**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while the meaning is quite clear, I can't clearly resolve the literal translation and/or grammar of the sentence. I've thought of several options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) &quot;sapientiae tuae&quot;  - gen. case =&gt; number of your wisdom &quot;non est&quot; . I have problem with this option as &quot;non est&quot; would mean &quot;does not exist&quot;. But is this valid? I would assume &quot;non est&quot; would be better translated as &quot;is not&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) same as (1), but this time &quot;sapientiae tuae&quot; will take the dative case. (&quot;to your wisdom&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) maybe literal translation is: &quot;of your wisdom is not a number&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36641" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="5c062711-d0fc-4e66-a1b1-16784e049822" CreationDate="2019-12-11T09:43:09.173" UserId="4796" Text="grammar of &quot;sapientiae tuae non est numerus&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36642" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="5c062711-d0fc-4e66-a1b1-16784e049822" CreationDate="2019-12-11T09:43:09.173" UserId="4796" Text="|sentence-translation|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36643" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12683" RevisionGUID="f839bf7d-e4d8-460c-8a19-577bb0bb26d9" CreationDate="2019-12-11T10:01:00.207" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="36644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13007" RevisionGUID="041e64a5-ba7c-498f-9779-65ec62bf1b2e" CreationDate="2019-12-11T10:21:07.567" UserId="75" Text="&gt;This is why we need to mark long vowels!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can also be expressed as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For this reason, we need to mark long vowels!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, “this is why” is lower register English. In archaic English, we would find the word “wherefore.” In Koine Greek, we would find διό. In Latin, *propter hoc*. (This is not to say that there is only one way of expressing that English phrase in Greek or Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following passage in Matt. 27:6–8:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; **That is why** it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. &lt;sup&gt;NIV, ©2011&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek text has διὸ and the Vulgate *propter hoc*. According to Lewis &amp; Short,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;B. Trop., in stating a cause.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. On account of, by reason of, from, for, because of (syn. ob; “the predom. signif. of the word): parere legibus propter metum,” Cic. Par. 5, 1, 34; cf.: “propter metum poenae,” id. Sest. 46, 99: “propter eam ipsam causam,” id. de Or. 1, 16, 72: “propter frigora frumenta in agris matura non erant,” Caes. B. G. 1, 16: “propter humanitatem,” Cic. Att. 7, 5, 2: “is propter morbum exire non potuit,” Auct. Her. 1, 11, 19: “excusato languore faucium propter quem non adesset,” Suet. Ner. 41; id. Aug. 8; Sall. J. 23, 1: bidentes propter viam facere, to sacrifice on account of a journey, Laber, ap. Non. 53, 26; cf.: “propter viam fit sacrificium quod est proficiscendi gratiā, Herculi aut Sanco,” Fest. p. 229 Müll.; Plaut. Rud. 1, 2, 62: “propter injuriam,” to avoid injury, Pall. 12, 13: “propter hoc, propter quod,” on that account, for which reason, Varr. R. R. 3, 16, 14;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; p. [1472][1], *propter*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lewis, Charlton T.; Short, Charles. [*Harper’s Latin Dictionary: A New Latin Dictionary Founded on the Translation of Freund’s Latin-German Lexicon.*][2] New York: Harper &amp; Brothers, 1884.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=IyAjAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA1472#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=IyAjAQAAMAAJ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36645" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12992" RevisionGUID="70dbf599-2300-4763-a6b5-e163fd1ee73f" CreationDate="2019-12-11T11:00:49.657" UserId="1982" Comment="edited title" Text="Dative of Reference" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12992" RevisionGUID="9dc51462-f502-40f8-9ebf-44b75b1aabdd" CreationDate="2019-12-11T11:20:02.157" UserId="1982" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="North &amp; Hillard Ex. 204; Q1: the following is to be translated into Latin: &quot;If he had not mocked me, I should perhaps have forgiven him.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;(Impossible conditions: past tense: pluperfect subjunctive in both clauses.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Answer Book: &quot;nisi mihi irisisset, forsitan ei ignossem.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Curious as to the deployment of &quot;mihi&quot; given that &quot;irrideo&quot; does not take dative, I arrived, by circuitous route (Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/12946/1982 and Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11250/1982) at &quot;Dative of Reference&quot; (D of R) from Allen &amp; Greenough (p376-379 original; p234 reprint): &quot;The dative often depends, not on any particular word, but on the general meaning of the sentence. The dative in this construction is often called the Dative of Advantage or Disadvantage, as denoting the person or thing for whose benefit or to whose prejudice, the action is performed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This solves the above example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the same page the serendipitous discovery of an interesting piece of translation: &quot;laudavit mihi fratrem&quot; = &quot;he praised my brother, out of regard for me&quot;; A &amp; G state: &quot;laudavit fratrem meum&quot; would imply no such motive.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this is a (D of R) the &quot;out-of-regard-for-me&quot; part reads like a leap of faith. How, without context, is it determined? Would anyone, here, have translated in this way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, it appears, from the example from (N &amp; H) and this one that a (D of R) is NOT translated as a regular dative (to or for something).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding, therefore, to the confusion, the remaining examples, from A &amp; G, appear to do the opposite. Consider: &quot;meritos mactavit honores, taurum Neptuno, taurum tibi pulcher Apollo&quot; (Aen. III. 118) = &quot;he offered the sacrifices due, a bull to Neptune, a bull to you beautiful Apollo&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Datives &quot;Neptuno&quot; &amp; &quot;tibi&quot; are translated as regular datives. (Why isn't it &quot;pulchro Apollini&quot;?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is going on, here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13008" RevisionGUID="eaab01fc-73df-47ac-9e9c-c6c22bf5959c" CreationDate="2019-12-11T12:11:14.550" UserId="3248" Text="I'd go for your second option, i.e., to analyze _**sapientiae tuae** non est numerus_ as containing a **possessive dative**: literally, 'to your wisdom there is no number'//'your wisdom has no number'. The idea is that the wisdom of God cannot be calculated since it is infinite.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13008" RevisionGUID="532b6cdc-8b95-4b42-80f8-762ae4c8e437" CreationDate="2019-12-11T12:17:33.777" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes (formatting)" Text="I'd go for your second option, i.e., to analyze _**sapientiae tuae** non est numerus_ as containing a [**dative of possession**][1]: literally, 'to your wisdom there is no number'//'your wisdom has no number'. The idea is that the wisdom of God cannot be calculated since it is infinite.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-possession" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13008" RevisionGUID="9472085f-a869-4675-8903-5d115d8f75a7" CreationDate="2019-12-11T12:24:00.047" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes " Text="I'd go for your second option, i.e., to analyze _**sapientiae tuae** non est numerus_ as containing a [**dative of possession**][1]: literally, 'to your wisdom there is no number'//'your wisdom has no number' (cf. _sapientia tua non habet numerum_). The idea is that the wisdom of God cannot be calculated since it is infinite.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-possession" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12992" RevisionGUID="558e9425-ea6d-4724-98b9-1a60a9b1d4e8" CreationDate="2019-12-11T12:43:43.410" UserId="1982" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="North &amp; Hillard Ex. 204; Q1: the following is to be translated into Latin: &quot;If he had not mocked me, I should perhaps have forgiven him.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;(Impossible conditions: past tense: pluperfect subjunctive in both clauses.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Answer Book: &quot;nisi mihi irisisset, forsitan ei ignossem.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Curious as to the deployment of &quot;mihi&quot; given that &quot;irrideo&quot; does not take dative, I arrived, by circuitous route (Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/12946/1982 and Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11250/1982) at &quot;Dative of Reference&quot; (D of R) from Allen &amp; Greenough (p376-379 original; p234 reprint): &quot;The dative often depends, not on any particular word, but on the general meaning of the sentence. The dative in this construction is often called the Dative of Advantage or Disadvantage, as denoting the person or thing for whose benefit or to whose prejudice, the action is performed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This solves the above example. (Not quite: see Mitomino's answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the same page the serendipitous discovery of an interesting piece of translation: &quot;laudavit mihi fratrem&quot; = &quot;he praised my brother, out of regard for me&quot;; A &amp; G state: &quot;laudavit fratrem meum&quot; would imply no such motive.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this is a (D of R) the &quot;out-of-regard-for-me&quot; part reads like a leap of faith. How, without context, is it determined? Would anyone, here, have translated in this way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, it appears, from the example from (N &amp; H) and this one that a (D of R) is NOT translated as a regular dative (to or for something).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding, therefore, to the confusion, the remaining examples, from A &amp; G, appear to do the opposite. Consider: &quot;meritos mactavit honores, taurum Neptuno, taurum tibi pulcher Apollo&quot; (Aen. III. 118) = &quot;he offered the sacrifices due, a bull to Neptune, a bull to you beautiful Apollo&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Datives &quot;Neptuno&quot; &amp; &quot;tibi&quot; are translated as regular datives. (Why isn't it &quot;pulchro Apollini&quot;?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is going on, here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13004" RevisionGUID="1b5db9df-a825-41a4-9665-07855f4df9dd" CreationDate="2019-12-11T14:32:06.523" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Prompted by [cnread's answer to another question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/12817/45), I wanted to ask: is there any difference between [mĭnĭmē](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dminime) and [mĭnŭmē](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dminume)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The linked L&amp;S entries do not offer any obvious commentary. A quick [corpus search](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=minume) only seems to show 8 results from Sallust (7) and Pliny (1), which is a pretty poor showing compared to the 877 results for minime. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My hunch is that this is just another example of the same rule that makes Plautus write &quot;optume&quot; instead of &quot;optime&quot; and &quot;quom&quot; instead of &quot;cum,&quot; but it's puzzling in that case that Plautus doesn't use &quot;minume&quot; and that Sallust, writing in the Golden Age, *does* use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any insight on the best choice of word would be helpful!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36654" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="bc7eed7b-0c84-4d9c-80db-29e706847e47" CreationDate="2019-12-11T17:44:01.727" />
  <row Id="36655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13010" RevisionGUID="48658d03-db80-4fd0-a865-53ff0c5dff83" CreationDate="2019-12-11T18:11:19.767" UserId="985" Text="It's perfectly correct and common to have both a possessive adjective and a genitive of possession with the same noun. Possession by a personal pronoun can't be shown by the genitive form of that pronoun but has to be expressed with the related possessive adjective; and although possession by some nouns can be shown through a related adjective (for example, *regalis* may be used with the same meaning as *regis*), not all nouns have such a related adjectives (and at any rate, the genitive is more common). Therefore, if possession of some noun by both a personal pronoun and some other noun has to be shown, you're likely to get this mixture of constructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, I'd say that this means 'The great virtue of you and of your wisdom...' or 'Your great virtue and that of your wisdom....'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13011" RevisionGUID="e89d0a6d-68a3-4968-bfa2-37636ee65165" CreationDate="2019-12-11T23:21:21.283" UserId="3377" Text="I am not sure how well this would work for a paper written in English, but as far as Latin goes I would use an ablative of means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An **ablative of means**, like the name suggests, tells the means by which something is accomplished. The noun (the means) is declined into the ablative case, and it does not require any other words to convey its meaning in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say you wanted to use *dictum* as your word for utterance; *dicto* is how you would decline it for the ablative case, and the normal ablative of means would say that you need nothing other than this to convey your intended meaning (at least for a Latin sentence).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted to translate this as &quot;upon being uttered,&quot; you would need to use passive voice to convey that meaning. You could use *dictatur*, or perhaps *in* *dictatur*, which means &quot;being uttered.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13008" RevisionGUID="7cac0d13-e4d5-40c9-94c3-dd4b977a3c4b" CreationDate="2019-12-12T03:44:01.897" UserId="3248" Comment="changes &amp; qualification" Text="I'd go for your second option, i.e., to analyze _**sapientiae tuae** non est numerus_ as containing a [**dative of possession**][1]: literally, 'to your wisdom there is no number'//'your wisdom has no number' (cf. _sapientia tua non habet numerum_). The idea is that the wisdom of God cannot be calculated since it is infinite.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;EDIT&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Although the dative reading of _sapientiae tuae_ in this example is also found in this authoritative commentary of the [*Language in the Confessions of Augustine* (please see **page 114**)][2], let me say that, on second thought, your third reading, the one that involves considering _sapientiae tuae_ as a **topicalized** genitive nominal (lit. 'of your wisdom there is no number'), is not to be excluded. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-possession&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.es/books?id=4OkTDAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA114&amp;dq=%22sapientiae%20tuae%20non%20est%20numerus%22%20%22to%20your%20wisdom%22&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiRmrDBiq_mAhXqAWMBHY8HDLwQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22sapientiae%20tuae%20non%20est%20numerus%22%20%22to%20your%20wisdom%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13012" RevisionGUID="12c68e1c-201d-4f72-9a08-1b0b3be5d998" CreationDate="2019-12-12T04:15:17.707" UserId="45" Text="I prefer to read this as a genitive rather than a dative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's worth pointing out three Scriptural parallels, which I was able to find using [this commentary](http://www.stoa.org/hippo/text1.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Psalm 146:5](https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/psa146.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Magnus Dominus noster, et magna virtus ejus,  &#xD;&#xA;et sapientiæ ejus non est numerus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Obviously, this has the same ambiguity as in Augustine's text, but the Greek text actually uses the genitive, even though it, like Latin, could have used the dative. (I realize this isn't a knock-down argument, since Augustine didn't read Greek and the Latin doesn't have to correspond to the Greek, but I think it's definitely a point in favor.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; μέγας ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν, καὶ μεγάλη ἡ ἰσχὺς αὐτοῦ,  &#xD;&#xA;καὶ **τῆς συνέσεως** αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀριθμός.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The Latin text of the Nicene creed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Et iterum venturus est cum gloria,  &#xD;&#xA;iudicare vivos et mortuos,  &#xD;&#xA;**cuius regni** non erit finis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is unambiguously genitive and has the same &quot;gen. + non est + limiting noun&quot; structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [Psalm 144:3](https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/psa144.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Magnus Dominus, et laudabilis nimis,  &#xD;&#xA;et **magnitudinis ejus** non est finis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This, too, is unambiguously genitive, and the preceding part is clearly echoed in Augustine's thought. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Augustine was positively steeped in the Scriptures, and particularly the psalms, and this is especially evident in the opening of the *Confessions*. My own ear, and these Scriptural parallels, strongly inclines me towards the reading as a **genitive**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, the meaning would remain the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13012" RevisionGUID="3ca72f27-68e6-4f5e-8ec6-7ccd85dd61f8" CreationDate="2019-12-12T04:24:34.057" UserId="45" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="I prefer to read this as a genitive rather than a dative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's worth pointing out two Scriptural parallel, which I was able to find using [this commentary](http://www.stoa.org/hippo/text1.html), as well as one parallel from the Nicene creed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Psalm 146:5](https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/psa146.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Magnus Dominus noster, et magna virtus ejus,  &#xD;&#xA;et sapientiæ ejus non est numerus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Obviously, this has the same ambiguity as in Augustine's text, but the Greek text actually uses the genitive, even though it, like Latin, could have used the dative. (I realize this isn't a knock-down argument, since Augustine didn't read Greek and the Latin doesn't have to correspond to the Greek, but I think it's definitely a point in favor.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; μέγας ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν, καὶ μεγάλη ἡ ἰσχὺς αὐτοῦ,  &#xD;&#xA;καὶ **τῆς συνέσεως** αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀριθμός.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The Latin text of the Nicene creed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Et iterum venturus est cum gloria,  &#xD;&#xA;iudicare vivos et mortuos,  &#xD;&#xA;**cuius regni** non erit finis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is unambiguously genitive and has the same &quot;gen. + non est + limiting noun&quot; structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [Psalm 144:3](https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/psa144.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Magnus Dominus, et laudabilis nimis,  &#xD;&#xA;et **magnitudinis ejus** non est finis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This, too, is unambiguously genitive, and the preceding part is clearly echoed in Augustine's thought. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Augustine was positively steeped in the Scriptures, and particularly the psalms, and this is especially evident in the opening of the *Confessions*. My own ear, and these Scriptural parallels, strongly inclines me towards the reading as a **genitive**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, the meaning would remain the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13010" RevisionGUID="23c11e39-c29e-41ad-a032-3b66927d8df0" CreationDate="2019-12-12T04:25:21.013" UserId="985" Comment="added 263 characters in body" Text="It's perfectly correct and common to have both a possessive adjective and a genitive of possession with the same noun. Possession by a personal pronoun can't be shown by the genitive form of that pronoun but has to be expressed with the related possessive adjective; and although possession by some nouns can be shown through a related adjective (for example, *regalis* may be used with the same meaning as *regis*), not all nouns have such a related adjectives (and at any rate, the genitive is more common). Therefore, if possession of some noun by both a personal pronoun and some other noun has to be shown, you're likely to get this mixture of constructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, I'd say that this means 'The great virtue of you and of your wisdom...' or 'Your great virtue and that of your wisdom....'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the other uses of *non est numerus* cited by Mitomino and brianpck, I see that this answer is incorrect.  Ah well. I'm still inclined to view *sapientiae tuae* as genitive rather than dative, though – just a different type of genitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13013" RevisionGUID="9fa321a2-7b9d-4e64-a076-d4304bcf9301" CreationDate="2019-12-12T15:50:10.577" UserDisplayName="user2840" Text="I'm writing a passage analysis on Vergil's Aeneid, III.103++, which includes the scene where Aeneas is visited by the Penates (household gods), which the Trojans have brought with them from Troy.&#xD;&#xA;As part of the paper I wanted to say something about the Penates, and was looking for any good references, ideally in Latin from the Roman period (or as long as the tradition survived - a side question, 'how long did the worship of the Penates/Vesta endure?'). As an example of the kind of thing I'd be interested in, Ovid Fasti VI.249-252 references the closely connected worship of Vesta.&#xD;&#xA;Any good references (e.g. besides original Latin ones) would be welcome though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36662" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13013" RevisionGUID="9fa321a2-7b9d-4e64-a076-d4304bcf9301" CreationDate="2019-12-12T15:50:10.577" UserDisplayName="user2840" Text="Information on the Penates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36663" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13013" RevisionGUID="9fa321a2-7b9d-4e64-a076-d4304bcf9301" CreationDate="2019-12-12T15:50:10.577" UserDisplayName="user2840" Text="|reference-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13014" RevisionGUID="4947db3a-c9c4-4756-8c13-1fbc3821d07c" CreationDate="2019-12-12T20:42:04.227" UserId="6344" Text="There is a whole book in Latin on the topic: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.it/books?id=PGhXAAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;hl=it#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The title is *De diis Romanorum patriis sive de Larum atque Penatium tam publicorum quam privatorum*, and the author is Wilhelm Hertzberg, a German philologist and translator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I never read this specific work, hopefully it contains plenty of information about the topic of interest!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13015" RevisionGUID="604a89fd-3f3f-400d-88ab-d8142ca85fa6" CreationDate="2019-12-12T21:53:25.707" UserId="6371" Text="The usual way to write nines in Roman numerals is IX and not VIIII. Curiously, with 900 it is common to see it written as MDCCCC, for example in the picture below (I first noticed it in my step-father’s diploma from Harvard). Nevertheless one also often sees MCM, for example in the opening credits of movies. What’s the difference, and why do so many choose the to me ugly MDCCCC?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/yzP4v.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36666" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13015" RevisionGUID="604a89fd-3f3f-400d-88ab-d8142ca85fa6" CreationDate="2019-12-12T21:53:25.707" UserId="6371" Text="Difference MCM and MDCCCC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36667" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13015" RevisionGUID="604a89fd-3f3f-400d-88ab-d8142ca85fa6" CreationDate="2019-12-12T21:53:25.707" UserId="6371" Text="|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13014" RevisionGUID="2a5f6c9a-4cd1-4d2c-9d64-6301a908f91c" CreationDate="2019-12-12T23:20:27.897" UserId="6344" Comment="added 1280 characters in body" Text="There is a whole book in Latin on the topic: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.it/books?id=PGhXAAAAcAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;hl=it#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The title is *De diis Romanorum patriis sive de Larum atque Penatium tam publicorum quam privatorum*, and the author is Wilhelm Hertzberg, a German philologist and translator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I never read this specific work, hopefully it contains plenty of information about the topic of interest!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit 13/12/2019 (answer to comment):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Interesting; it refers to a Mas Femina pair in bronze, and a Twin brother Gemini pair. I was expecting a horsemen pair like the chessmen and Demetrios Georgios: did I dream it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most likely you didn't dream! It may be that some Lares or Penates had a shape similar to those you mentioned. Especially for what regards the *privati Penates*, the household gods, which usually represented ancestors and forefathers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead the &quot;twins&quot;, Castor and Pollux, were the *Penates Publici*, and it is also interesting that a great statesman and leader as Pompeus ignored the potential of their image for his &quot;propaganda&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[source: *Ushering in a New Republic: Theologies of Arrival at Rome in the First Century BCE*, by Trevor S. Luke (https://books.google.it/books?id=w0k8BAAAQBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;hl=it#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is instead more difficult to say who was the lady, maybe the same Vesta, who was often venerated together with the *Penates*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dRvx0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pZTvR.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LRTyL.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13016" RevisionGUID="9ee76dfd-a46e-494f-a2ba-75b030441f5e" CreationDate="2019-12-13T00:19:42.227" UserId="3248" Text="I was wondering how so-called [&quot;middle constructions&quot;][1] like the English ones exemplified in (1), which are typically translated through a reflexive prononun in Romance languages (e.g., see the Catalan exs. in (2)) are expressed in Latin. As pointed out by [Levin (1993: 5)][2], only causative  verbs of change (e.g., _frighten, break, open, dry,_ etc.) enter into this construction. For example, according to her (and many other linguists), stative verbs (e.g., _see, believe,_ etc.) or activity verbs (e.g., _push, help,_ etc.) do not typically enter into this construction. In case a similar set of verbs can be identified in Latin, I was wondering if similar semantic restrictions apply to their equivalent Latin constructions (e.g., deverbal adjectives ending with _-bilis_ suffix, reflexive constructions, etc.).  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1) a. Whales frighten easily. &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    b. These dishes break easily.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    c. Messages transmit rapidly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) a. Les balenes s'espanten fàcilment. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; b. Aquests plants es trenquen fàcilment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c. Els missatges es transmeten ràpidament. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB I: here I'm specifically interested in those &quot;middle constructions&quot; that receive this (appropriate or not!) label in the (recent) linguistic literature above (e.g., see the links above). My question is **not** whether there is a &quot;middle voice&quot; in Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB II: so-called &quot;middle constructions&quot; (again defined in the sense/links above) are typically separated from so-called &quot;anticausative constructions&quot;: for example, the former can be formed from agentive verbs, whereas the latter can't (e.g., cf. the well-formedness of _These horses saddle easily_ vs. the ill-formedness of _*These horses saddled easily_).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z32uj-umTKw&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.es/books?id=6wIZWOrcBf8C&amp;pg=PA5&amp;dq=%22middle%20construction%22%20Levin%20%22change%20of%20state%22&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjwoN6knrHmAhWD2-AKHSYCCicQ6AEIMjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22middle%20construction%22%20Levin%20%22change%20of%20state%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36670" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13016" RevisionGUID="9ee76dfd-a46e-494f-a2ba-75b030441f5e" CreationDate="2019-12-13T00:19:42.227" UserId="3248" Text="&quot;Middle constructions&quot; in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36671" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13016" RevisionGUID="9ee76dfd-a46e-494f-a2ba-75b030441f5e" CreationDate="2019-12-13T00:19:42.227" UserId="3248" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|verbs|reflexive-pronoun|middle-voice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13017" RevisionGUID="9be8af49-b0a7-461c-9a2d-eb28cd7ea757" CreationDate="2019-12-13T01:26:10.227" UserId="522" Text="[Rees Cyclopedia Volume 26][1] PENATES (1816?) Has quite a good broad article using *Dinysios Halicarnassus* regarding the Trojan Gods housed at Lavinium and later Rome. Lucan 'Two young men sitting each...[holding] a lance.&#xD;&#xA;Briefly on origins from Varro, Macrobius, Cicero, ....Rosinus, Nigidius...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?Deified ancestors (as St Augustine says (Civ Dei I ix. 11.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brief ref to Jacob, Laban and the *theraphim.*  cf. Apuleius &quot;wherever I go I always carry... (journey)... the figure of some god.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you may be disappointed by Rees lack of references. (This page published on the net by Archive who are currently asking for donations.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another source: When Lullingstone Villa became Christian (350?) the cellar was shut up; there was a small private shrine to the ?deity of the water source enclosed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/details/cyclopaediaoruni26rees/page/590" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13016" RevisionGUID="737cbbcd-465f-47ac-b0b5-9a334bdac162" CreationDate="2019-12-13T01:45:17.337" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes plus some new links added" Text="I was wondering **how so-called [&quot;middle constructions&quot;][1]** like the English ones exemplified in (1), which are typically translated with a reflexive verb in Romance languages (e.g., see the Catalan examples in (2)), **are expressed in Latin**. See also this [video][2] for a very basic introduction to so-called &quot;middle constructions&quot; (in the sense of (some) recent linguistic literature).  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1) a. Whales frighten easily. &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    b. These dishes break easily.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    c. Messages transmit rapidly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) a. Les balenes s'espanten fàcilment. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; b. Aquests plats es trenquen fàcilment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c. Els missatges es transmeten ràpidament. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As pointed out by [Levin (1993: 5)][3], only causative verbs of change (e.g., _frighten, break, open, dry,_ etc.) typically enter into the so-called &quot;middle construction&quot; (in the sense of the abovementioned links). For example, according to her, stative verbs (e.g., _see, believe,_ etc.) do not typically enter into this construction (e.g., _*Whales see easily_ is ill-formed). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering (i) whether a similar set of &quot;middle constructions&quot; can be identified in Latin and (ii) whether similar semantic restrictions like the ones pointed out above by Levin apply to their equivalent Latin constructions (e.g., deverbal adjectives ending with _-bilis_ suffix, reflexive and/or mediopassive constructions, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB I: here I'm specifically interested in those &quot;middle constructions&quot; that receive this (appropriate or not!) label in the (recent) linguistic literature above (e.g., see the links above). I.e., although it is related to this topic, my question is **not** whether there is a &quot;middle voice&quot; in Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB II: so-called &quot;middle constructions&quot; (again defined in the sense/links above) are typically separated from so-called &quot;anticausative/ergative constructions&quot;: for example, the former can be formed from agentive verbs, whereas the latter can't (e.g., cf. the well-formedness of _These horses saddle easily_ vs. the ill-formedness of _*These horses saddled easily_. NB: the verb _saddle_ (meaning 'to provide with a saddle') is necessarily agentive).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://web.stanford.edu/~cleoc/mid.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z32uj-umTKw&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.es/books?id=6wIZWOrcBf8C&amp;pg=PA5&amp;dq=%22middle%20construction%22%20Levin%20%22change%20of%20state%22&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjwoN6knrHmAhWD2-AKHSYCCicQ6AEIMjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22middle%20construction%22%20Levin%20%22change%20of%20state%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13016" RevisionGUID="271be65e-07b1-4b3e-b527-c849f59f0cb8" CreationDate="2019-12-13T01:57:25.830" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="I was wondering **how so-called [&quot;middle constructions&quot;][1]** like the English ones exemplified in (1), which are typically translated with a reflexive verb in Romance languages (e.g., see the Catalan examples in (2)), **are expressed in Latin**. See also this [video][2] for a very basic introduction to so-called &quot;middle constructions&quot; (in the sense of (some) recent linguistic literature).  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1) a. Whales frighten easily. &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    b. These dishes break easily.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    c. Messages transmit rapidly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) a. Les balenes s'espanten fàcilment. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; b. Aquests plats es trenquen fàcilment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c. Els missatges es transmeten ràpidament. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As pointed out by [Levin (1993: 5)][3], only causative verbs of change (e.g., _frighten, break, open, dry,_ etc.) typically enter into the so-called &quot;middle construction&quot; (in the sense of the abovementioned links). For example, according to her, stative verbs (e.g., _see, believe,_ etc.) do not typically enter into this construction (e.g., _*Whales see easily_ is ill-formed). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering (i) whether a similar set of &quot;middle constructions&quot; can be identified in Latin and (ii) whether similar semantic restrictions like the ones pointed out above by Levin apply to their equivalent Latin constructions (e.g., deverbal adjectives ending with _-bilis_ suffix, reflexive and/or mediopassive constructions, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB I: here I'm specifically interested in those &quot;middle constructions&quot; that receive this (appropriate or not!) label in the (recent) linguistic literature above (e.g., see the links above). I.e., although it is related to this topic, my question is **not** whether there is a &quot;middle voice&quot; in Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB II: so-called &quot;middle constructions&quot; (again defined in the sense of links above) are typically separated from so-called &quot;anticausative/ergative constructions&quot; (see [this link][4]): for example, the former can be formed from agentive verbs, whereas the latter can't (e.g., cf. the well-formedness of _These horses saddle easily_ vs. the ill-formedness of _*These horses saddled easily_. NB: the verb _saddle_ (meaning 'to provide with a saddle') is necessarily agentive).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://web.stanford.edu/~cleoc/mid.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z32uj-umTKw&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.es/books?id=6wIZWOrcBf8C&amp;pg=PA5&amp;dq=%22middle%20construction%22%20Levin%20%22change%20of%20state%22&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjwoN6knrHmAhWD2-AKHSYCCicQ6AEIMjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22middle%20construction%22%20Levin%20%22change%20of%20state%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13016" RevisionGUID="e0e3a11f-16a1-4ef7-98ef-1f3d168f0ff4" CreationDate="2019-12-13T02:12:44.867" UserId="3248" Comment="minor changes" Text="I was wondering **how so-called [&quot;middle constructions&quot;][1]** like the English ones exemplified in (1), which are typically translated with a reflexive verb in Romance languages (e.g., see the Catalan examples in (2)), **are expressed in Latin**. See also this [video][2] for a very basic introduction to so-called &quot;middle constructions&quot; (in the sense of (some) recent linguistic literature).  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1) a. Whales frighten easily. &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    b. These dishes break easily.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    c. Messages transmit rapidly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) a. Les balenes s'espanten fàcilment. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; b. Aquests plats es trenquen fàcilment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c. Els missatges es transmeten ràpidament. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As pointed out by [Levin (1993: 5)][3], only causative verbs of change (e.g., _frighten, break, open, dry,_ etc.) typically enter into the so-called &quot;middle construction&quot; (in the sense of the abovementioned links). For example, according to her, stative verbs (e.g., _see, believe,_ etc.) do not typically enter into this construction (e.g., _*Whales see easily_ is ill-formed). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering (i) whether a similar set of &quot;middle constructions&quot; can be identified in Latin and (ii) whether similar semantic restrictions like the ones pointed out above by Levin apply to their equivalent Latin constructions (e.g., reflexive and/or mediopassive constructions, constructions with deverbal adjectives ending with _-bilis_ suffix, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB I: here I'm specifically interested in those &quot;middle constructions&quot; that receive this (appropriate or not!) label in the (recent) linguistic literature above (e.g., see the links above). I.e., although it is related to this topic, my question is **not** whether there is a &quot;middle voice&quot; in Latin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB II: so-called &quot;middle constructions&quot; (again defined in the sense of links above) are typically separated from so-called &quot;anticausative/ergative constructions&quot; (see [this link][4]): for example, the former can be formed from agentive verbs, whereas the latter can't (e.g., cf. the well-formedness of _These horses saddle easily_ vs. the ill-formedness of _*These horses saddled easily_. NB: the verb _saddle_ (meaning 'to provide with a saddle') is necessarily agentive).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://web.stanford.edu/~cleoc/mid.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z32uj-umTKw&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.es/books?id=6wIZWOrcBf8C&amp;pg=PA5&amp;dq=%22middle%20construction%22%20Levin%20%22change%20of%20state%22&amp;hl=ca&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjwoN6knrHmAhWD2-AKHSYCCicQ6AEIMjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22middle%20construction%22%20Levin%20%22change%20of%20state%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/7166/did-latin-have-any-ergative-verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11040" RevisionGUID="946a280f-9bc3-4368-abe2-699a92930dee" CreationDate="2019-12-13T12:08:06.717" UserId="9" Comment="mentioned exception to rule that /gw/ only appears after N; minor wording changes at start" Text="For Classical Latin, I have never seen any pronunciation given for &amp;lt;NG&gt; aside from a cluster consisting of **a nasal consonant followed by a voiced plosive**.  I would assume the reason a long nasal consonant /ŋ:/ is used in Finland is simply because that's how the digram &quot;ng&quot; is pronounced in Finnish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the word *pango* has the reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation [ˈpaŋɡoː].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Classical Latin did not have a phonemic distinction between velar and palatal plosives. Words like *gingiva* are analyzed as containing the phoneme /g/, but it's likely that in this kind of context, the voiced plosive transcribed as /g/ was phonetically fronter (or in other words, more palatal) than the /g/ in a word like *pango.* So it's possible that the phonetic form of a word like *gingiva* might have been something like [g̟iŋ̟ˈg̟iːwa] or [ɟiɲˈɟiːwa]. However, allophonic fronting of velar plosive phonemes next to front vowels is often not transcribed even in phonetic transcriptions, because to speakers of languages like English and French the front quality of a plosive in this context is not perceptually salient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Classical Latin is also usually analyzed as lacking a velar nasal phoneme, so strictly speaking there is no /ŋ/ here or in any Latin word. In this context, sounds like [ŋ], [ŋ̟] and [ɲ] did not contrast with [n], so the usual phonemic analysis of the cluster is /ng/. Some phonological analyses make use of entities known as an &quot;archiphonemes&quot; to account for lack of contrast in certain specific contexts; if we use the symbol |N| to represent a nasal &quot;archiphoneme&quot; in Latin, we might instead say that the phonological form of the cluster is |Ng|.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###the case of &quot;-ngu-&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The situation is basically the same for non-syllabic &amp;lt;NGU&gt; in words like *lingua*, although there are some arguments about the phonemic analysis of non-syllabic &amp;lt;GU&gt; and the allophony may have worked a bit differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, we could analyze such words as containing a unitary phoneme /gʷ/. Allen (*Vox Latina*) somewhat hesitantly endorses such an analysis, by analogy with voiceless /kʷ/, for which it is easier to make a case for a single-phoneme analysis (p. 25). However, I believe most linguists prefer to analyze Latin non-syllabic &amp;lt;GU&gt; as a cluster /gw/, on the grounds that a phoneme /gʷ/ would have an unusually highly restricted distribution. In Latin words, non-syllabic &amp;lt;GU&gt; only occurs after N (in around 11 words and their derivatives) and after R (in the single word [“urgueo”, a variant form of *urgeo*](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12895)) (&quot;Aspects of the Phonology and Morphology of Classical Latin&quot;, András Cser (2016), p. 17).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For words with &amp;lt;NGU&gt;, allophonic palatalization from a following front vowel may have affected the offglide. Allen cites a passage in Priscian in support of the proposition that the labial element represented by &amp;lt;U&gt; in &amp;lt;QU&gt; and &amp;lt;NGU&gt; may have had a front articulation before a front vowel (p. 17).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13018" RevisionGUID="7a52fb78-3110-4421-89f4-ed4332e6121d" CreationDate="2019-12-13T15:29:55.877" UserId="6356" Text="I am translating a medieval Latin text about the donation of a monastery. In the text there is this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Idcirco noverit omnium fidelium sanctae dei ecclesiae nostrumque praesentium scilicet et futurorum solertia atque industria, quia nos pro mercedis nostrae augmento concessimus monasterio quod dicitur Hasereod,..., **quasdam** res proprietatis nostrae,...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate this as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For the reason that he (god as by the earlier text) knows the present and certainly also the future skills and works of all faithful of our holy church of god, we have, to the augmentation of our reward, donated the monastary which is called Hasereod,..., part of our property,...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not understand where the plural from &quot;quasdam&quot; suddenly comes from. Could you explain? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36678" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13018" RevisionGUID="7a52fb78-3110-4421-89f4-ed4332e6121d" CreationDate="2019-12-13T15:29:55.877" UserId="6356" Text="Where does this plural come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36679" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13018" RevisionGUID="7a52fb78-3110-4421-89f4-ed4332e6121d" CreationDate="2019-12-13T15:29:55.877" UserId="6356" Text="|translation|latin-to-english-translation|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13019" RevisionGUID="589c9cbf-7742-40db-9eff-d74881d7cd9e" CreationDate="2019-12-13T16:23:00.617" UserId="324" Text="It is accusative plural, agreeing with res. &quot;We have donated to the monastery which is called H. certain things (that were part) of our property&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13020" RevisionGUID="2c0c0657-7ce3-40dd-9ed0-f8e79b462f89" CreationDate="2019-12-13T17:53:03.867" UserId="6344" Text="It is actually quite difficult to find out a proper translation without betraying the Latin and classical spirit! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Latin world the importance of animals is mainly about what they represent: love for example (the *passer* of Catullo to Lesbia), they are messengers of human feelings. &#xD;&#xA;But they can also represent human virtues and vices, stereotyped and even stigmatized behaviors (just think to Phaedrus and its fables). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, if you are looking for an exact translation to &quot;No virtue in being a humankind&quot;, we can easily express it as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nulla virtus in esse homo*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would suggest also another sentence, that in my opinion strictly links humans and animals, without removing any virtue from both. No classical reference, just me, so see if you may like it... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Homines prosint animalibus et animalia hominibus*, meaning &quot;Let humans be of benefit to animals, and animals to humans&quot;; which probably is also related to the office in question and the veterinary work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="79cac3a7-550d-4f6b-9e1a-319c63126ce4" CreationDate="2019-12-13T22:16:23.933" UserId="985" Comment="Added note about minume vs. minime" Text="I was thinking along the same lines as Nickimite. The first sentence of Sallust's *De coniuratione Catilinae* says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **omneis homines, qui sese student praestare ceteris animalibus**, summa ope niti decet, ne vitam silentio  transeant veluti pecora, quae natura prona atque ventri oboedientia finxit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'It's fitting that **all humans who are eager to stand above all other animals** strive with all their might not to pass through life un-talked-about, like cattle, which nature has fashioned face-down and obedient to their stomach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By saying 'all *other* animals,' Sallust acknowledges that humans themselves are just animals (though we're capable of rising above the level of the rest through effort). There's also I nice contrast between standing (the root of *praestare*) and being face-down (*prona*). I suggest an adaptation of this sentence – for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **homines minume praestant ceteris animalibus.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Humans don't stand above all other animals.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other arrangements of the Latin sentence are possible – for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **minume praestant homines ceteris animalibus.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This version emphasizes the negative: 'It not at all the case that humans stand above all other animals.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ceteris animalibus minume praestant homines.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the verb *praestare* literally means 'to stand in front of,' the word order of this version helps underscore the meaning of the sentence by actually putting the rest of the animals before humans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this answer has now spawned [a related question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/13004/is-there-any-difference-between-minime-and-minume), I'll point out that I used the form *minume*, instead of the more commonly seen classical form, *minime*, solely because I was adapting a passage from Sallust, and he uses such 'archaic' forms as a matter of style. It can easily be replaced with *minime* without any change in meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36683" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="13018" RevisionGUID="1d8fe60f-8ecc-4035-9621-6ee27e5a852f" CreationDate="2019-12-13T23:33:38.723" />
  <row Id="36684" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12836" RevisionGUID="b744d65b-7cca-4268-a7e8-0430119c0f23" CreationDate="2019-12-14T04:06:30.937" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="36685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13021" RevisionGUID="35b1f7d7-bb77-4d1d-9870-8e111bdc1493" CreationDate="2019-12-14T05:17:10.543" UserId="40" Text="FWIW, Google attributes the quote to Calvin Coolidge rather than the Emperor Maurice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway I see a couple of issues with your translation: *eius* should be a form of the reflexive *suus*; *obliviscor* takes genitive; and *gens* is a hanging nominative (i.e. it isn't acting as subject of the main clause, since *memoria* is the subject). Fixing these would yield something along the lines of *Gentis quae defensorum suorum obliviscitur memoria amittetur*. If you want to keep *gens* in the nominative, you can do something like *Gens ... memoria excidet*, literally &quot;will fall out of memory&quot;. This still doesn't capture the repetition of the verb *forget* which makes the English version rhetorically effective, though; for that, you could maybe start with something like *Gens defensorum immemor* &quot;A nation forgetful of its defenders&quot;. Or more pithily, *Oblivio defensorum oblivio populi*: literally, &quot;Forgottenness of defenders [is] forgottenness of the people&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12530" RevisionGUID="716eaa24-9a94-4922-a3dd-9ae94d6f0f8e" CreationDate="2019-12-14T22:47:34.673" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 107 characters in body; edited title" Text="[Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=replication) proclaims that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*replicare* &quot;to repeat, reply,&quot; literally &quot;to fold back,&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;originates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from *re-* &quot;back, again&quot; (see [re-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/re-)) \+ *plicare* &quot;to fold&quot; (from PIE root [*plek-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*plek-) &quot;to plait&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What notions underlie folding and repeating? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;p 1785 on [*Oxford Latin Dictionary* (2012 2 ed)](https://www.amazon.ca/Oxford-Latin-Dictionary-Dictionaries/dp/0199580316) doesn't expound the semantic shift. I marked the entry with a red line. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Mb5bv.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36687" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12530" RevisionGUID="716eaa24-9a94-4922-a3dd-9ae94d6f0f8e" CreationDate="2019-12-14T22:47:34.673" UserDisplayName="user37" Comment="deleted 107 characters in body; edited title" Text="How did 'folding' semantically shift to mean 'repeat'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12963" RevisionGUID="bd546b59-25a1-42a4-adec-5a0207e35491" CreationDate="2019-12-15T13:12:47.307" UserId="4947" Comment="Fixed a mistake/unclear expression and made it more obvious where I got which part of my translation from." Text="The (yet) unexpressed decision &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    tacita decisio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;of the discussion &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    controversiae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;aroused the desire &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    desiderium pepererat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to precede it &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    quam praecedendi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in being named.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    in adventu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13025" RevisionGUID="63ec8923-2c63-41e6-9d33-7e9930f16426" CreationDate="2019-12-15T21:41:56.977" UserId="3153" Text="It just occurred to me (I'm that guy maybe starting the YouTube channel) that I don't know whether to use the singular or plural to address my audience in Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My thinking goes like this: plural makes sense because (hopefully) my viewer base will be greater than one person. On the other hand, the singular makes sense because only one person at a time will be likely to watch my videos. On the other other hand, a group of people will probably watch my videos together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what do I use? The singular or the plural?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36699" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13025" RevisionGUID="63ec8923-2c63-41e6-9d33-7e9930f16426" CreationDate="2019-12-15T21:41:56.977" UserId="3153" Text="Should one use the singular or plural when the number is unknown?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36700" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13025" RevisionGUID="63ec8923-2c63-41e6-9d33-7e9930f16426" CreationDate="2019-12-15T21:41:56.977" UserId="3153" Text="|idiom|grammar-choice|translation|grammar-identification|grammarians|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13020" RevisionGUID="eac678e0-92cd-46ca-a549-28206bf09016" CreationDate="2019-12-15T22:37:26.837" UserId="6344" Comment="added 1276 characters in body" Text="It is actually quite difficult to find out a proper translation without betraying the Latin and classical spirit! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Latin world the importance of animals is mainly about what they represent: love for example (the *passer* of Catullo to Lesbia), they are messengers of human feelings. &#xD;&#xA;But they can also represent human virtues and vices, stereotyped and even stigmatized behaviors (just think to Phaedrus and its fables). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, if you are looking for an exact translation to &quot;No virtue in being a humankind&quot;, we can easily express it as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nulla virtus in esse homo*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would suggest also another sentence, that in my opinion strictly links humans and animals, without removing any virtue from both. No classical reference, just me, so see if you may like it... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Homines prosint animalibus et animalia hominibus*, meaning &quot;Let humans be of benefit to animals, and animals to humans&quot;; which probably is also related to the office in question and the veterinary work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit 15/12/2019:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that, in classical Latin at least, you can't make esse (or any other infinitive) the object of in (or any other preposition). Or perhaps this is a Medieval or later construction that aims to imitate a Greek articular infinitive? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are perfectly right, this construction is Medieval:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his *De decem praeceptis* (Collatio V), S. Bonaventura writes &quot;In esse naturae filius non est coaequus patri&quot;. There are also other examples of the same expression, even stronger than the often used in philosophy *in esse, in posse*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As written in the comments, I took the freedom to choose the use of the nominative case. In general, this is not a mistake; in some grammars, where sometimes impersonal examples are displayed, it's easy to find the verb as an infinitive, and the subject in nominative:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly, if we had an infinitive sentence (such as a subjective or an objective), we could only use the accusative case for the subject of the verb, but here, in the phrase above, we have a substantivized infinitive, which does not make the sentence an infinitive one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RcBkJ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EGCkq.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13020" RevisionGUID="b8d09d00-3202-42f9-bc33-d8df3d58c144" CreationDate="2019-12-15T22:45:34.537" UserId="6344" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="It is actually quite difficult to find out a proper translation without betraying the Latin and classical spirit! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Latin world the importance of animals is mainly about what they represent: love for example (the *passer* of Catullo to Lesbia), they are messengers of human feelings. &#xD;&#xA;But they can also represent human virtues and vices, stereotyped and even stigmatized behaviors (just think to Phaedrus and its fables). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, if you are looking for an exact translation to &quot;No virtue in being a humankind&quot;, we can easily express it as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nulla virtus in esse homo*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would suggest also another sentence, that in my opinion strictly links humans and animals, without removing any virtue from both. No classical reference, just me, so see if you may like it... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Homines prosint animalibus et animalia hominibus*, meaning &quot;Let humans be of benefit to animals, and animals to humans&quot;; which probably is also related to the office in question and the veterinary work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit 15/12/2019:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that, in classical Latin at least, you can't make esse (or any other infinitive) the object of in (or any other preposition). Or perhaps this is a Medieval or later construction that aims to imitate a Greek articular infinitive? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are perfectly right, this construction is Medieval:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his *De decem praeceptis* (Collatio V), S. Bonaventura writes &quot;In esse naturae filius non est coaequus patri&quot;. There are also other examples of the same expression, even stronger than the often used in philosophy *in esse, in posse*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As written in the comments, I took the freedom to choose the use of the nominative case. In general, this is not a mistake; in some grammars, where sometimes impersonal examples are displayed, it's easy to find the verb as an infinitive, and the subject in nominative:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly, if we had an infinitive sentence (such as a subjective or an objective), we could only use the accusative case for the subject of the verb, but here, in the phrase I wrote, we have a substantivized infinitive, which does not make the sentence an infinitive one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RcBkJ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EGCkq.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="19a422d7-305e-44ae-8503-647bdcf3bc68" CreationDate="2019-12-15T23:11:14.330" UserId="6344" Text="This is a matter of choice of the author, no escape. However, I would suggest to refer to a plural audience, like a true Latin orator, like Cicero, who looked at the crowd of the *Senatus* with respect and yet authority, declaiming &quot;*patres conscripti...*&quot; before a stream of adorned, refined words exited his mouth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok, probably you should choose another expression than *patres conscripti*, but remember you are always talking to a public audience, no matter how large or small it is. Manzoni, for example, wrote to his imaginary audience of &quot;twenty readers&quot;, though he knew the readers  of his work would have been far more than twenty, and each an individual one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is useful at times to use the singular person to give emphasis  to the speech, or to make it more interesting, especially in examples and reasoning with the audience." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13027" RevisionGUID="219b3c8f-25cd-4d1d-83a1-a5b2739d2059" CreationDate="2019-12-16T11:16:00.260" UserId="6375" Text="I see that in reconstructed PIE &quot;de&quot; or &quot;do&quot; has a meaning of &quot;towards&quot; which is retained in Germanic &quot;to&quot; and Slavic &quot;do&quot;. But in Latin &quot;de&quot; has a meaning of &quot;from&quot;. Is that simply due it taking the Ablative case (i.e. it meant &quot;towards&quot; unless used with Ablative and finally was only used in that capacity)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36707" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13027" RevisionGUID="219b3c8f-25cd-4d1d-83a1-a5b2739d2059" CreationDate="2019-12-16T11:16:00.260" UserId="6375" Text="How did the preposition &quot;de&quot; evolve into meaning &quot;from&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36708" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13027" RevisionGUID="219b3c8f-25cd-4d1d-83a1-a5b2739d2059" CreationDate="2019-12-16T11:16:00.260" UserId="6375" Text="|preposition|ablative|proto-indo-european|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13028" RevisionGUID="ba096de4-5e3b-499e-a3f7-793c374f70c1" CreationDate="2019-12-16T14:23:28.827" UserId="1459" Text="&#xD;&#xA;The Spanish word &quot;santiguar&quot; means &quot;to make the sign of the cross&quot;. So for instance, when a Catholic enters a church, s/he &quot;se santigua&quot; (s/he makes the sign of the cross on her/himself).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/santiguar), this word comes from the Latin _sanctifico_, which means &quot;to sanctify&quot;. In effect, according to link above, &quot;santiguar&quot; also means &quot;to sanctify&quot;, which could explain its origin (I still have doubts though). In any case, nowadays, &quot;santiguar&quot; is no longer used to mean &quot;to sanctify&quot;. There is a more direct Spanish word for it: &quot;santificar&quot;. Thus, &quot;santiguar&quot; is used only to refer to making the sing of the cross.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is about how &quot;santiguar&quot; gained such meaning. Did it gain it **already** when the word was incorporated into Spanish, or does such meaning also comes from Latin? From what I can see, _sanctifico_ does not mean &quot;to make the sign of the cross&quot;. Actually, **I've struggled to find how that is said at all in Latin!** The sing itself is called _singum crucis_, but I can't find a verb that reflects the action of making such sign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any idea on this? I think looking for medieval religious texts might be key here. I did an early search and _signum crucis_ is of course ubiquitous, but as a &quot;noun&quot; and not as a verb.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36710" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13028" RevisionGUID="ba096de4-5e3b-499e-a3f7-793c374f70c1" CreationDate="2019-12-16T14:23:28.827" UserId="1459" Text="Did &quot;sanctifico&quot; ever mean &quot;to make the sign of the cross&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36711" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13028" RevisionGUID="ba096de4-5e3b-499e-a3f7-793c374f70c1" CreationDate="2019-12-16T14:23:28.827" UserId="1459" Text="|etymology|meaning|medieval-latin|spanish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="585b7500-c626-43da-ad02-f44e2f23d53a" CreationDate="2019-12-16T14:29:28.317" UserId="9" Comment="added additional citations about &quot;vĕtātūrus&quot;" Text="There seem to be a fair number of possible exceptions, so the rule that you learned about the formation of future active participles (*-ūrus* participles) doesn't seem to be any kind of absolute rule, only a rule of thumb that is true for &quot;regular&quot; verbs. Hale and Buck's *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]* (1903) mentions this phenomenon and gives some other examples of exceptions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the usual identity of the stems for the perfect and future participles may be coincidental. In &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, Eva-Maria Remberger writes that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The form of the FPart [...] probably represents a derivation of a supine in the form of a locative, ending in *-tū* (Leumann et al. 1963: 342); however, later it was interpreted as being derived from the stem of the PPart (cf. Ernout 1953: §320, among others). Nevertheless, these latter assumptions are contradicted by a large number of exceptions which clearly are not derived from the stem of the PPart. The following FPart forms are all derived from the stem of the present and not the PPart: [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: I have removed the list of forms mentioned, as they are included in my own list below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Moreover, there are verbal paradigms which have a FPart form without displaying a PPart form, at least in Latin, like *fugitūrus, futūrus* (cf. Leumann  et al. 1963:342).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* edited by Sascha Gaglia and  Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few possible complicating factors that have made it tricky for me to figure out the patterns for these kinds of exceptions, and which words exactly are exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #1: it seems Latin supines often had variant forms&#xD;&#xA;One complication is that many verb stems in Latin seem to have had alternative forms based on phenomena like syncope and contraction. In some cases, the stem used for future active participle seems to be a less common (it looks to me, usually less contracted) alternative form of the supine stem, so it's hard for me to tell how many of these represent a situation where one stem is exclusively used for the supine and another exclusively used for the future active participle. For example, it seems that *paritus* existed as an alternative form to *partus.* (On the other hand, I have found a few sources that indicate that &quot;partūrus&quot; was not really used: *[Zibaldone][zibaldone],* by Giacomo Leopardi (2013) &amp; *[Grammatical Commentaries][johnson],* by Richard Johnson (1718).) Johnson has a section &quot;*Of the Formation of* Supines, *and* Participles *in* us *and* urus&quot; (p. 377) that mentions some more possible examples of non-matching forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Complication #2: Could &quot;irregular&quot; participles really be derived adjectives in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also not sure if some cases might be situations like English &quot;drink, drank, drunk&quot; vs. &quot;drunken&quot; or &quot;melt, melted, melted&quot; vs. &quot;molten&quot; where one form might be used for the participle (inflected form of a verb) and another form is used for a derived adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Wiktionary entries that I have read seem to give this impression; e.g. the Wiktionary entry for *[nascor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nascor)* says &quot;Note: Future participle is sometimes nāscitūrus&quot; while the primary Wiktionary entry for *[nasciturus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nasciturus)* defines it as an adjective that &quot;has the form of a future participle of nāscor&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, *[Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric's Latin-Old English Grammar*][priscian], edited by David W. Porter (2002), contains a passage mentioning the use of &quot;cariturus&quot; alongside &quot;cassus&quot; (p. 272), but the Wiktionary entry for *[cassus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassus)* calls it a &quot;verbal adjective&quot; rather than a &quot;participle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern linguistic analyses of languages like English often draw a clear distinction between participles (analyzed as inflected forms of verbs) and derived adjectives, but the tests for distinguishing these can be fairly complex and often only apply in very specific situations. I'm not familiar with what criteria, if any, can be used to distinguish deverbal adjectives from verb forms in Latin. (I asked this as a [separate question](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/6462), and it seems that the main criterion that would establish participle-hood in Latin is taking an accusative direct object, which is only relevant for transitive verbs.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Despite these complications, there do seem to be other examples&#xD;&#xA;But there definitely seem to be cases where, even if the alternative, less contracted stem is not exclusive to the future active participle, the alternative stem is more common in the future active participle than in the supine/perfect participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Examples categorized by ending&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A. In *-ātūrus,* from first-conjugation verbs with past participles not ending in *-ātus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **stātūrus** from *stō, stāre, stetī, stătus.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Neue and Wagener have a long list of sources that attest to the length of the a in this future active participle ([p. 590](https://books.google.com/books?id=TJOpnoQYfJoC&amp;pg=PA590&amp;lpg=PA588&amp;dq=&quot;staturus)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Some online sources e.g. Wiktionary give the form &quot;[statūrus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/staturus)&quot;, but it seems very plausible that this kind of thing could be an accidental error; I don't know if there is any good evidence for a short vowel actually being possible in the first syllable of *staturus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **sŏnātūrus** from *[sŏno](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dsono), sŏnāre/sŏnĕre, sŏnŭi, sŏnĭtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **vĕtātūrus** from *[vĕto](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dveto), vĕtāre, vĕtui, vĕtĭtus* ([Ambrosii Calepini Dictionarivm](https://books.google.com/books?id=SjBBAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA1332&amp;lpg=PA1332&amp;dq=%22veto%22+%22vetaturus%22), [Gramatica della lingua latina del Porretti, p. 117](https://books.google.com/books?id=pO3WgS5THzIC&amp;pg=PA117&amp;lpg=PA117&amp;dq=%22veto%22+%22vetaturus%22)). However, I'm not sure whether *vĕtātūr-* is actually notably more common than *vĕtĭtūr-*: both forms seem fairly infrequent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **jŭvātūrus** from *[jŭvo](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Djuvo), jŭvāre, jūvi, jūtum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, [Peter Bullions] (1867) and [Albert Harkness] (1867) say that in compounds, *jūtūrus* is also used. &#xD;&#xA;- **sĕcātūrus**  from *[sĕco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dseco), sĕcāre, sĕcuī, sectum* (Leonard, p. 51). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;However, Bede's *[De Orthographia][Bede]* seems to say &quot;secturus, non secaturus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **frĭcātūrus** from *[frĭco](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfrico), frĭcāre, frĭcuī, frictum/(fricātum).*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;(The L&amp;S entry says that the supine is &quot;rarely&quot; *fricātum*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Emmanuelis Alvari E Societate Iesu Grammatica Sive Institutionum Linguae Latinae](https://books.google.com/books?id=eEgRotn5jmgC&amp;pg=PA152)* (1627) gives a long list including the following additional forms, but I haven't verified it yet, and some seem a bit doubtful: *cubaturus, domaturus, crepaturus, tonaturus*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*cubiturus* seems to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23cubitur)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*domiturus* seems to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=%23domitur)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *[Hoole's Terminations for nouns and verbs](https://books.google.com/books?id=cI0CAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA95&amp;lpg=PA95)* describes both *crepaturus* and *crepatum* as rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Grandgent 1907](https://books.google.com/books?id=JDQFAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA183) (&quot;An Introduction to Vulgar Latin&quot;) says that in Vulgar Latin, *-ātus* was extended to many past participles of first-conjugation verbs that formerly had past participles in *-ĭtus*: the examples given are *\*crepatus, domatus, plicatus,* *\*sonatus,* *\*tonatus, vetatus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###B. in *-uitūrus,* from verbs ending in *-uo(r)* in the present.&#xD;&#xA;You already mentioned this category. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  *ruitūrus* vs. *-rutus* (Hale and Buck).&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;*abnuitūrus* (vs. *nūtus* 'the hint')&quot; (Remberger)&#xD;&#xA;- *fruiturus* and *construiturus* (Neue and Wagener)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###C. in *-Citūrus* (C = any consonant)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nāscĭtūrus** from *nāscor, nascī, nātus*  (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;*nascendus* also seems to be used, but I'm not sure whether there is a difference in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **moritūrus** from *morior, morī, mortuus.*	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **oritūrus** from *orior, orīrī, ortus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **graditūrus** from *gradior, gradī, gressus* (Neue and Wagener, p. 588).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **nōscĭtūrus** from *nōsco, nōscĕre, nōvī, nōtus* (J.R., p. 43)&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;Remberger mentions the prefixed form &quot;*ignoscītūrus* (vs. *ignōtus*)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **părĭtūrus** from *păriō, părĕre, pĕpĕrī, partus/părĭtus.*&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt; Mentioned in  [brianpck's answer to &quot;Is cultura a future participle?&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1354/9) and [TKR's answer to &quot;Stem for derivatives like figura, statura and cultura&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/1366/9). Remberger says &quot;cf. Ernout 1953&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **vincitūrus** from *vinco, vincĕre, vīcī, victus* (Remberger). &#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;However, [*De Orthographia* by Flavius Caper](https://latin.packhum.org/loc/1229/1/0/1434-1443#0) (or maybe in part by a Pseudo-Flavius Caper?) seems to give an analogical argument in favor of using *victurus* instead of *vinciturus,* which suggests that there may have been some degree of confusion during the time of the author (although I guess the regular form mentioned here could just be a hypothetical invention).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **haurītūrus** (Remberger) or **hausurus** (Johnson) from *hauriō, haurīre, hausī, haustus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **gauditūrus** from *gaudeō, gaudēre, gāvīsus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA; &lt;br&gt;Note: [*gavisurus* does seem to exist](https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23gavisur).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###E. In *-Citurus*, might be rare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **crēscitūrus** from *crēscō, crēscĕre, crēvī, crētus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;I'm not sure where we have examples of the form *crēscitūrus.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **adduciturus** once instead of *adducturus* from *addūco, addūcĕre, addūxī, adductum* (Johnson says the single occurrence of *adduciturus* is in Plautus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **cōnsequitūrus** from *cōnsequor, cōnsequī, cōnsecūtus* (Remberger).&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;But Neue and Wagener, who say that *consequiturus* occurs in one inscription, &quot;aus dem J. 257 n. Chr., I. Neap. 1524&quot;, suggest that it is just a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Sources for the listed participles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The books with lists of (possible) exceptions that I used to compile my list above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Hale, William Gardner and Carl Darling Buck (1903). *[Latin Grammar][hale and buck]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- J.R. (1705). *[Rules and Rhetorick Translated for the Younger Scholars in Bury School][rules and]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Johnson, Richard (1718). [*Grammatical Commentaries*][johnson]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Leonard, J Russell (written some time before 1882). *[A Latin grammar][Leonard]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Remberger, Eva-Maria. &quot;[Participles and nominal aspect][remberger]&quot;, *Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages,* (2012), edited by Sascha Gaglia and Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, p. 273-274.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Neue, Christian Friedrich and Carl Wagener. 1985. *[Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache](https://books.google.com/books?id=TJOpnoQYfJoC&amp;pg=PA588&amp;lpg=PA588&amp;dq=&quot;vinciturus&quot;),* (pp. 586-590).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [remberger]: https://books.google.com/books?id=NbXsjEqOHKIC&amp;pg=PA271&amp;lpg=PA271&amp;dq=latin+participle+inflection+verbal+adjectival&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=gjEokeware&amp;sig=irBQf-FsBFMu7gegdspS-80kcpM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjyi9jgyY3cAhWUHjQIHYf6DhA4ChDoAQhNMAY#v=onepage&amp;q=latin%20participle%20inflection%20verbal%20adjectival&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [zibaldone]: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D25b1e90wQC&amp;pg=PA558&amp;lpg=PA558&amp;dq=pariturus%20parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=anjpQclxn0&amp;sig=LQeXYrkgACoIddOktEw__Tl1E54&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[hale and buck]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aHBA6TQTZksC&amp;pg=PA106&amp;lpg=PA106&amp;dq=oriturus+ortus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QAX799Bv5q&amp;sig=5Z-w5REPdfsZfQ7-XmwvpqcEC18&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbnpbD4oPbAhWW2YMKHWbeCCIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&amp;q=oriturus%20ortus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[rules and]: https://books.google.com/books?id=PkY6E7n0rpQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2LlDy1z-Q2&amp;sig=xY-7HecSr85mQe0Xk7k_avFxydE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[johnson]: https://books.google.com/books?id=9BIBAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA380&amp;lpg=PA380&amp;dq=pariturus+parturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ek9lA85PTa&amp;sig=lfGfBNj8DAIBceA2Qe--qVFs4zU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwipuODkjoHbAhVp7YMKHSpOBLoQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&amp;q=pariturus%20parturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[priscian]: https://books.google.com/books?id=5XLSodWAEa8C&amp;pg=PA272&amp;lpg=PA272&amp;dq=%22pariturus%22+%22parturus%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XtBJs-tvhe&amp;sig=eMoIMxioig9QLZxyH__ExY44tdI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiNzYD9lIHbAhVj6YMKHbvuB5kQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%22pariturus%22%20%22parturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leonard]: &#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?id=EZACAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=moriturus+oriturus+pariturus&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-bBNdzFRHw&amp;sig=wgji1qbBOqFDyxCBhaoAiTDEE9s&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilhPa8mIXbAhVJm-AKHfWKA94Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moriturus%20oriturus%20pariturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Bede]: https://books.google.com/books?id=tOQHAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA33&amp;lpg=PA33&amp;dq=%22secaturus%22#v=onepage&amp;q=%22secaturus%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Peter Bullions]: https://books.google.com/books?id=cxoPAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA144&amp;lpg=PA144&amp;dq=juvaturus#v=onepage&amp;q=juvaturus&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Albert Harkness]: https://books.google.com/books?id=n4sAAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=juvaturus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13028" RevisionGUID="6b089860-4665-412e-b620-4d6642a20fa6" CreationDate="2019-12-16T17:01:29.693" UserId="1459" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The Spanish word &quot;santiguar&quot; means &quot;to make the sign of the cross&quot;. So for instance, when a Catholic enters a church, s/he &quot;se santigua&quot; (s/he makes the sign of the cross on her/himself).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/santiguar), this word comes from the Latin _sanctifico_, which means &quot;to sanctify&quot;. In effect, according to link above, &quot;santiguar&quot; also means &quot;to sanctify&quot;, which could explain its origin (I still have doubts though). In any case, nowadays, &quot;santiguar&quot; is no longer used to mean &quot;to sanctify&quot;. There is a more direct Spanish word for it: &quot;santificar&quot;. Thus, &quot;santiguar&quot; is used only to refer to making the sing of the cross.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is about how &quot;santiguar&quot; gained such meaning. Did it gain it **already** when the word was incorporated into Spanish, or does such meaning also comes from Latin? From what I can see, _sanctifico_ does not mean &quot;to make the sign of the cross&quot;. Actually, **I've struggled to find how that is said at all in Latin!** The sing itself is called _signum crucis_, but I can't find a verb that reflects the action of making such sign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any idea on this? I think looking for medieval religious texts might be key here. I did an early search and _signum crucis_ is of course ubiquitous, but as a &quot;noun&quot; and not as a verb.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13030" RevisionGUID="6b868ec1-654d-4ea9-b0b4-ae5683df56a8" CreationDate="2019-12-17T01:38:31.353" UserId="6376" Text="I'm studying Plato, but am ungreeked. Does the Ancient Greek name [Laches][1] have a known or suspected etymology? My searches have only turned up the modern legal term, related to the Latin word laxo. Thank you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(general)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36717" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13030" RevisionGUID="6b868ec1-654d-4ea9-b0b4-ae5683df56a8" CreationDate="2019-12-17T01:38:31.353" UserId="6376" Text="What is the etymology of Laches? (The Ancient Greek name.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36718" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13030" RevisionGUID="6b868ec1-654d-4ea9-b0b4-ae5683df56a8" CreationDate="2019-12-17T01:38:31.353" UserId="6376" Text="|greek|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13031" RevisionGUID="347a3b84-3ec1-4a45-8f6b-7a69604913b9" CreationDate="2019-12-17T04:03:54.330" UserId="40" Text="It seems to come from the root λαχ- *lakh-* of the verb [λαγχάνω *lankhanō*][1] &quot;obtain by lot, possess by lot&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard to say more precisely what the name would have meant, or why this meaning was thought suitable for a man's name. This is not infrequently the case with Greek names. In this case, Λάχης *Lakhēs* looks like it might originally have been a hypocoristic &quot;clipping&quot; of some longer compound name beginning Λαχ- *Lakh-*, such as the rare but attested Λαχέμοιρος *Lakhemoiros*, which means something like &quot;he who is allotted his portion/share/lot/fate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (*Lachesis*, the name of one of the three Fates, is also from this root, which makes sense because the Fates allot destinies to mortals.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlagxa%2Fnw&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk/database/lgpn.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13032" RevisionGUID="8be09e28-ee37-438f-83c3-742056ba91cb" CreationDate="2019-12-17T14:03:58.070" UserId="9" Text="[Lewis and Short][1] indicates that &quot;chorāgus&quot; is from Greek χορηγός (Doric χορᾱγός), which  [LSJ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dxorhgo%2Fs) says is a compound of χορός and ἡγέομαι. The entries for *choragus* in the Oxford English Dictionary and a number of other English dictionaries say instead that the second element is from ἄγω, which seems to contradict the LSJ entry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wondered whether the long vowel that is supposed to be in the Latin word would be consistent with the derivation from ἄγω, since I thought that verb usually had a short vowel. However, when I checked the LSJ entries for [ἄγω][2] and the noun [ἀγός][3], they seemed to indicate that the alpha is sometimes found long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a chance that the Oxford English Dictionary's etymology is correct after all, or is it just a mistake?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dchoragus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da)%2Fgw&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da)go%2Fs1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36721" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13032" RevisionGUID="8be09e28-ee37-438f-83c3-742056ba91cb" CreationDate="2019-12-17T14:03:58.070" UserId="9" Text="What is the etymology of &quot;chorāgus&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36722" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13032" RevisionGUID="8be09e28-ee37-438f-83c3-742056ba91cb" CreationDate="2019-12-17T14:03:58.070" UserId="9" Text="|greek|etymology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13033" RevisionGUID="1bf58b05-ceff-4ed9-937c-8aaaaeba8646" CreationDate="2019-12-17T20:29:01.000" UserId="40" Text="In Greek compounds, when the second member of the compounds begins with a short vowel, this vowel is often lengthened:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; στρατ-ηγός &lt; ἄγω  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἀν-ώνυμος &lt; ὄνομα   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἡμι-ώβολον &lt; ὀβολός&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the explanation for this lengthening? And is there a rule for when it happens, or is it sporadic?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36724" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13033" RevisionGUID="1bf58b05-ceff-4ed9-937c-8aaaaeba8646" CreationDate="2019-12-17T20:29:01.000" UserId="40" Text="Why vowel lengthening in Greek compounds?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36725" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13033" RevisionGUID="1bf58b05-ceff-4ed9-937c-8aaaaeba8646" CreationDate="2019-12-17T20:29:01.000" UserId="40" Text="|greek|word-formation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12764" RevisionGUID="90efaffd-6415-4044-93db-f28d81660fce" CreationDate="2019-12-17T20:41:31.783" UserId="1459" Comment="updated?" Text="Here's a new opportunity with regard to Ecclesiastical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On June 8, 2019, Vatican Radio started broadcasting _Hebdomada Papae, notitiae vaticanae latine redditae_ (The Pope's week in review: Vatican news bulletin in Latin), a 5-minute weekly news bulletin airing every Saturday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The programme is curated by Alessandro De Carolis, head of Vatican Radio, and results from the collaboration between Vatican Radio journalists and the Vatican Secretariat of Latin Letters, which already draws up official documents in Latin and manages the pope's Latin language Twitter account. [See here for more info.](https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2019-06/latin-news-vatican-radio-hebdomada-papae.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](https://www.vaticannews.va/en/podcast/vatican-radio-news-in-latin.html) you can find all the broadcasts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12764" RevisionGUID="68a96a2e-9cbd-4d98-a4b4-e802d5ed4d00" CreationDate="2019-12-17T22:18:38.183" UserId="2476" Comment="added 350 characters in body" Text="Here's a new opportunity with regard to Ecclesiastical Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On June 8, 2019, Vatican Radio started broadcasting _Hebdomada Papae, notitiae vaticanae latine redditae_ (The Pope's week in review: Vatican news bulletin in Latin), a 5-minute weekly news bulletin airing every Saturday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The programme is curated by Alessandro De Carolis, head of Vatican Radio, and results from the collaboration between Vatican Radio journalists and the Vatican Secretariat of Latin Letters, which already draws up official documents in Latin and manages the pope's Latin language Twitter account. [See here for more info.](https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2019-06/latin-news-vatican-radio-hebdomada-papae.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[On the English version](https://www.vaticannews.va/en/podcast/vatican-radio-news-in-latin.html) of the Vatican News website you can find all the broadcasts, and [on the Italian one](https://www.vaticannews.va/it/ricerca.html?q=Hebdomada%20Papae&amp;in=all&amp;sorting=latest) there are also transcriptions and translations in Italian. Note that as of now the Italian version of the website is the only one having these, they haven't been uploaded on the others (yet?)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13034" RevisionGUID="58995424-897a-475f-9fda-3baa3eb2e512" CreationDate="2019-12-18T00:46:26.147" UserId="6377" Text="In the first sentence of St. Augustine's Confessions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...et sapientiae tuae non est numerus.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English translation by John K. Ryan renders this as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;and to your wisdom *there is* no limit.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13037" RevisionGUID="b48f4715-2226-4828-a830-2c40007bba99" CreationDate="2019-12-18T06:44:04.683" UserId="3430" Text="For macrons I generally check the dictionaries at [Logeion][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://logeion.uchicago.edu/vates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13038" RevisionGUID="49cd0cea-79f2-48de-8060-44ca954f2a29" CreationDate="2019-12-18T07:10:38.420" UserId="40" Text="It's more likely to be from ἄγω than ἡγέομαι. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The long vowel is not an issue because it's common in Greek compounds for an initial short vowel in the second element to lengthen. (I've just posted a [question][1] about this phenomenon.) In terms of meaning, both verbs seem appropriate, and from a quick TLG search it looks like both are attested taking the noun χορός as object. But there are other compounds in -ηγός that can only be from the root of ἄγω, not ἡγέομαι: for example στρατηγός &quot;general&quot;, which if it contained ἡγέομαι would have to be *στραθηγός because of the rough breathing. So assuming χορηγός contains the same second member as στρατηγός, that can only be ἄγω.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(As a side note, LSJ's etymologies haven't been updated in ages and generally can't be relied on.)&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/13033/why-vowel-lengthening-in-greek-compounds" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36735" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2033" RevisionGUID="f4a2751c-be90-448c-80fb-c0135911073c" CreationDate="2019-12-18T07:33:17.217" UserDisplayName="user6379" Comment="142" />
  <row Id="36736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13039" RevisionGUID="b87fea96-0a7b-4325-b5c5-80afd7ce66f9" CreationDate="2019-12-18T08:53:16.293" UserId="6378" Text="Mdcccc is correct&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IIV is correct&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People shorten things but the long form is always the most correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13040" RevisionGUID="b8828781-bf26-413a-985e-5d15811ab91d" CreationDate="2019-12-18T09:13:06.790" UserId="3430" Text="The book [Vox Latina][1] by W. Sidney Allen has a section on semivowels which compares the i and u consonants and vowels. Among the sources of information mentioned about the way these were pronounced are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What the Romans wrote about pronunciation&#xD;&#xA; - The way that Latin words were transcribed in Greek&#xD;&#xA; - Poetry scansion - Scansion in particular should be helpful for deducing whether i and u are consonants or vowels, because they would produce different patterns of long and short syllables. For example, poetry scansion shows that in *cui* and *huic* the *u* [is a vowel][2]. According to Sidney Allen &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finally, it should be noted that in cui, huic, and the interjection&#xD;&#xA;hui, the second letter is not the consonant but the vowel&#xD;&#xA;u, which forms a diphthong with the following i.1 It is true&#xD;&#xA;that Quintilian finds cui and qui somewhat similar (t i, 7, 27),&#xD;&#xA;but his reference to the' pinguem sonum' of the former suggests&#xD;&#xA;a back as opposed to a front vowel (cf. p. 34) as the more&#xD;&#xA;prominent element-and there is other evidence besides. The&#xD;&#xA;clearest proof is provided by the fact that elision is permitted&#xD;&#xA;before huic (but not, for example, before uis), and that in -alicui&#xD;&#xA;the cu does not' make position' for the preceding syllable, which&#xD;&#xA;remains light; both of these pieces of evidence indicate that the&#xD;&#xA;u must here be a vowel; similarly huic does not' make position'&#xD;&#xA;with a preceding final consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As he points out, there is [occasional poetic interchange][3] between the u and i vowels and consonants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The close connexion between the vowel and the consonant in&#xD;&#xA;Latin is seen in occasional poetic interchange of function, as, for example, trisyllabic silva and disyllabic genua (with consonantal&#xD;&#xA;u 'making position')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but as long as this was only occasional, poetry scansion could be used to distinguish them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=RA1-PA37&amp;lpg=RA1-PA37&amp;dq=vox%20latina%20(vii)%20Semivowels&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=TxWCkj5BXT&amp;sig=ACfU3U1RxiEKC0kSiLOPIyi55EBYvxCPZw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiIpqmw477mAhWC63MBHZ5gAyQQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=vox%20latina%20(vii)%20Semivowels&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=RA1-PA42&amp;lpg=RA1-PA42&amp;dq=Finally,+it+should+be+noted+that+in+cui&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=TxWCkj7y0X&amp;sig=ACfU3U1NrCxTE4jj4Q0w_iVEShGBSxB3ng&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjyib_06b7mAhWx6nMBHajVCnUQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=Finally%2C%20it%20should%20be%20noted%20that%20in%20cui&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&amp;pg=RA1-PA40&amp;lpg=RA1-PA40&amp;dq=Latin%20is%20seen%20in%20occasional%20poetic%20interchange%20of%20function&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=TxWCkj7EZZ&amp;sig=ACfU3U2NmYiggofy0unIMzfn7lScCJ0Ejw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjvoamF7L7mAhW67XMBHZQvB2wQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=Latin%20is%20seen%20in%20occasional%20poetic%20interchange%20of%20function&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13041" RevisionGUID="be1816df-4cc5-414f-8336-1cd4abbec7a8" CreationDate="2019-12-18T10:55:41.183" UserId="1982" Text="Firstly, many thanks to Mitomino who has gone to some lengths, with this Q.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further research may have produced a solution to this &quot;me&quot; vs &quot;mihi&quot; conundrum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix &quot;ir&quot;, applied to parent verb, &quot;rideo&quot; makes hardly any difference (Pock. Ox. Lat. Dict.). Wiki: prefix &quot;ir&quot; is an alternative form of &quot;in&quot;, used to create the opposite meaning e.g. in + reverens (reverent) gives irreverens (irreverent). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some ten &quot;special verbs&quot; in Latin which require a noun in the dative case. Compound verbs take dative objects, though it would be more accurate to say the compounds (i.e. the prefixes) applied to the parent verbs do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verbs, which take dative objects (technically, indirect objects) not accusative ones, even though the English verbs most often used to translate them require accusative direct-objects, give English translations which do not correspond directly to the Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English includes an accusative direct-object; the Latin, a dative object, giving rise to the very confusion which spawned this Q.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such verbs have an underlying meaning e.g. &quot;credo&quot; = &quot;believe&quot;; to the Romans it meant &quot;be trusting&quot;; which, naturally, requires a dative: &quot;be trusting to...&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ignosco&quot; = &quot;pardon&quot;; to the Romans &quot;grant pardon&quot;; requiring dative: &quot;grant pardon to...&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;impero&quot; = &quot;command&quot;; &quot;give an order to...&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;noceo&quot; = &quot;harm&quot;; &quot;do harm to...&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;parco&quot; = &quot;spare&quot;; &quot;be lenient to...&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;pareo&quot; = &quot;obey&quot;; &quot;be obedient to...&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;persuadeo&quot; = &quot;persuade&quot;; &quot;make sweet or agreeable to...&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;placeo&quot; = &quot;please&quot;; &quot;be pleasing to...&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;servio&quot; = &quot;serve&quot;; &quot;be a servant (or slave) to...&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;studio&quot; = &quot;study&quot;; &quot;be zealous (or eager) for...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the example from North &amp; Hillard: &quot;nisi mihi irisisset, forsitan ei ignossem&quot; =&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;If he had not been mocking/ rude/ bad to me (mihi), I should perhaps have forgiven him.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QED." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13042" RevisionGUID="743d8841-81f1-4038-b8c9-30397b91a19c" CreationDate="2019-12-18T12:10:40.327" UserId="324" Text="This is neatly explained in Buck's &quot;Comparative grammar&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KWZTQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13042" RevisionGUID="ff9f0a1b-a2a4-4909-a4de-2d3ee9b7d0a2" CreationDate="2019-12-18T15:41:40.687" UserId="324" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="This is neatly explained in Buck's &quot;Comparative grammar&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And not all that differently in Sihler's &quot;New comparative grammar&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KWZTQ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vjYX9.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13043" RevisionGUID="9af4a2c7-09e4-4637-ae17-9a951858a364" CreationDate="2019-12-18T22:10:12.937" UserId="9" Text="It looks like more than one process could lead to a long vowel in a compound word where the corresponding independent word has a short vowel. Here is an overview of what I have found so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Background information&#xD;&#xA;As Proto-Indo-European is generally reconstructed as having a phonotactic restriction against vowel-initial words, Greek vowel-initial words usually result from the loss of a word-initial consonant and/or the addition of a prothetic vowel. Some common consonants responsible for this are the laryngeals (plain *h₁, a-coloring *h₂, o-coloring *h₃), *w (aka u̯ or digamma), *s (which became *h), sometimes others like syllabic nasals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second element of a compound in Greek can take a different ablaut grade than the independent word, although the details of this are still unclear to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Types of compounds that may show long vowels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Late contraction of vowels in hiatus from loss of *w or *h (&lt;*s)&#xD;&#xA;As loss of digamma and /h/ occurred later than loss of other consonants, it seems that compounds with a vowel-initial second element that originally started in digamma or /h/ can show either uncontracted forms, or contracted forms that follow the typical Attic rules for contraction of vowels in hiatus. [Smyth 878](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Apart%3D3%3Achapter%3D24) says τιμωρός (from τιμή and ϝοράω) is an example where this process results in a long vowel; in the form κακοῦργος, which Smyth says corresponds to Epic κακο-εργός, contraction of ο-ε results in ου. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Smyth says the combining form corresponding to the verb ἔχω is -οχος, an example of the second element of a compound being in a different ablaut grade from the independent word. As ἔχω/-οχος comes from a PIE root starting with the consonant *s, Smyth says κληροῦχος and πολιοῦχος represent contraction of ο-ο (&lt; *oho &lt; *oso).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Laryngeals&#xD;&#xA;With words where the second element originally started with a laryngeal, the history of the vowels in the compound forms seems to be more complicated. Different sources give slightly different explanations that I don't understand enough to summarize right now. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13043" RevisionGUID="f8660358-5b50-47d9-a97f-96f35b4e5718" CreationDate="2019-12-18T22:33:09.773" UserId="9" Comment="added a couple of quotes" Text="It looks like more than one process could lead to a long vowel in a compound word where the corresponding independent word has a short vowel. Here is an overview of what I have found so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Background information&#xD;&#xA;As Proto-Indo-European is generally reconstructed as having a phonotactic restriction against vowel-initial words, Greek vowel-initial words usually result from the loss of a word-initial consonant and/or the addition of a prothetic vowel. Some common consonants responsible for this are the laryngeals (plain *h₁, a-coloring *h₂, o-coloring *h₃), *w (aka u̯ or digamma), *s (which became *h), sometimes others like syllabic nasals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second element of a compound in Greek can take a different ablaut grade than the independent word, although the details of this are still unclear to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Types of compounds that may show long vowels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Late contraction of vowels in hiatus from loss of *w or *h (&lt;*s)&#xD;&#xA;As loss of digamma and /h/ occurred later than loss of other consonants, it seems that compounds with a vowel-initial second element that originally started in digamma or /h/ can show either uncontracted forms, or contracted forms that follow the typical Attic rules for contraction of vowels in hiatus. [Smyth 878](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Apart%3D3%3Achapter%3D24) says τιμωρός (from τιμή and ϝοράω) is an example where this process results in a long vowel; in the form κακοῦργος, which Smyth says corresponds to Epic κακο-εργός, contraction of ο-ε results in ου. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Smyth says the combining form corresponding to the verb ἔχω is -οχος, an example of the second element of a compound being in a different ablaut grade from the independent word. As ἔχω/-οχος comes from a PIE root starting with the consonant *s, Smyth says κληροῦχος and πολιοῦχος represent contraction of ο-ο (&lt; *oho &lt; *oso).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Laryngeals&#xD;&#xA;With words where the second element originally started with a laryngeal, the history of the vowels in the compound forms seems to be more complicated. Different sources give slightly different explanations that I don't understand enough to summarize right now. Sound changes/mechanisms proposed to be relevant in at least some cases seem to be ablaut, certain laryngeal-specific sound changes, and lengthening in compensation for elision of a preceding vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some quotes from articles I have found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;The origin of these lengthenings is more difficult to account for: the long vowel can either be an old contraction (as Wackernagel argued for), or can be the result of an elision followed by compensatory lengthening to account for the elision&quot; (De Decker 2014, &quot;Some etymological and morphological observations on the *h&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;o problem,&quot; pp. 50-51, citing &quot;Berenguer-Sánchez 2011, especially 386&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- With regard to compounds ending in -ωψ -ωπος and -οψ -οπος, &quot;[On the Derivation of Greek Αἰθίοψ and Αἴσωπος from a PIE Perspective][1]&quot;, by Roberto  Batisti (2019) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Beekes (1995:18-25) draws a sharp semantic distinction : -ωπ- ‘eye’, ‘face’ vs. -οπ- ‘looking’. In principle, forms where the meaning ‘eye, face’ was present may have been influenced by root noun \***h₃ṓkʷ-** ‘eye, face’ &gt;ὤψ* (Hom. acc. sg. ὦπα) with generalized lengthened grade (cf. φώρ φωρός ‘thief’). But the rule is not absolute (e.g. χαροπός ‘bright-*eyed*’, vs. many compounds in -ωπο- with a very faded meaning, e.g. χρυσωπός ‘gold-colored’, ξανθωπός ‘blond’); and both forms may have other origins: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- in addition to lengthened grade, -ωπ- may reflect zero grade after \*-*e/o*- and \*-*R*- (and possibly after \*-*i*-, \*-*u*- , cf. §11), while -οπ- may reflect full grade but also zero grade after \*C . &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- forms in -οπ(ο)- can also be compounds of the root (ϝ)οπ- &lt; \**u̯ekʷ* ‘voice, speak’, and possibly absorbed one or more Pre-Gk./non-IE suffix(es).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(4.3, p. 4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/40906382/On_the_Derivation_of_Greek_%CE%91%E1%BC%B0%CE%B8%CE%AF%CE%BF%CF%88_and_%CE%91%E1%BC%B4%CF%83%CF%89%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%82_from_a_PIE_Perspective" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13043" RevisionGUID="45fccfec-1c26-4404-a303-1a87ec02e38f" CreationDate="2019-12-18T23:05:12.273" UserId="9" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="It looks like more than one process could lead to a long vowel in a compound word where the corresponding independent word has a short vowel. Here is an overview of what I have found so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Background information&#xD;&#xA;As Proto-Indo-European is generally reconstructed as having a phonotactic restriction against vowel-initial words, Greek vowel-initial words usually result from the loss of a word-initial consonant and/or the addition of a prothetic vowel. Some common consonants responsible for this are the laryngeals (plain *h₁, a-coloring *h₂, o-coloring *h₃), *w (aka u̯ or digamma), *s (which became *h), sometimes others like syllabic nasals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second element of a compound in Greek can take a different ablaut grade than the independent word, although the details of this are still unclear to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Types of compounds that may show long vowels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Late contraction of vowels in hiatus from loss of *w or *h (&lt;*s)&#xD;&#xA;As loss of digamma and /h/ occurred later than loss of other consonants, it seems that compounds with a vowel-initial second element that originally started in digamma or /h/ can show either uncontracted forms, or contracted forms that follow the typical Attic rules for contraction of vowels in hiatus. [Smyth 878](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Apart%3D3%3Achapter%3D24) says τιμωρός (from τιμή and ϝοράω) is an example where this process results in a long vowel; in the form κακοῦργος, which Smyth says corresponds to Epic κακο-εργός, contraction of ο-ε results in ου. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Smyth says the combining form corresponding to the verb ἔχω is -οχος, an example of the second element of a compound being in a different ablaut grade from the independent word. As ἔχω/-οχος comes from a PIE root starting with the consonant *s, Smyth says κληροῦχος and πολιοῦχος represent contraction of ο-ο (&lt; *oho &lt; *oso).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Laryngeals&#xD;&#xA;With words where the second element originally started with a laryngeal, the history of the vowels in the compound forms seems to be more complicated. Different sources give slightly different explanations that I don't understand enough to summarize right now. The most general explanation is lengthening either from contraction of adjacent vowels or in compensation for elision of a preceding vowel, but other mechanisms proposed to be relevant in at least some cases seem to be ablaut and certain laryngeal-specific sound changes such as the change from *n̥h₃ &gt; νω mentioned in the Sihler quote in fdb's answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some quotes from articles I have found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;The origin of these lengthenings is more difficult to account for: the long vowel can either be an old contraction (as Wackernagel argued for), or can be the result of an elision followed by compensatory lengthening to account for the elision&quot; (De Decker 2014, &quot;Some etymological and morphological observations on the *h&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;o problem,&quot; pp. 50-51, citing &quot;Berenguer-Sánchez 2011, especially 386&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- With regard to compounds ending in -ωψ -ωπος and -οψ -οπος, &quot;[On the Derivation of Greek Αἰθίοψ and Αἴσωπος from a PIE Perspective][1]&quot;, by Roberto  Batisti (2019) says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Beekes (1995:18-25) draws a sharp semantic distinction : -ωπ- ‘eye’, ‘face’ vs. -οπ- ‘looking’. In principle, forms where the meaning ‘eye, face’ was present may have been influenced by root noun \***h₃ṓkʷ-** ‘eye, face’ &gt;ὤψ* (Hom. acc. sg. ὦπα) with generalized lengthened grade (cf. φώρ φωρός ‘thief’). But the rule is not absolute (e.g. χαροπός ‘bright-*eyed*’, vs. many compounds in -ωπο- with a very faded meaning, e.g. χρυσωπός ‘gold-colored’, ξανθωπός ‘blond’); and both forms may have other origins: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- in addition to lengthened grade, -ωπ- may reflect zero grade after \*-*e/o*- and \*-*R*- (and possibly after \*-*i*-, \*-*u*- , cf. §11), while -οπ- may reflect full grade but also zero grade after \*C . &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- forms in -οπ(ο)- can also be compounds of the root (ϝ)οπ- &lt; \**u̯ekʷ* ‘voice, speak’, and possibly absorbed one or more Pre-Gk./non-IE suffix(es).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(4.3, p. 4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/40906382/On_the_Derivation_of_Greek_%CE%91%E1%BC%B0%CE%B8%CE%AF%CE%BF%CF%88_and_%CE%91%E1%BC%B4%CF%83%CF%89%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%82_from_a_PIE_Perspective" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12992" RevisionGUID="f4a27a95-ab1f-470b-8552-ffff9082a5e4" CreationDate="2019-12-19T09:36:42.427" UserId="1982" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="North &amp; Hillard Ex. 204; Q1: the following is to be translated into Latin: &quot;If he had not mocked me, I should perhaps have forgiven him.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;(Impossible conditions: past tense: pluperfect subjunctive in both clauses.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Answer Book: &quot;nisi mihi irisisset, forsitan ei ignossem.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Curious as to the deployment of &quot;mihi&quot; given that &quot;irrideo&quot; does not take dative, I arrived, by circuitous route (Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/12946/1982 and Q: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/11250/1982) at &quot;Dative of Reference&quot; (D of R) from Allen &amp; Greenough (p376-379 original; p234 reprint): &quot;The dative often depends, not on any particular word, but on the general meaning of the sentence. The dative in this construction is often called the Dative of Advantage or Disadvantage, as denoting the person or thing for whose benefit or to whose prejudice, the action is performed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This solves the above example. (Not quite: see Mitomino's answer and my answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the same page the serendipitous discovery of an interesting piece of translation: &quot;laudavit mihi fratrem&quot; = &quot;he praised my brother, out of regard for me&quot;; A &amp; G state: &quot;laudavit fratrem meum&quot; would imply no such motive.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this is a (D of R) the &quot;out-of-regard-for-me&quot; part reads like a leap of faith. How, without context, is it determined? Would anyone, here, have translated in this way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, it appears, from the example from (N &amp; H) and this one that a (D of R) is NOT translated as a regular dative (to or for something).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding, therefore, to the confusion, the remaining examples, from A &amp; G, appear to do the opposite. Consider: &quot;meritos mactavit honores, taurum Neptuno, taurum tibi pulcher Apollo&quot; (Aen. III. 118) = &quot;he offered the sacrifices due, a bull to Neptune, a bull to you beautiful Apollo&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Datives &quot;Neptuno&quot; &amp; &quot;tibi&quot; are translated as regular datives. (Why isn't it &quot;pulchro Apollini&quot;?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is going on, here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13044" RevisionGUID="ea41247c-2885-41b8-b76e-5231a2e96a0b" CreationDate="2019-12-19T13:46:18.290" UserId="6356" Text="I am trying to translate a sentence in medieval Latin. It comes from a document that concernes an estate that is given to a monastery. Below you can see the relevant excerpt, I bolded the part I do not quite get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Has itaque res cum mancipiis domibus ...  **perviis adiacentiis exitibus et regessibus quaesitum et ad inquirendum** ... et ad nos&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt thus far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And so these things with the property, the houses, ..., &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose the bold part is supposed to relate to the paths from and to said estate, but I do not get what &quot;quaesitum et ad inquirendum (the questioned and the to be examined)&quot; is doing here. Could you help me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36747" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13044" RevisionGUID="ea41247c-2885-41b8-b76e-5231a2e96a0b" CreationDate="2019-12-19T13:46:18.290" UserId="6356" Text="Help with a medieval Latin sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36748" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13044" RevisionGUID="ea41247c-2885-41b8-b76e-5231a2e96a0b" CreationDate="2019-12-19T13:46:18.290" UserId="6356" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13045" RevisionGUID="e7b395a2-fdaa-4b41-9f8d-54d5d36c8240" CreationDate="2019-12-19T13:48:29.020" UserId="6356" Text="In a medieval document I am reading the words &quot;inexquisitum&quot; and &quot;supramemorati&quot; appear. I do not know these words, can not find them on Google and they are not in my dictionary. Does anyone know what they mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36750" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13045" RevisionGUID="e7b395a2-fdaa-4b41-9f8d-54d5d36c8240" CreationDate="2019-12-19T13:48:29.020" UserId="6356" Text="What does &quot;inexquisitum&quot; and &quot;supramemorati&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36751" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13045" RevisionGUID="e7b395a2-fdaa-4b41-9f8d-54d5d36c8240" CreationDate="2019-12-19T13:48:29.020" UserId="6356" Text="|latin-to-english-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13044" RevisionGUID="35a80990-9e06-4614-85f4-6cfd800c0d62" CreationDate="2019-12-19T13:52:06.287" UserId="6356" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="I am trying to translate a sentence in medieval Latin. It comes from a document that concernes an estate that is given to a monastery. Below you can see the relevant excerpt, I bolded the part I do not quite get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Has itaque res cum mancipiis domibus ...  **perviis adiacentiis exitibus et regessibus quaesitum et ad inquirendum** ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt thus far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And so (from the context: we give) these things with the property, the houses, ..., &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose the bold part is supposed to relate to the paths leading from and to said estate, but I do not get what &quot;quaesitum et ad inquirendum (the questioned and the to be examined)&quot; is doing here. Could you help me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13044" RevisionGUID="113eb810-70ac-413c-bf1e-11fb54d7b6a1" CreationDate="2019-12-19T14:49:01.230" UserId="6356" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="I am trying to translate a sentence in medieval Latin. It comes from a document that concernes an estate that is given to a monastery. Below you can see the relevant excerpt, I bolded the part I do not quite get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Has itaque res cum mancipiis domibus aedificiis terris cultis et incultis silvis pratis pascuis aquis aquarumve decursibus **perviis adiacentiis exitibus et regessibus quaesitum et ad inquirendum** vel quantumcumque de praedictis rebus eidem Ratoni possessio fuit....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt thus far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And so (from the context: we give) these things with the property, the houses, the buildings, the cultivated and uncultivated soil, the woods, the meadows for pasture, the waters, the water-courses, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose the bold part is supposed to relate to the paths leading from and to said estate, but I do not get what &quot;quaesitum et ad inquirendum (the questioned and the to be examined)&quot; is doing here. Could you help me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13044" RevisionGUID="1ce322d0-760e-4678-bcc9-13f14506f46b" CreationDate="2019-12-19T15:07:59.083" UserId="6356" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="I am trying to translate a sentence in medieval Latin (see below). It comes from a document that concernes an estate that is given to a monastery. Below you can see the relevant excerpt, I bolded the part I do not quite get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Has itaque res cum mancipiis domibus aedificiis terris cultis et incultis silvis pratis pascuis aquis aquarumve decursibus **perviis adiacentiis exitibus et regessibus quaesitum et ad inquirendum** vel quantumcumque de praedictis rebus eidem Ratoni possessio fuit....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt thus far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And so (from the context: we give) these things with the property, the houses, the buildings, the cultivated and uncultivated soil, the woods, the meadows for pasture, the waters, the water-courses, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose the bold part is supposed to relate to the paths leading from and to said estate, but I do not get what &quot;quaesitum et ad inquirendum (the questioned and the to be examined)&quot; is doing here. Could you help me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ELXkR.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13046" RevisionGUID="ce8cc275-3b0e-48e0-a83b-b60cfd794986" CreationDate="2019-12-19T15:55:23.327" UserId="6382" Text="- inexquisitum means ‘not having been examined in detail’ (cf. Du Cange. 1884. Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis, vol. 3, p. 377 (exquisitus) and 1885, vol. 4, p. 349 (inexquisitus).&#xD;&#xA;- supramemoratus means 'above-mentioned’.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13047" RevisionGUID="72f16f2f-4ab5-42d0-9344-c10e8ea8af5f" CreationDate="2019-12-19T18:57:16.193" UserId="6383" Text="I know that the nouns are *stella* and *bellum*, but I think the translation should in spirit be closer to *stellar wars* or something similar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13047" RevisionGUID="72f16f2f-4ab5-42d0-9344-c10e8ea8af5f" CreationDate="2019-12-19T18:57:16.193" UserId="6383" Text="How to correctly say Star Wars in latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13047" RevisionGUID="72f16f2f-4ab5-42d0-9344-c10e8ea8af5f" CreationDate="2019-12-19T18:57:16.193" UserId="6383" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36759" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13045" RevisionGUID="a00346c3-d9e9-4070-8f42-b2ebccc41841" CreationDate="2019-12-19T18:59:04.400" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="What do &quot;inexquisitum&quot; and &quot;supramemorati&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36760" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13045" RevisionGUID="a00346c3-d9e9-4070-8f42-b2ebccc41841" CreationDate="2019-12-19T18:59:04.400" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|vocabulary|medieval-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36761" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13047" RevisionGUID="7e2a14d5-122b-4d1c-ac78-fea786f35d2c" CreationDate="2019-12-19T19:00:00.730" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="How to correctly say Star Wars in Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36762" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13047" RevisionGUID="7e2a14d5-122b-4d1c-ac78-fea786f35d2c" CreationDate="2019-12-19T19:00:00.730" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|contemporary-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13048" RevisionGUID="670b62d8-dea4-4825-8892-c49c1bd35ee8" CreationDate="2019-12-19T19:05:53.677" UserId="79" Text="Indeed, you cannot use a plain noun as an attribute in Latin the way you can in English.&#xD;&#xA;Instead of &quot;Star Wars&quot; you have to say &quot;Wars of Stars&quot; or &quot;Stellar Wars&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Adjectives are a very natural choice in Latin (whereas I would be tempted to choose genitives in Romance languages).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Bellum* is indeed good for &quot;war&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is a matter of taste whether you choose plural; not all official translations of the franchise do so.&#xD;&#xA;The adjective from *stella* is *stellaris* and corresponds well to the English &quot;stellar&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation suggestions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Bella Stellaria*** (plural)  &#xD;&#xA;***Bellum Stellare*** (singular)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The singular sounds better to me, but either is valid and readily understandable, at least now at the time of the premiere of Episode IX." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13050" RevisionGUID="37eddf1c-b477-46dd-a702-4ea3c68c7f0e" CreationDate="2019-12-19T23:04:16.160" UserId="6384" Text="This is for a tattoo, so I want the meaning to be accurate. My friend who passed was an Aiborne Ranger and they had the motto of &quot;Lead the Way&quot; as they were the first into battle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will be next to &quot;Carpe Omnia&quot; (seize everything) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36766" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13050" RevisionGUID="37eddf1c-b477-46dd-a702-4ea3c68c7f0e" CreationDate="2019-12-19T23:04:16.160" UserId="6384" Text="How would I translate &quot;Lead the way&quot; or &quot;Pathfinder&quot;, &quot;Leadership&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36767" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13050" RevisionGUID="37eddf1c-b477-46dd-a702-4ea3c68c7f0e" CreationDate="2019-12-19T23:04:16.160" UserId="6384" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13051" RevisionGUID="7a88cc71-7993-4dcf-81db-97b960e9570c" CreationDate="2019-12-20T01:01:38.443" UserId="45" Text="It appears that &quot;quaesitum&quot; and &quot;ad inquirendum&quot; are legal terms. See, for instance, [this text](https://books.google.com/books?id=xmzk97HmsOEC&amp;pg=PA1148&amp;lpg=PA1148&amp;dq=%22ad+inquirendum%22+%22quaesitum%22), which repeats the following phrase multiple times:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tam quaesitum quam ad inquirendum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example of this usage is found in [Histoire générale de Languedoc](https://books.google.com/books?id=486Vull8GugC&amp;pg=PA413&amp;lpg=PA413), which is also the record of a donation of land:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Propterera cedimus . . . quantumcumque in ipsam curtem visi sumus habere et possidere totum et ab integrum ibi cedimus cum domibus aedificiis et apertinentiis cum boscis et vineis terris cultis et incultis, omnia et ex omnibus **quaesitum et ad inquirendum** divisum et ad dividendum quantumcumque ibi de Rainone et de Oddonbetto adquisivimus totum et ab integrum ei perpetualiter ad possidendum pro peccatis nostris minuendis supradictis sanctis exorantibus ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above example is especially relevant because it makes it abundantly that the two are meant to be understood as correlates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It turns out that &quot;ad inquirendum&quot; carries over into contemporary legal terminology. See the [definition given in *Ballantine's Law Dictionary*](https://openjurist.org/law-dictionary-ballentines/ad-inquirendum):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A writ commanding an inquiry or investigation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, it seems roughly similar to an &quot;inquest&quot;: a legal inquiry into (in this case) the inventory of forfeited possessions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Quaesitum,&quot; we recall, is the past participle of &quot;quaero,&quot; which is the root word of &quot;inquiro.&quot; Judging from the fact that &quot;quaesitum et ad inquirendum&quot; is paired with &quot;divisum et ad dividendum,&quot; I feel confident translating &quot;quaesitum et ad inquirendum&quot; as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...into which an inquiry has been made and shall be made...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A full translation of the long and convoluted sentence (&quot;Has itaque res...quidquid elegerint.&quot;) would thus be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Therefore, we grant these items, along with their possessions, houses, buildings, cultivated and uncultivated lands, woods, fields, pastures, waters or waterways, neighboring through-ways [?], exits and regresses, into which an inquiry has been made and shall be made, or whatever amount of the preceding things were in the possession of this same Rato and which came or ought to have come to us and is of our right and possession in the matter of property, whole and entire, without restriction [cf. [*in exquisitum*](https://books.google.com/books?id=JwMwAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA432&amp;lpg=PA432&amp;dq=inexquisitum)], as the perpetual possession of this same monastery, so that whatever the caretakers and servants of the above-mentioned monastery should wish to do or judge by ecclesiastical right concerning the previous items and properties, they may through this free concession of our authority have the power to do whatever they choose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36769" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="13047" RevisionGUID="2ae0ab79-4b8d-45f5-9d1b-184d040a5346" CreationDate="2019-12-20T02:59:24.733" />
  <row Id="36770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13052" RevisionGUID="bbe26f51-101d-48ec-8571-22d9f6c5c83a" CreationDate="2019-12-20T05:06:41.523" UserId="4871" Text="Joonas' answer is right on grammar, but since we're not talking about a single star, an adjective based on *sidus* would have better semantics.  I'd go with *Bella Siderea*.  Familiarity with modern romance languages is not an unmixed blessing when translating into Latin.  Often Latin has multiple words in the same semantic field with different shades of meaning, only one of which survived into the Romance languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13052" RevisionGUID="1d662e1b-1961-490f-9460-0ea7ea9b01c9" CreationDate="2019-12-20T07:03:55.787" UserId="4871" Comment="edited body" Text="Joonas' answer is right on grammar, but since we're not talking about a single star, an adjective based on *sidus* would have better semantics.  I'd go with *Bella Siderea*.  Familiarity with modern Romance languages is not an unmixed blessing when translating into Latin.  Often Latin has multiple words in the same semantic field with different shades of meaning, only one of which survived into the Romance languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="bd8ca8da-2c70-48fa-8af1-0ec5b5ab49f1" CreationDate="2019-12-20T08:13:38.347" UserId="79" Comment="added 605 characters in body" Text="To offer a variant to the great suggestions by Nickimite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Amore crescit.*  &#xD;&#xA;[It] grows with love.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an implicit noun or pronoun of some kind, but you don't have to spell it out and it can vary.&#xD;&#xA;It could be life, faith, love itself, a child, or anything else that could be referred to as it, he, or she.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding an explicit subject *vita* (life) as Nickimite did makes the sentence more complete, but if you are willing to leave it more open, you can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an alternative, you could say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Crescit amando.*  &#xD;&#xA;[It] grows by loving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice depends on whether you prefer &quot;love&quot; as a noun or a verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These suggestions are very general and work in many contexts.&#xD;&#xA;However, if you have a more specific message in mind, something else might be better.&#xD;&#xA;Context matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the updated question, here are updated thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;There are ways to say &quot;to make something do something&quot; in Latin, but they tend to be clumsier than the English counterpart.&#xD;&#xA;The translation *amore crescere fecit* tries to emulate English too closely and does not quite work.&#xD;&#xA;It means &quot;with love [it] made to grow&quot; and is not really grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I suggest rephrasing &quot;love makes everything grow&quot; as &quot;everything grows with/because/for love&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This only requires a small update to my previous suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Omnia amore crescunt.*  &#xD;&#xA;Everything grows with love.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may want to compare this with the expression *res parvae concordia crescunt*, &quot;little things grow with agreement&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I find this the most idiomatic way to phrase this in Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12896" RevisionGUID="b1f8eabb-6721-4261-9b92-02682d653baf" CreationDate="2019-12-20T08:15:27.427" UserId="79" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="Thank you very much for all your replies. However the answers do not exactly match the meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Love makes [anything] grow.&quot; &amp;mdash; This anything can be anything &amp;mdash; a person, work, condition, anything you can think of. Whatever love touches, it makes it grow. I'd prefer ambiguity and mystery for the &quot;anything&quot; part. What &quot;anything&quot; is determined by the imagination of the reader. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject is &quot;love&quot;, the verb is &quot;make grow&quot;. Two words for an ambiguous &quot;anything&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a Latin translation of &quot;love makes it grow&quot; or &quot;love makes things grow&quot; or an appropriate word in Latin for &quot;grow&quot;. This is for a tattoo which will be on the outer side of the arm between elbow and wrist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have only tried automatic Google Translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Latin tutor suggested &quot;Amor crescere fecit&quot; for the translation of &quot;Love makes [anything] grow&quot;. Can I have your opinions on this translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36775" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13050" RevisionGUID="28a9006f-8044-4009-8fe6-bc82d6be6dba" CreationDate="2019-12-20T08:18:04.507" UserId="79" Comment="edited tags" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|motto|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13053" RevisionGUID="08fbd8b2-4a20-4ff4-b751-f2842948f4cb" CreationDate="2019-12-20T08:19:38.203" UserId="6385" Text="What version do you have of parvum officium to BVM? I have that on posted on play books but as some errore. Can you show me where Is the original version?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36777" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13053" RevisionGUID="08fbd8b2-4a20-4ff4-b751-f2842948f4cb" CreationDate="2019-12-20T08:19:38.203" UserId="6385" Text="Parvum officium" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36778" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13053" RevisionGUID="08fbd8b2-4a20-4ff4-b751-f2842948f4cb" CreationDate="2019-12-20T08:19:38.203" UserId="6385" Text="|medieval-latin|religio|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13054" RevisionGUID="9782f8dd-f4e1-411a-8b18-df668148c9f2" CreationDate="2019-12-20T10:13:21.933" UserId="6382" Text="In the general instructions of the Breviarium Romanum I found the verbs ‘munire’ (= defend, protect) and ‘signare’ in the phrases ‘De ratione signum crucis se muniendi’ and ‘Omnes signant se signum crucis’." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13055" RevisionGUID="2a8932d7-2e03-4723-9bc5-9d8e6bfe8dae" CreationDate="2019-12-20T10:18:51.450" UserId="1982" Text="There is imperative (a command): &quot;duce&quot; (singular); &quot;ducite&quot; (plural) = lead!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;alternatively; &quot;abduce&quot;/ &quot;abducite&quot; = &quot;lead away!&quot;; &quot;induce&quot;/ &quot;inducite&quot; = &quot;lead on!&quot;; &quot;adduce&quot;/ &quot;adducite&quot; = &quot;lead off!&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13054" RevisionGUID="3c28ec4d-17b1-4c9f-9a64-9dcb605e4347" CreationDate="2019-12-20T11:47:29.807" UserId="6382" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="In the general instructions of the Breviarium Romanum I found the verbs ‘munire’ (= defend, protect) and ‘signare’ in the phrases ‘De ratione signum crucis se muniendi’ and ‘Omnes signant se signum crucis’.&#xD;&#xA;In addition, Du Cange. 1886. Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis, vol. 7. p. 480, has a lemma 'signare', which says: 'signum crucis digitis ac manu effingere'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13056" RevisionGUID="9c1d38d5-dedb-4af2-b859-bac40c8fef8a" CreationDate="2019-12-20T11:59:07.320" UserId="6386" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta treats &quot;star&quot; like an adjective. To me, &quot;star&quot; should be treated as a noun, in which case the translation becomes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bellum Stellarum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Disclaimer: I was raised to French &amp; German translations of &quot;Star Wars&quot;, where it is indeed translated as &quot;war of the stars&quot; -- bellum stellarum)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13057" RevisionGUID="58a9fbfb-73d7-44e1-acdb-16f5d163262a" CreationDate="2019-12-20T14:22:56.243" UserId="1459" Text="The world has already chosen the translation (whether it's right or not). [Wikipedia](https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars) calls it &quot;Bella Stellaria&quot;. Some fans agree:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8mOV.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13053" RevisionGUID="cc5a580a-3004-4544-a192-949f4007a1c0" CreationDate="2019-12-20T15:38:46.833" UserId="45" Comment="added 69 characters in body; edited title" Text="What version do you have of the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary (*Officium Parvum Beatae Mariae Virginis*)? I have the one posted on Play Books but it has some errors. Can you show me where the original version is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36785" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13053" RevisionGUID="cc5a580a-3004-4544-a192-949f4007a1c0" CreationDate="2019-12-20T15:38:46.833" UserId="45" Comment="added 69 characters in body; edited title" Text="Online text of the Officium Parvum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13058" RevisionGUID="b94c710b-6426-4439-b0b2-6addf78c52c1" CreationDate="2019-12-20T15:42:00.497" UserId="45" Text="I was able to find a [PDF of an 1832 edition](https://archive.org/details/officiumparvumbe00cath). I can't vouch for whether it has typographical errors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36788" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12869" RevisionGUID="f3e7db92-d312-49b4-acd7-a47c027ad31c" CreationDate="2019-12-21T00:02:55.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="36789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13059" RevisionGUID="97969471-80d7-4e93-9145-4b8d92dabd2e" CreationDate="2019-12-21T01:56:28.320" UserId="6391" Text="According to [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_homini_lupus) ***&quot;Homō hominī lupus est&quot;*** is a Latin proverb meaning *&quot;A man is a wolf to another man.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say, I want to apply this proverb to a zombie, which would make it *&quot;A zombie is a zombie to another zombie.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know how this would translate back into Latin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36790" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13059" RevisionGUID="97969471-80d7-4e93-9145-4b8d92dabd2e" CreationDate="2019-12-21T01:56:28.320" UserId="6391" Text="Homo homini lupus est" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36791" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13059" RevisionGUID="97969471-80d7-4e93-9145-4b8d92dabd2e" CreationDate="2019-12-21T01:56:28.320" UserId="6391" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13060" RevisionGUID="c362fb50-9d5d-402c-9261-7bcee1dbb780" CreationDate="2019-12-21T04:06:03.047" UserId="3153" Text="consenescens idem est consenesci.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation here uses the verb &quot;consenesco&quot; here rather than any other dying word, since this one involves a sense of aging (to the point of decay). I'm sure there are plenty of other ways to translate zombie, though. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I chose to use the neuter form of idem. We tend to think of zombies as &quot;things&quot; rather than people, so this seems appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used 'idem' here, since you're reduplicating zombie an extra time that wasn't in the proverb. Using the same form of consenesco twice in a statement like this would seem ridiculous to me, but if it can be attested somewhere, I'm all ears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word order is intended to emphasize the wordplay you're putting on the original phrase. &quot;A zombie is the same thing... to a zombie!&quot; It would be better as a retort to the original saying, as I have written it. If you wanted a straight declarative sentence, I think switching cognescendi with est would give you the most neutral word order." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13059" RevisionGUID="6b6a35ae-e74a-48e6-881d-6e0f243995cb" CreationDate="2019-12-21T04:14:12.463" UserId="6391" Comment="added 633 characters in body" Text="According to [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_homini_lupus) ***&quot;Homō hominī lupus est&quot;*** is a Latin proverb meaning **&quot;A man is a wolf to another man.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say, I want to apply &quot;zombie transformation&quot; to this proverb, which would make it *&quot;A zombie is a zombie to another zombie.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know how this would translate back into Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;My own highly uneducated attempts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **&quot;Zombie quod est Zombie Zombie&quot;** (Google translate of &quot;a zombie is a zombie to a zombie&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **&quot;Zombie in Zombie est Zombie&quot;** (Google translate of &quot;zombie to zombie zombie is&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Zombie&quot; is an African word that dates to the 19th century and most likely does not have an exact equivalent in Latin. The closest I can come up with is &quot;corpus animatum&quot; (animated corpse).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **&quot;Corpus animatum corpo animatum corpus animatum est.&quot;** That's a mouthful and is most likely incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder, if there is a single word equivalent to &quot;zombie.&quot; Something like **&quot;corpus corpo corpus est&quot;** would sound nice (provided that's a proper sentence)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13059" RevisionGUID="2ffa6d38-d401-4cec-8ae0-882e3ac2b7b7" CreationDate="2019-12-21T04:23:49.543" UserId="6391" Comment="deleted 50 characters in body" Text="According to [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_homini_lupus) ***&quot;Homō hominī lupus est&quot;*** is a Latin proverb meaning **&quot;A man is a wolf to another man.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say, I want to apply &quot;zombie transformation&quot; to this proverb, which would make it *&quot;A zombie is a zombie to another zombie.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know how this would translate back into Latin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;My own highly uneducated attempts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **&quot;Zombie quod est Zombie Zombie&quot;** (Google translate of &quot;a zombie is a zombie to a zombie&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **&quot;Zombie in Zombie est Zombie&quot;** (Google translate of &quot;zombie to zombie zombie is&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Zombie&quot; is an African word that dates to the 19th century. The closest I can come up with in Latin is &quot;corpus animatum&quot; (animated corpse).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **&quot;Corpus animatum corpo animatum corpus animatum est.&quot;** That's a mouthful and is most likely incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder, if there is a single word equivalent to &quot;zombie.&quot; Something like **&quot;corpus corpo corpus est&quot;** would sound nice (provided that's a proper sentence)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13060" RevisionGUID="a566f627-d49f-4fa4-a8b8-73856f762eb7" CreationDate="2019-12-21T05:04:37.880" UserId="3153" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="consenescens idem est consenesci.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A zombie is the same (thing) to a zombie.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation here uses the verb &quot;consenesco&quot; here rather than any other dying word, since this one involves a sense of aging (to the point of decay). I'm sure there are plenty of other ways to translate zombie, though. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I chose to use the neuter form of idem. We tend to think of zombies as &quot;things&quot; rather than people, so this seems appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used 'idem' here, since you're reduplicating zombie an extra time that wasn't in the proverb. Using the same form of consenesco twice in a statement like this would seem ridiculous to me, but if it can be attested somewhere, I'm all ears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word order is intended to emphasize the wordplay you're putting on the original phrase. &quot;A zombie is the same thing... to a zombie!&quot; It would be better as a retort to the original saying, as I have written it. If you wanted a straight declarative sentence, I think switching cognescendi with est would give you the most neutral word order." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13052" RevisionGUID="9278f493-86db-4634-bf34-bfdd4684031f" CreationDate="2019-12-21T10:52:56.037" UserId="4871" Comment="added 606 characters in body" Text="Joonas' answer is right on grammar, but since we're not talking about a single star, an adjective based on *sidus* would have better semantics.  I'd go with *Bella Siderea*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Familiarity with modern Romance languages is not an unmixed blessing when translating into Latin.  Often Latin has multiple words in the same semantic field with different shades of meaning, only one of which survived into the Romance languages.  Because number markings on adjectives just show concordance with the noun, there is no way to get around the number implications of *stellaria* vs *siderea*.  *Bella Stellaria* means star wars in the sense of wars *about a particular star*; only *Bella Siderea* means wars fought *among the stars* (in the sense of out in space, in remote places).  Note that modern astronomical lexis in English retains this distinct at least to some extent--*stellar wind* is produced by a particular star (i.e., each produces its own), but *sidereal time* is time as measured by referencing the stars collectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13061" RevisionGUID="ca0c66b7-aec7-46bf-ad0b-316762c70003" CreationDate="2019-12-21T11:18:53.827" UserId="6344" Text="&gt;What are the semantic meaning and role of the prefix 'in-' in imputare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*In-* literally means &quot;towards&quot;, whilst *puto* is to reckon, and even calculate, compute. This results in &quot;ascribing someone&quot;, &quot;regarding someone to be the cause of something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How did in- augment the semantic field of putare, to enable the semantic shift from 1 to 2?&#xD;&#xA;What semantic notions underlie 1 and 2?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for the semantic shift from 1 to 2 should not be ascribed (XD) to the in- prefix, but instead to the meaning of the verb *imputare itself*, and to its usage. Though this word were mainly and firstly used in jurisprudence and finance, its usage was soon extended to moral and ethics. One can impute, assign something to someone concretely, but even figuratively assign to him a value or a disvalue (i.e. a crime).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 overhead contains 'to' in 'attribute, credit to'. So shouldn't ad- have been the prefix? I'm assuming that in- can't signify 'to'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*In*- can signify to, towards, and it is even more direct than *ad*. In general, we say *in* if we know the exact destination of our action, we say *ad* to mean in the direction of, around the way to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13062" RevisionGUID="b7e2cf6b-6459-48d1-8904-f1f8fcb4ee0e" CreationDate="2019-12-21T14:17:18.543" UserId="4796" Text="I found the two instances in *confessions*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;... caelum et terram ego impleo&quot; (book 1 cap. 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;et quo refundis quidquid impleto caelo et terra restat ex te?&quot; (book 1. cap. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to look up [Lewis and Short][1], which contains examples for both instances, but I can't really see a diffence between them. On what occasions should we prefer one for the other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=impleo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36799" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13062" RevisionGUID="b7e2cf6b-6459-48d1-8904-f1f8fcb4ee0e" CreationDate="2019-12-21T14:17:18.543" UserId="4796" Text="difference between Impleo (+acc) and Impleo (+abl)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36800" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13062" RevisionGUID="b7e2cf6b-6459-48d1-8904-f1f8fcb4ee0e" CreationDate="2019-12-21T14:17:18.543" UserId="4796" Text="|verbs|case|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13062" RevisionGUID="9c350af1-b33a-45f4-af06-7e277a09a48f" CreationDate="2019-12-21T15:07:44.183" UserId="45" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="I found two instances in Augustine's *Confessions*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;... caelum et terram ego impleo&quot; (book 1, cap. 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;et quo refundis quidquid impleto caelo et terra restat ex te?&quot; (book 1, cap. 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to look up [Lewis and Short][1], which contains examples for both instances, but I can't really see a difference between them. On what occasions should we prefer one for the other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=impleo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13063" RevisionGUID="e4abe38e-75c4-4da7-8ee5-df5c3618c644" CreationDate="2019-12-21T15:21:51.273" UserId="45" Text="The most common usage of *impleo* is with the accusative and ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The **accusative** tells you **what** is being filled.&#xD;&#xA;* The **ablative** tells you **with what** it is being filled. &#xD;&#xA;  * N.B. By analogy with plenus + gen. (= &quot;full of X&quot;), sometimes the **genitive** is used here instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Impleo poculum (acc.) vino (abl.)** = &quot;I fill the cup with wine.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Augustine provides a handy usage of this in *Confessions* I.3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **...te toto imples omnia** = &quot;You fill all things with your whole self.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your example quote uses the ablative, but in an entirely different way. *Impleto caelo et terra* is an **ablative absolute** with the past participle of *impleo*, and is syntactically separate from the rest of the sentence. Here's how you should parse it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;et quo refundis                    And where do you pour back&#xD;&#xA;    quidquid                           whatever &#xD;&#xA;        impleto caelo et terra             once heaven and earth have been filled&#xD;&#xA;    restat ex te?                      remains of you?&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, more fluidly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And, once heaven and earth have been filled, where do you pour back what remains of you?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13052" RevisionGUID="99fa3024-7202-4240-826a-f6f4469170bd" CreationDate="2019-12-21T16:23:04.013" UserId="4871" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Joonas' answer is right on grammar, but since we're not talking about a single star, an adjective based on *sidus* would have better semantics.  I'd go with *Bella Siderea*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Familiarity with modern Romance languages is not an unmixed blessing when translating into Latin.  Often Latin has multiple words in the same semantic field with different shades of meaning, only one of which survived into the Romance languages.  Because number markings on adjectives just show concordance with the noun, there is no way to get around the number implications of *stellaria* vs *siderea*.  *Bella Stellaria* means star wars in the sense of wars *about a particular star*; only *Bella Siderea* means wars fought *among the stars* (in the sense of out in space, in remote places).  Note that modern astronomical lexis in English retains this distinction at least to some extent--*stellar wind* is produced by a particular star (i.e., each produces its own), but *sidereal time* is time as measured by referencing the stars collectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36804" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="13062" RevisionGUID="adb2d5f4-9023-4c02-b502-cd1e0f9d6a3d" CreationDate="2019-12-21T22:17:52.257" />
  <row Id="36805" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13059" RevisionGUID="3f0cadc1-669d-496a-a4b8-b66467918072" CreationDate="2019-12-22T00:14:56.293" UserId="6391" Comment="edited title" Text="Zombie version of &quot;Homo homini lupus est&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13064" RevisionGUID="3c70c460-802b-47f4-a196-06541102b37b" CreationDate="2019-12-22T01:42:39.863" UserId="406" Text="The concept of undead monsters definitely existed in Roman times, but I don't know of any good equivalent for the English word &quot;zombie&quot;. The closest equivalent I can think of is _lārva_, a sort of generic word for &quot;evil spirit with physical form&quot;. Alternatives would be _cadāver_, &quot;corpse&quot;, or _mortuus_, &quot;dead (person)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imitating the original phrasing would then give the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Lārva lārvae lārva est&#xD;&#xA; - Cadāver cadāverī cadāver est&#xD;&#xA; - Mortuus mortuō mortuus est&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last of these seems the most easily understandable: if someone talks about &quot;the dead&quot; actively doing something, I'm going to assume they mean ghosts, vampires, or zombies of some sort." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13055" RevisionGUID="aef4d369-8bb9-4bcd-bfdf-88dd5365f26b" CreationDate="2019-12-22T10:59:57.197" UserId="1982" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="There is imperative (a command): &quot;duce&quot; (singular); &quot;ducite&quot; (plural) = lead!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;alternatively; &quot;abduce&quot;/ &quot;abducite&quot; = &quot;lead away!&quot;; &quot;induce&quot;/ &quot;inducite&quot; = &quot;lead on!&quot;; &quot;adduce&quot;/ &quot;adducite&quot; = &quot;lead off!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please read the comments from cnread. Both versions are correct, just a question of time-frames." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13055" RevisionGUID="5c62b0ca-7ae9-4831-a78e-67b394d544df" CreationDate="2019-12-22T11:08:32.007" UserId="1982" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="There is imperative (a command): &quot;duce&quot; (singular); &quot;ducite&quot; (plural) = lead!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;alternatively; &quot;abduce&quot;/ &quot;abducite&quot; = &quot;lead away!&quot;; &quot;induce&quot;/ &quot;inducite&quot; = &quot;lead on!&quot;; &quot;adduce&quot;/ &quot;adducite&quot; = &quot;lead off!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please read the comments from cnread. Both versions are correct, just a question of time-frames. Interesting to note that, in Latin, &quot;duc&quot; also means &quot;leader&quot; or &quot;general&quot;; the source of English, &quot;Duke&quot;. Sadly, to English ears, it may sound silly being pronounced &quot;duck&quot;, as in &quot;bird&quot;. By sound, &quot;Hello duck,&quot; may not be the effect a military man, or anybody, would want to create?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13052" RevisionGUID="b3444db3-7c04-4e09-b749-ddaeb1fe003d" CreationDate="2019-12-22T11:40:58.223" UserId="4871" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Joonas' answer is right on grammar, but since we're not talking about a single star, an adjective based on *sidus* would have better semantics.  I'd go with *Bella Siderea*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Familiarity with modern Romance languages is not an unmixed blessing when translating into Latin.  Often Latin has multiple words in the same semantic field with different shades of meaning, only one of which survived into the Romance languages.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because number markings on adjectives just show concordance with the noun, there is no way to get around the number implications of *stellaria* vs *siderea*.  *Bella Stellaria* means star wars in the sense of wars *about a particular star*; only *Bella Siderea* means wars fought *among the stars* (in the sense of out in space, in remote places).  Note that modern astronomical lexis in English retains this distinction at least to some extent--*stellar wind* is produced by a particular star (i.e., each produces its own), but *sidereal time* is time as measured by referencing the stars collectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13048" RevisionGUID="21f9cfd7-ec7b-4989-a40d-1b9188b71cf9" CreationDate="2019-12-22T12:43:44.333" UserId="79" Comment="added 1081 characters in body" Text="Indeed, you cannot use a plain noun as an attribute in Latin the way you can in English.&#xD;&#xA;Instead of &quot;Star Wars&quot; you have to say &quot;Wars of Stars&quot; or &quot;Stellar Wars&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Adjectives are a very natural choice in Latin (whereas I would be tempted to choose genitives in Romance languages).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Bellum* is indeed good for &quot;war&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is a matter of taste whether you choose plural; not all official translations of the franchise do so.&#xD;&#xA;The adjective from *stella* is *stellaris* and corresponds well to the English &quot;stellar&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation suggestions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Bella Stellaria*** (plural)  &#xD;&#xA;***Bellum Stellare*** (singular)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The singular sounds better to me, but either is valid and readily understandable, at least now at the time of the premiere of Episode IX.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both *stella* and *sidus* are good starting points for &quot;star&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I would advice against interpreting words too narrowly in contexts like this &amp;mdash; the original English title is not all that descriptive literally either, as stars actually play almost no role in the stories.&#xD;&#xA;The way I see it, &quot;star&quot; is just a more poetic way of saying &quot;space&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Both *stella* and *sidus* work well in this respect.&#xD;&#xA;Efficient communication is a part of good use of language and *stella* resembles many star-words in other languages more closely, so it helps make the name more recognizable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As brianpck comments below, *Stella Bellaria* has the benefit of sounding nice due to the repeated element *-ella-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some might argue that the adjective *stellaris* is not a classically attested word.&#xD;&#xA;While that is true to my knowledge, there are two good reasons why it does not matter much:&#xD;&#xA;(1) not all Latin needs to be classical and (2) the word *stella* and many derivatives in *-aris* are attested, so *stellaris* is valid classical Latin to me although the word itself does not appear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13065" RevisionGUID="e436ef3f-3a2b-4e44-a2c5-e550ca53ebca" CreationDate="2019-12-22T13:38:20.680" UserId="6397" Text="Exempli gratia, how would one say 'I am perturbed' in Latin opposed to 'I am a human'? The state of being perturbed can change, but the state of being a human being cannot change, so how does one write about each. Does Latin even make the distinction betwixt these two states of existence via inflection? I'm quite the novice at Latin, so sorry for the inconvenience." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36812" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13065" RevisionGUID="e436ef3f-3a2b-4e44-a2c5-e550ca53ebca" CreationDate="2019-12-22T13:38:20.680" UserId="6397" Text="How does one express adverbs in the present tense in Latin which aren't everlasting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36813" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13065" RevisionGUID="e436ef3f-3a2b-4e44-a2c5-e550ca53ebca" CreationDate="2019-12-22T13:38:20.680" UserId="6397" Text="|classical-latin|english-to-latin-translation|grammar-choice|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13066" RevisionGUID="5336b658-d759-4708-a801-ab471f6f7f0a" CreationDate="2019-12-22T13:56:31.927" UserId="6396" Text="I strongly disagree with C Monsour's interpretation of how the *-ārius* suffix works semantically. *Stēllārius* can perfectly mean 'of the stars', it is not tied to a singular interpretation ('of a star'). *Sīdereus* does have the advantage of being a classical word, used by many ancient authors even, much unlike *stēllārius* which isn't even medieval but modern, but this *argūmentum ad antīquitātem* is different from the grammatical-semantic argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare *nāvis onerāria*, in which many *onera* 'goods, loads' are carried, not a single one. *Onus* can be a (singular) mass noun meaning 'weight, load', but note Cicero's plural in *īnsula Dēlus [...] quō omnēs undique cum mercibus atque **oneribus** commeābant* (*Prō Lēge Mānīliā* 55) 'the island of Delus ... to which everyone kept going to with goods and loads.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the Favre edition (in the 1880s) of the Du Cange dictionary mentions a noun *stēllāria* meaning 'a sea ship, or road in the sea or sky that guides sailors', something that naturally requires more than one star (in fact, there were and are more than a hundred commonly-used navigation stars, it's not just Polaris a.k.a. the North Star).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Interestingly, *stēllārius* is also listed in the Favrean Du Cange as an adjective meaning *marīnus* 'of the sea', in association to ships guided by the stars at sea, and also *purpureus* 'purple', due to purple colorants being highly valued goods traded by sea.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, *bella stēllāria* is fine as long as you don't mind modern coinages. Since Latin users today prefer not to use novel words when possible (making only reasonable and convenient exceptions like *computātrum* 'computer'), I agree *bella sīderea* is better, but only on the grounds of ancient usage, not on the grounds of meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36815" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="13066" RevisionGUID="c4777db1-b66a-49be-9af4-875a60351560" CreationDate="2019-12-22T14:03:10.080" UserId="6396" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6396,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Renato Montes&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13056" RevisionGUID="f0f4b5e9-9d44-49e5-9da3-89fc30dbc65c" CreationDate="2019-12-22T15:56:23.390" UserId="6386" Comment="added 159 characters in body" Text="@Joonas Ilmavirta treats &quot;star&quot; like an adjective. To me, &quot;star&quot; should be treated as a noun, in which case the translation becomes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bellum stellarum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Disclaimer: I was raised to French &amp; German translations of &quot;Star Wars&quot;, where it is indeed translated as &quot;war of the stars&quot; -- bellum stellarum).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: based on the accepted answer, other candidates for a 'noun' translation include&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bellum sidereum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in keeping with synonyms...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bellum astrorum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13066" RevisionGUID="4aaaa42a-62e8-45eb-8709-194fbdd807c7" CreationDate="2019-12-22T16:55:55.840" UserId="6396" Comment="onera quote probably irrelevant" Text="I strongly disagree with C Monsour's interpretation of how the *-ārius* suffix works semantically. *Stēllārius* can perfectly mean 'of the stars', it is not tied to a singular interpretation ('of a star'). *Sīdereus* does have the advantage of being a classical word, used by many ancient authors even, much unlike *stēllārius* which isn't even medieval but modern, but this *argūmentum ad antīquitātem* is different from the grammatical-semantic argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare *librāria taberna* 'bookshop' (attested in Cicero, *Philippicae* II.21), in which many *librī* 'books, scrolls' are found, not just one. Or *herba pūlicāria* 'flea plant', from which fleas were believed to be born from (att. in Caelius Aurelianus, *Acūtae Passiōnēs* II).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the Favre edition (in the 1880s) of the Du Cange dictionary mentions a noun *stēllāria* meaning 'a sea ship, or road in the sea or sky that guides sailors', something that naturally requires more than one star (in fact, there were and are more than a hundred commonly-used navigation stars, it's not just Polaris a.k.a. the North Star).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Interestingly, *stēllārius* is also listed in the Favrean Du Cange as an adjective meaning *marīnus* 'of the sea', in association to ships guided by the stars at sea, and also *purpureus* 'purple', due to purple colorants being highly valued goods traded by sea.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, *bella stēllāria* is fine as long as you don't mind modern coinages. Since Latin users today prefer not to use novel words when possible (making only reasonable and convenient exceptions like *computātrum* 'computer'), *I agree bella sīderea is better*, but only on the grounds of ancient usage, not on the grounds of meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36818" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="13066" RevisionGUID="f5f8dc90-45d9-4a17-b230-49380b019122" CreationDate="2019-12-22T16:56:07.480" UserId="6396" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6396,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Renato Montes&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13067" RevisionGUID="599ef226-a037-494d-bc6c-08fcd64a881d" CreationDate="2019-12-22T21:57:31.070" UserId="6399" Text="As an Italian let me exercise my direct descendant rights by saying that &quot;Bellum stellarium&quot; sounds really ugly, &quot;Bellum sidereum&quot; has a much better feeling to it. And why not take the extra step and -thinking at the title of a movie- go for *De bellis sidereis* after Caesar's well know prequel. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13068" RevisionGUID="363e8adf-272e-4363-93f8-83525deca9f4" CreationDate="2019-12-22T22:01:51.693" UserId="6400" Text="can anyone please translate &quot;Open your mind.&quot;,  i want to get it tattooed. Thank you in advance. :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36821" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13068" RevisionGUID="363e8adf-272e-4363-93f8-83525deca9f4" CreationDate="2019-12-22T22:01:51.693" UserId="6400" Text="How do you say &quot;open your mind&quot;in latin? (it's for a tattoo)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36822" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13068" RevisionGUID="363e8adf-272e-4363-93f8-83525deca9f4" CreationDate="2019-12-22T22:01:51.693" UserId="6400" Text="|english-to-latin-translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13034" RevisionGUID="79296ad2-570b-4e61-a584-ea9895dd51bc" CreationDate="2019-12-23T06:06:51.480" UserId="6377" Comment="added 591 characters in body" Text="In the first sentence of St. Augustine's Confessions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...et sapientiae tuae non est numerus.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English translation by John K. Ryan renders this as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;and to your wisdom *there is* no limit.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After doing some research, including reading the discussion linked in the comments below, I don't prefer Ryan's translation of &quot;sapientiae tuae&quot; as dative. Augustine is echoing the psalms, whose corresponding parts seem to be **genitive** and are translated as such in the **Douay-Rheims**, which also employs **&quot;there is no&quot;** for **&quot;non est&quot;**, to tie these two discussions together at least superficially:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://vulgate.org/ot/psalms_144.htm verse 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://vulgate.org/ot/psalms_146.htm verse 5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer a translation like &quot;of your wisdom, there is no measure.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13070" RevisionGUID="0a038d38-cac3-4881-be90-330dec9a88ce" CreationDate="2019-12-23T10:02:58.763" UserId="6344" Text="&gt;Exempli gratia, how would one say 'I am perturbed' in Latin opposed to 'I am a human'? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am perturbed = *turbor* or *perturbor*, if I am perturbed by someone or something in this moment (generally accompanied by a complement of agent). Otherwise, in order to express a condition or state, you can use *perturbatus sum*, where *perturbatus* is a predicate of the subject (*ego*), or a participle with the function of an adjective. It is important to remember also that *perturbatus sum* can be &quot;I was perturbed / I have been perturbed / I had been perturbed&quot; as the perfect tense of the verb *perturbo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a human = *homo sum*, were the present sense indicates an unchanging condition (or at least longlasting, or abitual).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, *perturbatus* is a predicate of the noun, while *homo* is a substantive itself, which is more suitable to express a permanent rather than a transient condition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7618" RevisionGUID="1613946d-4198-4c56-891f-7aef553c2e3f" CreationDate="2019-12-23T14:26:22.013" UserId="79" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="Pitkäranta's dictionary (Finnish&amp;ndash;Latin&amp;ndash;Finnish) gives three translations for &quot;get married&quot; in two categories.&#xD;&#xA;Marrying a woman can be expressed by *uxorem ducere* or *in matrimonium ducere*, both with accusative.&#xD;&#xA;Marrying a man can be expressed by *nubere* with dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These translations are probably offered from a heteronormative point of view, but they can be adapted to new uses.&#xD;&#xA;The expressions *nubere alicui* and *aliquem in matrimonium ducere* are syntactically gender neutral, but *nubere* has unwanted connotations as my mention.&#xD;&#xA;Leading someone to matrimony, *aliquem in matrimonium ducere*, is a good neutral option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on how you want to structure things, one possibility is ***aliquem maritum ducere***.&#xD;&#xA;This &quot;leading someone to become his husband&quot; is an obvious adaptation of the well known phrase, and the change makes it clear that something is not quite like in the Roman concept(s) of marriage.&#xD;&#xA;This is what I would choose for your example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;See [this question for Latin expressions for &quot;boyfriend&quot; or &quot;girlfriend&quot;](https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/7630/79).&#xD;&#xD;&#xA;Using just *amatus*, I end up with this example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He married his boyfriend.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ille amatum suum duxit maritum.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36828" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5547" RevisionGUID="cab73064-4912-44d3-a8d1-b6e02e9ad2ce" CreationDate="2019-12-23T18:01:14.173" UserId="1987" Comment="143" />
  <row Id="36829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5547" RevisionGUID="87784df5-cd03-4ff1-a3ab-3b95bcf505f1" CreationDate="2019-12-23T18:02:04.390" UserId="1987" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="The famous phrase *&quot;Dust to Dust, Ashes to Ashes&quot;* does not come from the Bible but from the *English Burial Service* of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, reading: *&quot;we therefore commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust;&quot;* but the concept *is* mentioned in the Bible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Genesis 3:19 reads: *&quot;In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vulgate:** In sudore vultus tui vesceris pane donec revertaris in terram de qua sumptus es quia pulvis es et in pulverem reverteris&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) כִּֽי־עָפָ֣ר אַ֔תָּה וְאֶל־עָפָ֖ר תָּשֽׁוּב&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) ὅτι γῆ εἶ καὶ εἰς γῆν ἀπελεύσῃ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Genesis 18:27 reads: *&quot;And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vulgate:** Respondens Abraham ait quia semel coepi loquar ad Dominum meum cum sim pulvis et cinis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) וְאָנֹכִ֖י עָפָ֥ר וָאֵֽפֶר&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) ἐγώ δέ εἰμί γῆ καί σποδός&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Job 30:19 reads: *&quot;He hath cast me into the mire, and I am become like dust and ashes.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vulgate:** Conparatus sum luto et adsimilatus favillae et cineri&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) כֶּעָפָ֥ר וָאֵֽפֶר&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) γῇ καὶ σποδῷ μου ἡ μερίς&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Job 42:6 reads: *&quot;Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vulgate:** Idcirco ipse me reprehendo et ago paenitentiam in favilla et cinere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Hebrew:** (...) עַל־עָפָר וָאֵֽפֶר&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Septuagint:** (...) γῆν καὶ σποδόν&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original Hebrew Old Testament and subsequent Greek Septuagint uses the same words for Dust and Ashes consistently. For Dust: [עָפָר][1] and [γῆ][2]. For Ashes: [אֵ֫פֶר][3] and [σποδός][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, when the Bible was translated into the Latin Vulgate, we see two **different** words used for Dust: [Pulvis][5] and [Favilla(e)][6]. [For Ashes they have used the same word consistently: [Cinis][7]]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I read, Favilla(e) itself means Ashes (Short Definitions &quot;cinders, hot ashes, glowing ashes, embers&quot;), rather then &quot;Dust/Soil/Earth&quot;. This definition in the entry for Cinis was particularly relevant: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. In gen. (while favilla is usually the ashes that is light like dust, or is still glowing; cf.: “corporis favillam ab reliquo separantcinere,” Plin. 19, 1, 4, § 19: cinis e favillā et carbonibus ad calfaciendum triclinium illatis exstinctus et jam diu frigidus exarsit repente, Suet. Tib. 74), Lucr. 1, 872; cf. id. 1, 890, and 4, 927; Cato ap. Charis. p. 78 P.; Suet. Tib. 74; Col. 2, 15, 6; 11, 3, 28; 12, 22, 1; Hor. C. 4, 13, 28.—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And beloved Wiktionary summarises nicely, saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Usage Notes.** The word cinis is used for cold, heavy ashes, while favilla is used for glowing, light ashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. So can someone please explain to me *why* they have chosen to use &quot;Favillae et Cinis&quot; in the Book of Job, instead of &quot;Pulvis et Cinis&quot; (as in Genesis). What possible or probable reason would there be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Is it a good choice? Or is it *&quot;wonky translation&quot;*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Would &quot;Pulvis et Favillae&quot; be; *a)* a grammatically and conceptually correct alternative, and; *b)* better or worse then &quot;Pulvis et Cinis&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's quite a different thing to repent *'in dust and ashes'* and to repent *'in embers and ashes'*... Ouch. But maybe there is some known figurative use of the word to explain this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Note:** Another example of the use of Favilla and Cinis both referring to ash is the Latin Hymn Dies Irae, which reads: *&quot;Dies iræ, dies illa Solvet sæclum in **favilla**, ... Cor contritum quasi **cinis**, ... Lacrimosa dies illa, Qua resurget ex **favilla**, Judicandus homo reus.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;The day of wrath, that day&#xD;&#xA;will dissolve the world in **ashes**, ... [my] heart crushed as **ashes**: ... Tearful [will be] that day, on which from the glowing **embers** will arise the guilty man who is to be judged.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Edit: Just noting: Elsewhere in the Bible we see the Hebrew עָפָר (dry earth, dust) is translated into the Latin *Terra* and the Greek *χοῦς* (Eg. Genesis 2:7, Psalms 103:14, Ecclesiastes 3:1, etc.). But that seems quite proper and is hardly surprising like the use of Favillae instead of Terra/Pulvis in the Book of Job, so *that* is not a particular concern in this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I've added a +50 Bounty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/6083.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=gh=&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/665.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dspodo%2Fs&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpulvis&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfavilla&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cinis&amp;fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13054" RevisionGUID="ea79ea40-a4b4-422a-a7aa-7c448c1fc2d8" CreationDate="2019-12-23T20:01:47.060" UserId="6382" Comment="I added a reference for the first two phrases" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]In the general instructions of the Breviarium Romanum I found the verbs ‘munire’ (= defend, protect) and ‘signare’ in the phrases ‘De ratione signum crucis se muniendi’ and ‘Omnes signant se signum crucis’.&#xD;&#xA;In addition, Du Cange. 1886. Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis, vol. 7. p. 480, has a lemma 'signare', which says: 'signum crucis digitis ac manu effingere'.&#xD;&#xA;The reference for the first two phrases is[[signum crucis][2]][2]: Breviarium Romanum. 1961. Paris, Desclée. It is the official book for Roman catholic priests reciting the daily office. It consists of two volumes, the first of which starts with general instructions (rubricae generales breviarii). There is one page on the sign of the cross. I include an image of this page. The grammar appears to be all right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bNeiv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lSWss.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13054" RevisionGUID="2c0ee742-c775-4562-afb7-a52bc57dd407" CreationDate="2019-12-23T20:06:33.703" UserId="45" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]In the general instructions of the Breviarium Romanum I found the verbs ‘munire’ (= defend, protect) and ‘signare’ in the phrases ‘De ratione signo crucis se muniendi’ and ‘Omnes signant se signo crucis’.&#xD;&#xA;In addition, Du Cange. 1886. Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis, vol. 7. p. 480, has a lemma 'signare', which says: 'signum crucis digitis ac manu effingere'.&#xD;&#xA;The reference for the first two phrases is[[signum crucis][2]][2]: Breviarium Romanum. 1961. Paris, Desclée. It is the official book for Roman catholic priests reciting the daily office. It consists of two volumes, the first of which starts with general instructions (rubricae generales breviarii). There is one page on the sign of the cross. I include an image of this page. The grammar appears to be all right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bNeiv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lSWss.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13071" RevisionGUID="ebabfe77-048c-4615-8eeb-bf1065bbbdbf" CreationDate="2019-12-23T22:01:07.180" UserId="6382" Text="In my view “aperire animo” is a good choice. Here “aperire” is used as a passive imperative, not as an infinitive. A litteral translation is: “get opened up in your mind”. I did not find it in classical Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13065" RevisionGUID="b3f4471d-db5a-413c-89cd-0f159c257c8e" CreationDate="2019-12-24T07:00:29.773" UserId="6397" Comment="I meant 'adjectives' in the title, but I must've been too tired to notice at the initially time of posting, and accidentally typed 'adverbs' instead." Text="Exempli gratia, how would one say 'I am perturbed' in Latin opposed to 'I am human'? The state of being perturbed can change, but the state of being a human being cannot change, so how does one write about each. Does Latin even make the distinction betwixt these two states of existence via inflection? I'm quite the novice at Latin, so sorry for the inconvenience." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36835" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13065" RevisionGUID="b3f4471d-db5a-413c-89cd-0f159c257c8e" CreationDate="2019-12-24T07:00:29.773" UserId="6397" Comment="I meant 'adjectives' in the title, but I must've been too tired to notice at the initially time of posting, and accidentally typed 'adverbs' instead." Text="How does one express adjectives in the present tense in Latin which aren't everlasting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13070" RevisionGUID="53df8dc7-689f-4074-991c-aae68e25d3f8" CreationDate="2019-12-24T09:30:14.600" UserId="6344" Comment="added 230 characters in body" Text="&gt;Exempli gratia, how would one say 'I am perturbed' in Latin opposed to 'I am a human'? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am perturbed = *turbor* or *perturbor*, if I am perturbed by someone or something in this moment (generally accompanied by a complement of agent). Otherwise, in order to express a condition or state, you can use *perturbatus sum*, where *perturbatus* is a predicate of the subject (*ego*), or a participle with the function of an adjective. It is important to remember also that *perturbatus sum* can be &quot;I was perturbed / I have been perturbed / I had been perturbed&quot; as the perfect tense of the verb *perturbo*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a human = *homo sum*, were the present sense indicates an unchanging condition (or at least longlasting, or abitual).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, *perturbatus* is a predicate of the noun, while *homo* is a substantive itself, which is more suitable to express a permanent rather than a transient condition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other times, you may use the adjective *humanus* meaning &quot;regarding the human nature&quot;, but usually you don't say 'humanus sum'. Here is a famous example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto. ~ Publius Terentius Afer&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13072" RevisionGUID="4a42aa45-8a39-4ff1-853f-5065093ce49b" CreationDate="2019-12-24T10:50:17.853" UserId="1982" Text="Are you on a religious kick? People speak of opening the mind/ soul/ spirit when they are seeking/ questioning faith. To be susceptible to faith, then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin the imperative (a command), &quot;molli&quot; (singular)/ mollite (plural) = be susceptible; fidei (feminine; dative of &quot;fides&quot; = &quot;faith&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giving: &quot;molli fidei&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13072" RevisionGUID="db03bc20-e188-43fc-a25d-cf3406be3048" CreationDate="2019-12-24T11:45:18.090" UserId="1982" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="Are you on a religious kick? People speak of opening the mind/ soul/ spirit when they are seeking/ questioning faith. To be susceptible to faith, then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin the imperative (a command), &quot;molli&quot; (singular)/ mollite (plural) = be susceptible; fidei (feminine; dative of &quot;fides&quot; = &quot;faith&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giving: &quot;molli fidei&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Faith is not a concept limited to religion. It could be faith in leaders/ people/ self.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13073" RevisionGUID="a5a89358-4c7a-4675-950b-a31c2ddf7563" CreationDate="2019-12-24T12:00:34.030" UserId="1982" Text="There is an alternative way to approach &quot;irrideo&quot;. The prefix &quot;ir&quot; could be a contraction of infinitive, &quot;ire&quot; = &quot;to go&quot;. This, of course, is a verb-of-motion. A verb-of-motion provides direction, by definition. Therefore, the application of &quot;ir&quot; to parent verb &quot;rideo&quot;, gives the directional compound-verb, &quot;irrideo&quot;. This takes a dative (indirect) object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;nisi mihi irisisset, forsitan ei ignossem&quot; the direction is clear: the mockery was being directed to the subject argument (I/ me/ myself), requiring dative (indirect) object, &quot;mihi&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link between the dative and verbs-of-motion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;it clamor caelo&quot; = &quot;the cry went up to heaven&quot;  (Verg. Aen. 5. 540)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13073" RevisionGUID="7a954a5a-2934-4e52-ab14-637316f59c54" CreationDate="2019-12-24T14:08:44.843" UserId="1982" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="There is an alternative way to approach &quot;irrideo&quot;. The prefix &quot;ir&quot; could be a contraction of infinitive, &quot;ire&quot; = &quot;to go&quot;. This, of course, is a verb-of-motion. A verb-of-motion provides direction (to something/ someone), by definition. Therefore, the application of &quot;ir&quot; to parent verb &quot;rideo&quot;, gives the directional compound-verb, &quot;irrideo&quot;. This takes a dative (indirect) object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;nisi mihi irisisset, forsitan ei ignossem&quot; the direction is clear: the mockery was being directed to the subject argument (I/ me/ myself), requiring dative (indirect) object, &quot;mihi&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link between the dative and verbs-of-motion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;it clamor caelo&quot; = &quot;the cry went up to heaven&quot;  (Verg. Aen. 5. 540)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13073" RevisionGUID="cbf3c7a1-479a-4586-80ce-2902e1c12fc4" CreationDate="2019-12-24T14:20:21.437" UserId="1982" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="There is an alternative way to approach &quot;irrideo&quot;. The prefix &quot;ir&quot; could be a contraction of infinitive, &quot;ire&quot; = &quot;to go&quot;. (Is it?) This, of course, is a verb-of-motion. A verb-of-motion provides direction (to something/ someone), by definition. Therefore, the application of &quot;ir&quot; to parent verb &quot;rideo&quot;, gives the directional compound-verb, &quot;irrideo&quot;. This takes a dative (indirect) object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;nisi mihi irisisset, forsitan ei ignossem&quot; the direction is clear: the mockery was being directed to the subject argument (I/ me/ myself), requiring dative (indirect) object, &quot;mihi&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Attestation of the link between the dative and verbs-of-motion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;it clamor caelo&quot; = &quot;the cry went up to heaven&quot;  (Verg. Aen. 5. 540).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13072" RevisionGUID="e7192c28-eb42-45f3-84a4-7184c07bce90" CreationDate="2019-12-25T00:16:25.743" UserId="1982" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Are you on a religious kick? People speak of opening the mind/ soul/ spirit when they are seeking/ questioning faith. To be susceptible to faith, then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin the imperative (a command), &quot;molli&quot; (singular)/ mollite (plural) = be susceptible; fidei (feminine; dative of &quot;fides&quot; = &quot;faith&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giving: &quot;molli animum fidei&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Faith is not a concept limited to religion. It could be faith in leaders/ people/ self.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13073" RevisionGUID="ade98d1f-2e72-48a3-b9d6-04219e34f014" CreationDate="2019-12-25T08:57:30.453" UserId="1982" Comment="added 220 characters in body" Text="There is an alternative way to approach &quot;irrideo&quot;. The prefix &quot;ir&quot; could be a contraction of infinitive, &quot;ire&quot; = &quot;to go&quot;. (Is it?) NO, IT ISN'T (The student tries things: sometimes they work; sometimes they don't. See Mitomino's comments. The logic is correct: prefix &quot;ir&quot; is directional, so the following is good.) This, &quot;ir&quot; of course, is a directional prefix. A verb-of-motion (or a directional prefix) provides direction (to something/ someone), by definition. Therefore, the application of &quot;ir&quot; to parent verb &quot;rideo&quot;, gives the directional compound-verb, &quot;irrideo&quot;. This takes a dative (indirect) object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;nisi mihi irisisset, forsitan ei ignossem&quot; the direction is clear: the mockery was being directed to the subject argument (I/ me/ myself), requiring dative (indirect) object, &quot;mihi&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Attestation of the link between the dative and verbs-of-motion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;it clamor caelo&quot; = &quot;the cry went up to heaven&quot;  (Verg. Aen. 5. 540).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13068" RevisionGUID="47d16213-e551-4ce5-8b86-a2894a5a0c08" CreationDate="2019-12-25T11:42:23.750" UserId="6400" Comment="added 675 characters in body" Text="Can anyone please translate &quot;Open your mind.&quot;? I need an accurate translation for a tattoo and I'm not that good at latin since I just started learning it. &#xD;&#xA;Open your mind should be translated literally to &quot;Open your mind&quot; since it is not meant in a religious way or in any way reffering to god. I would explain it as my unconscious self reminding me not to forget that the mind goes way beyond what we perceive, for me the mind being the soul, it has the ability to grow with everything it experiences. It's more spiritual for me than religious because the way I look at it, opening the mind would mean to obtain a higher consciousness. So instead of writing all of that I just want it to say &quot;Open your mind&quot; since that's what all that I wrote above sums up to. Thanks :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13066" RevisionGUID="59094aad-dc1d-41ac-b565-602a330bcf77" CreationDate="2019-12-25T23:24:17.303" UserId="6396" Comment="add comment about stēllāris" Text="I strongly disagree with C Monsour's interpretation of how the *-ārius* suffix works semantically. *Stēllārius* can perfectly mean 'of the stars', it is not tied to a singular interpretation ('of a star'). *Sīdereus* does have the advantage of being a classical word, used by many ancient authors even, much unlike *stēllārius* which isn't even medieval but modern, but this *argūmentum ad antīquitātem* is different from the grammatical-semantic argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare *librāria taberna* 'bookshop' (attested in Cicero, *Philippicae* II.21), in which many *librī* 'books, scrolls' are found, not just one. Or *herba pūlicāria* 'flea plant', from which fleas were believed to be born from (att. in Caelius Aurelianus, *Acūtae Passiōnēs* II).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the Favre edition (in the 1880s) of the Du Cange Medieval Latin dictionary mentions a noun *stēllāria* meaning 'a sea ship, or road in the sea or sky that guides sailors', something that naturally requires more than one star (in fact, there were and are more than a hundred commonly-used navigation stars, it's not just Polaris a.k.a. the North Star).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Interestingly, *stēllārius* is also listed in the Favrean Du Cange as an adjective meaning *marīnus* 'of the sea', in association to ships guided by the stars at sea, and also *purpureus* 'purple', due to purple colorants being highly valued goods traded by sea.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, *bella stēllāria* is fine as long as you don't mind modern coinages. Since Latin users today prefer not to use novel words when possible (making only reasonable and convenient exceptions like *computātrum* 'computer'), *I agree bella sīderea is better*, but only on the grounds of ancient usage, not on the grounds of meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** *Stēllāria* can also be interpreted as the neuter plural form of *stēllāris*, as both the suffix -ārius and the suffix -āris become -āria in the neuter plural (and *bella* is a neuter plural noun, singular *bellum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Stēllāris* is another non-classical, non-ancient word with some usage in medieval and modern Latin. The Lewis &amp; Short dictionary lists one attestation in Macrobius (early 5th century), the OLD doesn't bother. Use that coinage if you want, but what I said about *sīdereus* being better due to its classical origin stands." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13066" RevisionGUID="a7d85b02-7079-4942-8c00-787ce1384c7d" CreationDate="2019-12-25T23:29:31.713" UserId="6396" Comment="add comment about stēllāris" Text="I strongly disagree with C Monsour's interpretation of how the *-ārius* suffix works semantically. *Stēllārius* can perfectly mean 'of the stars', it is not tied to a singular interpretation ('of a star'). *Sīdereus* does have the advantage of being a classical word, used by many ancient authors even, much unlike *stēllārius* which isn't even medieval but modern, but this *argūmentum ad antīquitātem* is different from the grammatical-semantic argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare *librāria taberna* 'bookshop' (attested in Cicero, *Philippicae* II.21), in which many *librī* 'books, scrolls' are found, not just one. Or *herba pūlicāria* 'flea plant', from which fleas were believed to be born from (att. in Caelius Aurelianus, *Acūtae Passiōnēs* II).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the Favre edition (in the 1880s) of the Du Cange Medieval Latin dictionary mentions a noun *stēllāria* meaning 'a sea ship, or road in the sea or sky that guides sailors', something that naturally requires more than one star (in fact, there were and are more than a hundred commonly-used navigation stars, it's not just Polaris a.k.a. the North Star).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Interestingly, *stēllārius* is also listed in the Favrean Du Cange as an adjective meaning *marīnus* 'of the sea', in association to ships guided by the stars at sea, and also *purpureus* 'purple', due to purple colorants being highly valued goods traded by sea.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, *bella stēllāria* is fine as long as you don't mind modern coinages. Since Latin users today prefer not to use novel words when possible (making only reasonable and convenient exceptions like *computātrum* 'computer'), *I agree bella sīderea is better*, but only on the grounds of ancient usage, not on the grounds of meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** *Stēllāria* can also be interpreted as the neuter plural form of *stēllāris*, as both the suffix -ārius and the suffix -āris become -āria in the neuter plural (and *bella* 'wars' is a neuter plural noun, singular *bellum*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Stēllāris* is another non-classical, non-ancient word with some usage in medieval and modern Latin. The Lewis &amp; Short dictionary lists one attestation in Macrobius (early 5th century), the OLD doesn't bother. Use that coinage if you want, but what I said about *sīdereus* being better due to its classical origin stands." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36851" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2033" RevisionGUID="4816d7cb-d17b-49b1-9d80-347c6c64670f" CreationDate="2019-12-26T03:46:46.637" UserDisplayName="user6379" Comment="142" />
  <row Id="36852" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="11261" RevisionGUID="098be720-a3f5-46fe-a675-dd23c38ee2f5" CreationDate="2019-12-26T04:02:46.763" UserDisplayName="user6408" Comment="144" />
  <row Id="36853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13075" RevisionGUID="121f0826-38ad-4755-8bbd-3f2f0facca59" CreationDate="2019-12-26T05:41:10.277" UserId="9" Text="As brianpck said in a comment, you should not strive to understand the quoted passage in the first place. It seems to misexplain the etymology of the Latin term *universus*, and improperly suggest that the  *univers-* suggests exclusivity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lewis and Short dictionary says &quot;uni-versus&quot; means *universal* because it refers to something that has been &quot;turned&quot; (transformed or made) into &quot;one&quot;. In other words, the metaphorical meaning of the root *-vert-* (&quot;turn&quot;) here refers to change, **not** to an action of drawing a line in a circle. If L&amp;S gives the correct explanation of how *universus* was derived, everything in this part of the quoted passage seems to be unwarranted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &lt;s&gt;The image it evokes is something like an architect’s compass, which is used to make a circle around “one” central point.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Universal does bear a certain sense of inclusivity, for it gathers everything and everyone that is within the boundary of that line drawn around the circle. Yet, by virtue of the boundary or circle, it necessarily implies exclusion for whatever and whoever falls outside of the “universal” line.&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you asked about your coloring metaphor by quoting phrases from inside that crossed-out section, which seems to be invalid as an explanation of what either word means, I don't know how to answer your question. Neither *universus* nor  *katholikos* seems to have an especially strong connotation of a boundary, so I think the hypothesis that a difference in the perceived exclusivity of the terms was the motivation for using *katholikos* rather than *universus* is wrong. There does not seem to be such a difference in meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13075" RevisionGUID="28d1a5fd-3399-4acb-b759-1ff72d28eb88" CreationDate="2019-12-26T06:55:52.083" UserId="9" Comment="added 431 characters in body" Text="As brianpck said in a comment, you should not strive to understand the quoted passage in the first place. It seems to misexplain the etymology of the Latin term *universus*, and improperly suggest that  *univers-* suggests exclusivity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lewis and Short dictionary says &quot;uni-versus&quot; means *universal* because it refers to something that has been &quot;turned&quot; (transformed or made) into &quot;one&quot;. In other words, the metaphorical meaning of the root *-vert-* (&quot;turn&quot;) here refers to change, **not** to an action of drawing a line in a circle. If L&amp;S gives the correct explanation of how *universus* was derived, everything in this part of the quoted passage seems to be unwarranted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &lt;s&gt;The image it evokes is something like an architect’s compass, which is used to make a circle around “one” central point.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Universal does bear a certain sense of inclusivity, for it gathers everything and everyone that is within the boundary of that line drawn around the circle. Yet, by virtue of the boundary or circle, it necessarily implies exclusion for whatever and whoever falls outside of the “universal” line.&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you asked about your coloring metaphor by quoting phrases from inside that crossed-out section, which seems to be invalid as an explanation of what either word means, I don't know how to answer your question. Neither *universus* nor  *katholikos* seems to have an especially strong connotation of a boundary, so I think the hypothesis that a difference in the perceived exclusivity of the terms was the motivation for using *katholikos* rather than *universus* is wrong. There does not seem to be such a difference in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my attempt at discussing your example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If the coloring could be be described as &quot;universal&quot;, an etymological explanation of this could be that you &quot;**turned** the page into **one** color&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If the coloring could be described as &quot;catholic&quot;, an etymological explanation of that could be that you &quot;colored **throughout** the **whole** of the page&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The boundary/edge of the page doesn't seem to be related to either the meaning or the etymology of either word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13073" RevisionGUID="ba43b31c-6776-47d5-952b-545ae42b5fe9" CreationDate="2019-12-26T11:13:21.793" UserId="1982" Comment="deleted 47 characters in body" Text="There is an alternative way to approach &quot;irrideo&quot;. The prefix &quot;ir&quot; could be a contraction of infinitive, &quot;ire&quot; = &quot;to go&quot;. (Is it?) NO, IT ISN'T (The student tries things: sometimes they work; sometimes they don't. See Mitomino's comments. The logic is correct: prefix &quot;ir&quot; is directional, so the following is good.)   A verb-of-motion (or a directional prefix) provides direction (to/ for [dative prepositions] something/ someone), by definition. Therefore, the application of &quot;ir&quot; to parent verb &quot;rideo&quot;, gives the directional compound-verb, &quot;irrideo&quot;. This takes a dative (indirect) object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;nisi mihi irisisset, forsitan ei ignossem&quot; the direction is clear: the mockery was being directed to the subject argument (I/ me/ myself), requiring dative (indirect) object, &quot;mihi&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Attestation of the link between the dative and verbs-of-motion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;it clamor caelo&quot; = &quot;the cry went up to heaven&quot;  (Verg. Aen. 5. 540).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13073" RevisionGUID="548cb84d-0f98-4340-86e7-755242655b3c" CreationDate="2019-12-26T11:18:39.573" UserId="1982" Comment="deleted 47 characters in body" Text="There is an alternative way to approach &quot;irrideo&quot;. The prefix &quot;ir&quot; could be a contraction of infinitive, &quot;ire&quot; = &quot;to go&quot;. (Is it?) NO, IT ISN'T (The student tries things: sometimes they work; sometimes they don't. See Mitomino's comments. The logic is correct: prefix &quot;ir&quot; is directional, so the following is good.). A verb-of-motion (or a directional prefix) provides direction (to/ for [dative prepositions] something/ someone), by definition. Therefore, the application of &quot;ir&quot; to parent verb &quot;rideo&quot;, gives the directional compound-verb, &quot;irrideo&quot;. This takes a dative (indirect) object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;nisi mihi irisisset, forsitan ei ignossem&quot; the direction is clear: the mockery was being directed to the subject argument (I/ me/ myself), requiring dative (indirect) object, &quot;mihi&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Attestation of the link between the dative and verbs-of-motion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;it clamor caelo&quot; = &quot;the cry went up to heaven&quot;  (Verg. Aen. 5. 540).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36857" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="13076" RevisionGUID="30739325-38d4-4781-8f1f-afc8f24647c8" CreationDate="2019-12-26T11:38:31.617" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/55920/which-name-came-first-lucius-or-%ce%9b%ce%bf%cf%85%ce%ba%e1%be%b6%cf%82" />
  <row Id="36858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13076" RevisionGUID="7ae59505-1864-4ad8-a6a4-92ce08cdadf9" CreationDate="2019-12-26T11:05:23.293" UserId="1987" Text="The etymology of the name [Luke][1] is commonly said to be the Latin name Lucas, itself from [Lucius][2], from the praenomen [Lucius][3], from the root [Lux][4] (gen. Lucis).&#xA;&#xA;[A separate etymology says [Λουκᾶς/Λουκανός][5], derived from a term meaning &quot;man from Lucania&quot;. But I'm not particularly concerned with that supposed etymology in this question]&#xA;&#xA;Elsewhere (reading about [Leucism][6] in biology *([white stag][7])*) I came across the Geek word [λευκός][8]([HGL][9]) and wondered if that was not a more suitable or a cognate etymology, and found the Greek name [Loukâs ‎(Λουκᾶς)][10] said to be derived from it.&#xA;&#xA;Both Lux and Leukos have the same Proto-IndoEuropean etymology of [*leuk-][11], meaning &quot;bright&quot;, &quot;to shine&quot;, &quot;to see&quot;. &#xA;&#xA;In De Praenominibus (Concerning Praenomina), Julius Paris asserts that Lucius is derived from lux, light, and that the name was originally given to children who were born at dawn. &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Can anyone discover or deduct from  historical records what came first: the Latin Lucius from Lux, or the Greek Λουκᾶς from Λευκός? Indeed, perhaps there was a &lt;PIE name *Leukos which predates them both!&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_(name)&#xA;  [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius&#xA;  [3]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_(praenomen)&#xA;  [4]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/lux&#xA;  [5]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%9B%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BA%E1%BE%B6%CF%82#Ancient_Greek&#xA;  [6]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leucism&#xA;  [7]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_stag&#xA;  [8]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%85%CE%BA%CF%8C%CF%82&#xA;  [9]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=leuko/s2&#xA;  [10]: https://m.name-doctor.com/loukas/&#xA;  [11]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/lewk-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36859" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13076" RevisionGUID="7ae59505-1864-4ad8-a6a4-92ce08cdadf9" CreationDate="2019-12-26T11:05:23.293" UserId="1987" Text="Which name came first, Lucius or Λουκᾶς?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36860" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13076" RevisionGUID="7ae59505-1864-4ad8-a6a4-92ce08cdadf9" CreationDate="2019-12-26T11:05:23.293" UserId="1987" Text="|names|etymology|greek|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13073" RevisionGUID="1735a4e6-57ba-4267-8c9a-1cd716bb22cb" CreationDate="2019-12-26T13:20:07.620" UserId="1982" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="There is an alternative way to approach &quot;irrideo&quot;. The prefix &quot;ir&quot; could be a contraction of infinitive, &quot;ire&quot; = &quot;to go&quot;. (Is it?) NO, IT ISN'T (The student tries things: sometimes they work; sometimes they don't. See Mitomino's comments. The logic is correct: prefix &quot;ir&quot; is directional, so the following is good.). A verb-of-motion (or a directional prefix) provides direction (to/ for [dative-governing prepositions] something/ someone), by definition. Therefore, the application of &quot;ir&quot; to parent verb &quot;rideo&quot;, gives the directional compound-verb, &quot;irrideo&quot;. This takes a dative (indirect) object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;nisi mihi irisisset, forsitan ei ignossem&quot; the direction is clear: the mockery was being directed to the subject argument (I/ me/ myself), requiring dative (indirect) object, &quot;mihi&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Attestation of the link between the dative and verbs-of-motion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;it clamor caelo&quot; = &quot;the cry went up to heaven&quot;  (Verg. Aen. 5. 540).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13076" RevisionGUID="45050ade-a7b9-4b55-9f38-0a0ade0a8dec" CreationDate="2019-12-26T14:46:29.170" UserId="1987" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="The etymology of the name [Luke][1] is commonly said to be the Latin name Lucas, itself from [Lucius][2], from the praenomen [Lucius][3], from the root [Lux][4] (gen. Lucis).&#xA;&#xA;[A separate etymology says [Λουκᾶς/Λουκανός][5], derived from a term meaning &quot;man from Lucania&quot;. But I'm not particularly concerned with that supposed etymology in this question]&#xA;&#xA;Elsewhere (reading about [Leucism][6] in biology *([white stag][7])*) I came across the Geek word [λευκός][8]([HGL][9]) and wondered if that was not a more suitable or a cognate etymology, and found the Greek name [Loukâs ‎(Λουκᾶς)][10] said to be derived from it.&#xA;&#xA;Both Lux and Leukos have the same Proto-IndoEuropean etymology of [*leuk-][11], meaning &quot;bright&quot;, &quot;to shine&quot;, &quot;to see&quot;. &#xA;&#xA;In De Praenominibus (Concerning Praenomina), Julius Paris asserts that Lucius is derived from lux, light, and that the name was originally given to children who were born at dawn. &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Can anyone discover or deduct from  historical records what came first: the Latin Lucius from Lux, or the Greek Λουκᾶς from Λευκός? Indeed, perhaps there was a PIE name *Leukos which predates them both! Perhaps an Etruscan or Umbrian origin that someone can find?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_(name)&#xA;  [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius&#xA;  [3]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_(praenomen)&#xA;  [4]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/lux&#xA;  [5]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%9B%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BA%E1%BE%B6%CF%82#Ancient_Greek&#xA;  [6]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leucism&#xA;  [7]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_stag&#xA;  [8]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%85%CE%BA%CF%8C%CF%82&#xA;  [9]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=leuko/s2&#xA;  [10]: https://m.name-doctor.com/loukas/&#xA;  [11]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/lewk-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12998" RevisionGUID="1292d718-d09e-491b-9891-a6f87f4e3cd4" CreationDate="2019-12-26T20:15:27.630" UserId="6344" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Miltomino has already analyzed in detail the other cases you proposed, so I'll only linger over this interesting example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On the same page the serendipitous discovery of an interesting piece of translation: &quot;laudavit mihi fratrem&quot; = &quot;he praised my brother, out of regard for me&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the so called *dativus ethicus* (or &quot;of interest&quot;): it indicates emotional participation by a person with respect to the action or circumstance expressed by the predicate; it is always expressed by an atonic pronoun and is not necessary for the syntactic-grammatical completeness of the sentence (Salvi 1988: 65-66). Thus, for example, in the words of Cicero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*quid **mihi** Tulliola agit?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*tu **mihi** istius audaciam defendis?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This form of dative still remains in languages such as Italian (as an expression, since there are no grammatical cases for Italian), but also in English, where a suitable example could be &quot;My dog died on me&quot; or in Brazilian Portuguese, where the same sentence is &quot;O cachorro/cão me morreu&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13077" RevisionGUID="aa375acb-492c-468f-8458-232c2401a159" CreationDate="2019-12-26T22:32:18.580" UserId="4871" Text="As Latin lacks articles, when translating into English, one supplies them (or not) as appropriate to the meaning.  The cultural context only matters if it casts light on the meaning.  Assuming it is clear without cultual context (but just by reading Seneca) that Seneca did not mean that each person is helped to be good by a god who may be different from person to person, the reading &quot;a god&quot; is excluded without reference to cultural context.  &quot;God&quot;, &quot;the god&quot;, &quot;this god&quot;, or even substituting the name of the god in question, if known, may all be appropriate, and that may possibly depend on cultural context.  On the other hand, the meaning of the Vergil quote clearly demands &quot;a god&quot; in English, and it would even if Seneca had said it himself rather than quoting; no reference whatsoever to cultural context is required. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13077" RevisionGUID="20d6b5ee-b519-4042-a3e3-82d08be5c973" CreationDate="2019-12-26T22:38:46.420" UserId="4871" Comment="added 257 characters in body" Text="As Latin lacks articles, when translating into English, one supplies them (or not) as appropriate to the meaning.  The cultural context only matters if it casts light on the meaning.  Assuming it is clear without cultual context (but just by reading Seneca) that Seneca did not mean that each person is helped to be good by a god who may be different from person to person, the reading &quot;a god&quot; is excluded without reference to cultural context.  &quot;God&quot;, &quot;the god&quot;, &quot;this god&quot;, or even substituting the name of the god in question, if known, may all be appropriate, and that may possibly depend on cultural context.  On the other hand, the meaning of the Vergil quote clearly demands &quot;a god&quot; in English, and it would even if Seneca had said it himself rather than quoting; no reference whatsoever to cultural context is required. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for whether &quot;God&quot; imposes a Judeo-Christian world view, I don't think so.  Even for some polytheists, &quot;deus&quot; by itself in some eras and contexts had a strong tendency to refer to Jupiter, and the other answer explains its significance for the Stoics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13072" RevisionGUID="3559151f-5b39-4bd7-ba3a-b08aeb99e5b8" CreationDate="2019-12-26T23:56:55.333" UserId="1982" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="Are you on a religious kick? People speak of opening the mind/ soul/ spirit when they are seeking/ questioning faith. To make the spirit susceptible to faith, then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin the imperative (a command), &quot;molli&quot; (singular)/ mollite (plural) = be susceptible; fidei (feminine; dative of &quot;fides&quot; = &quot;faith&quot;); &quot;animus&quot; = &quot;spirit&quot;; here, required in the accusative for a direct object, &quot;animum&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giving: &quot;molli animum fidei&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, passive infinitive, &quot;molliri&quot; = &quot;to be susceptible&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Faith is not a concept limited to religion. It could be faith in leaders/ people/ self.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13078" RevisionGUID="84e4c8f1-05d2-4c14-b104-e5ed86a26b02" CreationDate="2019-12-27T00:19:41.763" UserId="6410" Text="At some point in childhood I learnt there were speech competitions in ancient Rome when people would express complex ideas in very few words. And I believed since those short sentences called &quot;maxima&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This happened couple decades before public Internet and wikipedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always believed it to be common knowledge. However tried recently to find confirmation and couldn't get past &quot;plural for maximus&quot; copy/paste on 50 websites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there real scholars of Latin and/or ancient Rome history who can **confirm or correct my understanding that maxima is a short phrase which explains a complex construct**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if this example would qualify as maxima in ancient times but looks good to me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything. – Mark Twain*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36869" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13078" RevisionGUID="84e4c8f1-05d2-4c14-b104-e5ed86a26b02" CreationDate="2019-12-27T00:19:41.763" UserId="6410" Text="Maxima - a speech competition?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36870" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13078" RevisionGUID="84e4c8f1-05d2-4c14-b104-e5ed86a26b02" CreationDate="2019-12-27T00:19:41.763" UserId="6410" Text="|classical-latin|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13079" RevisionGUID="1f7b5318-fbf9-4a33-a02a-53ddce31567d" CreationDate="2019-12-27T00:23:25.873" UserId="6409" Text="I am trying to transcribe Hebrews 6 from Codex Claromontanus, but am unable to decipher two lines from verse 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Hebrews 6:1a][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84683111/f907.item (see halfway down the page)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can work out, the first line is &quot;relicto icitur&quot;, but that doesn't make any sense to me. Especially when I compare to the Vulgate for these two lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quapropter intermittentes inchoationis Christi sermonem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help would be appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ih2H6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36872" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13079" RevisionGUID="1f7b5318-fbf9-4a33-a02a-53ddce31567d" CreationDate="2019-12-27T00:23:25.873" UserId="6409" Text="Trouble transcribing a line of Latin from Codex Claromontanus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36873" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13079" RevisionGUID="1f7b5318-fbf9-4a33-a02a-53ddce31567d" CreationDate="2019-12-27T00:23:25.873" UserId="6409" Text="|vulgata|transcription|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13080" RevisionGUID="618b15be-8f44-47d2-825f-c53bd7b41b9e" CreationDate="2019-12-27T02:41:47.687" UserId="78" Text="That's not a C, but a G:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relicto igitur initii Chr[is]t[i] verbum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Latin is not the Vulgate at all, but a separate Latin translation made prior to it part of what's collectively known as the Old Latin texts. (This is not to be confused with Old Latin, the form of Latin before the Classical period.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form of 'Christi' here is a Greek 'nomen sacrum', an abbreviation of the Greek form typically found with sacred names (hence the term)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36875" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="13079" RevisionGUID="63ae43f7-d144-4f41-9db8-d48b86ac3d95" CreationDate="2019-12-27T08:27:01.107" />
  <row Id="36876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13081" RevisionGUID="e1eba605-fceb-4e4e-991c-6a7d0335f914" CreationDate="2019-12-27T11:10:16.883" UserId="4796" Text="In Augustine *confessions* we read: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;quid tibi sum ipse, ut **amari** te iubeas a me et, nisi faciam, irascaris mihi et mineris ingentes miserias?&quot; (book I, cap. V) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't understand the usage of the passive *amari* instead of the active *amare*. Indeed all translations I saw, use the active infinitive. The only &quot;solution&quot; I came up with (which I think is wrong) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;just as the sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Magister: &quot;bonus sum&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to be rendered as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Magister dicit se bonum esse &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so maybe here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dominus (to me): &quot;amari sum&quot; (if that's valid grammar at all: &quot;I am to be loved&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would be rendered (when I'm speaking back):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Domine, iubes te(se) amari a me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36877" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13081" RevisionGUID="e1eba605-fceb-4e4e-991c-6a7d0335f914" CreationDate="2019-12-27T11:10:16.883" UserId="4796" Text="The usage of present passive infitive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36878" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13081" RevisionGUID="e1eba605-fceb-4e4e-991c-6a7d0335f914" CreationDate="2019-12-27T11:10:16.883" UserId="4796" Text="|grammar-choice|grammar-identification|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13081" RevisionGUID="f5bbe7b9-47e2-45d6-8972-d307b9ffc658" CreationDate="2019-12-27T11:24:27.673" UserId="4796" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="In Augustine *confessions* we read: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;quid tibi sum ipse, ut **amari** te iubeas a me et, nisi faciam, irascaris mihi et mineris ingentes miserias?&quot; (book I, cap. V) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't understand the usage of the passive *amari* instead of the active *amare*. Indeed all translations I saw, use the active infinitive. The only &quot;solution&quot; I came up with (which I think is wrong) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;just as the sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Magister: &quot;bonus sum&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to be rendered as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Magister dicit se bonum esse &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so maybe here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dominus (to me): &quot;amari sum&quot; (if that's valid grammar at all: &quot;I am to be loved&quot;). or simply: &quot;me ama&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would be rendered (when I'm speaking back):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Domine, iubes te(se) amari a me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13082" RevisionGUID="6e36e55b-5c10-4653-9963-e0db9c73d9b2" CreationDate="2019-12-27T13:46:42.987" UserId="6412" Text="I've read it fittingly and perfectly means &quot;It is accomp!ished&quot; .The same last words of Our Lord on the cross." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13083" RevisionGUID="418e4afd-3c00-424e-958c-3ef9df7864fb" CreationDate="2019-12-27T14:08:53.413" UserId="79" Text="My suggestion with complex sentences is always to try to identify the core and rewriting it into a simpler independent sentence.&#xD;&#xA;Here the core, as far as your question is concerned, the core has to do with ordering and loving.&#xD;&#xA;Let us compare to descriptions of orders:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Te iubes amare.*  &#xD;&#xA;You order yourself to love.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Te iubes amari.*  &#xD;&#xA;You order yourself to be loved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are valid, but the meaning is of course inverted.&#xD;&#xA;When the passive is used, the semantic subject can be indicated by an agent with *a(b)*.&#xD;&#xA;This brings in the *a me*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Te iubes amari a me.*  &#xD;&#xA;You order yourself to be loved by me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very similar to &quot;you order me to love you&quot;, but for some reason it has been composed with passive.&#xD;&#xA;Using active would lead to a potential ambiguity of two accusatives: *Me iubes me amare.*&#xD;&#xA;I can't tell whether this was the reason to choose a passive, but it probably contributed to the choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be expanded by what follows after *nisi* but let me ignore that here to focus on *amari*.&#xD;&#xA;Now all of this goes into a subordinate clause.&#xD;&#xA;The *ut* clause turns the predicate *iubes* to conjunctive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Quid tibi sum ut te iubeas amari a me?*  &#xD;&#xA;What am I to you so that you would order yourself to be loved by me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps you grasp the structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say *bonus sum* or *amo*.&#xD;&#xA;In indirect use these becomes *dixit me bonum esse* and *dixit me amare*.&#xD;&#xA;But you cannot say *amare sum* or *amari sum*.&#xD;&#xA;To say &quot;I am to be loved&quot; you need to say something like *amandus sum* or *amari debeo* or *volo amatum iri*.&#xD;&#xA;(These are not identical in meaning, but give ideas for expressing similar thoughts in Latin.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13081" RevisionGUID="aba8b0bf-7bad-4713-a4a4-0c88cfefead9" CreationDate="2019-12-27T14:10:41.670" UserId="79" Comment="Tried to clarify. Feel free to roll back or edit further!" Text="In Augustine *confessions* we read: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;quid tibi sum ipse, ut **amari** te iubeas a me et, nisi faciam, irascaris mihi et mineris ingentes miserias?&quot; (book I, cap. V) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't understand the usage of the passive *amari* instead of the active *amare*. Indeed all translations I saw, use the active infinitive. The only &quot;solution&quot; I came up with (which I think is wrong) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just as the sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Magister: &quot;bonus sum&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can be rendered as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Magister dicit se bonum esse &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;perhaps here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dominus (to me): &quot;amari sum&quot; (if that's valid grammar at all: &quot;I am to be loved&quot;). or simply: &quot;me ama&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would be rendered (when I'm speaking back):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Domine, iubes te(se) amari a me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36883" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13081" RevisionGUID="aba8b0bf-7bad-4713-a4a4-0c88cfefead9" CreationDate="2019-12-27T14:10:41.670" UserId="79" Comment="Tried to clarify. Feel free to roll back or edit further!" Text="|grammar-choice|grammar-identification|passive-voice|infinitive|augustinus|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13083" RevisionGUID="94bfcb4b-6f48-4106-9e39-09fe3d00e566" CreationDate="2019-12-27T14:17:45.497" UserId="79" Comment="added 717 characters in body" Text="My suggestion with complex sentences is always to try to identify the core and rewriting it into a simpler independent sentence.&#xD;&#xA;Here the core, as far as your question is concerned, the core has to do with ordering and loving.&#xD;&#xA;Let us compare to descriptions of orders:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Te iubes amare.*  &#xD;&#xA;You order yourself to love.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Te iubes amari.*  &#xD;&#xA;You order yourself to be loved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are valid, but the meaning is of course inverted.&#xD;&#xA;When the passive is used, the semantic subject can be indicated by an agent with *a(b)*.&#xD;&#xA;This brings in the *a me*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Te iubes amari a me.*  &#xD;&#xA;You order yourself to be loved by me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very similar to &quot;you order me to love you&quot;, but for some reason it has been composed with passive.&#xD;&#xA;Using active would lead to a potential ambiguity of two accusatives: *Me iubes me amare.*&#xD;&#xA;I can't tell whether this was the reason to choose a passive, but it probably contributed to the choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be expanded by what follows after *nisi* but let me ignore that here to focus on *amari*.&#xD;&#xA;Now all of this goes into a subordinate clause.&#xD;&#xA;The *ut* clause turns the predicate *iubes* to conjunctive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Quid tibi sum ut te iubeas amari a me?*  &#xD;&#xA;What am I to you so that you would order yourself to be loved by me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps you grasp the structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say *bonus sum* or *amo*.&#xD;&#xA;In indirect use these becomes *dixit me bonum esse* and *dixit me amare*.&#xD;&#xA;But you cannot say *amare sum* or *amari sum*.&#xD;&#xA;To say &quot;I am to be loved&quot; you need to say something like *amandus sum* or *amari debeo* or *volo amatum iri*.&#xD;&#xA;(These are not identical in meaning, but give ideas for expressing similar thoughts in Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your last suggestion is grammatical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Domine, iubes te amari a me.*  &#xD;&#xA;Lord, you order yourself to be loved by me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be a little clumsy to convert to direct speech, as you would need a passive imperative of the first person singular.&#xD;&#xA;The speaker changes so *me* has to become a third person pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;So perhaps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dominus dixit: Utinam amer ab illo.*  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;approx; The lord said: I hope to be loved by him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reflexive pronoun *se* is often used in indirect speech to refer to the subject of the dominant clause.&#xD;&#xA;But it can only refer to the third person, so _*iubes se amari a me_ does not work.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to emphasize &quot;you&quot; to &quot;yourself&quot;, change *te* to *te ipsum* but not to *se*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13082" RevisionGUID="76bd1978-e516-41ff-897a-b5cc6e64730f" CreationDate="2019-12-27T14:42:42.193" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="I've read it fittingly and perfectly means &quot;It is accomplished&quot;. The same last words of Our Lord on the cross." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13084" RevisionGUID="81295378-8ae2-455d-8947-509034f72766" CreationDate="2019-12-27T14:55:12.147" UserId="6344" Text="The word *maxima [sententia]* indicates a sentence that is a general truth or is generally assumed to be true. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not necessarily it explains a complex context, you can instead think of a *maxima* as an axiom, that for its evidence becomes a foundation or a rule of behaviour. It is a &quot;*maxima*&quot; sentence because of its universal validity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Maxima* is still present in Italian as &quot;massima&quot;, which has the same meaning. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13083" RevisionGUID="d4e111c4-2472-401a-9a10-c90aaa132f4e" CreationDate="2019-12-27T16:03:57.527" UserId="79" Comment="edited body" Text="My suggestion with complex sentences is always to try to identify the core and rewriting it into a simpler independent sentence.&#xD;&#xA;Here the core, as far as your question is concerned, the core has to do with ordering and loving.&#xD;&#xA;Let us compare to descriptions of orders:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Te iubes amare.*  &#xD;&#xA;You order yourself to love.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Te iubes amari.*  &#xD;&#xA;You order yourself to be loved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are valid, but the meaning is of course inverted.&#xD;&#xA;When the passive is used, the semantic subject can be indicated by an agent with *a(b)*.&#xD;&#xA;This brings in the *a me*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Te iubes amari a me.*  &#xD;&#xA;You order yourself to be loved by me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very similar to &quot;you order me to love you&quot;, but for some reason it has been composed with passive.&#xD;&#xA;Using active would lead to a potential ambiguity of two accusatives: *Me iubes te amare.*&#xD;&#xA;I can't tell whether this was the reason to choose a passive, but it probably contributed to the choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be expanded by what follows after *nisi* but let me ignore that here to focus on *amari*.&#xD;&#xA;Now all of this goes into a subordinate clause.&#xD;&#xA;The *ut* clause turns the predicate *iubes* to conjunctive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Quid tibi sum ut te iubeas amari a me?*  &#xD;&#xA;What am I to you so that you would order yourself to be loved by me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps you grasp the structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say *bonus sum* or *amo*.&#xD;&#xA;In indirect use these becomes *dixit me bonum esse* and *dixit me amare*.&#xD;&#xA;But you cannot say *amare sum* or *amari sum*.&#xD;&#xA;To say &quot;I am to be loved&quot; you need to say something like *amandus sum* or *amari debeo* or *volo amatum iri*.&#xD;&#xA;(These are not identical in meaning, but give ideas for expressing similar thoughts in Latin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your last suggestion is grammatical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Domine, iubes te amari a me.*  &#xD;&#xA;Lord, you order yourself to be loved by me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be a little clumsy to convert to direct speech, as you would need a passive imperative of the first person singular.&#xD;&#xA;The speaker changes so *me* has to become a third person pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;So perhaps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Dominus dixit: Utinam amer ab illo.*  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;approx; The lord said: I hope to be loved by him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reflexive pronoun *se* is often used in indirect speech to refer to the subject of the dominant clause.&#xD;&#xA;But it can only refer to the third person, so _*iubes se amari a me_ does not work.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to emphasize &quot;you&quot; to &quot;yourself&quot;, change *te* to *te ipsum* but not to *se*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13083" RevisionGUID="3ffd2429-67db-4c5c-9192-83d223c02556" CreationDate="2019-12-27T17:41:41.833" UserId="79" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="My suggestion with complex sentences is always to try to identify the core and rewriting it into a simpler independent sentence.&#xD;&#xA;Here the core, as far as your question is concerned, the core has to do with ordering and loving.&#xD;&#xA;Let us compare to descriptions of orders:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Te iubes amare.*  &#xD;&#xA;You order yourself to love.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Te iubes amari.*  &#xD;&#xA;You order yourself to be loved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are valid, but the meaning is of course inverted.&#xD;&#xA;When the passive is used, the semantic subject can be indicated by an agent with *a(b)*.&#xD;&#xA;This brings in the *a me*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Te iubes amari a me.*  &#xD;&#xA;You order yourself to be loved by me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very similar to &quot;you order me to love you&quot;, but for some reason it has been composed with passive.&#xD;&#xA;Using active would lead to a potential ambiguity of two accusatives: *Me iubes te amare.*&#xD;&#xA;I can't tell whether this was the reason to choose a passive, but it probably contributed to the choice